[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Philosophy](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana) › [Exegesis of the Vedic ritual (Pūrvamīmāṃsā)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa) › [Mīmāṃsāsūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra) › [Shabarabhashya (Mimamsasutrabhashya)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra!sabara) › 86.2 # Mimamsasutra 86.2 Śābarabhāṣya (Mīmāṃsāsūtrabhāṣya) 86.2 - **Language:** Sanskrit ### [86.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra!sabara.86.2) evaṃ tāvat kṛtsnasya vedasya prāmāṇyam uktam. athedānīṃ yatra na vaidikaṃ śabdam upalabhemahi, atha ca smaranti - evam ayam artho 'nuṣṭhātavyaḥ, etasmai ca prayojanāyeti. kim asau tathaiva syān na veti. yathā - aṣṭakāḥ kartavyāḥ; gurur anugantavyaḥ; taḍāgaṃ khanitavyam; prabhā pravartayitavyā; śikhākarma kartavyam ityevamādayaḥ. tad ucyate - dharmasya śabdamūlatvād aśabdam anapekṣaṃ syād iti. śabdalakṣaṇo dharma ity uktam - codanālakṣaṇo 'rtho dharmaḥ iti. ato nirmūlatvān nāpekṣitavyam iti. nanu ye vidur ittham asau padārthaḥ kartavya iti, katham iva te vadiṣyanty akartavya evāyam iti. smaraṇānupapattyā, na hy ananubhūto 'śruto vārthaḥ smaryate. na cāsyāvaidikasyālaukikasya ca smaraṇam upapadyate, pūrvavijñānakāraṇābhāvād iti. yā hi bandhyā smareta - idaṃ me dauhitrakṛtam iti, na me duhitāstīti matvā, na jātucid asau pratīyāt - samyag etaj jñānam iti. evam api yathaiva pāramparyeṇāvicchedād ayaṃ veda iti pramāṇam eṣāṃ smṛtiḥ, evam iyam api pramāṇaṃ bhaviṣyatīti. naitad evam. pratyakṣeṇopalabdhatvād granthasya, nānupapannaṃ pūrvavijñānam. aṣṭakādiṣu tv adṛṣṭārtheṣu pūrvavijñānakāraṇābhāvād vyāmohasmṛtir eva gamyate. tad yathā kaścij jātyandho vadet - smarāmy aham asya rūpaviśeṣasyeti. kutas te pūrvavijñānam iti ca paryanuyukto jātyandham evāparaṃ vinirdiśeta. tasya \[65\] kutaḥ? jātyandhāntarāt. evaṃ jātyandhaparamparāyām api satyāṃ naiva jātucit saṃpratīyur vidvāṃsaḥ samyagdarśanam etad iti. ato nādartavyam evaṃjātīyakam anapekṣaṃ syād iti. > Thus, the authoritativeness of the entire Veda has been stated so far. Now, in cases where we do not find any Vedic text, but people recollect, saying: 'This matter must be performed in this manner, and for this purpose'—\[the doubt arises:\] should it indeed be so, or not? As for instance: 'The Aṣṭakā rites are to be performed'; 'The teacher is to be followed'; 'A tank is to be excavated'; 'A water-booth is to be set up'; 'The tonsure rite is to be performed'; and so forth. To this it is stated: 'Because religious duty is based on the authoritative word, that which lacks the authoritative word should be disregarded' \[MS 1.3.1\]. It has been stated that religious duty is defined by the authoritative word, namely: 'Duty is an object defined by an injunction.' Therefore, being groundless, it is not to be respected. Objection: But since they know that 'this matter is to be performed in such a manner', how could they say that 'this is certainly not to be performed'? \[Reply:\] Because memory is impossible \[here\]; for a thing that has not been experienced or heard is not remembered. Nor is the recollection of this \[matter\], which is non-Vedic and non-empirical, possible, because there is no cause for a prior cognition. For if a barren woman should remember: 'This was done by my daughter's son', she would never, considering 'I have no daughter', believe that 'this is valid knowledge.' \[Objection:\] Even so, just as by an unbroken lineage of tradition their memory that 'this is the Veda' is an authority, so too this \[tradition\] will be an authority. \[Reply:\] This is not so. Because the text \[of the Veda\] is perceived by direct perception, prior cognition is not impossible. But in the case of the Aṣṭakā rites and so on, which have an unseen purpose, since there is no cause for a prior cognition, it is understood to be only a recollection based on delusion. For example, if someone born blind were to say: 'I remember this particular form', and being cross-examined, 'From where did you get the prior cognition?', he should point to another person who was also born blind. 'From where did he get it?' 'From yet another person born blind.' Even if there were a lineage of persons born blind in this way, the learned would never accept that 'this is right perception.' Therefore, such a kind \[of instruction\] should not be respected; it must be disregarded. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 86.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra!sabara.86.1) - [Next: 86.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra!sabara.86.3) - [Up: 86](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra!sabara.86) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra!sabara~en-mt.86.2) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [Mīmāṃsāsūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra.1.3.1) — Jaimini, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra!sabara.86.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.mimamsa.mimamsasutra!sabara.86.2) · Pramāṇa