Page:The history of caste in India.pdf/81

 A theory was already current that whatever a man enjoyed or suffered was a result of his own actions. His bad actions would bear him bitter fruit, whether they were done openly or concealed either in that birth or in the one next preceding. Not only was he dissuaded from bad life by the terrors of possible retribution but he was also persuaded into a meritorious life by promises of birth in a family of a Brāhmana or of a king, promises of absolution, of heaven, of expiation of sins of himself and also of his ancestors.

So peculiar a system to regulate the conduct would not have been complete without what was called Prayaschitta or penance. This was primarily intended to expiate impurity, and to guard against retribution resulting from disapproved conduct. Punishments as well as penances had a power to free a man from guilt. When a man suffered a punishment for his wrong act, that wrong act would not affect his future, either in this world or the next, or in this life or the next. But punishments were too inadequate for the fulfilment of dharma. These penances were a necessary institution, to make amends for bad actions, of which the king did not take any notice, and also for offenses done secretly or remaining unpunished for various reasons.

Closely allied with these penances were austerities (Tapas), which if accumulated would guard a man from the chance of catching guilt in case he did wrong. These austerities became fruitless if the injunctions of dharma are broken.

The terrors of hell, the probability of having low birth, the penances, the likelihood of austerities being exhausted, the punishment by the king, all these were