Sankara would have had little difficulty in denying that they could have been written by a rishi, as we shall see in the next section that he contradicts the opinion that the rishi Kapila, referred to in the Svetāśvatara Upanishad, was the author of the Sankhya aphorisms.

SECT. XI.-Distinction in point of authority between the Veda and the Smritis or non-Vedic S'astras, as stated in the Nyāya-mālā-vistara, and by the Commentators on Manu, and the Vedānta, etc.; difference of opinion between S'ankara and Madhusudana regarding the orthodoxy of Kapila and Kanāda, etc.; and Vijnāna Ehikshu's view of the Sänkhya.

A distinct line of demarcation is generally drawn by the more critical Indian writers between the Vedas, and all other classes of Indian Sastras, however designated. The former, as we have seen, are considered to possess an independent authority and to be infallible, while the latter are regarded as deriving all their authority from the Veda, and (in theory at least) as infallible guides only in so far as they coincide with its dicta. This will be clear from the following passages:

I. Nyaya-mala-vistara.-The first text which I adduce has been already quoted in the Second Volume of this work, but is repeated here for facility of reference. It is from the treatise just named, i 3, 24:

Baudhāyanāpastambāśvalāyana-kātyāyanādi-nāmānkitāḥ kalpa-sūtrādi-granthaḥ nigama- nirukta-shaḍ-anga-granthaḥ Manv-ādi-smṛitayaś cha apaurusheyaḥ dharma-buddhi-janakatvāt veda-vat | na cha mula-pramanasāpekshatvena veda-vaishamyam iti śankanīyam | utpannāyāḥ buddheḥ svataḥ-prāmānyāngīkārena nirapekshatvāt | Maivam | uktānumānasya kālātyayāpadishṭatvāt | Baudhāyana-sūtram Āpastamba-sūtram ity exam purusha-nāmnā te granthāḥ uchyante | na cha Kāṭhakādi-samākhyā-vat; pravachana-nimittatvam yuktam | tad-grantha-nirmāṇa-kāle tadānīntanaiḥ kaiśchid upalabdhatrat | tach cha avichhinna-pāramparyena anuvarttate | tataḥ Kālidāsādi-grantha-vat paurusheyāḥ | tathāpi veda-mūlatvāt præmānam.... kalpasya vedatvam nādyāpi siddham | kintu prayatnena sādhanīyam | na cha tat sādhayitum śakyam | paurusheyatvasya samākhyaya tat-karttur upalambhena cha sādhitatvāt |

"It may be said that the Kalpa Sūtras and other works designated by the names of Baudhayana, Apastamba, Âśvalayana, Kātyāyana, etc.,

and the Nigama, Nirukta, and six Vedāngas, together with the Smritis of Manu and others, are superhuman, because they impart a knowledge of duty, as the Vedas do; and that they should not be suspected of inferiority to the Vedas on the ground that they depend upon a primary authority, since the knowledge which they impart is independent, because it is admitted to be self-evidencing. But this view is incorrect, for the inference in question proceeds upon an erroneous generalization. The books referred to are called by the names of men, as 'the Sūtras of Baudhāyana,' 'the Sūtras of Ãpastamba;' and these designations cannot correctly be said to originate in the exposition of the works by those teachers whose names they bear (as is really the case in regard to the Kāṭhaka, and other parts of the Veda); for it was known to some of the contemporaries of these men, at the time when they were composing these Sutras, Smritis, etc., that they were so engaged; and this knowledge has descended by unbroken tradition. Hence these books are, like the works of Kālidāsa and others, of human origin. Nevertheless, they possess authority, as being founded on the Veda." . . . The following additional remarks represent the opinion of the Guru (Prabhakara) on the same question: "It is not yet proved that the Kalpa Sutras possess the character of the Veda; it would require great labour to prove it; and, in fact, it is impossible to prove it. For the human origin of these books is established by the names which they bear, and by their being observed to have had authors."

II. Kulluka.-The same thing is admitted by Kullūka, the commentator on Manu, who (in his remarks on i. 1) thus defines the relation of his author to the Vedas:

Paurusheyatve 'pi Manu-vākyānām avigīta-mahājana-parigrahāt śrutyupagrahāch cha veda-mūlakatayā prāmānyam | Tathā cha chhandogyabrahmane śruyate "Manur vai yat kinchid avadat tad bheshajam bheshajatāyai” iti | Vṛihaspatir apy āha "Vedārthopanibandhṛitvāt prādhānyaṁ hi Manoḥ smṛitam | Manv-artha-viparītā tu yā smṛitiḥ sā na śasyate | Tāvach chhāstrāṇi śobhante tarka-vyākaraṇāni cha | Dharmārtha-mokshopadeshṭā Manur yāvad na dṛiśyate” | Mahābhārate'py uktam “Purānam Mānavo dharmaḥ sāngo vedaś chikitsitam | ajnā-siddhāni chatvāri na hantavyāni hetubhiḥ" | virodhi-Bauddhādi-tarkair na hantavyāni | anukūlas tu mīmām̃sādi-tarkuḥ pravarttaniyaḥ eva | ata eva vakshyati “ārsham dharmopadeśam cha veda-śāstrāvirodhinā | yas tarkeṇānusandhatte sa dharmam veda netaraḥ" iti |

"Though the Institutes of Manu had a personal author, still, as their reception by illustrious men of unimpeached [orthodoxy], and their conformity to the Veda, prove that they are based upon the latter, they are authoritative. Accordingly it is recorded in the Chhandogya Brāhmana that, 'Whatever Manu said is a medicine for remedial purposes.' And Vṛihaspati says: As Manu depends upon the contents of the Veda, he is traditionally celebrated as pre-eminent. But that Smriti which is contrary to the sense of Manu, is not approved. Scriptures and books on logic and grammar are all eclipsed as soon as Manu, our instructor in duty, and in the means of attaining both earthly prosperity, and final liberation, is beheld.' And it is said in the Mahabharata: 'The Purānas, the Institutes of Manu, the Veda with its appendages, and treatises on medicine, these four, which are established by authority, are not to be assailed by rationalistic arguments;' that is, they are not to be attacked by hostile reasonings, such as those of the Bauddhas. But friendly arguments, such as those of the Mīmānsakas, are to be employed. And accordingly we shall find below (Manu xii. 106) that he says, 'the man who investigates the injunctions of the rishis, and the rules of duty by reasoning which is agreeable to the Veda, he, and he only, is acquainted with duty."" (See above, p. 24, note 29.)

III. Nyāya-mālā-vistara.—But the precepts of the Smriti are not considered useless or superfluous. On the contrary, an authority is attributed to them corresponding to the antiquity, elevated position, and sacred character of their supposed authors. Thus the author of the Nyaya-mala-vistara says (i. 3, 3):

Vimatā smṛitir veda-mūlā | vaidika-manv-ādi-pranīta-smṛititvāt | upanayanādhyayanādi-smṛiti-vat | na cha vaiyarthyam śankaniyam | asmadādīnām pratyaksheshu paroksheshu nānā vedeshu viprakīrnasya anushṭheyārthasya ekatra sankshipyamāṇatvāt |

"The variously understood Smriti is founded on the Veda, because the traditions, such as those regarding investiture, study, etc., have been compiled by Vedic men, such as Manu and others. Nor is it to be surmised that the Smriti is useless, since it throws together in a condensed form a variety of injunctions regarding matters to be observed, which are scattered through different Vedas, both such as are visible and such as are invisible to us." (This last expression appears

to refer to the supposition that some parts of the Veda which Manu and others had before them when compiling their own works have now been lost. See Müller's Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 103-107.)

Accordingly the Smritis have an authority superior to that founded merely on the practice of learned men of modern date, who have no intuition into the past and invisible. Thus the Nyāya-mālā-vistara says (i. 3, 19):

Na hi idānīntanāḥ śishṭāḥ Manv-ādi-vad deśa-kāla-viprakrishtam vedam divya-jnānena sākshātkarttum śaknuvanti yena sishṭāchāro mūla-vedam anumāpayet

"For learned men of the present day do not possess the power, which Manu and others had, of placing before their minds, through divine knowledge, the Veda which is far removed from them both in place and time, so as to justify us in regarding the practice of these moderns as a sufficient ground for inferring the existence of a Veda as its foundation."

But as learned men, in any particular country or at any particular time, may be able to consult some Smriti which authorizes their particular observances, "these observances may serve as ground for inferring the existence of some Smriti on which they are founded, but not for inferring a Veda (tasmāch chhishṭāchārena smṛitir anumātum śakyate na tu śrutiḥ). But a Smriti which is thus merely inferred to exist is set aside by any visibly existing Smriti of contrary import (anumitā cha smritir viruddhayā, pratyakshayā smṛityā bādhyate).”

IV. S'ankara.-The above passages, by assuming that Manu and other eminent sages had the power of consulting Vedic texts now no longer accessible, make them practically almost infallible. The same view is taken by Sankara Acharyya. (Sce, however, the passage quoted from him above, in note 67, p. 62; but there he has the author of the Sankhya in view, whose tenets he regarded as contrary to the Veda.) In answer to the remark of a Mīmānsaka objector stated in the comment on the Brahma Sutra i. 3, 32, that the Itihāsas and Purānas, being of human origin, have only a derived and secondary authority (itihāsa-purānam api paurusheyatvāt pramänāntara-mūlatām ākānkshate'), Sankara argues in his explanation of the following Sutra (i. 3, 33) that they have an independent foundation:

Itihasa-puranam api vyākhyātena märgena sambhavad manträrthavuda.

mūlatvāt prabhavati devatā-vigrahādi prapanchayitum | pratyaksha-mūlam api sambhavati | bhavati hi asmākam apratyaksham api chirantanānām pratyaksham | tathā cha Vyāsādayo devatābhiḥ pratyaksham vyavaharanti iti smaryate | yas tu brāyād idānīntanānām iva pūrveshām api nāsti devādibhir vyavaharttum sāmarthyam iti sa jagad-vaichitryam pratishedet | idānīm iva cha na anyadā 'pi sārvabhaumaḥ kshatriyo'sti iti brūyāt tataś el a rājasuyādi-chodanāḥ uparundhyāt | idānīm iva cha kālāntare 'py avyavasthitaprāyān varṇāśrama-dharmān pratijānīta tataś cha vyavasthā-vidhāyi śāstram anarthakam kuryāt | Tasmād dharmotkarsha-vaśāt chirantanāḥ devādibhiḥ pratyaksham vyajahrur iti ślishyate | api cha smaranti “svādhyāyādishṭa-devatā-samprayogaḥ” ityādi | yogo 'py animādy-aiśvarya-prāptiphalakaḥ smaryamāno na śakyate sāhasa-mātrena pratyākhyātum | śrutiś cha yoga-māhātmyam prakhyāpayati | "prithvy-ap-tejo-'nila-khe samutthite panchatmake yoga-gune pravṛitte | na tasyo rogo na jarā na mṛityuḥ prāptasya yogād 158 nimisham śarīram" iti | ṛishīnām api mantra-brāhmaṇa-darśinām sāmarthyam na asmadīyena sāmarthyena upamātum yuktam | tasmat sa-mulam itihasa-purānam |

For there

"The Itihasas and Puranas also, having originated in the way which has been explained, have power, as being based on the hymns and arthavādas, to evince the corporeality, etc., of the gods. It is also reasonable to suppose that they are founded upon intuition. were things palpable through intuition to the ancients, though they are not thus palpable to us.150 Accordingly it is recorded in the Smriti that Vyasa and others associated face to face with the gods.16 160 Any man

158 Instead of yogūd nimisham the text of the Biblioth. Indica reads yogāgnimayam. 159 See above, pp. 116, 118, and 127; and also Prof Müller's article on the Vaiseshika Philosophy in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. vii. p. 311, where it is remarked that the Vaiseshikas, like Kapila, include the intuition of rishis under the category of pratyaksha (ārsham jnānam sūtra-kṛitā pṛithak na lakshitam yogi-pratyakshe 'ntar-bhāvāt).

160 Compare with this R. V. i. 179, 2: Ye chid hi pūrve ṛitasāpaḥ āsan sākam devebhir avadann ṛitāni | te chid avāsur ityādi | "The pious sages who lived of old and who conversed about sacred truths with the gods,—they led a conjugal life," etc. See also the passages quoted from the Vana-parvan of the Mahābhārata, the S'atapatha Brāhmaṇa, and Plato in the First Volume of this work, p. 147; and compare Hesiod fragment 119 : ξυναὶ γὰρ τότε δαῖτες ἔσαν, ξυναὶ δε θόωκοι ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι καταθνήτοις τ ̓ ἀνθρώποις.

"Immortal gods, not unfamiliar, then

Their feasts and converse shared with mortal men."

And Herodotus writes of the Egyptians, ii. 144 : Τὸ δὲ πρότερον τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων