Chapter III. Prāyashchitta; its Origin, Derivation and Meaning

Volume IV pp. 57–86

Chapter III. Prāyashchitta; its Origin, Derivation and Meaning

It is now necessary to turn to prāyaścittas as removers of siṇ A number of subjects will fall to be treated here. First, an attempt must be made to understand the etymo- logy and meaning of the word ‘prāyaścitta’ in ancient timeṣ There are two forms of the word, prayaścitti and prāyaścitta, which occur in Vedic works without distinction of meaning and both forms are fairly old, though prāyaścitta appears to be the older of the two. The form prāyaścitti frequently occurs in the Tai. S (as in II. 1.2,4, II. 1 4,1, III. 1,3 2–3, V 1,9,3, V. 3 12,1)¹. In some of these passages no question of sin ariseṣ The word means ‘doing some thing which would get rid of some accidental happening or mishap such as the breaking of an ukhā (a pot or saucepan for boiling or cooking) or the sun’s losing its brilliance.’ In Tai S. V. 3.12.1 the word is used in the sense of an expiation for a siṇ So even in very old books the word had two shades of meaning. The Kausitaki² Br. (vi. 12) states : “they say ‘whatever mistake or excess occurs in the sacrifice that affects the priest brahma, that he treats with the three- fold learning (i. e. the three Vedas)’”. The word also occurs in the Atharvaveda XIV. 1 30, Vaj. S. 39.12 (in close proximity to niskrti), in the Ait. Br. V 27, in the Śat. Br. IV. 5. 7.1, VII. 1,4 9, XI. 5.3 8, XII. 4.1 6 and in other works also. The form prāyaścitta occurs in Kausitaki Br. V. 9, VI 12 and elsewhere. The Aśv. Śr. III 10.38 and Śāṅkhāyana Śr. III 19.1 respectively employ the words prāyaścitti and prāyaścitta³. In Pār gr I. 10 the form 'prāyaścitti' is employeḍ Jai. in several places employs the word prāyaścitta (as in VI 37, VI 4.10, VI 5.45 and 49, XII 3.16). Śabara¹³⁹ on the last sūtra (XII 3.16) explains that the prāyaścittas (in the Śruti texts) are of two kinds, viz some are meant to make good the defect in the procedure and materials of sacrifice which arises or befalls through some neglect or heedlessness, while others are subsidiary parts of a rite when an occasion arises i e they are undertaken to atone for not doing what is ordained or doing something which is forbidden (e g non-performance of daily Agnihotra even though the sun rises) The Śat. Br¹⁴⁰ XII 4 and Ait Br. 32 2–11 provide some interesting and amusing examples of the mishaps for which prāyaścittas are provided e. g when a vicious boar, ram or dog runs between the sacrificial fires, or if Agnihotra milk gets spilled while the cow is being milked or if the milk pot is turned upside down or if it were to break or if the cow were to lie down while being milked, or if the fire were to go out after the first libation is offered etc Vide also Mānava-gṛhya I 3, Hir. gr I 51–16, Bhāradvāja gr II 32, Kauśika-sūtra 46. 14–55, Āśv Śr III 10 and Āśv gr. III 6–7 for similar occurrences and prāyaścittas The Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇ VI 1.157 explains¹⁴¹ both prāyaścitti and prāyaścitta on the analogy of the word Pāraśkara Prāyaścittas may be said to be, in the language of the Mīmāṁsā, either `kratvartha` or `puruṣārtha` The former are prescribed in the Śrautasūtraṣ It is the latter kind of prāyaścittas that are generally dealt with in Smṛti works on prāyaścitta In this work the prāyaścittas mentioned in Śrauta works are passed over, as they have either been mentioned in vol. II. or were of rare occurrence even in olden dayṣ

Most digests and commentaries derive the word prāyaścitta relying on a verse (attributed to Angiras⁹ by some) from prāya (meaning 'tapas') and citta (meaning resolve or firm belief), the idea being that prāyaścittas are so called because of their association with or emergence from a resolve to under-go tapas or because of the firm belief that it will be a means of the removal of siṇ Various other derivations are suggested by some writerṣ The Bālambhaṭṭī¹⁰ on Yaj. III. 206 quotes a half verse to the effect that 'prāya' means 'sin' and 'citta' means 'purification', which had been quoted by Pakṣadharamiśra¹¹, Bhaktupādhyāya and the Todarānanda, but the Pr. M. (p. 2) says that the source or authenticity of that verse is doubtful. Hemādri refers to an unnamed bhāṣyakāra's explanation viz. 'prāya' means 'destruction' and 'citta' means 'joining together' and prāyaścitta means the making good what is lost and that the word denotes a naimittika action on siṇ

The Par. M. quotes a smṛti text¹² and says that that is prāyaścitta whereby the 'citta' (the mind) of a repentant sinner is made generally (prāyaśaḥ) free (from emotion i. e brought to a normal state) by the parṣad (assembly of learned brāhmaṇas). Here 'prāyaḥ' seems to be taken as equal to 'prāyaśaḥ' and 'citta' has its usual sense, In Sāyaṇa's¹³ comment on the Samavidhāna Br I 5 1 another derivation is suggested viz that ‘prāyaḥ’ is composed of two parts ‘pra’ and ‘ayah’ and means ‘happening or finding’ (of the non-performance of what is ordained) and ‘citta’ means ‘knowledge’; and so religious obser-vances after knowing a certain happening are called prāya- ścittaṣ The Pr Vi p 3 and Pr. Tattva p 467 quote Hārīta and give¹⁴ yet another derivation (from ‘prayata’ pure and ‘cīta’ collected), in accordance with which ‘prāyaścitta’ means such actions as tapas, gifts and sacrifices whereby a man becomes purified (prayata) and destroys his accumulated sins (‘cīta’ being equal to ‘upacita’), just as clothes are made clean by the employ-ment of salts, moist heat, putting in boiling water on a fire, and washing in water. Hence, as the Mit says, the word prāya-ścitta conventionally¹⁵ denotes a certain act or rite of the naimittika type (since it takes place only when an occasion arises) intended for the destruction of sin (and therefore being desired for removal of sin it may also be called kāmya) The Par. M quotes verses from Bṛhaspati’s¹⁶ work of which the section on prāyaścitta holds at the beginning and at the conclusion thereof that prāyaścitta is naimittika¹⁷ (to be performed when a cause or occasion arises), Jābalā q in the Pr. Prakāśa holds that prāyaścitta partakes of the nature of both naimittika and kāmya actionṣ The Pr. Prakāśa finds fault with the definitions of prāyaścitta proposed by the Kalpataru, Śūlapāṇi and others and ultimately arrives at the conclusion that those alone are prāyaścittas which are so spoken of by the learned, just as on Jaimini II 1.32 (tac-codakeṣu mantrākhyā) Bhaṭṭācārya explains that mantras are those which the respectable yājñikas and those who studied the Vedas so designate¹⁸.

Sins as stated by Bṛhaspati¹⁹ and others are of two kinds, viz. intentionally committed and unintentionally committeḍ

Great divergence of views has prevailed from very ancient times as to whether prāyaścittas can destroy sins intentionally committeḍ Manu XI. 45 and Yāj. III. 226 are positive that sins committed unintentionally are destroyed by prāyaścittas or by the study of the Veda. The difficulty arises about sins com- mitted intentionally or with full knowledge. Gaut. (19. 3–6 = Vas, 22, 2–5) states two views,²⁰ one holding that prāya- ścitta should not be performed since deeds (here sinful deeds) are not destroyed (except by experiencing the consequences thereof), the other view holding that prāyaścitta should be per-

( Continued from last page ) crimes in former lives men are born blind or idiots &c.) penances must always be performed for the sake of purification, because those whose sins have not been expiated are born with disgraceful markṣ' Though Manu employs the word 'nityam' here, what is meant is that when a sin is com- mitted, a prāyaścitta must necessarily be performed and the volition of the sinner whether to perform it or not. Vide Mit on Yāj III. 220. But it does not follow from this that if prāyaścitta is not performed, another sin is thereby committed, for in that case there would be anavasthā (regressus ad infinitum). formed (for the removal of the effects of sin). The latter relies upon certain indications in Vedic passageṣ Gaut. relies upon four such passageṣ The first says²¹ 'after performing the punahstoma²² one can come back to (become fit for) soma sacri- fice (i. e. for Vedic rites in general). Another indication is˙ 'after performing Vrātyastoma (one becomes fit for Vedic sacri- fices).' A third is: 'He, who offers the Aśvamedha sacrifice, crosses beyond all sin, beyond brāhmaṇa murder'. The fourth is˙ one should make a person charged with grave sins per- form the Agnistut Vasiṣṭha also (20 1-2) gives expression to the two views about the efficacy of penanceṣ²³ Manu XI. 45 (latter half) states, that according to some, prāyaścittas may be prescribed for the removal of intentionally committed sins from indications contained in the Vedaṣ It cannot be said that these Śruti passages are mere arthavādas (i. e laudatory texts). They must really be taken, though expressed in the form of ordinary arthavādas, as laying down (a vṛdhu) that one desirous of destroying his sins should perform Aśvamedha and the other sacrifices mentioned In this case the maxim of rātrisattra²⁴ applies (vide Jai. IV. 3. 17-19). There are certain sattras (sacrifices extending over more than twelve days) called Trayo- daśarātra, Caturdaśarātra and so oṇ All these are called rātri- sattraṣ With reference to these a Vedic passage says ‘those who approach (i. e. perform) these rātrisattras attain stability (long life or super-eminence)’. In the text prescribing the rātri- sattras there is no mention of any special reward for perfor- mance. Therefore ‘stability’ (pratiṣṭhā) contained in the passage must be held to be the reward of the performance of rātrisattras and not mere heaven (which is the reward of all sacrifices for which no special reward is mentioned, according to Jai. IV. 3. 15–16). The same maxim applies to passages like Yāj III. 226 which say that sin is removed by penances²⁵. Medhātithi draws attention to the story in the Tai. S. VI. 2. 7 5, Kāṭhaka S. VIII, 5, Ait Br 35.2 that Indra consigned yatis to Śālāṿṛkas (dogs or wolves) and had to perform the rites called Upahavya to get rid of the siṇ Manu states his own opinion in the next verse (XI. 46) that sins committed unintentionally are destroyed by the recitation of Vedic texts and sins committed intentionally through folly are destroyed by various prāyaścittaṣ Yāj. III. 226 (latter half) appears to hold that prāyaścittas do not destroy sins intentionally committed, but the sinner undergoing the prescribed penance becomes fit to be associated with other people on account of the texts (laying down the prāyaścittas); but Yāj. implies, it seems, that the results of sin intentionally committed (such as Hell and the like) are not got rid of. Manu XI. 189 prohibiting social in- tercourse with sinners who have not performed penance practi- cally conveys the same idea as that of Yāj in III. 226 (latter half). Yāj. III. 220 observes that a man guilty of pātākas should perform prāyaścitta for his own purification (here and in the next world); in this way (i. e. if he performs penance) his inner soul recovers its composure and the people also become satisfieḍ This verse puts in a nutshell the purposes of prāyaścittas as conceived by the smṛtis, viz. purging of sin (or purification), the satisfaction of the sinner’s mind, admission to intercourse with all people. Chāgaleya²⁶ holds that prāyaścittas free the sinner from the consequences of sins committed unintentionally, but no penance exists which frees a man from the consequences of sins committed knowingly except in the case of upapātakas and in suicides or attempts at suicide. The Par. M. (II, 1 pp 200-201) cites a verse of Jābalī and verses of Devala setting forth the two views about the efficacy of prāyaścittas, while it also cites a view of Baudhāyana-smṛti that there is no prāyaścitta for sins committed knowingly and the view of Angiras that the penance is double in the latter case²⁴. Angiras further says that prāyaścittas do destroy the sin arising from committing acts that are forbidden and the like, just as the rising sun removes dark-nesṣ Manu XI, 47 provides: ‘A twice-born man having become liable to perform a penance (for a sin), whether he committed it through fate or by some act committed in a former existence, must not have intercourse with virtuous men until he performs the proper penance.’ Ap. Dh S (I 9 24 24–25) provides ‘If a man slays a guru (father, Vedic teacher &c ) or a brāhmaṇa who has studied the Veda and finished the ceremonies of a soma sacrifice he shall live according to these very rules (contained in Ap. Dh. S I 9. 24. 10–32) until his last breath. He cannot be purified (of the sin of the murder of a guru or learned brāhmaṇa) in this life. But his sin is removed (at his death)’²⁶. It appears to follow from Āpastamba's words that penance ending in death destroys the siṇ The same was the view of Angiras, Yama and otherṣ In this conflict among the authors of smṛtis the solution proposed by the Mit. on Yaj III. 226 has been accepted by most medieval writers and is as follows¹⁶⁰. The potentialities and consequences of sins are twofold, viz those leading to Hell and the others preventing intercourse with members of the society to which the sinner belongṣ Therefore, even though a prāyaścitta may not be efficacious to prevent the first mentioned consequence (viz fall into Hell), there is nothing improper in prāyaścitta being effective in removing the obstacle to associa tion with other people. As to sinful acts that are not pātaniya (do not cause loss of caste) prāyaścitta does destroy such sinfulness as expressly stated by Manu. XI. 46. Even as to sins that are pātaniya and are committed intentionally, if a penance ending in death is undergone as laid down by Manu XI. 73, Yaj III 247-248 and Gaut 22, 2-3 for brāhmaṇa murder; Manu XI. 90-91, Yaj III. 253, Gaut 23 1 for drinking surā; Gaut 23 8– 11, Manu XI 103-104 and Yaj. III. 259 for sexual intercourse with the guru's wife; Manu XI. 99-100 and Yaj. III. 257 for theft of brāhmaṇa's gold; then the sin is destroyed as stated by Āp. Dh. S I 9 24. 25 and I 10. 28.18 quoted above. When Manu says (in XI. 89 latter half) that there is no penance for the sin of slaying a brāhmaṇa intentionally, the proper interpretation of this read along with Manu XI 46 quoted above is not that there is total absence of prāyaścitta in such a case, but that ordinary prāyaścittas (such as those in Manu XI. 72) would not do in such a case, but only very heavy ones that would end in death. Medi æval digests like the prāyaścitta-muktāvali (folio 32a) hold that according to the Kālvajya section penance ending in death is forbidden in the case of brāhmaṇa sinners and therefore a brāhmaṇa murderer can only be made to undergo the twelve years’ penance.

The Par M. (II part 1 pp 201-203) sets out this view of the Mit and appears to hold it itself. It sets out another view also. Those who hold this latter view read Yāj. III. 226 as ‘kāmatosvyavahāryastu’ with an avagraha. The meaning then is that one who has performed the penance prescribed for a sin does not fall into Hell, but he cannot be allowed to associate with good men (śistas) if he is guilty of a wilful siṇ There is a verse of Manu (XI 190 = Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54,32) that one should not associate with those who slay children, who return evil for the good done to them, who slay those that come for protection and who kill women, even though they might have become purified by undergoing the appropriate penance. There is a similar verse of Yāj III 298 on which the comment of Vijñāneśvara is most interesting as indicative of the spirit of our medieval writers who were always oppressed by the might of words (Vedic or smṛti) deemed as authoritative. The Mit remarks ³⁰ ‘the prohibition (contained in Yāj. III. 298) is based on the text alone (and not on logic or reasoning). What cannot a text do? There is nothing too heavy for a text. Therefore, even though a light penance is prescribed for slaying an adulterous woman, still there is a prohibition against associating with such slayers based on the words of the text’. This maxim is taken from the bhāṣya of Śabara and is a favourite device with all Dharmaśāstra writers from Viśvarūpa downwards to justify any statement of the smṛtis however illogical or exaggerated it might appear to be. The Pr. T. (pp. 544-545) quotes ³¹ the Mit. about the two śaktis of sin and its remarks on Yaj III, 298 and does not approve of them, relying on the words of Bṛhaspati that no decision should be arrived at on the bare words of the śāstra, but it should also be supported by reasoning and that the words ‘slayers of women’ do not refer to adulterous women but to innocent women (such as the wives of one’s enemies). Nārada (sāhasa, verse 11) holds that those who are punished by the king with a fine of the first or second (madhyama) kind can be allowed to associate with other members of society but those who are awarded the highest fine should not be spoken to by others ³². Those who take the view of the sinner’s inability to associate with other men even after undergoing penance rely also upon Vedānta-sūtra III. 4. 43 (bahis-tūbhayathāpi smṛterācāracca). The Par. M. very rightly points ³³ out that the sūtra refers to those who after going in for life-long celibacy abandon the duties of that stage of life (āśrama) and that it does not refer to householders and quotes a verse of Kauśika in support. The Smṛti-muktāphala (Pr., pp. 867–868) refers to this discussion contained in the Par. M. The Pr. M. (p. 7) appears ³⁴ to hold that the great Śankarācārya explained Vedāntasūtra III 4. 43 after reading Yāj III 226 as 'kāmatos vyavahāryastu' and that those who fell from the vow of life-long celibacy (either as naisthika brahmacāriṇs or as sannyāsins) were to be excommunicated (and not to be associated with) The printed editions of the bhāṣya contain no express quotation of Yājñavalkya's verse, but from the fact of his quoting Atri's verse it is possible to hold that Śaṅkarācārya understood Yājñavalkya as the Pr. M. says he diḍ

A question may naturally be asked: why should it be accepted that penances destroy sin (as stated in Yāj III 226). The answer is: what ³⁵ actions are grave sins or minor sins or not sins at all is laid down by the śāstra (śruti and smṛtis) For example, it is not clear to ordinary people why being an officer over mines or making friends of low people or being a servant of a śūdra should be a sin at all But the smṛtis say so. If the smṛtis are to be relied upon for determining what acts are sinful, then it follows as a matter of course that the efficacy of penances can be appealed to So also the Bhagavad-gītā (IV 37) states that the fire of spiritual knowledge consumes all (accumulated, sañcita) actions (and their consequences).

Many of the sins (though not all) for which penances are provided in the smṛtis are also offences punishable by the king or State For example, murder, theft, incest, perjury are acts punishable by the State in almost all countries even now and were so in ancient and medieval India Persons guilty of these were also liable to undergo prāyaścittaṣ It is probably due to this double liability that punishments for crimes in ancient and medieval India were light as compared with the heavy punish-ments for even trifling crimes inflicted in western countries only a century or two ago But there are other acts which are not punishable by the State now and were not probably punished even in ancient or medieval India by the king. For example, forgetting Veda studied by a person, not tending Vedic fires consecrated by a person himself, sleeping till after sun-rise and sleeping at sunset are pātakas, acc to Vas I 19 and some of those are upapātakas acc to Yāj III, 239. It does not seem likely that an Indian king ever punished any person for these. On the other hand, obstructing the road, prying when the king is taking his meals, sitting before the king on one’s haunches, speaking loudly before the king are among the fifty chalas of which the king could take cognisance suo motu and award suitable punishment (vide H. of Dh vol III p. 266). But there is nothing to show that such actions ever fell within the purview of the rules about prāyaścittas. The important questions are: What was the relation of the rules about prāyaścittas which were to be prescribed by a parişad (a meeting of learned brāhmaṇas) to punishments by the king as regards actions which were both pātukas inviting penances and crimes entailing punishments by the King? Which of these two sets of rules was earlier? Were penance and punishment cumulative or alternative? It is difficult to give definite opinions on these questionṣ We know that prāyaścittas like Aśvamedha are spoken of even in the Tai S. We also know that the praśnavivāka (which is quite close to prādvīvāka in derivation and meaning) occurs in the Vāj. S. XXX, 10 and Tai Br. III, 5, 6. Therefore it follows that judicial functions were very early separated from the executive functions of the king. The reference to the ordeal of fire in the Tāṇḍya Br 14. 6. 6 (vide H. of Dh. vol. III p. 361) and the grasping of a red-hot hatchet in the hand by a person accused of theft and his being killed show that ordeals were administered and the punishment for theft was death. Bṛhaspati, quoted in the Vivādaratnākara, says ‘When a man of good character and a diligent reader of the Veda has committed theft he shall be kept in prison for a long time and shall be caused to perform penance after having been compelled to restore the goods’ (S. B. E., vol. 33 p. 362 ³⁶).

The parişad made its own rules about prāyaścittas and the king awarded punishmentṣ Which set of rules was earlier it is difficult to say. The king did not very probably interfere with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the parişad and the brāhmaṇas helped the king in the administration of justice by being judges and by advising him as to the punishments to be imposed (vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 194). Gautama VIII.1, echoing the words of the Sat. Br. V. 4. 4 5, observes;³⁷ ‘the king and the brāhmaṇas with profound learning uphold the moral order in the world (or are upholders of the sacred law). The Āp. Dh. S. (II 5.10.12–16) contains very important information: ‘The ācārya shall order those who, while participating according to the śāstras (in the privileges and responsibilities of their castes), have gone astray through the weakness of their senses to perform penances according to the dictates (of the smṛtis) commensurate with their (sinful) actṣ If they transgress their ācārya’s order he shall take them to the king. The king shall send them to his purohita proficient in dharmaśāstra and the science of government. He (purohita) shall order them to perform (proper penances) if they are brāhmaṇaṣ He shall reduce them by forcible means except corporal punishment and slavery.’ So this passage shows that the king helped in carrying out prāyaś-cittaṣ Nārada includes ‘neglect of penances’ among matters solely dependent on the king (prakīrṇaka, verse 3) and not on complaints by private individualṣ Devala³⁸ probably conveys the real position when he says: ‘The king is the giver of kṛcchras (i. e his consent is required for actually undergoing the prescribed penances), the learned man who has studied Dharmaśāstras prescribes the prāyaścitta, the sinner carries out the penance and the king’s officer sees to the safe performance of the prescribed penance.’ Parāśara VIII. 28 says ‘an assembly should point out the proper penance after getting the permission of the king, it should not be done without reference to him, but slight penance may be done without informing him’. The Par. M. II, part 1. p. 232 explains that this applies to prāyaścittas for sins like govadha or those that are greater than it. Devala³⁹ also has similar verseṣ Parāśara VIII, 29 states that the king also should not ignore the parisad and should not by himself prescribe penance. Paithīnasi quoted by the Dandaviveka (p. 76) provides⁴⁰ for both prāyaśoitta and punishment and from the tenor of the verse it appears that both were to be enforced by the king. The posi- tion is tolerably clear as to medieval times One feels great hesitation in stating definitely the relation of punishment to penances and the king's position as to both in ancient timeṣ Āp. Dh. S. I. 9. 24. 1–4 provide⁴¹ that one who kills a kṣatriya or a vaiśya or a śūdra shall respectively give one thousand cows, a hundred cows and ten cows for the purpose of removing the enmity and that in each of these cases one bull was to be given in addition for the purpose of expiatioṇ Āpastamba does not expressly state to whom the cows were to be giveṇ The commentator Haradatta explains that they were to be given to brāhmanaṣ Manu XI, 127, 129, 130, and Yaj III, 266–267 have similar provisions but in the chapter on penanceṣ On the other hand, Baud, Dh. S. I. 10 23, expressly states that the cows are to be given to the king. As both the words ‘vaira- niryātanārtham’ and ‘prāyaśoittārthah’ are employed by Āp. it may be said that the cows were to be made over to the king even according to Āpastamba. The cows were to be made over to the king for bestowal on the family of the murdered person to mollify them and if they refused to receive them the king was of to retain them for himself but was to distribute them among brāhmanaṣ We know that Manu (IX. 243-245) provides that the fine recovered from a man guilty of mortal sins was not to be taken for himself by the king but was to be offered to Varuna and thrown into water or was to be distributed among learned brāhmanaṣ Manu IX, 236 provides that for those who were guilty of the four grave sins (brāhmaṇa murder &c, ) and did not undergo penance for the same the king should inflict corporal punishment (branding on the forehead) toget- her with fine in accordance with the śāstra, Manu IX. 237 (= Matsya 227 164) and Viṣṇu V. 4–7 say that on the forehead a mark of female private parts with red-hot iron should be branded in the case of incest, the mark of a tavern flag in the case of drinking surā, the mark of dog’s foot in the case of theft (of brāhmaṇa's gold) and the mark of a headless trunk in the case of a brāhmaṇa-murder. Manu IX. 240 further prescri- bes that men of all castes guilty of the four mahāpātakas com- mitted unintentionally that perform the proper penance should not be branded on the forehead by the king but should be awarded the highest fine Manu IX. 241 and 242 provide that a brāhmaṇa guilty of these grave sins unintentionally may be punished with the middle amercement (if he himself be possessed of good qualities) but if he was guilty of the grave sins committed intentionally he should be banished from the kingdom being allowed to take with him his wealth and paraphernalia; while persons other than brāhmaṇas when guilty of grave sins unintentionally committed were to be deprived of all their wealth and if guilty intentionally they were to be sentenced to death. These verses show that though prāyaścitta be per- formed persons guilty of grave sins were liable to undergo punishment and if no penance was performed then they were liable to branding and also fines etc Manu XI. 56 provides that bearing false witness is similar to the drinking of surā and Manu XI. 57 and Yāj. III. 230 hold that misappropria- tion of a deposit is like the theft of gold Viṣṇu Dh. S (V 169 ) provides that the misappropriator of a deposit was to be made to return the deposit or its price with interest and was to be punished like a thief by the king and V 179 had all his property confiscateḍ These instances establish that both fines by the king (i. e rāja-daṇḍa ) and penances prescribed by the assembly of learned men (i. e parisaddaṇḍa or daiva daṇḍa) had to be undergone by those guilty of some grave sins that were also looked upon as crimes In some cases the penance and the punishment were the same For example, Gaut 23 10–11, Vaṣ 20. 13, Manu XI 104, Yāj. III 259 and several other smṛtikāras prescribe for incest the penance of the excision of the testicles and penis and proceeding toward the south or south-west till the body falls Nārada as quoted above prescribes for incest the punishment (daṇḍa) of the excision of the testicles The Mit. on Yāj. III. 233 quotes Nārada and remarks that the punishment of excision and death prescribed by Yāj III. 233 applies only to non-brāhmaṇas and that in such cases the punishment of death itself is the IV} prāyaścitta There were works like the Madanapārijāta⁴² (p. 827) and the Mitākṣarā that held that the prohibition against corporal prāyaścittas and that since the Manusmṛti itself (XI. 100) states that a brāhmaṇa guilty of theft of brāhmaṇa's gold may go to the king with an iron club and have his head smashed by the king, the death of a brāhmaṇa as a penance for theft by being struck with a club presented by himself was not ruled out. In some cases punishment by the king was deemed to have purged a man of sin and no penance seems to have been thought necessary, as Manu VIII. 318 (=Vas 19.45) says 'men that commit sins and are punished by the king become purified and reach heaven like good men who perform meritorious deedṣ' The Mit. on Yāj. III. 259 explains that this holds good only where the punishment is death, as in the case of incest noted above. Āp. Dh. S. II. 10 27. 15–16 provide ⁴³ that a person guilty of slaying a man, of theft and of forcible seizure of land was to be deprived of his wealth by the king and was to be sentenced to death and that if the offender was a brāhmaṇa he was to have a piece of cloth tied over his eyes for the whole of his life (i. e. he was not to be sentenced to death). It appears that in very ancient times as provided by Āp. Dh. S. I 9.25.4 the thief approached the king ⁴⁴ with a club (of iron or khadira wood) on his shoulder and announced his guilt, when the king struck him with the club; on his being killed he became free from guilt. This was a penance as well as a legal punishment. Manu has a similar rule in his chapter on punishments (VIII. 314–316) providing that the thief should carry a weapon (called musala) or a club of khadira wood or a double-edged śakti or an iron staff and that if the king strikes him once with the club and he is killed or if he is not killed but is allowed to go half dead and lives, the thief is freed from the guilt. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 257 quotes a prose passage from Śankha and a verse from Samvarta (122) to the same effect. Manu in the chapter on penances (XI. 100–101 = Agnipurāṇa 169. 20–21) provides the same procedure for theft as a penance. Vas 20. 41, Yāj. III. 259, Viṣṇu 52. 1–2 and Parāśara XII. 69–70 provide a somewhat similar penance for the thief of brāhmaṇa's golḍ Vasiṣṭha introduces an important change viz., that the king hands over to the thief a weapon made of udumbara wood (or probably of copper) with which the thief is to kill himself. It appears that gradually the king gave up this unpleasant method of award- ing punishment personally. Nārada⁴⁵ (pariśiṣṭa, verses 46–47) provides that after the thief comes running to the king and announces his guilt, the king was to touch him (with the club, as a symbolic gesture) and then let him off and the thief be- came freed from sin by his confession of guilt. It has to be remembered, however, that the thief had to restore, even when he underwent penance, stolen property, as stated by Manu VIII. 40, Yāj. II. 36 and 270, Bṛhaspati and by digests⁴⁶ like the Pr. Prakaraṇa. If it were impossible to make the thief restore the stolen property, the king had to make it good from his own treasury⁴⁷ (Gaut X. 47, Śāntiparva 75. 10, Kauṭilya III. 16) or he had to make his officers⁴⁸ entrusted with the duty of preventing thefts pay the price of the stolen property (Ap Dh. S. II. 10. 26. 8). Vide for further details H. of Dh vol. III. pp. 166–168. It appears that the actual carrying out of the sentence of death was later on assigned to Caṇḍālas as stated by Manu X. 56 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 11 (vadya-ghātitvam caṇḍālānām). Another point to be noted is that as regards the awarding of punishments and prescribing of penances, the matters to be considered were the same viz. whether the lapse was intentional¹⁷⁹ (kāmatāḥ) or unintentional (akāmatāḥ) or whether it was the first offence or whether it was repeated and what the circumstances as to the time, the place, the caste, the age, the capacity, learning, wealth were. Compare Kauṭilya IV. 10, Gaut. XII. 48, Manu VII. 16 and VIII. 126, Yaj I. 368, Viṣṇu V. 194, Vaṣ 19. 9 about punishments with Bauḍ¹⁸⁰ Dh. S. I. 1. 16, Yaj. III. 293 (= Atri verse 248 and Agnipurāṇa 173. 6), Aṅgiras 143, Viśvāmitra, Vṛddha-Hārīta IX. 297, and Vyāghra as regards penances It is on account of this close connection between punishments and penances that the Prāyaścittatattva, after quoting Devala to the effect that if a man makes no move for taking prāyaścitta for one year, he has to undergo double penance thereafter. and to pay a double fine to the king, re-marks that the maxim is that prāyaścittas are to be moulded on the lines of punishments¹⁸¹. The Pr. M. (pp. 124-125) quotes Kāśyapa who provides a penance for one that causes mischief to a well, public park, bridge, rampart wall or a temple or idol, then quotes Viṣṇu V. 169 which prescribes the highest fine for a breaker of idols, Manu IX. 285 which provides a fine of 500 punas for a breakor of idols and ro-instatement of the idol by him and then remarks 'dandavat prāyaścittāni bhavanti'. Nārada divided sūhāsra into three kinds viz. prathama, madhyama and uttama, the last of which consisted in killing a person with poison or weapon, adultery and rapo and injury to life. He then provides that when offenders guilty of the first two kinds were punished by the king, they became fit for association with the people, but that one guilty of the uttama-sāhasa, though punished by the king, was not fit even to be talked to (Nārada, sāhasa, verso 11).

The king had jurisdiction⁴⁹ to punish sinners if they did not agree to undergo the prāyaścitta prescribed by the pariṣad but it is extremely doubtful whether he exercised that jurisdiction in all caseṣ Society or the caste also had a weapon in its hand viz. that of excommunication by ghaṭasphoṭa if one guilty of a grave sin refused to perform the prāyaścitta prescribed (i. e. it was jātidanḍa). Vide Gaut 20 2-9, Manu XI 182-185 and Yāj III. 294 and II, of Dh vol II p 388 and vol. III p. 1009- 1010 for the rite of ghaṭasphoṭa and re-admission to caste after ghaṭasphoṭa. Many of the prāyaścittas prescribed for the grave sins were terrible (such as throwing oneself into fire, drinking boiling surā or water or cow's urine or milk or ghee for drinking surā, Manu XI 73, 90-91, 103 &c) and were to be self-inflicted and were not to be prescribed by the pariṣad as the words of Manu in XI. 73 'icchayātmanah' and 'prāsyed-ātmānam-agnau vā' clearly convey and as some of the digests expressly provide⁵⁰. In order to enable a man to be- come fit for intercourse with his caste men he had to give a dinner to them or distribute sweetmeats even after undergoing prāyaścitta. So it follows that a man guilty of a crime was liable to three burdens, punishment by the king, penance prescribed by learned brāhmaṇas and giving dinner or sweetmeats to castemeṇ Vide H. of Dh vol. II p. 971. The literature on prāyaścittas is vast in extent, since in ancient times they loomed very large in the popular minḍ Out of the 28 chapters of the Gautamadharma-sūtra, ten (i. e. more than one-third of the whole) are devoted to penanceṣ Out of the 30 chapters of the printed Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra, prāyaścittas cover nine (20–28) Manu devotes verses 44 to 265 (in all 222) of chapter eleven to penances and the Yājñavalkyasmṛti con- taining 1009 verses deals with prāyaścittas in 122 verses (III. 205-327). Several printed smṛtis such as those of Angiras (168 verses), Atri (chapters 1-8), Devala (90 verses), Bṛhad-Yama (182 verses), Śātātapasınṛti (in 274 verses) from the Ānandāśrama collection of smṛtis alone deal only with prāya- ścittaṣ Many other smṛtis and several purāṇas, such as the Agni (chap 168-174), Garuḍa 52, Kūrma (Uttarārdha 30-34), Varāha 131-136, Brahmāṇḍa (Upasamhārapāda chap. 9), Viṣṇudharm- ottara (II 73, III 234-237) contain hundreds of verses on prāyaścittaṣ Besides commentaries like the Mitākṣarā, Aparārka, Par. M. and others and digests like Madanapārijāta (pp. 691-994), there are special digests dealing with prāyaścittas alone such as Hemādri on Prāyaścitta (which is of doubtful authenticity), the Prāyaścittaprakaraṇa of Bhavadeva, Prāya- ścittaviveka, Prāyaścittatattva, Smṛtimuktāphala (prāyaścitta section), Prāyaścittasāra (part of Nṛsiṁhaprasāda), Prāya- ścittamayūkha, Prāyaścittaprakāśa (mṣ in the Anūp Sanskrit library, Bikaner, No. 2610), Prāyaścittenduśekhara of Nāgojibhatta, which have been utilised in this work. The most elaborate treatment is found in Prāyaścittaviveka, Par. M. II parts 1 and 2, and Prāyaścittaprakāśa.

The commentators discuss the question about the persons who have adhikāra (capacity) for having penances prescribed for them Since Manu XI, 44 (prāyaścittīyate naraḥ) and Yāj III. 219 (naraḥ patanaṁ-recchati) both employ the word ‘man’ without ⁵¹ any qualification, the commentators and digests say that penances are meant for men of all varṇas, for all persons born of unions in the reverse order (pratilomajas) and for even caṇḍālaṣ Yāj. III. 262 states that a śūdra sinner though he has no adhikāra (for recitation of Vedic mantras and homa), yet becomes purified by undergoing the observances (except japa and homa) for the periods prescribeḍ Aṅgiras¹⁸⁵ provides that penance may be administered to a śūdra devoid of japa and homa. Even as to japa and homa there were works like the Madanapārijāta p. 749 and Vy. M (p. 112) that relying on a verse of Parāśara VI. 63-64 held that a homa could be performed for women and śūdras in the ordinary fire through a brāhmaṇa¹⁸⁶. The Pr. V. relies on Manu X. 62 and a prose passage of Devala for the proposition that even Cāṇḍālas have to perform penances, if they act contrary to the rules and prohibitions laid down for theṃ Since the non-performance of what is prescribed and doing what is forbidden lead to sin, the person guilty of these or the person who has a desire to destroy his sins is a person entitled to perform prāyaścitta, as also one who repents of his guilt.

Before going into the subject of the several prāyaścittas prescribed for each grave or minor sin, some questions of a general character have to be disposed of.

Some smṛtis like Bṛhad-yama III. 1-2 and Saṅkha state that a boy over five years of age and less than eleven years old, if guilty of some pātakas such as drinking surā, has not to personally, but his brother, father or other relative or friend has to undergo it for him and that if a child is less than five then whatever act it may do it is not deemed a crime, nor is it a sin and it is not liable to any⁵⁴ prāyaścitta. The Mit. (on Yaj. III. 243) comments that these verses are not meant to prescribe a total absence of prāyaścitta in the case of children of five or less but are meant to convey that they are not liable for the full prāyaścitta prescribed for a siṇ Its argument is that the texts lay down generally without any reference to the stage of life that a brāhmaṇa should not be killed or that a person belonging to the three higher castes should not drink surā.⁵⁵ Hence any one of whatever age who is guilty of having done such prohibited acts is liable and the words of Gaut. II 1 and of Kumāra are to be interpreted as not excusing altogether the drinking of surā by a child but as referring to minor lapseṣ Bṛhaspati expressly states that the dictum about a child being allowed to eat what it likes is confined to such matters as will not fall under grave sinṣ

It has already been stated above (n 180) that the prāyaścitta is to be undergone depended upon many circumstances such as the time, the place, the age &c. And first as to age, several smṛtis⁵⁶ provide that a man 80 years old or a boy less than 16 years of age, women and diseased persons should be liable only to half the prāyaścitta (prescribed for able-bodied men). The Mit. on Yāj. III 243 quotes a verse of Sumantu that for a male below twelve and above eighty years of age the penance is half (of that for ordinary men) and one fourth for women within the same limits and a verse of Viṣṇu that for women, old men and diseased persons half the penance should be prescribed and for boys (before upanayana) only one-fourth. Some say that for boys less than five the penance is one-fourth. Cyavana (prose) prescribes half prāyaścitta for boys, old men and women and declares that a person is a bāla up to 16 years and a man is to be regarded as similar to a bāla after 70. Kātyāyana provided generally that the fines to be levied from females were to be half of those leviable from male offenders as regards all offences and when the punishment for a male would be death, a woman criminal was to be punished with the cutting of a limb (nose, ears &c )⁵⁷

The difference between a sin committed unintentionally (akāmatāh) and the same sin committed with full knowledge (kāmatāh) is this that for the latter the prāyaścitta is double of what is prescribed for the former as provided by Angiras,⁵⁸ Vyāsa and the Agnipurāṇa. As Yāj. III. 226 employs the word 'ajñāna' in the first half and the word 'kāmatāh' as its opposite in the second half instead of the word 'jñānatāh' it follows that Yāj. makes no difference between the consequences of jñāna (knowledge) and kāmānā (desire).

The caste of the offender as well as of the victim made a difference in the prāyaścitta as well as in the legal punishment. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III pp. 395-399 as to punishments for crimes dependent on caste. Viṣṇu⁵⁹ provides that the prāyaścitta for a kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra sinner should be respectively ¼, ½ and ¼ of what is prescribed for a brāhmaṇa sinner. The Agni-purāṇa says ⁶⁰ the same thing. The Par. M II. 1. p. 231 quotes the Caturviṁśatimatā⁶¹ to the same effect. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 250 explains that the verse of Caturviṁśatimatā applies to all cases except where any one of the four sāhasas is committed by a man of a lower caste as against one of a higher caste. Bṛhad-Yama (IV. 13–14) in prescribing penance for the kill-ing of a cow provides the same scale of 4, 3, 2, 1 for the four varṇaṣ Aṅgiras (verse 3) prescribes the penances of Kṛcchra and Cāndrāyaṇa for a brāhmaṇa partaking of the food of an antyaja, half of these for a kṣatriya or vaiśya guilty of the same. Yāj. II. 206–207 provide that the punishments for defamation depend upon the higher or lower varṇa or caste of the offender as well as of the person defamed and that if a kṣatriya or vaiśya defames a brāhmaṇa the fines are respectively twice or thrice as high as the fine for a brāhmaṇa defaming a brāhmaṇa and conversely if a brāhmaṇa defames a kṣatriya or vaiśya the fine is reduced by half in each successive caste. The Mit. quoting Aṅgiras says that the rules about punishments apply to prāyaścittas for slaying a person i. e. if a brāhmaṇa slays anybody and a certain penance is prescribed for him, then a kṣatriya killing the person would have to perform double the penance prescribed for the brāhmaṇa and a vaiśya offender three times as much ⁶³. It may be pointed out here that though the smṛtis provided for different punishments according to the castes of the offender and of the person wronged and though some commentaries and digests went into all those details for the sake of presenting a complete statement or digest of the smṛti material, such discriminatory punishments had mostly ceased to be enforced by the rulers from about the 12th century A. D. at least, as stated by the Smṛticandrikā, the Madanaratna (vyavahāra) and the Sarasvatīvilāsa. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III p 512 note 924 for the relevant quotations from the three workṣ Since, as stated above (ṇ 181), prāyaścittas were to be moulded on the lines of legal penalties, it appears that the discriminatory treatment about prāyaścittas depending upon the varṇa of the sinner must also have gradually fallen into disuetude with the disappear- ance of the more severe prāyaścittas and the substitution of cows and monetary equivalents in later digestṣ And some digests expressly state this to have been the case in relation to prāyaścittaṣ For example, the Pr Prakaraṇa, after quoting Gaut. 22. 14–16 about the prāyaścitta for killing a kṣatriya or vaiśya or śūdra under certain circumstances, remarks that in its day those prāyaścittas were no longer part of the practices of the people.⁶³

Whether an act made a man liable to undergo prāyaś- citta depended in some cases on the country also. For example, marrying a maternal uncle's daughter was and is allowed in certain countries and among certain castes in the Deccan and Southern India on the ground of custom, but such a practice was severely condemned by Manu XI. 171–172 and Baud Dh S. I 1 17–24 and other smṛtis Bṛhaspati refers to this custom as prevalent among southerners and states that in these countries persons following it are not liable to undergo prāyaścitta or penalty (at the hand of the king). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 462 for Bṛhaspati’s verseṣ

Severity and extent of prāyaścitta depended also on the question whether a sinner had repeated the lapse or was a first offender. The Āp Dh S (II. 10. 27. 11–13) prescribes that a brāhmaṇa who has once committed adultery with a married woman of equal class shall perform one-fourth of the penance prescribed for a śūdra having intercourse with a woman of the three upper castes, that for every repetition (of the crime) one IV. First and confirmed offenders fourth of the penance must be added and if (he commits adultery) for the fourth time, the whole penance (of 12 years must be performed ⁶⁴). The Mit on Yaj. III, 293 remarks that for a sin that is committed knowingly the prāyaścitta is double of what is prescribed for the same sin if committed unintentionally and that if a sin is committed intentionally and is repeated then for the repeated lapse prāyaścitta is four times as much as that for the same deed done unintentionally. Similarly, the āśrama to which the sinner belonged made a difference in the prāyaścitta as stated by Angiras ‘when persons in other āśramas are guilty of sins for which penance is prescribed if committed by householders, then the prāyaścitta is increased in the same proportion that is laid down for śauca (bodily purity ⁶⁵). Manu V. 137, Vaṣ VI. 19, Viṣṇu Dh. S 60 26, Śaṅkha 16. 23–24 pro- vide that Vedic students, forest hermits and sannyāsins have śauca as is prescribed for householders (e. g. by Manu V. 136 = Viṣṇu 60. 25).

One convenient and merciful rule laid down by the smṛtis was that if a man died in the midst of the period for which penance had to be performed (sometimes it extended to twelve years or more) he became free from the sin here and in the next world as stated by Hārita, Vyāsa and Yama ⁶⁶.

Though the smṛtis have entered into very great details about the prāyaścittas for different individual lapses, still they cannot be supposed to have dealt with every lapse. Therefore, Gaut. (19. 18-20) provides that these acts (viz. Vedic recitation, tapas, fasting, gifts &c) may be optionally performed, when no (particular penance) has been prescribed, that for grave sins difficult penances and for trivial faults easy ones may be prescribed and that Kṛcchra, Atikṛcchra and Cāndrāyaṇa penances for all sins²⁰⁰ Manu XI 209 (= Viṣṇu 54 34) provides that for the expiation of offences for which no particular atonement has been prescribed, let (the pariṣad) prescribe a penance after considering the (offender’s) strength and the nature of the offence. Parāśara (XI, 55–56) provides that the recitation of the Gāyatrī ten thousand times is the best penance for all sins and that Cāndrāyaṇa, Yāvaka, Tulāpuruṣa and serving cows destroy all sinṣ Yāj. III. 265 provides that a man is purified from all sins by undergoing the penance for cow-killing or by Cāndrāyaṇa, observance for a month of the milk vrata or by Parāka. Manu XI. 117 provides for all upapātakas except the sin of sexual intercourse by one who is in the stage of Vedic student the penance prescribed for goradha or cāndrāyaṇa.

One guilty of a sin, even though he may himself be a learned man, should approach an assembly of learned brāhmaṇas and after making some present ( a cow or the like ) announcing the nature of his lapse seek their decision about the proper penance for his lapse (Yāj.²⁰¹ III 300 and Parāśara VIII. 2) The Mit, Par. M., Pr. S and other digests quote long passages in verse from Aṅgiras²⁰² who provides that the sinner should not conceal his lapse and lose time; he should bathe with his garment on, and with the garment still wet approach the assembly and should prostrate himself on the ground Thus the elders of the assembly ask the man prostrating himself before them ‘what is your business, what is the trouble and what do you seek from us’. The assembly then asks him to go aside a little and debate among themselves what the penance should be, considering all the circumstances of time, place, nature of the lapse, age &c Then one of them at the desire of the assembly should declare the assembly’s decision as to the proper penance after citing the smṛti passages and reducing the penance in view of the weakness and other circumstances of the offender. It has already been stated that the parisad acted under the direction of the king in matters of prāyaścitta and that the king was not to interfere with the decision of the assembly. The principal stages in a penance were four viz. approaching the parisad, the declaration of the appropriate penance by the parisad, the actual performance of the penance declared and the announcing of the sinner’s freedom from taint (Angiras q. by Pr. Prakāśa folio 27a ‘upasthānam vratadeśaścaryā śuddhi- prakāśanam | prāyaścittam catuṣpādam vihitam dharmakartṛ- bhiḥ’)."

It is not necessary here to set out the details of the consti- tution of the parisad, of the qualifications of the śistas who were to be the members of the parisad and their privileges and duties These points have already been discussed at length in H of Dh. vol. II, pp. 966-974. A few matters not stated there are mentioned here Caste exclusiveness and pride had gone so far that Parāśara (VIII. 25) and the Caturvimśatimata quoted by Par M. state that a dvija though he may be of bad character is to be honoured and not a śūdra who may have controlled his senses, that the advice of a śūdra even though learned and devoted to the knowledge of the śāstras should not be accepted like sacrificial food when licked by a dog⁷⁰. In- stead of the word ‘parisad’ the word parsad (which is an irre- gular abbreviation) is employed in several smṛti passages⁷¹. Parāśara (VI. 55-57) provides that the assembly should take compassion on the weak, on boys and old men and should reduce the penance, but not otherwise and that if learned men through affection, greed, fear or ignorance reduce the penance that should be prescribed they themselves incur the sin⁷² Devala says the same and adds⁷³ that the reduction in the penance should not be directed by one man alone or by a person ignorant of Dharmaśāstra and that it is only a number of brāhmaṇas who are proficient in Dharmaśāstra that are entitled to reduce the penance through compassion for the sinner. The decision of the assembly should be unanimous⁷⁴ as far as possible

If the learned brāhmaṇas of the assembly knowing the proper prāyaścitta do not declare it in the case of those who are distressed by their own sin and seek direction, they incur sin similar to that of the seeker after proper penance⁷⁵.