A Disputation respecting Caste, by Asav Guosia. 163 
real father be a Sudra, the son cannot be a Brahman, notwithstanding the 
Brahmanhood of his mother. From all which I infer, that Brahmanhood is 
not truly derivable from birth; and I draw fresh proofs of this from the 
Manava Dharma, which affirms that the Brahman who eats flesh loses 
instantly his rank; and also, that by selling wax, or salt, or milk, he be- 
comes a Sudra in three days; and further, that even such a Brahman as can 
fly like a bird, directly ceases to be a Brahman by meddling with the flesh- 
pots. 
From all this is it not clear that Brahmanhood is not the same with birth: 
since, if that were the case, it could not be lost by any acts however 
degrading. Knew you ever of a flying horse that by alighting on earth was 
turned into a pig ?—’Tis impossible. 
Say you that body (Sarir) is the Brahman? this too is false; for, if body 
be the Brahman, then fire, when the Brahman’s corpse is consumed by it, 
will be the murderer of a Brahman; and such also will be every one of the 
Brahman’s relatives who consigned his body to the flames. Nor less will 
this other absurdity follow, that every one born of a Brahman, though his 
mother were a Kshatriya or Vaisya, would be a Brahman—being bone of 
the bone, and flesh of the flesh of his father: a monstrosity, you will allow, 
that was never heard of. Again, are not performing sacrifice, and causing 
others to perform it, reading and causing to read, receiving and giving 
charity, and other holy acts, sprung from the body of the Brahman ? 
Is then the virtue of all these destroyed by the destruction of the body 
ofa Brahman? Surely not, according to your own principles; and, if not, 
then Brahmanhood cannot consist in body. 
Say you that wisdom * constitutes the Brahman? This too is incorrect. 
Why? Because, if it were true, many Sudras must have become Brahmans 
from the great wisdom they acquired. I myself know many Sudras who 
are masters of the four Vedas, and of philology, and of the Mimansa, and 
Sanc’hya, and Vaisheshika and Jyotishika philosophies ; yet not one of them 
is or ever was called a Brahman. It is clearly proved then, that Brahman- 
hood consists not in wisdom or learning. Then do you affirm that the 
Achdr is Brahmanhood? ‘This too is false; for if it were true, many 
Sudras would become Brahmans; since many Nats and Bhdts, and Kaivertas, 
. 
* Perhaps it should rather be translated earning. The word in the original is jnyana. 
ae 
