Question: Do traditional Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas and our Gauḍīya ācāryas accept dharma-śāstra such as Manu-smṛti?
How can verses like Manu-smṛti 8.270–8.272 be justified? They deny a śūdra’s right to Vedic knowledge from a guru, as in these statements: “One should not teach him sacred duties, nor sacred vows” (Manu 4.806; Vasiṣṭha-smṛti 18.12). “One should not impart knowledge to a śūdra” (Manu 4.80; Vasiṣṭha-smṛti 18.12).
And there are verses that say brāhmaṇas should not accept food or gifts from śūdras. What is the logic behind this?
I know that bhakti was given to all, but why does such discrimination exist? How are all varṇas supposed to exist together peacefully if such rules are there?
Answer: There are different rules for different adhikārīs. Manu-smṛti is not exclusively written for devotees. When studying a book, one of the most basic things to know is for whom the book has been written. In modern times, this is understood from the Introduction to the book. In olden times, it was known from the beginning verses of the book. Manu-smṛti, like any smṛti, is like a law book. Law is written for the citizens of a state. Laws change over time. I hope you know this well.
Every country makes amendments to its constitution over a period of time. The same is true for Manu-smṛti. It was written thousands of years ago for the contemporary society. That society was much different than the modern society. It had different goals. Certain rules that were applicable at a certain time are not applicable now.
But people love to dig up the dead from the grave and criticize Hindus. This is the agenda of Christian missionaries and communists to demoralize Hindus so they can be converted.
Do you know any Hindu who has studied Manu-smṛti and follows it? Do you know anyone who is applying these verses that you have cited? My guess is not. So what is the point of asking these questions related to an outdated verse that no one follows?
The other part of the question is: “Do traditional Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas and our Gauḍīya ācāryas accept dharma-śāstras such as Manu-smṛti?” Please know that accepting does not always mean accepting everything. Sometimes, our ācāryas may also refer to a certain Purāṇa or Tantra. That does not mean that they accept everything written in that book. It is made very clear that our supreme pramāṇa is the Bhāgavata. Anything that contradicts that Bhāgavata is not acceptable for us. Generally, it is interpreted to accord with the Bhāgavata.
Question: I agree that most people who quote such verses have an agenda to defame Hindus, but I want to be clear. I genuinely have doubts and have no intention of defaming anyone.
I know many traditional Hindus and Hindu ācāryas who support Manu-smṛti and other dharma-śāstras, and even follow them. Though laws can change over time, we know that certain laws aren’t meant to be changed.
Since all ācāryas have quoted these verses about śūdras (Manu-smṛti 8.270–8.272) in their Brahma-sūtra bhāṣyas, it seems that the strictures regarding śūdras are not meant to be changed. In fact, the smārta, Śrī Vaiṣṇava, and Madhva sampradāyas are known to accept these verses as authority even for these times. Gauḍīya sampradāya ācāryas have also quoted verses from Hari-bhakti-vilāsa that state that dvijas aren’t supposed to take food from śūdras. Why is it just for śūdras and no one else?
Our ācārya Śrī Baladeva himself quoted this in Brahma-sūtra bhāṣya 1.3.38.
“The smṛti-śāstra says, pady u ha vā etat śmaśānaṁ yac chūdras tasmāc chūdra-samīpe nādhyetavyam. ‘A śūdra is a beast. He is a crematorium. For this reason, he should not be taught the Vedas.’“The smṛti also says, tasmāc chūdro bahu-paśur ayajñīyaḥ. ‘A śūdra is a big beast. He cannot perform the Vedic sacrifices.’ ”
I understand they’re not allowed to study Vedas, but why are they called “beasts”?
Śrī Baladeva also said in Brahma-sūtra bhāṣya 1.3.38:
“There are also prohibitions against śūdras studying the Vedic sciences, such as astrology and other vedāṅgas. This is because materialistic, sensual-minded people will usually misunderstand and misbehave, offending the Vedas, the Lord, and the elevated devotees. Therefore, it is better for them to keep them away from the more esoteric teachings, so they cannot damage their spiritual life any further by their natural offensiveness.”
How are all śūdras materialistic and sensual-minded? Just by their birth?
My point in asking these questions is not just to understand Hinduism in general, but our sampradāya and our ācāryas.
Answer: The problem lies in the difference of definitions of a śūdra. Please first define a śūdra in the modern context. What do you have in mind? Then we can talk. Otherwise, the topic is a waste of time because the definition of śūdra at present and the śūdra referred to in the verses are not the same. The meaning of śudra given in Vedanta Sūtra’s commentaries is not defined by birth but refers to anyone who “grieves”. It refers to those who are materialistic and sensual-minded.
The second point is that in our sampradaya, we are not propagating the varṇāśrama system but bhakti. For this reason, the question is irrelevant. Varnāśrama is a system; if you have a problem with it, do not follow it. I have already said that certain things may need modifications because varṇāśrama is not in practice as it was in the past. The commentators that you mention lived in the past when varnāśrama was applicable. Even in the sampradāyas that you mention, not everything is being followed as strictly now. It is not possible.
