Many people would be fined indeed and this rule makes sense. Especially, back then arguments amongst communities could destroy a rajya and civil conflict could lead to weakness allowing for invasion. The Dharmasastras are made in my opinion for the survival of a Kingdom and the fine seems not only humane but also just. Similarly is the exile versus killing of Nastika's followers. Love this answer, so many people judge Dharmashastras based on today's situation versus that of the olden times.

Upvoted a very good answer and get's straight to the point. :)

Love the addition of English translations as well very helpful and italicizing them makes it easy to read!

Also, these are old questions left unanswered I have regarding Dharmashastras. hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/57629/… and hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/57718/…

Thank you very much @Haridasa🙏

Historically, the followers of nāstikamatas, were usually not exiled, unless they perhaps really committed a serious aparādha. And usually, Buddhists, Jainas, etc. had the basic respect and decency for the traditions, that they wouldn't outrightly verbally do any nindā of devatās or mandiras. @Haridasa However, now I think, this rule should be applied and followed, because people are just taking abusing of devatās, etc. to be a casual affair, when it should not be tolerated.

I would agree and if I ran a theocracy I would, but I think it's far more pleasing to let them sin and we can either refute them or wait till they go to Naraka for their payment.

Btw Bingming do Dharmashastras allow for Co-habitation with Nastika faiths as long as they don't commit those insults?

@Haridasa I am not sure what you mean by cohabitation? Do you mean having a married relationship with them? Or do you simply mean living together with them, like with any other person within the same town, village, city, or country? If you mean the latter, I am not aware of dharmaśāstras really speak anything against it.

Bingming I mean the latter, I did hear the exile of a Nastika person as per I believe Manu I am unsure though.

Got from this hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/24516/…

wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/…

As for the wisdom.lib translation it seems the terms here are wrongly used. In the first case it seems to refer to materialistic men who show greed and the second case is for disbelievers in morality. I think this is in the context of law and not theology.

@Haridasa Here, nāstikam is defined by Medhātithi as "nāsti paraloko nāsti dattaṁ nāsti hutamiti." This seems more akin to a Cārvāka, than to a Buddhist or Jaina. This is because even though Bauddha and Jaina don't havanas, do not accept Īśvara, but they still uphold the sāmānya dharmas, hold dāna highly and accept a paraloka. Furthermore, Manusmṛti (8.309) still doesn't imply that the Rājā should exile the nāstikas.

However, if the nāstikas do commit aparādha, on the basis of their aśraddhā or otherwise, then surely they should be daṇḍita appropriately by the Rājā, just like anyone else in his prajā.

Bingming please elaborate I do not know those Sanskrit/Hindi words I am an English speaker only. :)

That nāstika might attain narakagati due to his/her aśraddhā or not, is beyond the sway of Rājadaṇḍa. @Haridasa But if a nāstika commits an aparādha, then s/he does fall within the sway of Rājadaṇḍa. Therefore, it's not like nāstikas can't stay within the rājya.

From what I know all good people and bad people go to Naraka for bad deeds and swarga for good deeds. So I do believe a disbeliever may go to Naraka to remove their ignorance, but if they're mostly good they'll certainly attain swarga as well. I believe the Mahabharata may support my stance.

@Haridasa Basically, one's aśraddhā simply, doesn't make one deserving of being daṇḍita by the Rājā. However, if one commits an aparādha, on its basis, then surely one deserves an appropriate daṇḍa for it. For e.g. just because a person A doesn't accept an Īśvara or svarga, doesn't make him/her deserving of being punished by the king, for s/he hasn't committed any fault in the legal sense. This is the dharmaśāstrika opinion

@Haridasa Rudely insulting or criticizing devatās and not believing in devatās by one's own self, are two different things. The latter may not necessarily insult the devatās. Although, s/he might commit pāpa by rejecting devatās, but not an aparādha, by just disbelief/rejection alone. So, it would be better, if you stop confusing the two things.

Not all pāpas are aparādhas. If a Brāhmaṇa drinks wine, he would commit a pāpa, but not an aparādha. The Rājā cannot give a daṇḍa to him, in this case. But Yama can surely give him a daṇḍa. Thus, the authority of governing such a pāpa or puṇya, is beyond the domain of the Rājā.

Understood sir :)

@Haridasa For e.g. If I don't accept the validity of Bauddha śāstras or Buddha, that doesn't necessarily imply I disrespect or insult the śāstras or Buddha. By just not accepting Buddha, I won't be insulting him actually. However, if I heap abuses, etc., then I would be insulting him. If I say wrong things about him, that would be insult too.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.