Source: Dr. B.R.AMBEDKAR WRITING AND SPEECHES VOL. 07 and Who were Shudras?
THE RIDDLE OF THE SHUDRAS
EVERYBODY knows that the Shudras formed the fourth Varna
of the Indo-Aryan society. But very few have cared to inquire who
were these Shudras and how they came to be the fourth Varna. That
such an enquiry is of first-rate importance is beyond question. For,
it is worth knowing how the Shudras came to occupy the fourth place,
whether it was the result of evolution or it was brought about by
revolution.
Any attempt to discover who the Shudras were and how they came
to be the fourth Varna must begin with the origin of the Chaturvarnya
in the Indo-Aryan society. A study of the Chaturvarnya must in its
turn start with a study of the ninetieth Hymn of the Tenth Mandala
of the Rig Veda—a Hymn, which is known by the famous name of
Purusha Sukta.
What does the Hymn say? It says1 :
“1. Purusha has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.
On every side enveloping the earth he overpassed (it) by a space
of ten fingers.
2. Purusha himself is this whole (universe), whatever has been and
whatever shall be. He is the Lord of immortality, since (or when)
by food he expands.
3. Such is his greatness, and Purusha is superior to this. All
existences are a quarter to him; and three-fourths of him are that
which is immortal in the sky.
4. With three-quarters, Purusha mounted upwards. A quarter of him
was again produced here. He was then diffused everywhere over
things which eat and things which do not eat.
5. From him was born Viraj, and from Viraj, Purusha. When born,
he extended beyond the earth, both behind and before.
6. When the gods performed a sacrifice with Purusha as the oblation,
the spring was its butter, the summer its fuel, and the autumn
its (accompanying) offering.
1 Muir’s, Original Sanskrit Texts, Vol. I, P. 9.
of the Indo-Aryan society. But very few have cared to inquire who
were these Shudras and how they came to be the fourth Varna. That
such an enquiry is of first-rate importance is beyond question. For,
it is worth knowing how the Shudras came to occupy the fourth place,
whether it was the result of evolution or it was brought about by
revolution.
Any attempt to discover who the Shudras were and how they came
to be the fourth Varna must begin with the origin of the Chaturvarnya
in the Indo-Aryan society. A study of the Chaturvarnya must in its
turn start with a study of the ninetieth Hymn of the Tenth Mandala
of the Rig Veda—a Hymn, which is known by the famous name of
Purusha Sukta.
What does the Hymn say? It says1 :
“1. Purusha has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.
On every side enveloping the earth he overpassed (it) by a space
of ten fingers.
2. Purusha himself is this whole (universe), whatever has been and
whatever shall be. He is the Lord of immortality, since (or when)
by food he expands.
3. Such is his greatness, and Purusha is superior to this. All
existences are a quarter to him; and three-fourths of him are that
which is immortal in the sky.
4. With three-quarters, Purusha mounted upwards. A quarter of him
was again produced here. He was then diffused everywhere over
things which eat and things which do not eat.
5. From him was born Viraj, and from Viraj, Purusha. When born,
he extended beyond the earth, both behind and before.
6. When the gods performed a sacrifice with Purusha as the oblation,
the spring was its butter, the summer its fuel, and the autumn
its (accompanying) offering.
1 Muir’s, Original Sanskrit Texts, Vol. I, P. 9.
7. This victim, Purusha, born in the beginning, they immolated on the
sacrificial grass. With him the gods, the Sadhyas, and the rishis
sacrificed.
8. From that universal sacrifice were provided curds and butter. It formed
those aerial (creatures) and animals both wild and tame.
9. From that universal sacrifice sprang the rik and saman verses, the
metres and the yajus.
10. From it sprang horses, and all animals with two rows of teeth; kine
sprang from it; from it goats and sheep.
11. When (the gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cut
him up? What was his mouth? What arms (had he)? What (two objects)
are said (to have been) his thighs and feet?
12. The Brahmana was his mouth, the Rajanya was made his arms; the
being called the Vaishya, he was his thighs; the Shudra sprang from
his feet.
13. The moon sprang from his soul (manas), the sun from the eye, Indra
and Agni from his mouth and Vayu from his breath.
14. From his navel arose the air, from his head the sky, from his feet the
earth, from his ear the (four) quarters; in this manner (the gods) formed
the worlds.
15. When the gods, performing sacrifices, bound Purusha as a victim, there
were seven sticks (stuck up) for it (around the fire), and thrice seven
pieces of fuel were made.
16. With sacrifices the gods performed the sacrifice. These were the earliest
rites. These great powers have sought the sky, where are the former
Sadhyas, gods.”
The Purusha Sukta is a theory of the origin of the Universe. In other
words, it is a cosmogony. No nation which has reached an advanced degree
of thought has failed to develop some sort of cosmogony. The Egyptians
had a cosmogony somewhat analogous with that set out in the Purusha
Sukta. According to it,1 it was god Khnumu, ‘the shaper,’ who shaped living
things on the potter’s wheel, “created all that is, he formed all that exists,
he is the father of fathers, the mother of mothers... he fashioned men, he
made the gods, he was the father from the beginning... he is the creator
of the heaven, the earth, the underworld, the water, the mountains... he
formed a male and a female of all birds, fishes, wild beasts, cattle and of
all worms.” A very, similar cosmogony is found in Chapter I of the Genesis
in the Old Testament.
Cosmogonies have never been more than matters of academic interest
and have served no other purpose than to satisfy the curiosity of the
student and to help to amuse children. This may be true of some parts
of the Purusha Sukta. But it certainly cannot be true of the whole
of it. That is because all verses of the Purusha Sukta are not of the
same importance and do not have the same significance. Verses
1 Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. IV, p. 145
sacrificial grass. With him the gods, the Sadhyas, and the rishis
sacrificed.
8. From that universal sacrifice were provided curds and butter. It formed
those aerial (creatures) and animals both wild and tame.
9. From that universal sacrifice sprang the rik and saman verses, the
metres and the yajus.
10. From it sprang horses, and all animals with two rows of teeth; kine
sprang from it; from it goats and sheep.
11. When (the gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cut
him up? What was his mouth? What arms (had he)? What (two objects)
are said (to have been) his thighs and feet?
12. The Brahmana was his mouth, the Rajanya was made his arms; the
being called the Vaishya, he was his thighs; the Shudra sprang from
his feet.
13. The moon sprang from his soul (manas), the sun from the eye, Indra
and Agni from his mouth and Vayu from his breath.
14. From his navel arose the air, from his head the sky, from his feet the
earth, from his ear the (four) quarters; in this manner (the gods) formed
the worlds.
15. When the gods, performing sacrifices, bound Purusha as a victim, there
were seven sticks (stuck up) for it (around the fire), and thrice seven
pieces of fuel were made.
16. With sacrifices the gods performed the sacrifice. These were the earliest
rites. These great powers have sought the sky, where are the former
Sadhyas, gods.”
The Purusha Sukta is a theory of the origin of the Universe. In other
words, it is a cosmogony. No nation which has reached an advanced degree
of thought has failed to develop some sort of cosmogony. The Egyptians
had a cosmogony somewhat analogous with that set out in the Purusha
Sukta. According to it,1 it was god Khnumu, ‘the shaper,’ who shaped living
things on the potter’s wheel, “created all that is, he formed all that exists,
he is the father of fathers, the mother of mothers... he fashioned men, he
made the gods, he was the father from the beginning... he is the creator
of the heaven, the earth, the underworld, the water, the mountains... he
formed a male and a female of all birds, fishes, wild beasts, cattle and of
all worms.” A very, similar cosmogony is found in Chapter I of the Genesis
in the Old Testament.
Cosmogonies have never been more than matters of academic interest
and have served no other purpose than to satisfy the curiosity of the
student and to help to amuse children. This may be true of some parts
of the Purusha Sukta. But it certainly cannot be true of the whole
of it. That is because all verses of the Purusha Sukta are not of the
same importance and do not have the same significance. Verses
1 Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. IV, p. 145
11 and 12 fall in one category and the rest of the verses fall in another
category. Verses other than 11 and 12 may be regarded as of academic
interest. Nobody relies upon them. No Hindu even remembers them.
But it is quite different with regard to verses 11 and 12. Prima facie
these verses do no more than explain how the four classes, namely,
(1) Brahmins or priests, (2) Kshatriyas or soldiers, (3) Vaishyas or
traders, and (4) Shudras or menials, arose from the body of the
Creator. But the fact is that these verses are not understood as being
merely explanatory of a cosmic phenomenon. It would be a grave
mistake to suppose that they were regarded by the Indo-Aryans as
an innocent piece of a poet’s idle imagination. They are treated as
containing a mandatory injunction from the Creator to the effect that
Society must be constituted on the basis of four classes mentioned
in the Sukta. Such a construction of the verses in question may not
be warranted by their language. But there is no doubt that according
to tradition this is how the verses are construed, and it would indeed
be difficult to say that this traditional construction is not in
consonance with the intention of the author of the Sukta. Verses 11
and 12 of the Purusha Sukta are, therefore, not a mere cosmogony.
They contain a divine injunction prescribing a particular form of the
constitution of society.
The constitution of society prescribed by the Purusha Sukta is
known as Chaturvarnya. As a divine injunction, it naturally became
the ideal of the Indo-Aryan society. This ideal of Chaturvarnya was
the mould in which the life of the Indo-Aryan community in its early
or liquid state was cast. It is this mould, which gave the Indo-Aryan
community its peculiar shape and structure.
This reverence, which the Indo-Aryan Society had for this ideal
mould of Chaturvarnya, is not only beyond question, but it is also
beyond description. Its influence on the Indo-Aryan society has been
profound and indelible. The social order prescribed by the Purusha
Sukta has never been questioned by anyone except Buddha. Even
Buddha was not able to shake it, for the simple reason that both
after the fall of Buddhism and even during the period of Buddhism
there were enough law-givers, who made it their business not only
to defend the ideal of the Purusha Sukta but to propagate it and
to elaborate it.
To take a few illustrations of this propaganda in support of the
Purusha Sukta, reference may be made to the Apastamba Dharma
Sutra and the Vasishtha Dharma Sutra. The Apastamba Dharma
Sutra states:
“There are four castes—Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.
Among these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the one
following.1
For all these excepting Shudras and those who have committed bad
actions are ordained (1) the initiation (Upanayan or the wearing of the
sacred thread), (2) the study of the Veda and (3) the kindling of the sacred
fire (i.e., the right to perform sacrifice).2
This is repeated by Vasishtha Dharma Sutra which says :
“There are four castes (Varnas), Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and
Shudras. Three castes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas (are called)
twice-born.
Their first birth is from their mother; the second from the investiture
with the sacred girdle. In that (second birth) the Savitri is the mother,
but the teacher is said to be, the father.
They call the teacher father, because he gives instruction in the Veda.3
The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particular
sacraments.
There is also the following passage of the Veda : “The Brahmana was
his mouth, the Kshatriya formed his arms, the Vaishya his thighs; the
Shudra was born from his feet.”
It has been declared in the following passage that a Shudra shall not
receive the sacraments.”
Many other law-givers have in parrot-like manner repeated the theme
of the Purusha Sukta and have reiterated its sanctity. It is unnecessary
to repeat their version of it. All those, who had raised any opposition
to the sanctity of the ideal set out in the Purusha Sukta, were finally
laid low by Manu, the architect of the Hindu society. For Manu did
two things. In the first place, he enunciated afresh the ideal of the
Purusha Sukta as a part of divine injunction. He said :
“For the prosperity of the worlds, he (the creator) from his mouth, arms,
thighs and feet created the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya and the
Shudra.4
The Brahmin, Kshatriya (and) Vaishya (constitute) the three twice-born
castes; but the fourth the shudra has only one birth.5"
In this he was no doubt merely following his predecessors. But he
went a step further and enunciated another proposition in which he
said :
“Veda is the only and ultimate sanction for Dharma.6
”
Bearing in mind that the Purusha Sukta is a part of the Veda, it
cannot be difficult to realize that Manu invested the social ideal of
1 Prasna 1. Patala 1, Khanda 1, Sutras 4-5. 4 Manu, Chapter I, Verse 31.
2 Prasna 1, Patala 1, Khanda 1, Sutra 6. 5 Ibid., Chapter X, Verse 4.
3 Chapter II, Verses 1-4. 6 Ibid., Chapter II, Verse 6.
Chaturvarnya contained in the Purusha Sukta, with a degree of
divinity and infallibility which it did not have before.
II
A critical examination of the Purusha Sukta therefore becomes very
essential.
It is claimed by the Hindus that the Purusha Sukta is unique. This
is no doubt a tall claim for an idea which came to birth when the
mind of man was primitive and was without the rich endowment of
varied thought available in modern times. But there need not be much
difficulty in admitting this claim provided it is understood in what
respect the Purusha Sukta is unique.
The principal ground for regarding the Purusha Sukta as unique
is that the ideal of social organization, namely, the ideal of
Chaturvarnya which it upholds, is unique. Is this a sufficient ground
for holding the Purusha Sukta as unique? The Purusha Sukta would
really have been unique if it had preached a classless society as an
ideal form of society. But what does the Purusha Sukta do? It
preaches a class-composed society as its ideal. Can this be regarded
as unique? Only a nationalist and a patriot can give an affirmative
answer to this question. The existence of classes has been the
de facto condition of every society, which is not altogether primitive.
It is a normal state of society all over the world where society is
in a comparatively advanced state. Looking at it from this point of
view, what uniqueness can there be in the Purusha Sukta, when
it does no more than recognize the sort of class composition that
existed in the Indo-Aryan society?
Notwithstanding this, the Purusha Sukta must be admitted to be
unique, though for quite different reasons. The unfortunate part of
the matter is that many people do not know the true reasons why
the Purusha Sukta should be regarded as unique. But once the true
reasons are known, people will not only have no hesitation in
accepting that the Purusha Sukta is a unique production of the human
intellect but will perhaps be shocked to know what an extraordinary
production of human ingenuity it is.
What are the features of the social ideal of the Purusha Sukta,
which give it the hall mark of being unique? Though the existence
category. Verses other than 11 and 12 may be regarded as of academic
interest. Nobody relies upon them. No Hindu even remembers them.
But it is quite different with regard to verses 11 and 12. Prima facie
these verses do no more than explain how the four classes, namely,
(1) Brahmins or priests, (2) Kshatriyas or soldiers, (3) Vaishyas or
traders, and (4) Shudras or menials, arose from the body of the
Creator. But the fact is that these verses are not understood as being
merely explanatory of a cosmic phenomenon. It would be a grave
mistake to suppose that they were regarded by the Indo-Aryans as
an innocent piece of a poet’s idle imagination. They are treated as
containing a mandatory injunction from the Creator to the effect that
Society must be constituted on the basis of four classes mentioned
in the Sukta. Such a construction of the verses in question may not
be warranted by their language. But there is no doubt that according
to tradition this is how the verses are construed, and it would indeed
be difficult to say that this traditional construction is not in
consonance with the intention of the author of the Sukta. Verses 11
and 12 of the Purusha Sukta are, therefore, not a mere cosmogony.
They contain a divine injunction prescribing a particular form of the
constitution of society.
The constitution of society prescribed by the Purusha Sukta is
known as Chaturvarnya. As a divine injunction, it naturally became
the ideal of the Indo-Aryan society. This ideal of Chaturvarnya was
the mould in which the life of the Indo-Aryan community in its early
or liquid state was cast. It is this mould, which gave the Indo-Aryan
community its peculiar shape and structure.
This reverence, which the Indo-Aryan Society had for this ideal
mould of Chaturvarnya, is not only beyond question, but it is also
beyond description. Its influence on the Indo-Aryan society has been
profound and indelible. The social order prescribed by the Purusha
Sukta has never been questioned by anyone except Buddha. Even
Buddha was not able to shake it, for the simple reason that both
after the fall of Buddhism and even during the period of Buddhism
there were enough law-givers, who made it their business not only
to defend the ideal of the Purusha Sukta but to propagate it and
to elaborate it.
To take a few illustrations of this propaganda in support of the
Purusha Sukta, reference may be made to the Apastamba Dharma
Sutra and the Vasishtha Dharma Sutra. The Apastamba Dharma
Sutra states:
“There are four castes—Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.
Among these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the one
following.1
For all these excepting Shudras and those who have committed bad
actions are ordained (1) the initiation (Upanayan or the wearing of the
sacred thread), (2) the study of the Veda and (3) the kindling of the sacred
fire (i.e., the right to perform sacrifice).2
This is repeated by Vasishtha Dharma Sutra which says :
“There are four castes (Varnas), Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and
Shudras. Three castes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas (are called)
twice-born.
Their first birth is from their mother; the second from the investiture
with the sacred girdle. In that (second birth) the Savitri is the mother,
but the teacher is said to be, the father.
They call the teacher father, because he gives instruction in the Veda.3
The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particular
sacraments.
There is also the following passage of the Veda : “The Brahmana was
his mouth, the Kshatriya formed his arms, the Vaishya his thighs; the
Shudra was born from his feet.”
It has been declared in the following passage that a Shudra shall not
receive the sacraments.”
Many other law-givers have in parrot-like manner repeated the theme
of the Purusha Sukta and have reiterated its sanctity. It is unnecessary
to repeat their version of it. All those, who had raised any opposition
to the sanctity of the ideal set out in the Purusha Sukta, were finally
laid low by Manu, the architect of the Hindu society. For Manu did
two things. In the first place, he enunciated afresh the ideal of the
Purusha Sukta as a part of divine injunction. He said :
“For the prosperity of the worlds, he (the creator) from his mouth, arms,
thighs and feet created the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya and the
Shudra.4
The Brahmin, Kshatriya (and) Vaishya (constitute) the three twice-born
castes; but the fourth the shudra has only one birth.5"
In this he was no doubt merely following his predecessors. But he
went a step further and enunciated another proposition in which he
said :
“Veda is the only and ultimate sanction for Dharma.6
”
Bearing in mind that the Purusha Sukta is a part of the Veda, it
cannot be difficult to realize that Manu invested the social ideal of
1 Prasna 1. Patala 1, Khanda 1, Sutras 4-5. 4 Manu, Chapter I, Verse 31.
2 Prasna 1, Patala 1, Khanda 1, Sutra 6. 5 Ibid., Chapter X, Verse 4.
3 Chapter II, Verses 1-4. 6 Ibid., Chapter II, Verse 6.
Chaturvarnya contained in the Purusha Sukta, with a degree of
divinity and infallibility which it did not have before.
II
A critical examination of the Purusha Sukta therefore becomes very
essential.
It is claimed by the Hindus that the Purusha Sukta is unique. This
is no doubt a tall claim for an idea which came to birth when the
mind of man was primitive and was without the rich endowment of
varied thought available in modern times. But there need not be much
difficulty in admitting this claim provided it is understood in what
respect the Purusha Sukta is unique.
The principal ground for regarding the Purusha Sukta as unique
is that the ideal of social organization, namely, the ideal of
Chaturvarnya which it upholds, is unique. Is this a sufficient ground
for holding the Purusha Sukta as unique? The Purusha Sukta would
really have been unique if it had preached a classless society as an
ideal form of society. But what does the Purusha Sukta do? It
preaches a class-composed society as its ideal. Can this be regarded
as unique? Only a nationalist and a patriot can give an affirmative
answer to this question. The existence of classes has been the
de facto condition of every society, which is not altogether primitive.
It is a normal state of society all over the world where society is
in a comparatively advanced state. Looking at it from this point of
view, what uniqueness can there be in the Purusha Sukta, when
it does no more than recognize the sort of class composition that
existed in the Indo-Aryan society?
Notwithstanding this, the Purusha Sukta must be admitted to be
unique, though for quite different reasons. The unfortunate part of
the matter is that many people do not know the true reasons why
the Purusha Sukta should be regarded as unique. But once the true
reasons are known, people will not only have no hesitation in
accepting that the Purusha Sukta is a unique production of the human
intellect but will perhaps be shocked to know what an extraordinary
production of human ingenuity it is.
What are the features of the social ideal of the Purusha Sukta,
which give it the hall mark of being unique? Though the existence
of classes is the de facto condition of every society, nevertheless no
society has converted this de facto state of affairs into a de jure
connotation of an ideal society. The scheme of the Purusha Sukta
is the only instance in which the real is elevated to the dignity of
an ideal. This is the first unique feature of the scheme set forth in
the Purusha Sukta. Secondly, no community has given the de facto
state of class composition a legal effect by accepting it as a de jure
connotation of an ideal society. The case of the Greeks is a case in
point. Class composition was put forth as an ideal social structure
by no less an advocate than Plato. But the Greeks never thought
of making it real by giving it the sanction of law. The Purusha Sukta
is the only instance in which an attempt was made to give reality
to the ideal by invoking the sanction of law. Thirdly, no society has
accepted that the class composition is an ideal. At the most they have
accepted it as being natural. The Purusha Sukta goes further. It not
only regards class composition as natural and ideal, but also regards
it as sacred and divine. Fourthly, the number of the classes has never
been a matter of dogma in any society known to history. The Romans
had two classes. The Egyptians thought three were enough. The IndoIranians also had no more than three classes:1 (1) The Athravans
(priests) (2) Rathaeshtar (warriors) and (3) the Vastrya-fshuyat
(peasantry). The scheme of the Purusha Sukta makes the division
of society into four classes a matter of dogma. According to it, there
can be neither more nor less. Fifthly, every society leaves a class
to find its place vis-a-vis other classes according to its importance
in society as may be determined by the forces operating from time
to time. No society has an official gradation laid down, fixed and
permanent, with an ascending scale of reverence and a descending
scale of contempt. The scheme of the Purusha Sukta is unique,
inasmuch as it fixes a permanent warrant of precedence among the
different classes, which neither time nor circumstances can alter. The
warrant of precedence is based on the principle of graded inequality
among the four classes, whereby it recognizes the Brahmin to be
above all, the Kshatriya below the Brahmin but above the Vaishya
and the Shudra, the Vaishya below the Kshatriya but above the
Shudra and the Shudra below all.
1 Geiger : Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in Ancient Times, Vol. II, P.64
society has converted this de facto state of affairs into a de jure
connotation of an ideal society. The scheme of the Purusha Sukta
is the only instance in which the real is elevated to the dignity of
an ideal. This is the first unique feature of the scheme set forth in
the Purusha Sukta. Secondly, no community has given the de facto
state of class composition a legal effect by accepting it as a de jure
connotation of an ideal society. The case of the Greeks is a case in
point. Class composition was put forth as an ideal social structure
by no less an advocate than Plato. But the Greeks never thought
of making it real by giving it the sanction of law. The Purusha Sukta
is the only instance in which an attempt was made to give reality
to the ideal by invoking the sanction of law. Thirdly, no society has
accepted that the class composition is an ideal. At the most they have
accepted it as being natural. The Purusha Sukta goes further. It not
only regards class composition as natural and ideal, but also regards
it as sacred and divine. Fourthly, the number of the classes has never
been a matter of dogma in any society known to history. The Romans
had two classes. The Egyptians thought three were enough. The IndoIranians also had no more than three classes:1 (1) The Athravans
(priests) (2) Rathaeshtar (warriors) and (3) the Vastrya-fshuyat
(peasantry). The scheme of the Purusha Sukta makes the division
of society into four classes a matter of dogma. According to it, there
can be neither more nor less. Fifthly, every society leaves a class
to find its place vis-a-vis other classes according to its importance
in society as may be determined by the forces operating from time
to time. No society has an official gradation laid down, fixed and
permanent, with an ascending scale of reverence and a descending
scale of contempt. The scheme of the Purusha Sukta is unique,
inasmuch as it fixes a permanent warrant of precedence among the
different classes, which neither time nor circumstances can alter. The
warrant of precedence is based on the principle of graded inequality
among the four classes, whereby it recognizes the Brahmin to be
above all, the Kshatriya below the Brahmin but above the Vaishya
and the Shudra, the Vaishya below the Kshatriya but above the
Shudra and the Shudra below all.
1 Geiger : Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in Ancient Times, Vol. II, P.64
These are the real reasons why the Purusha Sukta is unique. But
the Purusha Sukta is not merely unique, it is also extraordinary. It
is extraordinary because it is so full of riddles. Few seem to be aware
of these riddles. But anyone who cares to inquire will learn how real
in their nature and how strange in their complexion these riddles
are. The cosmogony set out in the Purusha Sukta is not the only
cosmogony one comes across in the Rig Veda. There is another
cosmogony which is expounded in the 72nd Hymn of the Tenth
Mandala of the Rig Veda. It reads as follows :1
“1. Let us proclaim with a clear voice of the generation of the gods
(the divine company), who, when their praises are recited, look
(favourably on the worshipper) in this latter age.
2. Brahmanaspati filled these (generations of the gods) with breath
as a blacksmith (his bellows); in the first age of the gods the
existent was born of the non-existent.
3. In the first age of the gods the existent was born of the nonexistent; after that the quarters (of the horizon) were born, and
after them the upward-growing (trees).
4. The earth was born from the upward growing (tree), the quarters
were born from the earth; Daksha was born from Aditi and
afterwards Aditi from Daksha.
5. Aditi, who was thy daughter, Daksha, was born; after her, the
gods were born, adorable, freed from the bonds of death.
6. When, gods, you abode in this pool well-arranged, then a pungent
dust went forth from you as if you were dancing.
7. When, gods, you filled the worlds (with your radiance) as clouds
(fill the earth with rain) then you brought fourth the sun hidden
in the ocean.
8. Eight sons (there were) of Aditi who were born from her body;
she approached the gods with seven, she sent forth Martanda on
high.
9. With seven sons Aditi went to a former generation, but she bore
Martanda for the birth and death (of human beings).
The two cosmologies are fundamentally different in principle as
well as in detail. The former explains creation ex nihilo ‘being was
born of non-being’. The latter ascribes creation to a being which it
calls Purusha. Why in one and the same book two such opposite
cosmologies should have come to be propounded? Why did the author
of the Purusha Sukta think it necessary to posit a Purusha and make
all creation emanate from him?
Any one who reads the Purusha Sukta will find that it starts with
the creation of donkyes, horses, goats, etc., but does not say anything
about the creation of man. At a point when it would have been
natural to speak of the creation of man, it breaks off the chain and
proceeds to explain the origin of the classes in the Aryan society.
Indeed, the Purusha Sukta appears to make the explaining of the
four classes of the Aryan society to be its primary concern. In doing
this, the Purusha Sukta stands in complete contrast not only with
other theologies but with the other parts of the Rig Veda also.
No theology has made it its purpose to explain the origin of classes
in society. Chapter I of the Genesis in the Old Testament, which
can be said to be analogous in intention and purpose to the Purusha
Sukta, does nothing more than explain how man was created. It is
not that social classes did not exist in the old Jewish society. Social
classes existed in all societies. The Indo-Aryans were no exception.
Nevertheless, no theology has ever thought it necessary to explain
how classes arise. Why then did the Purusha Sukta make the
explanation of the origin of the social classes its primary concern?
The Purusha Sukta is not the only place in the Rig Veda where
a discussion of the origin of creation occurs. There are other places
in the Rig Veda where the same subject is referred to. In this
connection, one may refer to the following passage in the Rig Veda
which reads as follows :1
Rig Veda, i.96.2: “By the first nivid, by the wisdom of Ayu, he (Agni)
created these children of men; by his gleaming light the earth and the
waters, the gods sustained Agni the giver of the riches.”
In this, there is no reference at all to the separate creation of
classes, though there is no doubt that even at the time of the
Rig Veda, the Indo-Aryan Society had become differentiated into
classes; yet the above passage in the Rig Veda ignores the classes
and refers to the creation of men only. Why did the Purusha Sukta
think it necessary to go further and speak of the origin of the classes?
The Purusha Sukta contradicts the Rig Veda in another respect.
The Rig Veda propounds a secular theory regarding the origin of
the Indo-Aryans as will be seen from the following texts:
(1) Rig Veda, i.80.16: “Prayers and hymns were formerly congregated in that Indra, in the ceremony which Atharvan, father Manu,
and Dadhyanch celebrated.”2
(2) Rig Veda, i.114.2 : “Whatever prosperity or succour father Manu
obtained by sacrifice, may we gain all that under thy guidance, O Rudra.”3
1 Muir, Vol. I. p. 180
2 Muir, Ibid., Vol. I, p. 162.
3 Ibid., p. 163
the Purusha Sukta is not merely unique, it is also extraordinary. It
is extraordinary because it is so full of riddles. Few seem to be aware
of these riddles. But anyone who cares to inquire will learn how real
in their nature and how strange in their complexion these riddles
are. The cosmogony set out in the Purusha Sukta is not the only
cosmogony one comes across in the Rig Veda. There is another
cosmogony which is expounded in the 72nd Hymn of the Tenth
Mandala of the Rig Veda. It reads as follows :1
“1. Let us proclaim with a clear voice of the generation of the gods
(the divine company), who, when their praises are recited, look
(favourably on the worshipper) in this latter age.
2. Brahmanaspati filled these (generations of the gods) with breath
as a blacksmith (his bellows); in the first age of the gods the
existent was born of the non-existent.
3. In the first age of the gods the existent was born of the nonexistent; after that the quarters (of the horizon) were born, and
after them the upward-growing (trees).
4. The earth was born from the upward growing (tree), the quarters
were born from the earth; Daksha was born from Aditi and
afterwards Aditi from Daksha.
5. Aditi, who was thy daughter, Daksha, was born; after her, the
gods were born, adorable, freed from the bonds of death.
6. When, gods, you abode in this pool well-arranged, then a pungent
dust went forth from you as if you were dancing.
7. When, gods, you filled the worlds (with your radiance) as clouds
(fill the earth with rain) then you brought fourth the sun hidden
in the ocean.
8. Eight sons (there were) of Aditi who were born from her body;
she approached the gods with seven, she sent forth Martanda on
high.
9. With seven sons Aditi went to a former generation, but she bore
Martanda for the birth and death (of human beings).
The two cosmologies are fundamentally different in principle as
well as in detail. The former explains creation ex nihilo ‘being was
born of non-being’. The latter ascribes creation to a being which it
calls Purusha. Why in one and the same book two such opposite
cosmologies should have come to be propounded? Why did the author
of the Purusha Sukta think it necessary to posit a Purusha and make
all creation emanate from him?
Any one who reads the Purusha Sukta will find that it starts with
the creation of donkyes, horses, goats, etc., but does not say anything
about the creation of man. At a point when it would have been
natural to speak of the creation of man, it breaks off the chain and
proceeds to explain the origin of the classes in the Aryan society.
Indeed, the Purusha Sukta appears to make the explaining of the
four classes of the Aryan society to be its primary concern. In doing
this, the Purusha Sukta stands in complete contrast not only with
other theologies but with the other parts of the Rig Veda also.
No theology has made it its purpose to explain the origin of classes
in society. Chapter I of the Genesis in the Old Testament, which
can be said to be analogous in intention and purpose to the Purusha
Sukta, does nothing more than explain how man was created. It is
not that social classes did not exist in the old Jewish society. Social
classes existed in all societies. The Indo-Aryans were no exception.
Nevertheless, no theology has ever thought it necessary to explain
how classes arise. Why then did the Purusha Sukta make the
explanation of the origin of the social classes its primary concern?
The Purusha Sukta is not the only place in the Rig Veda where
a discussion of the origin of creation occurs. There are other places
in the Rig Veda where the same subject is referred to. In this
connection, one may refer to the following passage in the Rig Veda
which reads as follows :1
Rig Veda, i.96.2: “By the first nivid, by the wisdom of Ayu, he (Agni)
created these children of men; by his gleaming light the earth and the
waters, the gods sustained Agni the giver of the riches.”
In this, there is no reference at all to the separate creation of
classes, though there is no doubt that even at the time of the
Rig Veda, the Indo-Aryan Society had become differentiated into
classes; yet the above passage in the Rig Veda ignores the classes
and refers to the creation of men only. Why did the Purusha Sukta
think it necessary to go further and speak of the origin of the classes?
The Purusha Sukta contradicts the Rig Veda in another respect.
The Rig Veda propounds a secular theory regarding the origin of
the Indo-Aryans as will be seen from the following texts:
(1) Rig Veda, i.80.16: “Prayers and hymns were formerly congregated in that Indra, in the ceremony which Atharvan, father Manu,
and Dadhyanch celebrated.”2
(2) Rig Veda, i.114.2 : “Whatever prosperity or succour father Manu
obtained by sacrifice, may we gain all that under thy guidance, O Rudra.”3
1 Muir, Vol. I. p. 180
2 Muir, Ibid., Vol. I, p. 162.
3 Ibid., p. 163
(3) Rig Veda, ii.33.13 : “Those pure remedies of yours, O Maruts, those
which are most auspicious, ye vigorous gods, those which are beneficent,
those which our father Manu chose, those and the blessing and succour
of Rudra, I desire.”1
(4) Rig Veda, viii.52.1 : “The ancient friend hath been equipped with
the powers of the mighty (gods). Father Manu has prepared hymns to
him, as portals of access to the gods.”2
(5) Rig Veda, iii.3.6 : “Agni, together with the gods, and the children
(jantubhih) of Manush, celebrating a multiform sacrifice with hymns.”3
(6) Rig Veda, iv. 37.1 : “Ye gods, Vajas, and Ribhukshana, come to our
sacrifice by the path travelled by the gods, that ye, pleasing deities, may
institute a sacrifice among these people of Manush (Manusho vikshu) on
auspicious days.”4
(7) Rig Veda, vi.14.2 : “The people of Manush praise in the sacrifice
Agni the invoker.”5
From these texts it is beyond question that the rishis who were the
authors of the hymns of the Rig Veda regarded Manu as the progenitor of
the Indo-Aryans. This theory about Manu being the progenitor of the IndoAryans had such deep foundation that it was carried forward by the
Brahmanas as well as the Puranas. It is propounded in the Aitareya
Brahmana,6 in the Vishnu Purana 7 and the Matsya Purana.8
. It is true that
they have made Brahma the progenitor of Manu; but the Rig Veda theory
of Manu being the progenitor has been accepted and maintained by them.9
Why does the Purusha Sukta make no mention of Manu ? This is strange
because the author of the Purusha Sukta seems to be aware of the fact that
Manu Svayambhuva is called Viraj and Viraj is called Adi Purusha, 10 since
he too speaks of Virajo adhi Purushah in verse five of the Sukta.
There is a third point in which the Purush Sukta has gone beyond the Rig
Veda. The Vedic Aryans were sufficiently advanced in their
1 Muir, Vol. I. p. 163.
2 Ibid., p. 163.
3 Ibid., p. 165.
4 Ibid., p. 165.
5 Ibid., p. 165.
6 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 108.
7 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I pp. 105-107.
8 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I. p. 110-112.
9 There is however a great deal of confusion when one comes to details. The Vishnu
Purana says that Brahma divided his person into two parts: with the one half he became
a male, with the other half a female. The female was called Satarupa who by incessantly
practising austere fervour of a highly arduous description acquired for herself as a husband
a Male called Manu Svayambhuva. There is no suggestion in the Vishnu Purana of incest
by Brahma with his daughter. The Aitareya Brahmana and the Matsya Purana on the
other hand speak of Brahma having begotten Manu by committing incest with his daughter
Satarupa; the Matsya Purana adds that Manu by his austerity obtained a beautiful wife
named Ananta. According to the Ramayana (see Muir, I, p. 117) Manu was not a male
but a female and was a daughter of Daksha Prajapati and the wife of Kasyapa.
10 Matsya Purana- Muir, Vol., 1 p. 111 f.
civilization to give rise to division of labour. Different persons among
the Vedic Aryans followed different occupations. That they were
conscious of it is evidenced by the following verse:
Rig Veda, 1.113.6 : “That some may go in pursuit of power, some in
pursuit of fame, some in pursuit of wealth, some in pursuit of work, Ushas
has awakened people so that each may go in pursuit of his special and
different way of earning his livelihood.”
This is as far as the Rig Veda had gone. The Purusha Sukta goes beyond.
It follows up the notion of division of labour and converts the scheme of
division of work into a scheme of division of workers into fixed and
permanent occupational categories. Why does the Purusha Sukta commit
itself to such a perversity?
There is another point in which the Purusha Sukta departs from the
Rig Veda. It is not that the Rig Veda speaks only of man. It speaks also
of the Indo-Aryan nation. This nation was made up of the five tribes, which
had become assimilated into one common Indo-Aryan people. The following
hymns refer to these five tribes as moulded into a nation:
(1) Rig Veda, vi.11.4 : “Agni, whom, abounding in oblations, the five
tribes, bringing offerings, honour with prostrations, as if he were a man.”1
(2) Rig Veda, vii.15.2 : “The wise and youthful master of the house (Agni)
who has taken up his abode among the five tribes in every house.”2
There is some difference of opinion as to who these five tribes are. Yaska
in his Nirukta says that it denotes Gandharvas, Pitris, Devas, Asuras and
Rakshasas. Aupamanyava says that it denotes the four Varnas and the
Nishadas. Both these explanations seem to be absurd. Firstly, because the
five tribes are praised collectively as in the following hymns:
(1) Rig Veda, ii.2.10 : “May our glory shine aloft among the five tribes,
like the heaven unsurpassable.”3
(2) Rig Veda, vi.46.7 : “Indra, whatever force or vigour exists in the tribe
of Nashusa or whatever glory belongs to the five races bring (for us).”4
Such laudatory statements could not have been made if the five
tribes included the Shudras. Besides, the word used is not Varnas. The
word used is Janah. That it refers to the five tribes and not to the four
Varnas and Nishadas is quite clear from the following verse of the
Rig Veda :
1 Muir. Vol. I, p. 177.
2 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 178.
3 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 178.
4 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 180.
which are most auspicious, ye vigorous gods, those which are beneficent,
those which our father Manu chose, those and the blessing and succour
of Rudra, I desire.”1
(4) Rig Veda, viii.52.1 : “The ancient friend hath been equipped with
the powers of the mighty (gods). Father Manu has prepared hymns to
him, as portals of access to the gods.”2
(5) Rig Veda, iii.3.6 : “Agni, together with the gods, and the children
(jantubhih) of Manush, celebrating a multiform sacrifice with hymns.”3
(6) Rig Veda, iv. 37.1 : “Ye gods, Vajas, and Ribhukshana, come to our
sacrifice by the path travelled by the gods, that ye, pleasing deities, may
institute a sacrifice among these people of Manush (Manusho vikshu) on
auspicious days.”4
(7) Rig Veda, vi.14.2 : “The people of Manush praise in the sacrifice
Agni the invoker.”5
From these texts it is beyond question that the rishis who were the
authors of the hymns of the Rig Veda regarded Manu as the progenitor of
the Indo-Aryans. This theory about Manu being the progenitor of the IndoAryans had such deep foundation that it was carried forward by the
Brahmanas as well as the Puranas. It is propounded in the Aitareya
Brahmana,6 in the Vishnu Purana 7 and the Matsya Purana.8
. It is true that
they have made Brahma the progenitor of Manu; but the Rig Veda theory
of Manu being the progenitor has been accepted and maintained by them.9
Why does the Purusha Sukta make no mention of Manu ? This is strange
because the author of the Purusha Sukta seems to be aware of the fact that
Manu Svayambhuva is called Viraj and Viraj is called Adi Purusha, 10 since
he too speaks of Virajo adhi Purushah in verse five of the Sukta.
There is a third point in which the Purush Sukta has gone beyond the Rig
Veda. The Vedic Aryans were sufficiently advanced in their
1 Muir, Vol. I. p. 163.
2 Ibid., p. 163.
3 Ibid., p. 165.
4 Ibid., p. 165.
5 Ibid., p. 165.
6 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 108.
7 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I pp. 105-107.
8 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I. p. 110-112.
9 There is however a great deal of confusion when one comes to details. The Vishnu
Purana says that Brahma divided his person into two parts: with the one half he became
a male, with the other half a female. The female was called Satarupa who by incessantly
practising austere fervour of a highly arduous description acquired for herself as a husband
a Male called Manu Svayambhuva. There is no suggestion in the Vishnu Purana of incest
by Brahma with his daughter. The Aitareya Brahmana and the Matsya Purana on the
other hand speak of Brahma having begotten Manu by committing incest with his daughter
Satarupa; the Matsya Purana adds that Manu by his austerity obtained a beautiful wife
named Ananta. According to the Ramayana (see Muir, I, p. 117) Manu was not a male
but a female and was a daughter of Daksha Prajapati and the wife of Kasyapa.
10 Matsya Purana- Muir, Vol., 1 p. 111 f.
civilization to give rise to division of labour. Different persons among
the Vedic Aryans followed different occupations. That they were
conscious of it is evidenced by the following verse:
Rig Veda, 1.113.6 : “That some may go in pursuit of power, some in
pursuit of fame, some in pursuit of wealth, some in pursuit of work, Ushas
has awakened people so that each may go in pursuit of his special and
different way of earning his livelihood.”
This is as far as the Rig Veda had gone. The Purusha Sukta goes beyond.
It follows up the notion of division of labour and converts the scheme of
division of work into a scheme of division of workers into fixed and
permanent occupational categories. Why does the Purusha Sukta commit
itself to such a perversity?
There is another point in which the Purusha Sukta departs from the
Rig Veda. It is not that the Rig Veda speaks only of man. It speaks also
of the Indo-Aryan nation. This nation was made up of the five tribes, which
had become assimilated into one common Indo-Aryan people. The following
hymns refer to these five tribes as moulded into a nation:
(1) Rig Veda, vi.11.4 : “Agni, whom, abounding in oblations, the five
tribes, bringing offerings, honour with prostrations, as if he were a man.”1
(2) Rig Veda, vii.15.2 : “The wise and youthful master of the house (Agni)
who has taken up his abode among the five tribes in every house.”2
There is some difference of opinion as to who these five tribes are. Yaska
in his Nirukta says that it denotes Gandharvas, Pitris, Devas, Asuras and
Rakshasas. Aupamanyava says that it denotes the four Varnas and the
Nishadas. Both these explanations seem to be absurd. Firstly, because the
five tribes are praised collectively as in the following hymns:
(1) Rig Veda, ii.2.10 : “May our glory shine aloft among the five tribes,
like the heaven unsurpassable.”3
(2) Rig Veda, vi.46.7 : “Indra, whatever force or vigour exists in the tribe
of Nashusa or whatever glory belongs to the five races bring (for us).”4
Such laudatory statements could not have been made if the five
tribes included the Shudras. Besides, the word used is not Varnas. The
word used is Janah. That it refers to the five tribes and not to the four
Varnas and Nishadas is quite clear from the following verse of the
Rig Veda :
1 Muir. Vol. I, p. 177.
2 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 178.
3 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 178.
4 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 180.
Rig Veda, i.108.8: “If, O Indra and Agni, ye are abiding among
the Yadus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus, Purus, come hither, vigorous
heroes from all quarters, and drink the Soma which has been poured
out.1
That these five tribes had been moulded into one Aryan people
is clear from the Atharva Veda (iii.24.2) which says :
“these five regions, the five tribes springing from Manu.”
A sense of unity and a consciousness of kind can alone explain
why the Rishis of the Rig Vedic hymns came to refer to the five
tribes in such manner. The questions are: why did the Purusha Sukta
not recognize this unity of the five tribes and give a mythic
explanation of their origin? Why instead did it recognize the
communal divisions within the tribes? Why did the Purusha Sukta
regard communalism more important than nationalism?
These are some of the riddles of the Purusha Sukta , which come
to light when one compares it with the Rig Veda. There are others,
which emerge when one proceeds to examine the Purusha Sukta from
a sociological point of view.
Ideals as norms are good and are necessary. Neither a society nor
an individual can do without a norm. But a norm must change with
changes in time and circumstances. No norm can be permanently
fixed. There must always be room for revaluation of the values of
our norm. The possibility of revaluing values remains open only when
the institution is not invested with sacredness. Sacredness prevents
revaluation of its values. Once sacred, always sacred. The Purusha
Sukta makes the Chaturvarnya a sacred institution, a divine ordination. Why did the Purusha Sukta make a particular form of social
order so sacred as to be beyond criticism and beyond change? Why
did it want to make it a permanent ideal beyond change and even
beyond criticism? This is the first riddle of the Purusha Sukta which
strikes a student of sociology.
In propounding the doctrine of Chaturvarnya, the Purusha Sukta
plays a double game. It proceeds first to raise the real, namely, the
existence of the four classes in the Indo-Aryan Society, to the status
of an ideal. This is a deception because the ideal is in no way
different from facts as they exist. After raising the real to the status
of the ideal, it proceeds to make a show of giving effect to what
it regards as an ideal. This again is a deception because the ideal
already exists in fact. This attempt of the Purusha Sukta to idealize
1 Muir. I. p. 179.
the Yadus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus, Purus, come hither, vigorous
heroes from all quarters, and drink the Soma which has been poured
out.1
That these five tribes had been moulded into one Aryan people
is clear from the Atharva Veda (iii.24.2) which says :
“these five regions, the five tribes springing from Manu.”
A sense of unity and a consciousness of kind can alone explain
why the Rishis of the Rig Vedic hymns came to refer to the five
tribes in such manner. The questions are: why did the Purusha Sukta
not recognize this unity of the five tribes and give a mythic
explanation of their origin? Why instead did it recognize the
communal divisions within the tribes? Why did the Purusha Sukta
regard communalism more important than nationalism?
These are some of the riddles of the Purusha Sukta , which come
to light when one compares it with the Rig Veda. There are others,
which emerge when one proceeds to examine the Purusha Sukta from
a sociological point of view.
Ideals as norms are good and are necessary. Neither a society nor
an individual can do without a norm. But a norm must change with
changes in time and circumstances. No norm can be permanently
fixed. There must always be room for revaluation of the values of
our norm. The possibility of revaluing values remains open only when
the institution is not invested with sacredness. Sacredness prevents
revaluation of its values. Once sacred, always sacred. The Purusha
Sukta makes the Chaturvarnya a sacred institution, a divine ordination. Why did the Purusha Sukta make a particular form of social
order so sacred as to be beyond criticism and beyond change? Why
did it want to make it a permanent ideal beyond change and even
beyond criticism? This is the first riddle of the Purusha Sukta which
strikes a student of sociology.
In propounding the doctrine of Chaturvarnya, the Purusha Sukta
plays a double game. It proceeds first to raise the real, namely, the
existence of the four classes in the Indo-Aryan Society, to the status
of an ideal. This is a deception because the ideal is in no way
different from facts as they exist. After raising the real to the status
of the ideal, it proceeds to make a show of giving effect to what
it regards as an ideal. This again is a deception because the ideal
already exists in fact. This attempt of the Purusha Sukta to idealize
1 Muir. I. p. 179.
the real and to realize the ideal, is a kind of political jugglery,
the like of which, I am sure, is not to be found in any other book
of religion. What else is it if not a fraud and a deception? To idealize
the real, which more often than not is full of inequities, is a very
selfish thing to do. Only when a person finds a personal advantage
in things as they are that he tries to idealize the real. To proceed
to make such an ideal real is nothing short of criminal. It means
perpetuating inequity on the ground that whatever is once settled
is settled for all times. Such a view is opposed to all morality. No
society with a social conscience has ever accepted it. On the contrary,
whatever progress in improving the terms of associated life between
individuals and classes has been made in the course of history, is
due entirely to the recognition of the ethical doctrine that what is
wrongly settled is never settled and must be resettled. The principle
underlying the Purusha Sukta is, therefore, criminal in intent and
anti-social in its results. For, it aims to perpetuate an illegal gain
obtained by one class and an unjust wrong inflicted upon another.
What can be the motive behind this jugglery of the Purusha Sukta?
This is the second riddle.
The last and the greatest of all these riddles, which emerges out
of a sociological scrutiny of the Purusha Sukta, is the one relating
to the position of the Shudra. The Purusha Sukta concerns itself with
the origin of the classes, and says they were created by God—a
doctrine which no theology has thought it wise to propound. This in
itself is a strange thing. But what is astonishing is the plan of
equating different classes to different parts of the body of the Creator.
The equation of the different classes to different parts of the body is
not a matter of accident. It is deliberate. The idea behind this plan
seems to be to discover a formula which will solve two problems, one
of fixing the functions of the four classes and the other of fixing the
gradation of the four classes after a preconceived plan. The formula
of equating different classes to the different parts of the body of the
Creator has this advantage. The part fixes the gradation of the class
and the gradation in its turn fixes the function of the class. The Brahmin
is equated to the mouth of the Creator. Mouth being the noblest part
of the anatomy, the Brahmin becomes the noblest of the four classes.
As he is the noblest in the scale, he is given the noblest function,
that of custodian of knowledge and learning. The Kshatriya is equated
to the arms of the Creator. Among the limbs of a person, arms
are next below the mouth. Consequently, the Kshatriya is given
an order of precedence next below the Brahmin and is given
the like of which, I am sure, is not to be found in any other book
of religion. What else is it if not a fraud and a deception? To idealize
the real, which more often than not is full of inequities, is a very
selfish thing to do. Only when a person finds a personal advantage
in things as they are that he tries to idealize the real. To proceed
to make such an ideal real is nothing short of criminal. It means
perpetuating inequity on the ground that whatever is once settled
is settled for all times. Such a view is opposed to all morality. No
society with a social conscience has ever accepted it. On the contrary,
whatever progress in improving the terms of associated life between
individuals and classes has been made in the course of history, is
due entirely to the recognition of the ethical doctrine that what is
wrongly settled is never settled and must be resettled. The principle
underlying the Purusha Sukta is, therefore, criminal in intent and
anti-social in its results. For, it aims to perpetuate an illegal gain
obtained by one class and an unjust wrong inflicted upon another.
What can be the motive behind this jugglery of the Purusha Sukta?
This is the second riddle.
The last and the greatest of all these riddles, which emerges out
of a sociological scrutiny of the Purusha Sukta, is the one relating
to the position of the Shudra. The Purusha Sukta concerns itself with
the origin of the classes, and says they were created by God—a
doctrine which no theology has thought it wise to propound. This in
itself is a strange thing. But what is astonishing is the plan of
equating different classes to different parts of the body of the Creator.
The equation of the different classes to different parts of the body is
not a matter of accident. It is deliberate. The idea behind this plan
seems to be to discover a formula which will solve two problems, one
of fixing the functions of the four classes and the other of fixing the
gradation of the four classes after a preconceived plan. The formula
of equating different classes to the different parts of the body of the
Creator has this advantage. The part fixes the gradation of the class
and the gradation in its turn fixes the function of the class. The Brahmin
is equated to the mouth of the Creator. Mouth being the noblest part
of the anatomy, the Brahmin becomes the noblest of the four classes.
As he is the noblest in the scale, he is given the noblest function,
that of custodian of knowledge and learning. The Kshatriya is equated
to the arms of the Creator. Among the limbs of a person, arms
are next below the mouth. Consequently, the Kshatriya is given
an order of precedence next below the Brahmin and is given
a function which is second only to knowledge, namely, fighting. The
Vaishya is equated to the thighs of the Creator. In the gradation of
limbs the thighs are next below the arms. Consequently, the Vaishya
is given an order of precedence next below the Kshatriya and is
assigned a function of industry and trade which in name and fame
ranks or rather did rank in ancient times below that of a warrior.
The Shudra is equated to the feet of the Creator. The feet form the
lowest and the most ignoble part of the human frame. Accordingly,
the Shudra is placed last in the social order and is given the filthiest
function, namely, to serve as a menial.
Why did the Purusha Sukta choose such a method of illustrating
the creation of the four classes? Why did it equate the Shudras to
the feet? Why did it not take some other illustration to show how
the four classes were created. It is not that Purusha is the only stock
simile used to explain creation. Compare the explanation of the origin
of the Vedas contained in the Chhandogya Upanishad. It says:1
“Prajapati infused warmth into the worlds, and from them so heated
he drew forth their essences, viz., Agni (fire) from the earth, Vayu (wind)
from the air, and Surya (the sun) from the sky. He infused warmth into
these three deities, and from them so heated he drew forth their essences,—
from Agni the ric verses, from Vayu the yajus verses and from Surya the
soman verses. He then infused heat into this triple science, and from it
so heated he drew forth its essences—from ric verses the syllable bhuh,
from yajus verses bhuvah, and from Saman verses svar.”
Here is an explanation of the origin of the Vedas from different
deities. So far as the Indo-Aryans are concerned, there was no dearth
of them. There were thirty crores of them. An explanation of the origin
of the four Varnas from four gods would have maintained equality
of dignity by birth of all the four classes. Why did the Purusha Sukta
not adopt this line of explanation?
Again, would it not have been possible for the author of the Purusha
Sukta to say that the different classes were born from the different
mouths of the Purusha. Such a conception could not have been
difficult because the Purusha of the Purusha Sukta has one thousand
heads, enough to assign one species of creation to one of his heads.
Such a method of explaining creation could not have been unknown
to the author of the Purusha Sukta. For we find it used by the Vishnu
Purana to explain the origin of the different Vedas as may be seen
from the following extract:2
1 Muir, Vol. m. p.5
2 Ibid., p. 11.
Vaishya is equated to the thighs of the Creator. In the gradation of
limbs the thighs are next below the arms. Consequently, the Vaishya
is given an order of precedence next below the Kshatriya and is
assigned a function of industry and trade which in name and fame
ranks or rather did rank in ancient times below that of a warrior.
The Shudra is equated to the feet of the Creator. The feet form the
lowest and the most ignoble part of the human frame. Accordingly,
the Shudra is placed last in the social order and is given the filthiest
function, namely, to serve as a menial.
Why did the Purusha Sukta choose such a method of illustrating
the creation of the four classes? Why did it equate the Shudras to
the feet? Why did it not take some other illustration to show how
the four classes were created. It is not that Purusha is the only stock
simile used to explain creation. Compare the explanation of the origin
of the Vedas contained in the Chhandogya Upanishad. It says:1
“Prajapati infused warmth into the worlds, and from them so heated
he drew forth their essences, viz., Agni (fire) from the earth, Vayu (wind)
from the air, and Surya (the sun) from the sky. He infused warmth into
these three deities, and from them so heated he drew forth their essences,—
from Agni the ric verses, from Vayu the yajus verses and from Surya the
soman verses. He then infused heat into this triple science, and from it
so heated he drew forth its essences—from ric verses the syllable bhuh,
from yajus verses bhuvah, and from Saman verses svar.”
Here is an explanation of the origin of the Vedas from different
deities. So far as the Indo-Aryans are concerned, there was no dearth
of them. There were thirty crores of them. An explanation of the origin
of the four Varnas from four gods would have maintained equality
of dignity by birth of all the four classes. Why did the Purusha Sukta
not adopt this line of explanation?
Again, would it not have been possible for the author of the Purusha
Sukta to say that the different classes were born from the different
mouths of the Purusha. Such a conception could not have been
difficult because the Purusha of the Purusha Sukta has one thousand
heads, enough to assign one species of creation to one of his heads.
Such a method of explaining creation could not have been unknown
to the author of the Purusha Sukta. For we find it used by the Vishnu
Purana to explain the origin of the different Vedas as may be seen
from the following extract:2
1 Muir, Vol. m. p.5
2 Ibid., p. 11.
From his eastern mouth Brahma formed the Gayatri, the ric verses,
the trivrit, the sama-rathantara and of sacrifices, the agnistoma. From his
southern mouth he created the yajus verses, the trishtubh metre, the
panchadasa stoma, the brihatsaman, and the ukthya. From his western
mouth he formed the saman verses, the jagati metre, the saptadasa stoma,
the Vairupa, and the atiratra. From his northern mouth he formed the
ekavimsa, the atharvan, the aptoryaman with the anushtubh and viraj
metres.”
The Harivamsa has another way of explanining the origin of the
Vedas. According to it:1
“The god fashioned the Rig Veda with the Yajus from his eyes, the Sama
Veda from the tip of his tongue, and the Atharvan from his head.”
Assuming that for some reason the author of the Purusha Sukta
could not avoid using the body of the Creator and its different parts
for explaining the origin and the relation of the four classes, the question
still remains as to why he chose to equate the different parts of the
Purusha to the different classes in the manner in which he does.
The importance of this question is considerably heightened when
one realizes that the Purusha Sukta is not the only instance in which
the different parts of the body of the Creator are used as illustrations
to explain the origin of the different classes in society. The same
explanation is given by the sage Vaishampayana to explain the origin
of the various classes of priests employed in the performance of
sacrifices. But what a difference is there between the two! The
explanation of Vaishampayana which is reported in the Harivamsa
reads as follows :2
“Thus the glorious Lord Hari Narayana, covering the entire waters, slept
on the world which had become one sea, in the midst of the vast expanse
of fluid (rajas), resembling a mighty ocean, himself free from passion
(virajaskah), with mighty arms; Brahmans know him as the undecaying.
Invested through austere fervour with the light of his own form and clothed
with triple time (past, present and future) the lord then slept. Purushottama
(Vishnu) is whatever is declared to be the highest. Purusha the sacrifice, and
everything else which is known by the name of Purusha. Here how the
Brahmins devoted to sacrifice, and called ritvijas, were formerly produced by
him from his own body for offering sacrifices. The Lord created from his
mouth the Brahman, who is the chief, and the udgatri, who chants the Saman,
from his arms the hotri and the adhvaryu . He then... created the prastotri,
the maitravaruna, and the pratishthatri, from his belly the pratiharti
and the potri, from his thighs the achhavaka and the neshtri, from his
hands the agnidhra and the sacrificial brahmanya, from his arms the
gravan and the sacrificial unnetri. Thus did the divine Lord of the
1 Muir, Vol. ID, p. 13.
2 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 154-155
the trivrit, the sama-rathantara and of sacrifices, the agnistoma. From his
southern mouth he created the yajus verses, the trishtubh metre, the
panchadasa stoma, the brihatsaman, and the ukthya. From his western
mouth he formed the saman verses, the jagati metre, the saptadasa stoma,
the Vairupa, and the atiratra. From his northern mouth he formed the
ekavimsa, the atharvan, the aptoryaman with the anushtubh and viraj
metres.”
The Harivamsa has another way of explanining the origin of the
Vedas. According to it:1
“The god fashioned the Rig Veda with the Yajus from his eyes, the Sama
Veda from the tip of his tongue, and the Atharvan from his head.”
Assuming that for some reason the author of the Purusha Sukta
could not avoid using the body of the Creator and its different parts
for explaining the origin and the relation of the four classes, the question
still remains as to why he chose to equate the different parts of the
Purusha to the different classes in the manner in which he does.
The importance of this question is considerably heightened when
one realizes that the Purusha Sukta is not the only instance in which
the different parts of the body of the Creator are used as illustrations
to explain the origin of the different classes in society. The same
explanation is given by the sage Vaishampayana to explain the origin
of the various classes of priests employed in the performance of
sacrifices. But what a difference is there between the two! The
explanation of Vaishampayana which is reported in the Harivamsa
reads as follows :2
“Thus the glorious Lord Hari Narayana, covering the entire waters, slept
on the world which had become one sea, in the midst of the vast expanse
of fluid (rajas), resembling a mighty ocean, himself free from passion
(virajaskah), with mighty arms; Brahmans know him as the undecaying.
Invested through austere fervour with the light of his own form and clothed
with triple time (past, present and future) the lord then slept. Purushottama
(Vishnu) is whatever is declared to be the highest. Purusha the sacrifice, and
everything else which is known by the name of Purusha. Here how the
Brahmins devoted to sacrifice, and called ritvijas, were formerly produced by
him from his own body for offering sacrifices. The Lord created from his
mouth the Brahman, who is the chief, and the udgatri, who chants the Saman,
from his arms the hotri and the adhvaryu . He then... created the prastotri,
the maitravaruna, and the pratishthatri, from his belly the pratiharti
and the potri, from his thighs the achhavaka and the neshtri, from his
hands the agnidhra and the sacrificial brahmanya, from his arms the
gravan and the sacrificial unnetri. Thus did the divine Lord of the
1 Muir, Vol. ID, p. 13.
2 Muir, Vol. I, pp. 154-155
world create the sixteen excellent ritvijas, the utterers of all sacrifices.
Therefore this Purusha is formed of sacrifice and is called the Veda; and
all the Vedas with the Vedangas, Upanishads and ceremonies are formed
of his essence.”
There were altoghether seventeen different classes of priests
required for the performance of a sacrifice. It could never be possible
for anyone attempting to explain the origin of each by reference to
a distinct part of the body of the Creator to avoid using the feet
of the Purusha as the origin of a class, the limbs of the Purusha
being so few and the number of priests being so many. Yet what
does Vaishampayana do? He does not mind using the same part of
the Creator’s body to explain the origin of more than one class of
priests. He most studiously avoids using the feet as the origin of
anyone of them.
The situation becomes completely intriguing when one compares
the levity with which the Shudras are treated in the Purusha Sukta
with the respect with which the Brahmins are treated in the
Harivamsa in the matter of their respective origins. Is it because
of malice that the Purusha Sukta did not hesitate to say that the
Shudra was born from the feet of the Purusha and that his duty
was to serve? If so what is the cause of this malice?
IV
The riddles about the Shudras mentioned above are those which arise
out of a sociological scrutiny of the Purusha Sukta. There are other
riddles regarding the position of the Shudra which arise out of later
developments of the ideal of Chaturvarnya. To appreciate these
results it is necessary first to take note of these later developments.
The later developments of Chaturvarnya are mainly two. First is the
creation of the fifth class next below the Shudras. The second is the
separation of the Shudras from the first three Varnas. These changes
have become so integrated with the original scheme of the Purusha
Sukta that they have given rise to peculiar terms and expressions
so well-known that everybody understands what they stand for. These
terms are : Savarnas, Avarnas, Dvijas, non-Dvijas, and Traivarnikas.
They stand to indicate the sub-divisions of the original four classes
and the degree of separation between them. It is necessary to take
note of the relative position of these classes because they disclose a
new riddle. If this riddle has not caught the eye of the people, it is
because of two reasons. Firstly, because students have not cared to
Therefore this Purusha is formed of sacrifice and is called the Veda; and
all the Vedas with the Vedangas, Upanishads and ceremonies are formed
of his essence.”
There were altoghether seventeen different classes of priests
required for the performance of a sacrifice. It could never be possible
for anyone attempting to explain the origin of each by reference to
a distinct part of the body of the Creator to avoid using the feet
of the Purusha as the origin of a class, the limbs of the Purusha
being so few and the number of priests being so many. Yet what
does Vaishampayana do? He does not mind using the same part of
the Creator’s body to explain the origin of more than one class of
priests. He most studiously avoids using the feet as the origin of
anyone of them.
The situation becomes completely intriguing when one compares
the levity with which the Shudras are treated in the Purusha Sukta
with the respect with which the Brahmins are treated in the
Harivamsa in the matter of their respective origins. Is it because
of malice that the Purusha Sukta did not hesitate to say that the
Shudra was born from the feet of the Purusha and that his duty
was to serve? If so what is the cause of this malice?
IV
The riddles about the Shudras mentioned above are those which arise
out of a sociological scrutiny of the Purusha Sukta. There are other
riddles regarding the position of the Shudra which arise out of later
developments of the ideal of Chaturvarnya. To appreciate these
results it is necessary first to take note of these later developments.
The later developments of Chaturvarnya are mainly two. First is the
creation of the fifth class next below the Shudras. The second is the
separation of the Shudras from the first three Varnas. These changes
have become so integrated with the original scheme of the Purusha
Sukta that they have given rise to peculiar terms and expressions
so well-known that everybody understands what they stand for. These
terms are : Savarnas, Avarnas, Dvijas, non-Dvijas, and Traivarnikas.
They stand to indicate the sub-divisions of the original four classes
and the degree of separation between them. It is necessary to take
note of the relative position of these classes because they disclose a
new riddle. If this riddle has not caught the eye of the people, it is
because of two reasons. Firstly, because students have not cared to
note that these names are not mere names but that they stand for
definite rights and privileges, and secondly, because they have not
cared to find out whether the groupings made under these names
are logical having regard to the rights and privileges they connote.
Let us therefore see what is the de jure connotation of these terms.
Savarna is generally contrasted with Avarna. Savarna means one who
belongs to one of the four Varnas. Avarna means one who does not
belong to any one of the four Varnas. The Brahmins, Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras are Savarnas. The Untouchables or AtiShudras are called Avarnas, those who have no Varna. Logically, the
Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras are within the
Chaturvarnya. Logically, the Untouchables or the Ati-Shudras are
outside the Chaturvarnya. Dvija is generally contrasted with nonDvija. Dvija literally means twice-born and non-Dvija means one who
is born only once. The distinction is based on the right to have
Upanayana. The Upanayana is treated as a second birth. Those who
have the right to wear the sacred thread are called Dvijas. Those
who have no right to wear it are called non-Dvijas. The Brahmins,
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas have the right to wear the sacred thread.
Logically, they are Dvijas. The Shudras and the Ati-Shudras have
no right to wear the sacred thread. Logically, they are both nonDvijas. The Traivarnika is contrasted with the Shudra. But there is
nothing special in this contrast. It conveys the same distinction which
is conveyed by the distinction between the Dvijas and the non-Dvijas
except the fact that the contrast is limited to the Shudra and does
not extend to the Ati-Shudra. This is probably because this terminology came into being before the rise of the Ati-Shudras as a
separate class.
Bearing in mind that both the Shudra and the Ati-Shudra are nonDvijas, why then is the Shudra regarded as Savarna and the AtiShudra as Avarna ? Why is the former within and why is the latter
outside the Chaturvarnya ? The Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and
Shudras are all within the four corners of the Chaturvarnya. They
are all Savarnas. Why then is the Shudra denied the right of the
Traivarnikas ?
Can there be a greater riddle than the riddle of the Shudras ?
Surely, it calls for investigation and explanation as to who they were
and how they came to be the fourth Varna in the Aryan Society.
definite rights and privileges, and secondly, because they have not
cared to find out whether the groupings made under these names
are logical having regard to the rights and privileges they connote.
Let us therefore see what is the de jure connotation of these terms.
Savarna is generally contrasted with Avarna. Savarna means one who
belongs to one of the four Varnas. Avarna means one who does not
belong to any one of the four Varnas. The Brahmins, Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras are Savarnas. The Untouchables or AtiShudras are called Avarnas, those who have no Varna. Logically, the
Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras are within the
Chaturvarnya. Logically, the Untouchables or the Ati-Shudras are
outside the Chaturvarnya. Dvija is generally contrasted with nonDvija. Dvija literally means twice-born and non-Dvija means one who
is born only once. The distinction is based on the right to have
Upanayana. The Upanayana is treated as a second birth. Those who
have the right to wear the sacred thread are called Dvijas. Those
who have no right to wear it are called non-Dvijas. The Brahmins,
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas have the right to wear the sacred thread.
Logically, they are Dvijas. The Shudras and the Ati-Shudras have
no right to wear the sacred thread. Logically, they are both nonDvijas. The Traivarnika is contrasted with the Shudra. But there is
nothing special in this contrast. It conveys the same distinction which
is conveyed by the distinction between the Dvijas and the non-Dvijas
except the fact that the contrast is limited to the Shudra and does
not extend to the Ati-Shudra. This is probably because this terminology came into being before the rise of the Ati-Shudras as a
separate class.
Bearing in mind that both the Shudra and the Ati-Shudra are nonDvijas, why then is the Shudra regarded as Savarna and the AtiShudra as Avarna ? Why is the former within and why is the latter
outside the Chaturvarnya ? The Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and
Shudras are all within the four corners of the Chaturvarnya. They
are all Savarnas. Why then is the Shudra denied the right of the
Traivarnikas ?
Can there be a greater riddle than the riddle of the Shudras ?
Surely, it calls for investigation and explanation as to who they were
and how they came to be the fourth Varna in the Aryan Society.
Comments
Post a Comment