evidence gleaned from them of considerably greater importance.[1]
There is another factor which we should consider in examining the truth of any of the statements. If any rule given by our text is also given by writers before him like Vashishtha, Baudhāyana, Guatama and reasserted even by later writers and works like Yajñavalkya, Vishnusmriti, Parāshara, Varada and Brihaspati, then the rule is more likely to be respected.
The Chinese travelers also supply something which is reliable, but it is very little. The Arabic traveler Alberūnī, who traveled in the land during the eleventh century, gives us something on the subject.
It is true that all these sources, the literary data, the nīti writers, foreign travelers, and the inscriptions, belong to dates considerably different from that of our author; but they have one thing in common — the priority to Mohammedan conquest, a matter of considerable importance to the history of civilization in India.
2. Religious and Ceremonial Discriminations.
Let its first pay attention to the rules relating to religion and ceremonial, where the varna of men is made by the writer a matter of discrimination.
First of all, the first three varnas were sharply distinguished from the last by the fact that the first three had a right to sacraments with Vedic texts, and consequently had a right to be called twice-born. The Shūdra lad no such rights.
- ↑ Here I confess that my examination of inscriptions to find material to corroborate or nullify the injunction of dharma is restricted to Corpus Inscri. Indi. vol, iii.
