z:\ ambedkar\vol 04\vol4 05.indd MK SJ DK YS 23 9 2013/YS 8 11 2013 251
APPENDIX I
251
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