History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c40.66

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 ).