Devasthāna to Yudhiṣṭhira on the superiority of non-injury {adroha} towards all living beings. Verses 7-10. Chapter 21, Shānti Parva, Mahābhārata.

“Some praise Peacefulness {śama}, some praise Exertion {vyāyām};

some there are that praise Contemplation; & some praise both Peacefulness & Exertion. 

Some praise Sacrifice {yajña}; others, Renunciation {saṃnyāsa}.

Some praise Charity {dāna}; others, acceptance {pratigraha}.

Some, abandoning everything, live in silent meditation.

Some praise Sovereignty {rājya} and the cherishing {paripālana}, of subjects, after slaving, cutting and piercing {“hatvā bhittvā ca chittvā”} (foes).

Some are for passing their days in retirement {ekāntaśīla}.

Observing all this, the conclusion {niścaya} of the learned {budha} is that that religion {dharma} which consists in not injuring any creature {adroha – “adroheṇaiva bhūtānāṃ”} is worthy of the approbation of the righteous.”

 

I have substituted “Charity” for “Gifts”. 

I’m not sure why Kisari Mohan Ganguli, keeps using the word “gifts” for dāna.

Giving a gift to someone is not a donation, or an act of charity.

dāna clearly means Charity.

It may also be translated Liberality.

I must also add the normal meaning of ekāntaśīla is not “passing their days in retirement” – that is unconvincing.

Anyone may “retire” anywhere, at any time, at any stage of life {take Buddha for instance} – & retirement doesn’t imply seclusion or abstention, or contemplation.

The dictionary meaning of ekāntaśīla is “fond of loneliness”.

Monier-Williams’s dictionary, however, doesn’t cover half the complexities of Indian thought.

Thinking back from Hindi – since all these words have come down into modern Indian languages – the basic meaning seems to be – living in solitude.

It is possible that Ganguli incorporated views of some Scholiasts, but there’s no telling when & where he tweaks the words & sentences.

“passing their days in retirement” makes you think of retirement plans, pension, & all.

The Hindi translator interprets the passage as: “Other people stay alone, and consider ātma-cintana – contemplation about the Self – to be good”.

That is more convincing.

 

In the Hindi translation, there is a difference in the original Sanskrit text.

The Sanskrit verse has sāma {understood as loving behavior} instead of śama {translated “Peacefulness”}.

The second line is given thus: “Out of these two, some do not praise one {sāma}, some do not praise the other {vyāyāma}, and then there are those who praise both”.

Ganguli seems to understand śama both as Peacefulness, and Contemplation.

 

I’m not so sure what is pratigraha.

It is supposed to refer to the acceptance of charity, by Brāhmaṇas, which is considered to be one of their duties (I wonder why it has to be cajoled as a duty?).

Since the speaker – the ascetic Devasthāna – is addressing a King – i.e. Yudhiṣṭhira – and speaking in general terms, I’m not sure if he’s using the word specifically in reference to priests.

Kings, for instance, are strictly prohibited, to accept anything from anyone as a donation or gift or charity.

So why refer to it?

Probably Ganguli is correct, & it means Acceptance, i.e. a gracious acceptance of whatever comes your way. 

 

paripālana: “the act of guarding, nourishing, fostering”.

Devasthāna means that protecting & nourishing one’s subjects always involves violence & cruelty {against enemies, criminals, miscreants, law-breakers etc.} – hence, it cannot be the supreme dharma (here, I reckon, means: course of action, or possibly, way of life).

 

adroha essentially means Non-Hatred. 

droha means “injury, mischief, harm, perfidy, treachery, wrong, offence”.

One of the related root-words is druh, to hurt, to seek to harm, to be hostile to, to bear malice & hatred, to be a foe or rival.

Essentially, adroha may well be interpreted as “not injuring” – but it carries a broader, deeper, more significant meaning, i.e. bearing no malice, no ill-will, no enmity, no hostility, no hatred towards – & no desire to hurt – {here} “any living-being”.

As I intend to show later, all such terms are always understood in the three-fold context of actions, words, and thoughts.

In other words, “not harming any living being” – in actions, words, and thoughts – is intended.

 

This specific word crops up more than once, in the Mahābhārata, and is one of the keys to the deepest, most crucial values of Hinduism.

This is very important.

We are being told that the most important ethic – or value – of life, is NOT Tranquility {śama} – NOT sacrificial rites {yajña} – NOT Charity {dāna} – not even contemplation about the Spirit in ascetic seclusion – and NOT even renunciation {sannyāsa} – but bearing no ill-will or hatred or malice towards any living being.

What could be more spiritual, and more psychological?

This demands a complete re-orientation of our thought-process, our behavior, and our choices, towards a very specific ethical-psychological goal.

This injunction changes one’s perspective towards the essential evaluation of any & every value-system, every system of ethics, every code of conduct, completely, from its very roots.

What is the final aim that we are to move towards?

What is that one idea which we hold constantly within our minds?

How do we state it? How do we understand it?

Undoubtedly, this is a very difficult ethic, and not possible for everyone: but then, when has the loftiest, most exalted, been possible to the Many?

It is meant for the Fewest.

Though one can find all sorts of eulogistic statements – often using hyperbole as literary license – I can assure you that THIS is the fundamental sentiment of Indian ethics as defined in the Mahābhārata.

{And all the statements, though they may, at first glance, seem somewhat inconsistent, are all related, all integrated, all coalesce into a seamless unity, and are perfectly harmonious.}

In the Bühler translation of the Manusmṛti we read {2.87}:

“(whether) he perform other (rites) or neglect them, he who befriends (all creatures) is declared (to be) a (true) Brāhmaṇa”.

Here too, the word used – maitra – is understood as “friend of all creatures”, and this injunction also, quite fascinatingly, holds the ideal of benevolence towards all living beings above sacrificial rites & ceremonies – though it should be understood that sacrificial ceremonies, and the Vedic yajña, are neither denounced nor rescinded by such statements – they have their own place & position, their own role & importance, in the overall scheme of things.

And yet, there is no contradiction.

What I meant to point out is that such statements as the one in Manu 2.87, are merely a re-affirmation, a restatement, & a repetition {in a slightly different language}, of the precept of Devasthāna.

We have come across the statement that a householder {one in the Gṛhasta mode of life}, “should speak with all living beings words with the tenderness or love one feels for one’s own offspring {vātsalyātsarvabhūtebhyo vācyāḥ} – and words which delight the ears {śrotrasukhā giraḥ}” {Verse 14, Chapter 191, Shānti Parva} – this is in perfect consonance with the dharma truly admired by the righteous {sat} – “adroheṇaiva bhūtānāṃ”, as enunciated by Devasthāna.

Trying to understand the “caste-system” in the ideal world of Dasharatha’s reign: Kāṇḍa 1, Sarga 6, Rāmāyaṇa

 

What follows is a segment of the description of the city of Ayodhyā, from Chapter 6, of Book 1, of the Rāmāyaṇa.

Essentially, it describes the people living in the great city during the reign of Rāma’s father, Daśaratha.

Though the ideal Hindu society would be one governed & upheld by Rāma himself, I don’t think the one which Daśaratha presides over is any less perfect, and agrees in all fundamentals with all the ideals of Hindu culture. 

I consider this glowing description to be firmly & completely indicative of all the essential values & ethics of Hindu culture.   

This translation is my own, though I claim no originality or merit for it: it is nothing but a conflation of two translations, one by Manmatha Nath Dutt, and one a translation I found online.

I do not necessarily completely agree with either translation, but the online author has all my gratitude & respect for his work, and for furnishing the reader with several very helpful footnotes & comments, and important insights & golden-nuggets of information.

This description is very important, I think, to gauge the ideals, the values, and the lifestyle of Ancient Indians, of which we know so little.

There are other descriptions like this {especially in the Mahābhārata}, which give us vital clues to what life was like, in those times, or what those men considered life ought to be like.

My interest in the passage below pertains to the qualities, virtues, accomplishments, and lifestyle, of the people of Ayodhyā, and more specifically the condition of, & interrelation between, the various “castes” – or varṇas.

It is intriguing to come across such passages, or descriptions, which quite overturn the prevalent notions concerning the varṇa-system, better known as the “caste”-system.

Do read it carefully.

 

“He {i.e. the King, Daśaratha}, abiding in truth, adhering to the triple path {trivarga: i.e. the three goals of dharma, artha, kāma}, cherished that best of cities, as Indra (the heavenly city) Amrāvatī.

In that most excellent of cities, people were

·        happy (hṛṣṭa – perhaps merry might convey the right meaning),

·        their souls imbued with dharma (“dharmātmā”), 

·        highly knowledgeable (bahu-śruta);

·        contented with their own wealth;

·        devoid of covetousness (or greed) (alubdha), and

·        speakers of truth (satya-vādin – or, they were truthful).

...

In that foremost of cities, there was

·        none who had not at his command a plenteous supply of good things (na alpa saṃnicaya) {or, none who had not small provisions or store – presumably, of possessions}

·        no householder (kuṭumbin) who was not well off in horses & kine.

{There may be an alternative translation of the above passage, because the term asiddhartha is used (not siddhārtha), which might be broken up into a + siddha + artha.

Also: there was no “kuṭumbī” who did not have horses, kine, dhana & dhānya: wealth & grain}

...

And one could see nowhere in Ayodhyā anyone who was

·        given over to lust (kāmin)

·        niggardly/miserly (kadarya – alternatively: avaricious; I don’t know why has this been translated as “unsightly”, but that would make an interesting point in itself)

·        cruel (lacking in benevolence) (nṛśaṃsa)

·        not knowledgeable (“a-vidvān”), or

·        atheistic (nāstika).

...

All the men & women in that city

·        were possessed of conduct guided by dharma (dharma-śīla)

·        were excellently self-controlled (su-saṃyata)

·        endowed with a happy frame of mind (mudita) {compare with hṛṣṭa, above}, and

·        were in respect of (both) occupation & conduct spotless (amala) like unto great sages (mahārṣi).

{There are alternative ways to restate the above used words.}

...

There was none without

·        ear-rings (kuṇḍala) 

·        crowns/tiaras (mukuṭa)

·        garlands (“asragvī” – “अस्रग्वी” – from sraj –  a wreath of flowers, garland, chaplet worn on the head, etc.).

There were none who did not enjoy (the good things in life) (“न अल्प-भोगवान्”)

There was none who was not washed & cleaned (“न अमृष्टो”).

None whose limbs were not smeared (with unguents, or sandalwood-paste, etc.) (“न अलिप्ताङ्गो”)

None who were not perfumed (“न असुगन्धः”– none who were without perfume, or smelled bad).

...

There was none

·        who did not eat savory/well-prepared/clean food (“न अमृष्ट भोजी”) {alternatively: who did not eat a stomach full – all were well-fed}

·        who was not charitable (“न अदाता”)

·        who did not wear niṣkas & aṅgadas {ornaments for the breast/neck, & upper arms}

·        who was not self-possessed (ātmavat).

...

And there was none in Ayodhyā who

·        did not light the (sacrificial) fire (na-anāhita-agni)

·        did not perform sacrifices (na-ayajyu)

·        was mean-minded or low (kṣūdra)

·        was a thief (taskara)

·        was engaged in improper activities (avṛtta)

·        was of impure descent (saṃkara).

...

The Brāhmaṇas,

·        their organs of sense subdued (vijitendriya),

·        always delighted in the performance of their own duties (sva karma niratā),

·        gave away in charity,

·        engaged in studying, and

·        received gifts with discrimination (saṃyata – hence, it might mean self-control).

...

None of them were

·        atheists (nāstika)

·        untruthful (anṛta)

·        not highly erudite (a-bahu-śruta)

·        fault finding (asūyaka – also discontented, or envious, calumnious)

·        incompetent (aśakta), or

·        not endowed with knowledge (“a-vidvān”).

...

And there was no Brāhmaṇa who was not

·        versed in the Vedas & Vedāṅgas, or

·        observant of vows (na-a-vrata), or

·        giving away in thousands, or

who was

·        poor (dīna – also, wretched, miserable), or

·        of unfocused mind (kṣiptacitta – also understood as mind in agitation, or “insane”; I don’t think insane makes sense; probably what’s meant is they all have a concentrated mind, controlled, reined in, not restless, agitated or “scattered”; literally, kṣiptacitta might just mean “scatterbrained”), or

·        in distress (vyathita).

...

Whoever it may be, man or woman, none was seen who was not

·        full of splendor/grace/radiance (śrīmat – śrī might also mean wealth, prosperity),

·        endowed with beauty (rūpavat), and

·        devoted to the King.

...

In the four orders of the castes, with the Brāhmaṇas at their head, all

·        reverenced the gods & the guests (“devtā atithi pūjakāḥ”),

·        were full of gratitude (kṛtajña – acknowledging past services or benefits, mindful of former aid or favours; also: knowing what is right, correct in conduct, which makes better sense here);

·        were liberal (vadānya – also eloquent, speaking kindly or agreeably, affable, an important value in Hinduism, as in the last post – “One ...should speak upon all creatures words breathing affection & agreeable to the ears”);

·        were heroic (śūra); &

·        possessed prowess (vikrama).

...

And all men were

·        long-lived, &

·        ever abided by morality (dharma) & truth (satya),

and lived in that best of cities, surrounded by sons & grandsons & wives.

...

The Kṣatriyas had their faces turned toward the Brāhmaṇas (brahma-mukha).

The Vaiśyas were ardently devoted to (anuvrata) the Kṣatriyas.

The Śūdras, delighting in performing their own duties (स्व धर्म निरताः), ministered unto the three (higher) castes.

...

And that city was excellently guarded & governed (parirakṣita) by that lord of Ikṣvāku’s {i.e. Daśaratha}, even as that foremost of men, the intelligent Manu, governed it before him.” 

 

 

Does this appear to be a society ridden with your Liberal-media-propagated “caste-system” – or rather, ridden with “caste-oppression” & “class-exploitation”?

I don’t think so.

{You might remember the episode of  Rāma meeting the “lowest caste of India”, the Niṣāda King, Guhā  whom Rāma not only embraces, but also whose arms he massages like a loving aunt.}

One can clearly see that all people – all castes – all orders of society – in Ayodhyā – are rich, educated, healthy, & happy.

It is important to note that the text repeatedly emphasizes “all” {as in “none without”}, “all men”, “whether man or woman”, “all four castes”, etc..

There is no indication of Śūdras being indigent, living in squalor, or being ignorant & unhappy.

They are not “dirty” or “smelly”, shabby or sickly.

The weal & vibrancy of their bodies, minds, and property, all seem to be important & desired.

The Shūdras, every bit as the “upper castes” are liberal (vadānya), beautiful (rūpavat), heroic (śūra), and possessed of strength or valour (vikrama).

This is the state of affairs under the intelligent rule of Daśaratha, the father of Rāmacandra.

 

I have noticed how Kisari Mohan Ganguli – despite the enormous feat of translating such a vast, complex text, for which we all must be immensely grateful – in his translation of the Mahābhārata – tweaks, distorts, & sometimes outright mistranslates, several passages, to make it look like Śūdras were at the receiving end of Indian society, whereas the original text said no such thing.

This post is a part of the same process, of trying to recapture the respect which Śūdras enjoyed in Hindu society, without anybody harbouring notions pertaining to equality.

 “ There was none without

·        ear-rings

·        crowns/tiaras

·        garlands.

There were none who did not enjoy (the good things in life).

There was none who was not washed & cleaned.

None whose limbs were not smeared (with unguents, or sandalwood-paste, etc.).

None who were not perfumed.” 

This is great.

The statement is very definitive, and admits of no doubt, and – it should never be forgotten – includes Shūdras.

It has been said that the ear-rings, curiously mentioned in several strange contexts in both epics, were differentiated according to the level of learning, and the tiara, which has been translated “headgear” – probably turban, as we see on old Buddhist monuments – were different, indicative of caste.

Probably.

But it is fascinating that, in this glowing sketch of the world ruled by Daśaratha, all four castes enjoyed such wealth & prosperity.

At any rate, in the ideal universe of Sanātana Dharma, all four castes enjoy affluence & the pleasures of life, while following a rigorous moral code, i.e. Dharma.

That’s the main point.

 

What is more striking is the utter lack of rancor & ill-will, the harmony between the varṇas, the mutual understanding.

This implies that people understood the meaning of the varṇa-system, why it was formulated, what experiences led to its institution, what was the philosophy & the history behind it, and that people accepted it graciously, and abided by their dharma willingly & happily.

“All the men & women in that city ... in respect of (both) occupation & conduct were spotless (amala – blameless) like unto great sages (maharṣi)”.

There’s no doubt that this includes the 4^th caste, and that this presupposes its possession of extensive education & knowledge, as well as its exalted moral character.

It means that the Śūdras, as well as the women, may be expected, and  can, become like Maharṣis.

It was not considered beyond them. 

This is high honor, given to both women, and to the lowest of the 4 castes.    

 

“And one could see nowhere in Ayodhyā anyone who was not knowledgeable (“a-vidvān”)” ... “people were ... highly knowledgeable (bahu-śruta)”.    

The text does not say “only Brāhmaṇas were highly knowledgeable”, or “except Śūdras, there was no one who wasn’t knowledgeable”.

Indeed, the verse above clearly implies that Shūdras in Ayodhyā were also “vidvāns”, that is to say men of knowledge & wisdom.

 

Though bahu-śruta has been understood as “well-read”, śruta itself means “anything heard, that which has been heard (esp. from the beginning), knowledge as heard by holy men and transmitted from generation to generation, oral tradition or revelation, sacred knowledge”.

In the Mahābhārata, Ganguli himself interprets the bahu-śruta as: 

 ·        “intimate acquaintance with the Vedas and the (other) scriptures” {12.73 – in relation to the kind of Brāhmaṇa to be appointed by a King as Purohita},

·         ·        “knowledge of the Vedas” {2.38.20 – as being one of the qualities of Acyuta, i.e. Kṛṣṇa; the Hindi translator interprets as “śāstra-jñāna”}, and

 ·        śrutavat as “well-versed in the śāstras” {1.1.143 – as one of the qualities of Sanjaya, recounted by Dhṛtarāṣṭra: this coheres with the Hindi translator’s interpretation of bahu-śruta at 2.38.20}

 

The dictionary itself defines bahu-śruta as “one who has studied much, very learned, well versed in the Vedas”.

We are first told that all the people in Ayodhyā were bahu-śruta, and that there was no Brāhmaṇa who was not bahu-śruta.

Thus, we are being directly told, unambiguously, that everybody  in Ayodhyā was “very learned in the Vedas”.

Could this include the Śūdras?

Were women allowed to study the Vedas?

Well, the phrasing of all the passages seems to imply so, though one cannot be absolutely sure.
They definitely seem to have knowledge of the Shāstras – an important point which I shall definitely build upon, in the future.

That at least some Śūdras did have, or needed to have, knowledge of the Vedas is a fleeting point made somewhere, and I’ll come to that in good time.

What a blow it would be to Liberalist propaganda, if Śūdras were meant to be vidvāns, i.e. “Pundits”, once upon a time, in Indian society!!

This is indicated in the Mahābhārata too, where we come across several such curious passages {12.318.87-88}:

“Emancipation {mokṣa} flows from Knowledge {jñāna}.

Without Knowledge {jñāna} it can never be attained.

The wise have said it, O monarch.

Hence, one should strive one’s best for acquiring true Knowledge in all its details, by which one may succeed in freeing oneself from birth and death.

Obtaining knowledge {jñāna} from a Brāhmaṇa or a Kṣatriya or Vaiśya or even a Śūdra who is of low birth, one endued with faith should always show reverence for such knowledge.

Birth & death cannot assail one that is endued with faith {śraddha}.” 

{I’d like to add that, according to the Hindi translation, the verse says: “Obtaining jñāna from a Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya, Śūdra, or one who is of low birth” ... Ganguli’s translation makes it look like the text is saying that Shūdras are of low birth – but the Hindi translator separates Shūdra from “one of low birth”.}

 

In other words, this verse from the Mahābhārata clearly says that one can obtain the Knowledge – jñāna – of Emancipation, of Release, or Spiritual Liberation – i.e. mokṣa – from a Shūdra!

How can this be possible, if they were debarred from all knowledge, all education, and all instruction?

 

Despite the compelling nature of the passages, I will desist from making a categorical statement that “this is proof” that Śūdras {or women} were allowed to study the Vedas, and even were allowed to “light the (sacrificial) fire” or “perform sacrifices”.

Probably some sacrificial ceremonies were allowed to them {the Śūdras, i.e.}, and perhaps the first phrase does not necessarily mean lighting the sacrificial fire of the Vedic ceremony, from which Śūdras were clearly debarred, in the earlier Vedic literature.

Nevertheless, the passages are quite unambiguous in themselves.

What is absolutely clear is that they were well-read, knowledgeable, prosperous, radiant, happy, long-lived, healthy, and certainly knew what they needed to know to perform the function they had to perform in society.

Which is way more than can be said of anyone, today.

 

These passages, taken in themselves, are ample evidence that Śūdras – whatever their position in relation to the Vedas & Vedic sacrifices – were neither in fact, nor in theory meant to be – illiterate, poor, unlettered, ugly, “botched” {a repulsive word often used by Nietzsche}, or without spiritual self-development.

What is very important is they were certainly not “weak” – on the contrary, they were heroes (śūra), and possessed valor or great energy or prowess (vikrama).

So much for the “weak” & the “botched” & the “ugly” “masses” of the likes of Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

Nevertheless, it cannot be stressed enough that that there is no egalitarianism in the Rāmāyaṇa, or anywhere in Indian literature, despite the above passages.

When that has been understood, and the above passages have been grasped in the right light, one is enabled to see what a tremendous achievement – of moral-social balance – of socio-psychological harmony – of edifying the minds of the community – of training the people to know & understand the fundamental principles of existence – had been possible, or envisioned as an ideal situation.

 

Last but not the least, consider the last but one statement:

“The Kṣatriyas had their faces turned toward the Brāhmaṇas (brahma-mukha).

The Vaiśyas were ardently devoted to (anuvrata) the Kṣatriyas.

The Śūdras, delighting in performing their own duties (“sva dharma niratāḥ” –स्व धर्म निरताः), ministered unto the three (higher) castes.”  

I have come across similar statements in the Mahābhārata.

It is an unusual way of structuring the relationships, or rather, of articulating the structure of those relationships.

Did the Vaiśyas not have “their faces turned toward the Brāhmaṇas”??

Or is it necessarily implied in their being devoted to the Kṣatriyas?

“Kṣatriyas were obedient unto the Brāhmaṇas”, makes very good sense, and maybe derived from some Scholiast, but the Sanskrit term used is also likely to mean they looked towards the Brāhmaṇas as philosophers & guides, for direction & counsel, for being trained in the mysteries of even statecraft & warfare.

 

Similarly, Dutt says “the Vaiśyas followed the Kṣatriyas”: though “follow” is not the precise meaning of the word “anuvrata”, at least according to the dictionary.

The text makes it a point to note that {like the Brāhmaṇas, previously} the Śūdras delighted in (nirata) – or were enthusiastically engaged in – performing their own dharma, and attended upon (upacārin) – or reverenced – the other three castes.

The words “obedient” & “followed” are not technically wrong, but they have fundamentally different connotations than what “kṣatram brahmukham” {क्षत्रम् ब्रह्ममुखम्} or anuvrata imply.

It’s also because of such statements that I am deeply skeptical of all those passages, through the length & breadth of extant Hindu literature, that specifically club together, or pit against each other, the Brāhmaṇas & the Śūdras.

Why should they be?

The 4^th caste served all the three upper castes, and – if you want to put it that way – was below all three of them, was to be submissive to all three of them.

Passages singling out Brāhmaṇas & Śūdras make it look like there was supposed to be some special subservience of Śūdras towards Brāhmaṇas, which doesn’t make any sense.

The passages seem to be deliberately interpolated to make it look like Brāhmaṇas were specifically oppressing Śūdras – or, as in some cases, so were Kings.

There is absolutely no reason to think so.

Why keep singling out the relationship between Brāhmaṇas & Śūdras?

I’m deeply skeptical of all such statements.

 

It is imperative to recognize the hypocrisy, and manipulativeness of all those, who keep specifically targeting the Brāhmaṇas as “oppressors” of the Śūdras.

If there was any oppression, Kṣatriyas & Vaiśyas were every bit as responsible, every bit as much  contributed to the system, every bit wanted it, as much affirmed it, and allowed it to continue unchallenged for thousands of years.

Though there is an episode in the Rāmāyaṇa which does bring the Brāhmaṇas & Śūdras into direct conflict with each other, there is reason to think that particular episode was a later addition – though I cannot say how late.

It’s also possible that the episode is purely symbolical {same applies to the entire epic} – the terms Brāhmaṇa & Śūdra referring to certain tattvas, rather than literal men of the socio-political caste-system.

Last but not the least, it is the only episode I know of, which marks out a direct conflict between members of the two castes.

Apart from that, I cannot remember any relevant episode anywhere, in which Brāhmaṇas & Śūdras were ever in direct conflict with each other.

However, without further inputs, I do not want to comment on it.

 

On the contrary, it should be remembered that in the Mahābhārata, Veda Vyāsa, a high-ranking Brāhmaṇa – albeit born out of wedlock, from an act of love between a Ṛṣi & a fisherwoman {Satyavatī, also called Matsyagandhā, who was nevertheless the progeny of a King} – mates with the servant of the widowed-Queen Ambikā (and in a sense, his sister-in-law), and goes on to father Vidura, who is one of the greatest, most impressive men of wisdom in the epic, and in Indian literature as such.

Thus, mating & marriage between Brāhmaṇa men & Śūdra women was permissible {the opposite being virulently execrated} – and Vidura is half-Śūdra, which does not prevent the author(s) of the Mahābhārata from depicting him as one of the wisest men who ever lived.

If Ancient Indians were such “bigots”, they would’ve never authored such relationships, and never created such an impressive character.

 

To wrap up, even if we admit the terms “obedient” & “followed”, we see that the “caste-system”, under the reign of Daśaratha in Ayodhyā, a sort of ideal Hindu world – does not imply poverty & misery {for the Śūdras} or any reluctance & resentment {of any varṇa against another} – there is no semblance or indication of coercion – of anything being unnaturally imposed – of one caste begrudging the other caste all the time – of one community perpetually cribbing against & finding fault with another {nobody is asūyaka} – or any sort of “exploitation” or “oppression”.

On the contrary, the people of all 4 varṇas are all affluent, all men & women of culture, all enjoying life, all endowed with glowing health, all bathed & perfumed like highly civilized beings, all instructed in the recondite wisdom of the ages, all decent & law-abiding, all living in harmony with each other.    

This makes sense, because resentment, vindictiveness, calumny & misunderstanding arise when one, or some, sections of a society live in poverty, disease, squalor, & slackness of moral values, while others wallow in luxury, glamor, and power.

When everyone is wealthy, merry, & aware, there will be harmony.

I don’t think I need to add more right now, though one can, and should.

The verses are self-explanatory.

Draw your own conclusions.