Manava Dharmashastra 5.12

5.12

kalaviṅko grāmacaṭako nigameṣūktaḥ | grāmavāsitvāttasya siddhe pratiṣedhe punaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ striyāścaṭakāyā abhyanujñānārthaḥ | puṃśabdo hyayaṃ vṛṣabhavat | anye tvāraṇyasya nivṛttyarthaṃ manyante | te hi varṣāsu vanavāsino bhavanti | bāhulyavyapadeśācca grāmacaṭakā ucyante | yathā mahiṣā āraṇyāḥ |
plavahaṃsacakravākānāṃ vakṣyamāṇajālapādapratiṣedhātsiddhe pratiṣedhe nityārtha grahaṇam | ata āṭyādīnāṃ vikalpena bhakṣaṇaṃ gamyate |
grāmakukkuṭam | grāmagrahaṇādāraṇyābhyanujñānam |
“kutaḥ punarāraṇyasyābhakṣyatāśaṅkā” |
smṛtyantare hi “kukkuṭo vikirāṇāmiti” paṭhyate | ataścāviśeṣeṇābhakṣyatā prāptā vacanena | tasya sāmānyapratiṣedhasya viśiṣṭaviṣayatā prajñāyate |
“nanu vikalpaḥ kasmānna bhavatyanena śāstreṇāsyābhyanujñānācchāstrāntareṇa cāviśeṣeṇa tasyāpi pratiṣedhāt” | nāyaṃ vikalpasya viṣayaḥ | virodhe hi tulyabalānāṃ vikalpo na cātra virodho'sti | na hyanayoḥ smṛtyoḥ śāstrabhedo'pi | sāmānyasya viśeṣa upasaṃhartuṃ nyāyyatvāt | śākhāntarasmṛtītyasyāpyekaśāstrasya darśitatvāt | "yadyevaṃ jālapādapratiṣedhasyāpi haṃsādiviśeṣa evopasaṃhāro yukto nāviśeṣeṇa kākajālapādānāṃ sarveṣāṃ pratiṣedhaḥ" | bhavedevaṃ yadyapauruṣeyo'yaṃ granthaḥ syāt | bhinnakartṛke tvapauruṣeyatve na sāmānyasya kiñcitprayojanaṃ haṃsādiviśeṣamātraparyavasāne | bhinnakartṛkatve tu pauruṣeyatve sati sāmānyadarśino viśeṣaviṣayamajñānaṃ sambhavati, viśeṣadarśino'pi sāmānyaviṣayam | ubhayośca mūlakalpanāyāmekasya sāmānyavedanaṃ vacanamūlaṃ kalpyate, anyasya viśeṣavacanam | tayośca vaidikayorbhinnaśākhādhītayorasati śāstrabhede, ekavākyataiva nyāyyā | na ca vede paryanuyogo'sti, 'kiṃ sāmānyena yadi viśeṣaniṣṭhatā'; tasya karturabhāvāt | śrutāddhi tatra pratipattiḥ kevalaśabdaśaktisamāśritā | na prayojanavaśenārthāntarakalpanam | rajjudālādayaḥ śākunikebhya upalabdhavyāḥ |

The Sparrow, the Plava, the Haṃsa, the Cakravāka; the village-cock, the Crane, the Rajjudāla, the Dātyūha, the Parrot and the Starling.—(12).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Sparrow’, ‘Kalabiṅka’ (‘Kalaviṅka’), is the name of a village-bird described in the scriptures. Its prohibition being already got at by the general prohibition of all ‘village-birds’, the separate mention of the sparrow implies the catability of the female sparrow;—the term ‘kalabiṅka’ being a masculine just like the term ‘bull.’

Others have explained that this name has been added for the purpose of excluding (from the prohibition) the wild sparrow, which retires to the forest during the rains. They are called ‘village-birds’ because of their living in the villages during the greater part of the year; just as is the case with the ‘wild buffalo.’

The prohibition of the plava, the haṃsa, and the cakravāka being already got at from the general prohibition of all ‘web-footed birds’, the separate mention of these is for the purpose of emphasising the obligatory character of their exclusion.—the eating of the ‘Ātya’ and other ‘web-footed’ birds being regarded as optional.

‘Village-cock’—the specification of the ‘village -cock’ permits the eating of the wild cock.

“But why should there have been any suspicion regarding the non-eatability of the wild cock at all?”

Because another Smṛti text says simply—‘Among birds, the cock’, which indicates that all kinds of cock are equally ‘unfit to be eaten’; it is for this reason that this general statement line been sought by the present text, to be limited in its scope.

“But why cannot this he regarded as a case of option, since the present text permits the eating of the wild crick, which the other text forbids?”

This cannot he a case of option: it is a case of option only when there are two contradictory texts of equal authority hearing upon the same subject; in the present case however, there is no contradiction: there is no difference in the actual teaching of the two Smṛti-texts concerned: because it is quite reasonable to regard the general statement as restricted in its scope; specially as a third independent text has already been quoted above.

“If this be so, then the general prohibition regarding the web-footed birds may be taken as restricted in its scope to the Haṃsa and other specified birds: so that the prohibition does not extend to all crows and web-footed birds.”

This would have been the case if the Smṛti-treatises were not the work of a human author. In the case of works of non-human origin, if they proceed from different sources, there would be no useful purpose by making the general statement restricted to the particular case of the Haṃsa and other birds; while in the case of the work of human authors, if they proceed from different persons, it is quite possible that the person who knows the truth in its general form is ignorant of it in the restricted form, or the person who know it in the limited form is ignorant of it in the wider form; so that when we come to consider the source of the two statements, we assume the existence (in the Veda) of a general statement as the source of one, and a particular statement as the source of the other: and these two Vedic statements occurring in two different recensional texts, the only reasonable course is to construe them together, unless there are distinct injunctions bearing upon the two statements. Specially as no such complaint can be raised against the Vedas as—‘What is the use of the general statement if it is to be taken in its restricted sense?’ There is no room for such a complaint, because there is no author in the case against whom such a complaint could be raised. Specially as in the case of a Vedic statement, the only idea that is obtained is front the actual words of the text, only that which can be derived from the words themselves; and there can be no justification for the assuming of any other meaning, for any purpose whatsoever.

What the ‘Rajjudāla’ and other birds are is to be learnt from persons versed in the science of birds.—(12)