Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
13. 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, their native land than its form and extent. It follows consequently that this enumeration of mountains does not require the date of the Anugita to be brought down to a later period than the fourth century B.C., and leaves it open to us, therefore, to accept whatever conclusion the other evidence available may seem to justify. On the other hand, it is plain also, that it affords no positive information as to when the Anugité was composed, and therefore we need not dwell any further upon the point on the present occasion. There are a few other points which arise upon the contents of the Anugit4, but which are not, in the present condition of our knowledge, capable of affording any certain guidance in our present investigation. Thus we have the story of Dharma appearing before king Ganaka disguised as a Brahmana. I am not aware of any case of such disguises occurring in any of the Upanishads, although there are numerous parallel instances throughout the Purdnik literature. It is, ’ however, difficult to draw any definite chronological inference from this fact. There is further the reference to the attack of Rahu on the sun. It is difficult, in the present state of our knowledge, to say for certain, when the theory of eclipses there implied was prevalent. In the KX 4andogyaupanishad ? we have the emancipated self compared to the moon escaped from the mouth of Rahu. And a text of the Rig-veda, quoted by Mr. Yagéesvara Sastrin in his Aryavidyasudhakara 3, speaks of the demon Rahu attacking the sun with darkness. Here again we have another matter of some interest; but I cannot sce that any safe deduction can be derived from it, without a more ample knowledge of other relevant matters than is at present accessible. Take again the references to certain practices which look very much like the practices of the Gainas of the present day. Is the Anugitd, then, earlier or later than the rise of the Gaina system? It is not safe, I think, to found an answer to this question upon the very narrow basis afforded by the * And see, too, Kalidasa Kumara V, st. 84. * Pp. 622. * P. 26, In Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa the true explanation of eclipses is alluded to. See Canto XIV, 40. INTRODUCTION. 225
2It is not safe, I think, to found an answer to this question upon the very narrow basis afforded by the * And see, too, Kalidasa Kumara V, st. 84. * Pp. 622. * P. 26, In Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa the true explanation of eclipses is alluded to. See Canto XIV, 40. INTRODUCTION. 225 passage referred to. But it may be observed, that the precepts laid down in the passage in question are laid down as precepts for orthodox Hindus, and not as the doctrines of a heretical sect. They are also very general, and not so minute as those which the Gainas of the present day observe as binding upon them. If, therefore, any conclusion is to be drawn from these precepts, it must be that the Anugit4 must have been composed prior to the rise of Gainism ; and that Gainism must have appropriated and developed this doctrine which it obtained from the current Brahmanism'. If this is so, the AnugitA must be a very ancient work indeed. It is not, however, necessary to further work out this line of argument, having regard to the opinions recently expressed by Mr. Thomas’, rehabilitating the views enunciated long ago by Colebrooke and others. If those views are correct, and if Gainism was a dominant system in this country prior even to the time of Gautama Buddha, and if, further, we are right in the suggestion—for it is no more, it must be remembered—that the Anugit4 dates from a period prior to the rise of Gainism, then it would seem to follow that the Anugita belongs to some period prior to the sixth century B.c. All this, however, is at present very hypothetical, and we draw attention to it only that the question may be hereafter considered when fuller materials for expressing a final judgment upon it become accessible. Meanwhile, having regard to the views above alluded to as so elaborately put forward by Mr. Thomas, it is possible for us still to hold that, in the present state of our knowledge, the third or fourth century B.C. is not too early a date to assign to the Anugit4, even on the assumption that the precepts contained in that work regarding the care to be taken of worms and insects were borrowed by it from the Gaina system. With this negative result, we must for the present rest contented. One other fact of similar nature to those we have now * As the Baddhists did in sundry instances. Cf. inter alia Bubler’s Gautama, pp-lv and 19s. And cf. also‘ Was the Kamayama copied from Homer?!’ pp. 48, 49. * See Mr. Thomas's very elaborate discussion of the whole subject in the Journal of the Koyal Asiatic Society (New Series}, vol. ix, p. 155 seq. (+) Q 226 ANUGITA.
3Cf. inter alia Bubler’s Gautama, pp-lv and 19s. And cf. also‘ Was the Kamayama copied from Homer?!’ pp. 48, 49. * See Mr. Thomas's very elaborate discussion of the whole subject in the Journal of the Koyal Asiatic Society (New Series}, vol. ix, p. 155 seq. (+) Q 226 ANUGITA. dealt with may, perhaps, be also noticed here. We allude to the stanzas which we find in the Anugit4 and also in the Santi Parvan of the Mahabharata and in the Manusmriti. There is also one which the Anugita has in common with the Parisishta of Y4ska’s Nirukta!'. It is not possible, I conceive, to say finally whether one of these works borrowed these stanzas from the other of them; while, on the other hand, it is quite possible, as already argued by us in the Introduction to the Gita, that all these works were only reproducing from some entirely different work, or that the stanzas in question were the common property of the thinkers of the time. We have no means available for deciding between these conflicting hypotheses. We have thus noticed all the salient points in the evidence, external and internal, which is available for determining the position of the Anugita in our ancient literature. Nobody who has seen even a little of the history of that literature will be surprised at the quantity or quality of that evidence, or the nature of the conclusions legitimately yiclded by it. We have endeavoured to express those conclusions in language which should not indicate any greater certainty attaching to them than can fairly be claimed for them. The net result appears to be this. The Anugité may be taken with historical certainty to have been some centuries old in the time of the great Sankarak#arya. It was very probably older than the Dharma-sdtras of Apastamba, but by what period of time we are not in a position at present to define. It was, perhaps, older also than the rise of Buddhism and Gainism, and of the Yoga philosophy ; but on this it is impossible to say anything with any approach to confidence. It is, on the other hand, almost certain that it belongs to a period very considerably removed from the older Upanishads ; probably removed by a distance of some centuries, during which ‘stories’ not contained in the Upanishads had not only obtained currency, but also come to be regarded as belonging to antiquity. And yet the period to * Cf. Anugita I, 36 with Yaska ed. Roth), p. 190. * Some of the Purdtana Itihasas, e.g. that of Narada and Devamata, are fot traceable in any Vedic work known to us. Devamata’s name I do not find referred to anywhere else. INTRODUCTION, 227
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.
13. 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, their native land than its form and extent. It follows consequently that this enumeration of mountains does not require the date of the Anugita to be brought down to a later period than the fourth century B.C., and leaves it open to us, therefore, to accept whatever conclusion the other evidence available may seem to justify. On the other hand, it is plain also, that it affords no positive information as to when the Anugité was composed, and therefore we need not dwell any further upon the point on the present occasion. There are a few other points which arise upon the contents of the Anugit4, but which are not, in the present condition of our knowledge, capable of affording any certain guidance in our present investigation. Thus we have the story of Dharma appearing before king Ganaka disguised as a Brahmana. I am not aware of any case of such disguises occurring in any of the Upanishads, although there are numerous parallel instances throughout the Purdnik literature. It is, ’ however, difficult to draw any definite chronological inference from this fact. There is further the reference to the attack of Rahu on the sun. It is difficult, in the present state of our knowledge, to say for certain, when the theory of eclipses there implied was prevalent. In the KX 4andogyaupanishad ? we have the emancipated self compared to the moon escaped from the mouth of Rahu. And a text of the Rig-veda, quoted by Mr. Yagéesvara Sastrin in his Aryavidyasudhakara 3, speaks of the demon Rahu attacking the sun with darkness. Here again we have another matter of some interest; but I cannot sce that any safe deduction can be derived from it, without a more ample knowledge of other relevant matters than is at present accessible. Take again the references to certain practices which look very much like the practices of the Gainas of the present day. Is the Anugitd, then, earlier or later than the rise of the Gaina system? It is not safe, I think, to found an answer to this question upon the very narrow basis afforded by the * And see, too, Kalidasa Kumara V, st. 84. * Pp. 622. * P. 26, In Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa the true explanation of eclipses is alluded to. See Canto XIV, 40. INTRODUCTION. 225
2It is not safe, I think, to found an answer to this question upon the very narrow basis afforded by the * And see, too, Kalidasa Kumara V, st. 84. * Pp. 622. * P. 26, In Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa the true explanation of eclipses is alluded to. See Canto XIV, 40. INTRODUCTION. 225 passage referred to. But it may be observed, that the precepts laid down in the passage in question are laid down as precepts for orthodox Hindus, and not as the doctrines of a heretical sect. They are also very general, and not so minute as those which the Gainas of the present day observe as binding upon them. If, therefore, any conclusion is to be drawn from these precepts, it must be that the Anugit4 must have been composed prior to the rise of Gainism ; and that Gainism must have appropriated and developed this doctrine which it obtained from the current Brahmanism'. If this is so, the AnugitA must be a very ancient work indeed. It is not, however, necessary to further work out this line of argument, having regard to the opinions recently expressed by Mr. Thomas’, rehabilitating the views enunciated long ago by Colebrooke and others. If those views are correct, and if Gainism was a dominant system in this country prior even to the time of Gautama Buddha, and if, further, we are right in the suggestion—for it is no more, it must be remembered—that the Anugit4 dates from a period prior to the rise of Gainism, then it would seem to follow that the Anugita belongs to some period prior to the sixth century B.c. All this, however, is at present very hypothetical, and we draw attention to it only that the question may be hereafter considered when fuller materials for expressing a final judgment upon it become accessible. Meanwhile, having regard to the views above alluded to as so elaborately put forward by Mr. Thomas, it is possible for us still to hold that, in the present state of our knowledge, the third or fourth century B.C. is not too early a date to assign to the Anugit4, even on the assumption that the precepts contained in that work regarding the care to be taken of worms and insects were borrowed by it from the Gaina system. With this negative result, we must for the present rest contented. One other fact of similar nature to those we have now * As the Baddhists did in sundry instances. Cf. inter alia Bubler’s Gautama, pp-lv and 19s. And cf. also‘ Was the Kamayama copied from Homer?!’ pp. 48, 49. * See Mr. Thomas's very elaborate discussion of the whole subject in the Journal of the Koyal Asiatic Society (New Series}, vol. ix, p. 155 seq. (+) Q 226 ANUGITA.
3Cf. inter alia Bubler’s Gautama, pp-lv and 19s. And cf. also‘ Was the Kamayama copied from Homer?!’ pp. 48, 49. * See Mr. Thomas's very elaborate discussion of the whole subject in the Journal of the Koyal Asiatic Society (New Series}, vol. ix, p. 155 seq. (+) Q 226 ANUGITA. dealt with may, perhaps, be also noticed here. We allude to the stanzas which we find in the Anugit4 and also in the Santi Parvan of the Mahabharata and in the Manusmriti. There is also one which the Anugita has in common with the Parisishta of Y4ska’s Nirukta!'. It is not possible, I conceive, to say finally whether one of these works borrowed these stanzas from the other of them; while, on the other hand, it is quite possible, as already argued by us in the Introduction to the Gita, that all these works were only reproducing from some entirely different work, or that the stanzas in question were the common property of the thinkers of the time. We have no means available for deciding between these conflicting hypotheses. We have thus noticed all the salient points in the evidence, external and internal, which is available for determining the position of the Anugita in our ancient literature. Nobody who has seen even a little of the history of that literature will be surprised at the quantity or quality of that evidence, or the nature of the conclusions legitimately yiclded by it. We have endeavoured to express those conclusions in language which should not indicate any greater certainty attaching to them than can fairly be claimed for them. The net result appears to be this. The Anugité may be taken with historical certainty to have been some centuries old in the time of the great Sankarak#arya. It was very probably older than the Dharma-sdtras of Apastamba, but by what period of time we are not in a position at present to define. It was, perhaps, older also than the rise of Buddhism and Gainism, and of the Yoga philosophy ; but on this it is impossible to say anything with any approach to confidence. It is, on the other hand, almost certain that it belongs to a period very considerably removed from the older Upanishads ; probably removed by a distance of some centuries, during which ‘stories’ not contained in the Upanishads had not only obtained currency, but also come to be regarded as belonging to antiquity. And yet the period to * Cf. Anugita I, 36 with Yaska ed. Roth), p. 190. * Some of the Purdtana Itihasas, e.g. that of Narada and Devamata, are fot traceable in any Vedic work known to us. Devamata’s name I do not find referred to anywhere else. INTRODUCTION, 227
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.