________________
CHAPTER XIII, 21.
291
the fuel". The teaching of the elders' is, that refraining from slaughter (of living creatures) is (the duty) among all duties. We maintain that that action should be performed which involves no slaughter. (Our) proposition is no slaughter (of living creatures). If I spoke further, it would be possible to find fault with your proceedings in many ways: Always refraining from the slaughter of all beings is what we approve. We substantiate (this) from what is actually visible *, we do not rely on what is not visible.
The Adhvaryu said : You enjoy the earth's quality of fragrance, you drink watery juices, you see the colours of shining bodies, you touch the qualities of the air, you hear the sound produced in space, you think by the mind (on the objects of) mental operations. And all these entities, you believe, have life. You have not (then) abstained from taking life. You are (engaged) in the slaughter (of living creatures)". There is no movement without slaughter (of living creatures). Or what do you think, O twice-born one ?
This is not very clear, but the meaning seems to be that the slaughter is committed for the enjoyment of the sacrificer; the sacrificer only requires fuel, and the slaughtered animal is tben used for that purpose.
• Cf. Rhåndogya, p. 627, and next note; and Gita, inter alia, p. 114, and p. 348 infra. See Sankhyatattvakaumudi, p. 7.
• I.e. a rule expressly laid down. What is not visible means what is not expressly stated, but is to be derived by inference, and so forth (cf. À pastamba I, 1, 4.8). The express text is the famous one, 'Na himsyatsarvå bhätäni.' Himså, which is rendered slaughter here, may mean also 'giving pain' generally.
• This is the tu quoque argument. The sustentation of life requires some sort of slaughter. • 1.c. the support of the body, says Arguna Miste
U 2
Digitized by Google