Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1? See Chap. V, 1. 5 See Chap. VI, 2-4. EPISTLE I, CHAPTER VIII, 7—IX, 7. 313 there is one he is unsuitable!? 5. And when it should be to them as z¢ were proper that, apart from . the hands, the other? customary farts (pisakd) should be washed once by them, would Afarg have said it is proper, because washing them three times is not mentioned in the Avesta? 6. And when it would have been as z¢ weve proper that the three hundred pebbles (sang) should not de cast into the water and bull’s urine, would Afarg’s teaching have said that it is proper‘, because there is not a single use for a pebble (sagt#ak5)? 7. And when it would be as z¢ were proper that ke who is washed at the ablution seats (mak) at which any one has been washed during the length of a year, is not injured thereby—only they shall take them away and they are again deposited —would Médyék-mah’s teaching have said that it is proper, because, when the stones (sagd) are again deposited by one, z¢ is to effect the cleansing (vistarisnd) of some one, 1 The writer says he does not understand this argument of his correspondents, because it differs from the view he takes in Chap. VI, 2, but it must be confessed that the meaning of the passage in dispute (Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 5) is not very clear, as the word ash4yed, ‘he is unsuitable,’ can also be read ae sh&yed, ‘he would be suitable,’ both there and in our text. * K35 has one line blank here, but this was probably owing to the state of the paper, or some inadvertence of the copyist; as it is evident that none of the text is omitted. * Compare Chap. VI, 9-11. — * Compare Chap. VII, 16-18. ® This shows that the places for ablution during the Bareshnim ceremony were, a thousand years ago, the same as now, namely, stones deposited on the ground, not holes dug in the ground, as directed in Vend. IX, 13, 14,16. They are, in fact, the stones or hard material directed to be deposited at the holes in Vend. IX, 29, 30, but they go by the old name for the holes (magh). 314 EPISTLES OF MANOsKTHAR.
2IX, 13, 14,16. They are, in fact, the stones or hard material directed to be deposited at the holes in Vend. IX, 29, 30, but they go by the old name for the holes (magh). 314 EPISTLES OF MANOsKTHAR. and when a shower of rain occurs thereon so ¢hat the whole place shall be thoroughly wetted, inside and outside, it is proper? 8. And if some one says that this is the case of a rite by a teaching of authority, and the rule is by a teaching of private authority, is not the whole rite by any teaching proper, that comszsts in this washing which is thoroughly preserved as they keep z¢ in practice? ?’ 9. The reply is even this, that every rite (niréng) is to be performed zz such manner as ¢hat which is said fo de most preservative, and most connected with the declaration of revelation azd the testimony of the high-priests concerning it. 10. And not for the reason that Médyék-mdh’s ¢eaching is more preservative? as to one rite, and after that something of Afarg is more preservative, is the operation to be performed by the statement of Médydk-mah ; éut whatever is the more preservative of Médyékmah’s is collected from Médyék-méh, all the more preservative of Afarg from Afarg, azd that which is the more preservative of azy other high-priest from that which /as the most preservative approval of the high-priest. 11. That which those high- _ priests ave said, which they decide by just authority, is the commandment of the learned of the realm, which has lawfully arisen over the provinces (shéh4r4nd); but even that statement opposing it whch is much testified and manifestly more of a deliverance, or which is declared as an exposition 1 This string of arguments appears to be quoted from the epistle to which the writer is replying, but as they are separated from their context it is difficult to understand the exact line of argument, or to be sure that they are translated correctly. * From pollution or sin. EPISTLE I, CHAPTER IX, 8-15. 315 of the teaching of high-priests of the religion in a dissimilar case, they shall then! wholly accept, and ¢hey are to perform the operation authorisedly and preservatively thereby.
3* From pollution or sin. EPISTLE I, CHAPTER IX, 8-15. 315 of the teaching of high-priests of the religion in a dissimilar case, they shall then! wholly accept, and ¢hey are to perform the operation authorisedly and preservatively thereby. 12. This, too, I so consider, ‘hat even if each separate teaching should be as z¢ were proper, it would then not be determined by them as to the impropriety of the purifying cup, for Médydk-m4h has stated, only as z¢ was apparent to him, that every singlé customary fart is to be washed for three times?, and has not specifically determined that when all shall be so once .it is not proper. 13. By the special teaching of Médyék-mah and the washing which is in the law that says—concerning those interpreting revelation—that whoever becomes quite polluted shall thoroughly wash by that law, so that his deng washed is to be considered as Jeng washed, it (the rite) is not performed by me if, also, that other high-priest Zas said, that every one who becomes quite polluted, avd washes not by the law of the primitive faith, is not to be considered as washed. 14. Then, too, in the special teaching of Médydk-méh 7¢ is not said, of that washing which is washed by the law of those of a portion of the religion (parak-din64n), that it is not proper. 15. He who washes by the law of those of the primitive faith, which many high-priests maintain as excellent, because it is suitable, amd imagines that regarding the threefold washing it should be said that it is not proper, even he—when he also 1 That is, when the dissimilar case arises, or when it is manifestly more efficient. * See Chap. VI, 7. 316 EPISTLES OF MANOsKfHAR. has become of the same opinion as to this, that the statements of the high-priests are on an equality, and the most evidence of the high-priests is the vight course—would have attained to confidence about this, that in a doubtful matter ¢here should be a high-priest!, and also that of which Afarg and Séshans ave alike understood a similar thing is proper. CuaptTer X. 1. And as fo the many other matters to which an explicit reply is not written by me—be it the determinableness of it, be it the flow of zzward prayer ?, be it the pouring of the water, and likewise the rest which is written 40 me—the statements, when deliberation and conjecture about such arrangements become needful, are not 4o de made unto the multitude, but wséo the priestly at once®. 2. And this much, also, which is written by me is on this account‘, ‘kat when a writing has come to you which is the purport of my re-explanation, and tt has seemed that it is written after we//-weighed (sakhtak6) observations °, even so they wou/d cause some of those of good desires to understand, who are thoughtful friends of the soul azd observers of 1 To consult about the matters in doubt. ® Reading vag-régisndih; but J omits the first letter, and thereby converts the word into apardasaisnth, ‘ want of leisure.’
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1? See Chap. V, 1. 5 See Chap. VI, 2-4. EPISTLE I, CHAPTER VIII, 7—IX, 7. 313 there is one he is unsuitable!? 5. And when it should be to them as z¢ were proper that, apart from . the hands, the other? customary farts (pisakd) should be washed once by them, would Afarg have said it is proper, because washing them three times is not mentioned in the Avesta? 6. And when it would have been as z¢ weve proper that the three hundred pebbles (sang) should not de cast into the water and bull’s urine, would Afarg’s teaching have said that it is proper‘, because there is not a single use for a pebble (sagt#ak5)? 7. And when it would be as z¢ were proper that ke who is washed at the ablution seats (mak) at which any one has been washed during the length of a year, is not injured thereby—only they shall take them away and they are again deposited —would Médyék-mah’s teaching have said that it is proper, because, when the stones (sagd) are again deposited by one, z¢ is to effect the cleansing (vistarisnd) of some one, 1 The writer says he does not understand this argument of his correspondents, because it differs from the view he takes in Chap. VI, 2, but it must be confessed that the meaning of the passage in dispute (Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 5) is not very clear, as the word ash4yed, ‘he is unsuitable,’ can also be read ae sh&yed, ‘he would be suitable,’ both there and in our text. * K35 has one line blank here, but this was probably owing to the state of the paper, or some inadvertence of the copyist; as it is evident that none of the text is omitted. * Compare Chap. VI, 9-11. — * Compare Chap. VII, 16-18. ® This shows that the places for ablution during the Bareshnim ceremony were, a thousand years ago, the same as now, namely, stones deposited on the ground, not holes dug in the ground, as directed in Vend. IX, 13, 14,16. They are, in fact, the stones or hard material directed to be deposited at the holes in Vend. IX, 29, 30, but they go by the old name for the holes (magh). 314 EPISTLES OF MANOsKTHAR.
2IX, 13, 14,16. They are, in fact, the stones or hard material directed to be deposited at the holes in Vend. IX, 29, 30, but they go by the old name for the holes (magh). 314 EPISTLES OF MANOsKTHAR. and when a shower of rain occurs thereon so ¢hat the whole place shall be thoroughly wetted, inside and outside, it is proper? 8. And if some one says that this is the case of a rite by a teaching of authority, and the rule is by a teaching of private authority, is not the whole rite by any teaching proper, that comszsts in this washing which is thoroughly preserved as they keep z¢ in practice? ?’ 9. The reply is even this, that every rite (niréng) is to be performed zz such manner as ¢hat which is said fo de most preservative, and most connected with the declaration of revelation azd the testimony of the high-priests concerning it. 10. And not for the reason that Médyék-mdh’s ¢eaching is more preservative? as to one rite, and after that something of Afarg is more preservative, is the operation to be performed by the statement of Médydk-mah ; éut whatever is the more preservative of Médyékmah’s is collected from Médyék-méh, all the more preservative of Afarg from Afarg, azd that which is the more preservative of azy other high-priest from that which /as the most preservative approval of the high-priest. 11. That which those high- _ priests ave said, which they decide by just authority, is the commandment of the learned of the realm, which has lawfully arisen over the provinces (shéh4r4nd); but even that statement opposing it whch is much testified and manifestly more of a deliverance, or which is declared as an exposition 1 This string of arguments appears to be quoted from the epistle to which the writer is replying, but as they are separated from their context it is difficult to understand the exact line of argument, or to be sure that they are translated correctly. * From pollution or sin. EPISTLE I, CHAPTER IX, 8-15. 315 of the teaching of high-priests of the religion in a dissimilar case, they shall then! wholly accept, and ¢hey are to perform the operation authorisedly and preservatively thereby.
3* From pollution or sin. EPISTLE I, CHAPTER IX, 8-15. 315 of the teaching of high-priests of the religion in a dissimilar case, they shall then! wholly accept, and ¢hey are to perform the operation authorisedly and preservatively thereby. 12. This, too, I so consider, ‘hat even if each separate teaching should be as z¢ were proper, it would then not be determined by them as to the impropriety of the purifying cup, for Médydk-m4h has stated, only as z¢ was apparent to him, that every singlé customary fart is to be washed for three times?, and has not specifically determined that when all shall be so once .it is not proper. 13. By the special teaching of Médyék-mah and the washing which is in the law that says—concerning those interpreting revelation—that whoever becomes quite polluted shall thoroughly wash by that law, so that his deng washed is to be considered as Jeng washed, it (the rite) is not performed by me if, also, that other high-priest Zas said, that every one who becomes quite polluted, avd washes not by the law of the primitive faith, is not to be considered as washed. 14. Then, too, in the special teaching of Médydk-méh 7¢ is not said, of that washing which is washed by the law of those of a portion of the religion (parak-din64n), that it is not proper. 15. He who washes by the law of those of the primitive faith, which many high-priests maintain as excellent, because it is suitable, amd imagines that regarding the threefold washing it should be said that it is not proper, even he—when he also 1 That is, when the dissimilar case arises, or when it is manifestly more efficient. * See Chap. VI, 7. 316 EPISTLES OF MANOsKfHAR. has become of the same opinion as to this, that the statements of the high-priests are on an equality, and the most evidence of the high-priests is the vight course—would have attained to confidence about this, that in a doubtful matter ¢here should be a high-priest!, and also that of which Afarg and Séshans ave alike understood a similar thing is proper. CuaptTer X. 1. And as fo the many other matters to which an explicit reply is not written by me—be it the determinableness of it, be it the flow of zzward prayer ?, be it the pouring of the water, and likewise the rest which is written 40 me—the statements, when deliberation and conjecture about such arrangements become needful, are not 4o de made unto the multitude, but wséo the priestly at once®. 2. And this much, also, which is written by me is on this account‘, ‘kat when a writing has come to you which is the purport of my re-explanation, and tt has seemed that it is written after we//-weighed (sakhtak6) observations °, even so they wou/d cause some of those of good desires to understand, who are thoughtful friends of the soul azd observers of 1 To consult about the matters in doubt. ® Reading vag-régisndih; but J omits the first letter, and thereby converts the word into apardasaisnth, ‘ want of leisure.’
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.