_______________________________________________
PART
II
7. Chapter VII - The Shudras were
Kshatriyas
8.
Chapter VIII - The Number
of Varnas, Three or Four?
CHAPTER
VII
WHO
WERE THE SHUDRAS ?
WHO were the Shudras if they were not a non-Aryan aboriginal race? This question must now be faced. The theory I venture to advance may be stated in the following three propositions:
(1) The
Shudras were Aryans.
(2) The
Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya class.
(3) The
Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that some of the most eminent and powerful
kings of the ancient Aryan communities were Shudras.
This thesis regarding the origin of the Shudras is a startling if not a revolutionary thesis. So startling it is that not many people will be ready to accept it, even though there may be enough evidence to support it. My obligation is to produce the evidence, leaving the people to judge its worth.
The
primary piece of evidence on which this thesis rests is a passage which occurs in Verses
38-40 of Chapter 60 of the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata. It reads as follows :
"It
has been heard by us that in the days of old a
Shudra of the name of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in his own sacrifice) consisting of a
hundred thousand Purnapatras according to the ordinance called Aindragni."
The
important statements contained in this passage are three : (1) that Paijavana was a
Shudra, (2) that this Shudra Paijavana performed sacrifices, and (3) the Brahmins
performed sacrifices for him and accepted Dakshina from him.
The
passage quoted above is taken from Mr. Roy's edition of the Mahabharata. The first thing
is to ascertain whether the text is accurate or whether there are any variant readings. As
regards the authenticity of his text, this is what Mr.Roy*[f1]says
:
"As
far as my edition is concerned it is substantially based on that of Royal Asiatic Society
of Bengal, published about forty-five years ago under the superintendence of a few learned
Pandits of Bengal aided, as I believe, by an English Orientalist of repute. Manuscripts
had been procured from all parts of India (the South unexcepted) and these were carefully
collated. Although edited with such care, I have not, however, slavishly followed the
Society's edition. I have compared it carefully with the Maharajah of Burdwan's text in
the Bengalee character which was edited with still greater care. About 18 manuscripts
procured from different parts of India (the South not excepted) were carefully collated by
the Burdwan Pandits before they admitted a single sloka
as genuine."
Prof.
Sukthankar, the erudite editor of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, after examining
many editions of the Mahabharata, concluded by saying that :[f2]
"The
editio princeps
(Calcutta—1856) remains the best edition of the Vulgate, after the lapse of
nearly a century."
Although the authenticity of Mr.Roy's edition of the Mahabharata canot be doubted, it would not be unreasonable if critics were to say that they would like to know what other manuscript support there is behind this text, which is made the basis of this new theory of the origin of the Shudras. In undertaking such an inquiry it is necessary to point to two considerations. One[f3] is that there is no such thing as a Mahabharata manuscript in the sense of complete sets of manuscripts covering all the eighteen Parvans. Each Parvan is treated as a separate unit with the result that the number of copies of the different Parvans to be found differ by a vast margin. Consequently, the number of manuscripts to be taken as a basis for deciding which is the correct text must vary with each Parvan.
The
second[f4]
consideration to which attention must be drawn is the fact that the text of the
Mahabharata has been handed down in two divergent forms; a Northern and a Southern
recension, texts, typical of the Aryavrata and the Dakshinapatha.
It
is obvious that an examination of manuscript support must be based upon collation from a
fair number of manuscripts and a fair distribution of the manuscripts between the Northern
and the Southern recensions. Bearing these considerations in mind, the results of the
collation[f5]
of the text of Shloka 38 of the 60th chapter of
the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata with which we are primarily concerned from different
manuscripts is presented below :
1.
Shudrah Paijavano nama
(K) S
2.
Shudrah Pailavano nama
(M/l: M/2) S
3. Shudrah Yailanano nama (M/3 : M/4) S
4.
Shudmh Yaijanano nama (F)
5.
Shudropi Yajane nama
(L)
6. Shudrah Paunjalka nama (TC) S
7.
Shuddho Vaibhavano nama (G) N
8.
Pura Vaijavano nama (A, D/2)
9.
Pura Vaijanano nama (M) N
Here
is the result of the collation of nine manuscripts. Are nine manuscripts enough for
constituting a text which has a number of variant readings? It is true that the number of
manuscripts taken for the critical edition of the different Parvans of the Mahabharata
exceeds nine. For the entire Mahabharata the minimum number of manuscripts taken for
constituting the text is only ten.[f6]
It cannot therefore be contended that nine is an insufficient number. The nine manuscripts
fall into two geographical divisions. Northern and Southern. MI, M2, M3, M4 and TC belong
to the Southern recession. A, M, G, D2 belong to the Northern recession. The selections of
the manuscripts therefore satisfy the two tests which experts have laid down.
I am grateful to the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute for allowing me to use their collation sheet. Letters in brackets indicate the index number given by the Institute to the manuscript. N or S indicate whether .the manuscript comes from the North or South. K is Kumbhakonam.
A
scrutiny of the readings shows that :
(1) there
is a variation in the description of Paijavana;
(2) there
is a variation in the name of Paijavana;
(3) of
the nine texts, six agree in describing him as a Shudra. One describes him as Shuddha and
two instead of speaking of the class to which he belonged refer to the time when he lived
and use the word 'Pura';
(4) with
regard to the name, there is no agreement between any two of the nine manuscripts. Each
gives a different reading.
Given
this result, the question is what is the real text? Taking first the texts relating to the
name, it is obvious that this is not a matter in which the question of meaning is
involved. It does not raise any questions such as interpretation versus emendation or of giving preference to a
reading which suggests how other readings might have arisen. The question is which is the
correct name and which readings are scriptural blunders committed by the scribes. There
seems to be no doubt that the correct text is Paijavana. It is supported by both the
recessions, Southern as well as Northern. For Vaijavano in No.S is the same as Paijavano.
All the rest are variations which are due to the ignorance of the scribes in not being
able to read the original copy correctly and then trying to constitute the text in their
own way.
Turning
to the description of Paijavana, the change from Shudrah
to Pura, it must be granted, is not
accidental. It appears to be deliberate. Why this change has occurred it is difficult to
say categorically. Two things appear to be quite clear. ln the first place, the change
appears to be quite natural. In the second place, the change does not militate against the
conclusion that Paijavana was a Shudra. The above conclusion will be obvious if the
context, in which verses 38-40 occur, is borne in mind. The context will be clear from the
following verses which precede them:
"The
Shudra should never abandon his master whatever the nature or degree of the distress into
which the latter may fall. If the master loses his wealth, he should with excessive zeal
be supported by the Shudra servant A Shudra cannot have any wealth that is his own.
Whatever he possesses belongs to his master. Sacrifice has been laid down as a duty of the
three other orders. It has been ordained for the Shudra also, 0.! Bharata. A Shudra
however is not competent to utter swaha and svadha or any other mantra. For this reason, the Shudra, without
observing the vows laid down in the Vedas, should worship the gods in minor sacrifices
called Pakayajnas. The gift called Pumapatra
is declared to be the Dakshina of such sacrifices."
Taking
the verses 38 to 40 in the context of these verses preceding them, it becomes clear that
the whole passage deals with the Shudra. The story of Paijavana is a mere illustration.
Against this background, it is unnecessary to
repeat the word 'Shudra' before Paijavana. This explains why the word Shudra does not
occur before Paijavana in the two manuscripts. As to the reason for the use of the word pura in place of Shudra it must be remembered that
the case of Paijavana had occurred in very ancient times. It was therefore quite natural
for the scribe to feel that it was desirable to put this fact in express terms. The writer
being aware that there was no necessity for describing Paijavana as Shudra since that was
made clear from the context, it was not necessary to emphasise it. On the other hand,
knowing that Paijavana had lived in very ancient times and that that fact was not made
very clear from the context, the writer thought it more appropriate to add the word Pura which was necessary and omit the word Shudrah which having regard to the context was
unnecessary.
If
this explanation is well-founded, we may take it as well established that the person
referred to in the passage in the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata is Paijavana and that
this Paijavana was a Shudra.
The
next question that falls due for consideration is the identification of Paijavana. Who is
this Paijavana?
Yaska's
Nirukta seems to give us a clue. In Nirukta ii.24 [f7]
Yaska Says:
"The
seer Vishvamitra was the purohita of Sudas, the son of Pijavana, Vishvamitra, friend of
all. All, moving together. Sudas a bountiful giver. Paijavana, son of Pijavana. Again Pi-javana one whose speed is enviable or whose
gait is inimitable."
From Yaska's Nirukta we get two very important facts : (1) Paijavana means son of Pijavana, and (2) the person who is the son of Paijavana is Sudas. With the help of Yaska, we are able to answer the question: who is Paijavana referred to in the passage in the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata? The answer is that Paijavana is simply another name for Sudas.
The
next question is who is this Sudas and what do we know about him? A search in the
Brahmanic literature discloses three persons with
the name Sudas. One Sudas is mentioned in the Rig Veda. His family particulars are given
in the following stanzas of the Rig Veda :[f8]
1. Rig Veda, vii.18.21.—" Parashara, the
destroyer of hundreds (of Rakshasas), and Vasishtha, they who, devoted to thee, have
glorified thee in every dwelling, neglect not the friendship of thee (their) benefactor;
therefore prosperous days dawn upon the pious."
2. Rig Veda, vii. 18.22.— "Praising the
liberality of Sudas, the grandson of Devavata, the son of Paijavana, the donor of two
hundred cows, and of two chariots with two wives, I, worthy (of the gift), circumambulate
thee, Agni, like the ministrant priest in the chamber (of sacrifice)"
3. Rig Veda, vii.18.23.— "Four (horses),
having golden trappings, going steadily on a difficult road, celebrated on the earth, the
excellent and acceptable gifts (made) to me by Sudas, the son of Pijavana; bear me as a
son (to obtain) food and progeny."
4. Rig Veda, vii. 18.24.— "The seven worlds
praise (Sudas) as if he were Indra; him whose fame (spreads) through the spacious heaven
and earth; who, munificent, has distributed (wealth) on every eminent person, and (for
whom) the flowing (rivers) have destroyed Yudhyamadhi in war."
5. Rig Veda, vii.18.25.— "Maruts, leaders (of rites), attend upon this
(prince) as you did upon Divodasa, the father of Sudas: favour the prayers of the devout
son of Pijavana, and may his strength be unimpaired, undecaying."
The
two others are mentioned by the Vishnu Purana. One Sudas is mentioned in Chapter IV as the
descendant of Sagara. The genealogical tree connecting this Sudas with Sagara is as
follows:[f9]
"Sumati, the daughter of Kasyapa and Kesini, the daughter of Raja Vidarbha, were the two wives of Sagara. Being without progeny, the king solicited the aid of the sage Aurva with great earnestness, and the Muni pronounced this boon, that one wife should bear one son, the upholder of his race, and the other should give birth to sixty thousand sons; and he left it to them to make their election. Kesini chose to have the single son; Sumati the multitude; and it came to pass in a short time that the former bore Asamanjas, a prince through whom the dynesty continued; and the daughter of Vinata (Sumati) had sixty thousand sons. The son of Asamanjas was Ansumat.
***
The son of Ansumat was Dilipa; his son was Bhagiratha, who brought Ganga down to earth, whence she is called Bhagirathi. The son of Bhagiratha was Sruta; his son was Nabhaga; his son was Ambarisha; his son was Sindhudvipa; his son was Ayutashva; his son was Ritupama, the friend of Nala, skilled profoundly in dice. The son of Ritupama was Sarvakama; his son was Sudasa; his son was Saudasa, named also Mitrasaha."
Another Sudas is mentioned in Chapter XIX as a descendant of Puru. The genealogical tree connecting this Sudas with Puru is as follows :[f10]
"The
son of Puru was Janamejaya; his son was Prechinvat; his son was Pravira, his son was
Manasyu; his son was Bhayada; his son was Sudhumna; his son was Bahugava; his son was Samyati; his son
was Bhamyati; his son was Raudrashva, who had ten sons, Riteyu, Kaksheyu, Stnandileyu,
Ghriteyu, Jaleyu, Sthaleyu, Dhaneyu, Vaneyu, and Vrateyu. The son of Riteyu was Rantinara
whose sons were Tansu. Aprtiratha, and Dhruva. The son of the second of these was Kanva,
and his son was Medhatithi, from whom the Kanvayana Brahmans are descended. Anila was the
son of Tansu, and he had four sons, of whom Dushyanta was the elder. The son cf Dushyanta
was the emperor Bharata;...
Bharata had by different wives nine sons, but they were put to death by their own mothers, because Bharata remarked that they bore no resemblance to him, and the women were afraid that he would therefore desert them. The birth of his sons being thus unavailing, Bharata, sacrificed to the Maruts, and they gave him Bharadvaja, the son of Brihaspati by Mamata the wife of Utathya.
***
He
was also termed Vitatha, in allusion to the unprofitable (vitatha) birth of the sons of Bharata. The son
of Vitatha was Bhavanmanyu: his sons were many, and amongst them the chief were
Brihatkshatra, Mahavirya, Nara and Garga. The son
of Nara was Sankriti; his sons were Ruchiradhi and Rantideva. The son of Garga was Sini;
and their descendants called Gargyas and Sainyas, although Kshatriyas by birth, became
Brahmins. The son of Mahavirya was Urukshaya, who had three sons, Trayyaruna, Pushkarin
and Kapi, the last of whom became a Brahmin. The son of Brihatkshatra was Suhotra, whose
son was Hastin, who founded the city of Hastinapur. The sons of Hastin were Ajamidha,
Dvimidha and Purumidha. One son of Ajamidha was Kanva, whose son was Medhatithi, his other
son was Brihadshu, whose son was Brinadvasu; his
son was Brihatkarman: his son was Jayadratha, his 'son was Vishvajit, his son was Senajit,
whose sons were Ruchirashva, Kasya, Dridhadhanush, and Vasahanu. The son of Ruchiraswa was
Prithusena: his son was Para; his son was Nipa; he had a hundred sons, of whom Samara, the
principal, was the ruler of Kampilya. Samara had three sons, Para, Sampara, Sadashva. The
son of Para was Prithu; his son was Sukriti; his son was Vibhratra; his son was Anuha, who
married Kritvi, the daughter of Shuka (the son of Vyasa), and had by her Brahmadatta; his
son was Vishvaksena; his son was Udaksena; and his son was Bhallata. The son of Dvimidha
was Yavinara; his son was Dhritimat; his son was Satyadhriti; his son was Dridhanemi; his
son was Suparshva,' his son was Sumati; his son was Sannatimat; his son was Krita, to whom
Hiranyanabha taught the philosophy of the Yoga, and he compiled twenty-four Sanhitas (or
compendia) for the use of the eastern Brahmins, who study the Sama-Veda. The son of Krita
was Ugrayudha, by whose prowess the Nipa race of Kshatriyas was destroyed; his son was
Kshemya; his son was Suvira; his son was Nripanjaya; his son was Bahuratha. These were all
called Pauravas.
Ajamidha
had a wife called Nilini, and by her he had a son named Nila: his son was Santi; his son
was Susanti; his son was Purujanu; his son was Chakshu; his son was Haryashva, who had
five sons. Mudgala, Srinjaya, Brihadishu. Pravira, and Kampilya. Their father said,
"These my five (pancha) sons are able (alam) to protect the countries'; and hence
they were termed the Panchalas. From Mudgala descended the Maudgalya Brahmins; he had also
a son named Bahvashva, who had two children, twins, a son and daughter, Divodasa and
Ahalya.
***
The
son of Divodasa was Mitrayu; his son was Chyavana; his son was Sudasa; his son was
Saudasa, also called Sahadeva; his son was Somaka; he had a hundred sons, of whom Jantu
was the eldest, and Prishata the youngest. The son of
Prishata was Drupada; his son was Dhrishtadyumna; his son was Drishtaketu.
Another
son of Ajamidha was named Riksha; his son was Samvarana; his son was Kuru, who gave his
name to the holy district Kurukshetra; his sons were Sudhanush, Parikshit, and many
others. The son of Sudhanush was Suhotra; his son was Chyavana; his son was Kritaka; his
son was Uparichara the Vasu, who had seven children Brihadratha, Pratyagra, Kushamba,
Mavella, Matsya, and others. The son of Brihadratha was Kusagra; his son was Rishabha; his
son was Pushpavat; his son was Satyadhrita; his son was Sudhanvan; and his son was Jantu.
Brihadratha had another son, who being born in two parts, which were put together (sandhita) by a female fiend named Jara, he was
denominated Jarasandha; his son was Sahadeva; his son was Somapi; his son was Srutasravas,
These were kings of Magadha."
The immediate ancestry of the three Sudasas is put below in parallel columns to facilitate the settlement of the question whether they are one or three different persons:
|
Status
in Rig |
Veda |
|
Sudas
in Vishnu Purana |
VII,
18:22 |
VII,
18:23 |
VlI
18:25 |
In
the Sagar Family |
In
the Puru Family |
Devavata
Pijavana |
Pijavana
Sudas |
Divodasa=
Pijavana |
Rituparna |
Bahvashva
|
|
|
|
Sarvakama |
Divodasa
|
Sudas |
|
Sudas |
|
Mitrayu |
|
|
|
Sudas |
Chyavana
|
|
|
|
Saudasa= |
Sudas |
|
|
|
Mitrasaha |
Saudasa |
|
|
|
|
Somaka |
From
the table two things are as clear as day-light. First is that neither Sudas mentioned in
the Vishnu Purana has anything to do with the Sudas mentioned in the Rig Veda. The second
point which is clear is that if the Paijavana mentioned in the Mahabharata can be
identified with anybody who lived in ancient times it can only be with Sudas mentioned in
Rig Veda who was called Paijavana because he was the son of Pijavana which was another
name of Divodasa.[f11]
Fortunately.
for me my conclusion is the same as that of Prof.Weber. In commenting upon the passage in
the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata on which my thesis is based Prof.Weber[f12]
says :
"Here the remarkable tradition is recorded that Paijavana, i.e., Sudas who was so famous for his sacrifices and who is celebrated in the Rig Veda as the patron of Vishvamitra and enemy of Vasishtha, was a Shudra."
Prof.Weber
unfortunately did not realize the full significance of this passage. This is another
matter. It is enough for my purpose to find that he too thinks that the Paijavana of the
Mahabharata is no other than Sudas of the Rig Veda.
What
do we know about Sudas, the Paijavana?
The following particulars are available about him:
1. Sudas
was neither Dasa nor Arya. Both the Dasas as well as the Aryas were his enemies[f13]
This means that he was a Vedic Aryan.
2. The
father of Sudas was Divodasa. He seems to be the adopted son of Vadhryashva.[f14]
Divodasa was a king. He fought many battles against Turvasas and Yadus,[f15]
Shambara,[f16]
Parava, and Karanja [f17]
and Gungu.[f18]
There was a war between Turyavana and Divodasa and his allies Ayu and Kutsa. The victory
went to Turyavana.[f19]
It
seems that at one time Indra was against him particularly in the battle of Turyavana. His
purohita was Bharadvaja,[f20]
to whom Divodasa gave many gifts. [f21]Bharadvaja
seems to have played the part of a traitor by joining Turyavana against Divodasa.[f22]
There
is no reference to the mother of Sudas. But there is a reference to the wife of Sudas. His
wife's name is given as Sudevi. [f23]It
is said that the Ashvins procured her for Sudas.
3. Sudas was a king and his coronation ceremony was performed by the
Brahma-rishi, Vasistha. The Aitarreya Brahmana gives the following list of the kings who
had the Mahabhisheka ceremony performed and the name of the Purohita who officiated at it.[f24]
"With this ceremony Sharyata, the son of Manu, was inaugurated by Chyavana, the son of Bhrigu. Thence Sharyata went conquering all over the earth, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse, and was even at the sacrificial session held by the gods, the house-father."
"With
this ceremony Samasushama, the son of Vajaratna, inaugurated Shatanika,
the son of Satrajit. Thence Shatanika went conquering
everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial
horse."
"With
this ceremony Parvata and Narada inaugurated Ambashthya. Thence Ambashthya went conquering
everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial
horse."
"With
this ceremony Parvata and Narada inaugurated Yudhamasraushti, the son of Ugrasena. Thence
Yudhamasraushti went conquering everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and
sacrificed the sacrificial horse."
"With
this inauguration ceremony Kashyapa inaugurated Vishva-karma, the son of Bhuvana. Thence
Vishvakarma went conquering everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed
the sacrificial horse." "They say that the earth sang to Vishvakarma the
following stanza: "No mortal is allowed to give me away (as donation). [f25]0,
Vishva-karma, thou hast given me, (therefore) I shall plunge into the midst of the sea. In
vain was thy promise made to Kashyapa.' "
"With this ceremony Vasishtha inaugurated Sudas, the son of Pijavana. Thence Sudas went conquering everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial horse."
"With
this inauguration ceremony Samvarta, the son of Angiras, inaugurated Maruta, the son of
Avikshit Thence Maruta went conquering everywhere over the whole earth up to its ends, and sacrificed the sacrificial
horse."
In
this list there is a specific mention of Sudas and of his coronation having been performed
by Vasishtha.
Sudas
was the heroin the famous Dasharajna Yuddha or the battle of the ten kings described in
the Rig Veda. References to this famous battle
occur in the various Suktas of the Seventh Mandala of the Rig Veda.
Sukta 83 says:
4. "Indra and Varuna, you protected Sudas, overwhelming the yet unassailed Bheda with your fatal weapons; hear the prayers of these Tritsus in time of battle, so that my ministration may have borne them fruit."
6.
"Both (Sudas and the Tritsus) call upon you two, (Indra and Varuna), in combats for
the acquirement of wealth, when you defend Sudas, together with the Tritsus, when attacked
by the ten Rajas."
7.
"The ten confederated irreligious Rajas did not prevail, Indra and Varuna, against
Sudas; the praise of the leaders (of rites), the offerers of sacrificial food, was
fruitful; the gods were present at their sacrifices."
9.
"One of you destroys enemies in battle, the other ever protects religious
observances; we invoke you. showerers (of benefits), with praises; bestow upon us, Indra
and Varuna, felicity."
Sukta 33 says:
2. "Disgracing (Pashadyumna), they brought from afar the fierce Indra, when drinking the ladle of Soma at his sacrifice, to (receive) the libation (of Sudas); Indra hastened from the effused Soma of Pashadyumna, the son of Vayata, to the Vasishthas."
3.
"In the same manner was he, (Sudas), enabled by them easily to cross the Sindhu
river; in the same manner, through them he easily slew his foes; so in like manner,
Vasishthas, through your prayers, did Indra defend Sudas in the war with the ten
kings."
"Suffering
from thirst, soliciting (rain), supported (by the Tritsus) in the war with the ten Rajas,
(the Vasishthas) made Indra radiant as the sun; Indra heard (the praises) of Vasishtha
glorifying him, and bestowed a spacious region on the Tritsus."
.
Sukta
19 says:
3.
"Undaunted (Indra), thou hast protected with all thy protecti-ons Sudas, the offerer
of oblations; thou hast protected, in battles with enemies for the possession of the
earth, TRASADASYU, the son of PURUKUTSA. and PURU."
6. "Thy favours, Indra, to Sudas, the donor (of offerings), the presenter of oblations, are infinite;showerer (of benefits)I yoke for thee (thy vigorous) steeds; may our prayers, reach thee who art mighty, to whom many rites are addressed."
Sukta
18 of the Seventh Mandala says :
5. "The adorable Indra made the well-known deep waters (of the Parushni) fordable for Sudas, and converted the vehement awakening imprecation of the sacrificer into the calumniation of the rivers."
6.
"TURVASHA, who was preceding (at solen rites), diligent in sacrifice, (went to Sudas)
for wealth; but like fishes restricted (to the element of water), the Bhrigus and Druhyus
quickly assailed them; of these two everywhere going, the friend (of Sudas, Indra) rescued
his friend."
7.
"Those who dress the oblation, those who pronounce auspicious words, those who
abstain from penance, those who bear horns (in their hands), those who bestow happiness
(on the world by sacrifice), glorify that Indra, who recovered the cattle of the Arya from
the plunderers, who slew the enemies in battle."
8."
The evil-disposed and stupid (enemies of Sudas), crossing the humble Parushni river, have
broken down its banks;but he by his greatness pervades the earth, and KAVI. the son of
CHAYAMANA, like a falling victim, sleeps (in death)."
9.
"The waters followed their regular course to the Parushni, nor (wandered) beyond it;
the quick course (of the king) came to the accessible places, and INDRA made the
idly-talking enemies, with their numerous progeny, subject among them (to Sudas)."
10.
"They who ride on parti-coloured cattle, (the Maruts), despatched by PRISHNI,
and recalling the engagement made by them with their friend (Indra),
came like cattle from the pasturage, when left without a herdsman; the exulting Niyut steeds brought them quickly (against the foe)."
11.
"The hero INDRA created the Maruts (for the assistance of the Raja), who, ambitious
of fame, slew one and twenty of the men on the two banks (of the Parushni), as a
well looking priest lops the sacred grass in the chamber of
sacrifice."
12.
"Thou, the bearer of the thunderbolt, didst drown SHRUTA, KAVASHA, VRIDDHA, and
afterwards DRUHYU in the waters; for they, Indra, who are
devoted to thee, and glorify thee, preferring thy friendship, enjoy it."
13.
"Indra, in his might, quickly demolished all their strongholds, and their seven
(kinds of ) cities; he has given the dwelling of the son of ANU to TRITSU; may we, (by
propitiating), (Indra) conquer in battle the ill-speaking man."
14.
"The warriors of the ANUS and DRUHYUS. intending (to carry off the) cattle, (hostile)
to the pious (SUDAS), perished to the number of sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty;
such are all the glorious acts of INDRA."
15.
"These hostile Tritsus, ignorantly
contending with INDRA, fled, routed as rapidly as rivers on a downward course, and being discomfited abandoned all their possessions to SUDAS."
16.
"INDRA has scattered over the earth the hostile rival of the hero (SUDAS), the senior
of INDRA, the appropriator of the
oblation; INDRA has baffled the wrath of the wrathful enemy,
and the (foe) advancing on the way (against SUDAS) has taken the path of flight."
17.
"INDRA has effected a valuable (donation) by a pauper; he has slain an old lion by a
goat; he has cut the angles of the sacrificial post with a needle; he has, given all the spoils (of the enemy) to SUDAS."
18.
"Thy numerous enemies, INDRA, have been reduced to subjugation,' effect at some time
or other the subjugation of the turbulent BHEDA.who holds men praising thee as guilty of
wickedness; hurl, INDRA, thy sharp thunderbolt against him."
19.
"The dwellers on the Yamuna and Tritsus glorified INDRA when he killed BHEDA in battle; the Ajas, the Shigrus, the Yakshas, offered to
him as a sacrifice the heads of the horses killed in the combat"
20.
"Thy favours, INDRA, and thy bounties, whether old or new, cannot be counted like the
(recurring) dawns; thou hast slain DEVAKA, the son of MANYAMANA and of thine own will hast
cast down SHAMBARA from the vast (mountain)."
In
this batte the kings who fought against Sudas were: [f26](1)
Shinyu, (2) Turvasha, (3) Druhyu, (4) Kavasha, (5) Puru, (6)
Anu, (7) Bheda, (8) Shambara, (9) Vaikama, (10) another Vaikama, (II) Yadu, (12) Matsya,
(13) Paktha, (14) Bhalanas, (15) Aleena, (16) Vishanin, (17)
Aja, (18) Shiva, (19) Shigru, (20) Yakshu,
(21) Yudhyamadhi, (22) Yadva,
(23) Devaka Manyamana, (24) Chayamana Kavi, (25) Sutuka, (26)
Uchatha, (27) Shruta, (28) Vriddha, (29) Manyu, and (30)
Prithu.
Obviously,
the war was a much bigger war than its name indicates. The war must have been a very great
event in the history of the Indo-Aryans. No wonder the victorious Sudas became a great
hero of his time.[f27]
We do not know what exactly led to this war. Some indication is given by Rig Veda,
vii.83.7, where the kings arrayed against Sudas are described as irreligious which
suggests that it was probably a religious war.
4. Sayanacharya,
as well as tradition, declare the following hymns of the Rig Veda to have had the
under-mentioned kings for their rishis :
"Vitahavya
(or Bharadva)a) x.9, Sindhudvipa, son of Ambarisha (or
Trisiras, son of Tvashtri)
x.75,Sindhukshit, son of Priyamedha;
x.l33, Sudas, son of Pijavana; x.l34, Mandhatri, son of Yuvanasa;x.l79,
Sibi, son of Usinara, Pratardana,
son of Divodasa and king of Kasi,
and Vasumanas, son of Rohidasva;
and x.l48 is declared to have had Prithi Vainya."
It
will be noticed that in this list there occurs the name of Sudas as a composer of Vedic hymns.
5. Sudas performed Ashvamedha Yajna. There is reference to this in Rig Veda, iii.53.
9.
"The great RISHI,
the generator of the gods, attracted by the deities, the overlooker of the leaders (at
holy rites), VISHVA-MITRA arrested
the watery stream when he sacrificed for SUDAS; INDRA with the Kushikas, was pleased."
11.
"Approach, Kushikas, the steed of SUDAS;
animate (him), and let him loose to (win) riches (for the raja); for the king (of the
gods), has slain VRITRA in the
East, in the West, in the North, therefore let (SUDAS) worship him in the best (regions)
of the earth."
6. Sudas was known for charity to the Brahmins who called him Atithigva (the doyen) of Philanthrophists. How the Brahmins have praised him for his philanthrophy appears from the following references in the Rig Veda:
i.47.6.
"0, impetuous Ashvins, possessing wealth in your car,
bring sustenance to Sudas. Send to us from the (aerial)
ocean, or the sky, the riches which are much coveted."
i.63.7.
"Thou didst then, 0,thundering
Indra, war against, and shatter, the seven cities for Purukutsa, when thou, 0 king, didst without effort hurl away
distress from Sudas like a bunch of grass, and bestow wealth
on Puru."
i. 112.19. "Come, 0 Ashvins, with those succours whereby
ye brought glorious power to Sudas."
vii. 19.3. "Though, 0 fierce Indra,
hast impetuously protected Sudas, who offered oblations, with every kind of succour. Thou hast preserved Trasadasyu the son of Purukutsa, and Puru in his conquest of
land and in his slaughter of enemies."
vii.20.2
"Indra growing in force slays Vritra;
the hero protects him who praises him; he makes room for Sudas
(or the liberal sacrificer- Sayana);
he gives riches repeatedly to his worshippers."
vii.25.3.
"Let a hundred succours come to Sudas, a thousand desirable
(gifts) and prosperity. Destroy the weapon of the murderous.
Confer renown and wealth on us."
vii.32.10.
"No one can oppose or stop the chariot of Sudas. He
whom Indra, whom the Marutas,
protect, walks in a pasture filled with cattle."
vii.53.3.
"And ye, 0, Heaven and Earth, have many gifts of wealth for Sudas."
vii.60.8.
"Since Aditi, Mitra, and Varuna, afford secure protection to Sudas
(or the liberal man), bestowing on him offspring—may we not, 0 mighty deities,
commit any offence against the gods ... May Aryaman rid us
of our enemies. (Grant) ye vigorous gods, a wide space to Sudas."
These
are the biographical bits regarding Paijavana referred to in
the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata gleaned from the most authentic source, namely, the
Rig Veda. From the Rig Veda, we know that his real name was Sudas,
that he was a Kshatriya. He was more than a Kshatriya. He
was a king and a mighty king. To this, the Mahabharata adds a fresh and a new detail,
namely that he was a Shudra. A Shudra
to be an Aryan, a Shudra to be a Kshatriya and a Shudra to
be a king!! Can there be a greater revelation? Can there be
anything more revolutionary?
This
search for .biographical details may be closed with a
discussion of three important questions: .Was Sudas an Aryan? If Sudas is,an Aryan what is the tribe to which he
belonged? If Sudas is a Shudra, what does Shudra signify?
It
might be well to begin with the second. For the determination of this question it is
possible to derive some assistance from certain reference in the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda
mentions many tribes, most important of which are Tritsus, Bharatas, Turvasas, Durhyus, Yadus, Purus and Anus.
But according to the references in the Rig Veda there are only three with whom Sudas was
connected. They are Purus, Tritsus and the Bharatas. It is enough to confine ourselves to
these three and to find out if possible to which of these tribes he belonged. The most
important stanzas bearing on the relation between Tritsus and Sudas are the Rig Veda,
i.63.7; i. 130.7; vii.l8.15; vii.33.5;vii.33.6; vii.83:4,6.
In
i.63,7,Divodasa is spoken of as the king of the Purus and in
i.130.7, Divodasa is spoken of
as Paurve, i.e., belonging to the Purus.
Rig
Veda,vii.l8.15 and vii.83.6, suggest that Sudas was not a Tritsu. The first suggests that Sudas raided the camp of
Tritsus who ran away and Sudas took possession of their wealth. The second suggests that
Tritsus and Sudas were on one side in the war against the ten kings, but they are shown as
separate. But in vii.35.5 and in vii.83.4, Sudas becomes fully identified with Tritsus;
indeed, in the former Sudas becomes a king of the Tritsus.
On
this question of the relation between the Tritsus and the Bharatas and between them and
Sudas, we have as our evidence Rig Veda, vii.33.6 and v. 16.4, 6, 19. According to the first, Tritsus are the same as
the Bharatas. According to the second, Divodasa the father of Sudas is spoken of as
belonging to the Bharatas.
From
these references one thing is certain that the Purus, Tritsus and Bharatas were either
different branches of one and the same folk or that they were different tribes, who in the
course of time became one people, folk. This is not impossible. The only question is:
assuming they were different, to whom did Sudas originally belong? To the Purus, the
Tritsus or to the Bharatas? Having regard to the connection of the Purus and the Bharatas
with Divodasa, his father, it seems natural to suppose that
Sudas originally belonged either to the Purus or to the, Bharatas—which, iris
difficult to say.
Whether
he belonged to the Purus or not, there is no doubt that
Sudas belonged to the Bharatas if regard is had to the fact that his father Divodasa is spoken of as belonging to the Bharatas. The next question is: who were these Bharatas and
whether they are the people after whom India got the name Bharata
Bhumi or the land of the Bharatas. This question is
important because most people are not aware of the true facts. When Hindus talk of the
Bharatas they have in mind the Daushyanti Bharatas, Bharatas
descended from Dushyanta and Shakuntala
and who fought the war which is described in the Mahabharata.
Not only are they not aware of any other Bharatas but they believe that the name Bharata
Bhumi which was given to India was given after the Daushyanti Bharatas.
There
are two Bharatas quite distinct from each other. One tribe of the Bharatas are the
Bharatas of the Rig Veda, who were descended from Manu and
to whom Sudas belonged. The other tribe of Bharatas are the
Daushyanti Bharatas. What is more important is that if India has been named Bharata Bhumi
it is after the Bharatas of the Rig Veda and not after the Daushyanti Bharatas. This is
made clear by the following stanzas from the Bhagavata Purana:[f28]
Priyamvadho
nama sutho manoh swayambhuvasya ha !
Thasyagnigrasthatho
nabhitrishbhashcha suthasthathah !!
Avatheerana
puthrashatham thasyasidrahaychaparagham !
Vikyatham
varshamethaghyannaamnaa bharathamuthapram !!
"Manu,
the son of Syavambhu, had a son named Priyamvada; his son was Agnidhra:
his son was Nabhi: he had a
son Rishabha. He had a hundred
sons born to him, all learned
in the Veda; of them, Bharata was the eldest, devoted to Narayana, by whose name this excellent land is known as Bharata."
This
shows to what illustratious line of kings this Shudra Sudas belonged.
The next thing to find out is whether Sudas was an Aryan. The Bharatas were of course Aryans and therefore Sudas must have been an Aryan. If reference is had to Rig Veda, vii. 18.7, this connection with the Tritus to the Aryans seems to throw some doubt on his Aryan origin. This stanza says that Indra rescued the cows of the Aryas from the Tritus and killed the Trtsus, thereby suggesting that the Tritsus were the enemies of the Aryas. Griffiths is very much perturbed by the Tritsus being shown as non-Aryans which is the result of a literal translation of the stanza, and to avoid it he understands cows to mean comrade.[f29] This of course is unnecessary if one bears in mind that the Rig Veda contains the story of two sorts of Aryas, whether differing in race or religion, it is difficult to say. Interpreted in the light of this fact, all that the stanza means is that at the time when it was written the Tritsus had not become Aryans by religion. It does not mean that they were not Aryans by race. It is therefore indisputable that Sudas, whether taken as a Bharata or as a Tritsu was an Aryan.
And
now to the last question, though it is by no means the least. What does Shudra signify? In the light of this new discovery that Sudas
was a Shudra, the word now stands in a totally different
light. To old scholars to whom the word was just the name of a servile and aboriginal class this new discovery must come as a
surprise for which their past researches cannot possibly
furnish an answer. As for myself, I am in no better position. The reason is that the
social organisation of the Vedic Aryans has-yet to be studied. We know from the study of primitive
societies that they are organised in groups and they act as groups. The groups are of
various sons. There are clans, phratries, moieties and
tribes. In some cases, the tribe is the primary unit, in others it is the clan, in others
the phratry. In some cases tribes are sub-divided into
clans. In other cases there are no clans. It is a single clanless tribe.
The
clan embraces the descendants of a single ancestor held together by a sense of common
descent. Clans often become associated through common social and ceremonial interests into
major units, called phratries or brotherhoods of clans. The bond within the phratry may be
relatively loose, that is, the association may not imply more than an informal feeling of
preferential friendship. The phratry may become a moiety in which each clan is recognised
as part of one of two major units. But moieties may occur without any sub-division, that
is, the entire clan may consist of two clans. All these organisations whether it is a
clan, a phratry, a moiety or a tribe, are all based on the
tie of kinship.
The
Vedic Aryans had no doubt some such forms of social organisation. That is clear from the
nomenclature. As pointed out by Prof. Senart :[f30]
"The
Vedic hymns are all too indefinite
concerning the details of external and social life. We at
least see from them that the Aryan population was divided into a number of tribes or small
peoples (janas),
subdivided into clans united by the ties of kinship (visas),
which in their turn were split up into families. The terminology of the Rig Veda, is in
this respect somewhat indecisive, but the general fact is clear. Sajata, that is to
say, kinsman' or 'fellow in Jati,' of race, seems in the Atharva-Veda to denote fellow in clan (vis). Jana, which
assumes a wider significance, recalls the Avestic
equivalent of the clan, the zantu, and the jati or caste. A series of terms, vra, vrijana,
vraja, vrata, appear to
be synonyms or subdivisions either of the clan or of the tribes. The Aryan population then
lived, at the epoch to which the hymns refer, under the rule of an organisation dominated
by the traditions of the tribe and the lower or similar groupings. The very variety of
names indicates that -this organisation was somewhat
unsettled."
We
have, however, no information to determine which of these corresponds to the clan, which
to the phratry and which to the tribe. [f31]That
being so, it is difficult to say whether Shudra was the
name of a clan, a phratry or a tribe. It is, however, interesting to refer to the view of
Prof. Weber when he comments on the passage from the Satapatha
Brahmana (i.1.4.12) where it says that different modes of
address should be adopted inviting the sacrificer to
proceed with the sacrifice, addressing him as 'come' if he is a Brahmin, 'hasten
hither' if he is a Kshatriya,
'hasten hither' if he is a Vaishya and 'run hither' if he is a Shudra. Prof.Weber says :[f32]
"The
entire passage is of great importance, as it shows (in opposition to what Roth says in the
first Volume of this Journal, p. 83) that the Shudras were then admitted to the holy sacrifices of the
Aryans, and understood their speech, even if they did not
speak it. The latter point cannot certainly be assumed as a
necessary consequence, but it is highly probable and I consequently incline to the view of
those who regard the Shudras as an Aryan tribe which immigrated into India before
the others."
His
conclusion that the Shudras were Aryans hits the nail
squarely on the head. The only point of doubt is whether
the Shudras were a tribe. That they were Aryans and Kshatriyas is beyond doubt.
CHAPTER
VIII
THE
NUMBER OF VARNAS, THREE OR FOUR ?
THAT
there were from the very beginning four Varnas
in the Indo-Aryan society is a view which is universally accepted by all classes of
Hindus, and also by European scholars. If the thesis advanced in the last chapter, namely,
that the Shudras were Kshatriyas is accepted, then it follows that this theory is wrong
and that there was a time when there were only three Varnas
in the Indo-Aryan society, viz.. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Thus, the thesis,
while it solves one problem, at the same time creates another. Whether anybody else sees
the importance of this problem or not, I do. Indeed, I am aware of the fact that unless I
succeed in proving that there were originally only three Varnas, my thesis that the Shudras were Kshatriyas
may not be said to be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.
While
it is unfortunate that I should have landed on a thesis, which, while holding out a
promise of solving the problem, creates another, I feel fortunate in having strong and
cogent evidence to show that there were originally only three Vamas among the Indo-Aryans.
The
first piece of evidence I rely upon is that of the Rig Veda itself. There are some
scholars who maintain that the Varna system did not exist in the age of the Rig Veda. This
statement is based on the view that the Purusha Sukta is an interpolation which has taken
place long after the Rig Veda was closed. Even accepting that the Purusha Sukta is a later
interpolation, it is not possible to accept the statement that the Varna system did not
exist in the time of the Rig Veda. Such a system is in open conflict with the text of the
Rig Veda. For, the Rig Veda, apart from the Purusha Sukta, does mention Brahmins,
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas not once but many times. The Brahmins are mentioned as a separate Varna fifteen times, Kshatriyas nine times. What is
important is that the Rig Veda does not mention Shudra as a separate Varna. If Shudras
were a separate Varna there is no reason why
the Rig Veda should not have mentioned them. The true conclusion to be drawn from the Rig
Veda is not that the Varna system did not exist, but that there were only three Varnas and that Shudras were not regarded as a
fourth and a separate Varna.
The
second piece of evidence I rely on is the testimony of the two Brahmanas, the Satapatha
and the Taittiriya. Both speak of the creation of three Varnas only. They do not speak of the creation of
the Shudras as a separate.
The
Satapatha Brahmana says :*[f33]
11.1.4.11.— "(Uttering), 'butgh', Prajapati generated this earth. (Uttering) 'bhuvah' he generated the air, and (Utering) 'svah' he generated the sky. This universe is co-extensive with these worlds. (The fire) is placed with the whole. Saying 'bhuh', Prajapali generated the Brahman; saying 'bhuvah', he generated the Kshattra; (and saying) 'svah', he generated the Vis. The fire is placed with the whole. (Saying) 'bhuh', Prajapati generated himself; (saying) bhuvah', he generated offspring : saying 'svah', he generated animals. This world is so much as self, offspring, and animals. (The fire) is placed with the whole."
111.12.9.2.—
"This entire (universe) has been created by Brahma. Men say that the Vaishya class
was produced from ric verses. They say that the
Yajur Veda is the womb from which the Kshattriya was born. The Sama Veda is the source
from which the Brahmins sprang. This word the ancients declared to the ancients."
Here
is my evidence. It consists of an inference from the Rig Veda and two statements from two
Brahmanas which in point of authority are co-equal with the Vedas. For both are Shruti
both say in definite and precise terms that there were only three Varnas. Both agree that the Shudras did not form a
separate and a distinct Varna, much less the
fourth Varna. There cannot, therefore, be better
evidence in support of my contention that there were originally only three Varnas that the Shudras were only a part of the
second Varna.
II
Such
is my evidence. On the other side, there is, of course, the evidence contained in the
Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, which maintains that there were four Varnas from the very beginning. The question now is
: which of the two should be accepted as the correct? How is this question to be decided?
It cannot be decided by applying the rules of Mimamsa. If we did apply it, we will have to
admit that both the statements, one in the Purusha Sukta that there were four Varnas and the statement in the two Brahmanas
that there were three Varnas, are true. This is
an absurd position. We must decide this matter in the light of the canons of historical
criticism, such as sequence of time and intrinsic criticism, etc. The main question is
whether the Purusha Sukta is a later composition added to the original Rig Veda. The
question has been dealt with on the basis of the language of the Sukta as compared with
the language of the rest of the Rig Veda. That it is a late production is the opinion of
all scholars. This is what Colebrooke says :[f35]
"That
remarkable hymn (the Purusha Sukta) is in language, metre, and style, very different from
the rest of the prayers with which it is associated. It has a decidedly more modern tone;
and must have been composed after the Sanskrit language had been refined, and its grammar
and rhythm perfected. The internal evidence which it furnishes serves to demonstrate the
important fact that the compilation of the Vedas, in their present arrangement, took place
after the Sanskrit tongue had advanced from the rustic and irregular dialect in which the
multitude of hymns and prayers of the Veda was composed, to the polished and sonorous
language in which the mythological poems, sacred and profane (puranas and kavyas), have
been written."
In
the opinion of Prof.Max Muller :[f36]
"There can belittle doubt, for instance, that the 90th hymn of the 10th book... is modern both in its character and in its diction. It is full of allusions to the sacrificial ceremonials, it uses technically philosophical terms, it mentions the three seasons in the order of Vasanta, spring, Grishma, summer and Sharad, autumn; it contains the only passage in the Rig Veda where the four castes are enumerated. The evidence of language for the modem date of this composition is equally strong. Grishma, for instance, the name for the hot season, does not occur in any other hymn of the Rig Veda; and Vasanta also, the name of spring does not belong to the earliest vocabulary of the Vedic poets. It occurs but once more in the Rig Veda (x. 161.4), in a passage where the three seasons are mentioned in the order of Sharad, autumn; Hemanta, winter; and Vasanta, spring."
"That the Purusha Sukta, considered as a hymn of the Rig Veda, is among the latest portions of that collection, is clearly perceptible from its contents. The fact that the Sama Samhita has not adopted any verse from it, is not without importance (compare what I have remarked in my Academical Prelections). The Naigeya school, indeed, appears (although it is not quite certain) to have extracted the first five verses in the seventh prapathaka of the first Archika, which is peculiar to it."
III
This
is one line of argument. There is also another line of argument which also helps us to
determine whether the Purusha Sukta is an earlier or later production. For this it is
necessary to find out how many Samhitas of the Vedas have adopted the Purusha Sukta.
Examining the different Vedas and the Samhitas, the position is as follows:
The
Sama Veda produces only 5 verses from the Purusha Sukta. As to the White Yajur Veda, the
Vajasaneyi Samhita includes it but the difference between the two is great. The Purusha
Sukta, as it stands, in the Rig Veda, has only 16 verses. But the Purusha Sukta in the
Vajasaneyi Samhita has 22 verses. Of the Black Yajur Veda there are three Samhitas
available at present. But none of the three Samhitas, the Taittiriya, the Katha and the
Maitrayani, gives any place to the'Purusha Sukta. The Atharva Veda is the only Veda which
contains a more or less exact reproduction of the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda.
The
text of the Purusha Sukta, as it occurs in the different Vedas, is not uniform. The six
additional verses of the Vajasaneyi Samhita are special to it and are not to be found in
the text as it occurs in the Rig Veda, the Sama Veda or the Atharva Veda. There is another
difference which relates to verse 16. The 16th verse of the Rig Veda is to be found
neither in the Atharva Veda nor in the Sama Veda nor in the Yajur Veda. Similary, the 16th
verse of the Atharva Veda is to be found neither in the Rig Veda nor in the Yajur Veda. Of
the fifteen verses, which are common to the three Vedas, their texts are not identical.
Nor is the order in which the verses stand in the three Vedas the same as may be seen from
the following table :
Yajur
Veda |
Rig
Veda |
Sama
Veda |
Atharva
Veda |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
7 |
9 |
6 |
8 |
* |
10 |
7 |
9 |
* |
11 |
8 |
10 |
* |
14 |
9 |
7 |
* |
13 |
10 |
11 |
* |
12 |
11 |
12 |
* |
5 |
12 |
13 |
* |
6 |
13 |
14 |
* |
7 |
14 |
6 |
* |
8 |
15 |
15 |
* |
15 |
16 |
16 |
* |
16[f38] |
17 |
* |
* |
|
18 |
* |
* |
* |
19 |
* |
* |
* |
20 |
* |
* |
* |
21 |
* |
* |
* |
22 |
* |
* |
* |
*
Means that these Verses are not to be found.
The
point is that if the Purusha Sukta had been an old, hoary text, sanctified by ancient
tradition, could the other Vedas have taken such a liberty with it? Could they have
changed it and chopped it as they have done?
The place of the Purusha Sukta in the hymns of the different Vedas is also very significant. In the Rig Veda it occurs in the miscellaneous part and in the Atharva Veda it occurs in what is known as the supplementary part. If it was the earliest composition of the Rig Veda, why should it have been placed in such inconsequential collection? What do these points suggest? They suggest that :
(1) If
the Purusha Sukta was not incorporated in the Taittiriya, Kathaka and Maitrayani Samhitas
of the Black Yajur Veda, it follows, that the Purusha Sukta was added to the Rig Veda
after the Taittiriya Samhita, the Kathaka Samhita, the Maitrayana Samhita of the Black
Yajur Veda.
(2) That
it had to be put in the miscellaneous and supplementary portions of the Vedas shows that
it was composed at a later stage.
(3) That
the freedom which the authors of the different Samhitas took in adding, omitting and.
recording the verses shows that they did not regard it as an ancient hymn, which they were
bound to reproduce in its exact original form.
These
points go a long way in furnishing corroborative evidence in support of the views held by
Prof. Max Muller and others that the Purusha Sukta is a later interpolation.
The
difference in the form of the stanzas in the Purusha Sukta is also very noteworthy. Anyone
who reads the Purusha Sukta will find that except for these two verses, viz., 11 and 12,
the whole of it is in the narrative form. But the two verses, which explain the origin of
the four Varnas, are in the form of question and answer. The point is : Why should these
verses be introduced in a question form breaking the narrative form? The only explanation
is that the writer wanted to introduce a new matter and in a pointed manner. This means
that not only the Purusha Sukta is a later addition to the Rig Veda, but these particular
verses are much later than even the Purusha Sukta.
Some
critics have gone to the length of saying that the Purusha Sukta is a forgery by the
Brahmins to bolster up their claim to superiority. Priests are known to have committed
many forgeries. The Donations of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidore Decretals are well known
forgeries in the history of the Papacy. The Brahmins of India were not free from such
machinations. How they changed the original word 'Agre' into 'Agne' to make Rig Veda give
support to the burning of widows has been pointed out by no less an authority than
Prof.Max, Muller. It is well-known how in the time of the East India Company a whole
Smriti was fabricated to support the case of a plaintiff. There is, therefore, nothing
surprising if the Brahmins did forge the Purusha Sukta, if not the whole, at least the two
versus II and 12, at some later stage, long after the fourth Varna had come into being, with a view to give the
system of Chaturvarnya the sanction of the Veda.
Is
the Purusha Sukta earlier than the Brahmanas? This question is distinct and separate from
the first. It may be that the Purusha Sukta belongs to the later part of the Rig Veda.
Yet, if the Rig Veda as a whole is earlier than the Brahmanas, the Purusha Sukta would
still be earlier than the Brahmanas. The question, therefore, needs to be separately
considered.
It
is Prof. Max Muller's view that in the growth of the Vedic literature the order was Vedas,
then Brahmanas and thereafter the Sutras. If this proposition was adopted, it would mean
that the Purusha Sukta must be earlier than the Brahmanas. Question is : Can Prof. Max
Muller's proposition be accepted as absolute? If it was accepted as absolute, the
proposition would lead to two conclusions:
(1) That
in the time of the Rig Veda there were four Varnas
and at the time of the Satapatha Brahmana they became three; or
(2) that
the tradition is not completely recorded in the Satapatha Brahmana.
It
is obvious that both these conclusions are absurd and must be rejected. The first is
absurd on the face of it. The second is untenable because the theory of the evolution of Varnas by the two Brahmanas is different from that
set out in the Purusha Sukta and is complete in itself. The absurdity of the result is
inevitable if one were to take Max Muller's proposition as absolute. The proposition
cannot be taken as absolute to mean that no Brahmana was composed until all the Samhitas
had come into being. On the other hand, it is quite possible as pointed out by Professors
Belvalkar and Ranade that most of these compositions are composite and synchronous and,
therefore, one part of the Vedas can be earlier than another part and that a part of the
Brahmanas can be earlier than parts of the Vedas. If this is a correct view then there is
nothing inherently improbable in holding that the parts of the Satapatha Brahmana and of
the Taittiriya Brahmana, which record the legend that there were at one time only three Varnas, are earlier than the Purusha Sukta of the
Rig Veda.
What
is the conclusion which follows from this examination of the Purusha Sukta? There is only
one conclusion, that the Sukta is an addition to the Rig Veda made at a later stage and
is, therefore, no argument that there were four Varnas from the very beginning of the
Aryan Society.
For
the reasons given above, it will be seen that my thesis about the origin of the Shudras'
creates no problem such as the one mentioned in the beginning of this Chapter. If it did
appear to create a problem, it was because of the assumption that the Purusha Sukta was an
authentic and genuine record of what it purports to say. That assumption has now been
shown to be quite baseless. I, therefore, see no difficulty in concluding that there was a
time when the Aryan Society had only three Varnas
and the Shudras belonged to the second or the Kshatriya Varna.
CHAPTER
IX
THE
thesis that the Shudras were Kshatriyas and that if they became the fourth Varna it was because they were degraded to that
position does not wholly solve the problem. It only raises another problem. This problem
is why were the Shudras degraded?
The
problem is new. It has never been raised before. The existing literature on the subject
cannot, therefore, be expected to contain an answer. The question is raised by me for the
first time. As it is a question on which my theory of the Shudras rests, the burden of
giving a satisfactory answer must rest on me. I believe, I can give a satisfactory answer
to this question. My answer is that the degradation of the Shudras is the result of a
violent conflict between the Shudras and the Brahmins. Fortunately for me, there is
abundant evidence of it.
To
understand the nature of the conflict, it is necessary first to understand the relations
between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra.
Vasishtha
and Vishvamitra were enemies and were enemies first and enemies last. There was no
incident to which one of them was a party in which the other did not know himself as an
opponent. As evidence of their enmity, I will refer to some of the episodes. The first one
is that of Satyavrata otherwise called Trishanku. The story
as told in the Harivamsha*[f40]
is as follows:
"Meanwhile Vasishtha, from the relation subsisting between the king (Satyavrata's father) and himself, as disciple and spiritual preceptor, governed the city of Ayodhya, the country, and the interior apartments of the royal palace. But Satyavrata, whether thorough folly or the force of destiny, cherished constantly an increased indignation against Vasishtha, who for a (proper) reason had not interposed to prevent his exclusion from the royal power by his father. "The formulae of the marriage ceremonial are only binding,' said Satyavrata, 'when the seventh step has been taken, and this had not been done when I seized the damsel; still Vasishtha, who knows the precepts of the law, does not come to my aid.' Thus Satyavrata was incensed in his mind against Vasishtha, who, however had acted from a sense of what was right. Nor did Satyavrata understand (the propriety of) that silent penance imposed upon him by his father... When he had supported this arduous rite, (he supposed that) he had redeemed his family position. The venerable muni Vasishtha did not, however, (as has been said), prevent his father from setting him aside, but resolved to install his son as king. When the powerful prince Satyavrata had endured the penance for twelve years, he beheld, when he was without flesh to eat, the milch cow of Vasishtha which yielded all objects of desire, and under the influence of anger, delusion, and exhaustion, distressed by hunger, and failing in the ten duties he slew... and both partook of her flesh himself, and gave it to Vishvamitra's sons to eat. Vasishtha hearing of this, became incensed against him and imposed on him the name of Trishanku as he had committed three sins. On his return home, Vishvamitra was gratified[f41] by the support which his wife had received, and offered Trishanku the choice of a boon. When this proposal was made, Trishanku chose his boon of ascending bodily to heaven. All apprehension from the twelve years' drought being now at an end, the muni (Vishvamitra) installed Trishanku in his father's kingdom and offered sacrifice on his behalf. The mighty Kaushika then, in spite of the resitance of the gods and of Vasishtha exalted the king alive to heaven."
The
next episode in which they appear on opposite sides is that of Harishchandra, the son of
Trishanku. The story is told in the Vishnu Purana and in the Markandeya Purana. The
following account is given
[f42]
The story runs :
"On one occasion, when hunting, the king heard
a sound of female lamentation which proceeded, it appears, from the sciences who were
becoming mastered by the austerely fervid sage Vishvamitra, in a way they had never been
before by anyone else; and were consequently crying out in alarm at his superiority. For
the fulfilment of his duty as a Kshatriya to defend the weak, and inspired by the god
Ganesha, who had entered into him, Harishchandra exclaimed "What sinner is this who
is binding fire in the hem of his garment, while I, his lord, am present, resplendent with
force and fiery vigour? He shall to-day enter on his long sleep, pierced in all his limbs
by arrows, which, by their discharge from my bow, illuminate all the quarters of the
firmament.' Vishvamitra was provoked by this address. In consequence of his wrath the
Sciences instantly perished, and Harishchandra, trembling like the leaf of an ashvattha
tree, submissively represented that he had merely done his duty as a king, which he
defined as consisting in the bestowal of gifts on eminent Brahmins and other persons of
slender means, the protection of the timid, and war against enemies. Vishvamitra hereupon
demands a gift as a Brahmin intent upon receiving one. The king offers him whatsoever he
may ask: Gold, his own son, wife, body, life, kingdom, good fortune. The saint first
requires the present for the Rajasuya sacrifice. On this being promised, and still more
offered, he asks for the empire of the whole earth, including everything but Harishchandra
himself, his wife, and son, and his virtue which follows its possessor wherever he goes.
Harishchandra joyfully agrees. Vishvamitra then requires him to strip off all his
ornaments, to clothe himself in the bark of trees, and to quit the kingdom with his wife
Shaivya and his son. When he is departing, the sage stops him and demands payment of his
yet unpaid sacrificial fee. The king replies that he has only the persons of his wife, his
son and himself left. Vishvamitra insists that he must nevertheless pay, and that
unfulfilled promises of gifts to Brahmins bring destruction. The unfortunate prince, after
being threatened with a curse, engages to make the payment in a month; and commences his
journey with a wife unused to such fatigues, amid the universal lamentations of his
subjects. While he lingers, listening to their affectionate remonstrances against his
desertion of his kingdom, Vishvamitra comes up, and being incensed at the delay and the
king's apparent hesitation, strikes the queen with his staff, as she is dragged on by her
husband. Harishchandra then proceeded with his wife and
little son to Benares, imagining that the divine city, as the special property of
Siva, could not be possessed by any mortal. Here he found the relentless Vishvamitra
waiting for him, and ready to press his demand for the payment of his sacrificial gift,
even before the expiration of the full period of grace. In this extremity, Shaivya the
queen suggests with a sobbing voice that her husband should sell her. On hearing this
proposal Harishchandra swoons, then recovers, utters lamentations and swoons again, and
his wife seeing his sad condition, swoons also. While they are in a state of
unconsciousness their famished child exclaims in distress. 'O, father, give me bread; 0,
mother, mother, give me food; hunger overpowers me and my tongue is parched.' At this
moment Vishvamitra
returns, and after recalling Harishchandra to consciousness by sprinkling water over him,
again urges payment of the present The king again swoons, and is again restored. The sage
threatens to curse him if his engagement is not fulfilled by sunset. Being now pressed by
his wife, the king agrees to sell her, adding, however. If my voice can utter such a
wicked word, I do what the most inhuman wretches cannot perpetrate.' He then goes into the
city, and in self-accusing language offers his queen for sale as a slave. A rich old
Brahmin offers to buy her at a price corresponding to her value, to do his household work.
Seeing his mother dragged away the child ran after her, his eyes dimmed with tears, and
crying 'mother.' The Brahmin purchaser kicked him when he came up; but he would not let
his mother go, and continued crying 'mother, mother.' The queen then said to the Brahmin,
'Be so kind, my master, as to buy also this child, as without him I shall prove to thee
but a useless purchase. Be thus merciful to me in my wretchedness, unite me with my son,
like a cow to her calf.' The Brahmin agrees : Take this money and give me the boy.' After
the Brahmin had gone out of sight with his purchases. Vishvamitra again appeared and
renewed his demands : and when the afflicted Harishchandra offered him the small sum he
had obtained by the sale of his wife and son, he angrily replied. If, miserable Kshatriya,
thou thinkest this a sacrificial gift befitting my deserts, thou shall soon behold the
transcendent power of my ardent austrere-fervour of my terrible majesty, and of my holy
study,' Harishchandra promises an additional gift, and Vishvamitra allows him the
remaining quarter of the day for its liquidation. On the terrified and afflicted prince
offering himself for sale, in order to gain the means of meeting this cruel demand, Dharma
(Righteousness) appears in the form of a hideous and offensive chandala, and agrees to buy
him at his own price, large or small. Harishchatidra declines such a degrading survitude,
and declares that he would rather be consumed by the fire of his persecutor's curse than
submit to such a fate. Vishvamitra, however, again comes on the scene, asks why he does
not accept the large sum offered by the Chandala, and when he pleads in excuse his descent
'from the solar race, threatens to fulminate a curse against him if he does not accept
that method of meeting his liability. Harishchandra implores that he may be spared this
extreme of degradation, and offers to become Vishvamitra's slave in payment of the residue
of his debt; whereupon the sage rejoins, if thou art my slave, then I sell thee as such to
the Chandala for a hundred millions of money.' The Chandala, delighted pays down the
money, and carries off Harishchandra bound, beaten, confused, and afflicted, to his own
place of abode. Harishchandra is sent by the Chandala to steal grave clothes in a cemetery
and is told that he will receive two-sixths of the value for his hire; three-sixths going
to his master, and one-sixth to the king. In this horrid spot, and in this degrading
occupation he spent in great misery twelve months, which seemed to him like a hundred
years. He then falls asleep and has a series of dreams suggested by the life he had been
leading. After he awoke, his wife came to the cemetery to perform the obsequies of their
son, who had died from the bite of a seipent At first, the husband and wife did not
recognise each other, from the change in appearance which had been wrought upon them both
by their miseries. Harishchandra, however, soon discovered from the tenor of her
lamentations that it is his wife, and falls into a swoon; as the queen does also when she
recognises her husband. When consciousness returns they both break out into lamentations,
the father bewailing in a touching strain the loss of his son, and the wife, the
degradation of the king. She then falls on his neck, embraces him and asks 'whether all
this is a dream, or a reality, as she is utterly bewildered'; and adds, that "if it
be a reality, then righteousness is unavailing to those who practise it." After
hesitating to devote himself to death on his son's funeral pyre without receiving his
master' leave. Harishchandra resolves to do so, braving all the consequences and consoling
himself with the hopeful anticipation. If I
have given gifts and offered sacrifices and gratified my religious teachers, then may I be
reunited with my son and with thee (my wife) in another world.' The queen determines to
die in the same manner. When Harishchandra, after placing his son's body on the funeral
pyre, is meditating on the Lord Hari Narayana Krishna, the supreme spirit, all the gods
arrive, headed by Dharma (Righteousness), and accomapanied by Vishvamitra. Dharma entreats
the king to desist from his rash intention; and Indra announces to him that, he, his wife,
and son have conquered heaven by their good works. Ambrosia, the antidote of death, and
flowers are rained by the gods from the sky; and the king's son is restored to life and
the bloom of youth. The king adorned with celestial clothing and garlands, and the queen,
embrace their son. Harishchandra, however, declares that he cannot go to heaven till he
has received his master the Chandala's permission, and has paid him a ransom. Dharma then
reveals to the king that it was he himself who had miraculously assumed the form of a
Chandala. The king next objects that he cannot depart unless his faithful subjects, who
are sharers in his merits, are allowed to accompany him to heaven, at least for one day.
This request is granted by Indra; and after Vishvamitra has inaugurated Rohitashva the
king's son to be his successor. Harishchandra, his friends and followers, all ascend in
company to heaven. Even after this great consummation, however, Vasishtha, the family
priest of Harishchandra, hearing, at the end of a twelve years' abode in the waters of the
Ganges, an account of all that has occurred, becomes vehemendy incensed at the humiliation
inflicted on the excellent monarch, whose virtues and devotion to the gods and Brahmins he
celebrates, declares that his indignation had not been so greatly roused even when his own
hundred sons had been slain by Vishvamitra, and in the following words dooms the latter to
be transformed into a crane : 'Wherefore that wicked man, enemy of the Brahmins, smitten
by my curse, shall be expelled from the society of intelligent beings, and losing his
understanding shall be transformed into a Baka.' Vishvamitra reciprocates the curse,
and changes Vasishlha into a bird of the species called Ari. In their new shapes the two
have a furious fight, the Ari being of the Portentous height of two thousand yojanas=
18,000 miles, and the Baka of 3090 yojanas. They first assail each other with their wings;
then the Baka smites his antagonist in the same manner, while the Ari strikes with his
talons. Falling mountains, overturned by the blasts of wind raised by the flapping of
their wings, shake the whole earth, the waters of the ocean overflow, the earth itself,
thrown off its perpendicular slopes downwards to Patala, the lower regions. Many creatures
perished by these various convulsions. Attracted by the dire disorder, Brahma arrives,
attended by all the gods, on the spot, and commands the combatants to desist from their
fray. They were too fiercely infuriated to regard this injunction; but Brahma put an end
to the conflict by restoring them to their natural forms and counselling them to be
reconciled."
The
next episode in which they came in as opponents is connected with Ambarisha, king of
Ayodhya :
"The story[f43] relates that Ambarisha was engaged in performing a sacrifice, when Indra carried away the victim. The priest said that this ill-omened event had occurred owing to the king's bad administration; and would call for a great expiation, unless a human victim could be produced. After a long search the royal-rishi (Ambarisha) came upon the Brahmin rishi, Richika, a descendant of Bhrigu, and asked him to sell one of his sons for a victim, at the price of a hundred thousand cows. Richika answered that he would not sell his eldest son and his wife added that she would not sell the youngest; 'youngest sons' she observed, 'being generally the favourites of their mothers.' The second son, Shunasshepa, then said that in that case he regarded himself as the one who was to be sold, and desired the king to remove him. The hundred thousand cows, with ten millions of gold pieces and heaps of jewels, were paid down and Shunasshepa carried away. As they were passing through Pushkara, Shunasshepa beheld his maternal uncle Vishvamitra who was engaged in austerities there with other rishis, threw himself into his arms, and implored his assistance, urging his orphan, friendless and helpless state, as claims on the sage's benevolence. Vishvamitra soothed him; and pressed his own sons to offer themselves as victims in the room of Shunasshepa. This proposition met with no favour from Madhushyanda and the other sons of the royal hermit, who answered with haughtiness and derision: 'How is it that thou sacrificest thine own sons and seekest to rescue those of others? We look upon this as wrong, and like the eating of one's own flesh. 'The sage was exceedingly wroth at this disregard of his injunction, and doomed his sons to be born in the most degraded classes, like Vasishtha's sons, and to eat dog's flesh, for a thousand years. He then said to Shunasshepa: 'When thou art bound with hallowed cords, decked with a red arland, and anointed with unguents and fastened to the sacrificial post of Vishnu, then address thyself to Agni, and sing these two divine verses (gathas), at the sacrifice of Ambarisha: then shall thou attain the fulfilment (of thy desire)'. Being furnished with the two gathas, Shunasshepa proposed at once to king Ambarisha that they should set out for their destination. When bound at the stake to be immolated, dressed in a red garment, he celebrated the two gods, Indra and his younger brother (Vishnu), with the excellent verses. The thousand-eyed (Indra) was pleased with the secret hymn; and bestowed long life on Shunasshepa."
The
last episode recorded in which the two had ranged themselves on opposite sides is
connected with king Kalmashapada. The episode is recorded in the Adi Parvan of the
Mahabharata:[f44]
"Kalmashapada
was a king of the race of lkshvaku. Vishvamitra wished to be employed by him as his
officiating priest; but the king preferred Vasishtha. It happened however that the king
went out to hunt, and after having killed a large quantity of games, he became very much
fatigued, as well as hungry and thirsty. Meeting Shakti, the eldest of Vasishtha's hundred
sons, on the road, he ordered him to get out of his way. The priest civilly replied:' The
path is mine, 0 king; this is the immemorial law; in all observations the king must cede
the way to the Brahmin.' Neither party would yield, and the dispute waxing warmer, the
king struck the muni with his whip. The muni, resorting to the usual expedient of offended
sages, by a curse doomed the king to become a man-eater. It happened that at that time
enmity existed between Vishvamitra and Vasishtha on account of their respective claims to
be priest to Kalmashapada. Vishvamitra had followed the king; and approached while he was
disputing with Shakti. Perceiving, however, the son of his rival Vasishtha, Vishvamitra
made himself invisible, and passed them, catching this opportunity. The king began to
implore Shakti's clemency; but Vishvamitra wishing to prevent their reconciliation,
commanded a Rakshasa (a man-devouring demon) to enter into the king. Owing to the conjoint
influence of the Brahman-rishi's curse, and Vishvamitra's command, the demon obeyed the
injunction. Perceiving that his object was gained, Vishvamitra left things to take their
course, and absented himself from the country.The king having happened to meet a hungry
Brahmin, and sent him, by the hand of his cook (who could procure nothing else), some
human flesh to eat, was cursed by him also to the same effect as by Shakti. The curse,
being now augmented in force, took effect, and Shakti himself was the first victim, being
eaten up by the king. The same fate befell all the other sons of Vasishtha at the
instigation of Vishvamitra. Perceiving Shakti to be dead, Vishvamitra again and again
incited the Rakshasa against the sons of Vasishtha and accordingly the furious demon
devoured those of his sons who were younger than Shakti as a lion eats up the small beasts
of the forest. On hearing the destruction of his sons by Vishvamitra, Vasishtha supported
his affliction as the great mountain sustains
the earth. He meditated his own destruction, but never thought of exterminating the
Kaushikas. This divine sage hurled himself from the summit of Meru, but fell upon the
rocks as if on a heap of cotton. Escaping alive from his fall, he entered a glowing fire
in the forest; but the fire, though fiercely blazing, not only failed to bum him, but
seemed perfectly cool. He next threw himself into the sea with a heavy stone attached to
his neck; but was cast up by the waves on the dry land. He then went home to his
hermitage; but seeing it empty and desolate, he was again overcome by grief and sent out
and seeing the river Vipasa which was swollen by the recent rains, and sweeping along many
trees torn from its banks, he conceived the design of drowning himself into its waters; he
accordingly tied himself firmly with cords, and threw himself in; but the river severing
his bonds, deposited him unbound (Vipasa) on dry land ; whence the name of the stream, as
imposed by the sage. He afterwards saw and threw himself into the dreadful Satadru
(Sutlej), which was full of alligators, etc., and derived its name rushing away in a
hundred directions on seeing the Brahmin brilliant as fire. In consequence of this, he was
once more stranded; and seeing that he could not kill himself, he went back to his
hermitage."
There
are particular instances in which Vasishtha and Vishvamitra had come into conflict with
each other. But there was more than these occasional conflicts between the two. There was
general enmity between them. This general enmity was of a mortal kind so much so that
Vishvamitra wanted even to murder Vasishtha as will be seen from the Shalyaparvan of the
Mahabharata. Says the author of the Mahabharata :[f45]
"There
existed a great enmity, arising from rivalry in their austerities, between Vishvamitra and
the Brahmin rishi Vasishtha. Vasishtha had an extensive hermitage in Sthanutirtha, to the
east of which was Vishvamitra's. These two great ascetis were every day exhibiting intense
emulation in regard to their respective austerities. But Vishvamitra beholding the might
of Vasishtha was the most chagrined; and fell into deep thought. The idea of this sage,
constant in duty, was the following : This river Sarasvati will speedily bring to me on
her current the austere Vasishtha, the most eminent of all utterers of prayers. When that
most excellent Brahmin has come, I shall most assuredly kill him.' Having thus determined,
the divine sage Vishvamitra, his eyes reddened by anger, called to mind the chief of
rivers. She being thus the subject of his thoughts became very anxious, as she knew him to
be very powerful and very irascible. Then
trembling, pallid and with joined hands, the Saraswati stood before the chief of munis
like a woman whose husband has been slain; she was greatly distressed, and said to him
'what shall I do?' The incensed muni replied, 'Bring Vasishtha hither speedily, that I may
slay him.' The lotus-eyed goddess, joining her hands trembled in great fear, like a
creeping plant agitated by the wind. Vishvamitra, however, although he saw her condition,
repeated his command. The Sarasvati, who knew how sinful was his design, and that the
might of Vasishtha was unequalled, went trembling and in great dreed of being cursed by
both the sages, to Vasishtha and told him what his rival had said. Vasishtha seeing her
emaciated, pale and anxious, spoke thus. Deliver thyself, o chief of rivers; carry me
unhesitatingly to Vishvamitra, lest he curse thee.' Hearing these words of the merciful
sage, the Sarasvati considered how she could act most wisely. She reflected, 'Vasishtha
has always shown me great kindness, I must seek his welfare.' Then observing the Kaushika
sage praying and sacrificing on her brink, she regarded that as a good opportunity, and swept away the bank by the force of her
current. In this way the son of Mitra and Varuna (Vasishtha) was carried down; and white
he was being borne along, he thus celebrated the river. Thou, o Sarasvati, issuest from
the lake of Brahma, and pervadest the whole world with thy excellent streams. Residing in
the sky, thou dischargest water into the clouds. Thou alone art all waters. By thee we
study.' Thou art nourishment, radiance, fame, perfection, intellect, light. Thou art
speeh, thou art svaha; this world is subject to thee. Thou, in fourfold form, dwellest in
all creatures.' Beholding Vasishtha brought near by the Saratvati, Vishvamitra searched
for a weapon with which to make an end of him. Perceiving his anger, and dreading lest
Brahmanicide should ensue, the river promptly
carrried away, Vasishtha in an easterly direction thus fulfilling the commands of both
sages, but eluding Vishvamitra. Seeing Vasishtha so carried away. Vishvamitra, impatient
and enraged by vexation, said to her, 'Since thou, o chief of rivers, has eluded me, and
hast receded, roll in waves of blood acceptable to the chief of demons' (which are fabled
to gloat on blood). The Saratvati being thus cursed, flowed for a year in a stream mingled
with blood. Rakshasas came to the place of pilgramage where Vasishtha had been swept away,
and revelled in drinking to satiety the bloody stream in security, dancing and laughing,
as if they had conquered heaven. Some rishis who arrived at the spot some time after were
horrified to see the blood-stained water, and the Rakshasas quaffing it, and made the most
strenuous efforts to rescue the Sarasvati."
The
enmity between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra was not an enmity between two priests. It was an
enmity between a Brahmin priest and a Kshatriya priest. Vasishtha was a Brahmin.
Vishvamitra was a Kshatriya. He was a Kshatriya of royal lingeage. In the Rig Veda
(iii.33.11) Vishvamitra is spoken of as the son of Klishika. The Vishnu Purana[f46]
gives further details about Vishvamitra. It says that Vishvamitra was the son of Gadhi who
was descended from king Pururavas. This is confirmed by the Harivamsha. [f47]From
the Rig Veda (iii :l : 21) we know that the family of Vishvamitra has been keeping 'fire'
kindled in every generation. [f48]We
also know from the Rig Veda that Vishvamitra was the author of many hymns of that Veda and
was admitted to be a Rajarishi. He was the author of the hymn which is held to be the
holiest in the whole of the Vedas namely the Gayatri hymn in the Rig Veda (iii.62.10).
Another important fact we know about him is that he was a Kshatriya and his family
belonged to the clan of the Bharatas.[f49]
It
seems that about this time a dispute was going on between Brahmins and Kshatriyas on the
following points :
(1) The
right to receive gifts. Gift means payment made without work. The contention of the
Brahmins was that nobody could receive gifts. To receive gifts was the right of the
Brahmins only.[f50]
(2) The
right to teach the Vedas. The Brahmins' contention was that the Khastriya had only the
right to study the Vedas. He had no right to teach the Vedas. It was the privilege of the
Brahmins only.
(3) The
right to officiate at a sacrifice. On this point the Brahmins' contention was that
Kshatriya had the right to perform sacrifices, but he had no right to officiate as a
purohit (priest) at a sacrifice. That was the privilege of the Brahmins.
What
is important to note is that even in disputes on these points and particularly on the
third point they did not fail to play their part as the opponents of each other. This is
confirmed by the story of Trishanku narrated in the Ramayana[f51]
and which runs as follows:
"King
Trishanku, one of Ikshvaku's descendants, had conceived the design of celebrating a
sacrifice by virtue of which he should ascend bodily to heaven. As Vasishtha on being summoned, declared that the thing was
impossible (asakyam), Trishanku travelled to the
south, where the sage's hundred sons were engaged in austerities, and applied to them to
do what their father had declined. Though he addressed them with the greatest reverence
and humility, and added that the lkshvakus regarded their family-priests as their highest
resource in difficulties, and that, after their father, he himself looked to them as his
tutelary deities,' he received from the haughty priests the following rubuke for his
presumption : "Fool, thou hast been refused by the truth-speaking preceptor. How is
it that, disregarding his authority thou hast resorted to another school (shakha)? The
family-priest is the highest oracle of all the lkshvakus; and the command of that
veracious personage cannot be transgressed. Vasishtha, the divine rishi, has declared that
'the thing cannot be : ' how can we undertake the sacrifice? Thou art foolish, king;
return to thy capital. The divine (Vasishtha) is competent to act as priest of the three
works; how can we shew him disrespect?"
Trishanku then gave them to understand, that as his preceptor and "his preceptor's sons had declined compliance with his requests, he should think of some other expedient "In consequence of his venturing to express this presumptous intention, they condemned him by their imprecation to become a Chandala. As this curse soon took effect, and the unhappy king's form was changed into that of a degraded outcast, he resorted to Vishvamitra (who, as we have seen, was also dwelling at this period in the south), enlarging on his own virtues and piety, and bewailing his fate. Vishvamitra commiserated his condition and promised to sacrifice on his behalf, and exalt him to heaven in the same Chandala form to which he had been condemned by his preceptor's curse. "Heaven is now as good as in the possession, since thou hast resorted to the son of Kushika.' " He then directed that preparations should be made for the sacrifice, and that all the rishis, including the family of Vasishtha, should be invited to the ceremony.
The disciples of Vishvamitra who had conveyed his message, reported the result on their return in these words: "Having heard your message, all the Brahmins are assembling in all the countries, and have arrived, excepting Mahodaya (Vasishtha). Hear what dreadful words those hundred Vasishthas, their voices quivering with rage, have uttered: 'How can the gods and rishis consume the oblation at the sacrifice of that man, especially if he be a Chandala, for whom a Kshatriya is officiating priest? How can illustrious Brahmins ascened to heaven, after eating the food of a Chandala, and being entertained by Vishvamitra?" These ruthless words all the Vasishthas, together with Mahodaya, uttered, their eyes inflamed with anger." Vishvamitra who was greatly incensed on receiving this message, by a curse doomed the sons of Vasishtha to be reduced to ashes, and reborn as degraded outcasts (mritapah), for seven hundred births, and Mahodaya to become a Nishada.
Knowing that this curse had taken effect Vishvamitra then, after eulogizing Trishanku, proposed to the assembled rishis that the sacrifice should be celebrated. To this they assented, being actuated by fear of the terrible sage's wrath, Vishvamitra himself officiated at the sacrifice as Yajaka; and the other rishis as priests (ritvijah) (with other functions) performed all the ceremonies."
In
this dispute between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra, Sudas seems to have played an important
part. Vasishtha was the family priest of Sudas. It was Vasishtha who performed his
coronation ceremony. It was Vasishtha who helped him to win the battle against the ten
kings. Notwithstanding this, Sudas removed Vasishtha from office. In his place he
appointed Vishvamitra as his purohita[f52]
who performed yajna for Sudas. This is the first deed of Sudas which created enmity
between Sudas and Vasishtha. There was another deed which Sudas committed which widened
and intensified the enmity. He threw into fire Shakti the son of Vasishtha and burned him
alive. The story is reported in the Satyayana Brahmana. [f53]The
Satyayana Brahmana does not give the reason for such an atrocious act. Some light is
thrown on it by Shadgurushishya[f54]
in his Commentary on Katyayana's Anukramanika to the Rig Veda. According to
Shadgurushishya, a sacrifice was performed by Sudas at which there was a sort of public
debate between Vishvamitra and Shakti, the son of Vasishtha and in this debate, to use the
words of Shadgurushishya:
"The power and speech of Vishvamitra were completely vanquished by Shakti, son of Vasishtha; and the son of Gadhi (Vishvamitra) being so overcome, became dejected."
Here
is the reason why Sudas threw Shakti into fire. Obviously, Sudas did it to avenge the
dishonour and disgrace caused to Vishvamitra. Nothing could avert a deadly enmity growing
up between Sudas and Vasishtha.
This
enmity does not seem to have ended with Sudas and Vasishtha. It appears to have spread to
their sons. This is supported by the Taittiriya Samhita which says [f55]
"Vasishtha,
when his son had been slain, desired, 'May I obtain offspring; may I overcome the
Saudasas.' He beheld this ekasmannapanchasa, he
took it and sacrificed with it. In consequence he obtained offspring, and overcame the
Saudasas."
This
is confirmed by the Kaushitaki Brahmana[f56]
which says :
"Vasishtha,
when his son had been slain, desired, 'May I be fruitful in offspring and cattle and
overcome the Saudasas. He beheld this form of offering, the Vasishtha-sacrifice; and
having performed it, he overcame the Saudasas.[f57]"
II
The
conflict between Sudas and Vasishtha is not the only conflict between kings and the
Brahmins. The Puranas record other conflicts also between kings and Brahmins. It is
desirable to assemble them here. The first relates to king Vena. The story of his conflict
with Brahmins has been told by various authorities. The following account[f58]
is taken from the Harivamsa :
"There was formerely a Prajapati (Lord of creatures), a protector of righteousness called Anga, of the race of Atri, and resembling him in power. His son was the Prajapati Vena who was but indifferently skilled in duty, and was born of Sunita, the daughter of Mrityu. This son of the daughter of Kala (Death), owing to the taint derived from his maternal grandfather, threw his duties behind his back, and lived in covetousness under the influence of desire. This king established an irreligious system of conduct; transgressing the ordinances of the Veda, he was devoted to lawlessness. In his reign men lived without study of the sacred books and without the Vashatkara, and the gods had no Soma libations to drink at sacrifices. 'No sacrifice or oblation shall be offered'— such was the ruthless determination of that Prajapati, as the time of his destruction approached. I,' he declared, ' am the object, and the performer of sacrifice, and the sacrifice itself; it is to me that sacrifice should be presented, and oblations offered.' This transgressor of the rules of duty, who arrogated to himself what was not his due, was then addressed by all the great rishis headed by Marichi: 'We are about to consecrate ourselves for a ceremony which shall last for many years; practise not unrighteousness, Vena; this is not the eternal rule of duty. Thou art in very deed a Prajapati of Atri's race, and thou hast engaged to protect thy subjects.' The foolish Vena, ignorant of what was right, laughingly answered those great rishis, who had so addressed him; 'who but myself is the ordainer of duty? or whom ought I to obey? Who on earth equals me in sacred knowledge, in prowess, in austere fervour, in truth? Ye, who are deluded and senseless, know not that I am the source of all beings and duties. Hesitate not to believe that I, if I willed, could burn up the earth, or deluge it with water, or close up heaven and earth.' When owing to his delusion and arrogance Vena could not be governed, then the mighty rishis becoming incensed, seized the vigorous and struggling king, and rubbed his left thigh. From this thigh, so rubbed, was produced a black man, very short in stature, who, being alarmed, stood with joined hands. Seeing that he was agitated, Atri said to him 'Sit down' (nishida). He became the founder of the race of the Nishadas, and also progenitor of the Dhivaras (fisherman), who sprang from the corruption of Vena."
The
next king who came in conflict with the Brahmins was Pururavas. This Pururavas is the son
of Ila and grandson of Manu Vaivastava. The details of his conflict with the Brahmins are
given in the Adi Parvan of the Mahabharata :[f59]
"Subsequently, the wise Pururavas was born of lla, who, as we have heard, was both his father and his mother. Ruling over the thirteen islands of the ocean, and surrounded by beings who were all superhuman, himself a man of great renown, Pururavas, intoxicated by his prowess, engaged in a conflict with the Brahmins, and robbed them of their jewels, although they loudly remonstrated. Sanatkumara came from Brahma's heaven, and addressed to him an admonition, which, however, he did not regard. Being then straightaway cursed by the incensed rishis, he perished, this covetous monarch, who, through pride of power, had lost his understanding."
The
third king in this series is Nahusha. This Nahusha is the grandson of Pururavas, the
account of whose conflict with the Brahmins has been recounted above. The story of Nahusha
and his conflict with the Brahmins has been told in two places in the Mahabharata, once in
the Vanaparvan and again in the Udyogaparvan. The account, which follows, is taken from
the Udyogaparvan. [f60]It
says:
After his slaughter of the demon Vritra, Indra became alarmed at the idea of having taken the life of a Brahmin (for Vritra was regarded as such), and hid himself in the waters. In consequence of the disappearance of the king of the gods, all affairs, celestial as well as terrestrial, fell into confusion. The rishis and gods then applied to Nahusha to be their king. After first excusing himself on the plea of want of power, Nahusha at length, in compliance with their solicitations, accepted the high function. Up to the period of his elevation he had led a virtuous life, but he now became addicted to amusement and sensual pleasure; and even aspired to the possession of Indrani, Indra's wife, whom he had happened to see. The queen resorted to the Angiras Brihaspati, the preceptor of the gods who engaged to protect her. Nahusha was greatly incensed on hearing of this interference; but the gods endeavoured to pacify him, and pointed out the immorality of appropriating another person's wife. Nahusha, however, would listen to no remonstrance, and insisted that in his adulterous designs he was no worse than Indra himself. The renowned Ahalya, a rish's wife, was formerly corrupted by Indra in her husband's lifetime. Why was he not prevented by you? And many barbarous acts, and unrighteous deeds, and frauds were perpetrated of old by Indra; why was he not prevented by you?' The gods, urged by Nahusha, went to bring Indram; but Brihaspati would not give her up. At his recommendation, however, she solicited Nahusha for some delay, till she should ascertain what had become of her husband. This request was granted. Indrani now went in search of her husband; and by the help of Upashruti (the goddess of night and revealer of secrets) discovered him existing in a very subtle form in the stem of a lotus growing in a lake situated in a continent within an ocean north of the Himalayas. She made known to him the wicked intentions of Nahusha, and entreated him to exert his power, rescue her from danger and resume his dominion. Indra declined any immediate interposition on the plea of Nahusha's superior strength; but suggested to his wife a device by which the usurper might be hurled from his position. She was recommended to say to Nahusha that if he would visit her on a celestial vehicle borne by rishis, she would with pleasure submit herself to him.'
The queen of the gods accordingly made this proposal:' I desire for thee, king of the gods, a vehicle hitherto unknown, such as neither Vishnu nor Rudra, nor the Asuras, nor the Rakshasas employ. Let the eminent rishis, all united, bear thee, lord, in a car; this idea pleases me'. Nahusha receives favourably this appeal to his vanity, and in the course of his reply thus gives utterance to his self-congratulation; 'He is a personage of no mean prowess who makes the munis his bearers. I am a fervid devotee of great might. Lord of the past, the future, and the present. If I were angry, the world would no longer stand; on me everything depends. Wherefore, goddess, I shall, without doubt, carry out what you propose. The seven rishis and all the Brahmin rishis, shall carry me. Behold, beautiful goddess, my majesty and my prosperity.'
The
narrative goes on :
Accordingly this wicked being, irreligious, violent, intoxicated by the force of conceit, and arbitrary in his conduct, attached to his car the rishis, who submitted to his commands, and compelled them to bear him. Indrani then again resorts to Brihaspati who assures her that vengeance will soon overtake Nahusha for his presumption; and promises that he will himself perform a sacrifice with a view to the destruction of the oppressor, and the discovery of Indra's lurking place. Agni is then sent to discover and bring Indra to Brihaspati and the latter, on Indra's arrival, informs him of all that had occurred during his absence. While Indra, with Kubera, Yama, Soma and Varuna was devising means for the destruction of Nahusha, the sage Agastya came up, congratulated Indra on the fall of his rival, and proceeded to relate how it had occurred.
Wearied with carrying the sinner, Nahusha, the eminent divine-rishis, and the spotless Brahmin-rishis, asked that divine personage, Nahusha (to solve) a difficulty; 'Dost thou, 0 Vasava, most excellent of conquerors, regard as authoritative or not those Brahmana texts which are recited at the immolation of king?' 'No', replied Nahusha, whose understanding was enveloped in darkness. The rishis rejoined; Engaged in unrighteousness, thou attainest not unto righteousness; these tests, which were formerely uttered by great rishis, are regarded by us as authoritative.' Then (proceeds Agastya) disputing with the munis, Nahusha impelled by unrighteousness touched me on the head with his foot. In consequence of this, the king's glory was smitten and his prosperity departed. When he had instantly become agitated and oppressed with fear, I said to him, 'Since thou, a fool, condemnest that sacred text, always held in honour, which has been composed by former sages, and employed by Brahmin-rishis and hast touched my head with thy foot, and employest the Brahma-like and irresistible rishis as bearers to carry thee, therefore, shorn of thy lustre and all thy merit exhuasted, sink down, sinner, degraded from heaven to earth. For ten thousand years thou shall crawl in the form of a huge serpent. When that period is completed, thou shalt again ascend to heaven.' So fell that wicked wretch from the sovereignty of the gods. Happily, 0 Indra, we shall now prosper, for the enemy of the Brahmins has been smitten. Take possession of the three worlds, and protect their inhabitants, 0 husband of Shachi (Indrani), subduing the senses, overcoming thine enemies, and celebrated by the great rishis."
The
fourth king to come into conflict with the Brahmins was Nimi. The details of the story are
related in the Vishnu Purana[f61]
which says:
"Nimi had requested the Brahmin-rishi, Vasishtha to officiate at a sacrifice, which was to last a thousand years. Vasishtha in reply pleaded a pre-engagement to Indra for five hundred years, but promised to return at the end of that period. The king made no remark, and Vasishtha went away, supposing that he had assented to his arrangement. On his return, however, the priest discovered that Nimi had retained Gautma (who was, euqally with Vasishtha a Brahmin-rishi) and others to perform the sacrifice; and being incensed, he cursed the King, who was then asleep, to lose his corporeal form. When Nimi awoke and learnt that he had been cursed without any previous warning, he retorted by utering a similar curse on Vasishtha, and then died. Nimi's body was embalmed. At the close of the sacrifice which he had begun, the gods were willing, on the intercession of the priests, to restore him to life; but he declined the offer; and was placed by the deities, according to his desire, in the eyes of all living creatures. It is in consequence of this that they are always opening and shutting (Nimisha means 'the twinkling of the eye').
"Through a want of modesty many kings have perished, together with their belongings; through modesty even hermits in the forest have gained kingdoms.
Through
a want of humility Vena perished, likewise king Nahusha, Sudas, the son of Pijavana,
Surnukha, and Nimi."
Unfortunately,
the bearing of these cases on the position of the Shudra has not been realised as fully as
it should have been. The reason is that nobody has realised that this conflict was a
conflict between Brahmins and Shudras. Sudas definitely was a Shudra. The others although
they have not been described as Shudras are described as having been descended from
Ikshvaku. Sudas is also described as a descendant of lkshvaku. There is nothing
far-fetched in saying that they were all Shudras. Even Manu had no idea of this. He
represents these cases as cases of conflict between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Dr. Muir has
failed to realise that Sudas was a Shudra and has in recounting these stories represented
that the parties to these conflicts were Brahmins on the one hand and the Kshatriyas on
the other. In a sense, it is true that the conflict was between Brahmins and Kshatriyas
because the Shudras were also a branch of the Kshatriyas. It would, however, have been far
more illuminating if they had been described in more precise terms as conflicts between
Brahmins and Shudras. The misunderstanding having been caused, it has remained and has
continued to conceal the real nature of so important a part of the history of the
Indo-Aryan society. It is to clear this misunderstanding that the hearing given to this
Chapter is 'Brahmins versus Shudras' and not
'Brahmins versus Kshatriyas'. Understood as a
history of conflict between Brahmins and Shudras, it helps one to understand how the
Shudras came to be degraded from the second to the fourth Varna.
[f1]1
Quoted in Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I, p.p. 43-44.
[f2]1
Quoted in Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. I, p. 131.
[f3]2
Sukthankar, op. cit., p. 14
[f4]3
Ibid.. pp. 9-42.
[f5]2
Sukthankar, Vol. 1. p. 14.
[f6]2
Sukthankar, Vol. 1. p. 14.
[f7]1
Lakshman Samp, The Nighanta and Nirukta, pp.
35-36
[f8]1
Wilson's Rig Veda, Vol. IV (Poona Reprint), p.
146.
[f9]2
Wilson's Vishnu Purana, pp. 377-380.
[f10]1
Wilson's Vishnu Purana, pp. 447-456
[f11]Some
difficulty is felt about the genealogy of this Sudas in the Rig Veda, which is sought to be got over by
identifying Devavata with Divodasa. This difficulty has mainly arisen because of the
diffirent texts of Stanzas 22, 23 and 25 which nobody seems to have cared to collect
properly. Chitrava Shastris edition of Rig Veda
has Pijavana throughout. Satavalekar's edition has Paijavana throughout Wilson has
Paijavana in 22 and 23 and Pijavana in 25. Wilson's text seems to be accurate. For even
Yaska has noticed the existence of the name Paijavana in his Nirukta which he endeavours
to explain. If Wilson's text in 25 is taken as correct no difficulty can arise. Pijavana
would then appear to be another name of Divodasa and Paijavana would be another name of
Sudas.
[f12]2
Muir, Vol. I, p. 366
[f13]3
Rig Veda. VII, 83. 1.
[f14]4
Rig Veda, IX.. 61.2
[f16]6
Rig Veda. 1. 130. 7 5 Rig Veda,VI. 61. 1; VII. 19.8
[f17]7
Rig Veda, 1. 53. 10
[f18]1
Rig Veda, X. 48
[f19]2
Rig Veda, 1. 53, 8; VI. 18. 13
[f20]3
Rig Veda, 1. 116. 18
[f21]4
Rig Veda.VI. 16. 5.
[f22]5
Rig Veda, VI. 18. 13.
[f23]6
Rig Veda, 1. 112. 19.
[f24]7
Martin Haug, Vol. II. pp. 523-524.
[f25]8
The king had promised the whole earth as gift to his officiating priest
[f26]I
The list is taken from Chitrava Shastri's Prachin
Charitra Kosh, p. 624. There is no unanimity whether all the names are of kings.
Sayanacharya says that 13-16 are names of the Purohitas. There is also doubt about 27-29
[f27]2
The name of Sudas occurs in the Rig Veda in 27 places. It shows what a great hero he must
have been regarded by the Vedic people.
[f29]I
His rendering is "yet to the Tritsus came the Aryas comrade, through love of spoil
and heros' war, to lead them."
[f30]2
'Castes in India' by Emile Senart, p. 192.
[f31]1
What are called Aryan tribes appear to be a phratry in view of their changing alliances.
[f32]2
Muir, Vol. I, p. 366.
[f33]1
Muir, Vol. 1. p. 17.
[f34]2
Quotted by Muir. Vol. I, p. 17
[f35]1
Quoted in Muir. Vol. I, p. 13.
[f36]2
Ibid.. Vol. I, p. 13.
[f37]1
Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 14.
[f38]+
Means that they are not identical
[f39]*
Means that these Verses are not to be found
[f40]1
Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, pp. 377-378
[f41]It
is staled in the Harivamsha :
"In consequence of
the wickedness which had been committed, Indra did not. rain for a period of twelve years.
At that lime Vishvamitra had left his wife and children and gone to practise austerities
on the seashore. His wife, driven to extremity by want, was on the point of selling her
second son for a hundred cows, in order to support the others; but this arrangement was
stopped by the intervention of Satyavrata who liberated the son when bound, and maintained
the family by providing them with the flesh of wild animals and according to his father's
injuction, consterated himself for the performance of a silent penance for twelve
years."
As
stated in another place in the Harivamsha, Trishanku had been expelled from his home by
his father for the offence of carrying off the young wife of one of the citizens under the
influnece of a criminal passion and Vasishtha did not interfere to prevent his banishment.
It is to this that the text refers.
[f42]1
Muir, Vol. I. pp. 379-387.
[f43]1
Quoted by Muir, Vol.. 1. pp. 405-407
[f44]2
Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, pp. 415-417
[f45]1
Quoted by Moir. Vol. 1. pp. 420-422
[f46]1
Quoted in Muir, Vol. I, P. 349.
[f47]2
Quoted in Muir, Vol I. p. 353
[f48]3
Quoted in Muir, Vol. 1. p. 316
[f49]4
Quoted in Muir. Vol. I, p. 354.
[f50]5
That is why Manu says "if the king wants to make a gift to a Shudra he must make him
work."
[f51]1
Muir, Vol. 1. pp. 401-404
[f52]There
is no direct evidence for this. Tradition accepts this as correct which seems to have been
based upon Rig Veda, III. 53.9. This is confirmed by Yaska in his Nirukta (II. 24) where
he says, "They then relate a story. The rishi Vishvamitra was the purohita of Sudas,
the son of Pijavana."
[f53]2
This is referred to by Sayana in his introduction to Rig Veda, vii.32 on the authority of
the Anukramanika which is quoted by Muir, Vol. 1. p. 328.
[f54]3 This is referred to by
Sayana in his introduction to verses 15 and 16 of Sukta 53 of the Third Mandala of the Rig
Veda, which is quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 343.
[f55]1
Muir, Vol. I, p. 328
[f56]2
Ibid
[f57]There seems to be some
doubt whether this enmity of Vasishtha had developed against Sudas or against the sons of
Sudas. This doubt has arisen because the Satyayana and Kaushitaki Brahmanas speak of
Saudasa, thereby suggesting that the quarrel of Vasishtha was with the sons of Sudas and
not with Sudas. On the other hand, Manu is definite that it was Sudas who was the
offender. Shadgurushishya speaks of Sudas and not Saudasas while the Brihaddevta in a
similar passage gives Sudas. The difficulty could be solved if Saudasas was interpreted to
be the family of Sudas, which includes both Sudas and his sons.
[f58]4
Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 302
[f59]1
Quoted by Muir, Vol. 1. p. 307
[f60]2
Quoted in Muir, Vol. I, pp. 310-313.
[f61]1
Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 316
[f62]2
Max Muller's, Sacred Books of the East. Vol.
XXV. p. 222