Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1: Chapter I

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I

v5.c71.s1.1

The Article on sin in Hasting's Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (vol 11) will clearly show how the idea of sin varies from religion to religion, from age to age and from country to country. We are concerned here with the growth and development of the doctrine of sin in India from Vedic times to the medieval digests and commentaries on Dharmaśāstra

v5.c71.s1.2

Sın (*pātaka*) is a word that belongs to the terminology of religion rather than to that of Ethics¹ It is very difficult to define sin. In a general way it may be said that it is an act which is regarded as a wilful rebellion against or disobedience of some law supposed to be laid down by God or Revelation; it is opposition to the will of God manifested in an authoritative work or at least failure to abide by the regulations contained therein.

v5.c71.s1.3

¹ In these days many people, both in the East and the West, question the very existence of sın As Barbour puts it in his 'Sin and the new Psychology' (p 19) "The feeling is gaining wide acceptance that there is no such thing as sın in the Christian sense. Evil may encompass a man's life and bring disaster to his personality, but it is not sın It is psychic evil that can be explained by psychic causes and perhaps cured by psychological therapy .. Many say 'nothing is right and nothing is wrong Every thing is the result of complexes' It has resulted in an easy tolerance of sın" Sır Oliver Lodge in his article on 'Christian Doctrine' in the Hibbert Journal for 1903-4 at p 466 says 'The higher man of to-day is not worrying about his sins at all, still less about their punishments His mission, if he is good for anything, is to be up and doing and in so far as he acts wrongly or unwisely he expects to suffer' The followers of Cārvāka who was the prince of Atheists in ancient India used to say 'man should live among pleasures as long as life lasts, he should feed himself sumptuously (lıt. should drink ghee) even by borrowing money from others There is no coming again into the world after the body is reduced to ashes by cremation'.

v5.c71.s1.4

The Ṛgveda is full of fervent and heart-felt expressions of the sense of sin and betrays intense desire on the part of the sages of old to be free from it The idea of sin in the Ṛgveda is bound up with the conception of *ṛta*. The conception of ṛta cannot be discussed here in detail But a brief statement is absolutely necessary in order to be able to convey what the Vedic doctrine of sin was ²

v5.c71.s1.5

² For the conception of ṛta and the idea of sin in the Ṛgveda the following works may be consulted ‘The religion of the Veda’ by M. Bloomfield (pp 12, 125 ff), 'Religion and philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads' by Prof A. B Keith (pp. 35, 83–85 &c.), 'The Vedic idea of sin' by Dr. Henry Lefever (1935) One regrets to observe that Bloomfield's work is marred here and there by a certain levity of thought and expression out of keeping with the seriousness of the subject

v5.c71.s1.6

*Ṛta* had a threefold aspect It means ‘the course of nature’ or ‘the regular and general order in the cosmos’; with reference to sacrifice it means ‘the correct and ordered way of the cult of the Gods’, and thirdly, it also means the ‘moral conduct of man’. A few passages to illustrate these three aspects of ṛta may be cited here Ṛg. IV 23 8–10 are³ three verses in which the word ṛta occurs no less than twelve times and which breathe the all-pervading influence of ṛta throughout the universe ‘Plentiful waters (or riches or gifts) belong to ṛta, the thought (or laudation) of ṛta destroys crooked acts (sins), the brilliant and rousing hymn of praise to ṛta pierces the benumbed ears of man The props of ṛta are firm, its (physical) manifestations are many and lovely for the sake of the body (i e man) Through ṛta they (people) desire food The cows (sun’s rays) entered ṛta by ṛta He who wins over ṛta acquires it For the sake of ṛta (heaven) and earth are wide and deep, the two highest cows (i e Heaven and Earth) yield milk (desires or rewards) for the sake of ṛta ’ Some other passages are. ‘The Sindhus (rivers) follow the ṛta of Varuṇa’ (ṛtaṃ sindhavo Varuṇasya yanti, Ṛg. II 28 4), similarly Ṛg I. 105 12 (ṛtamarsanti sindhavaḥ), The wheel of ṛta (i e the year) revolves round the sky with twelve spokes (dvādaśāram . .. varvarti cakram pari dyām-ṛtasya, Ṛg. I 164 11), 'the dawn, the daughter of heaven, correctly follows the path of ṛta ... ...' ('ṛtasya panthānam-anveti sādhu', Ṛg I 124 3); the young woman (Uṣas) does not destroy (or come in the way of) the light of ṛta (Ṛg I 123 9); the sun is the bright and lovely face of ṛta (Ṛg VI. 51. 1. 'ṛtasya śuci darśatam-anīkam); 'the path of ṛta became united with the rays' (Ṛg. I 136 2); 'when exhilarated by drinking this (Soma) Indra released for the sake of ṛta the concealed host of cows' (Ṛg. I. 121 4, probably a reference to drought and subsequent rainfall).

v5.c71.s1.7

³ ऋतस्य हि शुरुधः सन्ति पूर्वीर्ऋतस्य धीतिर्वृजिनानि हन्ति। ऋतस्य श्लोको बधिरा ततर्द कर्णा बुधानः शुचमान आयोः॥ ऋतस्य दृळ्हा धरुणानि सन्ति पुरूणि चन्द्रा वपुषे वपूंषि। ऋतेन दीर्घमषणन्त पृक्ष ऋतेन गाव ऋतमाविवेशुः ॥ ऋतं येमान ऋतमिद्वनोत्यृतस्य शुष्मस्तरया उ गव्युः । ऋताय पृथ्वी बहुले गभीरे ऋताय धेनू परमे दुहाते॥ ऋ IV 23 8-10 These are rather obscure verses The Nirukta X 41 understands ṛta to mean ‘water’ and explains X 23·8 as ‘ऋतस्य प्रज्ञा वर्जनीयानि हन्ति ऋतस्य श्लोको बधिरस्यापि कर्णौ आतृणत्ति । बधिर बद्वश्रोत्र । कर्णा बोधयन् दीप्यमानश्च आयो अयनस्य मनुष्यस्य ज्योतिर्षा वा उदकस्य वा ।’

v5.c71.s1.8

Many of the principal gods of the Vedic pantheon are described as the guardians, promoters or charioteers of ṛta. Mitra and Varuṇa rule over all the world by ṛta (Ṛg V. 63 7, ṛtena viśvaṁ bhuvanam vi rājathaḥ); Mitra and Varuṇa, the protectors of ṛta, occupy a chariot (Ṛg V. 63 1), Mitra, Varuṇa, and Aryaman are said to be charioteers of ṛta (yūyamṛtasya rathyaḥ, VII 66 12); they and Aditi and Bhaga are protectors of ṛta (Ṛg. VI 51 3) Agni is called 'the charioteer of ṛta' (rathī ṛtasya, Ṛg. III. 2 8), the protector of ṛta, in Ṛg. I. 1 8, III 10.2, X. 8.5, X 118.7 and ṛtāvān (in Ṛg IV. 2.1). Soma is styled the protector of ṛta (in Ṛg. IX. 48 4, IX 73 8) and is said to support ṛta (IX. 97.24 ṛtam bharat subhṛtam cārvinduḥ) In Ṛg. VII. 66.13 the Ādityas⁴ are said to be *ṛtāvan* (acting according to the fixed order of nature), *ṛtajāta* (sprung from ṛta) and *ṛtāvṛdh* (augmenting or rejoicing in ṛta) and further they are said to be fierce haters of *anṛta* (what is opposed to ṛta).'

v5.c71.s1.9

*Ṛta* is distinguished from sacrifice (*yajña*). It is not any particular sacrificial rite itself nor the institution of sacrifice. It stands for the ordered course of sacrifice in general In Ṛg. IV. 3.⁴. Agni is styled *ṛtacit* (conversant with or observing ṛta) and is invoked to know the ṛta (of the sacrifice); in several verses we meet with the words 'ṛtena ṛtam' (e. g. in Ṛg IV. 3.9 ṛtena ṛtam niyatam-iḷa ā goḥ', V. 15.2 'ṛtena ṛtam dharuṇam dhārayanta yajñasya sāke, V. 68.4 ṛtam-ṛtena sapantā 'conforming to or joining ṛta with ṛta', where 'ṛtena' appears to mean the correct course of sacrificial rites and 'ṛtam' the settled order in the universe. Soma is said to be the thread of ṛta spread on the *daśāpavitra* (Ṛg. IX. 73.9 'ṛtasya tantur-vitataḥ pavitra ā). In Ṛg. I 84.4 it is said 'O Indra, drink this (soma) that is extracted ..the streams of the bright (soma) flow towards thee in the seat of ṛta' (i e. in the soma sacrifice) Vide also Ṛg IV 1 13—(asmākam-atra pitaro manuṣyā abhi pra sedur-ṛtam-ā śuśānāḥ) 'in this world former men, our ancestors, approached ṛta etc', Ṛg I 71 3 (dadhannṛtam dhanayannasya dhītim-ādidaryo)' Ṛg. X 67 2 (ṛtam śamsanta ṛju dīdhyānā yajñasya dhāma prathamam mananta) 'the Aṅgirasas,, declaring the ṛta and reflecting straightforwardly first thought of the abode of Yajña', Ṛg. X 37 1 (maho devāya tad-ṛtam saparyata, 'offer this ṛta to the great God')

v5.c71.s1.10

⁴ ऋतावानो ऋतजाता ऋतावृधो घोरासो अनृतद्विषः । तेषां वः सुम्ने सच्छर्दिष्टमे नरः स्याम ये च सूरयः॥ ऋ. VII. 66.13

v5.c71.s1.11

The conception of ṛta as a moral imperative occurs in several passages Ṛg I. 90 6 (madhu vātā ṛtāyate madhu kṣaranti sindhavaḥ) 'the winds carry sweets, the rivers do the same to him who keeps ṛta', Ṛg V 12 2 'O Agni, that knowest ṛta, know ṛta alone (in me) .I shall not resort to magic either by force or by duplicity, I shall conform to ṛta of the reddish bull (i e of Agni)⁵; Ṛg. X 87 11 'O Agni! may the evil spirit who injures ṛta by anṛta be thrice bound in thy fetters' Yama in rejecting Yamī's advances says (Ṛg X. 10 4) 'What indeed we never did before (shall we do it now?); shall we who have spoken ṛta (so far) now speak anṛta?' (ṛtā vadanto anṛtam rapema)

v5.c71.s1.12

⁵ ऋत चिकित्व ऋतमिच्चिकिद्ध्यृतस्य धारा अनु तृन्धि पूर्वी । नाहं यातु सहसा न द्वयेन ऋतं सपाम्यरुषस्य वृष्णः । ऋ V 12.2.

v5.c71.s1.13

In two or three instances ṛta appears to be almost personified and invoked as a divinity. 'O Agni! for us offer sacrifice to Mitra and Varuṇa, to the gods and to the great (bṛhat) ṛta' (Ṛg I 75 5). Similarly, in Ṛg X. 66 4 the great (*mahat*) ṛta is mentioned alongside of Aditi, Heaven and Earth, Indra, Viṣṇu, the Maruts &c.

v5.c71.s1.14

*Ṛta* and *satya* were distinguished in several passages of the Ṛgveda For example, Ṛg. V. 51 2 speaks of the Viśve Devas as 'ṛtadhītayaḥ' (whose thoughts were fixed on ṛta) and 'satyadharmānaḥ' (whose characteristic is truth or whose dharmas are true). In Ṛg. IX 113.4 ṛta and satya both occur and appear to mean almost the same thing In Ṛg X. 190 1 ṛta and satya are distinguished as having sprung from '*tapas*'. Ṛta involves a wider conception and satya had originally a restricted meaning (viz truth or static order). The word anṛta, however, is the opposite of both ṛta and satya as may be seen from Ṛg X. 10.4, Ṛg VII. 49.3 (Varuṇa who marks the *satya* and *anṛta* of people), Ṛg. X. 124.5 (Varuṇa who separates anṛta by means of *ṛta*). Gradually, however, the word *ṛta* receded into the back-ground and *satya* took its place even in Vedic literature, though here and there (as in Tai. Up. II 1 and I.9.1) both *ṛta* and *satya* are found in juxtaposition.

v5.c71.s1.15

The sages of the Ṛgveda were acutely conscious of sin or guilt and pray to the gods, particularly to Varuṇa and the Ādityas, for forgiveness and for being freed from the consequences of sin In this connection they employ numerous words such as *āgas, enas, agha, durita, duṣkṛta, drugdha, aṁhas.* A few examples of the employment of these words may be cited here. The most frequent words are *āgas* and *enas*, both of which appear to import sin in its deepest and most ethical sense. Ṛg. VII 86 is a hymn to Varuṇa in which there are several verses that breathe a deep and heart-felt consciousness of guilt. The sage begins in verse 3 by saying that all wise men of whom he inquired told him the same thing viz. 'Varuṇa is angry with you'. Then the sage proceeds 'O Varuṇa! what is that great guilt (āgas) (of mine) whereby you desire to injure your worshipper and a friend? Declare that to me, then I shall quickly approach thee with an obeisance and be free from sin (*enas*). Cast away from us the transgressions (*drugdha*) of our father and those that we committed in our own person;...free Vasiṣṭha (from guilt) like a calf from the rope (that binds it)'. In Ṛg. VII. 89.5 (almost equal to Atharva-veda VI. 51.3) the sage says 'whatever transgressions (abhidroha) we who are mere men have practised as against the divine hosts and whatever dharmas laid down by you we may have confounded through our ignorance (or heedlessness) do not destroy us on account of that guilt (*enas*).' It will be noticed that in these verses the words *āgas, abhidroha* and *enas* are employed in the same verses and therefore practically mean the same thing. In Ṛg. II. 27.14 the sage prays 'O Aditi! O Mitra! O Varuṇa! take pity on us though we may have committed some sin against you'. In Ṛg. II. 28 5 Varuṇa is implored to loosen sin (*āgas*) from the devotee just like a girdle. Ṛg. VIII. 45.34 states: 'O Indra! do not kill us for one sin, for two sins or three sins or for many (āgas).' In Ṛg II. 29.1 the Ādityas are implored⁶ 'cast away from me sin (āgas) as a woman who gives birth to a child in secret'. For some other passages in which *āgas* or its opposite *anāgas* occurs, vide Ṛg. I. 162.22, I. 185 8, II.29.5, IV. 12.4, IV 54 3, VII. 51 1, VII. 57 4, V. 85.⁷, VII. 87 7, VII. 93 7, X 36 12, X. 37 7 and 9. *Āgas* and *enas* are employed in the same verse, Ṛg. IV.12.4 'O Agni! Whatever sin (āgas) we may have committed through heedlessness make us free from it before Aditi and loosen from us our sins (*enas*) from all sides'.

v5.c71.s1.16

⁶ युवतस्ता आदित्या मुचिर आरो मत्कर्त रहसूरिवागः। ऋ II. 29.1.

v5.c71.s1.17

Some more passages about *enas* are Ṛg VI 51 7 'May we not have to enjoy (i e suffer for) the *enas* committed by another and Ṛg VI. 51 8 'Whatever sin be committed by me I shall remove it by obeisance', Ṛg VI. 74 3 'O Soma and Rudra! Loosen from us and cast away from us whatever sin attaches to our person'; Ṛg VII 20 1 'Indra is our saviour even from a great sin'; vide also Ṛg I 189 1, II. 28 7, VII. 52 2 The word '*agha*', also seems to mean sin 'Apa nah śośucad-agham' (may our sins perish) is the refrain of Ṛg. I 97. 1-8. 'O gods! May your fetters and may sins (*aghāni*) be far away from us' (II 29 5, in which verse in the first half 'āgah' occurs), X 117 6 (kevalāgho bhavati kevalādī) 'one who simply eats food alone (without offering to others) reaps only sin'.

v5.c71.s1.18

Another word is *aṁhas*. The following passages may be cited. In Ṛg II. 28 6 Varuṇa is implored 'remove *aṁhas* (sin) as one removes the rope from the (neck) of the calf; one has not the power even to wink without you (your favour)'⁷ It should be noted that in the preceding verse (II 28 5) already quoted the simile of the girdle is employed with regard to *āgas*. 'May Indra take us away from *aṁhas* as persons on both sides (of a river) call one who is going in a boat' (Ṛg III. 32 14), 'No evil caused by the gods or by men reaches him from any side who worships Agni with fuel, oblation or sacrifices'⁸ Ṛg VIII. 19. 6, 'May Aditi, the mother of the affluent Mitra and Varuṇa, save us from all sin' (Ṛg. X. 36. 3).⁹ Ṛg. X. 36. 2 also prays Heaven and Earth, the upholders of ṛta, to protect the sage from 'aṁhas'. Vide also Ṛg X. 126. 2.

v5.c71.s1.19

⁷ दामेव वत्साद्विसृजन्नृधंहो नहि त्वदारे निमिषश्चनेशे । ऋ. II. 28 6, compare II 28 5 'वि मच्छ्रथाय रशनामिवार्ग ऋष्याम ते वरुण खांमृतस्य।'

v5.c71.s1.20

⁸ न तमंहो देवकृतं कुतश्चन न मर्त्यकृतं नशत् । ऋ. VIII. 19 6

v5.c71.s1.21

⁹ विश्वेस्मानो अदितिः पात्वंहसो माता मित्रस्य वरुणस्य रेवतः । ऋ. X. 36 3

v5.c71.s1.22

Another important word is *vṛjina* which is often placed in opposition to *sādhu* or *ṛju*. The Ādityas are said to 'see inside (the hearts of men) sins as well as good (thoughts and actions)¹⁰ and it is added that everything though far-off is near to them who are kings. In Ṛg. II. 27. 2 the Ādityas are called '*avṛjināḥ*' (free from *vṛjina*). The Sun is said to mark among men their right and sinful deeds (Ṛg. IV 1 17). The same words (ṛju marteṣu vṛjinā ca paśyan) occur in Ṛg VI. 51. 2 and VII. 60.2 about the Sun.

v5.c71.s1.23

¹⁰ अन्त• पश्यन्ति वृजिनोत साधु सर्वं राजभ्यः परमा चिदन्ति। ऋ II 27 3; आ सूर्यो बृहतस्तिष्ठद्रथाँँ ऋजु मर्तेषु वृजिना च पश्यन्॥ ऋ IV. 1 17.

v5.c71.s1.24

The word '*anṛta*' is often used in the Ṛgveda. It has already been shown how Varuṇa is said to mark the *satya* and *anṛta* of men In Ṛg. VII 60 5 it is said 'these gods, Mitra, Aryaman and Varuṇa mark (or know) many sins; they flourish in the abode of ṛta' Ṛg. VII 66 13 calling Mitra, Varuṇa and Aryaman haters of anṛta has already been quoted (in n. 4).

v5.c71.s1.25

The word '*durita*' is sometimes used in the sense of sin In Ṛg I 23 22 the waters are invoked as follows:¹¹ 'O waters! carry away from me whatever sin may exist in me, whatever transgressions I may have been guilty of as regards my sensual appetite or whatever falsehood I may have uttered'. Here all three words 'durita, droha and anṛta' are brought together and convey almost the same idea, viz. sin or guilt against the law of the Gods. In Ṛg I. 185 10 Heaven and Earth are called father and mother and are invoked to save the worshipper from *durita* (sin) which involves blame (pātām-avadyād-duritād) '*Avadya*' means 'garhya' acc. to Pāṇ. III. 1. 101. Ṛg. VII. 82. 7 states 'Him neither *aṁhas* (sin) nor *durita* nor worry reaches from anywhere to whose sacrifice you go, O Mitra and Varuṇa!'. In Ṛg. X. 126. 1 '*aṁhas*-' and '*durita*' are brought together (na tam-aṁho na duritam devāso asta martyam) In Ṛg VIII 67 21 the words aṁhati and rapas¹² seem to be employed in the sense of sin. '*Duṣkṛta*' (evil deed) is used in the sense of sin in Ṛg. VIII. 47. 13 and in Ṛg X 164. 3 Agni is implored to keep far away from the worshipper all sins¹³. The word '*pāpa*' generally¹⁴ occurs in the Ṛg. in the sense of 'sinner' (Ṛg. VIII. 61. 11, X. 10 12, IV. 5. 5) or 'sinful' or 'evil' (Ṛg X 108 6, X. 164 5, I. 129. 11) In Ṛg VII. 32. 18, VII. 94 3, VIII. 19 26 'pāpatva' occurs and appears to mean 'sinfulness' In the Brāhmaṇas 'pāpam' (neuter) occurs in the sense of 'sin' as in Śat Br. XI. 2 7. 19; vide also¹⁵ Ait Br 33. 5 In the Upaniṣads 'pāpam' means 'sin' (e g in Tai Up II 9, Chāndogya IV 14. 3). Certain important modifications of the doctrine about sin and *Karma* were introduced in the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavadgītā, which will be discussed later on.

v5.c71.s1.26

¹¹ इदमापः प्रवहत यत्किं च दुरितं मयि। यद्वाह्यमभिदुद्रोह यद्वा शेप उतानृतम्॥ ऋ I 23.22 शेप (or-फ) means मेढ्र

v5.c71.s1.27

¹² वि सु द्वेषो व्यंहतिमादित्यासो वि संहतिम्। विष्वग्वि वृहत रेपः॥ ऋ. VIII 67 21. 'रप• रिप्रमिति पापनामनी भवतः' निरुक्त IV. 21

v5.c71.s1.28

¹³ यद्गार्हपत्यं दीपर्य देवांसो अस्ति दुष्कृतम् । त्रिते तद्विश्वमाप्स्य आरे अस्मद्दधातन ॥ ऋ VIII 47 13. अग्निर्चिश्वान्यप दुष्कृतान्यजुष्टान्यारे अस्मद्दधातु॥ ऋ. X. 164.3

v5.c71.s1.29

¹⁴ पापमाहुर्यः स्वसारं निगच्छात्। ऋ X. 10 12. पापांसः सन्तो अनृता असत्या इदं पदमजनता गभीरम्॥ ऋ. IV 5.5.

v5.c71.s1.30

¹⁵ सहोवाचाजीगर्तः सौयवसिस्तद्धै मा तात तपति पापं कर्म मया कृतम्। ऐ ब्रा 33 5 (=VII 17.)

v5.c71.s1.31

In spite of the voluminous references to the consciousness of guilt and sin in the Ṛgveda and to the transgression of divine laws briefly indicated above, European scholars were not wanting who boldly affirmed that the idea of sin was altogether unknown to the Ṛgvedic sages. Vide S B E vol I p XXII where Max-Müller replies 'the gradual growth of the concept of guilt is one of the most interesting lessons which certain passages of these ancient hymns can teach us '

v5.c71.s1.32

How sin arises in the individual mind has been a difficult problem at all times¹⁶. Men are conscious of the sins they commit, though they may have no definite conclusions or theories about the origin of sin In the Ṛg VII. 86 6 a sage¹⁷ pleads with Varuṇa that sin is not due to a man's own power, but it is rather due to fate, to *surā* (intoxicants), to anger, dice or heedlessness and even dream state leads one to commit what is not right In the Kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇopaniṣad (III 9) it is stated. 'the Lord of all makes that man perform good works whom He desires to raise to higher worlds than these and He makes that man commit bad deeds whom He wishes to drag down'.¹⁸ Here it appears to be suggested that some men are chosen by God for being saved and some are chosen for being damned. This sounds like the Calvinistic doctrine of pre-destination. In the Bhagavadgītā (III. 36) Arjuna questions Śrīkṛṣṇa as follows: 'impelled by whom does a man commit sin as if constrained thereto by force, even though he does not desire to do so'? The answer given is (III. 37) 'it is lust and anger springing from the element (*guṇa*) of *rajas* (passion) that are the enemies of man in this world. In another place the Bhagavadgītā (XVI. 21) says 'this¹⁹ is the three-fold door or entrance to Hell that is ruinous to the self viz. lust, anger and greed; therefore a man must shun these three.' But it must be said that this does not go to the real root of the matter. The question is why should carnal lust, anger or greed themselves arise in the mind of man. The only answer that is indicated is in accordance with the tenets of the Sāṅkhya philosophy viz. that there are three guṇas, *sattva*, *rajas* and *tamas* which combine in various proportions in different men and that it is *rajoguṇa* that is the cause of man's sinfulness In the Śāntiparva, chap. 163, it is stated that there are thirteen very powerful enemies of men beginning with anger (*krodha*) and *kāma* (lust) and it is said that krodha springs from *lobha* (covetousness), which latter arises from ignorance (verses 7 and 11). But there is no satisfactory discussion of the origin of ignorance in that chapter. Gautama 19.2 observes²⁰ that 'man in this world is polluted by a vile action such as sacrificing for a man unworthy to offer a sacrifice, eating forbidden food, speaking what ought not to be spoken, neglecting what is prescribed and practising what is forbidden'. Yājñavalkya III. 219 prescribes: 'by omitting to do what is ordained, by resorting to what is condemned (prohibited) and by not controlling the senses, man incurs fall (i e sin)' Manu XI. 44 and Sāntiparva 34 2 are similar verses The Mitākṣarā explains that matters ordained are such as performing Sandhyā (morning and evening adorations) and Agnihotra and what are condemned are such actions as drinking liquor Viśvarūpa explains that *patana* (fall or sinfulness) in Yāj III. 219 is not used in the technical sense attached to that word by Gautama 21 4 viz 'to be a *patita* means to be deprived of the right to follow the lawful occupations of twice-born men,' but it is used only in the sense that the man so acting (as mentioned in Yāj III. 219) becomes liable to undergo prāyaścitta and that the words of Gautama (21.4) are restricted only to what are called mahāpātakas The word *pātaka* is derived from the causal of the root '*pat*' Vide Medhātithi on Manu XI 54 'pātakaśabdaḥ pātayatīti vyutpattyā sarva-vyatikrameṣu vartate' and Madanapārijāta p 786 In ancient works the word *patanīya* (meaning the cause of *patana*) has been employed as in Āp Dh S. I. 7 21 7 The Pr V (p 35) paraphrases patantyānı by 'pātakāni' and derives it from the root 'pat' (*patatyanena ıti patanīyam*) with the addition of the termination 'anīya' according to Pāṇ III 3 113 The word occurs also in Yāj II. 210, III. 297, Śaṅkha quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 237 (in prose) and other smṛtis

v5.c71.s1.33

¹⁶ Christianity seems to have solved it by stating that the source of actual sin is the Devil (Matthew 13 39) and by the legend of Adam's Fall (vide Romans 5. 12 'as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin') it affirmed that there was a dose of original sin in all men In modern times many people don't accept the idea of 'original sin ', for example, Sir Oliver Lodge says (in his article on 'Christian Doctrine') in Hibbert Journal for 1903-4 at p. 466 ''As for 'original sin' or 'birth sin' or other notion of that kind that sits absolutely lightly on him (the man of to-day) As a matter of fact it is non-existent, and none but a monk could have invented it'

v5.c71.s1.34

¹⁷ न स्वो दक्षो वरुण धृतिः सा सुरा मन्युर्विभीदको अचित्तिः। अस्ति ज्यायान्कनीयस उपारे स्वप्नश्चनेदनृतस्य प्रयोता॥ ऋ. VII 86 6

v5.c71.s1.35

¹⁸ एष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्यो उन्निनीषते एष उ एवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमधो निनीषते। कौषीतकिश्रा उप. III. 9. This is the basis of Brahmasūtra II. 1.34 and II. 3.41.

v5.c71.s1.36

¹⁹ त्रिविधं नरकस्येदं द्वारं नाशनमात्मनः। कामः क्रोधस्तथा लोभस्तस्मादेतत्त्रयं त्यजेत्॥ भगवद्गीता XVI. 21 = विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 33.6.

v5.c71.s1.37

²⁰ विहितस्याननुष्ठानान्निन्दितस्य च सेवनात्। अनिग्रहाच्चेन्द्रियाणां नरः पतनमृच्छति॥ या III 219, अकुर्वन् विहितं कर्म प्रतिषिद्धानि चाचरन्॥ प्रायश्चित्तीयते ह्येवं नरो मिध्या तु वर्तयन्॥ शान्तिपर्व 34 2 गौतम appears to mention the two causes of the rise of sin stated by Yāj in the first half of III 219 'अथ खल्वयं पुरुषो याप्येन कर्मणा लिप्यते यथैतदयाज्ययाजनमभक्ष्यभक्षणमवद्यवदनं शिष्टस्याक्रिया प्रतिषिद्धसेवनमिति। गौ. 19 2 शबर on जै. XII. 3 16 echoes the very words of गौ. viz शिष्टस्याक्रिया प्रतिषिद्धसेवनमिति'.

v5.c71.s1.38

The enumeration of sinful acts and the classifications of sins into several degrees or grades has gone on from very ancient times In the Ṛg X 5 6 it is said²¹ 'the wise made (lit chiselled) seven limits, the man who goes against even one of them becomes sinful' The Nirukta (VI. 27) explains that the seven sins indicated in this verse are 'theft, violating the bed (of the guru), murder of a brāhmaṇa, murder of a bhrūṇa, drinking of liquor, continual performance of the same sinful act, telling a lie as to a sinful matter'. Ṛg VII. 86 6 quoted above (in n 17) makes it clear that drinking *surā* and playing with dice were regarded as sinful. From the Tai. S. II. 5 1. 2, V 3 12 1-2, Śat Br XIII. 3 1 1 and other Brāhmaṇa texts it appears that the murder of a brāhmaṇa was generally regarded in early vedic times as the gravest of all sins, though in the Kāṭhaka saṃhitā (31. 7) it is stated that there is no sin as heinous as·killing a bhrūṇa which is even worse than brāhmaṇa murder )²². The Tai. Br. in detailing the story of Ekata, Dvita and Trita who was made a scapegoat for .keeping off sins, enumerates the following sinners, viz. sūryābhyudita ( one who sleeps on when the sun rises ), sūryābhinimrukta ( one who slept when the sun set ), one who has black nails or teeth, *agredidhusu* ( one who married a younger sister while the elder sister was yet unmarried ), the elder brother remaining unmarried even though a younger brother has married, one who allows his sacred sacrificial fires to be extinguished, the killer of a brāhmaṇa.²³. It may be noticed that most of these occur almost in the same order in Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 12. 22 where it is²⁴ said that though these actions are not to be styled *patanīyas* according to Āp. yet they cause impurity which being greater and greater in each succeeding one requires higher and higher penances. Āp adds a few more sinners to those in the Tai. Br viz *didhiṣūpati* (husband of an elder sister whose younger sister was married before her), *paryāhita* (an elder brother before whom a younger brother kindled fires), *parivividāna* (a younger brother who takes his share of the ancestral property before his elder brother), *parivinna* (an elder brother before whom a younger brother takes away his share of the ancestral property). The Chāndogya Upaniṣad²⁵ (V. 10. 9.) quotes a verse that declares that the five great sinners are the thief of gold, the drinker of *surā*, the violator of the *guru’s* bed, the murderer of a brāhmaṇa, and one who associates with any of the preceding four. The Br. Up. (IV. 3. 22) mentions as great sinners the thief and the murderer of a *bhrūṇa*.

v5.c71.s1.39

²¹ सप्त मर्यादाः कवयस्ततक्षुस्तासामेकामभ्यंहूरो गात्। ऋ X 5 6; सप्त एव मर्यादा कवयश्चक्रुः। तासामेकामपि अभिगच्छन्नंहस्वान् भवति। स्तेयं तल्पारोहणं ब्रह्महत्या भ्रूणहत्या सुरापानं दुष्कृतस्य कर्मणः पुन पुनः सेवा पातके अनृतोद्यमिति। निरुक्त VI 27.

v5.c71.s1.40

²² Bhrūṇahan is either a killer of a learned brāhmaṇa or the killer of a foetus when its sex is not known. Vide H of Dh vol II, p. 148n and vol. III p 612n for quotations and explanations. It may be noted that the four main prohibitions contained in the Decalogue (Exodus, chap 20 13-16 and Deut. 5. 17-20 ) against killing human beings, theft, adultery and bearing false witness are to be found in all well-known religious or moral codes.

v5.c71.s1.41

²³ ते देवा आप्त्येष्वसृजत । आप्त्या असृजत । सूर्याभ्युदिते । सूर्याभ्युदित. सूर्याभिनिम्रुक्ते । सूर्याभिनिम्रुक्तः कुनखिनि । कुनखी श्यावदति । श्यावदन्नाग्रदिधिषौ । अग्रदिधिषुः परिवित्ते । परिवित्तो वीरहाणि । वीरहा ब्रह्महाणि । तद् ब्रह्महणं नात्यच्यवत । तै. ब्रा III 2. 8.11. In the corresponding story in the काठकसंहिता (31.7) we read श्यावदन्परिवित्ते परिवित्तः परिविविदाने परिविविदानोऽग्रेदिधिषा अग्रेदिधिषुर्दिधिषूपतौ दिधिषूपतिर्वीरहाणि...ब्रह्महाणि ब्रह्महा भ्रूणहनि भ्रूणहनमेनो नात्येति ।. The story of Trita is briefly referred to in the Atharvaveda (VI. 113). The germ of it is found in Rg VIII 47.13 quoted above in n. 13.

v5.c71.s1.42

²⁴ अभिनिम्रुक्ताभ्युदित-कुनखिश्यावदग्राग्रेदिधिषू-दिधिषूपतिपर्याहितपरीष्ट-परिवित्त-परिविवि-परिविविदानेषु चोत्तरोत्तरस्मिन्नशुचिकरानिर्वेषो गरीयान् गरीयान् । आप II 5. 12 22. It may be noted that both brothers (elder and younger) and sisters (elder and younger) were held guilty of sin in case of supercession in marriage. परिवित्त and परिविविक्त often mean the same thing (viz. an elder brother before whom a younger brother marries or consecrates sacrificial fires) Vide Manu III. 171-172. Acc. to Manu III. 173 a didhīṣūpati is one who feels love for his brother's widow and has intercourse with her under the system of *niyoga*. परिविविदान is the same as परिवेत्ता अग्रेदिधिषु or-षू is explained by Devala and by Aparārka p.451, by Haradatta on Gaut. 15.15 and Mit. on Yāj. III. 26 as 'a younger sister who marries before her elder sister' and दिधिषु or दिधिषू is the elder sister who is thus superceded by a younger one In Āp the word पति is to be connected with both अग्रेदिधिषू and दिधिषू. The Amarakośa explains दिधिषू differently. शङ्खस्मृति (17. 43-44) makes even the father or other guardian for marriage getting a younger son or daughter married before an elder one and the priest officiating at such a marriage equally guilty 'परिवित्तिः परिवेत्ता यया च परिविद्यते । व्रतं संवत्सरं कुर्य्युर्दातृयाजकपञ्चमाः ॥.

v5.c71.s1.43

²⁵ तदेष श्लोकः। स्तेनो हिरण्यस्य सुरां पिबंश्च गुरोस्तल्पमावसन् ब्रह्महा चैते पतन्ति चत्वारः पञ्चमश्चाचरंस्तै ॥ इति । छा उप. V. 10.9.

v5.c71.s1.44.1

Coming to the sūtras there is great divergence as to the classification of sins and the enumeration of sins in each class. The Āp. Dh. S. divides sins into two classes viz. *patanīya* (those that cause loss of caste), *aśucikara* (those that cause impurity, though no loss of caste is caused). Āp. Dh. S (I. 7.21.7-11) states that *patanīya* sins are theft (of gold), crimes whereby one becomes an *abhiśasta*, complete loss (by neglect) of the Vedic learning that one secured by study, destruction of a foetus, incestuous connection with relations born of the same womb as one's father or mother and with the children of such persons, drinking of *surā*, intercourse with persons with whom intercourse is forbidden, intercourse with the female friend of one's female guru (mother &c ) or with the female friend of one's *guru* (father &c.) and with the wife of any stranger, constant commission of immoral acts (*adharma*) other than those already mentioned. Āp. Dh S. I. 7.21.10 notes that, according to some, intercourse with a woman who is not the wife of a *guru* is not a patanīya sin. Among acts which render a man impure are (Āp. Dh. S. I. 7. 21.

v5.c71.s1.44.2

12-18) the cohabitation of an Ārya woman with śūdras, eating the flesh of forbidden animals such as that of a dog or a human being or village cock or pig or other carnivorous animals, eating the excrement of human beings, partaking of food left by a śūdra, and cohabitation by Ārya men with apapātra women.²⁶ According to some, those acts that are declared to be *aśucikara* are also *patanīyas*. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 7.21.19) states that acts other than those enumerated are also aśucikara. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 9. 24.6-9) enumerates those who are *abhiśasta*, viz. one who slays a person belonging to the first two varṇas (viz. brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya) who had studied the Veda or who had been initiated for the performance of a soma sacrifice, one who kills a mere brāhmaṇa (though he may not have studied the Veda or be not initiated for a soma sacrifice), also one who destroys the embryo of a brāhmaṇa even though its sex be undistinguishable, or slays a woman who is an *ātreyī* (in her monthly course). The Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra divides²⁷ sinners into three classes, viz. those who are *enasvins*, those guilty of mahāpātakas and those guilty of upapātakas (I. 19-23). Among those who are styled *enasvinaḥ* are those mentioned in Āp. Dh. S. II. 5.12.22, with this difference that the 'brahmojjha', who is included among 'patanīyas' by Āp. Dh. S. I. 7. 21. 9 is put among 'enasvins' by Vasiṣṭha. In Vas. 20. 4-12 special prāyaścittas for each of these 'enasvinaḥ' (ordinary sinners) are prescribed.

v5.c71.s1.44.3

The Mahāpātakas (mortal sins) according to Vasiṣṭha are five, viz (violating) a *guru's* bed, drinking of spirituous liquor, murder of a bhrūṇa (a learned brāhmaṇa), stealing gold from a brāhmaṇa and associating with a *patita*. Those guilty of upapātakas (minor sins) are: He who forsakes sacred Vedic fires, he who offends a guru, an atheist, he who earns his livelihood from atheists, and he who sells the soma plant. The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra²⁸ (II. 1) divides sins into *patanīya*, *upapātaka* and *aśucikara*. Among the first it cites making voyages by sea, stealing the property of a brāhmaṇa or misappropriating a deposit, giving false evidence regarding land (dispute), trading with merchandise of all descriptions, serving śūdras, begetting a son on a female of the śūdra caste and begetting a child (either male or female) from her²⁹. The upapātakas, acc. to Baud. Dh. S. (II. 1. 60–61), are: intercourse with females who must not be approached, cohabitation with the female friend of a female *guru* or with the female friend of a male *guru* or with an apapātra woman or with a female outcast, following the profession of medicine, officiating as a priest for a village, living by dramatic performances, following the profession of a teacher of dancing or singing or acting, tending cows and buffaloes³⁰ and similar (low occupations) and fornication. Among aśucīkara (causing impurity), Baud. Dh.

v5.c71.s1.44.4

S mentions gambling, black magic, subsisting by gleaning corn fallen in the field by one who has not consecrated sacred fires, subsisting by begging on the part of one who has returned to his home after finishing Vedic study, staying for more than four months at his teacher's seminary on the part of him who has finished his studies, teaching one who has finished his studies, gaining livelihood by astrology. Gautama (21. 1–3) appears to include among patanīyas the usual five mortal sins and also some of those that are mentioned by Āp. Dh. S. (I. 7. 21. 9–11) and Vasiṣṭha I. 23 (such as *nāstika*) and adds a few more (such as not casting off persons guilty of patanīyas, forsaking blameless relatives and instigating others to commit acts causing loss³¹ of caste.

v5.c71.s1.45

²⁶ For the meaning of *apapātra* vide H of Dh. vol. II pp. 309n and 785n. For the meaning of *ātreyī*, vide H. of Dh. vol. III p. 527 note 970.

v5.c71.s1.46

²⁷ सूर्याभ्युदितः सूर्याभिनिर्मुक्तः कुनखी श्यावदन्तः परिवित्तिः परिवेत्ताग्रेदिधिषुर्दिधिषूपतिर्वीरहा ब्रह्मोञ्झ इत्येनस्विनः । पञ्च महापातकान्याचक्षते । गुरुतल्पं सुरापानं भ्रूणहत्या ब्राह्मणसुवर्णाहरणं पतितसंयोगश्चाद्येण वा यौनेन वा ।... योऽग्नीनपविध्येद्गुरुं च यः प्रति-दध्यान्नास्तिको नास्तिकवृत्तिः सोमं च विक्रीणीयादित्यपपातकानि । वसिष्ठ I. 19-23.

v5.c71.s1.47

²⁸ अथ पतनीयानि । समुद्रसंयानम् । ब्रह्मस्वभ्यासपहरणम् । भूम्यनृतम् । सर्वपण्यैर्व्यवहरणम् । शूद्रसेवनम् । शूद्राभिजननम् । तदपत्यत्वं च । ... अथोपपातकानि । अगम्यागमनं शूर्वोसख्यं गुरुसखीमपपात्रां पतितां गत्वा भेषजकरणं यामयाजनं रङ्गोपजीवनं मान्याचार्यतो गोमहिषीरक्षणं यच्चान्यदप्येवं युक्तं कन्यादूषणमिति । ... अथाशुचिकराणि । द्यूतमभिचारोऽनाहिताग्नेरुञ्छवृत्ति तो समावृत्तस्य भैक्षचर्या तस्य चैव गुरुकुले वास ऊर्ध्वं चतुर्भ्यो मासेभ्यस्तस्य चाध्यापनं नक्षत्रनिर्देशश्चेति । बौ. ध. सू. II. 1.50-56, 60-61, 63-64.

v5.c71.s1.48

²⁹ That this is the correct translation of Baud and not the one in S. B. E vol. XIV p. 218 'becoming thereby her son' is clear from Manu III. 16 'शौनकस्य सुतोत्पत्त्या तदपत्यतया भृगोः' Śaunaka condemned the begetting of a son from a śūdra female (and not the begetting of a daughter), while Bhṛgu condemned the begetting of a child (whether male or female did not matter).

v5.c71.s1.49

³⁰ It must be supposed that these lists relate to brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas alone Trading with merchandise or tending cows could not have been regarded as patanīya for Vaiśyas since trade and tending cows have been always prescribed as their special avocations. Vide Āp. Dh. S II. 5. 10. 7, Gaut. X 50, Manu X 79, Yāj. I. 119 Following the profession of medicine or living by teaching dancing or by going on the stage made brāhmaṇas unfit to be invited at a śrāddha Vide Gaut. 15 15–16 for long lists of those brāhmaṇas who were not to be invited at Śrāddha dinners &c.

v5.c71.s1.50

³¹ ब्रह्महसुरापगुरुतल्पगमातृपितृयोनिसम्बन्धागस्तेननास्तिकानिन्दितकर्माभ्यासि पतितात्याग्यपतितत्यागिनः पतिताः । पातकसंयोजकश्च । तैश्चाब्दं समाचरन् ।...कौटसाक्ष्यं राजगामि पैशुनं गुरोरनृताभिशंसनं महापातकसमानि । अपक्त्यानां प्राग्दुर्बलाद् गोहन्तृब्रह्मघ्नस्तन्मन्त्रकृद्व्रकीर्णिपतितसावित्रीकेषूपपातकम् । गौतम 21. 1–3, 10–11.

v5.c71.s1.51

The above statement about the classification of sins and their inclusion among the several classes or grades of sins will show that among the early sūtra works there was no general agreement about the nature and number of mahāpātakas, upapātakas and other classes of sins, even though as early as the Chāndogya Upanisad the mortal sins had been declared to be five. It must be supposed that that Upanisad represented only one school of thought in the times of Āp., Baud. and Gaut, who did not entirely accept the tradition of that Upanisad, but followed other divergent ideas. It is impossible to suppose that the verse quoted in that Upanisad is later than the Dharmasūtras of Āp., Gaut, Baud, and Vas

v5.c71.s1.52

It appears that Kātyāyana³² divided sinful acts into five classes viz. *mahāpāpa* (mortal sins), *atipāpa* (the highest sins than which there is nothing worse), *pātaka* (sins similar to mahāpātakas), *prāsaṅgika* (due to association or contact) and *upapātaka* (minor sins). The Bhaviṣya-purāna also says that those sins that are declared to be equal to mahāpātakas (by Manu and others) are called *pātakas* Vṛddha-Hārīta also (IX. 215-216) speaks of five kinds viz. *mahāpāpa, pātaka, anupātaka, upapāpa* and *prakīrṇaka* (miscellaneous) and states (IX. 216-218) that those sins which are said to be like mahāpātaka are pātakas, that anupātakas are sins lesser than pātakas, that upapātakas are lesser than pātakas and *prakīrṇaka* sins are the least sinful of all. The Viṣṇudharmasūtra (33 3-5) speaks of nine kinds of lapses viz. atipātaka, mahāpātaka, anupātaka, upapātaka, jātibhraṁśakara (effecting loss of caste), saṅkarīkaraṇa, (rendering one as degraded as a man of a mixed caste), apātrīkaraṇa (rendering the perpetrator unworthy of receiving a gift), malāvaha (causing defilement) and prakīrṇaka (miscellaneous). Atipātakas, acc. to Viṣṇu Dh. S 34.1, are sexual intercourse with one's mother, daughter or daughter-in-law and the only expiation for them is entering fire. Manu omits the separate mention of atipātaka and anupātaka and includes most of them under those that he designates as equal to one of the four well-known mahāpātakas. Kātyāyana quoted in the Prāyaścittamuktāvalī of Divākara (folio 3 a) adds sexual intercourse with one's sister as atipātaka to the three mentioned by Viṣṇu Hārīta Dh. S (it appears) quoted by the Mit knew³³ of a variety of pātakas called anupātaka, but from the way in which the several pātakas are arranged it looks as if *atīpātaka* in Hārīta was a lesser sin than mahāpātaka Manu (in chap XI) refers to all the kinds of pātakas found in the Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra except atipātakas Usually five mahāpātakas have been enumerated from the days of the Chāndogya Up (quoted on p. 12) viz brāhmaṇa murder, drinking spirituous liquor, theft (generally understood as theft of brāhmaṇa's gold), sexual intercourse with the wife of a *guru* and association with the perpetrators of any of these four (for a year³⁴) Vide Vas I 19-20, Manu XI 55, 180, Yāj III. 227, 261), Viṣṇudharmsūtra 35 1-5, Vṛddha-Hārīta IX 174. Manu mentions certain sins as equal to Mahāpātakas which are styled anupātakas by the Viṣṇudharmasūtra chap. 36 The most elaborate treatment of all kinds of sins in the smṛtis is found in Manu, Yāj and Viṣṇu There is difference of opinion even among these three on certain points For example, Manu³⁵ XI. 56 says that forgetting the Veda, reviling the Vedas, giving false evidence, slaying a friend, eating forbidden food and food that is unfit for eating or should not be eaten, are lapses similar to drinking *surā*; while Yāj. III. 228 states that three out of these (viz reviling the Vedas, slaying a friend and forgetting the Veda studied by a person) along with the reviling of a *guru* by attributing false faults are similar to the murder of a brāhmaṇa. The result is that there is an option as to the expiation to be prescribed for these sins.

v5.c71.s1.53

³² कात्यायनेन तु महापातकसमानां विष्णुनानुपातकत्वेनोक्तानां पातकसंज्ञा दर्शिता । मिता. on या. III. 242; महापातकसुल्यानि पापान्युक्तानि यानि तु। तानि पातकसंज्ञानि चमदे चोषपातकम्। भविष्यपुराण (ब्राह्मपर्व 1909)

v5.c71.s1.54

³³ यत्तु हारीतेनोक्त—महापातकातिपातकानुपातकोपपातकानामेकतसमेव सन्निपाते चाऽ-घमर्षणमेव त्रिर्जपेत्—इति तन्निमित्तकर्तृविषयम् । मिता on या III 301, in प्रा प्रकाश (folio 69a) हारीत is quoted as follows 'पञ्चविधमशुभं भवति प्रासङ्गिकोपपातकपातक-महापातकात्यन्तपातकानि ' and it is remarked (folio 69 b) 'प्रासङ्गिकपदेन जातिभ्रंश-कराणि परिशेषाद् गृह्यन्ते '

v5.c71.s1.55

³⁴ In the Mahābhāṣya Patañjali mentions at least three of these five: ' यो हि अजानन्वै ब्राह्मणं हन्यात्सुरां वा पिवेत्सोऽपि मन्ये पतितः स्यात् । महाभाष्य vol. I p 2, ध्वसते गुरुतल्पगः । महाभाष्य vol. II p 103, वृषलरूपोयम् । अप्ययं पलाण्डुना सुरां पिवेत् । महाभाष्य vol II p 419 on वार्तिक 4 on पा V 3 66. In the Khoh copperplate of the Gupta year 214 (533-34 A. D.) it was stated that whoever interfered with the gift would incur the five mahāpātakas and the upapātakas (Gupta Inscriptions p 135).

v5.c71.s1.56

³⁵ ब्रह्मोञ्झता वेदानिन्दा कौटसाक्ष्य सुहृद्वधः। गर्हितान्नाद्ययोर्जग्धिः सुरापानसमानि षट् ॥ मनु XI 56, गुरूणामध्याक्षेपौ वेदानिन्दा सुहृद्वधः । ब्रह्महत्यासमं ज्ञेयमधीतस्य च नाशनम् ॥ या III 228 मेधातिथि explains 'गर्हितं शास्त्रप्रतिषिद्धं लशुनादि । अनाद्यम-मनस्तुष्टिकारं न भोक्ष्य इति कल्प्य (सङ्कल्प्य ?) यद्भुज्यते'। compare गौतम 21 10 कौटसाक्ष्य राजगामि पैशुन गुरोरनृताभिशंसनमिति महापातकसमानि ।

v5.c71.s1.57

It would be desirable to give some details as regards each of the mahāpātakas and then to describe the other varieties of sins and then to set out the expiations prescribed for all of them. It should be noted that both the secular law of penalties and the ecclesiastical rules about expiations made a difference between a sinful act intentionally committed (*kāmataḥ*) and one committed through ignorance or heedlessness and between an act done only once (*sakṛt*) or done repeatedly (*asakṛt*)

v5.c71.s1.58

*Brahmahatyā Hatyā* or *vadha* (killing) is applied to an act which immediately or after some time results in causing loss of life directly without the intervention of any other cause.³⁶ The Agnipuraṇa (173 1), the Mit, the Prāyaścittaviveka (p 47) and other works define what is meant by *vadha* A man may be the cause of the death of a brāhmaṇa in five ways, viz. he may himself kill (i e. he becomes the *kartā*), he may incite another to kill (*prayojaka*) by ordering that other to do so (as a king or noble by ordering his servant) or by imploring another to kill and giving advice about the killing, he may encourage another to kill by his own approval (*anumantā*), or by helping the killer when he wavers or by offering protection to the killer against others (*anugrāhaka*) and by becoming a *nimitta*.³⁷

v5.c71.s1.59

³⁶ हन्तिरियं प्राणवियोगकरणे व्यापारे रूढ. । यद्व्यापारसमनन्तरं कालान्तरे वा कारणान्तरनिरपेक्ष. प्राणवियोगो भवति स ब्राह्मणं हतवानिति ब्रह्महा। मिता on या III. 227; स्यात्प्राणवियोगफलो व्यापारो हनन स्मृतम्। अग्निपु. 173 1, quoted by प्राय०तत्त्व p. 519.

v5.c71.s1.60

³⁷ वधित्वं पञ्चविध कर्ता प्रयोजकोऽनुमन्तानुग्राहको निमित्ती चेति। प्राय०वि. p. 47, अनुग्राहकश्च य. पलायमानमभिमंत्रणुपबन्धन् परेभ्यश्च हन्तार परिरक्ष्य हन्तुर्दृढिमानमुपजनयन्नुपकरोति स उच्यते। अत एव मनुना ग्राहक्स्य हिंसाफलसम्बन्धो दर्शितः। 'बहूनामेककार्याणां सर्वेषां शस्त्रधारिणाम्। यद्येको घातयेत्तत्र सर्वे ते घातकाः स्मृता. ॥ इति। मिता on या III. 227. The verse बहूनामभेक० occurs in अग्निपु 173 3.

v5.c71.s1.61

The Mit on *Yāj.* III. 227 and 243 (quoting verses from Paithīnasi) explains all these at length. For the definition of *anugrāhaka* it relies on a verse of Manu 'Where many persons are armed and have a common purpose in view, if even one of them kills a person, all of them are guilty of murder', which is very much like sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This distinction into several degrees of killers is an ancient one and is based on Āp Dh. S. II. 11. 29. 1-2 'He who³⁸ instigates, he who approves, and he who commits an act—these share its results in heaven and hell; but he amongst these who contributes most to the accomplishment of the act obtains a greater share of the results'. A *nuraffin*³⁹ is defined by Mit. as one that angers another (who is a brāhmaṇa) by rebuking or beating or depriving him of wealth and the like and in whose presence and on account of whom the brāhmaṇa that is angered kills himself. The Mit. quotes a verse of Viṣṇu and also another verse (without name) on this point. If a person kills a brāhmaṇa boy whose *upanayana* had not been performed he was yet regarded as guilty of brāhmaṇa murder.⁴⁰ The Sāmavidhāna Br. I. 7. 5, Āp. Dh. S. (I. 9. 24. 6-9), Vas. 20. 34, Manu XI. 87, Yāj. III. 251 hold that killing even a kṣatriya or vaiśya who had studied the Veda or had been initiated for a soma sacrifice rendered the killer guilty of *brahmahatyā*, as also the killing of the foetus (of brāhmaṇa parents) whose sex was unknown and of a woman who was an ātreyī.⁴¹ Killing a brāhmaṇa woman other than an ātreyī or other than the wife of a sacrificer engaged in a soma sacrifice was only an upapātaka, as Manu (XI. 66) and Yāj. (III. 236) lay down. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 254 says that no prāyaścitta can expiate the sin of killing a woman intentionally. In the case of the three varṇas other than that of brāhmaṇa some smṛtis like that of Cyavana⁴² laid down other mahāpātakas in addition to the five, viz. punishing one who should not be punished and fleeing from the battle-field are additional *mahāpātakas* for kṣatriyas, employing false balances and weights for vaiśyas, the selling of flesh, injuring a brāhmaṇa, sexual intercourse with a brāhmaṇa woman, the drinking of the milk of a kapilā (dark-brown) cow in the case of śūdras. If a brāhmaṇa or any other human being or a cow died while a competent doctor was administering treatment to them by means of drugs, oils or food, or cauterization by cutting or by opening a vein the medical man incurred no sin ⁴³ But if a quack pretending to know medicine administered such treatment and death followed, Yāj. II. 242 prescribed various punishments. If a brāhmaṇa administers moderate corporal punishment to his son, pupil or wife for some fault and the son or pupil or wife suddenly dies he incurs no sin, according to the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa and the Agnipurāṇa.⁴⁴ Gautama (II 48-50), Āp. Dh S I 2 8. 29-30, Manu VIII. 299-300 (=Matsyapurāṇa 227. 152-154), Viṣṇu Dh. S 71 81-82, Nārada (abhyupetyāśuśrūṣā 13-14) lay down that the punishment should be administered with a rope or bamboo slip on the back (but never on the head or chest) and Manu (VIII 300) provides that if these restrictions were violated the punisher would incur the same guilt or punishment as a thief. Vide H. of Dh. vol II. pp 362-363 for this topic

v5.c71.s1.62

³⁸ प्रयोजयिता मन्ता कर्तेति स्वर्गनरकफलेषु कर्मसु भागिन.। यो भूय आरभते तस्मिन् फलविशेषः॥ आप. ध. सू. II. 11.29. 1-2.

v5.c71.s1.63

³⁹ ३९ यथा चोक्तं भर्त्सनात्ताडनाद्वाथार्थहरणादिना । परात्कोपयति प्रज्ञादि नृशस्तो ह्युच्यते बुधैः । त्यागं प्रहारेण हिंसांविदुर्महार्णवे । अत्र दृष्टा विनश्येत्तद् यश्चाहुस्तस्य सोऽपि चापि धर्मेण विपद्येत् । महाहिस्रः सविज्ञेयो ज्ञानिनामायुषोऽपहृत् ॥ तथा । ह्यतिनिर्बन्धेनवापि सुहृत्स्नेहान्वितेन वा । महाहिंस्रः सविज्ञेयो ज्ञानिनामायुषोऽपहृत् ॥ इति । The प्राय. वि. p. 57 ascribes the first verse to महाविष्णु- and the 2nd to बृहत्प्रचेतस् and cites two more verses of similar import from Bṛhaspati. The स्मृतिमु (प्राय.) p. 862 ascribes both verses to विष्णु and quotes similar verses from सुमन्तु. The verse अङ्गिरः is almost the same as अङ्गिरस् 173-4.

v5.c71.s1.64

⁴⁰ ४०. अत्र ब्राह्मणवधे संस्कारोपलक्षितद्विजत्वस्य वैवत्वप्रयोजकत्वात् संस्कारनिमित्तिवैषम्यप्रदर्शकत्वेव प्रायोगात्तस्य च जातिवचनत्वात् अनुपनीतमहाब्राह्मणवधेऽपि महापातकम् । प्राय. वि. p. 86.

v5.c71.s1.65

⁴¹ ४१. पूर्वयोर्वर्णयोर्वेदमाप सूना समाप्य दीक्षितम् । ब्राह्मणमात्रं वा । गर्भं च तस्याविज्ञातम् । आत्रेयीं च स्त्रियम् । आप. ध. सू. I. 9.24. 6-9; राजन्यवैश्यौ संस्कृतावृत्विजौ हत्वा ब्राह्मणसमवेतौ सोमविद्वाऽदीक्षन्तौ । सामविधानब्रा. I. 7.5.

v5.c71.s1.66

⁴² ४२ क्षत्रियादीनामपराणि महापातकान्याह च्यवनः । ब्रह्महत्या सुरापानं गुरुतल्पं ब्राह्मणसुवर्णहरणं द्विजानां महापातकानि । अदण्ड्यदण्डनं युधि पलायनं क्षत्रियस्य । मानतुलाकूटत्वं वैश्यस्य । मांसविक्रयनं ब्रह्मवधो ब्राह्मणीगमनं कपिलादुग्धपानं शूद्रस्य । दीपकलिका on या. III. 227.

v5.c71.s1.67

⁴³ क्रियमाणोपकारे तु मृते विने न पातकम् । या III 284. औषधं स्नेहमाहारं ददद्गोब्राह्मणादिषु । दीयमाने विपत्ति. स्यान्न स पापेन लिप्यते ॥ संवर्त 138 (The Ānan ed. reads last pāda as पुण्यमेव न पातकम् ) q by विश्वरूप on या III. 262, by the मिता on या. III 227 (with two more verses), by प्राय वि. p 56 (reads second half as प्राणिनां प्राणवृत्त्यर्थे प्रायश्चित्तं न विद्यते) The same verse occurs in यम 50, लघुशङ्ख 61, लघु हारीत 28. The मिता and प्राय वि. quote another verse as संवर्त's which is 'दाहच्छेदशिराभेदप्रयत्नैरुपकुर्वताम् । प्राणसंत्राणसिद्ध्यर्थं प्रायश्चित्त न विद्यते' ॥ The अग्निपुराण 173 5 has 'औषधायुपकारे तु न पाप स्यात् कृते मृते । पुत्रं शिष्यं तथा भार्या शासतो न मृते ह्यघम् ॥ ,

v5.c71.s1.68

⁴⁴ पुत्र शिष्यस्तथा भार्या शासितश्चेद्दिनश्यति । न शास्ता तत्र दोषेण लिप्यते देवसत्तम ॥ भविष्यपु. q. by प्राय. वि. p. 58; अग्निपु. 173.5 is similar.

v5.c71.s1.69

One important question that very much exercised the minds of ancient and medieval Dharmaśāstra writers is whether a man can kill a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin in self-defence without incurring any sin or punishment by the king. There is great divergence of views on this point, which has been dealt with at some length in H of Dh vol II pp. 148-151 and vol. III pp. 517-518. The conclusion of the Mitākṣarā appears to voice the views of most writers that, if a brāhmaṇa comes as an ātatāyin (as an incendiary, as a poisoner, as a kidnapper of women or with the intention of killing or wresting a field), then in self-defence one may oppose him without incurring any sin, but that if the brāhmaṇa offender meets death though the defender did not desire to kill him (but only to stop him by causing injury short of death), the defender is not liable to be punished by the king and he has to undergo a light expiation (i. e. he is not guilty of brāhmaṇa's murder).⁴⁵

First 72 of 759 passages. Read on

Linked texts (77)