{"id":2068,"date":"2023-12-15T21:41:55","date_gmt":"2023-12-15T21:41:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=2068"},"modified":"2024-01-30T22:19:41","modified_gmt":"2024-01-30T22:19:41","slug":"root-race-reference-in-bhagavad-gita","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/root-race-reference-in-bhagavad-gita\/","title":{"rendered":"Root-race Reference in Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em>, chapter 10, verse 6, referring to four preceding manus, was quoted in The Secret Doctrine<\/em> (vol. 2, p. 140) in support of the Theosophical teaching of four preceding root-races. Since a manu is regarded as the progenitor of the humanity of its time period or manvantara, there is no difficulty in equating a manu with a root-race. The question is why the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> referred to the manus as four. This fits nicely with the Theosophical teaching, but not with the standard Hindu teaching. Indeed, because the standard Hindu teaching says that we are now in the seventh manvantara under the seventh manu, various Sanskrit commentators understood this line of the verse in varying ways. The Sanskrit line is ambiguous, allowing various interpretations. Does it really refer to the four preceding manus, thus supporting the Theosophical teaching of the four preceding root-races?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The translation of this verse quoted in The Secret Doctrine<\/em> is that by T. Subba Row, from in his lecture on the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> given in December, 1886, and published in The Theosophist<\/em> for April, 1887. Krishna is the speaker of this verse. It was there (vol. 8, p. 444) printed as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe seven great Rishis, the four preceding Manus, partaking of my nature, were born from my mind : from them sprang was (born) the human race and the world.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was slightly modified when H. P. Blavatsky quoted it in The Secret Doctrine<\/em> (vol. 2, p. 140), legitimately making the singular \u201chuman race\u201d into the plural \u201chuman races,\u201d since the Sanskrit phrase, im\u0101\u1e25 praj\u0101\u1e25, is plural:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Seven great Rishis, the four preceding Manus<\/em>, partaking of my essence, were born from my mind : from them sprung (were born) the human races and the world.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At that time there were very few translations of the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> available, the most prominent being the one by K\u0101shin\u0101th Trimbak Telang in the Sacred Books of the East Series, volume 8, 1882. Telang\u2019s translation, pp. 86-87, similarly has \u201cthe four ancient Manus\u201d for the words in question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe seven great sages, and likewise the four ancient Manus, whose descendants are (all) these people of the world, were all born from my mind, partaking of my powers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, he adds a footnote to \u201cthe four ancient Manus\u201d: \u201cThe words are also otherwise construed, \u2018The four ancients (Sanaka, Sanandana, San\u0101tana, Sanatkum\u0101ra) and the Manus.\u2019 According to later mythology the Manus are fourteen.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is, some commentators separate the \u201cfour ancients\u201d from the manus, regarding the four ancients as the four kum\u0101ras (Sanaka, etc.), and the manus as a third group referred to in this line of the verse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subba Row was aware of this other interpretation, and he rejected it because of the well-known Hindu tradition that the kum\u0101ras refused to create, and thus humanity could not have sprung into existence from them. A long footnote quoting Subba Row\u2019s comments on this verse is given in The Secret Doctrine<\/em>. Immediately after this verse is quoted there in the main text, Blavatsky wrote: \u201cHere the four preceding \u2018Manus,\u2019 out of the seven, are the four Races\u2020 which have already lived, since Krishna belongs to the Fifth Race, his death having inaugurated the Kali Yuga.\u201d The footnote goes with \u201cthe four Races\u201d (vol. 2, p. 140) [I have added the words in brackets]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2020 This is corroborated by a learned Brahmin. In his most excellent lectures on the Bhagavad G\u00eet\u00e2 (see <\/em>\u201cTheosophist<\/em>,\u201d April<\/em>, 1887, p. <\/em>444) the lecturer says: \u201cThere is a peculiarity to which I must call your attention. He (Krishna) speaks here of four Manus. Why does he speak of four? We are now in the seventh Manvantara, that of Vaivasvata. If he is speaking of the past Manus, he ought to speak of six, but he only mentions four. In some commentaries an attempt has been made to interpret this in a peculiar manner. The word \u2018Chatvaraha\u2019 [catv\u0101ra\u1e25, \u201cfour\u201d] is separated from the word \u2018Manavaha,\u2019 [manava\u1e25, manus] and is made to refer to Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatkum\u00e2ra, and Sanatsujata, who are also included among the mind-born sons of Praj\u00e2pati. But this interpretation will lead to a most absurd conclusion, and make the sentence contradict itself. The persons alluded to in the text have a qualifying clause in the sentence. It is well known that Sanaka and the other three refused to create, though the other sons had consented to do so; therefore, in speaking of those persons from whom humanity has sprung into existence, it would be absurd to include those four also in the list. The passage must be interpreted without splitting the compound into two nouns. The number of Manus will then be four, and the statement would then contradict the Pur\u00e2nic account, though it would be in harmony with the occult theory. You will recollect that it is stated (in Occultism) that we are now in the Fifth Root-Race. Each Root-Race is considered as the Santhathi<\/em> [sa\u1e43tati, \u201crace, progeny\u201d] of a particular Manu. Now, the Fourth Race has passed, or, in other words, there have been four past Manus. . . . .\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Subba Row says here about the meaning makes sense, and would well explain the unusual reference to four preceding manus, but the Sanskrit is not unambiguous. His statement saying that \u201cThe passage must be interpreted without splitting the compound into two nouns\u201d is grammatically incorrect. The two words are not in a compound; they are individually declined: catv\u0101ro manavas. I have checked the text of the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> as found in the critical edition of the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata<\/em> published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, and no variant reading is reported giving these two words in a compound. Since the words in this line of the verse are in the same nominative case, the same plural number, and the same masculine gender, any of them can be taken with any of them. The various Sanskrit commentators were fully aware of this, and they did so. The words of this line of the verse are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

mahar\u1e63aya\u1e25 sapta p\u016brve catv\u0101ro manavas tath\u0101, meaning the great rishis (mahar\u1e63aya\u1e25) seven (sapta) preceding or ancient (p\u016brve) four (catv\u0101ro) manus (manavas) also (tath\u0101).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cfour\u201d (catv\u0101ro) is in grammatical agreement with \u201cpreceding or ancient\u201d (p\u016brve) and with \u201cmanus\u201d (manavas). This allows the possibility of taking this phrase either as \u201cthe four preceding manus,\u201d or as \u201cthe four ancients and also the manus.\u201d Thus there could be two groups spoken of here in this line: the rishis and the manus; or there could be three groups spoken of here: the rishis, the ancients, and the manus. So how do we know what is meant?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For grammatically ambiguous passages such as this one, which are frequent in Sanskrit, the only available recourse we have is to commentaries. The older the commentary, the closer to the original in time, the more likely it is to represent the author\u2019s intended meaning. However, the ancient commentaries on the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> are lost. The oldest available commentary is that by \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya, perhaps a millennium or more after the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> was written. He sees two groups here: the seven rishis and the four manus. He glosses the word p\u016brve, \u201cpreceding or ancient,\u201d simply as \u201cbelonging to past time,\u201d at\u012bta-k\u0101la-sa\u1e43bandhina\u1e25, without specifying whether it goes with the seven rishis or the four manus. Commentaries, too, can be ambiguous. \u015aa\u1e45kara glosses the four manus as s\u0101var\u1e47\u0101 iti prasiddh\u0101\u1e25, \u201cknown as the s\u0101var\u1e47as.\u201d The next oldest available commentary is that by R\u0101m\u0101nuja. He, too, sees two groups here: the seven rishis and the four manus. Like \u015aa\u1e45kara, he glosses the four manus as the s\u0101var\u1e47as: s\u0101var\u1e47ik\u0101 n\u0101ma catv\u0101ro manava\u1e25. So who are the s\u0101var\u1e47as?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As is well known, fourteen manus are posited by Hinduism. These are, from earliest to latest: 1. Sv\u0101yambhuva; 2. Sv\u0101roci\u1e63a; 3. Uttama or Auttami; 4. T\u0101masa; 5. Raivata; 6. C\u0101k\u1e63u\u1e63a; 7. Vaivasvata; 8. S\u0101var\u1e47i or S\u0101var\u1e47o; 9. Dak\u1e63a-s\u0101var\u1e47i\/o; 10. Brahma-s\u0101var\u1e47i\/o; 11. Dharma-s\u0101var\u1e47i\/o; 12. Rudra-s\u0101var\u1e47i\/o; 13. Raucya or Raucyadeva-s\u0101var\u1e47i\/o; 14. Bhautya or Indra-s\u0101var\u1e47i\/o. We are currently in the seventh manvantara, or time period of the seventh manu, Vaivasvata. As can be seen, the s\u0101var\u1e47as are the future manus, S\u0101var\u1e47i\/o, etc. Indeed, R\u0101m\u0101nuja\u2019s sub-commentator Ved\u0101nta De\u015bika provides the names of the four s\u0101var\u1e47ikas: brahmas\u0101var\u1e47o rudras\u0101var\u1e47o dharmas\u0101var\u1e47o dak\u1e63as\u0101var\u1e47a\u1e25. This raises a problem. How can future manus be the progenitors from whom all the people of the world (loka im\u0101\u1e25 praj\u0101\u1e25) have come, as the second half of the verse says?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third oldest available commentary is that by Madhva. He, too, sees two groups here: the seven rishis and the four manus. But for him the four manus cannot be the s\u0101var\u1e47as, and must be the first four manus, Sv\u0101yambhuva, etc.: catv\u0101ra\u1e25 pratham\u0101\u1e25 sv\u0101yambhuv\u0101dy\u0101\u1e25. Madhva\u2019s sub-commentator Jayat\u012brtha provides the names of these four manus: Sv\u0101yambhuva, Sv\u0101roci\u1e63a, Raivata, and Uttama (sv\u0101yambhuva-sv\u0101roci\u1e63a-raivatottam\u0101\u1e25). The later commentators \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101nanda and R\u0101ghavendra agree, \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101nanda saying the same as Madhva: sv\u0101yambhuv\u0101daya\u015b catv\u0101ro manava\u015b ca, and R\u0101ghavendra like Jayat\u012brtha adding the names of the four manus: Sv\u0101yambhuva, Sv\u0101roci\u1e63a, Raivata, and Uttama (catv\u0101ra\u1e25 sv\u0101yambhuva-sv\u0101roci\u1e63a-raivatottam\u0101khy\u0101\u1e25 manava\u1e25). This interpretation, of course, leaves unanswered the question of why the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> refers to only four preceding manus rather than six manus preceding the seventh manvantara that we are now living in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other later commentators avoided this problem by seeing three groups here: the seven rishis, the four ancients, and the manus. Thus, \u015ar\u012bdhara Sv\u0101mi (catv\u0101ro mah\u0101r\u1e63aya\u1e25 sanak\u0101daya\u1e25), Upani\u1e63ad Brahma Yogin (p\u016brve sanak\u0101dayo \u2019nye catv\u0101ra\u1e25), Ke\u015bava K\u0101\u015bm\u012bri Bha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u0101c\u0101rya (catv\u0101ro mah\u0101r\u1e63aya\u1e25 sanak\u0101daya\u1e25), Sad\u0101nanda (sanak\u0101daya\u1e25), and Daivaj\u00f1a Pa\u1e47\u1e0dita S\u016brya (catv\u0101ra\u1e25 sanak\u0101dayas) all agree on seeing the four ancients as the four kum\u0101ras beginning with Sanaka, a separate group distinct from the manus. This, however, brings in its own problem, as pointed out by Subba Row: The kum\u0101ras are eternal youths, celibates, who did not create progeny; hence they could not be the progenitors from whom all the people of the world have come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few of the later commentators, i.e., Madhus\u016bdana and Dhanapati-s\u016bri, allowed both options, but this is of little help to us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This verse 10.6 of the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em>, then, with its various differing interpretations, does not provide unambiguous support for the Theosophical teaching of four preceding root-races. The interpretation of this verse as referring to the four preceding manus is just one of three interpretations found in the commentaries that are now available. The reference to four rather than six preceding manus is indeed anomalous in Hindu tradition, and some explanation of this phrase is needed. So readers must decide what they think makes more sense: (1) four future manus, (2) four preceding manus, or (3) the four ancient kum\u0101ras along with the manus whose number is unspecified. The language of this unusual reference in the Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101<\/em> may be most simply understood as the four preceding manus. As for why four instead of six preceding manus, the Theosophical teaching of the four preceding root-races provides an answer, while the available commentaries leave this question unanswered. So this verse may support the Theosophical teaching of the root-races inferentially, but it does not do so in a clear and unambiguous manner.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101, chapter 10, verse 6, referring to four preceding manus, was quoted in The Secret Doctrine (vol. 2, p. 140) in support of the Theosophical teaching of four preceding root-races. Since a manu is regarded as the progenitor of the humanity of its time period or manvantara, there is no difficulty in equating a manu […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,38],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anthropogenesis","category-occult-chronology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2068"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2069,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068\/revisions\/2069"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}