51:5 Brahmá, after detaching from himself the property of anger, in the form of Rudra, converted himself into two persons, the first male, or the Manu Swáyambhuva, and the first woman, or Śatarúpá: so in the Vedas; 'So himself was indeed (his) son.' The commencement of production through sexual agency is here described with sufficient distinctness, but the subject has been rendered p. 52 obscure by a more complicated succession of agents, and especially by the introduction of a person of a mythic or mystical character, Viráj. The notion is thus expressed in Manu: "Having divided his own substance, the mighty power Brahmá became half male and half female; and from that female he produced Viráj. Know me to be that person whom the male Viráj produced by himself." I. 32, 33. We have therefore a series of Brahmá, Viráj, and Manu, instead of Brahmá and Manu only: also the generation of progeny by Brahmá, begotten on Satarúpá, instead of her being, as in our text, the wife of Manu. The idea seems to have originated with the Vedas, as Kullúka Bhat́t́a quotes a text; 'Then (or thence) Virát was born.' The procreation of progeny by Brahmá, however, is at variance with the whole system, which almost invariably refers his creation to the operation of his will: and the expression in Manu, 'he created Viráj in her,' does not necessarily imply sexual intercourse. Viráj also creates, not begets, Manu. And in neither instance does the name of Śatarúpá occur. The commentator on Manu, however, understands the expression asrijat to imply the procreation of Viráj; and the same interpretation is given by the Matsya Puráńa, in which the incestuous passion of Brahmá for Śatarúpa, his daughter in one sense, his sister in another, is described; and by her he begets Viráj, who there is called, not the progenitor of Manu, but Manu himself. This therefore agrees with our text, as far as it makes Manu the son of Brahmá, though not as to the nature of the connexion. The reading of the Agni and Padma P. is that of the Vishńu; and the Bhágavata agrees with it in one place, stating distinctly that the male half of Brahmá, was Manu, the other half, Śatarúpá: ### Bhágav. III. 12. 35: and although the production of Viráj is elsewhere described, it is neither as the son of Brahmá, nor the father of Manu. The original and simple idea, therefore, appears to be, the identity of Manu with the male half of Brahmá, and his being thence regarded as his son. The Kúrma P. gives the same account as Manu, and in the same words. The Linga P. and Váyu P. describe the origin of Viráj and Śatarúpá from Brahmá; and they intimate the union of Śatarúpá with Purusha or Viráj, the male portion of Brahmá, in the first instance; and in the second, with Manu, who is termed Vairája, or the son of Viráj. The Bráhma P., the words of which are repeated in the Hari Vanśa, introduces a new element of perplexity in a new name, that of Ápava. According to the commentator, this is a name of the Prajápati Vaśisht́ha. As, however, he performs the office of Brahmá, he should be regarded as that divinity: but this is not exactly the case, although it has been so rendered by the French translator. Ápava becomes twofold, and in the capacity of his male half begets offspring by the female. Again, it is said Vishńu created p. 53 Viráj, and Viráj created the male, which is Vairája or Manu; who was thus the second interval (Antaram), or stage, in creation. That is, according to the commentator, the first stage was the creation of Ápava, or Vaśisht́ha, or Viráj, by Vishńu, through the agency of Hiranyagarbha or Brahmá; and the next was that of the creation of Manu by Viráj. Śatarúpá appears as first the bride of Ápava, and then as the wife of Manu. This account therefore, although obscurely expressed, appears to be essentially the same with that of Manu; and we have Brahmá, Viráj, Manu, instead of Brahmá and Manu. It seems probable that this difference, and the part assigned to Viráj, has originated in some measure from confounding Brahmá with the male half of his individuality, and considering as two beings that which was but one. If the Purusha or Viráj be distinct from Brahmá, what becomes of Brahmá? The entire whole and its two halves cannot coexist; although some of the Pauráńics and the author of Manu seem to have imagined its possibility, by making Viráj the son of Brahmá. The perplexity, however, is still more ascribable to the personification of that which was only an allegory. The division of Brahmá into two halves designates, as is very evident from the passage in the Vedas given by Mr. Colebrooke, (As. R. VIII. 425,) the distinction of corporeal substance into two sexes; Viráj being all male animals, Śatarúpá all female animals. So the commentator on the Hari Vanśa explains the former to denote the horse, the bull, &c.; and the latter, the mare, the cow, and the like. In the Bhágavata the term Viráj implies, Body, collectively, as the commentator observes; 'As the sun illuminates his own inner sphere, as well as the exterior regions, so soul, shining in body (Virája), irradiates all without and within.' All therefore that the birth of Viráj was intended to express, was the creation of living body, of creatures of both sexes: and as in consequence man was produced, he might be said to be the son of Viráj, or bodily existence. Again, Śatarúpá, the bride of Brahmá, or of Viráj, or of Manu, is nothing more than beings of varied or manifold forms, from Sata, 'a hundred,' and 'form;' explained by the annotator on the Hari Vanśa by Anantarúpá, 'of infinite,' and Vividharúpá, 'of diversified shape;' being, as he states, the same as Máyá, 'illusion,' or the power of multiform metamorphosis. The Matsya P. has a little allegory of its own, on the subject of Brahmá's intercourse with Śatarúpá; for it explains the former to mean the Vedas, and the latter the Savitrí, or holy prayer, which is their chief text; and in their cohabitation there is therefore no evil.