Saptha,
The basic premise (the methodology) in which you are making (your own) fanciful intrepretations is incorrect.
1) If you want it to have some semblence of credibility, please break down that whole verse into individual dhatu-sounds first.
2) Then provide the root sound meaning of each word (with the context in which you intend to use them, without deviating from the original set of meanings of the root words).
3) And then explain the meaning of the full verse (and finally explain how your interpretation fits in).
Those meanings (your own POVs) will not be accepted by any sampradayam unless you provide all of the above for the whole verse.
If you do the above, i will show your verse to the monks and ask them if it can be held as a valid interpretation.
No need to write pages and pages of fanciful stuff by simply saying the meaning of dooshanam, pramada, etc. Everyone knows meanings.
Without the root sound breakdown of the entire verse, all you explanations will be considered invalid.
Nor can you create a context of your own, assign it to the verse; and claim that this is what Manu would have meant.
Am reminded of this note of yours to Raghy
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...te-system-weakness-hinduism-33.html#post38415 :
If, I, an agnyani can see another meaning, imagine the plethora of options before a Panditha! Also, the meanings could be highly contextual, symbolic, and mostly having an inner meaning.
Anyone who knows the basics of allegorical terminology derivation in sanskrit language wud not put it as though a pandit has a plethora of options.
Its known that a verse can have allegorical / metaphorical meaning; but a pandit cannot derive additional meanings unless the verse itself is constructed using compounded words alluding to that effect. And neither can he derive meanings based on his own imagined contexts.
Methinks, only those who do not know sanskrit will fall for your explanations (its a peronal pov).
Anyways, am writing down the incorrections here:
Please find below:
स्वभावं एश नारिनाम इह दूशणं|
अतो अर्थान न प्रमाद्यन्ति प्रमदासुविपाश्रित: ||
Am splitting this up as follows:
स्वभावं /एश/ नारिनाम/इह/दूशणं/अतः/अर्थान/न /प्रमाद्यन्ति/प्रमदा/सु/विप/आश्रित:
English meaning:
Inherent nature/this/of women/is/contaminative(weak)/therefore/by this reason/do not/intoxicate/young women/very or much or proper/learned man/dwell or inhabit
It makes more sense now.
Putting together in a sentence
This inherent nature of women is (by virtue of) contaminative. Therefore, due to this reason, the well-learned do not intoxicate by dwelling on young women.
Note: विप + आश्रित: = विपाश्रित:, and
प्रमदा + सु + विप + आश्रित: = प्रमदासुविपाश्रित:
Now let us come to the meaning:
First he says that there is an inherent nature. What is this? It is not any individual character the verse talks about. Rather, it is about a general nature which is common to women. Since it does not indicate anything here, we have no clue as to that 'inherent nature' which is 'contaminating'. (Note, he does not say that women are dhooshanam!)
स्वभावं एश
नारिनाम इह दूषनम
The verse clearly says स्वभावं (svabhavam, nature) एश
नारिनाम इह दूषनम (Naarinam eha dooshanam) - simple as that.
And dooshanam's meaning is plain and clear - it means faulty / contaminating.
So he means it as simple as that - women's nature is faulty, contaminating.
What is the meaning of providing this part:
Note:
विप + आश्रित: = विपाश्रित:, and
प्रमदा + सु + विप + आश्रित: = प्रमदासुविपाश्रित:
In what way have you used it in your explanation above?
Then we have a clue from the next line. प्रमाद्यन्ति derived from प्रामाद्य which means intoxication (related to the Dhattura plant also). Therefore there is an inherent nature in women which causes intoxication. Therefore it must be her beauty - but again, beauty can be of two kinds viz, physical and mental (intellectual). It can be either alone or in combination, but then it can apply to men equally, so the verse must denote both, but with greater emphasis on the physical beauty/charm.
He mentions the word pramadyanti (i already gave the meaning of pramada). He does not say anything about a woman's beauty, intellect.
There is no single word in that phrase that can be broken down into dhatu words that allude to a woman's beauty or intellect (like in soundarya lahiri).
Please provide the dhatu words if you think they exist in that verse.
That verse merely says प्रमाद्यन्ति प्रमदासुविपाश्रित: women cause pramada to learned men - plain and simple.
If you wish to think that a verse "must denote both" and that too thing "with a greater emphasis" on physical beauty / charm, then you must explain how. Not by claiming. But by proving from the sentence-construction that the words (dhatus) are usable that way.
No root-sound derivation in sanskrit permits usage in one's own context. Every root sound has to mean only its fixed meanings. {already gave example about the sound dhi - you cannot use it to mean beauty. Its fixed meanings are intellect, intelligence, thought, etc}
Similarly Pramada means only Pramada - there is no other word in that verse that means beauty, intellect or any kind of sookshanam that you mentioned before.
It would have been different if that verse had mentioned a naari's soundaryam and then warned a man. But obviously he didn't. And moreover, if a woman is beautiful and intelligent - so what? And why learned men must stay away from women?
If one can make up own meanings like you have, a male teenager with a hormone rush can easily make up a 1001 meanings.
This charm then is dhooshanam - he says. Why? The answer, again, is in the next line - it is because this charm has an intoxicating effect. If we are intoxicated, then we forget who we are, our status and our knowledge and our esteem. Intoxication also gives pleasure but as it progresses, it captivates our senses.
You saying their charm is dooshanam ?!! So a woman being called faulty, defective, contaminated, is her charm ??
And dooshanam is not even used colloquially - its meaning is always fixed as a negative connotation.
Anyone can think that such an interpretation is that of a misogynist, not just a chauvanist.
Thankgod the verse did not say that. There is nothing in the dhatu-construction of that verse which can allude to such a meaning either.
Thus effectively, the first verse says that the charm, which is inherent in women is of a contaminating nature.
Which dhatu sound in the verse refers to 'charm'?
Now, we will come to the second line:
For this reason, mentioned above, the well-learned do not dwell on young women. What does dwell mean here? Does it indicate physical proximity? Of course, because only then can the charm apply. But then, that alone will not intoxicate unless it goes into one's mind. Therefore 'dwell' must be construed to mean 'frequenting the mind by thoughts of young women. Why young women? Why not women in general. I can also connect प्रमाद्यन्ति with प्रमदा which gives another meaning that young women are intoxicating. Also a young woman has more charm (a general acceptance) - do we not say 'sweet sixteen'?
Thus the second verse indicates - 'The well-learned do not frequent/indulge their mind with the thoughts of a young woman which will intoxicate.
!!! Quite a fanciful interpretation. Really creative, must say!!. Where does the verse
indicate that?
In totality, it means that due to the inherent charm, which is by itself a contamination (for others), do not indulge easily in the pleasures of a young woman for it is intoxicating.
It cannot be construed to mean that women are dhooshanam and therefore do not LIVE near them. That is contradictory. In audit, there is a concept called 'going-concern concept', which means that the audit is done assuming that the business is likely to continue in future. (Note: this is an analogy).
What i have underlined is what the verse means literally. You have not provided any dhatu-break down to substantiate your (fanciful) interpretation. First please provide the break-down of the words in that verse, individually. Then explain.
Similarly, the union of a man and woman cannot be condemned (as it is natural). So, the verse here indicates that it is not in the normal sense, but easy/frequent indulgence in the pleasures of a woman which would cloud his mind (for that is what happens when intoxicated).
Who says unions are condemnable? And how do you know the verse is "not in the normal sense". Which words (or even dhatus) in the verse are indicative of such a meaning?
The verse simply says learned men must not dwell near naaris (women) because their nature is dooshanam (faulty, defective, contaminating).
Did Adi shankara's not live around ubhaya bharati? Did he not give audience to women? Were women in the 8th century kept away from learned men?
Just look at the language used in that verse (compare it with the kind of sanskrit used by Adi Shankara). Clearly, those verses (in unpolished non-erudite plain language) were inserted into the Manusmrithi after the 8th century.
And what have you today? Mutts (claiming to be the orthodoxy) do not permit women to study vedas (why ?) Where have such things been mentioned in the shruti. Clearly this verse contradicts the shruti.
P.S. There are other ways of interpreting this verse also. But I will wait for your comments on this. 
Regards,
Please go ahead and mention those other ways of interpreting. Am getting a good idea of how it has been so easy to fool the masses using scriptures.
And now i think its better for every hindu to know sanskrit, with a strong basis on dhatus, compounds and grammatical construction, lest they get duped by such likes.
And i thank arya samaj for imparting sanskrit education to all. Jai ho arya samaj.
Regards.
