Bhagwad Gita Vivechanatmak Shabdakosh

SR No.: 020166
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Prahlad C Divanji
Publisher: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd
Publication Year: 1993
Total Pages: 411
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Dictionary
File Size: 12 MB

Page 28

Critical Word-Index to the Bhagavadgită
looked upon as having a special independent importance from a time prior to Sankara as is evident from his comments on III. 1-2 etc., dateable concrete evidence of two separate traditions, one current in the whole of India except Käsmir and the other current in the latter only from about the middle of the 8th century to about the end of the 17th, as shown by the date of the MS. on which Dr. Belvalkar's edition of Anandavardhana's Commentary is based. There is, therefore, no reason why the text as commented upon by the Pandits of Kasmir headed by Siddha Vasugupta should not be designated as the special recension of that province. Another great distinguishing feature of the Gitâ recensions is that none of them has any sub-recensions and, therefore, there is no possibility of there being any conflated sub-groups of any of them like those of the Mahabharata. That being so, both are available in their original purity.
Nor is there anything in the etymology of the two terms which would militate against the application of the term recension thereout to the type of the work coming from that northernmost province of India. For, whereas the term version, derived from verto, to turn, means "a change or translation of a work from one language into another or from one script into another, which may be of the same or a different province", and the term recension, derived from recenseo, I review or examine, means "a fresh reckoning or re-consideration of a work" and therefore whereas the term version can be used with reference to even a translation or a transcript into another language, regardless of the fact whether or not variae lectionis have or have not crept into it, the term recension must be used with reference to a work, which, whether translated or transcribed or not, bears evident signs of having been subjected to a review or an examination and consequently contains emendations made with a view to correct some supposed errors or grammatical irregularities &c., or to supply some missing links, or contains conscious additions made with a view to heighten the effect of a statement or a series of statements with reference to a particular topic contained in the original text. The text of the Gitä as contained in the MSS. coming from the province of Kāśmir, whether with or without a commentary, during a long period of several centuries, is distinguishable by both the said features. Therefore Dr. Schrader cannot be accused of having use made of unscientific terminology when in 1930 he published under the caption Kasmir Recension of the Bhagavadgită his booklet based on a comparative study of the contents of the Vulgate and the text as found in the Kasmir MSS., available to him. It appears from his admissions in the Introduction to the edition of the text with the Commentary of Anandavardhana that even Dr. Belvalkar has now ceased to consider that nomenclature objectionable.