CHAPTER I

PĀTAKA, PRĀYAŚCITTA AND KARMAVIPAKA.

(Sins, expiations and the residual consequences of sins).

Bootlot w

CHAPTER I

bosalogatott

20 The Article on sin in Hasting’s Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (vol. 11) will clearly show how the idea of sin varies from religion to religion, from age to age and from coun try to country. We are concerned here with the growth and developinent of the doctrine of sin in India from Vedic times to the medieval digests and commentaries on Dharmaśāstra, do

1o Sin (pātaka) is a word that belongs to the terminology of religion rather than to that of Ethics. 1 It is very difficult to define sin. In a general way it may be said that it is an act which is regarded as a wilful rebellion against or disobedience of some law supposed to be laid down by God or Revelation; it is opposition to the will of God manifested in an authoritative work or at least failure to abide by the regulations contained therein.

DS

1. In these days many people, both in the East and the West, ques tion the very existence of sin. As Barbour puts it in his ‘Sin and the new Psychology’ (p. 19) “The feeling is gaining wide acceptance that there is no such thing as sin in the Christian sense, Evil may encompass a man’s life and bring disaster to his personality, but it is not sin. It is psychic evil that can be explained by psychic causes and perhaps cured by psycho logical therapy. … Many say nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Every thing is the result of complexes’. It has resulted in an easy tolerance of sin”. Sir Oliver Lodge in his article on Christian Doctrine in the Hibbert Journal for 1903-4 at p. 466 says ‘The higher man of to-day is not worrying about his sins at all, still less about their punishments. His mission, if he is good for anything, is to be up and doing and in so far as he acts wrongly or unwisely he expects to suffer’. The followers of Car vāka who was the prince of Atheists in ancient India used to say ‘man should live among pleasures as long as life lasts; he should feed himself sumptures ously (lit, should drink ghee) even by borrowing money from others Thero is no coming again into the world after the body is reduced to asbes by cremation’.

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

तिजस्विन

Stran

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

The Rgveda is full of fervent and heart-felt expressions of the sense of sin and betrays intense desire on the part of the sages of old to be free from it. The idea of sin in the Rgveda is bound up with the conception of ta. The conception of rta cannot be disoussed here in detail. But a brief statement is absolutely necessary in order to be able to convey what the Vedic doctrine of sin was.2

Rta had a threefold aspect. It means ’the course of nature’ or ’the regular and general order in the cosmos ‘; with reference to sacrifice it means the correct and ordered way of the cult of the Gods’; and thirdly, it also means the moral conduct of man’. A few passages to illustrate these three aspects of rta may be cited here. Rg. IV. 23. 8-10 are 3 three verses in which the word rta occurs no less than twelve times and which breathe the all-pervading influence of rta throughout the universe.

Plentiful waters (or riches or gifts) belong to rta; the thought (or laudation) of șta destroys crooked acts (sins), the brilliant and rousing hymn of praise to sta pierces the benumbed ears of man. The props of sta are firm, its (physical) manifestations are many and lovely for the sake of the body (i. e, man). Through ta they (people) desire food. The cows (sun’s rays) entered rta by fta.. He who wins over {ta acquires it. For the sake of rta (heaven) and earth are wide and deep; the two high est cows (i. e. Heaven and Earth) yield milk (desires or rewards) for the sake of sta.’ Some other passages are: “The Sindhus (rivers ) follow the șta of Varuṇa’ (ștam sindhavo Varuṇasya yanti, Rg. II. 28. 4); similarly Rg. I. 105. 12 (ftamarṣanti sin dhavaḥ); The wheel of șta (i, e. the year) revolves round the

2. For the conception of rta and the idea of sin in the Rgveda the following works may be consulted: “The religion of the Veda’ by M. Bloomfield (pp. 12, 125 ff); Religion and philosophy of the Veda and Upa nishads’ by Prof. A, B, Keith (pp. 35, 83-85 &c.): “The Vedic idea of sin by Dr. Henry Lefever (1935). One regrets to observe that Bloomfield’s work is marred here and there by a certain levity of thought and expression out of keeping with the seriousness of the subject.

3. ऋतस्य हि शुरुधः सन्ति पूर्वीक्रतस्य धीतिवृजिनानि हन्ति । ऋतस्य श्लोको पधिरा ततर्द कर्णा बुधानः सुचमान आयोः॥ऋतस्य हळूहा धरुणानि सन्ति पुरूण चन्दा वपुषे षषि। ऋतेन दीर्घमषणन्त पृक्ष ऋतेन गाव ऋतमाविवेशः॥ तं येमान ऋतमिद्वनोवृतस्य शुष्मस्तुरया 3 rey:1 ara geeft ng pag ug GETTI . IV. 23. 8-10. These are rather obscure verses. The Nirukta X. 41 understands sta to mean water and explains X. 23.8 as ‘Party ya sofrera era pregrante muf आतृणत्ति । बधिरः बद्धोत्रः। कर्णो बोधयन दीप्यमानश्च आयोः अयनस्य मनुत्यका ज्योतिषो बा उदकस्य था।

1917

}} বুলারে

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV1

Meaning of rta

sky with twelve spokes (dvādaśāram .. …….. varvarti cakram pari dyām-stasya, Rg. I. 164. 11); ’the dawn, the daughter of heaven, correctly follows the path of rta ………’ (‘rtasya pan thānam-anyeti sādhu’, Rg. I. 124. 3); the young woman (Usas) doǝs not destroy (or come in the way of the light of sta (Rg. I. 123.9.); the sun is the bright and lovely face of ita (Rg. VI. 51. 1. ‘rtasya suci dargatam-anikam); ’the path of sta became united with the rays’ (Rg. I. 136.2); ‘when exhilarated by drink - ing this (Soma) Indra released for the sake of rta the concealed host of cows’ (Rg. I. 121. 4, probably a reference to drought and subsequent rainfall).

Many of the principal gods of the Vedic pantheon are described as the guardians, promoters or charioteers of sta. Mitra and Varuṇa rule over all the world by rta (Rg V. 63.7, rtena vigvam bhuvanam vi rājathah); Mitra and Varuṇa, the protectors of rta, occupy a chariot (Rg. V. 63.1); Mitra, Varuna, and Aryaman are said to be charioteers of rta (yūyamrtasya rathyah, VII. 66.12); they and Aditi and Bhaga are protectors of sta (Rg. VI. 51.3). Agni is called ’the charioteer of rta’ (rathi ftasya, Rg. III. 2.8), the protector of sta, in Rg. I. 1.8, 111, 10.2, X. 8.5, X.118.7 and ștāvān (in Rg IV.2.1). Soma is styled the protector of rta (in Rg. IX. 48.4, IX, 73.8) and is said to support rta (IX. 97.24 ptam bharat subhrtam cārvindub). In Rg. VII. 66.13 the Adityas are said to be stāvan (acting according to the fixed order of nature), rtajāta (sprung from sta) and stāvědh (augmenting or rejoicing in fta) and further they are said to be fierce haters of anyta (what is opposed to sta).

Rta is distinguished from sacrifice (yajña). It is not any particular sacrificial rite itself nor the institution of sacrifice. It stands for the ordered course of sacrifice in general. In Rg. IV.3.4. Agni is styled stacit (conversant with or observing fta) and is inyoked to know the rta (of the sacrifice); in several verses we meet with the words ‘stena ṣtam’ (e. g. in Rg. IV. 3.9 stena stam niyatam-iļa ā goħ’, V. 15.2 értena stam dharuṇam dhārayanta yajñasya sāke, V. 68.4 ștam-stena sapantā .conform ing to or joining yta with yta’, where ‘ftena’ appears to mean the correct course of sacrificial rites and ‘rtam’ the settled order in the universe. Soma is said to be the thread of rta spread on dasāpavitra (Rg. IX, 73.9 ‘ptasya tantur-vitataḥ pavitra ā). In

POONA

4. ऋतावाना ऋतजाता ऋतावृधो घोरासो अनुतद्विषः। तेषां पैः सुम्ने सच्छगर्वधमे जरी

a ll #. VII. 66.13

H

FOUNDED 1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

Rg. I. 84.4 it is said ‘O Indra, drink this (soma) that is extracted …the streams of the bright (soma) flow towards thee in the seat of ștal (i. e. in the soma sacrifice). Vide also Rg. IV. 1.13– (asmākam-atra pitaro manusyā abhi pra sedur-rtam-ā suṇānāḥ) ‘in this world former men, our ancestors, approached rta etc.’; Rg. I. 71.3 (dadhannstam dhanayannasya dhitim-ādidaryo)’ Rg. X 67.2 (ftam śamsanta rju didhyānā…yajñasya dhāma prathamam mananta) ’the Angirasas,, declaring the sta and reflecting straightforwardly first thought of the abode of Yajña’; Rg. X. 37.1 (maho devāya tad-itam saparyata, ‘offer this rta to the great God).

The conception of rta as a moral imperative occurs in several passages. Rg. I. 90.6 (madhu vātā rtāyate madhu kṣaranti sindhavah) ’the winds carry sweets, the rivers do the same to him who keeps rta’; Rg. V. 12.2 ‘O Agni, that knowest rta, know ita alone (in me)……I shall not resort to magic either by force or by duplicity, I shall conform to sta of the reddish bull (i. e. of Agni)s; Rg. X. 87.11 ‘O Agoil may the evil spirit who injures șta by anṣta be thrice bound in thy fetters’. Yama in rejecting Yami’s advances says (Rg. X. 10.4) “What indeed we never did before (shall we do it now?); shall we who have spoken rta (so far) now speak anrta ?’ (rtā vadanto anţtam rapema).

In two or three instances ita appears to be almost personifi ed and invoked as a divinity. ‘O Agnil for us offer sacrifice to Mitra and Varuna, to the gods and to the great (brhat) ta’ (Rg I. 75. 5). Similarly, in Rg. X. 66,4 the great (mahat) pta is mentioned alongside of Aditi, Heaven and Earth, Indra, Viṣnu, the Maruts &c.

Rta and satya were distinguished in several passages of the Rgveda. For exansple, Rg. V. 51.2 speaks of the Viśve Devas as ‘rtadhītayaḥ’ (whose thoughts were fixed on fta) and ‘satyadharmāṇaḥ’ (whose characteristic is truth or whose dharmas are true). In Rg. IX. 113,4 rta and satya both occur and appear to mean almost the same thing. In Rg. X. 190.1 sta and saty a are distinguished as having sprung from ’tapas’. Rta involves a wider conception and satya had originally a restricted mean ing (viz. truth or static order). The word anţta, however, is the

STITOR

POONA

5. अतं चिकित्व ऋतमिचिकिद्धवृतस्य धारा अनु तान्धी पूर्वीः । माई यति सहसांग * *VT ETI #. V. 12.2.

FOUNDED

1917

Lataa

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

VI]

Meaning of yta

opposite of both rta and satya as may be seen from Rg. X. 10.4, Rg. VII. 49.3 (Varuna who marks the satya and anyta of people), Rg. X. 124,5 (Varuna who separates anrta by means of rta). Gradually, however, the word yta receded into the back-ground and satya took its place even in Vedic literature, though here and there (as in Tai. Up. II. 1 and 1.9.3) both Țta and satya are found in juxtaposition.

The sages of the Rgveda were acutely conscious of sin or guilt and pray to the gods, particularly to Varuna and the Adityas, for forgiveness and for being freed from the consequ ences of sin. In this connection they employ numerous words such as āgas, enas, agha, durita, duṣkrta, drugdha, ainhas. A few examples of the employment of these words may be cited here. The most frequent words are ūgas and enas, both of which appear to import sin in its deepest and most ethical sense. Rg. VII, 86 is a hymn to Varuna in which there are several verses that breathe a deep and heart-felt consciousness of guilt. The sage begins in verse 3 by saying that all wise men of whom he inquired told him the same thing viz. ‘Varuna is angry with you’. Then the sage proceeds ‘O Varuṇal what is that great guilt (āgas) (of mine) whereby you desire to injure your worship per and a friend ? Declare that to me, then I shall quickly approach thee with an obeisance and be free from sin (enas). Cast away from us the transgressions (drugdha) of our father and those that we committed in our own person ;…free Vasistha (from guilt) like a calf from the rope (that binds it)’. In Rg. VII, 89.5 (almost equal to Atharva-veda VI. 51.3) the sage says ‘whatever transgressions (abhidroha) we who are mere men have practised as against the divine hosts and whatever dharmas laid down by you we may have confounded through our ignorance (or heedlessness) do not destroy us on account of that guilt (enas).’ It will be noticed that in these verses the words āgas, abhidroha and enus are employed in the same verses and therefore practi cally mean the same thing. In Rg. II. 27.14 the sage prays ‘O Aditi! O Mitra10 Varunal take pity on us though we may have committed some sin against you’. In Rg. II. 28.5 Varuṇa is implored to loosen sin (āgas) from the devotee just like a girdle. Rg. VIII, 45.34 states: ‘O Indral do not kill us for one sin, for two sins or three sins or for many (āgas).’ In Rg. II. 29.1 the Adityas are imploredo ‘cast away from me sin (āgas) as a woman who gives birth to a child in secret’. For some other passagen

FOUNDED

ATT ETT PORTT ST want to sharani #. II. 29.1.

Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

in which āgas or its opposite unāyus occurs, vide Rg. I. 162.22, I. 185. 8, II.29.5, 1V. 12.4, 1V. 54.3, VII. 51.1, VII, 57.4, V. 85.7, VII, 87,7, VII, 93.7, X, 36.12, X. 37.7 and 9. Agas and enas are employed in the same verse, Rg. 1V.12.4 ‘O Agni! Whatever sin (āgas) we may have committed through heedlessness make us free from it before Aditi and loosen from us our sins (enas) from all sides’.

Some more passages about enas are: Rg. VI, 51.7 ‘May we not have to enjoy (i. o. suffer for ) the enas committed by another and Rg. VI. 51.8 ‘Whatever sin be committed by me I shall remove it by obeisance’; Rg. VI. 74.3 ‘O Soma and Rudral Loosen from us and cast away from us whatever sin attaches to our person’; Rg. VII, 20.1 ‘Indra is our saviour even from a great sin’; vide also Rg. I. 189. 1, II, 28, 7, VII. 52. 2. The word ‘agha’, also seems to mean sin. ‘Apa naḥ śogucad-agham’ (may our sins perish) is the refrain of Rg. 1.97.1-8. “O gods! May your fetters and may sins (aghāni) be far away from us’ (II. 29. 5, in which verse in the first half ‘āgah’ occurs); X. 117. 6 (kevalāgho bhavati kevaladi) ‘one who simply eats food alone (without offering to others) reaps only sin’.

Another word is ainhas. The following passages may be cited. In Rg. II. 28. 6 Varuna is implored ‘remove amhas (sin ) as one removes the rope from the (neck) of the calf; one has not the power even to wink without you ( your favour )’? It should be noted that in the preceding verse (II. 28.5) already quoted the simile of the girdle is employed with regard to āgas. ‘May Indra take us away from amhas as persons on both sides ( of a river) call one who is going in a boat’ (Rg. III. 32. 14.); ‘No evil caused by the gods or by men reaches him from any side who worships Agni with fuel, oblation or sacrifices ‘Rg. VIII. 19. 6; “May Aditi, the mother of the affluent Mitra and Varuna, save us from all sin’ (Rg. X, 36, 3).’ Rg. X. 36, 2 also prays Heaven and Earth, the upholders of sta, to protect the sage from ‘amhas’. Vide also Rg. X, 126, %.

Another important word is vrjina which is often placed in opposition to sādhu or Țju. The Adityas are said to see inside

ITU

SS

POONA

7. II. 28.5

8. 9. P

a IEETTEJET AI aer paragrah . II. 28.6; compare

EU4 TAHAN FETTA À TOUT WTETT ‘. TÅET er gast at the ai #. VIII, 19.6

FATHÌ arraña: are ATENT PART Turer: #. X, 36-3,

FOUNDED

1917

नजस्विन

वनावशीतम

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV]

Rgvedic words for ‘sin’

(the hearts of men) sins as well as good (thoughts and actions) ‘10 and it is added that everything though far-off is near to them who are kings. In Rg. II. 27. 2 the Adityas are called ‘avrjināh’ (free from vrjina). The Sun is said to mark among men their right and sinful deeds (Rg. IV. 1. 17). The same words (rju marteṇu vrjinā ca paśyan) occur in Rg. VI. 51. 2 and VII, 60.2 about the Sun.

The word ‘antta’ is often used in the Rgveda. It has already been shown how Varuna is said to mark the satya and anrta of men. In Rg. VII. 60.5 it is said ’these gods, Mitra, Aryaman and Varuṇa mark (or know) many sins; they flourish in the abode of rta’. Rg. VII. 66. 13 calling Mitra, Varuna and Aryaman haters of ansta has already been quoted (in n. 4).

The word ‘durita’ is sometimes used in the sense of sin. In Rg. I. 23. 22 the waters are invoked as follows: 11 “O waters! carry away from me whatever sin may exist in me, whatever transgressions I may have been guilty of as regards my sensual appetite or whatever falsehood I may have uttered’. Here all three words “durita, droha and ansta’ are brought together and convey almost the same idea, viz. sin or guilt against the law of the Gods. In Rg. I. 185. 10 Heaven and Earth are called father and mother and are invoked to save the worshipper from durita (sin) which involves blame (pātām-avadyād-duritad). ‘Avadya’ means ‘garhya’ acc. to Pāṇ. III, 1. 101. Rg. VII. 82. ny states ‘Him neither amhas (sin) nor durita nor worry reaches from anywhere to whose sacrifice you go, O Mitra and Varuna!’. In Rg. X. 126. 1 ‘amhas’ and ‘durita’ are brought together (na tam-amho na duritam devāso asta martyam). In Rg. VIII. 67. 21 the words amhati and rapas 12 seem to be employed in the sense of sin. ‘Duskrta’ (evil deed) is used in the sense of sin in Rg. VIII. 47. 13 and in Rg. X. 164, 3 Agni is implored to keep far away from the worshipper all sins 13. The word ‘pāpa’ generally14

10. 37:

A hy # py: A fari. II. 27-3 ; 311 Tafect *9 H TATT #. IV. 1.17.

11. इदमापः प्रवहत यत्किं च दुरित मायि । यद्वाहमभिदुद्रोह यद्वा शेप उतावृतम् ॥ . 1. 23.22. Fry (or-4) means #c.

12. Pagant saerahfearta per al pacapa Teatrull #. VIII. 67-21; T: ATT UTATA aa’ raron IV. 21.

13. यदाविर्यदपीयं देवासो अस्ति दुष्कृतम् । निते तविश्वमाप्स्य आरे अस्मशालन …II. VIII. 47-13; senare goingFUTSTHEUTTI! #. X. 1643

14. MATE&: Fri famon ’ #. X. 10-12; TOT :

F oren durch Harta Time I . IV. 5.5.

POONA

1917

waaa

Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

occurs in the Rg. in the sense of ‘sinner’ (Rg. VIII, 61. 11, X. 10.12, IV. 5.5) or ‘sinful’ or ’evil’ (Rg. X. 108. 6, X. 164.5, I. 129. 11). In Rg. VII. 32. 18, VII. 94. 3, VIII. 19. 26 ‘pāpatva’ occurs and appears to mean ‘sinfulness’. In the Brāhmaṇas ‘pāpam’ (neuter) occurs in the sense of ‘sin’ as in Sat. Br. XI. 2. 7. 19; vide also 15 Ait. Br. 33. 5. In the Upaniṣads ‘pāpam’ means ‘sin’ (e. g. in Tai. Up. II. 9, Chāndogya IV. 14. 3). Certain important modifications of the doctrine about sin and Karma were introduced in the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavadgitā, which will be discussed later on.

In spite of the voluminous references to the consciousness of guilt and sin in the Rgveda and to the transgression of divine laws briefly indicated above, European scholars were not want ing who boldly affirmed that the idea of sin was altogether unknown to the Rgvedic sages. Vide S. B. E. vol. I. p. XXII where Max-Muller replies ’the gradual growth of the concept of guilt is one of the most interesting lessons which certain passages of these ancient hymns can teach us.’

How sin arises in the individual mind has been a difficult problem at all times16 Men are conscious of the sins they commit, though they may have no definite conclu sions or theories about the origin of sin. In the Rg. VII. 86. 6 a sage’ pleads with Varuṇa that sin is not due to a man’s own power, but it is rather due to fate, to surā (intoxicants), to anger, dice or heedlessness and even dream state leads one to commit what is not right. In the Kausitaki-brāhmaṇopanigad (III. 9) it is stated : ’the Lord of all makes that man perform good works whom He desires to raise to higher worlds

15. सहोवाचाजीगतः सौयवसिस्तद्वै मा तात तपति पापं कर्म मया कृतम् । ऐ. बा. 33.5 ( = VII.17.)

16. Christianity seems to have solved it by stating that the source of actual sin is the Devil (Matthew 13.39) and by the legend of Adam’s Fall (vide Romans 5. 12 ‘as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin’) it affirmed that there was a dose of original sin in all men. In modern times many people don’t accept the idea of ‘original sin’; for example, Sir Oliver Lodge says (in his article on Christian Doctrine’) in Hibbert Journal for 1903-4 at p. 466 “As for original sin’ or ‘birth sin’ or other notion of that kind … that sits absolutely lightly on him (the man of to-day). As a matter of fact it is non-existent, and none but a monk could have Invented it.

17. aparatur : FT ETT Harariqat meet: I SET PITOTUOTTER un atacar TAT # #, VII. 86.6.

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

नावणीतमस्तु

Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstituteIV]

How sin arises in men’s minds

than these and He makes that man commit bad deeds whom He wishes to drag down’.18 Here it appears to be suggested that some men are chosen by God for being saved and some are chosen for being damned. This sounds like the Calvinistic doctrine of pre-destination. In the Bhagavadgita (III. 36) Arjuna questions Srikrsna as follows: ‘impelled by whom does a man commit sin as if constrained thereto by force, even though he does not desire to do so’? The answer given is (III. 37) ‘it is Just and anger springing from the element (guna) of rajas (passion) that are the enemies of man in this world. In another place the Bhagavadgitā (XVI. 21) says ’this19 is the three-fold door or entrance to Hell that is ruinous to the self viz. lust, anger and greed; therefore a man must shun these three.’ But it must be said that this does not go to the real root of the matter. The question is why should carnal lust, anger or greed themselves arise in the mind of man. The only answer that is indicated is in accordance with the tenets of the Samkhya philosophy viz. that there are three gupas, sattva, rajas and tamas which combine in various proportions in different men and that it is rajo guna that is the cause of man’s sinfulness. In the Santi parva, chap. 163, it is stated that there are thirteen very powerful enemies of men beginning with anger (krodha) and kāma (lust) and it is said that krodha springs from lobha (covet ousness), which latter arises from ignorance (verses 7 and 11). But there is no satisfactory discussion of the origin of ignorance in that chapter. Gautama 19.2 observes20 that ‘man in this world is polluted by a vile action such as sacrificing for a man unworthy to offer a sacrifice, eating forbidden food, speaking what ought not to be spoken, neglecting what is prescribed and practising what is forbidden’. Yajñavalkya III, 219 prescribes : ‘by

-_18. एष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेन्यो उसिनीपते एष उ एवासाधु कर्म p a Tau faina araw. 39. III. 9. This is the basis of

Brahmasutra II. 1.34 and II. 3.41.

19. त्रिविधं नरकस्येदं द्वारं नाशनमात्मनः । कामः क्रोधस्तथा लोभस्तस्मादेतत्वयं त्यजेत्॥ tragter XVI. 21 = facuura 33.6.

20. Afegrega1287 recret yra ne qoft: - मृच्छति ॥ या. III. 219; अकुर्वन् विहितं कर्म प्रतिषिद्धानि चाचरन ॥ प्रायश्चित्तीयते होवं नरो PRETTY 148 34.2. ere appears to mention the two causes of the rise of sin stated by Yāj, in the first half of III. 219.979 met gou a कर्मणा लिप्यते यथैतदयाज्ययाजनमभक्ष्यभक्षणमवद्यपदनै शिष्टस्याक्रिया प्रतिषिद्धसेवनामिति ।

. 19.2. 7 on . XII, 3.16 echoes the very words of t. viz, REFTITU) AM H ara.

H, D.2

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

10

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

omitting to do what is ordained, by resorting to what is con demned (prohibited) and by not controlling the senses, man incurs fall (i. e. sin). Manu XI, 44 and sāntiparva 34.2 are similar verses. The Mitākṣarā explains that matters ordained are such as performing Sandhya (morning and evening adorations) and Agnihotra and what are condemned are such actions as drinking liquor. Visvarūpa explains that patana (fall or sinful ness) in Yāj. III. 219 is not used in the technical sense attached to that word by Gautama 21.4 viz. ’to be a patita means to be deprived of the right to follow the lawful occupations of twice born men,’ but it is used only in the sense that the man so acting (as mentioned in Yāj. III. 219) becomes liable to undergo prāyaścitta and that the words of Gautama (21.4) are restricted only to what are called mahāpātakas. The word pātaka is derived from the causal of the root “pat.’ Vide Medhatithi on Manu XI,54 ‘pātakaśabdah patayatiti vyutpattyā sarva-vyatikra mesu vartate’ and Madanapārijāta p. 786. In ancient works the word pataniya (meaning the cause of patana) has been employed as in Āp. Dh, S.I.7.21.7. The Pr. V. (p. 35) paraphrases patanīyāni by ‘patakāni’ and derives it from the root ‘pat’ (patatyanena iti pataniyam) with the addition of the termination ‘aniya’ according to Pāṇ. III, 3.113. The word occurs also in Yāj. II. 210, III, 297, Sankha quoted by Visvarūpa on Yāj. III. 237 (in prose) and other smộtis.

The enumeration of sinful acts and the classifications of sins into several degrees or grades has gone on from very anci ent times. In the Rg. X. 5. 6 it is said21 the wise made (lit. chiselled ) seven limits; the man who goes against even one of them becomes sinful’. The Nirukta (VI. 27 ) explains that the seven sins indicated in this verse are theft, violating the bed (of the guru ), murder of a brāhmaṇa, murder of a bhrūṇa, drinking of liquor, continual performance of the same sinful act, telling a lie as to a sinful matter’. Rg. VII. 86. 6 quoted above (in n. 17) makes it clear that drinking surā and playing with dice were regarded as sinful. From the Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 2, V. 3. 12. 1-2, Sat. Br. XIII, 3. 1. 1. and other Brāhmana texts it appears that the murder of a brāhmaṇa was generally regarded in early vedic times as the gravest of all sins, though in the Kathaka samhita (31. 7) it is stated that there is no sin as

ISTITUT POONA

21. FA Avret: T

a nga TI. X. 5.6; wa nafar कवयश्चक्रः। तासामकामपि अधिगच्छन्नंहस्वान् भवति । स्तेयं तल्पारोहणं ब्रह्महरयां भ्रणईरयां erara gratt tidur: ga: ga: #atrach Mar Arafah VI. 27.

FOUNDED

1917

“तजस्विनाव

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV]

Ancient enumeration of sins

11

heinous as killing a bhrūna which is even worse than brāhmana murder )22. The Tai. Br. in detailing the story of Ekata, Dvita and Trita who was made a scapegoat for keeping off sins, enumerates the following sinners, viz, sūryābhyudita (one who sleeps on when the sun rises ), sūryābhinimrukta (one who slept when the sun set ), one who has black nails or teeth, agradidhuṣu (one who married a younger sister while the elder sister was yet unmarried ), the elder brother remaining unmarried even though a younger brother has married, one who allows his sacred sacrificial fires to be extinguished, the killer of a brāhmana 23. It may be noticed that most of these occur almost in the same order in Āp. Dh, S. II. 5. 12. 22 where it is24 said that though

22. Bhrūnahan is either a killer of a learned brahmana or the killer of a foetus when its sex is not known. Vide H. of Dh, vol. II, p. 148n and vol. III. p. 6120 for quotations and explanations. It may be noted that the four main prohibitions contained in the Decalogue (Exodus, chap. 20. 13-16 and Deut. 5. 17-20 ) against killing human beings, theft, adultery and bearing false witness are to be found in all well-known religious or moral codes.

23. ते देवा आप्येवमृजत । आप्या अमृजत सूर्याभ्युदिते । सूर्याभ्युदितः सूर्याभिनिमुक्ते। सूर्याभिनिमुक्तः कुनाखनि। कुनखी श्यावदति। श्यावदन्नग्रदिधिषौ । अग्रदिधिषुः परिवत्ते। Pa Tarimi arter VETOT I DE TELEVT arettuaa! . T. III. 2. 8.11. In the corresponding story in the काठकसंहिता (31.7) we read श्यावदन्पावित्ते परिवित्तः परिनिविदाने परिविविदानोऽयेदिधिषा अग्रेदिधिपर्दिधिषूपता दिधिषूपतिवारहाण…ब्रह्महाण ब्रह्महा भ्रणहनि भ्रूणहनमेनो नात्यति।. The story of Trita is briefly referred to in the Atharvaveda (VI. 113). The germ of it is found in Rg. VIII. 47.13 quoted above in n. 13.

24. f r yrea-areenagrererho-feraquiageingaucie-uria er FREE Traâaray Tra n sgrantaasit vetari . II. 5. 12 22. It may be noted that both brothers (elder and younger) and sisters (elder and younger) were held guilty of sin in case of supercession in mar riage. Ora and uita often mean the same thing (viz, an elder brother before whom a younger brother marries or consecrates sacrificial fires). Vide Manu III. 171-172. Acc, to Manu III. 173 a didhiṣūpati is one who feels love for his brother’s widow and has intercourse with her under the system of niyoga. परिविविदान is the same as परिवत्ता. अग्रेदिधिषु or-y is explained by Devala and by Apararka p. 451, by Haradatta on Gaut. 15.15 and Mit, on Yāj. III. 26 as ‘a younger sister who marries before her elder sister’ and FETETT दिधिषू is the elder sister who is thus superceded by a younger one. In Ap. the word पंति is to be connected with both अयोदिधिषू and दिधिवू. The Amarakosa explains Perug differently. gra (17. 43-44) makes even the father or other guardian for marriage getting a younger son or daughter married before an elder one) and the priest officiating at such a marriage equally guilty. Trata ar यया च परिविद्यते । व्रतं संवत्सरं कुयुदातृयाजकपञ्चमाः ॥.

DONDE

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

12

History of Dharmaśāstra

Vol.

these actions are not to be styled pataniyas according to Ap. yet they cause impurity which being greater and greater in each succeeding one requires higher and higher penances. Ap. adds a few more sinners to those in the Tai. Br. viz. didhiṣu pati (husband of an elder sister whose younger sister was married before her), paryāhita (an elder brother before whom a younger brother kindled fires ), parivividāna la younger brother who takes bis share of the ancestral property before his elder brother), parivinna (an elder brother before whom a younger brother takes away his share of the ancestral property). The Chāndogya Upaniṣad25 (V. 10. 9.) quotes a verse that declares that the five great sinners are the thief of gold, the drinker of surā, the violator of the guru’s bed, the murderer of a brāhmana, and one who associates with any of the preceding four. The Br. Up. (IV. 3. 22 ) mentions as great sinners the thief and the murderer of a bhrūṇa.

Boldog Coming to the sūtras there is great divergence as to the classification of sins and the enumeration of sins in each class. The Āp. Dh. S, divides sins into two classes viz. pataniya (those that cause loss of caste), aśucikara (those that cause impurity. though no loss of caste is caused). Āp. Dh, S. (1.7.21.7–11) states that pataniya sins are theft (of gold), crimes whereby one becomes an abhigasta, complete loss (by neglect) of the Vedic learning that one secured by study, destruction of a foetus, incestuous connection with relations born of the same womb as one’s father or mother and with the children of such persons, drinking of surā, intercourse with persons with whom intercourse is for bidden, intercourse with the female friend of one’s female guru (mother &c.) or with the female friend of one’s guru (father &c.) and with the wife of any stranger, constant commission of immoral acts (adharma) other than those already mentioned. Āp. Dh, S. I. 7.21.10 notes that, according to some, intercourse with a woman who is not the wife of a guru is not a pataniya sin. Among acts which render a man impure are (Ap. Dh, S, I. 7. 21. 12-18) the cohabitation of an Ārya woman with sūdras, eating the flesh of forbidden animals such as that of a dog or a human being or village cock or pig or other carnivorous animals, eating the excrement of human beings, partaking of food left by a sūdra, and cohabitation by Arya men with apapātra

NS

POONA

25. तदेष श्लोकः । स्तेनो हिरण्यस्य सुरां पिबंश्च गुरोस्तल्पमावसन ब्रह्माहाँ कोते पचलित TANTE:

T ruita: il gi ut. 34. V. 10,9.

FOUNDED

1917

राजस्थिवावधाता

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV]

Sins that render one impure

13

women.26 According to some, those acts that are declared to be asuciliaura are also pataniyas.sAp. Dh. S. (I. 7.21.19) states that acts other than those enumerated are also asucikara. Ap. Dh, S. (L9.24.6-9) enumerates those who are abhisasta, viz. one who slays a person belonging to the first two varṇas (viz. brāhmana and ksatriya) who had studied the Veda or who had been initiated for the performance of a soma sacrifice, one who kills a more brāhmaṇa (though he may not have studied the Veda or be not initiated for a soma sacrifice), also one who destroys the embryo of a brāhmaṇa even though its sex be undisting uishable, or slays a woman who is an ātreyi (in her monthly course). The Vasisthadharmasūtra divides 27 sinners into three classes, viz.- those who are enasvins, those guilty of mahāpātakas and those guilty of upapātakas (I. 19-23). Among those who are styled enasvinah are those mentioned in Ap. Dh. S. II 5.12.22, with this difference that the ‘brahmojjha’, who is included among ‘pataniyas’ by Ap. Dh, S. I. 7. 21. 9 is put among ’enasvins’ by Vasistha. In Vas. 20.4-12 special prayascittas for each of these enasvinah’ (ordinary sinners) are prescribed. The Mahāpātakas (mortal sins) according to Vasistha are five, viz (violating) a guru’s bod, drinking of spirituous liquor, murder of a bhrūṇa (a learned brāhınana), stealing gold from a brāhmapa and associating with a patita. Those guilty of upapātakas (minor sins) are: He who forsakes sacred Vedio fires, he who offends a guru, an atheist, he who earns his livelihood from atheists, and he who sells the soma plant. The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra28 (II. 1) divides sins into pataniya, upapātaka and asucikara. Among the first it cites making voyages by sea, stealing the property of a brāhmana or misappropriating a deposit, giving false evidence

26. For the meaning of apapātra vide H. of Dh, vol. II pp. 309n and 785n. For the meaning of atreys, vide H. of Dh. vol. III p. 527 note 970.

27. सूर्याभ्युदितः सूर्याभिनिमुक्तः कुनखी श्यावदन्तः परिवित्तिः परिवेत्तादिधिषविधि भूपतिर्वीरहा बोझ इत्येनस्विनः । पञ्च महापातकान्याचक्षते । गुरुतल्पं मुरापानं अणहत्या ब्राह्मणसुवर्णापहरणं पतितसंयोगश्चब्राह्मण वा यौनेन वा । … योग्नीनपविध्येगुरुं च यः पति बध्नुयानास्तिको नास्तिकवृत्तिः सोमं च विक्रीणीयादित्युपपातकानि । वसिष्ठ I. 19-23.

28. अथ पतनीयानि । समुद्रसंयानम् । ब्रह्मस्वन्यासापहरणम्। भूम्यवृतम् । सर्व पण्यैर्व्यवहरणम्। शूदसेवनम्। सुवाभिजननम् । तदपत्यत्वं च। … अथोपपातकानि । अगम्यागमनं गुर्वीसखी गुरुसखीमपपात्रां पतितां गत्वा भेषजकरणं ग्रामयाजन रङ्गोपजीवन नाट्याचार्यता गोमहिषीरक्षणं यच्चान्यदप्येवं युक्तं कन्यादूषणमिति । … अथाशुचिकाराणि । यतमाभिचारोऽनाहिताग्नेकञ्छवृत्ति समावृत्तस्य भैक्षचर्या तस्य चैव गुरुकुले वास ऊर्व चतुभ्यों मासेभ्यस्तस्य चाण्यापन नक्षत्र निर्देशश्चेति । बौ. प. सू. II. 1.50-56, 60-61,6364

POONA

FOUNDED

व नावधानमा Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

regarding land (dispute), trading with merchandise of all descriptions, serving sūdras, begetting a son on a female of the śūdra caste and begetting a child (either male or female) from her29. The upapatakas, acc. to Bāud. Dh. S. (II. 1. 60-61), are: intercourse with females who must not be approached, cohabita tion with the female friend of a female guru or with the female friend of a male guru or with an apapātra woman or with a female outcast, following the profession of medicine, officiating as a priest for a village, living by dramatic performances, following the profession of a teacher of dancing or singing or acting, tending cows and buffaloes 30 and similar (low occupa tions) and fornication. Among aśucikara (causing impurity ). Baud. Dh, S. mentions gambling, black magic, subsisting by gleaning corn fallen in the field by one who has not consecrated sacred fires, subsisting by begging on the part of one who has returned to his home after finishing Vedic study, staying for more than four months at his teacher’s seminary on the part of him who has finished his studies, teaching one who has finished his studies, gaining livelihood by astrology. Gautama (21.1-3) appears to include among patanjyas the usual five mortal sins and also some of those that are mentioned by Ap. Dh, S. (I.7. 21. 9-11) and Vasiṣtha I. 23 (such as nāstika) and adds a few more (such as not casting off persons guilty of pataniyas, for saking blameless relatives and instigating others to commit acts causing loss31 of caste.

be 29. That this is the correct translation of Baud. and not the one in S. B. E. vol. XIV p. 218 ‘becoming thereby her son’ is clear from Manu III. 16 311074 Haren eta 71’. Saunaka condemned the begetting of a son from a sūdra female (and not the begetting of a daughter), while Bhrgu condemned the begetting of a child (whether male or female did not matter).

30. It must be supposed that these lists relate to brāhmaṇas and kṣa triyas alone. Trading with merchandise or tending cows could not have been regarded as pataniya for Vaisyas since trade and tending cows have been always prescribed as their special avocations. Vide Ap. Dh. S. II, 5. 10.7, Gaut. X. 50, Manu X. 79, Yaj. I. 119. Following the profession of medicine or living by teaching dancing or by going on the stage made brāhmaṇas unfit to be invited at a śrāddha Vide Gaut. 15. 15-16 for long lists of those brāhmaṇas who were not to be invited at Sraddha dinners &c.

31. ब्रह्महसुरापगुरुतल्पगमातृपितृयोनिसम्बन्धागस्तेननास्तिकनिन्दितकर्माभ्यामिप्रतिता. त्याग्यपतितत्यागिनः पतिताः । पातकसंयोजकाश्च । तेश्चाब्दं समाचरन् ।…कौटसा राजगामि पैशुन गुरोरवृताभिशंसनं महापातकसमानि । अपंक्त्यानां पाएदुर्चालाइ मोहन्तनमान HAF7 anoramahaurr era 21.1-3, 10-11.

POONA

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute

IV

15

Classification of sins

The above statement about the classification of sins and their inclusion among the several classes or grades of sins will show that among the early sutra works there was no general agreement about the nature and number of mahāpātakas, upapātakas and other classes of sins, even though as early as the Chāndogya Upanisad the mortal sins had been declared to be five. It must be supposed that that Upanisad represented only one school of thought in the times of Āp., Baud, and Gaut., who did not entirely accept the tradition of that Upanisad, but followed other divergent ideas. It is impossible to suppose that the verse quoted in that Upaniṣad is later than the Dharma sūtras of Āp., Gaut., Baud., and Vas.

It appears that Katyāyana 32 divided sinful acts into five classes viz. mahāpāpa (mortal sins), atipāpa (the highest sins than which there is nothing worse), pātaka (sins similar to mahā pātakas), prāsangika (due to association or contact) and upapātaka (minor sins). The Bhavisya-purana also says that those sins that are declared to be equal to mahāpātakas (by Manu and others) are called pātakas. Vțddha-Hārīta also (IX. 215-216) speaks of five kinds viz. mahāpāpa, pātaka, anupātaka, upapāpa and prakirnaka (miscellaneous) and states (IX. 216-218) that those sins which are said to be like mahāpātaka are pātakas. that anupatakas are sins lesser than pātakas, that upapatakas are lesser than pātakas and prakırnaka sins are the least sinful of all. The Viṣnudharmasutra (33,3-5) speaks of nine kinds of lapses viz. atipātaka, mahāpātaka, anupātaka, upapātaka, jātibhramsakara (effecting loss of caste), sankarikarana, (rendering one as degraded as a man of a mixed caste), apātri karana (rendering the perpetrator unworthy of receiving a gift), malāvaha (causing defilement) and prakırnaka (miscellaneous). Atipātakas, acc. to Visnu Dh. S. 34.1, are sexual intercourse with one’s mother, daughter or daughter-in-law and the only expiation for them is entering fire. Manu omits the separate mention of atipātaka and anupātaka and includes most of them under those that he designates as equal to one of the four well known mahāpātakas. Katyāyana quoted in the Prāyaścitta muktavali of Divākara (folio 3 a) adds sexual intercourse with one’s sister as atipātaka to the three mentioned by Visnu

STITU

POONAS

32. कात्यायनेन तु महापातकसमानां विष्णुनानुपातकेत्वेनोक्तानां पातकसंज्ञा दर्शिता raat. On T. III. 242., FETYTCarta OUTY TITTA ! aa TTGREJDETTU THE 19 paugeran ( 48 190.9.)

FOUNDED

1917

अतजस्विनावधान

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

16

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol. Harita Dh. S. (it appears) quoted by the Mit. knew33 of a variety of pātakas called anupātaka, but from the way in which the several pātakas are arranged it looks as if atipātaka in Harita was a lesser sin than mahāpātaka. Manu (in chap. XI) refers to all the kinds of patakas found in the Visnu-dharmasūtra except atipātakas. Usually five mahāpātakas have been enumerated from the days of the Chāndogya Up. (quoted on p. 12) viz, brāhmaṇa murder, drinking spirituous liquor, theft (generally understood as theft of brāhmaṇa’s gold), sexual intercourse with the wife of a guru and association with the perpetrators of any of these four (for a year34). Vide Vas. I. 19-20, Manu XI, 55, 180, Yāj. III. 227, 261), Visnudharmsūtra 35.1-5, Viddha-Hārita IX. 174. Manu mentions certain sins as equal to Mahāpātakas which are styled anupatakas by the Visnudharmasūtra chap. 36. The most elaborate treatment of all kinds of sins in the smrtis is found in Manu, Yāj and Viṣnu. There is difference of opinion even among these three on certain points. For example, Manu35 XI, 56 says that forgetting the Veda, reviling the Vedas, giving false evidence, slaying a friend, eating forbidden food and food that is unfit for eating or should not be eaten, are lapses similar to drinking surā; while Yāj. III. 228 states that three out of these (viz, reviling the Vedas, slaying a friend and forgetting the Veda studied by a person) along with the reviling of a guru by attri buting false faults are similar to the murder of a brāhmana. The result is that there is an option as to the expiation to be prescribed for these sins.

33. Terciarneme ntara att han viagra - Thor f a sa areengapa PANT. on T. III. 301, in . Tentit (folio 69a) erre is quoted as follows: T h a Thigherrentaren HETTEyaanila and it is remarked (folio 69 b) ratana start कराणि परिशेषाद् गृह्यन्ते.

34. In the Mahābhāṣya Patañjali mentions at least three of these five :

E T NET grant ar roachTS gratar: Fira herr vol. I. p. 2: a : 1 FETHET vol. II. p. 103; q u g i syri ugar at a I HETTOY vol. II. p. 419 on arrien 4 on . V. 3,66. In the Khoh copperplate of the Gupta year 214 (533-34 A, D.) it was stated that whoever interfered with the gift would incur the five mabāpātakas and the upapātakas (Gupta Inscriptions p 135).

35. ब्रह्मोज्झता वेदानन्दा कौटसाक्ष्य सुहृद्वधः। गर्हितानाद्ययोर्जग्धिः सुरापानसमानि TE AZ XI. 56. ; Yurtherharat aglater tegu: TEST TATTI ATTE I . III 228. Àurfare explains: ‘The Erwansya TA-TD #trentairem grafity (heta!) Vepatit; compare A 21.10 राजगामि पैशुन गुरोरनृताभिशंसनामिति महापातकसमानि।

UNDED 1917

da

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV)

Details of Mahūpātakas

It would be desirable to give some details as regards each of the mahāpatakas and then to describe the other varieties of sins and then to set out the expiations prescribed for all of them. It should be noted that both the secular law of penalties and the ecclesiastical rules about expiations made a difference between a sinful act intentionally committed (kāmatah) and one com mitted through ignorance or heedlessness and between an act done only once ( sakrt ) or done repeatedly (asakrt)

Brahmahatyā. Hatyā or vadha (killing ) is applied to an act which immediately or after some time results in causing loss of life directly without the intervention of any other cause.36. The Agnipurāṇa (173, 1), the Mit., the Prāyascittaviveka (p. 47) and other works define what is meant by vadha. A man may be the cause of the death of a brāhmaṇa in five ways, viz. he may himself kill (i. e. he becomes the kartā), he may incite another to kill (prayojaka) by ordering that other to do so (as a king or noble by ordering his servant) or by imploring another to kill and giving advice about the killing, he may encourage another to kill by his own approval (anumanta ), or by helping the killer when he wavers or by offering protection to the killer against others ( anugrāhaka ) and by becoming a nimitta.37

The Mit. on Yāj. III. 227 and 243 (quoting verses from Paithinasi) explains all these at length. For the definition of anugrāhaka it relies on a verse of Manu Where many persons are armed and have a common purpose in view, if even one of them kills a person, all of them are guilty of murder’, which is very much like sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This distinc tion into several degrees of killers is an ancient one and is based on Āp. Dh. S. II. 11. 29. 1-2 “He who?8 instigates, he who approves, and he who commits an act–these share its results in heaven and hell; but he amongst these who contributes most to

36. हन्तिरयं प्राणवियोगकरणे व्यपारे रूढः। यद्व्यापारसमनन्तरं कालान्तरे वा कारणा aircut: UUTTA TE TO E AT THIETI Par. on . II

renuri TTT ERA FTTH I fag. 173.1, quoted by 979 p. 519.

37. arca qarau mai muissa TECHAR I arrofa. p. 47: अनुग्राहकश्च यः पलायमानममित्रमुपरुन्धन परेभ्यश्च हन्तारं परिरक्ष्य हन्तुढिमानमुपजनयन पकरोति स उच्यते। अत एव मनुना ग्राहकस्य हिंसाफलसम्बन्धो दर्शितः । बहूनामेककार्याणां Fat TU TTI

777 waat: FTET: Il grau FACT. On T. III. 227. The verse बहूनामेक° occurs in अग्निपु. 173.3.

STITUTE 38. TOT #Per their manager: 1 g Bro-D rata: # Sr. . . II. 11.29. 1-2.

D, H, 3

POONA

FOUNDED 1917

नावधीतमस्तु

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

18

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

the accomplishment of the act obtains a greater share of the results’. A nimittin39 is defined by Mit. as one that angers ano ther (who is a brāhmaṇa) by rebuking or beating or depriving him of wealth and the like and in whose presence and on account of whom the brahmana that is angered kills himself. The Mit. quotes a verse of Viṣnu and also another verse (without name ) on this point. If a person kills a brāhmana boy whose upanayana had not been performed he was yet regarded as guilty of brāhmana murder.40 The Samavidhāna Br. I. 7.5, Āp. Dh. S. (I.9.24.6-9), Vas.20.34, Manu XI. 87, Yaj. III. 251 held that killing even a kṣatriya or vaisya who had studied the Veda or had been initiated for a soma sacrifice rendered the killer guilty of brahmahatyā, as also the killing of the foetus (of brāhmana parents ) whose sex was unknown and of a woman who was an ātrey1.41 Killing a brāhmaṇa woman other than an ātreyi or other than the wife of a sacrificer engaged in a soma sacrifice was only an upapātaka, as Manu (XI. 66) and Yaj. (III. 236) lay down. Visvarūpa on Yāj. III. 264 says that no prāyaścitta can expiate the sin of killing a woman intentionally. In the case of the three varnas other than that of brāhmana some smộtis like that of Oyavana42 laid down other mahāpātakas in addition to the five, viz. punishing one who should not be punished and fleeing from the battle-field are additional mahāpātakas for ksatriyas, employing false balances and weights for vaisyas, the selling ol flesh, injuring a brahinana, sexual intercourse with a brāhmaṇa woman, the drinking of the ____39. तथा योपि भर्सनतानपनापहारादिना परान्कोपयति सोऽपि मरणहेतुभूतमन्यू त्पावनद्वारेण हिंसाहेतुर्भवत्येव । अत एव विष्णुनोत्रम्। आक्रष्टस्ताडितो वापि धनेो विप्रयोजितः । यमुद्दिश्य त्यजेत् प्राणांस्लमाहुब्रह्मघातकम् ॥ तथा । ज्ञातिमित्रकलत्रार्थ सुहृत्क्षेत्रार्थमेव च ।

त्यजेरमाणांस्तमाहनेहषातकम् ॥ इति।. The पाय. वि.p,57 ascribes the first verse to षर्विशन्मत and the 2nd to बृहस्पति and cites two more verses of similar import from Brhaspati. The स्मृतिमु. (माय.) p. 862 ascribes both verses to विष्णु and quotes similar verses from सुमन्तु. The verse आक्रष्ट is almost the same as अग्निपु. 173.4.

40. अत्र ब्राह्मणवधे संस्कृतमाचिद्विजपदस्य केनाप्यप्रयुक्तत्वात् सर्वैर्मुनिभिर्नाहाणपद स्यैव प्रयोगात्तस्य च जातिवचनत्वात् अनुपजीतबाहाणवधेऽपि महापातकम् । प्राय. वि. p. 86.

41. पूर्वयोर्वर्णयोर्वेदाध्यायं हस्ता सवनगत वाभिशस्तः । ब्राह्मणमात्रं च । गर्भ च तस्या विज्ञातम् । आत्रेयींच नियम् । आप. ध. सू. 1. 9.24 6-9; राजम्यवैश्यो सवनगतो हत्या ब्राहाणस्वकल्पेन शुद्धाशुद्धीयमुत्तमम् । सामविधानसा. I. 7.5.

42. क्षत्रियादीनामपरमपि महापातकमाह व्यक्नः। ब्रह्माहत्या मुरापाने मुलतल्प बाह्मणसुवर्णहरण द्विजानां महापातकानि। अदण्डपदण्डनं युधि पलायनबबिरया। मानतुलाचतत्वं वैश्यस्य । मांसविक्रयणं नहाइल्या साह्मणीगमनं कपिलादुग्धपान करुयाँ बीपकलिका on या. III, 227.

नावधीतमस्तु

Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstituteTV1

Killing a brāhmana

19

milk of a kapila (dark brown) cow in the case of sūdras. If a brāhmaṇa or any other human being or a cow died while a competent doctor was administering treatment to them by means of drugs, oils or food, or cauterization by cutting or by opening a vein the medical man incurred no sin.43 But if a quack pre tending to know medicine administered such treatment and death followed, Yāj. II. 242 prescribed various punishments. If a brāhmaṇa administers moderate corporal punishnient to his son, pupi) or wife for some fault and the son or pupil or wife suddenly dies he incurs no sin, according to the Bhavisyapurāṇa and the Agnipurāṇa.44 Gautama (II. 48-50), Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 8. 29-30, Manu VIII, 299-300 (Matsyapurāṇa 227, 152-154), Visnu Dh. 8. 71. 81-82, Nārada (abhyupetyāgusrūṣā 13-14) lay down that the punishment should be administered with a rope or bamboo slip on the back (but never on the head or chest) and Manu (VIII, 300) provides that if these restrictions were violated the punisher would incur the same guilt or punishment as a thief. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II, pp. 362-363 for this topic.

One important question that very much exercised the minds of ancient and medieval Dharmaśāstra writers is whether a man can kill a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin in self-defence without incurring any sin or punishment by the king. There is great divergence of views on this point, which has been dealt with at some length in H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 148–151 and vol. III pp. 517-518. The conclusion of the Mitākṣarā appears to voice the views of most writers that, if a brāhmaṇa comes as an atatāyin (as an incendi ary, as a poisoner, as a kidnapper of women or with the inten tion of killing or wresting a field), then in self-defence one may oppose him without incurring any sin, but that if the brāhmana offender meets death though the defender did not desire to kill him (but only to stop him by causing injury short of death), the

43. FESTARITY a va fag I 7. III. 284; 1 RATETE Teorragi para faufa: F# # Trùa cual 138 (The Ānan. ed. reads last pada as पुण्यमेव न पातकम् ). by विश्वरूप on या. III. 262, by theमिता. on या. III. 227 (with two more verses), by u. r.p 56 (reads second half as mora

orgar a Parera). The same verse occurs in A 50, 61, 7 हारीत 28. The मिता. and प्राय.वि. quote another verse as संवर्त’s which is ‘दाहच्छेद शिराभेदप्रयत्नैरुपकुर्वताम्। प्राणसंत्राणसिद्धयर्थ प्राथश्विसं न विद्यते’. The अग्निपुराण 173 5 has Sin aur turi gaitei aur HU THAT

44. v: ferestre pro m a gagara I a trent 2 root foscanet e amor

facry, q. by Tufa. p. 58, 179. 173.5 is similar.

RESTITO

POONA

1917

NORTE

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

20

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

defender is not liable to be punished by the king and he has to undergo a light expiation (i. e. he is not guilty of brāhmaṇa’s murder).

a bs

IOS

Surāpāna (drinking of surā) has been held to be a mahā pātaka. The word surā occurs several times in the Rgveda (e. g. Rg. I. 116.7, 1. 191.10, VII. 86.6, VIII, 2.12, X. 107.9). Rg. VII. 86,6 quoted above (in note 17) clearly indicates that surā was looked upon by the Rgvedic singers as a cause of sin just as much as gambling. Rg. I. 116.7 (satam kumbhān asiñcatam surāyāḥ) read with Rg. I. 117.6 (satam…madhūnām) implies that madhu (honey or some sweet substance) might have been used in preparing surā. Soma was a beverage to be offered to the gods and to be drunk by the brāhmaṇa priests and was sharply distinguished from surā (e. g. in Tai, S. II.5. 1.1, Vāj. S. 19.7, Sat. Br. V.1.5.28). The last furnishes the striking antithesis ‘soma is truth, prosperity, light; and surā is untruth, misery, darkness’. It appears that long before the Kathaka Samhitā brahmanas had come to regard the drinking of surā as very sinful [XII, 12 ’therefore the brāhmana does not drink surā (with the idea) that (by drinking it) he may become affected by sin’].46 The Chāndogya Up. (V. 10.9) speaks of the drinker of surā as a patita, while in V. 11.5 king47 Aśvapati Kaikeya makes the boast before the five learned brāhmaṇas that had come to him for the knowledge of Atman Vaiśvānara that in his kingdom there was no thief and no drinker of madya. Though Manu XI. 54 enumerates the drinking of surā among the five mahāpātakas, Yāj. III. 227 speaks of the madyapa (drinker of madya) as one of the five great sinners. Therefore we must explain what is meant by surā and when surāpāna becomes a mahāpātaka. By Manu XI, 93 surā is said to be the refuse of food and Manu XI. 94 states that surā is of three kinds, viz. that prepared from molasses, that from flour and that from madhūka flowers (or from honey). There is a great deal of discussion about surā in many of the digests and the propositions

45. अतश्च ब्राह्मणादय आततायिनश्च आत्मादित्राणार्थ हिंसानभिसाधना निवार्यमाणाः argura faqet ARSTEI trotaver tras a Parsa: fa on II. 21.

46. Are grr: at a face ace a e XII 13 q. by the तन्त्रवार्तिक on जै. I. 3.7 p. 210 and by शङ्कराचार्य on वेदान्तसूत्र IN 4.31

47. Fra: FPMEra Jara #race #aaan materia mirager Profa: … 3. T. V, 11,5.

POONA

fra

110

Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute

IV]

Drinking of sura established by most of them are48: (1) that all the three higher varṇas are forbidden to drink the surā prepared from flour and drinking it is a grave sin (mahāpātaka) in the case of anyone belonging to the three first varnas; (2) All intoxicants (madya) are forbidden to brāhmaṇas at all stages of life (Gaut. II. 25 ‘madyam nityam brāhmaṇaḥ’ and Āp. Dh. 8. 1. 5. 17-21); but a brāhmaṇa drinking surā of the gaudi or mādhvi kind would not be guilty of mahāpātaka but of anupātaka (acc. to Visnu); (3) that intoxicants other than surā prepared from flour are not con demned for ksatriyas and vaisyas; (4) the sūdra was not for bidden to drink any kind of intoxicant (including surā made from flour); (5) brahmacarins of all varnas studying the Veda had to abstain from intoxicants of all kinds. The Vignu Dh. S. (22. 83-84) specifies ten kinds of madya (intoxicants) prepared from dates, jack fruit, cocoanuts, sugarcane &c. and Pulastya quoted by the Mit on Yāj. III. 253, by the Prayascittaprakarana of Bhavadeva (p. 40), the Prayascittaviveka of Śūlapāṇi (p. 90), Pr. Prakāśa (folio 69 b) refers to eleven kinds of madyas apart from sura (dvādaśam to suramadyam sarveṣām adhamam smộtam). Vide H. of Dh, vol. III pp. 964-966 for further discus sion on intoxicating drinks,

TA

The Mit, points out (on Yāj. III. 253) that the prohibition against drinking surā applies to boys who have not yet been in vested with the sacred thread and also to unmarried girls, since Manu XI. 93 makes no distinction of sex but only forbids to the three first castes the drinking of surā and since the Bhavisyapurāṇa49 expressly forbids to a brāhmaṇa female the drinking of surā. The Kalpataru appears to have held otherwise. But a woman and a minor had to undergo lesser prāyaścitta as will be shown below. Vas. 21. 11 and Yāj. III, 256 state that the wife of a brāhmana, ksatriya or vaisya who drinks surā (made from flour )would not reach the worlds of her husband and she

48. Ora: 1 perforening capra feguar: 1 ore T ATT निषेधोप्युत्पत्तिप्रभृत्येव । राजन्यवैश्ययोस्तु न कदाचिदपि गौड्यादिमद्यप्रतिषेधः। शूद्रस्य न great at maa: Paar, on . III. 253, terariammet मुख्यमुराशब्दार्थः । तत्पानमेव त्रैवर्णिकस्य महापातकम् । गोडीमाध्वीसुरापाने तु ब्राह्मणस्य Azamara Pantanfragedies TT CEPI $79. *. p. 42

49. तथा भविष्ये । तस्मान पेयं विप्रेण मुरामचं कथंचन । एतेनानुपेतविप्रस्य कुमारिका pa ra P ortiera an ever: ora: 1. ahta folio 70 b The word Peter occurs in #XI90. reparar UT R ETH . R. 927

FOUNDED

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

would become in this world a bitch or a sow50. The Mit, remarkgst on this verse that though a sūdra is not forbidden to drink surā, even the sūdra wife of a brāhmaṇa should not drink sura.

Drinking surā means taking it down the throat. Thero fore if a man’s lips only touch surā or if surā enters his mouth but he spits it out, then there is no drinking of surā (i, e. no mahāpātaka) and he would have had to undergo in such a case a light expiation for the touch of surā52.

Steya (theft). In order to constitute theft as a grave sin according to the commentaries the theft must be of a brāhmaṇa’s gold of a certain quantity. Steya is defined by Ap. Dh, S. I. 10. 28. 1 as ‘a man becomes a thief by coveting another’s property (and taking it) in whatever situation he may be (without the owner’s consent)’. Kātyāyana (810) defines54 it as ‘depriving a man of his property, whether clandestinely or openly and, whether by night or by day, is known to be theft’. Vyāsa defines it similarly. Vacaspati in his bhāsya on Yogasūtra II. 30 defines steya as taking property from another in a manner that is not allowed by the śāstras (steyam aśāstra-pūrvakam dravyāṇām paratah svikaranam). Though Manu (XI. 54) and Yāj. (III. 227) simply employ the word ‘steya’ ( theft) or ‘stena’ ( thief) yet in speaking of the prayascitta

__50. या ब्राह्मणी च सुरापी न तां देवाः पतिलोकं नयन्तीहैव सा चरति क्षीणपुण्याप्सु लुग्भवति शुक्तिका वा। वसिष्ठ 21.11. This is cited as श्रुति in प्राय. वि. p. 92 and these very words occur in the महाभाग्य on वार्तिक 1-2 on पाणिनि III. 2.8 ‘या माह्मणी सुरापी भवति नैना देवाः पतिलोकं नयन्ति’ vol. II p. 99 (the वार्तिकs are सुरा सीनोः पिबतेः । बहुलं तणि।)

51. ब्राह्मणीग्रहणं चात्र ‘तिम्रो वर्णानुपूयेग’ इति न्यायेन यस्य द्विजातेावत्यो भार्यास्तासामुपलक्षणम् । अत एव मनुः । पतत्यर्ध शरीरस्य यस्य भार्या सुरां पियेत् । पतितार्ध. शरीरस्य निस्कृतिर्न विधीयते ॥ इति ।…द्विजातिभार्यायाः शूदाया अपि सुराप्रतिषेधप्राप्त्यर्थम् । मिता. on या. III. 256. The verse पतत्यर्ध is not found in मनु, but is वसिष्ठ

21.15 and पराशर X.27.

52. पानं च द्रवीभूतस्याभ्यवहारः स च कण्ठदेशादधोनयनं न तु वक्त्रमात्रप्रवेशः। निष्ठीवनाद्यर्थ कपोलधारणे पानशब्दाप्रयोगात्।…अत एवौष्ठमात्र लेपे न पाननिष्पत्तिः ॥ अतस्त त्रोत्तमाङ्गपर्शप्रायश्चित्तम् । प्राय.वि. p. 93. Po53. यथा कथा च परपरिग्रहमभिमन्यते स्तेनो ह भवतीति कौत्सहारीतौ तथा काण्व पुष्करसादी॥ …सर्वत्रानुमतिपूर्वमिति हारीतः॥ आप.ध.सू. I. 10.28.1 and 5.य

53. प्रच्छ वा प्रकाश वा निशायामथवा दिवा। यत्परद्रव्यहरणं स्तेयं तत्परिकीर्तितम् ॥ कात्या॰ 810, q. by दायभाग p. 224 and प्राय. वि. p. 112 ; समक्षं वा परोक्षं गा बलाबो र्येण वा पुनः॥ परखानामुपादानं स्तेयमित्युच्यते बुधैः॥ व्यास q. by स्मृतिमु० (प्रा.) p. 802: स्तेनो विप्रस्वामिकषोडशमाषपरिमितस्य हेम्नश्छलबलचौर्यान्यतरैरपहर्ता ॥ प्रा. प्रकास lio 70b..

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

ivi

Steya as Mahāpātaka

23

for steya Manu (XI. 99suvarnasteyakrt’) and Yāj. III. 257 (brāhmanasvarnahāri) add the qualification that he should be a thief guilty of stealing gold (from a brāhmana, acc. to Yāj.). Vas, 20. 41 and Cyavana (q. by Pr. V. p. 117) mention ‘brāhmana suvarna-haraṇa’ as a mahāpåtaka and the Sāmavidhāna Br. (I. 6.1) also employs the words ‘brāhmapasvam hrtvā’. Vide Samvarta 122 and Viśvāmitra (q. by Pr. V. p. 108). A further qualification was added by Visvarūpa (on Yāj. III. 252 ‘anākhyāya &c.), the Mit. (on Yāj. III. 257), the Madana pārijāta (pp. 827-28 ), Prāyaścittaprakaraṇa (p. 72), the Prayascittaviveka (p. 111) and other commentators that the gold stolen must be at least sixteen māṣas in weight, otherwise there is no mahāpātakass. So, if a man steals gold belonging to a brāhmaṇa which is less than 16 māsas or steals gold of any weight (even more than 16 māsas) from a non-brāhmana (i. e. from a kṣatriya or the like) he would be guilty only of a minor sin (upapūtaka). The Mit, relies on the verses of Yāj. I. 362-363 for the technical meaning of suvarṇa (as 16 māṣas). There was no guilt of theft acc. to Vārsyāyaṇi if (Āp. Dh. S. 1. 10. 28.2) a person took only a small quantity of cereals ripening in pods (such as mudga, māṣa and gram) or took grass for his oxen while he was going (in a cart.56) According to Gautama 12.25 a man may take (without permission and without incurring the guilt of theft) for the sake of cows and for the sake of frauta or smārta fires grass, fuel and flowers of trees and plants as if they were his own property and the fruits (of trees and plants) that are not fenced around. Manu VIII, 339 (=Matsya 227. 112-113) is almost Jike Gaut. 12.25 and Manu VIII. 341 adds that a traveller of the three higher castes may, if his provisions have run short, take (without fear of punishment) from another’s field two sugarcane stalks and two mūlakas (esculent roots).

Guruanganāgamaḥ (sexual intercourse with the wife of the guru). Manu (X1,54) employs this word, while Yāj. III, 227 and Vas. 20.13 speak of the offender as gurutalpaga (who violates the bed of the guru) and Vas. I. 20 mentions the sin as ‘gurutal pam’

55. 39 Taufare: CATTICA

Arauad… Foto: Ta à aura un TeṣtW (1. 1.362-363) gra teṣALTERNATA

वणशब्दस्य परिभाषितत्वात् । …अतः षोडशमाषात्मकसवर्णपरिमितहमहरण एव महापातकिर्ण तनिमित्तं मरणान्तिकादिप्रायश्चित्तविधानं च ॥ द्वित्राद्विमाषात्मकहेमहरणं तु क्षत्रियाविहेमार

gourmaran 34 far on III, 257.

56. yarar: qaragara reafuror: u gaat U ji

a isang waris… 110. 28 2-4

STITU

POONA

))

S

FOUNDED

s

1917

atta a

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

(the bed i. e. wife of the guru). Guru primarily means acc. to Manu II.142 and Yāj. I 34 (=Sankha III.2) the father. Acc. to Gautama II.56 ’the teacher (of the Veda) is the foremost amongst grurus while some say that the mother is so’. Samvarta 57 160 and Parāśara X. 13 ( employing the words ‘pitrdārān samāruhya’) convey that the primary meaning of guru here is ‘father’ as stated by the Mit. on Yāj. III, 259. Acc. to many digests such as the Mit. and the Madanapārijāta p. 835 guruarigand means one’s own mother. Bhavadeva in his Pr. Prakarana (p. 80) takes gurvanganā58 as a karmadhāraya compound, following what is called the niṣādasthapati-nyāya (Jai. VI. 1. 51). After quoting Devala’s dictum 59 that there are eleven persons among males who are to be looked upon as gurus, and adverting to the way in which the word ‘gurvangana’ is explained by the Pr. Prakarana, the Prāyagcitta-viveka expresses its dissent from the views of the Pr. Prakarana and holds that ‘gurvangana’ or ‘gurupatni’ means not only one’s mother but also one’s step-mother of the same varna as the father. The Madanapārijāta (p. 835) holds the same view as the Pr. V. The Pr. M.p. 73 finds fault with Bhavadeva (author of Prayascitta prakarana) and also with the Pr. V. that held the view that sexual intercourse with one’s Vedic teacher’s wife was also a

aN57, पितृभार्या समाका मातृवर्ज नराधमः। भगिनी मातुराप्तां च स्वसारं चाग्यमातृजाम्॥ एतास्तिमाः नियो गत्वा तप्तकृच्छं समाचरेत् । संवर्त 159-160, ‘गुरुशब्दश्चात्र मुख्यया वृत्त्या पितरि वर्तते ।…अतः पितृपत्नीगमनमेव महापातकम् । गमनं च चरमधातुषिसर्गपर्यन्तं कथ्यते । अतस्ततोऽर्वा निवृत्तौ न महापातकित्वम् । मिता. on या. III. 259. 158. तेन गुर्वी (गुरुः!) चासो अङ्गना चेति कर्मधारयसमासात् स्वमातृवचन एवार्य गुर्वङ्गनाशब्दः। न तु गुरोरङ्गन गुर्वङ्गना इति षष्ठीसमासात् सपत्नीमातृवचनोऽपि ।…तेन निषाद स्थपति याजयेत्-इतिवत् कमेधारयसमासे स्वमातृवचन एवार्य गुर्वनाशब्दः । माय. प्रकरण P.80%; शबर on जे.VI. 1.51 says ‘समानाधिकरणसमासस्त बलीयान् ।…तस्मात निषाद एव स्थपतिः स्यात् । (and not निषादानां स्थपतिः). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 46 for निषादस्थपतिन्याय.

59. तथा देवलः । आचार्यश्च पिता ज्येष्ठो भ्राता चैव महीपतिः । मातुलः श्वशुरखाता मातामहपितामहो ॥ वर्णज्येष्ठः पितृव्यश्च पुंस्येते गुरवो मताः । त्राता पाणरक्षकः । वर्णज्येष्ठः क्षत्रियादीनां ब्राह्मणः। प्राय. वि. p 129; यद्यपि देवलवचनेनैव एकादश गुरवो दर्शिता स्तथाप्यत्र पितेव गुरुयायो नाचार्यादिः । … मातृगमनस्यातिपातकत्वात् सपत्नीमातृगमनस्य गुर्वङ्गानागमनत्वेन महापातकत्वात् अर्थादनुपातके लघुनि हीनवर्णायाः पितृपल्या ग्रहणम् । आय. वि. pp 134-135…. तस्माद् मातृव्यतिरिक्तैकादशगुर्वङ्गानागमनमेव महापातकामिति युज्यते देवलवचनादिति । अत्र भवदेवेनोक्तं नात्र गुरोरङ्गना गर्वङ्गनेति षष्ठीसमासः तत्पुरुष समासाश्रयणे निषादस्थपतिवत्वष्ठवर्थलक्षणापत्तेः। अतो गुरुश्वासावङ्गना चेति कर्मधारयः । गुरुत्वं च मातुरेव न मातुः सपत्न्याः ।… तदसंमतं मातृगमनं दहितगमनं स्नुषामा त्यतिपातकानीति विष्णुहारीताभ्यां मातृगमनस्यातिपातकस्वाभिधानात् । यद्यपि वैविलवचायण एकादशगुरषो दर्शितास्तथाप्यत्र पितेव मुकर्यायो नाबाविस्तत्परलीगमनस्य गुरुतत्पशामलम स्वानुपपत्तेरनुपातकत्वगतेश्च । प्रायः वि. pp 129-134.

1917

धीलमस्तु॥

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

25

IV1

Incest (Guru-talpagamana) mahāpātaka. The Pr. M. relies on Yāj. (III. 233) where there is an express extension of the sin of gurutalpaga mana to intercourse with one’s teacher’s wife, or one’s daughter and other nearly related women. This would have been unnecessary if gurutal pa was primarily meant to include the teacher’s wife; while the Pr. V. relies upon Gaut. II, 56 (’the ācārya is the most eminent among gurus, some say that the mother is so’), Visnu Dh. S. 31.1-2 ’three persons are atigurus (exceed even guru in their greatness) viz. the mother, the father and the ācārya and Devala who mentions eleven persons as gurus. The Pr. M, does not seem to be quite correct since the Pr. V. ultimately (pp. 134-135) states its final view that guru here means only the father and not the ācārya and others and that Visnu Dh. S. 36. 4-8 holds that sexual intercourse with the wife of the teacher and several other women relatives is an anupātaka.vome

Mahāpātaki samsarga-Association with those who are guilty of the four mahāpātakas has already been described in H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 614, 944. Gaut. 21.3, Vas. I. 21-22, Manu XI. 180 ( =śāntiparva 165. 37), Yāj. III. 261, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 35.3, Agnipurāṇa 170. 1-2 prescribe briefly that one who closely associates or dwells with any one of the four grave sinners for one year himself incurs mahāpataka 60 and they add that this applies when a man occupies the same conveyance or same seat (as the sinner) or dines in the same row (with the sinner), but that if a person enters into spiritual relationship (such as that of teaching the Veda to the sinner or learning it from him or of officiating as a priest for him or allowing him to officiate as a priest for himself) or into a sexual or matrimonial alliance with him (i. e, a man who cohabits with a woman that is a grave sinner or if a woman cohabits with a male that is a great sinner or if a man marries the daughter of a patita or if a woman marries a bridegroom that is palita) that person becomes guilty of mahāpātaka at once. Brhaspati speaks 61

60. TE FAREN 21.3, for mana mana FERRETTI para a I T U HE XI, 180, & I. 22, . . . II. 1.88, facu 35,3 (only the first half of Manu), pag. 170.1-2.

61. um die programator rarura tienet

THUT t: hi t suA: E q. by step . 1086, TE.. 587, tr. ** p 101, s. . p 143 ; the feron III 261 as cribes it to वृद्धवृहस्पति. The प्राय.

to fat. The gry. #. p. 91 explains the divergence of view&nas to योनिः, ‘योनिः पातकिने कन्यादान तस्कस्यापरिणयन वेति विज्ञानेश्वरकल्पतरुकारावा urari maareer coproff

a mi.’ The ait ar folie 2 74a also says the same

D, H, 4

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

26

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

of nine kinds of saṁsarga (contact or association) out of which the first five were treated as light sins, but the other four were serious viz. occupying the same bed or seat, taking food in the same row with the sinner, cooking food in the sinner’s cooking pots or partaking of food prepared by him, being his sacrificial priest or employing him as one’s sacrificial priest, being the sinner’s teacher of the Veda or employing him as one’s teacher of the Veda, sexual intercourse, taking food with him in the same pot. The Pr. Prakāśa (folio 74a) holds that samsarga is of three kinds, the highest, middling and lowest. The first includes four viz. yonisambandha (marriage), srauva (i. e. that due to sacrificing for a sinner or making him a priest), maukcha (about learning or teaching Veda) and eating of food from the same vessel (ekāmatrabhojana); the middling is of five kinds viz, using the same vehicle, seat, bed or coverlet; eating in the same row and learning the Veda together ( sahādhyayana). The lowest is of various other kinds such as intimate talks, touching, cook ing food in the same vessel, eating food at his house, receiving a gift from him &c. Adhyāpana in order to be a great sin must relate to the Veda, and so also yājana must relate to such Vedic sacrifices as Darsapūrnamāsa, Cāturmāsya, Agnistoma. Helping a mahāpātakin to perform the five daily yajñas or teaching him the angas (metrics, grammar etc.) and the śāstras is only a minor sin. Parāśara62 (XII. 79) states that sins are transferred (or spread) from man to man like a drop of oil on water by sitting or sleeping together or by using the same conveyance or by speaking with or dining in the same row. Devala and Chāgaleya q. by the Mit. on Yāj. III, 261, the Pr. Prakarana (p. 101), the Pr, V. (p. 145), the Par. M. (II. part 1. p. 28) and others contain similar verses. Acc. to Pr. Prakasa (folio 75a), in order to become patita one must simultaneously practise these four together; if practised separately, there is no pātitya but only doṣa. Parāśara (I. 25-26) states that in the Křta age a man became patita by speaking with a patita, in Tretā by touching him, in Dvāpara by partaking of food prepared in his house and in Kali by actually committing a sinful act and that in the Kịta age a district was abandoned (if any one therein became patita), in Tretā the village, in Dvāpara the family (of the patita was abandoned) and in Kali only the actual perpetrator himself (is

STITU POONAS

FOUNDED

62. BATUTAKHTE FEMEI ** fronteiras far UST XII. 79, which is the same as a verse of a q. by 0 II. 1. p. 28.

BILETE U

WA Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

27

IV1

Samsarga (Contact) abandoned as palita). It is clear from this that such contacts with a patita as speaking with him,63 touching him or eating food (in the house of a patita) were not regarded as involving a man in the same sin as that of the actual perpetrator. Speak ing, touching and eating are also actions ( karman ) and Parāśara did not include them in the word ‘karmanā’ which refers only to the actual perpetration of a murder, surāpāna etc. Therefore when some writers include such contacts as eating or touching under ‘karmaṇāl they put two meanings on the word karman in Parāśara viz. perpetration of a murder or the like and also doing some of the acts (touching, eating) which are forbidden to be done in reference to a perpetrator by some smrtis. This is a procedure which is against the maxim of the Mimāṁsā that the same word conveys only 64 one sense in the same context. The reasonable inference from the words of Parāśara is that merely touching a mahāpātakin or eating food in his house did not involve the toucher and eater in pātitya. In spite of this medieval writers gradually extended the scope of samsarga in a spirit of exclusiveness and of over-emphasis on ideas of ceremonial purity. For example, the Smartyarthasāra (p. 112) remarks that he who associates with the person that associates with a mahāpātakin has to undergo half the expiation that the first associator has to undergo. But that work does not go beyond this. The Mit. (on Yāj. III. 261) appears to hold that the associator even though he does not bo come patita is liable to undergo expiation and that even the 4th and 5th associators in a series are liable to undergo expiation

63. संवत्सरेण पतति पतितेन सहाचरन् । एकयानभोजनासनशयनैः॥ यौनसौवमौरव

Fur Te Tall facuāHET 35. 3-5. (derived from a refers to marital connection, a (derived from a sacrificial ladie) means ’employing as a sacrificial priest or becoming such a priest for another), मौख (from मुख) means ’teaching the Veda or learning it by word of mouth). So Viṣnu pre scribes that patitya results at once from the first kind of samsarga referred to above, तत्र पञ्चमहायज्ञादिविषयं याजनं लघु । अङ्गशास्त्राध्ययनं लघु । दुहितृभगिनीव्यति रिक्तो परिणयो लघुः ॥ पतितेन सहकपात्रे अन्नव्यातिरिक्तसक्त्वादिभक्षणं लचु॥ प्रा. प्रकाश folio 75a.

64. Haga: TE Tari Taufer, which maxim is relied upon in 6 Cal. 119, 126, (FB), that is quoted with approval in L R. 41 1. A 290, pp 30374 54 All 698, 722 (FB). 37747721èrenterally on . VI. 1.22, #. #. p. 389.00

65. Ferrari Haritasining anterianturā virall praeter p. 112. warna

STITUT POONA

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

28

History of Dharmasāstra

[Vol.

though it is Jesser and lesser66. The Pr. Prakarana (p. 109), Pr. V. (pp. 169-170) and the Pr. T. (p. 547) quote certain verses of Āpastamba and Vyāsa which very much widen the circle of samsarga. Apastamba-smrtion (III. 1-3) states : if a cāndāla stays in the house of any one of the four castes without being known, the latter on conting to know of the fact should undergo expiation, which is Candrāyana or Parāka for a member of the first three varnas and Prājāpatya for a sūdra. Those who partook of cooked food in that man’s house should undergo Kịcchra; one should prescribe one half of Kịcchra for those who took cooked food in the house of the 2nd associator and for those who partook of cooked food in the house of these last one fourth of Krochra is prescribed’. So besides the original associator three more in succession were held to be liable for prayas citta. Mercifully they stopped at the 4th from the original associator. A few writers took a more reasonable view. The Par. M. (II. part 2, p. 90) remarks68 that Parāśara did not prescribe any expiation for saisarga (with those guilty of grave sins) with the idea that in the Kali age

66. अतः संसर्गिसंसर्गिणां द्विजातिकर्मभ्यो हानिन भवति प्रायश्चित्तं तु भवत्येव ॥…तच्च पादहीनम् ॥…एवं चतुर्थपञ्चमयोरपि कामतः संसर्गिणोरर्धहीनं त्रिपादोनंच दृष्टव्यम् ॥ मिता. on या. III. 261. प्रा. प्रकाश (folio 110a.) finds fault with this and holds on the strength of a verse of Vyasa ‘यो येन संसृज्यते स तदीयमेव मायश्चित्तं कुर्यात् तेन द्वितीयसंसर्गी नवाद्वानि कुर्यात् तृतीयस्तु पादोन सप्ताहानि कुर्यात् । एवं चतुर्थपञ्चमादयः पूर्वपादोन ज्यासवाक्याविशेषात् ।

___67. अन्त्यजातिरविज्ञातो निवसेद्यस्य वेश्मनि ॥ स वै ज्ञात्वा तु कालेन कुर्यात्तत्र विशो धनम्॥ चान्द्रायणं पराको वा द्विजातीनां विशोधनम् ॥ पाजापत्यं तु शूद्राणां तथा संसर्गदृषणे॥ यैस्तत्र भुक्तं पक्वान्नं कृच्, तेषां विनिर्दिशेत् ॥ तेषामपि च यैर्भुक्तं कृच्छ्रपादो विधीयते ॥ आपस्तम्ब quoted by माय. वि. pp. 170 and 492, प्राय. तत्व p.547. The verses occur with slight variations in the versified आपस्तम्बस्मृति (Anan. edition) III. 1-3. The पाय. वि. p. 169 remarks ‘व्यासादिवचने तृतीयसंसर्गिपर्यन्तं प्रायश्चित्तदर्शनात् । तथा चाण्डालादिसङ्करे व्यासः ॥ ये तदनाशिनो विमाः कृच्छं तेषां विधीयते॥ तद्भोजिनोऽर्धकृच्छ्रेण तदन्नादाश्च पादतः॥.

68. आचार्यस्तु कलियुगे संसर्गदोषाभावमभिप्रेत्य संसर्गप्रायश्चित्तं नाम्यधात् । अत एव स्मृत्यन्तरे कलौ वानामनुक्रमणे-संसर्गदोषः पापेषु-इत्युक्तस् । परा.मा. II. part 2 p. 90. For a severe onslaught against. Madhava, vide धर्मद्वैतनिर्णय (p. 132). The प्रा. प्रकाश (folio 77a) explains away Madhava’s emphatic remarks as follows : ‘कृते सम्भाषणमात्रात्पतति…कलौ तु कृत्स्नेन निषिद्धकर्मणा याजनादिभिरित्यर्थः । अन्यथा पूर्ववाक्ये कर्तारं तु कलौ न्यसदित्यनेन साक्षात् कर्बादः संसों निषिद्धः । द्वितीयवाक्ये तु कलौ पतति कर्मणेत्यनेन साक्षात्कर्तुरेव दोषोऽन संसर्गकर्तुरिति परस्परविरोधः स्यात् । एवं च माधवस्य कलौ संसर्गदोषाभावोक्तरत्रैव तात्पर्यम् । तथा च कलिनिषिद्धेषु संसर्गदोष इत्युक्तिः पातकिना सह पूर्वोक्तयाजनाथनेकविधसंसगाभावेपि यो देशादिमात्रसंसगः कृतयुगादी दोषजनकत्वेनोक्तः पाराशरपूर्वश्लोके यश्चोत्तरश्लोके कृतयुगादौ सम्भाषणमात्रादाय…उक्त स्तद्विषया।

1917

वधीतमस्तु॥

Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstituteIV)

Samsarga in Kali age

29

there is no blen ish of saṁsarga and that it is on account of this that in the enumeration of things to be avoided or not allowed in the Kali age (Kali-varjya) another smrti includes ‘pollution through contact with a sinner’ (as a Kalivarjya). The Smrtimuktāphala (Prāyaścitta pp. 897-98) echoes the very words of Madhava and quotes further authorities on the point69. The Nirdayasindhu7 holds that though there is blame in association with a patita the associator does not himself become patita. As Yāj III, 261 employs the word ‘vatsaram’ and as the accusative of time is, acc. to Pāṇini, to be used only when there is ‘atyantasamyoga’ of time and space ( distance ) it follows that the associator who is to undergo penance for contact must have been day and night in contact for a year. Devala employs the word ‘sārvakālikam’ in this connection,

Though many crimes do not in so many words come within the words of the definitions of the mahāpātakas the smrtis extend by analogy the same condemnation as the mahāpātakas in three ways. For example, Yāj. III. 251 expressly states that one who kills a ksatriya or vaigya engaged in (soma) sacrifice or a foetus or an ātreyi woman has to undergo the same expiation as for brāhmana murder (therefore this is vācanikātideśa). Yāj. IIL 232-233 extends the sin of gurutalpa-gamana to intercourse with several near female relatives (such as mother’s or father’s sister). This is extension by tādrūpya. The smrtis declare many actions as equal to ( sama) mahāpātakas in general or as equal to one of the mahāpātakas. This is atideśa by sāmya. A few words must be said on this topic. The general rule is that the expia tion for those lapses that are declared to be equal to a mahāpātaka is less than (i. e. half of) what would be prescribed

69. अत एव कलियुगधर्माभिधाने प्रवृत्तः पराशरः ब्रह्महत्या दिमहापातकचतुष्टयस्य प्रायश्चित्तमुक्तवान कलियुगे संसर्गदोषाभावमभिप्रेत्य संसर्गमायश्चित्तं नाभ्यधात् । कर्मण एव पातित्यहेतुत्वम् । तथा कर्मणा पातित्यं कण्ठरवेणाह पराशरः (1.25) ‘कृते संभाषणादेव … कलौ पतति कर्मणा ॥…इति। … स्मृतिकामधेनौ । संसर्गदोषो नैव स्यान्महापातकिभिः कलौ । संसर्गदोषः स्तेनायेन महापापनिष्कृतिः । तथा स्मृत्यन्तरे। संसर्गदोषः…पापेविति पठितम् ॥ कलौ संसर्गस्य पापमात्रहेतुत्वम् । संसर्गदोषस्य पातित्यापादकत्वाभावपि पापमात्रापादकत्व मस्तीत्याह पराशरः । स्मृतिमु. (प्रा.) pp 897-898.

70. कलौ कतैव लिप्यते इति व्यासोक्तेः पतितसंसर्गे दोषसत्त्वेपि पातित्यं नेत्यर्थः । निर्णयसिन्धु III. p. 368; तत्रापि (याज्ञवल्कीये) वत्सरामिति द्वितीया श्रूयते सा च कालाध्वनी रत्यन्तसंयोग इत्यत्यन्तसंयोगे स्मृता। अत्यन्तसंयोगश्च यावदहोरात्रसम्बन्धः । … सवत्सरेण पतति पतितेन सहाचरन । भोजनासनशय्यादि कुर्वाणः सार्वकालिकमिति देवलवाक्य सार्व कालिकशद्धेन द्वितीयार्थ एवोक्तः । मा. प्रकाश (folio 76b),

तजविनावाला

विधीतमस्तु

Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

(Vol. for the mahāpātaka itself?!. And the penance for those that come under atideśa of the vācanika or tādrūpya kind is three fourths of that for the mahāpātaka itself. But it has to be noted that there is divergence of views about these in the sūtras and the smrtis. Acc. to Gaut. 21.10 giving72 false evidence, backbiting about another’s guilt that will reach the king, falsely accusing one’s guru with a grave sin or crime are equal to mahāpātaka. In Manu XI.55 (= Agnipurāṇa 168. 25) the last two of these three and false statement about one’s caste or learning or family (i. e. saying that one is a brāhmana when one is not) for securing pro sperity or eminence are stated to be equal to brāhmaṇa’s murder. Acc. to Yāj. III. 228 falsely charging one’s guru is equal to brahmahatyā and false statement about one’s caste or learning is equal to drinking surā (Yāj. III. 229), while acc. to Visnu Dh. S. 37.1-3 the three sins mentioned in Manu XI. 55 are to be in cluded among minor sins (upapātakas), while giving false evid ence is declared by Visnu to be equal to drinking surā ( 36.2). No useful purpose would be served by dilating at great length on the divergences of smrtis on what lapses are equal to one of the Mahāpātakas. The digests explain that where the same lapse is described as equal to surāpāna by one smrti and as equal to brāhmana-murder by another the idea is that there is an option as to the penance prescribed for that lapse. There fore only the remarks of Manu and Yaj. will be set out here. Manu XI. 56 ( = Agnipurāṇa 168, 26 ) prescribes that forgetting the Veda (already studied ), reviling the Vedas, giving false evidence, killing a friend, eating forbidden food or food that should not be eaten, these six are equal to surāpāna. Vide Yāj. III. 228 already referred to above. Manu XI. 57 holds that stealing a deposit or a man or horse or silver or land or diamonds and other gems is equal to the theft of brāhmana’s gold. Yāj. III. 230, Visnu Dh. S. 5. 383, Agni purāṇa 168.27 are to the same effect. Acc. to Manu XI. 58 (= Agnipurāṇa 168. 28) carnal intercourse with a sister by the same mother, with maidens, with females of the lowest castes (like Candālas), with the wife of a friend or son is declared to

71. 17 Hauntearse aracaralahūre great 79. #. p. 8; vide are. patur pp. 85-87; gaanraest gorerea Ei rariora garagrat IATT. #. p. 9; 315 Turra pretaka ureri CT I HAT DITENT asY FEET Fharya TTESTATII a. . p. 808; vide from a III, 231 for similar words.

72. H ITTA Ågå tiranin Agrara u 21.101

FOUNDED

1917

na aran

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

31

IV1

Extension to sins by analogy be equal to the violation of a guru’s bed. Yāj. III, 231 is practically the same (but he adds intercourse with a sagotra woman to the list). Gaut. 23. 12 and Manu XI. 170 are very similar. Yāj. III, 232-233 declare that a man who has sexual intercourse with a sister of his father or mother, with his maternal uncle’s wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a co-wife of his mother, with his sister, with the daughter or wife of his Vedic teacher or his own daughter, is guilty of being a violator of the guru’s bed and should have his penis cut off and be killed (by the king) and the woman concerned, if she was a willing party, should also be killed. Nārada (stripumsayoga, verses 73-75)73 states: “If a man has sexual intercourse with any of these women viz. mother, mother’s sister, mother-in-law, maternal uncle’s wife, father’s sister, a wife of the paternal uncle or of a friend or of a pupil, a sister, sister’s friend, daughter-in-law, daughter, the wife of one’s Vedic teacher, a woman of the same gotra, one who has come for protection, a queen, an ascetic woman, one’s wet-nurse, a woman performing a vrata and a brāhmaṇa woman, he becomes guilty of the sin of the violator of the guru’s bed (i. e. incest). For that crime no other punishment is laid down except that of the cutting of the penis.” These two, Yaj. and Nārada, show that excision of the organ and death are both the expiation and the punishment for this crime. The Mit. (on Yāj. III. 233) adds that this punish ment applies only to the offenders other than a brāhmana, since Manu (VIII, 380) prescribes that a brāhmana offender should not be punished with death whatever sin or crime he may have committed and that he is to be banished from the country unhurt and is to retain all his wealth. The Viṣnudharma-sūtra (36 4-7) adds a few more women to the list of Yaj. and Nārada (such as a woman in her monthly illness, the wife of a learned brāhmaṇa or of one’s sacrificial priest or of one’s Upādhyāya).

These lapses described above from false accusation against the guru74 (Yaj. III, 228 or Manu XI. 55 to Yaj. III. 233 or Manu

TERHUE Fatra 14 :.23.12; ART मातृष्वसा श्वश्रूर्मातुलानी पितृष्वसा। पितृव्यसखिशिष्यत्री भगिनी तत्सखी स्नुषा ॥ दुहिताचार्य भार्या च सगोत्रा शरणागता॥ राज्ञी प्रवजिता धात्री साध्वी वर्णोत्तमा चया ॥ आसामन्यतमा गत्वा गुरुतल्पग उच्यते॥ शिश्नस्योत्कर्तनं तस्य नान्यो दण्डो विधीयते ॥ नारद (स्त्रीपुंसयाग 73 75); compare str. u. 2. I. 9.25 (

T T T i ferai TETT STUTT ateront regt a ra) and 1. 23.10.

74. gara gaftrekenaaaaaaaa Herrerantara taarat guel AAS ON T. III. 233,

POONA

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

XI. 58) and said to be equal to some mahāpātaka or other are designated as pātakas by Vrddha-Hārīta (IX. 216-17) and by the Mit. (on Yāj. III 233) and as anupūtakas by the Visṇudharma sūtra (36.8). Gautama75 (21.1-2) adds a few more to the list of pātakas or patitas viz. he who has connection with the female relatives of his mother or father or with sisters and their offspring, a thief of gold, an atheist, one who constantly rapeats censured acts, one who does not cast away a patita or who abandons blameless relatives or those who instigate others to commit pātakas. These pātakas are less than mahāpātakas in their culpability and greater than upapātakas.

Upapātakas (minor sins). The number of these has greatly varied from time to time and from smrti to smrti. Vas. I. 23 speaks76 of only five upapātakas viz. forsaking the sacred fires (after beginning Agnihotra), offending the guru, being an atheist, taking one’s livelihood from an atheist, selling the soma plant. Śātātapa as quoted by Visvarūpa on Yāj. III. 229-236 mentions only eight. Baud. Dh, S. (II. 1.60-61) mentions a small number as upapātakas. Gaut. 21.11 states that the guilt of upapātaka attaches to those who have been declared to defile the company at a Srāddha dinner and have been named above before the bald man (in Gaut. XV. 18), killers of kine, those who forget the Veda, those who pronounce Vedic texts for these last, Vedic students who break the vow of chastity and those who allow the time for upanayana to pass without performing it. Sankha quoted by Visvarūpa on Yāj. III. 229-236 mentions only 18 upapātakas and styles them upapataniyas. The longest lists are contained in Manu XI. 59-66, Yāj. III. 234-242, Vrddha-Hārīta IX. 208-210, Visnudharmasūtra 37 and Agnipurāṇa (168. 29-37). A.c cording to the Pr. V. (p.195)78 the upapātakas mentioned by Manu

75. ब्रह्महमुरापगुरुतल्पगमातृपितृयोनसम्बन्धागस्तननास्तिकनिन्दितकाभ्यासिपतिता. capra Cua : vaar: Il rag ahan aa 21.1-2. a 20.1 mentions the persons whom one should abandon ‘त्यजेत्पितरं राजघातकं शूद्रयाजकं शूदार्थयाजक बेवाविप्लावकं भ्रूणहनं यश्चान्त्यावसायिभिः सह संवसेदन्त्यावसायिन्यां वा ।.

76. योऽग्नीनपविध्ये गुरुं च यः प्रतिदनुयान नास्तिको नास्तिकवृत्तिः सोमं च विक्री oneretul afet I. 23.

77. अपंक्त्यानां प्राग्दुर्बालागोहन्तृब्रह्मन्नतन्मन्त्रकदवकीर्णिपतितसावित्रीकेषूपपातकम् ।। 11. 21.11. The word zat occurs in . 15.18.

78. pieturaneaparat aqurtgara I fa. p. 195.

STITU

FOUNDED

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute

IV]

Upapātakas (minor sins)

33

come to 49. Those enumerated by Yāj. are set out below79 (they are 51 according to Visvarūpa on Yāj. III. 229-236, who omits one verse commented on by the Mit. viz sūdrapreṣyam’ &c. which contains five): slaying kine, being a vrātya (i. e. one whose upanayana was not performed at the prescribed age), theft (other than that of brāhmana’s gold or other than what is described as equal to theft of the mahāpātaka type), non-payment of debts borrowed (and not satisfying the three debts due to gods, sages and pitrs), not establishing the śrauta fires (even though one has the capacity to do so); selling what ought not to be sold (such as salt); parivedana (a younger brother’s marrying before an elder brother or establishing sacred fires before him); learning (the Veda) from a paid teacher; teaching the Veda for payment; adultery (with women other than those referred to in guru talpagamana or those lapses equal to it); an elder brother’s Tema ining unmarried when a younger brother has married ; usury (i. e, taking more interest than is allowed by the smrtis); manufacture of salt; killing a woman (of any caste, except an ātreyi); killing a sūdra; killing a ksatriya or vaisya (who is not initiated for a srauta sacrifice); maintaining oneself on wealth which is condemned; atheism (denial of the soul and a world after death); giving up the observances peculiar to one’s status (e. g. a vedic student having sexual intercourse or one guilty of brāhmaṇa murder or the like giving up the performance of the expiation already begun); sale of one’s children; theft 80 of corn, inferior metals (like lead and copper) or cattle; officiating as a priest at a sacrifice for those who are not entitled to sacrifice (such as sūdras or vrātyas &c); driving out of the house one’s father, mother or son (without a proper cause such as that

79. गोवधो ब्रात्यता स्तेयमृणानां चानपाक्रिया। अनाहिताग्निता पण्यविक्रयः परिवदनम् । भृतादध्ययनादानं भृतकाध्यापनं तथा ॥ पारदार्य पारिविश्यं वाधुण्यं लवणक्रिया ॥ स्त्रीशूद्र विदक्षत्रवधो निन्दितार्थोपजीवनम् ॥ नास्तिक्यं व्रतलोपश्च सुतानां चैव विक्रयः॥ धान्यकुप्य पशुस्तयमयाज्यानां च याजनम् ॥ पितृमातृसुतत्यागस्तडागारामविक्रयः ॥ कन्यासन्दूषणं चैव परिविन्दकयाजनम् ॥ कन्यादानं तस्यैव कौटिल्यं व्रतलोपनम् ॥ आत्मनोऽर्थे क्रियारम्भो मद्यप स्त्रीनिषवेणम् ॥ स्वाध्यायाग्निसुतत्यागो बान्धवत्याग एव च ॥ इन्धनार्थ मच्छेदः स्त्रीहिंसौ षधिजीवनम् । हिंस्रयन्त्रविधानं च व्यसनान्यात्मविक्रयः॥ शूद्रप्रेण्यं हीनसख्यं हीनयोनिनिषेवणम् । तथैवानाश्रमे वासः परानपरिपुष्टता ॥ असच्छास्त्राधिगमनमाकरेण्वधिकारिता ॥ भार्याया विक्रय Shahutura . III. 234-242.

80. “Steya’ has already been mentioned as the third upapataka. The mention of the theft of corn &c. here either serves the purpose of showing that the theft of corn &c will always be expiated as an upapātaka whily other kinds of thefts may be dealt with more leniently. The same temark applies to PATTEET and Furut separately mentioned below. To

STI

POON

सजस्विना

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

34

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

mentioned by Gautama 20.1); the sale of a tank or of a park intended for a charitable object (though not actually dedicated to the public); ascribing demerits to an unmarried girl (or in terfering with her private parts by means of a finger or the like); officiating as a priest (at the marriage) of one who though a younger brother marries before an elder brother; giving one’s daughter in marriage to one who marries before his elder brother; cheating or following crooked ways (except against one’s guru, which is equal to surāpāna); giving up an observance voluntarily undertaken81; cooking for the sake of oneself only (and not for deities, guests &c., which attitude is condemned by Rg. X. 117.6 and Manu III. 118); sexual intercourse with a woman (even one’s own wife) who is given to drinking wine; giving up the Veda already learnt so as to forget it by the study of other subjects ); not tending one’s srauta or smārta fire; abandoning one’s son82; not maintaining one’s relatives (such as the maternal or pater nal uncle, when one has the means) ; cutting down a big tree for fuel (to be used only in cooking one’s food 83): maintaining one’s self on one’s wife (i. e, on her immoral earnings or by means of her strīdhana) or by killing animals or by herbs (used as charms); setting up of machines that cause death or injury to beings (such as for pressing oil from sesame or for crushing sugarcane stalks); addiction to the vices (declared to be eighteen by Manu VII. 45-48); selling one’s self (as a slave for money); being the servant of a sūdra; friendship with low persons; intercourse with a woman of a lower caste (either as a wife or as a concubine); living outside of the four āśramas 81; fattening oneself on food charitably supplied by others; studying the works of false sāstras (such as those of atheists like Cārvāka); holding the office of the superintendent of mines (of gold and the like); sale of one’s wife.

81. Vratalopa has already been mentioned above in verse 236 as an upapataka. Therefore the repetition of ‘vratalopana’ (in verse 238) must be differently explained as done by the मिताक्षरा.

82. In T. III. 237 we have fogar and then in 239 again स्वाध्यायाग्निसतत्यागः. Therefore अपरार्क p. 1051 explains: ‘सुतस्यारक्षणमत्र त्यागः स्वाध्यायाग्नित्यागसाहचर्यात् । पितृमातृसुतत्याग इत्यत्र तु जातकर्मादिसंस्काराकरणं

AFY CT1: 1).

83. Trenninuta PHETA Farefasohemi zha: 1 39xrani p. 19% vue

84. 3 a faga TĀPAT : I SITOT Paar feet, ana TE #: 1 r I. 10; one must belong to one of the four AS, T , TIEFENDER वानप्रस्थ and संन्यास and act as would befit that asrama.

स्वनावधीत

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV]

List of upapātakas

35

The above list, though long, is not thoroughly exhaustive Vas. I. 18 quoted above mentions several persons as enasvinah ( who acc. to Visvarūpa on Yāj. III. 229-236 are upapātakinah), some of whom (such as one who is asleep when the sun rises or sets) are not included by Yāj. in his list of upapātakas. Though almost all of the upapātakas listed by Yāj. occur in Manu (XI, 59-66 ), yet some of them such as abhicāra’ (per forming a sacrifice like Syenayāga for the destruction of an enemy), mūJakarma’ (employment of herbs for bringing under one’s control a person) are not noted by Yāj. The Mit. on Yāj. III, 242 observes that some upapatakas if repeatedly indulged in make a man patita (as provided by Gaut. 21.1). Visvarūpa, there fore, derives upapātaka as one that may become a pātaka by constant addition (upacaya) or by constant practice’ (upetya85).

Manu XI. 67 (=Agnipurāṇa 16886, 37-38) and Vispu Dh. S. 38. 1-6 mention certain lapses as ‘jātibhramgakara’ ( that cause the loss of caste ) viz. giving pain to a brāhmana (by means of a stick or by the hand ), smelling things which ought not to be smelt at (such as garlic, ordure &c.) and smelling spirituous liquor, cheating (saying one thing and doing another), an unnatural offence with a man or beast also, acc. to Visnu). According to Manu XI. 68 (= Agnipurāṇa 168. 38-39), killing a donkey, a horse, a camel, a deer, an elephant, a goat, sheep, fish, a snake or a buffalo must be known to be sankarikarana (reducing one to a mixed caste). Visnu 29. 1 says that sankarikarana is the killing of village or forest animals. Manu XI. 69 holds that accepting presents from condemned men (such as those mentioned in Manu IV. 84), trading, serving sūdras and speaking a falsehood make a man unworthy to receive gifts (apatrikarana). The Viṣnu. Dh. S. 40. 1. adds ‘maintaining one’s self by usury’ to these. Manu XI. 70 prescribes that killing insects, small or large, or birds, eating any thing kept close to spirituous liquors, stealing fruits, fuel and flowers and unsteadiness of mind are malāvaha (which make a man impure). Visnu Dh. S. 41.1-4 are similar. Visnu Dh. S. 42. 1 says all other lapses not specifically mentioned in

STITUT

POONA

85. उपपातकसंज्ञाप्येवमर्थव । उपचयेन उपेत्य वा सेव्यमानं पातकमेव स्यादिति। अतं gora mea e Paranara aria: faru on T. III. 229-236, The reference is to TEA 21.1, quoted above in note 75.

86. The printed अग्निपुराण reads भैक्ष्य for जोहो in मनु X1.67000 अनि 168,39 reads नकुल for महिष.

FOUNDED

1917

Gata

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Voi,

the several kinds are styled miscellaneous (prakirṇaka). Vrddha Hārīta (IX, 210-215) specifies several lapses as prakirnaka viz. cutting big trees for fuel (used for cooking one’s food); killing insects, big and small; eating of food that has become uneatable owing to bhāva 87 (i. e. its resemblance in colour or flavour to some forbidden food or because it is offered with disrespect) or kāla (food on ekādaśī or in an eclipse, or in a mourner’s house &c. or that is stale) or kriya (action, such as food served with the bare hand or seen by a patita, cāndala or a dog &c.); theft of clay, skin, grass, wood; over-eating; falsehood; Testlessness about pleasures; sleep by day; spreading false rumours; making others hear false rumours; eating at another’s house; sexual intercourse by day; seeing women in their monthly illness or just after delivery; looking at others’ wives; sexual intercourse on a fast. on a śrāddha day, on a parvan day; service of a sūdra; friend ship with the low; touching the leavings of food; broad laughs with women; talking at random (or Jove prattle); looking at women that have untied their hair. It will be noticed that some of these like the cutting of big trees for fuel, service of a sūdra, friendship with low persons have been already in cluded by Yāj. under upapātakas.

Having dealt at length with several classes or grades of sins, we have now to address ourselves to the question of the consequences of sins and the means recommended or adopted for removing sin and its consequences.

It has already been shown above how the sages of the Rgveda prayed to the gods, particularly to Aditi, Mitra, Varuna, the Adityas and Agni to free them from ūgas or enas etc. They often say that they violated the dharmas or the vratas (ordinances) of the gods and implore forgiveness. They were afraid of the consequences of their guilt, viz. the god’s anger. They thought that when God was angered by their transgres sions he smote them with adversity, destruction, disease and death. For example, they prey: ‘whatever ordinance (vrata) of yours we may violate every day like subjects (in the case of a king’s ordinances) do not subject us to your death-dealing blow’ (Rg. I. 25.2); ‘O Varuna! whatever transgression we men have committed towards the divine host and whatever rules of yours we may have confounded through heedlessness, do not, on

NS

POONA

FOUNDED

87. For भावदुष्ट, कालदुष्ट and क्रियादुष्ट food mentioned in वृद्धापन IX. 211 vide H. of Dh, vol. II, pp. 771-772,

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV]

37

Fear of conséquences of sin account of that sin (enas), strike us down’ (Rg. VII, 89.5)88. In Rg. X. 89.8-9 it is said that Indra hurls his sharp and deadly weapon at those who break the settled order (dharman) of Mitra, Varuna and Aryaman. The gods are implored to save the worshipper from the deadly attacks of the wolf and from sinking into a pit (in adversity) in Rg. II. 29.6. In Rg. IX. 73,8 it is said that the wise God has his eye on all worlds and he pierces in pits those who do not observe his ordinances and who are therefore not liked by him89. On the other hand, when God is pleased with the worshipper, he is implored to lead the latter by the path of virtue (Rg. I. 189.1), to confer happiness on the wor shipper’s offspring (Rg. I. 189,2,IV.12,5) and to bestow wealth on him (Rg. VIII, 45.40).

In the Rgveda the first means of removing the consequences of sin appear to be prayers for mercy and for the remission of sin as in Rg. VII. 86. 4-5, VII. 88, 6-7, VII, 89.1-4 (where ‘mrlā suksatra mrlaya’ is the refrain of all four verses). Even in the Rgveda water was supposed to remove sin, e. g. I. 23. 22 says ‘O water! carry away whatever sin (durita)may exist in me’. This shows that sin was supposed to have physical effects like a disease, which were removed by water, Sacrifices were offered to the gods in order to win their favour and in order that the sacrificer may be freedoo from the consequences of even grave sins. The Tai. S. V. 3.12 1-2 and the Sat. Br. XIII, 3.1.1 (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 328) state that the gods redeemed themselves from all sin by means of this ( Aśvamedha sacrifice), they even redeemed themselves from the sin of brāhmaṇa murder. That a confession of sin was deemed to remove sin is illustrated in a striking way by what happened in the Varuṇapraghāsa (one of the cãturmāsya sacrifices). In that’l sacrifice the wife of the sacrificer had to confess whether she had any lovers and if she felt ashamed to

88. यत्किंचेदं दैव्ये जनेऽभिदोहं मनुष्याश्चरामसि ॥ अचित्ती यत्तव धर्मा युयोपिम AT afara a fran: 1 . VII. 89,5

89. Pag Pasar ya que agarrafa o garai *. IX73.8.

90. सर्व वा एतेन पाप्मानमतरन्नपि वा एतेन ब्रह्महत्यामतरन्सर्व पाप्मानं तरति तरति RECUT SAWa Taa V, 3.12.1-2.

91. यज्जारं सन्तं न प्रबयात्मियं ज्ञाति सन्ध्यात् । असौ मे जार इति निदिशेत् । निर्दि $ 7 51 e i . T. 1.6.5. Vide Katyāyana śr. Vam 6-10 ‘संमार्जनाय प्रेषितेऽसंमृष्टे प्रतिप्रस्थाता पत्नीमानेण्यवाह केन चरसीति । संस्तुताना चष्टे । तृणानि वोद्गह्वाति यथासंस्तुतम् । अनाख्यातमहितं ज्ञातिभ्य इति श्रुतेः। आपाते प्रयासिन

aan 5, Harga ETAE is art. III, 44.

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

॥ तजस्विनाम

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

reply in so many words she had only to raise up in her hand small pieces of grass blades to indicate the number of lovers, if any. If she confessed she had to recite the verse, Vaj. S. III. 44 and was allowed to take further part in the sacrifice. If she con cealed the truth, it was stated in the Tai. Br. that evil would be fall her near and dear relatives (her son or husband). It is said by many European scholars who have written on the religion of the Veda that sacrifice became a sort of magic rite to wrest from gods or independently of them what the worshipper desired (e.g. see Keith’s Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads pp. 260-268).92 But this is an over-statement. When initiated for a sacrifice the sacrificer and his wife had to observe a fast or live on a low diet, both were called upon to observe many strict rules such as telling the truth, they had to make large preparations and spend wealth on the materials and the fees to the priests. These things were deemed to cleanse the mind and soul of the taint of sin. There is no reason to suppose that it was only the ritual that was thought to bring about the desired result (and not all the other matters referred to above).

We shall now discuss the prescriptions of the sutras and smrtis about the consequences of sins.

In this connection the doctrines of Karma and Punarjanma must be well remembered. The details of the origin and develop ment of those doctrines will be discussed in a later section, Here it is enough to state the few main propositions of the doctrine of Karma. The fundamental proposition is that cause and effect areas inseparably linked in the moral sphere as assumed in the physical sphere by science. A good action has its reward and a bad act leads to retribution. If the bad actions do not yield their consequences at once or in this life, the soul begins another existence and in the new environment undergoes suffering for its past bad deeds. The theory of karma and

92. Christ gave a model prayer to his disciples in Luke 11. 2-4 and Matthew 6. 9-13, where after invoking the heavenly Father the first thing asked for is the daily bread, then the forgiveness of sin and deliverance from evil. Pious Christians have an easy and complacent self-assurance of getting the things prayed for, since Cbrist himself has said that they have only to ask and it shall be given to them (Luke 11.9). This also is a sort of magic but it is simple as compared with elaborate Indian sacrifices. It seems rather perverse for a Christian who believes in Luke 11.9 to Day Thai if an Indian believes that a sacrifice will yield some reward it is all magic and nothing more,

POONA

FOUNDED

Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstituteIVI

Karma and рипarjапта

39

the theory of transmigration of souls (of pre-existence and post-existence) are inextricably mixed up in Indian thought from at least the ancient times of the Upanisads. The general rule is that Karma, whether good or evil, cannot be got rid of, except by enjoying or undergoing its consequences. This is said by Gaut. 19. 5, Mārkandeya-purāṇa and many other works. ‘Because the deed does not perish’ Gaut. 93, ‘whatever human action it may be, whether good or evil, it cannot be got rid of except by enjoying its consequences; know from me that a man gets rid of good and evil deeds by enjoying (their con sequences)’. This doctrine is based on the Sat. Br. 7.2.2.27, Br. Up. IV. 4 and VI. 2, Chān. Up. III. 14, and V. 3-10, Katha 5, 6-7 and other Upaniṣad texts.

Therefore they say, ‘a man is born again in that world for which he has worked.’ ‘According as a man acts and accord ing as he believes so will he be; a man of meritorious acts will be meritorious, a man of evil deeds sinful. He becomes pure by pure deeds and evil by evil deeds. And here they say that a person consists of desires. And as is his desire, so is his will ; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deeds he does that he will reap’ (Br. Up. IV. 4. 5); ‘a man is made up of will; whatever he wills in this world the same he becomes after departing from this world’ (Chān. Up. III. 14. 1); ‘some human beings enter the womb in order to have an embodied existence: others go into inorganic matter (the stump of a tree and the like) according to their deeds and according to their knowledge’ (Katha Up. 5. 7). 94

Actions done by a man do not perish unless they (i. e, their consequences) are enjoyed even after crores of years; (the fruits of) actions whether good or evil must of necessity be enjoyed95,

93. H er fra 1. p. 8. 19.5 q. by Trer in his Soy on agra सूत्र IV. 1 13; न तु भोगादृते पुण्यं पापं वा कर्म मानवम् । परित्यजति भोगाच्च पुण्यापुण्ये निबोध मे ॥ मार्कण्डेयपुराण 14.17; तस्मात्कृतस्य पापस्य प्रायश्चित्तं समाचरेत् ॥ माभुक्तस्या

TOT FITT: toetatu waczy TOT I. 19.27.

94. यथाकारी यथाचारी तथा भवति साधुकारी साधुर्भवति पापकारी पापो भवति पुण्य: पुण्येन कर्मणा भवति पापः पापेन । अथो खल्वाहुः काममय एवायं पुरुष इति स यथाकामो wafa hafa hanare a ca sa Toon aarreal 6. S. IV, 4.5; 319

3 h: 7500 Tha Th 999 Wafat qa: Se Ha T. IH. 14.1 ; योनिमन्ये प्रपद्यन्ते शरीरत्वाय देहिनः। स्थाणुमन्येऽनुसंयन्ति यथाकर्म यथाश्रुतम् ॥ का इप. 5.7.

a ani sa rehifestareia il 15TH

A STATE स्मृति quoted by गोविन्दानन्द on प्राय. वि. p. 17 and by सायण in his भाjon. 31. 8.2. In qr. Ap. II part 1 p. 11 the verse is read as th e y

STITUS

FOUNDED

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

[Vol.

40

History of Dharmaśāstra Vide also Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 2. 2–7 and Vispu Dh, S. XX. 47

just as a calf finds out its own mother from among thousands of cows, so actions done in a former life unerringly reach the perpetrator thereof.

But this general principle was modified in various ways by the smrtis and later writings. Gautama 19.1196 (=Vasistha 22.8) states: ‘Reciting the Veda inaudibly (japa), austerities, a sacrifice, fasting and giving gifts are the means of expiating that (i.e. a blamable act).’ Vas. 20. 47 and 25.3 lay down ‘A. sinner is freed from sin by tormenting his body, by austerities, by reciting the Veda and also by making gifts’ and ’those who are constant ly engaged in prānāyāmas (suppression and regulation of breath), reciting purificatory texts, giving gifts, offering sacrifices, muttering sacred texts will undoubtedly be freed from sins’. Manu III. 227 observes: ‘by confession, by repentance, by austerity, by reciting Vedic texts (sacred Gāyatri or other texts), a sinner is freed from guilt and in case of difficulty (i. e. if he is unable to perform austerities or to recite Vedic texts) by liberality’. Similar provisions occur in Parāsara X. 40, Śatātapa T. 4, Saṁvarta 203, Harita (q, in Pr. T. p. 467), Yama, (q, in Pr. V. pp. 30, 31 ), Bhavisyapurāṇa (q. by Pr. V. p. 31.)

Before proceeding with the subject of prāyaścittas we shall speak briefly about the other means of reducing the con sequences of sin. And first comes confession. With reference to the confession of paramours by the wife in the Varunapraghāsa, the Tai. Br. (I. 6.5. 2 )97 says ‘He makes the wife confess, there by he renders her pure and then he leads her to penance’. The Sat. Br. (II. 5. 2. 20) puts it in this form for when confessed the sin becomes less, since it becomes truth’. This was a confession before God (Fire) and men (the priests ) to restore one to divine forgiveness and favour. As regards several lapses, confession was part of the procedure prescribed for atoning for the sin.

96. 77 FCTuria sura Ela TTT ET1311. 19.11 = TE 22.8 = atyp. . III. 10.9. The word Frosy occurs in Jai. VI. 4.33 (niskraya vadacca) which refers to a vedic passage about विश्वजित् ‘सर्वाभ्य एव सावताम्य Bicara Fachrufrat quoted by Sabara on . VI. 4.32.

97. पत्नी वाचयति मेध्यामेवैनां करोति । अथो तप एवैनामुपनयति । यज्जार गाहप्रति । TOFTE ETA grauitera a r. I. 6.5; vide note 91 above. Yor the passage T … TETE.

20