________________
A Study of Extracts in Astaka-Prakarana
:
383
One may eat meat, when sprinkled with water, purified by recital of mantras, when Brahmins desire one to do so, and when one is engaged in performing a rite., according to ritual and when one's life is in danger.
It is evident from the former of the above two verses of Manusmrti, that Smộtikāra warns the meat-eater to face the same fate in his next birth i.e. to be the object of the creature whose meat he has relished in the present-birth.
On the other hand, Manusmệtikāra warns that a man, duly engaged to officiate or dine at a sacred rites, if refuses to eat meat, becomes after death, an animal in coming twenty-one births. This verse is as follows--
यथाविधि नियुक्तस्तु यो मांसं नात्ति वै द्विजः। स प्रेत्य पशुतां याति सम्भवानेकविंशतिम् ।।७/१८।।
Thus, in refusing the meat-eating the danger of becoming animal in 21 births, makes the idea of great reward meaningless. The cost of abstention 'falafa' being so dear, one will be forced to resort to inclination (meat-eating).
Haribhadra, in his attempt to bringout the inherent contradictions of the verse, “7 HITATU 214:' annules the proposition, abstention is great reward 'Fagfarq461467". According to Haribhadra, abstention is irrelevant in the context of Jaina monks, who are strictly forbidden to take meat. Apparently, if the proposition of great reward is accepted, those not eating meat like Jaina monks will have no opportunity to have this great reward, hence proposition is illogical.
It is notable that the recension of the first half of this verse (7/18) vary from that of Manusmặti (5/35). The first half is as follows.
नियुक्तस्तु यथान्यायं यो मांसं नात्ति मानवः। ५/३५ यथाविधि नियुक्तस्तु यो मांसं नात्ति वैद्विजः । ७/१८
