The footnotes of this translation of Āpastaṃba Dharmasūtra says:
Manu III, 119 and 120; Yājñ. I, 110;: Weber, Ind. Stud. X, 125. A guest is also called goghna, 'cow-killer,' because formerly a cow used to be killed on the arrival of a distinguished guest. The rite is described by Āśvalāyana Gṛhya-sūtra I, 24, 31-33.
Is this custom still practiced in the Indian subcontinent? If not, when did they stop following this and why?
The questions you have asked are difficult to answer.
For example although i know that it is not followed nowadays but how i am going to prove that?
Similarly the question "When did they stop?" is unanswerable IMO.
As far as the "Why" part is concerned, we can still answer it.
The book " Essence of Dharma Sindhu" says that many forms of sacrifices are prohibited to be performed in the Kali Yuga. And one such sacrifice is the Go-Medha, where a Cow is killed.
Kali Yuga Nishiddhas:
The following are the avoidable and unnecessary acts of Kali Yuga viz. Samudra Yatra, carrying of Kamandulu to misdirect the Public , remarriages, begetting children fro m husband’s brothers; Go Vadha; Mamsa Bhakshana at Shraddhas; performing vivaha to a physically imm ature girl; Chirakaala Brahmacharitwa; Naramedha Ashwamedha Gomedha Yagna; Madya Paana, Abhakshya Bhakshana, Apeya paana, Agamyaagamana orcwandering aimlesly Rahasya Prayascittha, Devata Puja and Pashubali for evil ends; Kula Bhrashtata; Extreme Profiteering and narrow mindedness.
In general (IMO), all forms of animal sacrifices are needed to be stopped now, as only some very adept persons are capable of performing them exactly as prescribed in scriptures.
The person who's conducting the slaying and sacrifice must be spiritually advanced too. Otherwise, it just becomes an act of ordinary killing and in that case both the Pashu and the person go downwards.
And, that's why, i think, Sri Sarada, the wife of Sri Ramakrishna, abolished the practice of Pashu-bali from the concerned Temples entirely, as soon as she arrived there.
As per the Brahmavaivarta Mahā-Purāṇa, the practice of killing a cow for a guest (गोघ्न | goghna) is prohibited in the age of Kaliyuga.
Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa:
अध्यायः ११५ - पञ्चदशाधिकशततमोऽध्यायः
अश्वमेधं गवालम्भं सन्न्यासं पल-पैतृइकम् । ११२.क । देवरेण सुतोत्पत्तिं कलौ पञ्च विवर्जयेत् ॥ ११३.ख ॥
In this age of Kali, the following five kinds of karma-kāṇḍa practices are forbidden: offering a horse in sacrifice, offering a cow in sacrifice, accepting sannyāsa, offering oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and a man begetting children in his brother's wife.
Verse 4.115.112b,113a, Kṛṣṇa-janma-khaṇḍa, Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa
Vāmana-Jayāditya's Kāśikāvṛtti on Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyi (3.4.37: dāśagoghnau sampradāne)
discusses on the śāstriya meaning of goghna as follows-
nipātanasāmarthyādeva goghna ṛtvigādirucyate, na tu cāṇḍālādiḥ / asatyapi ca gohanane tasya yogyatā goghna ityabhidhīyate //
Due to nipātana sāmarthya, atithis such as ṛtvik, etc. and not cāṇḍāla, etc., are called goghna. Even when there is no gohanana (done by either atithi or ātitheya) here, still due to the yogyatā (of atithi) in gohanana, he is called goghna.
Here, Kāśikāvṛtti makes it clear that goghna doesn't refer to karma of gohanana by atithi or ātitheya, but instead refers to the yogyatā of atithi in the karma of gohanana.
In the Nyāsa commentary on Kāśikāvṛtti, Jinendrabuddhi adds -
yadā tarhi tasmai dātuṁ gaurna hanyate tadā tasya goghna ityabhidhānaṁ na prāpnotītyata āha asatyapītyādi/yathā hyapacannapi yogyatayā pācaka ityucyate, tathā'satyapi gohanane goghneti //
The Nyāsa (aka Kāśikāvivaraṇapañjikā) clarifies that even though there doesn't happen any gohanana when the ātitheya presents the cow to the atithi, still the atithi is called goghna, merely highlighting his yogyatā in gohanana. This is why, due to his yogyatā, he would be called a pācaka, even though he does no pacana (of gomāṁsa). The yogyatā of atithi in gohanana is in that (due to his satkāra by ātitheya) he indirectly makes the gau nyūna and apratiṣṭhita compared to himself. As a result, the gau is indirectly apamānita, which is why it's said that her hanana happens, when truly there is no literal hiṁsā imposed on the gau.
The term goghna is derived from the √han dhātu, and it doesn't have only hiṁsā as its artha. Pāṇini's Dhātupāṭha (2.1012) states the following about √han -
hana hiṁsāgatyoḥ /
As per this, √han has both hiṁsā and gati as its meanings. Apparently, the former meaning is popular unlike the latter. Ignorance about the latter meaning leads to incorrect interpretations (popular in Indological circle) of goghna w.r.t śāstra-vihita nṛyajña.
Gau has been declared as aghnyā in śruti and several Vaidika śāstras.
In Nirukta (3.2), Yāska states - gonāmānyuttarāṇi nava
There are nine names of gau in śruti, which is a reference to Nighaṇṭu (2.11) -
aghnyā / ustrā / ustriyā / ahī / mahī / aditiḥ / iḷā / jagatī / śakvarī / iti nava gonāmāni /
Many bhāṣyakāras including Durgācārya, Devarāja Yajva, etc. follow Yāska's explanation of aghnyā (by citing it and further extrapolating on it) -
aghnyā ahantavyā bhavati / aghaghnīti vā // ~ Nirukta (11.43)
In Śānti Parva (262.47) of Mahābhārata, it's said -
aghnyā iti gavāṁ nāma ka etā hantumarhati /
mahaccakārākuśalaṁ vṛṣaṁ gāṁ vā''labhet tu yaḥ //
Aghnyā is the name of gau, so who can do their hanana?
One who inflicts hiṁsā on vṛṣa or gau, commits a mahāpāpa.
In his commentary Bhāratabhāvadīpa, Nīlakaṇṭha comments on aghnyā-
śrutiprasiddhamaghnyā iti gavāṁ nāma na hantu śakyā aghnyā iti yogāt gavāmavadhyatvaṁ śrautamityarthaḥ /
Since, gau itself is aghnyā, how can its hanana really be a vidhi as per Vedādi śāstras (including primarily śruti, smṛtis, and itihāsa-purāṇas) in nṛyajña? It makes no sense at all to hold such an erroneous pakṣa of taking the use of the term goghna in nṛyajña, as referring to literal gohanana (where hiṁsā is exacted on the aghnyā). Hanana of gau is niṣiddha as per śāstras, not vihita by them, unlike what Indologists propose. So, all interpretations of vidhivākyas should align with this stance, otherwise the interpretation would neither be śāstriya nor āstika.
In his commentary Mitākṣarā on Yājñavalkya smṛti (1.109), Vijñāneśvara states -
mahāntamukṣāṇaṁ dhaureyaṁ mahājaṁ vā śrotriyāyoktalakṣaṇāyopakalpayet "bhavadarbhamayamasmābhiḥ" iti / tatprītyartha, natu dānāya vyāpadanāya vā yayā sarvametadbhavadīyamiti, pratiśrotriyamukṣāsambhavāt, .... tasmātsatkriyādyeva kartavyam / satkriyā svāgatavacanāsanapādyārdhyācamanādidānam /..
A mahā ukṣa (vṛṣabha) or mahā aja (goat) should be presented (upakalpayet) to the śrotriya atithi by saying, "this is presented by us for you" for the sake of your prīti, but not for dāna or vyāpādana as 'this is all yours' (which is simply meant for ātithya, doesn't literally mean that everything of ātitheya belongs to atithi). Clearly, no ukṣa (or aja) is to be given in dāna or its hiṁsā done, otherwise it wouldn't be sambhava to bestow ukṣa to every śrotriya atithi who visits the home. ....Therefore, the kartavya of ātitheya is to do satkāra of the śrotriya by svāgatavacana, āsana, pādya, ardhya, ācamana, etc.
Thus, it should be clear now, that there has never been a sadācāra of gohatyā and bhakṣaṇa of gomāṁsa in nṛyajña (atithipūjanam), as per śāstras. Any contrary views are purely a result of a nāstika & asāstrīya interpretations, and hence should be dismissed by all Vaidikas.
That's probably a wrong interpretation/translation-
Guests were treated by letting loose the cows (as a gesture to show the “willingness to give off cows”, as a sign of respect to the guest). Goghna is used in this context. The cultural practice of announcing of a released cow before guest is mentioned in Ashvalayana Grihya Sutra 1.24.25. Guest is offered Madhuparka (honey mixture) which he partakes of, partially. Then to him arghya is done, and the cow is shown.
Ghna is derived from “han”, which also means “letting loose”, “abandoning”, “weakening”.
Imagine that funny awkward situation if each cow was killed for feeding a single guest.
Taken from a comment on this quora answer: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-the-Vedas-have-beef-eating-verses
If the person is not able to find the comments, just click on "All" on bottom left below the 3 dots.
The translation of shlokas 119 and 120 of Manusmriti, Chapter III are as under:-
119.He should receive, with the “honey-mixture,” the king, the priest, the accomplished Student, the Teacher, the Son-in-law, the Father-in-law and the Maternal uncle,—coming again after a year.
120.The king and the Learned Man should be honoured with the Honey-mixture, at the approach of a sacrificial performance,—not if there is no sacrifice (going to be performed).
And the translation of Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.8.5-9)is as under:-
‘The Vedic Scholar deserves the cow and the honey-mixture; as also the Teacher, the Priest, the Accomplished Student, and the King, if he be righteous; to the Teacher, the Priest, the Father-in-law and the King, the cow and the Honey-mixture shall be offered when they come after the lapse of one year; the Honey-mixture consists of curd mixed with honey, or water mixed with honey, or, in the absence of other things, water only.’
