The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)
The translator’s English as printed (K. T. Telang). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
The Ascetic said:
If you perceive (that) good (will) result upon his life being severed (from him), then the sacrifice is for the goat, what benefit (is it) to you? Let the brother, father, mother, and friend (of the goat) give you their consent* ; take him (to them) and consult (them), especially as he is dependent. You ought to inquire of those who can give their consent thus. After hearing their consent, (the matter) will be fit for consideration’. The life-winds 5, too, of this goat have gone to their sources, and I think only his unmoving body remains. To those who wish to derive enjoyment from the slaughter (of a living creature), the unconscious body being comparable to fuel, that which is called an animal becomes the fuel, The teaching of the elders* is, that refraining from slaughter (of living creatures) is (the duty) among all duties We maintain that that action should be performed which involves no slaughter. (Our) proposition is no slaughter (of living creatures). If I spoke further, it would be possible to find fault with your proceedings in many ways 4, Always refraining from the slaughter of all beings is what we approve. We substantiate (this) from what is actually visible 4, we do not rely on what is not visible.
* Cf. Brihadâraṇyaka, p. 542, and p. 337 below.
* Cf. Khândogya-upanishad, p. 627, and also Sârîraka Bhâshya on Sûtra III, 1, 25, p. 774.
* Le. for his slaughter, which is to bring welfare to the goat. Arguna Misra says that this is a sort of reductio ad absurdum, as the sacrifice is in truth not in the interests of the goat at all.
* Viz. whether the goat should be killed. Without their consent he ought not to be slaughtered; with their consent, it becomes a matter for consideration, Arguna Misra. ° It may also mean the senses, as in the Khândogya, p. 294.
The Ascetic said:
If you believe that good will come from taking his life, then the sacrifice is for the goat's benefit — what do you gain from it? Let the goat's brother, father, mother, and friend give you their consent; take him to them and consult them, especially since he depends on them. You ought to ask those who are able to give consent in this way. After you have heard their consent, the matter will be worth considering. The life-winds 5 of this goat have already returned to their sources, and I believe only his motionless body remains. For those who wish to derive enjoyment from killing a living creature, the unconscious body is no different from fuel — what is called an animal becomes the fuel. The teaching of the elders is that refraining from slaughter is the foremost of all duties. We hold that only that action should be performed which involves no slaughter. Our position is: no slaughter of living creatures. If I were to say more, it would be possible to find fault with your proceedings in many ways 4. Always refraining from killing any being whatsoever is what we uphold. We base this on what is actually visible 4; we do not rely on what cannot be seen.
* Cf. Brihadâraṇyaka, p. 542, and p. 337 below.
* Cf. Khândogya-upanishad, p. 627, and also Sârîraka Bhâshya on Sûtra III, 1, 25, p. 774.
* That is, for his slaughter, which is meant to bring welfare to the goat. Arjuna Miśra says this is a kind of reductio ad absurdum, since the sacrifice is in truth not in the goat's interests at all.
* That is, whether the goat should be killed. Without their consent he ought not to be slaughtered; with their consent, it becomes a matter for consideration, Arjuna Misra. ° It may also mean the senses, as in the Khândogya, p. 294.