Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1There 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 rata (the Sanatsugatiya commencing at the forty-first chapter), seven of which are quoted in the Pa#éatantra', and the eighth in the Mahabhashya? of Patadgali. 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 Ramayaza having borrowed from the Mahabhashya, is quite as strong as the probability of the Mah4bh4shya having borrowed from the Ramayansa*. 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 Pa#éatantra on the other, bear the same mutual relation. I cannot accept this view. I am not now concerned to discuss the merits of the conclusion in support of which Professor Weber has advanced this argument*. I am only considering, how far it affects the question now before us. And as to that question, I may say, that the Pa#éatantra 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, * Cf. Kosegasten’s Pa#datantra, p. 28 (I, 28, Bombay S. C. ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XL, st. 7 (Bombay ed.); PaAsatantra, pp. 112 and 209 (II, 10; IV, 5, Bombay ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, 9; p. 35 I, 37, Bombey cd.) 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. ® Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, st. 1, and Mab&bhashya VI, 1-4, p. 35 (Banfiras 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. * 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. ® See p. 203 infra. 140 SANATSUGATIYA.
2* 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. ® See p. 203 infra. 140 SANATSUGATIYA. 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 Bh4shya are very strong. But apart from that, I do demur to the proposition, that the probabilities are equal, of a work like the Mahabh4rata or Ramayana borrowing a verse from the Mah4bhashya, and vice versa. It appears to me perfectly plain, I own, that the probability of a grammatical work like the Bhashya 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 Bh4shya does or does not show other indications of acquaintance with the Bharata or the Ramayana. If these arguments are correct, it seems to me that they carry us thus far in our present investigation—namely, that we may now say, that we have reason to believe some parts, at all events, of the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirtyeighth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahabharata to have probably been in existence prior to the sixth century A.C.'; and that some parts of the thirty-seventh chapter were probably extant in the time of Pataggali, viz. the second century B.c.2 Now, internal evidence does not yield any indications tending to show that the several chapters here referred to must have been prior in time to the chapters composing the Sanatsugatlya, which come so soon after them in the Mahabharata. On the contrary, it is not too much to maintain, that to a certain extent the style and language of the Sanatsugatiya is, if anything, rather indicative of its priority in time over the five chapters immediately preceding it. And, therefore, so far as this argument goes, it enables us—provisionally only, it must be ' See p. 29 supra. ® See p. 32 supra. INTRODUCTION, I4qt remembered —to fix the second century B.C.as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsugatiya.
3And, therefore, so far as this argument goes, it enables us—provisionally only, it must be ' See p. 29 supra. ® See p. 32 supra. INTRODUCTION, I4qt remembered —to fix the second century B.C.as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsugatiya. This is all the external evidence available for a discussion of the question—when the Sanatsugatiya was composed. We now turn to the internal evidence. Standing by itself, internal evidence is not, in my opinion, of much cogency in any case. Still in ascertaining, as best we can, the history of our ancient literature, even this species of evidence is not to be despised; it must only be used and received with caution. Under this head, then, we may note first the persons who are supposed to take part in the dialogue. Sanatsugata '—or Sanatkum4ra—as already pointed out, is a name already familiar to the readers of one of our older Upanishads—the KAandogya. Dhritardshéra is not known in the Upanishads, but he is an important personage in the epic literature. And it is to be remarked, that his character as disclosed in the Sanatsugdtiya is not at all similar to that which has attached itself to his name, alike in the later literature of our country, and in that popular opinion which was probably formed by this later literature. In the dialogue before us, he figures as an earnest inquirer after truth; he is described as the ‘talented king Dhritarash‘ra;’ and is addressed by Sanatsugata as, ‘O acute sir!’ ‘O learned person!’ True it is, that Nilakawtha in one place, as we have noticed in our note there’, endeavours to bring out the later view of DhritarAsh¢ra's character’; but it seems to me that that endeavour, based as it is on a forced and farfetched interpretation of a single word in our poem, is an unsuccessful one. None of the questions, which Dhritarashéra puts to Sanatsugata in the course of their dialogue, indicates the avaricious old man who wished to deprive his innocent nephews of their just rights in the interests of his own wicked and misguided sons. They rather indicate the bona fide student of spiritual lore, and thus point to what is, perhaps, an earlier view of Dhrstar4shéra’s character. * See Hall's Sdtkhyasira, preface, pp. 14, 15. * P. 151, note 2. ® Nilakawsha himself, however, treats Dhritardshfra’s question latcr on as showing that be had attained indifference to worldly concems, That question docs not occar in Sahkara's text, Lut is given at p. 158 infra. 142 SANATSUGATIYA.
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.
1There 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 rata (the Sanatsugatiya commencing at the forty-first chapter), seven of which are quoted in the Pa#éatantra', and the eighth in the Mahabhashya? of Patadgali. 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 Ramayaza having borrowed from the Mahabhashya, is quite as strong as the probability of the Mah4bh4shya having borrowed from the Ramayansa*. 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 Pa#éatantra on the other, bear the same mutual relation. I cannot accept this view. I am not now concerned to discuss the merits of the conclusion in support of which Professor Weber has advanced this argument*. I am only considering, how far it affects the question now before us. And as to that question, I may say, that the Pa#éatantra 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, * Cf. Kosegasten’s Pa#datantra, p. 28 (I, 28, Bombay S. C. ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XL, st. 7 (Bombay ed.); PaAsatantra, pp. 112 and 209 (II, 10; IV, 5, Bombay ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, 9; p. 35 I, 37, Bombey cd.) 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. ® Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, st. 1, and Mab&bhashya VI, 1-4, p. 35 (Banfiras 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. * 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. ® See p. 203 infra. 140 SANATSUGATIYA.
2* 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. ® See p. 203 infra. 140 SANATSUGATIYA. 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 Bh4shya are very strong. But apart from that, I do demur to the proposition, that the probabilities are equal, of a work like the Mahabh4rata or Ramayana borrowing a verse from the Mah4bhashya, and vice versa. It appears to me perfectly plain, I own, that the probability of a grammatical work like the Bhashya 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 Bh4shya does or does not show other indications of acquaintance with the Bharata or the Ramayana. If these arguments are correct, it seems to me that they carry us thus far in our present investigation—namely, that we may now say, that we have reason to believe some parts, at all events, of the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirtyeighth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahabharata to have probably been in existence prior to the sixth century A.C.'; and that some parts of the thirty-seventh chapter were probably extant in the time of Pataggali, viz. the second century B.c.2 Now, internal evidence does not yield any indications tending to show that the several chapters here referred to must have been prior in time to the chapters composing the Sanatsugatlya, which come so soon after them in the Mahabharata. On the contrary, it is not too much to maintain, that to a certain extent the style and language of the Sanatsugatiya is, if anything, rather indicative of its priority in time over the five chapters immediately preceding it. And, therefore, so far as this argument goes, it enables us—provisionally only, it must be ' See p. 29 supra. ® See p. 32 supra. INTRODUCTION, I4qt remembered —to fix the second century B.C.as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsugatiya.
3And, therefore, so far as this argument goes, it enables us—provisionally only, it must be ' See p. 29 supra. ® See p. 32 supra. INTRODUCTION, I4qt remembered —to fix the second century B.C.as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsugatiya. This is all the external evidence available for a discussion of the question—when the Sanatsugatiya was composed. We now turn to the internal evidence. Standing by itself, internal evidence is not, in my opinion, of much cogency in any case. Still in ascertaining, as best we can, the history of our ancient literature, even this species of evidence is not to be despised; it must only be used and received with caution. Under this head, then, we may note first the persons who are supposed to take part in the dialogue. Sanatsugata '—or Sanatkum4ra—as already pointed out, is a name already familiar to the readers of one of our older Upanishads—the KAandogya. Dhritardshéra is not known in the Upanishads, but he is an important personage in the epic literature. And it is to be remarked, that his character as disclosed in the Sanatsugdtiya is not at all similar to that which has attached itself to his name, alike in the later literature of our country, and in that popular opinion which was probably formed by this later literature. In the dialogue before us, he figures as an earnest inquirer after truth; he is described as the ‘talented king Dhritarash‘ra;’ and is addressed by Sanatsugata as, ‘O acute sir!’ ‘O learned person!’ True it is, that Nilakawtha in one place, as we have noticed in our note there’, endeavours to bring out the later view of DhritarAsh¢ra's character’; but it seems to me that that endeavour, based as it is on a forced and farfetched interpretation of a single word in our poem, is an unsuccessful one. None of the questions, which Dhritarashéra puts to Sanatsugata in the course of their dialogue, indicates the avaricious old man who wished to deprive his innocent nephews of their just rights in the interests of his own wicked and misguided sons. They rather indicate the bona fide student of spiritual lore, and thus point to what is, perhaps, an earlier view of Dhrstar4shéra’s character. * See Hall's Sdtkhyasira, preface, pp. 14, 15. * P. 151, note 2. ® Nilakawsha himself, however, treats Dhritardshfra’s question latcr on as showing that be had attained indifference to worldly concems, That question docs not occar in Sahkara's text, Lut is given at p. 158 infra. 142 SANATSUGATIYA.
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.