“He who wishes that his son should be born fair (śukla), study one Veda and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in milk, and he, and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.
“He who wishes that his son should be born tawny {red?} or brown (kapila/piṅgala), study two Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in curd, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter.
Then they would be able to produce such a son.
“He who wishes that his son should be born dark (śyāma) with red eyes (lohitākṣa), study three Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in water, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter.
Then they would be able to produce such a son.
– Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.14-16.
If we stop for a moment, to consider what has been written above, the first question that arises is: is this a descending or an ascending order of preference?
It very much seems to be an ascending order: a man who masters the three Vedas being superior to those who master one or two, though one needs a simpler, almost poorer fare, to obtain such cerebral progeny.
Is Water superior to Milk & Curd?
And what is this ... Dark-skinned with red eyes??
Surely the “Aryanists” missed out this one!!
The quintessential masterpiece of “Aryan” wisdom – the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad – probably the oldest surviving Upaniṣad – and definitely one of the most abstruse of all esoteric Ancient Indian texts – glorifying a dark-skinned man!
The most logical conclusion one can draw from these passages is that Black-Skinned Vedic Indians were considered the most superior, of all Vedic Indians.
Do note that they do make mention of other complexions.
Of these, the “fair” complexioned men seem to be less qualified than the others.
Indeed, the least qualified.
I wonder if these passages have ever been noticed, or been given any importance, or analyzed in any way.
They are very curious, very peculiar, very mysterious.
Did people with red eyes actually exist?
Are these indications of a lost race?
A race which died out?
Or which was exterminated over a period of centuries, or millennia?
Or does the text (i.e. the word lohita) mean something like “tawny”?
lohita does not mean tawny, though words like kapila can mean both red & tawny.
For one, the idea seems to be that you may get a son of any complexion you want.
It does not seem to be racially determined, or totally unpredictable.
If you want, you can have a fair son, or a dusky son, or a dark son.
Which is very peculiar in itself.
Is this magic or science?
These verses come from a chapter in the Upaniṣad which mentions some obscure magical rites.
But does this mean that Indians could decide beforehand which one of their children would be of what color?
This precludes the idea of racial determinism & uniformity amongst the Ancient Vedic Indians.
It’s clear that they were not all “fair” people, but it’s not necessary they were all dark either.
It would be perfectly rational to say that they were of all colors & complexions, something which finds its way into all their myth & symbolism too.
One can see this in the depictions of the Buddhas & Bodhisattvas {& of people in general} at the astounding Ajanta Caves.
Here we see 4 distinct skin-colors:
§ most numerous are the dark-reddish-brown skinned people –
§ then, the yellowish-brown skinned people –
§ then, black-skinned people
– and last of all
§ the smallest percentage is that of fair-skinned people.
As far as I know, Buddha is supposed to have a “golden” complexion.
Taken realistically, he might have been bronzy — or brown skinned.
Many depictions in the caves do show exactly that – but there seem to be darker ones.
The Ajanta frescoes have been “restored”, and I suspect there’s been some tampering.
The famous Vajrapāṇi is dark, a deep reddish-brown, & has been kept as such – but I have my doubts we see the original Padmapāṇi.
{A dark-brown Vajrapāṇi from Cave 1 of the Ajanta Caves – Image taken from Wikipedia}
It’s surprising to see that not only most people depicted are dark-skinned {if not black-skinned} – but many of the Buddhas are black or dark-reddish-brown {like the Egyptians}.
Many modern recreations of the Ajanta frescoes are misleading, lightening the original skin-tones, which are actually 90% dark or yellow-brown.
{Padmapāṇi, also from Cave 1 of Ajanta Caves. Image taken from Wikimedia Commons. I have tried to point one the portion where the original colour remains. I have a painting of this figure in my drawing-room – there are reddish-brown patches on many parts of his figure {not because of erosion or damage}, which seem to indicate he had a much darker skin-tone.
The brown can be seen on the edges of his face, and upper part of his left shoulder.}
Coming back to the passages from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, whether the Vedic instruction itself depended on skin-color is something I cannot figure out.
That is, was a fair-skinned boy entitled only to learning one Veda – a yellow or brown/red boy to two – and a black-skinned, to three?
Was there some such distinction & hierarchy?
It’s not easy to decide.
Whatever the case, these people clearly did not see themselves as having any one complexion, and seemed to prefer a very dark one.
If there was “Racism” – if there was any sort of “Colorism” – then the DARK-SKINNED people got the highest preference.
These – black skin & red eyes – are precisely the features of Viṣṇu, and his two most popular and important incarnations, Kṛṣṇa and Rāma.
Also of the incarnations Dhavantari and the Brāhmaṇa-dwarf Vāmana.
Infact, as all Indians know, Kṛṣṇa is called Śyāma.
The words kṛṣṇa and rāma
And they are the quintessential Brahmanical gods of India!
We have already seen, in this post – https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-dark-heroine-of-indian-literature.html – that blue & green were poetic substitutes for the black/dark skin, and that:
« Draupadī, the heroine of the Mahābhārata, is black skinned
« Pṛthivī, the Earth-Goddess, is dark-skinned, at least in the Liṅga Purāṇa
« Pārvatī, the consort of Shiva, is dark-skinned in the Shiva Purāṇa.
The blue-lotus, the cloud, the sapphire, emerald, peacock’s neck, collyrium etc. were poetically used to signify the beauty of the black or dark skin.
{A dark-skinned, or dark reddish-brown Buddha from the Ajanta Caves. This photo was taken by me – or a family-member – several years ago. I don’t remember which Cave. The Buddha to his left – on our right – is darker, almost blackish. The one to his right – on our left – is also dark skinned.}
The case of Arjuna is a little complex: generally, he is understood as being dark skinned, but there’s one peculiar passage, in the Mahābhārata.
In the epic, Arjuna is the son of Indra, but the fact is that Arjuna is Indra.
Arjuna is another name of Indra.
Indra, as we all know, is the quintessential Rig-Vedic “
This has a deep & subtle significance, because most people would like to think that Indra was white or fair-skinned.
He could be.
But was he?
And while the word “arjuna” means white, one of the greatest heroes of Indian culture, i.e. Arjuna himself, is – Black-complexioned.
Thus, these two heroes who fight together in the epic – Kṛṣṇa & Arjuna – in strictly linguistic terms, mean Black & White, but the actual skin-colour of Arjuna
However, as I said, there is one confusing passage.
Explaining the etymology of his names, Arjuna himself says {4.44.20, 22}:
“They call me Arjuna because my complexion is very rare within the four boundaries of the earth and because also my acts are always stainless.
... And Krishna, my tenth appellation, was given to me by my father out of affection towards his black-skinned boy of great purity.”
In other words, Kṛṣṇa is one of the names of Arjuna.
We are to think that the word arjuna refers to the rareness of his complexion, not to its fairness or whiteness.
{This is reinforced by the fact that Arjuna is described as dark-skinned elsewhere in the epic too.}
The word used is durlabha, which also means “eminent, extraordinary, dear, beloved; very difficult to find”.
The Kisari Mohan Ganguli translation is somewhat vague.
The Hindi translator comes to the rescue, though I’m not sure I get everything he says very clearly, either.
He clarifies that arjuna has three meanings:
« complexion {?} (varṇa) or radiance, brightness (dīpti);
« straightness, straightforwardness, sincerity, honesty (ṛjutā) or equability, equality, fairness, impartiality (samatā); and
« white (dhavala) or pure (śuddh
Not sure whether he means that dīpti is one of the meanings of varṇa, or he’s referring to a radiant/bright varṇa.
Whatever the case, according to the Hindi translator, the verse means:
“My radiance (dīpti) is durlabha in this earth, bound on all (four) sides by the ocean.
I am equable (or equal) towards everyone.
My deeds are stainless, or pure.”
Hence, his name, Arjuna: radiant, uniform, pure.
This is much more convincing.
The word doesn’t refer to the color of his skin at all.
And yet, the translator also says, in the verse 4.44.22:
“The color of my body is kṛṣṇa-gaura”
That is, Black & White.
Justifiably so, because the word used in the Sanskrit verse is kṛṣṇāvadāta, which means Black & White.
But does this make any sense?
How can his body be black and white?
I think the solution lies somewhere else.
There is another word, śyāmāvadāta, which means blackish white or – this is the main point – dazzlingly black.
avadāta means clean, clear, cl
I think this gives a clue, and kṛṣṇāvadāta should mean something like pure black – black without any blemishes, cleansed of any impurity or admixture, black which is perfect – we could say immaculately black.
It could also mean a shiny black, or glossy black.
“White” can be a reference to purity, stainlessness, spotlessness.
Thus, the Sanskrit word śukla, i.e. white, also means “pure, spotless, unsullied; bright; light”.
The word gaura, generally understood as white, also means “shining, brilliant, clean, beautiful”.
Another word for white, dhavala – also means “handsome, beautiful”.
I think the “white” here {avadāta}, in reference to the complexion of Arjuna, refers to something like this – its beauty, its purity, its shininess.
We have a direct correlation between words used for radiance/brightness/whiteness – and words used for purity/cleanness/
Keeping in mind that all these words & statements have multiple meanings, one can safely conclude that as a human being, Arjuna is kṛṣṇāvadāta i.e. of a pure black complexion, i.e. he has spotlessly black, or clear black, or unblemishedly black skin.
In this case, Ganguli’s translation makes better sense: “his black-skinned boy of great purity” seems to refer to the purity of the blackness of his skin.
The greatest of all “Aryan” heroes – the great vīra of the greatest epic of Vedic-“Aryan” India – Arjuna – a dark/black-skinned man!
Do note that immediately after he recounts his name, the character Uttara (to whom Arjuna is revealing his identity), says {4.44.24}:
“O thou with red eyes (lohitākṣa), and arms that are mighty and each like unto the trunk of an elephant...”
The word used for red eyes here – lohitākṣa – is the same used in the Upaniṣad.
Point is: since Arjuna is black {& red-eyed}, would this mean that the Ṛg Vedic Indra was also visualized as black or dark skinned?
{From Cave 17 at Ajanta Caves. This is also a personal photograph. There are 8 Buddhas – and below them, 8 couples. None of the Buddhas are fair-skinned – infact, 4 of them are black. I apologize for the haziness of the image: a much better one can be found on the Wikipedia page on the Caves.
Except one man – see the second couple from the right – nobody can be called “fair” or white. I do not mean to say that Buddha was dark or black – the original, historical Buddha, if he existed – may or may not have been. Many Buddhas who might be Gautama Shākyamuni, in the Ajanta Caves, are portrayed as golden/yellow-brown. Some are positively dark. The point is that there is no fascination or glorification of fairness in these frescoes. There isn’t the faintest hint of “colourism”. The great saints or monks or princes or beauties, were neither necessarily nor predominantly White, or associated with fair-skin. Indeed, there is a beauty holding a mirror – a Darpaṇa Sundarī – in this Cave – who is Black-skinned.}
The word lohita, cognate with rohita, means blood.
Both words mean red, from blood, and hence, blood-red.
Another synonym is the word rakta.
There is passage in the Mahābhārata, in which Nakula, one of the brothers of Arjuna, is described as {3.313.123}:
“of darkish hue (śyāma),
whose eyes are red (raktākṣa),
who is tall like a large Shāla tree (brihat-śāla),
whose chest is broad (vyūḍha-urasa) &
arms long (mahā-bāhu)”.
Here, again, the color of the eyes is rakta, i.e. red, i.e. blood-red.
Śyāma invariably means Black, since it’s used for both Rāma & Kṛṣṇa, though it does cover a range of colours & hues.
Pertaining to the human skin, it undoubtedly means dark.
Thus, Nakula, like Arjuna, though born from different parents, is dark-skinned or black-skinned.
If the originators of Vedic culture and the “Brahmins” were all white or fair-skinned people, with blue-eyed ancestors, why would they worship or glorify dark/black-skinned gods & heroes, with red eyes?
Why were they so excessively fond of the śyāma-varṇa?
Why is a dark-skinned child expected to master 3 Vedas, and a fair-skinned, only 1?
Why are so many Buddhas & Bodhisattvas in the Ajanta Caves black or dark reddish-brown?
{This is also a personal photo, taken most probably at Cave 1. They are almost all of them brown or dark-brown figures. The male figure in the center has an eye in his forehead, much like Shiva – and I wonder if that is Avalokiteshvara. Even frescoes at a Maṇḍapa of Chidambaram Temple, though much later, show primarily dark-skinned – yellow-brown or dark reddish-brown – Indians. Same with the paintings at the Lepakshi Temple. Very few “fair” or white-skinned folk. However, the “Dravidian” god Shiva is invariably White!}
These instances can be multiplied to show that being dark or black skinned – and having red eyes – was divine-heroic, in Ancient India – though that statement has an important qualification, which I’ll get to, subsequently.
The dark skin was something highly coveted, glorified, worshipped, admired, and a type of celestial beauty.
There seems to be absolutely no fetish for white skin.
Neither the Ancient Indian Āryas, nor the later Medieval Āryas, had any predilection for fair-skinned people.
Of course, Indian texts are highly symbolic & recondite & cryptic.
Brothers of the same family have different complexions {this is very true of many Indians today too: siblings can have diametrically opposite complexions}.
All the Pāṇḍavas are not dark-skinned or black-skinned.
We can’t be sure where does history end & literary symbolism begin.
We can’t be sure what is to be taken biologically, and what, poetically.
There are all sorts of people depicted on our ancient caves & temples, and there’s no absolute uniformity in terms of racial characteristics.
Many figures in Indian sculpture look distinctly African, but most don’t.
Indian art & literature is highly abstract, stylized, & imaginative, and it’s difficult to extract real historical, racial inferences by looking at the archaeological evidence, or reading the texts.
But we can be sure of one thing: the Black skin, or Dark skin, was very much admired in Ancient India – was pretty much “mainstream” – was never relegated to inferior classes of society – and was the color of several of the most important gods and heroes.
P.S.
I hope I have not infringed on any Copyrights in using the images from Wikipedia
& Wikimedia Commons.
This blog is not monetized in any way; I’ve never earned a single buck out
of it.
BTW, I am a brown-skinned Indian, neither fair, nor particularly dark.
Many members of my family are very fair, though. Some are so fair that they’re almost White. Just saying.
There is no personal antagonism towards any individual or community, let alone any skin-colour.
Also, I belong to no group, no institute, & no organization,
and have no political affiliation.
Just a private individual curious about my own culture.
P.S. 2. Added on 21st February, 2023:
The Hindi version literally says that the word arjuna {अर्जुन} has these 3 meanings:
« वर्ण या दीप्ति
« ऋजुता या समता
« धवल या शुद्ध
Are these 6 meanings or 3? 😄
Please note that Nakula and Sahadeva are twins, and are eulogized as the most gorgeous men in the universe.
They are not very important characters in the epic, but are repeatedly referred to, in terms of their intense beauty.
“...Nakula and Sahadeva, the handsomest beings among all creatures, and unrivalled for beauty on earth, were ... portions of the twin Aświns...” {1.67.111, Ādi Parva}
The Hindi translator is very accurate:
“...those who mesmerize all beings with their beauty {sarva-bhūta-manohara} ....”
Now I don’t remember if Sahadeva is also black or dark-skinned.
But – presumably – if Nakula is dark, he ought to be.
It’s not absolutely necessary, though, because Ancient myth & legend wove symbolism inextricably with realistic fact.
Even Rāma & Lakṣmaṇa are said to be like twins – they are said to be indistinguishable – but they have different complexions.
However, it’s very likely that if Nakula is śyāma, so is Sahadeva.
And even if Sahadeva is not dark, the dark Nakula is celebrated for his beauty.
“Crores & crores of Kāmas blushed to behold the beauty of his swarthy form which resembled a blue lotus, a blue jewel, and a blue raincloud” – so sings the ecstatic Tulsīdās of Rāmacandra in the ecstatic Rāma-Carita-Mānas {146, Bāla Kāṇḍa}.
In other words, the dark skin colour was associated with the most enthralling, captivating beauty in men – as it was, with the most fetching loveliness in women – as we see in case of Draupadī – and the Darpaṇa Sundarī from the Ajanta Caves.
