________________ 432 Albrecht Wezler tragung (der guten Werke) >> in a manner which does not bear closer scrutiny; for, the verb used in the crucial passage (AiB 8.15) is vrj A., and one has, of course, clearly to distinguish between the two following actions: On the one hand that the king in taking an oath at the mahabhiseka declares his assent to the priest's << turning towards himself >> his (i.e. the king's) own good deeds (in the case of his cheating the priest out of his daksina), on the other that a person with a view to helping somebody else (deliberately) transfers the effects of his good deeds to him. But apart from this inexactitude, Luders's observations on the Indian oath are highly interesting if connected with the two Manu verses discussed here: For in (Epic) formulas of oaths the evil one wishes others above all is << not to partake of the world of the fathers >> or << to be deprived of the merit obtained by sacrifices and good deeds a 105, i.e. one wishes that one's enemies do not attain heaven 106, and this together with M. 7.94 and 95 warrants the conclusion that the idea of the passing over of suksta and particularly of duskyta is, if not necessarily then at least often, connected with that of punishment if the offence committed consists in some form of untruth and if, at the same time, the culprit cannot be prosecuted because it is he who in reality has the political power (like the king of the AiB passage) or because he (like the paravstta of the two Manu verses) has already been slain by the enemy: Obviously the punishment with which one tries to threaten becomes the more severe and the more 'metaphysical' the greater the feeling of helplessness is as regards one's own capacity of calling the offender to account! And, to be sure, not to fight for the benefit of one's master, but to take instead to flight has in fact been considered by the Indians to be a breach of contract and thus ultimately an infringement of truth. 105. Quoted from LUDERS, op. cit., p. 656. 106. Cf. fn. 81.