Verse 11.146 [Expiation for the Sin of taking Forbidden Food]

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

अज्ञानाद् वारुणीं पीत्वा संस्कारेणैव शुध्यति ।
मतिपूर्वमनिर्देश्यं प्राणान्तिकमिति स्थितिः ॥ १४६ ॥

ajñānād vāruṇīṃ pītvā saṃskāreṇaiva śudhyati |
matipūrvamanirdeśyaṃ prāṇāntikamiti sthitiḥ || 146 ||

If one drinks wine unintentionally, he becomes pure by a sacrament; this, however, is not what should be prescribed in the case of doing the act intentionally; in which case there should be a penance involving death;—such is the settled law.—(146)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Inasmuch as in connection with this ‘Initiation,’ the use of the girdle-zone and other things has been forbidden, it follows that it stands here for ‘Initiation’; and on the strength of another Smṛti-text, this should be accompanied by the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra’ penance. Says Gautama—‘In the case of unintentional drinking of wine, one should live for three days upon milk, clarified butter, water and air, performing the Tapta-kṛcchra,—then should follow his Initiation’ (23.2).

The ‘wine’ meant here is not that which is distilled from grains, but those that are distilled from molasses and honey.

“From what does this follow?”

It follows from what we learn from another Smṛti-text—‘The Brāhmaṇa who unintentionally drinks wine other than that distilled from grains, becomes pure by subsisting, for ten days, on cow’s urine, and barley-products.’ So that in the case of the unintentional drinking of wine distilled from grains, there is to be an ordinary form of expiation (and not Re-initiation),—either in the one form of the penance involving the subsisting for one year on pieces of grain, or in the performance of the ‘Chāndrāyaṇa.’

In the case of the intentional drinking of even the two kinds of wine (that distilled from molasses and that distilled from honey), the aforesaid expiation should not be prescribed; in such a case, the expiation should be one that brings about the death of the offender.

“What expiation would this be?”

The same that has been prescribed above for the drinking of the wine that is distilled from grains, which is the most important form of wine.

This, however, should be understood to apply to cases of repeated drinking (of the two kinds of wine); since for once drinking wines other than that distilled from grains, the performance of the Cāndrāyaṇa penance has been laid down.

Thus the ‘settled law’ on this point is as follows:—(a) If one drinks intentionally the wine distilled from grains, there should be a penance ending in death;—(b) if he drinks that same wine unintentionally, and once only, he should live upon pieces of grain and perform the Cāndrāyaṇa;—(c) if he does it unintentionally, but repeatedly, then it shall be just as in the case of intentional drinking;—(d) in the case of the intentional drinking of other wines, one should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa;—(e) in the case of the unintentional drinking of these, once only, there should be the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra’ Initiation and subsisting on cow’s urine and barley-products;—and (f) in the case of unintentional, but repeated, drinking of these, it shall be just as in the case of the wine distilled from grains.—(146)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Anirdeśyam.’—‘What is stated in the first half is not to be prescribed in the case of the intentional drinking of Vāruṇī’ (Medhātithi and Nandana);—‘Any expiation involving death shall not be prescribed even in the wise of the intentional drinking of Vāruṇī’ (Nārāyaṇa and others.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1074), which explains the meaning to be—‘The intentional drinking of Surā is an offence for which no expiation can be prescribed by any Assembly; it has to be found out by the offender himself.’ It adds that the re-performance of the sacramental rites in itself cannot absolve the man from the sin; these rites have to be performed after the man has undergone the expiation specifically prescribed for wine-drinking.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.255), which adds that the sacramental rites are to be performed after the performance of the Tapta-Kṛcchra.

It is quoted in Parāyaścittaviveka (p. 100), which explains the second half to mean that ‘if one drinks wine intentionally, then the expiation just prescribed will not serve his purpose his only expiation will consist in giving up his life.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(See texts under 91 et seq.)

Gautama (23.2).—‘If the Brāhmaṇa has drunk wine unintentionally, he shall subsist for three days on hot milk, clarified hatter and water; and inhale hot air. This penance is called Tapta-Kṛcchra. After that he shall undergo a second initiation.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.19).—‘For unintentionally drinking wine one shall perform the Kṛcchra penance for three months and he initiated again.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.19).—‘If a Brāhmaṇa intentionally drinks liquor other than that distilled from rice, or if he unintentionally drinks liquor extracted from rice, he must perform a Kṛcchra and an Atikṛcchra, and after eating clarified butter, he initiated again.’

Viṣṇu (51.1-4).—‘A drinker of liquor must abstain from all religions rites and subsist on grains separated from the husk, for a year. If a man has knowingly tasted any of the excretions of the body, or of intoxicating drinks, he should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa penance. In all these cases, the twice-born man shall be initiated a second time, after the penance is over,’

Yājñavalkya (3.255).—‘On drinking the Vāruṇī wine or semen, or urine or ordure, unwittingly, the three twice-born castes shall undergo initiation a second time.’