Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: That Manusmriti thing again [Re: chetangandhi] #15271 - 04/24/02 06:03 AM Edit Reply Quote

You are right Chetan, only the Vedas are considered as Shruti. The M�nava DharmaSHASTRA says already what it is, it's a Sh�stra, which is not Vedic. It is pots-Vedic and certainly after the late-Vedic S�tra period. The Baudh�yana, Aapastamba and Gautama DharmaS�tras are older works on social rules than the M�nava DharmaSh�stra. Vinaire rightly said that these works are on the social plane. But even the DharmaS�tras as we have now are the end-product with earlier S�tra portions and later. Just because someone attached the name Manu to it, doesn't mean that it was composed by and during the first Manu. This work contradicts the Mantra period where the ChaturVarna didn't exist, where women were famous Rshis, like Ap�la, Ghosh� and in the end of that period and the beginning of the Samhit� period when G�rg�, Itar� Katy�yan� and Maitr�yan� were amongst the topmost Vedic Rshis, competing in debates with the best male Rshis like V�jasaneyi Y�jnavalkya. After the Sarasvat� drying up the Vedic period came to an end. This post-Vedic period was very chaotic with a lot of uncertainties in the areas abandoned, but also in the areas beoming crowded, espacially in the Gangetic. Here there must have been a clash between eastern more older Vedic cultures (Gang�-Yamun�) and imported evolved Late-Vedic western cultures (Sindhu-Sarasvat�). This gradually developed into more confusion of older values.