Verse 5.26 [Lawful and Forbidden Meat]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

एतदुक्तं द्विजातीनां भक्ष्याभक्ष्यमशेषतः ।
मांसस्यातः प्रवक्ष्यामि विधिं भक्षणवर्जने ॥ २६ ॥

etaduktaṃ dvijātīnāṃ bhakṣyābhakṣyamaśeṣataḥ |
māṃsasyātaḥ pravakṣyāmi vidhiṃ bhakṣaṇavarjane || 26 ||

Thus has been described is full what is fit and what unfit to be eaten by twice-born men. Next I am going to explain the rule regarding the eating and avoiding of meat.—(26)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The first half of the verse cuts off the preceding section; and what is implied by this cutting off of the section is that the section that has gone before pertains to the twice-born castes only, not to Śūdras, while what follows applies to Śūdras also. It is for this reason that several methods of eating meat shall be described, and the reward resulting from the giving up of meat-eating shall accrue to the Śūdra also. If this were not so, then, in the matter of eating meat also, the Śūdra would be free to do what he likes; just as he is in regard to the eating of garlic and other things that has been forbidden for ‘twice-born persons’ only, in verses 5 ete. etc. above.

“If it is as you say, then there is the following difficulty:—In verse 32 below, the Text is going to declare the eatability of the meat left from the worship of the Gods:—viz. ‘One does not become contaminated by sin if he eats meat after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitṛs’;—now the ‘worship of the gods’ etc. can be done only with such meaf as is sacred; and those beasts and birds that have been forbidden for twice-born people (in the next section) are not sacred; hence, the worshipping of Gods etc. with the meat of these beasts and birds being impossible,—and what does not form the ‘remnant of worship’ being unfit to be eaten,—these other beasts and birds also, mentioned in a different context, become forbidden for the twice-born people; and the prohibition of these could be made to apply to the Śūdra also by some such other method (of reasoning). So that there is no point in the dividing of the sections (simply for making the prohibitions of the next section applicable to Śūdras also). And as for the prohibition of garlic and such things (that have been forbidden specially for twice-born persons), it is not applicable to Śūdras at all.”

There is this useful purpose served by the dividing of the two sections, that the prohibition of garlic and other things ceases to be applicable to the Śūdra. As regards meat also, in as much as the Householder only is entitled to do the worshipping of Gods, it is a matter purely optional for such Śūdras as are not ‘householders’.

“As a matter of fact, Śūdras also are entitled to the performance of sacrifices with cooked food; the eating of food has also been prescribed for Householders; but no ‘sacrifices with cooked food’ are ever offered with garlic and such other things. So that these things may be eaten, or not, by Śūdras, entirely according to their option.—‘Why’? What would be the harm? In that case the mention of ‘twiceborn persons’ (in connection with the forbidding of garlic, etc.) would have no point at all.’

This has been already answered by the explanation that one who is not a Householder, or who is travelling away from home, may do what he likes. Nor is it necessary that the Householder shall not eat what has not been offered in oblations; the meaning of the declaration ‘one shall live on remnants’ being that ‘he shall not eat until he has made the offering to the Vishedevas.’ Now, that substance alone is ‘sacred’, and can be offered as oblation, which has been prescribed as to be offered at, and thus helping the fulfilment of, a sacrifice. Some people fetch food from somewhere, at the time of eating, and eat it in their own house; and in this case even though the food may not be the ‘remnant of a sacrifice’, it would not be forbidden. As regards meat however, we have the restriction directly imposed, that ‘it shall never be eaten unless it has been offered to the Gods.’

“If this is applicable to all the four castes, then there is no point in what is going to be said (under 5.57) in connection with purifications.”

The use of that we shall explain at that place.

“In view of the mention of twice-born people in the foregoing section, it follows that day’s meat and such things also are fit to be eaten by Śūdras.”

Under Discourse XI we shall show that there are indications to the effect that ‘the village-pig’, the ass, the camel, and other animals mentioned in the three verses (157 etc.) are ‘unfit to be eaten’ for the Śūdra also.—(26).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

 

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 526), which adds the following notes:—The rules regarding eating that have gone before are meant for the ‘twice-born’, not for the Śūdra; hence for the latter there is no harm in eating garlic and other things. But, according to Kalpataru, the eating of the crow and such like animals and birds—even though included among those mentioned,—must be considered wrong, even for the Śūdra;—being as they are entirely condemned by all cultured men.—The mention of the ‘twice-born’ in this verse implies that the forthcoming prohibition regarding meat is meant for all the four castes.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 5.26-27)

Yājñavalkya (1.179).—‘When one’s life is in danger, at Śrāddhas, when it has been prepared for Brāhmaṇas, and when it has been offered in the worshipping cf gods and Pitṛs, if one eats meat, one incurs no sin.’

Yama (Aparārka, p. 251).—‘Invited at a Śrāddha, if one abandons the meat that is offered, one remains in hell, etc., etc.’

Mahābhārata (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 528).—‘Now listen to the law relating to Kṣatriyas. He incurs no sin if he eats meat obtained by his own valour; all wild animals are such as have been already offered to the gods by Agastya; that is why hunting is an honoured practice; it is for this reason that all royal sages go about hunting, and thereby they incur no sin.’

Viśvāmitra (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 528).—(Same as Yājñavalkya, above.)

Devala (Do.).—‘Eating meat in course of eating the remnants of offerings, one incurs no sin; similarly, if one eats as a medicine, or for saving his life, or by invitation, or at sacrifices.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 529).—‘One may eat consecrated meat once, for the sake of a Brāhmaṇa; also when invited at a rite in honour of gods or Pitṛs.’

Bṛhaspati (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 529).—‘Under the following four circumstances alone should one eat meat—(a) when suffering from an otherwise incurable disease, (b) when duly invited, (a) when the meat has been offered as a libation, and (d) when invited by a Brāhmaṇa. Apart from these one shall never eat meat.’

Hārīta (Do. 530).—‘If one eat needlessly-prepared meat, one should perforin the Kṛcchra. But for the sake of the Brāhmaṇas, he may eat as much as he likes.’

Visṇu (Do.).—(Same as Manu 36.)