blamed for not doing so. Principal Smrtis, c. 200 BCE–1200 CE The four works, (200 BCE–200 CE), (200–500 CE), (100 BCE–400 CE) and the (700–1000 CE) are the principal Smrti works in the Dharmaśāstra tradition, along with the Parasara Smrti, composed in the latter period, rather than in the earlier. The first three principal smrtis, those of Manu, Yājñavalkya and Nārada, do not contain any mention of sati. Emergence of debate on sati, 700–1200 CE Moriz Winternitz states that Brihaspati Smriti prohibits burning of widows. Brihaspati Smriti was authored after the three principal smritis of Manu, Yājñavalkya and Nārada. Passages of the Parasara Smriti say:If a woman adheres to a vow of ascetic celibacy (brahmacarya) after her husband has died, then when she dies, she obtains heaven, just like those who were celibate. Further, three and a half krores or however many hairs are on a human body – for that long a time (in years) a woman who follows her husband (in death) shall dwell in heaven. — Parasara Smriti, 4.29–31 Neither of these suggest sati as mandatory, but Parasara Smriti elaborates the benefits of sati in greater detail. Within the dharmashastric tradition espousing sati as a justified, and even recommended, option to ascetic widowhood, there remained a curious conception worth noting the achieved status for a woman committing sati. Burning herself on the pyre would give her, and her husband, automatic, but not eternal, reception into heaven (svarga), whereas only the wholly chaste widow living out her natural life span could hope for final liberation (moksha) and breaking the cycle of rebirth. Thus, acknowledging that performing sati only achieved an inferior otherworldy status than successful widowhood could achieve, sati became recommended when coupled with a dismissal of the effective possibility for a widow to remain truly chaste. While some smriti passages allow sati as optional, others forbid the practice entirely. Vijñāneśvara (c. 1076–1127), an early Dharmaśāstric scholar, claims that many smriti call for the prohibition of sati among Brahmin widows, but not among other social castes. Vijñāneśvara, quoting scriptures from Paithinasi and Angiras to support his argument, states: Due to Vedic injunction, a Brahmin woman should not follow her husband in death, but for the other social classes, tradition holds this to be the supreme Law of Women... when a woman of Brahmin caste follows her husband in death, by killing herself she leaders neither herself nor her