For some the origins of the caste system are found in the poem, Purusha Sukta, in the 10th book of the Rig-Veda, whose ten books are generally judged as dating back to the second half of the second millennium b.c.e. In the Purusha Sukta, the four chief castes -- the Brahmin (essentially, the religious/philosophical/teaching/scholarly sector), Ksahtriya (essentially, the political governing and warrior sector), Vaishya(sp.?) (essentially, the commercial/economic sector), Sudra (essentially, the service sector) -- are pictured as having come from the Lord's mouth, arms, middle and feet, respectively.
Some view this as carrying the message that the current caste system in all its forms is validated by scripture, and that includes its most developed hierarchical form, in which some castes are viewed as literally superior to others, great stress, for instance, being put on the superiority of one caste's emerging from the Lord's mouth -- the Brahmin caste -- over the inferiority of another caste's emerging from the Lord's feet - the Sudra caste -- and so forth.
Others view this poem as having been badly misunderstood. They read the poem as simply presenting the four castes in society as being each equally indispensable instead of reflective of any implicit or explicit hierarchy, the same way in which each of us would be unable to function with only our mouth, or only our feet, or only our arms, etc. We need all of these to function, and these parts of our body complement each other, neither being superior over the other.
Read this way, great stress is laid on the apparent fact that it is only in much later times, after the age of the Vedic scriptures, that we eventually see castes being pegged to blood lines by heredity rather than pegged to natural aptitude, the latter clearly facilitating much better social mobility and clearly the original model found in the Rig-Veda. Pegging the caste system to heredity instead is thus viewed as the real source for the abuses in the caste system and a betrayal of the scriptures, thus exculpating the scriptures entirely from any culpability in the suffering that has been consequent from the caste system as known and practiced in later centuries.
Finally, another reading of the Purusha Sukta is that its whole poetic style in the original is wholly alien to the poetic linguistic style of the rest of the Rig-Veda. Certain statistical tests have been run on its vocabulary and its turns of phrase, and what seems to emerge is a much later product, a product that could be as late as the first half of the first millennium c.e. Read this way, the poem is indeed a wholesale defense of the caste system as later practiced, blood lines and heredity ghettoization included. But it is not genuinely scriptural, being a cynical interpolation placed in the scriptures by unscrupulous writers out to foist a false scriptural rationale for the caste system on their readers.
These three different takes on the Purusha Sukta beg the question as to whether one views the caste system as having originated simultaneously with genuine scripture or post-scripturally instead. They also beg the question as to when and why the caste system morphed into an hereditary system of virtual ghettos determined by blood lines, rather than by aptitude. The caste system as implicit in scripture -- and there are scriptural references to it outside the Purusha Sukta, including one reference at least in the Bhagavadgita -- is more specifically referenced as "varna", and for many readers, the caste system and "varna" are two separate things, "varna" being the scriptural form of this institution and the caste system being what we know today, warts and all. There appears, in fact, to be no explicit reference anywhere in scripture to the castes -- or more accurately, the varnas -- being determined by bloodlines or heredity at all. This makes the distinction between varna and caste yet more critical than ever in the minds of many.
In showing that it was the hereditary angle that was both later and non-Vedic, a number of questions arise.
Do we know precisely when and why the caste system became hereditary?
And since both Mahavira and Buddha were already critics of the caste system in the middle of the first millennium b.c.e., do we know why they found it flawed?
Was it the hereditary aspect that offended them? Or was it something different that offended them?
Had the change to a hereditary system already happened when they came along in the middle of the first millennium b.c.e.? Or had it not happened yet?
If the hereditary system was not already in place in the middle of the first millennium b.c.e., then what was it that so offended Mahavira and Buddha? If it was something different than heredity that so offended Mahavira and Buddha, then can one determine precisely
1) what it was that did offend them,
2) precisely when those aspects of the caste system that did offend Mahavira and Buddha first appeared, and
3) under what circumstances and precisely why those aspects of the caste system that did offend Mahavira and Buddha first appeared.
I'm hoping that some here may have the requisite knowledge to address these queries.
Many thanks,
Operacast
Some view this as carrying the message that the current caste system in all its forms is validated by scripture, and that includes its most developed hierarchical form, in which some castes are viewed as literally superior to others, great stress, for instance, being put on the superiority of one caste's emerging from the Lord's mouth -- the Brahmin caste -- over the inferiority of another caste's emerging from the Lord's feet - the Sudra caste -- and so forth.
Others view this poem as having been badly misunderstood. They read the poem as simply presenting the four castes in society as being each equally indispensable instead of reflective of any implicit or explicit hierarchy, the same way in which each of us would be unable to function with only our mouth, or only our feet, or only our arms, etc. We need all of these to function, and these parts of our body complement each other, neither being superior over the other.
Read this way, great stress is laid on the apparent fact that it is only in much later times, after the age of the Vedic scriptures, that we eventually see castes being pegged to blood lines by heredity rather than pegged to natural aptitude, the latter clearly facilitating much better social mobility and clearly the original model found in the Rig-Veda. Pegging the caste system to heredity instead is thus viewed as the real source for the abuses in the caste system and a betrayal of the scriptures, thus exculpating the scriptures entirely from any culpability in the suffering that has been consequent from the caste system as known and practiced in later centuries.
Finally, another reading of the Purusha Sukta is that its whole poetic style in the original is wholly alien to the poetic linguistic style of the rest of the Rig-Veda. Certain statistical tests have been run on its vocabulary and its turns of phrase, and what seems to emerge is a much later product, a product that could be as late as the first half of the first millennium c.e. Read this way, the poem is indeed a wholesale defense of the caste system as later practiced, blood lines and heredity ghettoization included. But it is not genuinely scriptural, being a cynical interpolation placed in the scriptures by unscrupulous writers out to foist a false scriptural rationale for the caste system on their readers.
These three different takes on the Purusha Sukta beg the question as to whether one views the caste system as having originated simultaneously with genuine scripture or post-scripturally instead. They also beg the question as to when and why the caste system morphed into an hereditary system of virtual ghettos determined by blood lines, rather than by aptitude. The caste system as implicit in scripture -- and there are scriptural references to it outside the Purusha Sukta, including one reference at least in the Bhagavadgita -- is more specifically referenced as "varna", and for many readers, the caste system and "varna" are two separate things, "varna" being the scriptural form of this institution and the caste system being what we know today, warts and all. There appears, in fact, to be no explicit reference anywhere in scripture to the castes -- or more accurately, the varnas -- being determined by bloodlines or heredity at all. This makes the distinction between varna and caste yet more critical than ever in the minds of many.
In showing that it was the hereditary angle that was both later and non-Vedic, a number of questions arise.
Do we know precisely when and why the caste system became hereditary?
And since both Mahavira and Buddha were already critics of the caste system in the middle of the first millennium b.c.e., do we know why they found it flawed?
Was it the hereditary aspect that offended them? Or was it something different that offended them?
Had the change to a hereditary system already happened when they came along in the middle of the first millennium b.c.e.? Or had it not happened yet?
If the hereditary system was not already in place in the middle of the first millennium b.c.e., then what was it that so offended Mahavira and Buddha? If it was something different than heredity that so offended Mahavira and Buddha, then can one determine precisely
1) what it was that did offend them,
2) precisely when those aspects of the caste system that did offend Mahavira and Buddha first appeared, and
3) under what circumstances and precisely why those aspects of the caste system that did offend Mahavira and Buddha first appeared.
I'm hoping that some here may have the requisite knowledge to address these queries.
Many thanks,
Operacast
