History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.528

v4.c63.t2.528

The position of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā in relation to the authoritativeness of smṛtis and customs requires careful and detailed consideration. In I. 3. 1-2¹⁶¹² Jaimini considers the question whether such smṛti injunctions as 'one should perform the Aṣṭakā śrāddhas',¹⁶¹³ or 'one should construct a tank or set up a *prapā* (place for free distribution of water to thirsty travellers'), or 'tufts of hair should be kept on the head' (at *caula* according to the gotra) are authoritative and establishes the conclusion that they are authoritative, since such smṛti injunctions equally with Vedic ones are addressed to the same persons (viz. the followers of the Veda) who have to act according to them. The idea is that those who perform the acts expressly enjoined by the Veda are also seen to perform the acts enjoined by such smṛtis as that of Manu and therefore the principal reason why these smṛtis are authoritative is the fact that those who know the Veda accept these smṛtis as authoritative and hold fast by them, as Medhātithi on Manu II. 6 says citing some verses from his own work called Smṛtiviveka.¹⁶¹⁴ Śabara endeavours to show that there are indications (*liṅga*) in the Vedic texts pointing to the existence of what is prescribed in the smṛtis e. g. he cites the Vedic verse 'yāṁ janāḥ' as indicative of aṣṭakās, Ṛg. X. 4. 1 of prapās, Ṛg. VI. 75. 17 of tufts of hair. The objection may be stated as follows :—The smṛtis are composed by human authors (i. e. they are *pauruṣeya*) and so have no independent authority in matters of dharma, as a man may say what is either false or mistaken. If it be said that the smṛtis really propound what is stated by the Veda, then they are practically superfluous and useless. and not being Veda they should be discarded (*anapekṣa*) To this the reply is that smṛtis are generally authoritative, as they must be held to be based on Veda because they are composed by men (like Manu) who were followers of the Veda, because what the smṛtis lay down has been consistently followed from generation to generation by the śiṣṭas and because it is possible to regard the Veda as their source. To the question why the Vedic passages on which the smṛti rules are postulated to have been based are not seen or found by us several answers were proposed by different writers. One view was that just as Vedic indications about locks of hair lead to the inference of śruti texts enjoining the keeping of tufts on. the head, so the fact of the existence of such rules leads to the inference that śruti must have contained injunctions corresponding to all smṛti prescriptions. Kumārila raises objections to this view. Inference is based on perception (*pratyakṣa*) and invariable concomitance (*vyāpti*). There is no vyāpti between the smṛtis and śruti texts that are never found pronounced by any one, so no inference is possible and it would be like one blind man following another.¹⁶¹⁵ Manu must have composed his smṛti on finding that ācāryas preceding him performed certain acts as based on Veda. These last must have believed that their predecessors also acted on the same belief. Hence there is what is called an 'andha-paramparā' on this hypothesis. And further this hypothesis of the inference of Śruti in all cases is opposed to perception, since as a matter of fact hundreds of Śruti passages are known that can be the basis of corresponding smṛti texts. Another view is (and Kumārila holds that it is somewhat better than the preceding view) that one should infer that the Vedic passages that were the basis of smṛtis are lost (*utsanna* or *pralīna*). Some support is lent to this by such Vedic texts as 'anantā vai vedāḥ' (Tai. Br. III 10.