History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.838
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.838
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.838.1
When during the latter half of the 19th century some brāhmaṇas went to England on a political mission or for study and returned to India, the question whether after taking the appropriate *prāyaścitta* those brāhmaṇas could be associated with fully as before was referred to many orthodox and learned *Paṇḍits* (such as the late Tārānātha Tarkavācaspati) and it is creditable to the Paṇḍits and gratifying to note that many of them came to the conclusion that they could be associated with by others. The two principal texts referred to were those of the Bṛhan-Nāradapurāṇa (note 1798 above) and the one from the Ādityapurāṇa translated at the head of this particular Kalivarjya. Very interesting and hairsplitting arguments and explanations were advanced by the learned Paṇḍits in 1872. Some of them may be noted here. As regards the Nāradīya passage, it is argued that only that seavoyage is forbidden in the Kali, which was a righteous act (*dharma*) in former times. In Parāśara-smṛti XII. 58 the following prāyaścitta¹⁸¹³ is prescribed for brāhmaṇa murder: 'the sinner should be directed to perform the penance of going to the *setu* on the ocean;
v4.c63.t2.838.2
he should beg for alms on the road to the *setu* from men of the four classes that are free from improper acts, should walk barefooted and without umbrella, should declare his sin in all towns, villages and hamlets of cowherds on the way while resting there or in forests, sacred places and rivers and after reaching the sea and on seeing the setu, 100 yojanas long and 10 yojanas broad, constructed with heaps of stones at the bidding of Rāma by Nala he will get rid of the sin of brāhmaṇa murder'. Here brāhmaṇa murder being a most heinous offence it cannot be supposed that a mere sight of the *setu* from land would absolve the sinner and the words about the length and breadth of the setu would be otherwise meaningless. Therefore what is meant is that he must undertake a sea-voyage and go along the whole length and breadth of the setu in a vessel. Such a voyage was religious conduct in former ages, but in Kali this is forbidden. The word 'holding a kamaṇḍalu' (which also was prescribed as dharma in former ages) conveys that a similar or analogous practice is referred to in the immediately preceding words. The words 'dvijasyābdhau &c.' are to be interpreted as follows: 'nauyātuḥ' is the genitive singular of '*nauyātṛ*'. The affix '*tṛ*' is not the ordinary '*tṛ*' but it is '*tṛn*' used in the sense of 'one who habitually does a thing', according to Pāṇini III. 2.
v4.c63.t2.838.3
134-135.¹⁸¹⁴ Therefore the words of the Ādityapurāṇa apply only to a dvija who habitually engages in a sea voyage either as a trader or as a helmsman or sailor. When Nārada (Dāyabhāga 21) states that even an aurasa son who is hostile to his father or who is patita (guilty of one of the five great sins) or is impotent or is 'apayātrita' he does not get a share of ancestral wealth, the Vyavahāramayūkha explains the last word as 'one who goes to another continent (other than Jambudvīpa) through mid ocean by means of a vessel for purposes of trade' and relies on this passage (dvijasyābdhau &c.) for support. So according to the author of the V. Mayūkha only that dvija who constantly undertakes sea voyages for trade is here declared to be unfit for social intercourse though he may have taken a prāyaścitta, and not one who casually or once in a life undertakes a sea voyage. No text prescribes a prāyaścitta merely for going in a vessel on the sea. If that were intended in this passage the text would have read differently viz. 'samudre naugamanābhāve &c.' Even śiṣṭas have been crossing the sea to Ceylon for purposes of trade. In dramas like the Ratnāvali (where the *kañcukin* Bābhravya undertakes a sea voyage and a merchant from Kauśāmbī is said to have gone to Ceylon) and in romances like the Daśakumāracarita frequent references are made to sea voyages to Ceylon and other countries.
v4.c63.t2.838.4
What is aimed to be hit when prāyaścitta for sea voyage is prescribed is the fact that on such voyages a man may give up for long such daily duties as the performance of *sandhyā* and may have come in very close contact with *mlecchas* as regards food etc. If he has done these two, then only he is not fit for intercourse even though he may have undergone a prāyaścitta. If he performs his daily duties wherever he may dwell and does not come in too close a contact with mlecchas he may have to perform no prāyaścitta, much less would he become unfit for social intercourse. The view of Medhātithi on Manu II. 23 that any country by itself is not unfit for the residence of an ārya, that if mlecchas overrun a country in India and permanently reside there it may become a mlecchadeśa, that even a mleccha country, if it be conquered by an Indian king and if the system of the four varṇas be introduced therein, would be a fit one for the performance of Vedic sacrifices, has already been noted (in H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 16). It has to be remembered that the Ādiparva (85. 34) states that *mlecchas* and *yavanas* sprang from Anu and Turvasu, sons of Yayāti. The Sabhāparva notes that Bhīma made mlecchas dwelling beyond the seas and in Anūpa bring tribute (30. 25-27) and that mlecchas came to see the Rājasūya sacrifice along with Bhagadatta of Prāgjyotiṣa (Sabhā 34. 9-10).
v4.c63.t2.838.5
The following propositions follow from the above discussion: (1) As the word ‘dvija’ is used a śūdra or a person of the mixed castes (*saṅkīrṇa-jāti*) does not become unfit for social intercourse even by habitually undertaking a sea voyage, but he may have to undergo a prāyaścitta; (2) a dvija who casually undertakes a sea voyage to a place outside India either at the king's bidding or for any other purpose has to undergo a prāyaścitta, but if he does so he becomes fit for social intercourse; (3) a dvija habitually undertaking a sea voyage for trade or as a sailor would become unfit for intercourse even after undergoing prāyaścitta. Manu IX. 314, when enlarging upon the devastating power of brāhmaṇas, mentions that the sea was made undrinkable by brāhmaṇas, which, according to Medhātithi and other commentators, has in view the story in Śānti 343.60-61. It is difficult to say whether this story had any influence in leading to the prohibition against sea voyage.