"Alleged Claim" "It is the very nature of women to corrupt men. It is for this reason that the wise are never unguarded regarding women."

Exactly same is mentioned in Mahabharata Anusasana Parva /48.47-48

The context of this verse of manusmriti is ब्रह्मचर्य or studenthood. In this stage, students have to strictly maintain celibacy. Students are incited to maintain celibacy and avoid women through these verses that show females as a trap.

" Medhatithi's Commentary" न चात्र स्त्रीणांप्रभविष्णुता वस्तुस्वासाव्यात्तरुणीजनदर्शने पुंसामुन्मध्यते चित्तंविशेषतो ब्रह्मचारिणाम् ।।

This is not due to any powerful influence intentionally exercised (by females); it is in the very nature of things that at the sight of a young female the mind of male becomes deviated, specially that of young students.

So the verse isn’t abusing women, but showing the weakness of men.

"Key Understanding" Only the males who are too young or old, and those who have reached the highest stage of Yoga destroying their human susceptibilities are truly resistant to getting attracted - अत्यन्तबालं अत्यन्तवृद्धंच प्राप्तयोगप्रकर्षणंच वर्जयित्वा येन निरन्वसमुत्थिताः संसारपुरुषधर्मास्तद्यतिरेकेण न कश्चित्पुरुषोस्ति य स्त्रीभिर्नाकृष्यते । अयः कान्तेनेवलोहः।

So Medhatithi commentary clears all the misconceptions of verse 213 and 214 collectively in his commentary for verse 214. He says in 213 - तत्र चित्तसंक्षोभोऽपि प्रतिषिद्धः तिष्ठतु तावदपरोग्राम्यधर्मसंरम्भः । This mental disturbance itself has been shunned so no need to say about the vulgarities.

Now coming to महाभारतम्-अनुशासनपर्व-४८. This chapter is about वर्णसंकर jaatis. And it’s about avoiding cross marriages between different varnas.

" Mahabharata Context" यथोपदेशं परिकीर्तितासु नरः प्रजायेत विचार्य बुद्धिमान्। निहीनयोनिर्हि सुतोऽवसादये-त्तितीर्षमाणं हि यथोपलो जले।।

He that is possessed of intelligence, should beget offspring according to the ordinances of the scriptures, upon woman that have been declared proper or fit for him. A son begotten upon a women belonging to a lower varna, instead of rescuing his father, brings him to grief just like a heavy weight brings to grief a swimmer desirous of crossing water.

That’s why, the latter verses are trying to prevent men from marrying women of other varna and begetting varnasankara jaatis through verses that nurture dispassion towards women.

Virtuous women have been referred to as universal mother (स्त्रियः साध्व्यो महाभागाः सम्मता लोकमातरः) in the same verse mentioned in Mahabharata Anusasana Parva but mlecchas are blind to these verses.

" Medhatithi's Clarification for verse 9.26" शक्यप्रतिविधानत्वाद्दोषाणां पूजार्हाः यदेतद्दोषप्रयोजनंतन्नावज्ञानार्थपरिवर्जनार्थवाभिशस्तपतितादिच किंतहि रक्षार्थदोषाणां ।।

In as much as the defects of women are capable of rectification, they are ‘worthy of worship’. defects of women, it was not with a view to discredit them, or to make people avoid them; it was done with this view that they may be guarded against evil.

"Women as Lakshmi" प्रजनार्थं सन्तानार्थम् गेहेषु स्त्रियः श्रियः लक्ष्मीरूपाः पूजायोग्याः।

A woman conceives children and nourishes them, she’s Lakshmiroopa and worthy of reverence.

"Alleged Claim" "Whether she be a child, or a young woman, or an aged woman, she should not do any act by herself, even in the house."

"Alleged Claim" "The father guards her during virginity, the husband in youth, the sons in old age; woman is never fit for independence"

"Proper Understanding" नानेन सर्वक्रियाविषयमस्वातन्त्र्यंविधीयते । किंतहि नास्वतन्त्रान्यमनस्कता स्वात्मसंरक्षणाय प्रभवति शक्तिविकलत्वात्स्वतः

The present text does not lay down that she shall not be independent in regard to anything at all; all that it means is that she is not capable of guarding herself as she does not possess the requisite strength.

"Definition of Guarding" रक्षानामानर्थप्रतीघातः अनर्थस्त्वनाचारवृत्तातिक्रमेणाप्रवृत्तिपरेणचान्यायतोधनहरणादिनाप-रिभवस्तस्य प्रतीघातो निवारणंतत्पित्रादिभिः कर्तव्यं ।

‘Guarding’ here stands for averting of trouble, -‘trouble’ consisting in suffering caused by the transgression of the right course of conduct, by unjust appropriation of property and so forth; and the ‘averting’ of this consists in warding it off. This should be done by the father and others.

Therefore, never fit for independence means females should never be left without a protector - स्वातन्त्र्यं रक्षितृरहितत्वम् ।

A father protects his daughter from molestation/disrespect/insult - पिता रक्षति कन्यादूषणादेः। (सर्वज्ञनारायण भाष्य)।

They are independent to own even immovable properties along with the assets bestowed by her guardians during her marriage:

" Katyayana Smriti" सौदायिके सदा स्त्रीणां स्वातन्त्र्यं परिकीर्तितम् । विक्रये चैव दाने च यथेष्टं स्थावरेष्वपि ॥

Medhatithi bhashya makes it clear that the term अपराध here means transgression of morality (नीतिभ्रंश):

" Medhatithi's Definition" प्राप्ता अपराधंप्राप्तापराधा अपराधोव्यतिक्रमः नीतिभ्रंशः।

And the commentary also mentions:

"Method of Correction" सतेनानुशासनीयः मार्गस्थापनोपायविधिः परश्यायंन ताडनविधिरेव वाग्दण्डाद्यपि कर्तव्यं अपराधानुरूपेण कदाचित्ताडनम्।

The method of keeping the persons on the right path is enjoined, and not actual beating; so that chastisement may be administered verbally; and in cases where the fault (transgression of morality) is serious, there may also be beating.

Those who know the meaning of transgression of morality will find this verse appropriate. In case of lack of favorable results, after using all the preventive methods, beating is opted (सोप्युन्मार्गगामी ताडनादिपर्यन्तैरुपायैर्निवारणीयः).

Beating with objects that cause slight pain (वेणुदलंवंशत्वक् एतदप्युपलक्षणं तथाविधानां मृदुपीडासाधनानां शिष्यादीनाम्).

"Punishment for Excessive Force" If anyone beats them with objects such as stick (लगुडादिभिर्वा), and anywhere else on the body except the back part of the body, he shall be subjected to the punishment of a thief - रज्वादिभिरपि देहस्य पृष्ठदेशे ताडनीयाः नतु शिरसि । उक्तव्यतिरेकेण प्रहरणोवाग्दण्डधनदण्डरूपञ्चौरदण्डप्रामुयात् ( Kulluka Bhatta bhashya).

Mlecchas don’t quote Medhatithi commentary for this verse. Because Medhatithi said:

"Proper Interpretation" इयता कालेन यवीयसी कन्यावोढव्या न पुनरेतावद्वयस एवविवाहइत्युपदेशार्थः । अथापि न यथाश्रुतवर्षसंख्यैव किंतहि बहुना कालेनयवीयसी वोढव्या

What the injunction means is that the maiden married should be so much younger than the man; and not that marriage must be done only at the age stated.

"Further Clarification" सुतस्य च पुनदरिक्रियायां नैषकालः संभवतीति पुनर्दारक्रियां कुर्यादिति नोपपद्यते ||

Further, the age here stated can never be observed in the case of one’s son marrying a second time; so that, if the injunction were meant to be taken literally, it would mean that there should be no second marriage.

However, it has also been mentioned in the commentary previously in verse 9.88 that:

"Practical Reality" कुतोप्राप्तायाविवाहइत्याहुस्तदयुक्तं धनार्थिनोऽपि बालांविवाहयन्ति नाशास्त्रीयैव सर्वा प्रयुक्तिस्तृतीयेनिरूपिता ||

There is no force however in this (marrying at this particular age) as people are found to marry very young girls with seeking her dowry.

Well if you are claiming that verse 5.152 of manusmriti has given a clean chit to men to be licentuous, etc. then we can claim that verse 9.22 allows women to be the same as well. Because it states that wife’s character depends on her husband’s conduct:

" Medhatithi bhashya" भार्यासंरक्षणकामेन दौः शील्यादात्मा रक्षितव्यः । नाप्येतयैव केवलया । यतो दुःशीलस्य भार्याऽपि तथाविधैव भवति, गुणवत शीलवती ।

It also states that and it is not the woman that should preserve her chastity. It is the husband who needs to avoid evil acts.

Same has been stated by Acharya Kulluka Bhatta:

"Character Reflection" यथारूपेण भर्ता साधुनाऽसाधुना वा स्त्री विवाहविधिना संयुज्यते सा भर्तृसदृशगुणा भवति ।

Didn’t we read earlier that women should be protected by father, brother, husband, etc? No those verses don’t define obligations for men according to mlecchas. In 9.1, Acharya Medhatithi mentioned:

विधएवन्यायानुवर्तिनि नद्वेषमत्सरादिमतिभार्यायां तथाच विशील [ २१ अ०] ति तथाविधस्य पत्युरुपचर्योक्ता नभार्याप्रतिप्रभुत्वं उपचारश्च नृत्यवच्छ्रुश्रूषापादसंवाहनादि।

When the husband is very much harassed by his wife, or the wife is very much persecuted by her husband, the dispute is to be brought up before the king. It has been laid down that the wife shall attend upon her husband who behaves in the right manner, who is not beset with hate and jealousy and who is well-disposed towards his wife; and the husband has no sort of ‘sovereignty’ over his wife.

Thus proven that there’s no obligation of bearing torture and no violence is justified by the scriptures except the ones prescribed by the Ashrama. The verse 5.152 is just an arthavada further supporting verse 5.147 which states that a female shouldn’t “ABANDON” her father, husband, or son because it would render both families disreputable:

"Verse 5.147" पित्रा भर्ना सुतैर्वाऽपि नेच्छेद् विरहमात्मनः । एषां हि विरहेण स्त्री गर्हो कुर्यादुभे कुले ॥

I guess the mleccha is trying to highlight the term serving here. Because I don’t see anything wrong here. Serving here doesn’t mean licking husband’s feet like a slave. Serving means being devoted to husband.

For e.g. in Ayodhya Kanda Dashratha says:

"Example from Ramayana" रामो हि भरताद्भूयस्तव शुश्रूषते सदा ।

Shri Rama served Kaikeyi better than Bharata. Does it mean he became a slave? It’s about being devoted.

Manusmriti ordains capital punishment too for killing a woman:

"Verse 9.232" स्त्रीबालब्राह्मणघ्नांश्च हन्याद्

It is also said that those who lay their lives for brahmins, cows, and women attain the highest realm:

" Panchatantram with Abhinavaraja Lakshmi Tika" उक्तञ्च - गवामर्थे ब्राह्मणार्थे स्त्रीकृतेऽथवा । स्थानार्थे यस्त्यजेत्प्राणांस्तस्य लोकाः सनातना ।।

It’s also written in शतपथब्राह्मणम् ११.४.३.२:

" Shatapatha Brahmana" स्त्री वा एषा यच्छ्रीर्न वै स्त्रियं घ्नन्त्युत ।।

The verse just depicts the seriousness of crime although adultery is उपपातक (minor sin).

I hope it’s clear to everyone that this verse describes an event when a woman transgressed her husband:

"Context" भर्तारं लङ्घयेद् या तु स्त्री ज्ञातिगुणदर्पिता ।

Even for husbands it had been stated that they cannot abandon/disregard faithful wives who suffer from the defects of being disagreeable or of harsh speech and so forth:

" Manusmriti bhashya verse 9.95" साध्वी भार्या प्रातिकूल्याप्रियवादादिदोषयुक्तापि भर्त्रा न त्याज्येति श्लोकार्थः। अतस्तद्विषाणांद्विषतीमपि विभृयात् पातित्ये तामधिकारप्राप्तांपतिर्विन्देत

Even though she be hostile, she has to be supported.

That’s what marriage is all about in our culture. It’s sacrament not a sheet of paper.

Acharya Medhatithi mentioned a purvapakshin statement in his bhashya that quotes:

"Counter-argument" स्त्रीणांस्वाम्ये पत्न्यैवानुगमनं क्रियते पत्नीवैपारिणह्यस्येशइत्यादिश्रुतयोनिरालम्बनाः स्युः ।।

If women had no proprietary right, there would be no sense in such sruti-declarations as -‘the wife should follow in the footsteps of her husband’ and so forth.

So he states in reply:

" Medhatithi's Response" अत्रोच्यते पारतन्त्र्यविधानमेतत् असत्यां भर्तुरनुज्ञायां नस्त्रीभिः स्वातन्त्र्येण यत्रक्व चिद्धनंविनियोक्तव्यं ।।

What is meant by the text is only that they are dependent, subservient; the meaning being that ‘without the husband’s permission, the wife should not employ her wealth anywhere she may choose.’ Similarly with the son and the slave.

Even Acharya Kulluka Bhatta mentioned in his bhashya that women have a right to perform vaidik yajna therefore both wife and husband have a right to property:

" Kulluka Bhatta's Commentary" यागाधिकारस्योक्तत्वात् स्त्रीपुंसयोर्मध्यएकधने चानुमतिद्वारेण स्त्रियाअपि कर्तृत्वात् ।।

"Alleged Claim" " Brahmin men can marry 4 wives, a girl from his own caste and also the girls from other castes but a shudra man can only marry a shudra woman"

Firstly, scriptures don’t consider wife from second marriage as wife. That’s what Acharya Medhatithi mentioned in his bhashya:

" Medhatithi's Commentary" स्थितायां संख्याविवक्षायांद्वितीयस्याः कृतेऽपि पाणिग्रहणे न भायत्विं यथासत्यावहनीये न द्वितीय आहवनीयः ।

Even though the marriage-rites might be duly performed, she does not become a ‘wife;’ just as when one Ahavaniya is already there, the second fire, even though duly kindled, does not become ‘Ahavaniya.‘

Although under certain circumstances it’s allowed:

"Limited Permission" इष्यते च क्वचिन्निमित्ते भार्यान्तरपरिग्रहस्तदर्थमिदमारभ्यते ।।

Gautama has said:

" Gautama's Condition" 'If one's wife is endowed with virtue and offspring, one should not take another; in the event of failure on either of the two points, one may have another.'

एतदेवाभिप्रेत्य गौतमीयेपठितम् प्रजासंपन्नेदारेनान्यांकुर्वीत अन्यतरापायेतु कुर्वीतेति ।।

The other acharyas have reduced these activities to acts of lust. For e.g. Sarvagyanarayana bhashya:

"Lustful Motivation" नासवर्णा तादृक् श्रेयोर्थित्वाभावेन तु कामतः प्रवृत्तौ क्रमशोयथा पूर्व इमाः वराः श्रेष्ठाः ||

That’s why, Acharya Virasimha wrote in Viramitrodaya (Pg 752):

" Brahma Purana Reference" क्षत्रविशुद्रकन्यास्तु न विवाह्या द्विजातिभिः । विवाह्य ब्राह्मण पश्चाद्विवाद्याः कचिदेवतु ॥

The Brahmana shall never marry the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya or the Sudra girl; but after having married a Brahmana-girl, he may afterwards marry the others, but only under certain circumstances, says Brahma Purana.

Same is written in Pg 100 of Samskara Deepika by Mahapadhyaya Harshanath Jha.

The conclusion is that it is allowed only in times of distress:

"Emergency Circumstances Only" इदंतु प्रतिपत्तुंयुक्तं यत्सवर्णानियमेनासवर्णा निवृत्तेरर्थतः कृतायाः पुनः शृद्वानिवृत्तिरसवर्णानिवृत्तेरनित्यत्वं ज्ञापयति । अनित्यत्वेचापदि सुवर्णाया अलाभे वा भवति चायमवगमः शूद्रानवोढव्या इतरे तु वोढव्ये ।।

But a Shudra girl should never be married by any Dwija varna.

A brahmin who marries a shudra women is considered the vilest of the Chandalas:

"Severe Punishment" भ्रष्टो विप्रजातेश्च चाण्डालात्सोऽधमः स्मृतः ।

If he be a Vaishnava, his body must be branded with the marks of a Taptamudra (hot seal); and if he be a Shaiva, his body is to be branded with the Tapta Shula (hot trident): तप्तमुद्रादग्धदेहस्तप्तशूलाङ्ङ्कितस्तथा (देवीभागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः ०९/अध्यायः ३४).

Acharya Aparaditya mentioned in his Aparaka tika for Yajnavalkya smriti:

"Lustful vs. Righteous" कामतः प्रवृत्तानां न धर्मतः, अत एव ता जघन्याः।

What has been stated here is about people moved by lust, and not those who are subject to righteousness; so these are to be regarded as inferior.

"Conditions for Replacement" "If the wife is a drunkard, false in conduct, rebellious, or diseased or mischievous, wasteful, she should be replaced. The barren wife shall be superseded in the 8th year; in the 11th she who bears only daughters; but immediately who talks harshly"

Bhatta Gopinatha Dikshit ji rejected व्याधित (chronic illness) as असत्यवृत्तेति पदच्छेदः - invalid.

Since when did adhivedana started bothering the so called atheists (Muslims as ex-hindus)

In case of diseased wife, Manusmriti 9.82 says:

"Compassionate Treatment" या रोगिणी स्यात् तु हिता सम्पन्ना चैव शीलतः। साऽनुज्ञाप्याधिवेत्तव्या नावमान्या च कर्हि चित् ||

If a wife, who is an invalid, is well-disposed and endowed with modesty, she may be superseded after her consent has been obtained; and in no case is she to be disgraced.

This also applies to a wife who’s barren or conceives only daughters:

"Extended Application" भर्चे हितापरिचर्यापरानुज्ञापनावमानयोरिह विधानयोः पूर्वासामेतद्भावान् रोगिणीग्रहणंबन्ध्यास्त्रीजनन्यावपि लक्षयति प्रकृतत्वाविशेषादवमाननिमित्ताभावाच्च

This applies also to the case of the barren wife, and to that of one who bears only daughters; because, all these have been mentioned in the same context; and in none of these is there any reason why she should be disgraced.

In याज्ञवल्क्यस्मृतिः/आचाराध्यायः/विवाहप्रकरणम् it has been made clear that husband ought to take care of the superseded wife (the one who’s well disposed/faithful). Acharya Vijaneshwara explained further:

"Continuing Care" सा अधिविन्ना पूर्ववदेव दानमानसत्कारैरर्भर्तव्या । अन्यथाऽभरणे महदपुण्यं वक्ष्यमाणो दण्डश्च

Husband’s should take care of their wives with gifts, good treatment, and honor. In case husband fails to fulfill these duties he incurs sin and is subjected to punishments.

"Alleged Restriction" "A single man, free from covetousness, may be a witness, but not many women, even though pure,-because the understanding of women is not steady,-nor other men who are tainted with defects."

Let’s take the help of verse 8.68 to understand this verse:

"Verse 8.68" स्त्रीणां साक्ष्यं स्त्रियः कुर्युर्द्विजानां सदृशा द्विजाः शूद्राश्च सन्तः शूद्राणां अन्त्यानामन्त्ययोनयः ॥

Woman should give evidence for women; and for dwija similar dwija men, virtuous shudras for shudras, and antayajas for antayajas.

The prohibition for female witnesses is in those cases where both plaintiff and defendant are males:

" Medhatithi's Clarification" यत्र पुमांसावर्थिप्रत्यर्थिनौ तत्र स्त्रीणांसाक्ष्यंनास्ति यत्र तु स्त्रिया सह पुंसः कार्यस्त्रीणामेव चेतरेतरंखल्पंतत्र भवन्त्येव स्त्रियः साक्षिण्यः नचायंनियमः स्त्रीणांस्त्रियएव साक्ष्यंकुर्युर्नपुमांसः केवलंयुवतिविषये व्यवहारे क्वचिदेव स्त्रीणांसाक्ष्यं यतोऽस्थिरत्वादिति हेतुरुपात्तः भवन्ति काश्चन स्त्रियोब्रह्मवादिन्यइव सत्यवादिन्यः स्थिर बुद्धयश्च ।

Acharya Medhatithi wrote that the only reason for excluding women is their fickleness, but there are women who are as truthful, brahmavadinis, and stable minded.

"Alleged Ban" "Nowhere in the mantra-texts bearing upon marriage is 'authorisation' mentioned; nor again is the marriage of the widow mentioned in the injunction of marriage"

न विवाहविधावुक्तं विधवावेदनं

The context is Niyoga and Manu Maharaj wrote verses censoring this concept.

There are particular references dealing with widow remarriage. Most probably, they consider the case where the husband dies before the consummation of marriage. For e.g. Vasishtha smriti 17.66:

"Unconsummated Marriage" पाणिग्रहे मृते बाला केवलं मंत्रसंस्कृत । सा चेदक्षतयोनिः स्यात्पुनः संस्कारमर्हति ।।

If the female has undergone only mantra Samskaras and no consummation of marriage took place before husband’s death, then she is eligible to be married to someone else.

Arjuna’s marriage with the widowed daughter of a powerful Naga king Airavata:

" महाभारतम्-06-भीष्मपर्व-090" अर्जुनस्य सुतः श्रीमानिरावान्नाम वीर्यवान् सुतायां नागराजस्य जातः पार्थेन धीमता ऐरावतेन सा दत्ता अनपत्या महात्मना पत्यौ हते सुपर्णेन कृपणादीनचेतना ।।

In Agni Purana, it has been clearly mentioned that husband dying, becoming sannyasi, impotent, or outcaste, are the reasons to remarry a woman to someone else:

" अग्निपुराणम्/अध्यायः १५४" नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीवे च पतिते पतौ पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते।।

Same has been stated in नारदस्मृति १२.९७ and पराशरसमृति ४.३०.

You can read the same in Balambhatta commentary of Mitakshara for Yajnavalkya verse 1.89. He states that widow should be married to husband’s brother, relative, or someone who belongs to the Gotra of her husband.

"Proper Interpretation" व्याख्या समान वयस्को म भ्राता, ज्येष्ठो मे पिता और कलिष्ठो मे पुत्र कौ भी देखकर विकल हो जाती हैं। उन्हे सम्बन्ध का भी विचार नही रह जाता । इनकी मनोहरता पर राक्षसी नारी आसक्त हो जाती हैं। यह नियम पतिव्रताओ पर लागू नही है। यथा उत्तम के अस बस मन माही। सपनेहु आन पुरुष जग नाही । इत्यादि । ऐसी राक्षसी नारियो को सम्बन्ध या वय का भी विचार नही होता। वे रूपमात्र देखती हैं। अग्निस्राव हो सूर्यकान्तमणि का द्रवीभूत होना है। उसी भाँति

These verses don’t talk about virtuous women but women with rakshasa traits.