Verse 1.11 [Nature of Brahmā]

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

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

yat tat kāraṇamavyaktaṃ nityaṃ sadasadātmakam |
tadvisṛṣṭaḥ sa puruṣo loke brahmaiti kīrtyate || 11 ||

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.’—(11)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘cause’ spoken of here is one who is always the never the product; the formation of his body is not dependent upon the will of any other being; he is endowed with a natural supremacy all his own;—‘unmanifest and eternal’ as already explained (under verse 7);—‘partaking of the nature of the existent and the non-existent’;—‘sadasat’ stands for the ‘sat,’ ‘existent,’ and the ‘asat,’ non-existent’; and the said ‘cause’ is one whose ‘nature,’ character, consists of the said ‘existent and non-existent.’

“But how can a single entity partake of the two contradictory characters of the ‘existent’ and the ‘non-existent’?”

The answer to this is as follows:—In as much as people of the present day cannot form any idea of such a heing, the cause becomes incapable of being spoken of as ‘existent,’ and hence is described as ‘partaking of the nature of the non-existent; and yet, in as much as the fact of the said being being the cause of the entire world is known from the scriptures, it is described as ‘of the nature of the existent;’ thus the description of Brahman as both (‘existent’ and ‘non-existent’) is not incongruous, being based, as it is, upon the difference in the character of the persons conceiving of it.

“As a matter of fact, this is true of all things; everything is ‘existent’ in its own form and ‘non-existent’ in the form of other things; why then should it be stated that this is not incongruous in the case of Brahman only?”

The answer to this is as follows:—Under the philosophy of ‘Non-duality’ nothing except Brahman being ‘what is that other thing which (while existent in its own form) could be spoken of as ‘non-existent’ in the form of Brahman?

‘The being produced by that,’—being brought into existence, being created within the egg; this Being ‘is described among people as Brahmā’; the being, who is found mentioned in the Mahābhārata and other works as seated hero and there for the purpose of granting boons to such Devas, Asuras and Ṛṣis as have performed severe austerities,—he was the first to be created by the afore-mentioned Supreme Being, the Highest Brahman.

 

Explanatory notes

Kāraṇam—Rāghavānanda takes this to refer to the above-mentioned ‘Egg’, the undifferentiated root-cause. All others take it to mean the Supreme Soul.

Sadasadātmakam—‘Existent because cognisable by means of the Vedic texts, and non-existent, because uncognisable by the ordinary means of perception’. (Medhātithi, Govinda and Kullūka);—‘real, in the shape of the cause, and unreal, in the form of the Products’: (Nandana.)

The relationship between Nārāyaṇa (Virāṭ) and Puruṣa appears to be based upon the Puruṣasūkta, where Puruṣa is described as born from Virāt The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (13.6.1.1) couples the two beings into one and describes him as receiving instructions from Prajāpati.

Medhātithi, P. 12, l. 21 to the end of page 13 offers a totally different interpretation of verses 3-1l.

Medhātithi P. 13, l. 1—‘Mahato’haṅkāro &c.’—Of. Sāṅkhya-kārikā, 38.

‘Viśeṣāḥ.—Why these are called ‘viśeṣa’ is thus explained in the Sāṅkhyatattvakaumudī—pañca mahābhūtāni viśeṣāḥ:—śāntā ghorāśca mūḍāśca | yasmādākāśādiṣu sthū?ṣu kecit tattvapradhānatayā śāntā prakāśā laghavaḥ......... | te'mī parasparavyāvṛttyā'nubhūyamānā ‘viśeṣā’ iti ‘sthūlā’ iti co?pante | tanmātrāṇi tu?smadādinā parasparavyāvṛttāni nānubhūyante—iti ‘aviśeṣāḥ’ ‘sūkṣmā’ iti cocyante |