I recently heard a Q/A between a disciple and guru in which the disciple was distressed about some teachers in her lineage quoting passages from Manu Smṛti that seem to be demeaning to śūdra.

The guru explained that a smṛti is culturally specific, not universal, and when read by people of different cultures (not just different nations or religions, but also different epochs within the same nationality or religion) becomes almost impossibly twisted and convoluted. Ironically, it is lack of awareness of this, not the statements themselves, that make such statements so problematic. People trying to be “good Hindus” or “good devotees” or “good spiritualists” will often idolize and worship the misunderstandings of such statements. Their misunderstanding gets enshrined as an ideal.

The questioner was disturbed that a Gauḍīya Ācārya like Śrī Baladeva would reference such baffling smṛti statements. I sympathize. I would say Baladeva’s citation of a text does not mean he admires the text and wants it to be followed. Much more likely, he is citing it to substantiate some other point he is trying to clarify, probably in reference to some story or some metaphor.

I would like to share a problem I had, similar to what the questioner seems to be facing. I strongly dislike Cānakya Pāṇḍit. Many years ago I was trying to be a member of ISKCON, and Prabhupāda would quote Cānakya very often, and with express approval. ISKCON was mysogynist and Prabhupada was quoting Cānakya’s mysogyny to support and fortify that mysogyn, because he thought such mysogyny was proper. I would offer this as an example of what Baladeva is NOT doing. Baladeva is not the leader of śūdra-exploiting organization, trying to support exploitation of śūdras. He is a philosopher commenting on a philosophical text, that references a “śudra” in some metaphor.

Even if we do analyze and discover that Baladeva was in fact a racist, casteist bigot – just because he is a Gauḍīya commentator doesnt mean we have to adopt his political ideologies! In answering his disciple, this Guru said, “…if you have a problem with it, do not follow it.” This is such an important lesson. And, “‘accepting’ does not always mean ‘accepting everything.’” We don’t have to admire Einstein’s marriage to admire his theory of relativity. Why do we think we need to amire an ācārya’s political opinions otherwise we cannot admire his or her clarity on a particular passage of śāstra?

The guru explained, “‘accepting’ does not always mean ‘accepting everything.’”

We don’t have to admire Einstein’s marriage to admire his theory of relativity. Why do we think we need to amire an ācārya’s political opinions otherwise we cannot admire his or her clarity on a particular passage of śāstra?