History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c40.76.4

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.