०२ लोकोत्पत्तिः

This (World) was in existence in the form, as it were, of dense Darkness,—unperceived, undifferentiated, incogitable, (hence) incognizable; as it was wholly merged in deep sleep.—(5).

“Where we began and whereto we are carried! Manu was asked to expound the duties laid down in the scriptures, and he promised to expound them; under the circumstances, the description of the world in its undifferentiated state (with which the present verse begins) is wholly irrelevant and purposeless. In fact it becomes a true case of the well-known proverb —‘ Being questioned about mangoes, he describes the Kovidāra tree.’ Further, there is no authority in support of what is here described; nor is any useful purpose served by it. So the whole of this First Discourse need not be studied at all.”

• उच्यते । शास्त्रस्य महाप्रयोजत्वम् अनेन सर्वेण प्रतिपाद्यते । ब्रह्माद्याः स्थावरपर्यन्ताः संसारगतयो धर्माधर्मनिमित्ता अत्र प्रतिपाद्यन्ते ।

• तमसा बहुरूपेण वेष्टिताः कर्महेतुना" (म्ध् १.४९) इति ।

वक्ष्यति च-

• एता दृष्ट्वा तु जीवस्य गतीः स्वेनैव चेतसा ।

• धर्मतो ऽधर्मतश् चैव धर्मे दध्यात् सदा मनः ॥ इति । (म्ध् १२.२३)

ततश् च निरतिशयैश्वर्यहेतुर् धर्मस् तद्विपरीतश् चाधर्मस् तद्रूपपरिज्ञानार्थम् इदं शास्त्रं महाप्रयोजनम् अध्येतव्यम् इत्य् अध्यायतात्पर्यम् । सूत्रं त्व् अत्र मन्त्रार्थवादाः सामान्यतो दृष्टं च । तथा च मन्त्रः ।

• तम आसीत् तमसा गूऌहम् अग्रे ऽप्रकेतम् सलिलं सर्वम् आ इदम् ।

• तुच्छेनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत् तपसस्¹ तन् महिनाजयतैकम् ॥ (र्व् १०.१२९.३)

चन्द्रार्काग्न्यादिषु बाह्याध्यात्मिकेषु महाप्रलये प्रकाशकेषु नष्टेषु तम एव केवलम् आसीत् । तद् अपि तमः स्थूलरूपतमसा गूढं संवृत्तम् । न हि तदानीं कश्चिद् अपि ज्ञातास्ति । अतो ज्ञातुर् अभावान् न कस्यचित् ज्ञानम् अस्तीति तमसा गूढम् उच्यते । अग्ने भूतसृष्टेः प्राक् अप्रकेतम् अज्ञातं सर्वं आः आसीत् । इदं सलिलं सरणधर्मकम् क्रियावत् यत् किंचिच् चेष्टावत् तत् सर्वं निश्चेष्टम् आसीत् । तुच्छेन सूक्ष्मेणाभु स्थूलम् अपिहितं प्रकृत्यात्मनि विशेषरूपं लीनम् इत्य् अर्थः । एतावताव्याकृतावस्था जगतो द्योतिता । चतुर्थेन पादेनाद्या सृष्ट्यवस्थोच्यते । तपसस्² तन् महिना महत्त्वेन एकं यद् आसीत् तद् अजायत विशेषात्मनाभिव्यज्यते स्म । कर्मवाशात् पुनः प्रादुर् बभूवेत्य् अर्थः । अथ वा तस्याम् अवस्थायां तपःकर्मणा³ महत्त्वेन हिरण्यगर्भ आत्मनाजायत प्रादुर् आसीत् । यथा वक्ष्यति “ततः स्वयंभूः” इति (म्ध् १.६ ) ।

• सामान्यतो दृष्टेन महाप्रलयो ऽपि संभाव्यते । यस्य ह्य् एकदेशे नाशो दृष्टस् तस्य सर्वस्यापि नाशो दृश्यते । यथा शालापि क्वचिद् दह्यमाना दृष्टा कदाचित् सर्वो ग्रामो दह्यते । ये च कर्तृपूर्वा भावास् ते सर्वे विनश्वरा गृहप्रासादादयः । कर्तृपूर्वं चेदं जगत् सरित्समुद्रशैलाद्यात्मकम् । अतो गृहादिवन् नङ्क्ष्यतीति संभाव्यते । कर्तृपूर्वतैव न सिद्धेति चेत्, तन्निवेशविशेषवत्वादिना गृहादिवत् सापि साध्यत इत्यादि सामान्यतो दृष्टम् ।

• न च प्रमाणशुद्धौ तदूषणे वा प्रयतामहे ऽनिन्दंपरत्वाच् छास्त्रस्य । एतद् धि यावन् न विचार्य निरूपितं तावन् न सम्यग् अवधार्यते । तथानिरूपणे च तर्कशास्त्रता स्यान् न धर्मशास्त्रता ग्रन्थविस्तरश् च प्रसज्यते ।

• प्रक्रियाबहुलं चेदं सर्वम् उपन्यसिष्यते । क्वचित् पौराणी प्रक्रिया, क्वचित् सांख्यानाम् । न तया ज्ञातयाज्ञातया वा कश्चिद् धर्माधर्मयोर् विशेष इति निपुणतया न निरूप्यते । अर्थिता चेत् तत एवान्वेष्या । पदार्थयोजनाव्याख्यानमात्रं त्व् अध्यायस्योपदिश्यते तद् एव करिष्यामः । तात्पर्यम् उपदर्शितम् एव ।

• आसीद् इदं जगत् तमोभूतं तम इव । भूतशब्दो ऽनेकार्थो ऽप्य्⁴ उपमायां प्रयुक्तः । यथा “यत् तद् भिन्नेष्व् अभिन्नं छिन्नेष्व् अच्छिन्नं सामान्यभूतं स शब्दः” इति सामान्यभूत इति सामान्यम् इवेत्य् अर्थः । किं तमसा जगतः सादृश्यम् अत आह- अप्रज्ञातम् । विशेषाणां स्वभावानां विकाराणां प्रकृताव् उपलयनाद् अतः प्रत्यकेणाज्ञातम् । अनुमानात् तर्हि ज्ञायेत । तद् अपि चालक्षणम् । लक्षणं लिङ्गं चिह्नम्, तद् अपि तस्याम् अवस्थायां प्रलीनम् एव, सर्वविकाराणां विशेषात्मना विनष्टत्वात् । अप्रतर्क्यम् । यद्रूपम् आसीत् तर्कयितुम् अपि न तद्रूपतया शक्यम् । तर्कप्रकारम्⁵ अनुमानं निषेधति । न सामान्यतो दृष्टम् अनुमानम् अस्ति । तद्रूपकावेदकं न विशेषतो दृष्टम् अतश् चाविज्ञेयम् ।

• नैव तर्ह्य् आसीद् असद् एवाजायतेति प्राप्तम् एतन् निषेधति- प्रसुप्तम् इव सर्वतः । नासतः सत उत्पत्तिः । उक्तं च “सद् एव सोम्येदम् अग्र आसीत् । कथम् असतः सज् जायेत” (छु ६.२.१–२) इत्याद्य् उपनिषत्सु । अतश् चाविज्ञेयम् अवच्छेदविषयैः प्रमाणैः । आगमात् तादृशाद् एव गम्यते । प्रसुप्तम् इव जाग्रत्स्वप्नवत्तां परित्यज्य संप्रसादावस्था सुषुप्तिर् दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपात्ता । यथा “अयम् आत्मा सुषुप्त्यवस्थायां निःसंबोधक्लेशप्रध्वस्ताशेषविकप आस्ते, न च नास्तीति शक्यते वक्तुम्, प्रबुद्धस्य सुखम् अस्वाप्सम्” इति प्रत्यभिज्ञानदर्शनात् । एवं जगदागमात् सिद्धार्थरूपाद् आभासानुमानेभ्यश् च तार्किकाणाम् अवसीयते । आसीद् इति । वर्तमाना तु सावस्था न कस्यचित्⁶ विज्ञेयेत्य् अत उक्तम् अविज्ञेयम् । सर्वतो नैकदेशप्रलय इत्य् अर्थः ॥ १.५ ॥

At the very outset there arises an objection—

“Where we began and whereto we are carried! Manu was asked to expound the duties laid down in the scriptures, and he promised to expound them; under the circumstances, the description of the world in its undifferentiated state (with which the present verse begins) is wholly irrelevant and purposeless. In fact it becomes a true case of the well-known proverb —‘ Being questioned about mangoes, he describes the Kovidāra tree.’ Further, there is no authority in support of what is here described; nor is any useful purpose served by it. So the whole of this First Discourse need not be studied at all.”

Our answer to the above is follows:—What the First Discourse does is to describe the fact of the Treatise having an extensive scope; so that what is described here is the whole range of the cosmic process, beginning with Brahman down to the inanimate objects, as forming the basis of Dharma and Adharma, Right and Wrong; for instance, verse 49 describes the vegetable objects as ‘wrapped in manifold Darkness, the result of their own acts’ [which shows that plants also are related to, and affected by, Right and Wrong]; and later on, again in Discourse 1, verse 23, it will be stated that ‘having recognised, by means of his intellect, these transitions of the individual soul, through merit and demerit, (Right and Wrong), one should fix his attention upon the Right.’ From all this it follows that Right is the cause of superiority (in the scale of existence) and Wrong of the reverse; thus the present treatise, expounding the exact nature of Right and Wrong, serves an extensive purpose, and as such should be studied. Such is the purport of the First Discourse.

The authority for what is declared in the present verse consists of Mantra, Arthavāda and Inference. As for the Mantra we have the following (in Ṛgveda, 10.129.3)—‘Darkness existed, enveloped in darkness, uncognised in the beginning; this whole existed in a fluid state; the gross was contained in the subtile; the one entity that existed came to lie born, by virtue of austerities.’ The meaning is as follows:—‘At the Universal Dissolution, the Sun, the Moon, the Fire and other sources of light having been destroyed, there existed Darkness alone;—this (subtile) Darkness was ‘enveloped,’ wrapped, in Darkness in the gross form; at this time there was no cogniser; hence, there being no one to cognise things, there was no cognition of anything; therefore Darkness is described as enveloped in darkness;—‘in the beginning,’ i.e. before elemental creation, it was ‘uncognised,’ unknown; ‘this whole existed in the fluid state,’ i.e. every active or mobile object was motionless; the ‘gross,’ the larger, ‘was contained in the subtile,’ the smaller; i.e. every differentiated object was resolved into its original evolvents; this indicates the undifferentiated state of the world; and the last foot of the Mantra describes the earliest stage of evolution; that ‘one entity’ which ‘existed’ ‘came to be born, by virtue of austerities,’ i.e. by the force of austerity it became manifested in differentiated forms; i.e. under the influence of past acts, it came into existence again; or, it may mean that under the conditions described, Hiraṇyagarbha, came into existence by himself, by virtue of his austerities; as described later on (verso 6)—‘Thereupon the self-born &c. &c.’

The possibility of Universal Dissolution is proved by Inference: That which has been found to bo destroyed in one part is also found to be destroyed in its entirety; e.g. at one time a single house is found to be burnt, and at another time the entire village is burnt (this is the Major Premise); all such things as are produced by active agents,—such for instance, as houses, palaces and the like are found to be liable to destruction (this is the second step in the inferential process);—this world, consisting of rivers, oceans, mountains &c., is the work of an active agent (this is the third step);—hence it follows that, like the house &c., the whole world will come to destruction (this is the final conclusion). It will not be right to argue that the fact of the world being the work of an active agent is itself not yet established;—for that fact also is deduced from the fact of the world having, like the house and such things, a particular shape;—all this constitutes the Inference (upon which the statements in the present verse are based).

We do not make any attempt either at clarifying (discussing and strengthening) the said proofs, or at refuting (the counter-arguments); because the present treatise does not deal with proofs and reasonings; and reasonings could not be fully grasped until they have been fully stated and examined; and if all this were done, the work would become a treatise on ‘Reasonings,’ not on ‘Law;’ and further, it would become too prolix.

This subject (of Creation and Dissolution) in its details shall be found described (in verses 7 et seq.) and the process described shall be in some places in accordance with the Purāṇas and sometimes in accordance with the Sāṅkhya doctrines. But the knowing or not knowing of those details does not make any difference in Right and Wrong; hence we are not going to deal with it in detail. If any person stands in need of the detailed account of the process, be should search for it in the said sources of information. What we undertake to do is to construe and explain the words of the text, and this is all that we shall do. A brief exposition of the purport of the Discourse we have already given.

‘This,’ world, ‘was in exitence,’ ‘in the form of dense Darkness’—i.e. as if it were dense darkness; the term ‘which has several meanings, is here used to denote similarity; just as in the statement ‘yat tad bhinneṣvabhinnam chinneṣvachinnam sāmānyabhūtam sa śabdaḥ’ (‘that which remains the same even though the things denoted by it are diverse; which remains undestroyed even when the things denoted are destroyed, which is, as if it were, a Generality, this is the Word’), the word ‘samānyābhūtaḥ’ means ‘as if it were a generality.’ “What is it that constitutes the similarity of the World to Darkness?”

The answer is given by the next word ‘unperceived;’ in as much as all the products with their diverse differentiated forms are at the time resolved in the Evolvent Original, the world is not p erceived.

It might have been cognised by means of Inference; but that also is not possible; as it is ‘undifferentiated’; the ‘differential’ meant is that character which distinguishes one thing from another; and this also is dissolved at the time; for the simple reason that all products, with their distinguishing features, have been destroyed.

‘Incogitable’—that form in which the World existed was not capable of being even thought of, in that form; ‘cogitation’ here stands, for all forms of Inference; the meaning being that at the time there was no kind of Inference—neither from generals to particulars, nor from particulars to generals—available, by means of which the World could be cognised.—For these reasons it was also ‘incognizable.’

From all this it might follow that the World did not exist at all, and it was only a non-existent World that came into existence (subsequently); with a view to preclude this, the text adds—‘as if wholly merged in deep sleep.’ As a matter of fact, the existent can never come into existence out of the non-existent; it has been declared in the Upanisads (the Chāndogya)—‘O dear one, this was, in the beginning existent; how could the existent be born out of the non-existent?’—All that is meant is that the World is incognizable by the instrumentality of the ordinary means of cognition, which operate through, and bear upon, only differentiated things; that such is its condition is known from the scriptures, which also are as transcendental in their character as the ante-natal condition of the World.

‘As if merged in deep sleep,’—‘deep sleep’ stands for that condition of repose which is beyond the conditions of waking and dreaming; and it has been cited only by way of illustration; the meaning being—‘just as the soul, in the condition of deep sleep, remains entirely unconscious of any thoughts or sufferings, and free from all notions of diversity,—and yet it cannot be said to be non-existent, because on waking, it is recognised as being the same that was asleep, as shown by the idea I have slept soundly,—exactly the same is the case with the World, as is shown by the scriptures that describe things as they have actually existed, and also proved, for those who depend upon reasonings, by what appear to be sound Inferences.’

‘Was in existence’—the past tense has been used, because the condition described can never be known by any person; hence it is that it has been described as ‘incognizable.’

‘Wholly’—this shows that the dissolution is not partial but total. (5)

‘Tamas’ is generally taken here in the sense of the ‘Root evolvent’, only Rāghavānanda taking it in the sense of the Vedantic māyā; he is supported by Sāyaṇa who explains the term similarly, under his explanation of Ṛgveda 18. 129. 8.

P. 8, l. 8—(1) tam āsīt (Ṛgveda 10.129.8)—Sāyaṇa supplies a somewhat different explanation:

इदं जगत् सलिलं कारणेन सातम् अविभागापन्नम् भाः आसीत् । अथवा सलिलमिव, यथा क्षीरेण विभागापन्नं नीरस ज्ञायते तथा तमसा ऽविभागापन्नं जगत् न ज्ञायते । आ समन्तात् भवतीति ‘आभु’। ‘तपसः’ स्रष्टव्य-पर्यालोचमरूपस्य ।

As a Vedāntin, Sāyaṇa identifies tamas with māyā |

005 This (universe) existed in the shape of Darkness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed, as it were, in deep sleep.

Thereafter, the supreme being Hiraṇyagarbha, self-born, unmanifest and bringing into view this (universe), appeared,—dispelling darkness and having his (creative) power operating upon the Elemental Substances and other things.—(6)

तस्या महारात्र्या अनन्तरम् । स्वयं भवतीति स्वयंभूः । स्वेच्छया कृतशरीरपरिग्रहो न संसार्यात्मवत् कर्मपरतन्त्रं शरीरग्रहणम् अस्य । अव्यक्तो ध्यानयोगाभ्यासभावनावर्जितानाम् अप्रकाशः । अथ वा “अव्यक्तम् इदम्” इत्य् एवं पठितव्यम् । इदम् अव्यकावस्थं व्यञ्जयन् स्थूलरूपैर् विकारैः प्रकाशम् आनयन् । यद् इच्छया पुनर् जगत् प्रादुर् भवति । प्रादुर् आसीत् । प्रादुःशब्दः प्राकाश्ये । तमोनुदः । तमो महाप्रलयावस्था, ताम् नुदति विनाशयति पुनर् जगत् सृजत्य् अतस् तमोनुदः । महाभूतानि पृथिव्यादीनि । आदिग्रहणात् तद्गुणाः शब्दादयो गृह्यन्ते । तेषु वृत्तं प्राप्तम् ओजो वीर्यं सृष्टिसामर्थ्यं यस्य स एवमुक्तः । स्वयम् असमर्थानि महाभूतानि जगन् निर्वर्तयितुम् । यदा तु तेन तत्र शक्तिर् आधीयते तदा वृक्षाद्यात्मना⁷ विक्रियन्ते । न तु प्रकृतिशक्त्यवस्थानि प्रकृतिरूपापन्नानि महाभूतानि जगत्सर्गादौ महाभूतशब्देनाभिप्रेतानि । पाठान्तरम् “महाभूतानुवृत्तौजाः” इति । अनुवृत्तम् अनुगतम् इति प्रागुक्त एवार्थः ॥ १.६ ॥

After the above described Great Night;—the ‘Self-born,’ he who comes into existence by himself; i.e. who takes up a body by his own will, his taking the body not being dependent upon his past acts, as it is in the case of beings undergoing births and deaths.

‘Unmanifest,’—not cognizable by people devoid of ability to contemplate and other powers produced by the practice of yoga. Or, it would be better to read ‘avyakṭam’ (in the Accusative), making it an epithet of ‘idam,’ ‘this;’ the meaning being ‘this universe which was in its unmanifest condition.’

‘Bringing into view’—making it perceptible in the form of the grosser products; that is, he by whose wish the World comes into existence.

‘Appeared’—the term ‘Prāduḥ (?)’—denotes visibility.

‘Dispelling darkness,’—‘darkness’ stands for the state of dissolution; he dispells, sets aside, that state; he creates the World afresh and is therefore said to ‘dispel darkness.’

‘Elemental Substances,’ earth and the rest.

‘Other things’—refers to Sound and other qualities of the said substances;—he has his ‘power’ i.e. creative power—‘operating,’ acting, upon the said substances &c. The Elemental Substances by themselves are incapable of producing the World; when however the requisite potency is instilled into them by him, they become transformed into the shape of trees and other things. The term ‘Elemental Substances’ here does not stand for the substances, which at the beginning of ‘creation,’ exist in the form of potencies lying latent in Primordial Matter.

Another reading is ‘mahābhūtānuvṛttaujāḥ;’ ‘anuvṛttam, meaning bent upon; the meaning of the epithet remains the same as before. (6)

‘Mahābhūtādī’—Here again Rāghavānanda, the Vedantin, is at variance with the other commentators, and takes it in the sense of ‘Akaṅkāra,’ and not in that of ‘the Elemental Substances &c,’

‘Prādurāsīt’—‘assumed a body of his own free will, not in consequence of his Karma?: (Medhātithi, Kullūka, Govinda, Nandana);—‘became discernible’: (Nārāyaṇa)—‘became ready to create’: (Rāghavānanda)

The reader should refer to the latter portion of the Bhāṣya on verse 11, where the present verse is explained as setting forth the self-evolution of Prakṛti, according to the Sāṅkhya.

006 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.

He,—who is apprehended beyond the senses, who is subtile, unmanifest and eternal, absorbed in all created things and inconceivable,—appeared by himself. (7)

यो ऽसाव् इति सर्वनामभ्यां सामान्यतः प्रसिद्धम् इव परं ब्रह्मओद्दिशति । यो ऽसौ वेदान्तेष्व् अन्यासु चाध्यात्मविद्यास्व् इतिहासपुराणेषु च प्रसिद्धो वक्ष्यमाणैर् धर्मैः स एष प्रादुर् आसीद् इत्य् अत्रोक्तः । स्वयम् उद्बभाव् उद्भूतः शरीरग्रहणं कृतवान् । भातिर् अनेकार्थत्वाद् उद्भवे वर्तते । अथ वा दीप्त्यर्थ एव । स्वयंप्रकाश आसीन् नादित्याद्यालोकापेक्षः । इन्द्रियाणाम् अत्ययो⁸ ऽतीन्द्रियम् । अव्ययीभावः । अतीन्द्रियग्राह्यः सुप्सुपेतिसमासः । इन्द्रियाण्य् अतिक्रम्य गृह्यते, न कदाचिद् इन्द्रियस्य गोचरः । अन्यद् एव तद् योगजज्ञानं येन गृह्यते । अथ वेन्द्रियाण्य् अतिक्रान्तम् अतीन्द्रियम् मन उच्यते । परोक्षत्वाद् इन्द्रियाणाम् अविषयः । यथा च वैशेषिकाः “युगपज् ज्ञानानुत्पत्तिर् मनसो लिङ्गम्” (न्यास् १.१.१६) इत्य् आनुमानिकत्वं मनसः प्रतिपन्नाः । तेन गृह्यते । तथा च भवान् व्यासः-

• नैवासौ चक्षुषा ग्राह्यो न तु शिष्टैर् अपीन्द्रियैः ।

• मनसा तु प्रसन्नेन⁹ गृह्यते सूक्ष्मदर्शिभिः ॥ इति ।

प्रसन्नेन रागादिदोषैर् अकलुषितेन तदुपासनापरत्वेन लब्धसूक्ष्मदर्शनशक्तिभिः । सूक्ष्म इव सूक्ष्मो ऽनुः । न ह्य् असाव् अणुस्थूलादिविकल्पानाम् आश्रयः । सर्वविकल्पातीतो ह्य् असौ । उक्तं च-

• यः सर्वपरिकल्पानाम् आभासे ऽप्य् अनवस्थितः ।

• तर्कागमानुमानेन बहुधा परिकल्पितः ॥

• व्यतीतो भेदसंसर्गाद् भावाभावौ क्रमाक्रमौ ।

• सत्यानृते च विश्वात्मा स विवेकात् प्रकाशते ॥ इति ।

सूक्ष्मत्वाद् अवक्तः सनातनो ऽव्यक्तस्वाभाविकेनानादिनिधनेनैश्वर्येण युक्तः । येषाम् अपि कर्मप्राप्यं हैरण्यगर्भं पदं तन्मते ऽपि सनातनत्वं सत्य् अप्य् आदिमत्त्वे ऽन्तत्वाभावात् । न हि सर्गादिफलभोक्तृत्वावस्था कदाचिद् अपैति ।

• सर्वाणि भूतानि मया स्रष्टव्यानीत्य् एवंभावितचित्तो भूतात्मा एवंसंपन्नः सर्वभूतमय इत्य् उच्यते । यथा मृन्मयो घटो मृद्विकारत्वान् मृद्भिर् आरब्धशरीर एवं यः कश्चित् किंचिद् अत्यन्तं भावयति स तन्मय इत्य् उपचाराद् उच्यते । यथा स्त्रीमयो ऽयं पुरुषः ऋङ्मयो यजुर्मय इति । अथ वाद्वैतदर्शने- नैव चेतनाचेतनानि भूतानि पृथक्त्वेन सन्ति, तस्यैवायं विवर्तः । अतो विवर्तानां भूतमयत्वात् तैश् च तस्याभेदाद् युक्तम् एव तन्मयत्वम् । कथं पुनर् एकस्य नानारूपविवर्तितोपपत्तिर् एकत्वाद् विरोधिनी उचयते । एवम् आहुर् विवर्तवादिनः । यथा समुद्राद् वायुनाभिहता ऊर्मयः समुत्तिष्ठन्ति, ते च न ततो भिद्यन्ते नापि लिप्यन्ते । सर्वथा बेधाभेदाभ्याम् अनिर्वाच्याः, एवम् अयं ब्रह्मणो विश्वविवर्तः । अपिशब्दश् चात्र द्रष्टव्यः । स्वरूपे स्थितो ऽग्राह्यो विवर्तावस्थायाम् इन्द्रियग्राह्यः । एवं सूक्ष्मः । अपिशब्दात् स्थूलावस्थायां स्थूलः । अव्यक्तो व्यक्तश् च । शाश्वतो ऽशाश्वक्तश् च । भूतमयस् तद्रूपहितश् च । विवर्तावस्थाभेदेनैव व्याख्येयम् ।

• अचिन्त्यः आश्चर्यरूपः सर्वविलक्षणया शक्त्या योगात् ॥ १.७ ॥

‘He, who’—these two pronouns refer to something well-known, that is (in the present context) the ‘Supreme Brahman,’ he who is described, in the Vedanta texts as also in other philosophical systems, in the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, as having the qualities going to be described in the present verse.

‘He appeared by himself’—i.e. took a body for himself; the root ‘bhā,’ having several meanings, is here used in the sense of coming into existence; or, it may be taken in its usual sense of shining; the meaning being that he was self-effulgent, and did not need the light from the sun or other sources.

‘Atīndriya’ means that which is beyond the senses, the compound being taken as an Avyayībhāva; the compound ‘atīndriyagrāhyaḥ’ being included under the general rule of compounds formulated in Pāṇini’s Sūtra 2.1.4; the mean ing being that he is apprehended beyond the senses, he never comes within range of the senses; it is an entirely different kind of cognition, the intuitive cognition of the yogin, by which he is apprehended. Or, the compound ‘that which is beyond the senses’ may be taken as standing for the Mind, which, being imperceptible, is not perceived by the senses; it is for this reason that the Vaiśeṣikas have held Mind to be ‘cognisable by means of Inference,’ as stated in the Nyāya-sūtra (1.1.16)—‘The fact that cognitions do not appear simultaneously is indicative of the Mind.’ And it is by means of this Mind alone that the said Being is apprehended. Says the revered Vyāsa also—‘He is not perceptible by the eye, nor by the other senses; he is apprehended by means of the clear Mind, by persons endowed with subtle powers of cognition’;—i.e. not sullied by the defects of passion &c.—by persons who have acquired the powers of subtle perception, by virtue of their being entirely devoted to the worship of the said Being.

‘Subtile’—i.e. as if he were ‘subtile,’ small; inreality he is not the substratum of any such finite or concrete predications or concepts as ‘large’ or ‘small;’ he is, in fact, beyond all such predications; as is declared in the following passage—‘He is free even from the semblance of all predications; he has been variously conceived of on the strength of scriptures and inference, he is beyond all taint of duality, beyond affirmation and denial, beyond sequentiality and non-sequentiality, beyond reality and unreality; he is the very soul of the universe, and becomes cognised only by means of discriminative wisdom.’

Because he is ‘subtile,’ he is ‘unmanifest, eternal;’ being of subtile nature, he is endowed with beginningless and endless puissance, home people have held that the position of ‘Hiraṇyagarbha’ is attained by (ordinary beings) through (meritorious) acts; according to these people also he is ‘everlasting,’ in the sense that, though lie has beginning, he has no end; because his condition, which consists in being the experiencer of the fruits emanating from his original act of bringing about creation, never comes to an end.

Ho is described as ‘absorbed in all created things’ in the sense that he is the very soul of things, having his mind intent upon the idea that ‘all things are to be created by me;’ when for instance, the jar made of clay, having its body built out of clay, is said to be ‘absorbed in (consisting of) the clay;’ similarly when a certain person ponders too much over a thing, he is described figuratively, as ‘absorbed’ in that thing; as we find in such expressions as—‘this person is absorbed in women,’ ‘he is absorbed in the Ṛgveda,’ ‘he is absorbed in the Yajurveda,’ and so forth. Or, it may be in view of the Advaita, ‘Nondualistic,’ Philosophy, by which sentient as well as insentient tilings have no existence apart from Hiraṇyagarbha, all being his illusory modifications; so that these modifications consisting of the created things, and these being non-different from him, it is only right that he should be described as ‘absorbed in (consisting of) created tilings.’—

“But how can the single entity undergo illusory modifications? It would be inconsistent with its unity.”

The answer given by the upholders of the theory of ‘illusory modifications’ is as follows:—When the surface of the sea is struck by the winds, high waves rise out of it, and these waves are not entirely apart from the sea, nor are they totally absorbed in it; and they cannot be described as either ‘different’ or ‘non-different’ from it; exactly similar is the case with the ‘illusory modifications’ of Brahman.

The term ‘also’ may also be supplied to the words of the text; the sense being—‘even though, in his own pristine form, he is imperceptible, he becomes perceptible in the form of the ‘modifications;’ similarly with the epithet ‘subtile;’ the implication of ‘also’ being that he is gross in the form of the grosser modifications; similarly, he is ‘unmanifest’and also ‘manifest,’ ‘eternal’ and also ‘not eternal,’ ‘absorbed in created things’ and also ‘free from their forms (and limitations);’ all this being in reference to him in the condition of ‘modifications.’

‘Inconceivable’—i.e. his character is marvellous, he being possessed of remarkable powers.—(7)

Sūkṣmaḥ:—‘unperceivable by the external senses’: (Kullūka). But this would be a repetition of atīndriyagrāhyaḥ’; hence Govinda renders it as ‘who is perceivable by subtle understanding only;’ and Rāghavānanda—‘who is without parts’—which is, as Kullūka makes out to be, the meaning of ‘avyaktaḥ.’

Sarvabhūtamayaḥ—Medhātithi has offered two explanations: (1) ‘entirely taken up by the idea of creating tilings’, and (2) ‘whose modification all tilings are’. The latter explanation is practically accepted by all the commentators.

Udbhabau—‘Assumed a body’: (Medhātithi and Govinda) or ‘shone forth’ (alternative suggested by Medliātitlii); ‘appeared in the form of the products’: (Kullū.)—‘became discernible’ (Nandana).

Medhātithi, P. 10, l. 7—‘Tathā ca Vaiśeṣikāḥ’;—The sūtra quoted is Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtra, 1.1.10. It seems that even so early as Medhātithi’s time ‘Nyāya’ and Vaiśeṣika’ were used as convertible terms.

007 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).

Desiring to create the several kinds of created things, he, in the beginning, by mere willing, produced, out op his own body, Water; and in that he threw the seed.—(8)

स पूर्वनिर्दिष्टविशेषणैः “हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे” (र्व् १०.१२१.१) इत्यादिभिर् मन्त्रैर् लब्धहिरण्यगर्भाभिधानः । प्रजाः विविधा नानारूपाः सिसृक्षुः स्रष्टुम् इच्छन्न् अपः उदकम् आदौ प्रथमं ससर्ज उत्पादितवान् । शरीरात् स्वात् यत् तेन गृहीतं सरीरम् । अद्वैतदर्शने प्रधानम् एव तस्येदं शरीरम्, तद् इच्छानुवर्तित्वात् स्वतः¹⁰ शरीरनिर्माणहेतुत्वाच्¹¹ च । सर्वलोकानां शरीरं किं भौतिकेन व्यापारेण कुद्दालखननादिना ससर्ज । नेत्य् आह । कथं तर्हि । अभिध्याय । " आप उत्पद्यन्ताम्" एवम् इच्छामात्रेण । अत्रेत्थं चोच्यते । पृथिव्यादीनां तदानीम् अभावाद् अपां सृष्टानां क आधारः । अन्येभ्य इदम् उच्यते । स्रष्टुर् अपि परमेश्वरस्य गृहीतशरीरस्य क आधार इत्य् अपि वाच्यम् । अथ विलक्षणैश्वर्यातिशययोगाद् अन्यैव सा कर्तृशक्तिर् असंचोद्या प्रकृतधर्मसामान्येनेत्य् एवम् एष्व् अपि द्रष्टव्यम् । तासु वीर्यं शुक्रम् अवासृजत् न्यषिञ्चत् ॥ १.८ ॥

‘He’—who,—by virtue of the qualities described in the preceding verse, and also by virtue of such Vedic texts as ‘In the beginning there appeared Hiraṇyagarbha &c.’ (Ṛgveda 10.121.1)—acquired the title of ‘Hiraṇyagarbha.’

‘Several kinds of created things’—things possessed of various forms.

‘Desiring to create,’—wishing to bring into existence.

‘In the beginning,’ first of all—‘produced,’ called into being—‘water’ ‘out of his own body,’ i.e., the body assumed by himself (on manifestation). Or, according to the Ádvaita Philosophy, ‘Primordial Matter’ is the ‘body’ of Hiraṇyagarbha here spoken of; it is ‘his own’ in the sense that it follows his wish, and is the cause of the production of all bodies.

The next question that arises is—“When he created the body of all living beings, did he do so by means of some physical act, such as digging with the spade and so forth (as the potter does in the making of the Jar)?”

The answer is no.—“How then?”—‘By mere willing’—by the mere act of wishing ‘let water be produced.’

The following further question is raised—“Since the Earth and other things were non-existent at the time, what was the receptacle or standing ground of the water that was produced?”

The question is addressed to the winds! [ lit., it is as good as addressed to others!]. It might just as well bo asked—what is the receptacle or standing ground for the Supreme Lord himself when he has assumed a body. If it be explained that so far as the powers of the creator himself are concerned, no questions arise, for the simple reason that he is possessed of unique powers,—then the same may be said in regard to water and the other products also, which may be regarded as having similar unique powers.

In that, water, he threw, scattered, the seed, the semen. (8)

(3) Abhidhyāya—According to those who interpret the process here as ‘described in accordance with the Saṅkhya’, this means ‘independently of all outside force, just as a man does an act by mere thought.’

Āpaḥ—In his eagerness to be literally faithful, Buhler has translated this as ‘waters’, using the plural form in consideration of the plural form of ‘āpaḥ’ in the plural. It has to be borne in mind, however, that the text has used the plural form, because the base ‘ap’ has no singular form at all.

Vide, in this connection, Ṛgveda, 10.121.1, and Viṣṇu-purāṇa I.

Saḥ—Hiraṇyagarbha (acc. to Medhātithi); the Paramātman (according to others.)

Abhidhyāya—According to the interpretation of ‘others’, noted by Medhātithi, under verse 11, this participle means ‘independently of all external activity, just as a man may do some act by merely willing it.’

Medhātithi P. 11, l. 6—‘anyebhya idamucyate’—This is an idiomatic expression used in the sense—‘This that is urged is spoken, as it were, to others—it does not concern us,—it has no hearing upon what we have said.’

008 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.

That became the golden egg, resplendent like the Sun; in that (egg) he (Hiraṇyagarbha) himself was born as Brahmā, the ‘Grand-father’ of the whole world.—(9)

प्रथमं प्रधानं सर्वतोभवं मृद्रूपं संपद्यते । हिरण्यगर्भवीर्यसंयोगात् काठिन्यं प्रतिपद्यते । तद् अण्डं सम्अभवद् इत्य् उच्यते । हेम्न इदं हैमं स्वर्णमयम् इत्य् अर्थः । अंशुसामान्यात्¹² तस्य सुवर्णमयस्य । ननु नागमिको ऽयम् अर्थः, न चात्र इवशब्दः श्रूयते, तत्र कथम् उपचारतो व्याख्यानम् असति प्रमाणान्तरे । उच्यते । वक्ष्यति “ताभ्यां स शकलाभ्यां तु दिवं भूमिं च निर्ममे” (म्ध् १.१३) इति । इयं च भूमिर् मृन्मयी न सर्वतः सुवर्णमयीत्य् अत उपचार आश्रितः । सहस्रांशुर् आदित्य इत्य् अर्थः । अंशवो रश्मयस् तत्तुल्या प्रभा दीप्तिस् तस्याण्डस्य । तस्मिन्न् अण्डे स्वयं ब्रह्मा जज्ञे जातो¹³ संभूतः । ब्रह्मा हिरण्यगर्भ एव । स्वयम् इति उक्तार्थम् । योगशक्त्या प्रग्गृहीतं शरीरं परित्यज्यान्तरण्डम् अनुप्राविशत् । अथ वाशरीर एवापः ससर्ज । ततो ऽन्तरण्डं स्वशरीरं जग्राह ।

• अथ वान्यो “यो ऽसौ” (म्ध् १.७) इत्य् अत्र निर्दिष्टः अन्यश् चायम् अण्डजो ब्रह्मेति । तथा च वक्ष्यति “तद्विसृष्टः” (म्ध् १.११) इति । तेनेष्वरेण सृष्टः । कथं तर्हि स्वयं जज्ञे स्वयंभूतश् च तत्र ब्रह्मोच्यते । नैष दोषः । पितृनाम्ना पुत्रो व्यपदिश्यते । “आत्मा हि जज्ञ आत्मनः” इति । अनिदंपरेभ्य आगमेभ्यो लिखितम् आचार्येण, न चात्राभिनिवेष्टव्यम् । “स एव स्वयं जायताम् अन्यो वा तेन सृज्यताम्” इति न धर्माभिधान उपयुज्यत इत्य् उक्तम् । सर्वलोकानां पितामह इति संज्ञा । तस्योपचारतो ऽवास्तवदृष्टत्वात् पितुर् अपि सकाशाद् अधिकः पितामहः पूज्यः ॥ १.९ ॥

First of all Primordial Matter develops in the form of Clay; i.e., on account of the contact of Hiraṇyagarbha’s ‘seed,’ it become solidified; and this is what is described as having become an ‘egg.’—‘Golden,’ gold, made up of gold; i.e., in its brilliance it resembled the thing made of gold.

“But this statement (that the egg was of gold) is contained in the scriptures, and we do not find any such term as ‘like’ or ‘resembling’ (which would have justified the interpretation of ‘golden’ as resembling gold),—how then can we, in the absence of any other authority, explain the term figuratively?”

Our answer to the question is as follows:—Later on we find the statement—‘by means of the two forces, he created Heaven and Earth’ (Verse 13); and as a matter of fact, this Earth is found to consist of clay, and not of gold entirely; and it is in view of this fact that we have taken the epithet ‘golden’ figuratively.

‘Sahasrāṃśuḥ,’ lit. ‘thousand-rayed,’ is the Sun;—‘aṃśu’ means rays; and the resplendence of the egg was like that of the rays of the Sun.

‘In that egg he himself was born,’ came into existence, as Brahmā,’—Brahmā is Hiraṇyagarbha himself;—the exact signification of the term ‘himself’ has already been explained; the meaning is that he had originally (as Hiraṇyagarbha) assumed a body by the force of occult powers, he gave up that body and entered within the egg.—Or, it may be that when he created water, Hiraṇyagarbha had no body, hence he took up a body within the egg.—Or again, the being spoken of as ‘he who’ (in verse 7) was different from the Brahmā who is described here as being born in the egg; this would be in keeping with what is going to be stated (in verse 11) in regard to the latter being ‘created by him,’ i.e., created by the Supreme Lord (described in verse 7).

“But (under this last explanation) how could he be said to be ‘himself born?’—and the text apparently speaks, as ‘Brahmā,’ of him who was ‘himself born’ (in the egg).”

This does not affect the position; the son is often called by the name of the Father, when he is described as the ‘self being born out of itself.’

The fact of the matter however is that what the Teacher has asserted is based upon scriptural texts, which have no bearing upon the matter at all [for being mere Arthavāda, they are not meant to describe what is directly expressed by the words]; so Unit we need not lay stress upon what is said (in the text) in this connection; specially because, so far as the expounding of Duties is concerned, it does not matter at all whether Hiraṇyagarbha himself was born in the egg, or he created some other being.

‘The grand-father of the whole world’—is a proper name, applied figuratively. That it has to be taken so is proved by the fact that the Being described is not literally the ‘Grandfather’ of the people; what the attributing of this proper name is meant to indicate is that the being described is an object of great reverence, the term ‘Grand-father’ being chosen, because the Grand-father commands greater reverence than even the Father. (9).

Burnell remarks that this ‘Egg’ does not belong to the Sāṅkhya philosophy. The explanation of this, in accordance with that philosophy, is thus given by Medhātithi, under verse 11—‘Sarvataḥ pradhānaṃ pṛthivyādibhūtotpattau kāṭhinyameti aṇḍarūpam sampadyate.’

Haimam—The commentators are agreed that this is used figuratively, in the sense of pure or brilliant.

Jajñe svayam Brahmā—(a) ‘He himself was born as Brahmā’, or (b) ‘Brahmā himself was born.’

There has been a great deal of confusion in the mind of modern scholars in connection with the ‘Golden Egg’,—much of which would have been avoided if the figurative character of the term had been recognised.

Medhātithi P. 11. l. 22 ‘Anidamparebhyaḥ—& c.’—Cf. what has been said in the Bhāṣya on verse 5, to the effect that ‘the process of creation here described is in some places in agreement with the Purāṇas, while in others, in accordance with the doctrine of the Saṅkhyas.’ It is this want of consistency that has led Medhātithi to regard the whole of this discourse as purely ‘arthavāda.’

009 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.

Water is called ‘nara,’—water being the offspring of nara; since water was the first thing created by (or, the original residence of) that being, he is, on that account, described as ‘nārāyaṇa.’—(10)

यः कुत्रचिन् नारायणशब्देन कर्तृज्ञातृशक्त्यतिशययोगेन जगत्कारणपुरुषतयागमेष्व् आम्नातः, सो ऽयम् एव । न शब्दभेदाद् अर्थभेदः । ब्रह्मा नारायणो महेश्वर इत्य् एक एवार्थो नोपासनाकर्मतया भिद्यते । तथा च द्वादशे दर्शयिष्यामः । तथा चैतत् तथोच्यते । आपो नारा इत्य् अनेन शब्देन प्रोक्ताः । ननु नायं वृद्धव्यवहारो ऽथ च न तथा प्रसिद्धो ऽत आह आपो वै नरसूनवः । स तावद्¹⁴ भगवान् नरः पुरुष इति प्रसिद्धः । आपश् च तस्य सूनवो ऽपत्यानि । अतस् ता नरशब्देनोच्यन्ते । दृष्टो हि पितृशब्दो ऽपत्ये वसिष्ठस्यापत्यानि वसिष्ट्ःआ भृगोर् अपत्यानि¹⁵ भृगवस् तथा¹⁶ बभ्रुमण्डुलोमक इत्य्¹⁷ अभेदोपचारेण ता आपो नरशब्दवाच्याः । यत् येन प्रकारेण अस्य प्रजापतेः पूर्वम् अयनं प्रथमसर्ग आश्रयो वा गर्भस्थस्य, तेन हेतुना नारायणः स्मृतः । नरा अयनम् अस्येति नरायण इति प्राप्ते “अन्येषम् अपि दृश्यते” (पाण् ६.३.१३७) इति दीर्घः । “पुरुष इति” यथा । अथ वा सामूहिको ऽण् ॥ १.१० ॥

The Being just described is the same who, here and there in the scriptures, is described under the name ‘Nārāyaṇa,’ as possessed of a superior degree of creative and cognitive powers, and hence being the Personal Creator of the world; the mere difference in names does not necessarily imply difference in the things denoted; so that the Beings described under the names ‘Brahmā,’ ‘Nārāyana’ and ‘Maheśvara are one and the same; though they form the objects of diverse forms of worship, yet they do not differ among themselves; as we shall show under Discourse XII.

How this is (i.e. how Brahmā is the same as ‘Nārāyana’) is explained now:—‘Water is called Nara.’—described under the name of,—‘Nara.’

In answer to the objection—“There is no such usage current among experienced persons; nor is it generally known that water is called Nara,”—the Author adds:—‘Water being the offspring of Nara,’—the supreme Being (Hiraṇyagarbha, described in verse 8 as having created water) might well be known under the name ‘Nara,’ Person; and water is his ‘offspring;’ hence water is spoken of as ‘Nara,’ the name of the father is often applied to the child, e.g., the ‘sons of Vaśiṣṭha,’ the revered sages Tāvabhru, Maṇḍu and Lomaka, are spoken of as ‘Vaśiṣṭhāḥ’; and such usage is based upon the

figurative identification of the child with the father.—‘Since’ because—‘Water,’ known as ‘Nara,’ was ‘the first thing created by’—or it was his container when he lay in the womb (egg)—‘he is, on that account, described as Nārāyaṇa.’

In the sense of ‘he whose container is Nara’the compound should be ‘narāyaṇa;’ but the first vowel may be taken as lengthened according to Pāṇini’s Sūtra 6.3.134, which justifies such lengthening in several other cases also,; just as we have in the word ‘pūruṣa’ (which is a variant for ‘puruṣa’);—or we may have the lengthening due to the affix ‘aṇ’ in the sense of ‘mass’ [so that nāra would be ‘mass of water,’ and ‘he who has this mass of water as his container, ayana,’ would he ‘nārāyaṇa’]. (10).

Āpo nārā &c.—This explanation of the name ‘Nārayaṇa’ is found in Viṣṇu Puraṇa I, and also in the Mahābhārata, 3.189.3.

It is curious that Medhātithi reads ‘narāḥ’ (instead of ‘nārāḥ’) and adds a somewhat forced explanation of the elongation of the initial vowel in ‘nā’.

Medhātithi P. 12, l. 6—Babhrumaṇḍuloniakāḥ—These apparently are three other proper names—‘Babhru’, ‘Maṇḍu’ and ‘Lomaka’,—which stand on the same footing as ‘Vaśiṣṭha.’

Mahābhārata, 12.341.40.—[Same as Manu ; but being placed in the mouth of Nārāyaṇa himself, the second half is put in the First Person.]—“That is why I am Nārāyaṇa.”

010 The waters are called narah, (for) the waters are, indeed, the offspring of Nara; as they were his first residence (ayana), he thence is named Narayana.

That which is the cause—unmanifest, eternal and partaking of the nature of the existent and the non-existent,—the being produced by that (cause) is described among people as ‘brahmā.’—(11)

‘Viśeṣāḥ.—Why these are called ‘viśeṣa’ is thus explained in the Sāṅkhyatattvakaumudī—pañca mahābhūtāni viśeṣāḥ:—śāntā ghorāśca mūḍāśca | yasmādākāśādiṣu sthū?ṣu kecit tattvapradhānatayā śāntā prakāśā laghavaḥ……… | te’mī parasparavyāvṛttyā’nubhūyamānā ‘viśeṣā’ iti ‘sthūlā’ iti co?pante | tanmātrāṇi tu?smadādinā parasparavyāvṛttāni nānubhūyante—iti ‘aviśeṣāḥ’ ‘sūkṣmā’ iti cocyante |

कारणम् एव न कार्यो न परेच्छाविधेयशरीरः, स्वाभाविकेन महिम्ना युक्तम् । अव्यक्तं नित्यम् उक्तम् इत्य् उक्तार्थम्¹⁸ । सदसदात्मकम् । सच् चासच् च सदसती । ते आत्मा स्वभावो यस्य तद् एवम् उच्यते । कथं पुनर् एकस्य¹⁹ विरुद्ध²⁰भावाभावरूपधर्मद्वयस्य योगः । उच्यते । अर्वाग्दर्शनानां तद्विषयाया उपलब्धेर् अभावात् सत्ताव्यवहारायोग्यत्वाद् असद् आत्मेत्य् उच्यते । आगमेभ्यः सर्वस्यास्य तत्कारणत्वावगमात् सदात्मकम् । अतः प्रतिपत्तृत्वभेदाद्²¹ उभयतो ऽपि व्यवहारो ब्रह्मण्य् अविरुद्धः ।

• ननु च सर्व एव भावा एवंरूपाः स्वेन रूपेण सदात्मकाः पररूपेणासन्तः । किम् उच्यते ब्रह्मण्य् अविरुद्ध इति । उच्यते । अद्वैतदर्शने नैवान्यद् ब्रह्मणः किंचिद् अस्तीति किं तत्परं यत् तद्रूपतयाभाव इत्य् उच्यते ।

• तेन विसृष्ट उत्पादितो ऽन्तरण्डं निर्मितः पुरुषो लोके ब्रह्मेति कीर्त्यते । यो ऽसाव् उग्रतपसां देवासुरमहर्षीणां वरदानार्थं तत्र तत्रोपविष्ट इति महाभारतादौ श्रूयते, स एष तेन महापुरुषेण परेण ब्रह्मणा प्रथमं विशृष्टः ।

• अन्ये तु “त्वम् एवैकः” (म्ध् १.३) इत्याद्य् अन्यथा वर्णयन्ति । अस्येति प्रत्यक्षाभिनयेन जगन् निर्दिश्यते । सर्वस्यास्य जगतो यद् विधानं निर्माणं तत् स्वयंभुवः संबन्धि अचिन्त्यम् अद्भुतरूपं विचित्रम् अतिमहद् अप्रमेयं न शक्यं सर्वेण ज्ञातुम् । तथा ऋषिः । “को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत् कुत आजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टिः” इति (र्व् १०.१२९.६) । किम् इदं जगत् सर्वम् उपादानम् अपेक्ष्य जायत उत नैर्माणिकमात्रम्, यथा बुद्धस्य दर्शनम् । किम् ईश्वरेच्छाधीनम् उत केवलकर्मवशजम् उत स्वाभाविकम् अप्रमेयम् । तथा किं महदादिक्रमेणोत्पद्यत उत द्व्यणुकादिक्रमेण । अस्य त्वं कार्यं तत्त्वम् अर्थं च वेत्सि । कार्यं महतो ऽहंकारो ऽविशेषास्²² तन्मात्रान्य् अहंकारस्य, तन्मात्राणां विशेषाः पञ्चमहाभूतानि, अहंकारस्येन्द्रियाण्य् एकादश । विशेषाणाम् अपि पिण्डीकार्यं²³ ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्ताः । तेषाम् अपि प्रत्ययात् तत्त्वं स्वभावो यथा महतो मूर्तिमात्रत्त्वम् । प्रधानस्य सर्वस्य विकारावस्था महद् इत्य् उच्यते । प्रकृतेर् महान् इति । प्रकृतिः प्रधानम् इत्य् एको ऽर्थः । अहंकारस्य तत्त्वम् अस्मिप्रत्ययमात्रत्वम् । अविशेषाणाम् अविशेषप्रत्ययसंवेद्यत्वम् इति । अर्थः प्रयोजनम् । पुरुषार्थम् इदं वस्त्व् अनेन प्रकारेण पुरुषायोपयुज्यते इमं चार्थं साधयति । यद्य् अपि धर्मं जिज्ञासमानस्य जगन्निर्माणज्ञता आचार्यसंबन्धिनी न क्वचिद् उपकारिणी, न च प्रष्टव्या, तथाप्य् अन्यतो दुर्विज्ञानं महर्षीणां वैषम्याज् जगन्निर्माणम् आदौ प्रश्नार्हं भवति । मनो ह्य् अवचनीयम्²⁴ । यद् वस्तु प्रमाणषट्कस्याप्य् अविषयस् तद् अपि त्वम् आर्षेण चक्षुषा वेत्सि । धर्मः पुनर् वेदगोचरः सो ऽवश्यं त्वया विज्ञात इत्य् एवं प्रकृतविषयैव प्रवक्तृप्रशंसा ।

• एवं स्तुत्या प्रोत्साहितो जगन्निर्माणम् एव तावद् वक्ति “आसीद् इदम्” (म्ध् १.५) इति, “ततः स्वयंभूः” (म्ध् १.६) इति । प्रधानम् एवैतैः शब्दैर् अभिधीयते । स्वयं भवति परिणमति विक्रियाम् एति महदादितत्त्वभावेन । न कश्चिद् ईश्वरः स्वभावसिद्धो ऽस्ति, यथेच्छम् अचेतनं प्रधानम् अनुवर्तते । वस्तुस्वभाव एवायं तद्²⁵ उत प्रकृतिरूपं प्रधानं पुनर् विक्रियते । यथा क्षीरम् अचेतनं मण्डकावस्थाभिर् दधीभवति । भगवान् इति । स्वव्यापार ईश्वरो महाभूतादिद्वारेण प्रवृत्तः । स्वकार्योत्साह ओजः सामर्थ्यम् । आदिशब्दः प्रकारे व्यवस्थायाम् । तेन महदादिकारणम् अव्यक्तं भवति । विकारावस्थायां प्रच्युतं प्राग्रूपात् सूक्ष्मभावात् प्रकाशमयं तमो नुदतीत्य् उच्यते । अर्थशब्दाध्याहारेण वा प्रधाने पुल्लिङ्गनिर्देशः । पुरुषशब्दश् च प्रधानादिषु दृष्टः । “तेषाम् इदं तु सप्तानां पुरुषाणाम्” (म्ध् १.१९) इति ।

• यो ऽसाव् इति पूर्ववत् । सो ऽभिध्याय्एति । अभिध्यानं गुणतो ऽचेतनत्वात् प्रधानस्याभिध्यानासंभवात् । यथा कश्चिद् अभिध्यायैव कार्यं निवर्तयेद्²⁶ अन्यकार्यनिरपेक्षम् एव वस्तु स्वाभाव्येन परिणममानम् ईश्वरेच्छानपेक्षतयाभिध्यायेत्य् उच्यते । अप आदौ ससर्ज । महाभूतान्तरापेक्षया तासाम् आदित्वम्, न तु महदादितत्त्वोत्पत्तेः । वक्ष्यति हि “तेषाम् इदं तु सप्तानाम्” (म्ध् १.१९) इति । प्रथमं तत्त्वोत्पत्तिस् ततो भूतानाम् । तासु वीर्यम् इति । वीर्यं शक्तिम् अवासृजत् । प्रधानम् एव कर्तृ भवति । सर्वतः पर्धानं पृथिव्यादिभूतोत्पत्तौ काठिन्यम् एति । अण्डरूपं संपद्यते । तद् अण्डम् इति । यथा तत्त्वानि स्त्रीपुरुषसंयोगं विनोत्पन्नानि प्रथमम् एवं पूर्वकर्मवशेन ब्रह्मापि स्वमहिम्नैवायोनिजं तस्य शरीरं दंशमशकादिवत् । तद्विसृष्टस् तेन प्रधानेन विसृष्टस् तन्मयत्वात् तच्छरीरस्य तद्विसृष्ट इत्य् उच्यते । शेषं पूर्ववत् ।

• यद् अत्रार्थतत्त्वं तद् अस्माभिर् उक्तम् एव । अर्थवादा एते यथाकथंचिद् गुणवादेन नीयन्ते ॥ १.११ ॥

The ‘cause’ spoken of here is one who is always the never the product; the formation of his body is not dependent upon the will of any other being; he is endowed with a natural supremacy all his own;—‘unmanifest and eternal’ as already explained (under verse 7);—‘partaking of the nature of the existent and the non-existent’;—‘sadasat’ stands for the ‘sat,’ ‘existent,’ and the ‘asat,’ non-existent’; and the said ‘cause’ is one whose ‘nature,’ character, consists of the said ‘existent and non-existent.’

“But how can a single entity partake of the two contradictory characters of the ‘existent’ and the ‘non-existent’?”

The answer to this is as follows:—In as much as people of the present day cannot form any idea of such a heing, the cause becomes incapable of being spoken of as ‘existent,’ and hence is described as ‘partaking of the nature of the non-existent; and yet, in as much as the fact of the said being being the cause of the entire world is known from the scriptures, it is described as ‘of the nature of the existent;’ thus the description of Brahman as both (‘existent’ and ‘non-existent’) is not incongruous, being based, as it is, upon the difference in the character of the persons conceiving of it.

“As a matter of fact, this is true of all things; everything is ‘existent’ in its own form and ‘non-existent’ in the form of other things; why then should it be stated that this is not incongruous in the case of Brahman only?”

The answer to this is as follows:—Under the philosophy of ‘Non-duality’ nothing except Brahman being ‘what is that other thing which (while existent in its own form) could be spoken of as ‘non-existent’ in the form of Brahman?

‘The being produced by that,’—being brought into existence, being created within the egg; this Being ‘is described among people as Brahmā’; the being, who is found mentioned in the Mahābhārata and other works as seated hero and there for the purpose of granting boons to such Devas, Asuras and Ṛṣis as have performed severe austerities,—he was the first to be created by the afore-mentioned Supreme Being, the Highest Brahman.

Kāraṇam—Rāghavānanda takes this to refer to the above-mentioned ‘Egg’, the undifferentiated root-cause. All others take it to mean the Supreme Soul.

Sadasadātmakam—‘Existent because cognisable by means of the Vedic texts, and non-existent, because uncognisable by the ordinary means of perception’. (Medhātithi, Govinda and Kullūka);—‘real, in the shape of the cause, and unreal, in the form of the Products’: (Nandana.)

The relationship between Nārāyaṇa (Virāṭ) and Puruṣa appears to be based upon the Puruṣasūkta, where Puruṣa is described as born from Virāt The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (13.6.1.1) couples the two beings into one and describes him as receiving instructions from Prajāpati.

Medhātithi, P. 12, l. 21 to the end of page 13 offers a totally different interpretation of verses 3-1l.

Medhātithi P. 13, l. 1—‘Mahato’haṅkāro &c.’—Of. Sāṅkhya-kārikā, 38.

‘Viśeṣāḥ.—Why these are called ‘viśeṣa’ is thus explained in the Sāṅkhyatattvakaumudī—pañca mahābhūtāni viśeṣāḥ:—śāntā ghorāśca mūḍāśca | yasmādākāśādiṣu sthū?ṣu kecit tattvapradhānatayā śāntā prakāśā laghavaḥ……… | te’mī parasparavyāvṛttyā’nubhūyamānā ‘viśeṣā’ iti ‘sthūlā’ iti co?pante | tanmātrāṇi tu?smadādinā parasparavyāvṛttāni nānubhūyante—iti ‘aviśeṣāḥ’ ‘sūkṣmā’ iti cocyante |

011 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.

That supreme lord, having dwelt in that egg for a y ear, himself, by his own thought, broke that egg into two parts.—(12)

स भगवान् ब्रह्मा परिवत्सरं संवत्सरम् उषित्वा तस्मिन्न् अण्डे स्थित उत्पन्नः सर्वज्ञः कथं निर्गच्छेयम् इति ध्यातवान्²⁷ । तद् अण्डम् अकरोद् द्विधा । तावता कालेन गर्भः परिपच्यते । अण्डम् अपि तावत्कालेन भेदजातं²⁸ परिपाकाद् अतः काकतालीयन्यायेन तद् अण्डम् अकरोद् द्विधेत्य् उच्यते ॥ १.१२ ॥

‘That Supreme Lord,’ Brahmā,—‘for a year,’ during a year,—‘having dwelt in that egg,’—the omniscient one, who had come into existence and was seated in the egg, thought of the way in which he would come out of it;—‘he broke the egg into two parts’;—one year is the time which the embryo takes for its development; so that after a year the egg, having reached its full development, burst (really), by reason of its full development having been reached. It is thus a chance coincidence that the egg burst just at the time that Brahmā was thinking of coming out; and it is in view of this coincidence that he is described as having broken the egg into two parts.—(12)

Parivatsaram—Kullū. alone takes this to mean ‘a year of Brahmā’; all others take it in the sense of the ordinary year; Cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 11. 1. 6. 2.

Dhyānāt—Medhātithi’s robust intellect again asserts itself: The Egg broke, not because the indwelling Brahmā willed it, hut because of its full development; and this coincided with Brahma’s wish to come out.

012 The divine one resided in that egg during a whole year, then he himself by his thought (alone) divided it into two halves;

Out of those two pieces (of the egg) he formed Heaven and Earth, and, between them, the Ākāśa, the eight quarters and the eternal receptacle of water.—(13)

शकले अण्डकपाले²⁹ । ताभ्याम् अण्डकपालाभ्याम् उत्तरेण दिवं निर्ममे निर्मितवान् । अधरेण पृथिवी मध्ये व्योमाकाशम् । दिशो ऽष्टौ च प्रागाद्याः, अवान्तरदिग्भिर् दक्षिणपूर्वादिभिः सह । अपां स्थानम् अन्तरिक्षे समुद्रम् आकाशं च पृथिवी पातालगता ॥ १.१३ ॥

‘Two pieces’—the two halves of the egg-shell; out of these two pieces of the egg-shell,—‘he formed,’ produced,—‘and Earth’; the lower half being earth [and the upper half Heaven];—‘between them Ākāśa,’ empty space,—‘the eight quarters,’ the East and the rest, along with the intermediate points of the South-East, etc.;—‘the receptacle of water’—(1) in the atmosphere, (2) the Ocean and (3) the Ākāśa within the Earth and the Nether Regions.—(13)

013 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.

From out of himself he brought forth the mind, which partakes of the nature of the existent and non-existent; and before the mind, he brought up the all-powerful principle of egoism, whose function consists in self-consciousness.—(14)

तत्त्वसृष्टिर् इदानीम् उच्यते । या च यथावयवा पश्चाद् उक्ता, अर्थात् पूर्वेति तथोक्तं तत्³⁰ । प्रधानात् स्वस्माद् रूपान् मन उद्धृतवान् । प्रातिलोम्येनेयं तत्त्वोत्पत्तिर् इहोच्यते । मनसः पूर्वम् अहंकरम् अभिमन्तारम् । अहम् इत्य् अभिमानिताहंकारस्य वृत्तिः । ईश्वरं कार्यनिर्वर्तनसमर्थम् ॥ १.१४ ॥

The creation of the Elemental Principles is now described. What forms the constituent factor of what, and in what manner, has been already explained by implication.

‘From out of himself’—i.e., from out of Primordial Matter, which forms his body, ‘he brought forth Mind.’ The creation of the Elemental Principles is set forth here in the reverse order; the meaning thus is that ‘before the mind he brought up the Principle of Egoism, whose function consists in self-consciousness’; the consciousness of self, appearing in the form of the notion of ‘I,’ is a function of the Principle of Egoism; it is called all-powerful in the sense that it is capable of accomplishing its work.—(14)

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

014 From himself (atmanah) 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;

Also the all-pervading ‘mahat’ (the ‘great’ principle of intelligence); as also all those things that consist of the three constituent attributes, and in due course, also the five organs of sensation which apprehend objects.—(15)

महान् इति संज्ञया सांख्यानां तत्त्वं प्रसिद्धम् । आत्मानम् इति महता सामानाधिकरण्यम् । सर्वपिण्डसृष्टौ च महत्तयानुस्यूतम्³¹ अत आत्मव्यवहारः । अहंकारात् पूर्वं पूर्वेण न्यायेन ससर्ज । सर्वाणि त्रिगुणानि च । यथानुक्रान्तं यथानुक्रम्यते तत् सर्वं त्रिगुण । सत्वरजस्तमांसि गुणाः । क्षेत्रज्ञाः केवलं निर्गुणाः । प्राकृतो भागः सर्वः सत्त्वरजस्तमोमयः । पञ्चेन्द्रियाणि तेषां निर्देशविषयाणां रूपरसादीनां यथास्वं ग्रहीतॄणि विज्ञानजनकानि । पञ्च “श्रोत्रं त्वग्” इत्यादिना वक्ष्यन्ते (म्ध् २.९०) विशेषनामानि³² । चसब्देन विषयांश् च शब्दस्पर्शरूपरसगन्धान् पृथिव्यादीनि च ॥ १.१५ ॥

The creation of the Elemental Principles is now described. What forms the constituent factor of what, and in what manner, has been already explained by implication.

‘From out of himself’—i.e., from out of Primordial Matter, which forms his body, ‘he brought forth Mind.’ The creation of the Elemental Principles is set forth here in the reverse order; the meaning thus is that ‘before the mind he brought up the Principle of Egoism, whose function consists in self-consciousness’; the consciousness of self, appearing in the form of the notion of ‘I,’ is a function of the Principle of Egoism; it is called all-powerful in the sense that it is capable of accomplishing its work.—(14)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

महान्तमेव चात्मानं सर्वाणि त्रिगुणानि च ।
विषयाणां ग्रहीतॄणि शनैः पञ्चैन्द्रियाणि च ॥ १५ ॥

mahāntameva cātmānaṃ sarvāṇi triguṇāni ca | *
viṣayāṇāṃ grahītṝṇi śanaiḥ pañcaindriyāṇi ca* || 15 ||

Also the all-pervading ‘mahat’ (the ‘great’ principle of intelligence); as also all those things that consist of the three constituent attributes, and in due course, also the five organs of sensation which apprehend objects.—(15)

(verse xiv-xv)

The confusion regarding the account of the process of creation contained in Manu is best exemplified by these two verses. The names of the various evolutes have been so promiscuously used, that the commentators have been led to have recourse to various forced interpretations, with a view to bring the statement herein contained into line with their own philosophical predilections. Medhātithi, Kullūka, Govinda and Rāghavānanda take it as describing the three principles of the Sāṅkhya—Mahat, Ahaṅkāra and Manas; but finding that the production of Ahaṅkāra from Manas, or of Mahat (which is what they understand by the term ‘mahāntam ātmānam’) is not in conformity with the Sāṅkhya doctrine,—they assert that the three evolutes have been mentioned here ‘in the inverted order’. Even, so, how they can get over the statement that ‘Ahaṅkāra’ was produced ‘from Manas’ (‘manasaḥ’) it is not easy to see. Similarly, the ‘ātman’ from which Manas is described as being produced, Medhātithi explains as the Sāṅkhya ‘Pradhāna’, and Kullūka as the Vedantic¹ Supreme Soul’.

Buhler remarks that according to Medhātithi by the particle ‘ca’ ‘the subtile elements alone are to he understood.’

This does not represent Medhātithi correctly; his words being—‘caśabdena viṣayāṃśca śabdasparśarūparasagandhān pṛthivyādīni ca’.

In order to escape from the above difficulties, Nandana has recourse to another method of interpretation,—no less forced than the former. He takes ‘manas’ as standing for Mahat, and ‘mahāntam ātmānam’ as the Manas.

Not satisfied with all this, Nandana remarks that the two verses are not meant to provide an accurate account of the precise order of creation; all that is meant to be shown is that all things were produced out of parts of the body of the Creator himself.

015 Moreover, the great one, the soul, and all (products) affected by the three qualities, and, in their order, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.

Having combined the subtile components of the said six principles of illimitable potency with their own evolutes, he created even all beings.—(16)

तेषां षण्णां या आत्ममात्रास् तासु सूक्ष्मान् अवयवान् संनिवेश्य सर्वभूतानि निर्ममे । तत्र षट्संख्यया वक्ष्यमाणानि पञ्च तन्मात्राणि अतिक्रान्तश् चाहंकारः प्रतिनिर्दिश्यते । आत्ममात्रास् तेषां स्वविकाराः । तन्मात्राणां भूतानि, अहंकारस्येन्द्रियाणि । पृथिव्यादिषु भूतेषु शरीररूपतया तिष्ठत्सु सूक्ष्मान् अवयवांस् तन्मात्राहंकारान् संनिवेश्य यथास्थानं योजनं कृत्वा सर्वभूतानि देवमनुष्यतिर्यक्पक्षिस्थावरादीनि निर्ममे । एतद् उक्तं भवति । षड् अविशेषा अवयवा एकदेशारम्भकाः सर्वस्य जगतस् तस्य तदारब्धत्वात् । सूक्ष्मत्वं तन्मात्रसंज्ञयैव सिद्धम् । तानि संनिवेश्य संनिहत्य³³ तेषाम् एवात्ममात्रांस् तद्विकारान्³⁴ भूतेन्द्रियाणि निर्ममे । तैश् च पिण्डसृष्टिं चकारात् । “मात्रासु” इत्य् अत्र “मात्राभिः” इति युक्तः पाठः ॥ १.१६ ॥

The said six principles of their own respective evolutes,—to these he joined their subtile components, and thus created all beings.

The number ‘six,’ (mentioned in connection with the Principles) is made up of the five ‘Rudimentary Substances,’ to be described later on, and the ‘Principle of Egoism’ already described.

The ‘own envolutes’ of these Principles, are their respective products; i.e., the elemental substances, which are the products of the‘Rudimentary Substances,’ the Sense-organs which are the products of the ‘Principle of Egoism.’ The Eaṛth and the other Elemental Substances being present, like so many ‘bodies,’ he joined to them the ‘subtile components’; i.e., the Rudimentary Substances and the Principle of Egoism; that is, he placed them in their proper places, and thus ‘created all beings,’—Gods, men, animals, birds, trees and so forth.

The meaning is as follows:—The six subtile components are productive of one portion of the entire world, the whole of which is evolved out of them; that they are ‘subtile’ is proved by the fact of their being ‘rudimentary’ in their character;—these he ‘combined,’ i.e., brought together, with their own envolutes,’ i.e., their respective products; he produced the material substances and the organs (of action), and through these, the entire material world; these latter being indicated by the word ‘even.’

In place of ‘mātrāsu’ it is better to rend ‘mātrābhiḥ’.—(16)

Six elements—The five Rudimentary Substances and the Principle of Egoism.

Here also, and for reasons similar to the above, there is a difference of opinion among commentators.

Nandana, and Rāghavānanda take the verse as describing the creation of the bodies of things from the body of the Creator, and that of their souls from His Soul.

The ‘six’, Rāghavānanda takes as standing for the six sense-organs, and Nandana as for the six tattvas—

1. Mahat,
2. Ahaṅkāra,
3. Manas,
4. Subtile Elements,
5. Organs, of Action
6. and Organs of Sensation.

Medhātithi takes the verse simply as describing how the Creator created all beings by combining ‘the subtile components of the said six principles’ with ‘their own evolutes.’

Hopkins remarks that ‘ātmamātrā’ stands for ‘the spiritual atom as opposed to the elementary,—not reflexive elements of himself.’

016 But, joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.

Because the six subtile components of the frame (of primordial matter) enter into (produce) these, therefore the wise ones have described the frame of that (primordial matter) as ‘body.’—(17)

मूर्तिः शरीरम् । तदर्थास् तत्सम्पादका अवयवाः । सूक्ष्माः षड् उक्तस्वरूपाश् च अविशेषाख्याः । तानीमानि इन्द्रियाणि वक्ष्यमाणानि च भूतान्य् आश्रयन्ति । तस्योत्पत्तेर् भूतान्य् आश्रयन्तीत्य् उच्यते । तदाश्रयोत्पत्तिस् तेषाम् । पठितं च “पञ्चभ्यः पञ्च भूतानि” इति (साम्क् २२) । यद् येन कारणेनाश्रयन्ति तस्मात् कारणात् शरीरं तस्य प्रधानस्य येयं मूर्तिः शरीरम् इत्य् उच्यते । मनीषिणः । मनीषा बुद्धिस् तद्वन्तः पण्डीताः । अथ वा विपरीतः कर्तृभावः । सूक्ष्माः कर्तार इन्द्रियाणि कर्म । अवयवाश् चेन्द्रियाणाम् आश्रयभावं प्रतिपद्यमाना आश्रयन्तीत्य् उच्यते । यथा “बहुभिर् भुक्तः” इति भोजयन् भुक्त इत्य् उच्यते । अथ वानेकार्थत्वाद् धातूनां आश्रयन्ति जनयतीत्य् अर्थः ॥ १.१७ ॥

‘Frame’—body; the ‘components’ of it are those things that constitute it; these are ‘subtile,’ the ‘six’ already described (viz.,the five Rudimentary Substances and the Principle of Egoism), which are called ‘aviśeṣa,’ the undifferentiated. —Tāni āśrayanti—i.e., the organs and the elemental substances going to be described ‘enter into’ the said components; which means that they are evolved out of them; i.e., the evolution of the organs &c., has for its substratum the six subtile components; this is what has been described in the words ‘the five elemental substances are produced out of the five Rudimentary Substances’ (Sāṅkhya-Kārikā, 22). Because they enter into them, therefore the ‘frame of that,’ i.e., of Primordial Matter,—has been described as ‘Body.’

Manasviṇaḥ, ‘maṇīṣā’ is wisdom; those possessed of wisdom are ‘manasvins,’ i.e., the wise ones.

[The above explanation makes ‘tainīmāni,’ the organs and substances, the nominative, and the ‘components’ the objective;—this construction is found to be incompatible with the nominative ending in ‘avayavāḥ,’ ‘components’; hence the Bhāṣya puts forward another construction, which has been adopted in the rendering of the text.]—Or, the relation of the ‘nominative’ and ‘objective’ may be reversed: the ‘subtile components’ being the nominative, and the ‘organs’ the objective (of the verb ‘āśrayanti,’); the meaning of ‘āśrayanti,’ ‘enter into,’ being that the subtile components serve as the substratum—‘āśraya’—of the organs; just as in the phrase ‘he has been fed (upon) by many men,’ the man doing the feeding is spoken of as ‘fed.’—Or, since verbal roots may have several meanings, ‘enter in’ may be explained as ‘produce.’—(17)

Nandana explains the verse to mean that ‘the body of Hiraṇyagarbha is called Śarīra, body, because it enters all things mentioned in the preceding verses by means of its portions’; according to Medhātithi on the other hand, it means that—the body of Pradhāna is called Śarīra, because its six components enter into these things,—viz., the organs and the elemental substances. Kullūka refers it to the body of Brahman.

The only important points of difference are—(1) while Medhātithi takes it as referring to the body of Pradhāna, others take it as refering to that of Hiraṇyagarbha or Brahmā; and (2) while according to Medhātithi the evolutes entering into that Body are the organs and the gross elemental subtances, according to Nandana, they are only the six principles named in verses 14-15.

The natural construction of the verse appears to be yat (yasmāt kāraṇāṭ) sūr?yacayacāḥ sūkṣmāḥ tāni imāni ṣaṭ āśrayanti tasmāt——as set forth by Medhātithi But if tāni imāni refers to indriyāṇi then there should be an accusative ending in in order to make it the object of āśrayanti. It is in view of this difficulty that the Bhāṣya has put forward another construction by which sūkṣmāḥ is the nominative and tānīmāni the objective of the verb āśrayanti,

017 Because those six (kinds of) minute particles, which form the (creator’s) frame, enter (a-sri) these (creatures), therefore the wise call his frame sarira, (the body.)

The great elemental substances, along with their functions, as also the mind, along with its subtile components, enter into that which (on that account) is the generator of all things and imperishable.—(18)

तद् एतत् प्रधानं सर्वभूतकृद् भवति । अव्ययम् अविनाशं कारणात्मना । कथं सर्वाणि भूतानि करोति । यतस् तद् आविशन्तीमानि । कानि पुनस् तानि । **मनः सूक्ष्मैर् अवयवैः **सह तन्मात्रैर् बुद्ध्यहंकारेन्दियलक्षणैः । अनन्तरं महान्ति भूतानि पृथिव्यप्तेजोवाय्वाकाशाख्यानि । सह कर्मभिः । धृतिसंहननपक्तिव्यूहावकाशाः पृथिव्यादीनां यथाक्रमं कर्माणि । तत्र धृतिः धारणं सरणपतनधर्मकस्य एकत्रावस्थानम् । संग्राहकाद् विकीर्णस्य संहननम् । यथा पांसवो विकीर्णा उदकेन संहन्यन्ते पिण्डीक्रियन्ते । पक्तिर् अन्नौषधतृणादेस् तेजसः कार्यतया प्रसिद्धा । व्यूहो विन्यासः संनिवेशः । अवकाशो मूर्त्यन्तरेणाप्रतिबन्धः । न हि यस्मिन् देशे मूर्तिर् एका स्थिता तत्र मूर्त्यन्तरस्य स्थानम् । सुवर्णपिण्डे न कस्यचिद् अन्तःसंभवः । मनोग्रहणं सर्वेन्द्रियप्रदर्शनार्थम् । कर्मग्रहणेन च कर्मेन्द्रियाणि वा गृह्यन्ते । अथ वा तत्कार्यं सूक्ष्मैर् अवयवैर् युक्तं महान्ति भूतान्य् अधितिष्ठति पश्चाद् इत्य् एवं योजना । इन्द्रियाणि च मनःशब्दस्य प्रदर्शनार्थत्वात् ॥ १.१८ ॥

‘That,’ ‘Primordial Matter—is ‘the generator of all things’:—it is ‘imperishable,’ i.e., in its original (causal) form it is indestructible.

“In what way does Primordial Matter generate all things?”

Because all these enter into it.

“What are all these that enter into it?”

First of all ‘the Mind along with its subtile components,’—i.e., along with the Rudimentary Substances, the Principle of Intelligence, the Principle of Egoism and the Sense-organs;—and then, the Great Elemental Substances—called ‘Earth,’ ‘Water,’ ‘Fire,’ ‘Wind,’ and ‘Ākāśa;’—‘along with their functions;—

1. sustaining,
2. conglutination,
3. cooking,
4. configuration
5. and making room (unobstruction) respectively are the ‘functions’ of Earth, &c.

Of these

1. ‘sustaining’ means upholding, keeping in their places, things that are prone to falling;
2. ‘conglutination’ means bringing together things that are loose and disjointed; e.g., loose and disjointed dust-particles are brought togther, cemented into, a mass by means of water;—
3. ‘Cooking’ is the well-known effect produced by fire upon such tilings as medicine and herbs, &c.
4. ‘Configuration’ means conformation, shaping;—
5. ‘making room’ means non-obstruction by another body; in a point in space where one body is already present, there can be no room for another body; e.g., no object can find room within a piece of gold.

‘Mind’—is meant to indicate all the organs of sensation; and the term ‘Karma’ may be taken as referring to the organs of action; or again, in the first line of the text, the term ‘Karma’ may be taken to mean the ‘products’ of the elementary substances; the sense of the passage being that ‘subsequently the products of the elemental substances, along with the subtile components, enter into the great elemental substances’—‘as also do the organs of sensation,’ this latter being indicated by the word ‘Mind.’—(18)

Buhler supplies the translation of the verse according to the five interpretations offered by the commentators.

1. The text here represents the explanation given by Medhātithi:—
2. According to Govinda and Kullūka the verse means—‘From Brahman are produced the gross elements, together with their functions, and the Mind, which is the producer of all beings through its minute portions, and imperishable’.—
3. According to Rāghavānanda—‘That gross body the gross elements enter, and the Mind, which is the producer of all beings and imperishable, together with the actions and with the limbs.’—
4. According to Nandana—‘As that body of Hiraṇyagarbha, though through its small portions it produces all beings, ye tis imperishable,—even thus the Great Beings and the Mind, with the actions enter it.’—
5. According to Nārāyana—‘That subtile body the gross elements enter, together with the Karma and the Mind, the producer of all beings and imperishable, together with its minute portions.’

Dr. Buhler’s rendering of this verse is not approved by Hopkins. The construction of the sentence is the same in all cases—mahānti bhūtāni karmabhiḥ saha—manaśca sūkṣmaiḥ avayavaiḥ.

Medhātithi himself offers a second explanation.

Mahābhārata, 12.232.12.—(First half is the same as Manu.)

018 That the great elements enter, together with their functions and the mind, through its minute parts the framer of all beings, the imperishable one.

From out of the Subtile constituents of the frames of the said exceedingly potent principles is produced this (Gross Body)—the perishable proceeding from the imperishable.—(19)

सूक्ष्मात् स्थूलम् उत्पद्यते संभवति । अव्ययाद् व्ययम् इत्य् एतावति तात्पर्यम् । न तु षण्णां सप्तानां वा तत्त्वानां मात्राभ्य इति । चतुर्विंशतितत्त्वानि । तानि सृष्टौ सर्वेषां निमित्तम् । अथ वा पिण्डसृष्टौ सप्तैव प्रधानं कारणम्, षडविशेषाः सप्तमो महान् । तेभ्यो भूतेन्द्रियाण्य् उत्पद्यन्ते । तेषु चोत्पन्नेषु पिण्डीभवति शरीरम् ।

• अव्ययात्³⁵ प्रधानाद् उपसंभृतसर्वविकाराद् एकीभूताद् इदं बहुधा विप्रकीर्णं विश्वरूपं जगद् उत्पद्यते । किं युगपद् एव समस्तैर् विकारैः स्थूलरूपैः प्रधानं विक्रियते । नेत्य् आह । तेषाम् इदम् इति । यादृशः प्राग् उक्तः क्रमस् तेनैव । “प्रकृतेर् महांस् ततो ऽहंकारस् तस्माद् गुणस् तु षोडशकः” इति (सांक् २२) । पुरुषशब्दस् तत्त्वे पुरुषार्थत्वात् प्रयुक्तः । महौजसां स्वकार्ये वीर्यवताम् । अपरिमितविकारहेतुत्वान् महत्वम् । तेषां याः सूक्ष्मा मूर्तिमात्रा मूर्तिः शरीरम्, तदर्था मात्रास्, ताभ्य इदं भवति । अत उच्यते । अव्ययाद् व्ययम् इति । काः पुनस् तेषां सूक्ष्मा मात्राः । न हि तन्मात्राणाम् अन्या मात्राः संभवन्ति येन तेषां सूक्ष्मा मात्रा इति व्यतिरेक उपपद्यते । न तेषां स्वागतमात्रापेक्षत्वम् । किं तर्हि । तन्मात्रेभ्यः सूक्ष्मो महान् महतः प्रभूर्³⁶ इति ॥ १.१९ ॥

All that is meant by saying that ‘the perishable proceeds from the imperishable’ is that the Gross is produced out of the Subtile; and it is not meant to emphasise whether it is produced out of the particles of six or seven Principles; in fact there are twenty-four Principles, all of which form the cause of the origin of all things. Or, the meaning may be that in the production of the gross oḥjeot only seven Principles form the principal cause, e.g., the six non-differentiated Principles (the live Rudimentary Substances and the principle of Egoism) and the seventh, the Great Principle of Intelligence. Out of these (seven) are produced the Elemental Substances and the Organs; and when these latter have been produced, the gross body becomes formed.

[It has been said that] from out of the imperishable Primordial Matter,—which in its unified form, contains within itself the possibilities of all its evolutes,—is produced this world, which is multifarious in its character and appears in all possible forms.

Now the question arises—Docs the Primordial Matter become modified into all its gross evolutes at one and the same time? And the answer to this is ‘No;’ what really happens is described in the present verse—‘From out of the subtile, &c., &c.,’ The order in which the things are produced is the same as that which has been described before: that is, from out of Primordial Matter is produced the Great Principle of Intelligence;—from this latter the Principle of Egoism; and from this latter again the ‘group of sixteen’ (kārikā, 22).

The term ‘Puruṣa’ has been used in the sense of the Principles, on the ground that these latter subserve the purposes of the Puruṣa (Soul).

‘Exceedingly potent’—capable of producing their effects; it is because they are the cause of innumerable products that they have been called ‘exceedingly.’

The said principles have certain ‘subtile constituents of their frames’;—‘mūrti’ is frame; the constituents that go to form that frame are called ‘constituents of the frame’; from out of these is born ‘this’ (the gross Body). It is in reference to this that it is added—‘the perishable proceeding out of the imperishable.’

Question—“What are the ‘subtile constituents’ of the said Principles? Certainly the Rudimentary Substances have no other ‘constituents’ (save those that are subtile), in reference to (for the exclusion of) which such specification could be possible (as that intended by the epithet ‘subtile’).”

Answer—The qualification ‘subtile’ is not in relation to the constituents of any single Principle itself; what is meant is that (one principle is ‘subtile’ in relation to, in comparison to, another, i.e.) the Great Principle of Intelligence is subtile as compared to the Rudimentary Substances, and the Root Evolvent (Primordial Matter) is ‘subtile’ as compared to the Great Principle.

[Another explanation of the verse is given below, in the form of an introduction to verse 20].—19

The ‘seven’ are made up of—

(1) Egoism, the five subtile elements and the Mahat (Medhātithi, Govinda and Kullūka);—(2) Ātman instead of Mahat (Nārāyana and Nandana). Medhātithi notes another enumeration suggested by ‘others’—(1) The five organs of Perception, (2) the five organs of Action and (3), (4), (5), (6) and, (7) the five grogs elemental substances.’

The name ‘puruṣa’ has been applied to the Tattvas, Principles,—because ‘they serve the purposes of the, soul’ (Medhātithi),—or because ‘they are produced by the Puruṣa, Ātman,’

019 But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.

Among these (Elementary Substances), each succeeding one acquires the quality of what precedes it; and each elemental substance is endowed with as many qualities as the place it occupies (in the order in which the said substances are set forth).—(20)

“Why does the Author use the form ‘ādyādyasya’? The correct form should be ‘ādyasyādyasya’, the repetition of the term ‘ādyasya’ being necessitated by Pāṇini’s Sūtra 8.1.4; just as we have in such expressions as ‘paraḥ paraḥ.’”

पूर्वश्लोके केचिद् अन्यथा सप्तसंख्या परिकल्पयन्ति । पञ्चेन्द्रियाणि चक्षुरादीनि वर्गीकृतान्य् एकीभवन्ति । बोधहेतुतयैकेन धर्मेण योगाद् एकत्वेन निर्दिश्यन्ते । एवं कर्मेन्द्रियाणि । तौ च वर्गद्वित्वाद् द्वौ पुरुषौ भवतः । पञ्चभूतानि भेदेनैव निर्दिष्टानि कर्यवैलक्षण्यात् । तद् एवं सप्तपुरुषास् तेषां या मूर्त्यर्थाः सूक्ष्मा मात्रा निर्माणकार्याणि तन्मात्राण्य् अहंकारश् च । अन्यत् समानम् ।

• अतश् च भूतानां पूर्वश्लोके संनिधानाद् एषाम् इति तेषाम् प्रतिनिर्देशः । यद्य् अपि च व्यवहिते बहूनि वचनानि³⁷ संनिहितानि तथापि य इहार्थः प्रतिपाद्यते विशिष्टसंख्याकर्तृगुणवत्त्वं तद् भूतानाम् एव संभवति नान्येषां, प्रकृतत्वे सत्य् अपि ।

• अतो ऽयं श्लोकार्थः । एषां भूतानां यद् यत आद्यं³⁸ तस्य यद्रूपं ततो ऽनन्तरं पठितं तत् तत् पूर्वस्य संबन्धेन गुणं गृह्णाति । गुणशब्देन शब्दादयः पञ्चोच्यन्ते । आद्यत्वं चात्र वक्ष्यमाणया व्यवस्थया “आकाशं जायते” (म्ध् १.७५) इति । गुणत्वं च शब्दादीनां तत्रैव वक्ष्यति । यो य आकाशादिलक्षणो ऽर्थो यावतिथः यावतां पूरणः । “वतोर् इथुक्” (पाण् ५.२.५३) । द्वितीये तृतीये ऽवस्थाने स्थितः स तावद्गुणः । तावन्तो गुणास् तस्य भवन्ति । द्वितीयस्थाने स्थितो द्विगुण इत्यादि । परस्पराद्याद्यगुणसंबन्धित्वं प्रथमे ऽर्धश्लोक उक्तम् । तत्र यः स्वशब्देन यस्यैव यो गुणो ऽभिहितः “तस्य शब्दगुणं विदुः,” (म्ध् १.७५) “तद् रूपगुणम् उच्यते” (म्ध् १.७७) इत्यादि । ततश् च पूर्वगुणावाप्तौ द्वैगुण्यम् आकाशं वर्जयित्वा भूतानां प्राप्तम् । अत उक्तम् यो यो यावतिथ इति । तेन द्विगुणो वायुस् त्रिगुणं तेजस् चतुर्गुणा आपः पञ्चगुणा भूमिर् इति । आद्याद्यस्येति कथम् । आद्यस्याद्यस्येह भवितव्यम् । नित्यवीप्सयोर् इति द्विवचनेन । यथा परः पर इति । छन्दोभिर् अविशेषात् स्मृतीनां लुग्वृत्तानुरोधाच् चैवं पठितम् ॥ १.२० ॥

In the preceding verse some people offer a different explanation of the number ‘seven’:—(1) The five organs of sensation, the Eye and the rest, taken together from a single group; they are regarded as ‘one’ on account of their possessing the common character of being the instruments of perception;—(2) similarly the five organs of action; these two, forming two groups, are ‘two principles’;—(3-7) the five elemental substances, being treated individually, by reason of their functions being distinct from one another, are the ‘seven principles’; and the five Rudimentary Substances and the principle of Egoism are the ‘subtile constituents’ that go to make up the ‘bodies’ of the said seven;—i.e., these seven are the products of evolution from the said six.—The rest of the verse is explained in the same manner as set forth above.

Thus, in accordance with this explanation, the Elemental Substances having been spoken of in the preceding verse (19), the pronoun ‘eṣām,’ ‘among these,’ refers to those same substances. Though there are several words intervening (between the mention of Elemental Substances in verse (19) and the pronoun ‘among these’ in the present verse), which are in closer proximity to the pronoun, yet, as a matter of fact, what Is described in the present verse,—the fact of ‘these’ being endowed with a particular number of qualities derived from well-defined sources—is applicable only to the Elementary Substances, and not to other things; even though these latter may form the subject-matter of the context (and may as such, be capable of being referred to by the pronoun in question).

The meaning of the verse thus comes to this:—‘Among these’ Elemental Substances,—which are set out (later on) in a definite order of sequence, one preceding the other—the ‘succeeding one’ acquires the quality of the preceding one, through its connection with it.—The term ‘quality’ here stands for the five, Sound and the rest;—the ‘preceding’ (and ‘succeeding’) is in reference to the order in which the names of the Elemental Substances are set forth in verse 75 below, where it is said that ‘first of all Ākāśa is produced &c., &c.’ The fact of sound &c., being the qualities of these substances will also bo described in that same verse.—Among Ākāśa and the rest, each one occupies a definite place in the order in which they are set forth; the term ‘yāvatithaḥ’ means the number of the place occupied by it; the word being formed by the adding of the affix ‘ithuk,’ by Pāṇini’s Sūtra 5.2.53. The meaning is that each substance becomes endowed with as many qualities as the place, second or third, &c., occupied by it; that is, the substance occupying the second place in the order of sequence has two qualities, that occupying the third place has three, and so on.

The first half of the verse means that among the Elemental Substances, each succeeding one acquires the quality of its predecessor; and each of them is later on (under verses 75 &c.) described has having one quality inherent in itself; for instance, ‘Ākāśa is known as possessing the quality of sound’ (verse 75); ‘Fire is described as possessing the quality of colour’ (verse 77), and so forth; so that acquiring one quality from its predecessor (and having one inherent in itself) each substance would appear to be endowed with only two qualities,—with the sole exception of Ākāśa (which, having no substance ‘preceding’ it, would have the single quality of Sound, which is inherent in itself); hence with a view to preclude such an idea, the author has added the the second half of the verse—Each Elemental Substance being endowed with as many qualities &c. &c.,—which means that Wind has two qualities, Fire has three, Water has four, and Earth has five.

“Why does the Author use the form ‘ādyādyasya’? The correct form should be ‘ādyasyādyasya’, the repetition of the term ‘ādyasya’ being necessitated by Pāṇini’s Sūtra 8.1.4; just as we have in such expressions as ‘paraḥ paraḥ.’”

The form used is due to the exigencies of metre; and exigencies of metre justify the non-observance of rules.—(20)

Nandana places verse 27 before 20. There appears to be no justification for deviating from the order adopted by all other commentators.

Mahābhārata, 12.232.8.—‘The qualities of the preceding go over to the succeeding and whatever it is and in whatever form and place, so many qualities it is declared to possess.’

020 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.

At the outset he designated distinct names for add things; and devised acts and Laws, on the basis of the words of the veda.—(21)

स प्रजापतिः सर्वेषाम् अर्थानां नामानि चक्रे । यथा कश्चित् पुत्राणां जातानाम् अन्येषां वा संव्यवहारार्थं करोति- “वृद्धिर् आदैच्” (पाण् १.१.१), “धीश्रीस्त्रीम्” (पिङ्स् १.१.१) इति । शब्दार्थसंबन्धं कृतवान् “गौर् अश्वः पुरुषः” इति । कर्माणि च निर्ममे । धर्माधर्माख्यान्य् अदृष्टार्थान्य् अग्निहोत्रादीनि च । सृष्ट्वा च कर्माणि तत्र संस्था व्यवस्थाश् चकार- “इदं कर्म ब्राह्मणेनैव कर्तव्यं काले ऽमुष्मै च फलाय” । अथ वा दृष्टर्था मर्यादा संस्था- “गोप्रचार इह च प्रेदेशे न कर्तव्यः,” “इदम् उदकं सस्यसेकार्थम् अमुष्मिन् ग्रामे न देयं यावत् तस्माद् ग्रामाद् अस्माभिर् अयम् उपकारो न लब्धः” । दृष्टार्थानि च कर्माणि निर्ममे । तत्र यान्य् अदृष्टार्थानि तानि वेदशब्देभ्यो वैदिकेभ्यो वाक्येभ्यः ।

• ननु सर्वस्य तेनैव सृष्टत्वात् तस्यैव स्वातन्त्र्याद् वेदं ससर्ज कर्मानुष्ठानपरिपालनार्थम् इत्य् एवं वक्तव्यम् । वेदसृष्टिश् च वक्ष्यते “अग्निवायुरविभ्यश् च” (म्ध् १.२३) इत्य् अत्रान्तरे ।

• उच्यते । भिन्नम् अत्र दर्शनम् । केचिद् आहुर् अन्यस्मिन् कल्पे वेदास् तेनाधीतास् ते च महाप्रलयेन प्रलीनाः पुनर् अन्यस्मिन् कल्पे सुप्तप्रतिबुद्धवत् सर्वं प्रथमं प्रतिभाति, स्वप्नपठितो यथा कस्यचिच् छ्लोकः प्रतिभाति । भाति च वेदे “गौर् अनुबन्ध्यः” (शब् १०.४.३२), “अश्वस् तूपरो गोमृगः” (व्स् २४.१) इत्यादिवाक्येभ्यः शब्दानुस्मृतिपूर्वकं झट् इति तान् अर्थान् स्मृत्वोत्पद्यमानांश् च पदार्थान् दृष्ट्वा “अस्यार्थस्यायं³⁹ शब्दः कल्पान्तरे नामासीत्, संप्रत्य् अस्यैव क्रियताम्” इत्य् उभयं वेदशब्देभ्य एव नामानि कर्माणि च सृष्टवान् । अथ वा नैव वेदाः प्रलीयन्ते महाप्रलये ऽपि । यो ऽसौ पुरुषः केषांचिद् इष्टस् तथा वेदा आसते । स एवान्तरण्डं ब्रह्माक्यं पुरुषं निर्माय वेदान् अध्यापयामास । एवं स ब्रह्मा वेदशब्देभ्यः सर्वं निर्मितवान् ।

• यद् अत्र तत्त्वं तद् अस्माभिर् उक्तम् एव । अथ पौराणिकी प्रक्रिया प्रयुज्यते । सास्माभिः प्रदर्श्यत एव । आदौ जगत्सर्ग इत्य् अर्थः । अथ वा, आदौ यानि नामान्य् अनपभ्रष्टानि, न पुनर् इदानींतनान्य् अशक्तिजानि गव्यादीनि । पृथक्, न⁴⁰ यथा शरीरं च तत्त्वसमुदायरूपम्⁴¹ एवं⁴² निर्ममे । किं तर्हि, पृथक् ॥ १.२१ ॥

‘He,’ Prajāpati, ‘designated the names of all things’; just in the same manner as people assign names to new-born children, or to other things also, for the purpose of speaking of them in ordinary business; as we find done in such assertions as, ‘āt and aich are called Vṛddhi’ (Pāṇini 1.1.1), or ‘Dhi-śrī-strī &c.’ (Piṅgala). What is meant is that he established a connection between a certain thing and a certain term,—such terms, for instance, as ‘ganḥ’ (Cow), ‘Aśvaḥ’ (Horse) and ‘Puruṣaḥ’ (Man).

He devised also the acts, known as ‘Dhaima-Adharma’ (Virtue-Vice),—i.e., such acts as the Agnithotra and the like which lead to transcendental results.

Having devised the acts, he devised also the ‘laws,’ the rules, governing them; such for instance, as, ‘such and such an act should be done by the Brāhmaṇa only, at such and such a time, for the purpose of obtaining such and such a result.’—Or, ‘laws’ may be taken as referring to the rules governing the ordinary acts with visible worldly results; such, for instance, as ‘cattle should graze in such and such a place,’ ‘this water should not be given for purposes of irrigation of crops to such and such a village until we have secured such and such a benefit from it in return.’—He devised also those acts that accomplish only visible results; but those acts that accomplish transcendental results he devised on the basis of Vedic declarations.

Objection—“As a matter of fact, all things have been created by Brahmā; and since he is the only independent agent, the proper statement would have been that ‘he devised the Veda for the purpose of safeguarding the performaṅce of acts’; in fact the devising of the Veda by Brahmā is going to be described even in the present context (in verse 23).”

Answer—On the subject of the origin of the Vedas, several theories have been propounded: (1) Some people hold as follows:—Brahmā studied the Vedas in a previous cycle;—at the following Universal Dissolution, they disappeared;—in the succeeding cycle at first they were recollected by Brahmā, just as if he had gone to sleep and had risen from it; in the same manner as people remember a verse that came to their mind during a dream;—the Veda having been thus recollected by him, he remembers the words of such passages as “gauranubandhyaḥ-aśvastuparo mṛgaḥ (Yajurveda-Vajasa. 24.1), and immediately there come to his mind the things denoted by these words; so that as soon as these things are found to have come into existence, he decides that, inasmuch as such as was the name of this thing in the preceding cycle, it may have the same name in this cycle also. So that he devised the names as well as the acts, both on the basis of the words of the Veda.—(2) The other theory is as follows:—Even at universal Dissolution the Vedas do not disappear at all; they continue to exist for ever, just like the Supreme Being postulated by certain philosophers. This same Supreme Being created within the egg the being named Brahmā and taught him the Vedas; and this Brahmā, on the basis of the words of the Vedas, devised every thing.

What the real truth on this point is we have already set forth above; while for one who seeks for an account in accordance with the Purāṇas, we have just described the two theories that have been propounded.

‘Ādau,’ ‘at the outset’—at the time of world creation;—or, ‘ādau’ may be taken to mean ‘ever-lasting,’ referring to those names whose original form has not become corrupted, as distinguished from such corrupted names as ‘gāvī’ and the like, which owe their origin to the incapacity of men (to pronounce the corect forms).

‘Distinct’—the names designated were in accordance with that configuration of the body peculiar to each species; what he designated was not merely a collective name (applicable to all animals),—but a distinct name for each species.—(21)

Mahābhārata, 12.232.26.—‘Out of the words of the Veda itself did He, in the beginning, create the names of the sages, as also of all those creations that are described in the Veda.’

021 But in the beginning he assigned their several names, actions, and conditions to all (created beings), even according to the words of the Veda.

For the sake of living beings intent upon action, he created the eternal sacrifice; as also the host of Gods and the subtile multitude of the lesser divinities, the Sādhyas.—(22)

कर्मात्मानः शरीरिणः प्राणिनः कर्मसु तत्परा मनुष्या उच्यन्ते । तेषाम् अर्थसिद्धये यज्ञम् असृजत् । ये ब्रह्मोपासनास्व् अनभिरताः⁴³ पुत्रपश्वादिफलार्थिनो द्वैतपक्षाश्रितास् ते कर्मानुष्ठानपरत्वात् कर्मात्मान उच्यन्ते । षष्ठ्य् अपि तादर्थ्यं ब्रूत इति तदर्थं यज्ञम् असृजद् इति गम्यते । देवानां च गणं तदर्थम् एवासृजत् । कर्मात्मनां चेत्य् अयम् अदेशे चः पठितः । तस्य देशो देवानाम् इत्य् अतो ऽनन्तरम् । यज्ञं ससर्ज । अग्निर् अग्नीषोमाव् इन्द्राग्नी इत्यादिं यज्ञसिद्ध्यर्थं देवानां गणम् असृजत् । तथा साध्यानां देवानां गणम् इत्य् अनुषज्यते । भेदेनोपादानम् अहविर्भाक्त्वात् तेषां स्तुतिभाज एव ते केवलम् । “यत्र पूर्वे साध्याः सन्ति देवाः” (र्व् १०.९०.१६) इति । “साध्या वै नाम देवाः” इति । “साध्या वै नाम देवा आसन्” (प्ब् ८.३.५) । अथ वा ब्राह्मणपरिव्राजकवत् । सूक्ष्मं मरुतो रुद्राङ्गिरस इत्य् एतदपेक्षया साध्यगणः सूक्ष्मः । साध्यग्रहणं चान्यासाम् अप्य् अहविःसंबन्धिनीनां देवतानां वेनोस्तुनीतिर् इत्यादीनां प्रदर्शनार्थम् ।

• अन्ये तु कर्मात्मनां देवानां प्राणिनाम् इति समानाधिकरणानि मन्यन्ते । कर्माणि आत्मा स्वभावप्रतिलम्भो⁴⁴ येषां ते कर्मात्मानः । यागादिकर्मनिर्वर्तनपरत्वात् प्रधानतया वा कर्मात्मानः ।

• काश्चिद् देवता यागादिकर्मण्य् एव स्वरूपत इतिहासे श्रूयन्ते । यथेन्द्रो रुद्रो विष्णुर् इति । अन्यासां तु याग एव देवतात्वं न स्वरूपतः । अक्षा ग्रावाणो रथाङ्गानि । न हि यथा भारते इन्द्रादीनां वृत्रादिभिर् असुरैर् युद्धादि कर्म श्रूयते तथाक्षादीनां वर्ण्यते । अस्ति च सूक्ते हविःसंबन्धे तेषाम् अपि देवतात्वम् । अक्षाणां “प्रावेपा मा” (र्व् १०.३४.१) इति । ग्राव्णां “प्रैते वदन्तु” (र्व् १०.९४.१) इति । “वनस्पते वीड्वङ्गः” (र्व् ६.४७.२६) इति रथाङ्गानाम् । अत एव प्राणिनाम् इति । द्विविधा हि देवताः प्राणवत्यस् तद्रहिताश् च । यथेन्द्रादयः पुरुषविग्रहाः प्राणवन्तः पुराणे वर्ण्यन्ते, नाक्षादयः । इतिहासदर्शनाश्रयश्⁴⁵ चायं सर्वः सर्गादिप्रपञ्चः । चसब्दश् चात्र द्रष्टव्यः, प्राणिनाम् अप्राणिनाम् अपि । निरुक्तदर्शने ऽपि द्विविधा देवता । अश्वाः “मा नो ऽमित्रः” (र्व् १.१६२.१) इति । शकुनिः “कनिक्रदद्” (र्व् ५.८३.१) इति । गाव “आ गावो अग्मन्” इति (र्व् ६.२८.२) । एताः प्राणवत्यः । अप्राणा उक्ताः । सनातनग्रहणं यज्ञविशेषणम् । पूर्वकल्पे ऽपि यज्ञस्य भावात् प्रवाहनित्यतया नित्यत्वम् ॥ १.२२ ॥

‘Living beings intent upon action’—stands for human beings intent upon the performance of actions; for the accomplishment of the purpose of these, ‘he created the sacrifice.’ Those men are called ‘intent upon action’ who, not giving themselves up to the worship of Brahman, still hanker after such results as the obtaining of sons and cattle, etc., and accepting the philosophy of Dualism, engage themselves in the performance of actions.—The Genitive ending also (in the words ‘Karmātmanām prāṇinām) signifies ‘for the sake of’; hence the meaning is that ‘he created the sacrifice for the sake of the said beings.’—‘The hosts of gods’ also he created for the sake of sacrifices.—The particle ‘ca’ is misplaced after ‘Karmātmanām’; its proper place is after ‘devānām’; the meaning thus being—‘He created the sacrifice, and for the sake of the due fulfilment of the sacrifice, he created also the hosts of gods, such as Agni, Agni-Soma, Indra-Agni and so forth.—He also created the multitude of the divinities called ‘Sādhyas’ ** —the word ‘gaṇam’ being construed with ‘Sādhyānām’ also. The Sādhyas are mentioned apart from the ‘Gods,’ because they are not entitled to partake of the sacrificial offerings,—they being entitled only to having hymns addressed to them. That the Sādhyas form a particular class of divinities is shown by such passages as ‘In the beginning there were the gods named Sādhyas’ (Ṛgveda 10.90.16).—Or the separate mention of the ‘Sādhyas’ may be explained on the analogy of such expressions as ‘brāhmaṇa-parivrājaka’ and the like [the ‘Parivrājaka’, ‘wandering renunciate’ is a ‘Brāhmaṇa’ with some qualifications; similarly the Sādhyas are Devas with the further qualification that they are not entitled to a share of the offerings],—‘Subtile’—the multitude of Sādhyas is Subtile in comparison to such deities as the Maruts and the Rudrāṅgirases.—The mention of the Sādhyas is meant to include all those deities that have no connection with sacrificial offerings, such, for instance, as Veno, (?) Sunīti (?) and so forth.

[Another explanation of the verse.]

Some people construe ‘Karmātmanām-devānām-prāṇimām’ together, taking them as co-extensive. The ‘gods’ being called ‘Karmātmānaḥ’ in the sense that they are of the nature of actions, actions form the very essence of their nature; they are so called, because they help in the accomplishment of sacrificial acts, or because they constitute the most important factor in the sacrificial act. Among the gods there are some who arc described in the Itihāsas, in connection with sacrifices, as possessed of distinctive forms; to this class belong the gods, Indra, Rudra and Viṣṇu; there are others who are gods, not in their own forms, but only at sacrifices; to this class belong the ‘Akṣa’ (wheel-axle), ‘Grāvan’ (Pebbles) and the Rathāṅga (the wheels, or the constituent parts of the chariot). As regards Indra &c., we find in the Mahābhārata descriptions of such deeds of theirs as fighting with Vṛttra and other Asuras; but there is no description of any such acts in connection with the Wheel-axle &c. and yet in the Vedic hymns connected with sacrificial offerings we find these latter spoken of as ‘deities’; for instance, the wheel-axles are referred to as deities in the hymn ‘prāvepāmā &c’; (Ṛgveda, 10.34.1); the Pebbles are spoken of as deities in the hymn ‘praite vadantu &c.’ (Ṛgveda, 10.94.1)—the Wheels are spoken of as deities in the hymn ‘vanaspate vīdvaṅgu &c.’ (Ṛgveda 6.47.26).—It is in view of (with a view to exclude) these latter (which are inanimate) that we have the epithet ‘prāṇinām’ (Animate). There are two kinds of gods; some are animate, others inanimate; e.g., Indra and others are described in the ‘Purāṇa’ as having human bodies and endowed with life; but the wheel-axle &c. are not found so described. All this conception of the creation of things is based upon Itihāsas. An additional ‘ca,’ also, has to be taken as understood; the meaning being ‘animate and also the inanimate.’ According to the Nirukta also there are three kinds of deities—Horses, mentioned in the hymn ‘mā no mitra &c.’ (Ṛgveda, 1.162.1), Birds mentioned in the hymn ‘Kanikradat &c.’ (Ṛgveda 5.83.1), and Bulls mentioned in the hymn ‘āgāvo agman’ &c. (Ṛgveda, 6.28.1);—all these deities are animate; and the inanimate ones have been already described.

The epithet ‘eternal’ qualifies the ‘sacrifice’; the sacrifice having existed in the previous cycle also, there is a continuity of tradition in regard to it; and it is on this ground that it is regarded as eternal.—(22)

The meaning of this verse, which Buhler attributes to Medhātithi, is one that the latter has not put forward at all. His explanation is somewhat different, as will be clear from the translation. He has however noted an explanation by ‘others’, which is rightly rendered by Buhler as—‘The Lord created the multitude of the gods whose nature is sacrifice and of those endowed with life.’—According to Rāghavānanda it means—‘The Lord created among beings endowed with life the (to us) invisible multitude of the gods who, by the result of their acts, have obtained their divine station, or who subsist on offerings.’

022 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 Sadhyas, and the eternal sacrifice.

From out of (the three deities) Agni, Vāyu and Ravi, he extracted, for the due fulfilment of sacrifices, the eternal Brahman, threefold, in the forms of ‘Ṛk,’ ‘Yajuṣ’ and ‘Sāman.’—(23)

“तिस्र एव देवताः” अग्निप्रभृतय इति नैरुक्ताः (निर् ७.५), सत्य् अप्य् अभिधाननानात्वे । अतस् तेन दर्शनेनोच्यते । एताभ्यस् तिसृभ्यो यज्ञसिद्ध्यर्थम् । यागसंप्रदानत्वात् तासां चतुर्थी । त्रयम् ऋग्यजुःसामलक्षणं ब्रह्म वेदाख्यं दुदोह । द्विकर्मको ऽयं धातुः । प्रधानं कर्म त्रयम् । अप्रधानेन द्वितीयेन कर्मणा भवितव्यम् । न च तद् अस्ति । अतः पञ्चम्य् एवेयम् इति मन्यामहे । अग्न्यादिभ्यो दुदोह, अक्षारयद् अभावयत् ।

• कथं पुनर् अग्न्यादिभ्यो वर्णात्मा शब्दो मन्त्रवाक्यानि ब्राह्मणवाक्यानि च भवेयुः ।

• किं नोपपद्यते । कः शक्तीर् अदृष्टा असतीर् वक्तुम् अर्हति ।

• नाख्यातार्थो विकल्पयितुं युक्तः । पञ्चमी तर्हि किमर्था⁴⁶ । “दुहियाचि” इति द्वितीयया भवितव्यम् । किं च दृष्टप्रमाणविरोधी प्राग्वृत्तो ऽर्थ उच्यमानो न⁴⁷ मनःपरितोषम्⁴⁸ आधत्ते प्रामाणिकानाम् ।

• परिहृतो विरोधः स्वरूपपरत्वाश्रयणेनैषाम् आगमानाम् “ऋग्वेद एवाग्नेर् अजायत, यजुर्वेदो वायोः, सामवेद आदित्यात्” (ऐत्ब् २५.७) इति । अग्न्यादयो ऽपि देवता ऐश्वर्यभाजो निरतिशयशक्तिश् च प्रजापतिः, तत्र का नामानुपपत्तिः । अस्मिन् दर्शने पञ्चम्य् अपि विवक्ष्या । अतः कारकाणि कथितानि यत्रापादनसंज्ञेत्य्⁴⁹ अपादानविवक्षायां भाष्ये समर्थितानि (पत् ओन् पाण् १.४.५१) ।

• अन्यदर्शने कथम् ।

• चतुर्थी तावद् युक्तैव । अर्थवादाश् चैते । तत्र द्वितीयं कर्म आत्मैव “प्रजापतिर् आत्मानं दुदोह” । दोहनं चाध्यापनं परसंक्रान्तिसामान्येन ।

• अथापि पञ्चमी । तत्राप्य् आग्नेया मन्त्रा आदाव् ऋग्वेदे, अतः “अग्नेर् अजायत” (ऐत्ब् ५.३२) इत्य् उच्यते, यजुर्वेदे ऽपि “इषे त्वोर्जे त्वा” (त्स् १.१.१) इति । इड् अन्नम्, तन् मध्यस्थानत्वाद्⁵⁰ वायुना वर्षदानेन क्रियते । ऊर्क् प्राणः, स वायुर् एव । अत आदितो वायुकार्यसंबन्धाद् वायोर् इत्य् उपमा । अथ वा, आध्वर्यवम् आर्त्व्ज्यं बहुप्रकाराश् चेष्टाश् च सर्वा वायोर् इत्य् अनेन सामान्येन वायोर् जन्म यजुर्वेदस्य । अनधिकारस्य सामगीत्ययोग्यत्वाद् उत्तमाध्ययनानि सामानि, उत्तमस्थानश् चादित्य इति ॥ २३ ॥

There are only three deities, Agni, Vāyu, and Ravi,—say the followers of the Nirukta; even though these three have several names; and in accordance with this theory the text would mean as follows:—‘For the due fulfilment of the sacrifices,’ to these three deities,—the Dative ending (in the term ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’) being due to the fact of these three deities being the recipients of the sacrificial offerings,—‘he milked the Brahman,’ called ‘Veda’, ‘in the forms of Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāman.’

But as a matter of fact, the root (in ‘dudoha’ ‘milked’) is one that should have two objects; it has its primary object in the form of ‘trayam’; and it should have a second, the secondary, object; but there is no such secondary object in the sentence. Hence we conclude that the term ‘ravibhyaḥ’ should be taken in the Ablative case; the meaning being—‘From out of the three deities, Agni &c, he extracted’—made to flow, produced—[the Veda].

Question:—“How could the words, the mantra-texts and the Brāhmaṇa-texts (of which the Veda consists)—which are made up of letters—come out of Agni and other deities?” Answer:—Why is this not possible? In regard to invisible forces, who can say that they do not exist?

[An objection is raised against the second interpretation preferred by the Bhāṣya]—“It is not right to alter the meaning of the verb (‘dundoha,’ ‘milked’); so that (if the root retains its own meaning) how could we havo the Ablative (in ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’)? It should take the Accusative ending, according to the grammatical rule under Pāṇini’s Sūtra 1.4.51, which lays down that the roots ‘duhi,’ ‘yāci’ &c., take two objects, and the source from which the ‘milking’ is done is the secondary object. Further, the mind of reasonable men is not satisfied when what is described as having happened in the past is something that is not compatible with the ordinary sources of knowledge.”

This incongruity becomes explained away when we take the statement as referring to the framework of the Vedas; the meaning being that the Ṛgveda came out of Agni, the Yajurveda out of Vāyu and the Sāmaveda out of Ravi. Then again, it has to be borne in mind that Agni and the rest are deities endowed with superior potencies, and Prajāpati is possessed of unexcelled powers; so that what can be impossible for these? Under this explanation full significance should attach to the Ablative; so that the case-relation being already expressed (by the Ablative), and the Ablative being duly significant, it is the Ablative that is used [and not the Accusative, which has been laid down in Pāṇini 1.4.51 as to be used only in cases where the case-relation is not otherwise expressed]; this has been fully justified in the Bhāṣya (of Patañjali).

Question:—“If the said theory be not accepted, what would be the explanation of the word ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’ then?”

Answer:—In that case, we have already said that it could be taken as the Dative; and (as regards the necessity of the verb ‘dudoha,’ ‘milked,’ having a secondary object) it has to be borne in mind that all that is here stated is mere vāda. So that (physical impossibilities being not counted) ‘ātman’ may be taken as the required secondary object,—the meaning being that ‘Prajāpati milked himself (of the Veda)’ [‘for the sake of Agni, and Ravi’]. And further, ‘milking’ may be taken in the sense of teaching, which resembles the act of milking in consisting of transferring a thing from one receptacle into another. [So that the passage would mean that ‘he taught the Veda to Agni &c.’] Even when the word ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’ is taken as Ablative, the statement can be justified on the ground that the opening verses of the Ṛgveda speak of Agni,—this fact being what is meant by the statement ‘the Ṛgveda came out of Agni.’ Similarly, the opening verse of the Yajurveda is ‘Iṣe tvorje’ &c., whore the term ‘iṭ’ (the base in ‘iṣe’) means food, and food is produced by Vāyu, which is present within the food, by the bestowing (upon it) of rain; ‘urk’ (the base in the second word ‘urje’) means life-breath, and this is Vāyu (Air) itself; thus since the Yajurveda opens with the description of the effects of Vāyu, we have the metaphorical expression that ‘it came out of Vāyu.’ Or, the duties of the Adhvaryu and the functions of the Ṛtviks (which form the subject-matter of the Yajurveda) all consist of so many forms of activity; and all activity proceeds from Vāyu; hence it is on the basis of this similarity that the Yajurveda is spoken of as coming out of Vāyu. Lastly, as regards the the singing of the Sāman cannot be done except by persons specially qualified for it; hence the Sāma verses are such as can be duly read by only the best among men, and Ravi (the Sun) occupies the highest point in space [and on this fact is based the statement that the Sāmaveda came out of Ravi ].—(23)

There are two explanations of this verse, supplied by Medhātithi:—(1) ‘For the sake of the accomplishment of the sacrifice to Agni, Vāyu and Sūrya, He produced the Veda,’ and (2) ‘Out of Agni……He produced the Veda’;—the latter being preferred, for reasons adduced in the Bhāṣya.

Burnell has a curious note here to the effect that—‘This myth of the creation of the Vedas differs from the Sāṅkhya account, according to which they are eternal and issue from Brahmā’s mouth.’ It was necessary to supply references to the work on Sāṅkhya here referred to.

Medhātithi (p. 19, 1. 9) ‘Asmindarśane’—etc. This refers to the passage in the Mahāhhāṣya (Nirṇayasāgara edition, ‘Vol. II, p. 265, l. 18).

A similar use of the Ablative ending we find in 2. 77.

Do. (p. 19, l. 11) ‘Dohanañchādhyāpanam’—In this case ravibhyaḥ would be the Dative form.

023 But from fire, wind, and the sun he drew forth the threefold eternal Veda, called Rik, Yagus, and Saman, for the due performance of the sacrifice.

[He created] also Time, the Divisions of Time, the Lunar Mansions, the Planets, the Rivers, the Oceans, the Mountains and the tracts of land, plain and rugged.—(24)

धर्मसामान्याद् आह । द्रव्यात्मा कालो वैशेषिकाणाणां क्रियारूपो ऽन्येषाम् । आदित्यादिगतिप्रतान आवृत्तिमान् । कालविभक्तयो विभागा मासर्त्वयनसंवत्सराद्याः । नक्षत्राणि कृत्तिकारोहिण्यादीनि । ग्रःआ आदित्यादयः । सरितो नद्यः । सागराः समुद्राः । शैलाः पर्वताः । समानि स्थलान्य् एकरूपा भूभागाः खातप्रदरवर्जिताः । विषमाणि आरोहावरोहवन्ति ॥ १.२४ ॥

The author mentions Time, because it belongs to the same category (of ‘action’) as Duty. It is only according to Vaiśesikas that Time is a substance; according to others it is a form of action; it consists in the extension of the motions of the Sun and other planets, and is liable to return.

‘Divisious of Time’—such divisions as into ‘month,’ ‘season,’ ‘half-year,’ ‘year’ and so forth.

‘Lunar Mansions’—such as Kṛttikā (Pleiades), Rohiṇī (Aldebaran) and the rest.

‘Planets’—Sun and the rest.

‘Rivers’—streams.

‘Oceans’—seas—and ‘Mountains.’

‘Even tracts of land’—such tracts of land as are of one uniform form, devoid of ditches and holes.—‘Rugged tracts of land’—such as are high and low.—(24)

Medhātithi (p. 19, 1. 21)—It is interesting to note that even so late as Medhātithi’s time, the Lunar Mansions were counted from Kṛttikā onwards, and not from Aśvinī as in the more recent astronomical systems. (See Thibaut on ‘Indian Astronomy’ in Indian Thought Vol. I.)

This verse is quoted in the Gadādharapaddhati — Kālasāra, p. 5, as describing the creation of time and its divisions;—also in the Kālamādhava (p. 45) as describing the creation of time by God; it reads ‘vibhaktim’ for ‘vibhaktiḥ.’

024 Time and the divisions of time, the lunar mansions and the planets, the rivers, the oceans, the mountains, plains, and uneven ground.

Being desirous of bringing into existence these creatures, he created this entire creation (comprising) austerity, speech, happiness, desire and anger.—(25)

रतिर् मनसः परितोषः । कामो ऽभिलाषो मन्मथो वा । अन्यत् प्रसिद्धम् । एवमादिकां सृष्टिं ससर्जेमाम् । अत्र श्लोके पूर्वा च या सृष्टिर् उक्ता । इमाः प्रजाः स्रष्टुम् इच्छन् देवासुरा यक्षराक्षसगन्धर्वाद्यास् तदुपकरणं तदात्मधर्मवच् छरीरं धर्मं चादाव् असृजद् इत्य् अर्थः । अथ केयं वाचोयुक्तिः सृष्टिं ससर्जेति । य एवार्थः सृष्टिं कृतवान् इति । सर्वे धातवः करोत्यर्थस्य विशेषावच्छिन्ने वर्तन्ते । पचति पाकं करोति, यजति यागं करोति । तत्र कृदन्ताद् विशेषे ऽवगत आख्यातगतो धातुः करोत्यर्थमात्रप्रतिपादनपरो भवति । तस्मिन्न् अपि कुतश्चित् प्रतिपन्ने पुनःप्रतिपादने ऽनुवाददोषो मा भूद् इति कालकारकादिषु तात्पर्यम् । अथ वा सृज्यमानविशेषा प्रमाणावच्छिन्ना सृष्टिः सामान्यसृष्टेः कर्म, यथा स्वपोषं पुष्ट इति ॥ २५ ॥

‘Happiness’—Satisfaction of the mind ‘Desire’—Longing or Love; the rest are well known.

‘He created this creation’ comprising the things mentioned and others of the same kind.—The term ‘this’ refers to the creation of things mentioned in this verse as also that described in the foregoing verses.

‘Being desirous of bringing into existence these creatures’—such, for instance, as the Devas and Asuras, the Yakṣa, the Rākṣasa, and Gandharva and other beings, the vehicle of these beings, in the form of the body equipped with the soul and characteristics, and also Dharma; these he created first of all.

“What sort of verbal expression is this—‘he created the creation’?” It means exactly what is meant by the expression ‘he wrought or did the creation’; as a matter of fact, all verbal roots express some particular form of action, denoted by the root ‘Kṛ’; e.g., ‘cooks’ is synonymous with ‘does the cooking; ‘sacrifices’ is the same as ‘does the sacrificing’; in the expression under question the peculiar form of the action (of creation) having been already expressed by the verbal noun (‘creation’), the root contained in the verb (‘created’) comes to denote only the action. To guard against such an expression living open to the charge of being a needless repetition, involved in the action being spoken of by means of the root in the verb, after it has been already expressed by the verbal noun,—we may take the mention of the verb to be for the purpose of expressing the tense and the voice (which could not be expressed by the verbal noun).—Or, the term ‘creation’ may be taken as standing for the particular created things known by the ordinary means of knowledge and forming the object of the general act of creating expressed by the verb ‘created’; such usage being analogous to the expression ‘svapoṣam puṣṭaḥ,’ ‘reared the rearing by oneself’ (where the rearing qualified by ‘self’ forms the object of the verb ‘reared’, which denotes rearing in general).—(25)

025 Austerity, speech, pleasure, desire, and anger, this whole creation he likewise produced, as he desired to call these beings into existence.

For the due discrimination of actions, he differentiated Virtue and Vice; and he connected these creatures with such pairs of opposites as Pleasure-Pain and the like.—(26)

धर्माधर्मौ व्यवेचयत् विवेकेन पृथग्भावेन व्यवस्थापितवान्- “अयं धर्म एव, अयम् अधर्म एव” ।

• ननु च नैवायं विवेको ऽस्ति । सन्ति हि कर्माण्य् उभयरूपाणि धर्माधर्मात्मकानि । यथाहुः- “शबलानि वैदिकानि कर्माणि, हिंसासाधनकत्वात् । यथा ज्योतिष्टोमः स्वरूपेण धर्मो हिंसाङ्गत्वात् त्व् अधर्मः” इति ।

• अत आह कर्मणां तु विवेकाय । कर्मशब्देनात्र प्रोयोगः कर्मणाम् अनुष्ठानम् उच्यते । स एव पदार्थो ऽन्यथा प्रयुज्यमानो विपरीतस्वभावो भवति । धर्मः सन्न् अधर्मरूपताम् आपद्यते, अधर्मो धर्मत्वम् । तथा हिंसैव । हिंसा बहिःप्रयुज्यमाना अधर्मः सः, “न हिंस्यात् सर्वभूतानि” इति प्रतिषेधगोचरत्वात् । अन्तर्वेदिकृता अग्नीषोमीये धर्मः, विधिलक्षणत्वात् । एवं तपो⁵¹ धर्मः, तद् एव तु दम्भेनासामर्थ्यादिना⁵² वा क्रियमाणम् अधर्मः । एवं देवरगमनं स्त्रीणाम् अधर्मः, गुरुनियुक्तानां पुत्रार्थिनीनां घृताक्ताद्यनुग्रहेण धर्मः । अतः स्वरूपैकत्वे ऽपि प्रयोगभेदाद् धर्माधर्मव्यवस्था । एकत्वे ऽपि⁵³ प्रमाणान्तरदृष्ट्या⁵⁴ स्वरूपभेद एव ।

M G add: tu

M G 1st ed.: ekatvaṃ ca

M G 1st ed: -nāsamartho na

M G 1st ed: tayor; G 2nd ed: tapor

• अथ च कर्मफलेषु कर्मशब्दः, कारणे कार्योपचारात्⁵⁵ । तेनैतद् उक्तं भवति- कर्माणि व्यवेचयत् कर्मफलविभागाय । कः पुनः कर्मणां फलविभागः । अत उक्तम्- द्वन्द्वैर् अयोजयत् सुखदुःखादिभिः । धर्मस्य फलं सुखम् अधर्मस्य दुःखम् । अत उभयकारिणो द्वन्द्वैर् योज्यन्ते, धर्मकारित्वात् सुखेन, अधर्मकारित्वाद् दुःखेन । द्वन्द्वशब्दो ऽयं रूढ्या परस्परविरुद्धेषु पीडाकरेषु वर्तते शीतोष्णवृष्ट्यातपक्षुत्सौहित्यादिषु । आदिग्रहणं सामान्यविशेषभावेन ज्ञेयम् । केवलौ सुखदुःखशब्दौ स्वर्गनरकयोर् वाचकौ निरतिशयानन्दपरितापवचनौ वा । विशेषः⁵⁶ स्वर्गग्रामपुत्रपश्वादिलाभस् तदपहारश् चादिशब्दस्य विषयः । कर्मणां पूर्वम् उत्पत्तिर् उक्ता । अनेन तेषाम् एव प्रयोगविभागः फलविभागश् च प्रजापतिना कृत इति प्रतिपाद्यविवेकः ॥ १.२६ ॥

M G: viśeṣa

D (5: 601) suggests: kārye kāraṇopacārāt

‘He differentiated Virtue and Vice’—He fixed their character by due distinction, i.e., as distinct from each other; in such form—‘this is Virtue, that is Vice.’

Objection:—“In reality however, there is no such hard and fast distinction; there are several actions that partake of the nature of both and are both virtuous and vicious (sinful); for instance, they say that the actions (of sacrifice) laid down in the Veda are of mixed character, being accomplished, as they are, by means of animal-slaughter; the sacrifice for instance, is by itself a virtuous or meritorious act, but by reason of animal-slaughter forming one of its factors, it is vicious or sinful.”

It is in view of this objection that the text has added the phrase—‘For the due discrimination of actions’;—the term ‘action’ here stands for the actual process, the performance of actions; as a matter of fact, the same act, if performed in a different manner, acquires an entirely different character; i.e., an act which is virtuous (when done in one way) becomes vicious (when done in another way), and vice versâ; e.g. the act of animal-slaughter itself; animal-slaughter, when done apart from a sacrificial performance, is vicious, sinful,—forming as it does the subject of such Vedic prohibitions as ‘One should not kill any animals’; but when done within the sacrificial altar, during the Agnīṣomīya offering, it in virtous, meritorious—being an act that forms the subject of injunctions. Similarly, Austerity (in itself) is virtuous; but when it is performed through hypocrisy, or by a person unfit for performing it, it is vicious. Similarly again, for women, intercourse with the husband’s younger brother is sinful; but when under orders from her elders, a woman desiring children has intercourse with her brother-in-law, who is besmeared with clarified butter &c. (as laid down in the scriptures), it is virtuous. Thus then, even though the action be one and the same, there is a distinction based upon the way in which it is actually performed. The sameness of the action however is only apparent; in view of other sources of knowledge the acts (done in different ways) are different.

Further, the term ‘action’ may be taken as standing for the effects of the actions,—the cause being figuratively spoken of as the effect. Thus the meaning comes to be as follows:—‘He differentiated actions for the due discrimination of the effects of actions.’

In view of the question as to what is the ‘discrimination of the effects of actions,’ it is added—‘he connected them with pairs of opposites, in the shape of Plensure-Pain and the like’;—‘Pleasure’ being the effect of ‘Virtue’ and ‘Pain’ of ‘Vice.’ It is thus that people performing both kind of actions become associated with these pairs of opposites; by performing virtuous acts they become associated with pleasure, and by performing vicious acts they become connected with pain.

The term ‘dvanḍva’, ‘Pair of opposites,’ is, by usage, applied to such mutually contradictory sources of pain as ‘Heat-Cold,’ ‘Rain-Hot weather,’ ‘Hunger-Satiation,’ and so forth.

The phrase ‘and the like’ refers to the general and special forms of the said sources of pain. For instance, the terms ‘Pleasure-Pain,’ in their general form are denotative either of ‘Heaven-Hell,’ or of ‘excessive joy and sorrow’; while in their special form, they stand for the ‘obtaining of heaven, of landed property, of sons, of cattle and so forth (‘Pleasure’) and the ‘being deprived of these’; all these being implied by the terms ‘Ādi,’ ‘and the like.’

The creation of Actions having been described before (in Verse 18 et seq.), what is described in the present verse is that Prajāpati brought about the distinction in their actual performance, as also the discrimination of their effects; thus there is a difference between what was said before and what is said now.—(26)

The term ‘dharma’, as Burnell rightly remarks, stands for a man’s whole duty, including both secular and religious duty.’

The other ‘Dvandvas’ are Kāma (Desire)—Krodha (Anger)—Rāga (Attachment)—Dveṣa (Hatred)—‘Kṣut (Hunger) —Pipāsā (Thirst)—Harṣa (joy)—Viṣāda (Sorrow)’ and so forth.

026 Moreover, in order to distinguish actions, he separated merit from demerit, and he caused the creatures to be affected by the pairs (of opposites), such as pain and pleasure.

The evanescent subtile constituents of the half-ten (Elemental Substances) that have been described,—along with those, this whole (world) comes forth, in due order.—(27)

उपसंहारो ऽयम् । दशार्धानां पञ्चानां महाभूतानां या अण्व्यः सूक्ष्मा मात्रा अवयवास् तन्मात्रास् ता विनाशिन्यः । परिणामधर्मित्वात् स्थौल्यप्रतिपत्त्याविनाशिन्य उच्यन्ते । ताभिः सार्धम् इदं जगत् सर्वं संभवत्य् उत्पद्यते । अनुपूर्वशः क्रमेण । सूक्ष्मात् स्थूलं स्थूलात् स्थूलतरम् । यादृशो वा क्रम उक्तः प्राक् ॥ १.२७ ॥

This verse sums up what has gone before.

‘Of the half-ten’—i.e., of the five elemental substances;—‘the subtile,’—minute,—‘constituents,’—parts; i.e., the ‘Rudimentary substances’; these are ‘evanescent’;—they are called ‘evanescent’ (liable to destruction) in the sense that, being liable to undergo modifications, they take up grosser forms.—‘along with those,’ ‘this whole’—world,—‘comes forth,’—is produced;—‘in due order,’—in proper sequence; i.e., from the subtile the gross, and from the gross the grosser; or in the order in which they have been described (in the foregoing verses).—(27)

‘Vināśinyaḥ’—because liable to change into gross substances (Medhātithi, Govinda and Kullūka); or because they are products (Rāghavā.)

The commentators are at some pains to explain the incongruity of the inter-position of the present verse in the middle of what purports to be a connected account of the process of creation. Medhātithi says the verse serves the purpose of summing up what has been said so far;—Govindarāja and Kullūka make it serve the purpose of setting aside the notion that the creation was accomplished by Brahman without the help of the ‘principles’;—and Nārāyaṇa holds that it is meant to lay stress upon the non-eternality of atoms;—Nandana has solved the difficulty by placing this verse after verse 19.

027 But with the minute perishable particles of the five (elements) which have been mentioned, this whole (world) is framed in due order.

अस्यायम् अर्थः । यद्य् अपि प्रजापतिर् ईश्वरो भूतसृष्टौ शक्नोति यथेच्छं प्राणिनः स्रष्टुं तथापि न पूर्वकल्पकृतानि कर्माण्य् अनपेक्ष्य प्राणिनः सृजति । येन यादृशं पुराकल्पे कर्म कृतं तत्कर्माक्षिप्तायां जातौ तं जनयति, न जात्यन्तरे । शुभेन कर्मणा तत्फलोपभोग्यायां देवमनुष्यादिजातौ जनयति, विपरीतेन तिर्यक्प्रेतादिषु । यथैव भूतेन्द्रियगुणाः कल्पादौ प्रकृतिस्था उद्भवन्ति एवं कर्माण्य् अपि प्रलये स्वप्रकृतिस्थानि पुनर् उद्भवन्ति सर्गादौ । “ततः शेषेण” इत्य् एष न्यायस् तत्राप्य् अस्त्य् एव ।

• यदि तर्हि कर्मापेक्षोत्पत्तिः, क्व प्रजापतेर् ऐश्वर्यम् उपयोगि कीदृशं वा सापेक्षम् ऐश्वर्यम् । तस्मिन् सति जगत उत्पत्तेः, कथम् अनुपयोगः । न तम् अन्तरेण स्थित्युत्पत्तिप्रलयाः सन्ति । नित्यत्वात् तस्य स्वकृतान्य् अपि कर्माणि कारणं तदिच्छापि प्रकृतिपरिणामश् च । एतस्याः कारणसामग्र्या इदं जगद् उत्पद्यते तिष्ठति प्रलीयते च । सापेक्षस्याप्य् ऐश्वर्यं न विहन्यते । यथेह राजादिर् ईश्वरो भृत्यादीन् फलेन योजयेद् एवम् एवादिकर्मानुरूपेणैव योजयति । न चानीश्वरः ।

• ननु नास्य श्लोकस्यायम् अर्थ प्रतीयते । किं तर्हि प्रतीयते । विधातुर् एव प्राणिनां कर्मविनियोगे स्वातन्त्र्यम् । स यं प्राणिनं प्रथमं सर्गादौ यस्मिन् कर्मणि हिंसात्मके तद्विपरीते वा न्ययुङ्क्त स तद् एव कर्म भजते करोति । न पित्रादेर् अनुशासनम् अपेक्ष्य स्वेच्छयान्यथा प्रवर्तते । किं तर्हि, प्राक्प्रजापतिनियोगवशात् साध्व् असाधु वा स्वयम् अन्यानुशासननिरपेक्षो ऽनुतिष्ठति । सृज्यमानाह् पुनर् जायमानः । कल्पान्तरे ऽस्मिन्न् एव वा कल्पे प्रजापतिर् एव क्षेत्रज्ञांश् तत्कर्तृत्वेन नियुङ्क्ते । अतस् तन्नियोगम् एवानुवर्तमानाः प्राचीनं शुभम् अशुभं वा कर्म कुर्वन्ति । तद् उक्तम् ।

• कर्तृत्वं प्रतिपद्यन्ते अनीशाः स्वेषु कर्मसु ।

• महेश्वरेण प्रेर्यन्ते शुभे वा यदि वाशुभे ॥ इति ।

• अज्ञो जन्तुर् अनीशो ऽयम् आत्मनः सुखदुःखयोः ।

• ईश्वरप्रेरितो गच्छेत् स्वर्गं वा श्वभ्रम् एव वा ॥

• उच्यते । एवं सति कर्मफलसंबन्धस् त्यक्तः स्यात्, पुरुषकारानर्थक्यं च स्यात्, अग्निहोत्रादिकर्माद्युपदेशो ब्रह्मोपासनाश् च व्यर्थाः प्रसज्येरन् । य एवेश्वरस्वरूपानभिज्ञास् त एव दृष्टादृष्टार्थेषु कर्मसु प्रवर्तेरन् । ये तु तदधीनं कर्तृत्वं भोक्तृत्वं च मन्यन्ते तेषां सर्वत्राप्रवृत्तिप्रसङ्गः । कृतम् अपि न तत्कर्म फलति । अकर्तारो ऽपि भोक्ष्यामह इति मन्यमाना उदासीरन् । न च व्याधिर् इवापथ्याद् विदुषां बलाद् इच्छोपजायते कर्तृत्व ईश्वरप्रेरणया । अथ कर्मफलसृष्ट्या तदिच्छा निश्चिता अस्मात् कर्मण इदं कर्तृत्वं⁵⁷ भवतीति, न तर्हि “यं तु कर्मणि” इत्य् एतद् अस्ति । शास्त्राद्⁵⁸ एव नियोगः प्रतिपत्तव्यः । तस्माद् यं पुरुषं स प्रभुः प्रथमम् न्ययुङ्क्त अनादौ संसारे प्रथमं वर्तमानापेक्षयं नियोक्तृत्वं चास्य सर्वभावेषु दिक्कालनिमित्तकारणत्वात् ।

• अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते । जात्यन्तरापन्नस्यात्मनो न पूर्वं जातिसंस्कारापेक्षा । अतः स्वभावानुवृत्तिः । यं जातिविशेषं यस्मिन् कर्मणि नियुक्तवान् परवधादौ स सिंहादिजातीय आत्मा संपन्नो मनुष्यत्वे मार्दवम् अभ्यस्तम् अपि हित्वा जातिधर्मं प्रतिपद्यते अन्येनानुपदिष्टम् अपि । स्वाभाव्यात् प्रजापतिकृतत्वात् कर्माणि बलवन्ति प्रागभ्यासं जात्यन्तरगतस्य विस्मारयन्तीति प्रदर्शितं भवति ॥ १.२८ ॥

एतद् एव विस्तारयति ।

अस्यायम् अर्थः । यद्य् अपि प्रजापतिर् ईश्वरो भूतसृष्टौ शक्नोति यथेच्छं प्राणिनः स्रष्टुं तथापि न पूर्वकल्पकृतानि कर्माण्य् अनपेक्ष्य प्राणिनः सृजति । येन यादृशं पुराकल्पे कर्म कृतं तत्कर्माक्षिप्तायां जातौ तं जनयति, न जात्यन्तरे । शुभेन कर्मणा तत्फलोपभोग्यायां देवमनुष्यादिजातौ जनयति, विपरीतेन तिर्यक्प्रेतादिषु । यथैव भूतेन्द्रियगुणाः कल्पादौ प्रकृतिस्था उद्भवन्ति एवं कर्माण्य् अपि प्रलये स्वप्रकृतिस्थानि पुनर् उद्भवन्ति सर्गादौ । “ततः शेषेण” इत्य् एष न्यायस् तत्राप्य् अस्त्य् एव ।

• यदि तर्हि कर्मापेक्षोत्पत्तिः, क्व प्रजापतेर् ऐश्वर्यम् उपयोगि कीदृशं वा सापेक्षम् ऐश्वर्यम् । तस्मिन् सति जगत उत्पत्तेः, कथम् अनुपयोगः । न तम् अन्तरेण स्थित्युत्पत्तिप्रलयाः सन्ति । नित्यत्वात् तस्य स्वकृतान्य् अपि कर्माणि कारणं तदिच्छापि प्रकृतिपरिणामश् च । एतस्याः कारणसामग्र्या इदं जगद् उत्पद्यते तिष्ठति प्रलीयते च । सापेक्षस्याप्य् ऐश्वर्यं न विहन्यते । यथेह राजादिर् ईश्वरो भृत्यादीन् फलेन योजयेद् एवम् एवादिकर्मानुरूपेणैव योजयति । न चानीश्वरः ।

• ननु नास्य श्लोकस्यायम् अर्थ प्रतीयते । किं तर्हि प्रतीयते । विधातुर् एव प्राणिनां कर्मविनियोगे स्वातन्त्र्यम् । स यं प्राणिनं प्रथमं सर्गादौ यस्मिन् कर्मणि हिंसात्मके तद्विपरीते वा न्ययुङ्क्त स तद् एव कर्म भजते करोति । न पित्रादेर् अनुशासनम् अपेक्ष्य स्वेच्छयान्यथा प्रवर्तते । किं तर्हि, प्राक्प्रजापतिनियोगवशात् साध्व् असाधु वा स्वयम् अन्यानुशासननिरपेक्षो ऽनुतिष्ठति । सृज्यमानाह् पुनर् जायमानः । कल्पान्तरे ऽस्मिन्न् एव वा कल्पे प्रजापतिर् एव क्षेत्रज्ञांश् तत्कर्तृत्वेन नियुङ्क्ते । अतस् तन्नियोगम् एवानुवर्तमानाः प्राचीनं शुभम् अशुभं वा कर्म कुर्वन्ति । तद् उक्तम् ।

• कर्तृत्वं प्रतिपद्यन्ते अनीशाः स्वेषु कर्मसु ।

• महेश्वरेण प्रेर्यन्ते शुभे वा यदि वाशुभे ॥ इति ।

• अज्ञो जन्तुर् अनीशो ऽयम् आत्मनः सुखदुःखयोः ।

• ईश्वरप्रेरितो गच्छेत् स्वर्गं वा श्वभ्रम् एव वा ॥

• उच्यते । एवं सति कर्मफलसंबन्धस् त्यक्तः स्यात्, पुरुषकारानर्थक्यं च स्यात्, अग्निहोत्रादिकर्माद्युपदेशो ब्रह्मोपासनाश् च व्यर्थाः प्रसज्येरन् । य एवेश्वरस्वरूपानभिज्ञास् त एव दृष्टादृष्टार्थेषु कर्मसु प्रवर्तेरन् । ये तु तदधीनं कर्तृत्वं भोक्तृत्वं च मन्यन्ते तेषां सर्वत्राप्रवृत्तिप्रसङ्गः । कृतम् अपि न तत्कर्म फलति । अकर्तारो ऽपि भोक्ष्यामह इति मन्यमाना उदासीरन् । न च व्याधिर् इवापथ्याद् विदुषां बलाद् इच्छोपजायते कर्तृत्व ईश्वरप्रेरणया । अथ कर्मफलसृष्ट्या तदिच्छा निश्चिता अस्मात् कर्मण इदं कर्तृत्वं⁵⁷ भवतीति, न तर्हि “यं तु कर्मणि” इत्य् एतद् अस्ति । शास्त्राद्⁵⁸ एव नियोगः प्रतिपत्तव्यः । तस्माद् यं पुरुषं स प्रभुः प्रथमम् न्ययुङ्क्त अनादौ संसारे प्रथमं वर्तमानापेक्षयं नियोक्तृत्वं चास्य सर्वभावेषु दिक्कालनिमित्तकारणत्वात् ।

• अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते । जात्यन्तरापन्नस्यात्मनो न पूर्वं जातिसंस्कारापेक्षा । अतः स्वभावानुवृत्तिः । यं जातिविशेषं यस्मिन् कर्मणि नियुक्तवान् परवधादौ स सिंहादिजातीय आत्मा संपन्नो मनुष्यत्वे मार्दवम् अभ्यस्तम् अपि हित्वा जातिधर्मं प्रतिपद्यते अन्येनानुपदिष्टम् अपि । स्वाभाव्यात् प्रजापतिकृतत्वात् कर्माणि बलवन्ति प्रागभ्यासं जात्यन्तरगतस्य विस्मारयन्तीति प्रदर्शितं भवति ॥ १.२८ ॥

एतद् एव विस्तारयति ।

The meaning of this verse is as follows:—Even though Prajāpati, being the supreme director of the creation of things, can create living creatures just as he chooses, yet, as a matter of fact, he creates them, not without reference to the actions done by them during the preceding cycles; he makes the creature born in that family of creatures which is indicated by the act done by it during the previous cycle,—and never in any other family; if the creature has, in the past, done a good act, it is led to be born in a family in which it would be enabled to experience the good results of that act,—in such families for instance, as ‘God,’ ‘Man’ and so forth; if, on the other hand, the acts of the creature have been bad, it is born in such families as ‘animals,’ ‘evil spirits’ and the like. What happens is that at the beginning of each new creation, the acts done by creatures in the previous cycle come out, after having, during Dissolution, lain latent within their source; just in the same manner as the Elements, the Organs and the Constituent Attributes come out at the beginning of each creation, after having lain latent within their source, in the Boot Evolvent. And the reason for this lies in the fact that the law relating to the ‘residue of the past’ (affecting the future) applies with equal force to the case in question also.

Question:—“If the coming into existence (of a creature) is dependent upon its own past acts, where then does the almighty power of Prajāpati come in? Of what sort too would be the almighty power which is dependent upon extraneous influences?”

Answer:—It is only when the said almighty power is there and (active) that the world comes into existence; how then can the said power he said to have no effect at all? In fact, neither continuance, nor production, nor dissolution (of the world) is possible except when that power is present,—the power of God being ever present, at all times. In reality, what lead to a creature being born are (1) acts done by itself, (2) the will of Prajāpati and (3) the evolution of the Root Evolvent. It is by all this set of causes that this world is produced, exists and becomes dissolved. The mere fact of Prajāpati being influenced by the things does not deprive him of his almighty power. The case stands upon the same footing as a king bestowing upon his servants and dependents the rewards for acts done by them; exactly in the same manner Prajāpati assigns to each creature what is in accordance with its previous acts; and yet neither the King nor Prajāpati cease to be ‘all-powerful.’

Objection:—

“The meaning assigned to the verse does not appear to be its right meaning at all. What appears to be its right meaning is that the Creator is entirely independent in assigning their work to the creatures. The verse thus means as follows:—‘Every creature conformed to,—i.e., carried on—that same action—in the form either of doing harm to others, or its contrary,—to which the Lord had directed it at—at the beginning of creation’; that is, man does not have recourse to actions, cither entirely on the advice of his father and other elders, or by his own will; in fact, whatever good or bad action he performs, he does wholly in accordance with Prajāpati’s directions, entirely uninfluenced by the advice of any other person.

‘When created again’—i.e., when born again, whether in another cycle, or in this same cycle,—it is Prajāpati alone who directs all animate beings to be the doers of actions; hence even past good and bad acts arc done by them only in obedience to the directions of Prajāpati; this has been thus declared:—‘They become agents without being masters of their own actions; to the good or the bad act they are led on by God’; and again ‘this ignorant creature has no control over his pleasure and pain; it is only as led on by God that he goes to heaven or to hell.’”

To the above we make the following reply:—If the suggested explanation were accepted, (1) it would mean the abandoning of the idea of an inseparable connection between Actions and their results,—(2) it would also mean that all human effort is useless (everything being determined entirely by the independent will of God),—(3) and it would mean that the injunctions of the Agnihotra and such acts, as well as the worshipping of Brahman, are entirely futile; in fact it would come to this that actions for visible or invisible results would be undertaken by only such men as are ignorant of the nature of God; while those who are of opinion that the doing of actions and the enjoying of their results are dependent on the will of God would never engage in any form of activity; they would keep away from activity under the impression that ‘even though an action may be done, its result may not follow (if God so wished it), and even though we may not do the act, we may enjoy its results (if God so willed it).’ Especially because the desire for being the doer of a certain act does not arise in the man forcibly through the prompting of God, as illness arises from unwholesome food; on the other hand, if the said desire is held to be determined by the connection between the action and its result,—the idea being that ‘this result follows from this action’—then it would not be true that ‘the Lord directed the man to the act’ (as the text says).

The direction by God, spoken of in the text can be admitted only on the authority of the scriptures; and in the statement—‘that action to which the Lord directed him at first,’—the phrase ‘at first’ is used in reference to the present, since the world is beginningless (so that ‘at first’ could not mean at the beginning of creation)’, and as regards the ‘direction’ or ‘supervision’ by the Lord, this extends over all tilings (not only to Actions), he being the efficient cause of Time and Space (within which all things have their being). [In this way the idea of God’s supervision is not incompatible with the theory that results accrue to men from their own acts.]

Other people offer the following explanation of the verse:—When a personality happens to be born in a different animal-species (from that in which it was born in its former life), it does not require the effects of its former conditions; nor is there the resultant continuity of its former nature; when, for instance, a certain personality happens to be born in the foline species, which species God originally prompted to such acts as the killing of others and the like,—it renounces the quality of mercy which it may have practised during its human existence, and acquires the quality of that species in which it is born, even though this latter quality may not have been taught by any one. What is meant is that the actions due to the nature of the personality being ordained by God are extremely potent, and make the personality forget its former habits.

The idea contained in this verse is further expanded in the following verse.—(28)

028 But to whatever course of action the Lord at first appointed each (kind of beings), that alone it has spontaneously adopted in each succeeding creation.

Each being, when created again and again, naturally conformed to that same act to which the lord had, at first, directed him.—(28)

“The meaning assigned to the verse does not appear to be its right meaning at all. What appears to be its right meaning is that the Creator is entirely independent in assigning their work to the creatures. The verse thus means as follows:—‘Every creature conformed to,—i.e., carried on—that same action—in the form either of doing harm to others, or its contrary,—to which the Lord had directed it at—at the beginning of creation’; that is, man does not have recourse to actions, cither entirely on the advice of his father and other elders, or by his own will; in fact, whatever good or bad action he performs, he does wholly in accordance with Prajāpati’s directions, entirely uninfluenced by the advice of any other person.

‘When created again’—i.e., when born again, whether in another cycle, or in this same cycle,—it is Prajāpati alone who directs all animate beings to be the doers of actions; hence even past good and bad acts arc done by them only in obedience to the directions of Prajāpati; this has been thus declared:—‘They become agents without being masters of their own actions; to the good or the bad act they are led on by God’; and again ‘this ignorant creature has no control over his pleasure and pain; it is only as led on by God that he goes to heaven or to hell.’”

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

हिंस्राहिंस्रे मृदुक्रूरे धर्माधर्मावृतानृते । यद् यस्य सो’दधात् सर्गे तत् तस्य स्वयमाविशत् ॥ २९ ॥

hiṃsrāhiṃsre mṛdukrūre dharmādharmāvṛtānṛte | yad yasya so’dadhāt sarge tat tasya svayamāviśat || 29 ||

Hurtfulness or harmlessness, tenderness or hard-heartedness, virtue or vice, truthfulness or truth-lessness,—each of these accrued to that being in which he implanted it at creation.—(29)

हिंस्रं परप्राणवियोगकरं सर्पसिंहहस्त्यादि । तद्विपरीतम् अहिंस्रं रुरुपृषतादि । मृदु पेशलम् अनायासकम्⁵⁹ । क्रूरं कठिनं परदुःखोत्पादनात्मकम् । अन्यत् प्रसिद्धम् । यद् एतद् द्विशः प्रसिद्धं कर्म जातं ततो यस्य यद् एव अदधाद् दत्तवान् कल्पितवान् स प्रजापतिः सर्गे सृष्ट्यादौ पूर्वकर्मानुरूप्यम् अवेक्ष्य, तत्कर्म स सृष्टः⁶⁰ प्राणी स्वयम् आविशत् प्रतिपद्यते । भूतकालता न विवक्षिता । आद्यत्वे ऽपि जातिधर्मस्यानुपदिष्टस्य स्वयंप्रतिपत्तिदर्शनात् ॥ १.२९ ॥

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

हिंस्राहिंस्रे मृदुक्रूरे धर्माधर्मावृतानृते ।
यद् यस्य सो’दधात् सर्गे तत् तस्य स्वयमाविशत् ॥ २९ ॥

hiṃsrāhiṃsre mṛdukrūre dharmādharmāvṛtānṛte | *
yad yasya so’dadhāt sarge tat tasya svayamāviśat* || 29 ||

Hurtfulness or harmlessness, tenderness or hard-heartedness, virtue or vice, truthfulness or truth-lessness,—each of these accrued to that being in which he implanted it at creation.—(29)

(verse xviii)

Medhātithi notes two explanations of this verse.

The natural meaning appeal’s to be that ‘each being continues, in each succeeding Birth, to betake itself to the same function that was assigned to it in the beginning by Prajāpati.’

But this being incompatible with the law of Karma, which has been regarded as adumbrated by Manu in I. 41,—Medhātithi has tried his best to get out of the words the meaning that the conditions and activities of each being are ordained in accordance with his past deeds;—but the only argument that he puts forward in support of assigning this meaning is that the literal meaning of the words would give rise to a number of undesirable contingencies. According to Medhātithi, creation is due to the joint action of the three causes—(1) the being’s past acts (2) God’s will and (3) Evolution of Prakṛti.

The confusion of thought in regard to the exact meaning of this and the following two verses is further shown by the fact that Medhātithi (p. 22, l, 27 under verse 30) has thought it necessary to set forth ‘another explanation’ of these texts.

(verse xviii-xix)

Mahābhārata, 12.232.16.—‘Of the created things, whatever functions became assigned to whichever thing at the beginning of creation, that thing take to those same functions, whenever they are created again and again.’ ‘Harmfulness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferociousness, righteousness or unrighteousness, truthfulness or untruthfulness, with one or the other of these they are obsessed, and hence are they fond of just those.’

029 Whatever he assigned to each at the (first) creation, noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, that clung (afterwards) spontaneously to it.

Just as on the approach of the turn of the Seasons, each season, by itself, acquires its own seasonal characteristics,—so in the same manner living beings take up their respective lines of action.—(30)

अत्र दृष्टान्तः । अचेतना अपि यथा भावास् तन्मर्यादयैव व्यवस्थितस्वभावाः एवं चेतना अपि पुरुषकृतकर्मसहायेन प्रजापतिना कृतां मर्यादां नातिक्रामन्ति, यस्यां जातौ जातास् तद् एव कुर्वन्ति नान्यद् इच्छन्तो ऽपि शक्नुवन्ति कर्तुम् ।

• ऋतवो वसन्तादयः । स्वलिङ्गानि चिह्नानि पत्रफलकुसुमशीतोष्णवर्षादीनि । पर्यये । यस्यर्तोर् यः पर्यायः स्वकार्यावसरस् तस्मिन् स ऋतुस् तं धर्मं स्वयम् एव प्रतिपद्यते, न पुरुषप्रयत्नम् अपेक्षते । चूतमञ्जर्यो वसन्ते स्वयम् एव पुष्यन्ति, न मूले सलिलसेकम् अपेक्षन्ते । एवं पुरुषकर्माण्य् अदृष्टानि । नास्ति स पदार्थो यो न कर्मापेक्षते । तथा हि । वर्षाणां स्वस्वभावो यो वृष्टिप्रदः, भवति च राजदोषाद् राष्ट्रदोषाद् वा कदाचिद् अवग्रहः । तस्मात् कर्मशक्तिर् एवानपसार्या । वृत्तानुरोधाद् असकृद् अनुग्रहणम् ।

• अन्ये तु श्लोकत्रयम् अप्य् अन्यथा व्याचक्षते । कर्मशक्तीनां स्वभावनियमो ऽनेनोच्यत इत्य् आहुः ।

• (१.२८) यत् फलं यस्मिन् कर्मण्य् आहितं प्रजापतिना स कर्मविशेषः पुनः पुनः सृज्यमानो ऽनुष्ठीयमानः स्वयं तत् फलं भजते ददातीत्य् अर्थः । तेन यागः कृतो यदा फलिष्यति न तदा किंचिद् अन्यद् अपेक्षत इति प्रतिपादितं भवति । सेवा हि स्वकृता अपि⁶¹ मन्त्रिपुरोहितादिवाक्यम् अपेक्षते । नैवं यागः । दृष्टस् तु व्यापारस् तेनापेक्ष्यते । दृष्टादृष्टकारणद्वयजन्यत्वात् सर्वस्य कार्यस्यादृष्टान्तरापेक्षा निषिध्यते तदानीम् ।

• (१.२९) कर्माणीष्टानिष्टफलप्रदानि विधिप्रतिषेधविषयाणि । कर्माणि द्विश उदाहरति । हिंस्राहिंस्रे इति । हिंसा प्रतिषिद्धा । तस्या नरकादिफलप्रदानं नियमितम् । यो ब्राह्मणायावगुरेत् यो मामकायावगुरेत् तं शतेन यातयाद् इति वाक्यशेषेभ्यः । सा ततः स्वभावान् न च्यवते । प्रायश्चित्तेषु विशेषं वक्ष्यामः । अहिंस्रं विहितम् । तस्यापि नेष्टफलदानात् स्वभावच्युतिर् अस्ति । धर्माधर्मयोर् एव विशेषायते । विहितं कर्म धर्मः, प्रतिषिद्धम् अधर्मः, तयोर् विशेषाः सत्यानृतादयः । सत्यं विहितम् अनृतं प्रतिषिद्धम् । एवं सर्वाणि पूर्वोत्तरपदानि विहितप्रतिषिद्धविशेषप्रदर्शनानि ।

• (१.३०) अव्यभिचरितदृष्टकार्यकारणसंबन्धीनि कर्माणि । दृष्टान्तः यथर्तुलिङ्गानीति । शेषं समानम् ॥ १.३० ॥

In support of what has been said in the foregoing verses, an illustration is cited. Just as even inanimate things have their character fixed by the law of God,—so animate beings also do not go beyond the law laid down by Prajāpati, in accordance with the past acts of men; they have recourse to that same line of action which has been assigned to the family of beings in which they are born; any other line of action they cannot take up, even though they may wish to do so.

‘The seasons’—Spring and the rest;—‘its own seasonal characteristics’—in the form of leaves, flowers, cold, heat, rain and so forth.—‘at the approach of the turn’—when the turn, the occasion for functioning, of a particular season arrives,—that season acquires its character, by itself; and it does not stand is need of any act of man. For instance, at the advent of spring, mango-blossoms bloom forth by themselves, and they, do not stand in need of watering at the roots. In the same manner the ‘lines of action’ of men—which exist in their ‘unseen’ or latent form—[operate by themselves]. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as is not affected by the ‘acts’ (of men); for instance, it is in the nature of the Rainy Season that there should be rain, and yet on account of the faulty action, either of the king or kingdom itself, there is sometimes drought. From all this it follows that the force of ‘action’ is irrepressible.

The frequent repetition of the term ‘ṛtu’ season,’ is due to the exigencies of metre.

030 As at the change of the seasons each season of its own accord assumes its distinctive marks, even so corporeal beings (resume in new births) their (appointed) course of action.

With a view to the development of the (three) regions, He brought into existence the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, from out of His mouth, arms, thighs and feet (respectively).—(31)

पृथिव्यादीनां लोकानां विवृद्ध्यर्थम् । वृद्धिः पुष्टिर् बाहुल्यं वा । ब्राह्मणादिषु चतुर्षु वर्णेषु सत्सु त्रयाणां लोकानां वृद्धिः । “इतः प्रदानं देवा उपजीवन्ति” (त्स् ३.२.९.७) । ते च यागाद्यधिकृताः । अतस् तैः कर्म कृतम् उभौ लोकौ वर्धयति । पुरुषकर्मप्रचोदिता देवाः । “आदित्याज् जायते वृष्टिः” (म्ध् ३.६६ [७६]) इति, अस्यापि लोकस्य वृष्टिर्⁶² वृद्धिः । ब्राह्मणादीन् वर्णान् निरवर्तयन् निर्वर्तितवान् असृजत् । मुखबाहूरुपादतः, यथाक्रमं मुखाद् ब्राह्मणम्, बाहुभ्यां राजन्यम्, ऊरुभ्यां वैश्यम्, शूद्रं पादत इति । तसिः अपादाने (पाण् ५.४.४५) । कारणात् कार्यं निष्कृष्यत इवेति भवति⁶³ । अपाये सति अपादानत्वम् । आद्यं कंचिद् ब्राह्मणं स्वमुखावयवेभ्यो⁶⁴ दैव्या शक्त्या निर्मितवान्, अद्यतनानां सर्वेषां मिथुनसंप्रयोगद्वारेण तत्त्वेभ्य⁶⁵ उत्पत्तिदर्शनात् । परमार्थतः स्तुतिर् एषा वर्णानाम् उत्कर्षापकर्षप्रदर्शनार्थम् । सर्वेषां भूतानां प्रजापतिः श्रेष्ठस् । तस्यापि सर्वेषाम् अङ्गानां मुखम् । ब्राह्मणो ऽपि सर्वेषां वर्णानां प्रशस्यतमः । एतेन सामान्येन ब्रह्ममुखाद् उत्पन्न इत्य् उच्यते । मुखकर्माध्यापनाद्यतिशयाद् वा मुखत इत्य् उच्यते । क्षत्रियस्यापि बाहुकर्म युद्धम् । वैश्यस्याप्य् ऊरुकर्म पशून्⁶⁶ रक्षतो गोभिश् चरन्तीभिर् भ्रमणम्, स्थलपथवारिपथादिषु वाणिज्यायै गमनम् । शूद्रस्य पादकर्म शुश्रूषा ॥ १.३१ ॥

‘With a view to the development of the regions.’ terrestrial and the rest;—‘development’ stands for Nourishment and expansion; it is only when the four castes, Brāhmaṇa and the rest, are there that there is development of the three regions; for the Gods live upon offerings made by these castes,—these castes alone being entitled to the performance of sacrifices; so that the action done by these nourishes the two regions (celestial and subterranean); then again, the Gods also are prompted by men’s action to act; from the Sun-God comes rain; and thus the said creation (of the Brāhmaṇa) tends to the nourishment of this (terrestrial) region also.

‘He brought unto existence,’—i.e., produced, the Brāhmaṇa and other castes,—‘from out of his mouth, arm’, thighs and feet’ respectively; i.e., the Brāhmaṇa from out of his mouth, the Kṣatriya out of his arms, the Vaiśya out of his thighs and the Śūdra out of his feet.—The affix ‘tasi’ (in ‘mukha bāhārupādataḥ’) has the sense of the Ablative; the effect is, as it were, drawn out of the cause; and this implying a sort of separation, the use of the Ablative becomes fully justified.

It was only a certain primeval Brāhmaṇa whom Prajāpati produced, by his divine power, out of the component particles of his own mouth; because so far as the Brāhmaṇas of the present day are concerned, they are all actually found to he produced by intercourse between human couples, out of the material principles.

In reality however, what is stated here is merely commendatory, intended to show the relative superiority and inferiority of the castes;—the meaning being—‘of all beings Prajāpati is the highest,—among all the limbs of Prajāpati, the mouth is the highest,—similarly the Brāhmaṇa is the highest, most praiseworthy, of all the castes;’ and on the basis of this similarity the Brāhmaṇa is described as produced out of Brahma’s mouth.

Or, the description of the Brāhmaṇa coming out of Brahma’s mouth may be due to the fact that the work of the mouth, such as teaching and the like, belongs preeminently to the Brāhmaṇa; to the Kṣatriya belongs the work of the arms, lighting; to the Vaiśya the work of the thighs, such as wandering about with the cows, when tending cattle, and also travelling for trade on land and water; and to the Śūdra belongs the work of the feet, i.e., service.—(31)

‘Lokavivṛddhyartham’—‘in order that the inhabitants of the worlds might multiply (or prosper)’—(Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘in order to protect the world by means of the castes, and to make it prosperous’ (Nārāyaṇa).

It is refreshing to find Medhātithi regarding this account of the castes issuing from the mouth and other parts of the body of the Lord as mere ‘stuti’—not to be taken as literally true.

031 But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet.

Having divided his body into two halves, with the one half, the Lord became Male, and with the other half, Female; from her he produced Virāj.—(32)

एषा सृष्टिः साक्षात् परस्य पुरुषस्य । इयं तु ब्रह्मणस् तस्यैवेत्य् अन्ये । यत् तद् अन्तरण्डं समुद्गतं शरीरं तद् द्विधा कृत्वा, अर्धेन पुरुषो ऽभवत् पुमान् संपन्नः शुक्रसेकसमर्थः । अर्धेन नारी गौरीश्वरभङ्ग्या । अथ वा पृथग् एव तां निर्मितवान् । तां निर्माय तस्यां मैथुनेन धर्मेण विराड् इति यस्य नाम प्रसिद्धं तं जनितवान् । एतद् उच्यते । प्रजापतिः स्वां दुहितरम् अगच्छत् । इदम् अपि जायापत्योः शरीरमात्रभेदात् सर्वत्र कार्येष्व् अविभागात् तदालम्बनं द्वैधंकारवचनम् ॥ १.३२ ॥

The creation described here is apparently of another Being; but others have held that it is of the same Brahmā; the meaning being that the body that came out of the Egg being divided into two halves, ‘with one half he became Male’—i.e., he became a male being, capable of instilling semen—and ‘with the other half he became the Female’; that is, his body assumed the form of the Hermaphrodite, like Gaurī-Śaṅkara (combined in a single body). Or, it may mean that he crested the Female apart (from the Male).—Having created her, he produced, from her, by the act of procreation, that being whose well-known name is ‘Virāj.’ What is meant is that Prajāpati had recourse to his own daughter.

This mention of the bifurcation of Prajāpati’s body is based upon the fact that the husband and wife differ only in their bodies, and in all functions they are entirely united.—(32)

The ‘Virāṭ’ whose birth is here described is, according to some, the same as,—and according to others, different from—the ‘Brahmā’ described above, in verse 9. That Medhātithi leans towards the latter view is indicated by his assertion that what happened was that ‘the body of Brahmā (described in verse 9) now took the form of the Hermaphrodite,’—or as he adds later, ‘the Female form was separated from His own Male form.’

032 Dividing his own body, the Lord became half male and half female; with that (female) he produced Virag.

O best of Brāhmaṇas, know me, the creator, of this whole (would), to be that whom the said Being Virāj himself, after having performed austerities, produced.—(33)

स विराट् तपस् तप्त्वा यं पुरुषम् असृजत् तं मां वित्त जानीध्वम् । एवं स्मृतिपरंपरया नात्र वः किंचिद् अविदितं मम वर्णयितव्यम् अस्ति । तन्मध्ये शुद्धिम् आत्मन आचष्टे । अस्य सर्वस्य स्रष्टारम् । अनेन सर्वशक्तिम् आह । जन्मकर्मातिशयवन्तं मां प्रत्ययितरीकरिष्यतीत्य् अभिप्रायः निश्चयोत्पत्त्यर्थं च, अन्यतो ऽवगते ऽपि मनुजन्मनि स्वयम् अभिधानात् । यथान्यतः श्रुतो ऽपि कश्चित् पृच्छ्यते, “देवदत्तस्य त्वं पुत्रः” इति, “बाढम्” इति तेनोक्ते निश्चय उपजायते । अभिजनवर्णनं कवीनाम् अत्रपाकरं सत्याम् अपि पारंपर्येणात्मस्तुतौ । द्विजसत्तमा इत्य् आमन्त्रणम् । सत्तमाः साधुतमाः स्रेष्ठा इति यावत् ॥ १.३३ ॥

‘The said Virāj, having performed austerities,’ produced a person; know—i.e., recognise—that person to be myself;—there is nothing that is not already known to you, by tradition, which I could describe to you; all that the speaker intends to point out is the purity of his own birth.

The phrase ‘the creator of this whole world’ indicates his almighty character. The idea of the speaker is that ‘the describing of myself as one of excellent birth and superior powers of action will make me more trustworthy.’

Or, the mention of his own birth might be for the purpose of carrying conviction (removing all doubts); that such may be the sense is shown by the fact that, though the origin of Manu is already known from other sources, yet he himself mentions it; for instance, even though a person is already known from other sources (as the son of a certain person), yet he is asked—‘are you Devadatta’s son?’—and he answers ‘yes’; whereupon certainty of conviction is brought about.

Poets are not ashamed of describing the nobility of their own birth, even though their glories may be already well known.

‘O best of Brāhmaṇas’—is the form of address; ‘best’ ** means most perfect, most superior.—(33)

033 But know me, O most holy among the twice-born, to be the creator of this whole (world), whom that male, Virag, himself produced, having performed austerities.

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

अहम् असृजम् उत्पादितवान् । दश प्रजापतीन् महर्षीन् । आदितः सुदुश्चरं तपः कृत्वा । सुष्टु दुःखेन तपश् चर्यते ऽतिपीडाकरं बहुकालं च ॥ १.३४ ॥

तान् महर्षीन् नामतो निर्दिशति⁶⁷ ।

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

034 Then I, desiring to produce created beings, performed very difficult austerities, and (thereby) called into existence ten great sages, lords of created beings,

Being desirous of bringing into existence the (various kinds of) created beings, I, at the very outset, performed most arduous austerities and called into being the ten great sages, the directors of all created things; (34)—viz: Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Pracetas, Vaśiṣṭha, Bhṛgu and also Nārada.—(35)

एते मनूंस् तु सप्तान्यान् असृजन् भूरितेजसः ।

‘I called into being,’—produced,—‘the ten Great sages,’ who are ‘the directors of all created things’;— ‘at the very outset, having performed most arduous austerities’—austerities that were performed with great difficulty; i.e., which bring suffering and take a long time.

The ten great sages are mentioned by name (in verse 35).—(34-35)

These are quoted in Hemādri-Dāna, p. 242, as describing the ‘munis’, sages. It reads ‘dustaram’ for ‘duścaram’, and ‘āṅgirasam’ for ‘aṅgirasam’.

035 Mariki, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Praketas, Vasishtha, Bhrigu, and Narada.

These mighty (Sages) called into being the seven Manus, gods and gods’ habitations, as also Great Sages,—all possessed of illimitable power.—(36)

एते महर्षयः सप्तान्यान् मनून् असृजन् । अधिकारशब्दो ऽयं मनुर् इति । मन्वन्तरे यस्य प्रजासर्गे तत्स्थितौ वाधिकार उक्तेन प्रकारेण स मनुर् इत्य् उच्यते । भूरितेजस अमितौजस इति चैक एवार्थः । एकं प्रथमान्तं स्रष्टुर् विशेषणम् । द्वितीयं द्वितीयान्तं स्रष्टव्यानां मन्वादीनां विशेषणम् । ननु देवा ब्रह्मणैव सृष्टाः । सत्यं, न सर्वे । अपरिमिता हि देवसंघाताः । देवनिकाया हि देवस्थानानि स्वर्गलोकब्रह्मलोकादीनि ॥ १.३६ ॥

The aforesaid Great Sages. ‘called into being the seven Manus’; ‘Manu’ is the name of the office; that person is called ‘Manu’ who, during a particular ‘Manvantara’ (Cycle), controls the creating and maintaining of all created things, in the manner described.

‘Bkūritejasaḥ,’ ‘mighty,’ and ‘amitaujasaḥ,’ ‘possessing illimitable power,’—both terms mean the same thing; the former with the nominative ending qualifies the creators, and the latter, with the accusative ending, qualifies those created, Manus and the rest.

Question:—“But the gods were created by Brahmā himself (as already described in Verse 22).”

Answer:—True; but not all of them; there are endless kinds of gods.

‘Gods’ habitations’—The abode of the gods, such as the Celestial Region, the ‘Region of Brahman,’ and so forth.—(36)

‘Manūn’—The name ‘Manu’ here stand for that Being whose function it is to create all creatures and to maintain the entire world during a manvantara, and apparently belongs to the office. Some Mss. read ‘munīn’.

‘Devanikāyān—‘Classes of gods’ (according to Nandana and Nārāyaṇa);—‘abodes of gods’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); the last of these suggests also the meaning ‘servants of the gods’.

036 They created seven other Manus possessing great brilliancy, gods and classes of gods and great sages of measureless power,

[They called into being] also Yakṣas, Rakṣasas, Piśācas, Gandharvas, Apsarases, Asuras, Nāgas, Sarpas, Suparṇas, and the several orders of Pitṛs.—(37)

यक्षादीनां स्वरूपभेदश् चेतिहासादिप्रमाणक एव, न प्रत्यक्षादीनाम् अन्यतमेन प्रमाणेन परिच्छिद्यते । तत्र वैश्रवणानुचरा यक्षाः । रक्षांसि विभीषणादयः । तेभ्यः क्रूरतराः पिशाचाः, अशुचिमरुदेशादिवासिनो निकृष्टा यक्षराक्षसेभ्यः । हिंस्रास् तु सर्व एव । छद्मकरणेन⁶⁸ केचित् प्राणिनां जीवम् आकर्षन्त्य् अदृष्टया शक्त्या व्याधींश् च जनयन्तीत्य् ऐतिहासिका मन्त्रवादिनश् च । गन्धर्वा देवानुचरा गीतनृत्तप्रधानाः । अप्सरसो देवगणिका उर्वश्याद्याः । असुरा देवशत्रवो वृत्रविरोचनहिरण्याक्षप्रभृतयः । नागा वासुकितक्षादयः । सर्पाः प्रसिद्धाः । सुपर्णाः पक्षिविशेषा गरुत्मत्प्रभृतयः । पितरः सोमपाज्यपादिनामानः स्वस्थाने देववद् वर्तन्ते । तेषां गणम् असृजन् ॥ १.३७ ॥

The various forms of the Yakṣa and other beings here mentioned can be known only from the Itihāsas and such other sources; they cannot be known by any of the ordinary means of cognition, perception and the rest.—The ‘Yakṣas’ are the followers of Kuvera;—‘Rākṣasas,’ Bivīṣaṇa and others;—beings more cruel than these last are ‘Piśācas,’ who live in unclean places and in deserts, &c., and are inferior to Yakṣas and Rākṣasas; though all three are mischievous; by trickery they draw out the life of living beings, and by some invisible power they bring about diseases: so say persons knowing the Itihāsas (stories) and Mantra (Incantations).—‘Gandharvas,’ are those followers of the Gods whose chief work consists of singing and dancing;—‘Apsarases,’ the courtezans of the Gods, Urvaśī and the rest;—‘Asuras,’ the Gods’ enemies, Vṛttra, Virocana, Hiraṇyāksa and so forth;—‘Nāgas’ (the Great Serpents), Vāsuki, Takṣaka and the rest;—‘Sarpas’ ** (Serpents) are well known;—‘Suparnas,’ the great Birds, Garuḍa and the rest;—‘Pitṛs,’ named ‘Somapa,’ ‘Ayyapa’ and so forth, who reside, like Gods, in their own regions; the ‘several orders’ of these also;—all these (the mighty sages) called into being.—(37)

‘Pitṛṇām gaṇān’—The ‘pitṛs’ are not actually the ‘fathers,’ as is clear from the present text; they are a particular class of divine beings, though it is from these that human beings are descended. See III, 194—199.

037 Yakshas (the servants of Kubera, the demons called) Rakshasas and Pisakas, Gandharvas (or musicians of the gods), Apsarases (the dancers of the gods), Asuras, (the snake-deities called) Nagas and Sarpas, (the bird-deities called) Suparnas and the several classes of the manes,

[They called into being] Lightnings, Hails, Clouds, Vertical Phosphorescence, Rainbows, Meteors, Portentous Sounds, Comets, and Stars of varying magnitudes.—(38)

मेघोदरदृश्यं⁶⁹ मध्यमं ज्योतिर् विद्युद् उच्यते । यस्यास् तडित्सौदामिनीत्यादयः पर्याया विशेषाश्रयाः । अशनिः शिलाभूता हिमकणिका सूक्ष्मदृश्यश् च वर्षधारादिवत् पतन्त्यो वेगवद् वातप्रेरिताः सस्यादिविनाशिन्य उच्यन्ते । मेघा अभ्रोदकमरुज्ज्योतिःसंघाता आन्तरिक्षाः । रोहितं दण्डाकारम् अन्तरिक्षे नीललोहितरूपं कदाचित् दृश्यते । आदित्यमण्डललग्नं कदाचित्, कदाचित् प्रदेशान्तरे ऽपि । तस्यैव विशेष इन्द्रधनुः । वक्रत्वं धनुराकारताधिकास्य । उल्का संध्याप्रदोषादौ विसारिप्रभाण्य् उत्पाते दिक्षु पतन्ति यानि ज्योतींषि दृश्यन्ते । निर्घातः भूम्यन्तरिक्ष उत्पातशब्धः । केतव उत्पाते दृश्यमानानि शिखावन्ति ज्योतींषि प्रसिद्धानि । अन्यान्य् अपि ध्रुवागस्त्यारुन्धतीप्रभृतीनि नानाप्रकाराणि ॥ १.३८ ॥

The semi-brilliant flash of light seen within the clouds is called ‘lightning,’ of which the other names are ‘Sandāminī’ and so forth, which are based upon certain peculiar characteristics;—‘Hails’— stone-like finely visible snow-particles, which, propelled by strong winds, fall like torrents of rain and destroy corns and other things;—‘Clouds,’ consist of the combination, in the atmosphere, of vapour, water, air and light;—‘Vertical phosphorescence,’ is an upright mass of violet-colon red luminous matter, occasionally visible in the sky; it is seen sometimes attached to the disc of the sun, and sometimes in other places also;—a particular Form of the same is called ‘Rainbow,’ which

differs from the former in being curved in the form of a bow;—‘Meteors,’ are those stars which are seen to fall as portents during twilights and at the advent of night, diffusing their brilliance all round;—‘Portentous sounds,’ are sounds emanating from the Earth or Sky, which are regarded as foreboding calamity;—‘Comets,’ the well-known stars with protruding crowns, seen during a public calamity;—as also various kinds of other stars, Dhruva, Agastya, Arundhatī and so forth.—(38)

‘Rohita’—This is the name of the violet -coloured pillar of light that appears in the sky, in the manner of rainbows, generally attached to the solar disc, but sometimes in other parts of the sky also. Another name for it, according to Govindarāja, is ‘śastrotpāta’. Buhler says it is an imperfect

038 Lightnings, thunderbolts and clouds, imperfect (rohita) and perfect rainbows, falling meteors, supernatural noises, comets, and heavenly lights of many kinds,

[They called into being] Kinnaras, Apes, Fishes, Birds of various kinds, Cattle, Deer, Men and wild beasts with two rows of teeth.—(39)

अश्वमुखाः प्राणिनो हिमवदादिपर्वतेषु भवन्ति ते किंनराः । वानरा मर्कटमुखा पुरुषविग्रहाः । विहङ्गमाः पक्षिणः । अजाविकोष्ट्रगर्दभादयः पशवः । मृगाः रुरुपृषतादयः । व्यालाः सिंहव्याघ्रादयः । द्वे दन्तपङ्क्ती उत्तराधरे येषां भवतस् ते उभयतोदतः ॥ १.३९ ॥

‘Kinnaras’ are horse-faced beings living in the Himalaya and other mountains.—‘Apes’ are animals with the face of the monkey and the body of the man.—‘Birds’ feathered animals.—‘Cattle’ goats, sheep, camels, asses and the rest,—‘Deer,’ the Ruru the Pṛṣat and the other species.—‘Wild beasts’—wicked animals, like the Tiger and the rest;—‘with two rows of teeth’ having two rows of teeth, one above and another below.—(39)

039 (Horse-faced) Kinnaras, monkeys, fishes, birds of many kinds, cattle, deer, men, and carnivorous beasts with two rows of teeth,

[They called into being] Worms, Beetles and Moths; Lice, Flies and Bugs; Gadflies and Gnats; and also the entire host of the several kinds of immovable things.—(40)

कृमयो ऽत्यन्तसूक्ष्मा प्राणिनः । कीटास् तेभ्य ईषत्स्थूला भूमिचराः । पतङ्गाः शलभपक्षकादयः⁷⁰ । स्थावरं वृक्षपर्वतादि । पृथग्विधं नानाप्रकारम् । क्षुद्रजन्तव इत्य् एकवद्भावः ॥ १.४० ॥

‘Worms’— extremely small living tilings.—‘Beetles’—are slightly larger than worms and crawl on the ground. —‘Moths,’ locusts.—‘Immovable things’—trees, mountains, etc.;—‘of several kinds,’ of different varieties.

The copulative compounds in the singular are in accordance with Pāṇini’s Sutra 2.1.8, by which copulative compounds formed of the names of small living beings take the singular ending.—(10)

040 Small and large worms and beetles, moths, lice, flies, bugs, all stinging and biting insects and the several kinds of immovable things.

In this manner was all this, movable and immovable, called into being, through the force of austerities, by these high-souled sages, under my direction,—in accordance with their actions.—(11)

एवम् इति प्रक्रान्तप्रकारप्रत्ययपरामर्शः⁷¹ । एतैर् महात्मभिर् मरीच्यादिभिः । इदं सर्वं स्थावरजङ्गमं सृष्टम् । यथाकर्म यस्य जन्मान्तरे यादृशं कर्म तदपेक्षम् । यस्यां जातौ यस्य तु युक्तम् उतपत्तुं कर्मवशात् स तस्याम् एवोत्पादितः । मन्नियोगान् मदाज्ञया । तपोयोगान् महत्कृत्वा तपः । यावत् किंचिन् महद् ऐश्वर्यं तत् सर्वं तपसा प्राप्य्म् इत्य् एतद् अनेनाह ॥ १.४१ ॥

‘In this manner,’—refers to the manner discribed above;—‘by these high-souled sages,’—Marīci and the rest;—‘all this, movable and immovable, teas called into their actions,’—the creation of each being was in keeping with the nature of the action done by it during other lives; that is, each being was made to be born in that family of animals which was the right one for it, in view of its past acts;—‘under my direction’—by my order;—‘through the force of austerities,’—having performed severe austerities; what this is meant to show is that any kind of great power can be acquired only by means of austerities.—(41)

‘Yathākarma’—Here we have a distinct enunciation of the Law of Karma.

041 Thus was this whole (creation), both the immovable and the movable, produced by those high-minded ones by means of austerities and at my command, (each being) according to (the results of) its actions.

That kind of action which belongs to the several beings has been described here. I am now going to explain the manner of their birth.—(42)

“Where has the action been described? In Verses 37 et seq. what occurs is only the mention of the names of several beings, Yakṣa, Rākṣasa and the rest; and their action is not mentioned at all.”

येषां भूतानां यादृशं कर्म स्वभावतो हिंस्रम् अहिंस्रं वा तद्वत् तथैव कीर्तितम् । इदानीं जन्म**क्रमयोगम् अभिधास्यामि **। क्व पुनः कर्म कीर्तितं यत्रेदं यक्षरक्ष इत्यादि नामनिर्देशो न कर्मनिर्देशः । उच्यते । नामनिर्देशाद् एव कर्मावगतिः, कर्मनिमित्तत्वाद् एषां नामप्रतिलम्भस्य । तथा हि यक्षणाद् भक्षणाद् अशनाद् वा यक्षाः । रहसि क्षणनाद्⁷² रक्षांसि । पिषिताशनात् पिशाचाः । अद्भ्यः सृता इत्य् अप्सरसः । अमृताख्यायाः सुराया अलाभाद् असुरा । इत्याद्य् अप्य् ऊह्यम् । जन्मनि क्रमयोगो जरायुजाण्डजा इत्यादि वक्ष्यते ॥ १.४२ ॥

‘That kind of action which belongs to the several beings,’—i.e., hurtful or harmless—‘has been already described’;—now ‘I am going to explain the manner of their birth.’

Objection.—

“Where has the action been described? In Verses 37 et seq. what occurs is only the mention of the names of several beings, Yakṣa, Rākṣasa and the rest; and their action is not mentioned at all.”

Our answer is as follows:—The action of each being is indicated by its name; the particular name being acquired by each being by reason of its actions: for instance, the Yakṣas are so called because of the act of worshpping, or pervading (‘Yakṣaṇa’);—the ‘Rākṣasa’ are so called because of the act of destroying in secret (‘rahasi kṣaṇana’);—the Piśāchas are so called because of the act of devouring flesh (‘piśitāśana’);—the Apsarases are so called because of the act of issuing forth from water (adbhyaḥ ṣṛtāḥ);— the Asuras are so called because of the act of not obtaining surā, in the form of nectar; and so on, the significance of the other names may be traced.

‘The manner of their birth’—i.e., they are viviparous, oviparous and the like; going to be described in the following verses.—(42)

042 But whatever act is stated (to belong) to (each of) those creatures here below, that I will truly declare to you, as well as their order in respect to birth.

Cattle, Deer, Wild Beasts with two rows of teeth, Rākṣasas, Piśācas and Men are viviparous.—(43)

एते जरायुजाः । जरायुर् उल्बं गर्भशय्या । तत्र प्रथमं ते संभवन्ति । ततो मुक्ता जायन्ते । एष एतेषां जन्मक्रमः । दन्तशब्दसमानार्थो दत्शब्दो ऽन्यो ऽस्तीत्य् उभयतोदत इति प्रथमाबहुवचने रूपं युज्यते ॥ १.४३ ॥

These are ‘viviparous,’ ‘born from the Jarāyu’; Jarāyu is the womb, the place where the fœtus lies; it is in the womb that these beings are conceived first, and it is only when they are emitted from the womb that they become born; this is the manner of the birth of these beings.

The term ‘dat’ is synonymous with ‘danta,’ and is totally different from it; hence it is that we have the nominative plural form ‘ubhayatodataḥ’ (‘with two rows of teeth’).—(43)

‘Ubhayatodataḥ’—A compound difficult to explain. The word ‘danta’ becomes transformed into ‘dat’ only in special cases, laid down in Pāṇini 5.4.141-145. The only explanation possible is that given by Medhātithi,—that the term ‘dat’ is an entirely different word from ‘danta’

043 Cattle, deer, carnivorous beasts with two rows of teeth, Rakshasas, Pisakas, and men are born from the womb.

Birds, Serpents, Crocodiles, Fishes, Tortoises, and other animals of similar kinds, terrestrial as well as aquatic,—are oviparous.—(44)

नक्राः शिशुमरादयः । कच्छपः कूर्मः । यानि चैवंप्रकाराणि कृकलासादीनि स्थलजानि । एवंरूपाण्य् औदकानि जलजानि शङ्खादीनि ॥ १.४४ ॥

‘Crocodiles’—includes the Porpoise and the rest;—‘Kacchapāḥ’ are the Tortoises;—‘other animals of similar kinds’—i.e., wizards (lizards?) and the like, which are ‘terrestrial,’ born on land, and such others of similar kinds as are ‘aquatic’ born in water; such, for instance, as conches and the rest.—(44)

044 From eggs are born birds, snakes, crocodiles, fishes, tortoises, as well as similar terrestrial and aquatic (animals).

Gadflies and Gnats, Lice, Flies and Bugs, are sweat- born; whatever else is of similar character is born from heat—(45)

स्वेदः पार्थिवानां द्रव्याणाम् अग्न्यादित्यादितापसंबन्धाद् अन्तःक्लेदस् ततो जायते दंशमशकादि । अन्यद् अपि यद् ईदृशम् अत्यन्तसूक्ष्मं पुत्तिकापिपीलिकादि यद् ऊष्मण उपजायते । ऊष्मा स्वेद एव, तद्धेतुर् वा तापः । “उपजायन्ते” इति वा पाठः । “ये चान्ये केचिद् ईदृशाः” इति पठितव्यम् ॥ १.४५ ॥

‘Crocodiles’—includes the Porpoise and the rest;—‘Kacchapāḥ’ are the Tortoises;—‘other animals of similar kinds’—i.e., wizards (lizards?) and the like, which are ‘terrestrial,’ born on land, and such others of similar kinds as are ‘aquatic’ born in water; such, for instance, as conches and the rest.—(44)

The two halves form two distinct sentences. So Burnell; but Buhler takes the whole as one sentence.

045 From hot moisture spring stinging and biting insects, lice, flies, bugs, and all other (creatures) of that kind which are produced by heat.

All those immovable brings that are produced by splitting (i.e., Plants) grow out of seeds and slips. those that, abounding in flowers, perish with the ripening of their fruit, are called ‘oṣadhis’ (‘Annuals’).—(46)

उद्भेदनम् उद्भित् । भावे क्विप् । ततो जायन्त इति उद्भिज्जाः । उप्तं बीजं भूमिं च भित्त्वा विदार्य जायन्ते वृक्षाः । सर्वे बीजात् काण्डाच् च प्ररोहन्ति जायन्ते मूलस्कन्धादिना दृढीभवन्ति । तथ्औषध्यः । ओषधय इति युक्तम् । ईकारः कृदिकारद् इति, छान्दसो वा । इदं तासां स्वाभाविकं कर्म । पाकान्ताः फलपाकः अन्तो नाश आसाम् इति । पक्वे फले व्रीह्यादयो नश्यन्ति, बहुना च पुष्पफलेनोपगताः युक्ता भवन्ति । औषधीनां वृक्षाणां च यथासंभवम् एतद् विशेषणम् ॥ १.४६ ॥

‘Udbhid’ stands for ‘udbhedana,’ the act of splitting; the ‘kvip’ affix having a nominal force;—‘those that are duced by splitting are ‘udbhijja’; they are so called because they come into existence by splitting the seed and breaking through the soil; and these are plants; all these plants ‘grown out of seeds and slips’ and become fixed in their places by means of roots and trunks and other such things.

‘Oṣadhyaḥ’—the right form is ‘oṣadhayaḥ’ (because the base ends in short i). Or we may take the word as a form of the base with the long ī; this lengthening of the vowel being explained, either as according to the Vārtika on Pāṇini 4.1.45, or as a Vedic anomily.

The natural characteristic feature of these oṣadhis—i.e., Annuals—is as follows: ‘They with the ripening of their fruit’;—i.e, the ripening of the fruit constitutes their end or perishing; as a matter of fact, the paddy and other such plants perish as soon as their fruit has ripened. They also abound in, are endowed with, many fruits and flowers.

What is stated in this verse is the distinguishing characteristic of oṣadhis (Annual plants), and what follows in the following verse, constitutes the distinguishing feature of Vṛkṣas (Perennial Trees); the characters mentioned being attributed to them in accordance with actual facts.—(40)

Medhātithi takes ‘udbhijjāḥ sthāvarāḥ’ as the subject, and ‘bījakāṇḍaprarohiṇaḥ’ as the predicate of the sentence. Buhler reverses this.

046 All plants, propagated by seed or by slips, grow from shoots; annual plants (are those) which, bearing many flowers and fruits, perish after the ripening of their fruit;

Those trees that are called ‘vanaspati’ bear fruits without flowers; and those called ‘vṛkṣa’ bear both flowers and fruits.—(47)

विना पुष्पेण फलं जायते येषां ते वनस्पतयः कथ्यन्ते, न वृक्षाः । पुष्पिणः फलिनश् च वृक्षाः । उभययोगात् क्वचिद् वनस्पतयो वृक्षा अपि उच्यन्ते, वृक्षाश् च वनस्पतयो ऽपि । तत्र विशेषहेतुत्वं⁷³ दर्शयिष्यामः ।

• वयं तु ब्रूमः । नायं शब्दार्थसंबन्धविधिर् व्याकरणस्मृतिवत् । तेन नायम् अर्थो य एवंस्वभावास् ते वनस्पत्यादिशब्दवाच्याः, किं तर्हि पुष्पफलानां जन्मोच्यते । तस्य वक्तव्यतया प्रकृतत्वात् “क्रमं योगं तु जन्मनि” (म्ध् १.४२) इति । द्विधा फलानाम् उत्पत्तिः । अन्तरेण पुष्पाणि जायन्ते पुष्पेभ्यश् च । एवं पुष्पाणि वृक्षेभ्यश् च । तेन यद्य् अप्य् एवम् अभिधानं “ये फलिनस् ते वनस्पतयो ज्ञेयास्” तथापि प्रकरणसामर्थ्याद् यत्तदोर् व्यत्ययः कर्तव्यः । ये वनस्पतय इति एवं प्रसिद्धास् ते ऽपुष्पाः फलवन्तस् तेभ्यः पुष्पम् अन्तरेण फलानि जायन्ते इति । सामर्थ्याच् चायं क्रमो ऽवतिष्ठते । यथा “वाससा स्तम्भं प्रवेष्टय” इति वाससि परिधातव्ये ऽयम् अर्थो ऽस्य भवति । स्तम्भे निधाय वासः परिधापयेति । प्रसिद्धम् अप्य् एतद् अनूद्यते “तमसा बहुरूपेण” (म्ध् १.४९) इत्य् एतत् प्रतिपादयितुम् ॥ १.४७ ॥

[The ordinary meaning of the verse is as follows]—Those trees, in whom fruits are produced without flowers, are called ‘Vanasputi,’ not ‘Vṛkṣa’; while those that bear flowers as well as fruits are, by reason of the presence of both, called ‘Vṛkṣa’ As a matter of fact, however, Vanaspatis are also called ‘Vṛkṣa,’ and Vṛkṣas are spoken of as ‘Vanaspati.’ The particular grounds of such usage will have to be shown later on.

What we hold however (as to the real meaning of this verse), is as follows:—The present work does not make it its business to lay down the meanings of words, in the manner of grammatical works; so that the meaning of the verse cannot be that ‘those that have such and such a character are denoted by the word Vanaspati, and so forth.’ In fact what is described here is the manner of the birth of fruits; this (manner of birth) having been put forward (in Verse 42) as the subject ih hand. The meaning thus is as follows:—Fruits are produced in two ways: they are produced without flowers, and also from flowers; and flowers are produced from trees (called Vṛkṣa). Thus then, it follows that, even though the statement is apparently in the form ’those that bear fruits without flowers are to be known as Vanaspati,’—yet in view of what forms the subject-matter of the context, the ‘yat’ (‘which’) and ‘tat’ (‘that’) should be made to change their places; the construction being—‘those trees that are known by the name Vanaspati have no flowers, and yet they bear fruits’;—i.e., in these trees fruits grow without flowers; this construction is adopted on the strength of actual facts. Such altering of the construction on the strength of facts we also find in such cases as the following Though the actual words are in the form ‘vāsasā pariveṣṭayeṭ,’ ‘the post should bo surrounded with cloth,’—yet in as much as the cloth has got to be worn by the man, the words are constructed as ‘stambhe nidhāya vāsaḥ paridhāpayet’ ‘the cloth should be hung on the post and then made to be worn.’

Though what is stated in the present verse is a well known fact (and as such did not need to be mentioned in the Smṛti), yet it has been mentioned with the purpose of serving as an introduction to what is going to be stated below in Verse 49—‘Enveloped in darkness, &c. &c.’—(47)

047 (Those trees) which bear fruit without flowers are called vanaspati (lords of the forest); but those which bear both flowers and fruit are called vriksha.

The various kinds op clumps and thickets, and the other species of grass, as also low-spreading tendrils and creepers—all these grow out of seeds and slips.—(48)

याः संहता भूमेर् बद्धा एकमूला अनेकमूलाश् च लता उत्तिष्ठन्ति न च वृद्धिं महतीं प्राप्नुवन्ति तासां संघातो गुच्छगुल्मशब्दवाच्यः तृणमूलकादिः । तयोस् तु भेदः पुष्पवद् अपुष्पकृतो वा । अन्या वा तृणजातयः कुशशाद्वलशङ्खपुष्पीप्रभृतयः । प्रताना दीर्घा भूमिगतास् तृणप्ररोहाः । वल्ल्यो व्रतत्यः भूमेर् उत्पत्य वृक्षम् अन्यं वा कंचित् परिवेष्ट्योर्ध्वम् आरुहन्ति । सर्वम् एतत् वृक्षवत् बीजकाण्डरुहम् ॥ १.४८ ॥

‘Clumps and Thickets’—is the name given to the cluster of those shoots that grow together in large numbers, having one or several roots, and do not attain any considerable height; e.g., Copses and the like. Or ‘guccha’ ‘Clump’ and ‘gulma’ ‘thicket’ may be taken as two different things; the difference between the two being that, while one bears flowers, the other is flowerless.—Other ‘species of grass—e. g., kuśa, śādbala, śaṅkhapuṣpī and so forth.—Lowspreading tendrils—the long shoots of grass spreading on the ground.—‘Creepers’—are those shoots that grow out of the earth and clinging round a tree or some other object, rise upwards.—All these, like trees, ‘grow out of seeds and slips’—(48)

Burnell represents Medhātithi to explain ‘guccha-gulma’ as ‘one root and many roots’. This is not fair. What Medhātithi says is that the names ‘guccha-gulma’ are applied to clusters of short-growing creepers which may have one root or several roots.’ Kullūka defines ‘guccha’ as the single shoot springing from the root and having no boughs, and ‘gulma’ as a clump of shoots coming up from one root According to Medhātithi the difference between the two consists in the fact that while the former has flowers, the latter has none.

048 But the various plants with many stalks, growing from one or several roots, the different kinds of grasses, the climbing plants and the creepers spring all from seed or from slips.

All these (vegetable beings) are invested by manifold ‘darkness’ (inertia), the result of their acts; and possessing inner consciousness, they are affected by pleasure and pain.—(49)

कर्म अधर्माख्यं हेतुर् यस्य तमसस् तेन वेष्टिता व्याप्ताः । बहुरूपेण विचित्रदुःखानुभवनिमित्तेन । यद्य् अपि सर्वं त्रिगुणं तथाप्य् एषां तम उद्रिक्तम्, अपचिते सत्त्वरजसी । अतस् तमोबाहुल्यान् नित्यं निर्वेददुःखादियुक्ता अधर्मफलम् अनुभवन्तः सुचिरम् आस्ते । सत्त्वस्यापि तत्र भावात् कस्यांचिद् अवस्थायां सुखलेशम् अपि भुञ्जते । तद् आह- सुखदुःखसमन्विता इति । अन्तःसंज्ञेति⁷⁴ । संज्ञा⁷⁵ बुद्धिस् तल्लिङ्गस्य बहिर्विहारव्याहारादेः कार्यस्य चेष्टारूपस्याभावाद् अन्तःसंज्ञा उच्यन्ते । अन्यथान्तर् एव सर्वः पुरुषश् चेतयते । अथ वा यथा मनुष्याः कण्टकादितोदं प्राक् चेतयन्ते नैवं स्थावराः । ते हि महान्तं प्रतोदं परशुविदारणादिदुखसंज्ञायाम् अपेक्षन्ते । यथा स्वापमदमूर्च्छावस्थागताः प्राणिनः ॥ १.४९ ॥

They are ‘invested,’ pervaded over, by that ‘Darkness’ (Inertia) of which the cause is ‘action,’ in the form of vice;—‘manifold,’ being the cause of the experiencing of various kinds of pain. As a matter of fact, all things are made up of three Constituent Attributes; so what is meant is that in the beings here described the Attribute of ‘Darkness’ is in excess, and those of ‘Harmony’ and ‘Energy’ are present in less degrees; hence as abounding in ‘Darkness’ (Inertia), and beset with pain and humiliation, they continue, for a long time, to experience the results of their vicious acts.

In as much as the Attribute of ‘Goodness’ (Harmony) also is present in them, they do enjoy, in certain conditions, small measures of pleasure also; it is in view of this that they are described as ‘affected by pleasure and pain.’

‘Possessing inner consciousness,’—the term ‘saṃjñā’ stands for Buddhi, Intelligence (Consciousness); and in as much as activity in the form of going out, speaking and the like,—which are the effects indicative of the presence of consciousness,—is absent (in Trees), they are described as ‘possessing inner consciousness.’ This must be the meaning of the epithet ‘inner’; as otherwise, since every person exercises consciousness only within himself [there would be no point in the epithet at all]. Or, the meaning may be that plants are unable to have any cognisance of the prickings of thorns and other small things, to the extent that human beings are; in fact for the experiencing of pain they stand in need of such massive strokes as cutting with the axe and the like;—being, in this respect, like animate beings in the state of sleep, intoxication or swoon. [Which shows that plants have their consciousness lying far deeper within than in animals.]—(49)

049 These (plants) which are surrounded by multiform Darkness, the result of their acts (in former existences), possess internal consciousness and experience pleasure and pain.

Thus have been described the conditions of life, beginning with brahmā and ending with those just mentioned, which occur in this ever frightful and constantly fluctuating cycle of births and deaths of created beings.—(50)

एषो ऽन्तो ऽवसानं वल्लीगतिर् यासां गतीनां ता एतदन्ताः । कृतकर्मफलोपभोगार्थम् आत्मनस् तत्तच्छरीरसंबन्धो⁷⁶ गतिर् उच्यते । अस्याः स्थावरात्मिकाया गतेर् अन्या निकृष्टा दुःखबहुला गतिर् नास्ति । ब्रह्मगतेश् चान्याद्योत्तमा गतिर् आनन्दरूपा नास्ति । एता गतयः शुभाशुभैः कर्मभिर् धर्माधर्माख्यैः प्राप्यन्ते । परब्रह्मावाप्तिस् तु मोक्षलक्षणा केवलानन्दरूपा ज्ञानात् ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयाद् वेति वक्ष्यामः ।

• भूतसंसारे भूतानां क्षेत्रज्ञानां संसारे जन्ममरणप्रबन्धे जात्यन्तरागमने । घोरे प्रमादालस्यवतां भीषणे, इष्टवियोगानिष्टयोगोत्पत्त्या । सततं सर्वकालं गमनशालिनि⁷⁷ विनाशिन्य् असारे ऽपि नित्यं घोरे न कदाचिद् अघोरे । देवादिगतिष्व् अपि सुचिरं स्थित्वा मर्तव्यम् इति नित्यं घोरः । तद् अनेन धर्माधर्मनिमित्तत्वसंवर्णनेन संसारस्य शास्त्रस्य महाप्रयोजनता प्रतिपदिता भवति । शास्त्राद् धि धर्माधर्मयोर् विवेकज्ञानम् इत्य् अधेतव्यम् ॥ १.५० ॥

‘Ending with those just mentioned’;—those conditions of life of which the end, or last, is the condition of the Creeper.—‘Condition’—stands for the connection of the soul with a particular body for the experiencing of the result of past acts; and there is no worse—i.e., more painful,—‘condition’ of life than that of Plants; and than the condition of ‘Brahmā’ there is none higher or superior—i.e., more full of bliss. These ‘conditions’ are attained by means of good and had acts, respectively called ‘Virtue’ and ‘Vice’; as regards the attaining of the Supreme Brahman, which consists in Salvation, and is in the form of pure bliss,—this proceeds either from pure Knowledge, or from a combination of Knowledge and Action; this we shall describe later on (in Discourse XII).

‘In this cycle of births and deaths of created beings;’—in this ‘samsāra,’ cycle, series of births and deaths, of ‘created beings,’ conscious entities; i. e., in which (ordinarily) the entity is not born in a genus other than in which it was in the previous existence;—‘frightful,’—full of fear, for those that are careless and lazy; it is ‘full of fear’ in the sense that there is losing of the desirable and coming by the undesirable;—‘constantly,’ at all times,—‘fluctuating,’ i.e., liable to go off, destructible, (hence) devoid of essence;—it is ‘ever frightful,’ i.e., it is never not- frightful; it is spoken of as ‘ever frightful’ because even when one has attained the condition of gods, and remains there for a long time, he has to return to death.

This description of the cycle of births and deaths as being due to Virtue and Vice serves to show that Scripture serves an all-important purpose; it has to be born in mind that it is only from Scripture that we can obtain a knowledge of the distinction between ‘Virtue’ and ‘Vice.’—(50)

‘Bhūta’—here stands for the Kṣetrajña, the Conscious Being ensouling the body—according to Govindarāja and Kullūka.

‘Nityam’—qualifies ‘ghore’; ‘Ever terrible’ according to Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa, the last, along with Nandana, however, suggests the reading ‘nitye’ meaning ‘in this eternal samsāra.’

050 The (various) conditions in this always terrible and constantly changing circle of births and deaths to which created beings are subject, are stated to begin with (that of) Brahman, and to end with (that of) these (just mentioned immovable creatures).

Thus repeatedly suppressing time (of dissolution) by time (of creation and maintenance), he, of inconceivable power, created all this and also myself; [he directed me to maintain it] and then disappeared within himself.—(51)

एवं किंचित् साक्षात् किंचित् प्रजापतिनियोगेन स भगवान् सर्वम् इदं जगत् सृष्ट्वा उत्पाद्य मां च जगत्स्थितौ नियोज्य स्वे ऽन्तरे⁷⁸ ऽचिन्त्य आश्चर्यरूपो महान् प्रभावः पराक्रमः सर्वविषयाशक्तिर् यस्य स सृष्ट्वा अन्तर्दधे ऽन्तर्धानं कृतवान् इच्छागृहीतं शरीरं योगशक्त्योज्झित्वा पुनर् अप्रकाशः संवृत्तः । आत्मनीति । यथान्ये भावाः प्रकृताव् अन्तर्धीयन्त एवं सो ऽन्यत्रेत्य् एवं न । किं तर्ह्य् आत्मन्य् एव प्रलीनः । न हि तस्यान्या प्रकृतिर् अस्ति यत्रान्तर्धीयेत, सर्वभूतानां तत्प्रकृतित्वात् । जगत्सर्वव्यापारान् निवृत्तिर् वान्तर्धानम् । भूयः कालं कालेन पीडयन् । सृष्ट्वेत्य् एतत् क्रियापेक्षः शता द्रष्टव्यः । प्रलयकालं सर्गस्थितिकालेन विनाशयन् । भूयः पुनर् इत्य् अर्थः । वक्ष्यति “अनन्ता सर्गसंहाराः” इति ॥ १.५१ ॥

‘Thus’—i.e., something directly himself, and some under Prajāpati’s directions, the Blessed Lord,—having created produced,—all this world,—and having directed to maintain (keep going) this world;—‘He’ whose ‘power,’ sovereignty over all things, is ‘inconceivable,’ amazingly great, the Creator,—‘disappeared,’—brought about his own absorption i.e., having renounced the body that he had, of his own will, taken up, He again became unmanifest;—‘within himself;— other things become absorbed in the Root Evolvent; but He did not become absorbed in any thing else, He disappeared within his own self; He has no other source wherein He could, like other things, become absorbed; for the simple reason that all beings have their source in Him. Or ‘disappearing’ may mean desisting from the entire worldly process.

‘Repeatedly suppressing time by time’—the Present-participle (‘suppressing’) is connected with the verb ‘having oreated’; the meaning being—‘destroying the time of dissolution by the time of creation and maintenance’;—‘again and again; it will lie described later on that ‘there are endless creations and dissolutions.’—(61)

051 When he whose power is incomprehensible, had thus produced the universe and men, he disappeared in himself, repeatedly suppressing one period by means of the other.