RigVeda is a single source of our great antiquity and still it is not fully revealed. We often quote from it as authentic as we have a complete understanding of RigVeda. But truth is that we have only partial understanding exactly like those six blind persons who were engaged in identifying an elephant and every one touching the different body parts of the elephant: each claimed he has an authentic perception of the elephant, but differently. However, for the last 100 years or so we have a great dig at RigVeda, the area which was preserve for few earlier. And we have come to some conclusions to which have a broader consensus among most of the scholars.

  1. There was no caste system in RigVedic period. The famous Purush Sukta is discredited as later inclusion by linguistic evidences (shabda pramana). Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism don't believe in it as well. Why should Sanatana Dharma continue this practice?

  2. There is no concept of Astika-Nastika, Avatara or of Ishwara (the Supreme Lord) in RigVeda. A position to which Lord Brahma, Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu have equal claim as different Puranas and other scriptures tell us. Buddism and other revolted against it and consequently termed as Nastika. But they heavily draw from RigVeda.

My contention here is not to respect alone but to integrate as well. If possible Hinduism would be a force in the world to reckon with. Would the divisionary forces within Hinduism allow to happen this- a broader concept of Hinduism.

  • 6
    It sounds like you do not understand the division of the vedas or the parts of the rig veda. The Aitreya Upanishad is part of the Rig Veda. The Aitreya has the concepts of the Para (upper or Nirguna) and Apara (lower or Saguna) Brahman. Apara Brahman is Iswara. It sounds like you do not understand the classifications of Astika/Nastika. You are correct in that the concept of avatar is not in the vedas, but then if you understood the vedas and its classifications you would understand why it is not in the vedas. Suggest you read some Indian scholars rather than Western scholars. Nov 13, 2017 at 10:57
  • 3
    Your question is like the man who says that the Ganga has too many twists and turns on its course to the ocean and should start over with a better path. To understand the twists and turns in a river is to understand its history and its path. Nov 13, 2017 at 10:59
  • 6
    Linguist field is full of conjectures. There's no any conclusive evidence to indicate Purusha sukta was added latter. Better ignore linguistic interpretation of Veda unless they find at least a single evidence of PIE language. Indologist's interpretation of Sanskrit differs from the traditional one. It's best suited for Aryan migration theory.
    – user6990
    Nov 13, 2017 at 11:00
  • 4
    All your assumptions about the veda are wrong.
    – user1195
    Nov 14, 2017 at 13:34
  • 2
    @B.N.Bhaskar I think you are thinking that Rig Veda Samhita is the only thing that can be called Rig Veda. Where do you think Aitareya Upanishad belongs then?
    – Ikshvaku
    Nov 18, 2017 at 16:17

1 Answer 1


Yeah, it is possible to present Riga Veda as a single source of Hinduism but it is not necessary. As I can see, Puranik tradition is the continuation of the early Vedic tradition. It was not founded to oppose Veda but to expound Veda. Hinduism, as mentioned in Puranas, is ever evolving according to the four ages.

There was no caste system in RigVedic period. The famous Purush Sukta is discredited as later inclusion by linguistic evidences (shabda pramana). Buddhism,Jainism and Sikhism don't believe in it as well. Why should Sanatan Sharma continue this practice?

Why should Sanatan Sharma continue this caste practice? Well because it's there in Rig Veda. Mandals 2-7 are regarded as the oldest books according to your linguistic scholars. So let me post one verse from the 4th book of Rigveda.

Sa ItkshEti sudhita Okasi sE tvasmA iLA pinvatE vishwadAnIm
tasmai vishaha swayamEvA namantE yasmin BrahmA rAjaniPUrvayEti
Rigveda 4.50.8-9

Ralph T.H. Griffith's translation:

In his own house he dwells in peace and comfort: to him for ever holy food flows richly. To him the people with free will pay homage-the King with whom the Brahman hath precedence.

He, unopposed, is master of the riches of his own subjects and of hostile people. The Gods uphold that King with their protection who helps the Brahman when he seeks his favour. -- Rigveda 4.50.9

(SAyaNa's translation of Rigveda 4.50.8):

Verily he abides prosperous in his own abode; for that King, the earth bears fruit in all seasons; to him his subjects (the third class) willingly pay homage; to whom the Brahmana repairs with reverence.

So the claim that there's absence of caste system in Rig Veda is superficial, considering the evidences.

Rig Veda 4.50.8

  • Do you have Sayana commentary in English?
    – The Destroyer
    Nov 13, 2017 at 12:34
  • @TheDestroyer No! I've only Sanskrit text. I found that translation in some history forum. I'll ask him if he has its English translation.
    – user6990
    Nov 13, 2017 at 14:47
  • @OnkarKarambe The term 'Vishah' and 'Brahma' appears at various places in RigVeda and these never denote a caste. Nov 14, 2017 at 5:05
  • @B.N.Bhaskar see this question hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/21590/11510 caste was already divied in 4 parts as this yajurveda verse say but there was not much discrimination among them which smriti s discribe. Nov 14, 2017 at 5:43
  • 1
    @OnkarKarambe I am not in a denial mode. I have joined this site to learn more about Hinduism and specially RigVeda. I don't rely on either Sayana or Griffith though take help from them. I rely only on RigVeda and try to extract meaning of a term from the internal contexts of RigVeda. And found many terms have different meaning in RigVeda from what we mean at present. More I go into deep of RigVedic terms, more I am being convinced that here is the mother of all Indo Europian languages. Thus I look forward for a criticism,but expect it be logical. Nov 14, 2017 at 16:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .