What I have said regarding the attitude of the commentators toward the text will show that they were not, as is often urged, a class entirely wanting in critical spirit. Still, it must be admitted that their method of criticism was considerably defective. The main defect in their criticism is that it is not historical, nor did they aim to make it so. Their aim was not to produce a commentary for academic purposes, which would give the meaning of the text as it was understood by the author himself, but they wanted to explain the text in such a manner as would serve the needs of the society of their own time and place. Their attitude toward the text was the same as that of the judge toward the law, who really modifies it to suit new conditions under the pretense of interpreting it. If they want anything approved or condemned they approve or condemn it, provided they find any text which can be made to imply the desired doctrine ;[1] and for this task they were very
- ↑ I think this was the attitude of Govindrāja (whom I think to be a Maratha Brähmana) when he interpreted i, 50, as a verse which permitted a sannyäsin to return to household duty. The event which warranted such an interpretation was I think the return to household duty by Viththala the father of Jhäneshvara at the order of his teacher Rämanuja who initiated Viththala to the order, without knowing exactly the situation under which the young wife of Viththala gave her consent. When the young wife of Viththala paid her respects to Rāmānuja, the latter gave her a blessing that she would have illustrious sons. When he came to know that young lady's husband
a student (celibate), in whatsoever order he may live (i. e., whether he be a householder or a hermit). Medhatithi remarks that this is merely an arthavada and refers to no other order but that of householders. Govindaraja has turned this verse to account, to justify the return of sannyasin to household duties. He says that this verse permits even an ascetic who has lost all his children to approach his wife during two nights in each month. Kullüka ridicules this opinion, not being aware of the probable motives of Govindraja in this interpretation.
