Here's an interesting article:
Today people have mistaken Varnas for caste and treat them as identical. Varnas are God created and caste is not. Varnas are conditioned with one’s actions and desires based on Gunas. The caste is man made. It is simply a social institution and can easily be changed and modified according to changing needs of society. Caste-by-birth was never the original intent nor it ever was the basis upon which the Varnas were constituted, Sutra says that a person should be engaged only in a field of activity that he is capable of doing.
Today we have miserably failed to understand what a Brahmin is. Generally we believe that one is born by birth in a certain class. This belief has keenly been protected and propagated by the vested interests. It also served the policy of divide and rule of the foreign rulers and served an easy prey to conversions. The confusion has been repeatedly tried to be removed by the saints. Vajra Suchikopanishad clearly states that one can not be a Brahmin either by its being, birth, physical equipment of body and color or by wisdom and knowledge nor by religious action even.
...
The whole confusion is caused by the differences among the Brahmin class. During Vedic era, there were Brahmins who did all the sacrificial rituals for their own sake. Some others did for others on payment. These Brahmins were looked down as inferior. Gradually the prosperity brought their group in position of advantage and these ritualistic Brahmins imagined Brahman in their own way, They wrote, ’From mouth of Brahman came out the wise priest Brahmin, the warrior Kshatriya was born of his hands, the Vaisyas from the thighs and the Sudra from legs.’ (Rg Veda 10-90-12) Dr R.B. Sharma, an authority on Rg Veda in his book ‘Bharatiya Navajagaran Aur Europe‘says that it is an interpellation of a later period. He says that a study of Rg Veda would reveal that the word ‘Kavi’ (Poet, Composer) was used in deep reverence and the word Brahmin does not find a similar mention. Many Devas have been addressed as Kavi and even as Brahman, but no one as Brahmin even once, as these people have been associated with rituals and economy away from the Kavis. They did all that for the sake of more and more remuneration.
Dr Sharma says that the word Sudra comes only once in the mantra and it is here in this mantra that the word Vaisya used only once has been repeated. The word Brahmin has found expression many times but not in the sense of a Varna. More over the word “Kshatriya ‘is not used in that mantra. The word used is Rajanya and that too only once. It is clear that there was no mention of four Varnas in most of the Rg Vedic period. No one can imagine a Brahmin without a Sudra and a Vaisya. Even in the later Vedic period the word Kshatriya was not prevalent. Rajanya was used as much as the Sudra and Vaisya were used. Scholars conclude that the Sukta is an interpellation. and an after thought. Max Muller and Colebrook both agree that from the point of view of style and language, this mantra is totally different and of a later period. (Sanskrit Ke Char Adhyaya).
Needham in ‘Science and Civilization Vol II ‘ points at the penetrating cultural influence of Indian thoughts on Iran. We notice philosophical similarities between Rg Veda and Avesta. It was not accidental. In the third and fourth century, the Indian religious sects had deeply entered into Iranian religious life and had created a great impact. The Greek work ‘Mangeeste’ and the works of Iran were influenced by the concept of four Varnas. They divided the human body into four parts. The Purohit was the head; the warrior was the hand, the agriculturist stomach and the handyman or the artisan the leg. (Nava Jagaran Aur Europe p358). In pahelvi, the word used for Varna is Peshak. These Peshaks ( occupation ) were Astronan (Brahmin), Auteshteran (Rajanya), Vastryoshan (Vaisya) and Hutukhsan (Sudra). These Hutukhsan were artisans and not sevaks or servants. Dasas were called servants. Sudras stood apart from them. Gradually with the decline of prosperity and urban life, the Sudras were dragged into as servants. This form of thought was prevalent in the 3rd century It can easily be concluded that there was no division on the line of casts by birth. We can not also say how the Sudras came to be known as untouchables.
A lot of confusion prevails in reference to Manu Smriti, Law of Conduct, and a judicial theory written about 200 BC. Manu Smriti in (1-5-118) speaks about the liberality in Kalyuga and says, ’He, the most resplendent one, assigned separate duties and occupation to those who sprang from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet.’ To Brahmin, he assigned teaching and study of Vedas, Sacrificing for their own benefits and for others, giving and accepting of alms. To Kshatriyas, he commanded to protect the people, to study the Vedas, and abstain from sensual pleasures. The vaisyas were to trend cattle, bestow gifts study Vedas and lend money and cultivate land. He asked the Sudras to do meek service to the above three classes.
It is a rule of conduct and not a religious canon or word of scripture. Manu says that the rule is transcendent law and belongs to social institution of Kalyuga. In the Vedic era, people firmly believed that all are born from the Supreme. Sruti says that the fisherman, gamblers and all such people are divine. There is only one class as there is only one God. Manu says that all men are born unregenerate (Sudra) by their physical birth. They become Dwija (regenerate) by the second birth. Manu Smrit (Ix-14-48) says that,’ One becomes a Brahmin by his deeds, not by his family or birth. even a Chandal is a Brahmin, if he is of pure character.’ Was not Vashista born of a prostitute? Vyasa was born of a fisher woman and; Parashars from Chandals. It is therefore clear that conduct counts and not the birth. The caste can not stand on birth at all. |
