14. I agree in the first assertion, that certain writings received by Hindoos as sacred, are the origin of the Hindoo law of inheritance, but with this modification, that the writings supposed sacred are only, when consistent with sound reasoning, considered as imperative, as Munoo plainly declares: “He alone comprehends the system of duties, religious and civil, who can reason, by rules of logic, agreeably to the Ved, on the general heads of that system as revealed by the holy sages.” Ch. xii. v. 106. Vrihusputi. “Let no one found conclusions on the mere words of Shastrus: from investigations without reason, religious virtue is lost.”[1] As to the second position, I first beg to ask, whether or not it be meant by Jeemootvahun’s being styled a commentator that he wrote commentaries upon all or any of those sacred institutes. The fact is, that no one of those sacred institutes bears his comment. Should it be meant that the author of the Dayubhagu was so far a commentator, that he called passages from different sacred institutes, touching every particular subject, and examining their purport separately and collectively, and weighing the sense deducible from the context, has offered that opinion on the subject which appeared to agree best with the series of passages cited collectively, and that when he has found one passage apparently at variance with another, he has laid strees upon that which seemed the more reasonable and more
- ↑ (
Sanskrit characters)
15
