A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.50

c8.50

“Against all this our answer is: the Smṛitis are an authority, because that they should have authority is understood by itself; and there is no reason why they should not be considered as having authority. Three reasons are given why Manu and the rest could not claim any authority, viz. ‘that men speak untruth, that they are exposed to error, and that no divine precept is given.’ These objections, however, are entirely out of order, because nobody would ever think that Manu and Parâśara, who have been perfect from their very birth, could have spoken untruth, and could have erred. So much for the first two objections. And who ever denied that these sages were perfect from their very birth, as Mantras, Arthavâdas, Itihâsas, and Purâṇas, prove distinctly not only the existence of Parâśara and others, but also their perfection? Nay, even if we had not the testimony of the Mantras, how could the perfection of Parâśara and others be denied, which is involved in their very existence? A difference of opinion is quite impossible. And has it not been proved in the chapter on the gods¹ in the Uttara-mîmânsâ, that the Mantras do not require any further proof for what they say? It is true that in the chapter on the Arthavâdas it has been admitted that what the Arthavâdas contain is not always to be believed. But this is only on account of some impossible things which are occasionally mentioned therein. Therefore an Arthavâda like this, ‘Whatever Manu says is medicine,’ although it only serves to recommend another rule, must yet be considered as true in itself. With regard to Śâkya, nothing similar can be brought forward; and thus it is well said elsewhere, ‘May a man scorn all the erroneous doctrines of Arhat, Chârvâka, and Buddha.’ As regards Parâśara in particular, it is wrong to say that his fame is not equally founded on the Veda, for it is said in the Śruti, ‘Thus spoke Vyâsa, the son of Parâśara.’ If, therefore, the famous Veda-Vyâsa is praised as the son of Parâśara, how much more famous must not Parâśara, his father, have been! In the genealogical Brâhmaṇa of the Vâjasanêyi-śâkhâ, the son also and the grandson of Parâśara are mentioned in the succession of pupils and teachers who handed down the Veda¹, ‘Ghṛitakauśika received from Pârâśaryâyaṇa, Pârâśaryâyaṇa from Pârâśarya, Pârâśarya from Jâtukarṇya, &c.’ Therefore Parâśara stands quite on a level with Manu; and the same applies to all the other Rishis, like Vasiṣṭha and Yâjnavalkya, who are authors of Smṛitis, and are mentioned in the Śruti. Thus we read, ‘The Rishis did not see Indra clearly, but Vasiṣṭha saw him clearly.’² ‘Atri gave his children to Aurva, who longed for a son.’¹ ‘Yâjnavalkya had two wives.’² Therefore one must not think of attacking the Smritis of Manu and others by any means.