Is the Manusmriti written by casteist Brahmins who wanted to oppress Shudras?












3















Is the Manusmriti written by casteist Brahmins who wanted to oppress Shudras?



Critics say the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, and written by casteist Brahmins with the goal of oppressing Shudras, women, and other lower castes.



Is this argument valid?










share|improve this question























  • Dont know about casteist brahmins but at least part of the Manusmruti could have been written by a sadist or a psycho. By the way, how come you are asking a question and also answering it yourself???

    – Lazy Lubber
    12 mins ago











  • @LazyLubber Which part do you think could have been written by a sadist or psycho? Provide the verses please.

    – Ikshvaku
    11 mins ago











  • 8.270, 271, 272, for example.

    – Lazy Lubber
    2 mins ago











  • @LazyLubber Those are standard punishments in Hinduism. For raping women you get burned alive, if a Brahmin drinks liquor he should kill himself with boiling liquor, for sleeping with one's guru cutting off testicles, etc.

    – Ikshvaku
    1 min ago


















3















Is the Manusmriti written by casteist Brahmins who wanted to oppress Shudras?



Critics say the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, and written by casteist Brahmins with the goal of oppressing Shudras, women, and other lower castes.



Is this argument valid?










share|improve this question























  • Dont know about casteist brahmins but at least part of the Manusmruti could have been written by a sadist or a psycho. By the way, how come you are asking a question and also answering it yourself???

    – Lazy Lubber
    12 mins ago











  • @LazyLubber Which part do you think could have been written by a sadist or psycho? Provide the verses please.

    – Ikshvaku
    11 mins ago











  • 8.270, 271, 272, for example.

    – Lazy Lubber
    2 mins ago











  • @LazyLubber Those are standard punishments in Hinduism. For raping women you get burned alive, if a Brahmin drinks liquor he should kill himself with boiling liquor, for sleeping with one's guru cutting off testicles, etc.

    – Ikshvaku
    1 min ago
















3












3








3








Is the Manusmriti written by casteist Brahmins who wanted to oppress Shudras?



Critics say the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, and written by casteist Brahmins with the goal of oppressing Shudras, women, and other lower castes.



Is this argument valid?










share|improve this question














Is the Manusmriti written by casteist Brahmins who wanted to oppress Shudras?



Critics say the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, and written by casteist Brahmins with the goal of oppressing Shudras, women, and other lower castes.



Is this argument valid?







dharma caste-system dharma-shastras manu-smriti manu






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 1 hour ago









IkshvakuIkshvaku

4,256431




4,256431













  • Dont know about casteist brahmins but at least part of the Manusmruti could have been written by a sadist or a psycho. By the way, how come you are asking a question and also answering it yourself???

    – Lazy Lubber
    12 mins ago











  • @LazyLubber Which part do you think could have been written by a sadist or psycho? Provide the verses please.

    – Ikshvaku
    11 mins ago











  • 8.270, 271, 272, for example.

    – Lazy Lubber
    2 mins ago











  • @LazyLubber Those are standard punishments in Hinduism. For raping women you get burned alive, if a Brahmin drinks liquor he should kill himself with boiling liquor, for sleeping with one's guru cutting off testicles, etc.

    – Ikshvaku
    1 min ago





















  • Dont know about casteist brahmins but at least part of the Manusmruti could have been written by a sadist or a psycho. By the way, how come you are asking a question and also answering it yourself???

    – Lazy Lubber
    12 mins ago











  • @LazyLubber Which part do you think could have been written by a sadist or psycho? Provide the verses please.

    – Ikshvaku
    11 mins ago











  • 8.270, 271, 272, for example.

    – Lazy Lubber
    2 mins ago











  • @LazyLubber Those are standard punishments in Hinduism. For raping women you get burned alive, if a Brahmin drinks liquor he should kill himself with boiling liquor, for sleeping with one's guru cutting off testicles, etc.

    – Ikshvaku
    1 min ago



















Dont know about casteist brahmins but at least part of the Manusmruti could have been written by a sadist or a psycho. By the way, how come you are asking a question and also answering it yourself???

– Lazy Lubber
12 mins ago





Dont know about casteist brahmins but at least part of the Manusmruti could have been written by a sadist or a psycho. By the way, how come you are asking a question and also answering it yourself???

– Lazy Lubber
12 mins ago













@LazyLubber Which part do you think could have been written by a sadist or psycho? Provide the verses please.

– Ikshvaku
11 mins ago





@LazyLubber Which part do you think could have been written by a sadist or psycho? Provide the verses please.

– Ikshvaku
11 mins ago













8.270, 271, 272, for example.

– Lazy Lubber
2 mins ago





8.270, 271, 272, for example.

– Lazy Lubber
2 mins ago













@LazyLubber Those are standard punishments in Hinduism. For raping women you get burned alive, if a Brahmin drinks liquor he should kill himself with boiling liquor, for sleeping with one's guru cutting off testicles, etc.

– Ikshvaku
1 min ago







@LazyLubber Those are standard punishments in Hinduism. For raping women you get burned alive, if a Brahmin drinks liquor he should kill himself with boiling liquor, for sleeping with one's guru cutting off testicles, etc.

– Ikshvaku
1 min ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2















Is the Manusmriti pro-Brahmin and written by casteist Brahmins to oppress Shudras?




No, because upon a closer look at the Manusmriti, it's intention is to secure the welfare of all living beings.



If the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, then how could it have verses like this?




8.102 - ‘He shall treat like Śūdras the Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, who engage in trade, and who are craftsmen, actors, menial servants ok money-lenders.’



2.103 - But he who does not stand during the morning-twilight, and who does not sit through the evening-twilight, should be excluded, like the Sūdra, from all that is due to twice-born persons.



11.90 - A twice-born person, having, through folly, drunk wine, shall drink wine red-hot; he becomes freed from his guilt, when his body has been completely burnt by it.



Gautama (23.1).—‘They shall pour hot wine into the mouth of a Brāhmaṇa who has drunk wine; he will be purified by death.’



Baudhāyana (2.1.18, 19, 21).—‘If he [a Brahmana] has drunk Surā he shall scald himself to death with hot wine.



3.133 - As many mouthfuls as the person [Brahmana] ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs [at a Sraddha], so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death.



Hārīta (Do.).—‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning,—if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds,—they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing—these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.



5.19 - The mushroom, the village-pig, garlic, the village-cock, onions and leeks,—the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an outcast.



5.53 - In normal times the twice-born man conversant with the law shall not eat meat unlawfully; having eaten it unlawfully, he shall, after death, be devoured by them helplessly.



5.35 - But when invited according to law, if a man [Brahmana] does not e at meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty-one births.




And many more verses. Of course, there are many verses praising Brahmanas, but as shown above, there are many verses deprecating bad Brahmanas. So, how can anti-Hindus cherry pick certain verses and portray the Manusmriti as pro-Brahmin? That is unfair, biased, and illogical.



Now let's address another related criticism.





Is the Manusmriti anti-low caste?



No it is not. Dharma is conducive to one's welfare. According to Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutra 1.1.2:




Dharma is that which is indicated by the Veda as conducive to the highest good.




Therefore, how can anyone say that Dharma is wrong or evil?



Here is the Dharma of Shudras:




9.334 - For the Śūdra the highest duty conducive to his best welfare is to attend upon such Brāhmaṇa house-holders as are learned
in the Vedas and famous.



9.335 - If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the
Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.



Viṣṇupurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 419).—‘It is only through attending upon the twice-born that the Śūdra becomes entitled to perform the Pākayajñas; and thereby becoming blessed, he wins the worlds.—The Śūdra also shall make gifts, and perform the Pākayajña-sacrifices, as also the rites in honour of Pitṛs.’




Why should Shudras serve Brahmanas aside from it being there primary duty? Because according to the Mahabharata:




Mahābhārata—Anuśāsana (Do.).—‘Finding the Śūdra oppressed with bad
traits due to the quality of Tamas, Pitāmaha ordained attendance upon
the twice-born as his duty. Through his devotion to the twice-born,
the Śūdra drops off all those traits due to the quality of Tamas; and
by attending upon the twice-born, the Śūdra attains the highest
good.—Harmless, devoted to good deeds, worshipful towards gods and the
twice-born, the Śūdra becomes endowed with all the rewards of Dharma.’




Shudras are in fact, oppressed by the quality of Tamas, and not by serving Brahmanas! It is by serving Brahmanas that Shudras become Sattvic, and so are no longer oppressed!



Also, some rights given to Shudras that higher castes don't have:




2.23 - But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land of the Mlecchas.



2.24 - The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries [where the spotted deer roams by nature]; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land.



10.126 - For the Śūdra there is no sin; nor is he worthy of any sacraments; he is not entitled to any sacred rites; but there is no prohibition against sacred rites.



10.127 - If those [Shudras] who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise.



11.93 - Wine [Sura] indeed is the dirty refuse of grains, and sin also is called ‘dirt’; for this reason the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya shall not drink wine [but the Shudra can].







share|improve this answer































    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2















    Is the Manusmriti pro-Brahmin and written by casteist Brahmins to oppress Shudras?




    No, because upon a closer look at the Manusmriti, it's intention is to secure the welfare of all living beings.



    If the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, then how could it have verses like this?




    8.102 - ‘He shall treat like Śūdras the Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, who engage in trade, and who are craftsmen, actors, menial servants ok money-lenders.’



    2.103 - But he who does not stand during the morning-twilight, and who does not sit through the evening-twilight, should be excluded, like the Sūdra, from all that is due to twice-born persons.



    11.90 - A twice-born person, having, through folly, drunk wine, shall drink wine red-hot; he becomes freed from his guilt, when his body has been completely burnt by it.



    Gautama (23.1).—‘They shall pour hot wine into the mouth of a Brāhmaṇa who has drunk wine; he will be purified by death.’



    Baudhāyana (2.1.18, 19, 21).—‘If he [a Brahmana] has drunk Surā he shall scald himself to death with hot wine.



    3.133 - As many mouthfuls as the person [Brahmana] ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs [at a Sraddha], so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death.



    Hārīta (Do.).—‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning,—if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds,—they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing—these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.



    5.19 - The mushroom, the village-pig, garlic, the village-cock, onions and leeks,—the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an outcast.



    5.53 - In normal times the twice-born man conversant with the law shall not eat meat unlawfully; having eaten it unlawfully, he shall, after death, be devoured by them helplessly.



    5.35 - But when invited according to law, if a man [Brahmana] does not e at meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty-one births.




    And many more verses. Of course, there are many verses praising Brahmanas, but as shown above, there are many verses deprecating bad Brahmanas. So, how can anti-Hindus cherry pick certain verses and portray the Manusmriti as pro-Brahmin? That is unfair, biased, and illogical.



    Now let's address another related criticism.





    Is the Manusmriti anti-low caste?



    No it is not. Dharma is conducive to one's welfare. According to Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutra 1.1.2:




    Dharma is that which is indicated by the Veda as conducive to the highest good.




    Therefore, how can anyone say that Dharma is wrong or evil?



    Here is the Dharma of Shudras:




    9.334 - For the Śūdra the highest duty conducive to his best welfare is to attend upon such Brāhmaṇa house-holders as are learned
    in the Vedas and famous.



    9.335 - If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the
    Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.



    Viṣṇupurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 419).—‘It is only through attending upon the twice-born that the Śūdra becomes entitled to perform the Pākayajñas; and thereby becoming blessed, he wins the worlds.—The Śūdra also shall make gifts, and perform the Pākayajña-sacrifices, as also the rites in honour of Pitṛs.’




    Why should Shudras serve Brahmanas aside from it being there primary duty? Because according to the Mahabharata:




    Mahābhārata—Anuśāsana (Do.).—‘Finding the Śūdra oppressed with bad
    traits due to the quality of Tamas, Pitāmaha ordained attendance upon
    the twice-born as his duty. Through his devotion to the twice-born,
    the Śūdra drops off all those traits due to the quality of Tamas; and
    by attending upon the twice-born, the Śūdra attains the highest
    good.—Harmless, devoted to good deeds, worshipful towards gods and the
    twice-born, the Śūdra becomes endowed with all the rewards of Dharma.’




    Shudras are in fact, oppressed by the quality of Tamas, and not by serving Brahmanas! It is by serving Brahmanas that Shudras become Sattvic, and so are no longer oppressed!



    Also, some rights given to Shudras that higher castes don't have:




    2.23 - But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land of the Mlecchas.



    2.24 - The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries [where the spotted deer roams by nature]; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land.



    10.126 - For the Śūdra there is no sin; nor is he worthy of any sacraments; he is not entitled to any sacred rites; but there is no prohibition against sacred rites.



    10.127 - If those [Shudras] who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise.



    11.93 - Wine [Sura] indeed is the dirty refuse of grains, and sin also is called ‘dirt’; for this reason the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya shall not drink wine [but the Shudra can].







    share|improve this answer




























      2















      Is the Manusmriti pro-Brahmin and written by casteist Brahmins to oppress Shudras?




      No, because upon a closer look at the Manusmriti, it's intention is to secure the welfare of all living beings.



      If the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, then how could it have verses like this?




      8.102 - ‘He shall treat like Śūdras the Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, who engage in trade, and who are craftsmen, actors, menial servants ok money-lenders.’



      2.103 - But he who does not stand during the morning-twilight, and who does not sit through the evening-twilight, should be excluded, like the Sūdra, from all that is due to twice-born persons.



      11.90 - A twice-born person, having, through folly, drunk wine, shall drink wine red-hot; he becomes freed from his guilt, when his body has been completely burnt by it.



      Gautama (23.1).—‘They shall pour hot wine into the mouth of a Brāhmaṇa who has drunk wine; he will be purified by death.’



      Baudhāyana (2.1.18, 19, 21).—‘If he [a Brahmana] has drunk Surā he shall scald himself to death with hot wine.



      3.133 - As many mouthfuls as the person [Brahmana] ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs [at a Sraddha], so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death.



      Hārīta (Do.).—‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning,—if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds,—they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing—these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.



      5.19 - The mushroom, the village-pig, garlic, the village-cock, onions and leeks,—the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an outcast.



      5.53 - In normal times the twice-born man conversant with the law shall not eat meat unlawfully; having eaten it unlawfully, he shall, after death, be devoured by them helplessly.



      5.35 - But when invited according to law, if a man [Brahmana] does not e at meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty-one births.




      And many more verses. Of course, there are many verses praising Brahmanas, but as shown above, there are many verses deprecating bad Brahmanas. So, how can anti-Hindus cherry pick certain verses and portray the Manusmriti as pro-Brahmin? That is unfair, biased, and illogical.



      Now let's address another related criticism.





      Is the Manusmriti anti-low caste?



      No it is not. Dharma is conducive to one's welfare. According to Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutra 1.1.2:




      Dharma is that which is indicated by the Veda as conducive to the highest good.




      Therefore, how can anyone say that Dharma is wrong or evil?



      Here is the Dharma of Shudras:




      9.334 - For the Śūdra the highest duty conducive to his best welfare is to attend upon such Brāhmaṇa house-holders as are learned
      in the Vedas and famous.



      9.335 - If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the
      Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.



      Viṣṇupurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 419).—‘It is only through attending upon the twice-born that the Śūdra becomes entitled to perform the Pākayajñas; and thereby becoming blessed, he wins the worlds.—The Śūdra also shall make gifts, and perform the Pākayajña-sacrifices, as also the rites in honour of Pitṛs.’




      Why should Shudras serve Brahmanas aside from it being there primary duty? Because according to the Mahabharata:




      Mahābhārata—Anuśāsana (Do.).—‘Finding the Śūdra oppressed with bad
      traits due to the quality of Tamas, Pitāmaha ordained attendance upon
      the twice-born as his duty. Through his devotion to the twice-born,
      the Śūdra drops off all those traits due to the quality of Tamas; and
      by attending upon the twice-born, the Śūdra attains the highest
      good.—Harmless, devoted to good deeds, worshipful towards gods and the
      twice-born, the Śūdra becomes endowed with all the rewards of Dharma.’




      Shudras are in fact, oppressed by the quality of Tamas, and not by serving Brahmanas! It is by serving Brahmanas that Shudras become Sattvic, and so are no longer oppressed!



      Also, some rights given to Shudras that higher castes don't have:




      2.23 - But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land of the Mlecchas.



      2.24 - The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries [where the spotted deer roams by nature]; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land.



      10.126 - For the Śūdra there is no sin; nor is he worthy of any sacraments; he is not entitled to any sacred rites; but there is no prohibition against sacred rites.



      10.127 - If those [Shudras] who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise.



      11.93 - Wine [Sura] indeed is the dirty refuse of grains, and sin also is called ‘dirt’; for this reason the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya shall not drink wine [but the Shudra can].







      share|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2








        Is the Manusmriti pro-Brahmin and written by casteist Brahmins to oppress Shudras?




        No, because upon a closer look at the Manusmriti, it's intention is to secure the welfare of all living beings.



        If the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, then how could it have verses like this?




        8.102 - ‘He shall treat like Śūdras the Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, who engage in trade, and who are craftsmen, actors, menial servants ok money-lenders.’



        2.103 - But he who does not stand during the morning-twilight, and who does not sit through the evening-twilight, should be excluded, like the Sūdra, from all that is due to twice-born persons.



        11.90 - A twice-born person, having, through folly, drunk wine, shall drink wine red-hot; he becomes freed from his guilt, when his body has been completely burnt by it.



        Gautama (23.1).—‘They shall pour hot wine into the mouth of a Brāhmaṇa who has drunk wine; he will be purified by death.’



        Baudhāyana (2.1.18, 19, 21).—‘If he [a Brahmana] has drunk Surā he shall scald himself to death with hot wine.



        3.133 - As many mouthfuls as the person [Brahmana] ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs [at a Sraddha], so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death.



        Hārīta (Do.).—‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning,—if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds,—they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing—these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.



        5.19 - The mushroom, the village-pig, garlic, the village-cock, onions and leeks,—the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an outcast.



        5.53 - In normal times the twice-born man conversant with the law shall not eat meat unlawfully; having eaten it unlawfully, he shall, after death, be devoured by them helplessly.



        5.35 - But when invited according to law, if a man [Brahmana] does not e at meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty-one births.




        And many more verses. Of course, there are many verses praising Brahmanas, but as shown above, there are many verses deprecating bad Brahmanas. So, how can anti-Hindus cherry pick certain verses and portray the Manusmriti as pro-Brahmin? That is unfair, biased, and illogical.



        Now let's address another related criticism.





        Is the Manusmriti anti-low caste?



        No it is not. Dharma is conducive to one's welfare. According to Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutra 1.1.2:




        Dharma is that which is indicated by the Veda as conducive to the highest good.




        Therefore, how can anyone say that Dharma is wrong or evil?



        Here is the Dharma of Shudras:




        9.334 - For the Śūdra the highest duty conducive to his best welfare is to attend upon such Brāhmaṇa house-holders as are learned
        in the Vedas and famous.



        9.335 - If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the
        Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.



        Viṣṇupurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 419).—‘It is only through attending upon the twice-born that the Śūdra becomes entitled to perform the Pākayajñas; and thereby becoming blessed, he wins the worlds.—The Śūdra also shall make gifts, and perform the Pākayajña-sacrifices, as also the rites in honour of Pitṛs.’




        Why should Shudras serve Brahmanas aside from it being there primary duty? Because according to the Mahabharata:




        Mahābhārata—Anuśāsana (Do.).—‘Finding the Śūdra oppressed with bad
        traits due to the quality of Tamas, Pitāmaha ordained attendance upon
        the twice-born as his duty. Through his devotion to the twice-born,
        the Śūdra drops off all those traits due to the quality of Tamas; and
        by attending upon the twice-born, the Śūdra attains the highest
        good.—Harmless, devoted to good deeds, worshipful towards gods and the
        twice-born, the Śūdra becomes endowed with all the rewards of Dharma.’




        Shudras are in fact, oppressed by the quality of Tamas, and not by serving Brahmanas! It is by serving Brahmanas that Shudras become Sattvic, and so are no longer oppressed!



        Also, some rights given to Shudras that higher castes don't have:




        2.23 - But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land of the Mlecchas.



        2.24 - The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries [where the spotted deer roams by nature]; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land.



        10.126 - For the Śūdra there is no sin; nor is he worthy of any sacraments; he is not entitled to any sacred rites; but there is no prohibition against sacred rites.



        10.127 - If those [Shudras] who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise.



        11.93 - Wine [Sura] indeed is the dirty refuse of grains, and sin also is called ‘dirt’; for this reason the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya shall not drink wine [but the Shudra can].







        share|improve this answer














        Is the Manusmriti pro-Brahmin and written by casteist Brahmins to oppress Shudras?




        No, because upon a closer look at the Manusmriti, it's intention is to secure the welfare of all living beings.



        If the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, then how could it have verses like this?




        8.102 - ‘He shall treat like Śūdras the Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, who engage in trade, and who are craftsmen, actors, menial servants ok money-lenders.’



        2.103 - But he who does not stand during the morning-twilight, and who does not sit through the evening-twilight, should be excluded, like the Sūdra, from all that is due to twice-born persons.



        11.90 - A twice-born person, having, through folly, drunk wine, shall drink wine red-hot; he becomes freed from his guilt, when his body has been completely burnt by it.



        Gautama (23.1).—‘They shall pour hot wine into the mouth of a Brāhmaṇa who has drunk wine; he will be purified by death.’



        Baudhāyana (2.1.18, 19, 21).—‘If he [a Brahmana] has drunk Surā he shall scald himself to death with hot wine.



        3.133 - As many mouthfuls as the person [Brahmana] ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs [at a Sraddha], so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death.



        Hārīta (Do.).—‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning,—if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds,—they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing—these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.



        5.19 - The mushroom, the village-pig, garlic, the village-cock, onions and leeks,—the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an outcast.



        5.53 - In normal times the twice-born man conversant with the law shall not eat meat unlawfully; having eaten it unlawfully, he shall, after death, be devoured by them helplessly.



        5.35 - But when invited according to law, if a man [Brahmana] does not e at meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty-one births.




        And many more verses. Of course, there are many verses praising Brahmanas, but as shown above, there are many verses deprecating bad Brahmanas. So, how can anti-Hindus cherry pick certain verses and portray the Manusmriti as pro-Brahmin? That is unfair, biased, and illogical.



        Now let's address another related criticism.





        Is the Manusmriti anti-low caste?



        No it is not. Dharma is conducive to one's welfare. According to Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutra 1.1.2:




        Dharma is that which is indicated by the Veda as conducive to the highest good.




        Therefore, how can anyone say that Dharma is wrong or evil?



        Here is the Dharma of Shudras:




        9.334 - For the Śūdra the highest duty conducive to his best welfare is to attend upon such Brāhmaṇa house-holders as are learned
        in the Vedas and famous.



        9.335 - If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the
        Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.



        Viṣṇupurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 419).—‘It is only through attending upon the twice-born that the Śūdra becomes entitled to perform the Pākayajñas; and thereby becoming blessed, he wins the worlds.—The Śūdra also shall make gifts, and perform the Pākayajña-sacrifices, as also the rites in honour of Pitṛs.’




        Why should Shudras serve Brahmanas aside from it being there primary duty? Because according to the Mahabharata:




        Mahābhārata—Anuśāsana (Do.).—‘Finding the Śūdra oppressed with bad
        traits due to the quality of Tamas, Pitāmaha ordained attendance upon
        the twice-born as his duty. Through his devotion to the twice-born,
        the Śūdra drops off all those traits due to the quality of Tamas; and
        by attending upon the twice-born, the Śūdra attains the highest
        good.—Harmless, devoted to good deeds, worshipful towards gods and the
        twice-born, the Śūdra becomes endowed with all the rewards of Dharma.’




        Shudras are in fact, oppressed by the quality of Tamas, and not by serving Brahmanas! It is by serving Brahmanas that Shudras become Sattvic, and so are no longer oppressed!



        Also, some rights given to Shudras that higher castes don't have:




        2.23 - But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land of the Mlecchas.



        2.24 - The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries [where the spotted deer roams by nature]; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land.



        10.126 - For the Śūdra there is no sin; nor is he worthy of any sacraments; he is not entitled to any sacred rites; but there is no prohibition against sacred rites.



        10.127 - If those [Shudras] who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise.



        11.93 - Wine [Sura] indeed is the dirty refuse of grains, and sin also is called ‘dirt’; for this reason the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya shall not drink wine [but the Shudra can].








        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        IkshvakuIkshvaku

        4,256431




        4,256431















            Popular posts from this blog

            Ponta tanko

            Tantalo (mitologio)

            Erzsébet Schaár