Manava Dharmashastra 5.27.3

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.