"A king who wishes to examine the cases should enter the assembly with learned Brāhmana assessors (iv, sec. 5, 43).
We have in Mrichchakatika a scene of trial (Act ix), where the judge is assisted by Shreshthīs. The word "Shreshthīs" implies that the assessors were chiefs of guilds, and they are again represented as men speaking vernacular which implies that they were not Brāhmanas. The case in the Toy-Cart (Mrichchakatika) may simply be local or belonging to a period different than that of our writer, but it may at the same time suggest that the claims of Brāhmanas revealed by Mānavadharma-shāstra were not always admitted.[1]
4. Economic Privileges and Disabilities.
Let us now consider the economic privileges and disabilities of different varnas as our text implies.
Let us first consider the occupational privileges. The occupations open to Brāhmana were various. He could become a priest, an occupation which was considered proper for his caste, or he could become a soldier, an officer of the state, a money-lender, or even a farmer. But he was not to become a domestic servant. The upper castes always had the privilege of following the
- ↑ H. H. Wilson in his edition of Mrichchakatika has said that the king might be a Buddhist who did not care to pay any attention to Brahmanical claims and for this reason Brähmanas may have plotted against him. But this inference does not seem to be warranted by facts. Shakära, who was brother-in-law of the king, has said that he bends his head to gods and Brāhmana alone. Again, the whole city was more or less Buddhistic, as they did not bear even an animal being killed (Shakāra in Act viii). A plot by a few Brahmins against a Buddhist king would not have succeeded. In order to defy the claims of the Brāhmanas the king need not necessarily be a Buddhist.
