DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9551#0163
OF BURNING WIDOWS ALIVE.
151
to the law of Munoo, is not commendable,"* in which
the nominative case, "whatever law," as being used in the
singular number, signifies, that in case laws, given by a
single person, stand in opposition to those of Munoo they
are not worthy of reverence, but if several persons differ
from Munoo in any certain point, his authority must be
set aside. I reply. It has been the invariable practice of
ancient and modern authors, to explain all texts of law
so as to make them coincide with the law of Munoo.
They in no instance declare that the authority of Munoo
is to be set aside, in order to admit that of any other
lawgiver. But you have, on the contrary, set aside the
authority of Munoo, on the ground of inconsistence
with the words of two or three other authors. In this
you not only act contrary to the practice of all commen-
tators, but moreover in direct opposition to the authority
of the Ved, for the Ved declares, whatever Munoo lays
down, that is commendable,"f which text you have
yourself quoted in p. 7. And as to what you have said
respecting the words of Vrihusputi .as being in the
-singular number, and therefore only applicable to a case
in which Munoo is opposed by only one lawgiver, it is
obvious that the word "whatever,'' being a general term,
includes every particular case falling under it; and
therefore his law must be followed, whatever number of
authors there may be who lay down a different direction.
And the reason of this is expressed in the former part
of the verse of Vrihusputi, that "Munoo has in his work
collected the meaning of the Veds." From this it
151
to the law of Munoo, is not commendable,"* in which
the nominative case, "whatever law," as being used in the
singular number, signifies, that in case laws, given by a
single person, stand in opposition to those of Munoo they
are not worthy of reverence, but if several persons differ
from Munoo in any certain point, his authority must be
set aside. I reply. It has been the invariable practice of
ancient and modern authors, to explain all texts of law
so as to make them coincide with the law of Munoo.
They in no instance declare that the authority of Munoo
is to be set aside, in order to admit that of any other
lawgiver. But you have, on the contrary, set aside the
authority of Munoo, on the ground of inconsistence
with the words of two or three other authors. In this
you not only act contrary to the practice of all commen-
tators, but moreover in direct opposition to the authority
of the Ved, for the Ved declares, whatever Munoo lays
down, that is commendable,"f which text you have
yourself quoted in p. 7. And as to what you have said
respecting the words of Vrihusputi .as being in the
-singular number, and therefore only applicable to a case
in which Munoo is opposed by only one lawgiver, it is
obvious that the word "whatever,'' being a general term,
includes every particular case falling under it; and
therefore his law must be followed, whatever number of
authors there may be who lay down a different direction.
And the reason of this is expressed in the former part
of the verse of Vrihusputi, that "Munoo has in his work
collected the meaning of the Veds." From this it