Ok. How do you know which parts of the currently extant Manusmriti are authentic and which are interpolation?
Who is this "we" you are referring to? Neo? Traditional?Similarly, we all say that the Puranas are fifth Veda, based on evidence in shruti. But being that they have not been so carefully preserved, we don't accept everything in the Puranas that we have today as true.
Ok. How do you know which parts of the currently extant Manusmriti are authentic and which are interpolation?Not really. I've always verbalized my doubts about the authenticity of some parts of Manu, even as I've pointed out that the scriptures acknowledge the existence of an authentic Manu-samhita.
Putting the cart before the horse.1) The fact that traditional scholars have been crossing the ocean for the last several decades to give discourses in the West. Not that this proves the verse is interpolated; i suppose it could also be that those scholars are just violating shAstra in spite of their erudition and other conservative views.
We need to clear up multiple things before we get to this:
Is Manusmriti (unadulterated version) "traditional"? Yes or no?
If yes, then we need to clear up whether the verse in question is an interpolation or not. Explain how you intend to clarify this.
If you can not prove that it is interpolated, then you have no choice but to concede that any "Brahmin" scholar who crossed the ocean to give discourses in the West (b.t.w. who are these scholars...can you name some?) is not traditional.
Traditional scripture to back this up. Else, this reasoning will be condemned as "Neo".2) The fact that "crossing the ocean" does not, itself, seem to have any specific spiritual significance, unless the issue is one of prohibiting people to visit mleccha/non-Vedic civilizations for fear that they will take up the bad habits of those people. However, this lead to...
No idea. Provide traditional scripture to make your point. Else, this reasoning will be condemned as "Neo".3) The fact that the purANic conception of the world was one in which Vedic civilization was spread everywhere, which begs the question of why specific areas of the world would be prohibited in a scripture that was of that period. There are references to sages visiting higher (and sometimes lower) worlds, for example, yet parts of Earth are completely forbidden?
Well, there you go. If you have reached a contradiction between "traditional" scriptures themselves, how do you intend to resolve it?4) The fact that the smRiti acknowledges the visiting of far-flung corners of the globe by great twice-born persons. For example, King Vishvaamitra was said to have travelled the entire world before visiting the sage Vasishtha in his hermitage (this is in Ramayana) and King Parikshit was said to have done the same (as per the Bhagavata). Hanumaan crossed the ocean to visit Lanka, which at that time was well known to be a civilization of meat-eaters, cannibals, and drunks (again, as per Ramayana). In none of these situations do we see any expression of doubt that travelling to distant parts might be forbidden because of a stricture in Manu. This is in contrast to, say, the duties of a wife to a husband in which Manu is quoted or alluded to in the Ramayana in order to arrive at a conclusion about what is to be done. So, again, why would it be wrong now and not back then? Note that it's a doubt, not a definitive pronouncement, but I think a carefully considered one. I have similar doubts about the authenticity of other pronouncements of Manu which also seem to contradict other scriptures.
You have not answered my previous question. Why? I repeat again...are you a "Brahmin"? Also, please clarify whether you yourself are a Hindu, firstly. Next, please clarify whether you are a "traditional" or a "Neo" one.No
The reason why I intend to push you on this issue is that you tend to pontificate on HDF. It smacks of hypocrisy and shows a lack of the principle of charity. If I were to troll a Muslim website, I would conceal my identity and quote scripture from the Hadiths and the Quran that justify 9/11 or the recent killing of the British soldier. If you are neither a Neo Hindu nor a traditional Hindu...in fact, if you are not a Hindu at all then you should not continue to help us interpret our scripture. That is bad manners.
Same point as before. It would help if you clearly clarify who exactly is a traditional Hindu and what amount and % of scripture from the Mahabharatha and Puranas a traditional Hindu is allowed to accept and to reject.The same reason you can still be a traditional Hindu even if you do not accept the authority of each and every statement in the mahAbhArata and the purANa-s, as is the case with all traditional vedAnta schools.
Bookmarks