Verse 12.108

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

अनाम्नातेषु धर्मेषु कथं स्यादिति चेद् भवेत् ।
यं शिष्टा ब्राह्मणा ब्रूयुः स धर्मः स्यादशङ्कितः ॥ १०८ ॥

anāmnāteṣu dharmeṣu kathaṃ syāditi ced bhavet |
yaṃ śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā brūyuḥ sa dharmaḥ syādaśaṅkitaḥ || 108 ||

If the question should arise—“How should it be in regard to those points upon which the laws have not been declared?”—[the answer is]—what the cultured Brāhmaṇas declare, that shall be the undoubted law.—(108)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“How can there be any doubt on points not dealt with by the Ordinances? For the matter would be wholly unknown.”

The answer to this is that what is meant is not what is not spoken of at all, but that in regard to which the law has been stated only in a general form, and the particular applications of it cannot be ascertained.

“Even in such cases why should there be any doubt? A general statement always applies to all particular cases; so that if any particular form of it is followed, the ordinances become followed.”

For instance, when we have the law that ‘one should rinse his mouth with water,’—with what water, of a well, or a tank, or a river, being not specified,—the behests of the law would be duly obeyed by rinsing the mouth with water obtained from any one of these sources.

True; but there are cases where we have a text prohibiting a certain act, but no expiation is laid down in reference to that act; and it is such cases that are contemplated by the present verse.

For instance, there is the following case—There is a vessel polluted by the touch of the Śūdra’s mouth,—and before it has been cleansed some one takes his food out of it;—now what would be the expiation in this case? This question cannot be answered by anything that has been laid down. There is the text laying down the expiation in connection with pollution caused by the touch of the mouth of ‘the woman and the Śūdra’; but what is polluted by the ‘woman and the Śūdra,’ cannot be held to be ‘polluted by the Śūdra (only).’

In such doubtful cases, one should act up to the declaration of cultured men. For such doubts can arise only in the minds of Śūdras and others, who are not learned Brāhmaṇas; and it is only right that they should do what is taught by cultured men; so that in all cases, reductions or enhancements in the exact expiation should be always accepted in accordance with the decision of these people.

Nor would these cultured men be doing anything wrong in declaring the law on doubtful points; since it is declared that—‘that should be the undoubted law.’ If they pronounced a wrong opinion they would certainly be doing something wrong. For in matters relating to Dharma there can be no two opinions. In a case where there is a doubt regarding the exact ‘gotra’ and ‘pravara’ of a certain person,—when no one happens to remember them, how could the exact gotra or pravara be determined by any declaration of the Brāhmaṇas? It is for this reason that it has been asserted that where the gotra or pravara is doubtful, it shall remain doubtful. The pravara is doubtful only when the gotra is doubtful; when there is no doubt regarding the gotra, there can be none regarding the pravara, as the exact pravaras relating to each gotra have been clearly described. But since there are several pravaras mentioned in connection with several gotras, the gotra would remain doubtful even when the pravaras are known.—(108)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 21);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 7), which explains ‘Dharmeṣu’ as ‘the sources of the knowledge of Dharma.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (28.48).—‘In cases where no rule has been given, that course should he followed which is approved of by at least ten such Brāhmaṇas as are well-instructed, skilled in reasoning and free from covetousness.’