pART 9 AGAIN REPEATED TO READ TOGETHER ALONG WITH pART 10.
MANU SMRITHI AN AUTHORITY Part 9 15724 16724 KR IRS
Question. — “When the Smrti itself only expounds whatever is already set
forth in the Veda and is on that account, based upon the Veda, then the
Veda itself being sufficient for all purposes, what is the use of the Smrti
or Dharma sastra?”—
The Smrti-Candrika quotes Marici as giving the answer to this question—
‘The requisite texts of the Veda are difficult to understand and are
scattered about in various places; all these are collected and explained by
the Smrtis.’
The Purāṇas are also included under Smrti, as the Veda itself names
‘Itihāsa-Purāṇa’ along with ‘the four Vedas.’ Viṣṇu also places the Purāṇas
on the same footing as ‘Manu-Smriti,’ ‘Veda and its subsidiary sciences,’
‘Science of Healing.’
This establishes the authority of the authors of the Grhyasutras also;
since all that these do is to lay down practical manuals setting forth the
details of the various rites along with the necessary Mantras belonging to
that individual Vedic recension to which the manual is inferred to
appertain.
As says Devala Rishi, —‘Manu and others are the expounders of the
Law; the authors of the Grhya are the expounders of the application of
Law.’
KR To day I wrote elsewhere science and the applied science; so
also, Vedas are constitution, rendered easy by Ganga Palkiavala, which is
rendered so simple by Grahya sutras; if people make it to abysm-simple, the
better not to have it at all.
Saṃskāra-Mayūkha, p. 2.—
The Smṛti includes the Āyurveda Smṛtis also, as also Purāṇa and the
astronomical ‘Saṃhitās,’ compilations of Varāhamihira and others; as also
the Saṃhitā texts which are included in the Skandapurāṇa. (vide todays
video by Sekarji)
Now we have got to determine what works are entitled to be classed under
‘Smṛti’ or ‘Dharma-Śāstra,’ which latter is what is meant by ‘Smrti.’
The original Smrti-writers are thus enumerated by Yājñavalkya (1.4-5):—
Manu, Viṣṇu, Yama, Aṅgiras, Vaśiṣṭha, Dakṣa, Saṃvarta, Śātātapa,
Parāśara, Āpastamba, Uśanas, Vyāsa, Kātyāyana, Bṛhaspati,
Gautama, Śaṅkha-Likhita, Hārīta, Atri, and Yājñavalkya himself.
The following is from Parāśara (Ācāra 12-15), where Vyāsa relates to his
father the Smrtis he has already learnt:
Manu, Vaśiṣṭha, Kaśyapa, Garga, Gautama, Uśanas, Atri, iṣṇu, Saṃvarta,
Dakṣa, Aṅgiras, Śātātapa, Hārīta, Yājñavalkya, Āpastamba, Śaṅkha, Likhita,
Kātyāyana, Pracetas.
On Parāśara (1.20), which speaks of ‘propounders of Smṛti,’ Mādhava (p.
98), mentions the following additional names:
Vyāsa, Yama, Parāśara, Bhṛgu, Nārada, Baudhāyana, Pitāmaha, Sumantu,
Kāśyapa, Babhru, Paiṭhīnasi, Vyāghra, Satyavrata, Bharadvāja, Kārṣṇājini,
Jābāli, Jamadagni, Lokākṣi.
The Smṛticandrikā reproduces the same list.
Yājñavalkya and Kātyāyana being omitted, these two lists make the number 36.
The same writer quotes from the Mahābhārata the following:—
Umā-Maheśvara, andi, Brahmā, umāra, Dhūmrāyaṇa, Kaṇva, Vaiśvānara, Bhṛgu,
Yājñavalkya, Mārkaṇḍeya, Kuśika, Bharadvāja, Bṛhaspati, Kuni, Kuṇibāhu,
Viśvāmitra, Sumantu, Jaimini, Śakuni, Pulastya, Pulaha, Pāvaka, Agastya,
Mudgala, Śāṇḍilya, labhāyana,B ālakhilya, Saptarṣi, Vyāghra,Vyāsa,
Vibhāṇḍaka, Vidura,Bhṛgu, ṅgiras, Vaiśampāyana.
The Smṛticandrikā reproduces Paiṭhīnasi’s list (given by Mādhava), but adds
that the list is not exhaustive, as in addition to them there are others
also, eg., Vatsa, Marīci, Devala, Pāraskara, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu,
Ṛṣyaśṛṅga, Likhita and Chāgaleva.
It quotes Śaṅkha as enumerating
Manu, Yama, Dakṣa, Viṣṇu, Aṅgiras, Bṛhaspati, Uśanas, Āpastamba, Gautama,
Saṃvarta, Ātreya, Hārīta, Kātyāyana, Śaṅkha,
Likhita, Parāśara, Vyāsa, Śātātapa, Pracetas, Yājñavalkya.
Also Aṅgiras quoted mentions the following and calls them Upa-Smṛti:
Logākṣi, Kāśyapa, Vyāsa,Sanatkumāra, Śāntanu, Janaka,
Vyāghra, Kātyāyana, Jātūkarṇa,
Kapiñjala, Baudhāyana, Kaṇāda, and Viśvāmitra.
Yājñavalkya’s and Paiṭhīnasi’s lists are reproduced also by the
Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 2). To them it adds ‘Viśvāmitra and the rest.’
Part 10 16724 17724
The Purāṇa has been defined as that which has five characteristic features
in the shape of the accounts of (1) Creation, (2) Dissolution, (3)
Genealogy, (4) Age-Cycles, and (5) History of Dynasties. {KR without the 5
parts qualifications it cannot be called a purana at all; every purana will
first explain in the opening why that is a Purana in the Sanskrit verses.}
The Viṣṇupurāna names the following eighteen Purāṇas and the Bhagavata
adds the number of verses in each:
Brahma Puranam: 10,000,
Padma Puranam 55,000,
Viṣṇu Puranam 23,000,
Śiva Puranam 24,000,
Bhagavata Puranam 18,000,
Nāradīya Puranam 25,000,
Markandeya Puranam 9,000,
Agni Puranam 15,400,
Bhavishya Puranam 14,500,
Brahmavivartta Puranam 18,000,
Liṅga Puranam 10,600,
Varāha Puranam 24,500,
Skanda Puranam 81,000,
Vamana Puranam 10,000,
Kurma Puranam 17.000,
Matsya Puranam 14,000,
Garuda Puranam 19,000
and Brahmanda Puranam 12,000.
Total number of verses in 18 major important puranas 4,00,000.
The Brahmavivartta has the Vayaupuranam in place of the Brahmanda, and this
diversity is due to the two enumerations referring to two distinct cycles.
In addition to these eighteen ‘Purāṇas,’ there are 18 ‘Upa Purāṇas,’
‘secondary Purāṇas.’ These have been named in the Kūrmapurāṇa:
Sanatkumāra,
Narasiṃha, 18.000,
Nānda (recited by Kumāra),
Śivadharma (recited by Nandīśvara),
Nāradīya,
Durvāsas,
Kāpila,
Mānava,
Uśanas,
Brahmāṇḍa,
Vāruṇa,
Kālikā,
Māheśvara,
Śāmba,
Saura,
Parāśara,
Mārīca,
and Bhārgava.
In place of ‘Nānda,’ the Brahmavaivarta has Vāśiṣṭha-Laiṅga.
The Saṃskāramayūkha also reproduces the lists of the Viṣṇupurāṇa (for
Purāṇas) and of Kūrmapurāṇa (for Upapurāṇas).
Viramitrodaya, Paribhāṣā, pp. 10-24.—
The knowledge of ‘Veda’ implies also the knowledge of certain other
branches of study, which is essential to the proper understanding of the
Veda. These have been thus enumerated by Yājñavalkya—‘There are fourteen
departments of knowledge and of Dharma. The four (1-4) Vedas along with (5)
Purāṇas, (6) Nyāya, (7) Mīmāṃsā, (8) Dharma-Śāstra, (9-14) the six ‘Limbs’
or subsidiary sciences of the Veda.’
Here ‘Nyāya’ stands for the system propounded by Gautama and others,
dealing with such subjects as the means of knowledge and so forth,
‘Mīmāṃsā’ for the system of interpretation propounded by Jaimini and that
of philosophy propounded by Bādarāyaṇa, ‘Dharmaśāstra’ for the ordinances
of Manu and others, and ‘Limbs of the Veda’ for—(a) Phonetics, (b) Rituals,
(c) Grammar, (d) Etymology, (e) Prosody and (f) Astronomy.
There is a diversity of opinion regarding the lists of recognised ‘Purāṇas’
and ‘Dharmaśāstras,’ as shown above.
Smṛticandrikā, p. 5.—
‘Purāṇa’—the Brahma and the rest;—‘Nyāya’—Reasoning; ‘Mimamsa,’
discussion relating to the exact meaning of Vedic passages;—‘Dharmaśāstra,’
the Smṛtis of Manu and others; and the four Vedas with the six ‘subsidiary
sciences’ are the ‘means’ of knowing Dharma; and also of Dharma itself,
through that knowledge.
(C) Sadācāra
Medhātithi on Manu, 2-6.—
‘Sādhūnām āchāraḥ,’ ‘Practice of good men’ also has to be construed
with ‘Vedavidām’ ‘learned in the Veda,’ and the two qualifications
‘Goodness’ and ‘Vedic learning,’ come under ‘culture.’ When in regard to
any action, there are no Vedic or Smṛti declarations available, but
cultured people are found to do it as ‘Dharma,’—something right—then that
action is to be regarded as ‘enjoined in the Veda’ in the same manner as
anything laid down in the Smṛti.
What are meant by ‘practices’ here are such customs as the tying of the
bracelet at marriage, the keeping of an exact number of hair-locks on the
head, the exact manner of receiving guests and so forth. Each of such
practices has to be taken on its own merits; it is not possible to assume
Vedic texts corroborating those ither severally or even collectively; as
the rightness or wrongness of a certain practice varies with circumstances;
e.g., a certain cultured man may be very assiduous in attending upon his
guests—never leaving them for a single moment unattended, and so forth.
This may he quite agreeable to one guest who likes constant
attendance; but there may be another to whom all this close attendance is
disagreeable; he would prefer much rather to be left alone to himself.
There is no such variation possible in regard to what is prescribed in the
Smṛti; and herein lies the difference between what is prescribed in the
‘Smṛti’ and what can be learnt from the ‘Practices of the cultured.’
Sarvajñanārāyaṇa on Manu, 2-0.—
* In cases where we find no guidance either from Vedic texts or Smṛti or
the Śīla of learned men, we have to be guided by the ‘Ācāra,’* Practice, of
‘Sādhus,’ persons engaged in the performance of acts in accordance with the
Veda. ‘Ācāra’ really stands for the recalling and practising of what has
been done by the good men of the past, i.e., Usage or Custom.—
This is regarded as inferior to ‘Śīla’ on account of the possibility of
suspicion regarding the correctness of tradition upon which it is based.
Kullūka on Manu, 2-6.—‘Ācāra’ stands for the practice of dressing
oneself in blankets or tree-bark and so forth.
‘Sādhūnām’; of the good, i.e., righteous persons.
Rāghavānanda on Manu, 2-6.—Such practice as binding of the bracelet
at marriage and so forth, which is current among ‘Sādhus,’ i.e., people
free from ill feeling.
Nandana on Manu, 2-6.—Nandana takes ‘Ācāra’ by itself offering no
remarks about it, and construes ‘Sādhūnām’ with ‘Ātmanastuṣṭi.’
Viśvarūpa on Yājña, 1-7.—‘Sadāchāra’ stands for those religious or
spiritual (as distinguished from temporal or worldly) acts that are done by
such men as are free from selfishness and devoid of hypocrisy and other
defects. This is mentioned apart from ‘Smṛti,’ (1) because there is no
compilation of the said practices, as there is of the ordinances; and (2)
the trustworthiness of practices is doubtful, which is not the case with
Smṛti.
rārka on Yājña, 1-7.—‘Sadāchāra’ is the practice of cultured people,
i.e., such people as are free from ill-will, vanity, possessed of
sufficient funds (i.e., not in want of living), not greedy, free from
hypocrisy, haughtiness, avarice, stupidity and anger; those who have
studied the Veda and its supplements in the right manner, and are expert in
making deductions therefrom
(Baudhāyana),—the supplements being the Itihāsas, Purāṇas, and also
Grammar and the other subsidiary sciences; ‘those expert in making
deductions therefrom’ are those versed in the Smṛtis,—the latter being
regarded as indicative of the Veda. When the texts speak of ‘Sadāchāra’ as
an authority what they refer to is the fact that the customs obtaining in
Brahmāvarta and other civilised lands are all based on the Veda (and not
that custom qua custom is to be accepted as in itself authoritative): any
custom that is repugnant to any clear text of the Veda is to be rejected.
Vaśiṣṭha’s declaration that ‘all the customs current in Āryāvarta
are authoritative’ means that most of them are so; as is clear from another
declaration of his to the effect that customs of the cultured are to be
accepted as authority only on points where no Veda or Smṛti texts are
available.
Mitākṣarā on Yājña, 1-7.—‘Sadāchāra’—practice of the cultured, not of
the ucultured.
Vīramitrodaya on Yājña, 1-7.—‘Sadāchāra’ is thus defined in the
Viṣṇupurāṇa: “Good men, free from all defects, are called Sat, and their
practice, Ācaraṇa, is what is called ‘Sadāchāra.’” It is the sole authority
in regard to the Holākā and such observances.
Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 8-29.—Gautama declares that such
local, tribal and family customs as arc repugnant to the scriptures are not
authoritative;—‘Scripture’ here stands for ‘Veda, Smṛti and Purāṇa.’ This
Ācāra stands for positive virtues, as distinguished from ‘Śīla’ which
stands for the negative ones. If we connect ‘Sādhūnām’ with ‘āchāraḥ,’ then
the meaning comes to be that the practices of even those not learned in the
Veda are to be accepted as authoritative, when these are men free from all
weaknesses and defects; it is in this sense that in the case of Śūdraṣ, the
practices of one’s ancestors become an authoritative source of knowledge of
Dharma.
Parāśaramādhava, p. 100.—‘Sadāchāra’—e.g., Holākā, Udvṛṣabha and the
like. Those who ‘expound’ or ‘determine’ these are the elders of each
family or tribe.
Madanapārijāta, pp. 11-12.—Dharma depends upon ‘Ācāra’—[But this term
is used here in a very wide sense, being defined as]—‘Ācāra is the name of
that course of conduct which is enjoined in Śruti and Smṛti and which is
prescribed by the Good.’—This āchāra is to be learnt from persons born in
Madhyadeśa and other countries:—(a) the tract of land between Sarasvatī and
Dṛṣadvatī—Brahmāvarta; (b) between Himalaya and Vindhya and between Gaṅgā
and Yamunā, West of Prayāga—Madhyadeśa; (e) between Himalaya and Vindhya
and the Eastern and Western Oceans—Āryāvarta.
Nṛsiṃhaprasāda-Saṃskāra.—“It is difficult to believe that the endless
practices or customs that have grown, and are still growing up from time to
time, should be all based upon Vedic texts. Even Manu’s declaration cannot
be taken as testifying to the authority of each and every custom. For if
their authority rested upon the trustworthy character of the ‘cultured’
persons among whom it is current, then there would be an interdependence;
the people would be ‘cultured’ because they follow those practices and the
practices would be authoritative because they are followed by those
persons. Further, customs and practices are found to vary in different
parts of the country; and certainly all of these cannot he authoritative.”
It is not each and every practice of the ‘cultured’ that we regard as
authoritative; that alone can be regarded as a trustworthy guide which is
done by the cultured people as ‘Dharma,’ that which they do knowing it to
be ‘righteous.’ And certainly the many misdeeds of well-known great men
that are cited could not have been done by them as ‘dharma’; when the
learned regard an act as ‘dharma’ they must do so on the strength of some
Vedic text known to them; hence these Practices and Customs also must be
inferred to have their source in the Veda.
Smṛticandrikā, p. 5.—‘Ācāra’ stands for the tying of the bracelet and
such practices.
Ibid, p. 6.—The ‘Śiṣṭaṣ,’ ‘cultured,’ are defined by Manu (12-109)—
dharmeṇādhigato yaistu vedaḥ saparibṛṃhaṇaḥ |
te śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā jñeyāḥ śrutipratyakṣahetavaḥ ||
The paribṛṃhaṇa of the Veda being the subsidiary sciences, Itihaasa and
Purāṇa. Says Bṛhaspati—
itihāsapurāṇābhyāṃ vedaṃ samupabṛṃhayet |
[This occurs in the Mahabharata also.]
On questions where we find no Śruti or Smṛti text we are to be guided by
the opinion of the ‘Pariṣad,’ ‘Assembly.’ Says Manu (12.108)—
amāmnāteṣu dharmeṣu kathaṃ syāditi ced bhavet |
yaṃ śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā brūyuḥ sa dharmaḥ syādaśaṅkitaḥ ||
This ‘Assembly’ should consist of at least 10 ‘cultured’ men—as declared by
Gautama—
anāmnāte daśāvaraiḥ śiṣṭairūhavadbhiḥ alubdhaiḥ praśastaṃ kāryam |
K RAJARAM IRS MANU ENF OF PART 9 &10 16724 17724
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to thatha_patty+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqh8N-kGBKkEOaOg4jLW7cx%2B-6NfFwzeAeM33RAxhhRqA%40mail.gmail.com.
