११

001 Him who wishes (to marry for the sake of having) offspring, him who wishes to perform a sacrifice, a traveller, him who has given away all his property, him who begs for the sake of his teacher, his father, or his mother, a student of the Veda, and a sick man,

He who is seeking for progeny, he who is going to perform a sacrifice, a traveller on the road, he who has given away all his belongings, he who is begging for his preceptor, he who is begging for his parents, he who is begging for study, a sick man;—(1)—these nine Brāhmaṇas, who are religious mendicants, one should know as ‘Snātakas’; to these penniless men gifts shall be given, in proportion to their learning.—(2)

श्लोकद्वयेन च वाक्यार्थसमाप्तिः । अनेकविशेषणविशिष्टो दानार्थी¹ विधीयते । सान्तानिक्आदिभ्यो धर्मार्थं भिक्ष्यमाणेभ्यो निःस्वेभ्यो विद्याविशेषेण दातव्यम् इति । संप्रति संप्रदानविशेषणत्वे धर्मभिक्षुकशब्दस्याधिकारसंपादनम् अपि प्रतीयते । एवं नैव विशिष्टायाश् चैव निमित्तम् इति नैमित्तिको दानाधिकारश् चोच्यते ।

• संतानं प्रजा प्रयोजनम् अस्येति सान्तानिको विवाहार्थी भण्यते । तत्र हि धनम् उपयुज्यते । भवति च पारंपर्येण संतानप्रयोजनः । धर्मग्रहणात् “कामतस् तु प्रवृत्तानाम्” (म्ध् ३.१२) इति द्वितीयादिविवाहप्रवृत्तौ न नियमतो देयम् इति । एवं यक्ष्यमाणो² नित्ययज्ञाग्निष्टोमाद्यर्थं वृत्तिवचनं यः करोति स वेदितव्यः । अध्वगः क्षीणपथ्योदनः । सार्ववेदसो विश्वजिति सर्वस्वं दक्षिणात्वेन दत्तवान्, न तु प्रायश्चित्ताद्यर्थम् । स्वाध्यायार्थी । यद्य् अपि ब्रह्मचारिणो ऽध्ययनं विहितं भिक्षाभोजनं च, तथापि वस्त्रार्थोपयोगि धनं दातव्यम् । अथ वा गृहीतवेदस्य तदर्थजिज्ञासा भैक्षभुजो ऽपि । उपतापी रोगी । स्नातकग्रहणं प्रशंसार्थम् । **गुर्वर्थं **स्वाध्यायार्थत्वं प्रायः स्नातकविषये विद्यते । ब्रह्मचारिणो गुर्वर्थं कर्तव्यम् इति विहितम् । निःस्वेभ्यो निर्धनेभ्यः³ । विद्याविशेषतो बहुविद्याय बहु स्वल्पविद्यायाल्पम् इति ।

• ननु च सर्वम् एवेदम् अप्रकृतं प्रक्रियते । एवं हि प्रतिज्ञातम्- “अतः परं प्रवक्ष्यामि प्रायश्चित्तविधिं शुभम्” (म्ध् १०.१३१) इति ।

• नैष दोषः, आश्रमधर्मत्वाद् अस्य प्रकरणस्य । प्रायश्चित्तानाम् अतुल्यरूपतया सहोपदेशस् तत्र प्रायश्चित्तनिमित्तत्वाद् अस्यार्थस्य प्रथमम् अभिधानम् ।

• दानं देयम् इत्य् उक्तम् । दानशब्दश् च कर्मसाधनः । किं तद् देयम् इत्य् अपेक्षायाम् उत्तरश्लोकः ॥ ११.१–२ ॥

(verses 11.1-2)

The two verses together form one sentence; which lays down the several characteristics of the person seeking for gifts; the sense being that gifts shall be given, in proportion to their learning, to such penniless men as, having the said character of ‘seeking for progeny’ and the rest, may be seeking for gifts.

The term ‘religious mendicant,’ while qualifying the recipient of gifts, serves also as a condition that entitles the man to receive gifts. Thus it is that by laying down the character of the man fit for receiving gifts, the Author also indicates the occasions on which gifts may be given.

‘One seeking for progeny,’—h e who intends to marry for the purpose of obtaining children. It is for the marriage that money is required; and it helps in the obtaining of children indirectly. Inasmuch as the text has added the epithet ‘religious,’ one need not give gifts to one who is going to marry a second time, only through lust.

Similarly, ‘one who is going to perform, a sacrifice’ is to be understood as referring to one who is seeking for wealth in order to enable him to perform the Agnihotra and other compulsory rites.

The ‘traveller on the road,’—the person whose supply has run short during his journey.

‘Who has given away all his belongings’;—i.e., the man who has given away his entire property, as the sacrificial fee for the Viśvajit sacrifice,—and not by way of an expiatory rite.

‘He who is begging for study’;—though for the Religious Student, all that is laid down is ‘Vedic Study’ and ‘living on alms,’—yet enough should be given to him to provide for his clothing. Or, even one who has learnt the Veda may be seeking for the knowledge of what is contained in the Veda, though he may be living on alms.

‘Sick man’—one suffering from a disease.

The name ‘Snātaka’ has been mentioned here only with a view to eulogising the men spoken of. And the reason for applying this name lies in the fact that as a rule ‘begging for the preceptor’ and ‘begging for study’ are possible only for the Snātaka, the Accomplished Student; though for the Religious Student also it has been laid down that he shall do the begging for his preceptor.

‘Penniless’—destitute of wealth.

‘In proportion to their learning;’—i.e., much wealth shall be given to one possessed of much learning, and little to one possessed of little learning.

“All this that is stated here appears to be wholly irrelevant; as what the Author has declared is—‘I am now going to expound the law relating to Expiations’ (10.131).”

There is no force in this objection. In fact the whole context deals with the duties of men in the various stages of life. The several Expiatory Bites are of unequal nature, and hence these are mentioned along with those. And what is stated in the opening verse has been mentioned first, because it also indicates certain occasions for the performance of expiatory rites.

It bus been said that ‘gifts shall be given’; and the act of ‘giving’ can be accomplished only through something that may be given; hence the Author proceeds, in the next verso, to point, out what it is that should be given.—(1-2)

(verses 11.1-2)

‘Gurvartham’.—‘For the purpose of maintaining his Teacher’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘in order to procure the fee for his Teacher’ (Nārāyaṇa).

These verses are quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 468), which adds the following notes:—‘Sāntānika,’ ‘for the sake of offspring’;—‘Sarvavedasa’, ‘one who has given away all his belongings’;—‘upatāpī’, one who is ill;—this is meant to permit only that much of wandering on the road and other deviations without which alms cannot be obtained.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 77);—and in Parā śaramādhava (Ācāra p. 429), which adds the following notes:—‘Sāntānika,’ one who seeks wealth for the purpose of marrying with a view to obtaining children;—‘Sarvavedasa,’ one who has been reduced to penury on having performed the sacrifice at which all his belongings have been given away as the sacrificial fee,—‘pitṛmātrartham’, one who seeks to serve his parents,—‘svādhyāyārthī,’ who seeks wealth for the keeping up of the teaching of the Veda,—‘upotāpī’, invalid;—the compound ‘svādhyāyārthyupatāpi’ is to be expounded as ‘the upatāpi, invalid, as along with the svādhyāyārthi’, i.e., both of these.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha p. 354, and Dāna p. 30), which explains ‘sāntānikān’ as ‘those who seek to marry for the purpose of begetting offspring’,—‘adhvaga’ as ‘one who has started on a pilgrimage’,—‘sārvavedasa,’ (which is its reading for ‘sarvavedasa’) as ‘one who is performing sacrifice at which one’s entire property is given away as the sacrificial fee,’—and ‘upatāpi’ as an ‘invalid.’

**(verses 11.1-3)
**

Mahābhārata (12.165.1-3).—‘One whose property has been stolen, one who is going to perform a sacrifice, one who has read up to the end of all the Vedas, one who is seeking wealth for his teacher, or for the performance of rites to Pitṛs, or for the carrying on of Vedic study,—such Brāhmaṇas have been regarded as righteous beggars. To such poor men one should give gifts and also impart learning. In other cases the sacrificial fee should be paid; and to others, cooked food may he given outside the altar.’

Gautama (5.21-23).—‘Presents of money should be given, outside the Vedi, to persons begging for their teachers, or in order to defray the expenses of their wedding, or to procure medicine for the sick, to those who are going to offer a sacrifice, to those engaged in study, to travellers, and to those who have performed the Viśvajit sacrifice. Prepared food should be given to other beggars.’

Baudhāyana (2.5.19-20).—‘Presents of money should be given, according to one’s ability, to good Brāhmaṇas, Śrotriyas, and to those who have gone to the end of the Vedas, when they beg outside the Vedi, for the sake of their teachers, or for defraying the expenses of their marriage, or of medicine, or when they are distressed for livelihood, or are desirous of offering a sacrifice, or engaged in study, or on a journey, or have performed the Viśvajit sacrifice. Cooked food should be given to other beggars.’

Āpastamba (2.10.1-2).—‘The reasons for which begging is permissible are—tho desire to collect the fee for the teacher, the celebration of wedding, or of a Śrauta sacrifice, the desire to maintain one’s parents and the impending interruption of ceremonies performed by a worthy man. The person asked for alms must examine the qualities of the petitioner and give according to his power.’

अत्र चोद्यते- यद् उक्तम् अनन्तरम् एव दशमाध्यायोपसंहारे “अतः परं प्रवक्ष्यामि प्रायश्चित्तविधिं शुभम्” इति, नन्व् एतदपेक्षया प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणम् एवोपन्यसनीयम् “अकुर्वन् विहितं कर्म” इत्यादि । इतरथाप्य् अप्रकृतोपन्यासः प्रकृतार्थव्यवधानं चायुक्तम् आपद्यते । यतः स्नातकधर्मापद्धर्मप्रकरणयोर् एवैतत् सर्वम् उपदेष्टव्यम्, नात्रेति । अत्रोच्यते- साहचर्याद् एवैतयोर् यथोक्तप्रकरणद्वये ऽप्य् अवकाशम् अलभमानयोर् इह विलेषनिर्देशो युक्तः, मा भूद् एतयोः परस्परसंबद्धयोर् अन्यत्रप्रकरणे ऽन्यस्य निर्देशे ऽधिक्रियमाणे प्रकरणभेदाद् असामञ्जस्यम् इति । निर्दिष्टारम्भप्रयोजनस्येदम् अधिना विवरणं स्लोकद्वयस्य । एकविद्यमानद्रव्यश् च न याचेत, निःस्वेभ्यो देयम् एतेभ्य इति वचनात् । दानं चात्र चोद्यते, न तु याचना । निमित्तसंनियोगेनार्थगृहीतत्वाद् अशासितव्या हि सा । तच् च दर्शयति निःस्वेभ्यो फलस्याविशेष उपदेशतुल्यत्वाद् इति, उभयस्माद् इत्य् आह नियमाद् देयविशेषाच् च । यदि देयविशेषात् फलविशेषो न स्यात्, न कश्चिद् दानविशेषे प्रयतेत शास्त्रव्यपक्षया । अथ वा नियमस्य दानाश्रितस्य चोदितत्वात्, नियमाच् च, धर्म यथाशक्तिनियमसाधनत्यागेन च देयविशेषे ऽवश्यंभावि । एवं च न देयविशेषात् फलविशेषः प्रत्याख्यातुं शक्य उपदेशतुल्यत्वे [ऽपि] । तथा चोक्तम् ।

पात्रस्य हि विशेषेण श्रद्दधानतयैव च ।
अल्पं वा बहु वा प्रेत्य दानस्यावाप्यते फलम् ॥ इति ॥ ११.१–२ ॥

002 These nine Brahmanas one should consider as Snatakas, begging in order to fulfil the sacred law; to such poor men gifts must be given in proportion to their learning.

For these best of twice-born men, the ‘gift’ shall consist of food accompanied by a present; for others, ‘gift’ has been declared to be the cooked food given outside the sacrificial enclosure.—(3)

दक्षिणाशब्दो यद्य् अपि कर्मकरसंयुक्ते संत्यागे वर्तते, तथापि गोभूमिहिरण्यादिभाजनाद् अन्यद् देयं द्रव्यम् उच्यते । तथा हि⁴ लौकिकी प्रसिद्धिर् इति इतरेभ्य एतद् व्यतिरिक्ता ये भिक्षुकास् तेभ्यः । कृतान्नं सिद्धम् अन्नं भोजनार्थं दातव्यम् । बहिर् वेदि यज्ञाद् अन्यत्रातिथिभ्यो दानं गृहस्थधर्मेषु यद् एतत् तद् एवानूद्यते ॥ ११.३ ॥

Though the term ‘dakṣiṇā’ primarily denotes the fee that is given to a man for doing some work, yet, here it stands for all those things that are given away, with the exception of cows, lands and golden vessels. Such too is the ordinary use of the term.

‘For others’—for supplicants other than those mentioned here.

‘Cooked food’—To such men cooked food shall be given for eating.

‘Outside the sacrificial enclosure’—his refers to the food that should be given by householders, apart from that which is given in connection with sacrificial performances.—(3)

According to Kullūka, the meaning is that ‘to these most excellent Brāhmaṇas food together with presents must be given inside the sacrificial enclosure’;—according to Nārāyaṇa, ‘the nine mendicants mentioned in verses 1 and 2 shall always receive what they ask for, and other mendicants ordinary food only, but that if they beg at the performance of a sacrifice, other property also must be given to them’.

**(verses 11.1-3)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.1-2].

नियमानुवादो ऽयं भोजनविशेषेण । इतरेभ्यो ऽतिथिभ्यो बहिर्वेदि कृतान्नम् एव देयं नियमतः । तद् इदं पूर्वोक्तम् अतिथ्यन्नदानम् अनूद्यते । दक्षिणास् त्व् एषां न विधिर् न प्रतिषेधः ॥ ११.३ ॥

003 To these most excellent among the twice-born, food and presents (of money) must be given; it is declared that food must be given to others outside the sacrificial enclosure.

On Brāhmaṇas learned in the veda, the king shall bestow, according to their desert, all kinds of jewels, as also presents for sacrificial performances.—(4)

सर्ववर्णानां स्वर्गादिफलाय पुरुषार्थोपयोगि दानं विहितम् । अयं तु राज्ञो नियमार्थम् उपदेशः । बहुधनेन राज्ञा सर्वरत्नानि मणिमुक्तादीनि यथार्हं विद्याकर्मानुरूपेण ब्राह्मणेभ्यो दात्व्यानि । यज्ञार्थं च दक्षिणा । काम्यकर्मसिद्धये ऽपीति पुनर् उपदेशः⁵ । प्रतिपादयेत् स्वीकारयेद् ग्राहयेद् इति यावत् ॥ ११.४ ॥

The giving of gifts has been laid down for all castes, as fulfilling man’s purpose, by leading men to heaven. The present text sets forth rules regarding gifts to be made by the king.

If the king is possessed of much wealth, he ‘shall bestow on,’—give to, make accept—‘Brāhmaṇas, all kinds of jewels’—pearls and the rest—‘according to their desert,’—in accordance with the learning and character of each man;—‘also presents for sacrificial performances;’—this has been repeated with a view to showing that such presents shall he made even for the purpose of enabling the Brāhmaṇas to perform such rites as are not compulsory, but are performed with a view to a certain reward.—(4)

Mahābhārata (12.165.4).—(Same as Manu.)

राज्ञस् तु नियमो बहुधनत्वात् । एवं च राज्ञा सान्तानिकादिव्यतिरेकेणान्येभ्यः स्नातकेभ्यो नियमतो देयं स्थितिभोगार्थम् । यज्ञार्थं चेत्य् एतद् आरम्भसामर्थ्याद् गम्यते । नायियक्षमाणाय देयम् इति । अनेन संबन्धेनेदम् उच्यते ॥ ११.४ ॥

004 But a king shall bestow, as is proper, jewels of all sorts, and presents for the sake of sacrifices on Brahmanas learned in the Vedas.

If a man, having already got a wife, weds another wife, after having begged (for the requisite wealth), sexual enjoyment is his only fruit; the issue belongs to the person who gave him the wealth.—(5)

कामतो द्वितीयादिविवाहप्रवृत्तौ भिक्षमाणस्य निषेधो ऽयम् । रतिमात्रं फलम् इत्यादिर् अर्थवादः, न यथाश्रुतम् एव प्रतिपत्तव्यम् ।

• अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते । धर्मार्थं सांतानिकाय दातव्यं न कामप्रवृत्तायेति । स एवायम् अर्थः पुनर् अन्यथोच्यते । सान्तानिकाय दातव्यम्, अयं तु रतिकामो न सान्तानिक इत्य् अर्थः ।

• द्रव्यदातुर् हि सा संततिर् न तस्येति ॥ ११.५ ॥

This forbids the act of begging for the purpose of marrying more than one wife merely through lust.

‘Sexual enjoyment is the only fruit’—This is purely declamatory, and should not be understood in its literal sense.

Others explain the text to mean that ‘gifts for marriage shall be given to one who is going to marry for the purpose of obtaining children, and not to one who is going to do it merely through lust’;—this same idea being stated in the text in a somewhat different form—‘gifts shall be given to one who is seeking for offspring,—the person mentioned in the text is seeking sexual enjoyment, and not offspring.’

‘The issue belongs to the person who gave the wealth,’—and not to the man who marries.—(5)

Āpastamba (2.10.3).—‘But if persons ask for alms for the sake of sexual gratification, that is improper; and he shall not take heed of such begging.’

धर्मप्रजासंपन्ने दारे द्वितीयदारस्यात्मीयेन द्रव्येण नेदम् अनुज्ञानम् । यस्मात् न हि द्वितीयस्य दारस्य धर्मप्रजासंपत्तौ सत्यां प्राप्तिर् अस्ति । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम्- “धर्मप्रजासंपन्ने दारे नान्यां कुर्वीत” इति । एवं च सति कृतदारकार्यस्य द्वितीयदाराधिगमप्रतिषेधो ऽयम् । भिक्षणपक्षम् आश्रित्य निन्दा । तत्र च यथा तदङ्गभावं गच्छतो द्रव्यदातुः सन्ततिः, एवम् आत्मीयद्रव्याधिगमे ऽपि कन्याया दातुः सन्ततिः फलम् इत्य् अतो प्य् एवं शक्यते निन्दा कल्पयितुम् । द्रव्यशब्दस्योभयत्र प्रवृत्तेः कन्यापि हि शक्यते द्रव्यशब्देनाभिधातुम् । यस्मात् कृतदारकार्यस्य द्वितीयदाराधिगमप्रतिषेधार्तो ऽयं श्लोकः । एतस्मिंस् त्व् अर्थे प्रकरणं नानुगृह्यते, यतः अयम् अन्यप्रकरणानुग्राही । श्लोकार्थ उच्यते- कृतदारकार्यस्य द्वितीयदाराधिगमार्थं भिक्षमाणाय न देयं नियमतः । अत्र चोक्तो निन्दार्थवाद इति । एवं च सति भिक्षमाणायापि न देयम् । तथा च सत्य् अयम् अपवादः पूर्वस्यासान्तानिकाय न देयम् इति । नित्यकर्मार्थायां याचनायां सान्तानिकादिश्लोके दाननियम उक्तो विज्ञेयः । काम्यकर्मार्थायां तु याचनायां दानस्य न विधिर् न प्रतिषेधः । तथा च दर्शयति ॥ ११.५ ॥

005 If a man who has a wife weds a second wife, having begged money (to defray the marriage expenses, he obtains) no advantage but sensual enjoyment; but the issue (of his second marriage belongs) to the giver of the money.

If a man possesses food sufficient for the maintenance of those whom he has to support, for three years, or more, he deserves to drink soma.—(6)

If a man has enough wealth to enable him to maintain his dependants for three years,—or if he possesses more—he is worthy of drinking Soma-juice.

Inasmuch as the performance of the Soma-sacrifice has been prescribed by the Śruti as a compulsory act to be done daily, the present verse cannot be accepted as applicable to even that case where the man’s dependants are in want; since Śruti is the highest authority in these matters. The present prohibition should therefore be taken as meant to apply to such Soma-sacrifices as may be purely voluntary.

“In connection with the Soma-sacrifice, much wealth is needed for the purchase of the Soma and the hiring of the services of the priests, for whom ‘twelve thousand’ has been prescribed as the sacrificial fee. Thus then, since much larger wealth would be necessary for the performance, how is it that the text speaks of what is just enough for the maintenance of the man’s dependants for three years?”

As a matter of fact, when a man possesses much wealth, he does fulfil the condition of possessing enough to maintain his dependants for three years; so that it would be open to the man possessed of much wealth to perform the sacrifice.

Though as a rule the term ‘dāna,’ ‘gift,’ is used in the sense of gift of food, yet people might be led to make gifts of gold also, for the purpose of enabling the recipient to purchase the Soma and perform the Soma-sacrifice. And it is such gifts that the next verse is intended to forbid. [The penniless man shall not perform the voluntary Soma-sacrifices].—(6)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 165);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 157), to the effect that the Soma-sacrifice is to be performed only by one who is rich enough for the purpose.,

**(verses 11.6-7)
**

Mahābhārata (12. 165. 5).—(Same as Manu 7.)

Vaśiṣṭha (8. 10).—‘He who possesses wealth sufficient for the expenses of a Soma-sacrifice shall not abstain from offering that sacrifice.’

Viṣṇu (59.8-10).—‘He who has sufficient supply of food for three years shall perform the Soma-sacrifice;—he shall perform the Soma-sacrifice once a year during the Spring.—If he has less than that, he shall perform the Vaiśvānarī sacrifice.’

Yājñavalkya (1.124).—‘The twice-born man who has a supply of food which is more than what he shall need for three years, should perform the Soma-sacrifice;—and one who has food enough for one year should perform the rites preliminary to the Soma-sacrifice.’

006 One should give, according to one’s ability, wealth to Brahmanas learned in the Veda and living alone; (thus) one obtains after death heavenly bliss.

For this reason, if a twice-born person possessing less wealth drinks Soma, he does not obtain its reward, even though he may have drunk Soma formerly.—(7)

त्रीणि वर्षाणि यस्य पर्याप्तं भृत्यभरणाय धनं तत् त्रैवार्षिकम्, ततो ऽधिकं वा यस्यास्ति स सोमं पातुम् अर्हति । श्रुतौ नित्यस्य सोमस्यावश्यकर्तव्यतया उक्तत्वात्,⁶ भृत्योपरोधे ऽपि नैष निषेधः प्रवर्तते, बलीयस्त्वाच् छ्रुतेः । अत इच्छासोमविषयो ऽयं निषेधः ।

• ननु च सोमे धनं परिक्रयार्थम् उपयुज्यते “तस्य द्वादशशतं दक्षिणा” इति । तत्र वृत्तिर् वर्धते ऽतश् च सोमे तत्र धनम् उपयुज्यते । नोच्यते यस्य त्रैवार्षिकम् इति ।

• ननु च वृत्तिधनम् असति धने नित्यवद् अस्तीति विद्यमानधनेनापि तत्कर्तव्यम् एवेष्यते । प्राशस्त्यकरदानशब्दो भक्तमात्रे यदि हिरण्यदानं सोमक्रयार्थम् एवमादिनिवृत्तिः ॥ ११.७ ॥

This verse reiterates the logical fact that no benefit is obtained by a man who has lost his title to the performance by transgressing a definite prohibition.

Inasmuch as the text speaks of ‘reward,’ it is dear that what is here stated pertains to voluntary performances.

‘Even though he may have drunk Soma formerly’—This implies that a previous performance of the Soma-sacrifice is absolutely compulsory.

The latter half is purely declamatory; it should not be taken as precluding the man who has not drunk the Soma formerly.—(7)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 165);—and in Mitākṣarā (1.124), to the effect that a man devoid of wealth should not perform the Soma-sacrifice.

**(verses 11.6-7)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.6].

एवं च सति काम्यसोमापेक्षो ऽयं सामर्थ्याद् उपदेशो द्रष्टव्यः । नित्यस्य हि सोमस्य भृत्योपरोधेनापि करणम् इष्यते, नित्यत्वाद् एव । तथा च सत्य् अत्र तदैव दाननियमो युज्यते, यथोक्तो यक्ष्यमाणाय देयम् इति । इदं सोमग्रहणं सर्वकाम्यकर्मप्रदर्शनार्थम्, कारणस्य [स]मानत्वात् ॥ ११.६ ॥

007 He who may possess (a supply of) food sufficient to maintain those dependant on him during three years or more than that, is worthy to drink the Soma-juice.

If a wealthy man gives to other people, while his own people are living in distress,—such counterfeit virtue would be like swallowing poison, which is sweet in the beginning.—(8)

प्रतिषेधातिक्रमेणानधिकारिणः कुर्वतो न्यायसिद्धफलाभावो ऽनेनानूद्यते । फलग्रहणाच् च काम्यविषयता स्फुटतरा प्रतीयते । स पीतसोमपूर्वो ऽपि । अनेन प्रथमयज्ञस्यावश्यकर्तव्यतां दर्शयति । स पीतत्वाआद्यर्थवादो⁷ ऽयम्, न पुनर् अपीतसोमस्य प्रतिषेधः ॥ ११.८ ॥

‘His own people’—Servants, councillors, mother, son, wife and so forth;—while these ‘are living in distress,’—if the man ‘gives to other people’—for the purpose of acquiring fame,—this form would be like ‘swallowing poison,’—‘which is sweet in the beginning.’ The swallowing of poison, though apparently sweet in the beginning, leads to disastrous results, in the shape of death; exactly like that is the giving of gifts just described.

This same idea is otherwise expressed by calling the act ‘counterfeit virtue.’ It has the semblance of virtue and is not real virtue; just as the shell is like silver, not silver itself.—(8)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 283);—and in Hemādri (Dāna p. 40).

[note: this either belongs to verse 8 or 9]

नियमशास्त्रव्यतिक्रमेण न केवलम् अस्य तत्कर्मनैष्फल्यम् प्रत्यवायश् चापरः । अपीतसोमपूर्वस्यायं व्यतिक्रमो निष्फलः प्रत्यवायाय च स्यात्, किं पुनर् इतरस्येति निन्दार्थवादः न चापीतसोमपूर्वो ऽपीत्य् अनेन स्तुत्यर्थेनातिसयवचनेन न नित्यस्य सोमपानस्याप्रवृत्तिः सक्या कल्पयितुम् । एवं च सत्य् एतस्माद् एव स्तुत्यतिशयाल् लिङ्गान् नित्यस्यानिवृत्तिर् गम्यते । तथा च नित्यार्थं नियमतो देयम् । इतरत्र त्व् अनियमः । इदानीं शक्तस्य दातुर् नियम उच्यते ॥ ११.७ ॥

008 But a twice-born man, who, though possessing less than that amount of property, nevertheless drinks the Soma-juice, does not derive any benefit from that (act), though he may have formerly drunk the Soma-juice.

यः स्वजनो भृत्यामात्यमातृपितृपुत्रदारादिस् तस्मिन् दुःखजीविनि । यः परजने यशोर्थं ददाति तस्यासौ विषास्वादः । आपाते संनिपाते मधुरः । यथा विषस्यास्वादः संनिपातमधुरो विपाकविरसो मरणफलत्वात्, एवं तादृशं दानम् । यद्य् अपि संप्रति यशः सुखं जनयत्य् अमुत्र प्रत्यवायोत्पत्या विषास्वादसमं संपद्यते । तद् एवाह धर्मप्रतिरूपको ऽसौ सदृशो न धर्मः, शुक्तिर् इव रजतज्ञानस्य ॥ ११.९. ॥

एवं च सत्य् एतद् अर्थाद् गम्यते स्वजनोपरोधेन परेभ्यो न देयम् । स्वजनं च पुत्रदारादिं वक्ष्यति । अन्यथा हि स्वजनातिक्रमेण यो ददाति दातुस् तस्यासौ मध्यापातः, मधुन इवापतः आपात आस्वादः संनिपात रमणीयो यशः; सुखं यशो ऽर्थिनां यद्य् अपि भवति, तथाप्य् असौ विषास्वाद इव ज्ञेयो ऽप्य् एव । कटुरसत्वेनात्र प्रत्यवायोत्पत्त्या । तथा च दर्सयति स धर्मप्रतिरूपको दातुर् अधर्म इत्य् अर्थः । कुतः । नियमातिक्रमात् । अस्य निन्दार्थवादो निवृत्त्यर्थः ॥ ११.८ ॥

009 (If) an opulent man (is) liberal towards strangers, while his family lives in distress, that counterfeit virtue will first make him taste the sweets (of fame, but afterwards) make him swallow the poison (of punishment in hell).

If a man does anything for his own benefit after death, to the detriment of the persons he has got to maintain,—it becomes conducive to unhappy results while he lives as also when he dies.—(9). Aged parents, well-behaved wife and infant sons have been declared by Manu to be persons that should be maintained, even by doing a hundred evil acts.—(10)

वृद्धौ च मातापितरौ साध्वी भार्या शिशुः सुतः | अप्यकार्यशतं कृत्वा भर्तव्या मनुरब्रवीत् ||

vṛddhau ca mātāpitarau sādhvī bhāryā śiśuḥ sutaḥ | apyakāryaśataṃ kṛtvā bhartavyā manurabravīt ||

पूर्वस्य निन्दार्थवादो ऽयम् । भृत्या व्याख्याताः । उपरोधो भक्तवस्त्रादिना यथोपयोगम् आहरणम् । और्ध्वदेहिकं परलोकप्रयोजनम् । असुखोदर्कम् उदर्कः आगामीकालः, सो ऽस्य दानस्य्आसुखोदर्कं भवतीति प्रयोजनं सिद्धम् एव ॥ ११.१० ॥

**(verses 11.9-10)
**

This is a deprecatory declamation in support of what has gone before.

‘Persons he has got to maintain’—already described.

‘Detriment’— depriving them of food and clothing and other necessaries.

‘For his benefit after death’—For the purpose of accomplishing for himself rewards in the other world.

‘Conducive to unhappy results’— The ‘Udarka,’ i.e., the ‘future result’ of such giving turns out to be ‘unhappy’.—(9-10).

[Verse 10 translated here has been quoted by Medhātithi in the Bhāṣya on 3.72.]

(verse 11.9)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 283);—and in Hemādri (Dāna p. 40).

[note: the above note either belongs to verse 8 or 9]

(verse 11.10)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 283).

वृद्धौ च मातापितरौ साध्वी भार्या शिशुः सुतः |
अप्यकार्यशतं कृत्वा भर्तव्या मनुरब्रवीत् ||

vṛddhau ca mātāpitarau sādhvī bhāryā śiśuḥ sutaḥ |
apyakāryaśataṃ kṛtvā bhartavyā manurabravīt ||

This verse is not commented upon by the Commentators; it is quoted by Medhātithi under 2.189, and in several important Nibandhas.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 283);—in Mitākṣarā (1.224) to the effect that one who abandons his wife and children stands on the same footing as one who abandons his parents;—again on 2.175, as. indicating the obligatory character of the duty of maintaining one’s family-members;—the Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes:—‘Vṛddhau’, over 80 years old,—‘śiśuḥ’, less than 16 years old,—‘Akāryaśatam’, many such reprehensible acts as receiving improper gifts and so forth.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva I (p. 349);—in Smṛtitattva II (p. 361) as mentioning persons who must be supported;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 186);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 384), which adds that this refers to abnormal times of distress.

(verses 11.9-10)

Śātātapa (Aparārka, p. 283).—‘The twice-born person who, in feeding and making gifts, passes over the student near at hand destroys his family to the seventh generation.’

Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (Do.).—‘If one passes over the Brāhmaṇa near at hand,—except when he is an outcast,—and feeds one at a distance, he falls into hell.—For this reason, the wise man should never pass over his neighbours and relations, or his daughter’s son or sister’s husband, or his sister’s son specially, and other relations; he should not pass over these even if they be illiterate; passing over them, one falls into hell.’

Vyāsa (Do., p. 282).—‘What is given to one’s parents, brothers, sisters or daughters, wife or sons,—becomes an irreproachable bridge to heaven. A gift made to the father becomes a hundredfold, that to the mother a thousandfold, that to the daughter becomes endless, and what is given to the uterine brother is imperishable.’

Dakṣa (Do., p. 939).—‘The following are the persons that should be supported by rich persons:—father, mother, teacher, wife, children, a poor man seeking shelter, guest and fire; also relations that are poor, an orphan seeking shelter. He shall make presents to learned men……… The supporting of one’s dependants is the way to heaven, and the harassing of them is the way to hell.’

मातापितरौ पुत्रदारं च भृत्याः । तथा चोक्तम् “गुरून् भृत्यांश् चोज्जिहीर्षन्” इति । एवं च स्मृत्यन्तरम्-

वृद्धौ च मातापितरौ साध्वी भार्या सुतः शिशुः ।
अप्य् अकार्यशतं कृत्वा भर्तव्या मनुर् अब्रवीत् ॥

अतस् तेषाम् उपरोधेन यद् अन्यत् करोत्य् और्ध्वदेहिकम् इष्टं पूर्तं वा युक्तम् अस्यासुखोदर्कत्वं प्रत्यवायोत्पत्त्या च तत्रेह चेति । अपरे तु पूर्वश्लोकपादम् एवं पठन्ति “मध्वास्वदो विषापात” इति, अर्थस् तु यथोक्त एव ॥ ११.९ ॥

010 If (a man) does anything for the sake of his happiness in another world, to the detriment of those whom he is bound to maintain, that produces evil results for him, both while he lives and when he is dead.

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

भिक्षमाणस्यापि तदर्थम् असामग्र्यां सत्यां यज्ञसाधनानां परादानं वक्ष्यति । एकाङ्गेनेति, येन केनचिद् अल्पेनापि यज्ञसाधनप्रतिपूरणेनेत्यर्थः । ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषेणेदम् इत्य् अर्थः । तन्निमित्ते । एवं च सति क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् अपि यायजूकयोर् एकम् अनुज्ञायते परादानम्, ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषेणेति वचनात् । धर्मिके सति राजनि धर्मज्ञो यो हि एतद् वे[त्ति] । अनेन निमित्ते उपन्य[स्ते] स्तः शास्त्रे इहैतस्मिन् एवंगुणे सति राजन्य् एतद् उपदिस्यते परादानम् । कुतः पुनस् तद् इति, यतस् तद् आह ॥ ११.१० ॥

011 If a sacrifice, (offered) by (any twice-born) sacrificer, (and) especially by a Brahmana, must remain incomplete through (the want of) one requisite, while a righteous king rules,

During the reign of a righteous king, if the sacrificial rite of a sacrificer, specially of a Brāhmaṇa, be interrupted for want of one requisite,—that substance may be appropriated, for the completion of that sacrifice, from the house of a Vaiśya possessed of many cattle, who does not perform sacrifices and does not drink the Soma.—(11-12)

अत्र अङ्गग्रहणान्⁸ न केवलं सर्वासां दक्षिणानाम् असंपत्तौ हिरण्यानाम्⁹ इदम् आहरणं विधीयते, अपि च तस्मिन्न् अपि पश्वादौ । आहरेद् इति तत्स्वीकारोत्पत्तिमात्रम् उच्यते, नोपायविशेषः । अतश् च याच्ञया विनिमयेन¹⁰ चौर्येणैवापहर्तव्यम् ।

• ननु च¹¹ चौर्येण स्वाम्यं¹² नोत्पद्यत इत्य् उक्तम् ।

• नैष दोषः । इह स्वशब्देनैवोक्तं हर्तव्यम् इति । एवं ह्य् आह “हर्तव्यं¹³ हीनकर्मणः” (म्ध् ११.१६) इति ।

• अयं चापहारः¹⁴ प्रागारब्धयागस्य सर्वाङ्गोपेतस्यैकाङ्गासंपत्तौ प्रारिप्स्यमानस्य वेति न विशेषहेतुर् अस्ति । ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषेणेति वचनात् क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् अप्य् अस्ति तद् एकाङ्गग्रहणम् अस्मिन् निमित्ते ।

• ननु कः क्षत्रियो याचेद् इति क्षत्रियस्य याच्ञा प्रतिषिद्धा ।

• अत्यल्पम् इदम् उच्यते । ब्राह्मणस्यापि चौर्यं निषिद्धम् । तस्मात् तस्मिन् निमित्ते नास्त्य् अर्जनोपायनियमः ।

• धार्मिके सतित्य् अनुवादो ऽयम् । यो हि धर्मज्ञो राजा तस्मिन् निमित्ते चौर्यं विहितम् इति । अन्यस्य तु निगृहीतत्वात् कुतः प्रवृत्तिः । बहुपशुग्रहणं धनमात्रोपलक्षणार्थम् । हीनक्रतुः¹⁵ कर्म यगाद्¹⁶ अन्यद् अपि दानादि न करोति । सत्य् अप्य् असोमपे । कुतुम्बाद् गृहाद् इत्य् अर्थः । गृहाद् धि चौर्यं दोषवत्तरम्, अतस् तद् अनुज्ञायते । न पुनर् अप्य् एवम् एव नियमः । अन्यतो ऽपि यत् खलादेः संपद्यते तत् कर्तव्यम् एव । वक्ष्यति च “खलात् क्षेत्राद् अगाराद् वा” (म्ध् ११.१६) इति ॥ ११.११–१२ ॥

(verses 11.11-12)

Inasmuch as the text speaks of the requisite, it follows that the appropriation here permitted applies, not only to the gold necessary for the making up of the sacrificial fee, but also to animals and other things necessary for the sacrifice. All that the text lays down is the appropriation of the thing, and not the mode by which it should be done. Hence the thing may he acquired either by begging, or by exchange or by stealing.

“But it has been said that ownership is not acquired by stealing.”

There is no force in this objection. Since it is directly laid down here, in so many words, that the thing shall be ‘appropriated’; and it has also been said that ‘a sacrifice may be accomplished even by doing a mean act.’

There is nothing to show whether this ‘appropriation’ is permitted only in a case where a sacrifice having been begun, all its requisites are at hand, with the exception of a single article,—or also when it is intended to be taken in hand.

‘Specially of a Brāhmaṇa’—This shows that for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also the said appropriation under the said circumstance is permitted.

“What Kṣatriya is there who would beg? Specially as begging is absolutely impossible for the Kṣatriya.”

What you say is not enough. For the Brāhmaṇa also, stealing is forbidden. The fact of the matter is that there is no restriction regarding the method to be employed in the appropriation under the said circumstances.

^(‘)During the reign of a righteous king’— This is purely reiterative. If the king is righteous and knows the law, he would know that under tin; peculiar circumstances stealing is permitted, and hence the sacrificer would he emboldened to do the appropriation. If, on the other hand, the king did not know the law, he would punish the said appropriation like ordinary theft; and hence under his rule no one would think of doing it.

‘Possessing many cattle’—This stands for all kinds of wealth.

‘Who does not perform sacrifices’—i.e., who does not do any righteous act, in the shape of giving gifts and so forth.

‘Kuṭumba’ stands here for the house. It is stealing from the house that is exceptionally objectionable; hence it is this that is permitted. But no such restriction is meant as that it should be taken ‘from the house’ only; it may be taken also from the threshing yard and such other places, where the particular thing may be available; specially as it is going to be declared later on (Verse 17)—‘either from the threshing yard, or from the field, or from the house.’—(11-12)

(verse 11.12)

According to Nārāyaṇa and Nandana, ‘the king’ is the agent to be understood with the verb ‘āharet’, ‘may take’;—this being supported by a parallel passage in the Mahābhārata which ends with ‘Yajñārthampārthivo haret’.

(verses 11.11-14)

Mahābhārata (12.165.6-9).—(Same as Manu.)

Gautama (18.24-27).—‘In order to defray the expenses of a wedding,—and when engaged in a rite enjoined by the secred texts, one may take money from a Śūdra,—or from a man rich in small cattle who neglects his religious duties, though he does not belong to the Śūdra caste,—or from the owner of a hundred cows who has not laid the fire;—or from the owner of a thousand cows who does not drink Soma.’

हीनक्रतुश् च बहुपशुः स्यात् । हीनकर्मा । अहीनक्रतुर् अपि यद्य् असोमपो भवति, ततः कुटुम्बात् तस्य तद् द्रव्यम् आहरेत् । तद् असंभवे च ॥ ११.११ ॥

012 That article (required) for the completion of the sacrifice, may be taken (forcibly) from the house of any Vaisya, who possesses a large number of cattle, (but) neither performs the (minor) sacrifices nor drinks the Soma-juice;

Or, he may freely take away two or three things from the house of a Śūdra; for the Śūdra has nothing to do with acrifices.—(13)

वैश्यासंभवे शूद्राद् अप्य् आहर्तव्यम् । त्रीणि वा द्वे वेत्य् अङ्गप्रकरणाद् अङ्गानि वेदितव्यानि । अत्रार्थवादो न हि शूद्रस्येति । यद्य् अपि पूर्वम् अनेकोपायकृतम् आहरणं विहितं तथापि भिक्षणम् अत्र नास्ति, “न यज्ञार्थं धनं शूद्राद् विप्रो भिक्षेत” (म्ध् ११.२३) इति ।

• ननु च स्मृत्यन्तरे ऽविशेषेण शूद्रधनेन यागः प्रतिषिद्धः ।

• अस्योपदेशस्य सामर्थ्याच् छूद्रात् प्रतिगृह्णीतेति द्रष्टव्यम् ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुः । ब्राह्मणेन स्वीकृतत्वान् नैव तच् छूद्रधनम् इति । यस् तु प्रतिषेधः, स शूद्रस्य शान्तिकपौष्टिकादि येन धनेन करोति ऋत्विग्वत् तत्र द्रष्टव्यः । इह तु भूतपूर्वगत्या शूद्रधनव्यपदेशो ऽस्य स्यात्, सांप्रतिकत्वाभावे च शास्त्राद् या चैवति चेत्य् अयम् एव¹⁷ ॥ ११.१३ ॥

If the thing required is not available in the house of a Vaiśya, it may be taken from that of a Śūdra.

‘Two or three.’—These must be taken as referring to sacrificial requisites, since it is these that the text is dealing with.

The text adds a declamatory statement—‘The Śūdra has nothing to do with sacrifices

Though the appropriation has been spoken of above as to be done by several methods, vet in the ease of the Śūdra, there should be no begging, since it is distinctly said that—‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not beg wealth, for the purpose of sacrifices, from a Śūdra.’—(24)

“In another Smṛti, the performance of sacrifices with wealth belonging to the Śūdra has been prohibited without any exceptions.”

On the strength of the present text itself, it follows that one may accept gifts from the Śūdra.

Others however explain that when the wealth has been appropriated by the Brāhmaṇa, it is no longer ‘wealth belonging to the Śūdra.’

As a matter of fact, however, what the prohibition refers to is the doing of ‘Śānti’ and ‘Pauṣṭika’ rites for the Śūdra. And a performance is actually called after that wealth which the Ṛtvik priest actually employs in the performance; and there is no doubt that in the case of the sacrifices in question, the performance would be styled as done with wealth belonging to the Śūdra,’ in view of the fact that the wealth originally belonged to him, even though it may not do so at the time of the performance itself.—(13)

**(verses 11.11-14)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.11-12].

आहरेत् त्रीणि वा द्वे वा कामं शूद्रस्य वेश्मनः ।

अङ्गप्रकरणात् त्रीणि वा द्वे वाङ्गानि संबध्यन्ते । अङ्गभूयस्त्वादानं च हीनजातित्वाद् अस्य । अस्यार्थवादो भवति ।

न हि शूद्रस्य यज्ञेषु कश्चिद् अस्ति परिग्रहः ॥ ११.१२ ॥

एवं चाह व्यासः-

यज्ञाय सृष्टानि धनानि धात्रा यष्टा सृष्टः पुरुषो रक्षिता च ।
तस्मात् सर्वं यज्ञ एवोपयोज्यं धनं न कामाय एतत् प्रशस्तम् ॥

ननु शूद्रधनेन यागप्रतिषेधं वक्ष्यति, “न यज्ञार्थं धनंशूद्रात्” इत्य् एवमादिभिः । [भि]क्षित्वा तत्र प्रतिषेधः, इदं च परादानं पदार्थान्तरम् । यतो न विरोधः । अथ वा शूद्रधनैर् एव केवलैस् तत्र प्रतिषेधः, इह तु द्वित्रिमात्राङ्गवैकल्ये ऽसंभवद्वित्तस्य तत आदाय यागो युक्तः । वचनाद् वात्रैवं भविष्यति, निमित्ते भेदे सति । न वचनस्यातिभारो ऽस्त्य् उपदेशपरत्वाच् छस्त्रस्य । इदानीं ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियाभ्याम् इदम् आदानम् उच्यते, असंभवति शूद्रे ॥ ११.१२ ॥

013 (Or) the (sacrificer) may take at his pleasure two or three (articles required for a sacrifice) from the house of a Sudra; for a Sudra has no business with sacrifices.

If a man, possessing a hundred cows, has not laid the Fire,—or a man possessing a thousand cows, performs no sacrifices,—out of the houses of these men also, one may take away (the sacrificial requisites) without hesitation.—(14)

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियाभ्याम् अप्य् एवंविधाभ्याम् आहर्तव्यम् इति श्लोकार्थः । गोग्रहणं तावत् परिमाणधनोपलक्षणार्थम् । **अयज्वा **असोमयाजी¹⁸ ॥ ११.१४ ॥

What the verse means is that things may be taken also from Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas, if they are of the character described.

The ‘cow’ has been mentioned only as the standard of the amount of wealth meant

‘Who performs no sacrifices’—does not perform the Soma-sacrifice.—(14)

According to Medhātithi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda, this refers to Kṣatriyas as well as Brāhmaṇas;—according to Govindarāja it refers to the former alone.

**(verses 11.11-14)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.11-12].

निगदव्याख्यातः श्लोकः ॥ ११.१३ ॥

014 If (a man) possessing one hundred cows, kindles not the sacred fire, or one possessing a thousand cows, drinks not the Soma-juice, a (sacrificer) may unhesitatingly take (what he requires) from the houses of those two, even (though they be Brahmanas or Kshatriyas);

He shall take it also from one who always acquires, and never gives, if he refuses to give up the thing; thus does his fame spread and merit increase.—(15)

अयं सर्ववर्णविषयः श्लोकः । आदाननित्यो यः सर्वकालं कृषिप्रतिग्रहकुसीदादिभिर् धनम् अर्जयति, न च ददाति, तत उपायान्तराण्य् आश्रयणीयानि । अदातुर् इत्य् अयागशीलस्यापि द्रष्टव्यम् ॥ ११.१५ ॥

This verse applies to all castes.

‘Who always acquires’—who always goes on acquiring wealth by agriculture, by receiving gifts, by money-lending and so forth;—‘and never gives.’

‘If he refuses to give up the thing’— then other methods should be employed.

‘Who never gives’—may he taken to mean ‘who is of a miserly disposition.’—(15)

‘Ādānanityāḥ’.—‘Men of all castes who constantly amass wealth’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa;);—‘Brāhmaṇas who always accept gifts’ (Kullūka, Govindarāja and Rāghavānanda).

Mahābhārata (12.165.10).—‘The King shall openly take wealth from misers; thus alone can the duty of the King be duly performed.’

अयं चादाननित्यो ब्राह्मण उच्यते । आदाय यो न कल्पयति धनम् इष्टपूर्ताङ्गतया । तस्माद् अप्रयच्छत इदम् आदानम् उच्यते । न त्व् आदाननित्यस्यापि सतो यज्ञशीलस्य । एवं च सति पूर्वश्लोकः क्षत्रियविषय एव द्रष्टव्यः । अपरे त्व् आदाननित्यं वार्धिषुकं मन्यन्ते । शास्त्रप्रतिषिद्धवृद्धिगृहीतारम् (?) अया[ग]शीलम् । एतस्यां च कल्पनायां जातिर् अविवक्षिता । तथा च मन्त्रः “इं ते कृण्वन्ति कीकटेषु गावः” इत्येवमादिः ॥ ११.१४ ॥

015 (Or) he may take (it by force or fraud) from one who always takes and never gives, and who refuses to give it; thus the fame (of the taker) will spread and his merit increase.

आत्मकुटुम्बावसादे ऽपि पूर्ववत् परादानं कर्तव्यम् । अश्वस्तनग्रहणाद् एकदिनवृत्त्यर्थम् एवानुजानाति, नाधिकम् । हीनकर्मण इति कर्मार्थम् । स्मृत्यन्तरे-

• हीनाद् आदेयम् आदौ स्यात् तदलाभे समाद् अपि ।

• असंभवे त्व् आददीत विशिष्टाद् अपि धार्मिकात् ॥

सप्तमे भक्ते । त्र्यहं येन न भुक्तं चतुर्थे ऽहनि प्रातर् भोजनार्थं परादाने प्रवर्तेत । “सायंप्रातर् भुञ्जीत” (ग्ध् ९.५९) इत्य् अहन्य् अहनि भक्तद्वयं विहितम् ॥ ११.१६ ॥

आत्मकुटुम्बक्षुदवसादेनापि निमित्तेन पूर्ववत् परादानं शिष्यते । ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषेणेत्य् एतद् अनुवर्तते । अश्वस्तननिधानायेति वचनात्, आहोरात्रिकम् आदेय परिमाणम् अनुजानाति नाधिकम् । हीनकर्मण इति च क्रमार्थम् इदं वचनम् । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम्-

हीनाद् आदेयम् आदौ स्यात् तद् अलाभे सामाद् अपि ।
असंभवे त्व् आददीत विशिष्टाद् अपि धार्मिकात् ॥

एवं च सति पूर्वस्याप्य् अयम् एव क्रमो विज्ञेयः । तथा च गौतमः- “द्रव्यादानं विहाहसिद्ध्यर्थं धर्मतन्त्रसंयोगे च शूद्राद्, अन्यत्रापि शूद्रात्” इति ॥ ११.१५ ॥

016 Likewise he who has not eaten at (the time of) six meals, may take at (the time of) the seventh meal (food) from a man who neglects his sacred duties, without (however) making a provision for the morrow,

Likewise one who has not eaten six meals, may, for the seventh meal, take from a person whose sacred duties are neglected,—but only to this extent that it does not last till the morrow;—(16) either from the threshing yard, or from the field, or from the house, or from any place where it may be got; but if the owner questions him, he must confess it to the questioner.—(17)

यतो वापीति आरामादेर् अपि । आख्यातव्यं पृच्छत इत्य् एव । यदि पृच्छतीति वचनं न हठात् पुनः प्रेषणादिना प्रश्नम् असौ कारयितव्यः । अथ वा पृच्छते धनस्वामिने, यदि पृच्छति राजेति । “राजपुरं नीत्वैव”¹⁹ विषयभेदो दर्शयितव्यः । तथा च गौतमः- “आचक्षीत राज्ञा पृष्टः” (ग्ध् १८.३०) इति । भक्तच्छेदे यज्ञप्रतिबन्धतः प्रकरणविशेषाद् उभयत्रायं विधिर् ज्ञेयः ॥ ११.१७ ॥

(verses 11.16-17)

The property of another person may he seized also when one’s own family is suffering from want

‘Not lasting till the morrow.’—The addition of this phrase implies that the taking of only that much is permitted which may maintain the family for one day,—and no more.

‘From one whose sacred duties are neglected’—implies that it may be taken for the purpose of sacred rites.

Another Smṛti says—‘At first one should appropriate from a person of lower status than himself; if no such be available, then from a man of equal status; and in the event of this also being not available, even from a person of superior righteousness.’

‘For the seventh meal.’—If the man has not eaten for three days he may appropriate another’s property for his morning meal on the fourth day. Two meals a day have been laid down in such texts as—‘one shall eat in the morning and in the evening.’

‘Or from any place.’—Even out of the garden and such places.

‘He should confess it’—but ‘to the questioner’ only;—‘if he questions him,’—i.e., he should not send for him and force the owner to question him.

Or the ‘questioner’ may stand for the owner of the property, and ‘if he questions him’ for the king; the king questioning him when he is taken before him (and charged with having taken away the property). In this manner we may distinguish between the two terms ‘pṛcchate’ and ‘pṛcchati.’ Says Gautama (18. 30)—‘Questioned by the king he should confess it’

What is said here should be understood to apply to both cases—want of food, and shortage of sacrificial requisites.—(16-17)

(verse 11.16)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2. 275), where Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes:—‘Bhakta’ is food; ‘saptame bhakte,’ on the fourth day;—‘aśvastanavidhānena,’ in such a way that there may be nothing left over for the second day;—‘hīnakarmaṇaḥ,’ from a man whose religious acts are very poor.—It is quoted again under (2.43), whíere the meaning is explained as that ‘if, in the absence of food, a man has gone without food for three days, he should wrest from a man deficient in religious acts just enough for one day.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 938), which explains the meaning as—‘if a man has gone without food for six meals, then at the time of his seventh meal, he should take by force just enough for the day from a man of lower caste and also from one who is deficient in religious acts.’

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 352), to the effect that if a man has gone without six meals, he may steal food; and notes that this sanction implies that one may even perform the Vaiśvadeva rites with such stolen food.

(verse 11.17)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.43), to the effect that if, under circumstances mentioned in the preceding verse, one has stolen food, he should confess if asked;—and in Aparārka (p. 938), to the effect that the food spoken of in the preceding verse, may be taken from the threshing-yard and other places.

(verse 11.16)

Mahābhārata (12.165.21).—(Same as Manu.)

Gautama (18.28-29).—‘And when he has not eaten at the time of six meals, he may take, at the time of the seventh meal as much as will sustain life, not so much as would enable him to make a hoard,—even from men who do not neglect their duties.’

Yājñavalkya (3.42).—‘Having gone hungry for three days, he may take grains from a non-Brāhmaṇa; but on being accused of it, be should state the truth.’

(verse 11.17)

Mahābhārata (12.165.12).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.42).—(See above under XVI.)

Gautama (18.30).—‘If he is questioned about it, he shall confess it.’

खलात् क्षेत्राद् अगाराद् वा यतो वाप्य् उपलभ्यते ।

एवं च खलादिग्रहणाद् धान्यम् इदं विज्ञेयं भोजनार्थीयं तथा च सप्तमे भक्त इत्य् उक्तम् ।

आख्यातव्यं तु तत् तस्मै पृच्छते यदि पृच्छति ॥ ११.१६ ॥

धनस्वामिन पृच्छते सुप्तम् उत्थाप्य जाग्रित्वा यदि पृच्छति । अथ वाख्यातव्यं तत् तस्मै पृच्छते धनस्वामिने यदि जाग्रद्धनापहर्तारं पृच्छति, न बलाद् उत्थाप्याख्यातव्यम् । अथ वा यदि पृच्छति राजा धनस्वामिना राजपुरुषैर् वा राजसमीपम् आनीतम् । तथा च गौतमः- “आचक्षीत राज्ञा पृष्टः” इति धनापहरणप्रयोजनम् । अयं च परादान[नियमो भक्तच्छेदे यज्ञ]प्रतिरोधे ऽपि समानत्वात् कारणस्य विज्ञेयः ॥ ११.१६ ॥

017 Either from the threshing-floor, or from a field, or out of the house, or wherever he finds it; but if (the owner) asks him, he must confess to him that (deed and its cause).

The Kṣatriya shall never appropriate the property of a Brāhmaṇa; when starving, he may appropriate the property of the robbers and of one who neglects his duties.—(18)

क्षत्रियेणेति । क्षत्रियग्रहणं वैश्यशूद्रयोर् अपि प्रदर्शनार्थम् । कदाचनेति महत्याम् आपदीत्य् अर्थः । दस्युनिष्क्रिययोर् ब्राह्मणयोर् एव । दस्युस् तस्करो निष्क्रियस् त्व् अकर्मानाशर्मी ॥ ११.१८ ॥

‘The Kṣatriya’— This is meant to include the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also.

‘Never’—i.e., not even in times of the greatest distress.

‘Robber and one who neglects his duties.’—That is, Brāhmaṇas having this character. ‘Robber’ is the thief, and ‘one who neglects his duties’ is the person who does not observe the rules governing the life-stages.—(18)

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 938), as an exception to what has gone in the preceding two verses.

ब्राह्मणस्वं न हर्तव्यं क्षत्रियेण कदाचन ।

कदाचिद् अपि यथोक्तायाम् अप्य् अवस्थायाम् । एवं च दण्डापूपिकया वैश्यशूद्रयोर् अपि प्रतिषेधो [विज्ञेयः] । ब्राह्मणस्य ब्रह्मस्वापहरणे ऽप्रतिषेधः; तथा चोक्तम् “आदाननित्याच् चादातुः” (म्ध् ११.१४) इति ॥

**दस्युनिष्क्रिययोस् तु **

ब्राह्मणयोर् एव सतोः,

स्वम् अजीवन् हर्तुम् अर्हति ॥ ११.१७ ॥

कारणात् पूर्वप्रतिषेधविषये प्रतिप्रसवो ऽयं विज्ञेयः । एवं च ब्राह्मणस्य श्रेयसो ऽपि ब्राह्मणाद् एतद् अनुज्ञातं भवति ॥ ११.१७ ॥

018 (On such occasions) a Kshatriya must never take the property of a (virtuous Brahmana; but he who is starving may appropriate the possessions of a Dasyu, or of one who neglects his sacred duties.

He who takes wealth from the wicked and gives it to the virtuous, makes himself a raft and carries both over.—(19)

प्लवः समुद्रतरणः । उभौ यस्यापहरति यस्मै च प्रयच्छति²⁰ । सेषो ऽर्थवादः ॥ ११.१९ ॥

‘Raft’—for crossing the sea.

‘Both’— the man from whom he appropriates it, and the man to whom he gives it.

The rest is purely declamatory.—(.19)

**(verses 11.19-22)
**

Mahābhārata (12.165.12).—(Same as Manu).

Gautama (18.31-32).—‘If the Brāhmaṇa possesses sacred learning and a good character, he must be supported by the King,—if the sacred law is violated and the King does not do his duty, he commits sin.’

Yājñavalkya (3.43).—‘Of the starving Brāhmaṇa the King shall arrange for maintenance, after having found out all about his conduct, family, character, learning, knowledge and austerities,—and also his household.’

धनस्वाम्यपहर्तारौ । गृहीतम् एव धनापहर्तारं यज्ञप्रतिरोधेन निमित्तेनानिगृह्णतः पूजयतश् च राज्ञ इदम् उच्यते परानुगृहीतृत्वात् । एतच् चासाधुभ्यो यज्ञार्थम् आदीयमानं साधुनोपेक्षया राज्ञैव दत्तं भवति । यत इदम् उच्यते । यो ऽसाधुभ्यो ऽर्थम् आदाय साधुभ्यः संप्रयच्छति, येन ॥ ११.१८ ॥

019 He who takes property from the wicked and bestows it on the virtuous, transforms himself into a boat, and carries both (over the sea of misfortune).

The property of persons given to perform sacrifices the learned regard as ‘the property of the gods;’ while the property of those who do not perform sacrifices is described as ‘the property of demons.’—(20)

अयम् अस्यार्थवाद एव । गुणवद्भ्यो नापहर्तव्यम्, निर्गुणेभ्यस् तु न दोषः ॥ ११.२० ॥

This also is a declamatory declaration in support of the teaching that ‘no property shall be taken from men possessed of good qualities, but there is no harm if it is taken from those devoid of qualities.’—(20)

**(verses 11.19-22)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.19].

यस्मात् तस्माद् युक्ता तत्र राज्ञ उपेक्षा, एतां शास्त्रपरिभाषाम् अन्ववेक्ष्य । एवं च सति ॥ ११.१९ ॥

020 The property of those who zealously offer sacrifices, the wise call the property of the gods; but the wealth of those who perform no sacrifices is called the property of the Asuras.

The righteous king shall inflict no punishment upon him; as it is only through the foolishness of the Kṣatriya that the Brāhmaṇa suffers from hunger.—(21)

अस्मिन् निमित्ते चौरत्वेनानीतेभ्यो राज्ञा दण्डो न कर्तव्यः । यतस् तस्यैव बालिश्यान् मौर्ख्यात् क्षुधावसीदन्ति । क्षुधेत्य् अविवक्षितम्, उभयोः प्रकरणाद् अर्थवादत्वाच् च ॥ ११.२१ ॥

If a person is brought before the king charged with theft, under the circumstances above described, he shall not be punished; as it is only on account of the king’s ‘foolishness’—folly—‘that the Brāhmaṇa suffers from hunger.’

Stress is not meant to be laid on ‘hunger’ only; as both ‘hunger’ and ‘sacrificial needs’ are meant, as is clear from the context and from the implications of the declamatory passages.—(21)

**(verses 11.19-22)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.19].

क्षुल् लिङ्गं चैतद् उभयत्रापि समानप्रकरणत्वाद् विज्ञेयम् ॥ ११.२० ॥

021 On him (who, for the reasons stated, appropriates another’s possessions), a righteous king shall not inflict punishment; for (in that case) a Brahmana pines with hunger through the Kshatriya’s want of care.

Having ascertained the number of persons he has to maintain, and having investigated his learning and character, the king shall provide, out of his own property, a proper living for him.—(22)

धर्म्या वृत्तिर् यया नित्यकर्माण्य् अपि संपद्यन्ते । क्षीणकोशेनापि महिषीराजपुत्रादिकल्पिताद् दायाद् विहिताच् च धनाच् च किंचिद् अवकृष्य दातव्यम् इति । स्वकुटुम्बाद् इत्यादिना महाधनस्यैव राज्ञो ऽयं विधिः, “सर्वरत्नानि” (म्ध् ११.४) इति वचनात् ॥ ११.२२ ॥

‘Proper living’—whereby he may be enabled to fulfil all his compulsory duties also.

Even if the king’s treasury be empty, he shall make this provision, even out of the property that may have been set apart for the queen and the princes.

‘Out of his own property’—This is a rule meant only for a very wealthy king; specially in view of what has been said above (Verse 4)—‘the king shall give all kinds of jewels, etc, etc.’

**(verses 11.19-22)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.19].

क्षुदवसन्नात्मकभृत्यस्याइतद् उच्यते विशेषेण ॥ ११.२१ ॥

022 Having ascertained the number of those dependent on such a man, and having fully considered his learning and his conduct, the king shall allow him, out of his own property, a maintenance whereon he may live according to the law;

Having provided a living for him, the king shall protect him in every way; since he obtains, from the person thus protected, the sixth part of his spiritual merit.—(23)

स्पष्टार्थो ऽयं श्लोकः ॥ ११.२३ ॥

The meaning of this verse is quite clear.—(23)

कल्पयित्वास्य वृत्तिं च रक्षेद् एनं समन्ततः ।

शौर्यादिशंसनमात्राद् अपि, किं पुनस् तस्करेभ्यः, यस्मात् ।

राजा हि धर्मषड्भागं तस्माद् आप्नोति रक्षितात् ॥ ११.२२ ॥

धर्मषड्भागग्रहणं रक्षार्थवादो विज्ञेयः ॥ ११.२२ ॥

023 And after allotting to him a maintenance, the king must protect him in every way; for he obtains from such (a man) whom he protects, the part of his spiritual merit.

The Brāhmaṇa shall never beg from a Śūdra wealth for the purpose of sacrificial performances; if one perform sacrifices with wealth so begged, he is born, after death, as a Caṇḍāla.—(24)

भिक्षणम् अत्र निषिध्यते । अयाचितोपपन्नं तु न दुष्यति । तथा चोक्तम्-

• अयाचितोपपन्नानां द्रव्याणां यः प्रतिग्रहः ।

• विशिष्टलोकशास्त्राभ्यां तं विद्याद् अप्रतिग्रहम् ॥ इति ।

अयज्ञार्थो ऽयं प्रतिषेधो न तु भृत्यभरणे ।

• केचित् पूर्वशेषम् एव मन्यन्ते । भिक्षणे दोषदर्शनाद् उपायान्तरेणोक्तम् आदानम् ॥ ११.२४ ॥

It is begging that is forbidden here; if anything comes unasked, the acceptance of that is not forbidden; since it has been declared that—‘the acceptance of riches that come unasked is declared to be no acceptance at all, in accordance with special usage and texts.’

This prohibition is with reference to the begging of wealth for sacrificial purposes, and not to that for maintaining one’s dependants.

Some people regard this verse only as supplementary to what has gone before; the meaning being that—‘inasmuch as begging is found to be beset with an undesirable feature, the appropriation of the property of Śūdras should be done in other ways.’—(24)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 165);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 185);—and in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 60).

**(verses 11.24-25)
**

Viṣṇu (59.11).—‘He shall not make an offering of food obtained as alms from a Śūdra.’

Yājñavalkya (1.127).—‘If a man performs a sacrifice with accessories obtained in alms from a Śūdra, he becomes a Caṇḍāla.—If one does not offer away in a sacrifice what he has obtained for that purpose, one becomes a Bhāsa bird or a crow.’

न यज्ञार्थं धनं शूद्राद् विप्रो भिक्षेत धर्मवित् ।

निःस्वो ऽपि विप्रः सन् । द्वित्रिमात्राङ्गवैकल्यं तु प्रशस्तम् । न त्व् अद्रविणो द्विमात्राङ्गादानं कुर्याच् छूद्राद् इति । अथ वा भिक्षणम् अत्र प्रतिषिद्धं शूद्रात्, नायाचिलाभः (?) । एवं च भिक्षणाद् अयाचितः श्रेयान् इति विज्ञायते । तथा चोक्तम् “अयाचितोपपन्नानां द्रव्याणां यः प्रतिग्रहः, स विशिष्टः शिलोञ्छाभ्यां तं विद्याद् अप्रतिग्रहम्” इति । अविद्यमानधनस् तु सर्वम् एव यज्ञारथं शूद्रात् ।

यजमानो हि भिक्षित्वा चण्डालः प्रेत्य जायते ॥ ११.२३ ॥

अयं निन्दार्थवादः प्रतिषिद्धार्थानुष्ठाननिवृत्त्यर्थः । कथं नामायं निन्दितं न समाचरेद् इति । अथ वा नित्यकर्मातिपत्तौ यः सर्वतः प्रतिग्रह उक्तः तस्यायं श्रौतस्मार्तयज्ञार्थप्रतिषेधः । एतस्याम् अवस्थायां कामं प्रतिषिद्धाभ्युपगमः स्यात् । न शूद्राद् भिक्षणम् । भृत्यभरणार्थम् तु शूद्राद् अपि भिक्षणं न प्रतिषिध्यते । काम्ययज्ञार्थं पुनर् असत्प्रतिग्रह एव नास्ति । कृतस् तस्य प्रतिषेधः । एवं च सति यः काम्ययज्ञार्थंशूद्राद् भिक्षेत तेनोभयम् अतिक्रान्तं भवति, असत्प्रतिग्रहनियमो भिक्षणनियमश् च । अथ वा शूद्रात् परादानस्तुतिर् इयम् “न यज्ञार्थंधनंशूद्राद् विप्रो भिक्षेत धर्मवैत्” इति । कथम् । परादानम् अपि युक्तं शूद्रात्, न तु भिक्षणम् इत्य् एवम् ॥ ११.२३ ॥

024 A Brahmana shall never beg from a Sudra property for a sacrifice; for a sacrificer, having begged (it from such a man), after death is born (again) as a Kandala.

If a Brāhmaṇa, having begged wealth for a sacrifice, does not spend the whole of it, he becomes, for a hundred years, a Bhāsa or acrow.—(25)

भिक्षितस्य यज्ञार्थपरिशेषितस्य²¹ कार्यान्तराय फलं काकताभासताप्राप्तिः ॥ ११.२५ ॥

If a man has begged some wealth for the purpose of performing a sacrifice, and if he saves something out of it and uses it for other purposes, he becomes either a crow or a Bhāsa.—(25)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (1.127), which explains ‘bhāsa’ as the Śakunta bird.

**(verses 11.24-25)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.24].

शूद्राद् अन्येभ्यो द्विजातिभ्यो नित्यार्थं भिक्षितस्य काम्यार्थं वा नियमतः सर्वस्योपयोगार्थम् इदम् आरब्धं वाक्यम् । अधुना विहितधर्मस्तुत्यर्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते ॥ ११.२४ ॥

025 A Brahmana who, having begged any property for a sacrifice, does not use the whole (for that purpose), becomes for a hundred years a (vulture of the kind called) Bhasa, or a crow.

The sinful man who, through covetousness, seizes the property of the gods, or the property of Brāhmaṇas, lives, in the other world, upon the leavings of vultures.—(26)

यागशीलानां त्रयाणां वर्णानां यद् वित्तं तद् देवस्वम् । ब्राह्मणस्यायागशीलस्यापि यत् स्वं तद् ब्राह्मणस्वम् इति ।

• एवम् अपि श्लोको गच्छत्य् एव । किं तु अर्थवादश्लोको ऽसौ । “यद्²² धनं यज्ञशीलानाम्” (म्ध् ११.१९) इति, न चौर्यादिशब्दवच् छब्दार्थपरिभाषापरः । अतो ऽन्यथा व्याख्यायते । देवान् उद्दिश्य यागादिक्रियार्थं धनं यद् उत्सृष्टं तद् देवस्वम्, मुख्यस्य स्वस्वामिसंबन्धस्य देवानाम् असंभवात् । न हि देवता इच्छया धनं नियुञ्जते । न च परिपालनव्यापारस् तासां दृश्यते । स्वं च लोके तादृशम् उच्यते । तस्माद् देवोद्देशेन यद् उक्तम् “नेदं मम देवताया इदम्” इति तद् देवस्वम् । तच् च दर्शपूर्णमासादियागेष्व् अग्न्यादिदेवताभ्यश् चोदितम् । शिष्टसमाचारप्रसिद्ध्यैव गौणोपायदुर्गायागादिषु ।

• ननु चतुर्भुजादिप्रतिमासंबन्धि लोके देवस्वम् उच्यते । लोकप्रसिद्धश् च शब्दार्थः शास्त्रे ग्रहीतुं न्याय्यः ।

• स्याद् एवं यदि देवस्वशब्दो निर्भागः प्रसिद्धिम् उपेयात् । देवानां स्वं देवस्वम् इत्य् अवयवप्रसिद्ध्या समुदायार्थः प्रकृष्टः । न च वाक्यान्तरप्रकल्पना प्रमाणेनाप्य् अस्ति । मुख्यं चतुर्भुजादीनां देवत्वं प्रतिमाव्यवहारेणैवापहृतम् । न च व्ययोकूललक्षणम्²³ अस्ति । अथ समाचारतो देवस्वं भवतु, स्वस्वामिभावस् तावन् नास्ति । यथोक्तेन च प्रकारेण स्वव्यवहारोपपत्तिर् इति शिष्टं द्वितीये ॥ ११.२६ ॥

‘Property o f the gods’ is the name given to all that belongs to such men of the three higher castes as are disposed to perform sacrifices. ‘Property of the Brāhmaṇa’ is the name that is applied to the belongings of even such Brāhmaṇas as are not disposed to perform sacrifices.

It is in this sense that the verse may be construed:

As a matter of fact however Verse 20 above, which says—The property of those disposed to perform sacrifices the wise call the ‘property of the gods, etc.’—is purely declamatory, and not meant to provide the definition of technical terms; like such terms as ‘theft’ and the like. For this reason we proceed to explain it differently.

That wealth which has been set apart as to be spent for the gods, in the performance of sacrifices and other such acts, is ‘the property of the gods’; as direct ownership is not possible for the gods. In fact the gods never make use of any property, by their own wish; nor are they found to be actually taking care of any property; and it is where all this is found that property is said in ordinary life to belong to a person. Hence the name ‘property of the gods’ must apply to that which has been set apart as to be used on behalf of the gods,—with such formula as ‘this is no longer mine, it is the god’s.’ And this can refer to only what has been enjoined as to be offered to Agni and other deities at the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices; and it is merely on the basis of the custom of cultured people that it can be applied, only figuratively, to what is offered at sacrifices to Durgā and other deities (which latter are not enjoined in the Veda).

“In the ordinary world, it is property dedicated to the four-armed and other images in temples that is called ‘the property of the gods;’ and it is only right that in the interpretation of scriptures we should accept that meaning of a word in which it is used in ordinary parlance.”

This would be so, if the term ‘devasvam,’ ‘property of the gods,’ were recognised as a non-composite, word (whose denotation is not affected by that of its component parts). As a matter of fact, however, the term ‘devasvam’ is composite, and its best denotation therefore is that which is provided by its component parts (‘deva,’ ‘gods,’ and ‘svam,’ ‘property’); and there is no authority for the assuming of any other denotation. That the true deific character does not belong to the four-armed image is shown by the simple fact that it is regarded as an ‘image’ (and not as the reality)’, nor is there any definition of ‘god’ which can apply directly to the image. According to usage, the property of such images may be called ‘property of the gods.’ But even there, there can be no ownership. And yet actual business may be carried on in accordance with the explanation given above. All this has been explained in Discourse II (Verse 189).—(26)

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Śrāddha p. 1035).

देवतार्थं यत् प्रकल्प्य स्थाप्यते तद् देवस्वम् । प्रकरणसामर्थ्याद् यज्ञार्थं भिक्षितम् । नान्यत् । ब्राह्मणस्वम् अप्य् एवम् एव विज्ञेयम्, यद् ब्राह्मणभोजनाथं प्रतिगृहीतं श्राद्धादिषु । समानवादार्थं च देवस्वेनास्य ग्रहणम् । एवं च सति यद् इदं (?) लोके प्रसिद्धं देवस्वं तन् नेहाभिधीयते, प्रकरणविरोधात् । देवतानां च ममता नास्त्य् अनधिकारात् । शास्त्रदृष्टं च यद् देवस्वं तत्संप्रदानकाल एवोद्देशसामर्थ्याद् देवस्वम् इति शक्यते वक्तुम् । क्षणिकश् चासौ देवतोपभोगकालः, निवृत्ते च तस्मिन् देवतोपभोगे देवस्वं तद् इत्य् अशक्यं व्यपदेष्टुम् । एवं च सति यज्ञार्थं भिक्षितं सर्वं यज्ञ एवोपयोज्यम् । न किंचिद् आत्मोपभोगाय स्थापनीयम् । यस् तु मोहान् न सर्वम् उपयुङ्क्ते, तस्य नियमव्यतिक्रमे ऽयं निन्दार्थवादः । दृष्टान्तार्थं वा प्रसिद्धस्य ब्राह्मण[स्व]स्य ग्रहणम् ॥ ११.२५ ॥

026 That sinful man, who, through covetousness, seizes the property of the gods, or the property of Brahmanas, feeds in another world on the leavings of vultures.

In the event of the impossibility of the performance of the prescribed Animal and Soma sacrifices, one shall always offer the Vaiśvānarī sacrifice at the change of the year,—in expiation thereof.—(27)

वैश्वानर्या इष्टेर् गृह्यस्मृतिभ्यः स्वरूपम् अवसातव्यम् । समाप्ते वर्षे द्वितीयवर्षस्य प्रवृत्तिर् अब्दपर्ययः । कॢप्तानां विहितानां पशुसोमानां नित्यानां षाण्मासस्य सांवत्सरः पशुर् नित्यं वसन्ते सोमः । तेषाम् असंभवे धनाभावादिदोषेण । निष्कृत्यर्थं नित्यस्याकरणे यो दोषस् तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् ।

• श्रुते ऽस्मिन् निमित्ते ऽन्यकर्म समामनन्ति । तत्र केचित् समुच्चयं मन्यन्ते सत्य् अप्य् एककार्यत्वे प्रमाणभेदेन विधिनात्र ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् ।

• तथा च ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्ते श्रौते स्मार्ते च स्वशब्देन विकल्पं वक्ष्यति “अभिजिद्विश्वजिद्भ्यां च” (म्ध् ११.७३) इति ॥ ११.२७ ॥

The actual form of Vaiśvānarī sacrifice should be learnt from the Gṛhyasūtras.

‘Change of year’—when one year ends and another begins.

‘Prescribed’—enjoined.

‘Animal and Soma sacrifices’—the compulsory ones. The six-monthly and yearly ‘Animal sacrifices’ are compulsory, as also the ‘Soma sacrifice’ every spring.

‘In the event of the impossibility of the performance’—of these, on account of the absence of the requisite wealth;—‘in expiation thereof.’—for the removal of the sin incurred by the omission of a compulsory rite.

In connection with the occasion here referred to, the Veda lays down other expiatory rites; and some people would combine these with what is here prescribed; their point being that, even though both the rites serve the same purpose, yet they are found to be laid down by two distinct authorities.

This however is not right; because in connection with the expiatory rites for the slaying of a Brāhmaṇa, our Author is going to declare, in so many words, that between the rite laid down in the Veda and that prescribed in the Smṛti, there should be option:—‘He may perform the Abhijit or the Viśvajit’ (11.75).—(27)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 167);—in Mitākṣarā (3.265), which explains ‘abdaparyaye’ as ‘at the end of the year’;—and in Prayāścittaviveka (p. 393).

Mahābhārata (12.165.15).—(Same as Manu).

Viṣṇu (59.10).—‘If he has not wealth sufficient to defray the expenses of the Soma and other sacrifices, he shall perform the Vaiśvānarī sacrifice.’

Yājñavalkya (1.125-126).—‘The Twice-born man should perform, every year, the Soma-sacrifice,—the Paśu-sacrifice, at every solstice,—also the Āgrāyaṇeṣṭi and the Cāturmasya sacrifices.—If it be impossible for him to do all this, he should perform the Vaiśvānarī sacrifice.’

यदि त्व् असामर्थ्यात् पशुसोमानां शास्त्रचोदितानाम् अनुष्ठाने न शक्नुयात्, तत इमाम् इष्टिं वैश्वानरीं कुर्याण् निष्कृत्यर्थम् । नित्यानां कर्मणाम् अनुष्ठानाशक्तौ । एवं च सति (?) नित्यकर्मातिपत्ताव् अविरोधात् श्रौतस्य प्रायश्चित्तस्य प्रतिनिधेर् वैश्वानर्याश् च समुच्चयः । ननु चैकार्थत्वाद् विकल्पः प्राप्नोति । न ह्य् एकार्थता साक्षाद् उपलभ्यते, किं तर्ह्य् एकं श्रौतम् अन्यत् स्मार्तम् । एवं च प्रमाणभिन्नयोर् अविकल्पः । एकप्रमाणत्वे सति तद्विकल्पो न्यायः स्यात् । अपरे तु विकल्पम् एव मन्यन्ते । तथा च ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्तयोः श्रौतस्मार्तयोर् विकल्पं वक्ष्यति । एतत् त्व् आपत्कल्पे नित्यकर्मातिपत्ताव् अस्य स्यात् । तथा च सति ॥ ११.२६ ॥

027 In case the prescribed animal and Soma-sacrifices cannot be performed, let him always offer at the change of the year a Vaisvanari Ishti as a penance (for the omission).

If a twice-born person performs, even in normal times, a sacred act according to the mode sanctioned for Abnormal Times,—he does not obtain its reward. Such is the well-considered opinion.—(28)

आपत्कल्पप्रतिनिधिं वैश्वानरीं वा विद्यमानधनो यो गौणपक्षम् आश्रयति तस्य न सो ऽर्थः सिध्यति ॥ ११.२८ ॥

If a man, even though possessed of the requisite wealth, takes advantage of the secondary course laid down in connection with the abnormal condition (of the man being devoid of wealth), and performs the Vaiśvānarī sacrifice (in lieu of the more elaborate Animal and Soma sacrifices),—his purpose cannot be thereby accomplished.—(28)

This verse is quoted in Āparārka (p. 167).

**(verses 11.28-30)
**

Mahābhārata (12.165.15-17).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.126).—‘Rites should not be performed by the inferior alternative method; as it is only when an act is performed with all its accessories complete that it brings its reward.’

एवं च सति न विद्यमानधनो वैश्वानरीं कुर्यात् पशुसोमवैकल्पिकीम्, प्रायश्चित्तप्रतिनिधिं वेति । येन ॥ ११.२७ ॥

028 But a twice-born, who, without being in distress, performs his duties according to the law for times of distress, obtains no reward for them in the next world; that is the opinion (of the sages).

The substitute of the Primary Rule was ordained by the Viśvedevas, the Sādhyas and the great Brāhmaṇa Sages, when they were afraid of perishing in abnormal times.—(29)

एष एवार्थः- आपदि प्रतिनिधिर् आश्रयितव्यो न संपदि ॥ ११.२९ ॥

This also means that the substitute shall be adopted only in adversity, never in prosperity.—(29)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 167);—and in Smṛtitattva II (p. 87.)

**(verses 11.28-30)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 1.75].

तथा च सति-

029 By the Visve-devas, by the Sadhyas, and by the great sages (of the) Brahmana (caste), who were afraid of perishing in times of distress, a substitute was made for the (principal) rule.

If one, who is able to fulfil the primary rule, adopts the substitute,—this evil-minded man does not obtain its reward in the other world.—(30)

अयम् अपि पूर्वशेषो ऽर्थवादः । साम्परायिकं पारलौकिकम् ॥ ११.३० ॥

This also is a declamatory statement in support of what has gone before.

‘In the other world’—pertaining to heaven.—(30)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 168);—in Smṛtitattva II (p. 87);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 684), which explains ‘sāmparāyikam’ as future effect, in the shape of accession to Heaven and so forth;—in Hemādri (Dāna p. 88), which explains ‘sāmparāyikam’ as ‘pertaining to the other world’ i.e., supernatural;—in Śrāddhakriyākaumdī (p. 288);—in Dānamayūkha (p. 8);—in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 8);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 14);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 306);—in Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 29 and 71), to the effect that the secondary course is effective only when the primary one is impossible,—it explains ‘prabhuḥ’ as ‘capable’ and ‘sāmparāyikam’ as ‘pertaining to the other world’;—in Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 352);—in Hemādri (śrāddha, p. 452);—and in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 9 and 196), which explains the meaning to be that ‘so long as one, is able to adopt the primary course, he is not entitled to the adopting of the secondary one’.

**(verses 11.28-30)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 1.75].

तस्मात् परेण यत्नेन नित्यकर्मार्थम् उद्यच्छतस् तद् अशक्ताव् एतद् भवेत् । न सति सामर्थ्य इति । यश् च धर्मतन्त्रसङ्गे सति परापहरणादिषु प्रवर्तमानः केनचिद् राजपुरुषेण कथंचिद् बाध्येत, ततो बाध्यमानो ऽप्य् असौ ॥ ११.२९ ॥

030 That evil-minded man, who, being able (to fulfil) the original law, lives according to the secondary rule, reaps no reward for that after death.

The Brāhmaṇa conversant with the Law shall not complain to the King; by his own power alone he shall punish the men that injure him.—(31)

निमित्ते ऽभिचारो न दोषायेति श्लोकार्थः । न त्व् अभिचारो विधीयते । न च राजनि वेदनं प्रतिषिध्यते । केवले सति निमित्ते ऽभिचरितुं प्रवृत्तो राज्ञा न किंचिद् वक्तव्यः । तथा वक्ष्यति “विधाता शासिता वक्ता” इति, “तस्मै नाकुशलं ब्रूयात्” (म्ध् ११.३४) इति । राजेति प्रीतये²⁴ । शिष्याद् इति²⁵ । सत्य् अपि विधौ राजनि निवेदयेत्,²⁶ न च प्रतिषेध उपसंहारश्लोकपर्यालोचनया तत्परम्²⁷ अवतिष्ठते । निमित्तानि चोक्तानि “भार्यातिक्रमकारी च” (क्स्म् ८०३) इत्यादीनि । किंचित् पीडानिमित्तम् अनेन मे कृतम् इति राज्ञे²⁸ निवेदयेत् । धर्मविद् अभिचारविधिज्ञः । स्ववीर्येण मन्त्राभिशापाभ्याम् । तत्रैवोत्तरश्लोकर्थः ॥ ११.३१ ॥

What the verse means is that when the occasion for it arises there is nothing wrong in the Brāhmaṇa having recourse to malevolent rites; it does not actually enjoin these rites; nor does it actually forbid the act of complaining to the King; all that is meant is that if there has been occasion for it, and the Brāhmaṇa does have recourse to the malevolent rites, the King shall not interfere with him. This is what is going to be declared later on: ‘The Brāhmaṇa is the creator, the punisher, etc, etc.—hence no one should say anything unpleasant to him’ (Verse 35),—where it is understood that the King shall not tell him anything.

‘Shall punish ’— Though there is this injunction, yet, as a rule, the Brāhmaṇa should complain to the King; because the sentence ‘he shall not complain to the King’ is not a prohibition, as is clear from the consideration of the concluding verse.

The occasions referred to here have been already enumerated—‘If one molests his wife’ and so forth. In the case of slight offences, he shall complain to the King—‘this man has done this to me.’

‘Conversant with the Law’—i.e., knowing the procedure of the malevolent rites.

‘By his own power’—by means of incantations and curses; that these are meant being clearly indicated by the next verse.—(31)

This and the following verses rescind the rules given above “[(9.290)].”—Buhler.

(verses 11.31-35)

[[See 9.290 above]; and texts thereunder; [also 9.313-321.]]

Mahābhārata (12.165.18-2).—(Same as Manu.)

Vaśiṣṭha (26.16).—‘The Kṣatriya shall get over misfortunes that may have befallen him by the strength of his arms; the Vaiśya and the Śūdra by their wealth; and the Brāhmaṇa by muttered payer and oblations into fire.’

न ब्राह्मणो ऽवेदयेत किंचिद् राजनि धर्मवित् ।

किं तर्हि,

स्ववीर्येणैव ताञ् छिष्यान् मानवान् अपकारिणः ॥ ११.३० ॥

येन,

031 A Brahmana who knows the law need not bring any (offence) to the notice of the king; by his own power alone be can punish those men who injure him.

His own power is more forcible than the King’s power; the twice-born man shall, therefore, punish his enemies by his own power.—(32)

राजा कदाचिद् अनिपुणतया न निग्रहेण प्रवर्तेत स्वतस् तु न कदाचिद् उपेक्षेति स्ववीर्यं बलीयः ॥ ११.३२ ॥

It is just possible that the King, being inept, may not inflict the requisite punishment while there is no possibility of the injured person himself ignoring it; it is in this sense that one’s own power is more forcible.—(32)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 232).

(verses 11.31-35)

[[See 9.290 above]; and texts thereunder; [also 9.313-321.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.31].

केन पुनर् उपायेन । यतस् तद् आह ॥ ११.३१ ॥

032 His own power is greater than the power of the king; the Brahmana therefore, may punish his foes by his own power alone.

He should make use of the sacred texts of the Atharva-Veda, without hesitation. Speech indeed is the Brāhmaṇa’s weapon; by that should the twice-born strike his enemies.—(33)

किं तत् स्ववीर्यम् इति शङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थो ऽयं श्लोकः । श्रूयन्त इति श्रुतयः । अथर्वणवेदे ये ऽभिचारप्रकाराः श्रुतास् ते कर्तव्या इत्य् अर्थः । बाहुल्येन तत्राभिचाराणां विधानात्, अथर्वाङ्गिरसग्रहणम्, न पुनर् अन्येषु वेदेष्व् अननुज्ञातम् ।

• अथ वाभिचारश्रुतयः अथर्वाङ्गिरसशब्देनोच्यन्ते ।

• अथ वाथर्वणशब्दा²⁹ एवंविध एवार्थे प्रयुज्यन्ते “यज्ञो ऽथर्वणवित् काम्यः” इति ॥ ११.३३ ॥

This verse is for the purpose of removing doubts as to what constitutes the ‘power’ of the Brāhmaṇa.

‘Śruti’ is what is heard. The meaning is that he should employ those malevolent rites that are found revealed in the Atharva-Veda. This particular Veda has been mentioned because it abounds in injunctions of malevolent spells,—which also are not such as have been actually forbidden by the other Vedas.

Or, the term ‘atharvāṅgirasī’ may be taken as standing for all those sacred texts that deal with malevolent rites.

Or, the term ‘Atharva’ itself may be taken as standing for the rites themselves; as we find it used in such passages.as—‘the Atharvana is the name of that sacrifice which is performed with a view to a definite desirable result.’—(33)

(verses 11.31-35)

[[See 9.290 above]; and texts thereunder; [also 9.313-321.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.31].

अभिचारानुज्ञानार्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते । कथम् । यो हि धर्माचरणाभिमिखस्य प्रतिबन्धे वर्तते स शत्रुः सुकृतपरिबन्धितया भवति । स प्राप्तापराधो राजनिवेदनानर्हश् चेत्, अतस् तदर्थो ऽभिचारो ऽनुज्ञायते । एवं च सति सक्रोधमात्रेणाभिचारो न कर्तव्यः । यच् च स्मृत्यन्तरे ऽभिचारस्याशुचिकरत्वम् उक्तम्, “अभिचाराभिशापाव् अशुचिकरौ” इति तत् क्रोधमात्रेणाभिचरतो दर्शितं भवति, अनधिकृतत्वात् । एवं च सत्र्य् अयम् अप्य् अनधिचरणीयाभिचारे प्रायश्चित्तं वक्ष्यति, “[अभि]चारं च त्रिभिः कृच्छ्रैर् व्यपोहति” इति । अपरे त्व् अहीनकर्मार्त्विज्यापेक्षम् इदं प्रायश्चित्तं वर्णयन्ति । एवम् अनयोः स्मृत्योर् विरोधः । ब्राह्मणस् तावद् एवम् अधीतवेदः स्रुतशास्त्रकर्मा च तदनुष्ठानप्रतिघातापदं निस्तरेत् । अथेतरे वर्णाः कथम् इति । य्द् इदम् उच्यते ॥ ११.३२ ॥

033 Let him use without hesitation the sacred texts, revealed by Atharvan and by Angiras; speech, indeed, is the weapon of the Brahmana, with that he may slay his enemies.

The Kṣatriya shall cut through his misfortunes by the strength of his arms; the Vaiśya and the Śūdra by their wealth, and the chief of the twice-born by muttered prayers and oblations into the fire.—(34)

पूर्वशेष एव ॥ ११.३४ ॥

This is supplementary to what has gone before.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 232).

(verses 11.31-35)

[[See 9.290 above]; and texts thereunder; [also 9.313-321.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.31].

द्विजोत्तमग्रहणं चात्र दृष्टान्तर्थं विज्ञेयम्, उक्तत्वाद् अस्येति । एवं च ब्राह्मण[प्र]करण एव स्थित्वेदम् उच्यते ॥ ११.३३ ॥

034 A Kshatriya shall pass through misfortunes which have befallen him by the strength of his arms, a Vaisya and a Sudra by their wealth, the chief of the twice-born by muttered prayers and burnt-oblations.

The Brāhmaṇa is called the creator, the punisher, the teacher and the advisor; therefore one should not address unpleasant words to him, nor use any harsh words.—(35)

प्राग्व्याख्यातो ऽयम् । तस्मै ब्राह्मणायाभिचरते³⁰ “निगृह्यताम् अयम्” इत्य् **अकुशलं न ब्रूयात् **। न शुष्कां गिरम् ईरयेत् । वाग्दण्डधिग्दण्डयोर् अपि प्रतिषेधः ।

• अथ वा सर्वेषाम् वर्णानां न ब्राह्मणः क्षोभयितव्यो यस् त्रयीविद्याप्रभावेण शक्तः स्वयं निग्रहीतुम् ।

• विधाता स्रष्टा । अन्यस्य राज्ञः शासिता निग्रहीता । वक्ता हितान् । अतो मैत्रः । तस्मात् सर्वशक्तियुक्तत्वान्³¹ न दुर्बलो ऽयम् इत्य् अवमन्तव्यः ॥ ११.३५ ॥

The meaning of this verse has been already explained before.

When a Brāhmaṇa is performing a malevolent rite, the King shall not utter any such ‘unpleasant words’ as ‘punish him.’

‘He shall not we harsh words.’—This prohibition refers also to remonstrance and censure.

Or, the meaning may be that—‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not be ill-treated by men of any caste; since he is very powerful, by reason of his knowledge of the Vedas, and is capable of inflicting punishments by himself.’

‘Creator’—of another King.

‘Punisher’—chastiser.

‘Advisor’—one who offers beneficial advice.

And since he is all this, he is a ‘benefactor.’

Thus, being endowed with all kinds of power, he should not be disregarded as a weakling.—(35)

‘Vidhātā’.—‘Creator’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa);—‘performer of the prescribed rites’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘one who is able to do, to undo and to change’ (Rāghavānanda);—‘the performer of magic rites’ (Nandana);—‘Śāsitā’,—‘Punisher, controller, adviser’—of the king (Medhātithi),—‘of his sons and pupils’ (Kullūka);—‘instructor in the sacred daw’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘the instigator of incantations’ (Nandana).

‘Vaktā’.—‘One who gives wholesome advice’ (Medhātithi);—‘the teacher’, (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa);—‘the expounder of the sacred law’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

(verses 11.31-35)

[[See 9.290 above]; and texts thereunder; [also 9.313-321.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.31].

राज्ञो ऽयम् उपदेशः । एवं धर्माचरणाभिमुखो ब्राह्मणस् तत्प्रत्यनीकोपघाते वर्तमानो राज्ञा क्वचिद् अपि न किंचिद् वक्तव्य इति । ब्राह्मणापकर्तृपुरुषाणां वायम् उपदेशः । न राजबलम् आस्रित्य बाधितव्यः । समर्थो ह्य् असौ पश्यतः क्रोशतश् च राज्ञो ऽभिचारेण शत्रून् निहन्तुम् इति । अतस् तस्मै नाकुशलं कुर्यान् न शुष्कां गिरम् ईरयेद् इति ॥ ११.३४ ॥

035 The Brahmana is declared (to be) the creator (of the world), the punisher, the teacher, (and hence) a benefactor (of all created beings); to him let no man say anything unpropitious, nor use any harsh words.

Neither a girl, nor a youthful woman, nor a man of little learning, nor a fool, nor one distressed, nor one without the sacraments shall act as a ‘Hotṛ’ at the Agnihotra.—(36)

अग्निहोत्रे ऋत्विग्वरणस्य समाम्नानात् “जुहुयाद् धावयेद् वा” (गोग् १.३.१४) इति स्त्रीपुंसयोर् अविसेषेण क्षीरहोतृताप्राप्तौ कन्यायुवत्योः प्रतिषेधः । एवम् आहुतिद्वयमात्रविधिज्ञस्य अल्पविद्यस्य बालिशस्य वा प्राप्तिः प्रतिषिध्यते । आर्तो व्याधिना । असंस्कृतो ऽनुपनीतः ।

• एतच् चायुक्तम् । श्रौते ह्य् अग्निहोत्रे “स्वयं पर्वणि जुहुयात् ऋत्विजाम् एक इतरं³² कालम्” (आश्श् २.४.२–३) इति समाचरन्ति । न च स्त्रीणाम् आर्त्विज्यसंभवो ऽतो गृह्याग्निविषये कन्यायुवत्योः प्रतिषेधः, जातपुत्रायाः प्राप्त्यर्थ इति वर्णयन्ति । तथा चान्ये ऽपि सूत्रकाराः “कामं गृह्ये ऽग्नौ पत्नी जुहुयात् सायं प्रातर् होमौ” इति ।

• अन्ये तु “वैतानकुशलः” (म्ध् ११.३७) इति वचनात्, त्रेताग्निविषयम् एवेदं मन्यन्ते । वितानो विहारः । स च श्रौतेष्व् अग्निषु संभवति । न च तत्र स्त्र्यादीनां प्राप्तिः, न त्व् अविदुषाम्, विशिष्टानाम् एव पुंसाम् आर्त्विज्यविधानात् ।

• अतो ऽग्निहोत्रग्रहणं सर्वकर्मणाम्, होतृग्रहणं च सर्वर्त्विजां प्रदर्शनार्थम् । अतः श्रुत्यर्थानुवादमात्रम् एषा स्मृतिः ॥ ११.३६ ॥

In connection with the appointing of the priests at the Agnihotra it has been said,—‘one shall pour the libations or have it poured;’ and as these words are applicable equally to the man and the woman, as being entitled to the pouring of milk-offerings, the present text forbids it in regard to girls and youthful women.

Similarly the possibility of such offerings being made by one who is possessed of ‘little learning’—i.e., knows only the texts bearing on the two oblations,—or by ‘a fool.’

‘Distressed’—by illness.

‘Without sacraments’—who has not been initiated.

Some people hold that this explanation of the text is not right. As regards the Śrauta Agnihotra, the declaration is—‘on each Parva day one shall pour the libations himself, or one of the priests shall do it;’ there is no possibility for a woman ever acting as a ‘priest’; hence the prohibition herein contained must pertain to ‘the girl and the youthful woman,’—its purpose being to indicate the possibility of its being done by a woman who has got a son. In support of this they quote the following words of other Sūtra-writers—‘The wife may freely pour the morning and evening libations in the domestic fire.’ Others again, on the strength of what is said (in the next verse) regarding one being ‘skilled in the rituals,’ hold that the prohibition pertains to the Three Fires (of the Śrauta ritual).

But as a matter of fact the term ‘vitāna’ (used in the next verse) stands for ‘ritual’; and all this is performed only in Śrauta fires; so that there is no possibility of either women or unlearned men. performing these; specially as it has been laid down that only very specially qualified persons should act as priests.

From all this it is clear that the term ‘Agnihotra’ here stands for all kinds of rites, and the term ‘hotṛ’ for all classes of priests. So that the present Smṛti is only a reiteration of what has been enjoined in the Veda.—(36)

See 2.172; 5.155; 9.18.

**(verses 11.36-37)
**

Mahābhārata (12.165.21-22).—(Same as Manu.)

Gautama (2.4).—‘One must not employ a child to offer oblations into the fire or to make Bali offerings.’

Āpastamba (2.15.17-18).—‘A female shall not offer any oblations into the fire; nor a child that has not been initiated.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2-6).—‘Hārīta quotes the following verse—“No religious rite can be performed by a child before he has been girt with the sacred girdle; since he is on a level with the Śūdra before he is born in the Veda.’

[See above.—[2.72]; [5.155] and [9.18].]

कन्यादीनाम् अप्राप्तानां प्रतिषेधो ऽयम्, अग्निहोत्रादीनां सर्वकर्मणाम् अनुष्ठातृस्तुत्यर्थः । तत् पुनर् विचारणीयं युक्तायुक्ततया । एवं च सतीदम् आह ॥ ११.३५ ॥

036 Neither a girl, nor a (married) young woman, nor a man of little learning, nor a fool, nor a man in great suffering, nor one uninitiated, shall offer an Agnihotra.

If these persons pour the oblations, they sink into hell, as also the person to whom the agnihotra belongs; hence the ‘Hotṛ’ shall be a person fully learned in the Veda and expert in rituals.—(37)

एते कन्यादयो जुह्वतो नरकं गच्छन्ति । स च यजमानो हावयिता ॥ ११.३७ ॥

‘These persons’—The girl and the rest;—‘sink’ into hell, if they pour the oblations;

‘The person’—i.e., the person on whose behalf the oblations are poured.—(37)

**(verses 11.36-37)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.36].

[See above.—[2.72]; [5.155] and [9.18].]

अतश् च विज्ञायते ऽग्निहोत्रग्रहणं सर्वकर्मनिदर्शनार्थम् । तस्माद् एवंगुणास् सर्वर्त्विज इष्यन्ते, न केवलम् अग्निहोत्रस्य हावकः । अपरे प्रतिनिधिविषयम् एतं प्रतिषेधम् आहुः । यथा “नान्तरीक्षे न दिव्य् अग्निश् चेतव्यः” इत्य् अयम् अप्राप्तप्रतिषेधो रुक्मसंबन्धस्तुत्यर्थः । एवम् अयम् अपीति । अपर आह- गृह्यम् एतद् अग्निहोत्रं हृह्यते । तत्र च स्त्र्यादीनाम् अपि प्राप्तिः, “कामं गृह्ये ऽग्नौ पत्नी जुहुयात् सायं प्रातर् होमौ” इति वचनात् । एवं च सत्य् ऊढापि सती यावत् कन्या तावन् न जुहुयाद् औपासनम् अग्निस् ऊढा च संवत्सरं त्रिरात्रं वा कन्या भवति । यत एवं प्राप्तायाः प्रतिषेधः । एवं युवत्यादीनाम् अपि प्राप्तानां प्रतिषेधः । तच् चैतद् औपरिष्टेन श्लोकार्धेन विरुध्यते, तस्माद् वैतानकुशलो होता स्याद् वेदपारगः इत्य् अनेन । अग्निहोत्रसंबन्धेनाग्न्याधेयदक्षिणाधर्म उच्यते ॥ ११.३६ ॥

037 For such (persons) offering a burnt-oblation sink into hell, as well as he to whom that (Agnihotra) belongs; hence the person who sacrifices (for another) must be skilled in (the performance of) Vaitana (rites), and know the whole Veda.

If a Brāhmaṇa, possessed of wealth, does not give a ‘prājāpatya’ horse as the ‘fee’ foe the fire-laying, he becomes as good as one who has not laid the fire at all.—(38)

अग्न्याधेये ऽश्वो दक्षिणा दातव्या । प्राजापत्यग्रहणं स्तुत्यर्थम् । अथ वा नात्युत्कृष्टो नातिनिकृष्टः प्राजापत्यः । अथ च लौकिका ईदृशे वस्तुनि प्रजापतिशब्दम् उदाहरन्ति । विभवे सतीति वचनाद् असंपत्ताव् अददद् भवत्य् एवाहिताग्निः ॥ ११.३८ ॥

In connection with the Fire-laying rite, a horse is to be given as the ‘fee.’ the term ‘prājāpatya’ is added for the purpose of eulogising the horse. Or, the term may be taken to mean ‘neither very good nor very bad,’ in which sense ordinary men use the name ‘prajāpati.’

‘Possessed of wealth.’—This means that if the man does not give the fee, on account of his not possessing wealth,—then he does become regarded as one who has laid the Fires.—(38)

‘Prājāpatyam’.—‘Dedicated to Prajāpati’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—the epithet is merely laudatory; or it may mean ‘neither very good nor very inferior’ (Medhātithi);—

Mahābhārata (12.165.23).—(Same as Manu.)

ब्राह्मणग्रहणाच् च क्षत्रियवैश्ययोः प्राजापत्याश्वदाने न नियमः । ब्राह्मणस्याप्य् अश्वदानं विभवापेक्षत्वाद् अनित्यं दर्सयति । समुच्चयन्यायत्वाच् च दक्षिणानाम् अश्वः समुच्चीयते । अग्न्याधेयदक्षिणादानसंबन्धेन चेदम् अन्यद् उच्यते । समग्रदक्षिणा यज्ञाः स्युः । एवं च सति दक्षिणावैगुण्ये दोषम् आह ॥ ११.३७ ॥

038 A Brahmana who, though wealthy, does not give, as fee for the performance of an Agnyadheya, a horse sacred to Pragapati, becomes (equal to one) who has not kindled the sacred fires.

The man who has faith and control over his senses may perform other meritorious acts; but he shall not, on any account, perform sacrifices with small fees.—(39)

यावती दक्षिणा विहिता ततो न्यूना दीयते यत्र सो ऽल्पदक्षिणो यज्ञः³³ ।

• “परिक्रयः किल दक्षिणा । स्वल्पेन चेत् परिक्रयेण कर्मकरो लभ्यते, किम् इति बहु दीयते, लोक इव वाहादीनाम् ।

• पणलभ्यं हि कः प्राज्ञः क्रीणाति दशभिः पणैः ।

द्वादशशतदानं तत्फलभूयस्त्वाय” — इति मन्यमानस्य प्रतिषेधः । ये तु स्वल्पदक्षिणा उत्पत्त्यैव च सोमे दक्षिणेति क्रतुमन्तो न तन् निषिध्यते ॥ ११.३९ ॥

A sacrifice is regarded as ‘with small fees’ when the fee given at it is smaller than what has been prescribed.

“The fee is a sort of hire; if a worker is obtained at a lower hire, why should anything higher be paid? This is the principle that governs all dealings of people in the ordinary world, with the ploughman and other workers. There is the saying also—‘when a thing can be had for one paṇa, what wise men shall buy it for ten paṇas?’ If the sacred texts prescribe ‘twelve-hundred’ as the fee, this is done only with a view to the obtaining of higher rewards.”

It is people entertaining such notions for whose sake the present text sets forth the prohibition, and it does not refer to a case where the prescribed fee itself is small.—(39)

Mahābhārata (12.165.24).—(Same as Manu.)

काम्ययज्ञवक्षिणा विधिर् अयम् । नित्यानां तु कर्मणाम् अल्पदक्षिणानाम् अप्य् अनुज्ञनम् इति ॥ ११.३८ ॥

039 Let him who has faith and controls his senses perform other meritorious acts, but let him on no account offer sacrifices at which he gives smaller fees (than those prescribed).

A sacrifice with small fees destroys the organs, honour, heaven, longevity, fame, offspring and cattle. Hence one possessed of small means shall not perform sacrifices.—(40).

पूर्वविध्यतिक्रमे फलकथनम् ॥ ११.४० ॥

This verse describes the results following from the transgression of the aforementioned rule.—(40).

[[See above.—4.94.]]

Mahābhārata (12.165.25).—(Same as Manu.)

नित्यानां हि कर्मणाम् आरब्धानां यथा कथम्चित् क्रियाप्रसिद्धौ तदारम्भाशङ्कायां काम्यकर्मार्थप्रतिषेधो ऽयं श्लोकद्वयेनानूद्यते । न्यायाद् एव हि काम्यानां विगुणानाम् अप्रवृत्तिः सिद्धा । एवं च न नित्यानाम् अयं प्रतिषेधः । नित्यत्वाद् एव । विगुणान्य् अपि नित्यानि फलाय चेति मीमांसकाः । इदम् अपरम् अग्निहोत्रप्रकरणाभिसंबन्धेनोच्यते ॥ ११.३९ ॥

040 The organs (of sense and action), honour, (bliss in) heaven, longevity, fame, offspring, and cattle are destroyed by a sacrifice at which (too) small sacrificial fees are given; hence a man of small means should not offer a (Srauta) sacrifice.

If a Brāhmaṇa who has set up the fires neglects them wilfully, he shall perform the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ penance for a month; as his offence is equal to the offence of killing a hero.—(41)

अपविध्य त्यक्त्वा । त्यागश् च नित्यानाम् अग्निहोत्रादीनाम् अकरणम् उद्वापनं च । प्रसङ्गाद् अत्र प्रकरणात् प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशः । अग्नीन् इति बहुवचननिर्देशात् गृह्याग्नित्यागे कल्पना कार्या । वीरहत्यासमम् इति श्रुतिः “वीरहा वा एष देवानम्” (म्स् १.७.५) इति । कामकारवचनाद् अकामत्यागे कल्पनैव ॥ ११.४१ ॥

‘Neglects’—omits to tend; this may mean either the absolute omission of the rite, or allowing the fires to be extinguished.

The text lays down the Expiatory Rite here, because the text has been dealing with the Agnihotra.

Inasmuch as the text speaks of ‘fires’ (in the plural), what is here said may also he assumed to be applicable to the neglect of the ‘domestic fire.’

‘Equal to the killing of a hero’—in view of the declaration,—‘he who allows the fires to become extinguished is regarded by the gods as the slayer of a hero.’

The addition of the qualifying team ‘wilfully’ indicates that when the neglect is not wilful, there should be some other form of expiation.—(41)

‘Vīra’—‘Son’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘a Kṣatriya’ (Nandana);—‘a deity’ (suggested by Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1154), which adds the following notes:—The construction is ‘māsamagnīn apavidhya’;—‘vīra’ is the sacrificer;—if the omission lasts longer than a month, the man should perform the ‘Three monthly Goghna expiation’;—in Vidhānapārijāta II (p. 115);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 425);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 391), which explains ‘apavidhya’ as ‘abandoning’,—‘vīrahatyā’ as ‘murdering the sacrificer’.

Gautama (22.34).—‘The penance of abstaining from sexual intercourse for one year shall be performed by him who extinguishes the sacred fires, who neglects the daily recitation of the Veda or who has been guilty of a minor offence.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.18).—‘One who extinguishes the sacred fires, or who forgets the Veda through neglect of the daily recitation, is a sinful man.’

Do. (21-27).—‘He who extinguishes the sacred fires shall perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days, and shall cause them to he kindled again.’

Viṣṇu (54-13).—‘One who forgets the Vedic texts be has studied, or who forsakes the sacred fires, must subsist on alms for one year, bathing three times, sleeping on the ground and eating only one meal a day.’

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 1154).—‘If the sacred fires have remained extinguished for a year, one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance and kindle them again; if for two years, he should perforin the Somāyana and the Cāndrāyaṇa; if for three years, he shall repeat the Kṛcchra perance for a year and then kindle the fires again.’

Śaṅkha (Do.).—‘One who has neglected the fires shall perform the Kṛcchra for one year and also give a cow.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.).—‘He who neglects the fires, or he who reads the Veda improperly, shall beg alms for one year from Brāhmaṇa households.’

प्रायश्चित्तम् इदं कामकारेणाग्निहोत्रपरित्यागे ब्राह्मणस्य विधीयते चान्द्रायणम् । अकामतस् तु सामान्यप्रायश्चित्तम् इदम् । इदं चाप्रकरणे ऽपि प्रायश्चित्तविधानं विग्णानाम् अपि नित्यानां कर्मणाम् अनुष्ठानस्तुत्यर्थम् ॥ ११ ४० ॥

041 A Brahmana who, being an Agnihotrin, voluntarily neglects the sacred fires, shall perform a lunar penance during one month; for that (offence) is equal to the slaughter of a son.

Those who perform the Agnihotra, after having obtained wealth from a Śūdra, are ‘Śūdra’s Priests,’ censured among Vedic scholars.—(42)

शूद्राद् अधिगतेनार्थेन प्रीत्यादिनाग्न्याधेयं न कर्तव्यम् इति व्याचक्षते । न तु प्रवृत्तकर्मणो नित्यकर्मानुष्ठानं प्रतिषिध्यते । तथा चोक्तम्- न शूद्राद् भिक्षित्वानुष्ठानं करणीयम् । अयाचितलाभे तु नास्ति दोषः प्रवृत्तकर्मणस् तदर्थम् । तथा चासत्प्रतिग्रहाद् आत्मवृत्तिर् एका प्रतिषिद्धा । नित्यानि कर्माण्य् अभ्यनुज्ञातानि । अतः शूद्रधनेन प्रार्थितलब्धेन वाविशेषाभिधानसामर्थ्याद् अग्न्याधेयस्यैकस्य³⁴ प्रतिषेधो ऽयं विज्ञायते । यदि सर्वकर्मार्थो ऽयं प्रतिषेधः स्याद् अनेनैव सिद्धत्वान् न भिक्षणं प्रतिषिध्येत, “न यज्ञार्थं धनं शूद्रात्” (म्ध् ११.२३) इति ॥ ११.४२ ॥

People explain this verse to mean that the Agnihotra should not be performed with the wealth obtained from Śūdras, as a friendly present. The prohibition does not apply to the carrying on of such compulsory rites as have been already undertaken. It has been declared that ‘one should not perform sacrifices after having begged wealth from Śūdras, there is no harm, however, if the wealth is given unasked, and is used for the carrying on of a rite already commenced.’ Further it is only making a living by receiving gifts from improper persons that has been forbidden; while the performance of the compulsory rites by such means has been permitted. From all this the present verse is understood to be the prohibition of only the single rite of ‘Fire-laying’; specially because the text mentions simply ‘the wealth of the Śūdra,’ and does not make any such distinction as between what is obtained by begging and what is obtained unasked. If the prohibition pertained to all rites, then, since the prohibition would have been secured by the present verse, there would be no point in the prohibition of ‘begging’ contained in Verse 24.—(42)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 168);—and in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 60).

**(verses 11.42-43)
**

[[See above.—11.24.]]

शूद्राद् अधिगतेनार्थेनाग्न्याधेयं न कर्तव्यम् । एवम् अग्न्याधेयं न कर्तव्यम् इत्य् अग्न्याधेयप्रतिषेधः । न तु प्रवृत्तकर्मणो नित्यानुष्ठानार्थः । तथा चोक्तम्, “न शूद्राद् भिक्षित्वा यज्ञानुष्ठानं कर्तव्यम्” इति । अयाचितलाभे तु नास्ति दोषः । तथाचासत्प्रतिग्रहाद् आत्मतृप्तिर् एका प्रतिषिद्धा । नित्यानि त्व् अभ्यनुज्ञातानि । यतः शूद्रधनेन प्रार्थितलब्धेन वाविशेषाभिधानसामर्थ्याद् अग्न्याधेयस्यैकस्य प्रतिषेधो ऽयं विज्ञेयः । यदि सर्वकर्मार्थो ऽयं प्रतिषेधः स्याद्, अनेनैव सिद्धत्वान् न शूद्राद् भिक्षणं प्रतिषिद्धं स्यान् “न यज्ञार्थं धनं शुद्रात्” इत्य् एवमादिना वाक्येन । अग्नीनां च वृषलाग्नित्वापवादाद् अग्न्याधेयप्रतिषेधो ऽयं गम्यते । तथा च दर्सयति ॥ ११.४१ ॥

042 Those who, obtaining wealth from Sudras, (and using that) offer an Agnihotra, are priests officiating for Sudras, (and hence) censured among those who recite the Veda.

The giver shall cut across his miseries by putting his foot upon the heads of those fools who attend upon the Śūdra’s fires.—(43)

अग्नीनां वृषलाग्न्इत्ववचनं लिङ्गात्³⁵ पूर्वविध्यतिक्रमे दोषाभिधाने निखिलप्रकरणम् एतत् ॥ १०.४३ ॥

The fires are spoken of as ‘the Śūdra’s’ in the sense just explained.

The whole of this section sets forth the evil effects arising from the transgression of the above-mentioned rules—(43)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 168).

**(verses 11.42-43)
**

[[See above.—11.24.]]

परिसमाप्त एतस्मिन्न् अखिलप्रकरणे तत्रैव स्थितम् “अतः प्रवक्ष्यामि प्रायश्चित्तविधिं शुभम्” इति । यतः प्रायश्चित्ताभिधित्सया सामान्यतस् तन्निमित्तान्य् एव तावद् आदाव् उच्यन्ते ॥ ११.४२ ॥

043 Treading with his foot on the heads of those fools who worship a fire (kindled at the expense) of a Sudra, the giver (of the wealth) shall always pass over his miseries (in the next world).

If a man does not do what is enjoined, or does what is censured, or becomes addicted to sensual objects, he becomes liable to expiatory rites.—(44)

इदानीं प्रकृतान्य् एव प्रायश्चित्तानि कथ्यन्ते । प्रथमं तावत् तेष्व् अधिकारं निरूपयति । को ऽत्राधिकारः ।

• विहितं नित्यतया संध्योपासनाग्निहोत्रादि, “यावज्जीवम् अग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात्” इत्यादिभिः पदैर् ज्ञापितनित्यभावात्³⁶ । यद् अप्य् अनियतनिमित्ते ऽशुचिस्पर्शनादौ³⁷ स्नानादि तद्विहितम् । अकुर्वन् प्रमादालस्यादिना । तथा निन्दितं प्रतिषिद्धं सुरापानादि । तद् अपि शास्त्रम् अतिक्रम्य सेवमानः । प्रायश्चित्तीयते । तद् एतद् उक्तं भवति । नैमित्तिको ऽयम् अधिकारो विहिताकरणात् प्रतिषिद्धसेवनाच् च प्रायश्चित्तम् ।

• ननु च ग्रामकामस्य सांग्रहणी विहिता । ततो ग्रामार्थिनः कथंचिद् अकरणे विहितातिक्रमः स्यात् । यदि नाम ग्रामार्थी प्रत्यवेयात् ततस् तत्कामो ऽस्य । यदा तु ग्रामं कामयते तदा तस्य तद्विहितं भवति । न चेत् प्रवर्तते विहितम् अतिक्रामेत् । अतश् च प्रायश्चित्ती³⁸ प्राप्तः ।

• उच्यते । “ग्रामस्य स्वामी स्याम्” इति फललिप्सया तस्य यत्र प्रवृत्तिर् न विधिलक्षणा । शास्त्रं तु यागग्रामयोः साद्यसाधनसंबन्धावेदकम् एव । वस्तुतो यद्य् अपि तत्रापि कर्तव्यताप्रधानप्रसाधनो वाक्यार्थः, तथापि फलसिद्ध्यर्थम् एव कर्तव्यतां विधिर्³⁹ अवगमयति । अतश् च यागम्⁴⁰ कुर्वतः फलं न निष्पद्यते,⁴¹ न पुनः प्रत्यवायः । यत्र प्रत्यवायस् तत्र च प्रायश्चित्तम् ।

• ननु च नित्यानाम् अकरणे प्रत्यवायो भवतीति कुत इयम् अवगतिः । न ह्य् एवम् अग्निहोत्रादौ श्रूयते- “यो न कुर्यत् स प्रत्यवेयात्” ।

• श्रूयते वाक्यशेषेषु “वेदिभ्यः परमा भवति” इति । सर्वत्रार्थवादाः प्रत्यवायप्रदर्शनार्थाः सन्ति । अवश्यं च तेषाम् आलम्बनं वाच्यं नान्यथा विधिनैकवाक्यतां भजन्ति । यत्रापि न श्रूयन्ते तत्रापि विध्यनुग्रहार्था अर्थवादाः प्रकल्प्यन्ते । किं चार्थवादैर् विधेर् एव प्रवर्तकत्वम्, अन्यथा नोपपद्यते यावद् अप्रवृत्तौ प्रत्यवायपरिहारो न कल्पितः । एवंविध एवार्थे वृद्धव्यवहारे विधिः प्रवर्तते । बाद्यते तु पुरुषप्रवर्तनारूढो ऽसौ । न च पुरुषा अपुरुषार्थे प्रवर्तयितुं शक्यन्ते । अतः प्रवर्तकत्वविहतविधिर् मा भूद् इति श्रुतिसिद्ध्यर्था कल्पनैषा । यद्य् अपि स्वर्गादिकल्पनायाम्⁴² अपि तथार्थलाभस् तथापि यावज्जीवादिपदविरोधात् प्रयवायपरिहारार्थतापि स्यात् । उक्तम्-

• भयाद् धि यादृशी पुंसां प्रवृत्तिर् उपजायते ।

• न तदृशी भवेद् अत्र विधिकोटिशतैर् अपि ॥

तस्माद् अकुर्वन् विहितम् इति नित्यं कर्मेति द्रष्टव्यम् ।

• ननु चाशुचिस्पर्शनदौ न नित्यावेदि किंचित् पदम् अस्ति, यावज्जीवम् इत्यादिवत् ।

• किम् अत्रान्येन पदेन निमित्तविशेषे यत्⁴³ श्रुतं तस्य च तन्निमित्तेन कर्तव्यता नाम प्रतीयते । नाधिकारान्तरं प्रत्यपेक्षाया जायते । यदा निमित्तसंविधानं तदा कर्तव्यम् इत्य् उपगमैर् नित्यतसिद्धिः । अग्निहोत्रादाव् अपि न नित्यशब्दो ऽस्ति निमित्तनित्यत्वात् ।

• प्रसञ्जन्न्⁴⁴ अविदितत्वेषु विषयेषु संस्कृतान्नभोजनचन्दनानुलेपनदिषु तात्पर्यत आसेवाप्रसङ्गो विषयाभिलाषपरतेति यावत् ।

• ननु चैतद् अपि प्रतिषिद्धम् “इन्द्रियार्थेषु सर्वेषु⁴⁵ न प्रसज्येत कामतः” (म्ध् ४.१६) इति ।

• स्नातकव्रताधिकारान् नायं प्रतिषेध इति मन्यते । व्रतशब्दाधिकरे हि तत्र प्रतिषेधकः । संकल्पविशेषो हि मानसस् तत्रोपदिश्यते “इदं मया न कर्तव्यम्” इति ।

• अथ वा कश्चिद् अल्पप्रतिषेधे न तुल्यतां मन्येत, “पदार्थस् तावद् अयं न निषिध्यते” इति मन्यमानः, अतः समानीक्रियते ।

• अथ वा सामान्ये तद्भूतस्यापि विशेषस्य पृथग् उपदेशो दृष्टः, प्राधान्यख्यपनार्थम् । यथा “ब्राह्मणा आयाता,” “वसिष्ठो ऽप्य् आयातः” इति ।

• प्रायश्चित्तीयते । प्रायश्चित्तशब्दो रूढिरूपेण विशिष्टे नैमित्त्के वर्तते । तदेतीच्छति वेति विनिमयः⁴⁶ (?) कर्तव्यः “व्यत्ययो बहुलम्” (पाण् ३.३.८५) इति । नर इति वचनं चातुर्वर्ण्याधिकारार्थम् ॥ ११.४४ ॥

The text now proceeds to describe those Expiatory Rites which form the subject-matter of the discourse, and first of all it describes the persons liable to the performance of these rites. What is it that makes a man liable?

‘What is enjoined’—as a compulsory act, such as the Twilight Prayers, the Agnihotra and so forth, all such as have their compulsory character indicated by such words as ‘one shall perform the Agnihotra throughout life.’ Those acts also that have been laid down as to be done under specified circumstances,—such as bathing when one is defiled by the touch of something unclean—are included among those ‘enjoined.’

‘Does not do’—through carelessness or laziness.

Similarly ‘what is censured’—forbidden, such as the drinking of wine and so forth. If one, transgressing the Scriptures, has recourse to such acts.

‘Becomes liable to expiatory rites.’—All this means that the liability in this case is conditional; the performance of expiatory rites being incumbent upon one who omits what is enjoined and does what is forbidden.

“For one who is desirous of acquiring a village the Sāṅgra haṇī sacrifice has been enjoined; so that if one who is desirous of acquiring a village is somehow unable to perform that sacrifice, this would be an omission of what is enjoined on his part; as soon as he conceives a desire for the acquisition of a village, the said sacrifice becomes for him an ‘enjoined act’; so that if he does not undertake it, he transgresses the injunction and hence should be liable to the expiatory rites.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—What the injunction in such a case means is that ‘when one undertakes the performance of the particular sacrifice, he is led to it by a desire for the reward in the shape of a village’; so that what the scriptural injunction really does is to indicate the relation of cause and effect between the ‘sacrifice’ and the ‘acquisition of a village.’ Even though in this case also the main idea expressed by the injunctive sentence is that the act in question should be done, yet what the injunction actually does is to lay down that the act should be done only for the accomplishment of the said purpose. So that all that happens to the person omitting the performance of that sacrifice is that that purpose is not accomplished; such omission does not involve a sin; and an expiatory rite would be necessary only when there has been some sin.

“Whence is the idea derived that the omission of a compulsory duty involves sin? In connection with the Agnihotra and such other compulsory acts, we do not find any such assertion as—‘he who does not do it incurs sin.’”

As a matter of fact we do find sentences occurring in the wake of the injunction of compulsory duties,—such as ‘vedibh-yaḥ paramā bhavati’ [which are understood to be indicative of the said idea]; and in almost all cases there are declamatory passages indicative of the sin involved in the omission of compulsory acts; and there must be some truth in these; otherwise they could not be construed along with any injunction. Even in cases where no such declamatory passages are actually found, they are always assumed in support of injunctions. In fact it is the declamatory passages that constitute the driving force behind injunctions; such driving force would not be efficient unless it were assumed that an omission would involve sin. In the actual practice of all experienced men such is the operation of all Injunctions. Injunction is as a rule known to urge people to actions;—men are never urged to anything except what serves a useful purpose for them; and it is with a view to guard against the contingency of the Injunction becoming deprived of this urging force that we have to make the said assumption (of passages declaring that omission involves sin). Though the urging power could be secured also by assuming that the act concerned leads to Heaven, yet, as such an idea would be inconsistent with the conception that the act should be done throughout life, it becomes necessary to conclude that the due performance saves one from sin. To this end we have the assertion—‘even a hundred injunctions do not secure that activity of men which is brought about by fear.’

From all this it is clear that when the text speaks of a man not doing ‘what is enjoined,’ it refers to the compulsory acts.

“In connection with bathing on touching an unclean thing, there are no words indicating its compulsory character, like such expressions as ‘throughout life’ and the like.”

What is the need of any other words? What the text is understood to indicate is that a certain act is to be done under certain specified circumstances; and there is no need for any other driving agency. The fact of the act being compulsory is expressed by the notion that whenever the said circumstance presents itself, it should be done. In the case of Agnihotra and such other rites also, we do not find the texts actually containing the term ‘compulsory,’—the compulsory character bring indicated only by the absolute certainty of the condition mentioned (‘throughout life,’ in connection with the Agnihotra).

‘Addicted’—Constantly using such sensual objects as richly cooked food, sandal-paint and unguents, etc. This implies the character of bring always given to such enjoyment.

“This has been already prohibited under 4.16, where it has been said that—‘one shall not attach himself to sensual pleasures.’”

People think that since this latter passage occurs in connection with the vows of the Accomplished Student, it cannot serve as a general Prohibition. What occurs under ‘vows’ cannot be regarded as a Prohibition; as what is enjoined under ‘vows’ is the taking of a certain resolve, in some such form as—‘I shall not do such and such an act.’

Or, some one may be inclined to think that the former prohibition being a slight one, the offence is not a serious one. With a view to guard against this, the Author has put the offence on the same footing as other serious offences.

Or, the explanation may be that it is often found that, even though something has been forbidden in a general way, it is again forbidden specifically, for the purpose of indicating its importance.

For instance, we often meet with such assertions as—‘The Brāhmaṇas have come,—the Vaśiṣṭhas have also come.’

‘Becomes liable to expiatory rites’— The term ‘prāyaścitta,’ ‘expiatory rite,’ is a conventional name applied to certain rites performed under certain specified conditions, and the form ‘prāyaścittīyate’ is formed according to Pāṇini 3.1.85.

‘Man’— This term has been added for the purpose of indicating that what is here stated applies to all the four castes.—(44)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.220), which notes that the use of the general term ‘naraḥ’ implies that what is here said is applicable to the ease of men born of reversed parentage; such general sins as those of killing and the like being possible in their case also;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 50), which adds that the verse is indicative of those sins that accrue from the omission, through sloth, of the obligatory duties;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 6);—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 10), which says that the meaning is that the act is sinful, and hence involves expiation;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 351).

(verses 11.44-47)

Mahābhārata (12-34.2).—(Same as Manu 44)

Gautama (19.2-7).—‘A man in this world is polluted by a vile action, such as sacrificing for men unworthy to offer sacrifices, eating forbidden food, speaking what should not he spoken, neglecting what is prescribed and doing what is forbidden. People are in doubt if such a man shall, or shall not, perform a penance for such a deed. Some declare that he shall not do it, because the deed must persist. The best opinion is that he shall perform a penance. For it is declared in the Veda that one who has performed the penance of Punastoma may come back to partake of the Soma-libations.’

Baudhāyana (3.10.2-5).—[The same as Gautama; but it adds ‘accepting gifts from those whose gift should not be accepted;’ for ‘eats forbidden food,’ it has ‘Eats the food of one whose food should not he eaten,’ and it omits ‘speaking etc.’ and also ‘neglecting what is prescribed.’]

Vaśiṣṭha (20.1-2).—‘A penance shall be performed for an offence committed unintentionally. Some declare that it shall he performed also for those committed intentionally.’

Do. (22.1-5).—‘Now indeed man in this world speaks an untruth, or sacrifices for men unworthy to offer a sacrifice, or accepts what should not be accepted, or eats forbidden food, or does what should not be done.’ (The rest as in Gautama).

Yājñavalkya (3.219-221).—‘A man becomes degraded by omitting to do what is enjoined, by doing what is condemned, and by not controlling the senses. Therefore for the purpose of purifying himself, he shall perform expiatory penances; thus do the people and also his own inner soul become appeased. By the performance of expiatory penances does that sin disappear which had been committed unintentionally; if the sin had been committed intentionally, the performance of the penances only makes the man fit for being associated with; such being the declaration. Those who commit sins, and yet do not perform the penances, nor repent their misdeeds, fall into terrible hells.’

Chāgaleya (Aparārka, p. 1039).—‘The expiatory penances are for sins committed unintentionally; for those committed intentionally, there is no expiation.’

Jābāli (Parāśaramādhava-Prāyaścitta, p. 153).—‘The Brāhmaṇas prescribe penances for sins committed unintentionally; some people prescribe them also for those committed intentionally, for twice-born men as well as for Śūdras.’

Devala (Do.).—‘When a sin has been committed unintentionally, and only once, there is expiation prescribed for it by persons versed in the Law. If the sin is committed a second time, the penance shall he the double of the former; if it is repeated for the third time, it shall he the three-fold Kṛcchra; and for the fourth repetition, there is no expiation. Nor is there any expiation for a sin committed even once, if it has been committed intentionally. But some people lay down expiation even for sins committed intentionally.’

Aṅgiras (Do.).—‘If the sin has been committed unintentionally, penance is performed; hut there is none for sins committed intentionally; even if there be, it will have to be double of the former.’

श्रौतस्मार्तम् इज्याध्ययनादि विहितम्; निन्दितं च प्रतिषिद्धं समाचरन् हिंसानृतस्तेयादि, प्रसक्तश् चेन्द्रियार्थेष्व् अभिप्रेतपुरुषार्थसाधनेषु शब्दादिषु, प्रायश्चित्तीयते नरः । नरग्रहणाद् वा सर्ववर्णधर्मो ऽयं गम्यते । ननु चेन्द्रियार्थप्रसङ्गस्य निन्दितग्रहणेनैव गृहीतत्वात् पुनरारंभो न न्याज्ज्य इति । अस्य परिहारः । येष्व् अस्याः प्रतिषेध इन्द्रियार्थेषु यथा मांसाशने ऽन्यायतः क्षत्रियादिस्त्रीपरिग्रहादौ च, तेष्व् अपि प्रकर्षे[ण] सक्तिप्रतिषेधार्थम् अस्य पृथग्ग्रहणं युक्तम् । कथम्, असौ प्रायश्चित्तीयते इति । यत इदम् उच्यते ॥ ११.४३ ॥

044 A man who omits a prescribed act, or performs a blamable act, or cleaves to sensual enjoyments, must perform a penance.

The learned understand Expiatory rites to pertain to cases where the sin is committed unintentionally; some people however assert on the evidence of ‘Śruti texts’ that they apply to cases of intentional offence also.—(45)

कामकारकृते ऽप्य् अतिक्रमे प्रायश्चित्तगौरवार्थम् इदम् उच्यते । अकामतः कृत इति प्रमादकृते पापे शास्त्रव्यतिक्रमे प्रायश्चित्तम् आहुः ।

• कस्य पुनर् हेतोः । विधिः- “प्रतिशास्त्रम् अतिक्रम्याकार्ये प्रवर्तते स प्रायश्चित्तम् आचरिष्यते” इति । को ऽत्र विशिष्टहेतुः, यस्मात्⁴⁷ कामकृते दोषे प्रायश्चित्तं शास्त्रानर्थक्यम् इति मन्यन्ते ।

• एवं पूर्वपक्षभङ्ग्योपन्यस्यति । कामकारकृते ऽपीति शब्दात् कामतो ऽकामतश् च कृते व्यतिक्रमे प्रायश्चित्तं कर्तव्यम् इति शास्त्रार्थः । श्रुतिनिदर्शनाद् इति वैदिकलिङ्गनिदर्शनम् उपहव्यब्राह्मणम् उदाहर्तव्यम्⁴⁸ । “इन्द्रो यतीन् शालावृकेभ्यः प्रायच्छत्” (प्ब् ८.१.४) । न च श्वभ्यो दानं यतीनाम् अकामतः संभवति । उपहव्यं प्रायश्चित्तार्थं प्रजापतिर् इन्द्राय प्रायच्छद् इति स्पष्टार्थः ॥ ११.४५ ॥

This declaration has been made for the purpose of indicating that in cases of intentional offence, the Expiatory Rite should be of a particularly serious character.

‘Committed unintentionally.’—They declare that Expiatory Rites are meant, to be performed in cases where the ‘sin’—the transgression of the ordinances—has been committed through negligence or want of care.

“What are the grounds for such an opinion? The law on the point is that—‘when a man transgresses an injunction and undertakes a wrong act, he shall perform an expiatory rite.’ So that there is no ground for any differentiation.”

Some people hold that if there were no such differentiation, there would be no point in the prescribing of special Expiatory Ṛtes for cases of intentional offence.

It is for this reason that the text puts forward another view, by way of a ‘Pūrvapakṣa’ a ‘contrary view’—‘They apply to cases of intentional offence also.’ According to this view the meaning of the Law would be that Expiatory Rites shall be performed in cases of intentional as well as unintentional offences.

‘On the evidence of Śruti texts’—One Vedic text indicative of the said view is found in the Upahavya-Brāhmaṇa (the story of Upahavya)—‘Indra gave away the ascetics to the dogs.’ Such giving away could never have been unintentional; and yet the story goes on to say, it was for the purpose of expiating this sin that Prajāpati made over Upahavya to Indra. Such is the clear meaning of the text—(45)

Cf. Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.28.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 705), which quotes a Vedic text to the effect that once Indra gave away certain sages to be devoured by the ‘Śālāvṛka’ dogs, for which sinful act Prajāpati ordained for him the expiatory rite called ‘Upahavya’, which is taken as implying that for intentional offences also there is ‘expiation.’.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.226), as indicating that expiatory rites are to be performed in the case of intentional offences also,—and not that the sin accruing from such offences is wiped off by these rites, in the case of ‘degrading’ offences.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Prāyaścitta, p. 152), to the effect that in the case of intentional offences, there can be expiation, only according to some authorities, not all;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 18), which says that stress is meant to the laid upon ‘akāmakāḥ’ as it is only for unintentional delinquencies that there is expiation, and in reference to ‘Śrutividarśanāt,’ it quotes the Śruti-passage describing the story of Indra and the Śālavṛkas.

(verses 11.44-47)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.44].

अकामतः कृते पापे पापार्थे तु व्यतिक्रमे यथोक्ते प्रायश्चित्तं वक्ष्यमाणं विदुर् बुधाः । कस्य पुनर् हेतोः । येन स्मृतिप्रामाण्येन हि प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशो युज्यते, न कामतो ऽप्य् अत्रिक्रमे (?) । यो हि नियमं स्मृतिप्रामाण्यम् उल्लङ्घ्य प्रवर्तते, तं प्रति प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशो ऽनर्थकः । येन तद् अव्यवसायतः लङ्घयिष्यति । यतः किं तस्यैतेनोपदिष्टेनेति प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशो ऽनर्थः । एवम् एतस्मिन्न् एव प्रायश्चित्ताधिकरणे प्राप्त इदम् अन्यद् द्वितीयं प्रायश्चित्ताधिकरणम् उच्यते कामकारकृते ऽप्य् आहुर् एके श्रुतिनिदर्शनात् । एवं हि श्रूयते “इन्द्रो यतीन् सालावृकेभ्यः प्रायच्छत् । तम् [अश्ली]ला वाग् अभ्यवदत् । स प्रजापतिम् उपाधावत् । तस्माद् एतम् उपहव्यं प्रायच्छत्” इत्य् एतद् उपहव्यार्थवादब्राह्मणं दर्शयति — कामतो ऽप्य् अस्ति प्रायश्चित्तम् इति । अविशेषेण निमित्तमात्रे स्मर्यमाणं प्रायश्चित्तम् अकामकृत एवेत्य् उक्तम् । तथा चाहुर् वेदलोकयोर् उभयथाभिव्यतिक्रमे प्रायश्चित्तं दृष्टम्, यतस् तेन चेदम् अनुमातव्यम् इति । तथा च संदर्शयति पक्षद्वयम् अप्य् आश्रित्य ॥ ११.४४ ॥

045 (All) sages prescribe a penance for a sin unintentionally committed; some declare, on the evidence of the revealed texts, (that it may be performed) even for an intentional (offence).

A sin committed unintentionally is expiated by the reciting of the Veda; while that committed intentionally, in folly, is expiated by the various forms of expiatory rites.—(46)

किं पुनर् एतानि प्रायश्चित्तानि निमित्तमात्रपर्यवसायीनि संध्योपासनादिवत्, उत कार्यपर्यन्तानि शारीरशौचवद् उत्पन्नदोषनिर्घातार्थानि ।

• तत्र केचिद् आहुः । न हि कर्म क्षीयते । कार्यविरामित्वम्⁴⁹ एव धर्माधर्मयोः । न हि कर्माणि स्वफलम् अदत्वा प्रलीयन्ते । तद् उक्तम् “न हि कर्म क्षीयते” (बाउ १.४.१५) इति । तस्माद् यो ऽतिक्रमकारी स ततो नरकफलं भुङ्क्त एव⁵⁰ । प्रायश्चित्तानि यदि न करोति ततस् तदतिक्रमात् प्रत्यवायान्तरोत्पत्तिः ।

• तद् एतद् अयुक्तम्, “न हि कर्म” । “चरितव्यम् अतो नित्यं प्रायश्चित्तं विशुद्धये” (म्ध् ११.५२) इति⁵¹ स्वशब्देनैव शुद्ध्यर्थता विहिता । तथा च⁵² तैः कृतैर् अपोहेत पापम्, स्वयं कृतत्वात् ।

• तद् अप्य् उच्यते- प्रतिषेधविधिना प्रतिषिध्यमानक्रियाकर्तुः प्रत्यवायभागित्वम् अवगमितम् । न तस्य प्रायश्चित्तैर् मिथ्यात्वं शक्यते कर्तुम् ।

• तद् अप्य् अयुक्तम्, यतस् तेन दुःखहेतुता तस्यावगमिता । प्रायश्चित्तेष्व् अपि तपोदानादि दुःखम् अस्त्य् एव । अल्पेन तादात्मिकेन दुःखेनागामिनः संभाव्यमानस्य महतो दुःखस्य निवृत्तिर् युक्तैव, यथा व्याधेस् तिक्तकटुकौषधदानलघ्वाहारादिना । यथा व्यतिक्रमं कृत्वा कश्चित् स्वयम् आगत्य राजनि वेदनं करोति “इत्य् एवं कर्मास्मि” इति, सो ऽर्धदण्डभाग् भवति । यस् तु राजपुरुषैर् हठाद् आनीयेत स भूयो दण्ड्यते ।

• एवम् उपदेशानाम् अर्थवत्वसिद्धिः । अतः स्वयं कार्यविरोधित्वम्⁵³ अस्य विहितत्वात् । निष्कृतिः प्रायश्चित्तम् इति समाख्यातम् अपि सत्⁵⁴ तद् एव कृतदोषस्य निर्यातनम् अपि । अकारणं निर्यातो निष्कृतिर् इति उच्यते । एवं प्रायश्चित्तम् अपि नास्याधिकारप्रतिप्रसवार्थम् । पञ्चानाम् एव पातकानाम् अधिकारोपगमविहितत्वाद् द्विजातिकर्मभ्यो हानिः पतनम् इति ।

• न चात्र “वेदाभ्यासो ऽकामतः कामतस् तपः” इति विषयविभागो बोद्धव्यः । उभयार्थोभयत्रोपदर्शनार्थत्वात्, निमित्तोपदेशकरणे पठितत्वात्, “ब्रह्महा द्वादश” (म्ध् ११.७१) इत्यादिप्रायश्चित्तानाम् उपक्रम्यमाणत्वात् । तस्माद् अकामतो लघुप्रायश्चित्तं कामतो गरीय इति श्लोकस्य तात्पर्यम् ।

• ननु चाकामतो नैव तस्य कर्तृत्वम्, बुद्धिपूर्वं कुर्वन् कर्तेत्य् उच्यते । यथा च लौकिकः- “दैवेन कार्यते, किम् अयं करोति” इति । किं च लिप्सया यत्र प्रवृत्तिस् तत्र प्रतिषेधः । यो हि मद्याय⁵⁵ स्पृहयति स पिपासुं न कदर्थयति “मा पासीः सुराम्” इति । यस् तु जलार्थी जलबुद्ध्या सुरां पीतवांस् तस्याजानतो नापराधो न हि तस्य सुरालिप्सया प्रवृत्तिः । अथोच्यते- विधिलक्षणप्रवृत्तिर् न निषिध्यते । सत्यं । भवत्य् अर्थलक्षणानां तु⁵⁶ मध्ये तर्ह्य् उदकेन च सर्वस्या अर्थलक्षणायाः प्रतिषेधः ।

• केचिद् आहुः । प्रत्यवायपर्यन्तो विधिर् विषभक्षणवन् निषेधशास्त्रार्थः । तेषाम् अचोद्यम् एतत् । विषम् अविशेषेणोपात्तं ज्ञानतो ऽज्ञानतश् च मरणाय कल्पत एव । एवं ब्रह्महत्यादयो ऽपीति । येषाम् अपि “कर्तव्यम्” इति वचनात् क्रियते, “न कर्तव्यम्” इति न क्रियते, तेषाम् अपि लौकिकक्रियया प्रवर्तमानस्य निषेधः प्रवर्तमानश् चोच्यते प्रवृत्तः कर्ता । कर्तृत्वम् अबुद्धिपूर्वकम् अप्य् अस्ति, कूले⁵⁷ पततीति । न चायं गौणः⁵⁸ कर्तृताभावः । “स्वतन्त्रः कर्ता” इति हि स्मर्यते, न “इच्छया प्रवर्तते यः स कर्ता” इति । किं चास्माद् एव वचनात् प्रमादकृतो दोषो ऽस्ति, प्रायश्चित्तम् इति, किम् अपरेण विकल्पितेन ॥ ११.४६ ॥

Question.—“Do these Expiatory Rites end only with their performance (without bringing about any effects), just like the Twilight Prayers and other rites? Or, do they continue until definite effects are produced, in the form of the actual removal of the guilt like the act of cleansing the body (which ends only with the actual removal of the dirt)?”

In answer to this some people offer the following explanation:—As a matter of fact no action is ever lost; both merit and demerit (due to actions) end only with the bringing about of their effects; no actions ever disappear until they have brought about their effects. This is what is meant by the assertion that ‘no action is ever lost’ Hence the man who commits a transgression must experience the tortures of hell, as the result of that transgression, [so that no expiation of any transgression is possible]; and the only effect of his not performing the prescribed expiatory rite would be that he shall also transgress the law laying down such rite, and thus commit a further offence.

This, however, is not right Because, simply because the texts lay down that the rite shall be performed, such rite does not become compulsory [and it is only the omission of a compulsory act that involves sin]. All that is said is that the man becomes ‘cleansed’; from which it is clear that this cleansing is the purpose served by the expiatory rite. So that when expiatory rites are performed, one would wash off his sins; and this would he done because of the sin having been committed by the man himself.

It has been argued above that—“all that has been indicated is that sin is incurred by the man who commits an act that has been forbidden by a prohibitive text; and not that the sin becomes nullified by means of expiations.”

But this also is not right. Because what has been indicated is that the said act becomes a source of suffering; now in Expiation also there is much suffering in the form of penances and charities; and it is quite possible that the small amount of suffering undergone in the shape of these latter should prevent the onset of the greater sufferings threatening in the future. Just as a serious disease is prevented by the eating of bitter medicines and keeping on low diet; or again, when a man having committed an offence surrenders himself to the king and confesses his guilt, saying—‘I have done such and such an act,’—the punishment inflicted upon such a man is only half of what is prescribed for that offence; while if he were arrested by the king’s officers and brought to court, his punishment would be much severer.

Thus it is that the utility of the injunctions in question (of expiations) becomes established. That the rites are destructive of the effects of sins has to be admitted on the strength of the injunctions themselves. It is for this reason that these rites have been called ‘expiatory’ of sins; for the sin is said to be ‘expiated’ only when it has become deprived of its causal efficiency.

For the same reason the Expiatory Rite cannot be regarded as restoring the rights and privileges lost by. reason of the guilt; since it is only in the case of the five most heinous offences that any loss of privileges has been mentioned,—the very term ‘becoming an outcast’ meaning the loss of the privileges of the caste.

In connection with the present context it should not be understood that any such marked distinction is intended as that ‘in the case of unintentional offences the expiation consists in the reciting of the Veda, and in that of intentional offences of penances’;—because as a matter of fact both kinds of expiation have been laid down in connection with both kinds of offences; specially as every rule regarding an expiatory rite starts off with the defining of the occasion for expiation; e.g., ‘The Slayer of a Brāhmaṇa shall make a cut, etc, etc.’ (11.72)

Thus then, all that the verse means is that—‘there is heavy expiation in the case of intentional offences, and a lighter one in that of unintentional ones.’

“In fact when a man commits an act unintentionally, he is not the doer of that act; as one is called the ‘doer’of an act only when he does it intentionally; as we find people making such assertions as—‘This man is not doing such and such an act, he is being made by fate to do it’ Further, it is only as done with a distinct motive towards it that an act forms the subject of a prohibition; e.g., it is only when a man evinces a desire for drinking wine that he is told ‘not to drink the wine’; and if a man eager for a drink of water drinks wine thinking it to be water, he does not incur any guilt; and this for the simple reason that his action has not been prompted by the motive to drink wine. It might be argued that it is only an action that has formed the subject of an Injunction that cannot be forbidden. This is quite true, so far as actions without a purpose are concerned; but of actions with a purpose, a prohibition is always possible.”

In answer to this some people offer the following explanation:—What forms the subject-matter of prohibitive texts is the affirmation of an act as extending up to the sin that its commitment involves; just as it does in the case of taking poison.

For these people the objection has no force at all. As regards the taking of ‘poison,’ there can be no distinction as to its being done intentionally or unintentionally; in either case the act must lead to death.

Similarly in the case of such acts as ‘the Slaying of a Brāhmaṇa’ and the like.

According to some people an act is done because of the declaration that it shall be done, and it is not done because of the declaration that it shall not be done. And by this view also prohibitions apply to only one who is going to do some ordinary act; it is only when a man is going to do an act that he is called its ‘doer.’ But a man can be a ‘doer’ even without knowing it, as when he falls down a river-bank. It cannot be said that in such a case the man is called a ‘doer’ only in the figurative sense; because the doer (nominative) has been defined only as ‘one who is his own master regarding the act,’ and not as ‘one who does an act intentionally

Further, from the present text itself it is clear that even acts due to sheer negligence have been held to involve sin, and hence necessitate expiation. What is the need of any further assumptions?—(46)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.226), to the effect that the sin accruing from ‘non-degrading’ offences even when intentional, is wiped off by the performance of expiatory rites;—in Aparārka, (p. 1040)—in Madanapārijāta, (p. 705);—in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 18), which says that all that is meant by the mention of ‘Vedabhyāsa’ is that the expiation of unintentional delinquencies is lighter than that for intentional ones,—it explains ‘pṛthagvidhaiḥ’ as ‘other kinds of expiation’;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra, (p. 354).

(verses 11.44-47)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.44].

तथा चोत्तरत्र प्रदर्शयिष्यामो विशेषम् अनयोः"कामतो ब्राह्मणवधे निष्कृतिर् न विधीयते" इति । एवमादौ चायं नियमार्थः श्लोकः । अकामतो वेदाभ्यासः, कामतः कृतस्यान्यद् विविधं प्रायश्चित्तम् इति । यस्माद् उभयम् उभयोर् उत्तरत्र वक्ष्यति । इयांस् त्व् अनयोर् विशेषः । अकामतो व्यतिक्रमे ऽल्पः प्रत्य्क़्वायः, कामतो महान् । तथा चोक्तं कामतस् तु कृतं मोहात् प्रायश्चित्तैः पृथग्विधैर् इति । अपरः पुनर् आह- नैव प्रायश्चित्तानुष्ठानम् उपपद्यते । यस्मान् न हि कर्म क्षीयते ऽन्तरेण कार्यारंभम् । वातपित्तश्लेष्माशयवत् । यत इदम् उच्यते । कर्तव्यम् एवेदम् स्मृतिशास्त्रोपदेससामर्थ्यात् । यथैव हि धर्माधर्मप्राप्तिपरिहारव्यवस्थायाम् आगम एव प्रमाणं नोपपत्तिः, एवं विनाशो ऽप्यागमत एव कर्मणः किं न श्रद्धीयते । तथा च सति प्रायश्चित्तं न्यायोपदेशम् । इतरथाप्यर्धवैशसं स्याद् इति । एवं च पुरुषार्थकारित्वं शास्त्रस्योपपद्यते, लघूपायक्षिप्रदर्शनेन महतो ऽर्थलक्षणात् क्षयात् प्रायश्चित्तात् । अपि चास्यात्मसंयमदुःखम् अतिमहद् अस्ति । यतः अत्रापि कार्याद् एवास्य व्यतिक्रमाधर्मस्य दुःखलक्षणाद् विनाशं प्रतिपद्यामहे । यथा च वाताद्याशयस्योभयम् अत्यनीकं औषधं दुःखं च, एवम् अधर्मस्यापि प्रायश्चित्तं नरकादिदुःखानुभवश् च स्याद् विनाशहेतुः । एतेन वृश्चिकविषं व्याख्यातम्, श्रुतिर् अपि च प्रायश्चित्ताद् अकुशलकर्माणि यथा गेहदाहादीनि निमित्तानि नैमित्तिकानां कर्मणां स्वर्गफलानाम् इति, यथा क्षामवतीष्टिः । अत्र ब्रूमः प्रतिषेधवत्सु निमित्तेषु प्रायश्चित्तान्य् उच्यन्ते, यतस् तानि दोषनिर्हरणार्थान्य् एव प्रतीयन्ते । यथा चिक्तिसायां दोषवत्सु निमित्तेषु ज्वरादिषु विशोषणादीनि (?) । स्फुटम् एव च स्मृतिर् उपरिष्टाद् वक्ष्यति — “चरितव्यम् अतो नित्यं प्रायश्चित्तं विशुद्धये” इत्य् एवमादि । अपरे त्व् अधिकारार्थानि । तथा च गौतमः “द्विजातिकर्मभ्यः हानिः पतनम्” इत्य् आह । ब्रह्महत्यायाम् एवैतत् । पातकपदार्थावधारणार्थे वाक्ये श्रूयते, न त्व् अन्यस्मिन् व्यतिक्रमवाक्ये । दोषक्षयाद् एव च कर्मान्तराधिकारो विज्ञेयः, नाक्षीनदोषस्य । यथातुरस्येति । यच् च निमित्ते कर्माङ्गं प्रायश्चित्तम् इति कैश्चिद् उच्यते, तच् च पुरुषधर्मत्वाद् अत्र न संभवति । प्रायश्चित्तस्य व्यतिक्रमस्य कारणम् अधुनोच्यते ॥ ११.४५ ॥

046 A sin unintentionally committed is expiated by the recitation of Vedic texts, but that which (men) in their folly commit intentionally, by various (special) penances.

Having incurred the liability to an expiatory rite,—either by chance or by a previous deed,—a twice-born person shall not associate with righteous men, so long as the expiatory rite has not been performed.—(47)

दैवात् स्वीकृतात् प्रमादाद् इत्य् अर्थः ।

• अन्ये तु दैवशब्दस्थाने “मोहात्” इति पठन्ति । मोहाद् एवाकार्यं क्रियते । को ह्य् अमूर्खः शास्त्रं व्यतिक्रमिष्यति ।

• पूर्वकृतेन जन्मान्तरकृतेन चोपभुक्तफलेन कर्मणा विसेषेण कौनख्यादिलिङ्गाद्यनुमितेन । एतद् उक्तं भवति- इह जन्मकृते व्यतिक्रमे बुद्धिपूर्वम्⁵⁹ अबुद्धिपूर्वं वा तथा जन्मान्तरकृते ऽपि लिङ्गानुमेये कर्तव्यम् ।

• किं पुनः कुनख्यादीनाम् प्रायश्चित्तम् ।

• “कृच्छ्रातिकृच्छौ चान्द्रायणम् इति सर्वप्रायश्चित्तानि” (ग्ध् १९.२०) । वसिष्ठेन तु “यस्य यल् लिङ्गं तेन तद् एव प्रायश्चित्तं केनचिद् अंशेन कर्तव्यम्” इति पठितम् । अतश् चैव ते सर्वे ऽकृतप्रायश्चित्ताः⁶⁰ संसर्गं सद्भिर् वर्जयेयुः, अध्ययनादिक्रिययैकस्थानादिरूपतया । संसर्गो यद्य् अप्य् उभयाश्रयत्वाद् अन्यतरप्रतिषेधेनोभयोर् अपि सिद्धः⁶¹ प्रतिषेधस् तथापि “सद्भिस् तैः संसर्गो न कर्तव्यः” इति पुनः प्रतिषिध्यते उत्तरत्र, कर्तृभेदात् । एकस्य हि प्रतिषेधे स एव प्रायश्चित्ती स्यान् न द्वितीयः, सत्य् अपि संसर्गे । अत उभयोः प्रायश्चित्तार्थम् उभयत्र प्रतिषेधः । सताम् असतां चातः श्यावदन्तिप्रभृतिभिर् अकृतप्रायश्चित्तैः⁶² सह संसर्गो न कर्तव्यः ॥ ११.४७ ॥

‘By chance’—through his own negligence.

Some people read ‘mohāt’ in place of ‘daivāt.’ It is only through folly (‘mohāt’) that people commit misdeeds; which man, who is not a fool, shall ever transgress a scriptural injunction?

‘By a previous misdeed’—Some evil deeds committed in previous life, whose effects have been already experienced, and which are inferred from such physical defects as disfigured nails and the like.

The meaning of all this is as follows:—Transgressions done in the present life are either intentional or unintentional; and the same should be inferred also in the case of acts done in previous lives.

“But what is the expiation to be done in the case of disfigured nails and such physical defects?”

The ‘Kṛcchra,’ the ‘Atikṛcchra’ and the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ are expiatory rites applicable to all cases; though Vaśiṣṭha has declared that ‘the man should perform that special expiatory rite somehow connected with that which is indicative of the previous sin.’

What the present text thus means is that those who have not performed the Expiatory Rite to which they are liable shall avoid associating with righteous men; i.e., they should not mix with them in study and such acta

Though the act of ‘associating’ pertains to both parties, and hence when prohibited in reference to one, it becomes forbidden for both,—yet the prohibition is again repeated (in 189) in the form that ‘righteous men shall not associate with them,’ and this is on account of the agents concerned in the two cases being different. If there were prohibition in reference to one party only, then a transgressing of this prohibition would render that, party alone liable to expiation,—and not the other party, even though the latter also would have done the act of ‘associating.’ Hence with a view to indicate the liability of both parties we have the two distinct prohibitions—one for the righteous and another for the unrighteous. The upshot of all this is that no one should associate with persons with black teeth and so forth, until they have performed the necessary expiatory rite.—(47)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 774), which adds the following notes:—‘Daivāt,’ i.e., for the sake of some offence committed during the present life,—or for that of some offence the antenatal committing of which is indicated by the presence, in the person, of such defects as consumption, rotten nails, black teeth and so forth,—one should perform the expiatory rites prescribed by Vaśiṣṭha; but the expiation performed should be that prescribed for the presence of the said defects, not that for the offences of which those defects are known to be the effects,—e.g. the presence of rotten nails has been held to he the effect of stealing gold in a previous life, or consumption is held to be the effect of Brāhmaṇa-slaughter committed in a previous life.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (Prāyaścitta, p. 2a);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 141 and 148), as forbidding association with sinners.

(verses 11.44-47)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.44].

दैवशब्दः साधारणो ऽप्य् अधर्मविषयस् सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञेयः । कस्मात् । व्यतिक्रमकारणानुरूपत्वात् कार्यस्य । पूर्वकृतेन वेत्य् अत्र मोहः संबध्यते, व्यतिक्रमहेतुत्वेन । नाधर्मः, तस्योक्तत्वाद्, दृष्टश् च मूढस्य व्यतिक्रमो येन लोके । अतो ऽयम् अत्र शब्दार्थः । अधर्मप्रतिपत्तिश् च पूर्वकृताधर्मशेषात् कस्यचिद् भवति, अपरस्य मोहाद् इति ब्रुवता कुशलकर्मप्रतिपत्तिः पूर्वधर्मशेषाद् असंमोहाच् च सम्यग्ज्ञानलक्षणाद् भवतीत्य् एतद् अर्थसिद्धम् । यतः असंमुग्धेन सता धर्मानुष्ठाने प्रयतितव्यम्; नैवं धर्माधर्माख्यं पुरुषस्य प्रयोजकम् इति कृत्वा निरोहेन (?) भवितव्यम् । एवं शास्त्रोपदेशस्यार्थवत्त्वम्, इतरथा ह्य् असति पुरुषकारे शास्त्रोपदेशो निष्फलः स्यात्, धर्माधर्मकार्यत्वाद् एव पुरुषप्रवृत्तेर् इति । ननु च सताम् एवासत्संसर्गप्रतिषेधाद् एतत् सिद्धं न सिद्ध्यति, क्रियाभेदात् । पाक कृद्भिर् इह संसर्गप्रतिषेधान् न पापकृतां सद्भिः संसर्गः प्रतिषिद्धो भवति, येन भिन्ने एते क्रिये । एवं च सति यस्य नियम उच्यते तस्यैव व्यतिक्रमे प्रायश्चित्तं स्यात्, इहेतरनियमभावात् । अतो ऽस्य प्रतिषेधो युक्तारंभः शूद्रस्य द्विजातिस्त्रीप्रतिषेधवद् इति । अपरस् तु पाठः- “प्रायश्चित्तियतां प्राप्य मोहात् पूर्वकृतेन यै (?)”, अर्थस् तु स एव । प्रायश्चित्तानुष्ठानसामर्थ्यप्रदर्शनार्थम् अधुनोच्यते ॥ ११.४६ ॥

047 A twice-born man, having become liable to perform a penance, be it by (the decree of) fate or by (an act) committed in a former life, must not, before the penance has been performed, have intercourse with virtuous men.

Evil-minded men suffer disfigurement,—some from evil deeds committed during the present life and others from those committed in former lives.—(48)

एतद् एवाह । इह दुश्चरितैः केचिद् अस्मिन् जन्मनि प्रतिषिद्धाचरणैः । तथा पूर्वकृतैः कर्मभिस् तथोक्तं प्राक् । स इदानीं रूपविपर्ययप्रपञ्चो दुष्कृतशेषचिह्नरूपतो⁶³ ऽनुक्रम्यते ॥ ११.४८ ॥

What has been explained above is made clear now.

‘Some from evil deeds committed during the present life’—i.e., by doing forbidden acts in their present birth.

‘By those committed in former lives’—as explained above.

It is this ‘disfigurement,’ as indicative of past sins that is now described in detail.—(48)

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 6).

(verses 11.48-52)

[See below.—12.53 et seq.]

Vaśiṣṭha (20.43-44).—‘They quote the following:—“Hear how the bodies of those who, having committed various crimes, died a long time ago, and were horn again, are marked:—A thief will have deformed nails, the murderer of a Brāhmaṇa will he afflicted with white leprosy; he who has drunk wine will have black teeth, and the violator of the Guru’s bed will suffer from skin-diseases.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.6).—‘The man with deformed nails or black teeth should perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration.’

Viṣṇu (45.1-33).—‘After having undergone the torments in the hells, and having passed through the animal bodies, the sinners are born as human beings with the following marks:—A criminal of the highest degree shall have leprosy; a slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, consumption; a wine-drinker, black teeth; a stealer of gold (belonging to a Brāhmaṇa), deformed nails; a violator of his spiritual teacher’s bed a disease of the skin; a calumniator, a stinking nose; a malicious informer, stinking breath; a stealer of grain, a limb too little; one who steals by mixing (i.e., by taking good grain and replacing the same amount of bad grain in its stead), a limb too much; a stealer of food, dyspepsia; a stealer of words, dumbness; a stealer of clothes, white leprosy; a stealer of horses, lameness; one who pronounces an execration against a God or a Brāhmaṇa, dumbness; a poisoner, a stammering tongue; an incendiary, madness; one disobedient to a Guru (father), the falling sickness; the killer of a cow, blindness; the stealer of a lamb, the same; one who has extinguished a lamp, blindness with one eye; a seller of tin, chowries, or lead, is born a dyer of cloth; a seller of (horses or other) animals whose foot is not cloven, is born a hunter: one who eats the food of a person born from adulterous intercourse, is born as a man who suffers his mouth to he abused; a thief (of other property than gold), is born a bard; a usurer becoms epileptic; one who eats dainties alone, shall have rheumatics; the breaker of a convention, a bald head; the breaker of a vow of chastity, swelled legs; one who deprives another of his subsistence, shall be poor; one who injures another (without provocation), shall have an incurable illness. Thus according to their particular sins, are men born, marked by evil-signs, sick, blind, hump-backed, halting, one-eyed; others as dwarfs, or deaf, or dumb, feeble-bodied (eunuchs, whitlows, and others). Therefore must penances be performed by all means.’

Yājñavalkya (3.209-215).—‘The Brāhmaṇa slayer becomes consumptive, the wine-drinker has black teeth, the gold stealer has deformed nails; the violator of the Guru’s bed suffers from skin diseases; the stealer of food becomes dyspeptic; the stealer of words, dumb; the mixer of grains has a limb too many; the back-biter has stinking nostrils; the stealer of sesamum becomes the oil-drinking animal; calumniator has stinking mouth; one who has intercourse with another’s wife and one who steals a Brāhmaṇa’s property becomes a Brahmarākṣasa in a desolate forest; those who steal gems are born in low castes; one who steals clothes suffers from white leprosy.’

एवं च œऊर्वकृताद् एव कर्मणो ऽभ्युदयप्रत्यव्याव् इति यत् सांख्यैर् उच्यते तद् अवसन्नम् । सो ऽयम् अधुनाकुशलकर्मनिमित्तो रूपविपर्ययप्रपञ्चो ऽनुक्रम्यते प्रायश्चित्तानुष्ठानशेषतया ॥ ११.४७ ॥

048 Some wicked men suffer a change of their (natural) appearance in consequence of crimes committed in this life, and some in consequence of those committed in a former (existence).

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

049 He who steals the gold (of a Brahmana) has diseased nails; a drinker of (the spirituous liquor called) Sura, black teeth; the slayer of a Brahmana, consumption; the violator of a Guru’s bed, a diseased skin;

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

050 An informer, a foul-smelling nose; a calumniator, a stinking breath; a stealer of grain, deficiency in limbs; he who adulterates (grain), redundant limbs;

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

051 A stealer of (cooked) food, dyspepsia; a stealer of the words (of the Veda), dumbness a stealer of clothes, white leprosy; a horse-stealer, lameness.

The stealer of gold has disfigured nails; the drinker of wine, black teeth; the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, consumption; and the violator of his preceptor’s bed, a disfigured skin;—(49) the informer, a foul-smelling nose; the false caluminator, a foul-smelling mouth; the stealer of grains, a deficiency of limbs; and the adulterator, an excess of limbs;—(50) the stealer of food, dyspepsia; the stealer of words, dumbness; the stealer of clothes, leucoderma; and the stealer of horse, lameness.—(51) It is thus that idiots, the dumb, the blind, the deaf and deformed men, despised by righteous men, are born, on account of particular acts.—(52)

क्षयो नाम रोगो राजयक्ष्मेति वैद्यानां प्रसिद्धस् तेन तद्वान् भवति ब्रह्महत्याविशेषेण । गुरुस्त्रीगामि दुश्चर्मा । क्वथितगन्धवाहिन्या नासिकया युक्तः पिशुनः । एवं सूचको दुर्गन्धवाहास्यः ।

• ननु च सूचकः पिशुन एव ।

• सत्यम् । एकः कल्पयित्वा परदोषान् प्रकाशयति । अन्यस् तु सत्यान् एवाविदितान् इति भेदः ।

• आतिरैक्यम्⁶⁴ अधिकाङ्गाता । मिश्रको यो द्रव्याण्य् अद्रव्यैस् तदाभासैः संमर्दयति । यथा कुंकुमं कुसुम्भेनान्यैर् अन्यानि । आमयावी यस्य भुक्तम् अन्नं न सम्यक् जीर्यते । मौक्यं वाग्वैकल्यं यत्राप्रतिपत्तिमान् अपस्मारी । शिष्टं प्रसिद्धम् । विकृताकृतयः । आकृतिः संस्थानं विकृतामनोरमा निन्दितैषां कर्मविशेषेणेति । एषां कर्मणां कुम्भीपाकयमयातनास्थानेषु फलं तद् अनुभूतवत ईषच्छेषे तस्मिन् कर्मण्य् उद्रिक्ते च सुकृते ऽदत्तफले फलदानोन्मुखे दुष्कृतस्यासद्भावो ऽतः कर्मावशेषोपपत्तिः ॥ ११.४९–५२ ॥

(verses 11.49-52)

By killing a Brāhmaṇa one becomes affected by consumption—a very serious disease known among physicians by that name.

One who has intercourse with his preceptor’s wife suffers from ‘disfigured skin.’

The ‘informer’ has a nose emitting nauseous smell; and ‘the false caluminator has a foul-smelling mouth.’

“The caluminator also is only an informer.”

True; but one of them (the former) assumes other people’s defects, while the other describes only those that really exist;—that is the sole difference between the two.

‘Excess of limbs’—more than the natural number.

‘Adulterator’—one who mixes commodities with inferior ones resembling it, e.g., saffron with the Kusumbha flower.

‘Dyspeptic’—one who cannot digest the food eaten.

^(‘)Dumbness’—Incapability of speech; e.g., the idiot, the epileptic and the like.

The rest is well known.

^(‘)Deformed.’—Their figure is despicable.

All this is the result of ‘particular acts.’ These acts bring about the said effects instead of making the men sink into hell and suffer after-death tortures; or even for those who, even though they have passed through all these latter, have still some remnant left of the force of their past misdeeds; or for those in whose case the force of their meritorious deeds being greater, the effects of the evil deeds have had no occasion to assert themselves. In all such cases there is a ‘residue’ of past acts.—(49-52)

(verse 11.51)

‘Vāgapahārakaḥ.’—‘Stealer of speech’,—i.e., one who learns the Veda by stealth’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘a plagiarist’ (Nārāyaṇa).

[The additional verse, relating to the ‘stealer of a lamp’ has been translated by Buhler as part of the text; it has been so accepted by Rāghavānanda and Rāmacandra, but not by the other commentators. We have followed the text of Medhātithi here; hence from this verse onward our verse-numbering will be one less than that in Buhler], This additional verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (p. 248).

**(verses 11.48-52)
**

[See below.—12.53 et seq.]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.43].

यतश् चैतद् एवम् अकृतप्रायस्चित्तान्[आं] नानारूपवैकृत्यम् अनुभूतयातनास्थानदुःखानाम् अपि सतां कर्मावशेषेण भवति ॥ ११.५१ ॥

053 Thus in consequence of a remnant of (the guilt of former) crimes, are born idiots, dumb, blind, deaf, and deformed men, who are (all) despised by the virtuous.

Because persons with sins unexpiated are born with disgraceful marks, therefore expiatory rites shall always be performed, for the purpose of purification.—(53)

निन्द्यैर् हि लक्षणैः कुनखश्यावदन्तादिभिर् अनिष्कृतैनसः⁶⁵ ॥ ११.५३ ॥

‘Disgraceful marks’—Disfigured nails, black teeth and so forth.—(53)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.220), to the effect that the omission of an expiatory rite involves sin;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta. p. 3) to the same effect—in Smṛtitattva, (p. 473);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 17).

Yājñavalkya (3.220).—‘Therefore, for his purification, the sinner should perform expiatory penances; thus do the people and his own self become appeased.’

चरितव्यम् अतो नित्यं प्रायश्चित्तं विशुद्धये ।

नाधिकारार्थम् अन्यार्थं वेत्य् उक्तम्, येन,

निन्द्यैर् हि लक्षणैर् युक्ता जायन्ते ऽनिष्कृतैनसः ॥ ११.५२ ॥

एवं च सतीयं पापकृद्वरणना षड्भिः श्लोकैः प्रायश्चित्तानुष्ठानप्रशंसार्था विज्ञेयेति । अधुना त्व् अभिहितकारणानि प्रायश्चित्तान्य् उच्यन्ते ॥ ११.५२ ॥

054 Penances, therefore, must always be performed for the sake of purification, because those whose sins have not been expiated, are born (again) with disgraceful marks.

Brāhmaṇa -slaying, wine-drinking, theft, intercourse with the Preceptor’s wife,—are called the ‘heinous offences,’ as also association with these.—(54)

गुर्वङ्गनागमः स्तेयं पतितसंप्रयोगः सर्ववर्णानां महापातकानि । सुरापानं ब्राह्मणस्यैव । स्तेयं ब्राह्मणसुवर्णहरणम्, स्मृत्यन्तरात्- “ब्राह्मणसुवर्णापहरणे महापातकम्” इति । पातकशब्दः पातयतीति व्युत्पत्त्या सर्वव्यतिक्रमेषु वर्तते, महापतकेषूपपातकेषु च । महच्छब्दो गुरुत्वप्रदर्शनार्थः । तैश् च संयोगम् एकैकेनापि । स च वक्ष्यति “संवत्सरेण पतति” (म्ध् ११.१७९) इत्यादिना ॥ ११.५४ ॥

(a) Intercourse with the Preceptor’s wife, (b) Theft, and (c) Association with outcasts,—these are ‘heinous offences’ for all castes;—‘wine-drinking’ is so only for the Brāhmaṇa.

^(‘)Theft’—stands here for the stealing of gold belonging to a Brāhmaṇa; as is clear from another Smṛti text, which says that—‘The stealing of Brāhmaṇa’s gold constitutes a heinous offence.’ The term ‘pātaka’ (offence) literally signifying ‘that which degrades,’ is applied to all transgressions, major as well as minor, and, in the name ‘mahā-pātaka,’ the qualifying epithet ‘mahā’ is meant to indicate the great seriousness of the offence.

‘Association with these’—with any one of them; details regarding this are going to be described under 180 below.—(54)

[Cf. 9.235.]

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 786).—in Aparārka, (p. 1044), which adds that ‘surā’ stands here for the ‘Paiṣṭī’ i.e., liquor distilled from grains;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (prāyaścitta, 3b);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 39 and 140).

[[See above.—9.235.]]

Gautama (21.1).—‘The slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, he who drinks wine, the violator of the Guru’s bed, he who has connection with the female relations of his mother and of his father, or with sisters and their female offspring, he who steals gold, an atheist, he who constantly repeats reprehensible acts, he who does not cast off persons guilty of a crime causing loss of caste and he who forsakes blameless relatives,—all these become outcasts.’

Āpastamba (1.21.7-8).—‘Stealing gold, crimes whereby one becomes accused, homicide, neglect of the Vedas, causing abortion, incestuous connection with relations born of the same womb as the mother or the father, and with the offspring of such persons, drinking wine, and intercourse with persons whose intercourse is forbidden; these are actions that cause loss of caste.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.19-21).—‘They state that there are five Mahāpātakas: stealing gold, the violation of Guru’s bed, drinking Surā, slaying a learned Brāhmaṇa, and associating with outcasts, either spiritually or matrimonially.’

Viṣṇu (35.1-2).—‘Killing a Brāhmaṇa, drinking wine, stealing Brāhmaṇa’s gold, and sexual connection with a Guru’s wives are Mahāpātakas; also social intercourse with such criminals.’

Yājñavalkya (3.227).—‘Brāhmaṇa-slayer, wine-drinker, stealer (of gold), violators of Guru’s bed; these are the Mahāpātakins, as also one who associates with these for one year.’

महपातकनिर्देशः संव्यवहारार्थः । महत्त्वशब्दश् च गुरुत्वसंविज्ञानर्थः सर्वपापेभ्य एतानि गुरूणि । एवं च सति व्यतिक्रममात्रं पातकम् । पातयतीति पातकम् इत्य् अस्मात् । एतानि पुनर् महान्ति पातकानि महान्ति सन्त्य् एतस्मात् परिहारे लग्नवान् भविष्यतीति पतितसंप्रयोगे च वक्ष्यति “संवत्सरेण पतति” इति । सुरापानं च [ब्राह्मणस्य] । यस्य यत् प्रतिषेद्धं तस्य तत् पातकम् । अन्यत् तु ब्रह्महत्यादि वर्ववर्णानां विज्ञेयम्, तत्प्रतिषेधात् । स्तेयं ब्राह्मणसुवर्णापहरणाख्यं पातकम्, नान्यत् । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम्, “ब्राह्मणसुवर्णापहरणे महापातकम्” इत्य् आपस्तम्बः ॥ ११.५३ ॥

055 Killing a Brahmana, drinking (the spirituous liquor called) Sura, stealing (the gold of a Brahmana), adultery with a Guru’s wife, and associating with such (offenders), they declare (to be) mortal sins (mahapataka).

Lying for self-aggrandisement, caluminating before the king, and falsely harassing the Preceptor are equal to ‘Brāhmaṇa -killing.’—(55)

समुत्कर्ष इति निमित्तसप्तमी, “चर्मणि द्वीपिनं हन्ति” (पत् ओन् पाण् २.३.३६) इतिवत् । समुत्कर्षं प्राप्स्यामीति यद् अनृतं अभिधीयते तद् ब्रह्महत्यया समम् । यत्र पूजातिशयो धनातिशयो⁶⁶ ब्राह्मणत्वेन श्रोत्रियत्वेन महाकुलीनतया वा प्राप्यते, तत्रातद्रूपम्⁶⁷ आत्मानम् आवेदयति । यो वा पात्रातिशयेन पुण्यस्कन्धोत्कर्षं प्राप्तुम् इच्छति तस्यापात्रं पात्रम् इत्य् उच्यते । एवंविधे समुत्कर्षे ऽनृतम् । न पुनः स्वल्पवस्तुनि अपेक्षायाम्, सत्य् अपि समुत्कर्षव्यपदेशे ।

• पिशुनम् अलीकवद् इति परच्छिद्रप्रकाशनम् ।

• गुरोश् चालीकनिर्बन्धो ऽसत्याभिधानेन चित्तसंक्षोभः । “कन्या ते गर्भिणी” इत्य् एवमादिना निष्प्रयोजनो द्वेषः । राजकुलात् तेन सह विवादो निर्बन्धो ऽनृतादिशंसनं वा । तथा च गौतमः- “गुराव् अनृताभिशंसनम् पातकसमानि " (ग्ध् २१.१०) इति⁶⁸ ॥ ११.५५ ॥

^(‘)Samutkarṣe’—The Locative ending denotes purpose; just as in the expression ‘carmaṇi dvīpinam hanti’ (‘kills the tiger for the sake of his skin’). When a man lies with the motive of securing honour for himself, his offence is equal to that of killing a Brāhmaṇa. For instance, on an occasion great honour or much wealth is expected to be obtained by every one who is a Brāhmaṇa, or a Vedic scholar, or belongs to a high family,—if one falsely represents himself as such; or when a person needs a qualified recipient for his gifts, if one, though not so qualified, represents himself to be as such. In such cases the man lies ‘for self-aggrandisement’; this is what is meant, and not any small gain for oneself; even though this latter also may be called ‘samutkarṣe.’

One is said to ‘caluminate’ people when he falsely attributes evils to him.

‘Falsely harassing the preceptor’—causing him pain and anxiety by falsely telling him such things as ‘your unmarried daughter is pregnant,’ and so forth; which implies needless hatred. Or, ‘nirbandha’ may stand for quarrelling with him before the King, or bringing a false (barge against him. Says Gautama,—‘False accusation of the Teacher, etc…… are equal to the heinous offences.’ (21.10)—(55)

‘Guroścālīkanirbandhaḥ.’—‘Wrongfully going to law against the teacher’ (Medhātithi), or ‘falsely accusing the teacher’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘Repeatedly doing what is disagreeable to the teacher’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p, 419), as enumerating offences on the same footing as Brāhmaṇa-slaughter;—in Aparārka (p. 1047), which adds the following notes:—On the occasion of the examination of the disputed superiority of qualifications of two rivals, if the Judge pronounces a false judgment, this act is as sinful as the killing of a Brāhmaṇa; ‘alīkanirbandha’ is false accusation;—and in Madanapārijātā (p. 807), which adds the explanation that ‘when a man without knowing the our Vedas, represents himself to the king as knowing them,—and some one is asked to examine the validity of the claim—if this latter should make a false report, the sin incurred by him is equal to that involved in Brāhmaṇa-slaughter’.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177), which adds the following notes—‘Anṛtañca samutkarṣe’ means the misrepresentation of oneself as possessing qualities which are not really possessed, e.g., when a Śūdra says ‘I am a Brāhmaṇa’ and wears the sacred thread,—or misrepresentation regarding the qualifications of another person e.g., if one were to say of a learned Brāhmaṇa that he knows nothing,—this is equal to ‘Brāhmaṇa-murder’,—i.e. involves the twelve-year penance;—this refers to cases of intentional and repeated acts,—‘paiśuna’ is backbiting to the king, and ‘guroḥ &c.’ is false accusation of one’s father.

**(verses 11.55-56)
**

Gautama (21.10).—‘Giving false evidence, calumnies which will reach the ears of the king, an untrue accusation against the Guru, are equal to the Mahāpātakas.’

Do. (21.1).—See under 54.

Viṣṇu (36.1).—‘Killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, engaged in a sacrifice, or a woman in her courses, or a pregnant woman, or a Brāhmaṇa woman who has bathed after temporary uncleanliness, or an embryo of an unknown sex, or one come for protection, are crimes equal to the crime of Brāhmaṇa-killing.’

Do. (36.2).—‘Giving false evidence, killing a friend, these are equal to wine-drinking.’

Do. (37.1-5).—‘Setting one’s self up by false statements, making statements which will reach the ears of the King, regarding a minor offence committed by some one, unjustly upbraiding a Guru, reviling the Veda, forgetting the studied Vedic texts; these are crimes of the fourth degree.’

Yājñavalkya (3.228-29).—‘Insulting one’s Guru, reviling the Veda, killing a friend, forgetting what has been learnt, these are equal to Brāhmaṇa-killing; eating forbidden food, dishonesty, lying for aggrandisement, kissing a woman in the courses, are equal to wine-drinking.’

Āpastamba (1.21.8).—See under 54.

प्रत्येकम्, न समस्तानि एवम् उत्तरत्रापीति । अनृतं जातिसमुत्कर्षे, यद् अब्राह्मणः सन् “ब्राह्मणोऽस्मि” इति ब्रवीति ब्राह्मणप्रयोजनेषु । एवं क्षत्रियवैश्यजाताव् अपि योज्यम् । कर्मोत्कर्षे वा यद् अनृतं “अनेन क्रतुनेष्टं मया” इति । एवं अध्ययनतपःप्रभृतिष्व् अपीति । समुत्कर्षकरणे कन्यलाभदौ यद् अनृतं तद्दूषणार्थं दातृसंनिधौ कौटसाक्ष्यम्, येन तद् उत्तरश्लोके वक्ष्यति । सुरापानसमं राजगामिपैशुनं (?) हेऌअकत्वं प्रसिद्धम् । गुरोर् अऌईकनिर्बन्धः । अऌईकस् चित्तसंक्षोभः । अऌईकर्थो निर्बन्धः स गुरोर् अभ्युपेत्य द्वेषादिभिः पौनः पुन्येन क्रियमाणो ऽऌईकनिर्बन्धः । ब्रह्महत्यासमः । गुरोर् अनृताबिशंसनं वाऌईकनिर्बन्धः । तथा च गौतमः- “गुरोर् अनृताबिशंसनम्” इति । पातकसमानीति ॥ ११.५४ ॥

056 Falsely attributing to oneself high birth, giving information to the king (regarding a crime), and falsely accusing one’s teacher, (are offences) equal to slaying a Brahmana.

Neglecting the Veda, reviling the Veda, bearing false witness, slaying a friend, and eating of forbidden and unfit food,—these six are equal to ‘wine-drinking.’—(56)

अधीतस्ववेदस्यानाभ्यासेन विस्मरणं ब्रह्मोज्झता । नित्यस्वाध्यायविधेः त्यागो वा । कूटसाक्ष्यं समुत्कर्षाद् अन्यत्रापि⁶⁹ । सुहृद्वधो मित्रमारणम् । गर्हितानाद्ययोः । गर्हितं शास्त्रप्रतिषिद्धं लशुनाद्य्अनाद्यम् अमनस्तुष्टिकरं न⁷⁰ भोक्ष्य इति कल्प्य यद् भुज्यते ॥ ११.५६ ॥

After having learnt the Veda, if one forgets it on account of not keeping up its study, he is said to ‘neglect the Veda.’ Or it may stand for the disobedience of the injunction of Vedic study, as a compulsory duty.

‘Bearing false witness’—even on occasions other than for self-aggrandisement.

‘Slaying’—killing—‘of a friend.’

‘Eating of forbidden and unfit food.’—‘Forbidden,’ such as garlic and the rest; ‘unfit,’—i.e., unpleasant. If such food is intentionally eaten.—(56)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.231), to the effect that though the offences here enumerated have been placed by Yājñavalkya in the same category as ‘Brāhmaṇa-slaughter’, while Manu classes them with ‘wine-drinking’,—yet all that this implies is that there are alternative expiatory rites.

It, is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1047), as placing on the same footing as ‘wine-drinking’, such offences as ‘forgetting’ and ‘reviling’ the Veda and the killing of a friend; and the meaning of this is that there are alternative expiatory rites;—it explains ‘anādyam’ as uneatable on account of bad smell and the like.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 293) in support of the view that these offences are ‘anupātakas’ ‘ancillary sins’, as distinguished from ‘upapātakas’ ‘minor sins’.

It is quoted in Madanapārijata (p. 807), which makes the same remark as Mitākṣarā;—and again on p. 825, where the following notes are added:—According to Smṛtimañjarī, ‘garhita’ stands for onions and such other forbidden food, and ‘anādya’ for impure food; while according to Kalpataru ‘garhita’ stands for such food as, though not forbidden by the scriptures, is deprecated by the people:—‘anādyam’, garlic and such things;—the eating of these things is equal to wine-drinking, only when it is done intentionally.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177), which has the following notes—‘Brahmojjhatā’ means ‘forgetting the Veda through neglect of proper study,’—‘Vedanindā’, passing deprecatory remarks against the words and contents of the Vedas—‘Suhṛdvadha’, murdering of a friend other than the Brāhmaṇa,—‘garhītānna’ is ‘food of the lowest born’,—‘garhitādya’, is forbidden food, e.g., mushrooms and so forth, of which repeated eating is meant here. It notes the reading ‘garhitānādya’ as adopted by Kalpataru, which explains ‘garhita’ as ‘what is forbidden by the scriptures’, and ‘anādya’ as ‘what is very much deprecated among the people, such as garlic &c.’

**(verses 11.55-56)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.56].

057 Forgetting the Veda, reviling the Vedas, giving false evidence, slaying a friend, eating forbidden food, or (swallowing substances) unfit for food, are six (offences) equal to drinking Sura.

Stealing of a deposit, or of men, horse, silver, land, diamonds and other oems,—all this has been declared to be equal to the ‘stealing of gold.’—(57)

निक्षेपस्यासारद्रव्यस्यापि । नराश्वशब्दो⁷¹ जातिशब्दः, नारीहरणे ऽप्य् एतद् एव । यो हि दुहितरं दत्वासति नरदोषे ऽन्यस्मै पुनर् ददाति, तस्याप्य् एतद् एव । तद् उक्तम् “प्राप्नोति पुरुषानृतम्”⁷² (म्ध् ९.७१) इति ॥ ११.५७ ॥

‘Deposit’—even such as consists of not very valuable things.

‘Men.’—This term stands for the kind; hence the stealing of women also stands on the same footing. This same sin accrues to him who, after having betrothed his daughter to one man, gives her ultimately to another, even when no defects have been found in the former bridegroom. This is what has been described as the man ‘falling upon a lie.’—(57)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.265), as referring to the stealing of property belonging to the Brāhmana;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 421);—in Aparārka (p. 1048);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177 and 344), which has the following note—‘Deposit’, belonging to the Brāhmaṇa.

Baudhāyana (2.2.3-4).—‘Stealing the property of a Brāhmaṇa or a deposit, giving false evidence regarding land.’

Viṣṇu (36.3).—‘Appropriating to one’s self land belonging to a Brāhmaṇa or a deposit, are crimes equal to theft of gold.’

Yājñavalkya (3.230).—‘Stealing of a horse, of gems, of human females, of land, and of cows, or of deposit, these are equal to gold-stealing.’

058 Stealing a deposit, or men, a horse, and silver, land, diamonds and (other) gems, is declared to be equal to stealing the gold (of a Brahmana).

Carnal intercourse with one’s uterine sister, or with virgins, or with low-born women, or with the women of one’s friend or son,—all this they regard as equal to the ‘violating of the Preceptor’s bed.’—(58)

स्वयोनयो भगिन्य एकोदरसंभूताः । कुमार्यो ऽनूढाः । अन्त्यजा बर्बरचण्डालस्त्रियः । सख्युः । सखा मित्रम्, तस्य स्त्रियः । स्त्रीग्रहणं न जायायाम् एव प्रतिषेधर्थम् । एवं पुत्रस्य्आन्यापि या अवरुद्धा मैथुनधर्मेण ।

• वयं तु ब्रूमः । सत्य् अपि स्त्रीग्रहणेन⁷³ ऊढानूढयोर् विषमसमीकरणस्यान्यायत्वात्⁷⁴ समत्ववचनम् । एतन् न प्रायश्चित्तनिर्देशार्थम्, किं तर्हि गुरुत्वख्यापनपरम् । अतश् च गुरुतरं प्रायश्चित्तं भवति । तथा चोक्तम् “एनःसु⁷⁵ गुरूणि गुरूणि लघुनि लघूनि” (ग्ध् १९.१९) । यदि ह्य् एतत् प्रायश्चित्तनिर्देशार्थम् अभविष्यत् प्रायश्चित्तनिदेशप्रकरण⁷⁶ एव वावक्ष्यत् । कौटसाक्ष्यसुहृद्वधयोश् चेह सुरापानसमीकृतयोर् ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्तातिदेशम् उपरिष्टान् न कुर्यात् । “गुरोश् चालीकनिर्बन्धः” (म्ध् ११.५४) इत्य् एतस्य चेह ब्रह्महत्यासमीकृतस्य पुनर् उपरिष्टात् ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्ताभिधानात् । तथा कुमार्याम् इति रेतःसेकस्य गुरुतल्पसमीकृतस्येह पुनस् तत्र गुरुतल्पप्रायश्चित्तविधानाद्, गम्यते नेदं प्रायश्चित्तार्थं समीकरणम् इति ।

• अन्ये तु मन्यन्ते- भेदेन समीकरणं गुरुत्वभावे ऽपि वक्ष्यते, नान्यय्यम्⁷⁷ । अतः प्रायश्चित्तार्थम्⁷⁸ एव सुरापानस्य समीकृतयोश् च कौटसाक्ष्यसुहृद्वध्योर् ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्तनिर्देशो विकल्पार्थम् सुरापानप्रायश्चित्तेन । अस्य चातिदेश एव श्रूयते । समीकरणे तु विकल्पो नास्ति । यथा “हत्वा गर्भम् अविज्ञातम्” इति (म्ध् ११.८६) ॥ ११.५८ ॥

इदानीम् उपपातकान्य् आह ।

‘Uterine sisters’—sisters horn of the same mother as oneself.

‘Virgins’— unmarried women.

‘Low-born women’—wild women.

‘Friend’—companion; his ‘women.’

The use of the generic term ‘women’ indicates that it is not only the wife that is meant What is meant is a woman kept for carnal purposes, by the friend or the son.

What we hold however is that, even though the text has used the generic term^(‘)women,’ yet it cannot be regarded as putting the married and the unmarried women on the same footing; because such an equalisation would be highly unreasonable.

What is said here is not for the purpose of indicating what the exact expiatory rite in the case should be, but with a view to indicate [the seriousness of the crime; which, of course, means that] the expiation also should be heavy. This is what has been set forth in the declaration—‘these shall be heavy in the case of serious, and light in that of lighter, crimes.’ If all this were for this purpose of indicating the exact expiatory rite, it should have occurred under the section dealing with these rites proper. Further, since^(‘)bearing false witness,’ and^(‘)slaying of a friend,’ are here placed on the same footing as^(‘)wine-drinking,’ the expiation for these could not be prescribed as the same as that in the case of^(‘)Brāhmaṇa-killing’;—secondly, the^(‘)falsely harassing the Preceptor’ has here been declared to be equal to^(‘)Brāhmaṇa-killing,’ and yet later on it has been considered necessary to lay down again for this offence the same expiation as for^(‘)Brāhmaṇa-killing’;—thirdly, carnal intercourse with a^(‘)virgin’ has here been said to be equal to the^(‘)violating of the Preceptor’s bed,’ and yet it was considered necessary to prescribe again for this offence the same expiation as that for the said^(‘)violating of the Preceptor’s bed.’ From all this it is clear that the present equalising of the various sins here with one or the other of the heinous offences is not meant to be an injunction of the necessary expiatory rites.

Other people think that even though all that is meant is to indicate the seriousness of the crimes, yet there is nothing unreasonable in the equalisation here set forth; which may, therefore, be taken as meant to indicate the exact expiations. As for the fact that, even though^(‘)bearing false witness,’ and ‘slaying a friend’ are here put on the same footing as^(‘)winedrinking.’ yet the exact expiation for it has been prescribed to be the same as that for Brāhmaṇa-killing,—this means simply that the two expiations are meant to be optional. Where there is absolute equalisation, there can be no option; as is clear from Verse 87 below.—(58)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.231), to the effect that the ‘intercourse’ meant here is the actual consummation of the act, as is clear from the use of the term ‘retaḥseka’;—in Aparārka (p. 1048), which also adds that if the intercourse ceases before actual emission, the offence is not equal to the ‘violation of the Teacher’s bed—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 251), which adds that this refers to cases where, the act is repeated for fifteen days;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 844), which notes that the use of the expression ‘retaḥseka’ indicates that if the act ceases before emission, it involves an expiation lighter than that in the case of ‘the violation of the Teacher’s bed’;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 177), which has the following notes—‘Svayonyāsu’, Sapiṇḍa-women, and such women as are blood-relations of one’s father or mother,—‘kumārīṣu’ Brāhmaṇa virgins,—‘Antyajāsu’, Caṇḍāla and other low-born girls,—‘Sakhyuḥ strīṣu’, wives of Brāhmaṇa friends,—‘putrastrīṣu’, wives of sons born of wives of different castes, or wives of sons other than the ‘body born’.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

Gautama (21.1).—(See under 54.)

Do. (21.11).—‘The guilt of a minor offence rests on those who are defilers of company, or killers of kine, or those who forget the Veda, those who pronounce the Vedic texts for sinners, students who break the vow of chastity, and those who allow the time of initiation to pass.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.5, 13).—‘Trading with merchandise of any description; the following are the minor offences involving loss of caste. Intercourse with women who should not he approached, cohabitation with the female friend of a female Guru, with the female friend of a male Guru, with an Apapātra woman, and a female outcast,—following the medical profession, sacrificing for the multitude, living by the stage, following the profession of the dancing master, or singing master or acting master, tending cows and buffaloes, and so forth, and also fornication.’

Āpastamba (1.21.7-9, 14-15, 17-18).—‘The following acts cause loss of caste: stealing gold, crimes that make one accused, homicide, neglect of the Vedas, causing abortion, incestuous connection with relations born of the same womb as one’s father or mother, or with the offsprings of such relations, drinking wine, intercourse with persons intercourse with whom is forbidden. That man falls who has connection with a female friend of a female Guru, or with a female friend of a male Guru, or with any married woman. Eating forbidden flesh, as of a dog, a man, a village-cock or village pigs, or carnivorous animals; eating what is left by a Śūdra, the cohabitation of Aryans with Apapātra women. Some say that these also lead to loss of caste.’

Viṣṇu (36.4-7).—‘Sexual connection with a paternal aunt, with the maternal grandmother, with a maternal aunt, with the mother-in-law, with the Queen—are crimes equal to connection with a guru’s wife;—and so is sexual intercourse with the father’s or mother’s sister, and with one’s own sister;—and sexual connection with the wife of a learned Brāhmaṇa, or a priest, or an Upādhyāya, or a friend;—and with a sister’s female friend, or with a woman of one’s own race, with a woman belonging to the Brāhmaṇa caste, with a Brāhmaṇa maiden, with a low-caste woman, with a woman in her courses, with a woman come for protection, with a female ascetic, or with a woman entrusted to one’s own care.’

Do. (37.6-10, 13-33).—‘Abandoning one’s holy fire, or father, mother, son or wife;—eating forbidden food, or food of those whose food should not he eaten;—appropriating to one’s self what belongs to another;—sexual intercourse with another man’s wife; sacrificing for persons for whom it is forbidden to sacrifice;—killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya or a Śūdra, or a cow,—selling articles that should not be sold,—for an elder brother to suffer his younger brother to marry before him, for a younger brother to marry before his elder brother,—to give a girl in marriage to either of these two,—or to perform the nuptial ceremony for him,—to allow the proper time for Upanayana to pass off,—to teach the Veda for a reward,—to he taught the Veda by a hired teacher,—to be employed in mines,—to make large instruments,—cutting trees, shrubs, creepers, long climbing plants, or herbs,—to make a living by prostituting one’s own wife,—trying to overcome others by incantations or forcible means; cooking for one’s own self,—omitting to pay one’s debts to God, Sages and Pitṛs,—studying irreligious hooks,—Atheism,—subsisting by a reprehensible act,—intercourse with woman who drinks wine;—these are crimes of the fourth degree.’

Yājñavalkya (3.231, 234-42).—‘Intercourse with a friend’s wife, with a maiden, with one’s own offsprings, with a Caṇḍāla woman, with one’s Sagotra woman, with one’s sons’ wives,—is declared to be equal to the violating of the guru’s bed. Killing cows, apostacy, theft, non-payment of debts, omitting to establish the sacred fires, selling what should not be sold, marrying before the elder brother, learning Veda from a hired teacher, teaching the Veda for payment, adultery, permitting one’s self to be superseded in marriage by the younger brother, usury, manufacturing salt, killing a woman, a Vaiśya, a Śūdra or a Kṣatriya, making a living through reprehensible things, atheism, breaking the vow of celibacy, selling of sons, stealing grains or base metals or cattle, sacrificing for those not entitled to perform sacrifices, abandoning of father, mother or son, selling of tanks or gardens, defiling a maiden, sacrificing for one who has married before his elder brother and giving of girl in marriage to such a person, dishonesty, omitting of the observances and restrictions, undertaking of an act for one’s own benefit, intercourse with a wine-drinking woman, abandoning of Vedic study or of the sacred fires, neglecting one’s sons, forsaking of relatives, cutting trees for fuel, making a living by one’s own wife, or by medicines or by killing, making of murderous machines, being addicted to vicious habits, selling one’s self, serving under a Śūdra, making friendships with low men, intercourse with low-born women, omitting the prescribed life-stages, getting fat with food given by others, studying of evil sciences, superintending mines, selling one’s wife;—each of these is a minor sin, an upapātaka.’

महापातकसमानां चतुर्भिः श्लोकैर् निर्देशो गुरुत्वज्ञापनार्थः । सामान्यविहितस्यात्र गुरोः प्रायश्चित्तस्य कारणं यथा स्याद् इति । स्मृत्यन्तरे चोक्तम्- “एनसु(?) गुरुषु गुरूणि लघुषु लघूनि” इति । ननु यत् येन समानम् उच्यते तदीयं तस्य प्रायश्चित्तं युक्तम् । अत्रोच्यते । न युक्तं यदि ह्य् एतत् प्रायश्चित्तविधानर्थम् अभविष्यत्, यथाह भववान्, ततः प्रायश्चित्तातिदेसप्रकरण एवावक्ष्यत् । कौटसाक्ष्यसुहृद्वधयोश् चेह सुरापानसमीकृतयोः ब्रह्महत्यप्रायस्चित्तातिदेशम् उपरिष्टान् न कुर्यात् । गुरोश् चाऌईकनिर्बन्ध इत्य् एतस्य चेह ब्रह्महत्यासमीकृतस्य पुनर् उपर्तिष्टाद् (?) ब्रह्महत्याप्रयस्चित्तविधानात् । तथा कुमार्यादिरेतस्सेकस्य गुरुतल्पसमीक्ष्तस्येह पुनस् तत्र गुरुतल्पप्रायस्चित्तविधानाद् गम्यते नेदं प्रायस्चित्तार्थं समीकरणम् इति । अपरे तु मन्यन्ते — भेदेन समीकरणाद् यद् येन समीक्रियते तदीयं तस्य प्रायस्चित्तम् अनुमीयते । गुरुत्व हि केवले निदिदिक्षिते, महापातकसमत्वम् एव प्रतिनिर्दिशेत् सामान्येन । सुरापानसमीकृतयोश् च कौटसाक्ष्यसुहृद्वधयोर् ब्रह्महत्यातिदेशो विकल्पर्थः । गुरोस् च प्रतिरम्भो ऽलीकाद् अर्थान्तरम् एव । प्रायस्चित्तकरणे चास्यानध्ययनात् सामान्यविहितम् अप्य् एषु प्रायस्चित्तम् अनुमीयते । यस्य तु प्रायश्चित्तातिदेश एव श्रूयते न समीकरणम्; तत्र विकल्प् नास्ति । यथा “हत्वा गर्भम् अविज्ञातम्” इति । तस्मान् महापातकसमेषु तदीयं प्रायश्चित्तं सामन्यविहितं (?) वेति मन्यामहे । महापातकानि तत्समानि चोक्त्वोपपातकार्थम् अधुनेदम् आह ॥ ११.५७ ॥

059 Carnal intercourse with sisters by the same mother, with (unmarried) maidens, with females of the lowest castes, with the wives of a friend, or of a son, they declare to be equal to the violation of a Guru’s bed.

Killing a cow, sacrificing for one unworthy to sacrifice, adultery, selling oneself, abandoning one’s father, mother, teacher, or son, or of Vedic study or Fire;—(59)

अयाज्या अविरुद्धापातकिशूद्रादयस् तेषां संयाज्यं⁷⁹ संयाजनम् । भावे ण्यच् छादसः । आत्मविक्रयं गवादिद्रव्यवद् आत्मनः परविधेयकरणं दास्येन⁸⁰ ।

• अन्ये तु “पारदार्यम् अविक्रयम्” इति पठन्ति ।

• अनुत्साहो निराहारः स्वल्प एवोपघाते ऽवसादाश्रयणम् । गुरोस् त्यागो यथावद् अननुवृत्तिः⁸¹ । अध्यापनसमर्थे ऽध्यापयितर्य् उपाध्यापकान्तराश्रयः⁸² । एवं मातापित्रोः । अपतितानां चैतेषां त्यागो दोषाय । पतितानां त्व् इष्ट एव । स्वाध्यायाग्न्योस् त्याग इति संबध्यते । स्वाध्यायस्य त्यागश्⁸³ च “अहर् अहः स्वाध्यायम् अधीयीत” इत्य् अस्य विधेर् अननुष्ठानम् ।

• किम् ऐकाहिके माससांवत्सरिके वा त्यागे व्यतिक्रमो ऽयम् ।

• अविशेषाद् ऐहिके प्राप्नोति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम्, एतस्य विधेर् नित्यत्वात् । नित्यानां च व्यतिक्रमे प्रायश्चित्तान्तरं वक्ष्यति । तस्माद् विस्मरणपर्यन्तस् त्यागो ऽभिप्रेतः ।

• स ब्रह्मोज्झतापदेन सुरापानेन समीकृतः (म्ध् ११.५६) । तत्र विकल्पनार्थम् एतत् । अस्य च लघुत्वात् तस्य गुरुत्वाद् व्यवस्थायां विकल्पो योज्यः । तत्र यो वैदिक एवान्यस्मिन् कर्मणि युक्ततया स्वाध्यायं जहाति तस्योपपातकत्वम् । यस् तु भोगसेवयार्थपरतया कलहशीलतया जहाति तस्य सुरापानसमत्वम् ।

• अग्नेस् त्व् एकत्वविशिष्टस्येहोपादानाद् गृह्यस्येति द्रष्टव्यम् । प्राग् “अग्नीन्” (म्ध् ११.४०) इति बहुवचनात्, श्रौतानां ग्रहणम् ।

• ननु च तत्रापि चान्द्रायणम् उक्तम्, इहाप्य् उपपातकत्वात् तद् एवात्र वाच्यं ।

• नैष दोषः । उपपातकेष्व् अप्य् अन्यान्य् अपि प्रायश्चित्तानि सन्ति । शक्त्यपेक्षया गुरुलघुभावो न्यूनाधिकभावः । अतो नियमार्थं तत्र चान्द्रायणग्रहणम् ।

• सुतस्य त्यागो ऽभरणं गृहान् निष्काशनम् अशिशोः प्राप्तस्य च गुणवतः, पातकिनस् तु न दोषः ॥ ११.५९ ॥

The author now proceeds to describe the ‘Minor offences.’

‘Those unworthy to sacrifice,’—i.e., the outcast, the Śūdra and so forth,—‘sacrificing’ f or these. The use of the affix ‘ṇya’ in the nominal sense is a Vedic anomaly.

‘Selling oneself’— Making oneself a slave, subservient to another man, and thus putting himself on the same footing as the cow and such other properties as are sold.

Others read—‘pāradāryamavikrayam’—‘adultery and selling what should not be sold.’

What is meant by ‘selling oneself’ is taking service under an unrighteous master, when there is only slight trouble, in the shape of want of livelihood and the like.

The ‘abandoning of the teacher’—means the neglect of attention due to him; e.g., having recourse to another teacher, while the former teacher is quite competent to teach.

Similarly with the ‘abandoning of one’s father and mother.’

What is reprehensible is the abandoning of these when they are not outcasts. If they have become outcasts, their abandoning would be only right and proper.

The Construction is—‘the abandoning of Vedic study and the Fire’ The ‘abandoning of Vedic study’ means not carrying out in practice the injunction that ‘one should recite the Veda everyday.’

“Would the omission of this study for a single day, or for one year, Constitute this offence?”

Since the text contains no qualification, it would seem that omission for even one day would constitute the offence.

This, however, is not right. Because the injunction of daily study is a compulsory one; and a distinct expiation is going to be set forth later on for the omission of a compulsory duty. Hence what is meant here is such neglect as leads to the Veda being entirely forgotten.

This neglect having been declared (under 56) to be equal to ‘wine-drinking,’ the present text is meant to indicate an alternative expiation; the exact alternative to be employed should be determined by the comparative seriousness or otherwise of the neglect in any particular case. For instance, if the neglect of Vedic study is due to the man being engaged on another Vedic rite, his offence would be a minor one; while if it is due to the man giving himself up to luxury, or to moneymaking, or to quarrels,—his offence would be equal to ‘wine-drinking.’

As the ‘fire’ is spoken of in the singular, it should be understood to mean the domestic fire;—the Śrauta Fires having been all along spoken of in the plural.

“In connection with the offences of abandoning the Śrauta Fires, the Cāndrāyaṇa penance has been declared to be the expiatory rite. In the present context also, since the act would be of the nature of a minor offence, the expiation would consist of the same penance.”

There is no force in this objection; since in connection with minor offences also, diverse expiatory rites have been laid down;—the comparative seriousness or otherwise of the offence and the heaviness or lightness of the expiation being determined in each case by considerations of the capacity of the man concerned. And when the Cāndrāyaṇa penance has been mentioned as the expiation for minor offences, what is meant is that that penance represents the lowest limit ‘Abandoning of the son’— means omitting to support him, or turning him out of the house—when he is no longer an infant and is duly qualified. In the abandoning of a son who has become an outcast, there would be no wrong.—(59)

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittavivekā (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘Ayājya-saṃyājya’, includes improper gifts and teaching also,—‘tyāga’ of parents, i.e. neglecting to take care of them,—‘Svādhyāya-tyāga’, forgetting the Veda that has been learnt,—‘agnityāga’, through slothfulness,—‘sutatyāga’, neglecting his feeding and education,—‘ca’ is meant to include the ‘abandoning of the wife’ also.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.58].

060 Slaying kine, sacrificing for those who are unworthy to sacrifice, adultery, selling oneself, casting off one’s teacher, mother, father, or son, giving up the (daily) study of the Veda, and neglecting the (sacred domestic) fire,

Allowing oneself to be superseded in marriage by his younger brother, superseding by the younger one’s elder brother in marriage, and the giving of one’s daughter to, or sacrificing for, these two;—(60)

अनुजः कनीयान् भ्राता । तयोर् याजनं विवाहे दर्शपूर्णमासादौ वार्त्विज्यम् ॥ ११.६० ॥

‘Younger’— younger brother.

‘Sacrificing for these two’—i.e., officiating as priest for them at the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices.—(60)

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘Parivittitā’, of the elder brother who remains without wife and fire while his younger brother has taken both,—‘parivedana’ of the younger brother, in the said circumstances,—‘ca’ indicates that these two ‘offences’ apply in the case of sisters also,—the marrying of one’s daughter to either of the two persons just mentioned,—and officiating as priest at marriages and other rites of the said two persons.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.58].

061 Allowing one’s younger brother to marry first, marrying before one’s elder brother, giving a daughter to, or sacrificing for, (either brother),

Defiling a maiden, usury, breaking of a vow, selling a tank, a garden, one’s wife or a child.—(61)

कन्याया दूषणम् “नेयं कन्या पुरुषेणोपभुका” इत्य् अध्यवसायेन प्रतिपादनम् । अङ्गुष्ठादिना वा प्रजननं धर्मभेदो मैथुनधर्मवर्जम् । तत्र हि गुरुतल्पसाम्यम् उक्तम् । वार्धुषित्वं अनापदि⁸⁴ धनप्रयोगेन वृत्तिग्रहणम् । वासिष्ठे तु “वृद्धेस् तु प्रयोक्ता धान्यानां वार्धिषित्वं तद् उच्यते” । सा च शास्त्रपरिभाषा । न लौकिके वा पदार्थे । व्रतच्युतिः शिष्टप्रतिषिद्धे⁸⁵ ऽमुष्यगृहे न बोक्तव्यम् उपवस्तव्यम् एवंरूपः संकल्पो व्रतम् । ततो यः संकल्पाच् चलति सा तस्य व्रतच्युतिः ।

• ननु च व्रतम् इति इच्छाकृतो⁸⁶ नियम उच्यते । यदि चेच्छाकृतः⁸⁷ संकल्पस् ततो निवृत्तौ कः शास्त्रातिक्रमः, “विहितम् अकुर्वन् प्रायश्चित्तीयते” (म्ध् ११.४३) इत्य् उक्तम् । न चैतद् विहितम् ।

• उच्यते । सत्यम्, इच्छालक्षण आरम्भः । समाप्तिस् तु शास्त्रीया । यथा सौर्यादीनां⁸⁸ काम्यानां कर्मणां लिप्सातः प्रवृत्तिः, समाप्तिस् तु शास्त्रीया । अतितायां फलेच्छायाम् अवाप्ते वा⁸⁹ फले यथोक्तं तदर्थ एवावशिष्टं वर्जयेयुः ( + + ) प्राक्रमिको ऽयं कापुरुष इति वदन्तः । स्नातकव्रतानां त्व् अत्यन्तलघीयः प्रायश्चित्तं प्रवक्ष्यते । तेनेदं विकल्पितुम् अर्हति ।

• आराम उद्यानोपवनादि । स्मृत्यन्तरे सर्वभूम्र् अविक्रेया ॥ ११.६१ ॥

‘Defiling a maiden’;—i.e., having recourse to her in the spirit of bravado that ‘she has not yet been touched by man’; or, the depriving her of her chastity by touching her generative organ with the toe or such other parts of the body;—in fact doing all these, with the sole exception of actual sexual intercourse;—which latter has been declared to be equal to ‘the violating of the Preceptor’s bed.’

‘Usury’— Making money by this means as a means of living,—even in normal times. Vaśiṣṭha has declared that ‘usury consists in lending money or grains on interest.’ This is a scriptural technicality, not subject to the notions of the ordinary world.

‘Breaking of a vow.’—A ‘vow’ consists in the taking of such resolution as—‘I shall rather starve than partake of food in the house of such and such a person eating at whose place is forbidden’; and if one does not keep to this resolve, it would be ‘breaking of the vow.’

“As a matter of fact, the name ‘vow,’ vrata, is given to a restriction that one voluntarily puts upon himself; and if the resolve is a voluntary one, how could deviation from that constitute a transgression of the scriptures? it has been said that ‘by omitting to do what is enjoined one becomes liable to expiation’; and the resolution in the case in question is not ‘what is enjoined.”’

The answer to this is as follows:—It is true that in the initial stage the vow is purely voluntary; but the keeping of it is what has been ‘enjoined’ by the scriptures. Just as in the case of the Saurya and other sacrifices performed with a view to definite rewards,—the act, in its initial stage, is purely voluntary; but the continuation and completion of it (when once begun) is what is ‘enjoined’; the act could be discontinued only either if the performer had ceased to desire the particular reward, or if the reward were actually obtained; in all such cases the performer would be blamed as being energetic only in undertaking an act.

As regards the observances to be kept by the Accomplished Student, the text is going to lay down a very light expiation for the neglect of these. And this may be regarded as an optional alternative to what is here laid down.

‘Garden’— flower-gardens and parks, etc.

Another Smṛti declares all kinds of land as ‘not to be sold.’—(61)

‘Vratalopanam’.—‘Breaking a vow voluntarily taken’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa):—‘breaking the vow of Studentship’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘Kanyāyā dūṣaṇam’ calling a virgin a ‘non-virgin’, or piercing with the finger her private parts,—‘vārdhuṣitvam’ (which is its reading for ‘vārdhuṣyam’) for the Brāhmaṇa or the Kṣātriya,—‘vratāt cyutiḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘vratalopanam’), ‘avakīrṇitvam’, sexual delinquency of the Religious Student,—‘dāraṇām’, even such as have not been married by one,—‘apatyasya’, of the various kinds of children.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.58].

062 Defiling a damsel, usury, breaking a vow, selling a tank, a garden, one’s wife, or child,

Apostacy, abandoning a relative, teaching for wages, learning from a paid teacher and the selling of what should not be sold.—(62)

बान्धवा ज्ञातयः सोदरादिभ्यो⁹⁰ ऽन्ये ऽपि मातुलमातृष्वस्रेयादयः । सति विभवे ते ऽप्य् अजीवन्तो भर्तव्याः । तद् उक्तम् “स्वजने दुःखजीविनि” (म्ध् ११.८) इति ।

• यद्य् एवं “सुतस्य” (म्ध् ११.५९) इत्याद्य् अनर्थकम् ।

• न, अन्यार्थं वचनम्, जालपादप्रतिषेधे हंसप्रतिषेधवत् (म्ध् ५.१२–१३) । तेन मात्रादित्याग उपपातकम् एव । इह तु लघीय इति ।

• भृत्याध्यापनम् । भृतकस्य सतो ऽध्यापकत्वात् यश् च भृतकाद् अधीते । अपण्यानि दशमे उक्तानि ॥ ११.६२ ॥

‘Relations.’—The maternal uncle, cousins and others, even apart from one’s uterine brothers. If one has the means, it behoves him to support all these, if they be starving. This is what has been spoken of above in Verse 9.

“In face of the present text, the mention of the abandoning of one’s son (in 60) becomes superfluous.”

It is not superfluous. The mention of both is like the case where all web-footed birds having been forbidden in general, the Swan is specially prohibited separately.

Hence the abandoning of the mother and those mentioned in the former verse is also a minor offence, like what is mentioned in the present verse; with this difference only that this latter is less serious.

‘Teaching for wages and learning from a paid teacher’—i.e., if one learns from a paid teacher, when unpaid teachers are available.

‘What should not he sold’—as described in Discourse X (Verses 86, et seq).—(62)

[See 10.20.]

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘Vrātyatā’, whose Upanayana has not been performed at the prescribed age, and one who has not performed the Soma-sacrifice,—‘bāndhavatyāga’, abandoning, without reason, of Sapiṇḍa and other relatives,—‘bhṛtakādhyāpana’ (which is its reading for ‘bhṛtyādhyāpana’,) imparting knowledge in exchange for wages received—‘bhṛtādhyayana’, learning under a Teacher who teaches for wages received,—‘apaṇyānām vikrayaḥ’ selling of lac and other things even once, and repeated selling of milk and other things,—this is an ‘offence’ for the Brāhmaṇa.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.58].

063 Living as a Vratya, casting off a relative, teaching (the Veda) for wages, learning (the Veda) from a paid teacher, and selling goods which one ought not to sell,

Superintending all mines, executing large mechanical works, destroying medicinal herbs, subsisting on women, performing malevolent rites and sorcery.—(63)

आकराः सुवर्णादिभूमयः, तत्र्आधिकारो राजनियोगेनाधिपतित्वम् । सर्वग्रहणाद् अन्यद् अप्य् अर्थोत्पत्तिस्थानम् गृह्यते । तेन ग्रामनागरनियोगो व्यवहारदर्शनदण्डग्रहणादिनियोगः⁹¹ । एवम् एव यन्त्राणि सेतुबन्धादीनि जलप्रवाहनियमार्थानि⁹² तेषां महतां प्रवर्तनम्⁹³ । औषधीनाम् अशुष्काणां हिंसाच्छेदः । स्त्रीणाम् आजीवः । स्त्रियम् उपजीव्यते, स्त्रीधनेन शरीरकुटुम्बधारणं क्रियते, भार्यापण्यभावो वेशस्त्रीप्रयोजनं वा । भिचारो वैदिकेन शापादिना मन्त्रप्रयोगेण श्येनादियागेन वा शत्रुमारणम् । मूलकर्म वशीकरणं मन्त्रादिक्रिययैव ॥ ११.६३ ॥

‘Mines’—places where gold and other precious things are obtained.

‘Superintending’—control obtained under royal commands.

‘All’—implies the inclusion of other sources of income also, e.g., control over villages and towns, investigating law-suits and administering criminal law.

Similarly ‘mechanical works’ stand for the building of bridges and embankments for regulating the flow of water; the undertaking of such works also is a minor offence.

‘Destroying’—Cutting—‘medicinal herbs’—before they are dry.

‘Subsisting on women’— That is, maintaining oneself and family on the property of women, or making a living out of prostitutes.

‘Malevolent rites’— Killing one’s enemies by curses or incantations or sacrificial rites prescribed in the Veda.

‘Sorcery.’—Using incantations for gaining control over persons.—(63)

‘Mahāyantrapravartanam’—‘Executing great mechanical works, e.g., constructing dams across rivers in order to stop the flow of water’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘making machines for the killing of large animals, such as boars’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘making such machines as sugar-mills and the like’ (Nandana).

‘Stṛyājivaḥ.’—‘Subsisting on one’s wife’s earnings by making her enter service’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana);—‘by turning her into a harlot’ (Kullūka);—‘maintaining oneself by the separate property of his wife’ (Medhātithi);—‘living on money obtained by selling his wife’ (Rāghavānanda).—Nandana who reads ‘hiṃsrauṣadhistṛyupājīvaḥ’ (for ‘hiṃsauṣadhīnām stṛyājīvaḥ’), explains the compound as ‘subsisting either on money earned by the sale of noxious herbs, or on the earnings of one’s wife.’

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘Sarvakareṣu adhīkāraḥ,’ employment in mines,—‘mahāyantrapravartanam,’ working of oil and other mills, or of machines for the sharpening of weapons and so forth,’—‘auṣadhīnām hiṃsā,’ destroying the crops,—‘stṛyājīvaḥ,’ living on the earnings of women,—‘abhicāra,’ doing of japa, homa and such acts with the motive of bringing harm to others,—‘mūlakarma,’ rites for captivating other persons and such other purposes.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.58].

064 Superintending mines (or factories) of any sort, executing great mechanical works, injuring (living) plants, subsisting on (the earnings of) one’s wife, sorcery (by means of sacrifices), and working (magic by means of) roots, (and so forth),

Cutting down green trees for purposes of fuel, the undertaking of the act (of cooking) for one’s own benefit and the eating of forbidden food.—(64)

इन्धनाद्य्अर्थं तु न दोषः, अग्निशुद्धत्वाच् छुष्कसर्वसंभवे । क्रियारम्भः पाकारम्भः, “आतुरत्वाद् एवात्मार्थं न भवेत्” इति प्रतिषेधात् । क्रियारम्भ एवं व्याख्यायते । क्रियारम्भे हि प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशाद् एव प्रतिषेधः कल्प्येत । न ह्य् अप्रतिषिद्धप्रायश्चित्तं युक्तम् “निन्दितं च समाचरन्” (म्ध् ११.४३) इति वचनात् । अद्य पुनर् यत् प्रभाषितं तथा सिद्धे प्रतिषेधे प्रायश्चित्तं विधीयते । न कल्पनागौरवं भवति तेन । निन्दितान्नादनम् ।

• ननु “गर्हितान्नाद्ययोः” (म्ध् ११.५५) इति, कुत⁹⁴ एतत् ।

• विकल्पार्थम् । अभ्यासे तत् प्रायश्चित्तम्, इदं तु सकृद् एव । प्रत्ययभेदो वा ॥ ११.६४ ॥

There would be nothing wrong in the cutting down of trees for purposes of fuel for sacrificial performances; specially as one cannot, be sure of the purity of dead trees.

‘Undertaking of the act’—of cooking. There is the prohibition that, even when distressed by hunger, one shall not. do the cooking for himself alone; and it is for this reason that we explain the term ‘act’ to mean the act of cooking. If, on the other hand, we took the term to stand for action in general, then it would be necessary to assume the necessary prohibition of such action in general, merely on the strength of the fact that an expiation is laid down for it; as there could be no expiation for an act that, is not prohibited; as it has been declared that ‘by doing what is forbidden one becomes liable to expiatory rites’ (44). When, however, we take the word to mean as explained above, then the expiation laid down is quite in keeping with a well-known prohibition, and there is no need for assuming one.

‘Eating forbidden food.’—Objection.—“The Eating of Forbidden Food having been already mentioned above (57), why should there be a repetition of it here?”

Answer.—It has been mentioned again for the purpose of indicating an alternative Expiation;—the sense being that the expiation prescribed before is for repeated acts of eating forbidden food; while the one indicated by the present text is for doing it for the first time.—(64)

[See 3.118.]

‘Ninditānna.’—‘Forbidden food’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka);—‘food given by persons from whom it should not be accepted, e.g. by a king, a gambler and so forth’ (Nārāyaṇa, Raghavānanda and Nandana).’

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes—The cutting of many trees for purposes of fuel,—cooking for one’s own benefit, not for the purpose of offerings to Viśvedevas,—‘ninditānna,’ the food given by tribes or thieves and such people.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.58].

065 Cutting down green trees for firewood, doing acts for one’s own advantage only, eating prohibited food,

Omission of fire-laying, theft, non-payment of debts, studying bad books, and the practising of the histrionic art.—(65)

कृतविवाहस्य विदुषो द्रव्यसंपत्तौ जातपुत्रस्य वा अनाहिताग्निता । साधिकाराविशेषान् नित्यश्रुतयो नित्याधानस्य प्रयोजिका इति स्मृतिकारो मन्यते ।

• कथं पुनः श्रुतिप्रयुक्तम् आधानं विहितम् । कस्यचित् प्रकरणे कथ्यते येनागमो ऽप्य् उच्छिद्येत । स्वतश् च प्रतीयमानाधिकारत्वाद् अग्निनिष्पत्त्यर्थतया कुतो ऽधिकारान्तरप्रयुक्तिः ।

• अग्नयस् तावद् विनियुक्ताः, “यद् आहवनीये जुहोति” (षड्ब् ५.१.९) इत्यादिना । न चाधानेन विना तेषां निष्पत्तिर् इत्य् अतो ऽग्निषु प्रयुक्तेषु तद् अपि प्रयुक्तम् इत्य् उच्यते ।

• यद्य् एवम् अग्निनिष्पत्त्यर्थं तद् आहिताग्निष्व् अधिकारः, असत्स्व् अग्निषु नाधिक्रियते । न चाधानं नित्यं यावज्जीवादिविधिवत् । अतः कथम् अनाहिताग्नितादोषः ।

• “अकुर्वन् विहितं कर्म” (म्ध् ११.४३) इति विहिताकरणे प्रायश्चित्तं विहितम्, “अग्नीन् आदधीत” (प्ब् २५.१३.१) इति ।

• सत्यं विहितम् । न स्वर्गाय नाधिकारान्तरसंपत्तये । किं तर्हि, अग्निनिष्पत्तये । अग्नेश् च ज्ञातप्रयोजना यस्य तैः प्रयोजनं स तेनोपायेनार्जयति, अन्यस् तु नेति । का तत्र विहिताकरणाशङ्का येन प्रायश्चित्ती स्यात् । यो हि सुवर्णं नार्जयति कथम् असौ दुष्येत ।

• उच्यते । अस्माद् एव वचनात् सत्य् अधिकारे ऽग्नयो ऽवश्यम् अर्जनीया इति गम्यते ।

• स्तेयम् उक्तेभ्यो द्रव्येभ्यो ऽन्यस्य । ऋणानां “चतुर्भिर् ऋणैः” इत्य् एतच्छ्रुतेर् अनुष्ठानम् । असच्छास्त्राणि चार्वाकनिर्ग्रन्थाः, यत्र न प्रमाणं न वेदकर्म फलसंबद्धम् आपद्यते । कौशीलवत्वं चारणत्वं नर्तनत्वं गायनत्वम् ॥ ११.६५ ॥

‘Omission of Fire-laying’—is an offence in the case of a man who has been married and has got a son, and is possessed of the requisite means. The author of the Smṛti thinks that since the Vedic texts laying down Fire-laying do not contain any conditions, they clearly indicate the compulsory character of that rite.

“How can the act of laying of the fire be regarded as enjoined by Vedic texts? If what is mentioned in one context were to be taken as enjoined in connection with another, this would lead to a great confusion regarding the true meaning of the scriptures. What the texts are actually found to prescribe are the Fires; how can that be taken as prescribing the act of laying?”

It is true that the Fires have been prescribed by such texts as—‘Libations are to be offered into the Āhavavīya Fire,’ and so forth; but, as a matter of fact, these Fires cannot be obtained without laying (or kindling); it is for this reason that when the Fires are prescribed, it is understood that the act of laying them is also prescribed.

“If the laying be meant simply for the obtaining of the Fires, then the injunction would apply to only those persons who perform the rite of Fire-laying; and not to one who has no fires at all. Nor is the act of laying compulsory, in the way in which the life-long rites are compulsory. How then win the omission of Fire-laying be an offence?”

The passage—‘by not doing what is enjoined, etc., etc.,’—has clearly laid down that one is liable to expiation if he omits to do what is enjoined; and the act of Fire-laying has been enjoined by such texts as ‘one shall lay the Fires.’

“It is true that the act has been enjoined; but it is so neither with a view to the obtaining of heaven, nor for any other purpose; it has been enjoined only for the purpose of obtaining the Fires. As for the Fires, their use is well known; so that the man who needs them shall obtain them by the means thus enjoined,—and others will not obtain them. What possibility would be there for the omitting of what has been enjoined,—which would render the person liable to Expiation? How can a man be regarded as an offender if he fails to obtain gold, for instance?”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—From the present text itself it is understood that if a man is entitled to Firelaying, he must obtain the Fires by means of the rites prescribed.

Theft—of articles other than those specifically named in this connection.

^(‘)Debts.’—This refers to the non-performance of those acts that have been laid down as paying off the ‘four debts’ (to the Gods, the Pitṛs, to Men and to the Fires).

‘Bad books’—e.g., those written by Cārvākas and Nirgranthas; those that are not trustworthy, and have no connection with Vedic rites or their effects.

‘Histrionic art’—acting, dancing and singing.—(65)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 538);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘anāhitāgnitā’, omitting to kindle the fires by Śrauta or Smārta rites, when one has the capacity to lay them,—‘steyam,’ appropriating of articles other than gold, slaves, horses, silver, land and deposits,—‘ṛṇānām anapakriyā,’ the non-payment of debts due to Gods, Ṛsis (Ṛṣis) and Piṭṛs,—‘asacchāstrādhigamanam,’ the study of heterodox literature.—‘Kauśīlavasya krīyā,’ constant addiction to dancing, singing and music.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.58].

066 Neglecting to kindle the sacred fires, theft, non-payment of (the three) debts, studying bad books, and practising (the arts of) dancing and singing,

Stealing grain, base metals and cattle,—intercourse with women addicted to drinking wine,—killing women, Śūdras, Vaiśyas and Kṣatriyas,—and heresy,—everyone of these is a ‘minor offence.’—(66)

शणसप्तदशानि **धान्यानि **। कुप्यं लोहताम्रादिमयं कुण्डकटाहादि ।

• ननु चाविशेषेण पूर्वश्लोके स्तेयम् उक्तम् ।

• परिहृतम् एतत् “हंसप्रतिषेधवत्” इति (उन्देर् ११.६२) । अथ वा स्तेयं यद् अन्यस्माद् उद्धृते गृहीते⁹⁵ संभवेनाशोध्यते न हि जातु स्तेयम् इति लोकप्रसिद्धं यथा धैर्यादिना अपकरणम् ।

• मद्यपेति । ब्राह्मणस्य क्षत्रियादिस्त्रीनिषेवनं सहशयनं संप्रयोगं वा । स्त्रिया वधो ब्राह्मण्या अपि । नास्तिक्यम् “नास्ति परलोको नास्ति दत्तम्” इत्याद्यभिनिवेशः ॥ ११.६६ ॥

‘Grains’—stands for the seventeen things, ending with ‘hemps.’

‘Base Metals’—Pans and pots made of iron, copper, eta “‘Stealth’ in general has been already mentioned in the preceding verse.”

This objection has been already answered by as (under 62). Or, ‘stealing’ here may be taken as standing for what is taken on loan but not repaid, or what is taken fraudulently,—and not for what is ordinarily known as ‘stealing.’

‘Addicted to drinking wine’;—the Brāhmaṇa’s intercourse,—i.e., lying with, or actual congress with Kṣatriya and Vaiśya women.

‘Killing of women’—of the Brāhmaṇa woman also.

‘Heresy’— the holding of such opinions as ‘there is no heaven,—there is no virtue in charity’ and so forth.—(66)

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 192), which has the following notes—‘Kupya,’ articles of copper and so forth,—and the Brāhmaṇa serving a drunkard man or woman.

**(verses 11.58-66)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.58].

उपपातकनिर्देशो ऽयम् अष्टाभिः श्लोकैः । अस्मिंश् च गोवधादौ कानिचित् स्नातकव्रतोपदिष्टानि परदाराभिगमनादीनि, कानिचिन् मासश्राद्धप्रकरणोक्तानि परिवेदनादीनि, कानिचिद् इहैवोक्तानि तटाकारामदारापत्यविक्रयादीनि तद्विपरीतानां त्रिविधानाम् अपि कर्मणाम् उपपातकार्थो ऽत्र निर्देशः । अस्य प्रयोजनम् उपपातकप्रायश्चित्तम्, यथा तेषु सामान्यं स्याद्, विशिष्टं च यथोपदेशं वक्ष्यति, “उपपातकसंयुक्तो गोघ्नो मासं यवान् पिबेत्” इत्य् एवमादि । स्नातकव्रतलोपे चाभोजनं प्रायश्चित्तम् आम्नातम्, तथा सासिकार्थप्रकरणोक्तानाम् अपाङ्क्त्यानां विशोधनम् इति । यानि त्व् अस्मिन्न् एव गोवधादौ गृहीतानि पुनः प्रायश्चित्तार्थं गृह्यन्ते, तेषाम् उभयत्राम्नानसामर्थ्याद्, विकल्पेनोभे अपि प्रायश्चित्ते स्याताम् । एतेन सर्वत्र पुनराम्नानं व्याख्यातम् । यानि चेह तटाकविक्रयादीनि प्रायश्चित्तविधानकार्याणि विज्ञायन्ते ऽनुमानतः । तेषां नियमोपदेशाभावाद् वर्जने ऽभ्युदयो नास्ति, अतिक्रमे तु प्रायश्चित्तम् अस्ति । येषां तु वर्णनोपदेशे प्रायश्चित्तविधानं च, यथा “न नग्नः स्नानम् आचरेत्” इति प्रतिषेधः, “स्नात्वा च विप्रो दिग्वासा” इत्य् एवमादि प्रायश्चित्तम् । तेषां वर्जने ऽभ्युदयो ऽतिक्रमे च प्रायश्चित्तम् । अथ तु प्रायश्चित्तविधानाद् एव प्रतिषेधो ऽनुमीयते । एवं च सत्य् उभयोर् अविशेषः ॥ ११.५८–६५ ॥

067 Stealing grain, base metals, or cattle, intercourse with women who drink spirituous liquor, slaying women, Sudras, Vaisyas, or Kshatriyas, and atheism, (are all) minor offences, causing loss of caste (Upapataka).

Causing pain to a Brāhmaṇa,—smelling at things that should not be smelt, or at wine,—cheating—and sexual intercourse with a man,—all this is declared to lead to loss of caste.—(66)

दण्डहस्तादिना शरीरपीडाजननं रुजःकृत्यम् ।

• किं पुनर् अघ्रेयम् । न हि भक्षणप्रतिषेधवत् घ्राणप्रतिषेधः क्वचिद् अस्ति । न तु शक्यं विज्ञातुं यद् अभक्ष्यं तद् अघ्रेयम् इति । घृतादेर् यागार्थम् उपात्तस्याभक्ष्यत्वं न चाघ्रेयत्वम्⁹⁶ ।

• उच्यते । पूतिदुर्गन्धतया घ्राणं विकरति लशुनपलाण्डुपुरुषपुरीषादि तद् गृह्यते । मद्यसाहचर्याच् च यद् अभक्ष्यं तद् एव विज्ञायते । न पूतिदार्वादि ।

• जैह्म्यं कुटिलता, अप्रसन्नहृदयत्वम्, अन्यद् उच्यते ऽन्यत् क्रियते हृदये चान्यत् ॥ ११.६७ ॥

‘Causing pain.’—Inflicting physical suffering with a stick or with the hand.

“What is it that should not be smelt? There is no prohibition of the smelling of anything, as there is of eating.

Nor does it follow that what should not he eaten is also what should not be smelt. Because butter and other things got together for sacrificial performance are what should not he eaten,—and yet these are not held to be what should not be smelt.” Our answer to this is as follows.—Such things as garlic, onion, human excreta and the like, on account of their foul smell, cause pain to the olfactory organ; and it is these things that are meant; and since ‘wine’ is also mentioned in this context, those tilings also are meant to be included the eating whereof has been forbidden. But rotten wood and such things are not meant

‘Cheating’—dishonesty; an unclean heart; saying one thing, doing another and thinking of a third.—(67)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.242);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 924);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyascitta 30a);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 42 and 464), which explains ‘rujaḥ kṛtyā’ as ‘causing pain,’—‘aghreya’ as garlic and the like,—‘jaihmyam’ as dishonest dealings with friends,—‘Maithunam puṃsi,’ as ‘vulgarity.’

Viṣṇu (38.1-6).—‘Causing pain to a Brāhmaṇa, smelling at things that should not he smelt, or at wine, dishonest dealing,—sexual intercourse with cattle, or with a man, or unnatural connection with a woman,—these are crimes leading to loss of caste.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.1-8, 12).—‘The following offences cause loss of caste: sea-voyage, stealing a Brāhmaṇa’s property or a deposit, giving false evidence regarding land, trading with merchandise of any description, serving Śūdras, begetting a son on a Śūdra woman, and thereby becoming her son. The following: minor offences cause loss of caste—intercourse with females who should not be approached, etc., etc. (sec under 58-66).’

068 Giving pain to a Brahmana (by a blow), smelling at things which ought not to be smelt at, or at spirituous liquor, cheating, and an unnatural offence with a man, are declared to cause the loss of caste (Gatibhramsa)

The killing of an ass, of a horse, of a camel, of a deer, of an elephant, of a goat, of a sheep, of fish, of a snake, and of a buffalo should be regarded as degrading the man to the rank of a ‘mixed caste.’—(68)

मृगा रुरुपृषतादय आरण्याः । इभो हस्ती । सत्य् अपि मृगत्वे बाहुल्येन ग्रामवासित्वाद् ग्रहणम् । मीनो मत्स्यः । अहिः सर्पः ॥ ११.६८ ॥

‘Deer’—stands for such wilder varieties as the ‘Ruru’ the ‘Pṛṣata’ and the like.

‘Ibha’—is elephant. Though the elephant also is a kind of ‘mṛga,’ yet it has been mentioned separately as being, among tame animals.

‘Mīna’—fish.

‘Ahi’—snake.—(68)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.242);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 924);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 30a);—and i n Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 42 and 465).

Viṣṇu (39.1),—‘Killing of domestic or wild animals is a crime degrading to a mixed caste.’

069 Killing a donkey, a horse, a camel, a deer, an elephant, a goat, a sheep, a fish, a snake, or a buffalo, must be known to degrade (the offender) to a mixed caste (Samkarikarana).

Accepting gifts from despicable persons, trading, serving Śūdras and the telling of a lie should be regarded as rendering one unworthy of receiving gifts.—(69)

निन्दिता अप्रतिग्राह्याः शूद्रा ये पापकर्माणस् तेभ्यो धनादानं प्रतिग्रहेण पुनः⁹⁷ पुनः प्रत्यादिष्टप्रतिग्रहस्य प्रतिषिद्धत्वात् ॥ ११.६९ ॥

‘Despicable’;—those from whom gifts should not be received,—such as Śūdras and sinners; the frequent acceptance of gifts from such men; a single acceptance is not forbidden.—(69)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.242) in Madanapārijāta (p. 924);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 30a);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 42, 403, 424 and 465.)

Viṣṇu (40.1).—‘Receiving anything from a despicable person, trading, subsisting by money-lending, telling lies, and serving a Śūdra—are crimes rendering one unworthy to receive alms.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.6).—‘Serving Śūdras (involves loss of caste).’

070 Accepting presents from blamed men, trading, serving Sudras, and speaking a falsehood, make (the offender) unworthy to receive gifts (Apatra).

The killing of insects, worms and birds,—the eating of things touched by wine,—the stealing of fruits, fuel or flowers—and inconstancy—are conducive to impurity.—(76)

कृमयो भूमिशरणाः क्षुद्रजन्तवः । कीटास् तथाविधा एव किंचिदुपचितमूर्तयो ऽपक्षाः सपक्षाश् च मक्षिकाशलभादयः । वयांसि पक्षिणः शुकसारिकादयः । मद्यानुगतं मद्येन संस्पृष्टं तद्गन्धाचितं च । अधैर्यं चेतसो ऽस्थिरत्वं स्वल्पे ऽप्य् उपघाते ऽपध्वंसः ॥ ११.७० ॥

‘Insects’—small beings living underground.

‘Worms’—the same, with better-formed bodies, winged as well as unwinged; e.g., flies, locusts and so forth.

‘Birds’—winged animals; e.g., the parrot, the ‘Sārikā’ and so forth.

‘Touched by wine’—that which has been in contact with wine and has imbibed its flavour.

‘Inconstancy’—want of firmness of mind; being perturbed on the slightest occasion.—(70)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1129), which adds that this refers to such ‘insects’ as have no bones;—in Mitākṣarā (3.242);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 924);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 30a);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 42, 238 and 465), which explains ‘madyānugatabhojanam’ as ‘such fruits and roots and other things as are brought up at the time of drinking wine’,—and ‘adhairyam,’ as ‘being too much perturbed at even a very slight loss.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.15, 16).—‘The following offences make men impure:—gambling, performing incantations, subsisting on corn-gleaning while not performing Agnihotra, subsisting on alms after studentship, living at the teacher’s house longer than four months after finishing study and teaching a person like the last, making a living by astrology and so forth.’

Āpastamba (1.21.12-18).—‘Now follows the enumeration of offences that make men impure: cohabitation of Ārya women with Śūdras, eating forbidden flesh, as of a dog, a man, etc., eating human excreta, eating a Śūdra’s leavings, and the cohabitation of Āryas with apapātra women;—some people declare that these also cause loss of caste.’

Viṣṇu (41.1-4).—‘Killing birds, amphibious animals, and aquatic animals, and worms or insects, eating herbs resembling intoxicants,—such are the crimes causing defilement.’

जातिभ्रंशकरसंकरीकरणापात्रीकरणमलिनीकरणानां वर्गशस् संज्ञानिर्देशश् चतुर्भिः श्लोकैः । अस्य प्रयोजनम् । वर्गश एव प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशो यथा स्यात् । वक्ष्यति हि “जातिभ्रंशकरं कर्म कृत्वा” इत्य् एवमादि ॥ ११.६६–६९ ॥

071 Killing insects, small or large, or birds, eating anything kept close to spirituous liquors, stealing fruit, firewood, or flowers, (are offences) which make impure (Malavaha).

Learn properly now those penances b y which all these offences, severally described, become expiated.—(71)

प्रायश्चित्तनिमित्तान्य् उक्तानि । संज्ञाभेदश् च प्रायश्चित्तभेदार्थः । वक्ष्यमाणस्य संक्षेपवचनम् ॥ ११.७१ ॥

The occasions for expiation have been described. Each of them has been given a distinct name for the purpose of pointing out the expiatory rite suitable to each.

This verse puts in brief what is going to be expounded.—(71)

Gautama (22.1).—‘Now follows the description of the penances.’

Bodhāyana (2.1.1).—‘Now the penances.’

वक्ष्यमाणप्रायश्चित्तोपन्यासार्थः श्लोकः ॥ ११.७० ॥

072 Learn (now) completely those penances, by means of which all the several offences mentioned (can) be expiated.

The Brāhmaṇa-slayer shall, for his purification, build a hut in the forest, live there for twelve years, subsisting on alms; making for himself a flag consisting of the head of the dead man.—(72)

तृणपर्णादिकृतो निकेतो वर्षातपशीतत्राणादिहेतुर् गृहं कुटीति कथ्यते । समा वर्षाणि । भैक्षाशी इति । स्मृत्यन्तरे सप्तागारम् अनभिसंहितं च भैक्ष्यम् उक्तम् । शवशिरो हतस्यान्यस्य वा ।

ध्वजे** काष्ठादिमयीं शिरःप्रतिकृतिम् उद्यतां धारयेद् इत् मन्यते⁹⁸ ।

• नैवं शब्दार्थविदः । न हि तच्छवशिर इत्य् उच्यते ।

• अन्यो ऽप्य् अत्र विधिर् भविष्यति “कृतवापनो निवसेत्” (म्ध् ११.७७) इत्यादि ॥ ११.७२ ॥

^(‘)Hut’—a house built of grass and leaves, capable of resisting rain, heat and cold.

‘Samāḥ’—years.

‘Subsisting on alms.’—Another Smṛti text lays down that these alms shall be obtained from twelve houses, not in close proximity to one another.

‘The head of the dead man’—Either the head of the man killed by him, or a wooden or some other image of the head, shall be held aloft Such is the explanation given by some people.

But men knowing the right meaning of words do not accept this explanation as this is not what is meant by the term ‘śavaśiraḥ.’

Other rules to be observed by the man are going to be described under 78.—(72)

The first half of this verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 399).

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 787);—in Aparārka (p. 1053), to the effect that the man should place a human skull on the top of a flag;—in Mitākṣarā (3.243), which explains the first half as prescribing living in the forest and the phrase ‘kṛtvā śavaśirodhvajam’ as meaning that the man shall carry a staff placing at its top the skull of the man murdered by him;—in Śuddhikaumdī (p. 241), which says that the year meant here is the ‘sāvana’ one’;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 62 and 522), which says that he is to have recourse to ‘begging alms’ only when wild growing fruits are not available.

(verses 11.72-86)

Gautama (22.2-6).—‘He who has intentionally slain a Brāhmaṇa shall emaciate himself and thrice throw himself into the fire;—or he may become in battle the target for armed men;—or remaining chaste, he may, during twelve years, enter the village only for the purpose of begging,—carrying the foot of a bedstead and a skull in his hand, and proclaiming his deed. If he meets an Ārya, he shall step out of the road. Standing by day and sitting at night, and bathing in the morning, at noon and in the evening, he may be purified after twelve years,—or by saving the life of a Brāhmaṇa; or if he is thrice vanquished in trying to recover the property of a Brāhmaṇa stolen by robbers, or by bathing with the priests at the end of the Āśvamedha sacrifice;—or at the end of any other sacrifice, provided that an Agniṣṭut forms part of it. The same penance should be performed even if he has attempted the life of a Brāhmaṇa, but failed to kill him; likewise if he has killed a Brāhmaṇa woman who had bathed after her monthly course.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.2-6).—‘The murderer of a learned Brāhmaṇa shall practise the following penance during twelve years:—Carrying a skull and the foot of a bedstead, dressed in ass skin, staying in the forest; making a skull his flag, he shall cause a hut to be built in the cremation ground and reside there; going to seven houses to heg food, while proclaiming his deed, he shall support life with whatever he gets and shall fast if he obtains nothing. Or he may offer an Āśvamedha, a Gosava or an Agniṣṭut; or he may bathe with the priests on the completion of the Āśvamedha. They also quote the following:—“He who unintentionally kills a Brāhmaṇa becomes sinful according to law; the sages declare that he may be purified if he did it unintentionally. But no expiation is possible for a wilful murderer.”

Āpastamba (1.24.11-22).—‘The Brāhmaṇa-slayer shall erect a hut in the forest, restrain his speech, carry the skull like the flag and cover his body from his navel to his knees with a quarter of a hempen cloth. The path for him when he goes to the village is the space between the tracks; and if he sees another Ārya, he shall step out of the road He shall go to the village carrying a broken dish of metal of inferior quality. He may go to seven houses only, crying—“Who will give alms to the accursed?” That is how he should gain his livelihood. If he does not obtain anything, he must fast. Whilst performing this penance, he should tend cows. After having performed this penance for twelve years, he must perform that customary ceremony which may gain for him re-admission into society. Or, he may build a hut on the path of robbers and live there, trying to recover from them the cows of Brāhmaṇas; and he becomes free from his sin after he has been worsted by them thrice, or after he has vanquished them.’

Do. (1.25.11).—‘A non-Brāhmaṇa who has killed a Brāhmaṇa shall go to the battle-field and place himself between the two hostile armies; there they shall kill him.’

Do. (1.28.21 and 1.29.1).—‘He who has killed a learned Brāhmaṇa shall put on ass’ skin or dog’s skin with the hair turned outside and take up a human skull as his drinking vessel; and he shall take the foot of a bedstead instead of a staff, and proclaiming his deed, he shall go about saying—“Who gives alms to the murderer of a Bhrūṇa?” Obtaining thus his livelihood, he shall dwell in an empty house, or under a tree,—having no intercourse with Āryas. Thus shall he live until his last breath. After death his sin is taken off.’

Viṣṇu (35.6).—‘Those who have committed a “Mahāpātaka” are purified by Āśvamedha and by visiting all Tīrthas.’

Do. (50.1-6, 15).—‘The man should make a hut of leaves in a forest and live in it; he shall bathe three times a day: he shall collect alms, going from one village to another, and proclaiming his own deed; he shall sleep on the grass; this is called the Mahāvrata. He who has killed a Brāhmaṇa must perform this for twelve years. One who is performing this penance should carry the skull of the person slain, as his flag.’

Yājñavalkya (3.243-250).—‘One who has killed a Brāhmaṇa shall carry a skull and a flag, shall live on alms, eating very little and proclaiming his deed; living thus for twelve years he attains purity. Or he may attain purity by saving the life of a Brāhmaṇa, or that of twelve cows; as also by joining in the final bath of the Āśvamedha sacrifice. The Brāhmaṇa-slayer may also become purified if he relieves the pain of a long-suffering Brāhmaṇa, or relieves from danger a cow on the road. If robbers have taken away a Brāhmaṇa’s entire property and the Brāhmaṇa slayer recovers it from them, or if he is himself killed in the attempt, or if he is even wounded in the attempt, he becomes purified. Or he may offer his body into the fire beginning with the hairs and ending with the marrow, indue order. Or he may attain purity by becoming killed in battle;—he is purified even if he is mortally wounded but does not die. Or he is purified by reciting the Vedic text thrice; eating very little and going along the Sarasvatī river from its mouth towards its source. Or he may attain purity by giving to a proper person a large amount of wealth to his satisfaction.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.25-28).—‘The slayer of a Brāhmaṇa shall kindle a fire and offer therein to Death the following eight oblations consisting of portions of his own body—(l) hair, (2) skin, (3) blood, (4) flesh, (5) sinews (6) fat, (7) bones, (8) marrow; (with appropriate mantras). Or he shall fight for the sake of the King, or for the sake of Brāhmaṇas, and die in battle facing the foe. It is declared in the Veda that “a murderer who remains thrice unvanquished, or is thrice defeated in battle, becomes pure.’”

Parāśara (8.42).—(Same as Manu, 80.)

Mahābhārata (12.335.4-11).—‘He shall eat only once, begging alms and performing his duties; taking a begging bowl in his band, moving on wooden sandals, celebate and ever alert; free from jealousy, sleeping on the ground, proclaiming bis deed among people; living thus for twelve years, the Brāhmaṇa-slayer becomes absolved (then follow Manu’s verses 74, 76, 77).

(See [Manu above, 9.317], and [1.93-95]; and below 12.112 in connection with 11.85 and 86.)

अस्योपरिष्टाद् अत्रैव [प्र]करणे गुणविधिं वक्ष्यति- “कृतवापनो निवसेद् ग्रामान्ते गोव्रजे ऽपि वा” इत्य् एवमादि । कृत्वा शवशिरोध्वजम् इत्य् अत्र मुख्यं गृह्यते, गुणवृत्तेः कारणाभावात् । अवकीर्णप्रायश्चित्तगर्दभाजिनवत् शवशिरो मुख्यम् एव स्यात् । सुरापानप्रायस्चित्तवद् विचित्रा शास्त्रगतिः । न च वचनस्यातिभारो ऽस्ति । न चात्र न्यायगतिस् साध्वी शास्त्रलक्षणत्वाद् धर्माधर्मयोः ॥ ११.७१ ॥

073 For his purification the slayer of a Brahmana shall make a hut in the forest and dwell (in it) during twelve years, subsisting on alms and making the skull of a dead man his flag.

Or, by his own will, he should become the target of armed men cognisant (of his purpose); or he may thrice throw himself headlong into blazing fire.—(73)

धानुष्का यत्र युद्धं कर्तुं लक्षं विध्यन्ति तत्र तद्भूतेन भवितव्यम् । अथ वा संग्रामे ऽन्यत्र युध्यमानानां शस्त्रप्रहाराः प्रतीप्सितव्याः । आत्मन इच्छयेति । प्रमादात्⁹⁹ तदन्तर्गतस्य सत्य् अपि स्ववधे न शुद्धिः । विदुषाम् इत्य् एव जानते¹⁰⁰ प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशो ऽयम् इति । अथ वा धनुर्वेदज्ञानम् । अग्नौ वात्मानं क्षिपेत् समिद्धे त्रिर् उत्थाय पुनः पतेत् ॥ ११.७३ ॥

He should offer himself as the target, when archers are practising. Or, ho may invite, in battle, the strokes of the weapons of the armed men.

‘By his own will.’—This shows that if he happens to go to the place and he struck dead only by chance,—this would not purify him.

‘Cognisant’— who knows that the man is exposing himself as an expiation. Or, it may mean that, they should be well-versed in the Science of Archery.

‘He may throw himself into fire, thrice.’—Rising, he should throw himself again and again, three times.—(73)

“According to the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa, which Kullūka and Rāghavānanda quote, these two penances and that mentioned in the next verse are to be performed by a Kṣatriya who slew a Brāhmaṇa,—those ending in death by an offender who, himself destitute of good qualities, killed a learned Śrotriya, and the lighter ones by an eminent king who unintentionally caused the death of a worthless Brāhmaṇa.” (Buhler).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 405), which adds that the various alternatives here laid down are to be understood to vary with such circumstances of each case as that of the act being intentional or otherwise, the person killed being learned or ignorant and so forth;—in Aparārka (p. 1060), which explains ‘viduṣām’ as ‘persons prescribing the expiation for him’; and adds that in the absence of such persons he should voluntarily make himself the target of persons who may be engaged in fighting.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.244) as indicating that there is freedom of choice for the man who has committed the offence;—again under 2.247, where the meaning is explained as the man should throw himself into the fire by plunging into it headlong three times.

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

लक्ष्यं शस्त्रभृतां वा स्याद् विदुषाम् इच्छयात्महः ।

द्वितीयम् इदं वैकल्पिकं प्रायश्चित्तं पूर्वस्मात् । विदुषां प्रायश्चित्तीयो ऽयम् इत्य् एवम् जानताम्। इष्वस्त्रज्ञानां वा, चतुष्पादं धनुर्वेदम् अधीयानानाम् ।

प्रास्येद् आत्मानम् अग्नौ वा समिद्धे त्रिर् अवाक्शिराः ॥ ११.७२ ॥

एतच् च केचिद् इच्छायाम् अशबलम् आहुस् तृतीयम् ॥ ११.७२ ॥

074 Or let him, of his own free will, become (in a battle) the target of archers who know (his purpose); or he may thrice throw himself headlong into a blazing fire;

Or, he may offer the Aśvamedha, or the Svajit—the Gosava, or the Abhijit—Viśvajit, or the triple Agniṣṭut.—(74)

जनपदेश्वरस्य्आश्वमेधे ऽधिकारः । तत्र हिरणादिप्राच्यादिगम्यः आहृतं द्रव्यं दक्षिणा विहिता । ये चानाहिताग्नयस् ते न यागेष्व् अधिक्रियन्ते । न पुनस् तदर्थम् एवाधानं कर्तव्यम् । कर्माणि हि प्रयश्चित्तार्थानि साङ्गानि । न चाङ्गम् आधानम् ॥ ११.७४ ॥

It is only the lord of a kingdom that is entitled to the performance of a Horse-sacrifice; as the sacrificial fee prescribed in that connection is such gold and other metals as have been won from the Eastern and other quarters.

Those persons who have not performed the Fire-laying rite are not entitled to the performance of any sacrifice. Nor would they he justified in laying the Fires for the purpose of these sacrifices only; because the rites for the purposes of expiation are to be done only along with their own accessory details, and ‘Fire-laying’ does not form the accessory of any of these sacrifices.—(74)

‘Svarjitā.’—‘Svarjit’ is the name of a sacrifice, according to Nārāyaṇa and Kullūka;—according to others the term is only an epithet of ‘gosavena.’

‘Trivṛtā’.—Qualifies the ‘Agniṣṭut’, according to Medhātithi;—but stands for a distinct sacrifice, the Trivṛtstoma, according to Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa.

For the Gosava see Kātyāyana-śrautasūtra 22.11.3 for the Ābhijit, Āśvalāyana-śrautasūtra 8.5.13;—for the Agniṣṭut, Ibid 9.7.22—25.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.248);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 405).

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

075 Or he may offer a horse-sacrifice, a Svargit, a Gosava, an Abhigit, a Visvagit, a Trivrit, or an Agnishtut;

Or, for the purpose of expiating Brāhmaṇa -slay ing, he shall walk eight hundred miles, reciting one of the Vedas, eating little and controlling his senses.—(75)

मितभुग् यावता न तृप्यति । नियतेन्द्रियो ब्रह्मचारी विषयेष्व् अगृध्नुः ॥ ११.७५ ॥

‘Eating little’—i.e., just enough to satisfy his hunger.

‘Controlling his senses’—i.e.. leading a celibate life and not hankering after sensual objects.—(75)

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 172).

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

076 Or, in order to remove (the guilt of) slaying a Brahmana, he may walk one hundred yoganas, reciting one of the Vedas, eating little, and controlling his organs;

He shall make over to a Brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda, his entire property, which should be wealth sufficient for his maintenance,—or a house along with the furniture.—(76)

यावत् किंचिद् गोहिरण्यादिकं तत् सर्वं दातव्यम् । अत्रार्थवादो धनं हि जीवनायालम् इति । तावता धनेन दत्तेनान्यस्मै जीवितं दत्तं भवतीत्य् एव साम्यम् । गृहं वासः परिच्छदम् । परिच्छदशब्देन यावत् किंचिद् गृहोपकरणं सर्पिस्तैलधान्यादि कुण्डकटाहादि कुप्यशयनासनादि तत् सर्वं गृह्यते ॥ ११.७६ ॥

He shall give away everything that he may be possessed of, in the shape of gold, cattle and the like.

The author adds a declamatory qualification—‘wealth sufficient for his maintenance’:—That is the giving of the property would be equal to making a gift to him of his life.

‘Or, a house along with the furniture.’—‘Furniture’ includes all such household accessories as butter, oil, grains, pots and pans, metals, beds, seats and so forth.—(76)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.250);—in Aparārka (p. 1061), which adds the following notes:—One who is unable to provide property enough for his lifelong maintenance, should give a house with furniture, and if unable to give this latter, he should give away all that he possesses;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 802), which also adds the same note;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 399), which adds that the rule is that one who is sonless shall give away his entire property, while one who has a son shall give only a house with furniture;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 6a.)

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

077 Or he may present to a Brahmana, learned in the Vedas, whole property, as much wealth as suffices for the maintenance (of the recipient), or a house together with the furniture;

Or, subsisting on ‘sacrificial food,’ he may walk along each stream of the Sarasvatī; or with food restrained, he may thrice recite the text of the Veda—(77)

हविष्यं मुन्यन्नं नीवारादि ग्राम्यम् अप् पयोघृतादि । प्रतिस्रोतः स्रोतःस्रोतः प्रति यावन्ति सरस्वत्याः स्रोतांसि तावन्त्य् अनुसरेत् । नियताहार आहारनिवृत्तिं कृत्वा । वेदसंहितां समन्त्रब्राह्मणकाम् त्रिर् आवर्तेत ।

• एतेषां प्रायश्चित्तानाम् इयम् अत्र व्यवस्था । बुद्धिपूर्वेण ब्राह्मणमात्रवधे द्वादशवार्षिकं “लक्ष्यं शस्त्रभृताम्” (म्ध् ११.७२) अनेन विकल्प्यते¹⁰¹ । यद्य् अपि द्वादशवार्षिके न मरणान्तम्, तथापि दैवोपपत्तिपतिते ऽन्तरामरणे सामिकृते प्रायश्चित्ते शुद्ध्यभावत् प्रत्यवायो न निवर्तते । द्वितीये तु तदानीम् एव निर्मुक्तपापः । शस्त्रहतो वा कदाचिन् न म्रियेत । अत एव आद्योपात्तप्रायश्चित्तम् इच्चया विकल्पेन दातव्यम् ।

• अग्नौ प्रवेसस् तु श्रोत्रियत्वादिगुणयुक्ते । तत्रापि सवनगुणे ऽग्नौ । सन्ति ब्रह्मघ्नस् त्रिरवस्थास् तस्यावसानं शस्त्रेण गात्राणां खण्डसो विदारणम् सवनगत इति पठन्ति । न च प्राणान्तिकेषु द्वैगुण्यसंभवः¹⁰² । न ह्य् एकस्मिन् जन्मनि द्विर् मरणोपपत्तिः । तत्तुल्यपीडानुभवात् तस्य द्वैगुण्यम् । न च द्वादशवार्षिकं द्विगुणं युक्तम् । को हि देवसमश् चतुर्विंशतिवर्षाणि प्रायश्चित्तं चरेत् । संवत्सरशेषे हि मृतस्य सर्वं निष्फलं स्यात् ।

• अश्वमेधयागस् तु त्रैवर्णिकानां सति संभवे पूर्वोक्तैर् विकल्प्यते । गोसवादयस् त्व् अबुद्धिपूर्वं महागुणवति हन्तरि स्युः । योजनशतं बुद्ध्या च¹⁰³ ब्राह्मणजातीयमात्रवधे । एवम् उत्तरान्य् अपि । “त्रिवृताग्निष्टुता” (म्ध् ११.७३) इति समानाधिकरणे । एवं “स्वर्जिता गोसवेन” (म्ध् ११.७३) इति अभिजिद्विश्वजितौ द्वे प्रायश्चित्ते ॥ ११.७७ ॥

‘Sacrificial food.’—Food fit for ascetics; such as Nīvara and other corns; also such village-produce as butter, milk and such things.

‘Along each stream.’—Of the Sarasvatī river there are several branch-streams; and along each one of these he should walk.

‘With food restrained’—desisting from food.

‘Text of the Veda’—consisting of the ‘mantra’ and ‘Brāhmaṇa’ portions. This he shall repeat thrice.

With regard to these Expiatory Rites, the following is the final conclusion:—(A) In the ease of one intentionally killing a common Brāhmaṇa, the ‘twelve-year-long penance’ is an alternative to ‘becoming the target, of armed men.’ The ‘twelve-year-old penance’ does not end in death; yet, if in the interval the man dies off by chance, the expiation would have been only half-done, and hence the purification not being complete, the guilt would not cease;—in the case of the other alternative, on the other hand, the man becomes freed from sin then and there; and it would be by sheer chance that the man, struck with arrows, would not die. Hence, in any particular case, the one or the other alternative expiation might be prescribed, in accordance with one’s wish.—(B) As regards ‘falling into Fire,’ this should be done only in cases where the individual Brāhmaṇa killed was endowed with Vedic learning and such other superior qualities; and this ‘falling’ should be in the sacrificial fire. They have a saying on this point.—‘For the Brāhmaṇa-slayer there are three conditions:—(1) dying, (2) cutting off of limbs with weapons, and (3) consignment to the

Sacrificial fire.’ There can be no duplication in the case of those penances that end in death; as, during a single life, no one can die twice. Hence, where such duplication is necessary, it should be secured by making the man suffer additional torture. In the case of the ‘Twelve-year Penance,’ no such duplication would be right; for what man is there who would he possessed of the energy of the gods, which would enable him to perform a rite for twenty-four years? Specially as, if at the end of a certain year, the man were to die off, the entire expiation would become frustrated.—(C) As regards the Horse-sacrifice (prescribed in 75), it is an optional alternative permissible for the three higher castes, only when it is possible for the person concerned to perform it—(d) As regards the ‘Gosava’ and other sacrifices (prescribed in 75), these would be admissible only in a case where the slaying is done unintentionally and the slayer happens to be a highly qualified person.—(E) ‘Walking eight hundred miles’ is admissible in a case where the killing is done intentionally and the person killed is a common Brāhmaṇa; and so on with the rest In 75, ‘tṛvṛtā’ (triple) is an epithet of ‘Agniṣṭutā.’ Similarly the ‘Svarjit-gosava’ and the ‘Abhijit-Viśvajit’ constitute two expiatory rites.—(77)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.249), to the effect that the food to be eaten should be ‘haviṣya’ only;—and in Aparārka (p. 1060), which adds that ‘niyatāhāra’ means that the food should be either small in quantity or of ‘haviṣya’ kind only;—the man becomes purified by reciting the text of the Veda three times,—or by being restrained in food and going along the Sarasvatī from its mouth upwards to its source.

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

यजेत वाश्वमेधेन स्वर्जिता गोसवेन वा ।
अभिजिद्विश्वजिद्भ्यां वा त्रिवृत्ताग्निष्टुतापि वा ॥ ११.७३ ॥
जपन् वान्यतमं वेदं योजनानां शतं व्रजेत् ।
ब्रह्महत्यापनोदाय मितभुङ् नियतेन्द्रियः ॥ ११.७४ ॥
सर्वस्वं वा वेदविदे ब्राह्मणायोपपादयेत् ।

अथ वा,

धनं वा जीवनायालं गृहं वा सपरिच्छदम् ॥ ११.७५ ॥
हविष्यभुग् वानुसरेत् प्रतिस्रोतः सरस्वतीम् ।
जपेद् वा नियताहरस् त्रिर् वै वेदस्य संहिताम् ॥ ११.७६ ॥

त्रयोदश ब्रह्महत्याप्रयश्चित्तानि सामर्थ्याद् यथाधिकारं चतुर्णाम् अपि वर्णानां विकल्पतो विज्ञेयानि । येन साक्षाद् अत्र विकल्पः श्रूयते वाशब्दास्रयः । असामर्थ्याद् अप्य् अयं समुच्चयासंभवे विकल्पः । स्वकाभिप्रायणस्य श्रुतिप्रतिषिद्धस्यापि प्रयस्चित्ताद् अन्यत्र सामर्थ्यम् । इदानीं द्वादसवार्षिअप्रायस्चित्तस्य गुणविध्यर्थम् आरभ्यते ॥ ११.७५–७६ ॥

078 Or, subsisting on sacrificial food, he may walk against the stream along (the whole course of the river) Sarasvati; or, restricting his food (very much), he may mutter thrice the Samhita of a Veda.

Having shaved off, he may dwell at the extremity of the village, or in a cow-pen, or in a hermitage under a tree,—giving himself up to doing good to cows and Brāhmaṇas.—(78)

द्वादशवार्षिकस्यायं विशेषः कश्चिद् वैकल्पिकधर्म उपदिश्यते । वपनम् अपूर्वम्¹⁰⁴ । आश्रमवृक्षमूले वैकल्पिकम् एव वा कुटी स्यात् । किम् अर्थं पुनस् तत्रैव नोक्तम् । प्रक्रान्तद्वादशवार्षिकस्य वक्ष्यमाणं यथा स्यात् पृथक् प्रायश्चित्तम् मा भूद् इति पूर्वैर् व्याख्यातम् । स्वतन्त्रं ह्य् अन्यस्मिन् प्रक्रान्ते ऽन्यत्र प्राप्नोति, प्रक्रान्तासमाप्तौ दोषश्रवणात् । पृथगधिकारात् पृथक्प्रयोगता । अन्यस्यान्यतरप्रयोगः ॥ ११.७८ ॥

This verse sets forth certain optional details regarding the ‘Twelve-year Penance,’—the ‘shaving’ being the only additional factor laid down.

The man living under a tree in the hermitage,—this being an alternative to the ‘hut’ (prescribed in 73).

“How is it that this alternative was not mentioned along with the other one (in 73)?”

The older writers have explained that this has not been done, because the author desired it to be understood that all that follows after the present verse pertains to the ‘Twelve-year Penance,’ and it does not constitute a distinct penance. If in the course of the treatment of one subject, an entirely new subject is introduced, it becomes something wholly different; and the introducing of a wholly different subject before the one already taken up has been finished, would be highly objectionable. If the rite thus interpolated were an independent one, the only thing one could do would be to adopt in practice only one of the two.—(78)

This verse lays down an option regarding observances during the twelve years of penance (verse 72)—according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka;—according to Nārāyaṇa it provides a general rule for all penances.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.243), which cays that this is an option to what has been said in verse 72;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 788), which also adds that this lays down an option;—and in parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, pp. 399-400), which notes that the ‘vā’ of the ‘Kṛtavāpanaḥ’ indicates that ‘shaving’ is an option to the wearing of matted locks.

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

“ब्रह्महा द्वादशाब्दानि कुटिं कृत्वा वने वसेत्” इत्य् एव[मादिना] यद् उक्तं तस्य वैकल्पिकाः केचिद् अत्रोपदिश्यन्ते धर्माः केचिद् अपूर्वा एव । गोब्राह्मणहिते रत अस्य चानन्तरोक्तस्य गुणविधिर् अर्थवादः ॥ ११.७७ ॥

079 Having shaved off (all his hair), he may dwell at the extremity of the village, or in a cow-pen, or in a hermitage, or at the root of a tree, taking pleasure in doing good to cows and Brahmanas.

He may give up his life unhesitatingly for the sake of a cow or a Brāhmaṇa; the protector of the cow and the Brāhmaṇa becomes absolved from the guilt of Brāhmaṇa-killing.—(79)

अपरित्रायापि सम्यक् प्राणपरित्यागेन मुच्यते । परित्रायाप्राणत्यागेनापि ॥ ११.७९ ॥

If the man gives up his life in trying to save,—even though he does not succeed in saving,—he becomes absolved; while, if he succeeds in saving, then he becomes absolved, even though he may not lose his life in doing it.—(79)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 797), which adds the following explanation:—Here the text lays down separately, (a) ‘immediate surrendering of his life for the sake of a Brāhmaṇa,’ and (b) ‘saving of the cow and the Brāhmaṇa’; from which it follows that—(a) if the man succeeds in saving the cow or the Brāhmaṇa, he becomes purified, even though his own life may have been saved, and (b) even though he may not succeed in saving the cow or the Bārhmaṇa, he becomes purified, if he has tried his best and lost his life in the attempt to save them.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1058), which adds the following notes:—This is to be taken in connection with the ‘Twelve years penance’; even though the man may not succeed in saving the cow or the Brāhmaṇa, if he has tried his best, and perishes in the attempt, he becomes purified; and if he has succeeded in saving them, he becomes purified, even though he may not have lost his life in the attempt.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.244), which adds that ‘saving the Brāhmaṇa’ and ‘perishing for the sake of the Brāhmaṇa’ are two distinct things.

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

विनाशवत् स्थित्यर्थः । एतच् च प्रक्रान्तद्वादसवार्षिकप्रायश्चित्तस्योपदिश्यते । तथा च गोब्राह्मणपरित्राय्यासमाप्तकालो ऽपि मरणाच् छुध्यति । एवं परित्राय्यामृतो ऽपि शुध्यतीत्यर्थः । एवं च नेदं प्रायश्चित्तान्तरम्, किं तर्ह्य् अस्यैव गुणविधिः । यदि ह्य् एतत् प्रायश्चित्तान्तरं स्यात्, तेन वैकल्पिकत्वाद् एतेषां प्रक्रान्तद्वादसवार्षिकप्रायस्चित्तो ऽनेन नाधिक्रियते । येन वैकल्पिकेष्व् एकस्मिन् प्रायश्चित्ते ऽधिकृतो न प्रायश्चित्तान्तरेणाधिक्रियते, वैकल्पिकत्वाद् एव । इतरथा हि समुच्चयः स्यात् । एवं च विकल्पे ऽस्य साक्षाच् छ्रवणम् उपरुध्यते । न चायं न्याय्यः । श्रुतार्थहानिर् अश्रुतकल्पना च । तस्माद् यथोक्त एवार्थः ॥ ११.७८ ॥

080 He who unhesitatingly abandons life for the sake of Brahmanas or of cows, is freed from (the guilt of) the murder of a Brahmana, and (so is he) who saves (the life of) a cow, or of a Brahmana.

If he fights at least thrice on behalf of a Brāhmaṇa, or reconquers his entire property, or gives up his life for his sake,—he becomes absolved.—(80)

प्रतिरोद्धा प्रवृत्तः शस्त्रेण क्षतो वा युद्धकरणे । त्र्यवरम् । यदि न्यूनं तदा तिस्र आवृत्तयः । कृते युद्धे ऽसौ मुच्यते, अपरित्राय मृतो ऽपि । सर्वस्वम् अवजित्येति ब्राह्मणादीनां चौरापहृतं यदि प्रत्यानयति, तदा मुच्यते । ब्राह्मणस्य वा तन्निमित्ते प्राणदाने ।

• ननु चोक्तम् “गोप्ता गोर् ब्राह्मणस्य”¹⁰⁵ (म्ध् ११.७९) इति ।

• सत्यम् । युद्देनान्येन वा शरीरव्यापारेण गां पङ्कलग्नां दस्युभिर् वाह्यमानां ब्राह्मणं शत्रुभिश् चौरैर् नद्या वापह्रियमाणं यदि मोक्षयति ततः शुध्यतीत्य् उक्तम् । इह तु तन्निमित्तग्रहणाद् यदि धने ऽपह्रियमाणे ब्राह्मणो व्यामूढतयात्मानं हन्ति निरपेक्षं वा चोरैर् युध्यते तत्र तत्समधनदानेन “मा मृथा अहं त इयद् धनं ददमि” इति तम् आश्वास्य दत्वा मुच्यते ॥ ११.८० ॥

‘Fights’—Takes up arms, or becomes wounded in the fight;—‘at least thrice’—He should repeat the act at least three times. If he does the fighting, he becomes absolved, even though he might have been killed without having saved the Brāhmaṇa.

‘Reconquers his entire property.’—If the Brāhmaṇa’s property has been taken away by thieves, if he wins it back for him, he becomes absolved;—as also if he ‘gives up his life’ for the sake of the Brāhmaṇa.

“Giving up one’s life in defence of the Brāhmaṇa has been already mentioned (in the preceding verse).”

True; but what has been said in the preceding verse is that ‘the man becomes purified if he rescues, by fighting or by some other physical means, (1) a cow stuck in the mire, or (2) a cow being taken away by robbers, or (3) a Brāhmaṇa, being carried away either by his enemies, or by robbers, or by a stream’; while in the present verse what is mentioned is doing all this ‘for his sake’; and what is meant is that the man becomes absolved, if when, on his property being taken away by robbers, the Brāhmaṇa becomes stupefied and proceeds to commit suicide,—or when he is fighting unaided against the robbers,—if the man comes forward and pays to him the equivalent of what he has lost, and consoles him with such words as—‘do not commit suicide, I am giving you this much wealth.’—(80)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.246).

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

त्र्यवरं प्रतिरोद्धा वा

ब्राह्मणद्रव्यापहरणे तत्प्रतिमोचनाय । अमोचने न मुच्यत इत्य् अर्थः । निरुपविधं प्रवर्तमानः ।

सर्वस्वम् अवजित्य वा ।

अप्रतिरोद्धापि त्र्यवरं प्रथम एव ब्राह्मणस्वापहरणप्रतिमोचनार्थे प्रयोगे ।

विप्रस्य तन्निमित्ते वा प्राणालाभे विमुच्यते ॥ ११.७९ ॥

इत्य् एतद् उक्तार्थम् । अस्येदानीम् उपसंहारो, यथायोगं प्रायश्चित्तम् अनुषक्तव्यः ॥ ११.७९ ॥

081 If either he fights at least three times (against robbers in defence of) a Brahmana’s (property), or reconquers the whole property of a Brahmana, or if he loses his life for such a cause, he is freed (from his guilt).

He who remains thus firm in his vow, always chaste and with concentrated mind, shakes off the sin of Brāhmaṇa-slaying, on the completion of the twelfth year.—(81)

अस्माद्¹⁰⁶ वचनाद् आद्यशेषम् उत्क्रान्तं विज्ञायते । दृढव्रत इति, समाहित इति च पादपूरणे पदे । उपसंहारो ऽयं पूर्वस्य ॥ ११.८१ ॥

This shows that the subject of the ‘Twelve-year Penance’ started (in 73), ends here.

‘Firm in his vow and with concentrated mind,’ these two terms only serve to fill up the metre.

This verse sums up what has gone before.—(81)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.244) as summing up the ‘twelve years’ penance.

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

082 He who thus (remains) always firm in his vow, chaste, and of concentrated mind, removes after the lapse of twelve years (the guilt of) slaying a Brahmana.

Or, having confessed his guilt before the congregation of the gods of Earth and the gods of men, if he bathes at the Final Bath of the Horse-sacrifice,—he becomes absolved.—(82)

चरमपक्ष उच्यते । शिष्ट्वा स्वम् एन आत्मीयं दोषम् । भूमिदेवतानां ब्राह्मणानां नरदेवैः क्षत्रियैः समागमे । ऋत्विजो ब्राह्मणाः¹⁰⁷ क्षत्रियो यजमान एवं कृताश्वमेधे ऽवभृतस्नातो विमुच्यते । द्वादशवार्षिकस्योपसंहृतत्वात् स्वतन्त्रम् इदं वैकल्पिकम् इच्छति ।

• अन्ये तु¹⁰⁸ वैकल्पिकानां मध्य उपदेशात् प्रक्रान्तद्वादशवार्षिकस्यैव गोब्राह्मणपरित्राणवत् समाप्त्यवधिम् आहुः । यथा सारस्वतेन पक्षं वा प्रस्रवणं प्राप्योत्थानम् इति ।

• वयं तु ब्रूमः । उपसंहृतत्वाद् आद्यस्य¹⁰⁹ वैकल्पिकमधे वा पाठाद् उभयरूपतास्य प्रक्रान्ते ऽपक्रान्ते च सति संभवे ॥ ११.८२ ॥

This text sets forth the last alternative.

‘Having confessed his guilt,’ his offence—‘before the Congregation of the Gods of Earth—Brāhmaṇas—‘and the Gods of men’—Kṣatriyas;—the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ meant here are the priests officiating at a sacrifice, and the ‘Kṣatriya’ for the sacrificer.—Having done this, ‘if he bathes at the Final Bath of the Horse-sacrifice’ that has been performed,—‘he becomes absolved.’

Some people think that, inasmuch as the treatment of the ‘Twelve-year penance’ has been finished, what is set forth in the present verse is a distinct alternative to it.

Others, however, hold that, inasmuch as alternatives have already been mentioned in the course of the description of the Twelve-year Penance itself, the present verse must be taken as laying down the final point of that same penance,—just in the same way as ‘dying for the sake of the cow or the Brāhmaṇa’ has been laid down;—this final point resembling the ‘rising’ either after the performance of the ‘Sārasvata’ sacrifice, or on reaching a water-fall.

Our view, however, is that—(1) since the former penance has already been summed up, the present one may be taken as a distinct alternative, while (2) on account of its occurring in the middle of the treatment of the former penance, it may be taken as forming part of it So that it may be taken as both,—it being efficacious when performed along with the Twelve-year Penance, as also when performed by itself alone, according to the circumstances attending each case.—(82)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.224), which adds the following notes:—‘Bhūmideva’ are Brāhmaṇas, the sacrificial priests,—‘naradeva’ is the king of these priests, i. e., the master of the sacrifice;—in an assembly of all these—‘Śiṣṭvā,’ having proclaimed, his ‘enaḥ,’ guilt,—he shall take the final bath of the Aśvamedha sacrifice, if permitted by the aforesaid persons, and thus become purified.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1057), which adds the following notes:—‘Bhūmidevāḥ,’ Brāhmaṇas,—‘Naradeva,’ the annointed Kṣatriya,—at an assembly of these persons,—‘svam enaḥ,’ his guilt, of Brāhmaṇ-slaying,—‘śiṣṭvā,’ having proclaimed,—and taking the avabhṛtha bath,—he becomes purified.

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

अश्वमेधावभृथस्य पृथङ्निर्देशो ऽनारब्धान्यप्रायश्चित्तज्ञापनार्थः । इतरथा ह्य् अश्वमेधावभृथस्याम्नातत्वाद् आरब्धे द्वादसवार्षिके प्रायश्चित्ते तन्मध्ये ऽवभृथस्नातः शुध्येत। एतस्मात् तु पृथङ्निर्देशाद् [अन्]आरब्धान्यप्रायश्चित्तस्यैवेदम् अश्वमेधावभृथप्रायश्चित्तं स्वतन्त्रं युक्तम् । न चैतद्वैकल्पिकानाम् एतस्मात् स्वरूपत इतरेषां तत्कर्तारं प्रत्य् उपदेसः, येनाङ्गीकृतम् अन्यद् वैकल्पिकम् । कश्चिद् एवम् आह- तद् अयुक्तम्, येन नाश्वमेधवभृथस्नानं स्वतन्त्रम्, अनुपदेशाद् वैकल्पिकप्रायश्चित्तमध्ये । यतः प्रकरणात् कृते ऽप्य् उपसंहारे प्रक्रान्तद्वादशवार्षिकप्रायश्चित्तस्यायं गुणविधिः । अथेदं द्वादशवार्षिकं कृतोपसंहारम् इति व्यपेक्षा । तथापि सर्वेषां वैकल्पिकानां यथासंभवम् इदम् अश्वमेधावभृतस्नानं गुणतः शुद्धिहेतुत्वान् निवृत्तये । अस्यार्थवादो ऽनुष्ठानस्तुत्यर्थः ॥ ११.८०–८१ ॥

083 Or he who, after confessing his crime in an assembly of the gods of the earth (Brahnanas), and the gods of men (Kshatriyas), bathes (with the priests) at the close of a horse-sacrifice, is (also) freed (from guilt).

The Brāhmaṇa is called the root of righteousness, and the Kṣatriya its top; hence one who confesses his guilt before their congregation becomes pure.—(83)

यजमानर्त्विजां ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियाणाम् अस्वमेधसमागम एनो विख्यापनीयम् इत्य् अत्रार्थवादः ॥ ११.८३ ॥

This is a declamatory statement in support of the injunction that—‘the man should confess his guilt on the occasion of the performance of the Horse-sacrifice, where Brāhmaṇas, in the shape of the Priests, and Kṣatriya, in the shape of the sacrificer, come together.’—(83)

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

“शिष्ट्वा वा भूमिदेवानां नरदेवसमागमे” यजमानर्त्विजां “स्वम् एनो ऽवभृथस्नातो हयमेधे विमुच्यते” इत्य् अस्य विधेर् अर्थवादः ॥ ११.८२ ॥

084 The Brahmana is declared (to be) the root of the sacred law and the Kshatriya its top; hence he who has confessed his sin before an assembly of such men, becomes pure.

By his very birth the Brāhmaṇa is a divinity even for the gods, and an authority for the people; and the Veda itself is the cause of this.—(84)

प्रायश्चित्तिना परिषद्गमनं कर्तव्यम् । परिषत्पूज्यस् तु विधिर् अनुष्ठेयः । सा चैवंरूपा परिषद् एवमर्थश्लोको ऽयम् उत्तरश् च । उत्पत्त्यैव ब्राह्मणो देवानाम् अपि देवो लोकस्य प्रमाणं प्रत्ययितः, प्रत्यक्षदर्शनवत्¹¹⁰ । न तदीयं वचनम् अपि शङ्कते कश्चित् । अत्र कारणं ब्रह्म वेदस् तदर्थज्ञो ह्य् अदृष्टम् उपदर्शयन् प्रमाणीक्रियते ॥ ११.८४ ॥

It behoves the man liable to expiation to present himself before the Congregation or Court, and he should act in accordance with that law which may be honoured by that assembly; the present verse and the next serve to indicate the high qualifications of the assembly.

‘By his very birth the Brāhmaṇa is a divinity even for the gods’—and ‘for the people he is an authority’—trustworthy guide,—people reposing as much trust on his words as upon what they see with their own eyes.

‘The Veda itself is the cause of this.’—The Brāhmaṇa is regarded as an authority on spiritual matters, only because he knows the Veda and what is contained in it—(84)

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

उपदिष्टस्यानन्तरविधेः स्तुत्यर्थम् इदम् उक्तम् ॥ ११.८३ ॥

085 By his origin alone a Brahmana is a deity even for the gods, and (his teaching is) authoritative for men, because the Veda is the foundation for that.

If even three of them, learned in the Veda, expound the expiation for the offences, that shall suffice for their purification; as the word of learned men is purificatory.—(85)

परिषद्गमनं प्रायश्चित्तिनो ऽनेन कथ्यते । तस्याश् च लक्षणं ब्राह्मणा वेदविदस् त्रयः परिषद् इति ।

• ननु च “दशावरा वा परिषत्” (म्ध् १२.११०) इति वक्ष्यति । तथा “एको ऽपि वेदविद् धर्मम्” (म्ध् १२.११३) इति ।

• न दशसंख्या पुरुषाणाम् उपदिश्यते, किं तर्हि, गुणानाम् । तथा च “त्रैविद्यो हैतुकस् तर्की” (म्ध् १२.१११) इति गुणानाम् एव निर्देशः । “एको ऽपि वेदवित्” (म्ध् १२.११३) इत्य् अनेन चैतत् प्रकटीकरोति हैतुकत्वादिगुणान्तराभावे¹¹¹ ऽपि केवलेनैव वेदेन वेदवित्परिषत्त्वं लभ्यते । इत्य् उपात्तं हैतुकत्वादयो ऽपि गुणा गृह्यन्ते न ह्य् अन्यथा वेदवित्त्वं शिष्टपरिषल्लक्षणम् ।

• अयं तु श्लोकः संख्यानिर्देशार्थः । अत्र यद्य् अपि वेदविद इत्य् उपात्तम्, हैतुकत्वादयो ऽपि गुणा गृह्यन्ते । न ह्य् अन्यथा वेदवित्त्वं शिष्टपरिषल्लक्षणम् । तत्रैव व्याख्यास्यामः ।

• यदि वेदवित्त्वं न हैतुकत्वादिना विना भवति, कथं तर्हीदम् उक्तम् “एको ऽपि वेदवित्” इति ।

• गुणान्तराभावे ऽपि वेदवित्परिग्रहार्थम् इत्य् एतद् अपि तत्रैव वक्ष्यामः ।

• अतः प्रायश्चित्तिना त्रयः समुदिताः प्रष्टव्याः । एकस्य कदाचित् प्रमादो ऽनवधानं स्यात् । तथैतत् परिषद्गमनं विदुषाप्य् अदृष्टर्थं कर्तव्यम् इति । तथा च पवित्रं विदुषां हि वाक् ।

• न च रहस्यप्रायश्चित्ताभावप्रसङ्गः । यत्र कस्याप्य् अविदितं तद्रहस्यम् । विदिते तु परिषद्गमनम् । तथा चोक्तम् “ख्यापनेनानुतापेन” (म्ध् ११.२२६) इति ।

• तद् एतद् अयुक्तम्, कल्पनाविषयत्वाद् अस्य । “शक्तिं चावेक्ष्य पापं च प्रायश्चित्तं विकल्पयेत्” (म्ध् ११.२०८) इति, अनुक्तनिष्कृतीनां प्रायश्चित्तं कल्पयेत् । तत्र त्रिभिर् वा कल्पना कृता सा प्रमाणयितव्या ॥ ११.८५ ॥

This goes on to describe the necessity of men liable to expiation presenting themselves before the Congregation or Court; and the definition of this ‘Court’ is that—‘the Brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda constitute the Court.’

“It is declared (under 12.110) that the ‘Court should consist of at least ten men,’ or again (12.113)—‘a single person learned in the Veda.’”

The number ‘ten’ mentioned in the former text does not refer to the men; it refers to their qualifications; since in the verse following we find the qualifications enumerated—‘knowing the three Vedas, a logician, an exegetist etc., etc.’ (12.111). As regards the ‘single person learned in the Veda’ (12.113),—what this shows is that, even in the absence of the other qualifications—of being a logician and so forth,—if a man possesses the one qualification of knowing the Veda, he becomes qualified for serving on the ‘Court’

The present verse is meant to lay down the exact number of men constituting the ‘Court’ And even though the only qualification mentioned here is ‘knowledge of the Veda’ yet the others—being a logician and so forth,—are also understood. As otherwise mere ‘knowledge of the Veda’ could not be accepted as a definition of the ‘Court.’ All this we shall explain later on (under XII).

“If Vedic learning is not possible without the knowledge of Logic, Exegetics and the rest, wherefore has it been said that ‘even a single man learned in the Veda may make up the Court?’”

All that this latter declaration means is that, even in the absence of all other qualifications, Vedic learning alone by itself would constitute a sufficient qualification. All this we shall explain in connection with the text in question.

From all this it follows that when a man has incurred the liability to perform an expiation, he should question three men assembled together; as a single man is liable to make mistakes or become careles.

This recourse to the ‘Court’ must be taken even by persons who may be themselves learned; and the reason for this is that—‘the word of corned men is purificatory.’

Nor would this make ‘secret expiation’ impossible. Because in that case the offence would not be known to any person; and appearing before the Court is necessary only in cases where the offence has become known. It is what has been spoken of above (22)—‘By confession, by repentance etc, etc.’

This explanation, however, is not right What the present verse refers to is the case where, in the absence of the requisite expiation not having been clearly laid down, it becomes necessary to assume the right expiation, ‘on the basis of the man’s capacity, and the nature of the offence’ (209); and the meaning of the text is that that assumption is to be accepted which is made by three men.—(85)

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

वक्ष्यति हि, “दशापरा वा परिषद् यं धर्मं परिकल्पयेत्” इत्य् एवमादि । एवं च सति प्रायश्चित्तपरिषद्ब्राह्मणोपआसनात् तैर् अभ्यनुज्ञातं प्रायश्चित्तं कुर्यात्, जानानो ऽपि प्रतिव्यतिक्रमं प्रायश्चित्तम् इति केचित् । तद् अयुक्तम् । एवं हि रहस्य् अस्य प्रायश्चित्तानुपदेशः प्रस्ज्येत । येन “रहस्ये रहस्यं प्रकाशे प्रकाशम्” इतीयम् स्मृतिः । क्व तर्हीदं यस्यर्थलाभो वुज्ञानालाभः । अथ वानुक्तप्रायश्चित्तविषयम् एतद् विज्ञेयम् । तथा च वक्ष्यति “अनुक्तनिष्कृतीनां तु पापानाम् अपनुत्तये, शक्तिं चावेक्ष्य पापं च प्रायश्चित्तं विकल्पयेत्” इति । अथ वा पात्रविशेषात् अर्थविशेषो धर्माख्यो ऽनुग्रहात् तेषां यथा, एवम् उपघाताद् अप्य् अधर्मविशेषेण भवितव्यं तद्विशेषाद् एव । एवं च सत्य् एतस्मिन् विषय इदम् आरभ्यते तेषां वेदविदो ब्रूयुर् इति । तथा च सति तद्विशेषाद् ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्तानां गुरुलघुत्वं युक्तम् । इतरथा हि लघूपदेशाद् गुरूणां परिहरणाद् अनुपदेश एव स्यात् । यथा लोके “पणलभ्यं हि न प्राज्ञः क्रीणाति दशभिः पनैः (?)” इत्य् एवम् इहापि स्यात् ॥ ११.८४ ॥

086 (If) only three of them who are learned in the Veda proclaim the expiation for offences, that shall purify the (sinners); for the words of learned men are a means of purification.

A Brāhmaṇa who, with concentrated mind, follows any one of these methods, removes, on account of his being self-possessed, the sin committed by killing a Brāhmaṇa.—(86)

सर्वेषां ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्तानाम् उपसंहारार्थः श्लोको ऽयम् । विप्रग्रहणं चात्र सर्ववर्णप्रदर्शनार्थम् । व्यपोहत्य् अपहरति । आत्मवत्तया आत्मज्ञानतया । शास्त्रार्थकृताभिनिवेश आत्मवान् इत्य् उच्यते । तस्यायम् अध्यवसायो न शास्त्रार्थम् अन्यथा वर्तते ॥ ११.८६ ॥

This verse serves the purpose of recapitulating all the expiatory rites laid down in connection with ‘Brāhmaṇa- Killing.’

The term ‘Brāhmaṇa’ stands here for all castes.

‘Removes’—destroys.

‘On account of his being self-possessed’—i.e., by reason of his being cognisant of the true nature of the Self. In

fact a man is called ‘self-possessed’ when he has full faith in what is prescribed in the scriptures; this man’s firm conviction is that what laid down in the scriptures can never be wrong.—(86)

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.72].

सर्वेषां ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्तानाम् उपसंहारश्लोको ऽयम् । विप्रग्रहणं चात्र सर्ववर्णप्रदर्शनार्थम् । तथा च सति सामर्थ्याद् अधिकारो यथासंभवं ब्राह्मणादीनां प्रायश्चित्तेष्व् अविक्षितव्यः ॥ ११.८५ ॥

087 A Brahmana who, with a concentrated mind, follows any of the (above-mentioned) rules, removes the sin committed by slaying a Brahmana through his self-control.

Having killed an unknown embryo, one should perform this same penance,—also on killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, who has performed sacrifices, or a woman of the ‘Ātreyī’ race.—(87)

गर्भो ब्राह्मणजातीय¹¹² एव । केन गर्भस्य पातनं कारयेत् । अविज्ञातम् अज्ञातस्त्रीपुरुषविशेषव्यञ्जनम् । उपज्ञाते यथायथं स्त्रीपुंसनिमित्तम् एव ।

• कथं पुनः स्त्रियाम् अहतायां गर्भस्य वधो भवति ।

• औषधादियोगेन गर्भस्य पातनम् ।

• एतद् एवेत्य् एकवचनात् प्रत्यासन्नद्वादशवार्षिकम् एवातिदिश्यत इत्याहुः ।

अन्ये एतद् इति शुद्धिकारणं सामान्यापेक्षायाम्, अतः सर्वप्रायश्चित्तातिदेशः ।

क्षत्रियवैश्यौ चेजानौ** यजमानौ । भूतकालता न विवक्षिता । स्मृत्यन्त्रे “सवनगतौ राजन्यवैश्यौ” (वध् २०.३४) इति । अतश् च प्रारब्धसोमपानयोर् एष विधिर् न दर्शपूर्णमासादियजमानयोः । लिङ्गदर्शनं तु यजमानमात्रयोर् भावयतीति । ब्राह्मणीभूयैव यजत इति ।

• आत्रेयीं स्त्रियम् अत्रिगोरजाताम् । जातेर् अविशेषात्¹¹³ स्त्रीपुंसयोर् ब्राह्मणीनाम् अपि प्राप्ताव् आत्रेय्या वचनम् अन्यगोत्रनिवृत्त्यर्थम् । अतो ब्राह्मण्या अप्य् अन्यस्या वध उपपातकम् एव । “स्त्रीशूद्रविट्क्षत्रवधः”¹¹⁴ (म्ध् ११.६५) इति । यत्¹¹⁵ तु “स्त्रीसुहृत्” (म्ध् ११.८८) इति, तच् चातुर्वर्ण्यस्त्रीमात्रे । अधमस्त्रीणाम् उपपातकमहापातकप्रायश्चित्ते विकल्प्येते¹¹⁶ । भर्तृस्वगुणापेक्षो विकल्पो बुद्धिपूर्वाबुद्धिपूर्वकृतश् च सः । स्तनपबालापत्ययोस् तदभावे बालानां दुःशके जीविते विजातियाया अपि, ब्राह्मणभार्याया भर्तृद्वेषाद् अनपराधिन्या निमित्तान्तरतो वोपजाप्यमानायाः शीलं रक्षन्त्या असंप्रयुज्यमानाया वधः । एवम् अप्य् उत्प्रेक्षया “स्त्रीसुहृद्वधम्” (म्ध् ११.८८) इत्यादेशात् । अन्यत्र तु स्त्रीशुद्रेति । आत्रेय्यां त्व् अविकल्पः ।

• अन्ये त्व् आत्रेयीं गर्भसाहचर्याद् ऋतुमतीम् आहुः । पत्यते भ्रूणहात्रेयाश् च हन्तेति । भ्रूणहा ब्राह्मणवधकारी सा । सा च ब्राह्मण्य् एव । अत्र कुक्ष्याव् अवश्यं गर्भ उह्यत इत्य् आत्रेयी । यद्य् अपीदृश्यां वृत्तौ तद्धितो न स्मर्यते, प्रयोगानुसारेण तु भवतीति ॥ ११.८७ ॥

‘Embryo’—belonging to the Brāhmaṇa caste.

The meaning of the verse is that one should not help an abortion.

‘Unknown’—whose male or female sex is not yet ascertainable. When this has become ascertainable, the expiation shall be in accordance with the sex.

“How can there be a killing of the embryo, until the woman is also killed?”

Abortions are generally secured by the use of medicines and such other methods.

‘This same penance.’—They say that, since the singular number is used here, it is the ‘Twelve-year Penance’ that is meant here; specially as this is what has been spoken of in closest proximity to the present text.

Others, however, have held that the term ‘this same’ refers to the means of purification in general; hence it stands for all the expiatory rites that have been laid down in connection with ‘Brāhmaṇa-killing.’

‘A Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya who has performed sacrifices—i.e., who is engaged in a sacrificial performance;—no significance attaching to the past tense (in ijānau’); as in another Smṛti text we read—‘The Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya seated at the Extraction of Soma’; from which it would seem that the rule here laid down refers to the persons who have started the drinking of Soma, and not to those engaged in the performance of the Darśapūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices. But the clear implication of the Vedic text is that it applies to persons engaged in any sort of sacrificial performance;—the actual text being ‘it is only when one has become a Brāhmaṇa that he engages in a sacrifice’ [where no particular sacrifice is specified].

‘A woman qf the Ātreyī race.’—Woman born in the race of Atri. The caste of the man and the woman being the same, what is prescribed in connection with the killing of ‘a Brāhmaṇa’ should apply equally to the case of the male and the female; hence the mention of ‘the woman of the Ātreyī race’ clearly excludes women of the other races; which means that the killing of these other women of other Brāhmaṇa races, would be only a ‘minor offence,’ mentioned above as ‘the killing of a woman of a Vaiśya or a Kṣatriya’ (66). What has been spoken of as ‘the killing of a woman or of a friend eta, eta,’ refers to women of all the four castes. The upshot of all this is—that in the case of the killing of a Brāhmaṇa woman, there are two optional alternatives—the expiation laid down for ‘heinous offences’ and that prescribed for a ‘minor offence’; which one of the two is to be adopted bring determined by the qualifications of the husband or of the woman herself,—as also by the intentional or unintentional character of the crime. For instance, (a) even in the case of a woman of another caste, if she has a child still at her breast, the expiation shall be of the heavier kind, in consideration of the fact, that it would be difficult for the child to live after the mother’s death;—(b) in the case of the Brāhmaṇa woman who, faultless herself, has become an object of hatred to her husband, and is killed by a man because, on being approached by him, she preserves her chastity and does not accede to his proposal,—the expiation shall be of the heavier kind;—as also (c) in the case of recklessly killing a friend’s wife. In other cases on the other hand, ordinary expiation according to Verse 66 would be applicable In the case of the woman of the ‘Ātreyī’ race, however, there are no alternatives.

Others have explained the word ‘Ātreyī’ to mean a woman in her courses, on the strength of its occurring along with the term ‘embryo.’ They quote the text —‘pātyate bhrūṇahā, ātreyyāśca hantā’—where the term ‘bhrūṇahā’ means ‘the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa.’ Under this explanation also the woman in her courses referred to must be a Brāh maṇa. She is called ‘Ātreyi’ in consideration of the fact that she is sure to carry a child in her womb. Though the use of the nominal affix found in the term ‘Ātreyī’ is nowhere laid down in the sense here attributed to it, yet the said denotation may be accepted on the strength of usage.—(87)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.251), according to which ‘avijñāta garbha’ indicates the stage of pregnancy before the sex of the child has been determined;—it adds that though the fact of the child in the womb belonging to the Brāhmaṇa-caste would make the offender liable to the expiation for Brāhmaṇa-slaying,—yet, in as much as the possibility of the child being female might lead one to think that the guilt of killing a female would be a ‘minor sin,’ and hence involve a lighter expiation,—it becomes necessary to emphasise the necessity of performing the heavier expiation.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 87, 179 and 228), which adds the explanation that, having killed the Brāhmaṇa embryo, before its sex has been determined, one should perform the rites laid down in connection with ‘Brāhmaṇa-murder,’ as also for killing a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya—while they are performing a sacrifice,—an d also for killing an ‘ātreyī,’ i.e., a Brāhmaṇī.

**(verses 11.87-88)
**

Gautama (22.12-13).—‘The same penance that has been prescribed for Brāhmaṇa-slaying shall be performed by one who has killed a Brāhmaṇa female when she has bathed after her course; also for destroying the embryo of a Brāhmaṇa, though its sex may be not distinguishable.’

Bodhāyam (2.1-12).—‘The penance for killing a woman who has bathed after her courses is the same as that for the killing of a Brāhmaṇa.’

Āpastamba (1.24.8-9).—‘He who has destroyed an embryo of a Brāhmaṇa, or a woman during her courses, is called Abhiśasta, accursed, and stands on the same footing regarding expiation, as the Brāhmaṇa-killer.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.23, 34-35).—‘He is called Bhrūṇahan who kills a Brāhmaṇa or destroys an embryo the sex of which is unknown. For killing a female of the Brāhmaṇa caste who is an Ātreyī…… the same penance that is prescribed for the Brāhmaṇa-killer should be performed. That woman is called Ātreyī who has bathed after her courses.’

Viṣṇu (50.8-10).—‘He who has killed a pregnant woman, or a woman in her courses, or a woman who has bathed after her courses, or a friend, shall perform the Mahāvrata.’ (p. 839)

Yājñavalkya (3.251).—‘He who destroys an embryo or an Ātreyī woman should perform the penance laid down for the Brāhmaṇa-killer.’

ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्तातिदेशो ऽयं गर्भादिहन्तॄणाम् । गर्भश् च ब्राह्मणगर्भ एव प्रकरणाद् विज्ञेयः । आत्रेयी तु रजस्वला ब्राह्मण्य् एव । तस्यां हि कदाचित् पुंसस् संभव इति, अतस् तां हत्वा ब्रह्महा भवति । गोत्रत इत्य् अपर आत्रेयीम् आहुः, यस्माच् चात्रेयीं हत्वा ब्रह्महा भवति, ततो ऽन्यां ब्राह्मणीं हत्वा न ब्रह्महेति गम्यते । गवादिषु तु जातिमात्रस्य विवक्षितत्वात् स्त्रियां पुंसि चाविशेषेण प्रायश्चित्तम् । यच् चोपरिष्टश्लोके वक्ष्यति, “कृत्वा च स्त्रीसुहृद्वधम्” इति, स्त्रीग्रहणं तद् अपि ब्रह्मण्या एव । गोवधादौ च स्त्रीग्रहणस्य विद्यमानत्वाद् विकल्पेन ब्राह्मण्याम् इदं प्रायश्चित्तं स्यात् । विकल्पश् च गुणापेक्षो युक्तः, गुरुलघुप्रायश्चित्तयोः प्रत्ययाप्रत्ययकारणेन वा । एवं चात्रेयीग्रहणम् अर्थवद् भवति । सवनगतौ राजन्यवैस्यौ हत्वैतद् एव । तथा च ब्राह्मणम्, “यो वै कश्चिद् यजते ब्राह्मणिभूयैव यजते” इति ॥ ११.८६ ॥

088 For destroying the embryo (of a Brahmana, the sex of which was) unknown, for slaying a Kshatriya or a Vaisya who are (engaged in or) have offered a (Vedic) sacrifice, or a (Brahmana) woman who has bathed after temporary uncleanness (Atreyi), he must perform the same penance,

Similarly also for telling a lie in giving evidence, for angering the preceptor, for misappropriating a trust, and for killing one’s wife or friend.—(88)

हिरण्यभूम्यादिसाक्ष्ये तु वधादिसंशये वानृताभिधाने प्रायश्चित्तम् एतत् । अत्र हि दोषातिशयः श्रूयते “भञ्जताम्” इत्यादि । अन्यत्र गुरुलघुभावेन कल्पना कार्या । प्रतिरभ्येति । यद् उक्तम् “अलीकनिर्बन्धः” (म्ध् ११.५४) इति, तद् एवेदं प्रतिरंभः संरम्भपूर्वको गुरोर् उपद्रवारम्भः । निक्षेपः । अत्रापि दरिद्रस्य महतो धनवतो ऽधमस्योतान्यस्य ब्राह्मणजातीयस्येत्यादिकल्पना । यत्र त्व् एकम् एव श्रूयते तत्र यथाश्रुत्यैव भवितुम् अर्हति । कः कल्पनाया अवसरः, न चेह कौटसाक्षिनिक्षेपयोर् लघुप्रायश्चित्तम् अस्ति । यद् अपि सुरापाने तद् अपि तुल्यम् अनेन गरीयः, श्रुताश्रुतविषयत्वं “शक्तिं चावेक्ष्य” इति यत्, सत्य् अपि “अनुक्तनिष्कृतीनाम्” (म्ध् ११.२०८) इति श्रवणे ॥ ११.८८ ॥

The expiation here laid down pertains to giving false evidence in connection with gold, land and such things, or in cases of doubt regarding a murder. The guilt in these cases is very much heavier; and in regard to other expiations laid down elsewhere, the adoption of one or the other should be determined in accordance with the gravity or otherwise of the

‘Angering.’—This is the same as what has been spoken of as ‘falsely harassing’ under 56 above; as ‘harassment’ is always preceded by ‘angering.’

‘Trust.’—In this case also the exact nature of the expiation shall depend upon such considerations as to whether the trust-property belongs to a poor or to a rich person, to a low person or to a Brāhmaṇa, or to some other person of high position. In a case where only one expiation is mentioned, it can be one only; and there can be no occasion for any assumptions. In fact, in connection with giving false evidence and ‘misappropriating a trust’ there are no varying grades of expiation.

What is prescribed in connection with ‘wine-drinking’ is certainly somewhat heavier; but every case is to be determined in accordance with ‘the capacity etc.,’ of the guilty person (11.209); though these considerations have been laid down only as affecting those offences ‘for the expiation whereof no atonement has been prescribed’ (209).—(88)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.244), which adds the following notes:—This refers to cases where the false evidence leads to the death of men;—‘pratirabhya,’ becoming passionately angry with;—‘nikṣepa,’ the deposit placed by a Brāhmaṇa,—‘strī’ here stands for the wife of a person who has taken the fires, who is endowed with the quality of being devoted to her husband and so forth;—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 179);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 56b).

**(verses 11.87-88)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.87].

अयं श्लोको महापातकसमानां निर्देशे पूर्वत्र कृतविचारः ॥ ११.८७ ॥

089 Likewise for giving false evidence (in an important cause), for passionately abusing the teacher, for stealing a deposit, and for killing (his) wife or his friend:

All this expiation has been laid down for killing a Brāhmaṇa unintentionally; for killing a Brāhmaṇa intentionally no atonement has been ordained.—(89)

प्रमाप्य हत्वा । निष्कृतिर् इति । प्राग् अयं व्याख्यातार्थः प्रायश्चित्तगौरवोपदेशपरः ॥ ११.८९ ॥

‘Killed’—murdered.

This verse has been already explained above as meant to indicate that the expiation for intentional ‘Brāhmaṇa- killing’ should be very heavy.—(89)

‘Iyam’.—According to some this refers to [verse 72], and these people hold that “in the case of wilful murder the penance has to be made severer by doubling or trebling the term of twelve years.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.226), where it is put forward (by the Pūrvapakṣin) in support of the view that in the case of wilful murder there is no expiation at all;—but the Siddhānta view is that ‘iyam’ refers to the ‘Twelve Years’ Penance mentioned before (verse 72), and the latter half of the verse does not entirely deny all expiation; since several texts have definitely prescribed expiation by death in such cases.—It is quoted again under 3.243, in support of the view that the ‘Twelve Years’ Penance is meant to meet cases of unintentional murder;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 77);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 2a);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 354), which says that this precludes only the ‘Twelve Years Penance,’ and not all kinds of expiation, as suicide is actually laid down as the expiation for intentional Brāhmaṇa-murder;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 65), wḥich says that the meaning is that the ‘Twelve Years’ and other penances are precluded from intentional Brāhmaṇa-murder, and the implication is that there is no expiation for it.

Gautama (21.7).—‘Manu declares that the first three crimes (Brāhmaṇa-killing, wine-drinking and violating of Guru’s bed) cannot be expiated.’

Baudhāyana (2.1-6).—‘They quote the following—“He who unintentionally slays a Brāhmaṇa becomes sinful”… The sages declare that he may be purified if he did it unintentionally; but no expiation is found for wilful murder.’

कामतो ऽकामत इति कृतविचारः । तस्मान् न कामकृते प्रायश्चित्ताभावं दर्शयति, किं तर्हि प्रमादस्तुत्यर्थम् इदं कल्प्यते । इतरथा हि पूर्वापरविरोधः स्यात् । अथ वा प्रायश्चित्तगुरुत्वोपदेशपरम् इदं गुणतः कामतो वधे ब्राह्मणस्य । एवं च सर्वगुणविशेषापेक्षया सप्रत्ययाप्रत्ययवधापेक्षया च ब्रह्महत्याप्रायश्चित्तानि यथासंभवम् अर्थयोगापेक्षया प्रकल्प्यानि । अन्यानि चैवम् एव समार्थानि ॥ ११.८८ ॥

090 This expiation has been prescribed for unintentionally killing a Brahmana; but for intentionally slaying a Brahmana no atonement is ordained.

A twice-born person, having, through folly, drunk wine, shall drink wine red-hot; he becomes freed from his guilt, when his body has been completely burnt by it.—(90)

द्विजश्रुतिर् ब्राह्मणार्थैव । आह च स्मृत्यन्तरे “ब्राह्मणस्य उष्णां वा पिबेयुः सुराम्” (ग्ध् २३.१) इति । मोहाद् इत्य् अः । अग्निवर्णां वर्णश्रुतिग्रहणं सामान्यलक्षणार्थम् । अत एवाह काये निर्दग्धे मुच्यत इति ॥ ११.९० ॥

Though the text speaks of ‘twice-born men,’ yet what is said here is meant for the Brāhmaṇa only; says another Smṛti text—‘Hot wine should be poured on the Brāhmaṇa’ (Gautama, 23.1).

‘Through folly’—this is only explanatory.

‘Red hot’— Though the text uses the word ‘varṇa’ colour, yet it is mere heat that is meant; as is clear from what follows, about ‘the body being burnt.’—(90)

The liquor Here meant is that distilled from ground grains, according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja And Kullūka;—according to Nārāyaṇa the death-penance is meant for all twice-born men partaking of liquor distilled from grains, and by Brāhmaṇas who have drunk any of the three kinds of liquor described under verse 95.

‘Mohāt’.—Nandana reads ‘amohāt’ and explains it as ‘not unintentionally’, ‘intentionally.’

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), which explains ‘mohāt’ as meaning ‘ignorance of scriptural injunctions’.—It enters into a long discussion regarding the exact connotation in the present context, of the term ‘surā,’ and comes to the conclusion that it stands for the liquor distilled from ground grains; the partaking of which is equally heinous for all the three higher castes,—the drinking of the other two kinds, that distilled from molasses and that from honey, being sinful for the Brāhmaṇa only.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 815), which adds the following notes:—‘Mohāt’ stands for ‘ignorance of the scriptures,’ and not for ‘ignorance of the nature of the liquid drunk’;—‘agnivarṇām,’ ‘heated to the extent of becoming red-hot’;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 9a);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 93), which explains ‘agnivarṇām’ as ‘hot as fire,’ and quotes Jikana to the effect that ‘mohāt’ means ‘intentionally.’

**(verses 11.90-93)
**

Mahābhārata (12.165.48).

Gautama (23.1).—‘They shall pour hot wine into the mouth of a Brāhmaṇa who has drunk wine; he will be purified by death.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.18, 19, 21).—‘If he has drunk Surā he shall scald himself to death with hot wine. For unintentionally drinking Surā, he shall perform the Kṛcchra penances during three months and then undergo a second initiation. They quote the following—“A Brāhmaṇa, a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya who has unintentionally drunk the wine called Vāruṇī must be initiated a second time.”’

Āpastamba (1.25.3).—‘A wine-drinker has to drink exceedingly hot liquor, so that he dies.’

Vaśiṣtha (20-19, 22).—‘If a Brāhmaṇa intentionally drinks liquor other than Surā, or if he unintentionally drinks Surā, he must perform a Kṛcchra and an Atikṛcchra; and after eating clarified butter, be initiated again. But a Brāhmaṇa who repeatedly partakes of Surā shall drink liquor of the same kind boiling hot. He becomes pure by death.’

Yājñavalkya (3.253-256).—‘The man who drinks Surā attains purity by dying after drinking any one of the following things red-hot—Surā, water, clarified butter, cow’s urine and milk. Or he may perform the penance prescribed for Brāhmaṇa-killing, clothed in hair-cloth and wearing matted looks; or for one year he may use sesamum oil-cake or grains of rice at night only. If any one of the three castes unknowingly drinks the Vāruṇī wine, ho shall undergo initiation a second time. The Brāhmaṇa woman who drinks wine does not go to her husband’s regions; and in the world she is born as a bitch.’

Viṣṇu (51-1).—‘A drinker of wine must abstain from all religious rites and subsist on grains unseparated from the husk for one year.’

एवं च मृतस्य शुद्धिर् विज्ञेया । तया च सुरायाग्निवर्णत्वम् अनुगृहीतं भवति । मोहाद् इति चात्र यद् उक्तम्, तत् पूर्वत्रार्थनिर्देशलिङ्गम्, यद् उक्तम् “प्रायश्चित्तीयतां प्राप्य मोहात् पूर्वकृतेन वा” इति, अत्र मोहस्य स्वशब्देनैवोपदेशात् ॥ ११.८९ ॥

091 A twice-born man who has (intentionally) drunk, through delusion of mind, (the spirituous liquor called) Sura shall drink that liquor boiling-hot; when his body has been completely scalded by that, he is freed from his guilt;

Or, he may drink red-hot cow’s urine, or water, or milk, or butter, or liquid cow-dung, until he dies.—(91)

अन्यतरप्रायश्चित्तम् अग्निवर्णं भवत्य् एव । गोमूत्रादयो द्रव्यविशेषा अन्यप्रकारमरणनिवृत्त्यर्थाः¹¹⁷ । सुरा च पैष्टीति विज्ञेया । तां मुख्येत्य् उपचरन्ति । अन्यत्र तु प्रयोगो गौणः । कामतः पाने चैतत् । तथा च वक्ष्यति । “अज्ञानाद् वारुणीं पीत्वा संस्करेणैव शुध्यति” (म्ध् ११.१४५) । अग्निवर्णम् इत्य् अग्निस्पर्शम् इति ज्ञातव्यम् । तथा चाह आ मरणात् इति । सुरा च स्त्रीणाम् अपि प्रतिषिद्धा । उक्तं हि वासिष्ठे- “तथा ब्राह्मणी सुरापी भवति । न तां देवाः पतिलोकं नयति । इहैव सा भ्रमति क्षीणपुण्या लोके प्रेत्यावाप्सु च जलभुग् भवति” (वध् २१.११) ॥ ११.९१ ॥

In the case of any one of these expiations, the epithet ‘red-hot’ is to be applied.

The cow’s urine and other substances have been specified with a view to predude dying by any other means.

In the present case, the ‘wine’ should be understood as standing for that liquor which is obtained from grains; as it is this liquor to which the term ‘wine’ is held to be directly applicable; its application to other liquors being indirect What is said here is applicable to cases of intentional wine-drinking; sis it is going to be declared later on (11.146)—“If one drinks wine unintentionally, he becomes purified by going through the sacramental rites.’

‘Agnivarna,’ ‘red-hot,’ means that it should be as hot as fire; as is clear from the phrase ‘until he dies.’

Wine is forbidden for women also. It has been declared in the work of Vaśiṣṭha that—‘If a Brāhmaṇa woman drinks wine, the gods do not permit her to go to the regions where her husband has gone; she roams about in this world, and after all her merit has been exhausted, she becomes an amphibious animal.’—(91)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 412), which adds that this refers to the same case as the preceding verse; i.e., to the intentional -drinking of liquor distilled from grains;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 93), which says that the ‘milk’ and ‘clarified butter’ meant are those of the cow only.

**(verses 11.90-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.90].

द्रव्यमात्रविकल्पार्थं चेदम् आरब्धम् । तथा चौष्ण्यगुणस् समानो ऽत्र पूर्वद्रव्येण । अग्निवर्णत्वं च सर्वशेषः । तथा वामरणाद् इत्य् उक्तम्, एतच् अ मुख्यसुरापाने कामतः प्राणान्तिकं प्रायश्चित्तम् ॥ ११.९० ॥

092 Or he may drink cow’s urine, water, milk, clarified butter or (liquid) cowdung boiling-hot, until he dies;

Or, for the expiation of the guilt of wine-drinking, he may, for one year, eat only once at night either pieces of grain or oil-cake, clothed in hair-cloth, with his hair matted, and carrying a sign.—(92)

इदं प्राणात्यय औषधार्थम् । अन्येन विहितस्यापि तस्य । अज्ञानात् तु तप्तकृच्छ्रसहितः पुनःसंस्कारो दर्सयिष्यते ।

• अन्ये तु गौडीमाध्व्योर् उपचरितसुराभावयोर् इच्छन्ति । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरे “असुरामद्यपाने चान्द्रायणम् अभ्यसनीयम्” । सकृद् इति कणपिण्याकयोर् उभयोः शेषः । निशायाम् । वालमयं ¹¹⁸ गोलोमाजालोमादिक्र्तं वासः । जटी शिखयान्यैर् वा केशैः । ध्वजी मद्यघटिकादिनेति ॥ ११.९२ ॥

This expiation is meant for those cases where wine is taken as medicine when life is in actual danger;—though winedrinking in such circumstances has been permitted by certain texts.

In connection with the case where wine has been drunk unintentionally, it is going to be laid down that the man should pass through the sacramental rites over again, and also perform the ‘Taptakṛcchra’ penance.

Others take this verse to apply to the case of the drinking of the ‘Gauḍī’ and ‘Mādhvī’ liquors; as another Smṛti text has declared that—‘For drinking wine other than that got from grains, one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance.’

‘Once.’—This applies both to ‘pieces of grain’ and ‘oilcake’;—‘at night.’

‘Hair-cloth’—cloth made of the hair of the cow or the goat.

‘With his hair matted’—only at the top—or over the whole head.

‘With a sign’—such as a keg of wine and so forth.—(92)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.254), which adds that this refers to a case where wine has been drunk by mistake and then vomitted;—again, as referring to a case where the, wine has been taken unitentionally but thrown out, after it has merely touched the palate.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 412), to the same effect,—i.e. as referring to a case where the wine has only touched the palate;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 9b);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 98), which says that this refers either to cases of unintentional but repeated drinking of the Gauḍī and Mādhvī wines, or to those of intentional drinking, only once, of those wines.

**(verses 11.90-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.90].

एतच् च प्रायश्चित्तं मुख्यसुरापान एवाकामतो गम्यते । एवं ह्य् एतद्व्यतिक्रमे सप्रत्ययाप्रत्ययकारणभेदात् गुरुलघुत्वं प्रायश्चित्तस्योपपन्नं भवति । तथा च गौतमो ऽप्रत्यये सुरापाने लघुप्रायश्चित्तम् आह सप्रत्ययसुरापानप्रायश्चित्ताद् गुरुणः- “अमत्या पाने पयो घृतम् उदकं वायुं प्रति त्र्यहं तप्तानि स कृच्छ्रस् ततो ऽस्य संस्कारः” (ग्ध् २३.३) इति । अथ वेतरयोः सुरयोः पान एतल् लघुप्रायश्चित्तं विज्ञेयम् । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम्- “असुरामद्यपाने चान्द्रायणम् अभ्यसेत्” इति ॥ ११.९१ ॥

093 Or, in order to remove (the guilt of) drinking Sura, he may eat during a year once (a day) at night grains (of rice) or oilcake, wearing clothes made of cowhair and his own hair in braids and carrying (a wine cup as) a flag.

Wine indeed is the dirty refuse of grains, and sin also is called ‘dirt’; for this reason the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya shall not drink wine.—(93)

अन्नशब्दो यद्य् अप्य् अदनक्रियाकर्मणि व्युत्पाद्यते, तथापि व्रीह्यादिप्रभृताव् एव भक्तसक्त्वपूपादौ प्रसिद्धतरप्रयोगः । तथा च “अन्नेन व्यञ्जनम्” (पाण् २.१.३४) इति भेदोपपत्तिः । अतः पिष्टविकारत्वात् सुराया अन्नव्यपदेशे लब्धे अन्नानां मलम् इति निवारणोपपत्तौ पैष्ट्याः सुरायाः प्रतिषेधे लिङ्गम् इदम् ।

• लिङ्गं त्रयाणां वर्णानां संपद्यते । ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियवैश्यैर् अपि वर्णैः पेष्टी न पातव्या । किं च सैव सुरा मुख्या गौडीमाध्व्योः । एवं यथा सीधुमाध्वीकयोर् गुरु प्रायश्चित्तं न तथान्येषाम् अरिष्टादीनाम् मद्यानाम् ।

• मलशब्दः पाप्मेति व्याख्यातो निन्दातिशयदर्शनार्थः । सत्य् अपि प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणे वाक्यात्¹¹⁹ सुरापाननिषेधो ऽयम् । भिन्नवाक्यत्वाच् च नार्थवादः ॥ ११.९३ ॥

Though the term ‘anna’ denotes literally ‘what is eaten,’ food, yet it is more commonly applied to the Vrīhi and other grains, as also to cooked rice, fried flour, cakes and so forth. It is on this basis that Pāṇini (2.1.34) has made a distinction between ‘anna’ and ‘vyañjana.’

Thus then, inasmuch as wine is obtained from grains, it becomes liable to be spoken of as ‘anna,’ ‘grain,’ and it comes to be spoken of as ‘the dirty refuse of grains.’ This description of wine is indicative of the fact that its use is forbidden. And this indication applies to all the three higher castes:—that the wine extracted from grains should not be drunk by the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya or the Vaiśya. Then again it is this wine extracted from grains to which the name is applicable more directly than to the other two varieties, the Gauḍī and the Mādhvī. Further, the expiation in the case of other distilled liquors is not so heavy as in the case of the Sīdhu (i.e., the Gauḍī) and the Mādhvī.

‘Sin also is called dirt,’—this has been added with a view to indicate that wine is a most despicable thing.

Though the subject-matter of the present context is Expiation, yet the Syntactical Indication of the present verse clearly points to the prohibition of wine. And since it is a distinct sentence, it cannot be regarded as a mere declamation.—(93)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika p. 548);—in Aparārka (p. 1044), which adds the following notes:—‘Being the refuse of grains’ is applicable only to that liquor which is distilled from ground grains, and not to those distilled from molasses and honey, as neither of these two latter is ‘grain,’ which name is applicable only to Vrīhi and other corns; thus then the drinking of liquor distilled from grains is forbidden for all twice-born men, and the other two kinds for the Brāhmaṇa only.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), firstly to the effect that ‘Surā’ is the name of that liquor which is distilled from grains;—secondly to the effect that this liquor is forbidden for all ‘the three higher castes, while that distilled from honey or molasses is forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa only;—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 89), which adds that ‘annānām’ stands not only for rice, but for barley, wheat and other grains also,—hence it is that the wine produced by the fermentation of grains is called ‘Surā—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 355), to the effect that the name ‘Surā’ d irectly denotes wine made from grains only.

**(verses 11.90-93)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.90].

केचिद् अत्र “गौडी"श्लोकं पूर्वं पठन्ति, पश्चाद् इमम् “सुरा वै मलम् अन्नानाम्” इति । तैर् अप्य् एतौ विपर्यस्य श्लोकौ व्याखेयाव् अर्थक्रमेण, ये पुनः “सुरा वै मलम् अन्नानाम्” इत्य् एतं पूर्वं पठन्ति, तेषाम् अर्थक्रम एव । अतः पूर्वम् अयम् अस्माभिः पठ्यते । सुरा लोकप्रसिद्धा गवादिवत् । अन्नमलत्वं चार्थवादस्, तस्मात् पानविद्वेषणार्थः । न हेतुः प्रतिषेधविधेर्, हेतुत्वे सति सर्वस्यान्नमलस्याभक्ष्यत्वं स्यान् मण्डादेः, हेतुमालाप्रसङ्गश् च स्यात् । अन्नमलत्वाद् अपेया सुरा, अन्नमलं पुनः कस्माद् अपेयम् इति । अत्र कारणं वक्तव्यं भवति । यतो ऽयम् अर्थवादः, न हेतुः । एवं च सति प्रसन्नापि सती सुरान्नमलत्वेन निन्द्यते । पाप्मा च मलम् उच्यते । अयम् अप्य् अर्थवादो निवृत्त्यर्थ एव । येन नान्नमलत्वं पाप्मनो हेतुः, किं तर्हि सुरापानम् । यतः द्विजतिभिर् अपेया सा । एवं च सुराया अपेयत्वे सिद्धे “सुरां पीत्वा द्विजो मोहात्” इति युक्तः प्रायस्चित्तविधिः । एवं तावद् अन्नमलाद् लिङ्गात् पैष्टी मुख्यसुरा द्विजातीनां प्रतिषिद्धा । अधुना त्व् असुरामद्यप्रतिषेधार्थं ब्राह्मणानाम् इदम् आरभ्यते ॥ ११.९२ ॥

094 Sura, indeed, is the dirty refuse (mala) of grain, sin also is called dirt (mala); hence a Brahmana, a Kshatriya, and a Vaisya shall not drink Sura.

Wine should be understood to be of three kinds: (a) distilled from molasses (Gauḍī), (b) distilled from grains (Paiṣṭī), and (c) ‘distilled from grapes’ (Mādhvī); as the one so all the rest should never be drunk by the chief of the twice-born.—(94)

गुडविकारो गौडी । येषाम् अपीक्षुरसम् एव मद्यताम् आपद्यते तेषाम् अपि कारणे कार्योपचारेण गौडीव्यपदेशो न विरुद्धः । मधुनो विकारो माध्वी । मधु माध्वीकं विकारवृत्त्या । न सदो जातस्य मृद्वीविकारस्य¹²⁰ प्रतिषेधो यावन् मद्यावस्थाम् अप्राप्तस्येति¹²¹ दर्शयति । अविकृतं हि मधुमाध्वीकम् इच्छन्तीति स्मरति । यत्रापि मद्यशब्देन प्रतिषेधस् तत्राप्य् अनासादितमद्यपानशक्तियोगस्य नैव प्रतिषेधः, तस्य मद्यशब्देनानभिधानात् । यथा शुक्तशब्दो ऽवस्थाविशेषवति प्रवर्तते नाविशेषेण । न हि तद् एवाम्लताम् अनापन्नं शुक्तम् इत्य् उच्यते । यथा स एव गौः वत्सावस्थायां न बलीवर्दः । एवं च¹²² पिष्टोदकादिसंघातसंमृष्ट्या¹²³ न सुरा यावत् कालपरिवासेन¹²⁴ न मदशक्तिम् आपन्ना । एवम् इक्षुरसमृद्वीविकारयोर् द्रष्टव्यम् ।

• अल्पायास् तर्हि पानं प्राप्नोति, यावत्या मात्रया पीता न मदयति । प्रतिबन्धकद्रव्ययोगेन च ।

• नैष दोषः । नायं मदोत्पत्तिप्रतिषेधः- “तथा कर्तव्यं यथा मत्तः क्षीबो न भवति” इति । किं तर्हि “यन् मदजननसमर्थशक्तियुक्तं तन् न पातव्यम्” इति । अल्पाया अपि सा शक्तिर् विद्यते । यावता रूक्षम् अल्पप्राणं स्वल्पम् अपि मद्यं मदयति, स्निग्धं महाप्राणं बह्व् अपि नेति । नैतावता मदशक्त्यभावः शक्यो वक्तुम् । कार्याभावेन कारणभावान् मद्यानाम् अपि नैव निश्चीयते । न हि महत्काष्ठं दग्धुम् असमर्थस्याग्नेर् अदाहकत्वम् अनुमीयते, शुष्कतृणे¹²⁵ तादृशस्यैव दाहकत्वोपलम्भात् ।

• यद् अप्य् उक्तं द्रव्यान्तरेण शक्तिप्रतिबन्धकत्वे¹²⁶ पानप्राप्तिर् इति ।

• तद् अप्य् अचोद्यम् । न हि तृणेन तादृशस्यैव दाहे ददानीं सा तस्य शक्तिर् नास्ति किं तु विद्यमानापि कार्यारम्भं प्रत्य् असमर्था । शक्तिसंभवश् च प्रतिहेतुर् न ते नित्यकार्यम् । न च द्रव्यान्तराणि¹²⁷ शक्तिं विनाशयन्ति, अपि तु कार्यारम्भं प्रतिबध्नन्ति । तथा च तत्परिमाणारम्भकद्रव्ययोगे ऽपि पैत्तिको माद्यति न श्लैष्मिको ऽतो ऽनुमीयते न तस्य विनाशः ।

• तस्मान् न भाविमद्यावस्थस्य प्रतिषेधो नापि प्राप्तावस्थाविशेषस्य प्रतिबन्धकाभावादिवत् तत्प्रतिषेधः । यथा चौरः स वर्जनीय इति । नोदश्वितो ऽप्राप्ताम्लभावस्य प्रतिषेधः ।

• माध्वीति कथं यावता गुणेन माधवीति (?) भवितव्यम् ।

• “संज्ञापूर्वको विधिर् अनित्यः” (च्ड़्। प्भ् ९३) इति परिहारः । ज्ञापकं चास्याः परिभाषाया आरोद्¹²⁸ इति वक्तव्ये “ओर् गुण”¹²⁹ (पाण् ६.४.१४६) इति गुणग्रहणम् ।

• अत्र द्विजोत्तमग्रहणं च क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् मद्यानुज्ञानार्थम् । तथा च महाभारते भारतानां यादवानां मद्यपानं तु वर्ण्यते- “उभौ मध्वासवक्षीबौ¹³⁰ दृष्टौ मे केशवार्जुनौ” (म्भ् ५.५८.५) इत्य् उत्तरश्लोकाद् अर्थवाद एव ।

• ननु च तथा सर्वा इति बहुवचनं कथम् ।

• यावता एकम् उपमानं द्वे उपमेये ।

• अन्नमलत्वं चात्र हेतुमन् निगदो ऽर्थवदो मलं हेतुर् यथा शूर्पेण जुहोति तेन ह्य् अन्नं क्रियत इति ॥ ११.९४ ॥

‘Gauḍī’ is that which is distilled from ‘Guḍa,’ molasses. Even according to those persons who make wine directly from fermented cane-juice itself, the article distilled is ‘Gauḍī’ ‘distilled from guḍa,’ in the sense that the name of the product, (guḍa, molasses) is applied to the cause (cane-juice).

The ‘Mādhvī’ is that ‘distilled from madhu, grape-juice i.e., in its fermented form’; for fresh grape-juice, before it has become fermented into wine, is not forbidden. This distinctly lays down that it is the fermented grape-juice that is called ‘Mādhvī.’ Wherever the prohibition contains the word ‘madya’ (‘intoxicating substance’), it cannot apply to any substance which has not acquired intoxicating properties; us such a substance could not be spoken of as ‘madya,’ intoxicating substance. A similar case is that of the word ‘Śukta’ (‘fermented gruel’) which is applied to the gruel in a certain condition, and not to gruel in general. So long as the gruel has not become soured, it is not called ‘Śukta.’ In the same manner again, the calf is not called a ‘bull’ while it is young.

Thus it is that the mixture of grain water and other things does not come to be called ‘wine,’ so long as it does not imbibe intoxicating properties, by being kept over night Similarly with cane-juice, grape-juice and other substances.

“From all this it would follow that the drinking of a small quantity of wine is permitted—that quantity of it which, if drunk, does not cause intoxication, or when this is prevented by the use of an antidote.”

There is no force in this objection. The prohibition is not meant to apply to the bringing about of intoxication; it does not mean, for instance, that ‘one should act so that he does not become intoxicated or drunk’; what the prohibition means is that ‘one should not drink that which possesses the capacity to cause intoxication’; and this capacity is present in a small quantity of wine also. The mere fact that while dry and low-spirited wine inebriates even when drunk in small quantities, that which is soft and high-spirited does not do so even when drunk in large quantities,—does not prove that there is no intoxicating power in the latter. Mere absence of effects does not necessarily prove the absence of the causa For instance, because a certain quantity of fire is unable to burn a large piece of wood, that does not prove that the fire does not possess the power to burn; specially when it is found that it is quite capable of burning dry grass.

It has been argued that—“it would seem that the drinking of wine is permitted if its intoxicating properties are counteracted by an antidote.”

But there is no force in this objection either. For even though the fire may not burn a heap of grass when it is wet, it does not mean that it does not possess the power to burn; all that it indicates is that though the power is there, it is unable to produce its effect But so long as the power is there, the chance of the effect being produced is always there.

Then again, no other substance could deprive the wine of its inherent power of intoxicating; all that it can do is to prevent the effects from appearing. Thus it is that a man of bilious temperament becomes intoxicated by the use of even a small quantity of wine, another man of phlegmatic temperament is not so easily intoxicated. From all this it is clear that the power is not destroyed in either case.

Thus then the prohibition cannot apply to the substance which is yet to acquire the intoxicating power. Nor can it be regarded as forbidden simply because there is prohibition of it as possessing certain definite characteristics. For instance, in the case of the assertion—‘the thief should be avoided’ (it is not meant that every man, even before he has committed theft, shall be avoided). It is for this reason that no prohibition applies to the gruel before it has become sour.

“How do you explain the form ‘Mādhvī’? The correct form should be ‘Mādhavī.’”

The answer to this is that rules as applied to proper names are not compulsory (Paribhāṣā, 95); and the authority for this consists of Pāṇini’s Sūtra 3.4.146.

The use of the term ‘chief of the twice-born’ has been used with a view to permit wine-drinking for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya. For instance, the Mahābhārata describes wine as drunk by the Yadāvas and the Bhāratas:—‘Both Keśava and Arjuna were found by me to be drunk with wine,’—which is a declamatory assertion pointing to the same fact “Why is then the plural form in ‘so all?’”

Two of them are the substances likened and one is that to which those are likened.

The mention of wine being the ‘dirty refuse of grains’ is meant to be a declamatory assertion producing a reason for what has been prescribed; just as in the case of the text ‘Śūrpeṇa juhoti tena hi annam kriyate.’—(94)

‘Madhvī.’—distilled from honey’ (Medhātithi);—‘distilled from Madhūka flowers’ (Kullūka);—‘distilled either from grapes and from Madhūka flowers or from honey’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1044), which adds that the liquor distilled from grains is here made an example of prohibited drink; which means that this is the principal kind of liquor, and the other two are only secondary; it is for this reason that though all the three are equally forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa, the former alone is forbidden for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), to the effect that liquor distilled from grains is the principal kind of liquor;—and again, in the sense that the sin involved in the drinking of liquor distilled from honey and molasses is as heavy as that in drinking that distilled from grains.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 411), which notes that the name ‘Surā’ is applied primarily to liquor distilled from grains only, and only indirectly to those distilled from honey and molasses;—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 548);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 814), which notes that ‘dvijottama’ stands for Brāhmaṇas; hence the meaning is that all kinds of liquor are forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa from his very birth;—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 89) in support of the view that the name ‘Surā’ applies to wines of all the three kinds;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 355) to the effect that the name ‘Surā’ applies directly to these three kinds of wine only, and only figuratively to other kinds.

**(verses 11.94-97)
**

Viṣṇu (22.82).—‘Distilled from sugar, or from the blossoms of Madhūka, or from flour; these three kinds of wine have to be discerned; as the one so all; none of them should be tasted by the twice-born. Further, that distilled from the blossoms of the Madhūka, from molasses, from the Ṭaṅka fruit, from the Jujube fruit, from dates, from the bread-fruit, from honey, Maireya wine, and wine made of the sap of the cocoanut (coconut?) tree; these ten intoxicating drinks are unclean for the Brāhmaṇa; but the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya commit no wrong in touching or drinking them.’

Agastya (Aparārka, p. 1070).—‘That distilled from the jack-fruit, from grapes, from Madhūka blossoms, from dates, from palm-fruit, from sugar-cane juice, from honey, the Maira, from the cocoanut,—these eleven kinds of wine are equal; the twelfth is the wine called Surā, which is the worst of all.’

गुडस्य विकारो गौडी, गुडकार्या वा । अनुक्ता तद्धितवृत्तिर् इति कृत्वा यत्रापीक्षुरसविकारो मद्यं तत्रापीक्षुरसो गुडकारणत्वाद् गुदशब्देनोच्यते । एवं चोभयथापि गौडी भवति । पैष्टी तु पिष्टविकारः, “तस्येदम्” इति वा । अनुक्ता तद्धितवृत्तिर् इति पूर्वोक्ता मुख्या । माध्वी च मधुशब्दादेर् अत्र विकारार्थे । एवं मधुविकारो माध्वी न माधवी, येन “संज्ञापूर्व[को] विधिर् नित्यः” इतीयं परिभाषा अस्याश् च ज्ञापकं स्यात् । “ओर् ओद् इति वक्तव्ये” गुणग्रहणं गुर्वविकृतं ज्ञापनार्थम् अस्य । तथा च सति गुणस्यानित्यत्वात् माद्वीति सिद्धम् । एवं च “स्वायम्भुव इत्य् एतद् अपि सिद्धम्” भवति । एवं त्रिविधैषा । यथैवैका इति च प्रसिद्धा । प्रतिषिद्धायां पिष्टसुरायां पूर्वश्लोके,इह श्लोके इतरे गौडीमाध्व्याव् असुरे सत्यौ सुरीकरोति निन्दार्थम् । अतः पिष्टसुरासमे इतरे न सुरे एव । यथा राजसमो मन्त्री राजाभवति । यथैवैका तथा सर्वा न पातव्या द्विजोत्तमैर् इति गौडीमाध्व्योश् च बहुवचनम्, तथा सर्व इत्य् एतद्भेदबहुत्वापेक्षम्, समुदायापेक्षं वा । ते च पैष्टी च सर्वापेया । इतरथा हि “यथैवैका तथैवोभौ न पातव्यौ द्विजोत्तमैः” इत्य् एवं पाठः स्यात्, यद्य् एवं बहुवचनम् इदं न व्याख्यायेत । एवं चात्र श्लोके ब्राह्मणानां गौडीमाध्व्योः प्रतिषेधः, पूर्वश्लोके तु मुख्यसुरा त्रयाणाम् अपि प्रतिषिद्धा । एतच् च सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञायते । सामर्थ्यं च वाक्यद्वयारम्भः । तद् यतः श्लोके ऽस्मिंस् त्रयाणां द्विजानां प्रतिषिद्ध्येरन् ततः पूर्वश्लोकारम्भो ऽनर्थकः स्यात् । आरब्धस् तु यतः पुनरुक्तत्वात् शास्त्रवाक्ययोः पूर्वश्लोकेन मुख्यसुरा त्रयाणाम् अपि प्रतिषिद्धा, उत्तरश्लोके तु गौडीमाध्वयोर् एव ब्राह्मणानां प्रतिषेधः । एवं च सति यथैवैका तथा सर्वा इत्य् एतद् उपपन्नं भवति । द्विजोत्तमग्रहणं चात्र ये च “द्विजातिभिः” इत्य् अत्र पठन्ति, तेषां द्विजातिशब्दाद् द्विजोत्तमार्थ एव विज्ञेयः, त्रयाणां साधारणो ऽपि सन्न् एतत् स्यात् सार्थ्यात् । तथा चोत्तरशोकेषु त्रिषु ब्राःमणग्रहणानि लिङ्गान्य् अस्यैवार्थस्य प्रदर्शयिष्यामः ॥ ११। ९३ ॥

095 Sura one must know to be of three kinds, that distilled from molasses (gaudi), that distilled from ground rice, and that distilled from Madhuka-flowers (madhvi); as the one (named above) even so are all (three sorts) forbidden to the chief of the twice-born.

Intoxicants, meat, wine and distilled liquors are the food of Yakṣas, Rākṣasas and Piśācas; it should not be taken by the Brāhmaṇa who partakes of the offerings to the gods.—(95)

यक्षादयो निन्द्याः प्राणिनो भक्ष्याभक्ष्यविवेकशून्या मांसम् अभक्षयन् । सुरा चासवश् च सुरासवम् । “जातिर् अप्राणिनाम्” (पाण् २.४.६) इत्य् एकवद् भावः । आसवो ऽत्र मद्यविसेष एव, ईषन्मद्याद् भिन्नं गोबलीवर्दवद् इहोपादानम् । देवानाम् अश्नता देवदेयानि हवींषि चरुपुरोडाशादीनि दर्शपूर्णमासोदितानि ब्राह्मणस्याशितुं युक्तानि, न पिशाचाद्यन्नं मद्यमांसादीनि ॥ ११.९५ ॥

‘Yakṣa’ and the rest are lower classes of beings, ignorant of the law relating to what should and what should not be eaten; and it is they that eat meat

The compound ‘Surāsavam,’ is a copulative one, i.e., in accordance with Pāṇini 2.4.6.

‘Distilled liquor’ also is a kind of ‘intoxicant,’ there being a slight difference between the two. The two are mentioned on the analogy of such expressions as ‘the ox and the bull’

‘Who partake of the offering to the gods’—The cake, rice and such substance offered to the gods are called ‘offerings’; as mentioned in connection with the Darśa-pūrṇamāsa and other sacrifices. It is these that it is right and proper for the Brāhmaṇa to eat, and not wine and meat, which are the food of the lower spirits.—(95)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.253), as implying that it is for the Brāhmaṇa alone that all the three kinds of liquor are equally forbidden;—in Aparārka (p. 1069), to the effect that (a) the Surā is to be avoided by all the twice-born, even before initiation, (b) the Mādhvī and the Gauḍī are to be avoided by the Brāhmaṇa at all times, but by the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya only during the period of studentship.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 225);—in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika 548);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 814), to the effect that the Mādhvī and the Gauḍī are forbidden only for the Brāhmaṇa, not for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya; but they are forbidden for all the three higher castes during the period of studentship;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 355).

**(verses 11.94-97)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.94].

इति लिङ्गात् सत्य् अपि जात्यर्थविशेषे स्त्रीणाम् अप्रतिषेधः । एवं च सत्य् अनेनाप्रतिषेधदर्शनेन क्वचिद् ब्राह्मण्यः पिबन्ति । यथा च स्त्रीपुंसयोः सत्य् अप्य् एकजातित्वे प्रायश्चित्तभेदः, एवम् अयम् अपि प्रतिषेधविशेषो विज्ञेयः । यथा “अश्विनं भक्षयन्ति” इति च सुराग्रहे सौत्रामण्यां कर्माङ्गत्वाद् अदोषः, मांसवत्, एवं वाजपेये त्व् इति । अयम् अपरो ऽर्थवादस् सुराप्रतिषेधविधेः ॥ ११.९४ ॥

096 Sura, (all other) intoxicating drinks and decoctions and flesh are the food of the Yakshas, Rakshasas, and Pisakas; a Brahmana who eats (the remnants of) the offerings consecrated to the gods, must not partake of such (substances).

A Brāhmaṇa, stupefied by drunkenness, might tumble down upon unclean things; or he might wrongly recite the Veda; or he might do some other improper act.—(96)

अमेध्ये पतनं देवान्नाशनवद् अर्थवादः ।

• ननु च वैदिकोदाहरणं कथम् अकार्यम् ।

• अत्रोच्यते । तदपेक्षय्आन्यद् अकार्यं कुर्याद् इति । कथम् अकार्यम्, अशुचेर् वेदाक्षरोच्चारणप्रतिषेधात् ॥११.९६ ॥

‘Tumbling on unclean things’ is purely declamatory, like the mention of ‘the eating of the food of the gods.’

“How can the reciting of Vedic texts ever be an improper act?”

The answer to this is that what is meant is that ‘he might do an act which is improper,’ as compared to the reciting of the Veda. Further, why is it impossible for the reciting of Veda to be ‘improper?’ In fact the uttering of Vedic texts has been clearly forbidden for one who is in an unclean condition.—(96)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 548).

**(verses 11.94-97)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.94].

अर्थवादो ऽयम्, न हेतुः । हेतुत्वे हि स्वल्पिका पीयेत, यावती पीता मदं न जनयति । अमेध्ये पतनादौ चाकार्ये न प्रवर्तयति । अथ वा सप्रत्यनीका मांसभक्षणेन सह पीयमानामेध्यपतनादिदोषं मदभावं न जनयतीति कृत्वा तथा पीयेत ॥ ११.९५ ॥

097 A Brahmana, stupefied by drunkenness, might fall on something impure, or (improperly) pronounce Vedic (texts), or commit some other act which ought not to be committed.

When the ‘Brahman’ resident in his body has been once deluged by wine, the ‘Brāhmaṇahood’ disappears and the man becomes a Śūdra.—(97)

अधीते वेदे संस्काररूपेणावस्थितं हृदयं ब्रह्मशब्देनोच्यते¹³¹ । अतो हृदये मद्येनाप्लाविते स शूद्रतां गच्छति । ब्राह्मण्यवचनं सर्वप्रकारमद्यनिषेधार्थं ब्राह्मणस्य । क्षत्रियवैश्ययोः पैष्ट्या एव निषेध इति दर्सयति ॥ ११.९७ ॥

When the Veda has been duly studied, it remains in the man’s heart, in the form of memory; and it is the Veda thus committed to memory that is called here ‘Brahman.’ The meaning thus is that when the heart has become ‘deluged with wine,’ the man becomes a Śūdra.

‘Brāhmaṇahood’ has been mentioned with a view to indicate that all kinds of wine are forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa,—the wine distilled from grains alone being forbidden for the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya.—(97)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika p. 548).

**(verses 11.94-97)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.94].

आत्मस्थं ब्रह्मभावनाख्यं यस्मात् अतः कायगतम् इत्य् अर्थवादो ऽयम् । ब्राह्मणग्रहणं चात्र श्लोकत्रये धारणार्थम् । अनन्तरश्लोके गौडीमाद्व्योः ब्राह्मणप्रतिषेधात् तदपेक्षया । अथ तु पूर्वश्लोकप्रतिषेधापेक्षो ऽपि ततः पूर्वस्य प्रतिषेधस्योत्तरस्य च सामान्येनामी श्लोकत्रयार्थवादाः । एतस्मिंश् च पक्षे ब्राह्मणग्रहणं निदर्शनार्थं यथासंभवं विज्ञेयम् । अन्ये तूक्तप्रतिषिद्धत्वात् क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् विकल्पं मन्यन्ते गौडीमाध्व्योः प्रतिषेधस्य । तद् इदं य्क्तम् अयुक्तं वेति विचारणीयम्, ग्रन्थगौरवभयात् तु न लिख्यते । किं चातः यदि जातिनिमित्तः सर्वावस्थम् अपेयम् । अथ मदगुणनिमित्ते ततो ऽपि नष्टे तस्मिन्न् अल्पं वा पेयं स्यात् । यत इदम् उच्यते गुणनिमित्तो ऽयं प्रतिषेधः । एवं सति प्रत्यस्तमितमदगुणं दयं कुत्रचिद् आचरन्ति ब्राह्मणाः । तथा चोक्तम्- “अमेध्ये वा पतेन् मत्तः” इत्य् एवमादिषु मदगुणनिमित्त एव प्रतिषेधो मद्यस्येति विज्ञयते । अनुत्पन्नमदगुणं च माध्वीकम् अपर्युषितं च पीयते । यतः गुणापेक्ष एव प्रतिषेधः । [अन्]ये ऽपि च नाचरन्ति विनष्टमदगुणम् अपि सन् मद्यम् । तथा च वक्ष्यत् “सुराभाण्डस्थितस् तथा” इत्य् एवमादि ॥ ११.९६ ॥

098 When the Brahman (the Veda) which dwells in his body is (even) once (only) deluged with spirituous liquor, his Brahmanhood forsakes him and he becomes a Sudra.

Thus have been described the various expiations for wine-drinking; after this I am going to expound the expiation for the theft of gold.—(98)

उक्तप्रयोजनौ पूर्वोत्तरश्लोकौ ॥ ११.९८ ॥

The purpose of the two halves of the verse is as is clearly stated here.—(98)

उपसंहारोपन्यासार्थः स्लोकः ॥ ११.९७ ॥

099 The various expiations for drinking (the spirituous liquors called) Sura have thus been explained; I will next proclaim the atonement for stealing the gold (of a Brahmana).

A Brāhmaṇa who has committed the theft of gold shall go to the King, and confessing his crime, shall say ‘sire, punish me.’—(99)

ब्राह्मणसुवर्णस्तेय एतत् प्रायश्चित्तम् । विप्रग्रहणं सर्ववर्णप्रदर्शनार्थम्, क्षत्रियादीनाम् अन्यस्य प्रायश्चित्तस्यासमाम्नानात् । माम् अनुशास्तु निग्रहं करोतु । राजा गत्वा च वक्तव्यः । अत्र च राजशब्दो देशेश्वरवचन एव न क्षत्रियजात्यपेक्षः ॥ ११.९९ ॥

This is the expiation for stealing gold belonging to a Brāhmaṇa.

The term ‘brāhmaṇa’ is meant to include all castes; as is dear from the fact that no other expiation has been prescribed for the Kṣatriya and other castes.

‘Punish me.’—‘Inflict the proper punishment on me.’ The man shall go to the King and tell him this.

The word ‘King’ here stands for the Sovereign of the country,—but one who is of the Kṣatriya caste.—(99)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 414);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 117).

**(verses 11.99-102)
**

[[See above 8.314-316.]]

Āpastamba (1.25.10).—‘Those who have stolen gold, drunk wine or violated the Guru’s bed, but not those who have slain a Brāhmaṇa, shall eat every fourth meal-time a little food, bathe at the time of the three libations, passing the day standing and the night sitting. After the lapse of three years, they throw off their guilt.’

Viṣṇu (52.1-3).—‘He who has stolen gold must bring a club to the King, proclaiming his deed; whether the King kills him with it, or dismisses him unhurt, he becomes purified. Or in the case he did it unawares, he shall perform the Mahāvrata for twelve years.’

Yājñavalkya (3.257-258).—‘One who steals Brāhmaṇa’s gold should hand over a club to the King, proclaiming his deed; whether killed, or let off, by the King, he becomes pure, if he does not report it to the King, he shall he purified by performing the penance laid down for the drinker of wine;—or he must give away to the Brāhmaṇa his own weight in gold.’

100 A Brahmana who has stolen the gold (of a Brahmana) shall go to the king and, confessing his deed, say, ‘Lord, punish me!’

Taking up a club, the King himself shall strike him once. The thief becomes purified by death; but the Brāhmaṇa by penance alone.—(100)

मुशलं दण्डविशेष आयसो दारुमयो वा । सकृत् स्वयम् इति विवक्षितम् । वधेन शुध्यति । सकृत् प्रहारेण वधो मरणफलो वा भवतु मा वास्तु । तादृशेन मुशलप्रहारेण शुद्धो भवति । ब्राह्मणस् तु तपसा वक्ष्यमाणेन । अत्रापि ब्राह्मणग्रहणम् अविवक्षितम् । तथा चोत्तरत्र द्विजग्रहणम् । यद्य् अपि च कृष्णलग्रहणे महापातकं तथापि मरणान्तं प्रायश्चित्तं सुवर्णशतहरणे द्रष्टव्यम् । उक्तं दण्डप्रायश्चित्तं तुल्यरूपेण । अत्र चोक्तम् “शताद् अब्यधिके वधः” (म्ध् ८.३२१) इत्य् अतो ऽर्वाक् कल्पना कार्या ।

• यस् तु “मरणात् पूतो भवति” (वध् २०.४१) इति प्रायश्चित्तान्तरम्, “तस्मिन् राजा शस्त्रम् उदुम्बरम् आदद्यात् तस्मात् तं प्रमापयेन् मरणात् पूतो भवतीति विज्ञायते” (वध् २०.४१) । यदा क्षत्रियादिर् हन्ता स्वामी च गुणवांस् तत्रैतद् विज्ञायते । यदा तु मरणोद्यतस् तदा¹³² स्याद् इति, प्रयोजने प्रयोजनोपहारस्¹³³ तदा वा शिष्टं निष्कालको¹³⁴ घृताक्तो गोमयादिना पातप्रभृतिः¹³⁵ ॥ ११.१०० ॥

‘Club’—a particular kind of stick, made of iron or wood.

‘Once,’ ‘himself’—both of these are meant to be emphasised.

‘Becomes purified by death.’—The man shall be struck only; it does not matter whether or not he dies by it; he becomes purified by the stroke of the club.

‘The Brāhmaṇa by penance’—as described below. Here also stress is not meant to be laid upon the term ‘Brāhmaṇa.’ It is for this reason that the next verse contains the term ‘twice-born person’ (in general).

Though the stealing of Kṛṣṇala (grains of gold, used at certain sacrifices) is a serious crime, yet, what is here laid down should be understood as pertaining to the stealing of a hundred gold-pieces. It has been explained that punishment and expiation proceed on the same lines; and, in connection with punishments, it has been said that ‘death shall be the penalty when more than a hundred gold-pieces have been stolen’ (8.321); hence the expiation here put forward should also be taken as pertaining to the stealing of the same quantity.

As regards the assertion that the thief becomes pure by death, it is understood to be based upon the passage—‘For him the King shall take up a weapon made of Udumbara wood, and kill him with it, and he becomes pure by that death.’ And this refers to a case where the stealer is a Kṣatriya or one lower still, and the owner is a highly qualified person.

When, however, the man is prepared to die, he may be made to refund what he has stolen and smeared with butter, live upon cow-dung (?).—(100)

‘Tapasaiva tu.’—“Kullūka thinks that it indicates that, while a Brāhmaṇa must never be slain by the king, other Āryans also may perform austerities.—According to Rāghavānanda it refers to the optional recitation of the Gāyatri 700,000 times;—according to Nārāyaṇa to other penances, even such as end in death;—Govindarāja takes it as referring to those prescribed in the next verse.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 414), which adds the following notes:—The alternative of ‘killing’ is meant for one who is a Brāhmaṇa in name only while ‘austerity’ is for one who is endowed with such qualities as being devoted to sacrifices and so forth. It goes on to add that the death-penalty is meant for cases of intentional stealing; unintentional stealing of gold being possible in cases where a man steals a piece of cloth, to which (unknown to him) a piece of gold may be tied. It adds that the particular ‘austerity’ is, meant as described by Manu himself in the next verse.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1079), which adds that the term ‘vipraḥ’ does not preclude the other castes; it is emphasised only with a view to indicate that what is here stated is an exception to the general prohibition ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not he killed this general prohibition is of that act of killing to which one is prompted by mere passion; in the case in question the killing is done as an act of justice, and at the request of the culprit himself. In fact the omission of this act of justice would involve the king in sin.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.267), which adds the following note—On being struck once, if the culprit dies, he becomes absolved from his sin; but even if he do not die when struck, he becomes absolved from the sin;—and again, to the effect that, the killing of the Brāhmaṇa under the said circumstances is permissible;—and in Prayaścittaviveka (p. 117).

**(verses 11.99-102)
**

[[See above 8.314-316.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.99].

101 Taking (from him) the club (which he must carry), the king himself shall strike him once, by his death the thief becomes pure; or a Brahmana (may purify himself) by austerities.

If a twice-born person is desirous of removing the guilt of stealing gold by means of penance, he should perform the penance prescribed for the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa,—living in a forest, clothed in rags.—(101)

इति च द्वादशवार्षिकधर्मानुवादात् तस्यैवातिदेशः, न ब्रह्महत्यायाः, प्रायश्चित्तान्तरम् । ब्रह्महणि यद्व्रतम् उक्तं तच् चरेद् इति योजना । अपनुनुत्सुर् अपनेतुम् इच्छुः । सुद्धिं चिकीर्षतीति यावत् ॥ ११.१०१ ॥

This only refers to the ‘Twelve-year Penance,’ and not to any other of the several expiations prescribed for the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa;—the construction being—‘He shall perform that penance which has been prescribed for the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa.’

‘Who desires to remove’—anxious to wipe off; desirous of purification.—(101)

“According to Nārāyaṇa this verse refers to an unintentional offence; according to Kullūka and Rāghvānanda, to the theft of a small sum.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 415), as describing the ‘austerity’ mentioned in the preceding verse;—and in Aparārka (p. 1080), which remarks that this refers to a case where the gold stolen belonged to a Brāhmaṇa devoid of good qualities, or where the theft has been committed by a Brāhmaṇa possessing good qualities in times of distress for the support of his family;—and that in a case where one without qualities has stolen gold belonging; to a Brāhmaṇa with good qualities, in large quantities, or for such evil purposes as gambling and the like, the expiation must be one that ends in the culprit’s death.

**(verses 11.99-102)
**

[[See above 8.314-316.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.99].

त्रिभिः श्लोकैः सुवर्णस्तेयप्रायश्चित्तविधिः । क्षत्रियादीनां च विशेषेण प्रायश्चित्तविधेर् अनाम्नातत्वात् सुवर्णस्तेयकृद् विप्र इति यद् इदं विप्रग्रहणम् एतत् सर्ववर्णप्रदर्शनार्थं विज्ञेयम् । तथा “ब्राह्मणस् तपसैव वा” इति यद् उक्तम् अत्रेदम् उच्यते । न हि तपश् शक्यते क्षत्रियादिवर्णानां प्रतिषेद्धुम् । अपरे त्व् एतस्माद् यत्नात् ब्राह्मणस्याइवैकस्य तपः नेतरेषां वर्णानाम् इति मन्यन्ते । राजाभिगमनस्य च राजधर्मेषु सिद्धस्यापि सतः पुनर् इहोपदेशः प्रायश्चित्तार्थः, तत्र च राजदण्डार्थः, तपोविधित्सया वा पुनर्ग्रहणम् । ब्राह्मणस्य च वधो नास्तीति तत्रैवोक्तम् । निगदव्याख्यातम् अन्यत् ॥ ११.९८–१०० ॥

102 He who desires to remove by austerities the guilt of stealing the gold (of a Brahmana), shall perform the penance (prescribed) for the slayer of a Brahmana, (living) in a forest and dressed in (garments) made of bark.

The twice-born man shall remove the guilt caused by theft by means of these penances. That caused by intercourse with the Preceptor’s wife he shall wipe off by means of these following penances.—(102)

• एतद् एव ज्ञापकम्- एष निःशेषोक्तान् अप्य् अनुक्ताण् कल्पेतानुबन्धाद्यपेक्षया ।

• गुरुस्त्रीगमनप्रयोजनं गुरुस्त्रीगमनीयम् । निमित्तम् अपि प्रयोजनम् उच्यते, प्रयोजयति प्रवर्तयतीति ॥ ११.१०२ ॥

“Inasmuch as only two modes of purification have been mentioned above—‘the thief becomes purified by death, and also by penance,’—the plural number in ‘these penances,’ does not appear to be right”

This same use of the plural number is indicative of the fact that there are other expiations also, which have not been mentioned,—to be determined by the considerations of the circumstances attending each case.

‘Gurustrīgamanīyam’ means that of which intercourse with the Preceptors’s wife is the incentive;—the cause is often regarded as the prayojana, the incentive, which prompts or brings about the effect—(102)

**(verses 11.99-102)
**

[[See above 8.314-316.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.99].

उपसंहारोपन्यासः पूर्वोत्तरप्रकरणयोः ॥ ११.१०१ ॥

103 By these penances a twice-born man may remove the guilt incurred by a theft (of gold); but he may atone for connexion with a Guru’s wife by the following penances.

He who has violated his Preceptor’s bed shall confess his crime and lie down upon a heated iron-bed; or embrace a blazing image. By death he becomes purified.—(103)

गुरुतल्पगः । “गुरुतल्पी” इति वा पाठः । तल्पीति मत्वर्थीयेन विशिष्ट एव स्त्रीपुंसयोः संसर्ग उच्यते । गुरुर् आचार्यः पिता चेति । तल्पशब्दो दारवचनः । आचार्याणी गत्वेदं प्रायश्चित्तम् । अपरा मातेव मातासमानजातीयायां गमने¹³⁶ । इमानि त्रीणि प्रायश्चित्तानि कल्प्यते¹³⁷ बुद्धिपूर्वं च । अभिभाषैनः पापं विख्याप्य । तल्पे¹³⁸ शयने ऽग्निस्पर्शे ऽयोमये शयीत, मृत्युना शुध्यतीति वचनात् । सूर्मिः¹³⁹ तप्ता स्त्रीप्रकृतिर् अयोमयी, ताम् आश्लिष्येद् आलिङ्ग्येत् ॥ ११.१०३ ॥

‘He who has violated his preceptor’s bed’—Another reading his ‘Gurutalpī’;—the term ‘talpī’ ending in the possessive affix, stands for a particular form of intercourse between man and woman.

By ‘preceptor,’ here is meant the Preceptor as well as the Father. And ‘bed’ stands for the wife.

The expiation here laid down is for intercourse with the wife of one’s preceptor, or with a step-mother of the same caste; and the three expiations here set forth refer to a case where the act has been intentional.

‘Confess his guilt’— proclaim his crime.

He shall lie down upon a bed of iron as hot as fire; that this is what is meant is dear by the next sentence—‘He becomes purified by death.’

‘Sūrmi’ is image of a woman, made of iron. This he shall embrace.—(103)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 1083), which adds the following notes:—The culprit should openly proclaim his offence of having violated his Guru’s bed;—‘sūrmī’ is a female image made of iron or some such metal.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 255);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 836 and 837), which notes that there are two expiations prescribed here:—(a) lying down upon a heated iron-bed, and (b) embracing the red hot image;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 11 a);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 137), which explains ‘gurutalpaḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘gurutalpī’) as ‘guroḥ talpam talpam yasya,’ ‘sūrmī’ as an iron image.

**(verses 11.103-107)
**

Gautama (23.8-11).—‘He who has defiled his Guru’s bed shall lay himself down on a heated iron-bed; or he shall embrace the red-hot iron-image of a woman; or he shall tear out his organ and testicles and, holding them in his hands, walk straight towards the south-west, until he falls down dead. He will be purified after death.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.13-15).—‘He who has defiled his Guru’s bed shall lay himself down on a heated iron bed;—or embrace the red-hot image of a woman;—or cutting off his organ together with the testicles, and holding them in his joined hands, he shall walk towards the south-west until he falls down dead.’

Āpastamba (1.25.1-2).—‘He who has had connection with his Guru’s wife shall cut off his organ together with the testicles, take them in his joined hands and walk towards the south until he falls down dead. Or he may die embracing a heated metal-image of a woman.’

Vaśiṣṭha (22.13-14).—‘He who violates his Guru’s bed shall, cut off his organ together with the testicles, take them in his joined hands and walk towards the south; whenever he meets with an obstacle, there he shall stand until he dies;—or having shaved all his hair and smeared his body with clarified butter, he shall embrace the heated iron-image of a woman. It is declared in the Veda that he is purified after death.’

Viṣṇu (34.1, 2;—53.1).—‘Sexual connection with one’s mother or daughter or daughter-in-law is crime of the highest degree. Such criminals of the highest degree should enter the flames; there is no other way to atone for the crime. One who has had illicit sexual intercourse must perform the Prājāpatya penance for one year according to the rule of the Mahāvrata.’ (P. 839)

Mahābhārata (12.165.50-51).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.259-260).—‘The violator of his Guru’s bed should he down on a heated iron-bed along with the iron-image of a woman; or cutting out his testicles and holding them he shall give up his body towards the south; or he shall perform the Prājāpatya penance for one year, or the Cāndrāyaṇa for three months, and shall repeat the Vedic text.’

104 He who has violated his Guru’s bed, shall, after confessing his crime, extend himself on a heated iron bed, or embrace the red-hot image (of a woman); by dying he becomes pure;

Or, having cut off his penis and testicles, he shall take them in his joined hands and walk straight on towards the ‘region of evil spirits,’ until he falls down.—(104)

उत्कर्तनेन¹⁴⁰ कल्पेन शोधनम् । शस्त्राध्याक्षिप्तशक्तिः¹⁴¹ सर्वत्र सहकारिणी । येन शक्येत छेत्तुं तत्सामर्थ्याल् लभ्यते । प्रत्यग्दक्षिणा¹⁴² नैरृती दिक् । अजिह्मगो ऽकुटिलगः । श्वभ्रकूपादि न परिहरेद् इत्य् अर्थः । कुड्यादिषु प्रतियातनं¹⁴³ हि तदापाताद् गच्छेद् एव ॥ ११.१०४ ॥

The ‘cutting off’ here mentioned is conducive to purification. The use of a cutting instrument is implied by the fact that every act needs the requisite implements; so that the weapon implied must be one that is fit to be used for the required cutting.

The South-west is the ‘region of evil spirits.’

‘Straight on,’—not deviating from the straight line; so that he may not seek to avoid wells or pits and such things; but in the case of walls and such obstacles, he should certainly go round them.—(104)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.259), which offers the following explanation:—He should himself cut off his testicles and the organ, take them in his hands and go away straight onwards towards the South-West, till his body falls off; it adds that the man should go towards the South-West backwards and with eyes bandaged.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 836), which also adds that the man should go backwards and with eyes closed;—in Aparārka (p. 1083);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 253);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta, p. 11a);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 137), which says that the ‘cutting’ should be done with a razor as distinctly prescribed by Śaṅkha-Likhita.

**(verses 11.103-107)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.103].

105 Or, having himself cut off his organ and his testicles and having taken them in his joined hands, he may walk straight towards the region of Nirriti (the south-west), until he falls down (dead);

Or, carrying a bedstead, clothed in rags, with beard grown, he shall perform, in the solitary forest, the ‘Prājāpatya’ penance, for one year, with concentrated mind.—(105)

अबुद्धिपूर्वकं स्वभार्याभ्रान्त्या¹⁴⁴ गमन इदं प्रायश्चित्तम् । विजातीयगमने¹⁴⁵ बुद्धिपूर्वकम् अपि । चीरं वस्त्रखण्डम् । श्मश्रुलो रूढश्मश्रुः । समानजातीयाया अपि व्यभिचारिण्या गमने लघ्व् एव प्रायश्चित्तम्¹⁴⁶ ॥ ११.१०५ ॥

This expiation refers to a case where the crime has been committed unintentionally, under the misapprehension that the woman was the man’s own wife;—or when the crime is intentional, and the woman belongs to a different caste.

‘Rags,’ ‘cīra,’—pieces of doth.

‘With beard grown’—letting his beard grow.

Even in a case where the woman is of the same caste, if she is an unchaste woman, the expiation shall be a light one.—(105)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 840);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 140), which says that this refers to unintentional intercourse with the guru-patnī who is unchaste.

**(verses 11.103-107)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.103].

106 Or, carrying the foot of a bedstead, dressed in (garments of) bark and allowing his beard to grow, he may, with a concentrated mind, perform during a whole year the Krikkhra (or hard, penance), revealed by Pragapati, in a lonely forest;

Or, with his senses controlled, he shall perform the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ for three months, subsisting on ‘sacrificial food’ or on barley-gruel,—for the expiating of the sin of violating the Preceptor’s bed.—(106)

अतिदिष्टगुरुभावानां मातुलपितृव्यादीनां या भार्यास् तद्गमन इदं प्रायश्चित्तम् । हविष्यं पयोमूलघृतादि । यवागू द्रवपेयादि ॥ ११.१०६ ॥

This expiation refers to those cases where the woman happens to be the wife of the maternal uncle or such other persons as are generally treated as ‘guru,’ ‘preceptor.’

‘Sacrificial food’—milk, roots, butter and so forth.

‘Barley-gruel’—a particular kind of drink.—(106)

**(verses 11.103-107)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.103].

चतुर्भिः श्लोकैः गुरुतल्पप्रायश्चित्तम् इदं वैकृतिकम् । गुरुर् व्याख्यातो विद्यागुरुः स्वयोनिगुरुश् च । तदङ्गनां गतो गुरुतल्पग इति गुणतस् तल्पशब्दो गुरुभार्यायां विज्ञेयः । हविष्ययवाग्वोश् च ग्रहणं गोबलीवर्दन्यायेन । ऋज्व् अन्यत् ॥ ११.१०२–१०५ ॥

107 Or, controlling his organs, he may during three months continuously perform the lunar penance, (subsisting) on sacrificial food or barley-gruel, in order to remove (the guilt of) violating a Guru’s bed.

By means of these penances, the committers of heinous crimes may wipe off their sins. The committers of minor offences may do the same by their following the several forms of penances.—(107)

उक्तवक्ष्यमाणसंक्षेपवचनो ऽयम् ॥ ११.१०७ ॥

This summarises what has been said before and what is going to be said next—(107)

**(verses 11.103-107)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.103].

108 By means of these penances men who have committed mortal sins (Mahapataka) may remove their guilt, but those who committed minor offences, causing loss of caste, (Upapataka, can do it) by the various following penances.

The cow-killer, charged with a minor offence, shall drink barley for three months; and having shaved his head and covered with the skin of the cow, he shall live in the cow-pen.—(108)

गोघ्नो गोघाती, “मूलविभुजादिदर्शनात् कः” (कात् २ ओन् पाण् ३.२.५) ।

• यवान् पिबेद् इति यवसक्तुपानं केचिद् आहुः ।

• अन्ये तु प्रकृतिशब्दः कार्ये¹⁴⁷ यवाग्वां प्रयुक्तो ऽतो यवान् पिष्ट्वा पाययेद् इत्य् उक्तं भवति ।

• पूर्वस्मिन् पक्षे ऽश्रुतोदकादिद्रवकल्पना भवति । न हि यवा उदकादिना विना पातुं शक्यन्ते । इह तु लक्षणमात्रम्, अश्रुतकल्पनायाश् च लघ्वी लक्षणा ।

• कृतवपनः कृतमौण्ड्यः, केशच्छेदवचनो वा । गोष्ठे यत्र गाव आसते । चर्मणा तेन । या न¹⁴⁸ गौर् हता, अपि त्व् अन्यस्या अपि ॥ ११.१०८ ॥

‘Cow-killer’—one who has killed a cow; the word being formed with the ‘Ka’ affix.

‘Shall drink barley.’—Some people explain this to mean a drink mixed with barley. Others, however, hold that the name of the original substance (barley) has been used in the sense of its product; hence what is meant is that the man shall drink barley-gruel.

In the ease of the former explanation, it is necessary to assume the addition of water or some liquid substance, without its being mentioned in the text; as mere barley-grains cannot be drunk, until they are mixed up with a liquid substance.

In the second explanation, however, all that is necessary is to take the word ‘barley’ in a figurative sense; and certainly, a figurative or indirect signification is much simpler than the assumption of what is not mentioned at all.

‘Having shaved his head’—with his hair shaved off; or it may simply mean with his hairs cut.

‘Cow-pen’—the place where cows sit and rest.

‘Covered with the skin of the cow’—not necessarily of the cow that has been killed; it may be of another cow also.—(108)

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

These verses are quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 191), which adds that this refers to the ease of intentionally killing a cow belonging to a Brāhmaṇa;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 860), which notes that what is laid down in verses 108 to 113 refers to cases of intentional killing of a cow belonging to the Kṣatriya, and what is declared in verses 115 and 116 to cases of killing any cow belonging to a Brāhmaṇa. It goes on to add the following notes:—Since the text mentions no other food, the man should live upon fruits and roots only; or the meaning may be that ‘anena vidhinā’ (of verse 115) refers to the two months’ course detailed in the foregoing verses; and the sense is that the man who is unable to give ten cows with a bull should give away all his belongings. When however one unintentionally kills a cow, young and well-fed, belonging to a Brāhmaṇa, he should observe the three-monthly penance prescribed by Aṅgiras.

They are quoted also in Smṛtitattva (p. 519);—in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 358);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 196-197), which says that this refers to the ordinary killing of the cow, and not to its killing for sacrifices;—and adds the following explanation:—He should shave his head, cover himself with the skin of the cow he has killed, and drink gruel of barley cooked in cow’s urine’, and thus live in the cow-pen, for one month, and during the next two months he should fast during the day and eat a little in the evening,—‘vīrāsana’ is sitting without any support,—‘abhiśasta’ attacked,—‘bhayaih’ by dangerous animals,—‘sarvaprāṇaiḥ’ (which is its reading for sarvapāpaiḥ’), to the best of his power—‘gām na kathayet’, with a view to have her driven away,—‘sucaritavrataḥ’, he who has followed these restrictions in the right manner,—he should give ten cows along with one bull.

Verse 115 only is quoted in the Śuddhikaumdī (p.241).

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

Gautama (22.18).—‘The penance for killing a cow is the same as that for killing a Vaiśya (vow of continence to be kept for three years and giving one cow and one bull).’

Āpastamba (1.26, 1).—‘If a milch cow or a full-grown ox has been killed without reason, the expiation shall be the same as that for killing a Śūdra (give ten cows with a bull).’

Vaśiṣṭha (21.18).—‘If he kills a cow, he shall perform, during six months, a Kṛcchra or a Taptakṛcchra, clothed in the raw hide of that cow.’

Viṣṇu (50, 16-24).—‘The man shall serve cows for a month, his hair and beard having been shaven;—he shall sit down to rest when they rest; and stand still when they stand still;—he shall give assistance to a cow that has met with an accident;—and shall preserve cows from dangers;—he shall not shelter himself against cold and similar dangers, without having previously protected the cows against them;—he shall wash himself with cow’s urine; and subsist upon the five bovine products;—this is the Go-vrata, cow-penance, which must be performed by one who has killed a cow.’

Yājñavalkya (3.264-265).—‘The man who has killed a cow shall drink the five bovine products for a month, sleeping in the cowpen, serving the cows; and then by giving a cow, he becomes pure; or he shall calmly perform the penance of Prājāpatya Atikṛcchra;—or having fasted for three days, he shall give away ten cows with a hull as the eleventh.’

Parāśara (8.31-42).—‘Having shaved the whole head, he shall bathe three times during the day, and live among cows during the night, and go behind them during the day; when it is hot, or raining, or very cold or when the wind is blowing strongly, he shall not protect himself until he has protected the cows to the best of his ability. If he finds a cow grazing in a field or in a threshing yarn—either his own or belonging to some one else,—he shall not tell of it to any one; nor shall he tell any one when he finds a calf sucking milk. He shall drink water when the cows drink it, he down when they he down, and with all his strength shall save a cow when she has either fallen down or stuck in mud. One shall prescribe as penance for cow-killing a suitable Prājāpatya and Kṛcchra: (Forms of these penances)—For one day he shall eat once; for one day he shall eat only in the evening; for one day he shall eat only what he gets without asking for it; and for one day he shall live on air; for two days he shall eat only once; for two days he shall eat what he gets without asking for it, for two days he shall eat only at night; for two days he shall live on air. Each of these being done for three days; and for four days. The prescribed penance having been performed, he shall feed Brāhmaṇas, present them with fees and recite the sacred texts. After feeding the Brāhmaṇas, the cow-killer becomes purified without doubt.’

109 He who has committed a minor offence by slaying a cow (or bull) shall drink during (the first) month (a decoction of) barley-grains; having shaved all his hair, and covering himself with the hide (of the slain cow), he must live in a cow-house.

For two months, with senses controlled, he shall eat a limited quantity of food, without any pungent salt, at the fourth meal-time; and shall bathe in cow’s urine.—(109)

द्वौ मासाव् एकैकम् आहारं भुक्त्वा द्वितीये ऽहनि सायम् अश्नीयात् । लवणविशेषेण क्षारग्रहणात् सैन्धवस्याप्रतिषेधः । स्वतन्त्रः क्षारप्रतिषेधो हि द्वन्द्वे सति स्यात् । तत्र वचनप्रवृत्तिः पदद्वयस्य च लक्षणार्था । युगपदधिकरणतायां द्वन्द्वः । स्थिते विशेषणसमासे विशिष्टस्व्यार्थस्य नानुज्ञासंबन्धः । न समासादिलाघवम्¹⁴⁹ । मितं स्वल्पम् इत्य् अर्थः । न यावता तृप्तिर् भवति शरीरस्थितिश् च जायते । गोमूत्रस्नानं त्रिष्व् अपि कालेषु । चतुर्थकालं द्वौ मासाव् इति संबन्धः । एवं स्मृत्यन्तरे-

• कृतवपनो वसेद् गोष्ठे चर्मणा तेन संवृतः ।

• द्वौ मासौ स्नानम् अप्य् अस्य गोमूत्रेण विधीयते ॥

• पादशौचक्रियाकार्यम् अद्भिः कुर्वीत केवलम् ॥

न चास्य द्वौ मासाव् इत्य् अनेन संबन्धः संभवति । स्नानग्रहणं पादपूरणार्थम् । स्नानकाले यदि पादाद्यशुद्धिर् भवत्य् अर्थात् तदुदकेनैव द्रव्यशुद्धिविधिना शोधनीयम् । अत आचमनम् अपि शुद्ध्यर्थम् उदकेनैव स्नानकाले । अन्यदा मृदा शुद्धिः । सा मृद्वारिक्रमेणैव कर्तव्या । स्नानविधौ गोमूत्रश्रवणाद् आचमनादौ कः प्रसङ्गः । स्नाने ऽपि प्रायश्चित्ताङ्गेन शुद्ध्यर्थम् ॥ ११.१०९ ॥

‘For two months’—he shall take his food once and then again only in the evening of the next day.

If we take the term ‘Kṣāra’—‘pungent’—as a qualification of ‘lavaṇa,’ ‘salt,’ we secure the prohibition of the rock-salt also. If the two terms were independent, the compound would be a copulative one, and this would mean the prohibition of ‘pungent substances’ also; and in that case it would be necessary to take the singular number as indirectly indicating the dual; as we have the copulative compound only, both the components are equally important at one and the same time. When however, the compound is taken as a ‘qualitative’ one (‘pungent’ being a qualification of the ‘salt’), we obtain a qualified denotation.

‘Limited’—small; i.e., that which, without producing full satisfaction, is enough to keep the body going.

‘Bathing in cow’s urine’ is to be done three times a day.

‘At the fourth meal-time’ is to be construed with ‘for two months.’

In another Smṛti we read—‘Having shaved his head, covered with the skin, he shall live in the cow-pen; end bathing in cow’s urine for two months has been prescribed for him; it is only the washing of the feet that he should do with water.’ In this it is not possible to connect the bathing in cow’s urine with the phrase ‘for two months.’ The mention of the feet is only for the purpose of filling up the metre; for, if any impurity happens to attach to the man’s feet during the time that he is bathing, it would naturally be washed with water only; as is clearly laid down by the rules of purification. Hence at the time of bathing, the rinsing of the mouth also should he done with water; at other times purification may be secured by the use of clay and other cleansing substances; and this would have to be done in the natural order—water being used after clay has been applied. And since cow’s urine has been prescribed for bathing only, what possibility would there be of its being used for the rinsing of the mouth or any such purpose? In connection with bathing, it is only as an expiation that the use of cow’s urine has been prescribed.—(109)

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 11.108].

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.108].

110 During the two (following) months he shall eat a small (quantity of food) without any factitious salt at every fourth meal-time, and shall bathe in the urine of cows, keeping his organs under control.

During the day he shall follow those cows, and standing upright, inhale the dust; at night having attended and bowed to them, he shall rest in the ‘Vīrāsana’ posture.—(110)

यासां गवां स्थाने वसति ताश् चरितुं गच्छन्तीः पश्चाद् गच्छेत् । तच्छब्देन प्रत्यवमर्शाद् यासां गृहे स्थितस् तासाम् । अन्यासां गच्छन्तीनां न भवत्य् अनुगमनम् । ताभिः समुत्थापितं रजो रेणुर् ऊर्ध्वं गच्छन् पिबेत् । एवं तत्रैव ताभिः सह दिवसं विहृत्य ताभिर् एव सह पुनर् गोष्ठम् आगच्छेत् । शुश्रूषयित्वा कण्डूकर्षणरजोपनोदनेनोपगच्छन् । नमस्कृत्य जानुशिरसा प्रणामं कृत्वा । वीरासनो वसेत् । भित्तिशय्यादाव् अनिषद्य यद् उपविष्टस्यावस्थानं तद् वीरासनम् ॥ ११.११० ॥

When he is living in a cow-pen, he shall follow the cows that live in that pen, when they go out to graze. The use of the pronoun ‘those’ implies that he should follow those cows in whose pen he is living; specially as, if he were to go after other cows, this would not mean constant ‘following.’

And while going along he shall inhale the dust raised by the cows.

Having wandered about with the cows, during the day, he should return to the pen with them.

Having ‘attended to them’—served them by rubbing their bodies and removed the dust from them; and ‘having bowed to them’—kneeling, and with his head down;—‘he shall rest in the Vīrāsana posture.’ When one rests, neither on a raised platform nor on a bedstead, but simply by sitting down, it is called the ‘Vīrāsana’ posture.—(110)

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 11.108].

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.108].

111 During the day he shall follow the cows and, standing upright, inhale the dust (raised by their hoofs); at night, after serving and worshipping them, he shall remain in the (posture, called) virasana.

Self-controlled and free from greed, he shall stand when they stand, follow them when they move, and sit when they have sat down.—(111)

तिष्ठन्तीत्य् एवमादिको विधिः । यत्र काश्चित् तिष्ठन्ति काश्चिद् व्रजन्ति काश्चिद् वासते, तत्र भूयसीनां धर्मं समाश्रयेत् । वीतो मत्सरो लोभो यस्येति । प्रदर्शनार्थं चैतत् । त्यक्तरागादिमनोदोष इति यावत्, नियतेन्द्रियवचनात् (म्ध् ११.१०९) ॥ ११.१११ ॥

‘He shall stand’ etc., is an Injunction.

When some cows are standing, some are walking and some are sitting, he shall do what most of them are doing.

‘Free from greed’—coveting nothing. This is only by way of illustration; the meaning is that he shall be free from all such mental aberrations as love, hatred and the like. That this is so is shown by the epithet ‘self-controlled’.—(111)

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 11.108].

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.108].

112 Controlling himself and free from anger, he must stand when they stand, follow them when they walk, and seat himself when they lie down.

When a cow is sick, or threatened with danger from thieves, tigers and the like, or falls, or becomes stuck in a morass, he shall rescue her with all his strength.—(112)

आतुरां व्याधिताम् । अभिशस्तां गृहिताम्¹⁵⁰ । भयैर् व्याघ्रादिनिमित्तैः । सर्वेण सामर्थ्येन प्राणशब्दोच्छ्वासपवन¹⁵¹ एव, अलपप्राणैर् महाप्राण इति स्थूले बलवति च प्रयोगदर्शनात् । तेन स्वयम् अशक्तेन सहायकोपादानेनाप्य् उद्धारः कर्तव्यः ॥ ११.११२ ॥

‘Sick’—suffering from a disease.

‘Threatened’—caught up—‘by danger’ proceeding ‘from thieves, tigers and the like.’

‘Sarvaprāṇaiḥ’—with all his strength. The word ‘prāṇa’ does not always mean the life-breath; as we find such expressions ‘alpaprāṇa’ and ‘mahāprāṇa’ in the sense of weak and strong respectively. Thus, when he is unable, by himself, to rescue her, he should bring about bur rescue with the help of other men.—(112)

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 11.108].

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.108].

113 (When a cow is) sick, or is threatened by danger from thieves, tigers, and the like, or falls, or sticks in a morass, he must relieve her by all possible means:

In heat, in rain, in cold, or when the wind is blowing violently, he shall not shelter himself, without having sheltered the cows to the best of his ability.—(113)

उष्णेन भृशं तपत्य् आदित्ये वर्षति पर्जन्ये शीते वा मारुते वाति वायौ भृशम् इति ॥ ११.११३ ॥

‘In heat’—when the sun is very strong.

‘In rain’—when the clouds are pouring down rain.

‘In cold and when the wind is blowing violently.’

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 11.108].

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.108].

114 In heat, in rain, or in cold, or when the wind blows violently, he must not seek to shelter himself, without (first) sheltering the cows according to his ability.

If the cow is eating anything in his own or another’s house, field or threshing-yard,—or when her calf is drinking (her milk),—he shall not say anything.—(114)

व्रीह्यादिभक्षयन्तीं गां न वारयेत्¹⁵² । न चान्यान् आचक्षीत निवारणार्थम् । यदि तु बध्नीयत् आशङ्क्यते बाध इति तृप्त्या तदा पूर्वोक्तकरणे न दोषः । तदनुग्रहो विधीयते । एवं पिबन्तं वत्सकम् अपि ॥ ११.११४ ॥

He shall not prevent the cow from eating anything in the shape of corns, etc.; nor shall he tell anyone else with a view to lead him to prevent her. If, however, he ties her up for fear of danger that might befall her otherwise,—or after she has become satisfied,—there is no harm; it is, on the contrary, a favour.

Similarly he shall not prevent her calf from drinking her milk.—(114)

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 11.108].

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.108].

115 Let him not say (a word), if a cow eats (anything) in his own or another’s house or field or on the threshing-floor, or if a calf drinks (milk).

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

केचित् तु त्रिभिर् वर्षैर् इति पठन्ति । तद् अयुक्तम् । अधस्ताद् अत्रैव प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणे मासत्रयग्रहणात् । सर्वोपपातकेषु चैतद् एव व्रतं कुर्युर् इति वक्ष्यति चान्द्रायणवैकल्पिकम् अवकीर्णिवर्जम् । एवं च वर्षत्रयेणास्यासमानविधित्वाद् अन्याय्यकल्पनेयम् ॥ ११.१०६–११४ ॥

116 The slayer of a cow who serves cows in this manner, removes after three months the guilt which he incurred by killing a cow.

The cow-killer, who attends upon cows in this manner, wipes off, in three months, the sin accruing from the killing of a cow—(115); and after having duly performed the penance, he shall give away cows with a bull as the eleventh; in the event of these being not available, he shall offer all he possesses to persons learned in the Veda.—(116)

दश् गावो देया एको वृषभः । शक्तौ चत्वारि व्रतानि । अविद्यमाने गदितधने ततो न्यूनं सर्वस्वं देयम् । वेदविद्भ्य इत् बहुशः, न¹⁵³ द्वयोर् एकस्मिन् वा । वेदविद्ग्रहणं न बहुत्वार्थम् अनुवादो वेदविदाम् एव पात्रतयोक्तत्वात् । यत् तु स्मृत्यन्तरे- “दहनवाहनबन्धनदामपाशयोजनतैलौषधादियोगे¹⁵⁴ मृते¹⁵⁵ सशिखं वपनं कृत्वा प्राजापत्यं चरेत् ततश् चैलखण्डं दद्यात्” इति, यो¹⁵⁶ नातिप्रयत्नेनैतासु क्रियासु प्रवर्तते तस्य प्रमादजे ऽपराधे प्रायश्चित्तम् एतत् । यतः,

• यन्त्रणे गोश् चिकित्सायां गूढगर्भविमोचने ।

• यत्ने कृते विपत्तिः स्यात् प्रायश्चित्तं न विद्यते ॥

• औषधं स्नेहम् आहारं दद्याद् गोब्राह्मणेषु यः ।

• दीयमाने विपत्तिः स्यान् न स पापेन लिप्यते ॥

इति सांवर्तम् ।

• तथास्य¹⁵⁷ मासेन शुद्धिर् उक्ता- “पञ्चगव्यं पिबेत् षष्ठे काले पयः समाप्ते ब्राह्मणांस् तर्पयेत् । तिलधेनुं च दद्यात् ।

• तथान्या¹⁵⁸ अर्धमासेन “सक्तुयावकशाकपयोदधि¹⁵⁹ घृतं सकृत्” इति । विकल्पान् एतान् वक्ष्यामि । येन द्रव्येण यः प्रयोग आरब्धः स तेनैव समापनीयो न तु कस्मिंश्चिद् अह्नि सक्तवः कस्मिंश्चिद् यावकादीनीति । व्रीहिभिर् यजेत यवैर् वेति विकल्पिते ऽपि द्रव्यद्वये न व्रीहिषूपपन्नेष्व् एच्छया¹⁶⁰ चैतेषां वा विनाशे यवा उपादीयन्ते । प्रतिनिधिनैवं प्रयोगसमाप्तिः । तत्रापि गोदानं विहितम् । तथैतावन्त्य् एव तपांस्य् अतो वत्ससहितां गां दद्याद् इति ।

• अत्रोक्तम् गौतमीये च- “गां वैश्यवत्” (ग्ध् २२.१८) इति । तत्र श्रोत्रियस्य यज्ञविदुषो ऽग्न्याहितस्य दोग्ध्रीं बहुक्षीरां बालवत्सां निर्धनस्य गां हत्वा गौतमीयम्, क्षेत्रारामादौ व्रीह्यादिषु च प्रविश्य तन्निवारणार्थं प्रद्रुते “मा मारयाम्य् एनाम्” इत्य् अनया¹⁶¹ बुद्ध्या कथंचिन्¹⁶² मृतायाम् इदं मासिकम्¹⁶³ । तथाश्रोत्रियस्य जरत्या अक्षीरायाश् च बुद्धिपूर्ववधे त्रैमासिकम् । सर्वतो निर्गुणाया निर्गुणस्वामिकाया अबुद्धिपूर्ववधे प्राजापत्यम् । तस्या एव बुद्धिपूर्वमृतायां त्रैमासिकम् इति ॥ ११.११५–११६ ॥

(verses 11.115-116)

He shall give ten cows and one bull.

He shall perform all the four penances, if he is capable of doing so.

If the said property is not available, he may give away all that he possesses, even if this be less than the prescribed gift

‘To persons learned in the Veda’;—i.e, to several persons, not to one or two only. In fact, this term itself has been added only with a view to lay down plurality; since it is only persons learned in the Veda who have been declared to be fit recipients for gifts.

In another Smṛti we read:—“If a cow happens to die through one’s burning fire, carrying, tying, applying the rope-noose, or the administration of some oil or medicine,—he shall shave his whole head, perform the ‘Prājāpatya’ penance, and then give away a piece of cloth.”

But this is an expiation for those cases where one does these acts rather recklessly and hence his offence is due to negligence. Since we find it laid down that—(a) ‘In tying or in medicating or in helping her in calving, if one has taken all possible care and the cow dies, there shall be no expiatory rite’; and (b) ‘If when one has administered a medicine or oil or food to the cow or the Brāhmaṇa, and death ensues, the man does not become tainted with guilt’ (Saṃvarta).

Another text lays down an expiation lasting for a month:—“He shall drink the mixture of five products of the cow, and milk at the sixth meal-time;—and at the end he shall satisfy the Brāhmaṇas with gifts and give away sesamum and a cow.”

There is yet another, lasting for a fortnight:—“He shall eat only once, fried flour, or barley-flour, or vegetables, or milk, or cards, or butter.” The various articles mentioned here are so many optional alternatives, as we shall explain later on; but the whole process is to be carried through with the same substance with which it has been begun; and one shall not eat fried flour on one day and barley-flour on the other. For instance, even though ‘Vrīhi’ and ‘Yava’ have been laid down as optional alternatives, yet, when once a performance has been begun with Vrīhi, if it happens to run short in the middle, Yava is used, only as a substitute; and it is with a substitute that the rite is regarded as having been completed; in view of this deficiency in the performance, the giving away of a cow has been prescribed. Thus then, in the case in question also, the penances are as described, and if any other optional alternative is adopted, a cow with calf should be given.

It has been asserted in Gautama’s work —‘Gām vaiśyavat’ (22.18) [which means that for killing a cow, one should perform the Three-year-Penance and give away ten cows and a bull]; and this rule of Gautama’s pertains to the case where a Vedic scholar, learned in sacrificial rituals and an Agṇihotrin kills a milch cow with a young calf, belonging to a poor man. This same penance is to be done in its ‘one year’ form if the cow dies by chance, when the man, finding her in a field or a garden eating corns, runs after her with a view to prevent it, taking due care not to harm her. It is to be the ‘Three-year-Penance’ in the case of the intentional killing of a dry and old cow belonging to one who is not a Vedic scholar. And the ‘Prājāpatya’ penance is to be performed in the case of the unintentional killing of a cow devoid of all good points and belonging to an owner devoid of all qualities; and in the case of the killing of a similar cow intentionally, it is to be the ‘Three-year-Penance.’—(115-116)

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 11.108].

**(verses 11.108-116)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.108].

अविद्यमानायाम् अनन्तरदक्षिणायां चरितप्रायश्चित्तस्य सर्वस्वं दक्षिणा तच् चैकादशभ्यो गोरूपेभ्यः सर्वस्वम् अर्वाग् इति सामर्थ्याद् गम्यते । गावो ऽन्यद् वोभयं वा ॥ ११.११५ ॥

117 But after he has fully performed the penance, he must give to (Brahmanas) learned in the Veda ten cows and a bull, (or) if he does not possess (so much property) he must offer to them all he has.

Twice-born men who have committed the minor offences, except the ‘immoral’ religious student, may, in order to purify themselves, perform this same penance, or the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ penance.—(117)

एतद् एवेति गोघातकप्रायश्चित्तं सर्वेषूपपातकेष्व् अतिदिशति । वैकल्पिकं चान्द्रायणम् अपि । उपपातकित्वे विशेषोपदेशान् न गोघ्नस्य चान्द्रायणम् इच्छन्ति । तेषाम् उपपातकित्ववचने गोघ्नस्य प्रयोजनं मृग्यम् ॥ ११.१७७ ॥

‘This same’:—this means that the expiatory rites laid down for cow-killing are applicable to all ‘minor offences.’ And the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ is another optional alternative.

Inasmuch as this latter rule has been laid down with special reference to the other ‘minor offences’ some people hold that the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ does not apply to the case of the cow-killer.

But according to this view, it will be necessary to find out why the cow-killer has been mentioned at all among ‘those who have committed minor offences.’—(117)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.265), as referring to cases of intentionally committed offences, and as standing for the ‘Three Years Penance’;—in Aparārkā (p. 1105), which also notes that this stands for the ‘Three Years Penance’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 425) as referring to the ‘Three Years Penance’;—in Prāyaścīttaviveka (p. 394 and 463);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 362), which says that ‘etat’ stands for the ‘Three monthly Penance’ prescribed for cow-killing.

Yājñavalkya (3.263).—‘From the Upapātakas (minor sins), one becomes absolved either in the aforesaid manner, or by the Cāndrāyaṇa, or by the Parāka, or by living upon milk for a month.’

एतद् एव गोघातप्रायश्चित्तं सर्वोपपातकेष्व् अतिदिश्यते । तद्विकल्पेन चान्द्रायणम् एव । एवं च सति गोहत्यायाश् चान्द्रायणं न स्यात्, तद्वैकल्पिकसामर्थ्यात्, यथान्येषूपपातकेषु । अत एव पृथङ्निर्देशः । अवकीर्णिवर्ज्यम् इति चानेन प्रतिषेधलिङ्गेन गोवधादौ यद् उक्ता व्रताः स्युर् इति तद् अवकीर्णिनो ग्रहणम् इति विज्ञायते ॥ ११.११६ ॥

118 Twice-born men who have committed (other) minor offences (Upapataka), except a student who has broken his vow (Avakirnin), may perform, in order to purify themselves, the same penance or also a lunar penance.

The immoral religious student shall offer, at night, to Nirṛti, on the crossway, a one-eyed ass, in the manner of the ‘Pākayajña.’—(118)

अवकारो ऽवकीर्णो ब्रह्मचारिणो व्रतानि तस्यातिक्रमः¹⁶⁴ स्त्रीसंप्रयोगलक्षणः सो ऽस्यास्तीत्य् अवकीर्णी । वक्ष्यति “कामतो रेतसः सेकम्” (म्ध् ११.१२०) इति । काणेन गर्दभेनेति सगुणद्रव्यनिर्देशः, चतुष्पथेनेति देशस्य, निशीति कालस्य, नैरृतम् इति देवतायाः । पाकयज्ञविधानेनेति इतिकर्तव्यताविधानम् ।

• ननु च पशुयागा अग्निष्टोमीयपशुसाध्या¹⁶⁵ अग्निषोमीयपशुप्रकृतयः ।

• सत्यम् । स एव पाकयज्ञप्रकृतिः । सत्य् अधिकारे हि सः¹⁶⁶ । उक्तं च “पशुर् अपि द्रवति पयो ऽपि द्रवति” इति । पाकयज्ञाः पूर्णमासादयः ॥ ११.११८ ॥

‘Avakīrṇa’ means the breaking, by the Religious Student, of the vow of celibacy,—i.e., sexual intercourse, an ‘immorality’; one who has done this is ‘avakīrṇī,’ ‘the immoral religious student’

This is going to be described (under 120) as—‘the intentional emission of semen.’

‘One-eyed ass’—This lays down the material to be used at the sacrifice, along with its qualification.

‘On the cross-way.’—This lays down the place of the sacrifice.

‘At night.’—This lays down the time of the sacrifice.

‘To Nirṛti.’—This lays down the deity of the sacrifice.

‘In the manner of the Pākayajña.’—This prescribes the procedure to be adopted at the sacrifice.

“As a matter of fact all animal-sacrifices have for their archetype the Agniṣṭoma; as is clear from the fact that they can only be accomplished by means of the animal-sacrifices at this latter sacrifice—[so that the said sacrifice of the ass must follow the procedure of the Agnistoma, and not of the Pākayajña.]”

True; but the same Agniṣṭoma is the archetype of the ‘Pākayajña’ also; and it can be performed only when the agent is prompted by the desire for those rewards that follow from that sacrifice. Then again, it has been declared that ‘the animal also flows, and milk also flows’ [so that there is a distinct similarity between the Animal Sacrifice and the Pākayajña offerings of milk].

‘Pākayajña’— is a name applied to the Darśapūrṇamāsa and other similar sacrifices.—(118)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 436);—in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 507);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 191);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 554);—in Aparārkā (p. 1140), which notes that what is emphasised here is (a) that the ass should be one-eyed, and (b) that the entire procedure of the Pākayajña sacrifice laid down in Gṛhyasūtra should be carried out;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 909), which explains ‘pākayajñavidhānena’ as the entire procedure consisting of the ‘Parisam ū hana’ and ‘Paryukṣaṇa’ and ending with the ‘Principal offerings’ to Vāta and the other deities;—it notes that the ‘night’ meant is that of Amāvāṣyā day;—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 363).

**(verses 11.118-123)
**

Yājñavalkya (3.280).—‘The Student becomes an Avakīrṇin by approaching a woman; he becomes purified by offering an ass to Nirṛti.’

Viṣṇu (37.35).—‘Criminals of the fourth degree shall perform the Cāndrāyaṇa or Parāka penances, or shall sacrifice a cow.’

Do. (28.48-51).—‘A voluntary emission of semen by a twice-born youth during the period of his studentship has been pronounced a transgression of the rule prescribed for students. Having loaded himself with this sin, he must go begging to seven houses, clothed only with the skin of the cow, and proclaiming his deed; eating once only a meal consisting of the alms received at those houses, and bathing three times, he becomes absolved from guilt at the end of one year. After an involuntary emission of semen during sleep, the twice-born student must bathe, worship the sun and recite, three times, the mantra “Again shall my strength return to me, etc.”’

Gautama (23.17-20).—‘A Student who has broken the vow of chastity shall offer an ass to Nirṛti on the cross-road. Putting on the skin of that ass, with the hair turned outside, and holding a red vessel in bis hands, he shall beg at seven houses, proclaiming his deed. He will be purified after a year. For an involuntary discharge caused by fear or sickness, or during sleep, he shall make an offering of clarified butter, or place two pieces of fuel in the fire reciting the two verses beginning with “Retasya.”’

Do. (25.1-2).—‘They say.—How many gods does a Student enter who violates the vow of chastity?—They announce—His vital spirits go to the Maruts, his strength to Indra, his sacred learning to Bṛhaspati, all the rest to Agni.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.30-35).—‘A Student approaching a woman is called Āvakīrṇin;—he shall offer an ass as the sacrificial animal; the sacrificial meat-cake shall be offered to Nirṛti, or to Rakṣas, or to Yama. Or, he may heap fuel on the fire on the night of the New Moon, perform the preparatory rites required for the Darvihoma, and offer two oblations of clarified butter. After he has made the offering, he shall address the fire, closely joining his hands, turning sideways, with the following texts “May the Maruts grant me, etc., etc.”’

Āpastamba (1.26.8-9).—‘A Student who has broken the vow of chastity shall offer to Nirṛti an ass, according to the manner of the Pākayajña rites,—a Śūdra eating the remnants of that offering.’

Vaśiṣṭha (23.1-3).—‘If a Student has approached a woman, he shall slay in the forest, at a place where four roads meet, an ass for the Rakṣas, after kindling a common fire. Or, he may offer an oblation of rice to Nirṛti. He shall throw the oblations with the mantra—“To Lust Svāhā, etc.”’

Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra (3.12.1-3, 6-8).

119 But a student who has broken his vow shall offer at night on a crossway to Nirriti a one-eyed ass, according to the rule of the Pakayagnas.

Having, in due form, poured oblations into the fire, he shall finally pour oblations of clarified butter to Vāta, Indra, Guru and Vahni, with the verse ‘sam, etc.’—(119)

अग्नौ यदा होमम्, अग्निहोमाश् च “हृदयस्य अग्रे” (म्स् ३.१०.३) इति । अन्ततः¹⁶⁷ समाप्तेषु होमेषु मरुद्भ्य इन्द्राय बृहस्पतये ऽग्नये ऽप्य् आहुतीर् जुहुयात् । सम् इत्य् अनया ।

• सं मा सिञ्चन्तु मरुतः सम् इन्द्रः सं बृहस्पतिः ।

• सं चायम् अग्निः सिञ्चतु प्रजया च धनेन च ॥ (अव् ७.३३.१)

इत्य् एतया जुहुयात् । मान्त्रवर्णिकत्वात् देवतानां श्लोके वातगुरुशब्दौ¹⁶⁸ मरुद्बृहस्पतिशब्दलक्षणौ । अतो वातादिषु स्वाहाकारादौ मरुद्बृहस्पतिशब्दौ प्रयोक्तव्यौ, न वातगुरुशब्दौ ॥ ११.११९ ॥

The ‘oblations into Fire’ are those spoken of in the texts ‘Hṛdayasyāgre, etc.’

‘Finally’— after the oblations have been finished,—he shall offer oblations to the Maruts, to Indra, to Bṛhaspati and to Agni, with the verse ‘Samāsiñcantu marutaḥ samindraḥ sambṛhaspatiḥ sañcāyamagniḥ siñcatu prajayā ca dhanea (?) ca’ (Atharva-Veda Saṃhitā, 7.33.1).

Since the precise ‘deities’ of sacrifices are always those indicated by the words of the mantras used at them, the words ‘vāta’ and ‘guru’ of the text should be taken as standing for ‘Maruts’ and ‘Bṛhaspati’ respectively. Hence when the offerings are actually made, the words pronounced should be ‘Marudbhyaḥ svāhā’ and ‘Bṛhaspataye svāhā,’—and not ‘vātāya svāhā’ and ‘gurave svāhā.’— (119)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 909), which notes that (a) according to Aparārkā the ‘ājya—homa’ should begin with ‘Vātāya svāhā’ and end with ‘Vahnayesvāhā’ and after these ‘Principal offerings’ there should be one more offering of Ājya with the mantra ‘Samāsiñcantu etc.’—(b) while according to Smṛtimañjarī, after the ‘Principal offerings,’ the offering of clarified butter with the mantra ‘Samasiñcantu etc.’ should be made to Suvarchala and other deities;—so that in view of these two views, this is a case of option.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 436);—and in Aparārka (p. 1140), which adds the following notes:—The first offerings to be made are the offerings of Ājya with the mantras ‘Vātāya svāhā’ and so forth;—the time for the offering is the ‘night,’ and that on the Amāvāṣyā day.

**(verses 11.118-123)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.118].

अवकीर्णीपदार्थं प्रायश्चित्तनिमित्तम् अवधारयति ॥ ११.११७–११८ ॥

120 Having offered according to the rule oblations in the fire, he shall finally offer (four) oblations of clarified butter to Vata, to Indra, to the teacher (of the gods, Brihaspati) and to Agni, reciting the Rik verse ‘May the Maruts grant me,’ &c.

Persons learned in the Veda and knowing the law declare that for the twice-born person keeping up his vows, the intentional emission of semen means a ‘transgression of the vow.’—(120)

अवकीर्णिपदार्थनिरूपणम् । अतश् चोपात्तव्रतातिरिक्तविषय एवं विज्ञायते । व्रतस्यास्येति ब्रह्मचर्याश्रमस्थस्येति, स्मृत्यन्तरदर्शनाद् विज्ञेयम् । रेतःसेकस् त्व् अस्यैव विशेषतः प्रतिषिद्धो ऽन्तरेणापि स्त्रीसंप्रयोगम् । कामतः सेके विधिर् अयम् ॥ ११.१२० ॥

This verse supplies the explanation of the meaning of the term ‘avakīṛṇīn’ ‘immoral religious student’;—from which it is clear that the term ‘vrata’ here stands for something other than the penances mentioned in the present context

‘Keeping up his vows.’—On the strength of other Smṛti texts, this should be understood to mean ‘one who is in the state of the Religious Student’; as it is for such a one that emission of semen, even without sexual intercourse, has been specially forbidden.

The rule here laid down applies to the case, of intentional emission of semen.—(120)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1140), which explains that this ‘emission of the seed’ is meant to be ‘in a woman’;—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 909.)

**(verses 11.118-123)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.118].

एवं चाकामतो दिवा रात्रौ वा प्रच्युतेन्द्रियस्य लघुतरं प्रायश्चित्तं स्यात् । ततो ऽपि स्वप्न इति । तथा चोक्तं स्वप्ने रेतःसेके ब्रह्मचारिणः “पुनर् माम् इत्य् ऋचं जपेत्” इति ॥ ११.११९ ॥

121 Those who know the Veda declare that a voluntary effusion of semen by a twice-born (youth) who fulfils the vow (of studentship constitutes) a breach of that vow.

The spiritual power of the Religious Student, who has become ‘immoral,’ ‘goes away into the maruts, indra, Bṛhaspati and agni.—(121)

“जुहुयाद् आहुतीर्”¹⁶⁹ (म्ध् ११.११९) इति विधेर् अर्थवादः । व्रतिनः सत अवकीर्णिनः यत् ब्राह्मतेजो विविधविज्ञानोपार्जितं पुण्यं तद्देवतां देवताम् उपैत्य् उपसंक्रामति । तत्र लयं गच्छतीति यावत् । व्रतिनोपैतीति विवक्षितम् ॥ ११.१२१ ॥

This is a declamatory statement in support of the aforesaid injunction of the oblations to certain deities.

In the case of the Religious Student who has committed an immoral act, his ‘spiritual power,’—the merit acquired by him by the various kinds of knowledge—‘goes away into’ several deities; i.e., it disappears among them. What is meant is that it departs from the Religious Student—(121)

**(verses 11.118-123)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.118].

यत एवम् अतो ऽवकीर्णी,

122 The divine light which the Veda imparts to the student, enters, if he breaks his vow, the Maruts, Puruhuta (Indra), the teacher (of the gods, Brihaspati) and Pavaka (Fire).

On this sin having been incurred, the man, clothed in the skin of the ass, shall go begging alms at seven houses; proclaiming his own deed.—(122)

वसित्वा आछाद्य । स्वकर्म “अवकीर्णो ऽस्मि” इत्य् एवम् ॥ ११.१२२ ॥

‘Dressed’—covered.

‘His own deed’—saying—‘I am an immoral Religious Student.’—(122)

(verses 11.122-123)

These verses are quoted in Aparārka (p. 1141), as laying down an ‘yearly penance’ for the unchaste student;—in Mitākṣarā (3.280), as referring to the case where the woman with whom the student hits misconducted himself is either the wife of an unlearned Brāhmaṇa or that of a learned Vaiśya; the expiation in the, case of the wife of a learned Brāhmaṇa or learned Kṣatriya consisting of the three or two years penance.

They are quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 436);—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 387);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 363).

**(verses 11.118-123)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.118].

123 When this sin has been committed, he shall go begging to seven houses, dressed in the hide of the (sacrificed) ass, proclaiming his deed.

Subsisting on a single meal per day out of the alms obtained from those houses, and bathing at the three ‘extractions,’ he becomes pure after one year.—(123)

प्रातर्मध्याह्नापराह्णेषु उपस्पृसन् स्नातं कुर्वन्, संवत्सरेण पूतो भवति ॥ ११.१२३ ॥

‘Bathing’—‘taking his bath’—in the morning, at midday and in the evening, he becomes purified in one year.—(123)

(verses 11.122-123)

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 11.122].

**(verses 11.118-123)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.118].

वेदब्रह्मचारिणः स्त्रीगमन एतत् प्रायश्चित्तं विज्ञेयम् । एवं च समानकार्यत्वात् प्रव्रजितानाम् अप्य् एवंविधम् एव रेतःसेकप्रायश्चित्तं प्रव्रज्याविरोधि स्यात् । तेषां च स्खलितानाम् अन्यप्रायश्चित्तानुपदेशात् ॥ ११.१२१–१२२ ॥

124 Subsisting on a single (daily meal that consists) of the alms obtained there and bathing at (the time of) the three savanas (morning, noon, and evening), he becomes pure after (the lapse of) one year.

On having intention ally done any one of those acts which cause loss of caste, one should perform a Sāntapana-Kṛcchra; and the Prājāpatya, when it is done unintentionally.—(124)

समाप्तान्य् उपपातकानि ।

• अन्यतमम् इत्य् अनुवादः । न हि निमित्तानां समाहरसंभवः । समुदायविवक्षायां न च कस्यचित् प्रायश्चित्तम् उपदिशति । को हि मनुष्यः सर्वाणि जातिभ्रंशकराण्य् अकार्याणि कुर्यात् । एक एव शब्दः प्रायश्चित्तानुदेशो ऽशास्त्रताप्रसङ्गः । न च साहित्यविवक्षाप्य् उक्ता, लक्षणत्वेन श्रवणात् पुरुषं प्रति निमित्तानाम् । अतः प्रत्येकं वाक्यपरिसमाप्तिः “यस्य पिता पितामहः सोमं न पिबेत्” इत्य् अन्यतरस्य पितुः पितामहस्य वा सोमम् अपीतवतो भवत्य् एव पशुः । यथा सत्य् अप्य् उभयश्रवणे यद्य् उभयं हविर् आर्तिम् इयाद् इत्य्¹⁷⁰ अन्यतरहविर्विनाशे ऽपि भवत्य् एव पञ्चशरावः, एवं सर्वप्रायश्चित्तेषु द्रष्टव्यम् ।

• इच्छयेति विवक्षितम्, अनिच्छयेति च । प्राजापत्यसान्तपनयोः स्वरूपं वक्ष्यति ॥ ११.१२४ ॥

The treatment of Minor Offences has been finished.

‘Any one.’—This is only by way of reference; as a combination of occasions is not possible; and further, if all the offences were meant to be taken together, the expiation here spoken of would not be meant for any one; what man is there who could ever commit all those deeds that lead to the loss of caste? On the other hand, if expiation were to be prescribed separately for each offence, there would be no end to the teaching at all Nor would combination be otherwise advisable; as the occasions and conditions of the expiation are set forth only as qualifying the human agent For these reasons the declaration should be taken as complete with each individual offence. Just as in connection with the assertion ‘he whose father or grandfather has not drunk Soma (shall perform a certain expiatory rite),’—the conclusion is that the expiatory Animal-sacrifice becomes necessary when either one of the ancestors—the father or the grandfather—has failed to drink Soma;—and similarly in the declaration—‘when both sacrificial materials become spoilt, etc.,’—even though it contains the term ‘both,’ yet the expiatory ‘Pañcaśarāva’ sacrifice has to be performed even when only one material becomes spoilt. The same principle is to be observed in the case of all expiations.

‘Intentionally.’—This is meant to be emphasised; as also the qualification ‘unintentionally.’

The exact form of the two penances, ‘Prājāpatya’ and ‘Sāntapana,’ shall be described later on.—(124)

The ‘Jātibhraṃśakara’ offences have been enumerated [above in verse 67].

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.254),—and again under 3.290);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 542);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 441), as laying down the expiation common to all ‘Jātibhraṃśakara’ offences;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 464 and 542), which says that when the offence is committed intentionally, the penance to be performed is the Sāntapana, and when it is committed unintentionally, it is Prājāpatya.

Viṣṇu (38.7).—‘He who has knowingly committed an act causing loss of caste shall perform the Sāntapana penance; he who has done so unawares shall perform the Prājāpatya penance.’

सान्तपनं कृच्छ्रं प्राजापत्यं च वक्ष्यति ॥ ११.१२३ ॥

125 For committing with intent any of the deeds which cause loss of caste (Gatibhramsakara), (the offender) shall perform a Samtapana Krikkhra; (for doing it) unintentionally, (the Krikkhra) revealed by Pragapati.

In the case of acts conducive to the degradation of ‘caste-mixture,’ or of those that make one unworthy of receiving gifts, purification is secured by the monthly lunar penance; and in the case of those that lead to defilement, one should mortify his body on barley-products for three days.—(125)

संकरीकरणम् अपात्रीकरणं पूर्वम् उक्तेनेति । एवं संकरापात्रकृत्यास्व् इति संज्ञिभेदाद् बहुवचनम् । कृत्याशब्दः प्रत्येकम् अभिसंबध्यते । कृत्यं कारणम् । ऐन्दवो मासः चान्द्रायण्ः । यावको यवविकारः पेयलेह्यादिः । अत्राविशेषश्रवणे ऽपीच्छानिच्छयोर् गुरुलघुभावो विज्ञेयः ॥ ११.१२५ ॥

The acts ‘conducive to the degradation of mixed caste’ and ‘those that make one unworthy of receiving gifts’ have been described above (68 and 69); and the plural number is due to the large number of acts included in these two sets.

The term ‘Kṛtyā,’ ‘acts’ is to be construed with each of the two terms ‘Saṅkara’ and ‘apātra’ ‘Kṛtyā means deed.

‘The monthly Lunar penance’—is the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa.’ ‘Barley-products’—articles of food prepared from barley,—fit for drinking or sipping and so forth.

Though the expiation mentioned here is without any distinction, yet, a distinction has always to be made in the lightness or heaviness of the penance, according as the act is done intentionally or unintentionally.—(125)

The ‘Saṅkarīkaraṇa’, ‘apātrīkaraṇa’ and ‘malinīkaraṇa’ offences have been enumerated above, under verses 68, 69 and 70.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣaṛā (3.290);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 403 and 431).

Viṣṇu (39.2).—‘He who has committed a crime degrading one to a mixed caste shall eat barley-gruel for a month, or perform the penance of Kṛcchrātikṛcchra.’

Do. (40.2).—‘He who has committed a crime rendering one unworthy to receive alms, is purified by the penance Taptakṛcchra, or by the penance Śitakṛcchra, or by the penance Mahāsāntapana, if the act has been committed repeatedly.’

Do. (41.5).—‘The penance ordained for crimes causing defilement is the Taptakṛcchra; or they shall he expiated by the Kṛcchrātikṛcchra penance.’

अन्यतमम् इति वर्तते । एवं चेच्छया प्रत्येकं गुरुप्रायश्चित्तोपदेशैर् अनिच्चया तस्य लघुत्वम् अर्थसिद्धम् पूर्वशास्त्राद् एव ॥ ११.१२४ ॥

126 As atonement for deeds which degrade to a mixed caste (Samkara), and for those which make a man unworthy to receive gifts (Apatra), (he shall perform) the lunar (penance) during a month; for (acts) which render impure (Malinikaraniya) he shall scald himself during three days with (hot) barley-gruel.

One fourth of the expiation for the killing of a Brāhmaṇa has been prescribed for the killing of a Kṣatriya, one eighth for that of a Vaiśya, and one sixteenth for that of a Śūdra,—each of these being one who is devoted to his duty.—(126)

सवनगतयो राजवैश्ययोर् ब्राह्मणसमम् उक्तम् । इह तु ततो ऽन्यत्र । स्वधर्मानुष्ठानयोश् चतुर्थाष्टमविभागविधिः । तथा च वृत्तस्य ग्रहणं सर्वक्रियार्थम् । त्रीणि वर्षाणि क्षत्रियस्य, सार्धवर्षं वैश्यस्य, नव मासान् शूद्रस्य । यत् तु “स्त्रीशूद्रविट्क्षत्रवधः”¹⁷¹ (म्ध् ११.६५) इति तत् परित्यक्तस्वकर्मणोर् अधर्मस्थितयोः¹⁷² । शूद्रस्य वृत्तं द्विजशुश्रूषादि, न महायज्ञानुष्ठानं च । वृत्तं शीलं वैश्यवृत्तौ वैश्यस्य वृत्ताव् एव वा¹⁷³ तिष्ठति । गहने यथा समये¹⁷⁴ स्वधर्मपराणां विधिवत् प्रायश्चित्तम् ॥ ११.१२६ ॥

It has been said above that for the killing of a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya, engaged in a sacrificial performance, the expiation shall be equal to that for killing a Brāhmaṇa. The present verse applies to cases other than these.

The ‘fourth’ and ‘eighth’ parts (of the expiation for killing a Brāhmaṇa) have been prescribed in connection with such persons as are fulfilling all their duties,—the term ‘duty’ standing for all duties.

According to this rule, for the killing of a Kṣatriya, the expiation shall last for three years, for that of a Vaiśya, for a year and a half, and for that of a Śūdra, for nine months.

The expiation that has been laid down above (under 67) in connection with ‘the killing of a woman, a Vaiśya or a Kṣatriya,’ pertains to the case of those persons being such as have neglected their duties, and are addicted to unrighteous acts.

‘Duty’ implies character. When the Vaiśya is one who has the character of, and behaves like, a Vaiśya. The ‘duty’ of the Śūdra consists in service of twice-born men and the like,—and not the performance of the ‘great sacrifices.’

The full expiation prescribed is to be performed in the case of the death of persons firmly devoted to the performance of their duties.—(126)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.266-267), as referring to such Vaiśyas and Śūdras as are possessed of only a few good qualities;—it explains the term ‘vṛtta’ as qualities of the heart and so forth, such as ‘reverence for superiors, purity, cleanliness, truthfulness, control of organs and goodwill towards all’;—and in the Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 215).

**(verses 11.126-130)
**

Gautama (22.14-16).—‘For intentionally killing a Kṣatriy a, the normal vow of continence must be kept for six years, and one should give away one thousand cows with a bull. For killing a Vaiśya, the same penance, for three years; and one should give away one hundred cows with a hull. For killing a Śūdra, the same penance, for one year; and one should give away ten cows with a bull.’

Baudhāyana (1.19.1-2).—‘For slaying a Kṣatriya, the offender shall give to the King one thousand cows and also a bull in expiation of his sin; for slaying a Vaiśya, one hundred cows; for slaying a Śūdra, a fee; and a bull should be added in all cases.’

Baudhāyana (2.1-8-10).—‘For killing a Kṣatriya he shall keep the normal vow of continence for nine years;—for killing a Vaiśya, for three years;—for killing a Śūdra, for one year.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.31-33).—‘Having slain a Kṣatriya, he shall perform a penance during eight years; for killing a Vaiśya, during six years: for killing a Śūdra, during three years.’

Viṣṇu (50.12-15).—‘He who has unintentionally killed a Kṣatriya, shall perform the Mahāvrata for nine years;—he who has unintentionally killed a Vaiśya, for six years;—he who has unintentionally killed a Śūdra, for three years,’

Yājñavalkya (3.267-268).—‘For killing a Kṣatriya one should give away a thousand cows with a bull; or he may perform, for three year, the penance prescribed for Brāhmaṇa-killing; one who kills a Vaiśya shall perform the same penance for one year, or give away one hundred cows; one who has killed a Śūdra shall perform the same penance for six months, or give away ten cows.’

Āpastamba (1.24.1-4).—‘One who has killed a Kṣatriya shall give away a thousand cows for the expiation of his sin; he shall give a hundred for killing a Vaiśya; and ten for killing a Śūdra; and in every case a bull should be added for the sake of expiation.’

क्षत्रियादीनाम् अपरः प्रायश्चित्तविधिर् वैकल्पिक उपपातकप्रायश्चित्ताच् चान्द्रायणात् । येन स्त्रीशूद्रविट्क्षत्रवध उपपातकमध्य उपदिष्टः । सदसद्विभागापेक्षया च क्षत्रियादीनाम् इदं वैकल्पिकम् अन्यत् प्रायश्चित्तं पूर्वोक्तात् । तथा चोक्तम्, वैश्य ऽष्टमो ऽंशो वृत्तस्थ इति । इदं परम् अधुना क्xअत्रियादिवध एव क्xअत्रियादिप्रायश्चित्तम् उपदिश्यते, पूर्वश्लोकोपदिष्टप्रायश्चित्ताद् वैकल्पिकम् ॥ ११.१२५ ॥

127 One fourth (of the penance) for the murder of a Brahmana is prescribed (as expiation) for (intentionally) killing a Kshatriya, one-eighth for killing a Vaisya; know that it is one-sixteenth for killing a virtuous Sudra.

If the chief of twice-born men kills a Kṣatriya unintentionally, he should duly perform the penance and give away a thousand cows and a bull.—(127)

इदम् अपरं दानप्रायश्चित्तम् । संभवद्वित्तस्य तपो नास्तीति वक्ष्यति, “दानेन वधनिर्णेकम्” (म्ध् ११.१३८) इत्यादि । अकामत इति न विवक्षितम्, महत्त्वात् प्रायश्चित्तस्य । यदि वा सवनगतयोर् एवाकमत इति कल्पनीयम् । वृषभ एको यासां सहस्रे ता वृषभैकसहस्राः ॥ ११.१२७ ॥

This is another expiation in the form of gifts. It is going to be laid down (under 139) below that so long as one has wealth, he need not perform a penance.

‘Unintentionally.’— No stress is meant to be laid on this qualification; as is clear from the heaviness of the expiation. Or, it may be assumed that it refers to the unintentional killing of the Kṣatriya or the Vaiśya, engaged in a sacrificial performance.

‘Vṛṣabhaikasahasrāḥ gāḥ’—literally means ‘thousand cows who have one bull among them.’—(127)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.266);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 73);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 215 and 534).

**(verses 11.126-130)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.126].

अर्थाच् चेदं वित्तवतः प्रायश्चित्तम् उपदिश्यते । पूर्वं चावित्तस्य तपः । वक्ष्यति च दानं तस्य [च] तपसा विकल्पं “दानेन वधनिर्णेकं सर्पादीनाम् अश्क्नुवन्” इत्य् एवमादि । अकामत इत्य् अयं च प्रमादस्तुत्यर्थो ऽर्थवादः । यस्मान् न ह्य् अकामतो गरीयः प्रायश्चित्तम् उपपद्यत इत्य् उक्तं पुरस्तात् । एवं तावत् संभवद्वित्तस्य प्रायश्चित्तम् इदम् अन्यद् । दरिद्रस्य पूर्वोक्तम् अनूद्यते वैकल्पिकम् एतस्य ॥ ११.१२६ ॥

128 But if a Brahmana unintentionally kills a Kshatriya, he shall give, in order to purify himself, one thousand cows and a bull;

Or, he may perform, for three years, the penance of the ‘Brāhmaṇa-killer,’ keeping himself under control and wearing matted locks, living far off from the village, having his abode at the root of a tree.—(128)

आद्यो ऽर्धः श्लोकस् “तुरीयः” (म्ध् ११.१२६) इतरस्यानुवादः ।

• जटीति चीरखट्वाङ्गधारणादिनिवृत्त्यर्थम् इति केचित् ।

• तद् अयुक्तम्¹⁷⁵ । तत्रैव ते धर्मास् तदीयतुरीयभगतिदेशो नान्येषां सत्य् अपि संभवे, सरस्वतीपरिसर्पणादीनाम् इव प्रयोजनसत्त्वोपपत्तौ ।

• दूरत इति ग्रामान् निवृत्तिः । वृक्षमूले कुटीं कृत्वेति ॥ ११.१२८ ॥

The first half of the verse explains what is meant by the ‘one-fourth’ mentioned in the preceding verse.

‘Wearing matted locks.’— Some people hold that this is meant to exclude the wearing of rags, carrying of a part of the bedstead and so forth (which have been prescribed for the Brāhmaṇa-killer).

This, however, is not right. For what the present verse does is to apply to the case in question the ‘one fourth’ part of only those details that have been prescribed for the Brāhmaṇa-killer, and not of anything else, even though some such be possible;—walking against the current, of the Sarasvatī and such other (optional) details (laid down in 78 et. seq.,) being adopted only when there is some necessity for them.

‘Far off’— All that this means is that he should not remain in the village.

‘Under the root of a tree’;—i.e.., having built a hut there.—(128)

According to Medhātithi and Rāghavānanda this verse only reiterates what has been prescribed in verse 126, all the details of which are meant to be observed in the present connection;—but according to Govindarāja and Kullūka, the special details, of carrying the skull and so forth, which are not expressly mentioned here, are not meant here.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 128);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 216 and 534).

**(verses 11.126-130)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.126].

जटिलवचनं नियमार्थत्वाद् अन्येषां खट्वाङ्गीत्येवमादीनां निवृत्त्यर्थम् ॥ ११.१२७ ॥

129 Or he may perform the penance prescribed for the murderer of a Brahmana during three years, controlling himself, wearing his hair in braids, staying far away from the village, and dwelling at the root of a tree.

If a Brāhmaṇa kills a righteous Vaiśya, he shall perform this same expiatory rite for one year; or he may give a hundred cows and one (bull).—(129)

पूर्वत्राष्टमो ऽंशः, अनेन द्वादशो विधीयते । अल्पत्वाद्¹⁷⁶ अब्दं न्यूनगुणस्य विधिर् अयम् इति विज्ञायते ।

• ननु वृत्तस्थम् इति श्रुतम् ।

• सत्यम् । संप्रति वृत्तस्थो वधकाले, प्राङ् निर्गुण इति । यस् तु सर्वदैव वृत्तस्थस् तस्य पूर्ववद् इति ज्ञेयम् ॥ ११.१२९ ॥

In a previous verse ‘one eighth’ was prescribed for the killing of a Vaiśya; what the present verse lays down is ‘one twelfth.’

As the expiation is a light one, it has to be done ‘for one year.’

It appears that the rule here laid down is meant for the case of a Vaiśya devoid of qualifications.

“The case of a Vaiśya devoted to his duty has been already dealt with before.”

True; but what the present verse contemplates is the case of a Vaiśya who was ‘righteous’ at the time of death, but was devoid of qualities before that; while the previous rules apply to one who was righteous all along.—(129)

“According to Govindarāja and Kullūka, the two penances are to be performed optionally, in case a virtuous Vaiśya has been killed unintentionally.—Medhātithi says that the first penance is to be performed for the murder of a Vaiśya who was less distinguished than the one referred to in verse 126.—Nārāyaṇa thinks that the verse refers to a Vaiśya engaged in the performance of a sacrifice, and that the particle ‘vā’ takes the place of the?upola, and thus one penance only is prescribed.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 216 and 534), which explains ‘ekaśatam’ as ‘a hundred and one’.

**(verses 11.126-130)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 11.126].

संभवद्वित्तस्येदं पूर्ववद् वैकल्पिकम् । द्विजोत्तमग्रहणं चेतरवर्णनिदर्शनार्थम्, नावधारणार्थम् ॥ ११.१२८ ॥

130 A Brahmana who has slain a virtuous Vaisya, shall perform the same penance during one year, or he may give one hundred cows and one (bull).

He who kills a Śūdra shall perform this same entire penance for six months; or he shall give to the Brāhmaṇa ten white cows and one bull.—(130)

अत्रापि मासषट्कं नवकं च वृत्तस्थेतरभेदेन योज्यम् । यथाश्रुतसंख्यं च गोदानं सर्वत्र वैकल्पिकम् । द्विजोत्तमग्रहणं च प्रदर्शनार्थम् । सिता न वर्णतः । किं तर्हि, शुद्धिसामान्याद् या बहुक्षीरास् त्र्यपत्या अनष्टप्रजाश् च ॥ ११.१३० ॥

Here also, whether the performance shall continue for six months or nine months should he determined by the consideration as to whether the man was ‘righteous’ or otherwise.

In all eases, the giving of the prescribed number of cows should be understood to be an optional alternative.

The mention of the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ (in 127) in this connection is meant to be only illustrative.

‘White’—does not mean white in colour, but pure in all points, giving much milk, prone to give birth to females, and not in the habit of losing her offsprings.—(130)

verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 216 and 534)

**(verses 11.126-130)
**