Thread by @pinakapaaNi

Why people, even Brahmins hate Manusmriti? Have they even read it?

So I decided let me start posting it here. Lets see how it goes. #ManuSmriti

1.1
मनुमेकाग्रमासीनमभिगम्य महर्षयः ।
प्रतिपूज्य यथान्यायमिदं वचनमब्रुवन् ॥ १ ॥

The Great Sages, having approached Manu, paid their respect to him in due form, and finding him seated with mind calm and collected, addressed him these words.

Many ask whats the purpose of Manusmriti. If any treatise has no purpose people will not take it up & study.

Unless people have ascertained the purpose served by a particular Treatise, they would not, in the first place, take it up at all; and unless they take it up, how could they examine the whole of it?

Then again, that same idea which is got at by the examination of the entire Treatise, becomes more easily comprehended if it has been briefly indicated in the beginning.

It is with reference to this that there is the assertion that—‘in ordinary experience, the learned always consider it desirable to carry ideas in their minds briefly as well as in greater detail.’

As regards the argument that—“even when the purpose has been stated there can be no certainty about it, for the simple reason that we do not derive conviction from the words of human beings,—in whose oases the idea that we have is that this man knows the matter as he says,

and not that the fact is really as he asserts,”—the answer is that we do not quarrel over the question as to whether the words of human beings do, or do not, bring about conviction; because discussion over this question would swell the size of work.

But as a matter of fact, even though it is possible for a man to have recourse to a certain course of action, even when he is in doubt as to the exact purpose served by it,

—yet until there is some statement as to the purpose served by a particular action, even doubts could not arise in regard to it. In fact, if some statement had not been made in regard to the purpose to be served by the present Treatise,

the doubt that would arise in men’s minds would be (not as to whether or not it was going to serve any useful purpose, but) as to whether it is a treatise on Law or on Economics, or an aimless attempt in the nature of an examination of such subjects as the ‘Crow’s teeth’ etc...

On the other hand, when the aim of the work has been stated, the idea arising in our minds is—‘the author of this work asserts that he is going to show us the path leading to our welfare,—there is no harm done by our undertaking the study of the work,—well, let us look into it’

; and forthwith we take up the work.

Next comes the question, who was this Manu?

‘Manu’ is the name of a particular person known, in long-continued tradition, as having studied several Vedic texts, as knowing their meaning and as practicing the precepts therein contained;—‘Eating approached’ him,

i.e., having gone forward near him, intentionally, giving up all other actions, and not by mere chance, having met with him the special effort made by the Sages to get near Manu shows the importance of the subject-matter of their question,

as also the authoritative and trustworthy character of the expounder; a man who is not capable of rightly expounding a subject is never questioned by persons going up to him for that purpose.—‘Whose mind was calm and collected’—‘Seated with mind calm and collected,’

—i.e., whose mind was in a tranquil state; and it does not mean ṭhat he was actually seated upon a mat, or some such seat; os there would be no point in stating this; in fact the word ‘seated’ merely connotes calmness;

it is only when one’s mind is calm that he is capable of answering questions.—‘Having approached’—has for its object simply ‘Manu’; ‘seated with mind calm and collected’ being an adverbial clause modifying the act of ‘questioning’ (by the sages). The sense of the sentence thus is

—‘they said to him the following words, on finding, from the manner in which he engaged into conversation with them in making inquiries about their welfare, that his mind was not preoccupied, but calm and collected, and he was therefore attentive to their questioning.’

1.2 #ManuSmriti
भगवन् सर्ववर्णानां यथावदनुपूर्वशः ।
अन्तरप्रभवानां च धर्मान्नो वक्तुमर्हसि ॥ २ ॥

May Thou, O blessed One, explain to us, in due form and in proper order, the duties of all Varnas and intermediate Varnas!

I am not using the term "castes" here in the translation because its irrelevant & not original to dharma. The original sloka says "sarvavarṇānāṃ", so its Varna.

1.3 #ManuSmriti
त्वमेको ह्यस्य सर्वस्य विधानस्य स्वयम्भुवः ।
अचिन्त्यस्याप्रमेयस्य कार्यतत्त्वार्थवित् प्रभो ॥ ३ ॥

Thou alone, O Lord, art conversant with what ought to be done, which forms the true import of entire Veda—which is eternal, inconceivable not directly cognizable.

Will tell Manu's answer tomorrow. Enough for today. Will try & tweet 4-5 verse everyday with meanings & commentary.

1.4 #ManuSmriti
स तैः पृष्टस्तथा सम्यगमितोजा महात्मभिः ।
प्रत्युवाचार्च्य तान् सर्वान् महर्षींश्रूयतामिति ॥ ४ ॥

Being thus questioned by the high-souled Great Sages, he, possessed of illimitable vigor, received them with reverence, & with proper courtesy answered them—‘listen.’—

Anecdote : The injunctions and prohibitions in the Institute are the work of Prajāpati himself;—He taught them to Manu, who composed the ‘ordinance’, and taught it to the sages, among whom was Bhṛgu, who was commissioned to relate it to the sages; and the ‘ordinance’

in its present form is what was related by Bhṛgu to the sages at a later time —Vide Bhāṣya on 1.1 and l.56.

Origin of the World!

1.5 #ManuSmriti
आसीदिदं तमोभूतमप्रज्ञातमलक्षणम् ।
अप्रतर्क्यमविज्ञेयं प्रसुप्तमिव सर्वतः ॥ ५ ॥

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.—

‘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:
As a Vedāntin, Sāyaṇa identifies tamas with māyā |

1.6 #ManuSmriti
ततः स्वयम्भूर्भगवानव्यक्तो व्यञ्जयन्निदम् ।
महाभूतादि वृत्तोजाः प्रादुरासीत् तमोनुदः ॥ ६ ॥

Thereafter, the supreme being Hiraṇyagarbha, self-born, unmanifest and bringing into view this (universe), appeared,

1.6 contd. #ManuSmriti
—dispelling darkness and having his (creative) power operating upon the Elemental Substances and other things.—

1.7 #ManuSmriti
योऽसावतीन्द्रियग्राह्यः सूक्ष्मोऽव्यक्तः सनातनः ।
सर्वभूतमयोऽचिन्त्यः स एव स्वयमुद्बभौ ॥ ७ ॥

He,—who is apprehended beyond the senses, who is subtle, un-manifest and eternal, absorbed in all created things and inconceivable,—appeared by himself.

Sūkṣmaḥ:—‘unperceivable by the external senses’:(Kullūka). But this would be a repetition of atīndriyagrāhyaḥ’; Govinda renders it as ‘who is perceivable by subtle understanding only;’ and Rāghavānanda—‘who is without parts’—which is, as Kullūka makes out 2b , ‘avyaktaḥ.’

Sarvabhūtamayaḥ—Medhātithi has offered two explanations: (1) ‘entirely taken up by the idea of creating tiling’, and (2) ‘whose modification all tiling 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.

That's it for today. Will try to get references of commentary by greats on this.

1.8 #ManuSmriti
सोऽभिध्याय शरीरात् स्वात् सिसृक्षुर्विविधाः प्रजाः ।
अप एव ससर्जादौ तासु वीर्यमवासृजत् ॥ ८ ॥

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

‘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.’

Here's 10:121:1
हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेकासीत |
स दाधार पर्थिवीं दयामुतेमां कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम ||

‘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?”

It might just as well so 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 for all of creation!

Next part is my favorite, The Birth Of Brahmā. Lets see how it happeneed!

1.9 #ManuSmriti
तदण्डमभवद्धैमं सहस्रांशुसमप्रभम् ।
तस्मिञ्जज्ञे स्वयं ब्रह्मा सर्वलोकपितामहः ॥ ९ ॥

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.

1st of all Primordial Matter develops in the form of Clay; i.e, on account of the contact of Hiraṇyagarbha’s ‘seed,’ it become solidified; this is what is described as having become an ‘egg.’—‘Golden,’ 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, 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.

Personally what I feel is the whole egg thing is a very "English translation" thing. If you understand "Hiraṇyagarbha" clearly in your mother tongue, you will clearly know its got nothing to do with Egg. Its just garbha. Shinning with brilliance like that of gold.

Simply because it disperses & chases away darkness.

Also, सर्वलोकपितामहः, ‘The grand-father of the whole world’—is a proper name, applied figuratively wrt. human understanding.

That's it for today! Next up, We will look at the meaning of the term ‘Nārāyaṇa’.

Hare Krishna!

1.10 #ManuSmriti
आपो नारा इति प्रोक्ता आपो वै नरसूनवः ।
ता यदस्यायनं पूर्वं तेन नारायणः स्मृतः ॥ १० ॥

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.’

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

Nest is the nature of Brahmā...

1.11 #ManuSmriti
यत् तत् कारणमव्यक्तं नित्यं सदसदात्मकम् ।
तद्विसृष्टः स पुरुषो लोके ब्रह्मैति कीर्त्यते ॥ ११ ॥

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.’

1.12 #ManuSmriti
तस्मिन्नण्डे स भगवानुषित्वा परिवत्सरम् ।
स्वयमेवात्मनो ध्यानात् तदण्डमकरोद् द्विधा ॥ १२ ॥

That supreme lord, having dwelt in that shell for a year, himself, by his own thought, broke that shell into two parts.

Parivatsaram—Kullū. alone takes this to mean ‘a year of Brahmā’; all others take it in the sense of the ordinary year;

Next we will look at Creation of Heaven and Earth.

1.13 #ManuSmriti
ताभ्यां स शकलाभ्यां च दिवं भूमिं च निर्ममे ।
मध्ये व्योम दिशश्चाष्टावपां स्थानं च शाश्वतम् ॥ १३ ॥

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

Now let us look at the creation of the World from ‘Mahat’ downwards.

1.14 #ManuSmriti
उद्बबर्हात्मनश्चैव मनः सदसदात्मकम् ।
मनसश्चाप्यहङ्कारमभिमन्तारमीश्वरम् ॥ ब्छ्।स्छ् ॥

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.

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.

Honestly English translation of this tatva sucks. Absolutely wanting for more bhava and vocab to explain the saara of it. Will do with whatever possible. That's why I tell everyone Learn Sanskrit.

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

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.

‘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.

That's it for today folks.

1.16 #ManuSmriti
तेषां त्ववयवान् सूक्ष्मान् षण्णामप्यमितौजसाम् ।
संनिवेश्यात्ममात्रासु सर्वभूतानि निर्ममे ॥ १६ ॥

Having combined the subtle components of the said six principles of illimitable potency with their own evolutes, he created even all beings.

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.
The creation of the bodies of things from the body of the Creator, and that of their souls from His Soul

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

Mahat,
Ahaṅkāra,(Egoism)
Manas,
Subtile Elements,
Organs, of Action
Organs of Sensation.

Take this verse simply as describing how the Creator created all beings by combining ‘the subtle components of the said six principles’ with ‘their own evolutes.’
‘ātmamātrā’ stands for ‘the spiritual atom as opposed to the elementary,—not reflexive elements of himself.’

1.17 #ManuSmriti
यन् मूर्त्यवयवाः सूक्ष्मास्तानीमान्याश्रयन्ति षट् ।
तस्माच्छरीरमित्याहुस्तस्य मूर्तिं मनीषिणः ॥ १७ ॥

Because the six subtle 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.’

Since this is an important verse, i want to present 2 commentaries: Medhātithi’s & Nandana's

What Medhātithi says is :
‘Frame’—body; the ‘components’ of it are those things that constitute it; these are ‘subtle,’ 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 &

, has for its substratum the six subtle 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.’

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 referring 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

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

That's it for today fellas.

1.18 #ManuSmriti
तदाविशन्ति भूतानि महान्ति सह कर्मभिः ।
मनश्चावयवैः सूक्ष्मैः सर्वभूतकृदव्ययम् ॥ १८ ॥

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

Creator of things and imperishable!

‘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 subtle 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(An adhesion, or gluing together),
3. cooking,
4. configuration
5. and making room (un-obstruction) respectively are the ‘functions’ of Earth.

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 together, cemented into, a mass by means of water;—

3. ‘Cooking’ is the well-known effect produced by fire upon such tiling 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 subtle components, enter into the great elemental substances’—‘as also do the organs of sensation,’ this latter being indicated by the word ‘Mind.’

1.19 #ManuSmriti
तेषामिदं तु सप्तानां पुरुषाणां महौजसाम् ।
सूक्ष्माभ्यो मूर्तिमात्राभ्यः सम्भवत्यव्ययाद् व्ययम् ॥ १९ ॥

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

All that is meant by saying that ‘the perishable proceeds from the imperishable’ is that the Gross is produced out of the Subtle; and it is not meant to emphasize 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 object 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 subtle'

The order in which the things are produced is the same as that which has been described before: i.e. from out of Primordial Matter is produced the Great Principle of Intelligence;—from this latter the Principle of Egoism; 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 sub-serve 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 ‘subtle 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.’

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

A—The qualification ‘subtle' is not in relation to the constituents of any single Principle itself; what is meant is that (one principle is ‘subtle’ in relation to, in comparison to, another, i.e.)

the Great Principle of Intelligence is subtle as compared to the Rudimentary Substances, and the Root Evolvent (Primordial Matter) is ‘subtle’ as compared to the Great Principle.

आद्याद्यस्य गुणं त्वेषामवाप्नोति परः परः ।
यो यो यावतिथश्चैषां स स तावद् गुणः स्मृतः ॥ २० ॥

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).

1.21 #ManuSmriti
सर्वेषां तु स नामानि कर्माणि च पृथक् पृथक् ।
वेदशब्देभ्य एवादौ पृथक् संस्थाश्च निर्ममे ॥ २१ ॥

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

‘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 performance 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 correct 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.

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.’

That's it for today folks.

One of the reference I am using is this.

Lets look at the creation of Devas.

1.22 #ManuSmriti
कर्मात्मनां च देवानां सोऽसृजत् प्राणिनां प्रभुः ।
साध्यानां च गणं सूक्ष्मं यज्ञं चैव सनातनम् ॥ २२ ॥

For the sake of living beings intent upon action, He created the eternal sacrifice; as also the host of Devas the subtle multitude of the lesser divinities,

the Sādhyas.

‘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).

यज्ञेन यज्ञमयजन्त देवास्तानि धर्माणि परथमान्यासन |
ते ह नाकं महिमानः सचन्त यत्र पूर्वे साध्याःसन्ति देवाः ||

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],—‘Subtle’—the multitude of Sādhyas is Subtle 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.

The essence here is : 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.’

Remember to refer #Manusmriti 1.22 When some MLechha or MooDha talks about Monotheism or Atheism.

Now lets look at the creation of Shrutis themselves. This is very important because many fools asks who wrote Vedas.

1.23 #ManuSmriti
अग्निवायुरविभ्यस्तु त्रयं ब्रह्म सनातनम् ।
दुदोह यज्ञसिद्ध्यर्थं ऋच्।यजुस्।सामलक्षणम् ॥ २३ ॥

From out of (3 deities) Agni, Vāyu, Ravi, He extracted, for the due fulfillment of sacrifices, the eternal Brahman, threefold, in the forms of ‘Ṛk,’ ‘Yajuṣ’, ‘Sāman.’

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 fulfillment 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.’

The vyakarana here is amazing. You just can't have a equivalent in English for this. 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 & Vayu, he extracted’—made to flow, produced—[the Veda].

How He made to flow [the Vedas] & how He created it [the Vedas] are two distinct activities, so beautifully covered. Mind boggling!

Q&A!
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 have 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’ is to 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, Vayu & Ravi.’]

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’ core 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 ]

The most important aspect is this here.

https://twitter.com/pinakapaaNi/status/1303978477381509120

He created the vedas ‘Ṛk,’ ‘Yajuṣ’ and ‘Sāman', from Agni, Vāyu and Ravi. And made them[vedas] flow through Agni & Vāyu. It takes eons to comprehend this.

Next up is Creation of "Time". But that's all for today fellas.