Was it Manu Cholan or Manu Needhi Cholan ?

The Cholas were one of the longest ruling dynasties from Tamilnadu. The earliest references to the Cholas are in the Sangam literature, although the Cholas claimed to be from the Solar Race ( the Ravi Kula / the Surya Kula / the Parithi Kula). They were the biggest 'Hindu' kingdom after the Guptas (the concept of Hinduism as an 'ism', came in much later). Historians classify the Chola dynasty into three eras - the Early Cholas from the pre and post Sangam era - upto 200 CE ,which included kings like Karikalan, Ilamchetcenni , Killivalavan, Kochengannan and others,  the Medieval Cholas from Vijayalaya Chola till Adhirajendra Chola ( 848 CE to 1070 CE), and the later Cholas from Kulothunga Chola till Rajendra Chola III ( 1070 CE till 1279 CE )...

The Cholas prided themselves in belonging to the lineage of two legendary selfless kings - Sibi and Manu.  King Sibi is said to have offered his flesh to a hungry hawk to rescue a dove and King Manu , who killed his son to atone for his son accidentally killing a calf that ran into his chariot wheels. The legends are still popular , with Sibi being referred as Sibi Chakaravarthy and Manu being commonly referred to as Manuneedhi Cholan. Herein lies a confusion. Was it Manu Cholan or Manuneedhi Cholan - for Manuneedhi is often interpreted as Manusmirti and the logic is stretched to say that Cholas are supposed to have adopted the Manusmriti and more dangerously to say that Saivism accepts Manu smriti. 

A detailed story of Manu was first presented by St Sekkizhar in the first sarukkam or chapter , when discussing the glory of Tiruvarur in his Periyapuraman (திருமலைச் சருக்கம் ,  திருநகரச் சிறப்பு). A more elaborate version was written by Vallalar St Ramalingam. 

Sekkizhar never uses the name Manuneedhi Cholan. He always refers to the king as Manu cholan or Manu Vendhan ( மனு வேந்தன் ). He sings in detail how Manu's only son and prince, rode with his retinue on the main street , how a calf runs into the chariot and dies. The Cow, seeing its calf die wails, goes to Manu's palace and with its horns tolls the bell hung for citizens to call the king and seek justice. The bell which was remaining unused was used for the first time, bringing Manu and his ministers to the door. On seeing the strange happening, Manu looked at his minister who informs him of the entire event.  Manu is pained to see the grieving cow and decides to seek atonement. Manu's ministers tell him to seek atonement as per the rules prescribed by the Vedic Pandits . Here again Sekkizhar uses the word Vedhiyar ( வேதியர் ) , and not Andhanar (அந்தணர் ) - clearly indicating the difference between the two. Manu declines to adopt it.  Sekkizkar says, when his ministers talk to him of laws of justice, Manu dismisses them saying

“Let your exposition of law be, what it is; 

You speak, not knowing the truth of the great nature ..."

And says only the loss of His own and only son will make him fully feel the true pain of the cow. So saying, he proceeds to run a chariot over his son and kills him.

A sculpture in Tiruvarur depicting the scene 

The story concludes with the Lord of Tiruvarur appearing to bless Manu and restoring the life of the calf, and the prince. 

Manu's idea of justice was hence very different from what 'Manu', the law giver had prescribed. To Manu the law giver, slaying a cow was a 'minor' offence that can be atoned. Manusmriti in Chapter XI says 

109. He who has committed a minor offence by slaying a cow (or bull) shall drink during (the first) month (a decoction of) barley-grains; having shaved all his hair, and covering himself with the hide (of the slain cow), he must live in a cow-house.

110. During the two (following) months he shall eat a small (quantity of food) without any factitious salt at every fourth meal-time, and shall bathe in the urine of cows, keeping his organs under control.

111. During the day he shall follow the cows and, standing upright, inhale the dust (raised by their hoofs); at night, after serving and worshipping them, he shall remain in the (posture, called) virasana.

112. Controlling himself and free from anger, he must stand when they stand, follow them when they walk, and seat himself when they lie down.

King Manu obviously hence did not follow Manu smriti. His idea of justice was egalitarian. While rebuking his ministers for asking him to follow the texts of law, Manu in Sekkizhar's words remarks 

“Is not the ruler of a realm that guards its lives
Duty-bound to rid his subjects
Of hindrance-breeding fear fivefold
Stemming from himself, his men in power,
Harmful hostility of foes, thieves and wild animals,
And thus protect Dharma? 

A close reading of the Manu smriti will clearly indicate that what the Periya puranam talks about was King Manu's justice and not Manu the law giver's justice. It was hence Manu Cholan and not Manu Needhi Cholan. 

To refer to the Chola king Manu as Manu Needhi Cholan is either a result of ignorance or is a result of a mischievous attempt to gain sanctity for the Manusmriti , which atleast in its present form is one which fosters inequality and injustice. Manu smriti not only contradicts the Bhagavad Gita and the Unpanishads (by fixing one's varna at birth), it also is against the spirit of Saivism and even if one were to suggest its adoption selectively, leaves too much scope for confusion. There is nothing universal or 'Hindu' about the text. The book needs to be read only to understand the extent of damage such a text can cause to generations of humanity and should otherwise be discarded. 

On the Varna System : Part IV

On the Manu Smriti

According to the Puranas, there are 14 Manus for each Kalpa , each making rules for a particular manvantra. In the current Sveta Varaha Kalpa the 14 Manus are Svayambu Manu, Svarocisa Manu, Uttama Manu, Tamasa Manu, Raivata Manu, Caksusa Manu, Vaivasvata Manu ( during this period), Savarni Manu, Daksha Savarni Manu, Brahma Savarni Manu, Dharma Savarni Manu, Rudra Savarni Manu, Deva Savarni Manu and Indra Savarni Manu. So my first impression is that because there are so many Manus – each giving laws – law is supposed to change /evolve with times and hence is not necessarily constant.

Not withstanding comments from scholars that the currently available work of Manu is filled with interpolations and hence certainly is not a reliable text, I have picked up a few verses that to my mind are relevant for the discussion on the Varna system.

Manusmriti 10-65 goes thus 'a Brahmin becomes a Shudra or vice versa on the basis of one’s merits , actions and abilities'. There are several verses which talk of a Brahmin becoming a Sudhra upon neglecting of his duties ( 2-37, 40, 103, 168; 4-245) and of Sudhra becoming a Brahmin (9-335) – which is as under

'A Sudra who is) pure, the servant of his betters, gentle in his speech, and free from pride, and always seeks a refuge with Brahmanas, attains a higher caste'

According to Manu a person who gets initiated into education for acquiring awareness of higher reality ( Brahmam) are the Dvijas ( twice born). Those who are only naturally born are called the Ekjatis.

(He who has not been initiated) should not pronounce any vedic text excepting ( those that are required for) the performance of funeral rites, since he is on a level with a Sudhra before his birth from the Veda ( 2.172).

A Brahmana who always connects himself with the most excellent (ones), and shuns all inferior ones,(himself) becomes most distinguished; by an opposite conduct he becomes a Sudra ( 4.245)

The concept of Upanayana (initiation) and becoming a Dvija seems to be later 'invention'. As detailed in my earlier, blog, Upanayana does not appear to be an essential requirement for learning Vedas or following Vedic rituals. However, texts that appeared subsequently have made it a mandatory requirement. Insistence on this requirement effectively led to discrimination of people - as the initiator could decide whom to initiate !. Flow of knowledge was hence controlled , channelized to specific individuals and Vedas were made exclusive. Knowledge of it became a source of power.

Manusmriti, atleast the version that exists today is certainly not egalitarian and prescribes differing standards of justice for different classes of people and certainly is pale and insignificant in ideals compared to the classical work Tirukural. Scholars of various hue now either rationalize the current version by forced interpretations or justify it on temporal basis. Others view several verses as interpolations by later authors. Of the 2685 verse available in the current work , only 1214 are considered authentic. There are inherent contradictions and motivated views in 1471 verses. This view is not entirely improbable. It is surprising that a work with over 50% verses suspected of being interpolations is still considered a great work.

But before we dismiss Manusmriti's current version, I will quote three verses which interested me - 10.82, 10.83 and 10.84.

10.83. But a Brahmana, or a Kshatriya, living by a Vaisya’s mode of subsistence, shall carefully avoid (the pursuit of) agriculture, (which causes) injury to many beings and depends on others

10.84. (Some) declare that agriculture is something excellent, (but) that means of subsistence is blamed by the virtuous; (for) the wooden (implement) with iron point injuries the earth and (the beings) living in the earth

Now compare this with verse 10.82

10.82. If it be asked, ’How shall it be, if he cannot maintain himself by either (of these occupations?’ the answer is), he may adopt a Vaisya’s mode of life, employing himself in agriculture and rearing cattle

There are two inferences
a) 10.82 is the original verse and 10.83 and 10.84 are interpolations
b) Agriculture is the occupation of Vaishyas – not Sudhras as we commonly believe. So the clear inference is until the time of Manu agriculture was considered a vocation of the Vaishyas and it was only later that it came to be considered as the vocation of the Sudhras. So by that logic, the dominant agricultural community - the vellalas ( of diffent hues) are Vaishyas and are hence eligible for both Upananaya and for learning Vedas

Assuming that 10.83 and 10.84 are indeed original , we will compare it with the verses in the Tirukural , which hails farming :

'Who plough and eat do really live - The rest , as followers, just serve and eat' 104-3

'Roam where you will , the world must go behind the plough; Farming , through toilsome, is man's supreme employ' 104.1

Obviously, there is a great difference in the thought processes between Manu (or some of the authors who interpolated into his work !)and Saint Tiruvalluvar. I will leave it to the reader to draw his interpretations and on what he thinks is a real work of virtue.

On the Varna System - Part III

Is it important that somebody has to be dvija to learn Vedas ? Are the Sudras prevented from learning Vedas?

Unlike the current versions of the Manusmriti - there is no differentiation in the Vedas of a Sudhra as regards initiation into learning Vedas or performing sacrifices. It appears that the Upananaya was either available for all four classes (including the Sudhras) or that it was not mandatory for reading the scriptures and performing sacrifices.

The Yajurveda ( 26.2) clearly gives rights to a Sudra to perform Yajna and for reading scriptures and shastras. The portion of the hymn means

‘ I have give the benevolent vedic sermon for all human beings – Brahmans, Kshatriyas ( rajhan), Vaishyas and Sudhras, women ,domestic help and other lowly people’.

Rigveda, in its hymn 10-53-4 reads 'panchajanaha - i.e., five classes of people who are entitled to peform yajna should carry out the agnihotra'

The five classes,i.e., the Panchajanaha are clarified by the Niruktha (3-8),as the people of the four varnas and the fifth are the nishadas - the panchamas.

It is quite possible that several more verses could have been purged by people interested in retaining learning within themselves.

Can somebody change his varna ?

There have been several examples of change in Varnas - clearly implying that it is not associated with birth. Let us look at examples - not from the Tamil texts , but from the Vedas, the Ithihasas and the Puranas itself.

• Kavash Ailush , son of a slave woman and Vatsa, a son of a sudhra woman are Rig veda Rishis.

• Vishwamitra , a descendant of King Kusha and born of Kshatriya parents and himself a king later went on to become a Brahmarishi and authored the Gayatri Mantra. Incidentally, Kaushika was one of the names of Viswamitra. Descendants of Kausika belong to the Kaushika Gotra. Of the 96 clans of Marathas , 11 belong to Kausika Gotra – including that of Sivaji ! – hence the Gotra has Kshatriya descendants. It is common knowledge that Kausika Gotra is also common among Brahmins .

• Satyakam Jabal whose parentage was not clear, became a Brahmavadi Rishi (an exponent of highest reality)

• Matanga muni was born of a barber and a brahmin woman who was intoxicated –and was hence a Chandala

• Rishi Valmiki was of a lowly birth and was originally a professional highway robber.

• Rishi Vyasa was of a lowly birth ( was born to Rishi Parashara and fisherwoman Matchagathi who later became Satyavathi - who later married King Santanu ). Vyasya is known to have compiled and collated the 4 Vedas and is hence called Veda Vyasa . Veda Vyasa, also called Badarayana , wrote the Brahmasutras - one of the three primal works of vedic philosophy ( the three are called the Prasathanathriyam). This work has been commented by Acharya Neelakanda, Acharya Sankara , Acharya Ramanuja etc - who have used this to establish their philosophies. ( Some authors however opine that Veda Vyasa is different from Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharata)

• Slave woman’s son Vidhur became a prime minister for Raja Drithirastra

• Sri Ram – a son of a kshatriya and Sri Krishna, son of a yadava king came to be treated as Gods – and venerated even by Brahmins.

• Ram’s ancestor Raghu ( hence Ram was called Raghukula thilala) had a son Pravridha who owing to his misdemeanor became an outcast and a demon.

• Pulastya Rishi’s descendant Ravana came to be treated as a demon ( Pulastya is one of the Sapta Rishis).

• Several of Rishi Vishwamitra’s sons came to be considered Sudhras,

• Trishanku – once a king came to be considered a Chandala.

• Rishi Kashyapa – a Brahmin and one of the Sapta Rishis ( the son of Rishi Marichi – one of the mansa putra’s of Brahma) married Daksha Prajapati’s daughter Aditi and from whom descended the Aditya dynasty or the Surya Vamsha – which then became the Ikshavaku dynasty ( named after his great grandson) and later Raghu Dynasty or the Raghuvamsha denoted earlier ( All these being Kshatriyas)

• Rishi Kashyapa’s son from Diti ( also Daksha Prajatpathi’s daughter ) was Hiranyakasibhu ( a demon)

More notes follow....