DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0049
NEW MATERIALS FOR HISTORICAL STUDY OF HINDU LAW,
Lecture and other authoritative books/ all other practices having
111 to be stopped by the sovereign power. In another chapter
of the untranslated part of the Smritichandrika which
precedes the chapter on Degadharma almost immediately
the following climax is established. When the Veda (Cruti)
and the sacred tradition (Smriti) are mutually opposed to
one another, the Veda shall prevail. Custom (Achara), and
the verdict passed by an assembly 4of learned Brahmans
(Parislidclvachanain) may be overruled both by the Veda
and by the Smriti. Among several conflicting Smriti texts,
a text of Manu shall prevail, etc. This shows as distinctly
as possible that the Smriti is placed above custom in the
Sniritichandrika, and the same remark applies to the other
Sanskrit treatises. Nor would there be any necessity for
setting up customary against written law, as the peculiar
method of interpretation followed by the Indian Jurists
would enable them to dispose of all such rules as were
opposed to the established usage of their own epoch and
native country. They might say that such laws, though
adapted for the golden age of the early sages, were no
longer fit to be practised in the present (Kali) age of sin, or
that, although consonant with religion, they were abhorred
by the people, or that they were meant as mere explana-
tory statements (Arthavada) and not as laws, or that
a certain practice, though morally wrong, was legally valid,
etc. Elsewhere than in India, too, it has been found easier
to explain an old law away than to abolish it, and tricks
of interpretation analogous to those invented by the Indian
Pandits have been resorted to by the jurists of several
European countries.
References the old texts themselves, the superiority of the Smriti
to custom to custom naturally enough is not accented so strongly as
s'nr'itis ln the m0(terP works. The Smriti writers, especially the
earlier ones,2 did not consider themselves as inspired authors,
though they we?;e regarded in this light by the commen-
tators. They acknowledge the Smriti generally as a prin-
cipal source of the Sacred Law, and they mutually quote
one another, Bn? the teaching of one man was not consi-
dered as absolutely binding on all the rest like the precepts
of the Veda, and these writers may be frequently seen
engaged in controverting the opinions held by their prede-
1 ^if^vmvifh^n
2 See Buhler, Sacred Books, II, Introduct.
Lecture and other authoritative books/ all other practices having
111 to be stopped by the sovereign power. In another chapter
of the untranslated part of the Smritichandrika which
precedes the chapter on Degadharma almost immediately
the following climax is established. When the Veda (Cruti)
and the sacred tradition (Smriti) are mutually opposed to
one another, the Veda shall prevail. Custom (Achara), and
the verdict passed by an assembly 4of learned Brahmans
(Parislidclvachanain) may be overruled both by the Veda
and by the Smriti. Among several conflicting Smriti texts,
a text of Manu shall prevail, etc. This shows as distinctly
as possible that the Smriti is placed above custom in the
Sniritichandrika, and the same remark applies to the other
Sanskrit treatises. Nor would there be any necessity for
setting up customary against written law, as the peculiar
method of interpretation followed by the Indian Jurists
would enable them to dispose of all such rules as were
opposed to the established usage of their own epoch and
native country. They might say that such laws, though
adapted for the golden age of the early sages, were no
longer fit to be practised in the present (Kali) age of sin, or
that, although consonant with religion, they were abhorred
by the people, or that they were meant as mere explana-
tory statements (Arthavada) and not as laws, or that
a certain practice, though morally wrong, was legally valid,
etc. Elsewhere than in India, too, it has been found easier
to explain an old law away than to abolish it, and tricks
of interpretation analogous to those invented by the Indian
Pandits have been resorted to by the jurists of several
European countries.
References the old texts themselves, the superiority of the Smriti
to custom to custom naturally enough is not accented so strongly as
s'nr'itis ln the m0(terP works. The Smriti writers, especially the
earlier ones,2 did not consider themselves as inspired authors,
though they we?;e regarded in this light by the commen-
tators. They acknowledge the Smriti generally as a prin-
cipal source of the Sacred Law, and they mutually quote
one another, Bn? the teaching of one man was not consi-
dered as absolutely binding on all the rest like the precepts
of the Veda, and these writers may be frequently seen
engaged in controverting the opinions held by their prede-
1 ^if^vmvifh^n
2 See Buhler, Sacred Books, II, Introduct.