DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9551#0196
184
ABSTRACT OF ARGUMENTS
negative reply, and unavoidably concede the practice to
the option of widows. This admission on their part is
owing to two principal considerations, which it is now
too late for them to feign to overlook. First, because
Munoo in plain terms enjoins a widow to " continue till
death forgiving all injuries, performing austere duties,
avoiding every sensual pleasure, and cheerfully practising
the incomparable rules of virtue which have been follow-
ed by such women as were devoted to one only husband.''
(ch. v. v. 158.)* So Yagnuvulkyu inculcates the same
doctrine : " A widow shall live under care of her father,
mother, son, brother, mother-in-law, father-in-law, or
uncle; since, on the contrary, she shall be liable to
reproach." (Vide Mitakshura, ch. i.)f Secondly, because
an attempt on the part of the advocates for Coneremation
to hold out the act as an incumbent duty on widows,
would necessarily bring a stigma upon the character of the
living widows, who have preferred a virtuous life to Con-
cremation, as charging them with a violation of the
duty said to be indispensible. These advocates, therefore,
feel deterred from giving undue praise to a few widows,
choosing death on the pile, to the disgrace of a vast
majority of that class preferring a virtuous life. And in
consideration of these obvious circumstances, the cele-
brated Smarttu Rughoonundun, the latest commentator on
Hindoo Law in Bengal, found himself compelled to ex-
pound the following passage of Ungira, " there is no other
^t*TT «T *3Trf f^Tl ^li^T^T W^rf ||
ABSTRACT OF ARGUMENTS
negative reply, and unavoidably concede the practice to
the option of widows. This admission on their part is
owing to two principal considerations, which it is now
too late for them to feign to overlook. First, because
Munoo in plain terms enjoins a widow to " continue till
death forgiving all injuries, performing austere duties,
avoiding every sensual pleasure, and cheerfully practising
the incomparable rules of virtue which have been follow-
ed by such women as were devoted to one only husband.''
(ch. v. v. 158.)* So Yagnuvulkyu inculcates the same
doctrine : " A widow shall live under care of her father,
mother, son, brother, mother-in-law, father-in-law, or
uncle; since, on the contrary, she shall be liable to
reproach." (Vide Mitakshura, ch. i.)f Secondly, because
an attempt on the part of the advocates for Coneremation
to hold out the act as an incumbent duty on widows,
would necessarily bring a stigma upon the character of the
living widows, who have preferred a virtuous life to Con-
cremation, as charging them with a violation of the
duty said to be indispensible. These advocates, therefore,
feel deterred from giving undue praise to a few widows,
choosing death on the pile, to the disgrace of a vast
majority of that class preferring a virtuous life. And in
consideration of these obvious circumstances, the cele-
brated Smarttu Rughoonundun, the latest commentator on
Hindoo Law in Bengal, found himself compelled to ex-
pound the following passage of Ungira, " there is no other
^t*TT «T *3Trf f^Tl ^li^T^T W^rf ||