05-23-2006, 05:05 PM
is the current availaible translation of manusmriti authentic or is it anti brahmin- anti hindu lies
IX 3 . "Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence."
IX 18. "Women have no business with the text of the veda."
IX - 17. "(When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct."
can anyone definativly confirm that this is the true translation of the 2nd century mansusmriti? Or is there any truth to the story that current translation of manusmriti was doctored during 500 years of mughal and 200 years of brit rule?
for any one not tired of reading hear is a brife dibate btwn me and other guy on a diffrent forum.
JAY:
Often Hindus, and specifically Brahmins are flogged with the stick of Manusmriti. A while ago I read some parts of Manusmriti posted in one of the posts. It was degrading to women and Sudras. It left me puzzled and confused. It was not what i had known of my religion. I asked few more knowledgeable Hindus about those concepts, they too knew little and only explanation I could get is 1) that no Hindu follows those teachings of Manusmriti and 2) it mentions in Manusmriti itself, that when Manuscriptâs teaching seem in contradiction with that of Vedas one is suppose to follow the teachings of Veda. But this explanation did not satisfy me. I could not imagine that any Hindu scriptures would carry such verses as were mentioned here, as a part of Manusmriti.
But only recently I got an explanation that made more sense.
There is absolutely no proof that the current verses of Manusmriti are authentic and are the ones written in the 2nd century. The current available verses are in all probabilities doctored during the 300 years of Mughal and 200 years of British rule. The Manusmriti is the only scripture among all of several Vedic scriptures that carries such degrading teachings about woman and Sudras. Its teachings stands in total isolation with teachings of Gita, Mahabharat, Ramayan, Upnishad etc. Therefore it is totally unrealistic to believe that the society that so fondly adheres to the values of Mahabharata, Gita and Upnishad would have accepted the alleged teachings of Manusmriti.
The next question would be why only was Manusmriti altered? Well, most likely because it was the only scripture that gives specific guidelines of social conducts, just like Quran and Bible. Other Vedic Scriptures like Mahabharat and Upnishad are more spiritual and esoteric.
Any one knows if any alleged orginal manuscript of Manusmriti exsists?
Pradyumna:
Member since: December 2003
ignore all posts by this user
As i've mentioned previously, Hinduism requires that you take what is useful and right, and discard that which is contrary to good judgement and dharma.
As far as the Manusmriti and the Vedas are concerned, it is suggested that where Manusmriti differs from Vedic teachings, one should follow the Vedic teachings. Secondly, Smriti is that "which is heard" in other words, it is transmitted orally from teacher-student in succession, and quite possibly over the years, has had numerous changes and add-ons reflecting the various times in Indian history. The vedas on the other hand, are "those which are revealed" to enlightened sages. These are constants and are not subject to human intervention and corruption - only mis-interpretation by those who are not qualified in understanding their riddled and sometime paradoxical statements.
In regards to "shudras" it should be understood well that in the original caste system "shudra" was a word for "apprentice" and hence "lower class" than those in established professions. Everyone was born as shudra (one not knowing what one's purpose/duty in life is, but is engaged in finding out), and is later (according to talent, skill, and development) relegated to one of the established classes (brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, etc.) according to one's capacty and temperament (see for example, statements in Bhagavad Gita regarding the origins and reality of the Caste system). For instance, take the sacred thread ceremony (yagnopavita / upanayanam) that leads to one's entrance into the stage of "Brahmacharya" - such men are known as "twice born" because they have renounced their state of shudra / apprentice ship, and have mentally accepted their role as brahmins. At this stage, one has to perform the duties of a brahmin and must learn the vedic teachings so that they may be properly interpreted and passed on. That is the core role of brahmins in society - in parallel with their quest for self-realization through study of scriptures, practice of rituals, and eventually sannyasa (mental) leading to either jivanmukta or mukthi after physical death.
It should also be noted that by "not consulting Brahmanas" - they are referring to the guidance and wisdom of those who have made significant progress in the spiritual journey (saints, etc.) who have the frame of mind, to guide kshatriyas (administrators, kings, etc.) on the righteous path. It is because the "kings" and "rulers" of today not following the counsel of wise men - peace loving men - that the world is subject to the whims of power-hungry people. A brahmana (true one) is one who has renounced everything - and thereby may be said to be a "wise man" whose interests are in the welfare of the world - and not in selfish gains. Only by following the precepts of such people who have no personal conflicts of interest or selfish motives, can we move along the right path in terms of our social dharma. Otherwise, we breed a society where the strong rule the weak, and injustice will inevitably prevail. Only a man who doesn't want power, may be given power to rule - otherwise you invite disaster. Only a man who has surrendered everythign to God (his lust, his passions, his power-hungry impulses, his personal needs) will be able to resist the temptations of power, and thereby rule in a just manner. That is why Rama was considered a great ruler - he was the ideal administrator, as well as man (if you interpret the Ramayana correctly). Everythine he did, he did despite his own personal biases and interests - he did them for the welfare of the world, and always listened to his family-lineages divine Guru's (preceptors / self-realized sages) - Vasishta and Visvamitra. Recall that Vashishta was one of the original 7 sages (sapta-rishis) who was born from the mind of Brahma (his thoughts created the universe afterall) - hence, he is known as one of the 7 original "mind-born" sons of Brahma. You can even see the constellations Vasishta and Arundhati (the sage and his wife) in the constellation of the pleiadies star cluster at certain times of the year. I believe these are the two brightest stars in our visual range (the pole stars). The pleiadies is a cluster of 7 stars, from which, legend has it, our seven sages originated (yes, Hinduism does *say* this! i'm not making this up) ... if interepreted one way, the human race may have been the product of a potentially alien civilization representing the 7 sages. (a hypothesis that will take quite a long time to hash out, undoubtedly)
By not following this tradition, manu-smriti indicates that several "tribes" (possibly the origins of the rest of european civilization as we know it) began to diverge from the vedic path ... note the translation of the different tribal names to "persians" "greeks" etc. It was well known that back int he day, wise men of Greece and far-away lands would visit india to learn the arts, sciences, philosophical disciplines, and some came back enlightened or self-realized. Having read the works of "Marcus Aurelius" I sometimes wonder if he's not a self-realized man himself... (check out "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius)
Anyway, here are some interesting points of note from Wiki-pedia that describes them more generally, draw your own conclusions...
---
The Manusmriti (Sanskrit ?????????), translated "Laws of Manu" or "Institutions of Manu", is regarded as a foundational work of Hindu law and ancient Indian society, compiled and written quite late, c.200 CE in India. It is one of the eighteen Smritis of the Dharma Sastra (or "laws of righteous conduct"); Smriti means "what is remembered" and is applied in general to a Hindu text other than the Vedas, including traditional Indian epics, the Puranas, and science and grammar treatises. Unlike the Vedas which are considered to be eternal or of divine origin, the Smritis are considered to be of human origin and therefore susceptible to the flaws of humans. They contain laws, rules and codes of conduct to be applied by individuals, communities and nations. Some of these laws codify the Hindu caste system and discuss the "stages of life for a twice-born man". The book is ascribed to Manu, said to be the forefather of all human race. Manu's writings prescribe a particular ideal of Indian society, conforming to detailed social and religious rules which are expressed as being in line with the universal ethical principle of 'dharma'. For many scholars, it is merely one (particularly influential) set of laws to which many Hindus have appealled - others guides to social practice exist, and have complemented or contradicted Manu throughout India's history and across its communities.
Manusmriti was quoted, especially by the British Colonial rulers of India as "the law-book" of the Hindus. Some Hindus allege that the colonial rulers, like Robert Clive and Lord Macaulay, would have found it a useful tool. They have argued that the caste system as prescribed by the Manusmriti developed a society that was very easy to subjugate and rule[citation needed]. Some people over the ages have quoted or interpreted the Manusmriti to justify Brahmin supremacy, the sanctity of the caste system and the lower status given to the so-called Dalits.
Manusmriti is a key text in justifying and prescribing the detailed precepts of the caste system. In it, society consists of four (later hereditary) classes - Brahmanas (teachers and priests), Kshatriyas (administrators and armymen), Vaishyas, also called as Aryas (traders, farmers and herdsmen) and Shudras (servants). It clearly defined the relative position and the duties of the several castes, and determined the penalties to be indicted on any transgressions of the limits assigned to each of them.
While the origins of caste system in India are still not clear, Manusmriti makes the following statement on the subject:
shanakaistu kriya-lopadimah Kshatriya-jatayah |
vrashalatvam gata loke brahmna-darshanen cha ||43||
Paundrash-Chaudra-Dravidah-Kamboja-Yavanah-Shakah |
Paradah Pahlavash-Chinah Kirata Daradah Khashah ||44||
â (Manusmritti, X.43-44)
which according to Indian History Sourcebook (The Laws of Manu) translates as follows:
43. But in consequence of the omission of the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas, the following tribes of Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Shudras;
44. (Viz.) the Paundrakas, the Chodas, the Dravidas, the Kambojas, the Yavanas, the Shakas, the Paradas, the Pahlavas, the Chinas, the Kiratas, the Daradas and the Khashas.
Indian History Sourcebook: The Laws of Manu, c. 1500 BC, translated by G. Buhler
The Daradas lived to north-east of Kashmir, the Paradas on river Sailoda in Sinkiang province of China, the Kambojas in the regions of Pamirs (Tajikstan) and Badakshan (Afghanistan) north of Hindukush, the Yavanas in Bactria (Balkh) and the Shakas (Scythians) beyond river Jaxartes (Syr Darya) in Central Asia. The Pahlavas refer to the Persians. The Yavanas of Manu Smriti refer to the Greeks but in the after-times, the terms "Yavana" or "Yona", "Yonaka" took on a wider meaning of Mlechchas/Barbarians and a designation to all foreign tribes or the westerners visiting India (Padama Purana, Srshtikanda, 47.69-75).
Contents
Praise of the Manusmriti
In contrast to the ethical and historical criticisms of the caste system or Varna Vyavastha elaborated in the Manusmrti, defenders claim that it has rendered the society organized and peaceful, has decreased unemployment, created respect for teachers and priests, and preserved the ancient Hindu principles of purity in food and in family. It also strongly recommends the study of the Vedas and Vedic worship, and thus has arguably been a force for preservation of Vedic Hinduism.
Some of the positive injunctions of Manusmriti are:
* II - 2. "To act solely from a desire for rewards is not laudable, yet an exemption from that desire is not (to be found) in this (world): for on (that) desire is grounded the study of the Veda and the performance of the actions, prescribed by the Veda."
* II - 3. "The desire (for rewards), indeed, has its root in the conception that an act can yield them, and in consequence of (that) conception sacrifices are performed; vows and the laws prescribing restraints are all stated to be kept through the idea that they will bear fruit."
* III - 13. "The knowledge of the sacred law is prescribed for those who are not given to the acquisition of wealth and to the gratification of their desires; to those who seek the knowledge of the sacred law the supreme authority is the revelation (Sruti)."
* III - 93. "Through the attachment of his organs (to sensual pleasure) a man doubtlessly will incur guilt; but if he keep them under complete control, he will obtain success (in gaining all his aims)."
* III - 161. "Let him (a Student) not, even though in pain, (speak words) cutting (others) to the quick; let him not injure others in thought or deed; let him not utter speeches which make (others) afraid of him, since that will prevent him from gaining heaven."
* III - 162. "A Brahmana should always fear homage as if it were poison; and constantly desire (to suffer) scorn as (he would long for) nectar."
* IV - 2. "A Brahmana must seek a means of subsistence which either causes no, or at least little pain (to others), and live (by that) except in times of distress."
* IV - 3. "For the purpose of gaining bare subsistence, let him (a Brahmana) accumulate property by (following those) irreproachable occupations (which are prescribed for) his (caste), without (unduly) fatiguing his body."
* VI - 60. "By the restraint of his senses, by the destruction of love and hatred, and by the abstention from injuring the creatures, he becomes fit for immortality."
* VIII - 13. "Either the court (of justice) must not be entered, or the truth must be spoken; a man who either says nothing or speaks falsely, becomes sinful."
* VIII - 14. "Where justice is destroyed by injustice, or truth by falsehood, while the judges look on, there they shall also be destroyed."
[Updated on: Sun, 05/21/06 11:47 AM ]
Kashyap:
Member since: July 2004
ignore all posts by this user
Thanks Pradyumna.Thats very informative.
My 2 cents:
Yes..The ManuSmriti is a "Smriti" compared to the Vedas which are considered "Shrutis".
A friend told me that Smritis are scholarly works while the Shrutis are a result of direct experience or revealation. Smritis are effective/ applicable for limited time periods while Shrutis are timeless.
Just had a thought that the ManuSmriti is like the Kama Sutra...
Probably well researched and written
Often misquoted/ misunderstood
A SOCIAL rather than SPIRITUAL work
kashyap
Report this post to a moderator
JAY:
Thats fine but quotes like these
IX 3 . "Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence."
IX 18. "Women have no business with the text of the veda."
IX - 17. "(When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct."
which are claimed to be in manusmriti cannot be authentic. It is absolutely impossible the culture that wrote, Mahabharat, Vedas, Upnishad could tolerate let alone write such thoughts about women. Any attempts of explaining such quote by any reasoning would give validity to lies. Does any one have definitive proof that this is the correct translation of the correct quotes from the original Manusmriti written in 2nd century AD? Unless that is proved, no explanations on any of the slendorous quotes should be given. They should be called for what they are, deliberate and systemic attempt of degrading and demoralizing our otherwise much refined society.
[Updated on: Mon, 05/22/06 07:41 PM ]
Report this post to a moderator
Re: The Manusmriti Issue [post #569653 is a reply to post #568525 ] Mon, 05/22/06 07:16 PM
jay
Member since: December 2005
ignore all posts by this user
Pradyumna wrote on Sun, 21 May 2006 08:29
In regards to "shudras" it should be understood well that in the original caste system "shudra" was a word for "apprentice" and hence "lower class" than those in established professions.
Interesting. what is the source of this information.
Report this post to a moderator
Pradyumna:
Member since: December 2003
ignore all posts by this user
I apologize, I don't have the original source - but I did read about it many years back.
As far as those particular statements you highlighted, again, Hindu culture did not produce the vedas - the vedas were words of the divine (Krishna, etc.) to the people who followed sanatana dharma. The Manusmrithis were written by men, of power, who were influenced heavily by the prevailing ideas of the time. You can't escape your cultural input - the same texts Bhagavad Gita, etc. interpreted by a man who was heavily influenced by the cultural paternalistic thinking, would naturally interpret things with his own limited analytical skill. Only a purely unbiased mind can arrive at the right conclusions - those who wrote the manusmrithi's were not self-realized - just "wise" administrators of that day and age. The history is not important - what is important is that YOU knowing what you know, DO the RIGHT thing for *this* time-period, and *this context*. We have to live in today's world, balancing what we know is fair and right with our best understanding of how to progress spiritually.
The problem we keep running into is that people keep mixing *spirituality* with *culturality*. Indian culture is not perfect by any means; but it has a lot of good and valuable things to teach us going forward. No culture is perfect, but you take the best, and move forward. God doesn't give a crap about your cultural ideas - he's not involved with all that. He wants you to realize who you are - and that has always been, and always will be his only message. The rest are going to change as functions of political systems, cultural thought, philosophical views (on ethics, morality, etc.) and god knows what. Time changes everything - the only constant is the fundamental truth that God reminds people of from time to time.
Report this post to a moderator
JAY:
Member since: December 2005
ignore all posts by this user
AGAIN, what all you say makes sense only after one is convinced beyond doubt that the above mentioned quotes are authentic quotes from Manusmirity. What reason do we as Hindus have to accept those quotes as authentic part of our past?
The quotes may have little or no spiritual impact as spirituality is everyone's personal business. But validity of those quotes have significant social and political ramification. In this world of mortals that is a religion's first goal. A healthy society.
Understanding about Krishna and Ram is all fine but non of them are going to come save you when those who believe those quote to be authentic, come to savage you and your family thinking you to be the devil you were made to be by these very quotes.
These splinters of lies, if ignored will infect our society, killing us not by our wounds but by our complacenc
Pradyumna:
Member since: December 2003
ignore all posts by this user
At the end of the day, our culture is going to die off anyway. So is every other culture. The culture of hinduism today is not the same as it was 1000 years ago. The spiritual truths will remain intact - assuming there is a spiritual truth in the first place (some introspective faith in something larger than ourselves helps here - intuition if you will). If you think that the culture of hindu's today has anything to do with the culture of indians 100 years ago, you are quite misinformed.
My basic question is this: what reason do you need to accept or reject manusmrithi? It has no relevance to your life today. It has no relevance to spirituality. Whatever is useful has lived on, whatever isn't, has or will soon die off. That is the natural order of things. Your goal is to live in the here and now, while figuring out who you really are - it doesn't matter what who said when. The fact that the bhagavad gita is authentic, is enough to drive one's spiritual quest to find one's true self. The rest, really don't mean anything beyond the fact that they may provide historical context, if that. Religion is too often confused with memorization of historical facts (notorious in Christianity), whereas spirituality has nothing to do with history - it is a deep investigation into the here and now. Even if you don't accept the bhagavad gita, you will still be able to do a serious introspective analysis of yourself, and arrive at the same conclusions - but it will take you longer. So, a little faith is required at the beginning; the proof as they say will be in the pudding. If it helps you, you must be doing something right. Find out what that something is, then reject the rest.
Culture, like all natural things or even emergent phenomenon, is subject to entropy. Spirituality, being outside the realm of what is observed, is not subject to birth-growth-decay-death. It remains in tact, despite whatever conceptions or misconceptions you may have. You just have to clear away the misconceptions, until the truth becomes self-evident. The vedas describe this process as "neti neti" or an introspective awareness that the self is "not this, ....not this..." so to speak. That is, not that which I observe with my eyes, not that which I hear with my ears, not that which I taste with my tongue, ... if you continue in this manner observing all the observable things and tracing them to their source; you eventually arrive at the source of that source... and the unspoken/unseen/unheard source behind *that* source is the Self. In the beginning, you can infer the truth; in the end, you experience the truth as yourself - or so the ancients have said.
My point is, Manusmrithi be damned - we live in the 21st century. If god is really upset with us, let him take a human form and re-instruct us at his discretion. We cannot be held accountable for the knowledge passed on thousands of years ago in shoddy form. Even if hinduism were to die today, it is God's responsibility, not ours to ressurect it. You came into this world with its cultures, its problems, its faiths, its what-nots, ... you assume responsibility for what was never really yours ... you undergo untold miseries for problems you think you inherited... and you lose precious time in analyzing and realizing your true nature in external pursuits. Even pursuing the origins of religious/spiritual documents is an external thing and will not lead you any closer to realization. You think that *they* have the answers, when the real answers are within yourself, which you continually ignore. If you, who know yourself so well (being you), cannot see yourself, what chance does some joe shmo from abu-dabi have in tellling you about yourself? Challenge your own assumptions, observe your own mind, live in a manner consistent with your words and your thoughts. Have faith that He can and will do whatever is necessary to bring mankind onto the path that leads to him.
IX 3 . "Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence."
IX 18. "Women have no business with the text of the veda."
IX - 17. "(When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct."
can anyone definativly confirm that this is the true translation of the 2nd century mansusmriti? Or is there any truth to the story that current translation of manusmriti was doctored during 500 years of mughal and 200 years of brit rule?
for any one not tired of reading hear is a brife dibate btwn me and other guy on a diffrent forum.
JAY:
Often Hindus, and specifically Brahmins are flogged with the stick of Manusmriti. A while ago I read some parts of Manusmriti posted in one of the posts. It was degrading to women and Sudras. It left me puzzled and confused. It was not what i had known of my religion. I asked few more knowledgeable Hindus about those concepts, they too knew little and only explanation I could get is 1) that no Hindu follows those teachings of Manusmriti and 2) it mentions in Manusmriti itself, that when Manuscriptâs teaching seem in contradiction with that of Vedas one is suppose to follow the teachings of Veda. But this explanation did not satisfy me. I could not imagine that any Hindu scriptures would carry such verses as were mentioned here, as a part of Manusmriti.
But only recently I got an explanation that made more sense.
There is absolutely no proof that the current verses of Manusmriti are authentic and are the ones written in the 2nd century. The current available verses are in all probabilities doctored during the 300 years of Mughal and 200 years of British rule. The Manusmriti is the only scripture among all of several Vedic scriptures that carries such degrading teachings about woman and Sudras. Its teachings stands in total isolation with teachings of Gita, Mahabharat, Ramayan, Upnishad etc. Therefore it is totally unrealistic to believe that the society that so fondly adheres to the values of Mahabharata, Gita and Upnishad would have accepted the alleged teachings of Manusmriti.
The next question would be why only was Manusmriti altered? Well, most likely because it was the only scripture that gives specific guidelines of social conducts, just like Quran and Bible. Other Vedic Scriptures like Mahabharat and Upnishad are more spiritual and esoteric.
Any one knows if any alleged orginal manuscript of Manusmriti exsists?
Pradyumna:
Member since: December 2003
ignore all posts by this user
As i've mentioned previously, Hinduism requires that you take what is useful and right, and discard that which is contrary to good judgement and dharma.
As far as the Manusmriti and the Vedas are concerned, it is suggested that where Manusmriti differs from Vedic teachings, one should follow the Vedic teachings. Secondly, Smriti is that "which is heard" in other words, it is transmitted orally from teacher-student in succession, and quite possibly over the years, has had numerous changes and add-ons reflecting the various times in Indian history. The vedas on the other hand, are "those which are revealed" to enlightened sages. These are constants and are not subject to human intervention and corruption - only mis-interpretation by those who are not qualified in understanding their riddled and sometime paradoxical statements.
In regards to "shudras" it should be understood well that in the original caste system "shudra" was a word for "apprentice" and hence "lower class" than those in established professions. Everyone was born as shudra (one not knowing what one's purpose/duty in life is, but is engaged in finding out), and is later (according to talent, skill, and development) relegated to one of the established classes (brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, etc.) according to one's capacty and temperament (see for example, statements in Bhagavad Gita regarding the origins and reality of the Caste system). For instance, take the sacred thread ceremony (yagnopavita / upanayanam) that leads to one's entrance into the stage of "Brahmacharya" - such men are known as "twice born" because they have renounced their state of shudra / apprentice ship, and have mentally accepted their role as brahmins. At this stage, one has to perform the duties of a brahmin and must learn the vedic teachings so that they may be properly interpreted and passed on. That is the core role of brahmins in society - in parallel with their quest for self-realization through study of scriptures, practice of rituals, and eventually sannyasa (mental) leading to either jivanmukta or mukthi after physical death.
It should also be noted that by "not consulting Brahmanas" - they are referring to the guidance and wisdom of those who have made significant progress in the spiritual journey (saints, etc.) who have the frame of mind, to guide kshatriyas (administrators, kings, etc.) on the righteous path. It is because the "kings" and "rulers" of today not following the counsel of wise men - peace loving men - that the world is subject to the whims of power-hungry people. A brahmana (true one) is one who has renounced everything - and thereby may be said to be a "wise man" whose interests are in the welfare of the world - and not in selfish gains. Only by following the precepts of such people who have no personal conflicts of interest or selfish motives, can we move along the right path in terms of our social dharma. Otherwise, we breed a society where the strong rule the weak, and injustice will inevitably prevail. Only a man who doesn't want power, may be given power to rule - otherwise you invite disaster. Only a man who has surrendered everythign to God (his lust, his passions, his power-hungry impulses, his personal needs) will be able to resist the temptations of power, and thereby rule in a just manner. That is why Rama was considered a great ruler - he was the ideal administrator, as well as man (if you interpret the Ramayana correctly). Everythine he did, he did despite his own personal biases and interests - he did them for the welfare of the world, and always listened to his family-lineages divine Guru's (preceptors / self-realized sages) - Vasishta and Visvamitra. Recall that Vashishta was one of the original 7 sages (sapta-rishis) who was born from the mind of Brahma (his thoughts created the universe afterall) - hence, he is known as one of the 7 original "mind-born" sons of Brahma. You can even see the constellations Vasishta and Arundhati (the sage and his wife) in the constellation of the pleiadies star cluster at certain times of the year. I believe these are the two brightest stars in our visual range (the pole stars). The pleiadies is a cluster of 7 stars, from which, legend has it, our seven sages originated (yes, Hinduism does *say* this! i'm not making this up) ... if interepreted one way, the human race may have been the product of a potentially alien civilization representing the 7 sages. (a hypothesis that will take quite a long time to hash out, undoubtedly)
By not following this tradition, manu-smriti indicates that several "tribes" (possibly the origins of the rest of european civilization as we know it) began to diverge from the vedic path ... note the translation of the different tribal names to "persians" "greeks" etc. It was well known that back int he day, wise men of Greece and far-away lands would visit india to learn the arts, sciences, philosophical disciplines, and some came back enlightened or self-realized. Having read the works of "Marcus Aurelius" I sometimes wonder if he's not a self-realized man himself... (check out "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius)
Anyway, here are some interesting points of note from Wiki-pedia that describes them more generally, draw your own conclusions...
---
The Manusmriti (Sanskrit ?????????), translated "Laws of Manu" or "Institutions of Manu", is regarded as a foundational work of Hindu law and ancient Indian society, compiled and written quite late, c.200 CE in India. It is one of the eighteen Smritis of the Dharma Sastra (or "laws of righteous conduct"); Smriti means "what is remembered" and is applied in general to a Hindu text other than the Vedas, including traditional Indian epics, the Puranas, and science and grammar treatises. Unlike the Vedas which are considered to be eternal or of divine origin, the Smritis are considered to be of human origin and therefore susceptible to the flaws of humans. They contain laws, rules and codes of conduct to be applied by individuals, communities and nations. Some of these laws codify the Hindu caste system and discuss the "stages of life for a twice-born man". The book is ascribed to Manu, said to be the forefather of all human race. Manu's writings prescribe a particular ideal of Indian society, conforming to detailed social and religious rules which are expressed as being in line with the universal ethical principle of 'dharma'. For many scholars, it is merely one (particularly influential) set of laws to which many Hindus have appealled - others guides to social practice exist, and have complemented or contradicted Manu throughout India's history and across its communities.
Manusmriti was quoted, especially by the British Colonial rulers of India as "the law-book" of the Hindus. Some Hindus allege that the colonial rulers, like Robert Clive and Lord Macaulay, would have found it a useful tool. They have argued that the caste system as prescribed by the Manusmriti developed a society that was very easy to subjugate and rule[citation needed]. Some people over the ages have quoted or interpreted the Manusmriti to justify Brahmin supremacy, the sanctity of the caste system and the lower status given to the so-called Dalits.
Manusmriti is a key text in justifying and prescribing the detailed precepts of the caste system. In it, society consists of four (later hereditary) classes - Brahmanas (teachers and priests), Kshatriyas (administrators and armymen), Vaishyas, also called as Aryas (traders, farmers and herdsmen) and Shudras (servants). It clearly defined the relative position and the duties of the several castes, and determined the penalties to be indicted on any transgressions of the limits assigned to each of them.
While the origins of caste system in India are still not clear, Manusmriti makes the following statement on the subject:
shanakaistu kriya-lopadimah Kshatriya-jatayah |
vrashalatvam gata loke brahmna-darshanen cha ||43||
Paundrash-Chaudra-Dravidah-Kamboja-Yavanah-Shakah |
Paradah Pahlavash-Chinah Kirata Daradah Khashah ||44||
â (Manusmritti, X.43-44)
which according to Indian History Sourcebook (The Laws of Manu) translates as follows:
43. But in consequence of the omission of the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas, the following tribes of Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Shudras;
44. (Viz.) the Paundrakas, the Chodas, the Dravidas, the Kambojas, the Yavanas, the Shakas, the Paradas, the Pahlavas, the Chinas, the Kiratas, the Daradas and the Khashas.
Indian History Sourcebook: The Laws of Manu, c. 1500 BC, translated by G. Buhler
The Daradas lived to north-east of Kashmir, the Paradas on river Sailoda in Sinkiang province of China, the Kambojas in the regions of Pamirs (Tajikstan) and Badakshan (Afghanistan) north of Hindukush, the Yavanas in Bactria (Balkh) and the Shakas (Scythians) beyond river Jaxartes (Syr Darya) in Central Asia. The Pahlavas refer to the Persians. The Yavanas of Manu Smriti refer to the Greeks but in the after-times, the terms "Yavana" or "Yona", "Yonaka" took on a wider meaning of Mlechchas/Barbarians and a designation to all foreign tribes or the westerners visiting India (Padama Purana, Srshtikanda, 47.69-75).
Contents
Praise of the Manusmriti
In contrast to the ethical and historical criticisms of the caste system or Varna Vyavastha elaborated in the Manusmrti, defenders claim that it has rendered the society organized and peaceful, has decreased unemployment, created respect for teachers and priests, and preserved the ancient Hindu principles of purity in food and in family. It also strongly recommends the study of the Vedas and Vedic worship, and thus has arguably been a force for preservation of Vedic Hinduism.
Some of the positive injunctions of Manusmriti are:
* II - 2. "To act solely from a desire for rewards is not laudable, yet an exemption from that desire is not (to be found) in this (world): for on (that) desire is grounded the study of the Veda and the performance of the actions, prescribed by the Veda."
* II - 3. "The desire (for rewards), indeed, has its root in the conception that an act can yield them, and in consequence of (that) conception sacrifices are performed; vows and the laws prescribing restraints are all stated to be kept through the idea that they will bear fruit."
* III - 13. "The knowledge of the sacred law is prescribed for those who are not given to the acquisition of wealth and to the gratification of their desires; to those who seek the knowledge of the sacred law the supreme authority is the revelation (Sruti)."
* III - 93. "Through the attachment of his organs (to sensual pleasure) a man doubtlessly will incur guilt; but if he keep them under complete control, he will obtain success (in gaining all his aims)."
* III - 161. "Let him (a Student) not, even though in pain, (speak words) cutting (others) to the quick; let him not injure others in thought or deed; let him not utter speeches which make (others) afraid of him, since that will prevent him from gaining heaven."
* III - 162. "A Brahmana should always fear homage as if it were poison; and constantly desire (to suffer) scorn as (he would long for) nectar."
* IV - 2. "A Brahmana must seek a means of subsistence which either causes no, or at least little pain (to others), and live (by that) except in times of distress."
* IV - 3. "For the purpose of gaining bare subsistence, let him (a Brahmana) accumulate property by (following those) irreproachable occupations (which are prescribed for) his (caste), without (unduly) fatiguing his body."
* VI - 60. "By the restraint of his senses, by the destruction of love and hatred, and by the abstention from injuring the creatures, he becomes fit for immortality."
* VIII - 13. "Either the court (of justice) must not be entered, or the truth must be spoken; a man who either says nothing or speaks falsely, becomes sinful."
* VIII - 14. "Where justice is destroyed by injustice, or truth by falsehood, while the judges look on, there they shall also be destroyed."
[Updated on: Sun, 05/21/06 11:47 AM ]
Kashyap:
Member since: July 2004
ignore all posts by this user
Thanks Pradyumna.Thats very informative.
My 2 cents:
Yes..The ManuSmriti is a "Smriti" compared to the Vedas which are considered "Shrutis".
A friend told me that Smritis are scholarly works while the Shrutis are a result of direct experience or revealation. Smritis are effective/ applicable for limited time periods while Shrutis are timeless.
Just had a thought that the ManuSmriti is like the Kama Sutra...
Probably well researched and written
Often misquoted/ misunderstood
A SOCIAL rather than SPIRITUAL work
kashyap
Report this post to a moderator
JAY:
Thats fine but quotes like these
IX 3 . "Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence."
IX 18. "Women have no business with the text of the veda."
IX - 17. "(When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct."
which are claimed to be in manusmriti cannot be authentic. It is absolutely impossible the culture that wrote, Mahabharat, Vedas, Upnishad could tolerate let alone write such thoughts about women. Any attempts of explaining such quote by any reasoning would give validity to lies. Does any one have definitive proof that this is the correct translation of the correct quotes from the original Manusmriti written in 2nd century AD? Unless that is proved, no explanations on any of the slendorous quotes should be given. They should be called for what they are, deliberate and systemic attempt of degrading and demoralizing our otherwise much refined society.
[Updated on: Mon, 05/22/06 07:41 PM ]
Report this post to a moderator
Re: The Manusmriti Issue [post #569653 is a reply to post #568525 ] Mon, 05/22/06 07:16 PM
jay
Member since: December 2005
ignore all posts by this user
Pradyumna wrote on Sun, 21 May 2006 08:29
In regards to "shudras" it should be understood well that in the original caste system "shudra" was a word for "apprentice" and hence "lower class" than those in established professions.
Interesting. what is the source of this information.
Report this post to a moderator
Pradyumna:
Member since: December 2003
ignore all posts by this user
I apologize, I don't have the original source - but I did read about it many years back.
As far as those particular statements you highlighted, again, Hindu culture did not produce the vedas - the vedas were words of the divine (Krishna, etc.) to the people who followed sanatana dharma. The Manusmrithis were written by men, of power, who were influenced heavily by the prevailing ideas of the time. You can't escape your cultural input - the same texts Bhagavad Gita, etc. interpreted by a man who was heavily influenced by the cultural paternalistic thinking, would naturally interpret things with his own limited analytical skill. Only a purely unbiased mind can arrive at the right conclusions - those who wrote the manusmrithi's were not self-realized - just "wise" administrators of that day and age. The history is not important - what is important is that YOU knowing what you know, DO the RIGHT thing for *this* time-period, and *this context*. We have to live in today's world, balancing what we know is fair and right with our best understanding of how to progress spiritually.
The problem we keep running into is that people keep mixing *spirituality* with *culturality*. Indian culture is not perfect by any means; but it has a lot of good and valuable things to teach us going forward. No culture is perfect, but you take the best, and move forward. God doesn't give a crap about your cultural ideas - he's not involved with all that. He wants you to realize who you are - and that has always been, and always will be his only message. The rest are going to change as functions of political systems, cultural thought, philosophical views (on ethics, morality, etc.) and god knows what. Time changes everything - the only constant is the fundamental truth that God reminds people of from time to time.
Report this post to a moderator
JAY:
Member since: December 2005
ignore all posts by this user
AGAIN, what all you say makes sense only after one is convinced beyond doubt that the above mentioned quotes are authentic quotes from Manusmirity. What reason do we as Hindus have to accept those quotes as authentic part of our past?
The quotes may have little or no spiritual impact as spirituality is everyone's personal business. But validity of those quotes have significant social and political ramification. In this world of mortals that is a religion's first goal. A healthy society.
Understanding about Krishna and Ram is all fine but non of them are going to come save you when those who believe those quote to be authentic, come to savage you and your family thinking you to be the devil you were made to be by these very quotes.
These splinters of lies, if ignored will infect our society, killing us not by our wounds but by our complacenc
Pradyumna:
Member since: December 2003
ignore all posts by this user
At the end of the day, our culture is going to die off anyway. So is every other culture. The culture of hinduism today is not the same as it was 1000 years ago. The spiritual truths will remain intact - assuming there is a spiritual truth in the first place (some introspective faith in something larger than ourselves helps here - intuition if you will). If you think that the culture of hindu's today has anything to do with the culture of indians 100 years ago, you are quite misinformed.
My basic question is this: what reason do you need to accept or reject manusmrithi? It has no relevance to your life today. It has no relevance to spirituality. Whatever is useful has lived on, whatever isn't, has or will soon die off. That is the natural order of things. Your goal is to live in the here and now, while figuring out who you really are - it doesn't matter what who said when. The fact that the bhagavad gita is authentic, is enough to drive one's spiritual quest to find one's true self. The rest, really don't mean anything beyond the fact that they may provide historical context, if that. Religion is too often confused with memorization of historical facts (notorious in Christianity), whereas spirituality has nothing to do with history - it is a deep investigation into the here and now. Even if you don't accept the bhagavad gita, you will still be able to do a serious introspective analysis of yourself, and arrive at the same conclusions - but it will take you longer. So, a little faith is required at the beginning; the proof as they say will be in the pudding. If it helps you, you must be doing something right. Find out what that something is, then reject the rest.
Culture, like all natural things or even emergent phenomenon, is subject to entropy. Spirituality, being outside the realm of what is observed, is not subject to birth-growth-decay-death. It remains in tact, despite whatever conceptions or misconceptions you may have. You just have to clear away the misconceptions, until the truth becomes self-evident. The vedas describe this process as "neti neti" or an introspective awareness that the self is "not this, ....not this..." so to speak. That is, not that which I observe with my eyes, not that which I hear with my ears, not that which I taste with my tongue, ... if you continue in this manner observing all the observable things and tracing them to their source; you eventually arrive at the source of that source... and the unspoken/unseen/unheard source behind *that* source is the Self. In the beginning, you can infer the truth; in the end, you experience the truth as yourself - or so the ancients have said.
My point is, Manusmrithi be damned - we live in the 21st century. If god is really upset with us, let him take a human form and re-instruct us at his discretion. We cannot be held accountable for the knowledge passed on thousands of years ago in shoddy form. Even if hinduism were to die today, it is God's responsibility, not ours to ressurect it. You came into this world with its cultures, its problems, its faiths, its what-nots, ... you assume responsibility for what was never really yours ... you undergo untold miseries for problems you think you inherited... and you lose precious time in analyzing and realizing your true nature in external pursuits. Even pursuing the origins of religious/spiritual documents is an external thing and will not lead you any closer to realization. You think that *they* have the answers, when the real answers are within yourself, which you continually ignore. If you, who know yourself so well (being you), cannot see yourself, what chance does some joe shmo from abu-dabi have in tellling you about yourself? Challenge your own assumptions, observe your own mind, live in a manner consistent with your words and your thoughts. Have faith that He can and will do whatever is necessary to bring mankind onto the path that leads to him.