Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1(8) B 2 BHAGAVADGITA. matter connected with the Bhagavadgita, about which any such consensus can be said to exist. The conclusions arrived at in this Introduction must, therefore, be distinctly understood to embody individual opinions only, and must be taken accordingly for what they are worth. The full name of the work is Bhagavadgité. In common parlance, we often abbreviate the name into Gita, and in Sanskrit literature the name occurs in both forms. In the works of Sankardfarya, quotations from the Gita are introduced, sometimes with the words ‘In the Gita,’ or ‘In the Bhagavadgit4,’ and sometimes with words which may be rendered ‘In the Gitds,’ the plural form being used’. In the colophons to the MSS. of the work, the form current, apparently throughout India, is, ‘In the Upanishads sung (Gitas) by the Deity.’ Sankarésarya, indeed, sometimes calls it the fsvara Gita? which, I believe, is the specific title of a different work altogether. The signification, however, of the two names is identical, namely, the song sung by the Deity, or, as Wilkins translates it, the Divine Lay. This Divine Lay forms part of the Bhishma Parvan of the Mahabhdarata—one of the two well-known national epics of India. The Gita gives its name to a subdivision of the Bhishma Parvan, which is called the Bhagavadgita Parvan, and which includes, in addition to the eighteen chapters of which the Gita consists, twelve other chapters. Upon this the question has naturally arisen, Is the Gita a genuine portion of the Mahabharata, or is it a later addition? The question is one of considerable difficulty. But I cannot help saying, that the manner in which it has been generally dealt with is not altogether satisfactory to my mind. Before going any further into that question, however, it is desirable to state some of the facts on which the decision must be based. It appears, then, that the royal family of Hastinapura was divided into two branches: the one called the Kauravas, and the other the Pamdavas. The ' bx gr. Sariraka Bhashya, vol. ii, p. 840, It is also often cited as a Smriti, ibid. vol. i, p. 182. 2 See inter alia Sarfraka Bhashya, vol. i, p. 485, vol. ii, p. 687, and Colebrvoke's Essays, vol. i, p. 355 (Madras, ; Iasscn’s cdition of the Gita, XXXV. INTRODUCTION. 3
2The ' bx gr. Sariraka Bhashya, vol. ii, p. 840, It is also often cited as a Smriti, ibid. vol. i, p. 182. 2 See inter alia Sarfraka Bhashya, vol. i, p. 485, vol. ii, p. 687, and Colebrvoke's Essays, vol. i, p. 355 (Madras, ; Iasscn’s cdition of the Gita, XXXV. INTRODUCTION. 3 former wished to keep the latter out of the share of the kingdom claimed by them ; and so, after many attempts at an amicable arrangement had proved fruitless, it was determined to decide the differences between the two parties by the arbitrament of arms. Each party accordingly collected its adherents, and the hostile armies met on the ‘holy field of Kurukshetra,’ mentioned in the opening lines of our poem. At this juncture, Krishna Dvaipayana, alias Vyasa, a relative of both parties and endowed with more than human powers, presents himself before Dhritardshéra, the father of the Kauravas, who is stated to be altogether blind. Vy4sa asks Dhritarashfra whether it is his wish to look with his own eyes on the course of the battle; and on Dhritardsh/ra’s expressing his reluctance, Vyasa deputes one Safigaya to relate to Dhritarashéra all the events of the battle, giving to Sa#gaya, by means of his own superhuman powers, all necessary aids for performing the duty. Then the battle begins, and after a ten days’ struggle, the first great general of the Kauravas. namely Bhishma, falls'. At this point Safgaya comes up to Dhritarashéra, and announces to him the sad result, which is of course a great blow to his party. Dhrétardsh¢ra then makes numerous enquiries of Sa#gaya regarding the course of the conflict, all of which Safgaya duly answers. And among his earliest answers is the account of the conversation between Krishva and Arguna at the commencement of the battle, which constitutes the Bhagavadgitéa. After relating to Dhritardshéra that ‘ wonderful and holy dialogue,’ and after giving an account of what occurred in the intervals of the conversation, Safigaya proceeds to narrate the actual events of the battle. With this rough outline of the framework of the story before us, we are now in a position to consider the opposing arguments on the point above noted. Mr. Talboys Wheeler writes on that point as follows?: ‘But there remains one * The whol: story is given in brief by the late Professor Goldstiicker in the Westminster Kevicw, April 1868, p. 393 seq. Sce now his Literary Remains, II, 824 sexy. ® History of Incia, vol. i, p. 293. B2 4 BHAGAVADGITA.
3Talboys Wheeler writes on that point as follows?: ‘But there remains one * The whol: story is given in brief by the late Professor Goldstiicker in the Westminster Kevicw, April 1868, p. 393 seq. Sce now his Literary Remains, II, 824 sexy. ® History of Incia, vol. i, p. 293. B2 4 BHAGAVADGITA. other anomalous characteristic of the history of the great war, as it is recorded in the Mahabharata, which cannot be passed over in silence; and that is the extraordinary abruptness and infelicity with which Brahmanical discourses, such as essays on law, on morals, sermons on divine things, and even instruction in the so-called sciences are recklessly grafted upon the main narrative. ... Krishva and Arguna on the morning of the first day of the war, when both armies are drawn out in battle-array, and hostilities are about to begin, enter into a long and philosophical dialogue respecting the various forms of devotion which lead to the emancipation of the soul; and it cannot be denied that, however incongruous and irrelevant such a dialogue must appear on the eve of battle, the discourse of Krishna, whilst acting as the charioteer of Arguna, contains the essence of the most spiritual phases of Brahmanical teaching, and is expressed in language of such depth and sublimity, that it has become deservedly known as the Bhagavad-gita or Divine Song. . . . Indeed no effort has been spared by the Brahmanical compilers to convert the history of the great war into a vehicle for Brahmanical teaching ; and so skilfully are many of these interpolations interwoven with the story, that it is frequently impossible to narrate the one, without referring to the other, however irrelevant the matter may be to the main subject in hand.’ It appears to me, I own, very difficult to accept that as a satisfactory argument, amounting, as it does, to no more than this—that ‘ interpolations,’ which must needs be referred to in narrating the main story even to make it intelligible, are nevertheless to be regarded ‘as evidently the product of a Brahmanical age!,’ and presumably also a later age, because, forsooth, they are irrelevant and incongruous according to the ‘tastes and ideas '’— not of the time, be it remembered, when the ‘main story’ is supposed to have been written, but—of this enlightened nineteenth century. The support, too, which may be sup- ' History of India, vol. i, p. 288; and compare ge nerally upon this point the remarks in Gladstone's Homer, especially vol. i, p. 70 seq. INTRODUCTION. 5 posed to be derived by this argument from the allegation that there has been an attempt to Brahmanize, so to say, the history of the great war, appears to me to be extremely weak, so far as the Gita is concerned. But that is a point which will have to be considered more at large in the sequel’.
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.
1(8) B 2 BHAGAVADGITA. matter connected with the Bhagavadgita, about which any such consensus can be said to exist. The conclusions arrived at in this Introduction must, therefore, be distinctly understood to embody individual opinions only, and must be taken accordingly for what they are worth. The full name of the work is Bhagavadgité. In common parlance, we often abbreviate the name into Gita, and in Sanskrit literature the name occurs in both forms. In the works of Sankardfarya, quotations from the Gita are introduced, sometimes with the words ‘In the Gita,’ or ‘In the Bhagavadgit4,’ and sometimes with words which may be rendered ‘In the Gitds,’ the plural form being used’. In the colophons to the MSS. of the work, the form current, apparently throughout India, is, ‘In the Upanishads sung (Gitas) by the Deity.’ Sankarésarya, indeed, sometimes calls it the fsvara Gita? which, I believe, is the specific title of a different work altogether. The signification, however, of the two names is identical, namely, the song sung by the Deity, or, as Wilkins translates it, the Divine Lay. This Divine Lay forms part of the Bhishma Parvan of the Mahabhdarata—one of the two well-known national epics of India. The Gita gives its name to a subdivision of the Bhishma Parvan, which is called the Bhagavadgita Parvan, and which includes, in addition to the eighteen chapters of which the Gita consists, twelve other chapters. Upon this the question has naturally arisen, Is the Gita a genuine portion of the Mahabharata, or is it a later addition? The question is one of considerable difficulty. But I cannot help saying, that the manner in which it has been generally dealt with is not altogether satisfactory to my mind. Before going any further into that question, however, it is desirable to state some of the facts on which the decision must be based. It appears, then, that the royal family of Hastinapura was divided into two branches: the one called the Kauravas, and the other the Pamdavas. The ' bx gr. Sariraka Bhashya, vol. ii, p. 840, It is also often cited as a Smriti, ibid. vol. i, p. 182. 2 See inter alia Sarfraka Bhashya, vol. i, p. 485, vol. ii, p. 687, and Colebrvoke's Essays, vol. i, p. 355 (Madras, ; Iasscn’s cdition of the Gita, XXXV. INTRODUCTION. 3
2The ' bx gr. Sariraka Bhashya, vol. ii, p. 840, It is also often cited as a Smriti, ibid. vol. i, p. 182. 2 See inter alia Sarfraka Bhashya, vol. i, p. 485, vol. ii, p. 687, and Colebrvoke's Essays, vol. i, p. 355 (Madras, ; Iasscn’s cdition of the Gita, XXXV. INTRODUCTION. 3 former wished to keep the latter out of the share of the kingdom claimed by them ; and so, after many attempts at an amicable arrangement had proved fruitless, it was determined to decide the differences between the two parties by the arbitrament of arms. Each party accordingly collected its adherents, and the hostile armies met on the ‘holy field of Kurukshetra,’ mentioned in the opening lines of our poem. At this juncture, Krishna Dvaipayana, alias Vyasa, a relative of both parties and endowed with more than human powers, presents himself before Dhritardshéra, the father of the Kauravas, who is stated to be altogether blind. Vy4sa asks Dhritarashfra whether it is his wish to look with his own eyes on the course of the battle; and on Dhritardsh/ra’s expressing his reluctance, Vyasa deputes one Safigaya to relate to Dhritarashéra all the events of the battle, giving to Sa#gaya, by means of his own superhuman powers, all necessary aids for performing the duty. Then the battle begins, and after a ten days’ struggle, the first great general of the Kauravas. namely Bhishma, falls'. At this point Safgaya comes up to Dhritarashéra, and announces to him the sad result, which is of course a great blow to his party. Dhrétardsh¢ra then makes numerous enquiries of Sa#gaya regarding the course of the conflict, all of which Safgaya duly answers. And among his earliest answers is the account of the conversation between Krishva and Arguna at the commencement of the battle, which constitutes the Bhagavadgitéa. After relating to Dhritardshéra that ‘ wonderful and holy dialogue,’ and after giving an account of what occurred in the intervals of the conversation, Safigaya proceeds to narrate the actual events of the battle. With this rough outline of the framework of the story before us, we are now in a position to consider the opposing arguments on the point above noted. Mr. Talboys Wheeler writes on that point as follows?: ‘But there remains one * The whol: story is given in brief by the late Professor Goldstiicker in the Westminster Kevicw, April 1868, p. 393 seq. Sce now his Literary Remains, II, 824 sexy. ® History of Incia, vol. i, p. 293. B2 4 BHAGAVADGITA.
3Talboys Wheeler writes on that point as follows?: ‘But there remains one * The whol: story is given in brief by the late Professor Goldstiicker in the Westminster Kevicw, April 1868, p. 393 seq. Sce now his Literary Remains, II, 824 sexy. ® History of Incia, vol. i, p. 293. B2 4 BHAGAVADGITA. other anomalous characteristic of the history of the great war, as it is recorded in the Mahabharata, which cannot be passed over in silence; and that is the extraordinary abruptness and infelicity with which Brahmanical discourses, such as essays on law, on morals, sermons on divine things, and even instruction in the so-called sciences are recklessly grafted upon the main narrative. ... Krishva and Arguna on the morning of the first day of the war, when both armies are drawn out in battle-array, and hostilities are about to begin, enter into a long and philosophical dialogue respecting the various forms of devotion which lead to the emancipation of the soul; and it cannot be denied that, however incongruous and irrelevant such a dialogue must appear on the eve of battle, the discourse of Krishna, whilst acting as the charioteer of Arguna, contains the essence of the most spiritual phases of Brahmanical teaching, and is expressed in language of such depth and sublimity, that it has become deservedly known as the Bhagavad-gita or Divine Song. . . . Indeed no effort has been spared by the Brahmanical compilers to convert the history of the great war into a vehicle for Brahmanical teaching ; and so skilfully are many of these interpolations interwoven with the story, that it is frequently impossible to narrate the one, without referring to the other, however irrelevant the matter may be to the main subject in hand.’ It appears to me, I own, very difficult to accept that as a satisfactory argument, amounting, as it does, to no more than this—that ‘ interpolations,’ which must needs be referred to in narrating the main story even to make it intelligible, are nevertheless to be regarded ‘as evidently the product of a Brahmanical age!,’ and presumably also a later age, because, forsooth, they are irrelevant and incongruous according to the ‘tastes and ideas '’— not of the time, be it remembered, when the ‘main story’ is supposed to have been written, but—of this enlightened nineteenth century. The support, too, which may be sup- ' History of India, vol. i, p. 288; and compare ge nerally upon this point the remarks in Gladstone's Homer, especially vol. i, p. 70 seq. INTRODUCTION. 5 posed to be derived by this argument from the allegation that there has been an attempt to Brahmanize, so to say, the history of the great war, appears to me to be extremely weak, so far as the Gita is concerned. But that is a point which will have to be considered more at large in the sequel’.
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.