History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.352
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.352
- Language
- English
v5.c71.s1.352.1
Gaut. 23.1, ²²³ Āp Dh S. I 9 25.3, Baud. Dh. S. II. 1. 21., Vas. 20.22, Manu XI. 90-91, Yāj. III. 253 and Bṛhaspati prescribe that if a brāhmaṇa drinks intentionally spirituous liquor prepared from flour even once he has to undergo a penance that ends in death, viz. he has to drink that liquor boiling hot or to drink boiling hot cow's urine, milk, ghee, water or liquid cow-dung, and when his body has been completely scalded thereby and he dies he becomes free from that sin. Some like Haradatta on Gaut. 23 1 hold that this horrible penance is meant for one who knowingly and repeatedly drinks surā (manufactured from rice flour). Manu XI. 92 and Yāj. III. 254 prescribe another penance in place of the one ending in death viz. that the sinner should eat during one year (during three years, acc. to Yāj.) once (a day) at night the (boiled) small grains of rice, or oilcake, should wear clothes made of cow's hair, should have matted hair on his head and carry a flagstaff (with a wine cup thereon). The same rules apply to a kṣatriya or vaiśya drinking *surā* (manufactured from rice flour). Only they have as stated above (in note 192) to undergo three-fourths and one-half respectively of the penance for a brāhmaṇa sinner. This penance was to be undertaken after vomiting the contents of the stomach. According to the Madanapārijāta (p. 818), Pr. V. p 104, Pr Prakaraṇa p. 43, Mit. (on Yāj III.
v5.c71.s1.352.2
24) and other works the twelve years' penance is meant for one who drinks *surā* (made from flour) through ignorance or force. According to Gaut 23. 2-3, Yāj. III 255, Manu. XI. 146, Atri 75, for drinking intoxicants or human semen, ordure or urine through ignorance a person of the three first classes had first to undergo the penance called Taptakṛcchra and then his *upanayana* was again performed. Vasiṣṭha 20.19 prescribes for drinking any intoxicant unintentionally the penances of Kṛcchra and Atikṛcchra, the drinking of ghee and the performing of upanayana again. There is great divergence of views about Manu XI. 146 and Yāj III. 255 which is passed over here. Bṛhaspati ²²⁴ quoted by the Mit, Aparārka and others prescribes that a brāhmaṇa who drinks *surā* prepared from raw sugar, flour and honey (or madhūka flowers) should respectively undergo Taptakṛcchra, Parāka and Cāndrāyaṇa. This light penance is restricted acc. to the Mit. and others to cases where *surā* is drunk for curing a malady which no other medicine could cure. If a brāhmaṇa drank *surā* (not manufactured from flour) or any other intoxicant, various easy penances were prescribed for him (such as undergoing Cāndrāyaṇa on a river falling into the sea, feeding brāhmaṇas and donating a cow and a bull to the brāhmaṇas, Parāśara XII 75-76). Vide Yāj. III. 255 and the Mit thereon.
v5.c71.s1.352.3
Kṣatriyas and vaiśyas incurred no sin by drinking intoxicants other than *surā* (made from flour) and the śūdra incurred no sin even by drinking *surā* of the paiṣṭī variety. The Mit (on Yāj III. 243) holds that since Manu XI. 93 generally forbids the drinking of surā on the part of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas the prohibition applies even to boys who have not undergone the rite of *upanayana* and girls who are not yet married and adds that for drinking surā the child has to undergo only one-fourth penance (for 3 years) if the offence was unintentional and double of that (6 years) if it was intentional (vide also Pr. prakaraṇa p 48). The Kalpataru, it appears, held, relying on Gaut II. 1 ('before upanayana a child may do as it pleases as regards behaviour, speech and eating'), that no sin (*doṣa*) was incurred by a child before upanayana and by a girl before marriage for drinking surā. The Pr. V (p. 104) and Pr. Prakāśa criticize the Kalpataru for this view.²²⁵ As Bṛhaspati states (vide n. 188 above) the license allowed by Gautama is limited by the Mit and other digests to the partaking of sour or stale drinks and the like and is not extended to drinking surā which is a mahāpātaka Jātūkarṇya²²⁶ (q. by the Par. M.) provides that if a boy whose upanayana has not been performed drinks an intoxicant (*madya*) through foolishness, his father, mother or brother should perform three kṛcchras as an expiation for him. Aṅgiras (Jīv. p. 557), Āpastamba-smṛti III.
v5.c71.s1.352.4
7, Laghu-Hārīta 34-35, Bṛhad-yama III. 1-2 also provide that a *pratinidhi* (brother, father, friend) may undergo an expiation for a boy who is himself unable to do so or is less than eleven and above five years of age.