History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.637

v4.c63.t2.637

= Bṛhat-Parāśara I. p. 55) himself says that the dharmas differ according to which of the four yugas is current, viz. *tapas* is the highest dharma in the Kṛta age, knowledge in Tretā, *yajña* in Dvāpara and only *dāna* in Kali. This verse only means that in a particular yuga the predominant or easily performed dharma is the one indicated but the verse does not mean that a dharma predominant in one yuga was prohibited in another. Parāśara I. 24¹⁶⁸⁸ (= Bṛhat-Parāśara I. p. 55) declares that in the Kṛta age the dharmas (to be observed) were those promulgated by Manu, in Tretā those of Gautama, in Dvāpara those of Śaṅkha-Likhita and in Kali those of Parāśara. This also did not solve all difficulties, since the medieval digests and commentaries found that even what was allowed by Parāśara came to be disapproved of or condemned by the people. Many prescriptions of the smṛtis were therefore included under *Kali-varjya* (acts forbidden in the Kali age) on the ground that action, though at one time prescribed or sanctioned by the śāstra, should not be resorted to, if it has become hateful to the people, since it would not lead to heaven¹⁶⁸⁹ (if persisted in). This was the dictum of Yāj. I. 156 (= Bṛhan-Nāradīya-purāṇa 24. 12), Manu IV. 176, Viṣṇu Dh. S. (71. 84-85), the Viṣṇupurāṇa (III. 11. 7), Śukra III. 64, Bārhaspatya-sūtra (on Arthaśāstra) V. 16. Vide p. 630 and n. 1202 above. These texts were relied upon for prohibiting certain acts (though done in former times) by the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 117, III. 18), V. P. (p. 442) and others. But these devices of interpretation also proved futile in certain cases. On the question of the periods of mourning due to death for kṣatriyas and others the texts are so various and so conflicting that even the great Vijñāneśvara declares (on Yāj. III. 22) that he is not going to furnish any orderly presentation of the smṛti texts assigning to each its proper province, since it would be useless to do so in view of the fact that the usage of śiṣṭas did not agree with most of them¹⁶⁹⁰. Viśvarūpa also (on Yāj. III. 30) is in the same predicament. The commentators (such as Mādhava in Par. M. on I. 1. p. 84) were aware that people would not go in for religious practices that called for great effort and would seek for such rules as would be easy of observance.¹⁶⁹¹