We have seen that in the very 1st chapter of the Rāmāyaṇa, all 4 varṇas of India – the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya, and the Shūdras – all are enjoined to read the epic.
We have seen that the same is written at the end of both the hymns {known as stotra or stava}: the Viṣṇu Saharsanāma and the Shiva Saharasanāma – in the Mahābhārata.
We have seen the case of Shabarī {an outcaste woman} and Shravaṇa:
We have understood the implications of these emphatic and unambiguous injunctions.
1. Shūdras {and women} were allowed knowledge of Sanskrit.
2. Shūdras were allowed knowledge of the epics or the Itihāsas.
3. Since the epics and Sahasranāmas are established on – since they contain & reveal – the sum-total of – all the knowledge of Brāhmaṇas, of Indian philosophy – the Shūdras had access to this knowledge.
4. Since all these texts are openly compared to the Vedas – they are often considered equivalent to the Vedas – the Shūdras had a profound understanding of the essential knowledge of the Vedas.
There are many other indications that Shūdras {and women} had proper knowledge of various Sanskrit and philosophical Indian texts.
I have earlier noted the beautiful & delightful depiction of the city of Ayodhyā, in the beginning of the Rāmāyaṇa, from which we can directly & unequivocally deduce that Shūdras were well-educated, affluent, healthy, virtuous, and happy.
All citizens of Ayodhyā are called “bahu-śruta” – which can definitely be interpreted as “possessing knowledge of the Śrutis” or sacred scriptures – or possessing knowledge of the Vedas themselves.
This is what I’d written:
“... 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}”
Allow me to give another example of the word bahu-śruta in the Mahābhārata {12.65.2-3}:
“Of all kinds of abandonment, again, that of the body in battle, is the foremost.
Thou hast seen with thy eyes how the rulers of the earth, ever observant of Kshatriya duties,
Ø having duly waited upon their preceptors {guru-śuśrūṣa} and
Ø acquired great learning {bahu-śruta – Hindi tr: “aneka śāstron ka jñāna upārjana”},
at last cast off their bodies, engaged in battle with one another.
The Kṣatriya, desirous of acquiring religious merit, should, after having gone through the Brahmacarya mode, should lead a life of domesticity which is always meritorious.”
Thus, we repeatedly see that bahu-śruta means knowledge of the Shāstras, knowledge of the Vedas, and knowledge of other scriptures.
In simple terms, it means erudite, highly-educated, or indicates acquisition of great learning.
Ergo, if all men and women, all castes in Ayodhyā were bahuśruta, it means Shūdras were also bahu-śruta, and were well-versed in the Shāstras.
They were, at any rate, educated and knowledgeable.
We have many other indications that esoteric, philosophic, and spiritual knowledge was accessible to Shūdras.
There are some passages which are somewhat vague and/or inconsistent, but if one approaches them with an objective, impartial, and rational mind, one will see that Shūdras were not at all barred from higher transcendental or lesser worldly knowledge.
Thus, in Chapter 240 of the Shānti Parva in the Mahābhārata, after an exposition of the fundamental tenets of the Sānkhya school, we are given fundamental principles of the practice of the Yoga-path of emancipation.
We read {12.240.24-32}:
“Restraining speech and the senses one should practise Yoga during
[ the hours after dusk,
[ the hours before dawn, and
[ at dawn of day,
{original Sanskrit: trikāla – literally translated, means “the three times (of the day)”}
[ seated on a mountain summit, or
[ at the foot of a goodly tree {“caitya” – usually refers to specific trees which, for their magnificence, abundant leafage, & the refuge they offered, were marked out, sanctified, and worshipped by a community, say a village}, or
Restraining all the senses within the heart, one should, with faculties concentrated, think on the Eternal and Indestructible like a man of the world thinking of wealth and other valuable possessions.
{That is, with the same intensity, the same ardour, the same dedication.}
One should never, while practising Yoga, withdraw one’s mind from it.
One should with devotion betake oneself to those means by which one may succeed in restraining the mind that is very restless.
...
Disregarding all things, & eating very abstemiously, the Yogin should look with an equal eye upon objects acquired or lost.
He should behave after the same manner towards one that praises and one that censures him.
He should not seek the good or the evil of one or the other.
{Tricky passage.
What is meant is that a Yogin has to abandon all actions, all attachments – because all actions have their rise, their progression, and their conclusion, in desire, emotion and thought – all of which signify restlessness and lack of spiritual concentration on the Ātman.
There is also a more complex ethical dimension which can be debated endlessly.
“Doing good” to someone may not be, in itself, the right thing to do.
For one, the definition of “good” changes from city to city, from age to age, from gender to gender, from occupation to occupation, from person to person.
For another, whom are you helping? – what for? – and what would be the consequences of your actions?
Does it occur to people that in “doing good” to someone you might be actually doing harm to someone else – or maybe to that person himself?
That you may be supporting the wrong person, or the wrong cause?
What is good for someone may not be good for another.
What is good today may not be good tomorrow.
And what you think is good for someone, may not actually be good for that person.
Maybe you’ve not understood the situation.
Maybe you’ve not been able to gauge the long-term consequences of your actions.
From a strictly objective point of view, Life is so complex, so volatile, so ever-changing, so unpredictable, that there are no absolutes as to “good” & “evil”.
This does not mean anything goes, or that one mustn’t do good to others, but the man of worldly affairs has to think critically & carefully before acting – while the Yogin looking for enlightenment has to stay away from all emotional or mental flux & turmoil.
Also, maybe you are acting out of self-interest.
Maybe you’re ensnaring yourself in a web of expectation & ingratitude – hoping to collect plaudits & praise, recognition & respect.
You might just plunge into the pit of pride & anger – of resentment & disillusionment.
All actions are bound up with the craving for popularity & power, with the craving for dominance & control, obedience & influence – with the craving for admiration & adulation – and with the fear of losing wealth, health & comfort.
At the most benevolent, one cannot escape the perennial psychological perils of ingratitude, envy, slander, and betrayal.
Hence, you’re never free – you’re unendingly embroiled in emotions, in stressful or excited sensations – your mind remains restless; your heart, fretful – you’re still far away from the Golden Mountain of equipoise & serenity.
The Yogin has to be completely withdrawn into himself, and remain unattached, and uninvolved, because the whole of one’s being needs to be focused on the Ātman, and not on any external object whatsoever.
He is focused on the one thing that is Absolute – because everything else is relative, is subject to change, is evanescent & conditional.
The logic is perfect.
There can be no diversions or distractions, no excitements or annoyances, no mundane sentiment or mental disturbance.
Yoga is a calming down, even a closing down of all external functions.
It is somewhat akin to pulling down the shutters and drawing all the curtains one by one.
When all doors & windows to the outside world are shut, the hidden inner light can be discerned clearly.
That’s why all involvement in worldly concerns is to be eschewed.}
Unto one
[ whose mind is thus turned to itself,
[ who leads a life of purity, and
[ who casts an equal eye upon all things;
– indeed, unto one who is ever engaged in Yoga thus for even six months; – Shabda Brahma appears very vividly.
Beholding all men afflicted with anxiety (on account of earning wealth & comfort), the Yogin should view a clod of earth, a piece of stone, and a lump of gold with an equal eye.
Indeed, he should withdraw himself from this path (of earning wealth), cherishing an aversion for it, and never suffer himself to be stupefied.”
And then comes the part relevant to the present post {12.240.34-35}:
“
api varṇāv akṛṣṭas tu nārī vā dharmakāṅkṣiṇī
tāv apy etena mārgeṇa gacchetāṃ paramāṃ gatim
ajaṃ purāṇam ajaraṃ sanātanaṃ; yad indriyair upalabhate niścalaḥ
anor anīyo mahato mahattaraṃ; tadātmanā paśyati muktātmavā
[ Even if a person happens to belong to the inferior order,
[ even if one happens to be a woman,
both of them, by following in the track indicated above, will surely attain to the highest end {param gati}.
He that has subdued his mind beholds in his own self, by the aid of his own knowledge the
[ Uncreate {aja},
[ Ancient {purāṇa},
[ Undeteriorating {ajara}, and
[ Eternal {sanātana}
Such passages are very important.
We are basically being told that one of an “inferior order” {akṛṣṭa-varṇa} and women, can follow the rigorous path of Yoga and can attain Mokṣa.
The text nowhere says Shūdra, btw.
Why wouldn’t it?
Ganguli translates akṛṣṭa-varṇ
The meaning is not obvious.
Even if we accept the translations as correct, it is quite an astonishing revelation.
Or perhaps not so astonishing, given that Shūdras could read the Rāmāyaṇa and the Sahasranāmas, and were evidently expected to understand & teach & proclaim them.
Here I need to add a few words about the term translated as “inferior order” or “nīca-varṇa”.
I haven’t come across a definition of the word akṛṣṭa as meaning inferior or low, but that is the logical conclusion.
We have heard of ni-kṛṣṭa, which is defined as “debased, vile, low, despised, outcast”.
There is apa-kṛṣṭa, which means “low, vile, inferior”, also “dragged down, brought down, depressed”.
“apa” is used in the sense of not possessing the quality denoted by the word following “apa”.
Thus, “apa-karuṇa” means “not
“apa-kīrti” means “the opposit
Since apa-kṛṣṭa means “low, vile, inferior”, kṛṣṭa would mean something like noble, having good status, respectable, honorable, genteel.
This is reinforced by the word nikṛṣṭa, since “ni” may also used in the sense of negation.
Thus, ni-roga, means “not being diseased” – i.e. being healthy.
If ni-kṛṣṭa means “debased, vile, low, despised, outcast, vulgar”, kṛṣṭa {which would be the opposite of nikṛṣṭa} would mean that which is regular, acceptable, a part of the community, or noble, well-born, well-bred, having good status.
a-kṛṣṭa would mean the opposite of kṛṣṭa – that which is not kṛṣṭa – hence, it appears to mean the same as apakṛṣṭa and nikṛṣṭa.
The Shānti Parva passage 12.240.34 indica
And how can one practice Yoga
– how can one attain to the Supreme Goal {param-gati} of human life
– how can one have a vision either of Shabda Brahma or behold in one’s Self the Eternal & Undeteriorating Brahma
– without understanding the philosophy, the spiritual & cosmological & metaphysical principles – underlying it?
How does one know what is param-gati, and what is not param-gati?
How does one know what is sanātana-brahma, what is shabda-brahma?
How does one distinguish one mental condition, one state of being, from another?
How does one know how to order, organize, & channelize, the prāṇas & shaktis within the body, which is necessary for the attainment of the “Supreme Destination”?
It is important to read the footnote given by Ganguli, at this point.
He writes:
“The inferior order here referred to is, of course, the Śūdra order.
The commentator points out that whereas only the three superior orders {“Pandit-Thakur-Baniya”
This is downright baloney.
The Commentator is either a very late commentator {most of whom I know, date to the 15th-16th centuries CE or thereabouts, at least 1,400 to 2,000 years after the epic was written}
– or he hasn’t himself understood the passage & the context
– or he has been mistranslated.
There is of course no reason to say “of course, the Śūdra order”.
There is no hint of it, in the original Sanskrit.
If one reads any serious Indian text, one realizes that it’s indispensable for Emancipation to grasp the total knowledge of the Vedic-Upanishadic canon, and all its relevant spiritual practices, which cannot preclude knowledge of Sānkhya.
In other words, one cannot become a renunciate
– one cannot become a Yogin
– one cannot have a vision/experience of Shabda-Brahma
– one cannot understand what is the experience of Param-Gati, or Aja-Purāṇa-Brahma
– without the knowledge of Tattvamasi, or without the knowledge of Sānkhya!
It is like saying you can become an astronomer without knowing physics.
The Shānti Parva of the Mahābhārata itself deals primarily with Sānkhya and Yoga, and lands up saying that there is no difference between the two of them.
As far as I understand, they are inseparable, for the understanding and actual practice of Yoga.
The Purāṇas, especially, particularly follow the Sānkhya conceptual-
“Restraining all the senses within the heart, one should, with faculties concentrated, think on the Eternal and Indestructible...”
This is not like eating a mango.
This is a very long-drawn, elaborate, intricate process – a highly intellectual endeavor integrating faith {śraddhā} with love {bhakti} and knowledge {jñāna} – a protracted disciple demanding the very highest will-power & self-control.
This is a very complex exercise which cannot be accomplished without knowing what is what.
For instance, you need to have a knowledge of
[ the praṇas {the 5 prāṇas, generally – prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna,
[ the various sub-planes or regions within the body itself, which are identified with the different prāṇas, or said to be the seats of the various prāṇas {for e.g. where is the udāna or vyāna located, how does it function? How can it be controlled?},
[ the functioning of the various sensory-organs {the 5 jñāna-indriyas & 5 karma-indriyas},
[ the functioning of the manas, citta, ahamkāra, and buddhi,
[ the relation of each to the universe, i.e. of the adhyātmika-ādhibhautika-
and many other articles of information, besides, to even know what you’re doing.
You need instruction and spiritual guidance, by a Guru {from “gu” + “ru” – “
One doesn’t just attain the param-gati, the “Supreme Destination”, just like walking into a shopping mall.
It is a graduated, step-by-step process replete with pitfalls, with moments of doubt & anxiety & depression ... fraught with psychological disorientation & confusion, and myriad bewildering psychic experiences.
The internal spiritual process of weaning oneself from all “normal” sensations, desires, impulses, instincts, & emotions – and taking the whole ensemble of the body to a condition of complete tranquility & desirelessness – is one of profound, unexpected changes in the consciousness and body.
It proceeds by degrees – passing through stages the attributes of which one doesn’t have prior direct knowledge or experience.
When you’re climbing a mountain, you can physically see the rocks & trees & the pathways before you.
Once you’ve climbed it, it’s much easier to climb it again – you know the turns, the ditches, the ravines suddenly yawning beneath your feet or the treacherous cliff plunging into a chasm behind a tree – you know the rocks, the brambles, the snake-pits, and the obstacles.
Yoga, or any transcendental spiritual process, is not like that.
You cannot see what’s coming because none of it is tangible or measurable.
It is like trying to predict what you dream – it simply cannot be done by one who begins.
You can’t chart the path before you with confidence – and you can’t quite guess your way through various disorders or excitements or changes that may occur within your mind & body {like navigating your way through in a car in an unknown town}.
Someone needs to teach you, and delineate the knowledge accumulated over centuries of varied mystic experience.
It’s very obvious, from our texts, that everything in the universe is interconnected, and it’s not possible to have any relevant spiritual experience without knowledge of this interconnectedness – without knowledge of of the relation between various planes of existence – between {what’s today called} the macrocosm and the microcosm.
The very same chapter tells us {12.240.23}:
“
[ Annihilation,
[ extension,
[ power to present varied aspects in the same person or body,
[ celestial scents, and sounds, and sights,
[ the most agreeable sensations of taste and touch,
[ pleasurable sensations of coolness and warmth,
[ equality with the wind,
[ capability of understanding (by inward light) the meaning of scriptures and every work of genius,
[ companionship of celestial damsels;
– acquiring all these by Yoga the Yogin should disregard them and merge them all in the knowledge.”
As of now, Ganguli’s translation makes little or no sense to me, whatsoever.
There seems to be no mention of “companionship of celestial damsels” in the original.
The Hindi rendition is more logical.
It says that with the beginning of the Yogic process the Yogin faces many obstacles, which have been stated in the text {12.240.23}:
1. pramoha: bewilderment, infatuation; insensibility, fainting
2. bhrama: confusion, perplexity, error, mistake
3. āvarta: not very clear what this means – the idea seems to mean disorientation, or moving around in circles; perhaps being giddy.
Then the Yogin may be able to smell divine, i.e. subtle scents; – and hear divine, i.e. subtle sounds, and so on.
The mystic powers – the siddhis – increase gradually, one by one, if one persists and is successful.
This reinforces my point.
There are various types of Yoga, and I’m not sure if the text is referring to absolutely one specific type, in exclusion to others.
It may be giving broad general principles applicable to all forms of Yoga.
Point is, generally or specifically speaking – the discipline is fraught with risks to the mind & body.
It comes with its allurements that lead to total moral & mental collapse.
It comes with enticements to unknown mystic & “magical” powers.
”acquiring all these {powers} by Yoga the Yog
To be successful – to leap over these hurdles – to glide as smoothly as possible towards an elevated mystic experience of true, total dispassion & unconditional bliss – the disciple needs awareness, a conceptual framework, indoctrination, and constant appraisal by an established authority.
Which means: men of “inferior orders” – or Shūdras – as well as women – were allowed to have this knowledge.
Which means: men of “akṛṣṭa-varṇa” – or Shūdras – as well as women – had access to this transcendental Yoga canon, and instruction, and guidance.
Isn’t this revolutionary enough?
Isn’t it surprising enough that Shūdras and women were allowed to understand and practise Yoga, and attain to a vision of Brahma?
That they were thought capable of it?
In my understanding, there can be no knowledge of Param-Gati
– there can be no knowledge of Shabda Brahma
– there can be no apprehension of that which is “smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest” {“anor anīyo mahato mahattaraṃ” – 12.240.35}
– there can be no true experience of {what the Hindi translator calls} Paramātmā
– without knowledge of Sānkhya.
Sānkhya provides man with the structural & conceptual framework – of the various tattvas, for example – which underlies the knowledge of the attainment of Mokṣa or Nirvāṇa.
To say that knowledge of Yoga, and attainment of the param-gati, is possible without knowledge of tattvamasi or Sānkhya – is profoundly unpersuasive.
For example, we read, in Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.25.1-2 {Motilal Banarasidass Publication}:
“Kapila, the expounder of Tattvas (fundamental principles) i.e. of Sānkhya Śāstra is himself devoid of birth.
But for the true exposition of the self (ātman) to men, he directly manifested himself of his own accord through his own Māyā.
I have heard many times about the Lord (Kapila).
But really my senses are not fully satisfied by hearing his glory.
Kapila is
· the senior most (best) among all persons {“ varṣmaṇaḥ puṁsāṁ”}
· the greatest among the Yogins {“varimṇaḥ sarva-
He is said to be “tattva-mārgāgra-darśanam”
« “who guided through, to the end of the Path of Knowledge” or
« “who could show the ultimate goal of the Absolute Truth”
– depending on how you translate the term tattva.
In the same chapter, in answer to his mother Devāhuti’s entreaty to explain to her the meaning of Puruṣa and Prakṛti {note that a woman is enquiring into the deepest metaphysical truths, and, to all purposes, seeks Emancipation}, Kapila says:
“The yoga, which leads to the realization of the Self (ātman), is for men the path to Liberation (mokṣa).
Herein is the complete cessation of pain as well as pleasure.
Oh sinless one, I shall explain to you the Yoga complete in all respects which in ancient times, I expounded to sages desirous of hearing.”
Then Kapila goes on to speak more or less the same identical ideas which are enunciated in Chapter 240 of the Shānti Parva of the Mahābhārata.
Kapila is the mythical founder of Sānkhya, and he is teaching Yoga, and is called a Yogin Himself!
How can they be differentiated?
So I cannot agree with the Commentator quoted by Ganguli, and Ganguli himself should’ve seen that it doesn’t make sense.
Even taken as a separate School of Philosophy, Sānkhya is actually looked down upon, by later Vedantists.
Shankaracārya combats the tenets of Sānkhya vigorously.
On the other hand, Yoga is highly respected.
Thus, to say that Shūdras and women had access to Yoga, and not to Sānkhya, is even more absurd: it means they had access to what really matters – to the superior, more important, more relevant body of knowledge – to that which leads to the actual achievement of Mokṣa {or however you understand & denominate Transcendence} – and not to the quasi-atheistic Sānkhya
The most representative text of Indian thought, the Bhagavat Gītā, actually more or less seeks to supersede jñāna-yoga, which is nothing but Sānkhya.
Second, even if we consider that Sānkhya School was as reputable or respected as the Yoga School – this doesn’t preclude the fact that Shūdras and women had access to Yoga – i.e. to the highly complex & sophisticated School of Philosophy as well as the practise of Yoga.
Knowledge of Yoga without Sānkhya does not appear to be some great loss, after all.
Third, the idea of some exclusive privilege reserved for the higher 3 castes with respect to Sānkhya, doesn’t seem to make much sense – especially when the Mahābhārata itself is saying that Param-Gati {“the final destination to be achieved by man”} and Brahma are attainable by Shūdras and women.
{In another location {12.162.4-5}, the epic tells us:
“Indeed, Truth {satya} is an eternal duty {sanātana dharma}.
One should reverentially bow unto Satya.
Satya is the highest refuge (of all) {param gati}
Satya is Dharma.
Satya is Tapas.
Satya is Yoga.”}
We may well think that Vedānta and Yoga have their own conceptual framework, their own terminology and definitions – which enable a man to achieve Liberation.
So why is Sānkhya so special, that it is closed to women and Shūdras?
If one can achieve the state of Self-Realization without knowledge of Sānkhya, then maybe it’s not so important to know it, after all?
Then why does the question of privilege arise at all?
What difference does it make, whether anybody knows it or not, as long as one can achieve transcendence?
And how can one attain to a vision of Brahma, without knowledge of Tattvamasi?
Do those who study Yoga NOT know what is meant by Tattvamasi?
How is that even possible?
Yoga is the realization of Tattvamasi {“Thou art That”—the Ātman is Brahman}.
Nothing that the so-called “Commentator” wrote, adds up.
In other words, either the Commentator is contradictory or fake – or expressing some strange later social development, or some sectarian view, which is not true to the original spirit of the epic.
I’ll take the more obvious, rational route: there is no such distinction.
The original text clearly says that the lower/depressed/despised classes, and women, can adopt the path of Yoga, and achieve an experience of Brahma.
No additional qualifications are even necessary here.
And please remember the point is that Shūdras were allowed to know Sanskrit, study Sanskrit texts, and indeed, even Indian philosophical wisdom.
This is amply proven by all of the above.
Do note what we’re told:
“by following in the track indicated above ... will surely attain to the highest end {param gati}...”
This also means: Shūdras and women were allowed to meditate on mountain-tops and in temples.
This also means: Shūdras and women were allowed to meditate under caityas and in desolate caves of mountains.
They had knowledge of what it means to turn the mind towards itself, and to live a life of purity.
They knew the meaning of statements such as:
“brahmatejomayaṃ śukraṃ yasya sarvam idaṃ rasaḥ” {12.240.9} – “Brah
They knew the rules & the steps.
They knew what to do & what not to do – when, where, and how.
That the original text says “inferior order” or “lowly, base class” and not “Shūdra” – probably refers to people who were not at all within the fold of the 4-fold caste-system – maybe to outcastes and “pariahs”?
It might refer to communities such as the Shabaras and Nishādas.
Thus, it’s equally possible that it was understood that Shūdras had access to jñāna and were allowed to look for Brahman – and the text is actually referring to people outside the ambit of Vedic-Ārya society.
There is a pertinent ambiguity in the text.
“nīca” could include a criminal too.
Since the principal subject is the knowledge of Sanskrit, and access to Sanskrit texts, I shall cut straight to the unequivocal passages in the Bhāgavat Purāṇa, also known as Shrīmad Bhāgavatam.
One section of the Purāṇa is devoted to the great legendary figure of Pṛthu, who is the great civilizer of Indian mythology.
He is comparable to the great civilizing heroes, gods and goddesses of the western or middle-eastern worlds, such as Osiris, Dionysus etc. who taught men agriculture and city-building, music and the arts, sowing & making wine, etc. such as we may read in the fascinating works of Jakob Bryant:
“He {Osiris – one of the most important Egyptian Gods} visited many places upon the ocean: and though he is represented as at the head of an army; and his travels were attended with military operations; yet he is at the same time described with the Muses, and Sciences in his retinue.
His march likewise was conducted with songs, and dances, and the sound of every instrument of music.
He built cities in various parts...
In every region, whither he came, he is said to have instructed the people in planting, and sowing, and other useful arts.
He particularly introduced the vine: and where that was not adapted to the soil, he taught the natives the use of ferment, and shewed them the way to make wine of barley, little inferior to the juice of the grape.
He was esteemed a great blessing to the Egyptians both as a Lawgiver, and a King.
He first built temples to the Gods: and was reputed a general benefactor of mankind.”
Similarly, Bryant writes about Dionysus:
“He taught the nations, whither he came, to build and to plant, and to enter into societies.
To effect this, he collected the various families out of the villages in which they dwelt, and made them incorporate in towns and cities, which he built in the most commodious situations.
After they were thus established, he gave them laws, and instructed them in the worship of the Gods.
He also taught them to plant the Vine, and to extract the juice of the grape; together with much other salutary knowledge.
This he did throughout all his travels, till he had conquered every region in the East. Nor was it in these parts only, that he shewed himself so beneficent a conqueror; but over all the habitable world.”
All these are ancient-medieval legends and myths, and completely inconsistent in their details, but the basic idea is that of a great god or hero or king, who civilized mankind, and gave them the arts and knowledge of medicine & healing, the laws to govern societies etc.
Similarly, the Babylonian author Berossus wrote about a Sumerian-Akkaddian legendary figure called Oannes:
“In the first year there made its appearance, from a part of the Erythraean sea which bordered upon Babylonia, an animal endowed with reason, who was called Oannes. ...the whole body of the animal was like that of a fish; and had under a fish’s head another head, and also feet below, similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish’s tail.
{The fish-cap is still retained after so many thousands of years, by the Roman Catholic Church.}
His voice too, and language, was articulate and human; and a representation of him is preserved even to this day.
This Being in the day-time used to converse with men; but took no food at that season; and he gave them an insight into letters and sciences, and every kind of art.
He taught them to construct houses, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge.
He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and shewed them how to collect fruits; in short, he instructed them in every thing which could tend to soften manners and humanize mankind.
From that time, so universal were his instructions, nothing has been added material by way of improvement.
When the sun set, it was the custom of this Being to plunge again into the sea, and abide all night in the deep; for he was amphibious.”
Men from Cain to Moses fit into the scheme of this archetype.
Curiously enough, there aren’t popular figures of this sort, in Indian mythology {strictly speaking I wonder if there are any such important figures in any actual, original, ancient mythology: these might be later re-formulations of ancient gods & goddesses.}.
Rāma and Kṛṣṇa don’t take birth to give laws and civilization to mankind: those had already existed long before their birth.
In a certain sense, Kṛṣṇa is said to have revealed a whole new path in the Bhagavat Gītā – a path different from jñāna-yoga and karma-yoga
Also, he’s not specifically a teacher or educator.
That applies more appositely to Veda Vyāsa, but then, Indian tradition itself doesn’t have just one Vyāsa.
The most important such civilizing figure in India is Pṛthu, who, though eulogized emphatically in the Bhāgavat Purāṇa, and is called an incarnation of Viṣṇu, is certainly not as famous or popular as Balarāma, Vāmana, Nṛsiṃha, or Varāha.
He is more of a god than a King or hero – and the legend of his pursuit of the Cow-Earth is strictly symbolical and allegorical.
Nevertheless, he seems to be the mythical figure – probably based on some totally unknown historical figure – of whom it’s written {Bhg. Pur. 4.18.30-32}:
“... Bhagavān Vainya {present on this earth} was as a father to his subjects in providing them with means of livelihood them and preparing suitable dwellings according to need:
[ villages {grāma},
[ cities {pura},
[ settlements {pattana} and
[ different kinds of forts {vividha durga} , as also
[ habitations for the milkmen {ghoṣa – “a station of herdsmen”},
[ pens for livestock {vraja – “a fold, stall, cow-pen, cattle-shed, enclosure or station of herdsmen”},
[ camps {śibira – a royal camp or residence, tent in a royal camp, any tent; an entrenchment for the protection of an army},
[ mines {ākara},
[ agricultural towns {kheṭa} and
[ mountain hamlets {kharvaṭa}.
Before Pṛthu there was never such planning of towns and villages {rather, nobody had conceived of such habitations & settlements}; one used to live everywhere unrestricted as one liked.”
The only kernel of a historical idea that can be gleaned from this allegory is: before Pṛthu, humans were either simple hunter-gatherers or primitive savages.
They also might’ve been roving animal-herders who had no fixed habitation, and roamed from place to place, leading a nomadic lifestyle, grazing their cattle, asses, sheep etc. from pasture to pasture.
Given that there was some kind of food earlier, there might be a cryptic reference to some sort of world-cataclysm, in which all agriculture and civilization was destroyed, which were in turn re-established, by Pṛthu.
Entering into this topic, however, would take us away from the main theme.
The idea is that Pṛthu is an intriguing personage, and it would’ve been great if Indian authors concentrated more on this man, or legend, who established human civilization.
His story is so complicatedly symbolic that it’s impossible to take him as an actual person {just as it’s impossible to take the legends of Osiris, Dionysus, Oannes
An entire, coherent array of ethics and heavily-veiled set of symbols & ideas coalesce in his legend – and a phase of human history or human life on Earth.
On a more abstract level, he probably represents a time-cycle, or a community of men, or even a certain stage of development of the human race.
That is, he might represent a certain power of the Godhead which incarnates amongst men, to draw it up to the next, higher level of human progress.
He might also symbolize the very first stage of Kinghood, i.e. the very first race of men or initiates who established the institution of Kingship & the Laws governing human society.
Hence it is said:
§ “ayaṁ tu prathamo rājñāṁ” {4.15.4} – i.e. he shall be the first of Kings;
and he’s called
§ “dharma-bhṛtāṁ śreṣṭho”
§ “lokaṁ dharme
He is born when Brāhmaṇas rub the hand of his dead father Vena’s body – and is born along with a girl-child, who becomes his consort, Arcī.
He is called a kalā – a “digit” or “portion” or fragment – of God who maintains the world {bhagavat bhuvana-pālin}
His wife is called an expression or manifestation of the power-majesty {sambhūti} of La
It is worthwhile reading the legend or life-history, of Pṛthu.
Some of the most exalted heroic-kingly ideals are attributed to him.
They gloriously illustrate the lofty ethics of Ancient Indians, and what was expected of a great, noble King.
Thus we read {4.16.16-18}:
“The King will
[ be resolute in his vows {dṛḍha-vrataḥ},
[ be always truthful {satya-sandha},
[ be devoted to Brāhmaṇas {or to Brahmā, or to sacred knowledge} {brahmaṇya}
[ serve the elderly {vṛddha-sevakaḥ},
[ give refuge/protection {śaraṇyaḥ} t
[ be loving towards the afflicted/distressed {dīna-
...
[ He shall be as respectful towards other women {para-strī} as towards his mother {mātṛ-bhaktiḥ},
[ his wife {patni} will be like the other half of his body {ardha-ātman},
[ unto the citizens {prajā} he will be affectionate {snigdha} like a father {pitṛ} and
[ he will be a servant {kiṃkara} unto those who preach the knowledge of Brahma {brahma-vādin i.e. those who utter or teach the knowledge of the Supreme Being & give enlightenment, or the knowers-utterers of the Veda}.
...
ª All those who are embodied {dehin, i.e. are endowed with bodies, i.e. all living beings} will be as dear {preṣṭha} to him as as own self {ātmavat},
ª he will augment the delight {nandi-vardhana} of his friends {suhṛda} and
ª he will intimately associate {prasaṅga} with those who are free from attachment {mukta-saṅga}, and
ª he will be wielder of the chastising-sceptre {daṇḍa-pāṇi
A very important point is that the most significant episode of Pṛthu’s life is the milking of the Cow-Earth.
According to the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, for instance, during the anarchy which followed the death of Vena, there was acute famine ... presumably on the Earth itself.
There were no more vegetables {seeds, foods, crops}, and the people were afflicted with hunger.
They approach him in distress and supplicate him to alleviate their misery.
It is then that Pṛthu takes up his bow, and wrathfully chases the Earth Herself, who flees in the form of a cow.
The Earth-Cow, terror-stricken, takes flight through all realms – including Brahma-loka.
After being chased through all the spheres, she finally stops & faces him, and asks him not to hunt her down.
This is followed by the milking of the Earth-Cow by all the categories of beings that people the Indian cosmos {Devas, Asuras, Gandhar
Indeed, the Earth derived her name “Pṛthivī” from “Pṛthu”.
It’s not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into the meaning of this tale.
None of it can be taken literally.
It appears to be a metaphysical allegory altogether.
One thing is clear: Pṛthu is a sort of world-civilizing force {Viṣṇu
“Pṛthu ... uprooted the mountains, by hundreds and thousands, for myriads of leagues, and they were thenceforth piled upon one another.
Before his time there were no defined boundaries of villages or towns, upon the irregular surface of the earth; there was no cultivation, no pasture, no agriculture, no highway for merchants: all these things (or all civilization) originated in the reign of Pṛthu.
Where the ground was made level, the king induced his subjects to take up their abode.
Before his time, also, the fruits and roots which constituted the food of the people were procured with great difficulty, all vegetables having been destroyed; and he therefore, having made Sváyambhuva Manu the calf, milked the Earth, and received the milk into his own hand, for the benefit of mankind.
Thence proceeded all kinds of corn and vegetables upon which people subsist now and perpetually.”
However unsatisfactory the translation, it conveys the gist correctly enough.
In relation to our planet Earth, our human race, and our time-cycle of existence, he is very similar to Osiris-Dionysis-Oannes etc. as the man-god who created agriculture & city-building and initiated the construction & demarcation of human settlements.
But this does not explain the entire allegory in its complex symbolism.
As I said, entering into that would be a needless digression.
What one should know is that the milking of the Cow-Earth under the auspices of Pṛthu is derived directly from a recondite hymn to the Goddess Virāj from the Atharva Veda {10th Hymn, Book 8}.
This demonstrates that all the abstruse esoteric wisdom of the Vedas {Saṁhitās-Brāhmaṇas-
The Purāṇas contain all the knowledge of the Vedas, but in a different format – a more “story”-like, fable or fairy-tale like format, which would appeal to the masses – dramatic, colorful, emotional, and imaginative.
They are nevertheless quite cryptic, indeed heavily veiled themselves, but they contain proper stories or tales.
They don’t create a new philosophy per se – there are some new developments, some new twists & turns in the stories, some innovations in practices & customs – but the decisive metaphysical and spiritual ideas are identical.
This is a pertinent idea which ought to be borne in mind in any discussion of “Vedic” and “Post-Vedic” literature.
We see that Pṛthu is a type of perfect male beauty too, like Rāma or Kṛṣṇa.
The aesthetic-erotic-romantic ideal is also written into his figure {4.21.15-17}:
“He
¬ was tall {prāṁśu},
¬ endowed with strong arms {pīnāyata-bhuja} and
¬ fair-complexioned like a lotus {gauraḥ kañja – one of the noticeable demigods who is actually fair, and not dark-skinned}, with
¬ eyes red as the rising sun {aruṇekṣaṇa},
¬ a straight nose {sunāsa – a beautiful nose} and
¬ a beautiful face {sumukha} with a gentle expression {saumya},
¬ high {or thick} shoulders {pīnāṁsa} and
¬ beautiful {or brilliant} teeth while smiling {sudvija-smita}.
He had
¬ an expansive chest {vyūḍha-vakṣa},
¬ ample waist with beautiful folds in his abdomen like the leaf of a banana tree,
¬ a coiled navel,
¬ thighs lustrous & golden, and
¬ an arched instep {udagra-pāt}.
With
¬ fine, curly, slick black hair on his head {sūkṣma-vakra-asita-
¬ a neck like a conch
he was dressed in a very valuable, fine garment {around his waist and} on the upper part of his body like a sacred thread. “
We also read how he renounced the world, became an ascetic, practised ascesis and yoga diligently, and finally achieved the goal of his arduous spiritual discipline.
We read, in the translation from Motilal Banarassidas {4.23.14-16M 18}:
“He closely pressed both his heels on his anus.
He slowly forced up his vital airs {from the mūlādhāra-cakra}.
He held the vital airs up {progressively} at the navel and then at heart, chest, the throat, and the head, i.e. the place between the eyebrows {i.e. through following the cakras or mystical plexuses, Maṇipura, manas or Solar plexus, anāhata, viśuddha and
By degrees he conducted up his breath to the crown of his head and made it occupy Brahma-randhra...
Freeing himself from all desires, he merged the wind element in the body with the outer Vāyu element, the earth element (solidity in the body) with the Pṛthivī (earth) element, the vacuum (in the apertures constituting sense-organ) with the cosmic element ākāśa (ether) and the liquid in the body with the element water – each in its own source.
(For his own knowledge) he them contemplated the merger of cosmic elements – earth into water, water into fire, fire into wind and wind into the cosmic ākāśa (which is the product of Tāmasa ahaṁkara...).
This process is called Laya-cintana contemplation of (the happening of) the process of absorption.
... {and so on, we read, till...} ...
He ... merged the Mahat, the ground of all guṇas (evolutes) into jīva conditioned by Māyā .
By the power of his knowledge and renunciation, Pṛthu – still a jīva conditioned by Māyā – became established in the pure Brahmahood and cast off the conditioning Māyā attached to the Self.”
This is everything.
This is Yoga.
This is Sānkhya.
This is Vedānta.
This is Mokṣa or Emancipation or Liberation.
All schools of thought and all concepts are woven into one seamless whole.
The whole process of renunciation of worldly concerns & objects – the immersion of oneself in austerity & askesis – the spiritual withdrawal into self – the regulation & mastery of the senses – the control & directing of the vital airs {prāṇas} – the steady, step-by-step merging of the various tattvas of the individual body into the corresponding tattvas of the universe – the integration of Bhakti and Kuṇḍalinī Yoga {
Anybody who reads this account already knows Yoga, Sānkhya, and Vedānta.
I have attempted to give some indications of the importance, the philosophical profundity, the moral beauty, and the hidden esoteric meaning, of the figure of Pṛthu.
Now I’ll come to the principal point.
At the end of the account of his’s life, we are told {4.23.30-34}:
“I have thus described to you the character of Pṛthu, the most excellent of all venerable beings {bhagavat-tamaḥ} of unbounded virtue {uddāma-carita} who was mighty, the very best in being endowed with all qualities.
Anyone who, with faith and great attention
· reads {“ paṭhet” – from “paṭha”} and
· explains {“ śrāvayet”
· hears {“śṛṇuyāt”}
about the highly noble and virtuous person of King Pṛthu, will attain the same position that he reached.
{This is already saying a lot!}
« The Brāhmaṇa will attain spiritual splendour {i.e. brahma-varcas
« a Rājanya {i.e. a Kṣatriya} will become a lord of the Earth { jagatī-pati},
« the Vaiśya will become the lord of wealth {viṭ-patiḥ} and
« the Śūdra will attain the best or most excellent state.
Whether a man or a woman, anyone who, with great respect {ādṛta – attentiveness, diligence, reverence, faith}, hears this {narration of Pṛthu} three times,
· if childless, will become the parent of many children,
· if bereft of wealth, will become supremely wealthy.
· A person who has no fame, will become renowned,
· A dunce {mūrkha – or illiterate or unread person, or one who doesn’t understand things} will become learned {like a scholar – paṇḍita}.
This is a means of securing the welfare of men {svasti-ayanaṁ puṁs}, averting that which is not beneficial {amaṅgalya-nivāraṇa
I think the passage is clear enough and my point doesn’t need any specific clarification or elucidation.
Shūdras were allowed to read the Bhāgavat Purāṇa!
Is there any reason to think that they were allowed to read only the life of Pṛthu, and not the rest of the text?
Of course not!
That would be the height of absurdity.
It is only logical to conclude that Shūdras were enjoined to read the Bhāgavat Purāṇa – hence, they knew and read Sanskrit – it’s just that this particular account is considered so holy & auspicious that the benefits of reading it are accounted for very specifically.
The passage has not necessarily been translated accurately, in recent times.
The verse 4.23.32 doesn’t say “if one reads” or “if one hears” – it is a continuation of the preceding verse.
That is, if one hears, reads, and teaches the Bhāgavat Purāṇa narrative of Pṛthu, one obtains good “fruits” according to one’s station in life.
Shūdras could hear, study, and explain the account of Pṛthu’s life.
Since the previous passage says that such a person can attain to the same station as Pṛthu himself, it means Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Va
And this, btw, applies to women too.
They too could read and teach this very significant & highly complex, recondite allegory.
Do we really need any more proof?
Isn’t the inference perfectly logical and rational already?
If there still is any doubt in the mind of the gentle reader, I will drawn her & his attention to Verse 65 of the 12th Chapter of the 12th Book of the Bhāgavat Purāṇa:
“vipro ’dhītyāpnuyāt prajñāṁ
rājanyodadhi-mekhalām
vaiśyo nidhi-patitvaṁ ca
śūdraḥ śudhyeta pātakāt”
Which maybe translated as:
“
§ A Vipra {i.e. a Brāhmaṇa} who studies {the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
§ a Rājanya who studies it gains the Earth {udadhimekhalā – i.e. dominion over the Earth; lit. “that which is girdled by the ocean”};
§ a Vaiśya acquires
§ a Śūdra is purified {also “freed”} from all that which leads to downfall.”
This seals the deal.
There is no avoiding it – no rationalizing it away – no beating about the bush.
There’s no possibility of objective, rational dismissal.
The Purāṇa itself clearly extols, encourages, and enlists the benefits which accrue to, a Shūdra who studies the text {he is “absolved of sins”, according to the Motilal Banarasidass translation}.
The original Sanskrit word used is adhītya.
The Monier-Williams Dictionary defines adhītya as “well read, proficient”.
In other words, Shūdras could be proficient in the Bhāgavat Purāṇa – to read it, to study it, to master it.
The point we need to make is that Shūdras
1. knew & understood Sanskrit {as a language}.
2. were allowed to read & know Sanskrit texts {of varying degrees of sanctity & philosophical depth}
3. were not just allowed to study these texts, but to be proficient in them, and
4. were not illiterate, bewildered, “controlled” and clueless masses denied education or knowledge.
The Bhāgavat Purāṇa is a complete and astounding compendium of Ancient Indian wisdom.
Very much like the Mahābhārata, it contains all the necessary ideas, ideals, and ethics – all the fundamentals & principles of the philosophy, metaphysics, cosmogony, and spirituality, of Ancient India.
It is a more explicitly philosophical text than, say, the Rāmāyaṇa.
We find therein a clearcut exposition of all essential ideas & values & practices of the three cardinal schools Indian philosophy –Vedānta, Yoga, and Sānkhya.
To study the Bhāgavat Purāṇa is to know the sum-total & the essence of Ancient Indian wisdom.
To study the Bhāgavat Purāṇa is to know Vedānta, Yoga, and Sānkhya.
We have already seen an example of Kapila expounding the fundamental tenets of Yoga & Liberation in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.
The whole 26th Chapter of the 3rd Book, indeed, contains an account of Sānkhya Cosmology & Tattvas.
Kapila says {parenthesis in pink in original}:
“I shall explain to you that knowledge which, as the wise say,
· cuts the knot of ahaṁkāra (ego) in the heart {hṛdaya-granthi-bhedanam
· leads man to self-realization { ātma-
· ultimately to the summom bonum (mokṣa) { niḥśreyas-
– Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.26.2 {Motilal Banarasidass Publication}
The fact that Shūdras could study this text means that they DID HAVE access to the knowledge of Vedānta, Yoga, and Sānkhya.
The account of Pṛthu also, for instance, contains all the vital ideas of Vedānta and Yoga leading to Mokṣa, and an important episode from the Atharva Veda Saṁhitā – so anybody who reads it has knowledge of it!
Kisari Mohan Ganguli, in his translation of the Mahābhārata, quotes a Commentator in a footnote, who says that Shūdras were allowed to know & practice the great spiritual discipline of Yoga, but were somehow not allowed to know Sānkhya.
This is demonstrably wrong.
This is also quite illogical.
And, as we’ve seen in our little analysis {when considered as an independent school altogether, quasi-atheistic and non-Vedantic} not a “deprivation” at all, since Liberation itself is open to them.
We have seen – in an earlier post – that all the major schools of Indian philosophy are written into both the Viṣṇu Sahasranāma and the Shiva Sahasranāma.
The names reveal the philosophical ideas, the deeper metaphysical truths, contained in, and founded on, the Vedas.
These stotras contain the essence and all the mystery of spirituality & esoteric wisdom.
Both stavas are a part of the Mahābhārata.
It’s perfectly rational to conclude, that if Shūdras were allowed to study and even teach & proclaim the Sahasranāmas, they were allowed to study the Mahābhārata itself.
And the Mahābhārata itself spends myriads of chapters on both Sānkhya and Yoga.
Thus, Shūdras must have been well acquainted with both.
Remember the passage from the 240th chapter of the Shānti Parva doesn’t say “Shūdra” – it says akṛṣṭa-varṇa.
There are many other indications, in the Mahābhārata itself, that
1. Shūdras were allowed to read the Mahābhārata,
2. they were allowed to study & pursue the high spiritual disciplines, leading to Mokṣa or Nirvāṇa or Mukti – call it what you might.
I will come to evidence from the Mahābhārata, and similar other texts, in good time.
