Verse 11.47

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

प्रायश्चित्तीयतां प्राप्य दैवात् पूर्वकृतेन वा ।
न संसर्गं व्रजेत् सद्भिः प्रायश्चित्तेऽकृते द्विजः ॥ ४७ ॥

prāyaścittīyatāṃ prāpya daivāt pūrvakṛtena vā |
na saṃsargaṃ vrajet sadbhiḥ prāyaścitte'kṛte dvijaḥ || 47 ||

Having incurred the liability to an expiatory rite,—either by chance or by a previous deed,—a twice-born person shall not associate with righteous men, so long as the expiatory rite has not been performed.—(47)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘By chance’—through his own negligence.

Some people read ‘mohāt’ in place of ‘daivāt.’ It is only through folly (‘mohāt’) that people commit misdeeds; which man, who is not a fool, shall ever transgress a scriptural injunction?

‘By a previous misdeed’—Some evil deeds committed in previous life, whose effects have been already experienced, and which are inferred from such physical defects as disfigured nails and the like.

The meaning of all this is as follows:—Transgressions done in the present life are either intentional or unintentional; and the same should be inferred also in the case of acts done in previous lives.

“But what is the expiation to be done in the case of disfigured nails and such physical defects?”

The ‘Kṛcchra,’ the ‘Atikṛcchra’ and the ‘Cāndrāyaṇa’ are expiatory rites applicable to all cases; though Vaśiṣṭha has declared that ‘the man should perform that special expiatory rite somehow connected with that which is indicative of the previous sin.’

What the present text thus means is that those who have not performed the Expiatory Rite to which they are liable shall avoid associating with righteous men; i.e., they should not mix with them in study and such acta

Though the act of ‘associating’ pertains to both parties, and hence when prohibited in reference to one, it becomes forbidden for both,—yet the prohibition is again repeated (in 189) in the form that ‘righteous men shall not associate with them,’ and this is on account of the agents concerned in the two cases being different. If there were prohibition in reference to one party only, then a transgressing of this prohibition would render that, party alone liable to expiation,—and not the other party, even though the latter also would have done the act of ‘associating.’ Hence with a view to indicate the liability of both parties we have the two distinct prohibitions—one for the righteous and another for the unrighteous. The upshot of all this is that no one should associate with persons with black teeth and so forth, until they have performed the necessary expiatory rite.—(47)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 774), which adds the following notes:—‘Daivāt,’ i.e., for the sake of some offence committed during the present life,—or for that of some offence the antenatal committing of which is indicated by the presence, in the person, of such defects as consumption, rotten nails, black teeth and so forth,—one should perform the expiatory rites prescribed by Vaśiṣṭha; but the expiation performed should be that prescribed for the presence of the said defects, not that for the offences of which those defects are known to be the effects,—e.g. the presence of rotten nails has been held to he the effect of stealing gold in a previous life, or consumption is held to be the effect of Brāhmaṇa-slaughter committed in a previous life.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (Prāyaścitta, p. 2a);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka, (p. 141 and 148), as forbidding association with sinners.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.44-47)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.44.