Nand. and, to judge from the fragments of his commentary, Nâr. also give a far different explanation. According to them the first created Manas is another name for the principle usually called Mahat. In proof of this assertion Nand. adduces a passage from a Purâna, which Medh. quotes on verse 74, where Manas is given as a synonym of Mahat (see also Cowell, Sarvadarsana-samgraha, p. 222, note 1). They farther take mahântam âtmânam, 'the great one, the soul,' to denote the Manas or internal organ ([mahântam] ka mano nâma tattvam âtmânam âtmano givasyâvakkhedakatvâd vyapadesah, Râgh.). By the expression sarvâni trigunâni Nand. seems to understand the subtile elements (tanmâtra), and he too believes that the particle ka at the end of verse 15 b shows that the organs of action have to be understood. The object of the two verses is, according to Nand., not to give an account of the actual order of creation, but to show that the material cause of all created beings consists of portions of the creator's body, of the Mahat, Ahamkâra, the Manas, the Tanmâtras, and the organs of sensation and action which belong to him; (anena slokadvayenaitad uktam bhavati | âtmîyânâm mahadahamkâramanastanmâtragñânakarmendriyânâm amsâh sarvabhûtopâdânam iti ||) It would seem that Nand. and Nâr.'s view, as regards the explanation of Manas (verse 14), is correct, but it may be doubted whether, with respect to the terms in verse 15, mahân âtmâ and sarvâni trigunâni, they have been equally lucky. The explanation of the first four commentators seems altogether inadmissible. In conclusion, it may be stated that Nand. gives also the most acceptable explanation of the epithet of the Manas, sadasadâtmakam, which, he says, means 'partaking of the nature of an evolvent and of an evolute' (prakritivikrityâtmakam), and of îsavaram, 'lordly,' 'which causes all actions to be done' (sarvakarmapravartakam).
