Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 560

AHIMSA AND VEGETARIANISM
421
of animals and offering and partaking of meat portions. The leaders of the society in those days had to declare categorically that ceremonial meat-eating was permitted. Thus it has been declared on the authority of Manu (5.41) that animals are to be killed only for guest-worship, sacrifice, and for honouring gods and manes (pitar). The obvious implication is that they were not to be killed otherwise for being served as food. The scruples of the common man against the killings in sacrifice had to be set at rest by arguing one way or the other. It was pointed out, for instance, that the creator himself had created animals for sacrifices; therefore killing in a sacrifice amounted to non-killing (5.39). It was even maintained that if one ate meat after honouring gods and manes, it did not matter whether the animal for this purpose was killed by oneself or whether the meat was bought or obtained as a gift (5.32). As for the animals themselves, as also for the plants and trees that were cut for sacrifices, it was maintained that they attained a higher status (ucchriti, or uttamā gati 5.40, 42) after death and thus, in a sense, were obliged by the sacrificer. It appears that, in spite of all this, there were a few priests who made themselves bold to refuse eating meat in a sacrifice. In order to compel these ‘erring priests to do what was sanctioned by the tradition, it was declared that one who refused meat-eating in a sacrifice was born as an animal twenty-one times (5.35). As an aside it may be observed that if one really believed in what one said, then one wonders whether this can be looked upon as a threat. For, a person born as an animal twenty-one times stood a good chance of being caught hold of for a sacrifice and then, as mentioned above, he was assured of a higher status after death!
In the final stage, which is reflected in a third group of verses (5.45-55) of the Manusmriti, we hear of the total ban on meat-eating whether ritual or otherwise (nivarteta sarvamamasya bhakshanàt). The ban is imposed on the basis of ahimsā. Any meat-eating whatsoever, which involves himsă, cannot lead one to heaven; hence one should abstain from meat-eating. This must have been in those days a very bold stand, for it contradicted the Vedic injunction which prescribed a sacrifice for one who desired for heaven. The old belief that sin does not come to the eater or the seller of meat if he is not himself responsible for killing the animals still lingered on. Hence Manu declares in a
MadhuVidyā/535