Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But as regards the Sanatsugattya, even such a contention as this * Mahabbirata, Udyoga Parvan, Adhyaya 41-46. * Madhav Addrya, in speaking of Sankara’s works, describes him as having commented on the Senatsugitlya, which is ‘far from evil (persons, ' (asatsuddvam). Sahkara-vigaya, chapter VI, stanza 62. 136 SANATSUGATIYA. can have no place. For this is how the matter stands. In the course of the negotiations for an amicable arrangement! between the Pazdavas and the Kauravas, Safigaya, on one occasion, came back to Dhritarashéra with a message from the Pawdavas. When he saw Dhritardsh¢ra, however, he said that he would deliver the message in the public assembly of the Kauravas the next morning, and went away after pronouncing a severe censure on Dhritarashéra for his conduct. The suspense thus caused was a source of much vexation to the old man, and so he sent for Vidura, in order, as he expresses it, that Vidura might by his discourse assuage the fire that was raging within him. Vidura accordingly appears, and enters upon an elaborate prelection concerning matters spiritual, or, perhaps, more accurately quasi-spiritual, and at the outset of the Sanatsugdtiya he is supposed to have reached a stage where, as being born a Sidra, he hesitates to proceed. After some discussion of this point, between Vidura and Dhritardshfra, it is determined to call in the aid of Sanatsugata, to explain the spiritual topics which Vidura felt a delicacy in dealing with ; and Sanatsugata is accordingly introduced on the scene in a way not unusual in our epic and purdnic literature, viz. by Vidura engaging in some mystic process of meditation, in response to which Sanatsugdta appears. He is received then with all due formalities, and after he has had some rest, as our poem takes care to note, he is catechised by Dhritarashfra; and with one or two exceptions, all the verses which constitute the SanatsugAtiya are Sanatsugata’s answers to Dhritarashéra’s questions *. This brief statement of the scheme of this part of the Mahdabhirata shows, as already pointed out, that the connexion of the Sanatsugatiya with the central story of that epic is very loose indeed; and that it might have been entirely omitted without occasioning any zsthetical or other defect. And therefore, although there is nothing positive ' See p. 3 supra. * After this cialogue is over, the dawn breaks, and Dhritara>hfra and the Kaurava princes meet in general assembly. INTRODUCTION. 137
2And therefore, although there is nothing positive ' See p. 3 supra. * After this cialogue is over, the dawn breaks, and Dhritara>hfra and the Kaurava princes meet in general assembly. INTRODUCTION. 137 tending to prove the Sanatsugatiya to be a later addition to the original epos, still the misgivings which are often entertained upon such points may well, in this case, be stronger than in the case of the Bhagavadgita. The text, too, of the SanatsugAtiya is not preserved in nearly so satisfactory a condition as that of the Gita. I have had before me, in settling my text, the editions of the Mahabharata respectively printed and published at Bombay ', Calcutta, and Madras, and three MSS., one of which was most kindly and readily placed at my disposal by my friend Professor Ramkrishna Gopa/ Bhandarkar; the second by another friend, Professor Ab4gi Vishu Kathavaée ; and the third was a copy made for me at Sagar in the Central Provinces, through the good offices of a third friend, Mr. Vaman Mahadeva Kolhafkar. The copy lent me by Professor Bhandarkar comes from Puna, and that lent by Professor Kathavate also from Puna. This last, as well as the Sagar copy, and the edition printed at Madras, contains the commentary of Sankara#arya. And the text I have adopted is that which is indicated by the commentary as the text which its author had before him. But the several copies of the commentary differ so much from one another, that it is still a matter of some doubt with me, whether I have got accurately the text which Sankara commented upon. For instance, the Sagar copy entirely omits chapter V, while the other copies not only give the text of that chapter, but also a commentary upon it which calls itself Sankara#arya’s commentary®. Again, take the stanzas which stand within brackets at pp. 167, 168* of our translation. There is in none of the copies we have, any commentary of Sankarakarya on them. And yet the stanzas exist in the text of the Mahabharata as given in those copies which do contain Sahkara’s commentary. The matter is evidently one for further investigation. I have not, however, thought it This contains Nilakas/ha’s commentary, but his text avowedly includes the text of Sahkara, and verses and readings contained in more modem copies. * The commentary on the sixth chapter, however, takes up the thread from the end of the fourth charter. * See p. 182, where one of the lines recurs. 138 SANATSUGATIYA. absolutely necessary to make such an investigation for the purposes of the present translation. But to be on the safe side, I have retained in the translation everything which is to be found in those copies of the Sanatsugatiya which also contain Sankara’s commentary. As to other stanzas— and there are some of this description—-which other MSS. or commentators vouch for, but of which no trace is to be found in the MSS. containing Sankara’s commentary ', I have simply omitted them.
3As to other stanzas— and there are some of this description—-which other MSS. or commentators vouch for, but of which no trace is to be found in the MSS. containing Sankara’s commentary ', I have simply omitted them. These facts show that, in the case of the Sanatsugatiya. the materials for a trustworthy historical account of the work are not of a very satisfactory character. The materials for ascertaining its date and position in Sanskrit literature are, indeed, so scanty, that poor as we have seen the materials for the Bhagavadgit4 to be, they must be called superlatively rich as compared with those we have now to deal with. As regards external evidence on the points now alluded to, the first and almost the last fact falling under that head, is the fact of the work being quoted from and commented upon by Sankaréfarya. In his commentary on the Svet4svatara-upanishad *, Sankara cites the passage about the flamingo at p. 149, introducing it with the words, ‘And in the Sanatsugata also.’ In the same* commentary some other passages from the Sanatsugatiya are also quoted, but without naming the work except as a Smriti, and mixing up together verses from different parts of the work. This is really all the external evidence, that I am aware of, touching the date of the Sanatsugatiya. There is, however, one other point, which it is desirable to notice, though not, perhaps, so much because it is of any very great valuc in itself, as because it may hereafter become useful, should further research into the Mahabharata and other works yield the requisite information. There are, then, eight stanzas in the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahdbha- * See note 1, p. 137. » P, 283. > P. 252. Sce, too, Sarfraka Bhashya, p. 828. INTRODUCTION. 139
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.
1But as regards the Sanatsugattya, even such a contention as this * Mahabbirata, Udyoga Parvan, Adhyaya 41-46. * Madhav Addrya, in speaking of Sankara’s works, describes him as having commented on the Senatsugitlya, which is ‘far from evil (persons, ' (asatsuddvam). Sahkara-vigaya, chapter VI, stanza 62. 136 SANATSUGATIYA. can have no place. For this is how the matter stands. In the course of the negotiations for an amicable arrangement! between the Pazdavas and the Kauravas, Safigaya, on one occasion, came back to Dhritarashéra with a message from the Pawdavas. When he saw Dhritardsh¢ra, however, he said that he would deliver the message in the public assembly of the Kauravas the next morning, and went away after pronouncing a severe censure on Dhritarashéra for his conduct. The suspense thus caused was a source of much vexation to the old man, and so he sent for Vidura, in order, as he expresses it, that Vidura might by his discourse assuage the fire that was raging within him. Vidura accordingly appears, and enters upon an elaborate prelection concerning matters spiritual, or, perhaps, more accurately quasi-spiritual, and at the outset of the Sanatsugdtiya he is supposed to have reached a stage where, as being born a Sidra, he hesitates to proceed. After some discussion of this point, between Vidura and Dhritardshfra, it is determined to call in the aid of Sanatsugata, to explain the spiritual topics which Vidura felt a delicacy in dealing with ; and Sanatsugata is accordingly introduced on the scene in a way not unusual in our epic and purdnic literature, viz. by Vidura engaging in some mystic process of meditation, in response to which Sanatsugdta appears. He is received then with all due formalities, and after he has had some rest, as our poem takes care to note, he is catechised by Dhritarashfra; and with one or two exceptions, all the verses which constitute the SanatsugAtiya are Sanatsugata’s answers to Dhritarashéra’s questions *. This brief statement of the scheme of this part of the Mahdabhirata shows, as already pointed out, that the connexion of the Sanatsugatiya with the central story of that epic is very loose indeed; and that it might have been entirely omitted without occasioning any zsthetical or other defect. And therefore, although there is nothing positive ' See p. 3 supra. * After this cialogue is over, the dawn breaks, and Dhritara>hfra and the Kaurava princes meet in general assembly. INTRODUCTION. 137
2And therefore, although there is nothing positive ' See p. 3 supra. * After this cialogue is over, the dawn breaks, and Dhritara>hfra and the Kaurava princes meet in general assembly. INTRODUCTION. 137 tending to prove the Sanatsugatiya to be a later addition to the original epos, still the misgivings which are often entertained upon such points may well, in this case, be stronger than in the case of the Bhagavadgita. The text, too, of the SanatsugAtiya is not preserved in nearly so satisfactory a condition as that of the Gita. I have had before me, in settling my text, the editions of the Mahabharata respectively printed and published at Bombay ', Calcutta, and Madras, and three MSS., one of which was most kindly and readily placed at my disposal by my friend Professor Ramkrishna Gopa/ Bhandarkar; the second by another friend, Professor Ab4gi Vishu Kathavaée ; and the third was a copy made for me at Sagar in the Central Provinces, through the good offices of a third friend, Mr. Vaman Mahadeva Kolhafkar. The copy lent me by Professor Bhandarkar comes from Puna, and that lent by Professor Kathavate also from Puna. This last, as well as the Sagar copy, and the edition printed at Madras, contains the commentary of Sankara#arya. And the text I have adopted is that which is indicated by the commentary as the text which its author had before him. But the several copies of the commentary differ so much from one another, that it is still a matter of some doubt with me, whether I have got accurately the text which Sankara commented upon. For instance, the Sagar copy entirely omits chapter V, while the other copies not only give the text of that chapter, but also a commentary upon it which calls itself Sankara#arya’s commentary®. Again, take the stanzas which stand within brackets at pp. 167, 168* of our translation. There is in none of the copies we have, any commentary of Sankarakarya on them. And yet the stanzas exist in the text of the Mahabharata as given in those copies which do contain Sahkara’s commentary. The matter is evidently one for further investigation. I have not, however, thought it This contains Nilakas/ha’s commentary, but his text avowedly includes the text of Sahkara, and verses and readings contained in more modem copies. * The commentary on the sixth chapter, however, takes up the thread from the end of the fourth charter. * See p. 182, where one of the lines recurs. 138 SANATSUGATIYA. absolutely necessary to make such an investigation for the purposes of the present translation. But to be on the safe side, I have retained in the translation everything which is to be found in those copies of the Sanatsugatiya which also contain Sankara’s commentary. As to other stanzas— and there are some of this description—-which other MSS. or commentators vouch for, but of which no trace is to be found in the MSS. containing Sankara’s commentary ', I have simply omitted them.
3As to other stanzas— and there are some of this description—-which other MSS. or commentators vouch for, but of which no trace is to be found in the MSS. containing Sankara’s commentary ', I have simply omitted them. These facts show that, in the case of the Sanatsugatiya. the materials for a trustworthy historical account of the work are not of a very satisfactory character. The materials for ascertaining its date and position in Sanskrit literature are, indeed, so scanty, that poor as we have seen the materials for the Bhagavadgit4 to be, they must be called superlatively rich as compared with those we have now to deal with. As regards external evidence on the points now alluded to, the first and almost the last fact falling under that head, is the fact of the work being quoted from and commented upon by Sankaréfarya. In his commentary on the Svet4svatara-upanishad *, Sankara cites the passage about the flamingo at p. 149, introducing it with the words, ‘And in the Sanatsugata also.’ In the same* commentary some other passages from the Sanatsugatiya are also quoted, but without naming the work except as a Smriti, and mixing up together verses from different parts of the work. This is really all the external evidence, that I am aware of, touching the date of the Sanatsugatiya. There is, however, one other point, which it is desirable to notice, though not, perhaps, so much because it is of any very great valuc in itself, as because it may hereafter become useful, should further research into the Mahabharata and other works yield the requisite information. There are, then, eight stanzas in the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahdbha- * See note 1, p. 137. » P, 283. > P. 252. Sce, too, Sarfraka Bhashya, p. 828. INTRODUCTION. 139
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.