________________
APPENDIX I
demands of ahimsā and vegetarianism. The historical approach seems to impose itself. In the author's view the contradictions of the texts can mean only one thing: a chronological succession.
The demonstration centres on the relevant part of Manu (V,5–55), where three successive layers are recognized. The first layer is represented by the discussion on pure and impure food (5-25); there is no question of ahiņsā. This stage is also represented by the Dharmasūtras. The next stage comes with the verses 27-44, where ahimsā is the rule, except the case of Vedic injunctions when meat is allowed or even obligatory. The last stage is reached in 44–55, where ahimsā and vegetarianism are absolute.
The sanctity of the cow-rightly kept separate from ahimsā - shows a roughly parallel development. The special position of the bovine is abundantly attested in the Vedic texts. This did not preclude the consumption of beef (not much of an argument, however, for an otherwise unassailable case can be derived from the absence of the cow in the old lists of non-consumable meat, p. 59. The criterion is here, as the author has pointed out previously, impurity. One would hardly expect to find the cow among the impure animals). The next stage is found in some of the older smặtis, where eating beef is restricted to sacrificial occasions. This restriction is then, in the later smrtis, subsumed under the one regarding all meat. (Alsdorf's second layer in the development of ahimsā, above). Thus the sanctity of the cow has become intimately linked with the ahiņsā doctrine.
This clear-cut chronological frame has much to recommend itself to the Western scholar. I doubt, however, whether it can do justice to the Indian facts, even if we should limit ourselves to the texts. The limitations of the chronological perspective stand out clearly when the author, in his search for historical origins, is forced back away from the texts into the limbo of pre-Aryan civilization and the ruins of Harappa. Although the hypothesis of pre-Aryan origins of Hindu ideas and institutions is far from impossible, this reasoning also means that, because of lack of documentation, the problem is shifted out of sight and rendered all but meaningless. The author further surmises - quite consistently - that not only ahimsā and sanctity of the bovine, but also their opposite, (ritual) bloodshed, finds its roots in pre-Aryan civilization. Indeed, as the author observes, the juxtaposition of these opposites in pre-Aryan times is no more illogical than their existence side by side in Hinduism until the present day.
Even if, in some cases, we can feel confident that 'kritischhistorischer Betrachtung löst sich also das scheinbare Nebeneinander
91 For Personal & Private Use Only
Jain Education International
www.jainelibrary.org
