Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1viii, 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 I think, we have pretty satisfactory evidence to show that the middle of the fifth century A.C. is the very latest date to which he can be referred. In a small tract (written by me in 1873), discussing Professor Weber's theory about the Rimayavza, I have pointed out ' that the Pa#éatantra quotes from Kalidasa a passage which there is good reason to believe formed part of the Pa#satantra when it was translated for king Nushirvan of Persia about the beginning of the sixth century a.c.? Allowing for the time required to raise K4lidasa to the position of being cited as an authority, and for the time required for the spread of the fame of an Indian work to Persia in those early days, I think, that the middle of the fifth century is a date to which K4lidasa cannot well have been subsequent. Now in the works of KAlid4sa we have some very remarkable allusions to the Bhagavadgita. It is not necessary to go through all these allusions. I will only mention the most remarkable, one from the Raghuvamsa, and one from the Kum4rasambhava. In Raghu, canto X, stanza 67, the gods addressing Vishvu say: ‘There is nothing for you to acquire which has not been acquired. The one motive in your birth and work is the good of the worlds.’ The first sentence here reminds one at once of Gita, chapter ITI, stanza 22, the coincidence with which in sense as well as expression is very striking. The second sentence contains the words ‘birth and work,’ the precise words employed at Gita 1V, 9; and the idea of ‘good of the worlds’ is identical with the idea expressed in Gita III, 20-24, the words only in which it is clothed being different. Couple this passage with the one from Kum4arasambhava, canto VI, 67, where the seven Xéshis say to the HimAlaya mountain, ‘Well hast thou been called Vishwu in a firmly-fixed form.’ The allusion there to the Gita, chapter X, stanza 25 (p. 89), is, I venture to think, ' «Was the Ram4yana copied from Homer!’ See pp. 36-59. * CL Colebrooke'’s Essays, vol. ii, p. 166 seq. It may be remarked that thes argument is not affected by the attempt to distinguish the KAliddsa of the Aakentald from the Kilidisa of the Raghuvamsa. Because the work cited in the Vaddatantra is the Kumdrasambhava, which indisputably belongs to the same author as the Raghuvassa. 30 BHAGAVADGITA.
2It may be remarked that thes argument is not affected by the attempt to distinguish the KAliddsa of the Aakentald from the Kilidisa of the Raghuvamsa. Because the work cited in the Vaddatantra is the Kumdrasambhava, which indisputably belongs to the same author as the Raghuvassa. 30 BHAGAVADGITA. unmistakable. The word ‘firmly-fixed’ is identical in both passages; the idea is identical, and Mallinatha refers to the passage in the Gita as the authority which K4lidasa had in view. It follows, therefore, that the Gita must be prior to K4liddsa’s time. It may be added, that Kalidasa in his Raghu XV, 67, cites Manu as an authority for the proposition that a king must protect all castes and all orders or Asramas. Manu, therefore, must have lived considerably earlier than Kalidasa, and the Gita, as we have already argued, must be considerably earlier, not only than Manu, but also than his predecessor Apastamba. The Gita may, therefore, be safely said to belong to a period several centuries prior to the fifth century A.C. The next piece of external evidence is furnished by the Ved4nta-sitras of Badardyava. In several of those Sutras, references are made to certain Smritis as authorities for the propositions laid down. Take, for instance, I, 2, 6, or I, 3. 23, and many others. Now three of these Sitras are very useful for our present purpose. The first we have to consider is Sitra II, 3, 45. The commentators Sankarasarya, Ramdanuga, Madhva, and Vallabha! are unanimous in understanding the passage in Gita, chapter XV, stanza 7 (p. 112), to be the one there referred to by the words of the Sdtra, which are, ‘And it is said in a Smriti.’ Nowa glance at the context of the Satra will, I think, satisfy us that the commentators, who are unanimous though representing different and even conflicting schools of thought, are also quite right. Sdtra 43, in the elliptical language characteristic of that branch of our literature, says, ‘A part, from the statement of difference, and the reverse also; some lay down that it is a fisherman or a cheat.’ Sitra 44 runs thus, ‘ And also from the words of the Mantra.” And then comes Sutra 45 as sect out above. It is plain, that the Sutra No. 45 indicates an authority for something not specified, being regarded as part of some other thing also not ‘Tam indebted to Professor M. M. Kunte for a loan of Vallabhasary a's commentary on the Sutras noted in the text. Thad not scen it in 1875, when I last di-cussed this question, INTRODUCTION. 31
3M. Kunte for a loan of Vallabhasary a's commentary on the Sutras noted in the text. Thad not scen it in 1875, when I last di-cussed this question, INTRODUCTION. 31 specified. Now the discussion in previous Sitras has been about the soul ; so we can have little difficulty in accepting the unanimous interpretation of the commentators, that the proposition here sought to be made out is that the individual soul is part of the Supreme Soul, which is the proposition laid down in the Gita in the passage referred to. The next Sitra to refer to isIV,1,10. I shall not set forth the other relevant Sitras here as in the preceding case. I only state that the three commentators, Sankara, RamAnuga, and Madhva, agree that the Gita is here referred to, namely, chapter VI, stanza 11 seq. Vallabha, however, I am bound to add, does not agree with this, as he interprets the Satra in question and those which precede and follow as referring to an entirely different matter. If I may be permitted to say so, however, I consider his interpretation not so satisfactory as that of the three other and older commentators. Lastly, we come to Sdtra IV, 2-19. On this, again, all the four commentators are unanimous, and they say that Gita, chapter VIII, stanza 24 seq. (p. 80), is the authority referred to. And I think there can be very little doubt that they are right. These various pieces of evidence render it, I think, historically certain, that the Gita must be considerably prior to the VedAnta-sitras; and that the word Brahma-satras, which occurs at Gita, chapter XIII, stanza 4 (p. 102), is correctly interpreted by the commentators as not referring to the Vedanta-sitras, which are also called Brahma-sitras, but to a different subject altogether '. When were the Vedantasitras composed? The question must at once be admitted to be a difficult one; but I think the following considerations will show that the date of those Sdtras must, at the latest, be considerably earlier than the period which we have already reached in this part of our investigation. We may take it as fairly well settled, that Bhaffa Kumiarila, the celebrated commentator of the Parva Mim4ms4 school, flourished not later than the end of the seventh century a * Cf. Weber's Indian Literature, p. 242. See also Lassen’s Preface to his edition of schlegel's Gitd, XXXV. Kamanuga takcs the other view, 32 BHAGAVADGITA,
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.
1viii, 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 I think, we have pretty satisfactory evidence to show that the middle of the fifth century A.C. is the very latest date to which he can be referred. In a small tract (written by me in 1873), discussing Professor Weber's theory about the Rimayavza, I have pointed out ' that the Pa#éatantra quotes from Kalidasa a passage which there is good reason to believe formed part of the Pa#satantra when it was translated for king Nushirvan of Persia about the beginning of the sixth century a.c.? Allowing for the time required to raise K4lidasa to the position of being cited as an authority, and for the time required for the spread of the fame of an Indian work to Persia in those early days, I think, that the middle of the fifth century is a date to which K4lidasa cannot well have been subsequent. Now in the works of KAlid4sa we have some very remarkable allusions to the Bhagavadgita. It is not necessary to go through all these allusions. I will only mention the most remarkable, one from the Raghuvamsa, and one from the Kum4rasambhava. In Raghu, canto X, stanza 67, the gods addressing Vishvu say: ‘There is nothing for you to acquire which has not been acquired. The one motive in your birth and work is the good of the worlds.’ The first sentence here reminds one at once of Gita, chapter ITI, stanza 22, the coincidence with which in sense as well as expression is very striking. The second sentence contains the words ‘birth and work,’ the precise words employed at Gita 1V, 9; and the idea of ‘good of the worlds’ is identical with the idea expressed in Gita III, 20-24, the words only in which it is clothed being different. Couple this passage with the one from Kum4arasambhava, canto VI, 67, where the seven Xéshis say to the HimAlaya mountain, ‘Well hast thou been called Vishwu in a firmly-fixed form.’ The allusion there to the Gita, chapter X, stanza 25 (p. 89), is, I venture to think, ' «Was the Ram4yana copied from Homer!’ See pp. 36-59. * CL Colebrooke'’s Essays, vol. ii, p. 166 seq. It may be remarked that thes argument is not affected by the attempt to distinguish the KAliddsa of the Aakentald from the Kilidisa of the Raghuvamsa. Because the work cited in the Vaddatantra is the Kumdrasambhava, which indisputably belongs to the same author as the Raghuvassa. 30 BHAGAVADGITA.
2It may be remarked that thes argument is not affected by the attempt to distinguish the KAliddsa of the Aakentald from the Kilidisa of the Raghuvamsa. Because the work cited in the Vaddatantra is the Kumdrasambhava, which indisputably belongs to the same author as the Raghuvassa. 30 BHAGAVADGITA. unmistakable. The word ‘firmly-fixed’ is identical in both passages; the idea is identical, and Mallinatha refers to the passage in the Gita as the authority which K4lidasa had in view. It follows, therefore, that the Gita must be prior to K4liddsa’s time. It may be added, that Kalidasa in his Raghu XV, 67, cites Manu as an authority for the proposition that a king must protect all castes and all orders or Asramas. Manu, therefore, must have lived considerably earlier than Kalidasa, and the Gita, as we have already argued, must be considerably earlier, not only than Manu, but also than his predecessor Apastamba. The Gita may, therefore, be safely said to belong to a period several centuries prior to the fifth century A.C. The next piece of external evidence is furnished by the Ved4nta-sitras of Badardyava. In several of those Sutras, references are made to certain Smritis as authorities for the propositions laid down. Take, for instance, I, 2, 6, or I, 3. 23, and many others. Now three of these Sitras are very useful for our present purpose. The first we have to consider is Sitra II, 3, 45. The commentators Sankarasarya, Ramdanuga, Madhva, and Vallabha! are unanimous in understanding the passage in Gita, chapter XV, stanza 7 (p. 112), to be the one there referred to by the words of the Sdtra, which are, ‘And it is said in a Smriti.’ Nowa glance at the context of the Satra will, I think, satisfy us that the commentators, who are unanimous though representing different and even conflicting schools of thought, are also quite right. Sdtra 43, in the elliptical language characteristic of that branch of our literature, says, ‘A part, from the statement of difference, and the reverse also; some lay down that it is a fisherman or a cheat.’ Sitra 44 runs thus, ‘ And also from the words of the Mantra.” And then comes Sutra 45 as sect out above. It is plain, that the Sutra No. 45 indicates an authority for something not specified, being regarded as part of some other thing also not ‘Tam indebted to Professor M. M. Kunte for a loan of Vallabhasary a's commentary on the Sutras noted in the text. Thad not scen it in 1875, when I last di-cussed this question, INTRODUCTION. 31
3M. Kunte for a loan of Vallabhasary a's commentary on the Sutras noted in the text. Thad not scen it in 1875, when I last di-cussed this question, INTRODUCTION. 31 specified. Now the discussion in previous Sitras has been about the soul ; so we can have little difficulty in accepting the unanimous interpretation of the commentators, that the proposition here sought to be made out is that the individual soul is part of the Supreme Soul, which is the proposition laid down in the Gita in the passage referred to. The next Sitra to refer to isIV,1,10. I shall not set forth the other relevant Sitras here as in the preceding case. I only state that the three commentators, Sankara, RamAnuga, and Madhva, agree that the Gita is here referred to, namely, chapter VI, stanza 11 seq. Vallabha, however, I am bound to add, does not agree with this, as he interprets the Satra in question and those which precede and follow as referring to an entirely different matter. If I may be permitted to say so, however, I consider his interpretation not so satisfactory as that of the three other and older commentators. Lastly, we come to Sdtra IV, 2-19. On this, again, all the four commentators are unanimous, and they say that Gita, chapter VIII, stanza 24 seq. (p. 80), is the authority referred to. And I think there can be very little doubt that they are right. These various pieces of evidence render it, I think, historically certain, that the Gita must be considerably prior to the VedAnta-sitras; and that the word Brahma-satras, which occurs at Gita, chapter XIII, stanza 4 (p. 102), is correctly interpreted by the commentators as not referring to the Vedanta-sitras, which are also called Brahma-sitras, but to a different subject altogether '. When were the Vedantasitras composed? The question must at once be admitted to be a difficult one; but I think the following considerations will show that the date of those Sdtras must, at the latest, be considerably earlier than the period which we have already reached in this part of our investigation. We may take it as fairly well settled, that Bhaffa Kumiarila, the celebrated commentator of the Parva Mim4ms4 school, flourished not later than the end of the seventh century a * Cf. Weber's Indian Literature, p. 242. See also Lassen’s Preface to his edition of schlegel's Gitd, XXXV. Kamanuga takcs the other view, 32 BHAGAVADGITA,
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.