History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.240

v5.c71.s1.240

In this conflict among the authors of smṛtis the solution proposed by the Mit. on Yāj III. 226 has been accepted by most medieval writers and is as follows¹⁶⁰. The potentialities and consequences of sins are twofold, viz those leading to Hell and the others preventing intercourse with members of the society to which the sinner belongs Therefore, even though a prāyaścitta may not be efficacious to prevent the first mentioned consequence (viz fall into Hell), there is nothing improper in prāyaścitta being effective in removing the obstacle to association with other people. As to sinful acts that are not *patanīya* (do not cause loss of caste) prāyaścitta does destroy such sinfulness as expressly stated by Manu. XI. 46. Even as to sins that are *patanīya* and are committed intentionally, if a penance ending in death is undergone as laid down by Manu XI. 73, Yāj III 247-248 and Gaut 22. 2-3 for brāhmaṇa murder; Manu XI 90-91, Yāj III. 253, Gaut 23 1 for drinking *surā*; Gaut 23 8-11, Manu XI 103-104 and Yāj. III. 259 for sexual intercourse with the *guru's* wife; Manu XI. 99-100 and Yāj. III. 257 for theft of brāhmaṇa's gold; then the sin is destroyed as stated by Āp. Dh S I. 9 24 25 and I 10. 28.18 quoted above When Manu says (in XI. 89 latter half) that there is no penance for the sin of slaying a brāhmaṇa intentionally, the proper interpretation of this read along with Manu XI. 46 quoted above is not that there is total absence of prāyaścitta in such a case, but that ordinary prāyaścittas (such as those in Manu XI. 72) would not do in such a case, but only very heavy ones that would end in death. Medieval digests like the Prāyaścitta-muktāvali (folio 32a) hold that according to the *Kalivarjya* section penance ending in death is forbidden in the case of brāhmaṇa sinners and therefore a brāhmaṇa murderer can only be made to undergo the twelve years' penance.