Social customs come down the time and the customs are codified at some point of time. Power, influence, convenience, dominance and necessity may all play into the process. The social customs may become institutes and laws. May be all the customs may not be codified but the common features definitely are. As long as the social customs remain something social they will be subjected to analysis and debate and legal discussions. Whether such customs persist depend on whether the customs reflect the present human experience and social sagacity. Democracy, individual rights and education will safeguard this dynamic process. But bringing the topics of social customs and practices into the domain of devotion and faith in God is shifting them from an area of debate to blind submission, impervious to any realistic perceptions.
Actually, if you think about it, faith in the Divine is something too personal to an individual. In moments of life when all human efforts fail, the heart internally pangs for the grace, for the guiding hand of the Beyond. It is not tutored by any expressed creed. But when the same simple faith goes into organized religious rigmarole the stress is slowly shifted towards social and domestic customs and preserving their status quo. So sometimes it becomes all too necessary to protect one's own simple faith in the Divine from getting lost in the standardized narrations of creeds imbued with the social concerns and agendas. Critical reading of the devotional texts go a long way to preserve the sanctity and purity of one's own faith. Criticism is not just an arrant denial of the faith position as such. It is reading the texts in such a way that the faith position is recovered from any attempts of sabotage. The social agendas make the faith positions serve as justifications and excuses for furthering the social customs and practices belonging to some opportune periods.
Ramayana is a great religious text and it has been read again and again in all periods of time and places. Rama has been the inspiration shaping not only individuals but also vast cultures and nations. Against all evil stands the name of Ram in the minds of common people. Just uttering the name Ram makes one pure is the simple faith throbbing in the hearts of millions and millions of people. Ram is the great name of equality. The hunter can become the brother of Rama, the apes can become his bosom friends, bears his well-wishers. Rama goes in search of Sabhari to pay his respects to her. Sabhari is born in a caste considered low in the eyes of dharma sastras. But in the eyes of Rama Sabhari is 'brahmajnani'. He is not just a prince of palaces. He is a prince in the hearts of the common people. Every person, young or old, male or female, thinks of Rama as one's own. This is the picture we get in the Ayodhya, Aranya, Kishkinta and Sundara Kandams.
Not only was Rama, but also his father Dasarata had been such a person. By mistake when Dasarata's arrow kills a young hermit, Dasarata goes in person and narrates his own fault and awaits whatever punishment may be awarded to him by the dying young man. The young hermit, as per his own statements, was born of a sudra mother and vaishya father. These unnecessary thoughts of parentage never pose a problem for Dasarata, for he is respecting the young hermit for his austerities. In all these instances both Dasarata and Rama don't look into the caste details and the caste does not play any part in their reverence towards the ascetics. How then, suddenly in the Uttara Kanda, the last book of Ramayana, Rama is portrayed totally in a different jarring light? Actually in the Sambhuka instance the portrayal of Rama is not that of a character that comes down the long narration from Ayodhya, but an artifice of simulation that works out the design of four castes and the supremacy of Brahmin caste, as intended by the interpolators. The portrayal is so much at variance with the character of Rama that we get through the Ayodhya Kandam to Sundara Kandam.
But for some people, it is hard to digest that interpolations could have been there in ancient books of tradition and devotion, even if those happen to be epics, which are even at the outset described as having grown through ages in the number of verses. To set such doubts at rest we shall look into an example. In Ayodhya Kanda, Bharata goes in search of Rama to the forests and on meeting Rama, Rama makes a lot of enquiries regarding various matters and aspects. Jabhali, a great Rishi who has accompanied Bharata along with Vasishta, begins to talk atheism and materialism with the motive of making Rama change his resolve to stay in the forests in obedience to the father's command and return back to Ayodhya. Rama becomes angry with Jabhali and condemns his words. And while replying to Jabhali, Rama is making a reference to Buddha, condemning Buddha's teachings and Buddhism. Now a problem crops up. If Rama is critical about Buddha, then Rama should have been later in time to Buddha. If Rama is earlier than Buddha how can Rama express criticisms about Buddha?. If the criticisms come as part of the poet's own thoughts and observations, then we can say even though Rama was earlier than Buddha, the poet who sang about Rama belonged to the times later than Buddha and so the poet has expressed his own misgivings. But if the words come as part of Rama's talk, then the problem becomes acute. In this case, we cannot say that even the poet was later in time. For, Valmiki was a contemporary of Rama. So the only conclusion possible will be that some persons at later times wanted to register their strong criticisms against Buddhism and Buddha and hence they should have interpolated suitable verses into the conversations of Rama, so that when the criticisms come directly from Rama's mouth it will serve their intentions much more effectively. It seems diachronism was not an issue after all for those who interpolated. But in Baroda Oriental Institute, they collected some 2000 manuscripts from all the parts of India and on that basis they arrived at the critical edition of Ramayana. In that edition they have not included these verses from the mouth of Rama, condemning Buddha. Their conclusion is that these verses are interpolations.
So, we cannot rule out interpolations per se. Interpolations may be due to more than one cause. The contemporary adulatory situations or criticisms may provide one cause. Or over-enthusiastic efforts to make some social customs unchanging by taking them out of debatable avenues may provide yet another cause. Sometimes interpolations may be positive, in the sense, that actually the additions may serve more as embellishments of original ideas, but all the while true to the core concepts. Such additions do not pose much of a problem, because they serve devotional purposes and enhance the faithful involvement in the divine. They can be viewed with aesthetic empathy. But the negative interpolations, which serving only the social agendas, mostly at the cost of faith and devotion, should be identified by vigilant critical reading.
The interpolation of Sambhuka episode collapse the whole character of Rama, which is developed so aesthetically by Valmiki from Ayodhya Kandam to Sundara Kandam. Not only that, it is brutally opposite to what we see of Rama in the Sabhari epidsode, what we see of Rama in the episodes of Guha, Vanaras, etc. And the Sambhuka episode serves only one purpose, extolling the system of four castes and the supremacy of brahmin caste, whereas Rama has been singularly unconcerned about caste issues while meeting ascetics like Sabhari. The portrayal of Rama in the Sambhuka episode is that of an artifice of extra-epical designs and concerns. It is not in line with the character so far pictured in the epic. But this episode should have been interpolated into the text very early in the revised formations of the text, for, it is referred to even by Kulasekara Alwar. So finding out what portion is an interpolation can take into account many points. Besides textual exegesis, faith and devotion can also provide a standard to detect what is an interpolation.
Smrutis or the statutes they contain are not my concern. For, long ago, nearly a millennium ago, when Sri Alagiyamanavalapperumal Nayanar wrote against Varna Dharmis in his magnum opus, Acharya Hrudayam, upholding the equality of Prapanna Kulam, even from that time onward, the theory of castes has lost its raison d'etre, so to say. As long as such opinions of social customs and practices continue in the society, they are subjected to debate and legal rational analysis and public consensus. Democracy and good education can safeguard the people against any attempts of social hegemony. My main concern here is contaminating the field of faith and divine devotion by interpolating the ideas of social customs and practices into the devotional texts. That too, putting words into the mouths of divine incarnations is a veritable sacrilege of pure faith and devotion.
The natural faith inherent in the human soul rises in agony and sends fervent prayers to the divine. The Divine by its nature and definition is something beyond all sorts of human imperfections and failures of character. The Divine incorporates all the greatest values ever conceived by humans. Naturally, any human being, however much that person is evil or bad, repents and surrenders himself to the divine. This simple faith functions as the natural correction available to humankind in its mad rush of social competitions. Contaminating that simple faith by interpolations is doing havoc down the generations. This should be vigilantly detected and checked by any person of sincere faith and devotion.
If we peruse through our epics and puranas, we find wonderful compositions of faith and devotion. At the same time we find jarring notes of these interpolations of social agendas, that too put directly into the mouths of the great jnanis and divine incarnations. We saw the instance of Rama. In the divine incarnation of Sri Krishna also we find similar invasions of the simple faith by social agendas and words being put into the mouth of the divine incarnation. It is usual for people to quote Sri Krishna's words in the Gita in support of the four-varnas system. 'When Sri Krishna himself says that it is he who has created the four varnas, then who can object to it' - is the attitude that lurks behind such people who quote such slokas in support. But really, are you sure that Sri Krishna could have told such opinions? Because in his young age this very same Krishna is portrayed in Sri Bhagavatam, as asking Nanda, regarding some preparations of worship that Nanda and other Gopas were making. When told that such preparations were intended for doing yajna to Indra, Krishna objects to that. On that occasion Krishna is observing that the society functions in terms of the four varnas doing their functions, namely, Brahmins chanting Vedas, Kshatriyas protecting lands etc. When such is the case, how can the same Krishna when he becomes grown up can say to Arjuna that it was he who created the four varnas, whereas in his young age he finds the four varnas already functioning in society? If not interpolating, then what is this?
May be, some may venture to answer that Krishna was speaking in the Gita in the divine mood of Paramatma and hence he says, as the creator of the universe he has created the social divisions. But the commentators explain what is creation. The Almighty is not creating each and every aspect. It is only starting the primordial process of creation. Afterwards the objects by their nature and the souls by the effect of their karmas reach their respective name and form and division and divergence. So even in that case there is no necessity of Paramatma creating particularly anything, since the objects and souls attain as per their nature and karma their difference in name and stations and forms. But some may say here that I am after all comparing two different texts, Sri Bhagavatam and Mahabharatam. No problem. Let me do it with the same text, Mahabharatam.
Let us take an example from the same Mahabharatam itself. That too, the important parva, Santi Parvam and that too, Moksha Dharmam. In Moksha Dharmam, Baradwaja is asking a question to Bhrugu Rishi regarding the admixture of castes, seemed to have happened already, as evidenced by the different colors that are seen in all varnas. How to specify any specific varna? For that, when Brugu answers, he says that Brahmam (the Absolute Soul) while creating created all as one. There were no different varnas. Differences later came about in the society because of the actions of beings. Now, what happens to the Gita slokas that come out of the mouth of Sri Krishna when compared with these? In the self-same Mahabharata, Krishna cannot be saying one thing and Bhrugu cannot be saying a different thing. And what Bhrugu says is the natural concept that the Divine has nothing to do with what the society has done unto itself. A clear instance of interpolation of the varna concept, words put into the mouth of Sri Krishna himself. Whether you want to think that Sri Krishna in the state of God-mood has said this or whether you may like to argue that Sri Krishna actually did it during his lifetime, creating this four-varna system, both ways, it does not match the records or the concurrent views expressed. We do not come to know that there was any period during the time of Sri Krishna when there arose a necessity for somebody to install any new system like four-varnas in the extant versions of Mahabharata.
Also Vayu Purana, one of the early puranas as per researches on chronology, has an interesting reference in this regard. In chapter 57 while narrating the starting of yajna practice as such, the following sloka says that varnasrama system was brought in at the start of Treta Yuga.
kalAkyAyAm pravruttAyAm prAptE trEtA yugE tadA |
varNAsraama vyavasthAnam krutavantascha vai puna: |
'... the incursion of one named Kala having ensued, and the Tretayuga having arrived, they-again made the classification and arrangement of the castes and stages of life'.
This comes as a part of the question by Samsapayana. Answering him, Suta says that Indra started this varna system at the beginning of Treta Yuga. So the varna-system was not created by God at the beginning of creation.
All these things go to prove only one thing. That critical reading is never a hindrance to our innate simple faith and devotion but protects such faith and devotion, from getting lost in contradictions, due to unrelated acts of interpolations, which merely serve the agendas of the perpetrators. Divinity is beyond any human frailty. Divinity always considers the beings as equal. Divinity is the repository of all the greatest values possible to humankind. Anything which comes between such Divinity and the hearts of human souls and anything which distorts such faith due to whatever ulterior motive, should be vigilantly detected and checked by resorting to critical reading and thinking. Remembering the basic nature of faith and devotion, remembering the basic universal concept of what divinity is, can be a guiding light in the dark. Bhakti should never be allowed to become a scapegoat in such exercises of textual interpolations. If we understand the concept of the Divinity, simple and pure, it will provide us a valid tool to detect agendas and aggrandizing artifices and intrusions.
Srirangam Mohanarangan
***
Notes of referrences :
1. Dasarata meeting the arrow-struck young ascetic --
Ayodhya Kandam - sarga 63 - Dasarata recapitulating the curse he incurred and narrating it to Kausalya
2.Rama meeting Sabhari - Aranya Kanda - sarga 74
3.Rama talking to Jabhali - slokas ref to Buddha not being included in Critical Edition of Ramayana, Baroda. Reason given - Ayodhya Kanda, pp 513 of English Translation.
4.Sri Krishna in the Gita about the creation of four varnas - Adhyaya 4 sloka 13.
5.Sri Ramanuja's commentary on Gita ch 4 sloka 13, 14 - 'svagata prAchInakarma saktyA Eva hi dEvadivastubhavam nIyatE iti artha:'
6.Sri Krishna's conversation, while he was young, with Nandagopa in Srimad Bhagavatam, Skanda X, ch 24, sloka 20 describing the four varnas and their functions - 'varttEta brahmaNA viprO rAjanyO rakshayA bhuva: | vaisyastu vArtayA jIvEt sUdrastu dvijasEvayA ||'
7.Bhrugu Rishi's answer to Bharadwaja - Mahabharatam, Santi Parvam, Moksha Dharmam, ch 189, sloka 10 -
na visEsha: asti varNAnAm Sarvam brAhmam idam jagat |
brhmaNA pUrva srushtam hi karmabhi: varNatAm gatam ||
( Bhrigu said —
There is in fact no distinction between the different castes. The whole world at first consisted of Brahmanas. Created equally by Brahman, men have, on account of their acts, been divided into various castes. - M N Dutt translation )
Srirangam Mohanarangan
