2023-05-31 04:00:46 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
INTRODUCTION
it written on its pate that the sastras should speak about an
unnecessary thing and then say it is unnecessary? As the
Mahabarata puts it : Why touch the mud and clean it?
Better keep away from and not touch mud at all. "
If it is argued that the rule in Mimāmsā, (VI. 5. 19) that
the later passages are more potent and kill the earlier ones is
to be applied here, no! The rule is not of universal application.
Besides, the earlier knowledge that a thing exists here cannot
be stultified by the later statement that it is not.
-
(Note. The rule is exemplified in the following case. In
the Prātassavana sacrifice, there are five priests who officiate,
the "Adhvaryu", "Prastotri", Pratihartri", "Udgătṛi "
and 'Brahmā '. When starting a prayer
When starting a prayer they move one
behind another, each taking hold of the girdle of the priest
immediately before him. The sacrificer in turn has to take
hold similarly of the 'Brahma' priest. It is laid down that
if the Udgatri' accidentally lets go his hold, the sacrifice
should be finished without distributing dakshina to the priests.
It has to be started afresh and the dakshina prescribed in that
case is that already prescribed. But if the 'Partihartri' lets go
his hold, the dakshina prescribed is the whole wealth of the
sacrificer. What is to happen, if both the 'Prastotri' and
'Udgatri' should lose hold, one soon after another? The rule
is that the penalty prescribed in the later case is to prevail.
Here, the penalties prescribed are opposed to each other and
cannot be reconciled, and hence the rule.)
When there is a breaking (of the chain of priests) round
the sacrificial fire, and this rule becomes relevant, the weakness
of the earlier injunction is due to the fact that the later
injunction cannot arise without wiping away the earlier one.
Here (such a later statement) is said to arise. How to apply the
rule here? The mention of the gunas and the denial of the
gunas are not opposed to each other. Each may exist with-
out contradicting the other. It may be argued that the
passages denying attributes (to God) conceal (or obliterate)
that part (of the scriptures) which affirms qualities, on
account of the former passages being later. In that case,
even the portion (of the Vedas) dealing with the nature of the
Brahman may be stultified by the statement,
"The (ultimate)
47
it written on its pate that the sastras should speak about an
unnecessary thing and then say it is unnecessary? As the
Mahabarata puts it : Why touch the mud and clean it?
Better keep away from and not touch mud at all. "
If it is argued that the rule in Mimāmsā, (VI. 5. 19) that
the later passages are more potent and kill the earlier ones is
to be applied here, no! The rule is not of universal application.
Besides, the earlier knowledge that a thing exists here cannot
be stultified by the later statement that it is not.
-
(Note. The rule is exemplified in the following case. In
the Prātassavana sacrifice, there are five priests who officiate,
the "Adhvaryu", "Prastotri", Pratihartri", "Udgătṛi "
and 'Brahmā '. When starting a prayer
When starting a prayer they move one
behind another, each taking hold of the girdle of the priest
immediately before him. The sacrificer in turn has to take
hold similarly of the 'Brahma' priest. It is laid down that
if the Udgatri' accidentally lets go his hold, the sacrifice
should be finished without distributing dakshina to the priests.
It has to be started afresh and the dakshina prescribed in that
case is that already prescribed. But if the 'Partihartri' lets go
his hold, the dakshina prescribed is the whole wealth of the
sacrificer. What is to happen, if both the 'Prastotri' and
'Udgatri' should lose hold, one soon after another? The rule
is that the penalty prescribed in the later case is to prevail.
Here, the penalties prescribed are opposed to each other and
cannot be reconciled, and hence the rule.)
When there is a breaking (of the chain of priests) round
the sacrificial fire, and this rule becomes relevant, the weakness
of the earlier injunction is due to the fact that the later
injunction cannot arise without wiping away the earlier one.
Here (such a later statement) is said to arise. How to apply the
rule here? The mention of the gunas and the denial of the
gunas are not opposed to each other. Each may exist with-
out contradicting the other. It may be argued that the
passages denying attributes (to God) conceal (or obliterate)
that part (of the scriptures) which affirms qualities, on
account of the former passages being later. In that case,
even the portion (of the Vedas) dealing with the nature of the
Brahman may be stultified by the statement,
"The (ultimate)
47