Chapter I. Sin in Rigveda, Conception of Rita, Enumeration and Classification of Sins, Grave Sins and Lesser Lapses. Doctrine of Karma

Volume IV pp. 1–40

Chapter I. Sin in Rigveda, Conception of Rita, Enumeration and Classification of Sins, Grave Sins and Lesser Lapses. Doctrine of Karma

PĀTAKA, PRĀYAŚCITTA AND KARMAVIPAKA (Sins, expiations and the residual consequences of sins).

CHAPTER I

The Article on sin in Hasting's Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (vol 11) will clearly show how the idea of sin varies from religion to religion, from age to age and from country to country. We are concerned here with the growth and development of the doctrine of sin in India from Vedic times to the medieval digests and commentaries on Dharmaśāstra

Sin (pātaka) is a word that belongs to the terminology of religion rather than to that of Ethics ¹ It is very difficult to define siṇ In a general way it may be said that it is an act which is regarded as a wilful rebellion against or disobedience of some law supposed to be laid down by God or Revelation ; it is opposition to the will of God manifested in an authoritative work or at least failure to abide by the regulations contained thereiṇ The Ṛgveda is full of fervent and heart-felt expressions of the sense of sin and betrays intense desire on the part of the sages of old to be free from it The idea of sin in the Ṛgveda is bound up with the conception of rta. The conception of rta cannot be discussed here in detail But a brief statement is absolutely necessary in order to be able to convey what the Vedic doctrine of sin was ²

Rta had a threefold aspect It means 'the course of nature' or 'the regular and general order in the cosmos'; with reference to sacrifice it means 'the correct and ordered way of the cult of the Gods', and thirdly, it also means the 'moral conduct of man'. A few passages to illustrate these three aspects of rta may be cited here Rg. IV 23 8–10 are ³ three verses in which the word rta occurs no less than twelve times and which breathe the all-pervading influence of rta throughout the universe 'Plentiful waters (or riches or gifts) belong to rta, the thought (or laudation) of rta destroys crooked acts (sins), the brilliant and rousing hymn of praise to rta pierces the benumbed ears of man The props of rta are firm, its (physical) manifestations are many and lovely for the sake of the body (i e man) Through rta they (people) desire food The cows (sun’s rays) entered rta by rta He who wins over rta acquires it For the sake of rta (heaven) and earth are wide and deep, the two highest cows (i e Heaven and Earth) yield milk (desires or rewards) for the sake of rta ' Some other passages are. 'The Sindhus (rivers) follow the rta of Varuna' (ṛtam sindhavo Varunāsya yanti, Rg. II 28 4), similarly Rg I. 105 12 (ṛtamarsanti sindhavah), The wheel of rta (i e the year) revolves round the sky with twelve spokes (dvādaśāram . . . varvarti cakram pari dyām-ṛtasya, Rg. I 164 11), ‘the dawr, the daughter of heaven, correctly follows the path of ṛta . . .’ (‘ṛtasya panthānam-anveti sādhu’, Rg I 124 3); the young woman (Usas) does not destroy (or come in the way of) the light of ṛta (Rg I 123 9 ); the sun is the bright and lovely face of ṛta (Rg VI. 51. 1. ‘ṛtasya śuci darśatam-anīkam); ‘the path of ṛta became united with the rays’ (Rg. I 136 2); ‘when exhilarated by drink- ing this (Soma) Indra released for the sake of ṛta the concealed host of cows’ (Rg. I 121 4, probably a reference to drought and subsequent rainfall).

Many of the principal gods of the Vedic pantheon are described as the guardians, promoters or charioteers of ṛta. Mitra and Varuṇa rule over all the world by ṛta (Rg V. 63 7, ṛtena viśvam bhuvanam vi rājathaḥ); Mitra and Varuṇa, the protectors of ṛta, occupy a chariot (Rg V. 63 1), Mitra, Varuṇa, and Aryaman are said to be charioteers of ṛta (yūyamṛtasya rathyah, VII 66 12); they and Aditi and Bhaga are protectors of ṛta (Rg. VI 51 3) Agni is called ‘the charioteer of ṛta’ (rathi ṛtasya, Rg. III, 2 8), the protector of ṛta, in Rg. I. 1 8, III 10.2, X. 8.5, X 118.7 and ṛtavān (in Rg IV. 2.1). Soma is styled the protector of ṛta (in Rg. IX, 48 4, IX 73 8) and is said to support ṛta (IX. 97.24 ṛtam bharat suhṛtam cārvinduh) In Rg. VII. 66.13 the Adityas⁴ are said to be ṛtāvān (acting according to the fixed order of nature), ṛtajāta (sprung from ṛta) and ṛtāvṛdh (augmenting or rejoicing in ṛta) and further they are said to be fierce haters of anṛta (what is opposed to ṛta).

Ṛta is distinguished from sacrifice (yajña). It is not any particular sacrificial rite itself nor the institution of sacrifice. It stands for the ordered course of sacrifice in general In Rg. IV. 3.4, Agni is styled ṛtacit (conversant with or observing ṛta) and is invoked to know the ṛta (of the sacrifice); in several verses we meet with the words 'ṛtena ṛtam' (e. g. in Rg IV. 3.9 ṛtena ṛtam niyatam-ila ā goḥ', V. 15.2 'ṛtena ṛtam dhāruṇam dhārayanta yajñasya sāke, V. 68.4 ṛtam-ṛtena sapantā ‘conform- ing to or joining ṛta with ṛta’ where 'ṛtena' appears to mean the correct course of sacrificial rites and 'ṛtam' the settled order in the universe. Soma is said to be the thread of ṛta spread on the darśapavitra (Rg. IX. 73.9 ‘ṛtasya tantur-vītatāh pavitra ā). In Rg. I 84.4 it is said 'O Indra, drink this (soma) that is extracted from the streams of the bright (soma) flow towards thee in the seat of rta' (i e. in the soma sacrifice) Vide also Rg IV 113—(asmākam-atra pitaro manusyā abhi pra sedur-rtam-ā suśanāh) 'in this world former men, our ancestors, approached rta etc', Rg I 71 3 (dadhanrnrtam dhanayanannasya dhītim-adidaryo)' Rg. X 67 2 (rtam samsanta rju didhyānā yajñāsya dhāma prathamam mananta) 'the Angirasas,, declaring the rta and reflecting straightforwardly first thought of the abode of Yajña', Rg. X 37 1 (maho devāya tad-itam saparyata, 'offer this rta to the great God')

The conception of rta as a moral imperative occurs in several passages Rg I. 90 6 (madhu vāta rtāyate madhu ksaranti sindhavah) 'the winds carry sweets, the rivers do the same to him who keeps rta', Rg V 12 2 'O Agni, that knowest rta, know rta alone (in me) I shall not resort to magic either by force or by duplicity, I shall conform to rta of the reddish bull (i e of Agni)⁵; Rg. X 87 11 'O Agni! may the evil spirit who injures rta by anrta be thrice bound in thy fetters' Yama's advances says (Rg X. 10 4) 'What indeed we never did before (shall we do it now?); shall we who have spoken rta (so far) now speak anrta ?' (rtā vadanto anrtam rapema)

In two or three instances rta appears to be almost personified and invoked as a divinity. 'O Agni! for us offer sacrifice to Mitra and Varuna, to the gods and to the great (brhat) rta' (Rg I 75 5). Similarly, in Rg X. 66 4 the great (mahat) rta is mentioned alongside of Aditi, Heaven and Earth, Indra, Viṣṇu, the Maruts &c.

Rta and satya were distinguished in several passages of the Ṛgveda For example, Rg. V. 51 2 speaks of the Viśve Devas as 'rtadhitayah' (whose thoughts were fixed on rta) and 'satyadharmanah' (whose characteristic is truth or whose dharmas are true). In Rg. IX 113.4 rta and satya both occur and appear to mean almost the same thing In Rg X. 190 1 rta and satya are distinguished as having sprung from 'tapas'. Rta involves a wider conception and satya had originally a restricted mean-ing (viz truth or static order). The word anrta, however, is the opposite of both ṛta and satya as may be seen from Rg. X, 10.4, Rg. VII, 49.3 (Varuna who marks the satya and anṛta of people), Rg. X. 124.5 (Varuna who separates anṛta by means of ṛta). Gradually, however, the word ṛta receded into the background and satya took its place even in Vedic literature, though here and there (as in Tai. Up. II 1 and 1.9.1) both ṛta and satya are found in juxtapositioṇ The sages of the Ṛgveda were acutely conscious of sin or guilt and pray to the gods, particularly to Varuna and the Adityas, for forgiveness and for being freed from the consequences of siṇ In this connection they employ numerous words such as āgas, enas, agha, durita, duṣkṛta, drugdha, aṁhas. A few examples of the employment of these words may be cited here. The most frequent words are āgas and enas, both of which appear to import sin in its deepest and most ethical sense. Rg. VII 86 is a hymn to Varuna in which there are several verses that breathe a deep and heart-felt consciousness of guilt. The sage begins in verse 3 by saying that all wise men of whom he inquired told him the same thing viz. ‘Varuna is angry with you’. Then the sage proceeds ‘O Varuna! what is that great guilt (āgas) (of mine) whereby you desire to injure your worshipper and a friend?’ Declare that to me, then I shall quickly approach thee with an obeisance and be free from sin (enas). Cast away from us the transgressions (drugdha) of our father and those that we committed in our own person;…free Vasiṣṭha (from guilt) like a calf from the rope (that binds it)’. In Rg. VII, 89,5 (almost equal to Atharva-veda VI, 51,3) the sage says ‘whatever transgressions (abhidroha) we who are mere men have practised as against the divine hosts and whatever dharmas laid down by you we may have confounded through our ignorance (or heedlessness) do not destroy us on account of that guilt (enas).’ It will be noticed that in these verses the words āgas, abhidroha and enas are employed in the same verses and therefore practically mean the same thing. In Rg. II, 27.14 the sage prays ‘O Aditi! O Mitra! O Varuna! take pity on us though we may have committed some sin against you’. In Rg. II, 28 5 Varuna is implored to loosen sin (āgas) from the devotee just like a girdle. Rg. VIII, 45,34 states: ‘O Indra! do not kill us for one sin, for two sins or three sins or for many (āgas).’ In Rg II, 29.1 the Adityas are implored⁶ ‘cast away from me sin (āgas) as a woman who gives birth to a child in secret’. For some other passages in which āgas or its opposite anāgas occurs, vide Rg I, 162.22, I, 185 8, II.29.5, IV, 12.4, IV 54 3, VII. 51 1, VII. 57.4, V. 85.7, VII 87 7, VII 93 7, X 36 12, X. 37 7 and 9. Āgas and enas are employed in the same verse, Rg. IV.12.4 ‘O Agni! Whatever sin (āgas) we may have committed through heedlessness make us free from it before Aditi and loosen from us our sins (enas) from all sides'.

Some more passages about enas are Rg VI 51 7 ‘May we not have to enjoy (1 e suffer for) the enas committed by another Whatever sin be committed by me I shall remove it by obeisance', Rg VI. 74 3 ‘O Soma and Rudra! Loosen from us and cast away from us whatever sin attaches to our person'; Rg VII 20 1 ‘Indra is our saviour even from a great sin'; vide also Rg I 189 1, II 28 7, VII. 52 2 The word ‘agha’, also seems to mean sin ‘Apa nah śośucad-agham' (may our sins perish) is the refrain of Rg. I.97. 1–8. ‘O gods! May your fetters and may sins (aghām) be far away from us' (II 29 5, in which verse in the first half ‘āgaḥ' occurs), X 117 6 (kevalāgho bhavati kevalādī) ‘one who simply eats food alone (without offering to others) reaps only sin'.

Another word is amhas. The following passages may be citeḍ In Rg II, 28 6 Varuna is implored ‘remove amhas (sin) as one removes the rope from the (neck) of the calf; one has not the power even to wink without you ( your favour)'? It should be noted that in the preceding verse (II 28 5) already quoted the simile of the girdle is employed with regard to āgas. ‘May Indra take us away from amhas as persons on both sides (of a river) call one who is going in a boat' (Rg III, 32 14), 'No evil caused by the gods or by men reaches him from any side who worships Agni with fuel, oblation or sacrifice⁸' Rg VIII, 19, 6. ‘May Aditi, the mother of the affluent Mitra and Varuna, save us from all sin⁹' (Rg. X. 36. 3)⁹. Rg. X. 36. 2 also prays Heaven and Earth, the upholders of ṛta, to protect the sage from 'amhas'. Vide also Rg X. 126. 2.

Another important word is vrjina which is often placed in opposition to sādhu or rju. The Ādityas are said to 'see inside IV ]

(the hearts of men) sins as well as good (thoughts and actions)¹⁰ and it is added that everything though far-off is near to them who are kingṣ In Rg. II. 27. 2 the Ādityas are called ‘avṛjināḥ’ (free from vṛjina). The Sun is said to mark among men their right and sinful deeds (Rg. IV 1 17). The same words (ṛju marteṣu vṛjinā ca paśyan) occur in Rg VI. 51. 2 and VII. 60.2 about the Suṇ

The word ‘anṛta’ is often used in the Ṛgveda. It has already been shown how Varuṇa is said to mark the satya and anṛta of men In Rg. VII 60 5 it is said ‘these gods, Mitra, Aryaman and Varuṇa mark (or know) many sins; they flourish in the abode of ṛta’ Rg. VII 66 13 calling Mitra, Varuṇa and Aryaman haters of anṛta has already been quoted (in ṇ 4).

The word ‘durita’ is sometimes used in the sense of sin In Rg I 23 22 the waters are invoked as follows:¹¹ ‘O waters! carry away from me whatever sin may exist in me, whatever transgressions I may have been guilty of as regards my sensual appetite or whatever falsehood I may have uttered’. Here all three words ‘durita, droha and anṛta’ are brought together and convey almost the same idea, viz. sin or guilt against the law of the Godṣ In Rg I, 185 10 Heaven and Earth are called father and mother and are invoked to save the worshipper from durita (sin) which involves blame (pātam-avadyād-duritāt) ‘Avadyā’ means ‘garhya’ acc. to Pāṇ III, 1, 101. Rg. VII, 82, 7 states ‘Him neither amhas (sin) nor durita nor worry reaches from anywhere to whose sacrifice you go, O Mitra and Varuṇa’. In Rg. X, 126, 1 ‘amhas’ and ‘durita’ are brought together (na tam-amho na duritam devāso asta martyam) In Rg VIII 67 21 the words amhati and rapas¹² seem to be employed in the sense of siṇ ‘Duskrta’ (evil deed) is used in the sense of sin in Rg. VIII, 47, 13 and in Rg X 164. 3 Agni is implored to keep far away from the worshipper all sins¹³. The word ‘pāpa’ generally¹⁴ occurs in the Rg. in the sense of 'sinner' (Rg. VIII. 61. 11, X. 10 12, IV. 5. 5) or 'sinful' or 'evil' (Rg X 108 6, X. 164 5, I 129. 11) In Rg VII. 32. 18, VII, 94 3, VIII 19 26 'papatva' occurs and appears to mean 'sinfulness' In the brāhmaṇas 'pāpam' (neuter) occurs in the sense of 'sin' as in Sat Br. XI, 2 7. 19; vide also¹⁵ Ait Br 33. 5 In the Upaniṣads 'pāpam' means 'sin' (e g in Tai Up II 9, Chāndogya IV 14. 3). Certain important modifications of the doctrine about sin and Karma were introduced in the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavadgītā, which will be discussed later oṇ

In spite of the voluminous references to the consciousness of guilt and sin in the Ṛgveda and to the transgression of divine laws briefly indicated above, European scholars were not want- ing who boldly affirmed that the idea of sin was altogether unknown to the Rgvedic sageṣ Vide S B E vol I p XXII where Max-Müller replies 'the gradual growth of the concept of guilt is one of the most interesting lessons which certain passages of these ancient hymns can teach us '

How sin arises in the individual mind has been a difficult problem at all times¹⁶. Men are conscious of the sins they commit, though they may have no definite conclu- sions or theories about the origin of sin In the Rg VII. 86 6 a sage¹⁷ pleads with Varuna that sin is not due to a man's own power, but it is rather due to fate, to surā (intoxicants), to anger, dice or heedlessness and even dream state leads one to commit what is not right In the Kauśītakī-brāhmanopaniṣad (III 9) it is stated 'The Lord of all makes that man perform good works whom He desires to raise to higher worlds IV] than these and He makes that man commit bad deeds whom He wishes to drag dowṇ¹⁸ Here it appears to be suggested that some men are chosen by God for being saved and some are chosen for being damneḍ This sounds like the Calvinistic doctrine of pre-destinatioṇ In the Bhagavadgītā (III. 36) Arjuna questions Śrīkṛṣṇa as follows: 'impelled by whom does a man commit sin as if constrained thereto by force, even though he does not desire to do so'? The answer given is (III. 37) 'it is lust and anger springing from the element (guna) of rajas (passion) that are the enemies of man in this worlḍ In another place the Bhagavadgītā (XVI. 21) says 'this¹⁹ is the three-fold door or entrance to Hell that is ruinous to the self viz. lust, anger and greed; therefore a man must shun these three.' But it must be said that this does not go to the real root of the matter. The question is why should carnal lust, anger or greed themselves arise in the mind of maṇ The only answer that is indicated is in accordance with the tenets of the Sāṁkhya philosophy viz. that there are three guṇas, sattva, rajas and tamas which combine in various proportions in different men and that it is rajo-guṇa that is the cause of man's sinfulness In the Śānti-parva, chap. 163, it is stated that there are thirteen very powerful enemies of men beginning with anger (krodha) and kāma (lust) and it is said that krodha springs from lobha (covetousness), which latter arises from ignorance (verses 7 and 11). But there is no satisfactory discussion of the origin of ignorance in that chapter. Gautama 19.2 observes²⁰ that 'man in this world is polluted by a vile action such as sacrificing for a man unworthy to offer a sacrifice, eating forbidden food, speaking what ought not to be spoken, neglecting what is prescribed and practising what is forbidden. Yājñavalkya III. 219 prescribes: 'by omitting to do what is ordained, by resorting to what is con-demned (prohibited) and by not controlling the senses, man incurs fall (i e sin)' Manu XI 44 and Śāntiparva 34 2 are similar verses The mitākṣarā explains that mat-ters ordained are such as performing Sandhyā (morning and evening adorations) and Agnihotra and what are condemned are such actions as drinking liquor Viśvarūpa explains that patana (fall or sinful-ness) in Yāj III, 219 is not used in the technical sense attached to that word by Gautama 21 4 viz 'to be a patita means to be deprived of the right to follow the lawful occupations of twice-born men,' but it is used only in the sense that the man so acting (as mentioned in Yāj III, 219) becomes liable to undergo prāyaścitta and that the words of Gautama (21,4) are restricted only to what are called mahāpātakas The word pātaka is derived from the causal of the root ‘pat’ Vide Medhātithi on Manu XI 54 ‘pātakāśabdah patayatīti vyutpattyā sarva-vyatīkra-mesu vaitate’ and Madanapārijāta p 786 In ancient works the word pataniya (meaning the cause of patana) has been employed as in Āp Dh S. I 7 21 7 The Pr V (p 35) paraphrases pataniyāni by ‘pātakāni’ and derives it from the root ‘pat’ (patalyanena iti pataniyam) with the addition of the termination ‘antya’ according to Pān III 3 113 The word occurs also in Yāj II, 210, III, 297, Śaṅkha quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj, III, 237 (in prose) and other smṛtis

The enumeration of sinful acts and the classifications of sins into several degrees or grades has gone on from very anci-ent times In the Rg X 5 6 it is said²¹ ‘the wise made (lit chiselled) seven limits, the man who goes against even one of them becomes sinful’ The Nirukta (VI 27) explains that the seven sins indicated in this verse are ‘theft, violating the bed (of the guru), murder of a brāhmaṇa, murder of a bhṛuṇa, drinking of liquor, continual performance of the same sinful act, telling a lie as to a sinful matter’. Rg VIII 86 6 quoted above (in n 17) makes it clear that drinking surā and playing with dice were regarded as sinful. From the Tai. S. II, 5, 1, 2, V 3 12 1-2, Sat Br XIII, 3 1 1 and other Brāhmaṇa texts it appears that the murder of a brāhmaṇa was generally regarded in early vedic times as the gravest of all sins, though in the Kāthaka saṃhitā (31. 7) it is stated that there is no sin as heinous as killing a bhrūṇa which is even worse than brāhmaṇa murder)²². The Tai. Br. in detailing the story of Ekata, Dvita and Trita who was made a scapegoat for keeping off sins, enumerates the following sinners, viz, sūryābhyūdita (one who sleeps on when the sun rises), sūryābhinimrukta (one who slept when the sun set), one who has black nails or teeth, agradidhuṣu (one who married a younger sister while the elder sister was yet unmarried), the elder brother remaining unmarried even though a younger brother has married, one who allows his sacred sacrificial fires to be extinguished, the killer of a brāhmaṇa.²³, It may be noticed that most of these occur almost in the same order in Ap. Dh. S. II, 5. 12. 22 where it is²⁴ said that though these actions, are not-to be styled pațanīyas according to Āp. yet they cause impurity which being greater and greater in each succeeding one requires higher and higher penanceṣ Āp adds a few more sinners to those in the Tai. Br viz dudhūṣūpāti (husband of an elder sister whose younger sister was married before her), paryāhita (an elder brother before whom a younger brother kindled fires), parivivdāna (a younger brother who takes his share of the ancestral property before his elder brother), parivinna (an elder brother before whom a younger brother takes away his share of the ancestral property). The Chāndogya Upaniṣad²⁵ (V. 10. 9.) quotes a verse that declares that the five great sinners are the thief of gold, the drinker of surā, the violator of the guru's bed, the murderer of a brāhmaṇa, and one who associates with any of the preceding four. The Br. Up. (IV. 3. 22 ) mentions as great sinners the thief and the murderer of a bhrūṇa.

Coming to the sūtras there is great divergence as to the classification of sins and the enumeration of sins in each clasṣ The Āp. Dh. S. divides sins into two classes viz. patanīya (those that cause loss of caste), asucikara (those that cause impurity, though no loss of caste is caused). Āp. Dh. S (I. 7,21.7-11) states that patanīya sins are theft (of gold), crimes whereby one becomes an abhiśasta, complete loss (by neglect) of the Vedic learning that one secured by study, destruction of a foetus, incestuous connection with relations born of the same womb as one's father or mother and with the children of such persons, drinking of surā, intercourse with persons with whom intercourse is forbidden, intercourse with the female friend of one's female guru (mother &c ) or with the female friend of one's guru (father &c.) and with the wife of any stranger, constant commission of immoral acts (adharma) other than those already mentioneḍ Āp. Dh S. I. 7.21.10 notes that, according to some, intercourse with a woman who is not the wife of a guru is not a patanīya siṇ Among acts which render a man impure are (Āp. Dh. S. I, 7. 21. 12-18) the cohabitation of an Ārya woman with śūdras, eating the flesh of forbidden animals such as that of a dog or a human being or village cock or pig or other carnivorous animals, eating the excrement of human beings, partaking of food left by a śūdra, and cohabitation by Ārya men with apapātra womeṇ womeṇ²⁶ According to some, those acts that are declared to be asucakara are also pataniyās. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 7.21.19) states that acts other than those enumerated are also aśucikara. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 9. 24.6–9) enumerates those who are abhisasta, viz. one who slays a person belonging to the first two varnas (viz. brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya) who had studied the Veda or who had been initiated for the performance of a soma sacrifice, one who kills a mere brāhmaṇa (though he may not have studied the Veda or be not initiated for a soma sacrifice), also one who destroys the embryo of a brāhmaṇa even though its sex be undistinguishable, or slays a woman who is an ātreyī (in her monthly course). The Vasisthadharmasūtra divides²⁷ sinners into three classes, viz. those who are enasuns, those guilty of mahāpātakas and those guilty of upapātakas (I. 19-23). Among those who are styled enasvinah are those mentioned in Āp. Dh. S. II. 5.12.22, with this difference that the 'brahmojjha', who is included among 'pataniyas' by Āp. Dh. S. I. 7. 21. 9 is put among 'enasvins' by Vasiṣṭha. In Vaṣ 20. 4–12 special prāyaścittas for each of these 'enasvinah' (ordinary sinners) are prescribeḍ The Mahāpātakas (mortal sins) according to Vasiṣṭha are five, viz. (violating) a guru’s bed, drinking of spirituous liquor, murder of a bhrūna (a learned brāhmaṇa), stealing gold from a brāhmaṇa and associating with patita. Those guilty of upapātakas (minor sins) are: He who forsakes sacred Vedic fires, he who offends a guru, an atheist, he who earns his livelihood from atheists, and he who sells the soma plant. The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra²⁸ (II, 1) divides sins into pataniya, upapātaka and aśucikara. Among the first it cites making voyages by sea, stealing the property of a brāhmaṇa or misappropriating a deposit, giving false evidence regarding land (dispute), trading with merchandise of all descriptions, serving śūdras, begetting a son on a female of the śūdra caste and begetting a child (either male or female) from her²⁹. The upapītakas, acc. to Bāuḍ Dh. S. (II. 1. 60-61), are: intercourse with females who must not be approached, cohabita- tion with the female friend of a female guru or with the female friend of a male guru or with an apapātra woman or with a female outcast, following the profession of medicine, officiating as a priest for a village, living by dramatic performances, following the profession of a teacher of dancing or singing or acting, tending cows and buffaloes³⁰ and similar (low occupations) and fornicatioṇ Among asucīkara (causing impurity), Bāuḍ Dh. S mentions gambling, black magic, subsisting by gleaning corn fallen in the field by one who has not consecrated sacred fires, subsisting by begging on the part of one who has returned to his home after finishing Vedic study, staying for more than four months at his teacher's seminary on the part of him who has finished his studies, teaching one who has finished his studies, gaining livelihood by astrology. Gautama (21. 1-8) appears to include among patanīyas the usual five mortal sins and also some of those that are mentioned by Āp. Dh. S. (I. 7. 21. 9-11) and Vasiṣṭha I. 23 (such as nāstika) and adds a few more (such as not casting off persons guilty of patanīyas, forsaking blameless relatives and instigating others to commit acts causing loss³¹ of caste. The above statement about the classification of sins and their inclusion among the several classes or 'grades of sins will show that among the early sūtra works there was no general agreement about the nature and number of mahāpātakas, upapātakas and other classes of sins, even though as early as the Chāndogya Upaniṣad the mortal sins had been declared to be five. It must be supposed that that Upaniṣad¹ represented only one school of thought in the times of Āp., Baud, and Gaut, who did not entirely accept the tradition of that Upaniṣad, but followed other divergent ideaṣ It is impossible to suppose that the verse quoted in that Upaniṣad is later than the Dharma-sūtras of Āp., Gaut, Baud, and Vas

It appears that Kātyāyana³² divided sinful acts into five classes viz. mahāpāpa (mortal sins), atipāpa (the highest sins than which there is nothing worse), pātaka (sins similar to mahā-pātakas), prāsaṅgika (due to association or contact) and upapātaka (minor sins). The Bhaviṣya-purāṇa also says that those sins that are declared to be equal to mahāpātakas (by Manu and others) are called pātakas Vṛddha-Hārīta also (IX. 215-216) speaks of five kinds viz. mahāpāpa, pātaka, anupātaka, upapāpa and prakīrnaka (miscellaneous) and states (IX. 216-218) that those sins which are said to be like mahāpātaka are pātakas, that anupātakas are sins lesser than pātakas, that upapātakas are lesser than pātakas and prakīrnaka sins are the least sinful of all. The Viṣṇudharmasūtra (33 3-5)^* speaks of nine kinds of lapses viz. atipātaka, mahāpātaka, anupātaka, upapātaka, jātibhraṁśakara (effecting loss of caste), saṅkarīkaraṇa, (rendering one as degraded as a man of a mixed caste), apātrī-karana (rendering the perpetrator unworthy of receiving a gift), malāvaha (causing defilement) and prakīrnaka (miscellaneous). Atipātakas, acc. to Viṣṇu Dh. S 34.1, are sexual intercourse with one's mother, daughter or daughter-in-law and the only expiation for them is entering fire. Manu omits the separate mention of atipātaka and anupātaka and includes most of them under those that he designates as equal to one of the four well-known mahāpātakaṣ Kātyāyana quoted in the Prāyaścitta-muktāvali of Divākara (folio 3 a) adds sexual intercourse with one's sister as atipātaka to the three mentioned by Viṣṇu Hārita Dh. S (it appears) quoted by the Mit knew³³ of a variety of pātākas called anupātaka, but from the way in which the several pātākas are arranged it looks as if atipātaka in Hārita was a lesser sin than mahāpātaka Manu (in chap XI) refers to all the kinds of pātākas found in the Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra except atipātakaṣ Usually five mahāpātakas have been enumerated from the days of the Chāndogya Up (quoted on p. 12) viz brāhmaṇa murder, drinking spirituous liquor, theft (generally understood as theft of brāhmaṇa's gold), sexual intercourse with the wife of a guru and association with the perpetrators of any of these four (for a year³⁴) Vide Vas I 19–20, Manu XI 55, 180, Yāj. III 227, 261), Visnudharmsūtra 35 1–5, Vrddha–Hārita IX 174. Manu mentions certain sins as equal to Mahāpātakas which are styled anupātakas by the Visnudharmasūtra chap. 36 The most elaborate treatment of all kinds of sins in the smṛtis is found in Manu, Yāj and Viṣṇu There is difference of opinion even among these three on certain points For example, Manu³⁵ XI 56 says that forgetting the Veda, reviling the Vedas, giving false evidence, slaying a friend, eating forbidden food and food that is unfit for eating or should not be eaten, are lapses similar to drinking surā; while Yāj. III. 228 states that three out of these (viz reviling the Vedas, slaying a friend and forgetting the Veda buting false faults are similar to the murder of a brāhmaṇa. The result is that there is an option as to the expiation to be prescribed for these sinṣ It would be desirable to give some details as regards each of the mahāpātakas and then to describe the other varieties of sins and then to set out the expiations prescribed for all of theṃ It should be noted that both the secular law of penalties and the ecclesiastical rules about expiations made a difference between a sinful act intentionally committed (kāmataḥ) and one com-mitted through ignorance or heedlessness and between an act done only once (sakṛt) or done repeatedly (asakṛt)

Brahmahatyā Halya or vadha (killing) is applied to an act which immediately or after some time results in causing loss of life directly without the intervention of any other cause.³⁵ The Agnipurāṇa (173 1), the Mit, the Prāyaścittaviveka (p 47) and other works define what is meant by vadha A man may be the cause of the death of a brāhmaṇa in five ways, viz. he may himself kill (i e. he becomes the kartā), he may incite another to kill (prayojaka) by ordering that other to do so (as a king or noble by ordering his servant) or by imploring another to kill and giving advice about the killing, he may encourage the killer when he wavers or by offering protection to the killer against others (anugrāhaka) and by becoming a nimitta.³⁷

The Mit on-Yāj. III. 227 and 243 (quoting verses from Paithinasi) explains all these at length. For the definition of anugrāhaka it relies on a verse of Manu ‘Where many persons are armed and have a common purpose in view, if even one of them kills a person, all of them are guilty of murder’, which is very much like sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This distinc-tion into several degrees of killers is an ancient one and is based on Ap Dh. S. II. 11. 29. 1-2 ‘He who³⁸ instigates, he who approves, and he who commits an act—these share its results in heaven and hell; but he amongst these who contributes most to The accomplishment of the act obtains a greater share of the resultṣ A purālisa ³⁷ is defined by Mit. as one that angers another (who is a brāhmaṇa) by rebuking or beating or depriving him of wealth and the like and in whose presence and on account of whom the brāhmaṇa that is angered kills himself. The Mit. quotes a verse of Vișņu and also another verse (without name) on this point. If a person kills a brāhmaṇa boy whose upa-nayana had not been performed he was yet regarded as guilty of brāhmaṇa murder.³⁸ The Sāsnavidhāna Br. 1.7.5, Āp Dh. S (1. 24. 6-9), Vas 20. 34, Manu XI. 87, Yāj. III. 231 hold that killing even a kṣatriya or vaiśya who had studied the Veda or had been initiated for a soma sacrifice rendered the killer guilty of brahma-hatyā, as also the killing of the foetus (of brāhmaṇa parents) whose sex was unknown and of a woman who was an ātreyī ³⁹. Killing a brāhmaṇa woman other than an ātreyī or other than the wife of a sacrificer engaged in a soma sacrifice was only an upapātaka, as Manu (XI. 66) and Yāj. (III. 236) lay dowṇ Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 234 says that no prāyaścitta can expiate the sin of killing a woman intentionally. In the case of the three varṇas other than that of brāhmaṇas some smṛtis like that of Cyavana⁴⁰ laid down other mahāpātakas in addition to the five, viz. punishing one who should not be punished and fleeing from the battle-field are additional prāyaścittas for kṣatriyas, employing false balances and weights for vaiśyas, the selling of flesh, injuring a brāhmaṇa, sexual intercourse with a brāhmaṇa woman, the drinking of the milk of a kapilā (dark-brown) cow in the case of śūdraṣ If a brāhmaṇa or any other human being or a cow died while a competent doctor was administering treatment to them by means of drugs, oils or food, or cauterization by cutting or by opening a vein the medical man incurred no sin ⁴² But if a quack pre- tending to know medicine administered such treatment and death followed, Yāj. II. 242 prescribed various punishmentṣ If a brāhmaṇa administers moderate corporal punishment to his son, pupil or wife for some fault and the son or pupil or wife suddenly dies he incurs no sin, according to the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa and the Agnipurāṇa.⁴³ Gautama (II 48–50), Āp. Dh S I 2 8. 29–30, Manu VIII, 299–300 (= Matsyapurāṇa 227. 152–154), Viṣṇu Dh. S 71 81–82, Nārada (abhyupetyaśuśrūṣā 13–14) lay down that the punishment should be administered with a rope or bamboo slip on the back (but never on the head or chest) and Manu (VIII 300) provides that if these restrictions were violated the punished would incur the same guilt or punishment as a thief. Vide H. of Dh. vol II. pp 362–363 for this topic

One important question that very much exercised the minds of ancient and medieval Dharmaśāstra writers is whether a man can kill a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin in self-defence without incurring any sin or punishment by the king. There is great divergence of views on this point, which has been dealt with at some length in H of Dh vol II pp. 148–151 and vol. III pp. 517–518. The conclusion of the Mitākṣarā appears to voice the views of most writers that, if a brāhmaṇa comes as an ātatāyin (as an incendi- ary, as a poisoner, as a kidnapper of women or with the inten- tion of killing or wresting a field), then in self-defence one may oppose him without incurring any sin, but that if the brāhmaṇa offender meets death though the defender did not desire to kill him (but only to stop him by causing injury short of death), the defender is not liable to be punished by the king and he has to undergo a light expiation (i. e. he is not guilty of brāhmaṇa's murder).⁴⁴

Surāpāna (drinking of surā) has been held to be a mahāpātaka. The word surā occurs several times in the Ṛgveda (e. g. Ṛg I 116 7, I 191.10, VII. 86 6, VIII. 2 12, X 107 9) Ṛg. VII. 86 6 quoted above (in note 17) clearly indicates that surā was looked upon by the Ṛgvedic singers as a cause of sin just as much as gambling. Ṛg. I 116 7 (satam kumbhān asiñcatam surāyāḥ) read with Ṛg I 117.6 (satam madhunām) implies that madhu (honey or some sweet substance) might have been used in preparing surā. Soma was a beverage to be offered to the gods and to be drunk by the brāhmaṇa priests and was sharply distinguished from surā (e. g. in Tai S II 5 11, Vāj S, 197, Śat Br. V. 1 5 28). The last furnishes the striking antithesis 'soma is truth, prosperity, light, and surā is untruth, misery, darkness'. It appears that long before the Kāṭhaka saṃhitā brāhmaṇas had come to regard the drinking of surā as very sinful [ XII 12 'therefore the brāhmaṇa does not drink surā (with the idea) that (by drinking it) he may become affected by sin']⁴⁵ The Chāndogya Up. (V. 10.9) speaks of the drinker of surā as a patita, while in V. 11 5 king⁴⁶ Aśvapati Kaikeya makes the boast before the five learned brāhmaṇas that had come to him for the knowledge of Ātman Vaiśvānara that in his kingdom there was no thief and no drinker of madya. Though Manu 54 enumerates the drinking of surā among the five mahāpātakas, Yāj. III. 227 speaks of the madyapa (drinker of madya) as one of the five great sinnerṣ Therefore we must explain what is meant by surā and when surāpāna becomes a mahāpātaka. By Manu XI. 93 surā is said to be the refuse of food and Manu XI. 94 states that surā is of three kinds, viz that prepared from molasses, that from flour and that from madhūka flowers (or from honey). There is a great deal of discussion about surā in many of the digests and the propositions established by most of them are⁴⁷: (1) that all the three higher varnas are forbidden to drink the surā prepared from flour and drinking it is a grave sin (mahāpātaka) in the case of anyone belonging to the three first varnas, (2) All intoxicants (madya) are forbidden to brāhmaṇas at all stages of life (Gaut. II. 25 ‘madyam nityam brāhmanah’ and Āp. Dh. S. I 5. 17-21); but a brāhmaṇa drinking surā of the gaudi or mādhvi kind would not be guilty of mahāpātaka but of anupātaka (acc to Viṣṇu); (3) that intoxicants other than surā prepared from flour are not condemned for kṣatriyas and vaiśyas; (4) the śūdra was not forbidden to drink any kind of intoxicant (including surā made from flour); (5) brahmacārins of all varnas studying the Veda had to abstain from intoxicants of all kindṣ The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (22 83-84) specifies ten kinds of madya (intoxicants) prepared from dates, jack fruit, cocoanuts, sugarcane &c and Pulastya quoted by the Mit on Yaj. III. 253, by the Prāyaścittaprakarana of Bhavadeva (p 40), the Prāyaścittaviveka of Śūlapāṇi (p. 90), Pr. Prakāśa (folio 69 b) refers to eleven kinds of madyas apart from surā (dvādaśam to surāmadyam sarvesām adhamam smṛtam). Vide H of Dh. vol. III pp 964-966 for further discussion on intoxicating drinkṣ

The Mit points out (on Yaj III. 253) that the prohibition against drinking surā applies to boys who have not yet been invested with the sacred thread and also to unmarried girls, since Manu XI 93 makes no distinction of sex but only forbids to the three first castes the drinking of surā and since the Bhavisyapurāṇa⁴⁸ expressly forbids to a brāhmaṇa female the drinking of surā The Kalpataru appears to have held otherwise. But a woman and a minor had to undergo lesser prāyaścitta as will be shown below. Vas 21 11 and Yaj III 256 state that the wife of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya who drinks surā (made from flour) would not reach the worlds of her husband and she would become in this world a bitch or a sow⁴⁹. The Mit. remarks⁵⁰ on this verse that though a śūdra is not forbidden to drink surā even the śūdra wife of a brāhmaṇa should not drink surā

Drinking surā means taking it down the throat. Therefore if a man’s lips only touch surā or if surā enters his mouth but he spits it out, then there is no drinking of surā (i. e. no mahāpātaka) and he would have had to undergo in such a case a light expiation for the touch of surā⁵¹.

Steya (theft). In order to constitute theft as a grave sin according to the commentaries the theft must be of a brāhmaṇa's gold of a certain quantity. Steya is defined by Ap Dh S I. 10 28 1 as⁵² 'a man becomes a thief by coveting another's property (and taking it) in whatever situation he may be (with or without the owner's consent)'. Kātyāyana (810) defines⁵³ it as 'depriving a man of his property, whether clandestinely or openly and, whether by night or by day, is known to be theft'. Vyāsa defines it similarly. Vācaspati in his bhāsya on Yogaśūtra II. 30 defines steya as taking property from another in a manner that is not allowed by the śāstras (steyam-aśāstra-pūrvakam dravyāṇām parataḥ śvikaraṇam). Though Manu (XI. 54) and Yāj (III. 227) simply employ the word 'steya' (theft) or 'stena' (thief) yet in speaking of the prāyaścitta for steya Manu (XI. 99 'suvarnasteyakṛt') and Yaj. III. 257 (brāhmaṇasvarnahārī) add the qualification that he should be a thief guilty of stealing gold (from a brāhmaṇa, acc. to Yaj.). Vaṣ 20. 41 and Cyavana (q by Pr V.p. 117) mention 'brāhmaṇa-suvarṇa-haraṇa' as a mahāpātaka and the Samavidhāna Br. (I. 6. 1) also employs the words 'brāhmaṇasvam hṛtva'. Vide Samvarta 122 and Viśvāmitra (q. by Pr. V. p. 108). A further qualification was added by Viśvarūpa (on Yaj. III. 252 'anākhyāya &c'), the Mit. (on Yaj. III. 257), the Madana-pārijāta (pp 827–28), Prāyaścittaprakaraṇa (p. 72), the Prāyaścittaviveka (p 111) and other commentators that the gold stolen must be at least sixteen māsas in weight, otherwise there is no mahāpātaka⁵⁴. So, if a man steals gold belonging to a brāhmaṇa which is less than 16 māsas or steals gold of any weight (even more than 16 māsas) from a non-brāhmaṇa (i. e. from a kṣatriya or the like) he would be guilty only of a minor sin (upapātaka). The Mit relies on the verses of Yaj. I 362–363 for the technical meaning of suvarṇa (as 16 māsas) There was no guilt of theft acc. to Vārṣyāyaṇī if (Āp. Dh. S. I 10. 28,2) a person took only a small quantity of cereals ripening in pods (such as mudga, māṣa and gram) or took grass for his oxen while he was going (in a cart.⁵⁵) According to Gautama 12.25 a man may take (without permission and without incurring the guilt of theft) for the sake of cows and for the sake of śrauta or smārta fires grass, fuel and flowers of trees and plants as if they were his own property and the fruits (of trees and plants) that are not fenced arounḍ Manu VIII. 339 (=Matsya 227. 112–113) is almost like Gaut. 12.25 and Manu VIII. 341 adds that a traveller of the three higher castes may, if his provisions have run short, take (without fear of punishment) from another's field two sugarcane stalks and two mūlakas (esculent roots).

Gurvaṅganāgamah (sexual intercourse with the wife of the guru). Manu (XI.54) employs this word, while Yaj. III. 227 and Vaṣ 20.13 speak of the offender as gurutaipaga (who violates the bed of the guru) and Vaṣ I. 20 mentions the sin as 'gurutaipam'. (the bed i. e. wife of the guru) Guru primarily means acc to Manu II,142 and Yāj. I 34 (=Śaṅkha III 2) the father. Acc to Gautama II.56 ‘the teacher (of the Veda) is the foremost amongst gurus while some say that the mother is so’. Samvarta ⁵⁶ 160 and Parāśara X, 13 (employing the words ‘pitṛdārān samāruh ya’) convey that the primary meaning of guru here is ‘father’ as stated by the Mit. on Yāj III, 259. Acc to many digests such as the Mit and the Madanapārijāta p 835 gurvangana means one’s own mother Bhavadeva in his Pr. Prakarana (p. 80) takes gurvangana⁵⁷ as a karmadhāraya compound, following what is called the nīḍasthāpaty-nyāya (Jal. VI, 1 51) After quoting Devala’s dictum ⁵⁸ that there are eleven persons among males who are to be looked upon as gurus, and adverting to the way in which the word ‘gurvangana’ is explained by the Pr Prakarana, the Prāyaścitta-viveka expresses its dissent from the views of the Pr. Prakarana, and holds that ‘gurvangana’ or ‘guru patnī’ means not only one’s mother but also one’s step-mother of the same varṇa as the father The Madanapārijāta (p. 835) holds the same view as the Pr V The Pr. M. p. 73 finds fault with Bhavadeva (author of Prāyaścitta- prakarana) and also with the Pr V. that held the view that sexual intercourse with one’s Vedic teacher’s wife was also a mahāpātaka. The Pr. M. relies on Yāj. (III, 233) where there is an express extension of the sin of gurutalpagamana to intercourse with one's teacher's wife, or one's daughter and other nearly related womeṇ This would have been unnecessary if gurutalpa was primarily meant to include the teacher's wife; while the Pr. V. relies upon Gaut. II. 56 ('the ācārya is the most eminent among gurus, some say that the mother is so'), Viṣṇu Dh. S. 31.1-2 'three persons are atigurus (exceed even guru in their greatness) viz. the mother, the father and the ācārya and Devala who mentions eleven persons as guruṣ The Pr. M. does not seem to be quite correct since the Pr. V. ultimately (pp. 134-135) states its final view that guru here means only the father and not the ācārya and others and that Viṣṇu Dh. S. 36. 4-8 holds that sexual intercourse with the wife of the teacher and several other women relatives is an anupātaka.

Mahāpātakasamṣarga—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, Vaṣ 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 mahāpātaka ⁵⁹ 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 speaks⁶⁰ 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. 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 hiṃ The Pr. Prakāśa (folio 74a) holds that saṁsarga is of three kinds, the highest, middling and lowest. The first includes four viz. yonisaṁbandha (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 (ekāmātrabhojana), 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 Darśapūrṇamāsa, 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 siṇ Parāśara⁶¹ (XII. 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 verseṣ Acc. to Pr. Prakāśa (folio 75a), in order to become pahta 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 pahta by speaking with a pahta, 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 pahta), in Tretā the village, in Dvāpara the family (of the pahta was abandoned) and in Kali only the actual perpetrator himself. abandoned as patita). It is clear from this that such contacts with a patita as speaking with him,⁶² 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. Speak-ing, 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. 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 only⁶³ one sense in the same context. The reasonable inference from the words of Parāśara is that merely touching a mahāpātakan or eating food in his house did not involve the touches and eater in pātitva. 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 Smṛtyarthasāra⁶⁴ (p. 112) remarks that he who associates with the person that associates with a mahāpātakin has to undergo half the expiation that the first associator has to undergo. But that work does not go beyond thiṣ The Mit. (on Yāj. III. 261) appears to hold that the associator even though he does not be-come patita is liable to undergo expiation and that even the 4th and 5th associators in a series are liable to undergo expiatioṇ though it is lesser and lesser⁶⁵. The Pr. Prakarana (p 109), 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-smṛti⁶⁶ (III, 1-3) stateṣ ‘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 the last one-fourth of Kṛcchra is prescribed'. So besides the original associator three more in succession were held to be liable for prāyaś-citta. 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) remarks⁶⁷ 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 Mādhava and quotes further authorities on the point⁶⁸. The Nirṇayasindhu⁶⁹ holds that though there is blame in association with a patita the associator does not himself become patita. As Yāj. III, 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 'sarvakālikam' in this connection,

Though many crimes do not in so many words come within the words of the definitions of the mahāpātakas the smṛtis extend by analogy the same condemnation as the mahāpātakas in three wayṣ For example, Yāj. III, 251 expressly states that one who kills a kṣatriya or vaiśya engaged in (soma) sacrifice or a foetus or an ātreyī woman has to undergo the same expiation as for brāhmaṇa murder (therefore this is vācamikātideśa). Yāj. III. 232-233 extends the sin of guru talpa-gamana to intercourse with several near female relatives (such as mother's or father's sister). This is extension by tādrūpya. The smṛtis declare many actions as equal to (sama) mahāpātakas in general or as equal to one of the mahāpātakas. This is atideśa by sāmya. A few words must be said on this topic. The general rule is that the expiation for those lapses that are declared to be equal to a mahāpātaka is less than (i. e. half of) what would be prescribed for the mahāpātaka itself⁷⁰. And the penance for those that come under atideśa of the vācanika or tādrūpya kind is three fourths of that for the mahāpātaka itself. But it has to be noted that there is divergence of views about these in the sūtras and the smṛtis Acc. to Gaut 21. 10 giving⁷¹ false evidence, backbiting about another's guilt that will reach the king, falsely accusing one's guru with a grave sin or crime are equal to mahāpātaka. In Manu XI 55 (=Agnipurāṇa 168. 25) the last two of these three and false statement about one's caste or learning or family (i.e. saying that one is a brāhmaṇa when one is not) for securing prosperity or eminence are stated to be equal to brāhmaṇa's murder. Acc to Yāj. III 228 falsely charging one's guru is equal to brahmahatyā and false statement about one's caste or learning is equal to drinking surā (Yāj. III 229), while acc. to Viṣṇu Dh. S 37. 1–3 the three sins mentioned in Manu XI. 55 are to be included among minor sins (upapātakas), while giving false evidence is declared by Viṣṇu to be equal to drinking surā (36. 2). No useful purpose would be served by dilating at great length on the divergences of smṛtis on what lapses are equal to one of the Mahāpātakaṣ The digests explain that where the same lapse is described as equal to surāpāna by one smṛti and as equal to brāhmaṇa-murder by another the idea is that there is an option as to the penance prescribed for that lapse. There- fore only the remarks of Manu and Yāj. will be set out here. Manu XI. 56 (=Agnipurāṇa 168. 26) prescribes that forgetting the Veda (already studied), reviling the Vedas, giving false evidence, killing a friend, eating forbidden food or food that should not be eaten, these six are equal to surāpāna. Vide Yāj III 228 already referred to above. Manu XI. 57 holds that stealing a deposit or a man or horse or silver or land or diamonds and other gems is equal to the theft of brāhmaṇa's golḍ Yāj. III. 230, Viṣṇu Dh S. 5 383, Agni- purāṇa 168. 27 are to the same effect. Acc to Manu XI. 58 (=Agnipurāṇa 168 28) carnal intercourse with a sister by the same mother, with maidens, with females of the lowest castes (like Caṇḍālas), with the wife of a friend or son is declared to be equal to the violation of a guru's beḍ Yaj. III. 231 is practically the same (but he adds intercourse with a sagotra woman to the list). Gaut. 23. 12 and Manu XI. 170 are very similar. Yaj. III. 232–233 declare that a man who has sexual intercourse with a sister of his father or mother, with his maternal uncle's wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a co-wife of his mother, with his sister, with the daughter or wife of his Vedic teacher or his own daughter, is guilty of being a violator of the guru's bed and should have his penis cut off and be killed (by the king) and the woman concerned, if she was a willing party, should also be killeḍ Nārada (stripumsayoga, verses 73–75)⁷² states: "If a man has sexual intercourse with any of these women viz. mother, mother's sister, mother-in-law, maternal uncle's wife, father's sister, a wife of the paternal uncle or of a friend or of a pupil, a sister, sister's friend, daughter-in-law, daughter, the wife of one's Vedic teacher, a woman of the same gotra, one who has come for protection, a queen, an ascetic woman, one's wet-nurse, a woman performing a vrata and a brāhmaṇa woman, he becomes guilty of the sin of the violator of the guru's bed (i. e. incest). For that crime no other punishment is laid down except that of the cutting of the peniṣ" These two, Yaj. and Nārada, show that excision of the organ and death are both the expiation and the punishment for this crime. The Mit. (on Yaj III. 233) adds that this punish- ment applies only to the offenders other than a brāhmaṇa, since Manu (VIII. 380) prescribes that a brāhmaṇa offender should not be punished with death whatever sin or crime he may have committed and that he is to be banished from the country unhurt and is to retain all his wealth. The Viṣṇudharma-sūtra (36.4–7) adds a few more women to the list of Yaj and Nārada (such as a woman in her monthly illness, the wife of a learned brāhmaṇa or of one's sacrificial priest or of one's Upādhyāya).

These lapses described above from false accusation against the guru⁷³ (Yāj. III. 228 or Manu XI 55 to Yāj. III 233 or Manu XI 58) and said to be equal to some mahāpātaka or other are designated as pātakas by Vṛddha-Hārita (IX. 216-17) and by the Mit. (on Yāj. III 233) and as anupātakas by the Visnudharma-sūtra (36.8). Gautama⁷⁴ (21,1-2) adds a few more to the list of pātakas or patitas viz. he who has connection with the female relatives of his mother or father or with sisters and their offspring, a thief of gold, an atheist, one who constantly repeats censured acts, one who does not cast away a patita or who abandons blameless relatives or those who instigate others to commit pātakaṣ These pātakas are less than mahāpātakas in their culpability and greater than upapātakaṣ

Upapātakas (minor sins). The number of those has greatly varied from time to time and from smṛti to smṛti. Vas I 23 speaks⁷⁵ of only five upapātakas viz. forsaking the sacred fires (after beginning Agnihotra), offending the guru, being an atheist, taking one's livelihood from an atheist, selling the soma plant. Satātapa as quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 229-236 mentions only eight. Bauḍ Dh. S. (II 1 60-61) mentions a small number as upapātakaṣ Gaut. 21.11 states⁷⁶ that the guilt of upapātaka attaches to those who have been declared to defile the company at a Śrāddha dinner and have been named above before the bald man (in Gaut. XV. 18), killers of kine, those who forget the Veda, those who pronounce Vedic texts for these last, Vedic students who break the vow of chastity and those who allow the time for upanayana to pass without performing it. Saṅkha quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj III 229-236 mentions only 18 upapātakas and styles them upapalanīyas The longest lists are contained in Manu XI 59-66, Yāj III 234-242, Vṛddha-Hārita IX. 208-210, Visnudharmasūtra 37 and Agnipurāṇa (168 29-37). According to the Pr. V. (p 195)⁷⁷ the upapātakas mentioned by Manu come to 49. Those enumerated by Yāj. are set out below⁷⁸ (they are 51 according to Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 229-236, who omits one verse commented on by the Mit. viz 'śūdrapreṣyam' &c. which contains five): slaying kine, being a vrātya (i. e. one whose upanayana was not performed at the prescribed age), theft (other than of brāhmaṇa's gold or other than what is described as equal to theft of the mahāpātaka type), non-payment of debts borrowed (and not satisfying the three debts due to gods, sages and pitṛs), not establishing the śrauta fires (even though one has the capacity to do so); selling what ought not to be sold (such as salt ); parivedana (a younger brother's marrying before an elder brother or establishing sacred fires before him); learning (the Veda) from a paid teacher; teaching the Veda for payment; adultery (with women other than those referred to in guru-talpagamana or those lapses equal to it); an elder brother's remaining unmarried when a younger brother has married; usury (i. e. taking more interest than is allowed by the smṛtis); manufacture of salt; killing a woman (of any caste, except an ātreyī); killing a śūdra; killing a kṣatriya or vaiśya (who is not initiated for a śrauta sacrifice); maintaining oneself on wealth which is condemned; atheism (denial of the soul and a world after death); giving up the observances peculiar to one's status (e. g. a vedic student having sexual intercourse or one guilty of brāhmaṇa murder or the like giving up the performance of the expiation already begun); sale of one's children; theft ⁷⁹ of corn, inferior metals (like lead and copper) or cattle; officiating as a priest at a sacrifice for those who are not entitled to sacrifice (such as śūdras or vrātyas &c); driving out of the house one's father, mother or son (without a proper cause such as that mentioned by Gautama 20.1); the sale of a tank or of a park intended for a charitable object (though not actually dedicated to the public), ascribing demerits to an unmarried girl (or interfering with her private parts by means of a finger or the like); officiating as a priest (at the marriage) of one who though a younger brother marries before an elder brother, giving one's daughter in marriage to one who marries before his elder brother; cheating or following crooked ways (except against one's guru, which is equal to surāpāna), giving up an observance voluntarily undertaken⁸⁰, cooking for the sake of oneself only (and not for deities, guests &c, which attitude is condemned by Rg X 117 6 and Manu III 118), sexual intercourse with a woman (even one's own wife) who is given to drinking wine, giving up the Veda already learnt so as to forget it by the study of other subjects ); not tending one's śrauta or smārta fire, abandoning one's son⁸¹, not maintaining one's relatives (such as the maternal or paternal uncle, when one has the means), cutting down a big tree for fuel (to be used only in cooking one's food⁸²), maintaining one's self on one's wife (i e on her immoral earnings or by means of her strīdhana) or by killing animals or by herbs (used as charms), setting up of machines that cause death or injury to beings (such as for pressing oil from sesame or for crushing sugarcane stalks); addiction to the vices (declared to be eighteen by Manu VII. 45–48); selling one's self (as a slave for money), being the servant of a śūdra, friendship with low persons, intercourse with a woman of a lower caste (either as a wife or as a concubine); living outside of the four āśramas⁸³, fattening oneself on food charitably supplied by others, studying the works of false śāstras (such as those of atheists like Cārvāka); holding the office of the superintendent of mines (of gold and the like); sale of one's wife The above list, though long, is not thoroughly exhaustive Vas I 18 quoted above mentions several persons as enasvṛnoḥ (who acc. to Viśvarūpa on Yāj III, 229-236 are upapātakāḥ), some of whom (such as one who is asleep when the sun rises or sets) are not included by Yāj. in his list of upapātakaṣ Though almost all of the upapātakas listed by Yāj occur in Manu (XI 59-66), yet some of them such as ‘abhicāra’ (performing a sacrifice like Śyenayāga for the destruction of an enemy), ‘mūlakarma’ (employment of herbs for bringing under one’s control a person) are not noted by Yāj The Mit on Yāj. III, 242 observes that some upapātakas if repeatedly indulged in make a man patita (as provided by Gaut 21. 1) Viśvarūpa, therefore, derives upapātaka as one ‘that may become a pātaka by constant addition (upacaya) or by constant practice’ (upetya⁸⁴).

Manu XI. 67 (=Agnipurāṇa 168⁸⁵. 37-38) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 38 1-6 mention certain lapses as ‘jatibhramsakara’ (that cause the loss of caste ) viz giving pain to a brāhmaṇa (by means of a stick or by the hand), smelling things which ought not to be smelt at (such as garlic, ordure &c.) and smelling spirituous liquor, stealing (saying one thing and doing another), an unnatural offence with a man (or beast also, acc to Viṣṇu) According to Manu XI 68 (=Agnipurāṇa 168 38-39), killing a donkey, a horse, a camel, a deer, an elephant, a goat, sheep, fish, a snake or a buffalo must be known to be saṅkarikaraṇa (reducing one to a mixed caste ). Viṣṇu 29. 1 says that saṅkarikaraṇa is the killing of village or forest animalṣ Manu XI. 69 holds that accepting presents from condemned men (such as those mentioned in Manu IV. 84), trading, serving śūdras and speaking a falsehood make a man unworthy to receive gifts (apatrīkaraṇa). The Viṣṇu Dh. S. 40. 1 adds ‘maintaining one’s self by usury’ to these. Manu XI. 70 prescribes that killing insects, small or large, or birds, eating any thing kept close to spirituous liquors, stealing fruits, fuel and flowers and unsteadiness of mind are malāvaha (which make a man impure). Viṣṇu Dh. S. 41. 1-4 are similar. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 42. 1 says all other lapses not specifically mentioned in the several kinds are styled miscellaneous (prakirņaka) Vrddha-Harita (IX. 210-215) specifies several lapses as prakirņaka viz. cutting big trees for fuel (used for cooking one's food), killing insects, big and small, eating of food that has become uneatable owing to bhāva ⁸⁶ (1 e its resemblance in colour or flavour to some forbidden food or because it is offered with disrespect) or kāla (food on ekādaśī or in an eclipse, or in a mourner's house &c or that is stale) or kriyā (action, such as food served with the bare hand or seen by a patita, cāṇḍāla or a dog &c ); theft of clay, skin, grass, wood, over-eating, falsehood, restlessness about pleasures, sleep by day, spreading false rumours; making others hear false rumours, eating at another's house, sexual intercourse by day, seeing women in their monthly illness or just after delivery, looking at others' wives; sexual intercourse on a fast, on a śrāddha day, on a parvan day; service of a śūdra; friendship with the low, touching the leavings of food; broad laughs with women, talking at random (or love prattle), looking at women that have untied their hair It will be noticed that some of these like the cutting of big trees for fuel, service of a śūdra, friendship with low persons have been already included by Yāj under upapātakas

Having dealt at length with several classes or grades of sins, we have now to address ourselves to the question of the consequences of sins and the means recommended or adopted for removing sin and its consequenceṣ

It has already been shown above how the sages of the Ṛgveda prayed to the gods, particularly to Aditi, Mitra, Varuna, and Agni to free them from āgas or enas etc. They often say that they violated the dharmas or the vratas (ordinances) of the gods and implore forgiveness They were afraid of the consequences of their guilt, viz. the god's anger. They thought that when God was angered by their transgressions he smote them with adversity, destruction, disease and death. For example, they prey 'whatever ordinance (vrata) of yours we may violate every day like subjects (in the case of a king's ordinances) do not subject us to your death-dealing blow' (Rg I. 25 2), 'O Varuna! whatever transgression we men have committed towards the divine host and whatever rules of yours we may have confounded through heedlessness, do not, on account of that sin (enas),’ strike us down’ (Rg. VII, 89.5)⁸⁷. In Rg. X, 89.8–9 it is said that Indra hurls his sharp and deadly weapon at those who break the settled order (dharman) of Mitra, Varuna and Aryamaṇ The gods are implored to save the worshipper from the deadly attacks of the wolf and from sinking into a pit (in adversity) in Rg. II, 29.6. In Rg. IX, 73.8 it is said that the wise God has his eye on all worlds and he pierces in pits those who do not observe his ordinances and who are therefore not liked by him⁸⁸. On the other hand, when God is pleased with the worshipper, he is implored to lead the latter by the path of virtue (Rg. I, 189.1), to confer happiness on the wor-shipper's offspring (Rg. I, 189.2, IV, 12.5) and to bestow wealth on him (Rg VIII, 45 40).

In the Ṛgveda the first means of removing the consequences of sin appear to be prayers for mercy and for the remission of sin as in Rg. VII, 86, 4–5, VIII, 88, 6–7, VII, 89, 1–4 (where ‘mṛḷā sukṣatra mṛḷaya’ is the refrain of all four verses). Even in the Ṛgveda water was supposed to remove sin, e g. I, 23, 22 says ‘O water! carry away whatever sin (durita) may exist in me’. This shows that sin was supposed to have physical effects like a disease, which were removed by water. Sacrifices were offered to the gods in order to win their favour and in order that the sacrificer may be freed⁸⁹ from the consequences of even grave sinṣ The Tai S. V, 3, 12.1–2 and the Sat. Br. XIII, 3, 1, 1 (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 328) state that the gods redeemed themselves from all sin by means of this (Aśvamedha sacrifice); they even redeemed themselves from the sin of brāhmaṇa murder. That a confession of sin was deemed to remove sin is illustrated in a striking way by what happened in the Varunapraghāsa (one of the cāturmāsya sacrifices). In that⁹⁰ sacrifice the wife of the sacrificer had to confess whether she had any lovers and if she felt ashamed to reply in so many words she had only to raise up in her hand small pieces of grass blades to indicate the number of lovers, if any. If she confessed she had to recite the verse, Vāj. S III 44 and was allowed to take further part in the sacrifice. If she concealed the truth, it was stated in the Tai. Br that evil would be- fall her near and dear relatives (her son or husband). It is said by many European scholars who have written on the religion of the Veda that sacrifice became a sort of magic rite to wrest from gods or independently of them what the worshipper desired (e. g. see Keith's Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upaniṣads pp. 260-268)⁹¹ But this is an over-statement. When initiated for a sacrifice the sacrificer and his wife had to observe a fast or live on a low diet, both were called upon to observe many strict rules such as telling the truth, they had to make large preparations and spend wealth on the materials and the fees to the priestṣ These things were deemed to cleanse the mind and soul of the taint of siṇ There is no reason to suppose that it was only the ritual that was thought to bring about the desired result (and not all the other matters referred to above).

We shall now discuss the prescriptions of the sūtras and smṛtis about the consequences of sinṣ

In this connection the doctrines of Karma and Punarjanma must be well remembereḍ The details of the origin and develop- ment of those doctrines will be discussed in a later sectioṇ Here it is enough to state the few main propositions of the doctrine of Karma. The fundamental proposition is that cause and effect are as inseparably linked in the moral sphere as assumed in the physical sphere by science. A good action has its reward and a bad act leads to retributioṇ If the bad actions do not yield their consequences at once or in this life, the soul begins another existence and in the new environment undergoes suffering for its past bad deedṣ The theory of karma and the theory of transmigration of souls (of pre-existence and post-existence) are inextricably mixed up in Indian thought from at least the ancient times of the Upaniṣadṣ The general rule is that Karma, whether good or evil, cannot be got rid of, except by enjoying or undergoing its consequenceṣ This is said by Gaut. 19. 5, Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa and many other workṣ ‘Because the deed does not perish’ Gaut. ⁹²; ‘whatever human action it may be, whether good or evil, it cannot be got rid of except by enjoying its consequences; know from me that a man gets rid of good and evil deeds by enjoying (their consequences)’. This doctrine is based on the Sat. Br. V. 2.2.27, Br. Up. IV. 4 and VI. 2, Chāṇ Up. III, 14, and V. 3–10, Katha 5, 6–7 and other Upaniṣad textṣ

Therefore they say, ‘a man is born again in that world for which he has workeḍ’ ‘According to as a man acts and according as he believes so will he be; a man of meritorious acts will be meritorious, a man of evil deeds sinful.’ He becomes pure by pure deeds and evil by evil deedṣ And here they say that a person consists of desireṣ And as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deeds he does that he will reap’ (Br. Up. IV. 4. 5); ‘a man is made up of will; whatever he wills in this world the same he becomes after departing from this world’ (Chāṇ Up. III. 14. 1); ‘some human beings enter the womb in order to have an embodied existence; others go into inorganic matter (the stump of a tree and the like) according to their deeds and according to their knowledge’ (Katha Up. 5. 7). ⁹³

‘Actions done by a man do not perish unless they (i. e. their consequences) are enjoyed even after crores of years, (the fruits of) actions whether good or evil must of necessity be enjoyed⁹⁴. Vide also Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 2. 2–7 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. XX. 47 ‘just as a calf finds out its own mother from among thousands of cows, so actions done in a former life unerringly reach the perpetrator thereof.’

But this general principle was modified in various ways by the smṛtis and later writingṣ Gautama 19.11⁹⁵ (=Vasiṣṭha 22.8) states ‘Reciting the Veda inaudibly (japa), austerities, a sacrifice, fasting and giving gifts are the means of expiating that (i e. a blamable act)’ Vaṣ 20. 47 and 25. 3 lay down ‘A sinner is freed from sin by tormenting his body, by austerities, by reciting the Veda and also by making gifts’ and ‘those who are constant- ly engaged in prāṇāyāmas (suppression and regulation of breath), reciting purificatory texts, giving gifts, offering sacrifices, muttering sacred texts ‘will undoubtedly be freed from sins’. Manu III. 227 observeṣ ‘by confession, by repentance, by austerity, by reciting Vedic texts (sacred Gāyatri or other texts), a sinner is freed from guilt and in case of difficulty (i. e. if he is unable to perform austerities or to recite Vedic texts) by liberality’. Similar provisions occur in Parāśara X. 40, Śatātapa I. 4, Samvarta 203, Hārita (q. in Pr. T. p 467 ), Yama, (q. in Pr. V. pp 30, 31 ), Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (q. by Pr. V. p. 31 )

Before proceeding with the subject of prāyaścittas we shall speak briefly about the other means of reducing the con- sequences of sin And first comes confession With reference to the confession of paramours by the wife in the Varuṇapraghāsa, the Tai. Br. (I. 6. 5. 2)⁹⁶ says ‘He makes the wife confess, there- by he renders her pure and then he leads her to penance’. The Śat. Br. (II. 5. 2. 20) puts it in this form ‘for when confessed the sin becomes less, since it becomes truth’. This was a confession before God (Fire) and men (the priests ) to restore one to divine forgiveness and favour As regards several lapses, confession was part of the procedure prescribed for atoning for the siṇ