Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The latter corresponds to Sankara’s quotation above referred to. * See p. 206 note. INTRODUCTION. 203 this, namely, that we have many instances of passages common, almost verbatim et literatim, to the Mahdbhérata and other works. For one instance, take the very passage on which a chronological argument has been founded by us in the Introduction to the Sanatsugatiya’. It ought to have been there pointed out, that the stanza about a young man being bound to rise to receive an elderly person, occurs in the Manu Smriti*® also in exactly the same words. The omission to note this circumstance in its proper place in the Introduction to the SanatsygAtiya was due to a mere inadvertence. But the conclusion there hinted at was expressed in very cautious language, and with many qualifications, out of regard to circumstances such as those which we are now considering. Similar repetitions may be pointed out in other places. The passage about the Kshetrag#a and Sattva and their mutual relations (see p. 374) occurs, as pointed out in the note there, in at least two other places in the Mahabharata. The passage likewise which occurs in Git4, p. 103, about the ‘hands, feet, &c., on all sides,’ is one which may be seen, to my own knowledge, in about half a dozen places in the MahAbharata. Such cases, I believe, may be easily multiplied ; and they illustrate and are illustrated by Mr. Freeman’s proposition respecting the epic age in Greece, to which we have already alluded. It follows, consequently, that the quotations from Sankara and Vig#Ana, to which we have referred above, do not militate very strongly against the final conclusion at which we have arrived. The testimony of the MSS. and the commentators is of considerably greater force. But Nilakastha, whatever his merits as an exegete—and even these are often marred by a persistent effort to read his own foregone conclusions into the text he comments on—Nilakan¢ha is but an indifferent authority in the domain of historical criticism. In his commentary on the Sanatsugatfya, for instance, he tells us that he has admitted into his text sundry verses which were not in the copy used by Sankara, and for which he had none but a very modern voucher, and he very naively adds that he has done so on the principle of collecting all * P. 139, and cf p. 176 with Vishwa XXX, 44 seq. ® See II, 120. 204 ANUGITA.
2139, and cf p. 176 with Vishwa XXX, 44 seq. ® See II, 120. 204 ANUGITA. good things to a focus. Arguna Misra is a very much more satisfactory commentator. But he is not likely to be a writer of a very remote date. I assume, that he must be more recent than Sankardfarya, though I cannot say that I have any very tenable ground for the assumption. But assuming that, I think it more satisfactory to adopt Sankar4arya’s nomenclature, and to treat the thirty-six chapters here translated as constituting the Anugita. It is not improbable, if our assumption is correct, that the division of the thirty-six chapters in the manner we have seen may have come into vogue after the date of Vig#ana Bhikshu, who, according to Dr. F. E. Hall, ‘lived in all probability in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and whom there is some slight reason for carrying back still further.’ Do these thirty-six chapters, then, form one integral work? Are they all the work of one and the same author ? These are the questions which next present themselves for consideration. The evidence bearing upon them, however, is, as might be expected, excessively scanty. Of external evidence, indeed, we have really none, barring Sankara’s statement in his commentary on the Brihadérazyakaupanishad? that the verse which he there quotes from the Anugita has Vydsa for its author. That statement indicates that Sankara accepted the current tradition of Vyasa’s authorship of the Anugita; and such acceptance, presumably, followed from his acceptance of the tradition of Vy4sa’s authorship of the entire Mahabharata. If that tradition is incorrect, and Vydsa is not the author of the Anugita, we have no means of ascertaining who is the author. And as to the tradition in question, it is difficult, in the present state of our materials, to form any satisfactory judgment. We therefore proceed at once to consider whether the Anugita is really one work. And [ must admit at the outset that I find it difficult to answer this question. There are certainly some circumstances connected with the work which might be regarded as indicating a different authorship of different parts of it. Thus ' See Preface, Sankhya-sdra, p. 37. * P. 234. INTRODUCTION. 205
3There are certainly some circumstances connected with the work which might be regarded as indicating a different authorship of different parts of it. Thus ' See Preface, Sankhya-sdra, p. 37. * P. 234. INTRODUCTION. 205 in an carly portion of the work, we find the first personal pronoun is used, where the Supreme Being is evidently intended to be signified, and yet the passage is not put into the mouth of Krishna, but of the Brahmaza. A similar Passage occurs a little later on also. Now it must be taken to be a somewhat strained interpretation of the words used in the passages in question to suppose that the speaker there used the first personal pronoun, identifying himself for the nonce with the Supreme Being!. Again, in a passage still further on, we have the vocative O Partha! where the person addressed is not Arguna at all, but the Brahmaza’s wife. Now these lapses are susceptible of two explanations—either we are to see in them so many cases of ‘Homer nodding,’ or we may suppose that they are errors occasioned by one writer making additions to the work of a previous writer, without a vivid recollection of the framework of the original composition into which his own work had to be set*. I own, that on balancing the probabilities on the one side and the other, my mind rather leans to the hypothesis of one author making a slip in the plexus of his own story within story, rather than the hypothesis of a deliberate interpolator forgetting the actual scheme of the original work into which he was about to foist his own additions*. And this the rather, that we find a similar slip towards the very beginning of the work, where we have the Brahmawa K4syapa addressed as Parantapa, or destroyer of foes—an epithet which, I think, is exclusively reserved for Kshatriyas, and is, in any case, a very inappropriate one to apply to a humble seeker for spiritual light. This slip appears to me to be incapable of explanation on any theory of interpolation‘. And hence the other slips above noted can hardly be regarded as supporting any such theory. Another circumstance, not indeed bearing " In fact the Brihmawa is not identified with the Supreme Being afterwards. Bat that fact has not much bearing on the question here. * C£ Wilson’s DasakumA&rabarita, Introd. p. 23. ® The third alternative, that a work independently written was afterwards bodily thrown into the Mahdbhfrata, is one which in the circumstances here seems to me improbable. * See also pp. 235, 252, 299. 206 ANUGITA.
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.
1The latter corresponds to Sankara’s quotation above referred to. * See p. 206 note. INTRODUCTION. 203 this, namely, that we have many instances of passages common, almost verbatim et literatim, to the Mahdbhérata and other works. For one instance, take the very passage on which a chronological argument has been founded by us in the Introduction to the Sanatsugatiya’. It ought to have been there pointed out, that the stanza about a young man being bound to rise to receive an elderly person, occurs in the Manu Smriti*® also in exactly the same words. The omission to note this circumstance in its proper place in the Introduction to the SanatsygAtiya was due to a mere inadvertence. But the conclusion there hinted at was expressed in very cautious language, and with many qualifications, out of regard to circumstances such as those which we are now considering. Similar repetitions may be pointed out in other places. The passage about the Kshetrag#a and Sattva and their mutual relations (see p. 374) occurs, as pointed out in the note there, in at least two other places in the Mahabharata. The passage likewise which occurs in Git4, p. 103, about the ‘hands, feet, &c., on all sides,’ is one which may be seen, to my own knowledge, in about half a dozen places in the MahAbharata. Such cases, I believe, may be easily multiplied ; and they illustrate and are illustrated by Mr. Freeman’s proposition respecting the epic age in Greece, to which we have already alluded. It follows, consequently, that the quotations from Sankara and Vig#Ana, to which we have referred above, do not militate very strongly against the final conclusion at which we have arrived. The testimony of the MSS. and the commentators is of considerably greater force. But Nilakastha, whatever his merits as an exegete—and even these are often marred by a persistent effort to read his own foregone conclusions into the text he comments on—Nilakan¢ha is but an indifferent authority in the domain of historical criticism. In his commentary on the Sanatsugatfya, for instance, he tells us that he has admitted into his text sundry verses which were not in the copy used by Sankara, and for which he had none but a very modern voucher, and he very naively adds that he has done so on the principle of collecting all * P. 139, and cf p. 176 with Vishwa XXX, 44 seq. ® See II, 120. 204 ANUGITA.
2139, and cf p. 176 with Vishwa XXX, 44 seq. ® See II, 120. 204 ANUGITA. good things to a focus. Arguna Misra is a very much more satisfactory commentator. But he is not likely to be a writer of a very remote date. I assume, that he must be more recent than Sankardfarya, though I cannot say that I have any very tenable ground for the assumption. But assuming that, I think it more satisfactory to adopt Sankar4arya’s nomenclature, and to treat the thirty-six chapters here translated as constituting the Anugita. It is not improbable, if our assumption is correct, that the division of the thirty-six chapters in the manner we have seen may have come into vogue after the date of Vig#ana Bhikshu, who, according to Dr. F. E. Hall, ‘lived in all probability in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and whom there is some slight reason for carrying back still further.’ Do these thirty-six chapters, then, form one integral work? Are they all the work of one and the same author ? These are the questions which next present themselves for consideration. The evidence bearing upon them, however, is, as might be expected, excessively scanty. Of external evidence, indeed, we have really none, barring Sankara’s statement in his commentary on the Brihadérazyakaupanishad? that the verse which he there quotes from the Anugita has Vydsa for its author. That statement indicates that Sankara accepted the current tradition of Vyasa’s authorship of the Anugita; and such acceptance, presumably, followed from his acceptance of the tradition of Vy4sa’s authorship of the entire Mahabharata. If that tradition is incorrect, and Vydsa is not the author of the Anugita, we have no means of ascertaining who is the author. And as to the tradition in question, it is difficult, in the present state of our materials, to form any satisfactory judgment. We therefore proceed at once to consider whether the Anugita is really one work. And [ must admit at the outset that I find it difficult to answer this question. There are certainly some circumstances connected with the work which might be regarded as indicating a different authorship of different parts of it. Thus ' See Preface, Sankhya-sdra, p. 37. * P. 234. INTRODUCTION. 205
3There are certainly some circumstances connected with the work which might be regarded as indicating a different authorship of different parts of it. Thus ' See Preface, Sankhya-sdra, p. 37. * P. 234. INTRODUCTION. 205 in an carly portion of the work, we find the first personal pronoun is used, where the Supreme Being is evidently intended to be signified, and yet the passage is not put into the mouth of Krishna, but of the Brahmaza. A similar Passage occurs a little later on also. Now it must be taken to be a somewhat strained interpretation of the words used in the passages in question to suppose that the speaker there used the first personal pronoun, identifying himself for the nonce with the Supreme Being!. Again, in a passage still further on, we have the vocative O Partha! where the person addressed is not Arguna at all, but the Brahmaza’s wife. Now these lapses are susceptible of two explanations—either we are to see in them so many cases of ‘Homer nodding,’ or we may suppose that they are errors occasioned by one writer making additions to the work of a previous writer, without a vivid recollection of the framework of the original composition into which his own work had to be set*. I own, that on balancing the probabilities on the one side and the other, my mind rather leans to the hypothesis of one author making a slip in the plexus of his own story within story, rather than the hypothesis of a deliberate interpolator forgetting the actual scheme of the original work into which he was about to foist his own additions*. And this the rather, that we find a similar slip towards the very beginning of the work, where we have the Brahmawa K4syapa addressed as Parantapa, or destroyer of foes—an epithet which, I think, is exclusively reserved for Kshatriyas, and is, in any case, a very inappropriate one to apply to a humble seeker for spiritual light. This slip appears to me to be incapable of explanation on any theory of interpolation‘. And hence the other slips above noted can hardly be regarded as supporting any such theory. Another circumstance, not indeed bearing " In fact the Brihmawa is not identified with the Supreme Being afterwards. Bat that fact has not much bearing on the question here. * C£ Wilson’s DasakumA&rabarita, Introd. p. 23. ® The third alternative, that a work independently written was afterwards bodily thrown into the Mahdbhfrata, is one which in the circumstances here seems to me improbable. * See also pp. 235, 252, 299. 206 ANUGITA.
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.