Adhyaya 1 Pada 3 of Purva Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini discuss of Authority of Shruti and Smriti and Authority of Shruti being higher than Smriti.
Adhikarana 2 states:
Shruti (Veda) more authoritative than Smrti.
Sutra 3 of Adhikarana 2 states:
When There Is Conflict (Between Veda and Smriti,) The Smriti Should Be Disregarded; Because It Is Only When There Is No Such Conflict That There Is An Assumption (Of Vedic Text In Support Of Smriti).
Shabara Bhasya on this Sutra is as:
The question that arises now is How would it be in cases where there is a conflict between Smriti and Shruti ? For instance
(a) The Smriti rule that the whole of the Udumbara-Post should be covered is in conflict with the Shruti rule that one should sing a Saman, touching the Post [no
touching of the Post is possible when the whole of it is covered with cloth] ;
(b) The Smriti rule that one should remain a Vedic Student for forty-eight years is in conflict with the rule that one should install the Fire when a son is born to him and his hair is still black'. [If a man is to remain a student for 48 years, he would not marry before he is 55 or 56 years old, by which time his hair would cease to be black, and he could not instal the Fire before marriage] ;
(c.) the Smrti -rule that one should not take food at the place of one who has purchased Soma (for the Soma-sacrifice) is in conflict with the Shruti-rule that on the completion of the Agnistoma stage (of the Soma-sacrifice) one should dine at the house of the sacrifice!.
Thus in the above Bhasya we clearly see Smritis are in contradiction with Shruti. There are also such contraction due to motives of Greedy persons. Hence Sutra 4 of Adhikarana 2 states:
Also Because We Find Motives.
Shabara Bhasya on this Sutra is as:
(a) Some greedy priests being desirous of having a large piece of cloth, covered up the whole of the Post at a certain performance ; tliis was what gave rise to the Smrti-rule (that the whole post should be covered up). (b) Some greedy Priest took food at the house of the Sacrificer after he had purchased the Soma [and this gave rise to the Smrti-rule permitting such eating]. (c) Some people, with a view to conceal their want of virility, remained Religious
Students for forty-eight years ; and this is what gave rise to the Smrti-rule permitting such a course. [For this reason also, no authority can attach to the Smrti which is found to have its source in such motives.
And Hence the Adhikarana 3 states that:
No authority attaches to Smrtis prompted by worldly motives.
And Sutra 4 of Adhikarana 3 states:
If Worldly Motives Are Discernible The Smriti Rules Cannot Be Regarded as Trustworthy.
Shabara Bhasya on Sutra 4 states:
There are such Smrti-rules as (a) 'The cloth used at the Vaisarjana Homa is to be taken by the Adhvaryu priest ', and (6) They should give away the cloth covering the Post '. In regard to the authoritative character
of these, the Purvapaksa view is that they are authoritative, because the agent is the same (as declared in Sutra 1. 3. 2)." The Siddhanta view however is that such Smrti-rules cannot be regarded as authoritative ; because at the root of these there is something totally different (from motives of Dharma) ; the fact being that some people did such an act through greed, and this gave rise to the Smrti. This view (rejecting the authority of such Smrtis) is more reasonable than the assuming of Vedic texts in their support.
But when such no motives can be detected Smriti rules can be called Useful. Hence the Sutra 7 of Adhikarana 4 states:
But When No Motive Can Be Detected, They Should Be Recognised As Useful.
Shabara Bhasya on this Sutra is as:
The right view is that when Smriti texts like those under consideration are such as are not found to have been prompted by an improper motive, they must be accepted as authoritative. But they are found to militate
against the prescribed order of sequence and the prescribed time." Let them militate against it; that does not violate their authority; because the rinsing of the mouth is an act, while the order of sequence is only a quality of (accessory to) the act; and an act cannot be omitted for the sake of an accessory. Further, it is only when the acts are already done that the order of sequence comes in subsequently ; so that at the time that the acts appear there is no order present, with what then will the acts be in conflict ? [Hence there is nothing against the authority of the Smrti-rule in question.] Similarly, if with a view to guard against the transgression of time, one were to cease to act with the right hand only, in this case also considerations of time should not alter the form of the act [i.e. the act to be done by the right hand should not be done by the left] ; because Time is only a subsidiary factor in the performance and auxiliary to it ; and hence for the sake of the Time, the Act should not be disturbed. Further, acting with the right hand and wearing the sacrificial thread constitute purity (or cleanliness), and such things are not regarded as interruptions at all; because purity or cleanliness is a necessary adjunct to all actions. From all this it follows that the Smrti-rules relating to all these acts Rinsing, Using the Right Hand, Wearing the Sacrificial Thread and the like are authoritative (trustworthy).
