________________
(??) अब उन के मनुष्य होने में भी संदेह होता है (तब तो भ्रमोच्छेदन को भ्रमोत्पादन कहना चाहिये!) और अंगरेजी में कुछ लिख भी दिया नीचे उस की 7791 Aita 3191 grat
The question at issue between Raja Siraprasad and Dayanand Sarassvari is the authoritativeness of the several parts of what is commonly comprised under the name "l'eda." Daranand Sirassyati rejects the Brahmanas and Upnishads (with one exception) and acknowledges the authority of the Sanhitas only. As this procedure is not in agreement with the religious belief of the Hindus of the present day as well as of past age 6 of which we have records, Dayanand Sarassvati is bound to produce convincing proofs for the validity of the distinction he makes. He mentions that the Sanhitas are
facts while the Brahmanas and Upnisbads are merely "Tai"'; but low does he prove this assertion ? (for as it stands it cannot be called anything but a mere assertion). The assertion of the Sanhitas being Fa:MATUT while the Brabmanas and Upnishads are merely ra:HTUT can likewise not be admitted before it is supported by arguments stronger than those which Dayanand Sarassvati has brought forward up to the present. Raja Sivaprasad is right to ask "why should not both be FA: HTG if one is so ? ” or ngain "why should not boi h beaa:gary if one is so ?" and ibis reasoning could certainly not be employed by any one for prosing that other non-redic books as well are to be considered equal to the Veda ; for tlie Veda alone' [including Brahmanas and Upnishads) enjoss the privilege of having-since immemorial tines-been acknowledged by all Hindus as sacred and revealed books.
With regard to the passage quoted by Dayanand Sarasavat from the Satapatha Brahmans (Brihadarang. aka Upanishad) it must be admitted that the objection of Raja Sivaprasad is well-founded; if one part of the
Shree Sudharmaswami Gyanbhandar-Umara, Surat
www.umaragyanbhandar.com
