History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.90
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.90
- Language
- English
v5.c71.s1.90.1
*Mahāpātakasaṁsarga*—Association with those who are guilty of the four mahāpātakas has already been described in H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 614, 944. Gaut. 21.3, Vas. I. 21–22, Manu XI. 180 (=Śāntiparva 165. 37), Yāj. III. 261, Viṣṇu Dh. S 35.3, Agnipurāṇa 170. 1–2 prescribe briefly that one who closely associates or dwells with any one of the four grave sinners for one year himself incurs mahāpātaka⁶⁰ and they add that this applies when a man occupies the same conveyance or same seat (as the sinner) or dines in the same row (with the sinner), but that if a person enters into spiritual relationship (such as that of teaching the Veda to the sinner or learning it from him or of officiating as a priest for him or allowing him to officiate as a priest for himself) or into a sexual or matrimonial alliance with him (i. e. a man who cohabits with a woman that is a grave sinner or if a woman cohabits with a male that is a great sinner or if a man marries the daughter of a *patita* or if a woman marries a bridegroom that is *patita*) that person becomes guilty of mahāpātaka at once. Bṛhaspati speaks⁶¹ of nine kinds of *saṁsarga* (contact or association) out of which the first five were treated as light sins, but the other four were serious viz.
v5.c71.s1.90.2
occupying the same bed or seat, taking food in the same row with the sinner, cooking food in the sinner's cooking pots or partaking of food prepared by him, being his sacrificial priest or employing him as one's sacrificial priest, being the sinner's teacher of the Veda or employing him as one's teacher of the Veda, sexual intercourse, taking food with him in the same pot. The Pr Prakāśa (folio 74a) holds that *saṁsarga* is of three kinds, the highest, middling and lowest. The first includes four viz. *yonisambandha* (marriage), *srauva* (i e that due to sacrificing for a sinner or making him a priest), *maukha* (about learning or teaching Veda) and eating of food from the same vessel (ekāmatrabhojana), the middling is of five kinds viz. using the same vehicle, seat, bed or coverlet, eating in the same row and learning the Veda together (*sahādhyayana*) The lowest is of various other kinds such as intimate talks, touching, cooking food in the same vessel, eating food at his house, receiving a gift from him &c Adhyāpana in order to be a great sin must relate to the Veda, and so also yājana must relate to such Vedic sacrifices as Darśapūrnamāsa, Cāturmāsya, Agniṣṭoma Helping a mahāpātakin to perform the five daily yajñas or teaching him the aṅgas (metrics, grammar etc.) and the śāstras is only a minor sin. Parāśara⁶² (XII.
v5.c71.s1.90.3
79) states that sins are transferred (or spread) from man to man like a drop of oil on water by sitting or sleeping together or by using the same conveyance or by speaking with or dining in the same row. Devala and Chāgaleya q. by the Mit. on Yāj. III 261, the Pr. Prakarana (p. 101), the Pr. V. (p. 145), the Par M. (II. part 1. p 28) and others contain similar verses. Acc. to Pr. Prakāśa (folio 75a), in order to become *patita* one must simultaneously practise these four together, if practised separately, there is no *pātitya* but only *doṣa*. Parāśara (I. 25-26) states that in the Kṛta age a man became *patita* by speaking with a *patita*, in Tretā by touching him, in Dvāpara by partaking of food prepared in his house and in Kali by actually committing a sinful act and that in the Kṛta age a district was abandoned (if any one therein became *patita*), in Tretā the village, in Dvāpara the family (of the *patita* was abandoned) and in Kali only the actual perpetrator himself (is abandoned as *patita*). It is clear from this that such contacts with a patita as speaking with him,⁶³ touching him or eating food (in the house of a *patita*) were not regarded as involving a man in the same sin as that of the actual perpetrator. Speaking, touching and eating are also actions (*karman*) and Parāśara did not include them in the word 'karmaṇā' which refers only to the actual perpetration of a murder, surāpāna etc.
v5.c71.s1.90.4
Therefore when some writers include such contacts as eating or touching under 'karmaṇā' they put two meanings on the word *karman* in Parāśara viz. perpetration of a murder or the like and also doing some of the acts (touching, eating) which are forbidden to be done in reference to a perpetrator by some smṛtis. This is a procedure which is against the maxim of the Mīmāṁsā that the same word conveys only⁶⁴ one sense in the same context The reasonable inference from the words of Parāśara is that merely touching a *mahāpātakın* or eating food in his house did not involve the toucher and eater in *pātttya*. In spite of this medieval writers gradually extended the scope of saṁsarga in a spirit of exclusiveness and of over-emphasis on ideas of ceremonial purity - For example, the Smṛtyarthasāra⁶⁵ (p. 112) remarks that he who associates with the person that associates with a *mahāpātakın* has to undergo half the expiation that the first associator has to undergo. But that work does not go beyond this. The Mit. (on Yāj III. 261) appears to hold that the associator even though he does not become patita is liable to undergo expiation and that even the 4th and 5th associators in a series are liable to undergo expiation though it is lesser and lesser⁶⁶. The Pr. Prakaraṇa (p 109), Pr V. (pp 169-170) and the Pr T. (p 547) quote certain verses of Āpastamba and Vyāsa which very much widen the circle of *saṁsarga*. Āpastamba-smṛti⁶⁷ (III.
v5.c71.s1.90.5
1-3) states: 'if a cāṇḍāla stays in the house of any one of the four castes without being known, the latter on coming to know of the fact should undergo expiation, which is Cāndrāyaṇa or Parāka for a member of the first three varṇas and Prājāpatya for a śūdra. Those who partook of cooked food in that man's house should undergo Kṛcchra; one should prescribe one half of Kṛcchra for those who took cooked food in the house of the 2nd associator and for those who partook of cooked food in the house of these last one-fourth of Kṛcchra is prescribed'. So besides the original associator three more in succession were held to be liable for prāyaścitta. Mercifully they stopped at the 4th from the original associator A few writers took a more reasonable view. The Par M (II part 2, p 90) remarks⁶⁸ that Parāśara did not prescribe any expiation for *saṁsarga* (with those guilty of grave sins) with the idea that in the Kali age there is no blemish of saṁsarga and that it is on account of this that in the enumeration of things to be avoided or not allowed in the Kali age (*Kali-varjya*) another smṛti includes 'pollution through contact with a sinner' (as a Kalivarjya). The Smṛtimuktāphala (Prāyaścitta pp. 897-98) echoes the very words of Mādhave and quotes further authorities on the point⁶⁹. The Nirṇayasindhu⁷⁰ holds that though there is blame in association with a *patita* the associator does not himself become *patita*. As Yāj. III.
v5.c71.s1.90.6
261 employs the word 'vatsaram' and as the accusative of time is, acc. to Pāṇini, to be used only when there is '*atyantasaṁyoga*' of time and space (distance) it follows that the associator who is to undergo penance for contact must have been day and night in contact for a year. Devala employs the word 'sārvakālikaṁ' in this connection.