WYAVASTHA-DARPANA. 1 : 32 gold, non-payment (of the three) debts, application to the books of a false religion, and excessive *ntion to music or dancing;-stealing grain, base metals, or cattle, familiarity (by the twice**) with women who have drunk inebriating liquor, killing without malice a woman, a shadra, **, or a *śatriya, and denying a future state of rewards and punishments, are all crimes in the third degree, (but higher or lower according to circumstances)—Mass, Ch XI. V. 60–67.
- ansátka, on the authority of Raghunandana, holds only such degraded persons as have not performed penance or are averse from it to be really degraded for sin, and not entitled to inherit; thus: “One degraded for sin is he who has slain priests, or committed some other atrocious crime, and who has not performed penance, but ( on the contrary ) is averse from it; for Raghunandana says: ‘aversion from penance on the part of the fallen sinner contributes to the forfeiture of his right to his own property. His not being averse from penance contributes to his right in the paternal estate.”—Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. 315.
Raghunandana is also followed by Srikrishna Tarkālankára, who says: “Here expiatory penance having been ordained for a person degraded for sin, even by the gift (at the expence ) of his whole property, and so forth, the word ( degraded ) must be preceded by the adjectivial phrase ‘ averse from penance:’ degradation not preceded by (attended with ) the inclination of performing the penance is the cause of forfeiture of the right ( to inheritance.)”—Commentaries on the Dáyábhaga, Sans. p. 25. The above doctrine being, nevertheless, applicable to those degraded persons only for whom penance is ordained, the degradation not expiable by penance does always cause forfeiture of right. Now, as the penance for a degradation which causes the loss of easte, cannot restore the same, though it removes or expiates the sin, such degradation must always cause the forfeiture of right; because a sin has two effects,<-damnation to hell, and excommunication from Kociety,+ one of which is, in this instance, removed by penance, but the ( other, namely) excommunication from society, still subsists.-See Práyashchitta-tattwa. • As, with us, there was the lessd an greater excommunication, so, of offences considered with reference to their occasioning exclusion from inheritance among the 1/indus, they inay also be regarded in a two-fold point of view. This we learn from a case that was before the Sudder Pewanny Adawlut, in 1814, in which the official Pundits, having been referred to, distinguished between “those which involve partial and temporary degradation ; and those which are followed by loss of caste ;----øbxervi that “in the former state, that of partial degradation, when the offence which occasions it is 蠶 the impediment to succession is removed ; but in the latter, where the degradation is complete, although the sinfulness of the offence may be removed by expiatory penance, yet the impediment to succession still remains ; because a person finally excluded from his tribe must ever continue to be an outcast.” In the case alluded to, the party in question having been guilty of a series of profligate and abandoned conduct, having been shamefully addicted to spirituous liquors, having been in the habit of associating and eating 蠶 persons of the lowest description and Inost infauous character; having wantonly attack. ed and wounded several people at different times; having openly cohabited with a woman of the Mahousedan persuasion, and having set fire to the dwelling house of his adoptive mother, whom he had more than once attempted to destroy by other means, the Pundits declared that “of all the offences proved to have been committed by Sheonoth, one only, namely, that of cohabiting with a Mahomedan woman, was of such a nature, as to subject him to the penalty of expulsion from his tribe irrevocably;”—aud of this opinion was the Court.—Colebroke's remarks. See Str. H. L. vol. I. pp. 221-223. 111
