Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* 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. out that theory, but rendering interpolations possible, deserves to be noted. The scheme of the Anugita certainly lends itself to interpolations. A story might without much difficulty be added to the series of story joined to story which it contains. Against this, however, it must not be forgotten, that the Santi Parvan of the Mahabharata and the Yogavasishzha exhibit a precisely similar framework of contents, and that the Pa#éatantra and the Kathasaritsagara, among other works, follow the same model. And from this fact it may be fairly argued, that while there is, doubtless, room for suspecting interpolations in such cases, there is this to be remembered, that with respect to any particular one of these cases, such suspicion can carry us but a very short way. And further, it is to be observed, valeat quantum, that the connexion of the several chapters of the Anugit4 one with the other is not altogether a loose one, save at one or two points only, while they are all linked on to the main body of the narrative, only in what we have treated as the last chapter of the Anugit4, without any trace of any other connecting link anywhere else. Upon the whole, therefore, we here conclude, though not without doubt, that the whole of the Anugita is the work of one author. The next question to be discussed is the important one of the age of the work. The quotations already given above from Sankarasarya’s works, and one other which is referred to in the note below!, suffice to show that the Anugité must have been some few centuries old in the time of Sankarasarya. For whether we treat the Anugita as a part of the original Mahabharata or not, it is not likely that such a scholar as Sankara would have accepted the book as a genuine part of the Mahabharata, and as a work of Vy4Asa, if it had not been in his day of some respectable antiquity, of antiquity sufficient to have thrown the real author into oblivion, and to have substi- * See Sankara, Sartraka Bhishya, p. 726. That, however, may be a quotation from some other work. It may be noted that the passages quoted in the BhAshya on Sanatsugatiya I, 20 and I, 41 are not to be traced in our copies, though expressly stated there to have been taken from the Anugité. INTRODUCTION. 207
2726. That, however, may be a quotation from some other work. It may be noted that the passages quoted in the BhAshya on Sanatsugatiya I, 20 and I, 41 are not to be traced in our copies, though expressly stated there to have been taken from the Anugité. INTRODUCTION. 207 tuted in his place Vy4sa, who lived at the junction of the Dvapara and Kali ages', upwards of thirty centuries before the Christian era. The calculation is avowedly a very rough one, but I think we may, as the result of it, safely fix the third century of the Christian era as the latest date at which the Anugita can have been composed. Let us now endeavour to find out whether we can fix the date as lying within any better defined period. It is scarcely needful to say, that the Anugita dates from a period considerably subsequent to the age of the Upanishads. The passages relating to the Prawasawvada and so forth, which occur originally in the Upanishads, are referred to in the Anugit4 as ‘ancient stories '—an indication that the Upanishads had already come to be esteemed as ancient compositions at the date of the latter work. It is not necessary, therefore, to go through an elaborate examination of the versions of the ancient stories alluded to above, as contained in the Upanishads and in the Anugita, more especially because it is possible for us to show that the Anugita is later than the Bhagavadgita, which latter work, as we have seen, is later than the Upanishads. And to this point we shall now address ourselves. We have already observed upon the story referred to at the opening of this Introduction, which, historically interpreted, indicates the priority of the Bhagavadgita to the Anugita. This conclusion is confirmed by sundry other circumstances, which we must now discuss in some detail, as they are also of use in helping to fix the position of the work in the history of Sanskrit literature and philosophy. First, then, it seems to me, that the state of society mirrored in the Anugit4 indicates a greater advance in social evolution than we have already seen is disclosed in the Bhagavadgita. Not to mention decorations of houses and so forth, which are alluded to in one passage of the Anugtta, we ase here told of royal oppressions, of losses of wealth accumulated with great difficulty, and of fierce captivities ; we are told, to adapt the language of a modern English poet, of laws grinding the weak, for strong men rule the ‘CEL Sistraka Bhishya, p. 913. 208 ANUGITA,
3913. 208 ANUGITA, law; we have references to the casting of images with liquefied iron, and to the use of elephants as vehicles’; and we meet with protests against the amusements of music and dancing, and against the occupation of artisans*. True it is, that all these indications put together, fail to constitute what, according to the standard of modern times, would be called a highly artificial state of society. But it seems to me to mark a very perceptible and distinct advance beyond the social condition when mankind was divided into four castes or classes, with such a division of duties, to put it briefly, as that of preparation for a future world, government of this world, agriculture and trade, and service respectively *. Artisans, it will be observed, are not even referred to in the Bhagavadgita, nor is there any trace of royal oppressions, or unequal laws. Then as regards music, it may be noted, that there are references to it in the Brihadarazyaka and Kaushitaki-upanishads *, without any indications of disapprobation. The protest against music, therefore, and the sister art of dancing, is probably to be explained as evoked by some abuses of the two arts which must have come into prevalence about the time of the composition of the Anugité. A similar protest is found recorded in the Dharmasdstras of Manu and Apastamba and Gautama’®. We shall consider in the sequel the chronological positions of the Anugita with reference to those Dharmasastras. But we have already pointed out that the Git4 stands prior to them both °. Look again at the views on caste which are embodied in the Anugita and the Bhagavadgita respectively. The reference to the Kshatriya as representing the quality of passion, while the Brahmana represents the quality of goodness’, scems to place a considerably larger distance between the Brahmana and the Kshatriya than is suggested by the Bhagavadgita, and thus marks an advance in the direction of the later doctrine on the subject. And in connexion ' Cf. Lalita Vistara, p. 17. ® See pp. 325-365. ® See Gitd, p. 126. * See Brihadaranyaka, p. 454, and Kaushitaki, p. 68. ® See Bubler’s Apastamba I, 1, 3, 11, Gautama II, 13, and Manu II, 178. * P. a1 seq. * P. 329 INTRODUCTION. 209
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* 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. out that theory, but rendering interpolations possible, deserves to be noted. The scheme of the Anugita certainly lends itself to interpolations. A story might without much difficulty be added to the series of story joined to story which it contains. Against this, however, it must not be forgotten, that the Santi Parvan of the Mahabharata and the Yogavasishzha exhibit a precisely similar framework of contents, and that the Pa#éatantra and the Kathasaritsagara, among other works, follow the same model. And from this fact it may be fairly argued, that while there is, doubtless, room for suspecting interpolations in such cases, there is this to be remembered, that with respect to any particular one of these cases, such suspicion can carry us but a very short way. And further, it is to be observed, valeat quantum, that the connexion of the several chapters of the Anugit4 one with the other is not altogether a loose one, save at one or two points only, while they are all linked on to the main body of the narrative, only in what we have treated as the last chapter of the Anugit4, without any trace of any other connecting link anywhere else. Upon the whole, therefore, we here conclude, though not without doubt, that the whole of the Anugita is the work of one author. The next question to be discussed is the important one of the age of the work. The quotations already given above from Sankarasarya’s works, and one other which is referred to in the note below!, suffice to show that the Anugité must have been some few centuries old in the time of Sankarasarya. For whether we treat the Anugita as a part of the original Mahabharata or not, it is not likely that such a scholar as Sankara would have accepted the book as a genuine part of the Mahabharata, and as a work of Vy4Asa, if it had not been in his day of some respectable antiquity, of antiquity sufficient to have thrown the real author into oblivion, and to have substi- * See Sankara, Sartraka Bhishya, p. 726. That, however, may be a quotation from some other work. It may be noted that the passages quoted in the BhAshya on Sanatsugatiya I, 20 and I, 41 are not to be traced in our copies, though expressly stated there to have been taken from the Anugité. INTRODUCTION. 207
2726. That, however, may be a quotation from some other work. It may be noted that the passages quoted in the BhAshya on Sanatsugatiya I, 20 and I, 41 are not to be traced in our copies, though expressly stated there to have been taken from the Anugité. INTRODUCTION. 207 tuted in his place Vy4sa, who lived at the junction of the Dvapara and Kali ages', upwards of thirty centuries before the Christian era. The calculation is avowedly a very rough one, but I think we may, as the result of it, safely fix the third century of the Christian era as the latest date at which the Anugita can have been composed. Let us now endeavour to find out whether we can fix the date as lying within any better defined period. It is scarcely needful to say, that the Anugita dates from a period considerably subsequent to the age of the Upanishads. The passages relating to the Prawasawvada and so forth, which occur originally in the Upanishads, are referred to in the Anugit4 as ‘ancient stories '—an indication that the Upanishads had already come to be esteemed as ancient compositions at the date of the latter work. It is not necessary, therefore, to go through an elaborate examination of the versions of the ancient stories alluded to above, as contained in the Upanishads and in the Anugita, more especially because it is possible for us to show that the Anugita is later than the Bhagavadgita, which latter work, as we have seen, is later than the Upanishads. And to this point we shall now address ourselves. We have already observed upon the story referred to at the opening of this Introduction, which, historically interpreted, indicates the priority of the Bhagavadgita to the Anugita. This conclusion is confirmed by sundry other circumstances, which we must now discuss in some detail, as they are also of use in helping to fix the position of the work in the history of Sanskrit literature and philosophy. First, then, it seems to me, that the state of society mirrored in the Anugit4 indicates a greater advance in social evolution than we have already seen is disclosed in the Bhagavadgita. Not to mention decorations of houses and so forth, which are alluded to in one passage of the Anugtta, we ase here told of royal oppressions, of losses of wealth accumulated with great difficulty, and of fierce captivities ; we are told, to adapt the language of a modern English poet, of laws grinding the weak, for strong men rule the ‘CEL Sistraka Bhishya, p. 913. 208 ANUGITA,
3913. 208 ANUGITA, law; we have references to the casting of images with liquefied iron, and to the use of elephants as vehicles’; and we meet with protests against the amusements of music and dancing, and against the occupation of artisans*. True it is, that all these indications put together, fail to constitute what, according to the standard of modern times, would be called a highly artificial state of society. But it seems to me to mark a very perceptible and distinct advance beyond the social condition when mankind was divided into four castes or classes, with such a division of duties, to put it briefly, as that of preparation for a future world, government of this world, agriculture and trade, and service respectively *. Artisans, it will be observed, are not even referred to in the Bhagavadgita, nor is there any trace of royal oppressions, or unequal laws. Then as regards music, it may be noted, that there are references to it in the Brihadarazyaka and Kaushitaki-upanishads *, without any indications of disapprobation. The protest against music, therefore, and the sister art of dancing, is probably to be explained as evoked by some abuses of the two arts which must have come into prevalence about the time of the composition of the Anugité. A similar protest is found recorded in the Dharmasdstras of Manu and Apastamba and Gautama’®. We shall consider in the sequel the chronological positions of the Anugita with reference to those Dharmasastras. But we have already pointed out that the Git4 stands prior to them both °. Look again at the views on caste which are embodied in the Anugita and the Bhagavadgita respectively. The reference to the Kshatriya as representing the quality of passion, while the Brahmana represents the quality of goodness’, scems to place a considerably larger distance between the Brahmana and the Kshatriya than is suggested by the Bhagavadgita, and thus marks an advance in the direction of the later doctrine on the subject. And in connexion ' Cf. Lalita Vistara, p. 17. ® See pp. 325-365. ® See Gitd, p. 126. * See Brihadaranyaka, p. 454, and Kaushitaki, p. 68. ® See Bubler’s Apastamba I, 1, 3, 11, Gautama II, 13, and Manu II, 178. * P. a1 seq. * P. 329 INTRODUCTION. 209
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.