Manava Dharmashastra 1.9

1.9

prathamaṃ pradhānaṃ sarvatobhavaṃ mṛdūpaṃ sampadyate | hiraṇyagarbhavīryasaṃyogātkāṭhinyaṃ pratipadyate | tadaṇḍaṃ samabhavadityucyate | hemna idaṃ haimaṃ svarṇamayamityarthaḥ | aṃśusāmānyāttasya suvarṇamayasya | “nanu cāgamiko'yamarthaḥ, na cātra ivaśabdaḥ śrūyate, tanna kathamapacārato vyākhyānamaprati pramāṇāntare” | ucyate | vakṣyati–'tābhyāṃ sa śakalābhyāṃ tu divaṃ bhūmiṃ ca nirmame' iti | iyaṃ ca bhūmirmṛṇmayī na sarvataḥ suvarṇamayītyata upacāra āśritaḥ | sahastrāṃśurāditya ityarthaḥ | aṃśavo raśmayastattulyā prabhā dīptistasyāṇḍasya | tasminnaṇḍe svayaṃ brahmā jajñe jātaḥ saṃbhūtaḥ | brahmā hiraṇyagarbha eva | svayamiti uktārtham | yogaśaktyā prāggṛhītaṃ śarīraṃ parityajyāntaraṇḍamanuprāviśat | athavā'śarīra evāpaḥ sasarja tato'ntaraṇḍaṃ svaśarīraṃ jagrāha | athavā'nyo 'yo'sāvitya' tra nirdiṣṭaḥ ( ślo0 7 ) anyaścāyamaṇḍajo brahma ti | tathā ca vakṣyati ( ślo0 11 ) 'tadvisṛṣṭa' iti | teneśvareṇa sṛṣṭaḥ | "kathaṃ tarhi svayaṃ jajñe, svayaṃbhūśca tatra brahmocyate |” naiṣa doṣaḥ | pitṛnāmnā putro vyapadiśyate | ' ātmā hi jajña ātmana' iti | anidamparebhya āgamebhyo likhitamācāryeṇa, nacātrābhiniveṣṭavyam | 'sa eva svayaṃ jāyatāmanyo vā tena sṛjyatāmiti' na dharmābhidhāna upayujyata ityuktam | sarvalokānāṃ pitāmaha iti saṃjñā| tasyopacārato'vāstavavṛttatvāt, piturapi sakāśādadhikaḥ pitāmahaḥ pūjyaḥ |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
First of all Primordial Matter develops in the form of Clay; i.e., on account of the contact of Hiraṇyagarbha’s ‘seed,’ it become solidified; and this is what is described as having become an ‘egg.’—‘Golden,’ gold, made up of gold; i.e., in its brilliance it resembled the thing made of gold.

“But this statement (that the egg was of gold) is contained in the scriptures, and we do not find any such term as ‘like’ or ‘resembling’ (which would have justified the interpretation of ‘golden’ as resembling gold),—how then can we, in the absence of any other authority, explain the term figuratively?”

Our answer to the question is as follows:—Later on we find the statement—‘by means of the two forces, he created Heaven and Earth’ (Verse 13); and as a matter of fact, this Earth is found to consist of clay, and not of gold entirely; and it is in view of this fact that we have taken the epithet ‘golden’ figuratively.

‘Sahasrāṃśuḥ,’ lit. ‘thousand-rayed,’ is the Sun;—‘aṃśu’ means rays; and the resplendence of the egg was like that of the rays of the Sun.

‘In that egg he himself was born,’ came into existence, as Brahmā,’—Brahmā is Hiraṇyagarbha himself;—the exact signification of the term ‘himself’ has already been explained; the meaning is that he had originally (as Hiraṇyagarbha) assumed a body by the force of occult powers, he gave up that body and entered within the egg.—Or, it may be that when he created water, Hiraṇyagarbha had no body, hence he took up a body within the egg.—Or again, the being spoken of as ‘he who’ (in verse 7) was different from the Brahmā who is described here as being born in the egg; this would be in keeping with what is going to be stated (in verse 11) in regard to the latter being ‘created by him,’ i.e., created by the Supreme Lord (described in verse 7).

“But (under this last explanation) how could he be said to be ‘himself born?’—and the text apparently speaks, as ‘Brahmā,’ of him who was ‘himself born’ (in the egg).”

This does not affect the position; the son is often called by the name of the Father, when he is described as the ‘self being born out of itself.’

The fact of the matter however is that what the Teacher has asserted is based upon scriptural texts, which have no bearing upon the matter at all [for being mere Arthavāda, they are not meant to describe what is directly expressed by the words]; so Unit we need not lay stress upon what is said (in the text) in this connection; specially because, so far as the expounding of Duties is concerned, it does not matter at all whether Hiraṇyagarbha himself was born in the egg, or he created some other being.

‘The grand-father of the whole world’—is a proper name, applied figuratively. That it has to be taken so is proved by the fact that the Being described is not literally the ‘Grandfather’ of the people; what the attributing of this proper name is meant to indicate is that the being described is an object of great reverence, the term ‘Grand-father’ being chosen, because the Grand-father commands greater reverence than even the Father. (9).