Does the verse 176 of chapter 4 of the Manusmṛti allow us to reject everything in it?

Question

I'm confused even after reading Medhatithis commentary on this verse as it (in in my opinion) allows us to reject the Dharmashastras and I'm not sure if that is true so if anyone could please clear this doubt of mine I would be very thankful of that.

Answer 1

Short Answer: No, the verse or the commentary does not advocate rejection of Dharmashastras. As mentioned in my comment if such was the case then why bother with thousands of other verses.

Long Answer: Taking a verse in isolation to come up with contrived, self-serving interpretation has become the hallmark of the current so-called Hindu renaissance made popular by new-age Gurus and now adopted by keyboard warriors. A similar approach is also used by detractors of Hinduism to push forth their nefarious agenda. They copy-paste selective verses from Dharmashastras to show Hinduism in bad light.

But we don't even need to goto Manusmriti, as even popular texts are not spared. One verse from Srimad Bhagvad Gita used time and again by such folks is 18.63

इति ते ज्ञानमाख्यातं गुह्याद्गुह्यतरं मया | विमृश्यैतदशेषेण यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु || 63||

iti te jñānam ākhyātaṁ guhyād guhyataraṁ mayā vimṛiśhyaitad aśheṣheṇa yathechchhasi tathā kuru

BG 18.63: Thus, I have explained to you this knowledge that is more secret than all secrets. Ponder over it deeply, and then do as you wish.

As per this verse which also happens to be coming pretty much at the end of the discourse we can ignore everything preceding this verse, do what we feel like and that will be considered dharmic. What this is implying is that Lord Krishna took the efforts to explain the duties,karma, dharma etc. to Arjuna only to have latter do things as per his whims and fancies

Coming to MS 4.176, this is what the verse says

परित्यजेदर्थकामौ यौ स्यातां धर्मवर्जितौ । धर्मं चाप्यसुखोदर्कं लोकसङ्क्रुष्टमेव च ॥ १७६ ॥

parityajedarthakāmau yau syātāṃ dharmavarjitau | dharmaṃ cāpyasukhodarkaṃ lokasaṅkruṣṭameva ca || 176 ||

He shall, avoid such wealth and pleasures as are opposed to righteousness, as also righteousness if it be conducive to unhappiness, or disapproved by the people.—(176)

This is pretty much similar to BG 18.63 when read in isolation. It is pretty much asking the individual to indulge in hedonistic pursuits even at the cost of righteousness. But that is not the case.

The thumb rule in interpreting verse(s) from a text is that it should not contradict other verses in the same text. One does not read a section of the constitution/law-book and extrapolate it to encompass the entire constitution/law. For e.g. Article 19 of Indian constitution allows one to reside in any part of the country. Does it mean that I can go and start residing in a residence not owned by me because I fancy it ? That would in violation of property laws. Same approach is to be adopted here. In case of MS 4.176 it is to be read in conjunction with MS 2.12 amongst other verses

वेदः स्मृतिः सदाचारः स्वस्य च प्रियमात्मनः । एतच्चतुर्विधं प्राहुः साक्षाद् धर्मस्य लक्षणम् ॥ १२ ॥

vedaḥ smṛtiḥ sadācāraḥ svasya ca priyamātmanaḥ | etaccaturvidhaṃ prāhuḥ sākṣād dharmasya lakṣaṇam || 12 ||

The Veda, the Smṛti, the Practice of cultured Men, and what is agreeable to oneself—these directly constitute the fourfold means of knowing Dharma.—(12)

Thus the hierarchical epistemology is that Vedas are at the top i.e. ultimate source of truth. If for some reason one can't find the answer in Vedas (this is not same as Vedas not having the answer), then look at Smritis. If still not found then follow the practice of cultured, learned (learned in Vedas not secular education) men in your society and if still don't have the answer then look inwards.

So as you can see conscience is the last resort. In 4.176, Medhatithi mentions slaughter of the bull is permitted under special conditions. But let alone ordinary men not even learned men are well versed with these conditions, so it is better to avoid slaughtering of the bull altogether lest one incurs the sin of not conducting it as per prescribed methods, circumstances etc. On the same lines he talks about deprecation of Niyoga

Long story short, 4.176 does not permit overriding of Vedas or Smritis. It says it is better to err on side of caution lest you incur a sin of doing certain acts in non-permissible manner

Answer 2

Yes, your interpretation of Manu 4.176 is right. I am giving below a broader discussion of how Hindu scripture should be interpreted.

A Hindu should do what he thinks is right and not blindly follow ancient texts. You should remember that Hinduism has no centralized organization to check errors in scriptures. Ancient Christians had the Church to select the texts that were considered to be correct and dump texts that did not reflect Christian teaching. Similarly one of the righteous Caliphs, companion of the Prophet, Uthman burnt down all variants of the Koran and commissioned a scholar to write the most authoritative version of it. Since Hindus do not have any such organization they have to look at scripture to see what it says about this issue. Hindu scriptures ask Hindus to do internal consistency checks before accepting any scriptural statement as valid. Hindu scriptural verse must survive three checks in order to be acceptable.

Reason

Even the words heard from an ignorant person, if in themselves they be fraught with sense, come to be regarded as pious and wise. In days of old, Usanas said unto the Daityas this truth, which should remove all doubts, that scriptures are no scriptures if they cannot stand the test of reason.

Mahabharata Shanti Parva Section CXLII

Acharya Shankara says:

The appeal to the infallibility of the Vedic injunction is misconceived. The infallibility in question refers only to the unseen forces or apurva, and is admissible only in regards to matters not confined to the sphere of direct perceptions, etc ... Even a hundred statements of sruti to the effect that fire is cold and non-luminous won't prove valid. If it does make such a statement, its import will have to be interpreted differently. Otherwise, validity won't attach to it. Nothing in conflict with the means of valid cognition or with its own statements may be imputed to sruti.

REF: Srimad Bhagavad Gita Bhasya 18.66 of Sri Sankaracarya translation by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier

Non-discrimination

If a holy act is against the interest of other members of the society, it should not be practiced. It is Dharma which is the source of Artha and even of Kama.

Kurma Purana I.2.54

If a scriptural verse does advocate discrimination then don't follow that verse.

Conscience

6. The whole Veda is the (first) source of the sacred law, next the tradition and the virtuous conduct of those who know the (Veda further), also the customs of holy men, and (finally) self-satisfaction.

Manu Smriti II.6

Bhishma said, ‘He is said to be conversant with duty who knows duty as depending on four foundations.’

[four foundations, i.e., as laid down in the Vedas; as laid down in the Smritis; as sanctioned by ancient usage and customs; and as approved by the heart or one’s own conscience.]

Mahabharata, Santi Parva, Section CXXXII

Hindu scripture can’t override reason and conscience. Nor can Hindu scripture be used to discriminate against a community.

The Smriti texts and the Puranas that we have today reflect the attitude of people who lived many centuries ago. Most of these texts have been revised many times. These texts teach us to adapt these teachings to modern times and in fact discard any teaching that seems obsolete today..

However, discard the desire (kama) and material wealth (artha) if contrary to Dharma; as also, any usage or custom or rules regarded as source of Dharma if at any time they were to lead to unhappiness or arouse people's indignation.

(Manu Smriti 4.176)

A Hindu should only take the essential teachings and not be a fundamentalist.

Essential Teachings

An intelligent man should seek the essential teachings of all scriptural texts of varying importance, just as a honey-bee sucks the essence of all flowers.

Srimad Bhagavata Purana XI.8.10

UPDATE

It has been stated that the meaning of the verses posted by me might change if the context is given. So I am posting the contexts of the Mahabharata quote on reason and the Kurma Purana quote. I will leave it to the reader to decide if the meaning of the quotes posted by me changes with the context.

Mahabharata quote:

SECTION CXLII "Yudhishthira said, 'If that which is so horrible and which like falsehood should never be an object of regard, be cited (as duty), then what act is there from which I should forbear? Why also should not robbers then be respected? I am stupefied! My heart is pained! All the ties that bind me to morality are loosened! I cannot tranquillise my mind and venture to act in the way suggested by you.'

"Bhishma said, 'I do not instruct thee in respect of duty, taught by what I have heard from the Vedas alone. What I have told thee is the result of wisdom and experience. This is the honey that the learned have gathered. Kings should gather wisdom from various sources. One cannot accomplish his course through the world with the aid of a morality that is one-sided. Duty must spring from the understanding; and the practices of those that are good should always be ascertained, O son of Kuru! Attend to these words of mine. Only kings that are possessed of superior intelligence can rule, expecting victory. A king should provide for the observance of morality by the aid of his understanding and guided by knowledge derived from various sources. The duties of a king can never be discharged by rules drawn from a morality that is one-sided. A weak-minded king can never display wisdom (in the discharge of his duties) in consequence of his not having drawn any wisdom from the examples before him. Righteousness sometimes takes the shape of unrighteousness. The latter also sometimes takes the shape of the former. He who does not know this, becomes confounded when confronted by an actual instance of the kind. Before the occasion comes, one should, O Bharata, comprehend the circumstances under which righteousness and its reverse become confused. Having acquired this knowledge, a wise king should, when the occasion comes, act accordingly, aided by his judgment. The acts he does at such a time are misunderstood by ordinary people. Some persons are possessed of true knowledge. Some persons have false knowledge. Truly ascertaining the nature of each kind of knowledge, a wise king derives knowledge from them that are regarded as good. They that are really breakers of morality find fault with the scriptures. They that have themselves no wealth proclaim the inconsistencies of the treatises on the acquisition of wealth. Those who seek to acquire knowledge for the object only of carrying their sustenance by it, O king, are sinful besides being enemies of morality. Wicked men, of immature understandings, can never know things truly, even as persons unconversant with scriptures are unable in all their acts to be guided by reason. With eyes directed to the faults of the scriptures, they decry the scriptures. Even if they understand the true meaning of the scriptures, they are still in the habit of proclaiming that scriptural injunctions are unsound. Such men, by decrying the knowledge of others proclaim the superiority of their own knowledge. They have words for their weapons and words for their arrows and speak as if they are real masters of their sciences. Know, O Bharata, that they are traders in learning and Rakshasas among men. By the aid of mere pretexts they cast off that morality which has been established by good and wise men. It has been heard by us that the texts of morality are not to be understood by either discussion or one's own intelligence. Indra. himself has said that this is the opinion of the sage Vrihaspati. Some are of opinion that no scriptural text has been laid down without a reason. Others again, even if they properly understand the scriptures, never act according to them. One class of wise men declare that morality is nothing else than the approved course of the world. The man of true knowledge should find out for himself the morality laid down for the good. If even a wise man speaks of morality under the influence of wrath or confusion of understanding or ignorance, his deliverances go for nothing. Discourses on morality made with the aid of an intelligence that is derived from the true letter and spirit of the scriptures, are worthy of praise and not those which are made with the help of anything else. Even the words heard from an ignorant person, if in themselves they be fraught with sense, come to be regarded as pious and wise. In days of old, Usanas said unto the Daityas this truth, which should remove all doubts, that scriptures are no scriptures if they cannot stand the test of reason. The possession or absence of knowledge that is mixed with doubts is the same thing. It behoves thee to drive off such knowledge after tearing it up by the roots. He who does not listen to these words of mine is to be regarded as one that has suffered himself to be misled.

Mahabharata Santi Parva Section CXLII

Kurma Purana Quote:

Kuram Purana I.2.47b-56a

Another objection is that this kind of thinking would lead to mayhem as criminals think that doing crime is the right thing.

This is an inane objection. There are courts and police to take care of criminals. It doesn't matter what they think.

A further objection is 'unless you cite a CORE subset of Hinduism that ALL Hindus must follow - Manusmriti 4.176 essentially throws Hinduism out of the window (otherwise, everybody is free to choose the subset he/she would observe)'

Manu Smriti 4.176 throws Hinduism out of the window only if you think Hinduism is only customs and traditions. Hinduism is more than customs and traditions. The spiritual core of Hinduism talked by the great Acharyas will survive Manu Smriti 4.176.

Any way laws like SC/St (prevention of atrocities) act which criminalize acts against these people (which are supported by some Smritis) already act according to the spirit of the advice of Manu Smriti 4.176.

You may be curious as to what kind of atrocities have been advocated by some Smritis. There is a widespread belief that Manu Smriti asks molten lead poured into ears of a Sudra. That is not true although such a line in there in another Smriti. Manu Smriti also has some atrocity statements.

A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

Manu Smriti 8.270

Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl, or a crow, he shall perform the penance for the murder of a Sudra;

Manu Smriti 11.132

Basically a Sudra has the same status as a cat etc.

Both Gandhi and Vivekananda thought of the various Smritis including Manu Smriti as a mixture of good and bad.

The Smritis and the Puranas are productions of men of limited intelligence and are full of fallacies, errors, the feelings of class and malice. Only parts of them breathing broadness of spirit and love are acceptable, the rest are to be rejected. The Upanishads and the Gita are the true scriptures.

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 6/Epistles - Second Series/CXXIV Sir

Gandhi on hearing the news about the burning of Manu Smriti by Ambedkar in 1927 did not react negatively to it.