Do Sruti texts mention birth-based or guna-based varna?[1].

To elaborate (further), are there any instances in Śruti scriptures which explicitly support either or both of birth-based varna and guna-based varna?

Note: I understand that there is already a question regarding Birth-based alone since its OP was only interested in that aspect but this question is asking a more holistic question and hence not duplicate. Thanks.

[1]: Shout out to user ram for the inspiration.


Do Sruti texts mention either or both of birth-based varna and guna-based varna?

There are several Sruti texts that state Varna is based on birth. I've listed a few below:

Chhandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 - Those whose conduct has been good here will shortly get birth such as a Brahmana (brahmana yonim), a kshatriya, or a vaishya. But those whose conduct has been evil will be born in evil births shortly such as the birth of a dog (shva yonim), or as a pig, or a chandala.

The word used is "yonim", and it means birth or womb, and is used to refer to birth as a dog (shva), and pig, and since it's also used along with the names of castes, it must be taken to mean that one is born into those castes just like animals, so it doesn't merely mean being born as a person with Brahmanical qualities. It means being born into the womb (yoni) of a Brahmin, and a person born into such a womb naturally acquires Brahminical qualities due to gene transfer.

Maitrayani Samhita 1.4.1 - We know not if we are brahmins or non-Brahmins. ...Therefore, when recounting our gotra-pravaras, say that the devas are our fathers.

This verse from the Maitrayani shakha of the Krishna Yajur Veda is referred to in Jaimini's Mimamsa Sutras, and commented on by Shabara swami. The sutra reads:

On account of the failings of women, (there can be no certainty regarding one's caste); specially as the son belongs to the progenitor.

This sutra is based on the Maitrayani samhita verse. Shabara comments on the sutra as follows:

The meaning of the eulogistic passage is that even a non-Brahmana would become a Brahmana by the recounting of his pravaras [meaning a non-Brahmana can claim he is a Brahmana by recounting Brahmanical gotra pravaras, and hence it is necessary for the Brahmana to also recount his pravaras, as one can never be sure of one's Brahmanahood]. It is difficult to know if one is really a Brahmana; - and this is what is figuratively spoken of as 'we do not know'; and the difficulty in knowing it for certain is due to the 'failings of women'.

This vedic verse shows that caste is determined by gotra pravaras (ancestral lineages), and hence caste is inherited and based on birth.

If caste was determined by guna or self-identification/self-claiming, like the followers of Vivekananda and reformist Vedantins believe, then this verse would not mention gotra pravaras at all since it wouldn't be relevant.

And another verse is from the Ashwamedha section of the Taittiriya Brahmana, which reads:

‘When a Sudra woman is the mistress of an Arya, she does not seek wealth for prosperity’. Therefore they (the priests) do not bestow royal consecration on the son of a Vaishya woman."

This shows that only kshatriyas by birth are allowed to be consecrated as kings, and no other caste.

The pre-Ramanuja Sri Vaishnava scholar Yamunacharya has stated:

Every man has some Vedic rites for which he is not qualified: the Brahmin is not qualified for the royal consecration, the Kshatriya for the ritual drinking of soma.

So it is proven that the Vedas talk about a birth-based caste system.

| improve this answer | |
  • Please clarify what do you mean when you say caste? I have explicitly asked regarding varna i.e., classification into Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, etc,. – DirghaChintayanti Jul 18 '19 at 7:09
  • @DirghaChintayanti By caste I mean varna; Brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra, etc. – Ikshvaku Jul 18 '19 at 11:35

In the Shruti there is no clear thing written about Varna, but I have some reference about it. As per the Shruti, There was only one Varna Brahmana and they were later divided by the Brahmin.

  • Brihadarankya Upanishad1:4:11-13
  1. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, oneonly. That being one, was not strong enough. It created still further the most excellent Kshatra (power), viz. those Kshatras (powers) among the Devas,--Indra, Varuna, Soma, Rudra, Parganya, Yama, Mrityu, Îsâna. Therefore there is nothing beyond the Kshatra, and therefore at the Râgasûya sacrifice the Brâhmana sits down below the Kshatriya. He confers that glory on the Kshatra alone. But Brahman is the birth-place of the Kshatra. Therefore though a king is exalted, he sits down at the end (of the sacrifice) below the Brahman, as his birth-place. He who injures him, injures his own birth-place. He becomes worse, because he has injured one better than himself.
  2. He was not strong enough. He created the Vis (people), the classes of Devas which in their different orders are called Vasus, Rudras, Âdityas, Visve Devas, Maruts.
  3. He was not strong enough. He created the Sûdra colour (caste), as Pûshan (as nourisher). This earth verily is Pûshan (the nourisher); for the earth nourishes all this whatsoever.

Brihadarankya not tell about the reason of their division. It is explained here by sage Bhrigu that they were separated because of there KARMA.

Maxmuller, one of the earliest translators of Shruti texts accepted about Varna that it was not birth based.

It is admitted on all hands by all western scholars also that in the most ancient. Vedic religion, there was no caste system based on birth. — (Prof. Max Muller writes in ‘Chips from a German Workshop’ Vol. 11, P. 837)]

| improve this answer | |
  • Maxmuller's translations are not accepted as authority by any Vedic scholar (who actually learns Vedas at patashalas) in India. Those who are interested in accepting a westerner's interpretation as truth are free to do so at their own safety/peril. – ram Jun 29 at 5:27
  • @ram I know that he was a paid scholar. Where I used his translation? Can you tell me? – Sanatan Darshan Jun 30 at 2:32
  • it's in your own answer: "Maxmuller, one of the earliest translators of Shruti texts accepted about Varna that it was not birth based." – ram Jun 30 at 3:29
  • @ram was I wrong? It is true that he translated Shruti texts. It is another thing that it is not acccepted by scholars. – Sanatan Darshan Jun 30 at 3:58
  • did i say you were wrong ? Yes it is true he translated. Yes it is also true his translations are not accepted. – ram Jun 30 at 4:15

First of all, Krishna Yajurveda is mixed with the Brahmana portion. Purusha Sukta is talking about the creation of 4 Varnas obviously not humans because we came with Manu and the Saptrishis. Rig Veda 9.63 says:

इन्द्रं वर्धन्तो अप्तुर: कृण्वन्तो विश्वमार्यम् । अपघ्नन्तो अराव्णः ॥

This is a prayer to make all humans Aryas. So when Krishna Yajurveda is making a distinction between Shudra & Arya it means bad people and noble people. Of course, birth is as per karma but this is a very clear message from the Veda itself that Varna can be changed! Now if we see Upanishads or Brahmanas we almost always get the same picture. Look at Chandogya Upanishad talks about the initiation story of another Upanishad's author:

Gautama asked him, ‘O Somya, what is your lineage?’ Satyakāma said: ‘Sir, I do not know what my lineage is. When I asked my mother, she said to me: “I was very busy serving many people when I was young, and I had you. As this was the situation, I know nothing about your lineage. My name is Jabālā, and your name is Satyakāma.” So, sir, I am Satyakāma Jābāla’. Gautama said to him: ‘No non-brāhmin could speak like this.

So the son of a highly impure shudra woman and unknown man was declared Brahmin. Now look at the story of Vedic author Vatsa found in Tandya Brahmana 14.6.6, Jaiminiya Brahmana 3.234:

The two sons of Kanva, Medhatithi and Trioka, contended about the sacred lore (brahman). They said : ' Come, let us cross the flaming fire'. They crossed the flaming fire. Tris'oka crossed over it (unharmed), but of the other it scorched the eye-lashes. Ho (Trisoka) said to him (to Medhatithi) : ' I have vanquished thee '. ' No ', said he, 'thou art the son of an Asura-mother ; even the deities have not wished to touch thee'. Then, they (said): 'Come, let us cross the water'. They crossed the flowing Rathaspa. Tris'oka crossed over it (unharmed), but of the other the rims of his cart were moistened by the water of the Rathaspa (translation uncertain, text corrupted !). He (TriSoka) said to him (to Medhatithi): 'I have vanquished thee'.

let us walk according to the rite through fire (to decide) which of us two is the better brahmin

Agni preferred Shudra's son. Shudra's son was a superior Brahmin compared to birth-Brahmin. Another example from the Brahmanas is in Kausitaki Brāhmana 12.3 and Aitareya Brāhmana 8.19

"You are the son of a female slave. We will not eat with you" (dāsya vai tvam putro si na vayam tvaya saha bhaksayisyama iti). Kavasa became angry and ran away. He recited a hymn of praise to Sarasvati, who then followed after him: sarasvatim etena suktena tustava tam heyam iyaya. Realizing what had happened, the surprised seers hurried to him to express their reverence: "0 seer, homage be to you. Do not harm us. You indeed are the best of us...

Saraswati considers a Shudra's son superior to all birth-Brahmins combined at being a Brahmin. The birth-Brahmins also accept they are inferior to him. He authored a part of Rig Veda. There are 108 canonical Upanishads as per Muktika Upanishad. One of them is Vajrasuchika Upanishad which says

It is said that a Brahmana is so because of his caste. This is not acceptable because there are diverse communities in the world... ...Among these many have attained the highest rank, despite of their lower birth and given proof of their wisdom. Therefore a Brahmana is not so because of his community.

Self-explanatory. I have given examples from 7 Vedic texts against birth-based system.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

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