Wednesday 25 November 2009

A Kings Education: Importance of Vedic Knowledge

Note to earlier post: Having considered the book once again I believe I should be talking in terms of Book 1, Chapter 1 instead of chapters and sections. So this post onwards, the posts shall discuss books, chapters, verses.

Book 1, Chapter 2: The range of Vedic knowledge required by a king.

This chapter is more complex, taking on issues of the four varnas (NB: no, I won't use the term "caste" which actually says very little about the organisation of Hindu society and reflects far more about the European one which coined the term initially and then exported it willy-nilly to India). It also takes on the issues of duties during the four ashrams or stages of life. It also advises specific behaviour for a king regarding these two points.

The chapter begins with a verse that lists the most important knowledge for a king:

1. These include the three Vedas: Rg, Yajur and Sama;

2. Chanakya also adds Atharva Veda to the list here. I assume its because the Atharva Veda already existed at this point and provides crucial commentary required for understanding the other three. Interestingly, he adds this fourth in conjunction with "itihaas" or history.

3. He includes history in this verse as necessary for a king. Some modern commentaries seem to suggest that Chanakya was referring solely to the Mahabharata as "history" but it seems more logical to assume that he was also referring to knowledge of lineages, battles, past events.

Interestingly he explains in the next verse that an cultured man comprises of the following six areas : education (sometimes translated as phonetics), ritual and ceremonial requirements, grammar (or language as a whole), etymological interpretation (or making meaning), ability to create and understand verse, and astronomy. These six form a humans body parts, including eye, mouth, heart, feet, heart and here I am stumped: something called "nasika." Any ideas on this one?

Update: As Rishabh points below: the missing sense and word is nose. Doh!

Then Chanakya moves on to explaining that the Vedas explain the necessary duties for the four varnas: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. According to his list, these include the following:

Brahmans must study the Vedas and ancient texts, must teach curious students and advise patrons, must carry out necessary rituals, and preside as priests at rituals carried out by the patrons.

Moreover, they must give in charity what they can and receive patronage from those with material wealth. They are the only ones with the capacity to receive charity as well as the requirement to give charity.

Curiously enough, there is no indication from Chanakya that the students or patrons are limited by varnas.


Kshatriyas
must also study the Vedas, get rituals and ceremonies done by the Brahmins, give in charity, make a living out of their martial ability and protect the people.

Again, curious that Chanakya points to charity as a key duty for a Kshatriya. I am reminded of the Jain belief that only a Kshatriya is capable of being the Mahavira as such a great spirit is marked by a limitless ability to give of oneself.

The Vaishyas are required to study the Vedas, support rituals and ceremonies (I assume by giving money), give charity, carry out agriculture, animal husbandry and trade.

And finally the Shudras are required to serve the "twice born" (Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaishya): this seems to be where most European translators stopped reading and declare the Shudras as the downtrodden, proleteriat and so forth.

But Chanakya continues his list by pointing out that the Shudras are also responsible for agriculture, animal husbandry and trade. Moreover, they are also artists and artisans, performers and actors, as well as poets.

Indeed, despite the infamous Manusmriti's often vile and limiting strictures on society, that text does point out that all humans are born as Shudras, and it is only after education and ritual "second-birth" that a human may be counted as Brahman, Kshatriya or Vaishya.

In contrast, Chanakya's view seems more liberal and appears to imply that Shudras - having acquired knowledge and education - are as capable of being "twice born" as all others. This means that acquiring the right training could allow anyone to become a priest or a warrior or a trader. This appears to be more logical given Chanakya's real-politik stance on the running of a state.

This also appears to resonate also with the idea of Bharata's Natyashastra (treatise on drama) as the fifth Veda which is accessible to all humans. Thus technically even the artists and poets who studied only Bharata's text could be considered to be studying the Vedas, blurring the social lines in ways that contradict Manu's far more rigid stance.

Considering the various text, I wonder if rather than edicts, these were more in nature of debates on the classification and organisation of society, with Chanakya taking a proto-realist stance while Manu's appears to be a proto-Neocon one.

It also appears that these varna classifications were far more fluid than we have been brought up to believe in Chanakya's era. Does this mean that social conditions determine how strict or liberal the social categorization would be in Indian history?

Also, it throws open an interesting case in point for modernity (and me personally) in India: As a Kshatriya-born woman, who chooses to work as a writer, do I count as a Shudra? Especially since I don't remember ever undergoing a "yagyopaveet" (second-birth) ceremony!

Does this also mean that a Shudra who found a guru, studied the Vedas, became a warrior and acquired the practise of sacrifice and charity could be a Kshatriya. The story of Eklavya really resonates here with me: wouldn't he be the perfect warrior and thus the perfect Kshatriya in the Mahabharata?

This reading is throwing up a lot of questions! And all feedback would be welcome.

The next post will take on the next set of verses in this chapter as they are really making me questions a lot of what I know and think about ancient India.

14 comments:

  1. It also appears that these varna classifications were far more fluid than we have been brought up to believe in Chanakya's era. Does this mean that social conditions determine how strict or liberal the social categorization would be in Indian history?

    - Yes I think so.

    Also, it throws open an interesting case in point for modernity (and me personally) in India: As a Kshatriya-born woman, who chooses to work as a writer, do I count as a Shudra? Especially since I don't remember ever undergoing a "yagyopaveet" (second-birth) ceremony!

    -The education of today is different, judging from you writing looks like you are a Kshatrya.
    -Also a twice-born person can be the one that understood that he is limitless.

    Does this also mean that a Shudra who found a guru, studied the Vedas, became a warrior and acquired the practise of sacrifice and charity could be a Kshatriya. The story of Eklavya really resonates here with me: wouldn't he be the perfect warrior and thus the perfect Kshatriya in the Mahabharata?

    - Sure. You are classified according to your behavior, so anyone can be anywhere...
    - But remember all are the same at the eyes of a sage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Christian. I agree but have been posting questions rhetorically alongside my reading. From all other texts I have read so far (barring Manusmriti - which is in any case a fairly subjective and non-authoritative text), there was a lot more social mobility and fluidity than we imagine. Best, SS

    ReplyDelete
  3. Many thanks Rishabh. And the moment I saw your message, it made sense. I had managed to leave it out of the list of senses.

    Do come by again, I am trying to post regularly but life keeps intervening.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does this also mean that a Shudra who found a guru, studied the Vedas, became a warrior and acquired the practise of sacrifice and charity could be a Kshatriya. The story of Eklavya really resonates here with me: wouldn't he be the perfect warrior and thus the perfect Kshatriya in the Mahabharata?

    Yes! That is indeed the case of none other than Chanakya's pupil himself, Chandragupta Maurya, and many centuries thence, Shivaji. You probably know also about the litterateur Sudraka?

    Marichi

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you. As you will note from the above comments, those questions are rhetorical.

    And yes, I do.
    Best,

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, as a woman (Kshatriya or otherwise), you wouldn't have had a yagyopaveet ceremony anyway. According to treatises, the 16 "Samskaras" in a Hindu's life, right from conception to death, (including namkarna and yagyopaveet) were meant for men alone. In the case of women, varna rules applied differently - for example, a higher varna man could marry a woman from a lower varna but not vice-versa.

    Also, varna and caste (or "jati") are not interchangeable as we use them today thanks to the Westerners. Varna was initially used as a classification on the basis of skin colour (fair Aryans and dark natives) and yes, this classification was quite fluid. The strict rules came much later in the CE period.

    And as for the Shudras, they were believed to be on the fringes of the society (though severe oppression was not very common in this period yet) despite their varied occupations. Even people who refused to adhere to rigid customs imposed by Brahmins were branded as Shudras, as were those high-class children who were illegitimate.

    Oooh, and that "nasika" bit! Isn't there a legend that the city of Nasik was named so because that's were Surpanakha's nose was chopped off?

    By the way, very interesting posts. I love this blog! Earlier this year, I thought of doing a short research on Arthashastra relating Chanakya's realpolitik with modern day politics. Then, my lazying-around-like-a-crocodile factor kicked in and the plan was unceremoniously dumped with a yawn. Now, I think I may get to it.

    -Nav

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Actually, as a woman (Kshatriya or otherwise), you wouldn't have had a yagyopaveet ceremony anyway."

      If I recall correctly, one of the purANAs does say that women were allowed to wear the sacred thread in an earlier kalpa.

      I'll try to find the reference.

      Delete
    2. Agree w/Anonymous commenter above. Unlike Semitic religions, Indic traditions privilege custom over textual authority. This means customs, rights, privileges on aspects of gender, caste, sexuality, and so on were historically far more fluid than we have been taught.

      Delete
  7. Thanks for the comment. And glad you enjoy the blog. Its not really a research project but more of a reading plus my reaction to the text which is why I include the questions, more as reminders of things we ought to consider.

    Will disagree on some of your views, esp re shudras as it seems you are mixing various social categories including melechchha. But thats for a very long discussion on another day. :-)

    Yes, thats one story about Nasik :-D
    Thanks again and do come back.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Sunny,

    If you find any instance of first meeting of chankya with a kid called chandragupt maurya, you would get an idea about your whole analysis, why he decided to make this kid as king one day ...

    oh, by the way chandragupt was SHUDRA, hence i completely agree with you that caste (as we call today) has not really to do with color but with knowledge in our ancient society ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks and yes there is a fair amount of legend mixed with history and also a lot of confusion about Chandragupta's origins. Regardless of that, the fluidity and movement in society of the period appears quite certain.
      Thanks again for commenting

      Delete
  9. Noble try...
    I would say that we can try to explore our Vedic resources, historical facts and so on, but it would be so hard to understand the holy fact about them. I was just looking at Sanskrit Grammar and I was astonished by the basic grammar lessons. I can not imagine that how great our Sanskrit and Sanskriti are?

    I just wrote above paragraph because I been seeing misconceptions of our Vedic and holy scriptures by so called intellectuals of this era. We may be scholars of this age but we (specially me) still need that strengthened base for Sanskrit language to thoroughly understand our Vedic resources. I would like to learn Sanskrit and thought that You and other participants may help me to get started with my Sanskrit Learning.

    I have Sanskrit Course downloaded from www.chitrapurmath.net. And I have it on https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3GMebw7he6IeUtsODVZZHEzV3c&usp=sharing
    .
    Can anyone please help me that how to get started with this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment. I agree that more of us should be learning Sanskrit to be able to read our texts for ourselves. However not all of our ancient texts are 'holy' or indeed Vedic. The Arthashastra is not of the Vedic era, for example.
      Most cities in India have Sanskrit classes (as do many universities). Overseas, a number of universities offer classes. I would recommend you look up one nearest to you.
      Best wishes

      Delete