History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.90.5

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.