<!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Dec 17 2005, 02:53 AM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Dec 17 2005, 02:53 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S.  I read through your posts on Gita 18.63 and the place of Smritis. I beg to disagree with the interpretation of Paramacharya although I do not want to get into argument. For example, I do not see how the idea," that Smritis can be changed" is wrong when Manu Smriti, itself, advises Hindus to (implicitly) change offensive laws:
Let him avoid (the acquisition of) wealth and (the gratification of his)
desires, if they are opposed to the sacred law, and even<b> LAWFUL ACTS WHICH
MAY CAUSE PAIN IN THE FUTURE OR ARE OFFENSIVE TO MEN</b>. (Manu Smriti IV.176)
Why would Manu Smriti admit the possibility that some of the laws mentioned in the text would be considered to be offensive if Rishi Manu considered his Smriti to be infallible? If the Smriti is not infallible then later Hindus have the right to reject the offensive laws according to the authority of the Smriti itself.
[right][snapback]43314[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gangajal ji, arguments, as long as they get to a higher good is always encouraged. If it becomes meaningless rants (jalpa/jati/vithanda), then I se no point in arguing. Knowing you or Ashok ji, I can safely say an argument with you will go in the positive direction.
Manu Smrithi 4:173 says that a legal matter may be avoided if it causes future pain. This does not mean the validity is questioned. For Manu Smrithi itself (in chapter 2) states it's infallibility.
Chapter 2
10. But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti
(tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be
called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law
shone forth.
11. Every twice-born man, who, relying on the Institutes of
dialectics, treats with contempt those two sources (of the law), must
be cast out by the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Veda.
12. The Veda, the sacred tradition, the customs of virtuous men, and
one's own pleasure, they declare to be visibly the fourfold means of
defining the sacred law.
---------------------
Thus, "one's own pleasure" is one of the means to define law. This is not a flaw in smrithi. As it is already stated by it as legit to resort to one's pleasures and bend rules (in case of apadh-dharma?)
Now, in retrospect, the picture seems to be coming together - atleast a bit closer.
Let him avoid (the acquisition of) wealth and (the gratification of his)
desires, if they are opposed to the sacred law, and even<b> LAWFUL ACTS WHICH
MAY CAUSE PAIN IN THE FUTURE OR ARE OFFENSIVE TO MEN</b>. (Manu Smriti IV.176)
Why would Manu Smriti admit the possibility that some of the laws mentioned in the text would be considered to be offensive if Rishi Manu considered his Smriti to be infallible? If the Smriti is not infallible then later Hindus have the right to reject the offensive laws according to the authority of the Smriti itself.
[right][snapback]43314[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gangajal ji, arguments, as long as they get to a higher good is always encouraged. If it becomes meaningless rants (jalpa/jati/vithanda), then I se no point in arguing. Knowing you or Ashok ji, I can safely say an argument with you will go in the positive direction.
Manu Smrithi 4:173 says that a legal matter may be avoided if it causes future pain. This does not mean the validity is questioned. For Manu Smrithi itself (in chapter 2) states it's infallibility.
Chapter 2
10. But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti
(tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be
called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law
shone forth.
11. Every twice-born man, who, relying on the Institutes of
dialectics, treats with contempt those two sources (of the law), must
be cast out by the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Veda.
12. The Veda, the sacred tradition, the customs of virtuous men, and
one's own pleasure, they declare to be visibly the fourfold means of
defining the sacred law.
---------------------
Thus, "one's own pleasure" is one of the means to define law. This is not a flaw in smrithi. As it is already stated by it as legit to resort to one's pleasures and bend rules (in case of apadh-dharma?)
Now, in retrospect, the picture seems to be coming together - atleast a bit closer.