Origin of varṇas in Puruṣa-sūkta : Yājñavalkya’s interpretation
The earliest Vedic mention of the four varṇas of Hindus, is found in the 12th verse of Ṛgveda’s Puruṣa-sūkta (10.90) [1]. The verse tells that from the different body parts of Prajāpati (as interpreted by Sāyaṇa) [2], came the four different varṇas, i.e., Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra. A very popular interpretation of this verse is that the Śūdra is taken to be of the lowest order, because he or his varṇa is born from the feet of the divine being. The problem with this interpretation is that the feet depicted are that of the divine and not of a human being. The feet of the divine are as pure, divine, honourable and as united to its form as are the other parts.
In the Mahābhārata (12.318.89), sage Yājñavalkya is shown to have said that all varṇas are born of Brahman and all are Brāhmaṇa [3]. In the next verse he states the origin of all varṇas from different parts of Brahman [4]. The question is that why did he go to such an extent to say that all varṇas are Brāhmaṇa?
In the 88th verse, he says that the knowledge for mokṣa should be taken from people of all varṇas, and even from those below the Śūdra varṇa [5]. He asserts that the one taking such knowledge should have śraddhā in it. This statement asserts that even a Śūdra and even those below him, i.e., Cāṇḍāla etc., can become one’s Guru for such knowledge.
A hint of how being a disciple of Śūdra may have been seen, at least at some point and somewhere, can be taken from a statement of Medhātithi, in his commentary on Manusmṛti 3.156. He says that Śūdra being a Guru is despised, and not those of other varṇas (śūdragurutvaṃ ca garhitaṃ nānyat). It may be against such a view that even in Manusmṛti 2.238, it has been stated that one should learn the highest dharma (para dharma) from even an antya or Cāṇḍāla [6]. Here, the highest dharma has been taken by most commentators to be the knowledge leading to mokṣa (end of the cycle of birth and death). Yājñavalkyasmṛti (1.8) calls the highest dharma to be the direct perception of ātman through yoga (yogena ātmadarśanam), which shall further lead to mokṣa. In Manusmṛti 2.240, vidyā or knowledge is one of the seven entities that are to be accepted from everywhere or everyone (samādeyāni sarvataḥ) [7], which Medhātithi explains as ‘irrespective of specific jāti’ (jātiviśeṣam anapekṣya).
The reason why such statements have been given could be that the laypersons had become closed minded with respect to taking knowledge from a Guru, where they couldn’t accept a Guru from the fourth varṇa and those below it. Yājñavalkya may have been pained by seeing people giving more importance to varṇa or jāti than knowledge, which is why he went ahead to say that all varṇas are Brāhmaṇa. To validate his view he takes the originator of varṇa as Brahman, which would fulfil the requirement of etymological explanation of calling all varṇas as Brāhmaṇa.
The origin story he takes is that of the Puruṣa-sūkta. In case someone may doubt his statement as being merely an explanation, he clarifies at the end that these varṇas should be known only in the way that he has stated and not otherwise (sarve varṇā nānyathā veditavyāḥ). One could connect this last statement with only the origin story of varṇas and not to the statement that all varṇas are Brāhmaṇa. But then, the origin story was already a well known idea, and there doesn’t seem to be any need for it to be repeated to assert that all varṇas are Brāhmaṇa. It would instead by contradictory, because if the popular belief in the four varṇas as being mutually separate and exclusive is based on the said idea of varṇa-origin, then quoting the same idea to assert that all varṇas are Brāhmaṇa would be in vain and useless as well.
The question of whether those below the Śūdra varṇa have been considered as Brāhmaṇa by him can be answered by quoting the status of them in one smṛti text. For example in the Manusmṛti (10.41), all those born from pratiloma marriages (father of a lower varṇa than that of the mother), are called śūdrasadharman-s [8], which means that they shall be eligible for the dharmas in which Śūdras are eligible. So in a sense, they are at par with Śūdras. In this way all the jātis including apasadas and apadhvaṃsajas are included in the fourfold varṇa system. So it can be said, both from the context of Yājñavalkya’s statements and that of Manusmṛti, that even those outside of the fold of the four varṇas, are to be known as Brāhmaṇas.
One can take his statements as arthavāda, where the said knowledge is being praised and that it is not the case where the varṇa system is being changed. But when he ends his statements by saying that one should not know these varṇas being another way than that which he has said, he clearly seems to assert that all varṇas are Brāhmaṇa, not merely as a part of an arthavāda statement, but in actuality.
It is upto the readers to accept, reject or reform Yājñavalkya’s view on the singularity of varṇas. One could counter his assertion as being against his own smṛti text. But again, this statement and his smṛti text, both could belong to separate periods of time.
References :
[1] brāhmaṇo’sya mukham āsīd bāhū rājanyaḥ smṛtaḥ/
ūrū tad asya yad vaiśyaḥ padbhyāṃ śūdro ajāyata//
[2] asya prajāpateḥ brāhmaṇaḥ brāhmaṇatvajātiviśiṣṭaḥ puruṣaḥ mukham āsīt mukhād utpanna ityarthaḥ
[3] sarve varṇā brāhmaṇā brahmajāśca sarve nityaṃ vyāharante ca brahma/
tattvaṃ śāstraṃ brahmabuddhyā bravīmi sarvaṃ viśvaṃ brahma caitatsamastam//
[4] brahmāsyato brāhmaṇāḥ samprasūtā bāhubhyāṃ vai kṣatriyāḥ samprasūtāḥ/
nābhyāṃ vaiśyāḥ pādataścāpi śūdrāḥ sarve varṇā nānyathā veditavyāḥ//
[5] prāpya jñānaṃ brāhmaṇātkṣatriyādvā vaiśyācchūdrādapi nīcādabhīkṣṇam/
śraddhātavyaṃ śraddadhānena nityaṃ na śraddhinaṃ janmamṛtyū viśetām//
[6] śraddadhānaḥ śubhāṃ vidyām ādadītāvarādapi/
antyādapi paraṃ dharmaṃ strīratnaṃ duṣkulādapi//
[7] striyo ratnānyatho vidyā dharmaḥ śaucaṃ subhāṣitam/
vividhāni ca śilpāni samādeyāni sarvataḥ//
[8] svajātijānantarajāḥ ṣaṭsutā dvijadharmiṇaḥ/
śūdrāṇāṃ tu sadharmāṇaḥ sarve’padhvaṃsajāḥ smṛtāḥ//