Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Moreover, 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 I, 15. THE CREATION. 7 (products) affected by the three qualities, and, in their order, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.
2According to Medh., Gov., Kull. and Ragh. they describe the production of the Tattvas, the I, 15. THE CREATION. 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), 8 LAWS OF MANU. I, 16. 16. But, joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.
3By the expression sarvAmi triguz4ni Nand. seems to understand the subtile elements (tanmiatra), 8 LAWS OF MANU. I, 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 I, 17. THE CREATION. 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.)
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.
1Moreover, 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 I, 15. THE CREATION. 7 (products) affected by the three qualities, and, in their order, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.
2According to Medh., Gov., Kull. and Ragh. they describe the production of the Tattvas, the I, 15. THE CREATION. 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), 8 LAWS OF MANU. I, 16. 16. But, joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.
3By the expression sarvAmi triguz4ni Nand. seems to understand the subtile elements (tanmiatra), 8 LAWS OF MANU. I, 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 I, 17. THE CREATION. 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.)
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.