[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Madhuparka
dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti) wrote:
>
>dadhi sarpi jalam kshoudram sitotibhistu panchbhiH.
>prochyate madhuparkastu sarvadevaughatoshanam.
>
>This verse says that the components of Madhuparka is youghourt, ghee,
>water, honey and molasses.
Yes, That is what I wrote in my previous communication.
>
>However, in Manusamhita, there is this verse:
>
>madhuparkecha yajne cha pitridaivatakarmani.
>atraiva pashavo himsya nAnyatretyavravinmanuH. 5.41
>
>This verse says that, for madhuparka and pitri and Devayajnas, animal
>slaughter is allowed, otherwise not.
>
>It is entirely possible that for madhuparka, animal slaughter was used in
>older times and such a practice was discontinued later.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Dhruba.
But this verse, in my opinion is an interpolation. I have explained my
reason earlier. It is against the direct injunction of the Vedas.It is
also in direct conflict with an earlier sloka in manusmriti it self.
AcharyaM cha pravaktAraM pitaraM mAtaraM gurum
na himsyAd brhmaNAn gAMshcha sarvAshchaiva tapasvinaH 4.162
" a teacher, a propounder(of scriptures), father, mother, guru ,brahmaNa,
and a cow should never be killed.They are all tapasvins.
This means cow slaughter is in par with the murder of a teacher, father,
mother and brahmaNa. This was probably the reference one of the earlier
correspondents on this thread had in mind. ( I lost the thread and I
don't remember who it was, sorry)
If there are conflicting statements, shr^ti is to be taken as the final
authority and not smr^ti. In the present case the sloka quoted by Dhruba
is in conflict with an earlier sloka in the same Manusmr^ti and of course
in conflict with the shr^ti. Hence it should be discarded as invalid.
with regards,
- Narahari Achar
