mahabharat

ARVIND SHARMA

OFSUDRAS, SUTAS, AND SLOKAS: WHY IS THEMAHABHARATAPREEMINENTLY IN THEANUS. T. UBH METRE?

ABSTRACT. One striking difference between Vedic and post-Vedic Hindu literature liesin the fact that while theanus. t.ubhmetre is sparsely represented in the Veda as a whole, itis the standard metre of post-Vedic religious literature of Hinduism available in Sanskrit.Thus theMahabharata, a major document of post-Vedic Hinduism, is preeminently in theanus. t.ubh metre. How is this striking metrical fact to be explained? This paper discussesthe various explanations that may be offered to account for it. In part I it discusses theexplanations that could be offered on the basis of modern critical scholarship. In parts II–IX it develops the suggestion that the answer may lie in the association of theMahabharatawith the sudrasand of thesudraswith theanus. t.ubhmetre.

One may commence the paper with an examination of the title of thepaper itself, which raises two immediate questions: (1) why confine thediscussion to theMahabharata when the other work with which it is regu-larly bracketed, namely, theRamayan. a, is also in the same metre and (2)why employ the wordanus. t.ubh when the metre used in both the epics isregularly referred to assloka?

It is true that the two words,anus. t.ubh and sloka, are used virtuallysynonymously in modern Sanskrit studies.1 It is also true, however, thatthey are not exactly synonymous. In settled convention,anus. t.ubh cameto be “accepted as a general term for any type of octosyllabic quatrain,irrespective of any particular sequence of longs and shorts in the lines”,2

while in the case of thesloka“a greater rigidity in respect to the quantitiesof constituent syllables was insisted upon”.3 The sloka thus represents aform of anus. t.ubh with a defined cadence. The relationship between thetwo then is that of a generic class and a member with specific features.4

The slokahas become almost a lexical substitute for theanus. t.ubh, sincethis is the form in which theanus. t.ubh is usually found. But though thedistinction between the two is thereby obscured, it is not erased, and infact, though it might appear negligible, is not insignificant. Indeed, theslokais often looked upon as evolving out of theanus. t.ubh.5

Theslokais the chief metre in popular and epic Sanskrit poetry and hasbeen so for centuries.6 However, thesloka, with its defined cadence,7 is ahallmark of classical Sanskrit literature and to already refer to its use in the

Indo-Iranian Journal 43: 225–278, 2000.© 2000Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

226 ARVIND SHARMA

Mahabharata as such is to beg the question this paper addresses; namely,why is theMahabharata in that metre? It invites the circular response: theMahabharata is in that metre because it is the prevailing metre of popularSanskrit poetry! TheMahabharata, however, is not an ornate epic in thesame sense as theRamayan. a,8 which self-consciously refers to theslokaas its metre (rather than theanus. t.ubh).9 Part of the argument of this paperis that the explanation of the preponderance of theanus. t.ubh/slokametrein the Mahabharata is not literary but sociological, and the prospect ofthis sociological association emerges through theanus. t.ubh in the contextof the Mahabharata, just as the metrical and literary nature of the asso-ciation emerges through thesloka in the case of theRamayan. a. Thus onereason for using the wordanus. t.ubh is to signal the possibility that metreswith similar features may have dissimilar reasons underlying their adop-tion. This is one reason for preferring the wordanus. t.ubh. Two additionalconsiderations also seem to tilt the balance in its favour. The first is thefact that theanus. t.ubh is more ancient than thesloka, which “developedout of Vedicanus. t.ubh”.10 The use of the wordanus. t.ubh then might fore-shadow the fact that the Vedic connection of theMahabharata, such asmight be established, may play an important part in explaining its usein the Mahabharata. The second is that theMahabharata does not seemto conform rigidly to the prescribed cadence of thesloka11 and thereforeits metrical reality is described more accurately by the more general termanus. t.ubh, than by the more specific termsloka.

The critical edition of theMahabharata12 contains over 75,000verses.13 Out of these, over 70,000 are in theanus. t.ubhmetre.14 Thus wellover ninety percent of theMahabharata is in theanus. t.ubhmetre.15 Why?Why is theMahabharata preeminently in theanus. t.ubhmetre?16

It is helpful to begin with two preliminary observations. The first is therelative silence of the Hindu tradition on this point. It does not offer a directexplanation of the use of theanus. t.ubh in the Mahabharata, in contrastto the Ramayan. a, the other national epic of India, in which, as is wellknown, theslokais represented as a spontaneous metrical composition onthe part of the poet-saint Valmıki, when, under the stress of emotion, hepronounced a curse on a wicked fowler who had wounded akrauñca17

bird sporting with its mate. He is then urged by Brahma, the creator,“to compose the great story of Rama in the same metrical form and thusimmortalize the subject, the poem and the composer.”18

In view of the absence of any such direct statement on how theMahabharata came to be composed in theanus. t.ubh,19 an attempt maybe made to piece together some indirect explanations. At this point itbecomes necessary, as a second preliminary observation, to recognize that

OFSUDRAS, SUTAS, AND SLOKAS 227

the attempt to answer the question, albeit indirectly, can be made from twosomewhat different standpoints. As M. Winternitz has pointed out, “Whatthe Mahabharata means to the Indians” is one thing and what it means“to critical historians of literature”20 is another. It is, therefore, helpful toclarify the level at which one is going to function – whether one is going tobe “intratraditional” or “extratraditional” – at the very outset. And if oneintends to employ both of these approaches, then the point of transitionfrom one to the other should be either obvious or clearly indicated.

In the course of this paper both of these approaches will be tried, withthe extratraditional approach being tried first.

I

The extratraditional approach is usually associated with Westernscholarship.21 In most of the studies on theMahabharata carried out byWestern scholars,22 although the fact of the predominance of theanus. t.ubhin theMahabharata is fully recognised,23 and although often an extremelydetailed metrical analysis of theMahabharata is carried out,24 the questionas to why theMahabharata should so preeminently consist of that metreseems to have been seldom raised.25 Rather the issues on which attentionhas been focussed seem to be the following:

1. What are the historical and literary antecedents of theMahabharata?2. In what literary form did theMahabharata originate: In prose? In

verse? In prose-cum-verse?3. Among whom did theMahabharata originate?4. How does its metrical form compare with that of other oral epics?5. Was theMahabharata originally in theanus. t.ubh?

All these issues, even when they do not directly address the question ofanus. t.ubh in theMahabharata, are capable of shedding some light on thatissue.

It is generally believed that theMahabharata is one of “the lastremnants of a long past of epic poetry,”26 represented by such works astheSuparn. akhyanaandgathas narasam. sıs.27 If the Mahabharata derivesfrom these literary antecedents and the reigning metre of these forerun-ners of the epic, so to say, was theanus. t.ubh, then it could be argued thatthe Mahabharata is in the anus. t.ubh because of its literary lineage; thatthe explanation of its being in theanus. t.ubh derives from the fact that itsliterary precursors were in that metre. It is, however, not easy to determinethe metre of thegathas narasam. sıs28 from the scattered references to themwith any degree of exactness. In the case of theSuparn. akhyana we are

228 ARVIND SHARMA

better placed, and scholarship leans towards regardingtris. t.ubhas the chiefmetre of that narrative, although thesloka is also represented.29 Thus theemergence of theanus. t.ubh to a dominant position in theMahabharataremains to be explained.

An interesting clue, however, is forthcoming when theMahabharatais contextualized with Gatha literature. This has been attempted by PaulHorsh, who emphasizes the close links between Hindu epic literature andGatha literature on the one hand, and the links of Gatha literature with thenon-hieratic circles in Vedic society, including thevratyas,30 on the other.The relevance of such a sociology of knowledge approach, as it were, willbecome apparent in due course.

The controversy surrounding the literary form in which theMahabharata originated is a complex one, and represents a wide spec-trum of scholarly opinion,31 but is not without significance for the issue onhand. Oldenberg thinks that the prose sections of theMahabharata wererendered into thesloka form when the entire epic was versified, becausethe movement of this metre is quieter than that of thetris. t.ubh.32 Herewe do have an explanation of why theMahabharata is preeminently inthe anus. t.ubh. But this implies that it was originally in prose-and-verse,which is disputed.33 Moreover, it would also imply that the bulk of theMahabharata was in prose, which is difficult to square with the idea of thegeneral neglect of prose in Sanskrit literature after theBrahman. a period.34

Besides, Oldenberg regardsanus. t.ubhas closer to prose35 thantris. t.ubh, toaccount for the fact that the prose sections were rendered intoanus. t.ubhandnot tris. t.ubh. But the issue really is not just whyanus. t.ubhshould have beenpreferred overtris. t.ubhbut rather why should it have been used at all, fromamong the various available metres. In this respect one should also recalla tradition of metrical preference fortris. t.ubh over anus. t.ubh, in relationto which it seems to have had a rather low standing.36 Finally, one mustguard against confusing the historical with the logical. It so happens thathistorically theanus. t.ubh came to prevail, to which Oldenberg somewhatpoetically attests by stating that in theslokaone breathes the Indian air asit were.37 But this historical development does not make theslokalogicallycloser to prose. The point needs to be established on its own merits.

Similar considerations are likely to arise as other individual theses onthe original literary form of theMahabharata are taken up, rendering itvery unlikely that any such theory will be able to explain by itself, withany degree of cogency, why theMahabharata is so preeminently in theanus. t.ubhmetre.

The question of the class of people among whom theMahabharataoriginated may be examined next. This class has been identified as that


of the sutas, and thesesutashave been identified by Winternitz as those“who lived in the courts of kings and recited or sang their songs at greatfeasts in order to proclaim the glory of the princes. They also went forthin battle, in order to be able to sing of the heroic deeds of the warriorsfrom their own observations.”38 Thesesutas are described as forming a“special caste,” and it is suggested that “epic poetry probably originatedin the circle of such bards, who certainly were very closely related tothe warrior class.”39 Thesesutasare distinguished by Winternitz from thekusılavas, to whom “the circulation of the heroic songs among the peoplewas due.”40 The argument then would run that thesutaswere associatedwith the composition of oral poetry about their heroes whose charioteersthey were as well, and since theanus. t.ubh is a convenient metre for thecomposition of oral poetry (on which more later), theMahabharata cameto be composed in theanus. t.ubh.

That epic poetry was cultivated among a class or closely allied classesof people and that thesutas were one of them is a widely acceptedposition.41 This fact may indeed provide a clue to the use of theanus. t.ubhmetre in theMahabharata. At this point it needs to be noted, however, thatthesutasare taken as closely related to the “warrior class”42 by Winternitz,but this seems to be an error arising out of a conflation of the two sensesof the wordsuta as (1) charioteer and (2) bard, for “nowhere do we findthat Sutas . . . ever played the part of a bard reciting the glories of kingsor were in any sense the depository of heroic poetry”,43 when the wordis used in the sense of a charioteer.44 It seems, however, that because ofthis conflation ofsuta the bard withsuta the charioteer and ofsuta thecharioteer with the warrior class, the low caste status of the people involvedwith the epic compilation was obscured, preventing the appearance of theapproach developed later in this paper.45

On then to the next question: How does theanus. t.ubhas an epic metricalform compare with that of other oral epics in other parts of the worldand what light can such a comparative study shed on the question of theMahabharata being composed in theanus. t.ubhmetre?

Comparative studies in oral epic poetry have been associated with N.K.and H.M. Chadwicks, C.M. Bowra, Milman Parry, A.B. Lord and G.S.Kirk, among others. Their conclusions have been applied to theBalakan. d. aof the Ramayan. a by Nabaneeta Sen,46 but efforts to apply these conclu-sions to theMahabharata are in their infancy. However, on the basisof Nabaneeta Sen’s application of the Parry-Lord-Kirk approach to theRamayan. a, some suggestions could be made. “Bards and singers of talesdo not repeat word by word a collection of verses, but tend to tell old andwell-known stories in new and rapidly composed verses. This makes the

230 ARVIND SHARMA

bard not only a reciter but also an oral poet.”47 An oral poet, it stands toreason, would tend to work with a metre which facilitates oral composition,at least with one in which oral composition is easy. Theanus. t.ubh is onesuch metre. “It is amazing to notice how simple it is to build up a line inthe slokametre.”48 The suggestion, then, is that theMahabharata is in theanus. t.ubhmetre because it is an oral epic and because theanus. t.ubhmetrelends itself readily to oral verse construction.

This view, which seems to possess considerable force, raises someproblems as well. There is the view, to be discussed soon, that the originalMahabharata was in thetris. t.ubh metre.49 But this need not necessarilynullify the present discussion, for the transition of the text of the epicfrom thetris. t.ubh into an overwhelminglyanus. t.ubhtext would still remainto be explained. However, it should be borne in mind that most of themetres in Sanskrit literature – Vedic and post-Vedic – are metres regulatedby syllables rather than morae. In general, it seems easier to compose inthe syllabic type of metre. A complication is introduced when the weightsof the syllables are specified. And it is noteworthy that, in thesloka, thisspecification is laid down only for the last four syllables of thepada, so thatthe essentially syllabic nature of the metre is not much affected. However,the anus. t.ubh is not the only syllabic metre in Sanskrit literature.50 Allthe leading Vedic metres are largely syllabic, so the question arises: whywas theanus. t.ubhselected by the putative oral poets of theMahabharata?One should also note that the techniques of oral composition cut acrossspecific metrical types, as has been demonstrated by the comparative studyof Homeric, Yugoslav and now Hindu material, so the technique could beapplied to not just one but a whole battery of metres. One could, of course,debate that the metre and the technique go together better in the case ofmetre A than metre B, but one then enters the grey zone of scholarlyspeculation where definite conclusions can prove quite elusive. From thispoint of view it is interesting to note that stylistic repetitions appear evenin the Vedas,51 though it represents a different genre of oral poetry – oralboth in composition and transmission – and though the dominant metretherein istris. t.ubhand notanus. t.ubh.

But what of the view that theMahabharata itself was originally in thetris. t.ubhand not in theanus. t.ubh?52 The question persists, though now in aslightly altered form: if theMahabharata started out in thetris. t.ubh, thenhow did it end up by being so overwhelmingly in theanus. t.ubh? Thus evenif we assume that the originalMahabharatawas in thetris. t.ubh, the prepon-derance of theanus. t.ubh in theMahabharata, as we know it, remains to beexplained.


II

We turn now to a more traditional approach: What various possibleexplanations can be generated from within the Hindu tradition to explainwhy theMahabharata is in theanus. t.ubh?

On the basis of theR. gVeda tradition, which assigns certain familyman. d. alas of theR. gVedato certainr.s. is,53 it could be argued that perhapscertain types of metres came to be associated with certain families. Onesuch family could have been associated with theanus. t.ubh metre and ifthe same family could be shown to have been closely connected with theMahabharata, a prima facie explanation of theMahabharata being in theanus. t.ubh would be on hand. Ther.s. i with whom the composition of theMahabharata is most closely associated is Kr.s.n.a Dvaipayana Vyasa, whowas a descendant of sage Vasis.t.ha.54 But according to E. Vernon Arnold“the Vasis.t.ha family has no hymns in anus.t.ubh metre in the R. gVeda.”55

Another possible explanation of theMahabharata being in theanus. t.ubh metre could be sought on the analogy of theRamayan. a, whichis in theslokametre, a variety of theanus. t.ubh. This suggestion possessesa certain plausibility within the traditional framework, as theRamayan. ais said to precede theMahabharata as a composition56 and thus couldhave served as a model. Most historians, however, agree that the relativechronology of theMahabharata and theRamayan. a is too complex57 tosupport the simple suggestion that one was modelled on the other, althoughneither epic may have “developed quite independently of the other.”58

Another possible way of explaining the preponderance of theanus. t.ubhin theMahabharatawould be to see that metre not so much as being drawnfrom theRamayan. a but as the natural extension of thegayatrı metre ofthe Vedas. According to Yaska, it is so called because it “follows withits praise, i.e.anus. t.obhati, thegayatrı, which has three Padas.”59 For thegayatrı is also octosyllabic – but with threepadas. Add a pada and onegets theanus. t.ubh, which also has the merit of balancing out the metricalpattern by completing a second line.

On the face of it, this suggestion has a lot going for it. H. Oldenberg60

is aware of this possibility and A.A. Macdonell states it forcefully.61 Thesuggestion therefore needs to be examined carefully.

The suggestion is attractive but presents some difficulties on closerscrutiny. On the basis of A.A. Macdonell’s own comments on Vedicmetres, the following arguments against the position need to be met: (1)one of the reasons why theanus. t.ubhappears as a logical metrical evolutefrom the gayatrı seems to be that its fourthpada complements the lastpada of thegayatrı and turns it into a hemistich. But it has been pointedout that “the first two Padas of the Gayatrı are treated as a hemistich in the

232 ARVIND SHARMA

Sam. hita text, probably in imitation of the hemistich of the Anus.t.ubh andthe Tris.t.ubh; but there is no reason to believe that in the original text thesecond verse was more sharply divided from the third than from the first.”62

(2) As against the suggestion that thegayatrı led to the development of theanus. t.ubh, A.A. Macdonell has also suggested that as “the Gayatrı verseis never normally found in combination with the Tris.t.ubh, but often withthe Jagatı verse, it seems likely that the iambic influence of the Gayatrıled to the creation of the Jagatı, with which it could form a homogeneouscombination”63 – rather than theanus. t.ubh. (3) Theanus. t.ubh as a metreseems to go quite far back in time. Just as theAvestahas a parallel stanzaof 3× 8 syllables for thegayatrı,64 it also has a parallel stanza of 4× 8 totheanus. t.ubh.65 Thus it might be more reasonable to see the epicanus. t.ubhas growing out of the Vedicanus. t.ubh than out of the Vedicgayatrı.

Thus, while one might, on the basis of Yaska, see theanus. t.ubh asnaturally following upon, almost flowing out of, thegayatrı, on the otherhand it could as well be argued that although “nearly one-fourth of theR. gVeda Sam. hita is in thegayatrı, yet it has entirely disappeared fromClassical Sanskrit”66 and has not reincarnated itself with an extra foot intheanus. t.ubh.

These arguments, while they do indicate the limitations of the view thatthe anus. t.ubh is an extendedgayatrı, do not nullify the point, and keep itopen as a distinct possibility. What we still need is an explanation of whytheanus. t.ubhshould have outstripped thegayatrı in the post-Vedic period,when in the Vedic, the two coexisted, with the balance resting heavily infavour ofgayatrı, as the following table demonstrates:

Metre Lines [Syllables] in Total verses

each line

1. Gayatrı Three 8 8 8– 2447

2. Us.n. ih Three 8 8 12– 341

3. Anus.t.ubh Four 8 8 8 8– 855

4. Br.hatı Four 8 8 12 8– 181

5. Pankti Five 8 8 8 8 8 312

6. Tris.t.ubh Four 11 11 11 11– 4253

7. Jagatı Four 12 12 12 12– 131867

Is the fact that the Vedas came to be restricted to thethreehighervarn. as,whose initiatory formula itself consisted of thegayatrı with its threeeight-syllable lines, while the post-Vedic literature is accessible to all thefourvarn. as (and specially to the fourthvarn. a) and is mostly composed in theanus. t.ubhwith four eight syllable lines, when thefourth eight-syllable line


converts thegayatrı into ananus. t.ubh– is all this a mere coincidence – ormight there be more to it? The issue still remains to be faced, even if thethesis which regards theanus. t.ubhas a mutation ofgayatrı is accepted. Itis tackled subsequently in the paper.

At the moment another fact needs to be reckoned with. TheMahabharata is not the only epic in Hindu literature. Although sometimesan attempt is made to distinguish it from theRamayan. a, by treating theformer as anitihasa (or epic proper) and the latter as akavya(or a workof ornate poetry),68 the two epics – theMahabharata and theRamayan. a –are regularly spoken of in the same breath. Therefore, given the fact thattheRamayan. a is also regularly in theanus. t.ubh, the bearing of this metricalfact on the question on hand must be examined further. From this point ofview two facts stand out: (1) that Valmıki, the putative author of the epic isa brahman. a69 and (2) that in the epic theslokametre is itself described asspontaneously coming into being, as the poetic outcome of an emotionallymoving moment experienced by Valmıki.

The first book of hisRamayan. a tells the story of the invention of poetry by Valmıki:One day Valmıki saw a hunter kill the male of a pair of birds making love. Filled withcompassion for the birds, the sage spontaneously uttered a curse at the hunter for hiscruelty. Valmıki’s words came forth as well-formed, beautiful verse. The sage himself wassurprised by his utterance, which was immediately memorized and recited on the spot byhis disciple Bharadvaja, who had accompanied him. Later, after Valmıki returned home,Brahma, the creator, visited him and asked him to compose the story of the virtuous heroRama as outlined by ther.s. i Narada, using the new meter that Valmıki had created. Indianliterary tradition therefore considers Valmıki as the first poet (adikavi) and hisRamayan. athe first poem (adikavya).70

Both these facts, on the face of it, seem to militate against the sugges-tion of any special association of the metre with thesudra, as will beproposed later. Thesudra is accorded his due place in theRamayan. a71

and many of its characters would fall in that category,72 nevertheless thesefacts by themselves are too tenuous for forging a link between thevarn. aand the metre, even if the fact of Valmıki being abrahman. a is disregardedon the ground that the putative author of theMahabharata, Vyasa, mayalso be considered one.

There is, however, another account of Valmıki’s origins which needs tobe taken into account:

A folk legend records that the sage was born out of an “anthill” (Sanskrit,valmıka) andtherefore was called Valmıki. This legend also records that he was originally a bandit, butsome sages, pitying him, taught him themantra “mara, mara, mara.” As he repeated thesyllables, they produced the nameRama, and while he was deeply immersed in meditatingon the name of Rama, ants built anthills around him. This story appears with minor vari-ations in theSkandapur¯an. a and also in theAdhyatma Ramayan. a andAnanda R¯amayan. a.

234 ARVIND SHARMA

Many popularbhaktiRamayan.as, including theKrittiv asa Ramayan. a of Bengal, adopt thisstory.73

There are thus “two kinds of biographies for Valmıki”, 74 one in whichhe is “a sage-poet born of a high-caste brahman family”75 and another,according to which he is “a sinner transformed into a saint”.76 It is clearthat the “first kind of biography is in conformity with the status of theRamayan. a as a great epic that it is in the Brahmanic tradition”,77 and thesecond kind “relates to the status of theRamayan. a as abhakti poem thattransforms its readers from sinners into devotees of God Rama”.78

A third possibility has also been suggested: that “Valmıki was one ofthe kusılavas (singers, bards) who sang the epic”.79 Treated on its own,this remains an interesting suggestion but it acquires greater relevancewhen considered alongside the fact that Lava and Kusa or Kusa and Lava(Kusılava?),80 the two sons of Rama, were born in hisasrama. This addsintrigue to this suggestion but perhaps another fact is even more signifi-cant: that thekusılava is assigned a low caste. “According to Baudhayanaas quoted in the Kr.tyakalpataru he is the offspring of an ambas.t.ha froma vaidehaka female”,81 while according to Kaut.ilya’s Arthasastra (III.7)“he is the offspring of a vaidehaka male from an ambas.t.ha female”,82

or “exactly the reverse of Baudhayana’s view”,83 as P.V. Kane notes.Either way, however, he is asudra (see Manu X.41).84 This association ofValmıki, both with thesudrasand thesloka, is most intriguing, given theconnections between thesudrasand theanus. t.ubhin the Hindu imaginationwhich is documented later in this paper. Many backward classes in Indiacall themselves Valmıki,85 and the former “untouchable” or ScheduledCastes have also been known to do so. A relatively recent incident isinstructive in this respect. During the screening of theRamayan. a story onIndian T.V. the sweeper community of Delhi struck work when it learnt thatthe series would conclude with the return and coronation of Rama.86 Theycomplained of caste discrimination at the exclusion of the episode dealingwith Sıta’s stay in theasramaof Valmıki, who, they claimed, belonged totheir community! The series was subsequently extended to accommodatetheir protest.87

III

The various extratraditional and intratraditional approaches adopted toexplain why theMahabharata is preeminently in theanus. t.ubh only goso far – and not far enough. A new approach may now be proposed.

The starting point used to develop this approach is the presumptionthat the reason why theMahabharata is mainly in theanus. t.ubhmay have


something to do with the reason why theMahabharata was composedin the first place. It is well known that the Indian tradition attributes thecomposition of theMahabharata to Kr.s.n.a Dvaipayana Vyasa.88 So thequestion naturally takes the following form: Why did Kr.s.n.a DvaipayanaVyasa compose theMahabharata?

The clearest statement on this point, which can be identified, iscontained in two verses in the fourth chapter of the first canto of theBhagavata Puran. a. The first of these two verses is spoken by the son ofLomahars.an.a and runs as follows:

strısudradvijabandh¯unam trayı na srutigocarakarmasreyasi m¯ud. hanam sreya evam bhavedihaiti bharatamakhyanam kr.paya munina kr. tam89

Or briefly, that “as the three Vedas cannot be learnt by women,sudrasand brahman.as (who are so only by birth),90 the sage (Vyasa) composedthe story of the Bharata out of compassion for them.”91 Subsequently, thefollowing verse occurs as depicting a moment of self-reflection on the partof sage Vyasa:

bharatavyapade´sena hy¯amnayarthasca darsitah.dr. syate yatra dharm¯adi strısudradibhirapyuta92

Through the device of the Bharata the meaning of the Vedic text has been revealed. ThereinDharma, etc., is seen even by women andsudras, etc.

In a nutshell, then, theMahabharata was composed by Kr.s.n.aDvaipayana Vyasa to convey the message of the Vedas to those who wereformally debarred from studying it. According to theBhagavata Puran. a,this intention of the author of theMahabharata was a key element inthe kr. tsnam matam, “the thought entire,” of the sage Vyasa, which theMahabharata sets out to proclaim.93

These two verses mention three categories of people as debarredfrom Vedic studies for whose sake theMahabharata was composed: (1)sudras, (2) women, and (3)dvijabandhus(pseudo-Brahman. as). It cannow be argued that out of these three, thesudrasseem to constitute thekey category because women anddvijabandhusare debarred from Vedicstudies on the analogy of thesudras. The debarring of women is clearlystated in a certain Puran. ic text94 as based onsudrasamanata or the analogyof the sudras, and thedvijabandhusor pseudo-Brahmins forfeit their rightto the study of the Vedas because, as Manu puts it, “A twice-born man who,not having studied the Veda, applies himself to other (and worldly) study,soon falls, even while living, to the condition of aSudra and his descend-ants (after him).”95 In a sentence then, theMahabharata was composed,

236 ARVIND SHARMA

according the theBhagavata Puran. a, for the sake of thesudras, in orderto render the Vedic lore, as it were, an “open secret” for them.

IV

How is this relevant for the fact that theMahabharata is predominantly intheanus. t.ubhmetre? The rest of the paper constitutes in a sense an answerto this question. It would be useful, however, to anticipate the answer herein outline, to render the enterprise less opaque. The answer proposed isthat there is a systematic association of thesudraswith theanus. t.ubhmetrein Vedic lore. On the basis of this association it could be proposed thatif the Mahabharata was meant to open up Vedic lore to thesudrasextra-Vedically, it was composed in a metre associated with thesudrasin Vedicliterature, consistently with this impulse.

In order to render this thesis first attractive and subsequently perhapseven cogent, however, the discussion at this point needs to be bifurcated.First of all, the relationship of thesudrasto the Vedic lore in general needsto be examined; then any particular association of thesudras with anyparticular vein of Vedic literature needs to be mined in detail for eviden-tiary ore. The first assignment will be addressed in this section, to befollowed up by a discussion of the second issue in the next.

The relationship of thesudras to Vedic lore needs to be addressed insome detail and at some length, for it has ramifications for several segmentsof this paper. This relationship, for our purposes, is best examined in termsof a series of questions which may be set forth as follows: (1) Did thesudras have access to the Vedas, like the othervarn. as, at any time? (2)Did the sudras lose this eligibility to perform the Vedic sacrifices in duecourse? (3) If and when the transition from (1) to (2) did occur, then was itrapid or gradual? (4) Were thesudrasdenied access both to Vedic ritual andVedic knowledge or only to one and not the other? (5) On what groundswas such access denied? (6) If Vedas were denied to thesudrasand womenin common, then does the bracketing of the two help shed any light on thematter?

1.

There are passages in theSatapatha Brahman. a which can only beadequately explained by assuming the participation of thesudra in at leastsome parts of Vedic ritual. Three such passages are cited below:

(1) I.1.4.11–12: He then calls the Havishkr.t (preparer of sacrificial food), ‘Havishkr.t, comehither! Havishkr.t, come hither!’ Havishkr.t no doubt is speech, so that he thereby frees


speech from restraint. And speech, moreover, represents sacrifice, so that he thereby againcalls the sacrifice to him. Now there are four different forms of this call, viz, ‘come hither(ehi)!’ in the case of a Brahman; ‘approach (agahi)!’ and ‘hasten hither (adrava)!’ in thecase of a Vaisya and a member of the military caste (rajanyabandhu); and ‘run hither(adhava)!’ in that of aSudra. On this occasion he uses the call that belongs to a Brahman,because that one is best adapted for a sacrifice, and is besides the most gentle: let himtherefore say, ‘come hither (ehi)!’96 (2) V.5.4.9: For there are four castes, the Brahman.a,the Rajanya, the Vaisya, and theSudra; but there is not one of them that vomits Soma; butwere there any one of them, then indeed there would be atonement.97 (3) XIII.8.3.11: Lethim not make it (the sepulchral mound) too large, lest he make the (deceased’s) sin large.For a Ks.atriya he may make it as high as a man with upstretched arms, for a Brahman.areaching up to the mouth, for a woman up to the hips, for a Vaisya up to the thighs, for aSudra up to the knee; for suchlike is their vigour.98

It is often stated in this context that thesudra was excluded fromdrinking milk as part of the ritual.99 It is often not pointed out that “inSomayaga in place of payovrata (vow to drink milk only) mastu (whey)is prescribed forsudra (indicating thereby that thesudra could performSomayaga) . . . ”100

There are also several other pieces of evidence to indicate that thesudras had access to the Vedas at some time or times. The evidenceis both textual and historical in nature. (1) According toMımamsasutraVI.1.27, it was the opinion of Badari (contested by Jaimini) that thesudrascould perform Vedic sacrifices.101 The issue is discussed in considerabledetail, from which it is clear that it was a contested point. In any case,Badari’s position is unequivocal. (2) According to theBharadvaja SrautaSutra (V.2.8) it is ‘the opinion of some that thesudra [or asudra?] canconsecrate the three Vedic fires’. The text is explicit about the controversy:vidyate caturthasya varn. asyagnyadheyamityeke na vidyata ityaparam.102

(3) According toVr.ddha Gautamasmr. ti (Ch. 16)sudrasof good conductare eligible for initiation: sudro va caritravratah. .103 (4) According tothe second chapter of a text referred to by K. Satchidananda Murty104

as Yogı Yajñavalkya,105 it is the opinion of some sages that thesudrasmay enter the stage of life calledbrahmacarya: sudran. am brahmacary-atvam munibhih. kaiscid is.yate.106 (5) Interesting evidence of the eligibilityfor maintaining sacrificial fire by thesudras is provided byApastambaDharmasutra (V.14.1) which lays down that fire may be accepted from abrahman. a, ks.atriya, vaisyaor sudra who is “well off” (bahupus. t.a). J.C.Heesterman points out how this four-foldvarn. a scheme is imposed bythe sutra on Kat.haka Sam. hita (8.12:96.7).107 What is intriguing is thatthe missingvarn. a is theks.atriya and notsudra. R.S. Sharma notes thatalthough the adjectivebahupus. t.a is applied, it is applied to all and “seemsto be of special significance in the case of thesudra, who is [otherwise]described as being removed from the fire.”108

238 ARVIND SHARMA

2.

That thesudras lack the right to perform Vedic sacrifices is a fairly welldocumented fact.109 The distinction between thedvijati110 and ekajati;the twice-born111 and the one who is not, is a basic distinction in clas-sical Hinduism. The intriguing fact, which our survey in the first sectionhas revealed, is that the denial of the right seems to have been alwaysaccompanied by voices of dissent. The denial carried the day but not thetwilight.

3.

The nature of the transition, however, bears close examination. First ofall, there is the tradition that thevarn. as did not appear simultaneouslybut successively. It is not often realized that the second view is almostas ancient as the first. The account of the simultaneous origin of the fourvarn. as is usually traced to thePurus.a-sukta, but thissuktaappears in thetenthman. d. ala of the R. gVeda, which is widely regarded as later than thefamily-books and is usually assigned to circa eighth century B.C.E. Thatis also the date of theBrahman. as, and theSatapatha Brahman. a (IV.2.23)already contains the account of eachvarn. a arising after the earlier one. Infact, they are said to be modelled after the prototypes in heaven; so thathere we have an archetypal doctrine of thevarn. aschallenging what was tobecome the stereotypical one. TheBr.hadaran. yaka Upanis.ad follows theSatapathaaccount. The significance of the fact that both may be connectedwith theVajasaneyatradition of theYajurVedawill unfold in due course.There is a third version, contained in theMahabharata, according to whichnot only do thevarn. asappear successively, they all appear not only afterbut alsofrom an original one, thebrahman. a.112 Later literature retains aclear recollection of this view, alongside the two more traditional views,and according to all the etiological views, arguably, all thevarn. ashad theright to Vedic ritual and study. If there was only onevarn. a then this wasobviously so as it is identified asbrahman. a; but even when the doctrine ofthe four distinctvarn. as is accepted there are intimations that once all hadaccess to the Vedas. Apart from the fact that all the fourvarn. asare organ-ically part of thepurus.a in the famous hymn, later literature alludes to theloss of access to Vedic rites on the part of thesudras, e.g.Mahabharata(Santiparva181.15; vulgate):

varn. ascatvara ete hi yes. am brahmı sarva. svatıvihita brahman. a purva lobhattvajñanatam gatah.

113

Contrary to popular opinion then, the debarment of thesudrasfrom Vedicstudies, though effective in the long run, was gradual and contested. There


is considerable evidence to demonstrate the fact that at some point in timethe sudraswere associated with Vedic ritual. For instance, the expressionpañcajanah. occurs in theR. gVeda(I.53.4), which refers to the participationof these five ‘peoples’ in the sacrifice. Who are these five people? Yaska,in theNirukta (III.8) takes them alternatively to mean the fourvarn. as, withthe nis. adasconstituting the fifth element. It is true that theBr.haddevata“informs us that it is possible to understand it in other ways also, e.g.: (1)the five fires, (2) the four chief priests and the yajamana (sacrificer), and(3) the eye, ear, mind, speech and breath. It says the spiritualists acceptthe third meaning.”114 The fact remains, however, that “Yaska’s interpre-tation of the termpañcajanah. would show that in his opinion the wholesudra varn.a enjoyed this right”115 to sacrifice. That this right was gradu-ally circumvented can be demonstrated through a comparative study of thetexts. R.S. Sharma points out how according to theTaittirıya Brahman. a(III.2.3.9–10) thesudra is forbidden from milking a cow for theagnihotraat the Soma sacrifice. However, “such a prohibition does not occur in theVajasaneyíand theTaittirıya collections of theYajus; it occurs only in thesupplementary portions of theMaitrayan. ı andKapis. t.halacollections. Thecorresponding passage in theKat.haka Sam. hita is without accent, whichsuggests its later insertion.116 Furthermore, theApastambaSrautasutra,which is considered as the oldest of its kind, gives the alternative provisionthat thesudra can milk the cow. The commentator tries to circumvent thismeaning by pointing out that he can do it when allowed. All this wouldshow that the ban on thesudra’s milking of the cow at theagnihotramaynot belong to the genuine portions of the Sam. hitas. It may be ascribed tothe time of theTaittirıya Brahman. a.”117

It seems, therefore, that the erosion of the participation of thesudrain Vedic ritual was gradual but steady. One element which may accountfor the persistence of their participation could well be the fact that duringthe rituals of the Brahman.a period “there is an interesting substratumof popular religion, underlying this intricate and elaborate ritual of thesacrifice. The Rajasuya or the ceremony of royal consecration must havehad once an appeal to the festive instincts of the people. The Vajapeya ischaracterized by a chariot race which must have been originally the mainelement and which must have always made a great hit with the people.The ritual of the Mahavrata, which is probably a reminiscence of a verypopular primitive celebration of the winter solstice, plays a notable partin the Gavamayana, the year-long Sattra.”118 The Mahavrata is especiallyinteresting in this context since it involves the exchange of ritual insults,somewhat in the manner of a Roman carnival, between abrahman. a and asudra.119 Another element, somewhat opposite in character but producing

240 ARVIND SHARMA

a similar result, would be the skill of thesudra workmen, who had tobe respected because their work involved the equivalent of our modernhigh technology in that society. Therathakara or chariot-maker wouldthus be allowed to participate despite disputed status.120 It also seems thatoccasionally thesudras would stake the right to beks.atriyas, to asserttheir eligibility. The political dimension of this point cannot be ignored.It has been used to explain the positive sentiments associated with thesudra’s varn. a when they are expressed;121 to explain the positive rolesof therathakara and thenis. ada-sthapatiin Vedic ritual;122 the inclusion ofthe sudrasin theMahabharata as warriors,123 as present at the coronationof Yudhis.t.hira,124 and the claim that asudra King, Paijavana, performednumerous sacrifices.125

The situation is even more complicated. There were two classes ofsudras, as suggested by asutra of Pan. ini (II.4.10).126 In this contextK. Satchidananda Murty has argued that while a Vedic basis may existfor debarring thesudra from Vedic ritual, there is no Vedic (as distin-guished from post-Vedic) text as such barring asudra from Vedic study.He writes: “While there is no Vedic text which prohibitssudras fromstudying the Veda, there is a Taittirıya text which says they are noteligible to perform sacrifices. ‘Tasmat sudro yajñe anavaklaptah. (sic).’Commenting on Pan. ini’s sutra [II.4.10] which mentions AnirvasitaSudras,Patañjali explains that not allSudras are prohibited from performingsacrifices. Some are (NiravasitaSudras) and some are not (Aniravasita).Commenting on this, Kaiyat.a says thatSudras are eligible to perform thefive Mahayajñas (great sacrifices). These include the Brahmayajña, whichmeans Vedic study (Svadhyaya), Sandhyavandana, Japa, etc. So, as Nagesaclarified (Uddyota), this Taittirıya text prohibitsSudras from performingonly sacrifices like Agnihotra and not the five great sacrifices. This makesthem eligible for Vedic study.”127

A third issue pertains not to the ability to perform Vedic ritual; nor toeligibility for Vedic study but the right to practice austerities. Significantly,Rama slaysSambuka in theRamayan. a for the last reason and not because,as asudra, he was performing Vedic ritual or carrying on Vedic studies.128

More on this later.129

4.

Just as theMımamsasutra denied access to Vedic ritual to thesudras, theVedantasutra denied access to thesudras to Vedic knowledge. Just as thesudras could not directly avail of Vedic ritual practices, they could notdirectly access Vedantic knowledge. However, just as they could performrituals without the use of Vedic mantras, they could also acquire saving


knowledge from thesmr.ti, though not from thesruti. It must be emphati-cally stated that the fact they were denied access to Vedanta does not meanthat they were denied access to liberation.Sankara’s gloss onBrahmasutraI.3.38 is particularly instructive in this respect.130

It is intriguing that the same pattern holds for both Vedic and Vedanticknowledge. It is also intriguing that tradition identifies the author of theVedantasutra as Badarayan.a, “whom tradition identifies with Vyasa,”131

the author of theMahabharata, of which theBhagavadgıta is a part. TheBhagavadgıta, although asmr.ti text, contains some virtual (but signifi-cantly not actual) quotes from theUpanis.ads!132 If tradition is to bebelieved then, just as Vyasa was kicking one door shut with one legfor the sudras through theBrahmasutras, via the Apasudradhikaran. asection therein, he was kicking open another door by composing theBhagavadgıta!

A distinction was made earlier between three debarments so far asthe sudrasare concerned: (1)debarment from Vedic ritual; (2) debarmentfrom Vedantic knowledge and (3) debarment fromtapas.133 Only the firsttwo concern us here, but the third must not be overlooked. It providesanother interesting instance of how thesudra was deprived even of thisin due course, as illustrated by the example ofSambuka in theRamayan. a(VII.67.2–4), who is decapitated by Rama for practisingtapas, when thesudra is explicitly associated withtapasin theSatapatha Brahman. a.

For thebrahman, he seizes a Brahmin, for the Brahmin is thebrahman: he thus makesthe brahmanflourish with thebrahman. For theks.atra, he seizes a Kshatriya (rajanya),for the Kshatriya is theks.atra; he thus makes theks.atra flourish with theks.atra. For theMaruts [a group of deities, he seizes] a Vaishya, for the Maruts are the power of thevis. Hethus makes thevis flourish with thevis. For austerity (tapas), a Sh¯udra, for the Sh¯udra isausterity. He thus makes austerity flourish with austerity. According to their particular formhe thus makes these divinities flourish with sacrificial victims. Thus supplied, they makehim [the sacrificer] flourish with all his objects of desire (SB 13.6.2.10; cf. TB 3.4.1).134

The point was made that while there may be Vedic bases for denyingaccess to Vedic ritual to thesudras, the denial in terms of Vedic study hasno Vedic basis. Some support for this position also comes from theMaitrıUpanis.ad (7.8) which speaks ofsudras learned in scriptures, though inuncomplimentary terms. It is clear, however, that a parallel exclusion inthis respect was also instituted in the matter of study, which was connectedwith the ritual act of initiation into Vedic studies. Although this does smackof the chicken-egg problem the point apparently has some force in relationto later Hinduism.135

242 ARVIND SHARMA

5.

Vedic material provides three bases for the exclusion of thesudras fromVedic ritual. One of these is based on the claim that thesudras werecreated without a deity. This connection is emphasized by G.S. Ghurye.After citing theTaittirıya Sam. hita (VII.1.1.6) account of creation, Ghuryeconcludes: “We are told that no deities were created with thesudras andhence he is disqualified for sacrifice.”136

A second basis for denial is provided by the claim that thesudra wascreated without a metre, and this point is taken up by P.V. Kane. He writes:“A sruti text reads ‘(the Creator) created the Brahman.a with the Gayatrı(metre), the Rajanya with Tris.t.ubh, the Vaisya with Jagatı, but he did notcreate thesudra with any metre; therefore thesudra is known to be unfitfor the Samskara (of Upanayana).’ ”137

A third basis is provided by the absence of a corresponding season. Theargument runs as follows: “The study of the Veda follows from Upanayanaand the Veda speak of the Upanayana of only three classes ‘one shouldperform upanayana for a brahman.a in spring, for a rajanya in summer andin sarad (autumn) for a vaisya.’ ”138

This point is emphasized by the orthodox tradition, which regards theexclusion of thesudra from the upanayanaas a defining feature of hisstatus. Theupanayanarepresents the second birth and according to Manu(X.4) thesudra has only one birth.

The fact of the exclusion of thesudra from upanayanaoccupiessuch a central place in the self-perception and self-representation of laterHinduism that it deserves to be treated as a point in its own right. It soonbecomes apparent that a significant metrical element is involved in thesituation: the mantra through which initiation takes place is the famousgayatrı mantra, which is in thegayatrı metre. Thus a metrical element isalso involved in the situation, which excludes the association ofgayatrıwith the sudra.

If one examines several cosmogonic myths contained in the Vedicliterature139 collectively, each of the three factors which are said to renderthe sudra unfit for sacrifice can be called into question explicitly or impli-citly. Thus in some myths a metre is assigned to him (Jaiminıya Brahman. aI.68–69); in others he can be brought in relation with a season, notablyautumn, through the system of correspondences orbandhuta (SatapathaBrahman. a 5.4.1.3–7; etc.) and in some a god is assigned to him directly,such as Pus.an in theSatapatha Brahman. a (XIV.4.2.25). As forupanayanaproper, its first explicit mention is found only in theAtharvaVeda(XI.5.3).


It nevertheless remains true that the point most frequently used tojustify the exclusion of thesudra is the statement that he was createdwithout a deity; as for instance, in thePañcavimsa Brahman. a (6.1.6–11).140 However, in theJaiminıya Brahman. a (I.68–69) one encounters amore curious and ambiguous statement which runs as follows:

He desired, “May I propagate myself further.” He emitted from his feet, from his firmfoundation, the twenty-one-versed hymn of praise, theanus. t.ubh meter, theyajñayajñıyachant, not a single one among the gods, the Shudra among men, the sheep among animals.Therefore the Shudra meter is theanus. t.ubh and the divinity is related to the Lord of theHouse (vesmapati). Therefore he [the Shudra] seeks to make a living washing feet, forfrom the feet, from the firm foundation, he [Prajapati] emitted him. With these emittedones Prajapati emitted the creatures.141

First it is said that no god was created with thesudrabut then it is added:“Therefore the Shudra meter is theanus. t.ubhand the divinity is related tothe Lord of the House (vesmapati).”

The picture which seems to emerge is one of gradual contraction ofthe rights of participation of thesudras in ritual from the solemn rites tothe non-solemn rites, from thesrautato thegr.hya, from the public to thedomestic sphere.

6.

This enables us to connect the previous points not merely numerically butalso logically with the one about to be discussed. When the question isasked: why are women declared unfit for Vedic study and ritual, one ofthe reasons given issudra-samanata or the fact that they are bracketedwith the sudras. It is well-known that at one time they participated both inVedic ritual and study.142 What seems to have happened is that graduallytheirdharmabecame “male-oriented. ‘For women the marriage injunctionis reckoned (equal to) a Vedic rite, as is service of the husband to livingwith the guru (which follows the initiation into Vedic study for boys), andhousework to tending the sacred fire’ [Manu. (2.67)]. Marriage (vivaha),service of the husband (patiseva) and housework (gr.hartha) made up thebroad parameters ofstrı-dharma, woman’s ethical path. These were hersurrogates for involvement with the Veda which was the traditional meansto ultimate fulfilment and immortality and now the domain of men. Manudoes not stand alone. Manu summed up a longstanding tradition which itthen reinforced and helped to perpetuate. It was not long before womenandsudras were normatively lumped together as subject to a host of socialand religious disabilities. This association continued down the centuriesand persists in many conservative minds, not excluding those of women,to the present day.”143

244 ARVIND SHARMA

Just as the women are said to receive the merit of the ritual performedby their husbands (masters), thesudras similarly receive the merit fromtheir masters. The point may be made with the help of an anecdote. OnceVyasa was bathing in the Ganges and scandalized the assembled sagesby making thrice, in between his baptismal immersions in the river, thefollowing oracular utterances: “Kali Yuga is blessed; women are blessedand sudrasare blessed.” When called upon to account for these paradox-ical utterances he explained: (1) in Kali Yuga even a littletapasgoes along way, compared to the otheryugas; (2) the sudra secures his worldsvicariously by merely serving the threevarn. as, without having to undergothe effort they undertake and (3) similarly, merely by serving her husbandthe wife gains the merit earned by him. Briefly then, thesudrasattain bydvijasusrus. a and the women bypatisusrus. a, whatever has been attainedby the objects of their devoted service!144

There are many lines of convergence betweensudrasand women: bothdo not participate in Vedic studies and ritual, both are meant to servetheir masters, etc. The theological shift underlying this whole move is thereorientation of the ‘deity’ – for the women it is the husband (now substi-tuted for Vedic gods in effect) and for thesudra, thedvija. The apotheosisof thepati and thebrahman. as, which sounds so baffling if not megaloma-niacal to the modern mind, seems to possess this underlying logic of itsown.

But not everyone was satisfied with such domestication of the divine,among them Vyasa, who wanted all to share the Vedic insights. It is worthnoting that this sentiment should be expressed in theSuta Sam. hita,145

given what is going to be said about thesuta in the paper. This is thesameSuta Sam. hita which debars women on the ground of their similitudeto sudras. This fact is in itself once again significant as occurring in thistext,146 for it is this text also which “states: ‘effort for acquiring true knowl-edge (of the self) is meant for all (for persons even lower thansudras), thateffort made by explaining in a different language (than [Vedic?] Sanskrit)and by the lapse of enough time will lead to the good (of the lowest).’ ”147

Moreover, one of the arguments used to deny eligibility to thesudra rests on the claim that he was created without a deity. Apartfrom the fact that this is not entirely true even for Vedic Hinduismas demonstrated earlier, the evidence from classical Hinduism not onlyserves to contradict this but indirectly serves to advance our thesis.According to a text calledSankaravijaya(fourteenth century):148 vipran. amdaivatam sambhuh. ks.atriyan. am tu madhavah. : vaisyanam tu bhavedbrahma sudran. am gan. anayakah. .149 If Gan.esa is the deity of thesudras,then the traditional story about Gan.esa writing down theMahabharata, as


the amanuensis of Vyasa, takes on special significance150 in the light ofthe general thesis of this paper. This account, however, is not included inthe critical edition of theMahabharata.

The question arises at this point: is there any evidence which connectswomen with theanus. t.ubh metre the way it may be connected with thesudras? How far, in other words, can the parallelism betweensudrasandwomen be stretched. There is little evidence connecting women with theanus. t.ubhmetre, for the statement in theSankhayana Brahman. a (XXVII.1)which compares theanus. t.ubh metre “to a sudra harlot fit for beingapproached”151 is suggestive but can hardly be considered conclusive. Thispoint therefore represents a weak link in the argument. There are, however,a few other considerations pertaining to thePuran. aswhich might supportthe orientation. A.S. Altekar observes: “We have seen above that womenwere declared to be of the same status as that of thesudras, and so cameto be gradually excluded from the study of and acquaintance with highertheology and philosophy. Women, however, are by nature more religiousthan men, and so a new type of religious literature was evolved to meettheir needs and aspirations. This was the remodelled Pauranic literature.It enunciated the principles of Hinduism in a homely, easy and attractivemanner, illustrating them with a number of edifying stories. Pious peoplemade provision all over the country for the exposition of Puran.as to publicaudiences. Women became very well grounded in the culture of the race byhabitually listening to this literature. Faith, almost blind faith, was howeverheld up for high admiration in Puran.as. It was therefore well developed inwomen, to the detriment however of rationalism. It must be however notedthat reason was at a discount at this period among males also both in Indiaand Europe.”152

In view of the role assigned to thePuran. as in the above passage itis worth noting that, according to tradition, Vyasa is not only the editor(“arranger”)153 of theVedasand author of theMahabharata but the authorof the Puran. as154 as well. Moreover, stories expressing his simultaneousconcern for the spiritual well-being ofsudras and women are clearlyattested to inBrahmapuran. a (226.62–80) andVis.n. upuran. a (VI.2.15–30;34–36).155

V

In the course of examining the answers to the six questions framed to probethe relationship of thesudrasto the Vedic lore in general it became obviousthat, despite the popular image that a sharp rupture characterises the rela-tionship of thesudras to the Vedas, the picture of a general recession or

246 ARVIND SHARMA

dissolution of the relationship is more faithful to the facts available to us. Inview of this serrated rather than a clean-cut separation, one which occurredgradually over time, given the overlapping nature of the relationship assuggested by the six questions, one is led to wonder whether thesudrasenjoyed any kind of a special relationship with any body of Vedic literatureas well. For if they did, and it can be identified, then it might lead to amore nuanced understanding of the issue on hand. Once again it mightbe helpful to anticipate the finding before presenting it: namely, that thesudrasseem to have a special connection with theYajurVedaand the bodyof Vedic literature attached to it, such as theTaittirıya and theVajasaneyıSam. hitas, theTaittirıyaandSatapatha Brahman. asand theBr.hadaran. yakaUpanis.ad. Some of these connections became apparent in the previoussection, and may now be investigated further.

The sudras seem to possess a generous affiliation with theSuklaYajurVeda. The following pieces of evidence point in that direc-tion. (1) The SuklaYajurVedacontains a verse (26.2) which has beeninterpreted as throwing open Vedic knowledge to allvarn. as, includingthe sudras.156 The exact significance of the verse is unclear157 but itsinclusiveness has not been questioned.158 (2) TheParaskara Gr.hyasutrais attached to theSuklaYajurVedaand contains an explicit provision (2.6)for the initiation into Vedic studies ofsudras of good character. Thisqualification is not unusual asApastambaforbids initiation ofbrahman. asof bad character.159 (3) In somesmr.ti texts the following statement isfound: sudrah. vajasaneyinah. .160 “This is explained as meaning that thesudra should follow the procedure prescribed in the gr.hyasutra of theVajasaneyaSakha and a brahman.a should repeat the mantra for him.”161

In the light of the evidence adduced above it seems as if thesudra’sright has been exegeted away, for theSamskara Mayukha162 seems toestablish their eligibility on the basis of that very statement:atra casudrah. vajasaneyinah. iti vasis. t.havakyat. The mention of Vasis.t.ha is alsosignificant because he is connected with thesudraseven by Manu (III.197–198). (4) P.V. Kane points out that in theHarivamsa (Bhavis.yat-Parva,Chap. III, 13) we find verses he translates as follows: “All will expoundbrahma; all will be Vajasaneyins; when theyugacomes to a closesudraswill make use of the word ‘bhoh. ’ in address’ (sarve brahma vadis.yantisarve vajasaneyinah. ).”163 (5) This finds indirect support from a versefound in some texts ofManusmr. ti part of which states:sudrah. kaliyugah.smr. tah. .164 It can be interpreted variously but also as: the Kaliyuga belongsto thesudra!165

An enigmatic etiological account of thesudrasmay be relevant here.According to this account thesudras were created along with the day.


The statement is puzzling because thesudrasare usually associated withdarkness or the dark colour166 rather than light. However, according to themythical account of the origin of theVajasaneyi Sam. hita, it was revealed toYajñavalkya by the sun. Is it possible that this fact, coupled with its verydescription asSuklaYajurVedaand the association of this Veda with thesudrasmight account for their surprising chromatic association with light,especially as the association itself is found both in the BlackYajurVedaas well as the White.167 Another passage found in all the recensions ofthe YajurVeda168 has attracted interest because it seeks radiance for allthe four varn. as, including thesudra: rucam. visves.u sudres.u mayi dhehiruca rucam(Taittirıya Sam. hita [V.7.6.3–4]), P.V. Kane seems to give it aminimalist interpretation with the following comment: “In Tai.S.V.7.6.3–4we have ‘put light (glory) in our brahman.as, put it in our chiefs (or kings)(put) light in vaisyas andsudras, put light in me by your light.’ This is asure indication that thesudra who took the place of the dasa is here placedon the same level with the other three classes in the matter of the receipt oflight from God and that for [sic] from being looked upon as an enemy, hehad come to be looked upon as a member of the society (though the lowestin the scale).”169

Vajasaneyi Sam. hita also contains the same verse (XVIII.48) which asksAgni to confer brilliance on all the fourvarn. as, including thesudras.Ram Sharan Sharma provides, by contrast with Kane, a maximalist inter-pretation: “A remarkable passage occurring in all the collections of theYajus contains a prayer to Agni to confer brilliance on ‘our’ priests,warriors, vaisyas andsudras. The context, in which this passage occursin theVajasaneyi Sam. hita, deals with formulas for the performance of thevasordhara, a sort of consecration service of Agni as king. On this occa-sion the officiating priest (adhvaryu) recites formulas meant to bestow alltemporal and spiritual blessings on the sacrificer. It is not clear, but may notbe improbable, that the ritual is prescribed for the king, who prays to Agnito place lustre in all the varn.as of his subjects including thesudras.”170

These verses imply a ritual connection on the part of thesudra, howso-ever limited or marginal, which may have also gone hand in hand with ametrical connection, howsoever tenuous, for the argument which questionsthe eligibility of thesudrare the Vedas is, in part at least, based on the argu-ment that thesudra lacks a corresponding metre. That which exists onlyempirically (=ritually) exists vulnerably, it has been said, unless groundedin ideology (=metrically). It is therefore significant that by contrast theKr.s.n. aYajurVedadoes supply a metrical connection. TheTaittirıya Sam. hita(VII.1.1.4–5) ascribes theanus. t.ubh to the sudra, just as it ascribes thegayatrı to thebrahman. a.171

248 ARVIND SHARMA

Further support for the idea comes from the association of thesudraswith particular gods. Ram Sharan Sharma notes: “Of the gods associ-ated with thesudras, Pus.an seems to have been a shepherd god and, assuch, probably represents the cattle-rearing and nourishing activities of theAryan vis. The Asvins, who are described in the later portion of theR. gVedaas sowing the grain with the plough and milking food for man, may beassociated with the agricultural activities of the vis. The Visvedevas areassinged to the vis because of their being great in number. The fact thatprecisely the same three gods who are associated with theAryan vis latercame to be directly or indirectly ascribed to thesudra would suggest thateven when sections of the vis were reduced to the position ofsudras, theycontinued to retain their old Vedic gods.”172

It is possible, in principle, to bring all the three gods mentioned hereinto relationship with thesudrasand theanus. t.ubh metre. To begin withPus.an. We read in theSatapatha Brahman. a (4.2.25): “He created thesudraclass, Pus.an. This earth is Pus.an: for she nourishes all that exists.”173 Inthe R. gVeda(X.90.12.14) both thesudra and the earth are stated to haveemerged from the feet of thepurus.a. The Nirukta assigns theanus. t.ubhmetre to the sphere of the earth. It is clear, therefore, that the three canbe connected. Similarly, the Asvins are associated with thesudras in theMahabharata. They are a dual divinity and as such, may be paired withanother dual divinity – Mitra and Varun.a – who are associated with theanus. t.ubh (Taittirıya Sam. hita 7.5.14). Similarly, the Visvedevas can beassociated with thesudrasthrough theanus. t.ubhmetre, through referencesin the Jaiminıya Brahman. a (II.101;III.101) on the basis of which R.S.Sharma concludes that according to these passages “Prajapati and Indrawere honoured among the Visvedevas, and the Pañcala Prince DarbhaSatanıki among thesudras,” through the same metre, theanus. t.ubh, whichgoes to show that “the Visvedevas of divine society correspond to thesudrasof human society.”174 In fact, SankhayanaAran. yaka(I.7) connectsthe Visvedevas with theanus. t.ubheven more directly. Another connectionamong the three is possible through the divinity Day, which is associatedwith the sudras (Vajasaneyi Sam. hita XIV.28) as well as theanus. t.ubhmetre.

The reader must be wondering by now where the argument is headed,with all these correspondences reminiscent ofBrahman. a passages.

The key point to note is that the denial of thesudrasto Vedic ritual andstudy was sought to be based on a theological argument that thesudra isdisqualified from access to Vedic ritual and study because he was createdwithout a god.175 (Sometimes the fact of being created without a metre orseason is also added). Thus if thesudrasare to be disenfranchised (or to


be kept disenfranchised) in matters sacrificial, their relationship with anydeity must not be entertained, although their relationship with theanus. t.ubhcould be retained.

It is here that the further investigation of theTaittirıya Sam. hita provesparticularly helpful.176 It contains, for instance, the following incantation(V.5.8):

With the eastern quarter I place thee, with the Gayatrı metre, with Agni as the deity; withthe head of Agni I put down the head of Agni.With the southern quarter I place thee, with the Tris.t.ubh metre, with Indra as the deity;with the wing of Agni I put down the wing of Agni.With the western quarter I place thee, with the Jagatı metre, with Savitr. as the deity; withthe tail of Agni I put down the tail of Agni.With the northern quarter I place thee, with the Anus.t.ubh metre, with Mitra and Varun.a asthe deity; with the wing of Agni I put down the wing of Agni.177

The association of the dual deities Mitra and Varun.a is significant,as it is in keeping with the association of the Asvins with thesudras aswell as theanus. t.ubh with them. The two gods are associated elsewhere(VIII.5.14) with anus. t.ubhas well.178 The association ofsudraswith cattleis brought to mind when two-footed cattle are associated withanus. t.ubh(VI.6.11.5), and it is noteworthy that even when the gods are not associatedwith anus. t.ubh, it is associated with thesudras. Thus it is said (VII.1.1.4–5): “from his feet . . . After it the Anus.t.ubh metre was created . . . of men theSudra, of cattle the horse. Therefore the two, the horse and theSudra, aredependent on others. Therefore theSudra is not fit for sacrifice, for he wasnot created after any gods.” TheTaittirıya Sam. hita contains the followingeulogy of Prajapati, who is connected with theanus. t.ubhmetre (VII.4.4):

Prajapati went to the world of heaven. But with whatever metre the gods yoked him theyachieved not him. They saw (the rite of) these thirty-two nights. The Anus.t.ubh has thirty-two syllables, Prajapati is connected with the Anus.t.ubh; verily having gained Prajapati byhis own metre they mounted on him and went to the world of heaven. Those who knowingthus perform (the rite of) these thirty-two (nights) – the Anus.t.ubh thirty-two syllables,Prajapati is connected with the Anus.t.ubh – gaining Prajapati by his own metre, go toprosperity, for the world of heaven for man is prosperity. These (nights) are thirty-two,Anus.t.ubh has thirty-two syllables, the Anus.t.ubh is speech; verily they gain all speech; allbecome speakers of speech, for all attain prosperity.179

Normally, of course, Prajapati means lord of creatures but it is signifi-cant that he is connected with sacrificial animals (seeBhagavadgıta III.10);the sudra is described asbahupasu (Pañcavimsa Brahman. a VI.1.II) whileaccoding to a passage of theVajasaneyi Sam. hita (XXX.22) neither abrahman. a nor asudracan be offered as sacrifice to Prajapati, which “prob-ably indicates that, while the brahman.a was too high for the purpose, thesudra was too low.”180

250 ARVIND SHARMA

The association of theanus. t.ubh with the horse (elsewhere associatedwith the sudra and with Prajapati [Taittirıya Sam. hita III.4.9.6]) is alsofound in the following passage (V.4.12).

‘Be pure for the winning of strength’, this is the Anus.t.ubh strophe; three Anus.t.ubhs, makefour Gayatrıs; in that there are three Anus.t.ubhs, therefore the horse when standing standson three feet; in that there are four Gayatrıs therefore he goes putting down all four feet.The Anus.t.ubh is the highest of metres, the fourfold Stoma is the highest of Stomas, thethree-night sacrifice the highest of sacrifices, the horse the highest of animals; verily by thehighest he makes him go to the highest state.181

Part of the evidence also comes from divine power-politics. Accordingto the Taittirıya Sam. hita (VI.2.2): “The gods and the Asuras were inconflict. The gods fell out among themselves. Being unwilling to acceptone another’s pre-eminence, they separated in five bodies, Agni with theVasus, Soma with the Rudras, Indra with the Maruts, Varun.a with theAdityas, Br.haspati with the All-gods.”182 This leads to the following equa-tion: Br.haspati = Visvedevah. = Sudras. A similar equation is suggestedby (VII.1.18): “With the All-gods as deity, with the Anus.t.ubh metre, Iyoke thee; with the autumn season as oblation I consecrate thee.”183 Theassociation of Br.haspati with the All-gods is noteworthy for two reasons.The All-gods are associated with theanus. t.ubh. The All-gods are associatedwith the sudras. This is the first reason. The second is that Br.haspati isalso associated with theanus. t.ubh(III.1.7). The association of theanus. t.ubhwith the ‘fourth’ is also apparent in the following invocation (IV.2.1):

Thou art the step of Vis.n.u, overcoming hostility, mount the Gayatrı metre, step along theearth, excluded is he whom we hate. Thou art the step of Vis.n.u, overcoming imprecations,mount the Tris.t.ubh metre, step along the atmosphere, excluded is he whom we hate. Thouart the step of Vis.n.u, overcomer of the enemy, mount the Jagatı metre, step along the sky,excluded is he whom we hate. Thou art the step of Vis.n.u, overcomer of the foe, mount ofthe Anus.t.ubh metre, step along the quarters, excluded is he whom we hate.184

Similarly, the quarters, being four, are also connected with theanus. t.ubh(V.2.1.1).

The crucial point here is how the fourth element in a series is to betreated, for this is what is at stake in the case of thesudra, theanus. t.ubh, thehorse, the gods (and subsequently) theAtharvaVeda. There are basicallytwo modes in which the relationship could operate and it is well-illustratedwith the help of the analogy of a quarter and a dollar. A quarter by itself isonly a part of a dollar, a mere fraction of it, and the last is the least. Yet thelast can also be the most if it completes the whole. Thus three quarters cannever aspire to be a dollar, but the fourth quarter, much less in itself thanthree quarters, makes all of them worth a dollar.

This is how the role reversals we have just encountered may be under-stood, depending on the view one takes. From one point of view: “The


anus. t.ubh meter in the texts cited above thus completes the structure byadding a fourth to the previous three – in these cases, at the bottom. Andother texts confirm the identification, for example, of theanus. t.ubh andthe ‘lowest’: it is connected to the ‘foundation’ (JB 1.229; or the ‘feet’[S.ad.B 2.3] or ‘this earth’ [PB 8.7.2;SB 1.3.2.16], or, again as previously inCosmologies VI and VII, to the Shudras or servant class [JB 1.263, 1.265–66]).”185 Yet from another point of view: “SB 13.3.3.1; cf. PB 21.4.6: ‘Thehorse is the last [i.e., the culmination, the highest, most perfect] of theanimals. Theanus. t.ubh [is the last] of the meters, Vis.n.u of the gods, thefour-versed of the hymns of praise, the three-day rite of the sacrifices.’ ”186

The point to keep in mind then is that structurally both thesudra and theanus. t.ubhrepresent the addition of a fourth element to a triadic structure.187

This is generally recognised in the case of thesudra.188 If that realiza-tion is supplemented with the following observation about theanus. t.ubh,the point this section has endeavoured to make is thrown in clear relief.Brian K. Smith observes: “We witness here, once again, the ambiguitythe authors of Vedic texts displayed when it comes to the fourth elementadded to a triadic structure. Rather than the lowest meter, theanus. t.ubh issometimes extolled as the highest, the ‘transcendent fourth’ of the meters.One manifestation of this is the connection of the meter and deities thatemblemize totality – the Visva Devas (“All the Gods,” e.g., JB 1.239) orPrajapati – or the claim that theanus. t.ubh ‘is all meters’ (e.g., JB 1.285).Another way in which the superiority of the meter is expressed is withthe connections to royal signifiers. In texts dealing with the Asvamedhaor horse sacrifice, we read that ‘the anus.t.ubh is the highest meter, and thehorse is the highest of animals.’ ‘Highest’ here and elsewhere seems tomean ‘kingly’ or ‘royal’; the horse is both the ks.atra and ‘belongs to theanus. t.ubh.’ With the anus. t.ubh meter, it is said, one attains ‘preeminence’(AitB 3.13).”189

VI

There is thus substantial evidence that theanus. t.ubhmetre is systematicallyassociated with thesudras. The Vedas associated the variousvarn. aswiththe various metres on the following pattern: thegayatrı metre with thebrahman. a, tris. t.ubhwith theks.atriya, jagatı with thevaisya, andanus. t.ubhwith the sudra. For instance, theJaiminıya Brahman. a informs us that “thePañcala prince DarbhaSatanıki was honoured among the brahman.as, theks.atriya, the vaisya, and thesudras successively through the use of thegayatrı, the tris.t.ubh, the jagatı and the anus.t.ubh metres.”190 Similarly, inthe Sankhayana Brahman. a “the anus.t.ubh metre is compared to asudra

252 ARVIND SHARMA

harlot fit for being approached”.191 TheSankhayanaSrauta Sutra mentionsthe same association of thegayatrı with the brahman. a, the tris. t.ubh withthe ks.atriya, the jagatı with the vaisya, andanus. t.ubh with the sudra.192

Ram Sharan Sharma finds this association of thesudraswith theanus. t.ubhsufficiently strong to suggest that because that metre is also associated withthevisvedevas, “the Visvedevas of divine society correspond to thesudrasof human society,”193 as indicated earlier.

It is not only in theBrahman. a and Sutra literature that this associ-ation of theanus. t.ubh with the sudras is met with. It can also be tracedin the YajurVeda. The Taittirıya Sam. hita ascribes theanus. t.ubh metre tothe sudra,194 just as it ascribes thegayatrı to thebrahman. a and so on.195

VII

It therefore seems possible to suggest that at least according to one segmentof the Hindu tradition it is quite likely that theMahabharatawas composedin theanus. t.ubhmetre because it was composed for the sake of thesudras.

At this point, however, several questions arise, especially if we changeour perspective from the traditional to one which is critical-historical.

(1) It was assumed above, in line with tradition, that theMahabharata isthe work of a single author.196 Is it so?

(2) TheMahabharata is generally believed to have grown over a periodextending from the 4th century B.C. to the 4th century A.D.197 But theBhagavata Puran. a, in the light of which the motive for its compositionwas uncovered, is believed to have been composed around 859 A.D. inSouth India.198 How justified are we in accepting its statements abouttheMahabharata?

These questions must be answered satisfactorily before the positionbeing developed here can achieve any measure of cogency.

First, the question of the authorship of theMahabharata. Even if itbe accepted that theMahabharata is not the work of a single author,199

the issues raised by the examination of the traditional material remain tobe addressed. For although theMahabharata may not be the work of asingle author, it is recognised to be a conscious composition. Professorvan Buitenen has remarked: “that the main story of the Mahabharata was aconscious composition is, to me, undeniable and one poet or small group ofthem must have been responsible for it.”200 So the basic question persists– why this “one poet or a small group of them” chose to use theanus. t.ubh?And if the Mahabharata was composed sometime between 400 B.C. and400 A.D., then the question can be more sharply formulated: why did a


poet or small group of poets, sometime between 400 B.C. and 400 A.D.,choose to compose theMahabharata in theanus. t.ubh? Now if it be furthermaintained that theMahabharata, as we have it, is the work not only of apoet or group of poets but generations of poets, as the work passed throughseveral recensions, then the question can be made even more pointed: whybetween 400 B.C. and 400 A.D., as theMahabharatawent through severalredactions, did it emerge as preeminently in theanus. t.ubh?201 And finally,if the traditional material is further filtered through the historical sieve thenthe shape the question now seems to assume is: Why did the anonymouscomposers of theBhagavata Puran. a, in the middle of the ninth centuryA.D., identify the intention of the anonymous author or authors of theMahabharataeither individually or collectively or generationally as it tookshape between the 4th century B.C. and the 4th century A.D., as beingthat of making it a device for presenting the essence of the Vedas to thesudras, thereby circumventing thesmr. ti debarment of thesudras fromVedic knowledge? And were they correct to a certain degree in makingthis assumption?

The first question is answered more easily than the second. That theBhagavata Puran. a takes an extremely positive view of thesudrasunderthe influence of the Bhakti movement, of which it seems to have been aproduct, has already been documented by Thomas J. Hopkins.202 So thefact that the author or authors of theBhagavata Puran. a should see in thecomposition of theMahabharata the same concern for thesudra whichcharacterized their own composition need not come as a surprise to us. Norwould it probably have come as a surprise to the author or authors of theBhagavata Puran. a that the author or authors of theMahabharata shouldhave used theanus. t.ubhmetre if they wanted to cater to thesudras.203

But it is the second question, however, which constitutes the cruxof the matter. What evidence do we have to support the view that theMahabharata is to be closely associated with thesudras?

Before we face these questions the situation may be summarized briefly.We know now that the Vedic tradition associates thesudras with theanus. t.ubh. We also know now that the Puran. ic tradition associates thecomposition of theMahabharata with the sudras. We also know that theMahabharata is predominantly in theanus. t.ubh. These are the tantalizingpieces of the puzzle. Do they fit?

At this point it is a recognition of considerable integrative value – thatthe Mahabharata is associated both by tradition and modern scholarshipwith the sutas. According to tradition, although theMahabharata wascomposed be sage Vyasa, it was transmitted through thesutaLomahars.an.aand in its final recension is narrated by his son, Sauti.204 According

254 ARVIND SHARMA

to modern scholarship, Hindu epic poetry emerged among thesutas.205

Thus modern scholarship associates thesutaswith the composition of theMahabharata and traditional lore associates them with its transmission –but close association is accepted by both.206

Who then were thesesutaswho seem to hold the key to the answer?(1) One may begin by noting that thesesutas belonged to a group

of “epic professionals” who included “nat.as, pan. isvanikas, magadhas,nandıvadyas, bandins, gayanas, saukhyasayikas, vaitalikas, kathakas,granthikas, gathins, kusılavas and pauran. ikas (Sutas).”207 Though thereare differences in the roles they play,208 which are closely associated andwhich may have overlapped,209 from our point of view it is important tonote that they are all said to be of “low caste” or “mixed castes,” close tobeing or actually beingsudras.210

(2) Among these, thesutasstand out as “re-writers and re-citers of theepic.”211 It was pointed out earlier that they may have to be distinguishedfrom thesutaswho were charioteers. But even assuming for the momentthat they are the same – that the wordsuta stands for both charioteers andbards, thesutaseven as charioteers are a “low caste,” a “mixed caste,”212

or close to beingsudras.213

(3) If it be maintained that thesutasas bards are a class apart,214 theyfall even lower as a mixed class and come closer to beingsudras.

(4) Since we are dealing with a situation in which bards are involved,the Hindu political tradition also seems worth looking into. In this respectit is remarkable that one of the duties of asudra which does not seem tohave been taken note of in thesmr.tis, but is mentioned in theArthasastra,is that ofkarukusılavakarma,215 which is rendered by Shamasastry as “theprofession of artisans and court-bards.”216 TheKamandakıyanıtisara alsodescribeskarucaran. akarma as the duty of asudra.217 The Manusmr. ti(X.99) permits thesudra artisanship (karukakarma) alone in extremis.

(5) Next, theMahabharata itself. The evidence from theMahabharataitself, however, has to be analyzed very carefully because if its purpose is toovercome the bias against thesudras in a certain sense, then its evidencewill tend to reflect both the fact it is trying to overcome and its effort todo so. It is therefore interesting that while in some cases the use of theword suta is merely descriptive, in other cases it is definitely pejorative.A remarkable instance of this is the fact that when Draupadı denouncesKıcaka for trying to seduce her, she addresses him as asutaputra, and uponbeing kicked by him, does so in four verses successively.218 It is clear, then,that theMahabharata retains the connotation of an inferior caste for theword suta.219 On the other hand, the general tenor of theMahabharata isfavourable to thesudra,220 especially in theSantiparvawherein it is even


asserted that “brahman.as learned in the Vedas regard a virtuoussudra asthe effulgent Vis.n.u of the universe, the foremost one in all the worlds.”221

(6) The low status of thesuta is attested to within theBhagavata Puran. aitself. “Suta, the narrator of the Bhagavata, is himself born of a lowly mixedclass.”222 It is also worth noting that even when he is being complimentedfor his profound erudition by the sages, it is clearly mentioned that hissphere of learning excludes the Veda (anyatra chandasat),223 an exclusioncharacteristic of asudra in orthodox Hinduism.

That these social facts have a metrical implication becomes clear fromcertain considerations. It is stated in theTaittirıya Brahman. a224 that the“vaisya was born of theRg. Veda, the ks.atriya of theYajur Veda, andthe brahman.a of theSama Veda. This obviously implies that theAtharvaVeda was meant for thesudra – a provision which is later on vaguelyrepeated in theApastamba Dharmasutra.”225 We know in any case that theAtharvaVedais more closely connected with thesudra element of Vedicsociety than any of the other Vedas.226 And “the two striking features ofthe Atharva Veda as regards its metrical form are the extreme irregularityand predominance ofanus. t.ubhstanzas. The stanzas ingayatrı andtris. t.ubhare correspondingly rare, the AV in this point presenting a sharp contrastto the Rig Veda.”227 It is also therefore of interest that theMahabharata,which is predominantly in theanus. t.ubhmetre, “puts Atharva Veda first inthe list of Vedas”228 and “places the Atharvan priest before the others.”229

That said, one must recognize the strong potential inherent in thetradition for associating thesudraswith the AtharvaVeda.230 J. Muir hadalready noted in the last century, that given the derivation of the first threevarn. asfrom the threevyahr. tis (Satapatha Brahman. a II.1.4.11) or from thevarious Vedas (Taittirıya Brahman. a III.12.9.3), “to complete his account ofthe derivation of the castes from the Vedas, the author had only to add thatthesudras had sprung from the Atharvangirases (the Atharva-veda); but heperhaps considered that to assign such an origin to the servile order wouldhave been to do it too great an honour.”231 According to theSatapathaBrahman. a (XIII.4.3.7–13), although the word is not used, people who arenormally classed assudrasare considered fit to be taught subjects whichfall in the domain of theAtharvaVeda.

Significantly, it seems to us, theSrauta Sutras tend to substitutesecular significances for the sacred; readingbhes.ajam, for instance, for‘atharvan. am ekam parva’,232 a substitution which becomes all the moresignificant in the light of the statement in theSusruta that, according tosome, medical knowledge may be imparted even to a well-bredsudra, whohas not been invested with the sacred thread, so long as it does not involveVedic texts.233

256 ARVIND SHARMA

In the present context some statements of theAtharvaVedaacquirespecial semantic depth, in light of the widely held view that thedasasoftheR. gVedawere transformed into thesudra varn. a.234 Some of the versesof the AtharvaVeda, though not all, refer to thedasa in a positive light.AtharvaVeda5.11.3 declares that ‘I cannot be partial to either Dasa orArya(na me daso naryo . . . )’.235 R.S. Sharma provides a fuller statement: ‘Ina dialogue between the primeval priest Atharvan and Varun.a, the priestboasts: “Nodasaby his greatness, nor anAryan, may violate the law thatI will establish.” ’236

The association of thesudraswith the Vedic corpus, therefore, eitherbecame or remained liminal, although the potential resonates even in clas-sical Hinduism in such verses as the following in Kalidasa’sRaghuvamsa(X.22):

caturvargaphalam jñanam kalavastha caturyugacaturvarn. amayo lokas tvattah. sarvam caturmukh¯at237

– when read alongside the view that the four Vedas were also revealedthrough the four faces of Brahma.

In fact the association of theAtharvaVedawith the sudrasis so signifi-cant that it virtually reverses one particular doctrine of the origin ofvarn. as.The idea that all thevarn. asevolved successively out of thebrahman. a238

(identified earlier as a variant account of the genesis ofvarn. as) appears inreverse in theAtharvaVeda, although the word used there is notsudra butvratya. To parenthesize the two is not entirely free of problems239 but thetwo categories are close enough for us to consider the fact that an accounttraces the emergence of at least twovarn. asfrom them, reversing the usualorder. ‘In the following text of the Atharva-veda, xv.8.1, a new account isgiven of the origin of the Rajanyas: So ’rajyata tato rajanyo ’jayata.

“He (the Vratya) became filled with passion: thence sprang theRajanya.”

And in the following paragraph (A.V.xv.9,1ff) we have the same originascribed to the Brahman also:

Tad yasya evam vidvan vratyo rajno ’tithir gr.ihanagachhetsreyamsamenam atmano manayet | tatha kshattraya navr.ischate tatha rasht.rayanavr.ischate| ato vai brahma cha kshattram cha udatisht.hatam | te abrutam“kam pravisava” iti | (Muir)

“Let the king to whose house the Vratya who knows this, comes as aguest, cause him to be respected as superior to himself. So doing he doesno injury to his royal rank, or to his realm. From him arose the Brahman(Brahman) and the Kshattra (Kshattriya). They said, ‘Into whom shall weenter’, etc.”240


The original meaning of the wordvratya is difficult to determine. Thatorigin “is lost in the mists of antiquity”.241 It is “possible to derive theword from vrata”242 but it is more probably “derived fromvrata (group)and means ‘he who belongs to or moves in a group’ ”.243 Thus P.V. Kaneconcludes that “originally vratyas appear to have been groups of peoplewho spoke the same language as the orthodoxaryas,244 but did not followtheir discipline or habits”.245

The impression that thevratyaswere a people on the margins of ortho-doxy, supported by W.B. Bollée,246 comes through very strongly in theirdescription and is used by Sayan.a to meet the difficulty caused by theirglorification in AtharvaVeda15.1.1, “since he says that description doesnot apply to all vratyas, but only to some very powerful, universallyrespected and holy vratya who was, however, not in the good books of thebrahman.as that were solely devoted to their own rites and sacrifices.”247

Such glorification may have led Bloomfield into thinking, as another wayof overcoming cognitive dissonance, that “the converted vratyas” were“exalted as a type of a perfect Brahmacarin”.248

The exact meaning of the wordvratya thus remains difficult todetermine, in the light of different interpretations it has been subject toin both ancient and modern literature. According to someSutra works –such as theApastamba Dharma Sutra (I.I.I.22–I.I.2.10) and theParaskaraGr.hya Sutra (II.5) “a vratya is one on whom and on whose ancestors thesamskara of upanayana has not been performed”,249 whereas according tootherSutra works such asBaudhayana Dharma Sutra (I.9.16) the “wordvratya is applied to all those who are born of the mixture of varn.as”.250

The common factor underlying the two explanations is the absence of thesacred thread either through neglect (as in the first case) or ineligibility (asin the second case) hence the significance of the expressionpatitasavitrıkain this context. P.V. Kane explains:

Patitasavitrıka (those for whom there has been no upanayana and therefore no instructionin Gayatrı and who are therefore sinful and outside the pale of Aryan society). The gr.hyaand dharma sutras are agreed that the time for upanayana has not passed till the 16th, 22ndand 24th year in the case of brahman.as, ks.atriyas and vaisyas respectively, but that afterthese years are past without upanayana taking place they become incompetent thereafter forlearning the Savitrı (the sacred gayatrı verse). VideAsv. Gr. I.19.5–7, Baud. Gr, III.13.5–6,Ap. Dh. S. I.1.1.22, Vas. XI. 71–75, Manu II.38–39, Yaj. I. 37–38. Such persons are thencalled patitasavitrıka or savitrıpatita and also vratya (Manu II.39 and Yaj. I. 38 call themso). These works also declare that the consequences of this are that no upanayana is to bethereafter performed for them, they are not to be taught the Veda, nor is any one to officiateat their sacrifices and there is to be no social intercourse with them (i.e. no marriage takesplace with them).251

258 ARVIND SHARMA

Modern scholars, who have tried to tie together the various loosethreads, have pointed out that, despite divergent views, no one any longeridentifiesvratyaswith the aboriginal population.252 They were, however,given to roaming the countryside and difficult to keep under a tightleash.253 In this sense their rowdy behaviour would, on the one hand,connect them with thesudras254 on account of it being contrary to norms,yet on the other could also connect them, as throughrajas, with rajanya.255

Thus many explanations, not necessarily mutually exclusive, are possibleon the basis of ancient Indian and comparative materials.256

From the point of view of this paper this discussion of thevratyas ishelpful in both a general and a very specific way. The “glorification of thevratya” confirms the impression that those on the margins of orthodoxywere not always despised, and in fact even considered praiseworthy attimes. This strengthens the possibility that a similar attitude might haveprevailed towards thesudras. It is worth noting that thevratya appearsin Prasna Upanis.ad (II.10)257 as “a kind of cosmic being butSankarainterprets the name as ‘uninitiated’, i.e., the first-born, and hence withoutanyone to initiate him”.258 Thus in a curious meeting of opposites bothGod andvratyas/sudrasshare the common status of being uninitiated! Inany case the positive resonance ofvratya is also echoed in theUpanis.adsbesides theBrahman. as.259

The specific significance of thevratyasin our context arises from thefact that they are connected with theanus. t.ubh!

Tan.d.ya 17.1.1 begins with the story that when the gods went to the heavenly worldsome dependents of theirs who lived thevratya life were left behind on the earth.Thenthrough the favour of the gods the dependents got at the hands of Maruts the S. od. asastoma(containing 16 stotras) and the metre (viz. anus. t.ubh) and then the dependents securedheaven. The S.od. asastoma is employed in each of the four vratyastomas, the first of which(17.1) is meant for all vratyas, the second is meant for those who areabhisasta(who arewicked or guilty of heavy sins and so censured) and lead a vratya life, the third for thosewho are youngest and lead a vratya life, and the fourth who are very old and yet lead avratya life.260

VIII

At this point on needs to revert to the person of Vyasa again. According tothe unanimous Hindu tradition he classified the Vedas into the fourfolddivision with which we are now familiar. The accounts which credithim with that editorial feat also assign to him the authorship of theMahabharata. This seems to suggest to us that by his time the progressof the debarment of thesudrashad become a fait accompli, so that simul-taneously with the arranging of the text of the Veda he also decided to


cater to those to whom they had now become inaccessible. We turn to theaccount inVis.n. u Puran. a (III.4.1ff):

The original Veda, consisting of four quarters, contained a hundred thousand verses. Fromit arose the entire system of sacrifice, tenfold (compared with the present) and yielding allthe objects of desire. Subsequently, in the twenty-eighth manvantara my son, [Parasara isthe speaker] the mighty Vyasa, divided into four parts the Veda which was one, with fourquarters. In the same way as the Vedas were divided by the wise Vyasa, so had they beendivided by all the [preceding] Vyasas, including myself. And know that thesakha divisions[formed] by him [were the same as those] formed in all the periods of four yugas. Learn,too, the Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa was the lord Narayan.a; for who else on earth couldhave composed the Mahabharata? Hear now correctly how the Vedas were divided by him,my great son, in this Dvapara age. When, commanded by Brahma Vyasa undertook todivide the Vedas, he took four disciples who had read through those books. The great munitook Paila as teacher of the Rich, Vaisampayana of the Yajush, and Jaimini of the Saman,while Sumantu, skilled in the Atharva-veda, was also his disciple. He too, took, as his pupilfor the Itihasas and Puran.as the great and intelligent muni, Suta, called Romaharshan.a.261

This passage offers a comprehensive statement of the traditionalperspective of Vyasa’s activities in general. It suggests a religiouscommunity consisting of two components: one with direct access to theVedas and another to which such access is denied. Vyasa’s benevolentintentionality assumes different forms in relation to each. Vyasa servesthe best interests of the first by reorganizing and systematizing the Vediccorpus and those of the second by disseminating the Vedic insights amongthem through theMahabharata and thePuran. as, while also trying to raisetheir status at the same time. There are some aspects of theMahabharatawhich lend plausibility to the view that it was meant for those who hadbeen denied access to the Vedas and also meant to elevate their status. Itcontains a verse, in the vulgate, which betrays a consciousness of the factthat thesudraslost the right to the Vedas (Santi Parva[vulgate] 181.15)262

which was cited earlier, as also the verse glorifying thesudra even abovebrahman. as,263 also in the sameparva (297.98), and identifying him withVis.n.u. One wonders, apart from the Vedic precedent,264 whether this iden-tification is connected with Vis.n.u’s feat as a dwarf in Hindu mythology,265

who in three footsteps traversed the whole universe, given the traditionalassociation of the feet with thesudra.

This rehabilitation of thesudra is also detectable elsewhere in theMahabharata wherein the fact of thesudra’s birth from the feet – a put-down in Vedic literature, is alluded to in a manner reminiscent of the stridesof Vis.n.u (III.12.962). Vis.n.u declares:

The Brahman is my mouth; the Kshattra is my arms; the Visas are my thighs; theseSudraswith their vigor and rapidity are my feet.266

260 ARVIND SHARMA

The process of rehabilitation is carried further in theBhagavataPuran. a. In the account of the emergence of the fourvarn. as from thedistinct body-parts of thepurus.a, thesudra is described as emerging fromthe feet (III.6.33) but unlike the deductions made from this fact in theBrahman. as, the resonances have a definitely positive ring. In describinghis emergence from the feet, the being is not calledpurus.a as in the case ofbrahman. a andks.atriya (and by implication that ofvaisya) but bhagavan.So he is described as emerging from the feet of God; service orsusrus. a ismentioned but is described as “for the sake of dharma” (dharma-siddhaye).Finally, it is stated that by this vocation Hari is pleased (yadvr. ttya tus.yateharih. ). Thomas J. Hopkins places this statement in the broader contextof bhakti as follows: “Among the characteristics of aSudra are said tobe humility, purity, truth, and service to his master without guile, all ofwhich make him ideally suited for devotion, as well as for his traditionalservile role. The Bhagavata says, in fact, that when the four classes werecreated there was brought forth from the feet of Bhagavan ‘service for thefulfillment of dharma, for which in former times was born theSudra bywhose conduct Hari is pleased.’Sudras and other lowly person, by virtue oftheir servile status, are thus closer to meeting the standards ofbhakti thanare many of the more fortunate members of society.”267 As if to highlightthis, Narada “although in his previous life he was a Gandharva (a class ofdemi-gods), in the Bhagavata he appears as aSudra, the son of a servantgirl.” 268

IX

As a result of the foregoing analysis, then, it does not seem unreasonableto suggest that:

(1) the Vedic tradition associates theanus. t.ubh with the sudras, when ametrical association is not denied;269

(2) the Puran. ic tradition associates the composition of theMahabharatawith the sudras;

(3) the modern critical historical tradition associates the composition oftheMahabharata with thesutasor bards;

(4) the Indian political tradition associates this bardic role with thesudras;(5) with whom theanus. t.ubhmetre is associated.

It is then not unlikely that theMahabharata is preeminently in theanus. t.ubhmetre because either by intention (according to the Hindu tradi-tion) or by actual composition (according to Western tradition) it is closely


associated with thesudras, who are closely associated with theanus. t.ubhmetre.270

The Mahabharata represents a complex phenomenon and complexphenomena may require plural explanations. The fact that theMahabharata is preeminently in theanus. t.ubhmay ultimately be account-able only in terms of more than one explanation. Nevertheless, it is clearthat the conception of theMahabharataas a text for thesudraswill have toform part of that overall explanation if the general argument of this paperis valid. That is the reason given for its composition and could well havebeen an or the original reason.271

NOTES

1 Margaret and James Stutley,A Dictionary of Hinduism(London and Henley: Routledge& Kegan Paul, 1977), p. 282; Julius Lipner,Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices(London and New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 126.2 Amulyadhan Mukherji,Sanskrit Prosody: Its Evolution(Calcutta: Saraswat Library,1976), p. 88.3 Ibid.4 Also seeibid., p. 40.5 Ibid., p. 22.6 A.L. Basham,The Wonder That Was India(London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1967; thirdrevised edition) p. 509.7 Amulyadhan Mukherji,op. cit., pp. 88–92.8 M.A. Mehendale, “Language and Literature”, in R.C. Majumdar, ed.,The Age ofImperial Unity(Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1951) p. 252.9 Robert P. Goldman, tr.,The Ramayan. a of Valmıki (Princeton, New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1984) Vol. I, p. 128.10 Margaret and James Stutley,op. cit., p. 82.11 See Daniel H.H. Ingalls and Daniel H.H. Ingalls, Jr., “TheMahabharata: StylisticStudy, Computer Analysis and Concordance”, in Arvind Sharma, ed.,Essays on theMahabharata (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 18–56.12 Vishnu Sitaram Sukthankar, ed.,The Mahabharata (Poona: Bhandarkar OrientalResearch Institute, 1970); also see J.A.B. van Buitenen,The Mahabharata I, The Bookof the Beginning(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. xxx–xxxi.13 Mary Carroll Smith, “The Mahabharata’s Core,”Journal of the American OrientalSociety, Vol. 95, No. 3 (July–Sept., 1975) p. 480.14 Ibid.15 The high proportion of theanus. t.ubhmetres in theMahabharata vis-à-vis the rest hadbeen noticed by scholars prior to the publication of the Poona text. For Winternitz, “TheSloka which originated in the old Anus.t.ubh is certainly the metre par excellence” (of theMahabharata) whose “earlier and later forms. . . are all represented” (M. Winternitz,AHistory of Indian Literature[University of Calcutta, 1927], Vol. I, pp. 461–462). He alsonotes that “the Tris.t.ubh metre . . . is often used in the Mahabharata, though theSloka isabout twenty times as frequent as the Tris.t.ubh” (ibid., p. 462). E. Washburn Hopkins noted

262 ARVIND SHARMA

that “the mass of the great epic (about ninety-five percent) is written in one of the two formsof the free syllabic rhythm,” these two being theslokaand thetris.t.ubh(E.W. Hopkins,TheGreat Epic of India[New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901], p. 92).16 The termsanus. t.ubh and sloka are often used synonymously (see Monier Monier-Williams,A Sanskrit-English Dictionary[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964], p. 1104; VamanShivram Apte,The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary[Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1965], p. 1036). Theanus. t.ubhis sometimes regarded as “a whole class of metres consistingof four times eight syllables” (Monier Monier-Williams,op. cit., p. 40) of which theslokais a particular example, distinguished by the terminal regulation of thepadas(seeibid.,p. 1104; also see Vaman Shivram Apte,op. cit., p. 77). The distinction is not merely tech-nical but also partly historical, theslokabeing “a development of the Vedic anus.t.ubh stanzaof four octosyllabic lines, but while all four lines ended iambically in the prototype, the firstand the third lines have in theSloka acquired a trochaic rhythm” (Arthur A. Macdonell,AHistory of Sanskrit Literature[New York: Haskell House Publishers, 1968], pp. 234–235.)17 See Peter Peterson, ed.,The First Book of Ramayana(Bombay: Government CentralBook Depot, 1883), pp. 10–13; so much so thatRamayan. a I.2.33 “gives a fanciful deriva-tion from soka‘sorrow’, of the first slokahaving been composed by Valmıki grieved atseeing a bird killed” (see Monier Monier-Williams,op. cit., p. 1104). T. Burrow suggeststhe historical derivation ofsloka from the rootsru, as representing a case when “somederivates which have become isolated from their roots preserve IE 1” (The SanskritLanguage[London: Faber and Faber, 1955], pp. 84, 197).18 Shantikumar Nanooram Vyas,India in the Ramayan. a Age(Delhi: Atma Ram and Sons,1967), p. 13. Also see Eric A. Huberman, “Who is Valmıki? TheAdikavi and the Originsof Lyric Poetry,” Journal of Vais.n. ava Studies2:4 (Fall 1994), pp. 17–30; and Robert P.Goldman, tr.,op. cit., Vol. I, p. 128.19 This question should be distinguished from an allied but distinct question: why wasthe Mahabharata composed at all? “The Mahabharata, as the poem itself tells us, arisesout of the following question of Janamejaya addressed to the great R. s.i Kr.s.n.a DvaipayanaVyasa on the occasion of the snake sacrifice (I.54.19):katham samabhavad bhedas tes.amaklis. t.akarin. am // tac ca yuddham katham vr.ttam bhutantakaran. am mahat// How arosethe quarrel among those men of unblemished deeds? How occurred that great war whichwas the cause of the destruction of so many beings?” (V.S. Sukthankar,On the Meaning ofthe Mahabharata [Bombay: The Asiatic Society of Bombay, 1957], p. 33). “Having heardhis question, Kr.s.n.a Dvaipayana turned to his student Vaisampayana sitting at his side andinstructed him: ‘Tell him in full, as you have heard it from me, how of old the Breachoccurred between the Kurus and the Pan.d.avas’. Thereupon that bull among Brahminsacknowledged the guru’s command and narrated the entire epic to the king, the sadasyas,and all the barons around, the Breach of the Kurus and the Pan.d.avas, which spelled thedestruction of the kingdom” (J.A.B. van Buitenen,op. cit., pp. 126–127).20 M. Winternitz,op. cit., pp. 325, 326.21 See J.A.B. van Buitenen,op. cit., pp. xxxi–xxxv.22 Ibid.; also see Arthur A. Macdonell,op. cit., p. 445, etc.23 Hermann Oldenberg,Das Mahabharata (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922),pp. 137–145, passim; etc.24 E.W. Hopkins,op. cit., pp. 191–356, etc.25 See Alf Hiltebeitel, “Religious Studies and Indian Epic Texts”,Religious StudiesReview21:1 (Jan. 1995), pp. 26–32; etc.26 M. Winternitz,op. cit., p. 314; etc.27 Ibid., pp. 310–314; E.W. Hopkins,op. cit., p. 365, etc.


28 See V.N. Apte, ed.,Asvalayanagr.hyasutra (Poona:Anandasrama Series 105, 1937),p. 86.29 Jarl Charpentier,Die Suparn. asage(Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln, 1920), p. 396.30 See Paul Horsch,Die vedische G¯atha- und Sloka-Literatur(Bern: Francke Verlag,1966); Harry Falk,Bruderschaft und Würfelspiel(Freiburg: Hedwig Falk, 1986).31 For a tabular summary of the various positions see Gisela Kraatz,Vers und Prosa,Entstehungstheorien zum deutschen und indischen Heldenepos(München: Steinbauer u.Rau, 1961), p. 148.32 Hermann Oldenberg,op. cit., p. 143.33 Gisela Kraatz,op. cit., passim.34 Arthur A. Macdonell,op. cit., p. 279.35 Hermann Oldenberg,op. cit., p. 143.36 SeeJaiminıyopanis.ad3.4.4.37 Hermann Oldenberg,op. cit., p. 144.38 M. Winternitz,op. cit., p. 315.39 Ibid.40 Ibid.41 See E.W. Hopkins,op. cit., Chapter Five, etc.42 Thus “Winternitz in Vol. II of his History of Indian Literature, German edition, speaksof ‘the Sutasas the representatives of the old heroic poetry who lived in the court of theprinces and sang to extol them. They also went forth to battle so as to be able to sing ofthe heroic deeds of the warriors from their own observation. These court bards stood closerto the warriors than the learned Brahmins. They also acted as charioteers to the warriorsin their campaigns and took part in their martial life’ ” (quoted by S.N. Dasgupta, ed.,AHistory of Sanskrit Literature[University of Calcutta, 1974], Vol. I, p. xiii).43 Ibid., p. xiv. The general impression of thesuta as a charioteer-bard is so widespreadthat the refutation of Winternitz by S.N. Dasgupta deserves a fuller statement. After citingWinternitz he says: “But Winternitz does not give any reference from which he draws hisviews about theSuta as the traditional keeper of heroic poetry. TheSuta occurs alongwith the rathakara and karmara in the Atharva VedaIII, 5,6,7. We find references tothis Suta in Gautama(IV.15), Baudhayana (10.I.9.9),Vasis. t.ha (XVIII.6), Manu (X.11),Vis.n. u Dh. S.(XVI.6), Yaj (I.3), and theSuta-sam. hita, where he appears as apratilomacaste born of a Ks.attriya male and a brahmin female. Kaut.ilya says in hisArthasastra(III.7) that Romahars.an.a, also calledSuta in thePuran. as, was not born out of a pratilomamarriage. TheSuta has been referred to as sacred in theVis.n. upuran. a and theAgnipuran. a.The duty of theSuta according toManu (X.47) was to drive chariots and according to theVaikhanasa-sm¯arta-sutra (X.13) it was a part of his livelihood to remind the king of hisduties and cook food for him. According toKarn. aparva (XXXII.46.47), Sutaswere theservants (paricarakas) of the Ks.attriyas. According toVayupuran. a (Ch. 3), theSutasusedto preserve the pedigrees of kings and great men and also the traditions of learning andbooks. But nowhere do we find thatSutashad any other work than those said above orthat they ever played the part of bard reciting the glories of kings or were in any sense thedepository of heroic poetry” (S.N. Dasgupta, ed.,op. cit., pp. xiii–xiv).44 This seems to be the only sense recognised in John Dowson,A Classical Dictionary ofHindu Mythology and Religion(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972), p. 312.45 The point is important. To see this clearly it is important to demonstrate the pervasivenature of the identification of the two senses and to examine its significance. Winternitzregarded thesutasas closely allied to the warrior class (op. cit., p. 315). Monier Monier-Williams makes no distinction between charioteer and bard (op. cit., p. 1241), while A.L.

264 ARVIND SHARMA

Basham declares that thesuta “combined the functions of royal charioteer, herald andbard” (The Wonder That Was India[New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1967. thirdrevised edition], p. 91). More recently, J.A.B. van Buitenen remarks: ‘The Mahabharataas a whole is recited by “the Son of the Bard,” Ugrasravas, son of Lomahars.an.a, bothsatisfyingly baronial names, “he of the awesome voice” and “he of the hair-raising tales” ’(op. cit., p. xxi, emphasis added). The identification thus is pervasive. How did it arise?The homonymous nature of the words surely contributed to it, but there seems to be moreto it. It was noticed above how thesuta Ugrasravas recited theMahabharata. Winternitzgoes on to point out how within the epic too “in the Mahabharata itself, it is the SutaSañjaya who describes to king Dhr.taras.t.ra the events of the battlefield” (op. cit., p. 315).As Sañjaya is also the king’s charioteer, the two senses blend in this case, perhaps addingto the confusion. But then whose charioteer is Ugrasravas? To clear up the picture onemust look at the pattern of narration in theMahabharata. There are three narrators in theepic: Sauti, who relates to the sages in the forest “legends contained in chapters 1–58. Inchapters 59 and 60 he is requested to tell the story of theMahabharata; . . . from this pointon (I.61) Vaisampayana becomes the narrator . . . But when it comes to the description ofthe great battle, Vaisampayana in his turn gives place toSañjaya, charioteer to the blindKing Dhr.itarasht.ra . . . Thus we haveSauti addressing KingSaunaka in Upa-parvas 1–6. Vaisampayana addressing King Janamejaya, 7–66, 84–100. Sañjaya addressing KingDhr.itarasht.ra, 67–83” (Edward Rice,The Mahabharata [Oxford University Press, 1934],p. 5). However, the fact that Sañjaya, with the clairvoyant vision conferred on him byVyasa, narrates the battle to the blind King does not make him a bard. It seems Winternitzhas confused the description of Sauti assuta (bard) with the description of Sañjaya assuta(charioteer) who happens to play the role of a bard on that occasion. This is confirmed bythe use of the wordsuta in the epic. It is the “epithet of Sañjaya, Ugrasravas, Lomahars.an.aand Karn.a” (ibid., p. 104); with Ugrasravas and Lomahars.an.a it means a bard; with Karn.aa charioteer and with Sañjaya a charioteer (confusion arising from his playing a bardic roleat a point).46 Nabaneeta Sen, “Comparative Studies in Oral Epic Poetry and the Valmıki Ramayan. a:A Report on theBalakan. d. a,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 86, No. 4(Oct.–Dec., 1966), pp. 397–409.47 Ibid., p. 398.48 Ibid., p. 403.49 Mary Carroll Smith,The Warrior Code of India’s Sacred Song(New York and London:Garland Publishing, 1992).50 Even here some caution is required. Inasmuch as any quantitative regulation of asyllabic metre renders the task of ready composition somewhat more difficult, to thatextent, why theanus. t.ubh (in the more general sense) gave way to thesloka, which ismore sharply defined is also a question worth investigating. Is it that partial quantitativeregulation of metre is more helpful for oral composition than no regulation at all?51 Maurice Bloomfield,Rig-Veda Repetitions(Harvard University Press, 1916), passim.For the most recent work on these lines on theMahabharata see Daniel H.H. Ingalls andDaniel H.H. Ingalls Jr.,op. cit., pp. 19–56.52 See Mary Carroll Smith, “The Mahabharata’s Core”, pp. 478–482; J.A.B. vanBuitenen,op. cit., p. xxxix, fn. 44.53 R.C. Majumdar, ed.,The Vedic Age(Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1965) pp. 232–233; etc.54 See J.A.B. van Buitenen,op. cit., folio between pp. 12 and 13. In severalstutishe isreferred to as Vasis.t.ha; seePuran. am, Vol. IX, No. 2 (July 1967), p. 217, etc.


55 E. Vernon Arnold,Vedic Metre(Cambridge University Press, 1905), p. 169.56 “To the strictly orthodox Indian mind, theRamayan. a appears to have been composedearlier than theMahabharata. Indians believe that of the two incarnations of the Lord,Rama and Kr.s.n.a, the former was born earlier” (Gaurinath Sastri,A Concise History ofClassical Sanskrit Literature[Oxford University Press, 1960], p. 37). It may be pointed outthat if Rama preceded Kr.s.n.a, it does not necessarily follow that theRamayan. a precededtheMahabharata. It is rather because according to tradition Valmıki preceded Vyasa that,strictly speaking, such a statement can be made form within the tradition.57 See R.C. Majumdar, ed.,The Age of Imperial Unity(Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,1968), p. 254.58 See E.W. Hopkins,op. cit., pp. 59ff.59 Vaman Shivram Apte,op. cit., p. 77. “According to the Daivata Brahman.a, as quotedin the Nirukta (vii, 12), ananus. t.ubh is so called because it isanus.ht.obhati, i.e., followswith its praise the Gayatrı, which consists of three Padas” (Monier Monier-Williams,op.cit., p. 40). A.L. Basham also seems to echo the suggestion when he says: “In later hymnsof the Rg.Veda a stanza of four eight-syllable quarters, calledAnus. t.ubh, became popular.This was much the same asGayatrı, with a fourth line added,” though he adds that “therewas considerable variation in the final cadence” (op. cit., p. 511). Also seeR. gVeda, V.82.1for a case of an “onlyanus. t.up verse in an otherwisegayatrı sukta” (see V.P. Limaye andR.D. Vadekar, eds.,Eighteen Principal Upanishads[Vol. 1, Poona: Vaidika SamsodhanaMan.d.ala, 1958], p. 264).60 H. Oldenberg,Kleine Schriften(Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1967).61 Arthur A. Macdonell,op. cit., pp. 45–47: “It is to be noted that the Vedic metres havea certain elasticity to which we are unaccustomed in Greek prosody, and which recalls theirregularities of the Latin Saturnian verse. Only the rhythm of the last four or five syllablesis determined, the first part of the line not being subject to rule. Regarded in their historicalconnetion, the Vedic metres, which are the foundation of the entire prosody of the laterliterature, occupy a position midway between the system of the Indo-Iranian period andthat of classical Sanskrit. For the evidence of the Avesta, with its eight and eleven syllablelines, which ignore quantity, but are combined into stanzas otherwise the same as those ofthe R. g-veda, indicates that the metrical practice of the period when Persians and Indianswere still one people, depended on no other principle than the counting of syllables. In theSanskrit period, on the other hand, the quantity of every syllable in the line was determinedin all metres, with the sole exception of the loose measure (calledsloka) employed in epicpoetry. The metrical regulation of the line, starting from its end, thus finally extended to thewhole. The fixed rhythm at the end of the Vedic line is calledvr. tta, literally ‘turn’ (fromvr. t; Lat. vert-ere), which corresponds etymologically to the Latinversus.

The eight-syllable line usually ends in two iambics, the first four syllables, though notexactly determined, having a tendency to be iambic also. This verse is therefore the almostexact equivalent of the Greek iambic dimeter.

Three of these lines combine to form thegayatrı metre, in which nearly one-fourth(2450) of the total number of stanzas in theR. g-vedais composed. An example of it is thefirst stanza of theR. g-veda, which runs as follows:

Agnimıl.e purohitamYajñasya devam r. tvijamHotaram ratnadhatamam.

It may be closely rendered thus in lines imitating the rhythm of the original:

266 ARVIND SHARMA

I praise Agni, domestic priest,God, minister of sacrifice,Herald, most prodigal of wealth.

Four of these eight-syllable lines combine to form theanus. t.ubh stanza, in which thefirst two and the last two are more closely connected. In theR. g-vedathe number of stanzasin this measure amounts to only about one-third of those in thegayatrı. This relationis gradually reversed, till we reach the post-Vedic period, when thegayatrı is found tohave disappeared, and theanus. t.ubh (now generally calledsloka) to have become thepredominant measure of Sanskrit poetry. A development in the character of this metremay be observed within theR. g-vedaitself. All its verses in the oldest hymns are the same,being iambic in rhythm. In later hymns, however, a tendency to differentiate the first andthird from the second and fourth lines, by making the former non-iambic, begins to showitself. Finally, in the latest hymns of the tenth book the prevalence of the iambic rhythmdisappears in the odd lines. Here every possible combination of quantity in the last foursyllables is found, but the commonest variation, nearly equalling the iambic in frequency,is v–v. The latter is the regular ending of the first and third lines in the post-Vedicsloka.”62 Arthur A. Macdonell,A Vedic Grammar for Students(Oxford University Press, 1971),p. 438, fn. 2.63 Ibid., p. 442, fn. 2.64 Ibid., p. 438, fn. 1.65 Ibid., p. 439, fn. 3.66 Ibid., p. 438, fn. 1.67 S.D. Kulkarni, ed.,Study of Indian History and Culture(Bombay: Bhisma, 1988) Vol.I, p. 493.68 Gary A. Tubb, “Santarasa in the Mahabharata”, in Arvind Sharma, ed.,op. cit.,pp. 174–175.69 Robert P. Goldman, tr.,op. cit., Vol. I, p. 29. “Valmıki describes himself as son ofPracetas, which makes him a member of the family of the Bhr.gus, an influential lineage ofBrahmans in ancient India” (Velcheru Narayana Rao, “Valmıki”, in Mircea Eliade, editorin chief,The Encyclopedia of Religion[New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987]Vol. 15, p. 184).70 Ibid. Also see Robert P. Goldman, tr.,op. cit., p. 128.71 Ibid., pp. 126, 137. However, also see the account ofSambuka.72 Julius Lipner,op. cit., p. 130.73 Velcheru Narayana Rao,op. cit., Vol. 15, p. 184.74 Ibid.75 Ibid.76 Ibid.77 Ibid.78 Ibid.79 Ibid.80 They are referred to askusılavau (P.K. Gode and C.G. Karve, editors-in-chief,V.S.Apte’s The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary[Poona: Prasad Prakashan, 1957] Vol. I,p. 590). The wordkusılava by itself is an epithet of Valmıki (ibid). E. Washurn Hopkinsnotes: “The Sutas or bards were also charioteers. They made a special sub-caste and lived atcourt, while the Kuçılavas learned the songs of the bards and wandered among the peopleat large singing them. This name was resolved into Kuça and Lava who are representedas two singers, sons of Rama. They learned the poem of Valmıki and recited it amongthe people, as the later story goes (Ramayan. a, I, 4)” (“The Princes and Peoples of the


Epic Poems”, in E.J. Rapson, ed.,Ancient India(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1922] p. 17 note 1).81 P.V. Kane,History of Dharmasastra (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute,1974) Vol. II, part I, p. 78.82 Ibid.83 Ibid.84 Ibid., p. 168.85 SeeMandal Commission Report of the Backward Classes Commission, 1980(Delhi:Akalank Publications, n.d.) pp. 304, 319, 337, 354; O.P. Sharma,Scheduled Castes: Popu-lation and Literates(New Delhi: Boowell Publications, 1990) p. 410; etc.86 For more on the link of sweepers with Valmıki see Pauline Kolenda,Caste in Contem-porary India: Beyond Organic Solidarity(Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.,1978) p. 95.87 Personal Communication, Dr. S. Bhargava, Ottawa, Canada.88 J.A.B. van Buitenen,op. cit., p. xxiii; etc. Also see M. Bruce Sullivan,Kr.s.n. aDvaipayana Vy¯asa and the Mah¯abharata: A New Interpretation(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990).89 Bhagavata Puran. a I.4.25. Note the irregular nature of theslokahere as consisting ofthree hemistiches. It is cited as a regularsloka(without the middle hemistich) by P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 155, fn. 363. Thomas J. Hopkins takes note of this verse too, butquotes it to demonstrate that “the bhakti religion itself is an act of compassion on the part ofthe Lord by which women,sudras, and those who have fallen from their twice-born statusmight be brought to a better condition” (Thomas J. Hopkins, “The Social Teaching of theBhagavata Puran.a,” in Milton Singer, ed.,Krishna: Myths, Rites and Attitudes[Honolulu:East-West Center Press, 1966] p. 19). In paraphrasing the verse thus, however, he seems tooverlook the pivotal role of Kr.s.n.a Dvaipayana in the composition of theMahabharata.90 The expressiondvijabandhucalls for some remarks. It is rendered by A.C. Bhakti-vedanta Swami literally as “friends of the twice-born” (Srımad Bhagavatam, First Canto,Part One [New York: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972], p. 214). But it seems to, moreaccurately, stand for “a mere twice-born,” “a Brahman only by name” (see Monier Monier-Williams, op. cit., p. 506), and may be compared with the expressionbrahmabandhu, “(1)a contemptuous term for a Brahman.a, an unworthy Brahman.a (cf. Marat.hı bhat.urga); (2)one who is a Brahman.a only by caste, a nominal Brahman.a” (Vaman Shivram Apte,ThePractical Sanskrit-English Dictionary[Poona: Shiralkar & Co., 1890], p. 802).91 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 155.92 Bhagavata Puran. a I.4.29. R.S. Sharma takes note of both these verses (I.4.29 and29) and says: “The Bhagavata Puran.a states that instead of the Veda the Mahabharata isprovided for women andsudras” (Ram Sharan Sharma,Sudras in Ancient India[Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, 1958], p. 265). He, however, also omits to mention, like Thomas J.Hopkins, the role of Kr.s.n.a Dvaipayana Vyasa.93 Mahabharata, 1.55.2 (critical edition). This point, to the best of our knowledge, hasnowhere been contested within the tradition and, if anything, endorsed, although after thelapse of some centuries. TheVedartha Prakasaof Madhavacarya (fourteenth century) onthe Taittirıya YajurVedacites the verses of theBhagavata Puran. a verbatim by way ofanswering the question he himself poses: “The scripture (sastra) which declares that thosepersons only who have been invested with the sacrificial cord are competent to read theVeda, intimates thereby that the same study would be a cause of unhappiness to womenandsudras [who are not invested]. How, then, are these two classes of persons to discoverthe means of future happiness? We answer, from the Puran.as and other such works. Henceit has been said . . . ” (J. Muir,Original Sanskrit Texts[New Delhi: Oriental Publishers and

268 ARVIND SHARMA

Distributors, 1976. Indian reprint; first published 1873] Vol. III, p. 68). This statement alsosheds light on a point tenaciously maintained within the tradition: that Vyasa is also thecomposer of thePuran. as in addition to theMahabharata, despite the prodigious prodigythat makes him. The authorial attribution is apparently based more on motivational identitythan Herculean prolificity. The tradition, recorded earlier in theVis.n. u Puran. a, is alsosignificant. Klaus K. Klostermaier summarizes the existing consensus regarding Puran. icchronology as follows: “In a general way, one can state that the texts of theMahapuran. as,as they have been printed, have been fixed between the time of 400 C.E. and 1000 C.E.,the Vis.n. u Puran. a being closest to the earlier date and theBhagavata Puran. a nearest tothe latter.” (A Survey of Hinduism[second edition]; Albany, N.Y.: State University ofNew York Press, 1994], pp. 96–97). It is significant chronologically because theVis.n. uPuran. a is earlier than theBhagavata Puran. a. The evidence from the latter has alreadybeen cited. TheVis.n. u Puran. a (III.4.1–10) also associates Vyasa with the (division of the)Vedas, the (authorship of the)Mahabharata and (the dissemination of) thePuran. as, soalso the relatively earlyVayu Puran. a (60.16–25), but no distinct motive is assigned for thecomposition of theMahabharata. However, Vyasa’s positive attitude towards bothsudrasand women is apparent inVis.n. u Puran. a VI.2.94 See P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, 1992. Also see A.S. Altekar,The Position ofWomen in Hindu Civilization From Prehistoric Times to the Present Day(Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass, 1973), p. 204 for another source. Also see pp. 205, 327, 354.95 Manusmr. ti, II.168; see G. Bühler, tr.,The Laws of Manu(Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1967), p. 61; Wendy Doniger (with Brian K. Smith),The Laws of Manu(New York:Penguin Books, 1991), p. 34.96 Julius Eggeling, tr., The Satapatha-Br¯ahman. a According to the Text of theMadhyandina School(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1882), Part I, pp. 27–28.97 Ibid., Part III, p. 131.98 Ibid., Part V, p. 435, with diacritics adjusted.99 Jogiraj Basu,India of the Age of the Br¯ahman. as (Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar,1969), pp. 12–13; Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 77.100 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 157.101 See B.D. Basu, ed.,The Mımamsa Sutras of Jaimini(New York: AMS Press, 1974;first published 1923–1925, Allahabad), p. 306. R.S. Sharma cites the set ofsutrasinvolvedabove (op. cit., p. 121) but the relevantsutra is cited as I.3.27 by P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol.II, Part I, pp. 156–157. Also see K. Satchidananda Murty (Vedic Hermeneutics[Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, 1993], p. 13): “even the medieval commentators admit that Badari, agreat sage, who is cited by Jaimini, maintained that all, includingsudras, were eligible toperform Vedic sacrifices.” The text runs:nimittarthena badaristasm¯at sarvadhikaram syat.102 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vo. II, Part I, p. 157. This is not included in the prooftexts infavour of the right of thesudrascited by K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., pp. 19–20. It is,however, recognized by Ram Gopal,India of Vedic Kalpas¯utras (Delhi: Motilal Banarsi-dass, 1983: second edition), pp. 119, 129.103 Cited by K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., p. 19, note 30. As for its date, all that P.V.Kane says it that it is later thanGautama Smr. ti (op. cit., Vol. I, Part I, p. 305).104 K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., p. 19.105 P.V. Kane does not identify any such text. According to him “besides theYajñavalkyasmr.ti we have to reckon with three other works connected with the name ofYajñavalkya, viz. Vr.ddha Yaj., Yoga-Yaj, and Br.had-Yaj,” (op. cit., Vol. I, Part I, p. 448).He also remarks: “All these three works are comparatively ancient” (ibid.) It is not clear to


this writer whether Murty is referring to an independent work or referring to Yoga-Yaj asYogi-Yaj.106 K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., p. 19.107 J.C. Heesterman,The Broken World of Sacrifice: An Essay in Ancient Indian Ritual(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 136–137 and notes 117and 118.108 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 80, note 2.109 B.R. Ambedkar,Who Were the Shudras? (Bombay: Thackers, 1946), pp. 29–48;etc.110 See Patrick Olivelle,TheAsrama System: The History and Hermeneutics of a Reli-gious Institution(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 193; “Hindu Rites” inMircea Eliade, editor in chief,The Encyclopedia of Religion(New York: The MacmillanPublishing Co., 1987) Vol. 12, p. 391; etc.111 See Rita M. Gross, “Birth,” in Mircea Eliade, editor in chief,op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 227.112 The text without specific reference is cited by S. Radhakrishnan in P.V. Kane,op. cit.,Vol. V, Part II, p. v and another text is cited without specifics but fromSanti Parvain TheHindu View of Life(New Delhi: Indus, 1993), p. 85. Also see P.H. Prabhu,Hindu SocialOrganization(Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1963), pp. 292–295.113 Cited in Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 25. Also see Louis Renou, ed.,Hinduism(New York: George Braziller, 1962), p. 142.114 K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., p. 13. Also see Muneo Tokunaga,The Br.haddevat¯a(Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1997) p. 126.115 R.S. Sharma,op. cit., p. 73. Yaska offers this as an optional interpretation, a pointoverlooked by both Sharma and Murty. Moreover, “Some modern linguists have suggestedthat pañcaoriginally may also have had the sense of ‘all’ ” (G.C. Pande,Dimensions ofAncient Indian Social History[New Delhi: Books & Books, 1984], p. 264, note 1).116 The point must be understood with caution. TheKat.haka Sam. hita is unaccentedbecause it lost its accent in the Middle Ages, and those which have, have been taken frommedieval ritual handbooks. Personal communication, Professor Michael Witzel.117 R.S. Sharma,op. cit., pp. 77–78. It should be noted, however, that while accordingto R.S. Sharma theApastambaSrautasutra “is considered the oldest of its kind,” recentscholarly opinion considers it a ‘middle level’ text (see C.G. Kashikar,A Survey of theSrautaSutras [Bombay: University of Bombay, 1968] p. 161; also see C.G. Kashikar, ed.,TheSrauta, Paitr.medhika and Pari´ses.a Sutras of Bharadv¯aja [Poona: Vaidika SamsodhanaMan.d.ala, 1964] p. xcii).118 V.M. Apte, “Religion and Philosophy”, in R.C. Majumdar, ed.,The Vedic Age(London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1953) pp. 442–443.119 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 73. For more evidence on this point see MichaelWitzel, “Sarama and the Pan. is: Origins of Prosimetric Exchange in Archaic India”, inJoseph Harris and Karl Reichl, eds.,Prosimetrum: Crosscultural Perspectives on Narrativein Prose and Verse(Cambridge, U.K.: D.S. Brewer, 1997) pp. 387–409, especially 403–404.120 Christopher Minkowski, “The Rathakara’s Eligibility to Sacrifice”, Indo-IranianJournal, Vol. 32 (1989), pp. 177–194.121 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 56.122 Ibid., p. 70ff.123 Ibid., p. 54. Also seeArthasastra(IX.2). TheAnusasana Parva, by contrast withSantiParva occasionally seems to be more orthodox, see 59.33; 165.10 (vulgate), but also see143.48.

270 ARVIND SHARMA

124 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 53.125 Ibid., p. 37. From a historical point of view this conclusion is overdrawn and perhapsbased on a conflation of Sudas with Sudasa. What is of interest is that such a move shouldhave surfaced at all within the tradition; and perhaps of even greater interest that it wouldfind expression in theMahabharata. From a historical point of view, however, “it is difficultto vouch for the authenticity of the tradition in theSanti Parvanthat Paijavana was asudra.He has been identified with Sudas, the head of the Bharata tribe, and it is argued that thisfamous hero of the Battle of Ten Kings was asudra. There is nothing in the Vedic literatureto support this view, and theSanti Parvantradition is not corroborated by any other source,epic or Puranic. The tradition says thatSudra Paijavana performed sacrifices, and occurs ina context where it is stated that thesudras can perform five great sacrifices and make gifts.It is difficult to judge whether the tradition was true or false, but clearly it was meant toserve as a precedent forsudras making gifts and sacrifices, which, as will be shown later,was in keeping with the liberal attitude of theSanti Parvan.” ( ibid.).126 V.S. Agrawala,India as Known to P¯an. ini (Varanasi: Prithvi Prakashan, 1963), p. 80.127 K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., p. 16.128 Ramayan. a, VII.67.1–3; also see VII.65.8–24.129 It is admitted on all hands that thesudrawas entitled topakayajñasand thatsvaha, etc.were to be replaced bynamah. . Thesudra “was allowed to perform the five daily sacrificescalled Mahayajñas, in the ordinary fire, he could performsraddha, he was to think of thedevatas and utter loudly the word ‘namah. ’ which was to be the onlymantra in his case(i.e. he was not to say ‘Agnaye svaha’ but to think of Agni and say ‘namah. ’). Manu X.127prescribes that all religious rites for thesudra are without (Vedic)mantras. According tosome thesudra could also have what is called Vaivahika fire (i.e. fire kindled at the time ofmarriage) in Manu III.67 and Yaj. I.97, but Medhatithi (on the same verse), the Mit. (onYaj. I.121), the Madanaparijata (p. 231) and other works say that he should offer oblationsin the ordinary fire and that there is no Vaivahika fire for thesudra. All persons includingthe sudras and even can.d.alas were authorized to repeat the Ramamantra of 13 letters (SrıRama jaya Rama jaya jaya Rama), and theSiva mantra of five letters (namah. Sivaya),while dvijatis could repeat theSiva mantra of six letters (Om namah. Sivaya). VideSudra-kamalakara, pp. 30–31, where passages of Varaha, Vamana and Bhavis.ya Puran.as are citedto show thatsudras are entitled to learn and repeat mantras of Vis.n.u from the Pañcaratratexts and ofSiva, the Sun,Sakti and Vinayaka. The Varahapuran.a, 12.22–31, describesthe initiation (dıks.a) of asudra as a devotee of Vis.n.u (as a bhagavata).” So P.V. Kane,op.cit., Vol.II, Part I, pp. 157–158. The situation regarding thesamskaras was similar (ibid.,p. 159): “Laghuvis.n.u (I.15) contains the dictum that thesudra is devoid of any samskara.The Mit. on Yaj. III.262 explains the words of Manu IV.80 about vratas in the case ofsudras as applicable only to thosesudras who are not in attendance upon members ofthe three higher castes and establishes thatsudras can perform vratas (but without homaand muttering ofmantras). Apararka on the same verse (Manu IV.80) explains that thesudra cannot perform vratas in person but only through the medium of a brahman.a. TheSudrakamalakara (p. 38) holds thatsudras are entitled to perform vratas, fasts, mahadanasand prayascittas, but withouthoma and japa. Manu X.127 allows religioussudras toperform all religious acts which dvijatis perform, provided they do not use Vedic mantras.On the other handSankha (as quoted by Visvarupa on Yaj. I.13) opines that samskaras maybe performed forsudras but without Vedic mantras. Yama quoted in Sm. C. (I., p. 14) saysthe same. Veda-Vyasa (I.17) prescribes that the samskaras (viz. garbhadhana, pumsavana,sımantonnayana, jatakarma, namakaran.a, nis.kraman.a, annaprasana, caula, karn.avedha andvivaha) can be performed in the case ofsudras, but without Vedic mantras. Haradatta (on


Gautama X.51) quotes a gr.hyakara to the effect that even in the case of thesudra the ritesof nis.eka, pumsavana, sımantonnayana, jatakarma, namakaran.a, annaprasana and caula areallowed but without Vedic mantras. When Manu prescribes (II.32) that thesudra shouldbe given a name connected with service, he indicates that thesudra could perform theceremony of namakaran.a. So when Manu (IV.80) states that he deserves no samskara,what he means is that no samskara with Vedic mantras was to be performed in his case.Medhatithi on Manu IV.80 says that the prohibition to give advice and impart instructionin dharma applies only when these are done for making one’s livelihood, but if asudrais a friend of the family of a brahman.a friendly advice or instruction can be given. VideSudrakamalakara, p. 47, for several views about the samskaras allowed tosudras.”130 See Review of Anantanand Rambachan,Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedasas a Source of Valid Knowledge inSankara (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,1991) by Arvind Sharma inPhilosophy East and West, 43:4:737–747 and “A Reply toAnatananand Rambachan,”Philosophy East and West, 45:1:105–113.131 T.M.P. Mahadevan,Outlines of Hinduism(Bombay: Chetana, 1971), p. 140.132 Cf. Bhagavadg¯ıta, II.19–20; 29 withKat.ha Upanis.ad, II:18–19; 7, etc.133 TheSambuka episode is often misrepresented. For a recent example see Vijay Prasad,“May Days of Mayavati,”Economic and Political Weekly, June 10, 1995, p. 1357. Fora useful discussion see Rosalind Lefeber, tr.,The Ramayan. a of Valmıki (Princeton, NewJersey: Princeton University Press, 1994), Vol. IV, p. 244, note 31.134 Brian K. Smith,Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varn. a System and theOrigins of Caste(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 30, emphasis added.135 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 37.136 G.S. Ghurye,Caste, Class and Occupation(Bombay: Popular Book Depot, 1961),p. 44.137 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 154. Kane provides the citation from Vasis.t.ha(IV.3) in note 356 and adds: “. . . quoted by Apararka . . . whoquotes Yama. . . ”138 P.V.Kane (ibid.) adds in note 357 that “This is the basis of Jaimini, VI.1.33 and isrelied on bySabara.”139 For a synoptic presentation of thirteen such myths see Brian K. Smith,op. cit.,pp. 329–348; for others as well see J. Muir,op. cit., Vol. I, Chapter I.140 See Brian K. Smith,op. cit., p. 335; Christopher Minkowski,op. cit., passim.141 Ibid., p. 337.142 A.S. Altekar,op. cit., p. 10ff. Also seeJaiminıya Brahman. a II.219: striyo mantrakr. taasuh. , in relation toAtreya women.143 Julius Lipner,op. cit., p. 100. In modern Hindu writings the rehabilitation ofsudrasand women was similarly also attempted simultaneously. As K. Satchidananda Murty notes(op. cit., p. 17): “The Mımamsa Sutras, VI.1.24 to 38, have been interpreted by theirmedieval commentators as prohibitingsudras from Vedic study and sacrifices. TheAryaSamajists, however, do not accept such an interpretation and maintain that according toJaimini, all are eligible to study the Veda and perform Vedic rituals, because their rewardis desired by all and whoever has the capacity to undertake and complete them can do so.Even the medieval commentators admit that Badari, a great sage, who is cited by Jaimini,maintained that all, includingSudras, are eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices. Similarly,sages like Aitisayana denied the eligibility of women to Vedic study and perform sacrifices,while Badarayan.a and Jaimini asserted to the contrary. Some smr.tis make scriptural studymandatory to women.” The practice of women eating after men is of ancient vintage andmay go as far back as 1000 B.C., seeMaitrayan. ı Sam. hita I.6.12; Kat.ha Sam. hita 11.6;Taittirıya Sam. hita VI.5.6 andSatapatha Br¯ahman. a III.1.3, 3.4.

272 ARVIND SHARMA

144 See P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. V, Part II, pp. 928–929.145 Ibid., Vol. II, Part I, p. 594, note 1392.146 Ibid., Vol. V, Part II, p. 930.147 Ibid.148 For the date ofSankaravijayasee Paul Hacker,Kleine Schriften(Wiesbaden: Steiner,1978) p. 206, on the assumption that it is identical withSankaradigvijaya.149 J.L. Shastri, ed.,Manusmr. tih. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983), p. 17.150 Mahabharata (Citrasala edition),Adiparva, Chapter I.151 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 64.152 A.S. Altekar,op. cit., pp. 357–358.153 J. Muir, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 38, note 41.154 According toMatsya Puran. a (53:70) Vyasa first composed thePuran. as and thenthe Mahabharata but according to theBhagavata (Ch. 2) this eighteenthPuran. a wascomposed after theMahabharata.155 See P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. V, Part II, p. 929.156 K. Satchindananda Murty,op. cit., p. 19.157 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., pp. 65–66.158 K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., p. 14, note 30.159 Ibid., p. 19, note 30.160 P.V. Kane cites the following prooftexts:Sudrakr. tyatattva, Vars.akriyakaumud¯ı (whichcites it as fromKurmapuran. a) andSudrakamalakara (see P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, PartI, op. cit., p. 156 note 365).161 Ibid., p. 156.162 This text probably belongs to the seventeenth century (see P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. I,Part II, pp. 938, 940–941).163 Ibid., p. 156.164 J.L. Shastri, ed.,op. cit., p. 24.165 This could be understood figuratively (see S. Radhakrishnan,The Hindu View of Life,p. 87) or literally (Patrick Olivelle,op. cit., p. 236, note 53).166 As in Apastamba Dharma S¯utra, I.9.29.11 etc. cited by P. V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II,Part I, pp. 33–34; but also see K.M. Sen,Hinduism (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971),p. 28; Klaus K. Klostermaierop. cit., p. 334.167 J. Muir, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 18.168 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 56.169 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 34.170 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 56.171 See Hari Narayana Apte, ed.,Kr.s.n. ayajurved¯ıyataittirıya Sam. hita (Poona:Anandasrama Press, 1905), p. 4236.172 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 75.173 J. Muir, op. cit., Part I, p. 20.174 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 74.175 G.S. Ghurye,op. cit., p. 44. He is relying onTaittirıya Sam. hita: vii.1.1.4–5.176 All English translations are from Arthur Berriedale Keith,The Vedas of the BlackYajus School Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita(Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967. Indian reprint.First published 1914), unless indicated otherwise.177 Ibid, pp. 447–448.178 Do the dual divinities indicate the tendency towards the equation of thevaisyasandthe sudras, the twovarn. as, in the social sphere? See Brian K. Smith,op. cit., p. 27; RamSharan Sharma,op. cit., pp. 58, 140–141; etc.


179 A.B. Keith, op. cit., pp. 603–604.180 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 73.181 A.B. Keith, op. cit., p. 439.182 Ibid., p. 502.183 Ibid., p. 569.184 Ibid., p. 307.185 Brian K. Smith,op. cit., p. 301.186 Ibid., p. 312, note 64.187 For the interpretation of more than three functions also see Nicholas J. Allen,“Hinduism as Indo-European: Cultural Comparativism and Political Sensitivities”, inJohannes Bronkhorst and Madhav M. Deshpande, eds.,Aryan and Non-Aryan in SouthAsia: Evidence, Interpretation, Ideology, Volume III of Opera Minora, Harvard OrientalSeries, Cambridge 1999, pp. 19–33.188 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., pp. 29–35; Brian K. Smith,op. cit., pp. 15, 27, etc.189 Ibid., p. 302. The following comment based on an analysis of thirteen cosmogonicmyths in Vedic lore is also helpful (ibid., p. 76): “The texts here, it should be readilyadmitted, are not always absolutely consistent in their categorizations. Nevertheless, it canbe said that the first three categories are here, no less than in tripartite and quadripartitestructures, clearly identified with the three highestvarn. as. And, generally speaking, thefourth chain must also be read, as in the case of the quadripartite schemes examined inCosmogonies VIII–XI, as generally ‘Shudra’ in orientation. Some of the taxons listed inthe fourth category – theanus. t.ubh meter, thevairaja chant, and the twenty-one-versedhymn of praise – are the same in the pentadic structures as they are in quadripartite onesin which the Shudra social class is also listed. Elemental qualities such as ‘prosperity’ and‘fruit’ for the fourth chain, complementing those ofbrahman, ks.atra, andvis for the firstthree, can be understood in terms of the displacement of previously Vaishya qualities ontothe Shudras as they are added to the system. This could also be offered as the explanationfor some of the interchangeability of the deities of the third and fourth chains in thesestructures: Varun.a and the Maruts, for example, can function as either Vaishya or Shudragods.”190 Jaiminıya Brahman. a II.102. Also see Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 55.191 Sankhayana Brahman. a XXVII.1. Also see Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 64.192 Sankhayana Srauta S¯utra XIV.33.18–19. Also see Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 55,fn. 6, and p. 74, fn. 10.193 Ibid., p. 74.194 Taittirıya Sam. hita VII.1.1.4–5. Also see Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 74.195 See Hari Narayana Apte, ed.,op. cit., p. 4236.196 M. Winternitz,op. cit., p. 323.197 Ibid., p. 465; R.C. Majumdar, ed.,The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 25; J.A.B. vanBuitenen,op. cit., p. xxv.198 See Thomas J. Hopkins,op. cit., pp. 3–6.199 M. Winternitz,op. cit., p. 326.200 J.A.B. van Buitenen,op. cit., p. xxiv.201 One may note that even if it has happened unconsciously it calls for a consciousexplanation.202 Thomas J. Hopkins,op. cit., passim, but especially see pp. 17, 19, 20. The mostdramatic about-face in the treatment of thesudra is represented by the way the fact ofthe sudra being formed from the feet of thepurus.a in R. gVedaX.90.12 is treated in theBhagavata Puran. a. In theTaittirıya Sam. hita it has the effect of lowering his status (vii, 1,

274 ARVIND SHARMA

1, 4), but theBhagavata Puran. a (III.6.33) “says, in fact, that when the four classes werecreated there was brought forth from the feet of Bhagavan ‘service for the fulfillment ofdharma, for which in former times was born theSudra by whose conduct Hari is pleased’ ”(Thomas J. Hopkins,op. cit., p. 17).203 Were the authors (or author) of theBhagavata Puran. a familiar with the traditionalassociation of thesudrawith theanus. t.ubh, we might even ask, tongue in cheek, or did thepreponderance of theanus. t.ubh in theMahabharata father this thought!204 “The introduction of the great epic informs us that Vyasa imparted his poem first tohis pupil Vaisampayana, who in his turn recited the whole of it at the time of the greatsnake-sacrifice of king Janamejaya. It was then heard by the Suta Ugrasravas who, beingentreated by the Rishis assembled at the sacrifice ofSaunaka in the Nimisha forest, narratedto them the whole poem as he learnt it on that occasion” (R.C. Majumdar, ed.,The Age ofImperial Unity, p. 246). Thus “throughout the epic the narrator is supposed to be Sauti thepauran. ika, or reciter of ancient legends – the same person as the reputed speaker in all theeighteen Puran.as” (Edward P. Rice,op. cit., p. 5.). Somewhat surprisingly this basic fact ofthe entire narration being by Sauti is overlooked by A.L. Basham: “Traditionally the authorof the poem was the sage Vyasa, who is said to have taught it to his pupil Vaisampayana.The latter, according to tradition, recited it in public for the first time at a great sacrificeheld by King Janamejaya, the great grandson of Arjuna, one of the heroes of the story”(op. cit., pp. 409–412).205 M. Winternitz,op. cit., pp. 315; etc.206 For a discussion of theR. s. i vis-à-visSuta tradition see T.G. Mainkar,The Upabr.mhan. aand the R. gVeda Tradition(Ahmedabad: L.D. Institute of Indology, 1975), passim.207 E.W. Hopkins,op. cit., p. 366, fn. 2.208 Ibid., Chapter Five, passim.209 Ibid., p. 369, also fn. 1.210 See P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, pp. 84, 78, 90–91, 94, etc.211 E.W. Hopkins,op. cit., p. 369.212 SeeManusmr. ti X.17. They, being of mixed caste, are certainly not members of thedvijati or the upper threevarn. as. But whether they weresudrasis not entirely clear. Some-times a distinction between asuta and asudra is retained (see Ram Sharan Sharma,op.cit., p. 242), and sometimes not (ibid., p. 49, etc.). In theAmarakosa the mixed castesand thereby thesuta is clearly placed in thesudra varga (ibid., p. 263). By the test ofaccessibility or otherwise to Vedic learning, thesutaswould besudras, as access to it wasdenied to them (see P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 99).213 The tradition of thesuta goes back to Vedic times (vide Arthur Anthony Macdonnelland Arthur Berriedale Keith [Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, London: John Murray,1912] p. 462). Even then thesuta has asudra-like status (vide Ram Sharan Sharma,op.cit., Chapter III, passim).214 That the sutas were in any capacity a low caste is clear. But were theresutasand sutas? Two pieces of evidence are very significant in this connection and need tobe closely examined; a passage from theArthasastra and a few references from theManusmr. ti. TheArthasastra, after describing the various mixed castes on the pattern of thesmr.tis, however, adds, after mentioning thesuta – pauran. ikastvanyah. suto magadhascabrahmaks.atradvises.ah. (Arthasastra III.7.29; as per R.P. Kangle, ed.,The Kaut.il ıyaArthasastra (University of Bombay, 1963), Part I, p. 107; P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. I, Part1, p. 246, note 221, readsvises.atah. for vises.ah. ). It is clear, therefore, that Kaut.ilya isdistinguishing between two kinds ofsutas. Unfortunately the nature of the distinction isnot clear: (a) T. Gan.apatiSastrı takes it to mean that thepauran. ika suta is superior (vises.a)


to the Brahman.a and the Ks.atriya, perhaps on the basis of the story of the divine birth ofLomahars.an.a (vide R.P. Kangle,op. cit., Part II, p. 248). But as is well known, divine birthis often used as a literary device to conceal low birth, so the real picture is not at all clear;(b) it could be taken to mean that thepauran. ika suta is in general a class apart from all thesemixed castes. This needs more evidence to support it; (c) it could mean that thesutaof thepuranasis different (vises.ah. ) from the othersuta because although he himself is a mixedcaste like them he comes from a different mix than thesuta, who is born from aks.atriyamale and abrahman. a female. The othersuta is born of aks.atriya female and avaisyamale. As we shall see later, this sense could be reconciled in a certain manner with theevidence from theManusmr. ti. Before that is done, however, it may be noted (1) that S.N.Dasgupta (op. cit., p. xiii) refers to thisArthasastrapassage in the light of T.N. Gan.apatiSastrı’s comment without distinguishing it from the text; (2) that the passage is obviouslyregarded as significant by P.V. Kane, who refers to it twice (op. cit., Vol. 1, Part 1, p. 246,note 221, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 98; (3) R.P. Kangle (op. cit., Part II, p. 248, fn. 26) is inclinedto look upon the whole passage with suspicion; to him thesutra “appears to be a latemarginal comment that has got into the text.” Could it be that, with the rise in the status ofthesuta in thepauran. ika Age of Hinduism, which superseded that of thesmr.tis, it becamehard to reconcile the text with the contemporary context? (4) It is capable of yet anotherinterpretation, as one commentary takes it to mean that asuta springs from abrahman. aand amagadhafrom aks.atriya (vide R.P. Kangle,ibid.). Now theManusmr. ti. Manu refersto two kinds ofsutas, bothpratiloma, one born through aks.atriya male and abrahman. afemale (X.11), the other through avaisyamale and aks.atriya female (X.17). The problemis that when it comes to defining the occupation of asuta he has a single entry (X.47).Thus Manu mentions only one occupation for asuta at a professional level – namely,that of rathakara, though he distinguishes between two types. If it now be kept in mindthat thesmr.ti works do not seem to mention thesudra as engaged inkarukusılavakarma(work as artisan and bard) asArthasastratexts seem to, and tend to mention onlykaru (cf.rathakara in the present case), then it may be argued that the role of thesuta in the secondsense has been omitted on that pattern. This would justify the following entry by VamanShivram Apte undersuta: “(1) the son of a Kshatriya by a woman of the Brahman.a caste(his business being that of a charioteer); (2) the son of a Vaisya by a Kshatriya wife (hisbusiness being that of a bard)” (op. cit., p. 995). Thus if this distinction be accepted, then itturns out thatsuta, the bard belongs to an even lower cast thansuta the charioteer, becausehe is the product of the intermixture of two lower castes!215 Arthasastra, I.3.8.216 R. Shamasastry,Kaut.ilya’s Arthasastra (Mysore: Mysore Printing and PublishingHouse, 1961), p. 7, emphasis added.217 The tradition seems to reach back as far as theSatapatha Br¯ahman. a (XIII.4.3.7–13),which seems to imply that a priest could instruct members of thesudra varn. a and that thesubjects includeditihasaandAtharvaVeda.218 See P.P.S. Sastri, ed.,The Mahabharata (Southern Recension) (Madras: V.Ramaswamy Sastrulu and Sons, 1932) Vol. IV, pp. 107, 108, 117, 121–122, 129–130.219 Kıcaka is calledsutaby Vaisampayana three times (IV.14.4:21; IV.16.1) andsutaputraonce (IV.15.6). Draupadı calls him onlysutaputra obviously in contempt and does so eighttimes (IV.13.13:17; IV.15.15–19:21). All these parenthetical references are from the criticaledition.220 See Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., pp. 25, 32–33, 36–37, 38, 54, 63–64, 71, 74, 79,265, 268, 274–275; but also see A.A. Macdonell and A.B. Keith,op. cit., p. 389.221 Santiparva 296.28 (Calcutta edition). For a more complete translation see P.H.

276 ARVIND SHARMA

Prabhu,op. cit., p. 311: “Brahman.as learned in the Vedas regard a virtuousSudra as amodel of Brahman.a itself. I, however, regard such aSudra as the effulgent Vishn.u of theuniverse, the foremost in all the worlds.” The Sanskrit text:vaidehikam sudramudaharantidvija maharaja srutopapann¯ah. aham hi pasyami narendra deva ˙m visvasya vis.n. um jagatah.pradhanam.222 E.W. Hopkins,op. cit., p. 20.223 Bhagavata Puran. a I.4.13.224 Taittirıya Brahman. a III.12.9.2.225 Ram Sharan Sharmaop. cit., p. 68. Also see p. 120. Sharma does not provide thereference. He perhaps had II.2.29.11–12 in mind, in which thevidya of women andsudrasis said to reside in theAtharvaVeda.226 Sukumari Bhattacharji,Literature in the Vedic Age(Calcutta: K.P. Bagchi Co., 1984),Vol. I, pp. 264, 271, 179, 307, etc.227 William Dwight Whitney, Atharva-Veda Sam. hita, First Half (Harvard UniversityPress, 1905).228 E.W. Hopkins,op. cit., p. 380.229 Ibid. It is also of some interest that “In the early works theAcarya, who taught gratisall the Vedas, is declared to be worth ten Upadhyayas, Vas. xiii.48; iii.21–22; Manu ii.140–145. This Upadhyaya is the direct etymological ancestor of the modern Ojha, wizard.In ancient times he was a sub-teacher, who taught for a livelihood one part of the Vedaand Vedanga, and he is identified in the epic with the Purohita, who, as Professor Weberhas shown, is essentially an AtharvaVeda priest, or magic-monger, whom seers regard ascontemptible. The pseudo-epic inverts the ancient relation and makes the Upadhyaya worthtenAcaryas, xii.105.14–15” (ibid.).230 Brian K. Smith (op. cit., p. 307, note 6) notices the quaternary coincidence but seemsto miss its significance.231 J. Muir, op. cit., Part I, pp. 17–18.232 Julius Eggling, tr.,op. cit., Part V, p. 365, note 3.233 K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., p. 20, note 31.234 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., pp. 32, 35; P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, pp. 33–34;etc.235 K. Satchidananda Murty,op. cit., p. 14. Also see p. 19, note 28.236 Also see Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 16.237 Gopal Raghunath Nandargikar, ed.,The Raghuva ˙msa of Kalidasa (Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass, 1971), p. 303: “From thee, having four mouths, have sprung the knowledgeresulting in the group of four ends (purposes) of life, the arrangement (division) of timeinto the four cycles, and the people consisting of the four castes.” I am indebted to Dr.Paliath Narendran for this reference.238 For other and later versions of this account see J. Muir,op. cit., Part I, p. 19.239 See Margaret and James Stutley,op. cit., p. 339.240 J. Muir, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 22.241 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 386. Also see Harry Falk,op. cit., pp. 17–18.242 Ibid.243 Ibid. See Willem B. Bollée, “The Indo-European Sodalities in Ancient India”,Zeit-schrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft131(1) (1981) pp. 172–191. Falkportrays them as students on home leave (‘out ofvrata’), ganging together to gather cattle,in the early chapters of his book (op. cit.).244 This on account of a passage (Tan. d. ya Brahman. a 17.1.9), which describesvratyas


as those who “swallow poison and who eat food of the common people as food fit forbrahman.as, who call good words bad, who strike with a stick him who does not deserve tobe beaten (or punished), who, though not initiated, speak the speech of the initiated. TheS.od. asastoma has the power to remove the guilt of these. That (in this rite) there are fourS.od. asastomas, thereby they are freed from guilt”. See P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I,p. 386.245 Ibid.246 Willem B. Bollée,op. cit., p. 191.247 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 386.248 R.S. Sharma,op. cit., p. 67, note 3.249 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 96.250 Ibid. Also see pp. 59–60.251 Ibid, pp. 376–377.252 R.S. Sharma,op. cit., p. 76, who cites Weber as distinguishing aboriginals fromvratyas, who are described as “underhumanized Aryans”; see Willem B. Bollée,op. cit.,p. 174, who points out that Winternitz held a similar view; also see Harry Falk,op. cit., foranother view.253 Ibid., passim.254 See P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, pp. 385–386: “Some of the passages convey atolerably clear idea of what the vratyas were like. Those who lead the vratya life are baseand are reduced to a baser state, since they do not observe student-hood (brahmacarya) nordo they till the soil nor engage in trade. It is by the S.od. asastoma that they can attain this(superior status). This shows that the vratyas did not perform upanayana and did not studythe Veda, nor did they do even what vaisyas do”. In later literature, however, the notionalequation ofvratyaandsudra does not always hold good. Narada (I.332) bracketsvratyaswith atheists and slaves and according to theAnusasana Parvaof the Mahabharata the“vr atya is defined not as one who has fallen from the duties of a twice-born, but as onewho is begotten upon a ks.atriya woman by asudra, and is placed in the category of acan.d.ala” (R.S. Sharma,op. cit., pp. 261, 267).255 Willem B. Bollée,op. cit., pp. 183–184.256 Ibid.257 See S. Radhakrishnan, ed.The Principal Upanis.ads(Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Human-ities Press, 1996: first published 1953) p. 657.258 Margaret and James Stutley,op. cit., p. 339.259 Another general way in which the discussion may be helpful is by implying “that someform of initiation into the life of the community was a universal practice among the VedicIndians or their ancestors – a fact which is supported by the prevalence of similar practicesamong primitive peoples. This practice of initiation was also extended to the Vratyas, whowere admitted intoAryan society through the acquisition ofbrahmacarya.” (R.S. Sharma,op. cit., p. 67).260 P.V. Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 385.261 Ibid., Vol. III, pp. 38–39.262 Ram Sharan Sharma,op. cit., p. 25. The tradition similarly preserves memory ofthe initiation of women to Vedic study (purakalpe kum¯arın. am mauñj¯ıbandhanamis. yate,adhyapanam ca ved¯anam savitrıvacanam tatha, verses even ascribed to Manu; see P.V.Kane,op. cit., Vol. II, Part I, p. 295). These are positivesudra-women associations; one isgenerally more familiar with the negative affiliation, one of the earliest examples of whichis found in theSatapatha Br¯ahman. a (XIV.1.1.31); but also see Ram Sharan Sharma,op.cit., p. 78.

278 ARVIND SHARMA

263 Ibid., p. 214.264 Through the correlation of the fourth elements as found inSatapatha Br¯ahman. aXIII.3.3.1 andTaittirıya Sam. hita (VII.1.1.6) (as cited by Brian K. Smith,op. cit., p. 312,note 64 and p. 339).265 See Deborah A. Soifer,The Myths of Narasi ˙mha and V¯amana: Two Avatars in Cosmo-logical Perspective(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), pp. 128–129, etc.266 J. Muir, op. cit., Part I, p. 10, note 23. The last line runs:padausudrah. bhavant¯ımevikramen. a kramen. a ca.267 Thomas J. Hopkins,op. cit., p. 17. Also see p. 19: “It is said that by studying theBhagavata and reciting its stories the twice-born may obtain the goal of their respectiveclasses, but aSudra ‘may be purified from that which causes him to fall [i.e., the impuritiesof his caste]’ or ‘may obtain the highest status.’ The emphasis on the gains to be made bySudras is hardly accidental.”268 Ibid., p. 20.269 Avyaktopanis.ad 5.270 Brian K. Smith has drawn pointed attention to the fact of how homological andanalogical structuring permeates the Vedas, the foundational scriptures of Hinduism (“TheVeda and the Authority of Class: Reduplicating Structures of Veda andVarn. a in AncientIndian Texts” in Laurie L. Patton, ed.,Authority, Anxiety, and Canon: Essays in VedicInterpretation[Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994] pp. 67–93, espe-cially see pp. 82–83.) From this perspective the linking of theanus. t.ubh metre with thesudra varn. a would constitute a natural extension of this scheme. It is worth noting that“direct equations between the Vedas and thevarn. as areusuallynot drawn” (ibid., p. 69,emphasis added) which may account for the fact that, once the claim of theMahabharatato the status of the Veda was entertained, the association mentioned under item (1) theVedas, would be more explicit within the tradition than the one mentioned in item (2), thevarn. as.271 I would like to thank Professor Michael Witzel for his critical comments on this paper.I am responsible for any remaining errors.

Faculty of Religious StudiesMcGill University3520 University StreetMontreal H3A 2A7Canada

mahabharat

Documents

Transcript of mahabharat