06-09-2007, 01:49 AM
http://azygos.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/0...ight-part-3.htm
MANU SMRITI IN NEW LIGHT PART 3
Manu on householders, and women......part 3 of a five part article on one of India's greatest ancient legal texts.
29 May 07 15:06:00 PM - 90 Views | comments rss:
Tags: Hindu Manu Smriti Religion
MANUâS VISION OF THE IDEAL HOUSEHOLDER
The most intriguing question facing Hindu society from time immemorial is which is the superior path ; that of the householder or that of the sanyasin (the renunciate). Saints and thinkers have opined diverse views. The criticism of sanyasin is that it renders destitute society of its best intellects and manpower; while that of householders has been they are so besmirched with maya that it depletes them of the vital powers of concentration on the road to moksha. The chain of relationships bonds them to the unreal, their effete selves are no match for the sanyasinâs relentless pursuit for the goal supreme. It is the latter view, which held sway with orthodox Hindus for centuries.
The historical examination points out that the Hindu tradition actually discouraged jumping into the ascetic bandwagon. The buddhaâs path, although proclaiming a middle path, consummated in a large scale conversion of millions of young men and even women into sanyasin. Buddhism probably gave to the world, the first organized order of monks which Shankara would emulate for Hindu sanyasins almost a millennium later.
The etymology of the word sanyas is to be aloneâ¦.Samsara is not the world, it is stagnation at the level of the senses. Thus, in Hindu philosophy, the essence is to attain sanyasa while engaged, in work, in activity. Yet, for the lesser mortals, the last phase of life must be utilized in the attainment of the same, for as Krishna says in the Geeta, no spiritual gains made in this life ever goes waste.
Shankara had said a man must take up Sanyasana as soon as vairagya [spiritual dispassion] dawns upon him, irrespective of whether he had completed the intervening grihastya. But Manu, and all smriti writers of the time, were unanimous in their view, that sanyasa could not be undertaken without first gratifying the debts to oneâs ancestors, gods and most importantly family and society at large, by begetting and raising righteous children. Thus, grihastha, the phase of the householder, involves several rites which have to be performed along with the wife. It is an ideal ground for discipline of the body, mind and soul. Manu does not condemn the cause for desire, which is central to a householder; as he opines [MS 2.4]
Not a single act here (below) appears ever to be done by a man free from desire; for whatever (man) does, it is (the result of) the impulse of desire
Thus Manu contends that while working with desire for fruits is not laudable, yet, it is ultimately desire that drives, exceptions are few to be found where man can work solely for workâs sake without thinking of the fruits of his action. As is known, Krishna in the Geeta appeals to Arjuna to work selflessly and renounce the fruits of his actions to him. Manu is definitely more realistic in his vision and attempts to harmoniously rationalize it with the spiritual idealism
Manu, praises the order of householders for being the most excellent as evident from the following verses.
MS 3.78
Because men of the three (other) orders are daily supported by the householder with (gifts of) sacred knowledge and food, therefore (the order of) householders is the most excellent order.
MS 6.90
As all rivers, both great and small, find a resting-place in the ocean, even so men of all orders find protection with householders
Manu vision of the householder is one of radiant humanism. Manu obviates the need for extenuating the householderâs spiritual limitations w.r.t. the sanyasin, by putting forth the argument of societal sustenance depending exclusively upon the former. But Manuâs intransigence with dharma for any being, produces the profound vision of the householder with his radiant humanism, who is not limited by his familial constrains, but as a model citizen, is responsible for the dharmic considerations of the society at large.
Manu appeals to householders to follow an ethical, not mechanical basis of dharma.
MS 10.63 Five virtues constitute the dharmas of all the four varnas-non violence, truth, non thieving, purity and sense control.
In this respect, that Manu says âatithi devo bhavaâ -> Guests must be treated as gods. They must be requested to stay at nightfall. Never should thoughts of driving away a guest arise in a householderâs mind. However, leprosy patients should not be entertained (for fear of infecting the family) Recently, Romila Thapar, has challenged this view and claimed, that only Brahmins were accepted as guests. However, there is no internal evidence to support this view. Other smriti writers even admitted charvaks/the hedonists of ancient India as guests. It is perhaps, the testimony of Megasthenes, the greek ambassador of Selecus I to Chandragupta Maurya which absolutely debunks Thaparâs audacious claim, especially since the former, being outside the pale of varna, was a mleccha. To quote from Megasthenesâs Indica âIndians officers are appointed even for foreigners whose duty is to see that no foreigner is wronged. Should any of them lose his health, they send physicians to attend him, and take care of him otherwise, and if he dies they bury him, and deliver over such property as he leaves to his relatives. The judges also decide cases in which foreigners are concerned, with the greatest care, and come down sharply on those who take unfair advantage of them.â It is with a sense of compunction; one has to concede that the same civilization is today, the most tourist unfriendly nation of the world!
The glorification of a life of a disciplined householder also nails the criticism that Hinduism is a life negating, other worldly, pessimistic religion.
Every householder is expected to perform the five yagnas daily, which include learning, offering food to manes, receiving and taking care of guests, and taking care of birds and beasts alike. In this important rite, we find Manu encompassing a sublime daily vision of the householder who prays for welfare of the entire universe itselfâ¦.[devo mangalam, manu mangalam, surya mangalam, chandra mangalam, pashu mangalamâ¦.bhavatu bhavatu bhavatu -> let there be auspiciousness everywhere; let the sun be auspicious, let the moon, the gods, the man, the beasts all be auspicious.]
To this picture of goodness and strength, Manu expects the householder to retain all elements of basic hygieneâ¦.he should wear good clothes, avoid excessive fasting, have his hairs and nail cut, and face shaved and wear white clean clothes. {MS 4-34/5]
The means of livelihood should involve least harm to anyone. [MS 4.2] Thus, one can find the origins of ahimsa extant within the Manu Smriti itself. [Also see MS 7.198] This if further exemplified with regard to meat eating. Manu says in 5.56, There is no sin in eating meat, in drinking liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great (spiritual) rewards. In this verse, we find a profound display of the concept of sinlessness, a unique conception of the Hindu religion. The abrahamic faiths are obsessed with the triple canyon of sin, hell and damnation. But not in Hinduism! No wonder Vivekananda had said âit is a sin to call anyone a sinnerâ To err is human, to be damned for those deeds is not but neither should it be reason to don the dresses of decadence! Perhaps, this verse also hints at moral relativism, but unlike the philosophy of existentialism, which rejects universal moral values, Manu views relative morals as being linked, a connecting chain to the absolute dharmic principle. The morals are neither permanent, nor absolute, but in subscribing to the morals of today, man upholds the dharma of eternity.
MANU ON ASCETICS (Sanyasins)
Several sections of the 6th chapter deal exclusively with the order of ascetics. Manu believes, the ascetic by his actions has to prove his ability to remain in a state of equanimity under both, conditions of adversity as well as pleasure.
The goal of the ascetic is to realize the highest truthâ¦.the one without a secondâ¦..the atman, the universal consciousness pervading all existence.
MS 6.65. By deep meditation let him recognise the subtle nature of the supreme Soul, and its presence in all organisms, both the highest and the lowest
MANU ON WOMEN :
The position of women in the Indian civilization has despite a rich scholarly examination by writers both indigenous and foreign, has inadvertently focused on the current ambiguous status of Indian women to serve as the benchmark for their study. It is not without reason that a sustained propaganda has been made out by certain historians and sociologists to defame the Hindu religion, and culture as being anti woman, despite the fact that persecution of women has been universal propounded by all major religions and civilizations, without exception. It is here, one can see light of feminine freedom in some elements of the Hindu tradition, both orthodox and heterodox, especially the latter as they reach their zenith in the Hindu tantric feminine traditions*. Naturally, they have deeply influenced several modern feminist writers.
* In Buddhist Tantra, the female is relegated to the inferior position of the passive principle, and the male takes over as the active principle. This is diametrically opposite to the Hindu tantric principles in which the male [shiva] is the passive principle, and the female [shakti] is the active principle. Thus, in popular Hinduism, it is said, shiva is a shava [corpse] without shakti.
Manu has often ridiculed in one of his most off quoted verses [5.148]; â¦..Na Stri svatantrayam arhati [In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman is not fit for freedom]
Can a historian base his judgment on the authority of a couple of patriarchal passages; to consider them in isolation of the others contrary to the above exhortation? It is nothing short of intellectual infancy to condone such views especially when there is another verse which contradicts the above. [MS 9.12] Women are well guarded of their own accord, by themselves, not by confining them to home, or keeping a watch on them through spies and servants
The legacy of Greece and Rome is the apple of the eye for Eurocentric historians. Although, the suppression of women in those civilizations is undisputable, their mainstream historians and sociologists put these unpalatable elements into the shade, by emphasizing on their glories of another day. The piquant views of such writers while quoting this verse, do not deem it fit to mention that in Ancient Greece, women could never leave her home without a guardian. All her life, she was under the tutelage of one; either her parent, husband or son! Moreover, Manu clearly believed in women deserving protection all her life, especially in her old age through her son. A son far from subjecting his mother, was predominantly trying to balance the aspirations of his wife and mother. Yet, his primary duty was towards his mother, than his wife. It is the former that has represented the ideal of Indian womanhood through the ages, for better or for worse!
It is preposterous to find the origin of women rights in India being negated in majority of women studies literature all around the globe, when a customary reading of the Smritis, provides even the lay reader with ample testimony, of not only its existence but its progressive evolution through the ages. It is beyond the scope of my current article to compare and contrast the position of women in the world civilizations through the ages, so I will restrain myself to juxtaposing the opinions on women, and their rights as mentioned in the Manu Smriti with those of the Greeks.
MANU SMRITI IN NEW LIGHT PART 3
Manu on householders, and women......part 3 of a five part article on one of India's greatest ancient legal texts.
29 May 07 15:06:00 PM - 90 Views | comments rss:
Tags: Hindu Manu Smriti Religion
MANUâS VISION OF THE IDEAL HOUSEHOLDER
The most intriguing question facing Hindu society from time immemorial is which is the superior path ; that of the householder or that of the sanyasin (the renunciate). Saints and thinkers have opined diverse views. The criticism of sanyasin is that it renders destitute society of its best intellects and manpower; while that of householders has been they are so besmirched with maya that it depletes them of the vital powers of concentration on the road to moksha. The chain of relationships bonds them to the unreal, their effete selves are no match for the sanyasinâs relentless pursuit for the goal supreme. It is the latter view, which held sway with orthodox Hindus for centuries.
The historical examination points out that the Hindu tradition actually discouraged jumping into the ascetic bandwagon. The buddhaâs path, although proclaiming a middle path, consummated in a large scale conversion of millions of young men and even women into sanyasin. Buddhism probably gave to the world, the first organized order of monks which Shankara would emulate for Hindu sanyasins almost a millennium later.
The etymology of the word sanyas is to be aloneâ¦.Samsara is not the world, it is stagnation at the level of the senses. Thus, in Hindu philosophy, the essence is to attain sanyasa while engaged, in work, in activity. Yet, for the lesser mortals, the last phase of life must be utilized in the attainment of the same, for as Krishna says in the Geeta, no spiritual gains made in this life ever goes waste.
Shankara had said a man must take up Sanyasana as soon as vairagya [spiritual dispassion] dawns upon him, irrespective of whether he had completed the intervening grihastya. But Manu, and all smriti writers of the time, were unanimous in their view, that sanyasa could not be undertaken without first gratifying the debts to oneâs ancestors, gods and most importantly family and society at large, by begetting and raising righteous children. Thus, grihastha, the phase of the householder, involves several rites which have to be performed along with the wife. It is an ideal ground for discipline of the body, mind and soul. Manu does not condemn the cause for desire, which is central to a householder; as he opines [MS 2.4]
Not a single act here (below) appears ever to be done by a man free from desire; for whatever (man) does, it is (the result of) the impulse of desire
Thus Manu contends that while working with desire for fruits is not laudable, yet, it is ultimately desire that drives, exceptions are few to be found where man can work solely for workâs sake without thinking of the fruits of his action. As is known, Krishna in the Geeta appeals to Arjuna to work selflessly and renounce the fruits of his actions to him. Manu is definitely more realistic in his vision and attempts to harmoniously rationalize it with the spiritual idealism
Manu, praises the order of householders for being the most excellent as evident from the following verses.
MS 3.78
Because men of the three (other) orders are daily supported by the householder with (gifts of) sacred knowledge and food, therefore (the order of) householders is the most excellent order.
MS 6.90
As all rivers, both great and small, find a resting-place in the ocean, even so men of all orders find protection with householders
Manu vision of the householder is one of radiant humanism. Manu obviates the need for extenuating the householderâs spiritual limitations w.r.t. the sanyasin, by putting forth the argument of societal sustenance depending exclusively upon the former. But Manuâs intransigence with dharma for any being, produces the profound vision of the householder with his radiant humanism, who is not limited by his familial constrains, but as a model citizen, is responsible for the dharmic considerations of the society at large.
Manu appeals to householders to follow an ethical, not mechanical basis of dharma.
MS 10.63 Five virtues constitute the dharmas of all the four varnas-non violence, truth, non thieving, purity and sense control.
In this respect, that Manu says âatithi devo bhavaâ -> Guests must be treated as gods. They must be requested to stay at nightfall. Never should thoughts of driving away a guest arise in a householderâs mind. However, leprosy patients should not be entertained (for fear of infecting the family) Recently, Romila Thapar, has challenged this view and claimed, that only Brahmins were accepted as guests. However, there is no internal evidence to support this view. Other smriti writers even admitted charvaks/the hedonists of ancient India as guests. It is perhaps, the testimony of Megasthenes, the greek ambassador of Selecus I to Chandragupta Maurya which absolutely debunks Thaparâs audacious claim, especially since the former, being outside the pale of varna, was a mleccha. To quote from Megasthenesâs Indica âIndians officers are appointed even for foreigners whose duty is to see that no foreigner is wronged. Should any of them lose his health, they send physicians to attend him, and take care of him otherwise, and if he dies they bury him, and deliver over such property as he leaves to his relatives. The judges also decide cases in which foreigners are concerned, with the greatest care, and come down sharply on those who take unfair advantage of them.â It is with a sense of compunction; one has to concede that the same civilization is today, the most tourist unfriendly nation of the world!
The glorification of a life of a disciplined householder also nails the criticism that Hinduism is a life negating, other worldly, pessimistic religion.
Every householder is expected to perform the five yagnas daily, which include learning, offering food to manes, receiving and taking care of guests, and taking care of birds and beasts alike. In this important rite, we find Manu encompassing a sublime daily vision of the householder who prays for welfare of the entire universe itselfâ¦.[devo mangalam, manu mangalam, surya mangalam, chandra mangalam, pashu mangalamâ¦.bhavatu bhavatu bhavatu -> let there be auspiciousness everywhere; let the sun be auspicious, let the moon, the gods, the man, the beasts all be auspicious.]
To this picture of goodness and strength, Manu expects the householder to retain all elements of basic hygieneâ¦.he should wear good clothes, avoid excessive fasting, have his hairs and nail cut, and face shaved and wear white clean clothes. {MS 4-34/5]
The means of livelihood should involve least harm to anyone. [MS 4.2] Thus, one can find the origins of ahimsa extant within the Manu Smriti itself. [Also see MS 7.198] This if further exemplified with regard to meat eating. Manu says in 5.56, There is no sin in eating meat, in drinking liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great (spiritual) rewards. In this verse, we find a profound display of the concept of sinlessness, a unique conception of the Hindu religion. The abrahamic faiths are obsessed with the triple canyon of sin, hell and damnation. But not in Hinduism! No wonder Vivekananda had said âit is a sin to call anyone a sinnerâ To err is human, to be damned for those deeds is not but neither should it be reason to don the dresses of decadence! Perhaps, this verse also hints at moral relativism, but unlike the philosophy of existentialism, which rejects universal moral values, Manu views relative morals as being linked, a connecting chain to the absolute dharmic principle. The morals are neither permanent, nor absolute, but in subscribing to the morals of today, man upholds the dharma of eternity.
MANU ON ASCETICS (Sanyasins)
Several sections of the 6th chapter deal exclusively with the order of ascetics. Manu believes, the ascetic by his actions has to prove his ability to remain in a state of equanimity under both, conditions of adversity as well as pleasure.
The goal of the ascetic is to realize the highest truthâ¦.the one without a secondâ¦..the atman, the universal consciousness pervading all existence.
MS 6.65. By deep meditation let him recognise the subtle nature of the supreme Soul, and its presence in all organisms, both the highest and the lowest
MANU ON WOMEN :
The position of women in the Indian civilization has despite a rich scholarly examination by writers both indigenous and foreign, has inadvertently focused on the current ambiguous status of Indian women to serve as the benchmark for their study. It is not without reason that a sustained propaganda has been made out by certain historians and sociologists to defame the Hindu religion, and culture as being anti woman, despite the fact that persecution of women has been universal propounded by all major religions and civilizations, without exception. It is here, one can see light of feminine freedom in some elements of the Hindu tradition, both orthodox and heterodox, especially the latter as they reach their zenith in the Hindu tantric feminine traditions*. Naturally, they have deeply influenced several modern feminist writers.
* In Buddhist Tantra, the female is relegated to the inferior position of the passive principle, and the male takes over as the active principle. This is diametrically opposite to the Hindu tantric principles in which the male [shiva] is the passive principle, and the female [shakti] is the active principle. Thus, in popular Hinduism, it is said, shiva is a shava [corpse] without shakti.
Manu has often ridiculed in one of his most off quoted verses [5.148]; â¦..Na Stri svatantrayam arhati [In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman is not fit for freedom]
Can a historian base his judgment on the authority of a couple of patriarchal passages; to consider them in isolation of the others contrary to the above exhortation? It is nothing short of intellectual infancy to condone such views especially when there is another verse which contradicts the above. [MS 9.12] Women are well guarded of their own accord, by themselves, not by confining them to home, or keeping a watch on them through spies and servants
The legacy of Greece and Rome is the apple of the eye for Eurocentric historians. Although, the suppression of women in those civilizations is undisputable, their mainstream historians and sociologists put these unpalatable elements into the shade, by emphasizing on their glories of another day. The piquant views of such writers while quoting this verse, do not deem it fit to mention that in Ancient Greece, women could never leave her home without a guardian. All her life, she was under the tutelage of one; either her parent, husband or son! Moreover, Manu clearly believed in women deserving protection all her life, especially in her old age through her son. A son far from subjecting his mother, was predominantly trying to balance the aspirations of his wife and mother. Yet, his primary duty was towards his mother, than his wife. It is the former that has represented the ideal of Indian womanhood through the ages, for better or for worse!
It is preposterous to find the origin of women rights in India being negated in majority of women studies literature all around the globe, when a customary reading of the Smritis, provides even the lay reader with ample testimony, of not only its existence but its progressive evolution through the ages. It is beyond the scope of my current article to compare and contrast the position of women in the world civilizations through the ages, so I will restrain myself to juxtaposing the opinions on women, and their rights as mentioned in the Manu Smriti with those of the Greeks.