Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1And 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. caution. But if the reasoning is correct, it seems to be certain, that the Anugita belongs to some period prior to the second, and probable, that it belongs to some period prior to the third century, before Christ. For in the second century before Christ was composed the Mahdbhashya of Pataggali, in which Rahasyas—which is another name for Upanishads—are mentioned as forming part of the Vedic literature. And in Apastamba’s Dharma-sitras, which are older than Patafgali, Upanishads! are mentioned in the same way. Iam aware that it may be said, that because Upanishads as a class of works are mentioned by Pataggali and Apastamba, it does not follow that any particular Upanishad, such as the Kaéa, for instance, also existed at that time. This is quite true. But without going now into the general question, it is sufficient to point out, that our argument here is concerned merély with the recognition of the Upanishads as a class of works forming part of the Vedic canon. Such recognition must have come later than the period at which the Anugit4 could speak of a passage in the Ka¢ha-upanishad as the utterance of Yogavids, or persons -who understood the Yoga. Turning now to the materials available for ascertaining the relative chronological positions of the Anugité and the rise of Buddhism, we have again to complain of their unsatisfactory character. We will briefly note the two or three circumstances which appear to have a bearing upon this question. In the first place, we have the word Nirvana used in one passage of the Anugita in the sense of the highest tranquillity, and there the simile of the extinction of the fire is expressly adduced. On this it may be argued, that if the term Nirvana had become the wellunderstood property of Buddhism, such a use of it as we find here would probably not have occurred. Again, we have the injunction that an ascetic must dwell in a town only for one day and no more, while he may stay at one place during the rains. This is very similar to an injunction prescribed by the Buddhistic teachers also. But ' They are also referred to in the Buddhistic Lalita Vistara, p. 63. INTRODUCTION. 2713
2This is very similar to an injunction prescribed by the Buddhistic teachers also. But ' They are also referred to in the Buddhistic Lalita Vistara, p. 63. INTRODUCTION. 2713 this fact furnishes, I think, no safe ground for a chronological inference, more especially because, as pointed out by Dr. Buhler, the Buddhistic injunction is itself only borrowed from the Brahminical rules on the subject'. It is impossible, therefore, to say that the Anugit4 borrowed its doctrine from Buddhism. It is, of course, equally impossible on the other hand to say, that Buddhism borrowed its rule from the Anugtita. And, therefore, we can build no safe inference upon this fact either. We have next the very remarkable passage at chapter XXXIV, where various contradictory and mutually exclusive views of piety are stated, or rather passingly and briefly indicated—a passage which one most devoutly wishes had been clearer than it is, In that passage I can find no reference to Buddhism. True it is that Nilakaw/ha’s commentary refers some of the doctrines there stated to Buddhistic schools*. But that commentary, unsatisfactory enough in other places, is particularly unsatisfactory here. And its critical accuracy may be judged from its reference to Saugatas and Yogaearas apparently as two distinct schools, whereas in truth the Saugatas are Buddhists, and Yogdéaras one of the four principal Buddhist sects) And it must be further remembered, that the interpretations of Nilakan‘ha, upon which his specifications of the different schools are based, are by no means such as necessarily claim acceptance. If then we do not find any reference to Buddhism in this passage, that fact becomes certainly a remarkable one. Still, on the other hand, I am not prepared to apply the ‘negative argument’ here, and to say that inasmuch as Buddhism is not referred to where so many different opinions are referréd to, Buddhism cannot have come into existence at the date of the Anugita. It seems to me that the argument will here be a very hazardous one, because if the author of the Anugit4 was, as we may assume he was, an orthodox Hindu, he might well have declined, although not unacquainted with Buddhism, to put into the mouths of the seven sages even as a possible view, that * See Gautama, pp. Iv and1g1. * See also the gloss on chap. XXXIV, st. 14. 214 ANuGciTA,
3Iv and1g1. * See also the gloss on chap. XXXIV, st. 14. 214 ANuGciTA, which was the view of a school esteemed heretical by the author and his co-religionists. This passage, therefore, also fails to furnish any tangible ground for a chronological inference, at all events in the present state of our knowledge. Lastly, we come to the allusion to those who indulge in constant talk in disparagement of Vedas and Brahmanas, the two being thus bracketed together in the original. That seems, at the first blush, to be a somewhat more distinct allusion to Buddhism than any of those we have noted above. But even that is not unambiguous. Ifthe stanzas quoted by Madhavafarya, in his Sarvadarsanasangraha in its first section, are the composition of the original founder of the A’arvaka school, or even if they correctly represent the earliest opinions of that school, it is at least quite as likely that the A4rvakas were the target for the denunciations of the Anugité in the passage in question as that the Buddhists were so. To me, indeed, it appears to be more likely. For Buddha’s opinion with regard to the Vedas is, that they are inadequate; with regard to the Brahmaaas, that they are in no sense the chosen of God as they claim to be. The opinion of the Aarvakas, on the other hand, is a far more aggressive one, so to say. According to MAdhavakarya, they taught that the Vedas were either simple fatuity or imposture, and that the Brahmazas were impostors. It seems to me much more likely, that this, which I have called a comparatively aggressive attitude, was the one at which the remarks of the AnugitA were levelled ; and more especially does this appear to be correct when we remember, that the view taught by Gautama Buddha regarding the Vedas and the Brahmamas was propounded by him only in its strongest form; and that even before his time, the doctrine of the inadequacy of the Vedas for the purpose of securing the summum bonum of humanity had been taught by other teachers. It is further to be recollected, that we have evidence showing that other thinkers also than Buddha, or Brthaspati, had in early days attacked the authority of the Vedas. Kautsa is the name of one who was probably the most distinguished among them. It is certainly possible that his followers INTRODUCTION. 215
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 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. caution. But if the reasoning is correct, it seems to be certain, that the Anugita belongs to some period prior to the second, and probable, that it belongs to some period prior to the third century, before Christ. For in the second century before Christ was composed the Mahdbhashya of Pataggali, in which Rahasyas—which is another name for Upanishads—are mentioned as forming part of the Vedic literature. And in Apastamba’s Dharma-sitras, which are older than Patafgali, Upanishads! are mentioned in the same way. Iam aware that it may be said, that because Upanishads as a class of works are mentioned by Pataggali and Apastamba, it does not follow that any particular Upanishad, such as the Kaéa, for instance, also existed at that time. This is quite true. But without going now into the general question, it is sufficient to point out, that our argument here is concerned merély with the recognition of the Upanishads as a class of works forming part of the Vedic canon. Such recognition must have come later than the period at which the Anugit4 could speak of a passage in the Ka¢ha-upanishad as the utterance of Yogavids, or persons -who understood the Yoga. Turning now to the materials available for ascertaining the relative chronological positions of the Anugité and the rise of Buddhism, we have again to complain of their unsatisfactory character. We will briefly note the two or three circumstances which appear to have a bearing upon this question. In the first place, we have the word Nirvana used in one passage of the Anugita in the sense of the highest tranquillity, and there the simile of the extinction of the fire is expressly adduced. On this it may be argued, that if the term Nirvana had become the wellunderstood property of Buddhism, such a use of it as we find here would probably not have occurred. Again, we have the injunction that an ascetic must dwell in a town only for one day and no more, while he may stay at one place during the rains. This is very similar to an injunction prescribed by the Buddhistic teachers also. But ' They are also referred to in the Buddhistic Lalita Vistara, p. 63. INTRODUCTION. 2713
2This is very similar to an injunction prescribed by the Buddhistic teachers also. But ' They are also referred to in the Buddhistic Lalita Vistara, p. 63. INTRODUCTION. 2713 this fact furnishes, I think, no safe ground for a chronological inference, more especially because, as pointed out by Dr. Buhler, the Buddhistic injunction is itself only borrowed from the Brahminical rules on the subject'. It is impossible, therefore, to say that the Anugit4 borrowed its doctrine from Buddhism. It is, of course, equally impossible on the other hand to say, that Buddhism borrowed its rule from the Anugtita. And, therefore, we can build no safe inference upon this fact either. We have next the very remarkable passage at chapter XXXIV, where various contradictory and mutually exclusive views of piety are stated, or rather passingly and briefly indicated—a passage which one most devoutly wishes had been clearer than it is, In that passage I can find no reference to Buddhism. True it is that Nilakaw/ha’s commentary refers some of the doctrines there stated to Buddhistic schools*. But that commentary, unsatisfactory enough in other places, is particularly unsatisfactory here. And its critical accuracy may be judged from its reference to Saugatas and Yogaearas apparently as two distinct schools, whereas in truth the Saugatas are Buddhists, and Yogdéaras one of the four principal Buddhist sects) And it must be further remembered, that the interpretations of Nilakan‘ha, upon which his specifications of the different schools are based, are by no means such as necessarily claim acceptance. If then we do not find any reference to Buddhism in this passage, that fact becomes certainly a remarkable one. Still, on the other hand, I am not prepared to apply the ‘negative argument’ here, and to say that inasmuch as Buddhism is not referred to where so many different opinions are referréd to, Buddhism cannot have come into existence at the date of the Anugita. It seems to me that the argument will here be a very hazardous one, because if the author of the Anugit4 was, as we may assume he was, an orthodox Hindu, he might well have declined, although not unacquainted with Buddhism, to put into the mouths of the seven sages even as a possible view, that * See Gautama, pp. Iv and1g1. * See also the gloss on chap. XXXIV, st. 14. 214 ANuGciTA,
3Iv and1g1. * See also the gloss on chap. XXXIV, st. 14. 214 ANuGciTA, which was the view of a school esteemed heretical by the author and his co-religionists. This passage, therefore, also fails to furnish any tangible ground for a chronological inference, at all events in the present state of our knowledge. Lastly, we come to the allusion to those who indulge in constant talk in disparagement of Vedas and Brahmanas, the two being thus bracketed together in the original. That seems, at the first blush, to be a somewhat more distinct allusion to Buddhism than any of those we have noted above. But even that is not unambiguous. Ifthe stanzas quoted by Madhavafarya, in his Sarvadarsanasangraha in its first section, are the composition of the original founder of the A’arvaka school, or even if they correctly represent the earliest opinions of that school, it is at least quite as likely that the A4rvakas were the target for the denunciations of the Anugité in the passage in question as that the Buddhists were so. To me, indeed, it appears to be more likely. For Buddha’s opinion with regard to the Vedas is, that they are inadequate; with regard to the Brahmaaas, that they are in no sense the chosen of God as they claim to be. The opinion of the Aarvakas, on the other hand, is a far more aggressive one, so to say. According to MAdhavakarya, they taught that the Vedas were either simple fatuity or imposture, and that the Brahmazas were impostors. It seems to me much more likely, that this, which I have called a comparatively aggressive attitude, was the one at which the remarks of the AnugitA were levelled ; and more especially does this appear to be correct when we remember, that the view taught by Gautama Buddha regarding the Vedas and the Brahmamas was propounded by him only in its strongest form; and that even before his time, the doctrine of the inadequacy of the Vedas for the purpose of securing the summum bonum of humanity had been taught by other teachers. It is further to be recollected, that we have evidence showing that other thinkers also than Buddha, or Brthaspati, had in early days attacked the authority of the Vedas. Kautsa is the name of one who was probably the most distinguished among them. It is certainly possible that his followers INTRODUCTION. 215
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.