The Verses That Do Not Exist: Examining the Scriptural Case for Hereditary Caste

The Global Conundrum of Caste or Economic Segregation: Chapter 18.

In the previous chapters we established that Manusmriti is one of the many directive legal opinions or legal code. We also know that English commentaries claiming to be 'translations' are being passed off for over 200 years as scholarly work and the work of Hindu scholars of India is being ignored. If interpolated text of Manusmriti is removed, there is nothing left to support alleged Hindu hereditary caste system.

The obvious question that follows is that if the religious case for hereditary caste is so thin, are there any actual Sanskrit verses? There must be a specific shortlist. Ask any academic, any AI, any school textbook. They produce one immediately. Six to eight verses are quoted as settled and beyond dispute. A Gospel truth, if we can use that metaphor. The research however produced startling results. Remember that for this article we ignore the fact that there are interpolated verses in Manusmriti.

Note: BBS hereafter means Brilliant British Scholars.

Research With Artificial Intelligence (AI)

During the research for this series. The same question was put to four different AI systems across multiple sessions over several years. The request was specific each time. Give the Sanskrit verses that establish hereditary caste as divinely ordained in Hindu scripture. Provide the original Devanagari, the transliteration, and the authoritative English translation.

Each system produced a confident list. No two lists were the same.

Verse numbers shifted between systems. The Sanskrit text changed between sessions of the same AI. One system produced Manusmriti 2.148 in a form matching no published edition of that passage. Another produced Manusmriti 10.4 in a form whose Sanskrit directly contradicts the Medhatithi commentary edition.¹

One system, asked to reproduce an earlier verse, produced a different text. The chapter number was also changed. When pressed, it offered a third version.

This is not AI failure. This is what happens when an AI is trained on two centuries of circular scholarship. The systems reconstructed Sanskrit from memory of English translations. They were not reading from a fixed text. AI was reverse engineering Sanskrit verse from a conclusion drawn in English. AI as a 'Large Language Model' was creating Sanskrit text from English commentary.

After enough sessions over two years, we have eight mutually contradictory scriptures, each delivered with complete confidence, each a different reconstruction of the same phantom.

Now let us examine what is actually on that shortlist.

The First Verse: Purusha Sukta, Rigveda 10.90.12

This is the most cited verse of all. It comes from a sixteen-verse hymn in the tenth Mandala of the Rigveda. The Purusha Sukta describes the cosmic being, the Purusha, from whose sacrifice the manifest universe arose. Sun, moon, sky, earth, directions, animals: all emerge together in one cosmogonic event. Verse 12 is where four human functions appear.

Sanskrit:

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद् बाहू राजन्यः कृतः। ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत॥

brāhmaṇo'sya mukham āsīd bāhū rājanyaḥ kṛtaḥ ūrū tad asya yad vaiśyaḥ padbhyāṃ śūdro ajāyata

BBS Translation (Griffith, Muller):

"The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Shudra was produced."²

Read that way, it looks simple. God made four castes from his body parts. The mouth is at the top. The feet are at the bottom. The hierarchy is anatomical and divine.

Now read the Sanskrit. The verse uses four entirely different verbs. The BBS flattened all four as the same thing.

The golden rule of interpretation is this. If different words are used in the same verse, they must be presumed to carry different meanings. Read about the principles of Interpretation here. This rule is applied in every court, in every language, in every century. The BBS violated it. Four different verbs became one: "was produced from." The four distinct processes became one: body parts generating social classes. Ranked by physical position on the standing human body. Who and how they saw it standing?

This is not translation. It is a partial deletion and partial invention.

What do the four verbs actually describe? The Brahmin existed in the voice. Pure potential. Speech before it becomes action. The Kshatriya was actualized through action. The warrior enacts what the scholar speaks. The Vaishya rested in the thighs. Sustaining. Holding. Providing. The Shudra emerged and manifested through the feet.

Now consider what feet do. Not where they are positioned on the body. What they do. Feet connect the body to the earth. Without feet, the body cannot be present anywhere at all. Feet are where the cosmic body manifests in the world. The Shudra is where the divine becomes most concretely visible. Through service.

This is not a modern reinterpretation. Human civilization is built on service. Parents serve children. Children serve the elderly. Every technology ever built exists to serve a human need. Computers serve. AI serves. Autonomous vehicles serve. Remove service and civilization ends in a day. The BBS made the servant the lowest form due to its own bias. The actual verb makes the servant the fullest manifestation of the divine.

The decolonized translation, developed word by word:

Brahmana was the voice of Brahma. Rajanya was his action. In Vaishya, Brahma rested. In Shudra, Brahma emerged and manifested.

There is a further technical impossibility in the BBS reading. The same verb ajāyata appears in verse 13 of the same hymn. There it describes the sun emerging from the Purusha's eye and the moon from his mind.

Nobody reads those as biological births. The sun does not crawl out of an eyeball. Yet the BBS applied "was produced from" to the Shudra in verse 12. While reading "arose" for the sun and moon in verse 13. Inconsistent verb treatment inside the same sixteen-verse hymn is not a mistake. It is a manipulation to support a conclusion drawn before the translation.

One more point from the hymn. Verse 3 states that three-quarters of the Purusha remains undiminished in immortality even after the entire manifest universe arises. If this were a literal physical dismemberment, the body would be depleted. It is not. Nothing is actually removed. Nothing is actually produced. This is symbolic manifestation through correspondence. Cosmic order and social function mirroring each other through poetic language. The Advaita tradition calls this vivarta: apparent manifestation without real transformation. Shankara's school reads such hymns as adhyaropa, provisional superimposition used for teaching.

The BBS imported a different framework entirely. They had read Genesis. They knew Ymir from Norse myth, whose dismembered body literally became rivers and mountains. They imposed that framework on a hymn that belongs to a completely different genre of cosmological poetry. This supported their own European class hierarchy. We discussed this in earlier chapters.

The Second Verse: Rigveda 9.112.3

Here is an example of a Family that destroys the argument. This verse is in Mandala 9 of the Rigveda, the book of Soma. The seer is Shishu Angirasa. The hymn is addressed to Pavamana Soma. Verse 3 describes a single family.

Sanskrit:

कारुरहं ततो भिषगुपलप्रक्षिणी नना। नानाधियो वसूयवोऽनु गा इव तस्थिमेन्द्रायेन्दो परि स्रव॥

kārur ahaṃ tato bhiṣag upalaprakṣiṇī nanā nānādhiyo vasūyavo'nu gā iva tasthimendrayendo pari srava

BBS Translation (Griffith):

"I am a minstrel, Magadhan, a herald; I am a singer, poet, priest, reciter."²

Here is what the verse actually says. The speaker calls himself a craftsman. His father is a physician. His mother grinds grain with stones. Three different occupations. Two generations. One family. Each member following different aims, without hereditary lock. No varna assignment by birth. No divine punishment for mixing roles. No suggestion that this is unusual in any way. It is the most direct Vedic evidence against hereditary caste.

Why this verse is on the shortlist of proof-texts for hereditary caste? Perhaps in the hope that reader would not know Sanskrit and would believe any explanation or translation.

There were four different Sanskrit versions of Rigveda 9.112.3 narrated by different AIs. No two versions match. An AI that was asked to reproduce it in three separate sessions produced three different Sanskrit texts. When confronted the AI answered plainly: "Every cited text was missing, misnumbered, or inverted." Read it straight from your hard copy."*

The GRETIL Gottingen database, which holds machine-readable Sanskrit transcribed directly from published critical editions, was the verification source. It confirms the verse exists at that address. The content confirms a multi-occupational family. But the exact Sanskrit is something this chapter points to, not reproduces from memory.³

This is not a minor footnote. If the verse that best refutes hereditary caste cannot be reproduced consistently by four AI systems. Then the verse that supposedly proves it deserves the same scrutiny. The AI was not hallucinating the refutation verse. It was reconstructing it. The same process was at work when it produced the proof verses. The question is: what was it reconstructing from?

There is one more detail about Griffith's rendering worth naming directly. In other translations of Rigveda 9.112.3, Griffith rendered the word pishtah as "roasted corn." Pishtah means ground flour. Maize did not exist in ancient India. It is a New World crop. It arrived in Asia after 1492 CE. A scholar genuinely fluent in Vedic Sanskrit, working carefully from a text about ancient India, cannot make this error. Corn arrived in Britain as "Indian corn." Griffith simply transferred the English word. He was not reading the Sanskrit. He was reconstructing English from other English.²

The Third Verse: Bhagavad Gita 4.13 Misreading

Sanskrit:

चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः। तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम्॥

cāturvarṇyaṃ mayā sṛṣṭaṃ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ tasya kartāram api māṃ viddhyakartāram avyayam

BBS Translation (Wilkins, 1785):

"The four tribes of men which have issued from me, I created by the distribution of qualities and duties."⁴

Stop at the first half and you have: God created four castes. That is how it has been cited for two hundred years.

There is a grammatical problem before we even reach the content. The word maya does not mean "by me" in the sense of direct personal agency. Any Awadhi or Hindi speaker knows this. Kya bhaya means "what happened." Maya describes happening, process, unfolding. The BBS, trained in Latin grammar where by me would be a straightforward ablative of agent, imported that reading directly. They turned a description of natural process into a divine command. Let me clarify here. Sanskrit is a language where an expression can be made without use of I. me, you, or they. It is impossible to express anything in English.

Now read guna-karma-vibhagashah. According to the distribution of qualities and actions. Qualities are the personal attributes. They vary between individuals. They are not inherited. Actions are thr individual choices. They are not transmitted at birth. The four-fold arrangement arises from the natural distribution of qualities in the world. It is not commanded from above. It is observed below.

The second line is stranger still. Tasya kartaram api mam viddhyakartaram avyayam. Know me as the non-doer of this, the unchanging. The divine explicitly disclaims direct authorship. This arrangement was not handed down as law. It emerged from the nature of things.

Now go to Bhagavad Gita 18.41:

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप। कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः॥

brāhmaṇa-kṣatriya-viśāṃ śūdrāṇāṃ ca paraṃtapa karmāṇi pravibhaktāni svabhāva-prabhavair guṇaiḥ

The duties of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra arise from the qualities born of their own natures. Svabhava: own nature. Not their father's nature. Not their bloodline's nature. Their own.

Bhagavad Gita 4.13 argues against hereditary caste. Bhagavad Gita 18.41 argues against hereditary caste. Yet both are cited as the verses that supposedly prove hereditary caste. Both have been on that list for two hundred years. It is the ugliest example of expoitation of people's lack of knowledge of Sanskrit.

The Fourth Verse: Manusmriti 10.4

Here the problem is not just translation. It is location. The verse cited in popular debate as Manusmriti 10.4 is about mouth, arms, thighs. And feet giving rise to the four varnas. That creation imagery belongs to Manusmriti 1.31 as pointed out in previous chapter. It is an interpolation, as shown in previous chapter yet, even if it is true, the translation has problem.

The actual Manusmriti 10.4. in commentary of Jones and Hopkins relied upon the Medhatithi commentary edition and against Patrick Olivelle's 2005 critical edition compiled from over fifty manuscripts, reads:

Sanskrit:

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्रस्य च स्वकर्मणः। संकरः संप्रवर्तेत मिश्रयोनिसमुद्भवः॥

brāhmaṇa-kṣatriya-viśāṃ śūdrasya ca svakarmaṇaḥ saṅkaraḥ saṃpravarteta miśra-yoni-samudbhavaḥ

BBS Translation (Buhler):

"From a Brahmin with the daughter of a Vaishya, a Shudra, or others, mixed castes are born."¹

Note what the BBS did to yoni. In Sanskrit, yoni means uniting, joining, source. The BBS sexualized it into biological reproduction. Turned a word about joining into a genealogical formula. Then look at samudbhavaḥ. It contains the prefix sam, meaning harmonious, arising together with consensus. The verse is not describing a catastrophe of mixing. It is observing that the functions of the four varnas have blended together. And from this natural joining, integrated forms arise.

Decolonized translation:

The functions of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra have mixed, and from this natural uniting, society arise harmoniously.

Read that way, the verse describes social evolution. Functions blend. New integrated roles appear. This is what Krishna himself embodied: cowherd, warrior, philosopher, spiritual teacher. All four functions in one person across one lifetime. The very figure cited as divine authority for the four-fold system was himself the most conspicuous example of its fluidity.

The Fifth Verse: Manusmriti 2.148 :Action over Birth

Sanskrit:

यत्रास्य कर्तव्यो धर्मो यत्र चाध्यापनं द्विजः। अध्यापनं च धर्मं च नित्यं ब्राह्मण उच्यते॥

yatrāsya kartavyo dharmo yatra cādhyāpanaṃ dvijaḥ adhyāpanaṃ ca dharmaṃ ca nityaṃ brāhmaṇa ucyate

BBS Translation (Buhler):

"His duty is to teach and to sacrifice for others, and to receive gifts. His livelihood is study, teaching, sacrificing, and guiding."¹

The word the BBS rendered as "teaching" is adhyāpanam. In Sanskrit, and in every Hindi speaker's everyday vocabulary, adhyāy means a chapter: material for study. Adhyāpan means the act of studying it. The word describes the student's act, not the teacher's. Any person who opens a Hindi book knows this. It is on the cover of every school textbook in India.

The verse says: here are duties and dharma, and here is study which creates the second birth. One who constantly engages in study and dharma is called a Brahmin.

It is not saying that one who is born to a Brahmin father is called a Brahmin. It says that one who studies is Brahmin. The second birth is not a birth certificate. It is the transformation that comes from genuine engagement with knowledge. Osho called it "dying to yesterday." Krishnamurti called it psychological rebirth. The Upanishads called it dvija: twice-born through knowledge, not through parentage.

This verse was cited in the research for this series as one of three unverified references. AI upon prodding admitted:

"Manusmriti 2.148 does not exist." files give different wording in three separate places. That is a real red flag."*¹

It is included here precisely because it appears on every AI-generated shortlist. In all likelihood it is reverse engineered from the commentary of Jones and Hopkins but even then they could not do a good job. The Sanskrit they used point entirely different meaning.

The Sixth Verse: Vajrasuchika Upanishad

The popular one-line summary of the verse is: na jatya brahmano bhavati. A Brahmin is not such by birth.

This Upanishad poses the question as to who truly is a Brahmin. It lists six candidate definitions: by soul, by birth, by knowledge, by learning, by conduct, by ritual status. It then systematically rejects each one.

The verse cited in debate is placed at verse 2. Verse 2, in the actual text, only lists the candidates and poses the question. It is actual rejection of birth. Vajrasuchi cites sages born from animals and fisherwomen. All of them attained Brahmanhood.

The word doing the work here is jāt. The BBS rendered it as "birth." But jāt in living Sanskrit-derived languages means nature and character, not merely biological origin. There is a Punjabi saying: jaat di korkilli, chateero nu chhaphe. AI could not translate it due it it jaat bias. Actual meaning is that the nature of the lizard is false vanity: it thinks it holds up the roof. The word used for "nature" in that saying is jaat. It is not birth. Jaat refers to character. What a person is, not merely where they came from.

The Vajrasuchika Upanishad does not appear in mainstream academic discussions of the scriptural basis of caste. It actively destroys the hereditary thesis.

The Grammar Distortion Method of the BBS

Across all of these verses, the same set of violations repeats. It is worth naming them as a method, not as individual errors.

First: treating different words as synonyms. The four verbs of Purusha Sukta 10.90.12 are the clearest example. Asit, kritah, asya yad, ajayata: four different roots, four different grammatical forms, four different meanings. The BBS rendered all four as variants of "was produced." This is the cardinal sin of textual interpretation in any tradition.

Second: ignoring voice distinctions. In Bhagavad Gita 4.13, srishtam is passive voice. The four-fold arrangement happened, it was not actively commanded. The BBS read it as active voice: "I created." This imported a Christian creator-God framework foreign to Hindu philosophy, where belief in a personal creator-God is not even obligatory.

Third: using a word's crude biology instead of its cultural function. Yoni in Manusmriti 10.4 means joining. The BBS rendered it as reproductive biology. The same move appears across many verses: wherever Sanskrit uses a functional or symbolic term, the BBS substituted the nearest crude physical equivalent. This is the same error as hearing that an American's favorite food is bacon and concluding that Americans love pigs.

Fourth: importing feudal European vocabulary. The word pati in Rigveda 10.121.1 was rendered as "lord." In Sanskrit, pati is relational, not feudal. Grihapati is the one associated with the house, the householder. Yajnapati is the one connected to the ritual. Pati does not elevate. It describes a relationship. The BBS had Latin dominus in their heads. They found pati and wrote "lord." Their entire conceptual vocabulary was feudal English dressed in Sanskrit phonetics.

Fifth: isolation from living languages. Sanskrit did not die. It evolved in prakrit. It flows into Awadhi, Hindi, Punjabi, Marathi, and dozens of other languages. Any fruit vendor in Ayodhya who says kya bhaya understands that maya means "happening," not "by me." The BBS spent decades in India. They remained linguistically isolated from the very people who carried Sanskrit's living evolution in daily speech. They translated a living language using a foreign dictionary of Europe.

The Varna-Jati Trick

Beyond all the verse-level problems, there is a structural trick that enables all the others.

Varna and Jati are not the same thing. The BBS collapsed them both into one English word: caste.

Varna is the four-fold theoretical classification discussed in texts. Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra. It is a framework for understanding roles and qualities. Discussed primarily in scripture and philosophy. It is an idea. It classify the functions in society.

Jati refers to thousands of actual, local, endogamous birth communities. Tied to region, kinship, language, and a specific traditional occupation. Jati existed on the ground, organized by real social practice. A jati's claimed varna status was often locally asserted or disputed. No single textual authority handed it down.

Once varna and jati are collapsed into one word called caste. Scholars quote a Purusha Sukta verse about varna. They claim it explains all of Indian social history. Those are two different orders of reality. The BBS stitched them together and called the result scholarship.

This is the master trick. It is still being performed in South Asian Studies departments. It is reproduced in AI systems trained on that scholarship. Every time someone asks why Hinduism sanctions caste and receives a Purusha Sukta quote as an answer.

Manusmriti in Actual Practice

Even if every Manusmriti verse cited were correctly located, correctly translated and unambiguous in its meaning, it would still not constitute religious law.

As stated in previous chapter, Manusmriti functioned as jurisprudence, not statute. It worked like Blackstone's Commentaries or Roman juriconsult opinions: guidance for judges and kings, not binding codes. Contradictions between Smritis were normal and expected, because they reflected different contexts and different periods.

In practice, custom and royal edict routinely overrode Smriti rules. Inscriptions and copper-plate grants from medieval India show Shudras and women holding land, entering contracts. And receiving village grants - all of which Manu allegedly "forbade." Kings granted what economics and politics required. Manusmriti was consulted. It was not obeyed.

The Jaimini Mimamsa Sutras state the rule for resolving conflicts: virodhe tv anapeksham syad asati hy anumanam. Where Smriti conflicts with Shruti, the Smriti is disregarded. Smriti's only claim to authority rests on the presumption that it derives from some lost Vedic precedent. That presumption fails the moment an actual contradiction with existing Shruti appears.⁵

Bottom Line

Even at the cost of repetition, from previous chapters it has to be stated again.

The global argument that Hindu religion divinely sanctions hereditary caste rests on this shortlist. The shortlist was assembled by Operation Sanskrit Mill between 1840 and 1910. It was reproduced through circular citation. It was digitized. It entered AI training data. It is returned as confident output every time the question is asked.

It all boils down to a simple argument:

What cannot be located cannot be verified. What cannot be verified cannot be law. What cannot be law cannot be the word of God.

In the next chapter, we shall examine the translation factory that contributed to the distortion of Sanskrit language as a whole and scriptures in particular. We call is "Operation Sanskrit Mill."

References: