not mentioned that the reader might judge of their nature and magnitude; and that even this option is therefore to be rejected; and thus the hapless widow, according to him, must inevitably consign herself to the flames if she would discharge her duty to her deceased husband. He then goes on to state the authority for Unoo-muruna, or a woman's burning herself after her husband's death with some article belonging to him! a practice by no means uncommon at the present day. For this he adduces the authority of only a solitary writer the author of the Mutsya-Poorana, in these words:-"In case of the demise of a husband in a distant country, the chaste wife should purify her person by bathing, and then, taking her husband's shoes or another thing, enter into a burning pile to be prepared on purpose." This he justifies by saying, that the Rig-veda declares such women not to be guilty of self-murder; which plainly indicates, that if this be self-murder, in the opinion of the Hindoos themselves, it would be condemned. Such then is the whole of the countenance this Advocate, on whom it was incumbent to bring forward the strongest authorities for a practice so repugnant to humanity, has been able to adduce from the Hindoo writers themselves; and this, one quotation from Oosuna, condemns in the gross, it is the voice of nature involuntarily speaking:-"Let not Brahmunees, or wives of brahmuns, suffer death by entering into a separate pile; but for the rest of the women, brahmunees excepted, this law is most preferable." Now when it is considered that every authority adduced in favour of this practice is that of brahmuns, for no shoodra has ever yet become authoritative as a man of learning, this decides the matter at once. If it be meretorious thus to ascend the separate funeral pile, why deny this privilege to the daughters of brahmuns? Why indeed, but because nature spoke in the breast of this writer! He was a brahmun, and he shuddered at the idea of consigning his daughter to the flames for the sake of a worthless husband, who might perhaps have treated her with neglect and cruelty all his life. The brahmuns of the present day are, however, far more devout; they are unwilling their wives shall be debarred this glorious privilege, and consign them to the flames precisely as they do others: a plain proof, that a regard for the authority of their own shastras has little to do in continuing this practice; the motive for this must be sought elsewhere.

But to these quotations from Ungeera, Hareeta, and Purasura, the advocates for this practice are well aware, are opposed authorities of far greater weight, and such as completely nullify them and forbid this inhuman custom. These it is the grand object of this pamphlet to do away. The Opponent is now made to quote these, therefore, that the Advocate for the burning system may obtain an opportunity of invalidating them. He first adduces the famous legislator Munoo, whose authority is paramount to that of every succeeding writer, as prescribing an opposite course for widows in the following language: "Listen to the law which Munoo has prescribed for the husbandless women. 'After the death of husbands their wives should make themselves lean, by living upon sweet flowers, roots, and fruits; never mind the name of a man, and until the time of their respective death

with resignation and restriction continue to observe the laws prescrib ed for Ekputnees, (those who have married but one husband); that is, they should, with the desire of obtaining the state of chaste women, devote themselves to the law prescribed for Brumhachurya. As thousands of young brahmuns who, before their arriving at full age, devoted themselves to Brumhachurya and begot no children have gone to Surga or Heaven, the chaste women in like manner, who after their husband's death devote themselves to the law of Brumhachurya, may attain bliss in heaven, though issueless.' Hence, says the Opponent, Munoo has ordained, 'that women, after their husband's death, should spend the remaining part of their lives in Brumhachurya. This decision of Munoo's the Opponent confirms by adducing the following corroborative declaration from one of the Vedas, Know that whatever Munoo pronounced, is a medicine for the soul;' and another from Vrihusputee, ‘A Sreeti inconsistent with that of Munoo is not praiseworthy.'

6

To get rid of this decision of Munoo, which completely forbids the practice, is the grand object of this work, and for the sake of this alone it is quoted. This the Advocate, knowing that no commentator can erect himself into a law-giver, and abolish the law itself, first attempts by affirming, (that which no one denies), that it is only the Smritee inconsistent with Munoo which is unworthy of regard; but as a woman can live a life of abstinence and chastity after burning herself, these two of course are not inconsistent! Feeling ashamed of this argument, he quits it, and adducing the following sentence from Juyminee, "where there arises an inconsistency among laws, that maintained by many is preferable," attempts to infer, that the recommendation of Ungeera, Purasura, and Hareeta, ought to outweigh the law itself, enacted by Munoo. Deserting this argument as untenable however, he quotes a passage from the Rig-veda, recommending the practice of burning, and affirms that the law of Munoo on the subject means nothing more than that of a woman who may by any accident be prevented from burning herself with her husband, or afterwards with one of his old shoes, ought to devote herself to a life of austerity. The author of this pamphlet, while he professes to set the authority of the Rig-veda against that of the great Hindoo legislator, is however well aware that the Vedas contradict each other on this very point. That he may in some way or other obviate this discrepancy, so fatal to his argument, he now introduces the Opponent as quoting a well-known passage from the Veda which forbids the burning of widows in the following words:-"As by means of living still, the duties usual and occasional can be performed to purify the mind, and as by hearing of (and) fixing our mind and devoting our soul to Brumha or the Supreme Spirit, we can attain it (final beati tude or absorption in Brumiha,) no woman should therefore spend her life, that is, suffer death in hopes of attaining Surga or bliss in heavFrom this the Opponent infers that, as a widow is forbidden to throw away her life with the hope of obtaining connubial bliss for a limited time in heaven, the authority of those who recommend a widow's burning herself with this hope, is completely nullified; and that

en."

it is clear by the determination of the Veda, as well as the command of Munoo, that a widow ought not to burn herself, but to embrace a life of abstinence and chastity.

This is the doctrine which it is the object of the writer of this pamphlet to overthrow. After the Opponent has thus stated it, therefore, the Advocate for the burning system urges first, that to infer from the authority of Munoo and the Veda, that a woman, instead of burning herself, ought to embrace a life of abstinence and chastity, would strip the writings of those who recommend her burning herself of all authority! an overwhelming argument truly. He then adduces a sentence from Munoo, to shew that when one Smriti appears to have one meaning, and another a different one, both are to be held as law! The plain inference from this would be, that a widow ought to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pile, and to embrace a life of austerity too! To confirm this wonderful exposition, and to preserve the authority of those, who in their zeal for burning, have happened to contradict their own celebrated lawgiver, the Advocate quotes the following contradictory sentence by way of illustration: "In the Otirata, or the oblations of clarified butter offered to the consecrated fire, the Shorassee* is to be taken; and in the Otiratra the Shorassee is not to be taken." The just meaning of which, contrary Sutras, says he, is, that if in this sacrifice the Shorassee be taken or received, the sacrifice is superlatively meritorious; but if it be not, the deed is still complete and advantageous. From this illustration the writer, in the person of the Advocate, infers, that if a widow wishes to attain connubial bliss in Heaven, she may burn herself; but if she wishes final beatitude, she may embrace a life of abstinence and self-denial; and then adds triumphantly, "See therefore that a woman's burning herself for the sake of connubial bliss in Heaven has no way been forbidden." The whole of this, if it have any meaning, only goes to say, that even by these authorities, if a widow desires final beatitude she is not commanded to burn herself; and that according to them, all is merely matter of option. Thus then the whole hitherto advanced by the Advocate for the burning system is, that by their great legislator it is not commanded but forbidden; and by those commentators who abrogate the law they pretend to explain, it is merely recommended, and left perfectly optional. But a further examination of the subject will shew, that this recommendation, while viewed by themselves as degrading in the highest degree, is subversive of the whole system of Hindooism. To illustrate this part of the subject, however, it will be necessary to recur for a moment to the creed of the Hindoos relative to future happiness.

The Hindoos throughout India believe the human soul to form an integral part of Brumha, or the Deity, and hence esteem the summit of future bliss to consist in what they deem final beatitude, or absorption into Brumha, of whom they believe their souls to be a part. To the attainment of this, all their endeavours are directed, for the sake of it the most tremendous austerities are performed; and nothing beyond this is supposed to be within the wish of man. But besides this

*Shorassee, the pot containing the clarified butter and other ingredients.

there are, according to their ideas, many heavens or inferior stages of bliss, to be obtained by certain meritorious deeds. None of these, however, is considered lasting; but the duration of every state of bliss is, according to them, proportioned to the merit of the deed of which it is esteemed the reward. After this period is expired, the person is expected to be born on earth again, and to undergo numerous vicissitudes of births till his mind be so purified as to obtain final beatitude or absorption into the deity, which alone secures a person from the misery of future transmigrations. Their state of misery indeed is esteemed no more lasting than that of happiness; but every kind of suffering therein, (for there is supposed to be a great variety,) is supposed to be proportioned in duration to the demerits of the sufferers; after which they also are said to be born again on the earth, and there to undergo all the vicissitudes of transmigration till they become sufficiently pure to obtain absorption into the deity. Hence a woman who may burn herself for the sake of living with her husband in Heaven for a certain period, on its expiration descends to the earth, and, according to the Hindoos, she may be found in Hell in the course of years. For this reason the wise and learned among them treat these evanescent states of bliss with contempt, and contend that nothing is worthy of pursuit but final beatitude or absorption, which puts an end to all future misery. Hence, a woman's burning herself to obtain connubial bliss in Heaven for a certain period, is deemed by them unspeakably inferior to her obtaining final beatitude through a life of abstinence and chastity. The recommendation in which the Advocate triumphs, therefore, even upon his own principles, ought to have been precisely the reverse of what he has made it, since that line of conduct ought to be recommended to all, which is supposed to secure their highest happiness.

He then

The Opponent however is represented as approving of this decision; but for the sake of its being answered, he is then made to urge another objection in the following words: "As in various shastras contempt has been poured on actions done from cupidity, a woman's burning herself from such motives is by no means proper." quotes the Kuthopunishut, as declaring, that while the pursuit of the system of Sacred Wisdom is considered safe, he who pursues the other system which includes a widow's burning herself, degrades his own nature. This he further corroborates by a long quotation from the Bhaguvut Geeta, which charges such as follow the system with acting only from cupidity and ambition. This is correct; for these writers who thus recommend the performance of various religious deeds, though done from the basest motives, prescribe certain sacrifices for the sake of obtaining wealth; some to obtain Heavenly bliss, and some to secure the destruction of an enemy! The whole of this system, therefore, is, by their best writers, regarded as having nothing in it of the nature of virtue; but as being in reality the indulgence of cupidity, ambition, and malice; which dispositions, indicating an impure mind, are the very reverse of that which they deem necessary to final beatitude. Among these the Opponent properly classes a widow's burning herself with her husband's corpse, with the view of en

joying connubial bliss in Heaven for a certain period; and intimates, that if actions of this kind are not evil, they are at least unnecessary. This fires the Advocate for the burning system, who, to overwhelm his adversary at once exclaims, "Listen then to Srutee, (a quotation from the Veda,) A man wishing Heaven for himself shall perform Ushwamedha-jauga,' (the sacrifice of a horse ;) and again, a man wishing Heaven for himself shall perform Jotisuma-jauga' These and other Srutees, are they to lose their spirits? that is, to have no effect? Say what is your answer." The Opponent humbly bows beneath the weight of this rebuke, and acknowledges that the Srutee which commend selfish actions are not void and useless, but intended for those who, previously filled with "amours, wrath, and covetousness," are not inclined to enter disinterestedly into the service of the Supreme God; and that without these Srutees enjoining them thus to sacrifice from cupidity or malice, they, freed from all restriction, would be like an elephant without his guide. To prevent this, says he, certain jaugas were ordained to be performed by them; as sena-jauga, by one wishing the death of his enemy; pootrosti-jauga, by one longing for a son; and jotistuma-jauca, by one wishing bliss in Heaven. This appeases the Advocate, who having thus secured the validity of these commands for performing devotional acts from cupidity, ambition, or malice, admits, that while these deeds are good, still actions done from superior motives are somewhat more praise-worthy. This concession, which might seem unguarded, is in reality made with the view of enabling the Opponent to bring out the last objection he has left, that the Advocate may demolish it like a man of straw. couched in the following words :

This is

"Nessedhok. If you maintain that the disinterested actions are better than those self-interested, why do you then, instead of permitting husbandless women to adopt the law of (disinterested) Brumhachura, which gives final beatitude, endeavour to preserve the system of selfinterested actions of Shuhu-muruna and Onoo-muruna, which produce (merely) bliss in Heaven?"

This argument, which the Advocate was aware must appear on the face of the subject, and must weigh in favour of a life of abstinence and chastity in preference to burning, as much as eternal beatitude is to be preferred to a continual vicissitude of misery, he now proceeds to obviate. This he first attempts by urging that a woman in embracing a life of abstinence and chastity would still do it with a view to final beatitude, and therefore from self-interested motives: hence as burning herself would also rescue her husband from the pit he might be driven into for slaying a brahmun, or a friend, or being ungrateful, together with the three generations before-mentioned, and enable the woman to "get herself rid of her feminine sex," he esteems it far more desirable that she should burn.

To this conclusive argument the Opponent replies, "Now your sayings are consonant with the shastras." Still, however, he suggests the probability of women's attaining the state of final beatitude, were they, after the death of their husbands, " to be disciplined in sacred wisdom, which, by burning themselves, they can never attain." To this the