Manu smR^iti: notes on its history and cosmogony

Early History of the MDS and the origin mythologies contained in it

Like all dharma shAstras or books of Hindu Law, the mAnava dharma shAstra (MDS) or the manu smR^iti is mainly concerned with the regulation of the life of an Indo-Aryan. The dharma shAstras have been extensively studied to understand various aspects of ancient Indian life and have also come under uninformed criticism by the various enemies of the Hindus determined find defects in Hindu thought. Rather than assessing the dharma shAstras (DSs) by modern standards and constructs, it would be more appropriate to compare their socially relevant contents against other ancient and medieval law-books. Systems that lend themselves to more or less equal comparisons to the dharma shAstras are vi-diev-dat of the ancient Iranians, the laws of Hammurabi and the imperfectly known Mongolian Yasa of Chingiz Kha’khan. It appears plausible that the laws ordained by the DSs were actually close to practices current during the Mauryan era. They appear to have attained a near pan-Indian distribution[1] in this phase. In the subsequent epochs they appear to have even taken root outside of India in the Far Eastern and Central Asian colonies of the Indians[2]. However, their sway, in these later epochs, particularly during the Gupta and even later Chola periods was largely theoretical, with a more important role for the local laws of the self-governing units within the Hindu empires. Nevertheless, the DSs played an important role in the development of Hindu cultural unity over India.

Unlike the Vedic literature, but more like the itihAsa-purANa genre of Sanskrit literature, the DSs were prone to extensive amendments and corruptions over time. On account of this historical conclusions can be drawn from them only after the various layers present in them are determined and their relative chronology understood. In this work we shall mainly concentrate on one of the foremost of the dharma shastras, namely that of manu, that contains some additional material beyond the usual concerns of the DSs. The idea here is not to discuss Hindu law, but some historical conclusions that may be drawn from the MDS. Most dharma shastras and the related aphoristic dharma sutras have as their authors well known Indo-Aryan encyclopedists such as Apastambha, kAtyAyana, gautama and the like. However, the MDS unlike these is attributed to manu, the legendary ancestor of all the kshatriyas or by some accounts even the legendary common ancestor of all humans or all life forms.

This attribution itself provides an interesting lead regarding the history of the MDS tradition. Vidievdat, the analogous law-book of the ancient Iranians is attributed to Yima Kshaeta (the primal ‘kshatriya’ of the Iranians) the son of Vivahvant. In the Indo-Aryan world manu the primal kshatriya, like yama, is considered a son of vivasvAn. In this context it is interesting to note that the medieval dharma shAstra digests quote a now nearly lost smR^iti text, the yama smR^iti[3]. Thus, there is evidence for the parallel existence of a ‘yama’ counterpart of the MDS even amidst the Indo-Aryans. Taken together, it appears possible that the MDS at its core represents an essentially Indo-Iranian tradition wherein the social laws and taboos were attributed to the primal being, the son of vivasvAn. Consistent with this, both the Iranian Vidievdat and the MDS are obsessed with ritual purity and purification of various objects through ablutions and other means. Comparisons between the taboos and practices of the Roman priests- the Flamen dialis and the Indo-Aryan brAhmaNas show a rather precise match[4], suggesting that codification of ritual taboos and priestly behavior had already emerged in the early Indo-European period. This is consistent with the reconstructed word Proto-Indo-European word for a priest *bhragsmen from which brAhmaNa and Flamen are likely to have descended. This implies that it is likely that even prior to the Indo-Iranian period there was a body of social laws and institutes of priestly and regal conduct that were already quite well established and constituted what may be called the proto-manu smR^iti. Given this conclusion can we identify any material in the extant MDS text that may be a remnant of this ancient period?

The MDS is rather distinct from number of other dharma texts in providing a cosmogonic origin mythology at the beginning of the text. There are several cosmogonic concepts seen in the Vedic texts are combined together in the MDS. One of these that can be termed puruSha origin myth appears to be a very primitive one, traceable to the PIE period and is considerable interest in this context. The puruSha origin myth is clearly expounded in the puruSha sUktaM (RV 10.90) that in its core consists of the primal being- puruSha gives rise to social order in the earthly plane and cosmic order on the universal plane. This view is remarkably reflected in MDS.31-32:

laekana< tu ivv&Ï(w¡ muo baøépadt>, äaü[< ]iÇy< vEZy< zuÔ< c inrvtRyt!.

iÖxa k«Tva£AaTmnae dehm! AxeRn pué;ae =-vt!, AxeRn narI tSya< s ivrajm! As&jt! à-u>.

“For the sake of the growth of the peoples he caused the brahmin, the kshatriya, the vaishya and the shudra to emerge from his face, hands, thighs and feet respectively. Dividing his body in half male and half female; through this he generated virAj”.

In the puruSha suktaM we are told that virAj is the primal puruSha (virAjo adhi pUrushaH). Thus the MDS directly reproduces the puruSha mythology expressed in the RV in addition introduces the concept of the virAj emerging from an androgynous twin form (divdhA kR^itva) form the primal being.

This offers a connection with yima-the Iranian counterpart of manu. Yima is derived from the PIE word *yema, meaning twin and is attested in words like Jemini (twin in Greek- via a common y->j transform). Even in the R^igveda, there is a whole hymn where yama is paired with his female twin yamI (RV 10.10). Similarly in Nordic mythology we are told that the primary male- female pair- “realm of frost” (Niflheimr) and “realm of fire” (Muspellheimr) gave rise to the giant primal figure Ymir. Ymir is directly derived from proto-Germanic *Yuminaz and is equivalent to yama or yima. The Roman observer, Tacitus, in his book Germania (chapter 2) describing the mythology of the primitive Germans mentions that the primal twin gave rise to the primal man Mannus (equivalent of manu). Mannus spawned, in turn, the progenitors of the 3 strata of ancient German society- the Ingaevones, Herminones and Istaevones, like the brahmins, kshatriyas and vaishyas. Thus we may conclude that the MDS retains some material from a very ancient stratum of IE existence.

The MDS contains additional cosmogonic material that also have strong parallels in the 10^th maNDala of the R^igveda and are well developed only amidst the Indo-Aryans. The first of these is the concept of the origin of the universe from the hiraNyagarbha (MDS-9).

tda{fm! A-vdœ hEm< shöa<zu sm à-m!, tiSm|! j}e Svy< äüa svRlaekiptamh>.

“The seed became the golden egg that glowed with a thousand rays; in that emerged brahmA, out of whom the whole universe has sprung.” This origin myth is referred to in RV 10.121 (hiraNyagrabha sUktaM). These second is the idea of the manifest universe emerging from an un-manifest form in which matter was unstructured in its entirety (MDS 5-6).

AasIdœ #dm! tmae-utm! Aà}atm! Al][m!, AàtKyRm! Aiv}ey< àsuÝm! #v svRt>.

tt> Svy<-urœ -gvan! AVyae VyÃyiÚdm!, mha-utaid v&Ä Aaeja> àaÊrasIt! tmaenud>.

“This universe existed un-manifest, unperceived, destitute of structure, un-amenable to probing, un-understandable, wholly immersed, in an inactive state. Then the Self-existent, indiscernible, but comprising all this, the fundamental elements of the

discernible universe, appeared with irresistible power, bursting forth from the darkness.” This is reflected in the origin mythology developed in RV 10.129 (nAsadiya sUktaM), one of the most profound mantras in Hindu literature. All these origin mythology hymns appear in the 10^th maNDala of the R^ig veda and appear to be part of one of the youngest layers of the RV saMhita that may be associated with the kuru-pa~nchAla realm. The term puruSha, that was coined in the kuru-pa~nchAla period, bears the same relationship with respect to the word pUru as mAnuSha does to manu. As the king pUru was the founding patriarch of the kuru-pa~nchAla ruling class, it is quite likely, that the renaming of the primordial being as puruSha was a move to ‘nationalize’ the ancient Indo-European origin mythology after their dynastic founder. The emphasis of these specific motifs in the MDS suggests that its precursor from the Indo-Iranian period, probably underwent a formalization in the kuru-pa~nchAla realm where it was expanded to include the prevalent origin mythologies and emerged as the principal corpus of Aryan law. This view is strongly supported by the geographical description given in MDS 2.19-2.23 that clearly views the kuru-pa~nchAla realm as the heartland of the Aryans who had settled in India:

k…é]eÇ< c mTSyaz! c pÂala> zursenka>, @; äüi;Rdezae vE äüavtaRdœ AnNtr>.

@tdœ dezàsutSy skazadœ A¢jNmn>, Sv< Sv< cirÇ< iz]ern! p&iwVya< svRmanva>.

ihmvdœ ivNXyyaerœ mXy< yt! àag! ivnznadip, àTyg! @v àyagac! c mXydez> àkIitRt>.

Aa smuÔat! tu vE puvaRdœ Aa smuÔac! c piímat!, tyaerœ @v£ANtr< igyaeRrœ AayaRvt¡ ivÊrœ buxa>.

k«:[sars! tu crit m&gae yÇ Sv-avt>, s }eyae yi}yae dezae MleCDdezs! Tvt> pr>.

“The realm of the kurus, the matsyas, pa~nchAla, and shurasenakas, indeed form the country of the brahmanical sages, which is next to brahmavarta (the land of brahman or mantras that is said to lie between sarasvati and drishadvati). From the foremost men born in that land, let all men on earth learn their etiquettes. This land, that lies between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas mountains, with prayAga in the East and vinashana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) to the west, is called madhyadesa. But the entire tract between those two mountains (just mentioned), extending as far as the eastern and the western oceans is region of the Aryans. It is that land where the blackbuck naturally roams, a land fit for the performance of sacrifices; the lands beyond these regions are the regions of the mlecchadeshas”.

Specifically the clans of primary protagonists of the pUru epic, the mahAbhArata, the kurus, the yadus, the pa~nchAlas and the matsyas are mentioned as being present in the core Aryan region. However, in the MDS the principle references to kshatriyas, are to those such as sudAs paijavAna, gAthi, nahusha and vena, who were exalted in the vedic texts, and the brAhmaNas that followed them. Similarly, there is reference to bR^ibhu, the paNI chieftain and his patronage of the vedic seer bharadvAja, that is alluded to principally in the R^igveda. The mention of these figures, rather than the mahAbhArata heroes or the IkshvAkus, or the Magadhan rulers, suggests that the basic core of the MDS was laid out just prior to the great bhArata war period.

The descriptions of the Aryan king in the MDS are quite close to the primary Indo-European ruler figure and represents monarchy in a state of anterior to that seen in later Hindu texts like the artha shAstra and the panchatantra. The king in the MDS is repeatedly described as embodying the deities, indra, vAyu, agni, varuNa, yama, kubera, chandra and surya (MDS 5.58, 7.04, 7.07). For example:

#NÔainl ymakaR[am! A¶ez! c vé[Sy c,cNÔ ivÄezyaez! cev maÇa inùRTy zañtI>. (MDS7.04)

“The king is the embodiment of the eternal essences of indra, vAyu (anila), yama, surya (arka), agni, varuNa, chandra and kubera (vittesha).”

In this respect the differs from the later description of the king as an embodiment of viShNu and come closer to the R^igvedic model where great heroes like the IkshvAku monarch, trasadasyu’s regal power is compared to that of indra and varuNa. The R^igveda also emphasizes the nature of agni, varuNa and yama as divine ‘kshatriyas’- their qualities were easily superimposed on the earthly ruler. The king was conceived as an individual concentrating extraordinary qualities: He was supposed to be learned in various texts of statecraft, vedic texts, lore of business and trade and the texts of debating (MDS 7.43). The king is also called upon to maintain humility, despite his absolute power (MDS 7.40-42). He is also asked to abstain from excesses of alcohol, chess, women and hunting and desist from inflict harm on his people (MDS 7.50-51).

The king of the MDS was along with his brahminical elite was principally concerned with legal issues- the brahmins served as interpreters of the law, prosecutors and the like, while the king served as the ultimate judge and law enforcer, as yama and varuNa in the divine sphere. All other aspects of the state were not directly under the king but relegated to a panel of 7-8 sachivas (ministers). These sachivas were supposed to be experts handling of issues like revenues, budgets, mines, store houses and directly report to the king (MDS 7.54). There were two other specialized posts: 1) the dutaH- who handled foreign affairs and espionage and also served as an ambassador and 2) the amAtya- who was in charge of all internal and external security issues (MDS 7.63-68). The king is repeatedly advised to construct fortified strongholds, especially hill forts with ramparts protected by archers and make such structures the seat of his power. This clearly appears to be in line with the old Aryan concept of fort warfare and the titles of victorious Aryan rulers like breaker of hostile forts. In terms of warfare clearly the concept of the vyuha or specific battlefield formations dominates. Many of the vyuhas mentioned in the mahabhArata figure in the MDS (MDS 7. 187-189). The vyuhas are also reminiscent of the battle formations alluded to in the Mongol texts were troops were arrayed in particular configuration to allow certain kinds of maneuvers. The king while always participating in battle left actual military preparations to the senApati (commander-in-chief) and balAdhyakshas (generals). Interestingly the MDS insists that the core force should only be made up of men of kuru, pa~nchAla, matsya or yAdava affiliation- again reinforcing the observation that the MDS is essentially a kuru-pancAla text.

These observations taken together suggest that the brahminical priests produced the text at the behest of their kuru patrons, during the pinnacle of their reign in northern India (circa 1500-1400 BC). The first round of redactions probably occurred very shortly thereafter, during the period of peace and prosperity in the reign of the kuru-pa~nchAla monarchs parIkshita and janamejaya (~1300 BC). This period saw a large-scale systematization of a variety of circum-vedic texts and it is very likely that basic form of the MDS we inherit today was laid out in this phase. Thus, the MDS being one of the principal dharma texts of the smArtas, is not surprising given the central role of the kuru-pa~nchAla empire’s in the emergence of Indian national consciousness.

The presence of atomic thought in the manu-smR^iti

One of the most profound philosophical achievements of the ancient Hindus was the development of the vaisheShika darshaNa or the theory of the particulate structure of all matter. While the principle text of the vaisheShikas is kaNAda’s work, there is clear evidence that the philosophy had a more ancient root in the speculative hymns of the vedic saMhitas (for example Atharva Veda [shaunaka shAkha] 12.1.26, and RV 10.72.6). It is interesting to note that along with the other vedic philosophical and origin-mythological constructs the MDS also presents a scheme for the particular construction of matter (MDS1.15-20):

mhaNtm! @v caTman< svaRi[ iÇgu[ain c, iv;ya[a< ¢hIt&i[ znE> pÂ #iNÔyai[ c.

te;a< Tvvyvan! suúman! ;{[am! APyimt Aaejsam!, s<inveZy£AaTmmaÇasu svR-utain inmRme.

yn! muitR=vyva> suúmas! tanImaNyaïyiNt ;qœ, tSmat! zrIrm! #Ty! Aa÷s! tSy muit¡ mnIi;[>.

tdaivziNt -utain mhaiNt sh kmRi->, mní£AvyvE> suuúmE> svR-utk«dœ AVyym!.

te;am! #d< tu sÝana< pué;a[a< mha Aaejsam!, suúma_yae muitRmaÇa_y> s<-vTyVyyadœ Vyym!.

Aa*a*Sy gu[< Tve;am! Avaßaeit pr> pr>, yae yae yavitwí£@;a< s s tavdœ gu[> Sm&t>.

“The great one was the only existing entity, bearing the three gunas, that enable the five organs, in their order, to perceive existence. This entity differentiated into 6 types of minute particles, which possess properties without exception, and combined with minute particles of that original entity, gave rise to the elements of all existence. The enlightened ones know the body of the primal entity that constitutes all existence as being framed by those six types of minute particles. Comprised of these basic indestructible particles, the particles of the primary elements, that constitute existence, combine together with their forces and properties. The minute particles of the primary elements, seven in number, known as the purushas of great potential, give rise to various impermanent combinations that comprise the universe, while being indestructible themselves. The properties of the original particles in a combination, and the way in which they combined, influence the properties of the emergent particles.”

While this atomic origin mythology of the MDS may not reach the level of the well argued physical and chemical theories of matter presented in the sutras of kaNada the kAshyapa or the discourses of pa~nchashika the A~Ngirasa and sulabhA the vasiShTha, it does present some basic features of Hindu atomic thought. Importantly, it recognizes the presence of a unified origin of all existence with the structural lay out of the universe attributable to a small set of minute fundamental particles. Further, it recognizes that these particles combine to give rise to the changing universe while remaining more permanent themselves. It also presents the concept of a hierarchy of combination of the basic particles, with the current combination being influenced by the constituent ones. The occurrence of the atomistic doctrine with the other more macro-scale origin mythologies in the MDS suggests, that this was one of the streams of origin mythology that developed along with the others in the kuru-pa~nchala realm. Such concepts appear to have been the seeds of the vaisheShika philosophy, that developed parallel to old vedAnta and sAmkhya, which emerged from a different set of seed ideas in the same milieu.

Relationships between life forms and associated dietary taboos

The MDS, like most other Indo-Aryan cosmogonies envisages all living organisms as emerging from a common ancestor, the prajApati, through several cycles of vertical descent. The MDS notices some kind of hierarchy within which these organisms with a clear suggestion of the division of life into several classes, each containing related life forms (MDS 42-49):

ye;a< tu ya†;< kmR -utanam! #h kIitRtm!, tÄwa vae =i-xaSyaim ³myaeg< c jNmin.

pzvz! c m&gaíev Vyalaíae-ytaedt>, r]a<is c ipzacaí mnu:yaí jrayuja>.

A{faja> pi][> spaR n³a mTSyaz! c kCDpa>, yain c£@v< àkarai[ SwljaNy! AaEdkain c.

Svedj< d<z mzk< yuka mi]k mTk…[m!, %:m[z! caepjayNte yc! caNyt! ik< icdI†;m!.

%iÑ¾a> Swavra> sveR bIj ka{fàraeih[>, Aae;Xy> )lpakaNta b÷ pu:p )laepga>.

Apu:pa> )lvNtae ye te vnSpty> Sm&ta>, pui:p[> )ilníev v&]as! tu£%-yt> Sm&ta>.

guCD guLm< tu ivivx< twa£@v t&[jaty>, bIj ka{féha{y! @v àtana vLLy @v c.

tmsa b÷ épe[ veiòta> kmRhetuna, ANt> s<}a -vNTy! @te suo Ê>o smiNvta>.

“I shall describe the classes of creatures in the descending order of their genesis. Cattle, deer, carnivorous beasts with two sets of canines, rakshasas (!), pishachas, and men are one group born alive from wombs. Birds, snakes, crocodiles and tortoises form another group and born from eggs, just like the aquatic animals. Beetles, mosquitoes, lice, flies, bugs, and all their like are one group born from droplets in hot moist places. Diverse small plants, propagated by seed or by slips and shoots, annual plants, which bear many flowers and fruits, and perish after the ripening of their fruits, are the next group. Those trees, which bear fruit without visible flowers are called vanaspati, and those, which bear both flowers and fruit are called vriksha are the next group of plants (All dicots?). Then there are the various plants with many stalks, growing from one or several roots, the different kinds of grasses, the climbing plants and the creepers spring all from seed or from slips. Then there are the organisms (Fungi?), which possess multiform dark appendages; all these as a result of their life forces, possess internal consciousness and experience sensations.”

An important aspect of the MDS is the acceptance of a commonality between diverse life forms animals, plants and others alike. Secondly it recognizes a basic similarity in their ability to response to experience various sensations. This unity of all life forms as expounded by the MDS makes itself visible in the taboos regarding meat-eating and expiation of sins for destruction of life forms. Explicitly, the killing of an animal by a brahmin solely for the purpose of eating meat is strongly banned by the MDS and violent death is said to be the divine retribution for such acts (MDS 5.37-38). Meat from a slaughterhouse, meat of birds, pigs, garlic, onion and leeks are completely banned for a brahmin (MDS 5.11, 5.12, 5.19). However, the brahmin may eat the meat of certain animal offered to the gods in sacrifices and whose meat is consecrated in the rites. These include the fishes like pathina, rohita, mammals like cows, horses, rhinos, porcupines, anteaters and hare, and others like monitors and tortoises. The MDS adds in a somewhat emphatically that the eating of meat according to the above prescriptions, drinking of alcoholic beverages and enjoyment of sexual pleasures are not sins. However, it adds the caveat that abstention from excess brings great rewards nevertheless (MDS 5. 56). Thus in the MDS we see an entirely different setup from what we may observe with the more recent Hindus.