DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9550#0280
230
the brahmunical magazine
considered evidence. Those numerous Poorans and
Tuntrus which have no commentary and are not quoted
by any established expounder may probably be of
recent composition. Some Poorans and Tuntrus are
received in one province, the natives of other provinces
consider them spurious ; or rather, what some people in
a province acknowledge, others considering it to be only
recent, do not receive; therefore those Poorans and
Tuntrus only which have been commented upon or
quoted by respectable authors are to be regarded. Al
commonly received rule for ascertaining the authority of
any book is this, that whatever book opposes the Ved,
is destitute of authority. " All Smrities which are
" contrary to the Ved, and all atheistical works, are not
" conducive to future happiness : they dwell in darkness."
Munoo. But the missionary gentlemen seldom
translate into English the Oopunishuds, the ancient
Smrities, the Tuntrus quoted by respectable authors
and which have been always regarded. But having
translated those works which are opposed to the Veds,
which are not quoted by any respectable author, and
which have never been regarded as authority, they
always represent the Hindoo Religion as very base.
With a view to prove the errors of the Poorans and
Tuntrus, you say, that the Poorans represent God as
possessed of various names and forms, as possessed of
a wife and children, and as subject to the senses, and to
the discharge of bodily functions; from which it
follows that there are many gods, that they are subject
to sensual pleasure, and the omnipresence of God
cannot be maintained. I therefore humbly ask the
missionary gentlemen, whether or not they call Jesus
the brahmunical magazine
considered evidence. Those numerous Poorans and
Tuntrus which have no commentary and are not quoted
by any established expounder may probably be of
recent composition. Some Poorans and Tuntrus are
received in one province, the natives of other provinces
consider them spurious ; or rather, what some people in
a province acknowledge, others considering it to be only
recent, do not receive; therefore those Poorans and
Tuntrus only which have been commented upon or
quoted by respectable authors are to be regarded. Al
commonly received rule for ascertaining the authority of
any book is this, that whatever book opposes the Ved,
is destitute of authority. " All Smrities which are
" contrary to the Ved, and all atheistical works, are not
" conducive to future happiness : they dwell in darkness."
Munoo. But the missionary gentlemen seldom
translate into English the Oopunishuds, the ancient
Smrities, the Tuntrus quoted by respectable authors
and which have been always regarded. But having
translated those works which are opposed to the Veds,
which are not quoted by any respectable author, and
which have never been regarded as authority, they
always represent the Hindoo Religion as very base.
With a view to prove the errors of the Poorans and
Tuntrus, you say, that the Poorans represent God as
possessed of various names and forms, as possessed of
a wife and children, and as subject to the senses, and to
the discharge of bodily functions; from which it
follows that there are many gods, that they are subject
to sensual pleasure, and the omnipresence of God
cannot be maintained. I therefore humbly ask the
missionary gentlemen, whether or not they call Jesus