DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5832#0234
INSTITUTES OF MENU.
203
man is described as devouring a sheep alive, and a
series of lithographic illustrations accompanies the de-
scription, representing, with a disgusting minuteness
of detail, every part of the revolting process.
Although the most rigid Hindoos profess that in
their sacred book, they are prohibited from destroy-
ing animal life, yet many even of those restrict this
prohibition to tame, and especially to what we call do-
mestic animals, assuming the privilege of killing such
as are wild. Few of them, however, are so con-
scientiously punctilious as not to slaughter a sheep or
a goat when oppressed by the calls of a sharp appetite,
nor do they hesitate on such emergencies to quote
some gloss on their sacred scriptures as an authority
for the practice under circumstances of necessity.
They find it no very difficult matter to make inclina-
tion and necessity co-ordinate in their code of moral
obligation.
It is indeed certain that in the Institutes of
Menu, which contain the whole formula of Hindoo
duties, both civil and religious, the killing of animals
is, with some limitations, allowed even to Brahmins;
and I believe it is only those of the Jain and Bud-
dhist sects who abstain from this practice altogether.
The following is an extract to this purport from that
celebrated formulary. " Beasts and birds of excellent
sort may be slain by Brahmins for sacrifice, or for
the sustenance of those whom they are bound to
support." Thus it is clear that they are permitted
to slay for sustenance as well as for sacrifice. It is
a common error that Hindoos may not eat flesh or
destroy life; but the prohibition is particular not
203
man is described as devouring a sheep alive, and a
series of lithographic illustrations accompanies the de-
scription, representing, with a disgusting minuteness
of detail, every part of the revolting process.
Although the most rigid Hindoos profess that in
their sacred book, they are prohibited from destroy-
ing animal life, yet many even of those restrict this
prohibition to tame, and especially to what we call do-
mestic animals, assuming the privilege of killing such
as are wild. Few of them, however, are so con-
scientiously punctilious as not to slaughter a sheep or
a goat when oppressed by the calls of a sharp appetite,
nor do they hesitate on such emergencies to quote
some gloss on their sacred scriptures as an authority
for the practice under circumstances of necessity.
They find it no very difficult matter to make inclina-
tion and necessity co-ordinate in their code of moral
obligation.
It is indeed certain that in the Institutes of
Menu, which contain the whole formula of Hindoo
duties, both civil and religious, the killing of animals
is, with some limitations, allowed even to Brahmins;
and I believe it is only those of the Jain and Bud-
dhist sects who abstain from this practice altogether.
The following is an extract to this purport from that
celebrated formulary. " Beasts and birds of excellent
sort may be slain by Brahmins for sacrifice, or for
the sustenance of those whom they are bound to
support." Thus it is clear that they are permitted
to slay for sustenance as well as for sacrifice. It is
a common error that Hindoos may not eat flesh or
destroy life; but the prohibition is particular not