Manava Dharmashastra 2.10.1

2.10.1

"kimidaṃ śabdārthasambandhasmaraṇamabhidhānakośaśāstram--'ātmabhūḥ parameṣṭhī' tyādivanna dharmaśāstraṃ, yenedamucyate 'śrutistu vedo vijñeyo dharmaśāstraṃ tu vai smṛtiriti |' ucyate | iha sadācāro na śrutirna smṛtirnibandhābhāvāt | nibaddhāścarā hi smṛtayaḥ prasiddhāḥ | atastasya smṛtitvamupapādayati | yatkāryadharmaśāstrasya tat dharmaśāstram | yatra dharmaḥ śiṣyate kartavyatayā pratīyate sā smṛtiḥ | nibandhānibandhāvaprayojakau | śiṣṭasamācārādapi dharmasya kartavyatāvagatiḥ | so'pi smṛtireva | tataśca yatra kasmaicitkāryāya smṛterupādānaṃ tatra sadācāro'pi grahītavyaḥ | dharmaśāstraṃ cetsmṛtirve do'pi sarvamukhyaṃ dharmaśāsanamiti tasyāpi smṛtitvaprasaṅgastannivṛttyarthamāha śrutistu vedo vijñeyaḥ | yatra śrūyate dharmānuśāsanaśabdaḥ sā śrutiḥ | yatra ca smaryate sā smṛtiḥ | tacca samācāre'pyastītyataḥ so'pi smṛtireva | na hi tatrāpyasmṛtavaidike śabde prāmāṇyam | athavā śrutigrahaṇaṃ smṛterve datulyatvārtham | "kiṃ punaḥ śrutismṛtyoḥ samānaṃ kāryaṃ yatsamācāre'pyanena prāpyate" | ucyate | te sarvārtheṣvamīmāṃsye | 'te' śrutismṛtī | sarveṣvartheṣvatyantāsambhāvyeṣvapi dṛṣṭaviṣayaiḥ pramāṇaiḥ, --yathā tasmādeva hiṃsālakṣaṇātpadārthātkvacidabhyudayaḥ kvacitpratyavāyaḥ, (2) 'surāpānānnarakaḥ somapānātpāpaśuddhiḥ' ityādī pakṣapratipakṣagamanena vicāro na kartavyaḥ | āśaṅkāpakṣāntarasambhāvanaṃ mīmāṃsanam | yathā--"hiṃsā cetpāpahetuḥ svarūpāviśeṣādvaidikyapi tathā bhavitumarhati | atha vaidikyabhyudayaheturlaukikyapi tathā syāt, tadrūpasamānatvāt" |

The Veda should be known as the ‘revealed word,’ and the Dharmaśāstra as the ‘recollections’; in all matters, these two do not deserve to be criticised, as it is out op these that Dharma shone forth.—(10)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Objection:—“Is this a treatise on the meanings of words, a lexicon,—like the works beginning with such words as Ātmabhūḥ, Parameṣṭhī (are the names of Brahmā), and so forth,—that it is stated that ‘Revealed Word’ means the Veda, and ‘Recollections’ means the Dharmaśāstra?”

Answer:—In ordinary life, the ‘Practices of Cultured Men’ are not regarded either as ‘Revealed Word’ or as ‘Recollection,’ on the ground of their being not codified; codified treatises alone are known as ‘Smṛtis,’ ‘Recollections’; and it is for the purpose of declaring that these Practices also are included under ‘Smṛti’ that the author has set forth this verse.

‘Dharmaśāstra,’ ‘Dharma-ordinance,’ is that which serves the purpose of ‘ordaining’ (teaching) Dharma as to be done; and ‘Smṛti’ is that wherein Dharma is taught, i.e., laid down as to be done; and codification or non-codification is entirely immaterial. Now as a matter of fact a knowledge of what should be done is derived from the Practices of Cultured Men also; so that these also come under ‘Smṛti.’ Hence whenever mention is made of ‘Smṛti’ in connection with any matter, the Practices of Cultured Men should also be taken as included under the name.

“If all Dharmaśāstra (‘ordinance of Dharma’) is ‘Smṛti’ then the Veda also, which is the ‘ordinance of Dharma’ par excellence, would have to be regarded as Smṛti,”—with a view to preclude the possibility of such an idea being entertained, the author has said—‘The Veda should be known as the Revealed Word.’ Where the words conveying the ‘Teaching of Dharma’ are directly perceived (heard), it is the ‘Revealed Word’; while where the words of Teaching are only recollected, it is ‘Smṛti’; and since this latter condition is also fulfilled by the ‘Practices of Cultured Men,’ this latter also comes under ‘Smṛti’; as a matter of fact, no authority can attach to any Practice, in corroboration whereof a Vedic text is not ‘recollected.’

Or, the mention of the ‘Revealed Word’ may be explained as serving the purpose of showing that the Smṛti is equal to the Veda.

Question:—“What is that common function of Revealed Word and Recollection which rhe present verse seeks to attribute to the Practices of Cultured Men?”

Answer:—‘In all matters these two should not be criticised’;—‘These two’—i.e., Revealed Word and Recollection.—‘In all matters’—i.e., even in regard to apparently inconceivable things, such as are entirely beyond the scope of those means of knowledge that are applicable to perceptible things; e.g., (a) the same act of killing leads, in one case, to good, and while in another case it leads to sin; (b) the drinking of wine leads to Hell, while the drinking of Soma removes sin. In such matters, we should not proceed to discuss the various pros and cons. ‘Criticism’ consists in raising doubts and conceiving of contrary views. For example—“If the act of killing is sinful, then since the act of killing is the same in all cases, that done in the course of Vedic sacrifices should also be sinful;—if the latter killing is a source of good, ordinary killing also should be conducive to good; the act being exactly the same in both cases.”