DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0420
394
THE EIGHTH LECTURE.
proprietary right he acquires. This is merely a
Pratipatti Karma (incidental action). The real cause
of the transfer of the proprietary right is the pious
mental action of the votary.
The above discussion between .the two lawyer
-sages, no doubt, bears on the general question of
jurisprudence of property. But both writers have in
view, as a matter of fact, the case of acquisition of
property by Brahmanas. They are forbidden, to
accept a return for the gifts they may .make (pratigraha).
If, by violating this precept, they accept a return, is
it a valid property which they can offer to the gods
by way of sacrifice ? Vijnan holds by the above
discussion that they can.
When you once see how the two authors differ
on the cardinal question of the origin of proprietary
right, you will at once understand the difference in
their teachings regarding the question of succession
and inheritance. Jimuta' being a believer in the
ethical origin of proprietary right, naturally holds
that a heir takes the property of his ancestor by
virtue of spiritual benefit. Further he holds that the
<
property comes, to him by a sort of relinquishment
by the ancestor, and that it is not a case of acquisition
by the heir.
Vijnan, on the, contrary, maintaining that the origin
of prdperty *is popular recognition, naturally holds
that relationship by blood or otherwise which influences
men, is the basis of inheritance' and succession.
Accordingly he defines “heritage {day a) to be
that wealth which becomes the property of another
solely by reason of relation to the owner." The
THE EIGHTH LECTURE.
proprietary right he acquires. This is merely a
Pratipatti Karma (incidental action). The real cause
of the transfer of the proprietary right is the pious
mental action of the votary.
The above discussion between .the two lawyer
-sages, no doubt, bears on the general question of
jurisprudence of property. But both writers have in
view, as a matter of fact, the case of acquisition of
property by Brahmanas. They are forbidden, to
accept a return for the gifts they may .make (pratigraha).
If, by violating this precept, they accept a return, is
it a valid property which they can offer to the gods
by way of sacrifice ? Vijnan holds by the above
discussion that they can.
When you once see how the two authors differ
on the cardinal question of the origin of proprietary
right, you will at once understand the difference in
their teachings regarding the question of succession
and inheritance. Jimuta' being a believer in the
ethical origin of proprietary right, naturally holds
that a heir takes the property of his ancestor by
virtue of spiritual benefit. Further he holds that the
<
property comes, to him by a sort of relinquishment
by the ancestor, and that it is not a case of acquisition
by the heir.
Vijnan, on the, contrary, maintaining that the origin
of prdperty *is popular recognition, naturally holds
that relationship by blood or otherwise which influences
men, is the basis of inheritance' and succession.
Accordingly he defines “heritage {day a) to be
that wealth which becomes the property of another
solely by reason of relation to the owner." The