History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c95.359.1

v7.c95.359.1

on p. 64 he speaks of Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant, Sinnett and Leadbeater as "proved charlatans" and on p. 95 he writes about Mrs. Besant's entry into Politics as "these later metamorphoses of the megalomaniac Mrs. Besant". It appears to the present writer that his study of original Sanskrit works is not deep and that he commits serious mistakes in the small portion of his work that he devotes to the ancient Indian view of the doctrine of re-incarnation. His wrong interpretation of Manu VI. 63 (p. 10 of his book) has been pointed out (on p. 1565). Some more cases of mistakes may be cited here. On p 11 of his book he relies on Thibaut for the statement that there is nothing in the sūtras (the Vedānta-sūtras) to warrant the main doctrine of Śaṅkara about two Vidyās, the higher (*parā*) and the lower (*aparā*), which respectively lead to the higher (para) *brahma* and the lower (apara) *brahma*. If he had carefully read only a few of the eleven principal Upaniṣads (the Īśāvāsya, Kena, Katha, Muṇḍaka, Praśna) he would have found for himself that Thibaut is not a trustworthy guide in all cases The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (I. 1. 4-5) speaks of two vidyās, parā and aparā 'dve vidye veditavye parā ca, aparā ca, atha parā yayā tadakṣaram adhigamyate' and this Muṇḍaka text is treated as the basis of Vedāntasūtra I. 2. 21-23 by Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja. The Praśna Upaniṣad 2 states both *para* and apara *brahma* 'etadvai Satyakāma param cāparam ca brahma yad-oṁkāraḥ". On pp.