The greatest thinker of 19th century was Fredrick Nietzsche.He created a generation of pragmatists all over europe and America.Nietzsche's disciples still rule the world of philosophy. Nietzsche's views on God is well known.He famously declared 'God is dead'.He was a world renowned atheist.Such an atheist read a hindu book and had very great opinion on that book.He sings the glory of that book in his letters. Any guesses as of what book that is?Geetha,veda,purana??-no.
It's Manu.He hails it as the source of morals of entire humanity.
Nietzsche says on manu as follows
"It is with an opposite feeling that I read the law of Manu, an incomparably spiritual and superior work: even to mention it in the same breath with the *****(edited) would be a sin against the spirit. One guesses immediately: there is a real philosophy behind it, in it, not merely an ill-smelling ... superstitionit offers even the most spoiled psychologist something to chew on...
....here the noble classes, the philosophers and the warriors, stand above the mass; noble values everywhere, a feeling of perfection, an affirmation of life, a triumphant delight in oneself and in lifethe sun shines on the whole book"
Nietzsche also comments on the caste system in manu.He clearly says caste came by nature , and were not imposed by birth.This clearly proves that manu did not impose castes by birth as alleged by many.
"The order of castes, the supreme, the dominant law, is merely the sanction of a natural order, a natural lawfulness of the first rank, over which no arbitrariness, no "modern idea" has any power Nature, not Manu, distinguishes the pre-eminently spiritual ones, those who are pre-eminently strong in muscle and temperament, and those, the third type, who excel neither in one respect nor in the other, the mediocre ones the last as the great majority, the first as the elite." (A 57)
"What an affirmative Aryan religion, the product of the ruling class, looks like: the law-book of Manu. (The deification of the feeling of power in Brahma: interesting that it arose among the warrior caste and was only transferred to the priests.."
But however Nietzsche also finds fault with manu.He says that manu is found on a 'holy lie',the lie of God.Nietzsche could not accept god.Hence he said
"The whole book(manu) is founded on the holy lie. "
Sampath, I think its time to disagree on this one for me.
Nietzsche = Vashistar?. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I remember a friend who argued that since Nietzsche rejected Christianity and thrashed it to the hilt, it means that Hinduism must be the real faith. It took a lot for me to explain that Nietzsche not just rejected Christianity but rejected the notion of God in the first place.
Now I am seeing a post from you thrilled at the mention of manu by Nietzsche. I dont understand the reason behind that. But you are also mentioning that Nietzsche himself is mentioning that 'Manu is based on a holy lie'. How come a book built on the premise of a holy lie can be praised for the contents?. If you do not agree on the premise, how can you praise the content?.
Again, going back to the basic philosophy of Nietzsche, he builts it on the premise that God was an invention by the 'priestly' class for satisfying the inadequecies of the simpler men. Without the 'moral values' imposed by a God, the stronger men/women will be able to live in this world without suffering the lesser men. While the interpretation is crude, this is what I deduced when I read 'Thus spake Zaruthustra' and 'Beyond good and evil' back in college days.
Now reading manu, under this premise, he is actually extolling him for trying to visualise a society with the norms he agrees with. The rulers, 'men of will', at the top with the lesser ones at the bottom. The agreement with manu for Nietzsche is not as a thinker appreciating a fellow thinkers thought process, but as a philosopher finding supporting ground for his philosophies. Thus I find it amusing that a person, whom I respect for the kind of wider knowledge you've exhibited, is simply taken for a ride by a German philosopher whose philosophy was used as a justification by no lesser a person than Hitler (however misguided he might be) and was used as a support for the holocaust ('The rise and fall of the Third Reich' by Willian Shirer). While the thoughts of Manu has taken shape into a birth-based caste system which is in existence till today. Now explain how we can tell that manu actually intended to create a society based on the 'merit' of an individual and therefore we need to 'reform' the caste system to say, the guy who is is humiliated every day by being served water in seperate tumblers in villages? (no fiction, I saw it in a village near Ambai in Tirunelveli district!).
While agreeing that Manu and Nietzsche are great thinkers, I think Nietzsche will be rolling in his grave at the thought of people servile to the approval of Westerners for their own people's thought processes. Its not just anti-nietzschean but tragic indeed. If you want a real 'vashister' who has priased manu and his thoughts on the varnashrama, why not quote Sri Chandrasekarendra swamigal's 'Deivathin kural' (think available online at the kanchi kamakoti site)?. That would've been close to the philosophy of Nietzsche.
Muthu prakash, That was a great post on Nietzsche and his thoughts.
Nietzsche was against god and religion.Nietzsche hated somebody else controlling and determining his life.His horror was to find him as a replica.he did not want to be like others.He wanted to be different.Religion doesnt permit a person to be different.It makes us to comply.It wants uniformity.This is what nietzsche hated.He did not want to be shaped by past.Instead he wanted to do to past, what it wanted to do to him.
"My greatest horror in life is to find myself as a replica" said poetess bloom.Nietzsche had the same mentality.So he started writing about creating a new soul,new Europe etc.Nietzsche's important contribution is a suggestion to stop asking futile philosophical questions and to stop the idea of finding out 'truth'.Based on his criticism of truth,new definitions for the term truth was required and we had a new field called pragmatism with people like charles pierce and william James contributing to its growth.
Hitler hailed Nietzsche because he was a German.It's like madurai muniyandi vilas having photo of Girubanada variyar.
So Nietzsche certainly is equal to vasishta.Both were great thinkers.Nietzsche would have accepted vasishta as a metaphysical philospher in lines of plato and aristotle.Many modern day pragmatists accept Indian philosphers of the old.Rorty accepts shankara as a philosopher but says he doesnt know where to classify him.Modern day philosphers dont reject the works of philosphers of the past.They certainly have attacked the ideas of plato and aristotle but they dont fail to appreciate their contribution to the field of philosophy.In the field of philosophy works of previous philosphers becomes fodder for todays philosophers.The field builds up past work.
So it is not surprising that Nietzsche criticized manu for the 'holy lie',but still appreciated it for the deep underlying philosophy in it.Nietzsche certainly would have found fault with manu the way he found fault with plato's concept of morality.But he never fails to appreciate whats good.Rorty has many good words to say about communist manifesto and Bible.He analyzes them like any other book.
manu,bharatha,ramayana all can be great guide to us.But they cannot be the only guide.We should not hesitate to reject what is not appropriate for us.We have to learn our life's principles from many many books.Instead of rejecting a book in toto for whats bad in it,we have to accept whats good in it.Thats what nietzsche did with manu.In the end he had very high opinion on it.He did not think that as work of god,but he approached it as work of man.