To this we reply that the Sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda.  A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a Sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only.  The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent.  Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters.  And spiritual capability is (in the case of the Sudras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.—­The Vedic statement, moreover, that the Sudra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases[221].—­With reference to the purvapakshin’s opinion that the fact of the word ‘Sudra’ being enounced in the sa/m/varga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the Sudra’s qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments.  For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted.[222] Besides, the word ‘Sudra’ which occurs in the sa/m/varga-vidya would establish a claim on the part of the Sudras to that one vidya only, not to all vidyas.  In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavada, to establish the Sudras’ claim to anything.—­The word ‘Sudra’ can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner.  When Jana/s/ruti Pautraya/n/a heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo (’How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?’ IV, 1, 3), grief (su/k/) arose in his mind, and to that grief the rishi Raikva alludes with the word Sudra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote.  This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born Sudra is not qualified (for the sa/m/varga-vidya).  If it be asked how the grief (su/k/) which had arisen in Janasruti’s mind can be referred to by means of the word Sudra, we reply:  On account of the rushing on (adrava/n/a) of the grief.  For we may etymologise the word Sudra by dividing it into its parts, either as ’he rushed into grief (Su/k/am abhidudrava) or as ’grief rushed on him,’ or as ‘he in his grief rushed to Raikva;’ while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense.  The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend[223].

35.  And because the kshattriyahood (of Jana/s/ruti) is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by his being mentioned) later on with Kaitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself).