No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2011
In the lecture on the Vedas which I read during our last session I had occasion to notice some very remarkable passages in one of the Suktas, or Hymns of the Bich, relating to the disposal of the dead, and especially to the burning of widows, for which the hymn in question was always cited as authority. I stated then that the text quoted for that purpose had a totally different tendency, and that there was some reason to doubt if it was the ancient practice of the Hindus to burn their dead at all, quoting texts which seemed to enjoin burying, not burning. I added, however, that I had not had time to consider the passages with that care which they required, and that I communicated only the results of my first impressions. I have since examined the passages more deliberately, and propose now to offer to the Society the conclusions which I have deliberately formed; namely, that the text of the Rig Veda cited as authority for the burning of widows enjoins the very contrary, and directs them to remain in the world, and that, although the expressions relating to the disposal of the dead are somewhat equivocal, yet it seems most probable, upon a comparison with other texts aiid authorities, that the corpse was burned, although the ashes and bones were afterwards buried.
page 204 note 1 1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
The following is Sáyaňa's commentary on the seventh and eighth verses.
7. 
8. 
From the expression anusarańa niśchayam akárshíh, “thou hast made the determination of following,” it would appear as if Sayana considered the burning as only delayed; but, besides that subsequent burning is not consistent with the presence of the corpse, we must recollect the commentator expresses only the notion of hia own time, or the 14th century, when of course the practice existed.—H. H. W.
page 207 note 1 It is necessary to observe that Professor Müller follows the German mode of expressing peculiar letters of the Sanskrit alphabet by italics: tha sound ch is also rendered by k, and of j by g.—ED.
page 207 note 2 Cf. Wilson's Sanskrit Dict. s. v.
page 208 note 1 See Morley's Digest of Indian Cases, Introduction, page cxcvi.
page 211 note 1 As this is a critical passage, I subjoin the ipsissima verba of Asvalâyana and his commentator.
The last word, “apanayet” (he may lead away), as an explanation of “utthâpayet” (he may lift up), which is applied to the bow and the wife, leaves no doubt that, according to the intention of the sûtras, the wife is to be removed from the pile, and not to be burned with the dead.
page 213 note 1 This portion of the ceremonial is called the udakakarma, and described in other Grihya-sûtras also. Yâpnavalkya explains it in the beginning of the third book of his Dharma-sãstra; Manu in the fifth book, versc 68. seq.