Indian Antiquary Vol 59

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

Page 89

MAY, 1530 )
SOME REMARKS ON THE BP SZAVAROITA
SOME REMARKS ON THE BHAGAVADGITA. BY PROF. JARL CHARPENTIER, PH.D., UPSALA.
(Continued from page 50.) Unfortunately these more or less authoritative passages had slipped out of my mind when about a year ago I came to occupy myself somewhat more seriously with the Gītā in order to give a series of lectures on that text. However, after having formed my own opinions on certain important points in connection with the exterior constitution of the text, I found, with very great pleasure, that my own suggestions did at least partly concur with those of far more prominent scholars. Also to me it seems quite obvious that the verses following upon ü, 38, can in no wise have belonged to the original epic text. As, however, I cannot find with Professors Schrader and Oldenberg that the whole of ii, 1--38—with two or three possible exceptions-belongs to the old text nor feel quite convinced of the correctness of Professor Jacobi's view, I shall here give those parts of canto ii which to me undoubt. edly seem to be old and original.32
Canto ü. tam tathā krpayāvistam abrupūrņākulekranam vişidantam idam väkyam uvāca Madhusūdana) || 1 ||
Sri-Bhagavan uvāca | katas tvā kašmalam idam visame samupa sthitam anaryajustam asvargyam akirttikaram Arjuna 2 11 klaibyam mā sma gamah Partha naitat trayy u pa pad yate keudram hrdayadaurbalyam tya ktvotti tha paramtapa || 3 |
Arjuna uvāca | katham Bhinmam aham samkhye Dronam ca Madhusūdana 1 isubhih pratiyotsyāmi pājārhāv arisūdana | 4 || gurūn ahatva hi mahanubhāvāñ chreyo bhoktum bhaiksyam ihaiva loke hatvārthakāmāms tu gurun ihaiva bhunjiya bhogān rudhirapradigdhān |5 || na caitad vidmaḥ kataran no gariyo yad vā jayema yadi vā no jayeyuḥ yān eua hatva na jijivisāmas te vasthitaḥ pramukhe Dhārtarā strāḥ | 6 | kārpanyadovopahatasvabhāvah prcchami tvām dharmasammūdhacetāḥ yac chreyah syān niscitam brühi tan me bisyos te 'ham sādhi mām tvām prapannam || 7 ||
na hi prapaśyāmi mamāpanudyāds 99 As for canto i there is no apparent reason for rejecting any verses; they may well be old and original all of them, though there is, of course, no abeolute certainty that such is the case. Verse 10 : aparyapeam tad camākam balam Bhiamäbhiraksitam paryåplam tu idam etapām balam Bhimäbh irakpitam| is a crux interpretationis. That Duryodhana Rhould be made to say: 'Impar certamini est hic noster exercitus,' etc. (Schlogel) is apparently nonsensical. Either aparyāpta must mean something like 'not tightly closed (ep. the 180 of paryüpto- in MBh., xv, 186) which would tally well with the exhortation in v. 11; or the text has been tempered with. Originally it may have run like this: aparyaptan tad asmäkam balam Bhipman virakpitum (ep. the exhortation to protect Bhigma in v. 11); and the not very common vi-rakswas ousted by the more well-known abhi-rako. In v 23 Duryodhana is called by Arjuna durbuddhi. This does not mean sceleratu (Schlegel), 'perverse (Hill) or something like that. The native commentaries have the correct explanation (cp., e.g., Madhusudana : durbuddheh sarakpanopayam ajanatah); it means * unwise, stupid,' op. alpabuddhi in xvi, 9. With v. 47 rathopaatha wpavilat, cp. Moh., iv, 41, 8.
33 On a panudyāt, sp. Professor Rajwado, Bhandarkar Comm. Volume, p. 328.