does shastra exactly say dat a gal cannot b elder 2 da guy she marries???

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri Sravana Ji,

See, you have contradicted yourself. You said that all sayings in Hinduism are to be believed, but yet qualified one Acharyals interpretation of our scriptures as against two others!

I asked the series of questions to you to show you that our religion is not 'black and white' as some other religions are.

Our religion is great (according to me), precisely because of this ability to accommodate differing ecclestiastical (sambradhayams) views and still consider them to be valid. And this is at the Sruthi level.

And given this, why would you consider differences at the Shastra level, which by definition is supposed to adapt to the times? Do you today agree with Manu Smrithi which prescribes I think pouring molten lead in to the ears of a Non Brahmin if he/she tries to learn the Vedas?

I hope you think about this.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS Ji,

It is all about the insights one has about something. Ramanuja's and madhva's were different from those of sankara's. The fact that such great scholars rejected sankara's philosophy doesn't make sankara wrong. The point is, were they successful in their attempts? As I said my view is, sankara's philosophy remains unassailable.

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

dear Madhumitha!

I am in my mid sixties . I want to share my observation with you in

earnest.

Saasthraa may or may not tell anything about the ages of the bride and

groom. That is beside the point now.

But in olden times the groom was three times as old as the bride.

The girl was ~ 6 and the boy ~ 18 years old . So the ideal difference in

their ages was considered to be 12 years!

Then the gap started narrowing. In my age group the age difference was

8+ or (8 -) years.

Now the girls want to marry boys equal to their age or if possible

younger to them! :shocked:

Any one can do anything. After all it is your life and your choice.

BUT men and women age differently and at different rates.

You must have noticed that an actress who plays the child of an actor

later on graduates to play his wife/ lover and then goes on to play his

mother! If she lives long enough she might even his grandmother.

So IF any girl is ready to look like...

the elder sister of the groom during their marriage,

his mother 15 years later,

and his grandmother 30 years later,

THERE IS NOTHING or NO ONE to stop her from taking the leap!:faint:

Rest assured, the future of those couples wont be much different from

the future of the English- as projected by your post! :ballchain:

 

[nachi naga]

i think to rate,then date,then mate,then hate and finally fate.....engayoh poyitain

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri Sravana Ji,

See, you have contradicted yourself. You said that all sayings in Hinduism are to be believed, but yet qualified one Acharyals interpretation of our scriptures as against two others!

I asked the series of questions to you to show you that our religion is not 'black and white' as some other religions are.

Our religion is great (according to me), precisely because of this ability to accommodate differing ecclestiastical (sambradhayams) views and still consider them to be valid. And this is at the Sruthi level.

And given this, why would you consider differences at the Shastra level, which by definition is supposed to adapt to the times? Do you today agree with Manu Smrithi which prescribes I think pouring molten lead in to the ears of a Non Brahmin if he/she tries to learn the Vedas?

I hope you think about this.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS JI,

Somehow I missed this post.

There is no contradiction because Sankara and others did only an interpretation of the vedas. Don't you think everyone can in have his own interpretation including you and me? What I said was to me ,Sankara's interpretation makes complete sense and may be said to represent the views of the scriptures. But as you said to some others ramanuja 's and madhva's may seem the right one and again as you say it is the beauty of hinduism that inspite of these variations it presents itself as a unified whole with the core values being more or less invariant.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Like the elephant was to the five blind men! All discussions lead us to find nothing inside a peeled onion, except tears in our eyes!

 

[pviyer]

Dear friends,
The inspiration for my understanding on the role of women as emphasized in this post is paramacharya of Kanchi, and anyone needs further information on what he had to say regarding the role of women, they may please contact me or refer to his works directly.

I want to say in the beginning that my reasons for holding a view that a girl should not marry a younger boy may not be right. The reasons may not be also acceptable to some people here. I leave it as a personal view and an explanation which satisfied me, and which I would like to share.

1. My understanding is that though some shastras dont explicitly say no to such marriages, some shastras express reservations and some others recommend that the girl marry a boy elder to her.

2. Apart from declarations of Shastras, there are no records of such precedents in TB Community. Further the elders and the sages who have guided our community, have not come in support of removal of such taboos.

3. But can there be a logical reason?-

My view is that society rules are governed by the objectives of the society. If a person does not accept the objectives of his society he can be free to establish his own society rather than creating unrest by forcing his views on others.

The rishis have thought a lot before bringing up each and every traditional practice so that it serves the purpose of society.

So having clarified this- let me give my understanding of purpose of marriage before getting to further explanation. Each individual has to attain moksham and the regulations of life must naturally lead him/her there.

Husband and wife are complimentary. The good done by husband and the good done by wife benefit both , even though individual tasks may be separately divided as per convenience , and as per tradition. More important is their collaboration on the fulfillment of the overall job rather than fighting out on who should do what.

The male was given the task of learning tradition or vocation as the case might be. The need for this job to be made a primary responsibility of male was practicality and to avoid further problems that come up, when tasks dont get allocated correctly, resulting in ego clash and fights over the right responsibility.

If you were a manager of an organization, you allocate proper tasks to your employees , rather than leaving things to employees own decisions and making vague declarations on tasks. Smart employees develop good understanding and make right compromises but an efficient manager cannot take things for granted. Even a few cracks can break the whole wall, probably the rishis saw more than a few cracks that could come up if suitable measures are not in place

There are tasks which can be done by anybody and there are tasks which need to be entrusted only to specific individuals, even though another may be equally capable of the same task.

Anyway so the male had to take up the vocation based role, and maintain an order by which tradition never dies out. Now why not give the same task to female also? Do we not see that the tradition of each family is different? Is it always possible that man and woman come from the same subcaste or lineage. Further there are events in a female's life which promote distraction from strictly observing the regulations of vocation or family tradition. A compromise always happens in the case of females,the sage cannot go by the assumption that x,y,z male is so so tolerant that he gives in to everything that his wife says. There is no way to prove or disprove something.

More important from a manager(read as our rishi)'s perspective is to ensure that tradition and knowledge get handed down and he had to make the necessary measures to ensure it rather than leave it to good luck and fortune, so suitably entrust tasks as part of his job of delineating the society into categories called male or female.

He had seen that it was wise to make sure that a wife does not get involved into conflicting traditions, and training for work, which could distract her from her role in a house- Being a good mother, making sure that the rituals of a house are properly implemented by her husband and so on. In this process, to avoid conflicts and needless ego clashes which is likely to happen when a male takes control of the family due to his vocation and money earning capacity, the woman was put in a position where she would respect her husband as a guru or as an elderly person.

Thus the person who had knowledge of tradition is able to put across his knowledge and experience as an other elderly person in a family would. Does not the girl obey her father or her anna? The same scheme of things were put in place, so that a natural admiration would develop in a girl towards the wisdom of her husband. Further by not giving opportunity to the girl by investing her with thread, and with knowledge of vedas, the rishis wanted to compensate this situation, by making the husband as a guru and giving him the task of sharing his spiritual advancement. How is this concept possible to implement, if girl is elder to her husband? If both are given the task of learning vedas, there will never be an agreement on who should do what. There will be generalists but no specialists. Vedic learning will be incomplete even to the extent of society not preserving what is there today.

If a girl is made to marry a husband, who is not in a position to be her guru, and who does not inculcate the same things in her, which he was supposed to have inculcated during his learning "humility and service", there is no spiritual growth for the girl. There may be a lot of love between husband and wife, and if husband is good he will make equal compromises. But he cannot make the girl humble and convince her of his understanding. That wedge may not be there in all cases, but in most cases it is there. What can be considered an exception must be treated like an exception with good measure.

In course of time, the girl spiritually matures and makes contributions to his understanding at an equal level. In the vedic scheme of things no ritual of a householder is complete without a woman. Even the sandhya he does, the equal spiritual benefits have to go his wife. She may not see it, but it is natural that she has an equal right to it, due to her contribution in the family. The proof is self evident, in families where the men have spiritual luster due to great tasks, you will see the spiritual luster in their chaste wives, even though they may not have done any of their husband's rituals.

 

[sangom]

Shri Iyer,

How does the story of Ratnakara (Valmiki) fit with your statements to the effect that equal spiritual benefits of religious rites done by the husband go to wife? Is it that only the good results are shared and not the bad results? And what about the 'reverse traffic', i.e., good and evil results of whatever the wife does? Kindly let us know what the Rishis say, not your personal opinion or Kanchi Acharya's personal views.

 

[pviyer]

Shri Iyer,

How does the story of Ratnakara (Valmiki) fit with your statements to the effect that equal spiritual benefits of religious rites done by the husband go to wife? Is it that only the good results are shared and not the bad results? And what about the 'reverse traffic', i.e., good and evil results of whatever the wife does? Kindly let us know what the Rishis say, not your personal opinion or Kanchi Acharya's personal views.

Sir,
As for each individual case, the conscience of the individual is a witness to the contribution to any work good or bad. So Valmiki knew how much his wife was to blame for his condition. The story provides ample clarification on the same and we all know that it was valmiki who made the decisions he had made , his wife behaved perfectly as was expected of her. When husband and wife follow the roles prescribed to them by the shastras, which is nothing but what is said (or supposedly said) by the rishis, they are entitled to the karmas. I dont believe in speculating on dharma and I believe that the first step is to digest the teachings of a spiritually luminous person like paramacharya and then read the scriptures in a systematic manner. The role of a wife and husband is sufficiently clear from the different shastras-which is the opinion of the rishis. The rishis have left nothing to chance and the puranas contain further explanation on this. If you feel that a rishi who has framed the shastras is silent on the role of a man and a woman in marriage or has said something fundamentally in opposition to what I have said, please feel free to let me know. I am sure your clarity in this regard will bring a tremendous change in our saints who have digested shastras, vyakarana , vedas and vedanta.

Even if you are to use logic, what ensures the distribution of phala to a karma , is their contribution to it. Thus even though a king who sponsors a yagna does not recite mantras, he is the beneficiary. Please let me know specific arguments in shastras in opposition to my line of thought.

 

[sangom]

Sir,
As for each individual case, the conscience of the individual is a witness to the contribution to any work good or bad. So Valmiki knew how much his wife was to blame for his condition. The story provides ample clarification on the same and we all know that it was valmiki who made the decisions he had made , his wife behaved perfectly as was expected of her. When husband and wife follow the roles prescribed to them by the shastras, which is nothing but what is said (or supposedly said) by the rishis, they are entitled to the karmas. I dont believe in speculating on dharma and I believe that the first step is to digest the teachings of a spiritually luminous person like paramacharya and then read the scriptures in a systematic manner. The role of a wife and husband is sufficiently clear from the different shastras-which is the opinion of the rishis. The rishis have left nothing to chance and the puranas contain further explanation on this. If you feel that a rishi who has framed the shastras is silent on the role of a man and a woman in marriage or has said something fundamentally in opposition to what I have said, please feel free to let me know. I am sure your clarity in this regard will bring a tremendous change in our saints who have digested shastras, vyakarana , vedas and vedanta.

Even if you are to use logic, what ensures the distribution of phala to a karma , is their contribution to it. Thus even though a king who sponsors a yagna does not recite mantras, he is the beneficiary. Please let me know specific arguments in shastras in opposition to my line of thought.

Shri Iyer,

I found the Ratnakar-Valmiki story somewhat incongruent with whatever you had written and asked for your clarification. I did not intentionally include any sarcasm in my post. But now you reply to me with an abundance of it. I take it that this is also one of the "sagely" methods of defending the rishis' words which the Kanchi Acharya's advices have taught you!!

 

[pviyer]

Shri Iyer,

I found the Ratnakar-Valmiki story somewhat incongruent with whatever you had written and asked for your clarification. I did not intentionally include any sarcasm in my post. But now you reply to me with an abundance of it. I take it that this is also one of the "sagely" methods of defending the rishis' words which the Kanchi Acharya's advices have taught you!!

Dear Sir,

I have not replied with sarcasm sir. Because this is what I believe to be true. I did not say something for argument sake.
explained that his wife's karma was not necessarily incongruent to dharma. She was not born to a brahmana and she did not suffer from conditions that would occur in violation of dharma of a brahmana. His wife's situation cannot be compared with that of Valmiki. I am not aware of in any case, does not mean there is no record of it, just that I am not aware of it , the destiny of his wife during his hunter life. What is so incongruent about this story, it just says that a person can only be punished to extent of a person's contribution in it. Why should valmiki's wife suffer for something she has no way contributed. I only believe in contribution to a karma directly or indirectly which can affect the extent to which a person is affected by it. Are we not punished by our courts for indirectly assisting a crime? However should a person have no direct or indirect involvement in a crime, even if it may be a person who has shared the booties of a crime, he cannot be punished. Just like a taxi driver who was hired(but was in no way mentally or physically involved in the murder) by a murderer cannot be implicated in the murder, even though it may have been helpful to the murder. Can you not see that crime punishment has its own logic depending on a person's involvement in it.
Please refer to the duties of women as mentioned in www.shastras.com/html2pdf/create_pdf.php?docid=853


I deliberately desist from quoting manu smriti's laws on women, as I know them to be already controversial and I guess you may already be aware of its supposed statements. Though it is my belief without proof, that the online edition of manu smiriti is not the complete original version of manu shastras as followed in certain parts of the country atleast.

But sir, reading makes no sense because they dont necessarily explain every law, and is likely to be treated as absurdities, as the explanations come in our puranas which are further explained by the exponents of shastras. In this online edition do you find an explanation for the shastras? We can either blindly ascribe reasons or read the gurus and then come to our digestion of what they have said. This is what I have tried to do, and I am willing to take back those statements which are in opposition to my dharma guru and acharya.I have made it clear that I am not quoting verbatim from paramacharya nor do I hide the fact that explanation is inspired by him, but not necessarily true to his intended explanation. Further I am willing to provide his opinion on the same if you need it. I further like to add, that paramacharya has said nothing new and novel, as all those who read the works of traditional works are aware. Even shankara's supposed statements on duties of a woman is controversial but clear and consistent enough with what I have read of shastras and what paramacharya says.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri pviyer,

You seem to have thought about this a lot and have come to the firm opinion that whatever is said in the shashthras, as explained to you by your acharyas, is the best approach to life and society. I can't, and won't, argue with that. But, part of your presentation includes some justifications drawn from the secular world. Here, you don't have the liberty to simply claim validity of such justifications. My comment are only on those matters.

If you were a manager of an organization, you allocate proper tasks to your employees , rather than leaving things to employees own decisions and making vague declarations on tasks.

There was a time in the past when managers and workers were all men. Most organizations followed more or less a rigid, military style hierarchical structure of authority. However, unlike the pronouncement contained in sasthras, what constitutes effective management were not considered immutable truths violation of which is a sin. Today, we see women in all kinds of roles and occupations, from auto-drivers to CEO of MNCs, and excelling in all of them.

So, I feel you cannot justify roles for women as defined by sashthras with unknown origin and unknown authorship by citing gender neutral task allocations and management styles in the secular world that keep changing. You don't get to justify archaic and anachronistic rules for role of women using anything more than "rishis-said-so".

....My view is that society rules are governed by the objectives of the society. If a person does not accept the objectives of his society he can be free to establish his own society rather than creating unrest by forcing his views on others.

This is also quite unacceptable. IMO, each member of the society has an inalienable right to persuade other members of the society, appealing to their intellect and sense of fair-play, in a non-violent way, like Socrates did, to reshape or even redefine those objectives. Telling them to go away and start their own society elsewhere gives undue advantage to the establishment power to perpetuate their own vision of the objectives even if they have lost popular support.

Cheers!

 

[pviyer]

Dear Shri pviyer,

Today, we see women in all kinds of roles and occupations, from auto-drivers to CEO of MNCs, and excelling in all of them.

I agree sir,in this respect that women have succeeded and continue to succeed in different vocations. If Lord Krishna and Lord Rama had wanted they could have become rishis and vedic experts instead of being kings. King Janaka was renowned for his fame in understanding vedanta, but he was king and he fulfilled that as his primary responsibility.

Bhagwat Gita has a statement which is controversial but well explained by exponents of Dharma. It reads something like this- " It is much better to do one's own duty sincerely rather than take up the dharma of another and excel in it". I can get you the exact verse and its translation if you are not aware of this verse. I understand that different people have different interpretations to this. I am also keen to know the alternate explanations to this verse.

Just as an additional note, some people may be interested to know that Sri Bhaktivedanta srila prabhupada(whose views I don't agree completely with) was clear on the role of women too. He claimed to have read the Gita without any speculative readings. Dharma is subtle and its purpose is to ensure that the individual conquers his weakness and progresses towards God. Because people are different with regard to their Guna and Karma, the work they take up must help them conquer their weakness.

There was a disciple of Swami Sivananda (of rishikesh) . I think it was krishnananda but I can check up and confirm if it was indeed him, if someone needs me to verify the same. He has mentioned that when he arrived in Sivananda's ashram, inspite of being from a family where veda was learnt, the only thing he was asked to do was clean the ashram premises. This seemed to have been the case for many years. He further adds , that this period was his greatest learning phase.

If someone says that being a servant and carrying a corpse cannot give you a moksha , he has not understood karma or dharma. If he says that one can do any karma as per one's inclination and fancy, he does not understand dharma either. How do you progress to God, even while interacting with material world- "This is the goal of Sanathana Dharma". This was the purpose of the shastra laws and this is not the purpose of modern vocations and modern governmental laws. This is my opinion and I have come to this opinion, not based on blind speculation, but based on contemplation of what our sages have said, what I have read of dharma. It is not because of an attempt to logically find differences and contradictions in what our sages say, but my understanding is because of an attempt to see the consistency in understanding matters at hand.

As I have already said, my opinion is not sealed in a tomb for good, I am very much open to modification and admit that the thinking of the sages is very much likely to be much deeper than what I have thought of in this regard. I have put my views here, only because at this stage in my life, this is what seems consistent to me and I hope to see an opinion exposing my weakness in understanding the very verses which I have relied upon to come to such an understanding.

This is also quite unacceptable. IMO, each member of the society has an inalienable right to persuade other members of the society, appealing to their intellect and sense of fair-play, in a non-violent way, like Socrates did, to reshape or even redefine those objectives. Telling them to go away and start their own society elsewhere gives undue advantage to the establishment power to perpetuate their own vision of the objectives even if they have lost popular support.

I agree with your right to disagree as long as you are able to take the majority of your society into confidence and make them feel comfortable about your views. If your ideas are dramatically different, more patience is called for. You need to have better skills of communication. Today the people who think traditionally are in this situation rather than the people who think from a modern perspective. It is but natural that when two sections of society think differently and have departed too far away from their aims, they naturally get assimilated into different theological streams. It is never good, but what else can be the course of destiny.

A devotee of Sringeri Mutt reflected with sadness that - " When a previous governor of Karnataka came to meet the Sringeri Acharya, acharya spoke about Varna Ashrama dharma, and the governor asked the Acharya to stop talking about such things to him. The devotees felt sad about this insult to their acharya, that in modern India, an Acharya cannot even speak his mind freely!"
If someone needs to have a citation for this incident, I need to look up, its been ages since I read this account, but I hope that the message from the incident is clear.

Cheer up friend, we all live with compromises, my own opinion is rather different from most members in my family. But it is a family and we all tolerate each other, inspite of differences in opinion. I am not sure that it happens in the same way in a larger society. Any differences in Indian society is certainly likely to be allowed as long as it happens in a non aggressive style.

 

[sravna]

I agree sir,in this respect that women have succeeded and continue to succeed in different vocations. If Lord Krishna and Lord Rama had wanted they could have become rishis and vedic experts instead of being kings. King Janaka was renowned for his fame in understanding vedanta, but he was king and he fulfilled that as his primary responsibility.

Bhagwat Gita has a statement which is controversial but well explained by exponents of Dharma. It reads something like this- " It is much better to do one's own duty sincerely rather than take up the dharma of another and excel in it". I can get you the exact verse and its translation if you are not aware of this verse. I understand that different people have different interpretations to this. I am also keen to know the alternate explanations to this verse.

Just as an additional note, some people may be interested to know that Sri Bhaktivedanta srila prabhupada(whose views I don't agree completely with) was clear on the role of women too. He claimed to have read the Gita without any speculative readings. Dharma is subtle and its purpose is to ensure that the individual conquers his weakness and progresses towards God. Because people are different with regard to their Guna and Karma, the work they take up must help them conquer their weakness.

There was a disciple of Swami Sivananda (of rishikesh) . I think it was krishnananda but I can check up and confirm if it was indeed him, if someone needs me to verify the same. He has mentioned that when he arrived in Sivananda's ashram, inspite of being from a family where veda was learnt, the only thing he was asked to do was clean the ashram premises. This seemed to have been the case for many years. He further adds , that this period was his greatest learning phase.

If someone says that being a servant and carrying a corpse cannot give you a moksha , he has not understood karma or dharma. If he says that one can do any karma as per one's inclination and fancy, he does not understand dharma either. How do you progress to God, even while interacting with material world- "This is the goal of Sanathana Dharma". This was the purpose of the shastra laws and this is not the purpose of modern vocations and modern governmental laws. This is my opinion and I have come to this opinion, not based on blind speculation, but based on contemplation of what our sages have said, what I have read of dharma. It is not because of an attempt to logically find differences and contradictions in what our sages say, but my understanding is because of an attempt to see the consistency in understanding matters at hand.

As I have already said, my opinion is not sealed in a tomb for good, I am very much open to modification and admit that the thinking of the sages is very much likely to be much deeper than what I have thought of in this regard. I have put my views here, only because at this stage in my life, this is what seems consistent to me and I hope to see an opinion exposing my weakness in understanding the very verses which I have relied upon to come to such an understanding.


I agree with your right to disagree as long as you are able to take the majority of your society into confidence and make them feel comfortable about your views. If your ideas are dramatically different, more patience is called for. You need to have better skills of communication. Today the people who think traditionally are in this situation rather than the people who think from a modern perspective. It is but natural that when two sections of society think differently and have departed too far away from their aims, they naturally get assimilated into different theological streams. It is never good, but what else can be the course of destiny.

A devotee of Sringeri Mutt reflected with sadness that - " When a previous governor of Karnataka came to meet the Sringeri Acharya, acharya spoke about Varna Ashrama dharma, and the governor asked the Acharya to stop talking about such things to him. The devotees felt sad about this insult to their acharya, that in modern India, an Acharya cannot even speak his mind freely!"
If someone needs to have a citation for this incident, I need to look up, its been ages since I read this account, but I hope that the message from the incident is clear.

Cheer up friend, we all live with compromises, my own opinion is rather different from most members in my family. But it is a family and we all tolerate each other, inspite of differences in opinion. I am not sure that it happens in the same way in a larger society. Any differences in Indian society is certainly likely to be allowed as long as it happens in a non aggressive style.

Excellent post. A very good clarity of thought.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri pviyer, thank you for your long response, and breaking it into paragraphs, I really appreciate it.

I agree sir,in this respect that women have succeeded and continue to succeed in different vocations.

[...]

" It is much better to do one's own duty sincerely rather than take up the dharma of another and excel in it".

Exactly sir! My point was not about your stand, which is completely unacceptable to me, but that is neither here nor there. My point is you can't use practices from the secular world to justify your stand -- please note, you have not addressed this point in your long response, perhaps because you concede the point, or perhaps you just want to ignore it.

Cheer up friend,

Oh! Do you think I am giving away my Cheer willy nilly and in danger of running out ? Don't worry, I stock up on it quite often, if you know what I mean .

Cheers galore!!

 

[kunjuppu]

....A devotee of Sringeri Mutt reflected with sadness that - " When a previous governor of Karnataka came to meet the Sringeri Acharya, acharya spoke about Varna Ashrama dharma, and the governor asked the Acharya to stop talking about such things to him. The devotees felt sad about this insult to their acharya, that in modern India, an Acharya cannot even speak his mind freely!"
If someone needs to have a citation for this incident, I need to look up, its been ages since I read this account, but I hope that the message from the incident is clear.

.

pviyer,

i think it is a shame that muttheads are so far removed from reality. what shringeri said is blasphemy and goes against the constitution of india. too bad no case was brought against him and imprisoned.

 

[pviyer]

Dear Shri pviyer, thank you for your long response, and breaking it into paragraphs, I really appreciate it.


My point is you can't use practices from the secular world to justify your stand -- please note, you have not addressed this point in your long response, perhaps because you concede the point, or perhaps you just want to ignore it.

The idea behind using such an illustration is not to say that every concept of a modern organization must be applicable to a tradition based society. For one the biggest difference is that the former is profit making and the latter is not. The former is concerned with the overall profit of the management and the welfare of employees is considered as part of the concept of profit making and government directives. The latter is concerned with only the utimate welfare of every society member.
Anyway if you were the manager of any organization however old, how many ever thousands of years ago it was established, no matter in which era you lived in, your common sense will dictate that the functions of the organization will be well executed only when there is a clear delineation of tasks.