with its valorisation of the feminine principle. Explicit criticisms were published by Medhatithi, a commentator on various theological works. He offered two arguments for his opposition. He considered sati a form of suicide, which was forbidden by the Vedas: "One shall not die before the span of one's life is run out." Medhatithi offered a second reason against sati, calling it against dharma (adharma). He argued that there is a general prohibition against violence of any form against living beings in the Vedic dharma tradition, sati causes death which is sufficient proof of violence, and thus sati is against Vedic teachings. Vijnanesvara presents both sides of the argument, for and against sati. He argues first that Vedas do not prohibit sacrifice aimed to stop an enemy and in pursuit of heaven, and sati for these reasons is thus not prohibited. He then presents two arguments against sati, calling it "unobjectionable". The first is based on hymn 10.2.6.7 of Satapatha Brahmana will forbids suicide. His second reason against sati is an appeal to relative merit between two choices. Death may grant a woman's wish to enter heaven with her dead husband, but living offers her the possibility of reaching moksha through knowledge of the Self through learning, reflecting and meditating. In Vedic tradition, moksha is of higher merit than heaven, because moksha leads to eternal, unsurpassed bliss while heaven is impermanent and smaller happiness. Living gives her an option to discover deeper, fulfilling happiness than dying through sati does, according to Vijnanesvara. Apararka acknowledges that Vedic scripture prohibits violence against living beings and "one should not kill"; however, he argues that this rule prohibits violence against another person, but does not prohibit killing oneself if one wants to. Thus sati is a woman's choice and it is not prohibited by Vedic tradition, argues Apararka. Counter-arguments within Hinduism Reform and bhakti movements within Hinduism favoured egalitarian societies, and in line with the tenor of these beliefs, generally condemned the practice, sometimes explicitly. The 12th-century Virashaiva movement condemned the practice. Later, Sahajananda Swami, the founder of Vaishnavite Swaminarayana sampradaya preached against sati in the 18th century in western India. In a petition to the East India Company in 1818, Ram Mohan Roy wrote that: "All these instances are murders according to every shastra." In culture European artists in the eighteenth century produced many images for their own native markets, showing the widows as