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?
). Who else except Thiruvalluvar could be that wise to write Kural for Pallavan transport some 2,000 years before? :yo:.