purushasuktam - varna

[sapthajihva]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

happyhindu, we are not going around in circles. It was you who wanted grammar, syntax and dhathu derivations and explanations (without of course explaining your stand).

You would have noticed that the translation in the scribd document runs like this:

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

Your interpretation (literal or whatever) is this: (refer post # 36)

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.

Copied from the scribd source!

It was after the start of our discussion when you said this: (post # 42)

Nature of women in this world is dooshanam (that is faulty / defective / contaminated / weak). so it means a learned man must not dwell / inhabit / be near that which can make a man slave to madness / intoxication.

Wrong verse; wrong meaning!

Now you say: (post # 97)

All i have done is to break down the words, provide meanings for each of them and recontruct their meaning.

It is faulty; please check with your guru.

(post # 99)

But the meaning i gave is diff from the scribd source. Scribd did not give the meanings of the individual words, nor how the sentence has been constructed.

Both are wrong. So no arguments here.

Yes, there is no word in that verse which alludes to seduction.

So, is not the scribd translation wrong, in your way of looking at things?

Aashritaha refers to dwelling or living (and in this sentence it is about naaris, women).

There is no word called 'aashrithaha' in that verse!

And finally, this is the only sensible thing in your post:

Whatever you provide, i will mention to my gurus and only provide feedback.

Please do that first, with what I have already given. We will see the rest later.

 

[pvraman]

Dear Smt HH Ji,

PVR,

Does every man wear his head on his pants so loose that he is tempted by every woman?

I know my gurus well. They are brahmacharis. Not sure if its good to stereotype all men. Some cud take it as an insult.

And please note it took a great deal of effort to break the tapas of vishwamitra. Not all men are of 'loose character'.

And in manusmrithi we are talking of 'learned men', not common men.

Is Andhra's 75 year old man not "learned" (!?). This has come into light. There are many such cases, which may not be coming out like this. Active Men are weak under certain circumstances. So, they can be tempted by women under certain ambiance and circumstances. The above case is an example.

Regards

 

[pvraman]

Dear Sri Raghy,

Sri.PVR,

You are right. Is it so hard to control the senses in the presence of a very pretty woman? I don't think so. We all have some kind of interaction during all the time in our time. Our harmones go haywire during the teen years and early 20s. I don't think we act indecently towards the girls even in those years. It looks like we have achieved the control of our senses and act more responsibly than the learned wise persons of Manu period. we acted with civility with out reading Manu sasthra at our prime age, didn't we?

Cheers!

IMHO,

It is something to do with the upbringing first in order to be decent, and peers. There are invisible lines drawn around any person with decent upbringing. Acting indecently is one thing which any learned person will hardly do.

But, getting attracted towards beautiful girls is a natural phenomenon. Somebody will exhibit, somebody will just show, somebody will keep it with themselves. I have not seen an active man, who never looks at mini skirts & bare midriffs. May be the circumstances control him with his commitment to his family and upbringing (which plays a great role) and prevent him from advancing. There the family values are coming into control.

Those people can be tested in a different setup (with little soma or sura banam, dim light and privacy). I have seen people over 50 (professionals) passing sexual comments on beautiful girls with skimpy dress.

I wonder, in those days, what kind of dresses they were having? I don't think with Sari with Blouse or Churidhar, pant and T shirts......

Cheers

 

[happyhindu]

happyhindu, we are not going around in circles. It was you who wanted grammar, syntax and dhathu derivations and explanations (without of course explaining your stand).

But you are the one offering interpretations. Not me nor the scribd document. Like the Scribd doc, i too am just giving the literal meaning.

I gave a rough meaning, yes, and i missed naranaam so my translation, as mentioned in the earlier post, requires tweaking up. But hey, mine is still the literal translation (and after enhancement, it will still be the literal one only). Nothing allegorical. No interpretations. Nothing.

So you can throw my translations and the translations offered by sacred-texts.com to the trash can. Nobody is interested in literal meanings and plain translation stuff of these smrithis.

But you saptha, are the one offering interpretations, and rather elaborate and fancy ones must say, so am asking you for the basis of creating such meanings out of those verses.

So now, can you please go ahead and provide the basis for your interpretations. And also provide the source for this verse:
स्वभाव एष नारीणां नराणामिह दूषणम्
अतोर्थान्न प्रमाध्यन्ति प्रमदासु विपश्चित:


Am just clarifying a few things below. Hope we are not going to keep going round these things again and again, instead of focussing on the basis for your interpretations.

You would have noticed that the translation in the scribd document runs like this:

Your interpretation (literal or whatever) is this: (refer post # 36)

Copied from the scribd source!

I really do not understand what's wrong with this post: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/38401-post36.html

I think mentioning all the verses (that are considered interpolated) with the literal translation provided by the sacred-texts.com / scribd source was a good way to begin the conversation on manusmrithi. And yep, mine is still the literal translation only.

It was after the start of our discussion when you said this: (post # 42)

Wrong verse; wrong meaning!

I already accepted i missed naranaam. Though (to me) the meaning does not alter much in the way it puts down women. Am not sure why you are bringing this up again. So can we move on please.

Now you say: (post # 97)

It is faulty; please check with your guru.

One, i did not provide any literal translation in post 97: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/38624-post97.html

Two, i already mentioned i missed naranaam and that my translation requires tweaking up. But, in anycase it is still going to be the literal translation only. Nothing allegorical.

My gurus too provided only the literal translation for those verse (the conversation b/w us on this was almost a year back). At that time, i had only listened, and not written down any notes.

The only thing i remember most clearly was that both of them said these particular verses do not fit in with the rest of the text. The portions deals with how students must behave with their teacher's wife, but these 3 verses are out of context verses about women in general and are not written in good language. They did not provide any allegorical meaning for those verses as they did with quite a few verses in chapter 1.

(post # 99)

Both are wrong. So no arguments here.

If the meanings of the words i provided is wrong, please go ahead and provide the meanings, with allegorical derivations, as you think is right. As regards the sentence contruction, I did not provide a proper sentence construct at all. Just a rough one. and i missed naranaam. Again, hope we are not going to go around in circles about this.

So, is not the scribd translation wrong, in your way of looking at things?

Yes the scribd translation is not good work. Could have been translated much better, and more accurately.

There is no word called 'aashrithaha' in that verse!

Ok. I typed vipashrithaha wrongly.

And finally, this is the only sensible thing in your post:
Please do that first, with what I have already given. We will see the rest later.

My gurus are currently in australia. There is one elderly lady taking sanskrit classes for a few weeks here (will be going back to india soon). According to her, the context of your interpretation is faulty.

She was the one who confirmed for me that there is nothing in the verse that alludes to the charm / intellect of a woman, nor is there anything in that verse to suggest greater emphasis on it.

She called the verses (2.213, 2.214 and 2.215) as crude remarks on women. And also said that that all of the 3 verses cannot be translated or understood without taking the verses preceding it and subsequent to it, into consideration.

So i have given you the set of 3 verses considered interpolations with your interpretations: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/38657-post100.html You can have a look at the sanskrit verses before them and after them on the scribd doc. Please go ahead and provide your basis of interpreting them the way you have. I shall ask the lady first. If the interpretation basis is good, i'll take it further on, show it to my gurus and provide you the feedback. And as mentioned before, i won't comment on your interpretations on my own anymore. Will only provide you the feedback.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Is Andhra's 75 year old man not "learned" (!?). This has come into light. There are many such cases, which may not be coming out like this. Active Men are weak under certain circumstances. So, they can be tempted by women under certain ambiance and circumstances. The above case is an example.

Yes, the 75 year old man as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh is learned (dunno if you also want to take his 'brahmin' 'caste' into consideration while describing him as a learned man).

But he was not "tempted by women" nor was he "weak under certain circumstances". He created his temptations and circumstances himself.

He is a sexual pervert who abused his power, preyed on women young enough to be his grand-daughters, and made life miserable for them.

He is a one-off example; and i do not think all sexually active men are of loose character or so weak in their mind and morals. Nor are all women like that.

Dubbing men and women as sexually weak characters is shameful really....everyone is not like that.

Btw, in manusmrithi we are talking of learned men of the spiritual type.

 

[sapthajihva]

......i won't comment on your interpretations on my own anymore. Will only provide you the feedback.

Thanks for that. I will explain how I arrived at the meaning, some of which you would have already seen in previous posts. I hope that, instead of throwing accusations at Manu or me, we can take this as a learning session.

The first verse:

1st line:

svabhaavam esha naarinaam - (Because) of the inherent nature of women. The naarinaam in sanskrit means that the svabhaavam is posessed by women. That is why I have written 'of women'.
naraanaam iha dhooshanam - the dhooshanam is of men (here or in this world) dhooshanam. dhooshanam is derived from the root dhush which can take on the meanings as corrupt, weak, contaminate, impure etc.

So men have a weakness due to the inherent qualities of women.

2nd line:

atho arthaan - Therefore, for this reason

na - do not

pramaadhyanthi - not intoxicated. pramaadhyanthi is derived from the root madh which could take on the meanings as pleasure, excitement, delight etc.

pramadhaasu - pramadhaa means young woman. sthriling takes the form of pramadaa(su) when in plural form in the locative case which describes the location. here the location of intoxication is fixed on pramadhaa.

vipaschitaha - two roots here - vip and chit. The distinguisher vi adds to form vipaschith, which takes on the meaning as wise, learned. (more deeply, it could mean one whose mind is not easily shaken or the righteous).

Added together, it means - the wise do not indulge in pleasures in young women. (it could also mean that the wise are not careless/negligent about women)

Combining both:

men have a weakness due to the inherent qualities of women. for this reason the wise do not indulge in pleasures in young women.

I wrote sookshmam because of the 'svabhavam'. it is in a general tone, therefore every woman must posses it - either emotion, passion, beauty or intellect or all. The nature of these qualities is not known easily; ie., they are subtle. That is why I described it as sookshmam of women.

 

[sapthajihva]

The second verse

avidhvaamsam alam loke vidvaamsam api vaa punah. pramadhaa hryuptham nethum kaama krodhaanugam.

avidhvaamsam - the ignorant; vidvaamsam - the learned

api vaa - even

alam - to be considered as equal/match

punah - indicates repeatedness.

in this world, the ignorant and the learned are equal to one another. (when and how? is not answered here, but in the next line)

pramadhaa - young woman

hryuptham - to lead astray

nethum - binded, secured

kaama krodhaanugam - under the influence of desires

when under the influence of desires, they go astray bound by women.

combined it forms -

in this world, the ignorant and the learned are equal to one another. when under the influence of desires, they go astray bound by women.

This indicates a state of a man having succumbed to his desires. And in this, no man can escape - there is no difference between the wise and ignorant.

Two inferences -

1. men are weak inspite of their learning. I say the word weak here, because it is implied without having used the word here. otherwise, there would be a differentiation between the learned and the ignorant. so it is an unsaid qualifier.

2. when desires overcome man (ie., when they become the driving force, it leads a man astray to indulge in women)

 

[sapthajihva]

The second verse

the second post was duplicated, and hence I post the third verse here:

maathraa svasraa dhuhithraa vaa na vivikthaasano bhaveth. balavaan indriyagraamo vidhvaamsam api karshathi

here, nothing to infer apart from the meanings of the literals. but it does not qualify anything as vulgar.

viviktha - solitude, alone

aasan - seat

indriyagraamo - the collective senses

meaning:

do not sit in solitude with your mother, sister or daughter. for the collective senses are strong and would even influence the learned.

this verse can be interpreted as per our viewpoint. hence, i inferred that it should be the emotions connected with the relations it indicates. also, it does not mention any other women (apart from a wife). hence it implies that the family ties of a mother, sister or daughter, when alone, could break a man's resolve.

Regards,

 

[sapthajihva]

I did not use the sanskrit fonts as it would consume a lot of time. But I hope this would suffice.

Regards,

 

[Nara]

Originally Posted by Nara View Post
........
Talk about guarding against woman's natural charm or dhooshanam or whatever, is downright 6th century Islam. If a man, that too vipashrita, can't control himself it is his fault, not that of the woman, or her nature, or anything else.
....
​

Yes, that is what Manu says - you are too much in a hurry so as to grab any garbage meaning which is against manusmriti.

Dear Saptha, The above is from the Chit Chat » Indian Charecteristics thread.

From what you say about Manu's verse in your post #106 from this thread, it is clear that Manu is NOT saying the same thing, but was indeed giving a preemptive excuse for men's bad behavior towards women.

Let us look at what you have said:

1. (Because) of the inherent nature of women -- either emotion, passion, beauty or intellect or all.
2. So men have a weakness due to the inherent qualities of women.
3. Therefore, for this reason
4. not intoxicated (with) pleasure, excitement, delight etc.
5. the wise do not indulge in pleasures in young women. (it could also mean that the wise are not careless/negligent about women)

I think most women will find the above quite offensive. You say explicitly that the weakness of men is due to the inherent qualities of women, which are emotion, passion, beauty or intellect. This is downright abominable. This is the perfect intellectual justification for putting women in a cage and treating them as objects of pleasure.

In a world where Manu's Laws are supreme, a man can rape a woman and put the blame on a woman's inherent qualities. After all, his weakness was due to the inherent qualities of women.

If wise avoid the pleasures in young women, or exercise caution in the presence of young women because they may find them irresistible due to the inherent qualities of women, what chance is their for unwise and ordinary men. Woman's inherent qualities made him do it, what can you say, the woman should have covered herself and hidden her inherent qualities, much like the US Marine Captain wanted in Australia.

In this aspect, a land, where Manu's laws are supreme, will be somewhat like Taliban ruled Afghanistan, n'est-ce pas?

Saptha, I am sure you will be among the first to condemn any misuse of Manu's Laws like the above. But, the world is full of gullible people. Given a charismatic leader, we can get even women to agree that it is their fault if they get raped. With Manu's laws in the hands of the unscrupulous, with karma phalan chasing you for countless births, imagine the level of control and domination they can exercise upon the common folks.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

re

There is an old story pertaining to Manu.He was tested to go in his birthday suit,in the presence of women,just to see whether his sense perception were under control.Manu won hands down.He could do it because of the sadhanas he was doing,plus the brahmacharya vairagyam that he attained owing to his tapas,the tejas he radiated in the presence of men/women,made them bow automatically.Such a rishi was Manu,who was later revered for his works of his time and yuga.

Coming to present time,in kali yugam.None of the monks will dare to be tested is my opinion.But,then we have in our midst even now,saints,avatara purushas,shakthi swaroopinis who transcend all,human temptation,and give us sage advice.When the chakras are fully blossomed in the human body,the spiritual power is at ones command,thereby siddhis occuring consistently.

Using a human body as example,to make human beings conform with civility in society,with a decorum that was acceptable at a different yuga,Manu Smriti was written.Despite n number of influences on the mind,people still adhere to basic norms of civil society worldover.

The problem arises,when survival is at stake,then things turn in a different mode of operation,wherein shastram and sampradayam,are on the wayside.

varnam jathi are just categories to profile,so as to make life livable in harmony.A just ruler,will have the means and wherewithal to cater people from all walks of life.This happens only,when the divine lords anugraham is there,without which not even a blade of grass can move.

All humans are born equal.All should be treated equally.Kala Purusha must be respected to understand the basic human courtesy to be extended,to one and all.Some posses the vivekam,some acquire it through various means prescribed in shastras.Will a King like to be treated like a commoner?Will a commoner like to be treated like a King?

Brahmanan is one with Brahman,the origin of our existence worldover on earth and in other planets,the beings take different roopam to survive.Brahmana will sacrifice his own life to protect the dharma of Kshatriyan,Vaishyan,Shudran and his own Brahmana Kulam.

Kshatriya is one,who will sacrifice his very own life,to protect dharma of the other three jathis namely Vaishyas,Shudras,Brahmanar and his own Kshatriya KUlam.

Vaishyar is one,who will sacrifice his very own life,to protect the dharma of Kshathriyan,Shudran,Brahmanan and his very own Vaishyar Kulam.

In modern language jargon,this is simplified as Intellectual Rule Provider is Brahmanan.Defending the civil society from any break up or disharmany is the Defence Force,Police,Intelligence Agency is Kshatriyan.Business men include people involved in trade and commerce,key to financial well being,agriculture is our Vaishyar.Shudran is one who works with all the four varnas,to maintain civil society functioning,which are our labour people.

Is it possible,in modern world if none of the four varnas jathis are not at harmany with each other and are at cross purposes all the time,which inevitably will create chaos,and allow enemies to enter,plunder and loot a community of people.Which leads to domination by an alien force!!

nachi naga.

 

[happyhindu]

Thankyou for the posts Saptha. Please give me time for a few days. Am tied up until thurs, will consult the lady the following weekend and will get back.

If those verses are not interpolations, it wud actually make things very interesting.

In the meantime, please can you provide the source of this verse:
स्वभाव एष नारीणां नराणामिह दूषणम्
अतोर्थान्न प्रमाध्यन्ति प्रमदासु विपश्चित:

 

[happyhindu]

Is it possible,in modern world if none of the four varnas jathis are not at harmany with each other and are at cross purposes all the time,which inevitably will create chaos,and allow enemies to enter,plunder and loot a community of people.Which leads to domination by an alien force!!

it has already allowed enemies to enter, plunder, loot, create chaos.

and there are more waiting in the modern garb of missionary work as well as extremist units.

everywhere in the world civilizations have organized their society and peoples as per their occupations and roles..

but only in india, a social organization model is given such a deep spiritual basis, esp by some institutions to this day..

such a social model (of an organized society) that was used 2000 years ago cannot apply exactly the same way now, unless it adapts...we are not living in that antediluvian age now...times have already changed..

 

[sapthajihva]

From what you say about Manu's verse in your post #106 from this thread, it is clear that Manu is NOT saying the same thing, but was indeed giving a preemptive excuse for men's bad behavior towards women.

In that thread, I intended to say that men cannot control their emotions, since they are weak. I did not intend to mean that nobody is at fault.

I think most women will find the above quite offensive.

That is only your perception.

You say explicitly that the weakness of men is due to the inherent qualities of women, which are emotion, passion, beauty or intellect. This is downright abominable. This is the perfect intellectual justification for putting women in a cage and treating them as objects of pleasure.

An analogy - If there is a desirable object, definitely there would be competition. To gain a tender in a business, people try to bag it either by hook or crook. This does not make the tender itself a bad thing or abominable.

The relations and the means which we place to achieve our material goals or objects of desire say a lot about the qualities of the mechanism.

By saying that women are objects of desire does not men that they are mechanisms for men to enjoy. Rather, it means that they are wanted/liked by men. You construed it in the sense of slavery because of your stand on Manu.

Hence, because of this natural affinity of men towards women, Manu says, do not over indulge (for you would be consumed by desire).

In a world where Manu's Laws are supreme, a man can rape a woman and put the blame on a woman's inherent qualities. After all, his weakness was due to the inherent qualities of women.

No, that is not indicated here. It just says that men should have control over his desires. Manu does not approve infidelity.

The above conclusion is only your extrapolation.

If wise avoid the pleasures in young women, or exercise caution in the presence of young women because they may find them irresistible due to the inherent qualities of women, what chance is their for unwise and ordinary men.

This verse is for ordinary people like you and unwise people like me... :wave: Manu only advocates, the implementation lies in us. If you have already decided that there is no chance, this is a case of prejudice. Or a cowardly act - justifying that since we are ordinary, we cannot control....!!!

Woman's inherent qualities made him do it, what can you say, the woman should have covered herself and hidden her inherent qualities, much like the US Marine Captain wanted in Australia.

This is another of your extrapolation. The verse does not ask women to hide their qualities. It asks men to exercise control over their desires.

The US Marine must not have read Manuneethi!

In this aspect, a land, where Manu's laws are supreme, will be somewhat like Taliban ruled Afghanistan, n'est-ce pas?

bien sur non. Your statement is an example of gross negligence. If Manu's laws are supreme and are followed by everybody, it would be peaceful - there are guidelines for everybody. You are just generalizing the entire scripture based on your incorrect interpretation of one verse.

Given a charismatic leader, we can get even women to agree that it is their fault if they get raped. With Manu's laws in the hands of the unscrupulous, with karma phalan chasing you for countless births, imagine the level of control and domination they can exercise upon the common folks.

With a charismatic leader, the likes of which you have suggested above, Manu need not be taken resort to. Anything could be achieved by such a leader, but does that not prove the fallibility of Manu Dharmam. It is the charismatic leader who twists it so (very much in the manner in which you are doing it now!).

Analogy: We have secular laws now - are they not being twisted? People in positions of power grossly misuse these laws. Do you then, blame the law or the politician?

The onus, sir, is on the individual, whether as a common man or as a man of power. Manu has precisely written these smrithi for all of us to good/dharmic persons, both as an individual and as a part of the society.

Regards,

 

[venkatpasupathy]

Shri Saptajihva,
The dialectic is interesting. Let us see how this pans out. Venkat

 

[nachi naga]

re

"it has already allowed enemies to enter, plunder, loot, create chaos."

One must have common sense to discriminate,which is good and which is bad for society.The people ultimately decide,individually or collectively.What is good for a period of time becomes bad during another period of time and vice versa.When the enemies are within a society,no outsider is required.

"and there are more waiting in the modern garb of missionary work as well as extremist units."

Sure,it's matter of your opinion.

"everywhere in the world civilizations have organized their society and peoples as per their occupations and roles.."

Not neccessarily true.

"but only in india, a social organization model is given such a deep spiritual basis, esp by some institutions to this day.. "

Sitting inside a well,a frog will think it's world is the well aka world.While the world is 'brahma-andam'.


"such a social model (of an organized society) that was used 2000 years ago cannot apply exactly the same way now, unless it adapts...we are not living in that antediluvian age now...times have already changed.."

Every one has the right to hold on to some concept or the other,whether it's 2000 years old or the 28th Manvantaram or simply the 51 st day of Lord Brahma.

Then,pray tell me why discuss at all?about Manu Smriti?

nachi naga.

 

[happyhindu]

Saptha,

Just a small reminder. Please. Because (for me) this is important. Can you please give me the source of this verse.

स्वभाव एष नारीणां नराणामिह दूषणम्
अतोर्थान्न प्रमाध्यन्ति प्रमदासु विपश्चित:

The 2nd line varies. And i have not come across it before. It is different from the standard manusmrithi verse used everywhere.

Shri Saptajihva,
The dialectic is interesting. Let us see how this pans out. Venkat

Yes sir, it is...if indeed these verses are not interpolations, then it throws up lots of diff things.

Just wanted to let you know....if you find this interesting, then you might find this also interesting - its the code of the assur (composite) tribes - their laws are similar to the hindu smrithis: Ancient History Sourcebook: The Code of the Assura, c. 1075 BCE (just excerpts).

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

I did not use the sanskrit fonts as it would consume a lot of time. But I hope this would suffice.

Regards,

Do you have a sanskrit tranlit? If yes, can you please share the source. Am not able to type out the maatras well using the hindi (google) translit.

 

[Nara]

Dear Saptha, I have no doubt, you will surely oppose using this verse of Manu -- in your interpretation a woman's inherent nature being characterized by "emotion, passion, beauty or intellect" and due to these inherent qualities, men have weakness -- as a defense for crime against women. The onus is surely on the individual to act properly. But that is not my point. My point is about the net worth of this verse. More about this in a little bit.

Try telling women that "emotion, passion, beauty or intellect" are part of woman's inherent nature and they cause weakness in men, and, tell me what kind of reaction you get from them. We can even ask women in this forum. It will not be a scientific poll, but we can get a rough sense of what women think of this verse.

Manu's laws are not supposed to be for just a few individuals like you Saptha, who can delve deep into verses and cull out what might have been under the facade of literal meanings. These laws are supposed to be for all humanity, billions of them. In how many of their hands will this verse, as interpreted by you, or with the literal meaning, will be like a loaded gun? A sensible law giver must take care and make sure most reasonable folks can easily understand the intent and apply the laws in the proper way. This is why, in my opinion, the net effect of this verse can only be negative, because there are only a few like you and there are lots and lots of people will use this to control women, put them in a cage. Yes, this only my opinion and I will leave it at that for what it is worth.

You say a land governed by Manu's laws would be peaceful. So was the land ruled by Taliban, only the people who disobeyed their laws had to pay the price, so would be the case in Manu's land.

It is not just this one or two or three verses of Manu, look at the duties Manu prescribes for women in Chapter 5.

I can't believe that a man is advised not be alone with his own mother or sister, presumably because of their inherent nature viz. "emotion, passion, (let us not include beauty as this is his mother or sister) or intellect" and his weakness due to their inherent nature that will charm him. What harm would come from that? Why caution men to avoid being alone with them? Manu must think nothing good can come out of it, or else there is no need for cautioning men against being alone with them. Even if it was his own mother or sister, the charm of their inherent "emotion, passion or intellect" being his weakness will make him do unethical or immoral things. This is the inescapable result of the interpretation provided.

No wonder Manu is reviled with the exception of just a few orthodox Brahmins. It is unfortunate that, dear friend, you want to be one of them.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Do you have a sanskrit tranlit? If yes, can you please share the source. Am not able to type out the maatras well using the hindi (google) translit.

Dear HH, have you tried Itranslator 2003. This supports Unicode-compatible fonts. You can type in Roman, convert, and then copy past it to Unicode enabled browser.

Cheers!

 

[S.Sankaranarayanan]

happyhinduji does not recognise grihya suthras as authorities. Does he mean that the samskaras enjoined therein need not be performed by any varna?

Age-long practice has been that sruthi, smrithi, sishtachara (practice by wise and renowned people) and tradition have been the authorities and each has to follow that. So, if there are differences in various grihya suthras, even then, the individual can follow what comes to him by tradition. We see people following Apasthakmba suthra, Bodyayana Suthra and so on. Throwing all over-board, I feel, is not correct.

happyhinduji also rejects the opinion of Shankar mutts that the poorva mimamsa is essential in as much as it helps in getting chitha suddhi whch in its turn helps in following the tenets of vedantha. Why? Just because they are shankar mutts? There have been many mahapurushas as the matadhipathis and the shankar math statement is born out of experience. So, this fact gives a weightage to their statement.

 

[nachi naga]

re

'The 2nd line varies. And i have not come across it before. It is different from the standard manusmrithi verse used everywhere.'

hh,you have your book and the other person saptha has his/her book.How can one determine,which is standard and the other non-standard?Can anyone say,there is no printer's devil in either of the book's?Can bookish knowledge alone,lead one to inference?Can ekadandi,dwadandi,tridandi,chathurdandi..navdandi..etc monks answere?Yes of course they can,as they are enlightened beings.Just not by bookish knowledge,quoting a verse totally out of context,from here and there, we cannot come to any conclusion about Manu Smrithi ,isn't it?Anubhavam in life is bigger teacher as its Mooladhara Guru for an jeevan,by itself.

nachi naga.

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear Shri Nara,

There is a fallacy in your statement which is ..

............as a defense for crime against women.

Manu did not say to use this verse for committing atrocities against women. You are doing an illogical addition here.

..................................

1. Your grudge is that Manu need not have written in such an esoteric language - 'law is for the masses, so it must be easy to understand', you say.

If I were to present a book each of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), The Companies Act, The Income Tax Act, Sales Act or any other, to all the common mass in India, it is highly doubtful as to how many would understand it!!! The literate are no exception. Only those who are specialised in that field, have studied case references, and have practical experience would have a fair idea of the law.

Legal battles have been waged, contenting the meaning of literals. Such is the case, even now.

And here you are... blaming Manu for witing in a complicated language. I cannot but help feeling that you are trying to impose your thoughts forcibly into areas even when there is no semblance.

2. Your contention - 'Manu says that men will do unethical or immoral things if they are alone with their sister'.

Analogy: There are general rules for an auditor to adhere, some amongst them being - 'Be independent, objective and with integrity'.

Now, can I assume then, that the guides implicitly assume that auditors are such weak beings that they will not be independent, objective or act with integrity??

It is not for you, me or anybody to go behind and assume the intention of the drafting authority. If the reason it says is for a good cause, it is accepted.

This is precisely what you are doing here - going behind and beyond the intention of Manu. By that logic, every law is flawed. There should have been no specific law, only a general one which should say - 'All matters are to be decided on a case to case basis'. Because, writing something would defile the intent, right?

For example - If a law prescribes a punishment for rape, you cannot say that the law maker is vile or the law is abominable, because it assumes that men will rape!!!

Sir, the intent lies in our eyes. If we were to pick fault, not even God can escape from our clutches, let alone you, me or Manu.

Thanks,

 

[sapthajihva]

happyhindu, what is the difference between the two verses? Could you elaborate on it, if you think that it is material.

IMO, the two words in the first line - naraanaam + iha is combined to give naraanaamiha, and the two words in the second line - arthaan + na gives arthaanna.

That is all. There is no change in meaning. I thought you would have been aware of this!

Anyway, for the english to sanskrit transliteration, I use baraha.

Regards,

 

[happyhindu]

happyhindu, what is the difference between the two verses? Could you elaborate on it, if you think that it is material.

IMO, the two words in the first line - naraanaam + iha is combined to give naraanaamiha, and the two words in the second line - arthaan + na gives arthaanna.

That is all. There is no change in meaning. I thought you would have been aware of this!

Anyway, for the english to sanskrit transliteration, I use baraha.

Regards,

That does not matter saptha. Anyone can write the same sentence in a few diff ways. And its not for us to decide whether the meaning changes or not.

Can you please give me the source of that verse.

I really do need to know where is it from.