Vol. 4 · pages 261–265

250 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES which is a new importation. The Taitteriya Brahmana sports with an altogether new theory. It speaks of Brahmins born of Gods and Sudras from Asuras. The Manu Smriti offers two explanation mythological and rational. The mythological explanations ascribes the origin to Brahma and the rational ascribes it to the constitutional make up of the individual. The Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Puranas seem to be in support of the theory of Manu as the progenitor of the four Varnas. In the handling of the theme of Manu they have made a complete mess of him. In the Ramayana this Manu is a female a daughter of Daksha and wife of Kasyappa. In the Mahabharata Manu is a male and not a female. He is the son of Vivasvat who is the son of Kasyappa. In the Mahabharata the wife of Kasyappa is not Manu but is Dakshayani who is also said to be the daughter of Daksha. The Puranas while expounding the theory of Manu as the originator of the four varnas have introduced into it many divergent elements. The Vishnu Purana instead of ascribing the origin to Manu proceeds to ascribe it to his sons. But in hurry explains the origin of the two Varnas only, namely, Brahmins and Sudras from two of Manu’s eight sons and forgets to give an explanation of the two other varnas. In another place the same Vishnu Purana expounds another theory by which origin of the four Varnas through Manu in the female line of his daughter Ila. According to the second theory Ila married Pururavas who had six sons the eldest of whom was Ayus. From Ayus to Kshatravridha, from him Sunahotra, from him Gritsamada. The four varnas were originated from Gritsamada. The Vayu Purana does not admit this. It says that the four varnas were born from Saunaka the grandson of Gritsamada. The Harivamsa in one place agrees with the Vishnu Purana that the progenitor was Gritsamada with this difference that the Sudras did not spring but from whom gives no explanation. In another place it says that the four varnas sprang from Sunaka the son of Gritsamada thus differing from itself, from the Vishnu Purana and from the Vayu Purana. These explanations are like effusions of the imbeciles. They show how hard the Brahmins were put to for the defence of the Varna system. The question is why were the Brahmins not able to give a consistent and uniform unimpeachable, convincing and rational explanation of the Varna system of which they have been such strong protagonists ? Of these numerous explanations there are two on which the Varna system is defended by the Brahmins of today.

251 APPENDIX I The first is the origin of the four Varnas from Purusha the theory that is propounded in the Purusha Sukta of the Rig-Veda. It is not a historical explanation. It would be something if it were mythological for mythology is history even if it is history in hyperbole. But it is not. The explanation is purely mystic. It is a fantastic dream of a troubled mind. That is why it was never regarded as the explanation and that is why there were so many other rival explanations. That it was treated with scant courtesy even by the Vedic writers is obvious from two circumstances. In the first place it occurs in the miscellaneous portion of the Rig-Veda. In the second place it does not occur in the Kathak and Maitreyani Sanhita of the White Yajur-Veda and the Taitteriya Sanhitas of the Black Yajur-Veda do not adopt it. The Sam-Veda incorporates only 5 Mantras of the Purusha Sukta from the Rig-Veda and what is important is that in adopting these five Mantras omit those which speak of the four Varnas springing from the four parts of the body of the Purusha. It is of course a very late composition and has been interpolated after all the four Vedas had taken their present shape. But apart from that it has all the marks showing its authors were not very sure of their explanation carrying conviction. It is probably an allegory, figurative narration which the Brahmins attempted to convert into a literal statement of hard fact. It does not solve the riddle. On the contrary it creates a riddle— which is, why were the Brahmins interested in supporting the theory of Chaturvarna. The rational explanation has behind it the authority of the Bhagwat Geeta. Krishna, the God of the Hindus, explains that he created the system of Chaturvarna and propounds the theory that it is a system of difference of Guna: innate virtue. This theory of difference of Guna is derived from the Sankhya Philosophy of Kapila. Krishna offers this explanation of Chaturvarna in a commanding spirit as though it was incontrovertible. The Sankhya Philosophy no doubt asserts as a fundamental proposition that matter has got three Gunas-Raj, Tama and Satva. Matter is not inert. It is instable equilibrium when all the three Gunas are coequal in their power. Matter becomes dynamic when the equilibrium is disturbed when one Guna becomes masterful over others. Krishna was of course very clever in seeking to give scientific explanation of the Varna system by applying the Sankhya Theory of Guna dharma. But in doing so Krishna has really made a fool of himself. He did not realize that there are four Varnas and three Gunas and whatever ingenuity he might claim to have he could not account for the four Varnas with a theory which did not require more than three Gunas. Here again what appears to be a rational explanation is an absurd explanation. It does not solve the riddle. It

252 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES creates one. Why were the Brahmins fighting so hard to justify the Chaturvarna ? II The Ashram Dharma divides the life of an individual into four stages (1) Brahmcharya, (2) Grahasthashram, (3) Vanaprastha and (4) Sannyas. The state of Brahmacharya has both a de jure and de facto connotation. Its de facto connotation is that it means an unmarried state of life. Its de jure connotation means the stage of study under a teacher. Grahasthashram is the stage of a householder—a stage of married family life. The stage of Sannyas is a stage of renunciation of civic rights and responsibilities. It is a stage of civic death. The stage of Vanaprastha is in between Grahasthashram and Sannyas. It is a stage in which one belongs to society but is bound to live away from society. As the name implies it prescribes dwelling in forest. The Hindus believe that this institution of Ashram Dharma is as old as that of the Varna Dharma. They call the two by a joint name of Varnashram Dharma as though they were one and integral, and the two together form the steelframe of the Hindu Society. To begin with it would be better to have a full understanding of the Ashram Dharma before inquiring into its origin and its purpose and its peculiarities. The best source for an exposition of the Ashram system is the Manu Smriti from which the following relevant extracts are reproduced: Ch. II-36. In the eighth year after conception, one should perform the initiation (upanayana) of a Brahmana, in the eleventh after conception (that) of a Kshatriya, but in the twelfth that of a Vaisya. Ch. II-168. A twice-born man who, not having studied the Veda, applies himself to other (and wordly study), soon falls, even while living, to the condition of a Sudra and his descendants (after him). Ch. III-1. The vow of the three Vedas under a teacher must be kept for thirty-six years or for half that time, or for a quarter, or until the (student) has perfectly learnt them. Ch. III-2. Who has studied in due order the three Vedas, or two, or even one only, without breaking the (rule of) studentship, shall enter the order of householder.

253 APPENDIX I Ch. VI-8. The student, the householder, the hermit, and the ascetic, these (constitute) four separate orders, which all spring from (the order of) householders. Ch. VI-88. But all (or) even (any of) these orders, assumed successively in accordance with the Institutes (of the sacred law), lead the Brahmana who acts by the preceding (rules) to the highest state. Ch. VI-89. And in accordance with the precepts of the Veda and of the Smriti, the housekeeper is declared to be superior to all of them; for he supports the other three. Ch. VI-1. A twice-born Snataka, who has thus lived according to the law in the order of householders, may, taking a firm resolution and keeping his organs in subjection, dwell in the forest, duly (observing the rules given below). Ch. VI-2. When a householder sees his (skin) wrinkled and (his hair) white, and the sons of his sons, then he may resort to the forest. Ch. VI-33. But having thus passed the third part of (a man’s natural term of) life in the forest, he may live as an ascetic during the fourth part of his existence, after abandoning all attachment to worldly objects. Ch. VI-34. He who after passing from order to order, after offering sacrifices and subduing his senses, becomes, tired with giving alms and offerings of food, an ascetic, gains bliss after death. Ch. VI-35. When he has paid the three debts, let him apply his mind to (the attainment of) final liberation; he who seeks it without having paid (his debts) sinks downwards. Ch. VI-36. Having studied the Vedas in accordance with the rule, having begot sons according to the sacred law, and having offered sacrifices according to his ability, he may direct his mind to (the attainment of) final liberation. Ch. VI-37. A twice-born man who seeks final liberation, without having studied the Vedas, without having begotten sons and without having offered sacrifices, sinks downwards.” For these rules it is clear that according to Manu there are three features of the Ashram Dharma. First is that it is not open to Shudras and Women. The second is Brahmacharya which is compulsory, so is Grahasthashram. Vanaprastha and Sannyas are not compulsory. The third is that one must pass from one stage to another in the order in which they stand namely first Brahmacharya, then Grahasthashram, then Vanaprastha and lastly Sannyas. No one can omit one and enter the next stage.

254 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Judging what Manu says in the light of history there are several questions which arise. Referring to the Vedas the theory of stages in life is quite unknown. The Vedas speak of Brahmachari. But there is nothing to show that Brahmarcharya was regarded as an inescapable stage in life. There is reference to ‘Yatis’ in the Rig-Veda. That again was not regarded as a stage in life. Indeed unlike the Sannyasi the Yati in the Rig-Vedic times is a hated institution. In fact there are many hymns in the Rig-Veda where Indra is spoken of as having thrown the Yatis to the wolves. Why did the Brahmins formulate this theory of the four Ashramas? This is the first riddle about the Asbram Dharma. The second riddle relates to the order of sequence among the four Ashramas. Now there is no doubt that there was a time when it was open to a Brahmachari to enter any of the three Ashrams. He may become a Grahasthashrami or he may at once become a Sannyasi without becoming a Grahasthashrami. Compare what the authors of the Dharma Sutras have to say on the point. Vashishta Dharma Sutra says 1 : “There are four orders, viz. (that of) the student, (that of ) the householder, (that of) the hermit, and (that of) the ascetic.” “A man who has studied one, two, or three Vedas without violating the rules of studentship, may enter any of these (orders), whichsoever he pleases.” Gautama Dharma Sutra says 2: “Some (declare, that) he (who has studied the Veda) may make his choice (which) among the orders (he is going to enter).” “(The four orders are, that of) the student (that of) the householder, (that of) the ascetic (Bhikshu), (and that of) the hermit in the woods (vaikhanasa). Why did Manu remove the option and make the married state an obligatory state, why did he make the married state a condition precedent to the stage of hermit and the stage of hermit a condition precedent to the stage of a Sannyasi? If the four stages of life have been devised to serve some important end it is difficult to understand why the two classes Shudras and women were excluded? The Shudras and women can only be householders according to the scheme of Manu. Why can they not be Brahmachari, Vanaprasthi or Sannyasi? What harm can there be either to them or to society if the Ashram Dharma was open to them ? There are other riddles about the system of Ashram Dharma. 1 S.B.E. Vol. XIV. p. 40. Chapter VII. verses 1, 2, 3. 2 S.B.E. Vol. II, p. 192. Chapter III. verses 1, 2.