DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0517
THE ELEVENTH LECTURE.
491
very fully treated by the Mimansakas, though not in
the way that modern lawyers handle the subject. The
Mimansakas deal with the subject 'in connection with
their topic of avoiding Anarthakva (meaninglessness).
Regarding patent ambiguity, perhaps there is. this
peculiarity in tire writings of the Hindu lawyers of
old. The latter would not easily take a w*Qrd or
sentence to be self-contradictory or absolutely un-
certain of meaning. Sometimes they virtually trike the
liberty of even correcting the. language by’means of
the Linga, Vakya or the Prhkarana principle. They
give a meaning to such apparently ‘incoherent expres-
sions as “ the, vegetables performed’ sacrifice for ji
session." By what is called the Kaimutika Nyaya
(What and again Maxim), they explain the expression
to mean that man should .certainly perform sacrifices
as even thp vegetables did once on *a time. Then
again, the sentence “there should be no alter of^brick
in the firmament or in the heavens ’’ is not allowed
to be considered as absurd. However, these are met
in the Vedas ; and thus, they must be any how under-
stood in some sense. But, even as regards less sacred
writings, the Smritis, one does not easily meet with
a case in which the digest’writers discarded a text as
being absolutely uncerta*in of meaning or self-contra-
dictory. Even in these da^*s an interpreter of a statute
would not lack the respect due to *\he legislative
authorities, and in deference to such authorities would
not call a spade a sjaade if they found a provision
.of law ridiculously uncertain of meaning. In fact,
the Mimansa writers and modern text writers on ’
interpretation have to pass through similar trials.
491
very fully treated by the Mimansakas, though not in
the way that modern lawyers handle the subject. The
Mimansakas deal with the subject 'in connection with
their topic of avoiding Anarthakva (meaninglessness).
Regarding patent ambiguity, perhaps there is. this
peculiarity in tire writings of the Hindu lawyers of
old. The latter would not easily take a w*Qrd or
sentence to be self-contradictory or absolutely un-
certain of meaning. Sometimes they virtually trike the
liberty of even correcting the. language by’means of
the Linga, Vakya or the Prhkarana principle. They
give a meaning to such apparently ‘incoherent expres-
sions as “ the, vegetables performed’ sacrifice for ji
session." By what is called the Kaimutika Nyaya
(What and again Maxim), they explain the expression
to mean that man should .certainly perform sacrifices
as even thp vegetables did once on *a time. Then
again, the sentence “there should be no alter of^brick
in the firmament or in the heavens ’’ is not allowed
to be considered as absurd. However, these are met
in the Vedas ; and thus, they must be any how under-
stood in some sense. But, even as regards less sacred
writings, the Smritis, one does not easily meet with
a case in which the digest’writers discarded a text as
being absolutely uncerta*in of meaning or self-contra-
dictory. Even in these da^*s an interpreter of a statute
would not lack the respect due to *\he legislative
authorities, and in deference to such authorities would
not call a spade a sjaade if they found a provision
.of law ridiculously uncertain of meaning. In fact,
the Mimansa writers and modern text writers on ’
interpretation have to pass through similar trials.