Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Another point of similar bearing on our present investigation is the mode in which the story of Parasurdma is dealt with in the Anugita. There is in the first place no allusion to his being an incarnation of Vishau, nor to the encounter between him and his namesake, the son of Dasaratha and the hero of the Ramayana. We have, on the contrary, an explhicit statement, that after the advice of the ‘ Pitris’ he entirely abandons the slaughter of the Kshatriyas, and resorting to penance thereby achieves final emancipation. We have elsewhere argued ', that the theory of Parasurama being an incarnation of Vishau, must have probably originated prior to the time of Bhartrthari, but later than the time of KAlid4sa. The allusion to Parasurdma in the work before us does not, however, enable us to judge of its chronological position with reference to Kalidasa. But the last point discussed renders it unnecessary to consider this question further. It may be noted, by the way, that the Anugit4 represents Parasurdma, although living in the Asrama or hermitage of his father, who was a Rishi, as mounting a chariot for the purpose of sweeping away the kinsmen of K4artavirya. Whence he obtained a chariot in a hermitage, the Anugit4 does not explain. In connexion with the episode of Parasurama, may be noted the list which occurs in the course of it, of the 5 See ‘ Was the RimAyawa copied from Homer?’ pp. 56, 57. 222 ANUGITA. degraded Kshatriya tribes, of Dravidas, Sabaras, &c. Iam unable to see that those names can give us any further help in our present investigation than in so far as they show that, at the time of the Anugit4, there must have been some information about the south of India available in the districts where the author of the Anugita lived. Some of the tribes mentioned appear to have been located far in the south of the Indian peninsula. But this is a point on which we shall have to say something more in discussing the next item of internal evidence to which we shall refer. Here it is enough to point out that some of the tribes mentioned in the AnugitA are also referred to in no less a work than the Aitareya-brahmama '.
2But this is a point on which we shall have to say something more in discussing the next item of internal evidence to which we shall refer. Here it is enough to point out that some of the tribes mentioned in the AnugitA are also referred to in no less a work than the Aitareya-brahmama '. We come next to the enumeration of the principal mountains which is contained in one passage of the Anugita. Those mountains are the Himalaya, the PAriyatra, the Sahya, the Vindhya, the Trikdsavat, the Sveta, the Nila, the Bh4sa, the Kosh¢havat, the Mahendra, the MAlyavat, and perhaps the Guruskandha. I am not sure whether the last name is intended to be taken as a proper name, or only as an epithet of Mahendra. Now compared with the mountains mentioned in the Bhagavadgitd, this is certainly a remarkable list. The Gita mentions only Meru? and Himalaya; while here we have in the Anugita the Sahya, and Malaya, and Trikd/avat, and Nila (the same, I presume, with the modern Nilgiri, the Sanatorium of the Madras Presidency), which take us far to the west and south of the Indian peninsula; and the Mahendra and MaAlyavat, which, coupled with the mention of the river Ganges, cover a considerable part of the eastern districts. The Pariyatra and Vindhya occupy the regions of Central India. The Anugitd, therefore, seems to belong to that period in the history of India, when pretty nearly the whole, * Hauy’sed., p 183. And see gencrally on these tribes, Wilson's Vishau Puraywa (Hall's ed. , vol. ii, p. 170 seq., and Santi Parvan (Moksha), chap. 207, st. 42. * This is also mentioned in the Anuzita, but in a different passage. The Nila is said by Professor Wilson to be a mountain in Orissa. But our suggestion has, T find, been already made by Dr. F. E. Hall also: see on this, and generally, Wilson's Vishwa Puraza, vol. ii, p. 141 seq. (ed. Hall). See also Indian Antiquary, VI, 133 seq. INTRODUCTION. 223
3The Nila is said by Professor Wilson to be a mountain in Orissa. But our suggestion has, T find, been already made by Dr. F. E. Hall also: see on this, and generally, Wilson's Vishwa Puraza, vol. ii, p. 141 seq. (ed. Hall). See also Indian Antiquary, VI, 133 seq. INTRODUCTION. 223 if not absolutely the whole, of the Indian continent was known to the Sanskrit-speaking population of the country. When was this knowledge reached? It is difficult to fix the precise period ; and even if it could be fixed, it would not help us to fix satisfactorily any point of time to which the Anugita could be attributed. But it may be pointed out here, that in Patagigali’s MahabhAshya we have evidence of such knowledge having been possessed by the Aryas in the second century B.c. In truth, the evidence available in the Mahabhdshya is even fuller than this in the Anugit4. For Pataagali tells us of a town or city in the south named K4ffipura'; he speaks of the dominions of the Pandya kings, and of the Xola and Kerala districts?; he refers also to the large tanks of the south; and he makes allusions to linguistic usages current in the southern and other provinces*. Before Pataggali’s time there had taken place Mahendra’s invasion of Ceylon, and the invading army must have penetrated through the southern provinces. And there had been also put up the great Inscriptions of Asoka, which have attracted so much interest, and are proving such prolific sources of information in various departments of knowledge. One of these inscriptions was at Gaggam, which is not very far from the Mahendra mountain alluded to in the Anugita*. All these facts support the conclusion drawn by General Cunningham from the correctness of the information given to Alexander the Great by the Hindus of his time, namely, that ‘the Indians, even at that early date in their history, had a very accurate knowledge of the form and extent of their native land®.” And not only do they support that conclusion, they show that the knowledge covered other facts regarding § Benfras ed., p. 74 (IV, 2, 2). * P. 60 (IV, 1, 4). See also p. 65. ® See Mahabhashya, p. 82 (I, 1, 5), p. 16 (I, 1,15; and cf. Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. ii, pp. 152, 255. * See Cunningham's Corpus Inscriptionum, I, p. 1. * See Ancient Geography of India, p. 3. And compare also the information collected in the Periplus of the Eurythryscan Sea (translated by Mr. McRindle,, Pp. 162-136, where a large number of posts is mentioned as existing on the Indian coasts, The Periplus seems to date from about go A.D. sec ibid. p. 5). 224 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.
1Another point of similar bearing on our present investigation is the mode in which the story of Parasurdma is dealt with in the Anugita. There is in the first place no allusion to his being an incarnation of Vishau, nor to the encounter between him and his namesake, the son of Dasaratha and the hero of the Ramayana. We have, on the contrary, an explhicit statement, that after the advice of the ‘ Pitris’ he entirely abandons the slaughter of the Kshatriyas, and resorting to penance thereby achieves final emancipation. We have elsewhere argued ', that the theory of Parasurama being an incarnation of Vishau, must have probably originated prior to the time of Bhartrthari, but later than the time of KAlid4sa. The allusion to Parasurdma in the work before us does not, however, enable us to judge of its chronological position with reference to Kalidasa. But the last point discussed renders it unnecessary to consider this question further. It may be noted, by the way, that the Anugit4 represents Parasurdma, although living in the Asrama or hermitage of his father, who was a Rishi, as mounting a chariot for the purpose of sweeping away the kinsmen of K4artavirya. Whence he obtained a chariot in a hermitage, the Anugit4 does not explain. In connexion with the episode of Parasurama, may be noted the list which occurs in the course of it, of the 5 See ‘ Was the RimAyawa copied from Homer?’ pp. 56, 57. 222 ANUGITA. degraded Kshatriya tribes, of Dravidas, Sabaras, &c. Iam unable to see that those names can give us any further help in our present investigation than in so far as they show that, at the time of the Anugit4, there must have been some information about the south of India available in the districts where the author of the Anugita lived. Some of the tribes mentioned appear to have been located far in the south of the Indian peninsula. But this is a point on which we shall have to say something more in discussing the next item of internal evidence to which we shall refer. Here it is enough to point out that some of the tribes mentioned in the AnugitA are also referred to in no less a work than the Aitareya-brahmama '.
2But this is a point on which we shall have to say something more in discussing the next item of internal evidence to which we shall refer. Here it is enough to point out that some of the tribes mentioned in the AnugitA are also referred to in no less a work than the Aitareya-brahmama '. We come next to the enumeration of the principal mountains which is contained in one passage of the Anugita. Those mountains are the Himalaya, the PAriyatra, the Sahya, the Vindhya, the Trikdsavat, the Sveta, the Nila, the Bh4sa, the Kosh¢havat, the Mahendra, the MAlyavat, and perhaps the Guruskandha. I am not sure whether the last name is intended to be taken as a proper name, or only as an epithet of Mahendra. Now compared with the mountains mentioned in the Bhagavadgitd, this is certainly a remarkable list. The Gita mentions only Meru? and Himalaya; while here we have in the Anugita the Sahya, and Malaya, and Trikd/avat, and Nila (the same, I presume, with the modern Nilgiri, the Sanatorium of the Madras Presidency), which take us far to the west and south of the Indian peninsula; and the Mahendra and MaAlyavat, which, coupled with the mention of the river Ganges, cover a considerable part of the eastern districts. The Pariyatra and Vindhya occupy the regions of Central India. The Anugitd, therefore, seems to belong to that period in the history of India, when pretty nearly the whole, * Hauy’sed., p 183. And see gencrally on these tribes, Wilson's Vishau Puraywa (Hall's ed. , vol. ii, p. 170 seq., and Santi Parvan (Moksha), chap. 207, st. 42. * This is also mentioned in the Anuzita, but in a different passage. The Nila is said by Professor Wilson to be a mountain in Orissa. But our suggestion has, T find, been already made by Dr. F. E. Hall also: see on this, and generally, Wilson's Vishwa Puraza, vol. ii, p. 141 seq. (ed. Hall). See also Indian Antiquary, VI, 133 seq. INTRODUCTION. 223
3The Nila is said by Professor Wilson to be a mountain in Orissa. But our suggestion has, T find, been already made by Dr. F. E. Hall also: see on this, and generally, Wilson's Vishwa Puraza, vol. ii, p. 141 seq. (ed. Hall). See also Indian Antiquary, VI, 133 seq. INTRODUCTION. 223 if not absolutely the whole, of the Indian continent was known to the Sanskrit-speaking population of the country. When was this knowledge reached? It is difficult to fix the precise period ; and even if it could be fixed, it would not help us to fix satisfactorily any point of time to which the Anugita could be attributed. But it may be pointed out here, that in Patagigali’s MahabhAshya we have evidence of such knowledge having been possessed by the Aryas in the second century B.c. In truth, the evidence available in the Mahabhdshya is even fuller than this in the Anugit4. For Pataagali tells us of a town or city in the south named K4ffipura'; he speaks of the dominions of the Pandya kings, and of the Xola and Kerala districts?; he refers also to the large tanks of the south; and he makes allusions to linguistic usages current in the southern and other provinces*. Before Pataggali’s time there had taken place Mahendra’s invasion of Ceylon, and the invading army must have penetrated through the southern provinces. And there had been also put up the great Inscriptions of Asoka, which have attracted so much interest, and are proving such prolific sources of information in various departments of knowledge. One of these inscriptions was at Gaggam, which is not very far from the Mahendra mountain alluded to in the Anugita*. All these facts support the conclusion drawn by General Cunningham from the correctness of the information given to Alexander the Great by the Hindus of his time, namely, that ‘the Indians, even at that early date in their history, had a very accurate knowledge of the form and extent of their native land®.” And not only do they support that conclusion, they show that the knowledge covered other facts regarding § Benfras ed., p. 74 (IV, 2, 2). * P. 60 (IV, 1, 4). See also p. 65. ® See Mahabhashya, p. 82 (I, 1, 5), p. 16 (I, 1,15; and cf. Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. ii, pp. 152, 255. * See Cunningham's Corpus Inscriptionum, I, p. 1. * See Ancient Geography of India, p. 3. And compare also the information collected in the Periplus of the Eurythryscan Sea (translated by Mr. McRindle,, Pp. 162-136, where a large number of posts is mentioned as existing on the Indian coasts, The Periplus seems to date from about go A.D. sec ibid. p. 5). 224 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.