What do you think?
Rate this book
The Laws of Manu
Translated with extracts from seven commentaries. The Sacred Books of the East series, comprising 50 volumes, has translations of key sacred texts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism & Islam. The series was edited by the famous linguist Max Muller, who also produced many of the translations & were the foundational documents for the new discipline known as the comparative science of religions. This volume contains The Laws of Manu.
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 151
89 people are currently reading
1097 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
October 27, 2018
Note: This review is of the original Sanskrit text, and not this translation
Why I Read the Manusmriti
A few months back, there was a debate on Facebook regarding the Manusmriti, the ancient Indian law book which was the basis of Hindu law during the British era, and which substantially influences Hindu attitudes today. Having read parts of it in translation, I minced no words in denouncing it as a toxic document; whereupon a Hindu apologist took it upon himself to denigrate my views, saying that since I had not read the book in the original Sanskrit, I had no business trashing it. He himself claimed to have read it in the original and claimed that it had been misrepresented. Of course he was gaslighting, but I was in no position to call his bluff. So I decided that the only thing would be to read it in the original.
Armed with my high school Sanskrit and a Sanskrit-Malayalam dictionary, I set out to search for an edition of the book with a translation side-by-side. I chanced upon one immediately on the Internet Archive. Further research shows that it is essentially the same as the George Buhler translation (sans commentary) of the so-called Calcutta manuscript with the commentary of Kulluka, considered one of the authoritative texts by many scholars (though its authenticity had been questioned in postmodern times). Whatever be the case, this was the one in circulation since colonial times, so I decided to go with it.
The attempt here is to understand, from the original verses, what Manu said. However, Manu is a mythical character; and one must assume that the text must have been compiled across the ages by various people, as is the case with most ancient Indian texts. So my analysis here focuses on how this compendium of laws have impacted the Indian society, rather than whether it was officially “prescribed”.
The Influence of Manu on Indian Society
Indian society is caste-ridden and patriarchal. And Manusmriti is an instruction manual on how to implement the above. Throughout its verses, two things are reiterated time and again – the superiority of Brahmins versus the inferiority of the “lower” castes, and the total inconsequentiality of women as human beings. Even with all the internal contradictions, these two ideas stand out.
When I started sharing my reading experience on one of the reader’s groups on FB, a section of the members took fierce exception. It was their contention that as a leftist, I was intentionally maligning Hinduism based on a text that no Hindu follows; that the Manusmriti was a straw man of the left to tarnish the lofty ideals of Hinduism. Against this, my argument was simple. No doubt India contains much lofty thought (as laid out in the Upanishads) and the world’s greatest epics; but Indian society was and is one of the most non-egalitarian systems ever implemented in practice. Hardly a day passes without some report about upper-caste atrocities on Dalits (former “untouchables”), for the crime of willing to stand up to their social superiors. And this apparently enjoys the patronage of the Hindu Right.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the feeder organisation of the ruling BJP, was a staunch supporter of Manu’s laws. They vehemently opposed India’s secular constitution when it was implemented, through the organisational mouthpiece, The Organiser, on 30 November, 1949:
The RSS ideologue and the inventor of “Hindutva”, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, was an unashamed apologist for Manu.
So the argument that Hindus do not follow Manusmriti do not hold water. They may not have read the text; but most orthodox ones do follow the caste laws as well as keep the patriarchal attitudes. And for the right-wing, it is the Bible.
Conclusion
The Manusmriti may not be a text that has any religious significance for a Hindu: in fact, it may not have been implemented in full or part any time. But in its hidebound casteism, its atrocious treatment of Dalits and women, it mirrors the mind of modern Indian society in practice. One only needs to scan through any Indian newspaper or one’s FB feed – through the stories of atrocities perpetrated on Dalits and women raped and humiliated – to see the ghost of Manu dancing gleefully on our sacred soil.
It is high time we exorcised it.
---
I have exhaustively reviewed this document on my BLOG. The review is too big to fit here. Interested readers may check it out.
Why I Read the Manusmriti
A few months back, there was a debate on Facebook regarding the Manusmriti, the ancient Indian law book which was the basis of Hindu law during the British era, and which substantially influences Hindu attitudes today. Having read parts of it in translation, I minced no words in denouncing it as a toxic document; whereupon a Hindu apologist took it upon himself to denigrate my views, saying that since I had not read the book in the original Sanskrit, I had no business trashing it. He himself claimed to have read it in the original and claimed that it had been misrepresented. Of course he was gaslighting, but I was in no position to call his bluff. So I decided that the only thing would be to read it in the original.
Armed with my high school Sanskrit and a Sanskrit-Malayalam dictionary, I set out to search for an edition of the book with a translation side-by-side. I chanced upon one immediately on the Internet Archive. Further research shows that it is essentially the same as the George Buhler translation (sans commentary) of the so-called Calcutta manuscript with the commentary of Kulluka, considered one of the authoritative texts by many scholars (though its authenticity had been questioned in postmodern times). Whatever be the case, this was the one in circulation since colonial times, so I decided to go with it.
The attempt here is to understand, from the original verses, what Manu said. However, Manu is a mythical character; and one must assume that the text must have been compiled across the ages by various people, as is the case with most ancient Indian texts. So my analysis here focuses on how this compendium of laws have impacted the Indian society, rather than whether it was officially “prescribed”.
The Influence of Manu on Indian Society
Indian society is caste-ridden and patriarchal. And Manusmriti is an instruction manual on how to implement the above. Throughout its verses, two things are reiterated time and again – the superiority of Brahmins versus the inferiority of the “lower” castes, and the total inconsequentiality of women as human beings. Even with all the internal contradictions, these two ideas stand out.
When I started sharing my reading experience on one of the reader’s groups on FB, a section of the members took fierce exception. It was their contention that as a leftist, I was intentionally maligning Hinduism based on a text that no Hindu follows; that the Manusmriti was a straw man of the left to tarnish the lofty ideals of Hinduism. Against this, my argument was simple. No doubt India contains much lofty thought (as laid out in the Upanishads) and the world’s greatest epics; but Indian society was and is one of the most non-egalitarian systems ever implemented in practice. Hardly a day passes without some report about upper-caste atrocities on Dalits (former “untouchables”), for the crime of willing to stand up to their social superiors. And this apparently enjoys the patronage of the Hindu Right.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the feeder organisation of the ruling BJP, was a staunch supporter of Manu’s laws. They vehemently opposed India’s secular constitution when it was implemented, through the organisational mouthpiece, The Organiser, on 30 November, 1949:
“The worst about the new constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it. The drafters of the constitution have incorporated in it elements of British, American, Canadian, Swiss and sundry other constitutions. But there is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it…in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”
The RSS ideologue and the inventor of “Hindutva”, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, was an unashamed apologist for Manu.
“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law.”
So the argument that Hindus do not follow Manusmriti do not hold water. They may not have read the text; but most orthodox ones do follow the caste laws as well as keep the patriarchal attitudes. And for the right-wing, it is the Bible.
Conclusion
The Manusmriti may not be a text that has any religious significance for a Hindu: in fact, it may not have been implemented in full or part any time. But in its hidebound casteism, its atrocious treatment of Dalits and women, it mirrors the mind of modern Indian society in practice. One only needs to scan through any Indian newspaper or one’s FB feed – through the stories of atrocities perpetrated on Dalits and women raped and humiliated – to see the ghost of Manu dancing gleefully on our sacred soil.
It is high time we exorcised it.
---
I have exhaustively reviewed this document on my BLOG. The review is too big to fit here. Interested readers may check it out.
October 21, 2018
Lousy morality book. This book is symbol of 90 percent what is wrong in Hinduism - treating women as property, lower castes as born-to-slaves and worse, and Brahmins as god's.
June 20, 2019
Like Kamasutra, Manu Smriti is probably the most misunderstood and misinterpreted book. Kamasutra is not a sex manual on sexual positions and Manu Smriti or the Manava Dharmashastra is not a caste enchiridion. But unlike Kamasutra, it is the most hated and vilified book in ancient Indian literature. Kamasutra is a study of the art of living with love and desire(kama). It writes about the 4 main human pursuits, methods of courtship, training in the arts, how to approach and find a partner, nature of love, marriage, widowhood. All in all, a manual of human life.
Manu Smriti is similar. A manual of social life. A societal codified study of the time it was written in. But unfortunately, it has become the mouthpiece of political ideologues for their own motives. Now, why is it hated so much? And how is this particular translation by Wendy Doniger?
I, for one, would never gloss over the substandard portions of the book and try to portray it as some form of a revealed book that has to be worshipped and venerated for eternity. Does this book contain portions not acceptable to the modern society? Most definitely yes, just like any other book of its time. Like, readers claim that they're happy to be not born in the time of Manu smriti. Well, we all are, like we all should be. The people at the time of Manu should be happy to be not born in the century before or even more so, millennia before. By that time, people could practise agriculture, there was surplus, less people died of hunger, and by being caught by wild animals, they knew how to make houses of bricks, had better medicines. Society was better. Much better.
But, even at the time, when many people around the world were largely hunter gatherers, Indians were living in a society. A full functioning society with infrastructure like proper drainage system, floored houses of bricks and mortar, cattle farming etc. So, where am I going with this? Being a student of sociology, I can't look at this book other than a window to the past to understand the society that is dynamic and ever changing.
Manu Smriti is a treatise on the functioning of a proper society. And how do you make a functioning society? Through rules. How do you discipline your child? Yes, you got it right, through rules. But do you, as a parent make mistakes? Every parent does and that helps him to better himself. The book talks about the rules of respecting our seniors, how to refrain from physical/ personal assaults, importance of rearing a child in a functioning society, arranged marriages, purification after death, Dharma of men and women, duties of husband and wife.
First, the negatives:
It's claimed that it gives validity to the caste system. Well, this happens to a person when he's not educated in his own Hindu Shastras and thinks actual education lies in his school textbooks. Now, it's not his fault but allow me to explain. The only books to claim any authority on Hinduism are Shrutis. Any king can rise up and make codes for his kingdom, and call it a Smriti. It doesn't give it a religious backing. They can be accepted or rejected as per choice. Also, it is a varna system which is explained clearly in the Manu Laws written by Patrick Olivelle, the only other book in English I've read.
Then, it's argued that people follow caste system because of Manu smriti. Well, manu was lying in his dusted cupboard until British took it our for their political reasons. But I don't say that it teaches us to practise equality. No, he does mention some objectionable things, that every sane person should reject, like we have been doing it for more than 2000 years. Yes, he does mention caste system, rather varna system,but it had been mentioned in texts before his time. Did Newton invent gravity? No, it existed before, he discovered and wrote about it.
Now, people say that they have read the book in Sanskrit and got the full understanding because? They know Sanskrit? No. They've got a Sanskrit-English dictionary.
"Hey you Hindu monkey-worshipper, why do you have 33 crore Gods?"
"Umm, we don't actually."
"But I have a Sanskrit-English dictionary. Doesn't 33 koti mean 33 crores."
"Yes, it does. But actually, it means 33 types. Different contexts, different meanings."
"But I have a dictionary!"
"That's good, but it really doesn't."
You get my point. This same mistake is committed by Wendy Doniger as well.
One of the best philosophers ever, Nietzsche claims Manu Smriti to be the highest art of living. He goes on to say, that it is of an incomparable spiritual and superior work. I don't agree with him, though. He says that the position of women is better off than that in any other work of it time anywhere. But Wendy pulls out a quote from verses dedicated to ascetics-sanyasins who have renounced the material life here on Earth and claims the book's misogynistic. These verses are for ascetics to tell them that attraction towards opposite sex is indeed the biggest of illusions.
The fact that 100s of verses she has to misquote from such chapters show the bias and stupidity of this writer. And this is just one of the many. People ask the Hindus to denounce it completely because crimes are committed in the name of Manu. Are crimes committed? yes. Is it deplorable? Definitely. But the funny thing is the educated people who have heard about Manu are non-casteist, which is totally different from varna in Manu Smriti, and the people in uneducated rural areas that do, have never heard of him.
But do we denounce Quran because of its flaws? or Bible? No. We just ignore it. So let the book lie undisturbed on the library shelves so that those who are interested in ancient Indian literature can study it in peace.
Now, the positives:
It talks against dowry. Yeah, surprising, right? And the importance of a girl child, as opposed to be believed and practised in some parts. Also, it has been shown in negative light by Wendy Doniger. Reason, she knows best. But it is mentioned in the Manu Laws written by Patrick Olivelle.
Equal inheritence to women, again not mentioned in this book but mentioned in the other one.
Vedic rituals to be performed by women as well (both husband and wife). This again, as expected, doesn't see light in this translation.
The goverment protection to widows, children and handicaps.
A wife to be given control of running the household and distribution of the finance.
One should renounce artha (money) and kama (pleasure) if it is in conflict with Dharma (duty). A negative by hedonist standard, but as a functional sociologist, I'd keep it in this list.
TL;DR:
It is book for the understanding of society and its laws since no society functions without laws Like every book of its time it has its good and bad. But bad is grossly exaggerated in popular perception.
This particular book is very biased as she refutes Nietzsche, and other great philosophers influenced by it like Hegel, Schopenhauer, Schegel etc. But then she claimed that Sita called Rama a pig, so her credibility can be invalidated unless you are as ideologically possessed as her.
Better, pick up the book Manu Smriti by Patrick Olivelle, an extremely knowledgeable person in philosopy, sociology, history alike. Thank me later.
Manu Smriti is similar. A manual of social life. A societal codified study of the time it was written in. But unfortunately, it has become the mouthpiece of political ideologues for their own motives. Now, why is it hated so much? And how is this particular translation by Wendy Doniger?
I, for one, would never gloss over the substandard portions of the book and try to portray it as some form of a revealed book that has to be worshipped and venerated for eternity. Does this book contain portions not acceptable to the modern society? Most definitely yes, just like any other book of its time. Like, readers claim that they're happy to be not born in the time of Manu smriti. Well, we all are, like we all should be. The people at the time of Manu should be happy to be not born in the century before or even more so, millennia before. By that time, people could practise agriculture, there was surplus, less people died of hunger, and by being caught by wild animals, they knew how to make houses of bricks, had better medicines. Society was better. Much better.
But, even at the time, when many people around the world were largely hunter gatherers, Indians were living in a society. A full functioning society with infrastructure like proper drainage system, floored houses of bricks and mortar, cattle farming etc. So, where am I going with this? Being a student of sociology, I can't look at this book other than a window to the past to understand the society that is dynamic and ever changing.
Manu Smriti is a treatise on the functioning of a proper society. And how do you make a functioning society? Through rules. How do you discipline your child? Yes, you got it right, through rules. But do you, as a parent make mistakes? Every parent does and that helps him to better himself. The book talks about the rules of respecting our seniors, how to refrain from physical/ personal assaults, importance of rearing a child in a functioning society, arranged marriages, purification after death, Dharma of men and women, duties of husband and wife.
First, the negatives:
It's claimed that it gives validity to the caste system. Well, this happens to a person when he's not educated in his own Hindu Shastras and thinks actual education lies in his school textbooks. Now, it's not his fault but allow me to explain. The only books to claim any authority on Hinduism are Shrutis. Any king can rise up and make codes for his kingdom, and call it a Smriti. It doesn't give it a religious backing. They can be accepted or rejected as per choice. Also, it is a varna system which is explained clearly in the Manu Laws written by Patrick Olivelle, the only other book in English I've read.
Then, it's argued that people follow caste system because of Manu smriti. Well, manu was lying in his dusted cupboard until British took it our for their political reasons. But I don't say that it teaches us to practise equality. No, he does mention some objectionable things, that every sane person should reject, like we have been doing it for more than 2000 years. Yes, he does mention caste system, rather varna system,but it had been mentioned in texts before his time. Did Newton invent gravity? No, it existed before, he discovered and wrote about it.
Now, people say that they have read the book in Sanskrit and got the full understanding because? They know Sanskrit? No. They've got a Sanskrit-English dictionary.
"Hey you Hindu monkey-worshipper, why do you have 33 crore Gods?"
"Umm, we don't actually."
"But I have a Sanskrit-English dictionary. Doesn't 33 koti mean 33 crores."
"Yes, it does. But actually, it means 33 types. Different contexts, different meanings."
"But I have a dictionary!"
"That's good, but it really doesn't."
You get my point. This same mistake is committed by Wendy Doniger as well.
One of the best philosophers ever, Nietzsche claims Manu Smriti to be the highest art of living. He goes on to say, that it is of an incomparable spiritual and superior work. I don't agree with him, though. He says that the position of women is better off than that in any other work of it time anywhere. But Wendy pulls out a quote from verses dedicated to ascetics-sanyasins who have renounced the material life here on Earth and claims the book's misogynistic. These verses are for ascetics to tell them that attraction towards opposite sex is indeed the biggest of illusions.
The fact that 100s of verses she has to misquote from such chapters show the bias and stupidity of this writer. And this is just one of the many. People ask the Hindus to denounce it completely because crimes are committed in the name of Manu. Are crimes committed? yes. Is it deplorable? Definitely. But the funny thing is the educated people who have heard about Manu are non-casteist, which is totally different from varna in Manu Smriti, and the people in uneducated rural areas that do, have never heard of him.
But do we denounce Quran because of its flaws? or Bible? No. We just ignore it. So let the book lie undisturbed on the library shelves so that those who are interested in ancient Indian literature can study it in peace.
Now, the positives:
It talks against dowry. Yeah, surprising, right? And the importance of a girl child, as opposed to be believed and practised in some parts. Also, it has been shown in negative light by Wendy Doniger. Reason, she knows best. But it is mentioned in the Manu Laws written by Patrick Olivelle.
Equal inheritence to women, again not mentioned in this book but mentioned in the other one.
Vedic rituals to be performed by women as well (both husband and wife). This again, as expected, doesn't see light in this translation.
The goverment protection to widows, children and handicaps.
A wife to be given control of running the household and distribution of the finance.
One should renounce artha (money) and kama (pleasure) if it is in conflict with Dharma (duty). A negative by hedonist standard, but as a functional sociologist, I'd keep it in this list.
TL;DR:
It is book for the understanding of society and its laws since no society functions without laws Like every book of its time it has its good and bad. But bad is grossly exaggerated in popular perception.
This particular book is very biased as she refutes Nietzsche, and other great philosophers influenced by it like Hegel, Schopenhauer, Schegel etc. But then she claimed that Sita called Rama a pig, so her credibility can be invalidated unless you are as ideologically possessed as her.
Better, pick up the book Manu Smriti by Patrick Olivelle, an extremely knowledgeable person in philosopy, sociology, history alike. Thank me later.
July 13, 2016
How does one review this? Core text of the reactionary canon, if such a canon were to exist. The reasons why people despise it are all in here. Its mysogonistic, casteist, classist, and other epithets. Or if you were more sympathetic you might say it is realistic, hierarchical, promotes tradition and order. Value judgements aside, it is a great look into the perspective of a premodern type of Man unsullied by modern notions of egalitarianism, materialism, economic reductionism, and other european enlightenment gems. This is more in line with the Illiad or the Old Tesetament, or the Quran or or the bulk of the Mahabharata than it is with the poems of Basavana, the Tamil Bhakts, the words of Rumi, or even the Gita or the words of Buddha. It is a text supporting the warrior morality and the supremacy of the pure, not a text of devotion. Similarly, it is not a text in which a God of abstract rationalized justice plays any role. It is a text promoting harmony with the natural order and in this sense it is also closer to Tao Te Ching, or the Rig Veda than it is to the Puranas or the New Testament. It is also a very plain, straightforward legal text, not a work of obscure philosophy, and is therefore more similar to the Sharia expounding Hadiths, than it is to the Upanishads. That should be enough controversial comparisons for the moment. As despicable as the strict caste order might seem to the modern and modern minded interpreter, if you read this you'll understand why its promoters thought it would be ideal.
I also think this edition is particularly good. A lot of people (Hindus) have a problem with it merely because Wendy Doniger is the translator, so take that into account I suppose. She has made an effort to leave no word untranslated. This usually works well but has some annoying byproducts, because some Sanskrit words (like names for different types of punishments or caste ranks) are merely names which are only loosely connected to their etymological roots. The footnotes are also quite nicely done, and there is a worthy introductory essay on the view which this translation is premised upon.
I also think this edition is particularly good. A lot of people (Hindus) have a problem with it merely because Wendy Doniger is the translator, so take that into account I suppose. She has made an effort to leave no word untranslated. This usually works well but has some annoying byproducts, because some Sanskrit words (like names for different types of punishments or caste ranks) are merely names which are only loosely connected to their etymological roots. The footnotes are also quite nicely done, and there is a worthy introductory essay on the view which this translation is premised upon.
April 26, 2010
I approached Manu's Dharmashastra with historical curiosity, braced for a tough read, but I was delightfully surprised to learn what an engaging, beautiful, and fascinating text this is. In twelve chapters the mythical author Manu describes the nature of the well-ordered society and focuses on the role of the Brahmin within it.
The Indologist Richard Gombrich describes "Dharma", awkwardly rendered by Olivelle as "Law", as corresponding to the medieval European concept of "Nature". Both terms undermine the normative/descriptive distinction; in this text's primary usage "Dharma" refers both to the essential nature of things and the way things ought to be.
Manu is an archetypal figure in Indian religious thought going back to the Rig Veda. His function is the founder of the civilization and bestower of its organizing patterns of behavior. In this work he describes prototypical forms of life that the Brahmim should follow, nominally based on the Vedas, which are themselves considered to be architectonic of the coherent structure of the cosmos.
The male Brahmin's life is presented in four life-stages, each with its attendant duties and obligations. The first stage is the student, in which the Brahmin learns the rites of recitation and sacrifice under the tutelage of the guru. The second is the householder, in which the Brahmin raises and safeguards the family. When the Brahmin becomes gray and sees his grandchildren, he enters the third stage and is to retire to the forest to undertake austerities, yoga, and meditation. In the fourth stage, the Brahmin takes up the life of the wandering ascetic, He is to complete his mastery of subduing the impulses of his biological and individual psychological character, and through disidentification with the individual self he prepares for death and for union with Brahman, the divine principle.
The Manava Dharmashastra's studious disinterest in the individual will or character is emphatically expressed on every page of this treatise, which views the personality as something to be subdued, first in deference to social patterns and norms exemplified by the caste system and various social duties and obligations following therefrom, and then in service of religious practices which require the absolute abnegation of the individual ego and submersion in the generalized field of awareness and Being. At no time is the slightest value placed on the individual discernment, judgment, or discrimination.
If the male Brahmin is subordinate to the dictates of the patterns laid out in this treatise, the lot of women and the lower castes, particularly the Sudras, is starker. The duty of women according to Manu is to serve the family, to obey the husband, and, when the husband is not available, to obey the eldest son. The joyous and assiduous undertaking of household chores and obedience to men is the path by which Brahmin women fulfill their Dharma. In the next life they may be reborn in a higher station.
Likewise the lower castes and especially the Sudras are regarded as properly servile and impure by nature. Through the uncomplaining acceptance of their lot they too may fulfill their Dharma and ascend higher in the next life.
The legacy of the Manava Dharmashastra in legitimating oppressive conditions for women and Sudras casts a long shadow, and little can be said in defense of this repugnant vision except to submit that in contrast to contemporaneous social codes written around the same time, the Dharmashastra is not as horrid as most. Compared to the Code of Hammurabi or Leviticus (both written substantially earlier, granted) the Dharmashastra is relatively progressive in its views.
It should also be noted that if one accepts the metaphysical worldview of this book, with its essentialist characterization of social orders determined by a retributive series of rebirths determined by the moral character of action, then its views on women and lower castes make logical sense. Indeed, the views of the book as a whole are governed by a ruthless logic that follows clearly and directly from its mechanistic metaphysics.
The second half of the book lays out in detail various aspects of rule such as appropriate grounds for litigation, civil penalties, criminal law, the structure and nature of good governance, et cetera. This book predictably emphasizes the deference that must be paid to the Brahmins. Indeed it has been conjected partly on the basis of this material that the book was written as an argument for the dominance of Brahmins over the Ksatriyas warrior elite caste, who might have had their own views about who was truly at the top of the social hierarchy.
This book was excellently translated and rendered by Patrick Olivelle on the basis of his meticulously compiled critical edition of the Sanskrit text. I admit I found his translation of the principle Upanisads somewhat wooden in style and approached this work with a certain trepidation, but fortunately Olivelle outdid himself in this marvelous work. It is cogent, readable, and fascinating, with useful annotations and glossaries.
It would be hard to overstate the value of this text in understanding the late Classical Indian religious idiom, particularly with respect to Brahminism. Most of the religious texts that continue to receive attention from that age are addressed to renunciates, and it's very interesting to see how such a worldview was interpreted by people who were dedicated to living within a society. One of the most interesting aspects of the book is the strategies it employs to reconcile the dictates of that renunciate and deeply-pessimistic religious culture with an affirmation of the values of society and the necessity of living within it. The compromise that is reached is expressed as fulfilling different sets of obligations at different stages of life. That may occur as an interesting couter-position to the views expressed by the renunciate Vedanta or Raja-Yoga traditions.
The Indologist Richard Gombrich describes "Dharma", awkwardly rendered by Olivelle as "Law", as corresponding to the medieval European concept of "Nature". Both terms undermine the normative/descriptive distinction; in this text's primary usage "Dharma" refers both to the essential nature of things and the way things ought to be.
Manu is an archetypal figure in Indian religious thought going back to the Rig Veda. His function is the founder of the civilization and bestower of its organizing patterns of behavior. In this work he describes prototypical forms of life that the Brahmim should follow, nominally based on the Vedas, which are themselves considered to be architectonic of the coherent structure of the cosmos.
The male Brahmin's life is presented in four life-stages, each with its attendant duties and obligations. The first stage is the student, in which the Brahmin learns the rites of recitation and sacrifice under the tutelage of the guru. The second is the householder, in which the Brahmin raises and safeguards the family. When the Brahmin becomes gray and sees his grandchildren, he enters the third stage and is to retire to the forest to undertake austerities, yoga, and meditation. In the fourth stage, the Brahmin takes up the life of the wandering ascetic, He is to complete his mastery of subduing the impulses of his biological and individual psychological character, and through disidentification with the individual self he prepares for death and for union with Brahman, the divine principle.
The Manava Dharmashastra's studious disinterest in the individual will or character is emphatically expressed on every page of this treatise, which views the personality as something to be subdued, first in deference to social patterns and norms exemplified by the caste system and various social duties and obligations following therefrom, and then in service of religious practices which require the absolute abnegation of the individual ego and submersion in the generalized field of awareness and Being. At no time is the slightest value placed on the individual discernment, judgment, or discrimination.
If the male Brahmin is subordinate to the dictates of the patterns laid out in this treatise, the lot of women and the lower castes, particularly the Sudras, is starker. The duty of women according to Manu is to serve the family, to obey the husband, and, when the husband is not available, to obey the eldest son. The joyous and assiduous undertaking of household chores and obedience to men is the path by which Brahmin women fulfill their Dharma. In the next life they may be reborn in a higher station.
Likewise the lower castes and especially the Sudras are regarded as properly servile and impure by nature. Through the uncomplaining acceptance of their lot they too may fulfill their Dharma and ascend higher in the next life.
The legacy of the Manava Dharmashastra in legitimating oppressive conditions for women and Sudras casts a long shadow, and little can be said in defense of this repugnant vision except to submit that in contrast to contemporaneous social codes written around the same time, the Dharmashastra is not as horrid as most. Compared to the Code of Hammurabi or Leviticus (both written substantially earlier, granted) the Dharmashastra is relatively progressive in its views.
It should also be noted that if one accepts the metaphysical worldview of this book, with its essentialist characterization of social orders determined by a retributive series of rebirths determined by the moral character of action, then its views on women and lower castes make logical sense. Indeed, the views of the book as a whole are governed by a ruthless logic that follows clearly and directly from its mechanistic metaphysics.
The second half of the book lays out in detail various aspects of rule such as appropriate grounds for litigation, civil penalties, criminal law, the structure and nature of good governance, et cetera. This book predictably emphasizes the deference that must be paid to the Brahmins. Indeed it has been conjected partly on the basis of this material that the book was written as an argument for the dominance of Brahmins over the Ksatriyas warrior elite caste, who might have had their own views about who was truly at the top of the social hierarchy.
This book was excellently translated and rendered by Patrick Olivelle on the basis of his meticulously compiled critical edition of the Sanskrit text. I admit I found his translation of the principle Upanisads somewhat wooden in style and approached this work with a certain trepidation, but fortunately Olivelle outdid himself in this marvelous work. It is cogent, readable, and fascinating, with useful annotations and glossaries.
It would be hard to overstate the value of this text in understanding the late Classical Indian religious idiom, particularly with respect to Brahminism. Most of the religious texts that continue to receive attention from that age are addressed to renunciates, and it's very interesting to see how such a worldview was interpreted by people who were dedicated to living within a society. One of the most interesting aspects of the book is the strategies it employs to reconcile the dictates of that renunciate and deeply-pessimistic religious culture with an affirmation of the values of society and the necessity of living within it. The compromise that is reached is expressed as fulfilling different sets of obligations at different stages of life. That may occur as an interesting couter-position to the views expressed by the renunciate Vedanta or Raja-Yoga traditions.
Read
January 29, 2024Good translation
January 5, 2019
Ancient Vedic law code outlining punishments, the caste system, social conventions, rules for kings and the various castes, etc. for all members of society.
It is interesting, and somewhat resembles a society run by Nietzsche's "aristocratic morality" in the "Genealogy of Morals;" however, it is important to realize that he had in mind Homeric times, so things are a bit different in that respect. Julius Evola (a modern very right-wing thinker) also looked in some ways to these types of laws as an ideal.
Rather boring after a while, but historically important.
It is interesting, and somewhat resembles a society run by Nietzsche's "aristocratic morality" in the "Genealogy of Morals;" however, it is important to realize that he had in mind Homeric times, so things are a bit different in that respect. Julius Evola (a modern very right-wing thinker) also looked in some ways to these types of laws as an ideal.
Rather boring after a while, but historically important.
Read
August 19, 2014One of the most "Pathetic" book I have ever read.
September 17, 2025
Penguin Edition, tr. Wendy Doniger
The translation was excellent and lacked nothing. Many interesting terms were glossed in transliteration as a footnote (e.g. antyāvasāyin 'one who approaches the very bottom', which is the most wretched kind of Untouchable). 4 out of 5, however (and as usual), because the introduction was wearyingly long and not worth the read.
Here is a very metal line from book 11, which deals with the extremely unlawful act of striking a priest or "Brahmin":
शोणितं यावतः पांसून् संगृह्वाति महीतले तावन्त्यब्दसहस्राणि तत्कर्ता नरके वसेत् ॥
However many specks of dust the [spilt] blood congeals on the ground,
let the doer of this deed dwell for soever many thousand years in hell.
The translation was excellent and lacked nothing. Many interesting terms were glossed in transliteration as a footnote (e.g. antyāvasāyin 'one who approaches the very bottom', which is the most wretched kind of Untouchable). 4 out of 5, however (and as usual), because the introduction was wearyingly long and not worth the read.
Here is a very metal line from book 11, which deals with the extremely unlawful act of striking a priest or "Brahmin":
शोणितं यावतः पांसून् संगृह्वाति महीतले तावन्त्यब्दसहस्राणि तत्कर्ता नरके वसेत् ॥
However many specks of dust the [spilt] blood congeals on the ground,
let the doer of this deed dwell for soever many thousand years in hell.
May 9, 2021
Though there are some insightful things in the book about how to lead a life for Brahmin and Kshatriya men along with a comprehensive penal code for the time. And the book does constantly ask one to be forgiving and kind and follow dharma.
But the way it writes about women and Shudras is really despicable. Reading it does help to explain the hypocritical nature of Indian society quite a bit. Just for one instance, the things a Shudra does are identified as things that a Brahmin must never do, unless in case of an extremity when he is starving to death. While it does not permit Shudras to do things which are above them in caste hierarchy. So, what other reason is for the Shudra to do his actions except for not starving to death? And then the book defiles them for doing the things they do, failing to understand its own dichotomy.
At the end, it gives Brahmins leeway in terms of vows they have to commit to if they do something evil, thereby damning society itself to the state it has reached.
If a shudra kills a woman, he has to die, whereas if a Brahmin kills a woman he has to pay the fine of a leather bag. It was only a matter of time before a society like this would get corrupted, however much you might emphasize on forgiveness.
But the way it writes about women and Shudras is really despicable. Reading it does help to explain the hypocritical nature of Indian society quite a bit. Just for one instance, the things a Shudra does are identified as things that a Brahmin must never do, unless in case of an extremity when he is starving to death. While it does not permit Shudras to do things which are above them in caste hierarchy. So, what other reason is for the Shudra to do his actions except for not starving to death? And then the book defiles them for doing the things they do, failing to understand its own dichotomy.
At the end, it gives Brahmins leeway in terms of vows they have to commit to if they do something evil, thereby damning society itself to the state it has reached.
If a shudra kills a woman, he has to die, whereas if a Brahmin kills a woman he has to pay the fine of a leather bag. It was only a matter of time before a society like this would get corrupted, however much you might emphasize on forgiveness.
September 10, 2017
A Hindu Leviticus, the translation very unmanageable for the lay reader; read as part of the LOST book club.
September 11, 2024
i have no words for the problems with these laws
Read
October 13, 2024Good translation, morally compromising content
July 28, 2022
Plato and boys would probably be over the moon like Nietzsche was if they could read parts of this.
December 25, 2019
I gave the 5 star for the translation and for the historical importance. someone shouldn't read the book because of the star rating.
manusmriti is the set of laws to be followed by the ancient Hindus. It portrays the early indian life. Our ancestors have followed different lifestyles those are known to us and unknown to us. If their lifestyle doesn't affect us on what we are now, i would take it as just a historical text book. But clearly it is not.
Even now the modified version of these laws are practiced so we cant deny the influence of it in current society. This laws might have pulled the growth of India at least 1000 years. But what else you expect other than highly misogynistic, cast ridden statements from a religious text book.
I was wondered the way they treat shudras from the other casts by claiming upper 3 classes are twice-born and shudras don't deserve to be treated that way. I would say the strict laws might have hindered the growth of those who in the brahmin community. They had to waste 80% of their life to live as per manu. No wonder they didn't get chance to understand the discrimination.
And it is interesting to see that even brahmins used to eat meat. The so called cow- protectors should read this first. At least this book will be useful for those who face the atrocities.
manusmriti is the set of laws to be followed by the ancient Hindus. It portrays the early indian life. Our ancestors have followed different lifestyles those are known to us and unknown to us. If their lifestyle doesn't affect us on what we are now, i would take it as just a historical text book. But clearly it is not.
Even now the modified version of these laws are practiced so we cant deny the influence of it in current society. This laws might have pulled the growth of India at least 1000 years. But what else you expect other than highly misogynistic, cast ridden statements from a religious text book.
I was wondered the way they treat shudras from the other casts by claiming upper 3 classes are twice-born and shudras don't deserve to be treated that way. I would say the strict laws might have hindered the growth of those who in the brahmin community. They had to waste 80% of their life to live as per manu. No wonder they didn't get chance to understand the discrimination.
And it is interesting to see that even brahmins used to eat meat. The so called cow- protectors should read this first. At least this book will be useful for those who face the atrocities.
February 4, 2019
Absolutely fascinating. Obviously my rating is not because I necessarily like the content, but the translation, introduction and notes were really great, and I thoroughly enjoyed getting to grips with an important part of the Hindu canon. It was interesting seeing all the rules and ideas around karma, caste, sacrifice, gender and justice, roles of kings and priests, the killing and eating of animals. Also interesting to explore the internal tensions, conflicting points of view, ancient bigoted rigidity and a kind of openness sitting side by side sometimes.
My favourite verse: 'He should not give honour, even with mere words, to heretics, people who persist in wrong actions, people who act like cats, hypocrites, rationalists, and people who live like herons'. :-)
My favourite verse: 'He should not give honour, even with mere words, to heretics, people who persist in wrong actions, people who act like cats, hypocrites, rationalists, and people who live like herons'. :-)
September 28, 2010
Provides modern day readers in the west with a means of understanding Indian society after the Vedic period, as the people of the subcontinent began to urbanize and class distinctions developed. Perhaps most interesting are the Laws' judgments regarding sexuality and gender - not quite sexist, it appears as though those in the east had much more respect for women when compared to their Greek counterparts.
March 18, 2019
Other than a few spelling mistakes, the book is very well worded. It effectively highlights the culture and lifestyle of our ancestors. Great book for an anthropologist interested in ancient Hindu culture.
February 7, 2025
Maybe one of the most boring books I've ever read, but I don't imagine anyone ever reading this for enjoyment. It's essentially a rule book on how to adhere to dharma in Hinduism, written during the time of ancient India. It's interesting in that the book was written by brahmans, the highest caste in Hindu society, so one can notice how the rules are incredibly lenient on them, even favoring them at times. Whether these rules were truly followed is up for debate.
I think reading this book for understanding casteism, or simply how basic Hindu principles influence modern India, is not the best decision. Sure, the book offers insights into the innerworkings of caste, but B.R. Ambedkar's critique of casteism and Gandhian philosophy in Annihilation of Caste offers much deeper and relevant insight.
I think reading this book for understanding casteism, or simply how basic Hindu principles influence modern India, is not the best decision. Sure, the book offers insights into the innerworkings of caste, but B.R. Ambedkar's critique of casteism and Gandhian philosophy in Annihilation of Caste offers much deeper and relevant insight.
January 28, 2024
This is my second time trying to fully read this and I just keep stopping to question translations, origins of thoughts, and what historical context I may be missing that could potentially help me better understand this text. ❓
In comparison to the Vedas or Upanishads or even the Bhagavad Gita, I find the Laws of Manu to be overly prescriptive in a way that I don't associate with Sanatan Dharma. I think it's some kind of strange amalgamation of imperialist and colonizer rhetoric that I have no intention of following. 🚫
Note: This is just my belief. I'm not recommending this book be read or not read. As is the way of Sanatan Dharma...follow your own path, whatever you choose that path to be. 🙏🏽
In comparison to the Vedas or Upanishads or even the Bhagavad Gita, I find the Laws of Manu to be overly prescriptive in a way that I don't associate with Sanatan Dharma. I think it's some kind of strange amalgamation of imperialist and colonizer rhetoric that I have no intention of following. 🚫
Note: This is just my belief. I'm not recommending this book be read or not read. As is the way of Sanatan Dharma...follow your own path, whatever you choose that path to be. 🙏🏽
November 3, 2025
The detailed, exhaustive Notes on translation and the Bibliography point to extensive research by the authors and the painstaking efforts to provide context to an ancient discourse.
It is always imprudent and impossible to view historical documents and societal norms through the prism of where we stand today. However, as is starting to happen with increasing frequency now, diehards are (mis)interpreting 'laws' laid down for governance and functioning of societies at the time to suit their selective narrative today. Patriarchy, (mis)treatment of humans and treating women as chattel can never be acceptable.
As has often been said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
It is always imprudent and impossible to view historical documents and societal norms through the prism of where we stand today. However, as is starting to happen with increasing frequency now, diehards are (mis)interpreting 'laws' laid down for governance and functioning of societies at the time to suit their selective narrative today. Patriarchy, (mis)treatment of humans and treating women as chattel can never be acceptable.
As has often been said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
January 19, 2024
I now understand why the British employed the 'Divide and Rule' policy in India; it was remarkably straightforward. India was already divided, and they simply exacerbated it, all thanks to this lamentable book. How can a person in their right mind follow someone like Manu? He is a terrible leader and a deplorable teacher. The book promotes nothing but discrimination among humans, be it in education, jobs, marriage, punishments, or worship—all based on the 'class' a person is born into. Everything is predestined according to birth, regardless of the individual's qualities. What a dreadful book. 0.01 out of 5 stars.
September 15, 2020
Vastuoluline, eri aegadel, pika aja jooksul valminud muistne ettekirjutus elu äraelamiseks moraalselt ja vastuoludeta.
Nagu kaasajalgi ei suuda seadused ära kirjeldada kõiki elujuhtumeid, nii ka Manu pärimuses.
Mõneti kasulik moraalse kompassi seadmiseks. Kasulikum muistse maailmavaate mõistmisel ja veel kasulikum mõistmaks kui vähe on inimloomus tuhandete aastate jooksul muutunud. Hinduistlik, budistlik ringleva ratta (ehk pideva korduse) metafoor on tabav kujund inimkonna iseloomustamiseks.
Nagu kaasajalgi ei suuda seadused ära kirjeldada kõiki elujuhtumeid, nii ka Manu pärimuses.
Mõneti kasulik moraalse kompassi seadmiseks. Kasulikum muistse maailmavaate mõistmisel ja veel kasulikum mõistmaks kui vähe on inimloomus tuhandete aastate jooksul muutunud. Hinduistlik, budistlik ringleva ratta (ehk pideva korduse) metafoor on tabav kujund inimkonna iseloomustamiseks.
November 11, 2023
Want an antidote to Western egalitarianism and liberalism? Nietzsche called the laws of Manu "the perfect guide for any society". This explanation and justification of the Indian caste system is heavy on personal cleanliness, vegetarianism, and keeping yourself and your caste pure. We moderns may recoil, but THE LAWS OF MANU have kept Hindu civilization intact for over 5,000 years, overwhelming all of India's conquerors. Special section: How to prepare veggies for Brahmins.
May 9, 2021
Interesting. I've said this about a lot of older texts that have historical and cultural signficance, but I'll repeat it. To get the most out of reading this book, I think you need to read it in context and find some other scholarly work to help you appreciate exactly what significance this book has.
July 24, 2017
A Historical evidence but hard to find
August 26, 2018
Interesting and a simple read. This book made me angry about the present existence of the caste system! Why does India still follow the caste system, the archaic laws of society?
December 24, 2021
Well articulated analysis of the text by Doniger. Great insight
to-keep-reference
September 4, 2018En otras palabras, la gran lección de "The Laws of Manu" es que el verdadero poder regulador de la ley no se encuentra en sus prohibiciones directas, en la división de nuestros actos entre lo permitido y lo prohibido, sino en la regulación de las mismas violaciones de las prohibiciones: la ley silenciosamente acepta que las prohibiciones básicas son violadas (o, incluso, discretamente nos solicita que las violemos), y entonces, una vez que nos encontramos nosotros mismos en una posición de culpa, nos dice cómo reconciliar la violación de la ley violando la prohibición de una manera regulada.
Viviendo en el Final de los Tiempos Pág.32
...an ancient Hindu treatise on how young Brahmin men should live, was even more negative about women: “It is the very nature of women to corrupt men here on earth.”
The Happiness Hypothesis Pág.128
Viviendo en el Final de los Tiempos Pág.32
...an ancient Hindu treatise on how young Brahmin men should live, was even more negative about women: “It is the very nature of women to corrupt men here on earth.”
The Happiness Hypothesis Pág.128
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews