well equipped. They were learned in Vedas, Mimānsā and other philosophies and legal literature. Thus it will be noticed that the commentators cannot always be relied upon for the accurate meaning of the text. Not only their motive was one different than that of an historical critic, but so also was their method. First of all, the very respect which they may have for the author would lead them to give an interpretation much better than the author intended. They would try to reconcile contradictions which the author never noticed.
While explaining the meaning of the word, the commentators depended not so much upon the text itself, to find out how the author has used the word in several other places, as on the dictionaries already in use, like Amarakosha. Consequently, the various shades of meanings are not taken into account by the commentators. Evidently what the commentators may explain needs a check from critical scholarship.
Again, their glosses are inadequate for us. Some ideas which are peculiar to the period of the text have disappeared to-day. Again, commentators often write in the same kind of language as the text and do not bring to light the oblique meaning. Their aim being to guide society, they would be unwilling to have their text
who was no other person that his disciple Viththala who had already become a recluse and the fact would prevent the fulfilment of his blessing, die ordered his disciple Viththala to return to household duty. Thus when the couple were reunited they had three sons and a daughter, who won the respect and admiration of the whole country by their knowledge and saintliness. The Brāhmanas had ostracized these people for a time, for they were children of a sannväsin. It is not improbable that Govindarāja made out a pecular meaning from the verse in order to remove the taint over the birth of the great man of his country.
