Now hear the words of the Bruhmu Pooran on the subject of Postcremation : “If her lord die in another country, let the faithful "wife place his sandals on her breast, and pure enter "the fire." The faithful widow is declared no suicide by this text of the Rig Ved: "When three days of impurity " are gone she obtains obsequies." Gotum says: "To a Brahmunee after the death of her husband, "Postcremation is not permitted. But to women of the "other classes it is esteemed a chief duty." "Living let her benefit her husband; dying she "commits suicide." "The woman of the Brahmun tribe that follows her "dead husband cannot, on account of her self-de"struction, convey either herself or her husband to "heaven." Concremation and Postcremation being thus established by the words of many sacred lawgivers, how can you say they are forbidden by the Shastrus, and desire to prevent their practice? Opponent. All those passages you have quoted are indeed sacred law; and it is clear from those authorities, that if women perform Concremation or Postcremation, they will enjoy heaven for a considerable time. But attend to what Munoo and others say respecting the duty of widows: "Let her emaciate her "body, by living voluntarily on pure flowers, roots, " and fruits, but let her not, when her lord is deceased, even pronounce the name of another man.” "Let her continue till death forgiving all injuries, performing harsh duties, avoiding every sensual plea 66 sure, and cheerfully practising the incomparable rules "of virtue which have been followed by such women as were devoted to one only husband." 66 Here Munoo directs, that after the death of her husband, the widow should pass her whole life as an ascetic. Therefore, the laws given by Unggira and the others whom you have quoted, being contrary to the law of Munoo, cannot be accepted; because the Ved declares, "whatever Munoo has said is wholesome;" and Virhusputi, "whatever law is contrary to the law " of Munoo is not commendable." The Ved especially declares, "by living in the practice of regular and "occasional duties the mind may be purified. There"after by hearing, reflecting, and constantly meditat"ing on the Supreme Being, absorption in Bruhmu may be attained. Therefore from a desire during "life of future fruition, life ought not to be destroyed." Munoo, Yagnyuvulkyu, and others, have then, in their respective codes of laws, prescribed to widows the duties of ascetics only. By this passage of the Ved, therefore, and the authority of Munoo and others, the words you have quoted from Unggira and the rest are set aside; for by the express declaration of the former, widows after the death of their husbands may, by living as ascetics, obtain absorption. Advocate.-What you have said respecting the laws of Unggira and others, that recommended the practice of Concremation and Postcremation, we do not admit: because, though a practice has not been recommended by Munoo, yet, if directed by other lawgivers, it should not on that account be considered as contrary to the law of Munoo. For instance, Munoo directs the per formance of Sundhya, but says nothing of calling aloud on the name of Huri; yet Vyas prescribes calling on the name of Huri. The words of Vyas do not contra dict those of Munoo. The same should be understood in the present instance. Munoo has commended wi dows to live as ascetics; Vishnoo and other saints direct that they should either live as ascetics or follow their husbands. Therefore the law of Munoo may be considered to be applicable as an alternative. Opponent. The analogy you have drawn betwixt the practice of Sundhya and invoking Huri, and that of Concremation and Postcremation, does not hold. For, in the course of the day the performance of Sundhya, at the prescribed time, does not prevent one from invoking Huri at another period; and, on the other hand, the invocation of Huri need not interfere with the performance of Sundhya. In this case, the direction of one practice is not inconsistent with that of the other. But in the case of living as an ascetic or undergoing Concremation, the performance of the one is incompatible with the observance of the other. Scil. Spending one's whole life as an ascetic after the death of a husband, is incompatible with immediate Concremation as directed by Unggira and others; and, vice versa, Concremation, as directed by Unggira and others, is inconsistent with living as an ascetic, in order to attain absorption. Therefore those two authorities are obviously contradictory of each other. More especially as Unggira, by declaring that "there is no "other way known for a virtuous woman except ascending the pile of her husband," has made Concremation an indispensable duty. And Hareet also, in his code, by denouncing evil consequences, in his declaration, that "as long as a woman shall not burn "herself after the death of her husband, she shall be "subject to transmigration in a female form,” has made this duty absolute. Therefore all those passages are in every respect contradictory to the law of Munoo and others. Advocate. When Unggira says that there is no other way for a widow except Concremation, and when Hareet says that the omission of it is a fault, we reconcile their words with those of Munoo, by considering them as used merely for the purpose of exalting the merit of Concremation, but not as prescribing this as an indispensable duty. All these expressions, moreover, convey a promise of reward for Concremation, and thence it appears that Concremation is only optional. Opponent.-If, in order to reconcile them with the text of Munoo, you set down the words of Unggira and Hareet, that make the duty incumbent, as meant only to convey an exaggerated praise of Concremation, why do you not also reconcile the rest of the words of Unggira, Hareet, and others, with those in which Munoo prescribes to the widow the practice of living as an ascetic as her absolute duty? And why do you not keep aloof from witnessing the destruction of females, instead of tempting them with the inducement of future fruition? Moreover, in the text already quoted, self-destruction with the view of reward is expressly prohibited. Advocate. What you have quoted from Munoo and Yagnyavulkyu and the text of the Ved is admitted. But how can you set aside the following text of the Rig Ved on the subject of Concremation? "O fire! let "these women, with bodies anointed with clarified "butter, eyes coloured with collyrium, and void of "tears, enter thee, the parent of water, that they may "not be separated from their husbands, but may be, in "unison with excellent husbands, themselves sinless " and jewels amongst women." Opponent.-This text of the Ved, and the former passages from Hareet and the rest whom you have quoted, all praise the practice of Concremation as leading to fruition, and are addressed to those who are occupied by sensual desires; and you cannot but admit that to follow these practices is only optional. In repeating the Sunkulpyu of Concremation, the desire of future fruition is declared as the object. The text therefore of the Ved which we have quoted, offering no gratifications, supersedes, in every respect, that which you have adduced, as well as all the words of Unggira and the rest. In proof we quote the text of the Kuthopunishut: "Faith in God which leads to absorption "is one thing; and rites which have future fruition for "their object, another. Each of these, producing dif "ferent consequences, holds out to man inducements "to follow it. The man, who of these two chooses "faith, is blessed; and he, who for the sake of reward "practises rites, is dashed away from the enjoyment of "eternal beatitude." Also the Moonduk Opunishut: "Rites, of which there are eighteen members, are all "perishable: he who considers them as the source of 66 blessing shall undergo repeated transmigrations; "and all those fools who, immersed in the foolish 66 practice of rites, consider themselves to be wise and "learned, are repeatedly subjected to birth, disease, "death, and other pains. When one blind man is guided by another, both subject themselves on their 66 way to all kinds of distress." 66 |