Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c9.s1.2

c9.s1.2

They often differ from one another and from Revelation. Later writers were at pains to avoid confusion. The Pūrva Mimāṃsa declares that of two contradictory Smṛiti texts, the one supported by a Śruti (Vedic) text shall prevail. But it was argued by some that the other text might accord with a Śruti text which has disappeared. The Pūrva Mimāṃsa replies that a known Śruti text takes precedence of one unknown. It goes further and lays down that a Smṛiti text, though uncontradicted by Śruti, is liable to be rejected if it can be traced to an unworthy motive.¹ On the other hand, in his Mimāṃsa Sūtras, Jaimini denies to local usage any authority as a source of law independently of Śruti and Smṛiti. A similar opinion is expressed by Mādhavāchārya in his Jaiminīya Nyāyamālāvistara, though in his Vyavahāra Khaṇḍa he comes round to the view of Nārada, Kātyāyana and others. The Skanda Purāṇa, however, expressly admits that where the Vedas and Smṛitis are silent, the Dharmas should be ascertained by observation of the customs of families and countries. Commenting on Manu, Medhātithi remarks that Ācāra, as understood in Smṛtis, meant Śiṣṭa practices uncontradicted by Śruti or Smṛti. Vijñāneśwara, the commentator of Yājñavalkya, goes further and interdicts action which, though supported by Smṛtis, is disapproved by usage.¹ Yājñavalkya himself said that in a conflict between two Smṛti texts reason prevails according to usage. Nārada expresses himself in a similar strain. But later writers insist that reason must be exercised merely to reconcile conflicting texts.