History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.533

v4.c63.t2.533

11) and by Āp. Dh. S. I. 4. 12. 10. Even this view is not acceptable to the Tantravārtika and most of the Mīmāṁsakas. The objection against the 2nd view is raised as follows. Even Bauddhas and other heretical sects¹⁶¹⁶ would advance the argument that their works also are based on śruti texts that are now lost, and any one may regard anything as authoritative by pretending that the basic vedic texts are lost. Further the Mīmāṁsā view that the Veda is eternal (*nitya*) would be refuted if it were admitted that some portion of the Veda is lost. There is not much difference between the first view and the second view. Therefore Kumārila propounds the third view viz. that smṛtis are to be inferred as based on Vedic texts that are already in existence¹⁶¹⁷. If an objection is raised against this hypothesis that it must be explained why such Vedic texts (the bases of smṛtis) are not seen or found, the Tantravārtika replies in a famous *kārikā* that as the Vedic *śākhās* (the several branches of the Veda) are scattered about (in various countries), as men (followers of the Veda) are negligent and unmindful (i. e. they do not visit all the countries and so are unable to have a complete knowledge of all Vedic texts) and as several rules are declared in different contexts even when occurring in the same śākhā (and not at one place) it is not always possible to point out the Vedic sources of smṛti texts. If an objector were to ask: 'why were not the Vedic passages themselves (that are the sources of smṛti rules) embodied bodily into the smṛtis,' Kumārila replies that this was not done from the fear of the loss of the correct arrangement of the Vedic texts as traditionally handed down. The Veda is principally concerned with sacrifices, though now and then there are rules addressed to men for regulating conduct only. People would only study the Vedic sentences contained in the smṛtis (that are concerned principally with conduct) where they would be arranged in a different order according to subjects and there would thus be loss of the arrangement of the Veda as originally delivered. Viśvarūpa ¹⁶¹⁸ (on Yāj. I. 7) quotes the above verse of Kumārila and states that there are thousands of smṛti rules that have their source in the Veda; he and Kumārila instance the rules against talking with (or coming in contact with) a woman in her monthly illness or the rule against assaulting a brāhmaṇa, or the rule about the sin of killing an ātreyī woman &c. Medhātithi on Manu II. 6 has an elaborate discussion on this very topic and quotes several verses from his own work called Smṛtiviveka ¹⁶¹⁹. He does not approve of the first two views and follows Kumārila's view. Mīmāṁsā writers and commentators like Medhātithi say that Manu and other authors of smṛtis brought together for easy comprehension matters that are scattered about in the various Vedic texts, that are either not known to the students of the several śākhās or that cannot be brought together by men of ordinary or weak intellect. 1619a