History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.620

v4.c63.t2.620

In cases of conflict between śruti and smṛti, the rules laid down by the Pūrvamīmāṁsā have already been explained (pp. 832-34). Jaimini VI. 1. 13-14 and Śabara furnish an example. If, relying on Manu VIII. 416, the pūrvapakṣa were to argue that women own no wealth and so should not engage in a vedic sacrifice then as that smṛti so interpreted is opposed to the Veda it may be discarded by women¹⁶⁷⁷. Smṛtis also lay down certain general rules on that point. Laugākṣi¹⁶⁷⁸ and Jābāla lay down that in case of contradiction between śruti and smṛti, the former has greater force and that if there is no contradiction then what is laid down in the smṛti should be observed as if it were laid down by the Veda. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 46 admits that a proposition of the Veda cannot be set aside (*bādhita*) by even a special proposition in a smṛti text. But in spite of the general proposition commentators like Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Vijñāneśvara had to admit that what was laid down by śruti texts was set aside or contradicted or abandoned by smṛti texts or by popular sentiment. After the Udayanīyā (concluding *iṣṭi*) in the Agniṣṭoma sacrifice was finished, a rite was prescribed by Vedic texts in which a barren cow (called Anūbandhyā) was sacrificed for Mitra and Varuṇa. But later on this was condemned and in lieu of a cow āmikṣā (mixture of heated milk and curds) was substituted. Vide H. D. II. pp. 1200-1201 for the anūbandhyā cow and p. 628 n. 1198 above for the verse quoted by the Mit. on Yāj. II. 117 condemning cow sacrifice in Kaliyuga. Yāj. III. 234 puts *govadha* (slaughter of a cow) at the head of upapātakas. Medhātithi on Manu IV. 176 after stating that even such acts as donating all one's property in the Viśvajit sacrifice or killing a cow should not be done (though sanctioned by the Veda) remarks that he gives that explanation following his predecessors' views but that to him it appears that an express śruti text cannot be set aside by a smṛti passage¹⁶⁷⁹. Viśvarūpa also (on pp. 25-26) after adverting to the fact that Yāj. III. 234 places *govadha* at the head of *Upapātakas* remarks that this may apply to the killing of cows spoken of in smṛtis such as at the time of samāvartana (vide Manu III. 3) and that the rule must be upheld that a smṛti that is in conflict with an express text of the Veda is to be set aside. Sometimes even a smṛti text though theoretically weaker than śruti was allowed to prevail over a śruti. For example, the Veda prescribes the filling of the cups of wine in Sautrāmaṇī iṣṭi, but this is one of the matters prohibited in Kali¹⁶⁸⁰ (vide chapter on Kalivarjyas below).