The Law Code of Yājñavalkya 3.4: atha yatidharmaprakaraṇam

Having set forth the duties of the hermit, he now introduces the duties of the wandering mendicant, which follow in sequence:

From the forest or from the home, having performed the Prājāpatya sacrifice / with all one's possessions as the sacrificial fee, and at its conclusion having placed those fires within oneself,

having studied the Veda, muttering prayers, having a son, providing food, maintaining the fires, / and having performed sacrifices according to his ability, he should set his mind on liberation, but not otherwise.

After living in the forest for as long as it takes for the impurities of the sense-objects to ripen in one whose body has been emaciated by severe austerities, and no further fear of the arising of arrogance can arise, immediately after that he should set his mind on liberation. By the words “forest” and “home,” the life stages associated with them are indicated. And by the word “liberation,” the fourth stage of life, whose sole fruit is liberation, is indicated. Or else, immediately after the home, [that is,] the householder stage, he should set his mind on liberation. And by this, he indicates that the previously mentioned view of the combination of the four stages of life is optional. And such an alternative is heard in the Jābāla scripture: “Having completed studenthood, he should become a householder; having become a householder, he should become a forest dweller; having become a forest dweller, he should renounce. Or, if otherwise, he should renounce directly from studenthood, or from the home, or from the forest” (Jābāla Upaniṣad 4). Likewise, the annulment of subsequent stages of life by the householder stage is shown by Gautama: “The teachers, however, hold there is only one stage of life, because the householder stage is directly enjoined” (GDh 3.36). And since all these views—combination, option, and annulment—are rooted in Vedic scripture, the choice depends on one's wish. Therefore, what has been said by certain self-styled scholars, namely: “Because perpetual studenthood and the other [stages] are based on traditional smṛti, they are annulled by the householder stage which is Vedic; or their scope is restricted to the blind, eunuchs, and others not qualified for the householder stage”—that is to be dismissed, as it is based on a lack of Vedic recitation and study. Furthermore, just as the lame and others lack qualification for Vedic rites because they are unable to perform the strides of Viṣṇu, inspection of the clarified butter, and so forth, so too, being unable to fetch water pots, wander for alms, and the like in traditional rites, how could the maintenance of the life stages such as perpetual studenthood be restricted to the scope of the lame and others? And in this stage of life, only a Brahmin is qualified,

“Having placed the fires within himself, a Brahmin should renounce from the home.” / (MDh 6.38)

Likewise:

“This fourfold duty of a Brahmin has been declared to you.” / (MDh 6.97)

Because Manu establishes the qualification of the Brahmin through the introductory and concluding statements, and because of the Vedic text, "Brahmins renounce the world," the qualification belongs to the first-born alone, not to every twice-born person. Others, however, maintain that every twice-born person is qualified, since the members of the three higher classes are the topic at hand, and because of the aphorist's statement: "Having studied the Veda, the three classes have four stages of life." When one renounces the world from the forest or from the household, having then performed a sacrificial rite to the deity Prajāpati with the fee consisting of all one's possessions—one whose sacrificial fee consists of all one's possessions is described thus—and at its end having deposited those Vedic fires into oneself according to the rule declared in the Veda; and because of the word "and", having first performed preparatory rites as declared by Baudhāyana and others, namely: "During the northern course of the sun on a full-moon day, having first performed the preparatory rites, with a purified body one should offer eight or twelve ancestral offerings"; likewise, having studied the Veda, being devoted to silent recitation, having fathered a son, having given wealth to the wretched, the blind, and the miserable, and having given food according to one's capacity, having maintained the sacred fires—if there is no impediment such as an elder brother [remaining uninitiated]—and having performed regular and occasional sacrifices, one should set one's mind on liberation, [that is,] enter the fourth stage of life, and not otherwise. By this, he indicates that a householder who has not discharged the three debts has no qualification for renunciation. As Manu said:

Having discharged the three debts, he should fix his mind on liberation; / but pursuing liberation without having discharged them, he sinks downward. // (MDh 6.35)

When, however, one renounces the world straight from student celibacy, then there is no rule requiring the procreation of offspring and the like, because one who has not taken a wife has no qualification for that, and because marriage is prompted by desire. Nor should it be suspected that the very injunction to discharge the three debts entails [taking] a wife; for just like the rule regarding the acquisition of learning and wealth, it does not entail it when a wife can be obtained through other motives. But does not [the text], "A Brahmin indeed is born with three debts: by student celibacy to the seers, by sacrifice to the gods, by offspring to the ancestors" (TaitSaṃ 6.3.10.5), show that procreation of offspring and the like are mandatory for one from the very moment of birth? Not so. For one merely born, who has not taken a wife or the fires, is not qualified for sacrifices and the like. Therefore, the meaning of that [text] is that a Brahmin or other twice-born person, once qualified [as an adult], should perform sacrifices and the like. Hence, Vedic study alone is mandatory for the initiated student; while procreation of offspring is [mandatory] for one who has taken a wife and the sacred fires. Thus there is no fault. || 3.56 || 3.57

Having thus defined the qualified person, he states his duties:

Benevolent to all beings, tranquil, carrying a triple staff and a water-pot, / finding delight in solitude, having renounced, he should resort to a village [only] for the purpose of alms.

"Benevolent to all beings": neutral toward those who do pleasant or unpleasant things, not actively rendering benefits, because of Gautama's remembered text: "Not engaging in violence or granting favors" (GDh 3.24–25). "Tranquil": one whose external and internal faculties have ceased activity. A "bearer of a triple staff" is one who has three staffs. And those staffs should be taken as made of bamboo, because of the passage of another Smṛti: "After the sacrifice to Prajāpati, he should hold three bamboo staffs of head-height in his right hand, and with the left a water-pot filled with water." Or he may carry a single staff, because of Baudhāyana's remembered text: "Carrying a single staff or a triple staff" (BDh 2.18.1),

He should go to the fourth stage of life, devoted to the knowledge of Brahman, / carrying a single staff or a triple staff, completely freed from all attachments,

and because of the view in the Caturviṃśatimata. Likewise, wearing a topknot is also an optional alternative, because of Gautama's remembered text: "Shaven or keeping a topknot" (GDh 3.22), and Vasiṣṭha's remembered text: "Shaven, devoid of possessiveness, free from anger, without possessions" (VaDh 10.6). Likewise, wearing the sacred thread is also strictly an optional alternative, because of the Kāṭhaka Vedic text: "Having cut the hair along with the topknot, having cast off the sacred thread" (Kaṭhaśruti Up. 32),

Household, sons, and wife, and the subsidiary limbs of the Veda entirely, / hair and sacred thread having abandoned, the sage should wander concealed,

and because of Bāṣkala's remembered text, and the supplementary treatise text: "Then he offers the sacred thread into the water saying, 'Bhūḥ svāhā', then takes the staff saying, 'O friend, protect me!'" If one is unable [to endure cold], then even a patched garment should be accepted, because of Devala's remembered text: "Wearing ochre robes, shaven, bearing a triple staff, having merely a water-pot, a strainer, sandals, a seat, and a patched garment." And he should be accompanied by a water-pot for the sake of ritual purification and the like. "Delighting in solitude": without a companion in the form of another wandering ascetic or female renunciants, since renunciation for women is also remembered by Baudhāyana: "And some say [it is permissible] for women." And so Dakṣa:

One mendicant is as prescribed; two indeed are considered a pair; / three are called a village; and above that it turns into a city. // / Their talk will turn to politics and the like, to gossip about alms with one another, / and to slander and malice because of close proximity, without a doubt.

"Having renounced" (parivrajya): the root vraj preceded by pari means "renunciation". And therefore, one should completely abandon the conceit of 'I' and 'mine', worldly action accumulated through that, and Vedic action consisting of regular and desire-prompted rites. That has been stated by Manu:

That which brings happiness and worldly prosperity, and that which leads to the highest good: / active and quietist—Vedic action is twofold. // / Desire-prompted action in this world or in the next is declared active; / but action free of desire, preceded by knowledge, is taught as quietist. // / Having abandoned even the prescribed actions, the best of the twice-born / should be striving in knowledge of the Self, in inner peace, and in the practice of the Veda. // (MDh 12.88-89, 92)

Here, 'practice of the Veda' means practice of the syllable Om; one should be striving in that. For the purpose of begging alms he should resort to—that is, enter—a village, but not for comfortable residence. During the rainy season, however, there is no fault, because of Śaṅkha's remembered text: "Beyond the two months of the rainy season, he should not dwell in a single place." In case of disability, however, he may stay for up to four months, but he should not stay in one place for a long time except in the rainy season, because of Devala's remembered text: "The four months beginning with Śrāvaṇa are the rainy season":

He should dwell one night in a village, five nights in a city; / except during the rains; but during the rains he should dwell for four months.

—because of the traditional text of Kāṇva. (3.58)

Explaining how begging for alms should be performed, he says:

Attentive, he should beg for alms in the late afternoon, unnoticed, / in a village empty of mendicants, only enough for sustenance, free from craving.

"Attentive" means free from fickleness of speech, eyes, and other organs; he should beg for alms. Here, Vasiṣṭha has shown a specific rule: "He should beg for alms at seven houses not previously planned" (VaDh 10.6). "In the late afternoon," that is, during the fifth division of the day. And so Manu says:

"When the smoke has ceased, when the pestle is laid down, when the embers are extinguished, when the people have eaten, / when the clearing away of dishes is finished, the ascetic should always beg for alms."
Thus. (MDh 6.56)

Likewise:

"He should beg for alms at one time [a day], and not be attached to excess; / for an ascetic who is attached to alms becomes attached also to sensory pleasures."
Thus. (MDh 6.55)

"Unnoticed" means not distinguished by knowledge or instruction in astrology and the like,

"Neither by portents and omens, nor by the astrology of the lunar mansions, / nor by exposition and debate should he ever seek to obtain alms."
(MDh 6.50)

Because it was stated by him thus. As for that other statement of Vasiṣṭha: "Or whatever he may obtain in a Brahmin family, that he should eat in the evening and in the morning, excepting meat" (VaDh 10.24), that applies to one who is physically incapable. "In a village empty of mendicants" means free from habitual beggars such as heretics. Here, a specific rule was stated by Manu:

"Crowded with ascetics, or with Brahmins, or with birds, or even with dogs, / or with other mendicants—such a house he must not approach."
Thus. (MDh 6.51)

He should beg for alms only so much as suffices for the maintenance of life. And so Saṃvarta says:

"Collecting eight mouthfuls of alms, or seven, or five, / the silent sage, having washed them all with water, should then eat with restrained speech."
Thus.

"Free from craving" means not attached to sweet foods, condiments, and the like.

He states the vessel for the purpose of collecting alms:

The vessels of an ascetic are made of clay, bamboo, wood, and bottle-gourd; / their purification is by water and scrubbing with cow-hair.

The vessels of ascetics should be made of clay and other such materials. Water and scrubbing with cow-hair are the means of purification for them. And this purification is an auxiliary part of the ritual performance of collecting alms and the like, not one that relates to defilement by impure substances and the like; when there is contamination by those, [the rule] stated in the section on the purification of objects should be observed. For this very reason Manu says:

"His vessels should not be made of metal, and should be free from cracks; / their purification with water is traditionally taught, like that of the sacrificial ladles at a sacrifice."
Thus. (MDh 6.53)

By citing the example of the ladle (*camasa*), procedural purification is indicated. In the absence of another vessel, eating also must be done in that very [vessel], because Devala records: “Having taken that alms-food in solitude, he should eat, remaining silent, merely to sustain life, with that vessel or with another.” (3.60)

He states the rule of self-restraint as an auxiliary to meditation on the Self for one who has become such [an ascetic]:

Completely restraining the host of senses, / abandoning desire and aversion, / and discarding fear of living beings, / the twice-born becomes immortal. (3.61)

Completely restraining—turning back—the host of senses, beginning with the eye, from their sense objects, beginning with visible form; abandoning—renouncing—desire and aversion regarding agreeable and disagreeable objects; from the word “and,” also jealousy and the like; likewise, not causing fear to living beings through injury; becoming one whose inner organ is purified, by direct realization of non-duality, he becomes immortal, [that is,] he becomes liberated. (3.61)

Moreover:

Purification of the inner organ, however, must especially be performed by the mendicant, / because it is the cause of the arising of knowledge, / and for the sake of attaining independence. (3.62)

Purification—the destruction of impurities—of the inner organ, which is defiled by the faults born of desire and aversion for sense objects, must be performed by breath control (*prāṇāyāma*), because that purification is the cause of the arising of knowledge whose nature is the direct realization of the non-duality of the Self. And this being so, when the obstacle consisting of the faults born of attachment to sense objects has been destroyed, one becomes independent in meditation (*dhyāna*), concentration (*dhāraṇā*), and the like upon the Self. Therefore, this purification should especially be practiced by the mendicant, because liberation is his primary aim, and because liberation is difficult to attain without a purified inner organ. As Manu says:

“For just as the impurities of ores being smelted are burned away, / so the faults of the senses are burned away through the restraint of the breath.” (MDh 6.71) (3.62)

As a means for the restraint of the senses, he describes the nature of worldly existence (*saṃsāra*):

One must reflect upon dwell-times in the womb, and the courses born of action, / mental agonies, physical diseases, afflictions, old age, the deterioration of bodily form, (3.63)

birth among thousands of species, and the reversal of the agreeable and the disagreeable. (3.63 continued)

For the sake of attaining dispassion (*vairāgya*), one must reflect upon—ponder—dwellings in various types of wombs filled with urine, feces, and the like; from the word “and,” also birth and death; likewise, the destinations, in the form of falling into hells such as Mahāraurava, produced by actions such as the performance of prohibited deeds; likewise, mental agonies, which are torments of the mind; physical diseases, such as fever, dysentery, and so forth, of the body; the five afflictions (*kleśa*), namely ignorance, egoism, attachment, aversion, and clinging to life; old age, which is being overcome by wrinkles, grey hair, and the like; deterioration of bodily form, the alteration of one's former appearance through lameness, hunchbackedness, and the like; likewise, birth—origination—among numerous species such as dogs, pigs, donkeys, and snakes; the non-attainment of the desired, the attainment of the undesired, and so on. Having pondered the nature of worldly existence, which brings about such abundant suffering, one should strive to master the senses, which is the means to knowledge of the Self, in order to avoid it. (3.63)

He states what must be done immediately after having thus reflected:

Through the yoga of meditation, he should perceive the subtle Self abiding in the Self. (3.64)

Yoga is the cessation of the fluctuations of the mind, one-pointedness on the Self. Meditation (*dhyāna*) is the cessation of that [mind] from having external objects. Through the yoga of meditation, an alternative term for profound contemplation (*nididhyāsana*), he should clearly see—directly realize—the non-difference between the referents of the words “That” and “thou,” [understanding that] the Self, the knower of the field (*kṣetrajña*), distinct from the subtle body, vital breaths, and the like, abides in the Self, in Brahman. For this very reason, in the Śruti, having referred to direct vision whose nature is realization in “The Self, indeed, is to be seen,” hearing, reflection, and profound contemplation are enjoined as the means thereto in “It is to be heard, to be reflected upon, to be profoundly meditated upon” (BṛU 2.1.5). (3.64)

Moreover:

The stage of life is not the cause of duty; for duty exists [only] when it is performed. / Therefore, what is unfavorable to oneself, one should not do to others. (3.65)

Regarding the duty called contemplation of the Self stated in the previous verse, the stage of life—such as holding a staff and water pot—is not the cause, because that can be done easily enough and is not extremely difficult. Therefore, whatever is disagreeable to oneself, such as causing agitation through harsh speech and the like, that one should not do to others. By this, because it brings about purification of the internal organ which is the cause of the arising of knowledge, the rejection of the life stage is meant to praise the abandonment of attachment and aversion as primary due to its internal nature, but not indeed to advocate abandoning the life stage itself, since that also has been enjoined. So it has been said by Manu:

"Even though adorned, one should practice duty, devoted to whatever stage of life, / equal toward all beings; external insignia is not the cause of duty." / (MDh 6.66) || 3.65

Furthermore:

Truthfulness, non-stealing, freedom from anger, modesty, ritual purification, discernment, fortitude, self-restraint, / control of the senses, knowledge: all this is declared to be duty.

"Truthfulness" means speech that is accurate and agreeable. "Non-stealing" is not taking another's property. "Freedom from anger" is non-arising of anger even toward one who does harm. "Modesty" is shame [at doing wrong]. "Ritual purification" is purity of food and the like. "Discernment" is discrimination between the beneficial and the harmful. "Fortitude" is maintaining a previously steady state of mind when shaken upon separation from the agreeable or attainment of the disagreeable. "Self-restraint" is the relinquishment of arrogance. "Control of the senses" is non-excessive attachment even toward permitted sensory objects. "Knowledge" is knowledge of the Self. When these—truthfulness and the rest—are practiced, all duty is practiced. By this, he indicates that qualities of the Self such as truthfulness are internal in comparison to external marks like holding a staff and water pot.

Now, an objection: It is incorrect to say that one should perceive the Self abiding in the self through the yoga of meditation, because there is no difference between the individual self and the supreme Self. In response, he says:

Just as sparks fly out from a heated mass of iron, / even so from the Self indeed do selves originate.

Although there is no ultimate difference between the individual self and the supreme Self, nevertheless, since individual selves indeed arise from the Self as differentiated by the various limiting adjuncts of ignorance, the designation of difference between the individual self and the supreme Self is entirely appropriate. For just as from a heated iron ball or lump of iron, sparks—parts of fire—fly out, and having emerged obtain the name "sparks," so it is here. Therefore it is established that the Self is to be seen abiding in the self. Alternatively, this is the meaning: since at the time of deep sleep and cosmic dissolution all knowers of the field are dissolved into Brahman, for whom is this injunction to contemplate the Self? To this he says, "they fly out..." and so on. Even though they are dissolved in a subtle form at the time of dissolution, nevertheless individual selves originate from the Self differentiated by the limiting adjuncts of ignorance, and again due to deeds become identified with gross bodies; therefore there is no contradiction with the injunction to contemplate. The example of the iron mass is used because of the similarity in the separation of the fiery element. || 3.67

Now, an objection: Since knowers of the field who have not yet taken on a body are without movement, how can their assumption of fourfold bodies—womb-born, egg-born, and so forth—be caused by that? In response, he says:

There the self itself performs some action, some by natural disposition, / some by habit, consisting of both duty and non-duty.

Even though in that state there is an absence of action in the form of physical movement, nevertheless mental action consisting of resolution toward duty and non-duty does exist. And that is certainly the cause for taking on a specific body,

from the traditional text of Manu: / "By verbal [sins] one attains the condition of birds and beasts; by mental ones, birth among the lowest castes." / (MDh 12.9)

Having thus taken on a body, [the infant] spontaneously—without dependence on positive and negative concomitance, without relying on such positive and negative concomitance as "when suckling the breast is done, satisfaction occurs; when not done, it does not occur"—with an awareness of what is to be done arising through the power of latent impressions produced by experience in a previous birth, performs some action like suckling the breast; performs some action by natural disposition, accidentally without regard for an intended purpose, like eating ants and the like; and performs some action of the nature of both duty and non-duty due to habit from another life. And likewise says another traditional text:

"Whatever giving, study, or asceticism was practiced in each birth, / through the force of that very practice, one practices that very thing again."

Thus the diversity of deeds of living beings, and the diversity of bodies—womb-born and the like—caused by that, is entirely reasonable. || 3.68

Now, an objection: If this is so, since Brahman alone is somehow designated as the individual self, and since it has properties such as eternality, how can there be the ordinary usage that "Viṣṇumitra is born"? Apprehending this, he says:

The cause, imperishable, agent, knower, Brahman, endowed with qualities, self-controlled, / unborn: through the assumption of a body, he is spoken of as "born."

True, the Self, in the manifestation of the entire phenomenal world, through the influence of the entrance of ignorance, is itself all three kinds of causes—the inherent, non-inherent, and efficient cause—and is not included in the category of an effect; because it is imperishable, that is, indestructible.

Now, an objection: Since the modification of the qualities such as sattva, consisting of pleasure, pain, and delusion, is seen in the phenomenal world which is an effect, agency over the world is proper only for primordial matter which possesses those qualities, but not for Brahman which is devoid of qualities.

Do not think thus: the Self alone is the agent. For it is the knower of the unseen merit and demerit (*adṛṣṭa*) and so on, which are the causes of pleasure and pain to be experienced by the individual soul (*jīva*). Surely the arrangement of the cosmic manifold—which consists of bodies, objects of experience, and so forth, suitable for the experience of the diverse classes of experiencers manifested as name and form—is not possible for unconscious primal matter (*prakṛti*). Therefore, the Self alone is the agent. Likewise, it alone is Brahman, the enlarger, the expander. Nor is it devoid of qualities (*nirguṇa*), since it possesses ignorance (*avidyā*), synonymous with *prakṛti*, *pradhāna*, and the like, which has the power of the three qualities (*guṇa*). Hence, although it is devoid of qualities in its own nature, it is spoken of as endowed with qualities such as *sattva* by way of its power. Nor, by this much, does *prakṛti* have causality, because the Self alone is the ruler, independent; there is no independent separate entity named *prakṛti*, since there is no means of valid knowledge for such a thing. Nor should it be said that it is that very [power] in the form of potency that becomes the agent, because it is the possessor of potency that is the causal factor (*kāraka*), not the potency itself. Therefore, the Self alone is all three kinds of cause of the world. Likewise, it is unborn, devoid of origination. Hence, although direct birth is not tenable for it, nevertheless it is said to be “born” merely by its assumption of a body, by virtue of origination consisting of being connected with another state, just as [one says] “a householder is born.” (3.69)

He explains the manner of assuming a body:

Just as at the beginning of creation it produces space, wind, fire, water, and earth, / possessing one additional quality each, so, while taking birth, it assumes them. (3.70)

At the time of creation, just as that Supreme Self creates [the elements] beginning with space—the sky having sound as its single quality; the wind having the qualities of sound and touch; fire having the qualities of sound, touch, and form; water having the qualities of sound, touch, form, and taste; and the earth having the qualities of sound, touch, form, taste, and smell—possessing one additional quality in this manner; likewise, the Self, having attained the state of an individual soul (*jīva*), even while being born, takes them up as constituent causes of its own body. (3.70)

In response to the question of how earth and the other [elements] are the originators of the body, he says:

The sun is nourished by the oblation; from the sun comes rain, then herbs; / that food, in the form of chyle, arrives at the state of semen. (3.71)

By the oblation cast by the sacrificers, by the essence of the sacrificial cake and so on, the sun is nourished. And from the sun, through the essence of the sacrificial offerings of clarified butter and the like matured by the power of time, rain comes to be. From that arises food in the form of medicinal plants, rice, and so on. And that food, when consumed, through the sequence of chyle, blood, and so forth, attains the condition of semen and ovum. (3.71)

He states what happens after that:

When man and woman unite and semen and ovum are pure,
the master, himself the sixth, takes up the five elements simultaneously.

At the fertile time, upon the union of man and woman, semen and ovum—that is, semen and blood—are joined together and pure, meaning free from the defects mentioned in another legal text: 'Semen that is vitiated by wind, bile, or phlegm, has knots, smells of pus, is deficient, or smells of urine or feces, is infertile.' Staying [there], the self, the element of consciousness, being himself the sixth, as the master—capable because of his connection with unseen karma which causes the formation of the body—takes up simultaneously, that is, accepts as his locus of union, the five elements, the five great elements beginning with earth, as producers of the body. And so it is stated in the Śārīraka [treatise]: 'Upon the union of man and woman, the semen mingled with the menstrual blood in the womb, propelled by wind along with the elemental self and the qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas, abides that very moment in the womb' (Suśruta, Śārīrasthāna 3.4).

Moreover:

Sense faculties, the mind, breath, knowledge, lifespan, pleasure, steadfastness,
retention, impulsion, pain, desire, and egoism;

Effort, bodily form, complexion, voice and aversion, prosperity and ruin—
all this is born of the self for that beginningless one desiring a beginning.

The sense faculties are the organs of sense and action to be explained; and the mind is common to both. Breath is bodily air divided into five distinct functions: prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, and samāna. Knowledge is comprehension. Lifespan is life defined by a specific duration of time. Pleasure is contentment. Steadfastness is steadiness of mind. Retention is intellect and retentive memory. Impulsion is presiding over the organs of knowledge and action. Pain is agitation. Desire is longing. Egoism is the sense of 'I'. Effort is exertion. Bodily form is physical shape. Complexion is fair skin and the like. Voice is notes such as ṣaḍja, gāndhāra, and so on. Aversion is hostility. Prosperity is the abundance of sons, cattle, and the like; ruin is the opposite of that. 'For that beginningless one'—the eternal self—'desiring a beginning'—wishing to assume a body—all this, beginning with the sense faculties, is born of the self; the meaning is that it is produced by the seed of karma from prior lives.

He explains the order of transformation of the combined semen and ovum into an effect:

In the first month it becomes a fluid mass, intermixed with the elements;
in the second month, a rounded mass; but in the third, it is endowed with limbs and senses.

That conscious sixth element, 'intermixed with the elements'—blended, mingled among the elements beginning with earth; that is to say, united like milk and water—in the first month of pregnancy remains 'a fluid mass', having attained liquid form, and does not solidify. In the second month it becomes 'a rounded mass', a lump of slightly hardened flesh. This is the idea: being dried slightly day by day by internal wind and the digestive fire, the collection of elements, rendered liquid by contact with semen, attains hardness in thirty days. And so in Suśruta: 'In the second [month], the combination of elements, cooked by cold, heat, and air, becomes solid' (Śārīrasthāna 3.18). But in the third month, it becomes endowed with limbs and sense organs.

Moreover:

From space, lightness, subtlety, sound, the ear, and strength and so on;
and from air, touch, movement, bodily arrangement, and dryness;