Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c26.s8: (I) Authority of Kalpa-Sūtras

Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā in its Sources c26.s8

Language
English

(I) Authority of Kalpa-Sūtras

c26.s8.1

Sutras 1—3. 11—14 consider the authoritative character of the body of *Smṛti*-rules known under the name of '*Kalpa-Sūtra*.' A distinction is made between these and *Smṛtis* in general which have been dealt with before, on the ground that while the *Kalpa-Sūtras* formulate the rules of Sacrificial Procedure exactly as laid down in the Vedic texts still available, the *Smṛtis* in general are compilations based presumably upon Vedic texts, many of which are not now traceable, and whose existence can only be inferred. (See above). For this reason, the authority of the *Kalpa-Sūtras* cannot be made to depend entirely upon the arguments adduced in support of the authority of *Smṛtis* in general. And yet the present discussion is necessary because even though the *Kalpa-Sūtras* contain nothing that cannot be found in the Vedic texts, yet as compilations, they are the work of human authors, and to this extent, their reliability is open to doubt.

c26.s8.2

Kumārila has explained the term ‘*Kalpa*’ in this connection as standing for ‘the method and procedure of sacrifices in the form of definite regulations and treatises where these Rules are set forth in detail.’ (*Tantra-Vā.* Trs., p. 224.)

c26.s8.3

Kumārila has evidently drawn a distinction between ‘*Kalpa*’ and ‘*Kalpa-Sūtra*’; as under ‘*Kalpa*’—which contain the bare statement of the Rules, without any explanations and embellishments—he names as compilers, *Baudhāyana, Varāha* and *Mashaka*; while as authors of the ‘*Sūtras*’, he names *Āśvalāyana, Vaijavāpi, Drāhyāyaṇi, Lāṭīya* and *Kātyayana*. The *Bhāṣya* (Trs., p. 105) has mentioned the name of *Mashaka, Hastika* and *Kauṇḍinya*.

c26.s8.4

Kumārila justifies the separate treatment of *Kalpa-Sūtras* on the following grounds:—Under the discussion on *Smṛtis* in general, the chief argument against their authority lay in the fact of the *Smṛtis* not being based upon the *Veda*; and this could not be urged against the *Kalpa-Sūtras*, because the Vedic texts in support of these are directly available. For this reason they could not be dealt with along with *Smṛtis* in general. Then again, under the present Topic we are not going to discuss the authoritative character of the *Kalpa-Sūtra*; because there can be no doubt on that point; all that we proceed to consider is—Is the authority of the *Kalpa-Sūtras* independent and self-sufficient, like that of the *Veda*—or do they also derive their authority from the Veda? As a matter of fact, as regards this question, the *Smṛtis* in general also may be included in the present Topic, just as the *Kalpa-Sūtras* may be taken as included under the previous Topic dealing with *Smṛtis* in general. (*Tantravā. Trs.*, p. 225.)

c26.s8.5

The *Prima Facie View* in regard to the *Kalpa-Sūtras* is that they are as independent and self-sufficient in their authority as the Veda itself; and when they declare all days fit for the performance of *Darsha-Sacrifice* [while the Veda has declared the *Moonless Day* alone as fit for it], it should be permissible to perform the sacrifice on all days.—The *Established Conclusion* however is that, in view of the fact that the *Kalpa-Sūtras* only repeat in more intelligible language what is found to have been already mentioned in the Vedic texts still available, there can be no doubt regarding their authority and reliability; but at the same time, that authority and reliability cannot be self-sufficient; as such authority can belong only to such Scriptures as are independent of human authorship, which the Vedas alone *are*, and the *Kalpa-Sūtras* are *not*. Says Prabhākara (*Bṛhatī* MS., p. 33b.): ‘It is not possible that what proceeds from a human source should be self-sufficient in its authority, and it is well-known that the *Kalpa-Sūtra* is the work of human authors.’

c26.s8.6

Kumārila has offered several other interpretations of these four *Sūtras* 1.3.11—14. (a) Under the first of these, he has included the *Smṛti* in general also under this Topic—as we have pointed out above,—and has come to the comprehensive conclusion that *No Smṛti* is self-sufficient in its authority—neither the *Kalpa-Sūtras* nor the *Smṛtis* so-called. (b) Under another interpretation, he takes the Topic as referring to the *Vedāṅgas*—the Subsidiary Sciences—*Śikṣā, Kalpa, Vyākaraṇa, Nirukta, Chandas* and *Jyautiṣa*. (c) Under yet another interpretation, the Topic is taken as referring to the so-called *‘Smṛtis’* of the *Buddha* and others. He thus includes under these four *Sūtras* 1.3.11—14, four questions—(1) Are the *Kalpa-Sūtras* self-sufficient in their authority?—(2) Are the *Kalpa-Sūtras* and other *Smṛtis* so self-sufficient?—(3) Are the *Subsidiary Sciences* so self-sufficient?—(4) Are the Buddhist and other heterodox *Smṛtis* so self-sufficient?

c26.s8.7

With the (1) we have already dealt above.

c26.s8.8

As regards (2) and (3)—the *Prima Facie View* is that real self-sufficient authority cannot be denied to them; because they have been universally accepted as *Dharmashāstra*—‘Scripture dealing with Dharma’; which name includes *Kalpa-Sūtra*, *Smrtis* and *Vedāngas*. As a matter of fact also, nothing that is taught in these is contrary to or repugnant to any Vedic texts. These should therefore be regarded either as *Veda* itself or equal to *Veda* in authority. They are as eternal also as the *Veda*; as we cannot trace them to any beginning in time. The conclusion therefore must be that all these have an authority that is independent and self-sufficient, and they do not stand in need of the support and intercession of the *Veda*. (*Tantra-Vā.* Trs., pp. 229—231.) The *Established Conclusion* on this Topic (as set forth in *Tantra-Vā.* Trs., pp. 237 *et. seq.*) is as follows:—In the case of all *Smrtis* and *Subsidiary Sciences*,—in as much as we have distinct knowledge of their authors, they cannot be accepted as independent and self-sufficient ‘Scriptures’ bearing upon *Dharma*. The *Bhāṣya* (Trs., p. 106) has advanced against the *Kalpa-sūtra*, the fact that there is no ‘accentuation’ in it and hence it cannot be treated on the same footing as the *Veda*. *Kumārila* (*Tantra-Vā.*, p. 239) takes exception to this argument; he remarks—This argument would apply also to the case of the *Mantras* that are quoted in extenso in the *Kalpas*; as also to the *Chhāndogya-Brāhmaṇa* texts prescribed in the *Gṛhya-Sūtras*,—which latter also would have to be denied real scriptural authority; because the eight *Brāhmaṇas* with their esoteric Explanations, which are studied by the *Sāmavedis*, have got no definite accentuation and (according to the *Bhāṣya*) this absence of accentuation would deprive them of their ‘Vedic’ character. The only sound argument, according to *Kumārila*, against the self-sufficient authority of the *Kalpa-Sūtras*, *Smrtis* and the *Subsidiary Sciences*, lies in the absence, in them, of the self-evident Eternity and independence of human agency—which are found pre-eminently in the *Veda* alone. (*Tantra-Vā.* Trs., p. 239.)

c26.s8.9

*Kumārila* proceeds to point out (p. 240) that though according to *Kātyāyana*’s declaration—‘The Injunction, the Enjoined, the Argumentation of the *Mīmāmsā* all constitute the *Veda*’ though the name *Veda* becomes applicable to the *Mīmāmsā*, yet this has never been treated as *Veda* proper. Similar should be the case with the works under consideration. Under *Sū.* 14 (*Tantra-Vā.* Trs., pp. 242-243) *Kumārila* has also cited an instance where what is stated in the *Kalpa-Sūtras*, etc., is in conflict with the *Veda*.

c26.s8.10

Now remains the fourth question included under the Topic, by which Kumārila (see above) has taken the Sūtras 11—14 as bearing upon the authority of the So-called Smṛti of the Buddha and others.

c26.s8.11

The *Prima Facie View* on this question has been stated thus (in the *Tantra-vārtika* Trs., p. 232):—" Even though the teachings of Buddha and others may not be regular Smṛti, yet it cannot be denied that they embody the 'Scripture of Action', 'Moral Code', '*Prayogaśāstra*' (Sū. 11); and in this character, these also may be regarded as '*Veda*'. These scriptures also may be proved to be *eternal* by means of those same arguments that have been used to prove the Eternity of the *Veda* itself; hence like the Veda, these also are self-sufficient in their authority. Again, being, like the Veda, *not* the work of a human author, they are free from all the defects due to that origin. Though it bears the name of 'Buddha' and other persons, that only shows that these persons have *expounded* the teachings, which themselves are Eternal;—just as has been argued in regard to the names, '*Kaṭhaka*' and others found in the Veda. In fact, all the arguments that have been advanced in support of the self-sufficient authority of the *Veda* can be put forward in favour of the Buddhist and other Scriptures also."

c26.s8.12

The *Established Conclusion* as contained in the Sūtras is as follows: (*Tantra-Vā.*, Trs., pp. 232—237):—

c26.s8.13

By asserting the Eternity of his Scriptures, the Buddhist would go directly against his main thesis that all things are in a *perpetual flux* and there is nothing that is lasting. Thus being deprived of *Eternity*, these teachings must be dependent upon the trustworthy character of the Teachers themselves; and the word of any person cannot have independent authority in regard to matters relating to *Dharma*. The reason for this lies in '*asanniyama*' (Sū. 12)—*i.e.*, in the fact of their declaration that all things are evanescent;—or because they are full of incorrect words and expressions.

c26.s8.14

(J) EXTENT AND SPHERE OF THE AUTHORITY OF CUSTOMS. *Sutras 1.3.15—23 Holākādhikaraṇa.*

c26.s8.15

Kumārila has established the authority of Custom and Usage—*i.e.*, Practices of Good Men, under Sutra 1.3.7 (See above)—in a general way. The question raised and dealt with under Sū. 15—23 is in regard to the extent and sphere of the authority of Customs.

c26.s8.16

As a matter of fact, it has been found that there are certain customs that are observed by ‘Easterners’; there are others that are peculiar to the ‘Southerners’, and so forth. The question is—is the authority of these Customs limited and local, restricted to definite localities—or is it *universal*, like that of the Veda? The idea underlying this discussion is that these Customs—if at all authoritative, in howsoever a limited manner,—must owe that authority ultimately to Vedic texts;—it is argued therefore that if Customs have only local authority, then the Vedic texts upon which they may be based should also have only limited authority, and thus the very keystone of the *Mīmāṃsaka’s* position—the *universal* authority of the Veda—becomes shaken. The *Established Conclusion* on this question is as follows:—The Vedic Injunctions assumed in support of these Customs cannot be qualified by any specifications of time and place; firstly because the specifications generally spoken of are in such terms as ‘among Easterners’, ‘among Southerners’ and so forth; and these terms are purely relative; so that what is ‘Eastern’ for one man may be ‘Western’ for another,—and secondly because the Customs in question are not found to be observed by *all men* of any limited area; nor are they found to be *not* observed by all persons of other areas. Says *Prabhākara* (*Br̥hatī*, MS., p. 34):—

c26.s8.17

“There being no fixity attaching to any specification, no limitation is possible. That there is no fixity is proved by the fact (1) that the Injunction (assumed in the Veda) cannot impose any such restriction, as all that an Injunction can do is to lay down that a certain act *should be done*,—and (2) that the names of the Customs themselves, ‘*Holākā*’ and the rest, cannot indicate any such restriction, as all that they indicate is a certain *Act*;—and that (3) there is nothing else that could specify any place or time.”

c26.s8.18

*Kumārila* (*Tantravārttika*, Trs., p. 244) has taken these *Sūtras* as bearing upon the question of *localised* or *universal* authority of the *Gr̥hyasūtras* and such *Smr̥ti-Sūtras* as those of Gautama, and the like. As a matter of fact, we find that bearing the *Itihāsas* and *Purāṇas* and the *Smr̥ti* of Manu, all other *Smr̥ti-works*,—such as those of *Gautama*, *Vashiṣṭha*, *Śaṅkha-Likhita*, *Hārīta*, *Āpastamba*, *Baudhāyana* and others—as also the Sutras on *Gṛhya*,—are studied and followed exclusively by only certain sections of *Brāhmaṇas*, and each of them has its scope restricted to one particular Veda. For instance, the Sūtras of *Gautama* and *Gobhila* are followed by the *Chhandogya* (*Sama-Vedin*) *Brāhmaṇa* only; those of *Vashiṣṭha*, by the *Ṛgvedins* only; those of *Śaṅkha* and *Likhita*, by the *Vājasaneyins*; those of *Āpastamba* and *Baudhāyana*, by the *Kṛṣṇa-Yajurvedins*. Thus the fact of the scope of these *Sutras* being limited affords matter for reflection; the question being—Is each of these *Smṛti-Sūtras* authoritative only for the particular sect mentioned above? Or are all of them equally authoritative for all men?

c26.s8.19

The *Prima Facie View* is as follows:—“These *Sūtras* are, as a matter of fact, studied only by the said particular sects of *Brāhmaṇas*; hence their authority also must be restricted to those sects only.”

c26.s8.20

The *Established Conclusion* is that, on account of the universal character of the Injunctions, the *Smṛti-Sūtras* must be universal (Sū. 16); that is, they must be authoritative for all men who may be capable of performing the duties laid down in them; and as a matter of fact, capacity to perform these duties belong to the people of all castes and customs inhabiting the whole country of *Āryāvarta*, except the blind and such incapacitated persons who are excluded. Whenever an act is meant to be restricted in any way, such restriction is clearly mentioned—as, for instance, the *Rājasūya* sacrifice has been distinctly enjoined for the ‘*Rājā*’ (*Kṣattriya*) only.

Cites (14)