Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1137; Weber's Indian Literatare, pp. 388, 289; and Mr. Rhys Davids’ excelleut little volume on Buddhism, p 151; and sce also p. 83 of Mr. Davids’ book. 26 BHAGAVADGITA. fortifying the results of the negative argument already sct forth. To me Buddhism is perfectly intelligible as one outcome of that play of thought on high spiritual topics, which in its other, and as we may say, less thorough-going manifestations, we see in the Upanishads and the Gita’. ‘But assume that Buddhism was a protest against Brahmanism prior to its purification and elevation by the theosophy of the Upanishads, and those remarkable '‘ productions of ancient Indian thought become difficult to account for. Let us compare our small modern events with those grand old occurrences. Suppose our ancestors to have been attached to the ceremonial law of the Vedas, as we are now attached to a lifeless ritualism, the Upanishads and the Gita might be, in a way, comparable to movements like that of the late Raja Rammohun Roy. Standing, as far as possible, on the antique ways, they attempt, as Raja Rammohun attempted in these latter days, to bring into prominence and to elaborate the higher and nobler aspects of the old beliefs. Buddhism would be comparable to the further departure from old traditions which was led by Babu Keshub Chander Sen. The points of dissent in the olden times were pretty nearly the same as the points of dissent now. The ultimate motive power also was in both cases identical—a sense of dissatisfaction in its integrity with what had come down from old times encrusted with the corruptions of years. In this view the old system, the philosophy of the Upanishads and the Gita, and the philosophy of Buddha, constitute a regular intelligible progression. But suppose the turn events took was different, as is supposed by the alternative theory indicated above. Suppose Babu Keshub’s movement was chronologically prior, and had begun to tell on orthodox socicty. Is it likely, that then one of the orthodox party ' Cf. Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 285. In Mr. Davids’ Buddhism, P. 94, we have a noteworthy extract from a standard Buddhistic work, touching the existence of the soul, Compare that with the corresponding doctrine in the Gita, It will be found that the two are at one in rejecting the identity of the soul with the senses &c. The Gita then goes on to admit a soul separate from these. Buddhism rejects that also, and sces nothing but the senses. INTRODUCTION. 27 would take up the position which Rammohun Roy took? Would he still rely on old authorities, but with sundry qualifications, and yet earnestly assail the current forms of orthodoxy? I do not think so. I think the true view to be, as already stated, very different. The Upanishads, with the Gita, and the precepts of Buddha appear to me to be the successive ' embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age, as it became more and more dissatisfied with the system of mere ceremonial then dominant.
2I think the true view to be, as already stated, very different. The Upanishads, with the Gita, and the precepts of Buddha appear to me to be the successive ' embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age, as it became more and more dissatisfied with the system of mere ceremonial then dominant. There are several other points of much interest in the Bhagavadgita, such as the reference to the Sankhya and Yoga; the place assigned to the Margasirsha month; the allusion to the doctrines of materialism ; the nearly entire coincidence between a stanza of the Gita and one in the Manu Smriti. But in the present state of our knowledge, I do not think that we can extract any historical results from any of them. Without dwelling on them any further’, ; therefore, I will only state it as my opinion, that the Sankhya and Yoga of the Gita are not identical with the systems known to us under those names, and that the Manu Smriti has probably borrowed from the Gita the stanza common to the two works. ' We now proceed to a discussion of some of the external evidence touching the age of the Bhagavadgita. It is, of course, unnecessary to consider any evidence of a date later than the eighth century A.C., that being the date generally received, though not on very strong grounds, as the date of Sahkarakarya, the celebrated commentator of the Gita?. For the period prior to that limit, the first testimony to consider is that of Basxabha/fa, the author of the Kadambari. The date of Bawa is now fairly well settled as the * The word Brahma-nirvina, which occurs so often at the close of chapter V snd also at chapter II, 72, seems to me to indicate that nirvisa had not yet becume technically pinned down, so to say, to the meaning which Buddhism suberquently gave to it, as the name of what it deemed the sammum bonum. Nuvisa by itself occurs at VI, 15. * See some farther remarks on these points in my Introduction to the Gité m verte. ® Profewor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 140) says Sahkara was born to 788 A.D.; on the authority, I presume, of the widyfsudhikara, p. 226, 28 BHAGAVADGITA.
3Nuvisa by itself occurs at VI, 15. * See some farther remarks on these points in my Introduction to the Gité m verte. ® Profewor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 140) says Sahkara was born to 788 A.D.; on the authority, I presume, of the widyfsudhikara, p. 226, 28 BHAGAVADGITA. middle of the seventh century A.c. The doubt which the late Dr. Bhau Daji had cast upon its correctness’, by impugning the received date of king Harshavardhana, appears to me to have been satisfactorily disposed of by the paper of my friend Professor R. G. Bhaadarkar on the KAalukya dates?. In the K4Adambari, then, we have testimony to the existence of the Bhagavadgita in the middle of the seventh century A.c. For in that work, which, as is well known, abounds with equivoques, we have a passage which compares the royal palace to the Mahabharata, both being ‘ Anantagitakarzan4nanditanaram 5,’ which, as applied to the royal palace, means ‘in which the people were delighted by hearing innumerable songs ;’ and as applied to the Mahabhdrata means ‘in which Arguna was delighted at hearing the Anantayita.’ Anantagita is evidently only another name here for Bhagavadgita. The conclusion deducible from this fact is not merely that the Gita existed, but that it existed as a recognised portion of the Bharata, in the seventh century a.c. Now the Kadambari shows, in numerous passages, in what high esteem the Mahabharata was held in its days. The queen Vildsavati used to attend at those readings and expositions of the Mahabharata, which have continued down to our own times; and it was even then regarded asa sacred work of extremely high authority, in the same way as it is now. It follows, therefore, that the Gita must have been several centuries old in the time of Bazabha@éa. Prior in time to Baa is the Indian Shakespeare, K4lidasa, as he is referred to in Banabha?/a’s Harshafarita *, and also in a copperplate inscription of the early part of the seventh century, as a poet who had then already acquired a high reputation®. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to fix exactly the date at which Kalidasa flourished. Still, * Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. viii, p. 250; and sce, too, Indian Antiquary, vol. vi, p. 61 (Dr. Buhler). * Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xiv, p. 16 seq. * P. 18a (Taranatha’s ed.) * See F. E. Hall's Vasavadatta, p. 14 note. ® See Indian Antiquary, vol. v, p. 70. INTRODUCTION. 29
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1137; Weber's Indian Literatare, pp. 388, 289; and Mr. Rhys Davids’ excelleut little volume on Buddhism, p 151; and sce also p. 83 of Mr. Davids’ book. 26 BHAGAVADGITA. fortifying the results of the negative argument already sct forth. To me Buddhism is perfectly intelligible as one outcome of that play of thought on high spiritual topics, which in its other, and as we may say, less thorough-going manifestations, we see in the Upanishads and the Gita’. ‘But assume that Buddhism was a protest against Brahmanism prior to its purification and elevation by the theosophy of the Upanishads, and those remarkable '‘ productions of ancient Indian thought become difficult to account for. Let us compare our small modern events with those grand old occurrences. Suppose our ancestors to have been attached to the ceremonial law of the Vedas, as we are now attached to a lifeless ritualism, the Upanishads and the Gita might be, in a way, comparable to movements like that of the late Raja Rammohun Roy. Standing, as far as possible, on the antique ways, they attempt, as Raja Rammohun attempted in these latter days, to bring into prominence and to elaborate the higher and nobler aspects of the old beliefs. Buddhism would be comparable to the further departure from old traditions which was led by Babu Keshub Chander Sen. The points of dissent in the olden times were pretty nearly the same as the points of dissent now. The ultimate motive power also was in both cases identical—a sense of dissatisfaction in its integrity with what had come down from old times encrusted with the corruptions of years. In this view the old system, the philosophy of the Upanishads and the Gita, and the philosophy of Buddha, constitute a regular intelligible progression. But suppose the turn events took was different, as is supposed by the alternative theory indicated above. Suppose Babu Keshub’s movement was chronologically prior, and had begun to tell on orthodox socicty. Is it likely, that then one of the orthodox party ' Cf. Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 285. In Mr. Davids’ Buddhism, P. 94, we have a noteworthy extract from a standard Buddhistic work, touching the existence of the soul, Compare that with the corresponding doctrine in the Gita, It will be found that the two are at one in rejecting the identity of the soul with the senses &c. The Gita then goes on to admit a soul separate from these. Buddhism rejects that also, and sces nothing but the senses. INTRODUCTION. 27 would take up the position which Rammohun Roy took? Would he still rely on old authorities, but with sundry qualifications, and yet earnestly assail the current forms of orthodoxy? I do not think so. I think the true view to be, as already stated, very different. The Upanishads, with the Gita, and the precepts of Buddha appear to me to be the successive ' embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age, as it became more and more dissatisfied with the system of mere ceremonial then dominant.
2I think the true view to be, as already stated, very different. The Upanishads, with the Gita, and the precepts of Buddha appear to me to be the successive ' embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age, as it became more and more dissatisfied with the system of mere ceremonial then dominant. There are several other points of much interest in the Bhagavadgita, such as the reference to the Sankhya and Yoga; the place assigned to the Margasirsha month; the allusion to the doctrines of materialism ; the nearly entire coincidence between a stanza of the Gita and one in the Manu Smriti. But in the present state of our knowledge, I do not think that we can extract any historical results from any of them. Without dwelling on them any further’, ; therefore, I will only state it as my opinion, that the Sankhya and Yoga of the Gita are not identical with the systems known to us under those names, and that the Manu Smriti has probably borrowed from the Gita the stanza common to the two works. ' We now proceed to a discussion of some of the external evidence touching the age of the Bhagavadgita. It is, of course, unnecessary to consider any evidence of a date later than the eighth century A.C., that being the date generally received, though not on very strong grounds, as the date of Sahkarakarya, the celebrated commentator of the Gita?. For the period prior to that limit, the first testimony to consider is that of Basxabha/fa, the author of the Kadambari. The date of Bawa is now fairly well settled as the * The word Brahma-nirvina, which occurs so often at the close of chapter V snd also at chapter II, 72, seems to me to indicate that nirvisa had not yet becume technically pinned down, so to say, to the meaning which Buddhism suberquently gave to it, as the name of what it deemed the sammum bonum. Nuvisa by itself occurs at VI, 15. * See some farther remarks on these points in my Introduction to the Gité m verte. ® Profewor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 140) says Sahkara was born to 788 A.D.; on the authority, I presume, of the widyfsudhikara, p. 226, 28 BHAGAVADGITA.
3Nuvisa by itself occurs at VI, 15. * See some farther remarks on these points in my Introduction to the Gité m verte. ® Profewor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 140) says Sahkara was born to 788 A.D.; on the authority, I presume, of the widyfsudhikara, p. 226, 28 BHAGAVADGITA. middle of the seventh century A.c. The doubt which the late Dr. Bhau Daji had cast upon its correctness’, by impugning the received date of king Harshavardhana, appears to me to have been satisfactorily disposed of by the paper of my friend Professor R. G. Bhaadarkar on the KAalukya dates?. In the K4Adambari, then, we have testimony to the existence of the Bhagavadgita in the middle of the seventh century A.c. For in that work, which, as is well known, abounds with equivoques, we have a passage which compares the royal palace to the Mahabharata, both being ‘ Anantagitakarzan4nanditanaram 5,’ which, as applied to the royal palace, means ‘in which the people were delighted by hearing innumerable songs ;’ and as applied to the Mahabhdrata means ‘in which Arguna was delighted at hearing the Anantayita.’ Anantagita is evidently only another name here for Bhagavadgita. The conclusion deducible from this fact is not merely that the Gita existed, but that it existed as a recognised portion of the Bharata, in the seventh century a.c. Now the Kadambari shows, in numerous passages, in what high esteem the Mahabharata was held in its days. The queen Vildsavati used to attend at those readings and expositions of the Mahabharata, which have continued down to our own times; and it was even then regarded asa sacred work of extremely high authority, in the same way as it is now. It follows, therefore, that the Gita must have been several centuries old in the time of Bazabha@éa. Prior in time to Baa is the Indian Shakespeare, K4lidasa, as he is referred to in Banabha?/a’s Harshafarita *, and also in a copperplate inscription of the early part of the seventh century, as a poet who had then already acquired a high reputation®. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to fix exactly the date at which Kalidasa flourished. Still, * Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. viii, p. 250; and sce, too, Indian Antiquary, vol. vi, p. 61 (Dr. Buhler). * Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xiv, p. 16 seq. * P. 18a (Taranatha’s ed.) * See F. E. Hall's Vasavadatta, p. 14 note. ® See Indian Antiquary, vol. v, p. 70. INTRODUCTION. 29
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.