The general idea prevalent amongst people today, is that Shūdras in Ancient India were a sorely oppressed & exploited mass of people – constituting majority of India’s population – chained to an unending yoke of mundane, mind-numbing menial tasks – systematically kept illiterate & uneducated – treated like slaves & beasts of burden – and subject to the most dehumanizing servility & submission.
Obviously, this would mean that they had no knowledge of Sanskrit?
That, like the lower classes of India today, they were overwhelmingly or totally illiterate, unable to distinguish one alphabet of any language from that of another?
I have been told that Shūdras were not allowed to read, let alone study, Sanskrit.
I don’t know if this is true, but it seems Shūdras were not even allowed to read the Hanumān Chālisā.
The Hanumān Chālisā is not even written in Sanskrit.
These are the general perceptions, about the condition of Shūdras, within our society today – and I don’t know how much verifiable, objective proof has been brought forward, to validate such claims.
But is all this true?
Do such claims even begin to make any sense?
As for the sense part, I shall take that up sometime later, but as to the part of facts, how about this statement made at the very end of the very first chapter of the Rāmāyaṇa {1.1.100}:
“If a Brāhmaṇa reads it {paṭhan} {i.e. the Rāmāyaṇa} he shall attain Prominence {or Excellence} {vṛṣabhatva} in Speech;
If a Kṣatriya reads it, he shall acquire sovereignty {bhūmipatitva};
If a Vaiśya {Sk. original: vaṇik} reads it, he shall obtain the fruits of trade;
If a Shūdra reads it, he shall obtain greatness {mahitva}”.
Doesn’t this one statement give a smashing blow to all the preconceived notions about Shūdras being “kept” illiterate & ignorant – that they were nothing more than servants – and lived in abject lack of knowledge?
If not altogether demolish the edifice of modern propaganda – for there are qualifications & nuances to all such complex social-historical issues – doesn’t it raise a very important, weighty objection to it?
How could a Shūdra be allowed to read the Rāmāyaṇa – an epic written in Sanskrit – a very complex & sophisticated text replete with ethical, political, and esoteric wisdom, inundated with the sweetest & most beautiful poetry, luminous with the sublime & heroic – if they were so sorely “oppressed” & “suppressed” – if they were not allowed to read & write – and if “Brahmins made sure” that they never “shared” their “knowledge” with them?
We are succinctly given an indication of the benefits which accrue to those who study this text.
We are told, in 1.1.98, that
– this narrative is Purifying, or Pure, or Sacred {pavitra}
– that it demolishes all sins {pāpa-ghna}
– that it is Auspicious, or Holy, or Virtuous {puṇya}.
Certainly, thus, the Shūdras were expected to study that which was pavitra, pāpa-ghna, puṇya, which liberated one from all sins {“sarva-pāpaih mucyate”}.
It is necessarily implied, that the Shūdra – along with Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, and Vaiśyas {since all 4 castes are to read this epic} – shall attain to a long life {āyuṣya}, and will be honored in heaven {svarga} {1.1.99}.
In other words, the Shūdra could very well be exalted in heaven, along with his sons, grandsons, kinsmen, and servants.
{The Hindi translator, who is not the best, understands “mahīyate” as “pūjyate” – i.e. worshipped, or reverenced.}
Reverence & heaven are not denied to Shūdras.
Why have these statements not been recognized for what they are, and been proclaimed, more emphatically, before?
Why haven’t the correct inferences been drawn, and the public made cognizant of them?
An important inference {of 1.1.100} is that not only were Shūdras allowed to study the prodigious, poetic Sanskrit text called the Rāmāyaṇa, but they were actually enjoined to do so – they were given a positive incentive to do so.
A Shūdra could attain mahitva – greatness – if he studied the Rāmāyaṇa.
He would be worshipped in Heaven itself, with his progeny, descendants, relations, and associates.
This is not mere accessibility: this is encouragement.
Another inference is that only someone who has a proper education in Sanskrit, and all the fundamentals of Hindu metaphysics, cosmology, and spirituality, can actually understand the Rāmāya
The epic itself tells us {1.2.42} that Vālmiki “of gracious appearance & unparalleled renown has composed hundreds of verses in melodious measure, couching the significance of the history of Rāma’s line” {Manmatha Nath Dutt translation}.
The Sanskrit original uses the word udāravṛttārthapada, which the dictionary defines as “of excellent words & meaning & metre”.
The author, Vālmiki – the sage {muni} of lofty or noble intelligence {udāra-dhī} – also called bhāvitātman {“one whose soul is purified by meditating on the universal soul”} – himself says that the Rāmāyaṇa is “lucid with sweet & equally-accented words” {1.2.43}, that it has been composed with “Samasas, Sandhis, Prakr
In other words, to study this epic, the Shūdra had to have full knowledge of Sanskrit grammar & poetics.
Most importantly, we are told that the Rāmāyaṇa is “like unto the Veda itself” {1.1.98}.
veda-sammita may also mean “equal to the Vedas”.
In other words, the Shūdra was allowed to study a narrative which measured up to, and was considered as good as, the Vedas themselves.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise.
I have earlier pointed out, in one of my earliest posts, that the Rāmāyaṇa says, of the people of Ayodhyā (1.6.6, 8):
“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).
And one could see nowhere in Ayodhyā anyone who was ... cruel (lacking in benevolence) (nṛśaṃsa), not knowledgeable (“a-vidvān”), or atheistic (nāstika).”
I had written:
“One can clearly see that all people – all castes –
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.”
That all the people in Ayodhyā were bahu-śruta & v
I had given 3 examples indicating or explaining the meaning of the word bahu-śruta from Kisari Mohan Ganguli’s translation of the Mahābhārata:
§ “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}
If men & women from all 4 castes were bahu-śruta, as Rāmāyaṇa verses 1.6.6 & 1.6.14 clearly imply, it means Shūdras were definitely allowed to know the Shāstras, definitely had full & proper education in Sanskrit, and it’s quite logical they’re exhorted to study the Rāmāyaṇa itself.
Mind you, this doesn’t mean that the caste-system didn’t exist.
It very obviously did exist, but the picture we’re given of it is overwhelmingly wrong.
Shūdras were never meant to be illiterate, unlettered, ignorant, unenlightened yokels & slaves.
They were never meant to be poor, diseased, dressed in tatters, possessing no property, living in unhygienic slums.
As I said, the inferences are important.
One who gets absorbed into the universe of Milton or Dante is significantly different – psychologically, spiritually, intellectually – from one who reads silly, racy magazines available in shady street-corners.
He who spends his free time studying the skies with a telescope is on a different psychological plane than one who wastes his life on puerile video-games.
You have to be a specific type of person to be able to do a specific type of act, to take a specific kind of activity seriously, and to commit oneself to it.
The Rāmāyaṇa in itself contains innumerable complexities, paradoxes, mysterious allusions & recondite references, discourses on politics & morality, and significant philosophical content, which makes it a great deal more than some fascinating fairy-tale.
To read it, to study it, to understand it, is no mean intellectual feat.
It needs intelligence, intellectuality, a deep sensitivity to poetry, a love for the sublime & the tragic, very refined sensibilities.
When Mandodarī, while lamenting the fall of her glorious husband, says that Rāma is a mahā-yogī {6.111.14} – when Brahmā calls Him “parātpara”, “That which is Beyond That which is Beyond All” {6.117.20} – we immediately realize that the epic is a metaphysical, spiritual allegory, and that nothing is what it appears to be.
And anyone who studied this text, 2,000 years or more ago – knew the meaning of these terms.
When we are told that it is “set in 3 meters {pramāṇa}, & 7 notes, & sung according to time to the accompaniment of stringed instruments {tantrīlaya-
If the Shūdras were allowed to study this text, they did possess all this knowledge.
We are told that the whole epic was envisioned within the depths of his consciousness by Vālmiki in a state of yoga (Kāṇḍa 1, Sarga 3):
It is neither a love-story {though it is undoubtedly written as such}, nor a book of battle & heroism {though that abounds in it, too}.
It is the great intellectual, spiritual product of yoga – and truth be told, it is about yoga.
Only not the yoga which we know about, today.
That the Shūdras were allowed to study it, and were promised high reward for studying it, must overturn many of our contemporary notions about what was “denied” and “allowed”, to them.
As for the rest, I shall give further evidence that neither knowledge of Sanskrit, nor knowledge of the Shāstras, nor knowledge of Indian philosophy & metaphysics, was denied to the Shūdras.
This is merely the beginning.
