There are certainly some circumstances connected with the work which might be regarded as indicating a different authorship of different parts of it. Thus
' See Preface, Sankhya-sdra, p. 37. * P. 234.
p. 205
in an carly portion of the work, we find the first personal pronoun is used, where the Supreme Being is evidently intended to be signified, and yet the passage is not put into the mouth of Krishna, but of the Brahmaza. A similar Passage occurs a little later on also. Now it must be taken to be a somewhat strained interpretation of the words used in the passages in question to suppose that the speaker there used the first personal pronoun, identifying himself for the nonce with the Supreme Being!. Again, in a passage still further on, we have the vocative O Partha! where the person addressed is not Arguna at all, but the Brahmaza’s wife. Now these lapses are susceptible of two explanations—either we are to see in them so many cases of ‘Homer nodding,’ or we may suppose that they are errors occasioned by one writer making additions to the work of a previous writer, without a vivid recollection of the framework of the original composition into which his own work had to be set*. I own, that on balancing the probabilities on the one side and the other, my mind rather leans to the hypothesis of one author making a slip in the plexus of his own story within story, rather than the hypothesis of a deliberate interpolator forgetting the actual scheme of the original work into which he was about to foist his own additions*. And this the rather, that we find a similar slip towards the very beginning of the work, where we have the Brahmawa K4syapa addressed as Parantapa, or destroyer of foes—an epithet which, I think, is exclusively reserved for Kshatriyas, and is, in any case, a very inappropriate one to apply to a humble seeker for spiritual light. This slip appears to me to be incapable of explanation on any theory of interpolation‘. And hence the other slips above noted can hardly be regarded as supporting any such theory. Another circumstance, not indeed bearing
" In fact the Brihmawa is not identified with the Supreme Being afterwards. Bat that fact has not much bearing on the question here.
* C£ Wilson’s DasakumA&rabarita, Introd. p. 23.
® The third alternative, that a work independently written was afterwards bodily thrown into the Mahdbhfrata, is one which in the circumstances here seems to me improbable.
* See also pp. 235, 252, 299.
p. 206
* C£ Wilson’s DasakumA&rabarita, Introd. p. 23.
® The third alternative, that a work independently written was afterwards bodily thrown into the Mahdbhfrata, is one which in the circumstances here seems to me improbable.
* See also pp. 235, 252, 299.
p. 206
out that theory, but rendering interpolations possible, deserves to be noted. The scheme of the Anugita certainly lends itself to interpolations. A story might without much difficulty be added to the series of story joined to story which it contains. Against this, however, it must not be forgotten, that the Santi Parvan of the Mahabharata and the Yogavasishzha exhibit a precisely similar framework of contents, and that the Pa#éatantra and the Kathasaritsagara, among other works, follow the same model. And from this fact it may be fairly argued, that while there is, doubtless, room for suspecting interpolations in such cases, there is this to be remembered, that with respect to any particular one of these cases, such suspicion can carry us but a very short way. And further, it is to be observed, valeat quantum, that the connexion of the several chapters of the Anugit4 one with the other is not altogether a loose one, save at one or two points only, while they are all linked on to the main body of the narrative, only in what we have treated as the last chapter of the Anugit4, without any trace of any other connecting link anywhere else. Upon the whole, therefore, we here conclude, though not without doubt, that the whole of the Anugita is the work of one author.
The next question to be discussed is the important one of the age of the work. The quotations already given above from Sankarasarya’s works, and one other which is referred to in the note below!, suffice to show that the Anugité must have been some few centuries old in the time of Sankarasarya. For whether we treat the Anugita as a part of the original Mahabharata or not, it is not likely that such a scholar as Sankara would have accepted the book as a genuine part of the Mahabharata, and as a work of Vy4Asa, if it had not been in his day of some respectable antiquity, of antiquity sufficient to have thrown the real author into oblivion, and to have substi-
* See Sankara, Sartraka Bhishya, p. 726. That, however, may be a quotation from some other work. It may be noted that the passages quoted in the BhAshya on Sanatsugatiya I, 20 and I, 41 are not to be traced in our copies, though expressly stated there to have been taken from the Anugité.
p. 207
726. That, however, may be a quotation from some other work. It may be noted that the passages quoted in the BhAshya on Sanatsugatiya I, 20 and I, 41 are not to be traced in our copies, though expressly stated there to have been taken from the Anugité.
p. 207
tuted in his place Vy4sa, who lived at the junction of the Dvapara and Kali ages', upwards of thirty centuries before the Christian era. The calculation is avowedly a very rough one, but I think we may, as the result of it, safely fix the third century of the Christian era as the latest date at which the Anugita can have been composed. Let us now endeavour to find out whether we can fix the date as lying within any better defined period. It is scarcely needful to say, that the Anugita dates from a period considerably subsequent to the age of the Upanishads. The passages relating to the Prawasawvada and so forth, which occur originally in the Upanishads, are referred to in the Anugit4 as ‘ancient stories '—an indication that the Upanishads had already come to be esteemed as ancient compositions at the date of the latter work. It is not necessary, therefore, to go through an elaborate examination of the versions of the ancient stories alluded to above, as contained in the Upanishads and in the Anugita, more especially because it is possible for us to show that the Anugita is later than the Bhagavadgita, which latter work, as we have seen, is later than the Upanishads. And to this point we shall now address ourselves. We have already observed upon the story referred to at the opening of this Introduction, which, historically interpreted, indicates the priority of the Bhagavadgita to the Anugita. This conclusion is confirmed by sundry other circumstances, which we must now discuss in some detail, as they are also of use in helping to fix the position of the work in the history of Sanskrit literature and philosophy. First, then, it seems to me, that the state of society mirrored in the Anugit4 indicates a greater advance in social evolution than we have already seen is disclosed in the Bhagavadgita. Not to mention decorations of houses and so forth, which are alluded to in one passage of the Anugtta, we ase here told of royal oppressions, of losses of wealth accumulated with great difficulty, and of fierce captivities ; we are told, to adapt the language of a modern English poet, of laws grinding the weak, for strong men rule the
‘CEL Sistraka Bhishya, p. 913.
p. 208
913.
p. 208
law; we have references to the casting of images with liquefied iron, and to the use of elephants as vehicles’; and we meet with protests against the amusements of music and dancing, and against the occupation of artisans*. True it is, that all these indications put together, fail to constitute what, according to the standard of modern times, would be called a highly artificial state of society. But it seems to me to mark a very perceptible and distinct advance beyond the social condition when mankind was divided into four castes or classes, with such a division of duties, to put it briefly, as that of preparation for a future world, government of this world, agriculture and trade, and service respectively *. Artisans, it will be observed, are not even referred to in the Bhagavadgita, nor is there any trace of royal oppressions, or unequal laws. Then as regards music, it may be noted, that there are references to it in the Brihadarazyaka and Kaushitaki-upanishads *, without any indications of disapprobation. The protest against music, therefore, and the sister art of dancing, is probably to be explained as evoked by some abuses of the two arts which must have come into prevalence about the time of the composition of the Anugité. A similar protest is found recorded in the Dharmasdstras of Manu and Apastamba and Gautama’®. We shall consider in the sequel the chronological positions of the Anugita with reference to those Dharmasastras. But we have already pointed out that the Git4 stands prior to them both °.
Look again at the views on caste which are embodied in the Anugita and the Bhagavadgita respectively. The reference to the Kshatriya as representing the quality of passion, while the Brahmana represents the quality of goodness’, scems to place a considerably larger distance between the Brahmana and the Kshatriya than is suggested by the Bhagavadgita, and thus marks an advance in the direction of the later doctrine on the subject. And in connexion
' Cf. Lalita Vistara, p. 17. ® See pp. 325-365. ® See Gitd, p. 126. * See Brihadaranyaka, p. 454, and Kaushitaki, p. 68.
® See Bubler’s Apastamba I, 1, 3, 11, Gautama II, 13, and Manu II, 178.
* P. a1 seq. * P. 329
p. 209
And in connexion
' Cf. Lalita Vistara, p. 17. ® See pp. 325-365. ® See Gitd, p. 126. * See Brihadaranyaka, p. 454, and Kaushitaki, p. 68.
® See Bubler’s Apastamba I, 1, 3, 11, Gautama II, 13, and Manu II, 178.
* P. a1 seq. * P. 329p. 209 with this, perhaps, the discrepancy between the reading of the Bhagavadgita at p. 85, and that of the Anugita at p. 255, is not entirely without significance, though much weight would not be due to it, if it stood alone. The expression ‘devoted royal sages,’ which we find in the one work, makes way for ‘well-read Kshatriyas who are intent on their own duties’ in the other. Again, although the passage at p. 353 is undoubtedly susceptible of a different interpretation, it seems to me, that the word ‘twice-born’ there employed, was meant to be interpreted as meaning the Brahmanas, and not the three twice-born castes; and if this interpretation is correct, we have here the very proposition upon the absence of which in the Bhagavadgita we have already made some observations'. That twice-born in the passage in question means Brahmana only, is, of course, not a proved fact. But having regard to the passages noted above and to the passage at p. 320, where reference is made to disparagement of Brahmanas— it is not twice-born there—and in the same clause with disparagement of gods and Vedas, it seems to me that the interpretation we have suggested must be taken to be the true one. And it is to be further noted, that this conclusion is corroborated by a comparison of the passage now under consideration with a passage occurring in the Santi Parvan*, in the Ragadharma section of it, where we read that ‘the cow is the first among quadrupeds, gold among metals, a mantra among words, and the Brahmasa is the first among bipeds.’ The cow and gold occur in the passage in the Anugita also, very near the clause we are now discussing. And it is allowable to argue, that reading the two together, twice-born in the Anugita must be interpreted to be synonymous with Brahmama in the Ragadharma. And the same conclusion is, to my mind, confirmed indirectly by comparing the clause ‘the twice-born among men’ of the Anugit4 with ‘the ruler of men among men’ of that Bhagavadgit4, the teaching of which the former work professes to recapitulate.
‘ P. 24 supra. ® See note at p. 353.
(8) P
p. 210
‘ P. 24 supra. ® See note at p. 353.
(8) P
p. 210
A similar inference seems to be derivable from a comparison of the specific doctrines as to the duties of Brahmamas which are enunciated in the Git4 and the Anugita. In the latter work, the famous six duties are expressly mentioned. We have already argued in our Introduction to the Gita, that a comparison of the teaching of that work upon this point with the teaching of Apastamba and Manu shows the former to have been older than the latter. The six duties mentioned in the Anugit4 are those also mentioned by Manu and Apastamba. It follows, therefore, that the Gita is prior to the Anugit4 also. Whether the Anugita is prior or subsequent to Manu and Apastamba, is a question which will have to be discussed in the sequel.
The net result of the whole of this comparison appears to me to clearly show the Anugita to be a work of considerably more recent date than the Bhagavadgita. What interval of time lay between the two, is a most interesting, but also a most difficult, question. The differences we have noted appear to me to indicate a pretty wide interval. If I am right in regarding the Gita as a work of what may be called. for practical purposes, the age of the older Upanishads, I am inclined to think that the interval between the Gita and the Anugita must have been one of larger extent than even three or four centuries. For as we have already pointed out, the description of the various ‘Itihasas’ mentioned in the Anugita as ‘purdtana’—ancient—points to at least three or four centurics having elapsed between the close of the Upanishad period and the composition of the Anugita. It is obvious, however, that this result is not one with which we can rest satished. Even if it were more precise and accurate, it would only fix the age of the Anugita with reference to the age of another work itself of unknown and unascertained date. We must therefore endeavour to compare the Anugitaé with some other work, the date of which is better known. For this purpose, it seems to be not of any great use to refer to the Sankhya and Yoga-sitras, although it is not improbable that some materials might be forthcoming for a useful comparison between them and the Anugita. Neither the Sankhya nor the Yoga-sitras can
INTRODUCTION. arr
For this purpose, it seems to be not of any great use to refer to the Sankhya and Yoga-sitras, although it is not improbable that some materials might be forthcoming for a useful comparison between them and the Anugita. Neither the Sankhya nor the Yoga-sitras can
INTRODUCTION. arr
be said to have their ages fixed with even any approach to accuracy. And in the case of the Sankhya-sitras, there is the further difficulty presented by the circumstance, that there is room for very serious doubts as to whether the current Sdtras are really of the authorship of Kapila, or whoever else was the original founder of the system. With regard to the Yoga, one or two observations from a different point of view may not, however, be entirely out of place. At p. 248 the Yoga S4stra is referred'to eo nomine. What SAstra is here alluded to? Is it Pataggali’s, or some other S4stra dealing with similar topics? Or, again, is it an entirely different matter that is alluded to, and are we not to see in the expression in question an allusion to any system formally propounded? I own, as stated in the note on the passage, that my mind inclines to the last view. There is not very much to say on either side of the question, as far as I am able to understand it. But the view I incline to appears to have one small circumstance in its favour. At p- 249 we have an allusion to persons who understand the Yoga, and to a certain illustration propounded by them. Now who are these persons? My limited knowledge of Yoga literature has not enabled me to trace the illustration anywhere else than in the Ka¢hopanishad, and in the Sanatsugatiya. It seems to me very unlikely, that the illustration can have been put forward in any work older than the Ka¢kopanishad. And we may, I think, assume it as most probable that the SanatsugAtiya borrowed it from that work. If so, it is not likely that the Anugita can have referred to any other master of the Yoga than the author of the Kathopanishad. And then it would seem to follow, that the Anugtt4 must have been composed at a time when, although the Upanishads were looked on with reverence and as works of authority, they were not yet regarded as part and parcel of the Vedic revelation’. It is impossible not to perceive, that the train of reasoning here is at every stage hedged round with difficulties and doubts. And the inference therefore to which we are led by it must be accepted with proportionate
* This seems to be also the implication of the passage at p. 309, where the rales for final emancipation are alluded to. P2
p. 212
And the inference therefore to which we are led by it must be accepted with proportionate
* This seems to be also the implication of the passage at p. 309, where the rales for final emancipation are alluded to. P2p. 212 caution. But if the reasoning is correct, it seems to be certain, that the Anugita belongs to some period prior to the second, and probable, that it belongs to some period prior to the third century, before Christ. For in the second century before Christ was composed the Mahdbhashya of Pataggali, in which Rahasyas—which is another name for Upanishads—are mentioned as forming part of the Vedic literature. And in Apastamba’s Dharma-sitras, which are older than Patafgali, Upanishads! are mentioned in the same way. Iam aware that it may be said, that because Upanishads as a class of works are mentioned by Pataggali and Apastamba, it does not follow that any particular Upanishad, such as the Kaéa, for instance, also existed at that time. This is quite true. But without going now into the general question, it is sufficient to point out, that our argument here is concerned merély with the recognition of the Upanishads as a class of works forming part of the Vedic canon. Such recognition must have come later than the period at which the Anugit4 could speak of a passage in the Ka¢ha-upanishad as the utterance of Yogavids, or persons -who understood the Yoga.
Turning now to the materials available for ascertaining the relative chronological positions of the Anugité and the rise of Buddhism, we have again to complain of their unsatisfactory character. We will briefly note the two or three circumstances which appear to have a bearing upon this question. In the first place, we have the word Nirvana used in one passage of the Anugita in the sense of the highest tranquillity, and there the simile of the extinction of the fire is expressly adduced. On this it may be argued, that if the term Nirvana had become the wellunderstood property of Buddhism, such a use of it as we find here would probably not have occurred. Again, we have the injunction that an ascetic must dwell in a town only for one day and no more, while he may stay at one place during the rains. This is very similar to an injunction prescribed by the Buddhistic teachers also. But
' They are also referred to in the Buddhistic Lalita Vistara, p. 63.
p. 2713
This is very similar to an injunction prescribed by the Buddhistic teachers also. But
' They are also referred to in the Buddhistic Lalita Vistara, p. 63.
p. 2713
this fact furnishes, I think, no safe ground for a chronological inference, more especially because, as pointed out by Dr. Buhler, the Buddhistic injunction is itself only borrowed from the Brahminical rules on the subject'. It is impossible, therefore, to say that the Anugit4 borrowed its doctrine from Buddhism. It is, of course, equally impossible on the other hand to say, that Buddhism borrowed its rule from the Anugtita. And, therefore, we can build no safe inference upon this fact either. We have next the very remarkable passage at chapter XXXIV, where various contradictory and mutually exclusive views of piety are stated, or rather passingly and briefly indicated—a passage which one most devoutly wishes had been clearer than it is, In that passage I can find no reference to Buddhism. True it is that Nilakaw/ha’s commentary refers some of the doctrines there stated to Buddhistic schools*. But that commentary, unsatisfactory enough in other places, is particularly unsatisfactory here. And its critical accuracy may be judged from its reference to Saugatas and Yogaearas apparently as two distinct schools, whereas in truth the Saugatas are Buddhists, and Yogdéaras one of the four principal Buddhist sects) And it must be further remembered, that the interpretations of Nilakan‘ha, upon which his specifications of the different schools are based, are by no means such as necessarily claim acceptance. If then we do not find any reference to Buddhism in this passage, that fact becomes certainly a remarkable one. Still, on the other hand, I am not prepared to apply the ‘negative argument’ here, and to say that inasmuch as Buddhism is not referred to where so many different opinions are referréd to, Buddhism cannot have come into existence at the date of the Anugita. It seems to me that the argument will here be a very hazardous one, because if the author of the Anugit4 was, as we may assume he was, an orthodox Hindu, he might well have declined, although not unacquainted with Buddhism, to put into the mouths of the seven sages even as a possible view, that
* See Gautama, pp. Iv and1g1. * See also the gloss on chap. XXXIV, st. 14.
214 ANuGciTA,
Iv and1g1. * See also the gloss on chap. XXXIV, st. 14.
214 ANuGciTA, which was the view of a school esteemed heretical by the author and his co-religionists. This passage, therefore, also fails to furnish any tangible ground for a chronological inference, at all events in the present state of our knowledge. Lastly, we come to the allusion to those who indulge in constant talk in disparagement of Vedas and Brahmanas, the two being thus bracketed together in the original. That seems, at the first blush, to be a somewhat more distinct allusion to Buddhism than any of those we have noted above. But even that is not unambiguous. Ifthe stanzas quoted by Madhavafarya, in his Sarvadarsanasangraha in its first section, are the composition of the original founder of the A’arvaka school, or even if they correctly represent the earliest opinions of that school, it is at least quite as likely that the A4rvakas were the target for the denunciations of the Anugité in the passage in question as that the Buddhists were so. To me, indeed, it appears to be more likely. For Buddha’s opinion with regard to the Vedas is, that they are inadequate; with regard to the Brahmaaas, that they are in no sense the chosen of God as they claim to be. The opinion of the Aarvakas, on the other hand, is a far more aggressive one, so to say. According to MAdhavakarya, they taught that the Vedas were either simple fatuity or imposture, and that the Brahmazas were impostors. It seems to me much more likely, that this, which I have called a comparatively aggressive attitude, was the one at which the remarks of the AnugitA were levelled ; and more especially does this appear to be correct when we remember, that the view taught by Gautama Buddha regarding the Vedas and the Brahmamas was propounded by him only in its strongest form; and that even before his time, the doctrine of the inadequacy of the Vedas for the purpose of securing the summum bonum of humanity had been taught by other teachers. It is further to be recollected, that we have evidence showing that other thinkers also than Buddha, or Brthaspati, had in early days attacked the authority of the Vedas. Kautsa is the name of one who was probably the most distinguished among them. It is certainly possible that his followers
p. 215
Kautsa is the name of one who was probably the most distinguished among them. It is certainly possible that his followersp. 215 were the people branded as of ‘the dark quality’ by the Anugit4 in the passage in question. We have, therefore, at least two different recognised bodies of thinkers, and one individual thinker, to whom the words under discussion may apply, and it is plainly unsafe, under these circumstances, to draw any chronological inference based on the hypothesis of one particular body out of those three being the one intended by the author. Before closing this part of the investigation, it may be interesting to note, that the phrase ‘turning the wheel,’ a phrase now so familiar to us as one of the household words of Buddhism, is used in the Anugit4 with respect to king Ganaka. I do not think, however, that either alone, or even coupled with the word Nirvana, that phrase can be made the basis of any legitimate deduction in favour of the priority of the Anugita to Buddhism. At the outside, the only deduction admissible, if any deduction were admissible, would be, that the Anugita was composed prior to the recognition, of Nirvana and Xakrapravartana as specially Buddhistic words. But priority to such recognition is not, I apprehend, necessarily synonymous with priority to the rise of Buddhism.
The net result of this part of the investigation appears to be, that we have pretty strong grounds for holding the Anugita to belong to a period very considerably removed from the period of the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita ; but that we have no tangible grounds on which to base any deduction regarding its priority or otherwise to the Sankhya and Yoga systems of philosophy, or to the great movement of Gautama Buddha. There is only one other point, which we can establish in a not entirely unsatisfactory way, and which enables us to draw closer the limits within which the Anugit4 must have been composed. That point is the position of the Anugitd with reference to Apastamba’s Dharma-sOtra. I need not say again, that I accept here the proposition about the age of Apastamba which has been laid down by Dr. Biihler, as a sufficiently satisfactory working hypothesis. And accepting that proposition, I venture to suggest the fourth century B.C. as a not unlikely date for the Anugita. It appears to me, that a comparison of
p. 216
Biihler, as a sufficiently satisfactory working hypothesis. And accepting that proposition, I venture to suggest the fourth century B.C. as a not unlikely date for the Anugita. It appears to me, that a comparison ofp. 216 the Anugita and the rules of Apastamba upon one important point which they both deal with shows the priority of the former work. I allude to the rules and regulations touching the four Asramas or orders contained in the Anugita and in the Dharma-sitra of Apastamba. One circumstance strikes us at once on comparing the two works on this point. Apastamba goes into a very great deal of minute details more than the Anugitd, although the latter work does not deal with the topic in any very summary mode. Taking all the differences between the two works together, and the fact that the Anugita sets about the discussion of the topic in a manner which seems intended to be—not, indeed, absolutely exhaustive, but still—very full, I am very strongly inclined to attribute the differences to an actual development and progress of doctrine. I will endeavour to illustrate this view by means of a few detailed instances'. And let us first take the order of householders to which the Anugita gives precedence over the others. One of the injunctions laid down by the Anugita is that the householder should always be devoted to his wife. Against this simple precept, we have a very minute series of rules prescribed by Apastamba, which it is not necessary to refer to specifically, but which may be seen in several of the Sitras contained in the first Khaada of the first Pasala of the second Prasna. Compare again the excessive minuteness of the rules regarding the Bali-offering or the reception of guests, as given by Apastamba, with the simple statement of the Anugita that the five great sacrifices should be performed. There again, I think, we are to see in this difference of treatment the result of a pretty long course of ceremonial progress. Proceeding to the rules regarding the Brahmakarin or student, an analogous phenomenon meets us there. Taking first the subject of food, we have a considerable number of detailed injunctions in Apastamba, compared with the simple rule of the Anugité, that the student should, with the leave of his preceptor, eat his food without decrying it. Again with regard to alms, whereas the Anugit4 simply
' Cf. pp. 358, 360 infra with Apastambe, pp. 9 8eq., 103 s€q., 114 Seq.
p. 217
Again with regard to alms, whereas the Anugit4 simply
' Cf. pp. 358, 360 infra with Apastambe, pp. 9 8eq., 103 s€q., 114 Seq.
p. 217
says that the student should take his food out of the alms received by him, Apastamba has an elaborate catena of rules as to how the alms are to be collected, and from whom, and so forth. Take again the provisions in the two works regarding the description of the cloth, staff, and girdle of the student. Apastamba refers to various opinions on this subject, of which there is not even a trace in the Anugit4'?. It appears that even before Apastamba’s time, distinctions had been laid down as to the description of girdle staff and cloth to be used by the different castes—distinctions of which there is no hint in the Anugita, where all students, of whatever caste, are spoken of under the generic name. These distinctions appear to me to point very strongly to that ceremonial and doctrinal progress of which we have spoken above. The tendency is visible in them to sever the Brdhmanas from the other castes—by external marks. And that tendency, it seems to me, must have set in, as the merits which had given the Brahmaaa caste its original position at the head of Hindu society were ceasing to be a living reality, and that caste was intrenching itself, so to say, more behind the worth and work of the early founders of its greatness, than the worth and work of their degenerating representatives. These comparisons, taken together, appear to me to warrant the proposition we have already laid down with regard to the priority of the Anugit4 to Apastamba. If we have not referred to the rules relating to the two other orders of forester and ascetic, it is because the scope for a comparison of those is very limited. Those rules alone would scarcely authorise the inference drawn above; but I can perceive nothing in them to countervail the effect of the comparisons already made. And it must be remembered, that the rules as to foresters and ascetics would be less apt to undergo change than those as to students and householders.
It appears to me that the view we have now expressed may be also supported by a comparison of the doctrines of the Anugit4 and Apastamba touching the duties of Brahmasas. According to Apastamba, the occupations lawful
* Cf. also Bithler’s Gautama, p. 175.
p. 218
It appears to me that the view we have now expressed may be also supported by a comparison of the doctrines of the Anugit4 and Apastamba touching the duties of Brahmasas. According to Apastamba, the occupations lawful
* Cf. also Bithler’s Gautama, p. 175.
p. 218
to Brahmaaas are the famous six referred to in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita, and two others superadded, namely, inheritance and gleaning corn in the fields. These last are not mentioned in the Anugita, or in Manu either, and are, even according to Apastamba, common to Brahmavas with Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. But as regards the six above referred to, it is worthy of note, that the Anugita apparently groups them into two distinct sets of three. The first set of three consists of those which, in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgit4, we have characterised as constituting rather the rights than the duties of Brahmamas, and which the Anugit4 describes as ‘means of livelihood for Brahmazas,’ The other set of three consists of real duties, and these the Anugita speaks of as ‘pious duties.’ This grouping appears to me to furnish powerful corroboration of the view put forward in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita. It would seem, that the possession of the moral and spiritual merits which, according to the Gita, constituted the duty of Brahmazaas, in the simple and archaic society there disclosed, was developed, in a more advanced and artificial state of society, into the performance of the ‘pious duties ’ of the Anugita and the duties which are ‘the means of livelihood.’ Then in the further social evolution, in the course of which the old spiritual view began to be forgotten, and the actual facts of the past began to be transmuted into the dogmatic rules of the future, the occupations of receiving presents, imparting instruction, and officiating at sacrifices, became the special occupations of the Brahmauzas, and the distinction between these occupations from their higher duties was thrown into the background; and accordingly we find no allusion to any such distinction in Apastamba or Manu, or, as far as I know, in any other later embodiment of the current ideas on the subject!. If all this has been correctly argued, the conclusion derivable from it is in entire accord with that which we have already drawn, namely, that the Bhayavadgit4, the Anugita, and the Dharma-sitra of Apastamba, belong to different
‘In Gautama X, 1 3, the ‘ pious dutics’ are called ‘obligatory, the ot'ers ‘additional for Brahmanas.” Sce the note on the passage in Buhler’s edition, and cf, Gautama VIII, 9, 10.
INTRODUCTION. 219 stages of ancient Indian history, and that the stage to which the Gita belongs is the earliest, and that to which Apastamba belongs, the latest of such stages.
INTRODUCTION. 219 stages of ancient Indian history, and that the stage to which the Gita belongs is the earliest, and that to which Apastamba belongs, the latest of such stages.
I am unable to find anything else in the way of internal evidence bearing upon the date of the Anugit4. It appears to me, that the date to which the investigation we have now gone through leads us, is one which, in the present state of our information, may be fairly accepted as a provisional hypothesis. It does not appear to me to conflict with any ascertained dates, while it is pointed to as probable by the various lines of testimony which we have here considered. We now proceed to discuss one or two other points which may have a bearing upon this topic, but which at present cannot yield us any positive guidance in our search for the date of the Anugita. And first among these, let us consider the various names of deities that occur in different parts of the work. We have, then, Vishvu, Sambhu, Gishau, Soma, Aditya, Surya, Mitra, Agni, Kandra, Rudra, Siva, Varuma, Pragapati, Maghavat, Purandara, Indra, Brahman, Satakratu, Dharma, Narayana, Vayu, Yama, Tvashéri, Hari, fsvara, and lastly Uma under three different names, namely, Uma, Mahesvari, and P4rvati. Now, leaving aside for the moment the three names of Uma, which appear from the passage where they are used to be all three the names of the same goddess, there is no doubt that in the list above set out, some of the names are merely used in different passages, but still to indicate the same being. Thus, Indra, Satakratu, Purandara, and Maghavat are really the names of one and the same deity. But when Soma is mentioned as the deity presiding over the tongue, and Aandramas as the deity presiding over the mind, it becomes doubtful whether the two names do really indicate the same deity, albeit in later Sanskrit Soma and Xandramas both signify the moon. Similarly, when Arka is said to be the deity presiding over the eye, and Mitra over another organ, it seems open to question whether Arka and Mitra both signify the sun there, as they undoubtedly do in classical Sanskrit. True it is, that even in such a recent work as the Sakhya-sAra, this mention
p. 220
True it is, that even in such a recent work as the Sakhya-sAra, this mentionp. 220 of Arka and Mitra as presiding deities of two several organs does occur. But it is plain, that that circumstance can have no bearing on the inquiry before us, for the Sankhya-sdra is avowedly a compilation based on older authorities, and in the particular part under consideration, really reproduces a passage from some older work. It cannot, therefore, be argued, that because Arka and Mitra were identified with one another at the time of the Sankhya-sara, and yet are mentioned as deities of two separate organs, therefore, they must have also been regarded as one in the older original work where they are also mentioned as deities of two separate organs. And it may, perhaps, be remarked here in passing, that the Vedanta Paribhasha has Mrityu instead of Mitra, which would get rid of the difficulty here altogether ; while as regards Soma and Kandramas, the passage in the Sankhya-s4ra reads Praketas instead of Soma, which would get rid of the other difficulty above pointed out. Whether these discrepancies are owing to any tampering with the lists of organs and deities, at a time when the later identifications between different deities took place, or whether they are to be explained on some other theory, it is impossible at present to say. And, therefore, it is also unnecessary to pursue the inquiry here any further. It must suffice for the present to have drawn attention to the matter.
Akin to this point, though quite distinct from it, is one which arises on a passage where the emancipated being is identified with Vishzu, Mitra, Agni, Varuna, and Pragapati'. Now it is reasonable to suppose, that the deities thus specified here must have been among those held in highest repute at the time, the whole significance of the passage where they are mentioned requiring that that should be so. But in our Pantheon as disclosed by our later literature, Mitra and Agni and Varuza occupy but a very subordinate position. Even in K4liddsa?, the subordination of these deities to our celebrated Trinity seems to be quite
* See p. 345. ® See inter alia, Kumfra IT, 20 seq., and VII, 44 seq., and cf. our Bhartshari (Bombay Sanskrit Classics), Introd. p. xix.
INTRODUCTION. 22!
fully established. But, on the other hand, in the Vedic theogony, they are among the most prominent deities. In the Taittiriya-upanishad, we have in the very first sentence Mitra, Varusa, Vishzu, and Brahman (who may be identified with Pragdpati) all mentioned together, and their blessings invoked. This does not help in fixing a date for the Anugita; but it lends some support to the conclusion already arrived at on that point, by showing that the theogony of the Anugita is not yet very far removed from the theogony of the Vedic times, while it is separated by a considerable interval from the theogony disclosed in the works of even such an early writer of the classical period as Kalidasa.
Another point of similar bearing on our present investigation is the mode in which the story of Parasurdma is dealt with in the Anugita. There is in the first place no allusion to his being an incarnation of Vishau, nor to the encounter between him and his namesake, the son of Dasaratha and the hero of the Ramayana. We have, on the contrary, an explhicit statement, that after the advice of the ‘ Pitris’ he entirely abandons the slaughter of the Kshatriyas, and resorting to penance thereby achieves final emancipation. We have elsewhere argued ', that the theory of Parasurama being an incarnation of Vishau, must have probably originated prior to the time of Bhartrthari, but later than the time of KAlid4sa. The allusion to Parasurdma in the work before us does not, however, enable us to judge of its chronological position with reference to Kalidasa. But the last point discussed renders it unnecessary to consider this question further. It may be noted, by the way, that the Anugit4 represents Parasurdma, although living in the Asrama or hermitage of his father, who was a Rishi, as mounting a chariot for the purpose of sweeping away the kinsmen of K4artavirya. Whence he obtained a chariot in a hermitage, the Anugit4 does not explain.
In connexion with the episode of Parasurama, may be noted the list which occurs in the course of it, of the
5 See ‘ Was the RimAyawa copied from Homer?’ pp. 56, 57.
p. 222
degraded Kshatriya tribes, of Dravidas, Sabaras, &c. Iam unable to see that those names can give us any further help in our present investigation than in so far as they show that, at the time of the Anugit4, there must have been some information about the south of India available in the districts where the author of the Anugita lived. Some of the tribes mentioned appear to have been located far in the south of the Indian peninsula. But this is a point on which we shall have to say something more in discussing the next item of internal evidence to which we shall refer. Here it is enough to point out that some of the tribes mentioned in the AnugitA are also referred to in no less a work than the Aitareya-brahmama '.
But this is a point on which we shall have to say something more in discussing the next item of internal evidence to which we shall refer. Here it is enough to point out that some of the tribes mentioned in the AnugitA are also referred to in no less a work than the Aitareya-brahmama '.
We come next to the enumeration of the principal mountains which is contained in one passage of the Anugita. Those mountains are the Himalaya, the PAriyatra, the Sahya, the Vindhya, the Trikdsavat, the Sveta, the Nila, the Bh4sa, the Kosh¢havat, the Mahendra, the MAlyavat, and perhaps the Guruskandha. I am not sure whether the last name is intended to be taken as a proper name, or only as an epithet of Mahendra. Now compared with the mountains mentioned in the Bhagavadgitd, this is certainly a remarkable list. The Gita mentions only Meru? and Himalaya; while here we have in the Anugita the Sahya, and Malaya, and Trikd/avat, and Nila (the same, I presume, with the modern Nilgiri, the Sanatorium of the Madras Presidency), which take us far to the west and south of the Indian peninsula; and the Mahendra and MaAlyavat, which, coupled with the mention of the river Ganges, cover a considerable part of the eastern districts. The Pariyatra and Vindhya occupy the regions of Central India. The Anugitd, therefore, seems to belong to that period in the history of India, when pretty nearly the whole,
* Hauy’sed., p 183. And see gencrally on these tribes, Wilson's Vishau Puraywa (Hall's ed. , vol. ii, p. 170 seq., and Santi Parvan (Moksha), chap. 207, st. 42.
* This is also mentioned in the Anuzita, but in a different passage. The Nila is said by Professor Wilson to be a mountain in Orissa. But our suggestion has, T find, been already made by Dr. F. E. Hall also: see on this, and generally, Wilson's Vishwa Puraza, vol. ii, p. 141 seq. (ed. Hall). See also Indian Antiquary, VI, 133 seq.
p. 223
The Nila is said by Professor Wilson to be a mountain in Orissa. But our suggestion has, T find, been already made by Dr. F. E. Hall also: see on this, and generally, Wilson's Vishwa Puraza, vol. ii, p. 141 seq. (ed. Hall). See also Indian Antiquary, VI, 133 seq.
p. 223
if not absolutely the whole, of the Indian continent was known to the Sanskrit-speaking population of the country. When was this knowledge reached? It is difficult to fix the precise period ; and even if it could be fixed, it would not help us to fix satisfactorily any point of time to which the Anugita could be attributed. But it may be pointed out here, that in Patagigali’s MahabhAshya we have evidence of such knowledge having been possessed by the Aryas in the second century B.c. In truth, the evidence available in the Mahabhdshya is even fuller than this in the Anugit4. For Pataagali tells us of a town or city in the south named K4ffipura'; he speaks of the dominions of the Pandya kings, and of the Xola and Kerala districts?; he refers also to the large tanks of the south; and he makes allusions to linguistic usages current in the southern and other provinces*. Before Pataggali’s time there had taken place Mahendra’s invasion of Ceylon, and the invading army must have penetrated through the southern provinces. And there had been also put up the great Inscriptions of Asoka, which have attracted so much interest, and are proving such prolific sources of information in various departments of knowledge. One of these inscriptions was at Gaggam, which is not very far from the Mahendra mountain alluded to in the Anugita*. All these facts support the conclusion drawn by General Cunningham from the correctness of the information given to Alexander the Great by the Hindus of his time, namely, that ‘the Indians, even at that early date in their history, had a very accurate knowledge of the form and extent of their native land®.” And not only do they support that conclusion, they show that the knowledge covered other facts regarding
§ Benfras ed., p. 74 (IV, 2, 2).
* P. 60 (IV, 1, 4). See also p. 65.
® See Mahabhashya, p. 82 (I, 1, 5), p. 16 (I, 1,15; and cf. Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. ii, pp. 152, 255.
* See Cunningham's Corpus Inscriptionum, I, p. 1.
* See Ancient Geography of India, p. 3. And compare also the information collected in the Periplus of the Eurythryscan Sea (translated by Mr. McRindle,, Pp. 162-136, where a large number of posts is mentioned as existing on the Indian coasts, The Periplus seems to date from about go A.D. sec ibid. p. 5).
p. 224
3. And compare also the information collected in the Periplus of the Eurythryscan Sea (translated by Mr. McRindle,, Pp. 162-136, where a large number of posts is mentioned as existing on the Indian coasts, The Periplus seems to date from about go A.D. sec ibid. p. 5).
p. 224
their native land than its form and extent. It follows consequently that this enumeration of mountains does not require the date of the Anugita to be brought down to a later period than the fourth century B.C., and leaves it open to us, therefore, to accept whatever conclusion the other evidence available may seem to justify. On the other hand, it is plain also, that it affords no positive information as to when the Anugité was composed, and therefore we need not dwell any further upon the point on the present occasion.
There are a few other points which arise upon the contents of the Anugit4, but which are not, in the present condition of our knowledge, capable of affording any certain guidance in our present investigation. Thus we have the story of Dharma appearing before king Ganaka disguised as a Brahmana. I am not aware of any case of such disguises occurring in any of the Upanishads, although there are numerous parallel instances throughout the Purdnik literature. It is, ’ however, difficult to draw any definite chronological inference from this fact. There is further the reference to the attack of Rahu on the sun. It is difficult, in the present state of our knowledge, to say for certain, when the theory of eclipses there implied was prevalent. In the KX 4andogyaupanishad ? we have the emancipated self compared to the moon escaped from the mouth of Rahu. And a text of the Rig-veda, quoted by Mr. Yagéesvara Sastrin in his Aryavidyasudhakara 3, speaks of the demon Rahu attacking the sun with darkness. Here again we have another matter of some interest; but I cannot sce that any safe deduction can be derived from it, without a more ample knowledge of other relevant matters than is at present accessible. Take again the references to certain practices which look very much like the practices of the Gainas of the present day. Is the Anugitd, then, earlier or later than the rise of the Gaina system? It is not safe, I think, to found an answer to this question upon the very narrow basis afforded by the
* And see, too, Kalidasa Kumara V, st. 84. * Pp. 622.
* P. 26, In Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa the true explanation of eclipses is alluded to. See Canto XIV, 40.
p. 225
It is not safe, I think, to found an answer to this question upon the very narrow basis afforded by the
* And see, too, Kalidasa Kumara V, st. 84. * Pp. 622.
* P. 26, In Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa the true explanation of eclipses is alluded to. See Canto XIV, 40.
p. 225
passage referred to. But it may be observed, that the precepts laid down in the passage in question are laid down as precepts for orthodox Hindus, and not as the doctrines of a heretical sect. They are also very general, and not so minute as those which the Gainas of the present day observe as binding upon them. If, therefore, any conclusion is to be drawn from these precepts, it must be that the Anugit4 must have been composed prior to the rise of Gainism ; and that Gainism must have appropriated and developed this doctrine which it obtained from the current Brahmanism'. If this is so, the AnugitA must be a very ancient work indeed. It is not, however, necessary to further work out this line of argument, having regard to the opinions recently expressed by Mr. Thomas’, rehabilitating the views enunciated long ago by Colebrooke and others. If those views are correct, and if Gainism was a dominant system in this country prior even to the time of Gautama Buddha, and if, further, we are right in the suggestion—for it is no more, it must be remembered—that the Anugit4 dates from a period prior to the rise of Gainism, then it would seem to follow that the Anugita belongs to some period prior to the sixth century B.c. All this, however, is at present very hypothetical, and we draw attention to it only that the question may be hereafter considered when fuller materials for expressing a final judgment upon it become accessible. Meanwhile, having regard to the views above alluded to as so elaborately put forward by Mr. Thomas, it is possible for us still to hold that, in the present state of our knowledge, the third or fourth century B.C. is not too early a date to assign to the Anugit4, even on the assumption that the precepts contained in that work regarding the care to be taken of worms and insects were borrowed by it from the Gaina system. With this negative result, we must for the present rest contented.
One other fact of similar nature to those we have now
* As the Baddhists did in sundry instances. Cf. inter alia Bubler’s Gautama, pp-lv and 19s. And cf. also‘ Was the Kamayama copied from Homer?!’ pp. 48, 49.
* See Mr. Thomas's very elaborate discussion of the whole subject in the Journal of the Koyal Asiatic Society (New Series}, vol. ix, p. 155 seq.
(+) Q
p. 226
Cf. inter alia Bubler’s Gautama, pp-lv and 19s. And cf. also‘ Was the Kamayama copied from Homer?!’ pp. 48, 49.
* See Mr. Thomas's very elaborate discussion of the whole subject in the Journal of the Koyal Asiatic Society (New Series}, vol. ix, p. 155 seq.
(+) Qp. 226 dealt with may, perhaps, be also noticed here. We allude to the stanzas which we find in the Anugit4 and also in the Santi Parvan of the Mahabharata and in the Manusmriti. There is also one which the Anugita has in common with the Parisishta of Y4ska’s Nirukta!'. It is not possible, I conceive, to say finally whether one of these works borrowed these stanzas from the other of them; while, on the other hand, it is quite possible, as already argued by us in the Introduction to the Gita, that all these works were only reproducing from some entirely different work, or that the stanzas in question were the common property of the thinkers of the time. We have no means available for deciding between these conflicting hypotheses.
We have thus noticed all the salient points in the evidence, external and internal, which is available for determining the position of the Anugita in our ancient literature. Nobody who has seen even a little of the history of that literature will be surprised at the quantity or quality of that evidence, or the nature of the conclusions legitimately yiclded by it. We have endeavoured to express those conclusions in language which should not indicate any greater certainty attaching to them than can fairly be claimed for them. The net result appears to be this. The Anugité may be taken with historical certainty to have been some centuries old in the time of the great Sankarak#arya. It was very probably older than the Dharma-sdtras of Apastamba, but by what period of time we are not in a position at present to define. It was, perhaps, older also than the rise of Buddhism and Gainism, and of the Yoga philosophy ; but on this it is impossible to say anything with any approach to confidence. It is, on the other hand, almost certain that it belongs to a period very considerably removed from the older Upanishads ; probably removed by a distance of some centuries, during which ‘stories’ not contained in the Upanishads had not only obtained currency, but also come to be regarded as belonging to antiquity. And yet the period to
* Cf. Anugita I, 36 with Yaska ed. Roth), p. 190.
* Some of the Purdtana Itihasas, e.g. that of Narada and Devamata, are fot traceable in any Vedic work known to us. Devamata’s name I do not find referred to anywhere else.
p. 227
And yet the period to
* Cf. Anugita I, 36 with Yaska ed. Roth), p. 190.
* Some of the Purdtana Itihasas, e.g. that of Narada and Devamata, are fot traceable in any Vedic work known to us. Devamata’s name I do not find referred to anywhere else.
p. 227
which the work belongs was one in which the Upanishads were only reverenced as the authoritative opinions of eminent men, not as the words of God himself'. In this respect, it may be said that the Anugit4 seems rather to belong to an earlier stratum of thought than even the Sanatsugatiya, in which a G#anakAnda, as forming a part of the Vedic canon, seems to be recognised?. But it is abundantly clear, that the Anugit4 stands at a very considerable chronological distance from the Bhagavadgita.
Such are the results of our investigation. We have not thought it necessary to discuss the verse or the language of the work. But it must in fairness be pointed out, that upon the whole, the verse and language are both pretty near the classical model. There are, it is true, a few instances of the metrical anomalies we have noticed elsewhere, but having regard to the extent of the work, those instances are far from being very numerous. The language and style, too, are not quite smooth and polished; though, judging from them alone, I should rather be inclined to place the Sanatsugattya prior to the Anugita. But that suggests a question which we cannot now stop to discuss.
One word, in conclusion, about the translation. The text used has been chiefly that adopted in the commentary of Arguna Misra, a commentary which on the whole I prefer very much to that of Nilakas¢ka, which has been printed in the Bombay edition of the Mahabharata. Arguna Misra, as a rule, affords some explanation where explanation is wanted, and does not endeavour to suit his text to any foregone conclusion. His comments have been of the greatest possible help to me; and my only regret is that the only copy of his commentary which was available to me, and the use of which I owe to the kindness of my friend Professor BhAadarkar, was not as correct a one as could be desired. I have also looked into the Vishamasloki, a short work containing notes on difficult passages of the Mahabharata.
* See p. 215 supra.
® See p. 146 supra. The Buddhists seem to have borrowed the division of Karma and GAanakindas. See Dr. Kagendraldla Mitra’s Lalita Vistara ‘trans!.), p. 21. The division, therefore, was probably older than the first century B.C.
Q2
p. 228
The MS. of it belonging to the Government Collection of MSS. deposited in Deccan College was lent me also by Professor Bhandarkar. The principles adopted in the translation and notes have been the same as those followed in the other pieces contained in this volume.
Q2
p. 228
The MS. of it belonging to the Government Collection of MSS. deposited in Deccan College was lent me also by Professor Bhandarkar. The principles adopted in the translation and notes have been the same as those followed in the other pieces contained in this volume.
P. S. I take this opportunity of stating that it is not at all certain that Arguna Misra is the name of the author of the commentary which I have used. I find that in supposing Arguna Misra to be the author, I confounded that commentary, which does not mention its author’s name, with the commentary on another section of the Mahabharata which does give its author's name as Arguna Misra, and which is also among the MSS. purchased by Professor Bhandarkar for the Government of Bombay. (See with regard to these MSS. Professor Bhaudarkar’s Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. of 7th July, 1880.)
ANUGITA.
Cuapter I. Ganamegaya' said:
What conversation, O twice-born one?! took place between the high-souled Kesava and Arguna, while they dwelt in that palace® after slaying their enemies ?
Vaisamp4yana said :
The son of Prétha, after becoming possessed of his kingdom (in an) undisturbed (state), enjoyed himself in the company of Kvrshaa, full of delight in that heavenly palace. And once, O king! they happened to go, surrounded by their people, and rejoicing, to a certain portion of the palace which resembled heaven. Then Arguna, the son of Pazdu, having surveyed with delight that lovely palace, in the company of Krishna, spoke these words: ‘O you of mighty arms! O you whose mother is Devaki‘! when the battle was about to commence, I became aware of your greatness, and that divine
? This is the prince to whom the Mahfbhfrata, as we have it, purports to have been related.
* I.e. Vaisampayana, who relates the Mah&bhfrata to Ganamegaya.
5 This appears to have been situated at Indraprastha, and to have been the one built for the Paisdavas by the demon Maya, as related in the Sabh4 Parvan.
* This is a rather unusual form of address.
230 anucITA.
form of yours'. But that,O Kesava! which through affection (for me) you explained before’, has all disappeared, O tiger-like man! from my degenerate mind. Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics. But (now), O Madhava! you will be going at no distant date to Dvaraka.’
Vaisampdyana said : Thus addressed, that best of speakers, Kr#shaa, possessed of great glory, replied in these words after embracing Arguna.