The Efficacy and Merit of Cakra-tīrtha
ब्रह्महत्या तु ते जाता गच्छ त्वं च यथेप्सितम् ॥ श्वशुरस्य वचः श्रुत्वा जामाता वाक्यमब्रवीत् ॥
brahmahatyā tu te jātā gaccha tvaṁ ca yathepsitam || śvaśurasya vacaḥ śrutvā jāmātā vākyam abravīt ||
„Grzech zabicia bramina spadł na ciebie; idź więc, dokąd pragniesz.” Usłyszawszy słowa teścia, zięć odpowiedział.
Śvaśura (father-in-law) → then Jāmātā (son-in-law) begins
On what grounds can brahmahatyā be imputed, and how should one respond to such an accusation within dharma?
concerned; alert to the gravity of mahāpātaka discourse
Brahmahatyā (a mahāpātaka) is declared/imputed; the narrative turns toward determining culpability and the appropriate dharmic response.
If brahmahatyā is truly incurred, severe consequences and stringent expiations apply; false imputation or misunderstanding leads to wrongful action and further disorder.
Grave moral labels require correct knowledge of causation and association; dharma depends on discerning the true nidāna (cause) of pāpa.
Do not accept or impose mahāpātaka judgments without examining acts, intent, and qualifying conditions; seek śāstric clarification.
Varāha Purāṇa 162.39 (denial and inquiry into fault); Varāha Purāṇa 162.41 (association-based transmission/participation)
It demonstrates Purāṇic transmission of the mahāpātaka category (especially brahmahatyā) through narrative dialogue rather than abstract legal enumeration.
No geographic site is named in this verse.
Grave sin is presented as having tangible social consequences—here, expulsion or refusal of residence—prompting the accused to respond and seek clarification.
Answers come straight from the texts, with the shlokas they draw on. Ask in your own words.
A free sign-in with Google or Apple keeps your chat saved across web and the app.