The Vedânta-Sûtras, Part II, with the Commentary by Sankarâkârya — SBE Vol. 38

If a BrahmaMrin for life breaks from inattention the vow of chastity, is he to perform the expiatory sacrifice enjoined by the text, ' A student who has broken the vow of chastity shall sacrifice an ass to Nirr/ti^' or not? — He is not, the purvapakshin says. For although in the chapter which treats of qualification (Pu. Mim. Su. VI, 8, 22) that expiatory ceremony has been settled (for Brahma>^arins in general), it does not yet hold good for the professed BrahmaMrin. For Smr/ti declares that such sins cannot be expiated by him any more than a head once cut off can again be healed on to the body, ' He who having once entered on the duties of a Naish//zika again lapses from them, for him — a slayer of the Self — I see no expiation w^hich might make him clean again.' The Upakurva;^a (i.e. he who is a BrahmaMrin for a certain time only, not for life) on the other hand, about whose sin Smrz'ti makes no similar declaration, may purify himself by the ceremony mentioned.

42. But some (consider the sin) a minor one, (and

' Cp. e.g. Apastamba Dharma-sutra I, 9, 26, 8. The passage quoted in the text is, however, a scriptural one.

Ill ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 42. 319

hence claim) the existence (of expiation for the Naish///ika also) ; as in the case of the eating (of unlawful food). This has been explained (in the Purva Mima;;2sa).

Some teachers, however, are of opinion that the transgression of the vow of chastity, even on the part of a professed Brahma/^arin, is a minor sin, not a mortal one, excepting cases where the wife of the teacher and so on are concerned. For they plead that that sin is not anywhere enumerated among the deadly ones such as violating a teacher's bed and so on. Accordingly they claim the expiatory ceremony to be valid for the Naish//^ika as well as the Upakurva;^a ; both being aHke Brahma,^arins and having committed the same offence. The case is analogous to that of eating. Just as Brahma/^arins (in general) who have broken their vow by eating honey, flesh, and the like may again purify themselves by a ceremony, so here also. — The reason for this decision is that for those who assume the absence of all expiation on the part of the Naish/z^ikas no scriptural passage supporting their view is met with ; while those who admit expiation can base their view on the passage quoted above (' A student who has broken the vow^' &c.), which makes no distinction between Upakurva;/as and Naish^'/akas. It therefore is more appropriate to assume the validity of the ceremony for Naish///ikas also. The principle guiding the decision has been explained in the chapter treating of the means of right knowledge (Pu. Mi. Su. I, 3, 8). — On this view the Smrzti -passage which declares that there is no expiation for the Naish//nka must be explained as aiming at the origination of weighty effort on the Naish//nka's part. — Similarly in the case of the mendicant and the hermit. The hermit, when he has broken his vows, undergoes the Y^xikkhx^. penance for twelve nights and then cultivates a place rich in plants. The mendicant proceeds like the hermit, with the exception of cultivating the Soma-plant, and undergoes the purifications prescribed for his state. The rules given by Sm/'/ti for those cases have to be followed.

p. 320

43. But (they are to be kept outside) in either case, on account of Sm;7ti and custom.

But whether lapses from the duties of one's order, committed by those who are bound to chastity, be mortal sins or minor sins, in either case such persons are to be excluded by honourable men (j-ish/as). For Smriti refers to them in terms of the highest reproach ; cp. passages such as the one quoted under Sutra 41 ; and the following one, ' He who touches a Brahma;/a that has broken his vow and fallen from his order, or a hanged man or one gnawed by worms must undergo the iTandraya/za penance.' And good custom also condemns them ; for good men do not sacrifice, study, or attend weddings with such persons.

44. To the lord (of the sacrifice) only (the agentship in meditations belongs), because scripture declares a fruit ; this is the view of Atreya.