Manava Dharmashastra 1.5.4

1.5.4

'āsīdidaṃ jagattamobhūta' tama iva | bhūtaśabdo'nekārtho'pyu pamāyāṃ prayuktaḥ | yathā 'yattadbhinneṣvabhinnaṃ chinneṣvacchinnaṃ sāmānyabhūtaṃ sa śabda iti' sāmānyabhūta iti sāmānyamivetyarthaḥ | kiṃ tamasā jagataḥ sādṛśyamata āha aprajñātam | viśeṣāṇāṃ svabhāvānāṃ vikārāṇāṃ prakṛtāvupalayanādataḥ pratyakṣeṇājñātam | anumānāttarhi jñāyeta, tadapi cālakṣaṇam | lakṣaṇaṃ liṅgaṃ cihnaṃ, tadapi tasyāmavasthāyāṃ pralīnameva, sarvavikārāṇāṃ viśeṣātmanā vinaṣṭatvāt | apratarkya m | yadrūpamāsīttarkayitumapi na tadrūpatayā śakyam | sarvaprakāramanumānaṃ niṣedhati | na sāmānyato dṛṣṭamanumānamasti | tadrūpakāvedakaṃ na viśeṣato dṛṣṭamataścāvijñeyam | naiva tarhyāsīdasadevājāyateti prāptametanniṣedhati prasuptamiva sarvataḥ | nāsataḥ sata utpattiḥ | uktaṃ ca 'sadeva somyedmagra āsīt kathamasataḥ sajjāyete' tyupaniṣatsu | ataścāvijñeyamavacchedaviṣayaiḥ pramāṇaiḥ | āgamāttādṛśādeva gamyate | prasuptamiva jāgratsvapravṛttāṃ parityajya saṃprasādāvasthā suṣuptirddaṣṭāntatvenopāttā | yathā ayamātmā suṣuptyavasthāyāṃ niḥsaṃbodhakleśapradhvastāśeṣavikalpa āste, na ca nāstīti śakyate vaktuṃ, prabuddhasya sukhamasvāpsamiti pratyabhijñānadarśanāt, evaṃ jagadāgamātsiddhārtharūpākṣābhāsānumānebhyaśca tārkikāṇāmavasīyate | āsīditi | vartamānā tu sā'vasthā na kasyacit vijñeyetyata uktamavijñeyam | sarvato naikadeśapralaya ityarthaḥ |

‘This,’ world, ‘was in exitence,’ ‘in the form of dense Darkness’—i.e. as if it were dense darkness; the term ‘which has several meanings, is here used to denote similarity; just as in the statement ‘yat tad bhinneṣvabhinnam chinneṣvachinnam sāmānyabhūtam sa śabdaḥ’ (‘that which remains the same even though the things denoted by it are diverse; which remains undestroyed even when the things denoted are destroyed, which is, as if it were, a Generality, this is the Word’), the word ‘samānyābhūtaḥ’ means ‘as if it were a generality.’ “What is it that constitutes the similarity of the World to Darkness?”

The answer is given by the next word ‘unperceived;’ in as much as all the products with their diverse differentiated forms are at the time resolved in the Evolvent Original, the world is not p erceived.

It might have been cognised by means of Inference; but that also is not possible; as it is ‘undifferentiated’; the ‘differential’ meant is that character which distinguishes one thing from another; and this also is dissolved at the time; for the simple reason that all products, with their distinguishing features, have been destroyed.

‘Incogitable’—that form in which the World existed was not capable of being even thought of, in that form; ‘cogitation’ here stands, for all forms of Inference; the meaning being that at the time there was no kind of Inference—neither from generals to particulars, nor from particulars to generals—available, by means of which the World could be cognised.—For these reasons it was also ‘incognizable.’

From all this it might follow that the World did not exist at all, and it was only a non-existent World that came into existence (subsequently); with a view to preclude this, the text adds—‘as if wholly merged in deep sleep.’ As a matter of fact, the existent can never come into existence out of the non-existent; it has been declared in the Upanisads (the Chāndogya)—‘O dear one, this was, in the beginning existent; how could the existent be born out of the non-existent?’—All that is meant is that the World is incognizable by the instrumentality of the ordinary means of cognition, which operate through, and bear upon, only differentiated things; that such is its condition is known from the scriptures, which also are as transcendental in their character as the ante-natal condition of the World.

‘As if merged in deep sleep,’—‘deep sleep’ stands for that condition of repose which is beyond the conditions of waking and dreaming; and it has been cited only by way of illustration; the meaning being—‘just as the soul, in the condition of deep sleep, remains entirely unconscious of any thoughts or sufferings, and free from all notions of diversity,—and yet it cannot be said to be non-existent, because on waking, it is recognised as being the same that was asleep, as shown by the idea I have slept soundly,—exactly the same is the case with the World, as is shown by the scriptures that describe things as they have actually existed, and also proved, for those who depend upon reasonings, by what appear to be sound Inferences.’

‘Was in existence’—the past tense has been used, because the condition described can never be known by any person; hence it is that it has been described as ‘incognizable.’

‘Wholly’—this shows that the dissolution is not partial but total. (5)