Manava Dharmashastra 5.27.2

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).