Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1They 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.’
2(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 2 LAWS OF MANU. I, 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.
35. 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, I, 6. THE CREATION. 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.’
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1They 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.’
2(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 2 LAWS OF MANU. I, 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.
35. 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, I, 6. THE CREATION. 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.’
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.