charged others with want of unity and with incapacity to work in conjunction; but others laid the blame on his shoulders. They said that in many cases Vidyasagar had proved his own incapacity to work in conjunction with other people. No doubt, he joined them, at the outset, with great enthusiasm, but he could never keep to the end. This was Vidyasagar's peculiarity. Such peculiarity is undoubtedly an indication of spiritedness; but does it not sometimes lead to arbitrariness?
The letter, referred to above, clearly showed that Vidyasagar was not a double-dealer; he was never afraid to open his mind for fear of incurring one's displeasure, or to suppress his feelings for the satisfaction of another. He firmly believed that it was wrong not to declare frankly one's own mind or opinions. As he never shrank from giving out freely his own convictions, so he was highly pleased, when he found others doing the same. We will illustrate this by an incident of his previous life.
On one occasion, Mahamahopadhyay Rakhal Das Nyayratna, Pandit Sibchandra Sarvvabhauma, Madhu Sudan Smritiratna, and Panchanan Tarkaratna called upon him. The last-named visitor was, at that time, still a pupil but had nearly finished his course of instruction. In course of conversation, they fell to discussing religious topics. Vidyasagar said that religion was nothing but formation of parties. 'Take for instance the following Sloka of Manu:—
