Manava Dharmashastra 5.56

5.56

'prāṇasyānrna' ityata ārabhya yāvadayaṃ śloko'rthavādasaṅghāta eva | dvitrāḥ ślokā vidheyārthāḥ |
na māṃsabhakṣaṇe doṣo yathā “krītvā svayaṃ vā'pyutpādyeti” (32) tathā'yamapi ślokaḥ |
nivṛttistu mahāphaletyetadatra śrūyate | bahubhirnindārthokarairīdṛśaḥ saṃskāro jāto yanna kiṃcinmāṃsamaśitavyam | bhūtānāṃ vṛttyarthamāha na māṃsabhakṣaṇe doṣa iti | devārcanaśiṣṭe brāhmaṇakāmyādiṣu nimitteṣu prāgukteṣu na doṣaḥ | kintu yadyaśitumicchanti | nivṛttiḥ 'na bhakṣyāmīti' saṅkalpapūrvikā mahāphalā | phalaviśeṣāśruteḥ svargaḥ phalamiti mīmāṃsakāḥ |
evaṃ 'madye' kṣatriyādīnāṃ, 'maithune' tu sarvavarṇānāṃ, divodakyāparvakālādanyatra | alpasvarūpā pravṛttireṣā śāstrīyā | bhūtānāṃ śarīrasthitihetvarthā pravṛttiḥ | tathā cāyurvedakṛtaḥ-"āhāro brahmacaryaṃ ca nidrā ceti trayaṃ matam | mādakaṃ ca striyaścaiva hyapastambhanamāyuṣaḥ" || iti || yastu tena vinā'pi śaknoti jīvituṃ tasya nivṛttirmahāphalā |
pradarśanārthaṃ caitat | aśiṣṭāpratiṣiddhaviṣayāyāmanyāsāmapi nivṛttīnāmevameva | yatra vidhānaṃ puruṣasya pravartamānasya prītyatiśayotpattiprayojanamanindyam, garheta vā yato nivṛttiḥ phalāya, yathā madhvaśanaṃ sampannabhojanaṃ rāṅkavaṃ paridhānamityevamādi | tathā ca śiṣṭasamācāraḥ | vyāsaśca bhagavānaivamevāha | ye tu saṃsaktitā'śiṣṭāpratiṣiddhā api yathā hasitakaṇḍūyanādayastato nivṛttirdharmāya |

There is no sin in the eating of meat, nor in wine, nor in sexual intercourse. Such is the natural way of living beings; but abstention is conducive to great rewards.—(56).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
From verse 28 to this we have a series of purely commendatory texts; there are only two or three verses that are injunctive in their character.

‘There is no sin in the eating of meat.’ This assertion stands on the same footing as verse 32 above. What we learn from the present verse (in addition to what we know already) is that ‘abstention is conductive to great rewards.’ By various deprecatory texts the impression has been produced that ‘no meat should be eaten.’ But by way of providing a means of living for living beings it has been asserted that ‘there is no sin in the eating of meat’; which means that there is no sin if one eats such meat as is the remnant of the worship of Gods, etc., or what is eaten at the wish of Brāhmaṇas, and under such similar circumstances specified above; but this only if he wish to eat it.

‘Abstention’—taking the resolve not to eat meat and then to abstain from it—this is ‘conducive, to great reward.’ In the absence of the mention of any particular reward, Heaven is to be regarded as the reward. So say the Mīmāṃsakas.

Similarly in regard, to ‘wine’, for the Kṣatriyas,—and to ‘sexual intercourse’, for all castes; but apart from that which may be alone (a) ‘during the day’ or (b) ‘with women in their courses’, or ‘on sacred days’, (in connection with all of which sexual intercourse has been forbidden).

The three things mentioned, here, in their very restricted forms, constitute the ‘natural way of living beings’, sanctioned by the scriptures with a view to the maintenance of the body. Says the author of the Science of Medicine (Āyurveda)—‘Food, continence and sleep—these three, intoxicants and women, tend to prolong life.’

If, however, one can manage to live without these, for him ‘abstention is conucive to great rewards.’ This is said merely by way of illustration: same being the case with all ‘abstentions’ from such things as are neither prescribed nor forbidden. Where however a certain act is definitely prescribed, there is nothing reprehensible in the man’s doing it, even if it be done only for the Bake of the pleasure that it affords him; in fact abstention from such an act would itself be reprehensible, as done with a view to ‘great rewards’; e.g. the eating of honey, having a full meal, wearing a woolen garment and so forth. Such also is the practice of cultured people; the revered Vyāsa also says the same. Those acts, on the other hand, to which people have recourse only through desire,—even though these be neither permitted nor forbidden,—e.g. laughing, scratching of the body and so forth,—abstention born these would be conducive to great rewards,—(56)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 719) in support of the view that it is only the eating of prohibited meat that is sinful;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 537), which adds the following notes:—‘māṃse’—i.e., such meat as is not forbidden;—‘madye’—for the Kṣatriya and other lower castes ;—‘maithune’—i.e., such sexual intercourse as is not prohibited;—‘nivṛttiḥ’—i.e., the determination to renounce;—‘mahāphalā’—i.e., conducive to the attainment of Heaven and such other results as have been mentioned in the foregoing arthavāda passages. Medhātithi has remarked that the determination to renounce meat and other things must be regarded as conducive to Heaven only, on the basis of the principle of the Viśvajit (Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 4.3.15-16). But this is not right, as it is very much simpler to accept the rewards mentioned in the arthavāda passages as the rewards meant here, rather than assume one on the basis of the said principle.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 277), which remarks that this refers, to such meat as is left, after the offerings to the gods and Pitṛs have been made;—as regards wine, the abandoning of it is ‘conducive to great rewards’ only for those for whom wine is not forbidden,—and as regards ‘sexual intercourse,’ the abandoning that leads to great rewards is that of the intercourse which is sanctioned ‘on all except the sacred days,’ and ‘that for the sake of pleasure.’