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 social contract differed from the Brahmanical view in fundamental ways. According to the Buddhist text Sutta Pitaka, human beings originally lived in peace but became greedy and vindictive over time. To regulate social conflict, they collectively chose a ruler called mahasammata (the great elect). This was a human agreement, not a divine creation.
In contrast, the Brahmanical view derived from the Purusha sukta claimed that the varna order was of divine origin. The four social categories emanated from the sacrificed body of the primeval man—Brahmanas from the mouth, Kshatriyas from arms, Vaishyas from thighs, and Shudras from feet.
The Buddhists rejected the idea that claims to status were based on birth. They recognised social differences but did not regard these as natural or inflexible, unlike the Brahmanical view that justified inequalities as divinely ordained and fixed.
Explanation
This answer compares the two views on three key aspects: (1) Origin of social order—Buddhist view presents it as a human social contract while Brahmanical view claims divine origin from Purusha's body; (2) Nature of social differences—Buddhists saw them as neither natural nor inflexible, whereas Brahmanical view treated varna as divinely ordained; (3) Basis of status—Buddhists rejected birth-based status claims, while Brahmanical view prescribed status determined by birth. The context clearly establishes these distinctions from the Sutta Pitaka myth and the Purusha sukta hymn.