History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.563

v4.c63.t2.563

In I. 3. 5-7 Jaimini as interpreted by Śabara¹⁶³⁵ deals with the topic of the authoritativeness of certain usages laid down in the smṛtis in relation to Vedic rites. Śabara states: *śiṣṭas* say that religious rites should be performed after sipping water (i. e. after *ācamana*), one should wear the sacred thread in the *upavīta* way in the worship of gods, one should do with the right hand all religious acts. The question is whether these acts should be done if not opposed to the śruti or should not be performed if opposed to what is taught in the Veda. The *pūrvapakṣa* view is that these acts should not be done because they run counter to the sequence of the acts laid down in the Veda. For example, the Veda says, 'after getting ready a bundle (or handful) of kuśa grass called *veda* one should prepare the *vedi* (altar)'. Here the preparation of the vedi is declared to follow immediately after the getting ready of a handful of kuśas. If after the handful is got ready a man has a sneeze he has according to Manu V. 145 and Vas. III. 38 to sip water before going on with the preparation of the *vedi*. This would be against the sequence (*krama*) of acts laid down in the Veda. Strangely enough Mr. K. L. Sarkar in T. L. L. (on Mīmāṁsā rules) translates the words 'vedaṁ kṛtvā vedim karoti' as 'make the vedi and then recite the vedas' (p. 241), thereby committing two mistakes. He misunderstands the word 'veda' which in this passage only means a 'handful of kuśas' and inverts the sequence of the acts denoted by the gerundial termination '*tvā*'. On account of these two mistakes the discussion on pp. 240-242 is misleading and obscure. If a man were to do the things required in a vedic rite with both hands, he would be able to do them quickly. The smṛti rule that every religious act should be done with the right hand alone interferes with the quick performance of religious acts. The established conclusion is that these religious acts (such as ācamana) are performed by the śiṣṭas, are prompted by no visible motive (such as covetousness) and are therefore to be looked upon as authoritative, being not opposed to śruti. Kumārila does not like this way of explaining the sūtras, since the instances given by Śabara really do not deserve to be put forth as even *prima facie* opposed to Śruti. The Tantravārtika (p. 201) sets out śruti passages wherein the wearing of the sacred thread in the *upavīta* form¹⁶³⁶ (Tai. S. II. 5. 11. 1 and Tai. Ār. II. 1), ācamana (Tai. Ā. II. 11), are enjoined. Therefore it explains the sūtras in a different way. It splits up Jai. I. 3. 5-7 into two adhikaraṇas. The first two constitute one topic. The pūrvapakṣa¹⁶³⁷ is: those precepts of Buddha and other founders of sects, such as the construction of monasteries and parks, the insistence on desirelessness, the practice of meditation, *ahiṁsā*, truthfulness, restraint of senses, charity and kindness, are such that they are also laid down by the Veda, are not opposed to the ideas of śiṣṭas or do not run counter to nor rouse those who know the Veda to anger and therefore they must be held to be authoritative. This is denied by saying that the Bauddha doctrines even on the abovesaid matters are not to be accepted as authoritative since only a limited¹⁶³⁸ number (14 or 18) of vidyās (the four vedas, the upavedas, the aṅgas of the veda, the 18 smṛtis, purāṇas, Daṇḍanīti) have been accepted by the vedic śiṣṭas as authoritative on matters of dharma and the works of the Bauddhas and Jainas are not included therein. Just as milk though originally pure becomes useless and unreliable when put into a bag of dog-skin, so the doctrines of Bauddhas such as ahiṁsā, though based on truth, are useless and are not authoritative in themselves for the followers of the Veda.