History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.389

v7.c93.389

It has further to be noted that the Mīmāṁsā rules were concerned only with the interpretation of the Vedic passages on sacrificial rites and matters relating thereto and had very little to do with the practices of people unconnected with sacrifices or religious rites.²⁰⁷³ The Mīmāṁsāsūtra nowhere says that the same rules should be applied to the interpretation of smṛtis. On the contrary, the P. M. S. is very critical about smṛtis and usages (vide P. M. S. I. 3. 3-4 and 7). There are fundamental differences between the Veda and the smṛtis. The Veda was deemed to be self-existent, eternal and of absolute authority, while smṛtis are pauruṣeya (works of human authors), have only a derived authority (as being presumed to be based on Vedic passages most of which are not now available), their number is very large, they often differ so much from each other that even eminent authors and works like the Mitākṣarā had sometimes to give up in despair the idea of bringing order out of the welter of smṛti passages and in their efforts at *samanvaya* had to say that certain smṛtis refer to a former Kalpa or Yuga (i e. to a society of several thousands or millions of years ago). One of the well-known maxims of the P. M. S. is the one called 'Sarvaśākhāpratyayanyāya'²⁰⁷⁴ or 'Śākhāntarādhikaraṇanyāya' (II. 4. 8-33). In the several recensions of the Veda and the Brāhmaṇas attached to the Vedic recensions the same rite is mentioned and is dilated upon with details some of which occur in one or more recensions but are absent from others. Jaimini and Śabara establish that all the Śākhās of the Veda and the Brāhmaṇas form one *corpus*, that such rites as Agnihotra and Jyotiṣṭoma are one and the same in all recensions of the Veda, though the details may vary here and there, and this is the proper conclusion because the name (Jyotiṣṭoma and the like) is the same in all recensions, the promised reward of the rite is the same, the materials of the sacrifice and the *devatā* are the same and the *codanās* (the exhortatory sentences) are the same. This very maxim was extended to smṛtis from very early times. Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi, the Mitākṣarā,²⁰⁷⁵ Aparārka and other commentators extend this to smṛtis and provide that where smṛtis are in conflict there is to be an option but that in other cases all the details are to be added up. But as an option was liable to eight faults the tendency developed that all smṛti passages on a topic were to be so interpreted as to give no rise to conflict or to allow no option by means of various devices such as ‘Viṣaya-vyavasthā’, reference to another Kalpa or Yuga and so on. For example, even as regards the stock example of *vikalpa* (viz. taking or not taking the Ṣoḍaśin cup in Atirātra) the Mit. says that it is proper to assume that it should be taken if it is possible to do so, or it may be assumed that by taking the Ṣoḍaśin cup in Atirātra the attainment of *svarga* is hastened &c.²⁰⁷⁶ The result of regarding all *smṛtis* as constituting one Śāstra was that many simple rites became in course of time overloaded with details, complicated and taxing to the performer. But sometimes it is necessary to apply this doctrine. For example, Yāj. I. 135 requires the *snātaka* not to look at the sun (*nekṣetārkam*); this would mean that to look at the sun is prohibited at all times, but the dictum of Yāj. should be read along with Manu IV. 37 which forbids a person to look at the rising or setting sun or at the sun when eclipsed or as reflected in water or when it is at the meridian. So the rule will be as stated by Manu.