Manusmṛti
⚠️ Content warning
- Language:
- English
- Translation:
- Georg Bühler
- Status:
- Complete work
- Authorship:
- Attributed (authorship debated)
- Condition of the text:
- Some scanning errors (automatic measure over the whole text, not checked by hand) · 23 illegible passages, excluded from answers
- Extent:
- ~240,000 words · 1,144 passages
Cite this work
- APALaws of Manu. (n.d.). The Laws of Manu (Manusmriti, SBE vol. XXV) [Manusmṛti] (Georg Bühler, Trans.). Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/laws-of-manu/the-laws-of-manu-manusmriti-sbe-vol-xxv
- MLALaws of Manu. The Laws of Manu (Manusmriti, SBE vol. XXV) [Manusmṛti]. Translated by Georg Bühler. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/laws-of-manu/the-laws-of-manu-manusmriti-sbe-vol-xxv.
- ChicagoLaws of Manu. The Laws of Manu (Manusmriti, SBE vol. XXV) [Manusmṛti]. Translated by Georg Bühler. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/laws-of-manu/the-laws-of-manu-manusmriti-sbe-vol-xxv.
Reference to the edition that SigPhi reproduces: SigPhi is its digital reproduction, not its publisher. The edition's year is not in the metadata (hence "n.d."), and the translator appears only when recorded.
What it is about
The Manusmriti in the English translation of the Sacred Books of the East: a treatise of dharma on duties according to varna and stage of life, on the king, marriage, inheritance and penance.
Context and history
It matters to know what this text is and is not. It is a normative treatise — it says what ought to be done — and not a description of how people lived; historians warn against reading it as a portrait of ancient Indian society. And a later fact weighs heavily: the British administration used it as a code of 'Hindu law', which gave it a legal authority it had not had before. Much of its modern influence comes from that use.
Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.
The commentators Medh. and Gov. explain the fact that Manu, being asked to expound the law, gives an account of the creation, 1,6. THE CREATION. 6. Then the divine Self-existent (Svayambhu, himself) indiscernible, (but) making (all) this, the great elements and the rest, discernible, appeared with irresistible (creative) power, dispelling the darkness. by the supposition that it is intended to show what a great scope the work has, and how necessary its study is, as the production of the various created beings depends on merit and demerit. Kull., on the other hand, tries to prove that the account of the creation, which belongs to the knowledge of the supreme soul, is part of the sacred law, and hence properly finds its place here. All the commentators, with the exception of Ragh., explain tama^, ' darkness,' by mulaprakrzti-6, 'the root-evolvent' of the Sawkhya philosophy, and tamobhutam, ' in the shape of darkness,' by * absorbed in the root-evolvent.' Ragh., who throughout explains Manu's sayings in the sense of the Vedanta school, takes it for an equivalent of avidya, ' ignorance.' The explanation of the four adjectives, which express in different terms the impossibility of knowing the mulaprakrz'ti, differs very much in the six commentaries. The most reasonable appears to be Kulluka's view, who assumes that the four words refer to the impossibility of attaining a knowledge of the prakn'ti by the three means mentioned below, XII, 105, and 'by reasoning' (tarka). He paraphrases apra^Tiata, ' unperceived,' by 'imperceptible by the senses;' alakshawa, 'destitute of marks,'