Davids’ note on that passage in his Buddhism, p. 131.
2 P. 8g infra. * Essays on Sanskrit Literature, vol. iii, p. 150.
* See our remarks on this point in the Introductory Essay to our Gita in verse, p. ii seq.
* Introduction to Gita in English verse, p. v seq.
p. 25
the ground occupied by the Gita is common to it with Beddhism, and although various previous thinkers are alluded to directly or indirectly in the Gita. There is, however, one view of the facts of this question, which appears to me to corroborate the conclusion deducible by means of the negative argument here referred to. The main points on which Buddha’s protest against Brahmanism fests, seem to be the true authority of the Vedas and the true view of the differences of caste. On most points of doctrinal speculation, Buddhism is still but one aspect of the older Brahmanism'. The various coincidences to which we have drawn attention show that, if there is need to show it. Well now, on both these points, the Gita, while it does not go the whole length which Buddha goes, itself embodies | protest against the views current about the time of its composition. The GitA does not, like Buddhism, absolutely reject the Vedas, but it shelves them. The Gita does not totally root out caste. It places caste on a less untenable basis. One of two hypotheses therefore presents itself as a rational theory of these facts. Either the Gita and Buddhism were alike the outward manifestation of one and the same spiritual upheaval which shook to its centre the current religion, the Gita being the earlier and less thorough-going form of it; or Buddhism having already begun to tell on Brahmanism, the Gita was an attempt to bolster it up, so to say, at its least weak points, the weaker ones being altogether abandoned. I do not accept the latter alternative, because I cannot see any indication in the Gita of an attempt to compromise with a powerful attack on the old Hindu system; while the fact that, though strictly orthodox, the author of the Gita still undermines the authority, as unwisely venerated, of the Vedic revelation ; and the further fact, that in doing this, he is doing what others also had done before him or about his time; go, in my opinion, a considerable way towards
*C£ Max Miiller’s Hibbert Lectures, p. 137; Weber's Indian Literatare, pp. 388, 289; and Mr. Rhys Davids’ excelleut little volume on Buddhism, p 151; and sce also p. 83 of Mr. Davids’ book.
p. 26
137; Weber's Indian Literatare, pp. 388, 289; and Mr. Rhys Davids’ excelleut little volume on Buddhism, p 151; and sce also p. 83 of Mr. Davids’ book.
p. 26
fortifying the results of the negative argument already sct forth. To me Buddhism is perfectly intelligible as one outcome of that play of thought on high spiritual topics, which in its other, and as we may say, less thorough-going manifestations, we see in the Upanishads and the Gita’. ‘But assume that Buddhism was a protest against Brahmanism prior to its purification and elevation by the theosophy of the Upanishads, and those remarkable '‘ productions of ancient Indian thought become difficult to account for. Let us compare our small modern events with those grand old occurrences. Suppose our ancestors to have been attached to the ceremonial law of the Vedas, as we are now attached to a lifeless ritualism, the Upanishads and the Gita might be, in a way, comparable to movements like that of the late Raja Rammohun Roy. Standing, as far as possible, on the antique ways, they attempt, as Raja Rammohun attempted in these latter days, to bring into prominence and to elaborate the higher and nobler aspects of the old beliefs. Buddhism would be comparable to the further departure from old traditions which was led by Babu Keshub Chander Sen. The points of dissent in the olden times were pretty nearly the same as the points of dissent now. The ultimate motive power also was in both cases identical—a sense of dissatisfaction in its integrity with what had come down from old times encrusted with the corruptions of years. In this view the old system, the philosophy of the Upanishads and the Gita, and the philosophy of Buddha, constitute a regular intelligible progression. But suppose the turn events took was different, as is supposed by the alternative theory indicated above. Suppose Babu Keshub’s movement was chronologically prior, and had begun to tell on orthodox socicty. Is it likely, that then one of the orthodox party
' Cf. Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 285. In Mr. Davids’ Buddhism, P. 94, we have a noteworthy extract from a standard Buddhistic work, touching the existence of the soul, Compare that with the corresponding doctrine in the Gita, It will be found that the two are at one in rejecting the identity of the soul with the senses &c. The Gita then goes on to admit a soul separate from these. Buddhism rejects that also, and sces nothing but the senses.
p. 27
would take up the position which Rammohun Roy took? Would he still rely on old authorities, but with sundry qualifications, and yet earnestly assail the current forms of orthodoxy? I do not think so. I think the true view to be, as already stated, very different. The Upanishads, with the Gita, and the precepts of Buddha appear to me to be the successive ' embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age, as it became more and more dissatisfied with the system of mere ceremonial then dominant.
I think the true view to be, as already stated, very different. The Upanishads, with the Gita, and the precepts of Buddha appear to me to be the successive ' embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age, as it became more and more dissatisfied with the system of mere ceremonial then dominant.
There are several other points of much interest in the Bhagavadgita, such as the reference to the Sankhya and Yoga; the place assigned to the Margasirsha month; the allusion to the doctrines of materialism ; the nearly entire coincidence between a stanza of the Gita and one in the Manu Smriti. But in the present state of our knowledge, I do not think that we can extract any historical results from any of them. Without dwelling on them any further’, ; therefore, I will only state it as my opinion, that the Sankhya and Yoga of the Gita are not identical with the systems known to us under those names, and that the Manu Smriti has probably borrowed from the Gita the stanza common to the two works. '
We now proceed to a discussion of some of the external evidence touching the age of the Bhagavadgita. It is, of course, unnecessary to consider any evidence of a date later than the eighth century A.C., that being the date generally received, though not on very strong grounds, as the date of Sahkarakarya, the celebrated commentator of the Gita?. For the period prior to that limit, the first testimony to consider is that of Basxabha/fa, the author of the Kadambari. The date of Bawa is now fairly well settled as the
* The word Brahma-nirvina, which occurs so often at the close of chapter V snd also at chapter II, 72, seems to me to indicate that nirvisa had not yet becume technically pinned down, so to say, to the meaning which Buddhism suberquently gave to it, as the name of what it deemed the sammum bonum. Nuvisa by itself occurs at VI, 15.
* See some farther remarks on these points in my Introduction to the Gité m verte.
® Profewor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 140) says Sahkara was born to 788 A.D.; on the authority, I presume, of the widyfsudhikara, p. 226,
p. 28
Nuvisa by itself occurs at VI, 15.
* See some farther remarks on these points in my Introduction to the Gité m verte.
® Profewor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 140) says Sahkara was born to 788 A.D.; on the authority, I presume, of the widyfsudhikara, p. 226,p. 28 middle of the seventh century A.c. The doubt which the late Dr. Bhau Daji had cast upon its correctness’, by impugning the received date of king Harshavardhana, appears to me to have been satisfactorily disposed of by the paper of my friend Professor R. G. Bhaadarkar on the KAalukya dates?. In the K4Adambari, then, we have testimony to the existence of the Bhagavadgita in the middle of the seventh century A.c. For in that work, which, as is well known, abounds with equivoques, we have a passage which compares the royal palace to the Mahabharata, both being ‘ Anantagitakarzan4nanditanaram 5,’ which, as applied to the royal palace, means ‘in which the people were delighted by hearing innumerable songs ;’ and as applied to the Mahabhdrata means ‘in which Arguna was delighted at hearing the Anantayita.’ Anantagita is evidently only another name here for Bhagavadgita. The conclusion deducible from this fact is not merely that the Gita existed, but that it existed as a recognised portion of the Bharata, in the seventh century a.c. Now the Kadambari shows, in numerous passages, in what high esteem the Mahabharata was held in its days. The queen Vildsavati used to attend at those readings and expositions of the Mahabharata, which have continued down to our own times; and it was even then regarded asa sacred work of extremely high authority, in the same way as it is now. It follows, therefore, that the Gita must have been several centuries old in the time of Bazabha@éa.
Prior in time to Baa is the Indian Shakespeare, K4lidasa, as he is referred to in Banabha?/a’s Harshafarita *, and also in a copperplate inscription of the early part of the seventh century, as a poet who had then already acquired a high reputation®. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to fix exactly the date at which Kalidasa flourished. Still,
* Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. viii, p. 250; and sce, too, Indian Antiquary, vol. vi, p. 61 (Dr. Buhler).
* Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xiv, p. 16 seq.
* P. 18a (Taranatha’s ed.) * See F. E. Hall's Vasavadatta, p. 14 note.
® See Indian Antiquary, vol. v, p. 70.
p. 29
viii, p. 250; and sce, too, Indian Antiquary, vol. vi, p. 61 (Dr. Buhler).
* Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xiv, p. 16 seq.
* P. 18a (Taranatha’s ed.) * See F. E. Hall's Vasavadatta, p. 14 note.
® See Indian Antiquary, vol. v, p. 70.
p. 29
I think, we have pretty satisfactory evidence to show that the middle of the fifth century A.C. is the very latest date to which he can be referred. In a small tract (written by me in 1873), discussing Professor Weber's theory about the Rimayavza, I have pointed out ' that the Pa#éatantra quotes from Kalidasa a passage which there is good reason to believe formed part of the Pa#satantra when it was translated for king Nushirvan of Persia about the beginning of the sixth century a.c.? Allowing for the time required to raise K4lidasa to the position of being cited as an authority, and for the time required for the spread of the fame of an Indian work to Persia in those early days, I think, that the middle of the fifth century is a date to which K4lidasa cannot well have been subsequent. Now in the works of KAlid4sa we have some very remarkable allusions to the Bhagavadgita. It is not necessary to go through all these allusions. I will only mention the most remarkable, one from the Raghuvamsa, and one from the Kum4rasambhava. In Raghu, canto X, stanza 67, the gods addressing Vishvu say: ‘There is nothing for you to acquire which has not been acquired. The one motive in your birth and work is the good of the worlds.’ The first sentence here reminds one at once of Gita, chapter ITI, stanza 22, the coincidence with which in sense as well as expression is very striking. The second sentence contains the words ‘birth and work,’ the precise words employed at Gita 1V, 9; and the idea of ‘good of the worlds’ is identical with the idea expressed in Gita III, 20-24, the words only in which it is clothed being different. Couple this passage with the one from Kum4arasambhava, canto VI, 67, where the seven Xéshis say to the HimAlaya mountain, ‘Well hast thou been called Vishwu in a firmly-fixed form.’ The allusion there to the Gita, chapter X, stanza 25 (p. 89), is, I venture to think,
' «Was the Ram4yana copied from Homer!’ See pp. 36-59.
* CL Colebrooke'’s Essays, vol. ii, p. 166 seq. It may be remarked that thes argument is not affected by the attempt to distinguish the KAliddsa of the Aakentald from the Kilidisa of the Raghuvamsa. Because the work cited in the Vaddatantra is the Kumdrasambhava, which indisputably belongs to the same author as the Raghuvassa.
p. 30
It may be remarked that thes argument is not affected by the attempt to distinguish the KAliddsa of the Aakentald from the Kilidisa of the Raghuvamsa. Because the work cited in the Vaddatantra is the Kumdrasambhava, which indisputably belongs to the same author as the Raghuvassa.
p. 30
unmistakable. The word ‘firmly-fixed’ is identical in both passages; the idea is identical, and Mallinatha refers to the passage in the Gita as the authority which K4lidasa had in view. It follows, therefore, that the Gita must be prior to K4liddsa’s time. It may be added, that Kalidasa in his Raghu XV, 67, cites Manu as an authority for the proposition that a king must protect all castes and all orders or Asramas. Manu, therefore, must have lived considerably earlier than Kalidasa, and the Gita, as we have already argued, must be considerably earlier, not only than Manu, but also than his predecessor Apastamba. The Gita may, therefore, be safely said to belong to a period several centuries prior to the fifth century A.C. The next piece of external evidence is furnished by the Ved4nta-sitras of Badardyava. In several of those Sutras, references are made to certain Smritis as authorities for the propositions laid down. Take, for instance, I, 2, 6, or I, 3. 23, and many others. Now three of these Sitras are very useful for our present purpose. The first we have to consider is Sitra II, 3, 45. The commentators Sankarasarya, Ramdanuga, Madhva, and Vallabha! are unanimous in understanding the passage in Gita, chapter XV, stanza 7 (p. 112), to be the one there referred to by the words of the Sdtra, which are, ‘And it is said in a Smriti.’ Nowa glance at the context of the Satra will, I think, satisfy us that the commentators, who are unanimous though representing different and even conflicting schools of thought, are also quite right. Sdtra 43, in the elliptical language characteristic of that branch of our literature, says, ‘A part, from the statement of difference, and the reverse also; some lay down that it is a fisherman or a cheat.’ Sitra 44 runs thus, ‘ And also from the words of the Mantra.” And then comes Sutra 45 as sect out above. It is plain, that the Sutra No. 45 indicates an authority for something not specified, being regarded as part of some other thing also not
‘Tam indebted to Professor M. M. Kunte for a loan of Vallabhasary a's commentary on the Sutras noted in the text. Thad not scen it in 1875, when I last di-cussed this question,
p. 31
M. Kunte for a loan of Vallabhasary a's commentary on the Sutras noted in the text. Thad not scen it in 1875, when I last di-cussed this question,p. 31 specified. Now the discussion in previous Sitras has been about the soul ; so we can have little difficulty in accepting the unanimous interpretation of the commentators, that the proposition here sought to be made out is that the individual soul is part of the Supreme Soul, which is the proposition laid down in the Gita in the passage referred to. The next Sitra to refer to isIV,1,10. I shall not set forth the other relevant Sitras here as in the preceding case. I only state that the three commentators, Sankara, RamAnuga, and Madhva, agree that the Gita is here referred to, namely, chapter VI, stanza 11 seq. Vallabha, however, I am bound to add, does not agree with this, as he interprets the Satra in question and those which precede and follow as referring to an entirely different matter. If I may be permitted to say so, however, I consider his interpretation not so satisfactory as that of the three other and older commentators. Lastly, we come to Sdtra IV, 2-19. On this, again, all the four commentators are unanimous, and they say that Gita, chapter VIII, stanza 24 seq. (p. 80), is the authority referred to. And I think there can be very little doubt that they are right. These various pieces of evidence render it, I think, historically certain, that the Gita must be considerably prior to the VedAnta-sitras; and that the word Brahma-satras, which occurs at Gita, chapter XIII, stanza 4 (p. 102), is correctly interpreted by the commentators as not referring to the Vedanta-sitras, which are also called Brahma-sitras, but to a different subject altogether '. When were the Vedantasitras composed? The question must at once be admitted to be a difficult one; but I think the following considerations will show that the date of those Sdtras must, at the latest, be considerably earlier than the period which we have already reached in this part of our investigation. We may take it as fairly well settled, that Bhaffa Kumiarila, the celebrated commentator of the Parva Mim4ms4 school, flourished not later than the end of the seventh century a
* Cf. Weber's Indian Literature, p. 242. See also Lassen’s Preface to his edition of schlegel's Gitd, XXXV. Kamanuga takcs the other view,
p. 32
Weber's Indian Literature, p. 242. See also Lassen’s Preface to his edition of schlegel's Gitd, XXXV. Kamanuga takcs the other view,
p. 32
A.C.1 A considerable time prior to him must be placed the great commentator on the Mim4ms4-sitras, namely, Sabarasvamin. If we may judge from the style of his great commentary, he cannot have flourished much later than Patazgali, who may now be taken as historically proved to have flourished about 140 B.c.2. Nowa considerable time must have intervened between Sabarasvamin and another commentator on the Pdrva Mim4ams4, whom Sabara quotes with the highly honorific title Bhagavan, the Venerable, namely, Upavarsha. Upavarsha appears from Sankara’s statement to have commented on the Vedantasdtras*. We have thus a long catena of works from the seventh century A.C., indicating a pretty high antiquity for the Ved4nta-sfitras, and therefore a higher one for the Bhagavadgita. The antiquity of the Ved4nta-satras follows also from the circumstance, which we have on the testimony of Ram4nuga, repeated by Madhavaéarya, that a commentary on the Sdtras was written by Baudhayanasarya ‘, which commentary Ramanuga says he followed. Baudhayana’s date is not accurately settled. But he appears to be older than Apastamba, whose date, as suggested by Dr. Buhler, has already been mentioned’. The Vedantasdtras, then, would appear to be at least as old as the fourth century B.C.; if the information we have from Ram4nuga may be trusted. A third argument may be mentioned, bearing on the date of the Vedanta-sdtras. In Sutra 110 of the third Pada of the fourth Adhy4ya of Pasini’s Satras, a Pdrdsarya is mentioned as the author of a Bhikshu-sitra. Who is this Parasarya, and what the Bhikshu-sitra? Unluckily Patayigali gives us no information on this head, nor
' See Burnell’s Samavidhina-brahmama, Introduction, p. vi note.
2 The authorities are collected in our edition of Bhartrthan (Bombay Series of Sanskrit Classics). Introd. p. xi note. See also Buhler’'s Apastamba in this scries, Introd. p. xxviii.
® See Coicbrooke’s Essays, vol. i, p. 332. An Upavarsha is mentioned in the Kathasaritsigara as living in the time of king Nanda, and having Pasini, Katy 4yana, and Vyaai for his pupils.
i, p. 332. An Upavarsha is mentioned in the Kathasaritsigara as living in the time of king Nanda, and having Pasini, Katy 4yana, and Vyaai for his pupils.
does the K4sik4 Vritti. But a note of Professor Tara4natha Tarkavakaspati, of Calcutta, says that Parasarya is Vy4sa, and the Bhikshu-sitra is the Ved4nta-sitra’. If this is correct, the Ved4nta-sitras go very far indeed into antiquity. For Pasini can certainly not be assigned to a later date than the fourth century B.C., while that learned scholar, Professor Goldstiicker, on grounds of considerable strength, assigned him to a much earlier date *. The question thus comes to this, Is the remark of Professor Tarandtha, above set out, correct? I find then, from enquiries made of my venerable and erudite friend Yag#esvar SAstrin, the author of the Aryavidydsudhdkara, that the note of Taranatha is based on the works of Bhaffogi Dikshita, NaAgqg¢i Bhaé/a, and Gaanendra Sarasvati, who all give the same interpretation of the Sdtra in question. It is certainly unfortunate that we have no older authority on this point than Bhaffogi. The interpretation is in itself not improbable. VydAsa is certainly by the current tradition ® called the author of the Vedanta-sitras, and also the son of Parasara. Nor is Bhikshu-sitra a name too far removed in sense from Vedanta-sitra, though doubtless the former fame is not now in use, at all events as applied to the Sdtras attributed to Badardyana, and though, it must also be stated, a Bhikshu-sitra BhAshya Vartika is mentioned eo nomine by Professor Weber as actually in existence at the present day‘. Taking all things together, therefore, we may provisionally understand the Bhikshu-sitra mentioned by P4wsini to be identical with the Vedanta-sitras. But even apart from that identification, the other testimonies we have adduced prove, I think, the high antiquity of those Sdtras, and consequently of the Bhagavadgita.
We have thus examined, at what, considering the importance and difficulty of the subject, will not, I trust, be regarded as unreasonable length, some of the principal pieces of internal and external evidence touching the age
* See Siddhdnta Kaumud}, vol. i, p. 592.
* See his Pisini; and see also Bubler’s Apastamba in this series, Introd. p. xxxii note. * The correctness of this tradition is very doubtfal.
* Indische Studien I, 470.
(8) D
p. 34
i, p. 592.
* See his Pisini; and see also Bubler’s Apastamba in this series, Introd. p. xxxii note. * The correctness of this tradition is very doubtfal.
* Indische Studien I, 470.
(8) D
p. 34
of the Bhagavadgita and its position in Sanskrit literature. Although, as stated at the very outset, the conclusions we have deduced in the course of that examination are not all such as at once to secure acceptance, I venture to think that we have now adequate grounds for saying, that the various and independent lines of investigation, which we have pursued, converge to this point, that the Gita, on numerous and essential topics, ranges itself as a member of the Upanishad group, so to say, in Sanskrit literature. Its philosophy, its mode of treating its subject, its style, its language, its versification, its opinions on sundry subjects of the highest importance, all point to that one conclusion. We may also, I think, lay it down as more than probable, that the latest date at which the Gita can have been composed, must be earlier than the third century B.C., though it is altogether impossible to say at present how much earlier. This proposition, too, is supported by the cumulative strength of several independent lines of testimony.
Before closing this Introduction, it is desirable to add a word concerning the text of the Bhagavadgité. The religious care with which that text has been preserved is very worthy of note. Schlegel and Lassen! have both declared it as their opinion, that we have the text now almost exactly in the condition in which it was when it left the hands of the author. There are very few real various readings, and some of the very few that exist are noted by the commentators. Considering that the Mahabharata -must have been tampered with on numerous occasions, this preservation of the Gita is most interesting. It doubtless indicates that high veneration for it which is still felt, and has for long been felt, by the Hindus, and which is embodied in the expression used in the colophons of the MSS. describing the Gita as the ‘Upanishad sung by God*.” In view of the facts and deductions set forth in
® See the latter's edition of the Gita, Preface, p. xxvii.
® Ia the edition of the Gita published in Bombay in Saka 178a, there is a stanza which says that the Upanishads are the cows, Krishaa the milkman, Arguna the calf, and the milk is the nectar-like Gita, which indicatcs the tradip. 35this essay, that expression existing as, I believe, it does, almost universally in Indian MSS. of the Gita, is not altogether devoid of historical value.
p. 35
this essay, that expression existing as, I believe, it does, almost universally in Indian MSS. of the Gita, is not altogether devoid of historical value.
Schlegel draws attention to one other circumstance re-, garding the text of the Gita, which is also highly interesting,| namely, that the number of the stanzas is exactly 700.| Schlegel concludes that the author must have fixed on that number deliberately, in order to prevent, as far as he could, all subsequent interpolations'. This is certainly not unlikely ; and if the aim of the author was such as Schlegel suggests, it has assuredly been thoroughly successful. In the chapter of the MahAbhdrata immediately succeeding the eighteenth chapter of the Gita, the extent of the work in slokas is distinctly stated. The verses in which this is stated do not exist in the Gauda or Bengal recension, and are doubtless not genuine. But, nevertheless, they are interesting, and I shall reproduce them here. ‘Kesava spoke 620 slokas, Arguna fifty-seven, Safigaya sixty-seven, and Dhritarashtra one sloka; such is the extent of the Gita.’ It is very difficult to account for these figures. According to them, the total number of verses in the Gita would be 745, whereas the number in the current MSS., and even in the Mahabharata itself, is, as already stated, only 700%. I cannot suggest any explanation whatever of this discrepancy.
In conclasion, a few words may be added regarding the general principles followed in the translation contained in this volume. My aim has been to make that translation as close and literal a rendering as possible of the Gita, as interpreted by the commentators Sankarasarya, Sridharasvamin, and Madhusddana Sarasvati. Reference has also been frequently made to the commentary of Ramanugaarya, and also to that of Nilakax¢ha, which latter forms part of the author's general commentary on the Mahabharata.
penal view of the Gitd—a view in consonance with that which we have been led to Ly the facts and arguments contained in this lotroduction. * P. xl (Lassen's ed.) » Sahkara’s commentary states in so many words that the Git& he used comtained only yoo slokas. D2
p. 36
penal view of the Gitd—a view in consonance with that which we have been led to Ly the facts and arguments contained in this lotroduction. * P. xl (Lassen's ed.) » Sahkara’s commentary states in so many words that the Git& he used comtained only yoo slokas. D2
p. 36
In some places these commentators differ among themselves, and then I have made my own choice. The foot-notes are mainly intended to make clear that which necessarily remains obscure in a literal translation. Some of the notes, however, also point out the parallelisms existing between the Gita and other works, principally the Upanishads and the Buddhistic Dhammapada and Sutta Nipata. Of the latter I have not been able to procure the original Pali; I have only used Sir M. C. Swamy’s translation. But I may here note, that there are some verses, especially in the Salla Sutta (see pp. 124-127 of Sir M. C. Swamy’s book), the similarity of which, in doctrine and expression, to some of the verses of the Git4 is particularly striking. The analogies between the Gita and the Upanishads have been made the basis of certain conclusions in this Introduction. Those between the Gita and these Buddhistic works are at present, to my mind, only interesting; I am unable yet to say whether they may legitimately be made the premises for any historical deductions.
There are two indexes: the first a gencral index of matters, the second containing the principal words in the Gita which may prove useful or interesting for philological, historical, or other kindred purposes.
BHAGAVADGITA.
CuHapTER I.
Dhritarash/ra said:
What did my (people) and the P&Asdavas do, O Sasigaya! when they assembled together on the holy field of Kurukshetra, desirous to do battle ?
Savigaya said:
Seeing the army of the Pasdavas drawn up in battle-array', the prince Duryodhana approached: his preceptor, and spoke (these) words: ‘O preceptor! observe this grand army of the sons of Paxdu, drawn up in battle-array by your talented pupil, the son of Drupada. In it are heroes (bearing) large bows, the equals of Bhima and Arguna in battle—(namely), Yuyudhana, Virdéa, and Drupada, the master of a great car, and Dhrishfaketu, Aekit4na, and the valiant king of Kasi, Purugit and Kuntibhoga, and that eminent man Saibya; the heroic Yudhdmanyu, the valiant Uttamaugas, the son of Subhadrd, and the sons of
» Several of these modes of array are described in Manu VII, 187, hike a staff, like a wain, like a boar, &c. That of the Pandavas, here referred to, appears to have been like the thunderbolt, as to which see Manu VII, 191.
* This is a literal rendering ; the technical meaning is ‘a warrior proficient in military science, who single-handed can fight a thousand archers.’
p. 38
That of the Pandavas, here referred to, appears to have been like the thunderbolt, as to which see Manu VII, 191.
* This is a literal rendering ; the technical meaning is ‘a warrior proficient in military science, who single-handed can fight a thousand archers.’
p. 38
Draupadi—all masters of great cars. And now, O best of Brahmazas! learn who are most distinguished among us, and are leaders of my army. I will name them to you, in order that you may know them well. Yourself, and Bhishma, and Karza, and Kr7pa the victor of (many) battles; Asvatthaman, and Vikarza, and also the son of Somadatta, and many other brave men, who have given up their lives for me, who fight with various weapons, (and are) all dexterous in battle. Thus our army which is protected by Bhishma is unlimited; while this army of theirs which is protected by Bhima is very limited. And therefore do ye all, occupying respectively the positions! assigned to you, protect Bhishma ? only.’
Then his powerful grandsire, Bhishma, the oldest of the Kauravas, roaring aloud like a lion, blew his conch, (thereby) affording delight to Duryodhana. And then all at once, conchs, and kettledrums, and tabors, and trumpets were played upon; and there was a tumultuous din. Then, too, Madhava and the son of Pazdu (Arguna), seated in a grand chariot to which white steeds were yoked, blew their heavenly conchs. Hyéshikesa* blew the Paséaganya‘, and Dhanazigaya the Devadatta, and Bhima, (the doer) of fearful deeds, blew the great conch Pauzdra. King YudhishéAira, the son of Kuntt*, blew the Anan-
? The original word means, according to Sridhara, ‘the ways of entrance into a VyGha or phalanx.’
* Who, as generalissimo, remained in the centre of the army.
* Literally, according to the commentators, ‘lord of the senses of perception.’
“ Schlegel renders the names of these conchs by Gigantea, Theodotes, Arundinea, Triumphatrix, Dulcisona, and Gemmifiorea respectively, * So called, par excellence, apparently.
CHAPTER I, 24. 39
* Literally, according to the commentators, ‘lord of the senses of perception.’
“ Schlegel renders the names of these conchs by Gigantea, Theodotes, Arundinea, Triumphatrix, Dulcisona, and Gemmifiorea respectively, * So called, par excellence, apparently.
CHAPTER I, 24. 39
tavigaya, and Nakula and Sahadeva (respectively) the Sughosha and Maxipushpaka. And the king of Kast, too, who has an excellent bow, and Sikhazdin, the master of a great car, and Dhr¢sh¢adyumna, Virdéa, and the unconquered Satyaki, and Drupada, and the sons of Draupadi, and the son of Subhadr4, of mighty arms, blew conchs severally from all sides, O king of the earth! That tumultuous din rent the hearts of all (the people) of Dhv#tardshéra's (party), causing reverberations throughout heaven and earth. Then seeing .(the people of) Dhvtarash/ra’s party regularly marshalled, the son of Paxdu, whose standard is the ape, raised his bow’, after the discharge of missiles had commenced, and O king of the earth! spake these words to H7ishikesa: ‘O undegraded one! station my chariot between the two armies, while I observe those, who stand here desirous to engage in battle, and with whom, in the labours of this struggle, I must do battle. I will observe those who are assembled here and who are about to engage in battle, wishing to do service in battle? to the evil-minded son of DhritarAsh/éra.’ Safigaya said:
Thus addressed by Guddkesa*, O descendant of Bharata‘! Hrishikesa stationed that excellent chariot between the two armies, in front of Bhishma
' Le. to join in the fight.
* In the original, several derivatives from the root yudh, meaning ‘to fight, occur with the same frequency as ‘battle’ here.
* Generally interpreted ‘lord of sleep,’ i.e. not indolent. Niilakantha also suggests, that it may mean ‘of thick hair.’
* The son of Dushyanta and Sakuntala, after whom India is called ‘ Bhfratavarsha,’ and from whom both Pandavas and Kauravas were descended.
40 BHAGAVADGITA.
and Droaa and of all the kings of the earth, and said: ‘O son of Pritha! look at these assembled Kauravas. There the son of Pv:th4 saw in both armies, fathers and grandfathers, preceptors, maternal uncles, brothers, sons', grandsons, companions, fathers-in-law, as well as friends. And seeing all those kinsmen standing (there), the son of Kuntt was overcome by excessive pity, and spake thus despondingly. Arguna said:
And seeing all those kinsmen standing (there), the son of Kuntt was overcome by excessive pity, and spake thus despondingly. Arguna said:
Seeing these kinsmen,"O Krishna ! standing (here) anxious to engage in battle, my limbs droop down ; my mouth is quite dried up; a tremor comes over my body; and my hairs stand on end; the Gandiva (bow) slips from my hand; my skin burns intensely. I am unable, too, to stand up; my mind whirls round, as it were; O Kesava! I see adverse omens?; and | do not perceive any good (likely to accrue) after killing (my) kinsmen in the battle. I do not wish for victory, O Krzshza! nor sovereignty, nor pleasures: what is sovereignty to us, O Govinda ! what enjoyments, and even life? Even those, for whose sake we desire sovereignty, enjoyments, and pleasures, are standing here for battle, abandoning life and wealth—preceptors, fathers, sons as well as grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law, as also (other) relatives. These I do not wish to kill, though they kill (me), O destroyer of Madhu! even for the sake of sovereignty over
* The words in this list include all standing in similar -relationships to those directly signified.
* Such as the appearance of vultures, cars moving without horses, &c., mentioned in the Bhishma Parvan II,17. Cf.Sutta Nipata, p. 100.
> A demon of this name.
CHAPTER I, 44. 4!
the three worlds, how much less then for this earth (alone) ?. What joy shall be ours, O Gan4rdana ! after killing Dhvrztarashéra’s sons? Killing these felons } we shall only incur sin. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill our own kinsmen, the sons of DhrstarAsh/ra. For how, O Madhava! shall we be happy after killing our own relatives? Although they have their consciences corrupted by avarice, they do not see the evils flowing from the extinction of a family, and the sin in treachery to friends; still, O Gan4rdana ! should not we, who do see the evils flowing from the extinction of a family, learn to refrain from that sin? On the extinction of a family, the eternal rites of families are destroyed*. Those rites being destroyed, impiety predominates over the whole family*. In consequence of the predominance of impiety, O Krishaa! the women of the family become corrupt ‘; and the women becoming corrupt, O descendant of Vrishai! intermingling of castes results; that intermingling necessarily leads the family and the destroyers of the family to hell ; for when the ceremonies of (offering) the balls of food and water (to them) fail ®, their ancestors fall down (to hell). By these transgressions of the destroyers of families, which occasion interminglings of castes, the eternal rites of castes and rites of families are
' Six classes are mentioned: an incendiary ; one who administers porson; one who assaults another—weapon in hand; one who destroys property ; one who robs another of his wife ; or his fields.
* L.e.there being none to attend tothe ‘rites, women being ineligible.
* L.e.there being none to attend tothe ‘rites, women being ineligible.
> Le. the surviving members.
* Le. either by the mere fact of relationship to such men, or by following their bad example.
* There being no qualified person to perform them; ‘their ancestors '—that is to say, of the ‘ destroyers of families.’
p. 42
subverted. And O Ganardana! we have heard that men whose family-rites are subverted, must necessarily live in hell. Alas! we are engaged in committing a heinous sin, seeing that we are making efforts for killing our own kinsmen out of greed of the pleasures of sovereignty. If the sons of Dhrtarash/ra, weapon in hand, were to kill me in battle, me being weaponless and not defending (myself), that would be better for me.
Sayigaya said: Having spoken thus, Arguna cast aside his bow together with the arrows, on the battle-field, and sat down in (his) chariot, with a mind agitated by grief.
Cnapter II.
Sayigaya said: To him, who was thus overcome with pity, and dejected, and whose eyes were full of tears and turbid, the destroyer of Madhu spoke these words.
The Deity said:
How (comes it that) this delusion, O Arguna! which is discarded by the good, which excludes from heaven, and occasions infamy, has overtaken you in this (place of) peril? Be not effeminate, O son of Pritha! it is not worthy of you. Cast off this base weakness of heart, and arise, O terror of (your) foes!
Arguna said:
How, O destroyer of Madhu! shall I encounter with arrows in the battle Bhishma and Droma— both, O destroyer of enemies! entitled to reverence ?
CHAPTER II, II. 43
Without killing (my) preceptors—(men) of great glory—it is better to live even on alms in this world. But if killing them, though they are avaricious of worldly goods, I should only enjoy bloodtainted enjoyments. Nor do we know which of the two is better for us—whether that we should vanquish them, or that they should vanquish us. Even those, whom having killed, we do not wish to live—even those sons of Dhvetardshé/ra stand (arrayed) against us. With a heart contaminated by the taint of helplessness’, with a mind confounded about my duty, I ask you. Tell me what is assuredly good for me. I am your disciple; instruct me, who have thrown myself on your (indulgence). For I do not perceive what is to dispel that grief which will dry up my organs? after I shall have obtained a prosperous kingdom on earth without a foe, or even the sovereignty of the gods*. Safigaya said:
Having spoken thus to Hvishtkesa, O terror of (your) foes! Gudakesa said to Govinda, ‘I shall not engage in battle;’ and verily remained silent. To him thus desponding between the two armies, O descendant of Bharata! Hvrishtkesa spoke these words with a slight smile.
The Deity said: You have grieved for those who deserve no grief,
Gudakesa said to Govinda, ‘I shall not engage in battle;’ and verily remained silent. To him thus desponding between the two armies, O descendant of Bharata! Hvrishtkesa spoke these words with a slight smile.
The Deity said: You have grieved for those who deserve no grief,
' The commentators say that ‘heart’ here signifies the dispositions which are stated in chapter XVIII infra, p. 126. The feeling of ‘helplessness’ is incompatible with what is there stated as the proper disposition for a Kshatriya.
* Le. by the heat of vexation ; the meaning is, ‘ which will cause constant vexation of spirit.’
® Ie. af the means employed are the sinful acts referred to.
p. 44
and you speak words of wisdom'. Learned men grieve not for the living nor the dead. Never did I not exist, nor you, nor these rulers of men; nor will any one of us ever hereafter cease to be. As in this body, infancy and youth and old age (come) to the embodied (self) *, so does the acquisition of another body ; a sensible man is not deceived about that. The contacts of the senses’, O son of Kunt!! which produce cold and heat, pleasure and pain, are not permanent, they are for ever coming and going. Bear them, O descendant of Bharata! For, O chief of men! that sensible man whom they * afflict not, (pain and pleasure being alike to him), he merits immortality. There is no existence for that which is unreal ; there is no non-existence for that which is real. And the (correct) conclusion about both § is perceived by those who perceive the truth. Know that to be indestructible which pervades all this; the destruction of that inexhaustible (principle) none can bring about. These bodies appertaining to the embodied (self) which is eternal, indestructible, and indefinable, are declared * to be perishable; therefore do engage in battle, O descendant of Bharata! He who thinks one to be the killer and he who thinks
' Scil. regarding family-rites, &c., for, says Nilakan/Aa, they indicate knowledge of soul as distinct from body.
* A common word in the Gita, that which presides over each individual body,
> Scil. with external objects. * Te. the ‘contacts.’
* The sense is this—there are two things apparently, the soul which is indestructible, and the feelings of pain &c. which ‘come and go.’ The true philosopher knows that the former only is real and exists; and that the latter is unreal and non-existent. He therefore does not mind the latter.
* Sail. by those who are possessed of true knowledge.
CHAPTER II, 27. 45
which ‘come and go.’ The true philosopher knows that the former only is real and exists; and that the latter is unreal and non-existent. He therefore does not mind the latter.
* Sail. by those who are possessed of true knowledge.
CHAPTER II, 27. 45
one to be killed, both know nothing. He kills not, is not killed?. He is not born, nor does he ever die, nor, having existed, does he exist no more. Unborn, everlasting, unchangeable, and very ancient, he is not killed when the body is killed*. O son of Pritha! how can that man who knows the self thus to be indestructible, everlasting, unborn, and imperishable, kill any one, or cause any one to be killed? As a man, casting off old clothes, puts on others and new ones, so the embodied (self), casting off old bodies, goes to others and new ones. Weapons do not divide the self (into pieces); fire does not burn it; waters do not moisten it; the wind does not dry it up. It is not divisible; it is not combustible; it is not to be moistened; it is not to be dried up. It is everlasting, all-pervading, stable, firm, and eternal*. It is said to be unperceived, to be unthinkable, to be unchangeable. Therefore knowing it to be such, you ought not to grieve. But even if you think that the self is constantly born, and constantly dies, still, O you of mighty arms! you ought not to grieve thus. For to one that is born, death is certain; and to one that dies, birth is certain‘. Therefore about (this)
1 Cf. Kasha-upanishad, p. 104. * Kasha-upanishad, pp. 103, 104.
* ‘Eternal.’ Nilakan/ha explains this by ‘unlimited by time, place,” &c. Sankara and others as ‘uncreated,’ ‘without cause.’ Stable = not assuming new forms; firm=not abandoning the original form. (Sridhara.) The latter signifies a slight change ; the former a total change.
* Cf. the following from the Sutta Nipata (Sir M. C. Swamy’s wanslation), pp. 124, 125: ‘There is, indeed, no means by which those born could be prevented from dying.’ ‘Even thus the world is afficted with death and decay; therefore wise men, knowing the course of things in the world, do not give way to grief.’
46 BHAGAVADGITA.
C. Swamy’s wanslation), pp. 124, 125: ‘There is, indeed, no means by which those born could be prevented from dying.’ ‘Even thus the world is afficted with death and decay; therefore wise men, knowing the course of things in the world, do not give way to grief.’
p. 46
unavoidable thing, you ought not to grieve. The source of things, O descendant of Bharata! is unperceived ; their middle state is perceived ; and their end again is unperceived. What (occasion is there for any) lamentation regarding them'? One looks upon it? as a wonder; another similarly speaks of it as a wonder ; another too hears of it as a wonder ; and even after having heard of it, no one does really know it*. This embodied (self), O descendant of Bharata! within every one’s body is ever indestructible. Therefore you ought not to grieve for any being. Having regard to your own duty also, you ought not to falter, for there is nothing better for a Kshatriya* than a righteous battle. Happy those Kshatriyas, O son of Pritha! who can find such a battle (to fight)—come of itself'— an open door to heaven! But if you will not fight this righteous battle, then you will have abandoned your own duty and your fame, and you will incur sin. All beings, too, will tell of your everlasting infamy ; and to one who has been honoured, infamy is (a) greater (evil) than death. (Warriors who are) masters of great cars will think that you abstained from the battle through fear, and having been highly thought of by them, you will fall down to littleness, Your enemies, too, decrying your power, will speak much about you that should not be spoken. And what, indeed, more lamentable than that? Killed,
‘ Cf. Sutta Nipata, p. 125. ‘In vain do you grieve, not knowing well the two ends of him whose manner either of coming or going you know not.’
* L.e. the self spoken of above.
® Kasha-upanishad, p. 96. * One of the warrior caste.
* Without any effort, that is to say, of one’s own.
CHAPTER II, 42. 47
Sutta Nipata, p. 125. ‘In vain do you grieve, not knowing well the two ends of him whose manner either of coming or going you know not.’
* L.e. the self spoken of above.
® Kasha-upanishad, p. 96. * One of the warrior caste.
* Without any effort, that is to say, of one’s own.
CHAPTER II, 42. 47
you will obtain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth. Therefore arise, O son of Kunti! resolved to (engage in) battle. Looking on pleasure and pain, on gain and loss, on victory and defeat as the same, prepare for battle, and thus you will not incur sin. The knowledge here declared to you is that relating to the Sankhya'. Now hear that relating to the Yoga. Possessed of this knowledge, O son of Pritha! you will cast off the bonds of action. In this (path to final emancipation) nothing that is commenced becomes abortive; no obstacles exist ; and even a little of this (form of) piety protects one from great danger*. There is here 4, O descendant of Kuru! but one state of mind consisting in firm understanding. But the states of mind of those who have no firm understanding are manifold and endless. The state of mind which consists in firm understanding regarding steady contemplation * does not belong to those, O son of Pritha! who are strongly attached to (worldly) pleasures and power, and whose minds are drawn away by that flowery talk which is full of (the ordinances of) specific acts for the attainment of (those) pleasures and (that) power, and which promises birth as the fruit of acts *—(that flowery
’ Sénkhya is explained in different modes by the different commentators, but the meaning here seems to be, that the doctrine stated is the doctrine of true knowledge and of emancipation by means of it. See infra, p. §2.
* Viz. this mortal mundane life.
® Le. for those who enter on this ‘ path.’
* Le. of the supreme Being; Yoga meaning really the dedication of all acts to that Being.
* See Sutta Nipdta, p. 4.
48 BHAGAVADGITA.
talk) which those unwise ones utter, who are enamoured of Vedic words, who say there is nothing else, who are full of desires, and whose goal is heaven'. The Vedas (merely) relate to the effects of the three qualities?; do you, O Arguna! rise above those effects of the three qualities, and be free from the pairs of opposites, always preserve courage‘, be free from anxiety for new acquisitions or protection of old acquisitions, and be self-controlled® To the instructed Brahmasa, there is in all the Vedas as much utility as in a reservoir of water into which waters flow from all sides*. Your business is with action alone; not by any means with fruit. Let not the fruit of action be your motive (to action). Let not your attachment be (fixed) on inaction’. Having recourse to devotion, O Dhanadigaya! perform actions, casting off (all) attachment, and being equable in success or illsuccess; (such) equability is called devotion. Action,
Let not the fruit of action be your motive (to action). Let not your attachment be (fixed) on inaction’. Having recourse to devotion, O Dhanadigaya! perform actions, casting off (all) attachment, and being equable in success or illsuccess; (such) equability is called devotion. Action,
' This is a merely temporary good, and not therefore deserving to be aspired to before final emancipation.
? Le. the whole course of worldly affairs. As to qualities, see chapter XIV.
* Heat and cold, pain and pleasure, and so forth. Cf. Manu f, 26.
* Cf. Sutta Nipata, p. 17 and other places.
® Keeping the mind from worldly objects.
* The meaning here is not easily apprehended. I suggest the following explanation :—Having said that the Vedas are concerned with actions for special benefits, Krishza compares them to a reservoir which provides water for various special purposes, drinking, bathing, &c. The Vedas similarly prescribe particular rites and ceremonies for going to heaven, or destroying an enemy, &c. But, says Krishna, man’s duty is merely to perform the actions prescribed for him, and not entertain desires for the special benefits named. The stanza occurs in the Sanatsugatiya, too.
* Doing nothing at all.
CHAPTER II, 55. 49
O Dhanaggaya! is far inferior to the devotion of the mind. In that devotion seek shelter. Wretched are those whose motive (to action) is the fruit (of action). He who has obtained devotion in this world casts off both merit and sin'. Therefore apply yourself to devotion ; devotion in (all) actions is wisdom. The wise who have obtained devotion cast off the fruit of action; and released from the shackles of (repeated) births*, repair to that seat where there is no unhappiness*. When your mind shall have crossed beyond the taint of delusion, then will you become indifferent to all that you have heard or will hear*. When your mind, that was confounded by what you have heard®, will stand firm and steady in contemplation *, then will you acquire devotion. Arguna said :
What are the characteristics, O Kesava! of one whose mind is steady, and who is intent on contemplation ? How should one of a steady mind speak, how sit, how move ?
The Deity said :
When a man, O son of Prtth4! abandons all the desires of his heart, and is pleased in his self only
1 Merit merely leads to heaven, as to which see note on last page. Cf. Sutta Nipita, pp. 4, 136, 145 note.
* Sutta Nipdta, pp. 3-7, &c.
* Sutta Nipdta, p. 21.
* This, according to Anandagiri, means all writings other than those on the science of the soul.
* Le. about the means for the acquisition of various desired
* Ie. of the soul (Sankara), of the supreme Being (Sridhara). Sabstantially they both mean the same thing.
(8) E
p. 50
21.
* This, according to Anandagiri, means all writings other than those on the science of the soul.
* Le. about the means for the acquisition of various desired
* Ie. of the soul (Sankara), of the supreme Being (Sridhara). Sabstantially they both mean the same thing.
(8) Ep. 50 and by his self?, he is then called of a steady mind. He whose heart is not agitated in the midst of calamities, who has no longing for pleasures, and from whom (the feelings of) affection, fear, and wrath * have departed, is called a sage of a steady mind. His mind is steady, who, being without attachments anywhere, feels no exultation and no aversion on encountering the various agreeable and disagreeable * (things of this world). A man’s mind is steady, when he withdraws his senses from (all) objects of sense, as the tortoise (withdraws) its limbs from all sides. Objects of sense withdraw themselves from a person who is abstinent ; not so the taste (for those objects). But even the taste departs from him, when he has seen the Supreme ¢, _ The boisterous senses, O son of Kunt!! carry away by force the mind even of a wise man, who exerts himself (for final emancipation). Restraining them all, a man should remain engaged in devotion, making me his only resort. For his mind is steady whose senses are under his control. The man who ponders over objects of sense forms an attachment to them; from (that) attachment is produced desire; and from desire anger is produced®; from anger results want of discrimination®; from want of dis-
1 I.e. pleased, without regard to external objects, by self-contemplation alone.
* Cf. Sutta Nipata, p. 3.
® The word subhisubha in this sense also occurs in the Dhammapada, stanza 78, and in the Maitri-upanishad, p. 34.
* Sce on this, Wilson’s Essays on Sanskrit Literature, vol. iii, p- 130.
* Te. when the desire is frustrated.
* Le. between right and wrong. Confusion of memory =forgetfulness of Sastras and rules prescribed in them,
CHAPTER II, 70. 51
34.
* Sce on this, Wilson’s Essays on Sanskrit Literature, vol. iii, p- 130.
* Te. when the desire is frustrated.
* Le. between right and wrong. Confusion of memory =forgetfulness of Sastras and rules prescribed in them,
CHAPTER II, 70. 51
crimination, confusion of the memory; from confusion of the memory, loss of reason; and in consequence of loss of reason he is utterly ruined. But the self-restrained man who moves among! objects with senses under the control of his own self, and free from affection and aversion, obtains tranquillity’. When there is tranquillity, all his miseries are destroyed, for the mind of him whose heart is tranquil soon becomes steady. He who is not self-restrained has no steadiness of mind; nor has he who is not self-restrained perseverance * in the pursuit of self-knowledge ; there is no tranquillity for him who does not persevere in the pursuit of self-knowledge; and whence can there be happiness for one who is not tranquil? For the heart which follows the rambling senses leads away his judgment, as the wind leads a boat astray upon the waters. Therefore, O you of mighty arms! his mind is steady whose senses are restrained on all sides from objects of sense. The self-restrained man is awake, when it is night for all beings; and when all beings are awake, that is the night of the right-seeing sage‘. He into whom all objects of desire enter, as waters enter the ocean, which, (though) replenished, (still) keeps its position unmoved,—he only obtains tranquillity; not he who desires (those) objects of desire. The man who,
* Cf. Sutta Nipdta, p. 45.
* Cf Maitri-upanishad, p. 134, where the commentator explains i to mean freedom from desires.
* For a somewhat similar use of the word bh4vana in this sense, comp. Dhammapada, stanza 301.
* Spiritual maiters are dark as night to the common run of men, while they are wide awake in all worldly pursuits. With the sage the case is exactly the reverse.
E 2
p. 52
casting off all desires, lives free from attachments, who is free from egoism?, and from (the feeling that this or that is) mine %, obtains tranquillity. This, O son of Pritha! is the Brahmic® state ; attaining to this, one is never deluded; and remaining in it in (one's) last moments, one attains (brahma-nirvaza) the Brahmic bliss ¢.
Cuapter IIT. Arguna said:
If, O Ganardana! devotion is deemed by you to be superior to action, then why, O Kesava! do you prompt me to (this) fearful action? You seem, indeed, to confuse my mind by equivocal words. Therefore, declare one thing determinately, by which I may attain the highest good.