THE SHUDRAS : THE RIDDLE OF THE SHUDRAS 29
(3) Rig Veda, ii.33.13 : “Those pure remedies of yours, O Maruts, those which are most auspicious, ye vigorous gods, those which are beneficent, those which our father Manu chose, those and the blessing and succour of Rudra, I desire.” [1]
(4) Rig Veda, viii.52.1 : “The ancient friend hath been equipped with the powers of the mighty (gods). Father Manu has prepared hymns to him, as portals of access to the gods.” [2]
(5) Rig Veda, iii.3.6 : “Agni, together with the gods, and the children (jantubhih) of Manush, celebrating a multiform sacrifice with hymns. [”3]
(6) Rig Veda, iv. 37.1 : “Ye gods, Vajas, and Ribhukshana, come to our sacrifice by the path travelled by the gods, that ye, pleasing deities, may institute a sacrifice among these people of Manush (Manusho vikshu) on auspicious days.” [4]
(7) Rig Veda, vi.14.2 : “The people of Manush praise in the sacrifice Agni the invoker.” [5]
From these texts it is beyond question that the rishis who were the authors of the hymns of the Rig Veda regarded Manu as the progenitor of the Indo-Aryans. This theory about Manu being the progenitor of the IndoAryans had such deep foundation that it was carried forward by the Brahmanas as well as the Puranas. It is propounded in the Aitareya Brahmana, [6] in the Vishnu Purana [7] and the Matsya Purana. [8] . It is true that they have made Brahma the progenitor of Manu; but the Rig Veda theory of Manu being the progenitor has been accepted and maintained by them. [9] Why does the Purusha Sukta make no mention of Manu ? This is strange because the author of the Purusha Sukta seems to be aware of the fact that Manu Svayambhuva is called Viraj and Viraj is called Adi Purusha, [10] since he too speaks of Virajo adhi Purushah in verse five of the Sukta.
There is a third point in which the Purush Sukta has gone beyond the Rig Veda. The Vedic Aryans were sufficiently advanced in their
1 Muir, Vol. I. p. 163.
2 Ibid., p. 163.
3 Ibid., p. 165.
4 Ibid., p. 165.
5 Ibid., p. 165.
6 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I, p. 108.
7 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I pp. 105-107.
8 Quoted by Muir, Vol. I. p. 110-112.
9 There is however a great deal of confusion when one comes to details. The Vishnu Purana says that Brahma divided his person into two parts: with the one half he became a male, with the other half a female. The female was called Satarupa who by incessantly practising austere fervour of a highly arduous description acquired for herself as a husband a Male called Manu Svayambhuva. There is no suggestion in the Vishnu Purana of incest by Brahma with his daughter. The Aitareya Brahmana and the Matsya Purana on the other hand speak of Brahma having begotten Manu by committing incest with his daughter Satarupa; the Matsya Purana adds that Manu by his austerity obtained a beautiful wife named Ananta. According to the Ramayana (see Muir, I, p. 117) Manu was not a male but a female and was a daughter of Daksha Prajapati and the wife of Kasyapa.
10 Matsya Purana- Muir, Vol., 1 p. 111 f.n.