History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c74.53

v5.c74.53

There is a good deal of discussion in the Purāṇas and digests about those who are entitled or have the eligibility or capacity (*adhikāra*) for tīrthayātrā. The Vanaparva¹²⁷⁶ provides that brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras, when they have bathed in holy places, are not born again. The same work further states that whatever sin a man or a woman may have committed from birth, the moment a person takes a bath in the holy Puṣkara all that sin vanishes¹²⁷⁷ Therefore not only men but women also had the right to undertake tīrthayātrā. The Matsyapurāṇa¹²⁷⁸ goes further and asserts that 'Avimukta (Vārānasī) is the highest cure for men of numerous castes, for men not (recognized as) belonging to any particular *varṇa*, for cāṇḍālas who are abhorred (by people) and for persons whose bodies are full of diseases and of aggravated sins'. It is stated in the Vāmanapurāna:¹²⁷⁹ persons of all the four *āśramas* (i. e. brahmacārins, householders, forest hermits and *sannyāsins*) by bathing in the tīrtha (mentioned by it) save seven generations in their families and that persons belonging to the four varnas and women, when they bathe in tirthas with devotion, see the highest goal. It was provided by the Brahmapurāna that a brahmacārin can undertake a pilgrimage only if ordered or directed by his guru, and that a householder whose wife is alive and is chaste must go on a pilgrimage with her; otherwise he would not reap the fruit of pilgrimage The Padmapurāna (Bhūmikhanda chap. 59-60) narrates the story of a vaiśya called Kṛkala who went on a pilgrimage without his virtuous wife and did not reap the fruits of a long pilgrimage (bhāryām vinā yo dharmaḥ sa eva viphalo bhavet, 59. 33). The Tīrthacintāmani and Tīrthaprakāśa quote a passage (from the Kūrmapurāna) which glorifies Vārānasī (called Avimukta there) as follows:¹²⁸⁰ 'brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, śūdras, persons of mixed castes (varṇasaṅkara), women, mlecchas and others who are born in evil forms and are of mixed blood, worms, ants, birds and beasts when they die in Avimukta are born as human beings in Benares and no one guilty of sins dying in Avimukta goes to Hell'. As regards women and śūdras, a smṛti verse provided¹²⁸¹ '*Japa*, *tapas*, pilgrimage to holy places, becoming an ascetic (sannyāsin), efforts to attain mastery over mantras and worshipping deities (as a priest)--these six lead to sinfulness in the case of women and śūdras.' This was explained away by stating that this text refers to undertaking pilgrimage without the husband's permission (in the case of a woman) and as to a śūdra in such a way as to be opposed to the primary duty of a śūdra to wait upon learned brāhmaṇas (as laid down in Manu X. 123). Kātyāyana¹²⁸² as quoted in the Vyavahāramayūkha provides 'whatever a woman does that relates to (benefit in) a future state (i. e. state after death) without the permission of her (husband's) father, husband or son, would become fruitless ' It is clear therefore that it was recognized early that *tīrthayātrā* was a popular way for redemption of sins in the case of all classes of men and women. Though a Hindu woman succeeding as heir to her husband's estate has only a limited and qualified ownership over it, judicial decisions have recognized that she can alienate a small portion of her husband's estate for the expenses of a pilgrimage to Gayā for performing her husband's śrāddha for the latter's spiritual benefit or of a pilgrimage to Pandharpur. Vide *Muteeram v. Gopal* 11 Beng. L. R. 416; *Darbari Lal v. Gobind* 46 All. 822; *Ganpat v. Tulsiram* 36 Bom. 88 (pilgrimage to Pandharpur).¹²⁸³ It was also provided that there was no question of untouchability¹²⁸⁴ when bathing in holy waters.