Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1And 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 with this, perhaps, the discrepancy between the reading of the Bhagavadgita at p. 85, and that of the Anugita at p. 255, is not entirely without significance, though much weight would not be due to it, if it stood alone. The expression ‘devoted royal sages,’ which we find in the one work, makes way for ‘well-read Kshatriyas who are intent on their own duties’ in the other. Again, although the passage at p. 353 is undoubtedly susceptible of a different interpretation, it seems to me, that the word ‘twice-born’ there employed, was meant to be interpreted as meaning the Brahmanas, and not the three twice-born castes; and if this interpretation is correct, we have here the very proposition upon the absence of which in the Bhagavadgita we have already made some observations'. That twice-born in the passage in question means Brahmana only, is, of course, not a proved fact. But having regard to the passages noted above and to the passage at p. 320, where reference is made to disparagement of Brahmanas— it is not twice-born there—and in the same clause with disparagement of gods and Vedas, it seems to me that the interpretation we have suggested must be taken to be the true one. And it is to be further noted, that this conclusion is corroborated by a comparison of the passage now under consideration with a passage occurring in the Santi Parvan*, in the Ragadharma section of it, where we read that ‘the cow is the first among quadrupeds, gold among metals, a mantra among words, and the Brahmasa is the first among bipeds.’ The cow and gold occur in the passage in the Anugita also, very near the clause we are now discussing. And it is allowable to argue, that reading the two together, twice-born in the Anugita must be interpreted to be synonymous with Brahmama in the Ragadharma. And the same conclusion is, to my mind, confirmed indirectly by comparing the clause ‘the twice-born among men’ of the Anugit4 with ‘the ruler of men among men’ of that Bhagavadgit4, the teaching of which the former work professes to recapitulate. ‘ P. 24 supra. ® See note at p. 353. (8) P 210 ANUGITA.
2‘ P. 24 supra. ® See note at p. 353. (8) P 210 ANUGITA. A similar inference seems to be derivable from a comparison of the specific doctrines as to the duties of Brahmamas which are enunciated in the Git4 and the Anugita. In the latter work, the famous six duties are expressly mentioned. We have already argued in our Introduction to the Gita, that a comparison of the teaching of that work upon this point with the teaching of Apastamba and Manu shows the former to have been older than the latter. The six duties mentioned in the Anugit4 are those also mentioned by Manu and Apastamba. It follows, therefore, that the Gita is prior to the Anugit4 also. Whether the Anugita is prior or subsequent to Manu and Apastamba, is a question which will have to be discussed in the sequel. The net result of the whole of this comparison appears to me to clearly show the Anugita to be a work of considerably more recent date than the Bhagavadgita. What interval of time lay between the two, is a most interesting, but also a most difficult, question. The differences we have noted appear to me to indicate a pretty wide interval. If I am right in regarding the Gita as a work of what may be called. for practical purposes, the age of the older Upanishads, I am inclined to think that the interval between the Gita and the Anugita must have been one of larger extent than even three or four centuries. For as we have already pointed out, the description of the various ‘Itihasas’ mentioned in the Anugita as ‘purdtana’—ancient—points to at least three or four centurics having elapsed between the close of the Upanishad period and the composition of the Anugita. It is obvious, however, that this result is not one with which we can rest satished. Even if it were more precise and accurate, it would only fix the age of the Anugita with reference to the age of another work itself of unknown and unascertained date. We must therefore endeavour to compare the Anugitaé with some other work, the date of which is better known. For this purpose, it seems to be not of any great use to refer to the Sankhya and Yoga-sitras, although it is not improbable that some materials might be forthcoming for a useful comparison between them and the Anugita. Neither the Sankhya nor the Yoga-sitras can INTRODUCTION. arr
3For this purpose, it seems to be not of any great use to refer to the Sankhya and Yoga-sitras, although it is not improbable that some materials might be forthcoming for a useful comparison between them and the Anugita. Neither the Sankhya nor the Yoga-sitras can INTRODUCTION. arr be said to have their ages fixed with even any approach to accuracy. And in the case of the Sankhya-sitras, there is the further difficulty presented by the circumstance, that there is room for very serious doubts as to whether the current Sdtras are really of the authorship of Kapila, or whoever else was the original founder of the system. With regard to the Yoga, one or two observations from a different point of view may not, however, be entirely out of place. At p. 248 the Yoga S4stra is referred'to eo nomine. What SAstra is here alluded to? Is it Pataggali’s, or some other S4stra dealing with similar topics? Or, again, is it an entirely different matter that is alluded to, and are we not to see in the expression in question an allusion to any system formally propounded? I own, as stated in the note on the passage, that my mind inclines to the last view. There is not very much to say on either side of the question, as far as I am able to understand it. But the view I incline to appears to have one small circumstance in its favour. At p- 249 we have an allusion to persons who understand the Yoga, and to a certain illustration propounded by them. Now who are these persons? My limited knowledge of Yoga literature has not enabled me to trace the illustration anywhere else than in the Ka¢hopanishad, and in the Sanatsugatiya. It seems to me very unlikely, that the illustration can have been put forward in any work older than the Ka¢kopanishad. And we may, I think, assume it as most probable that the SanatsugAtiya borrowed it from that work. If so, it is not likely that the Anugita can have referred to any other master of the Yoga than the author of the Kathopanishad. And then it would seem to follow, that the Anugtt4 must have been composed at a time when, although the Upanishads were looked on with reverence and as works of authority, they were not yet regarded as part and parcel of the Vedic revelation’. It is impossible not to perceive, that the train of reasoning here is at every stage hedged round with difficulties and doubts. And the inference therefore to which we are led by it must be accepted with proportionate * This seems to be also the implication of the passage at p. 309, where the rales for final emancipation are alluded to. P2 212 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.
1And 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 with this, perhaps, the discrepancy between the reading of the Bhagavadgita at p. 85, and that of the Anugita at p. 255, is not entirely without significance, though much weight would not be due to it, if it stood alone. The expression ‘devoted royal sages,’ which we find in the one work, makes way for ‘well-read Kshatriyas who are intent on their own duties’ in the other. Again, although the passage at p. 353 is undoubtedly susceptible of a different interpretation, it seems to me, that the word ‘twice-born’ there employed, was meant to be interpreted as meaning the Brahmanas, and not the three twice-born castes; and if this interpretation is correct, we have here the very proposition upon the absence of which in the Bhagavadgita we have already made some observations'. That twice-born in the passage in question means Brahmana only, is, of course, not a proved fact. But having regard to the passages noted above and to the passage at p. 320, where reference is made to disparagement of Brahmanas— it is not twice-born there—and in the same clause with disparagement of gods and Vedas, it seems to me that the interpretation we have suggested must be taken to be the true one. And it is to be further noted, that this conclusion is corroborated by a comparison of the passage now under consideration with a passage occurring in the Santi Parvan*, in the Ragadharma section of it, where we read that ‘the cow is the first among quadrupeds, gold among metals, a mantra among words, and the Brahmasa is the first among bipeds.’ The cow and gold occur in the passage in the Anugita also, very near the clause we are now discussing. And it is allowable to argue, that reading the two together, twice-born in the Anugita must be interpreted to be synonymous with Brahmama in the Ragadharma. And the same conclusion is, to my mind, confirmed indirectly by comparing the clause ‘the twice-born among men’ of the Anugit4 with ‘the ruler of men among men’ of that Bhagavadgit4, the teaching of which the former work professes to recapitulate. ‘ P. 24 supra. ® See note at p. 353. (8) P 210 ANUGITA.
2‘ P. 24 supra. ® See note at p. 353. (8) P 210 ANUGITA. A similar inference seems to be derivable from a comparison of the specific doctrines as to the duties of Brahmamas which are enunciated in the Git4 and the Anugita. In the latter work, the famous six duties are expressly mentioned. We have already argued in our Introduction to the Gita, that a comparison of the teaching of that work upon this point with the teaching of Apastamba and Manu shows the former to have been older than the latter. The six duties mentioned in the Anugit4 are those also mentioned by Manu and Apastamba. It follows, therefore, that the Gita is prior to the Anugit4 also. Whether the Anugita is prior or subsequent to Manu and Apastamba, is a question which will have to be discussed in the sequel. The net result of the whole of this comparison appears to me to clearly show the Anugita to be a work of considerably more recent date than the Bhagavadgita. What interval of time lay between the two, is a most interesting, but also a most difficult, question. The differences we have noted appear to me to indicate a pretty wide interval. If I am right in regarding the Gita as a work of what may be called. for practical purposes, the age of the older Upanishads, I am inclined to think that the interval between the Gita and the Anugita must have been one of larger extent than even three or four centuries. For as we have already pointed out, the description of the various ‘Itihasas’ mentioned in the Anugita as ‘purdtana’—ancient—points to at least three or four centurics having elapsed between the close of the Upanishad period and the composition of the Anugita. It is obvious, however, that this result is not one with which we can rest satished. Even if it were more precise and accurate, it would only fix the age of the Anugita with reference to the age of another work itself of unknown and unascertained date. We must therefore endeavour to compare the Anugitaé with some other work, the date of which is better known. For this purpose, it seems to be not of any great use to refer to the Sankhya and Yoga-sitras, although it is not improbable that some materials might be forthcoming for a useful comparison between them and the Anugita. Neither the Sankhya nor the Yoga-sitras can INTRODUCTION. arr
3For this purpose, it seems to be not of any great use to refer to the Sankhya and Yoga-sitras, although it is not improbable that some materials might be forthcoming for a useful comparison between them and the Anugita. Neither the Sankhya nor the Yoga-sitras can INTRODUCTION. arr be said to have their ages fixed with even any approach to accuracy. And in the case of the Sankhya-sitras, there is the further difficulty presented by the circumstance, that there is room for very serious doubts as to whether the current Sdtras are really of the authorship of Kapila, or whoever else was the original founder of the system. With regard to the Yoga, one or two observations from a different point of view may not, however, be entirely out of place. At p. 248 the Yoga S4stra is referred'to eo nomine. What SAstra is here alluded to? Is it Pataggali’s, or some other S4stra dealing with similar topics? Or, again, is it an entirely different matter that is alluded to, and are we not to see in the expression in question an allusion to any system formally propounded? I own, as stated in the note on the passage, that my mind inclines to the last view. There is not very much to say on either side of the question, as far as I am able to understand it. But the view I incline to appears to have one small circumstance in its favour. At p- 249 we have an allusion to persons who understand the Yoga, and to a certain illustration propounded by them. Now who are these persons? My limited knowledge of Yoga literature has not enabled me to trace the illustration anywhere else than in the Ka¢hopanishad, and in the Sanatsugatiya. It seems to me very unlikely, that the illustration can have been put forward in any work older than the Ka¢kopanishad. And we may, I think, assume it as most probable that the SanatsugAtiya borrowed it from that work. If so, it is not likely that the Anugita can have referred to any other master of the Yoga than the author of the Kathopanishad. And then it would seem to follow, that the Anugtt4 must have been composed at a time when, although the Upanishads were looked on with reverence and as works of authority, they were not yet regarded as part and parcel of the Vedic revelation’. It is impossible not to perceive, that the train of reasoning here is at every stage hedged round with difficulties and doubts. And the inference therefore to which we are led by it must be accepted with proportionate * This seems to be also the implication of the passage at p. 309, where the rales for final emancipation are alluded to. P2 212 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.