is the food obtained? The food obtained by begging was not considered impure food; but there also were various restrictions, under which alone a Brāhmana considered it eatable. They would inquire, Who is the giver of the food? Here not only the ideas of morality came into play but also the ideas of ceremonial purity. The food given by a thief, a prostitute, a cruel man, a liar, or a criminal was prohibited side by side with the food given by a musician, physician, hunter, by men of Ugra, Nishāda and Shūdra castes, by goldsmiths, stage players, dealers in weapons, basket-makers, washermen, dyers, carpenters, and money-lenders. A supposition seems to have prevailed that a person's intelligence and desires will be like those of the man whose food he has eaten, and it was also supposed that the people engaged in the occupations mentioned above were not quite moral people.
The restrictions did not end here. The food, even if it be given by a proper person, may not necessarily be eatable. It may be rendered impure or it may be polluted. Impure food is intrinsically not pure, while polluted food is intrinsically pure, but considered impure by the people out of prejudice. Food that has turned sour, stale food, leavings of another person, food in which hair or insects are found, which had been pecked at by birds, on which anybody has sneezed, may be considered as impure food; food may be considered polluted when it is touched with the foot intentionally by anybody, or touched by a menstruating woman or by dogs. Our text does not distinguish between these two ideas of impurity and pollution, but classes both of them together.
