摩奴法論

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 commentators, 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 mulaprakrz'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,'