The Individual and Society
From what we have seen so far, it is quite clear that Sanātana-dharma constantly straddles between high ideals on one side and rooted pragmatism on the other. It is a consistent attempt to take humans closer towards the ideal while always making allowance for their basic instincts. Intimately familiar with human nature, the ancient seers focussed on individuals—getting them to try and raise their standards through their own sincere efforts[1] rather than try to change society or force equality down their throats. Conduct, more than creed, has been valued in our tradition and quite naturally, the highest place has been accorded to individual realization of the Ultimate Truth.
On the one hand, the Vedas grant a cheerful and hopeful name to all humans: ‘children of immortal Bliss.’[2] We are said to be born pure and perfect but over time we accumulate the dust of pettiness and unhappiness. The constant pursuit is to return to our true nature as children of Bliss.
On the other hand, the Vedas remind humans that everything we do is motivated by personal interest. The bitter and profound truth is that we don’t love our spouse, our children, our relatives, our friends—we love ourselves. We love our mother because she is our mother, we love our son because he is our son.[3]
Having realized the ultimate connectedness of everything, Hinduism never stressed on the narrow constructs of birth, gender, social groups, economic conditions, etc. At the same time, knowing human instincts well, Hinduism does not expect unduly high standards from everyone. In fact, it offers hope to everyone to raise themselves up.[4]
If there is one lesson that history has taught us unequivocally, it is that absolute freedom and perfect equality can never co-exist, given the inherent diversity of individuals. Social inequity is the result when we chase absolute freedom. When we go after perfect equality, personal freedom is destroyed.[5] To avoid these extremes, we have the compromise of dharma. Varṇa-dharma ensures a basic level of equity and sva-dharma ensures a basic level of personal freedom.
Man is part of a family and a society; his position is not just as an individual but also as a member of a certain family and a representative of a certain social cluster. Based on their attitude and aptitude, individuals are designated one of four social groups known as varṇa.[6] The word ‘varṇa’ comes from the word-root that means ‘to choose’ or ‘to select,’[7] which reveals its flexibility and dynamism.
The four varṇas are: Brāhmaṇa, Kṣattriya, Vaiśya, and śūdra.[8] They roughly correspond to the realms of knowledge, political/military power, wealth, and service.
A brāhmaṇa is defined as any individual with a natural aptitude for learning, analysing, teaching, and researching.
A kṣattriya is defined as one with natural aptitude for protecting others, warfare, governance, politics, administration, and management.
A vaiśya is a person who has natural aptitude for managing money, trading, farming, cattle rearing, and skilled labour.
A śūdra is defined as one with natural aptitude for a variety of vocations that involve assistance to all specialized professions. In other words, a common man.
The Vedas say that each varṇa is great in its own way.[9] Every individual has certain inherent talents and interests, which make him naturally suited to fulfil certain roles in society. The varied activities that people take up finally contribute to the growth of the community, society, and world, hence none is greater or lower.[10] The affirmation is that all members of society have their origin in the Supreme Puruṣa.[11]
We are born with certain abilities and interests, we are raised by parents and mentors who shape us in certain ways, and we cultivate ourselves by putting efforts in some directions. As a result, who we are is not merely a function of birth.[12]
While this forms the philosophical backdrop of varṇa, we should never forget that it is a peripheral aspect of Hinduism and not the core; as we have seen earlier, it is a viśeṣa-dharma. Traditionally, each varṇa had its own set of duties and restrictions; even the privileges they enjoyed were commensurate to their responsibility towards society.[13]
[1] Bhagavad-gītā 6.5
[2] Ṛg-veda-saṃhitā 10.13.1 (“amṛtasya putrāḥ”)
[3] This is from a remarkable conversation between ṛṣi Yājñavalkya and his wife Maitreyī. See Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad 2.4 (“na vā are sarvasya kāmāya sarvaṃ priyaṃ bhavati, ātmans-tu kāmāya sarvaṃ priyaṃ bhavati”).
[4] Hinduism doesn’t have the idea of eternal damnation. Everyone has a chance to pull himself up – even if he is the worst of sinners (Bhagavad-gītā 4.36). There is the assurance that if one does good things, good things will happen to him (Bhagavad-gītā 6.40–45).
[5] See p. 20 of The Lessons from History by Will and Ariel Durant (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968)
[6] The four varṇas were created based on differences of guṇa and karma (Bhagavad-gītā 4.13). On this topic, it will be of value to take a look at the conversation between Yudhiṣṭhira and Nahuṣa in the Ajagaropākhyāna (Mahābhārata 3.177.15–32).
[7] √vṛ—varaṇe
[8] See Bhagavad-gītā 18.41–45
[9] See Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad 1.4.11–15. Even deities are divided into four varṇas – Agni is a brāhmaṇa deity, Indra is a kṣattriya deity, Viśvedevas are vaiśya deities, and Pūṣaṇ is a śūdra deity. Given that among the deities, none is greater or lower (as has been suggested by Ṛg-veda-saṃhitā 5.60.5 – “ajyeṣṭhāso akaniṣṭhāsa ete sam bhrātaro vāvṛdhuḥ saubhagāya”), varṇa refers to traits rather than hierarchy.
[10] See Ṛg-veda-saṃhitā 5.59.6 (“te ajyeṣṭhā akaniṣṭhāsa udbhido’madhyamāso mahasā vi vāvṛdhuḥ”); also see Taittirīya-saṃhitā 5.7.6.3, 4 and Anuvāka 4 of the Rudrādhyāya.
[11] Ṛg-veda-saṃhitā 10.90.12, Taittirīya-brāhmaṇa 2.8.8.9, Mahā-bhārata 14.23.22
[12] In Ṛg-veda-saṃhitā 9.112.3, the ṛṣi declares: “I am a singer of poems, my father is a doctor, and my mother grinds corn. We desire to obtain wealth in various activities!” We also see that the ṛṣis themselves came from different social backgrounds.
[13] As the Hindu society developed, so did the complexity of the social structure. Furthermore, in the face of savage onslaughts by the predatory religions of Christianity and Islam, the system of social classification became more rigid in a bid to protect the culture—and as a result one’s birth determined the profession that one was allowed to pursue. In spite of this, those who were really talented attained recognition and came to the forefront, irrespective of their varṇa.
To be continued.
