Garuda purana 1.109.31 is a verse taken From manu smriti, also it's taken without its context
Manu says this
8.299. A wife, a son, a slave, a pupil, and a (younger) brother of the full blood, who have committed faults, may be beaten with a rope or a
split bamboo,
Its not promoting violence similarly in next verse manu says
Manu 8.300 But only on the back part of the body, and never on the
upper part; he who strikes otherwise than this incurs the guilt of a
thief. — (300)
Now look what commentor medhatithi says-
What is enjoined here is the method of keeping the persons on the
right path, and not actual beating; so that chastisement may be
administered verbally; and in cases where the fault is serious, there
may also be beating.
...
‘Split bamboo’ — the bark of the bamboo. This has been mentioned only
as illustrative of the lotus-fibre and other such objects which cause
only slight pain. — (299)
Apparently "they don't deserve gentle handling" this verse is not found in either garuda purana or manu smriti, it's not promoting violence but doing quite the opposite.
Anyway as for the verse from brihadaranyaka upanishad- it's a mixed scripture.
As it's its name suggest brihad-aranyaka-upanishad it contains
brahmana-aranyaka-upanishad together
The verse you've taken is from last part or the brahmanas which deal with rituals for householders, and other rituals for material well-being, brahmanams don't place down laws for householders. So don't confuse it to be a law or teaching it's a ritual to be more precise, some acts are allowed in rituals, they are not literally done but acted in such a way.
If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her
with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a
stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following
mantra: “With power and glory I take away your glory.” Thus she
becomes discredited.
*it's clear it is prescribing a ritual for progeny as it says to chant mantras similarly other verses in this brahmanam also deal with food that should be eaten to get desired progeny, food-mantra it's all part of the ritual.
it's similar to other rituals like queen sleeping with horse of ashvamedha etc
Offcource if it was promoting domestic violence it would not say to chant mantras, it's not saying to beat women literally but the "striking" part is part of the ritual.
Given the fact it's from brahmana it's very clear that it's not some kind of law because smritis deal with material laws furthermore they declare beating women to be sin,
the beating part is part of the ritual(with no actual beating) pretty sure no severe physical harm is meant here. It's similar to how some animals are mocked-yoked before sacrifice or other ritualistic acts are done on them.
Many brahmanams also allow meat to be used in rituals etc but nowadays the brahmanam portions are not so well followed because of popularity of vedanta school and the falling of purva mimansa' s popularity, vedanta is more vegeterian-ascetic-moniker friendly as these values are upheld in gita, rather than the ritualistic parts of brahmanams.
Edit: I'll take this opportunity to discuss morality based on smritis and certain rituals which do not subscribe to this morality
Shabara in his Commentary of purva mimansa sutras discuss certain "immoral" acts prescribed in brahmanas as rituals.
As a matter of fact, the Veda indicates both what is moral and what is
immoral.—" What is moral?" —That which is conducive to good, such as
the Jyotiisfoma and other acts.—" What is immoral 1"—That which leads
to evil (sin), such as the Shyena, the Vajra, the Ian and other
(malevolent) acts.— Thus the Sutra has used the term artha', what
is conducive to good ', in order to preclude the possibility of the
Immoral act (which is not conducive to good) being included under the
term dharma
Objection :—" Why should the immoral act be so called Y "
ADHYAYA I, ADHIKARANA (3). 7
Reply :—Because it involves inflicting of injury, and the inflicting of injury has been forbidden.
Objection :—" How then is it that an immoral act (in the shape of the
Shyena sacrifice, for instance) is enjoined as something that should
be done ? "
The answer to this is that the Shyena and other such (malevolent)
sacrifices are nowhere found to be spoken of as what should be done;
they are indicated only in the form that 'if a man desires to inflict
injury upon another, the performance (of the Shyena) would be the means for that
purpose'r what-the-Vedic-text-says is only that-'-one-desiring to inflict injury
may perform the Shyena' (cf. Saclvirhaha-Brahman 8. 1-2),—not that
one should inflict injury '. [The man is urged to undertake the
performance of the Shyena entirely by his desire to inflict injury,
not by any Vedic text enjoining that act as what ought to be done.]
Shabara first goes on and discusses that samhitas and other parts of vedas as well as smiritis say that inflicting damage injury to other life is immoral and he says that is true for all beings animals, womens, sudras in vedas
Then how can immoral acts of inflicting damage can come under dharma?Then how can vedas say to kill animals, "beat" women as part of rituals isn't it contradictory?, to this he argues that we know what is moral and immoral only through scriptures so it is allowed in certain places as ritual/what can be done/it's not a teaching.
-He takes example of shyena sacrifice where if one wants to inflict damage on others can take part in the yajna.
-the purvapakshin says how can veda allow such stuff when inflicting damage is immoral?
-to this he says that veda isn't giving this ritual as a teaching but saying if one wants too I.e. its totally based on ones choice
The answer to this is that the Shyena and other such (malevolent)
sacrifices are nowhere found to be spoken of as what should be done;
they are indicated only in the form that 'if a man desires to inflict
injury upon another, the performance (of the Shyena) would be the
means for that purpose'r what-the-Vedic-text-says is only
that-'-one-desiring to inflict injury may perform the Shyena' (cf.
Saclvirhaha-Brahman 8. 1-2),—not that one should inflict injury
'.[The man is urged to undertake the performance of the Shyena
entirely by his desire to inflict injury, not by any Vedic text
enjoining that act as what ought to be done.]
Similarly if one is desiring to have good progeny can take part in the ritual mentioned in brihadaranyaka upanishad even if it has ritual of beating but doing harm to others outside of ritual is sin as per vedas
Nowhere in vedas it is said that "it should be done" but "can be done if one desires so"
*Now let's contrast these 3 verses according to the situation they are set in.
*also as the morality is defined(whatever that leads to good is moral)
No man, even in anger, should ever do anything that is disagreeable to
his wife; for happiness, joy, virtue and everything depend on the
wife. Wife is the sacred soil in which the husband is born again, even
the Rishis cannot create men without women--------------Adi Parva,
Mahabharata Book, 1.74.50-51
The above verse is general teaching it says that you should not do wrong to women even when overcome by senses, if he does he incurs bad karma(also there is no situation given the women are innocent here) is this good/leading to good? Yes. This is moral
Now the verse from manu-
8.299. A wife, a son, a slave, a pupil, and a (younger) brother of the full blood, who have committed faults, may be beaten with a rope or a
split bamboo,
This verse is not general statement, there is a situation given I.e. who have commited fault which means this is done in rare cases, is this leading to good? Yes, if a person commits fault and is not discouraged at once through verbal punishment or symbolic physical punishment he may try to repeat that fault. So this is leading to good thus moral.
Now the brihadaranyaka upanishad(brahmana portion)
If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her
with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a
stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following
mantra: “With power and glory I take away your glory.” Thus she
becomes discredited.
This is a ritual for good progeny, the symbolic beating is part of the ritual to have good progeny, is this good? Yes, as this is helping in having progeny, a gain thus Artha- which leads to good and progeny is good.
So you see the above three verses are not in contradiction at all they are all bearing good teaching or results because dharma changes according to place, person, birth, Vedic ritual, general teaching etc
What is good here maynot be good there, so people say to derive your morality from scriptures, and scriptures say which ultimately leads to good is moral and giver of good karma.
While there is general sense of morality in everyone it needs also to be changed according to situation and result it yields.
