History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.33

v4.c63.t1.33

The Sm. C. finds fault with Viśvarūpa for saying that just as the offering of an ox or a goat to a learned brāhmaṇa is not practised because the practice of the śiṣṭas is against it, so *uddhāra* is not practised. It says that when there is a conflict between a smṛti text and *śiṣṭācāra*, the latter is the weaker (of the two) and cannot refute the smṛti text as laid down by Vas. I. 4-5. Further not offering a bull cannot be said to be śiṣṭācāra, but it is really the absence of śiṣṭācāra. The Sm. C. finds fault with the Mit. for saying that people have come to condemn a special share for the eldest. It says that, on the contrary, if a special share is given to the eldest who is endowed with learning, good qualities or holy actions then people commend such a procedure. The Madanaratna¹²⁰⁰ quotes the verse "yathā niyoga &c.," and a verse from the Ādipurāṇa. The V. P.¹²⁰¹ (pp. 442-443) generally follows the Mit., but criticizes it by saying that there is no real *śruti-virodha* (opposition to a Vedic text). If that were so, as śruti (the Veda) is promulgated for all ages, unequal division would be forbidden in all ages and it would follow that the particular śruti passages speaking of unequal division are without authority, since it (unequal division) could not have been practised in other ages also (but as a matter of fact it was); besides Baud. sets out another Vedic text which mentions unequal division. The V. P. desiring to guard against the rather wide statement that whatever is condemned by the people should not be practised holds that the word "loka" in Yāj. I. 156 means "*yuga*"; otherwise there would be confusion about what is proper conduct and what does not lead to Heaven. The condemnation by low or ordinary people who are quite innocent of śāstras cannot make an action incapable of leading to Heaven, since such people might condemn the *hiṁsā* (slaughter) of the animal offered to Agni and Soma. The above discussion illustrates how practices once recognized by Vedic passages and by the people gradually fell into disuetude and how reason and the common sense of ordinary people asserted themselves even against Vedic and smṛti texts. The Mit. is very clear in its statement that whatever comes to be hated by the people in general should not be practised, even though it was once practised and has the support and authority of Vedic and smṛti texts behind it. Those who desire change in social customs and the practices of the people in various directions rely on this text of Yāj. and on similar texts¹²⁰² of Manu IV. 176 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 71. 85 and on the Mit. for authority. Orthodox writers like Mitramiśra therefore have to twist plain words like "loka", since they cannot tolerate the idea that common people can have anything to say in what these writers believe to be the injunctions of the śāstra. Instead of candidly saying that ancient practices came to be modified by common people, writers like Mitramiśra say that common people should not be listened to in these matters, that each *yuga* has its own peculiar practices and that common people have no authority to change śāstric practices prescribed by the texts for a particular age. It is sheer quibbling to say that not offering a bull is not śiṣṭācāra, but absence of śiṣṭācāra; what is clear is that common people abhorred the practice of niyoga and the killing of a cow in a sacrifice and writers of sūtras and smṛtis fell into line with them and prohibited such practices in the Kali age, though they were either permitted or (even) enjoined by the Vedic texts; that is, the voice of the common man or his revolt was allowed to prevail over the word of the sacred Veda.