Clearly, if there was anything not implementable in the Laws of Manu (as available to us in the Sanskrit text Manu Smriti), that battle has been won by social reformers and today's Indian Laws and Penal Code are not subject to any of the same criticisms. From that perspective, we do not, today, need to go through the book and interpret or even understand it.
Yet, one cannot deny the importance of the book, at least as one of the main texts forming the basis of Hindu Law for centuries. Add to that the high place amongst ancient seers given at least to the mythological character of Manu, and the book becomes a must for anyone who wants to understand the expectations from a"religious Hundu" - I.e., a Hindu looking for guidance on how best to lead his/her life so as to attain to that highest perfection which has been the promised fruit of the highest spiritual endeavour.
The first and last chapters of the book speak clearly about the importance of man's spiritual endeavour - the same sacred knowledge of the atman made possible by noble physical and mental qualities and even more so by the act of sincerely seeking the deeper and "true" knowledge of the sciptures. The intermediate chapters, however, at first read, seem to be mostly a book of laws pertaining to daily human life (individual and social), outlining what is okay and what is not, and the punishments a king is expected to impose on transgressors. It is here that the modern mind might find itself rebelling against aspects which social reformers took up hundreds of years ago. This essay is not to condemn those reformers, but to make a much gentler assertion that the way the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata) and the hymns of the Vedas are known to contain hidden and implied meanings in many places, it is quite possible that even this great grandsire of ours, keen to help everyone develop the highest spiritual qualities, wrote his smriti with a similar symbolism in his heart, leading to yet another epic with an obvious physical meaning as well as a more esoteric interpretation.
In fact, the modern times are even more appropriate for such an interpretation of the ancient law. Now that the seemingly harsher and ostensibly oppressive parts of the physical law have been controlled by social reform, it is perhaps the right time to ask whether there could have been other implied meanings, or a context which could exonerate the writings from that ancient era, or simply help us understand them better.
Secondly, the modern times are also more suited to an inquiry into the limits of man's usual sources of knowledge and understanding. So if the seemingly harsher parts of the writings are truly based on a knowledge higher than man's ordinary knowledge, then again, today is the better time to discuss and debate this possibility. Today we have a society fast moving out of blind beliefs, and that includes the blind belief that what the senses see is all.
As to the question- why go for implied meanings and secrets in the first place, we are told first thst storytelling was considered by many to be more efficient a way to speak to untrained minds. Other than that, it is also believed that the rishis wanted to protect the knowledge from falling into the wrong hands of those who would only look to misuse, anf yet, they also wanted to leave enough of a hint for the sincere seekers to decode the true meanings. Similar explanations could apply to the Manusmriti too.
As to another natural question- whether the ancients could have been misguided on some patts - there is the glaring contradictory evidence of all the higher virtues being preached to the skies by these same texts. In the context of the Manusmriti, we are asking how the same author (or authors) could extoll non-violence and make it the central virtue of human life, reject meat eating too for a similar reason, and yet in the same book encourage animal sacrifices by saying that the snimals would find a better next life that way. we are asking how the same authors could make the knowledge of the undivided Brahman the central goal of human endeavour, and yet recommend caste laws requiring some communities to stay as outcastes for generations together. we are asking how the same seer could make the welfare, safety and happiness of women an absolute necessity in the first chapter, and then warn men in the ninth chapter about how unfit women were for independence, because of their inherent evil and disloyal tendencies. We are asking how the same text could call parents the representatives of God and yet ask them to retire to the jungles in the latter parts of their lives.
All this points to at least two possibilities. One - the seers range of perception was so muvh greater than that of ordinarily men that what was exceedingly important to the typical human wss a mere transitional problem of mediocre or no importance to the seer. Two - the seer did not mean to disregard these all-important problems of the ordinary human, but was rather giving the common man some credit for intelligence, and speaking in metaphors and symbols which he believed the "right" students would be able to decode.
Therefore, friends, let us ask ourselves whether the ashram system really means that one needs to go to the jungles after "x" numbers of years, or whether the recommendation to retire is more of an advice to start physicsl and mental disciplines, which could aid further development of wisdom? While the Manusmriti clearly says that seeking and learning thev"right" things is better than merely harsh self control it is quite evident that the additional benefits of self control as an aid to the process are being praised highly. If our understanding is correct, then the physical journey to a jungle is not important - what is important is the pursuit of true knowledge, which could be assisted by some self control too. that we have this sentiment explicitly expressed in the Gita is , of course, re-assuring.
Lrt us ask ourselves whether always guarding women and never letting them be independent really means never letting our mothers travel outside the house door, or , or whether it is a hint to the seeker to not allow his energies (shaktis) to be frittered awsy in mindless pursuits? Whether evil and disloyal tendencies of women refer to the fickle mindedness of one particular gender or to the nature of our grosser outgoing energies which discriminate little when left untrained by intelligence?
Let us ask ourselves whether the four major varnas (castes) refer to social groups which somehow descended from the mouth, hands, etc. of the Supreme, or rather do they refer to the powers of these centres of awareness in the human body? The lower centres of the body (the legs being the extreme), are to be used in the service of the upper parts, and in general, not to be made the final decision making authority. When mixtures between castes are given a somewhat lower place, are we talking of mixtures of social groups or are we talking of not allowing the mouth to merge with the belly and the heart to be governed by the lower passions?
Let us ask whether punishing by "dismemberment of the offending part", refers to cutting people's bodies up to prevent theft or other transgressions, or are we talking about the need to reject the untrained impulses of the body when they tend to transgress the injunctions of higher intelligence?
Lrt us ask ourselves whether these ancient writers were insensitive to pain or whether they were at least similar to our dear grandfathers, trying to open the doors of some higher knowledge for us?
Sadanand Tutakne
Yet, one cannot deny the importance of the book, at least as one of the main texts forming the basis of Hindu Law for centuries. Add to that the high place amongst ancient seers given at least to the mythological character of Manu, and the book becomes a must for anyone who wants to understand the expectations from a"religious Hundu" - I.e., a Hindu looking for guidance on how best to lead his/her life so as to attain to that highest perfection which has been the promised fruit of the highest spiritual endeavour.
The first and last chapters of the book speak clearly about the importance of man's spiritual endeavour - the same sacred knowledge of the atman made possible by noble physical and mental qualities and even more so by the act of sincerely seeking the deeper and "true" knowledge of the sciptures. The intermediate chapters, however, at first read, seem to be mostly a book of laws pertaining to daily human life (individual and social), outlining what is okay and what is not, and the punishments a king is expected to impose on transgressors. It is here that the modern mind might find itself rebelling against aspects which social reformers took up hundreds of years ago. This essay is not to condemn those reformers, but to make a much gentler assertion that the way the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata) and the hymns of the Vedas are known to contain hidden and implied meanings in many places, it is quite possible that even this great grandsire of ours, keen to help everyone develop the highest spiritual qualities, wrote his smriti with a similar symbolism in his heart, leading to yet another epic with an obvious physical meaning as well as a more esoteric interpretation.
In fact, the modern times are even more appropriate for such an interpretation of the ancient law. Now that the seemingly harsher and ostensibly oppressive parts of the physical law have been controlled by social reform, it is perhaps the right time to ask whether there could have been other implied meanings, or a context which could exonerate the writings from that ancient era, or simply help us understand them better.
Secondly, the modern times are also more suited to an inquiry into the limits of man's usual sources of knowledge and understanding. So if the seemingly harsher parts of the writings are truly based on a knowledge higher than man's ordinary knowledge, then again, today is the better time to discuss and debate this possibility. Today we have a society fast moving out of blind beliefs, and that includes the blind belief that what the senses see is all.
As to the question- why go for implied meanings and secrets in the first place, we are told first thst storytelling was considered by many to be more efficient a way to speak to untrained minds. Other than that, it is also believed that the rishis wanted to protect the knowledge from falling into the wrong hands of those who would only look to misuse, anf yet, they also wanted to leave enough of a hint for the sincere seekers to decode the true meanings. Similar explanations could apply to the Manusmriti too.
As to another natural question- whether the ancients could have been misguided on some patts - there is the glaring contradictory evidence of all the higher virtues being preached to the skies by these same texts. In the context of the Manusmriti, we are asking how the same author (or authors) could extoll non-violence and make it the central virtue of human life, reject meat eating too for a similar reason, and yet in the same book encourage animal sacrifices by saying that the snimals would find a better next life that way. we are asking how the same authors could make the knowledge of the undivided Brahman the central goal of human endeavour, and yet recommend caste laws requiring some communities to stay as outcastes for generations together. we are asking how the same seer could make the welfare, safety and happiness of women an absolute necessity in the first chapter, and then warn men in the ninth chapter about how unfit women were for independence, because of their inherent evil and disloyal tendencies. We are asking how the same text could call parents the representatives of God and yet ask them to retire to the jungles in the latter parts of their lives.
All this points to at least two possibilities. One - the seers range of perception was so muvh greater than that of ordinarily men that what was exceedingly important to the typical human wss a mere transitional problem of mediocre or no importance to the seer. Two - the seer did not mean to disregard these all-important problems of the ordinary human, but was rather giving the common man some credit for intelligence, and speaking in metaphors and symbols which he believed the "right" students would be able to decode.
Therefore, friends, let us ask ourselves whether the ashram system really means that one needs to go to the jungles after "x" numbers of years, or whether the recommendation to retire is more of an advice to start physicsl and mental disciplines, which could aid further development of wisdom? While the Manusmriti clearly says that seeking and learning thev"right" things is better than merely harsh self control it is quite evident that the additional benefits of self control as an aid to the process are being praised highly. If our understanding is correct, then the physical journey to a jungle is not important - what is important is the pursuit of true knowledge, which could be assisted by some self control too. that we have this sentiment explicitly expressed in the Gita is , of course, re-assuring.
Lrt us ask ourselves whether always guarding women and never letting them be independent really means never letting our mothers travel outside the house door, or , or whether it is a hint to the seeker to not allow his energies (shaktis) to be frittered awsy in mindless pursuits? Whether evil and disloyal tendencies of women refer to the fickle mindedness of one particular gender or to the nature of our grosser outgoing energies which discriminate little when left untrained by intelligence?
Let us ask ourselves whether the four major varnas (castes) refer to social groups which somehow descended from the mouth, hands, etc. of the Supreme, or rather do they refer to the powers of these centres of awareness in the human body? The lower centres of the body (the legs being the extreme), are to be used in the service of the upper parts, and in general, not to be made the final decision making authority. When mixtures between castes are given a somewhat lower place, are we talking of mixtures of social groups or are we talking of not allowing the mouth to merge with the belly and the heart to be governed by the lower passions?
Let us ask whether punishing by "dismemberment of the offending part", refers to cutting people's bodies up to prevent theft or other transgressions, or are we talking about the need to reject the untrained impulses of the body when they tend to transgress the injunctions of higher intelligence?
Lrt us ask ourselves whether these ancient writers were insensitive to pain or whether they were at least similar to our dear grandfathers, trying to open the doors of some higher knowledge for us?
Sadanand Tutakne
No comments:
Post a Comment