Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1At the close of chapter IV, we have an explicit statement that the Anugita ends there. Then the Brahma Gita begins. And the first chapter is 200 ANUGITA. described as a chapter of the Brahma Gita in the Asvamedha Parvan. The numbering of each of these chapters of the Brahma Gita is not given in the copy before us—the titles and descriptions of the various chapters being throughout incomplete. Some of the later chapters are described as chapters of the Brahma Gita, and some as chapters of the Brahmaaa Git4; but this discrepancy is probably to be put to the account of the particular copyist who wrote out the copy used by us. With what is chapter XX in our numbering the Gurusishyasamvada begins. This MS. omits all reference to any Anugita Parvan, and fails to number the various chapters. Its list of sections agrees with that in the Bombay edition. It bears no date. So much for what may be described as our primary sources of information on this subject. Let us now glance at the secondary sources. And, first, Nilakaz¢ka in commenting on what is, according to his numbering, chapter XV, stanza 43, apparently distinguishes that chapter from what he speaks of as the Brahmaza Gita and Gurusishyasamvada, which, as he implies, follow after that chapter— thus indicating that he accepted in substance the tradition recorded in the passages we have already set forth, viz. that the first four chapters of our translation form the Anugita, the next fifteen the Brahmavza Gita, and the last seventeen the Gurusishyasamvada. This is also the view of Arguna Misra. At the close of his gloss on chapter IV, he distinctly states that the Anugita ends at that chapter ; and again at the close of the gloss on chapter XIX, he explicitly says that the Brahmaza Gita ends there. He also adds the following interesting observation : ‘ The feminine form (Gita, namcly) is used in consequence of (the word) Upanishad being feminine.’ The full title of that part of the Mahabharata would then be, according to this remark of Arguna Misra, ‘the Upanishads sung by the Brahmama,’ a title parallel to that of the Bhagavadgit4, ‘the Upanishads sung by the Deity.’ It is to be further remarked, that the last chapter of the Gurusishyasamvada is called in this commentary the cighteenth chapter of the Gurusishyasamvada, a fact which seems to indicate that Arguna Misra either INTRODUCTION, 201
2found in the MS. which he used, or himself established, a separate numbering for the chapters in the several sections! of which the Asvamedha Parvan is made up. Although the information here set out from these various sources is not easily to be harmonised in all its parts, the preponderance of testimony seems to be in favour of regarding the portion of the Asvamedha Parvan embraced in our translation as containing three distinct sections, viz. the Anugitd, the Brahmana Gita, and the Gurusishyasamvada. And some indirect support for this conclusion may be derived from one or two other circumstances. In the Sankhya-sara of Vig#a4na Bhikshu—a work which, as we shall see in the sequel, expressly mentions the Anugita— we have a passage cited as from the ‘Bharata*’ which coincides almost precisely with a passage occurring in chapter XXVII of our translation (see p. 335). And in the Bhashya of SankarAf#arya on the Bhagavadgita, chapter XV, stanza 1, we have a citation as from a ‘Purana’ of a passage which coincides pretty closely with one which occurs in chapter XX of our translation (see p. 313). If the discrepancies between the quotations as given by Vig#ana Bhikshu and Sadkara, and the passages occurring in our text, may be treated merely as various readings—and there is nothing inherently improbable in this being the case—it may be fairly contended, that neither Sankara nor Vig#ana Bhikshu would have used the vague expressions, ‘a Purdsa,’ or even ‘the Bharata,’ if they could have correctly substituted in lieu of them the specific name Anugita. And this, it may be said, is a contention of some weight, when it is remembered, that both Sankara and VigAana show, in other parts of their writings, an acquaintance with this very Anugit4. If this reasoning is correct, ' In the beginning of his gloss on the Anugiia he says, that he proposes to explain difficult passages in the Anugtt4, &c.—Anugitadisha, And at the oeteet of his gloss on the whole Parvan he says, that in the Anugtta we have a statement of the miseries of birth, &c. as a protest against worldly life ; in the Brahma Gttd we have a recommendation of Prisdyima, &c.; and in the Gurunsbyasamvida we bave a eulogium on the perception of the self as distinct from Vrakriti or nature, and incidentally a protest against Pravritti or action. * Po an. 202 ANUGITA. the conclusion to be derived from it must be, that Sankara and Vig#4na must have considered the chapters of the Asvamedha Parvan from which their respective quotations are taken as not forming part of the Anugita.
3* Po an. 202 ANUGITA. the conclusion to be derived from it must be, that Sankara and Vig#4na 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-sdra of Vig#ana Bhikshu, to which we have already referred, we have two quotations! from the Anugita 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 Anugité. 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 Anugit4, 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 Anugit4 includes all the chapters here translated. And that in this wise. The passages which we have referred to as cited by Sankara and Vig#ana from a Puraa 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 ' Pp.1s, 21. The latter corresponds to Sankara’s quotation above referred to. * See p. 206 note. INTRODUCTION. 203
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.
1At the close of chapter IV, we have an explicit statement that the Anugita ends there. Then the Brahma Gita begins. And the first chapter is 200 ANUGITA. described as a chapter of the Brahma Gita in the Asvamedha Parvan. The numbering of each of these chapters of the Brahma Gita is not given in the copy before us—the titles and descriptions of the various chapters being throughout incomplete. Some of the later chapters are described as chapters of the Brahma Gita, and some as chapters of the Brahmaaa Git4; but this discrepancy is probably to be put to the account of the particular copyist who wrote out the copy used by us. With what is chapter XX in our numbering the Gurusishyasamvada begins. This MS. omits all reference to any Anugita Parvan, and fails to number the various chapters. Its list of sections agrees with that in the Bombay edition. It bears no date. So much for what may be described as our primary sources of information on this subject. Let us now glance at the secondary sources. And, first, Nilakaz¢ka in commenting on what is, according to his numbering, chapter XV, stanza 43, apparently distinguishes that chapter from what he speaks of as the Brahmaza Gita and Gurusishyasamvada, which, as he implies, follow after that chapter— thus indicating that he accepted in substance the tradition recorded in the passages we have already set forth, viz. that the first four chapters of our translation form the Anugita, the next fifteen the Brahmavza Gita, and the last seventeen the Gurusishyasamvada. This is also the view of Arguna Misra. At the close of his gloss on chapter IV, he distinctly states that the Anugita ends at that chapter ; and again at the close of the gloss on chapter XIX, he explicitly says that the Brahmaza Gita ends there. He also adds the following interesting observation : ‘ The feminine form (Gita, namcly) is used in consequence of (the word) Upanishad being feminine.’ The full title of that part of the Mahabharata would then be, according to this remark of Arguna Misra, ‘the Upanishads sung by the Brahmama,’ a title parallel to that of the Bhagavadgit4, ‘the Upanishads sung by the Deity.’ It is to be further remarked, that the last chapter of the Gurusishyasamvada is called in this commentary the cighteenth chapter of the Gurusishyasamvada, a fact which seems to indicate that Arguna Misra either INTRODUCTION, 201
2found in the MS. which he used, or himself established, a separate numbering for the chapters in the several sections! of which the Asvamedha Parvan is made up. Although the information here set out from these various sources is not easily to be harmonised in all its parts, the preponderance of testimony seems to be in favour of regarding the portion of the Asvamedha Parvan embraced in our translation as containing three distinct sections, viz. the Anugitd, the Brahmana Gita, and the Gurusishyasamvada. And some indirect support for this conclusion may be derived from one or two other circumstances. In the Sankhya-sara of Vig#a4na Bhikshu—a work which, as we shall see in the sequel, expressly mentions the Anugita— we have a passage cited as from the ‘Bharata*’ which coincides almost precisely with a passage occurring in chapter XXVII of our translation (see p. 335). And in the Bhashya of SankarAf#arya on the Bhagavadgita, chapter XV, stanza 1, we have a citation as from a ‘Purana’ of a passage which coincides pretty closely with one which occurs in chapter XX of our translation (see p. 313). If the discrepancies between the quotations as given by Vig#ana Bhikshu and Sadkara, and the passages occurring in our text, may be treated merely as various readings—and there is nothing inherently improbable in this being the case—it may be fairly contended, that neither Sankara nor Vig#ana Bhikshu would have used the vague expressions, ‘a Purdsa,’ or even ‘the Bharata,’ if they could have correctly substituted in lieu of them the specific name Anugita. And this, it may be said, is a contention of some weight, when it is remembered, that both Sankara and VigAana show, in other parts of their writings, an acquaintance with this very Anugit4. If this reasoning is correct, ' In the beginning of his gloss on the Anugiia he says, that he proposes to explain difficult passages in the Anugtt4, &c.—Anugitadisha, And at the oeteet of his gloss on the whole Parvan he says, that in the Anugtta we have a statement of the miseries of birth, &c. as a protest against worldly life ; in the Brahma Gttd we have a recommendation of Prisdyima, &c.; and in the Gurunsbyasamvida we bave a eulogium on the perception of the self as distinct from Vrakriti or nature, and incidentally a protest against Pravritti or action. * Po an. 202 ANUGITA. the conclusion to be derived from it must be, that Sankara and Vig#4na must have considered the chapters of the Asvamedha Parvan from which their respective quotations are taken as not forming part of the Anugita.
3* Po an. 202 ANUGITA. the conclusion to be derived from it must be, that Sankara and Vig#4na 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-sdra of Vig#ana Bhikshu, to which we have already referred, we have two quotations! from the Anugita 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 Anugité. 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 Anugit4, 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 Anugit4 includes all the chapters here translated. And that in this wise. The passages which we have referred to as cited by Sankara and Vig#ana from a Puraa 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 ' Pp.1s, 21. The latter corresponds to Sankara’s quotation above referred to. * See p. 206 note. INTRODUCTION. 203
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.