Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1On 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 4 LAWS OF MANU. 1,7. 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.
2They 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 I, 10. THE CREATION. 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.).
3a 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.
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.
1On 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 4 LAWS OF MANU. 1,7. 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.
2They 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 I, 10. THE CREATION. 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.).
3a 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.
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.