New Book Release: Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti

[Nithin Sridhar]

Namaste all, 

Over the past few years, I’ve spent time deeply engaging with the Manusmṛti — reading, reflecting, and wrestling with its meaning in today’s world. 

I’m happy to share that this journey has now taken the shape of a book- "Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti: An English Commentary", which is an English commentary on the first four verses of the Manusmriti. 

The book is now available for purchase from Amazon- https://www.amazon.in/dp/8119670914



This book is a personal milestone in my journey as an author. I still remember that the first time I came across Manusmriti or rather the Dharmashastra tradition in a meaningful way was when I was researching for my book 'Menstruation Across Cultures' almost a decade ago.

That chance encounter had opened up an entire new avenue of research and reflection in my journey as a Seeker of Sanatana Dharma. The more I spent the time trying to discover and untangle Dharmashastras, the more I realized its extreme importance as a Shabda Pramana which provides the basic building blocks of Hindu Vision of Life, Society, and Universe.

The journey is far from over, I believe that I have only taken the baby steps. Nevertheless, this book is a culmination of my journey till date seeking to understand the civilizational, philosophical, and spiritual insights of the Dharmashastra.

The first four verses of Manusmriti are not just introductory lines — they carry profound insights into dharma, cosmic order, and the purpose of human life. They embed within themselves the very purpose, object, and goal of Dharma tradition as a whole. My book attempts to highlight and elaborate on all these aspects. The book also focuses on the controversial notion of 'Varna' and clarifies what it truly means in the Dharmashastra texts.

Whether you're a seeker, a student of dharma, or simply curious about our traditions — I invite you to read, reflect, and engage with the book.

Regards,

Nithin

[sridhar.nithin]

Sharing the book cover again.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Pranam nithin ji,

Thank you so much for authoring this work.Since it ws high time that we needed to see such scholarship back again, and to spearhead that in this era, is such a great task therefore congratulating you for this success.

And Nithin ji, I have ordered this today only, after watching the precise vlog of yours on this book on youtube.

Yours sincerely
Saptarshi🙏😁

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/bf88c6e9-06e8-4943-92e3-d21082691d53n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nithin Sridhar]

Thank you. Look forward to hearing your feedback on the book. Please do leave a commeng on Amazon as well. It helps! 

Nithin S

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w-hukar8MA7ENAESUf_UKeEtkNMJ9fdcprgPwqqtD1MmA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Nithin-ji,

Hope to get your book. Thanks for the important contribution and narrating of your journey. I also am surprised the first four verses has such a scope for analysis; this seems similar to the brahmasutras (?).

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK95xdgozsaj8n5dFnMiUEkgu%3DHE%3DCB37TXb5ZVm4JuPt0pptA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nithin Sridhar]

Thank you Putran ji. Indeed the first four verses are profound as they enunciate Anubandha Chatushtaya. Hence, like with Brahmasutras and Bhagawatham, the first four verses of Manusmriti also deserve deeper consideration. 

Nithin S

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oJy0WzV8mR0AB%2B1HFjb-HKeazQhE3LYjLWSyGjqshTDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Absolutely nithin ji, will leave comment on amazon and here as well.🙏😁

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK95xdindkXuFY2iuXgPiDZe0%2B4AaAZxnj-1J%3D9BZsCjpvFB_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Found this interview by Nithin-ji.

https://youtu.be/nvg08CS8WsU?si=RHblcPhGn9a63JER

Mostly caustic comments; worth reading. I have seen only a part, for now. One of the specific objections in the comments was with regards to Nithin-ji saying that manusmriti is foundation to (knowing) Hindu dharma. 

thollmelukaalkizhu 

On Mon, 21 Apr, 2025, 9:54 am putran M, <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[putran M]

Found this interview by Nithin-ji.

https://youtu.be/nvg08CS8WsU?si=RHblcPhGn9a63JER

The description has link to reviews. This one 

https://www.brhat.in/dhiti/chatuh-shloki-manusmriti-review

Is very well-written.

[Nithin Sridhar]

Namaste Putran ji, 

Many people in the comments of the video are probably commenting looking at the title of the video rather than actually watching the video. So, their objection cannot be taken seriously! 

Regards,

Nithin

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rgL8BYRW%3DPj9x1aeR8p2ZaBAisdQ2rJ%3D2vdn5ybsJF_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Nithin-ji,

I meant “worth reading” only to reflect on the animus to the topic that comes out from Hindus; they don’t want anything to do with giving the other side a platform and legitimacy that warrants further engagement. 

Can you however comment/respond on this comment, which follows the standard method of pinpointing particular uncomfortable verses? 

Note that they have chosen this comment as “Highlighted comment”, suggesting it is appropriate purvapaksha that keeps even well-wishers still uncomfortable and deserves response.

“

@RenormalizedAdvait 

2 months ago

The lecture was beautiful filled with humility and acceptance of oppression, but Manusmriti has very problematic verses including Manusmriti 8.417, Manu 8.270. There is reason why people other than Brahmins reject it, for example, Man 8.379 prescribes capital punishment for other castes but excludes Brahmins. In case of rape/molestation 8.377 orders for burning other castes to death while exonerating a Brahmin for a fine of 1000 panas or 500 panas. Secondly, if Manusmriti is so authentic and Rishi krita thenwhy does Purva Mimamsa Sutra 1.3.1 and विरोधे त्वनपेक्षं स्यादसति ह्यनुमानम् 1.3.3 that in case of a conflict between Shruti and Smriti Smriti is to be disregarded. Smriti texts are temporal only Shrutis are eternal.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pIWd352RoPg&lc=UgwoVdZayyVmBfiQg7N4AaABAg&si=SU7COhEUo-St6R-K

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK95xdiQ1rZ4xKiqqtH22GMg8hNgo8OY1FsNrR_xTYR2MW%3D8tw%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Sorry I had shared that comment link, so it was highlighted; not by pranastories. Still it seemed the strongest type of pp comments there to respond to.

[Nithin Sridhar]

Namaste Putran ji, 

The issue of Shruti vs Smriti has been dealt in some detail in the book. Request you to have a look. People who use this to underplay or reject Smritis are either bad faith actors or are those who dont understand the context in which it is used. Even within Veda, there are stipulations which are opposite in nature. So, Mimamsa devises methods by which such issues can be resolved to decide upon which course of action to be taken up. Therefore, preferring Shruti stipulation over a Smriti stipulation on a particular topic doesn't invalidate authenticity of Smritis per se. Also Shankaracharya in Brahmasutra bhashya distinguishes between Smritis having Darshanika content such as Kapila (which is refuted) and Smritis having Dharma as content such as Manu which is accepted as in alignment to Veda.

The other issue regarding punishments is much more controversial and I am developing a framework to correctly understand and interpret the same. I will share the same as and when it is ready. But basically, the primary concern of Smritis is to indicate Karma-Karmaphala relationship and the punishments etc. must be seen from this perspective and not as legal codes implemented as is on the ground.

Regards,

Nithin 

Nithin S

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qR34OQx9%3DTUqN%3DdrMVg7-mt403%3D8uUfWGNiNfBMkvVXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Per tradition, for the dharma jignAsa shAstra is the ultimate source. Here shAstra includes shruti, smruti etc. but I read somewhere that manu smruti when compared to paraashara smruti more conservation and it is mainly caste based!!  So to be taken its injunctions / prohibitions with bit caution considering the socio-economic situation of the current society.  Though manusmruti as a smruti text considered as an authoritative text and more comprehensive and an ancient text for the foundation of sanAtana dharma’s vidhi-nishedha, the parAshara smruti is more catholic in its instructions as it is a later text meant for the current situation or order of the society.  And this smruti text is more flexible with fewer verses, and embedded with more human friendly practical rules without considering the caste system as a primary parameter.  And unlike the more conservative manusmruti, the injunctions in this smruti more focused on comfortably accommodating the social and religious duties/rules in modern times. 

 

Having said this I have to admit that I have read neither manusmruti nor parashara smruti to compare anything on my own.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Nithin-ji,

I will buy the book now. Was situated outside India when it came out, and only now recalled after seeing this yt interview.

Yes the more difficult part in that comment is the pointing out of specific verses that seem to signify discrimination, oppression or worse, the injunction/commandment to do so; and superimposing to the present day social framework. Do share your understanding and conclusions later.

1. Framework of smriti as pramana: the knowledge it is conveying.

2. Framework of a society that accepted and abided by the pramana.

3. Framework of society in which the pramana no longer seems applicable.

If we look at the social critique of some of our acharyas/saints, whether (as per Chitta-ji) Vivekananda, or the Kanchi paramacharya, they were highly critical of the degradation of the Brahmanas which becomes a central cause for the shift of Hindu society from 2 to 3. The Ithihasas times when the smritis were operational, it was implicit in the respect and reverence given to the Brahmanas that they themselves were largely adherent to their svadharma and were a beacon of sattva guna in society. They were looked upon as the “custodians” of dharma, living demanding life of self-sacrifice for the sake of shastra rakshanam, and teaching society as well of the path of dharma etc. So there was a concordance between the foundational importance that the smritis were highlighting in the Brahmana Varna and their lives. Scrim this angle, the smritis probably made sense to the public (then) that the Varna should be given special protection and rights. The argument needs to be explored more carefully.

As a comparison, one might find even today lineancy/difference of law for teens, women, military or politicians, due to some recognized differences in their natures or their works and impact on society. Women for example are looked upon as more vulnerable, so Indian law in some cases (I think?) gives apriori credence to her assertions against a man. Then of course, there are contemporary anti-hindu/brahmin “smritis” that discriminate or give special rights on the basis of religion, caste, minority status, etc. 

 In Vedic times, the smriti was pramana that taught of guna and dharma  Bheda, and the public that accepted the pramana and as you say, the karma framework was not particularly disillusioned because of how it instructed regarding certain rare extreme scenarios. The disruptions of Hindu society in the Kali Yuga and the consequent degradations that shift from 2 to 3, along with the dharma-based society depicted in Ithihasas and Puranas, have to be taken into account before judging the past by our present, or that the Dharmic framework is no longer acceptable or revivable for at least the Hindus who are willing to to work for it.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK95xdggo%3DjvcFVx%2BciB5b-yUSp0oq_b2LjKPUqMB4jVC2-O2g%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

I did not know of this viewpoint of traditional Hindus to consider Parashara smriti as a more applicable one for our times. Nithin-ji addresses this point in his talk around min 59.

There is a validity to the principle behind this argument but it must be discerned properly. There was a time when “Do Sandhyavandanam” was appropriate smriti for a Brahmin boy. Now perhaps that has to be changed to “Chant just 3 Gayathris a day, please!”; may be much more practical and useful. However we still have to keep in mind that the earlier rule has not been rejected or voided.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66252E9A2A268CB55061374584DBA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

As a comparison, one might find even today lineancy/difference of law for teens, women, military or politicians, due to some recognized differences in their natures or their works and impact on society. Women for example are looked upon as more vulnerable, so Indian law in some cases (I think?) gives apriori credence to her assertions against a man. Then of course, there are contemporary anti-hindu/brahmin “smritis” that discriminate or give special rights on the basis of religion, caste, minority status, etc. 

A 'funny' “politicians” example of blatant allowance for ‘undemocratic’ exercise of power is the US presidential pardon. Here, (imu) the President unilaterally can grant an unrevokable pardon for both federal criminals of his choice and to those he wants to protect from future charges for their actions of the past. So, suddenly, the President is king and has near-absolute authority to excuse his favourite criminals (which we have examples, can include his family members -  conflicts of interest alive and obvious, even the question of self-pardon is unresolved). That kind of law is encoded in their smriti. The President often goes on a pardoning spree on the day of his exit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

A 'funny' “politicians” example of blatant allowance for ‘undemocratic’ exercise of power is the US presidential pardon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States

Here is another along the same lines: “Presidential immunity for all official acts”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

It may be controversial (note the SC votes in the cases), but it remains their law and wisdom not to impose the burden of criminality on the President, so as not to impede his general decision making. Which means, they look at the position and its impact on society, and modulate the law uniquely for that. Can it be abused? Yes but exception is not the rule; they take a risk vs reward discriminatory call to excuse all possible crimes that happen in official capacity, considering their larger interest. 

I am not saying we treat smriti pramana on the same footing as these legal frameworks, but they serve as examples for comparison.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Bhaskarji,

I think someone close to  Nithin Sridharji, should inform him  that there were Manu Smriti and a couple of other smritis meant for the earlier (i.e.,  pre-Kaliyuga) times. The great Parashara Rishi felt the necessity of a smriti for the Kali yuga, and that is why he took the trouble to write his smriti for the Kali yuga. Don't you think so?

With best wishes

Sunil KB

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66252E9A2A268CB55061374584DBA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Found this interview by Nithin-ji.

https://youtu.be/nvg08CS8WsU?si=RHblcPhGn9a63JER

From 21:30-min 26, nice definition and discussion on dharma. 

[Nithin Sridhar]

Thank you Putran ji. 

Namaste Sunil ji, 

In the podcast shared by Putran ji, I have discussed the issue of Parashara Smriti very briefly from 59.44 onwards. You might want to check it out. 

In my book 'Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti', Parashara Smriti has been cited 20+ times.

Regards,

Nithin S

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rMRzu_NqC7KuSfSenKK2_ip_JHgHFsV-h8DBrj14ECdA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Sunil-ji sent the following:

Quote

Dear Nithinji,

The world has been changing drastically from one yuga to the next and that is why the dharma also had to consider the influence of the changing times, in many aspects. Sanatana dharma was apparently the only dharma in this world till the time of Lord Buddha. It was only after that the several other religions appeared.

... 

The Parashara Smriti was written the great Parashara rishi, who was the father of Sri Vedavyasa) and he was also considered to be the original writer of the Vishnu purana, which was completed later on by Vedavyasa. In my view, there should not be any attempt to undervalue the Parashara Smriti, by bringing in the Manusmriti of the Satyayuga. 

However, there may be scope for someone to bring out a book, showing the dharmic evotution in the Sanatana dharma, during the four yugas from the Satyayuga to the Kaliyuga, as shown in the four dharma-shastras of the four yugas respectively.

With good wishes

Sunil K. BHattacharjya

Unquote 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK95xdiQx-yTLXqOP1P4kC1-UsDP6N492QHQp-E4Eu%3D3_xEmgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nithin Sridhar]

Namaste Putran ji, 

I have no more comments to add. From the comments it appears to me that Sunil ji is not very familiar with Dharmashastra tradition and hence, I will stop here.

However, I am leaving here a few points to consider:

If Manusmriti has become Apramanika today as some are given to believe, then-

1. Why would Adi Shankaracharya (who lived in Kaliyuga) quote Manusmriti 30+ times in his Bhashyas? The Acharya further calls Manu and Vyasa as Sishtas. 

2. Why would Dharmashastra Acharyas have written as many as 9 commentaries on Manusmriti in the last 1500 years whereas Parashara Smriti has only one?

3. Why does Veda explicitly note whatever Manu says is like medicine? Are we saying Veda vakya is apramanika?

4. Why does Smriti tradition explicitly note that in case of disagreement between Manu & other Smritis, Manu prevails?

5. Anybody who has studied Parashara Smriti will know that Parashara does not deviate from Manusmriti, rather heavily anchors himself in Manu.  Parashara gives several important contextualizations for Kaliyuga and hence Parashara Smriti is important. But this in itself does not affect Pramanika nature of Manusmriti in any manner.

6. The idea that one Smriti replaces earlier Smritis has no basis in Dharmashastra tradition.

7. Dharma is eternal and hence, it can be contextualized as per Desha, kala, etc. The primary purpose of the Smritis is to teach the eternal principles of Dharma all the while also providing important contextualizations. If this is understood then the assumed opposition between Manu & Parashara will be realized as non-existent. 

My few cents.

Regards,

Nithin S

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pkbiV3B0ZoH6kHs32FSPoqi%3DodB08uNUudA3EBJy9Kjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

Nithinji has conveniently skipped my last  paragraph. which is  as follows:

"However, there may be scope for someone to bring out a book, showing the dharmic evotution in the Sanatana dharma, during the four yugas from the Satyayuga to the Kaliyuga, as shown in the four dharma-shastras of the four yugas respectively."

I have already said enough. There is a saying (or kahawat) as follows: "Samajdarokeliye isharahi hi kafi hai'.

Best wishes,

Sunil KB

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK95xdi6pyEUS8R4HZHi0TrFoJrq0YFhuGN36Mn66GGV360Byw%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Pranam vidavadjanaaha🙏

Just wanted to post this marvellous portion from S Jayanarayana ji's marvellous exposition titled 

"Defence of Smritis"

Both of you can put your points on this

This is the initial portion

// Besides the Veda that is said to be the primary source of knowledge of
dharma, there is another set of shAstras accepted by pUrva mImAmsA (PM)
as authoritative on dharma - the smR^itis. It has already been shown
that the only source of dharma can be the Veda since it is unauthored.
Is it not then possible to reject the smR^itis as not teaching dharma
as they have a human source?

The mImAmsaka argues that the smR^itis are not human compositions at
all - rather, they were compiled from the Vedas by smR^itikAras. The
mImAmsA position on smR^itis is:

"Every smR^iti injunction has a corresponding (identical) Vedic
injunction."

In other words, what is contained in the smR^itis is a subset of what
is contained in the Vedas. Therefore, it is still maintained that the
Vedas are the only source of knowledge of dharma.

But would this not render the smR^itis redundant, since there is no use
of the smR^itis when the Vedas alone would suffice for knowledge of
dharma?

In order to defend the authority of the smR^itis as being the same as
the Vedas on account of smR^iti injunctions being identical to Vedic
injunctions, and yet hold that the smR^itis cannot be considered
redundant, the mImAmsaka claims that the portions of the Vedas from
which the smR^itikAras (like Manu) compiled the smR^iti may not be
extant today. Hence some smR^iti injunctions may not be found in our
present-day knowledge of the Vedas. Therefore, the mImAmsaka position
on the smR^itis is:

"The smR^iti injunctions are the same as Vedic injunctions that have
been lost, but are "remembered as having been compiled from the Vedas"
by sages like Manu, Apastamba, Gautama, etc."

The case of a contradiction between the Vedas and smR^itis is
interesting, as different mImAmsakas hold different opinions on this
matter.

Most mImAmsakas, including PrabhAkara, teach that:

"The smR^iti injunction is rejected in case of its contradiction with a
Vedic injunction."

This however is not KumArila's opinion, who claims that a smR^iti can
never really contradict the Vedas, since such a contradiction would
imply the existence of a contradiction within the Vedas, as it has
already been claimed that the smR^iti injunction is contained in a
Vedic injunction. It is only the "more favorable option in practice" to
accept the Vedic injunction in preference to a smR^iti injunction in
case of a "perceived contradiction" between the two.

Therefore, in KumArila's opinion, which is different from main-stream
mImAmsA opinion:

"The Vedic injunction takes precedence as being "more desirable in
practice" although the smR^iti injunction is never rejected."//

Yours truly

Saptarshi 🙏

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK95xdggo%3DjvcFVx%2BciB5b-yUSp0oq_b2LjKPUqMB4jVC2-O2g%40mail.gmail.com.