Verse 11.209 [General Expiation: covering all Unspecified Cases]

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

अनुक्तनिष्कृतीनां तु पापानामपनुत्तये ।
शक्तिं चावेक्ष्य पापं च प्रायश्चित्तं प्रकल्पयेत् ॥ २०९ ॥

anuktaniṣkṛtīnāṃ tu pāpānāmapanuttaye |
śaktiṃ cāvekṣya pāpaṃ ca prāyaścittaṃ prakalpayet || 209 ||

For the atonement of offences for which no expiation has been prescribed, one should fix an expiation after taking into consideration the man’s capacity and the nature of the offence.—(209)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

For those wrongful deeds for which no expiation has been prescribed,—e.g., the killing of men belonging to the mixed castes of the reverse order, such as the Caṇḍāla and the like,—‘one shall fix the expiation.’

“In the present work itself, it has been declared that—‘for killing animals with bones, one may give something to a Brāhmaṇa’ (Verse 141); and this should include the Caṇḍāla and others.”

In that verse, inasmuch as the said animals are spoken of along with ‘boneless animals,’ it follows that only very small animals are meant; and what is there laid down cannot, apply to animals with very large bodies (such as human beings, etc.).

“It having been declared that there are only four castes, and no fifth one, the Caṇḍāla and other inversely mixed castes should all fall under the ‘Śūdra.’”

Simply because there is no fifth caste, it does not follow that the men in question must be Śūdras. Since everyone of these has a distinct characteristic of his own. For instance, ‘the Śūdra is born of a Śūdra father from a married wife of the same caste,’ while the others in question are all born of mixtures of castes. Consequently the expiation for the killing of these cannot he the same as that for the killing of a Śūdra. Nor could it he met by the ‘giving away of something to a Brāhmaṇa.’

‘Capacity’— of the offender to perform penances; i.e., it shall he considered whether the man is capable of performing a penance or making gifts.

‘Nature of the offence’—that is, for causing injury to living creatures, it shall he the expiation definitely prescribed for that offence; similarly for eating improper food; and so forth. Similarly the relative heaviness or lightness of the offence should also be taken into consideration.

“How can the heaviness or lightness of a certain offence be determined ? If it be held that it could be determined by the heaviness of the expiation prescribed for it,—then, it has to be borne in mind that what is asserted here refers to offences in connection with which no expiations have been prescribed.”

True; but an offence would be recognised as heavy when the declamatory passage in connection with it would be found to speak of grave evils attending it; as also when it would be found to be committed intentionally.

Further, the present text does not necessarily refer to only such offences as have no expiations prescribed for them. In fact, in other cases also the exact expiation shall he determined by considerations here set forth.

“How do you get at this?”

We deduce this from the fact that Expiation and Punishment stand on the same footing; and in connection with Punishments, the said considerations have been held to apply to the cases in connection with which definite punishments have been laid down, as well as those in connection with which no punishments have been definitely prescribed. Further, inasmuch as the texts have all along spoken of the comparative heaviness and lightness of offences, the determining of the exact expiation must depend upon the said considerations. For these reasons it follows that what, is here stated applies to all cases—those in connection with which special expiations have been prescribed, as also those in connection with which they have not been prescribed.—(209)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 42).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (54.34).—‘In order to remove those sins for which no particular mode of expiation has been mentioned, penances must be prescribed which shall be in accordance with the ability of the offender, and with the heaviness of the offence.”

Yājñavalkya (3.293).—‘In cases wherefore no expiation has been indicated, the penance should be prescribed after due consideration of the place, time, age, capability and the nature of the offence.’