Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 59
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
________________
JULY, 1930 ]
SOME REMARKS ON THE BHAGAVADGITA
SOME REMARKS ON THE BHAGAVADGITA, By Pror. JARL CHARPENTIER, PH.D., UPSALA.
(Continued from page 105.) There is still another point where there seems to me to exist a marked difference between the earlier and later part of the Gītā. It seems quite obvious that the later cantos in certain passages quote different systematic treatises on philosophy, which is scarcely the case with cantos ii-xi. Thus in xv, 15:
Sarvasya cahaın hrdi samnivieto mattal smytir jiānam a pohanam ca i vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedāntakrd vedavid eva cāham || 15 | We hear about the Vedānta, though it may be doubtful whether by that is meant the Upani. sads or the later Vedānta system. In xv, 20 and in xvi, 24, we hear about a bästra which can scarcely be anything but a yogaśāstra ; and that such is the case seems obvious from a comparison with xvii, 5 a-b:
aśāstravihitam ghoram tapyante ye lapo janah
...... tān viddhy asuraniscayan || For what else could this mean but to denote those who practise austere and terrible penanceas.e.g., the Jaing-for which rules are not laid down in the orthodox yoga-sästras. Then in xviii, 13, we hear of panca karanāni, which are laid down samkhye krtante. This must needs mean'in the Sām khya system '; and though it be quite true that the doctrine laid down here is not found in the existing handbooks of Sāmkhya, this means nothing, seeing that they are all very late. There can be no doubt that an earlier exposition of that system is really meant here. Finally we come upon a crucial point, viz., the mention of the brahmasūtra in xiii, 4:
rsibhir bahudhā gitam chandobhir vividhaih prthak |
brahmasitra pada is caiva hetumadbhir viniscitail |4| It has been emphatically stated by Professor Jacobito that this verse must be an interpolation, and upon his authority the same opinion has been expressed also by other soholars.71 But Professor Jacobi's arguments seem to me scarcely valid. When he finds that the verse xiii, 4, destroys the connection between 3 and 5, this is a suggestion of entirely individual bearing, as I cannot find any sign of such a discontinuation. Stronger is the other objection, viz., that Bādarāyana has in three passages quoted the present Bhagavadgita. It is quite true that the commentaries on i, 3, 23 (api smaryate); ii, 3, 45 (api smaryate), and iv, 2, 21 (yoginah prati ca smaryate smurte caite) expressively point to the Gita, xv, 6, 12 and xiv, 2; xv, 7 and viii, 23 89., as being those passages of the Smrti alluded to by Bädarāyana. Such statements in commentaries much later than the text73 aro, of course, not authoritative by themselves; and it should be distinctly proved that there exist no other passages in the literature regarded by Bädarāyana as Smrti" than even those from the Gitü, to which he
70 Deutsche Lit. Zeit., 1921, 717 f.; 1922, 101 f.
91 Op. Professors Winternitz, Geschichte d. ind. Lit., iii, 429, n. i, and Keith, A History of Sanskrit Lit., p. 475, n. 1, as well as Dr. W. Ruben, Festschrift Jacobi, p. 351. Other, and more sensible, opinions are put forth by Professor Hopkins, The Great Epic, p. 16, and Dr. Raychaudhuri, Early History of the Vaishnava Sect, p. 52.
72 The exact date of the Brahmasutras still remains unknown. It is, of course, far abuve my power to criticise the opinions of Professor Jacobi on the dates of the philosophical Sūtras (JAOS., XXXi, 1 f.). However, they appear to me inconclusive simply because I consider it impossible to date works, the internol history of which is entirely unknown to us, on purely internal grounds. That the Brahimasutras should date from 200-450 A.D. is, of course, possible; but I should venture to think that an earlier date is not excluded by the arguments of Professor Jacobi.
13 "Unter Smrti wird das Mahabharats und insbesondere die Bhagavadgită verstanden. Auch Samkhya und Yoga werden als "Smrtis in Bezug auf die Yoginsbezeichnet." (Winternitz, Gesch. d. ind. Lit., iii, 429 f.). However, it does not seem clear to me whether later and less authoritative works may nou also have been looked upon by the commentators as belonging to Smrti.
