History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c40.76.2

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.