History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c40.76
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c40.76
- Language
- English
v3.c40.76.1
abstained from animal food and sexual intercourse (probably as brahmacārins) and that after living in this manner for 37 years they began to live with less restraint and began to eat the flesh of animals, particularly of those that did not assist man in his labour. The Great Emperor Aśoka declares in his first Rock Edict how originally thousands of animals were killed in the royal kitchens, how he then brought down the number to two peacocks and one deer daily and how he had resolved to discontinue the slaughter of even this limited number thereafter. Vide also the 2nd and 4th Rock Edicts. In the fifth pillar edict (Delhi-Topra) the Emperor Aśoka notes that when he had been twenty-six years on the throne he declared numerous animals (such as parrots, *mainas*, *haṁsas*, cakravākas, tortoises, porcupines, fishes &c.) to be *avadhya* (not to be killed). The general rule as stated¹⁸⁶² by Āp. Dh. S. II. 2. 3. 12 and the Rāmāyaṇa (quoted above on p. 733) was that from that food that was either cooked or got ready for the daily meals of a householder, *homa* and *bali* were to be made. Ancient works spoke of meat offerings to gods and in madhuparka and śrāddha. Therefore some of the smṛtis like those of Manu and Vasiṣṭha are in two minds about the use of flesh. Manu (V. 27-44) at first contains a permission to kill animals only in madhuparka, in sacrifices¹⁸⁶³ and in rites for gods and manes and on no other occasion. Manu (V.
v3.c40.76.2
27 and 32) further says that no sin is incurred in flesh-eating when one's life is in danger (owing to famine or disease) and when a person partakes of the remnants of the flesh of an animal purchased by him or reared by him or flesh given by another out of what is prepared for offering to gods and manes. Yāj. I. 179 is to the same effect. Manu further clinches his exhortation not to eat animal food by ordaining that he who kills an animal except for the limited purposes stated above is himself killed for as many births as there are hair on the body of the slaughtered animal (Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 60 is also the same). Manu then goes on to declare (V. 40 and 44 = Viṣṇu Dh. S. II. 63, 67) that herbs or plants, animals, trees (of which sacrificial posts are made), lower animals, birds, that meet destruction for the sake of performing sacrifices are born again in better forms (of existence) and that *hiṁsā* (killing of or injury to sentient beings) done according to the dictates of the Veda should be understood as no *hiṁsā* ¹⁸⁶⁴ since dharma shines forth from Veda alone. Though Vasiṣṭha Dh. S. (in 14. 39-40) allows the flesh of five five-nailed animals and of animals with one row of teeth (except camels) and also of certain birds and kinds of fish, yet in VI. 5-6 it takes up the same position as that of Manu viz. that *hiṁsā* was allowed only in sacrifices &c. From V.
v3.c40.76.3
46-55 Manu takes up the position of total abstention from killing animals even in sacrifices (they are the same as Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 69-78). In one verse (V. 48 which is the same as Vas. Dh. S. IV. 7) Manu says that no flesh can be had without killing living beings and killing such beings cannot lead to heaven; therefore one should give up flesh. Verses 53 and 56 are very important as they convey that the merit of him who performs a horse-sacrifice every year for a hundred years and of him who does not partake of flesh (throughout life) is equal and that the word *māṁsa* (flesh) is derived by the wise (from ‘mām’ and ‘saḥ’) as meaning ‘he whose flesh I eat to day will devour me in the next world or birth.’ Yāj. I. 181 is just like Manu V. 53. Manu winds up the whole discussion (in V. 56) by stating that natural appetites lead men on to eat flesh or to drink wine or to indulge in sexual gratification and there is no sin in indulging in these when they are allowed by the *śāstra* in the case of certain persons and on certain occasions; but abstention in these matters (even on occasions when they are permitted by the *śāstras*) leads to great rewards.¹⁸⁶⁵ From these passages in Manu, Viṣṇu and Vas.
v3.c40.76.4
it is clear that when the extant works attributed to these authors were composed, they themselves were staunch upholders of *ahiṁsā*, but that there were two classes of people in their days who were not opposed to flesh-eating, one class holding that killing animals only for purposes for which the Veda expressly sanctioned *hiṁsā* was not improper and another class that indulged in flesh-eating without restrictions. That in spite of the individual predilections of the author of the Manusmṛti, general usage was different even in Manu’s day is indicated by the fact that in III. 227 Manu says that in śrāddha the performer should get ready various kinds of food including flesh of tempting varieties. Yāj. I. 258-260 states how flesh of various animals when served in śrāddha to the brāhmaṇas invited tends to cause satisfaction to the Manes for long periods. Bṛhaspati quoted by Sarvajña-Nārāyaṇa explained Manu V. 27 as a *parisaṁkhyā* i. e. Manu does not enjoin flesh-eating on the four occasions stated, but only permits it and forbids it on other occasions.¹⁸⁶⁶ Centuries were required before the views propounded by Manu became predominant. Gradually large sections of the population of India gave up flesh-eating and even those who did not regard it as forbidden to them rarely partook of it or did so in an apologetic way. The spread of Vaiṣṇavism tended to wean people from flesh as required by the Bhāgavatapurāṇa¹⁸⁶⁷ (VII. 15.
v3.c40.76.5
7-8) which is to the Vaiṣṇavas what the Bible is to the Christians. In medieval and modern times all brāhmaṇas avoid flesh (except some brāhmaṇas in northern and eastern India that hold that fish may be eaten); so also do many vaiśyas, particularly those who are Vaiṣṇavas and even among śūdras there are many who do not touch flesh and regard abstention from flesh as meritorious. From ancient times the kṣatriyas have been meat-eaters. The Mahābhārata has in several places to say a great deal on flesh-eating. In the Vanaparva 50. 4 it is stated that the Pāṇḍava heroes killed with unpoisoned arrows deer and first offered venison to brāhmaṇas and partook of it themselves. In Sabhā 4. 1-2 king Yudhiṣṭhira on the opening of Mayasabhā feasted ten thousand brāhmaṇas with various delicacies including the flesh of wild boars and deer. Vanaparva 208. 11-12¹⁸⁶⁸ offers the consoling thought (that is conveyed by the Ṛgveda itself) that animals killed in sacrifices to the accompaniment of Vedic mantras went to heaven and it narrates the story of king Rantideva in whose sacrifices two thousand animals and cows were killed every day. Anuśāsana 116. 8 contains the view that there is nothing so nourishing as meat for those who are wounded or weak or worried or who are given up to too much sexual gratification and those exhausted by long travel. Anuśāsana 116. 16-19 allows flesh of animals killed by hunting to kṣatriyas.
v3.c40.76.6
There are some passages where the Mahābhārata contains the same sentiments as those of Manu e. g. Anuśāsana 115 highly praises abstention from meat and a few verses of this chapter (e. g. 115. 44-45, 48) are very similar to Manu's (V. 27, 51). Śaṅkha quoted by Aparārka p. 1167 allows the flesh of buffaloes, goats, rams, *ruru* deer, ordinary deer and spotted deer. Hārīta quoted in the Gṛ. R. p. 375 mentions the flesh of goats, rams, buffaloes, deer of various kinds (*ruru*, *pṛṣata*, *nyaṅku*, *ṛkṣa*), rhinoceros, and large forest boars as permissible, while Devala quoted by the same forbids the flesh of cows, asses, camels, horses, elephants, lions, tigers, bears, *śarabhas*, snakes, boa constrictor, rats and mice, cats, mongoose, village hog, dog, jackal, animals of unknown species, *cheettas*, dark-faced apes, monkeys and human beings. Manu V. 51 (= Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 74) says that he who gives consent to the killing of an animal (for food), who cuts off the limbs, who kills the animal, who sells or purchases meat, who cooks it, who serves meat and the eater of meat—these are all guilty of killing. Yama (quoted in Āhn. Pr. p. 533) says that the eater is the greatest sinner out of these, as, if there were no eaters of meat, no one would kill animals for food.