Mimamsashastrasarvasva 2.5

2.5

‘vaisarjanahomīyaṃ vāso'dhvaryurgṛhṇāti,’ ‘yūpahastino dānamācaranti’ ityādi pramāṇamapramāṇaṃ veti saṃśaye śrutivirodhābhāvāt
pramāṇamiti prāptauucyatelobhākhyasya hetordarśanāt nātra śrutimūlānumā
upapannatarañcataddvākyānumānata
dṛṣṭe hi satyadṛṣṭasya kalpanā niṣpramāṇikā2
ataḥ śrutiviruddhaṃ dṛṣṭakāraṇañca smaraṇamapramāṇam | anyattu
pramāṇamiti sthitam
ācāryāstu-anantaśākhāprabhedabhinnasya vedasyāsmadādibhiḥ kārtsnyenānupalambhāt smṛtimūlavedābhāvo niścetumaśakyaḥ
tenātra yadi vā karmaprayogo'yaṃ nirūpyate
yadi vā bādhyamānatvamuktaṃ bāhyaṃ smṛtauḥ prati3
etaddhi jaimininā hitopadeśinā jijñāsubhyaḥ pratipādyate
yāvadekaṃ śrutau karma smṛtau vānyatpratīyate
tāvattayorviruddhatve śrautānuṣṭhānamiṣyate4
‘aṇurapi viśeṣa ’1 iti nyāyāt
ataścaivaṃ śrutismṛtyorviśeṣo'nena darśate
nātyantameva bādhyatvaṃ na cāpyatyantatulyatā2
‘yadā yānyetāni trayovidbhirna parigṛhītāni sāṃkhyayogapāñcarātrapāśupataśākyanirganvanirmitāni dharmaśāstrābhāsāni teṣāṃmanenāprāmāṇyaṃ, pūrvoktasūtroktakarttṛsāmānyapratyudāharaṇena prāmāṇyaṃ
pratyakṣasūtre nirākṛtam | manvādivadeva vedamūlatayā prāmāṇyamiti
tu iha nirākriyate
siddhāntastu-avicchinnavaidikaparigrahānupapattyā hi manvādismṛtiṣvanupalabhyamāno'pi vedaḥ mūlatvena kalpitaḥ | śākyādiṣvidamatyantaviparītaṃ avaidikamapramāṇañcetyeva śiṣṭānāṃ smaraṇam | vedavidveṣiṇa eva ca teṣāṃ pramāṇatvaṃ manute | dṛṣṭānusāriṇī ca kalpanā
na tadvaiparītyena | ato'tra vedakalpanā davīyasī | ato'prāmāṇyameva
teṣāmiti3
4 padārthaprābalyādhikaraṇam
śiṣṭākope'viruddhamiti cenna, śāstraparimāṇatvāt4

With regard to [texts such as] ‘The Adhvaryu takes the garment of the Vaisarjana oblation’ and ‘They perform the gifting of the sacrificial post to the elephant-driver,’ when there is doubt whether they are authoritative or non-authoritative, since there is no conflict with Śruti,
the prima facie view holds that they are authoritative. In reply, it is said:
Because a motive named greed is seen, here there is no inference of a scriptural source;
and that is more reasonable than the inference of a [Vedic] sentence,
for when an observable [motive] exists, the postulation of an unobserved one lacks means of valid cognition. (2)
Therefore, a recollected rule conflicted by Śruti and one having an observable cause is non-authoritative; while other [Smṛti]
is authoritative—this is settled.
As for the Ācāryas [such as Kumārila]: Since the Veda, divided into endless recensional differences, is not perceived in its entirety by people like us, the absence of a Vedic source for a Smṛti cannot be determined.
Therefore, here, whether this ritual performance is being determined,
or sublation is stated with regard to Smṛti external [to the Veda], (3)
this indeed is taught by Jaimini, who gives salutary instruction, to inquirers:
So long as one ritual action is cognised in Śruti and another in Smṛti,
so long, when the two are in conflict, the performance according to Śruti is desired, (4)
according to the principle, ‘Even a minute distinction [is decisive].’ (1)
And thus by this [sūtra] a distinction between Śruti and Smṛti is shown;
there is neither absolute sublation nor absolute equality. (2)
As for these pseudo-Dharmaśāstras that are not accepted by knowers of the three Vedas, authored by Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Pāñcarātra, Pāśupata, Śākya, and Nirgrantha, their non-authority [is established] by this [sūtra]; their authority [asserted] by the counter-example of common authorship stated in the preceding sūtra
was refuted under the direct perception sūtra. But that they have authority like Manu and others through having a Vedic root
is refuted here.
The established conclusion is: it is precisely because of the impossibility [of explaining] continuous Vedic acceptance that a Veda, even when not directly found, is postulated as the source in the case of Smṛtis such as Manu. In the case of the Śākyas and others, this is entirely the opposite: the recollection of the cultured is only that this is non-Vedic and non-authoritative. And only those who hate the Veda regard them as authoritative. And postulation follows what is observed,
not its opposite. Therefore, here the postulation of a Veda is exceedingly remote. Therefore, they are entirely non-authoritative. (3)
4. Topic on the superior strength of the principal ritual item.
If it be said that [a Smṛti rule is] not conflicted when there is no disruption of what is ordained, [we say] no, because [its performance would exceed] the measure of the teaching. (4)