मांसाहार : एक विवेचना
Summary
The text discusses a controversy regarding claims that Lord Mahavira consumed meat, based on a misinterpretation of a passage from the Bhagavati Sutra. It emphasizes that words can have multiple meanings depending on context, using the example of "saindhava," which can mean either a horse or salt. The author, Acharya Shri Mahapragya, critiques a book by Professor D.N. Jha that asserts Mahavira ate meat, arguing that such claims lack proper research and reliance on authentic sources. The controversy arises from a specific incident in the Bhagavati Sutra where Mahavira, suffering from fever, asks his disciple Simha to bring items from a woman named Revati. The text explains that terms like "kapota sharira," "marjara," and "kukkuta mamsa" are often mistranslated as pigeon, cat, and chicken meat, respectively. However, in Ayurvedic and botanical contexts, these words refer to plants: "kapota sharira" means makoy fruit, "marjara" refers to chitraka (a medicinal plant), and "kukkuta mamsa" means chopatiya greens. The text further notes that Jain monks and lay followers strictly avoid meat and alcohol, making it inconceivable for a Tirthankara like Mahavira to consume meat. The commentator Abhayadevasuri mentions two interpretations: one literal and one botanical, with the latter being more consistent with Jain principles. The author concludes that the misunderstanding stems from ignoring the ascetic context and proper textual analysis, urging scholars to consult original sources to avoid perpetuating errors.
Conclusion
This document demonstrates that the controversy over Mahavira’s diet stems from a failure to interpret scriptural terms within their proper Ayurvedic and botanical contexts, rather than from any historical evidence of meat consumption. The analysis reveals that words like “kapota,” “marjara,” and “kukkuta” refer to medicinal plants, not animals, and that “mamsa” can denote plant pulp. The implication is clear: scholarly errors in translation and a disregard for traditional commentary have perpetuated a baseless myth. The outcome should be a call for rigorous, context-aware scholarship. If the author of the disputed book corrects his work based on these authentic sources, the unnecessary controversy will dissolve. Otherwise, a non-violent, fact-based response remains the appropriate course, upholding the very principle of ahimsa that Mahavira championed.