Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1of 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.) 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, 10 LAWS OF MANU. I, 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.
2so far that he, too, refers the verse to the gross bodies, 10 LAWS OF MANU. I, 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.
3THE 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.
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.
1of 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.) 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, 10 LAWS OF MANU. I, 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.
2so far that he, too, refers the verse to the gross bodies, 10 LAWS OF MANU. I, 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.
3THE 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.
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.