DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9551#0179
OF BURNl'NG WIDCWS ALIVE.
167
lawful acts, I reply, that in Shivukanchee and Vishnoo-
kanchee it is the custom of the people of all classes of
one of those places, wheather learned or ignorant,
mutually, to revile the god peculiarly worshipped by the
people of the other—those of Vishnookanchee despising
Shivu, and of Shivukanchee in the same manner holding
Vishnoo in contempt. Are the inhabitants of ihose places,
whose custom it is thus to revile Shivu and Vishnoo not
guilty of sin ? For each of those tribes may assert, in
their own defence, that it is the practice of their country
and race to revile the god of the other. But no learned
Hindoo will pretend to say, that this excuse saves them
from sin. The Rajpoots, also, in the neighbourhood of the
Dooab, are accustomed to destroy their infant daughters ;
they also must not be considered guilty of the crime of
childmurder, as they act accordtng to the custom of their
country and race. There are many instances of the same
kind. No Pundits, then, would consider a heinous crime,
directly contrary to the Shastrus, as righteous, by the
whatever length of practice it may appear to be sanctioned.
You have at first alleged, that to burn a widow after
tying her down on the pile, is one of the acts of piety,
and have then quoted our argument for the opposite
opinion, that "the inhabitants of forests and mountains
are accustomed to robbery and murder : but must these
be considered as faultless, because they follow only the
custom of their country ?" To this you have again
replied, that respectable people are not to be guided by
the example of mountaineers and foresters. But the
custom of burning widows, you say, " has been sanctioned
by the most examplary Pundits for a length of time. It
is the custom then, of respectable people that is to be
167
lawful acts, I reply, that in Shivukanchee and Vishnoo-
kanchee it is the custom of the people of all classes of
one of those places, wheather learned or ignorant,
mutually, to revile the god peculiarly worshipped by the
people of the other—those of Vishnookanchee despising
Shivu, and of Shivukanchee in the same manner holding
Vishnoo in contempt. Are the inhabitants of ihose places,
whose custom it is thus to revile Shivu and Vishnoo not
guilty of sin ? For each of those tribes may assert, in
their own defence, that it is the practice of their country
and race to revile the god of the other. But no learned
Hindoo will pretend to say, that this excuse saves them
from sin. The Rajpoots, also, in the neighbourhood of the
Dooab, are accustomed to destroy their infant daughters ;
they also must not be considered guilty of the crime of
childmurder, as they act accordtng to the custom of their
country and race. There are many instances of the same
kind. No Pundits, then, would consider a heinous crime,
directly contrary to the Shastrus, as righteous, by the
whatever length of practice it may appear to be sanctioned.
You have at first alleged, that to burn a widow after
tying her down on the pile, is one of the acts of piety,
and have then quoted our argument for the opposite
opinion, that "the inhabitants of forests and mountains
are accustomed to robbery and murder : but must these
be considered as faultless, because they follow only the
custom of their country ?" To this you have again
replied, that respectable people are not to be guided by
the example of mountaineers and foresters. But the
custom of burning widows, you say, " has been sanctioned
by the most examplary Pundits for a length of time. It
is the custom then, of respectable people that is to be