Source: GA TW
Śāstra fails to be taken seriously because of 2 reasons:
- Where it does contain precious teachings, it fails to be taken seriously because of arrogance on part of a small-minded reader.
- There is an undeniable bit of genuinely uninspired, over-the-top frivolity, which cannot be taken seriously but unfairly offers a justification for some to not take seriously the śāstravākyas in No.1.
Such tripe should have been tempered, done away with or explained away. We did have a culture of auditing Śāstras, although this is not a free-for-all exercise but an authority reserved for only Śiṣṭas. Unfortunately, we reserved our audit for the best of texts - ones discussing high-level metaphysics or subjects such as Dāna (See Dānasāgara of Ballālasena). These “audits” are not perfect but at least embody piety with a critical thinking element.
However, we completely sat out on the Ācāra/Nibandha/Āhāraniyama texts, which started ballooning out of control. Many traditionalists will not like these tweets & don’t want to engage this as they think this will open a Pandora’s box but this is a short-sighted approach. What they have to do is to act in their capacity as Śiṣṭas, with the authority vested in them by the Śruti itself (Taittirīya-Upaniṣat).
Śabarasvāmī opposed the popular conception of women having no property based on Śrutivākyas in Brāhmaṇa texts. Other Smṛtivākyas (including from the hallowed Baudhāyana-Smṛti) were critiqued by Śābarasvāmī on the basis of the Mīmāmsā concept of Hetu (literally, “cause” i.e. ulterior motive). Kumārila critiqued this critique.
So, again, the earlier “audit” of the Smṛtivākya may or may not have been perfect but that’s irrelevant. But if competent Śiṣṭas don’t bother to do it anymore, many things will come back to bite the Dharma.
There is a legitimate consideration as to whether we should pre-empt problems & publish our “audits”, thus uncovering problems which are not yet known to the public at large. It has to be a case-by-case exercise of discretion & these “audits” can be published for private consumption (till they have to be “declassified”) or publicly but in Sam̐skṛta.
The concept of Hetu (ulterior motive) screams loud in your face when you read certain stories, which I will not refer to here. But I have discussed them with like-minded people who agree with my assessment. But it may be a matter of time before some hateful miscreant decides to use a tiny portion of our texts to undermine the Dharma. If you are skeptical about this, recall that certain Drāviḍāsuras dug up tamizh translations of Taittirīya-Kāṭhaka mantras for Śrāddham to attack us.