DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9551#0140
128
CONFERENCE OF THE PRACTICE
widows after the death of their husbands may, by living
as ascetics, obtain absorption.
Advocate. What you have said respecting the laws of
Ungira 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 perform-
ance 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 contradict
those of Munoo. The same should be understood in
the present instance. Munoo has commended widows
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 per-
formance 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. Scih Spending one's
whole life as an ascetic after the death of a husband, is
incompatible with immediate Concremation as directed
CONFERENCE OF THE PRACTICE
widows after the death of their husbands may, by living
as ascetics, obtain absorption.
Advocate. What you have said respecting the laws of
Ungira 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 perform-
ance 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 contradict
those of Munoo. The same should be understood in
the present instance. Munoo has commended widows
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 per-
formance 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. Scih Spending one's
whole life as an ascetic after the death of a husband, is
incompatible with immediate Concremation as directed