seem proper to the writer ; and then the writing is sure to be approved of by orthodoxy. Under such circumstances the Epics, different dharma writings, and Purānas received authority among the people.
We What relation do the later writings bear to the Vedas when they differ? The answer to this question at present cannot be given. The fault does not lie with any defect or difficulty of observation of facts. This question itself is yet to be fought out. There are various shades of opinion on this question. A large number of conservative men hold the view, that whatever may be proper in Vedic times is not necessarily proper now. This attitude is, of course, reasonable enough. But conservatism does not have any progressive principles in view when it speaks of the impropriety of applying the Vedic rules to modern society. It does not say that a society has a right to change customs to suit its needs. It asserts a doctrine like this. The people of the Vedic times were mighty and illustrious, while the men of to-day are frail. Though the Vedic sages performed some improprieties like eating beef, it may be proper for them, because those sages had a powers to restore the cow to life. As we weak men of the Age of Discord (kali age) are unable to perform such miracles, we must not follow their example. Conservatism, in fact, upholds the principle that the later writings, like smritis, should be followed. They insist on this for another reason, viz., that the Vedas are too difficult to understand and the explanation of the Vedas by the sacred smriti writers should therefore be accepted. The social reformers who often appeal to the Vedas do so only because therein they generally find doctrines which support opinions which they approve of, and not out of a desire of restoring to the Vedas
