Pagination in square brackets corresponds to the first edition of Who were the shudras? How they came to be the fourth varna in the Indo-Aryan society? (Bombay: Thacker & Co., 1946).
PREVIOUS | NEXT
III
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 [9] is another cosmogony which is expounded in the 72nd Hymn of the Tenth Mandala of the Rig Veda. It reads as follows:
- 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.
- 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.
- In the first age of the gods the existent was born of the non-existent; after that the quarters (of the horizon) were born, and after them the upward-growing (trees).
- 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.
- Aditi, who was thy daughter, Daksha, was born; after her, the gods were born, adorable, freed from the bonds of death.
- When, gods, you abode in this pool well-arranged, then a pungent dust went forth from you as if you were dancing.
- When, gods, you filled the worlds (with your radiance) as clouds (fill the earth with rain) then you brought forth the sun hidden in the ocean.
- Eight sons (there were) of Aditi who were born from her body; she approached the gods with seven, she sent forth Martanda on high.
- With seven sons Aditi went to a former generation, but she bore Martanda for the birth and death (of human beings.)1Quoting H. H. Wilson, trans., Rig-Veda Sanhita: A Collection of Ancient Hindu Hymns, vol. 6: Part of the Seventh and Eighth Ashtaka of the Rig-Veda (1888, ed. W. F. Webster), pp. 197–98.
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?
[10] Any one who reads the Purusha Sukta will find that it starts with the creation of donkeys, 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.2ANNOTATION: Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” Genesis 1.26 NRSV 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:
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. 3 John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 1 (1890, 3rd ed.), p. 180.
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 [11] 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) Rig Veda, i.114.2: Whatever prosperity or succour father Manu obtained by sacrifice, may we gain all that under thy guidance, O Rudra.
(8) Rig Veda, ii.88.18: 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.
(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.
(5) Rig Veda, iii.8.6: Agni, together with the gods, and the children (jantubhih) of Manush, celebrating a multiform sacrifice with hymns.
(6) Rig Veda, iv. 87.1: 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.
(7) Rig Veda, vi.14.2: The people of Manush praise in the sacrifice Agni the invoker.4John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 1 (1890, 3rd ed.), pp. 162–65.
[12] 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 Indo-Aryans had such deep foundation that it was carried forward by the Brahmanas as well as the Puranas. It is propounded in the Aitareya Brahmana, in the Vishnu Purana and the Matsya Purana. 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.5AMBEDKAR’S NOTE: 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 Saiarupa 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 Parana of incest by Brahma with his daughter. The Aitareya Brahmana and the Matsya Parana on the other hand speak of Brahma having begotten Manu by committing incest with his daughter Satarupa; the Matsya Parana adds that Manu by his austerity obtained a beautiful wife named Ananta. According to the Ramayana (see Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, vol. 1 [1890, 3rd ed.], p. 117) Manu was not a male but a female and was a daughter of Dahsha Prajapati and the wife of Kasyapa. 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, since he too speaks of Virajo adhi Purushah in verse five of the Sukta.
There is a third point in which the Purusha Sukta has gone beyond the Rig Veda. The Vedic Aryans were sufficiently advanced in their 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, i.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 [13] each may go in pursuit of his special and different way of earning his livelihood.6ANNOTATION: This translation is most likely Ambedkar’s own. The phrase “different way of earning his livelihood” is unlikely to come from specialist translators. Moreover, it corresponds neither to John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, vol. 5 (1870), p. 189, nor H. H. Wilson, Rig-Veda Sanhita, vol. 1 (1866, 2nd ed.), pp. 297–98).
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.
(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.7John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 1 (1890, 3rd ed.), pp. 177–78.
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.8John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 1 (1890, 3rd ed.), p. 177. 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.
(2) Rig Veda, vi.46.7: Indra, whatever force or vigour exists in the tribe of Nahusha or whatever glory belongs to the five races bring (for us).9John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 1 (1890, 3rd ed.), pp. 178, 180.
[14] 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:
Rig Veda, i.108.8 : If, O Indra and Agni, ye are abiding among the Yadus, Turoasas, Druhyus, Anus, Purus, come hither, vigorous heroes from all quarters, and drink the Soma which has been poured out.10John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 1 (1890, 3rd ed.), p. 179.
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.11John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 1 (1890, 3rd ed.), p. 179.
A sense of unity and a consciousness of kind12ANNOTATION: The phrase “consciousness of kind” is one that Ambedkar uses often. He attributes it to the “sociologists” of his day (BAWS 1, 50). He takes it from one of his teachers at Columbia University, Franklin Henry Giddings who had elaborated the idea in The Principles of Sociology (first published in 1896). Giddings explains its centrality as follows (pp. v–vi) ‘Believing that sociology is a psychological science, and that the description of society in biological terms is a mistake, I have endeavoured to direct attention chiefly to the psychic aspects of social phenomena. Association and social organization I have attempted to explain as consequences of a particular mental state; namely, the consciousness of kind, which is defined on page 17 as “a state of consciousness in which any being, whether low or high in the scale of life, recognizes another conscious being as of like kind with itself”. The consciousness of kind marks off the animate from the inanimate. Within the wide class of the animate it marks off species and races; within the race it marks off ethnical and political groups, and social classes: it is therefore the psychological ground of social groupings and distinctions. The consciousness of kind, again, continually moves men to act as they would not if they were governed altogether by considerations of utility, fear, loyalty, or reverence; it continually prevents the theoretically perfect working of economic, legal, political, and religious motives: it is therefore the cause of the distinctively social phenomena of communities.’ Ambedkar signed up for as many as four papers offered by Prof. Giddings. In one of those papers, S102 Principles of Inductive Sociology, this book was the required texts.
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 values13An important notion. Ambedkar references it often: BAWS 1, 79-80, 487; BAWS 2, 598; BAWS 10, 105; BAWS 17-3, 45). of our norm. The possibility of revaluing values remains open only when the institution is not invested with sacredness.14 The notion of the sacred is important to Ambedkar. See, especially, BAWS 5, 179-81; BAWS 11, 323. Sacredness prevents revaluation of its values. Once sacred, always sacred. The Purusha Sukta makes the [15] 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 the real and to realize the ideal15ANNOTATION: For other discussions of this important notion, see BAWS 3, 67 and BAWS 1, 218., 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 iniquity 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 conscience16ANNOTATION: An important notion. See BAWS 1, 222; BAWS 5, 99; BAWS 9, 204; BAWS 10, 103. has ever accepted it.
On the contrary, whatever progress in improving the terms of associated life17ANNOTATION: Another extremely important notion. See BAWS 1, 264–67; BAWS 2, 337–38, 441, 559; BAWS 5, 21, 129, etc.; BAWS 10, 42; BAWS 17–3, 519; etc.). Ambedkar takes it from John Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1916), 45, etc. 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. [16] 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 emerge 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 [17] feet of the Creator. The feet forms 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 Shudra 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:
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 saman 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.18John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 3 (1873, 2nd ed.), p. 5.
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. [18] 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:
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.19John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 3 (1873, 2nd ed.), p. 11.
The Harivamsa has another way of explaining the-origin of the Vedas. According to it:
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.20John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 3 (1873, 2nd ed.), p. 13.
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 Vaishyampayana, which is reported in the Harivamsa reads as follows:
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 pratihartri and the potri, from his thighs the achhavdka 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 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.21John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions, vol. 1 (1890, 3rd ed.), pp. 154–55.
There were altogether 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 [20] 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?