History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.539
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.539
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.539.1
The general proposition that smṛtis are authoritative being established, a further question arises. What is to happen if a smṛti rule conflicts with the rule of the Veda? Jaimini deals with this question in I. 3. 3–4,¹⁶²⁰ which form a topic that states an exception to the general rule contained in Jai. I. 3. 1–2. Śabara gives three instances where there is apparently a conflict between the prescriptions of the śruti and those of smṛtis. The Veda says, ‘the priest should chant (the *stotra*) after touching the *audumbarī* post’, while smṛti says ‘the whole of the audumbarī post should be covered with cloth’. The Veda says ‘one to whom a son has been born and whose hair is still dark (and has not turned grey) should consecrate the Vedic fires’, while smṛti says ‘a man should observe Vedic studenthood for 48 years’¹⁶²¹; the Veda says ‘when the Agniṣomīya rite is finished then one may eat (the food prepared) in the house of the sacrificer’, while smṛti says ‘the food of one who has undergone dīkṣā for a sacrifice may be eaten after he purchases the soma plant’.
v4.c63.t2.539.2
In these cases the proposition enunciated by Jaimini is that ‘in case of conflict (between an express śruti rule and a smṛti rule) the smṛti rule should be discarded, for when there is no conflict (with an express śruti) inference may be made (that a smṛti rule is based upon some Vedic text).’ The examples may be explained as follows: The ‘audumbarī’ is a post of udumbara planted in the *sadas* in the performance of the Agniṣṭoma; the stotras (other than Bahiṣpavamāna) are chanted near the audumbarī post in the sadas. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1155 for the fixing of the audumbara post in the *sadas* and p. 1185 for the chanting of stotras near the *audumbarī*. If the whole of the post be covered with cloth, it would not be possible to touch the post, but only the cloth would be touched. So there is contradiction. If a man is to consecrate Vedic fires when he has a son and his hair is dark, he must be between about 20 and 40 (i. e. a young man), but if a man were to observe brahmacarya for 48 years, he would be about 52 to 56 years of age before he married (as the upanayana of a brāhmaṇa was to be performed generally in the 8th year or from the 5th year onwards at the most). Only a married man could consecrate Vedic fires. But a man's hair when he is fiftytwo years of age or more can hardly be all dark. Therefore there is contradiction between the rule derived from the Veda and that derived from smṛti.
v4.c63.t2.539.3
In the Jyotiṣṭoma (which generally occupied five days), the dīkṣā (purification and initiation of the sacrificer) takes place on the first day in the afternoon (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1134-1136). Soma is purchased on the 2nd day of the Jyotiṣṭoma (*ibid.* 1140-4) and the animal is sacrificed for Agni and Soma on the 4th day (*ibid.* pp. 1158-59). According to śruti therefore the food prepared in the house of a dīkṣita may be eaten only after the 4th day, while smṛti says that it may be eaten after the purchase of *soma* on the 2nd day. In this way there is contradiction. Kumārila¹⁶²² does not agree with Śabara as regards these examples in particular and as regards the general attitude towards smṛtis that are accepted by Vedic followers. He makes great efforts to explain how there is no real conflict in the cases cited by Śabara. As regards the cloth covering the *audumbarī* he says that it may cover the bottom and the upper portion of the post and leave a space of two or three finger-breadths in the middle uncovered (so that the audumbarī post can be touched in that particular portion), that (p. 188) there is a passage in the Śāṭyāyani Brāhmaṇa which refers to the cloth covering the audumbarī (and so there may at most be an option), that as regards the taking of food in the house of a dīkṣita after the purchase of *soma* there is a śruti passage in the Atharvaveda (pp.
v4.c63.t2.539.4
181 and 189) similar to the smṛti passage (and thus there is no conflict between śruti and smṛti, but between śruti and śruti, which would lead to an option) and further the smṛti rule may apply in the case of a man in distress (*āpaddharma*), that smṛti does not prescribe an absolute period of 48 years for the study of Veda, but Baud. Dh. S. itself allows several alternative or optional periods and so no question of conflict with śruti arises. Kumārila's own position is this: In the case of apparent conflicts between śruti and smṛti, various methods of interpretation and reconciliation are possible. Each of the two may be given its proper scope as referring to different subject matters (which is called *viṣaya-vyavasthā*); it is also possible to hold that smṛti is based on some śruti texts already existing but not found at the time of discussion, but which may ultimately be found, in which case there will be an option, though the latter is to be avoided as far as possible as it is liable to eight faults (vide Tantravārtika pp. 174-175); or the two may be reconciled even when referring to the same subject matter e. g. a man may have dark hair even when he is 52 or more and the smṛti may be taken as meant to refer to such a man, while the śruti states the general rule about the age when consecration of Vedic fires was to be made.
v4.c63.t2.539.5
Therefore Kumārila holds that all that is meant by Jaimini and even by Śabara is that there is a great distinction between śruti and smṛti in that the former is *apauruṣeya* and an independent authority, while the latter has a human author (liable to err), is either actually based on the Veda or is inferred to be so based, that the two therefore can never be said to be quite alike each other as regards their authoritativeness and that lastly smṛti is not in itself to be regarded as unauthoritative¹⁶²³. Kumārila therefore suggests that the proper subject of discussion in Jai. I. 3. 3-4 is the works of Bauddhas, Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Pañcarātra, Pāśupata and other heretical sects and the practices of *mlecchas*. These works contain some matters such as the emphasis on *ahiṁsā*, truthfulness, restraint of senses, charity and compassion, which are also emphasized in the Veda, but these works are not generally accepted by the followers of the Veda, are based on specious and false reasoning only (they are *haitukas* in the words of Manu), that they deny the authority of the Veda. Therefore Jaimini means that these works of heretic sects are not authoritative in matters of dharma as they are opposed to the Veda and should be discarded. For want of space it is not possible to set out in detail the interesting discussion in the Tantravārtika. The Jaiminīya-nyāya-mālāvistāra also gives another explanation of Jai. I. 3. 3.