Manu Smriti - Is it authored to safeguard Kshatriya interests?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

There have been some opinions expressed in this forum to the effect that the Manava Dharma Sastra (aka Manu Smriti or Manu Dharma Sastra - MDS) was the creation of a kshatriya and the brahmanas had no hand in its compilation and so they (brahmanas) should not be held accountable for the inhuman treatment meted out to the sudras and dalits (or antyajas as per the MDS) in the past. I did not enter into a discussion at that stage because it would have diverted the focus of argument then.

Nevertheless, I thought of sharing some information regarding Manu and MDS so that the position becomes clear. We may consider this issue from both the orthodox point of view and from that of research scholars, and find out the results.

I. The Orthodox Point of View :

1. The earliest reference to a dharmasastra is found in Yaska's nirukta, which is a vedanga. In III-4 of the work, Yaska states as under:

3,4: ``śāsad.vahnir.duhitur.naptyam.gād.vidvān.ṛtasya.dīdhitim.saparyan/
3,4: pitā.yatra.duhituḥ.sekam.ṛṇjant.sam.śagmyena.manasā.dadhanve/''.
3,4: praśāsti.vodhā.saṃtāna.karmane.duhitṛ6.putra.bhāvam/
3,4: duhitā.durhitā.dūre.hitā.dogdher.vā/
3,4: naptāram.upāgamad.dauhitram.pautram.iti/
3,4: vidvān.prajanana.yajñasya.retaso.vā.aṅgāt.aṅgāt.sambhūtasya.hṛdayād.
adhijātasya.mātṛ7.praty.ṛtasya.vidhānam.pūjayan/
3,4: aviśesena.mithunāḥ.putrā.dāyādā.iti/
3,4: tad.etad.ṛc.ślokābhyām.abhyuktam/
3,4: aṅgād.aṅgāt.sam.bhavasi.hṛdayād.adhijāyase/
3,4: ātmā.vai.putra.nāmā.asi.sa.jīva.śaradaḥ.śatam/
3,4: iti/
3,4: aviśesena..putrānām.dāyo.bhavati.dharmatah/
3,4: mithunānām.visarga.ādi7.manuḥ.svāyambhuvo.abravīt/

This sloka deals with inheritance rights of daughter etc., as may be seen.
It is therefore evident that the MDS is a compilation of the laws laid down by Svayambhuva Manu (SM), at the beginning of this cycle of manvantaras.

2. According to the Puranas and accepted orthodox Hindu belief, Svayambhuva as the name itself means was "self-originated", from Brahma's mind. As such he has a divine nature (devatva) as he was not born human. He married Satarupa, again, a daughter born from the mind of brahma; hence if we go by MDS, even if we dismiss the charge of incest (which is already prohibited by the Rigveda itself - Mandala X, Sukta 10, and the vedas being “anaadi” or beginningless, their ruling will prohibit such a marriage), he married a sagotrjaa which is expressly prohibited by his own rules:
[FONT=&quot]असपिण्डा च या मातुर् असगोत्रा च या पितुः । सा प्रशस्ता द्विजातीनाम् दारकर्मणि मैथुने ॥३-०५[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.5. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]A girl) who is neither a Sapinda on the mother’s side, nor belonging to the same gotra on the father’s side, is auspicious to the twice-born (men) for wedlock and conjugal union. [/FONT]

We cannot assume that Manu would have one rule for himself, and another for the rest of the world. If he has done so, he would lose credibility.

3. On his arrival (on the earth) SM did not at once start producing “manushyas”. Instead, he went to the shores of the ocean of milk (பால்க்கடல்) and, after making an idol of Devi from the sand there, he did tapas for 100 years, reciting “Vaagbhava mantra” and propitiated Devi, who became pleased with his worship and granted him very many boons. She also commanded him to procreate many children so that the human race goes on uninterrupted, and after so doing, attain moksha. So saying, Devi went, as SM was looking, to Vindhyachala and started residing there as the “adhishtana devata” of Vindhya.

We thus find SM doing tapas to propitiate the goddess, instead of straight away taking the role of king. Now doing tapas is usually a character of Rishis, though anyone, including Rakshasa, could do so.

SM returned (from the shores of the milky ocean) gave birth to many human beings and ruled over them with devi as his Goddess. (Devi Bhagavatam, Skandha X)

From this it will be observed that SM “ruled” over all human beings in his role as progenitor (just as father was considered head of the family, at least in the past) and not as a ruler in our traditional sense.

4. If it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that despite what has been given above, SM was a king and therefore, a kshatriya, we come to the situation that no brahmin could be born to SM, because, according to MDS itself a kshatriya can, under no circumstances give birth to a brahmana! In terms of MDS (and even if we take Satarupa to be a brahmana woman for argument’s sake) the children born of a brahmana woman and a kshatriya is a “suta” ஸூதன்.

5. Even if SM is considered as brahmana by caste, there will be difficulty, for, Manu lays down that :

[FONT=&quot]Sons, born to dvija through wives of the next lower castes, they declare to be similar (to their fathers, but) blamed on account of the fault (inherent) in their mothers[/FONT] (மாத்ருதோஷம்). 10-06
[FONT=&quot]स्त्रीषु अनन्तरजातासु द्विजैर् उत्पादितान् सुतान् । सदृशान् एव तान् आहुर् मातृदोषविगर्हितान् ॥१०-०६[/FONT]

SM cannot hence be not as either brahmana or kshatriya.

[FONT=&quot]6. MDS commences with the following verses:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]मनुम् एकाग्रम् आसीनम् अभिगम्य महर्षयः । प्रतिपूज्य यथान्यायम् इदम् वचनम् अब्रुवन् ॥१-०१[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Maharshis approached Manu, who was seated with a collected mind, and, having [/FONT][FONT=&quot]duly worshipped him[/FONT][FONT=&quot], spoke as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]भगवन् सर्ववर्णानाम् यथावद् अनुपूर्वशः । अन्तरप्रभवानाम् च धर्मान् नो वक्तुम् अर्हसि ॥ १-०२[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]O Divine one, be kind enough to instruct us precisely and in due order the sacred laws of all varna and of the intermediate ones.[/FONT]

Since the Maharshis themselves worshipped Manu, there should be no doubt that Manu was of a higher status even compared to the Maharshis. Hence he has to be a divine being as is amply evident from their address of SM.

We may, on the basis of the foregoing, conclude that SM was a divine being (above the caste clasification) and the MDS being originally the laws promulgated by him, it cannot be attributed as the laws arising out of some kshatriya brain work.

7. It is relevant to note in this connection that the current Manu, Vaivasvata is also known as “Sraaddha deva” (Vishnu Puranam, Amsa-8, Adhyaya-1). Hence, even if, by misunderstanding or ignorance, somebody feels – just as an impulse - that MDS must be a work of Vaivasvata Manu, the charge of kshatriya origin will not apply since a kshatriya is never considered a “deva”.

8. In the Mahabharata, Santi Parva, it is stated that the Supreme Being (Paramesvara) composed one hundred thousand Slokas on Dharma, SM promulgated these and Brihaspati and Usanas (Sukra) compiled Dharma Sastras based on those 100,000 slokas.

9. The Narada Smriti states in its beginning, that the original Manu Smriti of 1,00,000 slokas was abridged by Narada, Markandeya and Sumati Bhargava (son of rishi Bhrigu) to 12000, 8000 and 4000 slokas respectively, and what we now have is the result of the work of Sumati bhargava, a brahmin, of the Bhargava clan.

(So, if we accept what Narada smriti says, the MDS which we quote, is the handiwork of a brahmin. However, at this stage I am not pressing this point; will take up in Part II.)

From the foregoing, it will be clear that MDS is as much a divine dispensation, just as the Vedas are “anaadi” or beginningless and “apourusheya” (not produced by humans, superhuman). From this it proceeds that the caste laws, the fifth group called “antyaja” or “antyaavasaayin”, etc., and the ostracism, treatment, inequality, etc., are decrees in Hinduism which have divine sanction just as the Sruti pramanas. So we can disavow these injunctions only at the cost of getting thrown out of the Hindu fold, just as Charvaka, the Buddhists, the Jains etc., were considered heretics. That is the position from the orthodox point of view.

If we take the stand that MDS is no longer applicable and that it has been superceded by the Indian Constitution, we can have no claim to even being a Hindu! The Kasi priest (in the video “India Untouched”) is, from this point of view, a true and orthodox Hindu.

And, if we accept this orthodox point of view none of us should have any complaint about the treatment meted out to the sudras and antyajas in the past or at present. That is hinduism in action, truly!
...To be continued.

 

[sangom]

II. Scholastic Point of View :

The researchers do not ascribe any divinity to any scripture; according to them all these are human creations though much might have been stated in the texts to give them a holy and divine origin etc., so as to impress the gullible masses and make them obey the instructions contained therein for fear of incurring divine wrath.

The Manusmriti now available (I. 32-33) states that Viraat emanated from Brahma, and produced Manu, from whom the sages including Bhrgu and Narada were born; Brahma taught the Sastras to Manu, who in turn imparted it to the ten sages (I. 58) and when some great sages approached Manu and sought instruction in the dharmas of the varnas and the intermediate castes, Manu told them to go to his pupil Bhrigu who would impart to them the necessary knowledge(I. 59-60). This tempo is seen throughout the text. The sages ask their doubts in between Bhrgu's discourse in several places (as in V, 1-2 and XII. x-a).

Manu is said to be omniscient (II. 7) and he is is mentioned by name dozens of times in the work with the words "Manuraaha" (IX. 158, X. 78 etc), or "Manur-abravid" or "Manor-anusaasanam". Thus, though the text goes by the name MDS or Manusmriti, it is in fact the laws enunciated by the brahmana sage Bhrigu.

According to scholarly analysis of MDS and various other smriti texts, epics, etc., MDS is a compilation of the brahmana scribes. Manu is mentioned as a vedic rishi in the samhitas and brahmana texts. Some scholars like Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. P.V. Kane hold the view that the Dharmasutras of Gautama, Apastamba and Bodhayana are older than MDS since MDS depicts in it, a more modern approach to several topics. (This contradicts the orthodox view of MDS having been delivered to mankind at the very beginning of the first manvantara, whereas we are now 1,840,320,000 earth years from that point of time.)

There are several commentaries on MDS. Of these 7 are available. These are:-

1.Manubhashya of Medatithi
2.Manuteekaa of Govindaraja
3.Manvarthavivriti of Sarvajnanarayana
4.Manvarthamuktaavali of Kullookabhatta
5.Manvarthachandrikaa of Raghavananda
6.Manuvyaakhyaana of Nandana
7.Manubhaavaarthachandrikaa of Ramachandra

(I am citing these names not as show-off but to enable learned mambers who may have access to these to verify whether what I write below is correct or not.)

Many other earlier commentaries, which are not available now, find mention in the above commentaries.

The essential finding of the scholars is that these commentators did not stop with merely elucidating or explaining the verses of MDS, but went further in adding, altering, widening the scope of some provisions and even in reversing the views of the original MDS, most probably to subserve the needs of their contemporary society’s preferences.

Coming to the approximate period of compilation of the extant text of MDS, we may consider the undernoted verses therein:

[FONT=&quot]शनकैस्तु क्रियालोपाद् इमा: क्षत्रिय जातयः । वृषलत्वम् गता लोके ब्राह्मणादर्शनेन च ॥१०-४३[/FONT]
But as a result of their omission to perform the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas, the following tribes of Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Sudras; [FONT=&quot]10-43[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]पौण्ड्रकाश्चौड्र द्रविडाः काम्बोजा यवनाः शकाः । पारदा पह्लवाश्चीनाः किराता दरदाः खशाः ॥ १०-४४[/FONT]
the Paundrakas, the Chodras, the Dravidas, the Kambojas, the Yavanas, the Sakas, the Paaradas, the Pahlavas, the Chinas, the Kiratas, and the Daradas. 10-44

[FONT=&quot]मुख बाहूरुपद् जानाम् या लोके जातयो बहिः । म्ळॆच्छ वाचश्च अर्यवाचः सर्वे ते दस्यवः स्मृताः ॥ १०-४५[/FONT]
All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman), are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlecchhas (barbarians) or that of the Aryans. 10-45

It will be seen that there is clear mention of Dravidas, Kambojas, Chinas, Yavanas, Sakas, Pahlavas etc. and a dasyu group, similar to antyajas, is also recognized outside the Chaturvarnya system. So the doubt whether the term Panchama is a British invention has no place; it is very much a creation of Manu Smriti only.

In view of the above-cited references to various races which appeared on the Indian scene much later than the supposed mythical origin of even the current Vaivasvata (Sraaddha deva) Manu – since we are in kaliyuga of the 28th chaturyuga, nearly 12 crore years must have elapsed in the current manvantara – it is the opinion of the scholars that the MDS or Manusmriti, like the various other Smriti texts, is the work of brahmana interests. Only, the name of Manu has been added in order to give a hoary antiquity to it.

The language of MDS is very much in conformity with Panini’s rules. There is reference to philosophy not based on the Veda, which is an indirect reference to Buddhism and Jainism with their non-vedic philosophies.

[FONT=&quot]या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतयो याश्च काश्च कुदृष्टयः । सर्वास्ता निष्फलाः प्रेत्य तमो निष्ठा हि ताः स्मृताः ॥१२-९५[/FONT]
All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness. [FONT=&quot]12-95[/FONT]

Since MDS refers to several authors of Dharmasastras, it cannot be considered as the first law code, as it would have been, if the orthodox beliefs were true. Kautilya’s Arthasastra mentions Manusmriti. From these and other circumstances both from within the MDS itself and references made to it in other literature, the scholars have put the compilation of the extant MDS between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D.

On several issues MDS gives conflicting rulings. According to II. 12 & 13, a brahmana is allowed to have a Sudra wife, but III.14-19 prohibits this with heavy penalties. IX. 59-63 permits “niyoga” to get offsprings for a childless man through his wedded wife as also for a childless widow, but IX. 64-69 vehemently disallows the same. Eating meat is another point on which MDS gives contradictory rulings. From these and other observations it can be said with a good amount of certainty that MDS has undergone revisions as well asinterpolations.

It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that MDS is, just like the many other Smritis which have all been works of Brahmanas and not Kshatriyas. If any more proof is needed one has only to see the pre-eminence given to brahmana throughout the text, keeping kshatriya always second and on par with the vaisya when it comes to marrying a woman from a higher caste.

Some examples of the pre-eminent status enjoyed by brahmana in the MDS’ scheme of things are given below:

[FONT=&quot]लोकानाम् तु विवृद्ध्यर्थम् मुखबाहूरु पादतः । ब्राह्मणम् क्षत्रियम् वैश्यम् शूद्रम् च निरवर्तयत् ॥१-३१[/FONT]
But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet. 1-31

[FONT=&quot]सर्वस्यस्य तु सर्गस्य गुप्त्यर्थम् स महा द्युतिः । मुखबहूरुपज्जानान् पृथक्कर्माण्यकल्पयत् ॥ १-८७[/FONT]
But in order to protect this universe He, the most resplendent one, assigned separate (duties and) occupations to those who sprang from his mouth, arms, thighs, and feet. 1-87

Man is purer above the navel; hence the Self-existent (Svayambhu) declared the purest (part) of him (to be) his mouth. 1.92.

As the Brahmana sprang from (Brahman’s) mouth, as he was the first-born, and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right, the lord of this whole creation. 1.93.

The Self-existent (Svayambhu), after performing tapas, produced him first, from his own mouth, for carrying the offerings of all people to the gods and manes in a concealed manner. 1.94.

Which created being can surpass him, through whose mouth the inhabitants of the third heaven (gods) continually consume the sacrificial viands and the manes, the offerings to the dead? 1.95.

Of all the creation the most excellent are those which are animated; of the animated, those which subsist by intelligence; of the intelligent, mankind; and of men, the Brahmanas, thus it is said. 1.96

Everything in the world is the property of the Brahmana due to the excellence of his origin. The Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to all. 1.100

What the Brahmana eats is but his own food, what he wears is his own and what he gifts is also but his own; all other humans subsist through the benevolence of the Brahmana. 1.101

(Note: It is not feasible that, if the MDS was a concoction of the Kshatriya for ensuring the Kshatriyas’ interests, but made to be written down by Brahmanas, that such pre-eminence would have been granted to the brahmanas. It will be clear, to any dispassionate student, from all the foregoing evidences, that MDS and all the other Dharma Sastras, or Smritis, are all for safeguarding the interests of the Brahmanas primarily and to keep the other three groups under their spiritual suzerainty.)

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Those who denounce the varna system keep forgetting the fact that it stands on a firm rationale. It is the extent of self control as determined by the gunas that differentiate people into different varnas.

Even going by your theory that the laws of manu were biased towards the brahmins and sought to safeguard their interests it is perfectly rational to do so as it is the brahmins who are supposed to guide the other varnas. Such protectors themselves need a certain safeguard so that the system does not fail in its function. It is like the Prime Minister or the President or the ministers having some special privileges because they have to ensure that they do their job satisfactorily without any unnecessary worries.

 

[vikrama]

Dear Sri Sangom,
Your post is very informative. Kindly give us more to learn.
Vikrama

 

[RVR]

If we take the stand that MDS is no longer applicable and that it has been superceded by the Indian n Constitution, we can have no claim to even being a Hindu!

I think people here are mis understanding personal law with the Indian Constitution.

Indian Constitution gives enough freedom to practice individual faith. It is a fundamental right to follow any faith enshrined in the constitution.

At the same time, such individual faith should not violate the provisions of the constitution which gives equal rights all other citizens.

It is applicable to all religions practiced in India.

In the Shah Bano case, the supreme court declared that a Muslim divorce woman is entitled for compensation from her erstwhile husband even-though Muslim Personal Law states that getting compensation from a divorced husband is `haram' (sin).

MDS will also face the same fate like Muslim Personal Law if somebody goes to court against Kasi priest.

Discrimination against Narikurava is a crime and the authorities concerned will be punished if somebody goes to court.

Those who want to test the constitutional provisions should approach the Supreme court instead of raising the issue here again and again.

There is no iota of doubt that Indian Constitution is supreme and sup-recedes all the personal laws of all faiths in India.

Most of the democracies all over the world have the same provisions. May be Islamic democracies like Pakistan, Bangladesh etc may have different provisions.

One need not bother too much about personal law but have to follow the law of the land which is supreme.

First of all Manu's time period is questionable. Some article says he belongs to a different `yuga' and not `Kali yuga'.

Personally I spoke to a learned sanskrit scholar and he said `Manu Dharma' is not applicable to `Kali Yuga' and justified the same through a `sanskrit' sloka. Since I don't know sanskrit, I am unable to quote the same here.

Bible says earth is flat and has four corners.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm
I request all those who are living in western countries to take up the matter with their respective governments and find out whether they accept the above statement of Bible. Is anybody giving up Christianity because of this statement.

Let us take the right things from our scriptures like a `honey bee' extracting right honey from different flowers and leave the rest.

All the best

 

[happyhindu]

If we take the stand that MDS is no longer applicable and that it has been superceded by the Indian n Constitution, we can have no claim to even being a Hindu!

I think people here are mis understanding personal law with the Indian Constitution.

Indian Constitution gives enough freedom to practice individual faith. It is a fundamental right to follow any faith enshrined in the constitution.

At the same time, such individual faith should not violate the provisions of the constitution which gives equal rights all other citizens.

Sir, your argument style is rather unique. You seem to be aware of the law of the land. Yet you seem to find ways to wriggle out of it by claiming freedom of faith -- please let me know what you think "freedom of faith" encompasses.

Please also let me know what is your stand on priests who claim that varna dharma must be followed in this century, age and time.

First of all Manu's time period is questionable. Some article says he belongs to a different `yuga' and not `Kali yuga'.

Personally I spoke to a learned sanskrit scholar and he said `Manu Dharma' is not applicable to `Kali Yuga' and justified the same through a `sanskrit' sloka. Since I don't know sanskrit, I am unable to quote the same here.

Please if i can request then i wud be grateful if you cud contact that sanskrit scholar and let us know the shloka here and also in which scripture that shloka is mentioned.

 

[happyhindu]

It is relevant to note in this connection that the current Manu, Vaivasvata is also known as “Sraaddha deva” (Vishnu Puranam, Amsa-8, Adhyaya-1). Hence, even if, by misunderstanding or ignorance, somebody feels – just as an impulse - that MDS must be a work of Vaivasvata Manu, the charge of kshatriya origin will not apply since a kshatriya is never considered a “deva”.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Why are kshatriyas not considered "deva"?

From the foregoing, it will be clear that MDS is as much a divine dispensation, just as the Vedas are “anaadi” or beginningless and “apourusheya” (not produced by humans, superhuman). From this it proceeds that the caste laws, the fifth group called “antyaja” or “antyaavasaayin”, etc., and the ostracism, treatment, inequality, etc., are decrees in Hinduism which have divine sanction just as the Sruti pramanas. So we can disavow these injunctions only at the cost of getting thrown out of the Hindu fold, just as Charvaka, the Buddhists, the Jains etc., were considered heretics. That is the position from the orthodox point of view.

Was reading Staal's work. He says Vedas cannot be called Apauresheya since the authors of the shlokas are known (like Vishwamitra, Dirghatamas, Kanva, etc). Obviously it cannot be anaadi (beginingless) since the Vedas apparently appeared on the scene after its authors appeared. Staal says that it is a Purvamimansa view that the Vedas are Aupauresheya. The claim of being shruti as divine in origin is also not well placed. Vedas are called shruti because it is "heard" by the son from the father / guru.

If we take the stand that MDS is no longer applicable and that it has been superceded by the Indian Constitution, we can have no claim to even being a Hindu! The Kasi priest (in the video “India Untouched”) is, from this point of view, a true and orthodox Hindu.

Well i suppose there is a lot more in hinduism than adherence to just dharmashastra-pov of varna.

 

[happyhindu]

According to the Puranas and accepted orthodox Hindu belief, Svayambhuva as the name itself means was "self-originated", from Brahma's mind. As such he has a divine nature (devatva) as he was not born human. He married Satarupa, again, a daughter born from the mind of brahma; hence if we go by MDS, even if we dismiss the charge of incest (which is already prohibited by the Rigveda itself - Mandala X, Sukta 10, and the vedas being “anaadi” or beginningless, their ruling will prohibit such a marriage), he married a sagotrjaa which is expressly prohibited by his own rules:[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=&quot]असपिण्डा च या मातुर् असगोत्रा च या पितुः । सा प्रशस्ता द्विजातीनाम् दारकर्मणि मैथुने ॥३-०५[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.5. ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]A girl) who is neither a Sapinda on the mother’s side, nor belonging to the same gotra on the father’s side, is auspicious to the twice-born (men) for wedlock and conjugal union. [/FONT]

We cannot assume that Manu would have one rule for himself, and another for the rest of the world. If he has done so, he would lose credibility.
....
4. If it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that despite what has been given above, SM was a king and therefore, a kshatriya, we come to the situation that no brahmin could be born to SM, because, according to MDS itself a kshatriya can, under no circumstances give birth to a brahmana! In terms of MDS (and even if we take Satarupa to be a brahmana woman for argument’s sake) the children born of a brahmana woman and a kshatriya is a “suta” ஸூதன்.

5. Even if SM is considered as brahmana by caste, there will be difficulty, for, Manu lays down that :

[FONT=&quot]Sons, born to dvija through wives of the next lower castes, they declare to be similar (to their fathers, but) blamed on account of the fault (inherent) in their mothers[/FONT] (மாத்ருதோஷம்). 10-06
[FONT=&quot]स्त्रीषु अनन्तरजातासु द्विजैर् उत्पादितान् सुतान् । सदृशान् एव तान् आहुर् मातृदोषविगर्हितान् ॥१०-०६[/FONT]

I was reading about inter-varna marriages in the book "The Position of Women in Hindu Civilization" by AS Altekar. He has quoted epigraphical and inscriptional evidence to show that inter-varna marriages were very much in vogue until the 8th century.

In the 7th century AD there was a Brahman poet in the court of King Harshavardhana named Banabhatta described as having step-brother born from a Shudra mother. In the AD 550, a king named Harichandra pratihara had a brahmana wife and a kshatriya wife. These are just 2 examples...but it is to show that apparently in all cases the children were considered as the father's varna.

Altekar put forth the view in his book that inter-varna marriages began to be phased out in the 10th century. Al Biruni (1020 AD) wrote in his work that brahmins of his time were shunning marriages with other varnas. Apparently brahmanas used to also eat meat as part of the vedic sacrifices until 9th century and so inter-mingling was common (IMO if we were to go by the census reports some brahmin groups took to vegetarianism only in the colonial period).

Anyways, regarding inter-varna marriages, IMO, it is very much probable that the vedic-revival of Sri Adi Shankara in 8th century (re?)created the rigid varna; and inter-varna marriages began to be prohibbited then onwards. IMO, contradictory phrases were also added to existing dharmashastras at this time.

9. The Narada Smriti states in its beginning, that the original Manu Smriti of 1,00,000 slokas was abridged by Narada, Markandeya and Sumati Bhargava (son of rishi Bhrigu) to 12000, 8000 and 4000 slokas respectively, and what we now have is the result of the work of Sumati bhargava, a brahmin, of the Bhargava clan.

When did Sumati Bhargava live (time period) ?

 

[sangom]

If we take the stand that MDS is no longer applicable and that it has been superceded by the Indian n Constitution, we can have no claim to even being a Hindu!

I think people here are mis understanding personal law with the Indian Constitution.

Indian Constitution gives enough freedom to practice individual faith. It is a fundamental right to follow any faith enshrined in the constitution.

At the same time, such individual faith should not violate the provisions of the constitution which gives equal rights all other citizens.

It is applicable to all religions practiced in India.

Dear Shri RVR,

If you see my post you will find that the sentence you quote is given under the para "Orthodox view". What I wanted to convey was that from a strictly orthodox hindu view, the MDS or other Smritis are to be followed strictly and since that is not possible, we will fall outside "the hindu fold" itself, according to the Smritis. Hence, there is not much point in what many members here write about preserving "our" traditions and all that, since we do not qualify for the brahmana status anymore.

Secondly, MDS being a divine and inviolable scripture, we cannot take the view that our forefathers did not follow its injunctions.

Thirdly, even from the orthodox pov, MDS is not the work of kshatriya interests or authored by kshatriya.

These were the points I wanted to convey.

Discrimination against Narikurava is a crime and the authorities concerned will be punished if somebody goes to court.

You seem to be obsessed by the narikurava incident. Now, how will you establish that there was "discrimination" against them? According to the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act of 1989, the various punishable offences include, "Denial of the customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructing dalits from using public places" which clause seems to come closest to the incident under consideration. But since Narikorava is only OBC and do not fall under the SC/ST classification the above cited legal provision may not, strictly speaking, apply to them. Further, there was no denial of the right of passage but only a haggling, at best, about which type of tickets were available or not available and a demand for searching their bundles. It will not be easy to prove that these were made with an ulterior motive of denial of entry to the narikoravas since, ultimately, they could see the cinema and there seems to have been no further trouble caused to them by the theatre authorities.

I would, therefore, request you to consult a good avocate, and after finding out his dispassionate opinion if you can successfully prosecute the theatre people and owners (perhaps) and then only harp again on this point.

Those who want to test the constitutional provisions should approach the Supreme court instead of raising the issue here again and again.

I think this will be applicable to your citing the narikorava incident as well.

Personally I spoke to a learned sanskrit scholar and he said `Manu Dharma' is not applicable to `Kali Yuga' and justified the same through a `sanskrit' sloka. Since I don't know sanskrit, I am unable to quote the same here.

I will also request you to obtain the sloka from him, cite its source and also let us know when Kaliyuga started in his view and on what basis he is saying so.

Let us take the right things from our scriptures like a `honey bee' extracting right honey from different flowers and leave the rest.

All the best

Will you please elucidate how to sift the right things and what criteria to apply?

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Those who denounce the varna system keep forgetting the fact that it stands on a firm rationale. It is the extent of self control as determined by the gunas that differentiate people into different varnas.

Dear sravna,

Unfortunately the smritis - not only MDS but others also - do not at all talk about varna being determined by one's gunas. They go on the basis of varna by birth, and the names of intermediate varnas like suta, are based on the parentage and not on varna by gunas. That is the difficulty.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Why are kshatriyas not considered "deva"?

Not only kshatriyas, even brahmanas are not "devas" though brahmanas have the epithet "bhudeva" deva of the earth. That much only, and not more.

Was reading Staal's work. He says Vedas cannot be called Apauresheya since the authors of the shlokas are known (like Vishwamitra, Dirghatamas, Kanva, etc). Obviously it cannot be anaadi (beginingless) since the Vedas apparently appeared on the scene after its authors appeared. Staal says that it is a Purvamimansa view that the Vedas are Aupauresheya. The claim of being shruti as divine in origin is also not well placed. Vedas are called shruti because it is "heard" by the son from the father / guru.

Well i suppose there is a lot more in hinduism than adherence to just dharmashastra-pov of varna.

According to Sankara also vedas are considered apourusheya. Perhaps Vaishnava acharyas also went on the same basis. Staal seems to be preoccupied with PM!

 

[sangom]

I was reading about inter-varna marriages in the book "The Position of Women in Hindu Civilization" by AS Altekar. He has quoted epigraphical and inscriptional evidence to show that inter-varna marriages were very much in vogue until the 8th century.

In the 7th century AD there was a Brahman poet in the court of King Harshavardhana named Banabhatta described as having step-brother born from a Shudra mother. In the AD 550, a king named Harichandra pratihara had a brahmana wife and a kshatriya wife. These are just 2 examples...but it is to show that apparently in all cases the children were considered as the father's varna.

MDS allows "anuloma" marriages- marriage with women of the lower ranks, with a caveat that such children will have "matru dosha", a black mark due to the mother's lower varna. King having a brahmana wife was looked down upon and the offspring will be a suta (a charioteer).

Altekar put forth the view in his book that inter-varna marriages began to be phased out in the 10th century. Al Biruni (1020 AD) wrote in his work that brahmins of his time were shunning marriages with other varnas. Apparently brahmanas used to also eat meat as part of the vedic sacrifices until 9th century and so inter-mingling was common (IMO if we were to go by the census reports some brahmin groups took to vegetarianism only in the colonial period).

Bengali and Assamese brahmins eat fish even today. It is true that meat was eaten by brahmins in ancient times. I don't know about Altekar's hypothesis. But some other scholars opine that with the popularity of Jainism with its emphasis in "ahimsa", vegetarianism was extolled by the brahmins and was also followed so as not to lose the vast vaisya group to Jainism. This, if correct, should have happened much earlier. Asoka's edict against cruelty to animals also put a brake to the sacrificial killing of animals.

Anyways, regarding inter-varna marriages, IMO, it is very much probable that the vedic-revival of Sri Adi Shankara in 8th century (re?)created the rigid varna; and inter-varna marriages began to be prohibbited then onwards. IMO, contradictory phrases were also added to existing dharmashastras at this time.

IMO Sankara did not start a vedic revival; he only stuck to advaita which was modified Buddhism with some of the more refined upanishadic thoughts mixed with it. Inter-varna marriages must have declined because of increased prestige of kshatriyas and vaisyas and their reluctance to accept brahmin infallibility. Kings, from all castes, however, continued to keep their antaHpurams well-populated and had no scruples about caste/varna of the women.

When did Sumati Bhargava live (time period) ?

Just as Bhrigu, Manu Smriti, and many other things in Hindu religion, this personality referred to in MDS is mythical. If we assume that it is the real name of the author of Manu Smriti, and not the son of Bhrigu, this real author might have lived in the 2nd. century BC, when Pushyamitra Sunga was reviving vedic brahminism.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Sangom said:-

If we take the stand that MDS is no longer applicable and that it has been superceded by the Indian Constitution, we can have no claim to even being a Hindu!

Sri.Sangom, greetings. Personally I don't follow any religion. I wish and strive to be a humanist. Having put that aside, kindly allow me to disagree with the statment quoted above, please. MDS had died and buried amoung ordinary everday persons. I lived as a Hindu for many years in an orthodox family; never once MDS was referred. Yes, there was mention about Sashtras; but, there was no effort or action to actually refer the MDS. Hinduism is ever evolving. Hinduism is paved by the followers; the followers are not forced to follow a track by Hinduism. It is quite possible MDS ruled at sometime in the past; may be not...Honestly, we don't know for sure; what we know is, in 2010, Hindus are not referring to MDS or follow the prescriptions from MDS. MDS gets thrown out by Hinduism; for upholding MDS, Hinduism does not through out the people.

The Kasi priest (in the video “India Untouched”) is, from this point of view, a true and orthodox Hindu

Why do you say that? Is it because that priest quoted 'Purusha suktam' principles for the creation of varnas? That priest is living in the past; that priest was taken to court and was jailed few times! Hinduism had moved away long back from such priests. Like Sri.Kunjuppu mentions now and again, the face of present Hinduism can be seen from Sow.Happy Hindu. If you refer to a point of view that refers such priest as orthodox Hindu, such point of views are the things of the past.

Cheers!

 

[saarangam]

Personally I spoke to a learned sanskrit scholar and he said `Manu Dharma' is not applicable to `Kali Yuga' and justified the same through a `sanskrit' sloka. Since I don't know sanskrit, I am unable to quote the same here.

[/QUOTE]

IMO all our rituals and religious practices are stipulated by the gR^hya suthras. These gR^hya suthras (Apasthambha, AsvilAyana, kAthyAyana etc) themselves are based on Manu Smrithi.If one accepts that MDS is not applicable to Kaliyuga and it has already been thrown out by the Brahmins then there is no meaning in following these rituals and ceremonies.It is preposterous to insist on strictly observing the rituals to keep oneself identified as a Brahnmin and at the same time denouncing the smrithis.

 

[sangom]

Sri.Sangom said:-



Sri.Sangom, greetings. Personally I don't follow any religion. I wish and strive to be a humanist. Having put that aside, kindly allow me to disagree with the statment quoted above, please. MDS had died and buried amoung ordinary everday persons. I lived as a Hindu for many years in an orthodox family; never once MDS was referred. Yes, there was mention about Sashtras; but, there was no effort or action to actually refer the MDS. Hinduism is ever evolving. Hinduism is paved by the followers; the followers are not forced to follow a track by Hinduism. It is quite possible MDS ruled at sometime in the past; may be not...Honestly, we don't know for sure; what we know is, in 2010, Hindus are not referring to MDS or follow the prescriptions from MDS. MDS gets thrown out by Hinduism;

Dear Shri Raghy,

If you will again read my post, you will see that it is divided into two sections, the first-the orthodox pov, and the second, the scholastic view. The above quote comes in the first section which deals with the pov which the orthodox core will have. Now, if you will again read the section carefully, according to the orthodoxy, MDS comes in the very beginning of the SM and all other Smritis are only later texts by different scribes for simplification, elucidation, etc. MDS is the source, the Gangotri, so to say, of all the later Smritis. So irrespective of whether Manu was discussed in your household, or any other was discussed, if you had poonal done to you and had recited "abhivaadaye" you should have said about some "sutra" like aapastamba, baudhaayana, aasvalaayana, gautama, etc. Those refer to the Smritis which your forefathers claimed they were following and you were also supposed to be adhering to. Hence MDS came indirectly in your life also and it is coming in every TB's life whenever he does any vaidika ritual from garbhaadaanam to cremation (which of course some one else will have to do !) and sraaddham for the Manes. Hope it is now clear to you.

...for upholding MDS, Hinduism does not through out the people.Why do you say that? Is it because that priest quoted 'Purusha suktam' principles for the creation of varnas? That priest is living in the past; that priest was taken to court and was jailed few times! Hinduism had moved away long back from such priests.

I said exactly the same. The Kasi Priest upholds the Orthodox pov and in his view (that is the orthodox pov) we are all outside the chaturvarnya fold as per the injunctions contained in MDS. But he upholds them - or at least says so - and gets jailed. That is what I wanted to convey in the following sentences:
"If we take the stand that MDS is no longer applicable and that it has been superceded by the Indian Constitution, we can have no claim to even being a Hindu! The Kasi priest (in the video “India Untouched”) is, from this point of view, a true and orthodox Hindu."

I don't know whether there is some confusion about this.

 

[sangom]

Personally I spoke to a learned sanskrit scholar and he said `Manu Dharma' is not applicable to `Kali Yuga' and justified the same through a `sanskrit' sloka. Since I don't know sanskrit, I am unable to quote the same here.

IMO all our rituals and religious practices are stipulated by the gR^hya suthras. These gR^hya suthras (Apasthambha, AsvilAyana, kAthyAyana etc) themselves are based on Manu Smrithi.If one accepts that MDS is not applicable to Kaliyuga and it has already been thrown out by the Brahmins then there is no meaning in following these rituals and ceremonies.It is preposterous to insist on strictly observing the rituals to keep oneself identified as a Brahnmin and at the same time denouncing the smrithis.[/QUOTE]Dear Saarangam,

You are right essentially. But MDS being the first Dharma Sastra and so the inspiration for all other Smritis is only as per the orthodox pov. As you will see from the second section of my post, the scholars feel that some Smritis are older than MDS, including Apastamba. But all of them enforce the chaturvarnyam with equal force. Hence if one denounces MDS but follows Apastamba, it does not make any real difference.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Sangom,

Greetings. Thanks for your reply. But, I did not quite understand it. It is a bit too high for me to grasp. No, I am not asking you to explain again though. I was not debating; you were just presenting MDS anyway. So, there is no need for a debate anyway. For all I know, both of us may be trying to bring out the same message; but, like I said, my way is way too simple minded. Thanks again for your reply.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

MDS allows "anuloma" marriages- marriage with women of the lower ranks, with a caveat that such children will have "matru dosha", a black mark due to the mother's lower varna. King having a brahmana wife was looked down upon and the offspring will be a suta (a charioteer).

Not sure about the matru-dosha part (possible that it was added to some dharmashastras at a later time period?).

So far as Altekar’s writings is concerned (and also based on writings of foreign traveller to India), inter-varna weddings thrived well until the 9th century.

Could it be possible some of the products of mixed marriages to be called suta, ambastha, etc were either 'created" or "re-created" after the 8th century....

Just as Bhrigu, Manu Smriti, and many other things in Hindu religion, this personality referred to in MDS is mythical. If we assume that it is the real name of the author of Manu Smriti, and not the son of Bhrigu, this real author might have lived in the 2nd. century BC, when Pushyamitra Sunga was reviving vedic brahminism.

Cud it be possible that one author wrote Manusmrithi in 2nd century BC. But later things were added (interpolated) into the texts somewhere around the 10th century AD?

 

[sangom]

Not sure about the matru-dosha part (possible that it was added to some dharmashastras at a later time period?).

So far as Altekar’s writings is concerned (and also based on writings of foreign traveller to India), inter-varna weddings thrived well until the 9th century.

Could it be possible some of the products of mixed marriages to be called suta, ambastha, etc were either 'created" or "re-created" after the 8th century....

Cud it be possible that one author wrote Manusmrithi in 2nd century BC. But later things were added (interpolated) into the texts somewhere around the 10th century AD?

Dear HH,

In regard to inter-varna marriages, the MDS also condones "anuloma" marriages though it is not so soft towards "pratiloma" marriages. We should remember that these rules were for a completely male-dominated society; a high-caste man could have wife from a lower caste/s, with slight penalty on the offsprings by way of "matru-dosha", but a low-caste man having sexual relationship with a woman of a higher caste was to be punished utterly. The worst scenario will, obviously, be a sudra and a brahmani and the offspring was branded an antyaja.

Hence inter-varna marriages could have been common and some of the offsprings could have become well-known. But I don't think Altekar has gone (nor will it be possible) to reconstruct the exact status of these offsprings among the brahmins of those times. Hence if someone is called Bana Bhatta and is recorded as a brahmin, we may not be sure whether he was given the due respect of brahmin or was given only the deference out of compulsion, because he found favour with the king.

So, it is better and prudent to keep the two issues separate : 1. inter-varna marriages happening, and 2. the status in contemporary society, caste classification, etc., of such offsprings.

Lastly, Altekar's need not be the last word on any of these matters.

I am not an authority, but going by the continuity of the slokas relating to caste classifications given in MDS, that portion at least appears to me as not having any later interpolations. But further research by scholars may show interpolations, I can't say.

As regards MDS as a whole, there were interpolations.

I think you want to find certain presupposed conclusions because Altekar's book has given such impressions to you. I have not read the book, but does Altekar expressly say that there were no discriminations towards the offsprings of inter-varna marriages or that these caste downgradings were later inventions? If so I also would like to know.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Here is the link to Altekar's book: The position of women in Hindu ... - Google Books (Please read the chapter Marriage and Divorce (from page 29)).

Sir, i do think my learning attitude is biased with pre-supposed ideas. Therefore i do need someone to guide (to set my thinking right from time to time)...please do continue to guide me.

Regards.

 

[AnanthaNarayanan]

dear sri Sangom ji

is there any thing useful for a common man and to the world to use and practice from the MDS? for the present time.

if yes ! will u pl post here.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Here is the link to Altekar's book: The position of women in Hindu ... - Google Books (Please read the chapter Marriage and Divorce (from page 29)).

Sir, i do think my learning attitude is biased with pre-supposed ideas. Therefore i do need someone to guide (to set my thinking right from time to time)...please do continue to guide me.

Regards.

Dear HH,

My observations are as under:

Altekar mentions one sutra or sloka in support of the periods of ceremonial impurity (ஆசௌசம், ஸீதகம்)) to be observed in the case of sapindas belonging to the other two castes viz., kshatriyas and vaisyas. But he does not cite the original smriti text it appears (I am unable to get the list of abbreviations page in google preview of the book) since it is shown as A.S.W.I, vol. IV, p.140. Hence it is quite likely that it is from some rather obscure source which might have had limited followers in some part of the country only.

As I have said earlier, kings – both brahmana kings and kshatriya kings – married girls from the three upper castes to suit their fancy or subserve some political advantages, and these were above law, so to say.

Regarding the incident of the brahman Soma marrying a kshatriya lady, I don’t know how Altekar supplies the qualification “of a respectable family” since the cited couplet does not seem to support it. Note that it was “dvayeesu bhaaryaasu”, which I think meant “second wife”; this agrees with MDS which states that B,K,V men should have as their first wives, only girls from their own caste and may marry from the other lower caste/s thereafter. This inter-caste wife was looked down upon, as may be inferred from MDS’ injunction that a brahmachari should pay homage to his guru’s wife by touching her feet if she belonged to the same varna as that of the guru (obviously a brahmana wife), and, in other cases by standing at a distance and touching the ground only.

I will request you to note particularly Altekar’s statement in p.77 of his book:

“It was from about the 10th. Century A.D. that intercaste marriages began to go out of fashion. Alberuni (c. 1020 A.D.) observes…”

It seems to me that his (Altekar’s) method was simple. He had some reliable observations recorded by Alberuni at about the beginning of the 11th. century or so; there were only sporadic mention of inter-caste marriages before that time in some epigraphs and literature. He wanted to paint a picture that everything started changing when Alberuni came here. That does not look good scholastic research work. We have no reliable evidence to show that inter-caste marriages were common among the common masses (Let us not consider the cases of kings as those marriages stand on a different footing as stated earlier, and the people, including the brahmanas might have had to accept it. But even here I do not find transgression of the Dharma Sastra stipulation of the first wife being from the king’s own caste.)

Then Altekar goes on to make various unsubstantiated statements about pre-10th. century inter-caste marriages and related topics. I list below a few as examples:

1.Intercaste marriages were permitted down to the 10th. century because the cultural differences between the members of the different twice-born castes were not many or far-reaching.
2.They were all non-vegetarians.
3.By about the 9th. century, the cultural gulf between different castes became too wide to permit of happy and harmonious inter-marriages.
4.Under the influence of growingly rigorous puritanism Brahmanas gave up Vedic sacrifices and meat-eating;
(Altekar does not give how and whence the puritanic impulse suddenly comes. Muslim conquests on a significant scale started only in the 12th. century and since Muslims were meat-eaters, there was no need for brahmins to shun it from then onwards.)
5.Brahmanas started taking twice or thrice a day.
(It is is very difficult to accept this statement, unless some very convincing evidence is also given.)
6.Sandhya prayers could never have been more than two in the earlier times, now a third one was added at the midday.
(Here again, Altekar does not provide any supporting evidence and, as such, it is his conjecture. If he had selected 12th. century at least the muslim namaz could be said to have influenced the brahmins but Altekar is silent; I don’t know whether he faithfully accepts Alberuni and come to the conclusion that all these happened just before Alberuni’s visit!)

You may be able to see Altekar’s book in a new light if you keep the above observations in mind, in case they appeal to you as valid ones. Otherwise, you may give your views.

 

[kunjuppu]

dear sri Sangom ji

is there any thing useful for a common man and to the world to use and practice from the MDS? for the present time.

if yes ! will u pl post here.

anantha,

the very name of manu is full of bad connotations within the confines of current day societal morals and decency.

it is best that manu is confined to the dung heap of history and forgotten, except perhaps for serious scholars.

 

[sangom]

dear sri Sangom ji

is there any thing useful for a common man and to the world to use and practice from the MDS? for the present time.

if yes ! will u pl post here.

Dear Anantha,

From your query it is clear that you feel there is nothing useful for a common man and to the world to use and practice from MDS in the present time. May be you are correct. But as you will kindly observe from my remarks in the first post in this thread, my objective was only to show that MDS was not a handiwork of the kshatriyas (a claim made by some other members in a different thread) and that it was very much to safeguard the pre-eminence of brahmins. The rest all you see in this thread is the result of the queries posed by different members. I thought I should counter the kshatriya claim because it was made in opposing my views then. And since it would be a longish post requiring quite some time for me, I post-poned it.

As regards your query proper, pl. see the post by saarangam on the previous page. Most of the daily rituals that brahmins do, have their instructions succinctly contained in the Dharma Sutras, MDS being one of those. Since we have several books dealing with those subjects in a more exhaustive and lucid way, I don't think there is any point in reproducing them here.

Of course, for one who does not believe or follow any of the rituals, the entire Dharma sastra literature will be perfectly useless except as research material !!

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sir,

I feel Altekar's sample size was perhaps restricted to a particular part of the country.

Perhaps in a given region all the dwijas of the 3 classes were indeed meat-eaters (in the west coastal regions or some areas in UP ?).

It wud have been better if Altekar had mentioned the region(s) and the names of the communities of his study, instead of clubbing everyone as "dwijas".

But since Altekar was a historian, perhaps he did not find it necessary to mention his sources (perhaps he took it for granted). And if he did, it might have occupied considerable space in his book, or might have required another book itself i suppose.

However, he has mentioned specific instances, epigraphical / inscriptional evidence and notes from various scriptures from page 29 to 80. If one were to go thru the previous pages he has given sufficient examples. The page (from which you have mentioned points 1 to 6 below) is actually a continuation of his reasons from the previous pages.

Anyways, about Altekar: Anant Sadashiv Altekar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (so am not really sure if an accomplished historian like him wud have said things just like that. Nevertheless, if he wanted his work to be taken seriously, he should have known provided more elaborate citations and references for some points.

It is quite possible that pockets of India were untouched by the efects of Buddism, Jainism, "Hinduism-after-Adi-Shankara", and therefore meat-eating (as part of vedic sacrifices) continued to exist.

If i remember right i have come across papers reporting changes in customs in other parts of India from the 9th century (will send across links of more papers later). Acculturation by boyas and transforming of tribes into brahmins in this time period has been mentioned here also: Full text of "Dr.N.Venkataramanayya Commemoration Volume"

I feel, something must have happened in that particualar time period (from 9th to 14th century), which resulted in changes in culture (shuning meat, adopting an increasingly puritanical attitude, and observance of various forms of ritual-purity by brahmins).

Perhaps the reason for this was the teachings of Sri Adi Shankara in the 8th century, which provided a firm platform for the revival of hinduism..Though Sri Shankara taught Advaitha, and was restricted to philosophy, it is quite possible that Vedism made a big comeback using the hindu revival platform.

Regards.

Dear HH,

My observations are as under:

Altekar mentions one sutra or sloka in support of the periods of ceremonial impurity (ஆசௌசம், ஸீதகம்)) to be observed in the case of sapindas belonging to the other two castes viz., kshatriyas and vaisyas. But he does not cite the original smriti text it appears (I am unable to get the list of abbreviations page in google preview of the book) since it is shown as A.S.W.I, vol. IV, p.140. Hence it is quite likely that it is from some rather obscure source which might have had limited followers in some part of the country only.

As I have said earlier, kings – both brahmana kings and kshatriya kings – married girls from the three upper castes to suit their fancy or subserve some political advantages, and these were above law, so to say.

Regarding the incident of the brahman Soma marrying a kshatriya lady, I don’t know how Altekar supplies the qualification “of a respectable family” since the cited couplet does not seem to support it. Note that it was “dvayeesu bhaaryaasu”, which I think meant “second wife”; this agrees with MDS which states that B,K,V men should have as their first wives, only girls from their own caste and may marry from the other lower caste/s thereafter. This inter-caste wife was looked down upon, as may be inferred from MDS’ injunction that a brahmachari should pay homage to his guru’s wife by touching her feet if she belonged to the same varna as that of the guru (obviously a brahmana wife), and, in other cases by standing at a distance and touching the ground only.

I will request you to note particularly Altekar’s statement in p.77 of his book:

“It was from about the 10th. Century A.D. that intercaste marriages began to go out of fashion. Alberuni (c. 1020 A.D.) observes…”

It seems to me that his (Altekar’s) method was simple. He had some reliable observations recorded by Alberuni at about the beginning of the 11th. century or so; there were only sporadic mention of inter-caste marriages before that time in some epigraphs and literature. He wanted to paint a picture that everything started changing when Alberuni came here. That does not look good scholastic research work. We have no reliable evidence to show that inter-caste marriages were common among the common masses (Let us not consider the cases of kings as those marriages stand on a different footing as stated earlier, and the people, including the brahmanas might have had to accept it. But even here I do not find transgression of the Dharma Sastra stipulation of the first wife being from the king’s own caste.)

Then Altekar goes on to make various unsubstantiated statements about pre-10th. century inter-caste marriages and related topics. I list below a few as examples:

1.Intercaste marriages were permitted down to the 10th. century because the cultural differences between the members of the different twice-born castes were not many or far-reaching.
2.They were all non-vegetarians.
3.By about the 9th. century, the cultural gulf between different castes became too wide to permit of happy and harmonious inter-marriages.
4.Under the influence of growingly rigorous puritanism Brahmanas gave up Vedic sacrifices and meat-eating;
(Altekar does not give how and whence the puritanic impulse suddenly comes. Muslim conquests on a significant scale started only in the 12th. century and since Muslims were meat-eaters, there was no need for brahmins to shun it from then onwards.)
5.Brahmanas started taking twice or thrice a day.
(It is is very difficult to accept this statement, unless some very convincing evidence is also given.)
6.Sandhya prayers could never have been more than two in the earlier times, now a third one was added at the midday.
(Here again, Altekar does not provide any supporting evidence and, as such, it is his conjecture. If he had selected 12th. century at least the muslim namaz could be said to have influenced the brahmins but Altekar is silent; I don’t know whether he faithfully accepts Alberuni and come to the conclusion that all these happened just before Alberuni’s visit!)

You may be able to see Altekar’s book in a new light if you keep the above observations in mind, in case they appeal to you as valid ones. Otherwise, you may give your views.