Indian Antiquary Vol 59

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 134

122
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JULY, 1930
could have alluded here, before we take it for granted that the Brahmasutras really quote the Gītā. However, I am fully prepared to admit that Br. Su., iv, 2, 21, is really a quotation from viii, 23 f., though the argument bo not wholly conclusive, for this passage belongs to what I call the earlier Gītā, and that may certninly be older than the work of Badarāyana. The reference to xv, 7, in the commentaries on Br. Si., ii, 3, 45, is inconclusive as the same idea might easily be drawn from x, 41 f. As for i, 3, 23, Sankara finds that it alludes to xv, 6, 12, while Rāmānuja quotes xiv, 2; and whatever Bädarāyaṇa meant by his api smaryate in this passage it is perfectly obvious that he could not at one time have in mind both these entirely different passages.
Thus I can find it in no way proved that the author of the Brahmasutras did ever quote from the book xiv or xv of the Gītā, and I feel fairly sure he did not. Consequently, I cannot look upon xiii, 4, as an interpolation, and it seems to me fairly obvious that the brahmasutra mentioned means nothing but the one known to us.
To sum up what has been said hitherto : I venture to think that the present text of the Bhagavadgitā does mainly consist of three different parts, viz.
1. Cantos i and ii, 1–11, 31–38, belonging to the original text of the Mahābhārata.
2. Cantos ii, 12---30, 39--72 ; iii, 1-xi, 50, and xviii, 74–78, being what I would call the earlier Gītā. Of this part, the Tristubh verses in xi, 15–50, may probably be an earlier fragment which has been incorporated in the text.
3. Cantos xi, 51–55, and xii, 1-xviii, 73, forming what I would call the later Gītā.
Suggestions like these can, unfortunately, never be proved. To different minds they may possess a greater or lesser degree of verisimilitude.
II. To try and form, with any degree of exactitude, an opinion on the date of the Bhagavadgitā-or rather of its different parts—will probably never be possible. However, a scholar who, like the present one, has tried to set forth his humble opinions on the original form and development of that text, will probably feel bound by duty to add a few suggestions also upon the problem of dates. This is perhaps the only excuse for the few modest remarks that follow below.
The Bhagavadgitā is insolubly joined with the names of Krsna and Arjuna. Whether these two were originally historical persons-which according to my opinion is highly probable-may be left aside here as being fairly irrelevant. However, we must begin with a rapid glance at those passages of the literature that contain some sort of information regarding their history, be it originally real or mythical.
Krsna is said to have been the son of a certain Vasudeva-whence his paternal name Väsudeva74_and Devakî, the cousin of Kamsa. His elder brother was Balarama or Sam. karsana, whose mother was Rohini. Of this Krsna we hear for the first time this is at least
74 Professor Jacobi, ERE., vii, 195, and Festschr. Streitberg, p. 162 f., has tried to prove that Vasudex is the old name of a tribal god from which was derived a namo Vasudeve said to be that of his father. This is contrary to Patañjali on Pån., iv, 1, 114, vārtt. 7, and can certainly not be uphold. That the form subhadra, used in the Saundarananda, i, 23, and in the Dütavikya, v. 6, should be very old, seems at least doubtful; Also that the father's name was originally Anakadundubhi, which sounds uncommonly like a nickname. Finally, an argument of Professor Jacobi's is completely unintelligible to me. It runs as follows: "In the Chånd. Up., iii, 17, 1, where we first hear of Kropa (Krona Devaki putra) only his mother, not his father, is mentioned. Now, if Vasudevs was really & patronymic it ought to be applied first of all to Vasudeva's oldest son Samkarsana. He, however, is never styled thus but only by his maternal name Raubineya (from Rohin)." With all due respect I should like to ask Professor Jacobi : what does this provo except that a tradition was preserved according to which Kraps and Samkar jana were the sons of one father but of differ ont mothers, Devaki and Rohinl? In that case what could be more natural than that they should wooz just those names, vit., Devakiputra and Rauhipoya ?