The Laws of Manu — SBE Vol. 25 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1886)
English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler·567 passages
The text · part 6 of 27
The chronological position of the next commentary on our list, Sarvagiia-N4rayaza’s Manvarthavivrti or Manvarthanibandha, is fixed, as Professor Jolly has first pointed out, by a passage in the introduction to Raghavananda’s
INTRODUCTION. CXXxix
commentary', The latter author says there that ‘he has taken cognisance of (the opinions) approved by Kulldka and Narayama, and of those entertained in their hearts by Govinda and MedhAtithi.’ As it is evident that in the second group the later author has been placed first, the assumption that the same order has been observed with respect to the first pair, and that Raghavananda, applying the principle of uttarottaragariyastva, i.e. naming the more important persons later, intends the whole series to be read backwards ?, is not unreasonable. In its favour speaks also the fact that Narayana quotes Govindaraga on Manu VIII, 123. In order to fix the date when Narayana wrote, we have to rely chiefly on some quotations. His opinions on law are first quoted by Kamalakara, who wrote in the beginning of the seventeenth century ®. But a Namanidhana by Nardyaza Sarvagiia is mentioned by Rayamukuéa in his commentary on the Amarakosha, which was composed in 1431 A.D.‘ The only MS. of the Manvarthavivriti® hitherto found (Deccan College Collection of 1879- 1880, No. 238) bears at the end of Adhy4ya VIII, the date Sam. 1544 kaitra badi g ravau, which corresponds to Sunday, March 27, 1497 A.D. Hence it follows that Nardyaza cannot have written later than in the last half of the fourteenth century. Possibly he may be somewhat older.
The Manvarthavivriti is not a running commentary which explains every word of the text. It confines itself to the elucidation of selected difficult passages and words. It was written with the avowed intention of undoing the work of the author’s. predecessors. At the end of chapters
1 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 11; the passage has been printed in Dr. Burnell's Tanjore Catalogue, p. 126.
? This manner of enumerating a series of persons or of arguments is also found occasionally in older Sanskrit works; see e.g. Vasishéha XIII, 58.
> Aufrecht, Catalogue Sansk. MSS. Bod]. Libr. p. 279.
* See Professor Aufrecht’s Analysis in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxviii, p. 114.
5 This MS., which has been used for the notes to the translation, is a very fair copy, containing the commentary alone, Fols. 1-8 have been half eaten by rats. Fols. 192-3 have been lost.
[25] i
CXXxX LAWS OF MANU.
xxviii, p. 114.
5 This MS., which has been used for the notes to the translation, is a very fair copy, containing the commentary alone, Fols. 1-8 have been half eaten by rats. Fols. 192-3 have been lost.
[25] i
CXXxX LAWS OF MANU.
I, VI, and VIII we find a verse, apparently belonging to Narayana, which says,‘ This commentary of the Manu-smriti, composed by the illustrious Narayana Sarvagiia, thrusts far away the exposition given in contemptible compilations 1.’ Again, at the end of chapter IV we read, ‘ Direct your attention to the good words of N&ardyaza Sarvagiia, which propound the real meaning of Manu and repel the exposition given in contemptible compilations®’” As might be expected from these utterances, Narayana shows a great anxiety to find explanations differing from those of Medhatithi and Govinda. Sometimes he attains this aim by returning to views which Medhatithi mentions and rejects; but more frequently his explanations have been either taken from commentaries inaccessible to us, or represent opinions formed by him independently. All his peculiar interpretations deserve careful attention. In many cases they are decidedly preferable to those of the other commentators, and have therefore been not rarely followed in the translation. Ndr&yaza seems to have been not only deeply versed in the sacred law, but to have possessed also a knowledge of various other Sastras. As we learn from his commentary on Manu V, 56, 80, 104, XI, 72, he also wrote two other works on Dharma, a KA4madhenudipika and a Suddhidipika. His Kosha has been mentioned above. Commentaries of his on parts of the Mahabharata, e. g. on the Udyogaparvan, on the Svargérohavaparvan §, and on the Sanatsugattya, are still extant ‘.
1 wtarerraeataga ofa: ager: | yfrweugrerertieg gt fac waft Thus at the end of chapter I; in the other two passages the MS. has the faulty form farcera.
2 Ig MAgirerinirergrrerarafgereT rey | ATTY afk aarergeve WW Three other boastful verses occur at the end, 1. of chapter H, Wrrrnretyafedetstararn: | aqefarfrcrerd (t] aferat _ Wa. of chapter V, Wrarcrquraaafafatat dtea PC it a wig faratd aa wearergtafary W 3. of chapter IX, wrarcraaaaate nerdirenrey | atten wa act aa a[ fala we aa [ar] ayn
* Weber, Berlin Catalogue, Nos. 394, 399; Aufrecht. Catalogue, Bodl. Libr. p. 2. ‘ Telang, Sacred Books of the East, vol. viii, p. 148.
INTRODUCTION. CXXXi
of chapter IX, wrarcraaaaate nerdirenrey | atten wa act aa a[ fala we aa [ar] ayn
* Weber, Berlin Catalogue, Nos. 394, 399; Aufrecht. Catalogue, Bodl. Libr. p. 2. ‘ Telang, Sacred Books of the East, vol. viii, p. 148.
INTRODUCTION. CXXXi
The fourth work on our list, the well-known Manvarthamuktavali of Kulldkabha/¢sa, the son of Divakarabha/ta, was considered until lately the most trustworthy guide for the exposition of Manu. In the introductory verses to his commentary Kullika informs us that he was a Gauda or Bengali by birth, his father residing in Nandana in Varendri1, and that he wrote his work at Benares with the assistance of other Pazdits. As regards his times, we only know that Narayama Sarvagiia and another commentator, Dharazidhara ?, stood between him and Govindaraga, and that Raghunandana, who wrote in the beginning of the sixteenth century, is the earliest author who quotes him >. He, therefore, lived probably in the fifteenth century.
The Manvarthamuktavali is, as Professor Jolly has been the first to recognise‘, little more than an improved edition of Govindaraga’s ManuZika. In spite of the asperity with which Kulldka repeatedly inveighs against his predecessor, he has not disdained to copy very large portions of the Manufika, sometimes verbatim and sometimes in very insufficient extracts, where the omissions make the meaning obscure. Moreover, even where the wording of the two commentaries differs, the influence of Govinda is distinctly visible. Under these circumstances the value of the Mukt4vali is, since the recovery of the Manu/ika, not very great, though it is undeniable that in certain cases Kullika’s independent remarks or criticisms of the earlier works are useful. Its great fame in India and its frequent occurrence in the libraries of native lawyers in all parts of the Peninsula may be explained by the fact that it was written and approved at Benares, which town has, since remote times, been a most important literary centre and the chief source from which the Pazdits draw their supplies of books. For the notes I
1 In the colophon of chapter XII, the place is called Varendranandana. The district of Varendra lies between Dinajpur and the Ganges, Cunningham, Arch. Reports, XV, Plate 1, and p. 40.
® See concluding verses at the end of chapter XII.
* Aufrecht, loc. cit. p. 292.
* Die Juristischen Abschnitte aus dem Gesetzbuche des Manu, p. 3, des Separatabdrucks; Tagore Lectures, p. 10.
i2
CXXXii LAWS OF MANU, have used no MSS. of the MuktAvali; but two editions, Gibanand’s reprint of the earlier Calcutta edition! and the Bombay lithographed edition of Sakasamvat 1780. The latter-is by far the better one, but leaves, like all other editions which I have seen, much to desire from a critical point of view. There are a good many passages in which the text does not agree with the commentary.
and the Bombay lithographed edition of Sakasamvat 1780. The latter-is by far the better one, but leaves, like all other editions which I have seen, much to desire from a critical point of view. There are a good many passages in which the text does not agree with the commentary.
On the Manvarthamuktavali rests the Manvarthasandriké, written by Raghavananda Sarasvati, an ascetic of Sankarékarya’s school’, and a pupil of one Visvesvarabhagavatp4da. Though the author asserts, as stated above, that he used four older commentaries, he mostly adheres to Kulldka’s opinions. It is only rarely that he prefers Narayana’s interpretations or recurs to views of Govindaraga and Medhftithi, which Kullika refuted or left unnoticed. His exposition of the philosophical portions of the text is, however, mostly independent, and he interprets them throughout in such a manner as to agree with the Ved4nta doctrines of his school. The Kandrik4 is not a running commentary which paraphrases every word of Manu, but gives mostly, besides a short summary of the general meaning, merely remarks on difficult words and passages. It is probably a modern work, dating from the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century *. I have not met with any quotations from it in other law-books. The oldest known MS. is that brought by Anquetil from Gugarat and deposited in the Bibliothéque Nationale at Paris (Devanagari 49, fonds d’Anquetil, No. 16). Its date, Sawevat 1706 varshe karttika badi 10 somadine, corresponds, according to Dr. Schram’s
1 The reason why I used this very incorrect text, was that Professor Jolly kindly lent me his copy in which he has entered the various readings of Medh., Gov., Nr., Ragh., of the Kasmir copy and other MSS.
* According to H. H. Wilson, Works, I, pp. 202-3 (ed. Rost), the ascetics, bearing the title Sarasvatt, follow the samepradaya of Safkarafarya. See also Aufrecht, Catalogue Sansk. MSS. Bodl. Libr. p. 227.
* Mr. Loiseleur Deslongchamps’ attempt (Lois de Manon, p. xvi) to identify Raghavananda with Raghunandana, the bhasfaéarya of the sixteenth century, is an unlucky guess, It seems to me that the author of the Xandrik4 is identical with the ascetic Raghavananda, pupil of Advayananda, pupil of Visvesvara, who is mentioned as an author on Samkhya and Vedanta philosophy by Dr. F. E. Hall, Catalogue, pp. 6, 91, &c.
INTRODUCTION. CXXXili
calculation, to Monday, November 29, 1649. Another old MS. of about the same date is mentioned by Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p.126. For the notes I have used the Paris MS., which was kindly lent to me by the French Government, as far as Manu IX,187. It contains both the commentary and the text, the former being, however, left out on I, 45-78. For the remaining portion I have consulted a very old, but much damaged copy of the Deccan College Collection of 1882-1883, acquired by Professor Bhazdarkar for the Government of Bombay.
It contains both the commentary and the text, the former being, however, left out on I, 45-78. For the remaining portion I have consulted a very old, but much damaged copy of the Deccan College Collection of 1882-1883, acquired by Professor Bhazdarkar for the Government of Bombay.
The name of the sixth commentary is, according to the MS., the loan of which I owe to the courtesy of Divan Bah4dur Raghunathraéo of Madras, Manuvydkhyana, but according to Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 126, Nandini. Its author calls himself Nandana (Nandanasarya according to Dr. Burnell), the son of Lakshmaza, a member of the Bh4radvaga gotra, and the dear friend of the illustrious Viramalla?. In all probability he was a native of Southern India. For his work is, as far as I am aware, known in Southern India alone; its MSS. are met with only in the Madras Presidency, and Professor Jolly (loc. cit., p. 12) has found that many of his peculiar readings agree with those found in Southern MSS. of the Manu-smriti. As his name is not quoted in any commentary on Manu or in any work on law, known to me, it would seem that he is either of very modern date or that his opinions were not held in any great esteem. Mr. Raghunathr4o’s MS. is dated Sakasamvat 1724, Magha sudi pratipad, or 1803 A.D. The Manuvydkhydna is a very short commentary, which mostly repeats and explains only a few words or phrases of the text. It dismisses many verses which stand in need of elucidation with the curt remark spash/a4, ‘clear,’ and
1 The colophon of chapter XII runs as follows: xfa shrcrrnt ta Ween wtiewfaaed whoeaa facet aqurent afearat wreyeana: UW Viramalla was probably a prince or chief, and the mention of his name will eventually aid to ascertain Nandana’s time. A third variety of the latter's name occurs in the Madras edition of Colebrooke’s Digest, p. xv, note 6, where the editor speaks of a commentary on Manu, Nandaragkrit (?) by Nandaraga.
CXXXiV LAWS OF MANU.
A third variety of the latter's name occurs in the Madras edition of Colebrooke’s Digest, p. xv, note 6, where the editor speaks of a commentary on Manu, Nandaragkrit (?) by Nandaraga.
CXXXiV LAWS OF MANU.
passes by others without any note. Though no names are ever quoted, most of the explanations have been taken on purely eclectic principles from the earlier commentaries, among which the first four of our list must certainly be reckoned. The favourite among them is the Manvarthavivviti. The notes to the translation show a considerable number of cases where ‘Nar. and Nand.’ form a separate group, and on important points advocate opinions opposed to those of Medhatithi, Govinda, and Kullfika. But there are also other passages, concerning which Nandana agrees either with Medhatithi alone, or with ‘others,’ quoted by Medhitithi, with Kullaka or even with Govinda. Finally, he offers in a certain number of cases expositions not traceable elsewhere, some of which, especially those on the philosophical pieces, deserve attention. The text which Nandana follows, differs not inconsiderably from the vulgata. It shows, besides very numerous, more or less important variae lectiones, some omissions, additions, and transpositions of entire verses. Many of Nandana’s various readings are derived from Medhatithi, Narayaza, and other older commentators, who either themselves follow them or at least mention their existence. As regards those which Nandana alone offers, the majority seem to be either corruptelae or conjectures, and sometimes very unlucky ones’, The transpositions, which partly occur in passages regarding the order of which the other commentators agree, appear to have sometimes at least no better authority than guesses made by Nandana. Thus if he places Manu I, 27 after verse 19, and X, 14 after verse 6, and adds in each case that, ‘if some read the verses further on, that must be due to an error of the copyists,’ I can only see in this remark a
1 To the first class belongs exatfart: for qatfact: M. III, 114, the senseless WITHA for BTYA M. VIII, 154 (not given in the notes), WTF for WA IX, 202, and so forth ; to the second, ercenargat for ercanifa AYA M. I, 5, TH aTHTe for WHTHAT M. VIL, 54, WTA: for WSU: M. VILL, 162, ATPTMTAT: for STSATAT: M. VIII, 283 (not given in the notes), TAMAS for waaay mfg M. IX, 126, wearer (loc. sing. of STATAT |) for GHTAANY M. X, 28, and so forth.
INTRODUCTION. CXXXV
I, 5, TH aTHTe for WHTHAT M. VIL, 54, WTA: for WSU: M. VILL, 162, ATPTMTAT: for STSATAT: M. VIII, 283 (not given in the notes), TAMAS for waaay mfg M. IX, 126, wearer (loc. sing. of STATAT |) for GHTAANY M. X, 28, and so forth.
INTRODUCTION. CXXXV
confession of his having done violence to the traditional text. The verses which Nandana adds are, I think, all interpolations, some of which perhaps go back to early times, as they occur also in the Southern MSS. and in the Kasmir copy. With respect to the omissions, Nandana sometimes follows one or several of the other commentators, In other cases he agrees with the Southern MSS. alone, and again in others he stands quite by himself. One of the omissions of the last class, Manu V, 61, is, as has been pointed out in the notes, purely due to an accidental lacuna in the MS. which Nandana used. With respect to numerous other cases it must be noted that the two copies of the Manuvy4khyana which European scholars have examined, Mr. Raghunathrao’s and Dr. Burnell’s (chapters VITI-IX, now in the India Office Library), differ very considerably. Thus in chapter VIII, Dr. Burnell’s copy omits, according to Professor Jolly’s collation !, verses 8, 11, 14, 74, 81, 103, 227-228, 231, 332, while Mr. Raghunathréo’s MS. has them all excepting verses 8, 228, and 231, and gives even notes on 11, 14, 81, 103, 227. These differences between the two copies seem to extend also to readings in Manu’s text and to explanations. But it is not rarely difficult to give a definite opinion on these points, because Mr. Raghunathrao’s MS. sometimes gives only the Pratikas of the verses, and is often so corrupt that the sense can be made out only by means of conjectural emendations.
Under these circumstances it will not be advisable to attach too much weight to variae lectiones, derived from the Manuvy4khydna, which are not supported by the authority of other commentaries.
The anonymous 7ippaaa, or collection of detached explanatory remarks, in the Kasmir birch bark MS.? is of very small importance. It looks as if it owed its origin to the marginal notes of some learned Pandit, which, later, were copied with the text and placed after the verses to
* Compare also Professor Hopkins, Notes on the Nandint, Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October, 1883, p. xviii, where, however, only verses 8, 11, 74, 81, and 332 are enumerated as missing.
* Deccan College Collection of 1876-1877, No. 355.
CXXXVI LAWS OF MANU.
xviii, where, however, only verses 8, 11, 74, 81, and 332 are enumerated as missing.
* Deccan College Collection of 1876-1877, No. 355.
CXXXVI LAWS OF MANU.
which they refer. Professor Jolly! has pointed out that in one case it characteristically agrees with Govindaraga ; and other instances, e.g. the remarks on Manu I, 52, may be added. There are also some cases (see e.g. the explanation of dimbha, Manu V, 91) where the Kasmir commentary agrees with curious explanations given by Nandana. The text also agrees occasionally with peculiar readings adopted by Nandana or by Narfyama and Nandana*. But I should consider it hazardous to draw from these instances any conclusions regarding the sources of the 7ippaza. The Kasmir MS., which has been very carefully written and corrected, is mutilated at the end, about one-third of each of the last dozen leaves being torn off. The loss falls on Manu XI, 218-XII, 126.
The above remarks on the materials which I had at my disposal show that, in spite of their undeniable importance, they were insufficient for a radical change in the treatment of Manu’s text. As the recension, given by Kullika, was the only one accessible in its entirety and in tolerably trustworthy copies, I could not do anything else than take that for the basis of my translation. Practical reasons, too, especially the consideration that the Indian public has been accustomed to Kullika’s text, and that the numerous references in the translations of Hindu law-books point to the Manu of Kullika, made the adoption of this principle highly desirable. I have, therefore, retained every verse which Kullika explains, though the weight of the authorities might be against its genuineness, and I have refrained from receiving into the text any verse which he omits. In cases of the former kind the names of the dissenting commentators have been given in the notes, where also translations of the best accredited and more important additional verses, given by other commentators, will be found®. I have, moreover,
1 Tagore Lectures, p. 11.
® See e.g. notes on Manu I, a; III, £9. 73, 195.
* I may add that I have paid no attention to those verses which the medieval Nibandhas on law quote as Manu’s, but which are not traceable in the recension approved of by the commentators. These verses are in my opinion all spurious. In most cases we have simply to deal with misquotations caused by the careless-
INTRODUCTION. exxxvil
adhered to Kullfika’s order of the verses, except in some cases where he is evidently in the wrong, and the transposition causes no great inconvenience. On the other hand, I have tried to remove the numerous palpable blunders in the readings of the editions, which are mostly due, not to Kulldka himself, but to the editors of his text. The notes show what has been changed, and on whose authority it has been done. I have, finally, added a selection of the more important various readings given in the other commentaries.
The notes show what has been changed, and on whose authority it has been done. I have, finally, added a selection of the more important various readings given in the other commentaries.
With respect to the translation, my proceeding has been somewhat different. Though I should have liked to follow in the text Kullaka’s commentary alone, and to give the renderings of the other commentators in the notes, I found that to be impracticable. The bulk of my volume would have become enormous, and in very many passages I should have been compelled to declare the rendering placed in the text to be utterly erroneous. In order to escape these difficulties I have generally, except in very doubtful passages, translated in accordance with that exposition which seemed to me most reasonable, and have placed some of the other particularly noteworthy explanations in the notes. In a certain number of verses where the real meaning of the text is very doubtful, I have not gone beyond a literal rendering of Manu’s words, which, like the original, may be interpreted in different ways. In such cases the notes exhibit all the various interpretations found in the commentaries. In a very small number of verses the explanations of the commentators have been set aside altogether for reasons duly stated in the notes. The length of my notes varies very much, according to the interest or difficulty of the subject treated in the text. Thus the summary of the opinions of the commentators on the practically important titles of the Hindu law, Manu IX, 1-219, is as complete as the state of the MSS. allowed me to make it. Almost all the explanations of the difficult philosophical portions of chapters I and XII have likewise ness of the Nibandhak Aras, who are as little to be depended upon for accuracy as Indian writers on other scientific subjects or as the European medieval writers on classical philology. They quoted mostly, if not invariably, from memory.
[25]
CXXXViii LAWS OF MANU.
They quoted mostly, if not invariably, from memory.
[25]
CXXXViii LAWS OF MANU.
been given. But the extracts from the commentaries on the easier sections referring to the duties of students, householders, Snatakas, and so forth, have been made very short, as for the right understanding of the greater part of their verses little more is wanted than the parallel passages of the other ancient Smritis. Among the latter, those translated in vols. ii, vii, and xiv of this series have been quoted everywhere. If Ndrada has been excluded, the reason is that the new translation, which Professor Jolly will soon publish according to recently discovered materials, would have made the references useless. The quotations from Manu, which occur in the translated Nibandhas on Hindu law, have been collected, for the convenience of practical lawyers, in the Appendix. As regards the relation of my version to those of earlier translators, it will be evident to everybody how much I am indebted to Sir William Jones’ great work, which, in spite of the progress made by Sanskrit philology during the last hundred years, still possesses.a very high value. I have also to acknowledge my obligation to the German translation of chapter VIII and of vv. 1-102 of chapter IX by Professor Jolly, which is based on the materials used by myself. If no reference has been made to the translation lately published by Drs. Burnell and Hopkins, the reason is that the printing of mine was complete some time before its appearance.
In conclusion, I must express my thanks to several colleagues, especially to Professors Jolly and Kielhorn, for assistance rendered in various ways, as well as to Dr. R. Rost, Chief Librarian at the India Office; to K. M. Chatfield, Esq., Director of Public Instruction, Bombay; to the Director of the Bibliothéque Nationale of France; and to Divan Bahadur Raghunath R4o of Mylapur, Madras, for liberal loans of MSS.
LAWS OF MANU.
LAWS OF MANU.
CuarptTer I.
1. THE great sages approached Manu, who was seated with a collected mind, and, having duly worshipped him, spoke as follows:
2. ‘ Deign, divine one, to declare to us precisely and in due order the sacred laws of each of the (four chief) castes (vara) and of the intermediate ones.
3- ‘For thou, O Lord, alone knowest the purport, (i.e.) the rites, and the knowledge of the soul, (taught) in this whole ordinance of the Self-existent (Svayambhd), which is unknowable and unfathomable.’
I. 1. Kull. thinks that pratipQgya, ‘having worshipped,’ may also mean ‘after mutual salutations, and he connects, against the opinion of the other commentators, ‘duly’ with ‘spoke.’ Gov., Nar., Ragh., and K., as well as various MSS. (Loiseleur I, p. 313; Bikaner Cat. Pp. 419), begin the Samhit& with the following verse, omitted by Medh., Kull., and Nand.: ‘ Having adored the self-existent Brahman, possessing immeasurable power, I will declare the various eternal laws which Manu promulgated.’
(Loiseleur I, p. 313; Bikaner Cat. Pp. 419), begin the Samhit& with the following verse, omitted by Medh., Kull., and Nand.: ‘ Having adored the self-existent Brahman, possessing immeasurable power, I will declare the various eternal laws which Manu promulgated.’
2. After this verse Nand. inserts four lines, the first and last of which are also found in K.: (a) ‘ The origin of the whole multitude of created beings, of those born from the womb, of those born from eggs, of those produced from exudations and from germinating seeds, and their destruction ;’ (b) ‘The settled rule of all customs and rites deign to describe at large, according to their times and fitness.’
3. ‘The ordinance of the Self-existent,’ i.e. ‘the Veda’ (Kull. Nar., and Ragh.), or ‘the Veda or the prescriptive rules (vidhi)
[25] B re
p. 4
4. He, whose power is measureless, being thus asked by the high-minded great sages, duly honoured them, and answered, ‘ Listen !’
5. This (universe) existed in the shape of Darkness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed, as it were, in deep sleep.
contained in it’ (Medh.), or ‘ the institutes’ (Gov.). AAintya, ‘ unknowable,’ i.e. ‘the extent of which is unknowable’ (Kull. and R4gh.), or ‘unknowable on account of its depth’ (Gov.), or ‘ the meaning of which cannot be known by reasoning’ (N4r.), or ‘not perceptible by the senses’ (Medh.), or ‘difficult to understand’ (Nand.). Aprameya, ‘unfathomable,’ i.e. ‘not to be understood without the help of the Mim4msa and other methods of reasoning’ (Kull.), or ‘unfathomable on account of its extent’ (Gov., Nand.), or ‘unfathomable on account of its extent, or not directly knowable but to be inferred as the foundation of the Smrsti’ (Medh.), or ‘ difficult to understand’ (Ragh.). Kull. and R&gh. explain karyatattvartha by ‘the purport, i.e. the rites, and the nature of the soul;’ Medh., Gov., and Nand. by ‘the true purport, i.e. the rites.” Nand. takes sarvasya, ‘whole,’ as depending on ‘ordinance,’ and in the sense of ‘ prescribed for all created beings.’
In the commentary on verse 11 Medh. gives still another explanation of this verse, according to which it has to be translated as follows : ‘ For thou, O Lord, alone knowest the nature and the object of the products employed in the creation of this universe, which is unthinkable on account of its greatness, and unknowable.’ This version belongs to ‘other’ commentators, who explain Manu’s whole account of the creation purely on Samkhya principles.
5. The account of the creation given in verses 5~13 bears, as Dr. Muir remarks (Sanskrit Texts, IV, p. 26),some resemblance to that contained in some passages of the Satapatha-brahmaaa, especially XI, 1, 6, r seqq., and is probably founded on some Vedic work, ‘with an intermixture of more modern doctrines.’ In explanation of the wording of verse 5, Medh. and Kull. point to passages like Rv. X, 129, 3, and Taittirlya-brahmama II, 8,9, 4. Sayana, too, quotes the verse in his commentary on the latter passage.
The commentators Medh. and Gov. explain the fact that Manu, being asked to expound the law, gives an account of the creation,
p. 3
6. Then the divine Self-existent (Svayambha, himself) indiscernible, (but) making (all) this, the great elements and the rest, discernible, appeared with irresistible (creative) power, dispelling the darkness.
by the supposition that it is intended to show what a great scope the work has, and how necessary its study is, as the production of the various created beings depends on merit and demerit. Kull. on the other hand, tries to prove that the account of the creation, which belongs to the knowledge of the supreme soul, is part of the sacred law, and hence properly finds its place here. All the commentators, with the exception of Ragh., explain tama4, ‘ darkness,’ by mflaprakritiZ, ‘the root-evolvent’ of the Samkhya philosophy, and tamobhfitam, ‘in the shape of darkness,’ by ‘ absorbed in the root-evolvent.’ Ragh., who throughout explains Manu’s sayings in the sense of the Ved4nta school, takes it for an equivalent of avidy4, ‘ignorance.’ The explanation of the four adjectives, which express in different terms the impossibility of knowing the mflaprakriti, differs very much in the six commentaries. The most reasonable appears to be Kullika’s view, who assumes that the four words refer td the impossibility of attaining a knowledge of the prakriti by the three means mentioned below, XII, 105, and ‘by reasoning’ (tarka). He paraphrases apragfdta, ‘unperceived,’ by ‘imperceptible by the senses;’ alakshama, ‘destitute of marks,’ by ‘ uninferrible ;’ avigweya, ‘ unknowable,’ by ‘ undefinable by words or authoritative statement.’
6. The above translation follows Gov., N4r., and Kull. The other three commentators take mahabhitadivrittaugaA as a relative compound. On this supposition the translation would run as follows : ‘Then the divine Self-existent, (himself) undiscernible, (but) making this (universe) discernible, appeared,—he whose (creative) power works in the great elements and the rest, and who dispels the darkness.’
On this supposition the translation would run as follows : ‘Then the divine Self-existent, (himself) undiscernible, (but) making this (universe) discernible, appeared,—he whose (creative) power works in the great elements and the rest, and who dispels the darkness.’
‘Then,’ i.e. at the end of the period of destruction. Avyaktah, ‘ (himself) undiscernible,’ i. e. ‘not to be known except by Yogins’ (Medh.), or ‘not perceptible by the external senses’ (Gov., Kull. Nar.), or ‘not to be known except through the texts of the Upanishads’(RAgh.), or ‘difficult to know’(Nand.). Medh. would prefer to read avyaktam, ‘this indiscernible (universe).’ ‘The great elements and the rest,’ i.e. ‘the other principles, the great one and so forth’
B 2
p. 7
7. He who can be perceived by the internal organ (alone), who is subtile, indiscernible, and eternal, who contains all created beings and is inconceivable, shone forth of his own (will).
(Medh., Gov., Nar., Kull, Nand.), or ‘egoism’ (R4gh.). ‘Appeared,’ i.e. ‘assumed a body of his own free will, not in consequence of His karman, his acts in a former existence’ (Medh., Gov., Kull, Nand.), or ‘ became discernible’ (vyakta), (N4r.), or ‘became ready to create’ (kéryonmukha), (R4gh.). Gov. explains vrittaug4A, ‘with irresistible power,’ by ‘who obtained power’ (praptam balam yena). Kull. explains tamonuda4, ‘dispelling the darkness (i. e. of destruction),’ by ‘giving an impulse to the root-evolvent,’ and Ragh. takes it in a similar way.
The commentators whose opinion Medh. adduces under verse 11, explained this verse also as a description of the self-evolution which the prakriti performs according to the Samkhyas. They took svayambhfi, ‘the self-existent,’ in the sense of ‘ which modifies itself of its own accord ;’ bhagavén, ‘divine,’ in the sense of ‘which is powerful enough to perform its business’ (svavy4pfra frvarak). The other words presented, of course, no great difficulties.
They took svayambhfi, ‘the self-existent,’ in the sense of ‘ which modifies itself of its own accord ;’ bhagavén, ‘divine,’ in the sense of ‘which is powerful enough to perform its business’ (svavy4pfra frvarak). The other words presented, of course, no great difficulties.
4. ‘By the two pronouns yo ’sau, “he who,” he indicates the supreme soul, known in the whole world, in the Vedas, Purdzas, ItihAsas, and so forth’ (Kull. in accordance with Medh.). The latter proposes, besides the explanation of atindriyagrahyad, ‘ who can be perceived by the internal organ (or the mind alone),’ which Gov., Kull., and Nand. adopt, another one, ‘who, being beyond the cognisance of the senses, can be perceived by Yoga-knowledge alone.’ Nar. and RAgh., too, differ from the interpretation given above. ‘ Subtile,’ i.e. ‘who is beyond all distinctions, such as small and great’ (Medh.), or ‘who is unperceivable by the external senses’ (Kull.), or ‘who is perceivable by subtile understanding only’ (Gov.), or ‘who is without limbs or parts’ (R4gh.). Nand. points to the common epithet of the supreme soul, ‘smaller than small’ (KasA. Up. II, 20; Bhagavadgita VIII, 9). AvyaktaA, ‘indiscernible,’ is taken by Kull. to mean ‘destitute of limbs or parts.’ Sarvabhfitamaya, ‘who contains all created beings,’ means, according to Medh., either ‘that he conceives the idea of creating all beings,’ or ‘that, in accordance with the Advaita Vedanta, all beings are illusory modifications of him.’ The latter view seems to be the one adopted by all the other commentators. ‘Shone forth,’ i.e. either ‘assumed
p. 5
8. He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters, and placed his seed in them.
9. That (seed) became a golden egg, in brilliancy equal to the sun; in that (egg) he himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world.
10. The waters are called nar44, (for) the waters are, indeed, the offspring of Nara; as they were his first residence (ayana), he thence is named Néréyana.
a visible body’ or ‘was self-luminous’ (Medh.), ‘assumed a body’ (Gov.), ‘appeared in the form of the evolutes, the great one, and so forth’ (Kull.), ‘ became discernible’ (Nand.).
a visible body’ or ‘was self-luminous’ (Medh.), ‘assumed a body’ (Gov.), ‘appeared in the form of the evolutes, the great one, and so forth’ (Kull.), ‘ became discernible’ (Nand.).
8. Besides the passages quoted under verse 5, compare also the Paurazik story of the mundane egg, Wilson, Vishnu-puraina I, pp. 39-40 (ed. Hall). ‘He’ is according to Medh. and Ragh. ‘Hiranyagarbha,’ according to the other commentators, ‘the supreme soul.’ Medh. refers to Rig-veda X, 121, 1. According to Medh, (verse 11) those who understood the whole passage to refer to the unintelligent prakriti, explained abhidhydya, ‘with a thought,’ to mean ‘independently of all external action, just as a man performs an act merely by a thought.’ They also asserted that the waters were produced as the first element only, but not before the great one and the other principles. Kull., on the other hand, sees in the expressions, used in this verse, the proof that Manu was an adherent of the non-dualistic Vedanta.
9. Medh., Kull., and Raghava take the epithet ‘golden’ figuratively, and consider it to be intended to convey the idea of purity or, as RAgh. also proposes, of brilliancy. Instead of ‘he himself was born as Brahman (masc.),’ the translation may also be ‘ Brahma himself was born.’ Medh. gives both explanations. The other commentators adopt that given in the text. The being produced is, according to all except Ragh. Hirazyagarbha. Ragh., as a strict Vedantin, thinks that it is Vira’. All the commentators point out that pitamaha, ‘the progenitor,’ lit. the grandfather, is a common name of Brahman (masc.).
10. This punning explanation of Brahman’s name Narayana occurs in most of the Purazas, see Wilson, Vishzu-purdma I, p. 56 (ed. Hall). Both Medh. and Gov. seem to have read Apo nara,
6 LAWS OF MANU. Ir,
11. From that (first) cause, which is indiscernible, eternal, and both real and unreal, was produced that male (Purusha), who is famed in this world (under the appellation of) Brahman.
12. The divine one resided in that egg during a whole year, then he himself by his thought (alone) divided it into two halves;
13. And out of those two halves he formed heaven and earth, between them the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, and the eternal abode of the waters.
14. From himself (4tmana) he also drew forth the mind, which is both real and unreal, likewise from the mind egoism, which possesses the function of self-consciousness (and is) lordly ;
15. Moreover, the great one, the soul, and all
‘the waters are called nara#.’ Nara is another name of the supreme soul.
Moreover, the great one, the soul, and all
‘the waters are called nara#.’ Nara is another name of the supreme soul.
tr. All our commentators except Ragh., whose explanation is wide off the mark, understand by the ‘ (First) cause’ the supreme soul. Sadasadaétmaka, ‘who is both real and unreal,’ means according to Medh., Gov., and Kull. ‘ who is existent or real, because he can be known through the Veda and Vedanta, but non-existent or unreal, as it were, because he cannot be perceived by the senses.’ Nand.’s explanation, ‘who is both the real, the efficient cause and the unreal the products, matter and the rest,’ seems, however, preferable. He says, sad iti karazam asad iti prakrityddi karyam. Regarding the ancient Vedic term Purusha, ‘the male’ or ‘spirit, see Muir, Sanskrit Texts, V, pp. 367-377.
12. Kull. explains the term ‘a year’ by ‘a year of Brahman.’ But Medh. and Gov., who say that a human year is meant, are in accordance with Satapatha-brahmama XI, 1, 6, 2.
13. The number ‘eight’ is obtained by adding to the four cardinal points, ‘the intermediate ones,’ north-east, south-east, &c.
14-15. The commentators offer two entirely different explanations of these two difficult verses. According to Medh., Gov., Kull. and Ragh. they describe the production of the Tattvas, the
p. 7
(products) affected by the three qualities, and, in their order, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.
According to Medh., Gov., Kull. and Ragh. they describe the production of the Tattvas, the
p. 7
(products) affected by the three qualities, and, in their order, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.
principles of the Samkhya system, the first three of which, Mahat, Ahamk4ra, and Manas, have been placed in an inverted order. Though Manu clearly states (verse 14) that the creator drew the Manas (which they take to mean the internal organ) from the 4tman (i.e. according to Medh. and Gov. ‘from the Pradhana,’ which is his own shape [tatpradhandd Atmana’ svasvar(pat, Medh.], or according to Gov., Kull, and Ragh. ‘from the Paramatman,’ the supreme soul, or according to another explanation of R4gh. ‘from himself’ [svasmat | givasya bhogartham v4]), that he drew the Ahamké4ra, egoism, from the Manas, and that he afterwards created the mahantam 4tmdnam, ‘the great one, the soul;’ (i.e. according to Medh. the Mahat which is called the soul because like the soul it is found in all bodies, or according to Kull. the Mahat which is called the soul because it is produced from the soul or is useful to the soul), yet they think that it must be understood that the Mahat was produced first, from it the Ahamk4ra, and from the latter the Manas. The next term sarvani trigu#4ni, ‘all the products modified by the three qualities,’ they refer to all products or evolutes named and to be named hereafter. They are thus obliged to disregard the 4a, ‘and,’ at the end of verse 15 a, and RAgh. states distinctly that 4a indicates there a stress to be laid on the preceding word (fak4ro ’vadh4randrthaA). Finally, Gov., Kull, and Ragh. are of opinion that the third a, ‘and,’ at the end of verse 15 4 indicates that the organs of action and the subtile elements have to be added in accordance with the doctrine of the Samkhya, while Medh. holds that the subtile elements alone have to be understood.
Nand. and, to judge from the fragments of his commentary, Nar. also give a far different explanation. According to them the first created Manas is another name for the principle usually called Mahat. In proof of this assertion Nand. adduces a passage from a Purana, which Medh. quotes on verse 74, where Manas is given as a synonym of Mahat (see also Cowell, Sarvadarsana-samgraha, p. 222, note 1) They farther take mahantam 4tm4nam, ‘the great one, the soul,’ to denote the Manas or internal organ ([mahantam] 4a mano ndma tattvam A&tm4nam 4tmano givasy4vakkhedakatvad vyapadesah, Righ.). By the expression sarvAmi triguz4ni Nand. seems to understand the subtile elements (tanmiatra),
p. 16
16. But, joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.
By the expression sarvAmi triguz4ni Nand. seems to understand the subtile elements (tanmiatra),
p. 16
16. But, joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.
and he too believes that the particle 4a at the end of verse 15 4 shows that the organs of action have to be understood. The object of the two verses is, according to Nand., not to give an account of the actual order of creation, but to show that the material cause of all created beings consists of portions of the creator’s body, of the Mahat, Ahamk4ra, the Manas, the Tanmftras, and the organs of sensation and action which belong to him; (anena slokadvayenaitad uktam bhavati | 4tmfy4nim mahadahamk&ramanastanmAtragfanakarmendriya#4m ams4h sarvabhQtopadanam iti") It would seem that Nand. and Nar.’s view, as regards the explanation of Manas (verse 14), is correct, but it may be doubted whether, with respect to the terms in verse 15, mahin 4tm& and sarvaa#i triguz4ni, they have been equally lucky. The explanation of the first four commentators seems altogether inadmissible. In conclusion, it may be stated that Nand. gives also the most acceptable explanation of the epithet of the Manas, sadasad4tmakam, which, he says, means ‘partaking of the nature of an evolvent and of an evolute’ (prakritivikrityatmakam), and of fsvaram, ‘lordly,’ ‘which causes all actions to be done’ (sarvakarmapravartakam).
16. The translation follows Nand., Ragh., and Vig#anabhikshu (SAmkhyas4ra, p. 19, ed. Hall), who agree that the verse derives the subtile or rudimentary bodies of individual beings from the subtile body of the creator, and the individual souls from his soul. They explain &tmam4trasu by apariééhinnasyaikasyatmana up4dhivasad avayavavatpratlyamaneshu 4tmasu (RAgh.), svagivamseshu (Nand.), and svamsaketaneshu (Vigz.). But they differ with respect to the meaning of ‘the particles of those six.’ ‘Those six’ are, according to Ragh. and Vigi., ‘the six senses,’ i.e. the five organs of sensation and the mind (which by implication indicate the whole subtile body, Vig#.) ; according to Nand., the six classes of tattvas, which he believes to be mentioned in the preceding two verses, viz.
(1) the great one, (2) egoism, (3) mind, (4) the subtile or rudimentary elements, (5, 6) the organs of sensation and action.
Medh., Gov., and Kull., on the other hand, take the verse as follows: ‘Joining minute particles of those six (i.e. of egoism and of the five subtile elements) which possess immeasurable power to particles of the same (i.e. of evolutes from the same six [Gov., Kull.], ive. of the gross elements produced from theTanmftras and the organs
p. 9
17. Because those six (kinds of) minute particles, which form the (creator’s) frame, enter (4-sri) these (creatures), therefore the wise call his frame sartra, (the body.)
of the gross elements produced from theTanmftras and the organs
p. 9
17. Because those six (kinds of) minute particles, which form the (creator’s) frame, enter (4-sri) these (creatures), therefore the wise call his frame sartra, (the body.)
produced from egoism [Medh.]), he framed all beings.’ It would seem that Nand.’s explanation comes nearest to the truth, though, as stated above, his manner of showing that six principles or classes of principles are mentioned in the preceding verses is not altogether satisfactory. But, at all events, he has seen that the expression ‘ those six’ must refer to the enumeration in the preceding two verses.
17. The translation again follows Nand., with whom Nar. seems to have agreed. He says, ‘ Because six (kinds of) particles of his frame, i.e. the six before-mentioned portions of the body of Brahman, the Mahat, and the rest, enter, i.e. pervade these—all the creatures mentioned in the preceding verse are referred to—on account of that entering (srayant), they call the body of that, i.e. of Brahman, sarira. The meaning is as follows: The body of Hiranyagarbha is called sarira, because it enters (srayati) all beings by means of its portions, being (their) material cause; but it is not destroyed (sfryate) like a common body.’ Nand. thinks, therefore, that the punning explanation of the word sarira from shad 4sri, or sti, is given in order to show that the other etymology, which derives it from srf,‘to destroy,’ is not applicable to the body of Brahman.
Medh., Gov., and Kull. take the verse very differently. They agree in supposing that the body is called sarira, because the six elements mentioned enter into or produce the gross elements and the organs. Medh. reads tantmani for tasyem4ni, and according to his interpretation the translation would be, ‘ Because the six (kinds of) minute particles producing the body enter into (being their cause) or produce these (i.e. because egoism, the before-mentioned organs and the subtile elements enter the gross elements which will be mentioned hereafter), therefore the wise call the body, which is the visible shape of that (Pradh4na), sarira.’ Kull., who reads tasya, differs from this version only therein that he refers tasya to Brahman. Ragh. finally gives, in accordance with his explanation of ‘those six,’ the following version, ‘Because the six (kinds of) fine particles constituting the subtile frame of that (Hiranyagarbha, i.e. the mind and the rest) enter these (gross bodies as their place of enjoyment), therefore the wise call the visible frame of that (i.e. of the individual soul) the sarira.’ He agrees, therefore, with Medh., Gov., and Kull. so far that he, too, refers the verse to the gross bodies,
p. 18
18. That the great elements enter, together with their functions and the mind, through its minute parts the framer of all beings, the imperishable one.
so far that he, too, refers the verse to the gross bodies,
p. 18
18. That the great elements enter, together with their functions and the mind, through its minute parts the framer of all beings, the imperishable one.
18. The commentators give five different versions of this verse :
(1) Medh., ‘ That (i.e. the Pradhana is) the producer of all beings and imperishable, because these, (viz.) the gross elements with their functions (and before them) the mind with its minute particles (i.e. the subtile elements, intelligence, egoism, and the organs), enter it.’
(2) Gov. and Kull. ‘From that (i.e. the Brahman, which has the form of the subtile elements and of egoism) are produced the gross elements, together with their functions and the mind, which is the producer of all beings through its minute (i.e. imperceptible) portions (i.e. its products, good and bad thoughts, pleasure and pain, and so forth, the world being produced by the good and evil actions originating in the mind) and imperishable.’ (3) Ragh., ‘That (i.e. the gross body) the gross elements enter (as producers [or produce]) and the mind, which is the producer of all beings and imperishable, together with the actions (i.e. merit and so forth) and with the (organs which are chiefly) limbs.’ (4) Nand., ‘(As) that (body of Hiranyagarbha), though through its small portions it produces all beings, yet is imperishable, (even thus) the great beings (egoism, mind, the triguwzas, the organs of sensation and action) and the mind (i.e. the principle, called the great one), with the actions (i.e. the individual souls) enter it. (5) N4r.’s explanation is mutilated, but seems to have been as follows, ‘That (i.e. the subtile body) the gross elements (which produce the gross body) enter, together with the karman (i.e merit and demerit) and the mind, (which is) the producer of all beings and imperishable, together with (its functions, knowledge, desire, hatred, &c., which are, as it were, its) minute portions.’
It seems to me that not one of the above explanations can be accepted in its entirety. I agree with Nar. in thinking that the word ‘that’ refers to the subtile body and that the verse describes the origin of the gross body as the result of the union of the great, i.e. the gross elements and of the manas with the subtile body. If the mahanti bhftani are the gross elements, it will, however, be necessary to understand by karmabhiA, ‘their functions,’ ' which, as Medh. and Kull. mention, are ‘the function of supporting for the earth, of ripening or cooking for fire and so forth.’ By manas I understand here the internal organ which forms the con-
T, 20. THE CREATION. II
19. But from minute body(-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.
THE CREATION. II
19. But from minute body(-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.
20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
necting link between the gross senses or the gross body and the individual soul, and thus may be said to frame or fashion all beings. As its nature is atomic, it is necessary to connect avayavaif sfikshmai’ with sarvabhfitakrit and to take avayava either in the manner proposed by Kull., or to assume that the several mind-atoms are referred to, which belong each to a different individual.
1g. With respect to the explanation of the expression ‘the seven Purushas, the commentators differ as much as regarding ‘the six’ in ver. 16. Medh., Gov., and Kull. add ‘the great one’ or the Mahat to their previous enumeration, ‘egoism and the five subtile elements,’ while Nar. and Nand. add the ‘portions of the Atman’ (ver. 16) to those elements which they understand to be comprised by ‘the six.’ That is, probably, the meaning of RAgh. also, who says, purusha#4m manaddipurushantandm saptanam, ‘of the Purushas, i.e. of those seven, the first of which is the mind, and the last of which is the Purusha.’ All the commentators agree that the term Purusha, ‘male or spirit,’ is applied to the principles in a metaphorical sense, but they give various reasons for the fact, ‘because they are for the sake of the soul,’ purusha (Medh.), or ‘because they were produced by the Purusha, the Atman’ (Kull.). N&r. understands ‘and’ with avyayat and says, ‘and from the imperishable, i.e. from Prakriti.” ‘The perishable’ designates, of course, ‘the gross bodies.’
20. This verse expresses the doctrine that the first element ether (4k4sa) possesses one quality, sound, alone ; the next, wind two, sound and tangibility ; the third, fire or light, three and so forth; see also Samkhyasara, p.18. Nand. places ver. 27 before this verse, and asserts that ‘if some read the latter seven verses further on, that is only due to an error of the copyists.’ Though vers. 20 and 27 are without any connexion with what precedes and follows, I do not think it advisable to adopt Nand.’s proposal, which I fear is based on nothing but a clever guess, against the authority of all the other commentators, If it were permissible to transpose the
12 LAWS OF MANU. I, ar.
21. But in the beginning he assigned their several names, actions, and conditions to all (created beings), even according to the words of the Veda.
22. He, the Lord, also created the class of the gods, who are endowed with life, and whose nature is action; and the subtile class of the SAadhyas, and the eternal sacrifice.
23. But from fire, wind, and the sun he drew forth the threefold eternal Veda, called R74, Yagus, and S4man, for the due performance of the sacrifice.
23. But from fire, wind, and the sun he drew forth the threefold eternal Veda, called R74, Yagus, and S4man, for the due performance of the sacrifice.
24. Time and the divisions of time, the lunar mansions and the planets, the rivers, the oceans, the mountains, plains, and uneven ground,
25. Austerity, speech, pleasure, desire, and anger, this whole creation he likewise produced, as he desired to call these beings into existence.
verses, I would propose to insert here ver, 27 and to place this verse (20) after ver. 78.
22. The commentators differ very much regarding the explanation of this verse. Medh. proposes, ‘And the Lord created (for the sake) of men who are intent on performing sacrificial rites (the multitude) of the gods, the subtile class of the Sadhyas and the eternal sacrifice.’ ‘ Others’ mentioned by him, Gov. and Kull, insert another ‘and’ between karm4tmaném and praainam, and explain, ‘The Lord created the multitude of the gods whose nature is the sacrifice and of those endowed with life.’ By the ‘gods whose nature is the sacrifice’ they understand the inanimate implements, used at sacrifices, but frequently addressed in the Veda as divine beings, while the gods endowed with life are said to be Indra, and so forth. Ragh., with whom N§&r. seems to have agreed, says, ‘And the Lord created among beings endowed with life the to us invisible multitude of the gods, who by the results of their actions have obtained their divine station, or who subsist on offerings.’ None of these speculations is of much use. But it may be that karman means ‘sacrificial rites,’ and karm&tmaném may be translated by ‘ whose nature is the sacrifice,’ or ‘ whose divinity depends on the performance of sacrifices. Regarding the Saddhyas, see Wilson, Vishzu-purama II, p. 22 (ed. Hall).
p. 13
26. Moreover, in order to distinguish actions, he separated merit from demerit, and he caused the creatures to be affected by the pairs (of opposites), such as pain and pleasure.
27. But with the minute perishable particles of the five (elements) which have been mentioned, this whole (world) is framed in due order.
28. But to whatever course of action the Lord at first appointed each (kind of beings), that alone it has spontaneously adopted in each succeeding creation.
29. Whatever he assigned to each at the (first) treation, noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, that clung (afterwards) spontaneously to it.
30. As at the change of the seasons each season of its own accord assumes its distinctive marks, even so corporeal beings (resume in new births) their (appointed) course of action.
31. But for the sake of the prosperity of the
26. Other pairs of opposites are desire and anger, passionate attachment and hatred, hunger and thirst, sorrow and delusion, and so forth (Kull.).
31. But for the sake of the prosperity of the
26. Other pairs of opposites are desire and anger, passionate attachment and hatred, hunger and thirst, sorrow and delusion, and so forth (Kull.).
27. ‘The minute perishable particles of the five (elements)’ are according to Medh., Gov., and Kull. the subtile or rudimentary elements which may be called ‘ perishable,’ because they are changed to gross elements. R4gh. explains the epithet ‘perishable’ by adding ‘because they have been produced.’ The commentators offer various explanations in order to account for the insertion of this verse which interrupts the continuity of the text. Medh. thinks that it is a résumé. Gov. and Kull. state that it is meant to remove the doubt, whether Brahman’s mental creation was effected without the help of the ‘ principles,’ and N4r. asserts that it is meant to teach that atoms are not eternal. Nand.,as stated above, note on ver. 20, places the verse immediately after ver. rg.
gi. Nar. explains lokavivriddhyartham, ‘for the sake of the or ‘ yp. 32 worlds, he caused the Brahmama, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sfddra to proceed from his_ mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet.
32. Dividing his own body, the Lord became half male and half female; with that (female) he produced Virdag.
33- But know me, O most holy among the twiceborn, to be the creator of this whole (world), whom that male, Virag, himself produced, having performed austerities.
34. Then I, desiring to produce created beings, performed very difficult austerities, and (thereby) called into existence ten great sages, lords of created beings,
36. They created seven other Manus possessing great brilliancy, gods and classes of gods and great sages of measureless power, prosperity of the worlds,’ by varvair lokarakshazasamvardhanartham, ‘in order to protect the world by means of the castes and to make it prosperous.’ Medh., Gov., and Kull., who interpret the compound by ‘in order that (the inhabitants of) the worlds might multiply,’ point to the benefits conferred by sacrifices of householders, III, 46. Nand. says with reference to the bearing of the verse, ‘Now he speaks of the creation of the deities representing the four castes.’ Regarding the origin of the castes, see Rig-veda X, go, 12.
32-33. ‘Produced,’ i.e. ‘begat’ (Medh., Kull.), Wilson, Vishzupurdza I, p. 104, note 2 (ed. Hall).
34-35. Wilson, Vishzu-purdza I, p. 100, note 2 (ed. Hall).
36. ‘Manus,’ i.e. ‘creators in the several Manvantaras’ (Medh., Gov., Kull., Ragh.). ‘ Gods,’ i.e.‘such gods as had not been created by Brahman’ (verse 22, Medh., Kull.); devanik4y4n, ‘classes of gods’ (Nand., Nar.), means according to Medh., Kull., and Ragh. ‘the abodes of the gods’ (devasth4nani). R4gh. gives also the meaning ‘the servants of the gods.’