made, let equal shares of the residue be alloted; but if there be no deduction, the shares must be distributed in this manner; let the eldest have a double share, and the next born a share and a half, and the younger sons each a share: thus is the law settled.”[1] The author of the Mitakshura then offers his opinion in direct opposition to Munoo, saying, “The author himself[2] has sanctioned an unequal distribution when a division is made during the father’s life time. ‘Let him either dismiss the eldest with the best share, &c.’[3] Hence an unequal partition is admissible in every period. How then is a restriction introduced, requiring that sons should divide only equal shares? (Art. 4.) The question is thus answered: True, this unequal partition is found in the sacred ordinances; but it must not be practised, because it is abhorred by the world, [for] it secures not celestial bliss’;[4] as the practice [of offering bulls] is shunned, on account of popular prejudice, notwithstanding the injuction, ‘Offer to a venerable priest a bull or a large goat;’ and as the slaying of a cow is for the same reason disused, notwithstanding the precept, ‘Slay a barren cow as a victim consecrated to Mitru and Vuroonu.’”[5] By adverting to the above exposition of the law, we find that the objection of heterodoxy, if urged against the authority of the Dayubhagu, is equally applicable to that of the Mitakshura in its full extent, and may be thus established. 1st. Certain
- ↑ Munoo, Ch. ix. v. 112, v. 116 and 117.
- ↑ Yagnuvulkyu.
- ↑ Yagnuvulkyu.
- ↑ A passage of Yagnuvulkyu, according to the quotation of Mitru Mishru in the Veermitroduyu, but ascribed to Munoo in Balumbhuttu’s commentary. It has not, however, been found either in Munoo’s or Yagnuvulkyu’s Institute.”—(Mr. Colebrooke.)
- ↑ Passage of the Ved.
