Manusmriti

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Can the Manusmriti be interpreted as a continuation of Vedic thought?

This post can be appreciated as a continuation of the debate on Chaturvarna and Guna.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Achyut Karve <achyut...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scholars,

Can the Manusmriti be interpreted as a continuation of Vedic thought?

If not exactly on the topic of chaturvana and guna, Manu is cited by Shankaracharya in support of the Vedic thought:

In the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya 2.1.1, Shankara says:

भवति चान्या मनोर्माहात्म्यं प्रख्यापयन्ती श्रुतिः — ‘ यद्वै किञ्च मनुरवदत्तद्भेषजम्’ (तै. सं. २ । २ । १० । २) इति ; मनुना च ‘ सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि । सम्पश्यन्नात्मयाजी वै स्वाराज्यमधिगच्छति’ (मनु. स्मृ. १२ । ९१) इति सर्वात्मत्वदर्शनं प्रशंसता कापिलं मतं निन्द्यत इति गम्यते ; कपिलो हि न सर्वात्मत्वदर्शनमनुमन्यते, आत्मभेदाभ्युपगमात् । महाभारतेऽपि च — ‘ बहवः पुरुषा ब्रह्मन्नुताहो एक एव तु’ इति विचार्य, ‘ बहवः पुरुषा राजन्सांख्ययोगविचारिणाम्’ इति परपक्षमुपन्यस्य तद्व्युदासेन — ‘ बहूनां पुरुषाणां हि यथैका योनिरुच्यते । तथा तं पुरुषं विश्वमाख्यास्यामि गुणाधिकम्’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘ ममान्तरात्मा तव च ये चान्ये देहसंस्थिताः । सर्वेषां साक्षिभूतोऽसौ न ग्राह्यः केनचित्क्वचित् ॥ विश्वमूर्धा विश्वभुजो विश्वपादाक्षिनासिकः । एकश्चरति भूतेषु स्वैरचारी यथासुखम्’ — इति सर्वात्मतैव निर्धारिता । श्रुतिश्च सर्वात्मतायां भवति — ‘ यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः । तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (ई. उ. ७) इत्येवंविधा । अतश्च सिद्धमात्मभेदकल्पनयापि कापिलस्य तन्त्रस्य वेदविरुद्धत्वं वेदानुसारिमनुवचनविरुद्धत्वं च, न केवलं स्वतन्त्रप्रकृतिकल्पनयैवेति । वेदस्य हि निरपेक्षं स्वार्थे प्रामाण्यम् , रवेरिव रूपविषये ; पुरुषवचसां तु मूलान्तरापेक्षं वक्तृस्मृतिव्यवहितं चेति विप्रकर्षः । तस्माद्वेदविरुद्धे विषये स्मृत्यनवकाशप्रसङ्गो न दोषः ॥ १ ॥

There is the shruti passage: what Manu has said, is verily a medicine.  Manu has proclaimed the vision of One Atman that resides in all bodies and the realization thereof is conducive of liberation. Based on this too, the system propounded by Kapila (Sankhya) which admits of multiplicity of selves (Atmans), is veda viruddha. For the Ishvasya upanishad too declares the Unitary Vision that is Advaitic. The Mahabharata too affirms this vision alone. Thus, not just because the Sankhyas have come up with an independent cause, prakriti, of the world, that system is inadmissible in the Vedanta, but also because they admit of multiple atmans. 

In the Kenopanishad vakya bhashyam, Shankara cites the Manu smriti:

स्मृतेश्च — ‘या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतयो याश्च काश्च कुदृष्टयः । सर्वास्ता निष्फलाः प्रोक्तास्तमोनिष्ठा हि ताः स्मृताः’ (मनु. 12.95……… 

One can note the expression: वेदानुसारिमनुवचनविरुद्धत्वं    So, for Shankara Manu is a continuation of Vedic thought.

regards

subrahmanian.v

This post can be appreciated as a continuation of the debate on Chaturvarna and Guna.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)]

Namaste

 

On < Can the Manusmriti be interpreted as a continuation of Vedic thought?  >  and justification quote <‘ यद्वै किञ्च मनुरवदत्तद्भेषजम्’ (तै. सं. २ । २ । १० । २) इति  >  .

 

1.        This precisely is the point where ‘Historicity’ clashes with ‘ Tradition’ !  and framework of  ‘ Understanding   Vedic  Samskruth Word/Term’  becomes challenging !  

 Gita points to such a scenario and uses a specific term < श्रुतिविप्रतिपन्ना ते यदा स्थास्यति निश्चला । समाधावचला बुद्धिस्तदा योगमवाप्स्यसि ॥२-५३॥ Shrutivipratipanna   buddhi  ॥ 2-53 ॥  >  

 

2. a)       The position on < Manusmriti as a continuation of Vedic Thought> is fine. But ‘ Justifying ‘ Manu’s authority from ‘ Veda’ ??

 

     b)      This  position   makes  ‘ Manu  (smriti) Primary’ and ‘Shruti’   to be ‘  secondary’  later than Manu ! as the quoted text has  an  endorsement  on  Manus words as ‘Smriti’ ?  

               The logical problem that arises here is : How Can a current text endorse a future writer ?   If the answer is ‘Darshana/ Alaukika / Ateendriya’, then which  of  several  ‘ Manus ’ is referred in  the quoted smriti ?  

               It is well documented that there are different Manu’s and they have teir rulership –domains classified where there rule is implemented’ Bharatavarsha – Bharat khanda  now is under ‘ Vaivasvata Manvantara’

               ; where the ‘Vaivasvata Manu’  is post ‘Vedas’  and far predates  Bhagavad- Gita and current compiler of Manu smriti.

  

Acharya Shankars quote  is separated from Manu and TS .  From  Acharya Shankara’s context of writing , there is no reason to make any ‘ identity equation’  between  ‘Manu’ referred to in TS and Manu associated with   Smriti’ -  a document which we are having as ‘ Manusmriti’. 

 

 According to the currently available  text narrative, the current  ‘Manusmriti’  itself is a several rounds abridged  narrative of  ‘Dharma discourse recollection’ edited from  some  ‘lost in time’  ancient  larger source  which could be ‘ Maanva Dharma   Shaastra / Sutra / Smriti..’ !  The same passage presents < वेदविरुद्धत्वं वेदानुसारिमनुवचनविरुद्धत्वं   > that ‘ Manu follows Veda’.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Was the Manusmriti not versified after the advent of Buddhism and Jainism?

Did Buddhist and Jain scholars of the days not evolve a code of conduct for their preachers and followers?

With regards,

Achyut Karve.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Do we find any form of codification for human behaviour in Vedic texts.

With regards,

Achyut Karve

[V Subrahmanian]

2018-01-08 17:00 GMT+05:30 Achyut Karve <achyut...@gmail.com>:

Dear Scholars,

Do we find any form of codification for human behaviour in Vedic texts.

Satyam vada, dharmam chara, svaadhyaan maa pramadah, matru devo bhava, pitru devo bhava, acharya devo bhava, etc. are some of the codification examples in the Veda.

regards

subrahmanian.v  

[nkswaran]

There are some observations/references on/to some of human behaviour in the Brahmana texts of Vedic literature. In fact these observations do not confine to human behaviour but covers all the living beings. I have made an attempt to point out the existence of such a trend in the Taittiriya Brahmana. See https://www.academia.edu/5544422/Some_curious_statements_in_the_Taittiriya_Brahmana

nks

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Venkata Sriram]

Nice write up NK Ji.  Some additional ones:

from भृगुवल्ली:

अन्नं न निन्द्यात । तद्व्रतं ।........अन्नं न परिचक्षीत । तद्व्रतं.......अन्नं बहुकुर्वीत । तद्व्रतं

(one should not disrespect the food; not waste the food; should cook in abundance)

 

………………….

 

From अरुणप्रश्नः

नाप्सु मूत्रपुरीषङ्कुर्यात् । न निष्ठीवेत् । न विवसनस्स्नायात् ।

(one should not urinate & defecate in waters (rivers); one should not be naked while taking bath

 

Though specifically stated for अरुणकेतुक चयनं, but exclusively stated in dharma shastra that one should not answer calls of nature in river & should never take bath nakedly (even at home also).

 

Rgs,

sriram

With regards,

Achyut Karve

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Subrahmanianji,

Thanks for the response.

But are these codifications mandatory or suggestive?

To my belief these are suggestions to individuals to make themselves better human beings. In this sense these codifications can be said to be secular.  Further non compliance to these does not draw social reprimand or punishment.

 

Buddhism and Jainism to my understanding is the first shift from a secular framework to an order which were later emulated by various religions.  

My question is, in this sense was performance of yajna ever controlled by an order.

With regards,

Achyut Karve.

[Venkata Sriram]

...........

codification for human behaviour in Vedic texts.

.......

You have asked the question to cite from vedic texts and those have been referred....

Now, what do you want ?  shrutis are the breath of Ishwara so the vidhi-s and nishedha-s are the commands of Ishwara and non-performance invokes pratyavAya dosha. It is upto oneself to follow or not follow.  If followed, leads one to abhyudaya and chitta shuddhi.

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

Further non compliance to these does not draw social reprimand or punishment.

.......

Smriti-s follow shruti.  So, there are ample punishments prescribed for non-compliance.  However, these smriti-s have evolved from time to time.  The punishments that were applicable in ages of yore is not / may not be applicable to current circumstances.  

........

My question is, in this sense was performance of yajna ever controlled by an order.

.......

Need further clarity on the above question.

rgs,

sriram

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 9:02:52 AM UTC+5:30, Achyut Karve wrote:

Dear Subrahmanianji,

Thanks for the response.

But are these codifications mandatory or suggestive?

To my belief these are suggestions to individuals to make themselves better human beings. In this sense these codifications can be said to be secular.  Further non compliance to these does not draw social reprimand or punishment.

 

Buddhism and Jainism to my understanding is the first shift from a secular framework to an order which were later emulated by various religions.  

My question is, in this sense was performance of yajna ever controlled by an order.

With regards,

Achyut Karve.

On Jan 9, 2018 7:28 AM, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Venkata Shriramji,

........

My question is, in this sense was performance of yajna ever controlled by an order.

.......

Need further clarity on the above question.

It is important to understand that an order is an organisation which not only prescribes behaviour but also renders justice.

Was this true regarding performance of yajna by a yajnik?

With regards,

Achyut Karve.

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Social order does not control technological actions. 

Yajna is a technological actions. Technological actions have a technological order. 

Yajna has a technological order, highly elaborate, meticulously systematised, well preserved through oral tradition, partially documented in the written tradition, with a good number of professionals still skilled in the execution of it. 

There is a social order aspect of technological practices, including rules that only well trained professions should execute the practice. 

In the social order of both the Varna and caste systems, training in knowledge and skill areas was a family activity, children getting trained right from their early childhood by the senior family members or the senior members of their varna or caste. 

Yajna performances have been part of this social order.  

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )