Verse 1.14-15 [Creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards]

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

उद्बबर्हात्मनश्चैव मनः सदसदात्मकम् ।
मनसश्चाप्यहङ्कारमभिमन्तारमीश्वरम् ॥ ब्छ्।स्छ् ॥

udbabarhātmanaścaiva manaḥ sadasadātmakam |
manasaścāpyahaṅkāramabhimantāramīśvaram || 14 ||

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)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

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)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Mahat’ is the name applied by the Sāṅkhyas to one of the Elemental Principles;—‘all-pervading’ qualifies the ‘Mahat’; this Principle of Intelligence is called ‘all-pervading’ because, it actually pervades through the entire material creation. This he brought out before the Principle of Egoism; this construction being in accordance with that adopted in the preceding verse (in connection with the Principle of Egoism being produced before the Mind);—‘as also all those things that consist of the three constituent Attributes’; all that has been described, as also all that is going to be described,—i.e., all products or evolutes,—are constituted by the three Attributes; these ‘Constituent Attributes’ being ‘Sattva’ (Harmony), ‘Rajas’ (Energy) and ‘Tamas’ (Tnertia); it is only conscious entities that are free from these three Attributes; while all that is evolved out of Primordial Matter is constituted by the three Attributes.—‘The five organs of sensation, which apprehend,’—bring about the perception of,—Colour, Taste (Odour, Touch and Sound), which form the respective ‘objects,’ the ‘five,’ whose

specific names are going to be described later on, in 2.90—‘Also is meant to include the ‘objects’ themselves, in the form of Sound, Touch, Colour, Taste and Odour, and also the Earth and other elemental substances.—(16)

 

Explanatory notes

(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.