History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.13

v7.c93.13

Some of the Dharmasūtras disclose familiarity with purely Mīmāṁsā terms and principles. For example, Gaut. states¹⁸⁷⁵ that an option is allowed only when there is a conflict between two texts of equal authority. The Āpastamba Dharmasūtra is the only Dharmasūtra that contains numerous Mīmāṁsā terms and doctrines. It says 'a positive Vedic text has more force than an usage which merely leads to an inference (of its being based on a Vedic text now lost)'.¹⁸⁷⁶ This is similar to Jaimini I. 3. 3 'If there is a conflict (between an express Vedic text and a smṛti text) the latter is to be discarded but if there be no conflict an inference may be drawn (that the smṛti text is based on some Śruti)'. Āp says 'the rules about *anadhyāya* (stopping Veda study on *parvan* &c.) are applicable only to learning the Vedic mantras and not to their application in sacrifices'. In another place Āp. provides 'where activity takes place because of finding pleasure therefrom (i. e. from a worldly motive), there is no (inference of its being based on) śāstra', which is similar to Jaimini's rule. For reasons of space other examples of close agreement between Āp. Dh. S.¹⁸⁷⁷ and Jaimini are simply referred to in the note below and not explained at length. These examples show that in Āpastamba's day Mīmāṁsā doctrines had been far advanced and since he employs the words 'Nyāyavit-samaya' (the *siddhānta* or doctrine of those who know Nyāya) and 'Nyāyavidaḥ', it follows that he is referring to some work on Mīmāṁsā or some author who composed a mīmāṁsā-sūtra. The correspondence in ideas and words between Āp. and the Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra is so close that one is tempted to argue that Āp. knew either the extant mīmāṁsāsūtra or at least an earlier version of it containing almost the same expressions. It will not do to say that all the above passages are later interpolations. They have all been commented upon by Haradatta.