* Sankara compares Svetisvatara, p. 3743 see also p. 203 infra, The necessity of having a Guru is often insisted on even in the Upanishads. Cf. Muadaka, p. 282; AAindogya, p. 264.
® Staied at the beginning of this speech, Sankara,
CHAPTER IV, I4. 177
always towards his preceptor, so likewise should he behave towards the preceptor’s wife, and so likewise should he act towards the preceptor’s son—(that) is said to be the second quarter. What one, recognising what the preceptor has done for one, and understanding the matter! (taught), feels with a delighted heart regarding the preceptor—believing that one has been brought into existence? by him— that is the third quarter of life as a Brahmaéarin. One should do what is agreeable to the preceptor, by means of one’s life and riches, and in deed, thought, and word *—that is said to be the fourth quarter. (A disciple) obtains a quarter by time‘, so likewise a quarter by associating with the preceptor, he also obtains a quarter by means of his own energy; and then he attains to a quarter by means of the Sastras. The life as a Brahmaéarin of that man, whose beauty ® consists in the twelve beginning with knowledge, and whose limbs are the other (qualifications mentioned), and who has
* The meaning of the Vedic texts, &c., Sankara in one copy; the highest aim of man, according to another copy,
* See note § on p. 176.
* I keep the order of the original, though I do not translate quite literally ; ‘thought and word’ should be literally ‘mind and speech.’ See, on the collocation, Git4, p. 123 inter alia.
* Time=maturity of understanding which comes by time; energy =intellectual power; Siistras=consultation about Sistras with fellow-students— Sankara, who adds that the order is not matcrial as stated, and quotes a stanza which may be thus rendered, ‘The pupil receives a quarter from the preceptor, a quarter by his own talent; he receives a quarter by time; and a quarter through fellow-Brahmaéarins.
* The body being disregarded, these qualities are attributed to the self in this way. For the twelve, see p. 167; the others are abandonment, truthfulness, &c., p. 169.
(8) N
p. 178
* The body being disregarded, these qualities are attributed to the self in this way. For the twelve, see p. 167; the others are abandonment, truthfulness, &c., p. 169.
(8) Np. 178 strength}, bears fruit, they say, by association with a preceptor, in (the shape of) contact with that entity —the Brahman. Whatever wealth may come to a man who lives in this way, he should even pay that over to the preceptor. He would thus be adopting the conduct of the good which is of many merits; and the same conduct is (to be adopted) towards the preceptor’s son. Living thus, he prospers greatly * on all sides in this world; he obtains sons and position; the quarters* and sub-quarters shower (benefits ‘) on him, and men pass their lives as Brahmaéérins under him. By this life as a Brahmafirin, the divinities obtained their divinity. And the sages, too, became great by living the life of Brahmafarins. By this same (means), too, the Apsarasas, together with the Gandharvas, achieved for themselves beautiful forms. And by this life as a Brahmafarin, the sun illuminates (the universe). That man of knowledge, O king! who practising penance, may by penance pierce through or tear off his body, crosses beyond childhood® by means of this (life as a Brahmaf4rin), and at the time of the termination (of life) overcomes death*. Those who understand this (life as a Brahmaé4rin) attain to a
? To observe the duties referred to, Sankara. But see, too, p. 167, note 6.
* «Obtains wealth, learning, and greatness,’ says a commentator. For similar benefits, cf. KAandogya, p. 122.
3 Cf. Khandogya, p. 132.
« “Wealth,” says Nilakan/ha, as well as another commentator.
* Ignorance; cf. note 7 at p.154 supra. Nilakan¢ha reads ‘reaches’ instead of ‘crosses beyond,’ and interprets ‘balya’ to mean ‘ frecdom from affection, aversion,’ &c. Cf. Brshadaramyaka, p. 605. As to the divinity of divinities, cf. Taitt. Aran. p. 886.
* Nilakaw/ha reads ‘vanquishes death.’ The meaning is, he reaches final emancipation. Cf. p. 154 supra.
CHAPTER IV, 21. 179
condition like that of those who ask (for what they want) from the wish-granting stone?, when they obtain the thing desired. By performing action, O Kshatriya! people conquer (for themselves only) perishable worlds*. (But) the man of understanding attains by knowledge to the everlasting glory—for there is no other way to it*.
Dhmtardsh/ra said:
Where a Brahmaza possessed of knowledge, perceives it, does it appear as white‘, as red, or again as black, or again as grey or tawny? What is the colour of that immortal, indestructible goal ?
Sanatsugata said :
Dhmtardsh/ra said:
Where a Brahmaza possessed of knowledge, perceives it, does it appear as white‘, as red, or again as black, or again as grey or tawny? What is the colour of that immortal, indestructible goal ?
Sanatsugata said :
It appears not as white, as red, nor again as black, nor again as grey, nor tawny’. It dwells not on earth, nor in the sky; nor does it bear a body in this ocean*(-like world). It is not in the stars, nor does it dwell in the lightning; nor is its form’ to be seen in the clouds, nor even in the air, nor in the deities; it is not to be seen in the moon, nor in the sun. It is not to be seen in Azé texts, nor in
’ Called Xintimani. The effect of Brahmaéarya is that those who practise it can get what they desire.
* Cf. Ghd, p. 76; KA&ndogya, p. 538; Musdaka, p. 279.
* Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 327. * Cf. Brihadfranyaka, p. 877.
® Cf. Kasha, p. 119; and Mundaka, p. 267. As to its not dwelling in earth, sky, &c., Sankara refers to KA&ndogya, p. 518, a8 implying that.
® Literally, ‘it bears no water in the ocean.’ ‘ Water’ is said by the commentators to mean the five elements of which the body is composed. See Manu I, 5, and KAaindogya, p. 330. In the Svetasvatara it signifies mind (see p. 388). For ocean meaning world, or samsira; cf. Aitareya-upanishad, p. 182.
* Here I do not render rfipa by colour, as before.
N 2
p. 180
Yagus texts; nor yet in the Atharvan texts, nor in the pure SAman texts; nor yet, O king, in the Rathantara or Brrhadratha' hymns. It is seen in the self of a man of high vows*. It is invincible, beyond darkness’, it comes forth from within‘ at the time of destruction. Its form is more minute than the most minute (things), its form is larger even than the mountains®, That is the support® (of the universe); that is immortal; (that is) all things perceptible’. That is the Brahman, that is glory *. From that all entities were produced ®, in that they are dissolved. All this shines forth as dwelling in it in the form of light’®. And it is perceived by means of knowledge" by one who understands the self; on it depends this whole universe. Those who understand this become immortal.
? See Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. i, p. 16; TAndya-brihmana. p. 838; Gita, p.go; and Kaushitaki, p. 21. Brrhadratha=Brihatsdman (?).
? The twelve great vows—knowledge, &c., mentioned above, sec p. 167. Nilakan/ha takes Mahfvrata to refer to the sacrifice of that name. It is described in the Aitareya Aranyaka.
* See Gita, p. 78, note 4.
* Cf. Gita, p. 82, and fsopanishad, p. 12.
® Sce Gitd, p. 78, note 3.
* Cf. Gitd, p. 113; Kasha, p. 99.
7 So Nilakantha. The original word ordinarily means ‘ worlds.’
° Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 347.
* Cf. the famous passage in the Taittirfya, p. 123: and also Mundaka, p. 289.
78, note 4.
* Cf. Gita, p. 82, and fsopanishad, p. 12.
® Sce Gitd, p. 78, note 3.
* Cf. Gitd, p. 113; Kasha, p. 99.
7 So Nilakantha. The original word ordinarily means ‘ worlds.’
° Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 347.
* Cf. the famous passage in the Taittirfya, p. 123: and also Mundaka, p. 289.
** The explanations of the commentators are not quite clear as to the word ahn§, ‘in the form of light.’ Probably the meaning is; The universe depends on the Brahman, and is, as it were, the light of the Brahman. Sankara compares the passages referred to at Gita, p. 112, note 1.
* “Not by means of action,’ says Sankara,
CHAPTER V, 3. 181
CuHapter V'.
Grief and wrath, and avarice, desire, delusion, laziness, want of forgiveness, vanity, craving, friendship*, censoriousness, and reviling others—these twelve great enormities are destructive of a man’s life. These, O king of kings! attend on each and every man. Beset by these, a man, deluded in his understanding, acts sinfully. A man full of attachments, merciless, harsh (of speech), talkative, cherishing wrath in his heart, and boastful—these are the men of cruel qualities; (such) persons, even obtaining wealth, do not always enjoy (it)*. One
' The whole of this chapter is wanting in one of our copies of Sankara’s commentary. In the copy published in the Mahabh4rata (Madras edition) there is, however, this passage: ‘Wrath &c. have been already explained, still there are some differences here and there, and those only are now explained.’ The chapter is for the most part a repetition of what we have already had. For such repetitions cf. Brihadiranyaka, pp. 317-1016; 444-930. The same copy of Sankara’s commentary gives this general statement of the object of this and the next chapter: ‘The course of study of the science of the Brahman, in which knowledge is the principal thing, and concentration of mind &c. are subsidiary, has been described. Now is described the course of study in which concentration of mind is principal, and knowledge subsidiary. The first mode consists in understanding the meaning of the word “ you” by means of concentration of mind, and then identifying it with the Brahman by means of a study of the Upanishads ; the second, in first intellectually understanding the identity of the individual self and Brahman, by such study of the Upanishads, and then realising the identity to consciousness by contemplation, &c. In both modes the fruit is the same, and the means are the same; and to show this, the merits and defects already stated are here again declared.’ This explanation is verbatim the same in Nilakan/ha’s commentary.
? The original is ‘pity, which is explained to mean ‘friendship’ by Sankara and Nilakan/ha.
* ‘Owing to there being in it no enjoyment for the self,’ says one
p. 182
? The original is ‘pity, which is explained to mean ‘friendship’ by Sankara and Nilakan/ha.
* ‘Owing to there being in it no enjoyment for the self,’ says onep. 182 whose thoughts are fixed on enjoyments, who is partial’, proud’, boastful when he makes a gift, miserly, and devoid of power*, who esteems the group (of the senses), and who hates (his) wife— thus have been stated the seven (classes of) cruel persons of sinful dispositions. Piety, and truthfulness, and penance, and self-restraint, freedom from animosity, modesty, endurance, freedom from censoriousness, liberality, sacred learning, courage, forgiveness—these are the twelve great observances of a Brahmama. Whoever does not swerve from these twelve may govern this whole world. And one who is possessed of three, two, or even one, of these, must be understood to have nothing of his own‘. Self-restraint, abandonment, freedom from delusion, on these immortality depends*. These are possessed by those talented Brahmazas to whom the Brahman is the principal * (thing). A Brahmama’s speaking ill of others, whether true or false, is not commended.
copy of Sankara’s commentary. Another reading, which is in the Madras edition and in Nflakan/ha, may be rendered, ‘even obtaining benefits, they do not respect one (from whom they obtain them).’
1 The commentary says the meaning is the same as that of the expression used in the corresponding place before, viz. one who prospers by injuring others.
2 One copy of Sankara’s commentary takes this to mean one who thinks the not-self to be the self. I adopt the other meaning, however, as agreeing with that of atiminf, which is the reading of some copies instead of abhim4nf.
* Nilakansha reads durbala and does not explain it. See p. 167.
* One commentator says this means that he should not be supposed to have incurred the demerit of having any attachment to this world. Nflakansha says, he gives up everything in the pursuit of even one of these observances. * See p. 168.
* Le. the goal to be reached. The commentary takes Brahman to mean the Vedas, and the whole phrase to mean those who devote themselves to the performance of actions stated in the Vedas.
CHAPTER V, I3. 183
* See p. 168.
* Le. the goal to be reached. The commentary takes Brahman to mean the Vedas, and the whole phrase to mean those who devote themselves to the performance of actions stated in the Vedas.
CHAPTER V, I3. 183
The men who act thus have their places in hell. Frenzy has eighteen defects—as already described here—hatred of men, factiousness !, censoriousness, untruthful speech, lust, wrath, want of self-control *, speaking ill of others, backbiting, mismanagement in business *, quarrelsomeness, animosity, troubling living creatures, want of forgiveness, delusion, flippancy, loss of reason‘, censoriousness*; therefore a wise man should not be subject to frenzy, for it is always censured. Six characteristics should be understood as (belonging) to friendship—that one should rejoice at (anything) agreeable; and feel grieved at (anything) disagreeable; that with a pure heart one, when asked by a deserving (man), should give to him who asks what can ® certainly be given, (though it) may be beneficial to oneself, and even though it ought not to be asked, (namely) one’s favourites, sons, wealth, and one’s own wife; that one should not dwell there where one has bestowed (all one’s) wealth, through a desire (to get a return for one’s liberality) ; that one should enjoy
3 One copy of Sankara’s commentary says this means ‘ obstructing other people’s acts of piety,’ &c.
* One copy of Sankara’s commentary says this means ‘being given up to intoxicating drinks,’ &c.; another copy says, ‘doing another's bidding without thought.’
* One copy says this means ‘inattention to any work undertaken;’ another renders the original by ‘ destruction of property, i.e. squandering it on dancers,’ &c.
‘ T.e. discrimination between right and wrong.
* This seems to be some error, for ‘censoriousness ’ has occurred before. But neither the texts nor the commentaries give any help to correct the error. Perhaps the latter is to be distinguished as referring to the habit, and the former only to sporadic acts, of censoriousness. These qualities, I presume, constitute frenzy ; they are not the ‘defects.’
* Le. where the power to give exists.
p. 184
(the fruit of one’s? own) toils (only); and that one should forego one’s own profit®, Such a man, possessed of wealth, and possessed of merits, is a liberal man of the quality of goodness; such a one diverts the five elements from the five * (senses). This * pure penance, acquired out of desire ® by those who are fallen off from the truth, even though developed, leads upwards’; since sacrifices are performed owing to a misapprehension of the truth®. (The
1 Not a friend’s. 2 For a friend. * See Gftd, p. 120.
‘ The commentators take this to mean objects of sense, and they interpret ‘elements’ before to mean senses.
® ‘Viz. the turning away of the senses from their objects,’ says one copy of Sankara.
* Scil. to enjoy the higher enjoyments of superior worlds.
2 For a friend. * See Gftd, p. 120.
‘ The commentators take this to mean objects of sense, and they interpret ‘elements’ before to mean senses.
® ‘Viz. the turning away of the senses from their objects,’ says one copy of Sankara.
* Scil. to enjoy the higher enjoyments of superior worlds.
7 T.e. to the higher worlds ; it does not lead to emancipation here.
* Cf. Mundaka, p. 277. I must own that I do not quite understand this passage, nor its explanation as given in the commentaries. I do not quite see what the penance here mentioned has to do with sacrifice, and yet the commentators seem to take the words ‘since sacrifices,’ &c., with what precedes them, not with what follows. Taking them, however, with what follows, it is difficult to explain the word ‘since.’ As far as I can understand the passage I take the sense of it to be as follows: The author having said that penance performed out of a particular motive does not lead to final emancipation, he then proceeds to point out that all ‘action’ or ‘sacrifice’ is due to an imperfect understanding of the truth (cf. p- 171 supra), being mostly due to some particular motive. Then he goes on to show the different classes of sacrifice, and finally points out that he who is free from desires is superior to one who is actuated by desires. The original for ‘misapprehension’ is avabodha, which commonly means ‘apprehension,’ but Sankara finally makes it mean moha or ‘delusion.’ The original for truth is rendered by Nilakan/ha to mean ‘ fancies.’ Nflakam/ha says that the sacrifice by the mind is the highest; that by speech, viz. Brahmayag#a, Gapa, &c., is middling ; and that by deed, viz. with clarified butter and other offerings, of the lowest class. ‘ Perfected by fancies’= one whose fancies are always fulfilled ‘through a knowledge,’ says Nflakanfha, ‘of the Brahma as possessing qualities.’
CHAPTER V, 21. 185
sacrifices) of some are by the mind, of others by speech, and also by deed. The man void of fancies takes precedence over the man perfected by fancies, —especially among Brahmamas'. And hear this further from me. One should teach this great and glorious * (doctrine) ; (other doctrines) the wise call mere arrangements of words. On this concentration of mind’, all this‘ depends. Those who know this become immortal. Not by meritorious action only, O king! does man conquer the truth’, One may offer offerings, or sacrifice. By that the child(-like man) does not cross beyond death; nor, O king! does he obtain happiness in his last moments*. One should practise devotion quietly, and should not be active even in mind’; and then one should avoid delight and wrath (resulting) from praise and censure*. I say to you, O learned person! that adhering to this*, one attains the Brahman and perceives it, O Kshatriya! by a course (of study) of the Vedas.
I say to you, O learned person! that adhering to this*, one attains the Brahman and perceives it, O Kshatriya! by a course (of study) of the Vedas.
* This also is far from clear. Should it be, ‘and a Brahmama more especially?’ This might be taken as referring to one who knows the Brahman as devoid of qualities, as Nilakas/ha does take it. But his construction is not quite clear.
* As serviceable in attaining to ‘the glory,’ the Brahman; see p. 180.
* See note 1 at p. 181. As to ‘arrangements of words,’ cf. Maitri, p. 179.
‘ ‘Everything,’ says one copy of Sankara’s commentary ; ‘ all that is good and desirable,’ says another.
* Cf. inter alia, Mundaka, pp. 281-314.
* For he has got to undergo migration from one life to another as the result of the action. Cf. Brihad4ramyaka, p. 856; Mundaka, p. 278.
* Cf. Gil, p. 70. ® Ibid. pp. 101-110.
® I.e. the yoga or concentration of mind here described. This stanza, like many others in this chapter, occurs in chapter III with slight variations.
p. 186
Cuarpter VI,
That pure’, great light *, which is radiant; that great glory’; that, verily, which the gods worship ‘; that by means of which the sun shines forth 5— that eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. From (that) pure (principle) the Brahman‘ is produced; by (that) pure (principle) the Brahman is developed’; that pure (principle), not illumined among all radiant (bodies), is (itself) luminous and illuminates (them) * That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. The perfect is raised out of the perfect. It (being raised) out of the perfect is called the perfect. The perfect is withdrawn from the perfect, and the perfect only remains °. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees.
' Free from ignorance and other taints. See Kafka, p. 144.
* Sankara compares Kaéha, p. 142. See, too, Mundaka, p. 303 ; and note 4 infra.
® Svetasvatara, p. 347, and p. 180 supra.
* Sankara refers to Brthadaranyaka, p. 887.
* Cf. Gita, p. 112, note 1.
* ‘Named Hiranyagarbha,’ Sankara. Cf. Gita, p. 107; Svetasvatara, p. 354; Mundaka, p. 309; Maitrf, p. 130; Taitt. Aran. p- 894.
7 «In the form of Virag,’ says Sankara. As to these two, cf. Mundaka, pp. 270-272; and Sankara’s and Anandagiri’s notes there. See also Svetasvatara, pp. 324, 325; and Nrisimha T4pinf, PP- 233, 234; Colebrooke, Essays, pp. 344, 368 (Madras reprint). The Virag corresponds rather to the gross material world viewed as a whole; the Hirasyagarbha to the subtle elements similarly viewed, an earlier stage in the development. Cf. the Ved4ntasdra.
* Cf. Mundaka, p. 303, and Git, p. 112.
344, 368 (Madras reprint). The Virag corresponds rather to the gross material world viewed as a whole; the Hirasyagarbha to the subtle elements similarly viewed, an earlier stage in the development. Cf. the Ved4ntasdra.
* Cf. Mundaka, p. 303, and Git, p. 112.
* The individual self is part of the supreme (Gft4, p. 112); perfect =not limited by space, time, &c.; as being part of a thing perfect in its essence, the individual soul also is perfect. The individual self is withdrawn from the perfect, viz. the whole aggregate of body, senses, &c, presided over by the self, and when so withdrawn it appears to be the pure self only. Cf. Brihaddranyaka, p. 948.
CHAPTER VI, 6. 187
(From the Brahman), the waters' (are produced); and then from the waters, the gross body. In the space within that’, dwelt the two divine (principles). Both enveloping the quarters and sub-quarters, support earth and heaven*. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. The horse‘(-like senses) lead towards heaven him, who is possessed of knowledge and divine, (who is) free from old age, and who stands on the wheel of this chariot(-like body), which is transient, but the operations of which are imperishable ®, That eternal divine being * is perceived by devotees. His form has no parallel’; no one sees him with the eye*. Those who apprehend him by means of the understanding, and also the mind and heart, become immortal *. That eternal
? «The five elements,’ says Sankara, cf. Aitareya, p. 189; and for ‘ gross body,’ the original is literally ‘ water;’ see supra, p. 179, note 6; and see, too, tsopanishad, p. 11, and Svet4svatara, p. 368, for different but kindred meanings.
* Viz. the lotus-like heart. Cf. KAandogya, p. 528.
* The two principles between them pervade the universe, the individual self being connected with the material world, the other with heaven ; ‘divine’ is, literally, ‘the brilliant,’ says Sankara, who quotes Kasha, p. 305, as a parallel for the whole passage.
* Cf. Kasha, p. 111; Maitrt, pp. 19-34; and Mahabharata Strt Parvan, chap. VII, st. 13. Heaven=the Brahman here (see Brihadaranyaka, p. 876); divine=not vulgar, or unrefined—Sankara, who adds that though the senses generally lead one to sensuous objects, they do not do so when under the guidance of true knowledge.
® The body is perishable, but action done by the self while in the body leaves its effect.
* To whom, namely, the man of knowledge goes, as before stated.
7 Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 347.
* Cf. Kasha, p. 152, and comment there, where the eye is said to stand for all the senses.
» Kasha, p. 149; Svetsvatara, pp. 346-348, also p. 330 (should it be manfsh4 there instead of manviso?). The meanings of the three words are difficult to fix accurately. Sankara varies in his interpre-
p. 188
152, and comment there, where the eye is said to stand for all the senses.
» Kasha, p. 149; Svetsvatara, pp. 346-348, also p. 330 (should it be manfsh4 there instead of manviso?). The meanings of the three words are difficult to fix accurately. Sankara varies in his interprep. 188divine being is perceived by devotees. The currents of twelve collections ', supported by the Deity, regulate the honey ?; and those who follow after it move about in (this) dangerous (world). That eternal divine being*® is perceived by devotees. The bee‘ drinks that accumulated honey for half a month®, The Lord created the oblation for all beings*. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. Those who are devoid of wings’, coming tations. Probably the meaning he gives here is the best. Mind and understanding have been explained at Gita, p. 57. The heart is the place within, where the self is said to be, and it may be taken as indicating the self, the meaning would then be—a direct consciousness in the self of its unity with the Supreme. See, too, Taitt. Aran. p. 896.
1 The five organs of action, the five senses of perception, the mind and understanding make the twelve.
* Each current has its own honey regularly distributed to it under the supervision of the Deity, the Supreme. Honey=material enjoyment. Cf. Kasha, p. 126, where Sankara renders it by karmaphala, ‘ fruit of action.’
* Who supervises the distribution as stated. Cf. Vedanta-sitra III, 2, 28-31.
* Bhramara, which the commentators interpret to mean ‘one who is given to flying about—the individual self.’
* T.e. in one life in respect of actions done in a previous life.
* Sankara says this is in answer to a possible difficulty that action performed here cannot have its fruit in the next world, as the fruit is so far removed in time from the action. The answer is, The Lord, the Supreme, can effect this, and taking his existence into account there is no difficulty. Oblation=food, &c., Sankara. The meaning of the whole passage, which is not very clear, seems to be that the Lord has arranged things so that each being receives some of this honey, this food, which is the fruit of his own action, Then the question arises, Do these beings always continue taking the honey and ‘migrating,’ or are they ever released? That is answered by the following sentence.
7 «The wings of knowledge,’ says Sankara, citing a Brahmana text, ‘those, verily, who have knowledge are possessed of wings, those who are not possessed of knowledge are devoid of wings.’
CHAPTER VI, IO. 189
That is answered by the following sentence.
7 «The wings of knowledge,’ says Sankara, citing a Brahmana text, ‘those, verily, who have knowledge are possessed of wings, those who are not possessed of knowledge are devoid of wings.’
CHAPTER VI, IO. 189
to the Asvattha of golden leaves’, there become possessed of wings, and fly away happily*. That eternal divine being? is perceived by devotees. The upward life-wind swallows up the downward life-wind ; the moon swallows up the upward lifewind; the sun swallows up the moon’; and another swallows up the sun. Moving about above the waters, the supreme self * does not raise one leg’. (Should he raise) that, which is always performing sacrifices *, there will be no death, no immortality *. That eternal divine being’ is perceived by devotees.
' So, literally; Sankara explains ‘golden’ to mean ‘beneficial and pleasant,’ by a somewhat fanciful derivation of the word hirawya. He refers to Gita, p. 111, about the leaves of the Asvattha. Nilakaséka takes the leaves to be son, wife, &c., which are * golden,’ attractive at first sight. ‘Coming to the Asvattha,’ Sankara says, ‘means being born as a Brahmana,’ &c. ‘Flying away’ == obtaining final emancipation.
* The ‘selfs’ are compared to birds in the famous passage at Musdaka, p. 306 (also Svetdsvatara, p. 337). See also Brshadaranyaka, p. 499.
* Knowledge of whom leads to ‘ flying away happily.’
* Cf. Khandogya, p. 441. Sankara says that the author here explains the yoga by which the Supreme is to be attained. As to the life-winds, cf. Gita, p. 61. ‘The moon,’ says Sankara, ‘means the mind, and the sun the understanding, as they are the respective deities of those organs’ (cf. Brihaddranyaka, pp. 521-542, and Aitareya, p. 187, where, however, the sun is said to appertain to the eye).
® Le. the Brahman; the result is, one remains in the condition of being identified with the Brahman.
® Literally, flamingo. Cf. Svet4svatara, pp. 332, 367; see also p. 289; Maitri, p. 99 ; and the commentary on SvetAsvatara, p. 283.
™ Vis. the individual self, Sankara; that is, as it were, the bond of connexion between the Supreme and the world. Cf. Giud, p. 112.
* This is the meaning, though the word in the original is Ritvig, which in the later literature only means priest.
* As the whole of the material world is dissolved, when the self is dissevered from the delusion which is the cause of it.
*” Viz. who moves about on the waters, as above stated.
p. 190
* As the whole of the material world is dissolved, when the self is dissevered from the delusion which is the cause of it.
*” Viz. who moves about on the waters, as above stated.
p. 190
The being which is the inner self, and which is of the size of a thumb}, is always migrating in consequence of the connexion with the subtle body *. The deluded ones do not perceive that praiseworthy lord, primeval and radiant, and possessed of creative power’. That eterna] divine being is perceived by devotees. Leading mortals to destruction by their own action ‘, they conceal themselves like serpents in secret recesses’, The deluded men then become more deluded *. The enjoyments afforded by them cause delusion, and lead to worldly life’, That eternal divine being® is perceived by devotees. This* seems to be common to all mankind— whether possessed of resources? or not possessed of resources—it is common to immortality and the other". Those who are possessed (of them)? attain there to the source of the honey’. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. They go,
1 Svetasvatara, pp. 330-355; Taitt. Aram. p. 858, and comments there.
* The life-winds, the ten organs or senses, mind, and understanding. See the same word similarly interpreted at Svet4svatara, p. 306, and Sénkhya-sfitra III, 9.
5 According to Sankara, he who makes the distinct entities, after entering into them ; he alludes apparently to KAandogya, p. 407.
* Namely, that of giving the poison of sensuous objects.
* T.e. the eye, ear, &c., like the holes of serpents.
* l.e. can appreciate nought but those sensuous objects.
7 One reading is, ‘lead to danger’=which means ‘to hell,’ according to Nilakan/ha.
* Scil. delusion about whom leads to ‘ danger’ or ‘ worldly life.’
* The quality of being one with the Brahman in essence.
%° Self-restraint, tranquillity, &c.
1 J. e. whether in the midst of worldly life, or in the state of perfect emancipation. 13 Viz. the resources spoken of before.
¥ Viz. the supreme Brahman. ‘ There’ Sankara takes to mean ‘in the supreme abode of Vishau.’ See Introduction.
CHAPTER VI, 16. 19I
pervading both worlds by knowledge’. Then the Agnihotra though not performed is (as good as) performed*. Your (knowledge) of the Brahman, therefore, will not lead you to littleness*. Knowledge is (his) name. To that the talented ones attain. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. The self of this description absorbing the material cause* becomes great. And-the self of him who understands that being is not degraded here*. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. One should ever and always be doing good. (There is) no death, whence (can there be) immortality’? The real and the unreal have both the same real (entity) as their basis. The source of the existent and the non-existent is but one*. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. The
One should ever and always be doing good. (There is) no death, whence (can there be) immortality’? The real and the unreal have both the same real (entity) as their basis. The source of the existent and the non-existent is but one*. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. The
» Sankara does not explain this. Nilakan/ha says pervading= fully understanding ; both worlds=the self and the not-self. Is the meaning something like that of the passage last cited by Sankara under Vedinta-sfitra IV, 2, 14?
* He obtains the fruit of it, Sankara. See as to Agnihotra, X/Andogya, p. 381 seq. ; and Ved4nta-sfitra IV, 1, 16.
* Te. this mortal world, as action &c. would do.
“Le. of one who understands himself to be the Brahman. See Aitareya-upanishad, p. 246.
* Sankara says, ‘the cause in which all is absorbed.’ Cf. a similar, but not identical, meaning given to Vaisvinara at AXAandogya, p. 264; and sce Ved4nta-sfitra I, 2, 24. Becomes great= becomes the Brahman, Sankara.
* Even in this body, Sankara; degradation he takes to mean departure from the body, citing Brihadfranyaka, p. 540.
7 There is no worldly life with birth and death for one who does good, and thinks his self to be the Brahman; hence no emancipation from such life either.
®* The Brahman is the real, and on that the unreal material world is imagined. Cf. Taittirfya, p. 97, and Sankara’s comments there, which are of use in understanding this passage.
p. 192
being who is the inner self, and who is of the size of a thumb, is not seen, being placed in the heart'. He is unborn, is moving about day and night, without sloth. Meditating on him, a wise man remains placid?, That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. From him comes the wind’; in him, likewise, is (everything) dissolved. From him (come) the fire and the moon; and from him comes life*. That is the support (of the universe); that is immortal; that is all things perceptible®; that is the Brahman, that glory. From that all entities were produced; and in that (they) are dissolved*. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. The brilliant (Brahman) supports the two divine principles’ and the universe, earth and heaven, and the quarters. He from whom the rivers flow in (various) directions, from him were created the great oceans*. That eternal divine being is perceived by devotees. Should one fly, even after furnishing oneself with thousands upon thousands of wings, and even though one should have the velocity of thought*, one would never reach the end of the (great) cause’, That eternal divine
’ Cf. Katha, pp. 130, 157; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 360.
* Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 342; Kasha, pp. 100, 107; Maitri, p. 134.
* Cf. Taittiriya, p. 67; Kasha, p.146; Mundaka, p. 293.
* Kasha, p. 298; Mundaka, p. 288.
* See p. 180, note 7. * See p. 180 supra.
Katha, pp. 130, 157; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 360.
* Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 342; Kasha, pp. 100, 107; Maitri, p. 134.
* Cf. Taittiriya, p. 67; Kasha, p.146; Mundaka, p. 293.
* Kasha, p. 298; Mundaka, p. 288.
* See p. 180, note 7. * See p. 180 supra.
™ ¢The individual soul, and God,’ say the commentators, the latter being distinct from the supreme self. ‘The universe,’ says Nilakan//a, ‘ means earth,’ &c., by which I suppose he means earth, heaven, quarters, mentioned directly afterwards.
* Kasha, p. 293.
* This figure is implied in the fsopanishad, p. 10.
° «Therefore it is endless,’ says Sankara; and as to this, cf. Taittiriya, p. 51.
CHAPTER VI, 24. 193
being is perceived by devotees. His form dwells in the unperceived!; and those whose understandings are very well refined? perceive him. The talented man who has got rid (of affection and aversion) perceives (him) by the mind. Those who understand him* become immortal. When one sees this self in all beings stationed in various places‘, what should one grieve for after that®? The Brahmana has (as much interest) in all beings, as in a big reservoir of water, to which waters flow from all sides*. I alone am your mother’, father ;
* «In a sphere beyond the reach of perception,’ says Sankara, who also quotes Ka/sa, p. 149, or Svet&svatara, p. 347, where the same line also occurs.
* The original for understandings is sattva, which Sankara renders to mean antaskarama. ‘Refined,’ he says, ‘by sacrifices and other sanctifying operations.’ In the Ka/fa at p. 148 sattva is rendered by Sabkara to mean buddhi—a common use of the word.
* ‘As being,’ says Sankara, ‘identical with themselves.’ It will be noted that the form of expression is slightly altered here. It is not ‘those who understand this.’
* Le. in different aggregates of body, senses, &c. Cf. Gitd, pp. 104 and 124; also KAdndogya, pp. 475-551.
* Cf. Brthadframyaka, p. 882; Sankara also refers to Lsopanishad, p. 14.
* The words are pretty nearly the same as at Gft4, p. 48. Sankara says, the Bréhmasa ‘who has done all he need do’ has no interest whatever in any being, as he has none in a big reservoir, and be cites Gft4, p. 54, in support of this. One copy of Sankara, however, differs from this; that runs thus: ‘As a person who has done all he need do, has no interest in a big reservoir of water, 80 to a Bréhmana who sees the self in all beings, there is no interest in all the actions laid down in the Vedas, &c.; as he has obtained everything by mere perception of the self.’ Nilakan/ha’s reading is exactly the same as at Git4, p. 48.
* Sankara sars that Sanatsug4ta states here his own experiences, like Vamadeva (about whom there is a reference at Brihad&rasyaka, p- 216) and others, to corroborate what he has already said. Cf. also Gti, p. 83, as to the whole passage.
(8) fe)
p. 194
48.
* Sankara sars that Sanatsug4ta states here his own experiences, like Vamadeva (about whom there is a reference at Brihad&rasyaka, p- 216) and others, to corroborate what he has already said. Cf. also Gti, p. 83, as to the whole passage.
(8) fe)
p. 194
and I too am the son. And I am the self of all this—that which exists and that which does not exist'. (I am) the aged grandfather of this, the father, and the son, O descendant of Bharata! You dwell in my self only*. You are not mine, nor I (yours). The self only is my seat’; the self too is (the source of) my birth‘. I am woven through and through § (everything). And my seat is free from (the attacks of) old age* I am unborn, moving about day and night, without sloth. Knowing (me), verily, a wise man remains placid’. More minute than an atom ®, possessed of a good mind®, I am stationed within all beings’. (The wise) know the father of all beings to be placed in the lotus'(-like heart of every one).
' See Gité, p. 84. Nilakan/ha takes what exists to mean ‘present,’ and what does not exist to mean ‘past and future.’ Cf. Khandogya, p. 532.
* See Gité, p. 82, where there is also a similar apparent contradiction.
* Cf. Khindogya, p. 518.
* That is to say he is ‘unborn,’ says Nilakan/ha. Sankara seems to take ‘my’ with ‘seat’ only, and not with birth; for he says, ‘everything has its birth from the self.’
° Cf. Mundaka, p. 298; Maitr?, p. 84, and comment there.
* Cf. Gita, pp. 77, 109, and KAandogya, pp. 535, 55°-
7 See p. 192, note 2.
* Cf. Gita, p. 78, and note 3 there.
* Ie. a mind free from affection and aversion, hatred, &c., Sankara.
LIKE the Bhagavadgita and the Sanatsugatiya, the Anugita is one of the numerous episodes of the Mahabhérata. And like the Sanatsugatiya, it appears here for the first time in an English, or, indeed, it is believed, in any European garb. It forms part of the Asvamedha Parvan of the Mahabharata, and is contained in thirty-six chapters of that Parvan. These chapters—being chapters XVI to LI—together with all the subsequent chapters of the Asvamcdha Parvan, form by themselves what in some of our copies is called the Anugita Parvan—a title which affords a parallel to the title Bhagavadgita Parvan, which we have already referred to. The Anugita is not now a work of any very great or extensive reputation. But we do find some few quotations from it in the Bhashyas of Sankarakarya, and one or two in the Sankhya-sdra of Vig#ana Bhikshu, to which reference will be made hereafter. And it is included in the present volume, partly because it affords an interesting glimpse of sundry old passages of the Upanishad literature in a somewhat modified, and presumably later, form; and partly, perhaps I may say more especially, because it professes to be a sort of continuation, or rather recapitulation, of the Bhagavadgita. At the very outset of the work, we read, that after the great fratricidal war of the MahAbharata was over, and the Pandavas had become sole and complete masters of their ancestral kingdom, Krishna and Arguna- the two interlocutors in the Bhagavadgita—happened to take a stroll together in the great magical palace built for the Pandavas by the demon Maya In the course of the conversation which they held on the occasion, Krishwva communicated to Arguna his wish to return to his own people at Dvaraka, now that the business which had called
198 anuciTA.
him away from them was happily terminated. Arguna, of course, was unable to resist the execution of this wish ; but he requested Kvishaa, before leaving for Dvaraka, to repeat the instruction which had been already conveyed to him on ‘the holy field of Kurukshetra,’ but which had gone out of his ‘degenerate mind.’ Krishza thereupon protests that he is not equal to a verbatim recapitulation of the Bhagavadgita, but agrees, in lieu of that, to impart to Arguna the same instruction in other words, through the medium of a certain ‘ancient story ’—or puratana itihdsa. And the instruction thus conveyed constitutes what is called the Anugit4, a name which is in itself an embodiment of this anecdote.
And the instruction thus conveyed constitutes what is called the Anugit4, a name which is in itself an embodiment of this anecdote.
Now the first question which challenges investigation with reference to this work is, if we may so call it, the fundamental one—how much is properly included under the name? The question is not one quite easy of settlement, as our authorities upon it are not all reconcilable with one another. In the general list of contents of the Asvamedha Parvan, which is given at the end of that Parvan in the edition printed at Bombay, we read that the first section is the Vyasa Vakya, and the second the Samevartamaruttiya. With neither of these have we aught to do here. The list then goes on thus: ‘ Anugita, Vasudevagamana, Brahmava Git4, Gurusishyasamvada, Uttankopaékhyana,’ and so forth. With the later sections, again, we are not here concerned. Now let us compare this list with the list which may be obtained from the titles of the chapters in the body of the work itself. With the sixteenth chapter, then, of the Asvamedha Parvan, begins what is here called the Anugita Parvan ; and that chapter and the three following chapters are described as the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and ninetcenth chapters respectively of the Anugita Parvan, which forms part of the Asvamedha Parvan. The title of the twentieth chapter contains a small, but important, addition. It runs thus, ‘Such is the twentieth chapter of the Anugit4 Parvan, forming part of the Asvamedha Parvan—being the Brahma Git4.’ This form is continued down to the thirty-fourth chapter, only Brahmawa
p. 199
The title of the twentieth chapter contains a small, but important, addition. It runs thus, ‘Such is the twentieth chapter of the Anugit4 Parvan, forming part of the Asvamedha Parvan—being the Brahma Git4.’ This form is continued down to the thirty-fourth chapter, only Brahmawa
p. 199
Gita being substituted for Brahma Git. At the close of the thirty-fifth chapter, there is another alteration caused by the substitution of Gurusishyasamvada for Brahmana Gita ; and this continues down to the fifty-first chapter, where the thread of the narrative is again taken up—the philosophical parenthesis, if I may so say, having come to an end. With the fifty-first chapter our present translation also ends. Now it appears from the above comparison, that the list of contents set out above is accurate, save in so far as it mentions VAsudevagamana as a distinct section of the Asvamedha Parvan. No such section seems to be in existence. And there appears to be nothing in the Asvamedha Parvan to which that title could be appropriately allotted. The edition printed at Madras agrees in all essential particulars with the Bombay edition ; with this difference, that even at the close of the twentieth chapter, the name is Brahmasa Gita, and not Brahma Gité as it is in the Bombay edition. The Calcutta edition also agrees in these readings. Turning now to a MS. procured for me by my excellent friend Professor Abagt Vishwu KAthavafe at Ahmedabad, and bearing date the 15th of Phalguna Vadya 1823, Sunday, we find there at the end of the Asvamedha Parvan a list of contents like that which we have seen in the printed edition. The relevant portion of that list is as follows: ‘ Sawevartamaruttlya, Anugita, Gurusishyasamrvada, and Uttankopakhydna.’ Here we find neither the erroneous entry of Vasudevagamana, nor the correct entry of Brahma Gita, which are both contained in the other list. In another MS. which I have now before me, and which has been lent me by Professor Bhandarkar, who purchased it in Pua for the Government of Bombay—in this MS., which contains the commentary of Arguna Misra, the earlier chapters are described not as chapters of the Anugité Parvan, but of the Anugita contained in the Asvamedha Parvan, and they are numbered there as they are numbered in our translation, not continuously with the numbering of the previous chapters of the Asvamedha Parvan. At the close of chapter IV, we have an explicit statement that the Anugita ends there. Then the Brahma Gita begins. And the first chapter is
p. 200
At the close of chapter IV, we have an explicit statement that the Anugita ends there. Then the Brahma Gita begins. And the first chapter is
p. 200
described as a chapter of the Brahma Gita in the Asvamedha Parvan. The numbering of each of these chapters of the Brahma Gita is not given in the copy before us—the titles and descriptions of the various chapters being throughout incomplete. Some of the later chapters are described as chapters of the Brahma Gita, and some as chapters of the Brahmaaa Git4; but this discrepancy is probably to be put to the account of the particular copyist who wrote out the copy used by us. With what is chapter XX in our numbering the Gurusishyasamvada begins. This MS. omits all reference to any Anugita Parvan, and fails to number the various chapters. Its list of sections agrees with that in the Bombay edition. It bears no date.
So much for what may be described as our primary sources of information on this subject. Let us now glance at the secondary sources. And, first, Nilakaz¢ka in commenting on what is, according to his numbering, chapter XV, stanza 43, apparently distinguishes that chapter from what he speaks of as the Brahmaza Gita and Gurusishyasamvada, which, as he implies, follow after that chapter— thus indicating that he accepted in substance the tradition recorded in the passages we have already set forth, viz. that the first four chapters of our translation form the Anugita, the next fifteen the Brahmavza Gita, and the last seventeen the Gurusishyasamvada. This is also the view of Arguna Misra. At the close of his gloss on chapter IV, he distinctly states that the Anugita ends at that chapter ; and again at the close of the gloss on chapter XIX, he explicitly says that the Brahmaza Gita ends there. He also adds the following interesting observation : ‘ The feminine form (Gita, namcly) is used in consequence of (the word) Upanishad being feminine.’ The full title of that part of the Mahabharata would then be, according to this remark of Arguna Misra, ‘the Upanishads sung by the Brahmama,’ a title parallel to that of the Bhagavadgit4, ‘the Upanishads sung by the Deity.’ It is to be further remarked, that the last chapter of the Gurusishyasamvada is called in this commentary the cighteenth chapter of the Gurusishyasamvada, a fact which seems to indicate that Arguna Misra either
p. 201
found in the MS. which he used, or himself established, a separate numbering for the chapters in the several sections! of which the Asvamedha Parvan is made up. Although the information here set out from these various sources is not easily to be harmonised in all its parts, the preponderance of testimony seems to be in favour of regarding the portion of the Asvamedha Parvan embraced in our translation as containing three distinct sections, viz. the Anugitd, the Brahmana Gita, and the Gurusishyasamvada. And some indirect support for this conclusion may be derived from one or two other circumstances. In the Sankhya-sara of Vig#a4na Bhikshu—a work which, as we shall see in the sequel, expressly mentions the Anugita— we have a passage cited as from the ‘Bharata*’ which coincides almost precisely with a passage occurring in chapter XXVII of our translation (see p. 335). And in the Bhashya of SankarAf#arya on the Bhagavadgita, chapter XV, stanza 1, we have a citation as from a ‘Purana’ of a passage which coincides pretty closely with one which occurs in chapter XX of our translation (see p. 313). If the discrepancies between the quotations as given by Vig#ana Bhikshu and Sadkara, and the passages occurring in our text, may be treated merely as various readings—and there is nothing inherently improbable in this being the case—it may be fairly contended, that neither Sankara nor Vig#ana Bhikshu would have used the vague expressions, ‘a Purdsa,’ or even ‘the Bharata,’ if they could have correctly substituted in lieu of them the specific name Anugita. And this, it may be said, is a contention of some weight, when it is remembered, that both Sankara and VigAana show, in other parts of their writings, an acquaintance with this very Anugit4. If this reasoning is correct,
' In the beginning of his gloss on the Anugiia he says, that he proposes to explain difficult passages in the Anugtt4, &c.—Anugitadisha, And at the oeteet of his gloss on the whole Parvan he says, that in the Anugtta we have a statement of the miseries of birth, &c. as a protest against worldly life ; in the Brahma Gttd we have a recommendation of Prisdyima, &c.; and in the Gurunsbyasamvida we bave a eulogium on the perception of the self as distinct from Vrakriti or nature, and incidentally a protest against Pravritti or action.
* Po an.
p. 202
the conclusion to be derived from it must be, that Sankara and Vig#4na must have considered the chapters of the Asvamedha Parvan from which their respective quotations are taken as not forming part of the Anugita.
* Po an.
p. 202
the conclusion to be derived from it must be, that Sankara and Vig#4na must have considered the chapters of the Asvamedha Parvan from which their respective quotations are taken as not forming part of the Anugita.
The testimony we have thus collected is apparently of considerable weight. Against it, however, we have to weigh some testimony which appears to me to be entitled, upon the whole, to even greater weight. In the Sankhya-sdra of Vig#ana Bhikshu, to which we have already referred, we have two quotations! from the Anugita which are distinctly stated to be taken from that work. The first occurs in our translation at p. 332, the second at p. 313. Now, if we adopt the conclusion above referred to, regarding the correct titles of the thirty-six chapters which we have translated, it is a mistake to attribute the passages in question to the Anugité. They would, on that view, form part of the Gurusishyasamvada. Again, in his commentary on the Sanatsugatiya, Sankara refers to sundry passages which he expressly says are taken from the Anugit4, but which are not contained in the Anugita as limited by the evidence we have considered above. One of the passages referred to is taken from chapter XI of our translation, and others are contained in the comments on Sanatsugatiya I, 6, and on I, 20 and I, 412. It is difficult to resist the conclusion to which this positive evidence leads. One cannot possibly explain this evidence upon the view which we have first stated ; while, on the other hand, the points which apparently support that view are capable of some explanation on the theory that the Anugit4 includes all the chapters here translated. And that in this wise. The passages which we have referred to as cited by Sankara and Vig#ana from a Puraa and from the Bharata may have been actually taken from some other work than the Anugita. Even waiving the fact that the readings are different,—though in regard especially to the quotation given by Sankara it is not one to be entirely lost sight of,—there is this fact which is of great and almost conclusive weight on such a point as
' Pp.1s, 21. The latter corresponds to Sankara’s quotation above referred to. * See p. 206 note.
p. 203
The latter corresponds to Sankara’s quotation above referred to. * See p. 206 note.
p. 203
this, namely, that we have many instances of passages common, almost verbatim et literatim, to the Mahdbhérata and other works. For one instance, take the very passage on which a chronological argument has been founded by us in the Introduction to the Sanatsugatiya’. It ought to have been there pointed out, that the stanza about a young man being bound to rise to receive an elderly person, occurs in the Manu Smriti*® also in exactly the same words. The omission to note this circumstance in its proper place in the Introduction to the SanatsygAtiya was due to a mere inadvertence. But the conclusion there hinted at was expressed in very cautious language, and with many qualifications, out of regard to circumstances such as those which we are now considering. Similar repetitions may be pointed out in other places. The passage about the Kshetrag#a and Sattva and their mutual relations (see p. 374) occurs, as pointed out in the note there, in at least two other places in the Mahabharata. The passage likewise which occurs in Git4, p. 103, about the ‘hands, feet, &c., on all sides,’ is one which may be seen, to my own knowledge, in about half a dozen places in the MahAbharata. Such cases, I believe, may be easily multiplied ; and they illustrate and are illustrated by Mr. Freeman’s proposition respecting the epic age in Greece, to which we have already alluded. It follows, consequently, that the quotations from Sankara and Vig#Ana, to which we have referred above, do not militate very strongly against the final conclusion at which we have arrived. The testimony of the MSS. and the commentators is of considerably greater force. But Nilakastha, whatever his merits as an exegete—and even these are often marred by a persistent effort to read his own foregone conclusions into the text he comments on—Nilakan¢ha is but an indifferent authority in the domain of historical criticism. In his commentary on the Sanatsugatfya, for instance, he tells us that he has admitted into his text sundry verses which were not in the copy used by Sankara, and for which he had none but a very modern voucher, and he very naively adds that he has done so on the principle of collecting all
* P. 139, and cf p. 176 with Vishwa XXX, 44 seq. ® See II, 120.
p. 204
139, and cf p. 176 with Vishwa XXX, 44 seq. ® See II, 120.
p. 204
good things to a focus. Arguna Misra is a very much more satisfactory commentator. But he is not likely to be a writer of a very remote date. I assume, that he must be more recent than Sankardfarya, though I cannot say that I have any very tenable ground for the assumption. But assuming that, I think it more satisfactory to adopt Sankar4arya’s nomenclature, and to treat the thirty-six chapters here translated as constituting the Anugita. It is not improbable, if our assumption is correct, that the division of the thirty-six chapters in the manner we have seen may have come into vogue after the date of Vig#ana Bhikshu, who, according to Dr. F. E. Hall, ‘lived in all probability in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and whom there is some slight reason for carrying back still further.’
Do these thirty-six chapters, then, form one integral work? Are they all the work of one and the same author ? These are the questions which next present themselves for consideration. The evidence bearing upon them, however, is, as might be expected, excessively scanty. Of external evidence, indeed, we have really none, barring Sankara’s statement in his commentary on the Brihadérazyakaupanishad? that the verse which he there quotes from the Anugita has Vydsa for its author. That statement indicates that Sankara accepted the current tradition of Vyasa’s authorship of the Anugita; and such acceptance, presumably, followed from his acceptance of the tradition of Vy4sa’s authorship of the entire Mahabharata. If that tradition is incorrect, and Vydsa is not the author of the Anugita, we have no means of ascertaining who is the author. And as to the tradition in question, it is difficult, in the present state of our materials, to form any satisfactory judgment. We therefore proceed at once to consider whether the Anugita is really one work. And [ must admit at the outset that I find it difficult to answer this question. There are certainly some circumstances connected with the work which might be regarded as indicating a different authorship of different parts of it. Thus