Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

Verse 2.14 [Conflict of Authorities]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

श्रुतिद्वैधं तु यत्र स्यात् तत्र धर्मावुभौ स्मृतौ ।
उभावपि हि तौ धर्मौ सम्यगुक्तौ मनीषिभिः ॥ १४ ॥

śrutidvaidhaṃ tu yatra syāt tatra dharmāvubhau smṛtau |
ubhāvapi hi tau dharmau samyaguktau manīṣibhiḥ || 14 ||

Where there is conflict between two Vedic texts, both are held to be Dharma; both have been rightly pronounced by the wise to be Dharma.—(14)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The objection urged above (in the Bhāṣya on Verse 10) is answered here.

When ‘between two Vedic texts there is ‘conflict,’—i.e., setting forth of contrary facts,—e.g., what is declared to be ‘Dharma’ by one text is pronounced to bo ‘adharma’ by another;—in such cases both are Dharma,—i.e., to be performed as optional alternatives. The authoritative strength of the two texts is equal; hence it cannot bo discerned which is reliable and which is not. Thus the conflict being between two equally authoritative texts bearing upon the same subject, there must be option.

Objection.—

“The text speaks of both being Dharma, which means that there should be combination (and not option); as it is only when there is combination that both could be Dharma; otherwise (), only one of them could be Dharma. (at a time).”

We deny this. The use of the word ‘both’ is incompatible with separate, performance (even acts performed one after the other, and not conjointly, can be spoken of as ‘both’); the word does not necessarily denote two things taken together.

Further, option is distinctly the reasonable course to adopt. The action known as ‘Agnihotra’ is one only; and with reference to this single act, three points of time have been laid down; now the action forms the primary factor, the comes in only as a subordinate element; nor is it possible to adopt all the three points of time in connection with any single performance; nor again can it be right to repeat the performance for the sake of the time; as it is never right to repeat the primary for the sake of the secondary factor. From all this it follows that option is most reasonable, as declared in the words ‘whenever there is conflict between authorities of equal force, there is option.’ (Gautama, 1.3.)

Both have bent proclaimed to be Dharma.’—“What is the difference between this statement and the former one, ‘both are Dharma’?”

There is no difference; in the former statement, the author has stated his own opinion, and in the latter he supports his opinion by the opinion of other teachers, by pointing out that ‘this is what has also been proclaimed by other wise men.’—(14)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 15) as describing the comparative authority of the several sources. Where there are two Vedic texts setting forth two conflicting views, both are to be accepted, since they have been so accepted by authorities older than Manu himself, i. e. the two are to be regarded as optional alternatives.

It is quoted also in the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 136.)

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 1.6.—‘When there is a conflict between two equally authoritative texts, there is option.’

Also see the Comparative notes for Verse 2.6 (Sources of Knowledge of Dharma).

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: