History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c32.26

v2.c32.26

There were old commentators who were opposed to the practice of *satī*. Medhātithi on Manu V. 157 (Kāmam tu &c.) compares this practice to *śyenayāga* which a man performed by way of black magic to kill his enemy. He says¹⁴⁷⁹ that though Aṅgiras allowed 'anumaraṇa' it is suicide and is really forbidden to women. Just as the Veda says 'śyenenābhicaran yajet' and yet śyenayāga is not looked upon as dharma, but rather as adharma (vide Śabara on Jaimini I. 1. 2), so, though Aṅgiras speaks of it, it is really adharma; and that a woman who is in a hurry and extremely anxious to secure heaven quickly for herself and her husband might act according to Aṅgiras, still her action is *aśāstrīya* (not in accordance with the śāstras); besides anvārohaṇa is opposed to the Vedic text 'one should not leave this world before one has finished one's allotted span of life'." The Mit. on Yāj. I. 86 combats these arguments. It says that śyenayāga is no doubt undesirable and therefore adharma, but that is so because the object of śyenayāga is injury to another. *Anugamana* on the other hand is not so; there the result promised is heaven which is a desirable result and which is enjoined by *śruti* in such sentences as 'one should sacrifice a white goat to Vāyu if one desires prosperity'. Similarly the smṛti about *anugamana* is not opposed to the *śruti* quoted, the meaning of which is different; that śruti means 'one should not waste one's life for securing heavenly bliss which is fleeting and insignificant as compared with the supreme bliss of Brahma knowledge'. As the woman in *anumaraṇa* desires only heaven, she is not doing anything contrary to the śruti texts. This is the reasoning of the Mitākṣarā which looks like special pleading. Aparārka p. 111, the Madanapārijāta p. 199, Par. M. II. part I pp. 55-56 follow the reasoning of the Mit. and add that the Vedic text about the allotted span of life is a general rule, while the smṛti about *anumaraṇa* is a special or exceptional śāstra and so there is no contradiction as the rule applies to all cases outside the excepted one. The Madanapārijāta (p. 200) further explains that the texts about purifying a husband guilty of brāhmaṇa murder are not to be taken literally but only as hyperbolically extolling *anvārohaṇa*.