________________
I - THE GITĀ AND THE MAHABHARATA
725
inquire why it may not be said that these references were themselves also interpolated into the Mahābhārata afterwards; and thus their doubt as to whether or not the Gītā was a part of the Mahābhārata still remains. This doubt has its origin in the idea that the Gitā deals only with the knowledge of the Brahman. But, as I have already shown that this idea itself is incorrect, this doubt should, strictly speaking, not remain. Nevertheless, instead of depending solely on this evidence, I shall now show, by reference to other evidence also, that this doubt is unfounded. When there is a doubt whether or not two works were written by one and the same author, literary critics consider two matters in the first place, namely, SIMILARITY OF DICTION and SIMILARITY OF MEANING. Out of these, similarity of diction includes not only the words themselves, but also the composition. Considering the matter from this point of view, one must see to what extent the diction of the Gītā is similar to the diction of the Mahābhārata. But as the Mahābhārata is a very extensive work, the diction in it varies according to the occasion. For instance, if one refers to the description of the fight between Karna and Arjuna in the Karnaparva, it will be seen that the diction in this parva is different from the diction of the other parts of the Mahābhārata. Therefore, it is difficult to definitely say whether or not the language of the Gītā is similar to the language of the Mahābhārata. But if one considers the matter in a general way, then, as Mr. Kashinath Trimbak Telang* says, the language and the metrical arrangement of the Gītā is archaic (ārşa) or ancient. For instance, Kashinathpant has shown that the meanings in which the words 'anta' (Gi. 2. 16), bhāṣā' (Gi. 2. 54), 'Brahma' (=prakrti. Gi. 14. 3), 'Yoga' (=Karma-Yoga), and the consonant 'ha' used for completing the meter (Gi. 2.9) etc. have been used.
* The translation of the Bhagavadgītā made by the late Mr. Kasinath Trimbak Telang, has been published in the Sacred Books of the East Series Vol. VIII, edited by Prof. Max Müller. To this translation, a critical dissertation has been added by him by way of introduction in the English language. The references made to the opinions of the late Mr. Telang in this Appendix are with one exception to this introduction.
