3

My dear followers, never treat a learned brāhmaṇa harshly, even if he has sinned. Even if he attacks you physically or repeatedly curses you, always continue to offer him obeisances.Just us I always carefully bow down to brāhmaṇas, so all of you should likewise bow down to them. I will punish anyone who acts otherwise.(Bhagavata 10.64.41-42)

With whatever limb the low-born man hurts a superior person, every such limb of his shall be cut off; this is the teaching of Manu.(Manu 8.279)

If he raises his hand or a stick, he should have his hand cut off(Manu 8.280)

Doesn't our conscience say its against Basic human rules? And we do have many verses in scriptures saying be Kind,Compassionate to all beings and whoever Hurts others Hurts Hari for Hari alone is all beings.

6
  • 4
    What's your exact question? Are you asking about contradictions or about unjustified Brahmin privileges? If it's about contradiction, then you should also present the verses against which these verses are contradictory. Rāvaṇa was adharmī yet Śrī Rāma had to propitiate sins he accrued by killing the Rāvaṇa. Feb 5 at 11:24
  • 1
    @Mr.Sigma. Sir Contradictions and also Bramhin Privileges both Feb 5 at 13:54
  • These are punishments.
    – Ikshvaku
    Feb 5 at 22:16
  • I did like first 2 answers but why so much contradictions ? If we end up using our conscience then so many verses have to be left out @Mr.Sigma. Feb 6 at 9:33
  • 1
    @Mr.Sigma. No sir! Sorry to say. I didn't like this answer. Accepting that answer will make society hell - Child Marriage Sati Untouchablility etc. Problem is Vedanta should be seperated from Society Laws... Feb 6 at 10:19
3

Firstly as rightly said by RickRoss and Ikshvaku, the verses are talking about punishment inflicted by kings for certain acts. Nowhere does scripture sanction Brahmins to beat lower caste people.

1. General view:
The general majority view of the Smritis (See other comparative notes to Manu 8.279 as well) seems to be only the injuring of a Brahmin being punishable by censuring the aggrieving limb:

That limb of a non-Brāhmaṇa with which he hurts the Brāhmaṇa should he cut off. If he raises a weapon to strike him, he shall pay a fine of the first degree; if he only touches the weapon, then only half of that.
Yājñavalkya Smriti 2.215

Manu 8.279, cited in the question, too seems to make a similar indication, if one reads the actual Sanskrit verse:

येन केन चिदङ्गेन हिंस्याच्चेत्श्रेष्ठमन्त्यजः । छेत्तव्यं तद् तदेवास्य तन् मनोरनुशासनम् ॥ २७९ ॥

The words ‘śreṣṭha’ (emboldened) is the superlative form meaning the highest, which in the case of Varnas again points towards Brahmins and not any superior caste. (If we don’t accept this view read point 3 below)

2. Explicit protection to Brahmins:
Firstly we can see that among the different types of sins, even injuring of a Brahmin is a serious sin, as also stated in the question. Probably the reason for this is the fact that Brahmins through great sadhana acquire great merits and are in possession of the most holy Vedic knowledge.

As per Manu 7.18 (citing half verse):

Punishment governs all creatures; Punishment alone protects them

To which Medhatithi’s Commentary states that ‘Punishment alone protects’— the weak against the strong.

Also, Brahmins not being accustomed to arduous physical exertion are comparatively physically weaker than the lower castes (well at least warring Kshatriyas and labouring shudras). As a result to protect the physically weaker from the stronger as also for a king to deliver appropriate punishments against shastric sins, anyone (not being a Brahmin) attacking a Brahmin is to be punished harshly.

3. Not accepting the above view of ‘śreṣṭha’ being only Brahmins in Manusmriti
The commentary of Mitakshara 2.215 says:

inasmuch as this lays down the cutting of the limb of a Śūdra who strikes any twice-born person, it follows, from the parity of reasoning, that this same punishment is to be inflicted upon the Vaiśya striking the Kṣatriya

So we can see that it is not strictly restricted to only Shudras injuring Brahmins. It talks of punishment to relatively lower caste for injuring any relatively upper caste as per Manu (not other Smritis)

4. Why such a harsh punishment?
We have to remember that hitting Brahmins is a sin as stated above and as such we also have to remember that it was the other person who harmed a physically weak holder of the most sacred knowledge. Before harming a Brahmin (who also has like everyone else has god in him) he should’ve thought that injuring a Brahmin is like injuring god. If injuring him by cutting his limb is injuring hari then so also is injuring a Brahmin. Who can stop Hari’s law of Karma from playing, especially through a king who has been entrusted with the task as such? If he hadn’t harmed the Brahmin such a punishment wouldn’t have been inflicted. Would it have? It is thus advisable for no one to hit anyone and in turn no one should be the first one to hurt god.

Further not holding the ‘śreṣṭha’ as Brahmin view, a harsh punishment prescribed by Manu (besides the verse for protection cited above and also those cited by Rickross) also because:

All the castes would become corrupt, all barriers would be broken through, and there would be disruption among all the regions,—if there were any mistakes in regard to punishment.—(7.24)

Then again as Rickross said

we only have the option to either follow the scriptures or not follow them. With our limited understanding of things we are not in a position to question them.

1
  • 2
    <<Medhatithi’s Commentary states that ‘Punishment alone protects’— the weak against the strong.>> Nailed it! This one line alone is enough !! Feb 6 at 14:12
5

The verses are mostly talking about punishments and punishments are needed to be apt and somewhat cruel too (depending on what the crime is). If heinous criminals are not punished in an apt manner then that is injustice.

Manu Smriti 7.14. For the (king’s) sake the Lord formerly created his own son, Punishment, the protector of all creatures, (an incarnation of) the law, formed of Brahman’s glory

7.16. Having fully considered the time and the place (of the offence), the strength and the knowledge (of the offender), let him justly inflict that (punishment) on men who act unjustly.

and, if just punishments are not delivered it takes the person (responsible for punishing criminals) to hells too.


Manu Smriti 7.19. If (punishment) is properly inflicted after (due) consideration, it makes all people happy; but inflicted without consideration, it destroys everything.

7.20. If the king did not, without tiring, inflict punishment on those worthy to be punished, the stronger would roast the weaker, like fish on a spit

7.27. A king who properly inflicts (punishment), prospers with respect to (those) three (means of happiness); but he who is voluptuous, partial, and deceitful will be destroyed, even through the (unjust) punishment (which he inflicts).


You can of course question what big crime did the Sudra commit that his limbs must be cut off? Is his crime that big?

Now, that might be a valid question but we are not authorized to answer it. It's like questioning the scriptures. In matters regarding spiritual topics and Religion, scriptures are our authority. We can not question them asking whether those punishments are really apt or not. Because we don't have access to the whole picture of the consequences that a particular act (or crime) produces. Because the consequences are both Drishta (seen) and Adrishta (unseen). And, we don't have a clue about those unseen consequences.

Therefore, we only have the option to either follow the scriptures or not follow them. With our limited understanding of things we are not in a position to question them.

The sources of the Law of Dharma are the scriptures as mentioned below:


The source of the Law is the Veda, as well as the tradition and the practice of those who know the Veda.

Dharmasutras of Gautama 1.1

7
  • Rickross Ji if a SUdra just lifts his hand we will cut his hand permanently and Krishna suggestes even if Bramhanas beat you you should bear it. Is this "Dharma"? Feb 6 at 7:39
  • Whats difference between Us and Islam then? Feb 6 at 7:39
  • 1
    @SethuSrivatsaKoduru to almost all of us the punishments would look as too harsh. But as I have said since we don't know about the unseen consequences of a particular act we are not the right person to be critical of these punishments.
    – Rickross
    Feb 6 at 10:09
  • 2
    I mean can we know why drinking is such a big sin in Hinduism? It's apparently a harmless act. @SethuSrivatsaKoduru
    – Rickross
    Feb 6 at 10:20
  • 2
    @Rickross. Tamasic substances are not a problem for your body if you can control these substances and do not care to damage your liver. Raping girls and children and hurting people is a problem. Alchool can lead to these consequences. Drunk brain is never stable. If you want to be better than filthy Westerns, you have to know that.
    – user22667
    Feb 6 at 23:36
3

Why are our scriptures contradicting so much?

Contradicting what? You never mentioned what is being contradicted.

A Bramhana can beat anyone as he wishes?

No, if you actually read what the verses say rather than assuming, then you'll find that these are punishments inflicted by the king. Next verses make it clear:

8.281 - If a low-born person tries to occupy the same seat with his superior, he should be branded on the hip and banished; or the king shall have his buttocks cut off.

8.282 - If, out of arrogance, he spits, the king should have his two lips cut off; if he urinates, then his penis; and if he breaks wind, his anus.

No where does it say a "Brahmana can beat anyone he wishes."

1
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Pandya
    Feb 8 at 16:00
3

With whatever limb the low-born man hurts a superior person, every such limb of his shall be cut off; this is the teaching of Manu.—(8.279)

If he raises his hand or a stick, he should have his hand cut off; if he strikes in anger with the foot, his foot shall be cut off.—(8.280)

Doesn't our conscience say injunctions like these are against basic human rights?

Yes, it does. Sri Krishna Prem says the same in his essay, CRUELTY AND RELIGION. According to him, such injunctions were written & transmitted by men, who were prone to error, in the name of god:

CRUELTY AND RELIGION

...

The real issue is whether we are going to believe that cruelty is sanctioned by Bhagawan whatever ancient and sacred books may say that it is? To him who says 'yes', I can only entreat him to reflect that he may be mistaken and that however divine the Shastra may have been in its origin, it has been transmitted to us through the memories and writings of purely human beings who like all human beings were doubtless subject to error I would beg them to call up the scene in imagination with all its bloody details and to reflect that a man thus cruelly tortured to death will, unless he is a saint, be filled with thoughts of terror, hatred and revenge and that, leaving his body in such a state of mind, he will take birth in some cruel and tamasic form and so work himself and the world further harm. Is this the teaching of the Lord of compassion, the Refuge of those who have no refuge?

He also offers a solution:

To those who would answer 'no', I would say that we cannot let it rest there. It will not do simply to say no and then pass on. We must not rest quietly in the assurance that at least nowadays such things are not done. No doubt they are not, for law and public opinion alike would put a stop to them. Nevertheless there are many other practices which, though not as glaring as these, are yet intolerable cruelties and are continued to this day because of their supposed Divine sanction. If we once admit the principle that Bhagawan would never sanction, let alone command, cruelty, we must then fearlessly erase from our religious teachings all such acts however well established they may be.

...

15
  • 2
    These are severe punishments for heinous sins, so it is natural they will be severe. What goes against conscience is giving lenient punishments to heinous sinners.
    – Ikshvaku
    Feb 7 at 0:47
  • 1
    m.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk @IamThat, here is the real personality of Ikshvaku Vaishnavi.....
    – user22667
    Feb 7 at 2:24
  • 1
    @hindustudent-TheWhiteHindu That video is really good. Crazy christian compilation.
    – user22892
    Feb 7 at 2:41
  • 1
    @IamThat ok I am going to post it.
    – user22667
    Feb 7 at 2:55
  • 3
    Manu Smriti and these others are very ancient texts we are talking about. Why to worry about them now? Given that none of them are practically followed at present. And, no, new Smritis won't come. That's a childish idea. @SethuSrivatsaKoduru Number of Smritis is already fixed.
    – Rickross
    Feb 7 at 7:17
1

DISCLAIMER I copy paste this answer. Instead of "Lord" and "God service" I would have said "Niskama Karma" and Karma Yog.

Because this question is biased by Britishism-Angrezicism- Casteism First of all you study Varnashrama well.

Copy paste part: "The system of varnashrama exists naturally everywhere because people will always have the tendencies for what they want to do, or have particular qualities for occupational skills. And these can invariably be divided into the four above-mentioned groups. This is natural, and, as we have seen the evidence here, it has been formed by the Supreme Creator. Therefore, it will always be in existence in some shape or form.

This system, however, was never meant to divide people according to materialistic classifications. It was meant to unite people in a cooperative society in the service of God. In Vedic times, even the Shudras had the same rights as those of the other varnas, and their dignity was preserved without discrimination. In this way, everyone would be satisfied materially and work in a way for the Lord’s pleasure. The Vedic culture, ultimately, was for the well-being and spiritual advancement of the whole society. Forced designation or untouchability was never a part of the Vedic process. The materialistic system of the present-day casteism has deteriorated into a means of dividing society according to mere parentage to control certain groups, while protecting or expanding the worldly happiness of the privileged. Thus, additional groups have been manufactured to accommodate this, such as those who are described as outcastes or “untouchables”. Actually, there is no word as “untouchable” in any of the Vedic scriptures. This is merely a modern invention.

Logically speaking, if a person is not performing any unhygienic activities, then why should he be called a Dalit, or an untouchable, simply because of the family in which he was born? Even after performing something dirty, one need only wash oneself properly to be clean again. Likewise, to raise one’s consciousness to a higher awareness or frequency of activity, one need only participate in the Vedic methods of spiritual advancement, which must be done regardless of one’s rank or varna, whether Shudra or Brahmana.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/casteism.htm

The Manu Smrtris is the most neutral and Dharmic model set of laws for Humans.

https://indusscrolls.com/manu-smriti-is-varna-neutral-part-1/

From Manu Smrtris [in IAST, that is a b c d e alphabet]

Sarsyasya Tu Sargasya Gupyartham Sa Mahadyutih I
Mukhabahurupajjanam Prthakkarmanyakalpayat II I / 50 II

(For the well-being of all, Param Brahmatma created four orders based on actions undertaken by mouth, arms, thighs and feet).

It is an assertion of Maharsi Manu that does not leave any scope of misapprehension with respect to the rationale of allowing four Varnas of Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra to exist. Four orders of Varna-s strictly correspond to four constituents of human body with respect to their actions and functions. Just as four constituents of human body i.e. mouth, arms, thighs and feet are born together, exist together, act in perfect harmony with one another and die together, four Varna orders of society too, are created simultaneously, exist in perfect harmony with one another in a well-knit society, act in perfect co-ordination with one-another and die together, implying thereby, no Varna is capable of existing on it’s own. Maharsi Manu has laid maximum emphasis on functional role of every Varna completely disregarding all other verticals authoritatively and with finality. His entire focus is concentrated on a vibrant, dynamic society that thrives in perfect harmony, no member of the society is belittled in any manner caused by any factor, gradually heading towards attainment of the ultimate purpose of human existence. An individual’s Varna is decided on the basis of nature of the functional role that is enacted by him or her.

Ekameva Tu Sudrasya Prabhuh Karma Samadisat I
Etesameva Varnanam Susrusamanasuyaya II I / 54 II

(Isvara ordained for Sudra, obligatory to serva other Varna-s imbued with sense of devotion and reverence.)

Varna of Sudra is represented by those who are incapable of perusing Vedic scriptures, protecting others from oppression and injustice or conducting trade yet always seized of the issue of self-development, are physically competent for carrying out miscellaneous errands that are essential in nature. These errands are necessary to be accomplished properly so as to enable members of other three Varnas honouring their respective mandates towards society. Role of Sudra Varna is so significant that in their absence, other three Varna-s would not be able to honour their mandates leading to a chaotic disorder in society. Even for those deprived of mandates of Brahmana, Ksatriya and Vaisya, Maharsi Manu has thus, created another order of Varna for them and consecrated them as essential as the other three instead of rejecting them altogether. Sudra performs his role without any rancour or malice towards anyone. Sudra takes up the role of serving three Varna-s with a sense of dedication unto Param Brahmatma. Varna of Sudra is never attained by birth. It is entirely governed by presence of personal attributes and faculties of those individuals. A Brahmana, Ksatriya or Vaisya who fails or declines to honour respective mandate of obligatory Karma-s, is immediately dislocated and included in the Varna of Sudra. Irrespective of birth or economic status in society, it is Karma that is supreme, sanctity of which is inviolable.

In the legendary wisdom of Manusmriti, Maharsi Manu is as much biased in favour of the Varna of Sudra as he is in favour of the other three. Manusmriti is all inclusive, encompassing and comprehensive giving rise to a magnificent civil code to ensure an honourable slot to all members of society irrespective of the role that they are required to fulfil.

Acarah Paramo Dharmah Srutyuktah Smarta Eva Ca I
Tasmadasminsada Yukto Nityam Syadatmavandvijah II I / 55 II

(Dharma enshrined in Smrtis and Veda-s is sacrosanct, to be pursued assiduously by Dvija-s aspiring to advance spiritually.)

Dvija is the one who undergoes Upanayana ceremony i.e. initiation into Brahmacarya symbolised by the sacred thread that he is mandated to wear across torso. The ritual is undergone by Varna-s of Brahmana, Ksatriya and Vaisya who are supposed to be capable of pursuing Veda-s and other scriptures after being initiated into Brahmacarya in a hermitage of an enlightened Guru i.e. preceptor.

After defining Varna-s based on Karma, it is imperative to define nature of Karma for every Varna. Maharsi Manu has held Karma enunciated in Veda-s and Smrti-s for Varna-s as defined by him, sacrosanct and obligatory in nature. He ordains all Dvija-s i.e. Brahmana, Ksatriya and Vaisya to pursue those Karma-s alone corresponding to the respective Varna. It is responsibility of Guru of the hermitage to educate his pupils and disciples about respective Karma-s ordained for every member of Dvija-s to be pursued religiously.

Karma for every Varna has been formulated in Veda-s and Smrti-s based of unredeemed Samskara-s existing in the domain of Citta. There is an appropriate, compatible Karma to match a given bouquet of Samskara-s for everyone. It is predominant Samskara-s that decide the order of Varna to be bestowed upon a pupil by his enlightened Guru. Once the Varna is decided upon, corresponding Karma-s are precepted unto the pupil to be acted upon. Karma ordained in scriptures is mandatory and inescapable. If one declines to pursue Karma-s that constitute his / her Dharma based on Varna and pursues some other Karma-s, according to Sri Krsna in Srimad Bhagvad Gita, the person is re-born with a much larger baggage of unredeemed Karma-s to work on. One’s Karma is one’s Svadharma i.e. one’s own Dharma, sacrosanct and inviolable.

Acaradvicyuto Vipro Na Vedaphalamasnute I
Acarena Tu Samyuktah Sampurnaphalabhagbhaveta II I / 56 II

(Dvija-s not pursuing Dharma as ordained, are unable to attain Vedic proceeds while Karma-s conforming to Vedic injunctions alone beget the same.)

Dharma is Varna specific, Varna is Prarabdha specific, Prarabdha is Samskara specific and one’s Samskara-s are rooted in past Karma-s enacted in one’s past lives. Sanctity and inevitability of a given bouquet of Dharma is thus, rooted in one’s unredeemed Karma-s performed in previous lives. Unredeemed Karma-s are inescapable i.e. these must be dissolved through redemption while performing other Karma-s during the span of existing life in the spirit of renunciation to escape from Samskara-s being created afresh. That precisely constitutes one’s Dharma. Vedic scriptures and Smriti-s vividly describe Dharma for every Varna to be performed in the spirit of Yajna.

If a Dvija declines to pursue Dharma ordained in scriptures for his Varna, that directly implies, he is rejecting entire Karma enacted by him in his previous lives and leaving them behind unattended and unredeemed. In that scenario, whatever Karma he performs in contravention of scriptural injunctions, continue being added to the stock of unredeemed Karma-s and the drag is augmented even if these are performed in the spirit of Yajna. On the contrary, if a Dvija performs only those Karma-s that are ordained as Dharma to his Varna, he shall enjoy proceeds of his Karma without hindrance. If he performs his Dharma in the spirit of renunciation of proceeds, not only no Samskara would be created afresh but also unredeemed Samskara-s that are proceeds of Karma-s enacted in past lives, would be rendered redeemed.

Evamacarato Drstva Dharmasya Munayo Gatim I
Sarvasya tapaso Mulamacaram Jagrhuh Param II I / 57 I>

(After scrutiny of pursuit of Dharma and it’s proceeds, Munis beheld pursuit of Dharma being the greatest ascetic endeavour.)

That the sole purpose of human existence is to attain emancipation from shackles of Prakrti by redeeming outstanding Karma-s enacted earlier owing to sheer ignorance and delusion, is well-established and axiomatic in nature. Emancipation from Prakrti’s fetters leads to complete purification and sanctification of one’s Self. Once attained to the ultimate state of purity and sanctity, Self is poised to merge into the Absolute Self, state of ultimate existence and infinite bliss. Maharsi Manu has established beyond an iota of uncertainty that the only way to attain ultimate state of purity and sanctity of one’s Self is to perform one’s Dharma constituting the order of Varna in the spirit of Yajna. When Dharma as ordained in Vedic scriptures is practised in the spirit of Yajna, one is unleashed from clutches of Prakrti and emancipated to the ultimate state of existence. Hence, pursuit of Dharma is regarded as the greatest human strive by our Seers and Saints.

Kamatmata Na Prasasta Na Caivehastyakamata I
Kamyo Hi Vedadhigamah Karmayogasca Vaidikah II I / 59 II

(Because being excessively desirous or desireless, both are equally regressive herein. Vedic Jnana and Vedic Dharma are attainable through desire alone.)

Complete absence of desire too, is regressive as it drives the world to the state of being standstill. Absolute dissolution of desire does not allow one to pursue his Dharma as ordained, existing Samskara-s remain as they are. Rejection of one’s Dharma on account of any reason whatsoever, is profoundly regressive and an intense Karma in itself. Implications of not pursuing one’s Dharma are so severe that one is born again and again to work out those Samskara-s, pre-existing as well as the ones arising out of rejection of one’s incumbent Dharma. Excessive desires too are equally regressive as one is compelled to re-visit the mortal world to accept proceeds of desires fulfilled. In the state of excessive desires, one is unable to pursue Dharma as ordained in scriptures in the spirit of Yajna thereby raising a congeries of Samskaras.

Desire to attain Vedic Jnana and to perform one’s Dharma is perfectly in order. That is the level of desire that one ought to possess in order to purify and sanctify his inner Self of all the existing Samskara-s and other vanities. Even for spiritual advancement, one is expected to be moderately desirous. Complete absence of desire inevitably leads to utter decline and destruction.

Akamasya Kriya Kacid Drsyate Neha Karhicit I Yadyaddhi Kurute Kincittattkamasya Cestitam II I / 61 II

(With every action being driven by desire alone, complete absence of desire leads to complete absence of action.)

Significance and inevitability of qualified desire has been emphasised upon in this Sloka by Maharsi Manu. Every action ought to be devoid of the sense of possession of Karmaphala. However, intentionally inculcated absence of the sense of possession of Karmaphala must not lead to utter indifference towards enactment of Karma. Maharsi Manu has already established in previous Sloka-s that Karma without desire is not only desirable but also essential. Total rejection of one’s Karma is prohibited as that would cause utter chaos in any organisation or society. It is mandatory for all of us to perform our share of Karma ordained as Dharma in Vedic scriptures without aspiring to own the Karmaphala. Rejection of one’s Dharma is an intense Karma that is highly regressive in nature, whose retribution too, is severe. Instinct to survive as an embodied being is the most fundamental instinct that involves performing a large number of Karma-s. Hence, it is impossible to reject Karma altogether as these are as fundamental as the instinct to survive and sustain oneself. While performing Karma-s essential for survival, one performs several other Karma-s intentionally as well as unintentionally too. All these Karma-s must be worked out in the most spiritual manner i.e. through the pursuit of Karmayoga.

In Srimadbhagvad Gita too, Sri Krsna has stressed upon inevitability of one’s Karma ordained as one’s Dharma in scriptures. Sri Krsna was the divine-incarnate i.e. Avatara who had descended upon earth to restore obliterated order of Dharma. Though He needed nothing yet He honoured His Dharma in entirety with the sense of utter dispassion. However, on the other extreme of the Karma-spectrum is the philosophy of Buddhism wherein desire is rejected in absolute terms, followers encouraged to don maroon robes very early dis-regarding the orders and mandates of society, family and others. When desirelessness is driven to the extreme, pursuit and spirit of Karmayoga are completely destroyed, society ravaged and prosperity compromised. That is the suicidal concoction for anyone who aspires to attain Nirvana without being held accountable for Karma-s performed in previous lives and paying back all dues that are due to others in the mortal world. That probably in the most plausible explanation for the destruction of Buddhism in the land where it came into existence.

Srutismrtyuditam Dharmamanutisthanhi Manavah I
Iha Kirtimavapnoti Pretya Canuttamam Sukham II I / 65 II

(Those who pursue Dharma as ordained in Veda-s and Smrti-s, attain glory in this world and highest pleasure in the other.)

Dharma as defined in Veda-s and Smrti-s is sacrosanct. Dharma derives it’s sanctity from it’s origin i.e. being authored by Siddha Yogis who happened to be various Avataras i.e. incarnations of Param Brahmatma. Four orders of human society i.e. Varna-s owe their existence to the Dharma defined and narrated respectively in these scriptures. Every Varna is identified with a certain set of Dharma so much so that they become synonymous with the respective Varna. Varnas, owing to their intense association with respective Dharma, are as sacrosanct as Dharma itself, narrated in Vedas and Smrtis. When a person pursues his Dharma as ordained in scriptures, he is directly engaged in neutralising his outstanding Samskaras by working them out to redemption. Dissolution of Samskara-s leads to progression in purification and sanctification of his inner being. Purer the inner being, higher is the divinity attained. It is in complete harmony with the cardinal principles of spirituality and divinity. Higher the divinity attained through pursuit of Dharma, greater is the glory attained in society and the immense joys in the subtle world after dis-incarnation.

The enunciation yet again establishes that orders of Varna and respective Dharma are sacrosanct thus, inviolable.

Yoavamanyet Te Mule Hetusastrasrayad Dvijah I
Sa Sadhubhirbahiskaryo Nastiko Vedanindakah II I / 67 II>

(One who derogates Sruti and other scriptures through frivolous argumentation, is an atheist, should be expelled by the erudite ones.)

Sruti is the uttered version of Vedic wisdom, attained by Siddha Rsis and Maharsis in the state of ultimate Samadhi, in the state of direct communion with Param Brahmatma. Vedic wisdom is absolutely sacrosanct as it is transmitted by the Absolute Consciousness after taking into account of all factors and variables on the universal scale, completely out of intellectual scope of majority of seekers and others. Since it cannot be explained in entirety to all, Maharsi Manu mandates that we ought to accept it with utmost reverence and comply with. The wisdom cannot be justified or contradicted merely on the basis of reasons and arguments howsoever erudite as no argument is capable of substituting direct perception of the reality. Sruti and other scriptures are based on direct perception of reality.

It is only an atheist who shall insist on justifying or contradicting Vedic wisdom based on pure pedantic argumentation in absence of direct perception. Since such atheists are potent enough to disrupt pursuit of Vedic wisdom by seekers and novices, Maharsi Manu has mandated that such disbelievers must be shunned under every circumstance. Atheist is a complete pariah in the scheme of Vedic wisdom and it’s pursuit.

Arthakamesvasaktanam Dharmajnanam Vidhiyate I
Dharmajijnasamananam Pramanam Param Srutih II I / 69 II

(Those completely devoid of passions and possessions, alone attain Vedic wisdom. Those desirous of attaining wisdom of Dharma, must indulge deeply in Veda-s, sacrosanct and inviolable.)

Vedas are the ultimate word in so far as definition of Dharma is concerned. As established earlier, Dharma has been defined in Vedas by Siddha Yogis and Maharsis in communion with Param Brahmatma, based on outstanding Samskara-s arising out of unredeemed Karma-s enacted earlier by Jivatma. If Dharma is violated by anyone, outstanding Karma-s remain unredeemed, leading to decline and regression in the cosmic journey through the world. That alone imparts cardinality upon Dharma as mandated in Veda-s, sacrosanct, inevitable and inviolable. One must pursue Vedic wisdom to ascertain one’s Dharma with respect to one’s Varna.

Vedic wisdom with respect to Dharma and Varna is attainable and assimilable only to those who are significantly detached from passions and desires of every order. Passions, desires are prominent contaminants that hinder discriminative cognition, do not allow the seeker to cognise real Dharma and pursue with all it’s earnestness. A seeker is ordained to prepare himself appropriately before indulging in Vedic wisdom to comprehend Varna specific Dharma.

All these injunctions and mandates are entirely Varna-neutral. "

My comment:

Sanatana Dharma is the perfect system for humanity. What you mention in your question is: Biased, wrong, for sure translated by Max Müller or other age 1800 colonialists.

Bande Mataram

4
  • Please if you don’t mind can I suggest something? Wherever you quoted Manu in the answer put > before that. It will get the grey line and we use that grey line to show we are quoting from scriptures. Thanks:)
    – Archit
    Feb 7 at 2:44
  • 1
    Oh sorry, I justed copy paste from the given blue linked websites. I try now
    – user22667
    Feb 7 at 2:49
  • @Archit it does not work ....
    – user22667
    Feb 7 at 2:53
  • 1
    Okk dhanyabad ji @Archit
    – user22667
    Feb 7 at 2:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .