Verse 5.43

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

गृहे गुरावरण्ये वा निवसन्नात्मवान् द्विजः ।
नावेदविहितां हिंसामापद्यपि समाचरेत् ॥ ४३ ॥

gṛhe gurāvaraṇye vā nivasannātmavān dvijaḥ |
nāvedavihitāṃ hiṃsāmāpadyapi samācaret || 43 ||

Living in his house, or with his teacher, or in the forest, the self-controlled twice-born person shall not, even in times of distress, do that killing which is not sanctioned by the veda.—(43).

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse forbids such killing as is not sanctioned by the Veda, it is not meant, to sanction that which is already sanctioned by it.

As a matter of fact, no other killing (save what is sanctioned) is possible in the case of the Student ‘living with his teacher,’ or of the man performing austerities ‘in the forest;’ even though some sort of killing may be possible for the incontinent Student, yet for the Hermit in the forest it is not possible in any case. Even for the Student, an absolute indifference to life (and livelihood) is not considered desirable. Hence the present verse should he treated as the Injunction of killing at Śrāddhas; and the mention of the ‘house’ is a mere reiteration (Śrāddhas being performed only by the Householder).

Some people argue here as follows:—“if this were such an Injunction, what would be the meaning of the terms ‘in the forest’ and ‘in times of distress’? For the Recluse in the forest, even though keeping up his Fire, there are no animul-sacrifices: as we shall show under 6.11.”

Our Teacher however gives the following explanation;—What is urged may be true of the Student: as regards the Recluse, even ‘self-abandonment’ has been enjoined by such texts as ‘having recourse to the Aparājitā, etc. etc.’ So that for him there can be no killing for saving his life; all this we shall clearly explain under 6.31.

“The present verse puts forward the prohibition of killing even in times of distress; how then is it that you take it to mean the permission of it at such times?”

True; but otherwise (if the text were not taken as permitting killing as sanctioned by the Veda), it would be useless. It might be argued that it could serve the purposes of a commendatory text. But even for a commendatory text, some sort of basis (some injunctive text to which it is supplementary) will have to be sought out. Hence we conclude that the prohibition contained in the verse relates to normal times—other than those of distress; and there is nothing incongruous in its being sanctioned in connection with abnormal times of distress. Further, there are various degrees of ‘distress’; and under the lesser forms of it, if one would take to ‘killing’ animals for food under the consideration that his food-supply was sufficient only for a month or a fortnight (after which he will have nothing to eat),—then such killing (even though at an abnormal time of distress) would be what is forbidden by the present text; on the other hand, if the man fears that he would die now if he did not kill for food,—or if a desperado with uplifted weapon were attacking him,—then the killing has to be done; and it is this killing in abnormal times of distress that is permitted by the text.

In this manner the Vedic text ‘one should protect himself from all things’ also becomes reconciled. (43).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 538).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verse 5.42-46)

See Comparative notes for Verse 5.42.