Karma Mimansa

SR No.: 011104
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Berriedale Keith
Publisher: Berriedale Keith
Publication Year: 1921
Total Pages: 121
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 6 MB

Page 107

98
THE KARMA-MIMAMSA
with which his father, Sarikara Bhatta, had dealt. The parallelism, indeed, of the two enquiries only became the more salient as with the course of time the number of Smstis and other texts claiming authority increased, and the ideal of reconciling their conflicting views was more and more strongly held. All the devices necessary for such an end existed in the Mimāmsā, and we can understand from this reason why it was not thought necessary or desirable to develop a distinct science of legal interpretation.
Thus the essential doctrine of injunction in civil law is based on the principles adopted in the Mimāmsā, and in the interpretation of the various kinds of injunction the civil law adapts to its own special needs the maxims of the sacred law. The distinction between injunction proper and a restrictive injunction (niyama) is applied in the sense that the latter is reduced to nothing more than a maxi1g or rule, which ought to be regarded, but which, if violated,does not render the action affected invalid; thus Manu's rule as to marrying an amiable and healthy girl is not an injunction, the violation of which renders void the marriage, but a counsel of prudence. The case of an injunction of limitation (parisamkhyā) raises difficulties, as there arises in regard to it the question whether or not it is to be deemed to imply a prohibition ; thus, when the injunction is laid down that the sons may divide the family property on the death of their parents, Jimūtavāhana puts the question whether it is to be inferred that they may do so only on the death of their parents, a view which he rejects.
Negative injunctions also raise a point of legal importance in the relation of probibition proper, and a mere exception (paryudāsa). Thus the general law of the succession of a son and other heirs is subject to the exclusion from succession of persons impotent, outcaste, lame, blind, and suffering from incurable diseases, who are entitled to maintenance merely. The negation in their case is essentially to be treated as an exception to the general rule of succession ; it, therefore, applies only to persons so circumstanced at the moment when the succession wald normally vest, and, therefore, if successors become so afflicted after becoming entitled to the succession, the rule does not in any