History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.319
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.319
- Language
- English
v5.c71.s1.319.1
(1) The murderer of a brāhmaṇa should construct a hut in a forest and dwell therein for twelve years, should subsist on alms and should carry a piece of the head-bones of the murdered man on a staff. This is a very ancient penance and other smṛtis add some details. For example, Gaut 22 4 provides that the sinner should submit to observances meant for a Vedic student (such as not partaking of flesh, honey etc. stated in Gaut. 2. 19), should announce his sin and enter a village only for begging alms. Yāj. III. 243 prescribes that the sinner should have a piece of the head-bone in the hand (left) and another placed on a staff (in the right hand) and that he should eat a moderate quantity (i e. only once a day). The carrying of the piece of the head-bone in one hand is not meant for begging alms therein but only as a symbol. There was some divergence of views on this point209a. Āp Dh. S. I. 9. 24. 14 further provides that he should beg for alms at seven houses in only a broken reddish vessel (of clay or copper) and wear a piece of hempen cloth round his waist that will reach a little above his knees and that if he got no food at the seven houses he had to go without food that day and that he should protect cows and may for that purpose (for taking them out for grazing or bringing them back) enter the village again. The Mit. (on Yāj. III.
v5.c71.s1.319.2
243) adds that the staff with head-bone on and the head-bone carried in the left hand are merely symbolic (in order to remind him and others of his being guilty of brāhmaṇa murder), that he should on seeing an *ārya* avoid his path (Gaut. 22. 5), that he should keep standing by day and only sit down at night (Gaut. 22. 6) and bathe thrice in the day (Gaut. 22. 6). It is added by the Mit. that, if the murdered brāhmaṇa's head-bone cannot be had, that of any other brāhmaṇa would do. The Mit. adds that this *vrata*²¹⁰ for twelve years propounded by Gautama, Manu, Yājñavalkya and others is one and not different for each smṛti and therefore all the details that are not opposed to each other should be included. Aparārka p. 1053 (on Yāj. III. 243) relies on the 'sarvaśākhāpratyayanyāya'²¹¹ and states that there would be an option where the details of several smṛtis are in conflict. It was Viśvarūpa²¹² on Yāj. III. 237 who held that the procedure prescribed by each smṛti was separate and that all details taken from different smṛtis were not to be mixed up. According to the Mit. and Kullūka (on Manu XI. 72) this vrata for 12 years is appropriate in the case where a brāhmaṇa is murdered unintentionally and Kullūka quoting Aṅgiras provides that for intentional brāhmaṇa murder the penance will be double (i. e. 24 years). The Mit (on Yāj. III.
v5.c71.s1.319.3
243) states that this observance for twelve years applies only to one who was himself directly the murderer of a brāhmaṇa and that the *anugrāhaka* has to undergo only 9 years’ *vrata*, the *prayojaka* only six years, the *anumantā* only 4½ years and the *nimittin* only three years. It is further provided by the Mit. (on Yāj. III. 243) following a verse ascribed to Manu (not found in the printed text) and Devala²¹³ that if a man commits several murders of brāhmaṇas one after another, and performs penance at one time for them, for two murders he has to undergo the penance for 24 years and for three murders 36 years and when he commits the 4th murder there is no penance (but only death is the penance). The Pr. T. (p. 468) on the other hand,²¹⁴ following the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa holds that one performance of the 12 years’ penance is enough penance for the murder of several brāhmaṇas, on the analogy of the *Kṣāmavatī iṣṭi* (Jai. VI. 4. 17–20) which is performed when both the puroḍāśas and the house are totally burnt up by accident before the oblations are offered. The Pr. Prakāśa (folio 19 a) also says the same and adds that Devala's verse is to be interpreted as laying down that repetition of the same sinful act is more blamable. If the murderer of a brāhmaṇa was a kṣatriya or a vaiśya or a śūdra he had to perform the penance above described respectively for 24, 36 or 48 years. (Smṛtyarthasāra p. 105).
v5.c71.s1.319.4
Instead of staying in a hut for twelve years he may stay at the end of a village or a cowpen and should tonsure his head and the hair on the lips or he may stay in an hermitage or at the foot of a tree and should devote himself to doing good to brāhmaṇas and cows and should observe celibacy (Manu XI. 78 and 81). At the end of 12 years he destroys the sin of brāhmaṇa-murder.