with the Commentary of Medhatithi 19 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 25 из 350Следующая ⇒

By which the sources of law are fivefold: — (1) Veda, (2) Smṛti, (3) Sadāchāra, (1) Svasya priyam and (5) Samyak-saṅkalpaja Kāma. [For the exact signification of these, see below.]

Thus the sources of Law are: (1) ‘Śruti,’ (2) ‘Smrti’ (3) ‘Sadāchāra’ — ‘practices of the good’ (with regard to these there is unanimity among all old authorities), (4) ‘Svasya priyam’ or ‘ātmanastuṣṭiḥ,’ ‘self-satisfaction.’ In regard to the fourth also Manu and Yājñavalkya are agreed. In Manu however we find one thing more, which is not found in Yājñavalkya — viz., ‘Sīla’; and Yājñavalkya speaks of ‘Samyaksaṅkalpajaḥ kāmaḥ,’ which is not found in Manu. Vīramitrodaya on Yājña has identified these two.

We shall see now what these terms mean according to the Commentators and the more important Digest-writers.

(A) Śruti

Medhātithi on Manu, 2.6. — The word ‘Veda’ stands for the Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, and Sāmaveda (also Atharva Veda), along with their respective Brāhmaṇas, There are 21 Recensions of the Ṛgveda, 100 of the Yajurveda, 1,000 of the Sāmaveda and 9 of the Atharvaveda. The Vedic character of the Atharva cannot be denied, because, like the other Vedas, this also is not the work of a human author, it helps to make known man’s duties, it is free from mistakes, it prescribes the Jyotiṣṭoma and such other rites exactly in the same manner as the other Vedas do. [This is denied by Vīramitrodaya on Yājñavalkya; see below.] Though there are certain texts that forbid the study of the Atharva Veda, yet all that this means is that one should not confuse the teachings of the other Vedas with those of the Atharva; for instance, at the performance of rites in accordance with the three other Vedas, one should not use Mantras of the Atharva Veda.

This ‘Veda’ is the ‘root,’ i.e., source, cause, of dharma, in the sense that it makes it known, and it does this by means chiefly of such passages in the Brāhmaṇas as contain injunctive expressions; sometimes also by means of Mantras. And the other parts of the Veda — the Arthavāda or Declamatory Passages — have their use in eulogising what is enjoined by the corresponding injunction; Mantras and names help in indicating the details of the acts prescribed.

Sarvajñanārāyaṇa on Manu, 26. — When Manu speaks of the ‘entire Veda,’ he means to include the Arthavādas, commendatory and condemnatory exaggerations, also.

Kullūka on Manu, 26. — ‘Veda’ stands for the Ṛk, Yajus, Sāman and Atharvan; the whole of these, including the injunctions, Mantras and Arthavādas, the last also serving the purpose of helping the injunction by persuasion. Both Mantras and Arthavādas serve the useful purpose not only of persuasion, but also of reminding the agent of the details of the action undertaken. The authority of Śruti and the rest also rests upon.the fact of their having their source in the Veda.

Rāghavānanda on Manu, 2.6. — Ṛk, Yajus, Sāman and Atharvan are the authority for Dharma.

Viśvarūpa on Yājña, 1.3-7. — ‘Śruti’ is to be taken, not in the strictly limited sense of the ‘Mantra and Brāhmaṇa texts,’ but for all the fourteen ‘Sciences’ — the Four Vedas, their six ‘subsidiaries’ or ‘limbs,’ Purāṇa, Nyāya, Mīmānsā, and Dharmaśāstra.

Mitākṣarā on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Śruti’ is Veda.

(I) Aparārka on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Śruti’ is Veda — it is the only determining factor in all matters relating to the Agnihotra and other rites. As Vyāsa says, this is the only pure authority (i.e., entirely trustworthy), all the rest being ‘adulterated,’ i.e., of doubtful authority; that law is the highest which is learnt from the Veda, what is propounded in the Purāṇas and other works being of a lower grade.

Says Manu — ‘The Veda embodies all knowledge’ (2.7).

‘The learned man should enter upon his own duties, resting upon the authority of the Revealed Word’ (2.8). ‘The Veda should be known as the Revealed Word, Śruti’ (2.10).

Vīramitrodaya-Tīkā on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Śruti’ is Veda — as in Manu (2.10). It is the sole authority in regard to Agnihotra and such rites.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 8-25. — ‘Śruti’ stands for ‘Veda,’ which, according to Āpastamba’s definition, is the name given to the ‘collection of Mantra and Brāhmaṇa texts’; — the ‘whole’ of this authoritative, i.e., the direct, texts themselves, as also those that are deducible from the implications of ‘Indication,’ ‘Syntactical Connection,’ ‘Context,’ ‘Position’ and ‘Name,’ and also the transformations undergone by the original texts under well-recognised principles. Another implication of the epithet ‘entire’ is that the Atharva Veda also is to be accepted as authoritative, and not only the ‘trinity of Vedas,’ as one might be led to suppose from the words of Āpastamba, who says that ‘Dharma is to be learnt from the three Vedas.’ It would be wrong to deny the authority of the Atharva Veda, because, even though it has nothing to say regarding the setting up of the Sacrificial Pires or the details of the Agnihotra and other rites, yet on certain matters it is our only authority; such propitiatory rites for instance as those relating to the ‘Tulāpuruṣa’ and the like, which affect all the castes. When we speak of these being the ‘source of dharma,’ ‘means of knowing what Dharma, Right, is,’ it follows that they are the means of knowing also what ‘Adharma’ ‘wrong’ is; it is necessary to understand what is ‘wrong’ in order to discard it and thereby prepare the mind for perceiving what is ‘right.’

This ‘Śruti’ operates in the following seven forms:

(1) The Injunction or Mandatory text — e.g., ‘one shall sacrifice the goat to Yāyu’ — this is a trustworthy guide as to what one should do.

(2) The Prohibitive Text — e.g., ‘one shall not eat the flesh of an animal killed by the poisoned arrow this is a guide as to what one shall avoid.

(3) The ‘Declamatory’ text of two kinds: the commendatory and the condemnatory; the former serves the purpose of delineating the excellence of the course of action enjoined by the Mandatory text; e.g., the text ‘Vāyu is the eftest deity,’ serves to indicate the excellent properties of the deity Vāyu to whom the offering of the goat has been enjoined; the condemnatory text serves to deprecate the course of action prohibited; e.g., the assertion that ‘the tears of weeping Rudra became silver’ is meant to deprecate the giving of silver as the sacrificial fee, which has been forbidden by a prohibitive text. Texts of this declamatory kind are of use sometimes in settling a doubtful point: e.g., it having been enjoined that one should place wet pebbles under the altar, and the injunction being silent as to the substance with which the pebble is to be wetted, the doubt on this point is settled by a subsequent ‘declamatory’ text, ‘clarified butter is glory itself,’ which clearly indicates the clarified butter as the substance with which the pebbles are to be wetted.

(4) The Mantra text — e.g., ‘Devasya tvā savituḥ,’ etc., serves to remind the performer of the details of the performance in the shape of the deity and so forth.

(5) The proper names of particular sacrifices help in the determining of the exact action connoted by the common root ‘yaji,’ ‘to sacrifice’ occurring in the injunctive text.

(6) The meaningless syllables, stobhas, introduced in the Sāma-chant, serve the purpose of marking time and cadence;

and (7) the Upaniṣad text serves to promulgate that knowledge of Brahman which destroys all evil.

Parāśara, 1-20 — speaks of the ‘propounders of Śruti’ appearing at the beginning of each kalpa. From the words it would seem as if the three gods — Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara were the said ‘propounders.’ But Mādhava (p. 98) takes the ‘propounders of Śruti, Smṛti and Sadāchāra’ separately from Brahmā, etc., and he supplies a peculiar account of the ‘propounders of Śruti’ — which extends the scope of the authority of this source of knowledge. He says that by the ‘propounders of Śruti’ here are meant

(1) Vyāsa, who divided the Vedic text into the several recensions;

(2) the expounders of those Recensions — such as Kaṭha and Kuthuma;

(3) the contents of Kalpasūtras, such as Baudhāyana, Āśvalāyana, aud Āpastamba, and also the ‘authors’ of the Mīmāṃsāsūtras, Jaimini and the rest.

Nṛsiṃhaprasāda-Saṃskara-Sāra MSS. — The Veda is the main authority for Dharma. Any inconsistencies that may be found in it can be easily explained away. This authority belongs not only to the Injunctions, but also to Mantras, names and declamatory passages.

Smṛticandrikā, p. 3. — The Veda is authoritative as it is independent of human authorship.

(B) Smṛti

Medhātithi on Manu, 2.6. — ‘Smṛti’ is Recollection and ‘Śīla’ denotes freedom from love, hatred and such improper feelings; this latter, according to one explanation, is a means of accomplishing Dharma, and not a means of knowing it; and it has been separately mentioned in the present connection only with a view to emphasise its importance. Not satisfied with this, he has taken the two terras ‘Smṛti’ and ‘Śīla’ in the compound as inter-related; and as together standing for a single means of knowing Dharma, in the shape of ‘Recollection during that state of the mind when it is calm, free from all disturbing influences of love, hatred and so forth’, — i.e., ‘Conscientious Recollection.’ The authority of ‘Smṛti’ thus becomes qualified. Even though a certain writer may be a Ṛṣi versed in Veda, yet if his ‘recollection’ and its compilation come about at a time when his mind was perturbed by discordant feelings, much trust cannot be placed upon such ‘Recollection.’

This again has to be taken along with ‘Sādhūmām’; so that we have a threefold condition for the trustworthiness of a writer of Smṛti: —

he must be learned (‘tādvidām’),

he must be ‘conscientious,’ ‘free from love and hatred’ (‘Śīla’),

and he must be ‘righteous’ (‘Sādhūmām’), be habitually engaged in carrying out the injunctions of the Veda.

The upshot of the whole is that when a person is found to be recognised and spoken of by all wise and learned persons as endowed with the said three qualifications — and a certain compilation is also recognised as made by that person, — the word of such a person as found in his recognised work, should be recognised as an authoritative exponent of Dharma. Sc that even at the present day if there were such a person and he were to compose a work, then for all later generations that work would be regarded just as highly as those of Manu and others. This is the reason why Medhātithi is averse to the practice of enumerating the authoritative ‘Smṛtis.’ (Trans., p. 204.)

Sarvajñanārāyaṇa on Manu, 2.6. — In cases where no Vedic texts are available, the law can be determined with the help of the Smṛti of persons learned in the Veda — the term ‘Smṛti’ standing for the reflections over a certain subject, as also the treatises embodying those reflections.

Kullūka on Manu, 2.6. — The Smṛti of ‘persons learned in the Veda’ is authoritative, — this last qualification being added for the purpose of indicating that the authority of Smṛti is due to its having its source in the Veda.

Rāghavānanda on Manu, 2.6. — ‘Smṛti’ stands for the work of Manu and others. It stands here for only such Smṛti as is not incompatible with tho Veda. All the rest are to be rejected whenever they are found to be repugnant to any direct text of the Veda. But where there is no such repugnance, we are justified in assuming that the Smṛti must be based upon a Vedic text now lost to us; and it is on this assumption that its trustworthiness rests.

Nandana on Manu, 2.6. — The ‘Smṛti of men learned in the Veda.’ This stands for Smṛtis, Purāṇas and Itihāsas.

Viśvarūpa on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Smṛti’ and ‘Dharmaśāstra’ are synonymous terms. “How do we know that the Smṛtis are all based upon the Veda, from which they derive their authority? Certainly we do not find Vedic texts in support of everything that is ordained in the Smṛtis. As for the Vedic texts that are found to support some Smṛti assertions, such support is found also in the case of the heterodox scriptures.” — The simple answer to this question is that in the face of the direct assertion of Manu and other Smṛti-writers that their work is ‘based on the Veda,’ we have no justification for thinking otherwise. They being great Vedic scholars, could not have lied on this point. As a matter of fact also we find that every one of the injunctions contained in the Smṛtis has its source in the Veda; in some cases the connection is direct, in others indirect; for instance, we have the single Vedic injunction ‘one should study the Veda’; now studying is not possible without teaching, hence the injunction of teaching is implied by the former — the teaching cannot be done without some one to teach; this implies the receiving and initiating of a pupil; this implies the necessity of having children; this again that of marrying and so on; most of the other injunctions may have their source traced in the single Vedic text.

(I) Aparārka on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Smṛti’ is that ordinance which, in matters relating to Dharma, has its source in the Veda; its authority is ‘adulterated,’ i.e., not so absolute as that of Śruti; it supplies us with information regarding the duties of all castes and the four life-stages; one should carefully do all that has been ordained, Smṛtam, by persons most learned in the Veda and eschew what is forbidden by them. [This writer like Kumārila makes a distinction between ‘Smṛti’ and ‘Purāṇa.’] There are chances of our going astray in the matter of interpreting a Vedic text and learning the law from it; but there is no fear of any such mistake being committed by the Smṛti-writers who were thoroughly well-versed in the Vedic lore. [From this it would seem that this writer flourished during the transition period, when the centre of gravity was beginning to shift from the Veda towards the Smṛti.]

Mitākṣarā on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Smrti’ is Dharmaśāstra.

Vīramitrodaya on Yājña, 1.7. — ‘Smṛti’ is ‘Dharmaśāstra’ — ‘Legal Ordinances’ (Manu 2-10); it is the sole authority regarding the Aṣṭakā and such rites.

Vīramitrodaya-Paribhāṣā, pp. 8-25. — ‘Of persons learned in the Veda’; this has been added with a view to make clear that the authority of the Smṛtis does not rest upon themselves: it is derived entirely from the fact of their having their source in the Veda. The name ‘Smṛti’ stands for the legal ordinances, ‘Dharmaśāstra,’ compiled by Yājñavalkya and others.

Madanapārijāta, p. 11. — Manu is the most important of the expounders of law. Among others, some are mentioned by Yājñavalkya (see above). But this list is not exhaustive. Though all these ‘expounders’ do not always agree, yet, on the main principles, they are all agreed; the differences, if any, are confined to minor points; and these latter discrepancies can always he explained.

Nṛsiṃhaprasāda-Saṃskāra MSS. — “How can any authority attach to the Smṛtis of Manu and others, which being of human origin are open to the suspicion of the possibility of all those defects to which human writers are liable; and for this reason these cannot be regarded as authoritative in the same manner as the Vedas are, whose authority is above suspicion.” — The answer to this is that inasmuch as these Smṛtis are found to be mere reproductions of what is contained in the Veda, they must be regarded as duly authoritative. The very name ‘Smṛti,’ ‘Recollection,’ implies that they only reproduce what the authors have learnt elsewhere; and as Manu and others are known to have been learned in the Veda it stands to reason that knowing as they did that the Veda was the sole authority on Dharma, when they proceeded to note down for the benefit of others what the laws were that regulated Dharma, they could not but have drawn upon the Veda. It is true that they arc found to contain many rules that we cannot trace to the Veda as known to us; but if they were mere reproductions of whatever is found in the Veda, no one would care for them. So we are led to the inference that as on most of the points dealt with by them, their assertions are found to be based on Vedic texts, the other points also must have had their source in the Veda; but in those Vedic texts that have become lost to us. We have the Veda itself testifying to the trustworthy character of at least one Smṛti-writer, Manu — ‘Whatever Manu has said is wholesome.’

Smrticandrikā, pp. 1 et scq. — The ordinances composed by Manu and other writers, being based on the Veda, are our sole authority on Dharma. That the Smṛtis have their source in the Veda is deduced from the fact that they only expound what is contained in the Veda. Says Bhṛgu — ‘Whatever Dharma has been expounded by Manu has all been set forth in the Veda.’ Śaṅkara also says that ‘the Smṛtis have their source in the Veda.’ But this refers to only what the Smṛti says regarding spiritual matters, and not to what they lay down regarding temporal matters; as is distinctly declared in the Purāṇa — ‘All these (smṛtis) have their source in the Veda — save those portions that deal with visible (temporal) matters.’

Question. — “When the Smṛti 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 Smṛti or Dharmaśāstra?” — The Smrticandrikā quotes Marīci 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 Smṛtis.’

The Purāṇas are also included under Smṛti, as the Veda itself names ‘Itihāsa-Purāṇa’ along with ‘the four Vedas.’ Viṣṇu also places the Purāṇas on the same footing as ‘Manu-Smṛti,’ ‘Veda and its subsidiary sciences,’ ‘Science of Healing.’

This establishes the authority of the authors of the Gṛhyasūtras 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 — ‘Manu and others are the expounders of the Law; the authors of the Gṛhyas are the expounders of the application of Law.’

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.

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 Smṛti-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 Smṛtis he has already learnt:

Manu,

Vaśiṣṭha,

Kaśyapa,

Garga,

Gautama,

Uśanas,

Atri,

Viṣṇu,

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,

Solabhāyana,

Bālakhilya,

Saptarṣi,

Vyāghra,

Vyāsa,

Vibhāṇḍaka,

Vidura,

Bhṛgu,

Aṅgiras,

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.’

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.

The Viṣṇupurāna names the following eighteen Purāṇas and the Bhāgavata adds the number of verses in each:

Brahma, 10,000,

Padma, 55,000,

Viṣṇu, 23,000,

Śiva, 24,000,

Bhāgavata, 18,000,

Nāradīya, 25,000,

Mārkaṇḍeya, 9,000,

Agni, 15,400,

Bhaviṣya, 14,500,

Brahmavaivarta, 18,000,

Liṅga, 10,600,

Varāha, 24,500,

Skanda, 81,000,

āmana, 10,000,

Kūrma, 17.000,

Matsya, 14,000,

Garuḍa, 19,000

and Brahmāṇḍa, 12,000.

Total number of verses, 4,00,000.

The Brahmavaivarta has the Vāyupurāṇa in place of the Brahmāṇḍa, and this diversity is due to the two enumerations referring to two distinct cycles.

In addition to these eighteen ‘Purāṇas,’ there are 18 ‘Upapurāṇas,’ ‘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).

Vīramitrodaya, 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; ‘Mīmāṃsā,’ 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.’

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология