his guilt is removed (ii, 2, 14). Such contradictions on this matter appear everywhere in the literature. The meaning of all this appears to be that the dharma writers in order to impress the gravity of adultery prescribe one very severe punishment first, then another punishment which is generally a milder one. It is the latter which they really mean to impose. The statement of the severe punishment side by side is intended to make the offender feel that he is really suffering a very mild punishment in proportion to what he really deserves. When a person approaches a Brāhmana to-day in India to seek atonement for some sin it is quite customary among the Brāhmanas to tell the man how grave his offense is, in superlative language, and show how serious a punishment he deserves, and to explain to him how by taking various things into consideration the Brāhmana is prescribing only a small penance. When this custom is taken into account those rules would not be very hard to interpret. When two punishments are prescribed, and if one of them is unreasonably severe, we should know it is the milder one that was followed and the mention of the greater punishment had only educative value[1]
- ↑ Some writers very often are found in the habit of discovering analogies and regard that what once prevailed among ancient Jews, must have prevailed among the ancient Hindus. In the Jewish Scripture stoning a woman to death is prescribed as a punishment for an unmarried woman who goes astray (Dr. 22, 20-21), and sinaitic law directs that a priest's daughter shall be burned for fornication (Iv, 21, 9). Often those engaged in comparative study of institutions seeing words which carry a meaning similar to the Jewish law, have failed to take enough care to discern the real meaning of the Indian document. I do not know how far the punishment of stoning in the Jewish Scripture was one actually in vogue or whether the mention
