Verse 11.45

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

अकामतः कृते पापे प्रायश्चित्तं विदुर्बुधाः ।
कामकारकृतेऽप्याहुरेके श्रुतिनिदर्शनात् ॥ ४५ ॥

akāmataḥ kṛte pāpe prāyaścittaṃ vidurbudhāḥ |
kāmakārakṛte'pyāhureke śrutinidarśanāt || 45 ||

The learned understand Expiatory rites to pertain to cases where the sin is committed unintentionally; some people however assert on the evidence of ‘Śruti texts’ that they apply to cases of intentional offence also.—(45)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This declaration has been made for the purpose of indicating that in cases of intentional offence, the Expiatory Rite should be of a particularly serious character.

‘Committed unintentionally.’—They declare that Expiatory Rites are meant, to be performed in cases where the ‘sin’—the transgression of the ordinances—has been committed through negligence or want of care.

“What are the grounds for such an opinion? The law on the point is that—‘when a man transgresses an injunction and undertakes a wrong act, he shall perform an expiatory rite.’ So that there is no ground for any differentiation.”

Some people hold that if there were no such differentiation, there would be no point in the prescribing of special Expiatory Ṛtes for cases of intentional offence.

It is for this reason that the text puts forward another view, by way of a ‘Pūrvapakṣa’ a ‘contrary view’—‘They apply to cases of intentional offence also.’ According to this view the meaning of the Law would be that Expiatory Rites shall be performed in cases of intentional as well as unintentional offences.

‘On the evidence of Śruti texts’—One Vedic text indicative of the said view is found in the Upahavya-Brāhmaṇa (the story of Upahavya)—‘Indra gave away the ascetics to the dogs.’ Such giving away could never have been unintentional; and yet the story goes on to say, it was for the purpose of expiating this sin that Prajāpati made over Upahavya to Indra. Such is the clear meaning of the text—(45)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Cf. Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.28.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 705), which quotes a Vedic text to the effect that once Indra gave away certain sages to be devoured by the ‘Śālāvṛka’ dogs, for which sinful act Prajāpati ordained for him the expiatory rite called ‘Upahavya’, which is taken as implying that for intentional offences also there is ‘expiation.’.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.226), as indicating that expiatory rites are to be performed in the case of intentional offences also,—and not that the sin accruing from such offences is wiped off by these rites, in the case of ‘degrading’ offences.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Prāyaścitta, p. 152), to the effect that in the case of intentional offences, there can be expiation, only according to some authorities, not all;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 18), which says that stress is meant to the laid upon ‘akāmakāḥ’ as it is only for unintentional delinquencies that there is expiation, and in reference to ‘Śrutividarśanāt,’ it quotes the Śruti-passage describing the story of Indra and the Śālavṛkas.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.44-47)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.44.