[INDOLOGY] Manusmriti ... (Olivelle, J P)

Sat Oct 31 04:21:01 UTC 2020

Some list members may be interested in knowing the immediate political
context and raison d'être for the original query: the Bharatiya Janta Party
in Tamil Nadu is currently attempting to turn comments on the Manusmriti by
a Dalit activist into a wedge political issue
<https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/thirumavalavan-tamil-nadu-bjp-manusmriti-controversy-6907121/>
during
an election year. This has been well-documented in the press.

With all due respect, Professor Rajam, your query was made *explicitly *in
response to what you called "a severe extremist movement," i.e.
the Viduthaliai Chirsuthaigal Katchi, a Dalit political group. You also
quite clearly characterized such critiques of the Manusmriti as being by
"people who don’t know Sanskrit and who hate Hinduism, brahmins." Critiques
of the Manusmriti, especially by Dalits and feminists, do not constitute
anti-Hindu or anti-Brahmin sentiment, though they may indeed constitute
anti-Brahminical politics. If you have been misinformed in this regard, I
and others on the list will be happy to point you to the relevant sources.
I think you will find that those who want to symbolically burn the
Manusmriti do not want to end its study--quite the opposite--but rather
want something much more simple: to not be killed, raped, spat upon, or
discriminated against by upper castes.

But I suppose one has to believe that caste existed and exists in Tamil
Nadu before one can face the political consequences of it.

Regards,
Tyler W.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:48 PM rajam <rajam at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Dear List Members,
>
> Thank you all who have responded to my query about Manusmriti. I really
> appreciate your help in understanding a passage in Manusmriti. Thank you
> all!
>
>
> Dear Tyler W,
>
> I have not missed reading any of the responses related to my posting about
> Manusmriti.
>
> I am least interested in politicizing any text. My query was naive, just
> wanting to know if there was any reference in Manusmriti to describing
> women as “prostitutes."
>
> [I am 78+ years old; my students and colleagues and friends on this list
> would know whether I am political.
> If only Professor Ludo Rocher is alive today … I would have asked him
> personally about this text. I miss him now more than ever.]
>
> I gave some background information about how this text, Manusmriti, is
> understood positively or negatively, as a reason for my query. That’s it.
>
> Please don’t take it beyond that.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> V.S.Rajam
>
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2020, at 7:23 AM, Tyler Williams <tylerwwilliams at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Diego and Don,
> Thank you for these helpful notes on an important passage. It comes up in
> discussions periodically so these notes will come in handy.
>
> Dear V.S.Rajam,
> It seems you may have missed the aforementioned colleagues’ statements
> that Manu’s position IS misogynist (meaning hatred or disdain for women),
> even if this is unexceptional given the historical context. If you are
> criticizing Dalit rights and women’s rights movements and their critiques
> of the Manusmriti in your post, let me take this opportunity to kindly
> remind you that this is an academic and scholarly forum and as such
> casteism, sexism, and communalism have no place here.
>
> Regards,
> Tyler W
>
> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse any typographical errors or
> formatting-related issues.
>
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 12:55 PM, rajam via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much!!! You can imagine how it trickles down to Tamilnadu,
> especially to people who don’t know Sanskrit and who hate Hinduism,
> brahmins, … and so on. People who hate brahmins use Manusmriti and similar
> texts as their tools in their politics. I wonder how many of them could
> read these original texts in Sanskrit. Depending upon the translations,
> everyone’s understanding and interpretation may vary. It is truly a sad
> scene.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> V.S. Rajam
>
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 12:27 PM, Donald R Davis via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
> The context at the beginning of Chapter 9 is the law or duties between a
> man and wife. However, the misogyny of the text is unmistakeable (though
> hardly out of line with nearly all texts in antiquity) and 9.14-15 seem to
> (mis-)characterize females generally. However, I would add is that
> pauṃścalya here denotes lust or an innate sexual desire for men. While it
> may sometimes refer to a prostitute, the primary meaning of “prostitute”
> (at least in American English) is one who has sex *in exchange for money*.
> Granted, there are other meanings, but the money piece matters, I think,
> because the condemnation in Manu is about women’s temptations and
> attributed inclinations toward adultery, not prostitution in a strict
> sense. The passage is exhorting husbands to control their wives (or, more
> deviously, keep women hyper-occupied, 9.10-12) in order to prevent their
> adultery. It then justifies this control on the false grounds of women’s
> innate lechery, fickleness, and general inconstancy.
>
> The question might be asked whether the English distinction of adultery
> and prostitution maps on precisely and consistently to Sanskrit terms, but
> it would seem important to keep the two distinct at the outset.
>
> Best, Don
>
> Don Davis
> Dept. of Asian Studies
> University of Texas at Austin
>
>
>
>
> *From: *INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of "
> indology at list.indology.info" <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Reply-To: *rajam <rajam at earthlink.net>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 1:54 PM
> *To: *DIEGO LOUKOTA SANCLEMENTE <diegoloukota at ucla.edu>
> *Cc: *"indology at list.indology.info" <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Subject: *Re: [INDOLOGY] Manusmriti ... (Olivelle, J P)
>
> Thank you very much for the explanation!
>
> Could you please also verify if these specific *śloka*s refer to “all
> women” in general or only certain women?
>
> Thanks again,
> V.S. Rajam
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 10:21 AM, DIEGO LOUKOTA SANCLEMENTE via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>
>    Dear all,
>
>    With regard to Manu and "women being prostitutes," and with respect
> and utter admiration for Prof. Olivelle, I would like to suggest that some
>  *śloka*s of the passages already mentioned suggest something beyond a
> simple "need to guard [women] from even the slightest attachment to
> sensual pleasure":
>
>
>
>
>
> *naitā rūpaṃ parīkṣante nāsāṃ vayasi saṃsthitiḥsurūpaṃ vā virūpaṃ vā pumān
> ity eva bhuñjate pauṃścalyāc calacittāc ca naisnehyāc ca
> svabhāvataḥ rakṣitā yatnato 'pīha bhartṛṣv etā vikurvate *
>
>    In Prof. Olivelle's own translation ("they"=women, caps for emphasis
> mine):
>
> "They pay no attention to beauty, they pay no heed to age; whether he is
> good looking or ugly, they make love to him with the single thought, "He's
> a man!" Because of the lechery, fickleness of mind, and hard-heartedness
> that are innate in them, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CAREFULLY GUARDED IN THIS
> WORLD, they become hostile towards their husband"
>
>    I would remark here that although "lechery" is of course entirely
> adequate, *pauṃścalya*>*puṃś-calī* is literally "one who runs after men," idiomatically
> and unequivocally a "prostitute," so perhaps something like "whorishness"
> or "sl at ttiness" may convey more directly the flavour of the Sanskrit word.
>
>
>    On a personal note, I feel the venerable Manu to be, without much
> exegesis or word-bending, pretty antagonistic to a modern feminist agenda,
> which I support.
>
>    *namaskaromi*,
>
>    Diego
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20201030/7c1d2485/attachment.htm>