Dharmashastra : Einführung und Überblick

11. Essensvorschriften und Essenstabus

4. Manu V, 26 - 56

von Alois Payer

mailto: payer@payer.de

Zitierweise / cite as:

Payer, Alois <1944 - >: Dharmashastra : Einführung und Überblick. -- 11. Essensvorschriften und Essenstabus. -- 4. Manu V, 26 - 56. -- Fassung vom 2004-03-07. -- URL: http://www.payer.de/dharmashastra/dharmash114.htm -- [Stichwort].

Erstmals publiziert: 2004-03-07

Überarbeitungen:

Anlass: Lehrveranstaltung 2003/04

Unterrichtsmaterialien (gemäß § 46 (1) UrhG)

©opyright: Dieser Text steht der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung. Eine Verwertung in Publikationen, die über übliche Zitate hinausgeht, bedarf der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung der Herausgeberin.

Dieser Teil ist ein Kapitel von:

Payer, Alois <1944 - >: Dharmashastra : Einführung und Übersicht. -- http://www.payer.de/dharmashastra/dharmash00.htm

Dieser Text ist Teil der Abteilung Sanskrit von Tüpfli's Global Village Library

0. Übersicht

• 3. Manu V, 1- 56
  • 3.6. Section VI. Lawful and Forbidden Meat (Manu V, 26 - 56)

3. Manu V, 1- 56

3.6. Section VI. Lawful and Forbidden Meat (Manu V, 26 - 56)

26. Thus has been described in full what is fit and what unfit to be eaten by twice-born men, next I am going to explain the rule regarding the eating and voiding of meat.

Medhâtithi: The first half of the verse cuts off the preceding section ; and what is implied by this cutting off of the section is that the section that has gone before pertains to the twice-born castes only, not to Shûdras, while what follows applies to Shûdras also. It is for this reason that several methods of eating meat shall be described, and the reward resulting from the giving up of meat-eating shall accrue to the Shûdra also. If this were not so then in the matter of eating meat also, the Shûdra would be free to do what he likes ; just as he is in regard to the eating of garlic and other things that has been forbidden for 'twice-born persons' only in verses 5 etc. etc, above. "If it is as you say, then there is the following difficulty : — In verse 32 below, the Text is going to declare the eatability of the meat left from the worship of the Gods:—viz. 'One does not become contaminated by sin if he eats meat after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitrs';—now the 'worship of the gods' etc. can be done only with such mesit as is sacred ; and those beasts und birds that have been forbidden for twice-born people (in the next section) are not sacred ; hence, the worshipping of Gods etc. with the meat of these beasts and birds being impossible,—and what does not form the 'remnant of worship' being unfit to be eaten,—these other beasts and birds also, mentioned in a different context, become forbidden for the twice born people ; and the prohibition of these could be made to apply to the Shûdra also by some such other method (of reasoning). So that there is no point in the dividing of the sections (simply for making the prohibitions of the next section applicable to Shûdras also). And as for the prohibition of garlic and such things (that have been forbidden specially for twice-born persons), it is not applicable to Shûdras at all." There is this useful purpose served by the dividing of the two sections, that the prohibition of garlic and other things ceases to be applicable to the Shûdra. As regards meat also, in as much as the Householder only is entitled to do the worshipping of Gods, it is a matter purely optional for such Shûdras as are not 'householders'. "As a matter of fact, Shûdras also are entitled to the performance of sacrifices with cooked food ; the eating of food has also been prescribed for Householders; but no 'sacrifices with cooked food' are ever offered with garlic and such other things. So that these things may be eaten, or not, by Shûdras, entirely according to their option.—' Why' ? What would be the harm ?' In that case the mention of 'twiceborn persons' (in connection with the forbidding of garlic, etc.) would have no point at all.' This hns been allready answered by the explanation that one who is not a Householder, or who is travelling away from home, may do what he likes. Nor is it necessary that the Householder shall not eat what has not been offered in oblations ; the meaning of the declaration 'one shall live on remnants' being that 'he shall not eat until he has made the offering to the Vishedevas.' Now, that substance alone is 'sacred', and can be offered as oblation, which has been prescribed as to be offered at, and thus helping the fulfilment of, a sacrifice. Some people fetch food from somewhere, at the time of eating, and eat it in their own house; and in this case even though the food may not be the 'remnant of a sacrifice', it would not be forbidden. As regards meat however, we have the restriction directly imposed, that 'it shall never be eaten unless it has been offered to the Gods.' "If this is applicable to all the four castes, then there is no point in what is going to be said (under 5.57) in connection with purifications." The use of that we shall explain at that place. "In view of the mention of twice-born people in the foregoing section, it follows that dog's meat and such things also are fit to be eaten by Shûdras" Under Discourse XI we shall show that there are indications to the effect that 'the village-pig', the ass, the camel, and other animals mentioned in the three verses (157 ect.) are 'unfit to be eaten' for the Shûdra also. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 526), which adds the following notes:—The rules regarding eating that have gone before are meant for the 'twice-born', not for the Shûdra; hence for the latter there is no harm in eating garlic and other things. But, according to Kalpataru, the eating of the crow and such like animals and birds—even though included among those mentioned,—must be considered wrong, even for the Shûdra;—being as they are entirely condemned by all cultured men.—The mention of the 'twice-born' in this verse implies that the forthcoming prohibition regarding meat is meant for all the four castes. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen zu 26 und 27: Yâjnavalkya (1.179) —'When one's life is in danger, at Shrâddhas, when it has been prepared for Brahmanas, and when it has been offered in the worshipping cf gods and Pitrs, if one eats meat, one incurs no sin.' Yama (Aparârka, p. 251).—'Invited at a Shrâddha, if one abandons the meat that is offered, one remains in hell, etc , etc ' Mahâbhârata (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 528).—' Now listen to the law relating to Kshattriyas. He incurs no sin if he eats meat obtained by his own valour ; all wild animals are such as have been already offered to the gods by Agastya ; that is why hunting is an honoured practice ; it is for this reason that all royal sages go about hunting, and thereby they incur no sin' Vishvâmitra (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 528).—(Same as Yâjnavalkya, above.) Devala (Do.).—' Eating meat in course of eating the remnants of offerings, one incurs no sin ; similarly, if one eats as a medicine, or for saving his life, or by invitation, or at sacrifices.' Yama (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 529).—'One may eat consecrated meat once, for the sake of a Brahmana ; also when invited at a rite in honour of gods or Pitis.' Brhaspati (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 529).—' Under the following four circumstances alone should one eat meat—(a) when suffering from an otherwise incurable disease, (b) when duly invited, (c) when the meat has been offered as a libation, and (d) when invited by a Brahmana. Apart from these one shall never eat meat.' Hârîta (Do. 530).—' If one eat needlessly-prepared meat, one should perform the Krcchhra. But for the sake of the Brahmanas, he may eat as much as he likes.' Vishnu (Do.).—(Same as Manu 36.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

27. He may bat meat that has been consecrated ; also at the wish of Brahmanas ; and when invited according to law ; and when his life is in danger.

Medhâtithi: The remnant of tho meat of the animal sacrificed at the Agnishtoma is figuratively called 'consecrated'. Das Agnishtoma ist ein Somaopfer. Es ist mit drei Tieropfern verbunden: ein Bock für Agni-Soma ein Haustier an Agni eine junge, unfruchtbare Kuh an Mitra-Varuna Ausführlich zum Agnishtoma siehe: Hillebrandt, Alfred <1853-1927>: Ritual-Litteratur, vedische Opfer und Zauber. -- Strassburg, Trübner 1897. -- 199 S. -- (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde ; III,2). -- S. 124-134. "The term 'prokshita' literally moans sprinkled with water, being derived from the root 'uksha,' 'to sprinkle' ; and it is in this sense that the word has been used in all such expressions as 'bring the prokshanî water-vessels,' 'butter is the prokshana, the sprinkling-material,' 'prokshanîbhih udvejitâh;' 'bothered by sprinklings,' and so forth. Thus then, if the word literally means 'what is done by sprinkling,' then why should such terms as are expressive of certain consecrations prescribed in the Veda, (such as sprinkling with water and the like), be taken as indirectly indicating the animal (sacrificed) and its meat ? Why should the direct signification of the word be abandoned in favour of an indirect indication? For these reasons it is better to take the text to mean 'meat sprinkled with water and such liquids'." What is urged would be quite true, if there were no other texts and commendatory passages bearing upon the matter; such as we have in the shape of such texts as 'Unconsecrated meat etc,' (Verse), 'Animals not consecrated with sacred texts etc.' (36). A careful examination o£ all these texts leads to the conclusion that the meaning of the word is as we have explained it. "If so, then what is said here being already mentioned in the texts quoted, what would be the use of the present text ?" Some people say that the present verse is purely re-iterative. It cannot be an injunction of eating meat when one wishes to do so. Because the man who is hungry and wishes to eat meat can take to it through his desire to relieve his hunger (and he does not need an injunction for that). That is called an 'Injunction' which points to such activity of the agent as would not be possible under the influence of any ordinary visible motive; such injunctions, for instance, as 'one shall perform the Agnitiotra through out his life ;' and on such a matter, the scripture is the sole source of knowledge (and authority) available. We need not seek for scriptural authority in the case of the acts in connection with which we have the positive and negative notions to the effect that—'if it is done, such and such a reward shall follow—,and if it is not done, such and such an evil shall befall us'. And it is only when there is no such source of knowledge available, and the matter is knowable by means of scriptures alone, that it becomes a case of 'Injunction.' As regards the case in question, even infants at the breast know, without being told, that eating brings strength and removes pain. [So that the present text cannot be regarded as an Injunction]. Nor again can it be taken as a Restrictive Injunction, for the simple reason that no such sense of restriction is recognised (as conveyed by the words), ( For instance, if the restriction were in the form 'one must eat what has been consecrated,'— then, since no time is specified the due observance of this injunction would disturb the entire routine of food and rest, and the man may have to be eating constantly; so that an impossible act will have been enjoined in this case. It has been said that—'one who eats not at Shrâddhas etc.',—and again 'the day on which he is remiss etc:' Then again, the author of the Mahâbhâshya has declared that a Restriction is always supplementary to an Injunction; so that when there is no Injunction, how can there be any Restriction? What has been 'consecrated' by one man cannot be obtained by another man ; so that every man will have to eat all the meat that he consecrates, and this would entail a great calamity, If. on the other hand, the restriction be taken to be in the form of preclusion—'one shall eat only what is consecrated, and not what is not consecrated,'—on the ground of its fulfilling the condition of 'Preclusion', that hunger cannot be alleviated except by the eating of both consecrated and unconsecrated food, either simultaneously or one after the other;—even so this would be already implied by what has been said above regarding 'consecrated meat' (in verse 7). (So that in this case also there would be no point in taking the present text as an Injunction.) Others however find the following fault in the above view :— If all unconsecrated meat were forbidden, birds would fall in the category of 'forbidden food'; specially as there is no authority for any such restricted view that those alone are forbidden in their unconsecrated form, in connection with which consecration has been enjoined (and no consecration has been enjoined regarding birds). Some people regard this view as improper. Because even so, the text cannot but be regarded as implying (if not directly asserting) the prohibition of (unconsecrated) birds also. For these reasons, in as much as every Restriction is subservient to some enjoined act, it appears better to regard the present text as purely re-iterative of the eatability of consecrated meat. Just as at sacrifices, one must eat the consecrated meat, and omitting to eat it involves disobedience of the scriptural Injunction, so would it be in connection with all other occasions (on which meat is consecrated). And when the text is purely reiterative, it may also imply a preclusion (as shown above). The rule that 'one shall not eat the unconsecrated meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat' would only be a reiteration of the uneatability of 'unconsecrated meat' (mentioned in verse 7);—this reiteration in the present verse serving the purpose of permitting the eating of unconsecrated meat also, 'at the wish of Brahmanas', and under certain other circumstances (specified in the present verse). Others again have taken the following view.—Under 4.213 we have the mention o£ 'needlessly prepared meat,' and the present verse serves the purpose of explaining what the 'needlessly prepared meat' is ; as in the absence of this it could not be known what is 'needlessly prepared meat'. Or, it may be that in one verse we have the rule for the eater (who does the consecration himself), while what the other means is that other persons, guests and others, shall not eat the meat belonging to (and offered by) a person who has not performed the worship of the Gods, etc. (and consecrated the meat at it). In the event of the householder being somehow not entitled to worship the Gods, his guests and other persons would be justified in doing that worship for him ; and if the meat has been consecrated at such a worship, then they may eat it. The second prohibition (of unconsecrated meat)—'one incurs no sin by eating meat after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitrs ' (Verse 32)—is meant for those persons who are capable of performing the worship at their own house and have not performed it. What is stated in verse 36—'animals not consecrated by sacred texts etc'—is meant to be explanatory of what is meant by the term 'consecration.' Thus we have shown that all the five prohibitive passages have five distinct meanings and serve distinctly useful purposes. 'At the wish of the Brahmanas'—'brâhmanânân ca kâmyayâ'—'kâmyâ' is kâmanâ, 'wish' ; the form 'kâmyâ' being a Vedic anachronism. "If this text permits the eating of unconscrated meat at the wish of the Brahmanas, then what is the sense of this restriction? Does it mean that if one omits to eat at their wish, he incurs the sin of disobeying the scriptures? Or, does the present section set forth only a counter-exception? If it is a mere counter-exception, then such counter-exception, setting aside the force of the prohibition, would be available also in the shape of such assertions us 'meat may be eaten at marriages'." The text does not mean that one must eat meat under the circumstances; all that is meant is that if the Brahmanas are very superior persons, then the disobeying of their wish would not be right. Others again construe the term 'of Brahmanas' with verse 32 also, and take the present text as an Injunction for the eating of meat of the hare and other animals also; the sense being that—'at sacrifices and marriages, or at other large dinner-parties, if the Brahmanas request one to eat meat, then the meat of such animals should not be regarded as forbidden, as they are, by their very nature, consecrated to the Gods ' ; and it is only under special circumstances that consecration and worship of the Gods etc. may be performed. In fact it is only those kinds of meat that have been forbidden under certain circumstances whose eating is sanctioned, at the wish of Brahmanas; and the sanction does not apply to the eating of 'carnivorous birds' and the rest, or to the case of a man who has resolved to give up meat in view of 'ceasing to eat meat being conducive to highest results,'—irrespective of the fact of the meat being either 'consecrated' or 'unconsecrated,' or 'offered' or 'not offered.' 'When invited according to law, and when his life is in danger.'—When invited, at the Madhuparka offering, or at a Shrâddha, one may eat the meat even without consecration. This is what is meant by being 'invited according to law '; the rules to be observed by inviters at Shrâddhas have been described before (under 3.100) ; so that havig promised to dine at the Shrâddha, no one can say 'I shall not eat such and such a thing,' barring of course anything that may be either unfit to be eaten, or unclean or unwholesome ; specially as the food offered at Shrâddhas is generally such as is fit for offering to Gods, and also agreeable to the guests. (Thus then, there being no possibility of one refusing to eat the meat offered at the Shrâddha.) what is said here must pertain to the Madhuparka offering only. Madhuparka ist Bestandteil des Argha. Argha ist der Name der feierlichen Aufnahme eines Gastes, bei welcher iesem das Ehrenwasser (arghya) und die Honigspeise (madhuparka) überreicht wird. Das Argha soll nach den Grhyasûtras nicht ohne Fleischspeise sein. Ausführlich zum Argha siehe: Hillebrandt, Alfred <1853-1927>: Ritual-Litteratur, vedische Opfer und Zauber. -- Strassburg, Trübner 1897. -- 199 S. -- (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde ; III,2). -- S. 79f.. "But there is no invitation for the Madhuparka offering." All that is meant by the present text is that the man who is entitled to receive the Madhnparka offering shall eat the unconsecrated meat that may be offered to him; and it does not contain an Injunction of offering the Madhuparka. The person meant here as the recipient of the Madhuparka is the Guest, and not the king and other honoured persons ; just as we find it laid down for the Householder that 'the guest shall not dwell in his house without eating.' From this it would follow that nothing shall be offered to the guest against his desire. As for the notion that one may do what he likes in the matter of receiving an honoured guest and in feeding him,—if this idea were acted up to, then those acts would not have been done 'for the sake of the guest' "But the position of the guest also is uncertain." True ; but it has been found that the performance of the act brings spiritual merit by producing pleasure in the recipient's mind. Hence it is that by way of a rule it has been laid down for the giver, in accordance with the practice by which the calf is offered, that 'there can be no Madhuparka without meat.' "What is herein laid down may be regarded as pertaining to the case of priests officiating at one's sacrifice." In that case, this also, like the preceding clause, may be only reiterative of what pertains to the officiating priest and to Shrâddhas. "But in connection with the work of the priests, the eating of the Idâ and such other materials has been prescribed ; and the restrictions bearing upon that pertains to the Sacrifice, and not to the priests." True; but if the priests do not eat, they are censured, and also become beset with transcendental evil. Even if they eat, they do not become related to the result following from the act. Servants employed on wages (such as the priests are) perform the details prescribed in the scriptures ; and it has been prescribed that 'the priests along with the sacrificeras the fifth eat the Idâ cake,;' so that it is incumbent upon those who have accepted the priestly office to do that eating. And in that case it is only right that this eating should be reiterated, There is however nothing 'scriptual' in the eating done by persons eating at Shrâddhas or by the priests. So that the reiteration is of the eating done by the sacrificer.—It may be asked—"For what purpose is this reiteration?"—But reiteration does not always need a purpose. All that is done is that it reiterates what has been enjoined elsewhere. Similarly in the case in question also, if the owner of the cow has promised to honour the guest with the killing of the cow, then the guest must eat it; for he accepts the offering of Madhuparka as a favour to the offerer ; so that it is necessary that he should accomplish the act preceding the offering. Otherwise, in the event of the Madhuparka not being accepted, the said favour would not be bestowed ; consequently in the matter of the eating of forbidden meat, it is necessary for the man at the very outset to accept the Madhuparka and the duties of the priest :—similarly in the matter of feeding the Brahmanas. As regards the Student, since certain strict observances have been prescribed for him, meat should be regarded as altogether 'unfit to be eaten.' 'When his life is in danger'.— From the context it follows that what is meant is that—'in the event of his not eating meat without worshipping the gods, and no other food being available, if there be a fear of his losing his life, either though disease or through hunger, one may eat the cow, the sheep and the goat.' This rule is based upon the Vedic declaration that 'one shall protect himself from everything'. So that under the circumstances, if one omits to eat meat, he becomes his own murderer ; and suicide has been forbidden by such taxt as— 'One shall proteet himself from everything'; 'Hence the man, expecting to live to the fullest extent of human life, shall never kill himself with a desire to proceed to heaven ; as such an act would make him unfit for heaven'; —all which shows that by eating even forbidden meat to save his life, one does not incur sin. Says the Mantra also (Ishopanisad 3)— 'Those who kill themselves go, after death, to those regions that are covered by blind darkness and are fit only for demons." When there is danger to life, even the Student may eat meat; and for him his young age would necessitate the performance of the expiatory rite as prescribed in the text—' If the Student ever eats meat and honey, etc' (11.158). Vyâsa has declared that when there is fear of losing one's life through hunger, one may eat even forbidden meat ; and by the instance of the 'dog's thigh' (eaten by Vishvâmitra) it is indicated that such meat may be eaten, but once only. From this it follows that in the case of serious developments of diseases, where one cannot be sure that the man will certainly recover by eating meat, one shall not eat forbidden meat, such as that of the village-cock and the like ; though it is permitted to eat such meat as has been consecrated or offered to the gods. In the case of disease also one shall not eat meat for the purpose of recovering from a disease that may have just set in ; but in the ease of men who have become enfeebled and emaciated through disease, the eating of meat is always permitted : as asserted in the verse—'Persons daily addicted to wine and women, consumptives, those emaciated through fatigue and disease, as also enfeebled patients, live upon the juices of meat.' It is necessary for these persons to worship the gods in the case of the meat of unconsecrated goat ; there would however be no harm, if on some day this is not found possible. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 527), which adds the following notes:—'Prokshita' is that which has been sanctified by means of mantras for being offered at a sacrifice ;—'brâhmanânân ca kâmyayâ'—when one is pressed by a Brahmana to eat meat, if he eats it but once, then there is no harm; that this is justifiable once only is clearly stated by Yama; if the same Brahmana should press him again, then he is not to accede to this ; nor is he to eat it, even though the second time he may be pressed by another Brahmana; that he is to eat it once does not mean that he is to take a single morsel; what is meant is that he may eat at a single meal;—'Yathâvidhiniyuktah'— this means that when invited to the Madhuparka-offering or to a Shrâddha, one may eat even unconsecrated meat;— 'prânânâm eva câtyaye'—meat may be eaten if during an illness, or during food-scarcity, one's life would be in danger if meat were not taken. The verse is quoted also in Smrtitattva (p. 449), which explains 'prokshitam' as which has been duly consecrated by means of mantras, being obtained from an animal killed in connection with a sacrificial performance;—'brâhmanânân ca kâmyayâ'—at the wish of a Brahmana one may eat once ; —'yathâvidhiniyuktah'—i. e., at a Shrâddha; in the Prâyshcittaviveka (p. 280), which notes that  'prânânâm eva câtyaye' is meant to refer to Religious Students and to such Householders as have renounced meat; and in Smrtisâroddhâra (p. 300). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: siehe bei 26. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

28. Prajâpati created all this as food for the vital spirit; and all that is movable or immovable is the food of the vital spirit.

Medhâtithi: 'Vital spirit,'—the breath within the body, the very seed of life. For the sustenance of this breath, as functioning in the fivefold form of 'Udâna' and the rest,—and for its maintenance in the body,—; 'Prajâpafi created all this'—world—as food. Having indicated the world in a general way, by means of the pronoun 'this', the author proceeds to specify it in details—'all that is movable or immovable'. All this, on account of what is said in the first half, is the 'food of the vital spirit'. The second 'all' is not redundant, since it is added with a view to indicate the various kinds of beings,—beasts, birds, men, reptiles, etc. Since Prajâpati has ordained all this to be 'food' in times of distress, all of it is the food of the vital spirit. This is also what we read in the dialogue of the Vital Breath contained in the Upanisads —'He asked—what shall be my food?—Whatever exists, down to the dogs and down to the insects and worms'. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 527), as reiterative of what has gone before; and in Smrtitattva (p. 449). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Mahâbhârata (12.10.6).—( Same as Manu) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

29. The immobile is the food of the mobile ; those devoid of fangs are the food of those endowed with fangs ; those without hands are the food of those with hands ; and cowards are the food of the brave.

Medhâtithi: 'Mobile',—those that are capable of walking and flying and are courageous and active; e.g. the kite, the mongoose and the rest.— Of those the 'immobile'--lethargic animals, such as the pigeon, the serpent and the like—are 'the food.' Similarly 'of those endowed with fangs'—i.e. of the lion, the tiger, etc.,—'those devoid of fangs'—the Ruru (Antilope picta), the Prshat (Chital, Axis axis ???) and the other kinds of deer—are the 'food.' 'Those without hands' —i.e.. serpents, fish and the like—are the food of 'those with hands'—of the mongoose [Mungo] and the fisherman, etc. 'Of the brave'—of those that are endowed with great courage—'cowards'—those who are over-fond of life—are the food. The meaning is that those possessed of inferior strength are killed for food. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 527), which adds—the 'cara' are the deer and the rest,— the 'acara' grasses etc.,—'damshtrn' the tiger and others, 'adamshtrn' the deer and the like,—'sahasta' are men and the like,—and 'ahasta' fish etc., 'shûra' are brave persons —and 'bhîru' are the timid. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Mahâbhârata (12.99.15).—(Reproduces the first half of Manu.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

30. The eater incurs no sin by eating, even daily, such animals as are eatabe ; since the eater as well as the eaten animals have been created by the creator himself.

Medhâtithi: 'Eater'—one who eats. 'Eatable'—which are capable o£ being eaten. He incurs no sin even by eating them daily. 'By the Creator'—Prajâpati—himself— have been created both the eater and the eaten. Fur this reason when there is danger to life, meat must be eaten. This is the sense of the three verses, which are purely comendatory. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 527). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vishnu (51.61).—'Animals have been created for purposes of the sacrifice,..hence killing at sacrifice is no killing.' [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

31.  'The eating of meat for sacrifices'—this is declared to be the divine law ; but behaviour contrary to this is described as 'demoniacal practice'.

Medhâtithi: 'The eating of meat'—in the form of offerings and oblations—'for sacrifice.' 'This is the divine law'; —this is what has been ordained by the Gods. 'Behaviour rontraryj to this,'—i.e. eating meat for the fattening of the body—is 'the demoniacal practice';  it is only demons that eat meat in this fashion. This is said in deprecation of the practice. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: "Cf. this with the Mahâbhârata, 13. 114-116. In ib. 116, 15, this is quoted as Shruti, but in 115, 58, its gist is ascribed to Manu"—Hopkins. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

32. Having bought it, or having obtained it himself, or having it presented by others,— if one eats meat after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitrs, he does not incur sin.

Medhâtithi: The law here laid down refers to the meat of deer and birds. The meaning is that there is no sin incurred in eating the meat of the Ruru, the Prshat and other kinds of deer, or the partridge and other birds, if it is done after having worshipped the Gods and the Pitrs. In the case of the offering to the Vishvedevas, when there is no preparation for it in the house, one may eat rice and other things, even without making the offering; but not so meat; it is with a view to emphasise this that the text repeats—'having worshipped the Gods and the Pitrs etc!' If mere sanction to eat after worship were meant, this has already been accorded before. What is meant by the 'worshipping of the Gods' here is the offering of the meat on a clean spot with the words 'this is for the Gods'; or that 'the worship of the Gods' should be done in such terms as—'this to Agni, to Vâyu, to Sûrya, to Jâtavedas [ein Beiname Agnis].' That this must be the meaning of the 'worship' is proved by the fact that 'offering of oblations into the fire' (which could be the other meaning 'worshipping the Gods') is not possible for persons other than Agnihotrins; nor can there be any offering made to the Gods without oblations having been poured into the fire; specially as it has been already shown that the two are distinct actions and involve distinct methods of procedure. This matter may rest here for the present. Others have explained the 'worship of the Pitrs' to mean Shrâddha; and in Shraâdhas we do find worshipping being done. It is the Pitrs again that are spoken of as the 'deities' of the Shrâddha. Hence it is that in connection with the Pitrs, all writers on Smrti have prescribed the Shrâddha only, and no other act. "How can the buying of meat be permissible ? The meat obtained from the market becomes 'Sauna' 'butcher's meat' (which has been forbidden); and as for the meat of animals dying of themselves, and not killed by the butcher, this is 'unfit for eating', on the ground of its causing disease." Our answer to the above is that one can always 'buy' the meat brought by fowlers and bird-catchers; and these are known as 'butchers'; and they wander about from house to house, carrying meat for sale, when it is possible to buy it; and it does not become 'butcher's meat'. 'Having obtained it himself,'— the Brahmana by begging it and the Kshattriya by hunting. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 527), which adds that 'svayamutpâdya' refers to the Kshattriya alone; in Smrtitattva (p. 449); in Hemâdri (Shrâddha, p. 582); and in Prâyashcittaviveka (p. 276). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

33. In normal times the twice-born man conversant with the law shall not eat meat unlawfully ; having eaten it unlawfully, he shall, after death, be devoured by them helplessly.

Medhâtithi: That is called 'unlawful' which is done apart from the above-sanctioned occasions—of the worshipping of the Gods, the wish of the Brahmanas and so forth; and in this 'unlawful' manner one shall not eat meat. This is only a reiteration of what has been said before. 'In normal times'.—In abnormal times of distress, when one's life is in danger, he need not wait for the worship of the Gods etc. "Danger in life has already been sanctioned as one of the occasions on which meat may be eaten; so that such eating would be quite lawful, not unlawful." True; but what has been said on the previous occasion was in connection with the consecrated meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat; and in the present text the phrase 'in normal times' has been added with a view to extend the sanction to the meat of the hare and other animals also. It is not the mere knower of the law that is called 'con-versant with the law' but one who, in practice acts up to the law. In connection with ordinary worldly acts also the term 'know,' 'be conversant with,' in used in this sense ; when it is said of a man 'he knows this', what is meant is that 'he acts up to it'. When the question arises regarding the effect of the act in question, the text says—'Having eaten meat unlawfully' — i.e. in a manner not prescribed in the scriptures—'he shall, on death, be devoured' by those animals. All that ismeant—-is that when a man eats meat in an unlawful manner, he suffers various kinds of pain. If these were not meant by the passage (and if it were taken in its literal sense),—then, in as much as it is the meat of the goat that is commonly eaten by people, and the goat is a not carnivorous animal [how could it 'devour' its eater?] Or, the meaning may be that the :eater, by virtue of the sin of that act, comes to be devoured by carnivorous animals ; and as this would be the result of his having eaten the goat, he would be described as being devoured by the goat. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 531); in Smrtitattva (p. 449); and in Smrtisâroddhâra (p. 301). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Yama (Vîra-Âhnika, pp. 5-30).—'One should not eat needlessly-prepared meat' Âpastamba (1.16.16).—' He shall not eat meat which has been cut with a knife used for killing.' Vishnu (51.59).—'The Brahmana shall never eat meat that has not been consecrated with mantras ; that however which has been duly consecrated he shall eat, following the eternal law.' [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

34. The sin of the man who kills animals for gain is not so great, after death, as that of the man who eats needlessly-prepared mead.

Medhâtithi: The meaning of this verse is well known. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya, (Âhnika, p. 531). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vishnu (51.62).—(Same as Manu.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

35. But when invited according to law, if a man does not eat meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty-one births.

Medhâtithi: 'Sambhava' stands for janma, birth. Except when there is danger to life through hunger, if a man does not worship the Gods, and yet eats meat, he certainly incurs sin. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Aparârka (p. 251), which explains 'niyuktah' as 'invited, at a sacrifice to the gods or at a Shrâddha'; in Mitâksharâ (on 1. 179) to the effect that one must eat meat when invited to a Shrâddha; in Nirnayasindhu (p. 294) as setting forth the sinfulness of not eating the meat duly offered; in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 530), which explains 'sambhavân' as 'births'; in Smrtitattva (p. 449) ; in Hemâdri (Shrâddha, p. 577); and in Prâyashcittaviveka (p. 279), which remarks that this refers to such meat as is not forbidden. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vasishtha (31.34).—'An ascetic who, invited to dine at a sacrifice to Pitrs or to gods, refuses meat, shall go to hell.' Yama (Aparârka, p. 251) —' The man who, invited to a Shrâddha or to a sacrifice to the gods, refuses meat, shall go to hell, etc' Hârîta and Shâtâtapa (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 530).—'If one, invited to a Shrâddha, does not eat meat, one goes to hell.' [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

36. The Brahmana shall never eat animals that have not been consecrated with sacred texts; but those that have been consecrated with sacred texts, he shall eat, taking his stand upon eternal law.

Medhâtithi: In connection with animals-sacrifice, 'sprinkling with water' and other consecrations have been laid down as to be done with sacred texts ; and one shall eat the meat of those animals for whom all these have been performed, and which (thus) are the 'remnants of sacrifices' prescribed in the Vedas. But in the case of tho 'Sîtâ-yajna' and other sacrifices that nre performed solely on the strength of usage (and for which there is no injunction in the Veda),—even though the meat would be the 'remnant of sacrifice', yet, since there would be no 'consecration with sacred texts', it would be 'unfit for eating'. 'Eternal'—Vedic. 'Taking his stand'—dependent. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Hemâdri (Shrâddha, p. 580). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vishnu (51.59).—(Same as Manu.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

37. If there is occasion, he shall make an animal of of clarified butter, or an animal of flour; but he shall never seek to kill an animal needlessly.

Medhâtithi: People are likely to entertain such ideas as the following—"at the Sîtâ-yajna the Khanjikâ-yâga, the Candikâ-yâga and the like, which are performed on the authority of usage only, it is right for the man desiring a certain result to kill animals; for it has been found that one obtains a rich harvest by offering sacrifices at which animals are killed." With a view to set aside such notions the text says— 'If  there is occasion,'—if necessity arises for the offering of an animal in sacrifice,—'he shall make an animal of clarified butter,' .i. e. he shall make clarified butter the sacriticial animal; that is, it being necessary to offer an animal to the God.s, he shall offer, in its place, clarified butter: which is as good a 'sacrificial material'. 'Or, he shall make an animal of flour' ; i.e. . he shall make the figure of an animal with flour, and offer that figure to the Grods; or, it may be taken to mean that 'instead of the animal he shall offer cakes and other things made of flour'. "Why is this called needless animalslaughter, when it is sanctioned by the usage of cultured people ?" Since women, and Shûdras are ignorant of the Veda, such sacrifices as those mentioned cannot be assumed to have any sanction in the Veda :  specially as people have recoursc to these sacrifices for the purpose of propitiating the Gods, and no Vedic act is done for the propitiating of Gods; for the simple reason that in connection with Vedic rites, Gods have been mentioned as subordinate factors. In fact, what they urge in support of the peformnnce of the sacrifices in question is the argument based upon negative and positive induction, from the experience that there is rich harvest when Gods are propitiated with the sacrifice of animals. For these reasons, these sacrifices cannot be regarded as having the sanction of the Veda. As for the positive and negative induction that also is entirely mistaken. From all this it is clear that the present verse only reiterates what is already indicated as the right course by al kinds of reasons: and it has been put forward by the author through feelings of friendly kindliness. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

'Sange' 'On an occasion arising for the killing of an animal (at a rite other than those laid down in the Veda)' (Medhâtithi); 'if one has a strong desire to eat meat' (Kullûka and Nârâyana). [It is difficult to see how a strong desire for meat could be appeased by eating animal made of butter or flour] ; 'in the event of one being attacked by evil spirits' (Govindarâja); 'on the occasion of social gatherings' (Nandana). This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 538), which quotes Kalpataru as offering the following explanation:—In such ceremonies as the Sîtâyajna and the like, which are not prescribed in the Veda, and the killing of animals at which, therefore, cannot have the sanction of the Veda,-~if, in view of the prevalent custom, it is found necessary to sacrifice an animal, one should offer an animal made either of butter or of flour;—it then quotes Kullûka's explanation,-—and then the one given by Medhâtithi, remarking that this last is in agreement with Kalpataru.—It then goes on to describe another explanation, by which 'Sange' means 'at a sacrifice' and this is explained as laying down an alternative to the killing of animals at the well known sacrifices, Agnishtomîya and the rest,—This last explanation, the author rejects, on the ground that there is no authority for taking the word 'sange' in the sense of sacrifice, and that it would not be right for a Smrti to lay down an alternative to a detail that has been laid down in the original Vedic injunction of the sacrifices. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

"Animal Sacrifice in Nepal by Richard S. Ehrlich DAKSHINKALI, Nepal — Hindus are sacrificing live animals by slitting the throats with shiny knives and aiming the thrashing beasts' spurting blood at this ancient, red-splattered shrine. Or they simply chop off the heads and hold decapitated torsos so a stream of ruby fluid pumps toward the deity. When a generous amount of life-bearing liquid is shaken out, the men drag the dead animals across the floor of the roofless, outdoor temple to a nearby chopping chamber. The shrine's washable, white-tile gutters and floor overflow with the massacre's blood. In 1780, Nepal outlawed human sacrifice. Animals, however, are allowed to be killed to satisfy the goddess Kali, and for other ceremonies. Devotees who cannot afford to sacrifice a goat, pig, lamb or waterbuffalo, offer a less expensive chicken or duck. The temple's executioners don't care, and slice the skinnier throats and splash the Hindu deity in much the same way. Carcasses remain the property of the believers who brought them, and are carried home or taken to the chamber where the temple's butchers skin and debone the meat for a small fee according to devotees' requests. Amid the chaos of hundreds of people offering live animals, the crowd pushes and shoves as they near the sacrificial spot, walking barefoot in huge puddles of blood. Everyone seems to think the slaughters will please the gods and grant a boon to whoever makes such an offering. Animal sacrifice is common in Nepal, the world's only Hindu kingdom. The act is part of various "pooja" ritual offerings performed when Hindus worship idols. Nepalis kill animals to sanctify weddings, new homes or religious festivals. Upon purchasing a new car or truck, the owner sometimes splashes its exterior with fresh animal blood, to ensure the vehicle doesn't crash whenever it is driven. Many times, pooja is merely symbolic -- an offering of butter, yogurt, money or flowers. When an animal is to be sacrificed, however, it should be an uncastrated male which is killed, apparently as a display of life's potency. This death to please the gods is also interpreted as doing the animal a favor by releasing it from a life of suffering, amid hopes that it may be reborn as a much more fortunate human. Sacrifices are also performed as a mass bloodletting, such as during the Durga Pooja festival when, once a year, soldiers in the center of Kathmandu hack off the heads of hundreds of waterbuffalos and goats -- trying to dispatch each with a single stroke. And during Nepal's most spectacular festival, the Dasain feast in early autumn, up to 10,000 goats and other animals are slaughtered. Nepal's Buddhists and animists also occasionally perform animal sacrifices, along with a bit of sorcery. But here at Dakshinkali, on the outskirts of the capital Kathmandu, the Kali Temple arranges Nepal's biggest number of animal sacrifices -- hundreds every Saturday and Tuesday, totaling tens of thousands throughout the year. Other less fabled temples, shrines and courtyards elsewhere in Nepal usually allow the slitting of throats in sacrificial pits on Fridays and Saturdays. At Dakshinkali's temple complex, set amid trees in a tiny valley between two mountains, swarms with men, women and children carrying their squirming prey. Hindu symbols, including brass tridents and snakes, adorn the shrine's walls and canopy. Many believe the animals' blood is an attempt to feed the goddess Kali's eternally insatiable stomach. Kali, often depicted with a long tongue dripping blood, and wearing a necklace of human skulls, traditionally devours demons, beasts and people -- which has prompted Kali worshippers to murder people to please her. During the 1800s, British colonialists and others in neighboring India feared gangs of "Thugs," including some who worshipped Kali by murdering victims to gain her blessings. "It is by the command, and under the special protection of the most powerful goddesses that the Thugs join themselves to the unsuspecting traveler, make friends with him, slip the noose round his neck, plunge their knives in his eyes, hide him in the earth, and divide his money and baggage," wrote Thomas Macaulay, who served in India during the 1830s and drafted the basis of Indian criminal law. Today, devotees of Kali are usually much more peaceful. Sita Pathak, a Hindu banker in Kathmandu, said in an interview, "I didn't sacrifice any animals because I don't like to do all that, but my husband sacrificed a goat. "He sacrificed it because he wanted something to gain, physical power. He was sick before that, and after the sacrifice he was healthy and strong. "We bought the goat for 3,000 rupees (44 US dollars). It was just a small goat. Afterwards, they cut it up, and we took it home and ate it. "I cooked it. The goat tasted good. We are Brahmins, so we sacrifice goats, not chickens. The lower castes sacrifice chickens." She was referring to Hinduism's vicious caste system in which people born from Brahmin parents dominate all others, while lower castes are trapped for generations in often miserable jobs, lifestyles and other forms of public, private and religious behavior. At Dakshinkali, meanwhile, some devotees don't wait to return home to dine on the dead meat. Instead, they picnic in the forest next to the shrine, roasting their meals on campfires while the slitting and hacking continues below amid clanging of bells and shouts of prayer. Richard S. Ehrlich has a Master's Degree in Journalism from Columbia University, and is the co-author of the classic book of epistolary history, "HELLO MY BIG BIG HONEY!" -- Love Letters to Bangkok Bar Girls and Their Revealing Interviews. His web page is located at http://www.geocities.com/glossograph and he may be reached by email: animists at yahoo dot com From The Laissez Faire City Times Vol 3, No 36, September 1999 Copyright by Richard S. Ehrlich [Quelle: http://www.geocities.com/glossograph/nepal99sacrificect.html. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-23]

38. As many hairs there are on the body of the animal, so many times after dying does its needless killer suffer violent death, birth after birth.

Medhâtithi: For so many lives does he suffer violent death. 'Needless killer of the animal'—one who kills the animal in a way not prescribed in the Shruti or the Smrti; from the context it is clear tliat this refers to that animal-sacrifice whichi ordinary people perform on the Mahânavamî. Mahânavamî ist der neunte Tag von Navaratrî = Durgapûjâ "Animal sacrifices continue in villages all over India. The beginning of the planting season and Navaratri are particularly bad periods, when large numbers of animals, particularly buffaloes, are killed to propitiate local goddesses and thus ensure fertility. In the Himalayan states and the East, animals are sold by weight to be sacrificed to Devi during Navaratri, to re-enact killing of the buffalo-demon Mahisha. The confrontation between the Goddess and the buffalo goes back to a totemic period when the worshippers of the former defeated the worshippers of the latter. Unfortunately the memory of that confrontation lives on in the brutality of buffalo sacrifice." [Quelle:  http://www.bluecross.org.in/AnimalSacrifice.html. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-23. -- Vollen Text siehe unten] The term `pashughna' is a Yedic form formed with the affix 'ka'. Cf. The Mahâbhârata 13. 93. 121. This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 538). [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

[Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vishnu (51.60).—(Same as Manu.) Yâjnavalkya (1.180).—'The wicked man who kills animal unlawfully dwells in hell for as many days as there are hairs on the animal's body.' Mahâbhârata (13. 93. 121).—(Same as Manu.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

"Blood on our hands Animal sacrifice is cruel, primitive and brutalising. It's time to end it. The Tamil Nadu Animal and Bird Sacrifices Prohibition Act of 1950 clearly prohibits sacrifice i1t temples, as do similar laws in many other states. The State Government wants to enforce the prohibition - and rightly so. The response has been shocking. One section of the media has opposed the government directive because they oppose Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. The opportunistic communists have come out in support of animal sacrifice - whatever happened to Marxist rationalism and atheism? Someone else has flied a PIL. A former minister, also a well-known lawyer, has objected. Do we really want to go back to our primitive past? Blood sacrifice was common to all ancient cultures and religions. Ancient Hindus and Jews did it; Muslims continue to do it (during Id). There are scenes of human and animal sacrifice on Harappan seals. The first to speak out against bloody sacrifices were the rishis of the Upanishads. The chief message of the Buddha and Mahavira was to stop the killing of innocent animals. In time, the sacrifice of people and animals came to be regarded as primitive and cruel. Interestingly, scenes of animal sacrifice are rare in classical temple sculpture or painting. Till the 20th century, human beings --especially the unwanted girl child -were regularly sacrificed in India. Education resulted in a public outcry against the practice and the government responded by banning human sacrifice, although we still hear of occasional lapses. But mere banning is never sufficient, and any change in attitude and action owes much to individuals such as the late Krishna Iyer in Tamil Nadu and Peela Ramakrishna in Andhra Pradesh. The former went around persuading people to "break" a pumpkin instead of killing an animal or bird. The latter took the police to the remotest villages to stop sacrifices. Such was the commitment of these men. Abb.: Chief Justice a.D. V. R. Krishna Iyer (geb. 1915) [Bildquelle: http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2003/aug03/kiyer.html. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-24] Animal sacrifice is particularly brutal. Buffaloes, goat and roosters are queued up as in a slaughterhouse, crying as they watch the others die and await their turn. Blood flows everywhere. Sometimes the worshippers anoint themselves with it; most times, they drink it even as it flows out. After the sacrifice, the priest may garland himself with the entrails. After beheading the buffalo, the chopped-off legs may be placed in its mouth, the fat spread over its eyes. The worst form of sacrifice is live impalement. It is altogether too gory. Is this what the Gods want? Blood sacrifice was regarded as magic, a tool to propitiate or please a god, to fulfill a vow and as a sacrament. The animal (and, formerly, person) could be a scapegoat for human sins or inexplicable natural phenomena, or a vehicle to carry away the collected demons or ills of an entire community. It seems very unfair that a little goat or a peaceful buffalo should be made responsible for events beyond their comprehension or control. Ancient peoples performed sacrifices to (control negative forces, particularly disease, in the belief that any blood would satisfy the bloodthirsty spirit. The animal was sacrificed to "save" a human life. Today, medicine performs tile task more efficiently. Animal sacrifices continue in villages all over India. The beginning of the planting season and Navaratri are particularly bad periods, when large numbers of animals, particularly buffaloes, are killed to propitiate local goddesses and thus ensure fertility. In the Himalayan states and the East, animals are sold by weight to be sacrificed to Devi during Navaratri, to re-enact killing of the buffalo-demon Mahisha. The confrontation between the Goddess and the buffalo goes back to a totemic period when the worshippers of the former defeated the worshippers of the latter. Unfortunately the memory of that confrontation lives on in the brutality of buffalo sacrifice. Abb.: Mahishâsuramardinî = Devî als Töterin des Büffeldämons Mahisha [Bildquelle: http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/DEVI/mahishasuramardini.html. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-24] There is a distinct gender bias in sacrifice. The male god - generally an aspect of Shiva or Vishnu - is regarded as benign and peaceful, an austere yogi or a benevolent provider. The female -a form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty; violent and cruel. She may be Kali, with sharp, protruding canine teeth, or Mari, the smallpox goddess, or any one else. Every village in South and Eastern India, has bloodthirsty village goddesses who reinforce the myth of the wicked witch, always a woman. The former is controlled by blood, the latter by society. Women are potentially evil, according to this belief, and must be kept under control. They are drinkers of blood and consumers of human and animal flesh, and any insufficiency in their propitiation will, it is believed, invite their wrath and inflame their cruel natures. The Sapta Matrikas (seven mothers/sisters/virgins); the various forms of Kali and Mari and all village goddesses have longing for blood and a reputation for cruelty. Their images are ugly and frightening, both in appearance and behaviour. Abb.: Kâlî [Bildquelle: http://www.india.ru/impres/tantra/tantrik.shtml. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-24] "SAPTAMÂTR(S). (SEVEN MOTHERS). 1) General information. Saptamâtrs are the seven goddesses named Brahmânî, Vaishnavî, Maheshvarî, Kaumârî, Vârâhî, Indrânî and Câmundî. 2) Origin. Some are of opinion that the Saptamâtrs are connected with Shiva. Their names reveal that they were born from the bodies of Brahmâ, Vishnu and such other gods. There is another story that when Shiva and Vishnu joined together and tried to kill the asura named Andhaka and failed, they created the seven mothers to kill the asura. From each drop of blood of Andhakâsura that fell on the ground an asura arose. These seven matrs joined with Yogeshvarî, the creation of Shiva, drank the blood of the asura without allowing it to fall on the ground and so it became easy for Shiva to kill the asura. There is a story in Vâmana Puraâa, Chapter 56, ahout the birth of the Saptamâtrs, as follows : In olden days a fierce war broke out between the devas and the asuras. When the fierce asuras Canda and Munda were killed the famous asura named Raktabîja entered the battlefield with an akshauhinî of army (21870 chariots, so many elephants, 65610 horses and 109350 infantry). Seeing this immense army of the asuras drawing near, Kaushikî, Maheshvari and Kâlî made a loud roaring sound. Then from the mouth of Maheshvarî, Brahmânî came out seated on a swan and wearing rosary and water pot. Abb.: Brahmânî From her eyes Mahesvarî with three eyes came out seated on a bull and wearing great snakes as bangles and ear-rings and holding a trident. Abb.: Maheshvarî From the loins came out Kaumârî, seated on a peacock and holding a lance. Abb.: Kaumârî The beautiful Vaishnavî came out from her hand, seated on Garuda, holding a conch, discus, club, sword, the bow shârnga and arrow. Abb.: Vaishnavî From her posterior came out the horrible Vârâhî (Boar) with a great pestle, seated on the Nâga (serpent) Shesa, and furrowing the ground with her fierce tusks. Abb.: Vârâhî From her heart came out the awful Nârasimhî (woman-lion) with fierce claws, who at the shaking of her mane displaced the planets and the stars, and from her foot Câmundî came out." Abb.: Câmundî [Quelle: Mani, Vettam [Vettammâni] <1921 - >: Puranic encyclopaedia : a comprehensive dictionary with special reference to the epic and puranic literature. -- 1. ed. in engl.. - Delhi : Motilal Banarsidas, 1975. - VIII, 922 S.  -- ISBN 0-8426-0822-2. -- Originaltitel: Purananighantu (1964). -- S. 691.] [Bildquelle: http://www.heb.gov.sg/hinduonline/2001jul-sept/02-worship_of_shakthi.html. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-24] What an awful image of women, which is ingrained in the Indian psyche! Surely the mother who procreates and nurtures deserves a better reputation? While the temples to the male Gods" are beautiful, majestic buildings that inspire awe and "serenity, Devi temples are small, dark and dingy, situated outside the city in a sacred grove that is the haunt of dead spirits. Thus supporting animaI sacrifice is supporting both gender inequity and perpetuating myths about the evil that is woman. Male spirits who demand sacrifice are generally the Goddess' lieutenants, who have developed a taste for blood. This image was created to justify the suppression of women. Another little-known aspect is economic. Animal sacrifices are promoted by moneylenders, who freely give loans for the occasion and thus get illiterate villagers into their clutches. The wielders of the knife are often butchers who officiate as priests and charge for their services. The cost of a buffalo runs into thousands, a goat, sheep or rooster into hundreds. Add the cost of the feast and the poojari's fees, and the result is a hole in the pocket. There is a mafia that benefits from the conduct of animal sacrifices, which keeps the lower strata in permanent bondage. This becomes a vicious cycle. The animal sacrifices purport to improve their situation. But they tie the votaries, who generally belong to the lowest classes and castes, in economic chains, where they remain forever. Obviously, the gods are not pleased. Sacrifice means giving up something precious to oneself. Thus Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son, while Shunahshepas offered himself to be sacrificed. Buying and killing an innocent animal does not fit the bill. The sacrifice probably originated among totemic tribes who sacrificed the animal totem to acquire its strength or wisdom. Conquering tribes would sacrifice the animal totem of the defeated tribe to signify victory. In the choice of the buffalo to be killed, there is an obvious racial message: that the dark-coloured, slothful and ugly animal deserves to die. Animal sacrifice is cruel, disgusting and primitive. Bloody sacrifices brutalise the viewer, confusing the distinction between right and wrong. If one man supports animal sacrifice, another will support human sacrifice, the killing of children and sati. How can any of these be permitted in a civilised society? All cultures and religions evolve, discarding ugly Practices. Over the years, we have learned to identify and repudiate negative aspects of Hinduism, such as sati and the caste system. Animal sacrifice is another cruelty that must be rejected and discarded. It is surprising to hear educated people talk of "customary practice". Religion should be value-based and ennobling. Sacrifice is neither: It is cruel and disgusting. We need to rise above petty political differences to support the implementation of a good law. Nanditha Krishna Director C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation Creations, Sunday Express, September 14, 2003" [Quelle:  http://www.bluecross.org.in/AnimalSacrifice.html. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-23]

39. Animals have been created by the Self-born God himself for the purpose of sacrifice; sacrifice is conductive to the well-being of all this world; hence killing at a sacrifice is no 'killing' at all.

Medhâtithi: The evil just described does not pertain to the killing of animals at the rites prescribed by Shruti and Smrti. That 'killing' which forms part of sacrifices—for the due fulfilment of that were animals 'created'—produced, brought into existence,—'by the Self-born God'—Prajâpati 'himself'. This is a purely commendatory passage. 'Sacrifice'—in the form of the Jyotishtoma and the rest—'is conductive to the well-being'—prosperity, development, advancement —'of all this'—world. 'Jyotishtoma' ist die Bezeichnung für sieben Somaopfer. Ausführlich dazu siehe: Hillebrandt, Alfred <1853-1927>: Ritual-Litteratur, vedische Opfer und Zauber. -- Strassburg, Trübner 1897. -- 199 S. -- (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde ; III,2). -- S. 137f. For this reason the killing that is done at a sacrifice should be regarded as no killing at alll. What this means iis that it does not involve the sin of 'killing' animals. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

"Ityapi shrûyate shrutih is the end of this verse instead of svayam eva svayambhuvâ as found in the Mahâbhârata, 13. 116. 14. Quite a number of Manu's verses are cited as Shruti in the Epic."—Hopkins. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vishnu (51. 61).—(Same as Manu,) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

40. Herbs, animals, trees, beasts and birds, reaching death for the sake of sacrifices, attain advancements.

Medhâtithi: "How is it known that killing at sacrifices involves no sin?" The answer is as follows:—'killing'is the greates injury that can befall the being killed; because it involves such great evil as the loss of life, involving separation from wife, children and riches, and all the attendant evil consequences; and also because it carries the entities nearer to the fruition of their sins in the form of hell and the like. But when an animal is killed at a sacrifice, this killing becomes a great benefit conferred upon it, and it is not an injury; because it does not lead it to hell or any such undesirable conditions. That this is so follows from the fact that those 'reaching death'—destruction—at a sacrifice-—'attain advancements'—higher positions, in regard to caste and so forth ; —being born as a God or a Gandharva, or as men born in better countries or continents—such as the Uttarakuru and the like. "UTTARAKURU. A part of the Jambûdvîpa (Island of Jambu). Mention is made in the Mahâbhârata that during his conquest Arjuna had gone up to this place and carried away from there plenty of wealth. It is believed by common people that this place is inaccessible to human beings. (M.B. Sabhâ Parva, Chapter 28, Stanzas 7 to 20). The southern end of this place is the Nîlagiri and the Northern end Mount Meru. The inhabitants are gifted people, with trees bearing flowers and fruits, the flowers fragrant and the fruits sweet. A particular type of tree known as Kshiri (milky) grows here from which milk will flow. There are also trees which will give you whatever you ask. It was the belief of ancient people that with the fruits of Kshiri, you could make garments and ornaments. The soil of this place contains gems and in the sand there is gold. Those who fall down from heaven live in this region. The average age of the inhabitants of this place is said to have been eleven- thousand years. There is a kind of bird in this place called Bhârunda. These birds drag dead bodies away to caves. (M.B. Bhîshma Parva, Chapter 8, Stanzas 2 to 13)." [Quelle: Mani, Vettam [Vettammâni] <1921 - >: Puranic encyclopaedia : a comprehensive dictionary with special reference to the epic and puranic literature. -- 1. ed. in engl.. - Delhi : Motilal Banarsidas, 1975. - VIII, 922 S.  -- ISBN 0-8426-0822-2. -- Originaltitel: Purananighantu (1964). -- S. 817.] The whole of this i« a purely commendatory description. We do not find here any Injunction; the verb 'attain' being in the simple Present tense. Nor is there any justification for deducing an Injunction from the commendatory description,—as is done in the case of the passage 'Pratishthanti etc.'  (vide Mîmâmsâ-Sûtra, 4. 3. 17. et seq); because in the present case neither there is, nor is there any possibility of, any other Injunction (apart from those already set forth in the text). The whole of this descriptive section is supplementary to the prohibition of the eating of unlawful meat; and the upshot of the prohibition contained in these verses is that 'one should never seek to kill animals needlessly.' (verse 37) As for the sanction (of killing) implied in the statement—'animals have been created for the purpose of sacrifices' (30),—all this is understood as involving the prohibition of eating which is going to be distinctly emphasised below in verse 48. Nor can any Injunction (such as 'desiring advancement, the animal shall die at a sacrifice') be deduced from the text. Because such an Injunction could not be intended for the animals; for the simple reason that they would not understand it. And those for whom the Injunction is not intended caonot be the agent; and unless one is an agent, he cannot obtain any reward declared in the scriptures. Specially as in the present case, the result spoken of does not proceed in any perceptible manner from the nature of the thing involved ; as there is, for instance, in the case of the poison, which produces its results even on ignorant persons who take it. There is no such thing in the case of things spoken of in the Veda. Further, since the herbs and other things spoken of here are unconscious beings, the 'principle of the priests' cannot apply to their case. That is to say, it is found that in the case of sacrificial performances, results are spoken of as accruing to one person (the sacrificer) from the acts that are actually done by others,—i. e. the priests officiating for him; e. g. in the case of the passage—'he desires one to become worse etc.' In the case of such passages we admit of an Injunction, because what is there stated is not capable of being taken as supplementary to any other Injunction, and secondly because the indication of the Injunction is quite clear, and lastly, because the Injunction indicated is found to be one that pertains to human beings. In the case of all scriptural statements, we are entitled to deduce just as much as may be reasonably deduced from the actual words of the text. For instance, it has been declared that the Brahmana joining in the sacrificial bath of other people should have to perform an expiatory rite [and we have to accept this, even though we fail to see any reason for it]. In the present case, however, there is no possibility of any Injunction being addressed to the beings concerned (all of which are inanimate). 'Herbs'—grass and the like. 'Animals',—the goat and other beasts (which are mentioned as fit for being offered at sacrifices). 'Trees',—such as are objects of worship. 'Beasts',—those which, though not ordinarily regarded as fit for sacrificing, happen to be mentioned, in some passages, as to be offered; e.g. 'one shall kill partridges.' Though at the Vâjapeya and similar sacrifices, the calves are used only for the purpose of carrying loads, yet they are called 'beasts ;' and even though these do not suffer actual death, yet the term 'death' in their case stands for all the sufferings that they undergo. Vâjapeya ist ein Somaopfer. Ausführlich dazu siehe: Hillebrandt, Alfred <1853-1927>: Ritual-Litteratur, vedische Opfer und Zauber. -- Strassburg, Trübner 1897. -- 199 S. -- (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde ; III,2). -- S. 141-143. 'Birds';—the Kapinjala and the rest; even though these are sometimes spoken of as 'animals ', yet, as a rule, they are not known by that name : for in such passages as 'there are seven tame animals and seven wild animals', the animals meant are the cow and the rest, which are not birds; in fact the term 'pashu,'animals, denotes quadrupeds ; or the difference between 'animals' and 'birds' may be regarded as similar to that between the 'go' and the 'balivarda' [Stier] (the former term being wider than the latter) [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 538), which explains 'ucchhrtih' as 'advancement'. Medhâtithi (P. 403, 1. 22)—'Pratitishthantîtivat'— This refers to Mimâmsâ Sûtra 4. 3.17 et. seq., which embodies what has been called the 'Râtrisattra-nyâya' In connection with the ' Râtri' offerings, it is said that 'he who offers these obtains respectability &c.;' and in regard to this the question arises whether this latter passage is a mere arthavâda, or .it describes the result that really follows from the offerings; and the conclusion is that, inasmuch as no other mention of the.result of the offerings is found anywhere, the passage in question must be taken as describing the results actually following from them. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vishnu (51 63).—(Same as Manu.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

41. -42. At the Madhuparka offering, at sacrifices, and at rites in honour of the Pitrs,—at these alone should animals be killed, and nowhere else; thus has Manu declared.

The twice-born person, knowing the real import of the Veda, killing animals on these Veda, killing animals on these occasions, carries himself and the animal to the most excellent state.

Medhâtithi zu 41-42: The present text sums up in brief those occasions on which the killing of animals is sanctioned by the scriptures. 'Madhuparka''—has been already described. At this the killing of the calf has been enjoined. 'Sacrifice'—such as the Jyotishtoma and the like; the eleventh stage of which consists of the animal-sacrifice; as also the Pashuhandha, at which the sacrificing of the animal forms a sacrifice by itself. "Pashvalambha, pashubandha, Tieropfer. — Âpastamba 7; 11, 16 (Soma); Kâtyâyana 6; Vaitâna 10; Âshvalâyana 3, 1—8; 4, 11. 12; Shankhâyana 5, 15ff. (beim Somaopfer); 6, 1, 18 ff. Die Sûtren kennen ein selbständiges Tieropfer, den nirûdhapashubandha und den mit dem Somaopfer verbundenen agnîshomîya, bei Âsv. 3, 8, 3 nirmita resp. saumya genannt. Der Agnîshomîya ist in der Theorie die Grundform aller andern, in der Tat aber werden von mehreren Sûtren die Regeln des Tieropfers an dem Nirûdhapashubandha entwickelt. Ein Âhitâgni soll kein Fleisch essen, ehe er damit geopfert hat (S. 2, 3, 26) und muss es, solange er lebt, darbringen. Es kann jährlich oder halbjährlich geschehen, in letzterem Fall nach S. am Anfang und Ende des Udagayana; bei alljährlicher Opferung dagegen zur Regenzeit, im Herbst oder Frühling — die Ansichten schwanken. Die Zahl der Priester wird um die Person des Maitrâvaruna vermehrt, der bei seinem Eintritt auf den Opferplatz (nach der Hotr-wahl) einen Stab empfängt und diesen bis gegen das Ende des Opfers führt. Ehe er die Praisha's sagt, durch die er den Hotr zum Rezitieren der Yâjyâ's auffordert, darf er weder sich noch andere damit berühren (Schwab 88). Im Allgemeinen verläuft das Tieropfer nach dem Paradigma des Neumondsopfers, in dessen Tantra es anstelle des Sâmnâyya eintritt und natürlich eine Reihe von Veränderungen und Zusätzen hervorruft. Geopfert wird für Indra-Agni oder Sûrya oder Prajâpati ein Bock, der eine Reihe genau vorgeschriebener Eigenschaften haben und namentlich von gewissen Fehlern, wie Mangeln eines Hornes oder Auges frei sein muss. Bei andern als diesen Nirûdhapashubandha's finden wir andere Götter und Tiere, besonders Rind und Schaf, in großer Zahl und Mannigfaltigkeit beim Agnicayana, Ashva-, Purushamedha, zu dem zahme und wilde Tiere zu Hunderten verwendet werden. Auch hängt Art wie Farbe der Tiere bisweilen von dem Charakter der Gottheit, der sie geopfert werden, ab. Für Sûrya z. B. werden weiße, für Brhaspati teilweis hellgefärbte, für Indra kräftige Tiere gewählt; die anûbandhyâ-Kuh für Mitra-Varuna ist zwei-, für die Vishvedevâh vielfarbig, für Brhaspati rot. Der Nirrti weist MSamh. III, 14, 19 kapota, ulûka, shahsa zu, den Rakshas 14, 21 tarakshu, shvan krshna, karna gardabha. Wieder andere Tiere werden als amedhya bezeichnet; so Sat Br. 12,4, 1, 4 durvarâha, edaka, shvan. Der Nirûdhapashu umfasst zwei Tage, den upavasatha, an dem die einleitenden Zeremonien im Wesentlichen erledigt werden und den eigentlichen Opfertag, oder er kann auch auf einen beschränkt werden. Eine der ersten Handlungen ist die Herstellung eines Opferpfostens, zu dem man im Walde, wenn möglich, einen Palâshabaum auswählt, der Eigenschaften verschiedener Art haben muss. Dem gemeinsam ausgesuchten Stamme bringen Adhvaryu, Opferer ihre Verehrung dar, salben ihn unterhalb und lassen ihn so abhauen, dass den übrigbleibenden Stumpf die Achse eines Wagens nicht berühren kann (Schwab 5). Der dabei abspringende erste Span wird verwahrt, um beim Einsetzen des Yûpa unten in die Grube geworfen zu werden. Dieses Stück eines Baumkultes findet in einer Butterspende seinen Abschluss, die mit dem Wunsche, dass der »Herr des Waldes in hundert Zweigen wieder wachsen möge« auf den Stumpf gegossen wird. Der Zimmermann schneidet die Äste und den oberen Teil des Stammes ab und haut den übriggebliebenen, beim Nirûdhapashu 3—4 Aratni langen Pfahl (bei andern Opfern gelten andere Vorschriften) vier- oder achteckig, oben in einen Zapfen auslaufend, zu; aus jenem abgeschnittenen Teil stellt er einen Aufsatz (cashâla), der genau oben auf die Ecken des Yûpa passt, her. Der Opferpfosten wird später in einer Grube, die halb inner-, halb ausserhalb der Vedi sich befindet und mit Gerstenwasser besprengt ist, aufgerichtet Um den Yûpa ist ein Seil in seiner Mitte oder in der Höhe des Nabels des Opferers geschlungen und darf, ohne den Opferer zu schädigen, weder hinauf- noch hinabgerückt werden. Wünscht der Opferer indes wenig oder viel Regen, so kann er es auch tief unten oder hoch oben anbringen. Selbst das Feststecken der Enden hat seine Bedeutung, weil ihr Herabhängen für den Yajamâna nur weibliche Nachkommenschaft bedeuten würde (S. 73). In die mittlere Lage des Seiles wird ein Span von 2—4 Angula Länge gesteckt, der sog. svaru, den er vorher den Abfällen beim Herstellen des Yûpa entnommen hatte (11. 74). Die pâshukî vedih liegt nicht, wie die Vedi des Neu- und Vollmondsopfer westlich, sondern östlich vom Feuer und hat die Masse der bei den Varunapraghâsâh gebrauchten sog. uttarâ vedi. In ihrem östlichen Drittel wird aus der beim Graben des Câtvâla gewonnenen Erde die Uttaravedi »Hochaltar« hergerichtet und auf diesem die Uttaranâbhi wie bei den Varunapraghâsâh zur Aufnahme des Feuers hergestellt. »Das Feuer der Uttaravedi vertritt beim Tieropfer die Stelle des Âhavaniya und dieser die des Gârhapatya« (37). Die Besonderheiten des Tieropfers machen eine Reihe von Gerätschaften notwendig, die dem Neu- und Vollmondsopfer fremd sind. Außer dem Stab für den Maitrâvaruna sind besonders die vapâshrapanî, an denen die Netzhaut gebraten wird, und der zum Rösten des Herzens dienende hrdayashûla zu erwähnen. Nach Zurechtstellung aller Utensilien wird das Tier in wohlriechendem Wasser gebadet und herangetrieben. Wenn es aus Furcht blökt oder sich zur Flucht wendet oder sonst Unannehmlichkeiten bereitet, müssen zur Sühne Butterspenden geopfert werden. Nach dem Agnimanthana ist es mit einem Strick zu binden, der vom linken Vorderfuss an dem Hals hinauf um das linke Hörn geschlungen und an den Pfahl befestigt wird, zu besprengen und zum letzten Mal zu tränken. Es folgen wie beim Neu- und Vollmondsopfer die Sâmidhenî's, Hotrpravara, Devatâvâhana, Âghâra's, der Priesterpravara, und die eigentliche Opferung beginnt. Sie wird eingeleitet von 11 Prayâja's, zu denen die Âprllieder mit ihren S. 16 erwähnten Schulunterschieden die Yâjyâ's liefern. Hervorzuheben ist, dass in den vom Opferer zu sprechenden Anumantrana's sich Erwähnungen der Jahreszeiten finden; den Frühling »labt« er bei dem Samidhprayâja, den Sommer bei dem für Tanûnapât resp. Narâshamsa, die Regenzeit bei dem dritten für Agni idah u.s.w. Nach dem 10. Prayâja wird der Svaru und die eine Seite des zweischneidigen Messers in Butter getaucht, das man dem Schlächter reicht, der nur mit der ungeweihten Schneide das Tier zerlegen darf, während die geweihte dem Adhvaryu zum Abschneiden der Opferstücke dient. Der Âgnidhra ergreift einen Feuerbrand und vollzieht unter Rezitationen des Maitrâvaruna dreimal das Paryagnikarana um das Tier, den Schlachtfeuerplatz u. s. w. Zur selben Zeit finden auch die Apâvyaspenden statt, die nach den begleitenden Versen sich auf das zu den Göttern gehende Tier beziehen. Von dem ursprünglichen Gârhapatya werden einige Kohlen auf den Platz des Sâmitrafeuers niedergelegt. Als Einleitung zum pashusamjnapana, dem Ersticken des Tieres erteilt der Adhvaryu durch den Maitrâvaruna dem Hotr den Befehl zum Adhrigu, dem Hersagen der alten, feierlichen, in Avasâna's zu teilenden Schlachtformel, die »die göttlichen und menschlichen Schlächter« auffordert »anzufassen, das Opfertier vor die Pforten des Opferplatzes zu bringen«, »in einem Stück die Haut abzutrennen u.s.w.« Der Agnîdhra nimmt wieder seinen Feuerbrand und legt ihn auf den Schlachtfeuerplatz, draussen vor dem Opferplatz, nieder; hinterdrein wird das Tier geführt, und ihm folgen Pratiprashthâtr, Adhvaryu und Yajamâna, nach Kât »pipîlikavat« marschierend, der Pratiprashthâtr berührt mit den Bratspießen das Tier, der Adhvaryu fasst den Pratiprashthâtr. und der Yajamâna den Adhvaryu an, wodurch eine Zauberkraft von dem Opfertier auf den Priester und durch diese auf den Opferer übergeht. An dieser Stelle schaltet das Vait. S. 10, 17 die pramucyamânahoma's ein. Hierauf wird das Tier mit dem Kopf nach Westen, mit den Füssen nach Norden gelegt und von den Schlächtern erstickt oder mittelst einer Schlinge erwürgt, während alle andern sich abwenden und nach dem Opferplatz zurückkehren. Vor dem Tode darf außer einigen Formeln nichts gesprochen werden; sobald sein Eintreten von dem Schlächter gemeldet ist, folgt ein samjnaptahoma, das Lösen des Strickes und Herbeiführen der Gattin. Wer seinen Feind vernichten will, legt jenen Strick auf einen dürren Baumstumpf oder Grasbüschel und verflucht ihn (Schwab 108). Auf Mund, Nase u. s. w. des verendeten Tieres gießt der Adhvaryu oder die Gattin des Opferers Wasser, und der andere von beiden wäscht die betreffenden Glieder ab. Zuerst wird vorsichtig die Vapâ herausgeschnitten und an der Ekashûlâ aufgehängt. In das beim ersten Schnitt herausfressende Blut taucht man ein Stück eines Halmes und wirft es, den Feind in tiefste Finsternis verwünschend, nach NW. oder SW. (Schwab 112). Die am Schlachtfeuer erwärmte Netzhaut wird zur Uttaravedi geschafft, wo sie der Pratiprashthâtr an den Spießen weiter brät und der Adhvaryu eine Butterspende darüber ausgießt. Das herabträufelnde Fett begleitet der Maitrâvaruna mit Rgversen. Die fertiggebratene Netzhaut findet unter Hersagung der Pancahotrformel auf der Vedi ihren Platz. Es folgt der 11. Prayâja, ev. die beiden Ajyabhâga's und die Darbringung der ganzen Vapâ, der Goldstückchen und Buttergüsse beigefügt werden (vapâ, purodâsa, havish sind nach Âsv. 3, 4, 4 die pashor pradânâni); auch die Bratspieße sind ins Feuer zu werfen. Am Schluss dieses Vapâhoma wird in mehreren Sûtren an die Priester oder andere Brahmanen die Daksinâ verteilt, drei Milchkühe oder drei trächtige Kühe u. s. w. (Schwab 122). Der nächste Akt ist die Herstellung des Pashupurodâsa aus Reis bis zum trishphalikarana, worauf das pashuvishasana entsprechend den Anweisungen der Adhrigu-formel erfolgt. Von der Mehrzahl der Sûtren werden 18 Teile des Tieres als opferfähig angesehen, Herz, Zunge, Bruststück u. s. w., wovon die ersten acht als daivatâni gelten. Mit Ausnahme des am hrdayashûla besonders gebratenen Herzens werden sie in einem Topf gekocht, Magen und Exkremente, dazu das Blut für die Dämonen kommen als Anteil in eine Grube westlich vom Sâmitrafeuer außerhalb des Opferplatzes. Das Purodâsaopfer nimmt jetzt seinen weiteren Verlauf. Sobald der Schlächter das Fleisch dreimal als »gar« angesagt hat, nimmt der Adhvaryu die Stücke mitsamt dem Herzen, und legt sie mit Butter übergössen auf die Vedi, dazu den Topf mit der Brühe. Während der Maitrâvaruna »Manotâ für die abzuschneidende Opferspeise« einlädt, schneidet der Priester von den daivatâni mit der geweihten Schneide des Messers Stücke in der Größe eines Daumengliedes ab. Die Idâ wird bereitet und das ausgekochte, auf der Brühe schwimmende Fett in die vasâhomahavani geschöpft (S. 141), alles in genauer, bis auf die Einzelheiten geregelter Weise. Alsdann beginnt die Darbringung der Hauptspenden. Der Maitrâvaruna rezitiert die Anuvâkyâ und erteilt auf Veranlassung des Adhvaryu dem Hotr den Befehl zum Hersagen der Yâjyâ, bei deren Rezitation der Pratiprashthâtr den größten Teil der Vasâ, einen Spruch rezitierend, ins Feuer gießt. Der Überrest wird bald oder bei späterer Gelegenheit nach den vier Himmelsgegenden ausgesprengt. Sobald der Vausajruf des Hotr erklingt, schüttet der Adhvaryu mit der Juhû die Spenden für Indra-agni ins Feuer. Es folgt ein prsadâjyaopfer für Vanaspati, der pashusvistakrt, zu dem die tryahgâni genannten Stücke (vom linken Hinterbacken, dem Oberschenkel des rechten Vorderfusses und ein Teil des Afters) gehören, das Verzehren der Idâ unter Verabreichung der Anteile des Tieres an Priester, Opferer u. s.w. und die 11 Anuyâja's, die Nachopfer an die »Opferstreu«, »die göttlichen Tore u. s. w. Mit jedem der Anuyâja's ist ein upayâja verbunden, indem der Pratiprashthâtr immer ein Stück des übrig gebliebenen guda hinzuopfert. (Etwas anders Kât). Der Svaru wird in das Feuer geworfen. Sein Rauch soll in den Himmelsraum, seine Flamme in den Luftraum dringen, seine Asche die Erde füllen; auch der Prastara und der Stab des Maitrâvaruna nehmen ihren Weg ins Feuer; ein von dem Prastara zuvor abgesonderter Halm wird, nach Hersagung des Sûktavâka, mit einer Verwünschung gegen die Feinde nachgeworfen und der Âgnîdhra dreimal auf den brennenden Halm mit dem Zeigefinger hingewiesen (S. 158). Zu den Patnisamyâja's wird der Schwanz des Tieres verwendet, der Herzbratspieß wird in Gegenwart des Opferers, seiner Frau und der Priester am Rande einer mit Wasser gefüllten Grube oder einem ähnlichen Ort (Pfütze u. s. w.) mit einem die Feinde verwünschenden und einem Varuna um Sündenvergebung anflehenden Verse versteckt. Ohne den Spiess zu berühren, kehren sie zurück, jeder ergreift unterwegs drei dürre Äste und legt sie in das Feuer der Uttaravedi (163). Wie das Neu- und Vollmondsopfer schliesst die Ceremonie mit dem Samsthâjapa. Außer diesen regelmäßigen Tieropfern gibt es durch bestimmte Ursachen oder Wünsche veranlasste, naimittika's und kâmya's (wie Taitt. Samh. II, 1, 1 ff. Taitt. Br. 2, 8, 1 ff. u. s. w. zeigen) die zur Erlangung von bhûti, grâma's. prajâ u. s. w. für Vâyu u. a. Götter dargebracht werden." [Quelle: Hillebrandt, Alfred <1853-1927>: Ritual-Litteratur, vedische Opfer und Zauber. -- Strassburg, Trübner 1897. -- 199 S. -- (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde ; III,2). -- S. 121 -124.] 'Rites in honour of the Pitrs,' —i.e. those of which the Pitrs are the 'deities'; what are meant are the Ashtaka a and other offerings of the kind, and not Shrâddhas; because these latter are laid down as to be performed with cooked meat, (for which the meat could be obtained otherwise than by actually killing the animal at the rite itself) : and in connection with this the killing of animals has not been enjoined ; nor will it be right to regard this (injunction regarding tlit offering of cooked meat) as implying the killing of animals ; because the original injunction of the Shrâddha does not lay down such killing. Ashtaka = jahreszeitlich periodische Totenopfer. Ausführslich dazu siehe: : Hillebrandt, Alfred <1853-1927>: Ritual-Litteratur, vedische Opfer und Zauber. -- Strassburg, Trübner 1897. -- 199 S. -- (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde ; III,2). -- S. 94 - 97. Further, the present verse also does not clearly enjoin it: specially as what is here mentioned is capable of being taken as pertaining to the Ashtaka offerings. If the present verse were an injunction, it would involve the necessity of seeking for its basis (in some Vedic text) : while, as we shall explain later on, it is capable of being construed as supplementary to another Injunction. Some people explain the term 'pitrdaivatakarma' as standing for the rites performed in honour of the gods and the Pitrs i.e. the Great Sacrifices (daily). Animals are to be killed by Brahmanas for the 'support of their dependents,' and the killing of animals is also permitted at times of distress, when life may be in danger, [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

Vers 41: This verse in quoted in Aparârka (p. 154), as setting aside the view that 'the offering of Madhwparka does not necessarily involve the killing of the animal'; in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 538). Vers 42: This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Ahnika, p. 531) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vers 41: Vishnu (51. 64).—(Same as Manu.) Vasishtha (4. 6).—(Same as Manu.) Shankhâyana-Grhyasûtra (2. 16. 1).—(Same as Manu.) Vers 42 - 46: Vishnu (51. 65-69;.—(Same as Manu.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

43. Living in his house, or with his teacher, or in the foeest, the self-controlled twice-born person shall not, even in times of distress, do that killing which is not sanctioned in the Veda.

Medhâtithi: This verse forbids such killing as is not sanctioned by the Veda, it is not meant to sanction that which is already sanctioned by it. As a matter of fact, no other killing (save what is sanctioned) is possible in the case of the Student 'living with his teacher,' or of the man performing austerities 'in the forest'; even though some sort of killing may be possible for the incontinent Student, yet for the Hermit in the forest it is not possible in any casey Even for the Student, an absolute indifference to life (and livelihood) is not considered desirable. Hence the present verse should be treated as the Injunction of killing at Shrâddhas ; and the mention of the 'house' is a mere reiteration (Shrâddhas being performed only by the Householder). Some people argue here as follows :—"If this were such an Injunction, what would be the meaning of the terms 'in the forest' and 'in times of distress'? For the Recluse in the forest, even though keeping up his Fire, there are no animal-sacrifices : as we shall show under 6-11." Our Teacher however gives the following explanation:—What is urged may be true of the Student ; as regards the Recluse, even 'self-abandonment' has been enjoined by such texts as 'having recourse to the Aparâjita [ein giftiges Insekt], etc. etc.' So that for him there can be no killing for saving his life ; all this we shall clearly explain under 6-31. "The present verse puts forward the prohibition of killing even in times of distress ; how then is it that you take it to mean the permission of it at such times ?" True ; but otherwise (if the text were not taken as permitting killing as sanctioned by the Veda), it would be useless. It might be argued that it could serve the purposes of a commendatory text. But even for a commendatory text, some sort of basis (some injunctive text to which it is supplementary) will have to be sought out. Hence we conclude that the prohibition contained in the verse relates to normal times—other than those of distress ; and there is nothing incongruous in its being sanctioned in connection with abnormal times of distress. Further, there are various degrees of 'distress'; and under the lesser forms of it, if one would take to 'killing' animals for food under the consideration that his food-supply was sufficient only for a month or a fortnight (after which he will have nothing to eat),—then such killing (even though at an abnormal time of distress) would be what is forbidden by the present text; on the other hand, if the man fears that he would die now if he did not kill for food,—or if a desperado with uplifted weapon were attacking him,—then the 'killing' has to be done; and it is this killing in abnormal times of distress that is permitted by the text. In this manner the V'edic text 'one should protect himself from all things' also becomes reconciled. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Ahnika, p. 538) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: siehe Vers 41/42. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

44. That killing which is sanctioned by the Veda has been eternal in this world of mobile and immobile beings : it is to be regarded as no killing at all ; since it was out of the Veda that the Law shone forth.

Medhâtithi: The killing of creatures which ihas been prescribed in the Veda, 'has been eternal'—without beginning—'in this world of mobile and immobile beings;' on the other hand, that which is laid down in the Tantra and other works is modern, and based upon mistaken induction. Hence it is only the former that is to be regarded as 'no killing at all'; and this for the reason that it does not involve any sin in reference to the other world. When this killing is called 'no killing', it is only in view of its effects, and not in view of its form (which of course is that of killing). "Since both acts would be equally killing ; how can there be any difference in their effects ?" The answer to this is—'because it was out of the Veda that the Law shone forth';—the promulgation of what is lawful (right) and what is unlawful (wrong) proceeded from the Veda ; human authorities not being at all trustworthy. And as a matter of fact, the Veda is found to declare that in certain cases, killing is conducive to welfare. Nor is there an absolute identity of form (between the two kinds of killing) ; because firstly there is the difference that, while one is done for the sake of accomplishing a sacrifice, the other is done for entirely personal motives; and secondly there is difference in the intention also ; that is, ordinary killing is done either by one who desires to eat meat, or by one who hates the creature (killed), while the Vedic killing is done because the man thinks that 'it is enjoined by the scriptures'. 'Shone forth'—Shone fully ; i.e. became manifested. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Ahnika, p. 538) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: siehe Vers 41/42. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

45. He who kills harmless creatures for the sake of his own pleasure, never attains happiness, living or dead.

Medhâtithi: A half-syllable—'a'—should be understood to be present (between 'yo' and ' himsakam'}. The prohibition regarding 'harmless creatures' indicates that there is no prohibition regarding dangerous animals, such as serpents, tigers and the like. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Ahnika, p. 538) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: siehe Vers 41/42. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

46. He, who does not seek to inflict sufferings of capture and death on living beings, is the well-wisher of all and obtains perfect happiness.

Medhâtithi: 'Capture' and 'death' are the 'sufferings' meant; or 'sufferings' may be taken separately, as standing for 'doing pecuniary harm' etc. He who seeks to do all this,—i.e. who not only desists from such acts, but who never has any desire to do it ;—such a person does not merely cease to do harm to others, he actually becomes their 'well-wisher'—he is anxious to do good to them ; and he 'obtains perfect happiness'. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Ahnika, p. 539) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: siehe Vers 41/42. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

47. He who does not injure anything obtains, without effort, what he thinks of, what he undertakes, and what he fixes his heart upon.

Medhâtithi: 'What he thinks of'—in the shape of profit and honour, &c, 'What he fxes his heart upon'—whatever desirable thing he has longing for;—all this 'he obtains without effort'. 'What he .undertakes'— whatever act he does, the reward of that he obtains, without any difficulty, immediately after the accomplishment of that act. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Mitâksharâ (on 1. 181) as laying down the indirect result of avoiding the killing of animals. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vishnu (51. 70).—(Same as Manu.) Yâjnavalkya (1. 181).—'The self-controlled Brahmana, even though living in the house, obtains all desires and also the reward of Ashvamedha sacrifice, if he gives up meat.' Brhaspati (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 536). —'If the non-greedy man eats not meat, even though he is ill or has been invited, he obtains, without effort, the reward of the Ashvamedha sacrifice.' [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

48. Meat is never obtained without having encompassed the killing of animals; and the killing of animals does not lead to heaven ; hence one should avoid meat.

Medhâtithi: This verse shows that all the verses forbidding the killing of animals are auxiliary to the prohibition of meat-eating. As a matter of fact, until animals have been killed, meat cannot be obtained ; and killing is very painful. Hence one should avoid meat. "Meat can be obtained from animals that die of themselves ; how is it then that it is said that it cannot be obtained without encompassing the death of animal?" The verse is a purely commendatory exaggeration. Further, there can be no idea of any one eating the meat of animals dying of themselves, for the simple reason that such meat is the source of disease. Meat is never eaten without being offered, and what is a source of. disease can never be offered as gift. 'Utpadyate';—the meat is brought about by killing; hence the nominative of killing and of obtaining may be regarded as one and the same ; so that there is nothing incongruous in the expression 'nâkrtvâ utpadyate'. Or, 'utpadyate' may be construed along with 'does not lead to heaven.' What is meant is, not only that it does not lead to heaven, but also that it leads to hell and other evils. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

Verse 48-49: These verses are quoted in Parâsharamâdhava (Âcâra, p. 719), which adds that the prohibition contained here pertains to the eating of meat obtained by such killing of animals as is prohibited,—and not to that of meat obtained by purchase; and this on the ground that it is prefaced by the deprecating of the act of killing. Verse 48 only is quoted in Prâyashcittaviveka (p. 279). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Vishnu (51. 71).—(Same as Manu.) Vasishtha (4 7).—(Same as Manu.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

49. Having duly pondered over the origin of meat , and over the fettering and killing of living beings, one should abstain from the eating of all meat.

Medhâtithi: The foetus grows in the womb, which is an unclean place: and it is produced from semen and ovule, both unclean things. 'Fettering and killing'—involved in the obtaining of meat. 'Having duly ponded over'—carefully considered with an alert mind;—'all this'—'one shall abstain from the eating of all meat'—i.e. also of that which is not forbidden ; what to say of what is actually forbidden? The present text is a commendatory exaggeration : it is not meant that meat should be always regarded as unclean ; the sentence does not mean to lay down that all meat is actually unclean. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

siehe bei Vers 48 [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen zu 49 - 51: Vishnu (51. 72-74).—(Same as Manu.) Yama (Vîra-Âhnika).—'The approver, the cutter, the killer, the buyer, the seller, and the cooker—all these are slayers......the eater is the seventh and the worst of all.'   [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

50. He who does not eat meat like a fiend [Pishâca], disregarding the proper method, becomes popular among men and is not afflicted by disease.

Medhâtithi: 4 Proper method'—u. of worshipping the^Gods and so forth ; if one does not eat meat, regardless of this manner, but eats it only in the right manner,—4 he Incomes popular ' -loved by the people ; he becomes dear to all. 1 He is not afflicted by diseased—Diseases are produced if a man eats the flesh of lean and enfeebled animals. For this reason also one should eat meat only in the right manner ,• and by eating it thus, he * is not afflicted by disease.1 By eating meat in any other way, he is always afflicted by disease. k Like a fiend \—The term fc tiend ' stands for a species of lower animals, which eat flesh always in the wrong manner; hence every one who eats it in the wrong manner becomes like a fiend ;—this is the sense of the deprecatory simile. "PISHÂCHAS (mas.), PISHÂCHÎ (fem.). Fiends, evil spirits, placed by the Vedas as lower than Rakshasas. The vilest and most malignant order of malevolent beings. Accounts differ as to their origin. The Brâhmana and the Mahâ-bhârata say that they were created by Brahmâ, together with the Asuras and Rakshasas, from the stray drops of water which fell apart from the drops out of which gods, men, gandharvas, &c., had been produced. According to Manu they sprang from the Prajâpatis. In the Purânas they are represented as the offspring of Kashyapa by his wife Krodhavasâ, or Pishâchâ, or Kapishâ." [Quelle: Dowson, John <1820-1881>: A classical dictionary of Hindu mythology and religion, geography, history, and literature. -- London, Trübner, 1879. -- s.v. ] "Bhuta, Preta, Pishacha A common Hindu belief holds that the spirits of men and women who died with their wishes unfulfilled, wander in the world and haunt the living instead of going to Yamapuri (see Moksha). These spirits can be broadly categorised into three classes: Bhuta, preta and pishacha. A bhuta is the spirit of a man who died a violent death either by accident, suicide, or capital punishment, and has not had a proper funeral ceremony. A preta (literally departed, deceased, dead) is the spirit of a dead person before his funeral rites are performed. However the word is more commonly applied to the spirit of a deformed or a crippled person or of one defective in some limb or organ, or of a child that dies prematurely, owing to the omission of ceremonies during the formation of the embryo (see Sanskara). A preta is not necessarily wicked or malicious towards people. A pishacha is a demon created by a man's vices. It is the ghost of a liar, drunkard, adulterer, criminal, or of one who has died insane. There are many tales and fables about these spirits, describing some as malevolent and others as good-natured and helpful. Spirits are believed to live either at the site of their death or in secluded places. Abandoned homes and peepal trees are two favorite spots. The Hindus also believe that if a person goes too close to a spirit, or if the services of a professional are employed, these spirits can enter human bodies. The spirit could enter through any of the nine orifices of the body. A possessed person is said to fall sick, die, be unhappy, lose his wealth, or behave oddly. In such cases an ojha (exorcist), through mystic rites, tries to 'talk' to the spirit inside and asks it to leave. If he knows the identity of the spirit, he asks its family members to perform certain ceremonies to pacify the spirit. This system is still prevalent in some of the parts of India. Diseases and other upheavals are sometimes attributed to the fact that a deceased family member's funeral rites have not been properly performed. To correct this, a tirthayatra Tirtha is undertaken, and proper shradha is performed. Sometimes, especially during ceremonies, a person is believed to become possessed by the spirit of a deceased family member who is either angry about something, or has come to take part in the festivities. A puja is performed to this spirit. Meanwhile the spirit is believed to be able to predict natural calamities, births and deaths through the possessed person. Hindus wear talismans, lockets, bangles, and other adornments that are believed to have the power to protect from the gaze of spirits. The recitation of certain mantras is believed to have a similar effect." [Quelle: http://www.gurjari.net/ico/Mystica/html/bhut.htm. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-26] [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

Cf. The Mahâbhârata 13. 114. 12. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: siehe zu Vers 49. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

51. He who approves, he who cuts, he who kills, he who buys and sells, he who cooks, he who serves and he who eats it are 'slayers'.

Medhâtithi: When some one is killing an animal, if another person should come, and for his own selfish purposes show his approbation, by such words as 'he is doing well in thus killing the animal,'—this latter man is called the 'approver'. 'He who cuts'—he who quarters the dead body. 'He who serves' — places it before persons eating. 'He who eats it.' All these are 'slayers'. What is meant by attributing the character of the 'slayer' to those who do not actually slay, but do the other acts of eating, preparing, selling, &c,—is the deprecation of all these acts; all these persons do not actually become 'slayers'. The ordinary act of 'slaying' is that which results in loss of life : so that it is only one who does this act that is the 'slayer.' In accordance with the rule that 'the nominative agent of an act is one who does it independently by himself,' that person alone is called the 'slayer' who deprives living beings of their life ; those who do the acts of buying, selling, ete., are other than that person. "But the statement that the approver and the rest also are slayers also emanates from the Smrti (and as such must be accepted as true)." The authority of this Smrti does not extend to the subject of words and their denotations; it is confined to the subject of right and wrong,—what is lawful and what unlawful. More authoritative on the subject of words and their meanings is the revered Pânini. In fact Manu and other writers on Smrti only make use of words in accordance with ordinary usage, and they do not lay down rules bearing upon words and their meanings ; they use the words, they do not regulate them. " But as a matter of fact, we do find these writers making such assertions as 'such and such a person is called a Preceptor' and so forth (which lay down the denotation of words)." True ; but in such cases there is no inconsistency between what the Smrti says and what we learn from the treatises bearing upon the subject. Nor again is there any other useful purpose found to be served by those passages that explain the meaning of the term ' preceptor' (for instance). In the present case, however the passage is capable of serving an auxiliary purpose by being taken as a commendatory statement; so that it is not possible, on the strength of the present text alone, to regard all these persons as 'slayers'. Some people argue as follows :—"If there is no one to eat, there would be no one to kill ; so that the killing is really prompted by the eating; and the prompter of an act also has been regarded as its doer ; so that the eater is the slayer, even in the direct sense of this term; and it is only right that the eater should have to perform the same Expiatory Rite as the slayer." This, we say, is not right; because as a matter of fact, a different expiatory rite has been prescribed, under Discourse XI for the taster of the meat of the animals killed (by others). What has been stated above regarding the prompter being the doer, that also is not true. The prompting agent has been thus defined—' He who by means of direction and request, prompts the independent agent, is also an auxiliary agent, the other being the principal one.' And as a matter of fact when the slayer kills the animal, he is not ordered to do so by the eater ; he does it as a means of living, with the motive that he shall live by selling the flesh. If prompting means abetting,—i.e. if it be held that when a man proceeds to do a certain act, if another person abets him and co-operates with him, the latter is to be regarded as the prompter— then, this definition also is not applicable to the present case. In the act of killing, the 'abetting' would consist in such acts as—(a) collecting the weapons, etc. (b) the sharpening of the blunted axe, (c) the bringing up of the sword, and so forth ; as without these the act of killing could not be accomplished, [and none of these acts is done by the eater]. If, however, the prompter be defined as 'that person for whose take the work is done,'—then, in the case of the ' teaching of the boy,' the boy would have to be regarded as the prompting agent in the act of 'teaching' ; and yet 'teaching' does not mean 'reading' (which is what the boy actually does). Then again, when the slayer does the killing, he does not do so for the benefit of any particular person, by virtue of which the latter's action of eating could be regarded as sinful. In fact, all these persons undertake these acts for their own benefit; and not one of them is troubled by the idea of benefiting any other person. "Even when the man undertakes the killing for his own benefit, such action would be absolutely useless if there were no eater : it is only when there is an eater, that the man's action is fruitful ; and the fruit of an act is the motive, the 'prompting force ; and as this depends upon the eater, the eater also is an indirect prompter." If this be so, then, when a person is murdered on account of enmity, since the enemy would be the prompter of the act of killing, the murdered man could become the murderer! For without enmity, the act of murder would not be possible. Similarly when in the case of Brahmana-murder, the murderer (in course oi the Expiatory Rite) gives away his entire property, the act of giving will have been prompted by the murder ; and as there could be no recipient without the giver, it is not only the re-chastity, but the giver also that would be one tainted with the sin. Similarly a beautiful woman would incur sin by guarding her chastity against the lover who has his heart burning with the arrows of love and who has expressed his longing for her. From all this it follows that what has been suggested cannot b« the definition of the prompter. As a matter of fact, both the slayer and the eater do their respective acts for their own special benefit : but they become helpful to one another in the manner of two persons one of whom has lost his horse and another his cart ; and there can be no question of one being the prompter of the other. This has been fully discussed under 8-104. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

"In the Mahabharata (13. 114. 30-40) this is 'as told ot old by Mârkandeya'."—Hopkins This verse is quoted in Aparârka (p. 251); in Mitâksharâ (on 1. 181), as describing the eight kinds of 'killer'; and in Smrtisâroddhâra (p. 301), which has the following notes:—'ghâtakâh', partakers in the sin,— 'anumantâ', who acquiesces in the act,—'vishasitâ', who cuts the limbs,—'nihantâ', who actually does the act that deprives the animal of the life,—'samskartâ', who cooks the meat,—'upahartâ', who serves the meat. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: siehe zu Vers 49. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

52. If a man, without worshipping the Gods and Pitrs, seeks to increase his own flesh by thef lesh of others,—there is no sinner greater than that person.

Medhâtithi: This deprecates the man who eats meat for the purpose of fattening himself, and not one who does it for averting disease. That this is so is clear from the words of the text 'he who seeks to increase'. In him also, only if he does it 'without worshipping the Gods and Pitrs.' But if the man is ill, and recovery is not possible without eating meat, then there would be no harm, even if the said worshipping were not done. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

"In the Mahâbhârata (13. 114 14) this verse is ascribed to Nârada."—Hopkins. This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 531); and in Smrtisâroddhâra (p. 301). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Mahâbhârata (13. 115. 14. 36) (116. 11) —(Reproduces Manu) Vishnu (51. 76).—(Same as Manu.) Yâjnavalkya (1. 181).—(See above, under 47.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

53. If a man performs the Ashvamedha Sacrifice every year, for a hundred years,—and another does not eat meat,—the merit and reward of both these are the same.

Medhâtithi: The eating of the meat of the Hare and other animals,—in the form of remnants of the worship of Gods and Pitrs —has been sanctioned. If one abstains from this eating, he obtains the fruits of the Ashvamedha sacrifice ; and the fruits of this sacrifice have been described in the words 'he obtains all desires, etc., etc.' "ASHVA-MEDHA. 'The sacrifice of a horse.' This is a sacrifice which, in Vedic times, was performed by kings desirous of offspring. The horse was killed with certain ceremonies, and the wives of the king had to pass the night by its carcase. Upon the chief wife fell the duty of going through a revolting formality which can only be hinted at Subsequently, as in the time of the Mahâ-bhârata, the sacrifice obtained a high importance and significance. It was performed only by kings, and implied that he who instituted it was a conqueror and king of kings. It was believed that the performance of one hundred such sacrifices would enable a mortal king to overthrow the throne of Indra, and to become the ruler of the universe and sovereign of the gods. A horse of a particular colour was consecrated by the performance of certain ceremonies, and was then turned loose to wander at will for a year. The king, or his representative, followed the horse with an army, and when the animal entered a foreign country, the ruler of that country was bound either to fight or to submit. If the liberator of the horse succeeded in obtaining or enforcing the submission of all the countries over which it passed, he returned in triumph with the vanquished Râjas in his train; but if he failed, he was disgraced and his pretensions ridiculed. After the successful return a great festival was held, at which the horse was sacrificed, either really or figuratively." [Quelle: Dowson, John <1820-1881>: A classical dictionary of Hindu mythology and religion, geography, history, and literature. -- London, Trübner, 1879. -- s.v. ] "June 1994 Wow! One Million Join Vedic Rites Gayatri Parivar's Goals Are as Prodigious as their Pujas: Spiritual Empowerment, National Prosperity and By Rajiv Malik, New Delhi A million people thronged the small city of Chitrakoot in Madhya Pradesh State for a grand modern-day ashwamedha yajna organized by Gayatri Parivar [Webpräsenz: http://gayatri.info/. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-26] . Held April 16th to 20th, it was the sixteenth in a series of yajnas begun in 1991 in what has become one of the most successful Hindu religious programs India has seen. Reliable reports put attendance past the million mark for their recent yajnas at Patna and Kurukshetra. In ancient days the ashwamedha yagna, or horse sacrifice-described at length in the Yajur Veda-was performed by the king for the welfare of the nation. This modern version has a similar purpose, but a statue is used in place of a real horse and, instead of being done by hundreds (or thousands!) of brahmin priests, it is performed by all devotees. Indeed, the Parivar's genius has been to generate nearly total community involvement. The earth and water to make bricks for the yajna's 1,008 fire altars at Chitrakoot were collected from over 15,000 villages in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, drawing participants from Hindu temples, Christian churches, Muslim mosques and Sikh gurudwaras. Dr. Pranav Pandya, son-in-law of Parivar founder Sriram Sharma, explained the concept to Hinduism Today: "Our workers went to each and every village of the neighboring areas. The villagers became highly emotional about the ashwamedha yajna, as their own earth and water are being used for this holy event. There is no better way than this to involve people in this noble cause. The response and participation of the people of this area is total. We expect it will touch the one million mark by the event's end." The Parivar's program is by far the largest manifestation of a worldwide Hindu trend-the popularization in simplified form of the ancient Vedic fire rituals. The trend was started in the 19th century by Swami Dayananda Saraswati of the Arya Samaj, but has picked up momentum in the last decade. Dozens of swamis and organizations arrange yajnas every year, often with thousands of participants. Homas are popular today in Russia, Europe, America-indeed, everywhere where Hindus live and worship. Chitrakoot is a holy place where Lord Rama spent eleven of his fourteen years in exile. When I arrived, this otherwise sleepy town with a population of about ten thousand was overflowing with people. Thousands of Gayatri Parivar volunteers dressed in lemon yellow could be seen efficiently and devotedly managing affairs. Fourteen mini-cities were created to provide accommodations. A dozen community kitchens were set up. Police and paramilitary forces maintained law and order. The often hectic activity centered around two main tented sites: the yagashala with the 1,008 fire altars; and the sanskarshala for weddings and initiations. Each of the five days well over 100,000 participated in the fire worship, while several thousand had ceremonies at the sanskarshala. Traditional Himalayan herbs were used along with truckloads of wood in 1,008 altars of different shapes and sizes created for the occasion. Chanting of mantras strictly followed Vedic rules. Only those who were wearing traditional Indian dress-dhoti kurta-were allowed to participate in the yajna. Many had to buy these from the huge temporary marketplace. Hundreds of stalls all along the paths and roads leading to Ashwamedha Nagar (as the venue was named) sold items ranging from dhoti kurtas to food and refreshments. " [Quelle: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1994/6/1994-6-04.shtml. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-26] In this connection it would not be right to urge the following objection :—"How can mere abstaining from meat be equal to a sacrifice involving tremendous labour and much expenses?"—Because the said abstention also is extremely difficult. Further, the principle enunciated in the Sûtra.—'The particular result would follow from development as in the ordinary world'—is operative here also. Hence there can be no objection against the asserting of results or fruits of actions. Our answer however is as follows : — What is said in the text is is a purely commendatory exaggeration ; specially because the statement of the sacrifice being performed 'every year for one hundred years' can be regarded only as such an exaggeration ; for it is not possible for the Ashvamedha to be performed every year ; nor can it be performed 'for a hundred years,' as no performer would live so long. 'Punyaphalam' is a copulative compound, it being impossible to take it as a Genitive Tatpurusha. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

In the Mahabharata (13. 114. 15) this occurs as writer's 'matam mama,' but it has 'mâse' for 'varshe'—says Hopkins. This verse is quoted in Mitâksharâ (on 1. 181), to the effect that the merit of the performance of Ashvamedha accrues to one who renounces meat for a full year; and in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 533), which adds that according to Medhâtithi, this is mere Arthavâda, and not the declaration of a result that actually follows from the act,— this being based upon the principle laid clown by Jaimini under 4. 3. 1. It goes on to add that this view is not right; as this case is not analogous to that of Jaimini 4. 3. 1. A 'declaration of rewards' is regarded as an 'Arthavâda' only when there is some other passage mentioning another reward in connection with the same act; in the present case, however, we do not find any other passage speaking of any other rewards accruing from the renouncing of meat for one year; so that this comes under the Ratrisattranyâya (Jaimini 4. 3. 17 et seq. ; see note under verse 40). It concludes with the remark that the reward accruing from the renouncing of meat for one year,—even though of the same kind as that following from the Ashvamedha—is of a much lower degree; —and quotes the following Kârikâ of 'Bhattapâda'—   [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Mahâbhârata (13.115.10. 16).—' If one performs the Ashvamedha month after month, and if one eats not meat, the two are equal. If one were to perform difficult austerities for full one hundred years, and one were to omit meat-eating, the two might or might not be equal.' Vishnu (51. 76).—(Same as Manu.) Yâjnavalkya (1.181).—(See above, under 47.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

54.  By subsisting upon sacred fruits and roots, and by eating the food of hermits, one does not obtain that reward which he does in abstaining from meat.

Medhâtithi: 'Sacred'—fit for Gods. 'Food of hermits'—i.e., such grains as are got without cultivation ; e.g. the Nîvâra [Sumpfreis, Hygrorhiza aristata] and the like. "Nahezu unbekannt ist in unseren Breiten der Sumpfreis (Hygrorhiza aristata), der von Indien durch das ganze tropische Südostasien verbreitet ist. Im Gegensatz zum Schilf oder Reis, die beide aufrecht in seichten Gewässern leben, wurzelt der Sumpfreis am Ufer und lässt seine langen Halme auf der Wasseroberfläche schwimmen. In flachgründigen stehenden Gewässern und in Flüssen mit schwacher Strömung bildet er regelrechte schwimmende Wiesen. Wie schafft es der Sumpfreis, dass die Halme perfekt auf der Wasseroberfläche fluten und nicht untergehen? Indem er die Blattscheiden ähnlich einer Luftmatratze aufbläst. "Aufblasen" heißt der Einbau von Luftkammern ins Blattgewebe. Der Sumpfreis verwandelt seine Blattscheiden nur dann in Schwimmkörper, wenn sie ständig mit Wasser in Berührung kommen. Fällt der Lebensraum trocken oder wachsen einzelne Halme über den Wasserspiegel hinaus, dann bedeutet dies für die Wasserpflanze keineswegs den Untergang. Sie entwickelt kurzerhand Landformen. Landformen zeigen gegenüber den Wasserformen so starke Unterschiede, dass sie isoliert betrachtet als zwei unterschiedliche Arten betrachtet würden. Die Halme der Landformen müssen sich neu aus eigener Kraft aufrecht halten. Zu diesem Zweck sehen sich die Blattscheiden genötigt, ihre ursprünglichen Funktionen anzunehmen und auf den Einbau von Luftkammern zu verzichten. Veränderungen stellen wir auch bei der Blattspreite fest, die eher schmaler wird und die Blattnerven weniger augenfällig zeichnet. Da der Sumpfreis vorab in nährstoffreichen Gewässern zu Massenbeständen heranwächst, wird er kaum je angebaut. Die ärmere Bevölkerung sammelt seine Früchte oft als Reisersatz und die grünen Teile als Futterpflanze. Am Wildstandort gilt das wüchsige Gras als einjährig oder kurzlebig ausdauernd. Dieses Verhalten dürfte stark auf Umwelteinflüsse zurückzuführen sein, da sich die kultivierten Pflanzen im Tropenhaus als recht langlebig erweisen." [Quelle:Hanspeter Schumacher. -- In: Mitteilungen / Stadt St. Gallen, Botanischer Garten . -- 50. Jg. Nr. 1. -- URL: http://www.schulnetz.ch/unterrichten/fachbereiche/botanik/botanischer_garten/archiv_01/mittjan01.html. -- Zugriff am 2004-02-26] This verse also is a purely commendatory exaggeration. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Parâsharamâdhava (Âcâra, p. 719), which adds that the renouncing of meat here spoken of refers to meat other than the 'consecrated' and the rest that have been spoken of before. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen zu 54 und 55: Vishnu (51. 77. 78).—(Same as Manu.) [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

55. 'Me he (mâm-sa) will devour in the next world, whose meat I eat in this'—this is the 'meatness' (mâmsatva) of the 'meat' (mâmsa), as the wise ones declare.

Medhâtithi: 'This explanation of the name is a commendatory description. 'Mâm sa bhakshayitâ'—'He will eat me.'—The general pronoun 'sah' 'he,' has its particular character pointed out by what follows—'whose meat I eat here.' [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

Cf. The Mahâbhârata 13. 116. 35. This verse is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 53-1); and in Smrtisâroddhâra (p. 301). [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: siehe bei Vers 54. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

56. There is no sin tn the eating of meat, nor in wine, nor in sexual intercourse. Such is the natural way of living beings; but abstention is conductive to great rewards.

Medhâtithi: From verse 28 to this we have a series of purely commendatory texts ; there are only two or three verses that are injunctive in their character. 'There is no sin in the eating of meat.' This assertion stands on the same footing as verse.32 above. What we learn from the present verse (in addition to what we know already) is that 'abstention is conductive to great rewards. ' By various deprecatory texts the impression has been produced that 'no meat should be eaten.' But by way of providing a means of living for living beings it has been asserted that 'there is no sin in the eating of meat' ; which means that there is no sin if one eats such meat as is the remnant of the worship of Gods, etc., or what is eaten at the wish of Brahmanas, and under such similar circumstances specified above ; but this only if he wish to eat it. 'Abstention'—taking the resolve not to eat meat and then to abstain from it—this is 'conducive, to great reward.' In the absence of the mention of any particular reward, Heaven is to be regarded as the reward. So say the Mîmâmsakas, Similarly in regard to 'wine', for the Kshattriyas—and to 'sexual intercourse' for all castes; but apart from that which may be alone (a) 'during the day' or (b) 'with women in their courses', or 'on sacred days', (in connection with all of which sexual intercourse has been forbidden). The three things mentioned here, in their very restricted forms, constitute the 'natural way of living beings', sanctioned by the scriptures with a view to the maintenance of the body. Says the author of the Science of Medicine (Âyurveda) —'Food, continence and sleep—these three, intoxicants and women, tend to prolong life.' If, however, one can manage to live without these, for him 'abstention is conducive to great rewards.' This is said merely by way of illustration ; same being the case with all 'abstentions' from such things as are neither prescribed nor forbidden. Where however a certain act is definitely prescribed, there is nothing reprehensible in the man's doing it, even if it be done only for the sake of the pleasure that it affords him; in fact abstention from such an act would itself be reprehensible, as done with a view to 'great rewards'; e. g. the eating of honey, having a full meal, wearing a woolen garment and so forth. Such also is the practice of cultured people; the revered Vyâsa also says the same. Those acts, on the other hand, to which people have recourse only through desire,—even though these be neither permitted nor forbidden,—e.g. laughing, scratching of the body and so forth,—abstention from these would be conducive to great rewards. [Übersetzung: Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Vol. III,1. --1922.  -- z. St.]

This verse is quoted in Parâsharamâdhava (Âcâra, p. 719) in support of the view that it is only the eating of prohibited meat that is sinful; and in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 537), which adds the following notes:—'mamse'—i.e., such meat as is not forbidden;—'madye'—for the Kshattriya and other lower castes;—'maithune'-i.e., such sexual-intercourse as is not prohibited;—'nivrttih'—i.e., the determination to renounce;—'mahâphalâ'—i.e., conducive to the attainment of Heaven and such other results as have been mentioned in the foregoing arthavâda passages. Medhâtithi has remarked that the determination to renounce meat and other things must be regarded as conducive to Heaven only, on the basis of the principle of the Vishvajit (Mîmâmsâ-sûtra 4 3, 15-16). But this is not right, as it is very much simpler to accept the rewards mentioned in the arthavâda passages as the rewards meant here, rather than assume one on the basis of the said principle. It is quoted in Prâyashcittaviveka (p. 277), which remarks that this refers to such meat as is left after the offerings to the gods and Pitrs have been made;—as regards wine, the abandoning of it is iconducive to great rewards only for those for whom wine is not forbidden,—and as regards 'sexual intercourse' the abandoning that leads to great rewards is that of the intercourse which is sanctioned 'on all except the sacred days' and ' that for the sake of pleasure'. [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part II: Explanatory. --1924.  -- z. St.]

Parallelstellen: Brhaspati (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 536).—'Wine, meat, sexual intercourse, constitute the fondling of living beings ; if one does it lawfully, one goes to heaven.' [Manu: Manu-smrti : the laws of Manu ; with the Bhasya of Medhathiti / transl. by Ganganatha Jha. - Calcutta : University of Calcutta. -- Notes. -- Part III: Comparative. --1926.  -- z. St.]

Zu Kapitel 11,5: Bußen für Vergehen gegen Essensvorschriften