________________
670
GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
But, will this conclusion be correct, not from the point of view of religion merely, but even of morality ? Acquiring a large amount of wealth, or getting an opportunity of performing big acts for the benefit of others, does not depend merely on anybody's virtuous conduct; and if one has to consider the small act performed by the poor Brahmin according to his means as of little ethical or religious merit, because it was not possible for him to perform a large Yajña for want of money, one will have to come to the conclusion that the poor need never entertain the hope of becoming religious or moral like the rich. According to the principle of Freedom of Will, keeping his mind pure was a matter within the control of the poor Brahmin; and if there is no doubt that his charitable instinct was as pure as that of Yudhisthira, then, notwithstanding the smallness of the act performed by him, the ethical merit of this Brahmin and of the small act performed by him, must be considered to be the same as that of Yudhisthira and of the magnificent Yajña performed by him. Nay; from the fact that he made a self-sacrifice by making a gift of food in order to save the life of a mendicant, notwithstanding that he himself was poor and without food for many days, it follows that his Reason was purer than that of Yudhisthira; because, it is a universally accepted fact that purity of mind, like courage and other qualities, is truly proved only in times of adversity; and even Kant has, in the beginning of his book on Ethics, expressed an opinion that that man whose moral rectitude does not flinch even in times of adversity is the truly moral man. The same thing is conveyed by what was said by the mungoose. But the purity of the heart of Yudhisthira had been tested not only by the Yajña performed by him after he had ascended the throne, that is, in times of prosperity, but also before that, that is, on many trying occasions, in adverse circumstances, just as in the case of the Brahmin; and as the proposition of the writer of the Mahābhārata was, that Yudhisthira was morally great, even according to the subtle law relating to righteous and unrighteous conduct laid down above, he has called the mungoose a reviler'. Still, from the statement in the Mahābhärata that that Brahmin attained the same final state which
