History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c29.27

v2.c29.27

The orthodox pandits rely on a verse in Vedavyāsa-smṛti¹³⁷⁹ II. 53 ‘a brāhmaṇa woman should enter fire, clasping the dead body of her husband; if she lives (does not become *satī*) she being *tyaktakeśā* should emaciate her body by *tapas*’. The reading ‘brāhmaṇī’ for ‘jīvantī’ is not good, as the word ‘brāhmaṇī’ is redundant having occurred in the first half and as the second half refers to the fact of her surviving after her husband. In this verse the injunction relates only to the emaciation of the body (*śoṣayet*), the word ‘tyaktakeśā’ being only an attribute of the subject is no part of the predicate, which alone is enjoined. The general rule laid down by the Mīmāṁsā is (III. 1. 13-15, the *grahaikatvanyāya*)¹³⁸⁰ that the attributes of a subject are no part of the injunction. There is no injunction about *keśa* (hair) in the Vedavyāsa passage. Besides the word *tyaktakeśā* (who has given up hair) may possibly be made to yield three meanings, viz. (1) one who has given up or is unmindful of dressing or decking her hair, (2) one whose hair is given up in accordance with the prescription of some smṛtis that only two finger-breadths of tresses are to be cut off when doing penance for govadha &c. in the case of women (*vide* Parāśara IX. 54-55, Aṅgiras 163, Yama 54); (3) one whose head is tonsured. For the first meaning vide Raghuvaṁśa IX. 14 (where 'analakām' is explained by Mallinātha as 'who have given up ornamenting the hair'). For this meaning of 'tyakta' vide Bhagavadgītā I. 33 'tyaktajīvitāḥ'. 'Tyakta' by itself never means tonsured. The third meaning will be only implied if at all, while the first two are the usual meanings. Further, the interpretation of the Veda-Vyāsa smṛti II. 53 given by the pandits is liable to the fault called vākyabheda (i. e. it lays down two injunctions in one and the same sentence), as they say that Veda-Vyāsa calls upon widows to tonsure themselves and to emaciate their body. Besides, if Veda-Vyāsa really meant to enjoin tonsure, the verse could easily have been made to read 'jīvantī ced vapet keśān tapasā &c.' Lastly assuming that Veda-Vyāsa refers to tonsure, there is conflict among smṛtis, since Vṛddha-Hārīta (quoted above) allows her to keep her hair, and since an option results when two texts of equal authority conflict (Gaut. I. 5).¹³⁸¹