karthik_v

Try again, Grasshopper.

 

 

I will try to post the entire context or atleast paraphrase it.

In Prabhupada's quote given by theist he doesn't mention advaita at all. You are inferring that he is referring to a particular school taught by a particular teacher.

 

I think the flaw lies in your inference, and your resultant feeling of offence.

 

 

If that were so, then may I ask whom SP refers to as the author of Mayavada, herein? I know that SP often times referred to Sankara. Did he ever make the distinction that Sankara was the author of Advaita and not Maayavada [whatever it means]?

The Vaisnava conclusions are different from Advaita.There is no need to artifically try to merge these two view-points.

 

 

Exactly. May I also add that there is no need to attack another philosophy either, especially on false assumptions?

Dear Somesh Prabhuji,

I got overwhelmed with so many topics. I haven't forgotten you. In fact, I promised to answer a few other points of Shvu and J N Das as well and hopefully will do so, this week-end.

Anyway, before getting agitated with the Mayavadis [whoever they are and whatever their philosophy is /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ] and calling them rascals, Srila Prabhupad should first reconcile with Veda Vyasa himself, for the latter stated in Mahabharata that Lord Krishna couldn't remember the BG discourse he gave Arjuna in the battlefield, as the Brahman didn't vest him with the same powers again. Of course, we have discussed this before [Anu Gita, Anu Parvan]. Therein lies the answer to whether the Sadguna Brahman is eternal or not.

Dear Theist Prabhuji,

Prabhupada:"So the Mäyävädi rascals theory is that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and when He comes to be present before us as person, He accepts a material body. This is their theory, mäyä, Mäyäväda, that Krsna's body is also bone and skin. That is their theory. They accept, Yes, Krsna is God, but He has accepted a body of flesh and bone. This is Mäyäväda theory..."SB lec 1.3.28

 

 

With due regards to Srila Prabhupada, I must state that he is certainly not referring to Advaita. This is what strengthens the accusation that ISKCON attacks Advaita, without understanding what it is, in the first place. According to Advaita, there is no question of the Supreme Truth coming down to be present amongst us. Such a question arises only if there is duality in the very first place. There is no duality, that is existence independent of the Brahman, in Advaita.

This statement of SP, for an Advaitin, is like saying that the "real you", appeared in flesh and bones amidst the characters in your dreams ["dreaming you"] and also participated in their activities. For an Advaitin, it just makes no sense, as the "dreaming you" is not real in the first place and the entire duality itself doesn't exist - independent of the "real you". All that exists is the "real you" and it becomes clear the moment you wake up from your dream.

P.S.: Sri Aurobindo considered all the puranas to be symbolic and not as actual events. He stated that they were written to help the masses understand the esoteric concepts of the shruti.

Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya Lila, Chapte 8, Text 124 onwards. BTW, I am not the guest who originally posted it.

I was delighted to learn that Bhakti Vinode Thakur had lambasted Christianity and put it in its right place. In fact, I received this from a friend this morning and ever since I have been in a state of delirium /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here we don't use granthas, we use pusthakams. Inda thamizh nadu. Neenga thamizh la pesunga.

 

 

Dear J N Das prabhuji,

Super thalaivaa!!! Vaazgha Thamizh pesum engaL pon man chemmal J N Das!! I didn't know you can speak decent Tamil. Good job. Did you see Baba?

Hari Bol Somesh Kumar prabhuji,

I thought this would provide an Advaitin's perspective of Advaita. These are the words of The Sankaracarya of Sringeri mutt. Later today, I will attempt to answer your question.

...if it [Advaita] means on the other hand negation of any second principle INDEPENDENT of God, we have the sole right to monopolize that name for our system. It is only in the latter sense that our system goes by the name of advaita.

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/Significance_of_the_name_Advaita.htm

 

 

This may be quite informative too: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/The_Riddle_of_Fate_and_Free.htm

Dear Ram Prabhu,

The mystery of who started this religion of acintya bheda abheda tattva is deepening.

 

 

Congrats! You have converted a subject as sober as theology into a mystery thriller. Can we expect an action packed climax? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hari Bol dear Somesh Kumar prabhuji,

First of all forgive me for this lengthy reply. I wanted to answer your point as elaborately as I could.

What does Sankaracharya say about this verse? What's his interpretation?

 

 

A translation of Adi Sankara's commentary [http://gitasupersite.org/]:

 

Commentary 18.54:

 

Brahma-bhutah, one who has become Brahman, attained Brahman through the above process; and prasanna-atma, [Prasada means the manifestation of the supreme Bliss of the Self as a result of the total cessation of all evils. Prasanna-atma is one who has attained this in the present life itself.] has attained the blissful Self, the indwelling Self; na, does not; socati, grieve-does not lament for the loss of something or the lack of some quality in oneself; nor kanksati, desire. By saying 'he does not grieve nor desire', this nature of one who has attained Brahman is being restated. For it does not stand to reason that in the case of a knower of Brahman there can be any hankering for something unattained. Or, (in place of kanksati) teh reading may be na hrsyati, does not become elated.

 

Becoming samah, the same; sarvesu bhutesu, towards all being-i.e., he verily judges what is happiness and sorrow in all beings by the same standard as he would apply to himself (cf. 6.32); but the meaning is not 'seeing the Self alike in all beings', for this will be spoken of in (the next verse), 'Through devotion he knows Me'-; he, the one who is of this kind and steadfast in Knowledge, labhate, attains; param, supreme; madbhaktim, devotion to Me, to the supreme Lord; (he attains) devotion which is described as Knowledge, as the 'fourth' in, '.....four classes of people....adore Me' (7.16).

 

Here is the translation of Adi Sankara's commentary for the referenced verse:

 

Commentary 7.16

 

Again, O Arjuna, foremost of the Bharata dynasty, caturvidhah, four classes; of janah, people; who are eminent among human beings and are pious in actions, and are sukrtinah, of virtuous deeds; bhajante, adore; mam, Me; artah, the afflicted-one who is overcome by sorrow, who is in distress, ['One who, being in distress and seeking to be saved from it, takes refuge (in Me).'] being over-whelmed by thieves, tigers, disease, etc.; jijnasuh, the seeker of Knowledge, who wants to know the reality of the Lord; artharthi, the seeker of wealth; and jnani, the man of Knowledge, [i.e. one who, already having intellectual knowledge, aspires for Liberation.] who knows the reality of Visnu.

 

Commentary 18.55

 

Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as Knowledge; abhijanati, he knows; mam, Me; tattvatah, in reality; as to yavan, what I am, with the extensive differences created by limiting adjuncts; and yah asmi, who I am when all distinctions create by the limiting adjuncts are destroyed-Me who am the supreme Person comparable to space [in points of all-pervasiveness and non-attachment.] and one-without-a-second, absolute, homogeneous Consciousness, birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and deathless.

 

 

Tatah, then; jnatva, having known; mam, Me, thus; tattvatah, in truth; visate, he enters into Me, Myself; tadanantaram, immediately after that (Knowledge). Here, by saing, 'having known, he enters without delay', it is not meant that the acts of 'knowing' and 'entering immediately after' are different. What then? What is meant is the absolute Knowledge itself that has to no other result, [in place of phalantarabhava-jnana-matram eva, Ast. reads 'phalantarbhavat jnanamatram eva, absolute Knowledge itself, since there is no other result'.-Tr.] for it has been said, 'And....understand Me to be the "Knower of the field", (13.2).

 

 

Opponent: Has it not been contradictory to say, he knows Me through that which is the supreme steadliness (nistha) in Knowledge?

 

 

Vedantin: If it be asked, How it is contradictory?

 

 

Opponent: The answer is: Whenever any Knowledge of something arises in a knower, at that very moment the knower knows that object. Hence, he does not depend on steadfastness in Knowledge which consists in the repetition of the act of knowing. And therefore, it is contradictory to say one knows not through knowledge, but through steadfastness in knowledge which is a repetition of the act of knowing.

 

 

Vedantin: There is no such fault, since the culmination of Knowledge-which (Knowledge) is associated with the causes of its unfoldment and maturity, and which has nothing to contradict it- in the conviction that one's own Self has been realized is what is referred to by the word nistha (consummation): When knowledge-which concerns the identity of the 'Knower of the field' and the supreme Self, and which remains associated with the renunciation of all actions that arise from the perception of the distinction among their accessories such as agent etc., and which unfolds from the instruction of the scriptures and teachers, depending on purity of the intellect etc. and humility etc. which are the auxiliary cuases of the origin and maturity of Knowledge-continues in the form of the conviction that one's own Self has been realized, then that continuance is called the supreme steadfastness (nistha) in Knowledge.

 

 

This steadfastness in Knowledge that is such has been spoken of as the highest, the fourth kind of devotion in relation to the three other devotions viz of the afflicted, etc. (cf. 7.16). Through that highest devotion one realizes the Lord in truth. Immediately after that the idea of difference between the Lord and the Knower of the field vanishes totally. There-fore the statement, 'one knows Me through devotion in the form of steadfastness in Knowledge', is not contradictory. And, in this sense, all the scriptures-consisting of Vedanta (Upanisads etc.), History, Mythology and Smrtis-, as for instance, 'Knowing (this very Self the Brahmanas) renounce....and lead a mendicant's life' (Br. 3.5.1), 'Therefore they speak of monasticism as excellent among these austerities' (Ma. Na. 24.1), 'Monasticism verily became supreme' (ibid. 21.2), which enjoin renunciation become meaningful. Thus, monasticism means renunciation of rites and duties. There are also the texts, 'Having renounced the Vedas as well as this world and the next' (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.9.13), and 'Give up religion and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40; 331.44), etc. And here (in the Gita) also various relevant) passages have been pointed out. In is not porper that those texts should be meaningless. Nor are they merely eulogistic, since they occur in their own contexts. Besides, Liberation consists in being established in the changeless real nature of the indwelling Self. Indeed, it is not possible that one who wants to go to the eastern sea and the other who wants to go in the opposite direction to the western sea can have the same course!

 

 

And steadfastness in Knowledg consists in being totally absorbed in maintaining a current of thought with regard to the indwelling Self. And that is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to the western sea. It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid means of knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as that between a mountain and a mustard seed! Therefore it is established that one should have recourse to steadfastness in Knowledge only, by relinquishing all rites and duties.

 

 

The fruit of the attainment of success from the Yoga of Devotion consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's own actions is the ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which, follows stead-fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result, Liberation. That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a veiw to generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the Scripture):

 

 

 

Perhaps, now we can discuss by analysing the commentaries provided by Sankaracarya and srila Prabhupada.

PS: At times, I do believe that Islam is the easiest religion to follow. No philosophy. No need to think. No questions allowed. No criticism tolerated [unless, you want a fatwa]. No apostasy [unless you want to be killed]. Rape, plunder and killings while you are on this earth. 72 heuris and boys like pearls [for the homosexuals] in the heaven, after you land there after some fidayeen attack. And to cap it all, a "role model" of a Prophet [whom Gibbon calls a "barbarian"]. How cool isn't it? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Jazak Allah!

Dear xxvvii,

The main body of your culture is aryan-derived, so Mbh. & Rm. are two of its columns. And there would be no new versions of them but the collapse of your culture, social, & even your nation.

 

 

Are you hinting that Aryan was/is a race? FYKI, not one ancient text refers to any Aryan race. Arya meant "the noble one". I am very curious to know why our society or nation would collapse if Ramayana is re-written. Did it collapse on the numerous occasions when they were interpolated? If not, is there a compelling reason to assume that a collapse would occur in today's context?

Dear Ram Prabhu,

advaita as taught by sankara is not impersonal and it is about deovtion.

 

 

Perhaps, you want to cast Advaita in the same mould as Vaishnavism /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am not sure that your understanding is correct. All the argments that can be used to project Advaita as supportive of personal worship of God come from very secondary sources like Bhaja Govindam etc.. In case you are not aware, even Advaitins agree that only 10 of those verses were written by Sankara himself and the rest is all interpolation by later day Advaitins [who perhaps wanted to keep the flock together]. Many academic scholars consider the entire work as wholesale interpolation.

Even Al Beruni [11th century CE] writes that only ignorant masses worshipped the idols and the knowledgeable Brahmins [except those who exploited those masses] looked down upon that practice condescendingly. He says that they were focussed on attaining realization of the formless. Of course, I am not saying that we should take Al Beruni blindly, but it is worth noting his perspective.

If you read Sankara's bhasyas [which alone should be the source for discussing Advaita and not some dubious songs - however beautiful they are], it becomes very clear that Sankara asserts that the only true state is that of Brahman. Worship of personal God is to be considered only as a path to this salvation.

Sankara re-established Shanmatha only so as to help the masses attain Brahman realization, in the ultimate analysis. So, while it is true that devotion is very much an integral aspect of Advaita, it goes without saying that the Supreme, as Advaita establishes it with reference to the shruti, is the Brahman which is beyond form.

I would like to point out that the great service of vaishnava school is stressing personalism.

 

 

Yes, they have rendered a great service, but then the Saivite and the Advaitins have rendered as much, in fact often more, service. One of the negative consequences of Vaishnavism has been a very rabid sectarian approach, which was originally started by Ramanuja. He used to initiate some of his disciples saying: let the 6 fold worship perish. Madhva continued this tradition further. Yet, if we see the writings of the original creators of genuine, non-sectarian, devotional Vaishnavism, that is the Azhwars, they never bother themselves with this kind of polemics and sectarianism. They have been pouring out their devotion for Narayana. It is another story that with the advent of the Muslims and the rise of casteist Brahminism, Ramanuja has been pushed to prominence and a very sectarian Vaishnavism has come to the fore. The original Vaishnavism would have none of his sectarianism.

Dear Theist Prabhuji,

Many people use the phrase bhakti or devotion but they mean something else,worshiping the form of Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh, Kali etc. with the view of merging into the Deity(or the formless Brahman) when their sadhana is complete.

 

 

While there are 2 versions about the early life of Meera [one says she was a young widow and the other says her husband was alive], hagiography is unanimous that she merged with Krishna. Just to let you ponder.

Coming back to your statement, what many people think doesn't necessarily become Advaita. To paraphrase Advaita, once you attain realization, there is no more you. All that is left is Brahman - the only true state.

Dear Guest,

And the misconception of the impersonalist whether through the Buddhists, Shaktas, Adwaitins, Sankarites, Taoists or Maoists and illusionists to draw everyone into this unconciousness is the greatest diservice to God and His loving devotees, short of offending those surrendered souls who have given their life cent per cent to the Lord.

 

 

What if, in the ultimate analysis, the shruti supports only the Brahman as Supreme? In that case would you say that the Vaishnavites who have been "deluding" the masses have done a great disservice? Of course, this is not my view, but just to point out that sectarianism doesn't help. Please note that reference to Krishna occurs only in the first and the tenth mandala of Rk veda and these are the latest mandalas. None of the original mandalas even hint about Krishna.

Dear Raga Prabhuji,

Aside Bhaktivedanta, please refer me to any other GV acarya who has offered unjust critique of Advaita in your view. If you don't know of any, then kindly keep your critique focused to where it belongs. Thanks.

 

 

No, I am not aware of any GV acarya who critqued Advaita unjustly. Nor did I say so. All I stated was that no GV acarya, to the best of my knowledge, has proven Advaita to be wrong by reverting to shrutis. Yes, my second part in that para was a generalization, which I am sorry to have made. I should have directed it only to those who use that term.

Nevertheless, I have come across atleast one GV guru [rather a break away, I should say], who denounced Sankara and also repeatedly called his philosophy Mayavada, which it is not.

Dear Guest,

The only account of this meeting is living in the memory of Srila B.S.Govinda Maharaj who himself was amazed at such brilliance. But he would be more than happy to elaborate on the meeting if anyone were to enquire from him.

 

 

If an assembly went on for 7 days, in the cultural capital of Bengal and if virtually every scholar participated in it, then I would expect a narrative of the same in epigraphs and manuscripts of the different mutts. Sure, each mutt may portray the entire episode to suggest that their school prevailed over the rest, but it is unlikely that everyone would ignore it and it would be consigned to the memory of just one person.

Anyway, Shaktas are not Advaitins.

I would think that it is unlikely that Caitanya Mahaprabhu or any other Gaudiya acarya [i am not restricting Caitanya Mahaprabhu to GV alone though] ever defeated Advaita philosophy. As Shvu once said, debates can be possible only between 2 opposing teams that use the same set of scriptures as their yardstick. They may accept those scriptures or reject them as authority.

Advaitins accept only shruti as their authority. Shrutis have little place in the scope of GV teachings, which rely only on smritis. Even the only commentary on Vedanta sutra was written long after the philosophy itself had been codified [perhaps to ward off the derisive contempt of the Advaitins and others who refused to debate with them as equals].

We can note that even Srila Prabhupad never debated, leave alone defeating them, any mainstream Advaitin, even though the likes of Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati of Kanchi mutt, Swami Chinmayananda and Ramana Maharishi were all his contemporaries. His debates with "Advaitins" were restricted only to those immigrant part time "Advaitins", who had landed in the USA on R1 visa and who lived in New York or Boston [thanks to the courtesy extended by a few idiotic rich]. That cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as a serious debate with an Advaitin.

Most devotees of ISKCON, form their conceptions of Advaita....oooops, Mayavada /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif .......on the basis of these obsessive attacks found in the writings of Srila Prabhupada. If I were to learn about Advaita, the writings of SP would hardly be the accurate source for the same. I would rather read the bhasyas written by Sankara himself. Or the commentaries and translations there of.

Was there ever an instance when SP [or any GV acarya for that reason] ever analysed any of the bhasyas of Sankara and proved it to be wrong by reverting back to the shruti? Never. All they did was to define Advaita....oooops, Mayavada /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ....... whichever way the like and then launch an ad hominem attack.

Another reason that Sri Caitanya might have never even attacked Advaita is because, he himself could have been an Advaitin, having been intiated by an Advaita acarya and having accepted an Advaitin's commentary on SB as the only bona fide one.

I would like to be corrected if I am wrong.

Dear Bhaktajoy prabhuji,

God or Krsna conciousness is transcedental and mundane designation like brahmin or shudra does not apply.

 

 

I would entirely agree with this. I have heard of an argument that Caitanya Mahaprabhu attached little importance to Varnasrama dharma [or even outright rejected it] and that it was only Bhakti Vinoda Thakur who revived it [along with the practice of a sannyasi wearing the sacred thread - which wasn't the custom earlier]. I don't know if that is true. Perhaps, some knowledgeable person can clarify.

Dear Bhaktajoy Prabhuji,

Vedas say after touching cow dung you have to take bath to purify but the injuction is cow dung is pure and has many medical qualities.

 

 

Where do the vedas say so? Can you please quote the verse? Thanks.

I can never understand as to how Srila Prabhupad can consider Manusmriti as bonafide. I mean the current version of Manusmriti [rather the Islamic-Jones smriti, to be accurate]. This work says that the tongue of a Shudra must be cut off, if it could be proven that he recited the vedas. Yet, SP himself quotes from the vedas and vedanta occasionally and his disciples and aspiring disciples, most of whom would be Shudras or even mlecchas as per Manusmriti [iJ smriti], repeat them and recite them. Is that not a violation of Manusmriti [iJ smriti]?

Either the sage Badarayana who says that anyone, including the Shudras can recite the vedas and even perform all those rituals is right or the current version of Manusmriti [iJ smriti] is right. Nobody can argue that both are right.

J N Das Prabhuji,

If those temples in interior Orissa are run by ISKCON, then I take back my remarks and apologize for the same. This news really delights me. The real custodians of religion and culture have been the poor and the unassuming people who live almost unnoticed in remote places. Only those organizations that cater to their spiritual needs, are bonafide organizations.

My remark on jet-set sannyasis comes out of my observation - I have seen sannyasis exhibiting preference to stay in the luxurious homes of their rich disciples [while refusing to stay in the temple, which doesn't have all those conforts]. I have seen sannyasis who openly grumble that the devotees didn't donate enough to them. I have seen sannyasis who lie outright. Yet, I must admit that every sannyasi can't be the same and there must be some genuine ones too, albeit fewer in number. Still, the very fact that such sannyasis exist [and who would cater to the spiritual needs of Oriya adivasis and not only the rich Indians in Silicon Valley or Redmond] delights me.

Avinashji,

The first step should be to draft a Ramayana sans Uttara kanda, which was never written by Valmiki. It was never translated by Kambar into Tamil [9th century CE] and even Tulsidass into Avadhi Hindustani [end 16th century CE]. It doesn't find a mention in the Pazhaya Ramayanam, which was written during Tamil Sangam days [2000 years ago]. I have written on this in detail once before. It is unthinkable that either Kambar or Tulsidass will ignore an entire canto in their translation. It simply means that it didn't exist during their times.

Well, actually it existed during their times [to be precise after the time of Kambar but before the time of Tulsidass], but its existence was confined only to the northwestern parts of India - to be precise Afghanistan's Muslim courts. There is only one document that talks about Rama slaying a Sudra for reciting the vedas. That document is the travelogue of Al Beruni [11th century CE]. He wrote that part while he was imprisoned with a few Hindu Brahmin scholars. So, it is apparent that they had concocted that story.

This gives rise to 2 possibilities - one, the existence of Uttara Kanda was entirely confined to the courts of Mahmud Ghaznavi then and only later found its way into Ramayana or two, Tulsidass recognized it as an interpolation and didn't include it [Kambar lived before Mahmud Ghaznavi and there was no Uttara Kanda when he lived].

Today, this canto is included in almost all the editions of Ramayana, but the critical editions atleast mention that this is interpolation. Sadly, the acaryas of the recent times never bother to make this distinction. I believe that the audience is entitled to hear that Ramayana has several interpolations and the abusive parts are later day interpolations. When acaryas propagate these myths [that too myths generated in the Islamic courts], they will lose all credibility in this information age. Many academics have been carrying out a lot of critical research and it is only a matter of time before the common man comes to know the truth. If our acaryas are concerned about Hinduism and don't want it to meet the same plight as Christianity, they should desist from portraying interpolations as THE TRUTH. At the bare minimum, they should not portray Uttara Kanda and Manusmriti as bona fide scriptures.

If we agree with that starting point, then we can go further into the discussion on which other parts of Ramayana must be left out.

Hari Bol Dear Raguraman,

What part of any scripture is true or not is debatable.

 

 

That is true, but the very fact that there are several recensions, often contradicting the vedas, shows that there has been interpolation. So, when somebody makes such an interpolated text as THE AUTHORITY, we should not accept it - more so, when it contains several inhuman things.

But changing any scripture is downright foolish.

 

 

OK, let me clarify here. No matter who attempts to change, the existing recensions won't go away. I am not for burning them either. But, there must be a critical approach towards everything, including spiritualism. When we work towards producing a critical edition, people can see that many of the inhuman things found in these smritis [which have been justified by acaryas for their own selfish gains] are NO AUTHORITY.

My prime objection is to the attempts at making an evidently interpolated text as THE AUTHORITY. In the long run, such acts destroy our religion and our society. It is foolish to follow any guru blindly or to claim that he is perfect. Nobody is perfect. Such a belief only leads to dogma and exploitation.

Read the thread "Q to Karthik".

I will subsequently write on why Sankara's Brahma sutra bhasya is also interpolated.

For example, in Orissa, ISKCON has hundreds of nama-hatta temples throughout the villages and tribal areas. You are probably unaware that they exist because they are never listed in a "list of ISKCON temples". One reason is there are no addresses in these areas. Another reason, is no one will ever come out there.

 

 

Perhaps, you are right. They are not listed in ISKCON's list. Nor have I ever heard of a jet-set sannyasi visiting them. Yet, my question is: Are these ISKCON temples? The worship of Jagannath has been there in Orissa for ages and I wouldn't be surprised to see a Oriya tribal or villager worshipping the Lord in his dilapidated hut. Have those been set up by ISKCON? For example, can ISKCON take the credit for the selfless service that J N Das renders in rural Orissa?

Let us see the interpolations in some of the smritis - which includes dharmashastras. I have borrowed heavily on the writings of Narahari Achar and others for this. Consider beef-eating for example.

Vedas considered the cow as something to be protected and as sacred. It was called aghnya, meaning "that which can't be killed". Let us see a few examples from the vedas:

"May this inviolable cow yield milk for both the Asvinis and may she prosper for our good fortune". [Rk Veda 1.164.27]

"The cow is illustrious and inviolable. Do not kill her". [Yajur Veda]

"The cow is inviolable and she yields ghee for the people. Do not kill the cow". [Yajur Veda]

At this juncture, you should also consider the meaning of the word madhuparka, which appears for the first time in Atharva veda. It appears in the Rk vedic Sanskrit as madhupeya though. And Rk veda defines what it means: ".....svadU raso madhupeyo varAya", meaning "sweet drink madhupeya". [Rk Veda 6.44.21]

Its recipe remains the same to this day, when it is given in marriage ceremonies: Made of milk, honey, jaggery and banana.

Some of the early Brahmana texts like Apastamba Brahmana clearly show that Madhuparka and cow are 2 different things:

[A guest] who can repeat the [whole] Veda is worthy to receive a cow and the Madhuparka.

[APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 8.5]

A cow and the Madhuparka (shall be offered) to the teacher, to an officiating priest, to a father-in-law, and to a king, if they come after a year has elapsed (since their former visit). [APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 8.7]

All these things make it clear that the cow was considered sacred and not as something to be eaten. Now, you will agree with me that for a smriti should be bona fide, it cannot contradict what the shruti says. Yet, Manusmriti says:

"Madhuparkecha yajnecha pitrdaivatakarmaNi

atraiva pashavo hiMsyA nAnyatretyabravInmanuH"

Achar says why this is clear interpolation. First of all vedas declare cows as sacred and as that which cannot be killed. Here Manusmriti includes beef as part of Madhuparka. So, it violates the basic tenet - that a smriti cannot contradict a shruti. The last section of this sloka "iti abravIt ManuH" means "so said manu". This is a clear indication that this sloka is an interpolation, for all the injunctions in Manusmriti are given by Manu. There is no necessity to specify again that it is said by Manu. Only if Manu's injunctions are quoted in some other work, then it is proper to say so.

Those who interpolate, often leave some trail as well.

Manusmriti is not the only interpolated smriti. Many Brahmanas have also been interpolated, though Manusmriti takes the cake. It declares a guest as a ghognya, meaning "one who causes the killing of a cow" [meaning eats beef]. [Manu III, 119 and 120]

Some other smritis go even further and assert that beef is to be served t the guest. [AsvalAyana Grihya sUtra I, 24, 31-33.]

Are these smritis not contradicting what the shruti says?

Al Beruni writes that the Hindus never eat beef. The upper castes always stay away from all kinds of meat. He writes that even those who eat meat cannot sell it in the market. That clearly shows that even as late as 11th century CE, when the Islamic rule hadn't taken deep roots, meat eating was still a taboo in the Hindu society. Ancient Tamil books that are over 2000 years old old confirm the same. They even say that killing the cow is the greatest sin for which there is no redemption. Yet, Manusmriti glorifies beef eating. Does it not make it clear that it was written in the Muslim court, perhaps Ghazni? Further, if Manusmriti was the code of law which always existed, then how come it never surfaces in any of the epigraphs or in the writings of the travelers?

Now, it is easy to guess why some Brahmin interpolated so. The Muslims ate beef. These Brahmins were trying their best to make it sound as if the Hindu scriptures too supported that practice.

Note: Narahari achar hasn't given the exact verse numbers in some cases. So, I haven't provided them either.

Before I show why many of the smritis have been interpolated, I should clarify one thing. Whenever I use the phrase written in the courts of Aurangazeb, I use it figuratively - not literally. In fact, such interpolations started in the courts of the earliest Muslim invaders. For example, Mahmud Ghaznavi had captured many scholars and they wrote in his court. Many Islamic rulers, though terrorists [they were true Muslims] of the first order and barbarians [they followed their "Prophet"], also had a fascination for fine architecture and for having scholars around.

We should also start with understanding the social scenario that preceded the the Islamic invasions of the Sind, barely a century after "Prophet" Mohammad died. The Gupta empire had declined, the state was fragmenting and the booming population was making the resources scarce. That is when the Muslims invaded, disintegrating the vestiges of the social institutions that supported learning. That was when institutions lost the support of the state, though gradually. Many of them went underground. Whenever some meagre resource could be found, there was intense competition to get them. That was the time when some of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas manipulated the system for personal gains.

Many of these court scholars also had to face the contempt that Islam had for Hinduism. It was very strange for the Muslim rulers to see a Hindu society that wasn't governed by any divine law. They found it strange that their women had a lot of freedom. They had nothing but contempt for what they saw. The Brahmins whom they employed, had to project Hinduism in a way that could parallel Islam. That is how the interpolation of the smritis started. Also, the prominence that the smritis gained in the society.