VYAVASTEHA'.DARPANA. ዝ 1 ፵6 “Persons born blind.”—By the mention of birth the legislator suggests the incurableness, not the origin of the blindness,” (3 Dig. 319.) By this dietum it is indicated by Joannātha that the person, who becomes incurably blind in the course of his life, is also excluded from inheritance; and it is also intimated by analogy that the persons who become incurably deaf, and so forth, in the course of their lives, are also disherited. Of the two conflicting opinions of his, as abovementioned, the former is agreeable to practice, but the latter is according to the letter of the law. “As one who becomes blind in the course of his life ought to share the heritage, so ought one who becomes impotent. ” (3 Dig. 330.) This dietum of Jugannātha must be construed to intend blind persons and so forth, who have become so in the course of their lives and are not past cure; for the disherison of the blind and the rest who are incurable having heen already justly determined by himself, the dictim would be contradictory to his own decision, were it applicable to those who are in a deferent condition. i ٠%ټ؟ (n) One who cannot walk on either of his feet is lame *.-Coleb. Dà. bha's p. 10:}. (d, n) Here “lame' signifies lame from his birth; and the term ‘mad’ also implies mad from his birth, as that is expressly declared in Wirada's text above cited. It should here be remarked that the term ‘lane being contiguous to the word blind, must signify born lame. In like manner, ‘persons deprived of the use of their hands' must signify such as are destitute of the use of both hands from the day of their birth.—Coleb. 1)ig. vol. III. p. 322. o (d) “A madman'—in the text of 7/crafa, signifies one insane from his birth ; for, the import is the same with that of the text of Mirado.—I/id. p. 315. (p.) “An idiot' is a person not susceptible of instruction.—One who is incapable of articulating sounds, is dumb.—Coleli. Daí, bha (p. 103. Roahunandard explains ‘idiot’ as one who cannot support the performance of duties: others explain the term, void of understanding, or one whose intellectual faculties are imbecile.—Ibid. pp. 815, 321
- An idiot,"—devoid of knowledge of himself and others.-1bid. p. 319.
• He who cannot walk on either foot, says Jimtotavāhana, is lame. According to his opinion, if one foot can be used in walking, there in no true lameness. He who cannot walk on both of his feet, say modern lawyers, is lame. According to their opinion, if both feet can be used in walking, then only there is no lameness: consequently a man is called same even though he can move on one foot. The opinion of Jimétavéna is alone correct; for in the text of Manu, the general sailure of organs is not signified by the expression, such as have lost the use of a limb,'(literally, such as have not their organs: ) were that the ੰ who had only lost the use of his hands would be capable of inheriting.—Coleb. Dig. Wol • р. * 112
