Manava Dharmashastra 5.27

5.27.1

agnīṣomīye paśau hutaśiṣṭaṃ māṃsaṃ lakṣaṇayā prokṣitamucyate | "nanu prokṣitaśabdo yaugika utsasecanetyasya dhātoḥ prakṣālanakriyānimittakaḥ | tathā ca 'prokṣaṇīrāsādya' 'ghṛtaṃ prokṣaṇīyamiti' 'prokṣaṇībhirudvejitāḥ stha' iti sarvatra kriyāyogātprayujyate | yadyāsecanasādhanam, tatra kuto vaidikasaṃskāranimittānāṃ svasambandhe paśusaṃlakṣaṇādvāreṇa māṃse pravartate | mukhyaṃ ca śabdārthamatikramya kimiti lakṣaṇā''śrīyate | ataḥ prakṣālitamudakādinā yuktam” | satyam | yadyatra vākyāntarāṇyarthavādāśca śeṣabhūtā na syuḥ—‘anupākṛtamāṃsāni’ ‘asaṃskṛtānpaśūnmantrairiti’ | atastatparyālocanayā'yamevārtho'vatiṣṭhate | “yadyevaṃ tata eva siddhatvātki manena” |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The remnant of the meat of the animal sacrificed at the Agniṣṭoma is figuratively called ‘consecrated’.

“The term ‘prokṣita’ literally means sprinkled with water, being derived from the root ‘ukṣa,’ ‘to sprinkle’; and it is in this sense that the word has been used in all such expressions as ‘bring the prokṣaṇī water-vessels,’ ‘butter is th e prokṣaṇa, the sprinkling-material,’ ‘prokṣaṇībhiḥ udvejitāḥ,’ ‘bothered by sprinkings (sprinklings?),’ and so forth. Thus then, if the word literally means ‘what is done by sprinkling,’ then why should such terms us are expressive of certain consecrations prescribed in the Veda, (such as sprinkling with water and the like), be taken as indirectly indicating the animal (sacrificed) and its meat? Why should the direct signification of the word be abandoned in favour of an indirect indication? For these reasons it is better to take the text to mean ‘meat sprinkled with water and such liquids’.”

What is urged would be quite true, if there were no other texts and commendatory passages bearing upon the matter; such as we have in the shape of such texts as ‘Unconsecrated meat etc.’ (Verse), ‘Animnls not consecrated with sacred texts etc.’ (36). A careful examination of all these texts leads to the conclusion that the meaning of the word is as we have explained it.

“If so, then what is said here being already mentioned in the texts quoted, what would be the use of the present text?”

5.27.2

kecidāhuḥ—anuvādo'yam | māṃsecchayā bhakṣaṇasya vidhistāvadayaṃ na bhavati kṣutpratighātārthino lipsayā pravṛttyupapatteḥ | sa hi vidhirucyate yaḥ puruṣasya dṛṣṭena prayojanena pravṛttāvasatyāṃ pravṛttyavabodhakaḥ, ‘yāvajjīvamagnihotraṃ juhuyāditi’ | śāstramevātra pramāṇam | yatra‘asminkṛte iṣṭamabhimatamabhinirvartate akṛte vā'nyamanartha āpatati’evamanvayavyatirekābhyāmavagamyate tatra na śāstrameva mṛgyate | yatra tu nāyamanvayato'vagamaḥ kevalārgamaikagocaraḥ sa vidhiriti cocyate | iha tu bhojane kṛte puṣṭirupajāyate, yadduḥkhaṃ tantrirteta iti, bālā api stanapāyino'nupadiṣṭamavayanti | niyamo'pi na bhavati, tadrūpānavadhāraṇāt | yadi tāvatprokṣitaṃ ca bhakṣayedeveti niyamastadā kālaviśeṣāvacchedābhāvādāhāravihārakālā apyavasīdeyuranavaratamaśnannevāsīta, aśakyaścārtha upadiṣṭaḥ syāt | yathoktam “aśrāddhabhojīti” ‘yadahareva pratyaveyāditi’ | mahābhāṣyakāreṇa vidhiviśeṣa eva ca niyama uktaḥ | asambhavati ca vidhau kuto niyamaḥ | na cānyena prokṣitamanyena labhyeta | tasmādayamanarthaḥ | atha—“prokṣitameveti aprokṣitaṃ neti parisaṃkhyā | na hi prokṣitāprokṣitobhayabhakṣaṇasya tyāgādaśanāyā nivṛttau yugapadparyāyeṇa vā pravṛttyā parisaṃkhyālakṣaṇasya vidyamānatvāt” | tathā'pyanupākṛtamāṃsānītyeva siddham | anye tvasya pakṣasyaivaṃ doṣamupapādayante | aviśeṣeṇa sarvāprokṣitapratiṣedhe śakunīnāmapi pratiṣedhaḥ prāpnoti | na ca yeṣāmeva prokṣaṇaṃ vihitaṃ teṣāṃ tu pratividhānādyabhāvāditi na viśeṣaparigrahe pramāṇamasti |

Some people say that the present verse is purely re-iterative. It cannot be an injunction of eating meat when one wishes to do so. Because the man who is hungry and wishes to cat meat can take to it through his desire to relieve his hunger (and he does not need an injunction for that). That is called an ‘Injunction’ which points to such activity of the agent as would not be possible under the influence of any ordinary visible motive; such injunctions, for instance, as ‘one shall perform the Agnihotra through out his life;’ and on such a matter, the scripture is the sole source of knowledge (and authority) available. We need not seek for scriptural authority in the case of the acts in connection with which we have the positive and negative notions to the affect that—‘if it is done, such and such a reward shall follow—,and if it is not done, such and such an evil shall befall us.’ And it is only when there is no such source of knowledge available, and the matter is knowable by means of scriptures alone, that it becomes a case of ‘Injunction.’ As regards the case in question, even infants at the breast know, without being told, that eating brings strength and removes pain. [So that the present text cannot be regarded as an Injunction]. Nor again can it be taken as a Restrictive Injunction, for the simple reason that no such sense of restriction is recognised (as conveyed by the words), (a) For instance, if the restriction were in the form ‘one must eat what has been consecrated,’—then, since no time is specified the due observance of this injunction would disturb the entire routine of food and rest, and the man may have to be eating constantly; so that an impossible act will have been enjoined in this case. It has been said that—‘one who eats not at Śrāddhas etc.’,—and again ‘the day on which he is remiss etc.’ Then again, the author of the Mahābhāṣya has declared that a Restriction is always supplementary to an Injunction; so that when there is no Injunction, how can there be any Restriction? What has been ‘consecrated’ by one man cannot be obtained by another man; so that every man will have to eat all the meat that he consecrates, and this would entail a great calamity, (b) If. on the other hand, the restriction be taken to be in the form of preclusion—‘one shall eat only what is consecrated, and not what is not consecrated,’—on the ground of its fulfilling the condition of ‘Preclusion’, that hunger cannot be alleviated except by the eating of both consecrated and unconsecrated food, either simultaneously or one after the other;—even so this would be already implied by what has been said above regarding ‘consecrated meat’ (in verse 7). (So that in this case also there would be no point in taking the present text as an Injunction.)

Others however find the following fault in the above view:—if all unconsecrated meat were forbidden, birds would fall in the category of ‘forbidden food’; specially us there is no authority for any such restricted view that those alone are forbidden in their unconsecrated form, in connection with which consecration has been enjoined (and no consecration has been enjoined regarding birds).

5.27.3

tadyuktaṃ manyante | evaṃ sati bhedena śakunīnāṃ pratiṣedhānukrameṇa, gamakatvāt | tasmācchrutakarmāṅgatvena niyamasya prokṣitamāṃsabhakṣaṇasyāyamanuvāda iti yuktaṃ dṛṣṭāntatayā | yathā yajñe'vaśyaṃ bhakṣyam, abhakṣaṇācchāstrātikramaḥ, evamuttareṣvapi nimitteṣu | anuvādaścetparisaṃkhyāpekṣā'pyastu | govyajamāṃsamaprokṣitaṃ na bhakṣayedityanenaitadanupākṛtānāmevāsadrūpamanūdyate aprokṣitasyāpi brāhmaṇākāmyādinimitteṣvanujñāpanārthaḥ | anyacca “anarcitaṃ vṛthāmāṃsamapi” (4 | 212) cāturthikena vṛthāmāṃsaśabdena etadanuparijñātārthamitarathā na vijñāyeta kiṃ tadvṛthāmāṃsamiti | athavā ekatra bhokturupadeśo'nyatra kalpayitvāyena devādyarcanaṃ na kṛtaṃ tadīyaṃ māṃsamanyenāpyatithyādinā na bhoktavyam | anadhikṛtenāpi devādyarcanena hyatithyādayaḥ paragṛhe tadīyena māṃsena devārcane'dhikriyante | atha kalpayitvā yadi kṛtaṃ tadā'rhatyaśitum | dvitīyastu pratiṣedho “devānpitṝniti” (32) svagṛhedhikṛtānāmakṛtavatāṃ bhakṣaṇāya | yastarhi "asaṃskṛtānpaśūnmantrairiti" (36) sa uktaḥ prokṣaṇaśabdārthaḥ | evaṃ pañcāpi niṣedhavākyāni pṛthagarthāni darśitāni | brāhmaṇānāṃ ca kāmyayā | 'kāmyā' kāmanā icchā | kāmyāśabdaḥ chāndasaḥ | "yadā brāhmaṇādīnāmaprokṣitānāmikṣamanujñāne, tadā kiṃ punarayaṃ niyamaḥ ? abhakṣye śāstrātikramaḥ ? uta pratiprasavamātram ? pratiprasave bhoktavyaṃ vivāhe punarbhoktavyamiti vacanādapi pratiṣedhāpravṛttirvivāhe gamyata" | na bhojanārthamāvaśyakaṃ kiṃ tu brāhmaṇeo yadi garīyāṃstadā tadvacanātikramo na yuktaḥ |

Some people regard this view as improper. Because even so, the text cannot but be regarded as implying (if not directly asserting) the prohibition of (unconsecrated) birds also.

For these reasons, in as much as every Restriction is subservient to some enjoined act, it appears better to regard the present text as purely re-iterative of the eatability of consecrated meat. Just as at sacrifices, one must eat the consecrated meat, and omitting to eat it involves disobedience of the scriptural Injunction, so would it be in connection with all other occasions (on which meat is consecrated). And when the text is purely reiterative, it may also imply a preclusion (as shown above). The rule that ‘one shall not eat the unconsecrated meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat’ would only be a reiteration of the uneatability of ‘unconsecrated meat’ (mentioned in verse 7);—this reiteration in the present verse serving the purpose of permitting the eating of unconsecrated meat also, ‘at the wish of Brāhmaṇas’, and under certain other circumstances (specified in the present verse).

Others again have taken the following view.—Under 4.213 we have the mention of ‘needlessly prepared meat,’ and the present verse serves the purpose of explaining what the ‘needlessly prepared meat’ is; as in the absence of this it could not be known what is ‘needlessly prepared meat’.

Or, it may be that in one verse we have the rule for the enter (who does the consecration himself), while what the other means is that other persons, guests and others, shall not eat the meat belonging to (and offered by) a person who has not performed the worship of the Gods, etc. (and consecrated the meat at it). In the event of the householder being somehow not entitled to worship the Gods, his guests and other persons would be justified in doing that worship for him; and if the meat has been consecrated at such a worship, then they may eat it. The second prohibition (of unconsecrated meat)—‘one incurs no sin by eating meat after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs’ (Verse 32)—is meant for those persons who are capable of performing the worship at their own house and have not performed it. What is stated in verse 36—‘animals not consecrated by sacred texts etc.’—is meant to be explanatory of what is meant by the term ‘consecration.’

Thus we have shown that all the five prohibitive passages have five distinct meanings and serve distinctly useful purposes.

‘At the wish of the Brāhmaṇas’—‘Brāhmaṇañca kāmyayā’—‘kāmyā’ is kāmanā, ‘wish’; the form ‘kāmyā’ being a Vedic anachronism.

“If this text permits the eating of unconscrated meat at the wish of the Brāhmaṇas, then what is the sense of this restriction? Does it mean that if one omits to eat at their wish, he incurs the sin of disobeying the scriptures? Or, does the present section set forth only a counter-exception? If it is a mere counter-exception, then such counter-exception, setting aside the force of the prohibition, would be available also in the shape of such assertions as ‘meat may be eaten at marriages’.”

The text does not mean that one must eat meat under the circumstances; all that is meant is that if the Brāhmaṇas are very superior persons, then the disobeying of their wish would not be right.

5.27.4

anye tu 'krītvādi' śloke (32) brāhmaṇānāmityanuvartya śaśādimāṃsasyāpi vidhimicchanti | yajñavivāhayoranyatra ca goṣṭhībhojanādau yadi brāhmaṇā abhyarthyante tadā teṣāṃ māṃsaṃ svarūpeṇa devoddeśikatayā na pratiṣiddham, avasthāviśeṣeṇa prokṣaṇaṃ devārcanādīni kartavyāni | viśeṣaḥ pratiṣiddhaḥ | tasya brāhmaṇakāmaninimitta abhyanujñātā, natu "kravyādānśakunān" ityādiḥ pratiṣedhasya--"nivṛttistu mahāphaleti" (ślo0 11) kṛtasaṅkalpasyāpyanujñānamiṣyate | prokṣite'prokṣite ca kṛtārcane'kṛtārcane vā | madhuparke ca śrāddhe ca niyukto'prokṣaṇenāpi bhakṣayet | eṣa hi yathāśāstraṃ niyogastatra śrāddhe niyamā uktā eva | "ketitastu yathānyāyaṃ" "kathaṃcidapyatikrāmanniti" (3 | 100) | śrāddhaṃ bhokṣye ityabhyupetyedamahaṃ nāśmīmīti na labhyate vaktum, abhakṣyamaśucikaraṃ vyādhijananaṃ ca varjayitvā, haviṣyavidhānānna bhakṣyaṃ yadyadrocate tattajñāprotikaraṃ dīyate | ata idaṃ vacanaṃ madhuparka eva | "nanu madhuparke nāsti niyogaḥ" | aśitavyaṃ madhuparkādharhyeṇeti niyamaḥ, nāsau madhuparkasya vidhiḥ | sa hi tatrādhikṛto na dhanyo rājādiḥ | yathaiva "nāsyātaśangṛhe vasediti" gṛhasthasya niyamo dṛśyate | etenāvagamyate apratike na jñātavyamiti | yaistu kāmacāra evaṃ pūjitasamādānena pūjyasyāśanena, na hi tattadarthaṃ karma | "nanu cātithyamevānityam" | satyam | dṛṣṭaṃ prītyutpādanena dharmārthamanuṣṭhānam | tasya niyamoktadharmārthameva dātustasya hi gorutsargapakṣe vihito "nāmāṃso madhuparkaḥ syāditi" | nanvārtvijye vacanasyāpi viṣaya iti cet |

When there is danger to life, even the Student may eat meat; and for him his young age would necessitate the performance of the expiatory rite as prescribed in the text—‘If the Student ever eats meat and honey, etc.’ (1?.158). Vyāsa has declared that when there is tear of losing one’s life through hanger, one may eat even forbidden meat; and by the instance of the ‘dog’s thigh’ (eaten by Viśvāmitra) it is indicated that such meat may be eaten, but once only.

5.27.5

astvayamapi pūrvavadanuvādaḥ śrāddhe ārtvijye ca | "nanu cārtvijye uktameva iḍādibhakṣaṇaṃ yajamānasya tatra śāstranibandhanā niyamaḥ, nartvijām" | satyam | kiṃtu ṛtvijo yadi na bhakṣayanti te pravādyante | aviditena bhraṣṭenāpi doṣeṇa yujyante | nanu teṣāṃ bhakṣaṇamadhikṛtānāmāstām | na hi te karmaphalena yujyante | bhṛtyādirhi parikrīto vihitānapadārthānanutiṣṭhati | vihitañca “yajamānapañcamā iḍāṃ bhakṣyantoti” | teṣāṃ bhakṣayato'syābhyupagatārtvijyānāṃ niyataṃ bhakṣaṇaṃ tadā tenānūdyata iti yuktam | na hi śrāddhabhujāmṛtvijāṃ ca bhakṣaṇe śāstrīyayogaḥ | yajamānasyaivānuvādaḥ kimartha iti cennānuvādaḥ prayojanamapekṣate | kiṃttvirhi prāptamasti cātrocyate | atrāpi yadā gopena govadhapūjā'bhyupagatā tadāvaśyamaśitavyam | tadanugrahārthamasau madhuparkapūjāṃ pratīcchati | ataḥ pūrvā tena kriyā sampādanīyā | anyathā prākramikasyābhāvādaparipūrṇena madhuparkeṇa tadanugrahā sampattestasminpratiṣiddhamāṃsāśane madhuparkapūjātvijyaṃ ca prathamasevābhyupagantavyam | brāhmaṇabhojane ca | brahmacāriṇastu vratavadanujñāna|danaśanameva grāhyaṃ māṃsasya |

When there is danger to life, even the Student may eat meat; and for him his young age would necessitate the performance of the expiatory rite as prescribed in the text—‘If the Student ever eats meat and honey, etc.’ (1?.158). Vyāsa has declared that when there is tear of losing one’s life through hanger, one may eat even forbidden meat; and by the instance of the ‘dog’s thigh’ (eaten by Viśvāmitra) it is indicated that such meat may be eaten, but once only.

5.27.6

prāṇānāmeva cātyaye | prakṛtatvāddevādyarcanamantareṇa abhakṣyamāṇe vyādhinā kṣudhā bhojanāntarāsambhave jīvanāśaśaṅkāyāṃ gojāvi bhakṣayitavyam | ‘sarvata evātmānaṃ gopāyedi’tyetacchrutimūlo'yaṃ niyamaḥ| ataścedṛśe nimitte māṃsamanaśnannātmahā sampadyate| ātmavadhaśca ‘‘sarvata evātmānaṃ gopāyettasmāduha na purāyuṣaḥ svaḥkāmī preyādalokyaṃ hyetadbhavatītyādi’’ śrutibhirmantrārthavādaiśca taddoṣavānneti jñāpitam | tathāhi mantraḥ ‘‘asūryā nāma te lokā andhena tamasā''vṛtāḥ | tāṃste pretyābhigacchanti ye ke cātmahano janāḥ ||’’ iti brahmacāriṇo'pi prāṇātyaye bhakṣaṇamiṣyate | tasyaiva bālyādyavasthānimittaṃ vācanikaṃ prāyaścittaṃ bhaviṣyatīti—“brahmacārī tu yo'śnīyānmadhu māṃsaṃ kadācaneti” (11|158) | kṣudhā tu prāṇātyayāśaṅkāyāṃ pratiṣiddhamāṃsāśanamapīti vyāsaḥ ( bra0 sū0 3| aprokṣitasyāpi chāgamāṃsasya devatādyarcanaṃ tu tairavaśyaṃ kartavyam | asambhave tu kasmiṃścidahani na doṣaḥ |

From this it follows that in the case of serious developments of diseases, where one cannot be sure that the man will certainly recover by eating meat, one shall not eat forbidden meat, such as that of the village-cock and the like; though it is permitted to eat such meat as has been consecrated or offered to the gods.

In the case of disease also one shall not eat meat for the purpose of recovering from a disease that may have just set in; but in the case of men who have become enfeebled and emaciated through disease, the eating of meat is always permitted: as asserted in the verse—‘Persons daily addicted to wine and women, consumptives, those emaciated through fatigue and disease, as also enfeebled patients, live upon the juices of meat.’ It is necessary for these persons to worship the gods in the case of the meat of unconsecrated goat: there would however be no harm, if on some day this be not found possible.—(27).

When there is danger to life, even the Student may eat meat; and for him his young age would necessitate the performance of the expiatory rite as prescribed in the text—‘If the Student ever eats meat and honey, etc.’ (1?.158). Vyāsa has declared that when there is tear of losing one’s life through hanger, one may eat even forbidden meat; and by the instance of the ‘dog’s thigh’ (eaten by Viśvāmitra) it is indicated that such meat may be eaten, but once only.