I have already said that dharma was not what may be called positive law. Dharma was not a command of a political superior, but was in practice the advice of a spiritual superior. The expounder of dharma was not merely a jurisprudent but was primarily a teacher. This notion appears to be quite marked in the book under discussion. There we find the writer advising his reader what things would bring happiness to the latter and what will not. In order to elucidate the rules he often enters into elaborate discussion of the reasons for the respective statements, and shows their rationality. Another peculiar feature of dharma is law of preference, e. g.: A dharma writer would first give advice to the effect that everybody should marry in his own varna; and again he would say that marrying a woman of lower yarna is permissible, while marrying one of higher varna is never permissible. He would moreover urge that no Brāhmana should marry a Shūdra woman. There is something in the language of the book which will show clearly the fact that the rules given are precepts more than anything else. In India it is quite customary for a Brahmin to tell his son that to drink wine or to speak a lie is a greater sin than a murder and he would illustrate what he said by a story from a Purāna. This should not be construed that the Brāhmana does not understand the gravity of murder; it is rather merely a popular way of expressing the gravity of a certain action, by comparing it with actions the gravity of which is well recognized. We find statements of this nature and similar other exaggerated statements scattered all over the book.
