7

As to why I was curious upon a question like this : given that ancient Hinduism has given world the popular literature work of kama sutra, so surely there must be some reference as to a thing like this in our religion, moreover this occupation/practice is as old as any other ancient puja or culture, so surely there must be a piece of script regarding this topic.

what I exactly seek to know : Are there any specific piece of literature discussing about this very topic ? Was this taboo practice considered a sin and why so ? Were there any instances where gods were directly involved in any such thing ?

N.B. : I don't wish to offend anyone.

Arnav Das
  • 741
  • 6
  • 18
  • 1
    Puranas do have stories of prostitutes where they got liberated after praying to Shiva or expiating their sins by visiting some Tirthas. – The Destroyer Oct 31 '16 at 15:43
  • "why was it allowed to continue then..." - why do you see it even now? why do you see adharma consistently across all yugas? – Say No To Censorship Oct 31 '16 at 16:50
  • @sv. I meant if such a practice was regarded as sin, why wasn't it abandoned legally, in other words anyone practicing those weren't punished, like thieves or burglars were. – Arnav Das Oct 31 '16 at 16:53
  • 2
    'why' is a difficult question, there cannot be a single correct answer. 'what' can be answered. why is prostitution still legal in some countries even today? what about gambling? consuming liquor? supply & demand. – Say No To Censorship Oct 31 '16 at 17:10
  • @sv. i now see your point, asking in 'why' in that sense is a bit ambiguous too – Arnav Das Oct 31 '16 at 17:33
  • there is nothing sruti texts. You can find some related references in smriti texts. You might try the laws of Manu. – Swami Vishwananda Nov 01 '16 at 04:35
  • possible duplicate of http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/8728/clarification-regarding-adultery-extra-marital-relations/8734#8734 – Swami Vishwananda Nov 01 '16 at 04:37
  • Gaṇikas or veśyās weren't punished on the basis of their jīvikā (means of livelihood), their jīvikā was accepted by the rājya, in pre-Izlamic India. They weren't seen as thieves/burglars or adulterers. @ArnavDas Also, you may check this answer https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/58183/24460 – Bingming Feb 12 '24 at 03:14

2 Answers2

7

Prostitution is always condemned in Hindu Scriptures.

Here are few verses from Parashara and the Manu Smritis:

66.By selling Wine and meat,by consuming prohibited foods,cohabiting with prostitutes a shoodra falls from his caste.(Parashara Smriti)

enter image description here

  1. On carnal intercourse with a beast, or a prostitute and the like, or with a female buffalo, or with a female camel, or with a she monkey, or with a sow, or a female ass, one should perform the Prajapatya penance.

enter image description here

Similarly, the Manu Smriti says:

4.84. Let him not accept presents from a king who is not descended from the Kshatriya race, nor from butchers, oil-manufacturers, and publicans, nor from those who subsist by the gain of prostitutes.

4.85. One oil-press is as (bad) as ten slaughter-houses, one tavern as (bad as) ten oil-presses, one brothel as (bad as) ten taverns, one king as (bad as) ten brothels

enter image description here

Were there any instances where gods were directly involved in any such thing ?

I don't know of any such instances.

Rickross
  • 111,864
  • 14
  • 239
  • 439
  • 1
    " a shoodra falls from his caste" -- so he becomes casteless? – Say No To Censorship Dec 01 '16 at 19:30
  • 1
    Yeah probably that is what is meant..he becomes an outcaste.. – Rickross Dec 02 '16 at 05:18
  • @sv. That doesn't make any sense, the Manusmriti specifically says there is no loss of caste for shudras and that they can consume any food they like. – Ikshvaku Sep 26 '18 at 02:49
  • @Rickross That doesn't make any sense, the Manusmriti specifically says there is no loss of caste for shudras and that they can consume any food they like. – Ikshvaku Sep 26 '18 at 02:49
  • What does not make any sense? @Ikshvaku – Rickross Sep 26 '18 at 05:31
  • @Rickross It doesnt make sense because Manusmriti says there is no loss of caste for Shudras, and that there is no prohibition of food for shudras. – Ikshvaku Sep 26 '18 at 06:24
  • I am not 100% sure regarding what u say is true or not but in any case it does not matter because Parashara, who is also an authority, says so. One scripture does not determine all the rules that's why we have so many scriptures. @Ikshvaku – Rickross Sep 26 '18 at 06:27
  • But I don't understand then why Nārada smṛti (12.78-79) doesn't consider copulation with a veśyā (prostitute) as a pāpa, unless she is already someone's wife? Does Nārada mean that it is not a daṇḍanīya aparādha like adultery, but it's still a pāpa? – Bingming Feb 10 '24 at 17:06
  • Also, I kinda find the translation of kuvarnnagamyāgamanaṁ śūdra patati tatkṣaṇāt problematic, agamyā strī doesn't necessarily mean a veśyā. For a Śūdra, an agamyā strī would be the one belonging to a varṇa preceding his own or a pratilomaja/anulomaja. Also, in the śloka 'pitṛdārānsamāruhya māturāptāṁ ca bhrātṛjām..', there is no Sanskrit term referring to prostitute. You are reading an incorrect eng. translation, and basing your interpretation on that basis. – Bingming Feb 10 '24 at 17:28
  • It's better to avoid eng. translations that are totally deviating from the Sanskrit śloka pitṛdārānsamāruhya māturāptāṁ ca bhrātṛjām is not talking about beast, cow, etc. in the first place. It's a completely incorrect translation, that you are reading. – Bingming Feb 10 '24 at 17:34
  • I would like to add agamyā strī includes one who is sagotra, gurupatnī, etc. too – Bingming Feb 10 '24 at 20:39
  • 1
    Thanks for your feedback @Bingming – Rickross Feb 11 '24 at 09:26
  • 1
    You can check my answer https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/58183/24460 on this post. I have quoted some ślokas. – Bingming Feb 12 '24 at 00:43
  • 1
    Upvoted the answer @Bingming – Rickross Feb 12 '24 at 05:11
  • Thank you very much – Bingming Feb 12 '24 at 07:56
1

For a saṁnyāsin/brahmacārīn (dvija in brahmacaryāśrama), maithuna (with anyone) is niṣiddhakarman.

Seeking services of veśyā (i.e. having maithuna with her, for a śulka) by a non brahmacārin/saṁnyāsin is not an aparādha with an associated daṇḍa, provided the veśyā doesn't belong to a varṇa preceding his own. Such a karman doesn't come under the criteria of saṅgrahaṇa (by taking into account the jīvikā of a veśyā), unless the veśyā is herself in a committed relationship with a man. As Nārada smṛti (12.78-79) states-

svairiṇyabrāhmaṇī veśyā dāsī niṣkāsinī tathā / gamyāḥ syurānulomyena striyo na pratilomataḥ // āsveva tu bhujiṣyāsu doṣaḥ syāt paradāravat / gamyāsvapi hi nopeyādyattāḥ paraparigrahāḥ //

In similar vein, Vātsyāyana in Kāmasūtra (1.5.2) states,

tadviparīta uttamavarṇāsu paraparigṛhītāsu ca / pratiṣiddho'varavarṇāsvanirvasitāsu / veśyāsu punarbhūṣu ca na śiṣṭo na pratiṣiddhiḥ / sukhārtatvāt //

As Vātsyāyana says, kāmasambandha with veśyā is neither pratiṣiddha nor vihita, because that is purely for ratisukha (not vivāha and santānotpatti). And that there's no doṣa in being veśyākāmī, as per him (veśyākāmino'yamadoṣaḥ - Kāmasūtra 2.9.27). It's important to note that Vātsyāyana is nowhere prescribing/commending taking the services of a veśyā, as becomes clearer in the later adhyāyas too, but is only discussing regarding it. Also, the sixth adhikaraṇa of Kāmasūtra, which contain six adhyāyas, deals with veśyās/gaṇikas primarily. If you are interested in knowing about their description, that would be helpful alongwith Yaśodhara's commentary Jayamaṅgalā. Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra also mentions important info related to veśyās/gaṇikas, including their business, etc. Samayamātṛkā by Kṣemendra satirizes veśyās and their business. Several Bauddha and Jaina śāstras too mention about veśyās and their business. So, the business of veśyās was actually a pretty established practice in even pre-12th century Bhārata.They weren't seen as unlawful, and the rājya accepted their practice.
However, that doesn't imply śiṣṭas approved of the veśyā-business.

Now, although anuṣṭhāna of such karman (taking services of a veśyā, considering the conditions above) doesn't bestow daṇḍa on the veśyā's client, it's still a pāpakarman on his part, as it makes him an adhikārin of prāyaścitta. This is stated by Nandapaṇḍita in his commentary Vaijayantī on Viṣṇusmṛti (53.7), after he quotes Nārada smṛti (12.78-79)

gamyatvaṁ ca daṇḍābhāvamabhipretya ; na tu prāyaścittābhāvam

Many śāstras state prājāptya as a prāyaścitta for gamana with veśyā

paśuveśyāgamane ca prājāpatyam // (Viṣṇu smṛti 53.7)
paśuveśyābhigamane prājāpatyam vidhīyate // (Atri smṛti 269 ; Mitākṣarā (2.290)

paśuveśyādigamane mahiṣyuṣṭrīkapīstathā /
kharīṁ ca sūkarīṁ gatvā prājāpatyavrataṁ caret //
(Parāśara smṛti10.16)

Nandapaṇḍita's Vaijayantī (53.7) mentions another prāyaścitta, ascribed to Yama

veśyāgamanajaṁ pāpaṁ vyapohanti dvijātayaḥ /
pītvā sakṛt sakṛttaptaṁ saptarātraṁ kuśodakam //

Were there any instances where gods were directly involved in any such thing ?

This is a really ambiguous question put forth by the OP. Is he trying to ask, if devatās were involved in 'prostitution'? If so, the question doesn't make any sense.

Bingming
  • 1,774
  • 1
  • 6
  • 36