Posted: Jul 16, 2011 10:37 am
Shiv wrote:cavarka9 wrote:Well, it was you who jumped in and posted this before reading through to begin with to see for yourself the 'standard' of discussions we have here, so it was you who made it here and began, we are just replying to what you said. I suggest you to read around a bit first.
I guess you are true buddy.
Trying to answer your questions helps me read more, know more and crystallize all these thoughts. So I dont mind. If i cant answer today, may be tomorrow I cancavarka9 wrote:
I could have laughed at it if it were not so heinous a thought. Manu smriti which claims to put hot mercury down the ears of those lower castes if they hear vedas, or burning of women because their husbands died before them. Or the punishment of a brahmin when he rapes a lower caste women is to have a blindfold but if a lower caste person were to rape an upper caste women, their eyes would be...
From your above statement, I gather that you have not read the Manu Smriti in the original or at least a reliable translation. (I am open to correction though)
Manu Smriti is one of the most abused texts in the entire world, with the fact that there have been quite a few translations especially done by both self-serving British and Indian translators, not helping it's case at all.
I too have not read the Manu Smriti in its entirety. But I have had the opportunity to read some reliable discussions on the controversial parts and have also heard other people who have read it.
As far as Sati is concerned - Manu Smriti, more importantly the Veda do NOT sanction Sati. The Rg Veda has this to say.The eighth richa (X 18.8) specifically commands a Hindu widow to return alive to her home. H. H. Wilson translates: "Rise woman, and go to the world of living beings; come, this man near whom you sleep is lifeless; you have enjoyed this state of being the wife of your husband, the suitor who took you by the hand." Here again, it is confirmed that X 18.8 actually commands a Hindu widow to return to the world of living beings. Also, this very richa confers upon her full right on the house of her deceased husband (apne putradi aur ghar).
(From Hindu Wisdom: Sati, the much-highlighted face of Hinduism)
There are however other Smritis (Smritis are books written or compiled as commentaries/derivatives of the Veda) that say the widow should enter the funeral pyre. But none of them were as popular as Manu Smriti. These are just rule books/law books that provide guidelines for the effective functioning of the society. It is not necessary that they should be regarded at all times, especially if there is enough reason to NOT do so.
Actually I did read the controversial parts, translations of course, in any case it is indefensible. Even if you were to show that some of the translations were biased, I do not believe that you would be able to clear up all the filth. Second, yes, laws do change in Hinduism and perhaps need not be followed, but before and after the independence there were people who supported manu smriti, even Gandhi sometimes spoke in favour of varna system (perhaps out of political expediency).
After independence, there was a big opposition to bring change to the hindu code bill, there were people who wanted to debate on this issue, that the new laws were not in accordance with hinduism. Finally, we still have 2 critical issues, one on caste, the other on widow remarriage. These 2 are morally indefensible and I hope for your sake that you do not try to defend these.