Buddhism Vs. Manusmrti

Jaya R. Betai and Ramesh S. Betai compare the social and ethical frameworks of Buddhism with those of the Manusmrti, an influential Hindu law code. The article notes that Indian society for millennia has been shaped by the concept of varnasrama‑dharma, which delineates duties according to caste and life stage. Manu’s text, composed around the start of the Common Era, systematised this order and came to be regarded as authoritative, linking social customs to scriptural sanction. The authors summarise Manusmrti’s prescriptions on caste duties, gender roles, inheritance and penance, highlighting its hierarchical structure that privileges Brahmins and prescribes strict penalties for lower‑caste transgressors. Buddhism, by contrast, is portrayed as a reform movement that challenged ritualism and caste distinctions. Drawing on the Buddha’s teachings and monastic rules, the article emphasises Buddhism’s commitment to ethical conduct, compassion and the intrinsic dignity of all beings. It argues that the sangha’s admission of people from all castes and the Buddha’s rejection of brahminical superiority offered a socially egalitarian model. The authors also point out shared ground: both traditions encourage non‑violence, truthfulness and self‑restraint, and both recognise the importance of social harmony. Nevertheless, Buddhism does not ground ethics in divine injunction but in experiential understanding of suffering and its cessation. The article concludes that while Manusmrti provided a comprehensive code for Hindu society, Buddhism presented a powerful alternative based on universal moral principles rather than birth‑based hierarchy, influencing later social reforms.

AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.