History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c34.192.3

v2.c34.192.3

In spite of Gobhila's dictum, allowing a golden image or a kuśa representative of an absent or dead wife, Aparārka condemns the practice as opposed to the rule laid down by Satyāṣāḍha in his śrauta sūtra ''there¹⁶³⁷ is no *pratinidhi* (representative or substitute) in the case of the owner (i. e. yajamāna), the wife, the son, the (proper) place and time (for an act), fire, the deity (to be invoked), of a rite and of a text (directed to be employed in a rite).' His argument is that the wife's co-operation is required in such actions as looking at the clarified butter, in unhusking grains &c. and as an image of kuśa or gold cannot perform these acts, the image cannot be employed in place of the wife. The Sm. C. replies to this argument by saying that the words of Satyāṣāḍha have reference only to a human substitute for a wife and that other smṛtis allow a substitute made of gold or kuśa. For example, Vṛddha-Hārīta¹⁶³⁸ expressly prescribes that a man may perform agnihotra and the offering of the five daily sacrifices throughout his life in the company of his wife's image made of kuśa grass (if the wife be dead &c.). If a person loses his wife or if he goes abroad or becomes *patita* his agnihotra may be continued by his son ¹⁶³⁹ (Atri, verse 108). The Ait. Br. (32. 8) also says that even one who has lost his wife (or who has no wife) should perform agnihotra, as the Veda orders a man to offer sacrifice.¹⁶⁴⁰