Manu
Manu is the title designating the archetypal first man and progenitor of humanity in Hindu cosmology, with fourteen such figures successively presiding over eras called Manvantaras within each cosmic cycle or Kalpa.[1] The term originates in Vedic texts, where Manu appears as the foundational ancestor of mankind, as in the Rig Veda's assertion that all humans descend from him.[2] The seventh and current Manu, Vaivasvata (also called Sraddhadeva), son of the solar deity Vivasvan, features prominently in the deluge narrative preserved in the Shatapatha Brahmana, where a tiny fish—later revealed as an incarnation of Vishnu—grows to immense size, warns him of an impending flood that annihilates creation, and instructs him to build a boat to carry the seeds of life, his family, and the seven sages, ensuring humanity's repopulation through sacrificial rites post-deluge.[3] This flood account, echoed and elaborated in Puranic literature, underscores Manu's role as preserver amid cyclic destruction and renewal, a motif central to Hindu views of time as vast, repetitive epochs governed by dharma. Manu also embodies the lawgiver archetype, with the Manusmriti (Laws of Manu)—a Dharma-shastra text dated to approximately the 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE—framed as his discourses on cosmology, ethics, social duties, and varna (class) obligations, influencing ancient Indian jurisprudence despite debates over its practical enforcement and later interpolations.[4] While revered in tradition for codifying order from primordial chaos, the Manusmriti has drawn scrutiny for prescriptions reinforcing hierarchical structures, reflecting the societal norms of its composition era rather than universal mandates, with historical analysis questioning uniform adherence across regions.[4]Mythology and Etymology
Proto-Indo-European *Manu
In Proto-Indo-European mythology, *Manu (meaning "man") and his twin brother *Yemo (meaning "twin") are reconstructed as primordial progenitors who traverse the cosmos, initiating creation through a foundational sacrifice. *Manu, acting as the first priest, slays and dismembers *Yemo, transforming his brother's body into the structured elements of the world, thereby establishing cosmic order and the origins of sacrifice itself. This act symbolizes the transition from formless potentiality to differentiated reality, with *Yemo becoming the archetypal sovereign and ruler of the dead. The sacrifice yields a tripartite cosmology: *Yemo's skull forms the sky, his body the earth, and his feet the underworld, reflecting a vertical division of the universe into sovereign, terrestrial, and chthonic realms. From specific body parts emerge social institutions, such as priests from the head, warriors from the shoulders and chest, and commoners or producers from the lower extremities, prefiguring Indo-European class structures without implying rigid hierarchy in the primordial myth. This reconstruction draws on linguistic and thematic parallels, emphasizing *Manu's role in enacting ritual to generate order rather than mere destruction. Comparative evidence supports this across branches: in Germanic tradition, Mannus—son of the twin-born Tuisto—serves as ancestral founder of tribes, echoing *Manu's generative function as recorded by Tacitus around 98 CE.[5] In Indo-Iranian lore, Yama derives from *Yemo as the first mortal and lord of the afterlife, with etymological ties to "twin" underscoring the fraternal bond and sacrificial motif.[6] These cognates, analyzed through shared vocabulary and narrative structure, validate the myth's antiquity predating branch divergences circa 4000–2500 BCE, though direct attestation remains absent due to the oral-preliterate nature of Proto-Indo-European culture.Cognates and Linguistic Roots
The Proto-Indo-European root reconstructed as *man- or *mon-, denoting "man" or "human being," underlies the Sanskrit term manu, referring to a person or mankind, with cognates distributed across several Indo-European branches reflecting a shared conceptualization of humanity as mortal agents. This root manifests in Indo-Iranian languages, such as Avestan manu ("man"), and extends to Germanic forms like Proto-Germanic mannaz, which evolved into Old Norse maðr ("man") and Modern English "man," originally encompassing any human irrespective of sex before semantic narrowing in some descendants.[7][8] In Balto-Slavic languages, reflexes include Proto-Slavic mǫžь ("man, male"), as seen in Old Church Slavonic equivalents, indicating persistence of the root in denoting male humans or persons with agency in social contexts. These cognates demonstrate phonetic and semantic consistency—typically involving nasal consonants and vowel gradation—without reliance on unattested intermediary forms, supporting a unitary PIE origin tied to empirical human attributes like cognition or vulnerability rather than abstract divinity. The absence of direct reflexes in Anatolian or Tocharian branches highlights the root's concentration in core Indo-European vocabularies for personhood.[7][8]| Branch/Language | Cognate Form | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit) | manu | man, mankind[8] |
| Indo-Iranian (Avestan) | manu | man[8] |
| Germanic (Proto-Germanic) | *mannaz | human being, person[7] |
| Germanic (Old Norse) | maðr | man[7] |
| Balto-Slavic (Proto-Slavic) | *mǫžь | man, male[8] |