Q.In what ways was the Buddhist theory of a social contract different from the Brahmanical view of society derived from the Purusha sukta?

The Buddhist theory of a social contract and the Brahmanical view from the Purusha sukta differ fundamentally in their origin of social order and the basis of human inequality.

• Origin of society: The Buddhist theory holds that society was formed by a mutual agreement among people to appoint a king and establish laws to end chaos and protect property. In contrast, the Brahmanical view derives society from a cosmic sacrifice, where the four varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras) emerged from different parts of the primeval being Purusha — a divinely ordained, fixed hierarchy.

• Basis of inequality: For Buddhists, social distinctions are not inherent or eternal; they arise from human choices and agreements. The king is chosen by the people and can be removed if unjust. In the Brahmanical view, inequality is natural and sacred — the varna order is part of the cosmic structure, with Brahmins at the top (from the mouth) and Shudras at the bottom (from the feet), making hierarchy permanent and divinely sanctioned. …

To understand the difference, you first need to see what each tradition was trying to explain. Both the Buddhist and Brahmanical thinkers were asking the same big question: why is society organised the way it is? Why are some people powerful and others not? Why do we have rulers, priests, and labourers? Their answers, however, could not have been more different.

The Brahmanical answer, found in the Purusha Sukta of the Rigveda, is a myth of cosmic origin. It describes a primordial being, Purusha, who is sacrificed by the gods. From his body, the four varnas are born: the Brahmana from his mouth, the Kshatriya from his arms, the Vaishya from his thighs, and the Shudra from his feet. This is not a story about human choice or historical events. It is a statement about the eternal, unchanging nature of reality. The hierarchy is built into the very fabric of creation. Your place in society is not something you choose; it is written into the cosmos, as fixed as the parts of a body. The mouth will always be above the feet. This view made the social order sacred, permanent, and beyond question.

The Buddhist theory, which you find in texts like the Aggañña Sutta, takes a radically different approach. It is a social contract theory, and it is strikingly modern in its logic. The Buddha tells a story that begins not with a divine being, but with a world of luminous, self-luminous beings who gradually become coarser and more material. As they do, they develop greed, attachment, and conflict. They start stealing, lying, and fighting. Society, in this view, emerges from a problem: chaos.

Faced with this chaos, the people come together and make a decision. They agree to elect one among themselves — the "Great Elected One" (Mahasammata) — to maintain order, punish wrongdoers, and protect the community. In return, they give him a share of their rice. This is the origin of the king, and by extension, of political authority. Notice what is happening here: the king is chosen by the people. His authority is not divine; it is delegated. It is a contract. If he fails in his duty, the contract is broken.

This leads to several profound differences from the Brahmanical view.

First, the basis of social rank. In the Purusha Sukta, rank is birth-based and eternal. A Shudra is born from the feet and can never become a Brahmana. In the Buddhist view, rank is based on conduct and function. The Buddha explicitly argues that a person is not a Brahmana by birth, but by their actions. A "true Brahmana" is one who is virtuous, not one born into a particular family. The social categories are human creations, not divine decrees. …