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.
While, however, I am not prepared to admit the cogency of Mr. Wheeler’s arguments, I am not, on the other hand, to be understood as holding that the Gita must be accepted as a genuine part of the original Mahabharata. I own that my feeling on the subject is something akin to that of the great historian of Greece regarding the Homeric question, a feeling of painful diffidence regarding the soundness of any conclusion whatever. While it is impossible not to feel serious doubts about the critical condition of the Mahabharata generally; while, indeed, we may be almost certain that the work has been tampered with from time to time¹; it is difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding any particular given section of it. And it must be remembered, also, that the alternatives for us to choose from in these cases are not only these two, that the section in question may be a genuine part of the work, or that it may be a later interpolation: but also this, as suggested recently, though not for the first time, by Mr. Freeman² with reference to the Homeric question, that the section may have been in existence at the date of the original epos, and may have been worked by the author of the epos into his own production. For that absence of dread, ‘either of the law or sentiment of copyright, which Mr. Freeman relies upon with regard to a primitive Greek poet, was by no means confined to the Greek people, but may be traced amongst us also. The commentator Madhusûdana Sarasvati likens the Gita to those dialogues which occur in sundry Vedic works, particularly the Upanishads*. Possibly—I will not use a stronger word—possibly the Gita may have existed as such a dialogue before the Mahabharata, and may have been appropriated by the author of the Mahabharata to his own purposes⁴. But yet, upon the whole, having regard to the fact that those ideas of unity on which Mr. Wheeler and others set so much store are scarcely appropriate to our old literature ; to the fact that the Gita fits pretty well into the setting given to it in the Bhishma Parvan; to the fact that the feeling of Arğuna, which gives occasion to it, is not at all inconsistent, but is most consonant, with poetical justice; to the fact that there is not in the Gita, in my judgment, any trace of a sectarian or ‘Brahmanizing’ spirit*, such as Mr. Wheeler and also the late Professor Goldstiicker* hold to have animated the arrangers of the Mahabharata ; having regard, I say, to all these facts, I am prepared to adhere, I will not say without diffidence, to the theory of the genuineness of the Bhagavadgita as a portion of the original Mahabharata.
1 Infra, p. 21 seq.
2 Compare the late Professor Goldstiicker’s remarks in the Westminster Review for April 1868, p. 389. 3 Contemporary Review (February 1879).
4 Madhusûdana mentions the dialogue between Ganaka and Yâgñavalkya as a specific parallel.
While I am not prepared to accept Mr. Wheeler's arguments as conclusive, I should not be taken to hold that the Gita must be accepted as a genuine part of the original Mahabharata. I confess that my feeling on the subject is something close to that of the great historian of Greece regarding the Homeric question: a painful diffidence about the soundness of any conclusion whatever. It is impossible not to feel serious doubts about the critical condition of the Mahabharata generally; indeed, we may be almost certain that the work has been tampered with from time to time¹; yet it is difficult to reach any satisfying conclusion about any particular section of it. It must also be remembered that, in such cases, the alternatives before us are not simply two — that the section in question is either a genuine part of the work or a later interpolation — but include a third possibility, suggested recently, though not for the first time, by Mr. Freeman² in connection with the Homeric question: that the section may have existed at the time of the original epos and been worked by its author into his own production. For that absence of dread, whether of the law or the sentiment of copyright, which Mr. Freeman relies upon with regard to a primitive Greek poet, was by no means peculiar to the Greek people, but may be traced amongst us as well. The commentator Madhusûdana Sarasvati likens the Gita to those dialogues found in various Vedic works, particularly the Upanishads*. Possibly — I will not put it more strongly than that — possibly the Gita existed as such a dialogue before the Mahabharata and was appropriated by the author of the Mahabharata for his own purposes⁴. Yet, on the whole, taking into account that the ideas of unity on which Mr. Wheeler and others set such store are scarcely appropriate to our old literature; that the Gita fits pretty well into the setting given to it in the Bhishma Parvan; that the feeling of Arjuna, which occasions it, is not at all inconsistent but is most consonant with poetical justice; that there is in the Gita, in my judgment, no trace of a sectarian or 'Brahmanizing' spirit* of the kind Mr. Wheeler and the late Professor Goldstiicker* hold to have animated the arrangers of the Mahabharata — taking all these facts into account, I say, I am prepared to adhere, not without diffidence, to the theory that the Bhagavadgita is genuine as a portion of the original Mahabharata.
1 Infra, p. 21 seq.
2 Compare the late Professor Goldstiicker's remarks in the Westminster Review for April 1868, p. 389. 3 Contemporary Review (February 1879).
4 Madhusûdana cites the dialogue between Janaka and Yâjñavalkya as a specific parallel.