Can a Shudra Conduct Hindu Marriage

[Gurtej]

Hi All,

I was reading some very interesting articles about marriage in Hinduism etc and every article states that a Brahmin can oncly conduct the marriage. I understand that Brahmin are consider scholars on Vedas etc and thats probably the reason.

But my question is what if a Sudra knows all the vedic scriptures and rituals. Can he perform the marriage and that oo of a brahmin as per hindu culture or relgion?
Also can a girl conduct a marriage instead of a man?

Now the second question I have is regarding "manusmriti"? What importance it holds in Hindu Religion? I read somewhere that it treats women badly, is it true? I was reading a conversation with a brahmin tried to defend his position by "saying u need to look at that times when it was written" etc. But my argument to that is "Is he trying to say that the scriptures are only relevent for people of those ages?"

Also, is it true that a Brahman can have 3 wifes? Kshatriya can have 2 and vasiya one? Its pretty evident from the hindu scriptures. If this is correct, where is the equality?

Applogies for my ignorance,but I think these are valid questions.

Thanks

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Gurtej;3208134]Hi All,

But my question is what if a Sudra knows all the vedic scriptures and rituals. Can he perform the marriage and that oo of a brahmin as per hindu culture or relgion?

If a Shudra knows all the Vedic scriptures the automatically he becomes a Brahmin, as knowing the scriptures is main requirements of brahmin.

Also can a girl conduct a marriage instead of a man?

if she is well versed in scriptures and is classified as Brahmin

Now the second question I have is regarding "manusmriti"? What importance it holds in Hindu Religion? I read somewhere that it treats women badly, is it true? I was reading a conversation with a brahmin tried to defend his position by "saying u need to look at that times when it was written" etc. But my argument to that is "Is he trying to say that the scriptures are only relevent for people of those ages?"

Manu Smiriti is not the Vedas, and it only hold good for the relevant people of those days.

Also, is it true that a Brahman can have 3 wifes? Kshatriya can have 2 and vasiya one? Its pretty evident from the hindu scriptures. If this is correct, where is the equality?

Hmm, can you provide a Mantra from the Vedas that states this?

 

[Sumit]

But my question is what if a Sudra knows all the vedic scriptures and rituals. Can he perform the marriage and that oo of a brahmin as per hindu culture or relgion?

Who understand Vedas is called Brahmin. According to Manusmriti every person is shudra by birth and his Karmas make him brahmin, khastriya, Vaishya.

Now the second question I have is regarding "manusmriti"? What importance it holds in Hindu Religion? I read somewhere that it treats women badly, is it true? I was reading a conversation with a brahmin tried to defend his position by "saying u need to look at that times when it was written" etc. But my argument to that is "Is he trying to say that the scriptures are only relevent for people of those ages?"

Manusmriti is one of the best text I read. You cannot understand it by just reading it one time because it was corrupted a lot during last 1000 years. Just remove those verses from the book which are against Vedas and you will get original laws of Manu. The orignal text does not favour Caste system or any other evil practice. It elevates status of women.

Also, is it true that a Brahman can have 3 wifes? Kshatriya can have 2 and vasiya one? Its pretty evident from the hindu scriptures. If this is correct, where is the equality?

This looks like any concept of Puranas. These books are just philosophy and has nothing to do with Hinduism. They are root cause for all wrong practices.

 

[Gurtej]

Applogies again but now I am lost.

Manu and his teachings are glorified throughout the scriptures, both in the Vedas, the Puranas and in the writings of the Acharyas.

Yajur Veda 2.2.10:
'Too much splendour is produced', they say, 'he is liable to become a leper'; he should insert the verses of Manu's; whatever Manu said is medicine."

The Bhagavatam states:
manvantarani sat-dharmah

"True religious principles are the injunctions of Manu."

See also

Sama Veda 1.1.5.10
Sama Veda 1.2.4.10


Also, if we take of bad aspects from anything, it will look good. When you say its corroupted in the last 1000 years, what proof is there? Or are you just saying coz you like to read what is good and ignore the rest?

The teachings of Manu that were lost (as referenced in the Gita) were the teachings of yoga, the process of linking with the Supreme Lord.

Please advice thanks,

 

[Sumit]

Yajur Veda 2.2.10:
'Too much splendour is produced', they say, 'he is liable to become a leper'; he should insert the verses of Manu's; whatever Manu said is medicine."

These are wrong translations. Vedas were first book and were revealed by god in hearts of four rishis named "Agni, vayu, Aditya, Angira". Than How it is possible that a book (Manusmriti) which was composed after vedas is described in vedas.

Manu and his teachings are glorified throughout the scriptures, both in the Vedas, the Puranas and in the writings of the Acharyas.

Please post that verse with chapter no and Verse no which glorify manu from vedas. However Manu is glorified in Puranas.

Also, if we take of bad aspects from anything, it will look good. When you say its corroupted in the last 1000 years, what proof is there? Or are you just saying coz you like to read what is good and ignore the rest?

No I said so because it's verses are contradictory.

 

[Gurtej]

These are wrong translations. Vedas were first book and were revealed by god in hearts of four rishis named "Agni, vayu, Aditya, Angira". Than How it is possible that a book (Manusmriti) which was composed after vedas is described in vedas.


Please post that verse with chapter no and Verse no which glorify manu from vedas. However Manu is glorified in Puranas.


No I said so because it's verses are contradictory.

Yes but is it beacuase u saying they contradictory or they are actually contradictory. How do you know they were not written by Manu? Its like Bible old and new, people took the horrific verses out to make it much nicer for people to read?

 

[Sumit]

Yes but is it beacuase u saying they contradictory or they are actually contradictory. How do you know they were not written by Manu? Its like Bible old and new, people took the horrific verses out to make it much nicer for people to read?

It's verses are contradictory. Some verses supports Varna system while some other verses supports Caste system. Some versus encourage Vegetarianism and are against meat eating while some verses supports meat eating and animal sacrifice.

 

[Valjean]

Orthodox Hinduism, or Reformed?

 

[Madhuri]

I've never heard of a Hindu woman conducting a wedding. Even though I think they should, I was under the impression that this is not custom. Does it ever happen?

 

[Valjean]

A marriage by any woman religious of a twice-born caste might be more acceptable, in some regions, than marriage by a Shudra.

 

[Vinayaka]

In my view, these questions are intended to be inflammatory, and this thread is a repetition of similar anti-Hindu lines of questioning.

Manu is irrelevant today.

 

[Maya3]

In my view, these questions are intended to be inflammatory, and this thread is a repetition of similar anti-Hindu lines of questioning.

Manu is irrelevant today.

My thoughts exactly.

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

Especially since the questioner already knows the answers.

 

[Gurtej]

Especially since the questioner already knows the answers.

Oh please don't assume as u always do. Question is perfectly relevant with no offence. As u can see from the replies , it doesn't seem to be any agreement in regards to Manu teachings. I asked the priest in one of Sydney temple and he said yes they are relevant and Manu is regarded as one of the most knowledgeable and reputable.

 

[Vinayaka]

One man does not speak for a billion others. Do you speak for all Sikhs? But really, the point I'm trying to make is the nature of the line of questioning. I know lots of things about Sikh culture, and Islamic culture that lots of people might find offensive. But it is beneath me to bombard my Sikh friends, or a forum with questions that 'explore' these negatives sides (of any religion for that matter) . It accomplishes nothing, other that giving a sense to the questioner somehow that his own religion is better. A person would be advised stick strongly to their own faith, rather than finding faults with others.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Gurtej;3208200]Applogies again but now I am lost.

that is ok friend, i will try to explain what i know.

Yajur Veda 2.2.10:
'Too much splendour is produced', they say, 'he is liable to become a leper'; he should insert the verses of Manu's; whatever Manu said is medicine."

This is from the Krishna Yajurveda taittiriya samhita, it is well known that this Veda mantra is mixed with Brahmana passages, i think this is referring from a larger portion from kanda 2, which is entirely a brahmana passage.

The brahmana passages contain several legends and symbolism, and are best understood symbolically, but the Brahmanas in the Krishna yajur veda are of much later date then the Mantra samhita which are also contained in the Krishna Yajur (krishna meaning mixed), even then the Manu smriti may have been in wide use in the times when the Brahmanas were written, and who knows in what form the smriti of Manu was during that time.

Brahmanas are also ritualistic explanations of some Mantra so its up to the individual to determine how important these explanations are.

The Bhagavatam states:
manvantarani sat-dharmah

"True religious principles are the injunctions of Manu."

Well i have read some where that in the Vishnu Puran and the Shrimad Bhagvatam regard the Krishna Yajur veda as "essensless", from which you have quoted your above queries (Yajur Veda 2.2.10, then which one is trustworthy?

Sama Veda 1.1.5.10
Sama Veda 1.2.4.10

As a Sanskrit name, Manu refers to the Sun-God, Surya, who is considered the father of the human race. It is also a name of Lord Vishnu.

As Vedas came prior to the historical Manu, i think these other explanations are best fitted.

Or are you just saying coz you like to read what is good and ignore the rest?

Why not, its not Sruti, but Smriti, so why not just take the Good.
even if it was Sruti, then still we can take the good and leave what is not applicable today.

The teachings of Manu that were lost (as referenced in the Gita) were the teachings of yoga, the process of linking with the Supreme Lord.

That proves that during the Gita times (3100BC) Manu smriti was being Lost, so why dont you think there has been more lost since then?

 

[Sumit]

One man does not speak for a billion others. Do you speak for all Sikhs? But really, the point I'm trying to make is the nature of the line of questioning. I know lots of things about Sikh culture, and Islamic culture that lots of people might find offensive. But it is beneath me to bombard my Sikh friends, or a forum with questions that 'explore' these negatives sides (of any religion for that matter) . It accomplishes nothing, other that giving a sense to the questioner somehow that his own religion is better. A person would be advised stick strongly to their own faith, rather than finding faults with others.

We should always welcome such questions. It increase our understanding about our own religion.

 

[Vinayaka]

We should always welcome such questions. It increase our understanding about our own religion.

Have you gone and looked at all the threads started by the OP? There is a pattern. I am not at all against answering questions, legitimate questions, aimed at increasing ours and the questioners (and ultimately the readers) understanding.

 

[Atman]

Opinions obviously vary as has previously been stated, but there is definite support for non-Brahmins preforming Vedic rituals including marriage. In the opinion of Srimad Bhagavatam Purana

yan-namadheya-sravananukirtanad
yat-prahvanad yat-smaranad api kvacit
svado 'pi sadyah savanaya kalpate
kutah punas te bhagavan nu darsanat​

To say nothing of the spiritual advancement of persons who see the Supreme Person face to face, even a person born in a family of dog-eaters immediately becomes eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices if he once utters the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or chants about Him, hears about His pastimes, offers Him obeisances or even remembers Him. (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.33.6)

As long as you are devoted to God you are qualified to learn, and practice the teachings of the Vedas (including marriage sacraments).

 

[Atman]

whatever Manu said is medicine."

Who is to say Manu Smriti, was actually written by Manu though? Or perhaps it was adulterated later on by other writers? I don't believe that any holy book is the unadulterated word of God anyways, but just some food for thought