Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1And 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 which the work belongs was one in which the Upanishads were only reverenced as the authoritative opinions of eminent men, not as the words of God himself'. In this respect, it may be said that the Anugit4 seems rather to belong to an earlier stratum of thought than even the Sanatsugatiya, in which a G#anakAnda, as forming a part of the Vedic canon, seems to be recognised?. But it is abundantly clear, that the Anugit4 stands at a very considerable chronological distance from the Bhagavadgita. Such are the results of our investigation. We have not thought it necessary to discuss the verse or the language of the work. But it must in fairness be pointed out, that upon the whole, the verse and language are both pretty near the classical model. There are, it is true, a few instances of the metrical anomalies we have noticed elsewhere, but having regard to the extent of the work, those instances are far from being very numerous. The language and style, too, are not quite smooth and polished; though, judging from them alone, I should rather be inclined to place the Sanatsugattya prior to the Anugita. But that suggests a question which we cannot now stop to discuss. One word, in conclusion, about the translation. The text used has been chiefly that adopted in the commentary of Arguna Misra, a commentary which on the whole I prefer very much to that of Nilakas¢ka, which has been printed in the Bombay edition of the Mahabharata. Arguna Misra, as a rule, affords some explanation where explanation is wanted, and does not endeavour to suit his text to any foregone conclusion. His comments have been of the greatest possible help to me; and my only regret is that the only copy of his commentary which was available to me, and the use of which I owe to the kindness of my friend Professor BhAadarkar, was not as correct a one as could be desired. I have also looked into the Vishamasloki, a short work containing notes on difficult passages of the Mahabharata. * See p. 215 supra. ® See p. 146 supra. The Buddhists seem to have borrowed the division of Karma and GAanakindas. See Dr. Kagendraldla Mitra’s Lalita Vistara ‘trans!.), p. 21. The division, therefore, was probably older than the first century B.C. Q2 228 ANUGITA. The MS. of it belonging to the Government Collection of MSS. deposited in Deccan College was lent me also by Professor Bhandarkar. The principles adopted in the translation and notes have been the same as those followed in the other pieces contained in this volume.
2Q2 228 ANUGITA. The MS. of it belonging to the Government Collection of MSS. deposited in Deccan College was lent me also by Professor Bhandarkar. The principles adopted in the translation and notes have been the same as those followed in the other pieces contained in this volume. P. S. I take this opportunity of stating that it is not at all certain that Arguna Misra is the name of the author of the commentary which I have used. I find that in supposing Arguna Misra to be the author, I confounded that commentary, which does not mention its author’s name, with the commentary on another section of the Mahabharata which does give its author's name as Arguna Misra, and which is also among the MSS. purchased by Professor Bhandarkar for the Government of Bombay. (See with regard to these MSS. Professor Bhaudarkar’s Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. of 7th July, 1880.) ANUGITA. Cuapter I. Ganamegaya' said: What conversation, O twice-born one?! took place between the high-souled Kesava and Arguna, while they dwelt in that palace® after slaying their enemies ? Vaisamp4yana said : The son of Prétha, after becoming possessed of his kingdom (in an) undisturbed (state), enjoyed himself in the company of Kvrshaa, full of delight in that heavenly palace. And once, O king! they happened to go, surrounded by their people, and rejoicing, to a certain portion of the palace which resembled heaven. Then Arguna, the son of Pazdu, having surveyed with delight that lovely palace, in the company of Krishna, spoke these words: ‘O you of mighty arms! O you whose mother is Devaki‘! when the battle was about to commence, I became aware of your greatness, and that divine ? This is the prince to whom the Mahfbhfrata, as we have it, purports to have been related. * I.e. Vaisampayana, who relates the Mah&bhfrata to Ganamegaya. 5 This appears to have been situated at Indraprastha, and to have been the one built for the Paisdavas by the demon Maya, as related in the Sabh4 Parvan. * This is a rather unusual form of address. 230 anucITA. form of yours'. But that,O Kesava! which through affection (for me) you explained before’, has all disappeared, O tiger-like man! from my degenerate mind. Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics. But (now), O Madhava! you will be going at no distant date to Dvaraka.’ Vaisampdyana said : Thus addressed, that best of speakers, Kr#shaa, possessed of great glory, replied in these words after embracing Arguna. Vasudeva said :
3Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics. But (now), O Madhava! you will be going at no distant date to Dvaraka.’ Vaisampdyana said : Thus addressed, that best of speakers, Kr#shaa, possessed of great glory, replied in these words after embracing Arguna. Vasudeva said : From me, O son of Prttha! you heard a mystery, and learnt about the eternal* (principle), about piety in (its true) form, and about all the everlasting worlds‘, It is excessively disagreeable to me, that you should not have grasped it through want of intelligence. And the recollection (of it) now again is not possible (to me). Really, O son of Pandu! you are devoid of faith and of a bad intellect. And, O Dhanazgaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat* of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power*, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman. But I shall relate an ancient story upon ’ Cf. Bhagavadgita, chapters X and XI passim. * Le. in the Bhagavadgfta. This may also be taken with piety thus: ‘and learnt about the eternal piety in (its true) form.’ * As to the plural, see Sankara on Musdaka, p. 320. * Cf. Gita, p. 78. For ‘ understanding’ here we might, perhaps, substitute ‘attaining.’ The original word means both understanding and attaining. * Cf. Gid, p. 82. CHAPTER I, 21. 231 that subject, so that adhering to this knowledge, you may attain the highest goal. O best of the supporters of piety! listen to all that I say. (Once), O restrainer of foes! there came from the heavenly world and the world of Brahman', a Brahmana difficult to withstand *, and he was (duly) honoured by us. (Now) listen, without entertaining any misgivings, O chief of the descendants of Bharata! O son of Prrtha! to what he said on being interrogated by us according to heavenly rules *. The Brahmaza said: O Krishza! O destroyer of Madhu! I will explain to you accurately what you, out of compassion for (all) beings ‘*, have asked me touching the duties (to be performed) for final emancipation. It is destructive of delusion, O Lord! Listen to me with attention 5, as I relate it, O MAdhava! A certain Brahmana named KAsyapa, who had performed (much) penance, and who best understood piety, approached a certain twice-born (person) who had learnt the Scriptures relating to (all) duties *, having heard (of him, as one) who had over and over again gone through all knowledge and experience about coming and going ’, who was well versed in the true nature of all worlds °, * This seems to mean not the Supreme Brahman, but the Creator. ® Cf. SanatsugAtiya, p. 161, ‘not to be shaken.’ * I suppose this to mean according to the forms proper in the case of such a being as the one in question. Cf. Git4, p. 62, and note there.
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 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 which the work belongs was one in which the Upanishads were only reverenced as the authoritative opinions of eminent men, not as the words of God himself'. In this respect, it may be said that the Anugit4 seems rather to belong to an earlier stratum of thought than even the Sanatsugatiya, in which a G#anakAnda, as forming a part of the Vedic canon, seems to be recognised?. But it is abundantly clear, that the Anugit4 stands at a very considerable chronological distance from the Bhagavadgita. Such are the results of our investigation. We have not thought it necessary to discuss the verse or the language of the work. But it must in fairness be pointed out, that upon the whole, the verse and language are both pretty near the classical model. There are, it is true, a few instances of the metrical anomalies we have noticed elsewhere, but having regard to the extent of the work, those instances are far from being very numerous. The language and style, too, are not quite smooth and polished; though, judging from them alone, I should rather be inclined to place the Sanatsugattya prior to the Anugita. But that suggests a question which we cannot now stop to discuss. One word, in conclusion, about the translation. The text used has been chiefly that adopted in the commentary of Arguna Misra, a commentary which on the whole I prefer very much to that of Nilakas¢ka, which has been printed in the Bombay edition of the Mahabharata. Arguna Misra, as a rule, affords some explanation where explanation is wanted, and does not endeavour to suit his text to any foregone conclusion. His comments have been of the greatest possible help to me; and my only regret is that the only copy of his commentary which was available to me, and the use of which I owe to the kindness of my friend Professor BhAadarkar, was not as correct a one as could be desired. I have also looked into the Vishamasloki, a short work containing notes on difficult passages of the Mahabharata. * See p. 215 supra. ® See p. 146 supra. The Buddhists seem to have borrowed the division of Karma and GAanakindas. See Dr. Kagendraldla Mitra’s Lalita Vistara ‘trans!.), p. 21. The division, therefore, was probably older than the first century B.C. Q2 228 ANUGITA. The MS. of it belonging to the Government Collection of MSS. deposited in Deccan College was lent me also by Professor Bhandarkar. The principles adopted in the translation and notes have been the same as those followed in the other pieces contained in this volume.
2Q2 228 ANUGITA. The MS. of it belonging to the Government Collection of MSS. deposited in Deccan College was lent me also by Professor Bhandarkar. The principles adopted in the translation and notes have been the same as those followed in the other pieces contained in this volume. P. S. I take this opportunity of stating that it is not at all certain that Arguna Misra is the name of the author of the commentary which I have used. I find that in supposing Arguna Misra to be the author, I confounded that commentary, which does not mention its author’s name, with the commentary on another section of the Mahabharata which does give its author's name as Arguna Misra, and which is also among the MSS. purchased by Professor Bhandarkar for the Government of Bombay. (See with regard to these MSS. Professor Bhaudarkar’s Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. of 7th July, 1880.) ANUGITA. Cuapter I. Ganamegaya' said: What conversation, O twice-born one?! took place between the high-souled Kesava and Arguna, while they dwelt in that palace® after slaying their enemies ? Vaisamp4yana said : The son of Prétha, after becoming possessed of his kingdom (in an) undisturbed (state), enjoyed himself in the company of Kvrshaa, full of delight in that heavenly palace. And once, O king! they happened to go, surrounded by their people, and rejoicing, to a certain portion of the palace which resembled heaven. Then Arguna, the son of Pazdu, having surveyed with delight that lovely palace, in the company of Krishna, spoke these words: ‘O you of mighty arms! O you whose mother is Devaki‘! when the battle was about to commence, I became aware of your greatness, and that divine ? This is the prince to whom the Mahfbhfrata, as we have it, purports to have been related. * I.e. Vaisampayana, who relates the Mah&bhfrata to Ganamegaya. 5 This appears to have been situated at Indraprastha, and to have been the one built for the Paisdavas by the demon Maya, as related in the Sabh4 Parvan. * This is a rather unusual form of address. 230 anucITA. form of yours'. But that,O Kesava! which through affection (for me) you explained before’, has all disappeared, O tiger-like man! from my degenerate mind. Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics. But (now), O Madhava! you will be going at no distant date to Dvaraka.’ Vaisampdyana said : Thus addressed, that best of speakers, Kr#shaa, possessed of great glory, replied in these words after embracing Arguna. Vasudeva said :
3Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics. But (now), O Madhava! you will be going at no distant date to Dvaraka.’ Vaisampdyana said : Thus addressed, that best of speakers, Kr#shaa, possessed of great glory, replied in these words after embracing Arguna. Vasudeva said : From me, O son of Prttha! you heard a mystery, and learnt about the eternal* (principle), about piety in (its true) form, and about all the everlasting worlds‘, It is excessively disagreeable to me, that you should not have grasped it through want of intelligence. And the recollection (of it) now again is not possible (to me). Really, O son of Pandu! you are devoid of faith and of a bad intellect. And, O Dhanazgaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat* of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power*, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman. But I shall relate an ancient story upon ’ Cf. Bhagavadgita, chapters X and XI passim. * Le. in the Bhagavadgfta. This may also be taken with piety thus: ‘and learnt about the eternal piety in (its true) form.’ * As to the plural, see Sankara on Musdaka, p. 320. * Cf. Gita, p. 78. For ‘ understanding’ here we might, perhaps, substitute ‘attaining.’ The original word means both understanding and attaining. * Cf. Gid, p. 82. CHAPTER I, 21. 231 that subject, so that adhering to this knowledge, you may attain the highest goal. O best of the supporters of piety! listen to all that I say. (Once), O restrainer of foes! there came from the heavenly world and the world of Brahman', a Brahmana difficult to withstand *, and he was (duly) honoured by us. (Now) listen, without entertaining any misgivings, O chief of the descendants of Bharata! O son of Prrtha! to what he said on being interrogated by us according to heavenly rules *. The Brahmaza said: O Krishza! O destroyer of Madhu! I will explain to you accurately what you, out of compassion for (all) beings ‘*, have asked me touching the duties (to be performed) for final emancipation. It is destructive of delusion, O Lord! Listen to me with attention 5, as I relate it, O MAdhava! A certain Brahmana named KAsyapa, who had performed (much) penance, and who best understood piety, approached a certain twice-born (person) who had learnt the Scriptures relating to (all) duties *, having heard (of him, as one) who had over and over again gone through all knowledge and experience about coming and going ’, who was well versed in the true nature of all worlds °, * This seems to mean not the Supreme Brahman, but the Creator. ® Cf. SanatsugAtiya, p. 161, ‘not to be shaken.’ * I suppose this to mean according to the forms proper in the case of such a being as the one in question. Cf. Git4, p. 62, and note there.
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.