MARRIAGE OF HINDU WIDOWS.

PREFACE.

In January 1855, I published a small pamphlet in Ben- gali on the marriage of Hindu Widows, with the view to prove that it was sanctioned by the Sastras. To this pamphlet, replies were given by many of my countrymen, Instead of a rejoinder to each of them, I published, in October last, a second pamphlet in the same language, in which I noticed the material objections of all my Repli- cants.

The subject under discussion being of a nature which concerned my countrymen only, I had, as stated, published, my pamphlets in Bengali and had no in- tention to issue an English version of them. But I was obliged to change my mind, because I found that since the publication of my pamphlets, several parties attempt- ed to misrepresent things to the English public in Reviews and Journals. To these I was pressed by my friends to reply, but as it appeared to me that my pamphlets met all the objections that might be urged against the legality of the marriage of Hindu widows, I thought it best to publish an English version of them, which I now lay re- spectfully before the English Public,

Other parties have again gone.so far as to assert that in my treatment of the subject, I have been influenced more by compassion towards the unfortunate widow's of my country than by a firm belief in their remarriage be- ing consonant to the Sastras. They have also said that to prove such consonance is an impossibility, It is true that I do feel compassion for our miserable widows, bus at the same time I may be permitted to state, that I did not take up my pen before I was fully convinced that the Sastras explicitly sanction their remarriage, This conviction I have come to, after a diligent, dispas- sionate and careful examination of the subject and 1 can now safely affirm, that in the whole range of our original Smritis there is not one single Text which can establish any thing to the contrary.

The translation is neither entire nor literal, The ori- ginal having been intended for the mass of the native po- pulation, was written in a manner which would best suit their understandings. But as the English version has been prepared for a different class of Readers, I have been obliged to omit several passages in the second parı- phlet to avoid repetition and occasionally to add or al- ter other passages, to make the translation suitable to them. For the same reason, several Chapters, which treat of comparatively unimportant points and may not be interesting to the English Public, have been alto- gether omitted.

Many Hindus are now thoroughly convinced of the perni- cious consequences arising from the practice of prohibiting the Marriage of widows. Many are already prepared to give their widowed daughters, sisters, and other relations, in Ma- fringe, and those, who dare not go so far, acknowledge it to be most desirable that this should be done:

Whether the marriage of widows is consonant to our Sastras, is a question which, a short while ago, was discussed by some of the principal Pundits of our country. But, un- fortunately. our modern Pundits, carried away, in the heat of controversy, by a passion for victory, become so eager to maintain their respective dogınas that they entirely lose sight of the subject they are investigating; and hence there is no hope of arriving at the truth of any question by convening an assembly of Pundits and setting them to debate on it. At the discussion above alluded to, cach party considered itself victorious and its tutagonist foiled. It is easy, therefore, to conceive how the question was decided. In fact, nothing was settled as to the point at issue. One great object, however, has been gained, and that is that most people, since that period, have been extremely anxious to ascertain the truth of this matter. Perceiving this eagerness I have been led to en- quire into the subject; and, in order to lay before the public at large the result of my enquiries, I published this treatise in the vernacular language of the country so that after an impartial examination the Hindu public may judge whether the marriage of widows ought to be practised or not.

In entering upon this enquiry we should, first of all, con- sider that, since the marriage of widows is a custom which has not prevailed among Hindus for many ages, in seeking to give our widows in marriage we propose an innovation and are bound to show that the custom is a proper one; for if it be otherwise, no man, having any regard for religion, would consent to its introduction. It is, therefore, highly necessary to establish first the propriety of this custom. But how is this to be done? By reasoning alone? No. For it will not be admitted by our countrymen that mere reasoning is appli- cable to such subjects. The custom must have the sanction of the Sastras; for in matters like this, the Sastras are the paramount authority among Hindus, and such acts only as are conformable to them are deemed proper. It must, there- fore, first be settled, whether the marriage of widows is a custom consonant or opposed to the Sastras.

At the very outset of the enquiry as to whether the marriage of widows is consonant or opposed to our Sastras, we find it necessary to decide what are those Sastras, the sanction or prohibition of which will determine the propriety or impropriety of the practice. Certainly, Vyakarana (Gram- mar), Kavya (Poetry), Alaukara (Rhetoric), Darsana (Philo- sophy), and the like, are not Sastras of this kind. It is only the works known as Dharma Sastras, that is to say, the works comprising the whole body of ceremonial and religious ob- servances, moral duties, and municipal law, that are every where regarded as the Sastrak to be referred to in deciding such questions.

In the first chapter of the Yajnavalkya-Sanhita there is an enumeration of what are called the Dharma Sastras; namely,

अन्वलिविष्णु हारीतयाज्ञवल्कयोशनोऽङ्गिरा। यमापस्तम्बसंवर्त्ताः कात्यायनबृहस्पती ॥ पराशरव्याষযন্ত্রलिखिता दृचगोतमौ । भातातपो वधिष्य धर्मशास्वप्रयोजकाः ॥

Manu, Atri, Vishnu, Harita, Yajnavalkya, Usana, Angira, Yama, Apastamba, Saubarta, Katyayana, Vrihaspati, Parasara, Vyasa, Sankha, Likhita, Daksha, Gotama, Satatapa, and Vasish- tha, are the authors of the Dharma Sastras."

The Sastras promulgated by these Rishis (Sages) are the Dharma Sastras. The people of India (Hindus) observe those Dharmas (duties) which are enjoined in these Sastras; and acts are considered proper or improper according as they are consouant or opposed to these Dharma Sastras. Hence the narriage of widows will be countenanced, if conformable, and repudiated, if repugnant, to the Dharma Sastras.

Now it is to be considered whether all the Dharmas incul- cated in all the Dharma Sastras are to be observed in all the Yngas (Ages). There is a solution of this question in the first chapter of the Dharma Sastra of Manu:

व्यन्ये शतयुगे धर्माखेतायां द्वापरेऽपरे । अन्ये कलियुगे गृच्चां युगहाधाहरूपतः ॥

"Human power decreasing according to the Yugas, the Dhar- mas of the Satya Yuga are one thing, those of the Treta another; the Dharmas of the lawapara are one thing, those of the Kali another."

That is to say, the Dharmas, which the people of prior Yugas practised cannot now be observed by the people of the Kali Yuga, because human power decreases in every succes- sive Yuga. Men of the Treta Yuga had not the power of

Besides these, the Sastras promulgated by Narada, Baudhayana, and fourteen other Rishis, are also reckoned as Dharma Sastras.

observing the Pharmas of the Satya Yuga, those of the Dwa- para could not observe the Dharmas of either the Satya or Treta, Yuga, and those of the Kali Yuga lack strength to follow the Dharmas of the Satya, Treta, or Dwapara Yuga.

It clearly appears, then, that the people of the Kali Yuga are unable to practise the Dharmas of the past Yugas; and the question arises what are those Dharmas which the people of the Kali Yuga are to observe. In the Dharma Sastra of Manu it is merely stated that there are different Dharmas for the different Yugas; but the Dharmas peculiar to the different Yugas have not been specified. Neither in the Dharma Sastras of Atri, Vishnu, Harita, and others, men- tion is made of these different Dharmas. Certain Dharmas are indeed inculcated in these Dharma Sastras; but it is difficult to determine the Dharmas which, owing to the de- crease of human power in successive Yugas, are appropriate to each Yuga. It is in the Parasara Sanhita only that there is an assignment of the Dharmas peculiar to the different Yagas. Thus it is mentioned in the first chapter of the Parasara Sanhita:

लते तु मानवा धर्मास्तायां गौतमाः सरताः । द्वापरे शाइलिखिताः कलौ पाराशराः बहताः ॥

"The Dharmas enjoined by Manu are assigned to the Satya Yuga; those by Gotama to the Treta; those by Sankha and Lik- hita to the Dwapara; and those by Parasara, to the Kali Yuga."

That is, the people of the Satya, Treta, and Dwapara, practised the Dharmas prescribed by Manu, Gotama, and Sankha and Likhita, respectively; and the people of the Kali Yuga are to observe the Dharmas prescribed by Parasara. It is clear, therefore, that as Parasara has prescribed the

*It may be asked if the Dharma Sastras promulgated by Manti alone were to be followed in the Satya Yuga, that of Gotama alvme in the Trota, that of Dharmas of the Kali Yuga, the people of the Kali Yuga ought to follow the Dharmas prescribed by him.

On observing how the Parasara Sanhita opens, there will not remain the shadow of a doubt that its sole object is to promulgate the Dharmas of the Kali Yuga.

अथातो हिमशैलाये देवदारुवनालये । व्यासमेकायमासीनमष्टष्कवृषयः पुरा ।॥ मारुषाणां हितं धमें वर्त्तमाने कलौ युगे । शौचाचारं बघायच्च वद सत्यवतीसुत ॥ तच्छ्रुत्वा ऋषिवाक्यन्तु सभिडाग्नतर्कसक्षिभः । मत्युवाच महातेजाः श्रुतिष्टतिविशारदः ॥ नचाई सर्व्वतत्त्वज्ञः कथं धर्मं वदाम्यहम् । वात्पितैष प्रष्टव्य इति व्यासः सुतोऽवदत् ॥ ततस्ते ऋषयः सर्वे धर्मतत्त्वयार्थका‌ङ्क्षिणः । ऋषिं व्यासं पुरस्कृत्य गता वद्रिकाश्रमम् ॥ नानाष्टजसमीकीसखं फलपुष्योपशोभितम् । नदीप्रक्षवद्याकीखें पुण्यतीथैरलङ्कृतम् ॥ म्टगपचिगणाढप्रश्च देवतायतनाङतम् । यक्षगन्धब्बेसिजैच न्हत्यगीतसमाकुलम् ॥ ततिवृषिसभामध्ये যऋিपुत्रं पराशरम् । सुस्तासीनं महात्मानं सुनिसुख्यगणाहतम् ॥ कताञ्जलिपुटो, भूत्वा व्यासस्तु ऋषिभिः सह । मदचिणाभिवादैच स्तुतिभिः समपूजयत् ॥

Saukha and Likhita alone in the Dwapara, and that of Parasara alone in the Kali Yuga, when are the Dharma Sastras composed by the other sages tu be observed? But this question admits of an easy solution. The Dharma Sastraa of Manu, of Gotama, of Sankha and Likhita, and of Parasara, are peculiar to the Satya, Treta, Dwapara, and Kali, respectively; and auch parts of the other Dharma Sastras as are not at variance with these prominent Bastras are to be followed in those Yugas,

अर्थ सन्तुष्टमनसा पराशरमहাপ্তनিः। बाह सुखागतं मूहोत्यासीनो क्षुनिपुङ्गवः ॥ व्यासः सुख्खागतं ये च ऋषयश्च समन्ततः । कुशल कुशखेत्युक्ता व्यासः पृच्छत्यतः परम् ॥ यदि जानासि मे भक्तिं तेन्हा भक्तवाल । धमों कथय में तात अडथाह्यो यहं तब ॥ श्रुता में भानश धम्र्मा वाशिष्टाः काश्यपास्तथा । गार्गेया गौतमाचैव तथा चौशनसाः करताः ॥ अलेर्विष्णोच सावर्त्ताः दाचा आङ्गिरखास्तथा । भातातपाय हारीता याद्मवस्करकृताद ये ॥ कात्यायनवताचैव प्राचेतसकताच ये । चापस्तम्बलता धर्माः शङ्गस्य निश्चितस्य च ॥ श्रुता ते भवत्योक्ताः श्रुतार्यास्ते न विकटताः । कखिन् मन्वन्तरे धम्र्माः सतत्लेतादिके युगे ॥ सबै धम्माः कृते जाताः सर्वे नष्टाः कलौ युगे । चातुवर्ण्यसमाचारं किच्चित् साधारणं वद ॥ व्यासवाक्यावसाने व सुनिश्वख्यः परागरः। धर्मास्य निर्णयं प्राह सूच्छ स्थूलच्च विस्तरात् ॥

"In times of yore some Rishis thus addressed Vyasadeva: Declare to us, oh son of Satyavati! what are the Dharmas and Acharas (practices) beneficial to men in the Kali Yuga. Vyasa- deva, on hearing these words of the Rishis, said, as I know not the truth of all things, how shall.I declare the Dharmas 1 My father should be consulted on the subject. Then the Rishis, accompanying Vyasadeva, arrived at the retreat of Parasara. Vyasadeva and the Rishis, with joined palms, circumambulated, saluted, and glorified Parasara, The great Rishi Parasara having welcomed them with a joyous heart and made enquiries, they informed him of their own welfare. After which Vyasadeva said, Oh Sire! I have heard from you, the Dharmas peculiar to the Satya, Treta, and Dwapara, a prescribed by Manu and others; what I have heard, I have not forgotten. All the Dharmas originated in the Satya Yuga, all of them have expired in the Kali Yuga. Declare, therefore, some of the common Dharmas of the four Varnas (castes). On the conclu- sion of Vyasa's speech, the great Rishi Parasara began to declare the Dharmas in detail."

At the commencement of the 2nd chapter also of the Para- sara Sauhita, there plainly appears a resolution to speak the Dharmas peculiar to the Kali.Yuga. Thus:-

अतःपरं ग्टहस्यस्य धर्माचारं कलौ युगे । धर्मं बाधारणं शक्यं चातुषण्र्यात्रमागतम् ॥ संपत्रच्यांग्यहं पूमें पराशरवचो बथा ॥

"Now, I shall declare the Dharmas and Acharas to be practised by a Grihastha (Householder) in the Kali Yuga, I shall first declare the practicable Dharmas common to the four Varnas (cas- tes) and Asramas (orders) as taught by Parasarn.".

After all this, it can neither be denied nor questioned that the Parasara Sanhits is the Dharma Sastra of the Kali Yuga. Now, it should be enquired, what Dharmas have been enjoined in the Parasara Sanhita for widows. We find in the 4th chapter of this work the following passage:-

नष्टे खते प्रब्रजिते क्लीने च पतिते पतौ । पशुलापत्यु नारीणां पतिरन्को विधीयते ॥ व्हते भर्त्तरि या नारी मात्र व्यवस्मिता । सा हता लभते सर्वं यथा ते मह्मचारिणः ॥ तितः कोक्योञ्जकोठी च यानि खोभानि मानवे। तावत् काळं वसेत् समें भर्त्तारं वाहनच्छति ॥

"On receiving no tidings of a husband, on his demise, on his turning an ascetic, on his being found impotent or on his degrada- tion-under any one of these five calamities, it is canonical for women to take another husband. That woman, who on the decease of her hushand observes the Brahmacharya (leads the life of aus- terities and privations), attains heaven after death. She, who burus herself with har deceased husband, resides in heaven for as many Kalas or thousands of years as there are hairs on the human body or thirty-five millions."

Thus it appears that Parasara prescribes three rules for the conduct of a widow; marriage, the observance of the Brahmacharya, and burning with the deceased husband. Among these, the custom of concremation has been abolished by order of the ruling authorities; only two ways, therefore, have now been left for the widows; they have the option of marrying or of observing the Brahmacharya. But in the Kali Yuga, it has become extremely difficult for widows to pass their lives in the observance of the Brahmacharya; and it is for this reason, that the Philanthropic Parasara has, in the first instance, prescribed marriage. Be that as it may, what I wish to be clearly understood is this that as Parasara plainly prescribes marriage as one of the duties of women in the Kali Yuga under any one of the five above enumerated calamities, the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga is conso- nant to the Sastras.

It being settled that the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga is consonant to the Sastras, we should now consider whether the son born of a widow on her remarriage, should be called a Paunarbhava. There is a solution of this question in the Parasara Sanhita itself. Twelve different sorts of sons were sanctioned by the Sastras in the former Yugas, but Parasara has reduced their number to three for the Kali Yuga. Thus:-

कौरसः चलनचैव दत्तः कलिमकः सुतः ।

A son born of a woman married a second time. In the prior Yngas the Paunarbhava was considered as an inferior sort of son. "The Aurasa (son of the body or son by birth), the Dattaka (sou adopted), and the Kritrima (son made)."

Parasara, then, ordains three different sorts of sous in the Kali Yuga, the son by birth, the son adopted, and the son made; and makes no mention of the Paunarbhava. But as he has prescribed the marriage of widows, he has, in effect, legalized the son born of a widow in lawful wedlock.

Now, the question to be decided is, whether this son should be called Aurasa (son of the body), Dattaka (son adopted), or Kritrima (son made). He can neither be called Dattaka por Kritrima, for the son of another man, adopted agreeably to the injunctions of the Sastras, is called Dattaka or Kritrima according to the difference of the ritual observed during the adoption. But since the son, begotten by a man himself on the widow to whom he is married, is not another's son, he can be designated by neither of those, appellations. The definitions of Dattaka (son adopted) and Kritrima (son made), as given in the Sastras, cannot be applied to the son begotten by a man himself on the widow married to him, But he falls under the description of the Aurasa (son by birth ). Thus:-

माता पिता वा दद्यातां वमङ्गिः पुत्रमापदि ।

सहशं प्रीतिसंयुक्तं स क्षेयो दत्रिमः सुतः ॥+

"The son given, according to the injunctions of the Sastras, by either of his parents, with a contented mind, to a person of the same caste, who has no male issue, is the Dattaka (son adopted) of the donee "

* In the Text there appears an enumeration of four different sorts of sons, but Nanda Pandita in hir Dattaka Mimansa, has, by his interpretation of this passage, established that there are only three different sorts of sons in the Kali Yuga, the son of the body, the son adopted, and the son made. I have followed his interpretation.

+ Manu Ch. IX

सडहुन्छ मकुस्याँर में सुष्यदोषविचचण्यम् । पुत्रं पुत्वगुणैर्युतं स विशेयस्तु कलिमः ।

"He, who is endowed with filial virtues and well acquainted with merits and demerits, when affiliated by a person of the same class, is called Kritrima (son made )."

स्खे चेले संकतायान्तु सवसत्मादयेद्धि वम् । तमौरसं विजानीयात् पुत्रं प्रथमकल्पितम् ॥

"Whom a man himself has begotten on a woman of the same elss; to whom he is married, know him to be the Aurasa (son of the body) and the first in rank."

The indicia of an Aurasa (son by birth) as above set forth, apply therefore, with full force to the son begctten by a man himself on a widow of the same class to whom he is wedded.

Since the Parasara Sanhita prescribes the marriage of widows and out of twelve legalizes only three sorts of sons in the Kali Yuga; since the indicia of the Dattaka (son adopt- ed'), and of the Kritrima (son made), do not apply to the son born of a widow in lawful wedlock, while those of the Aurasa (son by birth), apply to him with full force, we are authorized to recognize him as the Aurasa or the son of the body. It can by no means be established that Parasara intended to reckon the son of a wedded widow in the Kali Yuga as a Paunarbhava by which name such a son was designated in the former Yugas; and had it been necessary to give him the same designation in the Kali Yuga, Parasara wotild certainly have included the Paunarbhava in his enumeration of the different sorts of sons in the Kali Yuga. But far from this. The term Paunarbhava is not to be found in the Parasara Sanhita. There can be no doubt, therefore, that in the Kali Yuga,

the son begotten by a person himself on the widow to whom he is wedded, instead of being called Paunarbhava, will be reckoned as the Aurasa.

It being settled by the arguments above cited, that the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga is consonant to the Sttstras, we should now enquire whether in any Sastras, other than the Parasara Sanhita, there is a prohibition of this marriage in the Kali Yuga. For it is argued by many that the marriage of widows was in vogue in the former Yugas, but has been forbidden in the Kali Yuga. It should be remembered, however, that in the Parasara Sanhita the Dharmas, appropriated to the Kali Yuga only, have been assigned; and among those Dharmas the marriage of widows has been prescribed in the clearest manner. It can, therefore, never be maintained that widows have been forbidden to marry in the Kali Yuga. Under what authority this prohi- bitory dogma is upheld, is a secret known only to the prohi- bitionists.

Some people consider the texts of the Vrihannaradiya and Aditya Puranas, quoted by the Smartta Bhattacharya Raghu- nandana in his article on marriage, as prohibitory of the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga. Those texts are, there- fore, cited here with an explanation of their meaning and purport.

Vrihennaradiya Purana.

सखद्रयात्लास्वीकारः कमण्डलुविधारणम् । डिजानामसवर्षानु कन्यारूपयमस्तथा ॥ देवरेख खदोत्पत्तिर्मधुपर्के पशोर्वधः । भांसादनं तथा आवानप्राश्रमस्तवा ॥ दत्ताबाचैष कन्यायाः पुनर्हानं परस्य च । दीर्घकालं मह्मचर्थी नरमेधाश्रमेधकौ ॥

महां प्रख्यानगमनं गोमेषञ्च तथा मकम् ।

इमान् धर्भान् कलियुगे वज्र्थ्यांनाञ्जर्मनीषिणः ॥

"Zen-voyage; turning an ascetic; the marringe of twiceboru incu with damsels not of the same class; procreation on a bro- ther's wife or widow; the slaughter of cattle in the entertainme..t of a guest; the ropast on flesh-meat at funeral obsequies; the entrance into the order of a Vanaprastha (hermit); the giving away of a damsel, a second time, 'to a bridegroom, after she has been given to another; Brahmacharya continued for a long time; the sacrifice of a man, horse, or bull; walking on a pilgrimage till the Pilgrim die, are the Dharmas the observance of which has been forbidden by the Munis (sages) in the Kali Yuga."

Nowhere in these texts can any passage be found forbid- ding the marriage of widows. Those, who try to establish this forbiddance on the strength of the prohibition of "the giving away of a damsel, a second time, to a bridegroom, after she has been given to another", have misunderstood the real pur- pert of this passage. In former times, there prevailed a custom of marrying a damsel, who has been betrothed to a suitor, to another bridegroom when foünd to be endued with superior qualities. Thus:-

सक्कत् प्रहीयते कम्या हस्तां गौरदण्डभाक् । हत्तामपि हरेत् पूर्णात् श्रेांचहर आव्रजेत् * ॥

"A damsel can be given away but once; and he, who takes her back after having given away, incurs the penalty of theft: but oven a damsel given may be taken back from the prior bride- groom, if a worthier suitor offer himself."

The Vrihannaradiya Puraná alludes only to the prohibition of the custom, prevailing in the former Yugas and sanctioned by the Sastras, of marrying a girl betrothed to one person, to a worthier suitor. It is absurd, therefore, to construe the prohibition into a forbiddance of the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga. Nor is it reasonable to understand this text of the Vrihannaradiya Purana, by a forced construction, as prohibitory of such marriage, while the plainest and the most direct injunction for it is to be found in the Parasara Sanhita.

Aditya Purana.

दीर्घकालं नह्मचर्यं धारयत कमण्डलोः। देवरेण सुतोत्पत्तिर्दसा कन्या प्रदीयते ॥ कन्यानामसवर्षीनां विवाहच द्विजातिभिः । आतताविद्विजापत्राणां धम्मैत्रयुद्धेन हिंसनम् ॥ वामप्रस्थाश्रमस्यापि प्रवेशो विधिदेशितः । हत्तस्वाध्यायसापेचमत्रसङ्कोचनं तथा ॥ प्रायचित्तविधानच त्रिमाणां भरणान्तिकम् । संसर्गदोष पापेषु मधुपर्के पोर्वधः ॥ दत्तौरसेतरेषान्तु उत्चलेन परिग्रहः । मूहेषु दासगोपालकुलभिलाईसीरियाम् ॥ भोज्धाचता म्टहस्यस्य तीर्थच्चेवातिदूरतः । माह्मणादिषु म्यूद्रस्य एकतादिक्रियापि च । भटग्वग्निपतनचैव डङ्गादिमरणं तथा ॥ एतानि लोकुडप्तप्रर्थ कलेरादौ महात्मभिः । निवर्त्तितानि कमाथि व्यंवस्थापूर्व्वकं बुधैः ॥

"Long continued Brahmacharya; turning an ascetic; procrea- tion on a brother's wife or widow; the gift of a girl already given; the marriage of the twice-born men with damsels not of the same class; the killing of Brahmanas, intent upon destruc- tion, in a fair combat; entrance into the order of a Vanaprastha (hermit); the diminution of the period of Asaucha (impurity), in proportion to the purity of character and the extent of erudition in the Vedas; the rule of expiation for Brahmanas extending to death; the sin of holding intercourse with sinners; the slaughter of cattle in the entertaiment of a guest; the filiation of sons other than the Dattaka (sou adopted) and the Aurasa (son by birth); the eating of edibles by a Grihastha (Householder) of the twice- born class, offered to him by a Dasa, Gopala, Kulamitra, and Ardhasiri, of the Sudra caste; the undertaking of a distant pil- grimage; the cooking of a Brahmana's meat by a Sudra; falling from a precipice; entrance into fire; the self dissolution of old and other men-these have been legally abrogated, in the beginning of the Kali Yuga, by the wise and magnanimous, for the protection of men."

Nowhere also in these texts can any passage be found prohibiting the marriage of widows. That the interdict of the "gift of a girl already given," cannot be construed into such a prohibition, has already been shewn in examining a similar interdictory passage in the Vrihannaradiya Purana.

Some people say, that the prohibition of the filiation of sons other than the Aurasa (son by birth) and the Dattaka. (son adopted) in the Aditya Purana, leads to the forbiddance of the marriage of widows. They argue in the following manner,-In the former Yugas, the sons of widows, born in wedlock, were called Paunarbhavas; now, as there is a prohi- bition to filiate any other sons in the Kali Yuga except the Aurasa (son by birth) and the Dattaka (son adopted), this prohibition extends to the filiation of the Paunarbhava: the object of marriage is to have male issue; but if the filiation of the Paunarbhava begotten on a wedded widow be interdicted, the marriage of widows is necessarily inter- dicted. This objection appears, at first sight, rather strong and, in the absence of Parasara Sanhita, would have suc- ceeded in establishing the prohibition of the marriage of widows. But they, who raise this objection, have not, I be lieve, soon the Parasara Sanhita. It is true, indeed, that in the former Yug, the son of a wedded widow was called Paunarbhava; but from what I have argued above in re- spect of the application of the term Paunarbhava to the son of a wedded widow in the Kali Yuga, it has been already decided that the distinction between a Paunarbhava and an Atrasa has been done away with. If then the son, born of a widow in lawful wedlock, instead of being called a Paunar- bhava, be reckoned as Aurasa in the Kali Yuga, how can thre prohibition, in the Kali Yuga, of the filiation of sons other than the Aurasa and Dattaka lead to the interdiction of the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga?

It will now appear from the manner, in which I have expounded the spirit of the above quoted Texts of the Vri- hannaradiya and Aditya Puranas, that they do not prohibit the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga. But if the prohi- bitionists, not satisfied with the explanation, contend against the consonancy of this marriage to the Sastras, by citing the above Texts as prohibitory of the marriage of widows, we have then to consider the following question: The mar- riage of widows is enforced in the Parasara Sanhita, but interdicted in Vrihannaradiya and Aditya Puranas; which of them is the stronger authority ? That is, whether, according to the injunction of Parasara, the marriage of widows is to be considered legal, or, according to the interdiction of the Vrihannaradiya and Aditya Puranas, it is to be held illegal.

To settle this point, we should enquire what decision the authors of our Sastras have come to in judging of the cogency of two classes of authorities, when they differ from each other. The auspicious Vedavyasa has, in his own insti- tutes, settled this point. Thus:-

अतिद्धतिपुराणानां विरोचो यल बाते ।

"Where variance is observed between the eda, the Smriti, and the Purana, there the Veda is the supreine authority: when the Smriti and the Purana contradict each other, the Smriti is the superior authority."

That is, when the Veda inculcates one thing, the Smriti another, and the Purana a third, what is theu to be done? Which Sastra is to be folowed? Men ought to regard all the three as Sastras, and if they follow only one of them, they disregard the other two; and by a disrespect of the Sastras they incur sin. The auspicious Vedavyasa, therefore, has setiled the point, by declaring that when the Veda, the Smriti, and the Purana, are at variance with one another, then we should, instead of following the injunctions of the latter two, net up to those of the former; aud in the event of a contradiction between the Smriti and the Purana, we should, instead of following the ordinances of the latter, act up to those of the former.

Mark now, in the first place, that hom the above exposi- tion of the Vrihannaradiya and Aditya Puranas, they do, by no means, appear to prohibit the marriage of widows: second- ly, if by any forced construction, they can be made to imply such a prohibition, then there arises a palpable contradiction between the Vrihannaradiya and Aditya Puranas, and the Parasara Sanhita. The Parasara Sanhita prescribes, and the Vrihannaradiya and Aditya Puranas interdict, the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga. The Paracara Sanhita is one of the Smritis, while the Vrihannaradiya and Aditya Puranas are Puranas. The author of the Puranas himself ordains, that when the Smriti and the Purana differ from each other, the former is to be followed in preference to the latter. Hence, even if the Texts of the Vrihannaradiya and Aditya Puranas were made to imply a prohibition of the marriage of widows

in the Kali Yuga, we should, in spite of it, follow the positive injunction for the marriage of widows in the Parasara Sanhita. It can now be safely concluded that the consonancy of the marriage of widows to our Sastras has been indisputably settled. A fresh objection, however, may now arise that though the marriage of widows be sanctioned by our Sastras, yet being opposed to approved custom, it should not be practised. To answer this objection, it should be enquired in what case is approved custom to be followed as an authority. The Auspicious Vasishtha has settled this point in his ins- titutes. Thus:

लोके प्रेत्य वा विहितो धम्मैः । तद्दामे शिष्टाचारः प्रभाग्यम् ॥

"Whether in matters connected with this or the next world, in both cases, the Dharmas inculcated by the Sastras are to be observed where thore is an omission in the Sastras, there ap- proved custom is the authority."

That is, men should observe those duties which have been inculcated by the Sastras; and in cases where the Sastras prescribe no rule or make no prohibition, but at the same time a practice, followed by a succession of virtuous ancestors, prevails, then such practice is to be deemed equal in authority to an ordinance of the Sastras. Now, as there is in the Para- sara Sanhita a plain injunction for the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga, it is neither reasonable nor consonant to the Sastras to consider it an illicit act, merely because it is oppos- ed to approved usage; for it, is ordained by Vasishtha that approved custom is to be followed only in cases where there is an omission in the Sastras. It is, therefore, indisputably proved that the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga is, in all respects, a proper act, An adequate idea of the intolerable hardships of early widowhood can be formed by those only whose daughters, sisters, daughters-in-law, and other female relatives, have been deprived of their husbands during their infancy. How many hundreds of widows, unable to observe the austerities of a Brahmacharya life, betake themselves to prostitution and fæticide, and thus bring disgrace upon the families of their fathers, mothers, and husbands. If the marriage of widows be allowed, it will remove the insupportable torments of life-long widowhood, diminish the crimes of prostitution and focticide, and secure all families from disgrace and infamy. As long as this salutary practice will be deferred, so long wil the crimes of prostitution, adultery, incest, and fæticide, flow on in an ever increasing current-so long will family stains be multiplied-so long will a widow's agony blaze on in fiercer flames.

In conclusion, I humbly beseech the public to attend to these circumstances, and after having duly weighed all that have been said respecting the consonancy of the marriage of widows to the Sastras, to decide whether the marriage of widows should or should not prevail.

THE REJOINDER.

When the question of introducing the practice of the Mar- riage of Widows was first laid before the Community, I had strong apprehensions that it would be regarded with contempt; that the very title and purport of the work, which I published on the subject, would be a drawback to its attentive perusal, and that consequently my labour would be thrown away. But I was agreeably disappointed to find the public so eager to obtain the work, that, shortly after its publication, and in less thau a week, its first impression, consisting of two thou- sand copies, was entirely exhausted, I was encouraged to make a second impression of three thousand copies, which also was nearly exhausted in a very short time. I consider myself amply rewarded for all my labours and pains by this manifes- tation of eagerness on the part of the public.

It is a great satisfaction to me that many persons, both mere men of the world as well as professors of Sastras, have not only condescended to publish replies to my work, but have spared no labour and expense on a subject which, I feared, would meet with their contempt and derision. It adds no little to my satisfaction to find that, among the repli- cants there are many, who are distinguished in this country for their rank, fortune, and learning. What a piece of good fortune to me and to my little work, that such personages have deemed it worth their perusal, worth their discussion, and worth being replied to.

But it is much to be regretted that, most of my replicants are not well acquainted with the manner in which such ques- tions should be discussed. Some have been so infuriated at the very sound of the marriage of Widows, that they have lost all control over themselves; and their replies furnish instances of want of proper attention to the investigation of truth, arising from loss of temper during a controversy. Others, again, have wilfully avoided all discussion as to the merits of the question, and raised a number of false and futile objections. Their object, however, in so doing, has, in some measure, been gained. The generality of our countrymen, being ignorant of the Sastras, are incapable of arriving at the truth in any subject by weighing the arguments and authorities adduced and cited by two parties engaged in a Sastric controversy. The appearance of any objection, how- ever futile, is apt to cast them into doubt and uncertainty. Many, who on perusal of my work came to the conclusion that the question agitated by me was consonant to the Sastras, soon after, jumped to the opposite conclusion, on finding a few objections started against it. The great majority of my countrymen, moreover, being ignorant of the Sanskrit lan- guage, cannot of themselves understand the meaning and spirit of Sanskrit Texts, which can only be made intelligible to them by vernacular translations, upon which they entirely depend, in order to ascertain the trutlı in an enquiry of this nature. Many of the replicants have availed themselves of this circumstance to subserve their purpose, by distorting the meaning of the Texts, cited by them in their respective works, and such readers, as are ignorant of the Sanskrit, have taken their interpretation to be the genuine version. For this, how- ever, the readers are not to blame; for, no one can easily. bring himself to believe, that any person, engaged in a reli- gious controversy, Would, by ingenious artifices and subter- fuges, give wrong interpretation to the sayings of the sages, and, readily and without scruple or hesitation, publish them for the information of the public.

It is much more to be regretted, that many among the replicants delight in ridiqule and are fond of abuse. I was not aware that, ridicule and abuse form the chief elements of a religious controversy in this cuuntry. Instead, however, of having recourse to abuse and ridicule, the replicants should have adopted the course which suits the importance of the subject. It is surprising that, with many, the recep- tion of these antagonist pamphlets has been in exact proportion to the railing and personalities they contain. I was at first much aggrieved at the course, adopted by many pf the replicants; but the perusal of a certain pamphlet has relieved me from all painful sensations. The, reply is an anonymous one, under the signature of Vara" (Bridegroom) who, though striken in years and every where reputed to be the wisest man in this part of the country, has, in several parts of his work, betrayed a fondness for scoffing and scur- riloug jests. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that, in a religous controversy, the use of ridicule and abusive language towards an adversary is the criterion of a wise man in this country. Had this been otherwise, the worthy and revered old man, whom the whole country unanimously pronounces to be the wisest, would not have adopted that course.

But whatever, might be the character of the replies, I acknowledge my great obligations to their authors, and loud- ly offer them a thousand thanks. Had they not taken the trouble to reply to my work, it would have appeared that the learned and the influential portion of the community consid- ered it beneath their notice. But it is, at least, clear from the replies that the subject, I have proposed, is not such as could be passed over with contempt and disregard. Their silence would, indeed, have been most mortifying to me. They have employed considerable labour and research in citing, in their respective works, all available arguments and authorities that could be adduced te prove, as they supposed, the nonconfor- mity of the question to the Sastras. When, therefore, different persons have, in different ways, done their best to raise various objections against the marriage of widows, it may be inferred that all that could be said against it has been exhausted. When these objections are weighed and examined, ail doubts as to the consonance or otherwise of the practice of the marriage of widows to the Sastras, in the Kali-yuga, might be removed.

My adversaries have, in their respective works, written a great many things, but all of them are not relevant to the question at issue. I have, therefore, engaged myself to answer such of them as have appeared to me to have any bearing on the subject. As I have spared no pains and care in the framing of this answer, I humbly beseech my readers, that they would condescend to peruse this work once at least, from the beginning to the end, and I would consider all my labours amply rewarded.

CHAPTER L

THE TEXT OF PARASARA APPLIES TO FEMALES ACTUALLY MARRIED, NOT TO VIRGINS MERELY BETROTHED.

Some have decided that the Text of Parasara, relative to marriage, purports to enjoin the marriage of a betrothed girl and not of a wedded woman, in the event of "No tidings being received of her husband &c. &c." It is necessary to consider, whether the decision of my opponents is correct, Parasara says, नष्टे व्हते प्रव्रजिते क्लीने च पतिते मतौ । पड्डलापत्सु नारीयां पतिरन्यो विधीयते ॥

"On receiving no tidings of a husband, on his demise, on his turning an ascetic, on his being found impotent, or on his degra- dation, under any one of these five calamities, it is canonical for women to take another husband."

The Text, understood according to the true meaning of the words used by Parasara, would naturally lead to the conclusion, that a woman can remarry under any one of the five calamities enumerated. No other conclusion can be arriv- ed at, except by a forced interpretation of those words. Such interpretation is not however admissible, unless there be strong reasons for it. But no such reasons exist in this case, and therefore, Madhavacharya the Commentator, though antagonistic to the remarrying of females, has distinctly admitted that the Text of Parasara authorizes such re- marriage, under the calamities aforesaid. Thus:-

परिवेदनपव्र्यांधानयोरिव तीयां पुनरुद्दाहस्यापि प्रसङ्गात् कचिदभ्यसुचां हर्ययोत

"Parasara, having treated of Parivedana, and of Paryadhana,+ shows that under certain circumstances the remarriage of women is lawful. Thus:-

नष्ट कहते प्रव्रजिते क्लोवे च पतिते पतौ ।

पश्वखापत्यु भारीयां पतिरन्यो विधीयते ॥

"On receiving no tidings of a husband, on his demise, on his

• If the younger brother marries before the elder brother is married, that marriage is called Parivedana.

+ If the younger brother consecrates fire before the elder brother does so,

that act is called Paryadhana,

turning an ascetic, on his being found impotent, or on his degra- dation, under any one of those five calamities, it is canonical for women to take another husband."

पुनरुहाहमकत्वा मच्ह्मचर्यव्रतासुहाने श्रेयोऽतिशयं

दर्शयति

"He next shows that it is moro meritorious for women to observe the Brahmacharya than to marry again. Thus:-

हते भर्त्तरि या नारी मह्मचर्यो व्यवस्थिता । सा बहता लभते स्वर्गः यथा ते मह्मचारिणः ॥

"That woman, who, on the decease of her husband, observes the Brahmacharya, attains heaven after her death."

मह्मचर्यादयधिकं फलमनुगमने दर्शयति

"He then shows that coneremation is attended with a greater degree of merit than that attained from the observance of the Brahmacharya." Thus:-

तिस्रः कोटयोऽईकोटी च यानि लोभानि मानने ।

तावत् कालं वसेत् स्वर्ग भर्त्तारं यातुगच्छति ॥

"She, who burns herself with her deceased husband, résides in heaven for as many Kalas or thousands of years, as there are hairs on the human body, or thirty five millions of years."

On referring to the Narada Sanhita, it will be perfectly clear, that the injunction for remarriage as expressed in the Text, "On receiving no tidings of a husband, &c., &c.," can by no means be applied to the case of a betrothed virgin. Thus:-

नष्ट कहते प्रव्रजिते क्लीने च पतिते पतौ । पञ्चस्तापत्यु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते ॥ अष्टौ वर्षाख्यमेचेत आमची प्रोषितं पतिम् । अमस्ता तु चत्वारि परतोऽन्यं समात्रमेत् ॥

चत्रिया षट् समास्तिवेदप्रसूता सभालयम् । वैश्या प्रसूता चत्वारि हे वर्षे त्वितरा वसेत् ॥ न शूद्रावाः सटतः काल एष मोषितयोषिताम् । जीवति श्रूयमाणे त खादेष हियुद्यो विधिः ॥ अमष्टत्तौ तु भूतानां दृष्टिरेषा प्रजापतेः । अतोऽन्वगमने सोचामेष दोषो न विद्यते ॥ *

"On receiving no tidings of a husband, on his demise, on his turning an ascetic, on his being found impotent, or on his degra- dation, uuder any one of these five calamities, it is canonical for women to take another husband. A Brahmana woman should wait eight years for her absent lord, and four years only, if she be childless; then let her marry again. A Kshatriya woman should wait six years, and, in case she has no issue, three years only. Vaisya woman, if she has borne a child, four years, otherwise ouly two. For a Sudra woman no period is mentioned for which she is to wait for her husband. If it be heard that ho is living, the rule is, that the aforesaid periods are to be doubled; when tidings are not received, the forementioned periods are enjoined. Such is the opinion of Brahma, the lord of men. In such cases, therefore, there is no harm in women marrying again."

It will now appear that, the aforesaid nuptial Text can, by no means, apply to a hetrothed girl. In the case of an ab- sent lord, differont periods are assigned for which the wife is ⚫to wait for him, according as she has or has not any children. If this ordinance referred to a plighted virgin, the mention of the circumstance of her having or not having issue would he absurd. It may be, urged that the Narada sanhita was good only for the Satya-yuga, and therefore the Text quot- ed above cannot be construed to sanction the remarriage of women in the Kali-yuga, even if it were admitted that it enjoined such remarriage. It is true that the Narada-sanhita was good for the Satya-yuga, but the Text' alluded to is identi- cal with that of Parasara, both being composed of the same words. When both the Texts are identical, the meaning they convey cannot but be identical also. It would be absurd to assume that a particular set of worde would mean one thing in one Yuga, and another thing in another Yuga. It is cicar, therefore, that the Text can, on no account, have reference to the case of betrothed girls.

Those, who attempt to interpret the above Text of Para- sara, as applying to the case of a betrothed girl and not to a married woman, do so for the following reason: There are some Texts which prohibit the marriage of wedded women, and if Parasara's Text be admitted to apply to married wo- men, a discrepancy arises between the Texts. There are other Texts again which prescribe marriage for betrothed virgins, and if Parasara's Text be interpreted to apply to them, no discrepancy would occur. They therefore contend that Pa- rasara's Text should be interpreted as having reference to betrothed girls only. But I must remark, that as there are Texts prohibitory of the marriage of wedded women, so the Text of Kasyapa prohibits the nuptials of a betrothed girl. Thus

सप्त पौनर्भवाः कन्या वर्जनीयाः कुलाधमाः । वाचा दसा मनोदता कृतकौतुकमङ्गला। उद‌कवर्शिता या च. या च पाविग्टहीतिका । अन्तिं परिगता या च पुनर्भूप्रभवा च था। इत्येताः काश्यमेभोक्ता रहन्ति कुछमग्निवत् ॥

"In forming a matrimonial connexion, seven Paunarbhava damsels, despised of their families, are to be shunned. The Vag- datta, she who has been plighted by words of troth; the Mano- datta, she whom her parent or guardian has disposed of in his mind; the Krita-kautuka-mangala, she on whose hand the nuptial string has been tied; the Udaka-sparsita, she who has been given away by the sprinkling of water; the Panigrihita, she in respect of whom the ceremony of taking the haud has been performed; the Agnim-parigata, she iu respect of whom the marriage ceremo- nics have been completed the Punarbhu-prabhava, she who is both of a Punarbhu; these seven damsels, described by Kasyapa, when married, consume, like fire, the family of their husbands."

Mark now, as Kasyapa includes the betrothed girl among those, who are to be shunned in marriage, and gives her the designation of Punarbhu (remarried), her marriage is neces- şarily interdicted. Kasyapa enjoins, that the betrothed girl and the married woman are equally to be rejected. If, therefore, the circumstance of some Texts prohibiting the marriage of a wedded woman be made to operate against theinterpretation of the aforesaid Text of Parasara, as enjoining her remarriage; then, by parity of reasoning, that Text cannot be interpreted to apply to the case of a betroth- ed girl, when there is a prohibition in the Text of Kasyapa against it. Hence, the construction of the Texts of Parasara, as applying to the case of a betrothed girl, does not estab- lisk its consonancy with all the Texts of our Sastras on the subject. This is not, however, the way to reconcile all the Texts. If such reconciliation be necessary, it can be done in the following manner:

There is no mention in the Texts of Kasyapa and others, containing prohibition or injunction regarding the marriage of wedded women, of the specific Yugas to which they refer: hence, they should be considered applicable to all the Yugas, But when, in respect of the present question, there are certain ordinances or interdictions expressly laid down for the Kali-yuga, they may be said to be special rules appro- priate to that Yuga only. And as distinct specific rules for the Kali-yuga, touching the present subject, are found, it is quite unnecessary to attempt to reconcile them with general rules regarding it. For, it is patent to all understandings, that a specific rule supersedes a general rule. It is therofore necessary that, all special rules relative to the Kali-yuga should be reconciled with each other, and upon such recon- ciliation depends the legality or otherwise of the marriage of widows in that Yuga. With this view, I here quote first such Texts, as prohibit the remarriage of women in the Kali-yuga:

Adi Purana.

जढ़ायाः पुनरुद्दाहं ज्येष्ठांशं गोवधं तथा ।

कलौ पञ्च न कुब्र्वीत भ्रातृजायां कमण्डलुम् ॥

"The remarriage of a married woman, the giving of the best share to the eldest brother, the slaughter of a cow, procreation on a brother's wife, turning an ascetic, these five acts are not to be performed in the Kali-yuga."

Kratu.

देवरान सुतोत्पत्तिर्दता कन्या में दीयते।"

न वने गोवधः कार्यः कलौ न च कमण्डलः ।

"In the Kali-yuga, the brother is not to begot a child on a brother's wife, a girl already given is not to be given away, a cow is not to bo slaughtered in religious ceremonies, aud no one is to turn an ascetic.

Vrihannaradiya Purana.

हत्तायाचैव कन्यायाः पुनर्द्धानं परख च ॥

"In the Kali-yuga, a damsel is not to be given to a bride. groom a second time."

* Quoted by Madhavacharya in his commentary on the Parasara Sauhits. Aditya Purana.

दत्ता कन्या प्रदीयते ।

"In the Kali-yuga, the gift of a girl already given is for- bidden."

Thus there is, in geheral terms, a prohibition of the remarriage of women in the Adi Purana, the Kratu Sanhita, and the Aditya and Vrihannaradiya Puranas. But in the Parasara Sanhita we find,

नष्ट म्हते प्रव्रजिते क्लीने च पतिते पतौ । पञ्चस्त्रापत्यु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते ॥

"On" receiving no tidings of a husband, on his demise, on

his turning an ascetic, on his being found impotent, or on his

degradation, under any one of these five calamities, it is canon- ical for women to take another husband." That is, under any of these five contingencies, the re-

marriage of a woman is permitted.

Thus, we have now before us Texts both for and against the remarriage of women in the Kali-yuga. If we attempt to reconcile these apparently contradictory Texts, we should do so in the following manner:

In the Adi Purana and the other works, quoted above, the prohibition against the marriage of wedded women in the Kali-yuga is a general one; but Parasara makes special cases uuder five different contingencies, in which such mar- ringe is permitted. Where there are both a general and a special rule regarding a particular subject, the usual course is to apply the latter to the exceptional cases, and to adopt the former in all other cases. Hence it follows that the precept of Parasara should be observed in the five special contingencies mentioned, the prohibition in the Adi Purana, &c., being strictly adhered to in all other cases. This inter- pretation reconciles the two apparently contradictory.classes of Texts, and affords room for the application of both the precept and the prohibition. Let us enter into a detailed examination of the subject.

Katyayana says-

स तु यद्यन्यजातीयः पतितः क्लोष एव वा । विकर्मास्यः सगोलो वा दासो दीर्षाभयोऽपि वा । फैड़ापि देया सान्यच्चै सहाभरणभूषणा ॥ *

"If after wedding, the husband be found to be of n differ- cut caste, degraded, impotent, unprincipled, of the samo Gotra or family, a slavo, or a valitudinarian, then a married woman should be bestowed upon another, decked with propor apparel and ornaments."

Vasishtha Says-

कुलभोलविहीनस्य पण्डादिपतितस्य च । अपक्षारिविधर्मास्य रोगिणां वेशधारिणाम् ॥ दत्तामपि हरेत् कन्यां सगोलोढ़ां तथैव च ॥ 十

"A girl, married to a person who is of a low family, and conduct, impotent, degraded, epileptic, unprincipled, sickly, a devotee, or of the same family, is to be taken away from him, that is, married to another."

Narrda Says-

नष्टे म्हते प्रव्रजिते क्लीचे च पतिते पतौ ।

प्रक्चस्वापत्य नारीयां पतिरक्यो विधीयते ॥

"On receiving no tidings of a husband, on his demise, on his turning an ascetic, on his being round impotent, or on his degra dation, under any one of these five calamities, it is canonical for women to take another husband."

• Katyayans, quoted in the Parasain Bhashya and Nirnaya Sindhu. + Vasishtha quoted in the Udvahatattwa. Thus Katyayana, Vasishtha, and Narada, without allud- ing to any particular Yuga, have generally enjoined the remarriage of a woman when her husband is unprincipled, degraded, impotent, sickly, epileptic, of low family and con- duct, an ascetic, a slave, of the same family, of a different caste, when no tidings are received of him, or when dead.

Adi Purana says-

जड़ाया पुनरुद्दाएं ज्वेडांशं गोवधं तथा ।

कलौ पञ्च न कुर्वीत भ्वाहणायां कमण्डलुम् ॥

"The remarriage of a married woman, the giving of the best share to the eldest brother, the slaughter of a cow, procreation on a brother's wife, or turning an ascetic, these five acts are not to be performed in the Kali-yuga."

Kratu says-

देवराच खतोत्पत्तिर्दत्ता कन्या न दीयते ।

न यचे गोर्षभः कार्यः कौं न च कमरहनुः ॥

"In the Kali-yuga, the brother is not to beget a child on a brother's wife, a girl already given is not to be given away, a cow is not to be slaughtered in religious ceremonies, and no one is to turn an ascetic."

Vrihannaradiya Purana says-

दत्तावाचैव कृन्धायाः पुनर्हानं परख च ।

"In the Kali-yuga, a damsel is not to be given to a bridegroom a second time."

Aditya Purana says-

दत्ता कन्या प्रदीयते ।

"In the Kali-yuga, the gift of a girl already given is forbid- den,"

But the Parasara Sanhita says-

नष्टे स्हते मनजिते क्लीचे व पतिते पतौ । पश्वस्तापत्य नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते ॥

"On receiving no tidings of a husband, on his demise, on his turning an ascetic, on his being fouud impotent, or on his dog. dation, under any one of these five fulamities it is canonical for women to take another husband."

Thus, the Adi Purana and other works, in general terms, prohibit the remarriage of wedded women in the Kali-yuga; while Parasara specially enjoins sitch marriage in, the Kali- yuga, under the five circumstances specifted by him.

Now, let my readers consider that Katyayana and other Sages, without alluding to any particular Yuga, enumerate certain cases, in which they enjoin the remarriage of a wedded woman. Such a rule would have answered for all the Yugas; but as in the Adi Purana and other works such marriage has been forbidden in the Kali-yuga, the prohibition is special to that Yuga: hence, the ordinances of Katyayana and others apply to the three Yugas other than the Kali.

Again, in the Adi Purana and other works, the remar- riage of women in the Kali-yuga has been generally pro- hibited, without the specification of any exceptional cases; but Parasara points out particular conditions, under which he declares such marriage in that Yuga to be canonical. The injunction of Parasara, therefore, is a special rule; and the general prohibition in the Adi Purana and other works applies to all but the five cases specified by Parasara.

Such is always the case, when there are both general and special injunctions or prohibitions on the same subject. Thus:-

अहर‍ः सभ्याडपासीत ।

"Day by day the Sandhya (a coremony) is to bo per- formed:"

This is a clear general rule for the porformance of the Sandhya laid down in the Vedas. But,

सन्ध्यां पश्च महायज्ञान्नु नैत्यकं स्टतिकर्म्म च ।

तन्मध्य हापवेत्तेषां दशाहान्ते पुनः क्रिया ॥ *

"The Sandhya, the five great sacrifices, and the daily neces sary rites, enjoined by the Smritis, are not to be performed during the period of Asaucha (impurity); after the expiration of that period, they are to be performed again."

Here, Javali prohibits the performance of the Sandhya, during the period of Asaucha. Now mark, though there is a general ordinance in the Vedas for the daily performance of the Sandhya, yet it is not performed during the period of Asaucha, by the special prohibition of Javali, Again,

पूर्व्यां सन्ध्यां अपंस्तियेत् साविलीमार्कदर्शनात् । पश्चिमान्तु समासीनः सम्यग्टज्ञविभावनात् ॥ 101. न तिति यः पूषां नोपास्ते यच पश्चिमाम् । स मूडहिष्कार्थः सर्वभादुद्धिजकर्माणः ॥ 103. +

"At the morning twilight, let him (a twice-born) stand repeating the Gayatri, until he sees the sun; and at the even- ing twilight, let him repeat it sitting, until the stars distinctly appear. But he, who stands not repeating in the morning twi- light, aud sits not repeating in the evening, must be precluded, like a Sudra, from every sacred observance of the twice-born classes." But,

संक्रान्यां पचयोरन्त द्वादश्यां श्रावासरे।

*Javali, quoted in the Buddhitattwa. + Manu. Ch. II.

सायं, सभ्यां न कुर्मीत लते च पिल्ल्हा भवेत् ॥

"On the day of the passage of the sun to a new Zodiacal sign, on the last day of either half of the lunar month, on the twelfth na well as twenty-seventh day of the moon, and on the day of the celebration of a Shraddha,, the Sandhya is not to be performed in the evening; by doing so the sin of parricile is incurred."

Observe now, in spite of the general injunction in the institutes of Manu for the performance of the Sandhya in the morning and evening and the penalty attached to its violation, it is not performed on certain specified days by the special prohibition of Vyasa; that is, the general in- junction for the performance of the Sandhya obtains on days other than those specified by that Sage. In the Vedas is the following prohibition-

मा डिंस्थात् सर्षो भूतानि ॥

"Kill no living thing.

But in other places of the Vedas there are such injune- tions as the following-

अश्वमेधेन बजेत ।

"This sacrifice is to be performed by the shaughter of a horse."

पशुना रुद्रं वजेत ।

"The sacrifice, called the Rudra-yaga, is to be performed by the slaughter of cattle."

अग्नीषोमीयं पशुमालभेत ।

"The sacrifice in honor of Agni and Shoma is to be perform- ed by the slaughter of cattle."

*Vyasa, quoted in the Tithitattwa.

* वायव्यं श्वेतमालभेत ।

"The sacrifice in honor of Vayu is to be performed by the slaughter of a white goat."

Now mark, despite the most clear and positive general prolribition in one part of the Vedas, against killing ani- mals, their slaughter, in, certain sacrifices, is considered a meritorious act by the special injunctions in other parts of the Vedas; that is, owing to the special injunction, the general prohibition against the slaughter of animals, is applicable to all cases except those of the equine sacrifice, the Rudra-yaga, and the like. On this account the illustrious Manu has said-

मधुपर्क च यच्चे च पित्टद्वैतकर्मणि ।

अत्लैव पशवो हिंस्या नान्यत्लेत्यनवोन्मतुः ॥ 5. 41.

"On a solemn offering to a guest, at a sacrifice, and in holy rites to the manes or to the gods, on these occasions only and not in others, may cattle be slain; this law Manu has enacted."

It should be observed, that in the above cited cases, our acts are guided by special rules in spite of general ones to the contrary, the latter obtaining force only in cases not comprehended in the former. In spite, then, of the general prohibition against the remarriage of women in the Kali- yuga, the special ordinance of Parasara, directing their remarriage under the five conditions specified by him, is to be observed; the general prohibition in the Adi Purana and other works obtaining force in all cases except those five. This I consider to be the plain and rational way of re- conciling apparently contradictory Texts on the subject under discussion.

CHAPTER IL

THE MARITAL TEXT OF PARASARA REFERS TO THE KALI- YUGA, NOT TO THE OTHER YUGAS.

Madhavacharya, after giving an interpretation of the Text of Parasara respecting the remarriage of females, thus con- cludes,-

चवच्च पुनरुद्दाहो युगान्तरविषयः । तथाचाहिपुराणम्

कढ़ायाः पुनरुद्दाई ज्येष्ठांशं गोवधं तथा ।

कलौ पश्च न कुर्वीत स्याहजार्या कमण्डलुम् ॥

4

"This injunction of Parasara, for the remarriage of females, is to be understood to apply to Yugas other than the Kali because it is declared, in the Adi Purana, that the remarriage of a female once wedded, the allotment of the best share to the eldest brother, the Bovine sacrifice, procreation on a brother's wife, and turning and ascetic, are the five acts not to be practised in the Kali-yuga."

It should now be considered, whether this remark of Ma dhavacharya is correct and reasonable. It is necessary, in the first place, to ascertain the object of Parasara from the spirit of his Sanhita and its interpretation by Madhava- charya himself.

The Text of the Sanhita.

अथातो हिमशैलाये देवदारुवनालये । व्यासभेकायमासीनमष्ठच्छवृषयः पुर्रा ॥ मानुषाणां हितं धर्षों वर्त्तमाने कलौ युगे। शौचाचारं वधावच्च वह सत्यवतींचत ॥

"Therefore, in times of yore, the Rishis, thereafter, addressed Vyasa-who was seated, with his attention fixed on one object, in his retreat in the pine forests on the top of the Himalayas.

Declare to us, Oh son of Satyavati! what arg the Dharmas (duties) and Acharas (practices) beneficial to men in this Kali- yuga.'"

Commentary of Madhavacharya. वर्त्तमाने कलाविति विशेष्यात् युमान्तरधर्श्वज्ञानानन्तर्यम् ।

"Thereafter, that is, the Rishis, after having been informed of the. Dlarmas of the Satya, Treta, and Dwapara Yugas, enquired about the Dharmas of the Kali-yuga."

अतःशब्दो हेत्वर्थः वनादेकदेशाध्यायिनो नाशेषधर्श्वतानं यमा युगान्तरघर्षाभवगत्य न कलिधम्र्मावगतिस्तचादिति ।

"Therefore, that is, whereas the study of a part cannot make one acquinted with the whole of the Dharmas, and whereas the Kali Dharmas cannot be known from an acquaintance with the Dharmas of other Yugas, therefore the Rishis enquired."

From this it cleary appears, that at the commencement of the Kali-yuga, the Rishis, who knew the Dharmas of the Satya, Treta, and Dwapara Yugas, wishing to obtain a knowledge of those for the Kali-yuga, repaired to Vyasa and questioned him on the subject.

Text.

तच्छ्रुत्वा ऋषिवाक्यन्त सशिष्योऽग्न्यर्कस चिभः । मत्युवाच महातेजाः श्रुतिष्टतिविशारदः ॥ नचाहं सर्व्वक्वनः कथं धर्मं वदाम्यहम् । अात्पितैव प्रष्टव्य इति व्यासः सुतोऽवदत् ॥

Hearing these words of the Rishis, he (the great Vyasa), surrounded by his pupils, radiant as the sun and fire, and versed in the Vedas and the Smritis, replied, I do not know the truth of all things, how shall I declare the Dharmas! My father only should be consulted on the subject. This was said by the son of Parasara."

Commentary.

नचाहमिति वदतो व्यासस्यायमाशयः सम्मति कविधम्माः प्रच्यन्ते तत्व न तावदहं स्वतः कलिधर्मतत्त्व जानामि अात्पितुरेव तल माथी- ख्यात् अतएव कलौ पाराशराः कटता इति वच्यते । यहि पित्तप्रसादাম্মদ त‌द्भिज्ञानं तहि स एवं पिता प्रष्टव्यः नहि मूलवक्तरि विद्यमाने प्रथा- ड़िका युज्यत इति ।

""I do not know, &c., by this, Vyasa mouns to say that you n.e now enquiring of me the Kali Dharmas; but I have learnt them from my father; he only is master of them; and as I have obtained a knowledge of them through my father's favour, he should be consulted on the subject; when the original in- structor is living, it is not meet to receive knowledge at sccoud haud."

एवकारेणान्यवर्त्तारो ब्यावत्र्यन्ते । यद्यपि मन्वादयः कलिधम्माभि- शास्तथापि पराशरखाखिन् विषये तपोविशेषबलात् असाधाख्यः कषि- "इतिथयो द्रष्टव्यः । यषा काण्वमाध्यन्दिनकाठककोयुमतैत्तिरीयादिशाखासु कालाहीनामसाधारणत्वं तद्वदलावगन्तव्यम् । कडिधर्म्मसम्महायोमेतस्थापि पराशरचतस्य यहा तङ्गर्भरहस्याभिवदने सङ्कोचः तहा किष्ठ एक्तव्य- सन्येषामिति ।

"From the expression my father only should be consulted on the subject it is to be inferred, that the authors of the other Smritis are excluded (as referees on this subject). Although Manu and others, are versed in the Kali Dharmas, yet Parasara, by virtue of particular penances, has become the supreme authority as regards the Kali Dharmas. As among the Kazwa, Madhyaudina, Kathaka, Kauthuma, Taittiriya, and other Sakhas or branches of the Vedus the Kanwa and some others are distinguished, so, in respect of the Kali Dharmas, Parasara stands pre-eminent among all the authors of the Smritis. When Vyasa, who is himself admitted to be the instructor of the KaliDharmas, hesitates to declare them while Parasara is living, what shall we say of the other Rishis."

We thus see that as regards the Kali Dharmas, the authority of Parasara weighs more than that of Manu and other writers of Smritis and that his Text is supreme on the Subject of the Kali Dharmas.

Text.

यदि जाँनासि ने भक्तिं खेहाद्दा मतवाल । धर्मा कषय में तात अनुपाक्यो यत्रं तव।

"Oh Sir affectionate to thy votaries, if thou knowest me to be thy votary and bearest any affection towards me, instruct me in the Dharmas; I am an object of thy favour." Vyasa thus addressed his father.

Commentary.

नतु सन्ति बहवो मन्वादिभिः प्रोक्ता धर्माः तत्र को धम्र्मी भवता बुभुत्यित इत्याशङ्क्रम बुभुत्थितं परिमेषयितुत्तमन्यस्यति ।

"There are various Dharmas promulgated by Manu and otlfers, and Vyasa, fearing as if Parnsara asked him which of them he wished to learn first, mentions the Dharmas in which he has been already edified, that he may conclude with specify- ing the Dharmas, he wishes to learn."

Text.

श्रुता में मानवा जणां वाशिणाः काश्यपास्तया । गार्गेया गौतमीयाच तथाचौशनसाः करताः ॥ अमेर्विष्णोष संवर्त्ताद्धादाङ्गिरसाक्षचा। भातातपाच हारीता वाचवत्कयालयैव च ॥ आपस्तम्बलता धर्माः शक्स विचितस च। कात्यायनलतार्थः प्राचेतसकताच में ।

श्रुता छैते भवत्ोक्ताः श्रुतार्थों से न स्ष्टिताः । अािन् मन्वन्तरे धर्माः कतलेतादिके युगे ॥

"I have heard from you the Dharmas declared by Manu, Vasishtha, Kasyapa, Garga, Gotama, Usana, Atri, Vishnu, San- vartta, Daksha, Angies, Satatapa, Harita, Yajuavalkya, Apasta- mba, Sankha, Likhita, Katyayaua, and Prachetasa. I have not forgotten what I learnt; they were the Dharmas of the Satya, Treta, and Dwapara Yugas."

Commentary.

इदानीं परिशिष्टं बुभुत्सितं पृच्छति ।

"And now he enquires about the Dharmas he wishes to learn."

Text.

सर्वे धम्र्माः कते जाताः सर्वे नष्टाः कलौ युगे । चातुवर्ण्यसमाचारं किश्चित् साधारणं वद ॥

"All the Dharmas originated in the Saya-yuga, all of them have expired in the Kali-yuga declare therefore some of the common Dharmas of the four Varnas (castes)."

Commentary.

विष्णुपुराणे

आदिपुराणेऽपि वर्णाश्रमाचारवती प्रष्टत्तिर्न कलौ न्हयाम् । अतः कलौ प्राणिनां प्रयाससाध्ये धर्षो प्रडक्यसम्भवात् चकरो भरिल

यस्तु कार्त्तयुगे धर्षों में कर्त्तव्यः कलौ युगे । पापप्रसक्तास्तु यतः कलौ नार्यों नरातचा ॥

बुभुत्थितः ।

"It is said in the Vishuu Purana that the specified Dhar- mas of the four Varuns (castes) and of the four Asramas (orders,) are not observed in the Kali-yuga. It is also declared in the Adi Purana that the Dharmas of the Satya-Yuga cannot be practised in the Kali-yuga; Lecause both men and women, all, are addicted to sin. Men in the Kali-yuga cannot be expected to have any predilection for Dharmas, which are difficult to bo practised the inculcation of the easily practicable Dharinas, therefore, is the object of the Parasara Sanhita."

By all this, it is manifest that the Dharmas, inculcated by Manu and others, are appropriate to the Satya, Tota, and Dwapara Yugas, and that the observanec of all of them in the Kali-yuga is impracticable. Vyasa, therefore, asks of Parasara for such Dharmas as are easily performable in the Kali-yuga.

Text.

ध्यासवाक्यावसाने तु सुनिसुख्यः पराशरः ।

धर्मस्य निर्णयं प्राह रूच्छां स्यलच्च विस्तरात् ॥

"On the conclusion of Vyasa's speech, Parasara, the chief of Sages, began to propound, in detail, the general principles and subtle points of the Dharmas."

. Thus it appears, that, at the request of Vyasa, Parasara, who tenderly loved his son, began to declaro the Dharmas of the Kali-yuga.

Now let my readers calmly think, whether or not, the 'above citations of the Texts of Parasara and of the coin- mentary of Madhavacharya himself clearly and unquestion- ably prove, that the sole object of the Parasara Sanhita is the inculcation of the Dharmas of the Kali-yuga. When it is understood that such is the object of the work, it must be acknowledged that the whole work, from beginning to end, has reference to the Kali-yuga only. It would, there- fore, be absurd to suppose that the Text relative to the marriage of widows and other women applies to the other Yugas. How can it be reasonably supposed that when Vyasa and other Sages, at the commencement of the Kali- yuga, distinctly declare their having acquired a knowledge of the Dharmas of the preceding Yugas, and therefore ask Parasara to edify them in the Dharmas of the Kali-yuga, he would, in inculcating the Dharmas of that Yaga throughout his work, prescribe only a single Dharma which applies to Yugas other than the Kali. There can be no doubt, therefore, that Parasara las prescribed the remarriage of women as a Dharma appropriate to the Kali-yuga.

It has been shewn above that Madhavacharya has, in his own interpretation, decided that the object of the Para- sara Sanhita is the propounding of the Kali Dharmas. Any conclusion therefore arrived at by the Commentator, which is contrary to the scope of the Sanhita and opposed to his own interpretation, can never be accepted as rational.

Madhavacharya's gloss, to the following effect, on the three Texts of Parasara relative to remarriage, Brahma- charya, and concremation, becomes incoherent, if the Text relative to remarriage be supposed to refer to Yugas other than the Kali:

"Under certain contingencies the remarriage of a woman' is legal."

"It is more meritorious for a woman who, instead of mar-

rying again, observes the Brahmacharya.",

"Concremation is attended with a greater degree of merit than what is attained from the observance of Brahmacharya."

In the opinion of Madhavacharya, remarriage refers to the prior Yugas; Brahmacharya and concremation to the Kali-yuga. There can be therefore no connexion between the Text which speaks of remarriage and those which direct Brahmacharya and concremation. Now, when Madhavacha- rya, by deciding that the marital Text refers to the former Yugas, leaves not to the widows of the Kali-yuga, any right to remarriage, the idea of comparison, expressed in the Text which promises higher rewards to the widow of the Kali-yuga who, instead of marrying, observes the Brahmacharya, would be quite absurd. The obvious con- nexion subsisting between the three Texts which declare in the first place, remarriage of women to be canonical; secondly, the observance of the Brahmacharya to be in- strumental in procuring greater merit; and thirdly, con cremation to be the passport to still higher rewards; in- evitably leads to the conclusion, that these three injunc- tions apply to one and the same Yuga: If remarriage be considered to refer to the preceding Yugas, Brahmacharya and concremation must necessarily be deemed appropriate to those Yugas; and if the latter two be viewed as assign- ed for the Kali-yuga, the former must also apply to this Yuga. Want of mutual connexion would destroy the sense. It must be confessed, in short, that Madhavacharya, in his zeal to reckon the marriage of widows among the Dharinas of the former Yugas, has not only strayed from the obvious purport of the author of the Sanhita, but has neglested to see, whether this dictum would tally with his own interpretation of the passage.

Madhavacharya has himself declared that as it is not expected that men in the Kali-yuga would have any pre- dilection for the Dharmas which are difficult to be observ- ed, it is the object of Parasara to assign such Dharmas for the Kali-yuga, as are easily practicable. Considering reraarriage to be a Dharma easily practicable, Parasara has, in the first place, laid it down as a Dharma for the widows in general. Sacondly, the observance of the Brahma- charya being a difficult task, he has enjoined it for those women who feel their strength equal to it, declaring that its observance would be a passport to heaven. Thirdly, concremation being the severest duty, he has ordained it for those women whose courage is commensurate with the task, by encouraging them with the hope of eternal resi- deuce in heaven. Madhavacharya has however reckoned the easily practicable duty of remarriage as a Dharma of the past Yugas, and assigned the remaining two most au- ous duties only (Brahmacharye and concremation) as appropriate to the Kali-yuga. Now, let my readers consider, Whether this allotment of Madhavacharya squares with his former exposition, that men in the Kali-yuga not being disposed to observe the Dharmas which are difficult of performance, the avowed object of Parasara is the assign- ment of the easily practicable Dharmas for men of the Kali-yuga. It is certainly a strange hypothesis that a most easily practicable Dharma, which the strong minded men of the byegone ages were privileged to perform, should have Leen interdicted to a feeble and degenerate race. In fact, when it is considered that the people of the Kali-yuga have immeasurably fallen off, in their physical and moral strength, from their ancestors of the prior Yugas, and are therefore incapable of practising the difficult Dharmas; when Para- sara, having commenced declaring the Dharmas of the Kali- yuga has, in respect of widows in general, ordained, in the first instance, remarriage, the most ensily practicable Dhar- ma, we come to the irresistible conclusion that Madhav- acharya's supposition of remarriage not being intended for the widows of the Kali-yuga can never be reconciled with reason or the avowed object of the author of the Sanhita.

That the above interpretation of Madhavacharya isop- posed to the intention of Parasara is clearly evident also from the writings of Bhattojidikshita, who thus declares his opinion:

न च कलिनिषिङ्गस्यापि युगान्तरीवधर्षास्यैव नष्टे व्हते इत्यादिपराशर- वाक्यं प्रतिपादकलिति वाच्यं कलावनुष्ठेयान् धम्र्मानेव पुज्यामीति प्रति- ज्ञाय तरुयन्यप्रच्चयनात् । *

"It cannot be contended that the Marital Text of Parasara applies to Yugas other than the Kali, for Farasara has compiled his Sanhita, with the avowed object of declaring the Dharmas to be observed in the Kuli-yuga alone."

From the arguments and citations above set forth, the non-consonancy of the interpretation of Madhavacharya to the scope of the Parasara-sanhita and to his own exposition of the three Texts relating to remarriage, Brahmacharya, and concremation, has been sufficiently established. We should now examine the weight of the authority, on the strength of which he founds his supposition that remarriage was not in- tended for the Kali-yuga.

Madhavacharya, in attempting to refer the remarriage of females to Yugas other than the Kali, has pot been able to derive any support either from the general scope of the Sanhita or from the obvious meaning and construction of the Text in question, but has suffered himself to be guided by a single Text of the Adi Purana. His meaning seems to be this: although the Parasara Sanhita is appropriate to the Kali-yuga only and although it enjoins the remarrige of females, yet as there appears a prohibition in the Adi Pura- na against the remarriage of women once wedded, in the Kali-yuga, the injunction of Parasara should be considered not to refer to the Kali-yuga but to the preceding Yugas.

Three strong objections may be raised against this rea- soning-Ist, The Text, which Madhavacharya declares to have cited from the Adi Purana, is not to be found in that Purana; moreover, when regard is had to the scheme of the work, the improbability af any such Text being found in it would be manifest the citation of Madhavacharya, there-

* Chaturvinsati Smriti Vyaklıya, Section on marriage.

fore, appears to be unfounded, and any conditsion, which it supports, should be considered as unauthorized. Secondly, should the Text in question be admitted to be genuine, it is not reasonable to qualify, on its strength, the Text of Para- sara; for Parasara Sauhita is one of the Smritis and the Adi Purana is a Puranic work and it has been clearly shed. that in the event of a contradiction between the Smriti and the Purana, the former would be the stronger authority; that is, we, should, in that case, instead of following the in- junctions of the Purana, act up to those of the Smriti. By this rule therefore no Text of a Smriti can be qualified by any Puranie Text, when they seem to jar with each other. In the third place, from what has been said in the preceding chapter respecting the cogency of special rules, we should, instead of suffering the Text of the Adi Purana to qualify that of the Parasara Sauhita, rather reverse the process: The prohibition in the Adi Purana is a general rule, while Parasara's ordinance is a special one; the general rule, instead of barring the operation of a special rule, should be superseded by the latter. Mark now, the interpretation of Madhavacharya referring the injunction of Parasara for remarriage of feinales to Yugas other than the Kali, is-Firstly, opposed to the spirit and scope of the Sanhita; secondly, inconsistent with his own expositions; thirdly, founded on an authority, the genuineness of which is questionable; fourthly, (the genuineness of the authority being granted) contrary to the rule laid down by Vyasa which declares the authority of the Smriti to be superior to that of the Purana, when they are at variance with each other; and fifthly, contradictive to the universal doctrine th a special rule supersedes a general one. In fact the hipposition that the marital Text of Parasara refers to Yugas other than the Kali is untenable. See page 241.

A fresh objection may start up: Madhavacharya was a great scholar; we should accept his doctrine without ques- tioning its reasonableness. To this, I have only to observe, that Madhavacharya was, indeed, a learned man and, in all respects, highly venerated; but he was not infallible noare his opinions always accepted as infallible. Whenever his conclusions were unsound, succeeding writers have not scrupled to refute and criticize them. Thus:-

यत्तु माधवः वस्तु वाजसनेयी स्यात् तस्य सन्विस्भिात्पुरा। म काजन्वाहितिः किन्तु सदा सन्धि दिने हि सा इत्याह तत् कर्कभाष्यद्देवानी श्रीअनन्तभाध्यादिसकनृतच्छाखीययन्यविरोधाइङ्गनादाचोपेच्यम् । *

"What Madhavacharya has said here cannot he accepted as anthoritative, because it is opposed to the Karkabhashya, Deva- jani, Sri Anantabhashya and all other writers on the Vajasaneya Saklıa, and disregarded by many."

माधवस्तु सामान्यवाक्यानिर्णयं कुर्वन् भवान्त एव ।

"Madhavacharya ia attempting to settle the point, according to the common acceptation of the term, has entangled himself in the meshes of fallacy"

कृष्णा पूर्वोत्तरा शुक्ला दशस्येवं व्यवस्यितेति माधवः । वस्तुतस्तु सख्या नवमीयुतैव पाया। दशमी त प्रकर्त्तव्या सदुर्गा द्विजसत्तमे- न्यापस्तन्योक्तेः ।

"Madhavacharya lays down this rule, but we must follow a

different course."

सासि चाश्वयुजे शुक्त नवराले विशेषतः । सब्पूज्य नवदुर्गाच्च नक्तं कुर्यात् समाहितः । नवरालाभिधं कर्म नक्तव्रतमिदं स्टतम् ॥

Nirnayasindhu, Ch. I.

+ Nirnayasindhu. Ch. II. Ch. I.

Nirnayasindhu.

चेत् न नवरात्लोषवाचतः इत्यादेरतुपपत्तेः । *

"If you say that the rule is valid, because it has been declared by Madhavacharya and is to be found in the Skanda Puraus, then the other Sustras are falsified."

अल यामलबार्वाक बत्तुर्दशीसमाप्तौ तदन्ते तदूर्द्धगाभिन्यान्तु मात- स्तिथिमध्य एवेति हेमाद्रिमाधवादयो व्यवस्थामाज्ञः तन्न तिथ्यन्ते तिथि- भान्त वा मारखं यल चोदितम्। यामलयोगाभिन्यां मातरेव हि मारणेत्यादिसामान्यवचनैरेव व्यवस्थासिजेरुभयविधवाक्यवैयर्थ्यस्य दुष्परि हरत्यात् । +

"Hemadri, Madhavacharya, and others, have settled this rule, but it should not be ruceiyed; for then the conclusion would be irresistible, that both the dicta are useless."

नच यदि प्रथमनिशायानेकतरवियोगस्तदापि ब्रह्मवैवर्त्तादिवचना- हिद्वापारणमनन्तभकुमाधवाचार्योक्तः युक्तभिति वाच्य न रालौ पारणं कुर्यांडते वै रोहिणीव्रतात्। निशायां पारणं कुर्यात् वर्जयित्वा महा निशाभिति संवत्सरमदीपष्टतख न रालौ पागणं कुर्य्याडते वै रोहिणी अवात् । अल निश्यपि तत् कार्यं वर्जयित्वा महानिशामिति ब्रह्माण्डो- ऋस्य च निर्बिषयत्पापतेः ।

"If you say that the conclusion arrived at by Ananta Bhatta and Madhavacharya are valid, then the quotation in the Sanvatsara Pradipa, and the Text of the Brahmanda Purana will have no sphere of application."

Thus Kamalakarabhatta and Rughunandana have not failed to refute his doctrines when they appeared open to objection: wherefore, it clearly appears, that the dictum of

* Nirnayasindhu. Ch. II.

+ Nirusyasindhu, Ch. II.

Tithitattwa

Madhavacharya, right or wrong, is not to be received as an infallible authority.

CHAPTER IIL

THE MARITAL INJUNCTION OF PARASARA IS NOT OPPOSED

TO MANU.

Almost all the oppositionists have come to the conclu sion, that the marriage of widows is against the law of Manu; whereby they mean to establish that the Text of Parasara, though it authorizes the marriage of widows in the Kali-yuga, being opposed to Manu, should be rejected on the strength of the following Text of Vrihaspati:

बेहार्थोपनिवन्मृत्वात् प्राधान्यं हि मनोः सटतम् । अन्यर्धविपरीक्षा वा सा मृतिर्न प्रशस्यते ॥ *

"Manu has, in his own Sanhita, compiled the spirit of the Vedas; he is, therfore, the chief authority; aud Smritis at variance with him are not proper guides,"

This conclusion does not appear to be rational. Vrihas- pati directs that the Manu Sanhita is the chief authority, and the Smritis at variance with it are to be rejected; but he does not specify any particular Yuga or Yugas in which that Sanhita is to be so regarded. On the other hand, Parasara, an equally wise and infallible Sage, distinctly affirms that the Sanhita of Manu was appropriate for the Satya-yuga only, and not for all the Yugas. The direction of Vrihaspati, in general terms, might have applied to all the Yugas as advanced by the oppositionists, if Parasara did not particularize the Satya-yuga. It must accordingly be admitted that the Sanhita of Manu was supreme authority in that Yuga only, and not in any other Yuga. That it is not so in the Kali-yuga, is also evident from the fact that, in many instances, the prevailing practices are founded on Smritis plainly at variance with that Sanhita. Thus

Manu has said-

लिंगद्धर्षों वहेत् कन्यां हृदयों द्वादशवार्षिकीम् ।

लष्टवर्षोऽष्टवर्षों वा ध噸 सीदति सत्वरः ॥ 9. 94.

"A man, aged thirty years, is to marry a girl of twelve; or a man of twenty-four years, a damsel of cight; a breach of this rule makes a man sinful."

But Angira declares-

अष्टवर्षा भवेद्रौरी नववर्षा तु रोहिणी । दश्मे कन्यका प्रोक्ता यत कहुँ रजस्वला ॥ तस्मात् संवत्सरे प्राप्ते दशने कन्यका बुधैः । प्रदातव्या प्रयत्वेन न होषः कालदोषतः ॥ *

"Damsels of eight, nine, and ten years are respectively named Gauri, Rohini, and Kanya; and all girls above ter aro called Rajaswala or women in their catamenin when therefore a girl has reached her tenth year, she is to be immediately disposed of in marriage, and such marriage, even though cole- brated in an interdicted nuptial season, will not bo hold cul-, pable."

It thus appears, that Angira has fixed the eighth, ninth, and tenth years as the proper marriageable age of a gir!; and so great is his apprehension, lest she should continue unmarried after her tenth year, that he enjoins the mar- riage of a decennarian damsel even in times when weddings are forbidden; but with respect to males, he assigns nei- ther twenty-four nor thirty years, nor any period for their marriageable age. Now it should be observed, whether or not, the above Texts of Manu and Angira contradict each other: Manu fixes either the eighth or twelfth year as the marriageable age of a girl, any deviation from which is de- clared by him to be sinful; while Angira directs that a damsel should be married in her eighth, ninth, or teuth year, the last of which is declared to be the farthest limit at which her marriage is indispensable and not to be defer- red: hence, according to his opinion the twelfth year is by no means the proper marriageable age. The actual practice now-a-days is founded on the ordinance of Angira and opposed to the law of Manu. If the injunction of Manu in this respect were to be followed, girls of eight and twelve years would be bestowed upon suitors aged twenty-four and thirty years respectivley; otherwise the sacred law is violated. We nowhere see, in the present age, the opera- tion of such a rule. The ordinance of Angira, on the con- trary, that the eighth, ninth, and tenth years, are the prop- er wedding periods of a damsel, is almost universaly observed. Hence then, as regards the determination of the marriageable age, the rule of Manu is at present discoun- tenanced, while that of Angira, which is opposed to it, is respected.

Again, Manu has declared-

एक एवौरसः पुत्त्रः पिलग्रस्य वसुनः प्रभुः ।

मेषाणामान्दशंस्यायें प्रदद्यान्तु प्रजीवनम् ॥ 9. 163. षष्ठन्तु क्षेत्लजस्यांचं प्रदद्यात् पैटकाङ्गनात् । औरसो विभजन् दायं पिल्लं पश्चममेव वा ॥ 9. 164. औरसच्चेषजौ पुत्त्रौ पिष्टरिक्थस्य भामिनौ । दशापरे तु क्रमशी गोलरिक्यांशभागिनः ॥ 9. 165.

"The son of his own body is the sole heir to a man's estate. He is to allow a maintenance to the rest, out of kinduass 'only."

"But whon the son of the body divides the paternal inherit ance, he is to give a sixth or fifth part of it to the son, of the wifo begotten by a kinaman."

"The son of the body, aud son of the wife should succeul to the paternal estate, but the ten other kinds of sous sncceed, in order, to the family duties and to their share of inheritance."

Thus, according to Manu, if a man have many kinds of sons, a son of the body, a son of the wife, an adopted son, and the like, then the son of the body shall inherit his paternal property, after having allotted to the son of the wife a fifth or sixth part of it; and shall allow a maintenance to the adopted and other sons as a more act of kindness; on failure of a son of the body, the son of the wife shall succeed to the whole property, and failing him, the adopted son and so on; the last namel succeeding in default of the preceding.

But Katyayana says-

उत्पचे त्वौरसे पुत्ने ऋतीयांशहराः सुताः ।

सवर्चा असवर्यास्तु यासाच्छादनभागिनः ॥ *

"On the birth of a son, of the body, the other sons, of the same caste with the father, take a third of his heritage; but if they bo of a different caste, they are entitled only to mainte- nance."

According to Katyayana, therefore, the son of the wife, the adopted and other sons, of the same caste with the father, succeed to a third of their paternal estate, and if of a different caste, cau claim a mere maintenance. Mark now, whether or not Manu and Katyayaua, are at variance with each other. Manu allows a sixth or a fifth of the heritage to the son of the wife and mere maintenance to the other kinds of sons; while Katyayana enjoins the allotment of a third part of the estate to the son of the wife as well as to all the rest, who are of the same class with the father. According to Manu, when there is a son of the body, the Datteka (adopted son) is entitled only to maintenance; * but according to Katyayana, he has a claim to a third of the heritage. If we observe the actual practice, we shall find, that in this case, the injunction of Manu is disregard ed, while that of Katyayana, who holds a contrary opinion, is followed: that is, in the present age when a son of the body is living, an adopted son, instead of get- ting mere maintenance, partakes of a third of the heritage. Had Vrihaspati meant to say that all Smritis, opposed to Manu, are to be rejected even in the Kali-yuga, how comes it that Katyayann's rule, in the case above cited, is now held valid in practice?

A third instance:

Manu says-

यस्या स्त्रियेत कन्याया वाचा सत्ये लते पतिः । तामनेन विधानेन निजो विन्देत देवरः ॥ 9. 69. यथाविध्यधिगस्यैनां शुक्लतवस्तां शुचिव्रताम् । मिथो भजेदाग्रसवात् सकत् सक्द्धहताहतौ ॥ 9. 70. न हप्त्वा कस्यचित् कन्यां पुनईद्याद्विचचणः । दत्त्वा पुनः प्रयच्छन् हि प्रांत्रोति पुरुषान्डसम् ॥ 9. 71.

* But if the Dattaka be endued with excellent qualities, he iuherita the property with the son of the body, Thus:-

उपमनो गुणैः सर्वैः पुत्त्रो यख व दत्रिमः । स हरेतैव तड्रिन्यं समाप्तोऽज्यन्यगोत्लतः ॥

"Of the man who has adopted a son adorned with every virtue, that son shall take the heritage though fron a different family."

"The damsel, whose husband dies after troth verbally plighted but before consummatiou, his brother shall take for the purpose of begetting a sou ou her according to this rule."

"Having taken such a girl for the above purpose in due form of law, she being elad in n white robe and pure in her moral couduct, let hita approach her once in due sensor, and until issue be had."

1 "Let no sensible man, who has ouce givon his daughter to suitor, give her again (in the event of his death before con- sunimation, to another; for he who gives away his daughter, whom he had before given, ineurs the guilt of stealing a girl."

We thus find that Manu prohibits the marriage of a betrothed girl on the death of the suitor to whom she had been plighted, directs the procreation of a son on her by his brother in due form of law, and, after the birth of such issue, enjoins the life-long observance of the rules of wid- owlhged. According to his opinion, therefore, a betroth- ed girl is unmarriageable after the death of her suitor, nud for the perpetuation of his line, she, having, by his brother given birth to a son, must continue a widow though her whole life.

But Vasishtha pronounces-

यद्भिर्वाचा च दत्तायां स्त्रियेतायो वरो यदि । न च मन्त्रोपनीता स्यात् कुमारी गितुरेव सा ॥ वावच्चेदाहृता कन्या मन्त्रैर्यदि न 'संकता । अन्यको विधिवद्देया यथा कन्या तचैव या ॥ Ch. 17.

"The damsel, whose suitor happens to die after she had, been given to him by the sprinkling of water, or by troth ver Lally plighted, but before the utterance of the nuptial Texts, continues her father's."

"If a damsel has been given only by pledge of words with-

out the consummation of the marital act by the utterance of the nuptial Texts, she should be bestowed upon another in duo form; her state of celibacy is not destroyed by mere verbal plight."

Thus Vasishtha, considering the virgin state of a be- trothed girl unaffected by the death of the suitor before consummation, enjoins the bestowal of her to another in due form of law.

Observe now whether or not there is a broad contradic tion between Manu and Vasishtha. Manu pichibits the marriage of a betrothed damsel after the death of the suit or before consummation, and directs her to bear a single son by her late suitor's brother, and then to continue a widow for life; while Vasishtha plainly enjoins her wedding under the same predicament. On turning to the custom now prevailing in our country, we see it founded on the ordinance of Vasishthn; that is, on the death of the suitor before consummation, a damsel is bestowed upon another according to the injunction of Vasishtha, but she is not, in conformity with the law of Manu, obliged to continue a widow for life.

When, therefore, on referring to practice we find, that in many particulars, Smritis opposed to Manu are every- where respected and followed in the Kali-yuga, and when Parasara assigns the Dharmas propounded by Manu to be appropriate only to the Satya-yuga, the superiority of the authority of Manu, and the invalidity of Smritis opposed to him as declared by Vrihaspati, must necessarily be consid- ered to allude to the Satya-yuga. Otherwise the Text of Vrihaspati, that Mapu has compiled the spirit of the Vedas, and therefore Manu is pre-eminent, becomes incongruous: Has Manu alone digested in his Sanhita the purport of the Vedas, and have Vajuavalkya and Parasara and the other Rishis failed to do so? Have they, in their respective institutes, delivered their self-invented ordinances opposed to the Vedas? Certainly, it cannot be supposed that they kuew not the Vedas, or that they did not propound, in their respective works, the spirit of the Vedas: the fact is, they have, in their respective Smritis, exhibited the seope of the Vedas in the same manner, as Manu has drue in his owu Sanlıkta.

If, then, what Vrihaspati kas predicated of the insti- of Manu with a view to the establislıment of his pre- eminence, can be equally predicated of the other institutes, how can the conclusion he rational that Maun is the su preme authority and the other Smriti writers are inferior to him. The same cause, which operates to render one work pre-eminent, must, while it exists in another, serve to ren- der it equally excellent. In fact, when people regard all the Rishis equally wise and infallible, and when all of them have, in their respective works, propounded the spirit of the Vedas, all of them must, no doubt, be equally esteemed.

That we are to accord equal respect to all the Rishis is a conclusion arrived at not by myself alone; Madhavacha- rya, in his commentary on the Parasara Sanhita, conies to the same decision. Thus-

यस्तु वा कथञ्चिन्नाडकटतेः प्रामाण्यं तथापि प्रकृतायाः पराचरकटतेः किसायातं तेन न हि मनोरिव मरायरस्य महिमानं कचिद्वेदः मख्या- पयति तखात्तदीवस्टतेर्दुर्निरूपं प्रामाण्यम् ।

"Well; if the pre-eminence of the institutes of Manu be, in some such manner, established, what does it matter with refer- ence to the Parasara Sanhita Nowhere the Vedas chant the greatness of Parnaara as of Manu. It would therefore be diffi- cult to determine the authoritativeness of the institutes of Parasara." Madhavacharya, having proposed this question, preceeds to solve it:

Thus-

न च पराशरमहिम्न्तोऽनौवत्यं सहोवाच व्यासः पराशर्य्य इति श्रुतौ परवंशरपुचत्वमुपजीव्य व्यासस्य स्तुतत्वात् । यहा सर्वसम्मतिपक्षमहिन्द्रो बेदव्यासस्यामि स्तुतवे पराशर पुत्रत्वश्वमजीव्यते तदा किश्तवक्तव्यमचिन्त्य- महिमा पराशर इति । तस्मात् पराशरोऽपि मनुसमान एव। एष एव न्यायो वशिष्ठालिवाईंवत्कयादिषु योजनोयः ।

"It is not true that Parasara's greatness has not been chanted in the Vedas; by the expression in the Vedas "Vyasa, the son of Parasara, has said," Vyasa has been extolled as the sen of Parasara. The eminence of Vyasa is universally admit- ted; when, therefore, he has heen complimented in the Vedus for his being the son of Parasara, it needs no mention, that Parasara's greatness is beyond all question. Now, there remains no doubt, that Parasara is, equally illustrious with Manu. Similar reasoning should be applied to Vasishtha, Atri, Yajga valkya, and others; that is their greatuoss also being sung in the Vedas, they are as exalted as Manu."

It is therefore indubitably established, that when all the sage authors of the Sanhitas are acknowledged to be equally wise and infallible; when all of them have, in their respective works, given an exposition of the spirit of the Vedas; and when they are all eulogized in the Vedas; all of them ought to receive from us an equal tribute of respect. The only distinction consists in this, that one special Text of Smriti obtains precedence in a particular Yuga: the institutes of Manu, was the paramount authority in the Satya-yuga, those of Gotama in the Treta, those of Sankha and Likhita in the Dwapara, and those of Para- sara is the cardinal Smriti in the Kali-yuga. Thus, the Smritis of Manu and Parasara being appropriate to two different Yugas, there is no such relation between them that any contradiction could be possible.

From all that have been urged above, we come to the

following conclusions- The institutes of Manti and Parpsara, being the leading Sastras of two different Yugas, can never be at variraće with each other; the superiority of Manu and the inval- idity of Smritis opposed to him as advanced by Vrihaspati, refer to the Satya-yuga; in the Kali-yaga, the Smritis, Which are even at variance with Manu, are received as authorities. Hence, there can be no objection to the validity of the marriage of widows in the Kali-yniga as ordained by Parasara, even though it were opposed to the institutes of Manu.

Let us now inquire whether the nuptial ordinace of Parasara, iu respect of widows and other women, is at all at variance with Mauu or other Smritis.

Maju says-

या पल्या वा परित्यक्ता विधवा वा स्ववेदा। उत्पाट्येत् पुनर्भूत्वा स पौनर्भव उच्यते ॥ 9. 175.

"If a woman, after becoming a widow, er being divoreed by her husband, marries again, the son boru of her of this marriage is called a l'aunarbhava,"

Vishnu says-

अक्षता भूयः संकता पुनर्भूः।

Ch. 15.

"She, who continues a virgin and undergoes the ceremony of marriage for a second time, is called a Puparbhu."

Yajnavalkya declares-

अक्षता चला चैव पुनर्भूः संकता पुनः। 1. 67.

"She, who continues a virgin or otherwise, is called a Pu- narbhu, if she undergoes the ceremony of marriage for a second time."

Vasishtha pronounces--

वया च क्लीवं पतितश्वन्मत्तं वा पतिष्ठत्सृज्य अन्यं पर्ति विन्हते म्हते वाचा पुनर्भूर्भवति । Ch. 17.

"She, who having forsaken her lord for his impotence, degradation, or insanity, or of his death, takes another hus band, is called a Punarbhu,"

Thus, it appears, that Manu, Vishnu, Yajnavalkya, and Vasishtha," have admitted the remarriage of a woman, on the degradation, impotence, insanity, or the death, of her husband.

Some of the oppositionists have asserted that Mauu and other Lawgivers, in making mention of the Paunarbhava (son born in the second wedlock of women), did not mean to legalize them, but only wanted to give a designa- tion to such sons, should they happen to be born. This assumption, however, is gratuitous. No authorities warrant such a conclusion. For, those authors, who have declared the law with respect to sons, have one and all, regarded the Paunarbhava as a legal son.

Manu, after having defined the son of the body and the rest of the twelve kinds of sons, concludes with saying,

चेलजादीन् सुतानेतानेकादश वचोदितान् ।

पुत्त्वप्रतिनिधीनाज्ञः क्रियालोपान्मनीषिणः ॥ 9. 80.

"These eleven kinds of sons, the son of the wife and the rest as enumerated, gre allowed by Rishis to be substitutes, in order, for a son of the body, for the sake of preventing the failure of obsequics."

And,

श्रेयसः श्रेयसोऽभावे पापीयान्हक्यमर्हति। 9. 185.

"On failure of the superior classes of sons, in succession, let the inferior in order take the heritage."

Yajnavalkya, also, after describing the son of the body and the other kinds of sons, says,

पिण्डदोऽ' शहरकैषां पूब्र्ष्यार्थ्यांभाने परः परः। 3. 102.

"Among these twelve kinds of soha, when there is a fuilure of those named first, they, who are named next iu order, Le come the heir and the offerer of the funeral cake."

Thus, when Manu and Yajnavalkya have declared the Paunarbhava to have a legal right to the heritage and to the performance of the Sraddha, the assertion of such son's be- ing illegal should be utterly disregarded.

When, therefore, Manu, Yajnavalkya, Vishnu, and Va- sishtha, admit the remarriage of women under certain contingencies, the conclusion that the marriage of widows is against the opinion of Manu and other Smriti writers must be quite unfounded. It would seem that this conclu- sion has been advanced by persons, who have not thoroughly studied Manu and other Jurists. It would be uncharitable to suppose, that with a full knowledge of the subject they have brought forward such an unfounded and a false statement.

The fact is, that the marriage of widows is not contrary to the opinion of Manu and other Jurists. The only thing to be marked is, that they desiguated the remarried fe- males Punarbhus, and the sons, born in such second wedlock, Paunarbhavas: while, according to Parasara, such females and such sons are not to bear those designations in the Kali-yuga. This much is the extent of the difference of opinion between Parasara and the other Smriti writers. Had Parasara intended to continue those designations in the Kali-yuga, he would certainly have assigned the term Punarbhu to such females and reckoned the Paunarbhava in his enumeration of the several kinds of sons, That, in the Kali-Yuga, such females are not to be called Punarbhus and such sons, instead of being designated Paunarbhavas, are to be reckoned sons of the body, is borne out by the prevailing practice. Mark, if after troth verbally plighted, the suitor happens to die, or the match is broken by some canse or other, before consummation of the marital rite, the marriage of the damsel takes place with another pe son. In the preceding ages, such females were called Punar bhus and their issues Paunarbhavas.

Thus-

सप्त पौनर्भवाः कन्या वर्जनीयाः कुलाधमाः । वाचा दत्ता भनोदत्ता कृतकौतुकमङ्गला । उदकस्यर्शिता या च या च पाणिग्टहीतिका । अग्निं परिगता या च पुनर्भूप्रभवा च या । इत्येताः काश्यपेनोक्ता दहन्ति कुलमग्निवत् ॥

"Seven Punarbhu (remarried) damsels, who are the despised of their families, are to be shunned; the Vagdatta, she who has been Blighted by word of troth; the Manodatta, she whom one has disposed of in his mind; the Krita-kantuka-mangala, she on whose hand the nuptial string has been tied; the Udaka-spar- sita, she who has been given away by the sprinkling of water; the Panigrihita, she in respect of whom the ceremony of taking the hand has been performed; Agnim-parigata, she in respect of whom the marriage ceremonies have been completed; and the Punarbhu-prabhava, she who is born of a Punarbbu: these seven kinds of damsels described by Kasyapa, when married, consume like fire the family of their husbands."

Now-a-days the marriage of four kinds of Punarbhus, out of the seven enumerated above, namely the Vagdatta, the Manodatta, the Krita-kautuka-mangala, and the Punar-bhu-prabhava, has become current. Such females have no distinctive appellation, and are regarded, in all respects, equal to the wives married for the first time, though in form- er Yugas they were desigunted Punarbhus, and the sous born of them, instead of being called Panuarbhavas, are to all intents and purposes, considered the same as the sops of the body. They offer funeral cakes to their parents, succeed to their estate, and perform all other stated duties just like ren of the body, never, even by mistake, aro they called Paunarbhavas.

It should now be observed, that, as the marriage of four, out of the seven kinds of Punarbhus of byegone ages, is now current, and they are deemed as reputable as women married for the first time, bearing even no distinctive appellation, and their issues undistinguished from the Aurasa putra (son of the body), if the second wedding of the remaining three Punarblus were to come in vogue, by parity of rensoning, there would be no bar to their being regarded in the same light as wives married for the first time, and their sons be- ing acknowledged as Aurasa putras (sons of the body).

Hence, then, as Parasara accords to the Punarbhu of the former ages the same right which is assigned to a once married woman, and to the Paunarbhavas of the past Yugas the same claims which are inherent in the Aurasa putra (son of the body), and as the prevailing custom upholds this opinion as regards the four kinds of Punarhus and Faunarbhavas of the prior Yugas, there can be no doubt that remarried 'widows and their issue, though they might have been nained Punar- bhus and Paunarbhavas in the former Yugas, would now, in the Kaliyuga, be undistinguished from the first married wives and Aurasa putras (sons of the body) respectively..

The conclusion that sons of remarried widows are to be regarded as Aurasa putras (sons of the body) in the Kali- yuga, is also fully supported by the authority of the Mahabharata wherein it is related, that there was a king of the Nagas, named Airavata, who married his widowed daughter to Arjuna, and the son born unto her by Arjuna, named Iravan, was reckoned as the Aurasa putra (son of the body) of Arjuna.

अर्जुनस्यात्मजः श्रीषानिरावाचाम वीर्यवान् । सुतायां नागराजस्य ज्ञातः पार्षेन धीमता ॥ ऐरावतन सा दत्ता ह्यागपत्या महात्मना । पत्यौ हते सुपर्णेन रूपच्या दोनचेतना ॥ *

"By juna was begotten on the daughter of the king of the Nagas, a handsome and powerful son named Iravan: when her husband was killed by Suparna, Airavata, the magnani- mous king of the Nagas, gave that dejected sorrowstricken childless daughter in marriage to Arjuna, the third Pandava."

अजानखजुनचापि निहतं पुचनौरसम् ।

अधान समरे शूरान् राগ্নজ্জাহ্ মীয়रचिणः ॥

"Arjuna, not knowing this his Aurasa putra (son of the body) to have been killed, continued smiting the mighty kings who defended Bhishma."

Thus it appears that with the setting in of the Kali- yuga, + the Paunarbhava of the former Yugas, began to be reckoned and accepted as Aurasa putra (the son of the body ).

We should now examine the spirit and real import of

Bhishma Parva. Ch. 91.

+ शतेषु षट्स सार्वेषु त्यधिकेषु च भूतले । कणेर्मतेष वर्षाच्यामभवन् कुरुपाण्डवाः ॥

+ Six hundred and fifty three years after the Kali-yuga had commenced, the Kurus and Pandavas flourished. -Rajatarangini by Kalhans, Taranga 1.

the Texts quoted by the oppositionists from Manu with the view of shewing that his opinion is adverse to the mar- ringe of widows. The following half of one of the Texts of Manu has been cited by them to gain their object.

न द्वितीयच साध्वीनां कचिद्र चौपदिश्यते। 5. 162.

"And a stranger has not, in respect of a virtuous woman, been ever called her husband in any Sastras."

But when its meaning and the purport of the context t's considered, my adversaries will fail to attain their end. Thus-

म्हते भर्त्तरि साध्वी स्त्री नाच व्यवस्थिता । स्वर्ग गऋत्यपुत्रापि यथा ते मह्मचारिणः ॥ 5.160. अपत्यनोभाद्या तु स्त्री भर्त्तारमतिवर्त्तते । सेह निन्दामवाप्रोति पतिलोकाच्च होयते ॥ 5. 161. नान्योत्पक्षा प्रजास्तीह न चाप्यन्यमरियहे। न हितोयस साध्वीनां कचिद्ध पिदिश्यते ॥ 5. 162.

"That virtuous woman, who after the decease of her hus- band, observes the Brahmacharya, ascends to heaven though she have no child; like thocs Brahmacharis (abstemious men) who had no issue."

"That woman, who from a wish to bear children prostitutes herself, incurs opprobrium, and shall to excluded from the seat of her husband (in another world)."

"Issue begotten on a woman by a stranger, is no progeny of hers, and the child begotten on the wife of another man is no offspring of the begetter; and a stranger has not, in respect of a virtuous woman, been ever called her husband in any Sastras,"

Vasishtha says- जनताः पुत्रियां लोकाः माइलस डोकोऽसीति श्रूयते । Ch. 17.

"Men having sohs enjoy heaven to eternity; it is declared in the Vedas, that heaven is not decreed for him, who has no воп.

If a childless widow, keeping this authority in view, fears her exclusion from heaven and, longing to gain it, receives the embraces of a stranger with the view of bear- ing a son, she brings disgrace upon herself and finds no place in heaven; for issue illegally begotten by a stranger, is not to be reckoned her rightful child. If it be question- ed, why not regard the begetter as her husband, Manu answers, no, "such a stranger has not, in respect of a virtu- ous woman, been ever called her husband in any Sastras; that is, he, whom a woman, solely guided by her will, and in the hope of heaven, illegally betakes herself to, with the view of having a son procreated on her, can, accord- ing to no Sastras, be regarded her husband. Since, all the Sastras have applied the term husband to that man only, with whom a woman has been married in due fosm established by law.

The proper import, therefore, of half the Text, quoted by the replicants, is, that if a widow, yearning for a son in the hope of heaven, prostitutes herself by receiving the embraces of a stranger, that stranger cannot be called her husband; otherwise, if it imply, that a woman can have "no scond husband even though she marry him in due legal form, it would jar with the injunction of Manu him- self in respect of the Paunarbhavas, whom he allows to offer funeral cakes to their parents and succeed to their property.

The replicants have made a second attempt to establish the discordance of the marriage of widows with Manu, by accepting an absolutely verbal import of another half of a Toxt of Manu, without examining its bearing with the context. Thus-

न विवाहविधायुक्त विधवावेदनं पुनः।

"In the nuptial ordinances there is no mention of the re- marriage of widows,"

But they have failed to see that if this Text were to be considered positively prohibitory of the marriage of widows, it would be at variance with Manu's own legalization of PaunarDuava. The half of the Text, cited above, taken by italf, may somehow be construed in the spirit in which they have interpreted it; but when viewed in its relation with the context and the end and scope of the author, this interpretation can never be maintained.

Thus-

देवराहा सपिण्डाद्दा क्षिया सम्ब‌नियुक्ऋया। प्रजेचिताधिगन्तव्या सन्तानख परिचये ॥ 9. 59. विधवाओं नियुक्तस्तु प्रताक्लो वान्वतो तिथि । एकछत्पादयेत् पुत्थं न द्वितीयं कथञ्चन ॥ 9. 60. द्वितीयमेके प्रजनं अन्यन्ते स्वीषु तद्विदः । अनिईसं नियोगार्थं पश्झन्तो धर्मतस्तयोः ॥ 9, 61. विधवायां नियोगार्थे निईते तु वचाविधि। सुरुवश्च क्षुभावश्च वत्सेंवातां परतरम् ॥ 9. 63. नियुक्ती यौ विधिं हित्वा वर्त्तवातान्तु जामतः । ताडुभौ पतितौ स्यातां सुषागगुरुतल्पगौ ॥ 9. 63. नाम्यतिन् विधवा नारी नियोकल्या विजातिभिः। অন্তঝিল্ খি নিयुद्धানা ঘमें हन्युः सनातनम् ॥ 9. 64. नोहाहिकेषु मन्त्रेषु नियोगः कोयते कंचित् । म विवाहविधायुक्तं विधवावेहमं पुनः ॥ 9. 65. चयं हिजैर्त्ति विहङ्गिः पशुधन्र्को विगर्षितः। मनुष्यायामपि प्रोक्तो मेथे रावं प्रशासति ॥ 9, 66,

स महीमतियां भुञ्जन् राजर्षिप्रवरः पुरा । . वर्षानां सङ्घरं चक्रे कामोपहतचेतनः ॥ 9. 67. ततः प्रभ्टति यो मोहात् प्रमीतपतिकां स्वियम् । नियोजयत्मपत्यार्थे तं विगर्हन्ति साधवः ॥ 9. 68.

"On failure of issue, a wife, duly authorized, may have the desired son begotten on her by the husband's brother or by some other kinsman."

"Sprinkled with clarified butter and silent, in the night, let the man thus appointed beget one son, but a second by no means, on that widow."

"Some sages, versed in the rules of appointment, thinking that the legal object of the appointment may not be answered, by the birth of a single son, enjoin the procreation of a second son on the widow."

"The object of the appointment having, in respect of the widow, been legally accomplished, they both (the widow aud the man appointed) are to live like a daughter-in-law and a father-in-law."

"They two, who being appointed for the above purpose, deviate from the strict rule and act from carnal desire, shall be degraded and deemed, the one as having defiled the bed of his daughter-in-law, and the other as having criminally lived with her father-in-law."

"By men of twice-born classes no widow must be author- jzed to conceive by a stranger; by such an authorization to conceive by a stranger, chastity is ruined."

"Nowhere in the nuptial Text, has Niyoga (appointment) been mentioned, and in marital ordinances, the Vedana (accept- ance for the purpose of procreating) of a widow is not alluded to."

"This practice, fit only for cattle, is reprehended by the learned twice-born; it is said to have been the custom even amongst men, while Vena had sovereign power."

"That great monarch, having grasped the whole carth, and having lost sense through last, gave rise to the Varna-saukars ( mized classes)."

"Since that time, the virtuous condemn that mau who, through delusion of mind, appoints a widow to have a sou procreated on her."

Now, on duly considering theso Texts, would it appear that they treat of the marriage of widows or of Kshetraja putras (sons born on the wife by another)? The first Text introduce and the last concludes the subject of Kshetraja putra. When, therefore, the proem and the sequel relate to injunctions and prohibitious respecting the Kshetraja putra and all the intermediate Texts allude to the same subject, there can be no doubt that this section treats of the procreation of a sou on another's wife. As regards the Text (included in the above cited ones), on the strength of which the oppositionists urge that the marriage of widewa is against the opinion of Manu, I have to say that, as in the first half of it the word Niyoga has been used, which clearly and indisputably signifies direction for the procrea- tion of a son on another's wife, the ambiguous term Vodana in the second half must also be taken, regard being had to the context, in the sonse of acceptance of another's wifo for the procreation of a son. The verbal radix Vid (to accept), from which the word Vedana is derived, means to accept the hand of a woman, either in marriage or for the purpose of procreating on her a Kshetraja son, Velana, therefore, signifies marriage or taking for the above purpose, accord- ing as it is used in a passage relating to nuptiai mattors or to the practice of Niyoga or appointment..

Thus-

न सगोलां न समानप्रवरां भाकीं विन्देत ।

Vishnu Sanhits, Ch. XXIV.

"A damsel of the same kin Na vindeta, that is, one should not take as a wife."

Here, the passage relates to nuptial matters, and the derivative Vindeta from the verb Vid necessarily signifies taking the hand in marriage.

Again-

यस्या स्त्रियेत कन्याया वाचा सत्ये कृते पतिः । तामनेन विधानेन निजो विन्देत देवरः ॥ यथाविध्यधिगम्यैनां शुक्तवस्त्रां शुचिव्रताम् । भियो भजेदाप्रसवात् सद्धत् सलहताहतौ ॥

"The damsel, whose suitor dies after troth verbally plight- ed, but before consummation, his brother, according to this rule, Vindeta, that is, shall take for the purpose of begetting a son on her."

"Having taken in due form such a girl, bearing all the marks of widowhood, for the above purpose, let him approach her once in due season and until issue be had."

Here the Texts obviously treat of Niyoga or direction for the procreation of a son on another's wife hence, the verb Vid, through its derivative Viudeta, is accepted in the sense of taking for the procreation of a son, &c. It is con- clusive, therefore, that, in the following Text-

न विषाष्ट्रविघावुक्त विधवावेदनं पुनः ।

"In the matrimonial ordinances the Vedana of a woman is not alluded to."

The word Vedana, derived from the verb Vid, being used in the passage relating to Niyoga, must necessarily mean acceptance for the procreation of a son; otherwise, all sense and consistency would be destroyed. The two interpretations of the Text in question are here placed in juxta position, to enable the roader to judge of their respective correctness and appositeness.

"Nowhere in the nuptial Mantras (specific Texts) has Niyoga (direction for the procreation of a son, &c.,) been mentioned, nor in the matrimonial ordinances has the tuking of a widow for the procreation of a son on her been allud- ed to."

"Nowhere in the nuptial Mantras (specific Texts) has Niyoga direction for the procreation of a son, &c.,) been rmentioned, nor in the matrimonial ordinances, has the mar riage of a widow been alluded to."

Manu, in this passage, wishes to interdict Niyoga Dliar- ma (practice of appointment), and, therefore, distinctly prohibits it by saying that among all the Mantras (specific Texts) relating to marriage, there are none, which make mention of Niyoga, nor is there in the injunction relating to marriage any allusion to Vedana, (accepting of a woman for the purpose of procreating a child on her): that is, as Niyoga (direction for &c.,) is a means for the generation of progeny, and as the great object of marriage is the begetting of a son, Manu reckons Niyoga and Vedana as a sort of marriage, and from the circumstance of their not being mentioned in the nuptial Mantras or marital ordinauces, concludes Niyoga to be illegal. It is hard to conceive that having, in the first half of a Text in the section on Niyoga, prohibited the procreation of a Kshetraja son, he would, in the second half of it, introduce the irrelevant and imperti- nent prohibition of the marriage of widows. It is quite in keeping with the section on Niyoga to say, that the Niyoga Dharma is not mentioned in the nuptial mantras, but it does not accord with the spirit of that section to say, that the marriage of widows is not alluded to, in the marital ordinances. Why would the question of the mar- riage of widows be suddenly started, while the author is discussing the Niyoga Dharma? In fact, in the Text in question, the term Vedana has been used and not the term Vivahn (marriage). The Vedana has the double import of taking the hand in marriage and acceptance for the pro- creation of a child according to the Niyoga Dharma. Here it unquestionably means, from the context, accepting a woman for the procreation of a child on her. They, who attempt to make it here signify formal marriage and there- by to establish the prohibition of the marriage wituws, betray only their ignorance of the spirit of the passage.

That this section treats of Niyoga only, and not the marriage of widows, would be further corroborated by what Vrihaspati, the preceptor of the gods, has said in reference to these Texts of Manu. Thus

उक्तो नियोगो मतुना निषिङ्गः खयमेव तु । युगलासादशक्योऽयं कसुमन्यैर्विधानतः ॥ तपोभानसमायुक्ताः कतलेतादिके नराः । द्वापरे च कलौ नृणां शक्तिहानिर्हि निर्मिता ॥ अनेकधा कताः पुत्त्रा ऋषिभिर्ये पुरातनैः । 1 न शक्यास्तेऽचुना कर्तुं शक्तिहीनैरिहन्तनैः ॥ *

"Manu himself has enjoined Niyoga (direction for &c.) and has himself interdicted it. Human power decreasing according to the Yugas, people are not able strictly to follow the Niyoga rules; men in the Satya, Treta, and Dwapara Yugas were given to devo- tion and austerities and blessed with higher intellectual power, but in the Kali-yuga, the human race has degenerated; the various kinds of sons which were created by the sages of old, cannot now be created by the weak mortals of the present age."

That is, in the section on Niyoga, Manu has, in the

Quoted by Kulluka Bhatta,

first five Textą, clearly ordained the Nfyoga, while in the remaining five, he has as clearly interdicted it. It would be certainly absurd for the same person enjoining and pro- hibiting the same thing in the same breath. The auspicious Vrihaspati has solved this difficulty, by declaring that Manu intended to refer the injunction for Niyoga to the Satya, Treta, and Dwapara Yugas, and its prohibition to the Kali-yuga: hence it appears Indeniable, from Vrihaspati's exposuio of the section on Niyoga in the institutes of Manu, that it treats only of that subject.

It should also be observed here, that the institutes of Narada are a portion of the institutes of Manu. Narada having abridged the larger work of Manu, his compilation has been styled the Narada Sanhita, just as the work, which now passes under the name of Manu Sanhita, is sometimes called the Bhrigu Sauhita, becanse, it has been compiled by Bhrigu. We find in the beginning of the Narada Sanhita the following passage.

भगवान् महः प्रजापतिः सर्वभूतानुग्रहार्थमाचारस्पितिहेतुसूतं शास्त्रं चकार । तदेतत् लोकशतसहखमासीत्। तेनाध्यायसहस्त्रेण मतुः प्रजा पतिरुपनिबध्य देवर्षये नारदामः मायच्छत् । स च तस्माद्दीत्यमहत्या- चायं यन्यः सुकरो मनुष्याणां धारविवणिति द्वादशभिः सहखेः बন্ত্রিপ্রদ तश्च चमतये भार्गवाय प्रायच्छत् । स च तमादधीत्य तथैवायुक्तांचाइत्लीयसी मनुष्याणां शक्तिरिति ज्ञात्वा चतुर्भिः सहनैः सञ्चिक्षेप । तदेतत् सुमति- कृतं मनुष्या अधोयते। विस्तरेण मंतसाक्ष देवगन्खर्षादयः। वलायभाद्यः कोको भवति

खासीदिदं तनोभूतं, न प्रङ्गायत किञ्चन । ततः स्वयम्भूर्भगवान् प्रादुराधीश्रवसुखः ॥

इस्लेवसधिकृत्य क्रमात् प्रकरणात् प्रकरणमतुकान्तम्। तल तु नवर्स प्रकरणं व्यवहारो नाम मोर्चा देवर्षिनारदः समस्यानीवां माटकां चकार ।

"The auspicious Manu has prepared his Sastra as a means for preserving the purity of the Acharas (practices) of mortals. Manu having written that work in a hundred thousand couplets, arrang- ed in a thousand chapters, delivered the work to Narada, the di- vine sage, who studied it under Mann himself, and thinking it difficult for men to be edified in the Sastra, comprised in a work of so great a magnitude, abridged it into twelve thousand verses, in order to render it easy of acquisition. The Epitome he gave to a descendant of Bhrigu, named Surmati, who having received instructions in it from him, and observing the decrease of humau power owing to the diminution of the period of human life, further reduced it into four thousand verses. Mortals read only this abridgment by Sumati, while Devas (gods) and gandharvas (heavenly choristers) study the primary great work consisting of hundred thousand verses, which commences with the following couplet. This universe was involved in darkness, nothing was perceptible: then appeared the auspicious and quadruvisaged Brahma the uncreated Being. After this commencement, the various sections follow each other in regular succession; among them the ninth is on the adminstration of justice; thus the divine Narada has introduced the subject."

It is manifest, therefore, that the institutes of Narada are but the essence of the larger edition of the institutes of Manu, Narada having epitomized the great work of Manu, comprised in a hundred thousand couplets. Now, as has been whown elsewhere, that in Narada's abridgment of the insti- tutes of Manu, there is an injunction for the remarriage of women under five predicaments, namely, when tidings are not received of a husband and the like, such an injune- tion is to be considerd not only as delivered by Parasara but also by Manu himself, for this reason, in Madhava- charya's commentary on Parasara, the Text beginning with "On receiving no tidings of a husband &c." has been quoted as the Text of Manu."

Thus-

नटे इते प्रब्रजिते क्लीने च पतिते पतौ । पश्वलापत्सु मारीयां पतिरन्छो विधीयते ॥

Manu also has said,

"On receiving ne tidings of a husbund, on his demise, on his turning an asectie, on his being found impotent, or on his degrada- tion, under any one of these five calamities, it is canonical for Women to take another husband."

We are thus warranted in concluding that the marriage of widows, instead of being opposed to, is perfectly in accordance with, the opinion of Manu, and when Parasara cites the above Text of Manu verbatim and literatim, it is a vain attempt to prove that the marriage of widows is against the law of Manu.

CHAPTER IV.

THE MARITAL TEXT OF PARASARA IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE VEDAS.

Some of the replicants have attempted to prove, that the injunation of Parasara for the remarriage of females is contrary to the spirit of the Vedas. Their object in so doing is, that as the Vedas are the paramount authority in this country, the ordinance of Parasara, if opposed to them, cannot be accepted as a rule of conduct, inasmuch as it has been settled by Vedavyasa, that

सुतिष्टतिपुराणानां विरोधो बल दृश्यते ।

तल चौतं प्रभाच्चन्छ तबोहुँचे कऋतिर्वरा ॥

"Where variance is observed between the Veda, the Smriti, and the Purana, there the Voda is the supreme authority; where the Smriti and purana contradict each other, Smriti is the supreme authority."

The following is the Vaidic Text cited by the opposi- tionists:

यदेकखिन् यूपे हे रशने परिव्ययति तस्मादेको हे जावे विन्देत । बक्षकां रथनां हयोयूपयोः परिव्ययति तचाक्षका हौ पती विन्देत ॥

"As round a single Yupa (sacrificial post) two tethers can be tied, so a man can narry two wives. As one tether cannot be tied round two Yupas, so a woman cannot marry two husbands." .

Their assumption, that the marriage of widows is an anti-vaidic doctrine, rests on this Text alone. My advers- aries, on meeting with the passage "a woman cannot marry two husbands," have jumped to the conclusion that the marriage of widows is opposed to the Vedas. This is not, however, the real purport of this Text of the Vedas. The meaning of the above cited passage is, that as round a single Yupa two tethers can at the same time be fastened, so one man can at the same time have two wives; and as one tether cannot at the same time be tied round two Yupas, so one woman cannot at the same time have two husbands, not that, on the death of the first husband, she cannot have a second. The interprotation is not merely the result of my individual eggitation; it is corroborated by a Text of the Vedas themselves, quoted by Nilakantha, one of the Commentators of the Mahabharata, and by his exposition of that Text,

Text-

मैकस्या बहवः सह पतयः । *

"A woman cannot have many husbands together."

This Text has also been quoted by Madhavacharya in his commentary on the Parasara Sanhita, Commentary-

सहेति युगपद्दडपतित्वनिषेधो विहितो न तु समयभेदेन । *

"The word Saha (together) in this Vaidic Test means that a woman is prohibited from having many husbands at the same time, but her having many husbands at different times is not reprehensible."

Thus, the attempt of my adversaries to prove the mar- riage of widows as opposed to the Vedas has failed. They ought to have considered that the Rishis, who are admitted to have compiled in their Sanhitas the spirit of the Vedas, would never have permitted such marriage, nor could the practice have prevailed in ancient times, had it been inter- dicted in the Vedas.

CHAPTER VIII.

RESTRICTIONS OF DIRGHATAMA ARE NOT PROHIBITORY OF THE MARRIAGE OF WIDOWS.

Some of the replicants diave asserted upon the authority of the following Text, quoted from the Adi Parva of the Mahahharata, that a woman should have only one husband in this world:

दीर्घतमा उवाच । अद्यप्रभ्टति मर्यादा मया लोके प्रतिष्ठिता । एक एवं पतिर्नार्या यावज्जीवं परायणम् ॥ म्हते जीवति वा तचितचापरं मानुयाचरम् । अभिगम्य परं मारी पतिष्यति न संशयः ॥

Adi Parva, Ch.195.

They have interpreted the Text thus. "Dirghatama says: that a woman shall adhere to one husband only during her life. Neither after his death nor during his lifetime, shall she have intercourse with another man. If she have such intercourse, she shall surely he degraded." If this inter- pretation were correct, their objection to the marriage of widows would certainly be valid. But the Text has a different signification altogether. It means that a woman should adhere to her husband alone as long as she lives, neither after his death nor during his lifetime, shall she have inter course with another man &c. The passage appears to have reference to criminal connection which was prevalent in early ages, and not to marriage.

That adultery did prevail in early ages, is observed in another part of the Mahabharata,

Thus-

महताहतौ राजपुत्त्रि स्त्रिया भर्त्ता पतिव्रते । नातिवर्त्तव्य इत्येवं धों धर्म्मविदो विदुः ॥ शेषेष्वन्धेषु कालेषु स्वातन्त्र्यं स्ली किलाईति । धम्र्ममेवं जनाः सन्तः पुराणं परिचचते ॥"

Pandu Says to "Kunti "O Chaste Princess! persons learned in religion admit it to be the religious duty of women not to neg- lect their husbands during the menses at other times, women may gratify their own inclinations, and pious men have sung of this ancient Dharma (practice).".

That is, during the monses, women, for the sake of the genuineness of the offspring, should attend their husbands only, and not have "intercourse with other men; but at other times, they might live with other men. This practice was sanctioned in early ages by pious men. Dirghatama issues his injunction to put a stop to this long prevailing practice of women indulging themselves according to their inclinations, and his prohibition of intercourse with other men evidently refers to adultery, not to second marriage contracted agreeably to the Sastran. The saine will appear from the context:

F

पुत्त्रलाभाच सा पत्नी म तुतोष पतिं तदा । महिषन्तीं पतिर्भाव्यों किं भां बेचीति, चामवीत् ॥ *

प्रहेष्युवाच ।

भार्थ्यांया भरणाङ्गर्त्ता पालनाच पतिः बटतः । अहं त्वां भरणं कृत्या जात्यन्ध सङ्घतं सदा । नित्यकालं अभेद्यार्त्ता न भरेयं महातपः ॥ तस्यास्तद्दचनं श्रुत्वा व्ऋषिः कोपसमन्वितः । प्रत्युवाच ततः पत्नीं महेषों ससुतां तदा । नोयतां चत्त्रियकुलं धनार्थच भविष्यति ॥

महेष्युवाच । त्वया दत्तं धनं विप्र नेच्छेयं दुःखकारणम् । वथेष्टं कुरु विप्रेन्द्र न भरेयं यथा पुरा दीर्घतमा उवाच ।

अद्यप्रभ्टति मर्यादा भया डोके प्रतिष्तिा । एक एव पतिर्नार्थी यावज्जीवं परायणम् ॥ स्मृते जीवति वा तमिचापरं प्राप्नुयाचरम् । अभिमस्य परं नारी प्रतिष्यति न संशयः ॥ अपतीनान्तु नारीयामद्यप्रभवति पातकम् । यद्यस्ति चेद्धनं सर्वं दृषाभोगा भवन्तु ताः। अकीर्त्तिः परिवादाच नित्यं तासां भवन्तु वै ॥ इति तद्वचनं श्रुत्वा माक्षणी ऋशकोपिता । गङ्गायां नीवताभेष पुत्रा इत्येवममवीत् ॥

लोभमोहांभिभूताले पुत्राय गौतमादयः । बङ्गोकुपे परिचिम्म गट्रायां समवास्सृजन् ॥ कस्मादन्वय दृद्धय भर्त्तव्योऽयमिति या है। चिन्तवित्षा ततः क्रूराः प्रतिजग्वरथो ग्टहान् ॥

"Dirghatama's wife, who had already offspring, no longer gratifying him, Dirghatamansked her the reason why she slighted him. She replied a husband maintains his wife and is therefore called Bharta, (supporter). He takes care of her and is therefore called her pati (lord); but you are born bliud, and I have beel alwyas put to as much trouble as possible to support you and your children. I will do so no more.' Hearing this from his wife, the Rishi, full of anger, asked his wife and children to take him to the king whereby they would gain wealth. His wife rejoined; 'I do not want wealth acquired by you; you can do what you like; I will no longer maintain you.' Dirghatama said, from this day I ordain for this world, that a woman shall adhere to her husband alone as long as she lives. Neither after his death nor during his lifetime, shall she have intercourse with another man. She who does 80 shall be surely degraded. From this day, wonen, neglecting their husbands and having intercourse with other men, shall be sinful, shall flot be able to enjoy riches if they aro possesed of any, and shall always be infidmous. Dirghatama's wife, hearing this, asked her sons to throw him into the Ganges. Gotama and other sons, blinded by avarice, and thinking it useless to support a blind and an old father, tied him to a float and left him floating on the river."

It is evident from the above, that Dirghatama resent- ing his wife's refusal to support him any longer, enjoined that a woman shall adhere to her husband alone, and that women neglecting their husbands shall be sinful. Seeing himself slighted by his wife, he imagined she was thinking of abandoning him, to have intercourse with another man; and being wrathful at this, he issued his injunction to put a stop to the long prevailing practice of women indulging themselves according to their inclinations. This practice was regarded as a Dharma by pious men in early ages, and they imputed no guilt to it. Consequently, Dirghatama's wife would not have been culpable or sinful by adopting it; and hence Dirghatama ordained, that a woman com- mitting adultery shall be degraded and culpable. If Dir- ghatama's injunction be interpreted to imply that a woman shall not have intercourse with another man or marry him inder any circumstances, even in accordance to the injune- tions of Sastras, how could Dirghatama himself inımediately after procreate a Kshetraja son on Sudeshna the queen of King Vali.

सोऽनुस्रोतस्तदा विप्रः प्रयमानो वडच्या। जगाम सुवहन् देशानन्वस्तेनोदुपेन ह ॥ तन्तु राजा वखिर्मास सर्वप्रमेषिहां वरः । अपश्यन्मानमतः स्रोतसाभ्यासमाएतम् ॥ जयाह चैवं धम्मीया वलिः सत्यपराक्रमः । चात्येवं सच वनेऽव पुत्रार्थे भरतर्षभ । सन्तानायें महाभाग भर्बाद्ध अम मानद । उछन् भन्ार्यकुशलाडत्पादयितुमईसि ॥ एक्चक्तः च तेजस्वी तं तथेत्युक्तवान्ऋषिः। तमै स राजा लां भाबीं चदेष्णां माहियोत्तदा ॥

"The blind Brahmana, floating at random in the stream, passed through many countries. King Vali, superior to all in the knowl- edge of religion, was bathing in the Gunges, when he saw the old Brahmana floating close to him on the stream. The king immedi ately seized him, and learning all the particulars, requested him to procreate a virtuous and able son on his queen. Dirghatanan accepted the offer, and the king sent Sudeshna to him."

Hence, if Dirghatama's injunction had condemned as sinful a woman's intercourse with another man than the husband, even according to the rules prescribed by the Sastras, he himself would not have agreed to violate his own injunction, by undertaking to procreate a son on the queen of king Vali. He would have certainly prevented the king from giving his queen to another man for the procreation of a son. Again, in another part of the Maha- bharata, it will be found that Arjuna married the widowed daughter of the Naga-raja Airavata. If Dirghatama's injunc- tion had been prohibitory of the marriage of widows, then Naga-raja Airavata, after the issuing of the injunction, would not have offered his widowed daughter in marriage, and Arjuna also would not have married the widow. In fact, the procreation of sons by another man, and remar- riage after the death of the husband, are consonant to the Sastras; and Dirghatama's condemnation of the long pre- vailing practice of adultery, not sanctioned by Sastras, cannot interfere with these. Hence, it is evident that Dirghatama has prescribed his rule only to prohibit the long existing evil practice of adultery.

Let us examine the passage in another way. Even ad- mitting that it has reference to the remarriage of women, it cannot by any means be said to support the oppositionists in their assertion that the injunction of Dirghatama is *prohibitory of such marriage. For, as the Text does not mention any particular Yuga, it is to be considered as a general rule applicable to all the Yugas. The Text of Pa- rasara applies, as has already been stated, to the Kali-yuga only, and is therefore a special rule on the subject. As in cases where there are both general and special rules, the latter always supercede the former, so in the present in- stauce, Parasara's rule must supercede that of Dirghatama. Should Dirghatama's rule be admitted to apply to the Kali-yuga only, even then, it cannot be understood to prohibit the remarriage of women altogether. For, this rule enjoins general prohibition, while Parasara makes five ex- ceptions in which remarriage is allowable. The special rule must supercede the general one.

CHAPTER X.

THE PARASARA SANHITA TEACHES THE DHARMAS OF THE KALI-YUGA ALONE AND NOT

OF OTHER YUGAS.

Some have raised an objection, that it is not only the Dharmas of the Kali-yuga that have been set down in the Parasara Samhita, but the Dharmas of the other Yugas have been set down also. The purport of this objection seems to be, that if it is proved that the Dharmas of the other Yugas, besides those of the Kali, had been declared in the Parasara Sanhita, then the rule, which Parasara has laid down for the marriage of widows and other wedded women, would apply to those Yugas and not to Kali; and thus the marriage of widows would not be consonant to the Sastras in the Kali-yuga. In the Parasara Sanhita, the sacrifice of the horse, the eating of the rice of a Dasa," Napita, Gopala, and some others of the Sudra caste, the shortening of the period of Asaucha (impurity) of a twice- born in case he is a student of the Vedas &c., are enjoined. The opponents, supposing these to be the Dharmas of Satya, Treta, and Dwapara, and not of Kali, have raised the objection under review. But, from what has been proved before, it is clear that the sole object of the Parasara Sau- hita is to enjoin the Dharmas of the Kali-yuga alone. So, there is not a shade of plausibility to suppose, that the Dharmas of the other Yugas should be enjoined in that Sanhita. The sacrifice of horse &c., therefore, from the purport and aim of the Sanhita, cannot be proved to be the Dharmas of the other Yugas alone. The opponents, finding in the Adi, Vrilhantuaradiya, and Aditya Puranas the sacri- fice of the horse &c., interdicted in the Kali-yuga, have concluded them to be the Dharmas of the other Yugas. The line of argument they seem to have adopted in their minds is this: "In the preceding Yugas the sacrifice of the horse &c., were permitted and performed. But it is found that in some Sastras they are prohibited in the Kali-yuga. They, therefore, cannot be the Dharmas of that Yuga. Hence, when they are enjoined in the Parasara Sanhita, it is evi- dent that in that Sanhita the Dharmas of the Yugas other than the Kali are set down also."

In order to meet this objection, we should see, in the first instance, whether the interdiction of the Adi, Vrihan- naradiya, and Aditya Puranas have, all along in the Kali- yuga, been observed as such. We have no history of the manners and customs of our country. Complete success, therefore, in the inquiry is impossible. But, from as much as can be learned by a careful investigation, it is clearly demonstrated that the interdiction of the Puranas, mentioned above, has not been observed as such. We have distinct Evidence of some of those Dharmas having been performed in the Kali-yuga which are interdicted in those three works. When, therefore, in the face of the interdiction, those Dharmas have been performed, how can it be maintained that the interdiction, has been properly observed as such? The marriage of a wedded woman; the allotment of the best share to the eldest brother; sea-voyage; turning an ascetic; the marriage of the twice-born men with damsels not of the same caste; precreation on a brother's widow or wife; the slaughter of cattle in the entertainment of a guest; repast on flesh meat at sacrifices for the satisfaction of departed ancestors; entrance into the order of Vanapras- tha (hermit); the giving of a damsel to a bridegroom a second time, after she has been given to another; Brahma- charya continued for a long time; the sacrifice of a man, horse, or bull; walking on a pilgrimage till the pilgrim die; entrance into fire; the rule of expiation for Brahma- nas extending to death; the filiation of no other sons than the Dattaka (son given) and Aurasa (son by birth; the diminution of the period of Asaucha, (impurity) in propor- tion to the purity of character and the extent of erudition in the Vedas; the eating of edibles offered by a Dasa, Napita, Gopala &c., of the Sudra caste; these Dharmas and some others are stated in the Adi, Vrihannaraliya, and Aditya Puranas as those, the observance of which is inter- dicted in the Kali-yuga. Of these the sacrifice of horse, entrance into fire, turning an ascetic, Brahmacharya for a long time, sea-voyage, distant pilgrimage, and the marriage of widows, are the Dharmas, of the observance of which in the Kali-yuga we have clear evidence.

Thus-

The Pandavas, who flourished 653 years after the Kali- yuga had commenced, performed the sacrifice of horse and went on a distant pilgrimage. These are facts so well and universally known, that to adduce proofs thereof is super- fluous. It has also been stated before (P. 72) that Arjuna married the widowed daughter of the Naga-raja Airavata.

A king of the name of Sudraka flourished a few cent- uries before the birth of Vikramaditya. We have clear evidence of his having performed the sacrifice of horst and of entering fire.

Thus:-

ऋग्वेदं सामवेदं गश्चित्क्षय कलां वैशिकीं, इतिযিজা ज्ञात्वा सर्बप्रसादाइरपगततिभिरे चजुषी चोपलभ्य । राजानं वीच्च पुत्त्रं परमसतट्वेनान्वभेजेन चेहा लखा चायुः शताब्दं दशदिनसहितं शूद्रकोऽग्निं प्रविष्टाः ॥*

"He (Sudraka) was well versed in the Rik and Sama Vedas, in the Mathematical Science, in the sixty-four elegant arts, and the management of elephants by the favor of Siva he enjoyed eyes uninvaded by darkuess, and beheld his son seated on the throne after performing the exalted Aswamedha (the sacrifice of horse) and having attained the age of an hundred years and ten days, he entered the fatal fire." +

Mrichchhakati. Prelude, In the chapter of prophecies in the Skanda Purana we find a mention of this Sudraka.

.

Thus

..

लिषु वर्षसहस्त्रेषु कलेतिष पार्थिव । लिश्ते च दशन्यूने ह्यस्यां भुवि भविष्यति । शूद्रको नार्थं वीराणामधिपः निवसत्तमः ॥ म्हपान् सर्वान् पापरूपान् वर्जितान् यो हनिष्यति । चर्षितायां समाराध्य लक्ष्यते भूभरापहः ॥ ततस्तिषु सहस्त्रेषु स्थाधिकशतलये । भविष्यं मन्द्रराज्य चाणक्यो याम् हनिष्यति । शुक्लतीचे सर्वपापनिभुक्तिं योऽभिलष्यते ॥ ततस्तिषु सहस्त्रेषु सहकाभ्यधिकेषु च । भविष्यो विक्रमादित्यो रावं सोऽल मवश्यते ॥

"3290 years after the Kali-yuga has commenced there will be a King on this earth of the name of Sudraka. He will be a great hero and one of the principal devotees. He will destroy all the sinful and potent sovereigns; and contemplating and worshipping the Divinity at Charvita he will nequire success in Yoga (devotion). Twenty years after that, the descendants of the Nanda family will become sovereigns. Chanakya will destroy this Nanda family; and contemplating and worshipping the Divinity at Sukla-tirtha will expiate his sins, 090 years after that, Vikramaditya will become king." We have clear evidence of a king of the name of Prava- rasena having four times performed the sacrifice of Aswa- medha. Distinct mention of this is made in the title deed of the gift of land, which he made to a Brahmana of the name of Devasarmacharya.

Thus:-

चतुरश्वमेधयाजिनः विष्णुरुद्रसयोलस्य सम्माजः काठकानां महा-

राजमिवरसेनस्य इत्यादि ।

"King Pravarasena the performer of four sacrifices of horse, descended from king Visnu-rudra, the sovereign of Kataka do."

It is also mentioned in this title deed that the ances- tors of Pravarasena ten times performed the sacrifice of horse.

Thus:

"Performed ten times the sacrifice of horse."

We have also evidence of Mihirakula, a king of Kas- mira, having entered fire.

Thus:-

स वर्षसप्ततिं भुक्का भुवं भूलोकभैरवः । भूरिरोगाईितषपुः प्राविशव्जातवेदसम् ॥

"Of fiery disposition, King Mihirakula, after enjoying sovereignty for seventy years and being attacked with many diseases, entered fire.

King Mihirakula led his army to Singhala (Ceylon) and deposed the sovereign of the Island from his throne,

See P, 728 Asiatic Society's Journal, Nov, 1836.

+ Rajatarangini by Kahlana, Taranga I.

From this, it is evident, that at his time sea-voyage was not considered as a prohibition.

Thus:-

स जातु देवीं संवीतसिंहलांशुकरुनुकास् ।

-हेमपादाङ्कितकुचां हद्दा जज्वाल मण्ठना । 296. सिंहवेषु नरेन्द्राङ्ग‌शिसाङ्कः क्रियते पटः । इति कक्षुकिमा पृष्टेनोक्तो यालां व्यधासतः ॥ 297. स सिंहलेन्द्रेण सभं संरम्भादुपाठयत् । चिरेण चरणस्पृष्टप्रियालोकनां रुवम् ॥ 298. *

"The Queen lind worn a bodice manufactured at Singhala. King Mihirakula, seeing foot marks in gold upon her breast, was all inflamed with ire. On enquiring, the eunuch of the female apartments replied-On clothes manufactured in Singha- la they imprint the foot marks of their sovereign. On hearing this, the king marched to invade Singhala. Kitig Mihirakula fought a battle with the king of Singhala and thus appeased the anger, which he felt from the circumstance of the foot marks of the latter having touched the breast of his queen."

There is clear evidence of king Jayapira having sent his ambassador to Singhala. This, therefore, is an additional proof, that it was usual then to undertake sea-voyages.

Thus:-

सान्विविपङ्गिकः सोऽव गच्छन् पोतच्युतोऽम्बुधौ । प्राप पारं तिथियासातिभिश्वत्पाच्य निर्गतः ॥ 503, +

"The ambassador fell into the sea from the vessel. A whale swallowed him up. He burst assunder its stomach and camo out."

• Rajatarangini by Kahlana. Taranga. I.

↑ Rajatarangiai by Kahlana. Tarangu. IV.

We find that Matrigupta, a king of Kasmira, adopted the Dharma of an ascetic.

Thus

अव वाराक्षसों गत्वा कृतकाषायसंग्रहः । समें सदस्य सुलतो बाक्युप्तोऽभवत्यतिः। 322. *

"Afterwards the pious and virtuous Matrigupta, giving up every thing worldly, went to Bezares and wearing red clothes adopted the Dharma of an ascetic." +

King Suvastu in the year 1018 of the Sanvat, the era of Vikramaditya, erected a temple to Siva of the name of Harshadeva. In the tablet, which was attached to the temple, distinct mention is made of his having observed a life-long Brahmacharya.

Thus:-

আजन्मत्रह्मचारी दिगमलवसनः संवतात्मा तपस्वी श्रीहर्षाराधनैकव्यसनशुभमतिष्क्ष्यक्तसंमारमोहः । जासीद्यो लब्धजन्मा नवतरवपुषां सत्तमः श्रीसुवस्तु- कोमेदं धर्मवित्तः सुषठित विकटं कारितं हर्षहर्म्यम् ॥

"That Suvastu, who observed a life-long Brahmacuarys, remained naked, restrained his passions, led the life of a her. mit, was devoted to the worship of Harshadeva, was, devoid of all attachınent to the infatuations of the world, had accomplish- ed the object of human existence, and was a handsome person, has for pious purposes erected the well constructed and the vast temple of Harshadeva."

आसी डिजरू‌पो यो हीप्तपाशुपतव्रतः ।

* Rajatarangini by Kahlana. Tarangs. III. + Even in the present age, it is usual for persona, in all parts of India, to become ascetic.

Nee P. 378 Asiatic Society's Journal, July 1886, "He observed a life-long Brahmacharya aud was a devoted Sivite."

From all this, it clearly appears that the sacrifice of horse, distant pilgrimage, entrance into fire, the adoption of the life of an ascetic, Sea-voyage, Bralımacharya of long duration, and the marriage of wedded women, are the Dhar- mas which have been obseryed in the Kali-yuga. There is not the least doubt that the Hindus of the olden times had greater knowledge of Sastras and had entertained a greater veneration for them than those of the Kali-yuga. They, however, without pbserving the prohibition of the Adi Pura- na, &c., used to perform the sacrifice of horse, entered the fire, and so on. From this, it is clearly proved, that the Hindus of those ages did not desist from the exercise of the actions which had the sanction of the Smritis, from the mere circumstance of their performance beifig prohibited in the Puranas. It is stated in the Aditya Purana, that

एतानि लोकयुप्तत्रर्थ कडेरादौ महात्मभिः ।

निवर्त्तितानि कोच्चि व्यवस्यापूर्व्वकं बुधैः ॥

These (that is Aswamedha, &c.,) have been legally abro- gated, in the beginning of the Kali-yuga, by the wise and magnanimous, for the protection of men."

and for confirming what the wise and magnanimous have

said, it is stated at fast, that

सर्भवद्यापि साधूनां प्रमाणं नेट्वद्भवेत् ।

"The decision of the virtuous is authority like the Vedas."

When in the face of this dictum, the Hindus of olden times used to perform the Aswamedha, wihout minding the prohibitions of the Puranas, there is not the least doubt, that these prohibitions were neither considered nor respected as such. Besides, there is a prohibition in the Aditya Purana of the filiation of any other sons than the Dattaka (son given) and the Aurasa (son of the body). But the inhabitants of Benares and the neighbouring districts are in the practice of taking Kritrima sons. It is for this, that Nanda Pandita, in his Dattaka Mimansa, has decided, that

दत्तपदं ललिमस्याप्युपलचणम् चौरसः चोलजचैव दत्तः कलिमकः सुत इति कविधर्मप्रस्तावे पराशरकरणीत् । 7

"On the failure of the son of the body, like Dattaka we can take also a Kritrima son; because, Parasara has ordained that in the Kali-yuga, there should be three sorts of sons, the Au- rasa, the Dattaka, and Kritrima."

That is, though according to the prohibition of the Aditya Purana, there could, in the Kali-yuga, be but two classes of sons, the Dattaka and the Aurasa, yet when Parasara, in declaring the Dharmas of Kali, has sanctioned the fili- ation of the Kritrima, this latter also becomes canonical. Distant pilgrimage, we find, is mentioned as a prohibition in the Aditya Purana. But it is unknown to none that even now many persons go on distant pilgrimages. The prohi- bition of the rule of expiation for Brahmanas extending to death is a prohibition without having ever been observed; for the celebrated Udayanacharya, who defeated (in contro- versy) the Buddhists and established on a firm basis the Vaidic religion, ended his life by burning himself to death, Very lately, a distinguished personage, with the view of expiating his sins, observed the rule of expiation extending to death and starved himself till his life ended, with the sanction of all the Pandits of Benares.

When, therefore, Parasara has given his sanction to the performance of the sacrifice of horse with reference to the Kali-yuga, and when clear evidence is found of kings at different periods of the Kali-yuga having performed the sacrifice, it becomes a Dharma which may be observed in the Kali in common with the other Yugas. The shortening of the period of Asoucha (impurity) similarly, when men- tioned in the Parasara-sanhita as a Dharma of the Kali, becomes such without a shadow of doubt. The reason, how- ever, why we do not see the Brahmanas of the modern times shorten their periods of impurity, is that Parasara haş given his precept for the shortening of this impurity with reference to them alone, who perform every day sacrifices at the alter and who every day study the Vedas.

Thus:-

एकाहात् शुध्यते विप्रो योऽग्निवेदसमन्वितः ।

त्यहात् केवलवेदस्तु बिहीनो स्थभिहिनैः ॥ "

"The Brahmana, who performs every day sacrifices at the alter and every day studies the Vedas, shall be cleared of im- purity in one day, and he, who simply studies the Vedas, in three days. He, who neither performs the ono nor studies the other, shall be cleared of impurity in ten days."

Since, now-a-days, every-day sacrifice and the study of the Vedas have fallen into disuse, the shortening of the period of impurity has in consequence been disused. And when in the Parasara Sanhits the eating of the Anna (edibles), offered by a Dasa, Napita, and Gopala, &c., of the Sudra caste, has been mentioned as a Dharma of the Kali- yuga, that it is such there cannot be the least doubt. It might be urged, that if according to Parasara, the eating of the edibles, of a Dasa, &c., in the Kali-yuga be allowablo, are the three superior castes (the. Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas) then allowed to eat the Anna of those Sudras ? I think they are allowed to eat and they do generally eat. A careful consideration of the purport of the Text in which Parasara gives this permission and of the two Texts that precede, shall make even my opponents agree to this.

Thus:-

शुष्कानं गोरखं खेहं शूद्रवेशान आगतम् । पकं विप्रन्टले पूतं भोष्वं तन्ममवीत् ॥

"Dried edibles, that is unboileli rice; cowjuice, that is milk; and oil, when brought from the house of a Sudra and cooked at the house of a Brahmana, becomes purified and Manu has declared that anna (edibles) to be acceptable as food."

This Text states that a Brahmana may, without incurring guilt, bring to his home unboiled rice, &c., given to him by a Sudra, and eat them after having thom cooked at his own house. It is inferentially to be understood, therefore, that he incurs guilt by eating them, after having them cooked at a Sudra's house.

आपत्काले तु विप्रेच भुक्तं न्यून्टले यदि ।

मनस्तापेन शुध्येत द्रुपदां वा शतं जपेत् ॥

"At the time of danger, if a Brahmana eats at the house of a. Sudra, he will be cleared of all impurity. by repentance, or by repeating the Drupada Mantra, a hundred times."

That eating at the time of danger at a Sudra's house, after cooking the edibles there, is not reprehensible, clearly ap- pears from this Text. It is inferentially evident, therefore, that eating at a Sudra's house after cooking the edibles there, at other times than those of danger, is reprehensible.

हासनापितगोपालकुल मिलाईसीरिणः । एते न्यूहेषु भोव्याचा यद्यात्मानं निवेदयेत् ॥

"Of the Sudra caste, Dasa, Napita, Gopala, Kulamitra, and Ardhasiri, are the classes, and those that come for help are the individuals, whose Anna may be enten; that is the unboiled rice, &c., which they might offer, may be eaten, after being boiled or cooked at their houses."

By these three Texts it is clear, that if a Brahmana eats even the unboiled rice, &3., offered by a Sudra, after cooking them at his (the Sudra's) house, he eats the Anna of a Sudra; the uuboiled rice, &c., given by a Sudra, do not become the Anna of a Sedra, when brought home and eaten after being cooked. At times of danger however, these edibles might be eaten at a Sudra's house after cooking thera there. But the unboiled rice given by a Dasa, Napita, or a Gopala, and so forth may, without incurring guilt, be eaten after cooking or boiling it at his house, whether at times of danger or at other times.

Now let my readers judge what harm is there in accept- ing this sort of Anna of a Sudra. Some haye understood the words Sudranna (Anna of a Sudra) to mean the boiled rice of a Sudra. Tais, however, cannot be the meaning of the word here. Had it been so, there would not have been in the Aditya Purana the prohibition of the cooking of the Anng of a twice-born by any one of the Sudra caste, imme- diately after the prohibition of the eating of the Anna of Dasa, Napita, &c., of the Sudra's. When of the two prohi- bitions, one after the other, in the one that comes last, the "cooking of the Annå is distinctly mentioned, the first prohi-

* मूहेषु दाचगोपानकुडमिलाईसीरिणाम् ।

भ्योव्याचता ग्टहस्वश्य तीर्थसेवातिदूरतः ॥

नाह्मचाফिল্ড সুহस्त पक्रतादिक्रियापि च।

"The eating of the Anna by a grihastha, (householder) of the twice born classes offered to him by a Dasa, Gopala, Kulamitra, and Ardhasiri of the Sudra caste; distant pilgrimage; the cooking of a Brahmana's Anna by a Sudra (are prohibited in the Kali-yuga)."

bition, as a matter of course, must refer to uncooked Anna: It must be considered also that even unboiled rice of the Sudras is treated in the Sastras as Sudranna.

Thus:-

आमं शूद्रस्य पकाचं पकवच्छिष्टमुच्यते । *

"The unboiled Anna of a Sudra is to be considered as boil- ed; the boiled Anna of a Sudraças an offul."

The explanation that has been given above of the word Sudranna is corroborated by a discussion on the subject by the Smarta Bhattacharya Raghunandana.

Thus:-

आममन्द्रं दत्तमपि भोजनकाले तगृहावस्थितं मूहाचम् । तथाचा-

मूंद्रवेश्मनि विप्रेण चीरं वा यदि वा दधि । निहत्तेन न भोक्तव्यं यूहाचं तद्मि करतम् ॥ निहत्तेन शूद्राक्षाचिष्टत्तेन । अपि शब्दात् साचात् एततराजुत्लादि । खग्टहागते पुनरङ्गिराः

यथा बतस्ततो ह्यापः शुद्धिं यान्ति नहीं गताः । यूट्राडिमण्डलेश्वन मविष्टन्तु सहा शुचि ॥ प्रविष्टेऽपि स्वीकाराषेचामाई पराशरः तावद्भवति यूद्राक्षं यावन स्पृशति डिजः । द्विजातिकरसंस्पृष्टं सर्वं तद्धविरुच्यते ॥ स्पृशति ग्टद्धातोत्ति कातरः। तच समोच्च पायमाह विष्णु-

पुराणम्

सम्मोचविला गड्डीयात् द्राक्षं भागतम् । तच्च पात्लान्तरेण पाह्यमाहाङ्गिराः स्वपात्ले बच्चा विन्यस्तं दुग्धं वच्छति नित्यशः ।

Tithitattwa. Durgapujatattwa, 

पात्लान्तरगतं पाह्यं दुग्धं स्वग्टह आगतम् ॥ एतेषु खग्टह आगतस्यैव शुद्धत्वं तहहगतस्य शूद्राक्षदोषभागित्वं प्रतीयते ।

"Even unboiled rice offered by a Sudra and eaton at his house becomes Sudranna; for Angira has said, that 'A Bralıma- na, who has censed eating Sadrauna, should not drink even milk or curd at a Sudra's house, for that also is Sudranna." On the subject of unboiled rice, &c., Angira has said again, that 'As water, coming from any part, becomes purified the moment it has fallen into the river, so uuboiled rice, &e, on their very entrance from a Sudra's house to a Brahmana's, becomes puri- fied. Parasarn has said that Sudranna, even after it has entered a Brahmana's house, in order to be purified, requires his accept- ance: thits-So long as a Brahmana does not accept it, it remains Sudranna; a touch of his hand purifies it. In the Vishnu Purana, it has been stated that Sudranna should be accepted after being washed or sprinkled with water: thus 'When Sudranua comes to one's own house, it should be accept- ed after being sprinkled. Angira has stated that Sudranns is to be received on a different plate from that on which it is brought thus-'The milk or eurd which a Sudra makes a gift of, on his own plato, when brought to one's own house, should be necepted after being placed on a different plate." From these, it is demonstrated that unboiled rico, &e., given by n Sudra, lose all impurity when brought to one's own house; when they remain at Sudra's, they have the inapurity of Sudranna."

From all these considerations, therefore, it is évident that starting from the preconceived notion that the sacrifice of horse, &c., are not the Dharmas, of the Kali-yuga, it is no way consistent with reason to come to the conclusion, that because these Dharmas are sanctioned in the Parasara Sanhita, Pa- rasara has not only declared the Dharmas of the Kali-yuga, but has also declared those of others, and that consequently Parasara Sanbita does not teach the Dharmas of the Kali- yuga alone.

CHAPTER XX.

THE FATHER CAN MAKE A GIFT OF HIS WIDOWED

DAUGHTER.

Many have stated the question, in the form of an objec tion, "that in marriage, who is to make the gift of a widow ? When the father has once given her away, his right in her has ceased. When he has no right in her, how can he dis- pose of her by giving her again to another in marriage ?"

We have at present in our country two sorts of mar- riage-"the Brahma" and "Asurn," that is by a gift or sale of the daughter. Here the words "gift" and "sale" do not exactly mean what they mean elsewhere. In ordinary cases, a man can make a gift or sale of a thing, if he has a right in it. He loses his right in that thing, if he once makes a sale or gift of it, and consequently cannot make a sale or gift of it again. From time immemorial, this aw prevails with reference to the gift or sale of laud, house, garden, cattle, &c. There seems, however, to be no analogy between such sale or gift, and sale or gift of a daughter. In the case of land, cattle, &c., no one can make a gift or sale, if he has no right therein. Should he happen to make such a gift or sale, it becomes null and void. But this rule does not hold with reference to the gift of a daughter. Gift in marriage is not actual but merely nominal. The framers of our Sastras have enjoined the disposal of the daughter in marriage under the klesignation of gift. The marriage is consummated on any one's making this gift. The marriage is valid and com- plete by the gift of the bride by a person who could have no right whatsoever in her, equally with her gift by him who may have an actual right in her. In the case of ordin- ary things, no person can make over by gift a thing to another when he has no right in that thing, while a bride can be made over in gift by any person of the same caste.

Thus:-

पिता दद्यात् स्वयं कन्यां भ्भ्राता वालुमतः पितुः । मातामहो मातुलच सकुल्यो बान्धवस्तथा ॥ • माता त्वभावे सर्वेषां मक्लतौ यदि वत्र्त्तते । तस्यामप्रलतिस्थायां कन्यां स्युः स्वजातयः ॥ *

"The father should himself make the gift of the daughter, or the brother should do so with the permission of the father. The maternal grand-father, the maternal uncle, persons descend- ed from the same paternal ancestor, and persons with whom there are ties of consanguinity, shall make the gift of the bride. In the absence of all these, the mother, if she is in her same state, shall make the gift, if she is not, the gift shall be made by persous of the same caste."

Mark now, if it had been the intention of the framers of our Sastras, that the same rule shall hold with reference to the gift of a bride as with reference to the gift of land, cattle, &c., that is, he alone who has a right in her shall be entitled to make the gift, then how could persons of the same caste be entitled, to make the gift? If any one has a right in her, it is her father and mother alone. The others can have a right in her by no possibility. If the rule had been, that like the gift of land, cattle, &c., the gift of a bride shall be made by him alone who has a right in her, then the framers of the Sastras would not have stated the maternal grand-father, &c., as persons entitled to make the gift, or why would they make the mother the person last entitled to make the gift ? She should have been, in that case, held second to the father only. In fact, there cannot be the same right in a daughter as there is in land, cattle, &c.; if there had been, the giving away of a bride in marriage without the knowledge and consent of the father, by any other person, would have been considered null and void, being a gift by a person who had no right whatsoever. But it is not a rare occurrence, that sometimes persons give away females in marriage, under such circumstances. Why are such marriages valid? Why cannot the father lay complaints before a court of justice, and make void the gift of his daughter by a person who had no right whatsoever in her? The gift of another's land and cattle is never valid. It becomes void when a com- plaint is lodged before a court of justice. From all these considerations, therefore, the gift of a bride is merely nominal and is founded on no right whatsoever. If then the gift of a daughter is founded on no right whatsoever in her, and if it is a gift merely nominal and is enjoined by the Sastras as only a part of the marriage ceremony, there is nothing to prevent the father to give her away in marriage again, if her husband is dead, or in any other contingencies speci- fied in the Sastras. As in the Text quoted above, sanction is given to the gift of a female on her first marriage, so in other Texts like sanction is given, in certain contingen- cies, to the gift of her on her remarriage.

Thus :-

स तु यद्यन्वजातीयः पतितः क्लोष एव च। विकम्मैस्यः सगोलो वा दासो दीर्घामयोऽपि वा । जड़ापि देया सान्यकी सहावरणभूषणा ॥

"If after wedding, the husband be found to be of a different caste, degraded, impotent, unprincipled, of the same Gotra or family, a slave, or a valetudinarian, then a married woman should be bestowed upon another decked with proper apparel and ornaments."

Mark! sanction is here given to give away again a wed- ded female in marriage in due form. If the circumstance of having given away a daughter once in marriage were a bar to her being made a gift of on the occasion of remar- riage, then the great sage Katyayana would not have given clear sanction to her being made over to another as a gift, on her husband being found to be degraded, impotent, valetudinarian, &c. Mereover, it is not only that we find a mere sanction, but clear evidence is found that a father dld make the gift of a widowed daughter on the occasion of her remarriage.

Thus-

अर्जुनस्यात्मजः श्रीमानिरावाचाम वीर्य्यशन् । सुतायां नागराजस्य जातः पायेंन धीमता । ऐरावतेन सा दत्ता ह्यनपत्या महात्मना । पत्यौ हते सुपर्णेन रूपणान्दीनचेतना ॥

"By Arjuna was begotten on the daughter of the Nag-raja, a handsome and powerful son named Iravan. When her husband was killed by Suparna, Airavata, the magnanimous king of the Nagas, made a gift of that dejceted, sorrow-stricken, childless, daughter to Arjuna."

When, therefore, the gift of a daughter is, as proved above, not founded on right, but only forms a part of the marriage ceremony, when there is clear sanction in the Sas- tras to make the gift of a daughter on the occassion of her remarriage with all the rites and ceremonies of marriage, and when we have clear evidence of a widowed daughter having been made over as a gift on the occasion of her remarriage; the objection that, after the gift of the daughter, the father has lost all his right in her and therefore cannot give her away a second time in marriage, is altogether unreasonable. The fact is, those parties, who are entitled, according to the Sastras, to make the gift of a female on the occasion of her first marriage, can also do so on the occasion of her remar- riage.

CHAPTER XXII.

THE MANTRAS (NUPTIAL TEXTS) TO BE USED ON THE OCCASION OF A SECOND MARRIAGE ARE THE SAME, AS THOSE THAT ARE USED ON THE OCCASION OF A FIRST MARRIAGE.

Some of the Replicants object to the remarriage of wid- ows on the ground, that there are no Mantras for such mar- riage, and that therefore it cannot be contracted. This scems to be a futile objection. There is nothing in the Mantras used on the occasion of a first marriage to make it valid, which would prevent their being used on the occasion of a second. Those Mantras, that sanctify the first matrimonial connexion, shall also sanctify the secoud.

It has already been indisputably established that Manu, Vishnu, Vasishtha, Yajnavalkya, Narada, and Katyayana, have enjoined the remarriage of women under certain con- tingencies. But if the Mantras, prescribed for the first marriage, had not been applicable to remarriages, those Rishis would certainly have prescribed other Mantras for them, as no marriage is valid without Mantras, When, how- ever, there are no stich separate Mantras, the sanction of the Rishis for remarriage would be absurd, if the Mantras for the first marriage were not applicable to the second. The mere intercourse of the sexes can never be called the Sanskara (rite) of marriage, which requires the applica- tion of proper Mantras in due form. If the remarriage of women were mere infercourse with men, not duly sane- tified by proper Mantras, the authors of our Sastras afore- said would not have applied the word Sanskara to it also. Thus,

Manu says:-

या पत्या वा परित्यक्ता विधवा वा स्ववेच्छया । उत्पादयेत् पुनर्भूत्वा स पौनर्भव उच्यते ॥ 9. 175. सा चेदचतयोनिः स्याङ्गतप्रत्यागतापि वा । पौनर्भवेण भर्त्ता सा पुनः संस्कारमर्हति ॥ 9. 176.

"If a woman after becoming a widow, or being divorced by her husband, marries again, the son born of her of this mar- riage, is called a Paunarbhava. If she be a virgin, or if she leave her husband and return to him, she is again entitled to the Sanskara or ceremony of marriage."

Vasishtha says:-

पाणियारे व्हते बाला केवलं मन्त्रसंस्कृता । सा बेचतयोनिः स्यात् पुनः संस्कारमर्हति ॥ Ch. 17.

"She, who is married but continues a virgin, is again enti- tled to the Sanskara, if her husband dies."

Vishnu says:

अक्षता सूयः संस्कृता पुनर्भू: । Ch. 15.

"She, who, though married, continues a virgin and under- goes the Sanskara for a second time, is called Punarbhu,"

Yajnavalkya sayув-

अक्षता च चता चैव पुनर्भूः संखता पुनः। 1. 67.

"Sho, who continues a virgin, or otherwise, is called. Punar bhu, if she undergoes the Sanskara for a second time."

When, therefore, Manu, Vishnu, Vasishtha, Yajnavalkya, Parasara, and other writers of our Sastras, have enjoined the remarriage of women under certain contingencies; when they have denominated such marriage "the Sanskara of marriage"; when the word Sanskara cau by no means be applied to a mere intercourse of the sexes, not sanctified by Mantras; when they have legalized the issue of such marriages; and when, at the same time, they have not prescribed a different set of Mantras for them, the Mantras, now used in first marriages, should certainly be used in the second, especially as there is nothing in those Mantras which would make them inapplicable to remarriage of females.

Some of the oppositionists contend' for the inapplicabil- ity of the existing Mantras to remarriage of women on the strength of the following Text of Manu:-

पावियहयिका भन्ताः कन्यास्त्रेव प्रतिष्ठिताः ।

नाकन्यास कचिक्षुच्चयां लुप्तधर्म्मक्रिया हि ताः ॥ 8. 226.

"Tho nuptial Texts are applied solely to Kanyas or virgins, and nowhere to Akanyas or girls who have lost their virginity; since they are excluded from the performance of religious duties."

Here I have to observe that in the Text, above cited, Manu, by the word Akanya, does not mean widows but girls who have lost their virginity before marriage by illicit intercourse with men, as is evident from the last part of the clause "Since they are excluded from the performance of religious duties." No Hindu can assert that widows are excluded from those duties. On the contrary, such widows, who would prefer widowhood to remarriage, are enjoined by the Sastras to pass their lives in the performance of such duties.

CHAPTER XXIII.

IN MATRIMONIAL ALLIANCES UNMARRIED DAMSELS ARE PREFERABLE TO MARRIED ONES IN THE SAME WAY AS "UNMARRIED MEN ARE TO MARRIED ONES.

While dwelling upon the subject of the remarriage of widows, it should be considered that the following Text of Yajuhvalkya enjoins marriage with an unmarried girl:

अविद्भुतमचर्यो लचण्यां स्नियसहक्षेत् । अनन्यपूर्थिकां कान्वामसपिण्डां यवीयसीम् ॥

"After lending the life of a student in the Vedas, a person should marry au unmarried, amiable damsel, inferior in age, withuspicious physical sigus, and without the pale of consan- guinity."

From this as well as other Texts upon the subject, the oppositionists try to establish that a married damsel should not be married again.

This conclusion is no way consistent with the precept of Manu, Yajnavalkya, Vasishtha, Vislinu, and other sages, who have in their Sanhitas given sanction, in certain contingen- cies, to the remarriage of married women. For, if the con- clusion of my adversaries be admitted, the sanction of the sages alluded to becomes absurd. In fact the true purport of the Text is, that when a person is entering into matrimonial alliance, he should prefer an unmarried bride to a married one, just as in the bestowal of a daughter, an unmarried per- son should be preferred to a married one. As in the Text of Yajnavalkya a man is enjoined to marry an unmarried dam sel, so in the following Text of Baudhayana it is laid down that a daughter should be bestowed on an unmarried man:

স্তনযীভিने विद्याय मा चारिणेऽर्थिने देया ॥

"A daughter should be bestowed on a suitor studied in the Vedas, virtuous, wise, and unmarried."

If from this we infer that the bestowal of a daughter on a person once married is altogether prohibited, the inference would jar with other Texts in which we find, that on the demise of a wife, on her barrenness, or under other contin gencies, male persons are permitted to marry again. To rec oncile this apparent discrepancy, we must conclude that the Texts refer to different degrees of preference. A simila conclusion must be arrived at with regard to the marrying virgin or a married damsel. In fact marrying a damsel onco married is as much a case of second preference on the pari of a man, as marrying a male persen once married is on the part of woman.

This is a conclusion which has been arrived at by the Smartta Bhattacharya Raghunandana also.

Thus:-

बौधायनः सुतशीलिने विज्ञाय ब्रह्मचारिणेऽर्थिने देया। मा भारिये अजातस्तीसम्ममिति कल्पतरुवाचवत्कप्रदीपकलिके । जातस्की- सम्पर्कस्य द्वितीयविवाचे विवाहाष्टकवहिर्भावत्पतेस्तडमादानं मायुक्ष्मरार्थ मिति तत्त्वम् ॥ +

"Baudhayana has said that a daughter should be bestowed on a suitor studied in the Vedas, virtuous, wise, and unmarried. From a too literal interpretation of this, it would appear that daughters should be bestowed on unmarried persons only, and that the remarriage of a man once married does not fall within any of the eight classes of marriage. We are to understand therefore, that by the use of the adjective unmarried Bau- dhayana has meant that the bestowal of a daughter on an un married person is a case of first preference."

In fact, a little observation would show, that the framers of the Sastras have on such matters laid down equal rules for both the sexes. They have ordained that, before betroth- ment, inquiry as to the family and character of the bride- groom is as much necessary as that of the bride. After the

* অविद्रुतमह्मचर्थी जचण्यां विवहहहेत् । अनन्यपूर्थिकां कान्तामसपिण्डां यवीवसीम्॥ 1. 52. अरोगियों भ्रात्मतीअसमानार्थ गोलजाम् । মন্ত্রमात् वप्तभादूजे जाटतः पिल्लतस्तथा । 1. 53. दशपुरुषविख्यातात् श्रोलियाचा महाकुचात् । स्फीतादपि न सञ्चारिरोगहोषसमन्वितात् ॥ 1. 54. एतैरेव गुणैर्युक्तः सवर्णः चोलियो वरः ।

यलात् परीचितः पुंस्ले युवा घीमान् जनप्रियः ॥ 1. 55.

"After leading the life of a student in the Vedas, a person should marry a damsel, unmarried, amiable, with auspicious physical signs, inferior in age, without the pale of consanguinity, having no incurable disease, having a brother, not descended from the same line of ancestors, and five degrees without the mother's side and seven without the father's. A bride should not be selected from the family which has a blemish or is subject to con- tagious, disesse notwithstanding it be very distinguished, celebrated for ten generations, possessed of riches, corn, &c., and one in which the Vedan are every day studied. The bridegroom also should be possessed of these attributes, should belong to the same caste and should be an every-day. student of the Vedaa, Moreover every care should be taken to ascertain marriage is contracted, they make it as much a duty of the husband to please the wife, as that of the wife to please him.. Want of chastity they make as sinful on the part of man as on that of woman. As they have ordained man to marry again on the demise of his wife or on her proving barren &c., so they have ordained woman to marry again on the demise of her husband or on his proving impotent &c. Marrying a woman once married they have cuade as much case of seccud preference on the part of man, as marrying a man once mar ried on the part of woman.-But unfortunately man, the strong- er sex, arrogates to himself rights which he is not willing to accede to weak woman. He has taken the Sastras into his

whether the bridegroom is possessord of Potency. It is noceasary also that he should be youthkel, intelligent, and amiable." Yajnavalkya.

* सन्तुष्टो मार्खया मन्तों भर्त्ता भार्या तथैव च।

यस्मिन्नेव कुचे निचं कल्याणं तल में भुवम् ॥ 3. 60. "Constant prosperity attends the family in which the wife pleases the husband and the husband pleases the wife." Manи.

यत्वात्तुकूल्य दम्पल्लो क्रिषर्मात्म वईते ॥ 1. 74.

"The family, in which the wife and the husband keep each other pleas ed, and behave well towards cach other, is one in which virtue, riches, and enjoyment increase." Yujuavalkya.

+ व्युञ्चरन्त्याः पतिं मार्जा अदद्यप्रश्वति पातकम् । भ्रूणहत्यासमं घोरं भविष्यत्यसुखावहम् । भार्थीं तथा व्युचरतः कौमारमह्मचारिचीम् । पतिव्रतामेतदेव भविता पातकं भुवि ॥

"Henceforward, a woman that will transgress her husband shall incur the deep guilt of fæticide. And the husband that will transgress a wife well- behaved and chaste, shall incur the same guilt." Mahabharata, Adi Parva, Ch exxii. own hands and interprets and moulds them in a way which best suits his convenience; perfectly regardless of the de- graded condition to which woman has been reduced through his selfishness and injustice. A sight of the wrongs of the women of modern India is really heart-rending. To respect the female sex and to make them happy are things almost unknown in this country. Nay men, who consider themselves wise and are esteemed as such by others, take a pleasure in the degraded state of the females.

Manu has declared :-

पित्टभिटिभिचैताः पतिभिर्देवरैस्तथा ।

पूज्या भूषयितव्याच वह कल्याणभीष्णुभिः ॥ 3. 55. यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्त्र देवताः । यत्वैतास्तु न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तलाफलाः क्रियाः ॥ 3. 56. शोचन्ति आभयो यत्र विनश्यत्याशु तत् कुलम् । न शोचन्ति तु वलैता वईते तद्धि सर्व्वदा ॥ 3. 57. जामयो यानि गेहानि शपन्यप्रतिपूजिताः । तानि सत्याहतानोव विमश्यन्ति समन्ततः ॥ 3. 58.

"Fathers, brothers, husbands, brothers of husband, de., who wish for happiness and prosperity should respect women and keep them adorned in clothes and ornaments. The gods remain propitious to the family, in which the females are respected. Sacrifices and gifts are productive of no fruits in the family, in which women are not respected. The family soon. goes to destruction, in which the fomalos are not respected. The family, in which the females are happy, always rises in happiness and wealth. When, not being properly treated and respected, women curse families, the Intter utterly perish, as if destroyed by Kritya."

*A Female Deity, to whom sacrifices are offered for the destruction of Unfortunately this salutary rule regarding the treatment of women is scarcely followed; and the evil consequences, usually attendant upon a transgression of such a golden rule, are everywhere visible.

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE CUSTOM OF THE COUNTRY IS NOT A STRONGER AUTHORITY THAN THE SASTRAS.

I have, to the best of my ability, explained the true meaning and purport of the Texts quoted by the Repli- cants with the object to prove the nonconformity of the marriage of widows to the Sastras. I will now endeavour to meet another objection which they have made with regard to the introduction of the practice. The opponents have urged that even if the remarriage of widows be consonant to the Sastras, it should not prevail, being opposed to the custom of the country. Anticipating such an objection, I pointed out in my first pamphlet a Text from Vasishtha, to shew that the Sastra is a stronger authority than custom. But as I imagine that only one Text has not been consider- ed sufficient by my opponents, I will cite other authorities on the subject.

Thus:-

দ্বন্দ্ব' লিখাৰমাবানা प्रभाचं परमं श्रुतिः ।

द्वितीयं धम्मैशाखन्तु ऋतीय लोकसंग्रहः ॥

"Those that wish to know what Dharmas are, for them the Veda is the highest authority, the Smriti the second, and Cus- tom the third."

Here we see that custom is held as the weakest authority; and the Veda and the Smriti are stronger authorities:

Again:

न यल साचाद्विधयो न निषेधाः श्रुतौ तौ । देशाचारकुलाचारैजल घर्षों निरूप्यते ॥ *

"Where there are no direct sanctions or prohibitions laid down in the Veda or the Smriti, the Dharmas are to be ascer- tained from an observation of the custom of the country and of the family."

Thus it is distinctly stated that custom is to be followed on those matters only on which there are on precepts in the Sastras.

Further:

टतेर्वेद‌विरोधे व परित्यागो यथा भवेत् । तथैव लौकिकं वाक्यं करतिबाचे परित्यजेत् ॥ t

"As Smriti is not to be accepted when it is opposed to the Vedas, so custom is not to be respected when it is at variance with Smriti."

So when Smriti and custong are opposed to each other, custom is not to be followed.

When we see, therefore, that there is distinct sanction in the Sastras for the marriage of widows, to attempt to establish that it should not prevail, because it is opposed to the custom of the country, is acting in direct opposition to the opinion and precept of the framers of our Sastras.

Skand Purana. + A Smriti quoted in the Prayogaparijata. CHAPTER XXV..

CONCLUSION.

Every one, having the senses of sight and hearing, must acknowledge how intolerable are the hardships of our widows, especially of those who have the misfortune to lose their husbands at an early age; and how baneful to society are the effects of the custom which excludes them from the privilege of marrying again. Reader! I beseech you to think seriously for a while upon the subject, and then to say whether we should continue slaves to such a custom, regardless of the precepts of our Sastras or should-we throw off the yoke, and resting on those holy sanctions, introduce among ourselves the marriage of widows, and thus relieve those unfortunate creatures from their miseries. While forming your decision, you should bear in mind that the customs of our country are not immutable in their nature. No one can assert that they have never undergone any change. On the contrary, the present inhabitants of India would appear to be altogether a different race, were you to compare their customs with those that prevailed in days of old amongst their ancestors. One instance will suffice to illustrate the truth of this statement. It was considered a heinous offence in a Sudra, if, in ancient times, he durst be seated on the same carpet or mat with a Brahmana; but the Brahmanas of these days, like menial servants, content themselves with sitting on the carpet or mat, while the Sudra occupies a raised seat upon the same. *

* This custom is opposed to the Sastras. It is not only the Sudras and Brahmanas ignorant of the Sastras that follow this custom, but those Brahmanas and Sudras who are reputed as versed in them, act in accord. ance with it without compunction.

Changes in our customs have taken place even within a recent period. The Vaidyas, from the time of Rajah Rajbal- labha, have commenced to reduce the period of their Asaucha (impurity) to fifteen days, and to wear the sacred thread. Before his time, the period of their Asaucha was a month, and they did not wear the sacred thread. Even now, there are families among the Vaidyas who stick to the old custom. Have these innovators and their descendants ever been treat- ed as men degraded and having no claim to the privileges of their caste? Again, before the appearance of the Dattaka. chandrika, all Hindus in adopting sons were obliged, in or- der to make the adoption valid, to take them before the age of five, and to perform the rite of Churakarana (ceremony of Tonsure) on them. Since the publication of that work, if a son is adopted, in the case of a Brahmana, before the ceremony of the sacred thread, and in the case of a Sudra, before the marriageable age, he is still admitted to be within the proper limits of age, and his adoption considered as valid.

In these cases, new customs were adopted according to 'a new interpretation of the Sastras, not because they were ab- solutely needed by the society at large, but merely because they suited the convenience or caprice of certain individuals. For, if the Vaidyas did not reduce the period of their Asau- cha, or wear a thread, or if sons were not adopted after five years of age, society could neither gain nor lose. But what an amount of misery and evil does the country sustain from

Maun has said:-

सहासनमभिप्रे शुरुत्कष्टखापकक्षजः ।

कच्यां लताको निर्वाखः स्किर्ष वास्यावकर्त्तयेत् ॥ 8. 28.

"If a Sudra seats himself on the same seat with a Brahmana, his loins should be branded with heated iron and he should be banished or his loins cut asuuder."

the non-prevalence of the marriage of widows! Here you have a positive evil-evil of a magnitude passing our imagin- ation to conceive. Now, if you could adopt customs that at best suited but your convenience, you should do any thing for the removal of this awful evil, when you have your Sas- tras most explicitly permitting your widows to marry again.

But I am not without my apprehensions that many among you at the very sound of the word "custom" will consider it sinful even to enquire if the change should take place. There are others again, who, though in their hearts agree to the measure, have not the courage even to say that it should be adopted, only because it is opposed to the customs of their country. O what a miserable state of things is this! Custom is the supreme ruler in this country: Custom is the supreme instructor: The rule of custom is the paramount rule: The precept of custom is the paramount precept.

What a mighty influence is thine, O custom! Inexpressi- ble in words! With what absolute sway dost thou rule over thy votaries! Thou hast trampled upon the Sastras, triumphed over virtue, and crushed the power of discrimi- nating right from wrong and good from evil! Such is thy influence, that what is no way conformable to the Sas- tras is held in esteem, and what is consonant to them is set at open defiance. Through thy influence, men, lost to all sense of religion, and reckless in their conduct, are everywhere regarded as virtuous and enjoy all the privi- leges of society, only because they adhere to mere forms: while those truly virtuous and of unblemished conduct, if they disregard those forms and disobey thy authority, are considered as the most irreligious, despised as the most depraved, and cut off from society.

What a sad misfortune has befallen our Sastras! Their authority is totally disregarded. They, who pass their lives in the performance of those acts which the Sastras repeated- ly prohibit as subversive of caste and religion, are every- where respected as pious and virtuous while, the mere mention of the duties prescribed by the Sastras makes a man looked upon as the most irreligious and vicious. A total disregard of the Sastras and a careful observance of mere usages and external forms is the source of the irresistible stream of vice which overflows the country.

.How miserable is the present state of India! It was once known to nations as the land of virtue. But the blood dries up to think that it is now looked upon as the land of depravity, and that from the conduct of its present race of people. From a view of its present degradation it is vain to look for a speedy reformation.

Countrymen! how long will you suffer yourselves to be led away by illusions! Open your eyes for once and see, that India, once the land of virtue, is being overflooded with the stream of adultery and fæticide. The degradation to which you have sunk is sadly low. Dip into the spirit of your Sastras, follow its dictates, and you shall be alle to remove the foul blot from the faca of your country. But unfortunately you are so much under the domination of long established prejudice, so slavishly attached to custom and the usages and forms of society, that I am afraid you will not soon be able to assert your dignity and follow the path of rectitude. Habit has so darkened your intellect and blunted your feelings, that it is impossible for you to have compassion for your helpless widows. When led away by the impulse of passion, they violate the vow of widowhood, you are willing to connive at their conduct. Losing all sense of honor and religion, and from apprehensions of mere expo- sure in society, you are willing to help in the work of fæticicide. But what a wonder of wonders! You are not willing to follow the dictates of your Sastras, to give them in marriage again, and thus to relieve them from their intol- erable sufferings, and yourselves from miseries, crimes, and vices. You perhaps imagine that with the loss of their hus- bands your females lose their nature as human beings and are subject no longer to the influence of passions. But what instances occur at every step to show, how sadly you are mistaken. Alas! what fruits of poison you are gathering from the tree of life, from moral torpitude and a sad want of re- flection. How greatly is this to be deplored! Where men are void of pity and compassion, of a perception of right and wrong, of good and evil, and where men consider the observ ance of mere forms as the highest of duties and the greatest of virtues, in such a country would that women were never born.

Woman in India thy lot is cast in misery!