Chapter IV. Penances for Particular Sins

Volume IV pp. 87–129

Chapter IV. Penances for Particular Sins

It is now proper to turn to the penances prescribed for individual sins of different types (grave sins, minor sins and the like). It may be noted that the smṛtis contain numerous prāyaścittas for the same sin and that it is often difficult to reconcile all the dicta. The commentaries and digests such as the Mit and the Prāyaścitta-viveka therefore try to assign to each penance an appropriate provision, looking to all the circumstances noted above (i.e. they are bent on ‘visayavyavasthā’).^206a In this work, it is not necessary to set out in detail the numerous penances for numberless lapses that are prescribed in the several smṛtis and digestṣ In the Śabdakalpadruma (part III) there is an analysis from the Prāyaścitta-viveka alone of the several lapses, the penances for them, the number of cows to be donated as substitutes, the monetary equivalents when even cows cannot be donated and the dakṣiṇā in each case, which occupy pages 321 to 364. Setting out all these lapses together with the penances for them would only be a matter of academic interest and of no practical value, as almost all the prāyaścittas have become antiquated and are hardly ever performed now except in the form of gifts of cows or money to brāhmaṇas, pilgrimages and recitation of Vedic mantras or japa of the names of some favourite deity such as Viṣṇu or Śiva. Therefore only a few typical sins alone will be taken for treatment here and later on a list of all penances with brief descriptions will be furnisheḍ

First come the Mahāpātakaṣ Śaṅkha ¹ (17. 1–3) prescribes the following penance for the four mahāpātakas: the sinner should bathe thrice every day, should erect in a forest a cottage thatched with leaves, should sleep on the ground, should subsist on leaves, roots and fruits, should enter a village for alms all the time declaring his misdeed, should eat only once a day. When the 12th year passes in this way, the thief of gold, the drinker of surā, the murderer of a brāhmaṇa and one who is guilty of incest become free from siṇ Viṣṇu Dh S. 34.1 speaks of sexual intercourse with one's mother, daughter or daughter- in-law as atipātaka and (34.2) provides that there is no penance except entering fire for this grave siṇ The Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, Harita and Samvarta (q. by the Pr. V p 43) say the same. But other smṛtis like Manu XI. 54 and Yāj III. 227 treat mātr- gamana as a mahāpātaka (gurutalpa-gamana) and intercourse with the daughter or daughter-in-law as equal to violating guru's bed (Manu XI. 58, Yāj. III. 233-234). Therefore we begin with the mahāpātakas the first of which is the murder of a brāhmaṇa. Gaut. 22 2-10, Āp Dh. S I. 9. 24 10-25 and I. 9 25 12-13, Vas 20. 25-28, Viṣṇu Dharmasūtra 35. 6 and 50. 1-6 and 15, Manu. XI 72-82, Yāj III 243-250, Agnipurāṇa 169. 1-4 and 173 7-8, Samvarta 110-115 and many others prescribe various penances for brāhmaṇa-murder. As the treat- ment of Manu is tolerably long, an analysis of it alone will be given here. Manu as stated by the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (quoted by Kullūka on Manu XI. 72-82, Aparārka p 1055 and Pr V. p 63) speaks of 13 separate penances for brahmahatyā ². The general rule was that for a man of any class who is directly guilty of intentional murder of a brāhmaṇa the penance was to end in death³. The thirteen penances as set out by Govindānanda in his commentary (called Tattvārthakaumudi) on Prāyaścittaviveka (p 63) are as follows —

(1) The murderer of a brāhmaṇa should construct a hut in a forest and dwell therein for twelve years, should subsist on alms and should carry a piece of the head-bones of the murdered man on a staff. This is a very ancient penance and other smṛtis add some detailṣ For example, Gaut 22 4 provides that the sinner should submit to observances meant for a Vedic student (such as not partaking of flesh, honey etc. stated in Gaut. 2. 19), should announce his sin and enter a village only for begging almṣ Yāj. III. 243 prescribes that the sinner should have a piece of the head-bone in the hand (left) and another placed on a staff (in the right hand) and that he should eat a moderate quantity (i. e. only once a day). The carrying of the piece of the head-bone in one hand is not meant for begging alms therein but only as a symbol. There was some divergence of views on this point⁴. Ap Dh. S. I. 9. 24. 14 further provides that he should beg for alms at seven houses in only a broken reddish vessel (of clay or copper) and wear a piece of hempen cloth round his waist that will reach a little above his knees and that if he got no food at the seven houses he had to go without food that day and that he should protect cows and may for that purpose (for taking them out for grazing or bringing them back) enter the village agaiṇ The Mit. (on Yāj. III. 243) adds that the staff with head-bone on and the head-bone carried in the left hand are merely symbolic (in order to remind him -and others of his being guilty of brāhmaṇa murder), that he should on seeing an ārya avoid his path (Gaut. 22. 5), -that he should keep standing by day and only sit down at night (Gaut. 22. 6) and bathe thrice in the day (Gaut. 22. 5). It is added by the Mit. that, if the murdered brāhmaṇa's head-bone cannot be had, that of any other brāhmaṇa would do. The Mit. adds that this vrata⁵ for twelve years propounded by Gautama, Manu, Yājñavalkya and others is one and not different for each smṛti and therefore all the details that are not opposed to each other should be includeḍ Aparārka p. 1053 (on Yāj. III. 243) relies on the 'sarvaśākhāpratyayanyāya'⁶ and states that there would be an option where the details of several smṛtis are in conflict. It was Viśvarūpa⁷ on Yāj. III, 237 who held that the procedure prescribed by each smṛti was separate and that all details taken from different smṛtis were not to be mixed up. According to the Mit. and Kullūka (on Manu XI, 72) this vrata for 12 years is appropriate in the case where a brāhmaṇa is murdered unintentionally and Kullūka quoting Angiras provides that for intentional brāhmaṇa murder the penance will be double (i. e. 24 years). The Mit (on Yāj. III, 243) states that this observance for twelve years applies only to one who was himself directly the murderer of a brāhmaṇa and that the anugrāhaka has to undergo only 9 years’ vrata, the prayojaka only six years, the anumantā only 4 ⅔ years and the nimittin only three yearṣ It is further provided by the Mit. (on Yāj. III, 243) following a verse ascribed to Manu (not found in the printed text) and Devala⁸ that if a man commits several murders of brāhmaṇas one after another, and performs penance at one time for them, for two murders he has to undergo the penance for 24 years and for three murders 36 years and when he commits the 4th murder there is no penance (but only death is the penance). The Pr. T. (p. 468) on the other hand,⁹ following the Bhavisya-purāṇa holds that one per- formance of the 12 years' penance is enough penance for the murder of several brāhmaṇas, on the analogy of the Ksāmawati isti (Jai. VI, 4. 17–20) which is performed when both the purodāśas and the house are totally burnt up by accident before the oblations are offereḍ The Pr. Prakāśa (folio 19 a) also says the same and adds that Devala's verse is to be interpreted as laying down that repetition of the same sinful act is more blamable. If the murderer of a brāhmaṇa IV ] was a kṣatriya or a vaiśya or a śūdra he had to perform the penance above described respectively for 24, 36 or 48 years (Smrtyarthasāra p. 105). Instead of staying in a hut for twelve years he may stay at the end of a village or a cowpen and should tonsure his head and the hair on the lips or he may stay in an hermitage or at the foot of a tree and should devote himself to doing good to brāhmaṇas and cows and should observe celibacy (Manu XI. 78 and 81). At the end of 12 years he destroys the sin of brāhmaṇa-murder.

(2) According to Ap Dh. S. I. 9.25.12, Gaut 22, 3, Manu XI. 72, Yāj. III. 248, if a kṣatriya intentionally killed a brāhmaṇa he may at his will enter a fight and if he were killed by his opponents who knew that he was a brāhmaṇa murderer or even if he was wounded and left unconscious on the field but subsequently recovered he should be free from the sin of brāhmaṇa-murder.

(3) According to Āp. Dh. S. I. 9.25.13, Vaṣ 20. 25–26, Gaut. 22.2, Manu XI. 74, Yāj. III. 247, he may cut off with an axe his hair, skin, blood, flesh, muscles, fat, bones and marrow and offer them into an ordinary fire kindled by him for the purpose and offer these eight offerings into it for Death ¹⁰ as the deity and then throw himself into fire (thrice with head downwards, according to Manu XI 73). This penance is for intentional murder of a brāhmaṇa by a kṣatriya acc. to the Madanapārijāta and Bhaviṣyapurāṇa q. by Pr. Prakāśa folio 95 a.

(4)—(8) The murderer of a brāhmaṇa may perform the Aśvamedha sacrifice or Gosava or Abhijit or Viśvajit or the threefold Agniṣṭut (Manu XI, 74) The Aśvamedha could be performed only by a king or an emperor (samrāj). The others could be performed by any one belonging to the three higher classes This applies only where the murder was unintentional as stated by Kullūka following the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa.¹¹ Viṣṇu dharmasūtra (chap. 35 last verse) states that all persons guilty of any of the ‘mahāpātakas are purified by the performance of Aśvamedha or by going to all the tīrthas on the earth.

(9) Manu XI. 75 provides that for the removal of the sin of brahmahatyā, the sinner may walk one hundred yojanas, sub- sisting on limited food, controlling his senses and reciting one of the four Vedaṣ Kullūka says that this applies only where the killing is unintentional and the victim is a mere brāhmaṇa by caste (i. e. has not studied the Veda &c. ). For yojana, vide H. of Dh. vol. III p. 145 note ^185,217.

(10) Manu XI. 76 provides that the murderer of a brāh- maņa may make a gift of all his wealth to a brāhmaṇa who has studied the Veda.

(11) Manu XI. 76 and Yaj. III 250 provide that the mur- deer may donate to a worthy brāhmaṇa (who has studied the Veda and whose character is good) as much wealth as would suffice to maintain the latter throughout his life and a house with all paraphernalia. This is the view of Govindānanda. But the Mit. on Yaj. III. 250 appears to hold that Nos 10 and 11 are not separate penances It combines the two into one, viz. that if the murderer has no offspring then he was to donate all his wealth or if he had offspring he was to donate a house with paraphernalia. This explanation is certainly preferable. The Smṛtyarthasāra (p 105) states that if the murderer is devoid of qualities but is well-off he may give a house and lands sufficient for the maintenance of a worthy brāhmaṇa or he may donate a house with appurtenances or if he be childless all his wealth.

(12) Manu XI. 77 ¹³ and Yaj. III. 249 provide that the murderer subsisting on sacrificial food (such as nīvāra, milk or ghee ) should follow the course of the (holy) river Sarasvatī in all its brancheṣ This, acc. to the Bhavisyapurāṇa and Kullūka, applies where a mere brāhmaṇa by caste (without Vedic learning) is killed intentionally by a man who is himself rich but has no Vedic learning. The words ‘pratisrotah sarasvatīm’ have been variously explaineḍ Medhātithi explains as above. Aparārka, Sarvajñanārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda explain that the murderer should follow the course of the Sarasvatī in the opposite direction from the sea to its origiṇ This appears to be a better explanation, since it brings out the force of ‘pratisrotah’ more clearly.

(13) It is provided by Manu XI, 77 and Yaj. III, 249 that the murderer should recite in a forest thrice the saṃhitā text of the Veda, while subsisting on limited fooḍ The express mention of saṃhitā text precludes the pada text or krama. The Bhavisyapurāṇa and Kullūka hold that this penance is proper where a mere brāhmaṇa by birth (without Vedic learning) is killed unintentionally.

Manu XI, 79, Yaj. III, 244 and 246, Vaṣ 20, 27–28 and Gaut. 22. 7–8 and 11 mention three more penances, but they are not independent ones (as is made clear by Śaṅkha). If a murderer, while undergoing the 12 years’ penance, fights him who attacks a brāhmaṇa and saves him (or fights for the king, acc. to Vaṣ) or dies in the attempt, he becomes at once free from the sin and if he lives after the fight he had not to continue the penance for the whole perioḍ The same applies to the saving of 12 cows by the murderer by putting his own life in danger¹⁴. Similarly, if a murderer fights a marauder depriving a brāhmaṇa of all his wealth and restores the wealth to a brāhmaṇa or dies in the attempt or is severely wounded (thrice acc. to Yaj, Vas and Gaut.) and is unable to restore the wealth to the brāhmaṇa he becomes free from the grave sin of brāhmaṇa murder. Manu XI. 82, Yaj III. 244, Śańkha and Gaut 22.9 lay down that if the murderer of a brāhmaṇa announces his sin when the king and priests have met together for the ceremonial bath after the Aśvamedha sacrifice and being permitted by them bathes along with them, he becomes free from the siṇ¹⁵ According to Haradatta this is an independent penance, while according to the Mit on Yaj III. 244, Aparārka p. 1057 and others it is not so but is to be performed while undergoing the 12 years' penance.

Yaj. III. 245 provides that if the murderer treats and cures a brāhmaṇa or a cow (or cows) lying helpless on the public road suffering from a long-standing and serious ailment he becomes free from the siṇ

Parāśara (XII. 65-67) prescribes for brahmahatyā the penance of going to the sea and Rāma's bridge, begging and declaring on the way one's sin, walking without an umbrella or shoes and residing in cowpens, forests, tīrthas and river streams; on seeing the setu he was to bathe in the ocean and on return to feed brāhmaṇas at a dinner and to donate 100 cows to learned brāhmaṇaṣ

There are other penances for brahmahatyā mentioned by Jamadagni, Atri, Kāśyapa and others quoted by Aparārka (pp. 1064-1065) and others which are passed over here for want of space.

If a brāhmaṇa killed his own father, mother, full brother, his teacher of the Veda, a brāhmaṇa who has studied the Veda or has consecrated sacred Vedic fires, he had to undergo penances till his last breath (acc. to Pr. Prakaraṇa p. 13 quoting Bhavisya-purāṇa, Pr. V. pp. 70-71, Smṛtimuktāphala Pr. p 873 quoting Dakṣa III. 27-28 and Āp. Dh. S I.9 24). If a man killed a priest that was engaged at a soma sacrifice the penance was double (Yaj III. 252). The Pr. Prakaraṇa (p 13) says that this means that the murderer should perform 12 years' penance and then donate cows¹⁶ in proportion to the difference between his IV] age at the time of finishing twelve years and 120 years (which is regarded as the highest limit of life). If a person strikes a brāhmaṇa intending to kill him but only injures him he should perform the vrata for brahmahatyā (acc. to Yāj. III, 252, Gaut. 22.11). The Mit. explains that this is an extension (atideśa) of the rules about brahmahatyā and so the penance is a little less than the full one (i. e. 9 years). Where certain sins are said to be equal (sama) to brahmahatyā or surāpāna, the penance for them is half of what is prescribed for the latter. If a person intending to commit suicide by entering water or fire or by hanging himself or by taking poison or by falling from a precipice or the dome of a temple or by cutting his belly with a weapon or by fasting, does not die, but luckily lives, he has to undergo a prāyaścitta for three years (acc. to Pr. Prakaraṇa p. 15). Vaṣ 23.18-19 and Parāśara XII.5-8 prescribe other prāyaścittas for such persons (who are styled 'pratyavasita'). Pr. Prakaraṇa (p. 15) and Pr. V. (p. 75) quote two verses of Yama¹⁶ for nine kinds of pratyavasita and prescribe Cāndrāyaṇa or two Taptakṛcchras for theṃ

If a kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra intentionally and directly killed a brāhmaṇa, the expiation was death, but otherwise each had respectively to undergo twice, thrice or four times as much prāyaścitta as a brāhmaṇa sinner would have had to undergo for killing a brāhmaṇa.¹⁷ Conversely, if a brāhmaṇa killed a kṣatriya or vaiśya or a śūdra the sin was only an upapātaka (acc. to Yāj. III, 236 and Manu XI, 66), unless the kṣatriya or vaiśya victim was engaged in performing a soma sacrifice (Sāmavidhāna Br. I, 7. 5, Yāj. III 251, Vaṣ 20. 34) when the penance was heavy. Yāj. III. 266-267, Manu XI. 126-130 and Āp. Dh. S. 1.9.24. 1-4 prescribe other penances for killing a kṣatriya, a vaiśya or a śūdra. The penance for a kṣatriya killing a kṣatriya is a little less (i. e. by ⅔) than the penance for a brāhmaṇa killing a kṣatriya. Vide the verse ‘vipre tu sakalam deyam’ quoted above (note 192).

Women victims were placed on the same footing as kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra males (Yāj. III. 236 and Manu XI 66), except the cases where the woman was an Ātreyī or pregnant or in her monthly illness (Gaut 22 17, Āp Dh. S. I. 9. 24. 5 and 9, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1.10, 12-13, Vas 20 34, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 50 7–9) or the wife of a twice-born performing a soma sacrifice, when the penance was heavy (like the one for brahmahatyā). The period of soma-yāga was reckoned from the Dīkṣaṇīyā iṣṭi to the Udavasānīyā (acc. to Aparārka). For killing women guilty of adultery the penances were higher and varied according to the caste of the paramour and of the woman (vide Gaut 22.26–27, Manu XI. 138, Yāj III. 268–269).

Manu (XI. 208 = Viṣṇu Dh. S 54 30) and Yāj III. 293 prescribe that for threatening to beat or strike a brāhmaṇa the penance is kṛcchra, for striking him it is Ati-kṛcchra, for shedding his blood a Kṛcchra and Atikṛcchra. The Samavidhāna Br. I. 7. 4 prescribes other penances (i. e. recitation of certain sāman texts) for these.

Gaut. 23.1, ¹⁸ Āp Dh S. I 9 25.3, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1. 21., Vaṣ 20.22, Manu XI. 90-91, Yāj. III 253 and Bṛhaspati prescribe that if a brāhmaṇa drinks intentionally spirituous liquor prepared from flour even once he has to undergo a penance that ends in death, viz. he has to drink that liquor boiling hot or to drink boiling hot cow's urine, milk, ghee, water or liquid cow-dung, and when his body has been completely scalded thereby and he dies he becomes free from that siṇ Some like Haradatta on Gaut. 23. 1 hold that this horrible penance is meant for one who knowingly and repeatedly drinks surā (manufactured from rice flour). Manu XI. 92 and Yāj. III. 254 prescribe another penance in place of the one ending in death viz. that the sinner should eat during one year (during three years, acc. to Yaj.) once (a day) at night the (boiled) small grains of rice, or oilcake, should wear clothes made of cow's hair, should have matted hair on his head and carry a flagstaff (with a wine cup thereon). The same rules apply to a kṣatriya or vaiśya drinking surā (manufactured from rice flour). Only they have as stated above (in note 192) to undergo three-fourths and one-half respectively of the penance for a brāhmaṇa sinner. This penance was to be undertaken after vomiting the contents of the stomach. According to the Madanapārijāta (p. 818), Pr. V. p 104, Pr Prakaraṇa p. 43, Mit. (on Yaj III. 24) and other works the twelve years' penance is meant for one who drinks surā (made from flour) through ignorance or force. According to Gaut 23. 2-3, Yaj. III 255, Manu. XI. 146, Atri 75, for drinking intoxicants or human semen, ordure or urine through ignorance a person of the three first classes had first to undergo the penance called Taptakṛcchra and then his upanayana was again performeḍ Vasiṣṭha 20.19 prescribes for drinking any intoxicant unintentionally the penances of Kṛcchra and Atikṛcchra, the drinking of ghee and the performing of upanayana agaiṇ There is great divergence of views about Manu XI, 146 and Yaj III, 255 which is passed over here. Bṛhaspati ¹⁹ quoted by the Mit., Aparārka and others prescribes that a brāhmaṇa who drinks surā prepared from raw sugar, flour and honey (or madhūka flowers) should respectively undergo Taptakṛcchra, Parāka and Cāndrāyaṇa. This light penance is restricted acc. to the Mit. and others to cases where surā is drunk for curing a malady which no other medicine could cure. If a brāhmaṇa drank surā (not manufactured from flour) or any other intoxicant, various easy penances were prescribed for him (such as undergoing Cāndrāyaṇa on a river falling into the sea, feeding brāhmaṇas and donating a cow and a bull to the brāhmaṇas, Parāśara XII 75-76). Vide Yaj. III, 255 and the Mit thereoṇ Kṣatriyas and vaiśyas incurred no sin by drinking intoxicants other than surā (made from flour) and the śūdra incurred no sin even by drinking surā of the paistī variety. The Mit (on Yaj III. 243) holds that since Manu XI 93 generally forbids the drinking of surā on the part of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas the prohibi- tion applies even to boys who have not undergone the rite of upanayana and girls who are not yet married and adds that for drinking surā the child has to undergo only one- fourth penance (for 3 years) if the offence was unintentional and double of that (6 years) if it was intentional (vide also Pr. prakaraṇa p 48). The Kalpataru, it appears, held, relying on Gaut II. 1 ('before upanayana a child may do as it pleases as regards behaviour, speech and eating'), that no sin (doṣa) was incurred by a child before upanayana and by a girl before marriage for drinking surā. The Pr. V (p. 104) and Pr. Prakāśa criticize the Kalpataru for this view.²⁰ As Bṛhaspati states (vide ṇ 188 above) the license allowed by Gautama is limited by the Mit and other digests to the par- taking of sour or stale drinks and the like and is not extended to drinking surā which is a mahāpātaka. Jātukarṇya²¹ (q. by the Par. M.) provides that if a boy whose upanayana has not been performed drinks an intoxicant (madya) through foolish- ness, his father, mother or brother should perform three kṛcchras as an expiation for hiṃ Angiras ( Jiv. p. 557), Āpastamba- smṛti III. 7, Laghu-Hārīta 34–35, Bṛhad-yama III. 1–2 also provide that a pratimūḍha (brother, father, friend) may undergo an expiation for a boy who is himself unable to do so or is less than eleven and above five years of age.

The Āśv. gr. (I 22.22–26)²² prescribes what is to be done and what is to be omitted in punar-upanayana. It provides that the rites of the cutting of the hair and the production of intelligence are optional, there are no express rules about giving the person in charge (of the deities) and as to the time, and the verse to be recited as the Sāvitrī is Ṛgveda V. 82.1 instead of the usual Gāyatrī (tatsavitur-vareṇyam, Ṛg. III. 62.10) IV] Vasiṣṭha 20.18 quotes Manu XI. 151 on this point²³ and Viṣṇu (Dh. S. 51.4-5) in prose is to the same effect. Viṣṇu (Dh S. 51. 2-3) provides Candrayana for drinking any of the (twelve) unclean excretions of the body (Manu V. 134) or any of the several kinds of intoxicating drinks and for eating garlic or onion or red garlic or any plant having a similar flavour or the flesh of village pigs, of tame cocks, of apes and of cows and then adds (in sūtra 4) that they (the sinners) must undergo fresh upanayana also The smṛtis provide different prāyaścittas for various lapses about drinking and eating such as drinking water from a pot which had already been used for holding sura, for drinking water from the water vessel of a candala or of a washerman or from a śūdra's house or for drinking milk which should not be drunk (Gaut 17.22-26, Yaj I.170, Manu V. 8-10), for eating forbidden food, which must be passed over here, because²⁴ they are too many and too various and depend on circumstances for their application as observed by the Pr. V are now of academic interest alone. Some reference, however, may be made to show how some of these lapses were treateḍ Sankha states that there are many articles that are allowed or forbidden to men, particularly to brāhmaṇas and in cases of transgressions the decision rests with the sistas (the parsad of respectable people). Bṛhaspati²⁵ (quoted by Aparārka) prescribes that in the case of the partaking of things that should not be licked or drunk or eaten or in case of taking in human semen, urine or ordure, the penance of a candrayana is the purification Some of the sages such as Samvarta, Sankha-likhita took a lenient view, prescribed Candrayana even for eating cow's flesh and human flesh.²⁶ The general rule stated by the Sāma Br. I 5 13, Manu XI, 160 and others is that one desirous of inner purity should not eat forbidden food, that if he eats it through ignorance he should make efforts to vomit it and if that is impossible he should quickly take some prāyaścitta (which is slight in the case of ignorance). It may be mentioned that even from very ancient times exceptions were recognised to the prohibitions against the partaking of forbidden fooḍ The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (I, 10)⁸⁷ narrates the story of Uṣasti Cākrāyaṇa, who when the country of the Kurus had been devastated by hailstones (or by locusts), begged (along with his very young wife) of a chief eating beans and took from the latter the beans that had been put away for the chief (and so were ucchiṣṭa), but when asked to take water for drinking meant for the chief replied that if he drank of it he would be drinking what was unclean, since he could get water whenever he likeḍ This Vedic passage indicates that even unclean things may be eaten when there is distress (āpad) or danger to life, but that when there is no distress or danger even one who has knowledge of brahmavidyā should not violate the injunctions of śāstra about eating. The Vedāntasūtra (III.4 28) has an aphorism on this incident. Manu X.104 provides that he who, when in danger of losing his life, accepts food from any person whatsoever is not tainted by sin as the sky is not tainted by muḍ Manu then refers (X.105-108) to the stories of Ajīgarta who, when famished, approached for slaying his own son, of the sage Vāmadeva who when tormented by hunger desired to eat the flesh of a dog in order to save his life and did not sully himself, of Bharadvāja who when distressed by hunger along with his son in a lonely forest accepted many cows from the carpenter Vṛdhu (Bṛbu?) or of Viśvāmitra who, well knowing what was right or wrong, proceeded, when tormented by hunger, to eat the haunch of a dog, receiving it from the hands of a Cāṇḍāla.²⁸ For eating the flesh of various birds Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 29 and 31 and others prescribe fasting for three days or one day and also for eating several varieties of fish (Viṣṇu 51.21).

We may now revert to the penances for the other Mahāpātakaṣ It has already been seen how the thief that had stolen a brāhmaṇa's gold of a certain weight was to approach the king with a club (p. 73 above). Even Āp. Dh. S. I 9.25.4 refers to this and prescribes as an option (Āp Dh. S. I 9 25.6-7) entering into fire as an expiation for theft or starving oneself by reducing the intake of fooḍ Therefore, the penance for the theft of brāhmaṇa's gold of the weight of 80 raktikās or more (Manu VIII. 134 and Yāj I.363) was death for the offenders of all varṇas, except a brāhmaṇa offender, who clad in rags (or bark garment) was to undergo a penance in a forest for twelve years of the same kind as for brāhmaṇa murder (Manu XI. 101) or for the drinking of surā prepared from flour (Yāj III. 258). The offender may also give as much gold (if he is rich) as his own weight or as much wealth as would be required for the maintenance of a brāhmaṇa's family for the latter's lifetime (Yāj. III 258 and Mit. thereon). The Āp Dh. S. I 25.8 provides the observance of the penance of Kṛcchra for one year (as defined in Āp Dh. S I 9 27 7-8) and quotes a verse “those who have committed a theft (of gold), drunk spirituous liquor, or had connection with a guru's wife, but not those who have slain a brāhmaṇa, shall eat every fourth meal-time a little food, bathe thrice a day, pass the day standing and the night sitting; after the lapse of three years they cast off their sinṣ”²⁹ The digests contain numerous and varying expiations for theft depending upon the weight of gold stolen, upon the qualities of the man robbed and of the thief, upon the caste of both, upon whether it is a first offence or a repeated one, on the price and nature of the thing stolen and on the time and place and so on Vide Pr V. pp. 117–127, Pr. Sāra p 49, Madanapārijāta pp 828–834, Smṛtyarthasāra pp. 108–109, Smṛtimuktāphala pp 883–885. These have to be passed over here for reasons of space,

If the gold stolen (even from a brāhmaṇa) was less than 80 raktikās or if gold of any weight was stolen from a kṣatriya or any other non-brāhmaṇa, the expiation would be as one for an upapātaka Manu (XI 162-168=Matsyapurāṇa 227. 41-47) and Viṣṇu 52. 5-13 prescribe various penances such as kṛcchra for a year for the theft of corn or cooked food or wealth; cāndrāyaṇa for abducting men and women (slaves) or for appropriating a field or house and the water of wells and cisterns; santapana for thefts of objects of small value; pañcagavya for stealing eatables of various kinds or a vehicle or a bed or a seat or flowers or roots and fruits; fasting for three days and nights in the case of theft of grass, wood, trees, dry food, molasses, clothes, leather (or armour) and flesh, subsisting for twelve days on small grains of rice for stealing gems, pearls, coral, copper, silver, iron, bell-metal or stones, subsisting on milk alone for the theft of cotton, silk, wool, animals with cloven hoofs (cows &c.) or uncloven hoofs (horses &c.), birds, perfumes, medicinal herbs or a rope (used for drawing water). It must be remembered as stated above (p. 74) that the thief had to restore to the owner the thing stolen and then undergo a penance (Manu XI.164 and Viṣṇu Dh S 52.14) and Medhātithi (on Manu XI 164) adds that if he is unable to restore the thing (or its price) the penance is to be double. Besides, in certain cases of theft if corporal punishment or death was not inflicted by the king, the thief was fined eleven times the price of the thing stolen (Manu VIII. 321, 323, Viṣṇu Dh S. 5,82) ²³³

Steya (theft) is of two kinds, by force (such as robbery and dacoity and called sāhasa) and by clandestine meanṣ In the former case the penance goes on increasing (twice, thrice) according as the offender is a kṣatriya or vaiśya (parsadyā brāhmaṇānām, quoted above, Par. M. II part 1 p.231) In the case of theft by clandestine means if the owner whose gold or wealth is stolen is a brāhmaṇa and the thief a kṣatriya or vaiśya, then also the penance must be higher than for a brāhmaṇa thief (since, as, Nārada says in his chapter on sāhasa verse 16, the wealth belonging to idols, brāhmaṇas and kings is the best) But conversely, if the owner of stolen property is of lower class than the thief then the verse of Bṛhad-Viṣṇu ('vipre tu sakalam deyam,' quoted above in note 192) will apply. The penance for incest with the guru's wife was prescribed from very ancient times as follows: Gaut. ³¹ 23. 8–11, Āp. Dh. S. I. 9.25. 1–2, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1. 14–16 (almost in the same words as in Gaut), Vaṣ 20. 13–14, Manu XI. 103–104 prescribe that the offender shall confess his guilt and then extend himself on a red-hot iron bed or embrace the red-hot iron image of a woman or having himself cut off his organ and testicles and having taken them in his joined hands may walk straight towards the south or south-west until he falls down dead and that he becomes purified by death. According to the Mit. on Yāj. III. 259 the three are not distinct penances, but that two of them, viz. embracing the red-hot iron image of a woman and sleeping on a bed of red hot iron form one penance. The words of Yāj. no doubt convey that the two together are one penance (viz. sleeping on red hot bed and clinging to a red hot image). Others like the Madanapārijāta (p. 837), Medhātithi ³² on Manu XI. 103 do not accept this interpretatioṇ The latter moreover relies on Gautama who employs the word ‘vā’ (or) in the two latter of his three sūtras on this point. The Pr. V. (p. 138) points out this difference between Gaut. and Yāj. Manu XI. 58 and 170–71, Yāj. III 231, Saṁvarta 159 regard sexual intercourse with a friend’s wife or a maiden of a higher caste and the wives of one’s son or of sagotras and women born of the same womb (sister &c.) or with an antyaja woman as equal to gurupatpagamana and the penance is only a little less than for the latter. Manu XI. 105 and Yāj. III. 260 prescribe a penance (other than one ending in death), viz. that the sinner should dwell in a tenantless forest, allow his beard to grow, should wear tattered garments and practise Prājāpatya Kṛcchra for one year (three years acc. to Yāj.). The commentators say that this was meant where the sin was committed by mistake. Manu XI. 106 and Yāj. III. 260 provide another penance viz. Cāndrāyaṇa for three months, Manu prescribing that the sinner should subsist on sacrificial food (fruits, roots or nīvāra grain) or on barley gruel and Yāj. adding that he should recite for the three months the Vedasaṁhitā. The commentators say that this applies in cases where the guru’s wife is of a lower varṇa or of the śūdra clasṣ Parāśara (X 10-11) provides three different prāyaścittas, viz. excision of the organ, three kṛcchas or three cāndrāyaṇas if a man commits incest with his mother, sister, or daughter and in X. 12-14 prescribes other penances for adultery with other near female relativeṣ The Mit. on Yāj. III 259 quotes Śaṅkha for twelve years' penance for all four kinds of Mahāpātakas, which applies acc. to it to intercourse with guru's wife of the same clasṣ It is not necessary to quote further smṛti passages which vary greatly as to the extent of the penance. Manu XI 178 (= Viṣṇu Dh. S. 53. 9 = Agnipurāṇa 169. 41), Śānti 165. 29 state that the sin which a twice-born man commits by sexual intercourse for one night with a vṛṣalī³³ (a cāṇḍāla woman) is removed by him by the penance of subsisting on alms for three years and reciting mantras (like the Gāyatrī). Āp. Dh. S. I 9. 27. 11 has a somewhat similar verse about a brāhmaṇa's intercourse with a śūdra woman³⁴. Yāj. III 233 prescribes for women death as a legal penalty and the same prāyaścitta as for a male if a man has sexual intercourse with his paternal or maternal aunt, or daughter-in-law, maternal uncle's wife and others (enumerated above) with their consent. Manu XI. 175 (= Laghu-Śātātapa 155 = Agnipurāṇa 169. 38) holds that a brāhmaṇa, who has sexual intercourse with a cāṇḍāla woman or mleccha woman or dines with cāṇḍālas or mlecchas or accepts gifts from them, has to perform penance as if he were patita if he unknowingly did these things, and because by committing these sins knowingly. Comp. Vasiṣṭha 23. 41, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 53. 5-6.

If a woman be guilty of a Mahāpātaka the general rule stated by Manu XI 176 (latter half), Kātyāyana and Bṛhaspati³⁵ was that whatever penance was prescribed for a male in cases of adultery with other's wives the same was to be administered to women in case of adultery with maleṣ In this parti- cular case the rule about half penance being prescribed for women did not hold good when a woman with full knowledge committed adultery and half penance was to be prescribed only where the adultery was through mistake. A similar rule was laid down by Angiras³⁶. If a woman became patita and did not undergo prāyaścitta she could be excommunicated by the process called ghataśphota (described in H. of Dh. vol. III pp. 615-616 and 1009). But there was a difference between a male and a woman in this respect. A woman, however, was not to be altogether abandoned on the street and left to fare for herself, though she be patita, but she was to be lodged in a cottage thatched with grass near the house and was to be guarded against further lapses and given bare maintenance (enough to keep body and soul together) and (dirty) clothes (Yāj. III. 296, Manu XI. 176). There were certain acts, however, which were specially condemned in women (Yāj. III. 297) viz. sexual intercourse with a man of a lower class, causing abortion and killing the husbanḍ Vaṣ 21. 10 provides³⁷ that four classes of women may be altogether abandoned (and not given even starving maintenance &c) viz. a woman who has sexual intercourse with (her husband's) pupil or with his guru or one who kills her husband or one who sexually approaches a man of a lower degraded clasṣ Women, however patita they may be, were to be dealt with as stated in Yāj. III 296 even if they did not perform any penance. Vaṣ 21.12 states that women of the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya and vaiśya classes, if guilty of sexual intercourse with a śūdra, can be purified by penance if they do not give birth to a child, but not those others (who give birth to a child born of the condemned connection). Vide H. of Dh. vol. III pp. 946-949 for penance and other matters in relation to adultery by men and womeṇ

It is now necessary to turn to the penance for association with those that are guilty of grave sins (mahāpātakas). Manu XI. 181, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54 1, Yāj. III 261 provide that whoever associates with (for a year, acc. to Yāj.) a person guilty of one of the four mahāpātakas has to undergo the vrata (the observances) prescribed for that grave sinner in order to free himself from the sin of association Kullūka, the Pr sāra (p. 61) and others state that the penance here referred to is the one for twelve years and not death since it is the word vrata that is employed by Manu and vrata does not ordinarily convey the idea of death.³⁸ If the association was due to ignorance the penance was half. Vyāsa prescribed ⁶ for the knowing associator ‡ ths of the penance provided for the sinner himself. According to the Pr. V (p 171) there was no difference in the extent of the penance for association with a sinner in the case of a brāhmaṇa ⁷ and a śūdra, though in other cases penance was reduced by one quarter for each varṇa. If the association was for less than one year, then the penance was proportionally reduceḍ Not only was the patita condemned but even his son born after he became patita and he was excluded from inheritance. But the daughter of a patita was treated differently and she could be married without any stigma being attached to the husbanḍ Vide Vaṣ 13 51-53, Yāj. III, 261, Bauḍ Dh. S II 1. 73-74, Harita q by Pr V. p 174 and Pr prakaraṇa p 110 and H of Dh vol III. pp. 614–616.

Viṣṇu Dh S (chap 36) speaks of certain sins as anupātakas which are declared by Manu (XI 55–58) and Yāj (III. 228–233) to be equal to or like one or other of the mahāpātakas and provides that those guilty of them become pure by Āśvamedha sacrifice or by resorting to pilgrimages It has also been seen that such sins are removed by the penances that are slightly less (i. e. by ‡th) than those for the mahāpātakas themselves

The penances for upapātakas must now be briefly dealt with. The number of upapātakas is very large and it is of no practical importance to deal with each of them separately First of all, some general rules about them will be stated and a few of them that are of some importance will be dealt with individually. The Sāmavidhāna ⁴¹ Br. (I 5.14) states that on committing several upapātakas a man becomes pure by reciting thrice the whole of the veda while fasting. Manu XI, 117, Yaj. III 265, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 37 35 prescribe that purification from all classes of upapātakas (except the sin of the avalaknin) is effected by the same penances that are prescribed for govadha or by candrāyana or by subsisting on milk alone for a month or by Parāka or Gosava. The digests prescribe that Parāka is meant for him who is strong enough to undertake it, Cāndrāyana for him who is weak, Gosava for him who repeatedly commits the same upapātaka or is guilty of several at the same time (vide Pr. Prakāśa, folio 122 a).

Govadha stands at the head of upapātakas in Manu, Yaj., the Agnipurāṇa (168 29-37). Several smṛtis provide different penances for the sin of killing a cow. Gaut. 22. 18 prescribes ⁴² the same penance for govadha as for killing a vaiśya (Gaut. 22. 15) viz. staying for three years in a forest, subsisting on alms, observing celibacy and donating one hundred cows together with a bull. In Āp. Dh. S. I. 9. 26. 1 for killing a milch cow or a full grown ox the penance is said to be the same as for killing a śūdra. Vaṣ 21. 18 provides that if a man kills a cow he should cover himself with the raw hide of the cow (that is killed) and should observe Krcchra or Atikrcchra for six monthṣ Manu ⁴³ XI, 108-116, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 50. 16-24, Samvarta 130-135, Parāśara VIII. 31-41 (q. in Smrtimuktāphala p. 875, prāyaścitta section) prescribe elaborate observances as penances for govadha Yaj. (III. 263-264) provides four separate prāyaścittas, viz (1) the killer of a cow should control his senses for a month, should subsist on pañcagavya (cow's urine, cow-dung, milk, curds and ghee), should sleep in a cowpen, should follow the cows so penned ( by day ) and at the end of a month donate a cow; (2) or he should perform Krcchra penance while sleeping in a cow-pen and following cows by day; (3) or should perform an atikrcchra in the same way; (4) or should fast for three days and donate ten cows together with one bull. Śaṅkha provides ¹¹ that the killer of a cow should fast for 25 days and nights subsisting on pañcagavya, should tonsure his head together with the top-knot, should wear as an upper garment cow-hide and should follow cows, lie down in a cow-pen and donate a cow. Some of the smṛtis and digests declare that the penance differed according as the cow that was killed belonged to a learned brāhmaṇa or to a mere brāhmaṇa by caste, to a kṣatriya or vaiśya or śūdra. For example, Devala (q. by Pr. V. p 202) states that if a cow belonging to a brāhmaṇa were killed, then the sinner should wear as upper garment that cow's hide for six months, should bring fodder for cows, should imitate cows, should subsist on barley gruel, should move among cows and then he becomes free from the siṇ Śātātapa (q. by Pr. V. p 203) states that one killing the cow of a vaiśya should subsist on pañcagavya for a month, should recite the Gomati-vidyā ¹² and stay in a cowpen for a month. Viśvāmitra (Pr. V. p 203) says about the killer of a cow belonging to a śūdra that he should undergo four kṛcchras if he kills intentionally and two if unintentionally. The Gomati-vidyā as quoted by Aparārka (p. 1102), the Madana-pārijāta (p. 862) and Pr. T. p 522 (which takes it from the Prāyaścitta section of the Kalpataru that takes it from Yama) is a laudation of cows: 'cows always emit fragrance, they have the smell of guggulu (bdellium), they are the support of beings, they are a great blessing, cows are (yield in their milk) the best food and the best offerings for gods; they are purifiers of all beings and offerings ooze from them; they please the gods in heaven by the offerings (of milk and ghee) that are rendered pure by the mantras recited over them; in the agnihotra (keeping up the sacred fire) of sages cows help to bring about homa; cows are the holy and eminent protection for all beings; cows are extremely holy and most auspicious; cows are blessed; salutation to cows that abound in wealth and are called saurabheyī! salutation to the cows that are the daughters of Brahmā. Brāhmaṇas and cows are (really) one family divided into two parts, in one (brāhmaṇas) reside the (vedic) mantras and in the other reside offerings (to Gods of ghee &c.)." The Pr. prakaraṇa ¹³ (p 33) says that Kātyāyana, Gautama, Samvarta, Parāśara and other sages prescribe differing penances for govadha, which are to be explained away by reference to the killing being intentional or unintentional, or to the fact of the cow being owned by a brāhmaṇa engaged in a soma sacrifice or by a brāhmaṇa who has studied the Veda with the six auxiliary śāstras, or by the fact that the cow was useful for the homa of a brāhmaṇa possessed of good qualities or was a pregnant cow or of the kapilā (brown or tawny) variety. It adds the important statement that in its days such cows being not found in ordinary life it is not necessary to expressly assign to each of those texts its appropriate subject matter.

Yāj. III. 284, ⁴⁷ Samvarta 137, Agnipurāṇa 169.14 provide that if a cow or bull dies while being treated with medicine or while an attempt is being made to help the cow in delivery, or being branded (as a treatment) there is no siṇ This applies as an exception in all cases of injury or death of brāhmaṇas, cows or other animalṣ Parāśara (IX. 4 ff.) and Angiras (q by Pr. T. pp 526-527) prescribe ³⁰/₄ and ³⁰/₂ of the prāyaścitta for killing out-right a cow, if the death is due to putting an obstacle in the cow’s or bull’s free movement or to tying it up or to yoking it with thongṣ Before undergoing a penance for govadha, the sinner had to make good the price of the animal to the owner, according to the Brahmapurāṇa and Parāśara.⁴⁸ The Sāmavidhāna Br (I 7.8) prescribes that on killing any animal (except a cow or bull) the guilty person should fast for one night and recite the sāmaveda verse ‘Agnis-tigmena’ (I 1 3 2) Āp Dh S (I 9.25.14) provides for killing a crow, a chameleon, a peacock, a chaḷavāka, hamsa, bhāsa, a frog, ichneumon, musk-rat, a dog the same penance as for killing a śūdra. Gaut 22 19–22, 24–25, Manu XI. 133-137, Yāj III 269-274, Viṣṇu Dh. S 50.25-32, Parāśara VI. 1-15 prescribe several penances for killing an elephant, a horse, a tiger, a monkey, a cat, a serpent and numerous other animals, which are passed over here Some smṛtis such as Samvarta 10 and Paithinasi make a difference between grāmya and āranya (forest) animals, in each class seven being specified by Paithinasi ⁴⁹ The great concern of the sages for anything possessed of the principle of life or growth went so far as to prescribe the penance of reciting one hundred ṛk verses if a man cut off big trees (like mango or jack-fruit tree) or shrubs and creepers, except for purposes of sacrifices or agriculture ⁵⁰ (Manu XI 142, Yāj III 276, Vas 19. 11–12) These provisions tended against wanton destruction of trees, shrubs and forests that are so beneficent to humanity and lend a charm to the landscape,

It is remarkable that in case a man was bitten by a harlot or a monkey or an ass or by a dog or jackal or a camel or a crow he had to perform (in addition to the pain of the bite) prāṇāyāma while standing in water and to drink ghee for purification (Manu XI 199, Yāj. III. 277, Vaṣ 23. 31) Parāśara V 1-9 prescribe elaborate rules of purification for bites by wolves, dogs and jackals (such as a bath and japa of Gāyatrī &c).

PĀRADĀRYA (adultery with another’s wife)—is a minor sin (acc to Yāj. III 235, Manu XI. 59). This excludes intercourse with guru’s wife and other intercourse declared to be like gurutaḷpagamana or with caṇḍāla women (Manu XI 170–172, 175, 178, Yāj III 231–233, Vas XX. 15–17 and XXIII. 41) Āp. Dh S. I 10 28 19 is very severe on a male adulterer who transgresses his vow of loyalty to his wife; one who proves false to his wife shall put on the skin of an ass with the hair turned outside and beg at seven houses saying 'give alms to him who played false to his wife'. This should be his livelihood for six months". Conversely, Āp. (I. 10.28,20) provides that if a wife plays false to her husband she should perform for as many months (i. e. six months) the twelve night kṛcchra penance. In another place Āp. Dh. S. (II. 10. 27. 11) states that if a brāhmaṇa commits adultery once with a married woman of equal class he shall perform one-fourth of the penance prescribed for an outcast. Gaut (22. 29-30, 34) provides penances for two years generally and three years if the woman be the wife of a learned brāhmaṇa. The Mit. on Yāj. III, 265 quotes numerous texts dealing with the penance for adultery that does not amount to a mahāpātaka and tries to evolve order by assigning to each its proper province. This is passed over here. A woman guilty of adultery with a male of the same or higher caste than herself had to undergo the same penance as a male adulterer (Manu XI 176 and Bṛhaspati), but if she committed adultery with a male of lower caste, then the penances differed as stated above (vide Vaṣ 21. 1-5 and Saṁvarta 167-172). Bṛhadyama IV. 48 states that adultery in the inverse order of classes is a grave sin, but adultery in the anuloma order of classes entails different penances for purification from it.⁵¹

Vrātyatā (failure to have upanayana performed at the right time)—A person whose upanayana is not performed at the proper time is called vrātya or patitāsāvitrīka. Vide Aśv. gr. I. 19. 5-7, Āp Dh. S I 1. 1. 22-26, Bauḍ gr. III. 13. 5-6, Vaṣ XI 71-75, Manu II. 38-39, Yāj I. 37-38. The penances also such as the performance of Vrātyastoma and Uddālakavrata (Vaṣ XI. 76-79, Gaut. 19. 8) are prescribed by some of these works, while Manu XI, 191 (=Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54. 26-27=Agni-purāṇa 170. 8-9) prescribes a milder penance of three kṛcchras and then Upanayana is to be performed agaiṇ Vaṣ XI. 77 describes Uddālakavrata as follows: 'for two months he should subsist on barley gruel, for a month on milk, for half a month on āmikṣā, for eight days on ghee, for six days on food obtained without begging or asking for it, for three days on water and he should observe a complete fast for one day.' Āp. Dh. S (I. 1.1. 24-27) prescribes another penance for vrātyatā. For vrātya or patitāsāvitrīka, vide H. of Dh. vol II. pp. 96, 376-379. Haradatta as quoted in H. of Dh. vol. II p 379 appears to hold that even if generations before the great-grand-father of a man had been without upanayana, still proper penance should be prescribed and the man taken in the fold of Hinduisṃ But there were others who stuck literally to the words of Ap. and Parāśara and hold that if all the generations from the father of the great-grand-father of a man were without upanayana then nothing could be done for that man ⁵²

Vratalopa (non-observance of the vow of celibacy on the part of a brahmacārin). A Vedic student who has sexual inter- course with a woman is technically called avakīrṇin The Tai. A. II, 18 contains the penances for avakīrṇin first promulgated by Sudeva Kaśyapa 251. Ap Dh S, (I 9, 26, 8-9) provides ⁵⁴ that such a student shall offer to Nirṛti (goddess of Hell or death) an ass according to the manner of Pākayajñas and that a śūdra shall eat the remainder of the offering. Jaimini (VI 8 22) provides that the offering is to be made in the ordinary fire (laukikāgni) and not in the consecrated Vedic fire, ⁵⁵ Vaṣ (23 1-3) prescribes ‘if a Vedic student approaches a woman, then hè should offer an ass to the goblins (raksas) in a forest where four roads meet, kindling an ordinary fire or he may offer an oblation of boiled rice to Nirṛti and throw into the fire four oblations of that food saying ‘To lust, svāhā; to him who follows his lust, svāhā; to Nirṛti svāhā; to the deities called Rakṣas, svāhā'. Gaut 23. 17-19, Manu XI, 118-123, Baud Dh. S II. 1. 35-43; Yāj. III. 280, Agnipurāṇa 169. 15-18, Pār gr. III. 12 contain similar provisions, Gautama adding that he shall bag for a year at seven houses with a red vessel (earthen) in his hand and proclaim his misdeeḍ The Bauḍ Dh S. and Pār gr furnish elaborate detailṣ The former states that the Paśupurodāśa may be offered to Rakṣas or to Yama or he may offer on the Amāvāsyā at night two offerings of clarified butter in fire after performing the preparatory rites of a darvi- homa and that he may then invoke fire with the verse (Tai. Ā. II 18) 'Sam mā ciñcantu marutaḥ &c.' (may the Maruts grant me long life and strength).

If an ascetic reverted to the life of a householder, Saṁvarta (171-172) prescribes the penance of kṛcchra for six months⁵⁶. Such a man is called pratyavasita. The pratyavasitas are said to be of nine kinds⁵⁷ by Yama (22-23), Bṛhad-Yama (3-4) and others viz. those who turn back from water, fire, halter (by means of which they wanted to kill themselves), those who revert back from the stage of sannyāsa or from a fast (unto death), or from poison, precipice or sitting dharaṇā and those who (desiring to commit suicide) strike themselves with a weapon (but are not killed), these nine are called pratyavasita and are beyond commerce with people, become pure by the penance of Cāndrāyaṇa or two Taptakṛcchraṣ Vṛddha-Parāśara quoted by Pār. M. and Prāyaścitta-muktāvalī provides that sannyāsins, who revert to the life of the householder, are to be treated as cāṇḍālas even after undergoing penance and their children born after they fall from the ascetic stage are to be made to dwell among cāṇḍālaṣ This explains the harsh treatment alleged to have been meted to the great saint Jñāneśvara and his brothers at Paithan in the 13th century. A person who after becoming a sannyāsin reverts to another āśrama or acts contrary to the rules of his āśrama is called ārūḍhapatra also (vide Par M. II, part I p 373 quoting Harita).

Elaborate purifications are prescribed for removing the taint of touching certain men, unclean objects like bones (Manu V. 87), women in their monthly illness or within certain days after delivery and animals (like dogs, village pigs, cocks, crows). They have to be passed over here for reasons of space. But a few passages may be cited by way of sample. Gautama ⁵⁸ (14.28) provides that on touching paṭita, cāṇḍāla, a woman freshly delivered, a woman in her monthly illness, a corpse, or on touch- ing any one who has touched any one of these or any one who is the third in contact, the purification is brought about by a bath with the clothes oṇ Manu V. 84 and Yāj. III. 30 contain similar provisionṣ The Pr. V. (pp. 495-499) discusses the question whether spaśa ⁵⁹ (touch) means direct touch or includes even indirect touch and ultimately arrives at the conclusion that indirect touch also is included and cites Āpastamba-smṛti in support that if a brāhmaṇa and a cāṇḍāla or the like are both seated on the same branch (without actually touching each other) the brāhmaṇa can become purified only by a bath. A verse quoted as Yājñavalkya's by Pr. Prakarana ⁶⁰ p. 110 (not found in the printed text) states 'on touching a cāṇḍāla, pukkasa, mleccha, bhilla, a pāśika (one coming from Persia) and the like and persons guilty of grave sins one should bathe with the clothes oṇ' The Sat-trimśan-mata ⁶¹ provides 'on touching Bauddhas, Pāśupatas, Laukāyatikas, atheists and those who follow forbidden actions, one should plunge in water together with the clothes oṇ On touching a caitya tree (such as a fig tree round which a platform is built), a funeral pile (or brick altar prepared in the śrauta rite called Agnicayana), a sacrificial post, a cāṇḍāla, one who sells the soma plant, a brāhmaṇa should enter water with the clothes oṇ' Samvarta⁶² requires a dvija to sip water on touching a shoemaker, a washerman, a rena (Manu X 19, 49, one who beats drum &c.), a fisherman, a dancer (nata) and Śātātapa⁶³ provides that if any lumb of a dvija (except the head) is touched by one who colours clothes, a shoemaker, a hunter, a fisherman, a washerman, a butcher, a thala (Thug), an actor, one who allows sexual intercourse in his mouth, a dog, a prostitute allowing men of all varnas to visit her, an oil-grinder, the keeper of a tavern, an executioner, a village pig or cock, he should wash the limb with water and perform ācamana. If the head is touched by any one of these, then he should bathe. In this connection it may be noted that Hemādri quotes (on p. 38) the Garuḍapurāṇa and (on p. 316) Parāśara for the 16 castes in a village that were treated as cāṇḍālas in the matter of touch, speech or sight. Devala (q. by Hemādri on prāyaścitta p. 312) says that Cāṇḍāla and Turuska (Turk) are equally low. The chapter on untouchables in the 2nd vol. of the H. of Dh pp. 165-179 may be consulted in this connectioṇ On pp. 175-176 of the same work references are given to verses of Atri, Śātātapa, Bṛhaspati and others stating that no purification is required on the ground of untouchability in the case of religious festivals and marriage processions, in battle, in the case of fire or invasion and similar calamitieṣ By no stretch of imagination can these verses be restricted to the untouchability arising from death or birth as some propose. to do. The words are too sweeping for this explanation and there being no untouchability on birth for any one except the mother and persons in mourning not being likely to join religious festivals and marriage processions those verses cannot be so construed

The smṛtis were very keen on keeping a high ideal before brāhmaṇas as regards receiving giftṣ The Sāma Br. (I, 7, 1-2) prescribes that if a brāhmaṇa receives a gift from a kṣatriya when not in distress (or difficulty) he should eat only one meal by day for a month and recite the Sāma verse ‘mahat tat somo mahiśaścākāra’ (Sāmaveda I 6, 1. 5, 10, No 542) for one month, while standing in water and if he accepts a gift from any one else from whom he should not accept it, he should undergo kṛcchra penance and recite the sāma verse ‘trikadrukeṣu’ (Sāmaveda I.5.2,3,1, No 457). Yāj I. 140 provides that a brāhmaṇa should not accept a gift from a king who is parsimonious (or greedy) and acts against the dictates of śāstra and Manu XI. 194 (=Viṣṇu Dh. S 54.24) provides that a brāhmaṇa should not be accepted or of the acceptance of a gift from a condemned donor by reciting the Gāyatri three thousand times (in a month) or subsisting on milk alone or staying in a cowpen for a month. It may be noted that Manu X. 102-103 and Yāj III. 41 allow a brāhmaṇa when in distress to accept a gift from anybody or to take food from anyone whatever or to maintain himself by teaching any one whatever and state that he is not tainted by sin in so doing, since he is like fire and water (like that of the Ganges) and since it is unreasonable (or impossible) to assert that what is pure can be sullieḍ Manu X. 109, however, regards acceptance of a gift from an unworthy (or low) person as worse than teaching an improper person or officiating for hiṃ A brāhmaṇa was not to sell things declared to be unfit to be sold by him such ⁶⁰ as sesame, oil of sesame, curds, bees’ wax (kṣaudra), salt, grapes, wine, cooked food, female or male slaves, elephants, horses, bulls, fragrant substances, liquids, silken cloth (kṣauma), black antelope hide, soma plant, water, indigo; by selling these he at once incurs siṇ As penance he should practise Tāpta-kṛcchra for a year after tonsuring his head, he should enter water thrice, wear only one wet piece of cloth, should observe silence, should practise the Virāsana, should sit up at night and stand by day, should recite the Gāyatrī.

One important matter dealt with by a few of the smṛtis and some of the digests is the re-admission into the Hindu fold of those who were converted by force by the invading mlecchaṣ About the meaning of the word mleccha, there is some diver- gence of viewṣ From the Śat. Br. (III. 21 23-24) it appears that the mlecchas spoke a degraded and corrupt speech (such as saying ‘helavah’ for ‘he’srayah’). Parāśara (IX. 36) refers to the mlecchas as the eaters of cow’s flesh. The Pr. T. (p 549) quotes a smṛti ⁶⁵ text to the effect that a mlacchs is an eater of cow’s flesh and talks much that is contradictory, and cites a passage from the Harivamśa for the manner of the dress and of the trimming of hair in the case of Śakas, Yavanas, Kāmbojas, Pāradas, Pahlavas &c. Vide for mleccha and for the return to the Hindu fold of those that were forcibly carried away as slaves by mlecchas and robbers or made to kill cows or to eat the flesh of asses, camels, village pigs, H. of Dh. vol. II p 92, 383-385, 389-392 (where verses of Devala ascribed by some like the Mit. to Āpastamba-smṛti are set out), 973-974 A few matters not dealt with there may be added here The Viṣṇudharmottara ⁶⁶ purāṇa (II. 73. 203-206) provides that when persons are kid- napped by mlecchas or raiders or persons passing through forests are so treated and return to their own country, the penances for purifying them from the sin of eating forbidden food are to be prescribed after considering their class (varṇa), viz that a brāhmaṇa should undergo half kṛcchra penance and should have the Upanayana performed again, a kṣatriya should undergo three-fourths of Kṛcchra (and also upanayana), a vaiśya one-fourth Kṛcchra and a śūdra becomes pure by undergoing only ¼ of a kṛcchra and by making a gift. In view of the fact that Manu VIII 169, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VII 6–7, Yāj II 89 declare that what is given by force, what is enjoyed by force and what is caused to be written by force and all transactions whatever that are brought about by force are void, and the burning desire of many people forcibly converted in times of disturbances to return to the Hindu fold and to the religion of their forefathers, the movement now called śuddhi should be encouraged by all interested in the well-being and stability of Hindu society. It is better to call this return by the name of 'parāvartana'. A model but brief rite for the parāvartana of those who were forcibly converted or for those who voluntarily left the Hindu fold but want to return to it is given in the Appendix. The same prayoga with suitable changes may be employed for taking into the Hindu fold any one who was not born a Hindu. In ancient times such people appear to have been taken into the Hindu fold by the perfor- mance of Vratyastoma. For this latter, vide H. of Dh, vol II pp. 385–387 and for the spread of Hinduism in Java, Bali, Sumatra, Siam and other countries of South-East Asia, vide H of Dh vol. III. pp 934–935. Recently, through the kindness of Dr. J. M. Unvala, I had an opportunity of reading several inscriptions of the 18th and 19th centuries at the fire temple called Jvālāji at Suruhani near Baku, the capital of Russian Azerbaijan, situated on the northern shore of the Caspian sea, which were inscribed by Hindu pilgrims or visitors, that begin with obeisance to Gaṇeśa and in one of which occurs the verse quoted below.⁶⁷

Manu XI 124 (= Viṣṇu Dh. S. 387) prescribes the pen- ance of Santapana for committing with full knowledge any of the deeds described above as jātibhramśakara and the penance of Prājāpatya for doing it unintentionally. For doing any of the deeds called saṁkarīkaraṇa or apātīkaraṇa described above, Manu XI 125 prescribes the penance of cāndrāyaṇa for a month and for doing any of the deeds called malāvaha prescribes that the perpetrator should scald himself with barley gruel for three days Those two verses of Manu occur in Agni-purāṇa (170. 23-25). Viṣṇu Dh. S. (39.2, 40.2, 41 5) prescribes somewhat different penances for saṅkarīkaraṇa, apātrīkaraṇa or malinī-karaṇīya deedṣ Vide also the Mit on Yaj. III. 290 for the penances prescribed for these deeds by Yama and Bṛhaspati. About miscellaneous pātalas the rule laid down by Manu XI, 209, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 42 2, Yaj. III 294 and others is that the penance should be prescribed by the brāhmaṇas after taking into account the nature of the deed, the ability of the perpetrator and other circumstances of time and place &c.

Some of the digests prescribe certain times for the perform-ance of penance. The first rule is laid down by Hārita that having done something sinful or improper through trustfulness, affection, greed, fear or heedlessness one should resort to puii-fication at once. Dakṣa⁶⁸ II. 73 also states that all naimittika and kāmya matters must be performed as they fall due and no delay should be causeḍ If more than a year is allowed to pass after the sin is incurred the penance would have to be double of what it otherwise would have been, according to Devala and Manu.⁶⁸ The Pr. T. (pp 474, 512) quotes a verse from the Vyavahāra-cintāmaṇi ⁶⁹ and an astrological work to the effect that a penance or ordeal should not be administered on the 8th or 14th tithi of a month, nor should an ordeal or marriage take place on a Saturday or Tuesday. The Prāyaścittenduśekhara (p 15) says that according to respectable people (śiṣṭas) the saṅkalpa (declaration of undergoing a penance) should be made on the 14th tithi and the actual rite should be performed on the amāvāsyā. If the guilty person is in mourning he may perform penance after the period of mourning is over.

The procedure for undergoing penances for sins and lapses prescribed by the assembly of learned men has varied in details from time to time. The Gaut. Dh. S. 26 6–17 prescribes the method of performing Krecchra penance It is briefly as follows: The sinner desiring to be free of sin quickly should stand by day and sit up by night (i e. should take sleep in a sitting position and not lie down), he should speak the truth and should not hold conversation with anāryas (śūdras &c.), should bathe thrice in the day, should perform mārjana (splash- ing or sprinkling water on the head and other limbs by means of kuśas dipped in water after repeating sacred mantras) with the three verses ‘āpo hi sthā’ (Rg. X.9.1–3), with the verses called Pavitravatī and with the eight verses beginning with ‘hiraṇyavarṇāh sucayah pāvakāh’ (Tai. S V. 6 1.1–8) Then he should perform the tarpaṇa ⁷⁰ (satiating with water) with thirteen mantras beginning with namah and ending with namah (each respectively containing 6, 4, 4, 13, 2, 2, 6, 5, 3, 2, 6, 2 names of deities) This constitutes for him the worship of Āditya (the Sun) and he offers oblations of clarified butter with these thirteen mantras and, after he passes twelve days in this way, on the 13th he offers nine oblations of boiled rice to Agni, Soma, Agni and Soma, Indra and Agni, Indra, the Visve Devas, Brahman, Prajāpati, Agni Svistakṛt Then he serves dinner to brāhmaṇas The Āp. Dh. S II. 6 15.9 states ⁷¹ the general rule that in all religious observances one should give dinner to brāhmaṇas that are pure (in conduct) and that have studied the Veda. The Baud Dh S. (II, I. 95–99) prescribes that in a krecchra penance one has to bathe thrice in the day, to lie down on the ground (not on a cot &c), to wear only one piece of cloth, to shave one’s hair on the head, the moustache and the body and to pare one’s nails, and that the same mode is prescribed too for women (sinners) except the tonsure of the head Manu (XI. 222–225) prescribes that in all penances there is homa with the mahāvyāhṛtis every day, the sinner has to practise ahiṁsā (non-injury to all sentient beings), truthfulness, absence of anger and straight-forwardness, has to bathe thrice by day and thrice by night together with the clothes on, he should not talk with women, śūdras and patitas, he should stand by day and sit down at night or if unable to do so he should sleep on the ground (raised platform called sthaṇḍila), should observe celibacy and the rules of a student, such as wearing girdle of muñja grass and carrying a staff (of palāśa &c ), should honour gods, brāhmaṇas and his elders, should always recite the Gāyatri and sacred textṣ Vaṣ 24.5 (a long prose passage) contains similar provisionṣ Yaj III. 312-13 are very important. They prescribe the practice of certain virtues and rules of conduct called yamas (such as brahmacarya, kindliness, forbearance, truthfulness, ahiṁsā &c.) and niyamas (such as bath, silence, fasting, purity of body &c.) as necessary adjuncts in all penanceṣ The Laugākṣīghya (V. 3-11) prescribes the procedure for all penanceṣ Yaj. III. 325 holds that one should, while performing the penance of kṛcchra or candrāyaṇa, bathe thrice daily, recite holy mantras (as stated in Vas 28.11-15) and should eat balls of rice over which the Gāyatrī has been reciteḍ Śaṅkha⁷² (18.12-14) also summarises the different items that have to be gone through in undergoing a penance. The Madanapārijāta (pp. 781-784), Pr. V. (pp 503-506), Pr. Sāra (pp 21,22 and 200-203), Pr. T. pp. 497-510, 523-524, Pr. Mayūkha pp. 18-21, Pr. Prakāśa (folios 38b to 43b), Prāyaścittenduśekhara (pp. 15 and 88) and other works provide elaborate rules about the procedure of undergoing prāyaścittaṣ It is not possible nor necessary to set out these in detail here. Briefly put, on the day previous to the actual day of commencing penance the sinner should pare his nails, shave his head, bathe with clay, cow-dung, holy water &c, drink clarified butter, make a declaration of performing the penance indicated by the assembly of learned meṇ On the next day he should bathe, perform śrāddha, drink pañcagavya, should perform homa, give dakṣiṇā (gold, cows &c.) to the brāhmaṇas and feed theṃ Parāśara (XI.3) says that at the end of the rite of penance pañcagavya should be taken and one, two, three or four cows should be donated respectively by a brāhmaṇa, a kṣatriya, a vaiśya and a śūdra. Yama (verse 63) says that brāhmaṇas should be fed on the performance of a penance and a dakṣiṇā of one golden māṣa should be given to each brāhmaṇa. Jābāli says that at the beginning and close of all penances the sinner should offer in the smārta fire oblations of clarified butter to the accompaniment of the Vyāhṛtis, perform śrāddha and offer dakṣiṇā consisting of a cow or golḍ Vide Aparārka (p. 1230) and Par. M II part 2 p. 195 for Jābāli's verseṣ The Pr Prakāśa (folio 30a) adds that according to the Mahārṇava the number of vyāhṛti-homas should be 28 or 108. A few words may be said about the tonsure of the head (vapana or muṇḍana). The Tai Br (I 5.6.1-2) states⁷³ ‘The Asuras first shaved the hair on the head, then the moustache and then the armpits, therefore they went down (or with face downwards) and were defeated, while the gods first shaved the armpits, then the moustache and then the hair on the head’. The Pr Prakāśa quotes this passage in a mutilated form and then states that vapana is of three kinds, daiva (of the gods), āsura (of the asuras) and mānuṣa (of men), that the āsura method is condemned, that in consecrating the Vedic fires, in the iṣṭis and soma sacrifices the daiva method is ordained, while in prāyaścittas, there being no special vidhi, there is an optioṇ Tonsure of the head is enjoined on several occasions e. g. the Viṣṇupurāṇa provides ⁷⁴ ‘Tonsure should be carried out at Prayāga when on a pilgrimage, and on the death of one’s father or mother, one should not in vain (lightly) tonsure the head’. To these occasions may be added penanceṣ The idea seems to have been entertained that whatever sin a man commits it becomes centered in the hair, as a verse quoted by the Madanapārijāta and Pr M. states ⁷⁵ Gaut. (27.3), Vaṣ ⁷⁶ (24.5), Bauḍ Dh. S (II.1.98-99) and others provide for the tonsure of the hair on the head and lips (except those on the eye-brows, the hair on the trunk and the top knot). Exceptions were introduced to the rule about tonsure Dakṣa⁷⁷ forbade tonsure, the offering of piṇḍas and the carrying of a corpse and all funeral rites to one whose father was alive and to a man whose wife was pregnant. But this prohibition did not apply to penanceṣ The Bauḍ Dh S already referred to prohibits the tonsure of women in penanceṣ Angiras 163, Āpastamba-smṛti I, 33-34, Brhad-Yama IV.16, Vrddha-Harita IX 386, Parāśara IX. 54-55, Yama 54-55 provide ⁷⁸ that in the case of married women whose husbands are alive and in the case of maidens all their hair should be held together and only two finger-breadths of hair should be cut off. In the case of widows and ascetics the entire head was to be shaveḍ It was further provided by Parāśara (IX 52-54), Sankha (q. by Par. M, II. part I, pp. 290-291) that in the case of a king or prince or a learned brāhmaṇa tonsure of the head should not be insisted upon, but that they should have to undergo double the usual penance and the daksina would have to be double. ⁷⁹ The Mit. on Yaj. III, 325 quotes a verse of Manu ⁸⁰ (not found in the printed text) 'tonsure of the head is not desired in the case of learned brāhmaṇas and kings except in the case of those guilty of mahapatakas, of cow-killing or of being an avakirnin'. The Mit. (on Yaj. III 264) further quotes Samvarta ⁸¹ to the effect that when the penance prescribed is only a quarter then only the hair on the body below the throat is to be shaved, when half is prescribed then in addition the hair on the lips is to be cut, when three-fourths then all the hair on the body except the knot is to be cut and in the case of the full penance all hair including the sikha (the top-knot) also are to be cut off. The Par. M (II part 1, p 300) while describing candrayana penance requires the cutting of the hair on all partṣ of the body (including private parts). ⁸² The tonsure is to be performed by a barber and yet the saṅkalpa is 'vapanam karisye' and not 'vapanam kārayisye'. From Gaut 27.3 (vapanam vratam caret) prescribing tonsure in cāndrāyana Haradatta and others infer that vapana is unnecessary in kṛcchra penance.

Baths that are subsidiary to prāyaścitta are performed with ashes, cowdung, clay, water, pañcagavya and water in which kuśa grass has been dippeḍ Mantras that are to be recited at the time of bath are laid down in the Liṅga-purāṇa, the Bhavisyapurāṇa and elsewhere.

There are certain virtues to be cultivated as being common to all prāyaścittas whether secretly or openly undergone. They are called yamas and niyamas and have been set out above (p. 121) from Yāj. III. 312–313. Atri (verses 48–49) sets them out somewhat differently. Manu IV. 204 (= Atri verse 47) refers to yamas and niyamas which Medhātithi explains as followṣ viz. yamas are in the nature of prohibitions (e. g. a brāhmaṇa should not be killed), while niyamas consist of what is to be done (such as one should always recite the Veda, as in Manu IV. 147).

While undergoing prāyaścittas certain rules about food and other matters were to be observeḍ For example, Hārīta ⁸³ prescribes that the person undergoing penance should omit on all days māsa and mastīna pulse, honey, taking food at the house of or belonging to others and sexual intercourse, should not speak at an improper time, should perform ācamana if he speaks with women or śūdras or those who are ucchiṣṭa. Yama ordains that one who is undergoing a penance should omit massaging the body or head with oil, the chewing of tāmbūla, applying unguents and every thing else that causes one to feel strength or sexual passioṇ

According to the Pr. ⁸⁴ Prakāśa when undertaking a penance one should begin with the mantra ‘Agne vratapate’. vratam cariṣyāmi' (O! Fire, lord of vratas! I shall perform a vrāta) and when finishing a penance one should repeat the mantra 'agne vratapate vratam-acāriṣam tad-aśakam tan-me rādhi' (O! Fire, lord of vratas; I have performed the vrata, I had the strength to do it, may it be propitious for me &c.').

Prāyaścittas are of two kinds, prakāśa (undergone openly) and rahasya (undergone secretly). A few words must be said about the latter. Gaut. (24 1–11), Vaṣ (25 1–3), Manu XI. 248–265, Yaj. III. 301–305, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 55 and other smṛtis lay down rules about secret prāyaścittaṣ Where a man’s⁸⁵ sin is not known to anyone except himself he may perform secret expia- tioṇ In the case of adultery and in the case of association with one guilty of a grave sin, one may still perform a secret penance, even though the adultery is known to the adulteress and even though the man guilty of a mahāpātaka is aware of the associatioṇ Vaṣ⁸⁶ 25 2 states the general rule that secret penances are meant for those who have consecrated the Vedic fires, who are disciplined, old or learned and that the openly undergone penances are meant for otherṣ If such a man is himself aware of the proper penance, he should perform it with- out going to an assembly ( parṣad ), but if he is not so aware he may consult some knowing person privately, asking him in a general way what the penance for a particular sin may be. Vaṣ 25.3 provides that those who are always intent on prāṇāyāmas, holy texts, gifts, homas and japa are released from siṇ Manu XI.226 states that those whose sins have not become public may be purified by homas and mantras. Even women and śūdras can perform penance in secret, since, though they cannot perform homa and repeat Vedic mantras, they can, as the Mit on Yaj III.300 says, perform expiation by means of gifts and prāṇāyāmas. Gaut 26 2 and Manu XI 253 prescribe that one who desires to receive a gift which he should not accept or who receives such a gift should recite in water (navel-deep according to some) the hymn of four verses beginning with ‘tarat sa mandi' (Rg X.581-4). For one who is guilty of brāhmaṇa murder Gaut. (246) prescribes that for the first ten days he should subsist on milk alone, on clarified butter for a further ten days, on water for another period of ten days, that he should partake of the articles specified only once in the morning, should wear wet clothes and should offer every day eight symbolic homas with clarified butter, of his hair on the body, nails, skin, flesh, blood, muscles, bones and marrow with the words 'I offer in the mouth of Death' added at the enḍ⁸⁷ Yaj III.301 prescribes that the murderer of a brāhmaṇa should fast for ten days, should recite the Aghamarsana hymn (Rg X.190) while submerged in water, donate a cow yielding milk, while Viṣṇu prescribes that he should bathe for a month in a flowing stream or river, should perform every day 16 prāṇāyāmas, should eat only once a day sacrificial food and may then become purifieḍ Viṣṇu provides that the drinker of sura becomes pure by observing the vrata (as stated) for brāhmaṇa murder and reciting Aghamarsana; while the thief of brāhmaṇa's gold becomes pure by fasting for three days and reciting the sacred Gayatri ten thousand times and one guilty of incest by the repeated recital of the hymn beginning with 'sahasrasirsa' (Rg X. 90).

The sages observed that some of the penances mentioned in old smṛtis were terrible and involved loss of life. Therefore, gradually more humane and easier penances came to be prescribeḍ For example, Harita⁸⁸ states 'brāhmaṇas who have studied dharmaśāstra should prescribe a penance appropriate to the age, the time and the strength of the brāhmaṇa (sinner), the penance being such that he may not lose his life and yet may be purified; one should not prescribe an observance that will cause great distress (to the sinner). Angiras also says that the pen sad should indicate the penance resolved upon by all the members which would not cause loss of life.' Sankha declares:⁸⁹ a brāhmaṇa should never practise the performance of a penance in a forest full of thieves, ferocious beasts, elephants and other animals through fear of injury to life. The body that is the all in all (i. e. the only source) of the observance of) dharma must be protected with efforts; just as water oozes down from the mountain, so dharma springs from the body'.

As times changed easier substitutes (called pratyāmnāyas) were found and prescribed The word pratyāmnāya was used in this sense in the Āp. Śr. S. V. 20.18 (yadyanādhyo-gnin- ādadhitā kāmam-evaikāṁ gām dadyāt sā gavāṁ pratyāmnāyo bhavatiti vijñāyate), 6 30 9 and Śāṇ Śr. S. 14 51.6 and other sūtras Samvarta ⁹⁰ states that if a sinner is unable to undergo the Prājāpatya penance, he may donate instead a cow yielding milk and if he cannot donate such a cow he may donate the full price of such a cow. Parāśara ⁹¹ (XII 63–64) provides four substitutes for a Prājāpatya penance viz the recital of the famous Gāyatrī mantra (Rg. III, 62 10) ten thousand times or 200 prāṇāyāmas, or bathing twelve times in a sacred watery place after drying the head on each bath, or taking to a journey of two yojanas towards a holy place. From the words of Gaut. 19 16 and 18 (quoted above in note 120) it follows that gold is a substitute for a cow by way of penance. The Brahmapurāṇa ⁹² provides that in the absence of a cow a niska or half niska or a quarter niska may be given The Caturvimśatimatā 293 provides several pratyāmnāyas for Prājāpatya viz recital of Gāyatri ten thousand times, standing in water, gift of a cow to a brāhmaṇa—these four (including Prājāpatya) are equal, as also a thousand homas with sesame, recitation of the whole saṃhitā of the veda, feeding twelve brāhmaṇas, Pāvakesti are equal. The Caturvimśatimatā ⁹⁴ stated that one should substitute the gift of one cow for Prājāpatya penance, of two cows for Śānta-pana, of three cows for Parāka, Tapta-kṛcchra and Ati-kṛcchra and eight for Cāndrāyaṇa The result was that from medieval times at least even in the case of mahāpātikas there was a sliding scale of penances ultimately ending in feeding brāhmaṇas or making monetary or other presents to theṃ For example, the Mit (on Yaj. III. 326) says that in the case ⁹⁵ of the twelve years' penance, optionally 360 prājā-patyas could be performed, each prājāpatya extending over twelve days, that if a man was unable to undergo this he should donate as many (i. e 360) milch cows, if that was impossible he may donate their price or 360 niskas or even half or quarter thereof &c. Yaj. III 309 provides (a lakh of) homas with sesame to the accompaniment of the Gāyatrī or making brāhmaṇas recite the Veda by the gift of sesame. Vas 28 18-19 (=Atri VI, 7-8) and Viṣṇu Dh S 90 10 state that by feeding seven or five brāhmaṇas on the Full moon of Vaiśākha with sesame and honey a man becomes free of all sinṣ These provi- sions are maintained in almost all medieval works such as the Smṛtyarthasāra pp. 149, 155, Prāyaścittasāra p. 203, Pr. T. pp. 517, 541, Pr. Mayūkha p. 18 &c The same method is followed in penances for lesser periodṣ It is due to this provision in the smṛtis that in modern times men, when on death-bed, perform prāyaścittas for all their sins by donating a cow or more or by monetary presents to priestṣ⁹⁶

Some interesting sidelights are thrown on the prices of milch cows, cows and bulls by the medieval writers The Pr. V. (p 199) states that the price of a milch cow (payasvinī) was 3 purāṇas, that of an ordinary cow (go) one purāṇa and that of a bull was five purāṇaṣ The Pr. T. (pp. 517–18) quotes Kātyāyana to the effect that the price of a cow (go) is 32 paṇas and that of a male calf one purāṇa, that a pana is copper weighing 80 raktikās or equal to 80 varāṭakas (cowries), that 16 paṇas were equal to one purāṇa (following Bhavisya and Matsya purāṇas), that by niṣka is not meant the one indicated by Manu (VIII. 137) but a dīnāraniska i. e. gold weighing 32 raktikās. The Prāyaścittuṅduśekhara p. 7 follows Yaj I 365 and holds that niṣka is silver equal (in weight) to four suvarṇas or a pala. A raktikā weighs on an average 1·8 grains; so a copper pana of 80 raktikās would weigh about 144 grainṣ Therefore a dhenu was equal to 32 paṇas (or two purāṇas) i. e. about 26 tolas of copper (one tola being taken as equal to 180 grains). Vide H of Dh. vol. III pp.120–121 notes 161 and 162 for information about ancient coins and their weightṣ There appears to be owing to lapse of centuries some difference in the views of several writers According to Vijñāneśvara four suvarṇas are equal to a silver niska According to the Līlāvatī 20 varāṭakas are equal to a kākinī, 4 kākinīs are equal to a pana and a niska is equal to 256 paṇaṣ