DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0353
THE SIXTH LECTURE. 327
altar. This the)7 make out in the following way.
They say that there is a virtual conflict between the
second text and the first, in as much as the first text
by the clause ‘atra upavapanti prescribes the kindling
of the fire ) on the northern altar in all the four
ceremonies, the second text prohibits the northern altar
in two of the ceremonies. They proceed to hpld, that
by reason of this contradiction option is given, and
we would take' advantage of this option to make the
northern altar in Vaishwadeva and Sunasiri just as
in the two others.
The Mimansakas say that this argument con-
stitutes (Vidhi vaishamya) inconsistency of legal rules.
This is a fault and can not be allowed.
The Mimansakas put the fallacy as follows :
They say that the opponents once .read the first text
(the general Vidhi) as subject to the exception contained
in the second text. They read it again as an absolute
rule side by side with the second text which is read
equally as an absolute rule creating contradiction.
They get the fire by the first view and the altar by the
second view. This is bad and cannot be tolerated.
The tussle between Srikara Misra and Jimuta-
vahana as exhibited by the latter, very largely
illustrates how Mimansa principles are respected and
applied by Hindu Jurists.-* The two authors fight over
the construction of certain te'kts of Yajnavalkya
regarding the right of succession as between united
and separated, and as between uterine and half-brothers.
With reference to the text, 'The united brother
succeeds' and the text ‘The uterine brother succeeds’,,
Srikara Misra argues that to make out from these
altar. This the)7 make out in the following way.
They say that there is a virtual conflict between the
second text and the first, in as much as the first text
by the clause ‘atra upavapanti prescribes the kindling
of the fire ) on the northern altar in all the four
ceremonies, the second text prohibits the northern altar
in two of the ceremonies. They proceed to hpld, that
by reason of this contradiction option is given, and
we would take' advantage of this option to make the
northern altar in Vaishwadeva and Sunasiri just as
in the two others.
The Mimansakas say that this argument con-
stitutes (Vidhi vaishamya) inconsistency of legal rules.
This is a fault and can not be allowed.
The Mimansakas put the fallacy as follows :
They say that the opponents once .read the first text
(the general Vidhi) as subject to the exception contained
in the second text. They read it again as an absolute
rule side by side with the second text which is read
equally as an absolute rule creating contradiction.
They get the fire by the first view and the altar by the
second view. This is bad and cannot be tolerated.
The tussle between Srikara Misra and Jimuta-
vahana as exhibited by the latter, very largely
illustrates how Mimansa principles are respected and
applied by Hindu Jurists.-* The two authors fight over
the construction of certain te'kts of Yajnavalkya
regarding the right of succession as between united
and separated, and as between uterine and half-brothers.
With reference to the text, 'The united brother
succeeds' and the text ‘The uterine brother succeeds’,,
Srikara Misra argues that to make out from these