(Olivelle 1993: 36). The scope of sacrifice was vast with cosmo-moral signifi-
cance and included the three (or five) daily obligations of the householder in
redemption of the “debts” mentioned in vedic literature. These number three in
some texts and five in others: the debts to goods, seers, and fathers, and addi-
tionally to all men and nonhuman creatures. To discharge the debt to the ances-
tors, adult men of the “twice-born” (dvija) classes (varn.a) were expected to marry
and beget sons. Implicit in the notion of the discharge of debts was an enlarged
conception of the moral agent, comprising not only the male sacrificer but also
his wife (“one half of the husband”) and their offspring. From the R.gvedadown
(in time) to the Manusmr.tithis idea of the man–wife–son triad holds ground and
idealizes the life of the householder. Through the performance of sacrifices and
by begetting a son, a householder achieves the prized goal of immortality.
The foregoing view of life underwent a radical transformation as a result of
both an inner dynamism and significant socioeconomic changes between the
sixth and fourth centuries bce. The latter included the introduction of wetland
rice cultivation in the lower regions of the Ganges valley resulting in the genera-
tion of an agricultural surplus that facilitated an increase in population and the
emergence of urban settlements. With the latter came the merchant class, the
notion of kingship, and an individualistic spirit. “The freedom to choose” that
one would associate with individualism was, according to Olivelle, “at the heart”
of the challenge to “the vedic religious ideal,” which led to the formulation of
“the original a ̄s ́ramasystem that permitted a choice among several modes of reli-
gious life” (Olivelle 1993: 58).
The alternatives to the life of the married man and the householder that now
became available comprised the life of the celibate and the ascetic respectively.
For the ascetic and the renouncer the ultimate aim of moral striving was libera-
tion from the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth in place of the Vedic house-
holder’s quest for immortality. Comparing the ideology of the early a ̄s ́rama
system to that of the varn.aand caste systems, Olivelle observes: “The creators of
thea ̄s ́ramasystem intended to do to the diversity of religious life styles what the
creators of the varn.asystem did to the diversity of social and ethnic groups”:
instead of “eliminating” it, they accommodated “the diversities within an over-
arching system” (Olivelle 1993: 101).
Thea ̄s ́ramasystem as originally conceived was, however, transformed by the
beginning of the common era into what Olivelle calls the classical a ̄s ́ramasystem.
Whatever the reasons for this transformation, which can only be speculative and
do not directly concern us here, it comprised two significant elements. The alter-
native modes of life of the worldly householder and the ascetic renouncer now
became stages in the life of the moral agent. Of the four stages of studentship
(brahmacarya), householdership (gr.hastha), retreat (va ̄naprastha), and renuncia-
tion (sam.nya ̄sa), the first three were by the very nature of the scheme temporary
(each stage leading to the next), and the last one permanent as long as one lived.
Moreover, a sense of obligation in the pursuit of ideals, which had been over-
taken by the notion of choice, was revived.
292 t. n. madan