32 Introduction

CHAPTER XXXII

SADACARA

CUSTOMS AND MODERN CUSTOMARY LAW1606

From Gautama 1606 downwards many writers dilate upon the sources of dharma. Gautama. I. 1-2 states: ’ the Veda is the source ( mula) of dharma and also the tradition (or smṛtis ) and practice of those who know the Veda’. Similarly Ap. Dh. S. (I. 1. 1.1-%) says: ‘we shall propound the acts (that produce merit) which are evolved from conventions and practices; the authority ( for finding out the dharmas) are the conventions of those who know the dharma and the Vedas’. Vas. I. 4-7 pro vides: ‘dharma is declared by the Vedas and Smptis; on failure of these two the practice of the sistas is the authority (for finding out what dharma is); a sista however is one whose heart is free from (worldly ) desires and (only ) such acts of sigtas are ( to be held as ) dharma for which no ( worldly

1606. This chapter and the next represent, with a few minor additions, two of the four lectures I delivered in November 1944 at the Bombay Uni. versity as the Sir Lallubbai Shah Lecturer. I am thankful to the Syndicate of the Bombay University for permission to incorporate these two lectures in this volume,

1606a, at

w aiati fafte i ft. I. 1-2; 37416: FTATIST Pyh Tree: I VYAT: HOT 91 | 97. 4. . 1. 1.1, 1-3; भुतिस्पतिविहितो धर्मः । सदलामे शिष्टाचारः प्रमाणम् । शिष्टः पुनरकामारमा। अग्रामाण. arront

I. 4-7; R: Tafa: Frent: #farha: 999 TEST: FIA: Watare # 01. I. 7; asform the Batata ahora i r * TRATEĦENETH REI. 6. V explains mula in Gaut. as pramīṇa and prayer as atractivar #9: Parowe विधिनियमः प्रतिषेध इति । समयमला आचारा समयाचाराः तेषु भवाः सामपाचारिक एवं. Waruaffata i o stsiguranta Fe ROM A. !. According to him FTRT Ar means relating to practices based upon agreements or conventions. Manu distinguishes between sīla and ācāra. The first means, acc. to Kullūka and others, such moral qualities as • dovotion to learning, to gods and to parents’ &c. mentioned in Harita (quoted by Kullūka). All commentators connect ‘svasya’ in Manu II. 12 and Yāj. I. 7 with

priyam’, but Pandit Gaṭṭulal coojects it with • sadācāra’ which means bccording to him sampradaya’ (in Satbiddhantamārtaṇḍa I. 5 p. 49, Nir: ed. 1942),

104

826

( Vol.

or secular ) cause (or motive) can be assigned’. 1607 Manu II. 6 and Yaj. I. 7 declare that Veda (or sruti), smrti and the practices of the good are the principal sources of dharma. The words employed in these works are fila, samaya, ācāra or sadācāra or sistācāra 1607 (the latter three meaning the game thing ). Ap. employs both words viz. samaya and ācāra, the first of which probably means ‘agreement or convention or usage’, while the latter means ‘custom’. The word ‘custom’ now conveys the idea of some antiquity, 1608 while usage or convention does not necessarily convey that idea. A usage may be recent or it may be established by agreement among a certain class of persons ( such as traders or craftsmen ). We have to see what is meant when it is said that ācāra or śiṣṭācāra or sadācāra is the source (mūla) of dharma. An indication of the meaning is furnished by the word pramīna employed by Ap. and Vas. The meaning is that just as the revealed books (Veda) and the smrtis authoritatively lay down what dharma is, so also in our quest to find out what dharma is in the varying circumstances of life the practices of those who may be called sistas furnish us with the necessary criterion or norm i. e. $iṣtācāra is the touchstone for judging whether an act is in consonance with what the Śāstras require us to do. The theory of the ancient writers was that the smrtis were based on parts of Veda ( that consists of mantras and Brāhmaṇa texts ) which though formerly existent are not now extant or available, that similarly the practices of those who were learned in the Vedas and were deemed to be śistas must be inferred to have been based on portions of Veda not now available. This theory was advanced by such ancient

1607. As to the qualifications of sistas, vide H. of Dh, vol. II. pp. 971– 72 wbere references are given to Baud. Dh. S., Mapu, the Matsyapurāṇa and a few other works. The Tai. Up. I.: 11 contains perhaps the oldest extant indication as to who should be regarded as sistas, though that word itself is not used. Su ve what IFET Teferrent 97 FATCL TEAM: समर्शिनः युक्ता आयुक्ता अलूक्षा धर्मकामाः स्युः यथा ते तत्र वर्तेरन तथा तत्र पतेथाः । अथा. xorugrigio

m o : … ATAT: Fa: yura agar or ag UT: I. 1608. Vide Dalglish v. Gusuffer 23 Cal. 427, 429 and Sariatullah v. Pran Nath 26 Cal. 184, 187 for the meaning of usage in modern enactments as distinguished from ‘custom’, In Juggomohun Ghose v. Manickchund 7 Moo. I. A. 264 at p. 282 (mercantile) usage is sharply distinguished from custom in tbat the former need not possess the characteristics of antiquity, uniformity and notoriety that the latter must possess.

m)

Inference as to practices of sistas

827

writers as Āp. 1609 and was taken up by many subsequent works. Manu II. 7 also states that whatever dharma has been ordained for any person by Manu, all that has been entirely declared in the Veda for the Veda is full of all knowledge. But it does not follow from this nor is it ever meant that all practices of bistas are authoritative in matters of dharma. The qualifica tion was added that where the practices of sistas are clearly referable to or are prompted by a seen motive or by the desire to secure pleasure, there they are not authoritative. Manu (II. 18 ) restricted the word sadācāra to the customs handed down from generation to generation among the four varṇas and the mixed castes in the country called by him Brahmā varta ( II. 17). But many other writers did not so restrict it in this way,

We have to distinguish between what are called the sources (mūla or pramāṇa ) of dharma and the sthānas of dharma (Yaj. I 3 and 7), 1610 The former indicate to the inquiring spirit what dharma is (i.e. they are what are called jñāpaka hetu ), while the latter must be studied as aids by the expounders of dharma in order to correctly grasp what dharma is, i.e. the different lores (other than Veda and smrti ) are not directly the sources of dharma, but are only mediately so. This distinc tion is an ancient one as even Gautama XI. 19 provides that the king is helped in his administration of justice by the Veda, the dharmaśāstras, the auxiliary lores ( angas), the Upavedas and the Purāṇa. 1611

The position of the Purvamsmāmgā in relation to the authoritativeness of smrtis and customs requires careful and

1609.38*HATI TITARTETTUT: 1 … Hot fir fuUFTEW: T: प्रयोगादनमीयन्ते । यत्र तुप्रीत्युपलब्धितः प्रवृत्तिन तत्र शास्त्रमास्ति । तदनुवर्तमानो नरकाय TEYTT I 3779. 8. . 1. 4. 12. 8, 10-13. The first sūtra may be used for explaining Vas, I. 4; TTATUTO Trot means ’that has a known or perceptible worldly motive such as covetousness’. Vide note 1653 below. Compare St. 1.3.7 3410 a $TTUTTO EU &c. quoted below.

1610. TIETTY#THATUATTUTETAT PAT: 1 atent: urana fagrat YAT

# . I. 3, on which FANT. says, ÁTT 100T FYRIR : 1 garna Haroratuara, while foafy explains, ’ aurat TUTUR Targ i wa ya Ufaria furaturn: Murat: sfert

T.’ OA I. 7 FATTA* says, पुराणादीनो स्वर्गादिकधामाधाग्यादितिहासबहुलवेनार्थवादाविरूपतया न्यायमीमांस योस्तद्वारा शिक्षादीनामनाना सदुपकारसम्पादनेन बेदाग्राहकतया धर्म प्रामाण्यं न #TH4 matrai,

1611. Tato TT VÁHrvergaat: 19. XI, 19,

828

[Voi.

detailed consideration. In I. 3. 1-2 1612 Jaimini considers the question whether such smrti injunctions as one should perform the Astaka sraddhas’,1613 or ‘one should construct a tank or set up a prapā (place for free distribution of water to thirsty travellers’), or ’tufts of hair should be kept on the head’ (at caula according to the gotra ) are authoritative and establishes the conclusion that they are authoritative, since such smrti injunctions equally with Vedic ones are addressed to the same persons (viz. the followers of the Veda ) who have to act according to them. The idea is that those who perform the acts expressly enjoined by the Veda are also seen to perform the acts enjoined by such smrtis as that of Manu and therefore the principal reason why these smṛtis are authoritative is the fact that those who know the Veda accept these smrtis as authorita tive and hold fast by them, as Medhātithi on Manu II. 6 says citing some verses from his own work called Smrtiviveka. 1614 Sabara endeavours to show that there are indications (linga) in the Vedic texts pointing to the existence of what is prescribed in the smrtis e.g. he cites the Vedic verse ‘yam janah’ as indicative

1612. धर्मस्य शब्दमूलत्वादशब्दमनपेक्षं स्यात् । अपि वा कर्तृसामान्यात्प्रमाणमनु मामं स्यात् । जै. I. 3. 1-2 The word अनुमान is here used in the sense of स्मति. ‘भपिया पक्षो ज्यावय॑ते । प्रमाणं हि स्मृतिः । … अन्धस्स्वनुमीयेत कर्वसामान्यास्मृति वैदिकपदार्थयोः । तेनोपपलो वेदसंयोगस्वर्णिकानाम् ।’ शबर; about अष्टका he says ‘अष्टकालिङ्गाश्च मन्त्रा दे हश्यन्ते यो जनाः प्रतिनन्दन्तीत्येवमादयः ।।. That verse is, यो जनाः प्रतिनन्दन्ति रात्रि धेनुमिवायतीम् । संवत्सरस्य या पत्नी सा नो अस्तु सुमडाली। This occurs in आप. म. पा. II. 10. 27, in पारस्करगृह्य III. 2 and in अथर्ववेद III. 10. 2 where we have या देवा: etc. Acc. to प्रभाकर the topic of Jai. I. 3. 1-2 is not such smrti texts as those on Aṣtakā, but the Vedic verse at wat: itself. The न्यायसुधा p. 126 adds ‘अटाकायै सुराधसे स्वाहेति तस्याटकादेवतारात्रिप्रकाश. कत्वादेषा बै संवत्सरस्य पत्नी पदष्टकेति संवत्सरपत्नीत्वसंस्तुताष्टकाप्रकाशकत्वाशाष्टका लिङ्गवं स्पष्टमेवेति’. The word कतसामान्यात in the sutra is explained in the मयूखमालिका as ‘अग्निहोत्रादीनां वैदिकपदार्थानां ये कारस्त एव अटकादिरसतीनामिति कर्वसामान्यात्मामाण्यमुक्तम् । (on जै. I. 3. 4 p. 21): while the न्यायसुधा (p. 125) proposes also another explanation ’ यद्वा स्मृतिकतणां मन्यादीनां वैदिकपदार्थकता तदानींतनानी शिष्टानां त्रैवर्णिकत्वेन समानस्वात् इदानींतनधमन्यादीनामप्युपएलो वेद संयोग इत्यधः .

1613. vide Asv. Gr. II. 4. 1 ff., San. Gr. III. 12-14, Pir. Gr. III. 3 for Astakā sraddhas, Passages of the smrtis about tanks and prapās are set out in H. of Dh, vol. II pp. 889-890. For tufts of hair kept in caula vide

H, of Dh. vol. II. pp. 261 and 264,

1614. पैर्दिकैः स्मर्यमाणवासस्परिमहदान्यतः। संभाग्यपदमूलवास्मतीमा अवमूलता। quoted in the शानदीपिका on जै. I. 3. 2,3; ‘स्मार्तवैदिकयानित्य ग्यविषारपरस्परम् । कर्तृतः कर्मतो पापि वियुज्यते न जातु तौ। …मामाण्यकारण मुख्यं वेदविशिः परिग्रहः । ती कौसामान्यादलुमानं ती मतिq. from सतिषिषेक by मेधा. on मह. II. 6.

1

Authoritativeness of smrtis

829

of astakās, Rg. X. 4. 1 of prapas, Rg. VI. 75. 17 of tufts of hair. The objection may be stated as follows The smrtis are composed by human authors (i. e. they are pauruṣeya ) and so have no independent authority in matters of dharma, as a man may say what is either false or mistaken. If it be said that the smṛtis really propound what is stated by the Veda, then they are practically superfluous and useless. and not being Veda they should be discarded (anapeksa ) To this the reply is that smṛtis are generally authoritative, as they must be held to be based on Veda because they are composed by men (like Manu ) who were followers of the Veda, because what the smrtis lay down has been consistently followed from generation to generation by the sistas and because it is possible to regard the Veda as their source. To the question why the Vedic passages on which the smrti rules are postulated to have been based are not seen or found by us several answers were proposed by different writers. One view was that just as Vedic indications about locks of hair lead to the inference of śruti texts enjoining the keeping of tufts on the head, so the fact of the existence of such rules leads to the inference that śruti must have contained injunctions corres ponding to all smrti prescriptions. Kumārila raises objections to this view. Inference is based on perception (pratyakṣa ) and invariable concomitance (vyāpti). There is no vyāpti between the smṛtis and śruti texts that are never found pro nounced by any one, so no inference is possible and it would be like one blind man following another.1615 Manu must have composed his smṛti on finding that ācāryas preceding him performed certain acts as based on Veda. These last must have believed that their predecessors also acted on the same belief, Hence there is what is called an ‘andha-paramparā’ on this hypothesis. And further this hypothesis of the inference of Sruti in all cases is opposed to perception, since as a matter of fact hundreds of Śruti passages are known that can be the basis of corresponding smrti texts. Another view is (and Kumārila holds that it is somewhat better than the preceding view ) that one should infer that the Vedic passages that were the basis of smptis are lost ( utsanna or pralīna). Some support is lent to this by such Vedic texts as ’ anantā vai vedah’ (Tai. Br. III 10.

1615. तत्वयुसमन्धपरम्पराग्यायादेव। या हि चोदना न कदाचिदुरचार्यते तस्याः सर्वपुरुषप्रत्यक्षादिप्रसराभावाद दुर्लभतरमस्तिलम् । … लिहावीमा हमित्यवालिस्यमवरच. Rage ATATTHA

at mageuzarade i at p. 164 on . 1. 3. 2.

830

[Vol.

11)and by Ap. Dh. S. I. 4. 12. 10. Even this view is not acceptable to the Tantravārtika and most of the Mīmāṁsakas. The objection against the 2nd view is raised as follows. Even Bauddhas and other heretical sects 1616 would advance the argument that their works also are based on śruti texts that are now lost, and any one may regard anything as authoritative by pretending that the basic vedic texts are lost. Further the Mimāṁsā view that the Veda is eternal ( nitya ) would be refuted if it were admitted that some portion of the Veda is lost. There is not much difference between the first view and the second view. Therefore Kumārila propounds the third view viz. that smṛtis are to be inferred as based on Vedic texts that are already in existence 1617. If an objection is raised against this hypothesis that it must be explained why such Vedic texts ( the bases of smrtis ) are not seen or found, the Tantravārtika replies in a famous kārikā that as the Vedic śākhās (the several branches of the Veda) are scattered about (in various countries), as men (followers of the Veda) are negligent and unmindful (i.e. they do not visit all the countries and so are unable to have a complete knowledge of all Vedic texts ) and as several rules are declared in different contexts even when occurring in the same śākhā (and not at one place ) it is not always possible to point out the Vedic sources of smrti texts. If an objector were to ask : ‘why were not the Vedic passages themselves (that are the sources of smrti rules ) embodied bodily into the smrtis,’ Kumārila replies that this was not done from the fear of the loss of the correct arrangement of the Vedic texts as traditionally handed down. The Veda is principally concerned

1616. यदि त मलीनशाखामूलता कल्प्येत ततः सर्वासा युद्धाविस्मृतीनामपि तद्वार प्रामाण्यं प्रसज्यते । यस्यैव च यदभिमेत स एष तत्मलीनशाखामस्तके निक्षिप्य प्रमाणीकुर्यात् । तरत्रवार्तिक p. 163 : नित्यानुमेयपक्षो यो पाप्यागमपरम्परा । तयोरन्धवाहत्वं न भेदः कश्चि. दीक्ष्यते । स्मृतिविवेक q. by मेधा. on महII. 6. _____1617. यदा विद्यमानशाखागतभूतिमूलत्वमेवास्तु । कथममुपलब्धिरिति चेदुध्यते । शाखाना विप्रकीर्णत्वात्पुरुषाणां प्रमादतः । नानाभकरणस्थत्वात्स्मृतेर्मूले न दृश्यते ॥ यतु किम वेदवाक्यान्येव नोपसंगृहीतानीति । संप्रदायविनाशभीतेः । विशिष्टानुपूज्या हि स्वाध्यायोडायतायः भूयते। स्मार्ताश्वाचाराः केचित् कश्चित्कस्याचिकारवायाम् । तत्रापि । केचित्पुरुषमेवाधिकत्याम्नायन्ते । येन कतमकरणाम्नाताः केनचितिमिनेनाकृष्यमाणाः पुरुषधर्मती भजन्ते । यथा मलबद्वाससा सहन संवदेत्-तस्मान माहाणायावगुरेत-इस्पेव मादयः । तत्र यदि तावत्तान्येव वाक्याग्युश्त्याच्यापयेयुस्ततः मान्यत्वात्स्वाध्यायविधि विरोधः स्यात् । अनेम च निर्देशेनाग्येपर्थवादोद्धारेण विधिमात्रमधीपीरन् कोपथिकमात्र पा।तत्र घेदप्रलयः प्रसज्येत । तरत्रवा. on ज. I. 3.2. p. 164. For मलवद् &c. vide है. सं. II. 3. 1.5 and for तस्मान &c. से.सं. II. 6. 10. 2 (q. in H. of Dh. vol. II p. 803 . 1917 and p. 151.346 respectively).

III]

Authoritativeness of smrtis

831

with sacrifices, though now and then there are rules addressed to men for regulating conduct only. People would only study the Vedic sentences contained in the smṛtis ( that are concerned principally with conduct) where they would be arranged in a different order according to subjects and there would thus be loss of the arrangement of the Veda as originally delivered. Viśvarupa 1618 (on Yaj. I. 7) quotes the above verse of Kumarila and states that there are thousands of smrti rules that have their source in the Veda; he and Kumarila instance tha rules against talking with (or coming in contact with ) a woman in her monthly illness or the rule against assaulting a brāhmaṇa, or the rule about the sin of killing an ātreyi woman &c. Medhātithi on Manu II. 6 has an elaborate discussion on this very topic and quotes several verses from his own work called Smrtiviveka 1619. He does not approve of the first two views and follows Kumārila’s view. Mimāmgā writers and commentators like Medhātithi say that Manu and other authors of smstis brought together for easy comprehension matters that are scattered about in the various Vedic texts, that are either not known to the students of the several śākhās or that cannot be brought together by men of ordinary or weak intellect, 16194

The general proposition that sniștis are authoritative being established, a further question arises. What is to happen if a empti rule conflicts with the rule of the Veda? Jaimini deals

__1618. स्मृतिमूला हि विधयः सन्ति घेदे सहमशः । संप्रदायविनाशातु भीतैः साक्षाद संहतिः । उत्क्रष्टव्यस्तु ख्यातोयं मलयद्वाससा सह । न संघसेदिति विधिः स्मृतिमूलत्वसंमतः ॥ आत्रेय्या योषितैनस्वी भवेद धातयितेत्यपि । वृत्तं तस्मादनिन्यस्य नापकामेदितीति च ॥ अना. रम्य च सौवर्ण हिरण्यं भार्यमित्ययम् । रूपसंपत्तये चैवं भवितव्यं सुवाससा॥ विश्वरूप on या. I. 7. pp. 14-15.

1619. शाखा काश्चित्समुत्सनाः पक्षो नैष मतो मम। पस्मिनाममाणं हि बहाष्टं प्रसज्यते । उपपतरः पक्षी विक्षिप्तानां ततस्ततः । उत्पश्यादिसमाहारः प्रायशो दृश्यते शादः ॥ मेधा. on मनु. II. 6.

____16193. अधायवे पम्यन्त एव ताः शाखा: किन्तु विप्रकीर्णास्ते धर्माः कस्यांचिच्छा रखायामष्टकादीनां कर्मणामुत्पत्तिः कस्यचिदन्यं क्वचिदेवता कचिन्मन्त्र इत्येवं विप्रकीर्णानां मन्वादयोझोपसंहार सुखावबोधार्थ चक्रः । मेधा. on मनु. II.6; उच्चार्यन्त एष स्मृतिमूलभूताः भूतयः संमत्यपि विप्रकीर्णाः काश्वित्तचित्कस्यांचिच्छाखायो विमकीर्णत्वावच शाखान्तराध्या. पिभिः शाखान्तरगतानामनुपलम्भात् तादमावलिवन्धन सदुपलम्भेपि वा मन्दधीभि. प्लुपसंहरणीयानामुपसंहारफलं स्मृतिप्रणयनमिति म चैयर्यमतः स्मृतयः प्रमाणमिति सिद्धम्। शानदीपिका.832

| Vol.

with this question in I. 3. 3-4, 1620 which form a topic that states an exception to the general rule contained in Jai. 1.3.1-2. Sabara gives three instances where there is apparently a conflict between the prescriptions of the śruti and those of smṛtis. The Veda says, ’the priest should chant (the slotra) after touching the audumbari post’, while smrti says ’the whole of the audum bart post should be covered with cloth’. The Veda says ‘one to whom a gon has been born and whose hair is still dark (and has not turned grey ) should consecrate the Vedic fires’, while smrti says ‘a man should observe Vedic studenthood for 48 years’ 1621 ; the Veda says ‘when the Agniṣoiniya rite is finished then one may eat (the food prepared) in the house of the sacrificer, while smṛti says ’the food of one who has undergone dikṣā for a sacrifice may be eaten after he purchases the soma plant’. In these cases the proposition enunciated by Jaimini is that in case of conflict ( between an express sruti rule and a smrti rule) the smrti rule should be discarded, for when there is no conflict ( with an express sruti) inference may be made ( that a smrti rule is based upon some Vedic text).’ The examples may be explained as follows: The ‘audumbari’ is a post of udumbara planted in the sudas in the performance of the Agnistoma ; the stotras (other than Bahispavamāna) are chanted near the audumbari post in the sadas. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1155 for the fixing of the audumbara post in the sadas and p. 1185 for the chanting of stotras near the audumbari. If the whole of the post be covered with cloth, it would not be possible to touch the post, but only the cloth would be touched. So there is contra diction. If a man is to consecrate Vedic fires when he has a son and his hair is dark, he must be between about 20 and 40 (i. e. a young man), but if a man were to observe brahmacarya for

1620. panta max ROTEIN DATA! tagate 16.1.3.3-4; 3 अतिविरोधस्तत्र कधम् । यथोदुम्बर्याः सर्ववेष्टनं ‘औदुम्बरी स्पृष्ट्वोदायेत् । इति श्रुत्या विरुद्धम्। अष्टाचत्वारिंशद्वर्षाणि पेदब्रह्मचर्यचरणं ‘जातपुत्रः कृष्णकेशोनीमादधीत’ इत्यनेन विरु बम्। कीतराजकोऽभोज्यान इति तस्मादमीषोमीये संस्थिते यजमानस्य गृहेऽशितव्यम् ’ इत्यनेन विरुद्धम् । तत्प्रमाणं कर्तृसामान्यात् । इत्येवं प्राप्ने अमेः । अशक्यत्वाव्यामोह इत्यव Twitter I … TAIGI ara fa tarifa | Hautala TTTTI

TUT

1621. For were &c. vide 1. y. u. 1. 2. 1-5 Bereafire TOT पौराण वेदब्रह्मचर्यम् । चतुर्विशति द्वादश वा प्रतिवेदम् … । ग्रहणान्त था जीवितस्यास्थिर AC I grupa andrargutin xā: i. For at &c. vide 39. 4. . 1, 6. 18. 16 and 23 FWATI TRI arril. It may be noted that आप. mentions also several other views such as ‘अग्नीषोमीयसंस्थायामेव । grat af erat firmate uitingen (I. 6. 18. 24-25).

III)

Conflict between sruti and smrti

833

48 years, he would be about 52 to 56 years of age before he married ( as the upanayana of a brāhmaṇa was to be performed generally in the 8th year or from the 5th year onwards at the most). Only a married man could consecrate Vedic fires. But a man’s hair when he is fiftytwo years of age or more can hardly be all dark. Therefore there is contradiction between the rule derived from the Veda and that derived from smrti. In the Jyotiptoma (which generally occupied five days), the dikṣā (purification and initiation of the sacrificer) takes place on the first day in the afternoon (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1134-1136 ). Soma is purchased on the 2nd day of the Jyoti stoma (ibid. 1140–4 ) and the animal is sacrificed for Agni and Soma on the 4th day (ibid. pp. 1158-59). According to śruti therefore the food prepared in the house of a diksita may be eaten only after the 4th day, while smrti says that it may be eaten after the purchase of soma on the 2nd day. In this way there is contradiction. Kumārila 1622 does not agree with Sabara as regards these examples in particular and as regards the general attitude towards smstis that are accepted by Vedic followers. He makes great efforts to explain how there is no real conflict in the cases cited by Sabara. As regards the cloth covering the audumbari he says that it may cover the bottom and the upper portion of the post and leave a space of two or three finger-breadths in the middle uncovered ( so that the audumbari post can be touched in that particular por tion), that (p. 188 ) there is a passage in the Sātyāyani

1622. The sūtra (Jai. 1. 3, 3 ) is read as n or water and with both readings it has been explained in different ways from ancient times.

The oath says’ stata ramaTù

T

r 974 SterOfTqA. पक्षास्तीति एवं पाठद्वयपि पूर्वसूत्रात्ममाणशब्दमनुषङ्गेण सम्बध्य यदनपेक्ष तत्तावत् प्रमाणं स्यादिति। (p. 193); ‘श्रुतिविरोधे यन्मानान्तरानपेक्षे श्रुतिवाक्यं तदेव प्रमाणे स्यास तु स्मृतिवाक्यं यस्मादसत्येव विरोधे स्मृतेः श्रुत्यनुमापकस्वम् । मयूखमालिका. On this interpretation the sūtra means ‘in case of conflict between śruti and smrti, the former which is independent is authoritative, for only when there is ao conflict does an inference arise that smrti is based on sruti’. The garaian when it explains Jai, I. 3. 3-4 as referring to Bauddhas and the like takes ‘anapeksya’ to meau deserving to be discarded ‘; ATC gia

a rata gratara Furrera i ’ p. 196. Et in his way on HETHEE II. 1. 1 appears to adopt Kumārila’s 2nd interpretation of Jai, 1. 3. 3. pantufatarany99saattoritan n itoa: स्मृतयः प्रमाणमनपेक्ष्या इतराः । तदुक्तं प्रमाणलक्षणे विरोधे वन…तु मानमिति । कुल्लूक on FE II. 14 quotes $. I. 3. 3 and explains ‘granate Fannad&T# TOT मनादरणीयम् । असति विरोधे मूलवेदानुमानमित्यर्थः ।

105

834

[ Vol.

Brahmana which refers to the cloth covering the audumbari (and so there may at most be an option), that as regards the taking of food in the house of a dikṣita after the purchase of soma there is a śruti passage in the Atharvavoda (pp. 181 and 189 ) similar to the smrti passage ( and thus there is no conflict between śruti and smrti, but between śruti and śruti, which would lead to an option) and further the smrti rule may apply in the case of a man in distress (ūpad dluermu), that smrti does not prescribe an absolute period of 48 years for the study of Veda, but Baud. Dh. S. itself allows several alternative or optional periods and so no question of conflict with śruti arises. Kumārila’s own position is this: In the case of apparent conflicts between sruti and smṛti, various methods of interpretation and reconciliation are possible. Each of the two may be given its proper scope as referring to different subject matters ( which is called viṣayız-vyavasthā); it is also possible to hold that smrti is based on some sruti texts already existing but not found at the time of discussion, but which may ultimately be found, in which case there will be an option, though the latter is to be avoided as far as possible as it is liable to eight faults (vide Tantravārtika pp. 174-175 ); or the two may be reconciled even when referring to the same subject matter e. g. a man may have dark hair even when he is 52 or more and the smști may be taken as meant to refer to such a man, while the sruti states the general rule about the age when consecration of Vedic fires was to be made. Therefore Kumārila holds that all that is meant by Jaimnini and even by Sabara is that there is a great distinction between sruti and smrti in that the former is apauruṣeya and an independent authority, while the latter has a human author (liable to err ), is either actually based on the Veda or is inferred to be so based, that the two therefore can never be said to be quite alike each other as regards their authoritativeness and that lastly smrti is not in itself to be regarded as unauthoritative 1623. Kumārila therefore suggests that the proper subject of discussion in Jai. I. 3. 3-4 is the works of Bauddhas, Saṅkhya, Yoga, Pañcarātra, Pāśupata and other heretical sects and the practices of mlecchas. These works contain some matters such as the emphasis on ahimsā, truthfulness, restraint of senses, charity and compassion, which are also emphasized in the Veda, but those works are not

1623. Wakri yfirgefasteista F OF4011 D. 194.

IATTAA TUTTE *

Copy

II

Worlds of heretical sects

835

generally accepted by the followers of the Veda, are based on specious and false reasoning only (they are haitukas in the words of Manu), that they deny the authority of the Veda. Therefore Jaimini means that these works of heretic sects are not authoritative in matters of dharma as they are opposed to the Veda and should be discarded. For want of space it is not possible to set out in detail the interesting discussion in the Tantravārtika. The Jaiminiya-nyāya-mālāvistāra also gives another explanation of Jai. I. 3. 3.

Sabara (on Jai. I. 3. 4) explains that the three smrti passages stated above are not authoritative since it is possible to point out how they originated in a visible worldly motive such as greed. When a visible motive can be pointed out for any smrti text, it is not proper to infer that it is based on the Veda and has an unseen spiritual motive. Sabara 1624 postulates the reasons in the way of a modern man finding fault with priests, Some priests covered the whole of the Auduinbari post with cloth, because they coveted the cloth as part of the fee; others who desired a free meal when hungry took food at the house of a dikṣita even after he had purchased the Soma plant; certain others in order to conceal their absence of virility went in for Veda study for 48 years. The Tantravārtika tries to show that in all these cases there is really no visible motive such as covetousness ( pp. 188-189 ).

Sabara gives an alternative explanation of this sutra (Jai. 1.3.4) and makes a separate topic (adhikarana) of it. The reasong 1625 for giving an alternative explanation of a sūlra or adhikarana are two, viz. dissatisfaction with the explanation already given or the wide scope of the subject under discussion. In 1. 3.3 passages from smrtis were cited which were apparently in conflict with śruti. If they were really in conflict, that one reason alone is more than sufficient to render the smṛtis invalid. Therefore to say further that those snirti passages originate in worldly motives like greed does not add any very substantial reason for the abandonment of smrtis as authoritative. There fore Sabara makes another adhikarapa of sutra 4 of Jai. 1. 3.

1624. aastaraa . I. 3.4; HEF S chaar gouf great टितवन्तः केचित् । तत्स्सीजम् । बुभुक्षमाणाः केचित् क्रीतराजकस्य भोजनमाचारित वन्तः । अपुंस्त्वं प्रच्छादयन्सचाटाचत्वारिंशद्वर्षाणि वेदनाचर्य चरितवन्तः । तत एषा स्मति prostoāi TT.

1625. सर्वव्याख्याविकल्पानां द्वयमेव प्रयोजनम् । पूर्वत्रापरितोषो वा विषयष्यामिरे

an p. 186.

836

(Vol.

He cites gmpti passages which are not opposed to Veda at all and says that such passages have seen a worldly motive such as convetousness and it is not proper to suppose that they are based on Veda and are therefore authoritative, when a visible purpose or motive can be ascribed to them. The result of the explanations of I. 3. 3-4 given by Sabara would be that smrti rules that are opposed to śruti rules and smrti prescriptions that can be shown to have a clear worldly motive are not authoritative or absolutely binding, while the rest of smsti texts are authoritative. 1628

Sabara cites on Jai. I. 3. 4 (when taken as a separate topic ) 16264 two examples; (1) the adhvaryu priest takes ( as his fee ) the cloth used in the Vaisarjana homa; (2) they perform the gift of the elephant ( i. a. the cloth covering) of the sacrificial post. Sabara says that these passages are not opposed to any śruti text but instead of inferring a Vedic text as their basis it is far better to hold that there is a manifest worldly motive for these rules ( viz. covetousness of the adhvaryu ) and so these smrti passages need not be looked upon as authorita tive. 1627

This discussion raises an important doctrine which frequ ently figures in dharmaśāstra works. The doctrine is expressed

1626. a vedeat FATICATOR I TEXT JIU a afla … a श्रुतिविरुद्धं दृष्टकारणं च स्मरणमप्रमाणं ततोऽन्यत्प्रमाणमिति । शाखदीपिका on जै. I. 3. 4.

1626a. HATTE TISSETHI STESETirna fa, quafara माचरन्ति-इति । तत्कर्तृसामान्यात्ममाणमिति प्राते । अप्रमाणं स्मृतिः । अान्यन्मूलम् । लोभा aruftrant: a ta a: 1 399 na afar TATEI 777 on 1. 3. 4. quia in his eat refers to this example (on Jai. I. 1. 13 p. 285 ) ‘रष्टचायमणे यस्माः माजव उपजीप्यन्त इति । यथा च सिद्धमागमवादिनामपि हेतुदर्शनाद “JANOZ Tarifera THT I TIES’:

1627. For the Vaisarjana homa, vide H. of Dh. II. p. 1158. In this a piece of fresh cloth is spread over the sacrificer (who touches the adb varyu ), the sacrificer’s wife (who touches the yajamāna). the brother and sons of the sacrificer ( who touch the wife). In the Vājapeya, the sacrificial post was 17 aratnis in height and 17 pieces of cloth were employed to pre pare the appearance of a turban on the tip when enveloping the yūpa with a girdle. The figure presented by the cloth covering the yūpa was called aran (probably because it looked like the head and trunk of an elephant). art goufo Torre Terracru: ’ YAIPAT. ### ## fingu frecute #1641. . 14. 1. 20 and the com. op Kāt. Sr, says tarefriguro

FT TE hene i 1991 म्युमथने विविध प्रथनं कर्तव्यं म धनमात्रम् ।

HII )

Rules having a visible purpose

837

in this form viz. when a visible motive or purpose is obvious in the case of a rule or prescription it is not proper to ascribe an unseen or spiritual purpose or reason for it. This doctrine is older than even Ap. Dh. S. I. 4. 12. 11 which says, ‘where men act because they find pleasure in so doing, there śāstra has no scope’. Sabara also says, 1628 ’those rules (in the smrti) that have a seen purpose derive their authority from that fact, while those that have no visible purpose may be inferred to be based upon the Voda (and derive their authority from that).’ These words of Sabara are quoted by Kullūka on Manu III. 7 where Manu states that a girl should not be selected as a bride from a family that neglects the sanskāras, in which no male children are born, in which there is no Veda study, the members of which have on their bodies long and thick hair, that suffers from such diseases as piles, dyspepsia, epilepsy, black and white leprosy. Kullūka remarks that the works on medicine hold that such diseases are inherited and so if such a girl be married the progeny might suffer from those diseases, and thus this prohibition is based on a visible motive. From this a very important conclusion is drawn by dharmaśāstra writers viz. if one while performing a rite or when engaged in any matter acts contrary to a rule that has a seen purpose, the rite or matter does not become invalid or void, while where a rule is based on an unseen or spiritual purpose and it is infringed, the act itself becomes void or invalid. Yāj, I. 52 and 53 1629 prescribe among other things that the bride to be chosen by a man must be free from ( incur able ) diseases, must have a brother living, must not be a sapinda of the bridegroom or must not have the same gotra or pravra as that of the bridegroom. On this the Mit. remarks that if a man marries a girl who is suffering from an incurable disease, the marriage is valid, only he does an act which runs counter to seen results (i, e. he may suffer the consequence that

1628. TUT PETTUMATATATATE17OT TETTE ATROZE … … … तेन ये दृष्टार्थास्ते तत एव प्रमाणम् । ये त्वष्टास्तेषु वैदिकशब्दानुमानमिति । शबर on 6. I3. 2. quoted by Gramm on HE III. 7; E eu tri FanC #U

** Te Fuera i TT Op . IX. 3, 3; T r

47 764TR HEUTE 1 TT on . X. 2. 23. The huur on . 1. 3. 4 p. 158 says, ’ संभवत्यष्टकल्पनमयुक्तमिति न्यायस्य’; यत्र तु पीत्युपलब्धितः प्रवृत्तिन तत्र शास्त्रमस्ति । 19. 4. 1. 1. 4. 12. 11.

1629. Egun guat fata 1 yaragrat manitost uftonta i udforf HatArara 77. I. 52–53 : Flerara गोत्रासमानप्रवरा भार्यात्वमेव नोत्पते। रोगण्याविषु तु भार्यात्वे उत्पलेपि दृष्टविरोध

E I FATTUT.

838

[ Vol.

his children may be diseased ), but if he goes through a oere mony of marriage with a girl who is a gapiṇda or of the same gotra or prayara there is no valid marriage and the girl is not his legal wife. No clear visible purpose can be associated with the prohibition against marrying a sapiṇda or sagotra girl; hence there must be a spiritual purpose in that prohibition and 80 if one infringes it the act itself (viz. marriage) becomes void, 1630

The Tantravārtika of Kumārila has as usual a very long note on this discussion. He does not see eye to eye with Sabara. He says 1631 that the Mimāṁsā is concerned with the investiga tion of dharma, that śruti is the prime authority in matters of dharma, that Mimāṁsā has concern with smrtis only so far as their authoritativeness in matters of dharma goes, that just as agriculture and the like are not discussed in Mimāṁsā works because they have a purely secular purpose, •80 all acts that men do for a visible worldly purpose have no bearing on the investigation of dharma and that therefore the bhāsyakāra (Sabara ) was not quite right in saying that such practices as rising to receive an old man or a teacher have a visible purpose and are authoritative on that ground. He further remarks that visible and invisible or spiritual purposes are often inextricably mixed up. When the Veda prescribes ‘he pounds the grains of paddy’ or enjoins a sacrifice like the Kārlri for bringing down rain, there is a visible purpose therein (0.g. the rice grains have to be freed from husk before boiled rice for obla tions can be prepared ). So even when an act has a seen purpose it may still have Veda as the basis ; so also an act such as rising to show respect to a teacher may have a seen result ( such as the teacher being pleased teaches the pupils with enthusiasm ) as well as an unseen result (viz. completion of Veda study without obstacles ). Therefore he argues that all

1630. in a very recent case (Madhavrao v. Raghavendrarao 48 Bom, L. R. 196) the Bombay High Court has expressed doubts about the logic or reasonableness of this doctrine of the Pūrvamināmsā ia relation to marriages of sagotra parties

1631. हष्टार्थवादेष प्रामाण्यमिति । एतदयुक्तम् । धर्म प्रति यतोत्रेदं प्रामाण्य प्रस्तुत स्मृतेः । तस्माकण्यादिवशेषामपन्यासो न युज्यते ॥ महि गावकिश्चिदाचरणं तस्य सर्वस्य मूलमिह प्रमाणीकियते । धर्मजिज्ञासाधिकारात् । यदि चर्षनुगमनादीना केवलं हतार्थत्वमेव FURTH: gume Wanapeana navarro: 1 … * Nearatant ITA amerat o rerutamaan ng moeten pp. 165-166.

III ]

Authority of smslis depends on purpose

839

smrtis 1632 are authoritative according to the purpose they serve, that whatever portion of the smrtis is concerned with dharma and mokṣa ( final release from samsāra ) has its origin in the Veda and whatever is concerned with wealth and the satisfaction of desires (artha and kūna ) is based on worldly practices. In this way are to be explained the didactic portions of the Maha bhārata and the Purāṇas, the episodes in these being useful as urthavādus’ (eulogies of what are prescribed as religious duties), the description of the several divisions of the earth being useful for indicating what countries are suitable for the per formance of dharma and the enjoyment of its rewards and being based partly on Veda and partly on direct experience. Similarly the auxiliary lores (angıs) of the Veda (such as phonetics, grammar, metrics &c.) are partly based on the Veda and partly on worldly experience. Mimāṁsa and Nyāya (logic) are necessary for the correct interpretation and understanding of the Veda ( as stated by Manu in XII. 105-106). He is even prepared to concede that systems 1633 like the Sāökhya ( which postulates a prime cause of the world called Pradhāna) or Vedānta ( which postulates Puruṣa as the cause of the world ), the theory of atoms ( propounded by Kanāda ) serve the purpose of explaining the creation and dissolution of the world, lead one to understand how the performance of sacrifices gives rise to the subtle apūrva which leads on to heaven and also exemplify how human effort and fate have their own spheres of operation (i. e. without human effort the world is produced and in spite of human effort it may be dissolved ). Kumārila goes a step further and states that even the Buddhist philosophies of vijnāna ( cognitions being the only reality ), of the non-exis tence of the soul or of eternal flux arise from the arthavada

1632. te piegatat surat srau T HAT*# तविभवम् । यश्वर्थमुख षिषर्य तल्लोकन्यवहारपूर्वकमिति विवेतन्यम् । एषैवेतिहासपुराणयो. रप्युपदेशवाक्यानां गतिः । उपाख्यानानि त्वर्थवादेषु ग्यारण्यातानि । … मीमांसा तु लोकादेव

प्रत्यक्षातुमानादिभिरपिच्छिमसंप्रदायपण्डितव्यवहारः प्रवृत्ता । न हि कश्चिदपि प्रथममेतावन्तं T OTTENHET *#: 1 gāa furahi s are i fratre pp. 166-167.

1633. m: quiaTOHTITAITEICOT T: Creator TOPETTAT: Haf aparmiarea YATTATEMT fafaraturaasaa 4:

*** Tutura mini fututa dagor PU fouraginti I… FANTHATH U aferamatayefaqatateawari fita Toulon tri farmaco at sari

un norint fagrafa

ETI Arriben a foreigoera arte Antarea parupat fanfare: 1 p. 168.

840

(Vol.

passages of the Upaniṣads and serve the purpose of inducing men to give up extreme attachment to sensual pleasures and therefore may be useful in their own way. He winds up by saying that in the case of all knowledge or works wherever the result (or reward) of the course laid down in them is to take place in the future and there is no possibility of experiencing its happening in the present such work may be deemed to be based on the Veda; but where, as in the science of medicine, the result can be seen taking place in other people, that know ledge is authoritative only because of the visible result.

This discussion about smrtis based on the Veda or on perceptible purposes or motives is taken up in the digests on dharmaśāstra. For example, Aparārka 1634 (pp. 626-627 ) quotes long passages from the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa dividing the contents of smṛtis into five categories and exemplifying that division, viz. (1) those based on a visible purpose or motive, (2) those based on unseen or spiritual motives or purposes, (3) those based on both visible purposes and unseen or spiritual purposes, (4) those based on reasoning, (5) those that merely re-iterate what is already well-known or determined. All these except the first variety are based according to the Bhaviṣyapurana on the Veda. The examples of the five kinds given by the same Purāṇa are respectively as follows: (1) the smrti (viz. Arthaśāstra or Dandaniti) in which there is a discussion about six gupas (sandhi &c.), the four upāyas (sāma, dāna &c.), the various superintendents of state departments (adlıyakṣa) and of kantakas; (2) the prescription that one should perform the sandhyū worship or that one should not partake of dog’s flesh; (3) a brahmacūrin

1634. TE POTESTTUTE I TETY a pura: F EETUL TU Qer! धारार्थरूपान्या न्यायमूला सधापरा । अनुवादस्पतिस्त्वन्या शिष्या तु पश्चमी । सर्वा पता वेदमूला रक्षार्थ धाः!) परिहस्य तु ॥ पाइगुण्यस्य यथायोगं प्रयोगात्कार्यगौरवात् । (प्रयोगः कार्य-1 ) । सामादीनामुपायानां योगो पाससमासतः ॥ अध्यक्षाणां च निक्षेपः

#rat fateh i Cerita Frat: 1 *fafileegs! FrTTarga: Far Frank आनो मांसं न भक्षयेत् । अदृष्टा स्मृतिः प्रोक्ता अषिभिज्ञानकोविदः । पालाशं धारयेबण्ड अभयार्थ विधाः । विरोधे तु विकल्पः स्थाजपहोमभुतौ यथा ॥ श्रुती उष्टं यथा कार्य स्मृती a ust ute i 37

mtaro TT TETT * Fatre pp. 626-627, foram in his comment on a. I. 3 quotes the first two verses and in his परिभाषाप्रकाश p. 19 quotes all. कुल्लूक on मनु III. 7 quotes from the भविष्य the half verse fut … Tergi: ofre ay. The fila. II, p. 24 quotes from भविष्य. the two verses पाइगुण्यस्य … गरूवाग्रज and remarks ‘टार्धाया स्वतेपदाहरणमेतत् । एष एवं सन्धिविग्रहादि सार्थविषया स्मृतिरर्थशास्त्रमित्यर्थः ।।” should we not read Fat Fast

III )

Illustrations of five hands of smrtis

841

should carry a staff of pulāśa ( the staff serves for one’s protec tion, which is a geen purpose, but that it should be of palāśa and of no other tree is based on an unseen motive); (4) when one text declares that homa should be performed after sunrise and another declares that it should be performed before sunrise, reasoning requires that there should be an option ( vide Manu II. 15); (5) when Manu declares (in V1.38) that a brāhmaṇa should leave home to become a wandering ascetic he simply re-iterates what is laid down in such Vedic passages as Br. Up. III. 5.1 (vyutthāyātha bhiksācaryam caranti) or Jābāla Up. 4.

In I. 3. 5-7 Jaimini as interpreted by Sabara 1635 deals with the topic of the authoritativeness of certain usages laid down in the smṛtis in relation to Vedic rites. Sabara states : śiṣṭan say that religious rites should be performed after sipping water (i. e. after ācamana), one should wear the sacred thread in the upavita way in the worship of gods, one should do with the right hand all religious acts. The question is whether these aots should be done if not opposed to the sruti or should not be performed if opposed to what is taught in the Veda. The pūria pakṣıı view is that these acts should not be done because they run counter to the sequence of the acts laid down in the Veda. For example, the Veda says, ‘after getting ready a bundle (or handful ) of kusa grass called veda one should prepare the redi (altar)’. Here the preparation of the vedi is declared to follow immediately after the getting ready of a liandful of kuśas. If after the handful is got ready a man has a sneeze he has accord ing to Manu V. 145 and Vas. III. 38 to sip water before going on with the preparation of the vedi. This would be against the sequence ( krama) of acts laid down in the Veda. Strangely enough Mr. K.L. Sarkar in T.L.L. (on Mimāmsā rules) translater the words ‘vedam krtvā vedim karoti’ as ‘make the vedi and

1635. flertasfatora da 1a ETATUKEITTI 39 91 FiraTEGO पयुक्तानि प्रतीभेरन् । जै. I. 3. 5-7 ; आचान्तेन कर्तव्यं यज्ञोपवीतिमा कर्तव्यं दक्षिणाचारेण कर्तव्यमित्येवलक्षणानि उदाहरणानि । किमतानि श्रुतिविरुद्धानि म कर्तग्यामि उताविरुद्धानि कार्याणि चेत्पश्यास तैरप्यनुष्ठीयमानैदिक किंचिक कुप्यति तस्मादविरुद्धानीति । नैतदेवम् । शासपरिच्छिक हि क्रमं बाधेरन् । कथम् वेदं कृत्वा यदि कुर्वीतेतीमा श्रुतिमुपहनायादन्तरा वेद दि चानुष्ठीयमानमाचमनादि। शबर ; तेवदर्शनाविरोधस्येति वा समाप्तिः । … अपि का ITU TEATES TURI Brar interat magtanova # m. p. 198. कुमारिल says that the 7th sutra should end with the words ‘सेवदर्शनाद्वि TETES, ’ which may also be taken as part of the 8th sūtra and relies ou the maxim of the crow’s eye. The words are a mean ’e रहहितानाचमनादीमाद्रियेरन् ।

106842

( Vol

then recite the vedas ‘(p. 241), thereby committing two mistakes He misunderstands the word ‘veda’ which in this passage only means a ’liandful of kuśas’ and inverts the sequence of the acts denoted by the gerundial termination ’tvā’. On account of these two mistakes the discussion on pp. 240-242 is mislead ing and obscure. If a man were to do the things required in a vedic rite with both hands, he would be able to do them quickly. The smrti rule that every religious act should be done with the right hand alone interferes with the quick performance of religious acts. The established conclusion is that these religi ous acts (such as acaniana ) are performed by the sistas, are prompted by no visible motive ( such as covetousness ) and are therefore to be looked upon as authoritative, being not opposed to sruti. Kumārila does not like this way of explaining the sūtras, since the instances given by Sabara really do not deserve to be put forth as even prima facie opposed to Sruti. The Tantra vārtika (p. 201) sets out sruti pagaages wherein the wearing of the sacred thread in the upavita forin2636 (Tai. S. II. 5. 11. 1 and Tai. Ār. II. 1), acamana (Tai. Ā.. II. 11 ), are enjoined. Therefore it explains the sūtras in a different way. It splits up Jai. I. 3.5-7 into two adhikaraṇas. The first two constitute one topic. The pūrvapakṣa 1637 is : those precepts of Buddha and other founders of sects, such as the construction of monasteries and parks, the insistence on desirelessness, the practice of meditation, ahiṁsā, truthfulness, restraint of senses, charity and kindness, are such that they are also laid down by the Veda, are not opposed to the ideas of sistas or do not run counter to nor rouge those who know the Veda to anger and therefore they must be held to be authoritative. This is denied by saying that the Bauddha doctrines even on the abovesaid matters are not to

1636, Vide H. of Dh, vol. II. pp. 287, 288, notes 671, 677 for the passages of Tai. S. and Tai. A.

1637. Who capitato #aqft reg geymTUA TAT Mit TV FENT TERTIT QUI RETTITAAVE -7177 भ्यासादिसा-सत्यवचन-दम-दाम-दयादि तदादादिभाषित प्रमाणेनाविरुदमिति चेत् । माशानपरिमाणत्वात् । परिमितान्येव हि चतुर्दशावादश वा विद्यास्थानानि धर्मप्रमाण

tot fara aftutana matery ÁHITTIGTiusWiThroatfa संज्ञकानि, न च तेषी माये औद्धाहतादिग्रन्थाः स्मृता गृहीता वा । … तेन … सन्मूलमप्य. हिंसादियातिनिक्षितक्षीरवदनुपयोग्यविभम्भणीयं च तन्मात्रीपलब्धं भवतीत्यवश्य यावरपरि

Forever Agaua magik yapti . pp. 201-203 ; vide the 1620 above.

III)

Authority of Bauddha doctrines about ahinsa &c.

843

be accepted as authoritative since only a limited 1638 number ( 14 or 18 ) of vidyās (the four vedas, the upavedas, the angas of the voda, the 18 smstis, purāṇas, Dandaniti) have been accepted by the vedic śistas as authoritative on matters of dharma and the works of the Bauddhas and Jainas are not included therein. Just as milk though originally pure becomes useless and unreliable when put into a bag of dog-skin, so the doctrines of Bauddhas such as ahimsā, though based on truth, are useless and are not authoritative in themselves for the followers of the Veda.

The Tantravārtika holds that Jai. I. 3.7 is an adhikarana by itself and is concerned with the authoritativeness of sadācāra (the customs and usages of śistas ). Its position is that those usages are authoritative that are not opposed to express Vedic texts, that are practised by Vedic sistas under the belief that they are riglit conduct (dharına ) and for which no visible motive ( such as pleasure or the satisfaction of desires or the acquisition of wealth ) can be predicated. Sistas are those who perform the religious acts expressly enjoined by the Veda. They are not so called because they practise what is said to be sadācāra ; otherwise there will be an argument in a circle (in the form ‘sadācāra means what is practised by śiṣṭas and sistas are those who practise sadācāra’). The practices traditionally handed down from generation to generation which are observed by sistas ( as stated above ) with the idea that they constitute a part of dharma must be regarded as dharma and as leading to heaven. 1639 Practices do not become authoritative by the mere fact that no such motive or purpose can be postulated for them, but they become so only when they are observed by śiṣṭas as

1638. Vide Yāj. I. 3 for the 14 Vidyasthānas. For the four upavedas which raise the number to 18 vide n. 17 p. 10 above. Acc. to the Nyāyasudhā (p. 183) Ayurveda, Dhanurveda, Gandharvaveda aud Arthasāstra are four Upavedas ; Mimāṁsā aod Nyāya (logic) are two upāngas, sikṣā (not the Vedānga on phonetics) is separately mentioned because there are works on phonetics like that of Kātyāyana laying down special rules for distinct sāktās. Dandaniti is the same as Artbaśāstra.

1639. ATTUTTATTA ATT HATTOP frgfa: 1. pina att upita वाग्यवि शरीरस्थित यानि खावा प्रयुचते। अर्थाषा न तेष्वस्ति शिष्टानामेव धर्मधीः ॥

a sua iste gita aparat i dres Heuretat uilerarea I … नैव तेषां सदाचारनिमित्ता शिष्टता मता । साक्षाद्विहितकारिवान्छिष्टये सति तहमः ॥ प्रत्यक्षवेदविहितधर्मक्रियया हि लग्धशिष्टत्वव्यपदेशा पत्परम्पराप्राप्तमन्यदपि धर्मांचा gifta reta from AETATI parte pp. 205-6.

844

( Voi.

part of dharma. The Tantravārtika (p. 205 ) gives certain illustrations of such practices viz gifts, japa, mātryajña (offerings to the mother Goddesses ), the festival of Indra’s banner, fairs held at temples, fasts by maidens on the 4th day of a month, gifts of lamps on the first day of Kārtika, the Apring 1640 festival on the first day of the dark half of Phālguna &c. The Tantravārtika is careful to point out that many activities such as agriculture, menial service or trade that are the means of securing wealth and pleasures and that give rise to several fixed and varying acts and also such actions as eating sumptuous food, drinking, sleeping on soft beds, possessing a charming house and garden, engaging in painting, singing and dancing, enjoying the fragrance of sandalwood and flowers, all of which are common to inlecchas and Aryas, are not deemed by any one to be part of dharma and that it does not follow that, because a few actions (of sigtas) are accepted as dharma, all their actions are to be looked upon as dharma.1641 In ordinary life certain practices only are deemed to be siṣtācāra, while there are certain other acts that are common to all human beings (including śiṣṭas ), but are not so regarded. Certain practices such as worship of gods and honouring brāhmaṇas are Been to be common among all people and yet do constitute dharma, because that is deemed to be so by the sistas. Those practices alone are dharma that are observed by sistas only as obligatory on thein and not other practices that are common to all beings. The Trantravārtika then refers to the Dharma

1640. For the festival called Indramaha, vide H, of Dh, vol. II, pp. 825-826. The spring festival was one in which on the first day of the dark half of Phālguna people went about drenching each other in ordinary or coloured water discharged from syringes and the like : FTECTO RY

TATT: TTFOTO: Talep: ’ HYWATI on any on .1. 3. 7. Modern practice combines this with the lighting of bonfires on the Fall moon of Pbālguna. The mythical origin of great of modern days on the Full

moon day of Phalguna is described in भविष्यपुराण (उत्तरप chap. 132).

1641. of a

rara faunuaitarau agar वाणिज्यादीनि मुखानपानसकुशयनासमरमणीयग्रहोघानालेख्यगीतस्पगन्धपुष्पादिकर्माणि प्रसिद्धानि तेषु नैव कस्यचिदमस्याशङ्कास्तीति न तरसामान्यतो इभेनेतरनिराक्रियोपपत्तिः केषाविद्या धर्मवान्युपगमान सर्वेषामेव तस्मसङ्गः । किंतु-देवमाणपूजादि यत्तेषामपि किन । तमेव धर्मस्व शिवाचारमतं हि तत् ॥ लोके हि कश्चिदाचारः शिवम विशिष्यते ।

कश्चित प्राणिसामान्यमासस्तैरपि सजतः ॥ तत्र या कार्यस्येण शिटानेवानुवर्तते । स एवं det var for ATS: # 74. p. 206; at fare: 99 fait # धर्मावर्त प्रतिपयते । पस्त कामक्रोधलोभमोहशोकाविहेतुत्वेनोपलभ्यते स यथाविधिमति au fost pro p208.

III

Ancient transgressions of dharma

845

sūtra 1642 of Gaut. ( 1.3 ) and Ap. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13.7-8) which say that ancient (or great) men in several instances were guilty of transgressions of dharma and of committing desperate acts, that on account of their spiritual merit they did not incur sin but if a man of later days were to follow them in the same acts he would sink into hell. It then gives twelve instances of lapses from good conduct (attributed even to avuārs ) that were trang grossions and either explains them away or says that they were due to wrath, hatred or other passions, were not intended by the authors ( of those acts ) themselves to be dharma and are not to be looked upon as śiṣṭācāra by modern men. The instances are: (1) Prajāpati who is said to have approached Uṣas, his daughter (Sat. Br. I. 7. 4. 1 or Ait. Br. 13. 9); (2) Indra, who is described as the paramour of Ahalyā ( in the Subrahmanya litany ); (3) Nahuṣa, who occupied the position of Indra, made approaches to Saci, the wife of Indra (Udyoga, chap. 13 ff) and was transformed into an jagura (Boa Constrictor);(4) Vasiṣtha, who when his 100 sons were devoured by a demon, was so struck with grief that he threw himself bound into the Vipāśā river(Nirukta IX.26, Adiparva chap. 177.1-6=cr. ed. 167. 1-6, Vanaparva 130. 8-9, Anuśāsana 3. 12-13); (5) Purūravas who thought of dying by hanging or by being devoured by wolves (Rg. X. 95. 14, Sat. Br. XI. 5. 1-8) when separated from Urvasi; (6) Viśvāmitra, who officiated as priest at the sacrifice of Trisanku that had become a cāndala through a curse ( Adiparva 71. 31-33);(7) Yudhisthira who took Draupadi as wife although she had been won by his younger brother Arjuna by his skill in archery and who prevaricated in order to bring about the death of his brāhmaṇa teacher Drona (Dronaparva 190. 55); (8) Kropa Dvaipāyana. (Vyāsa), wbo thought himself a perpetual student, procreated by niyoga at the request of his mother Satyavati two sons on the widows of his brother Vicitravīrya; (9) Bhiṣma who lived on without be longing to any ( of the four ) aśramas and who is said to have performed several Aśramedhas though he had no wife; (10)

1642. Te rog fra: FIER HEATE I wantela i MH. 1, 3-4 ; ut … FREE garageport trano 4270771 n a internaliza agua: Hra 1997: 1 9119. 8. . II. 6. 13. 7-9; waager X. (garu 33, 30) has a verse to the same effect.

846

History of Dharmasastra .

( Vol.

Rāma who performed Asyamedha accompanied by a golden image of Sitā ; (11) Dhṛtarāstra, though blind, performed sacri fices; (12) Vāsudeva and Arjuna are described as being drunk and as having married Rukmini and Subhadrā respectively who were their maternal uncle’s daughters (such marriages being forbidden). Kumārila, like a modern comparative mythologist, explains (Tantravārtika p. 208 ) that Prajapati means ’the Sun’ who approaches (i. e. rises after ) the Dawn. This explanation is as old as the Ait. Br. 13. 9 where it is said that there are two views viz. it is either Heaven’ or ‘Uṣas’ that is meant by the word ‘daughter. Similarly Indra and Ahalyā respectively mean the Sun and the Night and jāra means literally one who makes to disappear or wither away’ (and not paramour) in that passage. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1145 note 2550 for the epi thet. Ahalyāyai jāra’ in the Veda and quotation from Tantra vārtika. The story of Ahalya and Indra varies in its details in the epics. Vide Rāmāyana I. 48, Udyoga 12. 6. These two are instances of transgression of dharma (dharma-vyatikrama) and the next case of Vasiṣtha is an example of sāhasa (through sorrow ). Kumārila says that Viśvāmitra was prompted by his hatred of Vasistha and his pride, that the sin accruing from his act would be neutralized by his great austerities. So his actions cannot serve as a model for imitation by others. Vyāsa, who was a son of Satyavati from Parāśara when she was a maiden, had Vicitravirya as (his uterine ) brother after Satya vati married Santanu. In the case of a brahmacārin, sexual intercourse is most reprehensible ( vide H. of Dh, vol. II. p. 374) But Vyāsa agreed to niyoga because of his regard for his mothe as allowed by Gaut. 18. 4-5. Kumārila adds that Vyāsa could do so on account of his great past and future austerities, that another person with similar qualifications may do so even in spite of all prohibitions, since the Mahābhārata ( Aśramavāsika 30. 24) says ‘sarvam balavatāṁ pathyam’ (to the strong every thing is wholesome or allowable). He gives an apt illustration. An elephant can devour branches of trees without harm, but others doing so would meet death. Dakṣa V.10 prescribes ‘anāśra. ml na tiṣtheta kṣanamekamapi dvijaḥ’ (a twice-born person should not stay even for a moment unattached to some āśrama), Bhisma remained unmarried out of filial devotion to his father and Rāma could not think of another wife as he was so much attached to Sitā. Kumārila boldly asserts that Bhisma hada wife only for the purpose of the sacrifices he performed (though this is mentioned in no Itibāsa or Purāṇa ) and relies upon the

ILI )

Ancient transgressions of dharma

847

mode of proof called arthāpotti for this 1643. His words are given below. This and some other explanations offered by Kumārila shed a very interesting light on the theological apologetics of Mimāmsakas. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 558 and 684 for Rāma and the golden image of Sitā. As to Yudhisthira’s bringing about the death of his brābmana teacher the explanation is that the former performed Aśvamedha after the end of the war by way of prayascitta ( vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 147 11. 333 and pp. 1236-37 notes 2674-75 for Aśvamedha as the re mover of all sins). As to Draupadi being the wife of five brothers Kumārila quotes Adiparva 198. 14 ( =cr. ed. 190. 14) and offers several explana tions (p. 209 ), the most astounding being that there were five wives of the five brothers who were so similar that they were all referred to as one. As the Nyāyasudhā (p. 194 ) remarks, these various explanations were offered to show off great re sourcefulness of interpretation (paribāra-vaibhayārtham), the proper one being that the practice of the Pandavas was an evil one and was not to be imitated. A blind man could not perform sacrifices and was excluded from inheritance. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 157 n. 369 and vol. III. p. 609 n. 1154. But Kumārila says that as Dhstarāstra was blessed with sight for a while and saw his deceased sons through the miraculous power of Vyāsa ( Aśramavāsiparva chap. 32-37 ) he might have been endowed with sight at the time of the sacrifices or what is meant is that he made gifts which are spoken of as sacrifices. As regards Subhadrā, Kumārila asserts that in spite of the fact that Subhadra was said in the Adiparva ( 219,18 = cr. ed. 211. 18 ) to have been the daughter of, Vasudeva and sister of Krsna, she was really the daughter of Krspa’s step-mother’s sister or the daughter’s daughter of the sister of his step-mother’s father (a female cousin being often called a sister among the Lātas ). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 459-460 and notes to my edition of the text of V. Mayūkba ( pp. 200-202 ). Krsna’s marriage with Rukmini is to be similarly explaind. It is somewhat surpris

1643. H uwaran ng apavią statuat vasgfa ** i Berg **** curar qysia to FIERI FATTOUT P. 185; Toit … Again (मन ९, १८२) - इत्येवं विचित्रवीर्यक्षेत्रजपुत्रलम्पवित्रतुणत्वः केवलयज्ञार्थपत्नीसम्बन्ध आसीदित्यर्थापत्यानुक्तमपि गम्यते । यो वा पिण्ड पितुः पाणी विज्ञापि न दत्तवान् । शालार्था Fahrra * 1*4RT 478 27. p. 208; 340 ST ga at: 541 219 gamento sito er truturar regel . p. 209 T FT HTEOUS TYTOT: सुभद्रायाः परिणयेपि सुभद्राया वसदेवकन्यात्वस्य साक्षात् कचिदप्वश्रषणात् । मीमांसाको. P. 48 ; but in the Adiparva 219. 18 Subhadrā is expressly stated to be the daughter of Vasudevaient augang ara ,

848

(Vol.

ing that Khapdadeva states that it is nowhere found that Subhadrā was the daughter of Vasudeva. Probably he had a corrupt reading of the Mahabharata passage before him. As to the charge of drinking spirituous liquor (ubhau madhvāsa vakṣibau in Udyogaparva 59. 5) against both Vāsudeva and Arjuna, they were both ksatriyas and only brāhmaṇas were prohibited from drinking any kind of intoxicating drink (Gaut. II. 25), while to kṣatriyas and vaiśyas two kinds of wine called madhu ( liquor from honey or madhuka flowers) and sidhu (rum ) were allowed and only paiṣti ( spirituous liquor distilled from flour) was forbidden (by Gaut. II, 25, Manu XI. 93-94).

Kumārila offers some other explanations of Jai.1644 I. 3. 5-7 which need not be set out here.

Kumārila mentions certain practices of his times and concludes that they are to be condemned and not to be followed or regarded as authoritative. He says: 1645 even in these days brahmana women of Ahicchatra and Mathurā drink wine ; northerners ( northern brāhmaṇas ) engage in such transactions as the gift and sale of horses and mules that have a mano, asses,

1644. 4.1.3. 7. will have to be read as ’ 9 FT TOTEUR 11 Seart forestalautui acc. to Kumārila, Khandadeva and others is Sabara’s interpretation of the sūtra is to be accepted. Tag ang कमादिविरोधस्यादर्शनादवैदिकमणीतस्वरूपाप्रामाण्यकारणस्याग्रहणे शिष्टः प्रयुक्तानि

erreia taurant stationare: TETIT TUTTU Jata: 11 tataranta on 1.3.7 p. 36. Kumārila implies a pārvapakṣa and holds that 1. 3. 7 is the sūtra giving the foal conclusion only and as an independent adhikarana by itself,

1645. sacuerdynanamtorat urrait may araw

gravf494 ETATUIRUPATE ą maig i AICMGRETETET सन्दीरथभोजनादीनि दाक्षिणात्यानाम् । मित्रस्वजनोच्छिष्टस्पृष्टभोजनं सर्ववर्णपरस्परस्पृष्टता मूलादनतदषसानानाचमन-निणेजकधौतगर्दभारूढम्रपरिधान-ब्रह्महत्यातिरिक्तमहापातक कार्यपरिहरणादीन्युभयेषाम् । अतिस्पूलानि प्रतिपुरुषजातिकुलाबस्थितसूक्ष्मस्वधर्मण्यति क्रमणानि स्वनन्तभेदानि सर्वविगानहेतुदर्शनानि च प्रायेणैव संभवतीति नेवंजातीयक FAMAITUTU arta 1977**: 1 Tay. p. 204. TE37 is modern Ramnagar in Rohilkhand. Vide JRAS. for 1903 p. 292. The form wron occurs in a Pabhosa Inscription (E. I. vol. II. at p. 243 ). For the different views about ATENTATGOTTHvide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 458-463. Kullūka on Manu XI. 95 notes that certain commentators beld that the prohibition agaiost drinking in the case of brāhmaṇas did not apply to brāhmana women. Vide H. of Dh, vol. II. p. 765 for m e with wife and children and pp. 181 and 839 about gift and sale of horses

and animals with two rows of tooth, where Tai. S. II, 2. 6.3 and II..

3, 12. 1, and Jai. III, 4, 28-31 are cited,

Manu XI. “videat p. 243. aprun

ID I

Condemned practices

849

camels and animals with two rows of teeth and eat from the same plate with their wives, children and friends; brāhmaṇas of the south enter into matrimony with the naternal uncle’s daughter and take their meals while seated on a couch (of wicker work); both ( brāhmaṇas of the north and south ) tako cooked food ( kept in pots ) that remains after their friends or relatives have partaken of it or that has been touched by them. ( at the time of eating); they chew betelnut leaves that have been touched by persons of all varṇas, do not perform sipping of water (ācamana ) at the end of the chewing of betelnut, wear clothes washed by washermen and brought on the back of asses; they do not avoid contact even with persons guilty of grave sins (except of brāhmaṇa murder). There are everywhere an infinite number of very obvious transgressions of the subtle dictates of dharma laid down for each man, caste or family, that (transgressions ) are contrary to śruti, smrti and each other and that have a visible purpose behind them. It is not possible to regard such practices as authoritative.’ Similarly Varadarāja, (1600-1660 A. D.) a pupil of Bhattoji Diksita, in his work styled the Gīrvānapadamañjari in a dialogue between a Kānyakubja brāhmaṇa and a sannyāsin hailing from Vijayanagara makes the brāhmaṇa host say that each country has certain practices which are durācāras such as marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter in the south, marriage of girls among southerners even before they are four years old, sitting down to a meal without bathing in Karnātaka, in Mahārāstra the marriage of a younger brother before an elder one, in the hilly country the practice of niyoga (vide Mr. P. K. Gode’s interesting paper in ‘Bharatiya-vidya’ vol. VI pp. 27-30).

According to Sabara, Jaimini in I. 3. 8-9 deals with certain words like yava, varāha and vetasa, that have different signi ficances among Aryas and Mlecchas ( and therefore these sūtras constitute what is called yavavarāhādhikarana). But Kumārila does not like this view of Sabara and proposes another topic for these two sutras, viz. the relative strength of smrti and sadācāra where they are in conflict. Here there are three 1646 possible

1646. Qara FH gocal featat ar parasti satur dhe पर्यते ॥ उभयोः श्रुतिमूलत्वं न स्मृत्याचारयोः समम् । सप्रत्ययमणीता हि स्मृतिः सोपनि. पन्धना तथा श्वत्यनुमान हि निर्विघ्नमुपजायते । आचारा स्मृति ज्ञात्वा अतिर्विज्ञायते ततः । * Aparto T SHION for I … … it: at a nd anthi स्मृतिर्लयतिस्तापर्ममेवापधारयेत् ॥ तस्मादाचारम्पः स्वतिर्थलीयसी सनिबन्धमेति ।

. pp. 220–221.

107

850

[Voi.

views, viz. that both are equally strong and so there is an option in case of conflict, that ācāra is stronger, that smrti is the stronger of the two. The prima facie view is that both are equally strong, since smrti and sadācāra are both inferred to be based upon Veda. Kumārila’s own final conclusion is that smrti is of greater force than ācāra, that is, where they come in direct conflict smṛti sliould prevail. His position is that, though both smrti and acāra are to be deemed to be based on Veda, there is a difference between the two. People have full faith in such smrtis as that of Manu and Manu and others are believed to have been inspired sages and are the propounders of the rules of dharma scattered about in various Vedic śākhās, while the same cannot be said about modern men and their practicos cannot claim or possess the same weight and allegiance that the practices laid down by Manu and other sages can From the practice of sistas one may infer a smrti as the root thereof and then further one may infer a śruti as the root of the smrti. Therefore acāra is removed by two stages from the Veda, while smrti is removed only by one stage from the Veda. Hence Kumārila says that in case of conflict smrti should prevail over &cāra. The practices that are discussed here ( acc. to Kumārila, Parthasarathi and others ) are such as the marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter or with a paternal aunt’s daughter and the like that are in vogue among certain people and that are yet opposed to emstis (such as Manu XI, 171-72 ) and for which a visible motive can easily be found (kāmādihetvuntaran spasta meva drtyate, as the Sāstradipikā says)

Kumārila gives another (and so a third ) explanation of Jai. I. 3, 8-9 1647 which need not detain us here.

1647. Fara fagfer: FAKT I STATUT ET APPARTE 1. 1. 3. 8-9. Acc. to garfta bere er means fora, wbile acc. to Sabara’s gloss surur: means FOTO: Sir G. Jha in ‘Pūrvamimānsa in its sources’ p. 226 translates *giving and accepting in gift and buying and selling lions, horses’. Hata means’a lion’ also, but it is bardly possible to believe that gifts of lions were made to brāhmanas or that they accepted there. t must be taken as an adjective of ‘asva’ here. The fa on III. 4, 34 remarks, are area घोषित । लौकिके चावदाने न केसरिणो ददातीति प्रतिषेधान वोषोस्ति बैदिक ।

ITH formatavertaa . This shows that the prohibition against the gift of “kesarin’ refers to the gift of horses, Sabara on Jai. VI. 7. 4 makes this quite clear when he says that in the Viśvajit where the sacrificer had to make a gift of all bis wealth, horses

(Continued on the next page)

MI]

Holākādhikarana

851

Jai. I. 3. 15-23 constitute what is called Holākadhikarana, or Samānyaśrutikalpanādhikarana. The first two and the last two sūtras are the most important. Certain practices 1648 like the Holaka (spring) festival are observed by the easterners, certain others like Åbninaibuka (worship of growing Karanja or Arka or other trees as handed down in one’s family ) by the southerners, and the Udvrsabhayajña (honouring oxen on the Full Moon of Jyestha and making them run a race) by the nor therners. The question is: whether, in making an inference about these practices being based on Veda, one was to suppose that the inferred Vedic text also should be restricted to the easter ners and the like 1649. The pūrvapakṣa view is that the śruti to be inferred as the basis of the respective practices must be deemed to be restricted to certain persons only (such as the easterners i. e. pracyas &c.). The established conclusion is that

(Continued from the last page) should not be gifted on account of the prohibition contained in ‘he does not give kesarin’: एष हि विशेषोश्चानामग्येभ्यो द्रव्येभ्यो यदेषां दानं प्रतिषिध्यते न केसरिणो दधाति नोभयतोदतः प्रतिगृहातीति विश्वजित्येव समाम्नायते. The मीमांसाको. (pp.60-61) explains the सूत्र ‘अथवाचार एव बलवान् … तदनङ्गीकरणे तु परं समा विप्रतिपति: भवेत् न तु स्मृतिप्राबल्यमिति सूत्रार्थः । सिद्धान्तस्तु स्मृतिशास्त्ररथेष प्रतिपत्तिबलीयसी।, on समिमित्तवात् the न्यायसुधा observes ‘ससिमितत्वादिति शाखवसामान्येन प्रकृतवाद बेदाख्यं शास्त्रं तच्छन्देन परामुश्य श्रुतिमूलत्वं हेनुरुच्यते तरचोभयोः स्मृत्यधिकरणे प्रानं विरोधे पुनरुच्यमानमाचाराणां श्रुतिमूलस्वपरिसंख्यार्थम् । (p. 212).

1648. अनुमानग्यवस्थानात्सत्संयुक्त प्रमाण स्थात् । अपि वा सर्वधर्मः स्यातम्यायला. विधानस्य । … कर्मधर्मों का प्रवणवत् । तुल्ये तु कर्तृधर्मेण । जै. I. 3. 15-233; अनुमामात स्मतेराचाराणां च प्रामाण्यमिष्यते । येनैव हेतुनातेप्रमाणं तेनैव व्यवस्थिता: मामाण्यमहन्ति। तस्मात् होलाकादयः प्रायरेव कर्तव्याः, आजीनयुकादयो दाक्षिणात्यैरेव, उहषभयज्ञादय उदीयेरेव । … अपि वेति पक्षण्यावृत्तिः । एवंजातीयक: सर्वधर्म: स्यात् । कुतः तस्यापत्वात विधानस्य । विधीयतेनेनेति विधानं शब्दः । सोऽनुमीयते स्मृस्या । … तस्मात्सर्वधर्मसा विधे.

याव्या । शबरthe word अनुमान means लिङ्ग or अनुमापक or कल्पक. The first two सबs may be briefly but closely paraphrased as ‘अनुमानस्य कल्पकस्प ग्यवस्थितत्वात्प्रमाणमूलभूता श्रुतिः व्यवस्थापकोपपदसंयुक्ता स्यात् । न व्यवस्थितमूलत्वं भवित. मति, अपितु सर्वधर्म: स्यात् । मूलभूते विधायके पाक्ये सर्वधर्मत्वोपपादकस्य न्यायस्य सत्वात्।। मीमांसाको. pp. 100-101. This अधिकरण is called होलाका because the irst oxample in 77144p refers to the practice of glory. #UT. OD #D VIII. 46 refers to उदषभयज्ञ as a practice of the northerners. The जै. न्या. मा. explains: ‘वसन्तोत्सयो होलाका । स्वस्वकुलागतं करमादिस्थावरदेवतापूजादिकमाहीमेकशदे. मोच्यते । ज्येष्ठमासस्य पौर्णमास्या पलीवनभ्यर्य धावयन्ति सोपमुषयज्ञः।।

1649. vide the following remark about the demand for the divine origin of laws and usages from Berolzheimer: “historically political power, legal regulation and customs were popularly conceived as expressions of tho Divine will” (Author’s Preface, p. XLIV, in the World’s Legal Phllop. pbios’).852

[Vol.

such practices must be deemed to be meant for all, since the general rule about vedic injunctions is that they are applicable to all. The performer specially meant by each Vedic injunction is known in either of three ways, 1650 viz. by capability, by non prohibition and by the employment of a special epithet or attribute. When it is said ‘svargakāmo yajeta’ then only the three twice-born classes are meant, for, they alone are capable of tending the sacred fires and of possessing Vedic learning and a śūdra is not a fit person to whom that injunction can apply. Those who are guilty of grave sins (patita) and the impotent are prohibited from performing Vedic rites. When the Veda says ’ rājā rājusūyena yajeta’ there is a special attribute of the performer ( viz. being a ksatriya ) prescribed by the śruti and so no one else can perform Rājasūya. When none of these three exists a Vedic vidhi is in general meant for all (sarvadharma). The practices of Holākā, Vrṣabhayajña and the like should not be held to be restricted to certain countries or people only, but should be inferred to be applicable to all. When a man leaves the east and goes to the south, he may still perform the Holākā festival; while a man from the eastern country itself may not perform it at all. Further the words ‘southern, eastern and northern’ are relative. A country that is called southern may be to the north of another. Therefore Holākā and other practices are not invariably concomitant with particular countries or peoples. Nor can it be said that those practices require those particular countries for their performance in the way in which Sruti expressly requires the Vaiśvadeva rito ( one of the four cāturmāsyas ) to be performed on a spot that slopes towards the east. The Tantravārtika 1651 points out that persons receive appellations from names of countries on various grounds as being born in a country or as residing therein or as coming from that country or as going to that country. Medhātithi ,on Manu VIII. 46 says the same.

:. 1650. u 19 af fastaroafat Trainingrafaretovara:

मन्त्र - 245 ; यस्मातमात्र पुरुषं विधायकवाच्यमधिकरोति नातिरिक्तं विशेषणमपेकाते

TETET H oufafazi FaceTARTU: 1*TEUT p. 246 (explaining Trang fy).

1661. mgr RATUA Patati Parara-wa-araraanho: 11 7 . p. 251. The last half refers to Pāṇioi IV. 3. 89, IV. 3. 53, IV. 3. 25, iv. 3. .74 respectively: T reuria sufurantott MATO केषांचिदनाचरणात् । चिरविनिर्गतपुत्रपौत्रादीनां चासल्यामपि समाख्यायामाचरणात् । नस्मादसति विशेषणे सर्वधर्मत्वमाचाराणां स्मृतीमा वि सिद्धम् । शानदीपिका (at end of Jai, 1.3, 23).

III]

Authorituliveness of GȚhya and Dharma sutras

853

The Tantravārtika explains that the first two sūtras are meant to refer to another question also, viz. whether the rules of the grhyasutras 1652 and of such dharmasutra works as the sātra of Gautama are authoritative only as to certain groups or are meant to be authoritative for all. He begins by saying that the Puranas, the Manusmrti and Itihāsa ( i. e. the Mahabharata) are equally authoritative for all people and then points out that the Gobhila-gļhya and Gautama-dharmasutra are traditionally accepted by the students of the Sāmaveda, that the dharmasutra of Vasistha is accepted by the students of the Rgveda, the sūtra of Saṅkha-Likhita by the followers of the white Yajurveda and the sūtras of Apastamba and Baudhāyana by the followers of the Taittirfya Sakhā. The Śāstradipikā explains that an author who was a student of the Samaveda taught his own work to his pupils who also learned the Sāmaveda under him, that these pupils in their turn taught that work to others and in that way there arose a tradition among the students of the Sāmaveda to study the sūtra of Gautama. Therefore, to say even as to gļhyā works that they are restricted to particular groups of persons is not correct. Similarly in the case of practices there is no epithet or attribute that is common to all those who practise them or which distinguishes those who do not observe them from those that observe them and therefore it is not possible to restrict such practices as Holākā to particular countries or groups of people.

The requisites of valid customs ag laid down by the emi. nent writers of the Purva-mimamsa school may now be suin marised. Such customs must be ancient, must not be opposed to the express texts of the Veda or of sinsti, must be such as to be regarded as obligatory by the sistas and must be observed

1652, देशधर्मानवाहत्य संप्रत्येतद्विचार्यते । किं व्यवस्थितमूलास्ते किं वैषां सर्वधर्मता। …आध त्रयं यावविदमप्यत्र चिन्त्यताम् । गृगौतमसूत्रादिण्यवस्थासर्वगामिते ॥ पुराणमा. भवेतिहासध्यातिरिक्तगौतमवसिष्ठशङ्कलिखितहारीतापस्तम्बयोधायनादिप्रणीतधर्मशास्त्राणां रख अन्यानां च प्राप्तिशारुपलक्षणवत्पतिश्चरणं पाठग्यवस्थोपलभ्यते । तद्यथा । गौतमगोभिलीये छन्दोगैरेव च परिगृहीते । वासिष्ठं बवृतैरेव शवलिखितोक्तं च वाजसनेयिभिः ।आपस्तम्पीय बौधायनीये तैसिरीयैरेव प्रतिपके । इत्येवं तत्र तत्र गृह्मव्यवस्थाभ्युपगमावि दर्शयित्वा विचार यितव्यम् । कि तानि तेषामेव प्रमाणानि, उत्त सर्वाणि सर्वेषामिति । तन्त्र. pp. 243-2443; कर्ता हि छन्दोगः स्वशिष्यांश्छन्दोगान स्वमन्धमायापयामास तेप्यग्यांश्छन्दोगानिस्येवं गौतमीयस्य छन्दोगैः पाठः । तथापस्तम्बग्रन्धस्य तैत्तिरीपैरेवं गृहमन्थानामपीति ग्यवस्थित धर्मविषयसमप्रमाणकम् । आचाराणां तु सर्वाचरित्रगतमनाचरितम्यश्च व्यावृत्तमाकृति पक्तियणसंस्थानाविकं न किंचिद्विशेषणं संभवति यदुपादाय होलाकाधिकार विशिंग्यात् । शाचदीपिका p. 42.

854

I Vol.

by them with the consciousness that they are so, they must not have a seen or visible purpose, and they must not be im moral 1653. It has to be remembered that the pūrvamimāmsā writers did not lay down anything about the binding character of usages that were peculiarly secular but restricted their remarks to customs and usages that had more or less an unseen or spiritual purpose. Khandadeva emphasizes this by stating *only those customs can be deemed to be based on the Veda that are not opposed to the Veda and smṛtis and that are obser ved by respectable people under the belief that thereby they are carrying what dharma dictates ‘1653. Medhātithi on Manu 1655 II. 18 makes this position quite clear after quoting a verse of Kumārila’a smṛti that is opposed to the Veda or is self-contra dictory, or has a visible secular purpose or expressly states a motive (for observing its precepts) cannot be deemed to be based on the Veda’. The Mimāmsā-kaustubha (p. 51 on Jai. I. 3.7) quotes a verse to the effects that only those whose ancestors also observed certain usages handed down from gene ration to generation would not incur blame by observing them (if they are opposed to śruti or smrti), but not others ( who

जनाः ‘हारयोः प्रामाण्यम न विरोध इतिषणावविरुद्धा..51 (on

बेदमूलकत्वमा

1653. यत्तु अहिच्छत्रब्राह्मणीनां सरापान दाक्षिणात्यानां च मातुलकायापरिणयावि तत्र केचिदेवं परिहरन्ति ‘येषो परम्परामाप्ताः पूर्वजैरप्यवष्ठिताः। स एव सर्न दुष्येयुराचारैतरे जनाण्यापस्तम्बवचनात् , ‘येनास्य पितरो … दुण्यति’ इति मनुवचनाच देशव्यवस्थया स्मत्याचारयोः प्रामाण्यम् । अतश्च यस्मिन् देशे य आचार: पारम्पर्यक्रमागतः अतस्तदन्यदेश विषयैव तम्निषेधस्मतिरिति न विरोध इति । तस… आपस्तम्बवचन तुग निराकरणपरतया व्याख्येयं मनुषचनं तु सतो मार्गमिति विशेषणादविरुद्धाचारपर व्याख्येयमिति न विरोधा। अतश्चाहिच्छत्रमाह्मणीसरापानादेरमाचारत्वमेव । मी. को. p. 51 (on जै. I. 3, 7).

1654. श्रुतिस्मृत्यविरुद्धानां शिष्टैधर्मबुद्धयामुष्ठीयमानानामाचराणा बेदमूलकत्वम् । अत एव सतो ‘रुतिस्मृत्यविरुद्धो यः स सदाचार उच्यते’ इत्युक्तम् । बार्तिके तु आर्यावर्तनि. पासिशिष्टप्रयोज्यत्वमेव सदाचारयोपलक्षणम् । अतश्च तत्रैव श्रुतिकल्पनमित्युक्तम् । वस्तुतस्तु आर्यावर्तगतानामप्याचाराणा सुतिस्मृतिविरोधेऽग्राह्यत्वात्तस्यैव सदाचारोपलक्षणत्वं न पुक्तम् । अतश्चाधाराणामपि अतिमूलकत्वात्मामाण्योपपत्तिः। मीमांसाकौस्तुभ pp, 43-44 (on जै. I. 3.7).

1655, नच इधकारणयोः स्मत्याचारयोः प्रामाण्यम् । उक्तं च भहपादः। विधान विगीता चटार्धादिकारणे । स्मतिर्न श्रुतिमूला स्याचा बैषा सम्भवतिः ॥ मेधा. on मा II. 18. This verse refers to ave classes of smsti texts that caopot be based on अति. शार्धा च आविष्कारणा चटार्धादिष्ठकारणे (स्मृती); याच एषा संभवतिः is the fifth class, but the meaning is not clear. Sir Ganganath Jha in his translation of Medhatitbi does not say whence this verse is taken, por does he correctly render the words विगीता and rधार्धाविष्टकारणे and be omits altogether the fourth pada. The words या चैषा सम्भवभूतिः appear to mean ’that smrti which declares its promulgation (by a sage) is not to be deemed to be based on Veda (since otherwise Veda will be held to be not nitya).

TI)

Examples of būdha

855

cannot rely on such a state of things)’. In a learned discus sion on būdha Kumārila in his Tantravārtika (on Jai. III. 3. 14 pp. 859-860) brings together many bādhas out of which those that are relevant to. this discussion are given in the note below 1686. It says that inference is set aside by direct percep tion, smrti by śruti, a smrti not composed by an authoritative person and that is self-contradictory is set aside by a smști that is authoritative and not self-contradictory, a smṛti that has a visible worldly purpose by one that has an unseen spiritual purpose, a smṛti based on inference drawn from a śruti or based upon a commendatory vedic passage is set aside by a smrti based upon ( a direct ) śruti text, a usage is set aside by a smrti and one usage is set aside by another usage that is accepted by more respectable people &c.

1656. FT TE JET TEATA arwa (pre)- Penthral a greT सतिः, आप्ताविगीतस्मत्या अनासविगीतारमतिः, आष्टार्थयामार्था, अतिमभवया लिहलादप्रम

darq4797 , +91641eTT:, #curry maaruit F anfa, &c. - elfde pp. 859-860.