History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.649
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.649
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.649.1
Then comes the question of the conflict between smṛtis and purāṇas. It has been shown in the H. of Dh., vol. I. pp. 160-167, how the Purāṇas are rich in Dharmaśāstra material. The sūtras and early smṛtis do not look upon the Purāṇas as a source of dharma, though Gaut. XI. 19 and Yāj. I. 3 mention Purāṇa as one of the classes of works on which the king or any one else may draw for knowledge of dharma and though the Āp. Dh. S. quotes from a Purāṇa in I. 6. 19. 13, I. 10. 29. 8 and II. 9. 23. 3 and names a Bhaviṣyatpurāṇa in II. 9. 24. 6. It is to be noted that the views quoted by Āp. from the Purāṇas in the first three passages are opposed to the views of the Kalivarjya section alleged to be taken from the Ādityapurāṇa in medieval digests. The passage of the Tantravārtika stating that Purāṇas, Manusmṛti and Itihāsa are universally accepted throughout India has been already quoted (on p. 853). When Manu states that smṛti is a source of dharma he does not obviously comprehend Purāṇas under smṛti as Manu II. 10 clearly shows (*dharmaśāstraṁ tu vai smṛtiḥ*). Manu III. 232 and Yāj. III. 189 employ the plural 'Purāṇāni' and so those smṛtis obviously knew several Purāṇas and Medhātithi notes that they were composed by Vyāsa and described the creation of the world &c. The Striparva (13. 2) also employs the plural and the Svargārohaṇikaparva (5. 46-47) speaks of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana as the author of 18 Purāṇas. The Ādiparva¹⁶⁹⁷ (1.
v4.c63.t2.649.2
293-94) prescribes that one should strengthen the Veda by (the study of) the Itihāsa and Purāṇa and that the Veda fears the man whose knowledge is insignificant 'this man will harm me'. According to the Bhāgavata-purāṇa I. 4. 25 the purpose¹⁶⁹⁸ of the composition of the Mahābhārata was this that as the Veda cannot be learnt by women, śūdras and brāhmaṇas who are so only by birth (and do not study) the sage Vyāsa took compassion on them and composed the Mahābhārata for their benefit. The same must be deemed to be the purpose of the composition of the purāṇas. The Dakṣasmṛti II. 69 prescribes¹⁶⁹⁹ the recitation of itihāsa and purāṇa in the 6th and 7th parts of the day (divided into 8 parts). The Auśanasa smṛti (III. p. 515, Jivananda) prescribes the study of the Veda in the bright half of the months from Māgha after *utsarjana* and the study of the Vedāṅgas and of Purāṇa in the dark half. It appears that some at least of the extant Purāṇas were composed in the first centuries of the Christian era and that from early times they contained dharmaśāstra material. In another section the *purāṇadharma* will be separately dealt with hereafter. Gradually the Purāṇas became very popular in the course of centuries, some of the original rites prescribed by the Veda and the early smṛtis went out of vogue and new modes of worship and rites provided by the Purāṇas came into general observance. The Vedavyāsa smṛti¹⁷⁰⁰ (I.
v4.c63.t2.649.3
4) and the Saṅgraha state that in case of conflict between smṛti and purāṇa smṛti is to be preferred. Aparārka (p. 9) quotes¹⁷⁰¹ a smṛti text, 'that is highest dharma which is understood from the Veda, that is to be known as inferior dharma that is declared in the Purāṇas and the like'. Aparārka (p. 15) further tells us that¹⁷⁰² according to the Bhaviṣyatpurāṇa the purāṇas are of authority in declaring dharma that is *vyāmiśra* (i. e. mixed up and not purely Vedic). Medieval writers were often divided as to the authoritativeness of purāṇas. Mitramiśra (in his commentary¹⁷⁰³ on Yāj. II. 21) asserts that dharmaśāstra (viz. smṛti) is not more authoritative than purāṇa and that in case of conflict between a smṛti text and a purāṇa text recourse must be had to reasoning as in the case of conflict between two smṛtis. On the other hand, the V. Mayūkha,¹⁷⁰⁴ after quoting Manu IX. 126 and Devala about the first born among twins being regarded as the oldest and after referring to a half verse from the Bhāgavatapurāṇa (rather from the commentary of Śrīdhara thereon) which holds that among twins the one born later is to be deemed as the elder, remarks that the Purāṇa passage is to be set aside in favour of the smṛti passages and that in the purāṇas usages opposed to the smṛtis are very frequently met with. It further says that this view is preferable to that of some others according to whom in this matter the custom of the country should be followed. The Nirṇayasindhu (III. p.
v4.c63.t2.649.4
251) also says the same. The respect for the purāṇas carried away late medieval writers so far that relying on some prophetic passages in the purāṇas about the disappearance of four varṇas in the Kali age and the subsistence of only brāhmaṇas and śūdras therein, they denied the existence of kṣatriyas and vaiśyas in the Kali age, in spite of the fact that all smṛtis (like Manu, Yāj., Parāśara) and many commentaries (including the Mitākṣarā) hold that the four varṇas exist in the Kali age.