History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20.168

v2.c20.168

Commentators and writers of digests differ in their interpretations. Viśvarūpa³⁴² (on Yāj. III. 222) remarks that he is guilty of brāhmaṇa-murder who kills a brāhmaṇa except in battle or except when the latter is an ātatāyin, or who kills a brāhmaṇa (not an ātatāyin nor fighting) on his own account without being employed by another or who brings about the death of such a brāhmaṇa by hiring another to perpetrate the murder for money. He further adds that the man who kills a brāhmaṇa at the instigation of another for money is not guilty of the sin of brāhmaṇa-murder, but it is the instigator who is so guilty on the analogy of the rule that the merit or fruit of a sacrifice belongs to him on whose behalf the ṛtviks perform it. The Mit.³⁴³ on Yāj. (II. 21) says that the real purport of Manu VIII. 350-351 is not to ordain that a brāhmaṇa must be killed if he is an ātatāyin, but those two verses are only an *arthavāda* (laudatory or recommendatory dicta), the real meaning being that even a *guru* and a brāhmaṇa who are most highly honoured and who are not fit to be killed at all, may have to be killed if ātatāyins (then what of others?). The final conclusion of the Mit. is that if a brāhmaṇa who is an ātatāyin is being opposed in self-defence without any desire to kill him and if he dies through mistake or inattention, then the killer incurs no punishment at the hand of the king and has to undergo a slight prāyaścitta i. e. there is really a prohibition to kill an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa and verses like Manu VIII. 351 refer to an ātatāyin who is not a brāhmaṇa. Medhātithi appears to have held the same view (on Manu VIII. 350-351). Kullūka explains Manu VIII. 350 as meaning that 'a guru or a brāhmaṇa or others coming as ātatāyins may be killed when it is impossible to save oneself even by fleeing from them'. Aparārka is of opinion³⁴⁴ that where an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa cannot be prevented from his wicked intent except by killing him, there only the śāstras allow the killing of a brāhmaṇa but where it is possible to ward him off by a mere blow (i. e. without actually killing him) there would be the sin of brāhmaṇa-murder if he were actually killed. The Sm. C. in a long note appears to hold that an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa rushing upon a man to kill him may be killed by the person attacked (there is no sin and no punishment nor penance for it), that a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin (who does not come to kill but) who only siezes one's fields or wife should not be killed (but lesser harm may be done to him with impunity) and that kṣatriyas and others if ātatāyin may be killed outright. The Vyavahāra-Mayūkha³⁴⁵ adds a rider that, on account of the prescription contained in the section on kalivarjya (actions forbidden in the Kali age) viz. 'the killing in a properly conducted fight of brāhmaṇas that are ātatāyin' (is forbidden in Kali), an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa even when about to kill a person should not be killed by that person in the Kali age, that such a brāhmaṇa was allowed to be killed in former ages, that an ātatāyin brāhmaṇa other than one bent upon killing another was not be killed in all ages. The Vīramitrodaya (pp. 19-27) has a long disquisition on this subject but space forbids us from giving even a brief summary of it. It will have been noticed how the sacredness of the brāhmaṇa's person went on increasing in later ages.