Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1It appears to me that the view we have now expressed may be also supported by a comparison of the doctrines of the Anugit4 and Apastamba touching the duties of Brahmasas. According to Apastamba, the occupations lawful * Cf. also Bithler’s Gautama, p. 175. 218 ANUGITA, to Brahmaaas are the famous six referred to in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita, and two others superadded, namely, inheritance and gleaning corn in the fields. These last are not mentioned in the Anugita, or in Manu either, and are, even according to Apastamba, common to Brahmavas with Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. But as regards the six above referred to, it is worthy of note, that the Anugita apparently groups them into two distinct sets of three. The first set of three consists of those which, in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgit4, we have characterised as constituting rather the rights than the duties of Brahmamas, and which the Anugit4 describes as ‘means of livelihood for Brahmazas,’ The other set of three consists of real duties, and these the Anugita speaks of as ‘pious duties.’ This grouping appears to me to furnish powerful corroboration of the view put forward in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita. It would seem, that the possession of the moral and spiritual merits which, according to the Gita, constituted the duty of Brahmazaas, in the simple and archaic society there disclosed, was developed, in a more advanced and artificial state of society, into the performance of the ‘pious duties ’ of the Anugita and the duties which are ‘the means of livelihood.’ Then in the further social evolution, in the course of which the old spiritual view began to be forgotten, and the actual facts of the past began to be transmuted into the dogmatic rules of the future, the occupations of receiving presents, imparting instruction, and officiating at sacrifices, became the special occupations of the Brahmauzas, and the distinction between these occupations from their higher duties was thrown into the background; and accordingly we find no allusion to any such distinction in Apastamba or Manu, or, as far as I know, in any other later embodiment of the current ideas on the subject!. If all this has been correctly argued, the conclusion derivable from it is in entire accord with that which we have already drawn, namely, that the Bhayavadgit4, the Anugita, and the Dharma-sitra of Apastamba, belong to different ‘In Gautama X, 1 3, the ‘ pious dutics’ are called ‘obligatory, the ot'ers ‘additional for Brahmanas.” Sce the note on the passage in Buhler’s edition, and cf, Gautama VIII, 9, 10. INTRODUCTION. 219 stages of ancient Indian history, and that the stage to which the Gita belongs is the earliest, and that to which Apastamba belongs, the latest of such stages.
2INTRODUCTION. 219 stages of ancient Indian history, and that the stage to which the Gita belongs is the earliest, and that to which Apastamba belongs, the latest of such stages. I am unable to find anything else in the way of internal evidence bearing upon the date of the Anugit4. It appears to me, that the date to which the investigation we have now gone through leads us, is one which, in the present state of our information, may be fairly accepted as a provisional hypothesis. It does not appear to me to conflict with any ascertained dates, while it is pointed to as probable by the various lines of testimony which we have here considered. We now proceed to discuss one or two other points which may have a bearing upon this topic, but which at present cannot yield us any positive guidance in our search for the date of the Anugita. And first among these, let us consider the various names of deities that occur in different parts of the work. We have, then, Vishvu, Sambhu, Gishau, Soma, Aditya, Surya, Mitra, Agni, Kandra, Rudra, Siva, Varuma, Pragapati, Maghavat, Purandara, Indra, Brahman, Satakratu, Dharma, Narayana, Vayu, Yama, Tvashéri, Hari, fsvara, and lastly Uma under three different names, namely, Uma, Mahesvari, and P4rvati. Now, leaving aside for the moment the three names of Uma, which appear from the passage where they are used to be all three the names of the same goddess, there is no doubt that in the list above set out, some of the names are merely used in different passages, but still to indicate the same being. Thus, Indra, Satakratu, Purandara, and Maghavat are really the names of one and the same deity. But when Soma is mentioned as the deity presiding over the tongue, and Aandramas as the deity presiding over the mind, it becomes doubtful whether the two names do really indicate the same deity, albeit in later Sanskrit Soma and Xandramas both signify the moon. Similarly, when Arka is said to be the deity presiding over the eye, and Mitra over another organ, it seems open to question whether Arka and Mitra both signify the sun there, as they undoubtedly do in classical Sanskrit. True it is, that even in such a recent work as the Sakhya-sAra, this mention 220 ANUGITA.
3True it is, that even in such a recent work as the Sakhya-sAra, this mention 220 ANUGITA. of Arka and Mitra as presiding deities of two several organs does occur. But it is plain, that that circumstance can have no bearing on the inquiry before us, for the Sankhya-sdra is avowedly a compilation based on older authorities, and in the particular part under consideration, really reproduces a passage from some older work. It cannot, therefore, be argued, that because Arka and Mitra were identified with one another at the time of the Sankhya-sara, and yet are mentioned as deities of two separate organs, therefore, they must have also been regarded as one in the older original work where they are also mentioned as deities of two separate organs. And it may, perhaps, be remarked here in passing, that the Vedanta Paribhasha has Mrityu instead of Mitra, which would get rid of the difficulty here altogether ; while as regards Soma and Kandramas, the passage in the Sankhya-s4ra reads Praketas instead of Soma, which would get rid of the other difficulty above pointed out. Whether these discrepancies are owing to any tampering with the lists of organs and deities, at a time when the later identifications between different deities took place, or whether they are to be explained on some other theory, it is impossible at present to say. And, therefore, it is also unnecessary to pursue the inquiry here any further. It must suffice for the present to have drawn attention to the matter. Akin to this point, though quite distinct from it, is one which arises on a passage where the emancipated being is identified with Vishzu, Mitra, Agni, Varuna, and Pragapati'. Now it is reasonable to suppose, that the deities thus specified here must have been among those held in highest repute at the time, the whole significance of the passage where they are mentioned requiring that that should be so. But in our Pantheon as disclosed by our later literature, Mitra and Agni and Varuza occupy but a very subordinate position. Even in K4liddsa?, the subordination of these deities to our celebrated Trinity seems to be quite * See p. 345. ® See inter alia, Kumfra IT, 20 seq., and VII, 44 seq., and cf. our Bhartshari (Bombay Sanskrit Classics), Introd. p. xix. INTRODUCTION. 22! fully established. But, on the other hand, in the Vedic theogony, they are among the most prominent deities. In the Taittiriya-upanishad, we have in the very first sentence Mitra, Varusa, Vishzu, and Brahman (who may be identified with Pragdpati) all mentioned together, and their blessings invoked. This does not help in fixing a date for the Anugita; but it lends some support to the conclusion already arrived at on that point, by showing that the theogony of the Anugita is not yet very far removed from the theogony of the Vedic times, while it is separated by a considerable interval from the theogony disclosed in the works of even such an early writer of the classical period as Kalidasa.
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.
1It appears to me that the view we have now expressed may be also supported by a comparison of the doctrines of the Anugit4 and Apastamba touching the duties of Brahmasas. According to Apastamba, the occupations lawful * Cf. also Bithler’s Gautama, p. 175. 218 ANUGITA, to Brahmaaas are the famous six referred to in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita, and two others superadded, namely, inheritance and gleaning corn in the fields. These last are not mentioned in the Anugita, or in Manu either, and are, even according to Apastamba, common to Brahmavas with Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. But as regards the six above referred to, it is worthy of note, that the Anugita apparently groups them into two distinct sets of three. The first set of three consists of those which, in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgit4, we have characterised as constituting rather the rights than the duties of Brahmamas, and which the Anugit4 describes as ‘means of livelihood for Brahmazas,’ The other set of three consists of real duties, and these the Anugita speaks of as ‘pious duties.’ This grouping appears to me to furnish powerful corroboration of the view put forward in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita. It would seem, that the possession of the moral and spiritual merits which, according to the Gita, constituted the duty of Brahmazaas, in the simple and archaic society there disclosed, was developed, in a more advanced and artificial state of society, into the performance of the ‘pious duties ’ of the Anugita and the duties which are ‘the means of livelihood.’ Then in the further social evolution, in the course of which the old spiritual view began to be forgotten, and the actual facts of the past began to be transmuted into the dogmatic rules of the future, the occupations of receiving presents, imparting instruction, and officiating at sacrifices, became the special occupations of the Brahmauzas, and the distinction between these occupations from their higher duties was thrown into the background; and accordingly we find no allusion to any such distinction in Apastamba or Manu, or, as far as I know, in any other later embodiment of the current ideas on the subject!. If all this has been correctly argued, the conclusion derivable from it is in entire accord with that which we have already drawn, namely, that the Bhayavadgit4, the Anugita, and the Dharma-sitra of Apastamba, belong to different ‘In Gautama X, 1 3, the ‘ pious dutics’ are called ‘obligatory, the ot'ers ‘additional for Brahmanas.” Sce the note on the passage in Buhler’s edition, and cf, Gautama VIII, 9, 10. INTRODUCTION. 219 stages of ancient Indian history, and that the stage to which the Gita belongs is the earliest, and that to which Apastamba belongs, the latest of such stages.
2INTRODUCTION. 219 stages of ancient Indian history, and that the stage to which the Gita belongs is the earliest, and that to which Apastamba belongs, the latest of such stages. I am unable to find anything else in the way of internal evidence bearing upon the date of the Anugit4. It appears to me, that the date to which the investigation we have now gone through leads us, is one which, in the present state of our information, may be fairly accepted as a provisional hypothesis. It does not appear to me to conflict with any ascertained dates, while it is pointed to as probable by the various lines of testimony which we have here considered. We now proceed to discuss one or two other points which may have a bearing upon this topic, but which at present cannot yield us any positive guidance in our search for the date of the Anugita. And first among these, let us consider the various names of deities that occur in different parts of the work. We have, then, Vishvu, Sambhu, Gishau, Soma, Aditya, Surya, Mitra, Agni, Kandra, Rudra, Siva, Varuma, Pragapati, Maghavat, Purandara, Indra, Brahman, Satakratu, Dharma, Narayana, Vayu, Yama, Tvashéri, Hari, fsvara, and lastly Uma under three different names, namely, Uma, Mahesvari, and P4rvati. Now, leaving aside for the moment the three names of Uma, which appear from the passage where they are used to be all three the names of the same goddess, there is no doubt that in the list above set out, some of the names are merely used in different passages, but still to indicate the same being. Thus, Indra, Satakratu, Purandara, and Maghavat are really the names of one and the same deity. But when Soma is mentioned as the deity presiding over the tongue, and Aandramas as the deity presiding over the mind, it becomes doubtful whether the two names do really indicate the same deity, albeit in later Sanskrit Soma and Xandramas both signify the moon. Similarly, when Arka is said to be the deity presiding over the eye, and Mitra over another organ, it seems open to question whether Arka and Mitra both signify the sun there, as they undoubtedly do in classical Sanskrit. True it is, that even in such a recent work as the Sakhya-sAra, this mention 220 ANUGITA.
3True it is, that even in such a recent work as the Sakhya-sAra, this mention 220 ANUGITA. of Arka and Mitra as presiding deities of two several organs does occur. But it is plain, that that circumstance can have no bearing on the inquiry before us, for the Sankhya-sdra is avowedly a compilation based on older authorities, and in the particular part under consideration, really reproduces a passage from some older work. It cannot, therefore, be argued, that because Arka and Mitra were identified with one another at the time of the Sankhya-sara, and yet are mentioned as deities of two separate organs, therefore, they must have also been regarded as one in the older original work where they are also mentioned as deities of two separate organs. And it may, perhaps, be remarked here in passing, that the Vedanta Paribhasha has Mrityu instead of Mitra, which would get rid of the difficulty here altogether ; while as regards Soma and Kandramas, the passage in the Sankhya-s4ra reads Praketas instead of Soma, which would get rid of the other difficulty above pointed out. Whether these discrepancies are owing to any tampering with the lists of organs and deities, at a time when the later identifications between different deities took place, or whether they are to be explained on some other theory, it is impossible at present to say. And, therefore, it is also unnecessary to pursue the inquiry here any further. It must suffice for the present to have drawn attention to the matter. Akin to this point, though quite distinct from it, is one which arises on a passage where the emancipated being is identified with Vishzu, Mitra, Agni, Varuna, and Pragapati'. Now it is reasonable to suppose, that the deities thus specified here must have been among those held in highest repute at the time, the whole significance of the passage where they are mentioned requiring that that should be so. But in our Pantheon as disclosed by our later literature, Mitra and Agni and Varuza occupy but a very subordinate position. Even in K4liddsa?, the subordination of these deities to our celebrated Trinity seems to be quite * See p. 345. ® See inter alia, Kumfra IT, 20 seq., and VII, 44 seq., and cf. our Bhartshari (Bombay Sanskrit Classics), Introd. p. xix. INTRODUCTION. 22! fully established. But, on the other hand, in the Vedic theogony, they are among the most prominent deities. In the Taittiriya-upanishad, we have in the very first sentence Mitra, Varusa, Vishzu, and Brahman (who may be identified with Pragdpati) all mentioned together, and their blessings invoked. This does not help in fixing a date for the Anugita; but it lends some support to the conclusion already arrived at on that point, by showing that the theogony of the Anugita is not yet very far removed from the theogony of the Vedic times, while it is separated by a considerable interval from the theogony disclosed in the works of even such an early writer of the classical period as Kalidasa.
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.