DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9551#0164
I52 SECOND CONFERENCE ON THE PRACTICE
follows, that whatever law is inconsistent with the code
of Munoo, which is the substance of the Ved, is really
inconsistent with the Ved itself, and therefore inadmis-
sible. Admitting the justice of your explanation of
Vrihusputi's text, that the authority of any individual
lawgiver, who inconsistent with Munoo, must be set
aside, but that when several authorities coincide in laying
down any rule inconsistent with his law, they are to be
followed, one might on the same principle give a new
explanation to the following text :—
"The person who attempts to strike a Brahmun goes
to the hell called Sutnuyat, or of a punishments ; and he
who actually strikes a Brahmun, goes to the hell of
Suhusruyat, or a thousand punishments."*
Here, also, the noun in the nominative case, and that
in the accusative case also, are both in the singular
number ; therefore, according to your exposition, where
two or three persons concur in beating a Brahmun, or
where a man beats two or three Brahmuns, there is no
crime committed. There are many similar instances
of laws, the force of which would be entirely frustrated
by your mode of interpretation.
You have argued in the second place that the practice
of Concremation is authorized by a text of the Rig Ved,
and consequently the authority of Munoo is superseded
by a higher authority. I reply. In the 12th line of the
9th page of your tract, you have quoted and interpreted
a text of the Veds, expressing "that the mind may be
purified so as to seek a knowledge of God from which
absorption may accrue, by the performance of the daily
follows, that whatever law is inconsistent with the code
of Munoo, which is the substance of the Ved, is really
inconsistent with the Ved itself, and therefore inadmis-
sible. Admitting the justice of your explanation of
Vrihusputi's text, that the authority of any individual
lawgiver, who inconsistent with Munoo, must be set
aside, but that when several authorities coincide in laying
down any rule inconsistent with his law, they are to be
followed, one might on the same principle give a new
explanation to the following text :—
"The person who attempts to strike a Brahmun goes
to the hell called Sutnuyat, or of a punishments ; and he
who actually strikes a Brahmun, goes to the hell of
Suhusruyat, or a thousand punishments."*
Here, also, the noun in the nominative case, and that
in the accusative case also, are both in the singular
number ; therefore, according to your exposition, where
two or three persons concur in beating a Brahmun, or
where a man beats two or three Brahmuns, there is no
crime committed. There are many similar instances
of laws, the force of which would be entirely frustrated
by your mode of interpretation.
You have argued in the second place that the practice
of Concremation is authorized by a text of the Rig Ved,
and consequently the authority of Munoo is superseded
by a higher authority. I reply. In the 12th line of the
9th page of your tract, you have quoted and interpreted
a text of the Veds, expressing "that the mind may be
purified so as to seek a knowledge of God from which
absorption may accrue, by the performance of the daily