This can be easily verified by paying attention to the various speculations regarding Ambashtha caste. The work of Baudhāyana holds that the sons of Brāhmanas by Kshatriya and Vaishya women, respectively, were Brāhmanas and Ambashthas. The works of Vasishtha and Gautama differ from it. The two latter works were separated from the former by nearly two hundred years,[1] but they are older than our text by about five hundred years. These two works give as their opinion that the Ambashthas are born of Brāhmanas by Kshatriya women. This kind of speculation involves in a way a denial to Brāhmanahood of the claim of the sons of Brāhmanas by Kshatriya women. Thus a blemish against such a son is of considerable antiquity, but our author docs not like the idea of putting them into a different varna. I need hardly add that the Brāhmanas were at the top of society.[2]
Now let us turn to Kshatriyas. I have shown else. where that Kshatriyas never formed a caste. The royal families of several tribal kingdoms were doubtlessly
- ↑ I have relied on the estimates of George Bühler regarding the matter, and I think that he is probably correct.
- ↑ I do not care to open any discussion here, to contradict the statements of the students of Buddhism like Rhys Davids who hold that Kshatriyas stood at the top of society (Buddhist India, chap. iv). The times of which I am speaking are different from those which Rhys Davids has considered in his Buddhist India. At the same time, I confess that I do not think that Rhys Davids has proceeded properly in the treatment of the question. To him, Jātaka tales are superior, as historical documents, to the dharma works, to the works on nīti, and to the epics: He has given a discussion of social grades based on those tales. But the learned scholar has failed to give his reasons for such an attitude toward the various literatures. In my opinion there are several mistakes in his chapter on social grades. Of these I shall take notice at the proper place.
