The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)
The translator’s English as printed (K. T. Telang). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Ÿ rata (the Sanatsugâtiya commencing at the forty-first chapter), seven of which are quoted in the Pañkatantra!, and the eighth in the Mahâbhâshya ? of Pataggali. Of course, it almost goes without saying, that neither the Pa%£atantra nor the Mahabhashya mentions the source from which they derive the verses in question. But I do not think it unallowable to make the provisional assumption, that they were derived from the Mahabharata, so long as we cannot produce any other, and more likely, source. It is true, that Professor Weber has, in another connexion, impugned the cogency of this argument. He seems to think, that the probability— in the case he was actually dealing with—of the Râmâyaṇa having borrowed from the Mahabhashya, is quite as strong as the probability of the Mahâbhâshya having borrowed from the Râmâyaṇa*. And doubtless, he would by parity of reason contend, in the case before us, that the probabilities, as between the Mahabharata on the one hand, and the Mahabhashya and the Pañkatantra on the other, bear the same mutual relation. I cannot accept this view. Iam not now concerned to discuss the merits of the conclusion in support of which Professor Weber has advanced this argu- ‘ment*. I am only considering, how far it affects the question now before us. And as to that question, I may say, that the Pañkatantra expressly introduces the stanzas now under consideration with some such expression as, ‘ For it has been said, indicating clearly that it was there quoting the words of another®. And so, too, does the Mahabhashya, where the passage we refer to runs as follows: ‘(It is) laid down, (that there is) a sin in one of tender age not rising to receive (an elderly person), and (that there is) merit in rising to receive. How? Thus, “The life-winds of a youth depart . upwards, when an elderly man approaches (him). By rising to receive (him), and salutation, he obtains them again.”’ It appears to me, that the indications of this being a quotation in the Bhashya are very strong. But apart from that, I do demur to the proposition, that the probabilities are equal, of a work like the Mahabharata or Ramayana borrowing a verse from the Mahâbhâshya, and vice versa. It appears to me perfectly plain, I own, that the probability of a grammatical work like the Bhâshya borrowing a verse from a standard work like the Bharata or Ramayana for purposes of illustration is very much the stronger of the two. And this, quite independently of any inquiry as to whether the Bhashya does or does not show other indications of acquaintance with the Bharata or the Râmâyaṇa.
1 Cf. Kosegarten’s Pañkatantra, p. 28 (I, 28, Bombay S. C. ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XL, st. 7 (Bombay ed.); Pañkatantra, pp. 112 and 209 (II, 10; IV, 5, Bombay ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, 9; p. 35 (137, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVI, st. 34; p. 140 (II, 40, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVII, st. 15; p. 160 (III, 62, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVII, st. 17, 18; p. 106 (II, 2, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVI, st. 59.
2 Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, st. 1, and Mahabhashya VI, 1-4, p. 35 (Banaras ed.) # See Indian Antiquary IV, 247. The parallel from Madhava which Professor Weber adduces is quite inconclusive, and as far as it goes appears to me to militate against the Professor’s own view.
4 I may, however, admit at once, that I ought not to have expressed myself as strongly as I did in the note which Professor Weber criticises.
5 See p. 203 infra.
Ÿ rata (the Sanatsujâtîya commencing at the forty-first chapter), seven of which are quoted in the Pañkatantra!, and the eighth in the Mahâbhâshya ? of Pataggali. It almost goes without saying, of course, that neither the Pa%£atantra nor the Mahabhashya mentions the source from which it draws the verses in question. But I do not think it unreasonable to make the provisional assumption that they were derived from the Mahabharata, as long as no other, more likely source can be produced. It is true that Professor Weber has, in a different connexion, challenged the cogency of this argument. He seems to think that the probability—in the case he was actually dealing with—of the Râmâyaṇa having borrowed from the Mahabhashya is just as strong as the probability of the Mahâbhâshya having borrowed from the Râmâyaṇa*. And doubtless, by the same reasoning, he would contend in the present case that the probabilities, as between the Mahabharata on the one hand and the Mahabhashya and the Pañkatantra on the other, stand in the same mutual relation. I cannot accept this view. I am not here concerned to discuss the merits of the conclusion in support of which Professor Weber advanced this argument*. I am only considering how far it affects the question now before us. On that question I may say that the Pañkatantra expressly introduces the stanzas under consideration with some such expression as "For it has been said," making clear that it was there quoting the words of another®. So too does the Mahabhashya, where the passage in question runs as follows: "(It is) laid down, (that there is) a sin in one of tender age not rising to receive (an elderly person), and (that there is) merit in rising to receive. How? Thus, 'The life-winds of a youth depart upwards, when an elderly man approaches (him). By rising to receive (him), and salutation, he obtains them again.'" The indications that this is a quotation in the Bhâshya seem to me very strong. But apart from that, I do demur to the proposition that the probabilities are equal—that a work like the Mahabharata or Ramayana might just as likely have borrowed a verse from the Mahâbhâshya as the other way around. It seems to me perfectly plain, I own, that the probability of a grammatical work like the Bhâshya borrowing a verse from a standard work like the Bharata or Ramayana for purposes of illustration is very much the stronger of the two. And this holds quite independently of any inquiry into whether the Bhâshya does or does not show other signs of acquaintance with the Bharata or the Râmâyaṇa.
1 Cf. Kosegarten's Pañcatantra, p. 28 (I, 28, Bombay S. C. ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XL, st. 7 (Bombay ed.); Pañcatantra, pp. 112 and 209 (II, 10; IV, 5, Bombay ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, 9; p. 35 (137, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVI, st. 34; p. 140 (II, 40, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVII, st. 15; p. 160 (III, 62, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVII, st. 17, 18; p. 106 (II, 2, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVI, st. 59.
2 Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, st. 1, and Mahabhashya VI, 1-4, p. 35 (Banaras ed.) # See Indian Antiquary IV, 247. The parallel from Madhava which Professor Weber adduces is quite inconclusive, and as far as it goes appears to me to militate against the Professor's own view.
4 I should admit straightaway, though, that I ought not to have put things as forcefully as I did in the note that Professor Weber criticises.
5 See p. 203 infra.