LAWS OF MANU.

CHAPTER I.

1. THE great sages approached Manu, who was seated with a collected mind, and, having duly worshipped him, spoke as follows:

2. 'Deign, divine one, to declare to us precisely and in due order the sacred laws of each of the (four chief) castes (varna) and of the intermediate ones.

3. For thou, O Lord, alone knowest the purport, (i. e.) the rites, and the knowledge of the soul, (taught) in this whole ordinance of the Self-existent (Svayambhû), which is unknowable and unfathomable.'

I. 1. Kull. thinks that pratipûgya, 'having worshipped,' may also mean after mutual salutations,' and he connects, against the opinion of the other commentators, 'duly' with 'spoke.' Gov., Nâr., Râgh., and K., as well as various MSS. (Loiseleur I, p. 313; Bikaner Cat. p. 419), begin the Samhitâ with the following verse, omitted by Medh., Kull., and Nand.: Having adored the self-existent Brahman, possessing immeasurable power, I will declare the various eternal laws which Manu promulgated.'

2. After this verse Nand. inserts four lines, the first and last of which are also found in K.: (a) The origin of the whole multitude of created beings, of those born from the womb, of those born from eggs, of those produced from exudations and from germinating seeds, and their destruction;' (b) The settled rule of all customs and rites deign to describe at large, according to their times and fitness.'

3. The ordinance of the Self-existent,' i. e. 'the Veda' (Kull., Nâr., and Râgh.), or 'the Veda or the prescriptive rules (vidhi)

4. He, whose power is measureless, being thus asked by the high-minded great sages, duly honoured them, and answered, 'Listen!

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

contained in it' (Medh.), or 'the institutes' (Gov.). Akintya, 'unknowable,' i. e. the extent of which is unknowable' (Kull. and Râgh.), or 'unknowable on account of its depth' (Gov.), or 'the meaning of which cannot be known by reasoning' (Nâr.), or 'not perceptible by the senses' (Medh.), or 'difficult to understand' (Nand.). Aprameya, 'unfathomable,' i. e. 'not to be understood without the help of the Mîmâmsâ and other methods of reasoning' (Kull.), or 'unfathomable on account of its extent' (Gov., Nand.), or 'unfathomable on account of its extent, or not directly knowable but to be inferred as the foundation of the Smriti' (Medh.), or 'difficult to understand' (Râgh.). Kull. and Râgh. explain kâryatattvârtha by 'the purport, i.e. the rites, and the nature of the soul;' Medh., Gov., and Nand. by 'the true purport, i. e. the rites.' Nand. takes sarvasya, 'whole,' as depending on ordinance,' and in the sense of 'prescribed for all created beings.'

、

In the commentary on verse 11 Medh. gives still another explanation of this verse, according to which it has to be translated as follows: For thou, O Lord, alone knowest the nature and the object of the products employed in the creation of this universe, which is unthinkable on account of its greatness, and unknowable.' This version belongs to 'other' commentators, who explain Manu's whole account of the creation purely on Sâmkhya principles.

5. The account of the creation given in verses 5-13 bears, as Dr. Muir remarks (Sanskrit Texts, IV, p. 26), some resemblance to that contained in some passages of the Satapatha-brâhmana, especially XI, 1, 6, 1 seqq., and is probably founded on some Vedic work, 'with an intermixture of more modern doctrines.' In explanation of the wording of verse 5, Medh. and Kull. point to passages like Rv. X, 129, 3, and Taittirîya-brâhmana II, 8, 9, 4. Sâyana, too, quotes the verse in his commentary on the latter passage.

The commentators Medh. and Gov. explain the fact that Manu, being asked to expound the law, gives an account of the creation,

6. Then the divine Self-existent (Svayambhû, himself) indiscernible, (but) making (all) this, the great elements and the rest, discernible, appeared with irresistible (creative) power, dispelling the darkness.

by the supposition that it is intended to show what a great scope the work has, and how necessary its study is, as the production of the various created beings depends on merit and demerit. Kull., on the other hand, tries to prove that the account of the creation, which belongs to the knowledge of the supreme soul, is part of the sacred law, and hence properly finds its place here. All the commentators, with the exception of Râgh., explain tamah, 'darkness,' by mûlaprakritih, 'the root-evolvent' of the Sâmkhya philosophy, and tamobhûtam, 'in the shape of darkness,' by 'absorbed in the root-evolvent.' Râgh., who throughout explains Manu's sayings in the sense of the Vedânta school, takes it for an equivalent of avidyâ, ignorance.' The explanation of the four adjectives, which express in different terms the impossibility of knowing the mûlaprakriti, differs very much in the six commentaries. The most reasonable appears to be Kullûka's view, who assumes that the four words refer to the impossibility of attaining a knowledge of the prakriti by the three means mentioned below, XII, 105, and ‘by reasoning' (tarka). He paraphrases apragñâta, 'unperceived,' by 'imperceptible by the senses;' alakshana, 'destitute of marks,' by 'uninferrible;' avigñeya, 'unknowable,' by 'undefinable by words or authoritative statement.'

6. The above translation follows Gov., Nâr., and Kull. The other three commentators take mahâbhûtâdivrittaugâh as a relative compound. On this supposition the translation would run as follows: Then the divine Self-existent, (himself) undiscernible, (but) making this (universe) discernible, appeared, he whose (creative) power works in the great elements and the rest, and who dispels the darkness.'

'Then,' i.e. at the end of the period of destruction. Avyaktah, '(himself) undiscernible,' i.e. 'not to be known except by Yogins' (Medh.), or not perceptible by the external senses' (Gov., Kull., Nâr.), or not to be known except through the texts of the Upanishads' (Râgh.), or difficult to know' (Nand.). Medh. would prefer to read avyaktam, 'this indiscernible (universe).' The great elements and the rest,' i.e. 'the other principles, the great one and so forth'

7. He who can be perceived by the internal organ (alone), who is subtile, indiscernible, and eternal, who contains all created beings and is inconceivable, shone forth of his own (will).

(Medh., Gov., Nâr., Kull., Nand.), or 'egoism' (Râgh.). 'Appeared,' i.e. assumed a body of his own free will, not in consequence of his karman, his acts in a former existence' (Medh., Gov., Kull., Nand.), or became discernible' (vyakta), (Nâr.), or 'became ready to create' (kâryonmukha), (Râgh.). Gov. explains vrittaugâh, 'with irresistible power,' by 'who obtained power' (prâptam balam yena). Kull. explains tamonudah, 'dispelling the darkness (i. e. of destruction),' by 'giving an impulse to the root-evolvent,' and Râgh. takes it in a similar way.

The commentators whose opinion Medh. adduces under verse 11, explained this verse also as a description of the self-evolution which the prakriti performs according to the Sâmkhyas. They took svayambhûh, 'the self-existent,' in the sense of which modifies itself of its own accord;' bhagavân, 'divine,' in the sense of which is powerful enough to perform its business' (svavyâpâra îsvarah). The other words presented, of course, no great difficulties.

7. By the two pronouns yo 'sau, "he who," he indicates the supreme soul, known in the whole world, in the Vedas, Purânas, Itihâsas, and so forth' (Kull. in accordance with Medh.). The latter proposes, besides the explanation of atîndriyagrâhyah, 'who can be perceived by the internal organ (or the mind alone),' which Gov., Kull., and Nand. adopt, another one, 'who, being beyond the cognisance of the senses, can be perceived by Yoga-knowledge alone.' Nâr. and Râgh., too, differ from the interpretation given above. 'Subtile,' i.e. 'who is beyond all distinctions, such as small and great' (Medh.), or 'who is unperceivable by the external senses' (Kull.), or who is perceivable by subtile understanding only' (Gov.), or who is without limbs or parts' (Râgh.). Nand. points to the common epithet of the supreme soul, 'smaller than small' (Kâth. Up. II, 20; Bhagavadgîtâ VIII, 9). Avyaktah, 'indiscernible,' is taken by Kull. to mean 'destitute of limbs or parts.' Sarvabhutamayah, who contains all created beings,' means, according to Medh., either that he conceives the idea of creating all beings,' or 'that, in accordance with the Advaita Vedânta, all beings are illusory modifications of him.' The latter view seems to be the one adopted by all the other commentators. 'Shone forth,' i. e. either 'assumed

8. He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters, and placed his seed in them.

9. That (seed) became a golden egg, in brilliancy equal to the sun; in that (egg) he himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world.

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

a visible body' or 'was self-luminous' (Medh.), 'assumed a body' (Gov.), 'appeared in the form of the evolutes, the great one, and so forth' (Kull.), 'became discernible' (Nand.).

8. Besides the passages quoted under verse 5, compare also the Paurânik story of the mundane egg, Wilson, Vishnu-purâna I, pp. 39-40 (ed. Hall). 'He' is according to Medh. and Râgh. Hiranyagarbha,' according to the other commentators, 'the supreme soul.' Medh. refers to Rig-veda X, 121, 1. According to Medh. (verse 11) those who understood the whole passage to refer to the unintelligent prakriti, explained abhidhyâya, 'with a thought,' to mean 'independently of all external action, just as a man performs an act merely by a thought.' They also asserted that the waters were produced as the first element only, but not before the great one and the other principles. Kull., on the other hand, sees in the expressions, used in this verse, the proof that Manu was an adherent of the non-dualistic Vedânta.

9. Medh., Kull., and Râghava take the epithet 'golden' figuratively, and consider it to be intended to convey the idea of purity or, as Râgh. also proposes, of brilliancy. Instead of he himself was born as Brahman (masc.),' the translation may also be 'Brahmâ himself was born.' Medh. gives both explanations. The other commentators adopt that given in the text. The being produced is, according to all except Râgh., Hiranyagarbha. Râgh., as a strict Vedântin, thinks that it is Virâ. All the commentators point out that pitâmaha, 'the progenitor,' lit. the grandfather, is a common name of Brahman (masc.).

10. This punning explanation of Brahman's name Nârâyana occurs in most of the Purânas, see Wilson, Vishnu-purâna I, p. 56 (ed. Hall). Both Medh. and Gov. seem to have read âpo narâh,