Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Weber'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, A.C.1 A considerable time prior to him must be placed the great commentator on the Mim4ms4-sitras, namely, Sabarasvamin. If we may judge from the style of his great commentary, he cannot have flourished much later than Patazgali, who may now be taken as historically proved to have flourished about 140 B.c.2. Nowa considerable time must have intervened between Sabarasvamin and another commentator on the Pdrva Mim4ams4, whom Sabara quotes with the highly honorific title Bhagavan, the Venerable, namely, Upavarsha. Upavarsha appears from Sankara’s statement to have commented on the Vedantasdtras*. We have thus a long catena of works from the seventh century A.C., indicating a pretty high antiquity for the Ved4nta-sfitras, and therefore a higher one for the Bhagavadgita. The antiquity of the Ved4nta-satras follows also from the circumstance, which we have on the testimony of Ram4nuga, repeated by Madhavaéarya, that a commentary on the Sdtras was written by Baudhayanasarya ‘, which commentary Ramanuga says he followed. Baudhayana’s date is not accurately settled. But he appears to be older than Apastamba, whose date, as suggested by Dr. Buhler, has already been mentioned’. The Vedantasdtras, then, would appear to be at least as old as the fourth century B.C.; if the information we have from Ram4nuga may be trusted. A third argument may be mentioned, bearing on the date of the Vedanta-sdtras. In Sutra 110 of the third Pada of the fourth Adhy4ya of Pasini’s Satras, a Pdrdsarya is mentioned as the author of a Bhikshu-sitra. Who is this Parasarya, and what the Bhikshu-sitra? Unluckily Patayigali gives us no information on this head, nor ' See Burnell’s Samavidhina-brahmama, Introduction, p. vi note. 2 The authorities are collected in our edition of Bhartrthan (Bombay Series of Sanskrit Classics). Introd. p. xi note. See also Buhler’'s Apastamba in this scries, Introd. p. xxviii. ® See Coicbrooke’s Essays, vol. i, p. 332. An Upavarsha is mentioned in the Kathasaritsigara as living in the time of king Nanda, and having Pasini, Katy 4yana, and Vyaai for his pupils. © See the Ramanuga Bhashya; and the Ramanoga Darsana in Sarvadarsanasangraha. + Apastamba, p. xvi. INTRODUCTION. 33
2i, p. 332. An Upavarsha is mentioned in the Kathasaritsigara as living in the time of king Nanda, and having Pasini, Katy 4yana, and Vyaai for his pupils. © See the Ramanuga Bhashya; and the Ramanoga Darsana in Sarvadarsanasangraha. + Apastamba, p. xvi. INTRODUCTION. 33 does the K4sik4 Vritti. But a note of Professor Tara4natha Tarkavakaspati, of Calcutta, says that Parasarya is Vy4sa, and the Bhikshu-sitra is the Ved4nta-sitra’. If this is correct, the Ved4nta-sitras go very far indeed into antiquity. For Pasini can certainly not be assigned to a later date than the fourth century B.C., while that learned scholar, Professor Goldstiicker, on grounds of considerable strength, assigned him to a much earlier date *. The question thus comes to this, Is the remark of Professor Tarandtha, above set out, correct? I find then, from enquiries made of my venerable and erudite friend Yag#esvar SAstrin, the author of the Aryavidydsudhdkara, that the note of Taranatha is based on the works of Bhaffogi Dikshita, NaAgqg¢i Bhaé/a, and Gaanendra Sarasvati, who all give the same interpretation of the Sdtra in question. It is certainly unfortunate that we have no older authority on this point than Bhaffogi. The interpretation is in itself not improbable. VydAsa is certainly by the current tradition ® called the author of the Vedanta-sitras, and also the son of Parasara. Nor is Bhikshu-sitra a name too far removed in sense from Vedanta-sitra, though doubtless the former fame is not now in use, at all events as applied to the Sdtras attributed to Badardyana, and though, it must also be stated, a Bhikshu-sitra BhAshya Vartika is mentioned eo nomine by Professor Weber as actually in existence at the present day‘. Taking all things together, therefore, we may provisionally understand the Bhikshu-sitra mentioned by P4wsini to be identical with the Vedanta-sitras. But even apart from that identification, the other testimonies we have adduced prove, I think, the high antiquity of those Sdtras, and consequently of the Bhagavadgita. We have thus examined, at what, considering the importance and difficulty of the subject, will not, I trust, be regarded as unreasonable length, some of the principal pieces of internal and external evidence touching the age * See Siddhdnta Kaumud}, vol. i, p. 592. * See his Pisini; and see also Bubler’s Apastamba in this series, Introd. p. xxxii note. * The correctness of this tradition is very doubtfal. * Indische Studien I, 470. (8) D 34 BHAGAVADGITA.
3i, p. 592. * See his Pisini; and see also Bubler’s Apastamba in this series, Introd. p. xxxii note. * The correctness of this tradition is very doubtfal. * Indische Studien I, 470. (8) D 34 BHAGAVADGITA. of the Bhagavadgita and its position in Sanskrit literature. Although, as stated at the very outset, the conclusions we have deduced in the course of that examination are not all such as at once to secure acceptance, I venture to think that we have now adequate grounds for saying, that the various and independent lines of investigation, which we have pursued, converge to this point, that the Gita, on numerous and essential topics, ranges itself as a member of the Upanishad group, so to say, in Sanskrit literature. Its philosophy, its mode of treating its subject, its style, its language, its versification, its opinions on sundry subjects of the highest importance, all point to that one conclusion. We may also, I think, lay it down as more than probable, that the latest date at which the Gita can have been composed, must be earlier than the third century B.C., though it is altogether impossible to say at present how much earlier. This proposition, too, is supported by the cumulative strength of several independent lines of testimony. Before closing this Introduction, it is desirable to add a word concerning the text of the Bhagavadgité. The religious care with which that text has been preserved is very worthy of note. Schlegel and Lassen! have both declared it as their opinion, that we have the text now almost exactly in the condition in which it was when it left the hands of the author. There are very few real various readings, and some of the very few that exist are noted by the commentators. Considering that the Mahabharata -must have been tampered with on numerous occasions, this preservation of the Gita is most interesting. It doubtless indicates that high veneration for it which is still felt, and has for long been felt, by the Hindus, and which is embodied in the expression used in the colophons of the MSS. describing the Gita as the ‘Upanishad sung by God*.” In view of the facts and deductions set forth in ® See the latter's edition of the Gita, Preface, p. xxvii. ® Ia the edition of the Gita published in Bombay in Saka 178a, there is a stanza which says that the Upanishads are the cows, Krishaa the milkman, Arguna the calf, and the milk is the nectar-like Gita, which indicatcs the tradi- INTRODUCTION. 35 this essay, that expression existing as, I believe, it does, almost universally in Indian MSS. of the Gita, is not altogether devoid of historical value.
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.
1Weber'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, A.C.1 A considerable time prior to him must be placed the great commentator on the Mim4ms4-sitras, namely, Sabarasvamin. If we may judge from the style of his great commentary, he cannot have flourished much later than Patazgali, who may now be taken as historically proved to have flourished about 140 B.c.2. Nowa considerable time must have intervened between Sabarasvamin and another commentator on the Pdrva Mim4ams4, whom Sabara quotes with the highly honorific title Bhagavan, the Venerable, namely, Upavarsha. Upavarsha appears from Sankara’s statement to have commented on the Vedantasdtras*. We have thus a long catena of works from the seventh century A.C., indicating a pretty high antiquity for the Ved4nta-sfitras, and therefore a higher one for the Bhagavadgita. The antiquity of the Ved4nta-satras follows also from the circumstance, which we have on the testimony of Ram4nuga, repeated by Madhavaéarya, that a commentary on the Sdtras was written by Baudhayanasarya ‘, which commentary Ramanuga says he followed. Baudhayana’s date is not accurately settled. But he appears to be older than Apastamba, whose date, as suggested by Dr. Buhler, has already been mentioned’. The Vedantasdtras, then, would appear to be at least as old as the fourth century B.C.; if the information we have from Ram4nuga may be trusted. A third argument may be mentioned, bearing on the date of the Vedanta-sdtras. In Sutra 110 of the third Pada of the fourth Adhy4ya of Pasini’s Satras, a Pdrdsarya is mentioned as the author of a Bhikshu-sitra. Who is this Parasarya, and what the Bhikshu-sitra? Unluckily Patayigali gives us no information on this head, nor ' See Burnell’s Samavidhina-brahmama, Introduction, p. vi note. 2 The authorities are collected in our edition of Bhartrthan (Bombay Series of Sanskrit Classics). Introd. p. xi note. See also Buhler’'s Apastamba in this scries, Introd. p. xxviii. ® See Coicbrooke’s Essays, vol. i, p. 332. An Upavarsha is mentioned in the Kathasaritsigara as living in the time of king Nanda, and having Pasini, Katy 4yana, and Vyaai for his pupils. © See the Ramanuga Bhashya; and the Ramanoga Darsana in Sarvadarsanasangraha. + Apastamba, p. xvi. INTRODUCTION. 33
2i, p. 332. An Upavarsha is mentioned in the Kathasaritsigara as living in the time of king Nanda, and having Pasini, Katy 4yana, and Vyaai for his pupils. © See the Ramanuga Bhashya; and the Ramanoga Darsana in Sarvadarsanasangraha. + Apastamba, p. xvi. INTRODUCTION. 33 does the K4sik4 Vritti. But a note of Professor Tara4natha Tarkavakaspati, of Calcutta, says that Parasarya is Vy4sa, and the Bhikshu-sitra is the Ved4nta-sitra’. If this is correct, the Ved4nta-sitras go very far indeed into antiquity. For Pasini can certainly not be assigned to a later date than the fourth century B.C., while that learned scholar, Professor Goldstiicker, on grounds of considerable strength, assigned him to a much earlier date *. The question thus comes to this, Is the remark of Professor Tarandtha, above set out, correct? I find then, from enquiries made of my venerable and erudite friend Yag#esvar SAstrin, the author of the Aryavidydsudhdkara, that the note of Taranatha is based on the works of Bhaffogi Dikshita, NaAgqg¢i Bhaé/a, and Gaanendra Sarasvati, who all give the same interpretation of the Sdtra in question. It is certainly unfortunate that we have no older authority on this point than Bhaffogi. The interpretation is in itself not improbable. VydAsa is certainly by the current tradition ® called the author of the Vedanta-sitras, and also the son of Parasara. Nor is Bhikshu-sitra a name too far removed in sense from Vedanta-sitra, though doubtless the former fame is not now in use, at all events as applied to the Sdtras attributed to Badardyana, and though, it must also be stated, a Bhikshu-sitra BhAshya Vartika is mentioned eo nomine by Professor Weber as actually in existence at the present day‘. Taking all things together, therefore, we may provisionally understand the Bhikshu-sitra mentioned by P4wsini to be identical with the Vedanta-sitras. But even apart from that identification, the other testimonies we have adduced prove, I think, the high antiquity of those Sdtras, and consequently of the Bhagavadgita. We have thus examined, at what, considering the importance and difficulty of the subject, will not, I trust, be regarded as unreasonable length, some of the principal pieces of internal and external evidence touching the age * See Siddhdnta Kaumud}, vol. i, p. 592. * See his Pisini; and see also Bubler’s Apastamba in this series, Introd. p. xxxii note. * The correctness of this tradition is very doubtfal. * Indische Studien I, 470. (8) D 34 BHAGAVADGITA.
3i, p. 592. * See his Pisini; and see also Bubler’s Apastamba in this series, Introd. p. xxxii note. * The correctness of this tradition is very doubtfal. * Indische Studien I, 470. (8) D 34 BHAGAVADGITA. of the Bhagavadgita and its position in Sanskrit literature. Although, as stated at the very outset, the conclusions we have deduced in the course of that examination are not all such as at once to secure acceptance, I venture to think that we have now adequate grounds for saying, that the various and independent lines of investigation, which we have pursued, converge to this point, that the Gita, on numerous and essential topics, ranges itself as a member of the Upanishad group, so to say, in Sanskrit literature. Its philosophy, its mode of treating its subject, its style, its language, its versification, its opinions on sundry subjects of the highest importance, all point to that one conclusion. We may also, I think, lay it down as more than probable, that the latest date at which the Gita can have been composed, must be earlier than the third century B.C., though it is altogether impossible to say at present how much earlier. This proposition, too, is supported by the cumulative strength of several independent lines of testimony. Before closing this Introduction, it is desirable to add a word concerning the text of the Bhagavadgité. The religious care with which that text has been preserved is very worthy of note. Schlegel and Lassen! have both declared it as their opinion, that we have the text now almost exactly in the condition in which it was when it left the hands of the author. There are very few real various readings, and some of the very few that exist are noted by the commentators. Considering that the Mahabharata -must have been tampered with on numerous occasions, this preservation of the Gita is most interesting. It doubtless indicates that high veneration for it which is still felt, and has for long been felt, by the Hindus, and which is embodied in the expression used in the colophons of the MSS. describing the Gita as the ‘Upanishad sung by God*.” In view of the facts and deductions set forth in ® See the latter's edition of the Gita, Preface, p. xxvii. ® Ia the edition of the Gita published in Bombay in Saka 178a, there is a stanza which says that the Upanishads are the cows, Krishaa the milkman, Arguna the calf, and the milk is the nectar-like Gita, which indicatcs the tradi- INTRODUCTION. 35 this essay, that expression existing as, I believe, it does, almost universally in Indian MSS. of the Gita, is not altogether devoid of historical value.
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.