History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.649.1

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.