Sati, Smriti and Shruti

by Seva Lamberdar Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:27 am

In a recent posting on the Internet (Ref. 1), the author claimed that the Mughal emperor Akbar (1542-1605) made attempts to reform Hinduism, (a) through the legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows because the Hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras (scripture) she is forbidden to remarry; (b) actively discouraged child marriages amongst Hindus and raising the legal age of marriage, because in the dharmasastras (Manu Smriti for example) a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl; and (c) banned sati or suttee (the self-immolation or suicide by fire by a woman after her husband dies) much before Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833) during the British Raj and in much opposition to the religious leaders and dharamshastra (especially the Mahabharata which, according to the author, indicates the religious sanction for sati on the basis of a fictional story by Bhishma about an imaginary pigeon committing sati and going to heaven in the celestial chariot).

As indicated in Ref. (2), the above statement is seriously flawed factually and logically. First of all, each and every book written in Sanskrit in India long ago does not qualify as the primary (authentic) Hindu scripture (dharmshastra) in the class of Shruti or Veda (Ref. 3). Secondly, the ancillary texts referred to in the above (Ref. 1) and belonging to the category Smritis (which usually also comprise books and texts known as Epics and Puranas) are not Shrutis (Ref. 3). Thirdly, as indicated in Ref. (3), for any statement, proclamation or story in the Smritis (including the Puranas or Epics) to have the religious authority or be religiously sanctioned in Hinduism (in accordance with Mimamsa), it must also find similar support or mention in the Shrutis (specifically the Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu religious text which has the highest precedence).

Thus the above generalizations (Ref. 1) on the basis of sporadic mentions and proclamations related to early marriage of girls and sati for widows in a few Smriti texts (including the Puranas and Epics), while even giving the religious spin to them (as if Hinduism sanctions and requires the early marriage of girls and the sati for widows) without showing similar support for early marriage of girls and sati for widows in the Shruti texts (especially the Rig Veda), is as wrong and misleading as generalizing that offering one’s own daughters to save strangers is sanctioned in Judaism and Christianity because Lot in the Bible (the Book of Genesis: 19.6,7,8 ) was ready and willing to surrender his daughters to an unruly mob to save a couple of strangers seeking shelter in his house, or that suicide is sanctioned according to the Bible because there are cases of suicide mentioned (including the suicide by fire, as in the case of widows committing sati) in the Old Testament (e.g. King Saul in 1 Samuel 31:3-6, Ahithophel in 2 Samuel 17:23, and Zimri in 1 Kings 16:18) and the New Testament (e.g. Judas Iscariot in Matthew 27:5), or that sexual abuse of boys and girls by priests in Christian schools / missions is a common occurrence and a part of Christianity because some priests in the past had sexually abused students in Christian schools, or that Jewish merchants in medieval Europe used to over-charge interest and treat their clients (borrowers) cruelly because Shylock (a Jewish moneylender) is portrayed as such (over-charging the interest and treating his client cruelly) by Shakespeare in ‘The Merchant of Venice’.

Anyway, there is no support for early marriage of girls according to the Shruti. The Rig Veda (Book 10, Hymn 85.26 - 28) wants a woman to be physically, mentally and emotionally mature at the time of her wedding so that she can be the in-charge (boss) in her house (including the in-laws) after her wedding. A child bride naturally would not be able to assume that role, be a boss or in-charge in her house after the wedding (as required by the Rig Veda). This indicates that any proclamation in a Smriti text (including the Manu-smriti) supporting the early or underage wedding of girls is not sanctioned or validated by the Veda and is therefore religiously illegitimate.

Similarly, sati has no religious approval in Hinduism on the basis of Shruti (Rig Veda specifically). Thus a mere sporadic mention or support for sati in a few Smriti texts (as indicated in Ref. 1) is in violation of the Rig Veda (Ref. 3). Incidentally, Ref. (3) also cites major drawbacks in Atharva Veda and Manusmriti (Appendix). Moreover, to imply that Madri’s committing sati after her husband Pandu’s death in the Mahabharata and that a fictional story about an imaginary bird (a pigeon in the Mahabharata) committing sati and going to heaven in a celestial chariot are the right kind of proofs about Hinduism’s support for sati is ridiculous and illogical, considering especially that Mahabharata also talks about several real life women (e.g. Satyavati, Amba, Ambalika, and king Pandu’s other wife Kunti) who not only did not commit sati when their husbands died but some of those widows (Amba and Ambalika, for example) even bore children after their husband king Vichitavirya’s death through Niyoga (insemination by another man).

In addition, during even the present times there are close to half a billion Hindu women living in India, out of which there must be several million widows. There hardly were any instances or news about any widow committing sati during past many years. This shows that sati is / was neither a religiously required practice in Hinduism nor it is / was a widespread social custom among Hindus. If any woman in the past unfortunately killed or tried to kill herself when her husband died, it probably was mainly due to extreme grief to her at the loss of her husband or perhaps she lacked good family support and economic security afterwards, and not for religious reasons. Note, even during the frequent foreign attacks on India several centuries ago which led to the defeat and killing of many Hindu Kings and soldiers, the widows of kings and soldiers lost in the battles would sometimes (as a personal choice rather than for religious consideration) opt for group-sati (mass-suicide by fire) to avoid becoming the victory-prize for their husbands’ killers.

Since the sati for widows and the early marriage for girls were not religiously required in Hinduism according to the Veda, there is no point in saying that Akbar (or anyone else) tried to reform Hinduism by bringing laws against sati or the early marriage of girls. Moreover, any law against sati in the past was intended primarily to deter any infrequent occurrences of sati rather than to bring reform in Hinduism; just like there is a law against suicide to deter anyone thinking of committing suicide rather than to bring reform in society. Moreover, the anti-sati law does not reflect sati being the issue or choice for most widows, as the anti-suicide law is not an indication of suicide as the problem for majority of people in society. Note, even the steps taken recently by Govt. and church officials in the form of new rules and laws to stop the sexual abuse of students in a few Christian schools is not an indication that such abuse of students is / was widespread in Christian schools. Similarly, these new and strict rules by Govt. and church officials are not an effort to reform Christianity. Likewise, the law passed against sati by the British (during the Raj) at the insistence of Raja Ram Mohan Roy (after he had seen his own sister commit sati much to his disgust and agony) was probably also intended primarily to deter any widow thinking of committing sati (for whatever reasons) and thus avoid the repeat of incidents similar to Raja’s own sister, and not that the new law was meant to reform Hinduism.

Appendix

Dubious authorship and content of Manusmriti

Manusmriti (Ch. 1 - V. 1-4) seems to create the false impression that it is based on the teachings of original famous Vedic sage (Svayambhu) Manu who is greatly admired and revered in the Veda. However, Manusmriti violates the Veda (including the Rig Veda) on several important issues (Ref. 4), which indicates that this text, even though using the name Manu and implying a connection with Savayambhu, is not authentic. Note, considering the exalted position enjoyed by Manu in the Veda (including the Rig Veda), there is very little chance that he would personally teach and advocate things contradicting the Veda (the Rig Veda especially) in the Manusmriti. This naturally leads to the conclusion that some other person or persons might have compiled and composed this spurious text afterwards, during the post-Vedic era and in violation of the Veda, and released it as Manusmriti (using the name of famous Vedic sage Manu in the title) probably to make it appealing and acceptable to public.

Moreover, by claiming in it that a true smriti must not violate the Veda (including the Rig Veda), which Manusmriti does in several verses and on numerous key issues, it shrewdly leads the readers to believe, albeit wrongly, that Manusmriti’s injunctions and proclamations are in complete agreement with the Veda (Rig Veda etc.). As a result, many people mistakenly think that it is not necessary to verify the contents of Manusmriti against the Veda or Rig Veda and that the true Vedic knowledge can be acquired by just reading the Manusmriti alone.

Due probably to this misconception, many people in the past (including probably some Acharyas and perhaps even the Buddha and his followers) seemed to skip the voluminous and time consuming Veda and just read the shorter and easier Manusmriti while trying to acquire knowledge about the Veda. Naturally, the knowledge they gained about the Veda by just reading the Manusmriti alone was inadequate, skewed, improper and controversial. As a result, their comments / commentaries on caste system and women etc., based solely on their reading the Manusmriti alone, either mistakenly reflect the views of Manusmriti as Vedic (Manusmriti,. in violation of the Veda, upholds the caste system and looks down upon women) or they appear to criticize the Veda unnecessarily because of their poor knowledge in the Veda (which in reality advocates equality for women and does not favour the hereditary caste system, Ref. 5).

In conclusion, the statements and proclamations on caste and sati etc. in the Manusmriti (or any other Smriti including the Puranas and Epics) are not always in agreement with the Shruti / Veda (especially the Rig Veda) and therefore do not automatically enjoy the support of the Veda, which further implies that the Smritis (including the Manusmriti) are not real “dharmashastra” (Hindu scriptural texts) in the sense of Shrutis (Rig Veda etc.).

References

(1) Rashman, “Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism,” July 12, 2013, https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism

(2) Seva Lamberdar (Subhash C. Sharma), “Follow-up to Rashmun’s pigeon story in the Mahabharata as the basis for “sati” in Hinduism,” July 16, 2013, https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism

(3) Subhash C. Sharma, “Compatibility of a text with the Shrutis,” Sept. 2, 2006,
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html

(4) Subhash C. Shama, “Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself,” April 23, 2010, http://lamberdar.sulekha.com/blog/post/2010/04/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas.htm

(5) Subhash C. Sharma, “Vedic vocations (Hindu castes) were not related to heredity (birth),” 2001, http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/_caste.html

...............................................................................................

Ref.: http://creative.sulekha.com/sati-smriti-and-shruti_606325_blog (July 31, 2013)

by Guest Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:55 am

as dean of University of Such, Riverdale, I am pleased to grant you a doctorate on whatever subject you have been spewing bullshit on based on this excellent thesis on god knows what. You are hereby a double doctorate -- in agricultural engineering and whatever.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:15 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:as dean of University of Such, Riverdale, I am pleased to grant you a doctorate on whatever subject you have been spewing bullshit on based on this excellent thesis on god knows what. You are hereby a double doctorate -- in agricultural engineering and whatever.

It shows your utter bias when you never awarded a doctorate to a SuCH personality who has been publishing and republishing (and re-re-publishing) relentlessly on Moguls and Akbar.

P.S. You would do well to remember that Seva ji and THIS poster attended the same Canadian university.

by southindian Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:25 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:as dean of University of Such, Riverdale, I am pleased to grant you a doctorate on whatever subject you have been spewing bullshit on based on this excellent thesis on god knows what. You are hereby a double doctorate -- in agricultural engineering and whatever.

It shows your utter bias when you never awarded a doctorate to a SuCH personality who has been publishing and republishing (and re-re-publishing) relentlessly on Moguls and Akbar.

P.S. You would do well to remember that Seva ji and THIS poster attended the same Canadian university.

I fail to understand when alleged Hindus attack other Hindus...and that's fine with me as it shows openness under the same umbrella.

But those alleged Hindus also defend or ignore M Team spew... ....while the 1 billon+ roars in deafening silence.

by Guest Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:10 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:as dean of University of Such, Riverdale, I am pleased to grant you a doctorate on whatever subject you have been spewing bullshit on based on this excellent thesis on god knows what. You are hereby a double doctorate -- in agricultural engineering and whatever.

It shows your utter bias when you never awarded a doctorate to a SuCH personality who has been publishing and republishing (and re-re-publishing) relentlessly on Moguls and Akbar.

P.S. You would do well to remember that Seva ji and THIS poster attended the same Canadian university.

Dear SomeYaar,

Perhaps you might not be aware of the fact that the Univ. of Such, Riverdale, has stringent eligibility requirements to its Phd programs. Among many, the following three criteria must be met by all aspiring candidates:

1) the candidate must fail the swim test;
2) the candidate must fail the Monty Hall problem;
3) the candidate must fail to distinguish between Hindi and Urdu.

Dr. Seva met all 3 criteria whereas the other poster failed in criterion no. 2 and thus he was denied admission to our university's Phd program. Hope this explains things clearly to you.

by Jebediah Mburuburu Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:44 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:Dear SomeYaar,...

that, i suppose, is viTTy.

by Guest Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:00 pm

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:Dear SomeYaar,...
that, i suppose, is viTTy.

it's zany. look up "zany" in the dictionary.

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:01 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:as dean of University of Such, Riverdale, I am pleased to grant you a doctorate on whatever subject you have been spewing bullshit on based on this excellent thesis on god knows what. You are hereby a double doctorate -- in agricultural engineering and whatever.

Thanks HK for the offer of another Ph.D. degree ... why not .. there is always room in the file / folder to stick another piece of paper.

Thanks also to Marathadi-Saamiyaar, SouthIndian and Jebediah Mburuburu for their comments.

- Seva

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:13 am

Not fair, Seva Unkil. You have enough place to stick in a PhD certificate but no place for a Bharat Ratna??

Your refusal to be the intellectual icon for the Hindutva movement merely goes to show that you too are sickular, fukular etc.

by Idéfix Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:04 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Not fair, Seva Unkil. You have enough place to stick in a PhD certificate but no place for a Bharat Ratna??

Your refusal to be the intellectual icon for the Hindutva movement merely goes to show that you too are sickular, fukular etc.

Or lack of courage to fight for one's beliefs. Killing and eating goats may be just what the doctor ordered.

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:09 am

Merlot, instead of worrying about Bharat Ratna (to me or anyone else), you and the Hindutva should strive to

(a) replace the present criteria of caste (ancestors’ family occupation / vocation) and religion (where and to him people pray and worship) in Govt. help (quotas) to people in education and jobs etc. with the consideration of recipient’s present economic condition or poverty alone (without looking at his / her caste and religion), and

(b) replace the currently official separate communal / religious laws for different religious communities with the UCC or Uniform Civil Code (one law for all, irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:31 am

Idéfix wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Not fair, Seva Unkil. You have enough place to stick in a PhD certificate but no place for a Bharat Ratna??

Your refusal to be the intellectual icon for the Hindutva movement merely goes to show that you too are sickular, fukular etc.
Or lack of courage to fight for one's beliefs. Killing and eating goats may be just what the doctor ordered.

for what?

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:37 am

"it (Manusmriti) shrewdly leads the readers to believe, albeit wrongly, that Manusmriti’s injunctions and proclamations are in complete agreement with the Veda (Rig Veda etc.)"

>>> Even though Manusmriti deceptively cites and makes references to the original Vedic sage Manu (Svayambhu) as if it is directly due to him and from the Vedic era, the Veda-contradicting proclamations and statements on women and physicians etc. in the Manusmriti (along with the references to Rig-veda and Yajur-veda etc. in the Manusmriti) clearly indicate that this spurious text (Manusmriti) was created during the post-Vedic period (long after the Rig Veda etc.) and has no relation to the original Vedic sage Manu, whose name it uses / bears in the title.

Thus, when a number of later scholars (including some “acharyas”) wrote in the literary commentaries and works that “Manu says / said ‘this or that’”, it has / had little Vedic support and no relationship to Manu, and such statements by them were based probably on their reading the Manusmriti mostly.

by Guest Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:07 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"it (Manusmriti) shrewdly leads the readers to believe, albeit wrongly, that Manusmriti’s injunctions and proclamations are in complete agreement with the Veda (Rig Veda etc.)"

>>> Even though Manusmriti deceptively cites and makes references to the original Vedic sage Manu (Svayambhu) as if it is directly due to him and from the Vedic era, the Veda-contradicting proclamations and statements on women and physicians etc. in the Manusmriti (along with the references to Rig-veda and Yajur-veda etc. in the Manusmriti) clearly indicate that this spurious text (Manusmriti) was created during the post-Vedic period (long after the Rig Veda etc.) and has no relation to the original Vedic sage Manu, whose name it uses / bears in the title.

Thus, when a number of later scholars (including some “acharyas”) wrote in the literary commentaries and works that “Manu says / said ‘this or that’”, it has / had little Vedic support and no relationship to Manu, and such statements by them were based probably on their reading the Manusmriti mostly.

Are you going to keep saying the same thing on and on ? I am tired of reading your criticism of Manu Smriti now. Write on something else like for instance the Yajnavalkya Smriti.

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:17 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"it (Manusmriti) shrewdly leads the readers to believe, albeit wrongly, that Manusmriti’s injunctions and proclamations are in complete agreement with the Veda (Rig Veda etc.)"

>>> Even though Manusmriti deceptively cites and makes references to the original Vedic sage Manu (Svayambhu) as if it is directly due to him and from the Vedic era, the Veda-contradicting proclamations and statements on women and physicians etc. in the Manusmriti (along with the references to Rig-veda and Yajur-veda etc. in the Manusmriti) clearly indicate that this spurious text (Manusmriti) was created during the post-Vedic period (long after the Rig Veda etc.) and has no relation to the original Vedic sage Manu, whose name it uses / bears in the title.

Thus, when a number of later scholars (including some “acharyas”) wrote in the literary commentaries and works that “Manu says / said ‘this or that’”, it has / had little Vedic support and no relationship to Manu, and such statements by them were based probably on their reading the Manusmriti mostly.
Are you going to keep saying the same thing on and on ? I am tired of reading your criticism of Manu Smriti now. Write on something else like for instance the Yajnavalkya Smriti.

LOL.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com

Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti

Re: Sati, Smriti and Shruti