New answers tagged

2

There is this following verse (11.140) which supports the commentator's interpretation (mentioned in this answer), that when a number of animals have been killed, one must perform the penance of killing a human being viz: a Shudra. Manu 11.140. But for destroying one thousand (small) animals that have bones, or a whole cart-load of boneless (animals), he ...


3

Medhatithi in his commentary for this verse says: Inasmuch as the expiation prescribed is a heavy one, it should be understood as applying to a case where all these animals have been killed. The purpose of this verse is to enjoin the type of penance that must be done for killing all these animals together. So, the verse is saying that the penance (...


7

Summary: (Read conclusion below for a summarised compact understanding, since answer is long.) Upapātaka doesn’t mean minor sin but general sin. There’s no hierarchy of sins per say except the 5 major ones and killing of women (or anyone) is in no way inferior. There is no differentiation between the killing of Men and women both have been accorded an ...


8

Why slaying a woman must be considered "just a minor offense" (upapataka) while killing a brahmin (ब्रह्म-हत्या) is a despicable unforgivable offense - mahapataka? Why such presumed inequality? Why did you cherry pick the mention of women from the verse and not the mention of kshatriyas, vaishyas, and shudras, which include men? Why shouldn't it ...


3

Why slaying a woman must be considered "just a minor offense" (upapataka) while killing a brahmin (ब्रह्म-हत्या) is a despicable unforgivable offense - mahapataka? Why such presumed inequality? These are mere categorisation of offences with their after-affects. After-effects ain't tantamount to punishment from the king. It's neither a minor ...


Top 50 recent answers are included