race, but was rather one of sacraments (Sanskāra). The term Shūdra was in process of changing its meaning.
But when our writer sets forth the duties of Shūdras he does not intend to prescribe the same duties for the ruling castes like Dravida and Paundra, but only for the low castes of his region.
Neglecting even these ruling tribes which were considered as Shūdras, the rest of the varna was by no means uniform in economic life. In the first place I must point out that it was not a slave caste, though the slaves were considered as Shūdras. It was mainly a class which was engaged in household service. The castes which followed occupations characteristic of inferior civilization, like basket-weaving and hunting, were also considered as Shūdras. There must have been some castes which tended cattle and were classed as Shūdras. Our writer permits handicrafts and trades which serve other castes as permissible to Shūdra, though for him domestic service in a Brāhmana's house was supposed to be most elevating.
Again, some Shūdras must have been rich people, for our writer says that a Vaishiya and Shūdra shall pass through their misfortune on the strength of their wealth (xi, 34). Some Shūdras were also owners of slaves (ix, 179).
Regarding the accumulation of weath by a Shūdra our text writes: "No collection of wealth may be made by a Shūdra even though he be able to do it, for a Shūdra who has acquired wealth gives pain to Brāhmanas" (x, 129).
This is one of the verses which is an object of misinterpretation in various ways. This verse does not lay
