Chapter I.
i. 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 (vama) 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 (Svayambhu), which is unknowable and unfathom- able.'
1. 1. Kull. thinks that pratipu^y a, ' 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. p. 419), begin the Sawhita 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 multi- tude of created beings, of those born from the womb, of those born from eggs, of those produced from exudations and from ger- minating 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) LAWS OF MANU.
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 Dark- ness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly im- mersed, as it were, in deep sleep.
contained in it' (Medh.), or ' the institutes' (Gov.). A&ntya, ' un- knowable/ i.e. 'the extent of which is unknowable' (Kull. and Ragh.), or ' unknowable on account of its depth' (Gov.), or ' the meaning of which cannot be known by reasoning' (Nar.), 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 Mimawsa 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 know- able but to be inferred as the foundation of the Smrzti' (Medh.), or ' difficult to understand' (Ragh.). Kull. and Ragh. explain karya- tattvartha 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 1 1 Medh. gives still another explana- tion 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 Sawkhya principles.
5. The account of the creation given in verses 5-13 bears, as Dr.Muir remarks (Sanskrit Texts, IV, p. 2 6), some resemblance to that contained in some passages of the -Satapatha-brahmawa, especially XI, 1, 6, 1 seqq., and is probably founded on some Vedic work, 1 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 Taittiriya-brahmawa II, 8, 9, 4. Sayawa, 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, 1,6. THE CREATION.
6. Then the divine Self-existent (Svayambhu, 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 com- mentators, with the exception of Ragh., explain tama^, ' darkness,' by mulaprakrzti-6, 'the root-evolvent' of the Sawkhya philosophy, and tamobhutam, ' in the shape of darkness,' by * absorbed in the root-evolvent.' Ragh., who throughout explains Manu's sayings in the sense of the Vedanta school, takes it for an equivalent of avidya, ' ignorance.' The explanation of the four adjectives, which express in different terms the impossibility of knowing the mula- prakrz'ti, differs very much in the six commentaries. The most reasonable appears to be Kulluka's view, who assumes that the four words refer to the impossibility of attaining a knowledge of the prakn'ti by the three means mentioned below, XII, 105, and 'by reasoning' (tarka). He paraphrases apra^Tiata, ' unperceived,' by 'imperceptible by the senses;' alakshawa, 'destitute of marks,' by ' uninferrible;' avig-weya, ' unknowable,' by ' undefinable by words or authoritative statement.'
6. The above translation follows Gov., Nan, and Kull. The other three commentators take mahabhutadivmtau^a^ as a relative com- pound. 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. AvyaktaA, ' (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 Upani- shads ' (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' 4 LAWS OF MANU.
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' (Ragh.). '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), (Nar.), or ' became ready to create' (karyonmukha), (Ragh.). Gov. explains vrz'ttau^sU, ' with irresistible power,' by ' who obtained power' (praptaw balaw yena). Kull. explains tamonuda^, '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 1 1, explained this verse also as a description of the self-evolution which the praknti performs according to the Sawkhyas. They took sva- yambhu/z, ' the self-existent,' in the sense of ' which modifies itself of its own accord;' bhagavan, 'divine,' in the sense of 'which is power- ful enough to perform its business' (svavyapara lsvara/i). The other words presented, of course, no great difficulties.
7. 'By the two pronouns yo 'sau, "he who," he indicates the supreme soul, known in the whole world, in the Vedas, Pura/zas, Itihasas, and so forth' (Kull. in accordance with Medh.). The latter proposes, besides the explanation of atindriyagrahya^, ' who can be perceived by the internal organ (or the mind alone),' which Gov., Kull., and Nand. adopt, another one, ' who, being beyond the cog- nisance 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' (Ragh.). Nand. points to the common epithet of the supreme soul, ' smaller than small' (Ka/Vi Up. II, 20; Bhagavadgita VIII, 9). A vyakta^, 'indiscernible,' is taken by Kull. to mean ' destitute of limbs or parts.' Sarvabhuta- maya^, '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 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 sub; in that (egg) he himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world.
10. The waters are called nara^, (for) the waters are, indeed, the offspring of Nara; as they were his first residence (ayana), he thence is named Nara- ya;/a.
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 Paura;/ik story of the mundane egg, Wilson, Visrmu-pura/za I, pp. 39-40 (ed. Hall). 'He' is according to Medh. and Ragh. 'Hira- rcyagarbha,' 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 prakr/ti, explained abhidhyaya, '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' figura- tively, 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., Hirawyagarbha. 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 Narayawa occurs in most of the Purarcas, see Wilson, Vish«u-pura«a I, p. 56 (ed. Hall). Both Medh. and Gov. seem to have read apo nara//, LAWS OF MANU.
£ 1 1. 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 (atmana^) 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_£auly. and all 1 the waters are called nara^.' Nara is another name of the supreme soul.
11. All our commentators except Ragh., whose explanation is wide off the mark, understand by the ' (First) cause ' the supreme soul. Sadasadatmaka, ' who is both real and unreal,' means ac- cording 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 karawam asad iti prakrz'tyadi karyam. Regarding the ancient Vedic term Purusha, • the male ' or ' spirit,' see Muir, Sanskrit Texts, V, pp. 367-377.
1 2. 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-brahma«a XI, 1, 6, 2.
1 3. 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 explana- tions of these two difficult verses. According to Medh., Gov., Kull., and Ragh. they describe the production of the Tattvas, the 1,15. THE CREATION.
(products) affected by the three qualities, and, in their order, the five organs, which perceive the objects of sensation.
principles of the Sa/rckhya system, the first three of which, Mahat, Ahawkara, 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 atman (i. e. according to Medh. and Gov. ' from the Pradhana,' which is his own shape [tatpradhanad atmana^ svasvarupat, Medh.], or according to Gov., Kull., and Ragh. ' from the Paramat- man,' the supreme soul, or according to another explanation of Ragh. 'from himself [svasmat | ^fvasya bhogarthaw va]), that he drew the Aha/rckara, egoism, from the Manas, and that he after- wards created the mahantam atmanam, '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 rroduced 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 Ahawkara, and from the latter the Manas. The next term sarvam triguwani, ' 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 ^a,' and,' at the cad of verse 15 a, and Ragh. states distinctly that £a indicates there a stress to be laid on the preceding word (/fcakaro 'vadharawartha^). Finally, Gov., Kull., and Ragh. are of opinion that the third ka, 'and,' at the end of verse 15 3 indicates that the organs of action and the subtile elements have to be added in accordance with the doctrine of the Sa^khya, 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 Pura;za, which Medh. quotes on verse 74, where Manas is given as a synonym of Mahat (see also Cowell, Sarvadanuna-sawgraha, p. 222, note 1). They farther take mahantam atmanam, 'the great one, the soul,' to denote the Manas or internal organ ([mahantam] k& mano nama tattvam atmanam atmano ^ivasya- va^Aedakatvad vyapade.ra/2, Ragh.). By the expression sarvam tri- gu;/ani Nand. seems to understand the subtile elements (tanmatra), 8 LAWS OF MANU.
.
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 ka. at the end of verse 1 5 b 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, Aha^kara, the Manas, the Tanmatras, and the organs of sensation and action which belong to him; (anena dokadva- yenaitad ukta;;z bhavati | atmiyanam mahadaha^karamanastan- matra^anakarmendriyawam 2msVi sarvabhutopadanam iti H) It would seem that Nand. and Nar/s view, as regards the explana- tion of Manas (verse 14), is correct, but it may be doubted whether, with respect to the terms in verse 15, mahan atma and sarvam triguwani, 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, sadasadatmakam, which, he says, means ' partaking of the nature of an evolvent and of an evolute ' (prakn'tivikrz'tyatmakam), and of lyvaram, 'lordly,' 'which causes all actions to be done' (sarva- karmapravartakam).
16. The translation follows Nand., Ragh., and Vi^wanabhikshu (Saz/zkhyasara, 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 atmamatrasu by apari/£Minnasyaikasyatmana upa- dhiva^ad avayavavatpratiyamaneshu atmasu (Ragh.), svag-ivaiweshu (Nand.), and svawsa^etaneshu (Vign.). But they differ with respect to the meaning of ' the particles of those six/ ' Those six ' are, according to Ragh. and Vign., 'the six senses/ i.e. the five organs of sensation and the mind (which by implication indicate the whole subtile body, Vign.); 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 rudi- mentary 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 par- ticles of the same (i.e. of evolutes from the same six [Gov., Kull.], i.e. of the gross elements produced from theTanmatras and the organs I, 17. THE CREATION.
17. Because those six (kinds of) minute particles, which form the (creator's) frame, enter (a-m) these (creatures), therefore the wise call his frame sarira, (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 Brah- man, 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 (^rayawat), they call the body of that, i.e. of Brahman, jarira. The meaning is as follows: The body of Hira?/yagarbha is called jarira, because it enters (jrayati) all beings by means of its portions, being (their) material cause; but it is not destroyed (rfryate) like a common body.' Nand. thinks, therefore, that the punning explanation of the word jarira from shad am, or sri, 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 jarira, because the six elements mentioned enter into or produce the gross elements and the organs. Medh. reads tanimani for tasyemani, and according to his interpre- tation 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 sub- tile elements enter the gross elements which will be mentioned here- after), therefore the wise call the body, which is the visible shape of that (Pradhana), jarira.' 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 ver- sion, 'Because the six (kinds of) fine particles constituting the subtile frame of that (Hirawyagarbha, 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 jarira.' He agrees, therefore, with Medh., Gov., and Kull. so far that he, too, refers the verse to the gross bodies.
IO LAWS OF MANU. I, 18.
1 8. That the great elements enter, together with their functions and the mind, through its minute parts the framer of all beings, the imperishable one.
1 8. The commentators give five different versions of this verse: (i) Meclh., '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 origi- nating in the mind) and imperishable.' (3) Righ., 'That (i.e. the gross body) the gross elements enter (as pr cers [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 Hira^yagarbha), though through its small portions it produces all beings, yet is imperishable, (even thus) the great b;:• (egoism, mind, the trigu«as, 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) Nar.'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 bhutani are the gross elements, it will, how- ever, be necessary to understand by karmabhi^, ' 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- 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) ac- quires 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 avayavai^ suksh- mai^ with sarvabhutakn't 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.