Manava Dharmashastra 1.11.2

1.11.2

anye tu ‘tvamevaika’ ityādyanyathā varṇayanti | asyeti pratyakṣābhinayena jagannirdiśyate | sarvasyāsya jagato yadvidhānaṃ nirmāṇaṃ tatsvayambhuvaḥ saṃbandhi | acintyamadbhutarūpaṃ vicitramatimahadaprameyaṃ na śakyaṃ sarvaiṇa jñātum | tathā ṛṣiḥ | ‘ko addhā veda ka iha pravocat kuta ājātā kuta iyaṃ visṛṣṭiriti|’ kimidaṃ jagatsarvamupādānamapekṣya jāyata uta nairmāṇikamātram, yathā buddhasya darśanam | kimīśvarecchādhīnamuta kevalakarmavaśajamuta svābhāvikamaprameyam | tathā kiṃ mahadādikrameṇotpadyata uta dvayaṇukādikrameṇa | asya tvaṃ kāryaṃ tattvamarthaṃ ca vetsi | ‘kāryaṃ’ mahato'haṅkāro'viśeṣāstanmātrāṇyahaṃkārasya, tanmātrāṇāṃ viśeṣāḥ pañcamahābhūtāni, ahaṅkārasyendriyāṇyekādaśa | viśeṣāṇāmapi piṇḍaḥ kāryaṃ brahmādistambaparyantāḥ | teṣāmapi pratyayāt tattvaṃ svabhāvo, yathā mahato mūrtimātratvam | pradhānasya sarvasya vikārāvasthā mahadityucyate | prakṛtermahāniti | prakṛtiḥ pradhānamityeko'rthaḥ | ahaṅkārasya tattvamasmipratyayamātratvam | aviśeṣāṇāmaviśeṣapratyayasaṃvedyatvamiti | ‘arthaḥ’— prayojanam | puruṣārthamidaṃ vastvanena prakāreṇa puruṣāyopayujyate imaṃ cārthaṃ sādhayati | yadyapi dharmaṃ jijñāsamānasya jagannirmāṇajñatā ācāryasaṃbandhinī na kvacidupakāriṇī, na ca praṣṭavyā, tathāpyanyato durvijñānaṃ maharṣīṇāṃ vaiṣamyājjagannirmāṇādau praśvārhaṃ bhavati manośca vacanīyam | yadvastu pramāṇaṣaṭkasyāpyaviṣayastadapi tvamārṣeṇa cakṣuṣā vetsi | dharmaḥ punarvedagocaraḥ so'vaśyaṃ tvayā vijñāta ityevaṃ prakṛtaviṣayaiva pravaktṛpraśaṃsā |

Other people have explained verses 3 et seq. in a different manner.

Verse 3
‘This’ (in verse 3) refers by direct gesticulation to the world;—the ‘vidhāna,’ creation, ‘of this entire’ world i.e., belongs to—the ‘self-born.’—It is ‘inconceivable’ marvellous, wonderful, very extensive;—‘not directly cognisable,’ ‘aprame yam,’ incapable of being known by all persons. This is what is stated in the Veda also—‘Who knows it? Who has described it here? Whence have these been horn? Whence this creation?’ (Ṛgveda, 3.54.5). That is to say,—Does this entire world come into existence through some material cause? Or is it all a mere Idea, as held by the Bauddha? Is it dependent upon the will of a Supreme Being? Or is it dependent only upon the acts of the beings born? Or is it merely a natural process?—

All this cannot be rightly ascertained: similarly it cannot be ascertained whether the creation of the world proceeds from the ‘Mahat’ downwards (as held by the Sāṅkhyas) or from the Diad downwards (as held by the Vaiśeṣikas).—‘Of all this,’ ‘you know (A.) the ‘karya’ product, (B) the ‘tattva ’ real character and (C) the ‘artha’ true purpose,’—‘Kāryatattvārthavit.’

(A) ‘Product,’—i.e. (a) the ‘Principle of Egoism’ is the ‘product’ of Mahat,’ (b) the subtile ‘Rudimentary Elements’ are the product of the ‘Principle of Egoism,’ (c) the Five gross ‘Elementary Substances’ are the product of the ‘Rudimentary Elements,’ (d) the eleven Sense-organs are the product of the ‘Principle of Egoism’; (e) of the gross substances the product consists of the ordinary material objects, from Brahmā down to the tuft of grass,—a fact that is clearly recognised.—

(B) ‘Real character’—nature,—for instance, (a) the ‘Mahat’ consists of mere materiality, the entire Primordial Matter in the state of modification being called ‘Mahat,’ according to the declaration (in Sāṅkya-Kārikā 22) that ‘the Mahat proceeds from Prakṛti,’—this ‘prakṛti’ being synonymous with ‘Pradhāna,’ ‘Primordial Matter;’—(b) the real character of the ‘Principle of Egoism’ consists of the mere ‘notion of I;’—(c) the real character of the subtile elements consists in their forming the objects of unspecified or undifferentiated cognition.—

(C) ‘Purpose’—the fact that—‘this thing is for the purpose of man, it serves man’s purpose in such and such a manner, it accomplishes such and such a purpose.’—Though as a matter of fact, for one who is seeking for the knowledge of duties, the fact of the Teacher being cognisant with the process of the world’s creation is of no use at all,—nor does it form a proper subject for enquiry,—yet, in view of the fact that the process cannot be learnt from any other source, and that there is diversity of opinion among the Great Sages themselves, it does become a fit subject for them to ask and for Manu to explain. Thus what the verse means is this—The subject that does not come within the range of any of the six Means of Cognition, that also you know with your intuitive eye,—as for Duty it is described in the Veda, and as such it must be known to you’; and this is an eulogy of the Teacher, bearing directly upon the main subject-matter.