Page:An Essay On Hinduism.pdf/135

generally try to seek some other moral backing. If any man wishes to do anything that he thinks to be morally unjustifiable, and if he finds with the help of an expert lawyer that his conduct is perfectly legal, then he becomes greatly nerved. He knows that some sort of philosophy or law justifies his actions. As with law, so with scriptural injunction or traditional rule; scriptural permission to do anything, or some justification by orthodox principle, adds a great deal of strength.

This process is not modern. It is not peculiarly Indian. Let me give an example. In the eighteenth century one of the Peishwas of Poona had accepted an invitation to dine at the house of a Brāhmaṇa nobleman on a certain day. But in the meanwhile the nephew of the nobleman died in battle; and for this reason the nobleman was under impurity for ten days, and the day of the invitation fell within those ten days, Now, it is not proper for anybody to receive food in the house of a mourner during those ten days. The chief secretary of the Peishwa was unwilling to offend the nobleman, by advising his master not to dine with him. He consulted a Brāhmaṇa shāstri (a scholar, a scientist), as to whether the dharma shāstra can find any authority to permit eating in the house of that nobleman. The Brāhmaṇa discovered a Sanskrit text, which said that, "Those who die for the nation are not dead." Thus the nephew of the nobleman is not dead, and so that nobleman is not a mourner.^[1]

The aim of introducing all these details regarding the social conditions of the Maratha country is to explain

1. ↑ I do not guarantee the truth of the story, but it seems probable to me. I do not even remember whether I have heard of this story or read it.