Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1INTRODUCTION. 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 passages to which I have given references in brackets will show, that Professor Max Miiller’s words might all be used with strict accuracy regarding the essential teaching ef the Bhagavadgitéa. We have here, therefore, another strong circumstance in favour of grouping the Gita with the Upanishads. One more point is worthy of note. Wherever the Gita refers to the Vedas in the somewhat disparaging manner I have noted, no distinction is taken between the portion which relates to the ritual and the portion which relates to that higher science, viz. the science of the soul, which Sanatkumdra speaks of in his famous dialogue with Narada*. At Gita, chapter II, stanza 45, Arguna is told that the Vedas relate only to the effects of the three qualities, which effects Arguna is instructed to overcome. At Gitd, chapter VI, stanza 44, Arguna is told that he who has acquired some little devotion, and then exerts himself for further progress, rises above the Divine word—the Vedas. And there are also one or two other passages of the like nature. They all treat the Vedas as concemed with ritual alone. They make no reference to any portion of the Vedas dealing with the higher knowledge. If the word Ved4nta, at Gita, chapter XV, stanza 15 (p. 113), signifies, as it seems to signify, this latter portion of the Vedas, then that is the only allusion to it. But, from all the passages in the Gita which refer to the Vedas, I am inclined to draw the inference, that the Upanishads of the Vedas were composed at a time not far removed from the time of the composition of the Gita, and that at that period the Upanishads had not yet risen to the position of ' WIN, 21-23; IX, 23-24. 3 VIII, 14-16; IX, 29-33. * See A bandogya-uapanishad, p. 473, or rather I ought to have referred to the Mendaka-epanishad, where the superiority and inferiority is more distinctly stated> in words, pp. 266, 267. (8) Cc 18 BHAGAVADGITA, high importance which they afterwards commanded. In the passage referred to at chapter XV, the word Vedantas probably signifies the Aranyakas, which may be regarded as marking the beginning of the epoch, which the composition of the Upanishads brought to its close. And it is to the close of this epoch, that I would assign the birth of the Gita, which is probably one of the youngest members of the group to which it belongs.
2And it is to the close of this epoch, that I would assign the birth of the Gita, which is probably one of the youngest members of the group to which it belongs. It appears to me, that this conclusion is corroborated by the fact that a few stanzas in the Gita are identical with some stanzas in some of the Upanishads. With regard to the epic age of Greece, Mr. E. A. Freeman has said that, in carrying ourselves back to that age, ‘we must cast aside all the notions with which we are familiar in our own age about property legal or moral in literary compositions. It is plain that there were phrases, epithets, whole lines, which were the common property of the whole epic school of poetry'.’ It appears to me that we must accept this proposition as equally applicable to the early days of Sanskrit literature, having regard to the common passages which we mect with in sundry of the Vedic works, and also sometimes, I believe, in the different Puravas. If this view is correct, then the fact that the Gita contains some stanzas in the very words which we meet with in some of the Upanishads, indicates, to my mind, that the conclusion already drawn from other data about the position of the Gita with regard to the Upanishads, is not by any mcans unwarranted, but one to which the facts before us rather seem to point. And here we may proceed to draw attention to another fact connected with the relation of the Gita to the Vedas. In stanza 17 of the ninth chapter of the Gita, only A7é, Saman, and Yagus are mentioned. The Atharva-veda is not referred to at all. This omission does certainly seem a very noteworthy one. For it is in a passage where the Supreme Being is identifying himself with everything, and where, therefore, the fourth Veda might fairly be expected * Contemporary Review, February 1879. INTRODUCTION. 19
3This omission does certainly seem a very noteworthy one. For it is in a passage where the Supreme Being is identifying himself with everything, and where, therefore, the fourth Veda might fairly be expected * Contemporary Review, February 1879. INTRODUCTION. 19 to be mentioned. I may add that in commenting on SankarakArya's remarks on this passage, Anandagiri (and Madhusddana Sarasvati also) seems evidently to have been conscious of the possible force of this omission of the Atharva-veda. He accordingly says that by force of the word ‘and’ in the verse in question, the Atharvdfgirasas, or Atharva-veda, must also be included. Are we at liberty to infer from this, that the Atharva-veda did not exist in the days when the Gita was composed? The explanation ordinarily given for the omission of that Veda, where such omission occurs, namely, that it is not of any use in ordinary sacrificial matters, is one which can scarcely have any force in the present instance; though it is adequate, perhaps, to explain the words ‘those who know the three branches of knowledge,’ which occur only a few lines after the verse pow under consideration. The commentators render no further help than has been already stated. Upon the whole, however, while I am not yet quite prepared to say, that the priority of the Gita, even to the recognition of the Atharva-veda as a real Veda, may be fairly inferred from the passage in question, I think that the passage is noteworthy as pointing in that direction. But further data in explanation of the omission referred to must be awaited. If the conclusions here indicated about the relative positions of the Gita and certain Vedic works are correct, we can fairly take the second century B.C. as a terminus before which the Gita must have been composed. For the Upanishads are mentioned in the Mahabhdshya of Patafgali, which we are probably safe in assigning to the middle of that century. The epoch of the older Upanishads, therefore, to which reference has been so frequently made here, may well be placed at some period prior to the beginning of the second century B.c. The Atharva-veda is likewise mentioned by Patafgali', and as ‘ ninefold,’ too, be it remembered; so that if we are entitled to draw the conclusion which has been mentioned above from chapter IX, stanza 17, we come to the same period for the date of the Gita. * See also Sutta Nipfta, p. 115. C2 20 BHAGAVADGITA.
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.
1INTRODUCTION. 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 passages to which I have given references in brackets will show, that Professor Max Miiller’s words might all be used with strict accuracy regarding the essential teaching ef the Bhagavadgitéa. We have here, therefore, another strong circumstance in favour of grouping the Gita with the Upanishads. One more point is worthy of note. Wherever the Gita refers to the Vedas in the somewhat disparaging manner I have noted, no distinction is taken between the portion which relates to the ritual and the portion which relates to that higher science, viz. the science of the soul, which Sanatkumdra speaks of in his famous dialogue with Narada*. At Gita, chapter II, stanza 45, Arguna is told that the Vedas relate only to the effects of the three qualities, which effects Arguna is instructed to overcome. At Gitd, chapter VI, stanza 44, Arguna is told that he who has acquired some little devotion, and then exerts himself for further progress, rises above the Divine word—the Vedas. And there are also one or two other passages of the like nature. They all treat the Vedas as concemed with ritual alone. They make no reference to any portion of the Vedas dealing with the higher knowledge. If the word Ved4nta, at Gita, chapter XV, stanza 15 (p. 113), signifies, as it seems to signify, this latter portion of the Vedas, then that is the only allusion to it. But, from all the passages in the Gita which refer to the Vedas, I am inclined to draw the inference, that the Upanishads of the Vedas were composed at a time not far removed from the time of the composition of the Gita, and that at that period the Upanishads had not yet risen to the position of ' WIN, 21-23; IX, 23-24. 3 VIII, 14-16; IX, 29-33. * See A bandogya-uapanishad, p. 473, or rather I ought to have referred to the Mendaka-epanishad, where the superiority and inferiority is more distinctly stated> in words, pp. 266, 267. (8) Cc 18 BHAGAVADGITA, high importance which they afterwards commanded. In the passage referred to at chapter XV, the word Vedantas probably signifies the Aranyakas, which may be regarded as marking the beginning of the epoch, which the composition of the Upanishads brought to its close. And it is to the close of this epoch, that I would assign the birth of the Gita, which is probably one of the youngest members of the group to which it belongs.
2And it is to the close of this epoch, that I would assign the birth of the Gita, which is probably one of the youngest members of the group to which it belongs. It appears to me, that this conclusion is corroborated by the fact that a few stanzas in the Gita are identical with some stanzas in some of the Upanishads. With regard to the epic age of Greece, Mr. E. A. Freeman has said that, in carrying ourselves back to that age, ‘we must cast aside all the notions with which we are familiar in our own age about property legal or moral in literary compositions. It is plain that there were phrases, epithets, whole lines, which were the common property of the whole epic school of poetry'.’ It appears to me that we must accept this proposition as equally applicable to the early days of Sanskrit literature, having regard to the common passages which we mect with in sundry of the Vedic works, and also sometimes, I believe, in the different Puravas. If this view is correct, then the fact that the Gita contains some stanzas in the very words which we meet with in some of the Upanishads, indicates, to my mind, that the conclusion already drawn from other data about the position of the Gita with regard to the Upanishads, is not by any mcans unwarranted, but one to which the facts before us rather seem to point. And here we may proceed to draw attention to another fact connected with the relation of the Gita to the Vedas. In stanza 17 of the ninth chapter of the Gita, only A7é, Saman, and Yagus are mentioned. The Atharva-veda is not referred to at all. This omission does certainly seem a very noteworthy one. For it is in a passage where the Supreme Being is identifying himself with everything, and where, therefore, the fourth Veda might fairly be expected * Contemporary Review, February 1879. INTRODUCTION. 19
3This omission does certainly seem a very noteworthy one. For it is in a passage where the Supreme Being is identifying himself with everything, and where, therefore, the fourth Veda might fairly be expected * Contemporary Review, February 1879. INTRODUCTION. 19 to be mentioned. I may add that in commenting on SankarakArya's remarks on this passage, Anandagiri (and Madhusddana Sarasvati also) seems evidently to have been conscious of the possible force of this omission of the Atharva-veda. He accordingly says that by force of the word ‘and’ in the verse in question, the Atharvdfgirasas, or Atharva-veda, must also be included. Are we at liberty to infer from this, that the Atharva-veda did not exist in the days when the Gita was composed? The explanation ordinarily given for the omission of that Veda, where such omission occurs, namely, that it is not of any use in ordinary sacrificial matters, is one which can scarcely have any force in the present instance; though it is adequate, perhaps, to explain the words ‘those who know the three branches of knowledge,’ which occur only a few lines after the verse pow under consideration. The commentators render no further help than has been already stated. Upon the whole, however, while I am not yet quite prepared to say, that the priority of the Gita, even to the recognition of the Atharva-veda as a real Veda, may be fairly inferred from the passage in question, I think that the passage is noteworthy as pointing in that direction. But further data in explanation of the omission referred to must be awaited. If the conclusions here indicated about the relative positions of the Gita and certain Vedic works are correct, we can fairly take the second century B.C. as a terminus before which the Gita must have been composed. For the Upanishads are mentioned in the Mahabhdshya of Patafgali, which we are probably safe in assigning to the middle of that century. The epoch of the older Upanishads, therefore, to which reference has been so frequently made here, may well be placed at some period prior to the beginning of the second century B.c. The Atharva-veda is likewise mentioned by Patafgali', and as ‘ ninefold,’ too, be it remembered; so that if we are entitled to draw the conclusion which has been mentioned above from chapter IX, stanza 17, we come to the same period for the date of the Gita. * See also Sutta Nipfta, p. 115. C2 20 BHAGAVADGITA.
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.