Talk:Manusmriti/Archive 1

According to Dr. A.C. Burnell(1884), the Manu Smṛti and the Mānava-Dharma-Sūtras are not the same text. He says in the introduction to his translation of the former that the Mānava-Sharma-Sūtra "...has not yet been recovered, and is probably lost forever..." (pg. xix). The Mānava-Dharma-Sūtras, of which we only have references, would have belonged to the Kalpa Vedāńga and completed the Mānava-series of the same (of which we have recovered the Mānava-Gṛhya-Sūtras, the Mānava-Śrauta-Sūtras and the Mānava-Śulba-Sūtras). According to Burnell, the Manu Smṛti we have today is a late, heavily interpolated verse-rendition of the original Mānava-Dharma-Sūtras, which was then passed off as the Mānava-Dharma-Śāstra itself - hence the continued use of the name in reference to the later text.

Does anyone else have sourced information on this distinction? Varoon Arya 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A line in this article dealing with the caste system reads "As the son of a Shudra may attain the rank of a Brahmin if he were to possess his qualifications, character and accomplishments, and as the son of a Brahmin may become a Shudra, if he sinks to his level in his character, inclinations and manners even so must it be with him who springs from a Kshatriya; even so with him who is born of a Vaishya" (X: 65).The article then misinterprets this wrongly quoted statement to read "The aforesaid verse sanctions support for vocational caste system, contrary to popular belief that manu smriti supports hereditary caste system."

When I refered back to the source the line actually reads "65. (Thus) a Sudra attains the rank of a Brahmana, and (in a similar manner) a Brahmana sinks to the level of a Sudra; but know that it is the same with the offspring of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya."

It may not be considered a big difference but crux lies in the context of the statement. The quotation it is obtained from the section dealing with the castes of the offspring of mixed caste marriages. It has nothing to do with the merit or character or inclinations. The interpretation in the article is wrong and should be removed.

Indiegirl 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have committed WP:OR here. You have provided YOUR interpretation of the sentence and the context as supplied by YOU. Please provide a sourced article that explicitly states what you have stated. Until then, the normative context of the statement (in the article) stays. The bottom line is that the manusmriti does not expressly forbit intercaste marriages (otherwise yours truly wouldn't be born :) ), and even has dikta to that effect (as you yourself just stated), thus it is a misconception that caste exclusivity regarding breeding or nuptiality is mandaated expressly in the Manusmriti.Hkelkar 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing though. There appears to be a discrepancy between the western translations and normative ones. For instance, The Stayarth Prakash translation (which I believe was in the 19th Century) of the original ManuSmriti in Sanskrit of the line (hope you have devanagari enabled) viz:

zUÔae äaü[tameit äaü[íEit zUÔtam!

]iÇyaj! jatmev< tu iv*adoe vEZyat! twEv c.

Reads: “As the son of a Sudra may attain the rank of a Brahmin if he were to possess his qualifications, character and accomplishments, and as the son of a Brahmin may become a Sudra, if he sinks to his level in his character, inclinations and manners, even so must it be with him who springs from a Kshatriya; even so with him who is born of a Vaishya. In other words, a person should be ranked with the Class whose qualifications, accomplishments, and character he possesses."

(translation from Stayarth Prakash, chapter 4, page 99).

The reference is here:

http://www.hindu-international.org/books/articles/varna_jaati_or_caste.pdf#search=%22As%20the%20son%20of%20a%20Shudra%20may%20attain%20the%20rank%20of%20a%20Brahmin%20if%20he%20were%20to%20possess%20his%20qualifications%22

See Page 14. I'll put up the link soon unless you have something to say...

Hkelkar 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First thanks for the quotation. It should have been sourced to begin with.

Second, The source you quote from just has one sentence taken out of context. If you check the line by line translation in the original source the conext may matter for the translation/interpretation. It is added below.

64. If (a female of the caste), sprung from a Brahmana and a Sudra female, bear (children) to one of the highest caste, the inferior (tribe) attains the highest caste within the seventh generation. 65. (Thus) a Sudra attains the rank of a Brahmana, and (in a similar manner) a Brahmana sinks to the level of a Sudra; but know that it is the same with the offspring of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya. 66. If (a doubt) should arise, with whom the preeminence (is, whether) with him whom an Aryan by chance begot on a non-Aryan female, or (with the son) of a Brahmana woman by a non-Aryan, 67. The decision is as follows: 'He who was begotten by an Aryan on a non-Aryan female, may become (like to) an Aryan by his virtues; he whom an Aryan (mother) bore to a non-Aryan father (is and remains) unlike to an Aryan.' 68. The law prescribes that neither of the two shall receive the sacraments, the first (being excluded) on account of the lowness of his origin, the second (because the union of his parents was) against the order of the castes. 69. As good seed, springing up in good soil, turns out perfectly well, even so the son of an Aryan by an Aryan woman is worthy of all the sacraments. 70. Some sages declare the seed to be more important, and others the field; again others (assert that) the seed and the field (are equally important); but the legal decision on this point is as follows: 71. Seed, sown on barren ground, perishes in it; a (fertile) field also, in which no (good) seed (is sown), will remain barren. 72. As through the power of the seed (sons) born of animals became sages who are honoured and praised, hence the seed is declared to be more important. 73. Having considered (the case of) a non-Aryan who acts like an Aryan, and (that of) an Aryan who acts like a non-Aryan, the creator declared, 'Those two are neither equal nor unequal.'

This is not about the morality of intercaste marriages. I have nothing to say on that matter. This is a matter of academic integity. As an academic I am tempted to use quotes out of context and transalated to suit my needs. But is it right?

Indiegirl 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of which source do you contend that the Stayarth Prakash quote is false or "Taken out of context"? Are there any scholarly articles that explicitly refute the translation as out of context, or is it still original research on your part,which is disallowed on wikipedia?Hkelkar 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not my original research. Its common sense. I think that on a matter as controversial as this it may be good practise to quote atleast 2 translations of something that agree before it is put up on Wikipedia. Working on the caste system myself I was looking for a quote exactly like this which is why I checked the orginal sources. I would love to quote something like this to substantiate my claim but unless I can find a similar translation and context I will not use it. I was just trying to hold Wikipedia to the same standard. But if you do not agree that fine with me I have nothing to lose.

Indiegirl 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

well unsourced "Common Sense" does count as original research. If you have any publicatations in peer-reviewed journals that are specific to this matter then plz send me citations and I'll use my univ subscription to look at them. However, you can't add them in because that would be a violation of WP:AB. 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the quotation "Thus) a Sudra attains the rank of a Brahmana, and (in a similar manner) a Brahmana sinks to the level of a Sudra; but know that it is the same with the offspring of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya." comes from a scholarly, peer reviewed, translation by Butler, which is listed at the bottom of Wikipedia article as external link. The quotation in the article, coming from website www.hindu-international.org is NOT a scholarly, peer reviewed article. In fact, God knows where this quotaion is coming from and who made it. It seems to me that it is the author who is committing WP:OR, not Indiegirl.

128.135.60.36 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's an extract from a well-known translation made by Indian scholars in the 19th Century. Not quoted by westerners for obvious reasons if you know the history of western attacks on the ManuSmriti.Hkelkar 19:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, you're missing the point here completely. First: If you want to talk about peer-reviewed journal publications that I need to provide. Show me peer-reviewed journals that say your source has the right interpretation. The source I quote (The Laws of Manu, George Bühler, translator(Sacred Books of the East, Volume 25)) is used extensively in peer-reviewed journals. Do a search on Google Scholar to check. I can add the quote to "71. Seed, sown on barren ground, perishes in it; a (fertile) field also, in which no (good) seed (is sown), will remain barren. 72. As through the power of the seed (sons) born of animals became sages who are honoured and praised, hence the seed is declared to be more important." to say the Manu Smriti advocates the hereditary nature of the caste system. I'm sure you'll say right now show me a peer review journal article to support that interpretation. To which I say show me a peer-reviewed article that supports the interpretation in the article right now.

Second, if you read the discussion on this page it seems like people are taking issue with the translation. These can be circumvented to a certain degree by using quotations from translations which have atleast 2 different sources with have similar views. The point of Wikipedia is to be as unbiased as possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Check_multiple_sources I'm simply following Wikipedia's guidelines

I think you need to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS again. Indiegirl 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can always compromise and indicate that the quote has two different translations from two different sources if you want. Though there are many editors involved here (see history, I'm only a minor nook-and-cranny editor of this article) and perhaps we should wait for them to chime in. I think your background works against me (I'm only an experimental physicist) so we need another religious scholar (I may know some who are wikipedia editors) to offer a perspective on the debate.Hkelkar 19:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, I wanted to verify your qoute from Dayananda. I belive it is incorrect to treat this qoute as a translation. If you read this chapter, you will notice that Dayananda does not translate the original text exactly, but rather interprets it. (Or, at least, it is completely not clear to me, when is he doing one thing rather than the other. For example, the previous qoutation is discussed, line 31/11, is described first as a "direct translation" and then "correct interpretation.) The whole section "caste by Merit" is constructed in this way.

I want to be careful here - I am not saying that his interpretation is incorrect, but this is interpretation and should be quoted as such; and not as a translation from the source.

I think that it was not Dayananda goal to translate Manusmriti from Sanskrit, but rather to explain it. This is, by the way, what he says "The chief object of writing this book is to bring the correct interpretation of Vedic Sources in vogue." (Preface, 2nd page). Now, there is a question, whether the article on Manusmriti should contain quotations from the Manusmriti or describe the interpretations. I belive that both are interesting and important for our understanding of the text, but they must be clearly separated. As far as I understand the discusion below, this issue has already appeared and was resolved by removing excerpts from Ambredkar.

Also, I am not sure whether "Western attacks on Manu Smriti" is not too general argument to be true. If you are willing, please be clear what you mean. Is Buhler's translation biased? If so, is the following translation biased?

http://www.amazon.com/Code-Manu-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0192802712/sr=1-1/qid=1157587143/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7162262-6307103?ie=UTF8&s=books

I haven't read this one, so can't say for sure, but Buhler's translation has errors, likely deliberate ones.Hkelkar 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How should I distinguish between unbiased and biased translation? It is hard for me to believe that there is no modern good scholarly work on such an important text. I would prefer to use modern text, if possible. The modern translations, if they are good, should make use of recent scholarship in linguistics, history, sociology, and so on, which was not available to people in XIXth century.

128.135.96.17 23:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

True, there is a problem as Westerners refuse to regard Hindu renditions of their own scripture as correct. For some reason (actually I know the reason), they regard their understanding of Hindu scripture to be better than Hindu religious scholars. Like I said before, let's wait for a few days until other users involved with this article say something, purely as a matter of courtesy. This is a highly controversial issue and a highly controversial debate.Hkelkar 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait, but notice that you are not answering to my questions, but again repeating general statement about Westerners. Are we here in business of writing an objective article in Wikipedia or protecting it from Westerners?

128.135.96.17 00:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. My view is we should cite both statements from both sources, "scholarly" and normative interpretation (if you prefer not to consider it to be a translation) regarding the section of the ManuSmriti in question with the appropriate qualification. However, more knowledgeable parties may have more to say.

Hkelkar 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Couple of quick points-- what makes your source the normative source? Can you give me one source that has something negative to say about the Buhler? Are you seriously contending that Indians have no reason to mistranslate but westerners do? I'm interested in this issue of western versus `normative' translations of the Manu Smriti. Any sources on this would be appreciated as I can't find any. Is this editorial process supposed to be unbiased or subject to people's own views of what they consider right. If you are not an expert on this please wait till the experts weigh in before you pass judgment on what you consider the right source or your own views on western translations of the manu smriti.

Indiegirl 01:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is a classic example of "quote mining" as part of a deliberate agenda of defaming Hindus.By selectively citing various passages from the Manusmriti, polemicists have sought to demonstrate that Hinduism espouses hatred for gentiles (and specifically for Dalits), and promotes obscenity, sacrificial perversion, and other similar behavior. To make these passages serve their purposes, these polemicists (mostly British scholars from the era of the vile British Raj) frequently mistranslate them or cite them out of context (wholesale fabrication of passages is not unknown)...

In distorting the normative meanings of Brahminic texts, anti-Manusmriti writers frequently remove passages from their textual and historical contexts. Even when they present their citations accurately, they judge the passages based on contemporary moral standards, ignoring the fact that the majority of these passages were composed close to two thousand years ago by people living in cultures radically different from our own. They are thus able to ignore Hinduism's long history of social progress and paint it instead as a primitive and parochial religion.

Those who attack the Manusmriti frequently cite ancient Brahminic sources without noting subsequent developments in Hindu thought, and without making a good-faith effort to consult with contemporary Hindu authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Hindu thought and practice.

This article needs to be edited from absolute scratch.(Netaji 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

the article is an understatement. No words are enough to condemn Manusmriti. Instead of trying to defend it using all kinds of excuses, User Netaji's "contemperory hindu authorities" should come ahead to condemn it. Manusmriti is the only religious scripture in the world which has been burned in Public several times.--Yeditor 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, where do you get this nonsense anyway? Care to cite sources? The Talmud has been burnt in public more times by anti-semites in Europe than any other holy scripture in history.Netaji 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Rig Veda is a higher authority than Manusmriti and the RV states "Among men none is big or small. All are equal and brothers. All should strive for the highest temporal and eternal glory." (RV. 5-60.5). Hindus are waking up to the fact that this socio-economic phenomenon should be dropped and it is dying out, albeit a very slow death. In the most communalized state in India, (Gujarat), intercaste marriages are the norm and the VHP & RSS protect dalits from Muslim and Christian attacks. The leader of BJP a few years ago was a dalit (Bangaru Laxman), as is the most firebrand Hindutva speaker (Uma Bharati). Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vickman 06:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Bold textThis is a response to all the nonsense below. The fact of the matter is that manusmriti lays down the social law of the time. Nothing to be ashamed of. No worse than the Koran and Mohammad and his 4 or 5 or 10 wives or begums. Also, nothing to be ashamed or apologise for. All you may reasonably expect in the wikipedia is a factual rendition of its translation and social context.

I have added complete senctions on praise and criticism, with a large number of references. Now please don't delete them, because they conform to the neutrality point of view of wikipedia, whereas I see others cooking up their own facts and posting only them. If someone loves Manu Smriti so much, he may go to Hell, I have no problem. If you revert my edits, I am going to re-revert them back. Cygnus_hansa 08:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• • NEW** Wow! This article is so hopelessly biased and off-track now it should just be deleted and rewriten from scratch. Let's have facts not just anger.

"The relationship between a teacher and a student is highly respected[citation needed]." - No wonder you couldnt find any citation. You pervert.

Whoever you are, anonymous, you are very wicked. The very statement you question above--was already proven by the references (about student-teacher) given below. And why do you question my edits--do you consider them pro-Manusmriti or anti-Manusmriti? I have tried to synthesize both views. Let the praise and criticism references remain as they are, to conform to NPOV. The other parts of the article definitely need revamp. Cygnus_hansa 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

hi to whoever wrote this article! just want to check where you got the 200 BCE date from. I have the Muller text and it doesn't say anything about the period in which it was written 202.156.6.54 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reul

I agree to people here objecting to the dates given, they are arbitrary. One most important thing which seems to have been left out is the problem of interpolations. Manusmriti was a prime candiate for that. Mention of Vishnu in Vedas also could be one. Aupmanyav 11:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I erased the praise section because somebody erased the critism section. Praise without critism violoates NPOV; either have both or neither.

I think its best to scrap what B. R. Ambedkar said. On the other hand, the article seems to be filled ALL over with criticism, so there is no real need of a section. Opinion of B.R.Ambedkar absolutely has no place here if you ask me, but rather should be placed in amby's article itself at a max

What do you expect for something as dirty as Manusmriti. a garland of flowers?. Dont you know that this book has been burnt in public several times--Yeditor 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Again with the nonsense? See above.Netaji 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This page has to be edited and made more neutral. It gives a biased view that is based on commentary from anti-manu people.

This article is utterly chaotic, evidently the victim of edit wars.Paul B 14:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is very good. It tells about the manusmriti as it is. It should not be changed. --RaviS 06:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

No..... it doesn't. You're against manusmriti and that proves nothing. Manusmrti might support slavery, so does Bible. It doesn't promote equality of women, nor caste system. Caste system in manusmrti says, man is born as a shudra and will have to ascend to other castes. It says women should serve men, but when man doesn't treate her equally, she has all rights to leave him and re-marry. Leafy

The article is just way too flawed and overly biased. Leafy

the article is excellent though it has been vandalised by some racists. I dont understand how any one can be pro manusmriti.--Yeditor 11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are the "racists"? Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Gods. Yeditor yahaan bhi a gaya? Arre bhai kuch to karo jo Hinduon ke prati vitrishna na dikhayen.Netaji 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pro-manusmriti, I just know you are using this as a back-door to mess with other Hinduism articles. I regard manusmrii as one mans book, nothing more. It was exploited by MUslims and western imperialists to defame Hinduism, when I can write my own smriti and call it bakasmriti. Otherwise Ramayan and Gita are good enough. Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Participants, please sign. You have come to wikipedia to edit that does not mean that you have got all the liberty to make the place untidy. --Bhadani 15:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I reached this page, and found a lot of wastage of time and resources of Wikipedia Foundation. In case, users and editors continue to indulge in such childish play, I am afraid that we shall never become the Best. --Bhadani 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be warned that mis-edits to this page to undermine the integrity of wikipedia shall be dealt with promptly, and this should be treated as a common warning and notice to vandals. No separate warning or notice of block may be given, as vandals do not deserve them. Such notices are meant for genuine editors who may err whiile editing, and not for those who err with intention. --Bhadani 15:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

untouchables were not there in original varna vyavastha by manu. he just mentiones four classes. shudras are altoghether different from untouchables. (i have the newspaper cutting, if u want the source). the origins of untouchables are from around 1500AD with the advent of city culture. before that, the towns were too small and people could go to the fields for the call of nature. dalits are fifth varna and wrongly clubbed in the fourth in this article. nids 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

this can be best summed up as SC's being dalits or untouchables while most OBCs are shudras. shudras include professions like luhar, sunar, nai,badai or other jobs involving physical power,(barring warrior clans).nids 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please edit your contribution into the article? Thanks.Netaji 21:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the below passage under the topic " The need to Write Manusmriti" As can be seen that its completely POV, OR and unencyclopaedic. It does not even pertain to the topic underwhich it has been pasted. It deserves deletion Yeditor 08:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"One common defence of these passages is that they are being quoted out of context. What needs mentioning that critics of the ManuSmriti, in distorting the normative meanings of Brahminic texts, frequently remove passages from their textual and historical contexts as part of a deliberate campaign of Quote Mining. Even when they present their citations accurately, they judge the passages based on contemporary moral standards, ignoring the fact that the majority of these passages were composed thousands of years ago by people living in cultures radically different from contemporary India. They are thus able to ignore Hinduism's long history of social progress , tolerance and pluralism and paint it instead as a primitive and parochial religion.

It is also notable that Hinduism, does not have a highly organized ordained hierarchy of clergy (there is no centralized religious figure, though there are many Acharya-s, Baba-s and Guru-s with limited following). A counter-criticism from this website condemns the British colonialists to have made the world to regard the Manu Smriti as the supreme law book of the Hindus, so that they could ridicule the Hindu dharma and denigrate those of Indian origin.

Those who attack the Manusmriti frequently cite ancient Brahminic sources without noting subsequent developments in Hindu thought, and without making an effort to consult with contemporary Hindu authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Hindu beliefs.

There are 2,031 laws of Manu."

I can try make a total article rewrite sticking to a neutral point of view, however I wish to know if there are restrictions for performing major edits and the like. It will, however, take me some time to collect the necessary data. --Leafy 13:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm presently reading some textual analyses on the Manusmriti (as well as the Manusmriti itself), but I'd welcome anyone who has a genuine interest in NPOV-fying the article. Bear in mind that Anti-Manusmrriti accusations have a long history dating back to the early evangelization by Christian missionaries like St Francis Xavier when the associates of his Inquisition in Goa attempted to defame Hindus and their religion and try to humanize their genocide. The early material compiled by hateful preachers and racist British writers remain the basis of all subsequent accusations against the Manusmriti. Some are true, most are false and based on quotations taken out of context, and some are total fabrications. On the Internet today we can find many of these old accusations being rehashed... Netaji 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

When i say neutral point of view, i *do* mean that i shall stick to the positive character of manusmrti - because manusmrti is infamous, to say the least. I have a good collection of positive points of manusmrti, however major rewrite is my question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflord (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments leaflord. Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that... --Leafy 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, but I like to know which users are balanced. A balanced user like you with good knowledge of the subject is a user that needs to be commended.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noted the quotes from manusmrti to be different in case of dayananda compared to those of western translators. I'm sticking to the ones by Dayananda, because they're much more humane to say the least. Western translators never gave us good ones in the first place..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflord (talk • contribs)

Good note. I don't trust "linguists" either. I'd rather trust a five year old Brahmin than a western "scholar"Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've not pertained to any quotes from western translations, but only stuck to ones by Dayananda in his work Satyarth Prakash, these quotes mainly discussing the status of women.

education of girls Manu says:- "The State should make it compulsory for all to send their children of both sexes to school at the said* period and keep them there for the said period till they are thoroughly well-educated. It should be made a penal offence to break this law. In other words, let no child - whether a girl or a boy - be allowed to stay in the house after the 8th year; let him remain in the seminary till his Samaavartana time, [i.e. the period of Return home] and let no one be allowed to marry before that." MANU 7:152.

marriage "Let a maid wait for three years after she has begun to menstruate and then let her choose for herself a husband, who is her equal." MANU 9:90

This suggests that the age a woman should get married at is 16 years above.

remarriage No translations support widow remarriage. They however support niyoga, which is a contract made by a widow and widower to progenate children for continuing the family line. "If a husband dies, a wife can contract for niyoga. "If a husband deserts his wife, she may marry another." (Manu, chapter IX, verse 77).

In the wiki article "Women in Hinduism" it says that manusmrti allows a woman to divorce a husband of bad-conduct.

status of women "If the husband does not please his wife, she being unhappy, the whole family is unhappy and miserable; but if the wife be quite contended with her husband, the whole family enjoys felicity." MANU 3: 62.

"Let women be always propitiated (worshipped) by their fathers and brothers, by their husbands and the brothers of their husbands, in other words, they should speak sweetly to them and provide them with good food, nice clothes and ornaments, and thereby keep them happy. Those who seek great prosperity and happiness should never inflict pain on women." MANU 3: 55.

"Where women are honored (worshipped), in that family great men are born; but where they are not honored, there all acts are fruitless. Where women pass their days in misery and sorrow because of the misdeed (such as adultery) of their husbands that family soon entirely perishes, but where they are happy because of the good conduct of their husbands, the family continually prospers." MANU 3: 56, 57

"Let women, therefore, be always honored by being given presents of clothes an ornaments, and supplied with good food at festivals, jubilees and he like occasions, and thereby made happy by those men who are desirous of wealth and prosperity." MANU 3: 59

caste system "As the son of a Shoodraa may attain the rank of a Braahmanif he were to possess his qualifications, character and accomplishments, and as the son of a Braahman may become a Shoodraa, if he sinks to his level in his character, inclinations and manners even so must it be with him who springs from a Kshatriya; even so with him who is born of a Vaishya. In other words, a person should be ranked with the Class whose qualifications, accomplishments and character he possesses." MANU 10: 65.

--Leafy 00:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason we will do best to ignore western translations is mainly because of a quote in their version of translations itself:

"For choosing your course of conduct at any time and place, keep in view the instructions given first in Sruti (Vedas), then in Smritis, Itihaas (History of great personalities) and finally you act according to your conscience." (Manu Smriti, 11, 6). Verses of manusmriti are not only opposed to vedas, but self-contradictory suggesting both self-refutal of translations and tampering of the scripture.

Some of the contradictions are -

1)Child Marriage --

(9.90) "Three years let a damsel wait, though she be marriageable[no age is suggested anywhere for a woman preceding this line, thus it pertains to menstruation of the woman]; but after that time let her choose for herself a bridegroom (of) equal (caste and rank)"

Now look at the upcoming line:

(9.94) A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

A girl starts her menstruation approximately at age of 12, thus this line develops a contradiction - let alone an 8 year old child...

2)Education of Women --

This is a bit tricky, yet should be understood clearly.

(2.27) By burnt oblations during "^" pregnancy, by the Gatakarman (the ceremony after birth), the Kauda (tonsure), and the Maungibandhana (the tying of the sacred girdle of Munga grass) is the taint, derived from both parents, removed from twice-born men

It is strange to say a girl of 8 year old can perform an oblation. Thus at the "^" point the words "the mother's" were inserted, so as to try make harmony. But the problem comes from the following lines:

(9.85) "If twice-born men wed women of their own and of other (lower castes), the seniority, honour, and habitation of those (wives) must be (settled) according to the order of the castes (varna)"

Women however should be prohibited from education:

(9.18) "For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule."

Verse (1.88) shows brahmins are those who are educated in vedas, the two lines contradicting each other.

(2.240) "Excellent wives, learning, (the knowledge of) the law, (the rules of) purity, good advice, and various arts may be acquired from anybody."

All scriptures bearing knowledge at times of composition of manu smriti were vedic.

3) Independence of Women --

(9.3) "Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence." This verse is infact pretty famous. But one should read the surrounding verses, which destroy the total meaning:

(9.2) "Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one's control." This verse simply doesn't make sense. If they're not to have freedom, then where does the question of sensual enjoyment come into the picture? It is clear that this verse recommends force to bind women freedom. (9.10) However says one cannot guard wife completely by force. All in all, the explanation is too confusing.

As for caste system, no verse supports hereditary basis. The partiality towards brahmins, i address through this -

(1.88) "To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda), sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms)"

This line also contradicts the following line (9.317) "A Brahmin, whether learned or ignorant, is a powerful divinity." A brahmin who is learned cannot be ignorant. They are not saying "wise" or "fool", for this is clear in this translation. The self contradictory nature cannot be explained.

As for the partiality of punishment upon brahmins -- through scriptures and verifiable sources it is clear that majority of brahmins were poor (it is only in pre-independence era that brahmins were "rich and racist") other than a few jamindars (landlords) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflord (talk • contribs)

Based on the quotes i've posted in the preceding comment, I have rewritten some parts of the article to represent a partly positive - if not neutral - point of view. I have also purged the quotations from works of B. R. Ambedkar and have instead put the gist in the 'views of manusmriti' section. --Leafy 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work leafy?

this is pov

"Hinduism, does not have a highly organized ordained hierarchy of clergy (there is no centralized religious figure, though there are many Acharya-s, Baba-s and Guru-s with limited following). A counter-criticism from this website condemns the British colonialists to have made the world to regard the Manu Smriti as the supreme law book of the Hindus, so that they could ridicule the Hindu dharma and denigrate those of Indian origin.""

Hindusim has a well defined clergy. they are called Bhramins and their roles. All ceremonies and worship is officiated by them. Their role is transmitted by birth. There is no example in the world of a person who has become and accepted as a bhramin. If this is not well defined clergy then what is?Yeditor 12:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vamadeva Shashtri, Baba Ramdev, Satya Sai Baba, Amma Amritayandayi (totally botched spelling). They were not born Brahmins but they are now. Stop putting POV garbage on the page. If I wrote the article, I would say it is merely one man's treatise on how things could be run, nothing more. And the majority of priests and swamis (especially in USA/Canada/elsewhere) are not of brahmin origin.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is this if not POV

""Those who attack the Manusmriti frequently cite ancient Brahminic sources without noting subsequent developments in Hindu thought, and without making an effort to consult with contemporary Hindu authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Hindu beliefs."" Yeditor 12:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Its only POV if you wish to defame Hinduism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I have fixed that quote and made it more encyclopaedic. Leafy 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeditor, if you're not accustomed to hinduism then please refrain from touching the pages :) I'm well aware of the so-called "well defined hierarchial clergy" - if you're unaware of the facts like very few "brahmins" actually become clergy, then refrain from entering your rants.. Leafy 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is well accepted by all of the hindu community that manu smriti is for satya yuga and a smriti is needed for modern times. This fact was revealed in puraanas as well as dharma sastras. It is not an allegation - it is a fact. Leafy 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is far from truth. This proves that wikipedia is overtaken by white racists and hateful hindu of uppercaste who want to suppress the holocaust of low caste people. Kunal

No its being taken over by anon vandals who hate brahmins and HinduismBakaman _Bakatalk 02:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When the manu smriti was made in 2nd century AD and people dont even FOLLOW manu smriti properly, half of hindus today dont knwo about it - in earlier days, just a bout a handful knew. Lets not forget that all acharyas of the old days fought for the rights of these so-called low caste people. Nowhere in manu smriti does it support hereditary caste system. This shows that the suppression has not stemmed from manu smriti. Half the people out there haven't even read manu smriti other than ridiculous quote mining - read the post above kunal, you'll know how ridiculous these translations are. 58.68.75.66 07:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cite sources. PLEASE. OTherwise certain users will vandalize the page calling it OR.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the passage under 'Views Pertaining To Manu Smriti':

Prominent Hindu figures such as Swami Dayananda Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada however hold the scripture to be authentic and authoritative, while widely appreciated by figures such as Annie Besant, P.D. Ouspensky, Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore, Pandurang Shastri Athavale and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.

There needs to be a caveat added in reference to the exact nature of Dayananda's view of the Manu Smriti. On pg. 734 of Dr. Chiranjiva Bharadwaja's translation of the Satyarth Prakash (which, for this edition, was removed to an appendix; in the 1908 translation by Durga Prasad, it's included in it's original place in the body of the main text), Dayanand makes clear that he understood the Manu Smriti to be corrupted with interpolated passages, and he naturally denounced any such passages as far as he could detect them. (Later Arya Samaj authors, going on their understanding of Dayananda's views of the Manu Smriti, have considered between 30% and 60% of the text to be additions made at various stages of editing.) Therefore, it is incorrect to say that "Dayananda ... held the scripture to be authentic and authoritative". Unless someone with more history on this page undertakes something in the near future, I will make a small text correction to reflect this.Varoon Arya 22:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, regarding Dayanand's views, he did consider the Manusmriti to be authoritative but without interpolations. He has given *correct* interpretations to about 514 verses in Manusmriti. (Ref: Vishuddha Manusmriti by Dr. Surendrakumar published by Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust, Fourth Edition, page 5 of first chapter). rockwillgetu

Are you in agreement with me, then? Dayananda did regard Manu Smriti as having numerous interpolated passages, and did not consider it 'authoritative' in its present form. Varoon Arya 13:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article being devoid of critical quotes, considering the fact that manu smriti is the controversial (why WAS it brought to highlight when no one followed it???) scripture; i request wikipedians to post some critical quotes in this thread so that they can be inserted into the article. Leafy 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Critical quotes should be mentioned with the qualification that they are WESTERN translations of Sanskrit texts and that the accuracy of most of those translations are disputed.Hkelkar 07:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Plz justify they are WESTERN translations of Sanskrit texts and that the accuracy of most of those translations are disputed. HW  10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary and paradoxial interpretations are made; I think that is enough proof.. The accuracy of western translations have always been a topic among indians. Leafy 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere have i said that it sanctions support for inter-caste marriages or so - there has been no manipulation or trash. The verse clearly says that a brahman can sink to level of shudra and vice versa - and no verse in manu smrti supports any stance of birth declaring the caste. To stick to direct translation of a verse is wrong - this is what leads to quote-mining; one has to study the whole context before making any such lines. I suggest you do this too - and not stick to understanding it verse-to-verse; but note down the important declarations and compare them. I've already demonstrated above that limited perception of the translations will lead to failure of reasoning and are misleading. Thus there is no need to scrap it. Leafy 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. There is a clear difference between a translation and an interpretation. If you want to quote the text, then you quote it. If you are worried that qoutation maybe misunderstood, you supply it with a comment. But remember - this is encyclopedia, it is suppose to serve as a source of facts. It is not your job, as an editor, to worry about what the reader will do with the facts.

Please advice me, since he cannot, what distinguisheds the good translatiopn from the bad one. And please bear in mind the difference between translation and commentary.

128.135.153.67 13:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly second this and want to add 1) i didn't say the manu smriti sanctions support for inter-caste marriages, hkelkar did, bringing his own personal perspective in saying he would not be born otherwise which has ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on the discussion, except to reveal his personal biases which as an editor he should not bring into play 2) i talked about inter-caste marriages because of the context the quote was taken from. if you read the context in the direct translation by Buhler (i'm still waiting for a source to say its a biased one) the quote comes from a section that says what the law is on children born from intercaste intercourse. the section says if a child is born of a shudra mother and a brahmin father he will attain the caste of a brahmin in 7 generations. if on the other hand he is of a shudra father and a brahmin mother he will be a shudra. it says NOTHING about abilty determining castes except to say the `seed' i.e. father's quality determines the quality of the son. see "Having considered (the case of) a non-Aryan who acts like an Aryan, and (that of) an Aryan who acts like a non-Aryan, the creator declared, 'Those two are neither equal nor unequal." 3) If any one is quote mining it is you. by taking a verse out of context and relying on someone's interpretation of it which may be biased because it suits your needs is quote mining. waiting for your response Indiegirl 15:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Relying on buhler's translations is the main mistake - read the posts above; his translations are such that the translated verse generates paradox with the already translated ones generating a paradox. Leafy 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article is to stick to all points of view; otherwise it is simply called 'quote mining' which is bad wiki behaviour. My line of "contrary to popular belief" stuff maybe unecessary however. Leafy 17:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Leafy, it is not a question of quote mining, but calling a quote a quote and interpretation a interpretation. It is very bad wiki (because misleading) behavior to misquote a quote or calling a comment as a quote.

There are no points of view, whether 2+2=4, as there are no points of view, whether canonical edition of Bible starts with Genesis. Simlarly, there are no points of view whether certain qoute is in Manu Smriti, or not.

I am repeating myself, so I'll do it only once more. If you are worried about qoute mining, you should try to put up all the relevant quotes, in particular, all the quotes which form the context. You CANNOT change the quote, because this is no different than lying.

Marcin128.135.47.120 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I had suggested. Compromise would be to put up quote as translated by Buhler (the accuracy of which is not 100%) and put up the referenced interpretations.Hkelkar 19:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, I asked many times, I hope to hear answer at certain moment. Why Buhler's quote oof Manu X. 65 is not 100% accurate? Which other quotes of Buhler are inaccurate? Can you please give me an example? Is this your ORIGINAL RESEARCH or it is a fact coming from "peer-reviewed publications"? Anyway, I am planning to look over weekend at this Patrick Olivelle book. This guy has lots of other work, not only on translations of other texts, but also on history and society of India around the time when Manu's Code was writte. He seems to be quite knowledgeable to me (at least, as long as you don't have anything against him so far).

Marcin 128.135.47.120 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean this book by this person? BTW I go to UT so I can contact him if need be.Hkelkar 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. 128.135.47.120 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already shown that translations by buhler cannot be trusted - there is no need for "research" or crap - comparing his translations makes us purge his hymns; and certain vedic scholars like dayananda have shown this. I will post the translations after sometime. Leafy 10:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Leafy, whatever you have shown is not interesting for this discussion, as it constitutes your OR. Please publish your research before mentioning it any further.

I am sure that Hkelhar reads this - what do you think about calling reseacrh "crap"? Is it good wiki behavior?

This is talk page, not the main page. I said crap cuz its unnecessary - this is not OR, but such refutation has been given by many people. I'm posting from what i can recollect. Regardless of that, comparing buhler's translations with the many translations by indians - by parsimony we should better avoid his interpretations.

Also "my OR" is not prohibited, but discouraged from being entered into the wiki's main article.

There are two problems with the article on Manu Smriti, which are, sad to say, both your fault, as the current edition is your creation.

1. The "quotations" are not quotations, but commentaries. They cannot be used by Wikipedia readers as an original text. As I said, I'll intend to correct this problem over weekend using Olivelle's translations. (He is Sri Lankan by origin, by the way, not that this should matter)

Buhler doesn't provide direct translation either - if he were to, no verse would make sense. If the proper interpretation isn't offered, it very much falls into "quote-mining".

2. The selection of quotes seems to me an amazing example of quote mining (yes, exactly the same quote mining that you accuse other people of. Have some decency man). Here, I just have couple of initial observations, I'll talk about it in more detail after the weekend.

Not really, the only thing you keep claiming as "quote-mining" is the verse which i said runs against caste system. This is not my opinion - but that of vedic scholars and reformers like srila prabhupada or swami dayananda. Many of the translations by Buhler run contradictory to shruti, unlike the ones by indics which are more or less in harmony with

Yet another thing that I intend to add, which is missing here. Olivelle has a very interesting discussion on the historical and sociological background of the times when the Manu Smriti was created. He uses it to explain, why Manu Smriti is so insistent on emphasizing that the Brahmins are the most important human beings.

There are many such discussions. Nietzche even suggested we dump the bible and adhered to manu smriti. Leafy 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the verses - please do spare me some time. In the meantime, remove the verse and commentary if you wish to. Leafy 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Indiegirl 12:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But the glitch of the buhler's interpretation is...

First off; verse 63 says that it pertains to laws of varnas - not just marriage; but others. He translates "varna" whose meaning is "to choose (from a group); as caste. Jaati means birth.

"If twice-born men wed women of their own and of other (lower castes), the seniority, honour, and habitation of those (wives) must be (settled) according to the order of the castes (varna)."(IX:85) "Among all (twice-born men) the wife of equal caste alone, not a wife of a different caste by any means, shall personally attend her husband and assist him in his daily sacred rites."(IX:86) [Buhler] These verses say that inter-caste marriages don't alleviate a woman's title.

The verses 64+ go as such: śūdrāyāṃ brāhmaṇāj jātaḥ śreyasā cet prajāyate / aśreyān śreyasīṃ jātiṃ gacchaty ā saptamād yugāt // Mn_10.64 // Shudraayam means "that of a shudra". Brahmanaaj similiarly is genderless. Translation of buhler if cleansed of extraneous points: "If one sprung from a Brahmana, Sudra, bear (children) to one of the upper varna, the inferior will attain the highest varna within the seventh yuga." Sudra, Brahmana doesn't mean AND. It can also mean OR. Yuga is variously translated as 5 years; generation; birth; 432,000 years..... it simply means a significant period of time. It also means couple or pair. To stick to the interpretation as meaning generation is not the only one out there.

śūdro brāhmaṇatām eti brāhmaṇaś caiti śūdratām / kṣatriyāj jātam evaṃ tu vidyād vaiśyāt tathaiva ca // Mn_10.65 // And this verse thus makes sense in the sense as many scholars interpreted it.

anāryāyāṃ samutpanno brāhmaṇāt tu yadṛcchayā / brāhmaṇyām apy anāryāt tu śreyastvaṃ kveti ced bhavet // Mn_10.66 // The prohibition, is for arya and anaarya.

But yes, being an interpretation, keeping the hymn there tilts the bias of the article - i wrote the article when it was in a totally BPOV state, so my natural reflex was pro-manusmriti... Better it be present in the criticism section Leafy 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Britannica Concise says it dates from the 1st century BC ([1]). This article only mentions "some historians"' claim that it was written in 200 CE. --194.145.161.227 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Does Britannica cite it's sources that state where they got the date from? There is some debate over the exact date of the Smriti I gather.Hkelkar 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was an error in the article. The Date was 200 BCE not 200 CE as the Sungas dated to around 200 BCE. Off by 4 hundred years :).Hkelkar 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, this makes more sense. Britannica actually says it dates "in its present form" from 1st BC, so these versions can be reconciled: first the basic writing-down, then further "editing".--194.145.161.227 21:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont feel we can directly take an encyclopaedia as authoritative in this situation. If sources have been enlisted by Brittanica; it is better we enlist them than the encylopedia itself. Leafy 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias other than Wikipedia don't usually mention their sources for particular facts, just for the article as a whole - and I think Britannica even omits them altogether in smaller articles. Dunno, I guess one should at least check what other sources say. --194.145.161.227 17:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I doubt the 'some' historians part - nirukta of yaska speaks of it, which dates to 700 BCE.. Leafy 12:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't Wikiquote, another Wikimedia affiliated project. The quotes should be integrated with the rest of the article, perhaps used in the arguments. And can someone add a section not related to criticism/controversy/counter-criticism. On the average FA for example, if there is a criticism section, it would be 1 out 8 or so sections on the page. Not everything should be devoted to criticism or differing views on the Manu Smriti. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that manu smriti is a highly controversial law-book in india, it is more infamous for the various views and conclusions of holocaust or fabrication than its actual content. Leafy 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust?! It doesn't matter if it is controversial. Hitler's page isn't completely about his Jewish massacre. No page should be only on its controversies. And to be honest, the Manu Smriti must have only become controversial when Indologists started studying the book. Before then, it was an average text in most likelihood. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; but manu smriti is more infamous than famous - especially after it was brought into academic highlight by occidental indologists in colonial times and political, by Ambedkar. Although holocaust is a far fetched theory, this scripture is said to be source of all the atrocities of hinduism. Actually I expected some person experienced with Manu Smriti to actually edit the article, as it falls more into the academic than religious field. It was not a popular scripture yes, but it still held importance even upto the times of Adi Sankara; whether it was in an authentic or interpolated state, I dont know. Leafy 06:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you guys are interested, but in reference to:

"And to be honest, the Manu Smriti must have only become controversial when Indologists started studying the book. Before then, it was an average text in most likelihood."

According to Patrick Olivelle's newest (2007, I believe; I can check again) critical edition of the text, Manu Smriti had - prior to the arrival of the Brits - by far more traditional commentaries written on it than any other Dharma Smriti, thus - in his eyes, at least - justifying it's place as one of if not the most important Dharma Smriti.Varoon Arya 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonder if anyone knows the exac line to the silver punch marked coins or Karshapanan, pana. Thanks Enlil Ninlil 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Not only this article is biased on so many counts but also filled with opinion and original research. I have added an OR tag after this line:It should however be kept in mind while reading manusmriti that the scripture is no longer consistent with contemporary views, nor is it clear the scripture's views were held dominant at point of time in Indian historyJohn.Knott 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources from 8 to 11 lack verifiability. These are personal webpages and are against the wiki policy WP:SPSJohn.Knott 12:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That quote is taken out of context. There is a quote before that, which reads: "If (a female of the caste), sprung from a Brahmana and a Sudra female, bear (children) to one of the highest caste, the inferior (tribe) attains the highest caste within the seventh generation."X:64. That means if a Shudra female has a child from a Brahmin, then child would be a Brahmin. Quote X:65 is just clarifying that. And if a Brahmin female has a child from a Shurdra, then child would be Shudra. Quote 65 in this article is taken out of context to show that manusmriti supports non-hereditary caste system, whereas, the truth is that only father's caste matters while bearing a child. Either quote 65 should be removed or 64 should be added.John.Knott 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So why only one source is considered true, while others not? Also, why only positive ones are kept in this article? Where is the NPOV? User DachMaCheh removed my added content without giving any explanation. This is vandalism. I have posted a message on his/her talk page. He/she also removed OR and weasel tags from this article.

"I have taken the manusmirit quotes from http://www.hindubooks.org and I don't believe it to be biased. So why did you remove all the quotes that I inserted and only positive ones are remaining? Where is the NPOV? Also, you removed weasel tag from criticism section. You didn't even discuss this on the talk page. Removing material is vandalism. I'm reverting to my edit."John.Knott 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Namaste. Your most recent exchanges were with User:DachMaCheh, a sock of a notorious disruptive user. Keep up the good work demanding compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you want to focus on quotations from the source, it might be good to check in with other editors to see if there is a preference for which translation to use. The translaations vary quite a bit. So picking one that is unlikely to be challenged may be a basic step. This one is already in the link list and may be a possible choice. Buddhipriya 08:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Namaste. Thanks for the clarification and suggestions. I also suspected that he would be a sock of Hkelkar. I would edit the quotes and put the quotes from Bühler's book. Thanks for your help.John.Knott 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a lot of changes. I have removed most of the unsourced material, as it OR tags on it for some time. I've added some quotes from Bühler's book, as Buddhipriya suggested. I also requested source verification for sources 8-11. I'll wait for few more days for the verification before removal of that text too.John.Knott 15:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that in changing some of the quotes there were changes to the transliteration system for some words. The article is filled with transliteration irregularities, by the way. For Hinduism articles the standard is IAST, which is not currently used in this article. In order to get the transliteration right, it would be necessary to first agree on which source text will be used, and that source text must provide a reliable version of the Sanskrit for transliteration. Currently this is not being done, but it would be a nice longer term goal.

An example of a word that is important for the political debates is the Sanskrit शूद्र which is romanized in IAST as śūdra, which is defined as "man of the fourth or servile class" by Apte (p. 317). A woman of that class is a śūdrā. The palatal श is generally transliterated in simple English as "sh", so the changes from "shudra" to "sudra" are not improvements. I suggest that they be reverted to use the more common "sh" pending better regularization of use of IAST. There are currently no good standards for use of IAST in Hinduism articles, but I have collected some threads of prior discussions on this at User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage to help capture the issues. Buddhipriya 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good suggestion, Buddhipriya. However, to keep the originality from the source, I just copied and pasted the quotes, but if you could guide me in how to do it, I would be happy to do the changes with you.John.Knott 13:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article currently does not use the strongest inline reference methods, which would give an inline reference for each contestable point, with a page number and source. For translations from scriptures it is necessary to specify which transation is being used. Since there are multiple recensions for most texts, even if the source is given in Sanskrit it is still necessary to specify which recension is being used. Works that are cited in footnotes then wind up listed in References (which becomes a list of works cited). See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Would there be any objection to doing things this way? I have cleaned up the article section structure to prepare for a more detailed pass to determine what is really going on with the footnotes, which appear to be a mess. Buddhipriya 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While the article seems fairly NPOV at this point, it's a list of quotations rather than an encyclopedia entry. Would someone familiar with the topic rewrite the article to reflect this? Gimme danger 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the list of quotations is not very encyclopedic. Actually, we cannot be sure of the quotations unless they are individually verified against a specific translation and recension. This article has been the subject of various POV battles and I would not trust anything in it without a verification pass. Buddhipriya 03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Women have no right to study the Vedas. That is why their Sanskaras are performed without Veda Mantras. Women have no knowledge of religion because they have no right to know the Vedas. The uttering of the Veda Mantras is useful for removing sin. As women cannot utter the Veda Mantras, they are as unclean as the untruth." (IX.18)

The actual text goes as such:

18. For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule.

Which was already mentioned. The original verse as shown states that women who are destitute of knowledge are as impure as falsehood. The abovementioned interpretation suggests quite the contrary. Leafy 03:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that restructuring the article to put more emphasis on analysis of the work by WP:RS would help to reduce the amount of soapboxing that is taking place. All of the quotations being used need to be verified for accuracy, and interpretation of what they mean needs to be cited by WP:RS. Let's raise the bar on sourcing for this article. Buddhipriya 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I boldly removed the entire quotes section. Not one source is given is any of them and the introductory sentence Note that the following verses are interpretations and not direct translations raises further doubts on whether a random nobody with an agenda added them. The quotes were giving undue weight to a view that is yet to establish itself as verifiable. Moreover, is there any reason a list of quotes are added to the page? This isn't Wikiquote. I don't see a list of quotes on Vedas, Ramayana or any of these pages. Unless the whole text is given if it is short enough or if a few verses are very notable, selectively adding quotes is distorting NPOV IMO. Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the quotes, as none of them were verified against sources. In general Wikipedia discourages lists in articles, preferring analysis based on WP:RS. If specific passages come up in the future, we can examine each one carefully, and get the sourcing right. That would be an orderly way to start fresh. Buddhipriya 23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading the following book that I got from the library at UT Austin:

"Manu Smriti: A Sociological Analysis" --Deepali Bhargava

Rawat Publications, Jaipur

I'll clean up this article once I'm done (will take a couple of weeks). Netaji 01:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Deepali Bhargava looks like a relative of "Sumati Bhargava" the man who wrote Manusmriti. Uff. more cleaning will be required once you are through--Yeditor 11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And some reporting as well.Netaji 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

LolBakaman _Bakatalk 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr Netaji. please send your replies quickly. We are waiting. And is that book you are mentioning is a translation or an explanation ? Anirban —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.48.3 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

article holds two references section? which one is reference and which is notes? --Challiyan 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus section does not specify the favorable and unfavorable views and criticism; it only characterizes the sources of the unfavorable comments, such as "feminists". For example, the text on Dr. Ambedkar's action does not say why he did what he did.

The fact of Ambedkar's action should not be erased; it should be restored, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with him.

The whole section needs some work.Fconaway 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added to, and revised part of, that section, but it could still use some work. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 04:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the biggest problem I see with this article are style and grammar edits. I am working on it, but it needs some work. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 04:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)