Chapter XXII. Bhojana

Volume II: Part II pp. 757–806

Chapter XXII. Bhojana

Bhojana (taking one's meals) :—Dakṣa (II. 56 and 68) states that in the fifth¹ part of the day the householder should make according to his capacity the gods, pitṛs, men and even lower animals (lit. insects) participators (in food) and after doing that, he should himself partake of the remainder of the food cookeḍ Thus he was to take his meals during one hour and a half after nooṇ 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 injunctions and taboos about fooḍ 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 timeṣ In the Chāndogya 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 looseneḍ'²

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 down just as men sit down to take food'). 'A person was to take food³ only twice a day' says the Tai. Br. I. 4. 9. and the Śat. Br. II. 4. 2. 6. There were certain taboos about articles of food even in the earliest textṣ 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 axe &c.) should not be eaten, since that colour is due to the (sharing of) brāhmaṇa- 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 dīkṣita (one initiated for a Vedic sacrifice) till the performance of vapāhoma by hiṃ Rg. I. 187 (vv. 1-7) is a hymn in praise of fooḍ The story of Uṣasti Cākrāyaṇa 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 Vedāntasūtra (III. 4. 28-31, sarvānnuūmatis-ca prāṇātyaye tad-darśanāt) is based on this episode in the Chāndogya. In the Ait. Ār. V. 3. 3⁴ it is stated that 'one who knows this (i. e. the Mahāvrata) should not recite these texts before one who knows it not nor dine with him nor should he take delight in his company.' The sages are said in the Kauṣītaki 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 dāsī. 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 takeṇ The Gr. R. p. 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 fooḍ Whoever eats the food of another partakes of that man's siṇ' Therefore elaborate regulations are laid down about everything relating to fooḍ Āp. Dh. S. I. 11. 31. 1, Vaṣ 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. S. 68. 41 and Āp. Dh. S. 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 which 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 specifieḍ 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 Sṃ C. quotes¹⁸¹³ verses of Devala, Uśanas and the Padmapurāṇa 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 may¹⁸¹⁴ eat in the company of one’s sons, younger brothers, dependents &c. Some writers went so far as¹⁸¹⁵ to recommend that ‘one should take one’s food alone and not in the company of even one’s relatives or other brāhmaṇas, 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 Bṛhaspati 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 a well-known proverb that nine bhayyas have ten hearthṣ The place where one takes one’s food should be freshly cowdunged and pure. Āp. Dh. S. (I. 5. 17. 6-8) says that one should not take one’s food in a boat nor on a wooden platform, but may do so on a pure floor. One was not to eat while seated on an elephant, or horse or camel 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 wash one's hands and feet before sitting down to take one's meal. Manu IV. 76 says (= Anusāsana 104. 61-62 and Atri in Jīvānanda, part 1, p. 9) that one should begin one's dinner while one's feet are wet, since that leads on to long life. Vyāsa quoted in Sṃ 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. ⁸ All writers prescribe that one should observe silence or at least restraint of speech at the time of meals (e. g. vide Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 7. 2, Laghu-Hārīta 40). Vṛddha-Manu quoted by the Sṃ C. I. p. 223 ⁹ requires complete silence till five morsels are taken and restraint in speech thereafter. Following the Vedic injunctions quoted above, Gaut. IX. 59, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 7. 36, Manu II. 56, Sām- 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-smṛti (II. 33) says the same and adds ¹⁰ that the evening meal may be taken till one prahara and a half (i. e. 4½ 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. S. 68. 48). Āp. Dh. S. (II. 8. 19. 10) allows partaking of roots and fruits between two mealṣ Below the vessel or plate or leaf from which one eats, one has to draw a figure with water or holy asheṣ According to the Brahmapurāṇa (quoted in Gr. R. p. 311) the maṇḍalas (figures) for brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras should respectively be in the form of a square, a triangle, a circle and a crescent; while according to Śaṅkha (in Sṃ C. I., p. 221), Laghu-Śatātapa 133, Atri (Jīvānanda chap. V. 1, p. 7) in the case of the śūdra water is to be sprinkled on the ground below his plate. The reasons for drawing a maṇḍala are stated by these authorities to be that the Ādityas, Vasus, Rudras, Brahmā and other gods partake of only that food which is offered after a maṇḍala is made and that evil spirits and goblins carry away the flavour of the food when no maṇḍala 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 palāśa 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 Smṛtyarthasāra p. 69. The vessel or plate from which one is to eat is to be placed on the maṇḍala drawn on the grounḍ The vessel from which to eat may be of gold, silver, copper, lotus or palāśa leaves (vide Veda-Vyāsa III. 67-68, Paithīnasi quoted in Āhnika-prakāśa p. 467). A copper vessel is forbidden to house-holders who should use bell-metal (kāṁsya) vessel. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 8. 19. 3) says that a copper plate with gold in the centre¹¹ is recommendeḍ But a bronze plate for eating from, tāmbūla and a luxurious bath with oil &c., were not allowed to an ascetic, a brahmacārin and a widow.¹² Hārīta (quoted by Sṃ C. I. p. 222) stated that one was not to eat in an iron or earthen vessel, but Āp. Dh. S. (I. 5. 17. 9-12)¹³ prescribes 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 a wooden plate may be used provided it is thoroughly scraped from inside. Manu IV. 65 states that one should not eat from a broken vessel, but Paithīnasi remarks that there is nothing wrong in eating from a broken plate made of copper, silver, gold, conch-shell, or stone.¹⁴ Some smṛtis forbade lotus or palāśa leaves, but the Āhnika-prakāśa p. 467 explains that this prohibition holds good only if the lotus plant grows on dry land (and not in a pond or the like) or when the palāśa is a young plant. Paithinasi (in Sṃ C. I. p. 222) prescribes that one who desires wealth should not eat on a plate made of the leaves of the vaṭa, arka, aśvattha, kumbhi, tinduka, kovidāra and karañja treeṣ Vṛddha-Hārita 8. 250-256 prescribes that the plate may be of gold, silver or bronze or any leaf allowed by śāstras, that leaves of palāśa 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 alloweḍ Even now in modern times people prefer (particularly in caste 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 treeṣ Before sitting down to take one's food, one has to perform ācamana (twice) outside the place where one is to eat and has to perform ācamana after taking his mealṣ This practice was most ancient, as it is attested by the Chāndogya Up. V. 2. 2¹⁵ and the Bṛ. Up. VI. 1. 14. The rule is laid down by Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 16. 9,¹⁶ Manu II. 53, V. 138 and others also. Vide Devala (quoted in the Smṛtimuktāphala, āhnika, p. 418) for ācamana outside the room for mealṣ When sitting down to eat a person must wear his sacred thread in the upavīta form (Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 15. 1) and must also have an upper garment,¹⁷ but should not cover his head (Manu IV. 45 II. 238, Āp. Dh. S. II. 2. 4. 22-23 and II. 8. 19. 12). A darvī (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 not in giving water or uncooked food (vide Sṃ C. I. p. 223 quoting several smṛtis). The householder may wear in his hand gold or jewel (ring &c,) at the time of mealṣ Gaut. IX. 59, Vaṣ Dh. S. III. 69, Manu II. 54-55 say that when 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. Vaṣ Dh. S. (III. 69-71) says “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 śrāddhas and ‘it was perfect’ as to food offered in ābhyudayika rites¹⁸ (i. e. in marriage &c.). Kullūka (on Manu II. 54) and the Gr. R. (p. 314) quote verses of the Ādipurāṇa (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 hiṃ After the food is served on the plate or dish, the eater should sprinkle water round it and say ‘I sprinkle thee that art satya (truth) with ṛta (right order)’ (in the morn- ing) and ‘I sprinkle thee that art ṛta with satya’ (in the evening).¹⁹ 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 Sṃ C. I. p. 224 and Āhnikaprakāśa p. 465 ).²⁰ 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 ‘sarvebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ svāhā’). He should then sip a little water with the words ‘thou art the seat of ambrosia (amṛtopastara- ṇam-asi) and at the end of the meal the words used are ‘thou art the cover of ambrosia’ (amṛtāpidhānam-asi). All this has been prescribed from very ancient times and has continued to this day. Yāj. I. 106 calls this sipping of water āpośāna (tak- ing in of water) and its purpose is to make food beneficial like amṛta (nectar) and to cover it as if with a garment. He then offers five morsels on which ghee is sprinkled to the five modes of prāṇa preceded by the word ‘om’ and ¹⁸²⁹ followed by ‘svāhā’. These five prāṇāhutis are mentioned in the Chāndogya Up. V. 19–23, where prāṇas are enumerated in the order prāṇa, vyāna, apāna, samāna and udāna. The Vedāntasūtra III. 3. 40–41 explains that the Chāndogya passage applies only when one sits down to dinner and not when one goes without it. Medieval digests quoting Bṛhat-Parāśara added a sixth offering to Brahman after the prāṇāhutis and this is done in modern timeṣ While the āhutis to prāṇa are being offered complete silence (absence of all sound including even ‘hum’) is to be observeḍ Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 7. 6) insists on complete silence throughout the meal and if one speaks, one has to mutter the words ‘Om bhūr bhuvaḥ svar-om’ and then eat further oṇ Others allow speech after prāṇāhutis for refusing food or condi-ments or for dharma. Vide Sṃ M., āhnika p. 423 which quotes Śāṇḍilya 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 theṃ’ Śaunaka quoted by Sṃ C. I, p. 223, Vṛddha-Hārīta 8. 263–265 dilate upon the different fingers of the hand that are to be employed in taking the five āhutis to the life breaths while the Bhojana-sūtra says that according to Baudhāyana all āhutis were to be offered with all the fingerṣ Hārīta quoted in the Sṃ C. I. p. 226 states that mārjana, offering bali, worship and eating should be done with the tips of fingerṣ 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 morselṣ¹⁸³⁰ The diner is not to allow any sound of eating to escape, he is to put each morsel in his mouth with all the fingers including the thumb,²³ he is not to wave his hanḍ 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 curds; a 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 (Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 7. 10). Some smṛtis prescribe that while taking each morsel one should say ²⁴ ‘Govinda’. At the time of eating, several postures are forbidden, viz. one should not stretch one's feet or place them on another seat (a footstool &c.) 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 Smṛtimuktāphala, āhnika p. 425). Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 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 stale fooḍ But Bauḍ disapproved of these. Manu IV. 43, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 68. 46 and Vaṣ Dh. S. XII. 31²⁵ say that one should not eat together with one's wife and Vaṣ Dh. S. adds the reason that by so doing the child born has no strength as stated in the Śat. 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 Sṃ C. (I. p. 227) and other digests quote a smṛti verse which allows a brāhmaṇa 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 Smṛtyarthasāra (p. 69) says that one can eat in the same dish with one's wife at the time of marriage. The Mit. on Yaj. I. 131 says the same.

Various rules are laid down as to how much one is to eat. Two famous verses quoted by Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 13, Vaṣ Dh. S. VI. 20–21 and Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 7. 31–32 are 'an ascetic should eat eight morsels,²⁶ a forest hermit 16, a householder 32 and a Vedic student an unlimited number. One who has conse-crated the Vedic fires, a draught ox and a brahmacārin are able to perform their work by eating, they cannot perform work when they do not eat'.²⁷ Āp. 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 Āp. Dh. S. itself (II. 1. 1. 2) that one should take only two meals a day does not apply to one who has consecrated the Vedic fireṣ Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 7. 33–34 goes further²⁸ and says that if a house-holder (who is āhitāgni) and a Vedic student practise austerities by observing a fast they are guilty of sin, because they thereby cause cessation of agnihotra to the life-breathṣ But there is no sin if a fast is observed by these as a penance for some lapse. Śabara on Jaimini V. 1. 20 (p. 1301) appears to favour the idea that an āhitāgni may eat several²⁹ 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 (Śaṅkha quoted by Aparārka p. 150). While several brāhmaṇas are taking their meal in a continuous row, if one of them takes ācamana³⁰ before the others, or gives the remains of his food to the pupil or gets up, the others should leave eating the food in their dishes and also get up and the brāhmaṇa who thus prematurely gets up is called a brahmahā (a murderer of a brāhmaṇa or brahmakaṇṭaka ). These rules are quoted in the Sṃ C. ( I. p. 227 ), Gṛ. R. p. 331, Smṛtimuktā- phale ( āhnika p. 427 ). In order to avoid this awkward position various devices were employeḍ A paṅkti (row of diners ) ceased to be a continuous line if two diners were separated from each other by fire, by ashes, by a pillar, a passage, or a door or by the ground being of a lower level. Aparārka (p. 476 ) quotes Bṛhaspati that even if persons are seated in one row, but they are separated from each other by ( streaks of ) ashes 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. ). Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 2 says 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 occupations that were deemed low were not invited at śrāddhaṣ Gaut.³⁰ XV. 28-29, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 8. 2, Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 21-22, Vaṣ Dh. S. III. 19, Viṣṇu 83. 2-21, Manu III. 184-186, Śaṅkha ( in verse ) 14. 1-8, Anuśāsanaparva 90, 34, the Vāyu ( chap. 79 and 83, Ānanḍ eḍ) and several other purāṇas contain long lists of those brāhmaṇas who sanctify the company of diners when they sit down for dinner (they are paṅkti-pāvanas) and of those who defile the company of diners by their presence in the row of diners (they are paṅkti- dūṣakas). A paṅktipāvana is one who knows the six aṅgas of the Veda (vide note 775 above), who has studied the Jyeṣṭhasā- man, who has kindled the Nāciketa fire, who knows the three madhu verses, who has studied the texts called Trisuparṇa, 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 Brāhmaṇa of his Veda, who has studied dharmaśāstra and who is the son of a woman married in the brāhma forṃ Āp. Dh. S. adds ‘one who has performed the four medhas’ (Aśvamedha, Sarvamedha, Puruṣamedha and Pitṛmedha, 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 a thousand cows), one who has reached the age of one hundred are all paṅkti- pāvanaṣ Śaṅkha states that one who is devoted to Yoga, one who regards gold and a clod of earth as equal, an ascetic given to contemplation are all paṅktipāvanaṣ Anuśāsana 90. 34 and Vāyu 83. 52-55 include those who study the bhāṣyas, those who are devoted to grammar, those who study the purāṇas among paṅkti-pāvanaṣ 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 (Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 21); those who engage in acts not fit for brāhmaṇas, 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 śūdras (Śaṅkha XIV. 2-4). Vide Aparārka 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 a penance was prescribed as if he had committed brāhmaṇa murder.³² If while dining one brāhmaṇa touches another, he should give up eating or after finish- ing his meal he should mutter the Gāyatrī verse 108 times (as penance). In modern times generally the eyes are touched with water if this happenṣ If a diner touched a server who had a vessel containing food, the server should place the vessel con- taining food on the ground, should perform ācamana, the food in the vessel should have water sprinkled over it and then it may be serveḍ One was not to eat or drink with the left hanḍ 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 ( Yāj. I. 138 ), but when not eating food one may drink water with the bare right hanḍ After finishing one’s meal one is to repeat the āpośana ‘amṛtāpidhāna-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 tāmbūla.³³ Āśvalāyana ( in verse ) recommends 16 mouthfuls of water ( gandūṣa ) for cleansing the mouth after dinner ( Āhṇ 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 ³⁴ 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 child that might eat the remnants of the food of its parents and guru ( vide Smṛtimuktāphala, āhnika p. 431 ). Remnants of food were not to be given to a śūdra unless he was one’s dependent ( Manu IV. 80, Āp. Dh. S. I. 11. 31. 25–26 ). Atri ( quoted in Sṃ C. 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 Āp. Dh. S. II. 2 4. 24. The plate of a brāhmaṇa may be removed by a brāhmaṇa ( but not by any one else ) and the plates of the brāhmaṇas invited at a śrāddha repast were to be removed by the person who performed the śrāddha 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-Āśvalāyana I. 165–166 ). Most of the above rules may more or less be exemplified from the descriptions of the procedure of eating set out in Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 7, from the Bhojanasūtra of Kātyāyana for the followers of the white Yajurveda, from Hārīta quoted in the Gr. R. pp. 316-17 among the ancient writers and from the Smṛtyarthasāra pp. 68-69 among the authors of digestṣ It is impossible to set out any of them here for want of space, but an extract from the last work is given in the Appendix.³⁵

There were certain rules about abstaining from food in the case of eclipses of the sun and the mooṇ They are set out in the Sṃ C. I. pp. 228-229, the Smṛtyarthasāra (p. 69), Matsya- purāṇa chap. 67, Aparārka pp. 151, 427-430. During the period of eclipse one was not to eat anything. Not only so but for 4 praharas (i. e. 12 hours) and 3 praharas (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 tarpaṇa or śrāddha. Then one was to bathe after ³⁶ the eclipse was over and take fooḍ If the sun sets while still eclipsed, one should bathe the next day on seeing the sun and then take fooḍ If the moon rose eclipsed, one was not to eat anything during the day next to that on which the moon rises eclipseḍ 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 described even in the Rg.V.40.5-9 and it was supposed to be brought about by an asura. The Asura Svarbhānu is said to have pierced the sun with darkness in the Kāṭhaka S. XI. 5 and the Tai. S. II. 1. 2. 2; the Śāṅ. Br. 24. 3 and Tāṇḍya Br. (IV. 5. 2, IV. 6. 13) speak of an eclipse. In the Atharva- veda 19. 9. 10 the Sun and Rāhu are brought together. The Chāndogya Up. VIII. 13. 1 states that the knowing self shakes off his body when going to the world of Brahma like a horse shedding his hair or like the moon released from the mouth of Rāhu.

Viṣṇu Dh. S. (68. 4-5) prescribes that a man was not to eat when a cow or a brāhmaṇa met with an accident or when the king was in distress (or dead). 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 takeṇ These rules occur in most of the smṛtis It would be impossible to do justice to all of theṃ The following smṛtis deal with this matter at length. Gaut. 17, Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 16. 17-I. 6. 19; Vaṣ Dh. S. 14, Manu VI. 207–223, Yāj. I. 167–181. The Śāntiparva chapters 36 and 78, the Kūrmapurāṇa (uttarārdha chap. 17), Padma (ādīkhaṇḍa chap. 56), and several other purāṇas deal with this topic. Among the digests the Sṃ C. II. pp. 418–429, the Gṛ. R. pp. 334–395, the Madanapārijāta pp. 337–343, the Smṛtimuktāphala (āhnika pp. 433–451), the Āhnikaprakāśa 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-purāṇa³⁷ which states the various reasons for food being forbidden viz. jātiduṣṭa or svabhāvaduṣṭa (i. e. forbidden on account of its very nature) such as garlic, leek, onion &c.; kriyāduṣṭa (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 &c., or because one in a row takes ācamana or rises before others; kāladuṣṭa (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; saṁsargaduṣṭa (spoilt by foul contact) such as what comes in contact with a dog or wine or garlic, or hair or insects &c.; sāhṛllekha (what causes disgust to the mind) such as faeces &c. To those may be added rasaduṣṭa (what has lost its flavour) such as pāyasa or kṣīra on the same day; parigrahaduṣṭa (what is forbidden simply because it belongs to a particular individual such as patita). Aparārka (p. 1157) says that condemned food, partaking of which is an upapātaka (a minor sin), is of six kinds, viz. due to svabhāva, kāla, samparka (same as saṁsarga), kriyā, bhāva, and parigraha.³⁸ An example of bhāvaduṣṭa given by Aparārka is sugarcane 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 bhāvadusta.³⁹

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 ox for offering to gods (particularly 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 ramṣ In Rg. VIII. 43. 11⁴⁰ 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 ‘aghnyā’ (vide Rg. I. 164. 27 and 40, IV. 1. 6, V. 83. 8, VIII. 69. 21, X. 87. 16 &c.). The word ‘aghnyā’ appears to mean ‘one that does not deserve to be killed’ and the Nirukta (XI. 43)⁴¹ 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 meat and cows yielding milk were held to be not fit for being killeḍ 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.’⁴² In Rg. VIII. 101. 16. the cow is called ‘devi’ (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 ox for agricultural purposes, in the family economy and as means of exchange must have powerfully contributed to making the cow a divinity. In the gṛhya sūtras (like Āśv. I. 24. 25 ), Ṛg. VIII. 101. 15 is prescribed as the mantra when in the Madhuparka ceremony the cow is let loose by the guest. The Atharvaveda (XII. 4) fully recognises the cult of the holiness of the cow. That the cow continued to be offered in sacrifices follows from several Brāhmaṇa passages e. g. Tai. Br. III. 9. 8. In the Śat. 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’⁴³ (tender?). The Ait. Br. (6. 8)⁴⁴ states that the horse, the ox, the goat and ram are sacrificial animals while the kimpuruṣa, gauramṛga, gavaya, the camel and śarabha ( a mythical animal with eight feet ) were not sacrificial and their flesh should not be eateṇ The Śat. Br. I. 2. 3. 9 contains a similar prohibitioṇ The Śat. Br. XI. 7. 1. 3 declares that ‘meat is the best kind of fooḍ’ 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, curds and ghee of her milk, her urine and dung mixed with water in which kuśa blades had been placed was looked upon as⁴⁵ purification for many lapseṣ Yāj. III. 314 mentions the ingredients of pañcagavya. The Bauḍ gr. śeṣa-sūtra (II. 20) contains an elaborate note on the preparation of pañcagavya, the quantities of the five ingredients, the Vedic verses to be recited when preparing it. Parāśara XI. 28-34, Devala 62-65, Laghuśātātapa 158-162, Matsyapurāṇa 267. 5-6 and other works contain similar ruleṣ Parāśara prescribes that the urine, dung, milk, curds and ghee should be of cows the colours of which are respectively dark, white, copper-red, dark-red and brown or that all ingredients may be of a brown (kapilā) cow. There is some difference of view about colours and also about the quantitieṣ According to Parāśara urine, ghee, and water should be one part each, milk seven parts and cowdung so much as the thumb. According to Atri. 299 dung, urine, ghee and milk were to be respectively 1, 2, 4 and 8 parts and curds also 8 partṣ When mixing the ingredients, urine is taken with the sacred Gāyatrī, cowdung with ‘gandhadvārām’ (Tai. Ār. X. 1), milk with ‘āpyāyasva’ (Rg. I. 91. 16), curds with ‘dadbhikrāvṇo’ (Rg. IV. 39. 6), ghee with ‘tejosī śukram’ (Vāj. S. 22. 1) and kuśa water with ‘devasya tvā’ (Ait. Br. 37. 3, Vāj. S. 22. 1). The pañcagavya thus prepared is to be placed near the fire, then it is to be stirred to the accompaniment of ‘āpo hi ṣṭhā (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 ‘Irāvatī’ (Rg. VII. 99. 3), ‘idam Viṣṇur’ (Rg. I. 22. 17), ‘mā nastoke’ (Rg. X. 114. 8), and the śamvatī verse (Rg. X. 9. 4) and then the remainder is to be drunk by one who prepares it with the verse noted below.⁴⁶ The vessel in which the pañcagavya is to be prepared must be of copper or gold or of palāśa or lotus leaves (Par. M. II. 1 p. 434 quoting Prajāpati). Viṣṇu Dh. S. 54. 7 and Atri 300 say that a śūdra drinking pañcagavya and a brāhmaṇa drinking surā (liquor distilled from flour) are equally sinful and fall in hell. But Devala 61 and Parāśara XI. 3 and 27 allow śūdras (and women) to take pañcagavya but without Vedic mantraṣ Therefore the digests like Śūdra- kamalākara (p. 42) say that a śūdra can take pañcagavya only as a prāyaś-citta (penance) for a sin and not otherwise. Pañcagavya is also called brahmakūrca. Atri 301 declares that the dung of a cow that eats unclean things is not to be employed for purificatioṇ A smṛti passage declares that he in whose house there is not even one cow with her calf becomes devoid of all maṅgalas (auspicious things) and darkness does not leave hiṃ A cow was said to be holy in all limbs except her mouth (Medhātithi on Manu V. 128 quotes 'gāvo medhyā mukhād-ṛte') and so Manu V. 124 requires food smelt or licked by a cow to be purifieḍ 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 brāhmaṇa murder. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 16. 18 declares that even an untouchable (bāhya) went to heaven by giving his life in defence of brāhmaṇas, cows, women and childreṇ Vide Viṣṇu Dh. S. 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 collocation of the words 'go-brāhmaṇahita' (the welfare of cows and brāhmaṇas) in an inscription of Rudradāman (E. I. vol. VIII. p. 44). Vide Gupta inscriptions p. 89 (for 'go-brāhmaṇa-purogābhyāḥ sarvaprājābhyah). These words also occur frequently in the Rāmāyaṇa (Bālakāṇḍa 26. 5, Araṇya 23. 28) and in the Matsyapurāṇa 104. 16. The Kapilā (brown) cow was said to be the most auspicious and meant for provi ding milk for agnihotra and brāhmaṇas, and the śūdra 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.⁴⁷ These verses are quoted by the Āśv. gr. S. (I. 1. 4) and explained (vide p. 677 above). The Śat. Br. XI. 6. 1. 3⁴⁸ adumbrates the later doctrine that the eater of meat is eaten in the next birth by the animal killeḍ The Chāndogya Up. III. 17 regards that tapas, charity, straightforwardness, ahimsā and speaking the truth are the fee (of the symbolic sacrifice). 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 saṁsāra.⁴⁹ It appears that the causes that led on to the giving up of flesh at least by some people were 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 philosophical 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 defilement caused by eating flesh (vide note 1810 above about ‘āhāraśuddhi’). Sāṅkha asks people to give up flesh, wine, onions and garlic because the body is built up on the food eateṇ⁵⁰ The notion that the eater of flesh would be devoured by the eaten in the next birth had nothing to do with the early stages of the doctrine of ahiṁsā, 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 animal food became unnecessary owing to the climate and the abundance of corn and vegetableṣ Though opinions may differ as to the causes, it cannot 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 worlḍ⁵¹ 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 dharmasūtraṣ Even the Vedāntasūtra (III. 1. 25) does not admit that the killing of animals in sacrifice is impure. The Br. Up. which contains a full statement of the doctrine of transmigration (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.⁵² Not only other animals, but even the cow, was on certain occasions killed according to the gṛhya and dharma sūtras on several occasions e. g. (1) in śrāddhas (Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 16. 25 ), (2) for a distinguished guest in Madhuparka (Āśv. gr. I. 24. 22-26, Vaṣ Dh. S. IV. 8 ), (3) in the Aṣṭakā śrāddha (Hir. gr. II. 15. 1, Bauḍ gr. II. 11. 51, Vaik. IV. 3), (4) a bull in the Śūlagava sacrifice (Āśv. gr. IV. 9. 10).

In the Dharmasūtras numerous rules are given about the flesh of beasts and birds and about fisheṣ Gaut. 17. 27-31, Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 35, Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 39-40, Yaj. I. 177, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 6, Śaṅkha (quoted by Aparārka p. 1167), Rāma- yaṇa (Kiṣkindhā 17. 39), Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa (35. 2-4) prescribe that one should avoid the flesh of all five-nailed animals except ⁵³ of porcupine, hare, śvāvidh (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 cocks and hogs and of cows and bullṣ Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 29-31 first forbids the flesh of animals with one hoof only, of camels, of gavaya (Gayal), of the village hog, of the śarabha and of cows, but adds the exception that the flesh of milch cows and of bulls may be eaten as the Vājasaneyaka declares the flesh of these to be pure. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 2. 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. Āp. Dh. S. I. 3. 11. 4 declares that a student had not to observe anadhyāya if he ate stale food or uncooked flesh. Āp. Dh. S. II. 3. 7. 4 says that if flesh was offered to a guest, the merit was equal to the performance of the Dvādaśāha sacrifice. The Mahābhāṣya 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.’ Vaṣ Dh. S. XI. 34 ⁵⁴ goes so far as to say that if an ascetic 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 yearṣ Gradually, however, a 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 (śramaṇas) abstained from animal food and sexual intercourse (probably as brahmacārins) 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 Aśoka declares in his first Rock Edict how originally thousands of animals were killed in the royal kitchens, how he then brought down the number to two peacocks and one deer daily and how he had resolved to discontinue the slaughter of even this limited number thereafter. Vide also the 2nd and 4th Rock Edictṣ In the fifth pillar edict (Delhi-Topra) the Emperor Aśoka notes that when he had been twenty-six years on the throne he declared numerous animals (such as parrots, mainas, haṁsas, cakravākas, tortoises, porcupines, fishes &c.) to be avadhya (not to be killed). The general rule as stated⁵⁵ by Āp. 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 śrāddha. Therefore some of the smṛtis like those of Manu and Vasiṣṭha are in two minds about the use of flesh. Manu (V. 27-44) at first contains a permission to kill animals only in madhuparka, in sacrifices⁵⁶ and in rites for gods and manes and on no other occasioṇ 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 maneṣ 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 sacrificial posts are made), lower animals, birds, that meet destruction for the sake of performing sacrifices are born again in better forms ( of existence ) and that himsā ( killing of or injury to sentient beings ) done according to the dictates of the Veda should be understood as no himsā⁵⁷ since dharma shines forth from Veda alone. Though Vasiṣṭha Dh. S. ( in 14. 39–40 ) allows the flesh of five five-nailed animals and of animals with one row of teeth ( except camels ) 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 verse ( V. 48 which is the same as Vaṣ 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 horse-sacrifice every year for a hundred years and of him who does not partake of flesh ( throughout life ) is equal and that the word mām̃sa ( flesh ) is derived by the wise ( from ‘mām̃’ and ‘sah’ ) 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. Manu 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 gratification 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 rewardṣ⁵⁸ From these passages in Manu, Viṣṇu and Vaṣ it is clear that when the extant works attributed to these authors were composed, they themselves were staunch upholders of ahiṁsā, 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 hiṁsā was not improper and another class that indulged in flesh-eating without restrictionṣ That in spite of the individual predilections of the author of the Manusmṛti, general usage was different even in Manu's day is indicated by the fact that in III. 227 Manu says that in śrāddha the performer should get ready various kinds of food including flesh of tempting varietieṣ Yāj. I. 258-260 states how flesh of various animals when served in śrāddha to the brāhmaṇas invited tends to cause satisfaction to the Manes for long periodṣ Bṛhas-pati quoted by Sarvajña-Nārāyaṇa explained Manu V. 27 as a pari-saṅkhyā i. e. Manu does not enjoin flesh-eating on the four occasions stated, but only permits it and forbids it on other occasionṣ⁵⁹ Centuries were required before the views pro-pounded by Manu became predominant. Gradually large sec-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 Bhāgavata-purāṇa⁶⁰ (VII. 15. 7-8) which is to the Vaiṣṇavas what the Bible is to the Christianṣ In medieval and modern times all brāhmaṇas avoid flesh (except some brāhmaṇas in northern and eastern India that hold that fish may be eaten); so also do many vaiśyas, particularly those who are Vaiṣṇavas and even among śūdras there are many who do not touch flesh and regard abstention from flesh as meritoriouṣ From ancient times the kṣatriyas have been meat-eaterṣ The Mahābhārata has in several places to say a great deal on flesh-eating. In the Vanaparva 50. 4 it is stated that the Pāṇḍava heroes killed with unpoisoned arrows deer and first offered venison to brāhmaṇas and partook of it themselveṣ In Sabhā 4. 1-2 king Yudhiṣṭhira on the opening of Mayasabhā feasted ten thousand brāhmaṇas with various delicacies including the flesh of wild boars and deer. Vanaparva 208. 11-12¹⁸⁶⁸ offers the consoling thought (that is conveyed by the Ṛgveda 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- śāsana 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. Anuśāsana 116. 16-19 allows flesh of animals killed by hunting to kṣatriyaṣ There are some passages where the Mahābhārata contains the same sentiments as those of Manu e. g. Anuśāsana 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). Śaṅkha quoted by Aparārka p. 1167 allows the flesh of buffaloes, goats, rams, ruru deer ordinary deer and spotted deer. Hārīta quoted in the Gr. R. p. 375 mentions the flesh of goats, rams, buffaloes, deer of various kinds (ruru, pṛṣata, nyaṅku, ṛkṣa), rhinoceros, and large forest boars as permissible, while Devala quoted by the same forbids the flesh of cows, asses, camels, horses, elephants, lions, tigers, bears, śarabhas, snakes, boa constrictor, rats and mice, cats, mongoose, village hog, dog, jackal, animals of un- known species, cheetas, dark-faced apes, monkeys and human beingṣ Manu V. 51 (= Viṣṇu Dh. S. 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 eater of meat—these are all guilty of killing. Yama (quoted in Āhṇ Pr. p. 533) says that the eater is the greatest sinner out of these, as, if there were no eaters of meat, no one would kill animals for fooḍ

Gaut. 17. 29 and 34-35, Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 32-34, Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 48, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 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 which was alloweḍ A few of these may be noteḍ All birds that subsist on raw flesh (vultures &c.), the cāṭaka, parrot, haṁsa, all birds that dwell in a village (such as pigeons), baka, birds that scratch dunghills for food are forbidden; while wild cocks and peacocks were permitteḍ On Jaimini V. 3. 26-28 Śabara quotes a Vedic text that one who has constructed the fire altar (agnicit) should not eat the flesh of birds till the sacrifice he has embarked on is finisheḍ

About fish there is no unanimity. Ap. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 36-37 says 'among fish the ceta (long-nosed crocodile ?) is forbidden, so also are fish with snake-like heads, 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 Paṭhīna and Rohita if used in rites for gods and Manes and fish called rājīva, lion-faced fish and fish having scaleṣ Vide Vaṣ 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, Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 22-24, Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 34-35, Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 5. 156-158, Manu V. 8-9, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 38-41, Yāj. I. 170 lay down that the milk of a cow that is sandhinī⁶² the calf 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 forbiddeṇ 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 forbiddeṇ The Mit. (on Yāj. I. 170) notes that even the curds 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 sandhinī, or who has not passed ten days after delivery is forbidden and not curds and other products thereof. The milk of even a cow that feeds on impure food should not be used⁶³ (Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 41 and Atri verse 301). In the Vāyupurāṇa even the milk of she-buffaloes is forbiddeṇ⁶⁴ Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 5. 159-160) prescribes the penance called Prājāpatya for drinking forbidden milk of all animals except the cow and a fast for three days for drink- ing the milk of a cow when forbiddeṇ Āpastamba-smṛti (in verse) forbids the milk of a kapilā cow to all except to brāhmaṇas and the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa says that even a brāhmaṇa is to use only such portion of the milk of such a cow that remains after employing it in rites for godṣ⁶⁵ The Brahma- purāṇa says 'one should not partake of curds at night even if one is starting on a journey, but in madhuparka 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 Gṛ. R. p. 370). Manu IV. 75 forbids the eating after sunset of all food in which sesame are mixeḍ

Several herbs and vegetables have been forbidden from very ancient timeṣ According to Āp. Dh. S. (I. 5. 17. 25–27) all herbs from which liquors are distilled, kālañja (red garlic), palāṇḍu (onions), parārika (dark garlic) and whatever similar vegetables are not used by respectable people, should not be eaten; and a brāhmaṇa text prescribes that ' kyāku ' (mush- rooms) are forbiddeṇ Gaut. 17. 32–33 forbids tender leaves (of trees), kyāku, laśuna and the resins of trees and the red sap flowing from incisions made in the barks of treeṣ Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 33 forbids the eating of laśuna, palāṇḍu, kyāku, gṛñjana (turnip), śleṣmātaka, the resins of trees and red sap (as in Gautama). Manu V. 5-6 forbids laśuna, palāṇḍu, gṛñjana, mushrooms (kavaka) and all herbs that spring from impure soil and manure, red resins and red sap (as in Gautama) and śephu (śleṣmātaka) fruit. Yāj. I. 171 and 176 adds śigru and pres- cribes the penance of cāndrāyaṇa for eating forbidden herbs and vegetableṣ The great difficulty is to find out the modern equivalents of some of the herbs and vegetableṣ According to a verse quoted in Gṛ. R. p. 356 from the Smṛtimāñjarī there are ten varieties of palāṇḍu of which gṛñjana ⁶⁶ is one. Aparārka p. 249 quotes passages from the Brahmapurāṇa forbidding various kinds of herbs and vegetableṣ Vide also Gṛ. R. pp. 354-356 for quotations from Devala and others about herbs and vegetables that are forbiddeṇ The Mit. on Yaj. 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.⁶⁷ About asafoetida ( hīṅgu ) Haradatta on Gaut. 17. 32 says ‘it is doubtful whether it is a resin or is a sap flowing from incisions, but even respectable people partake of it and that camphor not being red nor a resin nor a sap may be eateṇ’ The Sṃ C. ( on śrāddha p. 413 ) says that some smṛtis forbid the use of hīṅgu in śrāddha, while the Ādipurāṇa allows it and therefore there is an optioṇ The Gṛ. R. p. 354 shows that the round alābu ( gourd ) was forbiddeṇ Vṛddha-Hārīta VII. 113-119 mentions herbs, vegetables and fruits that are forbiddeṇ Vide also the Smṛtimuktāphala ( āhnika pp. 434-435 ) for quotations as to the names of several roots, fruits and vegetables that were fobid den together with their South Indian nameṣ

Āp. Dh. S. II. 8. 18. 2 forbids the use of dark grains ( like māṣa beans ) in śrāddha. The Mahābhāṣya says ‘when it is declared that māṣa beans should not be eaten, they are not to be eaten even when other grains of corn are mixed up with them’ (vol. I. p. 127).⁶⁸ The Gṛ. R. p. 359 quotes the Brahmapurāṇa⁶⁹ forbidding the use of certain cereals generally such as rājamāṣa, sthūlamudga ( called ‘methī’ in Marathi ), masūra &c. Śaṅkha-Likhita ⁷⁰ quoted in Āhṇ Pr. p. 394 allows the employment in offering to gods of all cereals, except kodrava, caṇaka ( gram ), māṣa, masūra, kulattha and uddālaka. Vṛddha-Hārīta VII. 110-111 also mentions the corns that are forbiddeṇ

Gaut. 17. 14-16, Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 17-19, Vaṣ Dh. S. 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, porridge, pulse cakes, those boiled in oil and rice boiled in milk or when mixed with honey; and that even stale food flavoured with ghee or curds or the remnant of food offered to the gods may be eateṇ Manu V. 25, Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 37-38, Āp. 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 jātiduṣṭa or svabhāvaduṣṭa. The rules about not eating stale and sour food illustrate food that is kāladuṣṭa. Any article of food which is mixed up with forbidden things like palāṇḍu or is in contact with unclean substances or food in which hair or an insect is found or in which excreta or the limb or tail of a mouse is found, food touched by a woman in her monthly course or in which a bird (like the crow) has thrust its beak or food touched by a dog or smelt by a cow or food from a house in mourning or from a family in impurity due to birth should be avoided (vide Āp. Dh. S. 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 a man is eating or if a person when engaged in taking his meal sees a cāṇ- ḍāla, a dog, a crow or a cock or a woman in her course, he should leave the food and get up. Manu (III.239-240) says that a cāṇḍāla, a village hog or a village cock or a dog, a 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 giftṣ Kātyāyana says that if a brāhmaṇa hears the voice of a cāṇḍāla, a paṭīta, 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.⁷¹ The rules about not eating food from a house in mourning illustrate food that is nimittaduṣṭa (forbidden by reason of an occasion or chance reason), the other rules about food forbidden because of contact with unclean things or with garlic &c. exemplify saṁsarga-duṣṭa (forbidden because of contact) and the rules about avoiding food seen by a dog &c. are examples of kriyā-duṣṭa (forbidden on account of certain actions). The smṛti writers were not devoid of practical common sense. Bauḍ 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 loudly declare the food to be all right and it may be then used for serving. Vaik. ⁷² IX. 15 contains a similar directioṇ Parāśara VI. 71-74 says that cooked food (rice) amounting in quantity to one droṇa or one āḍhaka, ⁷³ if licked by a dog or by a crow 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 a golden piece has been dipped and fire should be brought in contact with it ( by ignited darbha ) and brāhmaṇas should recite Vedic texts over it and then it may be serveḍ Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 23 and 25-26, Yaj. I. 189 and 191 contain similar ruleṣ ⁷⁴

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 saṁskāra-duṣṭa (forbidden on account of the absence of purificatory rites) by the Smṛtyarthasāra p. 68. The largest number of injunctions are concerned with parigraha-duṣṭa (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. S. I. 6. 18. 16-33 and I. 6. 19. 1, Gaut. 15. 18 and 17. 17-18, Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 2-11, Manu IV. 205-220, Yaj. 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 (śrauta and gṛhya) fires, a miser (who stints even his parents, children, wife through greed), one imprisoned (or fettered), a thief, an impotent person, a wrestler (or one who subsists by going on the stage), a vaina i. e. a worker in bamboo (or naṭa according to Viśvarūpa), a singer, an actor, an abhitaśasta (one charged with having committed a mahāpātaka), a usurer, a courtezan, a saṅgha or a gaṇa (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 Soma ; vide Ap. Dh. S. I. 6. 18. 23-26 which quote the Ait. Br.), a physician (who subsists by the practice of medicine), a surgeon, a fowler, a hunter (for selling flesh), one suffering from an incurable disease, one who is irascible or cruel, an un- chaste woman, a matta (one intoxicated or puffed up by wealth and learning), an enemy, an ugra (one ferocious in look or words or a man of that caste), patita (an outcast), vrātya (vide pp. 376-379 above), a hypocrite (or swindler), one who eats the remnants of others' food (or of a śūdra), a woman whose husband is not living and who has no son, a goldsmith, a hen- pecked husband, one who serves as a priest to the whole village, a vendor of weapons, a blacksmith, a niśāda, a tailor, a śavṛtti (one subsisting by keeping dogs, or one who does menial ser- vice), a king, ⁷⁵ a king’s purohita, a rājaka (a washerman or dyer), an ungrateful person, one who makes his livelihood by killing animals, a 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 (as long as he has no son or child), ⁷⁶ a sonless man (Mit. on Yāj. III. 290 quoting Likhita), one who starts a sacrifice without studying the Veda, a 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 him), a grāma- kūṭa (a village officer, Aparārka p. 239), a parivitti, a parivividāna, the husband of a śūdra woman or of a remarried widow, the son of a punarbhū, a worker in hides, a potter, a spy, one who becomes an ascetic without following the rules laid down for that āśrama, a lunatic, one who has sat down at his debtor's house in dharma. Manu IV. 222 prescribes a fast for three days if a brāhmaṇa partakes of the food of these unknowingly, but the kṛcchra (Prājāpatya) for knowingly doing so. Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 3. 10 prescribes the japa of Rg. IX. 58 (tarat sa mandī) for eating the food of one from whom it should not have been takeṇ Manu XI. 253 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 56. 6 do the same.

The next question is whose food may be takeṇ Great fluc- tuations have occurred in the usages during the last two thousand years or more in this matter. Gaut. 17. 1 says 'a brāhmaṇa may eat at the houses of all dvijātis (the three higher varṇas) who are well-known to be performing the peculiar duties of their varṇa or āśrama.' Gaut. 2. 41, Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 2. 18-19, Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 3. 25 allow a brahmacārin to beg for food at the houses of men of all varṇas, except those who are apapātra and abhītaśa (suspected of mahāpātakas). Āp. Dh. S. I. 6. 18. 9 first prescribes for a brāhmaṇa who has returned from his teacher's house that he should not eat in the houses of the kṣatriya 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 śūdras, provided they abide by the rules for their varṇa. He also notices that even śūdra's food may be eaten if he serves a dvijāti in virtue of his duty to do so. Even Veda- Vyāsa III. 56 expressly declares that all dvijātis who know each other's families may partake of food at each other's houseṣ⁷⁷ Āp. 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 viewṣ Kaṇva 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); Vārṣyāyaṇī said that one may accept from whoever is liberal enough to give; Eka, Kuņika, Kāṇva, Kutsa and Puṣkarasādi held that alms (food) offered by a pure man may be eaten; Vārṣyāyaṇī said what is offered by any body without asking may be accepted; according to Hārīta one should not accept food which is offered after an express previous announcement 'I shall give you such and such a kind of fooḍ' 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 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 accepteḍ 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 other than his owṇ 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 tendency to considerably relax these restrictionṣ We saw above that in the times of Gautama and Āpastamba and others a brāhmaṇa was allowed to take food prepared in the houses of kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and even śūdraṣ Gradually this latitude came to be restricted and most of the sūtras and early smṛtis restrict the liberty to take food from śūdras by saying that only from the following among śūdras a brāhmaṇa can take cooked food, viz. one who cultivates the brāhmaṇa's field on the system of paying half of the crops to the latter, a family friend, one's cowherd, one's barber, one doing personal service i. e. a dāsa ( vide Gaut. 17. 6, Manu IV. 253, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 16, Yāj. I. 166, Aṅgiras 120-121, Veda- Vyāsa III. 55 and Parāśara XI. 21 ). Manu and Yāj. add that any śūdra 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 brāhmaṇa is also bhojyāanna ( one whose food may be eaten ). The Mit. quotes a sūtra which includes the potter among these ( on Yāj. I 166 ) and Devala also does so.⁷⁸ It may be stated that Parāśara (XI. 22-24) gives peculiar meanings to the words dāsa, nāpita, gopāla and ārdhika. The general rule forbidding the food of śūdras is stated by Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 4, Manu IV. 211 and 223, Yāj. I. 160. Aṅgiras 121 says that he who takes cooked food from śūdras other than the five excepted above has to undergo cāndrāyaṇa penance. Atri ( 172-173 ) prescribes the same penance for a dvija eating the food of a washerman, an actor and a worker in bamboos and the penance of parāka for taking the food of or residing amongst antyajaṣ Vaṣ Dh. S. VI. 26-29, Angiras 69-70, Āp. (verse) 8. 9-11 severely condemn a brāhmaṇa partaking of food from śūdraṣ Angiras 75, Āp. (verse) VIII. 8-9 declare that a brāhmaṇa who is an agnihotrin and yet does not desist from śūdra food loses five viz. his self, his vedic 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 śūdras had not become rigid in all provinces of India. Angiras 77-78. Āp. (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 a kṣatriya's only on parvans (on full moon &c.), at a vaiśya's when the latter is initiated for a sacrifice, at a śūdra's never and the food of the four varṇas is respectively like nectar, milk, food and blooḍ⁷⁹ According to Manu IV. 223 a brāhmaṇa could take from a śūdra uncooked food for a night, if he had no other means of subsistence. When exactly brāhmaṇas were forbidden to take food from kṣatriyas or vaiśyas it is difficult to say. In the Kalivarjya section all that is forbidden is taking food from the five śūdras 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, curds, roasted grain, śafari (small fish), priyaṅgu (millet), a garland, meat of deer, vegetables must not be refused when offered by any one spontaneously. Vaṣ Dh. S. 14. 12, Manu IV. 50 are to the same effect. Angiras⁸⁰ quoted in Gr. R. p. 337 states that cow's milk, barley flour, oil, oil-cakes, cakes (of flour) may be taken from a śūdra and eaten and whatever else is cooked in milk. Bṛhat-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 such vessel; 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 theṃ⁸¹ Laghu-Śātātapa 128 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 forbiddeṇ Even such later writers as Haradatta stated that a brāhmaṇa may eat the food of the five śūdras 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-lavaṇa (vide Āp. Dh. S. 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 an ascetic were forbidden many things (which will be discussed later on). A śatriya was not to drink soma juice (vide p. 140 above).

There were rules about the persons who might be engaged to cook and serve fooḍ As brāhmaṇas could in very ancient times eat the food of all varṇas including at least some śūdras, 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 a 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 śūdras supervised by āryas may be the cookṣ Āp. Dh. S. further requires that when śūdras 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 their clothes oṇ Laghu-Āśv. 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 Nārāyaṇa that food must be served to a dvijāti by a wife of the same caste ( if he has wives of different castes ).

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, Yāj. 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 fooḍ

It is necessary to say a few words on drinking liquor ( madyapāna ). In the Ṛgveda a distinction is made between soma and surā (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 godṣ In Ṛg. VII. 86. 6 the sage ⁸² Vasiṣṭha implores Varuṇa 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 (gambling) or heedlessnesṣ In Ṛg. VIII. 2. 12 the sage exclaims that draughts of soma when quaffed by Indra create in his heart such tumult as those who are heavily intoxicated engage in when surā is drunk. Ṛg. I. 116. 7 mentions among the deeds of Aśvins this that they filled a hundred jars of surā from the hoof of their powerful horse which (hoof) was like kāroṭara (a strainer or leather-bag?). Ṛg. I. 191. 10 refers to the leather-bag (of wine) in the house of a vintner. In belauding bhojas (liberal men) Ṛg. X. 107. 9 says that they won the inner draught of surā (from their foes). In Ṛg. X. 131. ⁸³ 4 and 5 the Aśvins are praised for having drunk surāmā (surā mixed with soma) and helped Indra in his fight with the Asura Namuci. In the Atharvaveda IV. 34. 6 the reward for the performer of sacrifices is said to be heaven in which there are lakes full of ghee and honey, and wherein liquor flows like water. In Atharvaveda 14. 1. 35-36 and 15. 9. 2-3 surā is referred to. The Vāj. S. 19. 7 distinguished between surā and soma 'thou art the powerful surā and this is soma; don't destroy me when thou interest thy place'. In the Tai. ⁸⁴ S. II. 5. 1 ff, the Śat. Br. I. 6. 3 and V. 5. 4 there is a legend of Viśvarūpa, the son of Tvaṣṭr, which narrates how he had three heads, one of which was soma-drinking, one wine-drinking and a third for eating food, how Indra cut off the heads of Viśvarūpa, how Tvaṣṭṛ being furious at the slaughter of his son performed a soma sacrifice from which he excluded Indra, how Indra, though not invited, consumed all the soma that was in the tub, how the drinking of too much soma injured Indra and how the gods healed him by the iṣṭi called Sautrāmaṇī (for Sutrāman, ‘the good protector’, Indra). This Sautrāmaṇī sacrifice was performed for a 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 (Śat. Br. XII. 7. 3. 4). In this sacrifice a 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.⁸⁵ How surā (liquor) was prepared is described in the Śat. Br. XII. 7. 3. 5 and in Kātyāyana śr. 19. 1. 20–27 (vide S. B. E. vol. 44, p. 223 ṇ 2 which summarises the coṃ on Kātyāyana). In Jaimini III. 5. 14–15 there is a discussion about the Sautrāmaṇī sacrifice and Śabara 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 Śat. Br. contrasts soma and of surā by saying ‘soma is truth, prosperity, light and surā is untruth, misery, darkness’ (V. 1. 5. 28). The Śat. Br. V. 5. 4. 21 expresses dread⁸⁶ of mixing up the libations of soma and of surā together. The Kāṭhaka saṃhitā XII. 12 contains the follow- ing interesting remark. “Therefore an elderly person or a 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 kṣatriya; one should say to a brāhmaṇa that surā, if drunk by a kṣatriya, does not harm the latter.”⁸⁷ This passage makes it clear that at the time of the Kāṭhaka saṃhitā public opinion had come to this stage that brāhmaṇas had generally given up drinking surā. This passage read with the Tai. Br. quoted above establishes that it had become difficult to find a brāhmaṇa willing to drink even the remnants of surā left after being offered in a sacred Vedic rite like the Sautrāmaṇī. The above passage from the Kāṭhaka is quoted by the Tantra- vartika on Jaimini I. 3. 7 (p. 210) and explained by it as referring to sidhu (rum) and liquor prepared from honey. Śamkarācārya in his bhāṣya on the Vedāntasūtra III. 4. 31 quotes⁸⁸ this passage expressly from the Kāṭhaka saṃhitā. In the Ait. Br. (37. 4) it is stated that when a king has undergone a solemn coronation ceremony the purohita places in his hand a vessel of surā. Aśvapati, king of Kekaya, proudly declares in the Chāndogya 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 sinnerṣ

It is somewhat strange that in some of the gṛhya sūtras it is stated that in the rites on Anvaṣṭakā day when piṇḍas are offered to the male ancestors, piṇḍas are offered to the mother, paternal grandmother and paternal great-grandmother and also liquor is offereḍ For example, the Āśv. gṛ. II. 5. 5 says that 'to the wives (of the ancestors) are offered surā and the scum of boiled rice in addition' (to the piṇḍas) .⁸⁹ The Pār. gṛ. (III. 3) states 'also to the female ancestors he makes piṇḍa offerings and pours for them liquor and water oblations into pitṣ' The Kāṭhaka gṛ. (65. 7-8) also prescribes that in the Anvaṣṭakā surā was to be sprinkled with a spoon about the piṇḍas for women ancestors and the piṇḍas were to be eaten by servants or by niṣādas or may be thrown in fire or water or brāhmaṇas may eat theṃ It is difficult to account for thiṣ If a conjec- 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 gṛhya sūtras) intercaste marriages being allowed, the women ancestors might have been kṣatriya or vaiśya 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 womeṇ Whatever the reasons for the above directions in the gṛhya sūtras may be, they run counter to the prevailing sentiments, not only of the Kāṭhaka Saṁ. and the Brāhmaṇa texts, but also to the unanimous prescriptions of the dharmasūtras and smṛtis

Gaut. II. 25,¹⁸⁹⁷ Āp. Dh. S. I. 5. 17. 21, Manu XI. 94 forbid all kinds of intoxicants to brāhmaṇas at all stages of life. Āp. Dh. S. I. 7. 21. 8, Vaṣ Dh. S. 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 Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 2. 4 notes that among the five peculiar practices of the brāhmaṇas in the north was that of drinking rum and it condemns all the five practiceṣ The verses of Manu ( XI. 93-94)¹⁸⁹⁸ are frequently quoted in digests and commentaries ‘surā is the filthy refuse of food and sin indeed is called male (filth); therefore, a brāhmaṇa, a rājanya, and a vaiśya 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; brāhmaṇas 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 paiṣṭī (liquor prepared from flour) as Vedic usage in the Sautrāmaṇī sacrifice and elsewhere shows, that paiṣṭī is forbidden to all brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, that it is the drinking of paiṣṭī alone that constitutes a mahāpātaka, that all intoxicants are forbidden to brāhmaṇas but liquors other than paiṣṭī such as those prepared from molasses or madhūka flowers are not forbidden to kṣatriyas and vaiśyaṣ In the Mahābhārata (Udyogaparva 59. 5) both Vāsudeva and Arjuna are described as intoxicated by drinking the liquor prepared from honey and the Tantravārtika tries⁹² to establish that there was nothing wrong in this as they were kṣatriyas and as Manu XI.93-94 and Gaut. II. 25 are to be construed as stated above viz. all intoxicants are forbidden to brāhmaṇas and only paiṣṭi to kṣatriyas and vaiśyaṣ Intoxicants are not forbidden to śūdras, though Vṛddha-Hārita (IX. 277-278) declares that some desire that good śūdras should abstain from surā also and that Manu says that even a śūdra 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 (Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 23, Manu II. 177, Yāj. I. 33). Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 33 refers to a passage from the Caraka-śākhā which states that when Śvetaketu suffered from a skin disease (kilāsa), the Aśvins 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 ways⁹³ as a man can say ‘I shall perform meritorious acts’ only if he liveṣ Aparārka quotes the Brahmapurāṇa and says that in the Kali age human sacrifice, Aśvamedha sacrifice and intoxicating drinks were forbidden to the three varṇas and to brāhmaṇas in all yugas (ages). But this is opposed to history and traditioṇ⁹⁴ The Mahābhārata narrates (Ādiparva 76-77) the story of Śukra, his daughter Devayānī and pupil Kaca and states that Śukra forbade for the first time brāhmaṇas from drinking intoxicants and declared that, if any brāhmaṇa drank surā thenceforward, he would be guilty of the grave sin of brāhmaṇa-murder.⁹⁵ The Mausalaparva (1. 29–30) states that Balarāma prohibited the drinking of surā from the day the musala (iron pestle) for the destruction of the Yādavas was produced and directed that any breach of his order would be punished with impalement. The Śāntiparva (110. 22) declares that those men who always avoid honey and meat and intoxicants from their birth surmount all difficultieṣ Śāntiparva (34. 20) prescribes that, if a man drank liquor when in danger of life or through ignorance, he was to undergo upanayana agaiṇ Acc. to Viṣṇu Dh. S. 22. 83-85⁹⁶ intoxicants (madya) forbidden to brāhmaṇas are of ten kinds viz. those prepared from madhūka flowers, from sugarcane juice, from tańka fruit (i. e. kapittha), from koli (i. e. 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 adds that these ten kinds are not forbidden to kṣatriyas and vaiśyaṣ 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 śūdra woman married to a brāhmaṇa). The Mit. on Yāj. I. 73 quotes a text (of Parāśara X. 26 and Vaṣ Dh. S. 21. 15) that half of the body of him whose wife drinks surā is guilty of grave sin⁹⁷ (on Yāj. III. 256 it is ascribed to Manu). Vaṣ Dh. S. (21. 11) says that a brāhmaṇa wife who drinks surā is not allowed by the gods to reach the world of her husband (after death) and that she wanders in this world as a leech in water or as an oyster.⁹⁸ 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 Yāj. 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 surā to the antyajas except in times of distress (I. e. in diseases &c.).⁹⁹

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 surā i. e. paiṣṭī, 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 prāyaścitta (expiation) also. Vaṣ Dh. S. 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 Kṛcchra and by having his upanayana performed agaiṇ Aparārka (p. 1070) quotes a smṛti of Kumāra that a child up to five years has to perform no penance for drinking any intoxicant, that after five but before upanayana the child’s parents or other relative or friend has to undergo it viz. three kṛcchraṣ¹⁰⁰

Manu (VII. 47-52) enumerates in the case of kings ten vices springing from love of pleasure and eight vices 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 kingṣ Kauṭilya VIII. 3 agrees with thiṣ 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 debts incurred 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 𝑡ā𝑚𝑏ū𝑙𝑎 or 𝑚𝑢𝑘ℎ𝑎𝑣ā𝑠𝑎 (described above p. 734) and it appears that in ancient times persons smoked also certain preparations made with fragrant herbs and medicaments (and not tobacco which was then unknown). For example, Bāṇa describes in the Kādambarī (para 15) that king Śūdraka after his mid-day meal took in the smoke of fragrant drugs and then chewed tāmbūla.¹⁰¹ In the Caraka-saṃhitā, sūtra-sthāna chap. 5, there is a description how a reed was to be smeared with pastes of sandalwood, nutmeg, cardamom and several other drugs and spices, how it was to be eight aṅgulas 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 smokeḍ Vide Indian Antiquary vol. 40 pp. 37-40 for detailed informatioṇ

The Viṣṇupurāṇa 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 after¹⁰² 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 householder should look into his private worldly affairs and then perform the evening adoration (saṁdhyā) 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 Bāṇa’s statement in the Kādambarī (para 54) that even queen Vilāsavatī on hearing from the Mahābhārata that the sonless do not reach heaven (which was recited in the temple of Mahākāla at Ujjayini) became¹⁰³ extremely dejected and the fact that Bāṇa is said in the Harṣacarita (III) to have listened after the midday meal to the recitation of the Vāyupurāṇa by the reader Sudṛṣṭi. Yāj. (I. 113-114) directs that the rest of the day (till evening) should be spent in the company of śiṣṭas (learned and respectable 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 gṛhya fire, the householder should feed guests if they come at night, then he should take his evening meal surrounded by (his children) and servants, should not eat too much in the evening and then go to sleep. Dakṣa (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 smṛtis 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 ruleṣ 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 nor below a beam along its length nor in an uncovered place nor on a bed-stead of a palāśa tree nor on one made of five kinds¹⁰⁴ 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 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 mountaiṇ' Vide Smrtyarthasāra p. 70, Gr. R. pp. 397-399, Smṛtimuktāphala (āhnika pp. 456-458), Āhnika-prakāśa pp. 556-558 for further detailṣ Some of them may be noteḍ One should bow to one's favourite deity and keep a bamboo staff near one's bed—says the Smṛtyarthasāra. The Smṛtiratna says that one should not sleep on the same bed with a person suffering from an eye disease or with one who is an epileptic or with one suffering from fever, leprosy, tuberculosis, asthma and hiccough. The Ratnāvalī (quoted in Sṃ M. āhnika p. 457) requires that one should place a 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 (Ṛg. X. 127), remember the five ancient personages well-known as sound sleepers,¹⁰⁵ viz. Agasti, Mādhava, Mucakunda, Kapila and Āstīka, salute Viṣṇu and then go to sleep. Hārīta (prose) quoted in Āhnikaprakāśa p. 557 contains similar ruleṣ Vṛddha-Hārīta (VIII. 309-310) says that an ascetic, a brahmacārī, 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 kusaṣ

In connection with the subject of going to bed at night, a good deal is stated in the smṛtis 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 have intercourse during day-time or when the wife is ill, nor when she is in her courses nor should he embrace her during that perioḍ Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 1. 19, Vaṣ¹⁰⁶ Dh. S. XII. 24 and Yāj. I. 81 refer to the boon conferred on women by Indra according to a legend narrated in the Tai. S. II. 5. 1. When Indra killed Viśvarūpa, son of Tvaṣṭṛ, he incurred the sin of brāhmaṇa murder; all beings loudly condemned him as ‘brahmahan’, and he went about the universe in search of sharers in his sin, of which one third was taken by the earth (which secured 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 brahmahatyā 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.¹⁰⁷ 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 śrāddha or having partaken of dinner at it or after having given a śrāddha 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 time¹⁰⁸ 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 superstitiouṣ Gaut. IX. 26, Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 1. 21-23 and II. 1. 2. 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 bedṣ Other writers stated different viewṣ¹⁰⁹

Rajasvalā-dharmāḥ.

From the times of the Tai. S. rules have been laid down about the duties of a rajasvalā (a woman in her monthly illness) and about how her husband and other people are to act towards her. In the Tai. S. II. 5. 1. it is stated¹¹⁰ 'One should not address a woman who has unclean 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 a 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). '¹¹¹ The adhikarana in Jaimini (III. 4. 18–19) is based on these texts; Śabara'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 declares what evil results follow from breaches of theṃ 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 drink water with a vessel made of palāśa leaves or a 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, 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 lunatic, or a dwarf. The Tai. S. further directs that she should observe these rules for three nights, should drink water with her hands joined together or with a plate that is not baked in fire. The Br. Up. VI. 4. 13 notes that a married woman in her courses should drink water from a vessel of bronze and should not wash her clothes, a śūdra 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 rajasvalā (vide Āp. gr. 8, 12,¹¹² Hir. gr. I. 24. 7, Bhar. gr. I. 7. 22-36, Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 5. 139 ). Vaṣ Dh. S. V. 7-9 contains 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 Vaṣ Dh. S. V. 8. and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 16 forbid the eating of the food of a rajasvalā, 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 eateṇ Laghu-Hārita 38 prescribes that a rajasvalā may eat food from her own hand used as a plate; Vṛddha-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. Rajasvalā women were also not to touch one another. Viṣṇu Dh. S. (22. 73-74) prescribes that if a rajasvalā touches another rajasvalā of lower varṇa she should observe a fast from that time till the fourth day when she takes the purificatory bath; while if she touches another rajasvalā woman of the same varṇa or higher varṇa, she has to bathe and then take her fooḍ More elaborate rules are laid down by Angiras 43 (who prescribes pañcagavya), Atri 279-283, Āp. (verse) VII. 20-22, Bṛhad-Yama III. 64-68, Parāśara VII. 11-15. If a rajasvalā is touched by a caṇḍāla or by any of the antyajas, or by a dog or crow, she has to be without food till she bathes on the 4th day (Angiras 47, Atri 277-279, Āpastamba VII. 5-8). If a woman is suffering from fever and becomes a rajasvalā she is not to be bathed 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 ten 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 (Uśanas quoted in Mit. on Yāj. III. 20). Similar verses occur in Angiras 22-23. The same procedure is followed where a 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 seven or ten times and bathes after each touch, at the end of which the sickly person is to be declared to be free from the impurity (Angiras 21, Parāśara VII. 19-20 quoted in Mit. on Yāj. III. 20). If a rajasvalā dies, then the corpse should be bathed with the five products of the cow (pañcagavya), she should be covered with another garment and then should be cremated (a 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 cremateḍ The Mit. on Yāj. III. 20 notes that, if a 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 dayṣ Vide Angiras 43, Āpastamba (verse) VII. 2, Parāśara VII. 16-17.

So far we have described the daily duties of common men, particularly of brāhmaṇaṣ Manu VII. 145-147, 151-154, 216-226, Yāj. 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 campaignṣ When the day ends he should observe the evening prayer; in the first part 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 śāstra and the mode of carrying them out; in the seventh he should deliberate and send out secret emissaries; in the eighth he should receive, being accompanied by his sacrifi-cial priests, ācārya and purohita, benedictions and should see his physician, 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. Kātyāyana prescribed¹¹³ 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 a judge. Yāj. (I. 327-333) mostly follows (though concisely) the routine sketched by Kauṭ. The Manusmṛti also hardly adds anything of importance to what we find in Kauṭ. It is remarkable that in the Daśakumāra-carita (ucchvāsa VIII) the author closely following the words of Kauṭilya 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 Vihārabhadra a parody of Kauṭilya's solemn dicta.¹¹⁴

As to the āhnika of vaiśyas and śūdras no special rules are laid down in the smṛtis They had to adjust the duties set out for brāhmaṇas to their own case according to their circumstanceṣ A vaiśya belonged to the twice-born classes and he could do if he chose almost every thing that a brāhmaṇa 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 śūdra.