Verse 11.170 [Expiation for Wrongful Sexual Intercourse]

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

गुरुतल्पव्रतं कुर्याद् रेतः सिक्त्वा स्वयोनिषु ।
सख्युः पुत्रस्य च स्त्रीषु कुमारीष्वन्त्यजासु च ॥ १७० ॥

gurutalpavrataṃ kuryād retaḥ siktvā svayoniṣu |
sakhyuḥ putrasya ca strīṣu kumārīṣvantyajāsu ca || 170 ||

If one has had sexual intercourse with his uterine sister, or with the wife of his friend, or of his son, or with an unmarried maiden, or with a lowest-born woman,—he should perform the penance prescribed for the ‘violation of the Preceptor’s Bed.’—(170)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even though the text speaks generally of ‘the penance prescribed for the violation of the Preceptor’s Bed,’ without any qualifications, yet it does not mean the application to the present case of what has been said regarding ‘sleeping on a redhot iron-bedstead,’ and so forth (under Verse 104); what it does mean, however, is the performing for one year of the ‘Prājāpatya penance,’ which has been laid down in Verse 106. That such must be the meaning is clear from the fact that the violating of the Preceptor’s Bed is a ‘heinous offence’; and apart from the ‘heinous offences,’ there is no penance leading to death; though there may be this in cases of repetition (of non-heinous offences also).

‘Svayoni’—uterine sister.

‘Wife of a friend.’—The consort of a loving friend; what constitutes the seriousness of this offence is the affectionate regard of the friend, and not any blood-relationship, nor any such qualification of the husband as Vedic learning and the like.

Similarly in the case of ‘the wife of his son’—the daughter-in-law.

‘Unmarried maiden’—of other castes also. This is meant to refer to intercourse with those who have not yet been given away by their fathers, and who have not surrendered themselves through love,—the intercourse being entirely by force.

In connection with this also, the exact penance shall be regulated by several considerations. Though the text has added no qualifications to the general application of the law relating to the ‘violation of the Preceptor’s bed,’ yet in any two cases there may be two distinct penances, as is actually found to be the case. For instance, on account of the comparative heaviness or lightness of the offence, there would, in the case of women of the lower castes, be the performance of the Cāndrāyaṇa for three months, which would be lighter than that of the Kṛcchra for one year (which would have to be done in the case of other women).

‘Lowest-born ’—Caṇḍāla and Mleccha women. In the case of Caṇḍāla women, a distinction in the penance has to be made on the ground of the act being intentional or unintentional,—as is clear from other Smṛti texts. For instance, in the case of women of the ‘antyāvasāya’ caste, the penance would be a ‘Half-Kṛcchra,’ while in others, it would be one lasting for twelve days.—(170)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 544);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 252), as referring to cases where the act is repeated for one month;—and again on p. 264, where it says that it refers to cases of repeated acts when unintentional, but a single act when intentional;—also in Prāyaścittaviveka (pp. 181 and 187), which says that this refers to cases other than those where the intercourse has been within the forbidden circle,—it explains ‘Svayoniṣu’ as ‘one’s own paternal and maternal relatives’—‘antyajāṣu’ as ‘Chaṇḍāla women—and ‘Gurutalpavratam’ as the ‘twelve years penance.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.170-171)

(See text under 49, above.)

Gautama (23.12, 13, 32).—‘The guilt of one who has intercourse with the wife of a friend, a sister, a female belonging to the same family, the wife of a pupil, a daughter-in-law,—or with a cow—is as great as that of him who violates the Guru’s bed. Some people declare the guilt of such a person to be equal to that of a Student who breaks the vow of continence. For intercourse with a female of one of the lowest castes, one shall perform a Kṛcchra penance during one year.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.13-14).—‘Intercourse with females who must not be approached, cohabitation with the female friend of a female Guru, with the female friend of a male Guru, with an Apapātra woman, or with a female outcast,......... the expiation is to live like an outcast for two years.’

Vaśiṣṭha (20.15-16).—‘The expiation for intercourse with the wife of a teacher, of a son, or of a pupil is that, having shaved all his hair and smeared his body with clarified butter, the man shall embrace the heated iron-image of a woman. If he has had intercourse with a female considered venerable in the family, with a female friend, with the female friend of a Guru, with an Apapātra female, or with an outcast,—he shall perform the Kṛcchra penance for three months.’

Viṣṇu (34.1-2).—‘Sexual connection with one's mother, or daughter, or daughter-in-law are crimes of the highest degree. Such criminals of the highest degree should proceed to the flames; there is no other way of atoning for their crime.’

Do. (53.1),—‘One who has had illicit sexual intercourse must perform the Prājāpatya penance for one year,—according to the rule of the Mahāvrata, clad in a garment of bark and living in a forest.’

Yājñavalkya (3.231-232).—‘Intercourse with a friend’s wife, a maiden, a uterine sister, with women of the lowest castes, with women of the same gotra, with a daughter-in-law,—is declared to be as heinous as that of violating the Guru’s bed. A man who has intercourse with his father’s sister, or mother's sister, or maternal aunt, or daughter-in-law, or step-mother, or sister, or his preceptor’s daughter, or his preceptor’s wife, or his own daughter,—is a violator of the Guru’s bed; he should have his organ cut off and killed; so also the woman who fell in love with him.’