Thread by @SiddhuRaghavan

1. Is #Manusmriti anti-women? It is often posited as such & one of the reasons given is that it states 'women do not deserve independence' which is interpreted as women being oppressed through repression of life choices especially in matters related to Artha & Kama.

But is it even a correct interpretation? Is Artha & Kama even the context in which the said verses are mentioned? How can Manu praise women at one place, and then repress them at another? What is the true teachings of ##Manusmriti on Stree-dharma?

Decoding Manusmṛti: Some Pointers To Make Sense Of Dharmaśāstra Texts

Manusmṛti and other Dharmaśāstra texts occupy a prominent place in Indian textual tradition as authentic sources of dharma. Despite this, the contemporary engagement with the text has been prejudicial and problematic and most importantly, one of discomfort.

This discomfort is largely due to unfamiliarity with the purpose, textual landscape, and the underlying worldview of Dharmaśāstras.

This paper seeks to fill the gap in contemporary approach and facilitate a better understanding of Dharmaśāstras by highlighting certain important aspects of their textual landscape and the worldview that informs them.

Manusmṛti is among the foremost texts on dharma available in Hindu tradition.

While it occupies a preeminent position within the Dharmaśāstra tradition as an authentic source for acquiring knowledge about dharma, contemporary engagement with the text has ranged from outright condemnation

and at times burning of the text as a political statement to distortion[2], dismantling[3], and discarding[4] of the text from the discourse on Hindu philosophy and practice.

The contemporary Hindu society’s discomfort with Dharmaśāstra tradition in general and with Manusmṛti in particular owes much to the effects of colonialism and the destruction of indigenous education institutions,

as a result of which the society has become deracinated having lost touch with this core aspect of our culture.

In particular, ppl find it exceptionally difficult to relate to the teachings of the Smṛti texts owing to their lack of grounding in foundational principles

and frameworks of Dharmaśāstra tradition as well as the unique language employed in these texts to convey its knowledge about dharma.

This attempts to provide some pointers,highlight some foundational frameworks,and clarify few misconceptions about Smṛtis as a genre of texts with particular focus on Manusmṛti such that one is better equipped to approach, study, understand and appreciate Manu and other Smṛtis

Defining dharma

The term ‘dharma’ can be variously understood to mean ethics, morality,law, justice, duty, righteousness etc. depending upon the context of its usage. But, none of these English terms individually or collectively are able to capture the essence of the term Dharma

Etymologically, the word ‘dharma’ has been derived from the root ‘dhṛ’ and ‘dhṛdhārayati’ means to bear, or to support. Hence, ‘dharma’ can be defined as that which upholds, sustains, nurtures, and provides stability and harmony.

As MahānārāyaṇaUpaniṣad 79.7 states dharma supports the whole cosmos and removes all Karmic demerits. Likewise, Lord Krishna in Mahābhārata Karṇa Parva49.50 says that dharma is that which upholds all created beings

However,this definition does not clarify what exactly this ‘upholding’ imply and how dharma facilitates this upholding and nurturing of individuals.We find clarification on this in the definitions provided by VaiśeṣikaSūtra,Parāśarasmṛti and Sri Madhavacharya’s commentary on it

VaiśeṣikaSūtra1.1.2 defines dharma as that from which (results) the accomplishment of (material) happiness/wellbeing [called as abhyudaya] and of the supreme good/mokṣa [called as niḥśreyasa

Parāśarasmṛti 1.2 describes dharma as that which is ‘hitam’ or beneficial for human beings[. Sri Madhavacharya in his celebrated commentary on the text explains the significance of the use of the phrase hitam thus:

Dharma is called ‘hitam’ or beneficial as it is the means to attain our desired fruits. Such desired fruits are of two types: aihika (this-worldly) and āmuṣmika (other-worldly).

This-worldly fruits refer to prosperity and other fruits that result from performance of aṣṭaka and such rituals.

The otherworldly fruits are two kinds: abhyudaya (attainment of sukha/happiness and svarga/heaven) and niḥśreyasa (supreme knowledge resulting in liberation).

Dharma is the direct means of abhyudaya and dharma by producing tattvajñāna (knowledge of reality) is the cause of mokṣa or niḥśreyasa as well.

Thus, dharma upholds, sustains, and nurtures an individual by facilitating him/her to attain worldly happiness (artha/kāma) on the one hand, and on the other hand,

otherworldly happiness in the form of svarga as well as absolute bliss or supreme good in the form of mokṣa. That is, dharma is means for both material and spiritual wellbeing.

A further clarification on the definition of dharma is found in Manusmṛti itself. In verse 1.26, Manu says,“For the due discrimination of actions,

He (Bhagavān) differentiated dharma and adharma; and he connected these creatures/people with such pairs of opposites as happiness-sorrow and the like (such as heaven-hell, attachment-hatred, etc.)

In short, the designation of dharma and adharma in the context of individuals is with respect to actions one performs. And such actions could be physical, verbal or mental and they lead to particular results (karmaphala) by the generation of what the Mīmāṃsakas call as ‘apūrva’.

Kumarila Bhatta in his Tantravārtika defines ‘apūrva’ as that potential which was absent before the performance of the act and which is produced after the performance of the said act.

To put it differently, every action generates an invisible potency or potential result which endures till such a time it manifests the actual result on the ground.

This apūrva is of two kinds: puṇya and pāpa. Puṇya is the positive and beneficial potency generated by the performance of dharma and it results in karmaphala of svarga (heaven), sukha (happiness), and cittaśuddhi (purification of mind)

leading to mokṣa or liberation from worldly bondage. Pāpa is the negative and undesirable potency which is generated by performance of adharma and it results in karmaphala of naraka (hell), duḥkha (sorrow),

and cittabhrānti (confusion of mind) leading to further strengthening of saṃsāra-bandhana (worldly bondage).

To sum up, irrespective of the context of usage, when an action is designated as dharma, it means that such an action is (and must be) capable of producing puṇya, svarga, sukha and cittaśuddhi.

Likewise, an action designated as adharma is (and must be) capable of producing pāpa, naraka, duḥkha, and cittabhranti.

Acquiring authentic knowledge about dharma

Once there is clarity on the essential definition of dharma, the next question which naturally follows is how do we acquire authentic knowledge about dharma (and adharma),

especially because the actions in themselves do not reveal whether they are beneficial or not, nor can we use any of our sensory or logical faculties to deduce the same.

Hindu epistemology recognises six independent sources of valid knowledge called as pramāṇas.

They are pratyakṣa (perception), anumāṇa (inference), upamāṇa (comparison and analogy), arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances), anupalabdhi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).

Of these six pramāṇas, none of the first five sources listed above –be it perception, inference, comparison, postulation or non-perception –can impart knowledge about Dharma because their field of operation is the empirical world and its objects.

Dharma, on the other hand, deals with matters related to karmaphala such as puṇya, pāpa, sukha, duḥkha, svarganaraka, etc. which are by nature non-empirical and beyond the grasp of our sensory faculties.

This being the case, our only source of valid knowledge about dharma is śabda or verbal knowledge. It is the knowledge of objects derived from words and sentences.

And such knowledge is acquired through the study of trustworthy sacred texts (śāstras) and through instructions from trustworthy teachers (gurus).

As Bhagavān Krishna instructs in Gītā 16.24: “Therefore, the scriptures (śāstras) are the means to understand what actions should be performed and what actions should be avoided. Knowing thus the injunctions declared in the scriptures, one should perform actions in this world

Sri Ramanujacharya in his commentary on this verse explains that the phrase śāstras refer to Vedas, Dharmśāstras (Smṛtis), Itihāsas, and Purāṇas. A similar observation is made by Sri Madhusudhana Saraswathi in his commentary on the said verse as well

Thus, our primary sources of acquiring knowledge about dharma are: Vedas, Smṛtis, Itihāsas and Purāṇas. Among them, the Veda being apauruṣeya and eternal, it is the most prominent and the independent pramāṇa for dharma.

All others are dependent upon it. Hence, Jaimini in Mīmāṃsasūtra 1.1.1 defines dharma itself as that which is indicated by injunctions of the Veda.

After Veda, Smṛtis are the most important pramāṇa for dharma as Manu, Yajñavalkya, Parashara, Narada and other Rishis composed their treatise on dharma not only based on their deep knowledge of the entirety of Veda but also based on

their complete and direct comprehension of dharma in its entirety through their Yogic accomplishments. Hence, Manusmṛti 2.10 says that

The Veda should be known as the Śruti and the Dharmaśāstra as the Smṛti; in all matters, these two do not deserve to be criticised, as it is out of these that dharma shone forth.”

Itihāsa and Purāṇas are in-turn based on Veda and Smṛtis and hence they also constitute pramāṇas for dharma.Apart from these primary textual sources, sadāchāra or good conduct, customs and practices of those who are wellversed in śāstras and live their life in accordance to it

And ātmanastuṣṭi or what is agreeable to one’s own conscience also constitutes secondary sources for directly acquiring knowledge about dharma as per Manusmṛti 2.12

This understanding of the function and role of Dharmaśāstra as pramāṇas– authentic sources that imparts valid knowledge about dharma is very significant.

A popular misconception prevalent today about Manu and other Smṛtis is that they are to be either seen as law-books that stipulated the laws of their times

and/or as religious books on the lines of Bible which provides commandments that were hegemonically imposed on society through religious institutions similar to the church.

However, being a pramāṇa-śāstra implies that Manu and other Smṛtis are concerned only with revealing knowledge about dharma, especially about the connection between karma & karmaphala and are neither law-books or constitution documents

which was hegemonically imposed upon the society in the past, nor are they books of commandments in a biblical sense. As Adi Shankaracharya observes in his commentary on BṛhadāraṇyakaUpaniṣad verse 1.4.10:

"Knowledge only removes false notion, it does not create anything. Nor can a scriptural statement impart any power to a thing. It is an accepted principle that the scriptures are only informative and not creative

This is as true about Dharmaśāstra as it is about Vedāntaśāstra. As Medhatithi notes in his commentary on Manu 2.6:

The Veda and Smṛti can be a ‘cause’ (of dharma) only in the sense that they serve to make known,not in that of producing, nor in that helping to stand, which are the two senses in which the ‘root’ is the cause of the Tree.

The tenets of dharma in the form of ‘vidhi’ (prescribed) and ‘nisheda’ (prohibited) enunciated in Manu and other texts in Smṛti genre are broad guidelines and are binding only in one sense: that a particular karma or action gives rise to a particular kind of result

and that particular result could be favourable leading to sukha (happiness) or unfavourable leading to duḥkha (sorrow) based on whether they are dharma or adharma.

Another implication of the understanding of Smṛtis as pramāṇa-śāstra is that they reveal knowledge about the causal relationship that exist between karma and karmaphala in both modes of dharma and adharma, and this causal relationship is eternal,

unchanging, and beyond grasp of the mind and the senses. As Sri Jnanandanda Bharathi Swami says

the śāstras are eternal, not because they originated with the beginning of time itself, but because they lay down the eternal relationship between a cause and its effect.

If a flame scorches our hand, it is not because the science of physics or chemistry says that it shall so scorch, but because there is an eternal relationship between fire and its effect, scorching (Bharathi 1969,

Therefore, contrary to popular misconception which posits Smṛtis as products of their particular time and context and hence as being outdated today,

the Smṛtis being pramāṇa-śāstras reveal the essential principles of dharma, namely, the eternal causal relationship between different categories of karmas and their karmaphala which are eternal, unchanging,

and beyond the socio-political influence of changing conditions and hence, the Smṛtis are as relevant today as they were in the past and they will remain relevant in future as well.

What is changing and dependant on situation is not the essential principles of dharma, but the contextualization of the dharmic teachings to address changing real world situations and thus causing the diversity in the application of dharmic principles.

Need for Śraddhā in studying Dharmaśāstra

Since dharma by definition is non-empirical and Dharmaśāstra (Śruti, Smṛti, Itihāsa, Purāṇa, etc.) alone are the means for attaining valid knowledge about dharma, any person who seeks to study these texts and acquire knowledge about dharma must approach them with śraddhā.

Shankaracharya defines śraddhā as trust in the words of guru and śāstras. Without such trust that the text one is studying contains authentic knowledge about a subject, no amount of study will bear any fruit.

This is especially so in non-empirical matters as they cannot be verified or falsified through empirical means. Hence, trust in śāstras and gurus who teach those śāstras is very vital for unravelling the teachings of these texts.

As śraddhā matures, this trust transforms into conviction and finally into actualization of the truths expounded in the śāstras. It is for this reason Bhagavān Krishna says in Gītā 4.39: ‘One who has śraddhā, he alone attains knowledge[27]’.

Contemporary scholarship has largely approached the study of Hindu texts by adopting what is called hermeneutics of suspicion wherein one reads a text with scepticism in order to expose their purported repressed or hidden meanings.

Though hermeneutics of suspicion has their own importance, in matters of understanding śāstras such as Veda, Smṛti, etc. whose subject is non-empirical, it is completely unsuitable and misleading as such an approach often leads to rejection of non-empirical elements

as superstition or poetic fantasy and filling the vacuum thus created with speculations about ideological, political, and social motives of the texts. This approach ultimately results in the undermining of the texts and their own self-description of their purposes.

Instead, adopting what we may call as ‘Hermeneutics of śraddhā’to study Hindu texts implies that one approaches the text with faith and respect, rather than scepticism,and then attempts to recover its complete meaning through a contemplative process called as ‘śravaṇacatuṣṭaya

In this four-fold process (and hence called catuṣṭaya), one starts with śravaṇa or listening to the enunciation of a particular text from a qualified teacher

This is followed by manana or intellectual reflection upon the text and its subject-matter until one arrives at a steady conviction.

Then comes nididhyāsana or deeper one-pointed contemplation on the essential truths expounded in the text resulting in sākṣātkāra or actualization of those truths. In this way, what starts as śraddhā’ transforms into sākṣātkāra[29].

Therefore, it is vital that Dharmaśāstras are studied using śraddhā as our method of approach, a point indicated by Manusmṛti itself when it says in verse 2.10 that

The Veda should be known as the Śruti and the Dharmaśāstra as the Smṛti; in all matters, these two do not deserve to be criticised, as it is out of these that dharma shone forth

Locating dharma: cosmologically, temporally, teleologically, functionally, and relationally

Manusmṛti is unique among the texts on dharma available in Hindu tradition. Unlike the other texts of this genre, it begins with an account of cosmology.

In the very first chapter, it provides a detailed account of cosmogony, which not only recounts the manifestation of SvāyambhuvaBrahmā, but also presents a Vedāntic (or rather a Sāṅkhyan) account of origination of the universe.

It further presents an account of the creation of various objects and beings, including humans.

The first chapter is thus very important to understand how the Dharmaśāstra texts conceive of dharma and where they locate dharma cosmologically, temporally, and teleologically.