Sit Properly

Now, I’m not usually a cut and paste kind of guy. But this past week or so, I got the newest edition of “Sanga,” which is a periodic emailing from the Tripurari Swami camp. In it, Maharaja is asked a question and he answers it.

I’ve found that his style is straight forward in a “be strict with yourself and lenient with others” sort of way. And I’ve found myself usually agreeing with what he says (which, as many of you know, is pretty rare for me).

I’m posting this because there’s been some talk about Manu-samhita here and there. And because I bet my friend Ned would dig this.

So anyway, here’s the question…

Q. I read some really horrible things from a Hindu book called the
Manusmriti [Manu-samhita], which contains the class-conscious rules of
varnasrama dharma. One of the most egregious of these rules is that
women should never be given freedom. They are meant to be always under
the control of men. Furthermore, I read that Srila Prabhupada is among
the few modern gurus who accept this book as authoritative. When I read
all this I became so terribly sad as I had the greatest belief in
Prabhupada, but now this belief is shattered. My question is how any
person with a conscience can accept this frightful book as
authoritative? Do you accept Manusmriti as authoritative?

And here’s his rather lengthy answer…

A. Thought to be the oldest of the dharma-sastras, the Manusmriti is
often described as the law book of ancient Hindu society. The text
deals with four subjects: the origin of the world, the sources of
dharma, the rules of the four varnas (social orders) and four asramas
(spiritual orders), and karma-yoga. The laws found therein are
obviously not modern. Thus to be fair, they should not be compared to
modern laws, but rather to socio-religious rules that pertain to an
ancient culture.

The laws of Manu made sense to religious people living centuries ago in
India, and if we had lived in that bygone culture it is unlikely that
we would have found the text unacceptable. Nor would adherence to its
essential precepts have inhibited our spiritual progress. Why? Because
for the most part dharma-sastras such as Manusmriti address relative
socio-religious concerns, and true spirituality transcends such
concerns. However, while Manusmriti stresses socio-religious life, it
does so with a view to help qualify humanity for the pursuit of
essential spirituality. Thus there is a thread of spiritual truth that
runs through it that applies to all times. Ultimately this thread is
what was important to Srila Prabhupada, Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath
Tagore, Paramahansa Yogananda, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (a former
president of India), and other spiritual and religious leaders who
often spoke highly of the text. Even Nietzsche said, “Put down the
Bible and pick up Manusmriti.” (The Will to Power, Vol.1)

Though Srila Prabhupada more readily identified with social standards
of times gone by, some of which fit better with the words of
Manusmriti, in practice he embraced whatever in his judgment was
helpful for performing and disseminating Krsna bhakti, some of which
did not conform to the injunctions of the dharma-sastras. That some of
Manusmriti’s centuries-old injunctions do not resonate with people
living in our times is to be expected. For that matter, no Hindus today
adhere to the text more than in some small part, and most scholars
believe that the laws of Manu were never universally enforced anywhere
in India.

Still, practically all Hindu historians and teachers accept its
authenticity in the same sense that Srila Prabhupada did, as one of the
authentic texts of the Hindu dharma-sastras. In doing so they promote
what they consider appropriate in Manusmriti and more or less disregard
the rest. The founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, a
noteworthy 19th century campaigner for women’s rights, cites Manu’s
laws hundreds of times in his writings. In his opinion, verses highly
critical of women and the lower classes (sudras) are not Vedic at all
but interpolations introduced later by the corrupted brahminical class.
Another scholar, Dr. Surendra Kumar, claims that out of a total of
2,685 verses in the present Manusmriti, only 1,214 are authentic or can
be confirmed by the Vedas, the other 1,471 being interpolations.

Therefore, in consideration of its overall content and the culture in
which it was written, it would be inappropriate for a Hindu to
disrespect Manusmriti in its entirety. Better one should try to
understand it in terms of its historicity and its spirituality, knowing
full well that religious laws are often relative to time and
circumstance. Indeed, many injunctions in our times accepted as
appropriate by the religious and secular alike will likely be
considered inappropriate by future generations.

By contrasting the Manusmriti with books and beliefs from other ancient
cultures, one can see that it is hardly unique in its strictures
against women. For example, in classical Athens, the city heralded as
the birthplace of democracy, women took no part in the democratic
process. After marriage they were largely confined to the women’s
section of the house and were forbidden to eat with or speak to men
other than their husbands. The Minnesota State University Museum tells
it like this: “The status of Athenian woman in Greek society was
minimal. By comparison to present-day standards, Athenian women were
only a small step above slaves by the 5th century B.C.” About teaching
women to read and write, the Greek playwright Menander wrote, “What a
terrible thing to do! Like feeding a vile snake on more poison.” Other
authors and philosophers had similar quips about women. Summing up the
Athenian view of women, Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle,
student of Plato and tutor to Alexander the Great, wrote, “The male is
by nature superior and the female inferior…the one rules and the other
is ruled.”

Therefore, as we appreciate the positive contribution of other ancient
books and leave aside the rest, we should similarly appreciate the
Manusmriti. In this light, the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is no
friend of Hinduism, says: “Yet, with all this [restrictions on women,
etc.], the ethical teachings of the ‘Laws of Manu’ is very high,
embracing almost every form of moral obligation recognized in the
Christian religion.”

Furthermore, although Manusmriti, like other patriarchal religious law
books of its time, does prescribe the subservience of women to men, it
condemns men who are derelict in their duty to care for and protect the
women under their jurisdiction. Manu also glorifies women considerably,
and taken in context with his rules to honor and never violate women,
his laws pertaining to them seem progressive in comparison to those of
many other ancient cultures. For example, Manusmriti (3:55-57) says,
“Those who seek great prosperity and happiness should never inflict
pain on women. Where women are honored, in that family great men are
born, but where they are not honored, all acts are fruitless. Where
women pass their days in misery and sorrow because of the misdeeds of
their husbands, that family soon entirely perishes, but where they are
happy because of the good conduct of their husbands, the family
continually prospers.”

Most importantly, Sri Krsna explains in Srimad Bhagavatam (11.20.9)
that one is obliged to adhere to the smriti of the dharma-sastra only
to the extent that one has not awakened faith in hearing and chanting
about him. This is also the conclusion of Bhagavad-gita as Krsna
emphatically tells us therein to forego the dharma-sastra and take
exclusive shelter of him: sarva dharman parityaja mam ekam saranam
vraja (Bg 18.66).

Thus a soul surrendered to Krsna (saranagata) need not be concerned
with dharma-sastra. One serious about Krsna bhakti need only be
concerned with the smriti of the Vaisnavas, such as Hari-bhakti-vilasa.
Furthermore, this should be done under the guidance of a guru competent
to advise one which injunctions therein apply to one’s situation. No
sect of Gaudiya Vaisnavas that I know of follows all the injunctions of
Hari-bhakti-vilasa. Rather than trying to follow everything in
Hari-bhaki-vilasa verbatim, one should under good guidance extract its
essential principles and apply them to life in the modern world
according to time and circumstance.

As Gaudiya Vaisnavas are taught to take the essence from
Hari-bhakti-vilasa, those treading the karma-marg should be encouraged
to embrace the essence of Manusmriti’s injunctions rather than try to
follow the letter of its law, which would be impossible to do in
today’s world anyway. For that matter, in essence the dharma-sastra
ultimately points in the direction of Hari-bhakti, for the perfection
of adherence to dharma is determined by the extent to which such
adherence satisfies Hari (God): samsiddhir hari tosanam.

Finally, regarding varnasrama dharma, it is not about taking away
people’s freedom. It is ultimately about freeing people from material
existence. By studying the precepts of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, which
could very well be considered the New Testament of Hinduism, one can
understand varnasrama dharma and at the same time be in a position to
transcend it altogether in the context of the culture of prema dharma,
the path of love.

For the sake of brevity, I’ll leave my opinions until another time.