DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9550#0218
170 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE
as impure, absurd, and puerile as that of the present
Hindoos, yet the former was by no means so destructive
of the comforts of life, or injurious to the texture of
society, as the latter. The present Hindoo idolatry
being made to consist in following certain modes and
restraints of diet (which according to the authorities of
the Mahabharut and other histories were never observed
by their forefathers), has subjected its unfortunate
votaries to entire separation from the rest of the world,
and also from each other, and to constant incon-
veniences and distress.
A. Hindoo, for instance, who affects particular
purity, * cannot even partake of food dressed by his
own brother, when invited to his house, and if touched
by him while eating, he must throw away the remaining
part of his meal. In fact, owing to the observance of
such peculiar idolatry, directly contrary to the autho-
rities of their scripture, they hardly deserve the name
of social beings.
The learned Brahmun further says (p. 23, 1, 3):
" If you affirm that you are not an infidel, but that your
" arguments are in conformity with those of the
" philosophers who where ignorant of the Veds," &c.
A remark of this kind cannot, I am sure, be considered
as at all applicable to a person who has subjected
himself to this writer's remarks only by translating and
publishing the principal parts of the Ved, and by vindi-
cating the Vedant theology, and who never advanced on
religious controversy any argument which was not
* A pel son of this description is distinguished by the name of
Swayumpak, one who is his own cook.
as impure, absurd, and puerile as that of the present
Hindoos, yet the former was by no means so destructive
of the comforts of life, or injurious to the texture of
society, as the latter. The present Hindoo idolatry
being made to consist in following certain modes and
restraints of diet (which according to the authorities of
the Mahabharut and other histories were never observed
by their forefathers), has subjected its unfortunate
votaries to entire separation from the rest of the world,
and also from each other, and to constant incon-
veniences and distress.
A. Hindoo, for instance, who affects particular
purity, * cannot even partake of food dressed by his
own brother, when invited to his house, and if touched
by him while eating, he must throw away the remaining
part of his meal. In fact, owing to the observance of
such peculiar idolatry, directly contrary to the autho-
rities of their scripture, they hardly deserve the name
of social beings.
The learned Brahmun further says (p. 23, 1, 3):
" If you affirm that you are not an infidel, but that your
" arguments are in conformity with those of the
" philosophers who where ignorant of the Veds," &c.
A remark of this kind cannot, I am sure, be considered
as at all applicable to a person who has subjected
himself to this writer's remarks only by translating and
publishing the principal parts of the Ved, and by vindi-
cating the Vedant theology, and who never advanced on
religious controversy any argument which was not
* A pel son of this description is distinguished by the name of
Swayumpak, one who is his own cook.