The Smrt is which are outside (the pale of) the Veda, and those (others) in which there is bad vision, are all useless after death, because they have been declared as based solely on ignorance".
The [Puranas] also indicate how the state fo society deteriorated with the rise and spread of the heresies (especially Buddhism and Jainism) and the reign of the Nandas, Mauryas and other ['Sudra'] monarchs. Under these circumstances it became extremely risky for a conscientious law-giver to be as much strict as Gautama, [Baudhayana] and others with regard to the recognition of the secondary sources of Dharma, because such strictness might result in the stagnation and death of the Hindu society. So, like certain authorities, [Vyasa] (as quoted by Devanabhatta) found it necessary to accord partial recognition to one more secondary sources of Dharma, because such strictness might result in the stagnation and death of the Hindu society. So, like certain authorities, [Vyasa] (as quoted by Devanabhatta) found it necessary to accord partial recognition to one more secondary source of Dharma, viz., [sadhvacara] (usages of virtuous men), and said:
"dharma-[mulam vedam [ahur] grantha-[ra'sim] akrtrimam.
[tadvidam] smrti-['sile] ca [sadhvacaram] manah-priyam//
"(The authorities) declare to be the source of Dharma the Veda which is a nonspurious mass of works, and (also) the tradition and practice of those who known it, and (such) usages of virtuous men (as are) pleasing to (one's)mind".
Manu went a step farther and declared :
"vedo 'khilo dharma-[mulam smrti-['sile] ca tad[-vidam]/
[acara's] caive [sadhunam [atmanas] tustir eva ca //"
(Manu-smrti 2.6)
"The entire Veda is the source of Dharma; and the tradition and practice of those who know it; and also the usages of virtuous men, and self-satisfaction".
It will be notice that besides mentioning the Veda as the first and foremost source of Dharma, [Vyasa] and probably also some others named three more sources by imposing limitations on the third, but Manu was liberal enough to give full recognition to four, vix., (i) 'Smrti' and (ii) ['Sila'] of those learned in the Veda, (iii) ['Acara'] of virtuous men, and (iv) one's ['atma-tusti'], in which every succeeding one was meant, when necessary, for supplementing the immediately preceding one. That is to say, for the validity of those rites and customs which could not be traced in the Veda, the ['Smrti'] of those learned in the Veda was to be looked into; if this ['Smrti'] was found insufficient for the purpose, the ['Sila'] of these persons (i.e., of those learned in the Veda) was to be referred to; if their [''Sila'] also did not become helful in meeting the situation successfully, the ['Acara'] of virtuous men was to be looked into; and in cases where '[Acara'] also failed to lead the enquirer to a decision, one's own satisfaction was the last resort. Thus [Sarvajnanarayana] says:
"[vedavidam] [ya] smrtih [vakya-vi'sesa-vivaksotpadikartha-vi'sese] [visaya-cinta tat-prabhavatvat] [vakyam] [api smrtih]/ veda 'nepalabhyamane sa dharme pramanam/tasya apy anupalambhe yatra vedavidam bahunam 'silam cittasya svabhava-pravanata sapi dharma-mulam/ .... .... .... [tasyapy anupalambhe uktam acara iti/ .... .... .... .... yatracaro 'pi nopalabhyate tatraha atmana iti]/.
In explaining the significance of the term 'Smrti', Manu said clearly that by 'Smrti' he meant the 'Dharma-'sastra' which was composed by those learned in the Veda and was quite different from the 'extra-Vedic Smrtis (veda-ba-hyah smrtayah). So, there can be little doubt about the fact that Manu did not look upon the [Puranas as 'Smrti' works and as sources of Dharma, although he, like Gautama and others, favoured the study of these works for a thorough knowledge of the Veda and a correct understanding and practive of Dharma. The reason for this attitude of Manu towards the [Puranas] seems to be that Manu was a staunch follower of the Vedas and that the earlier [Puranas] (which, according to the 'Satapatha-brahmana, Chandogya-upanisad, etc., formed a part of 'Svadhyaya' and with which Manu must have been familiar) did not deal with Smrti-matter in an appreciable degree and the comparatively late sectarian ones, which might have been known to him in the early course of their development, dealt with a composite Dharma which was looked upon as inferior to the Vedic. However, the high authority and wide popularity of the Manu-smrti, to which Brhaspati, [Kumarila] and others amply testify, encouraged a section of Smrti-writers to ignore the [Puranas] as a source of Dharma even in much later days when these works came to attain a position of great respect and high authority among the peoplw, literate or illiterate. Thus, [Vi'svarupacarya], who flourished as late as between 750 and 1,000 A.D. and drew profusely upon a large number of Smrti works in his commentary on the [Yajnavalkya-smrti], did not quote a single line from, or refer even on a single occasion to, any [Purana], although the [Yajnavalkya-smrti], on which he wrote his commentary, named the [Puranas] as one of the [sthanas] (places of occurence) of Dharma and was one of the two authorities utilised by the [Nibandha]-writers for accepting the [Puranas] as a source of Dharma.
As to the works to be included in the ['Dharma-'sastra'] Manu said nothing,nor did he, like [Yajnavalkya], ['Sankha-Likhita], [Yama], [Paithinasi] and others, give any list of the same. We are only told that after compiling this ['Sastra Brahma] himself imparted it in its entirety to Manu, who, in his turn, taught it to [Marici] and other sages. So, according to the Manu-smrti itself, this work was the original source from which the other wroters of Dharma-'sastra drew their materials.
The word [''sila'] has been taken by Nandana to mean thos equalities of one's own self which earn for one honour from good men, Laksmidhara, [Kulluka-bhatta, [Hemadri], [Cande'svara], [Mitrami'sra] and others take it to mean the moral qualities (viz., adroha, anugraha, anasuyata, priyavadita, krtajnata, etc.) enumerated in the two passages quoted by these Smrti-writers from [harita] and the [mahabharata] ; [Medhatithi], [Govindaraja], [Devanabhatta] and some others, again, take it to mean the abandoing of love, hate, etc. (raga-dvesa-prahana, raga-dvesa-parityaga, raga-dve'sadi-varjana). But none of these explanations seems to be plausible, because most of the moral qualities enumerated by these Smrti-writers are of human interest and universal appeal and have to be appreciated and practised without any consideration of the persons in whom these may be found. It cannot be that all these qualities deserve appreciation and practive only when they are found in scholars learned in the Veda (cf. smrti-sile ca tad-vidam). It is, therefore, more probable that, like Gautama, Manu also used the word ['sila'] to mean [''sistacara'] (i.e., the practice of those who studied and learnt the Veda and assiduously performed the acts prescribed by it). According to Narasimha [Vajapeyin], this word means the natural aversion to (and non-performance of) the prohibited acts. He says :
"[silam smrti-'sruti-pratyaksa-drsta-paripalanam svabhava-krtam/yat tu bharate 'adrohah sarva-bhutanam' ityadi 'sila-laksanam uktam, yacca haritena 'brahmanyata deva-pitr-bhaktata saumyata] ......................... [aparusyam' ityady uktam 'silatvena, tatra brahmanyata abrahmanyata-vyavr-ttit ityevam nisedha-paripalana-param eva/ upalaksanam caitat/nisedha-vyavrtti-matram 'silam ityeva tattvam/
In his [Acara-sara Gadadhara] also gives the same meaning of the word [''sila'], saying :
" ['silam 'sruti-smrti-pratyaksa-drsta-nisedha-vyatirikta-nisedha-paripalanam svabhava -krtam / yatha bhojana-vyatirekena maya udakam na peyam ityadi/ ............................. Yat tu bharate 'adrohah sarva-bhutanam' ityadi 'sila-laksanam, yacca haritenoktam 'brahmanata deva-pitr-bhaktata' ityadi, tat sarvam upalaksanam ity avadheyam/".
However, the reason for Manu's use of thsi word in the above-mentioend sense seems to be that, like [Vyasa] and other authorities referred to by him, Manu wanted to distinguish between two kinds of [Acara] (viz., the Acara of the 'Sistas, and that of the [Sadhus] mentioned below), so that the strict followers of the vedic way of life might not find any difficulty in determining their own duties more correctly in accordance with the prescriptions of the Veda. As a matter of fact, Manu himself wanted people to be careful about purity of Dharma and pointed out to them the right way of discrimination, saying:--
"Pratyaksam [canumanam ca 'sastram ca vividhagamam/
trayam suviditam [karyam dharma-'suddhim abhipsata]//
[arsam dharmopade;sam ca veda-'sastr-avirodhina]/
[yas tarken-anusamdhatte sa dharmam veda netarah]//"
"Desiring purity (or correct knowledge) of Dharma, one should make the (folloing) three well-known (to himself)-Perception (i.e., Veda), Inference (i.e., Smrti), and the Scripture (viz., Mimamsa) that yields various kinds of knowledge (of Dharma).
"He (alone), and none else, knows Dharma, who examines the Veda (which was revealed to sages) and (the Smrti which embodies) the instructions on Dharma by ratiocination not going against the scripture in the form of the Veda". [Kumarila], [Medhatithis],[Laksmidhara], [Kukkuka-bhatta], [Cande'svara] and many others take the words' pratyaksa' and '[anumana],', occurring in the first verse, to mean 'perception' and 'inference 'respectively, which are two of the several modes of proof. But from the mention of '[Arsa]', etc., in the second verse we feel inclined to take these two words to mean 'Veda' and 'Smrti' respectively. According to the [Mimamasakas] the Veda is ['pratyaksa'] and the Smrti is ['anumana']; and going to prescribe the method of effecting purity of Dharma (dharma-'suddhi) [Vyasa says :
"dharma-'suddhim abhipsabdhir na vedad anyad isyate/
[dharmasya karanam 'sudham mi'sram anyat prakirtitam]//
[atah sa paramo dharmo yo vedad avagamyate/
avarah sa tu vijneyo yah puranadisu sthitah//"
"Nothing other than the Veda is wanted by those who desire purity of Dharma. (The Veda) is the Pure source of Dharma ; others are called composite.
"So, the Dharma, which is known from the Veda, is the best; but that (Dharma), which is contained in the [Puranas], etc., is to be known as inferiror."
According to [Kulluka-bhatta] the word '['sastram'] (occurring in the first of the two verses of Manu quoted above) means 'Smrti, etc., whcih are based on the such works as 'Smrti, Purana, [Itihasa], etc.' ('sastram ca punah vividhagamam smrti-puranetihasadini .. .. ..) ; but [Sarvajnanarayana and Raghavananda] take it to mean the Veda ('sastram veda-rupam 'sastram 'sabdajam-Sarva-jnanarayana ; 'sastram hito padestr vedakhyam -Raghavananda).
The word 'vividhagamam' has been interpreted by different authorities thus:
" 'sastre vividha-vidhi-pratisedhat tasya vividho 'nekaprakara agamo yatr-agamyate sa agamah/ bahu-'sakhatvad vedasya 'sruti-smrti-bhedena ca vividhatvam uktam" (Medhatithi);
"vividhah 'sruti-smrtitihasa-purana-rupa agamo yasya jnanasya karanam tad vividhagamam/" (Laksmidhara) ;
"vividha [agamah 'sruti-smrtyadi-rupah karanataya yasya" (Cande'svara) ;
"[agacchanti jayanta ity agamah smrti-puranarthah, tair nana-vidhaih sahitam ......" (Sarvajnanarayana) ;
"vividhagamam 'sabdatvavacchinnnam bauddha-vakyetara-[puranadayo vividhagamah ......" (Raghavananada) ;
"vividhagamam bahu-kartrkam" (Nandana) ;
and so on.
In the second verse [Medhatithi] takes ['arsam'] to be an adjective to ['dharma-pade'sam'], totally ignoring the word 'ca', and explains these terms thus : "rsir vedas tatra bhava [arsah]/ dharmopade'so yo vaidikah". Like [Medhatithi, Laksmidhara also takes ['arsam'] to mean ['vaidikam'] ; but [Apararka] gives 'smrti-puranadi'] and ['vedah'] as equivalents for ['arsam'] and ['upade'sah'] respectively. [Cande'svara] seems to follows [Apararka], when he gives ['rsi-pranitam'] as the synonym for ['arsam']. [Sarvajnanarayana] grees with [Candev'sara] in taking ['arsam'], to mean ['rsi-pranitam smrty-adi'] (Smrti, etc. compiled by sages); but unlike [Medhatithi, he takes the word ['dharmopade;sam'] to be an adjective (meaning 'containing instructions on Dharma') to ['arsam'] (and not vice versa). Although [Kulluka-bhatta is more logical in his interpretation [drstavad arsam] and 'dharmopade'sam (which he explains thus : [rsi-drstavad arsam vedam, dharmopade'sam ca tan-mula-smrtyadikam) he cannot be said to be perfectly right in takin 'dharmopade'sam to mean 'Smrti, etc.' We have already seen that Manu did not recognise the [Puranas] (including the Mahabharata and the Ramayana) as sources of Dharma ; nor can the word 'upade'sa' (which is suggestive of written texts) be taken to mean ''sila' (practice), ['acara'] (usages) and ['atma-tusti'] (self-satisfaction), which have been mentioned by Manu as sources of unrecorded (anibaddha) Dharma. So, the word 'dharmopade'sa' should be taken to mean 'Smrti' only (and not 'Smrti, etc.' as said by [Kulluka-bhatta). [Raghavananda] and [Nandana take the words ['arsam'] and ['dharmopade'sam'] to mean 'the Veda' and 'the Dharma-'sastra' respectively ('rsir mantra-drasta munis tad-ukto vedah/ dharmopade'sam dharma-'sastram many adi/'-Raghavananda ; 'arsam vedam rsibhih stutavat/ .... .... .... dharmopade'sam dharma-'sastram .... .... ....'-Nandana).
The word ['sadhu'], as occurring in the verses "vedo 'khilo dharma-mulam" and "dhrma-mulam vedam ahuh' of Manu and Vyasa respectively, has been taken by Devanabhatta to mean the 'Sistas (sadhavah 'sistah). According to [Medhatithi], [Govindaraja], [Laksmidhara] and others also, who quote the former verse only, this word has the same meaning. But from the mention in [Vyasa's verse, referred to above, that only those usages of [Sadhus] which please one's mind (sadhvacaram manah-priyam) are to be regarded as one of the secondary sources of Dharma, it is sure that according to [Vyasa] and others the [Sadhus] were different from the ['Sistas], who, as we have already seen, were such persons as learnt and studied the Veda and assiduouslyperformed the acts prescribed by it and whose traditions and practices, being thus taken to be rooted in the Veda, were regarded as authorities on Dharma. In commenting on the expression ['acara's] caiva [sadhunam'] occurring in the verse of the [Manusmrti] (2.6) [Sarvajnanarayana] takes the word ['sadhu'] to mean persons engaged in the performance of acts in accordance with the Veda and regards the ['Acara] (practice) of such persons to be inferior to [''Sila'] on account of the possibility of suspicion about the correctness of the tradition on which this [Acara] is based. [Mitrami'sra] also suggest an alternative explanation in which he differs from [Laksmidhara] (whom he follows in his first explanation), takes the word ['acarah'] with ['sadhunam'], and says that if these two words are taken together, then the practiceof virtuous ['Sudras] and other (sacchudradyacarah) becomes an authoritative source of knowledge of Dharma to their sons and other descendants. This meaning of the word ['sadhu'], as suggested by [Sarvajnanarayana] and [Mitrami'sra], finds strong support in the verse of [Vyasa] referred to above and agrees remarkably with the state of the contemporary Hindu society and cannot, therefore, be rejected as implausible. As a matter of fact, Manu distinguished more clearly than [Vyasa] between two classes of reliable members of the Vedic fold, viz., those who studied and learnt the Veda adn zealously performed the acts prescribed by it, and others who, though lacking knowledge of the Veda (avedavit), were faultless (ksina-dosa) in respect of their character, conduct, attainments, and high regard for everything Vedic. We have already said how the chages in the social, religious and political history of India prior to the days of Manu created a stiuation in which there was a remarkable increase in the number of the latter class of members of the Vedic fold. So, in spite of his decided inclination for the Veda, Manu could not reject the unathorised but ancient and widely popular customs and usages (acara) of thsi class of people as unlawful and thereby create disruption in the Hindu society to the advantage of the anti-Vedic religionists. However, in making this distinction between the followers of the Veda, Manu had also to distinguish between their peculiar but widely accepted practices (acara) of long standing and to set up two different standards for judging their acceptability. The reasond for making this distinction appears to have been as follows. The peculiar but widely accepted customs and usages (acara) of those who studied and learnt the Veda and also habitually followed its prescriptions, could be presumed to have been derived from some Veda or Smrti, even though these were not tracable in any existing Vedic or Smrti work. But the faultless personms lacking knowledge of the Veda but belonging wholeheartedly to the Vedic fold could have no'smrti' (recollection) of their own due to their want of direct perception of the VEda; they were dependent on the traditions and practices of the ['Sistas] for the authority of those of their own. So, their peculiar but widely popular practices, for which no basis could be found even in those of the 'Sistas, were distant from ''Sista-smrti' or ''Sistacara' by one step more and were consequently weaker than the peculiar customs and usages of the latter. It was due to this distinction between the two classes of [Acara] that Manu praised only ''Sruty-ukta' and 'Smarta' 'Acara as 'Parama Dharma' in the following verse :
[acarah paramo dharmah 'sruty-uktah smarta eva ca]/
[tasmad asmin sada yukto nityam sayd atmavan dvijah]//
"It is the practices declared in the 'Sruti and also those having their origin (direct) from Smrti (recollection) which are transcendental law ; therefore, a twice-born man, desiring his own welfare (almavan), should always be engaged in (following) these".
It should be mentioned here that being connected with persons having first-hand knowledge of the Veda, ''Sila' (or ''sistacara') also is to be included in 'Smarta Acara'. The 'Sistas are such persons as have studied and learnt the Veda and assiduously perform the acts prescibed by it. So, even those of their practices which cannnot be traced to any available Veda or Smrti, must be presumed to have been based on some Vedic passage now lost sight of. Thus, [Medhatithi] says :
"['sistanam] ya [acarah] so 'pi dharme [mulam/acaro vyavaharah anustha-nam/yatra 'sruti-smrti-vakyani na santi 'sista's ca dharma-buddhya anutisthanti tad api vaidikam eva purvavat pratipattavyam/yuatha viva-hadau kankana-bandhanadi mangalikatvena yat kriyate, ya ca kanyayas tad ahar vivahayisyamanayah prakhyata-vrksa-yaksa-catuspathadi-puja de'sa-bhedena, tatha cuda-sankhya-de'sa-bheda's ca, ya catithyadinam gurvadinam canuvrttih priya-hita-vacanabhivadanabhyutthanadi-rupa, tatha pr'sni-suktam trna-panayo 'dhiyate a'svamedham a'svam yatha samarpayantah / idr'sa acarah]/"
"The 'practice of cultured men' also is 'source of Dharma'. 'Practive' means 'conduct, behavious'. When, in regard to any action, there are no Vedic or Smrti statements, but cultured men are found to regard it as 'Dharma' and do it, -then that act also should be accepted as 'enjoined by the Veda' just like the act prescribed in the Smrti. To this category belong such acts as the following - (a) the tying of the bracelet and such other auspicious rites performed during marriage, etc., (b) the worshipping of famous trees, Yaksas, road-crossings and such things, varying in various countries, done by the girl on her day of marriage, (c) the number of hair-locks kept on the head, varying with different countries ; (d) the exact manner of attending on guests, teachers and other respectable persons, consisting in addressing of sweet and agreeable words, saluting, rising to receive and so forth; for instance, it is customary with some people to recite the [Pr'sni-sukta] with grass in hand, when handing over the horse consecrated for the [A'svamedha] sacrifice. It is such customs that are meant by 'Practice' here."
The above-mentioned verse of Manu has been translated by Mm. Dr.P.V.Kane in a considerably different way. His rendering of this verse is as follows :
"[acara (customs and usages) are transcendental law, and so are the practices declared in the Veda and the Smrti ; therefore a twice-born person desirous of his own welfare should always make efforts to follow it".
Dr. Kane further says: "This has been the basic text in modern decisions that recognise the binding nature of customs. It is therefore necessary to understand the exact meaning of this verse. Two constructions are possible ;(1) that the word [acara] is qualified by the words [''srutyukta'] and ['smarta'] and that the firs half declares that usages declared in the veda or Smrti are transcendental law (this is the meaning given by most commentators of Manu); (2) that [acara] by itself and other rules of conduct declared in the 'sruti or smrti are transecendental (i.e. here in the first half of the verse there is a reference to three kinds of [acaras], as Govindaraja and Nandana explain). If we look tot eh preceding verse and the following verses (that eulogise acara), the 2nd construction looks more natural and has been accepted by the decided cases when they lay down that immemorial usage is transcendental law (Sir William Jone's translation of Manu 1. 108) and theat "under the Hindu system of law clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of the law." The [Anu'sasana] (14165) and ['Santi 354.6 expressly state that dharma is threefold, viz., that declared in the Veda, that declared in the Smrtis and the thrid is what is practised by 'Sistas. Sumantu emphatically declares that family usage should be preferred to the prescriptions of ['sastra]. Teh [Kurma-purana (Uttarardha 15.19) appears to support the 2nd interpretation when it says, 'one should observe that [acara] which is declared by the 'sruti and smrti and which is rightly followed by the good'."
Against the abvoe translation of Dr. P.V.Kane and the statements made by him in support of it the following points may be put forward for careful consideration :
(i) Among the verses praising [Acara] in Chapter 4 of the Manu-smrti, there is one (4.155) whcih runs as follows :
'sruti-smrty-uditam samyan nibaddham svesau karmasu/
dharma-mulam niseveta sadacaram atandritah//
"Let him, untired, follow the conduct of good men, connected with his occupations, which has been fully declared in the revealed texts and in the sacred tradtion (smrti) and is the root of the sacred law."
In this verse it is only ['Acara] of good men' 'declared in the 'Sruti and the Smrti' which has been said to be 'the root (or cause) of Dharma.' With this verse may be considered three others, viz., Manu-smrti 2.9 (in which the practive of ''sruti-smrty-udita dharma', and not of ['acara'], has been praised), 2.10 (in which the 'Sruti and the Smrti have been said to be the two unquestionable sources from which Dharma came out in its entirety), and 2.11 (which decries one who disregards the two sources of Dharma, viz., 'Sruti and Smrti). It is to be noted that although [Acara] (of virtuous men) has been recognised in Manu-smrti 2.6 and 12 as one of the sources of Dharma, it has not been given the same importance as the 'Sruti and the Smrti in the three verses referred to above. So, it is more reasonable to hold that in Manu-smrti 1.108 ''srutyukta' and 'smarta' [Acara] only have been praised as 'Parama Dharma'.
(ii) In the verse preceding Manu-smrti 1.108 (acarah paramo dharmah etc.) quoted above, Dharma and eternal [Avara] (presumably comprising 'Srutyukta, Smarta, and ordinary [Acara] coming down from time immemorial) have been mentioned separately as treated of in the Manu-smrti ; and in the two verses following verse 108, [Acara] has been praised generally. So, there is nothing in these verses which may indicate that in verse 108 three kinds of [Acara] have been praised as Parama Dharma. On the other hand, the general mention of [''sa'svata acara'] in verse 107 without any specification of it, tends to show that in verse 108 ['Srutyukta] and [Smarta Acara] have been distinguished from ordinary [Acara] of immemorably long standing.
(iii) Neither [Govindaraja] nor Nandana takes verse 108 to mean three kinds of [Acara]. The former regards 'Srutyukta and [Smarta Acara] as Parama Dharma and distinguishes them from 'Srauta and [Smarta] Dharma. The latter, on the other hand, comments on this verse, saying :
"dharma eva nih'sreyasa-sadhanam tasmat sa eva vaktavyah kim
[acareneti ced atraha acara iti /'srutyukto 'gni-hotra-homadih]'
[smarto 'stakadih /asmims traye " (Nandana's commentary, as given in Jolly's Manu-tika-samgraha, adds ''srauta-smartacaranam' after 'traye').
From Nandana's words it is evident that he does not distinguish between three kinds of [Acara] but takes the words ''srutyukta' and 'smarta' to mean 'Srauta and [Smarta] Dharma respectively. So, according to him, it is the 'Srutyukta-dharma, [Smarta-dharma and [Acara] whcih are to be regarded as Parama Dharma. This view of Nandana is also evident from his comment on Manu-smrti 4.155, in which he says:
"svesu karmasu nibaddham svani karmani varna'srama-prayuktani kurvan dharma-mulam dharmasya mulam / dharma-mulatvam ca 'acara prabhavo dharmah 'srutyuktah smarta eva ca ' ity atra pratipaditam /."
(iv) The recongnition given to 'Sistacara as a kind of Dharma in [Anu'sasanaparvan 141.65 is nothing new or striking, nor does it prove that 'Srauta and Smarta Dharma are to be deemed weaker that 'Sistacara. We have already seen that [Baudhayana] also recognised 'Sistagama (i.e. 'Si'stacara) as a kind of Dharma but gave it the third place.
(v) The line
'sadacarah smrtir vedas trividham dharma-laksanam' of the 'Santiparvan (259.3) does not say anything new, because in the Manu-smrti (2.12) also we find the following verse-
[vedah smrtih sadacarah svasya ca priyam atmanah]/
[etac caturvidham prahuh saksad dharmasya laksanam]//
(vi) It is true that in the verse
[tasmin kula-kramayatam acaram tv acared budhah/
sa gariyan mahabaho sarvo-'sastroditad api]//
Sumantu is found to be in favour of regarding family usage as more powerful than the prescriptions of 'Sastras, but we must not forget that Sumantu (especially the author of the metrical Dharma-'sastra) was a comparatively late Smrti-writer. His comparatively late origin is shown by the facts that his name occurs neither in the lists of Smrti-wrriters given by [Yajnvalkya] and [Para'sara] nor in those ascribed to Yama, Angiras, 'Sankha-Likhita and others in the Smrti-nibandhas, and that among the early Smrti-writers it is only [Yajnavalkya and Sumantu] who are found to recoginse the [Puranas] as records of Dharma (dharmasya sthanani, dharma-vyavastha-pravartakani). We have already seen that in none of the extant works on Dharma down to the Manu-smrti, the [Puranas] were recognised as a source of Dharma. Moreever, the 'Sruti and the Smrti only in comparatively late days when many of the customs and usages enjoined in the Vedas and teh earlier Smrtis went out of vogue. For instances of such customs and usages we may refer to the system of levirate (niyoga), the acceptance of a 'Sudra wife by aBrahmin, and so on, and especially to the Kali-varjyas mentioned in different works.
(vii) The verse of the [Kurma-purana] (ii. 15. 19)-
['surti-smrty-uditah samyak sadhubhir ya's ca sevitah]/
[tam acaram niseveta nehetanyatra karhicit]//
recommends the careful practive of three kinds of [Acara] (viz., 'Srutyudita, Smrtyudita and Sadhu-sevita) and advises people not to strive for the practive of those [Acaras] which do not fall under these categories, and in these respects there is complete agreement between the [Kurma-Purana] and the Manu-smrti. But we find nothing in the above-mentioned verse of the [Kurma-Purana] whcih may indicate that these three kinds of [Acaras] are to be regarded as transcendental law (Parama Dharma).
From what has been said above it is evident that Manu was not in favour of giving equal importance to all kinds of [Acara] prevailing among the followers of the Veda but made a distinction between them in accordance with the nature of acquaintance of these followers with the Veda, and this attitude of Manu towards the different kinds of [Acara] is perfectly in agreement with his attitude towards the [Atharva-veda] as shown above(in Part I of the present essay).
As regards self-satisfaction (atmanas tustih), which has been mentioned by Manu as the fifth source of Dharma, it may be said that it relates to both the classes of the Vedic people metioned above, viz., those who studied and learnt the Veda and assiduously performed the acts prescribed by it, and others who, though lacking knowledge of the Veda, belonged wholeheartedly to the Vedic society. Thus, in case of doubt about the acceptability either of a particular rite, custom or usage of long standing which found no support in the authorities on Dharma prescribed by Manu for the different classes of people metined above or of any of the two or more alternative provisons made in the Veda or Smrti on a praticular matter, these people were to follow the dictation of their own mind so long as it was not influenced by any feeling of love, hatred, etc.
The enumeration of the fice sources of Dharma, as found in Manu-smrti 2.6 (vedo'khilo dharma-mulam etc.), must not be taken to be in disagreement with Manu's mention of the fourfold 'dharma-laksana' in the following verse of the Manu-smrti (2.12):
[yedah smrtih sadacarah svasya ca priyam atmanah]/
[etac catur-vidham prahuh saksad dharmasya laksanam]//
"The Veda, Smrti, practive of good men, and what is agreeable to one's ownself-these constitute the fourfold direct means of knowing Dharma".
This latter verse embodies a general statement of Manu, in which no provision has been made by the author from a practical point of veiw for distinction between the different grades of usages (acara) prevailing in the Aryan society and consequently the word 'sat' has been used to mean both the 'Sistas and the [Sadhus] who had high regard for the Veda.
Manu's recognition of the different sources of Dharma, as explained above, shows how, in spite of his remarkable inclination for the Veda, he took the problems of the different classes of members of the Vedic society into consideration and made provisions for them with an eye to the tendencies of the age in which he lived and wrote. Although Manu's sincere regard for the Veda did not allow him to be as much liberal in his outlook as his age required of him, it must be admitted that his contribution to the life and growth of the Hindu society against way to the further growth and expansion of the Hindu society and the Smrti literature. But unfortunately most of the commentators of Manu's work as well as the Nibandha-writers appear to have misunderstood his views and to have interpreted his statements according to their own ideas and mode of thinking. Thus, in explaining the verse "vedo'khilo dharma-mulam, etc." of the Manu-smrti (2.6) [Medhatithi] takes the terms 'smrti' and ''sila' as interrelated and the word 'tadvidam'as an adjective to ['sadhunam'], connects the latter word (sadhunam) with ['smrti-'sile'], ['acarah'] and ['atmanas tustih'], and puts forth the view that the persons whose recollection (smrti), practive (acara) and self-satisfaction (atma-tusti) are to be regarde as roots of Dharma, must have all the three following cahracteristic features :
(a) they must be versed in the Veda (tadvidam),
(b) they must have 'Sila (i.e. freedom from love and hatred-raga-dvesa-prahana), and
(c) they must be righteous and be habitually engaged in carrying out the injunctions of the Veda (sadhu).
So, according to [Medhatithi], none other than those who are learned in the Veda and assiduously perform the acts prescribed by it, deserves any consideration in the matter of recognition of the roots of Dharma other than the Vedas. Thus, [Medhatithi] puts forward a very strict view which follows that of Gautama and other early authorities and, in consideration of the time in which he lived, can rightly be said to be regressive, rather than progressive. [Medhatithi] was followed more or less by many of his successors, of whom [Govindaraja], [Laksmidhara], [Kulluka-bhatta], [Hemadri], [Cande'svara], [Raghavananda], [Naandana], [Mitrami'sra] and several others deserve special mention. These Smrti-writers connect the word ['tadvidam] with 'smrti-'sile' as well as ['acarah'], and ['sadhunam'] with ['atmanas tustih'] and thus recognise as a source of Dharma the [Acara] of only those who are learned in the Veda. But we should not overlook the four verses of the Manu-smrti (2.17-20) in which Manu says:
"The region lying between the divinde rivers [Sarasvati] and [Drsadvati] which has been created by the gods, -they call ['Brahmavarata'].
"That practice (acara), which has come down through an unbroken line of tradition among the several castes and sub-castes in that country, is called the 'practice of good men' (sadacara).
"Next to [Brahmavarta] is the Brahmarside'sa comprising the regions of Kuruksetra, Matsyas, [Pancalas] and ['Surasenakas].
"All men on the earth should learn their respective duties from the Brahmins born in these countries".
It may be mentioned here that neither all the members of all the Aryan castes and sub-castes in [Brahmavarta] not all the Brahmins of Brahmarside'sa could be expected to be versed in the Veda, yet Manu recognised their hereditary practice as an authority on Dharma.
Similar statements have been made by other Smrti-writers also, of whom [Baudhayana] says :
"(The country, lying) to the east of (the place of) disappearance (of the river Sarasvati), to the west of [Kalakavana], to the south of the Himavat, and to the north of the [Pariyatra] (mountaing),is [Aryavarta]. The practice (prevailing) there, is an authority.
"Some (say) that [Aryavarta] is the tract of land lying] between the (rivers) [Ganga and Yamuna]".
Vasistha also says:
"[Aryavarta] (lies) to the east of the [Adar'sa] (mountain), to the west of [Kalakavana], to the north of the [Pariyatra] (mountain, and) to the south of the Himavat.
"(According to others, it lies) to the north of the Vindhya (range).
"Those duties and customs which (prevail) in that country, are to be recognised (as authoritative) everywherem,
"but not the other duties whcih are almost like those going against the descending order of castes (?).
"(People) call this (country) [Aryavarta].
"And some (declare it to situated) between the (rivers) [Ganga] and [Yamuna]."