History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.348

v7.c93.348

The following passages may be noted On²⁰⁴⁴ P. M. S. I. 3. 2. Śabara says "pramāṇaṃ smṛtiḥ"; on P. M. S. I. 3. 3 he mentions three smṛti rules, two of which can be said to correspond with extant smṛtis; on PMS VI. I. 5, while dealing with the question whether lower animals (dogs &c.) have *adhikāra* for Vedic rites, Śabara denies their adhikāra, since they do not study the Veda nor the smṛtiśāstras (as men do), on PMS VI. 2. 21–22 (when the question is whether the smārta rules that a teacher should be followed or obeyed and obeisance be made to him and whether one should get up and honour an old man apply to even children whose upanayana is not performed) Śabara states that smṛti is equal to Veda (Vedatulyā hi smṛtiḥ, vaidikā eva padārthā smaryanta ityuktam). On VI. 8. 23 he quotes one quarter of a śloka as smṛti (smaranti-teṣu kāleṣu `daivāni-iti). On VI. 7. 31 he says that smṛti speaks of gandharvas living for a thousand years. On VI I. 20 Śabara says a woman owns no`wealth, if one follows smṛti, but is owner of property if *śruti* be followed On IX. 2. 2 Śabara says 'naiṣā smṛtiḥ pramāṇam, dṛṣṭamūlā hyeṣā'; on X. 1.36 Śabara says that from the usage of respectable people smṛti is inferred and from smṛti Śruti text is inferred; on X. I 42 Śabara says 'Smṛti is stronger than usage'. On X. 3. 47 Śabara says 'there is a smṛti that one should not sell a horse'. In one place Śabara employs the words 'pramāṇāyām smṛtau' instead of 'pramāṇe smṛtau' as one would expect and the Tantravārtika is at great pains to show that this lapse on the part of Śabara may be somehow justified (pp. 183–184) on I. 3. 3. The Baudhāyana Dh. S. (1. 1. 19–26) sets out five practices peculiar to the countries of the South (Southern India) and five others peculiar to the North and says that if one belonging to the South follows any of the usages peculiar to the North and *vice versa* he would be guilty of sin. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. III. p. 858 and note 1663 for the passage from Baud. Dh. S. The objector says²⁰⁴⁵ that smṛtis should be discarded, since smṛtis were composed by men (i. e. they are *pauruṣeya* and not *apauruṣeya*, as the Veda is) and men are often deluded and forgetful This is the main basis of the objector. To this the reply is that for prescriptions of the smṛtis, there are passages in the Veda that suggest some of the smṛti rules e. g. that the Aṣṭakā *śrāddha* was prevalent long before the smṛtis is indicated by the Vedic mantra '*yāṁ janāḥ pratinandanti*'.²⁰⁴⁶ The usages about obeying the teacher, about providing cisterns for travellers have a seen purpose, viz. the benefit of others. Even the Veda mentions '*prapā*' (Ṛg. IX. 4 1 '*dhanvanniva prapā asi*' meaning 'O Agni! thou art like a prapā in a desert'. The Tantravārtika is most exhaustive on this and the following sūtras, differs from the Bhāṣyakāra in many places, finds fault with him and gives alternative matters as the subjects for discussion. He puts forward two theories about smṛti provisions for which it is impossible to suggest Vedic indications. He says (firstly) that Smṛti²⁰⁴⁷ prescriptions may be based on lost Vedic śākhās, or (2) they may be based on texts contained in the very parts of the Veda that are available at present. If any one asks 'how is it that they are not found', Kumārila gives the reply: the several branches of the Veda are scattered about (in many distant territories), men are negligent, and the texts are contained in different sections of the Veda; on account of these one cannot point out the texts that are the basis of the smṛtis.