English
8d And these would-be logicians declare even that some of their precepts (which they have stolen from us), like that of universal benevolence, are not derived from the Veda, because most of Buddha's other say ings are altogether against the Veda. Wishing, therefore, to keep true on this point also, and seeing that no merely human precept could have any au* thority on moral and supernatural subjects, they try to veil their difficulty by aping our own arguments for the eternal existence of the Veda. They know that the Mtm&nsakas have proved that no sayings of men can have any authority on supernatural sub- jects ; they know also that the authority of the Veda cannot be controverted, because they can bring for- ward nothing against the proofs adduced for its divine origin, by which all supposition of a human source has been removed. Therefore, their hearts being gnawed by their own words, which are like the smattering of children, and having themselves nothing to answer, because the deception of their illogical arguments has been destroyed, they begin to speak like a foolish suitor who came to ask for a bride, saying, ^ My family is as good as your family/ In the same manner they now maintain the eternal existence of their books, aping the speeches of others. And if they are challenged and told that this is our argument, they brawl, and say that we, the Mim^n- sakas, have heard and stolen it from them. For a man who has lost all shame, who can talk away without any sense, and tries to cheat his opponent, will never get tired, and will never be put down ! " Towards the end of this harangue, Kum&rila adds, what is more to the point, that the Bauddhas, who G 3 86 CHAHACTEB OF THB SHRITI. ascribe to everything a merely temporary existence, have no business to talk of an eternal revelation. Now, it ought not to be overlooked, that in all these discussions the distinction between Sruti (Man- tras and Br&hmanas) and Smriti (SAtras) is always taken for granted. If, at the time of the first con- troversies between Bauddhas and Mim&nsakas, the authors of the Mantras or Brd.hmanas, and particu*- larly the founders of the so-called ancient Br&hmanas, had still been alive, or their names generally known, even a Brahman could not have ventured to stand up for the divine and eternal origin of this part of the 6ruti. On the other hand, nothing could have pre- vented the Brahmans from ascribing the same super- natural origin to the Siitras, if at the time of the rising power of Buddhism their authors also had been lost in oblivion. The distinction, therefore, between iSruti (revelation) and Smriti (tradition) which is a point of such vital importance for the whole Brah- manic system, will also be found significant in an his* torical point of view. It must be observed, however, before we proceed farther, that what is called Smriti includes not only Siitras, but also iSloka works, such as the laws of Manu, Y&jnavalkya, and Par£Lsara (the Md^nava, Y&- Jnavalkya, and Par&^ra-dharma-6&stras), which some- times are called the Smritis, in the plural. Most of these, if not all, are founded on Siitras ; but the texts of the Siitras have mostly been superseded by these later metrical paraphrases. How then did the Brahmans, after they had esta- blished the distinction between j§ruti and Smriti, defend the authority of the Smriti, including Siitras and the later iSloka works ? CHABACTEK OF THE S&IRITI. 87 That the Smriti has no claim to an independent authority, bat derives its sanction from its intimate connection with the iSruti, is implied by its very name, which means recollection. For, as Eum&rila remarks (in the pArva-paksha), " Recollection is knowledge, the object of which is some previous knowledge ; and if Manu and other authors of Sroritis had not originally been in possession of an authoritative knowledge, it would be impossible to appeal to their recollection as an authority.^ It would be as if a man, omitting his son or daughter, was to appeal to the son of a barren daughter. For the original knowledge of Manu might be compared to his son, but his recollection would only be like a grandson. Now as people, if they have reason to doubt the existence of a daughter, would disbelieve every mention of the son of a daughter, thus the recollection (smriti) of Manu would be futile, if he himself had not possessed some means of au- thoritative knowledge." The following extract from Sd.yana's Commentary on PardAara's Oode^ will show the use which the rror: tttrto it^vt^ii And again, ^pf^ft^rr^ * MS. Bodl. 172, 173. G 4 ^,N ^*0^^^^OrKR OP THE SXRITI. BxahmttDa tdb^^ ^^ this argomenty in order to sub* Etantiate 1l\mb autV^ority of thdr l^al text-books. " Does it not seem after aU,** he says, " as if this Smrlti (containing as it does the laws of men) hardly deserved a commentaiy of its own, inasmuch as it is difficult to make out on what grounds it claims any authority ? For if we appeal to a S&tra of Jaimini's (the founder of the Pftrva-mim&n8&) where he has proved that the Veda possesses an authority irrespec- tive .of anything else, these arguments can hardly ap- ply to books which are evidently the work of men, and entirely dependent on the authority of their sources. These sources again, if they be considered as the life and strength of that authority, are often very in- distinct. First, they could never fall under the cog- nizance of the senses, because the very nature of duty or law is transcendental. Nor can this ultimate reason or source be found in induction, inasmuch as induc- tion is only possible after observation. Neither can it be looked for in the sayings of other men, because man is exposed to error, and cannot even express things as he has really perceived them. But even if man was free ftt)m error, there would always be room for doubt and opposition. And as to finding the authority for these laws in direct precepts of the j§ruti (Mantras and Br&hmanas) this is out of the question, because such precepts are not to be found there* We have never seen a passage in the Veda where precepts like those of the Smriti, to keep the body ckan, &c., are given. To admit the right of induction for laws of this kind would be most dan- gerous^ far it would apply with equal force to the pre- cepts of Buddha, to worship the holy sepulchre, &c. However, there is an answer to all these doubts. CnARACTEB OF THB SHRITX. 89 A great difference exists between the Smritis of Manu and the Smritis of Buddha, because Manu's authority is asserted by the undeniable Veda itself. It is said in the Veda, ^Whatever Manu said, was medicine;' but there is no passage there in any way favourable to the Smriti of Buddha, and thercr fore the right of applying induction cannot be con- sidered dangerous, because it never could be extended to Buddha's doctrines. " Quod non," says the opponent. " This passage of the Veda, * Whatever Manu said, was medicine,' is only an Arthav&da (an explanatory remark), and has no evidence by itself. It only serves to illustrate o? recommend another precept, viz., that two verses of Manu's are to be used at a certain sacrifice.^ Ther^- fore, there is no passage in the Veda to warrant the authority of the Smriti ; and if S&kya's, t. e. Buddha's, Smriti be exceptionable, the same applies to the Smriti of Manu. Thus it is said, ^ As men speak often untruth and are exposed to error, as no divine precept is given, faith only can be authority.' But > As dhayyas at the Som&raudra Charu, in the middle of the S&midbent, or fire-kindling hjrmns. The same argument occurs in Kumarila's Tantra-yarttika, i. 3., Trat ^ iwr^: ^ifi?^^ ^i^fOrti^ f^^T^ij^ ^5^ ^151 *(9*f^l ^*tI^^^ i)vi^niii TJ^ll Mahadeva, in his Commentary on the Hiranyakei^i-siitras, says that the Sruti bears witness to the authority of the Smritis by de- claring that whatever Manu said was medicine. 90 CHARACTEB OF THE SMEUni. further, even admitting that there was a shadow of authority for Manu, what could be said in £Eivour of ParSi&ara's Smriti, which is now to be explained? For, although the Veda may praise Manu, it never does the same for Par&6ara, and thus Pardiara's authority at least can hardly be defended. ^^ Against all this our answer is : the Smritis are an authority, because that they should have authority is understood by itself ; and there is no reason why they should not be considered as having authority. Three reasons are given why Manu and the rest could not claim any authority, viz.