Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
15 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’. While, however, I am not prepared to admit the cogency of Mr. Wheeler’s arguments, I am not, on the other hand, to be understood as holding that the Gita must be accepted as a genuine part of the original Mahabharata. I own that my feeling on the subject is something akin to that of the great historian of Greece regarding the Homeric question, a feeling of painful diffidence regarding the soundness of any conclusion whatever. While it is impossible not to feel serious doubts about the critical condition of the Mahabharata generally; while, indeed, we may be almost certain that the work has been tampered with from time to time’; it is difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion} regarding any particular given section of it. And it must be remembered, also, that the alternatives for us to choose from in these cases are not only these two, that the section in question may be a genuine part of the work, or that it may be a later interpolation: but also this, as suggested recently, though not for the first time, by Mr. Freeman with reference to the Homeric question, that the section may have been in existence at the date of the original epos. and may have been worked by the author of the epos into his own production. For that absence of dread, ‘either of the law or sentiment of copyright,’ which Mr. Freeman relies upon with regard to a primitive Greek poet, was by no means confined to the Greek people, but may be traced amongst us also. The commentator Madhusddana Sarasvati likens the Gita to those dialogues which oceur in sundry Vedic works, particularly the Upanishads *. Possibly —I will not use a stronger word—possibly the Gita * Infra, p. 20 seq. ® Compare the late Professor Goldstiicker’s remarks in the Westminster Review for April 1868, p. 389. * Contemporary Review February 1879°. © Madhusidana mentions the dialogue between Ganaka and YagAavalkya as @ specific parallel. 6 BHAGAVADGITA.
220 seq. ® Compare the late Professor Goldstiicker’s remarks in the Westminster Review for April 1868, p. 389. * Contemporary Review February 1879°. © Madhusidana mentions the dialogue between Ganaka and YagAavalkya as @ specific parallel. 6 BHAGAVADGITA. may have existed as such a dialogue before the Mahabharata, and may have been appropriated by the author of the Mahabhdrata to his own purposes'. But yet, upon the whole, having regard to the fact that those ideas of unity on which Mr. Wheeler and others set so much store are scarcely appropriate to our old literature ; to the fact that the Gita fits pretty well into the setting given to it in the Bhishma Parvan; to the fact that the feeling of Arguna, which gives occasion to it, is not at all inconsistent, but is most consonant, with poctical justice ; to the fact that there is not in the Gita, in my judgment, any trace of a sectarian or ‘ Brahmanizing’ spirit®, such as Mr. Wheeler and also the late Professor Goldstiicker ® hold to have animated the arrangers of the Mahabharata ; having regard, I say, to all these facts, I am prepared to adhere, I will not say without diffidence, to the theory of the genuineness of the Bhagavadgit4 as a portion of the original Mahabharata. The next point to consider is as to the authorship of the Gita. The popular notion on this subject is pretty well known. The whole of the Mahabharata is, by our traditions, attributed to Vy4sa, whom we have already noticed as a relative of the Kauravas and Pandavas; and therefore the Bhagavadgita, also, is naturally affliated to the same author. The earliest written testimony to this authorship, that I can trace, is to be found in Sankara/arya’s commentary on the Gita‘ itself and on the Bréhadaranyakopanishad*. To a certain extent, the mention of Vyasa in the body of the Gita would, from a historic standpoint, seem to militate against this tradition. But I have not seen in any of the commentaries to which I have had access, any consideration of this point, as there is of the mention in some * See to this effect M. Fauriel, quoted in Grote’s Greece. II, 198 (Cabinet ed. * Compare also Weber's History of Indian Literature English translation , p. 187. ‘Tbe instruction, however, as to ‘the reverence due to the priesthood’ from ‘the military caste,’ which is there spoken of, appears to me to be entirely atnent from the Gita; see p. 21 seq. intra. * Westminster Review, April 1568, p. 388 scq.; and Remains, I, 104, 105. * P.6 Calcutta ed., Samvat, 1927). ® P. 841 (Bibl. Indic. ed. ; also Svetasvatara, p. 278. INTRODUCTION. 7 Smritis and Sitras of the names of those to whom those Smyrstis and Sitras are respectively ascribed '.
3intra. * Westminster Review, April 1568, p. 388 scq.; and Remains, I, 104, 105. * P.6 Calcutta ed., Samvat, 1927). ® P. 841 (Bibl. Indic. ed. ; also Svetasvatara, p. 278. INTRODUCTION. 7 Smritis and Sitras of the names of those to whom those Smyrstis and Sitras are respectively ascribed '. We must now leave these preliminary questions, unluckily in a state far from satisfactory, and proceed to that most important topic—the date when the Git4 was composed, and the position it occupies in Sanskrit literature. We have here to consider the external evidence bearing on these points, which is tantalizingly meagre ; and the internal evidence, which is, perhaps, somewhat more full And takiog first the internal evidence, the various items falling under that head may be marshalled into four groups. Firstly, we have to consider the general character of the Gita with reference to its mode of handling its subject. Secondly, there is the character of its style and language. Thirdly, we have to consider the nature of the versification of the Gita. And fourthly and lastly, we must take note of sundry points of detail, such as the attitude of the Gita towards the Vedas and towards caste, its allusions to other systems of speculation, and other matters of the like nature. On each of these groups, in the order here stated, we now proceed to make a few observations. And first about the manner in which the Gita deals with its subject. It appears to me, that the work bears on the face of it very plain marks indicating that it belongs to an age prior to the system-making age of Sanskrit philosophy. In 1875, I wrote as follows upon this point: ‘ My view is, that in the Gita and the Upanishads, the philosophical part has not been consistently and fully worked out. We have there the results of free thought, exercised on different subjects of great moment, unfettered by the exigencies of any foregone conclusions, or of any fully developed theory. It is afterwards, it is at a later stage of philosophical progress, that system-making arises. In that stage some thinkers interpret whole works by the light of some particular doctrines or expressions. And the result is the development of a whole multitude of philosophical sects, following the lead of those thinkers, and all professing to * See, as to this, Colebrooke's Essays, vol. i, Pp 328 (Madras). 8 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.
15 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’. While, however, I am not prepared to admit the cogency of Mr. Wheeler’s arguments, I am not, on the other hand, to be understood as holding that the Gita must be accepted as a genuine part of the original Mahabharata. I own that my feeling on the subject is something akin to that of the great historian of Greece regarding the Homeric question, a feeling of painful diffidence regarding the soundness of any conclusion whatever. While it is impossible not to feel serious doubts about the critical condition of the Mahabharata generally; while, indeed, we may be almost certain that the work has been tampered with from time to time’; it is difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion} regarding any particular given section of it. And it must be remembered, also, that the alternatives for us to choose from in these cases are not only these two, that the section in question may be a genuine part of the work, or that it may be a later interpolation: but also this, as suggested recently, though not for the first time, by Mr. Freeman with reference to the Homeric question, that the section may have been in existence at the date of the original epos. and may have been worked by the author of the epos into his own production. For that absence of dread, ‘either of the law or sentiment of copyright,’ which Mr. Freeman relies upon with regard to a primitive Greek poet, was by no means confined to the Greek people, but may be traced amongst us also. The commentator Madhusddana Sarasvati likens the Gita to those dialogues which oceur in sundry Vedic works, particularly the Upanishads *. Possibly —I will not use a stronger word—possibly the Gita * Infra, p. 20 seq. ® Compare the late Professor Goldstiicker’s remarks in the Westminster Review for April 1868, p. 389. * Contemporary Review February 1879°. © Madhusidana mentions the dialogue between Ganaka and YagAavalkya as @ specific parallel. 6 BHAGAVADGITA.
220 seq. ® Compare the late Professor Goldstiicker’s remarks in the Westminster Review for April 1868, p. 389. * Contemporary Review February 1879°. © Madhusidana mentions the dialogue between Ganaka and YagAavalkya as @ specific parallel. 6 BHAGAVADGITA. may have existed as such a dialogue before the Mahabharata, and may have been appropriated by the author of the Mahabhdrata to his own purposes'. But yet, upon the whole, having regard to the fact that those ideas of unity on which Mr. Wheeler and others set so much store are scarcely appropriate to our old literature ; to the fact that the Gita fits pretty well into the setting given to it in the Bhishma Parvan; to the fact that the feeling of Arguna, which gives occasion to it, is not at all inconsistent, but is most consonant, with poctical justice ; to the fact that there is not in the Gita, in my judgment, any trace of a sectarian or ‘ Brahmanizing’ spirit®, such as Mr. Wheeler and also the late Professor Goldstiicker ® hold to have animated the arrangers of the Mahabharata ; having regard, I say, to all these facts, I am prepared to adhere, I will not say without diffidence, to the theory of the genuineness of the Bhagavadgit4 as a portion of the original Mahabharata. The next point to consider is as to the authorship of the Gita. The popular notion on this subject is pretty well known. The whole of the Mahabharata is, by our traditions, attributed to Vy4sa, whom we have already noticed as a relative of the Kauravas and Pandavas; and therefore the Bhagavadgita, also, is naturally affliated to the same author. The earliest written testimony to this authorship, that I can trace, is to be found in Sankara/arya’s commentary on the Gita‘ itself and on the Bréhadaranyakopanishad*. To a certain extent, the mention of Vyasa in the body of the Gita would, from a historic standpoint, seem to militate against this tradition. But I have not seen in any of the commentaries to which I have had access, any consideration of this point, as there is of the mention in some * See to this effect M. Fauriel, quoted in Grote’s Greece. II, 198 (Cabinet ed. * Compare also Weber's History of Indian Literature English translation , p. 187. ‘Tbe instruction, however, as to ‘the reverence due to the priesthood’ from ‘the military caste,’ which is there spoken of, appears to me to be entirely atnent from the Gita; see p. 21 seq. intra. * Westminster Review, April 1568, p. 388 scq.; and Remains, I, 104, 105. * P.6 Calcutta ed., Samvat, 1927). ® P. 841 (Bibl. Indic. ed. ; also Svetasvatara, p. 278. INTRODUCTION. 7 Smritis and Sitras of the names of those to whom those Smyrstis and Sitras are respectively ascribed '.
3intra. * Westminster Review, April 1568, p. 388 scq.; and Remains, I, 104, 105. * P.6 Calcutta ed., Samvat, 1927). ® P. 841 (Bibl. Indic. ed. ; also Svetasvatara, p. 278. INTRODUCTION. 7 Smritis and Sitras of the names of those to whom those Smyrstis and Sitras are respectively ascribed '. We must now leave these preliminary questions, unluckily in a state far from satisfactory, and proceed to that most important topic—the date when the Git4 was composed, and the position it occupies in Sanskrit literature. We have here to consider the external evidence bearing on these points, which is tantalizingly meagre ; and the internal evidence, which is, perhaps, somewhat more full And takiog first the internal evidence, the various items falling under that head may be marshalled into four groups. Firstly, we have to consider the general character of the Gita with reference to its mode of handling its subject. Secondly, there is the character of its style and language. Thirdly, we have to consider the nature of the versification of the Gita. And fourthly and lastly, we must take note of sundry points of detail, such as the attitude of the Gita towards the Vedas and towards caste, its allusions to other systems of speculation, and other matters of the like nature. On each of these groups, in the order here stated, we now proceed to make a few observations. And first about the manner in which the Gita deals with its subject. It appears to me, that the work bears on the face of it very plain marks indicating that it belongs to an age prior to the system-making age of Sanskrit philosophy. In 1875, I wrote as follows upon this point: ‘ My view is, that in the Gita and the Upanishads, the philosophical part has not been consistently and fully worked out. We have there the results of free thought, exercised on different subjects of great moment, unfettered by the exigencies of any foregone conclusions, or of any fully developed theory. It is afterwards, it is at a later stage of philosophical progress, that system-making arises. In that stage some thinkers interpret whole works by the light of some particular doctrines or expressions. And the result is the development of a whole multitude of philosophical sects, following the lead of those thinkers, and all professing to * See, as to this, Colebrooke's Essays, vol. i, Pp 328 (Madras). 8 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.