Is this book actually considered religious or more of a cultural thing? I don't know it was the white translator's hidden motives, but the things I have read from it are just appalling and seem very bigoted (regarding caste and women). All the other scriptures I've read say that caste was based on guna and were equal, but this thing talks about the "twice-born" ., the ill-treatment of untouchables and what not.......


Off-topic, but I also hate how people refer to the Kama Sutra as a religious book......I was reading a copy translated by a non-Indian, and they were talking about all that caste stuff, and quoting Manu...

There are two types of texts, sruti and smruthi. The books of eternal truth such as Vedas and upanishads are knwon as sruti texts. The texts that have been created by mortals about the cultural issues are known as smruthi.

Smruthi texts differ from time to time, i.e., in each yuga. Manu smrithi was written in Krutha yuga applicable only to that yuga. For the present Kali yuga, Parashara smruthi has been made as the rule book. (Parashara was the father of Ved vyaas). The rules of this book (for Kali yuga) are not too strict as Manu smrithi, particularly the verses pertaining to women. We must remember that Parashara himself sought a relationship with Satyawathi that could not be accepted by the moral values of our society, and Satyawathi as wife of Shantanu, was responsible for involving Ved vyasa, in begetting the three sons of Mahabharatha fame in methods not acceptable. This itself signals that rules for this yuga are defined on the basis of happenings that commonly occur in this yuga.Manu smruthi is studied for academic interest and to see how rules for mankind had changed with time.

Kama suthra is not to be mixed or confused with these texts. It is an independant treatise and as has always happened, anyone desirous of writing a book on their topic of choice is free to write.And that is how it was written..

Hari OM:

This is one of the most difficult things were Hindus become defensive (other one being the Polytheism concept)

There is some truth in Manu smiriti and the castes and differences, however lot of myth is also added to make it appear so much dregotary.

1) Varna-Ashrama dharama is only Part of Manu Smiriti

2) Humans were divided into Four Varunas and Four Ashramas

3) The Four Ashramas are Child (< 8 years) Youth (8-16 years), Householder (16-48 years), Forester (> 48 years) and rules, conducts and guidelines were established for each ashramite so that they can perform their duties more peacefully and Naturally

4) The Four Varunas are Brahmin, Kshartiya, Vaisya and Sudras.

5) The first three are called Twice-Born, since the threading cermony is considered a second-birth, birth from material world into spiritual world

6) All the castes are considered equal but not same, each one was assigned seperate duties, rules and guidelines corresponding to their nature (also all the four have to follow the four Varunas )

7) All the Twice-born are supposed to remove their threads on entering Forest (vanaprastha), since after that no difference matters.

8) The duties were-Brahmins- prayers and spiritual enlightment, Ksharityas- Ruling and dispensing Justice, Vaishyas- Trading and wealth Management, Sudras- Physical Work.

9) To depict this graphically it was told Brahmins came from Brahmas Head (intelligence), Ksharityas from Brahama's Heart (emotional control), Vaishya's from His Stomach (Storehouse) and Sudras from His legs (physical labour)

10)And this graphical representation got mixed with the A-veidic belief that Top portions are better and lower portions are worse (since they believe that God is vertically above the earth)

11) No where in Hinduism it is told that God's Feet is a worse part than his head, in fact most of the prayers are directed towards His feet

12) Also it acknowledges that every body is from God, unless like some other religions which tell some are from God and some from Satan.

13) So all the four castes were different and were determined on Birth (depending on the predominant quality at time of previous death-Sattva, Rajas or Tamas)

14) There is no possibility of changing castes, since it would go against their natural qualities at birth time, also it would assume that there some castes better than other, and God had made an error He sent a person to a wrong Caste

15) Also mixing of Castes is not allowed, since their children will be confused what duty should they do

16) Man can attain liberation just by doing his prescribed duty perfectly

17) If there were no Caste based on Birth, Man would not know what he is supposed to do, he has to make his own choice and would invaribaly create chaos

18) Due to Mainly Brahmins and Kashitrays, leaving their prescribed duties and just enjoying their rights as well as many people skipping the Vanaprastha (due to the love of their grandchildren) the system slowly detoriated

19) Westeners took analogys like above and added confusion to make appear the Manu Smiriti as some kind of completely bigoted document created by Brahmins to exploit others

20) If Brahmins created Manu Smiriti then who created Brahmins?

NO this is not becoming defensive...
The nature of smritis have been best described by none other than Hanuman himself in valmiki Ramayana when he, upon seeing Sita describes her in many ways. One such way is that she is like "smR^itiim iva samdighdaam" (like smrithi together with doubts)(sarga 15 of Sundhara khanda).Sita looked like a smrithi vakhya which was beset with doubt purports.

Thus no smrithi vakhya is can be said to be perfectly understandable.

But they are different for different yuga, created so for the sake of applicability and admissability in changed circumstances of different yugas. In this way, Manu smrithi is meant for Krutha yuga, Gauthama smrithi is for Thretha yuga, Sanga smrithi for Dwapara yuga and Parashara smrithi is for Kali yuga.

Manu smriti is a law book written for that particular period. There are some parts that are appalling and bigoted. It is not a religious scripture and is outdated. It is most likely the work of many hands as there are many contradictions in it. It was never imposed all over India -it was known in parts of North India and unknown in South India. Only parts of the manu smriti was practiced in some villages whereas it was not practiced in the neighboring village.

Kama Sutra is not a scripture as there is no spiritual knowledge there. It is simply a know-it-all treatise about sex witten by an Indian.

You have to understand that many westeners who translate Indian texts have an agenda of making Indian culture look backwards and oppressive and since many Hindus are silent about mis-interpretations the western authors are allowed to get away with it. This is unfair but you have to blame the Hindus for being so silent. They brought it upon themselves.

I dont know who gave the idea that the ideal of manu smriti is bigotry.....
The manu smriti doesnt degrade women.....
*. The Manu Smriti awards women property rights
*. It denouces dowry and says "that a father who gives dowry is selling his daughter"
*. provision for widow marriage
*. Virtual absence of multiple marriages by a man
i.e. a married man could only marryn again if his wife for 7 yrs did not have any heir, that also only with the permission of his present wife
*. And several passages which praise women....like "the house in which a single women;s tear is shed is doomed"...www.atributetohinduism/women_in_hinduism.htm

However, it does mention that the shudra who listens to the vedas should have molten lava poured into his ears.......but as vivekananda remarked that smritis often were a reflection of the prevailing laws in society rather than the conceptions of a single person, howsoever important he might be...