Verse 5.40

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

ओषध्यः पशवो वृक्षास्तिर्यञ्चः पक्षिणस्तथा ।
यज्ञार्थं निधनं प्राप्ताः प्राप्नुवन्त्युत्सृतीः पुनः ॥ ४० ॥

oṣadhyaḥ paśavo vṛkṣāstiryañcaḥ pakṣiṇastathā |
yajñārthaṃ nidhanaṃ prāptāḥ prāpnuvantyutsṛtīḥ punaḥ || 40 ||

Herbs, animals, trees, beasts and birds, reaching death for the sake of sacrifices, attain advancements.—(40)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“How is it known that killing at sacrifices involves no sin?”

The answer is as follows:—‘killing’ is the greatest injury that can befall the being killed; because it involves such great evil as the loss of life, involving separation from wife, children and riches, and all the attendant evil consequences; and also because it carries the entities nearer to the fruition of their sins in the form of hell and the like. But when an animal is killed at a sacrifice, this killing becomes a great benefit conferred upon it, and it is not an injury; because it does not lead it to hell nr any such undesirable conditions. That this is so follows from the fact that those ‘reaching death’— destruction—at a sacrifice —‘attain advancements’—higher positions, in regard to caste and so forth;—being born as a God or a Gandharva, or as men born in better countries or continents—such as the Uttarakuru and the like.

The whole of this is a purely commendatory description. We do not find here any Injunction: the verb ‘attain’ being in the simple Present tense. Nor is there any justification for deducing an Injunction from the commendatory description,—as is done in the case of the passage ‘Pratitiṣṭhanti etc.’ (v ide, Mīmāṃsā-Sūtra, 4.3.17. et seq); because in the present case neither there is, nor is there any possibility of, any other Injunction (apart from those already set forth in the text).

The whole of this descriptive section is supplementary to the prohibition of the eating of unlawful meat; and the upshot of the prohibition contained in these verses is that ‘one should never seek to kill animals needlessly.’ (verse 37) As for the sanction (of killing) implied in the statement—‘animals have been created for the purpose of sacrifices’ (39),—all this is understood as involving the prohibition of eating which is going to be distinctly emphasised below in verse 48.

Nor can any Injunction (such as ‘desiring advancement, the animal shall die at a sacrifice’) be deduced from the text. Because such an Injunction could not be intended for the animals; for the simple reason that they would not understand it. And those for whom the Injunction is not intended cannot be the agent; and unless one is an agent, he cannot obtain any reward declared in the scriptures. Specially as in the present case, the result spoken of does not proceed in any perceptible manner from the nature of the thing involved; as there is, for instance, in the case of the poison, which produces its results even on ignorant persons who take it. There is no such thing in the case of things spoken of in the Veda.

Further, since the herbs and other things spoken of here ore unconscious beings, the ‘principle of the priests’ cannot apply to their case. That is to say, it is found that in the case of sacrificial performances, results are spoken of as accruing to one person (the sacrificer) from the acts that are actually done by others,—i. e., the priests officiating for him; e.g., in the case of the passage—‘he desires one to become worse etc,’ In the case of such passages we admit of an Injunction, because what is there stated is not capable of being taken as supplementary to any other Injunction, and secondly because the indication of the Injunction, is quite clear, and lastly, because the Injunction indicated is found to be one that pertains to human beings.

In the case of all scriptural statements, we are entitled to deduce just as much us may be reasonably deduced from the actual words of the text. For instance, it has been declared that the Brāhmaṇa joining in the sacrificial bath of other people should have to perform an expiatory rite [and we have to accent this, even though we fail to see any reason for it]. In the present case, however, there is no possibility of any Injunction being addressed to the beings concerned (all of which are inanimate).

‘Herbs,’—grass and the like.

‘Animate,’—the goat and other beasts (which are mentioned as fit for being offered at sacrifices).

‘Trees,’—such as are objects of worship.

‘Beasts,’—those which, though not ordinarily regarded as fit for sacrificing, happen to be mentioned, in some passages, as to be offered; e.g., ‘one shall kill partridges.’ Though at the Vājapeya and similar sacrifices, the calves are used only for the purpose of carrying loads, yet they are called ‘beasts;’ and even though these do not suffer actual death, yet the term ‘death’ in their case stands for all the sufferings that they undergo.

‘Bird.”—the Kapiñjala and the rest; even though these are sometimes spoken of as ‘animals’, yet, as a rule, they are not known by that name: for in such passages as there are seven tame animals and seven wild animals’, the animals meant are the cow and the rest, which are not birds; in fact the term ‘paśu’, ‘animals, denotes quadrupods; or the difference between ‘animals’ and ‘birds’ may be regarded as similar to that between the ‘go’ and the^‘balvarda’ (the former term being wider than the latter) (40).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538), which explains ‘ucchṛtiḥ’ as ‘advancement’.

Medhātithi (P. 403, l. 22)—Pratitiṣṭhantītivat’—This refers to Mīmāṃsā Sūtṛa 4.3.17 et. seq., which embodies what has been called the ‘Rātrisattra-nyāya’. In connection with the ‘Rātri’ offerings, it is said that ‘he who offers these obtains respectability &c.;’ and in regard to this the question arises whether this latter passage is a mere arthavāda, or it describes the result that really follows from the offerings; and the conclusion is that, inasmuch as no other mention of the result of the offerings is found anywhere, the passage in question must be taken as describing the results actually following from them.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (51.63).—(Same as Manu.)