Manava Dharmashastra 5.5

5.5

laśunādayaḥ padārthā loke prasiddhā eva |
kavakaśabdo jātiśabdaḥ | kvacitkrayākuriti prasiddhe'rthe manyate | chatrākāni kavakānyeva | tathāhi kavakaśabdena pratiṣiddhaṃ, chatrākaśabdena prāyaścittaṃ vakṣyati ( ślo0 16 ) ‘‘chatrākaṃ viḍvarāhaṃ ceti” | na ca chatrākaṃ nāma padārthāntaraṃ prasiddham | na cāccharavaryāsāmānyena yo yacchatrākārastaṃ taṃ chatrākamiti yuktaṃ pratipattum | tathā sati suvarcalādīnāṃ samācāravirodhī pratiṣedhaḥ prāpnoti | tasmādyānyeva kavakāni tānyeva chatrākāṇi | tathā ca niruktakāraḥ—“kṣuṇṇāmahicchattrakaṃ bhavati yat kṣudyata iti”| tena yānyetāni bhūmāvakṛṣṭāyāmanupūūrvajāyāṃ ca sitavarṇāāni jāyante tāni ca kavakāni | vakṣyati ca “bhaumāni kavakānīti” | darśitaṃ ca ‘padā kṣuṇṇamiveti’ | pādaprahāreṇa yāni kṣudyante | yato yāni vṛkṣādgulmājjāyante teṣāṃ tadākārāṇāmapratiṣedhaḥ |
kukuṇḍāni kavakāni vaidyake vyākhyātāni | etacca vyākhyānaṃ na gavādiśabdavat | śāke kavakaśabdo loke prayujyate | ato'sya samācārādvaidyakādiśāstrārthe niścayaḥ | pradarśitaścāsau | laśunādīnāṃ tu samānavarṇagandhā api viṣṇunā pratiṣiddhāḥ | pārāśarikāyāṃ tu śabdenaiva niṣedhaḥ prāyaścittaviśeṣārtha uktaḥ "cāndrāyaṇamiti" (a0 11 ślo0 106) | tena lavatakakarṇikārādīnāṃ pratiṣedhaḥ | amedhyaprabhavānyamedhyajātāni ca saṃsargajātāni | anye tvāhūmūlavāstūkavatakevalāmedhyaprabhavānāṃ yuktaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ | tataśca yānyadhikapuṣṭyarthaṃ dhānyaśākādīnyamedhyakṣetrajātāni saṃsṛjyante tāni na duṣyantīti | tadayuktam | śruteḥ sarvasyāpyabhakṣyatvāt | ihāpi ca yadyamedhyasaṃsargamantareṇa na kiṃcidrastūtapadyate tataḥ syādapi | yatastu kiṃcinmedhyājjāyate kiṃcitsaṃsṛṣṭāttato'yaṃ pratiṣedhaḥ kevale'medhyaprabhave, na saṃsṛṣṭe, avatiṣṭhate | māṃsasya satyapi śukraśoṇitāmedhyaprabhavatve nāyaṃ pratiṣedhaḥ, pṛthakprakaraṇārambhāttasya |
47 ) "deśaṃ kālaṃ tathā''tmānaṃ dravyaṃ dravyaprayojanam | upapattimavasthāṃ tu jñātvā śuddhiṃ prayojayet ||” evaṃ vāsaḥsvapi kecidāhuḥ | "tribhya ūrdhvaṃ bahūni" | yadyapi triprabhṛtiṣu bahutvam, yato'lpānāmiti bahuvacanaṃ śrutamatadviparyantānyalpāni | adbhirityupalakṣaṇam | tena yasya vāsaso yenaiva doṣasaṃsargo vyapaiti tadapi draṣṭavyam | tacca prāgdarśitam | prokṣaṇasaṃbandho'bgrahaṇaniyamārthaḥ | udakenaiva prokṣaṇaṃ kartavyam | etenaiva ca bhedena dviḥpāṭhaḥ | etacca mahatyupaghāte śavapurīṣacāṇḍālādisparśe | anyathā tvalpānāmiti prokṣaṇameva | yadi prakṣālitasyāpi lepādi vāsaso nāpaiti tadā tanmātracchedaṃ "utsargo veti” gautamenoktam |

Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and all that proceeds from impure things, are unfit to re eaten by twice-born men.—(5).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The terms ‘garlic’ &c. are well-known among men.

The term ‘karaka’ is the name of a genus, sometimes regarded as the same as the well-known thing ‘kryāku’ (?); mushrooms also are ‘kavaka’; as it is forbidden under the name of ‘kavaka’, while the expiatory rite in connection with its eating has been prescribed under the name of ‘chatrāka,’ in verse 19; and no other thing (except the mushroom) is known by the name ‘chatruka’; nor will it be right to regard, on the basis of verbal similarity alone (between ‘chatrāka’ and ‘chatrākāra’, umbrella-shaped), all those things as ‘chatrāka’ which resemble the umbrella, are ‘chatrākāra’; as in that case the prohibition (of ‘chatrāka’) would apply also to the suvarchala and other things (which also are umbrella-shaped); and this would be contrary to all usage. Hence we conclude tha ‘chatrāka’ and ‘kavaka’ are one and the same thing. Says the author of the Nirukta—‘The chatrāka is kṣuṇṇa, since it is smashed.’ From this it is clear that the name ‘kavaka’ applies to those white shoots that grow out of the earth that has been ploughed; this is also in keeping with what is going to be said in connection with‘kavakas growing out of the earth’ (6.14); and it has also been just pointed out that the name applies to what is ‘smashed’ by a stroke of the foot. It is for this reason (of its being described as growing out of the earth, and of its being mashed by a stroke of the foot) that the prohibition (of ‘kavaka’) is not applicable to those vegetable growths that shoot out of the trunks of trees.

In medicinal treatises the kukuṇḍa has been described as ‘kavaka’; but this explanation (of the name on a purely conventional basis) cannot be accepted in the same manner as that in regard to the term ‘go’ and the rest. Further, as a matter of fact, in ordinary parlance the term ‘kavaka’ is always applied to a vegetable. Hence it is on the basis of usage that the exact signification of the term, wherever it occurs in a medical or other scientific treatise, should be ascertained, and we have already shown what that signification is.

Other things also, which resemble garlic and such things mentioned here, which resemble these latter in colour and smell, have been forbidden by Viṣṇu. In the Smṛti of Parāśara however the prohibition is by name, and this for the purpose of prescribing the special Expiatory Rite of ‘Candrāyaṇa’ in connection with it. From this it follows that ‘lavataka’, ‘karnikāra’ and such other things are forbidden.

‘Things proceeding from impure substances’;—those that grow of impure things or are in contact with them.

Others have declared that it is not right to forbid those things that grow only out of impure things, these standing on the same footing as ‘mūlā’ (radish) ‘cāstuka’ (a kind of grass) and such other things (known to grow out of impure things);—so that the prohibition does not apply to those grains and vegetables growing in fields specially manured for the purpose of enriching the harvest.

This however is not right. Because from what the text says it is clear that all these things are equally unfit to be eaten. Further, what has been suggested might have been accepted, if it were absolutely impossible for anything to grow without the use of impure substances. There are some things however that grow directly out of impure substances, while there are some that grow out of mere connection with them; the right view to take therefore is that the prohibition applies to the former only, and not to the latter.

As regards meat, even though it grows out of semen and blood (both impure substances), yet the present prohibition does not apply to it; because it has been dealt with in a totally different context.—(5)