Manava Dharmashastra 2.14

2.14

prāgukto vyāghātaḥ parihriyate | yatra śrutyordvaidhaṃ, viruddhābhidhānaṃ, yaṃ dharmo'yamiti kācicchutirāha, tamevādharmamityanyā-tatra ubhāvapi tau dharmā nuṣṭheyau vikalpena | tulyabale hi te śrutī | tatreyaṃ pramāṇamiyaṃ netyaśakyā vivekaḥ | ata ekārthatulyabalavirodhe vikalpa iti | "ubhāvapi tau dharmāvityuktam | tatra samuccayaḥ prāpnoti | evamubhau dharmau bhavataḥ | anyathā ekaḥ syāt |"
neti brūmaḥ | paryāyeṇāpi prayoge nobhayaśabdasya pravṛttivirodhaḥ | na hyayaṃ sāpekṣyadvayaviṣaya eva |
nyāyyaśca vikalpaḥ | yathā'gnihotrākhyamekaṃ karma; tasya kālatrayemupadiṣṭam | tatra karmapradhānaṃ, kālo guṇaḥ | na caikasminprayoge kālatrayasambhavaḥ | na ca kālānurodhena prayogāvṛttiryuktā | nāṅgānurodhena pradhānamāvartanīyam | tasmānnyāyyo'yaṃ tulyabalavirodhe vikalpa iti vacanāt |
"ubhāvapi hi tau dharmau—nanu ca ko bhedastatra dharmāvityasmādetasya |"
na kaścit | pūrveṇa svamatamupanyastamuttareṇānyairapi manīṣibhiretadevoktamiti svamatamācāryāntaramatasaṃvādena draḍhayati |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The objection urged above (in the Bhāṣya on Verse 10) is answered here.

When ‘between two Vedic texts there is ‘conflict,’—i.e., setting forth of contrary facts,—e.g., what is declared to be ‘Dharma’ by one text is pronounced to bo ‘adharma’ by another;—in such cases both are Dharma,—i.e., to be performed as optional alternatives. The authoritative strength of the two texts is equal; hence it cannot bo discerned which is reliable and which is not. Thus the conflict being between two equally authoritative texts bearing upon the same subject, there must be option.

Objection.—

“The text speaks of both being Dharma, which means that there should be combination (and not option); as it is only when there is combination that both could be Dharma; otherwise (), only one of them could be Dharma. (at a time).”

We deny this. The use of the word ‘both’ is incompatible with separate, performance (even acts performed one after the other, and not conjointly, can be spoken of as ‘both’); the word does not necessarily denote two things taken together.

Further, option is distinctly the reasonable course to adopt. The action known as ‘Agnihotra’ is one only; and with reference to this single act, three points of time have been laid down; now the action forms the primary factor, the comes in only as a subordinate element; nor is it possible to adopt all the three points of time in connection with any single performance; nor again can it be right to repeat the performance for the sake of the time; as it is never right to repeat the primary for the sake of the secondary factor. From all this it follows that option is most reasonable, as declared in the words ‘whenever there is conflict between authorities of equal force, there is option.’ (Gautama, 1.3.)

‘Both have bent proclaimed to be Dharma.’—“What is the difference between this statement and the former one, ‘both are Dharma’?”

There is no difference; in the former statement, the author has stated his own opinion, and in the latter he supports his opinion by the opinion of other teachers, by pointing out that ‘this is what has also been proclaimed by other wise men.’—(14)