Verse 1.9 [Birth of Brahmā]

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

तदण्डमभवद्धैमं सहस्रांशुसमप्रभम् ।
तस्मिञ्जज्ञे स्वयं ब्रह्मा सर्वलोकपितामहः ॥ ९ ॥

tadaṇḍamabhavaddhaimaṃ sahasrāṃśusamaprabham |
tasmiñjajñe svayaṃ brahmā sarvalokapitāmahaḥ || 9 ||

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)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

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).

 

Explanatory notes

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.’