History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.271

v5.c71.s1.271

The king had jurisdiction¹⁸² to punish sinners if they did not agree to undergo the prāyaścitta prescribed by the pariṣad but it is extremely doubtful whether he exercised that jurisdiction in all cases Society or the caste also had a weapon in its hand viz that of excommunication by ghaṭasphoṭa if one guilty of a grave sin refused to perform the prāyaścitta prescribed (i e. it was jātidanda). Vide Gaut 20 2-9, Manu XI 182-185 and Yāj III. 294 and H. of Dh vol II p 388 and vol. III p. 1009-1010 for the rite of ghaṭasphoṭa and re-admission to caste after ghaṭasphoṭa Many of the prāyascittas prescribed for the grave sins were terrible (such as throwing oneself into fire, drinking boiling surā or water or cow's urine or milk or ghee for drinking surā, Manu XI 73, 90-91, 103 &c ) and were to be self-inflicted and were not to be prescribed by the pariṣad as the words of Manu in XI. 73 'icchayātmanah' and 'prāsyed-ātmānam-agnau vā' clearly convey and as some of the digests expressly provide¹⁸³ In order to enable a man to become fit for intercourse with his caste men he had to give a dinner to them or distribute sweetmeats even after undergoing prāyaścitta So it follows that a man guilty of a crime was liable to three burdens, punishment by the king, penance prescribed by learned brāhmaṇas and giving dinner or sweetmeats to castemen Vide H. of Dh vol. II. p. 971.