08 Śuddhi

CHAPTER VIII

SUDDHI

Śuddhi (purification ) is a very comprehensive topic including within it purification after āśauca (impurity on birth and death), purification of a person after contact with an impure object or on account of certain occurrences. purification of pots, wells, food &c., after they are polluted. Aśauca, however, is the most important subject under śuddhi and therefore the Śuddhi.kaumudi ‘defines ‘śuddhi’ as ’the state of being fit for or capable of performing the rites that are understood from the Veda’¹. The Smṛtis employ the word śuddhi in relation to purification after āśauca. For example, Manu V.57 starts by saying that he will expound purification after a man is dead ( pretaśuddhi) and purification of things (dravyaśuddhi). Manu V. 83 ( = Dakṣa VI. 7) avers that a brāhmaṇa becomes pure after ten days (on the death or birth of a relative), a kṣatriya after twelve &c. The Parāśara-smṛti starts chapter three by declaring ‘I shall expound śuddhi on birth and death.’ Yaj. III. 14, 25 also employ the word śuddhi. Therefore aśauca on birth and death will be first dealt with.

āśauca

The word āśauca is formed from suci (pure) according to Pan. V. 1.131 ² and Pān. VII. 3, 30 (vide note below) with the negative particle na (a). In some smṛtis such as that of Devala the form ‘āśucya’ also is found (see Hāralatā pp. 2, 9, 36 in quotations from Devala[596b]). Another word which is often used as a synonym for āśauca is ‘agha’. It has been seen above (p. 6) that the word agha means ‘sin’ in the Vedic Literature (as in Ṛg. I. 97, 1-8, X. 117.6). But in the Sān, Śr. IV. 15. 11, Manu V. 84 (na vardhayed-aghāhāni) the word ‘agha’ has come to mean the same thing as āśauca³. The Padmapurāṇa II. 66. 73-74 states that since the outlets of the body always emit mucus, urine &c. it is always impure.

The Mit. on Yāj. III. 1 defines⁴ āśauca as an emergent attribute attaching to a person, which is got rid of by lapse of time or a bath and the like and which is the cause of the positive direction to offer to a deceased person) piṇḍa, water and the like and of the cessation of Vedic study and other actions. The Mit. adds that āśauca is not merely the absence of the privilege or power to do religious acts, since even those who have incurred impurity (on death &c.) are enjoined to do certain religious acts such as offering water (to the deceased). This definition of the Mit, appears to be an echo of the Garudapuraṇa ( pretakhaṇḍa) 5. 9 and is probably based on a verse of the work called Saṅgraha. Haradatta⁵ on Gautama 14. 1 states that āśauca may be defined as the absence of the privilege to perform religious acts, unfitness for being one whose food may be partaken of, untouchability and the loss of the privilege to make religious gifts. A comparatively early writer Bhaṭṭācārya⁶, appears to have defined ‘śuddhi’ as the ‘removal of sin’ or as ‘being fit for performing religious acts’. This was accepted by the Smṛti-candrikā, but rejected by Nandapaṇḍita, commentator of Ṣadaśīti (pp. 2-3). Even the Mit. (on Yaj. III. 18) emphasizes that āśaucas has two characteristics, viz. it takes away the privilege of performing religious acts and it renders a person untouchable. The Smṛtimuktāphala follows this.

Two characteristics of āśauca

Rudradhara in his Śuddhiviveka (D. C. ms, No. 309 of 1887-91 folio 1) says that śuddhi is a special attribute which brings about a capacity or privilege for the performance of all dharmas, while aśuddhi is an attribute opposed to śuddhi and arises on the occasion of the birth of a sapiṇḍa or the like⁷.

Āśauca is of two kinds, viz, that arising on birth⁸ (and so called jananāśauca or sūtaka) and that arising on death (and therefore called śāvāśauca or mṛtakāśauca or maraṇāśauca). Śāva is derived from śava (meaning a corpse). The word sūtaka occurs in the⁹ Ait. Br. (chap. 32.8) and is there probably used in the sense of impurity on both birth and death. There it is said that if an āhitāgni partook of food from the house of him who was affected by sūtaka, then the prāyaścitta was to offer a puroḍāśa cooked on eight potsherds to Agni Tantumat. Tantu means also ‘son or progeny’ and so it may be argued that it is an indication that sūtaka is used in the Ait. Br. in the sense of impurity on birth. The word sūtaka is used in the smṛtis in three senses:

1. impurity on birth (vide Manu V. 58);
2. impurity both on birth and death, as in Gobhilasmṛti III. 6) and 63;¹⁰
3. impurity on death alone (as in Dakṣa VI. 1 and Gobhilasmṛti III. 48 )¹¹.

In some of the modern vernaculars (such as Marathi) the word “sūtaka’ is used in the 3rd sense alone. In each of these two divisions there are two varieties viz. where the duration is brief or comparatively long (Ṣaḍaśiti, verse 2).

A question arises why birth and death should cause impurity to the members of the family or to relatives, Only a few have to say anything on this question, Hārita says:

the family incurs death impurity because by death the family feels overwhelmed (or frustrated), while when a new life appears the family increases (and there is gratification or joy)¹².

Conflict of smṛtis on āśauca

The literature on Śuddhi (including āśauca) is very extensive. Apart from the sūtras, smṛtis and Purāṇas there are numerous digests dealing with the subject at great length. Some of them have been printed. The smṛtis contain a mass of contradictory dicta to such an extent and different from the usages of medieval times that the Mit. on Yaj. III. 22 after quoting the views of Parāśara, Śatātapa, Vasiṣṭha and Aṅgiras on the periods for which impurity had to be observed by persons belonging to the four varṇas refuses to evolve order out of then and remarks that the usages in its day were different from the dicta of those sages¹³. The Madana-pārijāta (p. 392) agrees with the Mit. and also suggests other modes of dealing with the conflict. Two examples may be cited of the way in which different smṛtis approach the same problem.

Exclusions for the learned

Atri 83, Parāśara III, 5 and Dakṣa VI, 6 provide that a brāhmaṇa who has consecrated the three Vedic fires and has mastered the Veda becomes free from impurity (on birth and death ) in one day, one who has merely mastered the Veda ( but has not consecrated the śrauta fires ) in three days and one who is devoid of both in ten days. Manu V.59 gives various options viz. 10 days, 4 days, 3 days, 1 day but does not state explicitly to whom his remarks apply.

Bṛhaspati¹⁴ (q. by Hāralatā p. 5 and Haradatta on Gautama 14. 1) states that a brāhmaṇa who is endowed with Veda and śrauta fires becomes pure after three days, one who is devoid of śrauta fires (but is master of the Veda) in five days and one who is only a brāhmaṇa by caste (has not studied the Veda or does not teach it ) in ten days. The Sān, Sr. and Manu¹⁵ (both quoted above) urge a man not to increase through laziness the number of days for which impurity is to be observed.

It is possible that persons claiming to be learned observed impurity for a few days only, while neighbours disputed their claim to this special dispensation in favour of Vedic learning and keeping śrauta fires. The result was that later on a flat number of ten days was prescribed for all brāhmaṇas whether learned or not and the provision for lesser number of days of impurity was relegated to Kalivarjya usages. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III, pp. 941-42.

Caste

Another example of the dependence of the days of impurity on the caste of the deceased and of varying dicta thereon may be cited.

• Manu V. 83, Dakṣa VI. 7, Yāj. III. 22, Atri (verse 85), Sankha (15. 2-3), Matsyapurāṇa (18. 2-3), Brahmapuraṇa 220.63, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 22. 1-4, all lay down periods of 10 days, 12 days, 15 days and a month for impurity among brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras respectively.
• Yaj. III.22 makes the virtuous śūdra observe impurity only for 15 days as a concession.
• Gaut. (15.1-4) prescribes 10, 11, 12 days (or half month) and a month respectively for the four varṇas, while Vas. (4.27-30) gives the periods of 10, 15, 20 and one month for the four varṇas.
• Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar, in his article on Nāgara brāhmaṇas and Kāyasthas of Bengal, protests that the Kāyasthas of Bengal (owing to social tyranny) still observe āśauca for one month as if they are ordinary śūdras (I. A. for 1932 at p. 71).
• On the other hand, Aṅgiras ( quoted by the Mit, on Yaj. III, 22 ) states that śātātapa declared that all varṇas become purified after ten days whether the impurity is due to birth or death¹⁶.

sāpiṇḍya

Parāśara (III. 9) quoted by the Mit. on Yāj. III, 18 provides that a sapiṇḍa who is 4th in descent from the common ancestor of the deceased and himself becomes pure after ten days, one who is 5th after 6 days, one who is 6th in descent after four days and one who is 7th after one day. The Mit. says that this should be discarded as it is in conflict with many other smṛtis and is disapproved of by people¹⁷.

Child death

The Mit, on Yaj. III, 18 declares that when a child that has not completed two years dies, it is the parents that have to observe āśauca for ten days and not all sapiṇḍas and that their āśauca entails untouchability for them.

Vijñāneśvara

Some of the rules mentioned by Vijñāneśvara (about 1100 A. D.) themselves underwent changes in 500 years as noted by the Nirṇayasindhu (composed in 1612 A. D.¹⁸).

The Nirṇayasindhu (p. 517) remarks that what Vijñānesvara said is not now (in its time) the usage and that the Smṛtyarthasāra also did not accept Vijñāneśvara’s view.

Works on āśauca

In view of the above-mentioned circumstances no useful purpose would be served by setting out in detail the varying dicta of the smṛtis, Purāṇas¹⁹ and the digests upon the several matters that fall to be treated under āśauca. Digests on this subject are too numerous to mention. The following printed ones and a few mss, have been made use of in preparing the following account. In the first place, there are several works that deal with this subject in verse.

The Aśaucāṣṭaka attributed to Vararuci (published in the Trivandrum series) with a commentary by an anonymous writer that names the bhāṣya of Maskarin on Gautama-dharmasūtra (on p. 35) deals with the subject in eight sragdharā verses.

The Aśaucadaśaka or Daśaśloki attributed to Vijñāneśvara seems to have been a very popular work. There are several commentaries on it. The one by Harihara is the earliest of them. In the Deccan College collection of Mss (now at the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, Poona) there are several Mss of it, two of which were copied in saṁvat 1539 (D. C. No. 216 of 1879-80) and saṁvat 1579 (D.C, No. 196 of 1884-87) and which expressly state that the work was composed by Vijñāneśvara-yogindra. The ten śārdūlavikridita verses of the Aśaucadaśaka are set out in the appendix.

The Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara has a section on śuddhi which has been recently published in the G.O.S.

The Hāralatā of Aniruddha is very useful (B. I. Series).

The Aśaucakānda of the Smr̥ticandrikā has been edited by the late Dr. Shamsastry and published as No. 56 of the Mysore University Sanskrit publications.

The Tr̥imśacchloki with the commentary of Raghunatha composed in śake 1645 has been published at the Poona Ānandaśrama press and contains 30 Sragdharā verses on āśauca.

The Ṣaḍaśīti ( 86 verses in the Anuṣṭubh metre ) of Kauśikāditya with the commentary Śuddhicandrikā by Vināyaka alias Nandapaṇḍita (composed about 1600 A. D.) has been published in the Chowkhamba Sanskrit series.

The Śuddhikaumudi of Govindānanda (B. I. Series ); the Śuddhitattva of Raghunandana (ed. by Jivananda pp. 233-412), the Śuddhiprakāśa (part of the Viramitrodaya of Mitramiśra ) published in the Chowkhamba Sanskrit series, the Śuddhimayūkha of Nilakaṇṭha (edited by Mr. J. R. Gharpure) and the Smṛtimuktāphala of Vaidyanātha (edited by Mr. J. R. Gharpure) are compilations that are useful in their own way.

These exhaustive treatises on āśauca show one thing unmistakably that brāhmaṇas of the medieval ages attached an extremely exaggerated importance to ceremonial purity of the body on birth and death.

Periods

The periods of impurity depended on many circumstances. There was a difference between impurity on birth and that on death; so also the duration depended upon whether the deceased was an infant or a male or a female or one whose upanayana had been performed or not performed; it depended on caste and also on the question whether the deceased died near the relative or far away; also upon the degree of relationship; and on the time that elapsed from the birth or death till it reached the ears of the relative. The intensity of impurity was different in each of the following: a sūtikā (a freshly delivered woman), rajasvalā (woman in monthly illness ), impurity on death, impurity on birth (the last being the least).

Dakṣa (VI, 2-3) states that there are ten varieties in impurity, viz. immediate purity ( after taking a bath ), one day, three days, four days, six days, ten days, twelve days, a fortnight, a month and till the end of one’s life²⁰. Dakṣa then explains in what cases these different periods apply. As to what is meant by impurity till life’s end (lit, till he is reduced to ashes), Dakṣa ( VI. 8-10 ) says:

’those who take their meals without bathing or offering to gods or without making gifts all such persons are in impurity till life ends.

One who is permanently afflicted with a disease,
who is close-fisted (i.e. stints himself, wife and son and religious acts through greed),
who is always in debt (i. e. who has not paid off his debts to gods, sages and manes),
who is bereft of religious acts ( nitya or naimittika),
who is a fool and is under the thumb of his wife,
whose mind is bent on vices (gambling, prostitution &c. ),
who is always dependent (a king’s servant or the like),
who is devoid of faith and benevolence (charitable gifts) -

he incurs impurity which ends only with his ashes (i.e, only when he is cremated)²¹.

These words are not to be taken literally; what is meant is that such a man is to be shunned by others (i.e, it is an arthavāda conveying merely censure).

Impurity on birth

We shall now turn to the impurity on birth.

That the impurity on birth lasted for ten days even in Vedic times can be inferred from the story of Śunaḥ-śepa narrated in the Ait. Br. (chapter 33, 2), where occurs the passage ‘when the animal is more than ten days from birth he becomes pure (and fit to be offered in sacrifice).’ The same inference can probably be drawn from Tai. Br, II, 1. 1.3, where it is said ’therefore people do not take the milk of a cow for ten nights when a calf is born’²².

srāva, pāta, prasava

Abortion in the first four months²³ of pregnancy is called srāva, abortion in the 5th or 6th month is called pāta and from the 7th month of pregnancy onwards it is called prasūti or prasava ( according to Parāśara III, 16, Ṣadasiti verse 9).

srāva and pāta

When there is srāva the mother incurs impurity for three days, in the case of pāta the mother has to observe impurity for as many days as correspond to the months of pregnancy (i. e. 5 days or 6 days).

The impurity consists in the mother being untouchable. The father alone has to bathe when there is srāva, but when there is pāta the father and sapiṇḍas have to observe impurity for three days (according to Madana-pārijāta p. 380-381 and others) but they don’t incur impurity as on death. These rules hold good for all castes.

prasava

But when the foetus comes out dead in any month from the 7th or the child is still-born, then the impurity is for ten days for both parents and the sapiṇḍas for all varṇas or for 10, 12, 15 and 30 days respectively for the four varṇas as laid down in Yāj. (III. 22 ) and the samānodakas have to observe āśauca for three days and sagotras for one day (Dharmasindhu p. 427). The above rules are more or less laid down by Gautama 14. 15-16, Baud. Dh, S. I, 5, 136, Parāśara III, 24, Manu V. 66, Yāj. III. 20 (latter half) and the first verse of Āśaucadaśaka.

The mother is untouchable for ten days on birth, still-birth or abortion in 7th, 8th or 9th month but the father and sapiṇḍas²⁴ when they take a bath after the prasava are not untouchable (Yaj. III. 19).

In ancient times there were several differing views about jananāśauca for the father as vouched for by Baud²⁵ Dh. S. I. 5. 125-128.

Although a woman becomes touchable in ten days after delivery she is not fit to take part in religious rites for 20 days after she becomes touchable (i. e. 30 days from birth ) if she gave birth to a son but for 30 days (i.e. 40 days from birth) if a daughter was born²⁶. Women of all varṇas become pure (i.e. touchable) ten days after delivery–says Pracetas²⁷. Devala states that there is no āśauca on the ground of birth when the period of (ten or twelve ) days has expired²⁸.

If a woman was delivered at her father’s or brother’s house, then her parents and her brothers staying with the father had to observe āśauca for one day (Dharmasindhu p. 427), but if a woman was delivered of a child at her husband’s house then her father or brother had to observe no āśauca (on birth). Even when sagotras have to observe āśauca on birth they are not untouchable (Ṣadaśīti verse 6).

General rules about āśauca

It would be better to state here certain general rules once for all. When any text employs the word day (ahaḥ) or night (rātri) in prescribing the duration of āśauca what is meant is ahorātra (both day²⁹ and night). When counting the days of aśauca one has to begin from the day of the cremation, if the deceased was an āhitāgni, but from the day of death in the case of one not an āhitāgni³⁰ ( Āśauca-daśaka verse 4, Kūrma, Uttarārdha 23.52).

Birth and death are causes of āśauca only when they are known to the person who is to be affected by it and not by the mere fact of the birth or death.

This follows from certain passages of Pāraskara gr. III. 10 and Manu V. 75-76 and the Brahmapurāṇa. Pāraskara (III. 10) provides :³¹

‘if one who had gone abroad dies,
(his relatives) should on hearing (of his death) sit down and offer him water and should remain untouchable for the days that remain out of the proper period (viz. 10, 12, 15, 30 days);
if the prescribed period of aśauca ) has expired they should observe āśauca for one night or three nights,’

Manu (V.75-76) is to the same effect. The Brahmapurāṇa states:

‘if a donor makes a gift and the acceptor accepts it when both are not aware of there being a birth or death in their family, no blame attaches.’

Rules about āśauca on death

We should now turn to āśauca on death. Here again there is no unanimity and therefore the views preferably of the latest works (such as the Dharmasindhu) will be set out after referring to a few smṛti passages. Āśauca on death renders those who incur it untouchable and unable to perform religious rites. Pār. gr. III, 10. 29-30 (S. B. E. vol. 29 p. 357) stated generally that the impurity caused by death lasts through three nights and that according to some teachers through ten nights.

• If a child dies within ten days of birth, the father and mother have to observe Jananāśauca and become purified by the end of the āśauca on birth and the father remains untouchable for those days (Kūrma-purāṇa q. by S. K, p. 21).
• If a child died before it struck teeth the sapiṇḍas had only to undergo a bath, while the parents had to observe āśauca for three days if the child was a son and for one day if a daughter (vide Yāj. III. 23, Sankha 15. 4, Atri 95, Āśaucadaśaka verse 2).
• If the child died after striking teeth but before Cūdā (or the end of the third year) the sapiṇḍas had to observe āśauca for one day and night (Yaj. III. 23, Sankha 15, 5), but the parents had āśauca (of death) for three days. If the child was a girl the sapiṇḍas became pure by a bath up to the girl’s third year.
• If death occurs between Cūdā (or three years) and upanayana or marriage (in the case of girls) the sapiṇḍas including the father have to observe āśauca for three days and samānodakas become purified by a bath alone.
• After upanayana all sapiṇḍas have to observe āśauca (on death ) for ten days (Gaut. 14, 1, Manu V. 59, Aśaucadaśaka 2) and all samānodakas for three days.

• In the case of a śūdra dying after three and before marriage or 16 years the āśauca is three days for all sapiṇḍas.

• After sixteen years or marriage (in the case of a śūdra) it is the āśauca prescribed for his caste.

• In the case of a girl dying after three years and before vāgdāna (betrothal) the parents have āśauca for three days and the sapipdas (up to three generations ) one day.

• If a girl dies after vāgdāna and before marriage the sapiṇḍas of her father as well as of the proposed bridegroom had to observe āśauca for three days.

• In the case of women and śūdras if death takes place after marriage or after 16 years (if the Sūdra was unmarried) the period of āśauca for all sapiṇḍas is ten days.

• If a woman dies at her father’s house after marriage, her parents, step-mother, full brothers and step-brothers have to obserye āśauca for three days and her paternal uncle and the like that stay in the same house with her father for one day.

• Some say that if the married daughter dies in a village other than that of the father, the parents have to observe āśauca for a pakṣiṇī ³² (i.e. two nights with a day between or two days with a night between). There are other views on this point which are passed over. For example, Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra (22. 32-34) says that in the case of a married woman there is no āśauca on the parents’ side; but when she is delivered of a child or dies in the father’s house then the impurity is for one day or three days respectively³³.

• A married woman has to observe āśauca for three days for the death of her parents or step-mother if ten days have not elapsed from the day of death or for the remaining days out of the period of ten (Yaj. III, 21 latter half).

• If the married daughter hears of the death of the parents or step-mother at a time more than ten days after the death or within one year she has to observe āśauca for a pakṣiṇī.

• If a brother whose upanayana has been performed dies at his married sister’s house or vice versa, āśauca has to be observed for three days by them, but if they do not die at each other’s house but in a different one then the āśauca is for a pakṣiṇī and if the death occurs in another village then there is āśauca only for one day.

• The same rules apply to step-brothers and step-sisters and also among sisters.
• A married woman on the death of her paternal grand-father or paternal uncle has to undergo only a bath.
• If a maternal uncle dies, the nephew and the niece have to observe aśauca for a pakṣiṇī.
• If the maternal uncle dies in the house of the nephew then there is āśauca for three days and for only one day if the maternal uncle had not his upanayana performed or died in another village; the same rules apply to one’s mother’s step-brother.
• If the wife of a maternal uncle dies, the nephew or the niece of the maternal uncle have to undergo āśauca for a pakṣiṇī.
• If a nephew whose thread ceremony has been performed dies, his maternal uncle and maternal aunt have āśauca for three days.
• The same rules apply if the deceased be the son of a step-sister of the maternal uncle.
• If the niece (sister’s daughter) dies there is only a bath for the maternal uncle.
• If a maternal grandfather dies, the grandchild (the son or daughter of a daughter) has to observe āśauca for three days, but only for a pakṣiṇī if the maternal grandfather dies in a different village.
• On the death of the maternal grandmother the grandchildren have to observe aśauca for a pakṣiṇī, Some works do not prescribe āśauca for a female descendant such as a niece or grand-daughter.
• If a daughter’s son, whose upanayana had been performed, died, the maternal grandfather and grandmother had to observe āśauca for three days and for pakṣiṇī if the daughter’s son had not upanayana performed for him.
• On the death of a daughter’s daughter the maternal grandfather and mother incur no āśauca.

In all these matters the general rule is that a male whose upanayana had been performed and a married woman alone are liable to undergo aśauca for any relative other than the parents (i. e, on the death of a parent a male though without upanayana and a woman though unmarried are liable to undergo āśauca).

• If a man’s father-in-law or mother-in-law die near (in the house of) the man, he has to undergo āśauca for three days, but only for pakṣiṇī if the death is elsewhere than with the son-in-law.

• On the death of a son-in-law, the father-in-law and the mother-in-law have to observe āśauca for one day or they have only to take a bath, but if the son-in-law dies in the house of the father-in-law then the āśauca is for three days.

• On the death of one’s wife’s brother, the āśauca is for one day if upanayana had been performed; but if no upanayana was performed or if he died in another village a mere bath is enough.

• On the death of one’s mother’s sisters (full or half) the person (whether man or woman) has to undergo āśauca for a pakṣiṇī; the same rule applies on the death of the father’s sister.

• If it is a step-sister of the father then a mere bath is enough. The father’s sister has to undergo a bath if the nephew dies. If one’s father’s sister or mother’s sister dies in one’s house then the āśauca is for three days.

• In the case of bandhus (described by the Mit. on Yāj. II. 135 as bhinnagotra sapiṇḍas) of³⁴ the three kinds, the āśauca is for a pakṣiṇī, provided the bandhu is upanīta but if he died before upanayana then āśauca is for one day and if the bandhu died in one’s house then for three days.

• If the daughter of the father’s sister (and of the other bandhus enumerated in the three verses) dies married, the āśauca is one day, but if they die unmarried only a bath is necessary.

• Among the three kinds of bandhus, a man himself and his three ātmabandhus have to observe āśauca for each other’s death; but the case is different as to pitṛbandhus and mātṛbandhus.

• If any one of these latter dies, there is āśauca for the man whose bandhus they are, but if a man dies, his pitṛbandhus and mātṛbandhus have to observe no āśauca.

• If an adopted son dies, his natural father and adoptive father have to observe āśauca for three days (the Vyavahāramayūkha differs from this ) and the sapiṇḍas for one day.

• If the adoptive or natural father dies, the adopted son has to observe āśauca for three days and for one day for the sapiṇḍas of any one of them.

• On the death of the son and the grandson of an adopted son, the sapiṇḍas of the natural father and the adoptive father have to observe āśauca for one day and vice versa.

These rules apply if the son adopted is not a sapiṇḍa or samānodaka of the adopter, when he was in his family of birth. But if a sagotra sapiṇḍa or a samānodaka be adopted, then the āśauca is for ten or three days respectively.

• If one’s ācārya³⁵ dies, the pupil has to observe āśauca for three days, but only one day if he dies in another village (Gautama 14, 26, 52, Manu V. 80).
• On the death of the ācārya’s wife or son the āśauca is for one day³⁶.
• On the death of a guru (who instructs in Vedic mantras) the āśauca is three days and pakṣiṇī if he dies in another village.
• On the death of a teacher who imparted instruction in grammar, astronomy and other aṅgas (subsidiary lores) of the Veda, the āśauca is one day.
• Similar rules are laid down about the death of a pupil, ṛtvik (sacrificial priest), a sacrificer, a dependent śrotriya, a fellow-student, a friend, which are all passed over as not now useful. Vide Gaut, 14. 19-20 (which prescribe one day’s āśauca on the death of a fellow-student or a dependent śrotriya).

These provisions about āśauca on the death of the ācārya and r̥tvik who were not sapiṇḍas show how closely the bond between teacher and pupil was thought to be in ancient times, almost equalling the tie of blood.

• When a yati (ascetic) dies,³⁷ all his sapiṇḍas have simply to undergo a bath (and nothing more).
• Conversely, a yati and brahmacārin have to observe no āśauca. Manu V. 82, Yāj. III. 25, Viṣṇu 22.45.
• Sankha 15.15 provide that on the death of the ruler of the country in which one resides one has to observe āśauca up till the coming of the day or night next to that on which the king dies³⁸.

• As long as a corpse is not removed from the village in which a man dies, the whole village is in āśauca. Ā.p. Dh. S. 1. 3. 9. 14 declares that there is no Veda study till a corpse lies in the village.

• The Smṛti-muktāphala (p. 541) quotes³⁹ several smṛtis to the effect that in a village in which a corpse lies unremoved, there is to be no eating, no Vedic study and no sacrifice, but that this does not apply where in a village there are more than four hundred brāhmaṇas. The Dharmasindhu (p. 433) also says the same about a village, but adds that this rule does not apply to a town.

• The ideas of ritualistic purity went so far as to provide (as stated in the Śuddhitattva quoted by the Nirṇayasindhu) that if a dog died in a brāhmaṇa’s house the house became impure for ten days, that, if a śūdra⁴⁰, a patita or a mleccha died in a brāhmaṇa’s house, the house became impure for a month, two months or four months respectively and the house had to be abandoned if a śvapāka died therein.+++(5)+++

Atikrāntāśauca

Atikrāntāśauca (impurity on coming to know of birth or death after the several periods fixed). The general rule⁴¹ is that, if a person stays in a different country and hears of a birth or death among his sapiṇḍas, he has to observe āśauca not for ten days after hearing but for that number of days that are short of the ten days (counting from birth or death) prescribed for sapiṇḍas. Vide Manu V. 75, Yāj. III. 21 (latter half), Śaṅkha 15.11, Pār. gr. III. 10.

Āśauca interferes very much with one’s activities and it is hence that often-times people send a closed letter to their relatives living in a different place stating thereon that it be opened on a particular day (which is the 10th day from the death of a sapiṇḍa). Every one knows the meaning of such a direction and by such a subterfuge inconvenience is avoided and the dictates of the śāstra are deemed to be satisfied.

If a son hears of the death of a parent he has to observe āśauca for ten days from the day of hearing, but if he hears of the death of a parent before the collection of bones then he has to observe āśauca only for the days that remain (Smṛti-muktāphala p. 534).

There is great divergence about the period of āśauca if the death of a sapiṇḍa comes to one’s ears more than ten days after the day of death. Manu V.77 provides that on hearing of the death of a sapiṇḍa or the birth of a son after ten days from the event) a man becomes pure after plunging into water with the clothes on and Yāj. III. 21 (last pāda, ‘pūrne dattvodakam śuciḥ’) states that he becomes pure after a bath and) offering water when the period fixed has passed off. From the words of Manu that only the father, even if he hears of the birth of a son more than ten days after the event, has to take a bath the Mit. infers that there is no atikrāntāśauca for sapiṇḍas on birth⁴². The Mit. quotes Devala in support (vide note 621 above).

The Dharmasindhu follows the Mit. Manu V. 76, Śaṅkha 15.12, Kūrmapurāṇa (Uttarārdha) 23,21 state that when ten days have passed after the event of death, the man who hears of the death is impure for three days and if he hears of the death more than a year after death, he becomes pure after a bath.

In order to remove the conflict among smṛtis Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha lays down: ‘āśauca is for three days if the news of death is heard within three months (but later than ten days after death), for a pakṣiṇī if it is heard within six months (but later than three months), for one day if heard before nine months (but later than 6 months ) and thereafter (i.e, up to one year but later than nine months ) one becomes pure by a bath. But the Mit, says⁴³ that this holds good as to all except one’s parents and quotes Paiṭhinasi and another smṛti for the proposition that whenever a son staying in a distant country hears of the death of a parent whether within a year or after a year he has to observe āśauca for ten days from the day he becomes aware of it. Laghu-Āśvalāyana (20.88) lays down the same exception in the case of a son. The Mit. (on Yāi. III. 21 last half) further says that the rules about atikrāntāśauca apply only to a deceased person whose upanayana had been performed. The Dharmasindhu (p. 433 ) remarks that there is no atikrāntāśauca as regards the periods of one day and three days prescribed on the death of one whose upanayana had not been performed or as regards the periods of pakṣiṇī and three days on the death of the maternal uncle and others of a different gotra.

Similarly, there is no atikrāntāśauca with reference to the āśauca for three days prescribed in the case of samānodakas; but in these cases even after the lapse of the fixed time a bath is necessary. The rules about atikrāntāśauca apply only to āśauca on death for ten days. As in the case of the son, so in the cases of husband and wife and of co-wives among themselves even after the lapse of more than a year and even if the death is in a different country the husband or wife or co-wife has to observe āśauca for ten days. The parents, even when they hear of the death of an aurasa son after a year, have to observe āśauca for three days. On the news of the death of a sapiṇḍa living in the same country coming to a sapiṇḍa’s ears after ten days but up to three months, the period of aśauca is three days, pakṣipi up to 6 months, up to nine months one day and up to one year a bath. Here also there are various views such as those of Mādhava and others. Vide Śuddhiprakāśa pp. 49-51 for various views.

Aśauca if death in another country

The Mit on Yāj. III. 21 (latter half ) makes a distinction between
knowledge of the death of a sapiṇḍa staying in the same country coming to a person’s ears after ten days from death
and of the death of a sapiṇḍa staying in another country separated by a big river &c.
In the latter case the sapiṇḍas coming to hear of the death after ten days but even before three months are purified by a mere bath. It quotes⁴⁴ a smṛti verse ‘on hearing that a person (sapiṇḍa) died in another country and in the case of the death of an impotent person or a forest hermit or an ascetic purification follows after a bath and the same applies to sagotra sapiṇḍas in the case of abortion,’ The Ṣaḍaśīti (35) has a similar verse⁴⁵. The Mit. quotes two verses of Bṛhaspati which define what deśāntara (a different country ). means:⁴⁶ Where there is a large river or there is a mountain which separates (one territory from another ) or where the languages differ then there is deśāntara. Some say that a different country means the distance of sixty yojanas, while others put it down at forty yojanas and still others at thirty yojanas.’ There is a difference of opinion as to whether in order to constitute a different country all three must co-exist (viz, a large river, a mountain and difference of speech) or any one of the three will suffice or whether 60, 40 or 30 yojanas would constitute a different country or whether the requirement of ten days for news to be carried to a place would constitute deśāntara. The Sm. C. and Ṣadaśiti 37 hold the view that any one of the above three is sufficient while others hold other views. The Śuddhiviveka⁴⁷ holds that a distance of 60 yojanas constituted deśāntara by itself, but even within sixty yojanas if a large river, a mountain and difference of speech occurred together, that could give rise to deśāntara.

The Smṛtyarthasāra⁴⁸ avers that deśāntara is differently described in the Smṛtis, Purāṇas and the works on tirthas. For yojana, vide H. of Dh. vol. III n. 185 pp. 145-146.

The Dharmasindhu (p. 435) provides that if the bones of an āhitāgni were not found and only an effigy of palāśa leaves were burnt, still the āśauca is for ten days even if he died in a different country and a long time had elapsed. Similarly, in the case of the effigy of one who is not an āhitāgni, the āśauca is for ten days for his son and wife if they have not already observed any āśauca for him but if they had observed it (on hearing of his death ) then for three days (on the burning of the effigy ). For other sapiṇḍas (than the son and wife ) in the same circumstances three days and bath are respectively prescribed.

It is provided in the Gṛhya kārikas, the Smṛtyarthasāra (p. 94), Dharmasindhu (p. 435) and other works that if a man⁴⁹ went to a distant country and no news of his being alive was heard, then his son or other relative), after the lapse of 20 years from the time when no news was heard if the man went away when he was young or 15 years if he left when he was of middle age or 12 years if he left later in life, should perform three cāndrāyaṇas or thirty kṛcchras, prepare an effigy of the man with kuśas (or with palāśa leaves ), should burn it and then observe āśauca and perform śrāddhas &c.

Summary of rules on āśauca

To summarize the above discussion it is clear that as indicated by Medhātithi on Manu V. 58 there is a distinction as regards the periods of aśauca and the persons affected by it in several ways.

1. There is a distinction between āśauca on birth and āśauca on death;
2. As to aśauca on death numerous distinctions arise viz. a) when there is abortion (garbhasrāva or garbhapāta, as in Sankha 15. 4, Bṛhat-Parāśara VI. p. 186 );
   b) when the foetus comes out from the 7th to the 9th month of pregnancy or the child is still-born or dies after being born but before the appearance of teeth (Yāj. III. 23, Atri 95);
   c) after the appearance of teeth but before cūḍā or three years (Viṣṇu 22. 29, Yāj. III. 23);
   d) after cūḍā or three years up to upanayana (Manu V. 67);
   e) after upanayana (Yaj. III, 23, Manu V. 59, Gaut. 14. 1);
   f) as to āśauca on death after upanayana the duration at one time depended in the case of brāhmaṇas on Vedic study, the performance of śrauta rites and whether the brāhmaṇa subsisted on ears of corn left in the field after the crops were harvested⁵⁰ (Parāśara TII, 5, Sankha 15.1, Atri 83, Agnipurāṇa 158. 10-11);
   g) the duration of āśauca depended on caste (Gaut. 14. 1-4, Yāj. III. 22 &c. );
   h) the duration of āśauca depended on nearness of blood i.e. whether the person affected was a sapiṇḍa or a samānodaka (Gaut. 14. 1 and 18, Manu V. 59, 64);
   i) the duration depended also on the nearness or distance from the place of death (Laghu-Āśvalāyana 20. 85, 89);
   j) it also depended on whether the deceased died in a different country separated by a large river, a mountain or thirty yojanas (Laghu-Āśvalāyana 20.87);
   k) duration depended on the time that elapsed before it came to the knowledge of the relative;
   l) the duration depended upon whether another āśauca supervened when the period of the first was not over.

If a person is born or died at night or news thereof is received at night, a question arises as to from what day the periods of āśauca are to be calculated. For example, if a man died at 1 A. M. on Monday, was Monday to be included in counting ten days of āśauca or was it to be excluded ? There are two views on this point⁵¹. One view is that any time before midnight is to be counted as belonging to the previous day, while any time after midnight is to be taken as belonging to the next day. On this view in the above illustration Monday would be excluded in the calculation of ten days. The other view is that the night is to be divided into three parts and if death occurs in the first two of the three parts then the day is to be included in the calculation; if the time of death falls in the 3rd part, the ten days are to be calculated from the next day. On this view Monday would be included in the ten days. The Dharmasindhu (p. 435 ) remarks that in this matter the usage of the country is to be followed. Vide Madanapārijāta pp. 394-395 also.

Inter-caste cases

Several rules are mentioned in the smṛtis about the periods of āśauca for the relatives of higher castes when they marry women of lower varṇas (i.e. when there are anuloma marriages). For example, Dakṣa VI. 12 says that if a brāhmaṇa has married wives of the four varṇas, then the impurity on the delivery or death of these women respectively lasts for 10, 6, 3 or 1 day. Viṣṇu Dh. S. (22. 22-24) provides that when a kśatriya has sapiṇḍas of the vaiśya or śūdra varṇa the āśauca on the birth and death of these lasts for six or three days, if a vaiśya has a śūdra as sapiṇḍa then impurity is removed after six days. But when people of lower varṇas have sapiṇḍas of higher varṇas then impurity on birth and death ceases when the impurity of the higher varṇa sapiṇḍas ceases. Laghu-Hārīta 84 (= Āpastambasmṛti IX verse 13) has similar provisions. Other smṛtis and purāṇas like the Kūrma (Uttarārdha 23. 30-36) mention differing views quoted in Hāralata pp. 54-60, Smr. M. pp. 495-496. The Madanapārijāta remarks (pp. 425-426 ) that some say that these varying provisions may be discarded or that they may be assigned their proper place according to the usages of the several countries or they should somehow be explained as based upon the person affected being possessed of virtues or not or they may be held to be appli cable to seasons of distress or otherwise.

According to the Mit. on Yáj.⁵² III, 22 persons belonging to the pratiloma castes have no periods of aśauca, but they have to observe rules of purification similar to those relating to answering the call of nature. Others like the Smṛti-muktaphala⁵³ p. 495 aver, relying on Manu (X. 41), that the pratiloma castes are like sūdras and have to observe the āśauca prescribed for śūdras. The Hāralatā (p. 12 ) quotes Adipurāṇa to the effect that varṇasaṅkaras (i.e. pratilomas) should follow the sūdras in the matter of aśauca and purification. The Smṛtyartha-sāra (p. 92) states that those born of pratiloma unions should observe āśauca if they perform prāyaścitta, but if they do not perform prāyaścitta then there is no āśauca for them.

Corpse carrying

It has already been stated (p. 215) how it was the duty of sapiṇḍas to take out the corpse and to cremate it and how carrying the dead body of a poor brāhmaṇa was highly eulogised (Parāśara III. 39-40). But, as Manu V. 101-102 provide, if a brāhmaṇa carried through affection the dead body of one⁵⁴ who was not his sapiṇḍa, as if he were a bandhu or carried (the dead body) of his mother’s bandhus (such as mother’s brother or sister) he became pure after three days; but if he partook of the food of those who were bereaved by death he became pure after ten days and if he does not stay in the house of those bereaved nor partakes of their food he becomes pure in a day (but if he stays in their house though not partaking of their food he has to observe aśauca for three days). Vide Kurmapurāṇa (Uttarardha 23.37) and Viṣṇu 22. 7-9 also. Gautama (14.21-25) has rules on the same subject but they somewhat differ and Haradatta remarks that this āśauca is somewhat different from the āśauca observed by sapiṇḍas, viz. he becomes untouchable but he need not follow the other rules such as sleeping on the ground &c.

If a person carried a dead body through greed (for money ), a brāhmaṇa, kśatriya, vaiśya or śūdra had to observe āśauca respectively for 10, 12, or 15 days or a month. This was called nirhārāśauca, the word ‘nirhāra’⁵⁵ including the covering of the dead body with a garment, decking it with garlands, perfumes and ornaments, carrying it and cremating it. Sapiṇḍas who are observing āśauca for the death of the same person may dine in the same house and partake of the food cooked, but not others who are not undergoing the same āśauca⁵⁶.

Procession

Gaut. 14. 29, Manu V. 103, Yāj. III. 26, Parāśara III. 42 prescribe that a brāhmaṇa should not follow the funeral procession of a deceased brāhmaṇa, but if he does so, he has to bathe, touch fire, take in ghee and then he becomes pure. Parāśara III, 43-46 and Kūrmapurāpa (Uttarārdha 23.45) provide a rising scale of the days of āśauca if a brāhmaṇa follows the corpse of a kśatriya (āśauca for one day and pañcagavya), a vaiśya (āśauca for two days and six prāṇāyāmas), a śūdra (āśauca for three days, bath in a river going to the sea, 100 prāṇāyāmas⁵⁷ and drinking of ghee). Vide Trimśac-chloki Verse 13.

Weeping and consolation

If a brāhmaṇa who is not a sapiṇḍa of the deceased went to the bereaved family and wept along with the relatives before the collection of bones he had to observe āśauca for a day and then a bath if the deceased was a kśatriya or vaiśya, but aśauca for three days if the deceased was a śūdra; but he had to undergo only a bath if he went after the collection of the bones; when the deceased was a śūdra and the weeping took place after the collection of bones he had to observe āśauca for a whole day and night. Vide Kūrmapurāṇa (Uttarārdha 23.46-47). Agnipurāṇa 158.47-48, Par, M. 1.2. pp. 283-285, Smr. M. (āśauca) p. 543 and Aśāucadaśaka verse 9 (for nirhāra, following a funeral procession and weeping ).

āśauca cause separation

Persons⁵⁸ undergoing an āśauca on birth or death for one person were forbidden to touch other persons undergoing aśauca for the birth or death of another person altogether. If they did so they had to perform prāyaścitta (Prājāpatya or Sāntapana).

Illicit relationship

Even if a person’s wife left him and lived in illicit relationship with a person of the same or higher caste he had to observe on her death āśauca for one day. But if she lived with one lower in varṇa than her husband, the latter had not, on her death, to observe any āśauca at all (Yāj. III,6 ). Similarly, one had to observe one day’s āśauca on the death of sons that were not aurasa (such as kṣetraja). Vide Yāj. III.25 and Viṣṇu 22.42-43.

Exceptions to Āśauca

Certain exceptions were recognized to the above rules about partaking of food at the house of one who is afflicted with āśauca.

Post-commencement

While a marriage⁵⁹ rite (as also caula and upanayana ), festival in honour of a deity and a sacrifice (like Jyotiṣṭoma ) are in progress, if impurity due to birth or death overtakes the performer, the materials (money and other things ) already set apart for them may be dedicated or donated to the deity or brāhmaṇas and no fault is incurred.

As regards food, a smṛti text⁶⁰ quoted by the Mit. says

‘if in marriage, in a festival in honour of a deity or in a sacrifice āśauca on birth or death intervenes, the cooked food should be served through others (not affected by the āśauca) and the donor and the partaker of the food incur no blame.’

Acc. to Aṅgiras⁶¹, Paiṭhinasi (q. by Sm. C.) and Viṣṇu Dh. S., when once a sacrifice (like a Somayāga), a marriage, a sacrifice or festival in honour of the mother Goddesses or a deity or the dedication or foundation of an idol or temple has been begun a supervening āśauca does not matter.

Even in modern times this is followed as regards upanayana and marriage. When exactly a sacrifice or marriage ceremony may be said to have begun is laid down by Laghu-Viṣṇu as follows:⁶²

• in the case of a sacrifice it may be said to begin when the priests are chosen,
• in the case of vratas and japa when the saṅkalpa (declaration) is made,
• in the case of marriage when the Nāndiśrāddha is performed,
• and in the case of a śrāddha when the food meant for the brāhmaṇas has been cooked completely.

Things which can be taken

Certain things could be taken from the house of one who was undergoing āśauca⁶³ on birth or death and who was the owner thereof (though not actually from his hand, but with his permission). The Kūrmapurāṇa enumerates such articles. They are “fruits, flowers, raw vegetables, salt, firewood, butter-milk, curds, ghee, oil, drugs, milk and dry food” (like laddus, lājas ).

Marīci (q. by Mit. on Yaj. III. 17) and Trimśac-chloki verse 20 present oven longer lists of such things.

Slaves

Some smṛtis and commentators lay down rules about the aśauca to be observed by slaves when their masters are in āśauca. Vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. 22.19, Devalasmṛti verse 6, Bṛhaspati quoted by Haradatta on Gaut. 14.4. But as slavery has long been abolished this topic is passed over here.

Āśaucasannipāta

Āśaucasannipāta or āśaucasampāta (the knowledge of another āśauca coming to a person already observing one āśauca)⁶⁴. The rules about this matter were promulgated early enough and they are based on convenience and common sense. The rules try to give relief to persons who may be sorely tried if it were held that, when another āśauca supervenes while a person is already in the midst of one, he has to finish all the days of the first āśauca and then begin the period of the second āśauca. The Gaut. Dh..S. 14.5 starts by saying that if another āśauca supervenes on one already being undergone, purification results after the remaining days of the first āśauca are over. Then sūtras 6 and 7 provide that if the second aśauca supervenes in the last night of the first āśauca then purification results in two days after the first āśauca ends and if the second āśauca comes to be known in the last watch of the night of the last day of the first āśauca, the second ends in three days after the first ends. Baud. Dh. S. I. 5, 123 appears to be similar to Gaut. 14.5-6 Manu V. 79, Yāj. III. 20, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 22. 35-38, Śaṅkha 15. 10, Parāśara III. 28 lay down the general rule promulgated by Gautama 14.5.

Rules on āśaucasannipāta

Some general rules concerning this topic may first be stated.

The first rule is that in a conflict between āśauca on death and āśauca on birth, that on death is stronger⁶⁵. The 2nd rule is that if both āśaucas are of the same kind and the second is of the same duration or of lesser duration than the first then a man gets rid of both at the end of the first, but if the second, though of the same kind, has a longer duration than the first, then purification follows at the end of the one that is of longer duration. It has to be remembered that birth and death give rise to āśauca⁶⁶ only when they are known by a person.

On this topic there is a good deal of divergence between the views of the followers of the Mitakṣarā, of the Gaudas and Maithilas (vide Śuddhiprakāsa pp. 74-82, Nirṇayasindhu 536-540). Following the Nirṇayasindhu it may be said that twelve alternatives are possible, when another āśauca supervenes on an already existing one. They are set out here. (1 & 2) If both āśaucas are due to birth and the second is of the same duration as the first or of lesser duration, then at the end of the first āśauca there is purification from both (Visṇu 22.35, Sankha 15.70); (3) If both āśaucas are due to birth and the second one is of longer duration than the first then purification results at the end of the second (Śankha 15.10, Ṣadaśiti 19 ); ( 4 and 5) If both āśaucas arise on death and the second is of the same duration as the first or of lesser duration, then at the end of the period of the first aśauca there is purification from both; (6) If both āśaucas arise on death and the second that intervenes is of longer duration than the first then purification results at the end of the second (Ṣadaśīti 21); (7, 8 and 9) When the firt āśauca is one arising from birth and an āśauca due to deaths intervenes, the āśauca on death must run its full course (i.e. there is no purification by the lapse of the first āśauca due to birth), whether the āśauca for death is of lesser duration than the āśauca on birth, or whether it is of the same or of longer duration (Ṣadaśiti 18); (10, 11) If the⁶⁷ first āśauca arises on death and the supervening one is due to birth and is of lesser duration than the one on death or of the same duration then both end at the expiration of the first āśauca on death (Ṣadasīti 21); (12) If the first āśauca arises on death and the supervening one arises on birth and is of longer duration, then both run their proper courses (Ṣadaśīti 21).

The Dharmasindhu (p. 436) generally follows the Nirṇayasindhu but remarks:

‘Āśauca on death cannot be done away with by āśauca on birth which is of the same or greater duration; āśauca on death of the extent of pakṣiṇī cannot get rid of āśauca on birth which is three or ten days in duration and āśauca on birth extending to ten days cannot be got rid of by āśauca on death which is of three days’ duration’.

These are the views of many writers. A certain writer says that āśauca on birth though longer in duration can be got rid of by āśauca on death which is of lesser extent.

The Mit. on Yāj. III, 20 (first half) states an exception to the above rules about āśauca-sannipāta. When a person’s mother dies and then, while the period of āśauca for the mother’s death is not over, the father dies, it does not follow that the āśauca for the father comes to an end with the end of the āśauca for the mother, but the son has to observe the full period of⁶⁸ the āśauca for father’s death. Similarly, if the father died first and then, while the period of āśauca for the father was not over, the mother died, it does not follow that the āśauca for the mother’s death comes to an end with the end of the first period of āśauca for the father, but the son after observing the period of the father’s āśauca has to observe āśauca for the mother for one pakṣiṇī in addition. It may be remarked that Aparārka construes this verse differently by stating that if the father dies during the period of āśauca for the death of the mother, then the general rule applies, viz, that purification follows at the end of the āśauca for the mother.

Special rules about āśauca

If, while an āśauca on death is being undergone, an āśauca on birth arises, the father of the child born is able to perform the rites of Jātakarma and the like, because he is to be deemed to be purified for the nonce, according to Prajāpati⁶⁹.

The Ṣadaśiti (verse 22) provides⁷⁰ that the rule about purification on the expiry of the first āśauca in the case of succeeding āśaucas on birth or death has three exceptions, viz, a woman who is delivered of a child, the person who actually cremates the body (of the deceased) and the sons of the deceased; that is, a sūtikā has to observe the proper period of untouchability and one who cremates a dead body has to observe āśauca for ten days, though the delivery or cremation takes place in the midst of an āśauca on death.

SADYAḤ-ŚAUCA. (purification on the same day)

It has already been seen (p. 274) that Dakṣa (VI. 2) speaks of ten kinds of impurity on birth or death, the first two of which are sadyaḥśāuca and ekāha. Ekāha means day and night together (vide note 622 above). The ordinary meaning of ‘sadyaḥ’ is ‘at once, immediately.’ But when Yaj. III. 29, Parāśara III. 10, Atri 97 and other smṛtis employ the word ‘sadyaḥ-śauca’ what is meant is that there is no āśauca for a whole day or three days or ten days, but only up to the taking of a bath or up to the end of the day or the end of the night on which the event occurs. Panini⁷¹ mentions ‘sadyaḥ’ and thirteen other words in one sutra as nipātas (irregularly formed). From Yāj. III. 23 (ādantajanmanaḥ sadya ācūdānnaiśjki smṛtā) it impliedly follows that sadyaḥ has the meaning of a part of a day or a part of the night’ (as the case may be) and ’naiśiki’ means a whole day and night (as note 622 shows).

The Śuddhitattva (pp. 340-341 ) explains⁷² ‘sadyaḥ’ as meaning ‘a portion of the day or of the night’ and cites several authorities in support.

The Śuddhiprakāśa (p. 92) explains that ‘sadyaḥśauca’ in some contexts means ‘absence of āśauca,’ while in others it means ‘bath’ and with reference to those killed in battle and the like (to whom piṇḍas have to be offered) it means a part of the day or of the night.’ The Smṛtimuktāphala⁷³ (āśaucakāṇḍa ) p.481 says that’sadyaḥśauca’ means ‘impurity that comes to an end by a bath.’ That piṇḍas have to be offered to those about whom there is ‘sadyaḥśauca’ is stated by the Adipurāṇa⁷⁴.

According to the Śuddhikaumudi (p.73) ‘sadyaḥśauca’ has two meanings, viz. (1) the entire absence of āśauca as in the cases of sacrificial priests &c. (Yāj. III. 28), (2) āśauca that is removed by a mere bath ( as in Manu V. 76).

The rules about āśauca for several days do not operate in five classes of cases, viz.

• certain persons are exempted altogether,
• certain activities of certain persons who would ordinarily be untouchable owing to āśauca are allowed without causing pollution,
• certain articles can be taken by anybody without fear of pollution from those who are affected by āśauca,
• no āśauca is to be observed for certain deceased persons owing to their faults,
• in the case of certain persons express texts say that no āśauca need be observed for them.

These five classes will briefly be dealt with in order. In the principal texts these five classes of cases are rather mixed up.

Exempt people

Cases of sadyah-śauca

In the Viṣṇupurāṇa III, 13.7 it is provided that there is sadyaḥśauca on the death of a child, or of a person dying in another country, of a patita, or of an ascetic, or on the death of a person committing suicide by water, fire or hanging. Vide also Gaut. 14.11 and 42 and Vāmanapurāṇa 14.99.

Yāj. (III. 28-29 ) prescribes that there is sadyaḥśauca (purification after a bath ) in case of birth or death of a sapiṇda )

• for priests chosen for a sacrifice (after they are offered Madhuparka ),
• for those who have undergone dīkṣā for a vedic sacrifice (like Somayāga) and
• those who are engaged in performing the constituent parts of a Vedic sacrifice,
• those who continuously distribute food at a charity house,
• those who are engaged in prāyascittas like cāndrāyaṇa or the vows of snātakas,
• for brahmacārins (when performing the duties of their āśrama ),
• for persons who everyday make gifts of a cow, gold etc. (at the time of making the gift),
• for those who have realized Brahman (ascetics);

there is sadyaḥśauca

• at gifts ( when once begun), at marriage,
• in a Vedic sacrifice, in battle (for those who are about to be engaged in it),
• when there is commotion in a country (through invasion ), and
• in a severe calamity (like famine when one can accept food from any body).

Kings

Gaut. (14, 43-44) says that there is sadyaḥśauca in the case of kings as otherwise there will be obstacles in their duties and also in the case of brāhmaṇas in order to prevent the cessation of their duties of teaching. Śaṅkhalikhita says the same -

Rajā dharmāyatanam sarveṣām tasmād anavaruddhaḥ pretaprasavadoṣaiḥ
(Śuddhikalpataru p. 62).

It is stated in Manu V. 93 that kings⁷⁵ those engaged in vratas and sattras (like Gavām-ayana ) are not liable to undergo the blemish of āśauca, because they (kings ) occupy the position of Indra (ruler) and are like Brahma (which is free from all taint) and Manu V. 94 clinches the matter further by observing ‘sadyaḥśauca is ordained for the position of a king which can be obtained only by great merit (in past lives) for the sake of the protection of the subjects and the reason of this (rule) is the position that he occupies.’

brahmacārin, yati, vānaprastha, r̥tvik,

Similarly, Gobhilasmṛti⁷⁶ (III. 64-65, often quoted as Chandogapariśiṣṭa of Katyāyana ) states

‘in a sūtaka, a brahmacārin should not give up his peculiar duties (Veda study and vratas),
a sacrificer his various actions ( required ) in a sacrifice after he has undergone dikṣā,
one who is practising penance should not give up krcchra and the like;
these do not incur impurity even on the death of their father (or mother )’.

The Kūrmapurāṇa⁷⁷ provides

’no impurity is declared on death in the case of perpetual or temporary brahmacārins, forest hermits or ascetics’.

Similar rules are given by Atri 97-98, Linga-purāṇa, pūrvabhāga, chap. 89.77. The Mit. on Yāj. III, 28 remarks that

• in the case of the three āśramas of brahmacārin, vānaprastha and yati there is freedom from impurity in all cases and at all times;
• ascetics and brahmacārins have to undergo a bath with clothes on the death of their father or mother (Dharmasindhu p. 442);
• in the case of several others such as those who are continually making gifts or are observing vratas

there is freedom from impurity only when they are engaged in those particular actions and not when they are engaged in any action whatever or when they mix up among others for everyday work⁷⁸.

Similar rules occur in Parāśara III, 21-22. It has already been stated following Manu V. 91 ( = Viṣṇu 22.86 ) that a brahmacārin was not to perform the last rites (of carrying the corpse, cremation) for anybody except for five persons (viz. his parents, upadhyāya, ācārya and guru). He did not incur āśauca by performing the funeral rites of his parents and offering water and piṇḍa to them. But if he did so for any one other than the five mentioned by Manu he had to observe āśauca for ten days, and to undergo prāyaścitta and had his upanayana performed again.

A brahmacārin had to observe after samāvartana (returning from the Vedic teacher) āśauca for three days for all relatives that died during the period of his studenthood (Manu V. 88, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 22.87).

Misc

Gautama (14. 42-44) says generally⁷⁹ that

• on the death of children (before the appearance of teeth or before Cūda),
• of those who are separated by a country,
• of ascetics and of those who are not sapiṇḍas,

the relatives are purified by only a bath;
so also there is sadyaḥśauca

• for kings, for otherwise there would be conflict with their duty of protecting the subjects
• and for a brāhmaṇa also in order that there may be no cessation of Vedic study⁸⁰.

The Śuddhiprakāśa (p. 93) remarks that though there is no āśauca ( as stated by Yāj. III. 28 ) yet a sacrificial priest and a diksita had to bathe on the death of a sapiṇda, a brahmacārin also would have to take a bath if he followed the funeral procession of his father or mother &c., but an ascetic would not have even to bathe and that usage was the same in its day.

Craftsmen etc.

The second class of exceptions refers to cases where certain persons, though they have incurred āśauca, are allowed to do certain acts or carry on their activities without bringing pollution to those with whom they deal or come in contact. For example, Parāśara (III. 20-21) says;

‘craftsmen (such as those who draw pictures or washermen), workers (cooks and the like), physicians, male and female slaves, barbers, kings and śrotriyas are declared to be sadyaḥśauca, as also one observing a vrata (cāndrāyana &c.), one purified by being engaged in a sattra (such as Gavām-ayana), a brāhmaṇa who has established śrauta fires; the king has not to observe āśauca and also any one (such as his purohita) whom the king for his own purpose desires not to observe it.’

The Adipurāṇa⁸¹ gives the reason why craftsmen, physicians and others were allowed not to observe āśauca when engaged in their peculiar tasks, viz. what these people do cannot be done by any one else at all or at least so well or so easily.

It has⁸² to be noted that the absence of āśausa in the case of craftsmen, physicians and the like has to be restricted to the peculiar activities of these and does not extend to all actions such as religious rites, śrāddhas and gifts. This is clear from the words of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra⁸³ 22. 48-52. The Trimśacchloki (verse 18)⁸⁴ gives a long list of such peculiar activities. The Kūrmapurāṇa (Uttarārdha 23. 57-64) has nine verses on this topic which are quoted by the Hāralatā (p. 114).

It has already been seen (pp. 238–240) that Pār. gr. III. 10 (nityāni vinivartante vaitānavarjam), Manu. V. 84, Yaj. III. 17 (latter half) provide that even those who have to undergo āśauca on death should not stop rites to be performed with śrauta fires, but should perform them themselves or get them performed through others. Thus certain religious rites were allowed to be done even by those who were āśaucin.

The Dharmasindhu (p. 552) emphasizes that this exception to aśauca should be availed of only when there is no other alternative or in a season of distress.

Material procurement

It has already been stated how certain materials and things can be received without any pollution from those who are undergoing āśauca. That is the third class of cases which are exceptions to the rules of āśauca.

Suicides, criminals etc.

Cases of no āśauca

The fourth class of cases where rules of āśauca do not apply relate to persons deceased to whom some fault or taint attaches, Gaut. (14, 11)⁸⁵ and Śaṅkha-Likhita provide that there is sadyaḥśauca for those who kill themselves (i.e. commit suicide) by starting on the great journey (to the Himālaya), by fasting, by a weapon (like a dagger), by fire or poison or water or by hanging or by falling down from a precipice.

Yāj. III. 6 provides⁸⁶ that women that have gone over to heterodox views and practices, that do not belong to any particular āśrama, that are thieves (of gold and the like), that (attempt to kill their husbands, that are unchaste and the like, that drink liquor and that attempt suicide, do not deserve to have water offered to them (on death) and no āśauca should be observed for them. This verse applies to men also as far as possible. Manu V. 89-90 are to the same effect.

The Kūrmapurāṇa also prescribes⁸⁷ that for him who kills himself by means of fire, poison and the like, no āśauca, no cremation and no offering of water is prescribed, there is no cremation for patitas, nor antyeṣṭi nor collection of bones, no shedding of tears and no piṇḍa and no śrāddha should be performed for them. It is provided by Angiras quoted by Mit. on Yāj. III. 6 that

‘death results to evil-minded men from cāṇḍālas (with whom a quarrel is purposely got up), from water, from a snake, from a brāhmaṇa, from lightning and from animals that have sharp fangs (like tigers). If water and piṇḍa are offered to such people (who die wilfully in these cases) they (water and piṇḍa) do not reach them and perish in mid air.’

These verses refer to death in a wrathful fight with tigers, snakes and the like or suicide in water through wrath or sorrow. But, if one died in water or by fire through inadvertence or negligence, then Aṅgiras⁸⁸ himself provides that water should be offered and aśauca should be observed.

Long passages are quoted from the Brahmapurāṇa by Haradatta on Gaut. 14. 11, Śuddhiprakāśa pp. 56-57, Nirṇayasindhu p. 550, which elaborate the same ideas as those of Yaj. III. 6, Angiras and others and wind up by stating that if any one offers water or śraddha to patitas through affection or cremates them, he has to undergo prāyaścitta (viz. two Taptakṛcchras).

If an āhitāgni were killed by cāṇḍālas in defiant fight with them or commits suicide, his corpse should be got cremated by śūdras without proper mantras and Gobhilasmṛti (III. 49-51) provides for the disposal of his śrauta fires and sacrificial implements.

Mahāprasthāna

Though suicide was generally condemned, the smṛtis (such as Atri 218-219) and Purāṇas allowed certain exceptions, viz. very old men (above 70), very weak men who cannot observe the rules of bodily purification or those who have no desire left for the pleasures of the senses or who have carried out all tasks and duties, may start on Mahāprasthāna or die at Prayāga. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II, pp. 926-928 for detailed treatment of this topic.

If a man killed himself in the way allowed by the śāstra then there was no blemish and āśauca had to be observed and water and srāddha had to be offered.

It may be noted that starting on Mahāprasthāna and suicide on the part of old men by falling down from a precipice or in fire are forbidden in the Kali age. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III p. 939 and pp. 958-959.

Nārāyaṇabali described

The Mit. on Yāj. III. 6 quotes Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya and Chāgaleya to the effect that in the case of those who commit suicide in any manner that is not sanctioned by the śāstras, Nārāyaṇabali should be performed one year after their death and then the rites of śrāddha may be performed thereafter, The Mit.⁸⁹ on Yāj. III. 6, relying on Viṣṇupurāṇa describes the Nārāyaṇabali as follows:

On the 11th day of the bright half of a month, having worshipped Viṣṇu and Yama, one should with the face to the south offer near them on darbhas with ends turned towards the south ten piṇḍas laved with honey and ghee and mixed with sesame after bringing to mind the deceased⁹⁰ who should be looked upon as having the form of Viṣṇu and having uttered the name and gotra of the deceased;
he should honour the piṇḍas with sandalwood paste and the rest and having performed all the rites up to the removal of piṇḍas, should cast them in a river and not give them to the wife or to others.

Then on the night of the same day he should invite an uneven number of brāhmaṇas, should observe a fast, should worship Viṣṇu the next day, in the noon he should perform all the rites from washing the feet of brāhmaṇas up to the query about the gratification of the brāhmaṇas (by the food served to them) according to the procedure of ekoddiṣṭa śrāddha,
then he should silently go through all the rites from ullekhana (drawing lines) up to avanejana (anointing) by the procedure of Piṇḍa-pitṛyajña. He should offer four piṇḍas to (images of) Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Śiva and Yama together with the attendants, should remember the deceased by name and gotra, should utter the name of Viṣṇu and then offer the 5th piṇḍa.
Then having gratified the brāhmaṇas (after they have sipped water) with fee, he should bring to his mind one of the brāhmaṇas) that is the most qualified of all as representing the deceased and having gratified him to the utmost with the gifts of cows, land and money,
should then make the brāhmaṇas that have pavitras on their hands offer to the deceased water together with sesame and should then take his meal along with his relatives.

The passage quoted by the Mit, makes it clear that Nārāyaṇabali is meant only for those who commit suicide and is to be offered one year after the death of the person guilty of suicide. The Hāralatā⁹¹ (p. 212) also says the same and explains a verse of Viṣṇu extending the performance of Nārāyaṇabali to those killed by cows and brāhmaṇas and those who become patita as a usage restricted to a certain country only⁹².

The Antyeṣṭipaddhati of Nārāyaṇabhatta describes (on folio 187) Nārāyaṇabali rite at greater length than in the Mitākṣarā. One or two details may be pointed out.

Five kalaśas (jars) are to be placed over a quantity of rice or yavas, then filled with water, then have the three mantras “Āpo hi ṣṭha”.(Ṛg. X 9.1-3) repeated over them, then copper plates are to be placed over them on which five images of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Śiva, Yama and the deceased are to be drawn and the worship of these five is to be performed respectively with the Puruṣasūkta (Ṛg. X. 90), Ṛg. X. 121. 1-10, Ṛg. I. 43. 1 (= Tai. A. X, 17), Ṛg.X, 14.13 and the name and gotra of the deceased, sixteen oblations of cooked rice are to be offered to Nārāyaṇa with the sixteen verses of the Puruṣasūkta (Ṛg. X. 90).

Ten piṇdas⁹³ are to be offered on darbhas to the deceased after repeating his name and gotra (as atated in the note below). After the ten piṇḍas are cast in a river, there is tarpaṇa of the deceased sixteen times with the sixteen stanzas of the Puruṣasūkta. Then bali is offered separately to Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Śiva and Yama with his servants.

In the Mitākṣarā, there is no homa nor bali, both of which are described in the Antyeṣṭipaddhati and the Smṛtyarthasāra (pp. 85-86 ) copies verbatim the procedure given in the Mit. Bṛhatparāśara (V. pp. 175-176) contains the same procedure that is set out by the Mit. from the Viṣṇupurāṇa.

The Nirṇayasindhu first describes Nārāyaṇabali as gathered from Hemādri and the Garudapurāṇa (III. 4. 113–119). It then describes Nārāyaṇabali to be performed for a deceased ascetic on the 12th day (along with Pārvanaśrāddha), following the procedure laid down by Baudhāyana. It then describes another form of Nārāyaṇabali based on Śaunaka which is meant for all those who commit suicide or who are killed by cāṇḍālas⁹⁴ snakes, lightning, animals with fangs or who die in a distant land or for ascetics and yogins. The Vṛddha-Hāritasmṛti (IX. 123-143) describes another method of Nārāyaṇabali for devotees of Viṣṇu.

The Vaikhānasa-smārtasūtra (X. 9) sets out a rather brief procedure of Nārāyaṇabali which was intended for the benefit of men who committed suicide or were slain and for ascetics and provides that the same may be performed for those guilty of mahāpātakas after twelve years from their death. The Baudhāyana-gṛhya-śeṣasūtra III. 20 and 21 contain two different sets of the procedure of Nārāyaṇabali, the latter of which appears to be the later one. The latter contains the well-known Verse about death at the hands of cāṇḍālas, from a snake &c.

Heroes

The 5th class of exceptions to āśauca rules comprises those that are declared by express texts as not liable to observe an āśauca. Gautama (14. 8-10) provides⁹⁵ that (the sapiṇḍas) of those that met death for the sake of cows and brāhmaṇas, of those that met death through the wrath of the king and those that were killed in battle have to observe no āśauca but only ‘sadyaḥśauca’.

Manu V. 95 and 98 state⁹⁶ that (the sapiṇḍas) of those that are killed in a sudden affray or by lightning or by the king (for an offence) or of those that met death in protecting cows and brāhmaṇas and of one who was killed in the fashion of kṣatriyas in a battle by the sword have to observe no aśauca, as also he whom the king desires (for his purpose) to observe no āśauca.

It is provided by Śatātapa⁹⁷ that as regards a yati dying, his sons and other sapiṇḍas are not to offer water or piṇḍa to him or to observe āśauca for him. The Dharmasindhu (p. 449) says that this applies to all ascetics, whether they be tridaṇḍin or ekadaṇḍin, haṁsas or paramahaṁsas. So also on the death of a vānaprastha there is no āśauca.

In the case of one who has performed his own śrāddha while alive his sapiṇḍas have an option either to observe āśauca or not. On the death of a brahmacārin āśauca is to be observed.

The Dharmasindhu further notes that in all works it is stated that there is no āśauca⁹⁸ for one killed in battle, but at least among brāhmaṇas (i.e, as to brāhmanas killed in battle) the usage of the śiṣṭas is different (i.e, āśauca is observed).

Uncertainty

Parāśara (III. 12-13) provides that, if a man has gone for many years to a distant land and it is ascertained that he died there but the exact date of his death is not known, then either of three tithis viz. the 8th or 11th day of the dark half or the amāvāsyā should be accepted as the day of his death and water, piṇḍa and śrāddha should be offered on that date and the Par. M.I.2 p. 237 adds that āśauca also must be calculated from that date. On the other hand Laghu-Harita says that if there is some obstacle at the time of a śrāddha or when the date of death is not known, then the funeral rites should be performed on the 11th tithi of the following dark half (Śuddhikaumudi p. 17).

desha-dharma

The digests lay particular emphasis on the fact that in matters of aśauca the usages of a country must be observed. The Haralatā (pp. 55, 205) quotes passages from the Ādipurāṇa where special reference is made to the authority of the usages of a country (deśa-dharma-pramāṇatvāt). The Śuddhitattva p. 275 quotes⁹⁹ a verse of Marici

‘one should not disregard the manner of observing śauca and religious usages that are current in particular localities; the dharma is of that sort alone in those localities’.

On p. 276 it quotes a passage of the Vāmanapurāṇa to the same effect.

It deserves to be noted that Dakṣa¹⁰⁰ (VI. 15) states that all rules about āśauca apply when the times are easy and peaceful but when a man is overwhelmed by distress there is no (enforcement or application) of the (rules of) āśauca.

Purification

Viṣṇu (19. 18-19) provides¹⁰¹ that at the end of the period of aśauca one should go out of the village, get himself shaved and take a bath after applying a thick paste of sesame or white mustard to the body, change garments and then re-enter the house. Then he should perform a śānti (propitiatory rite) and honour brāhmaṇas.

Many medieval digests provide for a more elaborate procedure. For example, the Śuddhikaumudi (pp. 155-164) sets out the procedure of the 11th day separately for the followers of the three Vedas. A few salient points may be mentioned.

After a bath for the whole body, the sapiṇḍas should touch a cow, gold, fire, dūrvā, clarified butter and repeat the name of Govinda, then engage brāhmaṇas to sprinkle śānti water over them and say ‘svasti’. If a brāhmana cannot be had, one should himself perform śanti. The Hāralatā and others say that without śānti water āśauca is not completely removed.

The followers of Sāmaveda should sing the Vāmadevagāna for sānti or should repeat the four Vāmadevya verses viz. ‘kayā naścitra,’ ‘kastvā satyo,’ “abhi ṣū ṇaḥ’ (No. 682-684 of the Samaveda) together with the last verse of the Sāmaveda ‘svasti na Indro’) preceded and followed by the sacred Gayatri; these form the śānti mantras for Samavedins. For followers of Yajurveda seventeen mantras beginning with ‘ṛcam vācam prapadye’ and ending with ‘dyauḥ śāntiḥ’, preceded and followed by the Gāyatri form the śānti mantras; the Ṛgvedins should employ for śanti Ṛg. X. 9. 4, VII, 35, 1, V. 47. 7 &c. preceded and followed by the Gāyatri. Then some gold with silver as dakṣiṇā should be donated to a brāhmaṇa, then the Vaitaraṇi cow should be donated, if one was not given at the approach of death, then a gift of the bedstead &c. should be made.

Simplification

We have seen (p. 270) that originally the sūtras (like Sān. Sr.) and smṛtis (like Manu) emphasized that one should not increase the number of the days of āśauca and that men learned in the Veda and consecrating śrauta fires had to undergo only one day’s āśauca (Parāśara III. 5, Dakṣa VI. 6). But ultimately a flat period of ten days of aśauca (Manu V.59) for all sapiṇḍas came to be prescribed.

In the old days the means of communication were very limited, and hence the news of a birth or death must have taken considerable time to reach relatives staying even at a short distance and hence the restrictions imposed by the rules of āśauca were not felt to be very irksome.

It is on account of this reason and also the great penchant of dharmaśāstra writers for all sorts of divisions, sub-divisions and Classifications that we find medieval writers bestowing an enormously exaggerated attention in very exuberant and enthusiastic style on such a subject as āśauca.+++(5)+++

Most nations have their own usages to indicate that a person (male or female) or a family is in mourning. But probably no country in the world can equal (much less surpass) the Dharmaśāstra writers in the elaborate rules evolved in books about āśauca on birth and death.

In these days when there is a State postal system and the means of communication abound owing to railways, air mail, telegraph and wireless, the ancient and medieval rules of āśauca are felt by all people to be most galling and troublesome.+++(5)+++ Mischievous people sometimes create trouble in the celebration of marriages by sending information about a death or a birth to persons against whom they have a grudge.+++(5)+++ Devices have to be employed for dodging the inconvenience due to rules of āśauca. It is therefore necessary to introduce substantial changes in the rules about āśauca that will prevent trouble, loss of time and work and would at the same time be more or less in agreement with the spirit of the dicta of the smṛtis and the sentiments of most common people. At the end in the appendix note¹⁰² is added which gives the text of the Āśauca-daśaka with Sanskrit explanation.+++(Why mention here??)+++

Source: TW

As regards āśauca on birth I would recommend that hereafter in the changed set-up of society in these days one simple rule should be observed, viz. it is only the mother that has to observe impurity for ten days and no one else has to observe impurity on birth. This is in general accordance with the ancient smṛtis set out above,

As regards impurity on death four rules should ordinarily suffice¹⁰².

(1) Āśauca for ten days on death should be observed by the father and the mother for the son and by the son for the parents, by the wife for the husband and vice versa and by one who performs the rites of cremation and the rites after death.

(2) For others (than the above) staying near the deceased as members of a joint family āśauca for only three days should suffice.

(3) For all other relatives of the deceased whenever the news of death may reach them within a year after death, only a bath should be enough.

(4) When the death occurred more than a year before the news reached the relatives not even a bath should be required in the case of any relative except those mentioned in the first rule, who should be held clean after a bath,

Speculation on origin

Most important tabus

Practices observed among ancient and modern primitive tribes show that the most important tabus were those on the dead, on women in child-birth and women in their monthly illness.

• Among the ancient Israelites all that were unclean through the dead were put outside the camp and they were not allowed to offer an offering at the Passover (Numbers V.1-4 and IX, 6).
• Among the Syrians those who belonged to the family of the dead man were tabu for 30 days and could then enter only with shaven heads. Child-birth made a woman unclean and the number of days that she was to be unclean depended on whether the child was a male or a female (Leviticus 12. 2-5).

In India also the ancient Aryans probably inherited their ideas about uncleanness on death and child-birth from their remote ancestors. If one may surmise one can say this: it must have been found out by the remote ancestors of the Vedic Aryans that if a person touched a dead body or used the clothes worn by the dead man when living, he also suffered from the same disease (particularly in the case of contagious diseases like plague, cholera, typhoid &c.) and that segregating such a person for ten days from other members of the tribe or community made the latter immune from the attack of such diseases. Therefore, those who touched the dead or carried the corpse for cremation or burial and the members of the family were thought to be unclean and were segregated for ten days.

Gradually the ideas about the uncleanness on death and the necessity of segregation were made applicable to death due to all diseases or causes whatever. The uncleanness on childbirth might have been a case of extension by analogy derived from the tabu on death. At all events smṛti writers put both on the same level (e. g. Manu V. 61 “Just as impurity on death is ordained for ten days in the case of sapiṇḍas the same holds good in the case of birth”). Rules about women in their monthly illness were prescribed as early as the Tai.S. and have been already dealt with in H. of Dh. vol. II, pp. 802-805.

śuddhi

We have now to turn to the subject of śuddhi apart from āśauca. Śuddhi of a dravya means the¹⁰³ removal of a taint attaching to a thing and it is of two kinds, purification of the body and the purification of an external object (Manu V.110 and Aparārka p. 253). It has already been seen (note 555 above) how even the Ṛg. lays great emphasis on śuddhi and being pure (śuci). There are Vedic¹⁰⁴ passages laying down that the cups (grahas) used in Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices were to be cleansed with a strainer of wool, but not the camasas. In the Ait. Br. 32.4 it is provided that if the milk of an agnihotrin that was heated by him for the homa became impure (amedhya, by an ant or worm falling therein ), the milk is to be taken up in an agnihotrahavaṇi and was to be poured upon the ashes near the Āhavaniya fire. This shows that great care was taken about the purity of vessels to be used in sacrifices and about the offerings to be made.

Śauca is one of the eight qualities of the soul (ātmaguṇas) mentioned by Gaut. 8.24, Atri (verses 33, 35), Matsyapurāṇa 52. 8-10, Bṛhaspati (q. by Aparārka p. 164). Haradatta on Gautama quotes a verse that śauca is of four kinds viz. monetary purity, mental purity, bodily purity and purity in speech; while Atri and Bṛhaspati¹⁰⁵ (q. by Aparārka p. 164), aver that śauca is constituted by avoiding what ought not to be eaten, by associating (only) with those who are not censured (i.e. are not reprehensible ) and by firmly abiding by one’s own prescribed duties.

Many works divide śauca into two varieties viz. bāhya (external) and antara or ābhyantara (internal). Vide H. of Dh, vol. II. pp. 651-52 for passages from Baudhāyana Dh. S. (I. 5. 3-4), Harita, Dakṣa and others defining and subdividing these. Agni 372. (17-18) is the same as Dakṣa V.3.

The Vanaparva 200.52 speaks of purity in speech, in actions and that brought about by water, The Padma (II. 66. 86-87) emphasizes that it is the mental attitude that is the highest thing and illustrates it by saying that a woman embraces her son and her husband with different mental states.

There is an interesting passage in the Lingapurāṇa 8. 34-36 (not quoted there) which after stating that ābhyantara śauca is superior to bāhya śauca (verse 31) remarks¹⁰⁶ that one void of inner purity is dirty even after a bath, that moss, fish and animals subsisting on fish are always immersed in water, that in spite of that no one would call them pure, that therefore one must always endeavour to secure inner purity and that one should bathe in the water of correct knowledge of the Self, apply once the sandal paste of faith and purify oneself by the clay in the form of desirelessness and that this is declared to be the real) śauca.

Manu V. 106 provides that of all kinds of purity mental purity is the highest. He who is pure as to wealth (i. e. who does not deprive another of wealth by unjust means) is the (only) pure man and not he who is purified by water and earth. Viṣṇu 22. 89 is the same except that for wealth (artha) it substitutes food (anna). The Trikāṇḍamaṇḍana (prakirṇaka 21) has the same verse as Manu V. 106. Vide also Anuśāsana 108, 12 (for purity of conduct, of mind, of a holy place, purity due to correct philosophical knowledge ); Brahmāṇḍa III. 14. 60 (śucikāmā hi devā vai), and Yogasūtra II, 32 (for śauca as one of the five niyamas).

Body purity

External purity of the body by various means (rinsing the mouth, bath & c.) has already been described in detail in H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 648-668. The ancient and medieval Indians insisted on a daily bath for all, recommended two baths a day in certain cases and three baths to a hermit and did not subscribe to the view of some of the early Christians. St. Agnes was canonized primarily for her refusal to bathe and St. Francis of Assisi considered dirt as one of the proper insignia of holy poverty¹⁰⁷.

In śrauta rites ( such as Agniṣṭoma ) the sacrificer had to undergo a severe discipline of consecration (or dikṣā), one item of which was the purification of the intending sacrificer’s body by the adhvaryu priest by rubbing the former’s body twice with three bunches of seven darbhas each (vide H, of Dh. vol. II. p. 1136). Śatātapa q. by Sm. C. I. p. 120, Śuddhiprakāśa p. 147 provide bath for one who has sexual intercourse with his wife during the period from the 5th to the 16th day after monthly illness begins, but for intercourse after these days the purification is the same as for urination and voiding ordure ; bath is also prescribed for vomiting after sunrise, after shaving, after a bad dream, on the touch of foul men (such as cāndālas).

The Ap. Śr. II. 12 provides¹⁰⁸ that Pavitreṣṭi should be performed by him who is desirous of śuddhi and that if one performs in each season the three iṣṭis, viz. Vaiśvānarī (to Agni Vaiśvānara), Vrātapati (to Agni Vratapati) and the Pavitreṣṭi one purifies ten generations (of his family ).

Infants

Parts of the body that are deemed pure

The following pages will deal with the purification of things (dravyaśuddhi ). But a few general observations must first be made. The Āp. Dh, S. (II. 6. 15. 17-20) states that infants do not become polluted or impure (by the touch of a woman in her monthly course) up to the time the saṁskāra of annaprāśana (taking cooked food for the first time ), that, according to some, up to one year or as long as they cannot distinguish between the different directions or up to the time of Upanayana according to others.

General items

Manu V. 127-133, Yaj. I. 186, 191-193, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 23. 47-52, Baud, Dh. I. 5. 56-57, 64, 65, Śaṅkha 16. 12-16, Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa 35. 19-21 state that the following are always pure:

• what is not seen to be polluted;
• what is cleansed with water;
• what is commended expressly (by a brāhmaṇa as pure, when there is a doubt),
• water collected on (pure) ground that is not visibly polluted by an impure thing and that in quantity is so much that a cow can slake its thirst therein and that has the smell, colour and taste of pure water;
• the hand of a craftsman (such as a washerman or a cook while engaged in his peculiar work);
• articles exposed for sale in a market such as rice and barley (though touched by many intending buyers);
• alms (collected by a brahmacārin though walking from house to house on the road);
• the mouth of a woman (at the time of dalliance);
• meat of animals seized or killed even by dogs, cāṇḍālas, and carnivorous birds;
• rays (of the sun), fire, dust, the shadow (of a tree or the like), a cow, a horse, land, wind, dew drops, flies, a calf at the time of making the cow flow with milk from the udder- these latter are pure when they come in contact with a person.

Then it was said that certain birds and animals were either always pure or as to certain parts of the body e. g. Yāj. I. 194 says that the mouths of goats and horses are pure but not of the cow.

Baudhāyana¹⁰⁹ quoted by Aparārka p. 276 provides that the cow is pure except as to its mouth, and a cat when it is leaping or moving about. Bṛhaspati¹¹⁰ and Yama (q. by Aparārka p. 276) state:

’the feet of brāhmaṇas, and the mouth of goats and horses, the backs of cows and all limbs of women are pure; the cow as to its back, the elephant as to its shoulder, the horse as to all its limbs and the dung and urine of cows, all these are pure’.

Atri (240, 241) contains several verses¹¹¹ on this point.

‘Things taken out from a mine or from kitchens (or places where grain is pounded &c.) are never impure, since all such places (where anything is prepared in the mass ) except a place for the manufacture of liquor are pure.

All fried (or roasted) things, fried barley and grain, dates, camphor, whatever else is well fried is pure’.

In Atri V. 13 we read¹¹²

‘flies, a continuous stream (of any liquid), the earth, water, fire, a cat, a wooden ladle and a mongoose are always pure’.

Parāśara (X. 41) states:[^794]

“space (ākāsa), wind, fire, water fallen on the earth, darbhas are not to be deemed polluted just as camasas in sacrifices are held to be not polluted.”

Par. M. quotes a verse of Caturvimśatimata¹¹³ that raw meat, ghee, honey, oils extracted from fruits-these even when contained in vessels belonging to caṇḍālas become free from taint the moment they are taken out of these vessels. Bṛhaspati provides:¹¹⁴

machines for crushing grapes and sugarcane stalks, mines, the hands of craftsmen, the milk pail, fluids that come out from crushing machines, actions (such as cooking) done by women and children when they are impure (by walking barefooted on the road) and are seen to be so, are still free from taint. One’s¹¹⁵ own bed, garment, wife, child, water pot these are free from taint for oneself, but these are impure to others.

Śaṅkha 16.15 is to the same effect.

Purification of things

Śaṅkha¹¹⁶ states that whatever removes the dirt (or pollution) that is natural to a substance or arises from contact with another polluting substance must be declared to be its purifier. Śaṅkha-Likhita¹¹⁷ declare that the substances that bring about purification of all (polluted things) are water, clay, the powder (or paste) of soap berries, bilva fruit, rice and mustard cake, salts (ashes), cow’s urine and dung and that according to some when a substance is heaped up in a big mass, sprinkling with water. Manu V. 118, Yāj. I. 184, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 23.13 also provide that sprinkling with water is the mode of purification when large quantities of corn or clothes are polluted, but when the quantity is small they must be washed with water. The quantity is said to be large when it is more than what one man can carry as a load (according to Kullūka on Manu V. 118).

The general rule laid down by Gaut. I. 45–46, Manu V. 126 ( Viṣṇu 23, 39), Yāj. I. 191 about the purification of things or bodies that are smeared with foul matter is that water and earth are to be employed for purification till the foul odour and the contact of the foul thing is entirely removed¹¹⁸.

Devala (q. by Aparārka p. 270) defines śauca as the removal by means of clay, water, cowdung and the like of the besmearing, the oiliness and odour of a thing that cause impurity.

Gaut. Dh. S. (I. 28-33 ) briefly deals¹¹⁹ with the purification of things as follows: Purification of metallic substances (like bell-metal), earthenware, substances manufactured from wood, cloth made of threads or yarn is brought about respectively by rubbing (or scouring) them, by baking in fire, by chiselling or planing, by washing in water; objects made of stones, jewels, shells and pearls are purified by the same means as metalli substances; bones (ivory and the like) and mud (floor of houses) are purified in the same way as wooden substances; and earth (when polluted) is also purified by adding to it earth (brought from another pure spot); ropes, chips of bamboos and reeds, leather are purified by the same means as cloth or they may be abandoned when they are extremely polluted (as by the spilling of wine or urine or ordure).

Vas. (III. 49–53) has almost the same words, employing the word ‘bhasmaparimārjana’ (scouring with ashes and washing ) for ‘parimārjana’.

The Āp. Dh. S. (I. 5. 17. 10–13)¹²⁰ provides:

‘If one gets a used vessel only, he shall eat from it after having heated it thoroughly; a vessel made of metal is purified by being scoured with ashes and the like; a wooden vessel becomes pure by being scraped; at a sacrifice, vessels must be cleaned according to the precepts of the Veda.’

Yaj. (III. 31-34) states; time (lapse of ten days or a year as to āśauca), fire, religious rites (like Aśvamedha or performing of sandhyā), clay, wind, mind, spiritual knowledge, austerities (such as kṛcchra), water, repentance (in the case of sins), fasting–all these are the causes of purification. Gifts are the (main) cause of purification for those who do what is forbidden, flow of water in the case of a river, clay and water are means of śuddhi in the case of substances that are not clean, sannyāsa (order of asceticism) in the case of the twice-born +++(4)+++, austerities in the case of those that have studied the Veda when they commit a sin (through ignorance), forbearance in the case of those who know the Self, water in the case of dirty limbs, silent recital of Vedic mantras (japa) is the means of purification for those guilty of secret sins +++(4)+++, truth in the case of the mind (that is full of or is polluted by sinful thoughts), austerities and esoteric knowledge in the case of the man who identifies his soul with the body, correct knowledge in the case of intelligence, knowledge of God is the pre-eminent purifier of the soul.

Manu V. 107-109 (= Vispu 22.90-92 ) contain almost the same idea in almost the same words.

In prescribing the methods of cleaning polluted objects certain matters have to be considered according to a verse ascribed to Baudhāyana¹²¹ by the Mit. (on Yāj. I. 190) which states:

‘One should prescribe means of purification after considering the time, the place, the body (or himself), the thing (to be purified), the purpose for which the thing is to be used, origin (of defilement), the condition (of the thing or person defiled).’

There is some divergence of views about the means of purifying or cleansing certain objects. It is unnecessary to set out in detail these differences. It is proposed to take certain objects one after another and to specify how they were rendered pure according to several of the smṛtis and digests.

Certain foul things were said by the Smṛtyarthasāra p. 70 to be the causes of extreme pollution and certain others as causes of lesser or insignificant pollution. For example, excreta, urine, semen, blood, fat, marrow, liquor and intoxicants were the causes of great pollution; while dogs, village swine, cats, their urine, the wax from the ear, nails, phlegm, discharge from the eyes, perspiration are the causes of insignificant pollution.

Purification of the ground or soil

Baud. Dh. S, I. 5,66 provides¹²² that the purification of the ground is brought about by means of sweeping with a (fault less) broom, by sprinkling (cow’s milk, urine or water), by smearing with cowdung, by scattering (pure clay on it) and by scrubbing away (or scraping) some of the soil, when these are employed according to the situation of the ground and the particular impurity (of which it is to be purified).

Baud, Dh.S. in another place states:¹²³ when firm soil is polluted it is purified by smearing it with cow dung, hollow ground (one having holes) is purified by ploughing, ground wet (with impurity ) by covering it (with pure clay brought from elsewhere ) after removing the impure thing. Land is purified by means of four viz., being trodden under the foot of cows, by digging it up, by burning (firewood or grass thereon), by pouring over it (water, cow’s urine or milk &c.) and fifthly, by smearing it (with cowdung) and sixthly, by the lapse of time. Vasiṣṭha III. 57 quotes a verse which mentions five means of purification almost in the same words as those of Baudhāyana (except the sixth viz. time). Manu V. 124 mentions five means of purification, viz, sweeping with a broom, smearing with cowdung, sprinkling, digging (and removing), the stay of cows thereon (for one day and night). Viṣṇu Dh. S. 23.57 adds dāha (burning) to the five of Manu. Yāj. I. 188 mentions seven means of the purification of the ground by adding dāha (burning) and kāla (lapse of time) to the five mentioned by Manu. According to¹²⁴ the Vāmanapurāṇa the ground is purified by digging, burning, sweeping, treading by cows, smearing of cowdung, scrubbing and by sprinkling water. Devala quoted by the Mit. and Aparārka on Yāj. I. 188 gives a more elaborate treatment. According to him polluted ground (bhūmi) is of three kinds, viz. amedhyā (impure), duṣṭā (soiled), and malinā (dirty). Where a woman is delivered of a child or dies or is cremated or where a spot has been inhabited by cāṇḍālas or where there are heaps of ordure and the like, ground that is full of foul things in this way is declared to be amedhyā¹²⁵. That ground which is polluted by the contact of dogs, pigs, asses, camels and the like becomes duṣṭā (soiled) and it becomes malinā (dirty) by charcoal, husk, hair, bones or ashes.

Then Devala¹²⁶ prescribes the purification of the three kinds of ground: ‘Purity is of five kinds, viz. digging up; burning (with wood or grass), smearing (with cowdung ), washing (with water) or the fall of rain. Even amedhyā ground may be purified by these five means employed together (where a corpse is cremated or caṇḍālas dwell) or by four (i.e. omitting rainfall or burning in other cases of amedhyā); ground that is duṣṭā is purified by three (digging up, burning and smearing with cowdung) or two (viz. digging up and burning) and malinā ground is purified by one (i.e. by digging up).

Pollution of temples or idols

The Smṛtyarthasāra (pp. 73–74) provides that if an idol made of iron or other metal is slightly polluted (as defined above) then it can be purified by means of pañcagavya after rubbing it with ashes; similarly a stone idol, when slightly polluted, should be washed with water mixed with the clay from an ant-hill and becomes pure after being treated with pañcagavya. Any idol, if polluted with ordure, urine or village mud would become pure after first being flooded for five days with pañcagavya, after being well washed with cow’s urine, cowdung and clay from an ant-hill and by being again installed ( with all installation rites).

Questions about the pollution of temples by the entry of the so-called untouchables or by the entrance of persons other than brāhmaṇas in the inmost shrine (garbhagṛha) have come before the courts e.g. in Gopala Muppanar v. Dharmakarta Subramania 27 Madras Law Journal p. 253 at p. 258, where reference is made to the ceremonies for the removal of pollution according to the Āgamas and Tantras.

In S. K. Wodeyar V. Ganapati (37 Bom. L. R. 584) the point arose whether, when a custom was alleged that in a temple at Banavasi in the Canara district none could enter the inner sanctum except persons belonging to the ten sub-divisions of brāhmaṇas and a Lingayat entered it in spite of the protests of the worshippers in charge of the temple, his entry polluted the temple and whether he was liable to pay for the sum spent over the purification of the temple, the High Court of Bombay held that the custom alleged viz, of excluding from the inner sanctum all that were not brāhmaṇas was proved and that the Lingayat gentleman who entered it in spite of protests was liable to pay damages for the wrongful entry.

In the Nirṇayasindhu (III pūrvārdha pp. 351-52), the Dharmasindhu (III p. 324) and other medieval digests provision is made for the re-consecration (punaḥ-pratiṣṭhā) of an idol in a temple when the idol is polluted by the touch of cāṇḍālas or wine or is burnt by fire or is defiled by the touch of sinners or the blood of a brāhmaṇa¹²⁷. If the idol be broken in two or more pieces or if it becomes broken (irregularly), if it be burnt or falls from its pedestal or be insulted, is without worship or is touched by an ass or the like animal, or falls on foul ground or is worshipped with the mantras of other gods,-in these ten circumstances Godhood ceases to indwell in the idol. If an idol be touched by robbers, cāṇdālas, patita people, by a dog or a woman in her courses or if it be polluted by the touch of a corpse re-consecration is necessary.

The Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra ( 23. 34) provides that idols when polluted should be purified in the same way in which the substance of which they are made (such as stone or copper &c.) is purified and then they should be re-consecrated. If the worship of an idol already consecrated is stopped for a day, two days, a month, or two months or it is touched by śūdras or a woman in her monthly course, then at a proper time puṇyāhavācana should be performed, an even number of brāhmaṇas should be fed, the idol should be submerged in water for a night and next day bathed with pañca-gavya from a jar full of it to the accompaniment of the respective mantras, then another jar should be filled with pure water and therein the nine kinds of precious stones should be cast, the jar should then have the Gāyatri mantra appropriate to the idol repeated over it 1008 or 108 or 28 times and the idol should then be bathed with that water, it should be bathed with pure water to the accompaniment of the Puruṣasūkta (Ṛg. X. 90) and the mūlamantra 1008, or 108 or 28 times. Then flowers should be offered and worship of the idol should be performed and a naivedya of boiled rice and jaggery should be offered.

Recently after the attainment of Independence some of the Provincial Legislatures in India have passed laws (e.g. Bombay Act 35 of 1947, C. P. and Berar Act 41 of 1947) throwing open all Hindu public temples to people who were once called untouchable. This is not the place to discuss in detail the arguments for and against these measures.

Many orthodox Hindus hold that their inmost feelings are hurt by this tyranny of the majority in the Legislatures. They feel that these measures are contrary to the four freedoms that are promised in many constitutions viz. freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. These measures are likely to be followed by serious consequences. It is felt that the younger generation now being educated has hardly any faith in religion or in anything being sacred, that the so-called untouchables themselves when once they have asserted their right of entering Hindu temples scarcely ever care to frequent them and the orthodox Hindus also often cease to worship therein.

There is the further fear that, if religious feelings even when unreasonable according to progressive views could be trampled upon by the views of the majority, there is no knowing where the process would stop. There would be temptation for the majority in a country to say that the sacred places of other religions should either not exist at all or be opened for any one not belonging to the faith of the minorities. It would have been far better that, while removing all the disabilities of the so-called untouchables as to employment, public places, courts and education, temples had been left alone for some years to come. The entrance of one set of people into the temples often entails the departure of another set, as said by P. C. in Saklat v. Bella 28 Bom. L. R. 161, which is not a very desirable thing. The equality of the former untouchables in all secular matters is sure to spread in a generation or so to other non-secular matters and so to entry into temples.

Adjustments on an unprecedented scale are taking place in modern India with regard to usages cherished for ages and the entry into temples of the so-called untouchables would have been more effected in a few years without recourse to the threat of armed punishments and without bitterness and rancour in the hearts of many people.

Water as purifier

From very ancient times water has been regarded as a great purifier. Ṛg. VII, 47 and 49 are hymns addressed to waters as divinities and they are there described as themselves pure and as purifying others (as in Ṛg. VII. 49. 2 and 3 ‘śucayaḥ pāvakāḥ’). Similarly Ṛg. X. 9 and 30 are hymns addressed to waters, in the former of which the waters are invoked to remove whatever sin or wrong one may have committed (Ṛg. X. 9. 8 ‘idam-āpaḥ pra vahata yat kiñca duritam mayi’). Atharva-veda I. 33 is a hymn addressed to waters, wherein also they are described as ‘śucayaḥ pāvakāḥ’ (in A. V. I. 33.1 and 4). The Vāj. S. VI. 17 ( closely following Ṛg. X. 9. 8) invokes waters to remove whatever is censurable and dirty¹²⁸. In Vāj S. IV. 2 the sage prays ‘May the Waters. Our mothers. purify us !’ 720 The Śat. Br. 1. 7. 4.17 (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 213) states’ water is a means of purification’.

Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 191 quotes a long Vedic passage¹²⁹ wherein it is said “whatever creates doubt (whether it is pure or impure) should be touched with waters; then it becomes pure.”

It is therefore that water (hot or cold) is said to be the purifier of various kinds of vessels and of the ground in Yāj. I. 182-183, 188, Manu V. 109, 112, 126. Gobhila (I. 31-32 )¹³⁰ lays down that when a man engaged in any religious rite hears a mantra addressed to the pitṛs, scratches his body, looks at a man of the lowest caste, or allows the wind to escape from his intestines, laughs loudly or speaks an untruth, touches a cat or a mouse, or uses harsh language, has a fit of anger, he should perform ācamana (or touch water).

According to Yaj. I. 187 and Viṣṇu Dh, S. 23.56 a polluted house is purified by being swept and cowdunged. But more stringent rules were laid down if a dog, a śūdra, a patita, a mleccha or a caṇḍāla died in a brāhmaṇa’s house (vide note 633 above). After keeping the house vacant for the periods stated in note 633, it is provided by Saṁvarta¹³¹ that a house that is polluted by the existence of a corpse inside it should be dealt with as follows: earthen pots and cooked food should be Cast away and thrown out of the house which should then be smeared with cowdung and then a goat should be made to go about in it smelling it and then the whole house should be sprinkled over with water in which gold and kuśas are put in by brāhmaṇas rendered holy by the repetition of the Gāyatri mantra; then the house becomes pure. Marici prescribes¹³² that if a caṇḍāla (merely) entered a house, it can be purified by plastering it with cowdung, but if he were to stay in it long, purification can be had only by heating it and making flames of fire lick its walls.

The ground in a brāhmaṇa’s house, in a temple, in a cowpen should, says Yama, always be regarded as pure (unless it has been polluted).

Purification of water

A great deal is said in the smṛtis and digests about the purification of water. Ap. Dh. S. I. 5. 15. 2 says¹³³ in a general way that a person after sipping water from what is collected on the ground becomes pure. But the Baud. Dh. S. I. 5. 65. Manu V. 128, Yaj. I. 192, Śaṅkha 16. 12-13, Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 35.19 and others add that water collected on the ground that is of such volume that a cow can slake its thirst therein, that is in its natural state and is not polluted by any thing impure and that has natural colour (is transparent) and taste and odour (either no odour or a fragrant odour) is pure. Śaṅkha says¹³⁴ the same about water collected on a stony surface and adds that the water of a flowing river is always. pure. Devala states¹³⁵ that water brought in clean vessels is pure but when it is (stale owing to its being stored) for one night (or more ) it should be thrown though it was pure (when originally brought).

There¹³⁶ is no taint in water that cannot be agitated by any beings and in the water of springs (that flow from hills). Tanks (that are so deep) that they cannot be agitated, rivers, wells and lakes (that are similar) should not be used by the usual way of descent (the ghat) if they come in contact with caṇḍālas and other impure persons or things. In Narhari v. Bhimrao, the Bombay High Court had to deal with the question whether a certain tank at Mahad in the Kolaba District could not be resorted to by untouchables for taking water and held that the untouchables were not prevented from using it (vide 39 Bombay L. R. p. 1295).

Bṛhaspati provides that if in a well the dead body of an animal with five nails (man or beast) is found or if the well is otherwise extremely polluted all the water of the well should be taken out and the rest should be dried up by means of clothes, then if the well be built with burnt bricks flames of fire should be made to lick the surface of the walls), and then pañcagavya should be poured over when fresh water begins to flow in (from the springs )¹³⁷.

Āpastamba (q. by Śuddhikaumudi p. 299 ) states the circumstances when a well may be said to be extremely polluted: ‘hair, excrements and urine, menstrual discharge, a dead body - when a well is defiled by these one should take a hundred jars of water from it’ (and further purification by putting pañcagavya in it should be resorted to if there is more water). Parāśara VII. 3 says the same about wells (with steps ), wells without steps and tanks.

Yāj. I. 197 ( =Viṣṇu Dh, S. 23. 41) provides that mud and water on roads which come in contact with lowest castes (like caṇḍālas), dogs and crows and buildings (like maṭhas) constructed with burnt bricks are purified by the wind alone ( blowing on them ).

Parāśara VII. 34 states¹³⁸ that mud and water on roads, boats, paths, grass and whatever is constructed with burnt bricks are rendered pure by the wind and the sun.

Rain water after it fell on the ground was supposed to be impure¹³⁹ for ten days. Similarly Yogiyājñavalkya (q. by S. K. p. 291) remarks that water of a river (dried up in summer) coming down in a flood for the first time ( after rains ) should not be taken ( as pure ) and also water that is agitated by some one (with the feet &c.) and waters that start in a separate stream by themselves from a holy river (like the Ganges ). Even when a well (without steps ) or a well (with a flight of steps ) or a reservoir with a dam is constructed by men of the lowest castes, no prāyaścitta is prescribed for bathing therein or for drinking water therefrom¹⁴⁰.

Viṣṇu Dh. S. 23. 46 provides¹⁴¹ that the purification of small reservoirs of water that are static (i,e. from which no streams flow down ) is made in the same way as that of wells ( without steps ), while in the case of large reservoirs no pollution is recognised. It is declared that waters are purified by the rays of the sun and the moon and the contact of the wind and by cowdung and the urine of cows; some of these ideas are supported by modern scientific discoveries.

A verse q. by Aparārka p. 273 provides¹⁴² that even the water at a prapā (a shed where water is distributed gratis to thirsty travellers ) in a forest or from a jar placed near a well (for drawing water by any body) or the water in ( a stone or wooden) trough (meant for all and sundry ) and water from a leather bag even though these may not belong to a śūdra are unfit for drinking, but one may drink even such water as much as he desires when in distress. This shows that even in ancient times water was carried in leather bags or drums where there was scarcity of water and was allowed to be used even by twice-born people.

We may now turn to the purification of metals and vessels. Baud, Dh, S, I. 5. 34-35 and I. 6. 37-41, III, 58 and 61-63, Manu V. 111-114, Yāj. I. 182 and 190, Viṣṇu 23, 2,7 23-24, Śaṅkha 16. 3-4, Smṛtyarthasāra p. 70 and others lay down rules about the purification of metals which do not agree in details. Therefore it is proposed to set out only what is said by Manu and one or two others. Manu (V. 113 ff.) says ‘The wise declare that the purification of metals (like gold), of precious stones (like emerald), of all articles of stone is brought about by ashes, water and clay. Articles of gold that are not smeared with dirty things like leavings of food &c.) become pure by means of water alone; the same holds good of articles that are found in water (coral and shells), that are made of stone and are made of silver on which no craftsmanship (such as drawing lines or figures ) has been expended. Gold and silver sprang forth through the union of water and fire; therefore their purification is brought about best by their causes, viz. water (in case of slight pollution) and fire (in case of extreme pollution). The purification of copper, iron, bell metal, brass, tin and lead should be brought about by salts ( ashes ), acids and water according to circumstances (i.e. pollution caused). Vasiṣṭha (III, 58, 61-63) says: “bell-metal is purified with ashes, gold and silver with water alone and copper with acids.’ Yāj. I. 190 says ’the purification of tin. lead and copper is brought about by salt water, acids and ordinary water, of bell-metal and iron by ashes and water,’ The Lingapurāṇa (pūrvārdha, 189. 58) says: bell-metal is purified by ashes, iron articles by salt; copper, tin and lead by acids; golden and silver vessels are purified by water and jewels, stones, conches and pearls are purified in the same way as metallic vessels. Vide Vāmanapurāṇa (14.70) which states that copper pots are purified by acids, tin and lead ones by salts, bell-metal by ashes and water.

Medhātithi on Manu V. 114 quotes a verse¹⁴³ which says ‘vessels of bell-metal (or brass) when licked (or breathed over) by cows, in which śūdras have taken their food and which have been defiled by dogs and crows are purified by being scoured ten times with ashes (salts).’ Śātātapa has a similar verse (vide Par, M. vol. II part 1 p. 172).

Elaborate rules are laid down about the purification of polluted pots and vessels used in ordinary life, in Baud. Dh. S. 1. 5. 34-50, 1. 6. 33-42, Yāj. I. 182-183, Viṣṇu 23. 2-5, Śaṅkha 16. 1-5 and others. There is some variation in all these, but, as the Mit, on Yāj. I. 190 remarks, it is not an absolute rule that copper must be purified by acids alone but if purification is possible by other means, they may be resorted to. It is not necessary to set out the different modes of purifying vessels. A passage from the Śuddhi-prakāśa pp. 117-118 would be sufficient to indicate how this matter of pātraśuddhi (cleansing of polluted vessels) was dealt with in medieval India: “vessels made of gold, silver, conches, shells, stones, precious stones, bell metal, brass, tin, lead are purified by mere water, provided they have no dirt or pollution sticking to them; if these vessels are polluted by the contact of leavings of food &c. they are purified by ashes and water or acids and water according as anyone of these is appropriate; the vessels made of the above substances that are polluted for a long time owing to being used by śūdras or owing to contact with leavings of food should first be scoured with salts (ashes) and water three times and should be then cast into fire so long as it can be borne (without the vessels being broken, melted or burnt up) and then they become pure. Vessels of bell metal when polluted by only dogs, crows, śūdras and leavings of food only once or licked by cows become pure by being scoured ten times with salts and water; but if they are polluted by the above several times then they have to be scoured 21 times for becoming pure. If in a vessel belonging to the three higher warnas à śūdra takes his meal, it becomes pure after being washed four times with salts and being cast in fire and then taken up with hands that are washed clean with water. A vessel of bell-metal that is polluted. once by the leavings of a woman freshly delivered or by intoxicants or liquors becomes pure after being heated in fire; but if it is polluted several times then it becomes pure by being again manufactured. A vessel of bell-metal that is polluted by being frequently used for holding the water expelled from the mouth after rinsing it or the water in which the feet are washed should be buried in the ground for six months, then heated in fire and then it becomes pure (compare Parāśara VII. 24-25); but if it is polluted thus only once it becomes pure after (being buried in the ground) for ten days. All metal vessels polluted for a short time by the bodily dirts such as urine, excrement, semen become pure after being placed for seven nights in cow’s urine or in a great river; but if they are polluted as above many times or are polluted by the contact of a corpse, a freshly delivered woman or a woman in her monthly course they become pure after being thrice washed with salts, acids and water and after being heated in fire till they can bear it, but if these are polluted by urine and for a long time and frequently they become pure by being beaten into shape (manufactured) again.

Purification of metallic pots

Viṣṇu ( 23, 2 and 5 ) provides that all metal vessels when extremely polluted ( as stated in note 710 ) are purified by being cast into fire and that vessels of wood or clay when extremely polluted should be given up, but Devala¹⁴⁴ and others provide that wooden vessels when slightly polluted become pure by being planed or chiselled or by means of clay, cowdung or water and that earthen vessels if not extremely polluted become pure by being baked in fire¹⁴⁵ ( also Yaj. I. 187). But Vas. III, 59 provides that an earthen vessel if polluted by the contact of wines, urine, excrement, phlegm, tears, pus and blood is not purified even by being burnt in fire¹⁴⁶.

Special rules are provided for the purification of vessels and implements used in Vedic sacrifices. Baud. Dh, S. (I. 5. 51-52 )¹⁴⁷ remarks that the camasa vessels used in sacrifices are purified according to the special Vedic texts, since the Veda says that camasa vessels do not incur the fault of being ucchiṣṭa when it is soma liquid that is drunk from them.

Manu V. 116-117, Yāj. I. 183-185, Viṣṇu Dh. S, 23. 8-11, Śaṅkha 16.6, Parāśara VII. 2-3 and others lay down rules about the purification of sacrificial implements. For example, Manu (V. 116-117 ) provides sacrificial vessels should be first rubbed with the right hand (or with darbhas or strainer) and then camasas and cups are to be washed with water before using them in the sacrifice; the carusthāli (the vessel in which the oblation of boiled rice is prepared), sruc (a wooden vessel used for pouring clarified butter on sacrificial fire), and sruva (wooden ladle of a semicircular shape) are purified by being washed with hot water; the sphya (wooden sword), the winnowing basket, the cart (for bringing the soma plant), wooden mortar and pestle, are purified with water (or sprinkling water according to Yāj. I, 184).

What is polluted food

Several rules were laid down about the purification of polluted corn and polluted cooked food. A reference has already been made to the purification of heaps of corn. Common sense, convenience and the loss that may be caused by very stringent provisions are the considerations which prompt the rules on this subject.

Viṣṇu 23.25 provides¹⁴⁸ that where a heap of rice (or other grain) is polluted, one should throw away only that portion of it which is actually defiled and should submit the rest to pounding and washing with water; cooked food that exceeds in volume one droṇa and that has been defiled does not all become tainted, but that throwing away the defiled portion alone, one should sprinkle over the rest water mixed with gold on which the sacred Gāyatri verse has been repeated and should hold it before a goat to see it and should also bring fire near it.

Vide Baud. Dh. S. I. 6. 44-48.

‘If grains of rice are polluted they should be washed and dried. But if it is a large quantity then sprinkling with water is enough; husked rice (if polluted) should be cast away. The same rule applies to cooked offerings. But in the case of large heaps of cooked food that portion which is polluted by dogs or crows should be cast away and the rest should be sprinkled with the Anuvāka pavamānaḥ suvarjanah’ (Tai. Br. I. 4.8).’

Gaut. 17. 9-10 provide¹⁴⁹ that one should not partake of food that was cooked along with hair and insects (like ants), nor food that is polluted by the contact of a woman in her monthly illness, by a crow or by being struck with the foot (of someone ). But where food is already cooked and then it is smelt by a cow or it is polluted by the falling into it of hair, insects, flies, then Yāj. I. 189 and Parāśara VI. 64-65 provide that in order to purify it water, ashes (with water) or loose earth ( with water) should be cast over it. Ap. Dh. S, I. 5.16. 24-29 provide that one should not partake of food in which hair exists (i. e. it was there from the beginning) or anything else (like nails) that is impure or of food that is touched with an unclean substance or in which an insect that subsists on impure things exists or food which is struck by the feet of any person or in which the excrement or the tail (or limb) of a rat is found.

The general rule is stated by Manu V. 118 which applies not only to corn and clothes but to many other articles viz. if there is a heap or a large quantity then sprinkling with water (prokṣaṇa ) suffices for purification but if the quantity is small then washing with water is necessary. Manu V. 125 ( = Viṣṇu Dh. S. 23.38) provides that (a small quantity of) cooked food part of which is pecked by birds (whose flesh is eaten by men), which is smelt by a cow, which is struck with the foot (by a man) and over which some one has sneezed or which is polluted by the falling in of hair and insects becomes pure by casting into it loose earth (and water). Parāśara (VI. 71-74) puts the matter¹⁵⁰ thus:

“food licked by dogs and crows or smelt by a cow or ass, if little in quantity, should be thrown away by a brāhmaṇa, but purification should be resorted to if it is a droṇa or āḍhaka in quantity. That portion which is defiled by the saliva of a dog or crow should be thrown away and water in which gold is put should be sprinkled over the remaining portion, then flames of fire should lick the remaining food and brāhmaṇas should loudly recite Vedic hymns (like the Pavamānasūkta) over it and then the food becomes fit for eating”.

The Śuddhiprakāśa explains that the wealthy should not throw away food if it is more than a droṇa in quantity and a poor man if it is more than an āḍhaka¹⁵¹.

Manu V.115¹⁵² says that in the case of all liquids (such as oils, ghee &c.) purification (when they are little in quantity) is brought about by means of two kuśas dipped into them (or by straining them through a piece of cloth into another pot) and if the quantity is large then by sprinkling (water). Śaṅkha provides¹⁵³ that purification is brought about by mere prokṣaṇa in the case of all exudations (Asafoetida &c.), jaggery, salts, gafflower, saffron and in the case of wool and cotton. Vide note 705 above about certain articles being pure the moment they are transferred from the pots of even mlecchas &c.

Purification of garments

A few words may be said about the purification of different kinds of cloth and garments and the materials of which they are made. Laghu-Āśvalāyana (I. 28-30) provides that a white garment is always commended for wearing (as a dhoti), but they are commended for wearing as upper garments and both are not defiled by the touch of anybody. Men may take their food or answer calls of nature while covered with both; trasara is purified by being washed while a silken garment is always pure. Manu V. 120-121, Yāj. I. 186-187 and Viṣṇu (23. 19-22) provide almost in the same words that silken and woollen cloth is cleansed by saline earth (and with water and cow’s urine ), Nepalese blankets by the powder of soap berry, clothes made of tree bark with Bilva fruit and linen cloth by (paste of) white mustard. Viṣṇu 23. 6 says¹⁵⁴ that when a garment is extremely polluted that portion thereof which when washed with water loses its colour should be cut off. Śaṅkha¹⁵⁵ quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 182 prescribes that garments are purified by being submitted to hot steam, by washing with water or by cutting off only that portion that is defiled. Parāśara VII. 28 provides that garments made from bamboos and barks of trees, linen and cotton garments, garments of wool and birch bark are purified by mere prokṣaṇa.

The smṛtis speak of purification of many other things, which is of little importance and is passed over here. Only a few illustrations are given here. Manu. V. 119 provides that skins and things made of split bamboos (or canes) are cleaned in the same way as clothes, while vegetables, roots and fruits are purified on the analogy of grain. Manu V. 120-121 state that the purification of conches, horns (of buffaloes and rams) and bones and tusks (of the elephant or boar) is to be caused in the same way as that of linen or with cow’s urine or water and that grass, wood and straw become pure by being sprinkled with water. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 23. 15, 16, 23 and Yāj. I. 185 are very similar.

From the above it will be clear that purification of substances depends on many circumstances, viz. whether they are metallic or are earthen, whether they are solid or liquid, whether a polluted substance is small in quantity or is a big heap, whether the pollution is extremne or insignificant and so on.

In Manu the purification of substances follows (V. 110) the means of purifying one’s own body. Purification of the body by means of ācamana and snāna (bath) has already been described in H. of Dh, vol. II. pp. 315-316 and 652-653 (about ācamana). 656-668 (about snāna). Purification by bath on āśauca has already been dealt with before. Special rules were prescribed for women guilty of adultery (vide H. of Dh, vol. II.p. 594. vol. III, pp. 647-649), as also for women raped (vide vol. IT p. 575). Snāna (bath) with the clothes on was prescribed for purification of the body when a person touches one who is patita (murderer of a brāhmaṇa &c.), a caṇḍāla, a woman freshly delivered, a woman in her monthly illness, a corpse or one who has touched a corpse; also when a man follows a funeral procession or touches a dog (vide Gaut. 14. 28-30, Manu V. 85 and 103, Aṅgiras verse 152, Āp Dh. s. I.. 5. 15. 15-16, Yāj. III. 30). Baud. Dh. S. I, 5. 140 provides that on touching one who sells the Veda (teaches it for money), a yūpa, a funeral pyre, a patita, a dog and a cāṇḍāla one should undergo a bath¹⁵⁶.

Parāśara also has a similar verse¹⁵⁷. It has already been stated elsewhere (in H. of Dh, vol. II, pp. 175-176) how the rules about touching untouchables were relaxed when people congregated in a temple or in a religious procession, at marriages and festivals and at holy places. It is said by some that this refers not to the so-called untouchables, but to men who are untouchable owing to āśauca. But this is not correct. The explanation of the Śuddhi-kaumudi and Śuddhiprakāśa given below makes it clear that the untouchables are meant, In the first place, the words are quite general and not restricted. In the second place, there is no untouchability (except for the mother) on the ground of Jananāśauca and it is most unlikely that a person who has incurred mourning on death should visit a temple or go to a marriage or enter a religious procession, or festival. In the third place, looking to the several occasions mentioned together (particularly pilgrimages, battles, fire in a town or village and commotion or invasion of a country) it appears most unlikely that the verse refers only to āśauca on birth and death¹⁵⁸.

Reason of emphasis on purification

The ancient and medieval Indians put very great emphasis on purity of mind, of body, of the place where they resided or performed religious rites, of the vessels used by them and of the ingredients of their food and worship. Many of the rules about purification of substances may appear to modern minds as very stringent; but it should not be forgotten that the ancient Indians were imbued with the thought that purity of the mind followed from purity of food (as stated in the Chāndogyopaniṣad VII. 26.2 ‘āhāraśuddhau sattvaśuddhiḥ’ and by Hārita). It would be conceded that some of their rules about purification (such as about large quantities of corn or heaps of cooked food) are based on common sense and convenience. We are probably going to the other extreme in taking our food anywhere and in any surroundings.