Verse 10.82

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

उभाभ्यामप्यजीवंस्तु कथं स्यादिति चेद् भवेत् ।
कृषिगोरक्षमास्थाय जीवेद् वैश्यस्य जीविकाम् ॥ ८२ ॥

ubhābhyāmapyajīvaṃstu kathaṃ syāditi ced bhavet |
kṛṣigorakṣamāsthāya jīved vaiśyasya jīvikām || 82 ||

If he is unable to subsist by these two occupations, and the question arises as to how it should be,—he may live the living of the Vaiśya, having recourse to agriculture and cattle-tending.—(82)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘If he is unable to subsist by these two occupations.’ The text is meant to lay clown a distinct order of sequence; at first he is to adopt, the occupation of the caste next to him, and then that of the caste removed a degree further.

The mention of ‘agriculture and cattle-tending’ is meant to stand for all the occupations of the Vaiśya. That is why trading is also permitted, in view of which the author is going to forbid (in 85, et. seq.) the selling of certain things by the Brāhmaṇa.

‘He may live the living of the Vaiśya—The two acts (denoted by the terms ‘live’ and ‘living’) are spoken of as cause and effect,—one standing for the general act of living, and the other for the special forms of living.

Some people have held that from among the occupations of the Vaiśya, agriculture, trade, and money-lending have been permitted (for the Brāhmaṇa) even during normal times,—just like Teaching and other occupations—under verses 4.5 and 6. In Gautama (10.5 and 6) also we read—‘Agriculture and trade done by himself, as also money-lending’; which permits the carrying on of agriculture and trade by the Brāhmaṇa himself.

As for the view that these stand on the same footing as Teaching and other occupations (of the Brāhmaṇa himself),—this has been refuted by us already. If agriculture and other occupations of the Vaiśya stood for all three castes, on exactly the same footing,—then, why should ‘trade, cattle-tending and agriculture’ have been mentioned as the most useful occupation ‘for the Vaiśya’ (verse 79)? And for the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya also, these should not have been mentioned as to be adopted only under the stress of want of livelihood; in fact they should have been mentioned along with ‘Teaching, sacrificing for others and receiving gifts from pure men’ (76) [which have been mentioned as the special occupations of the Brāhmaṇa].

The conclusion therefore is that so long as the Brāhmaṇa can make a living by teaching and the other occupations laid down for himself, agriculture and the rest are forbidden to him. As regards the texts (4. 5 and 6) permitting these latter for the Brāhmaṇa, the real meaning of this we have already explained under those texts.—(82)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Nārāyaṇa thinks that ‘Kṛṣi’ means here that agriculture whereat the Brāhmaṇa himself does not do any manual work; bat Govindarāja and Kullūka reject this view.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (3.35), to the; effect that in abnormal times for purposes of livelihood the Br āh maṇa may have recourse to the functions of the Vaiśya, but never to those of the Śūdra;—in Madanapārijāta, (p. 232);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, 36b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 10.81-84)

See Comparative notes for Verse 10.81.