History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20.160

v2.c20.160

A question that very much exercised the minds of all smṛtikāras and writers of digests³³⁵ was whether a brāhmaṇa who was himself guilty of violence or serious offences could be killed in self-defence by one attacked. The dicta of the smṛtis are somewhat conflicting. Manu IV. 162 lays down a general rule prohibiting *hiṁsā* (death or injury) of one's teacher (of Veda), expounder (of the meaning of the Veda), one's parents, one's other teachers (or elders), brāhmaṇas, cows and all persons engaged in austerities. Manu XI. 89 lays down that there is no expiation (prāyaścitta) that will wipe off the sin of intentionally killing a brāhmaṇa. But Manu himself (VIII. 350-351 = Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 189-190 = Matsyapurāṇa 227. 115-117 = Vṛddha-Hārīta IX. 349-350) says 'one may surely kill without hesitation a man who comes down upon one as an ātatāyin³³⁶ (a desperate character or violent man), whether he be a teacher, a child or an old man or a learned brāhmaṇa. In killing an ātatāyin, the killer incurs no sin (or fault), whether he kills him in the presence of people or alone; (in such a case) wrath meets wrath'. Vas. Dh. S. (III. 15-18) expressly says 'by killing an ātatāyin they say the killer incurs no sin whatever' and quotes three verses 'an incendiary, a poisoner, one armed with a weapon, a robber, one who wrests a field or carries away one's wife—these six are called ātatāyin. When an ātatāyin comes (to attack) with the desire to kill (or harm), one may kill him even though he be a complete master of Vedānta; by so doing one does not become a brāhmaṇa-murderer. If a person kills one who has studied the Veda and who is born of a good family, because the latter is an ātatāyin, he does not thereby become a brāhmaṇa-murderer as in that case fury meets fury.’³³⁷ In the Śāntiparva (34. 17 and 19)³³⁸ we have similar verses ‘If a brāhmaṇa approaches wielding a weapon in a battle and desirous of killing a person, the latter may kill him even if the former be a complete master of the Veda. If a person kills a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin who has swerved from right conduct, he does not thereby ........ fury’. Udyogaparva (178. 51–52) says that, if a man kills in a battle a brāhmaṇa who fights like a kṣatriya, it is a settled rule that he does not incur the sin of brāhmaṇa-murder. Śānti (22. 5–6) is to the same effect. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (V. 191–192) speaks of seven persons as ātatāyin viz. ‘one who has a weapon ready to strike, one who is about to set fire or administer poison, one who has raised his hand to give a curse, who sets about to kill by the magic rites mentioned in the Atharvaveda (e. g. such sūktas as I. 19, II. 19, III. 1–2, VII. 108), one who is a backbiter and informs the king, one who violates or assaults another’s wife.’ The Matsyapurāṇa (227. 117–119) is practically to the same effect. Sumantu as quoted by the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 21) and by Aparārka (p. 1043) says ‘there is no sin in killing an ātatāyin except a cow or a brāhmaṇa’.³³⁹ This implies that a brāhmaṇa even if an ātatāyin should not be killed, but if he be killed sin is incurred. Kātyāyana³⁴⁰ (quoted in the Sm. C. and other digests) declares that one should not kill a brāhmaṇa who is eminent by reason of his *tapas*, Vedic study and birth, even though he be an ātatāyin; Bhṛgu allows killing when the offender is of a lower caste than that of brāhmaṇa’. Bṛhaspati³⁴¹ also says that he who would not kill a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin deserving to be killed for his violence would obtain the merit of an Aśvamedha sacrifice.