DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0509
4§3
)
THE ELEVENTH LECTURE.
mine what intention is conveyed, either expressly or
by implication, by the language used, so far as it is
necessary for determining whether the particular case
or state of facts presented to the interpreter falls
within it. Whep the intention is expressed, the task
is one of verbal construction only ; but’ when the
statute expresses no intention on a question to which
it gives rise, and yet some intention must necessarily
be hnputed to the Legislature regarding it, the inter-
preter has to determine it by ^inference grounded on
cartain legal principles.’'1 >
Now on going through the opening passage of*the
commentary of Savara you will find that, Savara
Bhasya, in effect, says the same thing, though in a
discoursive and argumentative fashion. He says that
a mere reading of the Vedas is not sufficient. After
one has read the Vedas, he must try to realise the
intention of it. Ajrd then the Swarni > raises the ques-
tion that if the intention is once realised as being that
of teaching Dharma, what is the need of further efforts
to interpret the Vedas ? To this he answers that,
whether a given act agrees with the intention of the
Veda or not, requires explanation.
He says :—
“Even if the Veda has beqn proved to be the only
means of knowing duty,—with regard to the ascertain- -
ment of the meaning of Vedic passages, there is no
agreement among learned people (kit. 'people knowing
many things’), on account of various (kinds of) doubts.
Some say “this is the meaning”;—some, “not
that, but this,”—and it is also for the settlement
i. Maxwell p. i. (Third edition.) >
) /"
)
)
THE ELEVENTH LECTURE.
mine what intention is conveyed, either expressly or
by implication, by the language used, so far as it is
necessary for determining whether the particular case
or state of facts presented to the interpreter falls
within it. Whep the intention is expressed, the task
is one of verbal construction only ; but’ when the
statute expresses no intention on a question to which
it gives rise, and yet some intention must necessarily
be hnputed to the Legislature regarding it, the inter-
preter has to determine it by ^inference grounded on
cartain legal principles.’'1 >
Now on going through the opening passage of*the
commentary of Savara you will find that, Savara
Bhasya, in effect, says the same thing, though in a
discoursive and argumentative fashion. He says that
a mere reading of the Vedas is not sufficient. After
one has read the Vedas, he must try to realise the
intention of it. Ajrd then the Swarni > raises the ques-
tion that if the intention is once realised as being that
of teaching Dharma, what is the need of further efforts
to interpret the Vedas ? To this he answers that,
whether a given act agrees with the intention of the
Veda or not, requires explanation.
He says :—
“Even if the Veda has beqn proved to be the only
means of knowing duty,—with regard to the ascertain- -
ment of the meaning of Vedic passages, there is no
agreement among learned people (kit. 'people knowing
many things’), on account of various (kinds of) doubts.
Some say “this is the meaning”;—some, “not
that, but this,”—and it is also for the settlement
i. Maxwell p. i. (Third edition.) >
) /"
)