Bandhu in the Upanishads: Background note for Twitter session 25/03/2013

When we hear the word, upaniṣad our most immediate response is "ātman=brahman" because that is indeed the central and most powerful philosophical idea of the upaniṣad. This idea is so overpowering that it eclipses everything else recorded in the  upaniṣads. The  upaniṣads are in fact complex, varied texts that address even the everyday concerns of human beings, like how to attract the affection of a woman you like and observations about the cosmic fire within us which we can hear if we press our ears closes with our fingers. (Try it!) 

They were composed at a time of tremendous social, economic and religious upheaval, and they document the transition of Hinduism from the ritualism of the early Vedic era to the emergence of central religious concepts that define the religion as we know it today. Ideas such as the law of karma regulating the rebirth process, and the techniques of liberation from the cycle of rebirth. Generally, the early Vedic corpus comes to be called karmakāṇḍa (ritual) and the upaniṣads are called the jñānakāṇḍa (salvific knowledge).

The earliest upaniṣads are generally regarded as pre-buddhistic and are written in prose. Later texts are written in verse and display distinct theistic tendencies. But the overwhelming theme is the rejection of external ritual as a path to salvation. Composed over a period of nearly 600 years, these texts are considered the most fundamental religious texts by almost all Hindus. Like the samhitas and the brāhmaṇas before them, the  upaniṣads belong to specific Vedic śākhās (lit. branches) like so*:

In today's Twitter session we will be looking at a text that exemplifies a key upaniṣadic concept - that of 'bandhu' or equivalence. How do we get 'from me and you' to a single universal substratum? Let's find out in #SanksritAppreciationHour. Join me at 3pm GMT today on Twitter.

* Table is taken from the Wikipedia page on Upanishads.

Patañjali's yogasūtra 1:23 Īśvara-praṇidhāna

In the last four sūtras we learned that samādhi is a result either of birth, certain qualities, the intensity of the practioner's desire as well as of the practices employed. Sūtra 1:23 is what is known in common parlance as a 'game-changer'. Yoga is based on sāṃkhya, which posits two ontological principles: the sentient puruṣa (spiritual) and the insentient prakṛti (material). There is no room for 'god' in this philosophical system* However yoga, allows for an Īśvara, complete surrender to whom can bring about or hasten the achievement of samādhi.

The Bihar School, Munger is at pains to explain that Īśvara is a generic term and is not limited to a Hindu god. You could focus your attention on an image of the baby Jesus, or a picture of Mecca Sharif as effectively as focusing on a shiva-linga, or an idol of Krishna, Rama, Ganesha, Durga etc. Going forward we will see that Patanjali allows various ways to center yourself and bring about single-pointedness (ekāgratā) in the mind. You can choose from a variety of methods depending on what suits your personality. For instance concentrating on a tantric yantra works for one, verbal recitation or silent contemplation of a mantra for another. Yoga is all about यथा शक्ति and यथा भाव. 

{1:23}

ईश्वर प्रणिधानाद्वा 

Or, [samādhi can be achieved] as a result of fixing one's mind on the Lord

ईश्वरः प्रणिधानात् वा 

ईश्वरः - Lord, Master, Supreme Being

प्रणिधानात् - from, as a result of प्रणिधान - fixing/placing [attention], profound religious meditation; प्रणिधान is from the Sanskrit root धा - to place. निधान and निधि are also from this root.
वा - or (this 'or' relates 1.23 to the previous four sutras)

*I refer to the original sāṃkhyakārika. Subsequently this philosophy was reinterpreted and re-presented in the epics etc. with theistic content.  Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya or if you're really keen and money is not an issue, get a copy of the sāṃkhyakārika from mlbd.com --> http://mlbd.com/BookDecription.aspx?id=14602

Bhagvad Gita 9:23-24

5th cen. temple panel, Deogarh, Gupta Period

In response to a special request from one of the followers of #SanskritAppreciationHour on Twitter, a translation of Bhagvad Gita 9:23-24. I think the purport of verse 23 is best read in conjunction with 24 since the anvaya of 24 can begin with हि. Hence I've taken the liberty of translating both. As expressed to @hd223 this is a purely linguistic explanation, with no theological, philosophical or sectarian overlay. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions, यथा-भाव!

10:23 in vigraha:

ये अपि अन्यदेवताभक्ताः यजन्ते श्रद्धया अन्वितः 

ते अपि माम् एव कौन्तेय यजन्ति अविधिपूर्वकम् 

In anvaya:

कौन्तेय! श्रद्धया अन्विताः ये भक्ताः अन्यदेवताः अपि यजन्ते 

ते अपि माम् एव यजन्ति अविधिपूर्वकम् 

कौन्तेय! O Arjuna

श्रद्धया - with faith

अन्विताः - filled with (agrees with भक्ताः )

ये - then

भक्ताः - they devotees (lit. partaken, shared p.p.p of root 'bhaj')

अन्यदेवताः - Other gods

अपि -also, even

यजन्ते - they (the devotees) sacrifice to/worship

ते - they

अपि - also

माम् - me

एव - only 

यजन्ति - worship (sacrifice to)

अविधिपूर्वकम् - not according to vidhi=injunction/rule (adverb, answering the question  "How do they sacrifice?" - answer: not according to rule)

10:24 in vigraha:

अहं हि सर्वयज्ञानां भोक्ता च प्रभुः एव च 

न तु माम् अभिजानन्ति तत्त्वेन अतः च्यवन्ति ते 

In anvaya:

हि सर्वयज्ञानां प्रभुः च भोक्ता च अहं एव 

ते मां तत्त्वेन न अभिजानन्ति अतः च्यवन्ति 

हि - (indeclinable) surely, because, for 

सर्वयज्ञानां - of all the sacrifices/worship

प्रभुः च - the Lord [and]

भोक्ता च - enjoyer [and]

अहं एव - me only

ते - they 

मां -me

तत्त्वेन - by means of truth, by 'tattva' 

न - not (don't)

अभिजानन्ति - [they don't] recognise [me]

अतः - therefore, as a result

च्यवन्ति [they] fall. From the root 'cyu'.* 

For the third person, singular present of this verb [he/she] falls, pl see: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=cyuti&direction=SE&link=yes&choice=yes 

*Hence also the Lord if called 'acyuta' he who has not fallen/perished)

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – II 'आत्मन्'

Continuing his series "Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa," this month Bibek Debroy introduces core beliefs in Hinduism. Despite appearing to be a myriad of sects, Bibek explains that the bedrock of Hinduism is a set of  commonly held beliefs. He begins  with the most central: ātman. I am in complete agreement when he says that Ādi Śankarācārya’s निर्वाण षटकम्  best explains ātman. Read on to find out more, including his experiments at Cambridge!!

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – II

Let’s come back to the question of Hindusim.  What do we mean by Hinduism?  What are its core beliefs, regardless of which school one has in mind?  Cutting across all schools, we have a core belief in the existence of the आत्मन्, as distinct from the physical body.  For the moment, let’s ignore questions of rebirth and the doctrine of karma. Let’s also ignore concepts of yoga and union between the ātman and the paramātman/brahman. Those will come later and there are differing perspectives on those. But everyone who professes to be a Hindu will believe in the ātman.

I can quote Bhagavad Gita 2.20, or I can quote other texts: 

na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin

nāyaṃ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ

ajo nityaḥ śāśvatoyaṃ purāṇo

na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre

Neither is this [ātman] born, nor does it die ever,
Nor having been, will it again come not to be,
Unborn, eternal, perpetual, primaeval,
It is not slain when the body is slain.

On this point, I actually prefer Ādi Śankarācārya’s निर्वाण षटकम्. It has six ślokas. This is Vedānta.  But I am not on the Vedānta part right now.  Therefore, those who know the original will realize that I have knocked out the last line of each śloka. That will come later. Some people may know that Swami Vivekānanda translated this. I could have given my own translation. But since Swami Vivekānanda translated it, one might as well stick to his translation.  With that last line of each śloka knocked out, here goes:

मनोबुद्धयहंकार चित्तानि नाहं, न च श्रोत्रजिव्हे न च घ्राणनेत्रे । न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायुः

न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पंचवायुः, न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः । न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु,

न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ, मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः । न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः

न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं, न मन्त्रो न तीर्थो न वेदा न यज्ञ । अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता

न मे मृत्युशंका न मे जातिभेदः, पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः । न बन्धुर्न मित्रं गुरूर्नैव शिष्यः

अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकार रूपो, विभुत्वाच सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् । न चासङत नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः

“I am neither the mind, nor the intellect, nor the ego, nor the mind-stuff;  I am neither the body, nor the changes of the body; I am neither the senses of hearing, taste, smell, or sight; Nor am I the ether, the earth, the fire, the air; I am neither the prāṇa nor the five vital airs; I am neither the materials of the body, nor the five sheaths; Neither am I the organs of action, nor object of the senses;  I have neither aversion nor attachment, neither greed nor delusion;  Neither egotism nor envy, neither Dharma nor Mokṣa; I am neither desire nor objects of desire;
I am neither sin nor virtue, neither pleasure nor pain;  Nor temple nor worship, nor pilgrimage nor scriptures, Neither the act of enjoying, the enjoyable nor the enjoyer;
I have neither death nor fear of death, nor caste; Nor was I ever born, nor had I parents, friends, and relations; I have neither Guru, nor disciple; I am untouched by the senses, I am neither Mukti nor knowable; I am without form, without limit, beyond space, beyond time; I am in everything; I am the basis of the universe; everywhere am I. I am Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute.”  

I said that I am going to excise Vedānta, for the moment. The purist will say that despite eliminating that last line, I haven’t quite been able to do that. But let that pass for the moment.  Independent of Vedānta, I think most people comprehend that the ātman is not the body, nor the five organs of sense (sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing) or the five organs of action (feet, hands, anus, genitals, mouth).  Therefore, when the body dies, the ātman does not die.

Students are poverty-stricken, everywhere in the world.  When we were students in Cambridge, there was a professor of Physics there.  He had already received the equivalent of tenure, so he could “research” whatever he wished.  And he asked for student volunteers as guinea pigs, promising them small sums of money if they volunteered.  I was one of those who volunteered and the experiment was the following.  We went to sleep, hooked on to all kinds of gadgets and measuring instruments.  The idea was that when people slept, the soul (obviously he didn’t call it the ātman) would leave the body and roam around.  These sensitive measuring instruments were supposed to detect the departure and return of the soul, in these out-of-body experiences.  As far as I know, the professor met with no success.  Nothing registered.  

There is a story about Catherine the Great of Russia (Catherine II) and the philosopher Diderot, who was a bit of an atheist.  This bothered Catherine the Great and the other courtiers.  Euler, the mathematician, was also around and was summoned to help.  Diderot knew nothing about mathematics.  Euler went up to him and said, “Sir, (a+bⁿ)/n= x.  Hence, God exists!” (Actually, he said it in French, but the English will suffice.)  This embarrassed Diderot so much that he vanished from the court.  Whether it is God, or the ātman, we tend to ask for odd kinds of proof.

Be logical.  Do you believe in the concept of ½?  Of course, you do.  But have you ever actually seen ½? Of course, you haven’t.  No matter how precise the measuring rod, when something is broken into two equal halves, will each part be exactly half?  It won’t.  Yet, we believe in the concept of half.  If I give you an equation that says 1+1=11, you will say this is wrong.  Yet, it is perfectly correct, if I am using the binary system.  If I say, two parallel lines do not meet, that’s apparently correct, but only on a plane.  On the earth’s surface, lines of longitude do meet.  The point I am making is that scientific proofs can be axiomatic, or they can be empirical.  At an axiomatic level, I see nothing that one can complain about vis-à-vis the concept of the ātman.  As an axiomatic structure, it is perfectly coherent.  Therefore, if the ātman is being questioned, it is on the level of the empirical. 

We will continue with this line of reasoning next month.

The Art of Asking The Right Question

In the guest writer* series, please welcome Gyanendra Narayan.  Gyanendra is a Bangalore, India based Sanskrit enthusiast who loves exploring the scientific temper of Sanskrit scriptures relating them to modern human life & analysis of historical facts from socio-cultural dimension. On the professional front he works for a software start-up after his graduation from IIT. 

He raises an important and rarely considered iepistemological issue. How best can we know something? Please read on to discover his point of view. To interact with Gyanendra, please leave a comment on the blog.

The Art of Right Question

My First Sanskrit Article

Devoted to Dr. Bibek Debroy for inspiration

Questions are integral part of our lives. Almost every day we keep on asking questions to others; and many times a day to ourselves. Recognizing this simple characteristics of human being, Sanskrit literature has given due attention to questions. In fact Sanskrit literature has plenty of writings on questions itself. Upanishads like Kena Upanishad, Prashna Upanishad have questions (Kena = why, how, Prashna=Questions) in their names itself.

In Sanskrit literature we can find varied way of asking questions. Apart from asking question, the background and motive of questions have been given due importance. Few shlokas tell us about “how to ask questions”. The beauty of “how” is not in the paraphrasing of questions rather it lies in ultimate purpose of asking questions. It acknowledges spiritual or mental status of person asking the question.

Starting with the motive of questions, Srimad Bhagvad Gita says in Canto (shloka) 9.1 (Chapter 9, shloka 1)

Idam Tu Te Guhyatamam Pravakshyaamyanasuyave |

Gyaanam Vigyaansahitam Yajgyaatvaa mokshyaseashubhaat || 9.1||

Word Meaning:

[ Idam : This, Tu: Despite, Te: (For) you, Guhyatamam: Most secret,  Pravakshyaamyanasuyave: I’m saying to you (because) you are not jealous , Gyaanam : About this knowledge, Vigyaansahitam : With perceived/assimilated science, Yajgyaatvaa: By knowing that, mokshyaseashubhaat:  Will be relieved of bad world ]

In totality it means:

Despite being the most secret knowledge, I’m telling this knowledge, assimilated/perceived, to you because you are not jealous(of me). By knowing this you will be free of the bad (Ashubha) world.

The word “Pravakshyaamyanasuyave “can be bifurcated (vicheda) in two words; i.e.  Pravakshyaami + Anusuyave.

Pravaksyami means “I am saying”, Anusuyave means “A person who is not jealous”. It alludes to the fact that a right question can remain unanswered if the motive of the person is not right or the person is ill-motivated.

Prashna Upanishad also talks about the behavior of knowledge seeker and prescribed way of life for getting right questions. In its first chapter, second shloka it says

Tan ha sa rishiruvaacha bhooya eva tapasaa brahmacharyyena shradhyaa samvatsaram samvatsyatha|

Yathaakaamam prashnaan prichatha, yadi vigyaasyaamah sarvam ha vo vakshyaama eti || 1.2||

Word Meaning:

[Tan: to them , ha: famous, sa : that, rishiruvaacha: Rishi told, bhooya: stay , eva: despite, tapasaa: with tapaa(ascetic),brahmacharyyena: with brahmacharya(celibacy) , shradhyaa: with devotion, samvatsaram: for a year samvatsyatha: stay here , yathaaakaamam: as per your interest, prashnaan: questions , prichatha: ask them, yadi : if, vigyaasyaamah: upto our knowledge, sarvam: all, ha: Clear, vakshyaama: Will tell you,  eti: emphasis ]

In totality it means:

Then the famous rishi told that despite (back activities) stay here for a year with celibacy, devotion & then ask questions as you wish. We will answer you with best of our knowledge.

It tells “live with “tapasaa brahmacharyyen shradyaa “. It means that the person (who has reached Rishi’s Ashram for knowledge) should live with ascetic life, should be celibate, full of devotion. If only these pre-conditions are fulfilled then the Rishi will answer with all question with best of his knowledge ( vigyaasyaamah sarvam ha vo vaskshyaam eti )

Now moving to  the content of question, we find that depending on the context and background of knowledge seekers questions have varied in their intellectual quotient. In today’s world some questions might look too primitive; but at the same time some questions have been path breaking. E.g. look at this question from shloka 5.1 (Chapter 5, shloka 1) of KenaUpanishad

Kena paasnnir aabhrite purushasya, kena maansam sambhritam kena gulfoo |

Kenangulih peshanih kena khaani kenochalankho madhyatah kah pratishtham ||5.1||

Word Meaning:

[Kena: who,  paasnnir: farthest end of feet,  aabhrite: created,  purushasya: of man,  kena: who,  maansam: with flesh,  sambhritam: filled it up,  kena: who,  gulfoo: ankles,  Kenangulih: by whom fingers,  peshanih: beautiful, kena: who,  khaani: by whom,  kenochalankho: who added them,  madhyatah: in between,  kah: who, pratishtham: fixed /balanced]

In totality it means:

Who created farthest end of feet of human being and put flesh in that. Who created ankles, who created fingers, who added feet in leg and who put them in balance in between.

This shloka talks about body structure and asks the Guru about creator of them. It asks “who created ankles and put flesh in them, who created other parts of leg and balanced/fixed them. While prima facie this question looks quite detailed, the response of it would be mired in nitty-gritty of earthly materials. The question itself binds the periphery of answer and hence would elicit same kind of response.

However few questions are path breaking in their nature. Their response has changed the discourse for generations. One of them is ( Srimad Bhagvad Gita, Chapter 4 , Shloka 4)

Aparam bhavato Janma Param janma vivaswatah |

Kathametdwijaneeyaam twamadou proktwaniti ||4.4||

Word Meaning:

[ Aparam: Not supreme, subdued, bhavato: yours,  janma: Birth,  Param: Supreme, upper, vivaswatah: Of Sun,Kathametdwijaneeyaam: How come I assume this , twamadou: you at the outset, proktwaniti: You sermonized so]

In totality it means:

(O Lord) your birth is later than the birth of Sun God, then how do I assume that you sermonized Sun.

The question transcends boundary of death and life, mortal nature of devotee and asks about the relation with the almighty God. The background of this shloka is :At the outset of war of Mahabharata to remove illusion and diffidence from Arjuna’s mind Lord Krishna tells about Srimad Bhagvad Gita and in the same vein about its history.  Lord Sri Krishna tells Arjuna that he has enlightened “Sun” with the knowledge of Gita in very ancient time. In the response, Arjuna , out of normal human curiosity, asks in this shloka : O God, Birth of Sun is earlier than you; then how do I understand that you only gave this knowledge at the outset. This is typical of human mind. We feel that Sun, Moon, Earth etc. are from time immemorial hence how can God come before them. There must be something (e.g. Sun, Earth etc) for God to take birth.  The detailed response of it has been extraordinary in impact on discourse of God’s arrival and relation with mankind. The response in shlokaappears in Srimad Bhagvad Gita chapter 4, shloka 7.

Yadaa Yadaa hi Dharmasya Glaanirbhavati Bharata |

Abhyuthaanamadharmasya Tadaatmaanam Srijayaamyaham ||4.7||

Word Meaning:

[ Yadaa Yadaa : Whenever wherever, hi: Emphasis ,definitely, Dharmasya: Of Dharma , Glaanirbhavati: Loss/decay happens, Bharata: O Arjuna ( Bharata  is used because Arjuna belonged to Bharata Clan ), Abhyuthaanamadharmasya: Adharma surges ahead,  Tadaathmaanam: Then I will,  Srijayaamyaham: Recreate myself ]

In totality it means:

O Bhrata! Whenever, wherever, there is decay of Dharma and surge of Adharma, and then I will recreate myself.

Here Lord Krishna takes away the attachment of the evolution/arrival of God from mortal cosmic things. He links God withDharma. Meaning of this shloka goes as: O Arjuna! Whenever, wherever there will be seize of Dharma, there will be surge ofAdharma, I will create myself in mortal form (to uplift Dharma). This one shloka has imparted faith, hope in millions of people since time immemorial in tough times. It gives hope that when going gets really tough, there is somebody; there is God who will come and uplift the Dharma, and uplift right things. You will find similar resonating tones in other religions also which came much later than sanatan dharma. This shloka remains unparalleled in history.

Perhaps, even God responds only to right questions.

*The views of guest authors are their own and do not represent the intent of this blog. Whether I agree or disagree with guest writers, I respect their right to believe what they do, and their right to express their view. 

Setting the record straight on Manusmriti

Please welcome guest writer*  Rohit Viswanath.  Rohit is a public affairs professional with Edelman India.  He has been a journalist in the past and was the recipient of the CNN Young Journalist of the Year Award in 2006. He holds a Master's degree in International Relations and a Bachelor’s degree in Ancient Indian Culture. He is interested in Indian religious thought and Sanskrit literature. He has participated in the archaeological excavations at Gilund, an Indus-Sarasvati valley civilisation site in Rajasthan. 

In a series of articles, Rohit will be sharing his views on Manusmriti with us. And in the coming weeks, we hope to hear more from him about his experiences at the archaeological dig at Gilund. Absolutely fascinating! To interact with Rohit, please leave a comment on the blog. 

Manusmriti: Setting the record straight

The Manusmriti is a favorite punching-bag of modern day critics of Indian society. Most of their points of criticism, however, lack objectivity. They do not take into account the fact that the Manusmriti belongs to a different age and hence must be seen in that context. The critics (or liberals as they call themselves), symbolize the collective Indian soul that is yet to recover from the sense of inferiority that centuries of colonial rule has resulted in. India’s colonial masters exploited every tool at their disposal (including the usage of selective portions of the Manusmriti) to justify their racial superiority to subjugate the Indian masses.

The British left behind not just their language but also bequeathed to us an academic system that promotes the same biases. Contemporary liberals who see Manu through the same lens are a product of this system. Their want to disassociate themselves from the heritage that belongs to them and their vehement attack on the Manusmriti is means to this larger goal. The vilifying of ancient institutions like the Manusmriti also has a boomerang effect that causes the alienation of our souls even further.

Manu, the author of Manusmriti, is disparaged by these liberals primarily because he gave legal and social sanction to the caste hierarchy. He is said to have established the subservience of the lower castes and women. They do not understand that Manu did not give any new laws. He only codified existing practices. On reading the text, hence, one can find extremely contradictory injunctions. Some of them can be quoted to prove exactly the opposite of what the liberals contend. For eg. While 5.148 says, “By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house” (बाल्या वा युवत्या वा वृद्धया वापि योषिता न स्वातन्त्र्येण कर्तव्यं किम् चिद्कर्यं गृहेष्वपि I ), 5.150 says, “she must always be cheerful, clever in (the management of her) household affairs, careful in cleaning her utensils, and economical in expenditure,” (सदा प्रह्रष्टया भाव्यं गृहकार्ये च ......चमुक्तहस्तया I ) insinuating that she not only must independently manage the household but also astutely handle expenses.

Similarly, while on one hand the Manusmriti states, “One occupation only the Lord has prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes,” (1.91 एकमेव तु शूद्रस्य प्रभुः कर्म समादिशत् एतेषामेव वर्णानां शुश्रूषामनसूयया I ), on the other it has also shown extra consideration for Sudras and has provided that members of the dvija varnas (upper castes) should display unqualified respect to an aged Sudra, even though he may be illiterate. (2. 137….मानार्हः शूद्रोऽपि दशमीं गतः ). The notion is further dispelled by 2.238, “He who possesses faith may receive pure learning even from a man of lower caste, the highest law even from the lowest, and an excellent wife even from a base family. (2.238 श्रद्दधानः शुभाम् विद्यमाददितावरI दपि I अन्यादपि परम् धर्मं स्त्रीरत्नं दुष्कुलादपि I )

Every age has its own social standards and it is unfair to use contemporary yardsticks to judge the past. With this in mind, even a cursory examination of the treatise is enough to show that contrary to what is commonly understood, the Manusmriti is guided by compassion towards all rather than inhuman discrimination. Sir William Jones, in his preface to the first ever English translation of the Manusmriti, says, “A spirit of sublime devotion, of benevolence to mankind, and of amiable tenderness to all sentient creatures, pervades the whole work.”

The present series is an attempt at setting the record straight. It aims at establishing the context to Manusmriti, giving the correct information on Manu and the Manusmriti, at carrying out an objective appraisal of the treatise by removing misgivings about it, and thus at creating a balanced opinion about it. I would however add the caveat that I am no Sanskrit expert and have just some rudimentary knowledge of the language. I will be heavily drawing from the English translation of the Manusmriti by G Buhler. I am grateful to scholars- Dr Bibek Debroy and Ms. Rohini Bakshi, for the enthusiasm with which they welcomed this humble endeavor. They have graciously agreed to be my guide and to vet the translations & interpretations against the original Sanskrit.

*The views of guest authors are their own and do not represent the intent of this blog. Whether I agree or disagree with guest writers, I respect their right to believe what they do, and their right to express their view.