03 Prayaścitta

CHAPTER III PRAYAŚCITTA; ITS ORIGIN, DERITATION

AND JEANING

CHAPTER III PRĀYAŚCITTA; ITS ORIGIN, DERIVATION

AND MEANING

It is now necessary to turn to prāyaścittas as removers of sin. A number of subjects will fall to be treated here,

First, an attempt must be made to understand the etymo logy and meaning of the word ‘prāyascitta’ in ancient times. There are two forms of the word, prāyaścitti and prāyaścitta, which occur in Vedic works without distinction of meaning and both forms are fairly old, though prāyaścitti appears to be the older of the two. The form prāyascitti frequently occurs in the Tai, S. (as in II, 1.2,4, II. 1 4.1, III. 1,3,2-3, V. 1.9.3, V. 3.12.1) 136a. In some of these passages no question of sin arises. The word means ‘doing some thing which would get rid of some accidental happening or mishap such as the breaking of an ukha (a pot or saucepan for boiling or cooking) or the sun’s losing its brilliance,’ In Tai. S. V. 3.12.1 the word is used in the sense of an expiation for a sin. So even in very old books the word had two shades of meaning. The Kausitaki137 Br. (vi, 12) states : ““they say ‘whatever mistake or excess occurs in the sacrifice that affects the priest brahmā, that he treats with the three fold learning (i. e. the three Vedas)”. The word also occurs in the Atharvaveda XIV. 1.30, Vāj. S. 39.12 (in close proximity to niskrti), in the Ait. Br. V. 27, in the Sat. Br. IV.5.7.1, VII. 1.4.9, XI. 5.3.8, XII. 4.1.6 and in other works also. The form prāyaścitta occurs in Kausitaki Br. V. 9, VI 12 and elsewhere. The Āśv. Śr. III. 10.38 and śānkhāyana Śr. III. 19.1 respectively employ the words prāyascitti and prāyaścitta138 In Pār. gr. I.

136 a. Brati a ear: ariantai. II. 1.2.4, 11.1.4.1; rę fuera ate : cha aa: o : 1 . V. 1.9.3; प्रजापति सर्वे करोति योऽश्वमेधेन यजते सर्व एव भवति सर्वस्य वा एषा प्रायश्चित्तिः सर्वस्य

I a. V. 3.12.1.

137. यद्वै यज्ञस्य स्वलितं वोल्बणं वा भवति ब्रह्मण एव तत्याहस्तत्स त्रय्या विधया fotfeti T. VI. 12.

138. faTytù rifer: 1 317A. T. III. 10; factorù tra loro STATTU: I st. 9. III. 19.1; FTU UST E a tū fautreraslo Taste o arroru AUCTETATST E FI Cras 20. 1 sedar dania

(Continued on the nexnge) H. D. 8

Research Institute

58

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

10 the form ‘prāyaścitti’ is employed. Jai. in several places * employs the word prāyaścitta (as in VI. 3.7, VI. 4.10, VI 5.45 and 49, XII. 3.16). Sabara 139 on the last sūtra (XII, 3.16) ex plains that the prāyaścittas (in the Sruti texts) are of two kinds, viz. some are meant to make good the defect in the procedure and materials of sacrifice which arises or befalls through some neglect or heedlessness, while others are subsidiary parts of a rite when an occasion arises i. e. they are undertaken to atone for not doing what is ordained or doing something which is forbidden (e. g. non-performance of daily Agnihotra even though the sun rises). The Sat. Br.140 XII. 4 and Ait. Br. 32.2-11 pro vide some interesting and amusing examples of the mishaps for which prāyascittas are provided e. g. when a vicious boar, ram or dog runs between the sacrifical fires, or if Agnihotra milk gets spilled while the cow is being milked or if the milk pot is turned upside down or if it were to break, or if the cow were to lie down while being milked, or if the fire were to go out after the first libation is offered etc. Vide also Mānava-gphya I. 3, Hir. gr. I.-5.1-16, Bhāradvāja gr. II. 32, Kausika-sūtra 46. 14-55, Aģv. Sr. III. 10 and Asv. gr. III. 6-7 for similar occurrences and prāyaścittas. The Mahābhāsya on Pāṇ. VI. 1.157 explains111 both prāyascitti and prāyaścitta on the analogy of the word Pāraskara. Prāyascittas may be said to be, in the language of the Mimāmsā, either kratvartha or puruṣārtha. The former are prescribed in the Srautasūtras. It is the latter kind of prāya scittas that are generally dealt with in Smrti works on prāya Ścitta. In this work the prāyaścittas mentioned in Srauta

( Continued from the last page) Caland). The com. Nārāyana explains 3714. 11. III. 10 as follows: fargar करणेऽन्यथाकरणे च प्रायश्चित्तिः कर्तव्या । प्रायो विनाशः चित्तिः सन्धानम् । विनष्टसन्धान प्रायश्चित्तिरित्युक्तं भवति ।

139. arena featurfot I faragot7 Tarraga ATTA कानिचिनिमित्ते कर्माङ्गानि । तत्र समाधानानि यथा ययुक्तो यज्ञ आतिमियात् भूः स्वाहेति STRETCH JENI 31* on #. XII. 3.16; a amarrarafarerfat àg 74791 कानि पुनस्तानि यानि श्रुतस्याक्रियया प्रतिषिद्धसेवनानि तान्युच्यन्ते । यथा यस्याहतमग्रिहोत्रं

’s A afa Arachchi T 377 on XII. 3.17. Compare 31TT. BIT. IX. 1.1 gradeTui Tuis TTÜ rativa TEHET augiauria vartal

140. यस्याग्निहोत्रं दोह्यमानं स्कन्देत् किं तत्र कर्म का प्रायश्चित्तिरिति । शतपय XII. 4.1.6.

141. 17** FAFT: HET/04 onrula #11 to VI.1.157 (ed. by Kielhorn, vol. III. p. 96 )

ISTITU,

POONA

FOUNDED 1917

तजस्विना

Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstituteTV]

Derivation of Prāyaścitta

59

works are passed over, as they have either been mentioned in vol. II. or were of rare occurrence even in olden days.

Most digests and commentaries derive the word prāyascitta relying: on a verse (attributed to Angiras142 by some) from prāya (meaning ’tapas’) and citta (meaning resolve or firm belief), the idea being that prayascittas are so called because of their association with or emergence from a resolve to under go tapas or because of the firm belief that it will be a means of the removal of sin. Various other derivations are suggested by some writers. The Balambhatti143 on Yaj. TIL 206 quotes a half verse to the effect that ‘prāya’ means ‘sin’ and ‘citta’ means ‘purification’, which had been quoted by Paksadharamisra144, Bhaktūpādhyāya and the Todarānanda, but the Pr. M. (p. 2) says that the source or authenticity of that verse is doubtful. Hemādri refers to an unnamed bhāsyakāra’s explanation viz. ‘prāya’ means ‘destruction’ and ‘citta’ imeans joining together’ and prayascitta means the making good what is lost and that the word denotes a naimittika action on sin.

The Par. M. quotes a smrti text145 and says that that is prāyaścitta whereby the ‘citta’ (the mind) of a repentant sinner is made generally (prayasah) free (from emotion i, e. brought to a normal state) by the parṣad (assembly of learned brāhmaṇas).

Here ‘prāyah seems to be taken as equal to ‘prayasan’ and ‘citta’ has its usual sense, In Sayapa’s146 comment on the

1142. प्रायो नाम तपः प्रोक्तं चित्तं निश्चय उच्यते। तपोनिश्चयसंयोगात्मायश्चित्तमिति स्मृतम् ॥ अङ्गिरम् acc. to हरदत्त on गौ. 22.1., माय. वि. p.2 (निश्चयसंयुक्त), मस्करि on गो. 19.20 quotes व्याघ्र as प्रायो….चित्तं संयम उच्यते । तपासंयमसंयुक्तं०, while पाय. प्रकरण p. 8 reads चित्तं नियम उच्यते.

1143. तदुक्तम् । प्रायः पापं विनिर्दिष्टं चित्तं तस्य विशोधनम् । इति । चतुर्विंशतिमते . प्येवम् । तथा पापनिवर्तनक्षमधर्मविशेष योगरूढोऽयं शब्द इति तत्वम् । बालम्भही on या. III. 206.

1144. 144. यत्त पक्षधरमिश्रभक्तपाध्यायटोडरानन्दकृतः-प्रायः पापं विजानीयाच्चित्तं तस्य विशोधनमिति च पेठस्तत्राकरश्चिन्त्यः । प्राय. म. p. 2: भाष्यकारस्तु प्रायो विनाशः चित्तं सन्धानं विनष्टस्य सन्धानमिति विभागयोगेन प्रायश्चित्तशब्दः पापक्षयार्थे नैमित्तिके कर्मविशेष वर्तते । हेमाद्रि (on प्रायः)p, 989.nl

1145. प्रायशश्च समं चित्तं चारयित्वा प्रदीयते । पर्षदा कार्यते यत्तु प्रायश्चित्तमिति स्मृतम् ॥ पापिनोनुतापिनश्च चित्तं व्याकुलं सत् विषमं भवति तच्च पर्षदा येन बतानुष्ठानेन मायशोऽवश्यं समं कार्यते तदूव्रतं प्रायश्चित्तम् । व्रतं चारयित्वा चित्तवैषम्यानिमित्तं पापं पदीयते

खण्ड्यते विनाश्यते इत्यर्थः। परा. मा. II. part 1 p.3.

146, अयं अयः प्राप्तिः प्रकर्षणायः प्रायः। विहितधर्माकरणस्य प्राप्तिरित्यर्थः । तत्यकार विषयं चित्तं चित्तिर्ज्ञानम् । तत्पूर्वकानुष्ठानानि प्रायश्चित्तानि । com. on सामविधानमा!

ASTITUR

POONA

I. 5.1.

वधीतमस्तु ।

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

Sāmavidhāna Br. T. 5.1 another derivation is suggested viz. that

prāyah’ is composed of two parts ‘pra’ and ‘ayah’ and means “happening or finding’ (of the non-performance of what is ordained) and citta’ means ‘knowledge’; and so religious obser vances after knowing a certain happening are called praya ścittas. The Pr. Vi. p. 3 and Pr. Tattva p. 467 quote Hārīta and give147 yet another derivation (from ‘prayata’ pure and ‘cita’ collected), in accordance with which ‘prāyascitta’ means such actions as tapas, gifts and sacrifices whereby a man becomes purified (prayata) and destroys his accumulated sins (‘cita’ being equal to ‘upacita’), just as clothes are made clean by the employ ment of salts, moist heat, putting in boiling water on a fire, and washing in water. Hence, as the Mit, says, the word prāya scitta conventionally148 denotes a certain act or rite of the naimittika type (since it takes place only when an occasion arises) intended for the destruction of sin (and therefore being desired for removal of sin it may also be called kāmya). The Par. M. quotes verses from Bphaspati’s149 work of which the section on prāyascitta holds at the beginning and at the conclusion thereof that prāyaścitta is naimittika150 (to be performed when a cause

147. तत्र हारीतः। प्रयतत्वाद्वौपचितमशुभं कर्म नाशयतीति प्रायश्चित्तामति । यत्तपः प्रभृतिकं कर्म उपचितं सञ्चितमशुभं पापं नाशयतीति । कृततत्कर्मभिः कर्तुः प्रयतत्वाद्वा। शुद्धत्वा देव तत्यायश्चित्तम् । तथा च पुनहारीतः । यथा क्षारोपस्वेदचण्डनिर्णोदनप्रक्षालनादि

TAITA TETT tra ET25: : Hurri arr. ata p. 467; vide also are. a. p. 3 for the first sūtra and p. 17 for the rest of the passage of हारीत. The मद. पा. p. 703 guotes the passage from यथा क्षारोप. मद. पा. p. 704 explains चण्डनिर्णोदन as ‘चुल्लयधिश्रयणादिना तत्क्लेदनम् ’ and प्रा. प्रकाश (folio 9a)

WE: 317a: Fatiga armastuur aa.

148. Arratsar A

r : Paron . III. 220, which is q. by frau. (Hrv) p. 859, T. FIT. II. part 1 p. 3.

149. aur 3 ZETUTA: 679 OTSATTHETET: Sre era नैमित्तिकं धर्मजातं गदतो मे निबोधत। विहितस्याननुष्ठानात् प्रतिषिद्धनिषेवणात् । प्रायाश्चत्तं यत्क्रियते तनैमित्तिकमुच्यते। इत्युपक्रमः। नैमित्तिकं समाख्यातं प्रायश्चित्तं समासतः । GYHETESTI . AT. II. part 1 p, 7; also in a g on Tr. III. 206 and माय. प्रकाश folio 7 b. तथा च जाबालः । अतः काम्यं नैमित्तिकं च पायाश्चत्तमिति स्थितिः HT. GETT folio 8a,

150, Actions are divided into three kinds, nitya, naimittika and kanya. Nitya acts are those like sandhya-vandana (which are obligatory and performed daily as a duty and which if not performed lead to sinful ness); naimittika are those acts which have to be done only on some occasion (as a bath on an eclipse) and kāmya rites are those which are performed out of a desire to secure some object (as the sacrifice called putreṣti for a som). Manu in XI. 53 says: therefore (because of the remnants of the guilt of

(Continued on the next page)

TITU

NS

FOUNDED

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV)

Meaning and nature of prāyascitta

61

or occasion arises). Jābāla q. in the Pr. Prakāśa holds that prāyaścitta partakes of the nature of both naimittika and kāmya actions. The Pr. Prakasa finds fault with the definitions of prāyaścitta proposed by the Kalpataru, Sūlapāni and others and ultimately arrives at the conclusion that those alone are prāyascittas which are so spoken of by the learned, just as on Jaimini II, 1.32 (tac-codakesu mantrākhyā) Bhattācārya explains that mantras are those which the respectable yājnikas and those who studied the Vedas so designate1504

Sins as stated by Bphaspati151 and others are of two kinds, viz, intentionally committed and unintentionally committed.

Great divergence of views has prevailed from very ancient times as to whether prāyaścittas can destroy sins intentionally committed. Manu XI. 45 and Yaj. III. 226 are positive that sins committed unintentionally are destroyed by prāyaścittas or by the study of the Veda. The difficulty arises about sins com mitted intentionally or with full knowledge. Gaut. (19. 3-6 * Vas. 22. 2-5) states two views, 1514 one holding that praya scitta should not be performed since deeds (here sinful deeds) are not destroyed (except by experiencing the consequences thereof), the other view holding that prayascitta should be per

(Continued from the last page) crimes in former lives men are born blind or idiots &c.) penances must always be performed for the sake of purification, because those whose sins have not been expiated are born with disgraceful marks.’ Though Manu employs the word ’ nityam’ here, what is meant is that when a sin is com mitted, a prayascitta must necessarily be performed and it is not left to the volition of the sinner whether to perform it or not. Vide Mit. on Yaj. III. 220. But it does not follow from this that if prayascitta for removing a sin is not performed, another sin is thereby committed, for in that case there would be anavastha (regressus ad infinitum ).

150 a. Tur Harahang Aralrerar… are m arfayarar मन्त्र इनि प्रसिद्धिः स मन्त्र इति सूत्रतात्पर्य वर्णितमेवमिहापि यत्राभियुक्तामा प्रायश्चिस TITETURATAR TOT HET *Tarc f olio 76 of T. प्रकाश Ms.

STITU роонд

151. कामाकामकृतं त्वेवं महापापं द्विधा स्मृतम् । पुरुषापेक्षया चैव निष्कृतिद्विविधा स्मृता । Teuta 9. by r4. f. p. 24, 1. FIT. II part 1 p. 13 (first half).

• 151 a तत्र प्रायश्चित्तं कुर्यान्न कुर्यादिति मीमांसन्ते । न कुर्यादित्याहुः । न हि काम

1 ESTETIT 19.3.6 = ar 22. 2-5 (the last being a BEATRETARES ) rece: This is the gaver view. The n a 18’ ’ which is supported by indications derived from vedic passages oriental

क्षीयत इति । कुर्यादित्यपरम् । गो.

UNDED 1917

de Oriental Research Institute

62

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

formed (for the removal of the effects of sin). The latter relies upon certain indications in Vedic passages. Gaut. relies upon four such passages. The first says “152 ‘after performing the punaḥstoma 153 one can come back to (become fit for) soma sacri fice (i, e. for Vedic rites in general). Another indication is : “after performing Vrātyastoma (one becomes fit for Vedic sacri fices).’ A third is: ‘He, who offers the Aśvamedha sacrifice, crosses beyond all sin, beyond brāhmaṇa murder’. The fourth is: one should make a person charged with grave sins per form the Agnistut. Vasistha also (20. 1-2) gives expression to the two views about the efficacy of penances. 154 Manu XI. 45 (latter half) states, that according to some, prāya cittas may be prescribed for the removal of intentionally committed sins from indications contained in the Vedas. It cannot be said that these Sruti passages are mere arthavādas (i. e. laudatory texts). They must really be taken, though expressed in the form of ordinary arthavādas, as laying down (a vidhi) that one desirous of destroying his sins should perform Aśvamedha and the other sacrifices mentioned. In this case the maxim of rātrisattra 155 applies (vide Jai. IV. 3. 17–19). There are certain sattras (sacrifices extending over more than twelve days) called Trayo

152. ga: Maagt ga: Harara fagrua i arratastogt i ara सर्व पाप्मानं तरति ब्रह्महत्यां योऽश्चमेधेन यजते । अग्निष्टताभिशस्यमानं याजयेदिति च । गौ.

19.7-10. aff(22.6) is the same as f. 19 9, while it (22.7) reads gra a rea raragar a arra is a. * V.3.12.2 quoted above and

शतपथवा. XIII. 3.1.1. गोसव and अभिष्टुत् are different sacrifices. The गोसव is a strange rite, for which vide H. of Dh. vol. II p. 1213 n. 2644. It is described in a. T. II. 7.6.

153. The Punahstoma is a srauta sacrifice, of the class called ekāha (i, e., performed in one day) acc. to Haradatta. Vide Latyāyapa-srauta IX. 4 and 5 for its efficacy. The Vratyastoma is also an ekaha, which was prescribed for those whose upanayana was not performed at the proper time (and who had therefore become patita-sāvitrika). Yaj. I, 38 provides vratyastoma for patita savitrika. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II p. 377 and p. 385 (for its description from the Tāndya Brāhmaṇa). The Agnistut is an ekāha (vide Tai. Br. II. 7. 12 and Asv. Sr. IX. 7 22-25). Manu XI. 74 prescribes Aśvamedha, Gosava or Agnistut and several other sacrifices for the removal of the grave sin of brahmana murder.

154. Sara ApaTTATUTU I acetii af 20.1-2.

155. ait: a paragraar prar trafreite I rentats मादा भवन्ति य एता उपयन्ति । इति । तत्र सन्देहः । किं ते फलार्थवादा उत फलविधय इति

Are IV. 3. 17. The second alternative is the TĦET & view.. Vider arwater 23,2.4 for the passage para… qua

र

Con caG IV. 5. 17.

017

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV1

Maxim of Rātrisattra

6.3

dasarātra, Caturdasarātra and so on. All these are called rātri sattras. With reference to these a Vedic passage says ’those who approach i. e. perform) these rātrisattras attain stability (long life or super-eminence)’. In the text prescribing the rātri sattras there is no mention of any special reward for perfor mance. Therefore stability’ (pratiṣtha) contained in the passage must be held to be the reward of the performance of rātrisattras and not mere heaven (which is the reward of all sacrifices for which no special reward is mentioned, according to Jai. IV. 3. 15-16). The same maxim applies to passages like Yāj. III. 226 which say that sin is removed by penances 156. Medhātithi draws attention to the story in the Tai. S. VI. 2.7.5, Kathaka S. VIII, 5, Ait. Br. 35.2 that Indra consigned yatis to Sālāvskas (dogs or wolves) and had to perform the rites called Upahavya to get rid of the sin. Manu states his own opinion in the next verse (XI. 46) that sins committed unintentionally are destroyed by the recitation of Vedic texts and sins committed intentionally through folly are destroyed by various prāyascittas. Yāj. III. 226 (latter half) appears to hold that prāyaścittas do not destroy sins intentionally committed, but the sinner undergoing the prescribed penance becomes fit to be associated with other people on account of the texts (laying down the prāyaścittas); but Yaj. implies, it seems, that the results of sin intentionally committed (such as Hell and the like) are not got rid of. Manu XI. 189 prohibiting social in tercourse with sinners who have not performed penance practi cally conveys the same idea as that of Yāj. in III. 226 (latter half). Yāj. III, 220 observes that a man guilty of pātakas should perform prāyaścitta for his own purification (here and in the next world); in this way (i. e. if he performs penance) his inner soul recovers its composure and the people also become satisfied. This verse puts in a nutshell the purposes of prayascittas as conceived by the smộtis, viz. purging of sin (or purification), the satisfaction of the sinner’s mind, admission to intercourse with

STITU

O

156. gaia hao T…ya za I… #TATT! fūr T कांक्षया रात्रिसत्रन्यायेनार्थवादिकफलस्यैव कल्पनाया न्याय्यत्वात् । अतो युक्तं प्रायश्चित्तेर

** ga i far. on T. III. 226; vide art. fl. p. 9 and p. 18 for similar vieks ‘अतो रात्रिसत्रन्यायेनार्थवादिकपापक्षयकामिना प्रायश्चित्तं कर्तव्यमिति निणीतम् ) प्राय, वि. p. 18. The 3 EeY sacrifice is prescribed for one desirous of prosperity, ownership of a village or offspring. Vide . 1. . 22.8.7 a mar पास्कामो वा प्रजाकामो वोपहव्येन यजेत,’

FOUNDED

तजस्विनाव

Research Institute

64

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

all people, Chagaleya157 holds that prayascittas free the sinner from the consequences of sins committed unintentionally, but no penance exists which frees a man from the consequences of sins knowingly committed except in the case of upapātakas and in suicides or attempts at suicide. The Par. M. (II. 1. pp. 200-201) cites a verse of Jābāli and verses of Davala setting forth the two views about the efficacy of prāyascittas, while it also cites the view of Baudhāyana-smrti that there is no prāyaścitta for sins committed knowingly and the view of Angiras that the penance is double in the latter casa'58, Angiras further says that prāyascittas do destroy the sin arising from committing acts that are forbidden and the like, just as the rising sun removes dark ness. Manu XI. 47 provides: ‘A twice-born man having become liable to perform a ponance (for a sin), whether he committed it through fate or by some act committed in a former existence, must not have intercourse with virtuous men until he performs the proper penance.’ Ap. Dh. S. (I.9.24.24-25) provides Ifa man slays a guru (father, Vedic teacher &c.) or a brāhmana who has studied the Veda and finished the ceremonies of a soma sacrifice he shall live according to these very rules (contained in Ap. Dh.S.I.9.24.10-32) until his last breath. He cannot be purified (of the sin of the murder of a guru or learned brāhmana) in this life. But his sin is removed (at his death)’.159 It appears to follow from Apastamba’s words that penance ending in death destroys the sin. The same was the view of Angiras, Yama and others.

157. छागलेयेऽपि । प्रायश्चित्तमकामानां कामावाप्तौ न विद्यते । उपपातक एव स्यात्तथा चात्मोपघातने ॥ अस्यार्थः । कामावाप्तौ ज्ञानपूर्वकपापे नरकभोगनिवारकं प्रायश्चित्तं न विद्यते । उपपातकात्महननयोस्तु ज्ञानपूर्वकत्वेपि स्याद्विद्यत एवेति। आत्महननार्थ विषभक्षणे कृते यदि जीवति तदा प्रायश्चित्तं विद्यते यदा मृतस्तदा तद्धितेप्सुना कर्तव्यमित्युभयथापि प्रायश्चित्तं विद्यते इति न विरोधः । मद. पा. p. 705. The half verse प्रायश्चित्त…विद्यते occurs in

परा. मा. II, part 1 p. 201.

158. अकामतः कृते पाये प्रायश्चित्तं न कामतः । स्यात्वकामकृते यत्तु द्विगुण बुद्धिपूर्वके । आङ्गिरम् q. by परा. मा. II. part 1 p 201; अस्ति निषिद्धक्रियाजन्यं पापं तनाशकत्वं तु प्रायश्चित्तस्य । तथा चाङ्गिराः । उद्यन्यद्वदथादित्यस्तमः सर्व व्यपोहति । तद्वत्कल्याणमातिष्ठन् सर्व पापं व्यपोहति । पापं चेत्पुरुषः कृत्वा कल्याणमभिपद्यते । मुच्यते पातकैः सर्वैरिहाभ्रेरित चन्द्रमाः॥ कल्याणं पायाश्चत्तम् । प्रा. प्रकाश folio 6a. __159. गुरुं हत्या श्रोत्रियं वा कर्मसमाप्तमेतेनैव विधिनोत्तमादुच्छासाच्चरेत् । नास्याः स्मिल्लाके प्रत्यापत्तिर्विद्यते कल्मषं तु निर्हण्यते। आप. ध. सू. I. 9.24.24-25. Vide also

आप, ध. सू. I.10.28. 18 for the same words. हरदत्त gives his own And W another’s interpretation of आप. ध. सू. I. 9.24 24-25 ‘अस्मिल्लोके जीविते या पत्तिः शुद्धिर्नास्तीत्यर्थः । कल्मषं तु निर्हण्यते । तस्य पुत्रादिभिः संस्कारादिः कर्तव्य इति भावः ।

अन्ये तु पूर्व सूत्रं तनिवृत्त्यर्थ मन्यन्ते । प्रत्यापत्तिः पुत्रादिभिः पुत्रादिभावेन सम्बन्ध इविpitar Orienta

Bilandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV)

Twofold Consequences of sin

65

In this conflict among the authors of smrtis the solution proposed by the Mit. on Yaj. III. 226 has been accepted by most medieval writers and is as follows160. The potentialities and consequences of sins are twofold, viz those leading to Hell and the others preventing intercourse with members of the society to which the sinner belongs. Therefore, even though a prāya scitta may not be efficacious to prevent the first mentioned consequence (viz fall into Hell), there is nothing improper in prāyaścitta being effective in removing the obstacle to associa tion with other people. As to sinful acts that are not pataniya (do not cause loss of caste) prāyaścitta does destroy such sin fulness as expressly stated by Manu. XI. 46. Even as to sins that are pataniya and are committed intentionally, if a penance ending in death is undergone as laid down by Manu XI. 73, Yai. III. 247-248 and Gaut. 22.2-3 for brahmana murder; Manu XI. 90-91, Yāj. III, 253, Gaut. 23.1 for drinking surā; Gaut, 23.8 11, Manu XI. 103-104 and Yāj. III. 259 for sexual intercourse with the guru’s wife; Manu XI. 99-100 and Yāj. III. 257 for theft of brahmana’s gold; then the sin is destroyed as stated by Ap. Dh. S. I.9.24.25and I. 10.28.18 quoted above. When Manu says (in XI. 89 latter half) that there is no penance for the sin of slaying a brāhmaṇa intentionally, the proper interpretation of this read along with Manu XI. 46 quoted above is not that there is total absence of prāyaścitta in such a case, but that ordinary prāya soittas (such as those in Manu XI. 72) would not do in such a Case, but only very heavy ones that would end in death. Medi eval digests like the Prayascitta-muktavali (folio 32a) hold that according to the Kalivarjya section penance ending in death is forbidden in the case of brāhmaṇa sinners and therefore a

160. यत्तु मनुवचनं ‘इयं विशुद्धिरुदिता’ इत्यादि (11.89) तदपीयमिति सर्वनाम परामृष्टद्वादशवार्षिकादिवतचर्याया एव ‘कामतो…विधीयते। इत्यनेन प्रतिषेधो न पुनः प्रायश्चित्तमात्रस्य । मरणान्तिकादः प्रायश्चित्तस्य दर्शितत्वात्।…द्वे हि पापस्य शक्ती नरकोत्पादिका ग्यवहारनिरोधिका चेति । तत्रेतरशक्त्यविनाशेऽपि व्यवहारनिरोधिकायाः शक्तेविनाशो नानुपपन्ना स्तस्मात्पापानपगमेऽपि व्यवहार्यत्वं नानुपपन्नम् । यत्तु मनुवचनं (11.45) ‘अकामतः…निदर्शनात्’ इति तदपि कामकृते मायश्चित्तप्राप्त्यर्थ न पुनः पापक्षयप्रतिपादनपरम् । अपतनीये पुनः कामकृतेऽपि प्रायश्चित्तन पापक्षयो भवत्येव ‘अकामतः…पृथग्विधैः ॥ इति मनुस्मरणात् (11.46)। पतनी येऽपि कणि कामकृते मरणान्तिकप्रायश्चित्तेषु कल्मषक्षयो भवत्येव फलान्तराभावात् । ‘नास्यास्मिल्लोके…निहन्यते’ इत्यापस्तम्बस्मरणात् । मिता. on या. III. 226. वृद्धहारीत IX. 173 and Yama hold the view that intentional sins are destroyed by penances that end in death : प्रायश्चित्तरपैत्येनो यदकार्यकृतं महत् (यदकामकृतं ?) / कामतस्तु कृतं यत्तु मरणात्सिद्धिमृच्छति ॥; महापातककर्तारश्चत्वारो मतिपूर्वकम् । आगमविश्य शुध्यन्ति स्नात्वा महति वा ऋतौ ॥ यम q. by प्रा. प्रकाश, folio 16 (b); अपराक 2991039 readsचत्वारोप्यविशेषत:’. The words of the मिता. are quoted or subsequent works such as the Prayascittasāra (p. 4).

H.D.9

STITUR

aphrased by

मकानावधान Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

66

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

brāhmaṇa murderer can only be made to undergo the twelve years’ penance.

The Par. M. (II. part 1 pp. 201-203) sets out this view of the Mit, and appears to hold it itself. It sets out another view also. Those who hold this latter view read Yaj. III. 226 as ‘kāmatosvyavahāryastu’ with an avagraha. The meaning then is that one who has performed the penance prescribed for a sin does not fall into Hell, but he cannot be allowed to associate with good men (śistas ) if he is guilty of a wilful sin. There is a verse of Manu (XI. 190 = Vispu Dh. S. 54.32 ) that one should not associate with those who slay children, who return evi) for the good done to them, who slay those that come for protection and who kill women, even though they might have become purified by undergoing the appropriate penance. There is a similar verse of Yāj. III. 298 on which the comment of Vijñāneśvara is most interesting as indicative of the spirit of our medieval writers who were always oppressed by the might of words (Vedic or smrti) deemed as authoritative. The Mit. remarks:161 ’the prohibition (contained in Yāj. III, 298) is based on the text alone (and not on logic or reasoning). What cannot a text do? There is nothing too heavy for a text. Therefore, even though a light penance is prescribed for slaying an adulterous woman, still there is a prohibition against associating with such slayers based on the words of the text’.

161. प्रायश्चित्तेन क्षीणदोषानपि न संव्यवहरेदिति वाचनिकोऽयं प्रतिषेधः । ‘किमिति वचनं न कुर्यान्न हि वचनस्यातिभारोऽस्ति। अतश्च यद्यपि व्यभिचारिणीनां बधेऽल्पीय एव YT4T OTTY STATS TOTETTA: I TAAT. on T. III. 298. The words TETAS E … : occur frequently in Turca, e g. on GT. II. 2.27. III.2.3, III. 7.11, IV. 3.38, V.4.17 etc. On . VI. 1.44 (about the privilege of the rathakāra to consecrate Vedic fires) Sabara employs slightly different words ‘न हि वचनस्य किंचिदलभ्यं नाम.) Even Sankaracarya relies on these words of Sabara in his bhāsya on Vedāntasūtra III. 4.32. When Yāj. I. 58 says that a son born of a brāhma form of marriage renders 21 generations holy (10 paternal ancestors, ten descendants and himself) Visvarūpa says that this is all laudatory of the brāhma form and not to be taken seriously as it would be contrary to the doctrine of Karma; but then he turns round and says that it may be taken literally as stated by those who know Mimamsa ‘स्तुतिमात्रमेतद्भूतानां भाविनां पावनानुपपत्तेः। उपपत्ता वा कृतनाशाकृताभ्यागमप्रसङ्गात् । यद्वास्तु फलविधिः । विवाहविशेषस्य फलविशेषापेक्षत्वात्। न चागमानुसारिण्यर्थेऽनुपपत्तिरिति शक्यं वक्तुम् । तथा च नैयायिकाः-न हि वचनस्यातिभारोऽस्तीत्याहुः। विश्वरूप गया. I. 58. Vide Apararka on Yaj. II. 73-75 (p, 673 ) who says that one man’s merit (punya ) cannot be transferred to another and that Yaj. 11. 73-75 are simply intended to frighten away witnesses from perjury aṣ Narada (radana 200) clearly states.

STITU

PDONA

Il

a

to

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

67

IV1 The Power of Authoritative Texts This maxim is taken from the bhāsya of Sabara and is a favourite device with all Dharmaśāstra writers from Visvarūpa downwards to justify any statement of the smrtis however illogical or exaggerated it might appear to be. The Pr. T. (pp. 544-545) quotes 162 the Mit, about the two saletis of sin and its remarks on Yāj. III. 298 and does not approve of them, relying on the words of Bphaspati that no decision should be arrived at on the bare words of the sāstra, but it should also be supported by reasoning and that the words ‘slayers of women’ do not refer to adulterous women but to innocent women (such as the wives of one’s enemies ). Nārada (sāhasa, verse 11) holds that those who are punished by the king with a fine of the first or second (madhyama) kind can be allowed to associate with other members of society but those who are awarded the highest fine should not be spoken to by others 162a. Those who take the view of the sinner’s inability to associate with other men even after undergoing penance rely also upon Vedanta-sūtra III, 4. 43 (bahis-tūbhayathāpi smrterācārācca). The Par, M. very rightly points 163 out that the sutra refers to those who after going in for life-long celibacy abandon the duties of that stage of life (āśrama) and that it does not refer to householders and quotes a verse of

Kausika in support. The Smrti-muktaphala (Pr., pp. 867-868) refers to this discussion contained in the Par. M. The Pr. M. (p. 7) appears 104 to hold that the great Sankarācārya explained

510162. एतेन यद्यपि व्यभिचारिस्त्री…प्रतिषेध इति मिताक्षरोक्तं न युक्तिसहम् । केवलं शास्त्रमाश्रित्य न कर्तव्यो विनिर्णयः। युक्तिहीनविचारे तु धर्महानिः मजायते । पापे गुरुराण शुरूरूणि स्वल्पान्यल्पे च तद्विदः। प्रायश्चित्तानि मैत्रेय जगुः स्वायम्भुवादयः। इति बृहस्पति वचनात्। प्राय. त. p.545.

162 a. स्यातां संव्यवहार्यों तु धृतदण्डौ तु पूर्वयोः। धृतदण्डोप्यसम्भाष्यो ज्ञेय उत्तम साहसे ॥ नारद (साहस, 11).

163. अयं हि बहिष्कार ऊर्ध्वरेतीविषयः न तु गृहस्थविषयः । ऊर्ध्वरेतीविचाराणामेव तत्र प्रस्तुतत्वात् । इदं च कोशिकेन स्पष्टीकृतम् । नैष्ठिकानां वनस्थानां यतीनां चावकीर्णिनाम् । शुद्धानामपि लोकेऽस्मिन् प्रत्यापत्तिर्न विद्यते ॥ इति । परा. मा. II part 1 p. 205.मा. प्रकाश (folio 17 b) quotes कौशिक’s verse, ___164. श्रीशङ्कराचार्यास्तु ‘कामतोऽव्यवहार्यस्तु’ इति अकारप्रश्लेषेणेदं याज्ञवल्क्यवयो “बहिस्तूभयथापि स्मृतेराचाराच्च। इति सूत्र कृतप्रायश्चित्तनैष्ठिकब्रह्मचार्यादिपरम् । आरुढो नैष्ठिके धर्मे यस्तु प्रच्यवते पुनः। प्रायश्चित्तं न पश्यामि येन शुध्येत्स आत्महा॥ इति । माय. म. p.7. The verse आरूढो is अत्रि VIII. 16 and is quoted by शङ्कर without citing the name. The प्रा. प्रकाश (folio 17a) also refers tol Sankare’s comment on Vedān tasutra III. 4.43 and the two verses quoted by him. Ut observes: एवं तावत्सकलनिबन्संमतं व्यवहार्य इतिपदच्छेदेन याज्ञवल्क्यवाक्यस्य व्याख्यान मुक्तम् । शारीरकमीमांसायां तु .

POONAL

FOUNDED

जस्ति नाव मातात व Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

68

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

Vedāntasutra III. 4. 43 after reading Yāj. III, 226 as ‘kāmatos vyavahāryastu’ and that those who fell from the vow of life-long celibacy (either as naisthika brahmacārins or as sannyāsins ) were to be excommunicated (and not to be associated with ). The printed editions of the bhāsya contain no express quotation of Yājñavalkya’s verse, but from the fact of his quoting Atri’s verse it is possible to hold that Sankarācārya understood Yajñavalkya as the Pr. M. says he did.

A question may naturally be asked: why should it be accepted that penances destroy sin (as stated in Yāj. III. 226). The answer is: what 165 actions are grave sins or minor sins or not sins at all is laid down by the śāstra (śruti and smrtis). For example, it is not clear to ordinary people why being an officer over mines or making friends of low people or being a servant of a sūdra should be a sin at all. But the smrtis say so. If the smrtis are to be relied upon for determining what acts are sinful, then it follows as a matter of course that the same smrtis which speak of penances as removers of sins must also be accepted and that no other means for determining the efficacy of penances can be appealed to. So also the Bhagavad gitā (IV. 37) states that the fire of spiritual knowledge consumes all (accumulated, sancita) actions (and their consequences).

Many of the sins (though not all) for which penances are provided in the smrtis are also offences punishable by the king or State. For example, murder, theft, incest, perjury are acts punishable by the State in almost all countries even now and were so in ancient and medieval India. Persons guilty of these were also liable to undergo prāyascittas. It is probably due to this double liability that punishments for crimes in ancient and medieval India were light as compared with the heavy punish ments for even trifling crimes inflicted in western countries only a century or two ago. But there are other acts which are not punishable by the State now and were not probably punished even in ancient or medieval India by the king. For example, forgetting Veda studied by a person, not tending Vedic fires consecrated by a person himself, sleeping till after sun-rise and sleeping at sunset are pātakas, acc. to Vas. I. 19 and some of those are upapātakas acc. to Yāj. III. 239. It does not seem

STITU

POONA

POONAR

FOUNDED

165. ननु प्रायश्चित्तैरपैत्येन इति न युक्तम् । फलविनाश्यत्वात्कर्मणः। मैवम् । यो पापोत्पत्तिः शास्त्रगम्या तथा तत्परिक्षयोपीति । नात्र प्रमाणान्तरं क्रमते । अत एवं मौतमम Yarer Trauera: i far on T. III. 226..

Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstituteIV]

Prāyascittas and Secular Punishments

69

likely that an Indian king ever punished any person for these. On the other hand, obstructing the road, prying when the king is taking his meals, sitting before the king on one’s haunches, speaking loudly before the king are among the fifty chalas of which the king could take cognisance suo motu and award suitable punishment (vide H. of Dh. vol. III. p. 266). But there is nothing to show that such actions ever fell within the purview of the rules about prāyascittas. The important questions are: What was the relation of the rules about prāyaścittas which were to be prescribed by a pariṣad (a meeting of learned brāhmanas) to punishments by the king as regards actions which were both pūtakas inviting penances and crimes entailing punishments by the King? Which of these two sets of rules was earlier? Were penance and punishment cumulative or alternative? It is difficult to give definite opinions on these questions. We know that prāyascittas like Aśvamedha are spoken of even in the Tai. S. We also know that the praśnavivāka (which is quite close to prādvivāka in derivation and meaning ) occurs in the Vāj. S. XXX. 10 and Tai. Br. III. 5. 6. Therefore it follows that judicial functions were very early separated from the executive functions of the king. The reference to the ordeal of fire in the Tandya Br. 14. 6. 6 (vide H. of Dh. vol. III p. 361) and the grasping of a red-hot hatchet in the hand by a person accused of theft and his being killed show that ordeals were administered and the punishment for theft was death. Brhaspati, quoted in the Vivādaratnākara, says ‘When a man of good character and a diligent reader of the Veda has com mitted theft he shall be kept in prison for a long time and shall be caused to perform penance after having been compelled to restore the goods’ (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 362 166).

The pariṣad made its own rules about prāyaścittas and the king awarded punishments. Which set of rules was earlier it is difficult to say. The king did not very probably interfere with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the pariṣad and the brāhmaṇas helped the king in the administration of justice by being judges and by advising him as to the punishments to be imposed (vide

POONA

166. वृत्तस्वाध्यायवान स्तेयी बन्धनात् क्लिश्यते चिरम् । स्वामिने तन द्वाप्यः TUTTI FRUTTII Ela q. by parecara p. 331. It is possible that this verse means that a learned brāhmana who has been well conducted but Dell a victim to the temptation of theft should not be jailed for a long time because jail life torments his mind and therefore he should be made mo restore stolen property and given penance,

FOUNDED

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

90

History of Dharmaśāstra ·

[Vol.

Visnu Dh. S. V. 194). Gautama VIII,1, echoing the words of the Sat. Br. V. 4. 4. 5, observes: 167 ’the king and the brāhmana with profound learning uphold the moral order in the world (or are upholders of the sacred law). The Āp. Dh, S. (II. 5. 10.12-16) contains very important information: The ‘ācārya shall order those who, while participating according to the śāstras (in the privileges and responsibilities of their castes), have gone astray through the weakness of their senses to perform penances accord ing to the dictates (of the smộtis) commensurate with their (sinful) acts. If they transgress their ācārya’s order he shall take them to the king. The king shall send them to his purohita proficient in dharmaśāstra and the science of government. He (purohita) shall order them to perform (proper penances) if they are brāhmaṇas. He shall reduce them by forcible means except corporal punishment and slavery.’ So this passage shows that the king helped in carrying out prayas cittas. Nārada includes ’neglect of penances’ among matters solely dependent on the king (prakirṇaka, verse 3) and not on complaints by private individuals. Devala 168 probably conveys the real position when he says: The king is the giver of krcchras (i. e. his consent is required for actually undergoing the prescribed penances), the learned man who has studied Dharmaśāstras prescribes the prāyaścitta, the sinner carries out the penance and the king’s officer sees to the safe performance of the prescribed penance.’ Parāsara VIII. 28 says ‘an assembly should point out the proper penance after getting the permission of the king, it should not be done without reference to him, but slight penance may be done with out informing him’. The Par. M. II. part 1. p. 232 explains that this applies to prāyaścittas for sins like govadha or those that are greater than it. Devala 169 also has similar verses.

167. lohi ya TFT TETT 9:11. VIII. 1. a94 V.4.4.5 has ‘निषसाद धृतवत इति धृतवतो वै राजा…एष च श्रोत्रियश्चैतौ ह वै द्वौ मनुष्येषु धृतवतो.

168. Fegroni arent (arvan v. 1.) Er paar : I serî 41 arreal E :ll ao q. by na.. p. 777; r4. #l. p. 8. Targna स्थित्वा प्रायश्चित्तं विनिर्दिशेत् । स्वयमेव न कर्तव्यं कर्तव्या वल्पनिष्कृतिः ॥ पराशर VIII. 28, on which TT. #T. II. 1. p. 232 says: 3477 Tuy calearoarereign

17118rera ai parental

169, quarten a Tig HT UTT: TIgGUIT fashin sua Trà Trà नृपाज्ञया॥ स्वयं वा ब्राह्मणैः कृच्छ्रमल्पदोषे विधीयते । राज्ञा च ब्राह्मणेश्चैव महला सुपरीक्ष्य

ad q. byger. AT. II. part 1 p. 232-233 and by 914. Fr. p. 21. MTWT. AL (folio 25a) reads देवल’s verse as स्वयं तु बाह्मणा बयुरल्पदोषेषु निस्कृतिम् । राजा… महत्सु परिचक्षते ॥.

POONA

FOUNDED

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV) Relation of the Pariṣad and the King Parāśara VIII, 29 states that the king also should not ignore the pariṣad and should not by himself prescribe penance. Paithinasi quoted by the Dandaviveka (p. 76) provides 170 for both prāya citta and punishment and from the tenor of the verse it appears that both were to be enforced by the king. The posi tion is tolerably clear as to medievel times. One feels great hesitation in stating definitely the relation of punishment to penances and the king’s position as to both in ancient times. Ap. Dh. S. I. 9. 24. 1-4 provide 171 that one who kills a ksatriya or a vaisya or a sūdra shall respectively give one thousand cows, a hundred cows and ten cows for the purpose of removing the enmity and that in each of these cases one bull was to be given in addition for the purpose of expiation. Apastamba does not expressly state to whom the cows were to be given. The commentator Haradatta explains that they were to be given to brāhmanas. Manu XI, 127, 129, 130, and Yāj. III. 266-267 have similar provisions but in the chapter on penances. On the other hand, Baud. Dh, S. I. 10. 23. expressly states that the Cows are to be given to the king. As both the words ‘vaira niryātanārtham’ and ‘prāyaścittarthah’ are employed by Ap. it may be said that the cows were to be made over to the king even according to Apastamba. The cows were to be made over to the king for bestowal on the family of the murdered person to mollify them and if they refused to receive them the king was

ot to retain them for himself but was to distribute them among brāhmaṇas. We know that Manu (IX. 243-245) provides that the fine recovered from a man guilty of mortal sins was not to be taken for himself by the king but was to be offered to Varuna and thrown into water or was to be distributed among learned brāhmaṇas. Manu IX. 236 provides that for those who were guilty of the four grave sins ( brāhmaṇa murder &c.) and did not undergo penance for the same the king should inflict corporal punishment (branding on the forehead) toget her with fine in accordance with the śāstra. Manu IX. 237

STITU

170.371ROTATI PT a hora I TOTTIE 7 que si eta are q. by querae p. 76.

171. क्षत्रियं हत्वा गवां सहस्रं वैरनिर्यातनार्थ दद्यात् । शतं वैश्ये । दश रखे। 71aftra: a fare: 1 T. y. I. 9. 24.1-4; 1 THE मृषभैकाधिकं राज्ञ उत्सूजेद्वैरनिर्यातनार्थम् । शतं वैश्ये दश शूद्रे ऋषभश्चात्राधिकः । बोध. सू. 1. 10. 23-24

FOUNDED

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

72

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

( Matsya 227. 164) and Vispu V. 4-7 say that on the forehead a mark of female private parts with red-hot iron should be branded in the case of incest, the mark of a tavern flag in the case of drinking surā, the mark of dog’s foot in the case of theft (of brāhmana’s gold) and the mark of a headless trunk in the case of a brāhmaṇa-murder. Manu IX. 240 further prescri bes that men of all castes guilty of the four mahāpātakas com mitted unintentionally that perform the proper penance should not be branded on the forehead by the king but should be awarded the highest fine. Manu IX. 241 and 242 provide that a brāhmaṇa guilty of these grave sins unintentionally may be punished with the middle amercement (if he himself be possessed of good qualities) but if he was guilty of the grave sins committed intentionally he should be banished from the kingdom being allowed to take with him his wealth and paraphernalia; while persons other than brāhmanas when guilty of grave sins unintentionally committed were to be deprived of all their wealth and if guilty intentionally they were to be sentenced to death. These verses show that though prāyascitta be per formed persons guilty of grave sins were liable to undergo punishment and if no penance was performed then they were liable to branding and also fines etc. Manu XI. 56 provides that bearing false witness is similar to the drinking of surā and Manu XI. 57 and Yāj. III. 230 hold that misappropria tion of a deposit is like the theft of gold. Visnu Dh. S. (V. 169 ) provides that the misappropriator of a deposit was to be made to return the deposit or its price with interest and was to be punished like a thief by the king and V. 179 that a false witness had all his property confiscated. These instances establish that both fines by the king (i. e. rāja-danda) and penances prescribed by the assembly of learned men (i. e. parisaddanda or daiva danda) had to be undergone by those guilty of some grave sins that were also looked upon as crimes. In some cases the penance and the punishment were the same. For example, Gaut. 23. 10-11, Vas, 20. 13, Manu XI. 104, Yāj. III. 259 and several other smrtikāras prescribe for incest the penance of the excision of the testicles and penis and proceeding toward the south or south-west till the body falls. Nārada as quoted above prescribes for incest the punishment (danda) of the excision of the testicles. The Mit on Yaj. III. 233 quotas Nārada and remarks that the punishment of excision and deatk prescribed by Yāj. III. 233 applies only to non-brāhmaṇag ald that in such cases the punishment of death itself is the

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IVI

Prāyaścitta and punishment by king

73

prāyaścitta. There were works like the Madanapārijāta172 (p. 827) and the Mitākṣarā that held that the prohibition against corporal harm to brāhmaṇas (Manu VIII. 380) applies only to matters other than prayascittas and that since the Manusmrti itself (XI, 100) states that a brāhmana guilty of theft of brāhmana’s gold may go to the king with an iron club and have his head smashed by the king, the death of a brāhmana as a penance for theft by being struck with a club presented by himself was not ruled out. In some cases punishment by the king was deemed to have purged a man of sin and no penance seems to have been thought necessary, as Manu VIII, 318 (=Vas. 19.45 ) says ‘men that commit sins and are punished by the king become purified and reach heaven like good men who perform meritorious deeds.’ The Mit on Yāj. III. 259 explains that this holds good only where the punishment is death, as in the case of incest noted above. Ap. Dh, S. II, 10.27. 15-16 provide 173 that a person guilty of slaying a man, of theft and of forcible seizure of land was to be deprived of his wealth by the king and was to be sentenced to death and that if the offender was a brāhmaṇa he was to have a piece of cloth tied over his eyes for the whole of his life (i. e, he was not to be sentenced to death). It appears that in very ancient times as provided by Āp. Dh, S. I. 9.25.4 the thief approached the king 174 with a club (of iron or khadira wood) on his shoulder and announced his guilt, when the king struck him with the club; on his being killed he became free from guilt. This was a penance as well as a legal punishment. Manu has a similar rule in his chapter on punishments (VIII, 314-316) providing that the thief should carry a weapon (called musala) or a club of khadira wood or a double-edged sakti or an iron staff and that if the king strikes him once with the club and he is killed

172. अयं च लिङ्गच्छेदवधात्मको दण्डो ब्राह्मणव्यतिरिक्तस्य । न जातु ब्राह्मणं हन्या सर्वपापेष्ववस्थितम्-इति तस्य वधनिषेधात् (मनु. ८.३८०) । वधस्यैव प्रायश्चित्तरूपत्वात् । मिता. on या. III. 233; but on या. III. 257 the मिता says ‘मनुना सुवर्णस्तेयकृतिम-इत्यभिप्राय terar UTST TETT A

T

E CR32 ara! न जातु ब्राह्मणं हन्यादित्यस्य प्रायश्चित्तव्यतिरिक्तदण्डरूपहननविषयत्वेनाप्युपपत्तेः; vide also hĘ. . p. 827 for the same view.

173. पुरुषवधे स्तेये भूम्यादान इति स्वान्यादाय वध्यः। चक्षुनिरोधस्त्वेतेषु ब्राह्मणस्य । 14. u. . II. 10, 27. 15-16.

174. स्तेनः प्रकीर्णकेशोंसे मुसलमाधाय राजानं गत्वा कर्माचक्षीत तेनैनं हन्याईचे मोक्षः। BITH. . . I. 9. 25. 4.; garatur ahiret hart TFGA R DEN शास्तु मां भवानिति तस्मै राजौदुम्बरं शस्त्रं दद्यात्तेनात्मानं प्रमापयेन्मरणात्पूतो भवतीति विज्ञापन । THE 20 41. fight means ‘made of udumbara wood’ or may also meae fed in colour’ (i. e. made of copper).

sua auto

H, D. 10

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

or if he is not killed but is allowed to go half dead and lives, the thief is freed from the guilt. The Mit, on Yāj. III. 257 quotes a prose passage from Sankha and a verse from Samvarta (122) to the same effect. Manu in the chapter on penances (XI. 100-101 = Agnipurāṇa 169. 20-21) provides the same procedure for theft as a penance. Vas. 20. 41, Yāj. III. 259, Visnu 52. 1-2 and Parasara XII, 69-70 provide a somewhat similar penance for the thief of brāhmana’s gold. Vasistha introduces an important change viz., that the king hands over to the thief a weapon made of udumbara wood (or probably of copper) with which the thief is to kill himself. It appears that gradually the king gave up this unpleasant method of award ing punishment personally. Nārada 175 (parisista, verses 46-47) provides that after the thief comes running to the king and announces his guilt, the king was to touch him (with the club, as a symbolic gesture) and then let him off and the thief be came freed from sin by his confession of guilt. It has to be remembered, however, that the thief had to restore, even when he underwent penance, stolen property, as stated by Manu VIII, 40, Yāj. II, 36 and 270, Bșhaspati and by digests 176 like the Pr. Prakarana. If it were impossible to make the thief restore the stolen property the king had to make it good from his own treasury 197 (Gaut. X. 47, Sāntiparva 75. 10, Kautilya III, 16 ) or he had to make his officers 178 entrusted with the duty of preventing thefts pay the price of the stolen property (Ap. Dh. S. II. 10. 26. 8). Vide for further details H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 166-168. It appears that the actual carrying out of the sentence of death was later on assigned to Candālas as stated by Manu X. 56 and Visnu Dh. S. 16. 11 (vadhya-ghātitvam cândālānām).

15. राजा स्तेनेन गन्तव्यो मुक्तकेशेन धावता। आचक्षाणेन तत्स्तेयमेवंकर्मास्मि शाधि माम् ॥ अनेना भवति तेन स्वकर्मप्रतिपादनात् । राजा ततः स्पृशेदेनमुत्सृजेत्तु ह्यकिल्बिषम् ॥ HRTE, 46-47.

176 दवैवापहृतं द्रव्यं धनिकस्याप्युपायत्तः। प्रायश्चित्तं ततः कुर्यात्कल्मषस्यापनुत्तये ॥ विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 52. 14; सर्वमेव सुवर्णहरणादिस्तयमायश्चित्तं विद्यमानस्यापहृतद्रव्यस्य त्यागपुरः सरमेव कर्तव्यम् । इतरथा कृतप्रायश्चित्तस्यापि पुनस्तद्रव्यस्वीकारे तथैव स्तेयप्रसङ्गात् । विनष्टे agar ga:Frenterrarar a rat 4.4. on p 77.

177. TETAYHCT TUTUR TI ET ÇATI X. 46-47 : प्रत्याहर्तुमशक्यं स्याद्धनं चोरहतं यदि। तत् स्वकोशात्पदेयं स्यादशक्तेनोपजीवतः शान्ति 75.10 q. by the far, on a. II, 36; arachaeTATI Page : qui mifany III. 16 p. 190.

178. a prova atacuraecati . . . II. 10. 26. 8.

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV]

Circumstances to be considered

15

Another point to be noted is that as regards the awarding of punishments and prescribing of penances, the matters to be considered were the same viz. whether the lapse was inten tiona] 179 (kāmatah) or unintentional (akāmatah) or whether it was the first offence or whether it was repeated and what the circumstances as to the time, the place, the caste, the age, the capacity, learning, wealth were. Compare Kautilya IV. 10. Gaut. XII. 48, Manu VII. 16 and VIII, 126, Yaj.I. 368. Visnu v. 194, Vas. 19. 9 about punishments with Baud. 180 Dh. S. I. 1.16, Yāj. III, 293 ( = Atri verse 248 and Agnipurāṇa 173. 6), Angiras 143, Viśvāmitra, Vrddha-Harita IX, 297, and Vyāghra as regards penances. It is on account of this close connection between punishments and penances that the Prayascittatattva, after quoting Devala to the effect that if a man makes no move for taking prāyaścitta for one year, he has to undergo double penance thereafter and to pay a double fine to the king, re marks that the maxim is that prāyaścittas are to be moulded on the lines of punisbments 181. The Pr. M. (pp. 124-125) quotes Kāśyapa who provides a penance for one that causes mischief to a well, public park, bridge, rampart wall or a temple or idol, then quotes Visnu V. 169 which prescribes the highest fine for a breaker of idols, Manu IX. 285 which provides a fine of 500

179. ज्ञात्वापराधं देशं च कालं बलमथापि वा। वयः कर्म च वितं च दण्डं दण्ड्येषु पातयेत् ॥ या. I. 368; अनुबन्धं परिज्ञाय देशकालौ च तत्वतः । सारापराधौ चालोक्य दण्डं दण्ड्ये षु पातयेत् ॥ मनु, VIII. I26. on which मेधातिथि remarks that this is the fundamental or basic verse on the question of punishment ‘उक्तानुक्तदण्डेण्वपरा धेषु मातृकाश्लोकोयम् । एतदर्थानुसारेण सर्वदण्डकृप्तिः कर्तव्या’.

180. शरीरबलमायुश्च वयः कालं च कर्म च । समीक्ष्य धर्मविद् बुद्धया प्रायश्चित्तानि निदिशेत्॥ बौ. ध. I. 1.16%; देशं कालं वयः शक्तिं पापं चावक्ष्य यत्नतः । प्रायश्चित्तं प्रकल्प्यं स्याद्यत्र चोक्ता न निष्कृतिः ॥ या. III. 293 ; सर्वत्र चैव प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणे-जातिशक्तिगुणा पेक्षं सकृबुद्धिकृतं तथा। अनुबन्धं परिज्ञाय प्रायश्चित्तं प्रकल्पयेत् ॥ इत्येतदेव संक्षेपसूत्रम् । विश्वरूप on या. III. 262. The verse is quoted as विश्वामित्र’s in माय. प्रकरण. p. 8, पाय. वि. p. 29, परा. मा. II. part 1 p. 235 and as देवल’s by the मिता. on या. III. 243. Vide also व्याघ्र. q. by परा. मा. II. part 1, p. 24.

181. यथा स्मृतिसागरे देवलः । कालातिरेके द्विगुणं प्रायश्चित्तं समाचरेत्। द्विगुणं राजदण्डं च दत्त्वा शुद्धिमवाप्नुयात् ॥ कालातिरेके संवत्सरातिरके। संवत्सराभिशस्तस्य दुष्टस्य द्विगुणो दमः इति मनुवचने (8.373) संवत्सरात्परतो द्विगुणदण्डदर्शनेन दण्डवत्मायश्चित्तानि भवन्तीति न्यायेन एकत्र निणीतः शास्त्राथों बाधकमन्तरेणान्यत्रापि तथेति न्यायाच्च। माय. तत्व p. 474: vide p. 530 of the same work for the same न्याय. ‘अथ मण्ड पोद्यानादि-देवतागारादि-भेदने काश्यपः । वापीकूपारामसेतुलतातडागवप्रदेवतायतनभेदने प्रायश्चित्तम् ।…ब्राह्मणान्भोजयेत् । इति । एतच्चाल्पोपपाते। महतोपघातेऽभ्यासे भाजापत्यादि कल्पनीयम् । देवता चात्र मृन्मयी पूजोज्झिता च ग्राह्या । प्रायश्चित्तस्याल्पत्वाम्यण्ड दण्ट गोरवदर्शनेन प्रायश्चित्तगौरवं कल्प्यं दण्डवत्प्रायश्चित्तानि भवन्तीति वचनात् । तथात्र दण्डगौरवमाह कात्यायनः ।…विष्णुरपि…मनुः… इति ।

कलावधीत Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

176

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

panas for a breaker of idols and re-instatement of the idol by him and then remarks “dandavat prāyaścittāni bhavanti’. Nārada divided sāhasa into three kinds viz, prathama, madhyama and uttama, the last of which consisted in killing a person with poison or weapon, adultery and rape and injury to life. He then provides that when offenders guilty of the first two kinds were punished by the king, they became fit for association with the people, but that one guilty of the uttama-sāhasa, though punished by the king, was not fit even to be talked to (Nārada, sāhasa, verse 11).

The king had jurisdiction 182 to punish sinners if they did not agree to undergo the prāyaścitta prescribed by the parisad but it is extremely doubtful whether he exercised that jurisdic tion in all cases. Society or the caste also had a weapon in its hand viz. that of excommunication by ghatasphota if one guilty of a grave sin refused to perform the prāyascitta prescribed (i, e. it was jātidanda). Vide Gaut. 20.2-9, Manu XI. 182-185 and Yāj. III, 294 and H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 388 and vol. III. p. 1009 1010 for the rite of ghatasphota and re-admission to caste after ghatasphota. Many of the prāyaścittas prescribed for the grave sins were terrible (such as throwing oneself into fire, drinking boiling surā or water or cow’s urine or milk or ghee for drinking sura, Manu XI. 73, 90-91, 103 &c.) and were to be self-inflicted and were not to be prescribed by the parisad as the words of Manu in XI. 73 ‘icchayātmanah’ and ‘prāsyed-ātmānam-agnau vā’ clearly convey and as some of the digests expressly provide 183. In order to enable a man to be come fit for intercourse with his caste men he had to give a dinner to them or distribute sweetmeats even after undergoing prāyaścitta. So it follows that a man guilty of a crime was liable to three burdens, punishment by the king, penance prescribed by learned brāhmaṇas and giving dinner or sweetmeats to castemen. Vide H, of Dh. vol. II. p. 971.

182. og sagt zort d aarna i piraatsantra Tigr a चरेत् ॥ आमिपुराण 168 1. प्रायश्चित्तैः शमं याति पापं कृतमसंशयम् । राजदण्डाच्छमं याति प्रायश्चित्तमकुर्वताम् । प्रायश्चित्तविहीना ये राजभिश्चाप्यदण्डिताः । नरकं प्रतिपद्यन्ते तिर्यग्योनि

1a facutATRETIUT II. 73.3-4 q. by er. Ar. II. part 2 p. 210. 9. PTT folio 102 a.

183. orria ir TT | AFY Treat guia

D r . p. 41; एतच्च मरणान्तिकं प्रायश्चित्तं पर्षदा नादेष्टव्यमपि तु व्युत्पन्नश्चेत्स्वयमेव ज्ञात्वा कुयात् । अव्युत्पन्नश्चेत् प्रायश्चित्तस्वरूपं शिष्टे यो ज्ञात्वा तदनुज्ञामन्तरेण स्वयमेव कुर्यात् । सद, पा. p. 817.

STIT

POONA

1917

.. तजस्विना

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV

Vast Literature on prāyaścittas

The literature on prāyaścittas is vast in extent, since in ancient times they loomed very large in the popular mind. Out of tho 28 chapters of the Gautamadharma-sūtra, ten (i. e. more than one-third of the whole) are devoted to penances. Out of the 30 chapters of the printed Vasiṣtha-dharmasutra, prāyascittas cover nine (20-28). Manu devotes verses 44 to 265 (in all 222) of chapter eleven to penances and the Yajñavalky asmrti con taining 1009 verses deals with prāyaścittas in 122 verses (III. 205-327). Several printed smrtis such as those of Angiras (168 verses), Atri (chapters 1-8), Devala ( 90 verses), Brhad-Yama (182 verses), Śatātapasmrti (in 274 verses) from the Anandaśrama collection of smrtis alone deal only with prāya scittas. Many other smrtis and several purāṇas, such as the Agni (chap. 168-174), Garuda 52, Kūrma (Uttarardha 30-34), Varāha 131-136, Brahmānda (Upasamhārapāda chap. 9), Viṣnudharm ottara (II. 73, III, 234-237) contain hundreds of verses on prayaścittas. Besides commentaries like the Mitaksarā, Apararka, Par, M. and others and digests like Madanapārijāta (pp. 691-994), there are special digests dealing with prāyaścittas alone such as Hemādri on Prayascitta (which is of doubtful authenticity), the Prayascittaprakarana of Bhavadeva, Praya scittaviveka, Prāyaścittatattva, Sniftimuktāphala (prayascitta section), Prayaścittasāra (part of Nrsimhaprasada), Praya scittamayūkha, Prāyaścittaprakāśa (ms. in the Anūp Sanskrit library, Bikaner, No. 2610), Prāyaścittendusekhara of Nāgojibhatta, which have been utilised in this work. The most elaborate treatment is found in Prāyascittaviveka, Par, M. II parts 1 and 2, and Prāyaścittaprakāśa.

The commentatore discuss the question about the persons who have adhikara (capacity) for having penances prescribed for them. Since Manu XI, 44 (prāyascittiyate narah) and Yāj. III. 219 (narah patanam-rcchati) both employ the word ‘man’ without 184 any qualification, the commentators and digests say that penances are meant for men of all varṇas, for all persons born of unions in the reverse order (pratilomajas) and for even candālas. Yāj. III. 262 states that a sūdra sinner

184. ateu Araafura Catarie fasey on . III. 210; TUENT H I मजातानामपि प्रायश्चित्ताधिकारप्राप्त्यर्थम् । तेषामप्यहिंसादिसाधारणधर्मव्यतिक्रमसम्भवात् । TAAT. On T III. 219 ; TT gegaan Temanetari paribari apua! अस्ति च चाण्डालादीनामपि विधिनिषेधश्च । यथा देवलः । स्वजातिशोचनं सर्वजनप्रणामस्ति तिक्षा व्यवहारशुद्धिरपरापमानं स्वभृत्यपोषणं प्रधानकर्मपरिवर्जनमिति चाण्डालेधमः । मनुः ।

arer… UN TUE (10.62) agrupaerfforae una TIerota

1912. f. p. 12.

1917

Research Institute

178

History of Dharmasastra

[Vol.

though he has no adhikāra (for recitation of Vedic mantras and homa), yet becomes purified by undergoing the observances (except japa and homa) for the periods prescribed. Angiras 185 provides that penance may be administered to a ģūdra devoid of japa and homa. Even as to japa and homa there were works like the Madanapārijāta p. 749 and Vy. M (p. 112) that relying on a verse of Parāśara VI. 63-64 held that a homa could be performed for women and sūdras in the ordinary fire through a brāhmana186. The Pr. V. relies on Manu X. 62 and a prose passage of Devala for the proposition that even Cāṇdālas have to perform penances, if they act contrary to the rules and pro hibitions laid down for them. Since the non-performance of what is prescribed and doing what is forbidden lead to si the person guilty of these or the person who has a desire to destroy his sins is a person entitled to perform prāyaścitta, as also one who repents of his guilt.

Before going into the subject of the several prāyascittas prescribed for each grave or minor sin, some questions of a general character have to be disposed of.

Some smrtis like Brhad-yama III. 1-2 and Sankha state that a boy over five years of age and less than eleven years old, if guilty of some pātakas such as drinking surā, has not to undergo penance personally, but his brother, father or other

185. HATE THU FT året Furagi Sa ET YETA Fran E 9. by the far on T. III. 262, TU. #. p. 12, fr. prp. 173. 1186. स्त्रीशूद्रयोरपि ब्राह्मणद्वारा लौकिकाग्नौ होमो भवत्येव । अत एव धर्मविवृती ‘उपवासो व्रतं होमस्तीर्थस्नानं जपादिकम् । विप्रैः सम्पादितं यस्य सम्पूर्ण तस्य तत्फलम्॥ इति।” A.T. P. 749. This is it VI. 63-64 (the printed edition in B. S. Series reads and a friare F ac:). It is rather inexplicable how while Nīlakantha in his Vyavahāramayūkha holds, relying on Parāśara, that the dattahoma may be performed by a sūdra or a woman through a brahmana. the Prayascittamayūkha of the same author propounds a different view in the words ‘एतेन यन्महार्णवमदनरत्नयोः स्त्रीशूदादेविपद्वारा समन्त्रको जपहोमो भवत grâ creat’ (p. 13 ). Did the author change his views or is the text of one of the two Mayūkhas tampered with by his successors? The pr. 673T (folio 30 b) explains Parāsara VI. 63-64 in a different way. It says that the verse does not lay down generally that a woman or any one else can in every case have a homa performed for her through a brahmana, but that where in a rite japa and homa are obligatory and the person concerned is unable to perform japa and homa in person there alone he can appoint a brābmana as pratinidhi. 37** w UETATEN 313771 farura यममात्रार्थत्वात् । प्रायश्चित्तागजपहोमयोस्तु निषेधादेवाप्रवृत्तेस्तत्र तस्यामवृत्तिः गतेजा। यन्महार्णवमदनरत्नयोः स्त्रीशूदादेविपद्वारा समन्त्रको जपहोमों भवत इति तत्परास्त

T. $. folio 30 b.

1917

arala TTT

Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstituteIV

Prāyascittas and children

relative or friend has to undergo it for him and that if a child is less than five then whatever act it may do it is not deemed a crime, nor is it a sin and it is not liable to any legal penalty nor to any 187 prayascitta. The Mit. (on Yaj. III. 243) comments that these verses are not meant to prescribe a total absence of prayascitta in the case of children of five or less but are meant to convey that they are not liable for the full prāyaścitta prescribed for a sin. Its argument is that the texts lay down generally without any reference to the stage of life that a brāhmana should not be killed or that a person belonging to the three higher castes should not drink surā.188 Hence any one of whatever age who is guilty of having done such prohibited acts is liable and the words of Gaut. II. 1 and of Kumāra are to be interpreted as not excusing altogether the drinking of surā by a child but as referring to minor lapses. Bșhaspati expressly states that the dictum about a child being allowed to eat what it likes is confined to such matters as will not fall under grave sins.

It has already been stated above (n. 180) that the prāya scitta to be undergone depended upon many circumstances such as the time, the place, the age &c. And first as to age, several smrtig189 provide that a man 80 years old or a boy less than _187 ऊनैकादशवर्षस्य पञ्चवर्षात्परस्य च । प्रायश्चित्तं चरेद् भ्राता पिता चान्यः सुहृज्जनः॥ अतो बालतरस्यास्य नापराधो न पातकम् । राजदण्डो न तस्यास्ति प्रायश्चित्तं न विद्यते ॥ शङ्का, quoted by the मिता. on या. III. 243, बृहद्यम III. 1-2 (reads वान्यापि बान्धवः). These are quoted by हरदत्त on गां. II.6 (without name) and the first occurs in आपस्तम्बस्मृति III. 7 as चरेगुरुः सुहद्वापि प्रायश्चित्तं विशोधनम् . The first verse is देवल 31. Both are ascribed to आङ्गिरस by प्राय. वि. p.29.

188. पागुपनयनात् कामचारः कामवादः कामभक्षः । गौ. II. 1; मद्यमूघपुरीषाणां भक्षणे नास्ति कश्चन । दोषस्त्वा पञ्चमाद्वर्षादूर्व पित्रोः सुहृदरोः॥ कुमार q. by मिता. on या. III. 253, by प्राय. प्रक. p.50%; स्यात्कामचारभक्षोक्तिर्महतः पातकाहते। बृहस्पति q. by मा. तत्त्व p.551.

189. अशीतिर्यस्य वर्षाणि बालो वाप्यूनषोडशः। प्रायश्चित्ताधमर्हन्ति स्त्रियो रोगिण एव च॥ विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 54, 33, लघुहारीत 33, देवल 30, आपस्तम्बस्मृति III. 3. बृहद्यम III. 3 (reads अशीत्यधिकवाणि). This verse is ascribed to अङ्गिरस by the मिता. on या. III. 243 and to भागव by हरदत्त on आप. प. सू.9.26.5. The मद. पा. p. 790 a.scribes it to विष्णु, पराशर, बृहस्पति and अङ्गिरस्. तथा बालवृद्धादीनां साक्षात्कतृत्वेऽ. प्यधमेव । अशीति…रोगिण एव चेत्यङ्गिरःस्मरणात् । तथा। अक्ति द्वादशाद्वादशीतरूवमेव वा। अर्धमेव भवेत्पुंसां तुरीयं तत्र योषिताम् ॥ इति । तथानुपनीतस्यापि बालकस्य पादमात्रमेव प्रायश्चित्तम्। स्त्रीणामधं प्रदातव्यं वृद्धानां रोगिणां तथा। पादो बालेषु दावस्या कोवपापण्वय विधिरिति विष्णुस्मरणात् । मिता. on या. III. 243. The verses अवhि and tणामध are ascribed to विष्णु, पराशर, बृहस्पति and अङ्गिरम् by मद. पा. Frona and the latter is ascribed to लघुविष्णु by प्राय. वि. p.28 and to बृहद्विष्णु by आय प्रकरण

p. 17.

2S

1917

मरिच सावधान Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

80

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

16 years of age, women and diseased persons should be liable only to half the prāyascitta (prescribed for able-bodied men). The Mit, on Yāj. III. 243 quotes a verse of Sumantu that for a male below twelve and above eighty years of age the penance is half (of that for ordinary men) and one fourth for women within the same limits and a verse of Visnu that for women, old men and diseased persons half the penance should be prescribed and for boys ( before upanayana) only one-fourth. Some say that for boys less than five the penance is one-fourth. Cyavana ( prose) prescribes halí prāyascitta for boys, old men and women and declares that a person is a bāla up to 16 years and a man is to be regarded as similar to a bāla after 70. Katyāyana provided generally that the fines to be levied from females were to be half of those leviable from male offenders as regards all offences and when the punishment for a male would be death, a woman criminal was to be punished with the cutting of a limb (nose, éars &c. ) 190

The difference between a sin committed unintentionally (akāmatah) and the same sin committed with full knowledge (kāmatah) is this that for the latter the prayascitta is double of what is prescribed for the former as provided by Angiras, 191 Vyāsa and the Agnipurana. As Yaj. III. 226 employs the word ‘ajñāna’ in the first half and the word ‘kāmatah’ as its opposite in the second half instead of the word ‘jñānatah’ it follows that Yāj. makes no difference between the consequences of jñāna (knowledge ) and kāmanā (desire).

The caste of the offender as well as of the victim made a difference in the prayascitta as well as in the legal punishment. Vide H. of Dh.vol. III. pp. 395-399 as to punishments for crimes dependent on caste. Visṇu 192 provides that the prāyaścitta for

190. बालवृद्धस्त्रीणामधे प्रायश्चित्तम् । आ षोडशावालः । सप्तत्यूर्ध्वगता वृद्धाः । च्यवन q. by TEL.AT. II. part 1 p. 122 and pr. 1. p. 28. pag aaru Pa TUTA:

ya: llei wira ya H a l TEST. 487.

191. 1717 TT FETT UTI suiệta q. by 99. fq. pp. 22 and 24 ; fara a Arai ATT PETEÚ HI FGTOT 173.9.q. by the far on ar. III. 226 (without name); and as that of 311ṢKU by TU. TATUT p. 12 and as of RETAIE by 1.715T (folio 16b). Hea aia u tarha: maat fauoi Tigay sa q. by wru. fî. p. 24.

192. विप्रेतु सकलं देयं पादानं क्षत्रिये मतम्। वैश्येध पादशेषस्तु शूद्रजाति कास्यते । विष्णु q. by माय. वि. p. 102 where it is stated that जिकन noted that this_versal was not found in the विष्णुसंहिता. It is ascribed to बृहद्विष्णु by प्रायः प्रकरण p. 16 and to Teracor by faeron ar. III. 267.

STITU

FOUNDED

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

81

IV)

Prāyaścitta depended on caste

a ksatriya, vaisya and sūdra sinner should be respectively, 1 and 4 of what is prescribed for a brāhmana sinner. The Agni purāṇa says 193 the same thing. The Par. M. II. 1. p. 231 quotes the Caturvimsatimata 194 to the same effect. The Mit on Yāj. III, 250 explains that the verse of Caturvimsatimata applies to all cases except where any one of the four sāhasas is committed by a man of a lower caste as against one of a higher caste, Brhad-Yama (IV. 13-14) in prescribing penance for the kill ing of a cow provides the same scale of 4, 3, 2, 1 for the four varnas. Angiras (verse 3) prescribes the penances of Krochra and Cāndrāyana for a brāhmana partaking of the food of an antyaja, half of these for a ksatriya or vaisya guilty of the same. Yaj. II. 206-207 provide that the punishments for defamation depend upon the higher or lower varna or caste of the offender as well as of the person defamed and that if a ksatriya or vaiśya defames a brāhmana the fines are respectively twice or thrice as high as the fine for a brāhmana defaming a brāhmana and conversely if a brāhmana defames a ksatriya ‘or a vaisya the fine is reduced by half in each successive caste. The Mit. quoting Angiras says that the rules about punishments apply to prāyaścittas for slaying a person i. e. if a brahmana slays anybody and a certain penance is prescribed for him, then a ksatriya killing the person would have to perform double the penance prescribed for the brāhmana and a vaiśya offender three times as much.195 It may be pointed out here that though the smrtis provided for . different punishments according to the castes of the offender and of the person wronged and though some commentaries and digests went into all those details for the sake of presenting a

: Fung Pariazuuuri singorur 168.13. 194. प्रायश्चित्तं यदाम्नातं ब्राह्मणस्य महर्षिभिः। पादोनं क्षत्रियः कुर्याद वैश्य : Ara T: HATCT h aru archE! wanaha q. by the phar. on या. III. 250. देवल 28 is a verse of similar import, यत्तु चतुर्विशतिमतवचनं पायश्चित्तं…पाप्मसु-इति प्रतिलोमानुष्ठितचतुर्विधसाहसन्यतिरिक्तविषयम्। तथा मूर्धावसिक्ता aralaca F ai quac

Aar. The four FICH are ‘मनुष्यमारणं स्तेयं परदाराभिमर्शनम् । पारुष्यमुभयं चेति साहसं स्याञ्चतुर्विधम् ॥.’

195. Terrier: 1 par ramai a la gaut Hari & in Farguer प्रोक्ता पर्षद्वञ्च व्रतं स्मृतम्॥ इति ।…अनयैव दिशा क्षत्रियवैश्यादावपि हीनेनोत्कृष्टवध दोषगारवा. मायश्चित्तस्यापि द्वैगुण्यादि कल्पनीयम्। दोषगौरवं च दण्डगौरवादवगम्यते मिताजा या. III. 250. Vide har on 4 III 267 also. This verse is q. by utru. II. part 2 p. 67: while the gre. p. 102 ascribes it to a Ra… ara qac

u ya TUESE serra. The …*. p. 16 reads the verse of SEC as aarai… Ter a corruga

940

H.D. 11

POONA

FOUNDED

T

Bhandarkan Oriental

82

History of Dharmaśāstra

I Vol.

complete statement or digest of the smrti material, such discriminatory punishments had mostly ceased to be enforced by the rulers from about the 12th century A.D. at least, as stated by the Smrticandrikā, the Madanaratna (vyavahāra) and the Sarasvatīvilāsa. Vide H. of Dh, vol. III p. 512 note 924 for the relevant quotations from the three works. Since, as stated above (n. 181), prāyaścittas were to be moulded on the lines of legal penalties, it appears that the discriminatory treatment about prāyaścittas depending upon the varṇa of the sinner must also have gradually fallen into disuetude with the disappear ance of the more severe prāyaścittas and the substitution of cows and monetary equivalents in later digests. And some digests expressly state this to have been the case in relation to prāyaścittas. For example, the Pr. Prakarana, after quoting Gaut. 22. 14-16 about the prāyaścitta for killing a ksatriya or vaisya or sūdra under certain circumstances, remarks that in its day those prāyaścittas were no longer part of the practices of the people.196

Whether an act made a man liable to undergo prayas citta depended in some cases on the country also. For example, marrying a maternal uncle’s daughter was and is allowed in certain countries and among certain castes in the Deccan and Southern India on the ground of custom, but such a practice was severely condemned by Manu XI, 171-172 and Baud. Dh, S.I.1. 17–24 and other smrtis. Bệhaspati refers to this custom as prevalent among southerners and states that in these countries persons following it are not liable to undergo prāyaścitta or penalty (at the hand of the king). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 462 for Bphaspati’s verses.

Severity and extent of prāyaścitta depended also on the question whether a sinner had repeated the lapse or was a first offender. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 10. 27. 11-13) prescribes that a brāhmaṇa who has once committed adultery with a married woman of equal class shall perform one-fourth of the penance prescribed for a sūdra having intercourse with a woman of the three upper castes, that for every repetition of the crime) one

POONA

196. aarti qu… RT (R. 98-96-Taarar Frame

fraroratricaTaTECT A TESTGF97-

99-aereg नादिगुणयुक्त-कामाकामादिकृतक्षत्रियादिवधविषयाणि यथायोग्यं व्याख्येयानि इदानी तु तथाविधक्षत्रियाद्यभावेन व्यवहारानङ्गत्वात् न प्रत्येक विषयव्यवस्थया व्याख्यातानीति सर्व # reture irureauna 99. 4. p22.

TUTDED

1917

The ad Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV)

First and confirmed offenders

83

fourth of the penance must be added and if (he commits adultery) for the fourth time, the whole penance (of 12 years must be performed 197). The Mit, on Yāj. III, 293 remarks that for a sin that is committed knowingly the prāyaścitta is double of what is prescribed for the same sin if committed unintention ally and that if a sin is committed intentionally and is repeated then for the repeated lapse prayascitta is four times as much as that for the same deed done unintentionally. Similarly, the āśrama to which the sinner belonged made a difference in the prāyaścitta as stated by Angiras ‘when persons in other āśramas are guilty of sins for which penance is prescribed if committed by householders, then the prayascitta is increased in the same proportion that is laid down for śauca (bodily purity 198). Manu V.137, Vas. VI. 19, Visnu Dh. S. 60. 26, Sankha 16.23-24 pro vide that Vedic students, forest hermits and sannyāsins have respectively to perform twice, thrice and four times as much sauca as is prescribed for householders (e. g. by Manu V. 136

=Visnu 60.25).

One convenient and merciful rule laid down by the smrtis was that if a man died in the midst of the period for which penance had to be performed (sometimes it extended to twelve years or more) he became free from the sin here and in the next world as stated by Harita, Vyasa and Yama199.

Though the smrtis have entered into very great details about the prāyaścittas for different individual lapses, still they cannot be supposed to have dealt with every lapse. Therefore,

197. सवर्णायामन्यपूर्वायां सकृत्संनिपाते पादः पततीत्युपदिशन्ति । एवमभ्यासे पादः पादः । चतुर्थे सर्वम् । आप. ध. सू. II. 10.27.11-13.. 2198. तथामिणामपि अङ्गिरसा विशेषो दर्शितः । गृहस्थोक्तानि पापानि कुर्वन्त्या अमिणो यदि। शौचवच्छोधनं कुर्युरारब्रह्मनिदर्शनादिति । शौचवदिति -एतच्छौचं गृहस्थानां द्विगुणं ब्रह्मचारिणाम् । त्रिगुणं तु वनस्थानां यतीनां तु चतुर्गुणम् ॥ इति (मनु ५.१३७) पचना यथा ब्रह्मचार्यादीनां शौचं द्वैगुण्यादिक्रमेण वर्धते तथा शोधनं प्रायश्चित्तमपि भवतीत्यर्थः । बह्मचारिणस्तु प्रायश्चित्तद्वैगुण्यं षोडशवर्षादूर्ध्वमेव ॥ मिता. on या. III. 250. On ब्रह्म निदर्शनात् the पाय. म. p. 3 says ‘ब्रह्मनिदर्शनं तत्त्वज्ञानम् । ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यनन्तरं तूत्पन्नपा ज्ञानेनैव नाश्यते। ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकमाणि भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुनेति भगवद्गीतोक्तेः। (गीता ४ ३७).

198. न च द्वादशवार्षिके चतुर्गणे क्रियमाणे मध्ये विपत्तिशङ्कया समाप्त्यनुपपत्ते प्रवृत्तिरेव नोत्पद्यत इति शङ्कनीयम् । यतः प्रान्तमायश्चित्तस्य मध्ये विपत्तायपि पापक्षयो भवत्येव । तथा हारीतः । प्रायश्चित्ते व्यवासते कर्ता यदि विपद्यते । पूतस्तदहरेवासाविह लोके परत्र च॥ इति। व्यासोऽप्याह। धर्मार्थ यतमानस्तु न चेच्छक्नोति मानव प्राप्ता भवति तत्पुण्यमत्र व नास्ति संशयः॥ इति ॥ मिता. on या. III. 250. बृहद्यम II. Almost the same as हारीत. माय वि. p. 86 ascribes the verse प्रायश्चिसे व्यवसित मूहन्मनु: अपरार्क p. 1058 ascribes it to यम.

INS

तेजस्विन

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

84

History of Dharmaśāstra

[Vol.

Gaut. (19. 18-20) provides that these acts (viz. Vedic recitation, tapas, fasting, gifts &c.) may be optionally performed, when no (particular penance) has been prescribed, that for grave sins difficult penances and for trivial faults easy ones may be pres cribed and that Krcchra, Atikrochra and Cāndrāyaṇa are pen ances for all sins.200-Manu XI. 209 (= Visnu 54,34) provides that for the expiation of offences for which no particular atonement has been prescribed, let (the parisad) prescribe a penance after considering the (offender’s) strength and the nature of the offence. Parasara (XI.55-56) provides that the recitation of the Gayatri ten thousand times is the best penance for all sins and that Candrayana, Yavaka, Tulapurusa and serving cows destroy all sins. Yāj. III. 265 provides that a man is purified from all sins by undergoing the penance for cow-killing or by Cāndrāyana, observance for a month of the milk vrata or by Parāka. Manu XI. 117 provides for all upapātakas except the sin of sexual intercourse by one who is in the stage of Vedic student the penance prescribed for govadha or cândrāyana,

One guilty of a sin, even though he may himself be a learned man, should approach an assembly of learned brāhmanas and after making some present (a cow or the like ) announcing the nature of his lapse seek their decision about the proper penance for his lapse (Yaj.201 III. 300 and Parasara VIII. 2). The Mit., Par. M., Pr. S. and other digests quote long passages in verse from Angiras 202 who provides that the sinner should

200. एतान्येवानादेशे विकल्पेन क्रियेरन् ॥ एनःसु गुरुः गुरूणि लघुषु लघूनि ॥ कृच्छ्रा तिकृछौ चान्द्रायणमिति सर्वप्रायश्चित्तम् ॥ गौ. 19. 18-20. Vide ब्रह्मपुराण 22.36and विष्णुपुराण II. 6. 38 for very similar words पापे गुरूणि गुरुणि स्वल्पान्यल्पे च तद्विदः । प्रायश्चित्तानि विप्रेन्द्रा जगुः स्वायंभुवादयः ॥ . Instead of विपेन्द्राः the विष्णुपुराण has मैत्रेय, This very verse is quoted as बृहस्पति’s in प्राय, तत्व, p. 545 (with मैत्रेय for विप्रेन्द्राः ).

201, विख्यातदोषः कुर्वीत पर्षदोऽनुमतं व्रतम् । या. III. 300. This is ascribed to both बृहस्पति and या. by परा. मा. II part 2 p. 153. Vide शङ्ख 17. 62 also.

202. A few of the verses of अङ्गिरस are cited here: कृत्वा पापं न गृहेत गृह मानस्य वर्धते ॥ सचैलं वाग्यतः स्नात्वा क्लिन्नवासाः समाहितः । क्षत्रियो वाथ वैश्यो वा परि षद्यपतिष्ठति । उपस्थाय ततः शीघ्रमातिमान्धरणीं व्रजेत् । गात्रश्च शिरसा चैव न च किंचिदुदाहरेत् । ततस्ते प्रणिपातेन दृष्टा तं समुपस्थितम् । वृद्धाः पृच्छन्ति किं कार्यमुपविश्याग्रतः स्थितम् । किं कार्य का च ते पीडा किं वा मृगयसे द्विज । एवं तैः समनुज्ञातः सर्व लू यादशेषतः। तस्मिन्निवोदिते कार्य निष्कास्यो यस्तु कार्यवान् । सर्वेषां निश्चितं यल्यात । यच्च प्राणान् न घातयेत् । आहूय श्रावयेदेकः पर्षदा यो नियोजितः । शृणुष्व भी इदं विष यत्त आदिश्यते व्रतम् । वचः पूर्वमुदाहार्य यथोक्तं धर्मकर्तृभिः । पश्चात्कार्यानुसारेण शक्त्या कर नुयहम् ॥ अडिरस q. by परा.मा. II. 1. p. 206-207 and 235-236. प्राय. सा. pp. 17-20, पाय. म. pp. 11-12, प्रा. प्रकाका (folio 27b and 28a.).

1917

व नावातमा Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

IV1

Approaching the pariṣad

not conceal his lapse and lose time; he should bathe with his garment on, and with the garment still wet approach the asserbly and should prostrate himself on the ground. Thus the elders of the assembly ask the man prostrating himself before them ‘what is your business, what is the trouble and what do. you seek from us’. The assembly then asks him to go aside a little and debate among themselves what the penance should be, considering all the circumstances of time, place, nature of the lapse, age &c. Then one of them at the desire of the assembly should declare the assembly’s decision as to the proper penance after citing the smrti passages and reducing the penance in view of the weakness and other circumstances of the offender. It has already been stated that the pariṣad acted under the direction of the king in matters of prāyaścitta and that the king was not to interfere with the decision of the assembly. The principal stages in a penance were four viz. approaching the pariṣad, the declaration of the appropriate penance by the pariṣad, the actual performance of the penance declared and the announcing of the sinner’s freedom from taint (Angiras q. by Pr. Prakāśa folio 27a ‘upasthānam vratādeśascaryā suddhi prakāśanam prāyascittam catuspādam vihitam dharmakartr bhiḥ#”).

It is not necessary here to set out the details of the consti tution of the pariṣad, of the qualifications of the sistas who were to be the members of the pariṣad and their privileges and duties. These points have already been discussed at length in H. of Dh. vol. II, pp. 966-974. A few matters not stated there are mentioned here. Caste exclusiveness and pride had gone so far that Parāśara (VIII, 25) and the Caturvimśatimata quoted by Par. M. state that a dvija though he may be of bad character is to be honoured and not a sūdra who may have controlled his senses, that the advice of a sūdra even though learned and devoted to the knowledge of the śāstras should not be accepted like sacrificial food when licked by a dog 203. In stead of the word ‘pariṣad’ the word parṣad-(which is an irre

203 gain Ê T Tatag: 15: TIETY i gei_ge radi pa 5* VIII. 25 on which yr. A II. 1. p. 228 opsetves: जातिशीलयोर्मध्ये जात्युत्कर्ष एन प्राधान्येनोपादेयः । शीलं तु यथासम्भवम् । अत एव चतुर्विशति मते शूदोपदेशस्यानुपादेयत्वं पपञ्चयति । श्वचणि यथा क्षीरमपेयं ब्राह्मणादिभिः । तगाव मुखाद्वाक्यं न श्रोतव्यं कथञ्चन ॥ पण्डितस्यापि शूदस्य शास्त्रज्ञानरतस्य च ॥ वचने तस्य से ग्राह्य शुनोच्छिष्ट हविर्यथा ॥

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

86

History of Dharmaśāstra,

[Vol.

gular abbreviation) is employed in several smrti passages 203a, Parāśara (VI. 55-57) provides that the assembly should take compassion on the weak, on boys and old men and should reduce the penance, but not otherwise and that if learned men through affection, greed, fear or ignorance reduce the penance that should be prescribed they themselves incur the sin. 2036 Devala says the same and adds 204 that the reduction in the penance should not be directed by one man alone or by a person ignorant. of Dharmasastra and that it is only a number of brāhmanas who are proficient in Dharmaśāstra that are entitled to reduce the penance through compassion for the sinner. The decision of the assembly should be unanimous 205 as far as possible.

If the learned brāhmaṇas of the assembly knowing the proper prāyaścitta do not declare it in the case of those who are distressed by their own sin and seek direction, they incur sin similar to that of the seeker after proper penance 206

203a. पर्षच्छब्दोऽत्र पृषोदरादित्वात्साधुः । प्राय. वि. p. 26, on which गोविन्दानन्द says ‘परिषीदन्त्यस्यामिति पर्षत् पृषोदरादित्वादिकारलोपो विकल्पितः’. पाणिनि provides पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टम् । VI. 3. 109.

203 b. दुर्बलेऽनुग्रहः प्रोक्तस्तथा वै बालवृद्धयोः । अतोन्यथा भवेदोषस्तस्मानानुग्रहः स्मृतः ॥ स्नेहाद्वा यदि वा लोभाद्भयादज्ञानतापि वा। कुर्वन्त्यनुग्रहं ये तु तत्पापं तेषु गच्छति ।। पराशर VI. 55-57.

204. प्रायश्चित्तं यथोबिष्टमशक्यं दुर्बलादिभिः। इष्यतेनुग्रहस्तेषां लोकसंग्रहकारणात् ॥ एको नार्हति तत्कर्तुमज्ञो वा नाप्यनुग्रहम् । धर्मज्ञा बहवो विप्राः कर्तुमर्हन्त्यनुग्रहम् ॥ देवल q. by परा. मा. II.1. pp. 130-131, पाय.म. p. 12.

205. विचाररतादृशः कार्यों यथा सर्वे सभासदः । एकवाक्यतया लू युस्तथा श्रेयोधि गच्छति ॥ q. by प्राय. सा p. 18.

206. आर्तानां मार्गमाणानां प्रायश्चित्तानि ये द्विजाः। जानन्तो न प्रयच्छन्ति ते यात्र समतां तु तैः ॥ अङ्गिरम् . by मिता. on या. III. 300, प्राय. तत्व, p. 512, पेरामा. II. part 1 p. 234.

POONAS

नाच नावातमा