But later on he says: "If a wife, proud of the greatness of her relatives or (her own) excellence, violates the duty which she owes to her husband, the king shall cause her to be devoured by dogs in a place frequented by many."
"Let him cause the male offender to be burnt on a red-hot iron bed; they shall put logs under it" (until the sinner is burnt to death (viii, 371-2)).
Now the question before us is how this incongruity is to be construed. To get some light on the question, I have consulted more ancient works on dharma like those of Baudhāyana, Apastamba, Gautama and Vashishtha, but even there one finds the same contradictions. For example, Apastamba says: "He who has had connection with his teacher's wife shall cut off his organs together with his testicles, take them into his joined hands and walk toward the South without stopping, until he falls down dead. Or he may die embracing a heated metal image of a woman" (i, 26, 1-2). But again he says: "He who has had connection with his teacher's wife shall eat every fourth meal-time a little food, bathe at the time of three libations, passing the day standing and the night sitting. After the lapse of three years they throw off their guilt" (i, 26. 101). He has further on described various small or great punishments and penances for adultery with different kinds of women. Baudhāyana shows the same contradiction. To the violater of the Guru's bed he prescribes the same punishment as Apastamba does in i, 26, 1-2 (see Baudh. ii, 1, 13-15), but later on he expresses his opinion that if a person lives as an outcast for three years
