In an earlier blog, i have described how logic and logicians are condemned in the Ramayana and Mahabharata--since recitations of the epics used to be held regularly in many regions of India, they became convenient tools to insert religious propaganda into them so as to brainwash the common man to have a poor opinon of logicians, logic, and logical debating and to prevent him from developing a questioning attitude towards religious dogmas and also scripture:

 

http://rashmun.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/hindu-orthodoxy-and-the-technique-of-mass-propaganda.htm

 

To this, one may add certain statements from the Manu Smriti--the most respected of all the dharmasastras in ancient India:

 

By sruti (direct revelation) is to be understood the Veda, while the dharmasastra (law codes) is to be viewed as Smriti [i.e. scripture subservient to the Veda]. These two must not be called forth into question in any matter, because through these two the sacred law shone forth. If a dvija, relying because on the science of reasoning (hetusastrasrayat), treats with contempt these two--he must be excommunicated by the virtuous people. A heretic (nastika) is one who abuses the Veda. (Manu Smriti ii.10-11)

 

A discussion on the meaning of dvija is given as an appendix i.e. towards the end of this blog. It refers exclusively to the upper caste hindus who alone are entitled to the upanayana ceremony. The mention of dvija by Manu as possibly going against scriptural authority has its own interest. Does it mean that all those born in the priviliged castes are not as conformists as the lawgiver wants them to be? But returning to the main point in our discussion, what is it in which Manu senses danger for the total faith in scriptures? The lawgiver leaves nothing vague about this. According to Manu, the tendency to question the scripture has one source, and that is reliance on logic--on the technique of reasoning and argumentation. As Manu says, it is 'because of the reliance on logic' (hetusastra-asrayat) that one is led to question the scriptures.

 

Similar denuncations of logic can also be seen in every other lawbook apart from the Manu Smriti, but since it was the most revered of all the lawbooks in ancient India, we can stick to it for the present analysis.

 

The following is a very famous declaration of Manu (iv.30):

 

"One should not even speak with the heretics (nastikas), the transgressors of caste discipline, the hypocrites, the logicians (haitukas) and double dealers." 

 

According to Manu, certain modes of obtaining the livelihood are too derogatory to be normally allowed to the dvijas or members of the priviliged castes. Only under exceptional conditions causing dire stress, Manu grudgingly allows the dvijas to go in for these. Their list, as given by the lawgiver, is (Manu x.116): 'vidya silpam bhrtih seva goraksam vipanih krsih' i.e.learning, crafts, wage-earning, servitiude, cattleraising, shopkeeping, agriculture.

 

Specially puzzling about Manu's list is the first item he mentions viz. vidya which means learning or cultivating some branch of knowledge. One can understand why wage-earning, servitude, etc. would be considered incompatible with noble birth, but what can possibly be wrong about vidya or learning so that a dvija is advised to refrain from it normally ,or only accept it under conditions of dire distress? The traditional commentators of Manu, Medhatithi and Kulluka Bhatta, provide a striking answer to the question. Their clarification is that the word 'vidya' is used here by Manu in a specific sense. It is learning or 'discipline' in its non-scriptural or anti-scriptural form i.e. in the form in which the logicians understand it. As Kulluka Bhatta very pointedly says: vidya vedavidya-vyatirikta-vaidya-tarka-visapanayana-adi-vidya i.e. 'by learning is meant here those specific forms of learning which are different from the learning of the Vedas, as for example the kind of learning cultivated by the physicians, logicians, poison-removers,etc.' The condemnation of physicians by the lawgivers deserves a separate writeup/explaination; let us stick to the condemnation of logic and logicians by the lawgivers. That the explaination of Medhatithi and Kulluka Bhatta is the correct one is corroborated by a number of other declarations of Manu. For example, elsewhere he speaks of 'reasoning that must not be in any conflict with the Vedas'(Manu xii.106).

 

In a passage frequently quoted (vii.43), Manu declares that the branches of knowledge worthy of being studied are the Vedas, state-craft, economics and logic--the last strictly as an auxillary to the doctrine of the soul(anviksikincatmavidyam). This passage is sometimes misunderstood and taken to mean that Manu is prescribing several independent branches of knowledge, of which logic is one, without any qualification. But Manu's traditional commentators warn us against such a misunderstanding.  Medhatithi in particular tells us that that the word for logic (anviksiki = tarkavidya = logic/debating), as occuring in the passage, is to be understood strictly as related to adhyatma-vidya or atma-vidya i.e . to the doctrine of the soul and its salvation, and must not be taken in the sense of free thinking--the sense in which the heretics want to take it.

 

Further, according to Manu (vii.43), none are entitled to teach logic who are not already well-versed in the scriptures, for the teacher of logic is supposed to teach it along with the scriptures and in accordance with the doctrine of the supreme self. And following is the ideal study course recommended by Manu (vi.83):

 

"Let him constantly recite the Veda which refers to sacrifice and to the gods, and which treats of the soul as expounded in the Upanisads (Vedanta)."

 

Thus, it is seen that even though he is a lawgiver, Manu has a very definite interest in philosophy, and what is more he has a proclivity for a certain philosophy, namely, the Vedanta. Why the interest in philosophy, and why the proclivity for Vedanta is a separate subject and will be discussed separately. Let us return to our discussion on logic and logicians.

 

The question which arises is what is the seriousness of offense--according to lawgivers like Manu-- with respect to those logicians who flout the recommendation to study/practice/teach logic keeping it strictly subservient to scripture? The gravity of this particular crime of refusing to toe the lawgiver's demands of keeping logic subservient to scripture may be judged from the way in which it is equated with certain other forms of transgressing the law.

 

Declares Manu (xi.55 and 57):

 

"The five great crimes (mahapataka-s) are killing a Brahmin, getting drunk, stealing, committing adultery with the preceptor's wife and being an accessory to such offenses...Forgetting the Veda, reviling the Veda, giving false evidence, slaying a friend, eating forbidden food or things unfit to be used as food are six offences equal to getting drunk."

 

 

 

Appendix A

 

The term dvija or twice born is peculiar and needs some clarification. Added to their first birth in the mother's womb, the Brahmins, Ksatriyas, and Vaisyas are supposed to have a second birth derived from the upanayana or initiation ceremony.The Aitareya Brahmana gives a vivid description of the ritual.As discussed in the Aitareya Brahmana onwards, the ritual introduces the individual to the full status of the priviliged castes, the general descriptive epithet of which is dvija or twice-born. Since the initiation rite or upanayana is forbidden for the sudra, he has only one birth and hence is without the rights and priviliges of the dvija. Certain quotes may be given from the dharmasastras that this definition of dvija is what they have in mind. Declares Manu (x.4), "The Brahmin, the Ksatriya and the Vaisya castes are the twice born ones(dvijas). But the fourth, the Sudra, has one birth only." According the the Visnudharmasastra (ii.1-2): "Brahmins, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras are the four castes. The first three of these are twice born (dvija)." Similar statements on the difference between a dvija and a sudra is also found in all the other dharmasastras.