Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Even in Bana and Dandin, Subandhu and Bhavabhati, the plethora of compounds is often wearisome. And the same remark applies to many of the copperplate and other inscriptions which have been recently 14 BHAGAVADGITA., deciphered, and some of which date from the early centuries of the Christian era. Take again the exuberance of figures and tropes which is so marked in the classical style. There is little or nothing of that in the Gita, where you have a plain and direct style of natural simplicity, and yet a style not by any means devoid of xsthetic merit like the style of the Sdtra literature. There is also an almost complete absence of involved syntactical construc tions; no attempt to secure that jingle of like sounds, which scems to have proved a temptation too strong even for Kaliddsa’s muse entirely to resist. But on the contrary, we have those repetitions of words and phrases, which are characteristic, and not only in Sanskrit, of the style of an archaic period’. Adverting specially to the language as distinguished from the style of the Gita, we find such words as Anta, Bhasha, Brahman, some of which are collected in the Sanskrit Index in this volume, which have gone out of use in the classical literature in the significations they respectively bear in the Gita. The word ‘ha,’ which occurs once, is worthy of special note. It is the equivalent of ‘gha,’ which occurs in the Vedic Samhitas. In the form ‘ha’ it occurs in the Brahmamas. But it never occurs, I think, in what is properly called the classical literature. It is, indeed, found ian the Purdvzas. But that is a class of works which occupies a very unique position. There is a good deal in the Purawas that, I think, must be admitted to be very ancient?; while undoubtedly also there is a great deal in them that is very modern. It is, therefore, impossible to treat the use of ‘ha’ in that class of works as negativing an inference of the antiquity of any book where the word occurs; while its use in Vedic works and its total absence from modern works indicate such * Compare Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. i, p. §. See, too, Goldstucker's Kemains, 1,177. 3 Thi, opinion, which I had expressed as long ago as 1874 in the Introduction to my edition of Bhartrshari’s Satakas, is, I find, also held by Dr. Bubler; see hiv Introduction to Apastamba in this series, p. xx seq., note. Puraas are mentioned in the Sutta Nipata (p.115), as to the cate of which, see inter alia Swamy’s Introduction, p. xvii. INTRODUCTION. 15
2Bubler; see hiv Introduction to Apastamba in this series, p. xx seq., note. Puraas are mentioned in the Sutta Nipata (p.115), as to the cate of which, see inter alia Swamy’s Introduction, p. xvii. INTRODUCTION. 15 antiquity pretty strongly. We may, therefore, embody the result of this part of the discussion in the proposition, that the Gita is removed by a considerable linguistic and chronological distance from classical Sanskrit literature. And so far as it goes, this proposition agrees with the result of our investigation of the first branch of internal evidence. The next branch of that evidence brings us to the character of the versification of the Gita. Here, again, a survey of Sanskrit verse generally, and the verse of the Git4 in particular, leads us to a conclusion regarding the position of the Gita in Sanskrit literature, which is in strict accord with the conclusions we have already drawn. In the verse of the Vedic Samhitas, there is almost nothing like a rigidly fixed scheme of versification, no particular collocation of long and short syllables is absolutely necessary. If we attempt to chant them in the mode in which classical Sanskrit verse is chanted, we invariably come across lines where the chanting cannot be smooth. If we come next to the versification of the Upanishads, we observe some progress made towards such fixity of scheme as we have alluded to above. Though there are still numerous lines, which cannot be smoothly chanted, there are, on the other hand, a not altogether inconsiderable number which can be smoothly chanted. In the Bhagavadgita a still further advance, though a slight one, may, I think, be marked. A visibly larger proportion of the stanzas in the Git4 conform to the metrical schemes as laid down by the writers on prosody, though there are still sundry verses which do not so conform, and cannot, accordingly, be chanted in the regular way. Lastly, we come to the Kavyas and NAfakas—the classical literature. And here in practice we find everywhere a most inflexible rigidity of scheme, while the theory is laid down in a rule which says, that ‘even masha may be changed to masha, but a break of metre should be avoided.’ This survey of Sanskrit verse may, I think, be fairly treated as showing, that adhesion to the metrical schemes is one test of the chronological position of a work—the later the work, the 16 BHAGAVADGITA. more undeviating is such adhesion. I need not stay here to point out, how this view receives corroboration from the rules given on this subject in the standard work of Pingala on the AAandas Sastra. I will only conclude this point by saying, that the argument from the versification of the Gita, so far as it goes, indicates its position as being prior to the classical literature, and nearly contemporaneous with the Upanishad literature.
3I will only conclude this point by saying, that the argument from the versification of the Gita, so far as it goes, indicates its position as being prior to the classical literature, and nearly contemporaneous with the Upanishad literature. We now proceed to investigate the last group of facts falling under the head of internal evidence, as mentioned above. And first as regards the attitude of the Gita towards the Vedas. If we examine all the passages in the Gita, in which reference is made to the Vedas, the aggregate result appears to be, that the author of the Gita does not throw the Vedas entirely overboard. He feels and expresses reverence for them, only that reverence is of a somewhat special character. He says in effect, that the precepts of the Vedas are suitable to a certain class of people, of a certain intellectual and spiritual status, so to say. So far their authority is unimpeached. But if the unwise sticklers for the authority of the Vedas claim anything more for them than this, then the author of the Gita holds them to be wrong. He contends, on the contrary, that acting upon the ordinances of the Vedas is an obstacle to the attainment of the summum bonum!. Compare this with the doctrine of the Upanishads. The coincidence appears to me to be most noteworthy. In one of his recent lectures, Professor Max Miller uses the following eloquent language regarding the Upanishads*: ‘Lastly come the Upanishads; and what is their object? To show the utter uselessness, nay, the mischievousness of all ritual performances (compare our Gita, pp. 47, 48, 84°); to condemn every sacrificial act which has for its motive a desire or hope of reward (comp. Gita, p. 119 *); to deny, if not the existence, at least the exceptional and exalted character * Compare the passages collected under the word Vedas in our Index. * Hibbert Lectures, p. 340 seq. 2 IL, 42-453 IX, 20, 21. * XVII, 12. INTRODUCTION. 17 of the Devas (comp. Gita, pp. 76-84"); and to teach that there is no hope of salvation and deliverance except by the individual self recognising the true and universal self, and finding rest there, where alone rest can be found?’ (comp. our Gita Translation, pp. 78-83).
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.
1Even in Bana and Dandin, Subandhu and Bhavabhati, the plethora of compounds is often wearisome. And the same remark applies to many of the copperplate and other inscriptions which have been recently 14 BHAGAVADGITA., deciphered, and some of which date from the early centuries of the Christian era. Take again the exuberance of figures and tropes which is so marked in the classical style. There is little or nothing of that in the Gita, where you have a plain and direct style of natural simplicity, and yet a style not by any means devoid of xsthetic merit like the style of the Sdtra literature. There is also an almost complete absence of involved syntactical construc tions; no attempt to secure that jingle of like sounds, which scems to have proved a temptation too strong even for Kaliddsa’s muse entirely to resist. But on the contrary, we have those repetitions of words and phrases, which are characteristic, and not only in Sanskrit, of the style of an archaic period’. Adverting specially to the language as distinguished from the style of the Gita, we find such words as Anta, Bhasha, Brahman, some of which are collected in the Sanskrit Index in this volume, which have gone out of use in the classical literature in the significations they respectively bear in the Gita. The word ‘ha,’ which occurs once, is worthy of special note. It is the equivalent of ‘gha,’ which occurs in the Vedic Samhitas. In the form ‘ha’ it occurs in the Brahmamas. But it never occurs, I think, in what is properly called the classical literature. It is, indeed, found ian the Purdvzas. But that is a class of works which occupies a very unique position. There is a good deal in the Purawas that, I think, must be admitted to be very ancient?; while undoubtedly also there is a great deal in them that is very modern. It is, therefore, impossible to treat the use of ‘ha’ in that class of works as negativing an inference of the antiquity of any book where the word occurs; while its use in Vedic works and its total absence from modern works indicate such * Compare Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. i, p. §. See, too, Goldstucker's Kemains, 1,177. 3 Thi, opinion, which I had expressed as long ago as 1874 in the Introduction to my edition of Bhartrshari’s Satakas, is, I find, also held by Dr. Bubler; see hiv Introduction to Apastamba in this series, p. xx seq., note. Puraas are mentioned in the Sutta Nipata (p.115), as to the cate of which, see inter alia Swamy’s Introduction, p. xvii. INTRODUCTION. 15
2Bubler; see hiv Introduction to Apastamba in this series, p. xx seq., note. Puraas are mentioned in the Sutta Nipata (p.115), as to the cate of which, see inter alia Swamy’s Introduction, p. xvii. INTRODUCTION. 15 antiquity pretty strongly. We may, therefore, embody the result of this part of the discussion in the proposition, that the Gita is removed by a considerable linguistic and chronological distance from classical Sanskrit literature. And so far as it goes, this proposition agrees with the result of our investigation of the first branch of internal evidence. The next branch of that evidence brings us to the character of the versification of the Gita. Here, again, a survey of Sanskrit verse generally, and the verse of the Git4 in particular, leads us to a conclusion regarding the position of the Gita in Sanskrit literature, which is in strict accord with the conclusions we have already drawn. In the verse of the Vedic Samhitas, there is almost nothing like a rigidly fixed scheme of versification, no particular collocation of long and short syllables is absolutely necessary. If we attempt to chant them in the mode in which classical Sanskrit verse is chanted, we invariably come across lines where the chanting cannot be smooth. If we come next to the versification of the Upanishads, we observe some progress made towards such fixity of scheme as we have alluded to above. Though there are still numerous lines, which cannot be smoothly chanted, there are, on the other hand, a not altogether inconsiderable number which can be smoothly chanted. In the Bhagavadgita a still further advance, though a slight one, may, I think, be marked. A visibly larger proportion of the stanzas in the Git4 conform to the metrical schemes as laid down by the writers on prosody, though there are still sundry verses which do not so conform, and cannot, accordingly, be chanted in the regular way. Lastly, we come to the Kavyas and NAfakas—the classical literature. And here in practice we find everywhere a most inflexible rigidity of scheme, while the theory is laid down in a rule which says, that ‘even masha may be changed to masha, but a break of metre should be avoided.’ This survey of Sanskrit verse may, I think, be fairly treated as showing, that adhesion to the metrical schemes is one test of the chronological position of a work—the later the work, the 16 BHAGAVADGITA. more undeviating is such adhesion. I need not stay here to point out, how this view receives corroboration from the rules given on this subject in the standard work of Pingala on the AAandas Sastra. I will only conclude this point by saying, that the argument from the versification of the Gita, so far as it goes, indicates its position as being prior to the classical literature, and nearly contemporaneous with the Upanishad literature.
3I will only conclude this point by saying, that the argument from the versification of the Gita, so far as it goes, indicates its position as being prior to the classical literature, and nearly contemporaneous with the Upanishad literature. We now proceed to investigate the last group of facts falling under the head of internal evidence, as mentioned above. And first as regards the attitude of the Gita towards the Vedas. If we examine all the passages in the Gita, in which reference is made to the Vedas, the aggregate result appears to be, that the author of the Gita does not throw the Vedas entirely overboard. He feels and expresses reverence for them, only that reverence is of a somewhat special character. He says in effect, that the precepts of the Vedas are suitable to a certain class of people, of a certain intellectual and spiritual status, so to say. So far their authority is unimpeached. But if the unwise sticklers for the authority of the Vedas claim anything more for them than this, then the author of the Gita holds them to be wrong. He contends, on the contrary, that acting upon the ordinances of the Vedas is an obstacle to the attainment of the summum bonum!. Compare this with the doctrine of the Upanishads. The coincidence appears to me to be most noteworthy. In one of his recent lectures, Professor Max Miller uses the following eloquent language regarding the Upanishads*: ‘Lastly come the Upanishads; and what is their object? To show the utter uselessness, nay, the mischievousness of all ritual performances (compare our Gita, pp. 47, 48, 84°); to condemn every sacrificial act which has for its motive a desire or hope of reward (comp. Gita, p. 119 *); to deny, if not the existence, at least the exceptional and exalted character * Compare the passages collected under the word Vedas in our Index. * Hibbert Lectures, p. 340 seq. 2 IL, 42-453 IX, 20, 21. * XVII, 12. INTRODUCTION. 17 of the Devas (comp. Gita, pp. 76-84"); and to teach that there is no hope of salvation and deliverance except by the individual self recognising the true and universal self, and finding rest there, where alone rest can be found?’ (comp. our Gita Translation, pp. 78-83).
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.