History of Vegitarianism and Cow Veneration in India

SR No.: 006921
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Willem B Bollee
Publisher: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd
Publication Year: 2010
Total Pages: 186
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 21

HISTORY OF VEGETARIANISM IN INDIA
away than could be eaten, hence the greater part would be refuse.22 Should now, Āyāranga II 1, 10,6 continues, someone offer the monk meat with many bones or fish with many fishbones, he should answer: Your Reverence, or Sister, I am not permitted to accept meat with many bones: give me as much (poggala, body, mass) as you like, but no bones.' If, however, he should have inadvertently accepted meat with many bones or fish with many fishbones (certainly that means: if he should find out after accepting the alms that it contains too many bones or fishbones), he should not offend the donor through a brusque return, but should go away with it and eat the meat and fish in a ritually pure (i.e. free from living beings) place, a garden or a lodging, and then deposit the bones or fishbones in a suitable place with the precautionary measures assigned for such
cases.23
22 appe siyā bhoyaņa-jjāe, bahu ujjhiya-dhammie; literally: 'Little would belong
to the category of edibles, much would have the characteristic of what has to be thrown away.' (In Āyāra II 1, 10, 4 the same verse-line serves immediately before to substantiate the ban on accepting sugarcane; in the Dasaveyāliya, sugarcane, meat, fish and other things are combined into one sloka). Jacobi, Leumann (1892: 621) and Schubring incorrectly print bahu-ujjhiya-dhammie as one compound, and Schubring translates: 'would be an alms small in quantity, but a great prostitution of the dharma.' It seems certain to me that Jacobi's translation 'so that only a part of it can be eaten and the greater part must be rejected' has chosen the right meaning; it rests on Silânka's quite correct explanation of the Ayāra passage: atrâivam-bhūte parigrhīte 'py antariksv-ādike 'lpam aśanīyam bahu
paritya-jana-dharmakam iti matvā na parigrhṇīyāt. 23 siyā nam paro bahu-atthiena mamseņa vā maccheņa vā uvanimantejjā: āusanto
samanā, abhikankhasi bahu-atthiyam mamsam padigāhettae? etappagāram nighosam soccă nisamma se puvvām eva āloejjā: āuso ti vā bhainī ti vā, no khalu kappai me bahu-atthiyam mamsam padigāhettae; abhikankhasi me dāum jāvatiyam, tāvatiyam poggalam dalayāhi, mă aţthiyāim ... se ya āhacca padigāhie siyā, tam no hi tti vaejjā, no anaha [? read: ahaha?] tti vaejjā. se ttam ädāya egantam avakkamejjā 2 ttā ahe ārāmamsi vā ahe uvassayamsi vă app' ande jäva samtānae mamsagam macchagam bhoccā atthiyaim kantage gahāya se ttam āyāe egantam avakkamejjā ahe jhāma-thandilamsi vā jāva pamajjiya 2 paritthavejja. (Jacobi's translation 'he should not say: "No, away, take it!"' conveys the expected sense, but is not to be reconciled with his text: tam no tti vaejjā, no ha tti, no hamdaha tti vaejjä. The above text is based on a collation by Schubring, according to whose kind information no handaha tti vaejjā 'he must not say: "there, take it" is to be deleted as not being in the text, though in itself it would fit well. The Cūrņi says: so ya puna saddho saddhī vā pharusam na bhanejjā, which can only signify: 'but he must not speak rudely to the layman or laysister (accusative!).'