Manava Dharmashastra 5.53

5.53

devādyarcanaśiṣṭasya śaśādimāṃsasya bhakṣaṇamanujñātam | tato nivartamāno'śvamedhaphalamaśnute | aśvamedhasya phalaṃ "sarvānkāmānavaśyaṃ sarvāvijitīḥ” ityādi |
na cātra codanīyam | “kathaṃ mahāprayāsena bahudhanavyayena ca tulyaphalatā māṃsanivṛtteḥ syāt” | yata eṣo'pi saṃyamo'tiduṣkaraḥ | kiṃca 'lokavatparimāṇataḥ phalaviśeṣaḥ syādi'tyayaṃ nyāyo jṛmbhata eva | ataḥ phalavidhau na doṣaḥ |
vayaṃ tu brūmaḥ | arthavāda evāyam | yato 'varṣe varṣe śataṃ samā' iti cā'rthavādapakṣe sughaṭam | na hi prativarṣamaśvamedhasya vidheyatvasambhavaḥ | nāpi varṣe śataṃ, tāvataḥ kālasyādhikāriṇo jīvanācasambhavāt |
puṇyaṃ ca phalaṃ ca puṇyaphalam | samāhāradvandvaḥ | ṣaṣṭhīsamāse hyasāmarthyam |

If a man performs the Aśvamedha Sacrifice every year, for a hundred tears,—and another does not eat meat,—the merit and reward of both these are the same.—(53.)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The eating of the meat of the Hare and other animals,—in the form of remnants of the worship of Gods and Pitṛs—has been sanctioned. If one abstains from this eating, he obtains the fruits of the Aśvamedha sacrifice; and the fruits of this sacrifice have been described in the words ‘he obtains all desires, etc., etc.’

In this connection it would not be right to urge the following objection:—“How can mere abstaining from meat be equal to a sacrifice involving tremendous labour and much expense?”—Because the said abstention also is extremely difficult. Further, the principle enunciated in the Sūtra.—‘The particular result would follow from development as in the ordinary world’—is operative here also. Hence there can be no objection against the asserting of results or fruits of actions.

Our answer however is us follows:—What is said in the text is a purely commendatory exaggeration; socially because the statement of the sacrifice being performed ‘every year for one hundred years’ can be regarded only us such an exaggeration; for it is not possible for the Aśvamedha to be performed every year; nor can it be performed ‘for a hundred years,’ as no performer would live so long,

‘Puṇyaphalam’ is a copulative compound, it being impossible to take it us a Genitive Tatpuruṣa.—(53).

In the Mahābhārata (13.114.15) this occurs as writer’s ‘matam mama,’ but it has ‘māse’ for ‘varṣe’—says Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 1.181), to the effect that the merit of the performance of Aśvamedha accrues to one who renounces meat for a full year;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 533), which adds that according to Medhātithi, this is mere Arthavāda, and not the declaration of a result that actually follows from the act,—this being based upon the principle laid down by Jaimini under 4.3.1. It goes on to add that this view is not right; as this case is not analogous to that of Jaimini 4.3.1,

A ‘declaration of rewards’ is regarded as an ‘Arthavāda’ only when there is some other passage mentioning another reward in connection with the same act; in the present case, however, we do not find any other passage speaking of any other rewards accruing from the renouncing of meat for one year; so that this comes under the Rātrisattranyāya (Jaimini 4.3.17 et. seq.; see note under verse 40). It concludes with the remark that the reward accruing from the renouncing of meat for one year,—even though of the same kind as that following from the Aśvamedha—is of a much lower degree;—and quotes the following Kārikā of ‘Bhaṭṭapāda’—

phalānāmalpamahatām karmaṇāṃ ca svagocare |
vibhāgaḥ snānasāmānyādaviśeṣeṇa codite |

Comparative notes by various authors
Mahābhārata (13.115.10, 16).—‘If one performs the Aśvamedha month after month, and if one eats not. meat, the two are equal. If one were to perform difficult austerities for full one hundred years, and one were to omit meat-eating, the two might or might not be equal.’

Viṣṇu (51.76).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (1.181).—(See above, under 47.)