History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.539.4

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.