Talk:Manusmriti

Thus spake... or didn't

The part on Nietzcshcschshe is hilarious. It literally goes from one statement to its contradiction. And back...

First, he praises it and the caste system. In the next sentence, he "does not advocate a caste system, states David Conway, but endorses the political exclusion conveyed in the Manu text". He didn't kill him, he only ended his life functions. To say that kind of idiocy is just sad, even for an angsty, teenage Nietzschsctzsche-romanticizing troglodyte, not to mention an "academic philosopher who has written several books on philosophy and politics".

Then we are again (rightly) reminded that "Nietzsche considered Manu's social order as far from perfect, but considers the general idea of a caste system to be natural and right".

But, hold on! There's another slope on this roller coaster. Mr. Kauffman is now reminding us that Friedrich "denounces the way in which the 'Law of Manu' dealt with the outcastes, saying that there is nothing that outrages our feelings more" and "that the concept of pure blood is the opposite of a harmless concept" completely ignoring the fact that Mustache-man doesn't really care about "our feelings" nor the harmfulness of the concept. He just states the fact. He celebrates it. How much of a rationalizing infant one has to be and conclude this after reading pages 48-49 of The twilight of the idols...

But hey, they're reliable sources, so there you go. 109.165.140.94 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

in manuscripts, no kidding?

In ancient India, the sages often wrote their ideas on how society should run in the manuscripts.

How else would they write them? Can this sentence be made less trivial? Perhaps something like: The Dharmaśāstras are writings by ancient Indian sages on how society should run. —Tamfang (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite this section

This text in the beginning makes it sound like the different rescensions of Manu smriti are wildley different.

"Modern scholarship states this presumed authenticity is false, and that the various manuscripts of Manusmriti discovered in India are inconsistent with each other."

But that is not the impression I get from readining Olivelle's critical edition. See page 370.

"It is not possible to constitute a text such as the MDh purely through the classical editorial methods dependent on isolating independent manuscript traditions. The MDh was too widely known to permit the existence of totally isolated and independent traditions. As Jolly (1887, xvi) observes: "The great celebrity of the Code appears to have guarded it against sweeping alterations, so that the text has remained essentially the same nearly in all Commentaries, however widely distant from one another as to the time and locality of their composition." In the process of collation it became apparent that all extant mss. of the MDh are at some level hybrid; over time readers and scribes appear to have changed the readings of one traditions according to those of another." 67.204.247.30 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Addition of original research by vandal

A user vandalizing several articles related to Hinduism has attempted to vandalize this article as well.

In the user's edits, they has added original research, vandalizing the article, prompting me to revert his edit and ask him to gain consensus on the talk page.

The user changed "The metrical text is in Sanskrit, is dated to the 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE, and presents itself as a discourse given by Manu (Svayambhuva) and Bhrigu on dharma topics such as duties, rights, laws, conduct, and virtues. The metrical text is in Sanskrit, is dated to the 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE, and presents itself as a discourse given by Manu (Svayambhuva) and Bhrigu on dharma topics such as duties, rights, laws, conduct, and virtues." to "The metrical text is in Sanskrit, is dated to the 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE, and presents itself as a discourse given by Manu (Svayambhuva) and Bhrigu on dharma topics such as duties, rights, laws, conduct, and virtues. The metrical text is in Sanskrit, is dated to the 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE, and presents itself as a discourse given by Manu (Svayambhuva) and Bhrigu on dharma topics such as duties, rights, laws, conduct, varna, gender norms, and virtues." - without providing any source. This addition of **"varna, gender norms"** is completely unsourced.

The user also added the sentence "In modern times, the text is controversial due to its commentary on women and lower castes.", again without any source.

All of this constitutes original research as per WP:OR and so I reverted the user's edit here .

The user immediately restored their vandalized edits containing original research back here and made several more edits incorrectly attempting to "correct grammar" and remove sourced content from the article.

I have reverted their edits since.

Lyod Sulla (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet.

The edits don't appear to be vandalism. From what I see, in this edit, the user added an accompanying source, while the statement about lower castes and women appear to be a summary from the body of the article (The lead is only supposed to be a summary of the body and, as such, if sources are present in the body, they don't need to also be presented in the lead, though that is based editor preferences). — EarthDude (Talk) 13:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

agreed. I added this short sentence to summarize "controversies" section Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

added statue controversy

I added some sentences on the Rajasthan statue controversy under the modern criticism and reception section. I cited everything. Shahinshah121 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)