origin-myths

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 वृष्टिर्¹ 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 भवति² । अपाये सति अपादानत्वम् । आद्यं कंचिद् ब्राह्मणं स्वमुखावयवेभ्यो³ दैव्या शक्त्या निर्मितवान्, अद्यतनानां सर्वेषां मिथुनसंप्रयोगद्वारेण तत्त्वेभ्य⁴ 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 पशून्⁵ रक्षतो गोभिश् चरन्तीभिर् भ्रमणम्, स्थलपथवारिपथादिषु वाणिज्यायै गमनम् । शूद्रस्य पादकर्म शुश्रूषा ॥ १.३१ ॥

M G 1st ed.: paśurūpaṃ

DK (5: 1153): tattebhya

DK (5: 1153) suggests: brāhmaṇādiṃ svamukhādyavayavebhyo

DK (5: 1153): bhāti

M G J: sṛṣṭir (I follow the suggestion of DK 5: 1153)

‘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.

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 । अंशुसामान्यात्⁶ 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 जातो⁷ संभूतः । ब्रह्मा हिरण्यगर्भ एव । स्वयम् इति उक्तार्थम् । योगशक्त्या प्रग्गृहीतं शरीरं परित्यज्यान्तरण्डम् अनुप्राविशत् । अथ वाशरीर एवापः ससर्ज । ततो ऽन्तरण्डं स्वशरीरं जग्राह ।

MG: jāto jajñe

G 1st ed.: śuddhasāmānyāt

• 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.

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 तपसस्⁸ तन् महिनाजयतैकम् ॥ (र्व् १०.१२९.३)

M G: tamasas

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 । तपसस्⁹ तन् महिना महत्त्वेन एकं यद् आसीत् तद् अजायत विशेषात्मनाभिव्यज्यते स्म । कर्मवाशात् पुनः प्रादुर् बभूवेत्य् अर्थः । अथ वा तस्याम् अवस्थायां तपःकर्मणा¹⁰ महत्त्वेन हिरण्यगर्भ आत्मनाजायत प्रादुर् आसीत् । यथा वक्ष्यति “ततः स्वयंभूः” इति (म्ध् १.६ ) ।

M G: tamaḥkarmaṇā

M G: tamasas

• 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 ऽप्य्¹¹ 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 । तर्कप्रकारम्¹² अनुमानं निषेधति । न सामान्यतो दृष्टम् अनुमानम् अस्ति । तद्रूपकावेदकं न विशेषतो दृष्टम् अतश् चाविज्ञेयम् ।

J: sarvaprakāram

G J: ‘hy (ahi here makes no sense. Probably a typo of G followed by J; I follow Mandlik’s reading)

• 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 कस्यचित्¹³ विज्ञेयेत्य् अत उक्तम् अविज्ञेयम् । सर्वतो नैकदेशप्रलय इत्य् अर्थः ॥ १.५ ॥

M G: kasya

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 वृक्षाद्यात्मना¹⁴ विक्रियन्ते । न तु प्रकृतिशक्त्यवस्थानि प्रकृतिरूपापन्नानि महाभूतानि जगत्सर्गादौ महाभूतशब्देनाभिप्रेतानि । पाठान्तरम् “महाभूतानुवृत्तौजाः” इति । अनुवृत्तम् अनुगतम् इति प्रागुक्त एवार्थः ॥ १.६ ॥

M G 1st ed.: vṛttādyātmanā

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.

Next to Brahmāvarta is the ‘Brahmarṣideśa,’ comprising the regions op Kurukṣetra, Matsyas, Pañchālas and Śukasenakas. (19).

देशनामधेयान्य् एतानि । कुरुक्षेत्रं¹⁵ समन्तपञ्चकं प्रसिद्धम् । कुरवस् तत्र क्षयं गताः । “कुरु¹⁶ वा सुकृतं क्षिप्रम् अत्र त्राणं भविष्यति”¹⁷ इत्य् व्युत्पत्तिः । मत्स्यादयः शब्दा बहुवचनान्ता एव देशवचनाः । ब्रह्मर्षिदेश इति समुदायसंज्ञा । देवनिर्मितो देशो ब्रह्मावर्तः । देवेभ्यः किंचिन् न्यूना ब्रह्मर्षय इत्य् अतो ऽयं देशो ब्रह्मर्षिसंबन्धाद् ब्रह्मावर्तान् न्यूनः । तथा चाह- ब्रह्मावर्ताद् अनन्त्रः ईषद्भिन्नः । नञ् ईषदर्थः । यथा “अनुष्णां यवागूं पिबेद् आमयावी” इतीषदुष्णाम् उपदिशन्ति । अन्तरशब्दो भेदवचनः, “नारीपुरुषतोयानाम् अनतरं महद् अन्तरम्” इति यथा ॥ २.१९ ॥

M G: bhavati

M G: kuruta

M G: kurukṣetre

These are the names of the various regions.

‘Kurukṣetra’ is what is known as Samantapañcaka, the place where the Kurus were exterminated. The etymological signification of the name ‘Kurukṣetra h as been explained as meaning—‘do good deeds here, and salvation shall come quickly,’ ‘kuru sukṛtamatra kṣiprantrāṇam bhavati.’

‘Matsyas’ and the rest are the names of countries, in the plural form.

‘Brahmarṣideśa’ is the name of the entire group. Brahmāvarta is the country ‘created by the Gods’; and since the Brahmarṣis are a little lower in degree than the Gods, this country, being related to Brahmarṣis, is slightly lower in grade than Brahmāvarta. This is what is meant by this being ‘next to Brahmāvarta,’—i.e., slightly different from it;—the negative particle (in ‘a denoting slightly; just as when it is said that ‘the sick person should drink gruel when it is not-hot,’ it is meant that it should be drunk when it is slightly hot. The term ‘antara’ means different; as it is found in such assertions as ‘mahadantaram,’ ‘in the case of men, women and water, even a slight difference makes a great difference.’ (19)

The tract here described “comprises,”—says Buhler—“the Doab from the neighbourhood of Delhi as far as Mathura,” and Burnell refers us to a map in the Numismata Orientalia, Part I.

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra P. 17) which reads ‘Anantaram’ and explains—it as ‘slightly less important’;—in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56), which adds the following notes:—‘Matsya, Virātdeśa,—Pāñchāla’ the Kānyakubja and adjacent countries,—Śūrasena, country about Mathura,—‘anantaraḥ’ slightly inferior;—in the Dānamayūkha (p. 7.) and the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), which have the same explanations as the Vīramitrodaya.

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

019 The plain of the Kurus, the (country of the) Matsyas, Pankalas, and Surasenakas, these (form), indeed, the country of the Brahmarshis (Brahmanical sages, which ranks) immediately after Brahmavarta.

All men on the earth may learn their respective duties from the Brāhmaṇa born in these countries. (20)

एतेषु देशेषु कुरुक्षेत्रादिषु प्रसूतस्य अग्रजन्मनः ब्राह्मणस्य सकाशात् स्वं स्वं चरित्रम् आचारं शिक्षेरन् जिज्ञासेरन् । “तस्मिन् देशे” (म्ध् २.१८) इत्य् अनेनैतद् व्याख्यातम् ॥ २.२० ॥

From the ‘agrajanma,’ i.e., the Brāhamṇa—‘born in these countries’—Kurukṣetra and the the rest—all men ‘may learn’—seek to know—‘their respective duties’—proper conduct. This has been already explained under Verse 18.—(20)

This is quoted in the Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣā (p. 56) which says that this is meant only to eulogise the particular country.

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

020 From a Brahmana, born in that country, let all men on earth learn their several usages.

The country lying between the Himālaya and the Vindhya, to the east of Vinaśana and to the west of Prayāga, is called the ‘Madhyadeśa,’ the ‘Middle Country.’ (21)

उत्तरस्यां दिशि हिमवान् पर्वतः, दक्षिणस्यां विन्ध्यः । विनशनं सरस्वत्या अन्तर्धानदेशः । प्रयागः गङ्गायमुनयोः संगमः । एतान् देशान् अवधीकृत्य¹⁸ मध्यं मध्यदेशनामानं देशं विद्यात् । नात्युत्कृष्टो नातिनिकृष्ट इत्य् अतो ऽयं मध्यदेशः, न तु पृथिवीमध्यभवत्वात् ॥ २.२१ ॥

M G: avadhīn kṛtvā

On the north lies the Himālaya and on the south the Vindhya. ‘Vinaśana’ is the name of the place where the Sarasvatī river has disappeared.—(20)

‘Prayāga’—is the confluence of the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā.

The region having these four as its boundaries is to be known by the name ‘Madhya-deśa.’ It is called ‘madhya’ or ‘middle,’ because it is neither very superior nor very inferior,—and not because it is located the centre of the Earth.—(21)

‘Vināśana’—This is the name given to the place where the river Sarasvatī becomes lost in the sands. Buhler says it lies in the district of Hissar, in the Punjab.

Buhler curiously translates ‘pratyak’ by ‘east,’ while it means west.

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (p. 18), which explains ‘vinaśana’ as the place where the Sarasvatī has disappeared;—in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣa, p. 56) which locates ‘Vinaśana’ in the Kurukṣetra,—in the Dānamayūkha, (p. 7),—and the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

021 That (country) which (lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is called Madhyadesa (the central region).

The country extending as far as the Eastern Ocean and as far as the Western Ocean, and lying between the same two mountains,—the learned know as ‘Āryāvarta.’ (22).

आ पूर्वसमुद्राद् आ पश्चिमसमुद्राद् यो ऽन्तरालवर्ती देशअः, तथा तयोर् एव पूर्वश्लोकोपदिष्टयोर् गिर्योः पर्वतयोर् हिमवद्विन्ध्ययोर् यद् अन्तरं मध्यं स आर्यावर्तो देशो बुधैः शिष्टैर् उच्यते । आर्या वर्तन्ते तत्र पुनः पुनर् उद्भवन्त् । आक्रम्याक्रम्यापि न चिरं तत्र म्लेच्छाः स्थातारो भवन्ति । आङ् अत्र मर्यादायाम्, नाभिविधौ । तेन समुद्रद्वीपानि नार्यावर्तः । एते चतसृषु दिक्षु देशावधय उपात्ताः । प्राच्यां पूर्वसमुद्रः, प्रतीच्यां पश्चिमः, उदग्दक्षिणयोर् हिमवद्विन्ध्यौ । एतौ ह्य् अवधित्वेनोपात्तौ, न तयोर् आर्यावर्तत्वम् अस्ति । अतस् तत्र निवासाभावे प्राप्त इदम् आह ॥ २.२२ ॥

The country that lies between the two limits of the Eastern and Western Oceans,—and between the two mountains spoken of in the preceding verse,—i.e., the Himālaya and the Vindhya,—is described as ‘Āryāvarta,’ ‘by the learned,’—i.e., by cultured people. It is called ‘Āryāvarta’ in the sense that the Āryas line there (‘Āryāḥ vartante tatra’); i.e., it is they that are born there again and again, and the Barbarians, even though attacking it repeatedly, do not remain there.

The particle ‘āṅ’ (in ‘āsamudrāt’) indicates the outer not the inner boundary, and it does not indicate inclusion. Hence the islands in the oceans do not come under ‘Āryāvarta.’

What are mentioned here are the four boundaries of the country: the Eastern Ocean on the east, the Western Ocean on the west, the Hiṁālaya on the north and the Vindhya on the south.

In as much as these two mountains have been mentioned as ‘boundaries,’ they are not included under ‘Āryāvarta’; from this people might be led to conclude that one should not inhabit these mountains. And with a view to (avoiding) this possibility, the Author adds the next verse.—(22)

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 18);—in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4), which explains ‘Tayoḥ’ as standing for the Himāvat and the Vindhya;—and in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā, p. 56).

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

022 But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Aryans).

But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land op the Mlecchas.’ (23)

कृष्णश्वेतः कृष्णपीतो वा कृष्णसारङ्गो¹⁹ मृगो यत्र चरति निवसति । संभव उत्पत्तिर् यत्र देशे तस्य स्व्भावतः, न पुनर् देशान्तरात् प्राशस्त्योपायनादिना निमित्तेनानीतस्य कियन्तम् अपि कालं निवासः । स देशो यज्ञियो यागार्हो बोद्धव्यः । अतः कृष्णमृगचरणात् परो ऽन्यो म्लेच्छदेशः । म्लेच्छाः प्रसिद्धाः । चातुर्वर्ण्यजात्यपेताः प्रतिलोमजातीया अनधिकृता²⁰ मेदान्ध्रशबरपुलिन्दादयः ।

M G J: pratilomajātīyānadhikṛtā

J: kṛṣṇasārākhyo

• न चानेन यागाधिकरणतास्य देशस्य विधीयते, “समे यजेत” इतिवत्, चरतीति वर्तमाननिर्देशात् । न हि यत्रैव चरितुं प्रवृत्तस् तदैव तत्र यागः शक्यः कर्तुम् । यागस्य हि देशो ऽधिकरणम्, तत्साधनकर्त्रादिकारकाश्रितद्रवादिधारणद्वारेण । न च द्वयोर् मूर्त्तयोर् एककाले एकदेशे स्थनसंभवः । न च कालान्तरलक्षणा न्याय्या, विधौ लक्षणाया अन्याय्यत्वात् । यथोकं शूर्पाधिकरणे- “एतद् धि क्रियत इत्य् उच्यते” (शब् १.२.२६) इति ।

• ननु च नाभिव्यापक एवाधेयः, येन कृत्स्नाधाराभिव्याप्त्यैवाधिकरणार्थनिर्वृत्तिः स्यात्, “तिलेषु तैलम्” (श्वेउ १.१५) इतिवत् । किं तर्हि, एकदेशसंबन्धिनाप्य् आधेयेन भवति कृत्स्नस्याधारभावः, “प्रासाद आस्ते”, “रथं अधितिष्ठति” इति (च्ड़्। पाण् १.४.४५) । एवम् हि ग्रामनगरसमुदायस्य नदीपर्वतान्ताद्यवधिकस्य देशस्य प्रकृतत्वाद् एकदेशे ऽपि पर्वतारण्यादौ चरन् सर्वम् आधारीकरोति । तेनायम् अदोषः मूर्तयोर् नैकदेशः संभवति ।

• उच्यते । नैवात्र यष्टव्यम् इति विधिर् अस्ति । जानातेः परो विधायकः²¹ श्रुतः, न यजेः । यागस्य तत्रार्हता श्रुता, यागार्हो ऽसौ देश इति । सा च यागार्हतासत्य्²² अपि विधौ घटते । एतेषु देशेषु यागाङ्गानि दर्भपलाशखदिरादीनि प्रायेण च भवन्ति । अधिकारिणश् च त्रैवर्णिका त्रैविद्याश्²³ च तेष्व् एव देशेषु दृश्यन्ते । अत एतदवलम्बनो यागार्हतानुवादः । कृत्यो ऽपि “ज्ञेयः” इत्य् अध्यारोपितविध्यर्थः “जर्तिलयवाग्वा जुहुयाद्” (सेए मुरोय) इतिवद् विधिवन् निगदार्थवाद एव ।

M G 1st ed.: vaidyāś; G 2nd ed.: traividyavaidyāś

M G: yāgārhatā saty

M G 1st ed.: -vidhāyaka

• यच् चोक्तम् म्लेच्छदेशस् त्व् अतः परः इत्य् एषो ऽपि प्रायिको ऽनुवाद एव । प्रायेण ह्य् एषु देशेषु म्लेच्छा भवन्ति । न त्व् अनेन देशसंबन्धेन म्लेच्छा लक्ष्यन्ते,²⁴ स्वतस् तेषां प्रसिद्धेर् ब्राह्मणादिजातिवत् । अथार्थद्वारेणायं शब्दः प्रवृत्तो म्लेच्छानां देश इति । तत्र यदि कथंचिद् ब्रह्मावर्तादिदेशम् अपि म्लेच्छा आक्रमेयुः, तत्रैवावस्थानं कुर्युः, भवेद् एवासौ म्लेच्छदेशः । तथा यदि कश्चित् क्षत्रियादिजातीयो राजा साध्वाचरणो म्लेच्छान् पराजयेत्, चातुर्वर्ण्यं वासयेत्, म्लेच्छांश् चार्यावर्त इव चाण्डालान् व्यवस्थापयेत्, सो ऽपि स्याद् यज्ञियः । यतो न भूमिः स्वतो दुष्टा, संसर्गाद् धि सा दुष्यत्य् अमेध्योपहतेव । अत उक्तदेशव्यतिरेकेणापि सति सामग्र्ये त्रैवर्णिकेनाकृष्णमृगचरणे ऽपि देशे यष्टव्यम् एव । तस्माद् अनुवादो ऽयम् स ज्ञेयो यज्ञियो देशो म्लेच्छदेशस् त्व् अतः परः इत्य् उत्तरविधिशेषः ॥ २.२३ ॥

M G: vakṣyante

Where the deer known as ‘Kṛṣṇasāra’—that which is either black with white spots, or black with yellow spots—‘roams,’—lives—i.e., is found, born, —‘by nature,’—i.e., not that where it resides for a time only, having been imported as a present of rare value, and so forth;—‘that country is to be known’—regarded—‘as yajñīya’—‘fit for sacrificial acts.’

‘Beyond that’—i.e., the region other than the one where the Kṛṣṇasāra is indigenous—‘is the land of the Mlecchas.’ The Mlecchas are the people who are known as lying beyond the pale of the four castes,—not included even among the Pratiloma castes; such as the Medas, the Andhras, the Śabaras and the Pulindas.

It is not meant that the sacrifices are to be performed on the very spot where the deer roams,—in the way in which they are performed ‘on level ground,’ according to the injunction that ‘one should perform sacrifices on level ground’; as we h ave ‘rooms’ in the present tense, and certainly one could not perform a sacrifice on the very spot, and at the very time, at which the deer may have started to roam. Further, a certain place is the ‘locus’ of the sacrifice only in the sense that it holds a all those things that are operative towards its performance, either as instruments or agents and the like, and certainly two material substances (i.e., the Roaming Deer and the Sacrificial Accessories) could never occupy the same spot. Nor can the condition mentioned (the roaming of the deer) be taken as indirectly indicating some, other time (than the one at which the roaming is being done); as no such indirect indication is admissible in the case of Injunctions; as has been shown under the Adhikaraṇa dealing with the ‘winnowing basket’ (Mīmāmsā-Sūtra, 1.2.26 el. Seq.), by Śabara (on 1.2.26), who says—‘what is meant by is done is that it is capable of being done’ [and the present time is not what is meant to be emphasised].

“As a matter of fact, when one thing is spoken of as located (contained) in another, it does not mean that it occupies the whole of it; so that it is not necessary for the Locus to be occupied in its entirety, as it is in the case of the oil contained in the seasamum-seed. In fact, even when only a portion of one tiling is occupied by another, the whole of the former becomes its locus or container; e.g. when a man is spoken of as ‘sitting in the house,’ or ‘occupying the chariot.’ So that in the case in question what is described here is the entire country, consisting of villages and towns, and bounded by hills and rivers; and when the deer roams even in some part of it, the whole country becomes its locus. Hence there is no force in the argument that ‘two material substances cannot occupy the same spot.’”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—In the present instance there is no direct injunction, such as ‘one should perform sacrifices here (in this country)’; as the injunctive affix is found added to the root ‘to know’ (in the word ‘jñeyaḥ’), and not to the root ‘to sacrifice.’ All that is meant is that the country spoken of is ‘fit for sacrifices’; the meaning being that ‘this country is fit for sacrificial performances’; and this ‘fitness for sacrifices’ is possible even without a direct injunction (of the actual performance). The fact of the matter is that it is only in the countries mentioned that the several sacrificial accessories, in the shape of the kuśa -grass, the Palāśa, the Khadira and other trees, are mostly found; and sacrificial performers also, in the shape of persons belonging to the three higher castes and learned in the three Vedas, are found only in these countries; and it is on the basis of these facts that the countries have been described as ‘fit for sacrifices.’ The verb ‘jñeyah’ ending in the verbal affix (‘yat’) also has the sense of the injunctive only imposed upon it, and in reality it is only an Arthavāda resembling an injunction; just like the passage ‘jartilayavāgvā vā juhuyāt,’ (‘one should offer either the wild seasamum or the wild wheat’) [which, even though cotaining the injunctive word ‘juhuyāt,’ has been regarded as an Arthavāda resembling an injunction],

When again it is said that ‘beyond this is the land the mlecchas,’ this also is purely descriptive of the usual state of things; the sense being that in these other lands it is mostly mlecchas that are born; it does not mean that people inhabiting them are all (on that account) ‘mlecchas’; because what is a ‘mleccha’ is well known, just like the ‘Brāhmaṇa’ and other well known castes. In fact, the name ‘mlecchadeśa’ is to be taken literally, in the sense that it is ‘the country of mlecchas’; so that if mlecchas happen to conquer a part of Āryāvarta itself and take their habitation there, that also would become ‘mlecchadeśa.’ Similarly if a certain well-behaved king of the Kṣatriya-caste should happen to defeat the mlecchas and make that land inhabited by people of the four castes, relegating the indigenous, mlecchas to the category of ‘Chāṇḍāla,’ as they are in Āryāvarta, then that which was a ‘country of the mlecchas’ would become a ‘land fit for sacrifices.’ And this for the simple reason that no laud is by itself defective; it is only by association that it becomes defective, just as it is when soiled by impure things. Hence, even apart from the countries designated here as ‘fit for sacrifices,’ if, in a certain place, all the necessary conditions are available, one should perform his sacrifices, even though it be a place where the spotted deer does not roam.

From all this it follows that the statement—‘this should, be known as the country fit for sacrifices, and beyond is the land of the mlecchas’ is purely descriptive, being meant to be supplementary to the injunction that follows in the next verse.—(23).

‘Kṛṣṇaṣāraḥ—Burnell—“What animal is intended it is impossible to say. In Southern India, a pretty little, but rare, gazelle is taken for it. It does not however answer to the name so far as its colour (light brown) goes.”

From the explanation given by Medhātithi the deer meant is that which is ‘black with white spots’, or ‘black with yellow spots’; and there is no doubt that the animal meant is that which is black in the upper, and white (or yellow) in the lower parts of its body.

Medhātithi (p. 76, 1. 26)—‘Śūrpādhikaraṇe’—in Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 1-2-26; and the next sentence ‘etaddhi kriyate ityucyate’ is from Śabara on that Sūtra,—the whole sentence being—‘etat (i. e. shakyate kartumiti) hi kriyate ityucyate, na ca vartamānakālaḥ kaschidasti yasyāyam pratinirdeṣhaḥ.’

‘Mleccadeśastvataḥparaḥ’—Note the liberalised interpretation of this provided by Medhātithi. Burnell curiously enough regards this to be an ‘order to dwell in this land’. There is no ‘order’ to dwell in the Mleccadeśa. The countries to be inhabited having been defined and all beyond these being designated as ‘Mlechadeśa’, the term ‘these countries’ of verse 24 refers, as Medhātithi clearly points out, to Brahmāvarta, Madhyadeśa, Brahmarṣideśa and Yajñīyadeśa; and the order to dwell contained in verse 24 also refers to those, and not to the ‘Mlecchadeśa’, which is ‘beyond these.’

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 18), which adds that the country described as ‘fit for sacrificial performances’ is meant to be so used only when the aforesaid four countries are not available;—in the Vīramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā,p. 56), which explains ‘Yājñiyaḥ’ as ‘fit for sacrificial performances’, and ‘Mlecca’ as ‘unfit for sacrificial performances’;—and in the Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 4).

(Verses 18-23)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 2.18 (The Practice of Good Men)].

023 That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) the country of the Mlekkhas (barbarians).