Is body-form description of society in Purusha Sukta hierarchical?

[nagarajpaturi]

The mantra

 

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद्बाहू राजन्यः कृतः |

ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्याँ शूद्रो अजायत ||११||

 

which is part of Purusha sukta, is interpreted by some as a 'hierarchical' description of the four Varnas.

 

I always fail to understand how they can manage to see hierarchy in this description.

 

1. Is it all centred around 

 

पद्भ्याँ शूद्रो अजायत ?

If this is the whole crux, then the idea seems to be either that in the vertical order in the body, feet are at a lower level, so this is hierarchy, or that feet have a value connotation of 'low', 'less respectable', so this hierarchy.

But is this argument justified?

In the same sukta, there is

नाभ्या आसीदन्तरिक्षँ शीर्ष्णो द्यौः समवर्तत |

पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः श्रोत्रात्तथा लोकाँऽकल्पयन् ||१३||

 

Does पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः also have a hierarchical value connotation?

 

In the puranic world, Gangaa is called vishNupadasambhavaa. Is there a value connotation of hierarchy here?

 

2. Is there a hierarchy connotation in Head vis-a-vis Shoulders vis-a-vis Thighs also, apart from their vertical high to low positioning?

Body part descriptions are there in the Sukta in relation to many other cosmic entities too. Are they all hierarchically viewed? If no, then why this argument be limited only for the socirty aspect?

 

3. Though Vibhaktis are different for first three quarters and the fourth quarter, the meaning has to be taken consistently and uniformly for all the four quarters of the mantra. So in all the four quarters, it means that four varNas are depicted as forming equi-status components of an organic entity.

 

4. Hierarchy is not there in sAyaNabhAshya too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Prof. Paturi Ji

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 11:02:19 AM UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

The mantra

 

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद्बाहू राजन्यः कृतः |

ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्याँ शूद्रो अजायत ||११||

 

which is part of Purusha sukta, is interpreted by some as a 'hierarchical' description of the four Varnas.

 

I always fail to understand how they can manage to see hierarchy in this description.

 

I completely agree with each and every point of yours. Even in the commentaries by Uvaṭa and Mahīdhara on the corresponding verse in my śākhā (VSYM), there is no hierarchy implied. I have attached a PDF with the two commentaries (NSP publication, 1929).

I would also like to share a related extract from the commentary by Svāmī Rāmabhadrācārya on BG 18.41 (brāhmaṇakṣatriyaviśāṃ ...): Rāmabhadrācārya, Jagadguru Rāmānandācārya Svāmī (1998). Śrīmadbhagavadgītā saṃskṛtahindīśrīrāghavakṛpābhāṣyasahitā. Volume II. Citrakūṭa: Śrītulasīpīṭhasevānyāsa. pp. 471, 504–505. The book is unedited has quite a few typographic mistakes which I have corrected in the below extract. I switch to Sanskrit 2003 font due to the accents, they may not show up correctly on systems not supporting the font.

Sanskrit commentary on page 471:

वस्तुतस्तु व्यापकोऽयं परमोदारो हिन्दूधर्मापरपर्यायः सनातनो नो वैदिको धर्मः। अत्र वर्णव्यवस्था शास्त्रीया किन्तु नेयं परस्परद्वेषहेतुः। अत्र हि वैदिकोऽयं मन्त्रवर्णो मयोदाह्रियते यं शातपथा धूपार्थं विनियुञ्जते—

ब्रा॒ह्म॒णो॒ऽस्य॒ मुख॑मासीद्बा॒हू रा॑ज॒न्यः॑ कृ॒तः।

ऊ॒रू तद॑स्य॒ यद्वैश्य॑ प॒द्भ्या शू॒द्रो अ॑जायत॥

(शु॰य॰वा॰मा॰ ३१.११)

‘पद्भ्याम्’ इति पञ्चम्यन्तानुरोधेन ‘मुखम्’ ‘बाहू’ ‘ऊरू’ इत्येतेष्वपि पञ्चम्येव भवितव्यम्। अत्र ‘मुखात्’ इति वक्तव्ये ‘मुखम्’ इति। ङसः स्थाने सोरमो लीला। ‘बाहुभ्याम्’ इति वक्तव्ये ‘बाहू’ इति। भ्यामः पूर्वसवर्णः। ‘ऊरूभ्याम्’ इत्यत्रापि भ्यामः पूर्वसवर्णः। इदं सर्वं ‘व्यत्ययो बहुलम्’ (अ॰ ३.१.८५) इत्यस्यैव लीलाविलासः। तस्मान्निष्पन्नोऽयमर्थः—‘अस्य भगवतो मुखाद्ब्राह्मण आसीद्बाहुभ्यां राजन्यः क्षत्रियः कृत ऊरूभ्यामस्य वैश्योऽस्यैव पद्भ्यां शूद्र अजायत।’ भगवत आनन्दमयत्त्वात्तस्य सर्वाङ्गाणां पावनत्वेन मुखस्योत्कृष्टत्वं पदयोश्चापकृष्टत्वं इति तु वक्तुं न शक्यते। व्यवहारेऽपि पूज्यमीमांसायां मुखाच्छ्रेयांश्चरणो विलोक्यते। अत एव पूज्यचरणपूज्यपादश्रीचरणाचार्यचरणपितृचरणेत्यादि चरणान्तं व्यवहरन्ति न तु मुखबाह्वोरन्यतमम्। सम्मानार्थं चरणौ क्षालयन्ति पिबन्ति च चरणोदकं प्रणमन्ति चरणेषु किं बहुना यच्चरणतो निर्गता गङ्गा पवित्रतावधिभूता सर्वाल्ँलोकान् पुनाति तच्चरणतः समुद्भूतः शूद्रः कथमपवित्र इति विषमेयं परम्परा।

Hindi commentary on pages 504–505:

हिन्दू धर्म कितना उदार है। शुक्लयजुर्वेद में एक ऐसा अद्भुत मन्त्र है, जिसको शतपथ ब्राह्मण में धूप के लिए नियुक्त किया गया है। क्योंकि ऋषि को ज्ञान है कि यदि इस मन्त्र का अर्थ बोध हो जायेगा तो हिन्दू धर्म की संकीर्णता की दुर्गन्ध उसी प्रकार दूर हो जायेगी, जैसे धूप से घर की दूर हो जाती है। वह मन्त्र निम्नाङ्कित है—

ब्रा॒ह्म॒णो॒ऽस्य॒ मुख॑मासीद्बा॒हू रा॑ज॒न्यः॑ कृ॒तः।

ऊ॒रू तद॑स्य॒ यद्वैश्य॑ प॒द्भ्या शू॒द्रो अ॑जायत॥

(शु॰य॰वा॰मा॰ ३१.११)

यहाँ ‘पदभ्याम्’ के अनुरोध से सर्वत्र पञ्चमी की कल्पना करनी पड़ेगी और अर्थ होगा कि ‘उस परमात्मा के मुख से ब्राह्मण उत्पन्न हुआ तथा भुजाओं से क्षत्रिय उत्पन्न किया गया, उस परमात्मा के ऊरु से वैश्य, और चरण से शूद्र उत्पन्न हुआ।’ भगवान् के सभी अङ्ग आनन्दमय हैं इसलिए मुख से उत्पन्न हुए ब्राह्मण की अपेक्षा चरण से उत्पन्न हुआ शूद्र अपवित्र है यह कहना अत्यन्त भ्रम है। लोकव्यवहार में भी चरण अपवित्र नहीं है। नहीं तो चरण पर ही प्रणाम क्यों किया जाता? और चरणोदक क्यों लिया जाता? पूज्यों के लिए चरण शब्द का प्रयोग क्यों किया जाता? भला जिन चरणों से प्रकट हुई गङ्गा सारे संसार को पवित्र कर रही हैं, उनसे जन्म लेकर शूद्र अपवित्र क्यों? इसलिए वर्णव्यवस्था शास्त्रीय है, वह द्वेष के लिए नहीं प्रत्युत सामाजिक समरसता के लिए है। प्रत्येक हिन्दू अपने-अपने अधिकार में रहता हुआ श्रेष्ठ ही है।

Thanks, Nityanand 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 8:54:13 PM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Prof. Paturi Ji

‘ऊरूभ्याम्’ इत्यत्रापि भ्यामः पूर्वसवर्णः। इदं सर्वं ‘व्यत्ययो बहुलम्’ (अ॰ ३.१.८५) इत्यस्यैव लीलाविलासः। तस्मान्निष्पन्नोऽयमर्थः—‘अस्य भगवतो मुखाद्ब्राह्मण आसीद्बाहुभ्यां राजन्यः क्षत्रियः कृत ऊरूभ्यामस्य वैश्योऽस्यैव पद्भ्यां शूद्र अजायत।’ 

Sorry for the laze copy-pasting from the nominative form, please read ऊरुभ्याम् in both places above.

 

On the topic of the nominative in the first three quarters of the mantra standing for ablative, this interpretation is as old as Vālmīki. In the Araṇyakāṇda of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa the similar verse (VR 3.1.4.30) has ablative form in all four quarters, and ends with इति श्रुतिः:

 

मुखतो ब्राह्मणा जाता उरसः क्षत्रियास्तथा।

ऊरुभ्यां जज्ञिरे वैश्याः पद्भ्यां शूद्रा इति श्रुतिः॥

 

The Bhūṣaṇa commentary does not have this verse. Both Tilaka and Śiromaṇi comment on it, but do not mention any hierarchy at all, just like the commentaries by Uvaṭa, Mahīdhara and Sāyaṇa on the YV and RV mantras. 

 

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 11:02:19 AM UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

The mantra

 

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद्बाहू राजन्यः कृतः |

ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्याँ शूद्रो अजायत ||११||

 

which is part of Purusha sukta, is interpreted by some as a 'hierarchical' description of the four Varnas.

 

I always fail to understand how they can manage to see hierarchy in this description.

 

1. Is it all centred around 

 

पद्भ्याँ शूद्रो अजायत ?

If this is the whole crux, then the idea seems to be either that in the vertical order in the body, feet are at a lower level, so this is hierarchy, or that feet have a value connotation of 'low', 'less respectable', so this hierarchy.

But is this argument justified?

In the same sukta, there is

नाभ्या आसीदन्तरिक्षँ शीर्ष्णो द्यौः समवर्तत |

पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः श्रोत्रात्तथा लोकाँऽकल्पयन् ||१३||

 

Does पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः also have a hierarchical value connotation?

I am simply giving an alternate point of view here and this may not necessarily be my point of view.

There are two separate questions here:

(a) Are the feet of ordinary people at a comparatively lower level than the rest of their body parts?

(b) Are the feet of Lord Vishnu (the purusha) at a comparatively lower level than the rest of his body parts?

The answer to (a) is yes and it is seen in the general practices of Hindu culture. Generally, one does not touch anything sacred with one's feet in Hindu culture. Shoes are not allowed inside temples. Here is a śruti quote from an unknown source:

The answer to (b) is 'no' because all his body parts are generally given equal respect by devotees. This can be seen in the various praises that devotees offer to his various body parts without discrimination. Sometimes a particular person may prefer meditating on a particular body part, but in general all his body parts are considered equally worshipable.

 

In the puranic world, Gangaa is called vishNupadasambhavaa. Is there a value connotation of hierarchy here?

2. Is there a hierarchy connotation in Head vis-a-vis Shoulders vis-a-vis Thighs also, apart from their vertical high to low positioning?

Body part descriptions are there in the Sukta in relation to many other cosmic entities too. Are they all hierarchically viewed? If no, then why this argument be limited only for the socirty aspect?

My thought in this regard is that the social aspect gained focus due to the fact that guNas are associated with these various limbs. For example, the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam (11.5.2) says,

मुखबाहूरुपादेभ्यः पुरुषस्याश्रमैः सह
चत्वारो जज्ञिरे वर्णा गुणैर्विप्रादयः पृथक्

Shrila Shridhar Swami's Commentary on this verse: भगवतः सकाशाद्वर्णाश्रमाणामुत्पत्तिम् आह — मुखेति । गुणैः सत्त्वेन विप्रः सत्त्वरजोभ्यां क्षत्रियः रजस्तमोभ्यां वैश्यः तमसा शूद्र इति |

Thus, the general understanding that lower guNas are associated with the śūdras is what is the cause of hierarchy in my opinion.

The superiority of brahmanas and the inferiority of śūdras can also be seen in various Vedanta commentaries (Shankara bhashya, Sri Bhashya etc.) and some places even in comparatively recent literature like Rāmacaritamānasa e.g. this following quote from the Araṇya-kāṇḍa (translation by Pandit Ramnaresh Tripathi):

3. Though Vibhaktis are different for first three quarters and the fourth quarter, the meaning has to be taken consistently and uniformly for all the four quarters of the mantra. So in all the four quarters, it means that four varNas are depicted as forming equi-status components of an organic entity.

True, and the bhagavatam verse quoted above also emphasizes the same vibhakti for all.
 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>The superiority of brahmanas and the inferiority of śūdras can also be seen in various Vedanta commentaries (Shankara bhashya, Sri Bhashya etc.) and some places even in comparatively recent literature like Rāmacaritamānasa e.g. this following quote from the Araṇya-kāṇḍa (translation by Pandit Ramnaresh Tripathi)

 

--------- The point in my post was not that hierarchical view of Varnas is not there anywhere.

 

The point was that the quoted mantra does not have it.

 

This point has the following implications:

 

1. The hierarchical view of Varnas that does exist among people's minds is not rooted in the mantra being discussed.

 

2. If at all mantra is to be followed as a guidance, it can only lead to view of varnas as equi-status parts of an organic whole.

 

Vedanta commentaries belong to Vedanta only. Vedantic perspective need not be the general perspective to be followed by all. Vedanta prioritizes moksha and its value-hierarchy is moksha-centred. Bhagavatapurana is an upabrimhaNa of Vedanta. Hence it has a moksha based value hierarchy.

 

Beauty of Vedic worldview itself is its not being monolithic, its openness to co-existence of multiple perspectives.

 

Mantra under discussion here need not necessarily be viewed only from a Vedantic perspective.

 

That even according to Vedanta, samadars'ana towards shunichaiva asya paake cha is considered to be a great achievement is a different matter.  

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

AadaraNIya Hariparshad Dasji said:

 

"this may not necessarily be my point of view".

 

What I said in my previous post  is not in response to his point of view but in response to the point of view presented by him for discussion:

 

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

While looking at the Chaturvarna, we have to keep in mind what the Ramayana (Ramayanam Vedasamam) says about it. There were only two varnas (the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas) in the beginning (i.e., in the Satya yuga) . In the Treta yuga the Kshatriyas started doing tapasya and they achieved parity with the brahmanas. Then the people decided unanimously  that there should be four varnas and according to that the Vaishyas and the shudras were not entitled to do the tapasya in the Treta yuga. Obviously at that time this division was based on Guna and Karma, as Lord Krishna told us  In the later yugas the restrictions were gradually relaxed and the Shudras were entitled to tapasya in the Kali yuga . This could mean that the all the Varnas could enjoy the same privileges in the Kali yuga.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks to AadaraNIya Nityanandji, for focussing strictly on the topic of the thread and providing praamaaNika commentaries confirming that the mantra does not have a hierarchical view of varNa system.

 

 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Prof. Paturiji,

The Mahabharata indicates that the Vedic verses are best understood with the help of puaranas and itihasas and the Ramayana, which claims itself  to be Vedasama, also comes under itihasa. That is why it appears to me that what Ramayana says about the varnas should be more appropriate here  than what the so-called pramanika commentaries state.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Namaste aadaraNIya Bhattachryaji, you are entitled to your view of what is relevant here.

 

Those who consider that the interpretation of a specific mantra is the focus of the thread may or may not appreciate that view.

 

I for one, would stick to the focus of the thread.

 

Thanks for sharing your views .

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr JSR Prasad, in a separate thread rightly reminded us all about the 'body parts strike over stomach' story.

 

He said: "On a lighter note, I just recall the 'body parts strike over stomach' story, if prominence to hierarchy is demanded"

 

Yes, this is an excellent argument.

 

This is a beautiful example to show that body parts way of looking at different sections of society implies a view of different sections of society as components of an organic whole with an organic unity among themselves.

 

Thanks Dr Prasad for reminding.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

One interesting fact I observed on the net is that there is an ISKCON campaign of societal unity from a Bhakti perspective, using the 'body parts strike over stomach' story

 

at

 

http://comics.iskcondesiretree.com/01_-_For_children_-_PDF_format/03_-_Moral_Stories-01/The_Strike_of_the_body_parts.pdf

 

A very good idea for educating children indeed!

 

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In this article in The Hindu, which is being hotly discussed on Indology and other forums, Vidushee Ananya Vajpeyi, writes:

 

In the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda (10:90:1-16), social hierarchy originates together with and at the same moment as the very creation of the world, through the sacrifice of the body of the Primeval Man, Purusha. From the sacrifice of his head come Brahmins; from his arms, Warriors; from his thighs, Freemen; and from his feet, Servants (RV 10:90:12). The cosmogonic hymn that describes how the gods created the cosmos through a sacrificial ritual, occurring in the very earliest text of Sanskrit that is available to us, the Rig Veda, datable in its current form to roughly 1000 BC, naturalizes an unequal social order.

 

An example of how such a misunderstanding is perpetuated and why the present thread by me was to be created.

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )