Guest guest Posted February 17, 2003 Report Share Posted February 17, 2003 srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha Dear Sri Kiran: Manu's words in general have been much maligned in recent times for a couple of reasons: 1. A poor understanding of the context of manu dharama shAstra 2. A potentially poor translation of the original as the source material. If one needs to comprehend ideas expounded in manu dharma shAstra, it is important to have some grounding in shAstras in general (read some formal vEdic / upanishadic training) and a good understanding of the sanskrit language. Manu Smriti has 2684 shlokas (or aphorisms) that capture the entire gamut of the rights and wrongs of human behavior within the context of vEdic dharma. I do not know what specific shlOkas you have a problem with (or is it all of manu smrithi?), but if you can provide specific references, I will attempt to translate the actual shlOka and may be then we can try to reflect on the meanings. In general, manu smrithi is extremely severe on any one who is a charlatan. A brahmin who adopts practices or dharma in contradiction to his ordained dharma is more severely punished than someone who is a shudra by varNa for the same offence. A King who steals is to be punished with a 1000 fold severity for an offence of an ordinary subject. The logical question one may ask is the relevance of manu dharma neethi in times like ours where it is hard to find human beings who live a dharmic life as ordained by the shAstras, within the parameters of their varNa. Most people who call themselves as brahmins these days, per manu, will have to suffer severe punishment / dis-membering, given the absence of ordained anushTAnam. All vEdic acharyas, including Swamy Ramanuja, held manu dharma neethi in high esteem. And there is very good reason. It ties all of manifestation, sentient and prakrithi, to the same supreme source. Manu smrithi begins with a description of the manifest universe, as undertaken by parabrahman srimannArAyaNa (I-10), on the basis of guNa and karma. Let me provide a simple illustration from chapter I: lOkAnAm tu vivrudyartham mukha bAhoorupAdathaha brahmaNam kshatriyam vaishyam shoodram cha niravartayat (I-31) for the worlds to function effectively, the body is classified as follows: brAhmaNa as the face, kshatriya as the shoulders/arms, vysya by the thighs (Ooru) and shoodra by the feet (pAda). Clearly, every organ system in the human body is equally important. And they all have complementary roles. The manifest swaroopam of mankind, stemming from the paramAtma (reference to purusha sooktam here: brAhmoNOsya mukhamAseet bAhoo rAjanyah kruthaha etc) also implies the complimentary functionality of different components emanating from the ultimate divinity. It does not discriminate, nor does it dictate that it is possible to function in the absence of any specific unit. Manu neethi is no different from legal codes we have for different societies these days. We do hang our murderers, incarcerate the rapists and put away those that pillage. It provides a comprehensive guide book for the do's and dont's of life, with reason. However, it is important to recognize that none of this is cast in stone, nor is it meant to be. It also invests authority in the hands of the intellectuals and kings to implement the laws consistent with the requirements of a given situation. Manu smrithi is a guide book, it gives you the freedom to interpret the rules consistent with the context. Much as we may not put to death all murderers, manu neethi ordains the ruler, guided by the intellectual (gnyAni) to implement the code of conduct fairly. And ordains severe punishment for the king or the brahmin who transgress on the basis of inadequate or improper interpretation. It is important to understand that, much as we realize that of every human being is connected to the ultimate divinity, we will not accept transgressions from people when they hurt the innocent. A rapist needs to suffer the kArmic consequences of his (or her) cruelty. A thief needs to be punished for him to not puruse the same activity again. We do not let people who have not gone through formal schooling get into our colleges (examples of how rigid our system is, just that we accept or do not reflect on these). A lot of manu neethi, especially when read as a translation, will sound very harsh. However, if one has the wherewithal to peruse the whole tome (over 12 chapters and 2700 aphorisms), one will understand the tie-in to fairness, humanity and divinity. aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, sridhar ramanuja, "indkirru <indkirru>" <indkirru> wrote: > Namaskarams!! > Dear Sir, > Thanks a lot for the clarification!! I still have one more > question which was uncleared. > > Why did Manu talk of innaccessibility of Vedas(Scriptures) to certain > classes of people? What is your opinion about Manu's words? > > When I read Manu's words, I immediately rejected his words.I felt > (still feel) that his words do not deserve to be quoted or followed. > I wanted to see if my point of View is right or not. > > My approach to Spritualism is that "We begin to be spiritual only if > we start seeing everyone as part of that Supreme. So a natural > implication of that would be , as you said "There can be NO Caste, > Community, Language barriers in this area." So Can Manu be right? > > Thanks again, > Kiran > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2003 Report Share Posted February 18, 2003 Dear Sir, Namaskarams!! Thanks for the clarifications. I found the manu's translations here. http://www.sibal.com/sandeep/texts/manu.html I am listing below some of Manu's slokas(translations) which I find discriminatory. They might have been mistranslated. It would be great if you can clarify the below translations for me. Kiran ------------------------------ A Kshatriya, having defamed a Brahmana, shall be fined one hundred (panas); a Vaisya one hundred and fifty or two hundred; a Sudra shall suffer corporal punishment. A Brahmana shall be fined fifty (panas) for defaming a Kshatriya; in (the case of) a Vaisya the fine shall be twenty-five (panas); in (the case of) a Sudra twelve. For offences of twice-born men against those of equal caste (varna, the fine shall be) also twelve (panas); for speeches which ought not to be uttered, that (and every fine shall be) double. A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth. If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. He who through arrogance makes false statements regarding the learning (of a caste-fellow), his country, his caste (gati), or the rites by which his body was sanctified, shall be compelled to pay a fine of two hundred (panas). He who even in accordance with the true facts (contemptuously) calls another man one-eyed, lame, or the like (names), shall be fined at least one karshapana. He who defames his mother, his father, his wife, his brother, his son, or his teacher, and he who gives not the way to his preceptor, shall be compelled to pay one hundred (panas). (For mutual abuse) by a Brahmana and a Kshatriya a fine must be imposed by a discerning (king), on the Brahmana the lowest amercement, but on the Kshatriya the middlemost. A Vaisya and a Sudra must be punished exactly in the same manner according to their respective castes, but the tongue (of the Sudra) shall not be cut out; that is the decision. Thus the rules for punishments (applicable to cases) of defamation have been truly declared; I will next propound the decision (of cases) of assault. With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu. He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. But if a Brahmana unintentionally kills a Kshatriya, he shall give, in order to purify himself, one thousand cows and a bull; Or he may perform the penance prescribed for the murderer of a Brahmana during three years, controlling himself, wearing his hair in braids, staying far away from the village, and dwelling at the root of a tree. A Brahmana who has slain a virtuous Vaisya, shall perform the same penance during one year, or he may give one hundred cows and one (bull). He who has slain a Sudra, shall perform that whole penance during six months, or he may also give ten white cows and one bull to a Brahmana. Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl, or a crow, he shall perform the penance for the murder of a Sudra; ------------------------------- ramanuja, "SS <pataps>" <pataps> wrote: > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha > > Dear Sri Kiran: > > Manu's words in general have been much maligned in recent times for a > couple of reasons: > > 1. A poor understanding of the context of manu dharama shAstra > 2. A potentially poor translation of the original as the source > material. > > If one needs to comprehend ideas expounded in manu dharma shAstra, it > is important to have some grounding in shAstras in general (read some > formal vEdic / upanishadic training) and a good understanding of the > sanskrit language. Manu Smriti has 2684 shlokas (or aphorisms) that > capture the entire gamut of the rights and wrongs of human behavior > within the context of vEdic dharma. > > I do not know what specific shlOkas you have a problem with (or is it > all of manu smrithi?), but if you can provide specific references, I > will attempt to translate the actual shlOka and may be then we can > try to reflect on the meanings. > > In general, manu smrithi is extremely severe on any one who is a > charlatan. A brahmin who adopts practices or dharma in contradiction > to his ordained dharma is more severely punished than someone who is > a shudra by varNa for the same offence. A King who steals is to be > punished with a 1000 fold severity for an offence of an ordinary > subject. > > The logical question one may ask is the relevance of manu dharma > neethi in times like ours where it is hard to find human beings who > live a dharmic life as ordained by the shAstras, within the > parameters of their varNa. Most people who call themselves as > brahmins these days, per manu, will have to suffer severe > punishment / dis-membering, given the absence of ordained > anushTAnam. > > All vEdic acharyas, including Swamy Ramanuja, held manu dharma neethi > in high esteem. And there is very good reason. It ties all of > manifestation, sentient and prakrithi, to the same supreme source. > Manu smrithi begins with a description of the manifest universe, as > undertaken by parabrahman srimannArAyaNa (I-10), on the basis of guNa > and karma. > > Let me provide a simple illustration from chapter I: > > lOkAnAm tu vivrudyartham mukha bAhoorupAdathaha > brahmaNam kshatriyam vaishyam shoodram cha niravartayat (I-31) > > for the worlds to function effectively, the body is classified as > follows: brAhmaNa as the face, kshatriya as the shoulders/arms, vysya > by the thighs (Ooru) and shoodra by the feet (pAda). Clearly, every > organ system in the human body is equally important. And they all > have complementary roles. > > The manifest swaroopam of mankind, stemming from the paramAtma > (reference to purusha sooktam here: brAhmoNOsya mukhamAseet bAhoo > rAjanyah kruthaha etc) also implies the complimentary functionality > of different components emanating from the ultimate divinity. It > does not discriminate, nor does it dictate that it is possible to > function in the absence of any specific unit. > > Manu neethi is no different from legal codes we have for different > societies these days. We do hang our murderers, incarcerate the > rapists and put away those that pillage. It provides a comprehensive > guide book for the do's and dont's of life, with reason. However, it > is important to recognize that none of this is cast in stone, nor is > it meant to be. It also invests authority in the hands of the > intellectuals and kings to implement the laws consistent with the > requirements of a given situation. Manu smrithi is a guide book, it > gives you the freedom to interpret the rules consistent with the > context. Much as we may not put to death all murderers, manu neethi > ordains the ruler, guided by the intellectual (gnyAni) to implement > the code of conduct fairly. And ordains severe punishment for the > king or the brahmin who transgress on the basis of inadequate or > improper interpretation. > > It is important to understand that, much as we realize that of every > human being is connected to the ultimate divinity, we will not accept > transgressions from people when they hurt the innocent. A rapist > needs to suffer the kArmic consequences of his (or her) cruelty. A > thief needs to be punished for him to not puruse the same activity > again. We do not let people who have not gone through formal > schooling get into our colleges (examples of how rigid our system is, > just that we accept or do not reflect on these). > > A lot of manu neethi, especially when read as a translation, will > sound very harsh. However, if one has the wherewithal to peruse the > whole tome (over 12 chapters and 2700 aphorisms), one will understand > the tie-in to fairness, humanity and divinity. > > aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, > > sridhar > > ramanuja, "indkirru <indkirru>" > <indkirru> wrote: > > Namaskarams!! > > Dear Sir, > > Thanks a lot for the clarification!! I still have one more > > question which was uncleared. > > > > Why did Manu talk of innaccessibility of Vedas(Scriptures) to > certain > > classes of people? What is your opinion about Manu's words? > > > > When I read Manu's words, I immediately rejected his words.I felt > > (still feel) that his words do not deserve to be quoted or > followed. > > I wanted to see if my point of View is right or not. > > > > My approach to Spritualism is that "We begin to be spiritual only > if > > we start seeing everyone as part of that Supreme. So a natural > > implication of that would be , as you said "There can be NO Caste, > > Community, Language barriers in this area." So Can Manu be right? > > > > Thanks again, > > Kiran > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2003 Report Share Posted February 19, 2003 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Dear Sri Sridhar, Now that this "Manu" topic is raised,I will be happy if you can clear some of my doubts. I guess there so many DharmashAstrAs like Manu,Yagnyavalkya,Vishnu,Apastamba,Brhaspati,etc. Which one is followed? I don't remember exactly which one of the two (Manu or Yagnavalkya)says this: women should be mentally and financially dependent. Also vedas say that women and sudra are not eligible to study the scriptures. But we do find references in Valmiki Ramayana that a bunch of women used to perform daily offerings inclusive of Sita. I guess Sita chants Gayatri which can be done only after the initiation(this I have heard and it could be wrong). And only the first three varnas are eligible for that. If the bottomline of the vedas is "dAsathvam(to Sriman Narayana)",then vedas can only mean that women and sudra need not (instead of should not)study the scriptures. Because dAsathvam is already inherent in women and sudra while it's lacking in the first three varnas and hence they(latter group) need to study scriptures to develop that "dAsathvam". In Valmiki Ramayana(Valmiki Ramayana also suffers from contradictory statements meaning in some places we find Valimiki dead against rituals and in some other places he is full of praises for rituals),we find(in AyODhyA kANda) "sthrInAm bharthA hi dhaivatham" - II.39.29,30 It says that a woman by serving her husband reaches heaven in the next life. She need not worship any other deity and by serving her husband she achieves Dharma. Has it been quoted elsewhere like purva mimasa or smrti texts? Valmiki Ramayana does not deal with mOksha but Dharma and it can be interpreted from SV perspective. I seriously do not know if Valmiki saw SriRama as "sAkshAt" Sriman Narayana(because Narada muni equates him to brahma and also says he is vishnu and Rama will reach brahma lokam which is a contradiction to BG 8.16 where the Lord says that from brahma down to tufts of grass are subject to the cycle of samsara). So I will think that SriRama is Dharma(rAmO vigrahavAn Dharma) otherwise it will be a violation of the "five" manifestations of God and He has all His glorious and divine qualities in the five manifestations. If somebody sees SriRama as only a human character then many things in Valmiki Ramayana itself can not be explained unambiguously. But if SriRama is considered as the God Himself,He has all the veto power to act as the way He wants and no one can question it. Please feel free to correct me anywhere and will be great if you can throw some light on the issue mentioned above. AzhvAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar ThiruvadigaLE sharaNam NC Nappinnai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha Dear Sri Kiran: Thank you for your feedback. I do not have the wherewithal or the interest to discuss what you have reproduced below or rebut the translation that is provided at the web site. But, I would suggest that for one to understand the true spirit of smruthi (manu, yAgnyavalkya et al) texts and their social relevance, it is important to learn from someone trained in the shAstras. Because all these texts are context-based, and explicitly specify that all action based on these texts should be guided by the situation and proper interpretation. As I said in my earlier posts, while there has been a tendency to really focus on translations that highlight the cruelty towards shudras (or other lower varNas) in the smruthis for various transgressions, it may be more instructive if you would examine the definitions for the varNas given in Chapter I (and please find the original, translations such as the one you have produced below has no relevance to the real text). Because here, Manu goes to extensive lengths to define the various varNas. The manu smruthi, before saying anything else, has 12 shlOkas in the first chapter to define who is a brahmin (in terms of attributes). It talks of a person whose only focus is lOka rakshaNam and kshEmam, someone who has no kAma, krOdha, mOha, lObha, mada, mAtsarya, some one whose focus is acquisition and transmission of knowledge, someone whose activities are dominated by generosity, truthfulness, kindness for all beings, one who will not do anything that would harm society or others, one who has fully controlled and subjugated all the senses, one whose thought constantly dwells on the divine, one who has overcome material and bodily needs and attachments, and so on. By manu's definition, one who works to acquire material resources and benefits for one self and one who does not worry about the welfare of others in society (not family) is not a brahmin. So, that rules out pretty much all of us who work for a living to support ourselves and our families. So, if we are all perturbed by what manu says about shudras, let us not be. Because there are not too many brahmins against whom we can commit apachArams :-) Please understand that none of this has anything to do with our connection to divinity or our ability to puruse the ultimate purushArtha of mOksha. Manu smruthi is a guidebook for social conduct, and the book also states that the relevance of these dharma shAstras will become very questionable in kali yuga, when adharma will rule the roost. That we will live in a world where greed is extolled, vanity is glorified, the powerful define the justice and the corrupt become the powerful. Where truth fades into insignificance when compared with the lies of those who can speak it with loudness and clarity. Where expedience will become the basis for our existence. Where mothers will kill their babies, children will kill their parents and people will cohabit like animals. Hence, my suggestion is as follows: A lot of manu smruthi is irrelevant in this day and age from a stand point of social conduct. And manu smruthi does not (will not) talk about our qualification to approach the divine. That is an inherent right every sentient being is born with. In the real scheme of things, that is all that matters. As swamy parAsara bhaTTar says in ashTa shlOki (ukArOnanyArham niyamayathi sambandham anayOhO), we are all bound to the same paramAtma srImannArAyaNa in a unique, one on one bond. And nothing else really matters. aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, sridhar ramanuja, "indkirru <indkirru>" <indkirru> wrote: > Dear Sir, > > Namaskarams!! Thanks for the clarifications. > > I found the manu's translations here. > http://www.sibal.com/sandeep/texts/manu.html > > I am listing below some of Manu's slokas(translations) which I find > discriminatory. They might have been mistranslated. It would be great > if you can clarify the below translations for me. > > Kiran > > ------------------------------ > > A Kshatriya, having defamed a Brahmana, shall be fined one hundred > (panas); a Vaisya one hundred and fifty or two hundred; a Sudra > shall suffer corporal punishment. > A Brahmana shall be fined fifty (panas) for defaming a Kshatriya; > in (the case of) a Vaisya the fine shall be twenty-five (panas); > in (the case of) a Sudra twelve. > For offences of twice-born men against those of equal caste > (varna, the fine shall be) also twelve (panas); for speeches which > ought not to be uttered, that (and every fine shall be) double. > A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross > invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low > origin. > If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) > with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust > red-hot into his mouth. > If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall > cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. > He who through arrogance makes false statements regarding the > learning (of a caste-fellow), his country, his caste (gati), or > the rites by which his body was sanctified, shall be compelled to > pay a fine of two hundred (panas). > He who even in accordance with the true facts (contemptuously) > calls another man one-eyed, lame, or the like (names), shall be > fined at least one karshapana. > He who defames his mother, his father, his wife, his brother, his > son, or his teacher, and he who gives not the way to his > preceptor, shall be compelled to pay one hundred (panas). > (For mutual abuse) by a Brahmana and a Kshatriya a fine must be > imposed by a discerning (king), on the Brahmana the lowest > amercement, but on the Kshatriya the middlemost. > A Vaisya and a Sudra must be punished exactly in the same manner > according to their respective castes, but the tongue (of the > Sudra) shall not be cut out; that is the decision. > Thus the rules for punishments (applicable to cases) of defamation > have been truly declared; I will next propound the decision (of > cases) of assault. > With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the > three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is > the teaching of Manu. > He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he > who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. > A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a > man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, > or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. > But if a Brahmana unintentionally kills a Kshatriya, he shall > give, in order to purify himself, one thousand cows and a bull; > Or he may perform the penance prescribed for the murderer of a > Brahmana during three years, controlling himself, wearing his hair > in braids, staying far away from the village, and dwelling at the > root of a tree. > A Brahmana who has slain a virtuous Vaisya, shall perform the same > penance during one year, or he may give one hundred cows and one > (bull). > He who has slain a Sudra, shall perform that whole penance during > six months, or he may also give ten white cows and one bull to a > Brahmana. > Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an > iguana, an owl, or a crow, he shall perform the penance for the > murder of a Sudra; > ------------------------------- > > > > ramanuja, "SS <pataps>" <pataps> > wrote: > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha > > > > Dear Sri Kiran: > > > > Manu's words in general have been much maligned in recent times for > a > > couple of reasons: > > > > 1. A poor understanding of the context of manu dharama shAstra > > 2. A potentially poor translation of the original as the source > > material. > > > > If one needs to comprehend ideas expounded in manu dharma shAstra, > it > > is important to have some grounding in shAstras in general (read > some > > formal vEdic / upanishadic training) and a good understanding of > the > > sanskrit language. Manu Smriti has 2684 shlokas (or aphorisms) > that > > capture the entire gamut of the rights and wrongs of human behavior > > within the context of vEdic dharma. > > > > I do not know what specific shlOkas you have a problem with (or is > it > > all of manu smrithi?), but if you can provide specific references, > I > > will attempt to translate the actual shlOka and may be then we can > > try to reflect on the meanings. > > > > In general, manu smrithi is extremely severe on any one who is a > > charlatan. A brahmin who adopts practices or dharma in > contradiction > > to his ordained dharma is more severely punished than someone who > is > > a shudra by varNa for the same offence. A King who steals is to be > > punished with a 1000 fold severity for an offence of an ordinary > > subject. > > > > The logical question one may ask is the relevance of manu dharma > > neethi in times like ours where it is hard to find human beings who > > live a dharmic life as ordained by the shAstras, within the > > parameters of their varNa. Most people who call themselves as > > brahmins these days, per manu, will have to suffer severe > > punishment / dis-membering, given the absence of ordained > > anushTAnam. > > > > All vEdic acharyas, including Swamy Ramanuja, held manu dharma > neethi > > in high esteem. And there is very good reason. It ties all of > > manifestation, sentient and prakrithi, to the same supreme source. > > Manu smrithi begins with a description of the manifest universe, as > > undertaken by parabrahman srimannArAyaNa (I-10), on the basis of > guNa > > and karma. > > > > Let me provide a simple illustration from chapter I: > > > > lOkAnAm tu vivrudyartham mukha bAhoorupAdathaha > > brahmaNam kshatriyam vaishyam shoodram cha niravartayat (I-31) > > > > for the worlds to function effectively, the body is classified as > > follows: brAhmaNa as the face, kshatriya as the shoulders/arms, > vysya > > by the thighs (Ooru) and shoodra by the feet (pAda). Clearly, > every > > organ system in the human body is equally important. And they all > > have complementary roles. > > > > The manifest swaroopam of mankind, stemming from the paramAtma > > (reference to purusha sooktam here: brAhmoNOsya mukhamAseet bAhoo > > rAjanyah kruthaha etc) also implies the complimentary functionality > > of different components emanating from the ultimate divinity. It > > does not discriminate, nor does it dictate that it is possible to > > function in the absence of any specific unit. > > > > Manu neethi is no different from legal codes we have for different > > societies these days. We do hang our murderers, incarcerate the > > rapists and put away those that pillage. It provides a > comprehensive > > guide book for the do's and dont's of life, with reason. However, > it > > is important to recognize that none of this is cast in stone, nor > is > > it meant to be. It also invests authority in the hands of the > > intellectuals and kings to implement the laws consistent with the > > requirements of a given situation. Manu smrithi is a guide book, > it > > gives you the freedom to interpret the rules consistent with the > > context. Much as we may not put to death all murderers, manu > neethi > > ordains the ruler, guided by the intellectual (gnyAni) to implement > > the code of conduct fairly. And ordains severe punishment for the > > king or the brahmin who transgress on the basis of inadequate or > > improper interpretation. > > > > It is important to understand that, much as we realize that of > every > > human being is connected to the ultimate divinity, we will not > accept > > transgressions from people when they hurt the innocent. A rapist > > needs to suffer the kArmic consequences of his (or her) cruelty. A > > thief needs to be punished for him to not puruse the same activity > > again. We do not let people who have not gone through formal > > schooling get into our colleges (examples of how rigid our system > is, > > just that we accept or do not reflect on these). > > > > A lot of manu neethi, especially when read as a translation, will > > sound very harsh. However, if one has the wherewithal to peruse > the > > whole tome (over 12 chapters and 2700 aphorisms), one will > understand > > the tie-in to fairness, humanity and divinity. > > > > aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, > > > > sridhar > > > > ramanuja, "indkirru <indkirru>" > > <indkirru> wrote: > > > Namaskarams!! > > > Dear Sir, > > > Thanks a lot for the clarification!! I still have one more > > > question which was uncleared. > > > > > > Why did Manu talk of innaccessibility of Vedas(Scriptures) to > > certain > > > classes of people? What is your opinion about Manu's words? > > > > > > When I read Manu's words, I immediately rejected his words.I felt > > > (still feel) that his words do not deserve to be quoted or > > followed. > > > I wanted to see if my point of View is right or not. > > > > > > My approach to Spritualism is that "We begin to be spiritual only > > if > > > we start seeing everyone as part of that Supreme. So a natural > > > implication of that would be , as you said "There can be NO > Caste, > > > Community, Language barriers in this area." So Can Manu be right? > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > Kiran > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 Dear Sir, Thanks for your detailed explanation!! > Hence, my suggestion is as follows: A lot of manu smruthi is > irrelevant in this day and age from a stand point of social conduct. > And manu smruthi does not (will not) talk about our qualification to > approach the divine. That is an inherent right every sentient being > is born with. In the real scheme of things, that is all that matters. > As swamy parAsara bhaTTar says in ashTa shlOki (ukArOnanyArham > niyamayathi sambandham anayOhO), we are all bound to the same > paramAtma srImannArAyaNa in a unique, one on one bond. And nothing > else really matters. I would like to build upon your suggestions. But to a naive person studying manu sastra, it looks as though it is discriminatory. So is it not time that authoritative people like Sri Chinna Jeeyar Swamiji do this job of Clarifying what is relevant and what is not? I feel this is of tremendous importance. I feel this is very important because many people use ( are using ) Manu's words (literally) to project a wrong picture of hinduism. Also Manu's words are being used to spread hatred among different communities in our religion. It would do our religion great good if we formally state what is relevant and what is not. I would be great if someone close to Swamiji can talk to him about this issue. Thanks!! Kiran ramanuja, "SS <pataps>" <pataps> wrote: > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha > > Dear Sri Kiran: > > Thank you for your feedback. > > I do not have the wherewithal or the interest to discuss what you > have reproduced below or rebut the translation that is provided at > the web site. But, I would suggest that for one to understand the > true spirit of smruthi (manu, yAgnyavalkya et al) texts and their > social relevance, it is important to learn from someone trained in > the shAstras. Because all these texts are context-based, and > explicitly specify that all action based on these texts should be > guided by the situation and proper interpretation. > > As I said in my earlier posts, while there has been a tendency to > really focus on translations that highlight the cruelty towards > shudras (or other lower varNas) in the smruthis for various > transgressions, it may be more instructive if you would examine the > definitions for the varNas given in Chapter I (and please find the > original, translations such as the one you have produced below has no > relevance to the real text). Because here, Manu goes to extensive > lengths to define the various varNas. The manu smruthi, before > saying anything else, has 12 shlOkas in the first chapter to define > who is a brahmin (in terms of attributes). It talks of a person > whose only focus is lOka rakshaNam and kshEmam, someone who has no > kAma, krOdha, mOha, lObha, mada, mAtsarya, some one whose focus is > acquisition and transmission of knowledge, someone whose activities > are dominated by generosity, truthfulness, kindness for all beings, > one who will not do anything that would harm society or others, one > who has fully controlled and subjugated all the senses, one whose > thought constantly dwells on the divine, one who has overcome > material and bodily needs and attachments, and so on. > > By manu's definition, one who works to acquire material resources and > benefits for one self and one who does not worry about the welfare of > others in society (not family) is not a brahmin. So, that rules out > pretty much all of us who work for a living to support ourselves and > our families. So, if we are all perturbed by what manu says about > shudras, let us not be. Because there are not too many brahmins > against whom we can commit apachArams :-) > > Please understand that none of this has anything to do with our > connection to divinity or our ability to puruse the ultimate > purushArtha of mOksha. Manu smruthi is a guidebook for social > conduct, and the book also states that the relevance of these dharma > shAstras will become very questionable in kali yuga, when adharma > will rule the roost. That we will live in a world where greed is > extolled, vanity is glorified, the powerful define the justice and > the corrupt become the powerful. Where truth fades into > insignificance when compared with the lies of those who can speak it > with loudness and clarity. Where expedience will become the basis > for our existence. Where mothers will kill their babies, children > will kill their parents and people will cohabit like animals. > > Hence, my suggestion is as follows: A lot of manu smruthi is > irrelevant in this day and age from a stand point of social conduct. > And manu smruthi does not (will not) talk about our qualification to > approach the divine. That is an inherent right every sentient being > is born with. In the real scheme of things, that is all that matters. > As swamy parAsara bhaTTar says in ashTa shlOki (ukArOnanyArham > niyamayathi sambandham anayOhO), we are all bound to the same > paramAtma srImannArAyaNa in a unique, one on one bond. And nothing > else really matters. > > aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, > > sridhar > > > > ramanuja, "indkirru <indkirru>" > <indkirru> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > > > Namaskarams!! Thanks for the clarifications. > > > > I found the manu's translations here. > > http://www.sibal.com/sandeep/texts/manu.html > > > > I am listing below some of Manu's slokas(translations) which I find > > discriminatory. They might have been mistranslated. It would be > great > > if you can clarify the below translations for me. > > > > Kiran > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > A Kshatriya, having defamed a Brahmana, shall be fined one hundred > > (panas); a Vaisya one hundred and fifty or two hundred; a Sudra > > shall suffer corporal punishment. > > A Brahmana shall be fined fifty (panas) for defaming a Kshatriya; > > in (the case of) a Vaisya the fine shall be twenty-five (panas); > > in (the case of) a Sudra twelve. > > For offences of twice-born men against those of equal caste > > (varna, the fine shall be) also twelve (panas); for speeches which > > ought not to be uttered, that (and every fine shall be) double. > > A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross > > invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low > > origin. > > If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) > > with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust > > red-hot into his mouth. > > If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall > > cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. > > He who through arrogance makes false statements regarding the > > learning (of a caste-fellow), his country, his caste (gati), or > > the rites by which his body was sanctified, shall be compelled to > > pay a fine of two hundred (panas). > > He who even in accordance with the true facts (contemptuously) > > calls another man one-eyed, lame, or the like (names), shall be > > fined at least one karshapana. > > He who defames his mother, his father, his wife, his brother, his > > son, or his teacher, and he who gives not the way to his > > preceptor, shall be compelled to pay one hundred (panas). > > (For mutual abuse) by a Brahmana and a Kshatriya a fine must be > > imposed by a discerning (king), on the Brahmana the lowest > > amercement, but on the Kshatriya the middlemost. > > A Vaisya and a Sudra must be punished exactly in the same manner > > according to their respective castes, but the tongue (of the > > Sudra) shall not be cut out; that is the decision. > > Thus the rules for punishments (applicable to cases) of defamation > > have been truly declared; I will next propound the decision (of > > cases) of assault. > > With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the > > three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is > > the teaching of Manu. > > He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he > > who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. > > A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a > > man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, > > or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. > > But if a Brahmana unintentionally kills a Kshatriya, he shall > > give, in order to purify himself, one thousand cows and a bull; > > Or he may perform the penance prescribed for the murderer of a > > Brahmana during three years, controlling himself, wearing his hair > > in braids, staying far away from the village, and dwelling at the > > root of a tree. > > A Brahmana who has slain a virtuous Vaisya, shall perform the same > > penance during one year, or he may give one hundred cows and one > > (bull). > > He who has slain a Sudra, shall perform that whole penance during > > six months, or he may also give ten white cows and one bull to a > > Brahmana. > > Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an > > iguana, an owl, or a crow, he shall perform the penance for the > > murder of a Sudra; > > ------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ramanuja, "SS <pataps>" <pataps> > > wrote: > > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha > > > > > > Dear Sri Kiran: > > > > > > Manu's words in general have been much maligned in recent times > for > > a > > > couple of reasons: > > > > > > 1. A poor understanding of the context of manu dharama shAstra > > > 2. A potentially poor translation of the original as the source > > > material. > > > > > > If one needs to comprehend ideas expounded in manu dharma > shAstra, > > it > > > is important to have some grounding in shAstras in general (read > > some > > > formal vEdic / upanishadic training) and a good understanding of > > the > > > sanskrit language. Manu Smriti has 2684 shlokas (or aphorisms) > > that > > > capture the entire gamut of the rights and wrongs of human > behavior > > > within the context of vEdic dharma. > > > > > > I do not know what specific shlOkas you have a problem with (or > is > > it > > > all of manu smrithi?), but if you can provide specific > references, > > I > > > will attempt to translate the actual shlOka and may be then we > can > > > try to reflect on the meanings. > > > > > > In general, manu smrithi is extremely severe on any one who is a > > > charlatan. A brahmin who adopts practices or dharma in > > contradiction > > > to his ordained dharma is more severely punished than someone who > > is > > > a shudra by varNa for the same offence. A King who steals is to > be > > > punished with a 1000 fold severity for an offence of an ordinary > > > subject. > > > > > > The logical question one may ask is the relevance of manu dharma > > > neethi in times like ours where it is hard to find human beings > who > > > live a dharmic life as ordained by the shAstras, within the > > > parameters of their varNa. Most people who call themselves as > > > brahmins these days, per manu, will have to suffer severe > > > punishment / dis-membering, given the absence of ordained > > > anushTAnam. > > > > > > All vEdic acharyas, including Swamy Ramanuja, held manu dharma > > neethi > > > in high esteem. And there is very good reason. It ties all of > > > manifestation, sentient and prakrithi, to the same supreme > source. > > > Manu smrithi begins with a description of the manifest universe, > as > > > undertaken by parabrahman srimannArAyaNa (I-10), on the basis of > > guNa > > > and karma. > > > > > > Let me provide a simple illustration from chapter I: > > > > > > lOkAnAm tu vivrudyartham mukha bAhoorupAdathaha > > > brahmaNam kshatriyam vaishyam shoodram cha niravartayat (I-31) > > > > > > for the worlds to function effectively, the body is classified as > > > follows: brAhmaNa as the face, kshatriya as the shoulders/arms, > > vysya > > > by the thighs (Ooru) and shoodra by the feet (pAda). Clearly, > > every > > > organ system in the human body is equally important. And they > all > > > have complementary roles. > > > > > > The manifest swaroopam of mankind, stemming from the paramAtma > > > (reference to purusha sooktam here: brAhmoNOsya mukhamAseet bAhoo > > > rAjanyah kruthaha etc) also implies the complimentary > functionality > > > of different components emanating from the ultimate divinity. It > > > does not discriminate, nor does it dictate that it is possible to > > > function in the absence of any specific unit. > > > > > > Manu neethi is no different from legal codes we have for > different > > > societies these days. We do hang our murderers, incarcerate the > > > rapists and put away those that pillage. It provides a > > comprehensive > > > guide book for the do's and dont's of life, with reason. > However, > > it > > > is important to recognize that none of this is cast in stone, nor > > is > > > it meant to be. It also invests authority in the hands of the > > > intellectuals and kings to implement the laws consistent with the > > > requirements of a given situation. Manu smrithi is a guide book, > > it > > > gives you the freedom to interpret the rules consistent with the > > > context. Much as we may not put to death all murderers, manu > > neethi > > > ordains the ruler, guided by the intellectual (gnyAni) to > implement > > > the code of conduct fairly. And ordains severe punishment for > the > > > king or the brahmin who transgress on the basis of inadequate or > > > improper interpretation. > > > > > > It is important to understand that, much as we realize that of > > every > > > human being is connected to the ultimate divinity, we will not > > accept > > > transgressions from people when they hurt the innocent. A rapist > > > needs to suffer the kArmic consequences of his (or her) cruelty. > A > > > thief needs to be punished for him to not puruse the same > activity > > > again. We do not let people who have not gone through formal > > > schooling get into our colleges (examples of how rigid our system > > is, > > > just that we accept or do not reflect on these). > > > > > > A lot of manu neethi, especially when read as a translation, will > > > sound very harsh. However, if one has the wherewithal to peruse > > the > > > whole tome (over 12 chapters and 2700 aphorisms), one will > > understand > > > the tie-in to fairness, humanity and divinity. > > > > > > aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, > > > > > > sridhar > > > > > > ramanuja, "indkirru <indkirru>" > > > <indkirru> wrote: > > > > Namaskarams!! > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > Thanks a lot for the clarification!! I still have one > more > > > > question which was uncleared. > > > > > > > > Why did Manu talk of innaccessibility of Vedas(Scriptures) to > > > certain > > > > classes of people? What is your opinion about Manu's words? > > > > > > > > When I read Manu's words, I immediately rejected his words.I > felt > > > > (still feel) that his words do not deserve to be quoted or > > > followed. > > > > I wanted to see if my point of View is right or not. > > > > > > > > My approach to Spritualism is that "We begin to be spiritual > only > > > if > > > > we start seeing everyone as part of that Supreme. So a natural > > > > implication of that would be , as you said "There can be NO > > Caste, > > > > Community, Language barriers in this area." So Can Manu be > right? > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Kiran > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.