yet been identified with any present caste, e. g. Pukkasas, Venas, Chunchus.
Among the peoples he speaks of who were away from his district we find Medas, Avantyas, Vaidehakas, Daradas, but such tribes are too few. But if we consider the tribes near Magadha mentioned by him we have Nishadas, Kaivartas, Chāndālas, Lichchivis, Paundras, Karanas, Klasas, etc.
It is true that he makes a mention of Shakas, Yavanas, and Pahlavas who lived mainly in Western India, far from the place of the writer, but it must be remembered that they were foreign tribes, who were making their existence felt all over India. His mention of the Chinese is very significant; it is highly probable that many Chinese had visited the country as pilgrims since the introduction of Buddhism into China, and the conversion of the Chinese emperor to Buddhism in 67 A.D. The usual route of these pilgrims was along the side of the river Ganges. Those pilgrims who have left records and passed along this way are known to us i. e. Fahien (399 A. D.) Hiouen Thsang (629) I-Tsing (671-695). On account of such pilgrims, the writer must have felt the necessity of laying down a rule, for guidance in the treatment of the representatives of the nation whom he well knew to be adherents of a heresy. He would have been perfectly willing to call these people Kshatriyas had they only paid homage to Brāhmanas.[1]
- ↑ We hear of Chinas in Mahābhārata and in both northern and southern recensions of Rāmāyana. But our object here is not to find out the date of contact or acquaintance of the two countries, but the probable reason of their mention by Mānava-dharma-shāstra.
