Verse 11.190

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

बालघ्नांश्च कृतघ्नांश्च विशुद्धानपि धर्मतः ।
शरणागतहन्तॄंश्च स्त्रीहन्तॄंश्च न संवसेत् ॥ १९० ॥

bālaghnāṃśca kṛtaghnāṃśca viśuddhānapi dharmataḥ |
śaraṇāgatahantṝṃśca strīhantṝṃśca na saṃvaset || 190 ||

One shall not associate with murderers of children, ungrateful men, murderers of a refugee, and murderers of women,—even though they may have been duly purified.—(190)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Refugee’—He who, on being harassed by his enemies, or struck by some powerful person, seeks refuge with a person saying ‘save me,’—or a man who has committed an offence and comes to a learned man saying—‘save me, tell me what expiation I should perform.’ Both these would be ‘refugees.’

‘Ungrateful men’—Those who forget the benefit that has been conferred upon them by some one, and try to injure him,—or one who spoils the effect of the benefit he has himself conferred upon some one, and tries to undo it by doing him harm. Though both these men would be ‘kṛtaghna’ in the literal sense, yet in ordinary usage the name is applied to one who causes injury to his benefactor.

In this connection, there is no consideration of caste,—the only condition is that the persons murdered are^‘children’ and the like.

‘Women’—Even though they be unchaste. Though in these cases the expiation shall be light, yet association with them is directly forbidden by the words of the text.

‘Association’—Keeping company, living together.—(190)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1209), which remarks that the phrase ‘viśuddhānapi dharmataḥ’ clearly indicates that the expiations laid down in connection with the murder of women and other crimes do really serve to remove the sin involved.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 155), as indication of the view that in the case of heinous crimes, even after the prescribed expiration has been gone through, the offender is not fit for being associated with, even though for all spiritual purposes he may have become ‘purified’;—in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 21);—and in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 109), which explains ‘na saṃvaset’ to mean that ‘one should not associate with them in eating or any such act.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (54.32).—‘Let him not however, associate with those who have killed children, or with ungrateful persons, or with those who have tilled a woman, or one who came to him for protection,—even though such sinners may have secured absolution according to the Law.’

Yājñavalkya (3.299).—‘Those who have killed a person seeking protection, or a child or a woman, or those who are ungrateful,—with these one should not associate, even though they may have performed the requisite penances.’