Talk:Manusmriti

Contradictions in various versions of Manusmriti
I want to bring to notice the contents of 12th chapter of Manusmriti. In that it had cleared stated that authentic scholars should modify the rules lead down by earlier authors for the benefit of contemporary period's needs. In that it is required to not erase previous rules but to put new ones as in additions of those. This is the reason, we find many places with contradictory statements. Most critics do not read the text of Manusmriti and are very eager to comment on it just to ridicule it. If we take a note of this provision as given in chapter 12 everything becomes clear and we may treat these recommendations as optional subject to discretion by decision makers on the subject. This provision also means that Hindu code is evolutionary and not dogma that is not changeable as is Koran or Bible. Actually this is a meritorious quality of this work. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds nice to include quote: 'authentic scholars should modify the rules lead down by earlier authors for the benefit of contemporary period's needs' — Preceding unsigned

comment added by Chitrada (talk • contribs) 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manusmriti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210033559/http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/docs/archaeology/primarydocs/Sanchi/HistArt.htm to http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/docs/archaeology/primarydocs/Sanchi/HistArt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC) ThinkBig 14:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Major removal of scholarly sources and sourced content with allegations of OR /undue /repetition /quotes
Capitals00: This, this and this edit summary (or lack thereof) are difficult to understand, misrepresent the sourced content/sources you removed. If you have specific concerns, please explain with evidence, and then let us discuss them one by one. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Brahministic exploitation of Indian masses by using Manusmriti as a tool?
Where is it? Why is it not being mentioned in the topic? 122.162.151.69 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thus spake... or didn't
The part on Nietzcshcschshe is hilarious. It literally goes from one statement to its contradiction. And back...

First, he praises it and the caste system. In the next sentence, he "does not advocate a caste system, states David Conway, but endorses the political exclusion conveyed in the Manu text". He didn't kill him, he only ended his life functions. To say that kind of idiocy is just sad, even for an angsty, teenage Nietzschsctzsche-romanticizing troglodyte, not to mention an "academic philosopher who has written several books on philosophy and politics".

Then we are again (rightly) reminded that "Nietzsche considered Manu's social order as far from perfect, but considers the general idea of a caste system to be natural and right".

But, hold on! There's another slope on this roller coaster. Mr. Kauffman is now reminding us that Friedrich "denounces the way in which the 'Law of Manu' dealt with the outcastes, saying that there is nothing that outrages our feelings more" and "that the concept of pure blood is the opposite of a harmless concept" completely ignoring the fact that Mustache-man doesn't really care about "our feelings" nor the harmfulness of the concept. He just states the fact. He celebrates it. How much of a rationalizing infant one has to be and conclude this after reading pages 48-49 of The twilight of the idols...

But hey, they're reliable sources, so there you go. 109.165.140.94 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

in manuscripts, no kidding?

 * In ancient India, the sages often wrote their ideas on how society should run in the manuscripts.

How else would they write them? Can this sentence be made less trivial? Perhaps something like: The Dharmaśāstras are writings by ancient Indian sages on how society should run. —Tamfang (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)