History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.365

v7.c93.365

Śabara explains that sūtras 5-7 of P. M. S. I. 3 are²⁰⁵⁵ concerned with certain religious acts such as ācamana (sipping water) when one sneezes in the midst of a rite, the wearing of Yajñopavīta (the sacred thread), the use of the right hand alone in all acts. These interfere with the sequence and quick performance of the subordinate items in a religious rite, says the objector. Śabara establishes that there is no substance in the objection. Kumārila feels that Śabara is not right as regards the three instances cited by him. He splits the three sūtras into two adhikaṛaṇas (topics for consideration); sūtras 5 and 6 deal (acc to Kumārila) with the contention that those precepts of Buddha and other founders of unorthodox sects, such as the construction of monasteries and parks, the insistence on desirelessness (*vairāgya*), the continuous practice of meditation, ahiṃsā, truthfulness, restraint of senses, charity and kindness are such as are laid down also by the Veda, are not opposed to the ideas of śiṣṭas and cannot rouse the antipathy of those who know the Vedas and that therefore those parts of the unorthodox systems should be deemed to be authoritative. This contention is repelled by Kumārila with the remark that only 14 (four Vedas, 6 Vedāṅgas, Purāṇas, Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā and Dharmaśāstra) or 18 (adding four Upavedas) have been accepted by the Vedic śiṣṭas as authoritative in matters of Dharma and the works of Bauddhas and other sects are not included therein.²⁰⁵⁶ Kumārila gives a telling example viz milk, though by itself pure and useful, becomes useless and unacceptable, when poured into a bag of dog-skin.