History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.230
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.230
- Language
- English
v5.c71.s1.230.1
Great divergence of views has prevailed from very ancient times as to whether prāyaścittas can destroy sins intentionally committed Manu XI. 45 and Yāj. III. 226 are positive that sins committed unintentionally are destroyed by prāyaścittas or by the study of the Veda The difficulty arises about sins committed intentionally or with full knowledge. Gaut. (19. 3–6 = Vas. 22. 2–5) states two views, 151a one holding that prāyaścitta should not be performed since deeds (here sinful deeds) are not destroyed (except by experiencing the consequences thereof), the other view holding that prāyaścitta should be performed (for the removal of the effects of sin). The latter relies upon certain indications in Vedic passages. Gaut. relies upon four such passages. The first says"¹⁵² 'after performing the *punahstoma*¹⁵³ one can come back to (become fit for) *soma* sacrifice (i. e. for Vedic rites in general). Another indication is: 'after performing Vrātyastoma (one becomes fit for Vedic sacrifices).' A third is: 'He, who offers the Aśvamedha sacrifice, crosses beyond all sin, beyond brāhmaṇa murder'. The fourth is: one should make a person charged with grave sins perform the Agniṣṭut Vasiṣṭha also (20 1-2) gives expression to the two views about the efficacy of penances.¹⁵⁴ Manu XI. 45 (latter half) states, that according to some, prāyaścittas may be prescribed for the removal of intentionally committed sins from indications contained in the Vedas.
v5.c71.s1.230.2
It cannot be said that these Śruti passages are mere *arthavādas* (i. e laudatory texts). They must really be taken, though expressed in the form of ordinary arthavādas, as laying down (a *vidhi*) that one desirous of destroying his sins should perform Aśvamedha and the other sacrifices mentioned In this case the maxim of *rātrisattra*¹⁵⁵ applies (vide Jai. IV. 3. 17-19). There are certain *sattras* (sacrifices extending over more than twelve days) called Trayodaśarātra, Caturdaśarātra and so on. All these are called rātrisattras. With reference to these a Vedic passage says ‘those who approach (i. e. perform) these rātrisattras attain stability (long life or super-eminence)’. In the text prescribing the rātrisattras there is no mention of any special reward for performance. Therefore ‘stability’ (*pratiṣṭhā*) contained in the passage must be held to be the reward of the performance of rātrisattras and not mere heaven (which is the reward of all sacrifices for which no special reward is mentioned, according to Jai. IV. 3. 15-16). The same maxim applies to passages like Yāj III. 226 which say that sin is removed by penances¹⁵⁶. Medhātithi draws attention to the story in the Tai. S. VI. 2. 7 5, Kāṭhaka S. VIII. 5, Ait Br 35.2 that Indra consigned yatis to *Sālāvṛkas* (dogs or wolves) and had to perform the rites called Upahavya to get rid of the sin. Manu states his own opinion in the next verse (XI.
v5.c71.s1.230.3
46) that sins committed unintentionally are destroyed by the recitation of Vedic texts and sins committed intentionally through folly are destroyed by various prāyaścittas. Yāj. III. 226 (latter half) appears to hold that prāyaścittas do not destroy sins intentionally committed, but the sinner undergoing the prescribed penance becomes fit to be associated with other people on account of the texts (laying down the prāyaścittas); but Yāj. implies, it seems, that the results of sin intentionally committed (such as Hell and the like) are not got rid of. Manu XI. 189 prohibiting social intercourse with sinners who have not performed penance practically conveys the same idea as that of Yāj in III. 226 (latter half). Yāj. III. 220 observes that a man guilty of *pātakas* should perform prāyaścitta for his own purification (here and in the next world); in this way (i. e if he performs penance) his inner soul recovers its composure and the people also become satisfied. This verse puts in a nutshell the purposes of prāyaścittas as conceived by the smṛtis, viz. purging of sin (or purification), the satisfaction of the sinner's mind, admission to intercourse with all people. Chāgaleya¹⁵⁷ holds that prāyaścittas free the sinner from the consequences of sins committed unintentionally, but no penance exists which frees a man from the consequences of sins knowingly committed except in the case of upapātakas and in suicides or attempts at suicide. The Par. M. (II.
v5.c71.s1.230.4
1 pp 200–201) cites a verse of Jābāli and verses of Devala setting forth the two views about the efficacy of prāyaścittas, while it also cites the view of Baudhāyana-smṛti that there is no prāyaścitta for sins committed knowingly and the view of Aṅgiras that the penance is double in the latter case¹⁵⁸. Aṅgiras further says that prāyaścittas do destroy the sin arising from committing acts that are forbidden and the like, just as the rising sun removes darkness. Manu XI. 47 provides: 'A twice-born man having become liable to perform a penance (for a sin), whether he committed it through fate or by some act committed in a former existence, must not have intercourse with virtuous men until he performs the proper penance.' Āp. Dh. S (I. 9. 24. 24–25) provides 'If a man slays a *guru* (father, Vedic teacher &c.) or a brāhmaṇa who has studied the Veda and finished the ceremonies of a soma sacrifice he shall live according to these very rules (contained in Āp. Dh. S. I. 9. 24. 10–22) until his last breath. He cannot be purified (of the sin of the murder of a *guru* or learned brāhmaṇa) in this life. But his sin is removed (at his death)'.¹⁵⁹ It appears to follow from Āpastamba's words that penance ending in death destroys the sin. The same was the view of Aṅgiras, Yama and others.