Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* See also Sutta Nipfta, p. 115. C2 20 BHAGAVADGITA. Another point to note in this connexion is the reference to the SAma-veda as the best of the Vedas (see p. 88). That is a fact which seems to be capable of yielding some chronological information. For the estimation in which that Veda has been held appears to have varied at different times. Thus, in the Aitareya-brahmana!, the glory of the SAman is declared to be higher than that of the Rsk. In the KAandogya-upanishad * the Saman is said to be the essence of the Xk, which Sankara interprets by saying that the Saman is more weighty. In the Prasna-upanishad °, too, the implication of the passage V, 5 (in which the Saman is stated as the guide to the Brahmaloka, while the Yagus is said to guide to the lunar world, and the Az& to the human world) is to the same effect. And we may also mention as on the same side the Nrisimha TApini-upanishad and the Vedic passage cited in the commentary of Sankara on the closing sentence of the first khavda of that Upanishad*. On the other side, we have the statement in Manu that the sound of the SAma-veda is unholy ; and the consequent direction that where the sound of it is heard, the Atk and Yagus should not be recited*®. We have also the passages from some of the Purazas noted by Dr. Muir in his excellent work, Original Sanskrit Texts, which point in the same direction®. And we have further the direction in the Apastamba Dharma-sitra, that the Saman hymns should not be recited where the other Vedas are being recited’, as well as the grouping of the sound of the Saman with various classes of objectionable and unholy noises, such as those of dogs and asses. It is pretty evident that the view of Apastamba is based on the same theory as that of Manu. Now in looking at the two classes of authoritics thus marshalled, it is plain that the Gita ranges itself with those which are unquestionably the more ancient. * Hauy’s edition, p. 68. ® Bibl. Ind. ed., p. 12. ® Bibl. Ind. ed., p. 221 seq. * Bibl. Ind. ed., p. 11. 5 Chapter IV, stanzas 123, 124. * Vol. iii (and ed.., p. rt seq. Cf. Guldstucker’s Kemains, I, 4, 28, 266; I, 67. , Apastambea Ihuhler's ed. I, 3,17, 18 ‘pp. 38, 39 in this series’; sce further on this point Mr. Bumell’s Devatadhyaya-brahmasa, Introd., pp. viii, ix, and notes. INTRODUCTION. 21 And among the less ancient works, prior to which we may place the Gita on account of the facts now under consideration, are Manu and Apastamba. Now Manu’s date is not ascertained, though, I believe, he is now generally considered to belong to about the second or third century B.c.' But Dr. Buhler, in the Preface to his Apastamba in the present series, has adduced good reasons for holding that Apastamba is prior to the third century B.C.3, and we therefore obtain that as a point of time prior to which the Gita must have been composed.
2Buhler, in the Preface to his Apastamba in the present series, has adduced good reasons for holding that Apastamba is prior to the third century B.C.3, and we therefore obtain that as a point of time prior to which the Gita must have been composed. The next important item of internal evidence which we have to note, is the view taken of caste in the Bhagavadgita. Here, again, a comparison of the doctrine of the Gita with the conception of caste in Manu and Apastamba is interesting and instructive. The view of Manu has been already contrasted by me with the Gita in another place *. I do not propose to dwell on that point here, as the date of Manu is far from being satisfactorily ascertained. I prefer now to take up Apastamba only, whose date, as just now stated, is fairly well fixed by Dr. Buhler. The division of castes, then, is twice referred to in the Bhagavadgita. In the first passage (p. 59) it is stated that the division rests va differences of qualities and duties; in the second (pp. 126, 127) the various duties are distinctly stated according to the differences of qualities. Now in the first place, noting as we pass along, that there is nothing in the Gita to indicate whether caste was hereditary, according to its view, whereas Apastamba distinctly states it to be such, let us compare the second passage of the Gita with the Satras of Apastamba bearing on the point. The view enunciated in the Git4 appears to me plainly to belong to an earlier age— to an age of considerably less advancement in social and religious development. In the Git, for instance, the duties of a Brahmawa are said to be tranquillity, self-restraint, and ' Professor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 127) considers the ‘main features’ of Manu to be ‘ pre-Buddhistic.’ > P. axxv. * See the Introductory Essay to my Bhagavadgitd in English verse, published ws 1875, p. cari. 22 BHAGAVADGITA.
3127) considers the ‘main features’ of Manu to be ‘ pre-Buddhistic.’ > P. axxv. * See the Introductory Essay to my Bhagavadgitd in English verse, published ws 1875, p. cari. 22 BHAGAVADGITA. so forth. In Apastamba, they are the famous six dutics, namely, study, imparting instruction, sacrificing, officiating at others’ sacrifices, making gifts, and receiving gifts; and three others, namely, inheritance, occupancy, and gleaning ears of corn, which, it may be remarked en passant, are not stated in Manu. The former scem to my mind to point to the age when the qualities which in early times gave the Brahmaaas their pre-eminence in Hindu society were still a living reality’. It will be noted, too, that there is nothing in that list of duties which has any necessary or natural connexion with any privilege as belonging to the caste. The Law lays down these duties, in the true sense of the word. In Apastamba, on the contrary, we sce an advance towards the later view on both points. You have no reference to moral and religious qualities now. You have to do with ceremonies and acts. You have under the head ‘duties’ not mere obligations, but rights. For the duty of receiving gifts is a right, and so is the duty of teaching others and officiating at others’ sacrifices; as we know not merely from the subsequent course of events, but also from a comparison of the duties of Brahmavas on the one hand, and Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sddras on the other, as laid down by Manu and Apastamba themselves. Apastamba’s rules, therefore, appear to belong to the time when the Brahmanas had long been an established power, and were assuming to themselves those valuable privileges which they have always claimed in later times. The rules of the Gita, on the other hand, point to a time considerably prior to this—to a time when the Brahmaaas were by their moral and intellectual qualities laying the foundation of that preeminence in Hindu society which afterwards enabled them to lord it over all castes. These observations mutatis mutandis apply to the rules regarding the other castes also. Here again, while the Gita still insists on the inner qualities, which properly constitute the military profession, for instance, the rules of Apastamba indicate the powerful * The remarks in the text will show bow little there is in the Git of that ‘ Brahmanizing * which bas been shortly noticed on a previous page. INTRODUCTION. 23
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.
1* See also Sutta Nipfta, p. 115. C2 20 BHAGAVADGITA. Another point to note in this connexion is the reference to the SAma-veda as the best of the Vedas (see p. 88). That is a fact which seems to be capable of yielding some chronological information. For the estimation in which that Veda has been held appears to have varied at different times. Thus, in the Aitareya-brahmana!, the glory of the SAman is declared to be higher than that of the Rsk. In the KAandogya-upanishad * the Saman is said to be the essence of the Xk, which Sankara interprets by saying that the Saman is more weighty. In the Prasna-upanishad °, too, the implication of the passage V, 5 (in which the Saman is stated as the guide to the Brahmaloka, while the Yagus is said to guide to the lunar world, and the Az& to the human world) is to the same effect. And we may also mention as on the same side the Nrisimha TApini-upanishad and the Vedic passage cited in the commentary of Sankara on the closing sentence of the first khavda of that Upanishad*. On the other side, we have the statement in Manu that the sound of the SAma-veda is unholy ; and the consequent direction that where the sound of it is heard, the Atk and Yagus should not be recited*®. We have also the passages from some of the Purazas noted by Dr. Muir in his excellent work, Original Sanskrit Texts, which point in the same direction®. And we have further the direction in the Apastamba Dharma-sitra, that the Saman hymns should not be recited where the other Vedas are being recited’, as well as the grouping of the sound of the Saman with various classes of objectionable and unholy noises, such as those of dogs and asses. It is pretty evident that the view of Apastamba is based on the same theory as that of Manu. Now in looking at the two classes of authoritics thus marshalled, it is plain that the Gita ranges itself with those which are unquestionably the more ancient. * Hauy’s edition, p. 68. ® Bibl. Ind. ed., p. 12. ® Bibl. Ind. ed., p. 221 seq. * Bibl. Ind. ed., p. 11. 5 Chapter IV, stanzas 123, 124. * Vol. iii (and ed.., p. rt seq. Cf. Guldstucker’s Kemains, I, 4, 28, 266; I, 67. , Apastambea Ihuhler's ed. I, 3,17, 18 ‘pp. 38, 39 in this series’; sce further on this point Mr. Bumell’s Devatadhyaya-brahmasa, Introd., pp. viii, ix, and notes. INTRODUCTION. 21 And among the less ancient works, prior to which we may place the Gita on account of the facts now under consideration, are Manu and Apastamba. Now Manu’s date is not ascertained, though, I believe, he is now generally considered to belong to about the second or third century B.c.' But Dr. Buhler, in the Preface to his Apastamba in the present series, has adduced good reasons for holding that Apastamba is prior to the third century B.C.3, and we therefore obtain that as a point of time prior to which the Gita must have been composed.
2Buhler, in the Preface to his Apastamba in the present series, has adduced good reasons for holding that Apastamba is prior to the third century B.C.3, and we therefore obtain that as a point of time prior to which the Gita must have been composed. The next important item of internal evidence which we have to note, is the view taken of caste in the Bhagavadgita. Here, again, a comparison of the doctrine of the Gita with the conception of caste in Manu and Apastamba is interesting and instructive. The view of Manu has been already contrasted by me with the Gita in another place *. I do not propose to dwell on that point here, as the date of Manu is far from being satisfactorily ascertained. I prefer now to take up Apastamba only, whose date, as just now stated, is fairly well fixed by Dr. Buhler. The division of castes, then, is twice referred to in the Bhagavadgita. In the first passage (p. 59) it is stated that the division rests va differences of qualities and duties; in the second (pp. 126, 127) the various duties are distinctly stated according to the differences of qualities. Now in the first place, noting as we pass along, that there is nothing in the Gita to indicate whether caste was hereditary, according to its view, whereas Apastamba distinctly states it to be such, let us compare the second passage of the Gita with the Satras of Apastamba bearing on the point. The view enunciated in the Git4 appears to me plainly to belong to an earlier age— to an age of considerably less advancement in social and religious development. In the Git, for instance, the duties of a Brahmawa are said to be tranquillity, self-restraint, and ' Professor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 127) considers the ‘main features’ of Manu to be ‘ pre-Buddhistic.’ > P. axxv. * See the Introductory Essay to my Bhagavadgitd in English verse, published ws 1875, p. cari. 22 BHAGAVADGITA.
3127) considers the ‘main features’ of Manu to be ‘ pre-Buddhistic.’ > P. axxv. * See the Introductory Essay to my Bhagavadgitd in English verse, published ws 1875, p. cari. 22 BHAGAVADGITA. so forth. In Apastamba, they are the famous six dutics, namely, study, imparting instruction, sacrificing, officiating at others’ sacrifices, making gifts, and receiving gifts; and three others, namely, inheritance, occupancy, and gleaning ears of corn, which, it may be remarked en passant, are not stated in Manu. The former scem to my mind to point to the age when the qualities which in early times gave the Brahmaaas their pre-eminence in Hindu society were still a living reality’. It will be noted, too, that there is nothing in that list of duties which has any necessary or natural connexion with any privilege as belonging to the caste. The Law lays down these duties, in the true sense of the word. In Apastamba, on the contrary, we sce an advance towards the later view on both points. You have no reference to moral and religious qualities now. You have to do with ceremonies and acts. You have under the head ‘duties’ not mere obligations, but rights. For the duty of receiving gifts is a right, and so is the duty of teaching others and officiating at others’ sacrifices; as we know not merely from the subsequent course of events, but also from a comparison of the duties of Brahmavas on the one hand, and Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sddras on the other, as laid down by Manu and Apastamba themselves. Apastamba’s rules, therefore, appear to belong to the time when the Brahmanas had long been an established power, and were assuming to themselves those valuable privileges which they have always claimed in later times. The rules of the Gita, on the other hand, point to a time considerably prior to this—to a time when the Brahmaaas were by their moral and intellectual qualities laying the foundation of that preeminence in Hindu society which afterwards enabled them to lord it over all castes. These observations mutatis mutandis apply to the rules regarding the other castes also. Here again, while the Gita still insists on the inner qualities, which properly constitute the military profession, for instance, the rules of Apastamba indicate the powerful * The remarks in the text will show bow little there is in the Git of that ‘ Brahmanizing * which bas been shortly noticed on a previous page. INTRODUCTION. 23
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.