Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c15.21

c15.21

The Brâhmaṇas themselves sometimes perceived that the extreme position they had taken up required some modification and some justification. The Mahâbhârata which is so strong in its advocacy of Brâhmanic supremacy recognises that in ultimate analysis the whole world is an emanation from Brahman and that distinctions among men are based on character and conduct alone. There was at first no caste. It was only on the unfoldment of various types of mind and capacity that men were divided into classes. Elsewhere it remarks that there was nothing peculiar about caste; that in the beginning all had been created Brâhmaṇas and that on account of their actions alone had people fallen into different castes.² Śukra, though he is a late writer and recognises caste as a matter of course, makes bold to declare in the first chapter of his Niti that birth does not matter and that character and deeds alone are the basis of caste.³ Even Manu whose primacy among lawgivers was recognised by Bṛihaspati himself, says that the force of tapas or penance and austerity can elevate, and sensual indulgence can degrade, a man in the hierarchy of caste. Tapas can achieve anything. It is resistless. But it is added that the greatest tapas for a Śûdra is the performance of his duty.⁴ None of the lawgivers regards a Śûdra as beyond the pale of society proper. When the Vedic Puruṣasûkta derives all castes from the same divine body, it postulates their vital organic unity.