Verse 10.86

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

सर्वान् रसानपोहेत कृतान्नं च तिलैः सह ।
अश्मनो लवणं चैव पशवो ये च मानुषाः ॥ ८६ ॥

sarvān rasānapoheta kṛtānnaṃ ca tilaiḥ saha |
aśmano lavaṇaṃ caiva paśavo ye ca mānuṣāḥ || 86 ||

He shall avoid all savoury substances as also cooked food and sesamum, stores, salt, animals and human beings.—(86)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There are six flavours, rasas,—sweet and the rest; and the term ‘rasa,’ ‘savoury substances’ here stands for substances abounding in one or other of these flavours; such as sugar, pomegranate, the ‘kirāta,’ the ‘tiktaka’ and so forth; all these are forbidden; and not only those that are made of the juices extracted from the trees etc., (which is the literal meaning of ‘rasa’). Though the term ‘rasa’ is not used directly in the sense of substance, in the way in which ‘white’ and such terms are, yet it indirectly indicates it; just as in the case of the expression ‘the ranch on the Gaṅgā,’ (the term ‘Gaṅgā’ indicates the river-bank).

‘Shall avoid’—shall give it up; i.e., shall not sell.

‘Cooked food’—such as rice cooked and ready for being eaten.

‘And sesamum.’—Sesamum also shall not be sold; and it is not meant that what is forbidden is such food as is cooked with sesamum, and the selling of each separately is permitted.

‘Stones’—Of all kinds.

‘Salt’—Even those that are not in the form of stone (solid); rock-salt being already included under ‘stones.’

If the term ‘rasa’ is understood in its literal sense, of the six flavours, then, since ‘salt’ will have been already included under this, the separate mention of ‘salt’ would mean that the selling of this is absolutely forbidden for all time, while that of ‘sweet’ and the rest is only partially so.

‘Animals’— Tame as well as wild.

‘Human beings’— Men.—(86)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta, (p. 232), which explains ‘vyapoheta’ (which is its reading for ‘apoheta’) as ‘should avoid’ i.e. ‘should not sell’; it adds that ‘rasa’ having been already mentioned, ‘lavaṇa’ is mentioned again for the purpose of indicating that the selling of salt is more blameworthy.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 10.85-93)

See Comparative notes for Verse 10.85.