Yajnavalkya-smriti (Vyavaharadhyaya)—Critical study

by Kalita Nabanita | 2017 | 87,413 words

This page relates ‘Sources of Dharma’ of the study on the Vyavaharadhyaya of the Yajnavalkya-smriti: one of the most prominent Smritis dealing with Dharmashastra (ancient Indian science of law), dating to the 1st century B.C. The Yajnavalkyasmriti scientifically arranges its contents in three sections: Acara (proper conduct), Vyavahara (proper law) and Prayashcitta (expiation). Vyavahara deals with judicial procedure and legal system such as substantive law and procedural law.

The word dharmamūla is used to enumerate the root or foundation or sources of dharma. In jurisprudence, the phrase “sources of dharma” gives the diverse meaning, but here it indicates those, from which the knowledge of law can be derived. The Mitākṣarā commentary of Yājñavalkya explains them as jñāpakahetu, i.e. which imparts the nature of dharma.[1]

The Dharmasūtras generally accept and recognize three sources of dharma. Gautama says that the source of dharma is the Veda, as well as the Smṛti and practice of those who know the Veda.[2] According to Baudhāyana, ‘the dharma is taught in each Veda, secondly in the Smṛtis and thirdly in the conventions of cultured people.[3] Likewise, in the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra, it is stated that dharma is set forth in the Vedas and the Smṛtis, but when these do not address an issue, the practice of cultured people becomes authoritative.[4]

The Smṛtis extended the sources of dharma to more than three. Manu proclaims fivefold direct evidence or foundation of dharma or law. Among them, the Veda is the first source of dharma. Then the Smṛti expressed by those who are well-versed in the Vedas and the practice of such people, further, the custom or usages of virtuous people, finally self-satisfaction, i.e. what is agreeable to the good conscience.[5] Yājñavalkya’s enumeration of the sources of dharma follows that of the Manu’s. Yājñavalkya lays down that the Vedas, the Smṛtis, good conduct or approved usages of wise or cultured men, what is agreeable to one’s good conscience and desire, arising from perfect or proper determination which should not be against the scriptures, as the traditionally recognised sources of dharma.[6] Yājñavalkya also mentions fourteen kinds of dharmasthāna.[7] These are to be studied to give support to get the true meaning of dharma by the expounders of dharma.[8] Thus, these may be treated as indirect sources of dharma.

The above-mentioned passages shows that the Vedas, the Smṛtis and customs were considered to be the principal sources of dharma or law. The Śrutis which consist of the Vedas are regarded as the first, foremost and oldest source of the dharma. However, in fact the Vedas contained little pertaining to direct rules of dharma.[9] The Vedic literature reveals a number of occasional passages informing social customs or conventions of that time which may be conceived as the starting point of various aspects of legal affairs.[10] [11]

Besides, the positive or negative injunctions found abundantly in the Vedas served as the foundation of law in later times such as,

satyaṃ vada / dharmaṃ cara / matṛdevo bhava/ pitṛdevo bhava/ yānyanavadyāni karmāṇi tāni sevitavyāni no itarāṇi/ etc[12].

Prof. Swain remarks that early speculation on law in India like other branches of grammar, etymology, etc., started in Vedic literature and gained strength as auxiliaries to the Vedas and soon being freed, established as independent subject of human enquiry paying only lip service to the authority of the Vedas.[13]

In reality, the Smṛtis profess to be formal treatises on dharma where the topics of dharma received a formal and connected treatment.[14] Hence, they are of practical value as sources of dharma as law. The Smṛtis provide the stable basis in which structure of dharma is erected. According to M. Rama Jois, the compilation of the Smṛtis resembles the modern method of codification.[15] They contain much relating to civil law and usage. Conventional view refers to that the authority of the Smṛtis came to be recognized being based on the Śruti. It is stated by Jaimini that the fact that the Smṛtis have been compiled by the sages who were the repositories of the revelation, arises the inference of being founded on the Śruti and hence should be regarded as authoritative.[16] Thus the laws gleaned and collected from the memories of the Vedic traditions are preserved in the Smṛti as the recorded wisdom of old. In the Smṛtis only dharma and law can be viewed face to face. The Smṛtis play a great role as sources of dharma as they contain precepts whose authority is beyond dispute but whose meaning is open to various interpretations and has to be determined by ordinary process of reasons.[17]

The third source of Hindu law i.e. custom plays an important role. It is mentioned as sadācāra which mean the custom of the good or śiṣta-ācāra meaning the custom of those who have undergone instructions. The Smṛtis emphasise on the enforcement of custom which supplements the law laid down in it.[18] Lingat expresses the reason behind this source of dharma that there is room to suppose that he who knows the law is guided by it in his conduct.[19] Nārada lays down that custom decides everything and overrules the sacred law.[20] The importance of custom is revealed by Yājñavalkya while saying that one should not perform dharma, which is censured by people even if it is sanctioned in the scriptures.[21] The custom helps to make law dynamic and progressive.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

idānīṃ dharmasya jñāpakahetūnāha- Mitākṣarā on Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 1.7

[2]:

vedodharmamūlam/ tadvidāṃ ca smṛtiśīle/ Gautamadharmasūtra, 1.1.1, 2

[3]:

upadiṣṭo dharmaḥ prativedam/ tasyānu vyākhyāsyāmaḥ/ smārto dvitīyaḥ/ tṛtīyaḥ śiṣṭāgamaḥ/ Baudhāyanadharmasūtra, 1.1.1-4

[4]:

śrutismṛtivihito dharmaḥ/ tadalābhe śiṣṭācāraḥ pramāṇam/ Vaśiṣṭhadharmasūtra, 1.4,5

[5]:

vedo’khilo dharmamūlaṃ smṛtiśīle ca tadvidām/ ācāraścaiva sādhūnāmātmanastuṣṭireva ca// Manusmṛti, 2.6

[6]:

śrutiḥ smṛtiḥ sadācāraḥ, svasya ca priyamātmanaḥ/ samyaksaṃkalpajaḥ kāmo dharmamūlamidaṃ smṛtam// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 1.7

[7]:

Ibid.,1.3

[8]:

Vide, Banerji, S.C., A Brief History of Dharmaśāstra, page2

[9]:

Lingat, R., Op.cit., page7

[10]:

cf., Ṛgveda, 1.124.7;2.17.7; 3.31.1; 4.5.5; 7.5.8; 10.27.12; 10.85; 10.109.5; Atharvavedasaṃhitā, 1.17.1; Taittirīyasaṃhitā,

[11]:

5.2.7; 3.1.9.4; Śathapathabrāhmaṇa, 5.4.4. 5; 11.5.4.18,etc.

[12]:

TU., 11.1.2

[13]:

Swain, B. K., (Edited), The Voice of Verdict, page6

[14]:

Vide, Kane, P.V., Op.cit., Volume1, Part 1, page10

[15]:

Rama Jois, M., Op.cit., page22

[16]:

cf., dharmasya śabdamūlatvādaśabdamanapekṣaṃ syāt// api vā kartṛsāmānyātpramāṇamanunānaṃ syāt// Jaiminīyasūtra, 1.3.1,2

[17]:

Agarwala, R. K., Op.cit., page17

[18]:

Misra, J.R.(revised.), Op.cit., page46

[19]:

Lingat, R., Op.cit., page14

[20]:

Nāradasmṛti,1.40

[21]:

Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 1.156

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: