Read the given source carefully and answer the questions that follow : (1+1+2=4) Verses from the Upanishads He

Question

Q. Read the given source carefully and answer the questions that follow : (1+1+2=4) Verses from the Upanishads Here are two verses from the Chhandogya Upanishad, a text composed in Sanskrit c. sixth century BCE : The Nature of the Self This self of mine within the heart, is smaller than paddy or barley or mustard or millet or the kernel of a seed of millet. This self of mine within the heart is greater than the earth, greater than the intermediate space, greater than heaven, greater than these worlds. The True Sacrifice This one (the wind) that blows, this is surely a sacrifice ... While moving, it sanctifies all this; therefore it is indeed a sacrifice. (31.1) Mention the main theme of the verse.

(1) (31.2) Mention the relationship between the self and the wind in the context of these verses.

(1) (31.3) How does this source reflect the philosophical ideas of the Upanishads ? (2)

CBSECBSE Class XII Board 2025Subjective· 4mImportance★★★★★

🔒 Locked · start free trial →

You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Concept understanding — Buddhist Social Contract

Let’s start with something you already know. Think about why you follow rules in a group project or why you stop at a red light even when no one is watching. You do it because you understand that if everyone did whatever they wanted, the group would fall apart. That basic trade-off — giving up a little personal freedom in exchange for safety, order, and cooperation — is the seed of every social contract theory.

Now, the Buddhist version of this idea is different from the one you might have read about in Western political thought (like Hobbes or Rousseau). It does not begin with a war of “all against all” or a noble savage. Instead, it starts from a very human observation: people are not perfect, and they need rules to live together peacefully.

The Buddhist Origin Story of Society

The Buddhist texts, especially the Aggañña Sutta (a discourse in the Digha Nikaya), describe a mythical beginning. In the beginning, beings were formless and radiant, living on a kind of mental joy. Over time, they became more material, and the earth appeared. They started eating solid food, and their bodies became coarser. As they ate, some became greedy — they took more than their share. Others became angry. Theft, lying, and conflict arose.

This is the key moment. The people saw that their society was falling into chaos. So, they gathered and made a decision. They chose one person among them — the most handsome, the most capable, the most virtuous — and they elected him to be their king. In return for his authority, they promised to give him a portion of their rice. The king’s job was to maintain order, punish wrongdoers, and protect the people.

Note

This is the core of the Buddhist social contract: it is a voluntary, mutual agreement between the people and the ruler. The people give up some of their rice (taxes) and some of their freedom to act arbitrarily. The ruler gives up the right to rule arbitrarily — he must rule justly, according to Dhamma (the natural law of righteousness).

What Makes It Different from Western Social Contracts?

No “State of Nature” as a war. The Buddhist version does not assume humans are naturally evil. It says greed and ignorance arise, but so does the wisdom to fix the problem.
The ruler is not a sovereign with absolute power. The king is chosen by the people and can be removed if he becomes unjust. His legitimacy comes from consent, not from divine right or conquest.
The contract is not just about security. It is about creating conditions for people to live ethically and progress spiritually. The ruler’s duty is to uphold Dhamma, which includes fairness, non-violence, and care for the poor.
It is a moral contract, not just a political one. Both the ruler and the ruled have duties. The people must obey just laws; the ruler must rule without cruelty or greed.

Why Does This Matter for a Commerce/Humanities Student?

You might think this is ancient history, but the idea has real-world relevance.

It challenges the idea that authority is always top-down. The Buddhist contract says authority flows from the people upward. This is a very early argument for democratic and accountable governance.
It links economics with ethics. The king gets a share of rice — that is taxation. But the purpose of that tax is not to enrich the ruler; it is to fund justice and public welfare. This is a precursor to the idea of a welfare state. …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

The verses from the Chhandogya Upanishad explore the paradoxical nature of the Self (Atman) — simultaneously smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest — and equate the wind (Vayu) with a sacrifice, revealing the Upanishadic core: the unity of the microcosm (individual self) with the macrocosm (cosmic reality).

Main theme of the verse (31.1): The verse describes the Self (Atman) as being both infinitesimally small (smaller than a grain of millet) and infinitely vast (greater than the earth, sky, and all worlds). This is not a contradiction but a profound philosophical statement: the Atman, which resides within the heart of every being, is the same as the ultimate, all-pervading reality (Brahman). It transcends all spatial and physical limitations. The theme is the immanence and transcendence of the Self.
Relationship between the self and the wind (31.2): The second verse identifies the wind (Vayu) as a sacrifice (Yajna). The wind, by constantly moving and purifying everything, performs the function of a sacrifice — it sustains and sanctifies the world. The implied relationship is one of identity and function: just as the Self (Atman) is the inner essence of all beings, the wind is the dynamic, purifying force of the cosmos. Both are manifestations of the same universal principle (Brahman). The wind is not offered in a sacrifice; it is the sacrifice in its cosmic form.
How this source reflects Upanishadic philosophical ideas (31.3): This source is a classic example of the core Upanishadic philosophy, which can be broken down into three key ideas:
- The Doctrine of the Atman-Brahman: The first verse directly teaches the identity of the individual self (Atman) with the ultimate reality (Brahman). The Atman is not a tiny soul trapped in the body; it is the very essence of the universe, both inside and outside all things. The paradoxical description (smallest + largest) is a deliberate teaching tool to break the student's attachment to physical size and location, pointing to a reality that is non-dual and beyond categories. …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Same / Similar Concept — real previous-year questions on the same or a closely similar concept, not this exact question.

CBSE 2025Set 61/2/11 markMCQ
$Q. Which one of the following is a correct statement regarding the codes of social behaviour as laid down in Dharamasutras and Dharmashastras during the period of Mahabharata ? (A) These norms were to be followed by the Brahmins only. (B) These norms were being followed universally. (C) These norms were not followed universally. (D) Only the rulers followed these norms.$
›Reveal solutionSolution
The Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras prescribed ideal codes of social behaviour, but these were not universally followed in practice during the Mahabharata period — the correct statement is that these norms were not followed universally.

The key to this question lies in understanding the difference between prescriptive texts and actual social practice. The Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras (like the Manusmriti) were normative texts — they laid down what should be done according to Brahmanical ideals. But the period of the Mahabharata (roughly 1000 BCE to 400 CE) was one of great social diversity and change. Not everyone, not even all Brahmins, adhered strictly to these codes. The Mahabharata itself is full of stories where characters deviate from these norms — for example, Karna, though a warrior, is denied knowledge because of his low birth, and Draupadi’s polyandry contradicts later Dharmashastric ideals. So the texts were authoritative but not universally obeyed.

Let’s examine each option carefully.

Option (A): "These norms were to be followed by the Brahmins only."

This is incorrect. The Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras explicitly prescribe different duties (varna dharma) for all four varnas — Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. They also include rules for kings, householders, and even outcastes in some contexts. So the codes were meant for everyone, not just Brahmins.

Option (B): "These norms were being followed universally."

This is false. Historical and literary evidence from the Mahabharata period shows widespread variation. For instance, the practice of niyoga (levirate marriage) was accepted in the epic but later condemned in Dharmashastras. Many local customs and tribal practices continued alongside Brahmanical norms. Universal compliance never existed.

Option (C): "These norms were not followed universally." …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →

🎓Unlock everything free for 14 days

Unlock everything free for 14 days