Manava Dharmashastra 2.10.2

2.10.2

yasya yadrūpaṃ vedādavagataṃ tasya tadviparītarūpasambhāvanamasattarkāśrayairasampragdhetubhiryadvicāraṇaṃ tatsiddhāntābhiniveśaḥ sa iha pratiṣidhyate | na punarayamarthoveḍsyādyaḥ pūrvapakṣa utasvidyaḥ siddhānta ityeṣā mīmāṃsā niṣidhyate | yato vakṣyati "yastarkeṇānusandhatte sa dharma veda netara" iti | "kiṃ punarayamadṛṣṭārtho mīmāṃsāpratiṣedhaḥ |" neti brūmaḥ | tābhyāṃ dharmo hi nirbabhau | anena tārkikapramāṇānāṃ vedārthaviparītasādhanānāmābhāsatāmāha | īdṛśā hi teṣāṃ hetavaḥ- "vaidikī hiṃsā pāpahetuḥ, hiṃsātvāllaukikahiṃsāvat" | tatra hiṃsāyāṃ pāpahetutvaṃ na kutaścidanyataḥ pramāṇātsiddhyamantareṇāgamam | evaṃ cennāsti hiṃsāyāḥ pāpasādhanasiddhau hetuḥ yāvadāgamaḥ prāmāṇyena nābhyupagataḥ | abhyupagate cāgamaprāmāṇye tadviruddho heturna yujyate, aprāmāṇyāpatterāgamasya | tataścetaretarāghātaḥ | pūrvaṃ prāmāṇyena parigrahaḥ paścādaprāmāṇyamiti | so'yaṃ svavacanaviruddhaḥ pakṣaḥ | nainaṃ tārkikā anumanyante, 'mama mātā bandhyeti' vat | āgamaviruddhaśca | athocyate-"naivāgamaḥ pramāṇam | kathaṃ tadvirodhodbhāvanaṃ dūṣaṇam | anṛtavyāghātapunaruktadoṣebhyaḥ | kārīryādikarmaṇāṃ tatsamanantaraṃ phalārthitayā'nuṣṭhīyamānānāṃ na niyamato'nuṣṭhānasamanantaraṃ phalaprāptiḥ | kālāntare bhaviṣyatīti ceduktamatra-'kṛtā śaradi kārīrī bhṛśaṃ śuṣyatsu śāliṣu | vasante jāyate vṛṣṭistasyā gomarakaḥ phalamiti' | yānyapyanyatrabhāviphalāni jyotiṣṭomādīni tatrāpi niranvayavināśātkarmaṇo varṣaśate phalaṃ bhaviṣyatīti niḥsandigdhavaitālikavyavahāropamametat | tasmādanṛtam |

What is prohibited here is that ‘criticism,’ in which we conceive of the form of an act to be quite the reverse of what is declared in the Veda, and proceeding to examine it by means of reasonings based upon false premisses, begin to insist on the conclusion thus arrived at. It is not meant to prohibit such enquiry and discussion as to whether the Prima Facie View or the Established Thesis is in due accord with the Veda. That such an inquiry is not meant to be prohibited is clear from what the author says later on—‘He alone, and none else, knows Dharma, who examines it by reasonings.’ (Manu, 12.106)

Question:—“Is this criticism prohibited with a view to some invisible (superphysical) results?”

We say—no. Because it was out of these two that Dharma shone forth. [This is what is intended by the said prohibition.]

This assertion points out the fact that all the arguments, set forth by casuists in support of things contrary to what is laid down in the Veda, are fallacious. These arguments are of the following kind—“The killing of animals in the course of Vedic sacrifices must be sinful, because it is killing, like any ordinary killing.”—Now that killing is sinful is learnt from no other source of knowledge except scriptures; under the circumstances, no reason can be found to establish the sinfulness of killing until the scriptures have been accepted as authoritative; and when once the authority of the Veda has been admitted, it could not be reasonable to bring forward arguments against it, as this would invalidate the (acknowledged) authority of scriptures; and this would involve self-contradiction: at first the scriptures were admitted to be authoritative, and then subsequently they are held to be un-authoritative; and this opinion would be contrary to the person’s own previous assertion,—no casuist ever says ‘my mother is childless’; and it is also contrary to the scriptures.

The Casuist might argue as follows:—

“Scripture is not authoritative; why then should contrariness to it be regarded as undesirable? That the scripture (Veda) is unauthoritative is proved by such discrepancies as (a) untruthfulness, (b) inconsistency and (c) repetition.

(a) Such sacrifices as the Kārīrī (which is laid down as to be performed for obtaining rain) are performed by men desiring min, but as a matter of fact no rain comes after the performance. As regards the rain that might come at some future time, it has been well said—‘The Kārīrī having been performed during the autumn, when the cornfields were drying up, if the rain falls during the spring, this only leads to cattle-disease!’ Further, as regards the Jyotiṣṭoma and such other sacrifices, which are spoken of as bringing their rewards at some future time, since the acts will have completely disappeared after performance, the assertion that their reward would come after a hundred years would be exactly like the confident assertion of the Vampirist. From this it is clear that the Veda is untruthful,