________________
302
EPISTLES OF MANOSKIHAR.
that account, that declaration of his seemed to be from him, which is as though it were decided by him. 2. Then, when one reaches the eulogistic (afrâsinâko) reply of his re-explainer, owing to his just will it is itself well perceived that Afarg comes into account as one of the high-priests; and that which is the special teaching of Sôshâns has mentioned that they have been very unanimous that when there is one he would be suitable 1.
3. That evidence, too, which many high-priests, and especially one teaching, are alike diffusing, is stated also in the teaching of Mêdyôk-mâh, that when he who is washing understands the profession, then one purifier is plenty for him. 4. When it is abundantly declared, in particular by two teachings, that when there is one he is suitable, it is then not to be rendered quite inoperative through the solitary statement of Afarg; for Afarg only said, as it appeared so to him himself, that 'two purifiers are requisite. 5. The customs of another highpriest are not declared to exist with like evidence; and this is set aside (spêgido) even by him himself, that another custom is not suitable to exist, because his own view is mentioned as it appeared to him.
2
4
6. Those of the primitive faith have been fully of the custom that other one selected, as to this, where it is the performance of the Vikaya ('exorcism'); because its explanation is this, that an
'See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 6, but the earlier part of the section refers to statements no longer extant.
2 That is, the person undergoing the purification.
See Pahl. Vend. IX, 132, 6, Ep. II, ii, 7.
4
J inserts of the same opinion.'
That is, they have considered one purifier sufficient for reciting
Digitized by Google
