The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)
The translator’s English as printed (K. T. Telang). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Look again at the views on caste which are embodied in the Anugita and the Bhagavadgita respectively. The reference to the Kshatriya as representing the quality of passion, while the Brahmava represents the quality of goodness’, seems to place a considerably larger distance between the Brâhmaṇa and the Kshatriya than is suggested by the Bhagavadgita, and thus marks an advance in the direction of the later doctrine on the subject. And in connexion “TUR SITs to ae a es NEA with this, perhaps, the discrepancy between the reading of the Bhagavadgita at p. 85, and that of the Anugita at p. 255, 1s not entirely without significance, though much weight would not be due to it, if it stood alone. The expression ‘devoted royal sages,’ which we find in the one work, makes way for ‘well-read Kshatriyas who are intent on their own duties’ in the other. Again, although the pas- Sage at p. 353 is undoubtedly susceptible of a different interpretation, it seems to me, that the word ‘twice-born ’ there employed, was meant to be interpreted as meaning the Brâhmaṇas, and not the three twice-born castes; and if this interpretation is correct, we have here the very proposition upon the absence of which in the Bhagavadgita we have already made some observations*. That twice-born in the passage in question means Brâhmaṇa only, is, of course, not a proved fact. But having regard to the passages noted above and to the passage at P2320; where reference is made to disparagement of Brâhmaṇas— it is not twice-born there—and in the same clause with disparagement of gods and Vedas, it seems to me that the interpretation we have suggested must be taken to be the true one. And it is to be further noted, that this conclusion is corroborated by a comparison of the passage now under consideration with a passage occurring in the Sânti-Parvan in the Ragadharma section of it, where we read that ‘the cow is the first among quadrupeds, gold among metals, a mantra among words, and the Brâhmaṇa is the first among bipeds.’ The cow and gold occur in the passage in the Anugita also, very near the ciause we are now discussing. And it is allowable to argue, that reading the two together, twice-born in the Anugitâ must be interpreted to be synonymous with Brâhmaṇa in the Ragadharma. And the same conclusion is, to my mind, confirmed indirectly by comparing the clause ‘the twice-born among men’ of the Anugita with ‘the ruler of men among men’ of that Bhagavadgita, the teaching of which the former work professes to recapitulate.
* Cf. Lalita Vistara, p. 17. * See pp. 325-365. $-See Gita, p. 126.
* See Bṛihadâraṇyaka, p. 454, and Kaushitaki, p. 68.
5 See Biihler’s Apastamba I, 1, 3, 11, Gautama II, 1 3, and Manu II, 178. $ P. 21 seq. OP 429;
Look again at the views on caste embodied in the Anugita and the Bhagavadgita respectively. The reference to the Kshatriya as representing the quality of passion, while the Brâhmaṇa represents the quality of goodness, seems to place a considerably larger distance between the Brâhmaṇa and the Kshatriya than the Bhagavadgita suggests, and so marks an advance toward the later doctrine on the subject. Connected with this, perhaps, is the discrepancy between the reading of the Bhagavadgita at p. 85 and that of the Anugita at p. 255, which is not entirely without significance, though it would not deserve much weight if it stood alone. The phrase 'devoted royal sages,' found in the one work, gives way to 'well-read Kshatriyas who are intent on their own duties' in the other. Again, although the passage at p. 353 is undoubtedly open to a different interpretation, it seems to me that the word 'twice-born' used there was meant to be understood as meaning the Brâhmaṇas, and not the three twice-born castes; and if this interpretation is correct, we have here the very proposition whose absence from the Bhagavadgita we have already remarked upon*. That twice-born in the passage in question means Brâhmaṇa only is, of course, not a proved fact. But taking into account the passages noted above, and the passage at P2320 — where reference is made to disparagement of Brâhmaṇas, not of the twice-born, in the same clause as disparagement of gods and Vedas — it seems to me that the interpretation suggested must be taken to be the true one. It should further be noted that this conclusion is corroborated by comparing the passage now under consideration with a passage in the Sânti-Parvan, in its Ragadharma section, where we read that 'the cow is the first among quadrupeds, gold among metals, a mantra among words, and the Brâhmaṇa is the first among bipeds.' The cow and gold also occur in the passage in the Anugitâ, very close to the clause now under discussion. It is therefore reasonable to argue that, reading the two together, 'twice-born' in the Anugitâ must be interpreted as synonymous with 'Brâhmaṇa' in the Ragadharma. The same conclusion is, to my mind, further confirmed by comparing the clause 'the twice-born among men' in the Anugitâ with 'the ruler of men among men' in the Bhagavadgita, whose teaching the former work professes to recapitulate.
* Cf. Lalita Vistara, p. 17. * See pp. 325-365. $-See Gita, p. 126.
* See Bṛihadâraṇyaka, p. 454, and Kaushitaki, p. 68.
5 See Bühler's Āpastamba I, 1, 3, 11, Gautama II, 1 3, and Manu II, 178. $ P. 21 seq. OP 429;