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 /ri/shi Raikva alludes with the word /S/udra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote. This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born /S/udra 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 /S/udra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (adrava/n/a) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word /S/udra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (/S/u/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 /K/aitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself). Jana/s/ruti cannot have been a /S/udra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya /K/aitraratha Abhipratarin. For, later on, i.e. in the passage complementary to the sa/m/varga-vidya, a kshattriya /K/aitrarathi Abhipratarin is glorified, 'Once while /S/aunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them' (Ch. Up. IV, 3, 5). That this Abhipratarin was a /K/aitrarathi (i.e. a descendant of /K/itraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kapeya. For we know (from /S/ruti) about the connexion of /K/itraratha himself with the Kapeyas ('the Kapeyas made /K/itraratha perform that sacrifice;' Ta/nd/ya. Br. XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family. Moreover, as we understand from Scripture ('from him a /K/aitrarathi descended who was a prince[224]') that he (/K/aitraratha) was a prince, we must understand him to have been a kshattriya. The fact now of Jana/s/ruti being praised in the same vidya with the kshattriya Abhipratarin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya. For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals. That Jana/s/ruti was a kshattriya we moreover conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text).--Hence the /S/udras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman). 36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications (in the case of the higher castes) and on account of their absence being declared (in the case of the /S/udras).