purushasuktam - varna

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Dr.Ramanathan,

No, please do not embarass me by apologizing. I was only worried that you might think i am some sort of a brahmin-hater.

I only feel bad that even some people closest to me can see me as a villan for saying some things. But we younger generation want some peaceful change.

Sir, if the likes of me don't say these things, someone else will definitely say these things; and probably with a different intensions.

We do not want our religion to be abused by everyone, from politicians, missionaries to those with anti-state agendas; just for one thing called caste system; which overshadows the multitude of wonderful things which this faith has.

Its our beautiful home and just a few small things can set it right. And we can rightfully see many many guests wanting to make our home their home too.

Too much idealism, and an utopian dream, one might say. But sir, i think practically everyone in the younger generation is an idealist. And a "practical idealist" at that.

Best wishes.

 

[pvraman]

Shudras (service Varna) and Earth are created from the feet. So for, I dont see, it is birth based. By coming from feet (even if we take literally), it is not to be demeaning. Its a dead system and the path is deserted.

Prof Nara mentioned about Thirukural. Kurals are used inside buses. Like vedas, only few people read Thirukural (negligible percentage), and almost nobody follows it, It is irrelevant in this modern world.

Regards

 

[Nara]

....Isn't this a great truth (even if not true)

Dear Shri Anand:

Greetings,

If the varna system had remained not birth based, non-hierarchical, open to lateral movements, not gender biased, etc. etc., then this Rg Vedic verse would not attract any scrutiny. Unfortunately, none of that is true. it is birth based (sorry HH, it is just that way with the possible exception of a sliver of Hindus who follow the ekadanti monks you mention, remain mostly outside the so called main stream), it is impermeable, and women are just baby producing and husband and in-laws serving automatons. So, it is no wonder that people are interested in researching the roots of this bad bad system.

All other things you mention about Purusha Sukhtam seem sublime to you because of your reverence to the religion and the Vedas. To me they have no great transformtive value, they do not make anyone a better person, like Thirukkural could. (PVR, so what if it is in the buses and no one riding the buses could understand it, if one tries to understand he/she would benefit -- the same could not be said about Prusuha Suktha or any of the Vedas).

As for sound, yes properly recited they make wonderful sound to listen to. Recitation of Ghanam by a group of Ghanapaatees is most exquisite to listen to, and IMHO, equal in enjoyment to music by Muddy Waters, Jimmi Hendrix, or James Brown, or Eric Clapton. I was just listening to From the Cradle by Eric Clapton, a collection of blues songs by other articsts sung by Eric -- music to die for. Similarly vedic chants. My cell phone ringer is vedic chant.

Dear Shri Rmanathan, I will try to look at your book after I return home after this extended road trip.

Thank you everyone, and a very happy happy New Year....

 

[anandb]

Dear Shri. Nara,

I never said otherwise that it is not birth based. I am asking where is the discrimination part? How does it being birth based make it discriminatory? And where does it talk about the superiority of the varnas? And where is the reference to women as baby producing, husband serving automatons?

I do know your position on Vedas and I am not here to change it. I love Thirukural as well. It is great to know the sound of Vedas and popular music titillate you in equal measure. Am not being sarcastic. I like popular music as well though I don't listen to it much these days.

Happy New Year.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.PV Raman said:-

"Prof Nara mentioned about Thirukural. Kurals are used inside buses. Like vedas, only few people read Thirukural (negligible percentage), and almost nobody follows it, It is irrelevant in this modern world."

Sri.PVR Sir,

Even I quote Kural every now and then. My children know about Kural since I quote now and again. Thirukkural is relevant for all the times. It was relevant in the past; relevant now; will be relevant in the future.

one of many examples came to my mind as I write the message:-

பீலிபெய் சாகாடும் அச்சிறும் அப்பண்டம்
சாலமிகுத்துப் பெயின்.

(Even a load of peacock feathers would break the axle of the vehicle, if it was over-loaded). (Best one for the buses anyway! ). Who else except Thiruvalluvar could be that wise to write Kural for Pallavan transport some 2,000 years before? :yo:.

 

[Nara]

.... I am asking where is the discrimination part? How does it being birth based make it discriminatory? And where does it talk about the superiority of the varnas? And where is the reference to women as baby producing, husband serving automatons?

Dear Shri Anand: Greetings!

The answer to this is the belief among Brahmin Vaideeka Matams that the validity of Smrthees, and particularly, Manu Smrithee is derived from Shruthi. In one of your replies to HH, you said,

"Adi Shankara who advocated the concept of Advaita and whose Acharyas also say that the Sruti is the base for the Smiriti it is logical that I am a Advaitin and bound to follow the Dharmasastras as well."
​

So, even though the Rg Vedic verse itself is cryptic, the Dharmashashthras, that drive their validity from verses such as these, are pretty clear in this case. In as much as this verse is supposed to be the earliest mention of Varna, this verse must bear some repossibility for the oppression that followed from the Varna system.

Thanks you and happy New Year!

 

[pvraman]

Dear Sri Raghy Ji

Sri.PV Raman said:-

"Prof Nara mentioned about Thirukural. Kurals are used inside buses. Like vedas, only few people read Thirukural (negligible percentage), and almost nobody follows it, It is irrelevant in this modern world."

Sri.PVR Sir,

Even I quote Kural every now and then. My children know about Kural since I quote now and again. Thirukkural is relevant for all the times. It was relevant in the past; relevant now; will be relevant in the future.

one of many examples came to my mind as I write the message:-

பீலிபெய் சாகாடும் அச்சிறும் அப்பண்டம்
சாலமிகுத்துப் பெயின்.

(Even a load of peacock feathers would break the axle of the vehicle, if it was over-loaded). (Best one for the buses anyway! ). Who else except Thiruvalluvar could be that wise to write Kural for Pallavan transport some 2,000 years before? :yo:.

Irrelevant - where everybody is running?. Do they have time to realize the words of Thirukkural?.

Thirukkural is great. Who is following? It has the same fate of other scriptures which teaches honesty, simplicity etc etc


Regards

 

[anandb]

Dear Shri. Nara,

Dear Shri Anand: Greetings!

The answer to this is the belief among Brahmin Vaideeka Matams that the validity of Smrthees, and particularly, Manu Smrithee is derived from Shruthi. In one of your replies to HH, you said,

"Adi Shankara who advocated the concept of Advaita and whose Acharyas also say that the Sruti is the base for the Smiriti it is logical that I am a Advaitin and bound to follow the Dharmasastras as well."
​

So, even though the Rg Vedic verse itself is cryptic, the Dharmashashthras, that drive their validity from verses such as these, are pretty clear in this case. In as much as this verse is supposed to be the earliest mention of Varna, this verse must bear some repossibility for the oppression that followed from the Varna system.

Thanks you and happy New Year!

When the vaideeka matams hold the Sruti as non-discriminatory and the Smiritis deriving their authority from the Srutis, it follows the shastras should be non-discriminatory. Interpolations into the shastras are a human effort which has no validity and hence should be rejected.

BTW, I still cannot find any discriminatory meaning in the Purusasuktha verse. Just because varnas are mentioned do not make it discriminatory.

thanks and Happy New Year to you too.

 

[Nara]

When the vaideeka matams hold the Sruti as non-discriminatory and the Smiritis deriving their authority from the Srutis, it follows the shastras should be non-discriminatory. Interpolations into the shastras are a human effort which has no validity and hence should be rejected.

Dear Anand, Greetings!

1. Do you agree that Manu Smrithi requires discrimination based on birth varna/jati? If no, you need to explain why.
2. If yes for #1,: Anumanam is one of the three accepted valid pramanas by Vaideekas, prathyaksham and sabhdam being the other two. Here, anumanam refers to establishing cause based on the effect, not the other way around. The effect we see is Varna/Jai discrimination found in Manu. If Manu derives validity from Shruthi, then the root cause of Varna based discrimination is Shruthi.
3. If you think the discriminatory verses of Manu are human interpolations, then, why can't we just reject this whole smrithi as we are not sure which part is original and which part is interpolation?

Cheers!

 

[sapthajihva]

Pardon me for barging in...

By Nara: ...Anumanam is one of the three accepted valid pramanas by Vaideekas, prathyaksham and sabhdam being the other two. Here, anumanam refers to establishing cause based on the effect, not the other way around. The effect we see is Varna/Jai discrimination found in Manu. If Manu derives validity from Shruthi, then the root cause of Varna based discrimination is Shruthi.

Anumanam is not mere speculation and wild interpolation - It is a methodical interpretation which has the maximum validity and reason, and logic based on that truth which is never changing. Further, the Anumanam must be in line with the Shruthis.

Also, the effect of varna/jathi as you see being progressed today cannot be compared directly with what was proposed in the days of yore.

Rejecting the varna system is a negation to the fundamental structure of the society/nature of the athma and goes against the Shruthis; the result is not likely to be pleasant!
........................

I can also say that Manusmrithi must be understood so that the Shruthi is not contradicted. This is how it should be.
........................

You see it in the way you want to... that is the crux of the issue.

Regards,

 

[happyhindu]

I can also say that Manusmrithi must be understood so that the Shruthi is not contradicted. This is how it should be.

You see it in the way you want to... that is the crux of the issue.

Shruti gives freedom to women. But Manusmrithi prohibits freedom to women. It portrays women as some kind of fallen creatures out to seduce men. Even mothers cannot be trusted!


1) Svabhavam aysham naarinam eeha dooshnam| Atho arthaan na pramaadhanti pramadaasu vipashritah|| [Manusmrithi 2.213]

It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.

2) Avidvansam alam lokay vidvansam api va punah| pramada hrutpatam naytum kaam-krodhvashaanugam|| Manusmrithi 2.214

For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger.

3) Maatra svasra duhitra va na viviktaasno bhavet| Balvan indriygramo vidvansam api karshati || Manusmrithi 2.215

One should not sit in a lonely place with one's mother, sister, or daughter; for the senses are powerful, and master even a learned man.

4) Balya va yuvatya va vriddya va api yoshita| Na svatantrayena kartavyam kim chid karya grihotva api|| Manusmrithi 5.147

By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.

5) Balyay pitra vashay tishthayth panigrahasya youvanay| putranam bhartri preytay na bhajayath sri svatantranam || Manusmrithi 5.148

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 must never be independent.

6) Verse 9.94 says:
A man aged thirty, shall marry a maiden of twelve years who pleases him; or a man of twenty-four shall marry a girl of eight years of age. If the performance of his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner.

So which 12 year old girl is willing to marry a man of 30 in present times? And wonder how we pride over mullahs, when we have mullah-type laws in hinduism.

And what about Manu permitting the consumption of non-vegetarian food for all dwijas.

1) Verse5.16 says a brahmin can eat patima and rohita if used as offering to gods and manes; likewise he can eat ragivas, simhatundas, and sasalkas on all ocassions.

2) Verse 5.18 says:
The porcupine, the hedgehog, iguana, rhinocerous, tortise and the hare are eatable. (permitted for consumption of dwijas).

3) Verse 5.19 says:
If a dwija knowingly eats mushrooms, village-pigs, garlic, village-cocks, onions or leeks he becomes an outcaste.
(a re-investiture ceremony is prescribed for those who unknowingly consume these things, but for one who who knowingly consumes onions, garlic, there is no remedy, he just becomes an outcaste).

4) Verse 5.22 says:
Beasts and birds recommended for consumption may be slain by brahmanas for sacrifices, and in order to feed those whom they are bound to maintain; for Agastya did this of old.

5) Verse 5.30 says:
The eater who daily devours those destained to be his food commits no sin, for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten for those special purposes.

6) Verse 5.32:
He who eats meat, when he honours gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it or has himself killed the animal, or has received it as a gift.

Manusmrithi prohibits only meat which is not offered to gods / manes as unsuitable for consumption. But meat offered to gods / manes is prescribed as suitable for consumption for the dwijas.

And i wonder who will follow this dictate in the present times:
Manusmrithi Verse 10.129 says:
No collection of wealth may be made by a Sudra, even though he be able to do it; for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to brahmanas.

Wonder how money earned by shudras gives pain to brahmanas...and wonder if this is prescribed in the shrutis. If it is, then please prove it how it is based on the vedas / shrutis. (since it is claimed that smrithis are based on vedas or derived from the shrutis).

And even a religious institution which asks people to follow the smrithis is not following what it preaches with regard to this:
Verse 11.42:
Those who, obtaining wealth from Sudras, and using that offer an Agnihotra, are priests officiating for Sudras (and hence) censured among those who recite the Veda.

Which is why i asked why are iyers performing rituals for shudras and taking dakshina from them....and yes, again, please prove how this is based on the vedas / shrutis.

 

[anandb]

Dear Anand, Greetings!

1. Do you agree that Manu Smrithi requires discrimination based on birth varna/jati? If no, you need to explain why.
2. If yes for #1,: Anumanam is one of the three accepted valid pramanas by Vaideekas, prathyaksham and sabhdam being the other two. Here, anumanam refers to establishing cause based on the effect, not the other way around. The effect we see is Varna/Jai discrimination found in Manu. If Manu derives validity from Shruthi, then the root cause of Varna based discrimination is Shruthi.
3. If you think the discriminatory verses of Manu are human interpolations, then, why can't we just reject this whole smrithi as we are not sure which part is original and which part is interpolation?

Cheers!

Shri. Nara, People like you are getting side tracked by the actual issues confronting the segmentation of society due to the present form of caste discrimination existing in the people's mindset. There is enough evidence in terms of statements of even Westerners that show that India probably survived the numerous external invasions as well as internal wars probably because of the caste system. That is because each caste functioned as a society within itself in a democratic manner with its own by-laws, elections and veto power. There was a sense of identity and pride among the caste members. This sense of identity and pride helped India to thwart the totalitarian ambitions of the British and Islamic rule. The very fact that the system is not to be blamed but later came to become the degenerated state we find this today is because it has been abused by us. One example is dalits after conversion to Christianity or Islam are still called dalit christians or dalit muslims and treated like outcasts. Paulos Mar Gregorios who was once the Metropolitan of the Syrian Orthodox Church in London said once that every Indian Christian is considered to be a second class citizen in the Vatican. To a typical Arab Muslim, Muslims from all other countries are second class and are treated as such. 17th century Europe was one of the worst when it came to class distinctions and racism. So class differences have existed in all societies irrespective of a formal caste system or not. Now to attribute all this to the Sruti when a majority of existential evidence as to how the Hindu society was organised during those times is a worse form of deception than what practiced by the Brits in their times. Pointing to the discriminatory clauses in the Smrtis won't do. There are also countless favorable clauses as well. So rather than harping on the dark side of things, it will do better to relate the Srutis and Smrtis to the spirit of the our religion. Accepting the fundamental logic that both uplifting and downgrading clauses on the same subject cannot exist within the same text it is up to the person concerned to view it either positively or negatively.

It is interesting to see what Manu himself says on this. "For choosing your course of conduct at any time and place, keep in view the instructions given first in Sruti (Vedas), then in Smritis, Itihaas (History of great personalities) and finally you act according to your conscience." (Manu Smriti, 11, 6).

Unless you say the above is an interpolation, you can see Manu has offered a very simple solution. If you need to, you can dump the Srutis, Smrtis, Puranas and Itihasas and just follow your conscience. If it says don't discriminate then don't do it. As simple as that. Our scriptures are not putting a gun to your head and say you do this. So I think you should extend the same courtesy to the scriptures as well instead of trying to find evidence where none exist.

The cure for a headache is not cutting the head.

 

[anandb]

Shruti gives freedom to women. But Manusmrithi prohibits freedom to women. It portrays women as some kind of fallen creatures out to seduce men. Even mothers cannot be trusted!


1) Svabhavam aysham naarinam eeha dooshnam| Atho arthaan na pramaadhanti pramadaasu vipashritah|| [Manusmrithi 2.213]

It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.

2) Avidvansam alam lokay vidvansam api va punah| pramada hrutpatam naytum kaam-krodhvashaanugam|| Manusmrithi 2.214

For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger.

3) Maatra svasra duhitra va na viviktaasno bhavet| Balvan indriygramo vidvansam api karshati || Manusmrithi 2.215

One should not sit in a lonely place with one's mother, sister, or daughter; for the senses are powerful, and master even a learned man.

4) Balya va yuvatya va vriddya va api yoshita| Na svatantrayena kartavyam kim chid karya grihotva api|| Manusmrithi 5.147

By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.

5) Balyay pitra vashay tishthayth panigrahasya youvanay| putranam bhartri preytay na bhajayath sri svatantranam || Manusmrithi 5.148

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 must never be independent.

6) Verse 9.94 says:
A man aged thirty, shall marry a maiden of twelve years who pleases him; or a man of twenty-four shall marry a girl of eight years of age. If the performance of his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner.

So which 12 year old girl is willing to marry a man of 30 in present times? And wonder how we pride over mullahs, when we have mullah-type laws in hinduism.

And what about Manu permitting the consumption of non-vegetarian food for all dwijas.

1) Verse5.16 says a brahmin can eat patima and rohita if used as offering to gods and manes; likewise he can eat ragivas, simhatundas, and sasalkas on all ocassions.

2) Verse 5.18 says:
The porcupine, the hedgehog, iguana, rhinocerous, tortise and the hare are eatable. (permitted for consumption of dwijas).

3) Verse 5.19 says:
If a dwija knowingly eats mushrooms, village-pigs, garlic, village-cocks, onions or leeks he becomes an outcaste.
(a re-investiture ceremony is prescribed for those who unknowingly consume these things, but for one who who knowingly consumes onions, garlic, there is no remedy, he just becomes an outcaste).

4) Verse 5.22 says:
Beasts and birds recommended for consumption may be slain by brahmanas for sacrifices, and in order to feed those whom they are bound to maintain; for Agastya did this of old.

5) Verse 5.30 says:
The eater who daily devours those destained to be his food commits no sin, for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten for those special purposes.

6) Verse 5.32:
He who eats meat, when he honours gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it or has himself killed the animal, or has received it as a gift.

Manusmrithi prohibits only meat which is not offered to gods / manes as unsuitable for consumption. But meat offered to gods / manes is prescribed as suitable for consumption for the dwijas.

And i wonder who will follow this dictate in the present times:
Manusmrithi Verse 10.129 says:
No collection of wealth may be made by a Sudra, even though he be able to do it; for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to brahmanas.

Wonder how money earned by shudras gives pain to brahmanas...and wonder if this is prescribed in the shrutis. If it is, then please prove it how it is based on the vedas / shrutis. (since it is claimed that smrithis are based on vedas or derived from the shrutis).

And even a religious institution which asks people to follow the smrithis is not following what it preaches with regard to this:
Verse 11.42:
Those who, obtaining wealth from Sudras, and using that offer an Agnihotra, are priests officiating for Sudras (and hence) censured among those who recite the Veda.

Which is why i asked why are iyers performing rituals for shudras and taking dakshina from them....and yes, again, please prove how this is based on the vedas / shrutis.

Dear HH,

I would just like to know whether all these NB hating caste hindus and brahmins are having a copy of the Manusmrti at home and judiciously following them to the letter of what is said in them about ill treatment of castes or women. Since there are also a lot of positive things said about leading one's life why are they not following them? Is it something to do with "evil" being attractive? Even supposing that we burn every single copy of the smrtis available, do you think at least the future generations will start thinking that all humans are equal?

It looks like Sir William Jones, an English philologist and a scholar on ancient India said this about the manusmrti - " Only the British administrators and jurists who dominated the scene since 1757 found it expedient for their purposes to present it as a religious code binding all the Hindus. The original text of Manu Smrti has been tampered with is acknowledged by Sir William Jones who introduced it as the law book of the Hindus, as he agrees that ' it is accommodated to the improvements of a commercial age'. The extant text of Manu Smrti is a doctored version, doctored to benefit the commercial class of Britain which had sponsored the East India Company, the company for which he was serving as a judge at Calcutta."

Source: Origins of Hindu Social System by V. Nagarajan

 

[sapthajihva]

I shall play the game your way now,

Shruti gives freedom to women. But Manusmrithi prohibits freedom to women. It portrays women as some kind of fallen creatures out to seduce men. Even mothers cannot be trusted!

This quite presumptuous and a naive assertion, reasoned out by my explanation of the same verses which you have quoted;

1) Svabhavam aysham naarinam eeha dooshnam| Atho arthaan na pramaadhanti pramadaasu vipashritah|| [Manusmrithi 2.213]

Your reference: It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.

My interpretation: This refers to the sookshmam of women i.e., they have the power - mental and physical (beauty) which can captivate even the most learned of men. Therefore, this verse, both praises the charm/intellect of women, and at the same time advices the menfolk to be wary. What is the problem in this?!

2) Avidvansam alam lokay vidvansam api va punah| pramada hrutpatam naytum kaam-krodhvashaanugam|| Manusmrithi 2.214

Your reference: For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger.

My interpretation: This, if you analyze closely, demeans menfolk; that men are of such weak disposition that, irrespective of their knowledge, they can become slave to their desires. How is this discriminatory?!

3) Maatra svasra duhitra va na viviktaasno bhavet| Balvan indriygramo vidvansam api karshati || Manusmrithi 2.215

Your reference: One should not sit in a lonely place with one's mother, sister, or daughter; for the senses are powerful, and master even a learned man.

My interpretation: When a person is in the company of women alone, he cannot but succumb to his passions or emotions. Emotions/passions here mentioned are not sexual, rather they indicate that man can be persuaded either as a son/brother/husband. Is it not meaningful enough?! Most men are kind to their sisters than brothers.

Aside: Freudian theory relates the attraction of sons to their mothers and daughters to their fathers keeping sex as the pivotal criteria. and Freud is much acknowledged!!!

4) Balya va yuvatya va vriddya va api yoshita| Na svatantrayena kartavyam kim chid karya grihotva api|| Manusmrithi 5.147

Your reference: By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.

My interpretation: This refers to vedic and certain restricted yagnyams/rituals etc. On the same note, there are certain rituals which cannot be done by men alone!!! Where is the dichotomy?!

5) Balyay pitra vashay tishthayth panigrahasya youvanay| putranam bhartri preytay na bhajayath sri svatantranam || Manusmrithi 5.148

Your reference: 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 must never be independent.

My interpretation: I shield the light/lamp against wind and water so that it may shine uninterrupted. This is out of my 'preethi'. A woman is a light, to wherever she stays, and so the 'subjection' is to be construed as 'protection'. Where is the adversity here?!

6) Verse 9.94 says:
A man aged thirty, shall marry a maiden of twelve years who pleases him; or a man of twenty-four shall marry a girl of eight years of age. If the performance of his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner.

Your remarks: So which 12 year old girl is willing to marry a man of 30 in present times? And wonder how we pride over mullahs, when we have mullah-type laws in hinduism.

My interpretation: The physique of the early day humans is not known to you or me. Please read Valmiki Ramayana to know what was the height of Rama! And then if you still think that it can be compared adhoc, to people of today, it is your fallacy, not Manu's!

And what about Manu permitting the consumption of non-vegetarian food for all dwijas.

My first advice is to suggest that there are insights to every verse of the Smrithi. It should not be blatantly understood as we want it to be. However, I write below my replies to your remarks (maybe copied from some website).

1) Verse5.16 says a brahmin can eat patima and rohita if used as offering to gods and manes; likewise he can eat ragivas, simhatundas, and sasalkas on all ocassions.

The verse does not say that a brahmin can eat it. Dwijas are brahmins, kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Also, it says that as a part of ritual offerings, the flesh could be consumed, only as Bhavath Prasadha. This does not imply that Dwijas could gorge on these animals like a glutton. BTW, could you provide me the original sanskrit text?

2) Verse 5.18 says:
The porcupine, the hedgehog, iguana, rhinocerous, tortise and the hare are eatable. (permitted for consumption of dwijas).

Not brahmins!

3) Verse 5.19 says:
If a dwija knowingly eats mushrooms, village-pigs, garlic, village-cocks, onions or leeks he becomes an outcaste.
(a re-investiture ceremony is prescribed for those who unknowingly consume these things, but for one who who knowingly consumes onions, garlic, there is no remedy, he just becomes an outcaste).

Ok

4) Verse 5.22 says:
Beasts and birds recommended for consumption may be slain by brahmanas for sacrifices, and in order to feed those whom they are bound to maintain; for Agastya did this of old.

This is a prerequisite for dharma. The Athithi has to be honoured as his position and his habits befits. So, the reception would be different for a sanyasi, a brahmin and a king!

5) Verse 5.30 says:
The eater who daily devours those destained to be his food commits no sin, for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten for those special purposes.

I have highlighted in blue, the crux of the verse - special purpose. The special purpose is for brahmins to eat as Bhagavath Prasadham, and otherwise for other Dwijas.

6) Verse 5.32:
He who eats meat, when he honours gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it or has himself killed the animal, or has received it as a gift.

Same explanation as above.

Manusmrithi prohibits only meat which is not offered to gods / manes as unsuitable for consumption. But meat offered to gods / manes is prescribed as suitable for consumption for the dwijas.

Consumption can be defined in varying degrees. Brahmins can (it is not mandatory) take it only as a prasadham. Prasadham generally is in very limited quantity; so the inference here is that even though a brahmin consumes meant, it is to comply with a higher goal and hence the sin does not accrue. Even then, the yagams/yagnyas are totally different from what we see today. They required severe austerities and karmanushtanam.

And i wonder who will follow this dictate in the present times:
Manusmrithi Verse 10.129 says:
No collection of wealth may be made by a Sudra, even though he be able to do it; for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to brahmanas.

Wealth gives power - and whena shudra with tamo guna gains power, it is kaliyuga. Please treat it as a premonition of Manu to people of those yuga.

Wonder how money earned by shudras gives pain to brahmanas...and wonder if this is prescribed in the shrutis. If it is, then please prove it how it is based on the vedas / shrutis. (since it is claimed that smrithis are based on vedas or derived from the shrutis).

It is quite simple as I said in the preceding para, tamo gunam will reign and varnashrama will be ignored, in turn, vedhas will be destroyed, knowledge is wasted, and jivathmas are damned to eternity in this world. That is why, Manu quoted this verse.

And even a religious institution which asks people to follow the smrithis is not following what it preaches with regard to this:
Verse 11.42:
Those who, obtaining wealth from Sudras, and using that offer an Agnihotra, are priests officiating for Sudras (and hence) censured among those who recite the Veda.

Which is why i asked why are iyers performing rituals for shudras and taking dakshina from them....and yes, again, please prove how this is based on the vedas / shrutis.

I think you have totally misunderstood the verse. It says that a brahmana should not act as a trustee for a shudra and officiate an agnihotra (yagam) on his behalf.

The current priests occupy the gurusthana, and are not trustees for the individual. The offerings are done by us - he merely recites the manthras; and at the last, we acknowledge him as our guru and offer him dakshina. The context is totally different from the verse.

And again, all non-brahmins are not shudras. I have, not yet, come across a brahmin priest, who goes to parayas/dombas/nari koravas and perform a ritual for dakshina. Even if some do, they may be only a miniscule %.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH,

I would just like to know whether all these NB hating caste hindus and brahmins are having a copy of the Manusmrti at home and judiciously following them to the letter of what is said in them about ill treatment of castes or women. Since there are also a lot of positive things said about leading one's life why are they not following them? Is it something to do with "evil" being attractive? Even supposing that we burn every single copy of the smrtis available, do you think at least the future generations will start thinking that all humans are equal?

Yep nobody is following them.

I wonder how iyengars are following manusmrithi. Manu forbids brideprice in no simple terms but some iyengar weddings continue the practice of bride price to this day.

Manu also forbids wedding between father's sister's (atthai's) children and mother's brother's (mama's) children.

It does not matter that people, at their personal level, are not following the MS. But why does a mutt wants ppl to follow it then?

It looks like Sir William Jones, an English philologist and a scholar on ancient India said this about the manusmrti - " Only the British administrators and jurists who dominated the scene since 1757 found it expedient for their purposes to present it as a religious code binding all the Hindus. The original text of Manu Smrti has been tampered with is acknowledged by Sir William Jones who introduced it as the law book of the Hindus, as he agrees that ' it is accommodated to the improvements of a commercial age'. The extant text of Manu Smrti is a doctored version, doctored to benefit the commercial class of Britain which had sponsored the East India Company, the company for which he was serving as a judge at Calcutta."

Source: Origins of Hindu Social System by V. Nagarajan

Yes, it does seem like the extant version of MS is a doctored version. This is what historians say too. So why does a mutt want ppl to follow things without making it clear what parts of a smrithi to follow then?

 

[sapthajihva]

happyhindu, I am quoting a translated version of MS, probably, from the same source as yours:

36. A Brahmana must never eat (the flesh of animals unhallowed by Mantras; but, obedient to the primeval law, he may eat it, consecrated with Vedic texts.

37. If he has a strong desire (for meat) he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour, (and eat that); but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason.

38. As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births.

39. Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

40. Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences.

41. On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed.

42. A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.

43. A twice-born man of virtuous disposition, whether he dwells in (his own) house, with a teacher, or in the forest, must never, even in times of distress, cause an injury (to any creature) which is not sanctioned by the Veda.

44. Know that the injury to moving creatures and to those destitute of motion, which the Veda has prescribed for certain occasions, is no injury at all; for the sacred law shone forth from the Veda.

45. He who injures innoxious beings from a wish to (give) himself pleasure, never finds happiness, neither living nor dead.

It does not seem that meat eating is allowed for brahmanas. The exception is only the rituals. And rules for eligibility to those rituals are quite severe, unlike what we imagine it to be. It is not like simply slaughtering an animal, doing a namesake offeing to God, and eating it to satisfy one's tongue.

Also, the performance of yagams/yagnyams is not prescribed for kaliyuga, due to the extent of our rajo and thamo gaining dominance. As a result, one may start with Bhagavath Prasadha, and then later on, it would degenerate to Manushya Prasadha alone, the original intent ignored. Hence, Nama Sankeerthanam is the ideal way to reach bliss.

 

[happyhindu]

I shall play the game your way now

There is no 'game' to 'play'. If you offer plausible explanations that is good enough. Let us take this step by step.

Svabhavam aysh naarinam eeha dooshnam| Atho arthaan na pramaadhanti pramadaasu vipashritah|| [Manusmrithi 2.213]

This quite presumptuous and a naive assertion, reasoned out by my explanation of the same verses which you have quoted;

Your reference: It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.

My interpretation: This refers to the sookshmam of women i.e., they have the power - mental and physical (beauty) which can captivate even the most learned of men. Therefore, this verse, both praises the charm/intellect of women, and at the same time advices the menfolk to be wary. What is the problem in this?!

The literal meaning of this verse is as below:

स्वभावं = Svabhavam = nature
एश = aysh = this / here
नारिनाम = naarinam = of women
इह - eha = here / in this world / in this life.
दूषनम = dooshanam = fault / defect / contaminate / sin / weakness
अतो = atho = so
अर्थान = arthan = meaning (it means)
न = na = no
प्रमाद्यन्ति = pramaadyanti = causes / causing madness / intoxication
प्रमदासु = pramadaasu = makes slave to pramada (pramada = mad / intoxicated)
विपाश्रित: = vipashrita = Vipa = learned man, aashrita: = inhabiting / being anywhere / being near / dwelling in.

Translated literally it means:

स्वभावं एश नारिनाम इह दूषनम = "Nature of women in this world is dooshanam" (that is faulty / defective / contaminated / weak).

अतो अर्थान न प्रमाद्यन्ति प्रमदासुविपाश्रित: = "so it means a learned man must not dwell / inhabit / be near that which can make a man slave to madness / intoxication".

You say:
My interpretation: This refers to the sookshmam of women i.e., they have the power - mental and physical (beauty) which can captivate even the most learned of men. Therefore, this verse, both praises the charm/intellect of women, and at the same time advices the menfolk to be wary. What is the problem in this?!

Does this verse say anything about the sookshanam of women? Is it mentioned anywhere before or after this verse or anywhere else in the MS? On what basis have you taken the context to be so ?

If there is nothing in the MS mentioning or alluding to the sookshanam of women, can it not be called a figment of your imagination or your own personal POV?

The monks i spoke to, could not connect this particular verse with the rest of the text. One of them considered the language of this verse as very plain sanskrit, the plain jane sort which anyone can write, when compared to the rest of the MS which is written in a better (more erudite) form of sanskrit. I consider it an interpolation.
-----

On hindsight, does this not mean that anyone can infer this verse anyway he wants to, in any context.

So if a man wants to say good things about women and yet ask a man to be wary of women, he can do so.

And if a man wants to make a crass picture out of women, and ask men to be wary of women, he can do so.

The literal meaning however is plain obvious.

When we look around the society (the way how it came to be so horribly subjugative of women in the post vedic period), which version seems to have been put into effect?

To me, the better side of women is explained only by the uttaramimansa monks who permit women to study vedas. The purvamimansa followers and those of shankara mutts do not admit women into their ranks for either sanyasam or for studying vedas. So its plain obvious which version is being followed by whom.

Then there is also the POV of some historians i spoke to, who think that the influx of the northwestern hordes resulted in a section that positioned themselves as kshatriyas or brahmins in those times (and their male chauvinism shows in such verses, am not saying its wrong, it just happened to exist at that time). Anyways, this paragraph deals with POVs that are still under study and cannot be used to substantiate anything as yet.

Avidvansam alam lokay vidvansam api va punah| pramada hrutpatam naytum kaam-krodhvashaanugam|| Manusmrithi 2.214

Your reference: For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger.

My interpretation: This, if you analyze closely, demeans menfolk; that men are of such weak disposition that, irrespective of their knowledge, they can become slave to their desires. How is this discriminatory?!

Again, the literal meaning is obvious. To understand it in the context that you mention, what is the basis? Please explain and we shall take it from there.

3) Maatra svasra duhitra va na viviktaasno bhavet| Balvan indriygramo vidvansam api karshati || Manusmrithi 2.215

Your reference: One should not sit in a lonely place with one's mother, sister, or daughter; for the senses are powerful, and master even a learned man.

My interpretation: When a person is in the company of women alone, he cannot but succumb to his passions or emotions. Emotions/passions here mentioned are not sexual, rather they indicate that man can be persuaded either as a son/brother/husband. Is it not meaningful enough?! Most men are kind to their sisters than brothers.

Aside: Freudian theory relates the attraction of sons to their mothers and daughters to their fathers keeping sex as the pivotal criteria. and Freud is much acknowledged!!!

Yet again, the literal meaning is obvious. How do you know the emotions are not sexual? Then why ask a man not to be alone in the company of his own mother then ? Let me know the basis on which you have chosen to 'create a context' for these verses?

Anyone who reads sanskrit can understand this much easily (so ordinary language used again, so far away from any polished sort of sanskrit erudition) - Maatra svasra duhitra va na viviktaasno bhavet - maatra (mother), svasra (sister), duhitr (daughter), vivikta (solitary, isolated, secluded), na (no), bhavet (there be) - meaning, do not be alone with mother, sister, daughter.

Your reference: By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.

My interpretation: This refers to vedic and certain restricted yagnyams/rituals etc. On the same note, there are certain rituals which cannot be done by men alone!!! Where is the dichotomy?!

How do you know that this refers to rituals? Does this verse mention kalpa, homa or veda anywhere? The verse simple says no svantantrata or independence.

Na svatantrayena kartavyam kim chid karya grihotva api - no freedom to do anything in her house on her own- it says what it wants to say so clearly in such plain language. Where does it mention rituals at all?

And why do you think women were restricted from performing rituals in the vedic times. Have a look at the verses in this: knramesh: Women & vedas

Your reference: 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 must never be independent.

My interpretation: I shield the light/lamp against wind and water so that it may shine uninterrupted. This is out of my 'preethi'. A woman is a light, to wherever she stays, and so the 'subjection' is to be construed as 'protection'. Where is the adversity here?!

Wow! nice imagination must say.

Balyay pitra vashay (in childhood under the control of father),
tishthayth panigrahasya youvanay (in youth to husband),
putranam bhartri preytay (under son as a widow),
na bhajayath sri svatantranam (a female cannot participate independently) (bhajana - share / participate).

Just look at the plain language used. We used to write such sentences for sentence-contruction and paragraph-writing in sanskrit in high school.

The verse so clearly says a woman must be under the control of father in childhood, under husband in youth, under son as widow and must not participate in anything indepndently or share in anything.

Your remarks: So which 12 year old girl is willing to marry a man of 30 in present times? And wonder how we pride over mullahs, when we have mullah-type laws in hinduism.

My interpretation: The physique of the early day humans is not known to you or me. Please read Valmiki Ramayana to know what was the height of Rama! And then if you still think that it can be compared adhoc, to people of today, it is your fallacy, not Manu's!

Ooops, the physique of early humans was different ? In which yuga may i ask. Am sorry but i really want to

MS was not written in some yuga, or in some geological time frame when humans were different (gawd ).

It was written abt 2000 years back, and this verse is again in simple sanskrit, and says exactly what is says -- that a 30 year old must marry a 12 year old....

Please let me know your inputs to the above first. Then we shall go on to the next section of verses on (types of) non-vegetarian diet allowed, prohibited and prescribed; as well as prohibition of rituals to be conducted for shudras.

Regards.

Saptha, am in the middle of something and have delayed things too much in that. If my response comes early, then ok. But just letting you know that my responses may come next week, after 12th Jan...hope that is ok.

 

[Nara]

...... People like you are getting side tracked by the actual issues confronting the segmentation of society due to the present form of caste discrimination existing in the people's mindset.

Dear Anand: Greetings!

People like me wonder why you refuse to give answers to questions that are placed.

Let us first refocus. This part of the discussion started with Shri Ramanathan expressing his disappointment with undue attention being paid to just two lines from Putusha Shuktham. The reason for this attention is that it is the earliest mention of Varna and in as much as Dharmashashthras are supposed to derive their authority from Shruthi, these verses must be held responsible for the varna/jati discrimination.

The last section of your response is quite intriguing. May be I misunderstand you, but it seems you are saying it is alrgiht to dump this entire Varna/Jati system and just follow your concience, am I right? Are you then in favor of declaring Manu not valid for this age?


Saptha,
the reason I mentioned anumanam is to show that anumanam goes from effect to cause, not caue to effect. I agree with you that the validity of anumanam depends upon the consistency of anumanam to shruthi. This does not dilute my argument in any way as the anumanam I am presenting is that of vaideekas like Adi Shankara and Ramanuja, not mine. They both, among others, insisted on the supreme validity of everything in Manu, not just a verse here and there.

Cheers!

 

[sapthajihva]

To begin with, any verse can have a literal meaning and an inner meaning, the reason being the versatility of sanskrit and the gravity of the matter being discussed. That is why proper guidance is needed.

In all verses, there has to be supporting reasons for the verses - elaboration of the sutras. This elaboration cannot be had by a mere reading of the literal. The only reasoning in line with the shruthis is accepted. Where the literal meaning contradicts with pramanams or reasoning, it has to be dropped, and the more nobler one should be assumed.

There is no 'game' to 'play'. If you offer plausible explanations that is good enough. Let us take this step by step.

Be it your way.

स्वभावं एश नारिनाम इह दूषनम = Nature of women in this world is dooshanam (that is faulty / defective / contaminated / weak).

Now you have to contemplate on this. Why does Manu say tht women are dhooshanam?! The reason being that women are the object of desire - of the physical senses. By their very charm, they charm even the most steadfast, and hence 'beauty', itself is an obstruction to the goal of life. Hence, dhooshanam, here should be construed in this sense and not as blatantly as you suggest.

Does this verse say anything about the sookshanam of women? Is it mentioned anywhere before or after this verse or anywhere else in the MS? On what basis have you taken the context to be so ?

I could not suppress my chuckles. The word need not be literally given, but is construed to infer the intent.

Manu in some other parts say that women are to be honoured; the Dhevas reside where they are treated well. So, like the Shruthis, (the Bhedha and Abedha verses), there are seemingly contradictory verses, but only to the cursory glance.

That is why, the meaning of each verse has to be contemplated upon. This is the basis.

If there is nothing in the MS mentioning or alluding to the sookshanam of women, can it not be called a figment of your imagination or your own POV?

You may call it whatever you want, but there is a process by which every suthra has to be understood.

On hindsight, does this not mean that anyone can infer this verse anyway he wants to, in any context.

So if a man wants to say good things about women and yet ask a man to be wary of women, he can do so.

And if a man wants to make a crass picture out of women, and ask men to be wary of women, he can do so.

The literal meaning however is plain obvious.

That is what one would think if an independent study were made. That is why we have so many charges against Manusmrithi. That is why, Saampradhaayic teachings should continue.

Again, the literal meaning is obvious. To understand it in the context that you mention, what is the basis? Please explain and we shall take it from there.

I have said it before. A verse is not a standalone. Everything has to be read in conjunction, in totality.

Yet again, the literal meaning is obvious. How do you know the emotions are not sexual? Then why ask a man not to be alone in the company of his own mother then ? Let me know the basis on which you have chosen to 'create a context' for these verses?

The literal meaning is not obvious. You have presumed it to be sexual. How have you considered that there are sexual suggestions in this?

How do you know that this refers to rituals? Does this verse mention kalpa, homa or veda anywhere? The verse simple says no svantantrata or independence.

How do you know this does not refer to rituals? Manu, here, does not speak of brushing one's teeth or the calls of nature. By nature, whatever has to be done alone has to be done alone. It is therefore, the situation which demands attention rather than the literal here.

Just look at the plain language used. We used to write such sentences for sentence-contruction and paragraph-writing in sanskrit in high school.

Time to leave your school books aside. The understanding of the suthras not only require scholastic abilities, but also nishtya obtained through karma.

I stand by my interpretation - a lamp if unattended may turn into a raging fire which consumes the house. Care and protection is needed.

Ooops, the physique of early humans was different ? In which yuga may i ask. Am sorry but i really want to

Yes; if you care to read Valmiki Ramayana, you could know this.

MS was not written in some yuga or in some geological time frame when humans were different (gawd )).

It was written abt 2000 years back, and this verse is again in simple sanskrit, and says exactly what is says that a 30 year old must marry a 12 year old....

Our Dharmashasthras do not say it as 2000 years old. It has crossed Kritha, Thretha and Dwapara yugas. You self-amusement notwithstanding, the current scientific studies are not capable of realizing it.

Please let me know your inputs to the above first. Then we shall go on to the next verses on non-vegetarian diet prescribed as well as prohibition of rituals to be conducted for shudras.

Be my guest.

 

[sapthajihva]

happyhindu, you have accepted that you have not gone beyond the literal meaning. That is a fallacy. Any meaning which depends purely on the literal alone cannot be a proper interpretation. This is not my opinion, but this is the manner in which any suthra has to be understood. If you happenned to ask a student of law, he would begin to tell you a process of deciding on a case. Similarly, the 'literal' alone does not prove any taken case.

If you want to have a proper and meaningful debate, first try to contemplate on why Manu has said so, while not contradicting the shruthis, then perhaps we may be more closer to the issue.

 

[Nara]

.......... Why does Manu say tht women are dhooshanam?! The reason being that women are the object of desire - of the physical senses. By their very charm, they charm even the most steadfast, and hence 'beauty', itself is an obstruction to the goal of life. Hence, dhooshanam, ...."

Dear Saptha, the above description makes Manu look like a veritable Wahabi or Taliban, no?

I have said it before. A verse is not a standalone. Everything has to be read in conjunction, in totality.

We are not talking about complicated tax laws or Healthcare reform laws here. Manu's laws governing conduct should be straight forward edicts, do's and don'ts, so that the common peope can easily understand and follow, no?

Why make them so inscrutable and difficult to understand? Why should the direct meaning be so vile and only the hidden meaning, not readily available to even the well educated but available only to some special people, be so elevating?

In this respect, the 10 commandments fare quite well, at least they are direct. Most of them are silly, like don't covet the neighbor's ass, but at least they are direct and we don't need "learned" scholars to interpret them for the faithful.

To me, Manu looks vile in everyway and we all will be better off, particularly Brahmins, if they just toss Manu into the Bay of Bengal.

Cheers!

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear Shri Nara, the outlook depends on individual perception. Isn't it?

We are not talking about complicated tax laws or Healthcare reform laws here. Manu's laws governing conduct should be straight forward edicts, do's and don'ts, so that the common peope can easily understand and follow, no?

IMO, the reason why the edicts offer different meanings, or seem to, is that whenever the society degenerates to such a level, accordingly the meaning could be construed. The purpose is to be dhaarmic, to oblige karmas and to attain mukthi. That is all.

Maybe, one could mentally toss Manu to anywhere, but his edicts will ring eternally as the guidance to the ultimate truth.

Regards,

 

[Nara]

.....If you want to have a proper and meaningful debate, first try to contemplate on why Manu has said so, while not contradicting the shruthis, then perhaps we may be more closer to the issue.

Dear Saptha, this is an undue burden placed on us who are on the other side of the issue. If you want us to reject the literal meaning, then it is up to you give us a reasonable alternative. Give us your interpretation, provide the necessary supporting references, and prove your point. If this is not done satisfactorily for whatever reason, the literal meaning is all we have to go by, nothing more.

Cheers!

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear Saptha, this is an undue burden placed on us who are on the other side of the issue. If you want us to reject the literal meaning, then it is up to you give us a reasonable alternative. Give us your interpretation, provide the necessary supporting references, and prove your point. If this is not done satisfactorily for whatever reason, the literal meaning is all we have to go by, nothing more.

Cheers!

Thank you for this piece of enlightenment. But there are many traditional acharyas who offer enough guidance as to how it should be interpreted.

Any debate must be properly supported - I agree. Then, it is also the onus of the other side to make an effort to understand it and to respect an alternative, when given. The way I see it, you do not want to merit the alternative.

The stand that you will go only by the literal is parochial. It does not stand to reason.

Again, for those who already have a stand - 'on the other side', as you term it, it is but a meaningless debate which would ever remain unsatisfactory, as you have already concluded your position. Satisfaction, then, is relative and fleeting.

Regards,

 

[happyhindu]

The response from you was rather quick. Am adding a few notes here.

ME:
The literal meaning of this verse is as below:

स्वभावं = Svabhavam = nature
एश = aysh = this / here
नारिनाम = naarinam = of women
इह - eha = here / in this world / in this life.
दूषनम = dooshanam = fault / defect / contaminate / sin / weakness
अतो = atho = so
अर्थान = arthan = meaning (it means)
न = na = no
प्रमाद्यन्ति = pramaadyanti = causes madness / intoxication
प्रमदासु = pramadaasu = makes slave to pramada(pramada = mad / intoxicated)
विपाश्रित: = vipashrita = Vipa = learned man, aashrita: = inhabiting / being anywhere / being near / dwelling in.

Translated literally it means:

स्वभावं एश नारिनाम इह दूषनम = "Nature of women in this world is dooshanam" (that is faulty / defective / contaminated / weak).

अतो अर्थान न प्रमाद्यन्ति प्रमदासुविपाश्रित: = "so it means a learned man must not dwell / inhabit / be near that which can make a man slave to madness / intoxication".

Saptha:
Now you have to contemplate on this. Why does Manu say tht women are dhooshanam?! The reason being that women are the object of desire - of the physical senses. By their very charm, they charm even the most steadfast, and hence 'beauty', itself is an obstruction to the goal of life. Hence, dhooshanam, here should be construed in this sense and not as blatantly as you suggest.

Ofcourse Manu meant women are objects of desire (if he had written this sentence, that is). And in that. he streotypes women in the typical MCP (male chavunistic p*g) fashion. And ofcourse dooshanam is construed in that way. What was blatant about what i wrote?

Manu says it so blatantly, but you have decided "to imagine" that he said it in the context of sookshanam. There is no place where Manu has mentioned or alluded to such a meaning anywhere in the MS.

Your own individual "imagination" cannot hold true as the meaning of this verse.

The verse is told in plain and simple sanskrit -- "nature of women is faulty / defective / contaminated / weak. so (even) a learned man must not dwell / inhabit / be near that which can make a man slave to madness / intoxication"

I could not suppress my chuckles. The word need not be literally given, but is construed to infer the intent.

You chuckles notwithstanding, its obvious they you have "inferred" this in your own imagined context.

I repeat, there is nothing in this plain sanskrit verse that mentions any sookshanam. Neither is anything like that mentioned prior to the verse or after the verse. There is nothing to suggest that Manu alluded to such a meaning either.

Let me know which sampradaya endorses the "imagined context" that you have presented?

Manu in some other parts say that women are to be honoured; the Dhevas reside where they are treated well. So, like the Shruthis, (the Bhedha and Abedha verses), there are seemingly contradictory verses, but only to the cursory glance.

That is why, the meaning of each verse has to be contemplated upon. This is the basis.

Those are considered the original work. Obviously the language of those verses stand out. Any kid who studies sanskrit in high school can see that straight away.

The ones that demean women are just interpolations. Nothing to contemplate on it - and that too in your own imagined context.

And please don't bring the bheda and abheda shruti in this respect. Those are philosophical differences. And obviously with no connection to these verses.

We are talking of specific verses that stand out as the 'odd men out' when compared with the rest of the text.

You may call it whatever you want, but there is a process by which every suthra has to be understood.

That is what one would think if an independent study were made. That is why we have so many charges against Manusmrithi. That is why, Saampradhaayic teachings should continue.

I have said it before. A verse is not a standalone. Everything has to be read in conjunction, in totality.

Exactly. The totality of the text does not concur with these interpolated verses that i have mentioned.

Please let me know which sampradayic teaching is "inferring" any of these verses in your imagined contexts.

The literal meaning is not obvious. You have presumed it to be sexual. How have you considered that there are sexual suggestions in this?

You explained this verse in the context of sexuality and even freudanian theory, and therefore i asked

"How do you know the emotions are not sexual? Then why ask a man not to be alone in the company of his own mother then ? Let me know the basis on which you have chosen to 'create a context' for these verses?"

What the verse says is in plain words, that anyone can understand --

Maatra svasra duhitra va na viviktaasno bhavet

- maatra (mother), svasra (sister), duhitr (daughter), vivikta (solitary, isolated, secluded), na (no), bhavet (there be)
- meaning, do not be alone with mother, sister, daughter.

Balvan indriygramo vidvansam api karshati

- balvan (strong man), indriyagramo (vulgar senses), vidvan (learned man) karshati (draw, pull, drag)
- meaning, a stong man, a learned man can also be drawn to his vulgar senses.

literally, it means:
do not be alone with mother, sister, daughter. a stong man, a learned man can also be pulled to his vulgar senses.

Me:
How do you know that this refers to rituals? Does this verse mention kalpa, homa or veda anywhere? The verse simple says no svantantrata or independence.

Na svatantrayena kartavyam kim chid karya grihotva api - no freedom to do anything in her house on her own- it says what it wants to say so clearly in such plain language. Where does it mention rituals at all?

And why do you think women were restricted from performing rituals in the vedic times. Have a look at the verses in this: knramesh: Women & vedas

Saptha:
How do you know this does not refer to rituals? Manu, here, does not speak of brushing one's teeth or the calls of nature. By nature, whatever has to be done alone has to be done alone. It is therefore, the situation which demands attention rather than the literal here.

Ofcourse Manu, here, does not speak of brushing one's teeth or the calls of nature. And neither am i "imagining" that he said so

So what is the situation (which demands attention "rather than the literal" here) that you are imagining - on what basis do you think that he meant rituals?

I again repeat - the verse says it plain and simple - Na svatantrayena kartavyam kim chid karya grihotva api - a woman must not have svantrata (independence) to do anything within her griha (house).

The verse neither says rituals, nor specifies what she must not do by herself. It just says she has no freedom, that's all, plain and simple.

And the verse is not out of context - it is part of the (interpolated) bunch of verses that specify things on women's independence.

Dunno on what basis you imagine that Manu said a woman must not do rituals by herself.

Time to leave your school books aside.

Thankyou for the suggestion. But i thank my school books on sanskrit.

The understanding of the suthras not only require scholastic abilities, but also nishtya obtained through karma.

Really? Probably that is why you have imagined so many things that even Manu had not imagined or written about.

I stand by my interpretation - a lamp if unattended may turn into a raging fire which consumes the house. Care and protection is needed.

Balyay pitra vashay (in childhood under the control of father),
tishthayth panigrahasya youvanay (in youth to husband),
putranam bhartri preytay (under son as a widow),
na bhajayath sri svatantranam (a female cannot participate independently) (bhajana - share / participate).

The verse so clearly says a woman must be under the control of father in childhood, under husband in youth, under son as widow and must not participate in anything independently or share in anything.

Where is the context of your intepretation (of lamp, raging fire, etc)? And may i know by which school of hinduism are your interpretations endorsed?

Am really amazed at your imaginative abilities saptha - your previous explanation of this verse blew me off

My interpretation: I shield the light/lamp against wind and water so that it may shine uninterrupted. This is out of my 'preethi'. A woman is a light, to wherever she stays, and so the 'subjection' is to be construed as 'protection'. Where is the adversity here?!

Yes; if you care to read Valmiki Ramayana, you could know this.

Ofcourse i read the valmiki ramayana.

So if manu prescribes a man aged 30 to marry a girl aged 12, is he prescribing marriages from the ramayana period?

Again, on what basis have you imagined it to be so ?

This is really sheer comedy to me.

Our Dharmashasthras do not say it as 2000 years old. It has crossed Kritha, Thretha and Dwapara yugas. You self-amusement notwithstanding, the current scientific studies are not capable of realizing it.

Oh how sad. So everything to do with current science is short-sighted and incapable of realizing the antiquity of "dharmashastra".

And texts like manusmrithi have actually crossed kritha, thretha, dwapara.....wow!!!!

No wonder mullahs also live in such a self-delusionary world. Ah well, we all share the genetic pool, don't we....


To conclude saptha,
You have mentioned your POVs and imaginations as "interpretations". And you accept that the meanings of the verses you mention are your own. Now please let me know which sampradaya accepts or endorses the "interpretations" or explanations you have given?