Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* This is all that we can infer from the few cases of division and classification which we do meet with in the Gita. A subject like that treated of in this work could not well be discussed without some classifications &c. INTRODUCTION. lr vadgita, the significations of which are not quite identical throughout the work. Take, for instance, the word ‘ yoga,’ which we have rendered ‘devotion.’ At Gita, chapter II, stanza 48 (p. 49), a definition is given of that word. In chapter VI, the signification it bears is entirely different. And again in chapter IX, stanza 5, there is still another sense in which the word is used'. The word ‘ Brahman’ too occurs in widely varying significations. And one of its meanings, indeed, is quite singular, namely, ‘ Nature’ (see chapter XIV, stanza 3). Similar observations, to a greater or less extent, apply to the words Buddhi, Atman, and Svabhdva*. Now these are words which stand for ideas not unimportant in the philosophy of the Bhagavadgita. And the absence of scientific precision about their use appears to me to be some indication of that non-systematic character of which we have already spoken. There is one other line of argument, which leads, I think, to the same conclusion. There are several passages in the Gita which it is not very easy to reconcile with one another ; land no attempt is made to harmonise them. Thus, for example, in stanza 16 of chapter VII, Krishna divides his devotees into four classes, one of which consists of ‘ men of knowledge,’ whom, Krishna says, he considers ‘as his own self." It would probably be difficult to imagine any exprestion which could indicate higher esteem. Yet in stanza 45 of chapter VI, we have it laid down, that the devotee is superior not only to the mere performer of penances, but even to the men of knowledge. The commentators betray their gnostic bias by interpreting ‘men of knowledge’ in this latter passage to mean those who have acquired erudition in the Sastras and their significations. This is not an interpretation to be necessarily rejected. But there is in it a certain twisting of words, which, under the circumstances here, I am not inclined to accept. And on the other hand, it must not be forgotten, that the implication fairly derivable * In chapter X the word occurs in two different senses in the same stanza (st. 7). * Compare the various passages, references to which are collected in the Sanskrit Index at the end of this volume. 12 BHAGAVADGITA.
27). * Compare the various passages, references to which are collected in the Sanskrit Index at the end of this volume. 12 BHAGAVADGITA. from chapter IV, stanza 38 (pp. 62, 63), would seem to be rather that knowledge is superior to devotion—is the higher stage to be reached by means of devotion as the stepping-stone. In another passage again at Gita, chapter XII, stanza 12, concentration is preferred to knowledge, which also seems to me to be irreconcileable with chapterVII, stanza 16. Take still another instance. At Gita, chapter V, stanza 15, it is said, that ‘the Lord receives the sin or merit of none.’ Yet at chapter V, stanza 29, and again at chapter IX, stanza 24, Krishna calls himself ‘the Lord and enjoyer’ of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may well be asked, can the Supreme Being ‘enjoy’ that which he does not even ‘receive?’ Once more, at chapter X, stanza 29, Krishna declares that ‘none is hateful to me, none dear.’ And yet the remarkable verses at the close of chapter XII seem to stand in point-blank contradiction to that declaration. There through a most elaborate series of stanzas, the burden of Krishva’s eloquent sermon is ‘ such a one is dear to me.’ And again in those fine verses, where Krishna winds up his Divine Lay, he similarly tells Aruna, that he, Arguna, is ‘dear’ to Krishna. And Krishaa also speaks of that devotce as ‘dear’ to him, who may publish the mystery of the Gita among those who reverence the Supreme Being!. And yet again, how are we to reconcile the same passage about none being ‘hateful or dear’ to Krishna, with his own words at chapter XVI, stanza 18 and following stanzas? The language used in describing the ‘demoniac’ people there mentioned ‘is not remarkable for sweetness towards them, while Krishva says positively, ‘I hurl down such people into demoniac wombs, whereby they go down into misery and the vilest condition.’ These persons are scarcely characterised with accuracy ‘as neither hateful nor dear’ to Krishva. It seems to me, that all these are rcal inconsistencies in the Gita, not such, perhaps, as might not be explained away, but such, I think, as indicate a mind making guesses at truth, as Professor Max * And see, too, chapter VII, stanza 17, where the man of knowledge is declared to be ‘dear’ to Krishaa, ‘ INTRODUCTION. 13
313 Muller puts it, rather than a mind elaborating a complete and organised system of philosophy. There is not even a trace of consciousness on the part of the author that these inconsistencies exist. And the contexts of the various passages indicate, in my judgment, that a half-truth is struck out here, and another half-truth there, with special teference to the special subject then under discussion ; but no attempt is made to organise the various half-truths, which are apparently incompatible, into a symmetrical whole, where the apparent inconsistencies might possibly vanish altogether in the higher synthesis. And having regard to these various points, and to the further point, that the sequence of ideas throughout the verses of the Gita is not always easily followed, we are, I think, safe in adhering to the opinion expressed above, that the Gita is a nonsystematic work, and in that respect belongs to the same class as the older Upanishads. — We next come to the consideration of the style and language of the Bhagavadgita. And that, I think, furnishes a strong argument for the proposition, that it belongs to an age considcrably prior to the epoch of the artificial department of Sanskrit literature—the epoch, namely, of the dramas and poems. In its general character, the style impresses me as quite archaic in its simplicity. Compounds, properly so called, are not numerous; such as there are, are not long ones, and very rarely, if ever, present any puzzle in analysing. The contrast there presented with what is called the classical literature, as represented by Bana or Dasdin, or even KaAlid4sa, is not a little striking. In Kalidasa, doubtless, the love for compounds is pretty well subdued, though I think his works have a perceptibly larger proportion of them than the Gita. But after K4lidasa the love for compounds goes through a remarkable development, till in later writings it may be said almost to have gone mad. Even in Bana and Dandin, Subandhu and Bhavabhati, the plethora of compounds is often wearisome. And the same remark applies to many of the copperplate and other inscriptions which have been recently 14 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.
1* This is all that we can infer from the few cases of division and classification which we do meet with in the Gita. A subject like that treated of in this work could not well be discussed without some classifications &c. INTRODUCTION. lr vadgita, the significations of which are not quite identical throughout the work. Take, for instance, the word ‘ yoga,’ which we have rendered ‘devotion.’ At Gita, chapter II, stanza 48 (p. 49), a definition is given of that word. In chapter VI, the signification it bears is entirely different. And again in chapter IX, stanza 5, there is still another sense in which the word is used'. The word ‘ Brahman’ too occurs in widely varying significations. And one of its meanings, indeed, is quite singular, namely, ‘ Nature’ (see chapter XIV, stanza 3). Similar observations, to a greater or less extent, apply to the words Buddhi, Atman, and Svabhdva*. Now these are words which stand for ideas not unimportant in the philosophy of the Bhagavadgita. And the absence of scientific precision about their use appears to me to be some indication of that non-systematic character of which we have already spoken. There is one other line of argument, which leads, I think, to the same conclusion. There are several passages in the Gita which it is not very easy to reconcile with one another ; land no attempt is made to harmonise them. Thus, for example, in stanza 16 of chapter VII, Krishna divides his devotees into four classes, one of which consists of ‘ men of knowledge,’ whom, Krishna says, he considers ‘as his own self." It would probably be difficult to imagine any exprestion which could indicate higher esteem. Yet in stanza 45 of chapter VI, we have it laid down, that the devotee is superior not only to the mere performer of penances, but even to the men of knowledge. The commentators betray their gnostic bias by interpreting ‘men of knowledge’ in this latter passage to mean those who have acquired erudition in the Sastras and their significations. This is not an interpretation to be necessarily rejected. But there is in it a certain twisting of words, which, under the circumstances here, I am not inclined to accept. And on the other hand, it must not be forgotten, that the implication fairly derivable * In chapter X the word occurs in two different senses in the same stanza (st. 7). * Compare the various passages, references to which are collected in the Sanskrit Index at the end of this volume. 12 BHAGAVADGITA.
27). * Compare the various passages, references to which are collected in the Sanskrit Index at the end of this volume. 12 BHAGAVADGITA. from chapter IV, stanza 38 (pp. 62, 63), would seem to be rather that knowledge is superior to devotion—is the higher stage to be reached by means of devotion as the stepping-stone. In another passage again at Gita, chapter XII, stanza 12, concentration is preferred to knowledge, which also seems to me to be irreconcileable with chapterVII, stanza 16. Take still another instance. At Gita, chapter V, stanza 15, it is said, that ‘the Lord receives the sin or merit of none.’ Yet at chapter V, stanza 29, and again at chapter IX, stanza 24, Krishna calls himself ‘the Lord and enjoyer’ of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may well be asked, can the Supreme Being ‘enjoy’ that which he does not even ‘receive?’ Once more, at chapter X, stanza 29, Krishna declares that ‘none is hateful to me, none dear.’ And yet the remarkable verses at the close of chapter XII seem to stand in point-blank contradiction to that declaration. There through a most elaborate series of stanzas, the burden of Krishva’s eloquent sermon is ‘ such a one is dear to me.’ And again in those fine verses, where Krishna winds up his Divine Lay, he similarly tells Aruna, that he, Arguna, is ‘dear’ to Krishna. And Krishaa also speaks of that devotce as ‘dear’ to him, who may publish the mystery of the Gita among those who reverence the Supreme Being!. And yet again, how are we to reconcile the same passage about none being ‘hateful or dear’ to Krishna, with his own words at chapter XVI, stanza 18 and following stanzas? The language used in describing the ‘demoniac’ people there mentioned ‘is not remarkable for sweetness towards them, while Krishva says positively, ‘I hurl down such people into demoniac wombs, whereby they go down into misery and the vilest condition.’ These persons are scarcely characterised with accuracy ‘as neither hateful nor dear’ to Krishva. It seems to me, that all these are rcal inconsistencies in the Gita, not such, perhaps, as might not be explained away, but such, I think, as indicate a mind making guesses at truth, as Professor Max * And see, too, chapter VII, stanza 17, where the man of knowledge is declared to be ‘dear’ to Krishaa, ‘ INTRODUCTION. 13
313 Muller puts it, rather than a mind elaborating a complete and organised system of philosophy. There is not even a trace of consciousness on the part of the author that these inconsistencies exist. And the contexts of the various passages indicate, in my judgment, that a half-truth is struck out here, and another half-truth there, with special teference to the special subject then under discussion ; but no attempt is made to organise the various half-truths, which are apparently incompatible, into a symmetrical whole, where the apparent inconsistencies might possibly vanish altogether in the higher synthesis. And having regard to these various points, and to the further point, that the sequence of ideas throughout the verses of the Gita is not always easily followed, we are, I think, safe in adhering to the opinion expressed above, that the Gita is a nonsystematic work, and in that respect belongs to the same class as the older Upanishads. — We next come to the consideration of the style and language of the Bhagavadgita. And that, I think, furnishes a strong argument for the proposition, that it belongs to an age considcrably prior to the epoch of the artificial department of Sanskrit literature—the epoch, namely, of the dramas and poems. In its general character, the style impresses me as quite archaic in its simplicity. Compounds, properly so called, are not numerous; such as there are, are not long ones, and very rarely, if ever, present any puzzle in analysing. The contrast there presented with what is called the classical literature, as represented by Bana or Dasdin, or even KaAlid4sa, is not a little striking. In Kalidasa, doubtless, the love for compounds is pretty well subdued, though I think his works have a perceptibly larger proportion of them than the Gita. But after K4lidasa the love for compounds goes through a remarkable development, till in later writings it may be said almost to have gone mad. Even in Bana and Dandin, Subandhu and Bhavabhati, the plethora of compounds is often wearisome. And the same remark applies to many of the copperplate and other inscriptions which have been recently 14 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.