22 Bhojana

CHAPTER XXII

BHOJANA

Bhojana ( taking one’s meals ) :-Dakṣs (II. 56 and 68) states that in the fifth 1809 part of the day the householder should make according to his capacity the gods, pitrs, mon and even lower animals (lit. insects) participators (in food) and after doing that, he should himself partake of the remainder of the food cooked. Thus he was to take his mealy during one hour and a half after noon. Bhojana is one of the most important subjects treated of in Dharmaśāstra works and the greatest importance (next to rules about marriage) attaches to the numerous injunotions and taboos about food. The principal subjects to be dealt with under this head are: how many times food was to be taken; the kinds of foods and drinks allowed or forbidden; what causes food defilement; flesh-eating and drink ing wine; whose food was to be eaten; etiquette and ceremonies before taking food, at the time of taking it and after taking it.

Great importance was attached to purity of food from very ancient times. In the Chandogya Up. (VII. 26.2) occurs this Passage ‘when there is purity of food, then the mind becomes pure, when the mind is pure then follows firm remembrance (of the real Self), when the last is secured all knots (that bind the soul to the world) are loosened.“1810

The several matters about bhojana found in the Vedic literature will be first briefly set out. From Rg. VI. 30.3 it appears that food was taken, while sitting (’the mountains sank

T e er urd FFAHFIT CUTEN: aardghyturant sterat este faud u Tuuri aa: ETT TEFU: I II. 56, 68. The first verge is quoted by 379 p. 143.

  1. SITTEET Tyg: FaYgritura: la propoutat fort HTH: 1 urrera VII.26.2. there explains Biter in a far-fetched way as siirad TTT: Terrarurat &o. It is remarkablo that on Vedan tasutra III. 4. 29 Śhaṅkara connects this clause with allowed and for hiddon foods free free tratana-manager-te भवाधितं भवति’. On या. I. 154 (p. 221) अपराक quotes , long passage from Harita in which we road’ ATEYTurun OTETT: FATT I SITT TT

RIETATTARE!758

I Ch. XXII

down just as men sit down to take food’). “A person was to take food 18.11 only twice a day’ says the Tai. Br. I. 4. 9. and the Sat. Br. II. 4. 2. 6. There were certain taboos about articles of food even in the earliest texts. Tai. S. II. 5.1.1 states that all red exudations (resins) of trees or the juice that oozes out from trees when they are cut ( with an exe &c.) should not be eaten, since that colour is due to the (sharing of ) brābmana. murder. Similarly the milk of the cow was not to be drunk for ten days after delivery (Tai. Br. II. 1.1, III.1.3). The Ait. Br. 6.9 states that one should not eat the food of a dikṣita (one initiated for a Vedic sacrifice) till the performance of vapāhoma by him. Rg. I. 187 (vv. 1-7) is a hymn in praise of food. The story of Uṣasti Cākrāyana in the Chāndogya Up, shows that in a dire calamity when no food can be had, one may eat anything, even the remnants of another’s food and the Vedāntasutra (III. 4. 28-31, sarvannānumatis.ca prāṇātyaye tad-darsanāt) is based on this episode in the Chandogya. In the Ait. Ar. V, 3. 3 1812 it is stated that one who knows this (i, e. the Malāvrata ) should not recite these texts before one who knows it not nor dine with him nor should be take delight in his company.’ The sages are said in the Kausitaki Br. (12.3) to have told Kavaṣa who sat in their midst that they would not eat with him as he was the son of a dāsi. The question about flesh-eating and drinking spirituous liquors will be dealt with in detail later.

Manu V. 4 declared that death overtakes brāhmaṇas on account of four causes, viz. absence of Vedic study, giving up the performance of proper duties and actions, laziness and blemishes attaching to the food taken. The Gp. R. . 347 quotes verses to the effect ‘food is the filth of men, everything is centred in food, the evil deeds of men resort to their food. Who over eats the food of another partakes of that man’s sin.’ There fore elaborate regulations are laid down about everything relating to food. Ap. Dh. S, I. 11, 31. 1, Vas. Dh. S. XII. 18. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 40, Manu II. 5 say that one should face the east when taking food and the Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 68. 41 and Ap. Dh.

  1. MFAIT ATOARTIET FOTELI Sraqu II. 2. 2. 6: ATE feat goan men garaia. WT. I. 4. 9. The first is quoted by form (, T. I. 114); स निर्यासोऽभवतस्माभिर्यासस्य नाश्म हत्यायै धेष वर्णोऽथ खलु प एवं लोहितोपो वा

Hra o T TAARTET I . #. II, 5. 1. 4 ; TATE O ar ifre Int. . II. 1. 1.

  1. panther Forena Fegefer a FWATA FUTT Q. 377. V. 3. 3.

Ob. XXII]

Bhojana ( taking meals )

759

  1. II. 8. 19. 1-2 allow a man to face the south, except when the diner’s mother is alive. Manu II. 52 ( = Anuśāsanaparva 104, 57) states ‘one facing the east eats food whioh tends to long life, one facing the south eats food which leads to fame, one facing the west eats ( so as to produce ) wealth and one facing north partakes of truth.’ This means that one who eats facing any one of these directions secures the benefit specified. The Vāmanapurāṇa and Viṣṇupurāṇa quoted in Gr. R. p. 312 disallow the south and west. One must take one’s meals in private in a place screened from public view. The Sm. C. quotes1813 verses of Devala, Uśanas and the Padmapurāpa to the effect ‘one should take food in privacy, for one who does so is endowed with wealth and one who eats his meals in public becomes bereft of wealth; one should not eat in the sight of many (who are themselves not eating) and many men should not eat before a single person who is only looking at them’. One may 1814 eat in the company of one’s sons, younger brothers, dependents &c. Some writers went so far as 1815 to recoinmend that ‘one should take one’s food alone and not in the company of even one’s relatives or other brābmanas, since who can know the secret sins a person in whose company one eats is guilty of’? The conception underlying this unchari table view was stated by Bphaspati to be that ‘when several persons sit down to dinner in a continuous row, the sins one of them is guilty of attach to the others in the same row’. Even in modern times many persons in Northern India follow this view and it is & well-known proverb that nine bhayyas have ten hearths. The place where one takes one’s food should be freshly cowdunged and pure. Ap. Dh. S. (1.5. 17. 6-8) says that one should not take one’s food in & boat nor on & wooden platform, but may do so on a pure floor. One was not to eat while seated on an elephant, or horse or camel

  2. आहारं तु रहः कुर्याशाहारं चैव सर्वदा । गुप्तो हि लक्ष्म्या युक्तः स्यात्प्रकाशे na foratur quoted in way. I. p. 221; Ayat Fard URTETË FATI I SETA 163. 47 ; FTETT #ṣatment Tarifiger EF# #TT HT16 48: I 3317 in Faere I. p. 226 ; at Departat

1974FUOTI Fargint 68.

  1. Prague

: Ei pot ur A81C4 Ataru a WHITE H Nurgator quoted in TE. . p. 311.

  1. Feat F ITTE grot: Fastataire #what fan art isega v smegerur quoted in watero I. p. 227 and M. #. I. 1. p. 429. एकपक्क्स्यु पविष्टानां दुष्कृत यदुरात्मनाम् । सर्वेषां सत्सम तापथावत्पातिर्न भियते। TER quoted in m y I. p. 228.

760

History of Dharmaśās tra

I Ch. XXII

or in some conveyance, or in a cemetery or in a temple or on a bed or chair; nor should one eat food placed on one’s palm ( Brahmapurāṇa quoted in Gr. R. p. 325 ). One should wasb one’s hands and feet before sitting down to take one’s meal. Manu IV. 76 says ( Anugāgana 104. 61-62 and Atri in Jivānanda, part 1, p. 9) that one should begin one’s dinner while one’s feet are wet, since that leads on to long life. Vyasa quoted in Sm. C. ( I. p. 221 ) prescribes that one should have five limbs wet at the time of taking food, viz. the hands, the feet and the mouth, 1816 All writers prescribe that one should observe silence or at least restraint of speech at the time of meals ( e. g. vide Baud. Dh. S. II. 7. 2, Lagbu-Hārsta 40). Vrddha-Manu quoted by the Sm. C. I. p. 223 817 requires complete silence till five morsels are taken and restraint in speech thereafter. Following the Vedic injunotions quoted above, Gaut, IX. 59, Baud. Dh. S. II, 7. 36, Manu II. 56, Sam varta 12 and others say that a householder should take only two meals every day, should not eat food in the intervening period and that if he acts up to this advice he reaps the merit of a fast. Gobhila-smrti (II. 33) says the same and adds 1818 that the evening meal may be taken till one prahara and a half (i. e. 44 hours ) after nightfall. One was not to eat very early in the morning nor at midnight nor at twilight ( Manu IV. 55 and 62 and Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 68. 48). Ap. Dh. S. (II. 8. 19. 10 ) allows partaking of roots and fruits between two meals. Below the vessel or plate or leaf from which one eats, one has to draw & figure with water or holy ashes. According to the Brahmapurāṇa ( quoted in Gr. R. p. 311 ) the mandalas ( figures ) for brāhmaṇas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sūdras should respectively be in the form of a square, a triangle, a circle and a crescent; while according to Saṅkba ( in Sm. C. I., D. 221), Laghu-Satātapa 133, Atri (Jivādanda chap. V. 1, p. 7) in the case of the sūdra water is to

  1. पत्रादों भोजनं कुर्यात्मामुखो मौनमास्थितः । हस्तौ पादौ तथैवास्यमेष THAT HATI Try in Fay. I. p. 221 ; vide Auto on HE II. 53 quoting

TIR. Tumet er foretag F4E4 ti’, vido il perqef 193.6 for at भोजनं मुझज्यात.

  1. sorrapurapura TRTFI HOT HETATU AUTOT* B U BORE in ferro I. p. 223.

  2. mart THB rart #arat faceret i at TTTERAT: FRETTAMT: # Tits II. 33 quoted in re. t. p. 313, 6. . 462 ; 7

. &. II. 7. 36 is TTT ATT FT4A1$$ me ri patrat wala *

H? (quoted in TF. t. p. 321); vide MTOTTFW 93. 10 ; snatt 193. 10, 281. 10 for similar words.

Ch. XXIII

Bhojana ( taking meals )

761

be sprinkled on the ground below his plate. The reasons for drawing a mandala are stated by these authorities to be that the Adityas, Vasus, Rudras, Brahma and other gods partake of only that food which is offered after a mandala is made and that evil spirits and goblins carry away the flavour of the food when no mandala is made. The person taking his food should sit on a low wooden stool having four feet or on a seat made of wool or of the skin of a goat ( which latter is said to be the best by Āp. Dh. S. II. 8. 19. 1). One should not sit on a seat of cowdung cakes (dried), or of clay, or of the leaves of aśvattha or palāsa or arka plant or a seat made by joining two planks together or on a shattered one or partly burnt one or on one made fast with iron (nails). Vide Smrtyarthagāra p. 69. The vessel or plate from which one is to eat is to be placed on the mandala drawn on the ground. The vessel from which to eat may be of gold, silver, copper, lotus or palasa leaves (vide Veda-Vyāsa III. 67-68, Paighinasi quoted in Āhnika-prakāga p. 467). A copper vessel is forbidden to house holders who should use bell-metal (kāmsya) vessel. Ap. Dh. 9. (II. 8. 19. 3) says that & copper plate with gold in the centre 1819 is recommended. But a bronze plate for eating from, tāmbūla and a luxurious bath with oil &c., were not allowed to an ascetic, a brahmacārin and & widow. 1810 Harita (quoted by Sm. O. I. p. 222) stated that one was not to eat in an iron or earthern vessel, but Āp. Dh. S. (I. 5. 17. 9-12)1881 presoribes that an earthen vessel not used for cooking may be used as a plate for meals, but if it had been used for cooking food, then it may be used as a plate for food after being baked in fire, that an iron plate scoured with ashes is pure and even & wooden plate may be used provided it is thoroughly soraped from inside. Manu IV. 65 states that one should not eat from a broken vessel, but Paithinasi remarks that there is nothing wrong in eating from & broken plate made of copper, silver, gold, oonoh-shell, or stone.1822 Some smstis forbade lotus or palāsa leaves, but the

vessel nohad been usefter bein

  1. MAAF: G ATH: 4977fat i syft. v. Q. II. 8. 19. 3; 8699 explains itt: 08 MHT:.

  2. ATT TETTE HITTE IH * Auto विवर्जयेत् ॥ प्रचेवन् quoted in स्मृतिय. I. p. 222.

  3. maria roma attentat i fire firare i giorni farsfera ErTATE 1974. . I. 6. 17. 9-12.

  4. Taarufar UHURTIAL ATAT MATEI totale quoted in स्मृतिच. I. p. 222.

H. D. 96

76%

( Cb. XXII

Abnika-prakāba p. 467 explains that this probibition holds good only if the lotus plant grows on dry land (and not in a pond or the like) or when the palāsa is a young plant. Paithinasi (in Sm. O. I. p. 222) prosoribes that one who desires wealth should not eat on & plate made of the leaves of the vata, arka, asvattha, kumbhi, tinduka, kovidāra and karañja trees. Vṛddha Harita 8. 250-256 presoribes that the plate may be of gold, silver or bronze or any leaf allowed by sastras, that leaves of palass and lotus are not to be used by householders but may be used by ascetics, forest hermits and in śrāddhas and sets out leaves forbidden and allowed. Even now in modern times people prefer (particularly in oaste dinners and marriages) plan tain leaves for dining or silver vessels for honoured guests and brāhmaṇas at śrāddha or use plates prepared from stitched leaves of various trees. Before sitting down to take one’s food, one has to perform acamana (twice ) outside the place where one is to eat and has to perform āoamana after taking his meals. This practice was most ancient, as it is attested by the Chandogya Up. V. 2. 2 1828 and the Br. Up. VI. 1. 14. The rulo is laid down by Ap. Dh. 8. 1. 5. 16. 9,1884 Manu II. 53, V. 138 and others also. Vide Devala (quoted in the Smrtimukt&phala, Āhnika, p. 418) for ūcamana outside the room for meals. When sitting down to eat a person must wear his sacred thread in the upavita form (Ap. Dh. S. I. 5. 15. 1) and must also have an upper garment,1885 but should not cover his head (Manu IV. 45 III. 238, Ap. Dk. S. II. 2. 4. 22-23 and II. 8. 19. 12). A darvi (ladle or spoon) is to be employed in serving ghee, oil, cooked food, all condiments, salt (i. e. these should not be served by the bare hand) but pot in giving water or uncooked food (vide Sm. O. I. p. 223 quoting several smstis). The householder may wear in his band gold or jewel (ring &c.) at the time of meals. Gaut. IX. 59, Vas. Dh. S. III. 69, Manu II. 5 -55 say that wben food is brought to be served, the person about to eat it should greet it, should pay honour to it, show his delight at it and should not find fault with it. Vas. Dh. 8. (III. 69-71)

  1. स होवाच किं मे पासो भविष्यतीत्याप इति होचुस्तस्माद्वा एतदशिपन्तः

WHITETTA: Raufai greita V. 2. 2 ; vide serra (III. 3. 18 ) and Śhaṅkara’s blū95a for an explanation of the grairy and to passages.

  1. vietaire sursfa f a fa TTATGETETNE I more. W. 1. 5. 16. 9.

  2. roru m qvist at WT. *. II, 8. 19. 12; vide Haradatta for several viewa.

Ch, XXII

Bhojana ( taking meals )

763

Baya " he should honour food in the morning and evening by saying ‘I like it’, by saying ‘it was good for eating’ in the case of food served in srāddhas and it was perfect’ as to food offered in abhyudayika rites 1834 (i. e. in marriage &c.). Kullūka (on Manu II. 54) and the Gr. R. (p. 314) quote verses of the Adipurāṇa (Brahmapurāṇa in Gr. R.) to the effect that on seeing food one should fold one’s hands and should bow to it saying’ may this always be ours’ and that God Viṣṇu himself said that whoever honours food honours him. After the food is served on the plate or dish, the water should sprinkle water round it and say ‘I sprinkle thee that art satya ( truth ) with sta (right order)’ (in the morn ing) and ‘I sprinkle thee that art pta with satya’ (in the evening ).1887 According to some he then offers to the right of the plate or dish on the ground a little of the food in his plate from the west towards the east to Dharmarāja ( i.e. Yama), Citragupta and pretas ( vide Bhaviṣyapurāṇa quoted in Sm. C. I. p. 224 and Abnikaprakāśa P. 465 ), 1828 Others say that these balis are offered to bhūpati, bhuvanapati and bhūtānām pati, while in modern times they are offered to Citra, Citragupta, Yama, Yamadūta (and some add a fifth ‘garvebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ svāhā). He should then sip & little water with the words ’thou art the seat of ambrosia (amrtopastara pam-asi) and at the end of the meal the words used are ’thou art the cover of ambrosia’ (amstāpidhānam-asi). All this has been prescribed from very ancient times and has continued to this day. Yāj. I. 106 calls this sipping of water apośana (tak. ing in of water) and its purpose is to make food beneficial like ampta (nectar ) and to cover it as if with & garment. He then offers five morsels on which ghee is sprinkled to the five modes

RTT Trattapora i Fille ROSU I POWIATURA I FAX III. 69–71. Coinpure faguay 68. 42, Manu III. 251 and 254 ( for Frica and ) aod Ap. Db. 8. II. 2. 3. 11,

    • Hoffor Flu antigurati pret entender of the wrattat art. m. II. 1. 11.

  2. apyrano rain qur a nimare a arat are

TTOR III. 69; Raud VATATU #aforgian FERUIT Demgegurta 11 Terror quoted in fire. I. p. 224 and 999791 p. 465. A MITH (I. 155-156) spoaks of three balis to us, and us The THEIR (Jivānanda, part 1. p. 519) refers to realife, vide Erte (in Fragmas, a p. 421) for af for surfa, fand curat पति and कात्यायनीयभोजमसूत्र for the three बलिs to पति &c. and toपि, P er and pronu.

764

of prāna preceded by the word “om’ and 1889 followed by

svāhā’. These five prānāhutis are mentioned in the Chāndogya Up. V. 19-23, where prānas are enumerated in the order prāṇa, vyāpa, apāna, samāna and udāns. The Vedāntasūtra III. 3. 40-41 explains that the Chandogya passage applies only when one sits down to dinner and not when one goes without it. Medieval digests quoting Bphat-Parāśara added a sixth offering to Brahman after the prānāhutis and this is done in modern times. While the āhutis to prāṇa are being offered complete silence ( absence of all sound including even ‘hum’) is to be observed. Baud. Dh. S. (II. 7. 6) insists on complete silence throughout the meal and if one speaks, one has to mutter the words ‘Om bhūr bhuvah svar-om’ and then eat further on. Others allow speech after prānāhutis for refusing food or condi ments or for dharma. Vide Sm. M., ābnika p. 423 which quotes Sāndilya that ‘silence is not necessary at meals for householders and one should show one’s solicitude for those who dine with one by talking to them.’ Saunaka quoted by Sm. C. I., p. 223, Vṛddha-Hārita 8. 263-265 dilate upon the different fingers of the hand that are to be employed in taking the five abutis to the life breaths while the Bhojana-sutra says that according to Baudhāyana all abutis were to be offered with all the fingers. Hārlta quoted in the Sm. C. I. p. 226 states that mārjana, offering bali, worship and eating should be done with the tips of fingers. The plate or vessel is to be throughout kept on the ground at a śrāddha dinner and the thumb and the next two fingers of the left hand may be used for holding the plate or plantain leaf in position, but if the house is full of people and it is likely that dust may be raised by their feet or by their clothes, then a person taking his meal may raise up his plate from the ground with his left hand after he has taken five morsels.1830 The diner is not to allow any sound of eating to escape, he is to put

  1. The five aroughs in order are si ATT FRIET, SUR FEIET, ओं प्यानाय स्वाहा, भों उदानाय स्वाहा, भओं समामाप स्वाहा. In the विष्णुपुराण the order is stroTTATHATHTM : ( vide 1799797 p. 470). These bave beon mentioned by Baud. Db. S. II. 7. 3, 197819# I, 157, This in fi. I. p. 223, royaror quoted in FIFT p. 464. Vide un

ETT P. 469 stigla wapo meri Vide Tai. Ār. X. 32-35 for भरतोपस्तरणमसि, the माणाहुतिs and अस्तापिधानमास.

__1830. पत्रमासंघ भुक्त्वादी कपिश्मनि साटे । पात्रमुत्य शेष । भक्षयेसंक

अपात् । पिये कर्माणि मुखानो भूमौ पात्र मचालयेत् । ममपुराण quoted in गह. . P. 316, 97 THT p. 463 ; vide 77. AT I. part 1 p. 417 quoting gror and “Th to the same effect.

Ch. XXIII

Bhojana ( taking meals)

765

each morsel in bis mouth with all the fingers including the thumb, 1881 he is not to wave bis hand. Various rules are laid down in the Viṣṇupurāṇa ( III. 11. 83-84) and Brahmapurāṇa ( quoted in Gr. R. p. 224) as to the order in which various articles are to be eaten, viz. first sweet liquid food may be taken, then salted and sour, and then pungent and bitter, the last item should be milk and after that one should not take ourds ; & householder should always take food mixed with ghee. One is not to cut off portions of food or cakes, roots, bulbs, fruits or flesh with the teeth and then eat them ( Baud. Dh. S. II. 7. 10). Some smṛtis prescribe that while taking each morsel one should say 1832 . Govinda’. At the time of eating, several postures are forbidden, viz. one should not stretch one’s feet or place then on another seat ( & footstool &o.) nor should one have one’s haunches and knees tied by a garment (Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 40) nor should one place one’s hand on one’s left foot, nor should one wear one’s shoes or wooden sandals, nor should one come in contact with leather( vide Smrtimuktāphala, ābnika p. 425 ). Baud. Dh. S. (1. 1. 21 ) states that among usages peculiar to the south were those of eating in the company of one whose upanayana had not been performed or of one’s wife or taking stalo food. But Baud. disapproved of these, Manu IV. 43, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 46 and Vas. Dh. S. XIJ. 31 1883 say that one should not eat together with one’s wife and Vas. Dh. 8. adds the reason that by so doing the child born has no strength as stated in the Sat. Br. X. 5. 2.9. Kullūka and some other commentators on Manu IV. 43 hold that the prohibition relates to eating in the same dish with one’s wife, while, as Medhātithi states, others hold that it applies also to eating with one’s wife at the same time and place. The Sm. C. (I. p. 227) and other digesta quote a amśti verso which allows a brahmana to eat in the same dish with his brāhmaṇa wife and explain the verse as applying to a brāhmaṇa who is on a journey. The

  1. Jouff #

T OFFDIH URE I T ree sulai XII. 19-20; ride sro. . &. II. 8. 19. 5-6 for almost the same words.

  1. Fue estar gurgiteraturama i zur# quoted in ung, SIETE p. 423.

  2. WHAT E ARHIQiquidfeuert warning from France AS 12. 31 ; parranda PTH get animaera 8. 270. mg HT पोऽश्रीपाइपिछष्टं पा कदाचन । न तत्र दोष मन्यन्ते नित्यमेव मनीषिणः ॥ आप. 5. 7-8, quoted in the मिता. on या. III. 200, स्मृतिथ. I. p. 2273 मिताs and गुह… p. 330ascribe it to अहिर. The words of the शतपथ are तस्माजापापा भन्ने Moreno

X. 5. 2.9.

766

Smrtyarthasāra (p. 69 ) says that one can eat in the same dish with one’s wife at the time of marriage. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 131 says the same.

Various rules are laid down as to how much one is to eat. Two famous verses quoted by Ap. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 13, Vas. Dh. S. VI. 20–21 and Baud. Dh. S. II. 7. 31-32 are ‘an ascetic should wat eight morsels, 188* & forest hermit 16, a householder 32 and # Vedic student an unlimited number. One who has conge crated the Vedic fires, a draught ox and a brahmavarin are able to perform their work by eating, they cannot perform work when they do not eat!,1885 Ap. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 12 expressly directs that a householder should not stint himself as to food, so that he may be able to properly perform his work. Haradatta explains that the general rule laid down by Ap. Db. S. itself ( II. 1. 1. %) that one should take only two meals a day does not apply to one who has consecrated the Vedic fires. Baud, Dh. S. II. 7. 33-34 goes further 1836 and says that if a house holder (who is āhitāgni ) and a Vedic student practise austeri ties by observing a fast they are guilty of sin, because they thereby cause cessation of agnihotra to the life-breaths. But there is no sin if & fast is observed by these as & penance for some lapse. Sabars on Jaimini V.1. 20 (p. 1301 ) appears to favour the idea that an āhitāgni may eat several 889 times a day.

One was to occupy the first seat in a row at a dinner only if specially requested to do so, but when thus seated on the first seat, one should not begin to eat food before others, but after them (Saikha quoted by Aparārka p. 150). While several brābmaṇas are taking their meal in & oontinuous row, if one of them takes ācamana 1838 before the others, or gives the

  1. Vide u. III. 66 for eight morsels for a forest hermit.

  2. The Sun gr. II. 16. 5 speaks of the ox, the agnihotrin und brahmacario in the same way.

  3. fut rare a tisasara nua Trontraria a rivit NOT F: 13744 arr araferne foragid. 4. 11. 7. 33–34.

  4. Tara: sarap na hrapan Paragaa nie F unraiga gara atau TYT OD #. V. 1. 20.

  5. एकपक्वत्युपविष्टान घिमाणां सह भोजने । यधेकोपि स्पजेत्यानं शेषमन tra a ERTE XI. 8, quoted by sarana p. 1169. Vide Ap. Dh, 8. 1. 5. 17.3; Gautama 17. 19. got PFA ORT: grurity right at arahatitud i 16 74;

s a traja Timocou मार्गेण पशक्तिभियेव पविधा । अधिर. 7; एकपात्युपविष्टाये स्पृशान्ति परस्परम् । भस्ममा मर्यादा मतेषां संकरो भवेद ॥ अमिना भस्ममा पापि स्तम्भेमाप्युरोम पा। mawa na sifar: il quoted by a p. 476.

मिमा भापरिक्षा मान चाल कसा

Ch. XXII

Bhojana-etiquette at

767

remains of his food to the pupil or gets up, the others should leave eating the food in their disbes and also get up and the brahmana who thus prematurely gets up is called a brahmahā (a murderer of a brāhmaṇa or brahmakantaka ). These rules are quoted in the Sm, C. (I. p. 227), Gr. R. p. 331, Smṣtimuktā. phala (ahnika p. 427). In order to avoid this awkward position Various devices were employed. A pankli (row of diners ) ceased to be a continuous line if two diners were separated from each other by fire, by ashes, by a pillar, & passage, or a door or by the ground being of a lower level. Aparārka (p. 476 ) quotes Brhaspati that even if persons are seated in one row, but they are separated from each other by (streaks of ) asbes and they do not touch each other, then there is no intermingling ( i. e, persons of different castes also may sit in a row being separated by a streak of ashes &c.). Ap. Dh. S. 1.5. 17. 2 days that one should not sit down to dinner in the same row with undeserving persons (by reason of birth, character or learning ).

At p. 100 above it has been stated how brāhmaṇas following several oocupations that were deemed low were not invited at śrāddhas. Gaut. 1888* XV, 28-29, Baud, Dh. S. II. 8. 2, Ap. Db. S. II. 7. 17. 21-22, Vas. Dh. S. III. 19, Viṣṇu 83. 2-21, Manu III. 184-186, Saṅkha (in verse ) 14. 1-8, Anuśāsa naparva 90, 34, the Vāyu (chap. 79 and 83, Anand. ed.) and several other puranas contain long lists of those brāhmaṇas who sanctify the company of diners when they sit down for dinner (they are pankti-pāvanas) and of those who defile the company of diners by their presence in the row of diners (they are pankti

1838 8. Fura: Trasagaranton menyera: qui: are protestat harga gain. XV. 29 ; gero que # # UTT; I gay on t. XV. 28. Some of the words are differently explained by the commontators. 548 or-Ara is one who chants, according to Harsdatta, ‘udu tyan’ (Rg. I. 50. 1.) and “citram’ (Rg. I. 116. 1), which constitute a sāman of the Talavakaras, while the Chandogas bold it to be a different saman; Medhatitbi on Manu III. 185 says they are the limang called Jyosthadohas. The Naciketa fire is described in Tai. Br. III. 11. 7 and 8, and Kathopa niṣad I. 1. 17-18. Rg. I. 91. 6-8 contain tho word ‘madhu’ at the beginning of each. So one who studies these three madhu vorges may be called tri madbu’. Or possibly there is a reference to the Madhuvidy. roferred to in set. Br. IV. 1. 5. 18 and Bṛ. Up. II. 5. 16. According to Haradatta “Trisuparna’ are either the three verges Rg. X. 114. 4-6 (ekah supar gah &o.) or the throc apuvukat of the Tai. Ar. X. 48-50 (brahmameta mana madhumotu mim).768

[ Ob. XXII

dūsakas). A panktipāvana is one who knows the six angas of the Veda (vide note 775 above), who has studied the Jyeṣthasā. man, who has kindled the Nāciketa fire, who knows the three madhu verses, who has studied the texts called Trisuparpa, who maintains the five fires (vide p.679 above), who has taken the cere monial bath after finishing vedic studies, who knows the Mantras and the Brāhmana of his Veda, who has studied dharmaśāstra and who is the son of a woman married in the brāhma form, Ap. Dh. S. adds ‘one who has performed the four medhas’ ( Aśvamedha, Sarvamedha, Puruṣamedha and Pitsmedha, according to Haradatta). Manu says that one who understands the mean ing of the Veda, one who expounds the Veda, a brahmacārin, one who is a liberal donor (lit, one who gives & thousand cows), one who has reached the age of one hundred are all pankti. pāvanas, Saṅkh& states that one who is devoted to Yoga, ona who regards gold and a clod of earth as equal, an ascetio given to contemplation are all panktipāvanas. Anuśāsana 90. 34 and Vāyu 83. 52-55 include those who study the bhāsyas, those who are devoted to grammar, those who study the purāṇas among pankti-pāvanas. Among those who defile company are one suffering from leprosy, a bald man, one who is guilty of adultery, who is the son of a brāhmaṇa following the profes sion of arms (Ap. Db. S. II. 7. 17. 21); those who engage in acts not fit for brahmanas, those who are cunning, those who have deficient or excessive limbs, those who have abandoned Veda, the sacred fires and their parents or gurus, those who subsist on food given by sūdras (Saṅkba XIV. 2-4). Vide Apararka pp. 453-455 for quotations on those who defile company.

When there was a row of diners, all were to be served the same food and no difference was to be made between one man and another and if a difference were made & penance was prescribed as if he had committed brāhmana murder. 1838 If while dining one brahmana touches another, he should give up eating or after finish ing bis meal he should mutter the Gāyatri verse 108 times (as penance). In modern times generally the eyes are touched with water if this happens. If a diner touched & server who had & vessel containing food, the server should place the vessel con

  1. पस्त्वेकपक्रया विषम ददाति स्नेहायोदा यदि वाहतोषष्टमपिभिश्च mit

a ut gant TIBETE a IV. 63 quoted as 7 in Fefte. ( 6 . 427). Vide FR 17. 57 for a similar torso,

Ch. XXII 1

Bhojana

769

taining food on the ground, should perform acamana, the food in the vessel should have water sprinkled over it and then it may be served. One was not to eat or drink with the left hand. One should drink water at the time of meals with a drinking bowl or vessel, one should never drink water with the two hands joined together ( Yaj. I. 138 ), but when not eating food one may drink water with the bare right hand. After finishing one’s meal one is to repeat the Apośana ‘amptāpidh. nam-asi’ and drink some water, wash one’s hands, sip water twice and may lightly brush his teeth for removing particles of food, then sip water again and take timbūla. 1840 Aāvalāyana ( in verge ) recommends 16 mouthfuls of water ( gandūṣa ) for cleansing the mouth after dinner (Abn. Pr. p. 483 ). An ascetic, a Vedic student and a widow were not to partake of tāmbūla.

A person was not to eat everything in his plate; he should leave some remnant 1841 of food except of curds, honey, ghee, milk and saktu ( barley or barley flour). What remains was to be given to one’s wife, servant or slave (Par. M. I. part 1, p. 422). No one was to give the remnants of one’s food to another nor to eat the remnants of another’s food, except a obild that might eat the remnants of the food of its parents and guru (vide Smṭtimuktāphala, āhnika p. 431 ). Remnants of food were not to be given to a sūdrs unless he was one’s dependent (Manu IV, 80, Āp. Dh. S. I. 11. 31. 25-26). Atri (quoted in Sm. O. I. p. 228 ) says that even on sipping water after dinner one remains impure till one’s plate is removed, till the ground where the food was taken is cow-dunged, till after leaving his seat he moves on the ground elsewhere. Vide also Ap. Dh. S. II. 2 4. 24. The plate of & brāhmaṇa may be removed by a brāhmaṇa (but not by anyone else ) and the plates of the brahmanas invited at a śrāddha repast were to be removed by the person who per formed the grāddha or by his son or pupil, but not by one whose upanayana is not performed nor by the wife nor by any one else (Laghu-Aśvalāyana I. 165-166 ).

  1. आचम्य च ततः कार्य दन्तकाष्ठस्य भक्षणम् । भोजने दन्तलग्नांव निहत्याचम Tai #fifa quoted by Frame I. p. 225 ; Care TNIVOTA UTEI

A T M 29, 39 quoted in ago I. p. 225.

  1. HIFT an Priate sufer: tenisu # Fatt #PUTTET I FOT; ATA:14par PURYA|A:97:#***: 1 8788; both in Fofag. ( T ) p. 431.

I, D. 97

770

Most of the above rules may more or less be exemplified from the descriptions of the procedure of eating set out in Baud. Dh. $. II. 7, from the Bbojanasūtra of Katyāyana for the followers of the white Yajurveda, from Hārita quoted in the Gr. R. Pp. 316-17 among the ancient writers and froin the Smstya. rthasāra pp. 68-69 among the authors of digests. It is impossi ble to get out any of them here for want of space, but an extract from the last work is given in the Appendix. 1848

There were certain rules about abstaining from food in the case of eclipses of the sun and the moon. They are set out in the Sm. C. I. pp. 228-229, the Sairtyarthasāra (p. 69), Matsya purāṇa chap. 67, Aparārka pp. 151, 427-430. During the period of eclipse one was not to eat anything. Not only go but for 4 praharas ( i. e. 12 hours) and 3 pruharas ( i. e. 9 hours) before the actual eclipse of the sun and the moon respectively all are to avoid taking food, except children, very old men and persons who are ill. This rule was observed up till very recent times by most people. When the eclipse begins one was to bathe and give gifts, perform tarpans or śrāddba. Then one was to bathe after 1848 the eolipse was over and take food. If the sun sets while still eclipsed, one should bathe the next day on seeing the sun and then take food. If the moon rose eclipsed, one was not to eat anything during the day next to that on which the moon rises eclipsed. That these rules are ancient follows from the fact that some of them occur even in the Viṣṇu Dh. S. An eclipse of the sun is desoribed even in the Rg.V.40.5-9 and it was supposed to be brought about by an asura. The Asura Svarbhānu is goid to bave pierced the sun with darkness in the Kāthaka 8. XI. 3 and the Tai. S. IL 1. 2. 2; the San. Br. 24.3 and Tandya Br. ( IV. 5. 2, IV. 6. 13 ) speak of an eclipse. In the Atharva veda 19. 9. 10 the Sun and Rabu are brought together. The Obandogya Up. VIII. 13. 1 states that the knowing self shakes off bis body when going to the world of Brahma like a horse shedding his bair or like the moon released from the mouth of Rahu.

Viṣṇu Dh. 8. ( 68. 4-5 ) prescribes that a man was not to eat when a cow or a brahmana met with an aqcident or when the king was in distress ( or dead).

  1. Vide Appendix oder No. 1842.

  2. garantert #HTTEI ETT m tar TCUT AMIST fagyot 68. 1-3.

ari s

ettorato

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-food allowed and prohibited

171

The most elaborate rules are laid down about what food should or should not be eaten and from whom food may or may not be taken. These rules occur in most of the smṛtis. It would be impossible to do justice to all of them. The following smrtis deal with this matter at lengtb. Gaut. 17, Ap. Db. S. I. 5. 16. 17-I. 6. 19; Vas. Dh. S. 14, Manu VI. 207-223, Yāj. I. 167-181. The Santiperva chapters 36 and 78, the Kūrmapurāṇa ( uttarardha chap. 17 ), Padma (ādikhanda chap. 56), and several other purāṇas deal with this topic. Among the digests the Sm. C. II. pp. 418-429, the Gṭ. R. pp. 334-395, the Madanapārijāta pp. 337-343, the Smṛtimuktaphala (abnika pp. 433-451 ), the Ābnikaprakāśa pp. 488–550 contain very exhaustive treatment. An attempt will be made to present the rules in an orderly manner

Aparārka p. 241 quotes a passage from the Bhaviṣya purāṇa 184 which states the various reasons for food being forbidden viz. jāliduṣta or svabhāvaduṣta (i. A. forbidden on account of its very nature ) such as garlio, leek, onion &o.; kriyādusta (forbidden on account of certain actions done with reference to it) such as cooked food served with the bare hand or seen by a patita (outcast), cāṇḍālas, dogs &o., or because one in a row takes ācamana or rises before others ; kāladusta (forbidden because of the time that has elapsed or because of the inappropriateness of the time ) such as stale food or food eaten in eclipses or the milk of a cow before ten days have elapsed from delivery; samsargaduṣta (spoilt by foul contact) such as what comes in contact with a dog or wine or garlic, or hair or inseots &o.; sahtllekha (what causes disgust to the mind) such as fūoes &c. To those may be added rasadusta (what has lost its flavour) such as payasa or kṣira on the same day; pangrahaduṣta ( what is forbidden simply because it belongs to & partloular individual such as patita ). Aparārka (p. 1157) says that condemned food, partaking of which is an upapataka (a minor sin), is of six kinds, viz. due to svabhāva, kala, samparka (same as samsargs ), kriya, bhāva, and parigraba. 1848 An example of bhāvaduṣta given by Aparārka is sugarcane

  1. facregorureri atrage nur image! H ugo PER F ra: # WITH p. 241. Compare an XI. 122-123 W FEITE og mua qirger Tor Vanafori. The following vorges exemplify these.

  2. UT Aron Fire-

f erra-aitut: star wafa stre p. 1167.

472

Ch. XXII

juice which a man may feel to be forbidden to him because he believes it to be wine. According to Gaut. 17. 12 bhāvadusta means food offered with disrespect or which the eater comes to hate or becomes disgusted with. Haradatta on Gaut. 23. 23 mentions five of these varieties (of Aparārka p. 1157) except bbāvaduṣta. 1846

Before proceeding further some remarks must be made about flesh-eating. In the Rg. frequent reference is made to the cooking of the flesh of the or for offering to gods (partioular ly Indra). For example, in Rg. X. 86. 14 Indra is made to say. They cook for me 15 plus twenty oxen’; vide Rg. X. 27. 2. In Rg. X. 91. 14 it is stated that for Agni were sacrificed horses, bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. In Rg. VIII. 43. 11 1847 Agni is styled ‘one whose food is the ox and the barren cow.’ In Rg. X. 79. 6 it is suggested that the cow was cut up with a sword or axe. In the Rg. itself the cow is frequently called .aghnya ‘(vide Rg. I. 164. 27 and 40, IV. 1. 6, V. 83. 8, VIII. 69. 21, X. 87. 16 &c.). The word ‘agbaya’ appears to mean ‘one that does not deserve to be killed’ and the Nirukta (XI. 43 )1848 explains it in that way. It should be noted that that word occurs sometimes in apposition to dhenu’ ( as in Rg. IV, 1.6, VIII. 69, 2). So it may be argued that in the times of the Rg. only barren cows if at all were killed for sacrifice or moat and Oows yielding milk were held to be not fit for being killed. It is only in this way that one can explain the high praise bestowed on the cow in Rg. VI. 28. 1-8 and in Rg. VIII. 101. 15 and 16 where the cow is described to be the mother of Rudras, the daughter of Vasus, the sister of Adityas and the centre of nectar’ and the sage winds up by praying to the knowing man ‘do not kill the cow, that is innocent and is Aditi herself. “1849 In Rg. VIII. 101. 16. the cow is called ‘devi’

  1. Some of these words occur in AETAEY 14. 28 o भाषा सहलेख पुनः सिद्धमाममांस पर ।।

  2. पस्मिनवास ऋषभास उक्षणो बशामेषा अवसुधास माहुताः। कीलालये सोमपहायवेधसेदा मति जनये चारमनये. x. 91. 14; उक्षामाय पशाताप सोम TOTT VI MÅRTWATHTI VIII 43. 11; FTTH TATTIA: 11 %. X, 79. 6.

  3. Begr MUST WAT want rfa eru EU XI. 43.

  4. माता याणा हिता पनामिति जपिस्वोहत्सजतेरयुल्सयम् । आम्ब.. I. 24. 25. ID wr**. T. II. 10. 7 the view of some is stated that whon cows return to tho villago from tbe pasture the bgmn Rg. VI. 28 should bo recited by the owner.

Oh. XXIII

Bhojana-sacredness of cow

173

(goddess). It appears that the cow was being raised to the status of divinity and there was a great revulsion of feeling about the cow. The great usefulness of the cow and the or for agrioultural purposes, in the family economy and as means of exchange must bave powerfully contributed to making the cow a divinity. In the grhya sūtras (like Asv. I. 24. 25 ). Rg. VIII. 101. 15 is prescribed as the mantra when in the Madhu. parka ceremony the cow is let loose by the guest. The Artharvam veda (XII. 4) fully recognises the oult of the holiness of the cow. That the cow continued to be offered in sacrifices follows fron several Brahmana passages o. g. Tai. Br. III. 9. 8. In the Sat. Br. III. 1. 2. 21 it is stated that the great sage Yājñavalkya was wont to eat the meat of cows and oxen provided it was *amsala “1850 ( tender?). The Ait. Br. (6. 8 )1851 states that the horse, the ox, the goat and ram are sacrificial animals while the kimpuruṣa, gauramrga, gavaya, the camel and sarabha ( a mythical animal with eight feet) were not sacrificial and their flesh should not be eaten. The Sat. Br. I. 2. 3. 9 contains & similar prohibition. The Sat. Br. XI. 7. 1. 3 declares that meat is the best kind of food.’ The work of Mr. L. L. Sundara Ram ( Madras, 1927) on “Cow Protection in India’ contains an exhaustive treatment of the subject from Vedic times and cites the attitude of other nations and religions towards cow-killing. The veneration for the cow has been so great that pañcagavya prepared from the five substances due to the cow viz, her milk, ourds and ghee of her milk, her urine and dung mixed with water in which kusa blades had been placed was looked upon as 185% purification for many lapses. Yāj. III. 314 mentions the ingredients of pañcagavya. The Baud. gr. śeṣa-sūtra ( II. 20) contains an elaborate note on the prepa ration of pancagavya, the quantities of the five ingre. dients, the Vedic verses to be recited when preparing it. Paraśara XI. 28-34, Devala 62-65, Lagbus atatapa 158-162,

  1. aragetaisateration MT 97978*4:1 Martin TARIM Faila i 17 WI. III. 1. 2. 21.

  2. m ga BĀTT TATTRIFATA UT Framera 10. m. 6. 8.

  3. 1195MT ETT #: galareti paremaa retargate 7471… … *ap To

tre navi SCTEUTET Nri Tu. कारणेति दधि। तेजोसि शुक्रमिस्पाग्यं देवस्य वा कुशोदकम् । पराशर XI. 28-33. The TT 267. 5-6 (FIESTT TW&c. ) are almost the same as TTTET XI. These and other versos of Paradara (in all eleven ) aro quoted by the Mit, on Yaj. III. 314 and by Apertrka p. 1260.

774

Ch. XXII

Matsyapurana 267. 5-6 and other works contain similar rules. Parāsara prescribes that the urine, dung, milk, curds and ghee should be of cows the colours of which are respeotively dark, white, copper-red, dark-red and brown or that all ingredients may be of a brown ( kapila ) cow. There is some difference of view about colours and also about the quantities. According to Parāsara urine, ghee, and water should be one part each, curds three parte, milk seven parts and cowdung as much as the thumb. According to Atri. 299 dung, urine, ghee and milk were to be respectively 1, 2, 4 and 8 parts and ourds also 8 parts. Wben mixing the ingredients, urine is taken with the sacred Gayatri, cowdung with ‘gandhadvārām’(Tai. Ār. X. 1), milk with ‘apyāyasya’(Rg. I. 91. 16), curds with ‘dadhikrāvno’ (Rg. IV. 39.6 ), ghee with ’tejosi sukram’ (Vāj. S. 22. 1) and kusa water with devasya tvā’( Ait. Br. 37. 3, Vāj. s. 22. 1). The pañoagavya thus prepared is to be placed near the fire, then it is to be stirred to the accompaniment of ‘āpo bi ṣthā (Rg. X. 9.1-3) and then the mantra’ mā nastoke’ ( Rg. I. 114. 8 ) is to be repeated over it, it may be then offered into fire with green darbhas not less than seven to the accompaniment of Iravati’ (Rg. VII. 99.3 ). . idam Viṣṇur’( Rg. I. 22. 17), ‘mā nastoke’ (Rg. X. 114. 8), and the samvati verse (Rg. X. 9.4) and then the remainder is to be drunk by one who prepares it with the verso noted below. 1883 The vessel in which the pañoagavya is to be prepared must be of copper or gold or of palasa or lotus leaves (Par. M. II. 1 p. 434 quoting Prajāpati). Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54.7 and Atri 300 say that a sūdra drinking pañcagavya and a brābmans drinking surā (liquor distilled from flour) are equally sinful and fall in hell. But Devala 61 and Parabara XI. 3 and 27 allow sūdras (and women) to take pancagavya but without Vedic mantras. Therefore the digests like Sūdra kamalakara ( p. 42 ) say that a sūdra can take panoagavya only as & prāyas-citta (penanos ) for & sin and not otherwise. Panoagavga is also called brahmakūrca. Atri 301 declares that the dung of a cow that eats unolean things is not to be einployed for purification. A smrti passage declares that he in whose house there is not even one cow with her calf becomes devoid of all mangalas ( auspicious things) and darkness does not

  1. Trenuti oro forta TR I want * Saranat TENT XI. 37. In the private the vereo Dow repeated at the time of taking pañuagavya ia ‘9757…Pasta ATH ATT T upy

Ta… ll

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-8acredness of cow

775

leave him. A cow was said to be holy in all limbs except her mouth (Medhātithi on Manu V. 128 quotes ‘gāvo medhya mukhkd-ite’) and so Manu V. 124 requires food smelt or licked by a cow to be purified. Manu XI. 79 says that if one sacrifices one’s life in defence of brāhmaṇas and cows one becomes free from the sin of even brālmaṇa murder. Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 16. 18 declares that even an untouchable ( bāhya ) went to heaven by giving his life in defence of brahmanas, cows, women and children. Vide Viṣṇu Dk. 8. 3. 45 also. In Gaut. IX. 13-14 the cow is referred to as devatā. As early as the 2nd century A.D. we have the colloostion of the words ‘go-brāhmanahita’ (the welfare of cows and brahmanas) in an inscription of Rudradāman ( E. I. vol. VIII. p. 44). Vide Gupta inscriptions p. 89 ( for go brābmana.purogabbyaḥ sarvaprajābhyaḥ). These words also ocour frequently in the Rāmāyaṇa (Balakāṇda 26. 5, Aranya 23. 28 ) and in the Matsyapurāpa 104. 16. The Kapilā (brown) Cow was said to be the most auspicious and meant for provi ding milk for agnihotra and brābmaṇas, and the sūdra who used its milk was deemed to go to hell (vide Vṛddha Gautama p. 568).

In spite of the prevalence of animal sacrifices, there are already in the times of the Rg, traces of the conception that a devout offering of praise or of a fuel-stick or of cooked food was as good as a more solemn sacrifice (Rg. VIII. 19. 5, VIII. 24. 20) and that oblations of food made to the accompaniment of heart-felt hymns become like bulls, oxen and cows in sacrifice. 1854 These verses are quoted by the Aśv. gr. S. (I. 1. 4) and explained ( vide p. 677 above). The Sat. Br. XI. 6. 1. 3 1855 adumbrates the later doctrine that the enter of meat is eaten in the next birth by the animal killed. The Chāndogya Up. III. 17 regards that tapas, charity, straightforwardness, ahinsā and speaking the truth are the fee ( of the symbolic saorifioe). The same Up. (VIII. 15. 1) emphasizes that the wise man who has attained correct knowledge does not cause any injury to bhūtas except in the case of sacred rites and reaches the world of brahma and does not return to sainsāra. 1856 It appears that the causes that led on to the giving up of flesh at least by some people were

  1. भावे अनचा इपिईदा नटं भरामसि । ते भवन्तक्षण ऋषभासो बशा # # *. VI. 16. 47.

  2. ते होचुरिस्थं वा इमे भस्मानसम्मिलोके असचन्त तान्वपमिदमिह प्रतिसा AU FT I may XI. 6. 1. 3.

  3. S

a reparekas… gaminta VIII. 18. 1.

776

[ Oh. XXII

many, the foremost being the metaphysical conception that one Supreme Entity pervades the whole universe, that all life was one, and that even the meanest insect was a manifestation of the divine Essence and that pbilosophical truths would not dawn upon the man who was not restrained, free from crude appetites and had not universal kindliness and sympathy. Another motive for the insistence on ahimsā was probably the idea of debilement oaused by eating flesh (vide note 1810 above about abārasuddhi’). Saṅkha asks people to give up flesh, wine, onions and garlso because the body is built up on the food eaten.‘57 The notion that the eator of flesh would be devoured by the eaten in the next birth bad pothing to do with the early stages of the dootrine of ahimsā, though by Manu and others that notion was later on exploited to emphasize its importance. Further as the Aryans spread over middle, east and south India anitaal food be came unnecessary owing to the climate and the abundance of corn and vegetables. Though opinions may differ as to the causes.it oannot be gainsaid that the phenomenon of the voluntary giving up of meat by vast populations in the continent of India, when their ancestors had been meat-eaters for ages, is unique in the history of the whole world ist We shall find that even when the doctrines of karma and transmigration were in full swing, the taking of life for food and in sacrifice was allowed by all the ancient dharmasūtras. Even the Vedantasūtre (III. 1. 25 ) does not admit that the killing of animals in sacrifice is impure. The Bṛ, Up. wbich contains a full statement of the doctrine of trar Imigration (VI.2) recommends (VI. 4. 18 ) to the man who desires that a learned son be born to him the cooking of a mess of the flesh of a bull or ox or of other flesh with rice and ghee. “ “Not only other animals, but even the cow, was on certain occasions killed according to the grhya and dharma sutras on several occasions e.g. (1) in śrāddhas ( Āp. Db, S. II. 7, 16. 25 ). (2) for a distinguished guest in Madbuparka (Asv. gr. I. 24. 22-26, Vas. Dh. S. IV. 8), (3) in the Astakā sraddha

. 1857. पुरालशुनपलाणाशनमासादीन्यभक्ष्याणि वर्मदाहारमय शरीरम् । quoted by परत on गो. 23.1.

  1. Vide Hopkins’ ane tribute to the doctrine of “ahimsa’ in Ethice of India’ pp. 227-232. Dr. MaoKonzie ( Hindu Ethios’ P. 113) thinks, not quite rightly, that the doctrine of ahinsd was greatly influenced by the ideas of karma and transmigration.

  2. go d t i gloant profit ……. pra … … Filargherita मांसौदर्भ पापित्या सपिष्मतमश्मीषातामीश्वरोजमपिता औक्षेण पार्षभेण पा। पह.र. VI. 4. 18.

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-flesh-eating (Hir. gr. II. 15. 1, Baud. gr. II. 11. 51, Vaik. IV. 3), (4) & bull in the Sūlagava sacrifice ( Aøv. gr. IV. 9, 10).

In the Dharmasūtras numerous rules are given about the flesh of beasts and birds and about fishes. Gaut. 17. 27-31, Ap. Dh. 8. I. 5. 17. 35, Vas. Dh. S. 14. 39-40, Yāj. I. 177, Viṣṇu Db. 8. 51. 6, Saṅkba (quoted by Aparārka p. 1167), Rāmi. yaṇa (Kiṣkindhā 17. 39), Markandey a-purāṇa (35, 2-4) presoribe that one should avoid the flesh of all five-nailed animals except 1880 of porcupine, hare, svūvdh (a boar or hedge hog), iguana, rhinoceros and tortoise ( some of these works omit the rhinoceros ). Gautama adds that one should also avoid the flesh of all animals with two rows of teeth in the two jaws, of hairy animals, of hairless animals (like snakes), of village cooks and hogs and of cows and bulls. Ap. Dh. 8. I. 5. 17. 29-31 first forbids the flesh of animals with one hoof only, of camels, of gavaya (Gayal), of the village bog, of the sarabha and of cows, but adds the exception that the flesh of milch cows and of bulls may be eaten as the Vājasanoyaka deolares the flesh of these to be pure. Ap. Dh. S. (II. %. 5. 15 ) forbids the use of flesh to a teacher of the Veda in the months from upākarma to utsarjana. This shows that even brāhmaṇas who alone would ordinarily be teachers could take meat in the other months of the year. Ap. Dh. S. I. 3. 11. 4 declares that a student had not to observe anadhyāya if he ato stale food or uncooked flesh. Āp. Dh. 8. II. 3. 7. 4 says that if flesh was offered to & guest, the merit was equal to the performance of the Dvādasaha sacrifice. The Mahābbāsya of Patañjali ( vol. III. p. 320) states that the precept ‘a village cock or hog is not fit to be eaten leads to the inference that a town hog also is unfit food as meat.’ Vas. Dh. 8. XI. 34 1881 goes so far as to say that if an ascetio does not partake of flesh when requested to do so in a śrāddha or in a rite for the gods he falls into hell for numberless years. Gradually, however, & change came over the sentiments of the people. Megasthenes (p. 99 ) and Strabo (XVI. 1. 59) state that the first caste of philosophers which is divided into two sub-divisions, viz. Brachmanes and Sarmanes ( gramapas )

  1. TUTUT HUL ISO 17497 i et nie TOTA: # 102UTTE 17. 39. THE 14. 47 notes tbat there was a diffe rence of opinion about the flesh of the rhinoceros and wild boar ,

Forumpiaurt v’. str 140.70 is a **** ****

faits i 1861. PM uf: wrt TAHTIIN Tarfet *

# TO XI. 34; compare #y. V. 35.

H. D. 98778

History of Dhurmafāstra

[ Oh. XXII

abstained from animal food and sexual intercourse (probably as brahmacarins) and that after living in this manner for 37 years they began to live with less restraint and began to eat the flesh of animals, particularly of those that did not assist man in his labour. The Great Emperor Asoka declares in his first Rook Edict how originally thousands of animals were killed in the royal kitchens, how he then brought down the nūmber to two peacocks and one deer daily and how he had résolved to discontinue the slaughter of even this limited number thereafter. Vide also the 2nd and 4th Rock Edicts. In the fifth pillar edict (Delhi-Topra ) the Emperor Asoka notes that when he had been twenty-six years on the throne he declared numerous animals (such as parrots, mainas, hamgasi cakravākas, tortoises, porcupines, fishes &c.) to be avadhya (not to be killed). The general rule as stated 1868 by Ap. Dh. S. II. 2. 3. 12 and the Rāmāyaṇa (quoted above on p. 733 ) was that from that food that was either cooked or got ready for the daily meals of a householder, homa and bali were to be made. Ancient works spoke of meat offerings to gods and in madhu parka and brāddha. Therefore some of the emptis like those of Manu and Vasiṣtha are in two minds about the use of filesh. Manu (V. 27-44 ) at first contains & permission to kill animals only in madhuparka, in sacrifices1868 and in rites for gods and manes and on no other occasion. Manu (V.27 and 32) further says that no sin is incurred in flesh-eating when one’s life is in danger (owing to famine or disease ) and when a person partakes of the remnants of the flesh of an animal purchased by him or reared by him or flesh given by another out of what is prepared for offering to gods and manes. Yāj. I. 179 is to the same effect. Manu further clinches his exhortation not to eat animal food by ordaining that he who kills an animal except for the limited purposes stated above is himself killed for as many births as there are hair on the body of the slaughtered animal (Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51, 60 is also the same). Manu then goes on to declare (V. 40 and 44 = Viṣṇu Dh. S. II. 63, 67 ) that herbs or plants, animals, trees (of which sacrifioial posts are made ), lower animals, birds, that meet destruction for the sake of performing

  1. गहमधिनो पदशमीयस्य होमा बलयश्च स्वर्गपुष्टिसंयुक्ताः। आप. ध. ए. II. 2. 3. 12.

  2. yon Toyota Prada altro I Te PET97 PERFET vasernet

# HE V. 41. This is the same as HX IV. 6, Vippu Dh. 8. 61. 64, san. 87. II. 16. 1 (Std. gr. reads hta for *).

C. xxII ]

Bhojana-flesh-eating

779

sacrifices are born again in better forms ( of existence ) and that hinsā ( killing of or injury to sentient beings ) done according to the dictates of the Veda should be understood as no himsā. 1864 since dharma shines forth from Veda alone. Though Vasiṣtha Dh. S. (in 14. 39-40 ) allows the flesh of five five-nailed animals and of animals with one row of teeth (except oamels). and also of certain birds and kinds of fish, yet in VI, 5-6 it takes up the same position as that of Manu viz. that himsā was allowed only in sacrifices &c. From V. 46-55 Manu takes up the position of total abstention from killing animals even in sacrifices (they are the same as Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 69-78). In one verge ( V. 48 which is the same as Vas. Dh. S. IV. 7) Manu says that no flesh can be had without killing living beings and killing such beings cannot lead to heaven; therefore one should give up flesh. Verses 53 and 56 are very important as they convey that the merit of him who performs a horge sacrifice every year for a hundred years and of him who does not partake of flesh (throughout life ) is equal and that the word mūrsa (flesh) is derived by the wise (from ’m&m’ and ‘saħ’) as meaning ‘he whose flesh I eat to day will devour me in the next world or birth.’ Yāj. I. 181 is just like Manu V.53. Maṇu winds up the whole discussion (in V.56) by stating that natural appetites lead men on to eat flesh or to drink wine or to indulge in sexual gratifioation and there is no sin in indulging in these when they are allowed by the śāstra in the case of certain persons and on certain occasions; but abstention in these matters (even on occasions when they are permitted by the śāstras ) leads to great rewards.1808 From these passages in

  1. This position that injury done to animals or plants according to Vedic precopts is no hiṁsā is an ancient idea. The Mait. 8. III. 9. 3 has the words (when a tree is to be cut off for making 4 sacrificial post tbe adhvaryu priest places a blade of darbha on the tree at the apot wbere it is to be cut and then addresses the axe) ‘Oh, axe do not injaro this tree; the axe is indeed (like) & thunderbolt; he soreens the tree from the thunderbolt by placing the darbha ia order to effect abimg& ‘स्वपिते मेनं हिसीरिति पोचे स्वधितिर्वजावापास्मा एतदन्तर्दधास्यहिंसा मै. सं. III. 9. 3. The Nir. I. 16 states that ono must understand that there is no hirusā, as the express words of the Vede convey that idea.

  2. AASTOT, ER # yati para parat. FERRER HUT FUT HE V. 56. This is quoted by the mum on. p. 191. The roul moaning of this is brought out by Th r oat Tought WHIT इतर तोच मैथुम धम् एत्रोत्पतिनिमित्तता स्वर्ग प्रामोति ने प्रत्यवायेन पुज्यते।’ in सर्वज्ञमारापण on म .60..

#gat *** same out by Tepat pater on. p. 1929

780

| Ch. XXII

Manu, Vispu and Vas, it is clear that when the extant works attributed to these authors were composed, they themselves were staunch upholders of ahimsā, but that there were two classes of people in their days who were not opposed to flesh-eating, one class holding that killing animals only for purposes for which the Veda expressly sanctioned hiinsū was not improper and another class that indulged in flesh-eating without restrictions. That in spite of the individual predilections of the author of the Manusmrti, general usage was different even in Manu’s day is indicated by the fact that in III. 227 Manu says that in sraddha the performer should get ready various kinds of food including flesh of tempting varieties. Yāj. I. 258-260 states how flesh of various animals when served in grāddha to the brahmanas invited tends to gauge satisfaction to the Manes for long periods. Bphas pati quoted by Sarvajña-Nārāyapa explained Manu V. 27 as a pari samkhyā i. e. Manu does not enjoin flesh-eating on the four ocoasions stated, but only permits it and forbids it on other occasions. 1886 Centuries were required before the views pro pounded by Manu became predominant. Gradually large seo tions of the population of India gave up flesh-eating and even those who did not regard it as forbidden to them rarely partook of it or did so in an apologetic way. The spread of Vaiṣṇavism tended to wean people from flesh as required by the Bhagavata purapa 1867 (VII. 15. 7-8) which is to the Vaiṣṇavas what the Bible is to the Christians. In medieval and modern times all brahmanas avoid flesh (except some brābmaṇas in northern and eastern India that hold that fish may be eaten); BO also do many vaisyas, particularly those who are Vaiṣṇavas and even among sūdras there are many who do not touch flesh and regard abstention from flesh as meritorious. From ancient times the kṣatriyas have been meat-eaters. The Mahabharata hag in several places to say & great deal on flesh-eating. In the Vanaparva 50. 4 it is stated that the Pāṇdava beroes killed with unpoisoned arrows deer and first offered venison to brāhmaṇas and partook of it themselves. In Sabha 4. 1-2 king Yudhisthira on the opening of Mayasabha feasted ten thousand brābmanas with various delicacies including the flesh of wild boars and

  1. ‘मन च भक्षयेदितिम विधीयते किंतु राणमासमक्षणमन्य परिसंख्यायते। पथा मन्याहवादी परस्पति-रोमी नियुक्तो विधिना इस मिक्तस्वथा। मांसमधाचवर्षषा of utfara r ToT ON HY V. 27 and 06.

  2. quruma yurami gromt mina para o TOTTI PUTIT Vat runt H arimuragt VII. 16. 7-8

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-flesh-ealing

781

deer. Vanaparva 208. 11-121868 offers the consoling thought (that is conveyed by the Rgveda itself) that animals killed in sacri. fices to the accompaniment of Vedic mantras went to heaven and it narrates the story of king Rantideva in whose sacrifices two thousand animals and cows were killed every day. Anu śāgana 116. 8 contains the view that there is nothing so nourish. ing as meat for those who are wounded or weak or worried or who are given up to too much sexual gratification and those exhausted by long travel. Anugāgana 116. 16-19 allows flesh of animals killed by hunting to kṣatriyas. There are some passages where the Mahabharata contains the same sentiments as those of Manu e. g. Anuśāgana 115 highly praises abstention from meat and a few verses of this chapter (e. g. 115. 44-45, 48) are very similar to Manu’s (V. 27, 51 ). Saṅkha quoted by Aparārka p. 1167 allows the flesh of buffaloes, goats, rams, ruru deer, ordinary deer and spotted deer. Hārita quoted in the Gr. R. P. 375 mentions the flesh of goats, rams, buffaloes, deer of Various kinds (ruru, prsata, nyanku, śkṣa ), rhinoceros, and large forest boars as permissible, while Devala quoted by the same forbids the flesh of COWB, asses, camels, horges, elephants, lions, tigers, bears, sarabhas, snakes, boa constrictor, rats and mice, cats, mongoose, village hog, dog, jackal, animals of un known species, cheettas, dark-faced apes, monkeys and human beings. Manu V.51 ( = Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 51. 74) says that he who gives consent to the killing of an animal ( for food ), who cuts off the limbs, who kills the animal, who sells or purchases meat, who cooks it, who serves meat and the ester of meat these are all guilty of killing Yama ( quoted in Ahn. Pr. p. 533 ) says that the eater is the greatest sinner out of these, &s, if there were no eators of meat, no one would kill animals for food.

Gaut. 17. 29 and 34-35, Ap. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 32-34, Vas. Dh. 8. 14. 48, Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 51. 29-31, Manu V. 11-14, Yaj. I. 172-175 contain long lists of birds the flesh of which was forbidden and of those the flesh of whioh was allowed. A few of these may be noted. All birds that subsist on raw flesh ( vultures &c.), the cātaka, parrot, hamsa, all birds that dwell in a village ( auch es pigeons), baka, birds that scratch dungbills for food are forbidden; while wild cocks and peacocks were permitted. On Jaimini V. 3.26-28 Sabara quotes a Vedic text that one who has

  1. HUHTE I

**1 wgra eramat Hard P l an for more as 208. 11-12. This idea is as old as Rg. I. 162. 21.

782

constructed the fire altar (agnicit) should not eat the flesh of birds till the sacrifice he has embarked on is finished.

About fish there is no unanimity. Ap. Da. S. I. 5. 17. 36-37 says among fish the ceta ( long-nosed orocodile ? ) is forbidden, 80 also are fish with snake-like heade, the makara, fish that subsist on dead flesh, fish that have strange forms (such as those that have heads like men, or that look like elephants ).’ Manu on the other hand regards fish-eating as the worst form of flesh-eating and forbids all fish (V. 14-15 ), but then makes an exception (V. 16) in favour of fish called Pāṭhina and Robita if used in rites for gods and Manes and fish called rajiva, lion-faced fish and fish having scales. Vide Vas. Dh. S. 14. 41-42, Gaut. 17. 36, Yāj. I. 177-178 also.

About milk several rules are stated in the smṛtis. Gaut. 17. 22-26, Ap. Dh. 8. 1.5, 17, 22-24, Vas. Dh. S. 14. 34-35, Baud. Dh. S. I. 5, 156-158, Manu V. 8-9, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 38-41, Yaj. I. 170 lay down that the milk of a cow that is sandhini, 1869 the call of which is dead, that gives birth to twins and that has not passed ten days after delivery, from whose udders milk oozes of itself, is forbidden. The milk of sheep and she-buffaloes also is not to be used until the lapse of ten days after delivery. The milk of ewes, of camels and of all animals with one hoof is altogether forbidden. The Mit. (on Yaj. T. 170) notes that even the ourds and other products of such milk as is forbidden are also forbidden, but Viśvarūpa thought that only the milk of a cow whose calf is dead, or who is sandhini, or who has not passed ten days after delivery is forbidden and not curds and other produota thereof. The milk of even a cow that feeds’ on impure food should not be used 1870 (Viṣgu Dh. 8. 51. 41 and Atri verse 301 ). In the Vayupurāṇa even the milk of she buffaloes is forbidden. 1871 Baud. Dh. 8. (L. 5. 159-160) prescribes the ponance called Prājāpatya for drinking forbidden milk of all animals except the cow and a fast for three days for drink

  1. The word sandbinl’ is explained in throe ways as a cow in boat’, ’that gives milk once a day’, ‘a cow that yields milk on account of another calf being brought to it, its own being dead’. Vide Mit. on Yaj. I. 170.

  2. S TUTATETTU SAVO P 97: Ima na

TRY So I m verse 301.

  1. ritat antal or prefer to TVI ATTKO arr etra france HOT * Str 78. 17.

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-rules about milk

783

ing the milk of a cow when forbidden. Apastamba-smrti (in Verse) forbids the milk of a kapila cow to all except to brāhmaṇas and the Bhariṣyapurāṇa says that even a brahmana is to use only such portion of the milk of such a cow that remains after employing it in rites for gods.1878 The Brahma* purśṇa says ‘one should not partake of curds at night even if one is starting on a journey, but in madbuparka it may be used at night. Ill-luck dwells in fried grain by day and in curds and barley by night and in Kovidāra and Kapittha ( trees or fruits ) at all times’ ( quoted in Gr. R. p. 370). Manu IV. 75 forbids the eating after sunset of all food in which gesame are mixed.

Several herbs and vegetables have been forbidden from very ancient times. According to Āp. Dh. 8. (1. 5. 17. 25-27) all herbs from which liquors are distilled, kalañja (red garlic ), palāndu (onions), parārska ( dark garlio) and whatever similar vegetables are not used by respectable people, should not be eaten; and a brābmaṇa text prescribes that ‘kyāku’ (mush rooms) are forbidden. Gaut. 17. 32-33 forbids tender leaves (of trees), kyāku, lasuna and the resins of trees and the red sap flowing from incisions made in the barks of trees. Vas. Dh. 8. 14. 33 forbids the eating of lasuna, palāṇdu, kyāku, gğñja na (turnip), Sleṣmātaka, the resins of trees and red sap (as in Gautama ). Manu V. 5-6 forbids lasuna, palandu, grājana, musbrooms ( kavaka ) and all herbs that spring from impure soil and manure, red resins and red sap (as in Gautams) and selu ( sleṣmātaka ) fruit. Yāj. I. 171 and 176 adds sigru and pres oribes the penance of cāndrāyana for eating forbidden herbs and vegetables. The great difficulty is to find out the modern equivalents of some of the herbs and vegetables. According to & verse quoted in Gș. R. p. 356 from the Smrtimañjari there are ten varieties of palāṇdu of which gļājana 1873 is one. Aparārka p. 249 quotes passages from the Brahmapurāṇa forbidding various kinds of herbs and vegetables. Vide also Gr. R. pp. 354-356 for quotations from Devala and others about herbs and

  1. pisa poput 4: TATO T 7:19: formirati by natra Ragua strato quoted in par. ( p. 423 ) and, 461, AT. I. 2. p. 381; 9: foart #fageal rate fag fra Braut

pill fourrur quoted in Faere (Art P. 423 ) and T. 6. p. 370.

  1. Hatahiva fregut All TWEI program omogH 1900 or रिका। गुसनं पवनेष्टच पलाण्डोवंश जातयः। इति स्मृतिमचारीकारलिखितवैद्यकश्लोकात् ।

T. . p. 356 and . 4. p. 514.

784

(Ch. XXII

vegetables that are forbidden. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 290 quotes a sūtra of Sumantu that lasuna and other vegetables are not forbidden to those who are ill, if they are prescribed by way of medicine. 1884 About asafoetida (hingu ) Haradatta on Gaut. 17, 32 says ‘it is doubtful whether it is a resin or is & sap flowing from incisions, but even respectable people partake of it and that camphor not being red nor & resin nor a sap may be eaten.’ The Sm. O. (op brāddha p. 413 ) says that some smrtis forbid the use of hingu in grāddba, while the Adipurāṇa allows it and therefore there is an option. The Gr. R. p. 354 shows that the round alību (gourd ) was forbidden. Vṭddha-Harita VII. 113-119 mentions herbs, vegetables and fruits that are forbidden. Vide also the Sinftimuktāphala (abnika pp. 434-435 ) for quotations as to the names of several roots, fruits and vegetables that were fobid. den together with their South Indian names.

Ap. Dh. 8. II. 8. 18. 2 forbids the use of dark grains (like māṣa beans) in srāddha. The Mahabhāṣya says ‘when it is declared that māsa beans should not be eaten, they are not to be eaton even when other grains of oorn are mixed up with them’ (vol. I. p. 127) 1875 The Gr. R. p. 359 quotes the Brahmapurāṇa “iT6 forbidding the use of certain cereals generally such as rājamāṣa, sthūlamudga (called ‘metbi’ in Marathi), masura &c. Saṅkha Likhita 1897 quoted in Ahn, Pr. p. 394 allows the employment in offering to gods of all cereals, except kodrava, canaka ( gram ), māga, magūra, kulattha and uddalaka. Vrddha-Hārsta VII. 110-111 also mentions the corns that are forbidden.

Gaut. 17. 14-16, Ap. Dh. 8.1.5.17.17-19, Vas. Dh. 8. 14. 28-29 and 37-38, Manu V. 10, 24-25, Yāj. I. 167 prescribe that cooked food which has become sour by being kept for some time or by being mixed with something else should not be eaten nor should stale (over which the day or night has passed ) food be eaten, nor food cooked twice ( with interval) except curds and butter milk and except stale articles like vegetables, cakes, fried grain,

  1. Parede murarea for greater that want i anar a Tot doula telaI Thin Faero on 47. III. 290.

  2. #19 Tatory faut af a youth marea vol. 1 p. 127.

  3. राजमाषा स्थूलखवास्तथा वषयबासको। मसूर शतपुष्पाप कुसम्भाश्रीनिकेत मम् । सस्पान्येतान्पभक्ष्याणि मच देपानि कस्यचित् । बापुराण quoted in m. . P. 859, # . #. p. 516.

  4. H un Tūr i fore nirat TTFRITT rate gran intitolare en praat in I. 9. 394 and 404.

Ch. XXII

Bhojana-forbidden food

785

porridge, pulse cakes, those boiled in oil and rioe boiled in milk or when mixed with honey; and that even stale food flavoured with ghee or ourds or the remnant of food offered to the gods may be eaten. Manu V. 25, Vas. Dh. S. 14. 37-38, Ap. Dh, S, I. 5. 17. 19 and Yāj. I. 169 say that articles of wheat and yava flour and products of milk though stale and unmixed with ghee may be eaten by all dvijātis, provided they have not turned

sour.

The above long lists of forbidden vegetables, meat, milk furnish examples of food that is jātiduṣta or svabhāvaduṣ ta. The rules about not eating stale and sour food illustrate food that is kūladuṣta. Any article of food which is mixed up with forbidden things like palāndu or is in contact with unclean substances or food in which hair or an inseot is found or in which uxoreta or the limb or tail of a mouse is found, food touched by a woman in her monthly course or in which & bird (like the crow ) has thrust its beak or food touched by a dog or smelt by & cow or food from a house in mourning or from a family in impurity due to birth should be avoided ( vide Ap. Dh. $. I. 5. 16. 19-20 and 24-29, Manu IV, 207-209, 212, 217, Yāj. I. 167-168 ). If a dog or an apapātra sees food which & man is eating or if a person when engaged in taking his meal sees a cān. dāla, & dog, a crow or a cock or 8 woman in her course, he should leave the food and get up. Manu (III.239-240) says that a cāṇdala, a village hog or a village cook or a dog, & menstruating woman and an impotent person should not be allowed to see brāhmaṇas eating, whether in rites for gods or Manes, or at times of gifts. Kātyāyana says that if & brāhmaṇa hears the voice of a cāṇdāla, a patita, or a woman in her course he should at once leave eating and if he eats even one morsel after hearing their voice he has to observe a fast for one day. 1878 The rules about not eating food from a house in mourning illustrate food that is nimittaduṣta (forbidden by reason of an occasion or chance reason ), the other rules about food

  1. gay ritos T 1 979. u. c. I. 5. 16. 31; Tegraf चाणाल पान कुखदमेव च । मुखामो यदि पश्येत तव तु परित्यजेत् ॥ व्यास quoted in marato. ( p. 428), 4. p. 482 ; Yusofrecer ret forte समः । श्रीत ग्रासमा चदिममेकमभोजनम् ॥ कात्यायम quoted in भाहिकम. p.482. Try explains 4TT AS ‘TOTGIERI I OD 17. u. 6. 1.7.21. 6 and on 79. u. & . 16. 31 a8 MUIT: rita: at a Timur ; ON ST. 1. 1. 3. 25. maram: afectan ara: 1 maana hat TUTI totuulin

Tantots el. So says (p. 720) ofaer

t raforthopagantar’ 3. D. 99

786

Ch. XXII

forbidden because of contact with unclean things or with garlic &c. exemplify samsarga-duṣta (forbidden because of contact) and the rules about avoiding food seen by a dog &o. are examples of kriya-duṣta (forbidden on account of certain actions ). The smrti writers were not devoid of practical common sense, Baud. Dh, S. II. 7. 7 says that if in a heap of cooked food, hair, bits of nails or skin or insects or dung of rats is seen, then a lump from that part where these are seen should be taken out and the rest should have water sprinkled over it and holy ashes should be scattered over it and water should be again sprinkled over it and brāhmaṇas should then louldly declare the food to be all right and it may be then used for serving. Vaik. 1879 IX. 15 contains a similar direction. Parā. sara VI. 71-74 says that cooked food (rice) amounting in quantity to one drona or one ādhaka, 1880 if licked by a dog or by a orow or smelt by a cow or an ass, should not be thrown away, but should be purified and then used, and that the portion spoilt by touch &c. should be taken away from the whole mass, the rest should be sprinkled over with water in which & golden piece has been dipped and fire should be brought in contact with it (by ignited darbha ) and brāhmanas should recite Vedic texts over it and then it may be served. Vas. Db. 8. 14. 23 and 25–26, Yaj. I. 189 and 191 contain similar rules. 1881

Food cooked only for oneself and not for offering to gods or guests should not be eaten (Gaut, 17, 19, Manu IV. 213 ). This is called samskāra-duṣta ( forbidden on account of the absence of purificatory rites ) by the Smrtyarthasāra p. 68. The largest number of injunctions are concerned with parigrahaduṣta (food which may be good in itself but is forbidden because of its coming from the hands of or being owned by certain persons ), The following is a fairly comprehensive list of such persons compiled from Ap. Dh. 8. I. 6.18. 16-33 and I. 6. 19.1, Gaut. 15.18 and 17. 17-18, Vas. Dh. 8. 14. 2-11, Manu IV. 205-220, Yāj.

1879, ratgqua que hagin TEYT raha 3 Erfar I det at free triata. FAR IX. 15.

  1. According to ETT (VI. 70) 2 748 are equal to an 10 and 82 spus aro equal to & T. Othors define differently. According to ** R. 305 and ATE part 1 p. 57, 24 ,

2 5 , 4 UT** FPT, 44 , 4 WITEIT, 2 To=FAT and 8 $ ati. Vido FAQTE ON T. III. 266 and 274 also.

  1. prout frategy any ti i Tegetawi

TURITY ** Threat i Thy 14. 26–26.

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-whose food forbidden

787

I. 160-165, Veda-Vyāsa III. 50-54, Brahmapurāṇa quoted by Aparārka pp. 1177–79 and other works :-one who has not kept the sacred ( srauta and gļhya) fires, a miser (who stints even his parents, children, wife through greed), one imprisoned ( or fettered), a thief, an impotent person, & wrestler (or one who subsists by going on the stage ), & vaiṇa i. e. & worker in bamboo (or naṭa according to Viśvarūpa ), a singer, an actor, an abhiśasta (one charged with having committed & mahāpataka ), a usurer, & courtezen, a sangha or a gana (group or band of roguish brāhmaṇas or others ), one who is initiated for a Vedic sacrifice (till he has not bought soma or has not offered an animal to Agni and some ; vide Ap. Dh. 8. I. 6. 18. 23-26 which quote the Ait. Br.), a physician ( who subsists by the practice of medioine ), a surgeon, a fowler, & hunter (for selling flesh), one suffering from an incurable disease, one who is irascible or cruel, an up chaste woman, a matta (one intoxicated or puffed up by wealth and learning), an enemy, an ugra ( one ferocious in look or words or & man of that caste ), patita ( an outoast), vrātya ( vide pp. 376-379 above ), a hypocrite ( or swindler), one who eats the remnants of others’ food (or of a sūdra ), a woman whose husband is not living and who has no son, & goldsmith, & hen pecked husband, one who serves as a priest to the whole village, & vendor of weapons, a blacksmith, a niṣada, a tailor, a svavrtti (one subsisting by keeping dogs, or one who does menial ser vice ), a king, 1988 a king’s purohita, & rajaka ( a washerman or dyer ), an ungrateful person, one who makes his livelihood by killing animals, & distiller or seller of liquors, one who stays in the same house with his wife’s paramour, one who sells the soma plant, a back-biter, a liar, an oil-presser, a bard, a son-in-law (88 long as he has no son or child ),1888 & sonless man (Mit. on Yāj. III. 290 quoting Likhita ), one who starts & sacrifice without studying the Veda, & woman sacrificer, a carpenter, one who makes his living by astrology, one whose duty is to ring bells (for reminding the king of the time or awakening bim), a grāma kūta (a village officer, Apararka p. 239), a parivitti, a parivividāna, the husband of a sūdra woman or of & remarried widow, the

  1. A IV. 218, a t 117, F# 304, s. 9. 28 (in verse ) say TO Tae!

  2. FETT HIT THATTEET HAT IS 305 ; ’ fog’ STATE मन्येसस्य मन्यु न कारयेत् । अप्रजायतु कन्यायो नाश्नीपात्तस्य ये गहे ॥ भादित्यपुराण quoted by # P. 239 ; TTT I. 175 Tutto que m

e ( without qualifications ); vide gourmato 15. 80 alao.788

son of a punarbhū, & worker in hides, & potter, a spy, one who becomes an ascetio without following the rules laid down for that asrama, a lunatio, one who has sat down at his debtor’s house in dharna. Manu IV. 222 prescribes a fast for three days if a brahmana partakes of the food of these unknowingly, but the kycchra ( Prajapatya ) for knowingly doing so. Baud. Dh. 8. II. 3. 10 prescribes the japa of Rg. IX. 58 (tarat sa mandi ) for eating the food of one from whom it should not have been taken. Manu XI. 253 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 56. 6 do the same.

The next question is whose food may be taken. Great fluc tuations have occurred in the usages during the last two thousand years or more in this matter. Gaut. 17. 1 says ‘a brahmana may eat at the houses of all dvijātis ( the three higher varpas ) who are well-known to be performing the peculiar duties of their varṇa or aśrama.” Gaut. 2. 41, Baud. Dh. 8. 1. 2. 18-19, Ap. Dh. S. I. 1. 3. 25 allow a brahmacarin to beg for food at the houses of men of all varṇas, except those who are apapātra and abhitasta ( suspected of mahāpātakas). Ap. Dh. S. I. 6. 18. 9 first prescribes for a brāhmapa who has returned from his teacher’s house that he should not eat in the houses of the ksatriya and other varṇas (as a general rule ), then he gives the opinion of some that he may take food from members of all varṇas except sūdras, provided they abide by the rules for their varpa. He also notices that even sūdra’s food may be eaten if he serves a dvijāti in virtue of his duty to do so. Even Veda. Vyāga III. 56 expressly declares that all dvijālis who know each other’s families may partake of food at each other’s houses. 1884 Ap. Dh. S. I. 6. 19. 2-12 raises the question as to whose food may be eaten and names several sages who differed in their views. Kanva said that one may eat the food of only him who wishes to give (and so requests ), Kautsa thought that one may eat the food of him only who is holy (puṇya ); Varsyāyaṇi said that one may accept from whoever is liberal enough to give; Eka, Kupika, Kanva, Kutse and Puṣkarasādi held that alms (food) offered by a pure man may be eaten; Vārsyayani said what is offered by any body without asking may be accepted ; according to Hārita one should not accept food whioh is offered after an express previous announcement ‘I shall give you such and such a kind of food.’ Āpastamba’s own view appears to have been ( I. 6. 19. 9-11) that one should accept the food of him whose conduct is religious and who

  1. Protarar Forrafar

: ITERURT III. 66.

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-whose food may be eaten

1789

desires to offer food, that one should not accept the food even of a righteous man if he shows even the slightest unwillingness to give and that whatever is offered unasked may be accepted. These directions are rather vague.

In modern times a person is more lax in taking food pre pared with oil or ghee or milk. He may take such food from members of certain castes otber than his own. But ordinarily he would not take food cooked in water from any person belong. ing to another caste or even sub-division of the same caste. In towns and cities there is a strong tendenoy to considerably relax these restrictions. We saw above that in the times of Gautama and Apastamba and others a brāhmaṇa was allowed to take food prepared in the houses of kṣatriyas, vaisyas, and even sūdras. Gradually this latitude came to be restricted and most of tho sūtras and early gmptis restrict the liberty to take food from sūdras by saying that only from the following among śūdras a brāhmana can take cooked food, viz, one who cultivates the brāhmana’s field on the system of paying half of the crops to the latter, & family friend, one’s cowherd, one’s barber, one doing personal service i. 6. & dāsa ( vide Gaut. 17. 6, Manu IV. 253, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 16, Yāj. I. 166, Angiras 120-121, Veda. Vyāsa III, 55 and Parāśara XI. 21 ). Manu and Yāj. add that any sūdra who declares to a brāhmaṇa that the former is going to be dependent on the latter and who declares what his actions have been and how he will serve the brahmana is also bhojyānna (one whose food may be eaten). The Mit. quotes a sūtra wbich includes the potter among these (on Yāj. I. 166 ) and Devala also does so, 1885 It may be stated that Parāśara (XI. 22-24) gives peculiar meanings to the words dāga, nāpita, gopāla and ardhika. The general rule forbidding the food of sūdras is stated by Vas. Dk. 8. 14. 4, Manu IV. 211 and 223, Yāj. I 160. Angiras 121 says that he who takes cooked food from sūdras other than the five excepted above has to undergo cāndrāyaṇa penance. Atri ( 172-173 ) prescribes the same penance for’a dvijs eating the food of a washerman, an actor and & worker in bamboos and the penance of parāka for taking the food of or residing amongst antyajas. Vas. Dh. 8.

  1. Erat (

F HI) at ota: * Et I wrotero tegrat: ata 1944: 11 in TK. . p. 337; TTT XI. 22-24 are - कन्यासमुत्पनो ब्राह्मणेन तु संस्कृतः। संस्कारातु भवेवासः असंस्कारातु नापितः ॥ क्षत्रि. पानसकन्यायो समुत्पनरत यः सतः । स गोपाल इति शेयो भोज्यो विप्र संशयः॥ वैश्य कन्यासहपको बामणेन तु संस्कृतः । स खाधिक इति शेयो भोज्यो पिन संशयः॥

790

(Ch. XXII

VI. 26-29, Angiras 69-70, Ap. ( verse) 8.9-11 severely condemn a brahmana partaking of food from sūdrag. Angiras 75, Ap. ( verse ) VIII. 8-9 declare that a brāhmaṇe who is an agnihotrin and yet does not desist from sūdra food loses five viz. his self, his vedio lore and his three ( sacred fires ). Medhātithi on Manu V. 84 expressly states that the barber is touchable and bhojyānna ( whose food may be taken). This shows that up to the 9th century A, D, the rules about taking food from even Certain gūdras had not become rigid in all provinces of India. Angiras 77-78. Ap. ( verse ) 8. 11-13 and Yama ( quoted in Gr. R. P. 334 ) declare that a brāhmaṇa may eat at a brāhmaṇa’s at all times, at & kṣatriya’s only on parvans (on full moon &c. ), at & vaisya’s when the latter is initiated for a sacrifice, at a sūdra’s never and the food of the four varṇas is respectively like nectar, milk, food and blood. 1888 According to Manu IV. 223 a brāhmaṇa could take from a sūdra uncooked food for a night, if he had no other means of subsistence. When exaotly brāhmaṇas were forbidden to take food from kṣatriyas or vaisyas it is difficult to say. In the Kalivarjya section all that is forbidden is taking food from the five sūdras enumerated in Manu IV. 253. Gaut. 17.1 prescribes that fuel, water, fodder, roots, fruits, honey, protection, what is offered unasked, a bed, seat, shelter, conveyance, milk, ourds, roasted grain, safari ( small fish ), priyangu (millet ), & garland, meat of deer, vegetables must not be refused when offered by any one spontaneously. Vas. Dh. S. 14. 12, Manu IV. 50 are to the same effect. Angiras 1887 quoted in Gr. R. p. 337 states that cow’s milk, barley flour, oil, oil-cakes, cakes (of flour) may be taken from a sūdra and eaten and whatever else is cooked in milk. Bșhat-Parāśara VI. says “uncooked meat, ghee, honey and oils extracted from fruits, even if they are kept in a mleccha’s vessel, become pure the moment they are taken out of suoh veggel; similarly milk, curds, and ghee contained in Vessels of ābhiras are blameless and the vessels are pure as long as these articles are contained in them. 1888 Laghu-Śatātapa 128

Wh

__1886. मामणस्य सदा मुक्त क्षत्रियस्य पर्वणि वैश्यस्य यज्ञदीक्षायां शूदस्य न कदाचन असतं माणस्या क्षत्रियस्य पयः स्मृतम् । वैश्यस्याप्यसमेगा शूदस्य रुधिरं

      1. 11-13. =sma 77-78 (FETTU Point for e ……terrat). यम reads प्रकृतेषु च वैश्यस्य and ग्रह. . P. 334 explains प्रकृतेषु गोमङ्गलादिषु.

  1. गोरस चैव सक्तंब तैलं पिण्याकमेव च। अपूपान भक्षयेनापश्चान्यत्पपसा Ta strona in TT. T. p. 337.

  2. भाममांसं पतं क्षोद नेहाथ फलसम्भवाः । म्लेच्छभाण्डस्थिता होते निकान्ता चयः सत आभीरभाण्डसंस्थानि पयोदधिपतानि च। हत्पराशर VI.

(Jivananda, part 2 p. 210 ).

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-food allowed

791

says that corn lying in the field or on the threshing floor, water drawn from wells and milk while still in the cow enclosures may be taken even from one whose food is forbidden. Even such later writers as Haradatta stated that a brāhmans may eat the food of the five sūdras named by Manu IV. 253 in extreme distress only.

Certain articles were not to be eaten at certain stages only. For example, a brahmacārin was not to partake of honey, meat, and kṣāra-lavana ( vide Āp. Db. 8. I. 1. 4. 6, Mānava gr. I. 1. 12). But in danger of life he could eat even these (vide Medhātithi on Manu V. 27). Similarly a forest hermit and on ascetic were forbidden many things ( which will be discussed later on). A 5ṣatriya was not to drink soma juice (vide p. 140 above ).

There were rules about the persons who might be engaged to cook and serve food. As brāhmaṇas could in very ancient times eat the food of all varṇas including at least some sūdras, no difficulty must have been felt. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 2. 3. 1-6 ) prescribes that āryas (i. e. the three varṇas ) purified (by & bath ) may prepare the food for vaiśvadeva; they should stop speaking, coughing or spitting with their faces turned towards the food that is being prepared and should touch water on touch. ing their hair, limbs or garment; or sūdras supervised by aryas may be the cooks. Āp. Dh. 8, further requires that when gūdras are cooks they should shave their hair and beard and pare their nails every day or on the 8th day or parva days and they must always bathe with thoir olothes on. Laghu-Asv. I. 176 says that food should be cooked by one’s wife, daughter-in-law, son, pupil, elderly relative, or one’s ācārya or by oneself. Aparārka (p. 500 ) quotes a verse of Nārāyana that food must be served to a dvijāti by a wife of the same caste ( if he has wives of different oastes ).

Although numerous rules are laid down about the persons at whose house food may or may not be taken, the ideal placed before householders was that they should not as far as possible eat at the houses of others and should only do so if they are invited by a blameless person ( vide Gaut. 17. 8, Manu III. 104, Yaj. I. 112). Manu III. 104 holds out the threat that those who constantly seek to subsist on the food given by others become after death the cattle of those who give them food.

It is necessary to say a few words on drinking liquor ( madyapāna).

792

( Ch. XXII

In the Rgveda a distinction is made between soma and sura (liquor ), the former being an intoxicating drink, but reserved for being offered (as a sacred beverage) to gods and to be drunk by the priests, while the latter seems to have been meant as a beverage for common men and not usually offered to gode. In Rg. VII. 86. 6 the sage 1889 Vasiṣtha implores Varuna to recognize that a man does not commit sin by his own urge or power, but that it is due to destiny or surā, anger, dice ( gambl ing) or heedlessness. In Rg. VIII. %. 12 the sage exclaims that draughts of some when quaffed by Indra create in his heart such tumult as those who are heavily intoxicated engage in when surā is drunk. Rg. I. 116,7 mentions among the deeds of Asvins this that they filled & hundred jars of surā from the hoof of their powerful horse which (hoof) was like kārotara (a strainer or leather-bag?). Rg. I. 191. 10 refers to the leather-bag (of wine ) in the house of & vintner. In belauding bhojas ( liberal mon) Rg. X. 107. 9 says that they won the inner draught of surā (from their foes ). In Rg. X. 131. 1890 4 and 5 the Asvins are praised for having drunk surāms (surā mixed with soma) and helped Indra in his fight with the Asura Namuoi. In the Atharvaveda IV. 34. 6 the reward for the per former of sacrifices is said to be heaven in which there are lakes full of ghee and honey, and wherein liquor flows like water. In Atharva veda 14. 1. 35-36 and 15. 9. 2-3 surā is referred to. The Vaj. 8. 19.7 distinguished between surā and soma ’ thou art the powerful surā and this is soina ; don’t destroy me when thou enterest thy place. In the Tai. 1891 8. II. 5. 1 ff, the Sat. Br. I 6. 3 and V. 5. 4 there is a legend of Viśvarūpa, the son of Tvagtr, which narrates how he had three heads, one of which Was soma-drinking, one wine-drinking and a third for eating

  1. न स स्पो दक्षो वरुण धृतिः सा सरा मम्युर्विभीदको अचित्तिः। VII. 86.6 ; re otarat graph are Tri . VIII. 2. 12 ; Text w a TFY pout: setTim UTT: 1 . I. 116.7; faqat Agfat

E TI . I. 191. 10; Borrera: EAT IT forme q i *. X. 107. 9.

  1. गुरसराममाधिना मनुधावारे सचा। विपिपाना शुभस्पती इन्द्र कर्मस्वावल are a p. X. 131, 4 quotod in d. 7. I. 4. 2; TITT PYNT: Tafter rort

VATI ….. my fast geeftoft: FRIT: N sro IV. 34. 6. UNT Wait Trentoft ATH AT T f * Fanfarrati . #. 19.7; also

  1. . I. 4. 2 and 9. m. 97, 4.

  2. Fant mary: gerent Par t ytsemura e sf19 site foort ATT ENTSTHUTHER. #. II. 6. 1. 1. ; vide on ETT XII. 10 for similar words.

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-drinking liquor

793

food, how Indra cut off the heads of Viśvarūpa, how Tvaṣır being furious at the slaughter of his son performed a soms Bacrifice from which he excluded Indra, how Indra, though not invited, consumed all the some that was in the tub, how the drinking of too much soma injured Indra and how the gods healed him by the iṣti called Sautrāmaṇi (for Sutrāmap, ’the good protector’, Indra). This Sautrāınani sacrifice was per formed for & priest who drank too much soma and therefore either began to vomit or had severe purging. Vide Kātyāyana śr. 19.1.4. It was also performed by him who had an enemy(Sat. Br. XII. 7. 3. 4). In this sacrifice & brāhmaṇa had to be hired for drinking the dregs of surā offered in it and if one was not found willing to do it the dregs were to be poured on an ant-hill.1882 How surā ( liquor) was prepared is described in the Sat. Br. XII. 7. 3.5 and in Kātyāyana śr. 19. 1. 20-27 ( vide S. B. E. vol. 44, p. 223 n. 2 which summarises the com. on Kātyā. yana ). In Jaimini III. 5. 14-15 there is a discussion about the Sautrāmaṇi sacrifice and Sabara quotes the passage of the Tai. Br. I. 8. 6 about hiring a brāhmaṇa for drinking the dregs of the surā offered in the sacrifice. The Sat. Br. contrasts some and of surā by saying ‘soma is truth, prosperity, light and surā is untruth, misery, darkness’ (V.1.5. 28 ). The Sat. Br. V. 5. 4. 21 expresses dread 1893 of mixing up the libations of some and of surā together. The Kathaka Samhita XII. 12 contains the follow ing interesting remark. “Therefore an elderly person or & youngster, the daughter-in-law and father-in-law drink liquor and remain babbling together; foolishness (or thoughtlessness ) is indeed sin; therefore a brāhmaṇa does not drink surā with the thought otherwise ( if I drink it) I may be affected by sin’; therefore this is for ksatriya ; one should say to a brāhmana that surā, if drunk by & kṣatriya, does not harm the latter.” 1884 This passage makes it Olear that at the time of the Kathaka Samhita public opinion had come to this stage that brāhmaṇas had generally given up drinking surā. This passage read with the

  1. STATO Oftatorlargest cofa OTANTE I want argret TUTET TUETT 1.

a paragramTTIHTI T. I. 8. 6. Vide urgareta 15. 15. 1-14 where the last is groi geri anteriorare ** cifra

  1. छावनी उद्धरन्ति । उत्तरवेदावोत्तरसुद्धते दक्षिणं नेस्सोमाहुतीश्च मुराहतीब E V AR FATE TE TITTAUT, V. 5. 4. 21.

  2. iuratu frais FETT OCH art dient OruT STATI पाप्मा माल्य तस्माद् मारणा सुरां न पिवति पाप्मना नेत्समुज्या इति। तदेतत् क्षत्रियाय migrat care art dia a 1 976 HEAT XII. 12,

  3. D. 100

794

( Ch. XXII

Tai. Br. quoted above establishes that it had become difficult to find a brābmana willing to drink even the remnants of surā left after being offered in a sacred Vedic rite like the Sautrāmani. The above passage from the Kathaka is quoted by the Tantra. vārtika on Jaimini I. 3. 7 (p. 210 ) and explained by it as referring to sidhu (rum ) and liquor prepared from honey. Samkarācārya in his bhāṣya on the Vedāntaṣūtra III. 4. 31 quotes1895 this passage expressly from the Kathaka Samhita. In the Ait. Br. (37. 4) it is stated that when a king has undergone & solemn coronation ceremony the purohita places in his hand a vessel of surā. Aśvapati, king of Kekaya, proudly declares in the Chandogya Up. V. 11.5 to the learned brāhmaṇas that came to him for the lore about Vaiśvānara ‘in my country there is no thief, no miser, no madyapa ( drinker of intoxicants ), none who has not kept the sacred fires, none who is not learned, no man of loose character; whence can there be a woman of loose character in my country?’ In Chāndogya V, 10.9 one who drinks surā is enumerated among the five grave sinners.

It is somewhat strange that in some of tbe gṛbya sūtras it is stated that in the rites on Anvaṣtakā day when pindas are offered to the male ancestors, pindas are offered to the mother, paternal grandmother and paternal great-grandmother and also liquor is offered. For example, the Āśv, gr. II. 5. 5 says that to the wives ( of the ancestors ) are offered surā and the scum of boiled rice in addition’( to the pindas ). 1896 The Pār. gṛ. (III. 3) states also to the female ancestors be makes pipda offerings and pours for them liquor and water oblations into pits.’ The Kathaka gs. (65. 7-8) also prescribes that in the Anvaṣtaka surā was to be sprinkled with a spoon about the pindas for women ancestors and the piṇdas were to be eaten by servents or by niṣadas or may be thrown in fire or water or brāhmaṇas may eat them. It is difficult to account for this. If & conjeo. ture may be hazarded, it is possible that women drank ( perhaps secretly ) liquor even when their husbands had given up the practice owing to the force of public opinion or that in those days (before the grhya sūtras ) intercaste marriages being allowed, the women ancestors might have been ksatriya or

  1. ETEEATTUTT strena eren FTHFIT Fagfr a: #16 semat qua TTT TOUT: UT FOR AT ISTITUT on . &. III. 4. 31.

  2. fquetaguar I T RY PUFS Pagmat qura i fram art THAT I SHT. 7. II. 5. 3-5; LTE … … Trong sirait

y are an FT THEY ** 1977. y. III. 3.

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-drinking liquor

795

vaisya women and so were not unfamiliar with drinking. Manu XI. 95 forbids drinking to brāhmaṇas and Kullūka notes that there were commentators who held that the prohibition did not apply to brāhmaṇa women. Whatever the reasons for the above directions in the gļhya sūtras may be, they run counter to the prevailing sentiments, not only of the Kathaka Sam, and the Brāhmaṇa texts, but also to the unanimous prescriptions of the dharmasūtras and smrtis.

Gaut. II. 25,1897 Ap. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 21, Manu XI. 94 forbid all kinds of intoxicants to brāhmaṇas at all stages of life. Ap. Dh. 8. I. 7. 21. 8, Vas. Dh. $. I. 20, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 35. 1., Manu XI. 54, Yāj. III. 227 hold that drinking surā or madya is one of the grave sins ( mahāpātakas ). In spite of this, the Baud. Dh. $. I. %. 4 notes that among the five peculiar practices of the brāhmanas in the north was that of drinking rum and it condemns all the five practices. The verses of Manu (XI. 93-94 ) 1898 are frequently quoted in digests and commentaries *sura is the filthy refuse of food and sin indeed is called mala (filth); therefore, a brāhmaṇa, a rājanya, and a vsisya should not drink surā, which is of three kinds, viz. prepared from molasses, from flour (or ground grains ) and from flowers of the Madhūka tree; brahmaṇas should not drink any one of these three.’ The interpretations put on these verses by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. (III. 222 ), the Mit. on Yāj. III. 253, Aparārka p. 1069 and others establish that the word ’ surā’ primarily applies to paistī (liquor prepared from flour ) as Vedic usage in the Sautrānapi sacrifice and elsewhere shows, that paisti is forbidden to all brābmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, that it is the drinking of paisti alone that constitutes a mahāpātaka, that all intoxicants are forbidden to brāhmaṇas but liquors other than paiṣti such as those prepared from molasses or madhūka flowers are not forbidden to ksatriyas and vaiśyes. In the Mahābhārata ( Udyogaparva 59. 5) both Vasudeva and Arjuna are described as intoxicated by drinking tbe liquor prepared from honey and

  1. THE TIETOT: 1 t. II. 25; Fi HUAWEI 3774. 1. . 1.5. 17.21.

  2. ETA IHTCAT Haneyê TEATE A Europeat asam * मुरा पियेत् ॥ गौडी पैष्टी च मावी च विज्ञेया त्रिविधा सुरा । यथैवैका तथा सर्वा न पातम्या Parent: #1 #ES XI. 93-94. Both are quoted in tutto Pp. 209-210; HTT XI. 93 is er 9. 279 and Ag XI. 94 is the sanue as faog 22.82 and more 117. marta explains Agroft in three ways ‘Art THTH Gantara मधूकपुष्पेण मधुना वा कृता वाच्या

196

(Ch. XXII

the Tantravārtika tries 1899 to establish that there was nothing wrong in this as they were ksatriyas and as Manu XI.93-94 and Gaut. II. 25 are to be construed asstated above viz. all intoxicants are forbidden to brāhmaṇas and oply paiṣti to ksatriyas and vaisyas, Intoxicants are not forbidden to gūdras, though Vrddha-Harita (IX.277-278) declares that some desire that good sūdras should abstain from surā also and that Manu says that even a sūdra becomes patita by falsehood, by partaking of meat and intoxicants and by stealing another’s wealth or wife. Another rule was that brahmacārins, of whatever Varṇa, had to abstain entirely from every kind of intoxicant (Ap. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 23, Manu II. 177, Yaj. I. 33 ). Viśvarupa on Yaj.I.33 refers to a passage from the Caraka-sakha which states that when Śvetaketu suffered from a skin disease ( kilāsa ), the Asking told him to take madhu ( honey or wine) and meat as medicine, and when he asked how being a brahmacārin he could do so, they replied that a person must first save himself (from disease and death) in all ways too as a man can say “I shall perform meritorious acts” only if he lives. Aparārka quotes the Brahmapurāpa and says that in the Kali age human sacrifice, Afvamedhs sacrifice and intoxicating drinks were forbidden to the three varṇas and to brahmanas in all yugas (ages). But this is opposed to history and tradition. 1901 The Mahabhārata narrates ( Adiparva 76-77) the story of Sukra, his daughter Devayani and pupil Kaca and states that Sukra forbade for the first time brahmaṇas from drinking intoxicants and decla red that, if any brahmana drank sura thence forward, he would be guilty of the grave sin of brahmana-murder.1902 The

  1. यत्तु वासदेवामियोर्मधपानमातुलदुहितपरिणयन स्मृतिविरुद्धमपन्यस्तं सत्रा जापिकारसुरामात्रस्य त्रैवर्णिकामा प्रतिषेधः । मुरा..सरां पिबेत् इति । मधुसीयोस्तु क्षत्रिय पेश्ययोव प्रतिषेधः केवलवाणविषयत्वात् । मयं ब्रामणस्य-इति वचनात् ।…तेनोभी मावा. सपक्षीवापित्याविरुद्धम् । तन्त्रषार्तिक PP. 209-210. उद्योगपर्व 59.5 is ‘उभौ…क्षीवावुभौ चन्दमरूपितो। अग्विणी परवौ तौ दिग्याभरणभूषितो।।

  2. तथा च चरकाः पठन्ति- श्वेतकेतु हारुणेयं ब्रह्मचर्यं चरन्तं किलासो जमाह। तम् अचिनापूचातुर्मधुमांसौ किल से भैषज्यमिति । स होवाच ब्रह्मचर्यमानी कर्थं मषश्नीयामिति। तो घोषः। पदाचामना पुरुषो जीवति अधान्यकत करोमीति, आत्मानं शेष सर्वतो गोपाषेत्। विश्वरूप on पा. L. 33.

__1901. मयं नित्यं पाह्मणः । नित्यमिति वचनान्मयं कृतयुगादावपि पाहाणेन बज्यै क्षत्रियोश्याम्पत कलाषेष । पद्म पुराणम् । …… नराश्वमेधौ मषं च कलौ बज्यै द्विजातिभिः । अपरार्क p. 63.

  1. यो बामणोपपतीह कश्चिन्मोहातारी पास्यति मन्दादिः । अपेतधों बगहा प स स्पादस्मिलोके माहितः स्यात्परेच भादिपर्व 76.67 - मत्स्यपुराण 26.62.

Ch. XXII)

Bhojana-drinking liquor

797

Mausalapārva (1. 29-30) states that Balarāma prohibited the drinking of sura from the day the musala ( iron pestle) for the destruction of the Yadavas was produced and directed that any breach of his order would be punished with impalement. The Sāntiparva ( 110. 22 ) declares that those men who always avoid honey and meat and intoxicants from their birth surmount all difficulties. Santiparva (34. 20) presoribes that, if a man drank liquor when in danger of life or through ignoranoe, he was to undergo upanayana again. Aco. to Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 22. 83-851903 intoxicants (madya) forbidden to brāhmaṇas are of ten kinds viz. those prepared from madhuka flowers, from sugarcane juice, from tanka fruit (i. e. kapittha), from koli (i. a. badara or jujube fruit), from dates, from jack-fruit, from grape juice, from honey, from maireya ( extracted from the blossoms of a plant ) and from cocoa-nut sap. Viṣṇu ad ds that these ten kinds are not forbidden to ksatriyas and vaibyas. Pulastya quoted by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 253 and by Aparārka p. 1075 states that surā ( distilled from rice flour) is different from the eleven kinds of madyas that he enumerates (practically the same as in Viṣṇu). It may be stated that this sentiment against drinking is still very strong among brāhmaṇas and drinking is still looked down upon by all castes, though, owing to contact with the West, some people (even including a few brāhmaṇas ) have come to regard it as a fashionable indulgence.

Manu IX. 80 and Yāj. I. 73 say that a wife who drinks liquor is to be abandoned (even if she be a sūdra woman married to a brāhmaṇe ). The Mit. on Yaj. I. 73 quotes a text (of Parāśara X. 26 and Vas. Dh. 8. 21. 15 ) that half of the body of him whose wife drinks surā is guilty of grave sin'904 (on Yaj III. 256 it is asoribed to Manu ). Vas. Dh. 8. ( 21.11 ) says that & brābmapa wife who drinks surā is not allowed by the gods to reach the world of her husband (after death ) and that she

  1. Ang

i antara R AVET जम् । अमेध्यानि दशैतानि मयानि माझणस्य च । राजम्यश्चैव श्यन सटेतानि न पुण्यति fagur 22. 83-84. These are quoted by PTT p. 926, where the reading is Arata STTHC . TOTT p. 1070 quotes these 48 Tuftrag (reading मेरं तालं खाजूर.), पुलस्य has two viz. सेर and भारिष्ट ( prepared from arista, a kind of berry ) in place of any.

  1. पतस्य शरीरस्य पस्य भार्या सुरा पिवेत् । पतितार्धशरीरस्य मिति विधीयते ॥पसिष्ठ 21. 15 and पराशरx.26, quoted by विश्वरूप स्मुत्यन्तर on पा.

III. 260 (fatto #reto.).798

( Ch. XXII

wanders in this world as a leech in water or as an oyster. 1805 Yāj. III. 256 says the same and adds that such a wife becomes in her subsequent lives a bitch, a vulture or a pig in this world itself,

Viśvarūpa (on Yaj. I. 140 ) quotes a text that a vendor of liquors is to have a flagstaff at his shop to indicate that it is a liquor shop, that his shop was to be in the midst of the village and that he was not to sell sura to the antyajas except in times of distress ( 1. e, in diseases &o.).1908

Megasthenes ( p. 69 ) and Strabo (XV. 1. 53 ) note that Indians did not drink wine except at sacrifices ( in the 4th century B. C.). Gautama 23.1. Manu XI. 90-91, Yāj. III. 253 prescribe that if a person knowingly and frequently drinks sur. i. e. paiṣtı, he can be purified only by death due to the pouring in his mouth of boiling surā or water or ghee or cow’s urine or milk. Yāj. III. 254 prescribes another prayasoitta (expiation ) also. Vas. Dh. . 20. 19, Manu XI, 146 and Yāj. III. 255 prescribe that if any one of the three varṇas drinks surā through ignorance he becomes pure by undergoing the penance of Kșcobra and by having his upangyang performed again. Aparārka (p. 1070 ) quotes & smsti of Kumārs that a child up to five years has to perform no penance for drinking any intoxioant, that after five but before upanayapa the child’s parents or other relative or friend has to undergo it viz. three krochras. 1907

Manu (VII. 47-52) enumerates in the case of kings ten vices springing from love of pleasure and eight vioes produced by wrath and then states that among vices due to love of pleasure drinking, dice, women and hunting are the worst and that drinking is the most pernicious of all the vices of kings. Kautilya VIII. 3 agrees with this. Gaut. XII. 38 and Yāj. II. 47 declare that though sons and grandsons are bound to repay their ancestors’ debt as a pious duty, they are not bound to pay

  1. या ब्राह्मणी च सुगपी न तो देवाः पतिलोकं मयन्तीहैव सा चरति क्षीण gource gwara githi T. OTTIMATE 21.11. The words 47 report…raft occur in the #UT 764 ( vol. II. p. 99 on Tr. III. 2. 8).

  2. ध्वजं च कुर्याशिहाथै समया मामं च संवसेत् । म वान्तावसायियः हरा qurama 1 quoted by far marray on 21. I. 140.

  3. आइपेतस्तु यो बालो मधं मोहास्पिषधदि। तस्य कृच्छत्रयं कुर्यान्माता माता तथा foar it strate in stare p. 1069 ; R egtarunt pot apier ***iterar THATEVIEW Foto Era u Are quoted by saraf p. 1070.

Ch. XXII )

Bhojana

799

debts inourred for liquors, gambling &c. Among the articles that a brāhmaṇa is forbidden to sell even when he is forced to take to trade as a means of livelihood is liquor (Manu X. 89 and Yāj. III. 37).

To return to the subject of bhojana. After finishing one’s midday meal, a person was to chew tāmbula or mukhavasa ( des cribed above p. 734) and it appears that in ancient times persons smoked also certain preparations made with fragrant berbs and medicaments (and not tobacco which was then unknown). For example, Bāṇa describes in the Kādambari ( para 15 ) that king Sādraka after bis mid-day meal took in the smoke of fragrant drugs and then chewed tāmbūla. 1908 In the Caraka-sanhita, sūtra sthāna chap.5, there is a description how & reed was to be smeared with pastes of sandalwood, nutmeg, cardamom and several other drugs and spices, how it was to be eigbt angulas long and as thick as one’s thumb, how it was to be dried and the reed removed and then the dried portion was to be smoked. Vide Indian Antiquary vol. 40 pp. 37-40 for detailed information.

The Viṣṇupurana III. 11. 94 remarks that after taking the mid-day meal one may do acts that would not cause exertion to the body. Dakṣa ( II. 68-69 ) says that after109 taking dinner one should sit at ease and allow the food to be digested and should read and listen to itihāsa and purāṇas in the 6th and 7th parts of the day, and in the 8th part of the day the bouseholder should look into his private worldly affairs and then perform the evening adoration (eandhyā) outside the house. That the higher and middle classes of society attended in the afternoon the recitation of the Mahābhārata (the itihāsa par excellence) and the purāṇas in the 7th century follows from Bāna’s state ment in the Kadambari (para 54) that even queen Vilāgavati on hearing from the Mahābhārate that the sonless do not reach heaven (which was recited in the temple of Mabākāla at Ujjayini) became so extremely dejected and the fact that Bāna

  1. PpUTATANUT Y aaft: &o. 1 ionti para 15.

  2. U TATT eru aftuata graetergrond: * Tra 1 sgk hình 7 : Titaṛ : t T II. 68-69, quoted by su p. 157, f . I. p. 225, 26. . 386.

  3. Ha estat me AgriSA Barat TET FUTUTA 4 माने श्रुतमपुत्राणां किल नमन्ति लोकाः शुभा: पुलाम्नो नरकात् त्रायत इति पुत्र इति। Fram ( TT para 54). Vide sfeer 120. 15-18 where ‘TT SVET: Fa : occurs.

800

is said in the Harṣacarita (III) to have listened after the midday meal to the recitation of the Vayupurāṇa by the reader Sudrsti. Yaj. ( I. 113-114) directs that the rest of the day (till evening) should be spent in the company of śistas (learned and respecta ble people) and of dear relatives and then having performed the evening prayer and offered oblations into the three sacred fires (if he has kept the three Vedic fires) or into gļhya fire, the householder sbould feed guests if they come at night, then he should take his evening meal surrounded by (bis children) and servants, should not eat too much in the evening and then go to sleep. Daksa ( II. 70-71 ) says that after evening he should perform homa, then take his meal, do other household work, then repeat some part of his Veda and sleep for two watches (six hours) and he should devote some time in the first and last watches of the night to reciting the Veda already learnt.

Numerous rules are laid down in the smrtis and digests about sleeping, viz. as to the position of the head, what kind of bed to use, where to sleep and what texts to recite and so on Vide Gaut. II. 13 and IX. 60, Manu IV, 57, 175-176, Yāj. I. 136, Viṣṇupurāṇa III. 11. 107-109 for some of these rules. Among the earliest works to give elaborate rules is the Viṣṇu Dh. S. chap. 70, which is set out here. ‘One should not sleep when one’s feet are wet with water, nor should one have his head towards the north and west or lower (than the other parts of the body ), nor should one sleep naked por below a beam along its length nor in an uncovered place nor on a bed-stead of & palāsa tree nor on one made of five kinds 1911 of wood nor on one made of trees split by an elephant nor on one made of wood burnt by lightning, nor on a broken bed-stead nor on one which is scorched, nor on a bed of trees watered with jars, nor in cemeteries nor in an unoccupied house, nor in a temple, nor in the midst of rash (or mischievous) persons, nor in the midst of women, nor above grain, nor in a stable of cows nor on the bed-stead of elderly persons nor over a fire or over an idol, nor before washing his hands or lips after meals, nor should one sleep by day nor in the twilight nor on ashes, nor on an unclean spot, nor on a wet spot nor on the top of a mountain.’ Vide

  1. The FTTE. (377. p. 457 ) says ‘90 qrato age TUTY AT’. Tbo . . p. 397 remarks ago 7608-C o r

a व धस्यतरं त्रिभिरामजद्धिकरं चतुभिरंधों यशश्चायुष्यं पञ्चवमस्पतिरचिते पञ्चत्वं याति तत्र #: fail. Those seem to be verses in the Giti motro.

Oh. XXII)

Sleep

801

Smrtvarthagāra p. 70, Gr. R. pp. 397-399. Smrtimuktaphala (ahnika pp. 456-458), Abnika-prakasa pp. 556-558 for further details. Some of them may be noted. One should bow to one’s favourite deity and keep a bamboo staff near one’s bed8ys the Smṛtyarthasāra. The Smṛtiratna says that one should not sleep on the same bed with a person suffering from an eye dis ease or with one who is an epileptic or with one suffering from foyer, leprosy, tuberculosis, asthma and hiccough. The Ratnāvali (quoted in Sm. M. abnika p. 457) requires that one should place & jar full of water at the head of the bed-stead, recite Vedic mantras for one’s protection and mantras against poison and also the hymn to Night (Rg. X. 127), remember the five ancient personages well-known as sound sleepers, ‘918 viz. Agasti, Mādbava, Mucakunda, Kapila and Astrka, salute Viṣṇu and then go to sleep. Harita (prose) quoted in Ābnikaprakāśa p. 557 oontains similar rules. Vṭddha-Hārita (VIII. 309-310) says that an ascetic, a brahmacārl, a forest hermit and a widow should not sleep on a cot but on the ground covered over with a deer skin or a blanket or with kuśas.

In connection with the subject of going to bed at night, a good deal is stated in the smrtis and digests about sexual inter course between husband and wife. Some of these rules ( viz. about the proper days for intercourse) have already been stated above (pp. 204-205). Gaut. V.1-2 and IX. 28-29, Ap. Dh.S. II.1.1, 16–23 lay down that a householder is to approach his wife on the proper days or he may do so at any time except on forbidden days or when the wife desires it; he is not to bave intercourse during day-time or when the wife is ill, nor when she is in her courses nor should he embrace her during that period, Ap. Dh, S. II. 1. 1. 19, Vas.‘1% Db. S. XII. 24 and Yaj. I. 81 refer to the boon conferred on women by Indra scoording to a legend narrated in the Tal. 8. II. 5. 1. When Indra killed Viśvarūpa, son of Tvastf, he incurred the sin of brāhmaṇa murder; all beings loudly condenaned him as ‘brahmahan’, and he went about the universo in search of sharers in his sin, of which one third was

  1. Uri nga golat PTTPOTH Faure a dreniran रक्षा कुत्ता स्वपेशिशिरात्रिसूक्तं जपेत्स्सला सच सुखशायिनः । नमस्कृत्वाव्ययं विष्णु समाधिस्थ: स्वपेसिशिखशायिनोपि गोभिलेन दर्शिताः । अगस्तिर्माधषश्चैव मुचकुन्दो AETTEI I Tuoi farefirent sitat gairfa: Il fafa. ( a p. 467 ).

  2. sf 416 fagreitis i FSHETAT: war : Ferrara fron t a TELI THE XII. 24.

. D. 101

802

[ Oh, XXII

taken by the earth (which seoured the boon that when a pit is dug it becomes filled up in a year), one-third by trees (that got the boon that even when pruned they would grow again and the exudation from trees is the part of brahmahalyā that comes out of trees and the red resins exuded are therefore not to be eaten) and one third by women, who got the boon that they would conceive only during their period (of sixteen days) after the recurring occurrence of menses and that they might indulge in intercourse till the time of delivery and in the case of whom the murder is manifested every month. 1914 Viṣṇu Dh. S. chap. 69 puts all rules together, some of which are: A householder must avoid sexual intercourse after having been invited at a grāddha or having partaken of dinner at it or after having given a & grāddba dinner or after performing the initiatory ceremony of soma sacrifice; he must not have intercourse in a temple, in a cemetery, in an empty house or at the root of a tree, in the day time 18 or at twilight, or with a woman older than himself or with a pregnant woman or with one who has a limb too much or is deficient in a limb. Vide Viṣṇupurāṇa III. 11. 110-123 for similar rules on the same topic. Most of the rules are eugenic or based on hygiene, though a few may be held to be only religious or superstitious. Gaut. IX. 26, Ap. Dh. S. II. 1. 1. 21-23 and II. 1. %. 1, Manu IV. 4 and V, 144 say that after intercourse the husband and wife should take a bath or at least wash, sip water and sprinkle water over the body and should sleep on separate beds. Other writers stated different views, 1916

Rajasvala-dharmāḥ. From the times of the Tal. 8. rules have been laid down about the duties of a rajasvalā (& woman in her monthly illness) and about how her husband and other people are to act

…gette at starter er

1.6.1. fi

  1. स श्रीपसावमुपासीदत्-अस्यै ब्रह्महरपाय तृतीयं प्रतिग्रहीतेति। ता अभवन् पर पूणामहा भविपात्मजा बिन्दामहै काममा विजनितोः संभवामेति । तस्मादत्वियात् निया मजा विन्दन्ते । काममा पिजनितोः संभवन्ति । …तृतीये ब्रह्महरपाये प्रत्यगृहन् । सा मलवहा FT Spare &o. 14. #. II. 5. 1. 4-5.

  2. erat ut ge wanafa ofan T Higor och fotat Teat Priority for I. 13.

  3. भती गर्भशायर्या स्मानं मैथुनिनः स्मृतम् । अवतो तु सदा कुर्याच्छौ मधपुरीषषत् ॥ छातापशुची स्याता दम्पती शयनं गतो । शपनादुत्थिता नारी शुचि Forma: TATT 11 TT 52-53 and 16-17; ascribed to staraq in xatirent p. 105, T. T. P. 400 and to gramaTa in fyrer I. p. 120.

Ch. XXII)

Rules about Rajasvala

803

towards her. In the Tai, S. II. 5. 1. it is stated 1917 ‘One should not address a woman who has unolean clothes (i. e. who is in her course) nor should one sit with her, one should not eat her food for she keeps emitting the colour of brāhmaṇa murder; they say woman’s food is unguent, therefore one should not accept unguent from her; but anything else at will may be accepted’. The Tai. Br. III. 7. 1 states ‘Indeed half of this sacrifice is destroyed in the case of him whose wife becomes un. touchable on the day on which the observances for & sacrifice commence (i. e. on the day previous to the performance); but the sacrificer should segregate her (in a different place or house) and offer the sacrifice; by so doing he worships with a sacrifice that is entire (though the wife is absent).“1918 The adhikarana in Jaimini (III. 4. 18-19) is based on these texts; Sabara’s bhāṣya quotes the passage of the Tai. S. and of the Tai. Br. and the conclusion established is that these rules, though occurring in the context of the new moon and full moon sacrifices, are not restricted to those sacrifices, but are to be observed by per sons generally (i. e. they are puruṣārtha and not kratvartha). The Tai. S. II. 5.1 contains thirteen directions about a rajasvalā and deolares what evil results follow from breaches of them. They are: there is to be no intercourse with her, nor in a forest (after she bathes), nor when she is unwilling (after bath ), she should not bathe during the three days, should not bathe with oil in those days, should not arrange her hair with a comb, should not apply collyrium to her eyes, should not brush her teeth, should not pare her nails, should not spin yarn, should not make ropes, should not drink water with a vessel made of palāsa leaves or & vessel that is baked in fire (or is broken). The results of the breaches are respectively that the son ( born of her) becomes suspected or charged with grave sins, a thief, shy and not bold, destined to die in water, has a skin disease,

  1. सा मलद्वासा अभवत् । तस्मान्मलपवाससान संघदेत् । न समासीत । नास्या असमद्याद । ब्रह्महत्यायै ोषा वर्ण प्रतिमुख्यास्तेऽथो खल्वाहः । अम्यक्षानं वाव त्रिपा असम् । 39ea afaud ATHAFTE 18. . 11.5.1.5-6. Babara on Jaimini III. 4.19 says that the words नास्या असमद्यात् अभ्यखन वाव निया अh really enjoin the probibition of approaching her for intercourse and the Tantravartika (p. 952) offers the interesting information that among the Latas “abhyañjana’ is a synonym for sexual intercourse’ aur ft Flataracak समपर्यायान्तरपाध्यलक्षणमुपगमन प्रसिद्धम्।

  2. stay at gay urey oftea fu EUER TETTEKT HURTI ITA ang at Tata Tara 1 . Tr. III, 7. 1. The fate on 9. III. 46 quotes this.

804

(Ch. XXII

has a bald head and is feeble, is squint-eyed, has dark teeth, has bad nails, is impotent, is unrestrained (or commits suicide by hanging), becomes a lunatio, or a dwarf. The Tai. S. further direots that she should observe these rules for three nigbta, should drink water with her hands joined together or with a plate that is not baked in fire. The Bṛ, Up. VI. 4. 13 notes that a married woman in her courses should drink water from & vessel of bronze and should not wash her olothes, a sūdra male or female should not touch her; on the lapse of three nights she should bathe and she should be made to unhusk rice. Many of the sūtras refer to the rules contained in the Tai, S. about the rajasvala (vide Ap. gp. 8. 12,1919 Hir. gs. I. 24. 7, Bhar. gļ. I. 20, Baud. gr. I. 7. 22-36, Baud. Dh. S. 1. 5. 139 ). Vas. Dh. S. V. 7-9 con tains the story of Indra and the boon given to women and also the rules about rajasvalā (adding that she should sleep on the ground, should not sleep by day, should not eat flesh, should not look at the planets, should not laugh). When Vas. Dh. 8. V. 8. and Viṣṇu Dh. 8. 51. 16 forbid the eating of the food of & rajasvali, what is meant is (according to the Gr. R. and other digests) that the food cooked for her or owned by her should not be eaten. Laghu-Harita 38 prescribes that a rajasvalā may eat food from her own band used as a plate; Vṛddba-Hārita (XI. 210-11) says the same and adds that if she be a widow, then she should not take food for three days and that one whose husband is living should have only one meal a day. Rajasvala women were also not to touch one another. Viṣṇu Dh. S. (22. 73-74) prescribes that if & rajasvala touches another rajasvalā of lower var & she should observe a fast from that time till the fourth day when she takes the purificatory bath; while if she touches another rajasvala woman of the same varpa or higher varṇa, she has to bathe and then take her food. More elaborate rules are laid down by Angiras 48 ( who proscribes pañcagavya), Atri 279-283, Ap. (verse) VIL. 20-22, Bșhad-Yana III. 64-68, Parāsara VII. 11-15. If & rajasvala is touched by a cāṇdāla or by any of the antyajas, or by a dog or grow, she has to be without food till she bathes on the 4th day (Angiras 47, Atri 277-279, Apastamba VII. 5-8). If a woman is suffer ing from fever and becomes a rajasvala she is not to be bathed

  1. 9 THT: F ūat nutraforata for mer opf MYTHHT THAT I WT4. V. . 8. 12. The wholo of Vas. Db. 8. V. 7-9 is quoted in T. I. PP. 406-407 and Vas. Dh. 8.V.1 is quoted by faite on a. III 20 and to p. 106.

Oh. XXII)

Rules about Raj asvala

805

on the 4th day to purify her; her purification is to be effected by another healthy woman, who touches her and then herself bathes with her clothes on and this is done te n or twelve times and each time there is sipping of water; then the woman who is ill has her clothes removed and new ones put on and then gifts are made according to ability and she becomes pure (Uganas quoted in Mit. on Yāj. III. 20). Similar verses occur in Angiras 22-23. The same procedure is followed where & male who is ill is touched by a rajasvalā or for some other cause he has to undergo the purification of a bath, viz. a healthy male touches him geven or ten times and bathes after each touob, at the end of whioh the sickly person is to be declared to be free from the impurity (Angiras 21, Parāśard VII, 19-20 quoted in Mit. on Yaj. III. 20). If a rajasvalā dies, then the corpse should be bathed with the five products of the cow (pancagavya), she should be covered with another garment and then should be cremated (& Verse quoted by the Mit, on Yāj. III. 20), while Angiras (42) said that the corpse should be bathed after three days and then it should be oromated. The Mit on Yāj. III. 20 notes that, if & woman who usually has monthly periods, men struates within seventeen days, then she has no impurity; if on the 18th, she becomes clean in one day, if on the 19th in two days and thereafter in three days. Vide Angiras 43, Apastamba (verse) VII. 2, Parāgara VII. 16-17.

So far we have desoribed the daily duties of common men, particularly of brāhmanas. Manu VII. 145-147, 151-154, 216-226, Yaj. I. 327-333 and Kaut. I. 19 dilate upon the daily duties of the king. Kaut divides day and night into eight parts each and states that in the first part of the day the king should take measures for his protection and attend to income and expenditure, in the second he should look into the causes (or disputes ) of the people of the cities and villages, in the third he should bathe, study or recite the Veda and take his meals, in the fourth he should receive revenue in gold and appoint (or examine) superintendents; in the fifth he should correspond with the council of ministers, and receive the secret news brought by his spies; in the sixth he may engage in what ever amusements or sports he likes or in deliberation (on state matters); in the seventh he should review elephants, horses, chariots and soldiers; in the eighth he should consider with the help of his commander-in-chief plans of campaigns. When the day ends he should observe the evening prayer; in the first part

806

bathe 8 secret

should

of the night, he should see secret emissaries, in the second part of the night he may bathe, revise his studies and take supper; in the third he should lie down after the burst of trumpets and sleep in the fourth and fifth; in the 6th he should be awakened by the sound of trumpets, he should bring to his mind the dictates of sāstra and the mode of carrying them out; in the seventh he should deliberate and send out secret omissaries; in the eighth he should receive, being accompanied by his sacrifi. cial priests, acārya and purohita, benedictions and should see his physioian, chief cook and astrologer and having circumambu. lated a cow with her calf and a bull he should go to court. Or the king may divide the parts of day time and night time according to his capacity. Other smṛtikāras differed here and there. Katyāyana prescribed 1920 that the king should devote the three parts of the day time (divided into eight) after the first part to judicial work and if he cannot personally do it, he should appoint & judge. Yāj. (I. 327-333) mostly follows (though concisely ) the routine sketched by Kaut. The Manusmrti also hardly adds anything of importance to what we find in Kaut. It is remarkable that in the Dasakumāra-oarita (ucchrāsa VIII) the author closely following the words of Kautilya as to the engagements of the king during the eight parts of daytime and of night also puts in the mouth of the voluptuous jester Vibārabhadra & parody of Kautilya’s solemn dicta. 1921

As to the ahnika of vaisyas and sūdras no special rules are laid down in the smrtis. They had to adjust the duties set out for brāhmaṇas to their own case according to their circumstances. A vaisya belonged to the twice-born classes and he could do if he chose almost every thing that a brāhmana could (except officiating as a priest or teaching as a profession or receiving gifts ). Vide pp. 154-164 for the disabilities and the few privileges of the sūdra,

  1. Vide note 1610 above. 1921. e.g. अस्थितेन च राज्ञा शालिवाक्षालित मुखे मुष्टिमधमुहिं पाग्यान्सरीकत्य

महा प्रथमेऽष्टमे वा भागे प्रोवायम् । …… द्वितीयेऽन्योन्यविषदमानामा जमानामाकोशा पलमानकर्णः कट जीवति । …… तीये स्मातुं भोक्तं लभते ।…चर्षे frrounding are threftafeti……. Hrafta VIII.