Verse 1.4 [Manu’s Answer]

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

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

sa taiḥ pṛṣṭastathā samyagamitojā mahātmabhiḥ |
pratyuvācārcya tān sarvān maharṣīṃśrūyatāmiti || 4 ||

Being thus questioned by the high-souled Great Sages, he, possessed op illimitable vigour, received them with reverence, and with proper courtesy answered them—‘listen.’—(4)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He’—Manu—‘possessed of illimitable being thus questioned by the high-souled Great Sages, answered them—“Listen.”’

‘Thus’—in the aforesaid manner; the word ‘thus’ which denotes method, includes the matter as well as the manner of the question; hence ‘thus questioned’ means ‘thus questioned, i.e., questioned about Duties—he answered.’

Or, the word ‘thus’ may be taken as denoting manner only. As a matter of fact, however the word ‘questioned’ already brings to the mind the details (matter as well as manner) of what has been questioned about; hence the meaning is—‘what he was questioned about, that he answered thus the question and the answer come to have the same objective.

Under this explanation the word ‘thus’ become super fluous, and only serves the purpose of filling the gap in the metre. Under the former explanation however, the word ‘thus’ itself serves the purpose of showing that the ‘questioning’ and the ‘answering’ have both the same objective.

The word ‘Samyak,’ ‘with proper courtesy,’qualifies the answering: ‘he answered with proper courtesy’—i.e., gladly, not with anger or any other form of displeasure.

‘Possessed of inimitable vigour’—with undiminished power of speech; he whose vigour,’ power, capacity of exposition, is ‘illimitable,’ infinite.

The epithet ‘high-souled,’ serves to show that there is no incompatibility in the persons being ‘Great Sages,’ and at the same time ‘questioners’ (as if they themselves did not know what they were asking about); hence it is said ‘he answered the Great Sages.’ It is the philanthropic person that is called ‘high-souled,’ hence the meaning is that though they themselves knew all about Duties,—otherwise they would not be ‘Great Sages,’—yet they questioned Manu for the benefit of other people; the idea in their minds being as follows—‘Manu is a Sage whose authoritative character is better known,—what he says is always respected by people,—he is always approached with trust and confidence,—hence for the expounding of the treatise, we shall make him our Teacher’,—and when he is questioned by us, he will be regarded by the people as still more trustworthy.’

It is this explanation that justifies the statement in the text regarding Manu having ‘received them with reverence.’ If it were not as we have explained, what would be the meaning of the ‘reverence’ shown by the Teacher to the Pupil? The word of the text which means ‘having received with reverence’ must be explained as a participle formed of the root ‘arc’ (to worship) with the prefix ‘ā’ and the participial affix ‘lyap’ [as without the prefix, the form would be ‘arcayitvā’]. Another reading (which removes the difficulty) is ‘tān.’

In connection with the present verse, the following question has been raised—“If the whole of this Treatise has been composed by Manu himself, it is not right to attribute it to another person, as is done in the statement—‘being questioned by them, he answered’; the proper form would have been—‘being questioned by them, I answered.’ If, on the other hand, someone else is the author of the Treatise, then why should it be called ‘Mānava’ (of Manu)?”

There is no force in this objection. In the first place, it is a well known fact that in most cases the authors of Treatises state their own views as if emanating from other persons,—making use of such expressions as—‘in this connection they say’ or ‘they meet this argument thus,’ and so forth; and the form ‘being questioned by them I answered’ would not be in keeping with such usage; the reason underlying this fact is that the older the person the more authoritative he is regarded to be by the people; it is for this reason that we find Jaimini (1.1.5) stating his own view as emanating from ‘Bādarāyaṇa.’

Or (another explanation is that) the Treatise is a compilation made and related by Bhṛgu; and since the original Smṛti [which is, in the present Treatise related by Bhṛgu] was compiled (from teachings received directly from Prajāpati) by Manu,—it is styled ‘Manava’ (of Manu).

He answered the great sages;—what was the answer?—‘Listen to what I have been questioned about.’ (4).

 

Comparative notes

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.