Verse 11.181

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

यो येन पतितेनैषां संसर्गं याति मानवः ।
स तस्यैव व्रतं कुर्यात् तत्संसर्गविशुद्धये ॥ १८१ ॥

yo yena patitenaiṣāṃ saṃsargaṃ yāti mānavaḥ |
sa tasyaiva vrataṃ kuryāt tatsaṃsargaviśuddhaye || 181 ||

When a man associates with any one of outcasts, he should, for his own purification, perform the same penance that has been prescribed for that outcast.—(181)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For the atonement of the sin of associating with an outcast, the same expiation is to be performed which has been prescribed for that outcast himself.

In ‘eṣam,’ ‘of these,’ the Genitive has the sense of selection; the sense being—‘From among these outcasts, if a man associates with any one,—in the manner described in the preceding verse,—he should perform that same expiation which has been prescribed for that same outcast;—for the purpose of purifying—removing—the sin begotten by that association.’

This last phrase ‘for the purpose, etc.,’ serves only to fill up the metre.

As a rule, a man becomes degraded (an outcast) by repeatedly doing such degrading acts as not renouncing the company of outcasts. Now there arises the question—Does this mean that the degradation—the outcastness—that attaches itself to the associating person is direct,—or is it only the degradation of the outcast that becomes attributed to him indirectly? If it is something new, then it behoves you to point out the authority for the assertion that ‘there are five heinous offences.’ If it be held that in the case of the five, the degradation is direct, while in that of others it is indirect,—then there would be no point in making any such distinction. The acts being the same, the expiations being the same, what would be the use for attributing the degradation in one case, only indirectly?

Objection—Some people argue as follows:—“Usage does not always vary with purposes only, it varies on other grounds also. In the present case the distinction is based upon authoritative texts: For instance, in a case where, having asserted degradation, the text goes on to explain it as consisting in being deprived of the rights of twice-born men,—e.g., in 182 below,—as the character is mentioned as belonging to the man himself, the degradation is direct; on the other hand, where the character is spoken of—either by name or by indicative words,—as due to relations with the outcast, it is indirect. For instance, in connection with the names ‘Saurya’ and ‘Āgneya,’ no characteristic of the terms ‘Sūrya’ and ‘Agni’ is found to have been declared as belonging to the Saurya and the Āgneya, on the basis whereof there could be any transference of details from one to the other, which could bestow any peculiar character on them. (Vide Mīmāṃsa-Sūtra, 8.1.27-31).’

“This, however, is not right; because in the case cited, the terms ‘Sūrya’ and the rest are all-powerful, since they form part of the Veda, which is not the work of an author. The present treatise on the other hand, is the work of a human author, and how can any such author propound a distinction which does not exist in fact? There may be some kinds of distinction which may be admitted, when not opposed to well-known Perception or Inference. [But cannot justify the assuring of distinctions in all cases.] As for repetition, it means the doing of an act twice over; and it is in this sense that the term is used, even in cases where the act is repeated a hundred times; for in all cases, the character of ‘repetition’ is one and the same. In ordinary parlance also ‘repetition’ means only duplicating the act. So that whether an act is repeated twice, or a hundred times, the expiation due to ‘repetition’ shall be one and the same, as what is forbidden is a despicable deed; and whether a man sleeps twice during the day, or kills a cow more than once,—the condition that there is repetition of a despicable act is one and the same, which should lead to the same kind of ‘degradation.’ For these reasons what is here propounded needs to be pondered over—is open to doubt”

Answer—What is there that needs pondering over? That the five acts are sinful, leading to degradation, has been declared by all writers on Smṛti; as also that some other acts are similar to those five. There is no gainsaying these two facts; as for distinction among these, it can be made on the basis of ‘the capacity of the agent, the nature of the offence,’ and so forth (set forth in Verse 209 below). It can never be that what has been declared as similar to a certain act should stand on the same footing as that act itself; for instance, the cow cannot be the same as the gavaya. The fact of the matter is that on certain points the two acts differ between themselves, while On others they resemble, and hence come to be spoken of as ‘similar.’

From all this it follows that those also who are equal to outcasts become ‘outcasts,’ themselves; and in this case the expiation would be just a little less than that in the case of actual outcasts.

In connection with the question of being deprived of rights and privileges, some people put forward the special points that the man becomes deprived only of the right of performing the Śrauta rites, and not the Smārta ones.

It has been argued above that there would be no difference between doing an act twice and doing it a hundred times over. But as a matter of fact, there would certainly be a difference among the various degrees of repetition. How could the offence in both cases be of the same degree?

Another argument put forward is that—‘Sleeping during the day and cow-killing, both being forbidden acts, there would be the same degree of ‘degradation’ involved in the repeated committing of both these deeds. But how can the deprecation of the two acts be said to be of the same degree;—when, as a matter of fact, we find a distinction between the degree of sinfulness clearly set forth in the corresponding declamatory passages? And there is multiplicity of expiation also in cases where the prohibition is exceptionally emphatic.

The rule on this point is this:—That there is ‘degradation’ brought about by the repeated performance of forbidden acts is not true of all forbidden acts s for instance Verse 11.41 has declared that the killing of 1,000 animals of one kind is equal to that of a single animal of another; hence in several cases, even though a certain forbidden act may be repeated several times, there is no ‘degradation’ at all.—(181)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 851), which notes that in all these cases the lightness or heaviness of the expiation will depend upon the caste and capacity of the person concerned;—in Mitākṣarā (3.261);—in Parāśaramadhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 23), which defines ‘saṃsarga’ as travelling together, sitting together and so forth;—in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 141 and 165), which says that this refers to the Mahāpātakas only,—and that ‘Patita’ here stands for the mere ‘offender’ or ‘sinner’ (not literally, the outcast);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 356).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (54.1).—‘If a man associates with one guilty of a crime, he must perform the same penance as that person.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 1088).—‘If a sinful man associates with another man, the latter shall perform the same penance as the former, but only three quarters of it.’

Bṛhaspati (Do., p. 1087).—‘If a man associates with a sinner for six months, through sacrificing, teaching and the like, or though occupying the same seat or couch with him, he should perform half of that penance which has been prescribed for that sinner.’