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.
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 anomals 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 Sanatsugatiya 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 chfly that adopted in the commentary of Arguna Misra, a commentary which on the whole I prefer very much to that of Nîlakaṇṭha, 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 frnd Professor
Bhaṇḍarkar, was not as correct a one as could be desired. I have also looked into the Vishamaśloki, a short work containing notes on difficult passages of the Mahabharata.
1 See p. 211 supra.
2 See p. 146 supra. The Buddhists seem to have borrowed the division of Karma and Gñânakâṇḍas. See Dr. Ragendralâla Mitra’s Lalita Vistara (transh.), p.21. The division, therefore, was probably older than the first century B, C.
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, on the whole, both the verse and the language keep fairly close to the classical model. There are, it is true, a few instances of the metrical anomalies we have noticed elsewhere, but given the length of the work, those instances are far from numerous. The language and style, too, are not entirely smooth and polished; though, judging from them alone, I should be more inclined to place the Sanatsujâtîya before the Anugita. But that raises a question we cannot stop to discuss here.
One word, in conclusion, about the translation. The text used has been chiefly that adopted in the commentary of Arjuna Misra, a commentary which on the whole I prefer greatly to that of Nîlakaṇṭha, printed in the Bombay edition of the Mahabharata. Arjuna Misra, as a rule, offers explanation where explanation is needed, and does not try to fit his text to any preconceived conclusion. His comments have been of the greatest possible help to me; and my only regret is that the sole copy of his commentary available to me, whose use I owe to the kindness of my friend Professor
Bhaṇḍarkar, was not as accurate as one could wish. I have also consulted the Vishamaśloki, a short work containing notes on difficult passages of the Mahabharata.
1 See p. 211 above.
2 See p. 146 above. The Buddhists appear to have borrowed the division of Karma and Jñānakāṇḍas. See Dr. Râjendralâla Mitra's Lalita Vistara (transl.), p. 21. The division was therefore probably older than the first century B.C.