________________
CONCLUSION
671
is reached by people who perform the Aśvamedha Yajña, it follows that though the merit of the act of the Brahmin might not, in the opinion of the writer of the Mahabharata, have been greater than that of the Yajña of Yudhisthira, yet, he certainly looked upon the ethical or religious merit of both as at least the same Even in ordinary life, we follow the same principle, and consider the moral merit of a millionaire giving a thousand rupees for a pious object, as the same as that of a poor man who gives one rupee by way of subscription. It is likely that this illustration might be considered by some as new, on account of the use of the word 'subscription'; I, therefore, say that in the exposition of Morality and Immorality made in the Mahābhārata, while the story of the mungoose was being told, it is said:
sahasraśaktiś cu satań śatasaktır daśāpı ca ! dadyād apaś ca yah saktyā sarve tulyaphalāh smrtāḥ 1.
( Ma. Bhā. Aśva, 90.97),
that is, a man who owns a thousand giving a hundred, a man who owns a hundred giving ten, or some one according to his ability giving only a drink of water, all these (acts) are of the same merit, and equally beneficial"; and the same is the purport conveyed by the sentence "patram puspam phalam toyam eto." (Gi. 9. 26), (i. e., "a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or even water"-Trans.). in the Gītā. This principle has been adopted not only in our religion but also in the Christian religion. The Lord Christ has said in one place that: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (Luke. 12. 48); and there is a statement in another place in the Bible, that one day, when the Lord Christ had gone to church and the work of collecting funds for charitable purposes was going on, He said: “Verily I say unto to you, that this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they, which have cast into the treasury" (Mark. 12. 43 and 44), on seeing an extremely poor widow giving both the pice which she had, in charity. This clearly proves that even the Lord Christ had accepted the position that the merit of an act has to be determined by reference to the Reason of the doer; and that when the Reason of the doer is pure, even a small act is very
