Verse 1.7

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

योऽसावतीन्द्रियग्राह्यः सूक्ष्मोऽव्यक्तः सनातनः ।
सर्वभूतमयोऽचिन्त्यः स एव स्वयमुद्बभौ ॥ ७ ॥

yo'sāvatīndriyagrāhyaḥ sūkṣmo'vyaktaḥ sanātanaḥ |
sarvabhūtamayo'cintyaḥ sa eva svayamudbabhau || 7 ||

He,—who is apprehended beyond the senses, who is subtile, unmanifest and eternal, absorbed in all created things and inconceivable,—appeared by himself. (7)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He, who’—these two pronouns refer to something well-known, that is (in the present context) the ‘Supreme Brahman,’ he who is described, in the Vedanta texts as also in other philosophical systems, in the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, as having the qualities going to be described in the present verse.

‘He appeared by himself’—i.e. took a body for himself; the root ‘bhā,’ having several meanings, is here used in the sense of coming into existence; or, it may be taken in its usual sense of shining; the meaning being that he was self-effulgent, and did not need the light from the sun or other sources.

‘Atīndriya’ means that which is beyond the senses, the compound being taken as an Avyayībhāva; the compound ‘atīndriyagrāhyaḥ’ being included under the general rule of compounds formulated in Pāṇini’s Sūtra 2.1.4; the mean ing being that he is apprehended beyond the senses, he never comes within range of the senses; it is an entirely different kind of cognition, the intuitive cognition of the yogin, by which he is apprehended. Or, the compound ‘that which is beyond the senses’ may be taken as standing for the Mind, which, being imperceptible, is not perceived by the senses; it is for this reason that the Vaiśeṣikas have held Mind to be ‘cognisable by means of Inference,’ as stated in the Nyāya-sūtra (1.1.16)—‘The fact that cognitions do not appear simultaneously is indicative of the Mind.’ And it is by means of this Mind alone that the said Being is apprehended. Says the revered Vyāsa also—‘He is not perceptible by the eye, nor by the other senses; he is apprehended by means of the clear Mind, by persons endowed with subtle powers of cognition’;—i.e. not sullied by the defects of passion &c.;—by persons who have acquired the powers of subtle perception, by virtue of their being entirely devoted to the worship of the said Being.

‘Subtile’—i.e. as if he were ‘subtile,’ small; inreality he is not the substratum of any such finite or concrete predications or concepts as ‘large’ or ‘small;’ he is, in fact, beyond all such predications; as is declared in the following passage—‘He is free even from the semblance of all predications; he has been variously conceived of on the strength of scriptures and inference, he is beyond all taint of duality, beyond affirmation and denial, beyond sequentiality and non-sequentiality, beyond reality and unreality; he is the very soul of the universe, and becomes cognised only by means of discriminative wisdom.’

Because he is ‘subtile,’ he is ‘unmanifest, eternal;’ being of subtile nature, he is endowed with beginningless and endless puissance, home people have held that the position of ‘Hiraṇyagarbha’ is attained by (ordinary beings) through (meritorious) acts; according to these people also he is ‘everlasting,’ in the sense that, though lie has beginning, he has no end; because his condition, which consists in being the experiencer of the fruits emanating from his original act of bringing about creation, never comes to an end.

Ho is described as ‘absorbed in all created things’ in the sense that he is the very soul of things, having his mind intent upon the idea that ‘all things are to be created by me;’ when for instance, the jar made of clay, having its body built out of clay, is said to be ‘absorbed in (consisting of) the clay;’ similarly when a certain person ponders too much over a thing, he is described figuratively, as ‘absorbed’ in that thing; as we find in such expressions as—‘this person is absorbed in women,’ ‘he is absorbed in the Ṛgveda,’ ‘he is absorbed in the Yajurveda,’ and so forth. Or, it may be in view of the Advaita, ‘Nondualistic,’ Philosophy, by which sentient as well as insentient tilings have no existence apart from Hiraṇyagarbha, all being his illusory modifications; so that these modifications consisting of the created things, and these being non-different from him, it is only right that he should be described as ‘absorbed in (consisting of) created tilings.’—

“But how can the single entity undergo illusory modifications? It would be inconsistent with its unity.”

The answer given by the upholders of the theory of ‘illusory modifications’ is as follows:—When the surface of the sea is struck by the winds, high waves rise out of it, and these waves are not entirely apart from the sea, nor are they totally absorbed in it; and they cannot be described as either ‘different’ or ‘non-different’ from it; exactly similar is the case with the ‘illusory modifications’ of Brahman.

The term ‘also’ may also be supplied to the words of the text; the sense being—‘even though, in his own pristine form, he is imperceptible, he becomes perceptible in the form of the ‘modifications;’ similarly with the epithet ‘subtile;’ the implication of ‘also’ being that he is gross in the form of the grosser modifications; similarly, he is ‘unmanifest’and also ‘manifest,’ ‘eternal’ and also ‘not eternal,’ ‘absorbed in created things’ and also ‘free from their forms (and limitations);’ all this being in reference to him in the condition of ‘modifications.’

‘Inconceivable’—i.e. his character is marvellous, he being possessed of remarkable powers.—(7)

 

Explanatory notes

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

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

Other Dharmashastra Concepts:

[back to top]

Other concepts within the broader category of Hinduism context and sources.

Supreme Brahman, Self-effulgent, Subtile nature, Discriminative wisdom, Clear Mind, Beyond the senses, Well-known, Created thing, Vedanta text.