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.
202 ANUGÎTÀ. Se RE UE the conclusion to be derived from it must be, that Sankara and Vigñâna must have considered the chapters of the Asvamedha Parvan from which their respective quotations are taken as not forming part of the Anugita.
The testimony we have thus collected is apparently of considerable weight. Against it, however, we have to weigh some testimony which appears to me to be entitled, upon the whole, to even greater weight. In the Sankhya-sara of Vigñâna Bhikshu, to which we have already referred, we have two quotations* from the Anugîtâ which are distinctly stated to be taken from that work. The first occurs in our translation at p. 332, the second at p. 313. Now, if we adopt the conclusion above referred to, regarding the correct titles of the thirty-six chapters which we have translated, it is a mistake to attribute the passages in question to the Anugita. They would, on that view, form part of the Gurusishyasamvada. Again, in his commentary on the Sanatsugatiya, Sankara refers to sundry passages which he expressly says are taken from the Anugita, but which are not contained in the Anugita as limited by the evidence we have considered above. One of the passages referred to is taken from chapter XI of our translation, and others are contained in the comments on Sanatsugatiya I, 6, and on I, 20 and I, 412 It is difficult to resist the conclusion to which this positive evidence leads. One cannot possibly explain this evidence upon the view which we have first stated ; while, on the other hand, the points which apparently support that view are capable of some explanation on the theory that the Anugita includes all the chapters here translated. And that in this wise. The passages which we have referred to as cited by Sañkara and Vigñâna from a Purâṇa and from the Bharata may have been actually taken from some other work than the Anugita. Even waiving the fact that the readings are different,—though in regard especially to the quotation given by Sankara it is not one to be entirely lost sight of,—there is this fact which is of great and almost conclusive weight on such a point as this, namely, that we have many instances of passages common, almost verbatim et literatim, to the Mahabharata and other works. For one instance, take the very passage on which a chronological argument has been founded by us in the Introduction to the Sanatsugatiyat. It ought to have been there pointed out, that the stanza about a young man being bound to rise to receive an elderly person, occurs in the Manu Smyiti? also in exactly the same words. The omission to note this circumstance in its proper place in the Introduction to the Sanatsugatiya was due to a mere inadvertence. But the conclusion there hinted at was expressed in very cautious language, and with many qualifications, out of regard to circumstances such as those which we are now considering. Similar repetitions may be pointed out in other places. The passage about the Kshetragña and Sattva and their mutual relations (see p. 374) occurs, as pointed out in the note there, in at least two other places in the Mahabharata. The passage likewise which occurs in Gita, p. 103, about the ‘hands, feet, &c., on all sides,’ is one which may be seen, to my own knowledge, in about half a dozen places in the Mahabharata. Such cases, I believe, may be easily multiplied ; and they illustrate and are illustrated by Mr. Freeman’s proposition respecting the epic age in Greece, to which we have already alluded. It follows, consequently, that the quotations from Sankara and Vigñâna, to which we have referred above, do not militate very strongly against the final conclusion at which we have arrived. The testimony of the MSS. and the commentators is of considerably greater force. But Nîlakaṇṭha, whatever his merits as an exegete—and even these are often marred by a persistent effort to read his own foregone conclusions into the text he comments on—Nîlakaṇṭha is but an indifferent authority in the domain of historical criticism. In his commentary on the Sanatsugâtiya, for instance, he tells us that he has admitted into his text sundry verses which were not in the copy used by Sankara, and for which he had none but a very modern voucher, and he very naively adds that he has done so on the principle of collecting all good things to a focus. Arguna Misra is a very much more satisfactory commentator. But he is not likely to be a writer of a very remote date. I assume, that he must be more recent than Sañkarâkârya, though I cannot say that I have any very tenable ground for the assumption. But assuming that, I think it more satisfactory to adopt Sañkarâkârya’s nomenclature, and to treat the thirty-six chapters here translated as constituting the Anugita. It is not improbable, if our assumption is correct, that the division of the thirty-six chapters in the manner we have seen may have come into vogue after the date of Vigñâna Bhikshu, who, according to Dr. F. E. Hall, ‘lived in all probability in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and whom there is some slight reason for carrying back still further 1’
* Pp.15,21. The latter corresponds to Sankara’s quotation above referred to. ? See p. 206 note,
202 ANUGÎTÀ. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that Sankara and Vijñâna must have regarded the chapters of the Asvamedha Parvan from which their respective quotations are taken as not forming part of the Anugita.
The testimony we have collected is apparently of considerable weight. Against it, however, we must weigh some testimony that seems to me, on the whole, to deserve even greater weight. The Sankhya-sara of Vijñâna Bhikshu, to which we have already referred, contains two quotations* from the Anugîtâ that are distinctly stated to be taken from that work. The first occurs in our translation at p. 332, the second at p. 313. Now, if we accept the conclusion mentioned above regarding the correct titles of the thirty-six chapters we have translated, it is a mistake to attribute these passages to the Anugîtâ. On that view, they would form part of the Gurusishyasamvada. Again, in his commentary on the Sanatsujâtîya, Sañkara refers to various passages that he expressly says are taken from the Anugîtâ, but which are not contained in the Anugîtâ as the evidence we have considered would limit it. One of those passages is taken from chapter XI of our translation, and others appear in the comments on Sanatsujâtîya I, 6, and on I, 20 and I, 412. It is difficult to resist the conclusion to which this positive evidence points. The evidence cannot possibly be explained on the first view we stated; while, on the other hand, the points that apparently support that view are capable of some explanation on the theory that the Anugîtâ includes all the chapters translated here. And in this way. The passages we have referred to as cited by Sañkara and Vijñâna from a Purâṇa and from the Bharata may actually have been taken from some work other than the Anugîtâ. Even setting aside the fact that the readings differ—though in regard especially to the quotation given by Sañkara that is not a consideration to be entirely lost sight of—there is a further fact of great and almost conclusive weight on such a point: we have many instances of passages common, almost verbatim et literatim, to the Mahabharata and other works. Take, as one instance, the very passage on which a chronological argument was founded by us in the Introduction to the Sanatsugâtiyat. It ought to have been pointed out there that the stanza about a young man being bound to rise to receive an elderly person occurs in the Manu Smyiti? as well, in exactly the same words. The omission to note this in its proper place in the Introduction to the Sanatsujâtîya was due to mere inadvertence. But the conclusion hinted at there was expressed in very cautious language and with many qualifications, out of regard to circumstances such as those we are now considering. Similar repetitions may be pointed out elsewhere. The passage about the Kshetrajña and Sattva and their mutual relations (see p. 374) occurs, as the note there points out, in at least two other places in the Mahabharata. Likewise the passage in Gita, p. 103, about the 'hands, feet, &c., on all sides,' may be found, to my own knowledge, in about half a dozen places in the Mahabharata. Such cases, I believe, can be multiplied easily; and they illustrate, and are illustrated by, Mr. Freeman's proposition respecting the epic age in Greece, to which we have already alluded. It follows, consequently, that the quotations from Sañkara and Vijñâna to which we have referred above do not weigh very strongly against the final conclusion at which we have arrived. The testimony of the MSS. and the commentators carries considerably greater force. But Nîlakaṇṭha, whatever his merits as an exegete—and even those are often marred by a persistent effort to read his own foregone conclusions into the text he comments on—Nîlakaṇṭha is but an indifferent authority in the domain of historical criticism. In his commentary on the Sanatsujâtîya, for instance, he tells us that he has admitted into his text various verses that were not in the copy used by Sañkara, and for which he had none but a very modern voucher; and he very naively adds that he has done so on the principle of collecting all good things to a focus. Arjuna Misra is a far more satisfactory commentator. But he is not likely to be a writer of very remote date. I assume that he must be more recent than Sañkarâkârya, though I cannot claim any very tenable ground for the assumption. Assuming that, however, I think it more satisfactory to adopt Sañkarâkârya's nomenclature and to treat the thirty-six chapters translated here as constituting the Anugîtâ. If our assumption is correct, it is not improbable that the division of the thirty-six chapters in the manner we have seen may have come into vogue after the date of Vijñâna Bhikshu, who, according to Dr. F. E. Hall, 'lived in all probability in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and whom there is some slight reason for carrying back still further 1'
* Pp.15,21. The latter corresponds to Sankara's quotation above referred to. ? See p. 206 note,