As much as the varna finds its origins in the Manusmriti, which are supposed to be apaurusheyatva (or am I wrong there?) Firstly, the Varna system doesn't find it's origins in the Manusmiriti. It was present in some form or the other much before that - and the mention of the names of the varnas is present in the earliest of Vedic hymns - even though it may not have referred to clearly demarcated social groups at that time. Secondly, Manusmiriti is less a prescription of how society should be ordered and more a compilation of various kinds of rules and regulations in prevalence in various segments of the society at the time it was compiled by the author - or quite likely several authors. And as with all Smritis (remembered or compiled texts), these rules were meant to be time-specific and required to be altered according to social requirements. This is unlike Srutis (revealed texts - the Vedas along with the Upanishads) who are considered to contain eternal truths. So the Smiritis are not timeless truths or tenets of the religion, just codes of conduct which are specific to the era. About Apaurusheyatva - yes the revealed texts are said to be unauthored - but that's not the pertinent distinction between Smritis and Srutis in relation to the point we are discussing.
I appreciate and thoroughly approve of the interpretative and liberal approach that you have taken on this matter of course I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about. I have just been describing some facts that are fairly known amongst students of the subject.
just in the same way I appreciate how liberal Christians find much of their Bible to be abhorrent in inappropriate You may appreciate it for the same set of personal values held by you, but this is not the same thing.
there's is not the only interpretation Reinterpretation of texts in the way most pertinent and usefully applicable is a time-old and noted historical tradition of Hinduism. However,I don't know what interpretations we are talking about here.
there is plenty who will claim that the holy books are to be interpreted literally and eternally Where have you heard the claim that all Hindu holy books - including the smritis - are eternal? And where have you heard the claim that what is written in Hindu holy books is to be interpreted literally? As far as I know, Hindu holy books repeatedly say, and Hindu seers have repeatedly declared, that the eternal truth is indescribable in words, and even the Vedas, the supreme scriptures, are only a reflection and abstraction of that eternal truth. Differing interpretations are not only valid but unavoidable, given that the ordinary human intellect can only increase its grasp of the absolute by degrees, starting from various differing perspectives.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-12 06:56 pm (UTC)As much as the varna finds its origins in the Manusmriti, which are supposed to be apaurusheyatva (or am I wrong there?)
Firstly, the Varna system doesn't find it's origins in the Manusmiriti. It was present in some form or the other much before that - and the mention of the names of the varnas is present in the earliest of Vedic hymns - even though it may not have referred to clearly demarcated social groups at that time. Secondly, Manusmiriti is less a prescription of how society should be ordered and more a compilation of various kinds of rules and regulations in prevalence in various segments of the society at the time it was compiled by the author - or quite likely several authors. And as with all Smritis (remembered or compiled texts), these rules were meant to be time-specific and required to be altered according to social requirements. This is unlike Srutis (revealed texts - the Vedas along with the Upanishads) who are considered to contain eternal truths. So the Smiritis are not timeless truths or tenets of the religion, just codes of conduct which are specific to the era. About Apaurusheyatva - yes the revealed texts are said to be unauthored - but that's not the pertinent distinction between Smritis and Srutis in relation to the point we are discussing.
I appreciate and thoroughly approve of the interpretative and liberal approach that you have taken on this matter of course
I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about. I have just been describing some facts that are fairly known amongst students of the subject.
just in the same way I appreciate how liberal Christians find much of their Bible to be abhorrent in inappropriate
You may appreciate it for the same set of personal values held by you, but this is not the same thing.
there's is not the only interpretation
Reinterpretation of texts in the way most pertinent and usefully applicable is a time-old and noted historical tradition of Hinduism. However,I don't know what interpretations we are talking about here.
there is plenty who will claim that the holy books are to be interpreted literally and eternally
Where have you heard the claim that all Hindu holy books - including the smritis - are eternal? And where have you heard the claim that what is written in Hindu holy books is to be interpreted literally? As far as I know, Hindu holy books repeatedly say, and Hindu seers have repeatedly declared, that the eternal truth is indescribable in words, and even the Vedas, the supreme scriptures, are only a reflection and abstraction of that eternal truth. Differing interpretations are not only valid but unavoidable, given that the ordinary human intellect can only increase its grasp of the absolute by degrees, starting from various differing perspectives.