Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c40: Chapter XXII. Bhojana

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c40

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXII. Bhojana

v3.c40.2

*Bhojana* (*taking one's meals*):—Dakṣa (II. 56 and 68) states that in the fifth¹⁸⁰⁹ part of the day the householder should make according to his capacity the gods, pitṛs, men and even lower animals (lit. insects) participators (in food) and after doing that, he should himself partake of the remainder of the food cooked. Thus he was to take his meals during one hour and a half after noon. Bhojana is one of the most important subjects treated of in Dharmaśāstra works and the greatest importance (next to rules about marriage) attaches to the numerous injunctions and taboos about food. The principal subjects to be dealt with under this head are: how many times food was to be taken; the kinds of foods and drinks allowed or forbidden; what causes food defilement; flesh-eating and drinking wine; whose food was to be eaten; etiquette and ceremonies before taking food, at the time of taking it and after taking it.

v3.c40.3

¹⁸⁰⁹ पञ्चमे च तथा भागे संविभागो यथार्हतः । देवपितृमनुष्याणां कीटानां चोपदिश्यते ॥ संविभागं ततः कृत्वा गृहस्थः शेषभुग्भवेत् । दक्ष II. 56, 68. The first verse is quoted by अपरार्क p. 143.

v3.c40.4

Great importance was attached to purity of food from very ancient times. In the Chāndogya Up. (VII. 26. 2) occurs this passage 'when there is purity of food, then the mind becomes pure, when the mind is pure then follows firm remembrance (of the real Self), when the last is secured all knots (that bind the soul to the world) are loosened.'¹⁸¹⁰

v3.c40.5

¹⁸¹⁰ आहारशुद्धौ सत्त्वशुद्धिः सत्त्वशुद्धौ ध्रुवा स्मृतिः स्मृतिलम्भे सर्वग्रन्थीनां विप्रमोक्षः । छान्दोग्य VII. 26. 2. शंकराचार्य explains आहार in a far-fetched way as आह्रियते इत्याहारः शब्दादिविषयविज्ञानं &c. It is remarkable that on Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 29 Śaṁkara connects this clause with allowed and forbidden foods 'एवं च सति-आहारशुद्धौ सत्त्वशुद्धिरित्येवमादि-भक्ष्याभक्ष्यविभाग-शास्त्रमबाधितं भवति'. On या. I. 154 (p. 221) अपरार्क quotes a long passage from Hārīta in which we read 'तस्माच्छुचिर्यथार्थपरिमितारः स्यात् । आहारशुद्धौ सत्त्वशुद्धिरित्याचार्याः ।'.

v3.c40.6

The several matters about bhojana found in the Vedic literature will be first briefly set out. From Ṛg. VI. 30. 3 it appears that food was taken, while sitting ('the mountains sank down just as men sit down to take food'). 'A person was to take food¹⁸¹¹ only twice a day' says the Tai. Br. I. 4. 9. and the Śat. Br. II. 4. 2. 6. There were certain taboos about articles of food even in the earliest texts. Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 1 states that all red exudations (resins) of trees or the juice that oozes out from trees when they are cut (with an axe &c.) should not be eaten, since that colour is due to the (sharing of) brāhmaṇa-murder. Similarly the milk of the cow was not to be drunk for ten days after delivery (Tai. Br. II. 1. 1, III. 1. 3). The Ait. Br. 6. 9 states that one should not eat the food of a dīkṣita (one initiated for a Vedic sacrifice) till the performance of *vapāhoma* by him. Ṛg. I. 187 (vv. 1-7) is a hymn in praise of food. The story of Uṣasti Cākrāyaṇa in the Chāndogya Up. shows that in a dire calamity when no food can be had, one may eat anything, even the remnants of another's food and the Vedāntasūtra (III. 4. 28-31, sarvānnānumatiś-ca prāṇātyaye tad-darśanāt) is based on this episode in the Chāndogya. In the Ait. Ār. V. 3. 3¹⁸¹² it is stated that 'one who knows this (i. e. the Mahāvrata) should not recite these texts before one who knows it not nor dine with him nor should he take delight in his company.' The sages are said in the Kauṣītaki Br. (12. 3) to have told Kavaṣa who sat in their midst that they would not eat with him as he was the son of a *dāsī*. The question about flesh-eating and drinking spirituous liquors will be dealt with in detail later.

v3.c40.7

¹⁸¹¹ तस्माद्दु सायं प्रातराशयेव स्यात् । शतपथ II. 2. 2. 6 ; तस्माद् द्विरह्नो मनुष्येभ्य उपह्रियते । तै. ब्रा. I. 4. 9. The first is quoted by विश्वरूप (on या. I. 114); स निर्यासोऽभवत्तस्माज्निर्यांसस्य नाश्यं ब्रह्महत्यायै ह्येष वर्णोऽथ खलु य एव लोहितो यो वा व्रश्चनान्निर्योषति तस्य नाश्यं काममन्यस्य । तै. सं. II. 5. 1. 4 ; तस्माद्वत्सं जातं दश रात्रीर्न दुहन्ति । तै. ब्रा. II. 1. 1.

v3.c40.8

¹⁸¹² नेदंविदनिदंविदा सहोदिशेत सह भुञ्जीत न सधमादी स्यात् । ऐ. आ. V. 3. 3.

v3.c40.9

Manu V. 4 declared that death overtakes brāhmaṇas on account of four causes, viz. absence of Vedic study, giving up the performance of proper duties and actions, laziness and blemishes attaching to the food taken. The Gṛ. R. p. 347 quotes verses to the effect 'food is the filth of men, everything is centred in food, the evil deeds of men resort to their food. Whoever eats the food of another partakes of that man's sin.' Therefore elaborate regulations are laid down about everything relating to food. Āp. Dh. S. I. 11. 31. 1, Vas. Dh. S. XII. 18. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 40, Manu II. 5 say that one should face the east when taking food and the Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 41 and Āp. Dh.

v3.c40.10.1

S. II. 8. 19. 1-2 allow a man to face the south, except when the diner's mother is alive. Manu II. 52 ( = Anuśāsanaparva 104. 57) states 'one facing the east eats food which tends to long life, one facing the south eats food which leads to fame, one facing the west eats (so as to produce) wealth and one facing north partakes of truth.' This means that one who eats facing any one of these directions secures the benefit specified. The Vāmanapurāṇa and Viṣṇupurāṇa quoted in Gṛ. R. p. 312 disallow the south and west. One must take one's meals in private in a place screened from public view. The Sm. C. quotes¹⁸¹³ verses of Devala, Uśanas and the Padmapurāṇa to the effect 'one should take food in privacy, for one who does so is endowed with wealth and one who eats his meals in public becomes bereft of wealth; one should not eat in the sight of many (who are themselves not eating) and many men should not eat before a single person who is only looking at them'. One may¹⁸¹⁴ eat in the company of one's sons, younger brothers, dependents &c. Some writers went so far as¹⁸¹⁵ to recommend that 'one should take one's food alone and not in the company of even one's relatives or other brāhmaṇas, since who can know the secret sins a person in whose company one eats is guilty of'?

v3.c40.10.2

The conception underlying this uncharitable view was stated by Bṛhaspati to be that 'when several persons sit down to dinner in a continuous row, the sins one of them is guilty of attach to the others in the same row'. Even in modern times many persons in Northern India follow this view and it is a well-known proverb that nine *bhayyas* have ten hearths. The place where one takes one's food should be freshly cowdunged and pure. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 5. 17. 6-8) says that one should not take one's food in a boat nor on a wooden platform, but may do so on a pure floor. One was not to eat while seated on an elephant, or horse or camel or in some conveyance, or in a cemetery or in a temple or on a bed or chair; nor should one eat food placed on one's palm (Brahmapurāṇa quoted in Gṛ. R. p. 325). One should wash one's hands and feet before sitting down to take one's meal. Manu IV. 76 says (= Anuśāsana 104. 61-62 and Atri in Jīvānanda, part 1, p. 9) that one should begin one's dinner while one's feet are wet, since that leads on to long life. Vyāsa quoted in Sm. C. (I. p. 221) prescribes that one should have five limbs wet at the time of taking food, viz. the hands, the feet and the mouth.¹⁸¹⁶ All writers prescribe that one should observe silence or at least restraint of speech at the time of meals (e. g. vide Baud. Dh. S. II. 7. 2, Laghu-Hārīta 40). Vṛddha-Manu quoted by the Sm. C. I. p. 223¹⁸¹⁷ requires complete silence till five morsels are taken and restraint in speech thereafter.

v3.c40.10.3

Following the Vedic injunctions quoted above, Gaut. IX. 59, Baud. Dh. S. II. 7. 36, Manu II. 56, Saṁvarta 12 and others say that a householder should take only two meals every day, should not eat food in the intervening period and that if he acts up to this advice he reaps the merit of a fast. Gobhila-smṛti (II. 33) says the same and adds¹⁸¹⁸ that the evening meal may be taken till one *prahara* and a half (i. e. 4½ hours) after nightfall. One was not to eat very early in the morning nor at midnight nor at twilight (Manu IV. 55 and 62 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 48). Āp. Dh. S. (II. 8. 19. 10) allows partaking of roots and fruits between two meals. Below the vessel or plate or leaf from which one eats, one has to draw a figure with water or holy ashes. According to the Brahmapurāṇa (quoted in Gṛ. R. p. 311) the maṇḍalas (figures) for brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras should respectively be in the form of a square, a triangle, a circle and a crescent; while according to Śaṅkha (in Sm. C. I., p. 221), Laghu-Śātātapa 133, Atri (Jīvānanda chap. V. 1, p. 7) in the case of the śūdra water is to be sprinkled on the ground below his plate. The reasons for drawing a maṇḍala are stated by these authorities to be that the Ādityas, Vasus, Rudras, Brahmā and other gods partake of only that food which is offered after a maṇḍala is made and that evil spirits and goblins carry away the flavour of the food when no maṇḍala is made.

v3.c40.10.4

The person taking his food should sit on a low wooden stool having four feet or on a seat made of wool or of the skin of a goat (which latter is said to be the best by Āp. Dh. S. II. 8. 19. 1). One should not sit on a seat of cowdung cakes (dried), or of clay, or of the leaves of aśvattha or palāśa or arka plant or a seat made by joining two planks together or on a shattered one or partly burnt one or on one made fast with iron (nails). Vide Smṛtyarthasāra p. 69. The vessel or plate from which one is to eat is to be placed on the maṇḍala drawn on the ground. The vessel from which to eat may be of gold, silver, copper, lotus or palāśa leaves (vide Veda-Vyāsa III. 67-68, Paiṭhīnasi quoted in Āhnika-prakāśa p. 467). A copper vessel is forbidden to householders who should use bell-metal (*kāṁsya*) vessel. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 8. 19. 3) says that a copper plate with gold in the centre¹⁸¹⁹ is recommended. But a bronze plate for eating from, *tāmbūla* and a luxurious bath with oil &c., were not allowed to an ascetic, a brahmacārin and a widow.¹⁸²⁰ Hārīta (quoted by Sm. C. I. p. 222) stated that one was not to eat in an iron or earthern vessel, but Āp. Dh. S. (I. 5. 17.

v3.c40.10.5

9-12)¹⁸²¹ prescribes that an earthen vessel not used for cooking may be used as a plate for meals, but if it had been used for cooking food, then it may be used as a plate for food after being baked in fire, that an iron plate scoured with ashes is pure and even a wooden plate may be used provided it is thoroughly scraped from inside. Manu IV. 65 states that one should not eat from a broken vessel, but Paiṭhīnasi remarks that there is nothing wrong in eating from a broken plate made of copper, silver, gold, conch-shell, or stone.¹⁸²² Some smṛtis forbade lotus or palāśa leaves, but the Āhnika-prakāśa p. 467 explains that this prohibition holds good only if the lotus plant grows on dry land (and not in a pond or the like) or when the palāśa is a young plant. Paiṭhīnasi (in Sm. C. I. p. 222) prescribes that one who desires wealth should not eat on a plate made of the leaves of the vaṭa, arka, aśvattha, kumbhī, tinduka, kovidāra and karañja trees. Vṛddha-Hārīta 8. 250-256 prescribes that the plate may be of gold, silver or bronze or any leaf allowed by śāstras, that leaves of palāśa and lotus are not to be used by householders but may be used by ascetics, forest hermits and in śrāddhas and sets out leaves forbidden and allowed. Even now in modern times people prefer (particularly in caste dinners and marriages) plantain leaves for dining or silver vessels for honoured guests and brāhmaṇas at śrāddha or use plates prepared from stitched leaves of various trees.

v3.c40.10.6

Before sitting down to take one's food, one has to perform *ācamana* (twice) outside the place where one is to eat and has to perform ācamana after taking his meals. This practice was most ancient, as it is attested by the Chāndogya Up. V. 2. 2¹⁸²³ and the Bṛ. Up. VI. 1. 14. The rule is laid down by Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 16. 9,¹⁸²⁴ Manu II. 53, V. 138 and others also. Vide Devala (quoted in the Smṛtimuktāphala, āhnika, p. 418) for *ācamana* outside the room for meals. When sitting down to eat a person must wear his sacred thread in the upavīta form (Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 15. 1) and must also have an upper garment,¹⁸²⁵ but should not cover his head (Manu IV. 45 III. 238, Āp. Dh. S. II. 2. 4. 22-23 and II. 8. 19. 12). A *darvī* (ladle or spoon) is to be employed in serving ghee, oil, cooked food, all condiments, salt (i. e. these should not be served by the bare hand) but not in giving water or uncooked food (*vide* Sm. C. I. p. 223 quoting several smṛtis). The householder may wear in his hand gold or jewel (ring &c.) at the time of meals. Gaut. IX. 59, Vas. Dh. S. III. 69, Manu II. 54-55 say that when food is brought to be served, the person about to eat it should greet it, should pay honour to it, show his delight at it and should not find fault with it. Vas. Dh. S. (III. 69-71)

v3.c40.11

¹⁸¹³ आहारं तु रहः कुर्यान्नाहारं चैव सर्वदा। गुप्तो हि लक्ष्म्या युक्तः स्यात्प्रकाशे हीयते श्रिया ॥ देवल quoted in स्मृतिच० I. p. 221; मैथुनं सततं गुप्तमाहारं च समाचरेत् । अनुशासन 163. 47; नादत्त्वा सृष्टमश्नीयान्न बहूनां च पश्यताम् । नाश्नीयुर्बहवश्चैव नरा नैकस्य पश्यतः ॥ उशनस् in स्मृतिच० I. p. 226; बहूनां प्रेक्षमाणानां नैकस्मिन्वहवस्तथा । विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 68.

v3.c40.12

¹⁸¹⁴ पात्रेष्वन्नानुरूपेषु पुत्रभृत्यानुजैः सह । भूम्यां पात्रं प्रतिष्ठाप्य मौनेनान्नं तु भक्षयेत् ॥ ब्रह्मपुराण quoted in गृह. र. p. 311.

v3.c40.13

¹⁸¹⁵ अप्येकपङ्क्त्यां नाश्नीयाद् ब्राह्मणैः स्वजनैरपि । कोहि जानाति किं कस्य प्रच्छन्नं पातकं भवेत् ॥ आदिपुराण quoted in स्मृतिच० I. p. 227 and परा. मा. I. 1. p. 429. एकपङ्क्त्युपविष्टानां दुष्कृतं यद्दुरात्मनाम् । सर्वेषां तत्समं तावद्यावत्पङ्क्तिर्न भिद्यते ॥ बृहस्पति quoted in स्मृतिच० I. p. 228.

v3.c40.14

¹⁸¹⁶ पञ्चार्द्रो भोजनं कुर्यात्प्राङ्मुखो मौनमास्थितः। हस्तौ पादौ तथैवास्यमेषु पञ्चार्द्रता मता॥ व्यास in स्मृतिच० I. p. 221; vide मेधा० on मनु II. 53 quoting व्यास 'पञ्चार्द्रा भुञ्जते नित्यं तेषु वत्स्याम्यहं हरेः।'; vide शान्तिपर्व 193. 6 for पञ्चार्द्रो भोजनं भुञ्जीत.

v3.c40.15

¹⁸¹⁷ अनिन्दन्नभक्षयेन्नित्यं वाग्यतोऽन्नमकुत्सयन्। पञ्चग्रासं महामौनं प्राणाद्याप्यायनं हि तत्॥ वृद्धमनु in स्मृतिच० I. p. 223.

v3.c40.16

¹⁸¹⁸ द्विरभिरिर्द्विरशनमुक्तं विप्राणां मत्र्यवासिनां नित्यम्। अहनि च तथा तमस्विन्याः सार्धप्रहरयामान्तः॥ गोभिल II. 33 quoted in गृह. र. p. 313, आह्निकम. p. 462; बौ. ध. सू. II. 7. 36 is 'अन्तरा प्रातराशं च सायमाशं तथैव च। सदोपवासी भवति यो न भुङ्क्ते कदाचन॥' (quoted in गृह. र. p. 321); vide अनुशासन 93. 10; शान्ति 193. 10, 221. 10 for similar words.

v3.c40.17

¹⁸¹⁹ औदुम्बरश्चमसः सुवर्णनाभः प्रशस्तः। आप. ध. सू. II. 8. 19. 3; हरदत्त explains औदुम्बरः as ताम्रमयः.

v3.c40.18

¹⁸²⁰ ताम्बूलाभ्यञ्जनं चैव कांस्यपात्रे च भोजनम्। यतिश्च ब्रह्मचारी च विधवा च विवर्जयेत्॥ प्रचेतास् quoted in स्मृतित्च० I. p. 222.

v3.c40.19

¹⁸²¹ अनामीते मृन्मये भोक्तव्यम्। अमीतं चेदभिवृग्धे। परिमृष्टं लौहं प्रयतम्। निर्लिखितं दारुमयम्। आप. ध. I. 5. 17. 9-12.

v3.c40.20

¹⁸²² ताम्ररजतसुवर्णशङ्खशुक्त्यश्मघटितानां भिन्नमभिन्नमिति। पैठीनसि quoted in स्मृतित्च० I. p. 222.

v3.c40.21

¹⁸²³ स होवाच किं मे वासो भविष्यतीत्याप इति होचुस्तस्माद्वा एतदशिष्यन्तः पुरस्ताच्चोपरिष्टाच्चाद्भिः परिदधति । छान्दोग्य V. 2. 2; *vide* वेदान्तसूत्र (III. 3. 18) and Śaṁkara's bhāṣya for an explanation of the छान्दोग्य and बृह० passages.

v3.c40.22

¹⁸²⁴ भोक्ष्यमाणस्तु प्रयतोऽपि द्विराचामेद् द्विः परिमृजेत्सकृदुपस्पृशेत् । आप. ध. I. 5. 16. 9.

v3.c40.23

¹⁸²⁵ सोत्तराच्छादनश्चैव यज्ञोपवीती भुञ्जीत । आप. ध. II. 8. 19. 12; *vide* Haradatta for several views.

v3.c40.24.1

says "he should honour food in the morning and evening by saying 'I like it', by saying 'it was good for eating' in the case of food served in śrāddhas and 'it was perfect' as to food offered in ābhyudayika rites¹⁸²⁶ (i. e. in marriage &c.). Kullūka (on Manu II. 54) and the Gṛ. R. (p. 314) quote verses of the Ādipurāṇa (Brahmapurāṇa in Gṛ. R.) to the effect that on seeing food one should fold one's hands and should bow to it saying 'may this always be ours' and that God Viṣṇu himself said that whoever honours food honours him. After the food is served on the plate or dish, the eater should sprinkle water round it and say 'I sprinkle thee that art *satya* (truth) with *ṛta* (right order)' (in the morning) and 'I sprinkle thee that art *ṛta* with *satya*' (in the evening).¹⁸²⁷ According to some he then offers to the right of the plate or dish on the ground a little of the food in his plate from the west towards the east to Dharmarāja (i. e. Yama), Citragupta and *pretas* (vide Bhaviṣyapurāṇa quoted in Sm. C. I. p. 224 and Āhnikaprakāśa p. 465).¹⁸²⁸ Others say that these *balis* are offered to *bhūpati*, *bhuvanapati* and *bhūtānāṁ pati*, while in modern times they are offered to Citra, Citragupta, Yama, Yamadūta (and some add a fifth 'sarvebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ svāhā). He should then sip a little water with the words 'thou art the seat of ambrosia (amṛtopastaraṇam-asi) and at the end of the meal the words used are 'thou art the cover of ambrosia' (amṛtāpidhānam-asi).

v3.c40.24.2

All this has been prescribed from very ancient times and has continued to this day. Yāj. I. 106 calls this sipping of water āpośana (taking in of water) and its purpose is to make food beneficial like amṛta (nectar) and to cover it as if with a garment. He then offers five morsels on which ghee is sprinkled to the five modes of *prāṇa* preceded by the word ‘*om*’ and ¹⁸²⁹ followed by ‘*svāhā*’. These five *prāṇāhutis* are mentioned in the Chāndogya Up. V. 19-23, where *prāṇas* are enumerated in the order *prāṇa*, *vyāna*, *apāna*, *samāna* and *udāna*. The Vedāntasūtra III. 3. 40-41 explains that the Chāndogya passage applies only when one sits down to dinner and not when one goes without it. Medieval digests quoting Bṛhat-Parāśara added a sixth offering to Brahman after the *prāṇāhutis* and this is done in modern times. While the *āhutis* to *prāṇa* are being offered complete silence (absence of all sound including even ‘*hum*’) is to be observed. Baud. Dh. S. (II. 7. 6) insists on complete silence throughout the meal and if one speaks, one has to mutter the words ‘Om bhūr bhuvaḥ svar-om’ and then eat further on. Others allow speech after *prāṇāhutis* for refusing food or condiments or for dharma. Vide Sm. M., āhnika p. 423 which quotes Śāṇḍilya that ‘silence is not necessary at meals for householders and one should show one’s solicitude for those who dine with one by talking to them.’ Śaunaka quoted by Sm. C. I., p. 223, Vṛddha-Hārīta 8.

v3.c40.24.3

263-265 dilate upon the different fingers of the hand that are to be employed in taking the five *āhutis* to the life breaths while the Bhojana-sūtra says that according to Baudhāyana all *āhutis* were to be offered with all the fingers. Hārīta quoted in the Sm. C. I. p. 226 states that *mārjana*, offering bali, worship and eating should be done with the tips of fingers. The plate or vessel is to be throughout kept on the ground at a *śrāddha* dinner and the thumb and the next two fingers of the left hand may be used for holding the plate or plantain leaf in position, but if the house is full of people and it is likely that dust may be raised by their feet or by their clothes, then a person taking his meal may raise up his plate from the ground with his left hand after he has taken five morsels.¹⁸³⁰ The diner is not to allow any sound of eating to escape, he is to put each morsel in his mouth with all the fingers including the thumb,¹⁸³¹ he is not to wave his hand. Various rules are laid down in the Viṣṇupurāṇa (III. 11. 83-84) and Brahmapurāṇa (quoted in Gṛ. R. p. 224) as to the order in which various articles are to be eaten, viz. first sweet liquid food may be taken, then salted and sour, and then pungent and bitter, the last item should be milk and after that one should not take curds; a householder should always take food mixed with ghee. One is not to cut off portions of food or cakes, roots, bulbs, fruits or flesh with the teeth and then eat them (Baud. Dh. S. II. 7.

v3.c40.24.4

10). Some smṛtis prescribe that while taking each morsel one should say¹⁸³² 'Govinda'. At the time of eating, several postures are forbidden, viz. one should not stretch one's feet or place them on another seat (a footstool &c.) nor should one have one's haunches and knees tied by a garment (Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 40) nor should one place one's hand on one's left foot, nor should one wear one's shoes or wooden sandals, nor should one come in contact with leather (vide Smṛtimuktāphala, āhnika p. 425). Baud. Dh. S. (I. 1. 21) states that among usages peculiar to the south were those of eating in the company of one whose upanayana had not been performed or of one's wife or taking stale food. But Baud. disapproved of these. Manu IV. 43, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 46 and Vas. Dh. S. XII. 31¹⁸³³ say that one should not eat together with one's wife and Vas. Dh. S. adds the reason that by so doing the child born has no strength as stated in the Śat. Br. X. 5. 2. 9. Kullūka and some other commentators on Manu IV. 43 hold that the prohibition relates to eating in the same dish with one's wife, while, as Medhātithi states, others hold that it applies also to eating with one's wife at the same time and place. The Sm. C. (I. p. 227) and other digests quote a smṛti verse which allows a brāhmaṇa to eat in the same dish with his brāhmaṇa wife and explain the verse as applying to a brāhmaṇa who is on a journey. The Smṛtyarthasāra (p.

v3.c40.24.5

69) says that one can eat in the same dish with one's wife at the time of marriage. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 131 says the same.

v3.c40.25

¹⁸²⁶ रोचत इति सायं प्रातरशनाम्यभिपूजयेत् । स्वदितमिति पित्र्ये । संपन्नमित्याभ्युदयिकेषु । वसिष्ठ III. 69–71. Compare विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 68. 42, Manu III. 251 and 254 (for स्वदित and संपन्न) and Āp. Dh. S. II. 2. 3. 11.

v3.c40.26

¹⁸²⁷ ऋतं त्वा सत्येन परिषिञ्चामीति सायं परिषिञ्चति । सत्यं त्वर्तेन परिषिञ्चामीति प्रातः । तै. ब्रा. II. 1. 11.

v3.c40.27

¹⁸²⁸ अम्युद्धार्य नमस्क़ारैर्भुवि दद्याद् बलित्रयम् । भूपतये भुवनपतये भूतानां पतये तथा ॥ वृद्धव्यास III. 69; भोजनात्किंचिदुद्धृत्य धर्मराजाय वै बलिम् । दत्त्वाथ चित्रगुप्ताय प्रेतेभ्यश्चेदमूद्धरेत् ॥ भविष्यपुराण quoted in स्मृतिम्च० I. p. 224 and आह्निकप्रकाश p. 465. लध्वाश्वलायन (I. 155–156) speaks of three balis to यम, चित्र and भूतs. The औशनसस्मृति (Jīvānanda, part 1. p. 519) refers to चित्रगुप्तबलि; vide हारीत (in स्मृतिमूक्ताफल, आह्निक p. 421) for बलि for अजपति, भुवनपति and भूतानां पति and कात्यायनीयभोजनसूत्र for the three बलिs to भूपति &c. and to चित्र, चित्रगुप्त and सर्वभूत.

v3.c40.28

¹⁸²⁹ The five प्राणाहुतिs in order are ओं प्राणाय स्वाहा, ओं अपानाय स्वाहा, ओं व्यानाय स्वाहा, ओं उदानाय स्वाहा, ओं समानाय स्वाहा. In the विष्णुपुराण the order is प्राणापानसमानोदानव्य⁠ानाः (vide आह्निकप्रकाश p. 470). These have been mentioned by Baud. Dh. S. II. 7. 3, लध्वाश्वलायन I. 157, गोभिल in स्मृतिच. I. p. 223, ब्रह्मपुराण quoted in आह्निकप्रकाश p. 464. Vide आह्निकप्रकाश p. 469 ‘षष्ठी आहुतिः ब्रह्मणे स्वाहेति’. Vide Tai. Ār. X. 32-35 for अमृतोपस्तरणमसि, the प्राणाहुतिs and अमृतापिधानमसि.

v3.c40.29

¹⁸³⁰ पञ्चग्रासांश्च भुक्त्वादौ कञ्चिद्वेश्मनि सङ्कटे। पात्रमुद्धृत्य शेषं तु भक्षयेत्संकराज्जनात्। पित्र्ये कर्मणि भुञ्जानो भूमौ पात्रं न चालयेत्। ब्रह्मपुराण quoted in गृह. र. p. 315, आह्निकप्रकाश p. 463; vide परा. मा I. part 1 p. 417 quoting कूर्मपुराण and व्यास to the same effect.

v3.c40.30

¹⁸³¹ तूष्णीं साङ्गुष्ठं कृत्स्नग्रासं ग्रसेत । न च शब्दं कुर्यात् । वसिष्ठ XII. 19-20; vide आप. ध. सू. II. 8. 19. 5-6 for almost the same words.

v3.c40.31

¹⁸³² कवले कवले चैव कुर्याद्गोविन्दकीर्तनम् । व्यास quoted in स्मृतिमु. आह्निक p. 423.

v3.c40.32

¹⁸³³ भार्यया सह नाश्नीयाद्वीर्यवदपत्यं भवतीति वाजसनेयके विज्ञायते । वसिष्ठ 12. 31; 'नाश्नीयाद्भार्यया सार्धं न पुत्रैर्वा कदाचन । वृद्धहारीत 8. 270. ब्राह्मण्या सह योऽश्नीयादुच्छिष्टं वा कदाचन । न तत्र दोषं मन्यन्ते नित्यमेव मनीषिणः ॥ आप. 5. 7-8, quoted in the मिता. on या. III. 200, स्मृतिच० I. p. 227; मिता० and गृह. र. p. 330 ascribe it to अङ्गिरस्. The words of the शतपथ are 'तस्माज्जायाया अन्ते नाश्नीयाद्वीर्यवाञ्छास्माज्जायते ' X. 5. 2. 9.

v3.c40.33

Various rules are laid down as to how much one is to eat. Two famous verses quoted by Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 13, Vas. Dh. S. VI. 20-21 and Baud. Dh. S. II. 7. 31-32 are 'an ascetic should eat eight morsels,¹⁸³⁴ a forest hermit 16, a householder 32 and a Vedic student an unlimited number. One who has consecrated the Vedic fires, a draught ox and a brahmacārin are able to perform their work by eating, they cannot perform work when they do not eat'.¹⁸³⁵ Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 12 expressly directs that a householder should not stint himself as to food, so that he may be able to properly perform his work. Haradatta explains that the general rule laid down by Āp. Dh. S. itself (II. 1. 1. 2) that one should take only two meals a day does not apply to one who has consecrated the Vedic fires. Baud. Dh. S. II. 7. 33-34 goes further¹⁸³⁶ and says that if a householder (who is *āhitāgni*) and a Vedic student practise austerities by observing a fast they are guilty of sin, because they thereby cause cessation of agnihotra to the life-breaths. But there is no sin if a fast is observed by these as a penance for some lapse. Śabara on Jaimini V. 1. 20 (p. 1301) appears to favour the idea that an *āhitāgni* may eat several¹⁸³⁷ times a day.

v3.c40.34

¹⁸³⁴ Vide या. III. 55 for eight morsels for a forest hermit.

v3.c40.35

¹⁸³⁵ The Śāṅ gṛ. II. 16. 5 speaks of the ox, the agnihotriṅ and brahmacārin in the same way.

v3.c40.36

¹⁸³⁶ गृहस्थो ब्रह्मचारी वा योऽनश्नंस्तु तपश्चरेत्। प्राणाग्निहोत्रलोपेन अवकीर्णी भवेत्तु सः। अन्यत्र प्रायश्चित्तात् प्रायश्चित्ते तदेव विधानम्। बौ. ध. सू. II. 7. 33-34.

v3.c40.37

¹⁸³⁷ यथा देवदत्तः प्रातरपूपं भक्षयति मध्यन्दिने विविधमन्नमश्नाति अपराह्ने मोदकाञ्भक्षयतीति। एकस्मिन्नहनीति गम्यते। शबर on जै. V. 1. 20.

v3.c40.38

One was to occupy the first seat in a row at a dinner only if specially requested to do so, but when thus seated on the first seat, one should not begin to eat food before others, but after them (Śaṅkha quoted by Aparārka p. 150). While several brāhmaṇas are taking their meal in a continuous row, if one of them takes ācamana¹⁸³⁸ before the others, or gives the remains of his food to the pupil or gets up, the others should leave eating the food in their dishes and also get up and the brāhmaṇa who thus prematurely gets up is called a *brahmahā* (a murderer of a brāhmaṇa or brahmakaṇṭaka). These rules are quoted in the Sm. C. (I. p. 227), Gṛ. R. p. 331, Smṛtimuktāphala (āhnika p. 427). In order to avoid this awkward position various devices were employed. A *paṅkti* (row of diners) ceased to be a continuous line if two diners were separated from each other by fire, by ashes, by a pillar, a passage, or a door or by the ground being of a lower level. Aparārka (p. 476) quotes Bṛhaspati that even if persons are seated in one row, but they are separated from each other by (streaks of) ashes and they do not touch each other, then there is no intermingling (i. e. persons of different castes also may sit in a row being separated by a streak of ashes &c.). Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 2 says that one should not sit down to dinner in the same row with undeserving persons (by reason of birth, character or learning).

v3.c40.39

¹⁸³⁸ एकपङ्क्त्युपविष्टानां विप्राणां सह भोजने। यद्येकोपि त्यजेत्पात्रं शेषमन्नं न भोजयेत्॥ पराशर XI. 8, quoted by अपरार्क p. 1169. Vide Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 3; Gautama 17. 19. उदकं च तृणं भस्म द्वारः पन्थास्तथैव च। एभिरन्तरितं कृत्वा पङ्क्तिदोषो न विद्यते॥ लघुहारीत 74; अग्निना भस्मना चैव स्तम्भेन उदकेन च। द्वारेणाप्यथ मार्गेण पङ्क्तिभिद्येत बहुविधा॥ अङ्गिरस् 9. 7; एकपङ्क्त्युपविष्टा ये न स्पृशन्ति परस्परम्। भस्मना कृतमर्यादा न तेषां संकरो भवेत्॥ अग्निना भस्मना वापि स्तम्भेनाप्युदकेन वा। द्वारसेक्रमनेनापि पङ्क्तिभेदः प्रकीर्तितः॥ बृह० quoted by अपरार्क p. 476.

v3.c40.40

At p. 100 above it has been stated how brāhmaṇas following several occupations that were deemed low were not invited at śrāddhas. Gaut.1838a XV. 28-29, Baud. Dh. S. II. 8. 2, Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 21-22, Vas. Dh. S. III. 19, Viṣṇu 83. 2-21, Manu III. 184-186, Śaṅkha (in verse) 14. 1-8, Anuśāsanaparva 90, 34, the Vāyu (chap. 79 and 83, Ānand. ed.) and several other purāṇas contain long lists of those brāhmaṇas who sanctify the company of diners when they sit down for dinner (they are paṅkti-pāvanas) and of those who defile the company of diners by their presence in the row of diners (they are *paṅkti-* *dūṣakas*). A paṅktipāvana is one who knows the six aṅgas of the Veda (vide note 775 above), who has studied the Jyeṣṭhasāman, who has kindled the Nāciketa fire, who knows the three madhu verses, who has studied the texts called Trisuparṇa, who maintains the five fires (vide p. 679 above), who has taken the ceremonial bath after finishing vedic studies, who knows the Mantras and the Brāhmaṇa of his Veda, who has studied dharmaśāstra and who is the son of a woman married in the brāhma form. Āp. Dh. S. adds 'one who has performed the four medhas' (Aśvamedha, Sarvamedha, Puruṣamedha and Pitṛmedha, according to Haradatta). Manu says that one who understands the meaning of the Veda, one who expounds the Veda, a brahmacārin, one who is a liberal donor (*lit.* one who gives a thousand cows), one who has reached the age of one hundred are all paṅktipāvanas. Śaṅkha states that one who is devoted to Yoga, one who regards gold and a clod of earth as equal, an ascetic given to contemplation are all paṅktipāvanas. Anuśāsana 90. 34 and Vāyu 83. 52-55 include those who study the bhāṣyas, those who are devoted to grammar, those who study the purāṇas among paṅkti-pāvanas. Among those who defile company are one suffering from leprosy, a bald man, one who is guilty of adultery, who is the son of a brāhmaṇa following the profession of arms (Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 21); those who engage in acts not fit for brāhmaṇas, those who are cunning, those who have deficient or excessive limbs, those who have abandoned Veda, the sacred fires and their parents or gurus, those who subsist on food given by śūdras (Śaṅkha XIV. 2-4). Vide Aparārka pp. 453-455 for quotations on those who defile company.

v3.c40.41

1838a 1838 a. पङ्क्तिपावनः षडङ्गविज्ज्येष्ठसामिकस्त्रिणाचिकेतस्त्रिमधुस्त्रिसुपर्णः पञ्चाग्निः स्नातको मन्त्रब्राह्मणविद्धर्मज्ञो ब्रह्मदेयानुसंतान इति। गौ. XV. 29; पङ्क्तिर्येन पाव्यते स पङ्क्तिपावनः। हरदत्त on गौ. XV. 28. Some of the words are differently explained by the commentators. ज्येष्ठसामिक or-सामग is one who chants, according to Haradatta, 'udu tyam' (Ṛg. I. 50. 1.) and 'citram' (Ṛg. I. 115. 1), which constitute a sāman of the Talavakāras, while the Chandogas hold it to be a different sāman; Medhātithi on Manu III. 185 says they are the sāmans called Jyeṣṭhadohas. The Nāciketa fire is described in Tai. Br. III. 11. 7 and 8, and Kaṭhopaniṣad I. 1. 17-18. Ṛg. I. 91. 6-8 contain the word 'madhu' at the beginning of each. So one who studies these three madhu verses may be called 'trimadhu'. Or possibly there is a reference to the Madhuvidyā referred to in Śat. Br. IV. 1. 5. 18 and Bṛ. Up. II. 5. 16. According to Haradatta 'Trisuparṇa' are either the three verses *Ṛg.* X. 114. 4-6 (ekaḥ suparṇaḥ &c.) or the three anuvākas of the Tai. Ār. X. 48-50 (brahmametu māṁ madhumetu māṁ).

v3.c40.42

'When there was a row of diners, all were to be served the same food and no difference was to be made between one man and another and if a difference were made a penance was prescribed as if he had committed brāhmaṇa murder.¹⁸³⁹ If while dining one brāhmaṇa touches another, he should give up eating or after finishing his meal he should mutter the Gāyatrī verse 108 times (as penance). In modern times generally the eyes are touched with water if this happens. If a diner touched a server who had a vessel containing food, the server should place the vessel containing food on the ground, should perform ācamana, the food in the vessel should have water sprinkled over it and then it may be served. One was not to eat or drink with the left hand. One should drink water at the time of meals with a drinking bowl or vessel, one should never drink water with the two hands joined together (Yāj. I. 138), but when not eating food one may drink water with the bare right hand. After finishing one's meal one is to repeat the āpośana 'amṛtāpidhānam-asi' and drink some water, wash one's hands, sip water twice and may lightly brush his teeth for removing particles of food, then sip water again and take tāmbūla.¹⁸⁴⁰ Āśvalāyana (in verse) recommends 16 mouthfuls of water (gaṇḍūṣa) for cleansing the mouth after dinner (Āhn. Pr. p. 483). An ascetic, a Vedic student and a widow were not to partake of tāmbūla.

v3.c40.43

¹⁸³⁹ यस्त्वेकपङ्क्त्यां विषमं ददाति स्नेहाद्भयाद्वा यदि वार्थहेतोः। वेदे च दृष्टमृषिभिश्च गीतं तद्ब्रह्महत्यां मुनयो वदन्ति। वृद्धव्यासस्मृति IV. 63 quoted as यम in स्मृतिमु. (आह्निक p. 427). Vide शङ्खस्मृति 17. 57 for a similar verse.

v3.c40.44

¹⁸⁴⁰ आचम्य च ततः कार्यं दन्तकाष्ठस्य भक्षणम् । भोजने दन्तलग्नांश्च निर्हृत्याचमनं चरेत् । मरीचि quoted by स्मृतिच० I. p. 225 ; भूयोप्याचम्य कर्तव्यं ततस्ताम्बूलभक्षणम् । मार्कण्डेयपुराण 29. 39 quoted in स्मृतिच० I. p. 225.

v3.c40.45

A person was not to eat everything in his plate; he should leave some remnant ¹⁸⁴¹ of food except of curds, honey, ghee, milk and *saktu* (barley or barley flour). What remains was to be given to one's wife, servant or slave (Par. M. I. part 1, p. 422). No one was to give the remnants of one's food to another nor to eat the remnants of another's food, except a child that might eat the remnants of the food of its parents and *guru* (*vide* Smṛtimuktāphala, āhnika p. 431). Remnants of food were not to be given to a śūdra unless he was one's dependent (Manu IV. 80, Āp. Dh. S. I. 11. 31. 25–26). Atri (quoted in Sm. C. I. p. 228) says that even on sipping water after dinner one remains impure till one's plate is removed, till the ground where the food was taken is cow-dunged, till after leaving his seat he moves on the ground elsewhere. Vide also Āp. Dh. S. II. 2 4. 24. The plate of a brāhmaṇa may be removed by a brāhmaṇa (but not by any one else) and the plates of the brāhmaṇas invited at a śrāddha repast were to be removed by the person who performed the śrāddha or by his son or pupil, but not by one whose upanayana is not performed nor by the wife nor by any one else (Laghu-Āśvalāyana I. 165–166).

v3.c40.46

¹⁸⁴¹ भोजनं तु न निःशेषं कुर्यात्प्राज्ञः कथंचन । अन्यत्र दधिसक्तवाज्यं फलं क्षीरं मधूदकात् ॥ पुलस्त्य; न निःशेषकृत्स्यादन्यत्र दधिमधुसर्पिःपयःसक्तुभ्यः । वसिष्ठ; both in स्मृतिमु. (आह्निक) p. 431.

v3.c40.47

Most of the above rules may more or less be exemplified from the descriptions of the procedure of eating set out in Baud. Dh. S. II. 7, from the Bhojanasūtra of Kātyāyana for the followers of the white Yajurveda, from Hārīta quoted in the Gṛ. R. pp. 316-17 among the ancient writers and from the Smṛtyarthasāra pp. 68-69 among the authors of digests. It is impossible to set out any of them here for want of space, but an extract from the last work is given in the Appendix.¹⁸⁴²

v3.c40.48

¹⁸⁴² Vide Appendix under No. 1842.

v3.c40.49

There were certain rules about abstaining from food in the case of eclipses of the sun and the moon. They are set out in the Sm. C. I. pp. 228-229, the Śmṛtyarthasāra (p. 69), Matsyapurāṇa chap. 67, Aparārka pp. 151, 427-430. During the period of eclipse one was not to eat anything. Not only so but for 4 *praharas* (i. e. 12 hours) and 3 *praharas* (i. e. 9 hours) before the actual eclipse of the sun and the moon respectively all are to avoid taking food, except children, very old men and persons who are ill. This rule was observed up till very recent times by most people. When the eclipse begins one was to bathe and give gifts, perform tarpaṇa or śrāddha. Then one was to bathe after¹⁸⁴³ the eclipse was over and take food. If the sun sets while still eclipsed, one should bathe the next day on seeing the sun and then take food. If the moon rose eclipsed, one was not to eat anything during the day next to that on which the moon rises eclipsed. That these rules are ancient follows from the fact that some of them occur even in the Viṣṇu Dh. S. An eclipse of the sun is described even in the Ṛg. V. 40. 5-9 and it was supposed to be brought about by an *asura*. The Asura Svarbhānu is said to have pierced the sun with darkness in the Kāṭhaka S. XI. 5 and the Tai. S. II. 1. 2. 2; the Śāṅ. Br. 24. 3 and Tāṇḍya Br. (IV. 5. 2, IV. 6. 13) speak of an eclipse. In the Atharvaveda 19. 9. 10 the Sun and Rāhu are brought together. The Chāndogya Up. VIII. 13. 1 states that the knowing self shakes off his body when going to the world of Brahma like a horse shedding his hair or like the moon released from the mouth of Rāhu.

v3.c40.50

¹⁸⁴³ चन्द्रार्कोपरागे नाश्नीयात् । स्नात्वा मुक्तयोरश्नीयात् । अमुक्तयोरस्तंगतयोर्दृष्ट्वा स्नात्वा चापरेऽह्नि । विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 68. 1-3.

v3.c40.51

Viṣṇu Dh. S. (68. 4-5) prescribes that a man was not to eat when a cow or a brāhmaṇa met with an accident or when the king was in distress (or dead).

v3.c40.52

The most elaborate rules are laid down about what food should or should not be eaten and from whom food may or may not be taken. These rules occur in most of the smṛtis. It would be impossible to do justice to all of them. The following smṛtis deal with this matter at length. Gaut. 17, Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 16. 17-I. 6. 19; Vas. Dh. S. 14, Manu VI. 207-223, Yāj. I. 167-181. The Śāntiparva chapters 36 and 78, the Kūrmapurāṇa (uttarārdha chap. 17), Padma (ādikhaṇḍa chap. 56), and several other purāṇas deal with this topic. Among the digests the Sm. C. II. pp. 418-429, the Gṛ. R. pp. 334-395, the Madanapārijāta pp. 337-343, the Smṛtimuktāphala (āhnika pp. 433-451), the Āhnikaprakāśa pp. 488-550 contain very exhaustive treatment. An attempt will be made to present the rules in an orderly manner.

v3.c40.53

Aparārka p. 241 quotes a passage from the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa¹⁸⁴⁴ which states the various reasons for food being forbidden viz. *jātiduṣṭa* or *svabhāvaduṣṭa* (i. e. forbidden on account of its very nature) such as garlic, leek, onion &c.; *kriyāduṣṭa* (forbidden on account of certain actions done with reference to it) such as cooked food served with the bare hand or seen by a *patita* (outcast), cāṇḍālas, dogs &c., or because one in a row takes ācamana or rises before others; *kāladuṣṭa* (forbidden because of the time that has elapsed or because of the inappropriateness of the time) such as stale food or food eaten in eclipses or the milk of a cow before ten days have elapsed from delivery; *saṁsargaduṣṭa* (spoilt by foul contact) such as what comes in contact with a dog or wine or garlic, or hair or insects &c.; *sahṛllekha* (what causes disgust to the mind) such as fæces &c. To these may be added *rasaduṣṭa* (what has lost its flavour) such as pāyasa or kṣīra on the same day; *parigrahaduṣṭa* (what is forbidden simply because it belongs to a particular individual such as *patita*). Aparārka (p. 1157) says that condemned food, partaking of which is an *upapātaka* (a minor sin), is of six kinds, viz. due to svabhāva, kāla, saṁparka (same as saṁsarga), kriyā, bhāva, and parigraha.¹⁸⁴⁵ An example of bhāvaduṣṭa given by Aparārka is sugarcane juice which a man may feel to be forbidden to him because he believes it to be wine. According to Gaut. 17. 12 bhāvaduṣṭa means food offered with disrespect or which the eater comes to hate or becomes disgusted with. Haradatta on Gaut. 23. 23 mentions five of these varieties (of Aparārka p. 1157) except bhāvaduṣṭa.¹⁸⁴⁶

v3.c40.54

¹⁸⁴⁴ भविष्यत्पुराणम् । जातिदुष्टं क्रियादुष्टं कालाच्चयविदूषितम् । संसर्गाच्चाप्युदुष्टं च सहृल्लेखं स्वभावतः ॥ अपरार्क p. 241. Compare वृद्धहारीत XI. 122-123 भावदुष्टं क्रियादुष्टं कालदुष्टं तथैव च। संसर्गदुष्टं च तथा वर्जयेद्यज्ञकर्मणि। The following verses exemplify these.

v3.c40.55

¹⁸⁴⁵ अन्नस्य च निन्दितत्वं स्वभावकाल-संपर्क-क्रियाभाव-परिग्रहैः षोढा भवति । अपरार्क p. 1157.

v3.c40.56

¹⁸⁴⁶ Some of these words occur in वसिष्ठधर्मसूत्र 14. 28 'अन्नं पर्युषितं भावदुष्टं सहश्लेष्मं पुनः सिद्धमाममांसं पक्कं च।'

v3.c40.57

Before proceeding further some remarks must be made about flesh-eating. In the Ṛg. frequent reference is made to the cooking of the flesh of the ox for offering to gods (particularly Indra). For example, in Ṛg. X. 86. 14 Indra is made to say ‘They cook for me 15 plus twenty oxen’; *vide* Ṛg. X. 27. 2. In Ṛg. X. 91. 14 it is stated that for Agni were sacrificed horses, bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. In Ṛg. VIII. 43. 11¹⁸⁴⁷ Agni is styled ‘one whose food is the ox and the barren cow.’ In Ṛg. X. 79. 6 it is suggested that the cow was cut up with a sword or axe. In the Ṛg. itself the cow is frequently called ‘aghnyā’ (*vide* Ṛg. I. 164. 27 and 40, IV. 1. 6, V. 83. 8, VIII. 69. 21, X. 87. 16 &c.). The word ‘aghnyā’ appears to mean ‘one that does not deserve to be killed’ and the Nirukta (XI. 43)¹⁸⁴⁸ explains it in that way. It should be noted that that word occurs sometimes in apposition to ‘dhenu’ (as in Ṛg. IV. 1. 6, VIII. 69. 2). So it may be argued that in the times of the Ṛg. only barren cows if at all were killed for sacrifice or meat and cows yielding milk were held to be not fit for being killed. It is only in this way that one can explain the high praise bestowed on the cow in Ṛg. VI. 28. 1-8 and in Ṛg. VIII. 101. 15 and 16 where the cow is described to be ‘the mother of Rudras, the daughter of Vasus, the sister of Ādityas and the centre of nectar’ and the sage winds up by praying to the knowing man ‘do not kill the cow, that is innocent and is Aditi herself.’¹⁸⁴⁹ In Ṛg. VIII. 101. 16. the cow is called ‘devī’

v3.c40.58

¹⁸⁴⁷ यस्मिन्नश्वास ऋषभ्वास उक्षणो वशामेषा अवसृष्टास आहुताः। कीलालपे सोमपृष्ठाय वेधसे हृदा मतिं जनये चारुमग्नये॥ ऋ. X. 91. 14; उक्षानाय वशान्नाय सोमपृष्ठाय वेधसे। स्तोमैर्विधेमाग्नये॥ ऋ. VIII 43. 11; वि पर्वशश्चकर्त गामिवासिः॥ ऋ. X. 79. 6.

v3.c40.59

¹⁸⁴⁸ अघ्न्या अहन्तव्या भवति अघघ्नी इति वा। निरुक्त XI. 43.

v3.c40.60

¹⁸⁴⁹ माता रुद्राणां दुहिता वसूनामिति जपित्वोत्सृजतेत्युत्स्रक्ष्यन्। आश्व. गृ. I. 24. 25. In आश्व. गृ. II. 10. 7 the view of some is stated that when cows return to the village from the pasture the hymn Ṛg. VI. 28 should be recited by the owner.

v3.c40.61.1

(goddess). It appears that the cow was being raised to the status of divinity and there was a great revulsion of feeling about the cow. The great usefulness of the cow and the ox for agricultural purposes, in the family economy and as means of exchange must have powerfully contributed to making the cow a divinity. In the gṛhya sūtras (like Āśv. I. 24. 25), Ṛg. VIII. 101. 15 is prescribed as the mantra when in the Madhuparka ceremony the cow is let loose by the guest. The Artharvaveda (XII. 4) fully recognises the cult of the holiness of the cow. That the cow continued to be offered in sacrifices follows from several Brāhmaṇa passages e. g. Tai. Br. III. 9. 8. In the Śat. Br. III. 1. 2. 21 it is stated that the great sage Yājñavalkya was wont to eat the meat of cows and oxen provided it was ‘aṁsala’¹⁸⁵⁰ (tender?). The Ait. Br. (6. 8)¹⁸⁵¹ states that the horse, the ox, the goat and ram are sacrificial animals while the kimpuruṣa, gauramṛga, gavaya, the camel and śarabha (a mythical animal with eight feet) were not sacrificial and their flesh should not be eaten. The Śat. Br. I. 2. 3. 9 contains a similar prohibition. The Śat. Br. XI. 7. 1. 3 declares that ‘meat is the best kind of food.’ The work of Mr. L. L. Sundara Ram (Madras, 1927) on ‘Cow Protection in India’ contains an exhaustive treatment of the subject from Vedic times and cites the attitude of other nations and religions towards cow-killing.

v3.c40.61.2

The veneration for the cow has been so great that pañcagavya prepared from the five substances due to the cow viz. her milk, curds and ghee of her milk, her urine and dung mixed with water in which kuśa blades had been placed was looked upon as¹⁸⁵² purification for many lapses. Yāj. III. 314 mentions the ingredients of pañcagavya. The Baud. gṛ. śeṣa-sūtra (II. 20) contains an elaborate note on the preparation of pañcagavya, the quantities of the five ingredients, the Vedic verses to be recited when preparing it. Parāśara XI. 28-34, Devala 62-65, Laghuśātātapa 158-162, Matsyapurāṇa 267. 5-6 and other works contain similar rules. Parāśara prescribes that the urine, dung, milk, curds and ghee should be of cows the colours of which are respectively dark, white, copper-red, dark-red and brown or that all ingredients may be of a brown (kapilā) cow. There is some difference of view about colours and also about the quantities. According to Parāśara urine, ghee, and water should be one part each, curds three parts, milk seven parts and cowdung as much as the thumb. According to Atri. 299 dung, urine, ghee and milk were to be respectively 1, 2, 4 and 8 parts and curds also 8 parts. When mixing the ingredients, urine is taken with the sacred Gāyatrī, cowdung with ‘gandhadvārām’ (Tai. Ār. X. 1), milk with ‘āpyāyasva’ (Ṛg. I. 91. 16), curds with ‘dadhikrāvṇo’ (Ṛg. IV. 39. 6), ghee with ‘tejosi śukram’ (Vāj. S. 22. 1) and kuśa water with ‘devasya tvā’ (Ait. Br. 37. 3, Vāj. S. 22. 1).

v3.c40.61.3

The pañcagavya thus prepared is to be placed near the fire, then it is to be stirred to the accompaniment of ‘āpo hi ṣṭhā (Ṛg. X. 9. 1-3) and then the mantra ‘mā nastoke’ (Ṛg. I. 114. 8) is to be repeated over it, it may be then offered into fire with green darbhas not less than seven to the accompaniment of ‘Irāvatī’ (Ṛg. VII. 99. 3), ‘idam Viṣṇur’ (Ṛg. I. 22. 17), ‘mā nastoke’ (Ṛg. X. 114. 8), and the śaṁvatī verse (Ṛg. X. 9. 4) and then the remainder is to be drunk by one who prepares it with the verse noted below.¹⁸⁵³ The vessel in which the pañcagavya is to be prepared must be of copper or gold or of palāśa or lotus leaves (Par. M. II. 1 p. 434 quoting Prajāpati). Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54. 7 and Atri 300 say that a śūdra drinking pañcagavya and a brāhmaṇa drinking surā (liquor distilled from flour) are equally sinful and fall in hell. But Devala 61 and Parāśara XI. 3 and 27 allow śūdras (and women) to take pañcagavya but without Vedic mantras. Therefore the digests like Śūdrakamalākara (p. 42) say that a śūdra can take pañcagavya only as a prāyaś-citta (penance) for a sin and not otherwise. Pañcagavya is also called *brahmakūrca*. Atri 301 declares that the dung of a cow that eats unclean things is not to be employed for purification. A smṛti passage declares that he in whose house there is not even one cow with her calf becomes devoid of all maṅgalas (auspicious things) and darkness does not leave him.

v3.c40.61.4

A cow was said to be holy in all limbs except her mouth (Medhātithi on Manu V. 128 quotes 'gāvo medhyā mukhād-ṛte') and so Manu V. 124 requires food smelt or licked by a cow to be purified. Manu XI. 79 says that if one sacrifices one's life in defence of brāhmaṇas and cows one becomes free from the sin of even brāhmaṇa murder. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 18 declares that even an untouchable (bāhya) went to heaven by giving his life in defence of brāhmaṇas, cows, women and children. Vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. 3. 45 also. In Gaut. IX. 13-14 the cow is referred to as *devatā*. As early as the 2nd century A.D. we have the collocation of the words 'go-brāhmaṇahita' (the welfare of cows and brāhmaṇas) in an inscription of Rudradāman (E. I. vol. VIII. p. 44). Vide Gupta inscriptions p. 89 (for 'go-brāhmaṇa-purogābhyaḥ sarvaprajābhyaḥ). These words also occur frequently in the Rāmāyaṇa (Bālakāṇḍa 26. 5, Araṇya 23. 28) and in the Matsyapurāṇa 104. 16. The Kapilā (brown) cow was said to be the most auspicious and meant for providing milk for agnihotra and brāhmaṇas, and the śūdra who used its milk was deemed to go to hell (vide Vṛddha-Gautama p. 568).

v3.c40.62

¹⁸⁵⁰ तस्माद्धेन्वनडुहोर्नाश्नीयात् । तदु होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः । अश्नाम्येवाहंसलं चेद्भवतीति । शतपथ ब्रा. III. 1. 2. 21.

v3.c40.63

¹⁸⁵¹ त एत उत्क्रान्तमेधा अमेध्य पशवस्तस्मादेषां नाश्नीयात् । ऐ. ब्रा. 6. 8.

v3.c40.64

¹⁸⁵² गोमूत्रं गोमयं क्षीरं दधि सर्पिः कुशोदकम् । निर्दिट्टं पञ्चगव्यं तु पवित्रं पापनाशनम् ॥ ... ... गायत्र्या गृह्य गोमूत्रं गन्धद्वारेति गोमयम् । आप्यायस्वेति च क्षीरं दधिक्राव्णेति वै दधि । तेजोसि शुक्रमित्याज्यं देवस्य त्वा कुशोदकम् ॥ पराशर XI. 28-33. The मत्स्य 267. 5-6 (सावित्र्या गृह्य &c.) are almost the same as पराशर XI. These and other verses of Parāśara (in all eleven) are quoted by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 314 and by Aparārka p. 1250.

v3.c40.65

¹⁸⁵³ यत्त्वगस्थिगतं पापं देहे तिष्ठति देहिनाम् । ब्रह्मकूर्चा दहेत्सर्वं प्रदीप्ताग्निरिवेन्धनम् ॥ पराशर XI. 37. In the उत्सर्जनप्रयोग the verse now repeated at the time of taking pañcagavya is ‘यत्त्वग्...तिष्ठति मामके । प्राशनं पञ्चगव्यस्य दहत्वग्नि...न्धनम् ॥’.

v3.c40.66

In spite of the prevalence of animal sacrifices, there are already in the times of the Ṛg. traces of the conception that a devout offering of praise or of a fuel-stick or of cooked food was as good as a more solemn sacrifice (Ṛg. VIII. 19. 5, VIII. 24. 20) and that oblations of food made to the accompaniment of heart-felt hymns become like bulls, oxen and cows in sacrifice.¹⁸⁵⁴ These verses are quoted by the Āśv. gṛ. S. (I. 1. 4) and explained (vide p. 677 above). The Śat. Br. XI. 6. 1. 3¹⁸⁵⁵ adumbrates the later doctrine that the eater of meat is eaten in the next birth by the animal killed. The Chāndogya Up. III. 17 regards that *tapas*, charity, straightforwardness, *ahiṁsā* and speaking the truth are the fee (of the symbolic sacrifice). The same Up. (VIII. 15. 1) emphasizes that the wise man who has attained correct knowledge does not cause any injury to *bhūtas* except in the case of sacred rites and reaches the world of brahma and does not return to *saṁsāra*.¹⁸⁵⁶ It appears that the causes that led on to the giving up of flesh at least by some people were many, the foremost being the metaphysical conception that one Supreme Entity pervades the whole universe, that all life was one, and that even the meanest insect was a manifestation of the divine Essence and that philosophical truths would not dawn upon the man who was not restrained, free from crude appetites and had not universal kindliness and sympathy. Another motive for the insistence on *ahiṁsā* was probably the idea of defilement caused by eating flesh (vide note 1810 above about ‘āhāraśuddhi’). Śaṅkha asks people to give up flesh, wine, onions and garlic because the body is built up on the food eaten.¹⁸⁵⁷ The notion that the eater of flesh would be devoured by the eaten in the next birth had nothing to do with the early stages of the doctrine of *ahiṁsā*, though by Manu and others that notion was later on exploited to emphasize its importance. Further as the Aryans spread over middle, east and south India animal food became unnecessary owing to the climate and the abundance of corn and vegetables. Though opinions may differ as to the causes, it cannot be gainsaid that the phenomenon of the voluntary giving up of meat by vast populations in the continent of India, when their ancestors had been meat-eaters for ages, is unique in the history of the whole world.¹⁸⁵⁸ We shall find that even when the doctrines of *karma* and transmigration were in full swing, the taking of life for food and in sacrifice was allowed by all the ancient dharmasūtras. Even the Vedāntasūtra (III. 1. 25) does not admit that the killing of animals in sacrifice is impure. The Bṛ. Up. which contains a full statement of the doctrine of transmigration (VI. 2) recommends (VI. 4. 18) to the man who desires that a learned son be born to him the cooking of a mess of the flesh of a bull or ox or of other flesh with rice and ghee.¹⁸⁵⁹ Not only other animals, but even the cow, was on certain occasions killed according to the gṛhya and dharma sūtras on several occasions e. g. (1) in śrāddhas (Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 16. 25), (2) for a distinguished guest in Madhuparka (Āśv. gṛ. I. 24. 22-26, Vas. Dh. S. IV. 8), (3) in the Aṣṭakā śrāddha (Hīr. gṛ. II. 15. 1, Baud. gṛ. II. 11. 51, Vaik. IV. 3 ), (4) a bull in the Śūlagava sacrifice ( Āśv. gṛ. IV. 9. 10 ).

First 77 of 201 passages. Read on

Linked texts (89)