The point of contention of this mini blog post is why do we stick to Manusmriti?
How is it relevant in understanding what Hinduism allows and disallows when it is an ancient work that was the opinion of a Rishi of ancient times which was not even considered relevant even in the ancient period?
If it was, please show evidence of any ancient Acharya referring to this specific smriti as the basis of his argument when it comes to the law of the land.
Please show evidence of any ancient King in India settling disputes or rewarding or punishing individuals on the basis of this specific Smriti. There are other smritis that definitely contradict what has been written in Manusmriti.
It is not the ultimate authority on Dharma. It is a part of the Vedic body of literature.
As soon as you bring Manusmriti into the discussion you have already lost your argument.
Is it accepted by scholars of Vedas, Shastras, and Upanishads of either the ancient times or the modern times that it is a primary resource according to which we should live by?
I am not denouncing the greatness of Manu and Manusmriti, just that interpolation is 100% possible and we need not stick with Manusmriti and defend every sentence even the interpolated ones blindly to be a
traditional Hindu / Sanatana Dharma / Dharmika Vyakti.
– Mahaguru