________________
Vol. XXVI, 2003
GĪTĀ AND GANDHIJI
174
To his satisfaction, Dr. Betai has tried to project M.G. as a 'bhāsyakāra', though he has observed that M.G. has variously translated one and the same technical word read in the B.G. and thereby exposing his limitations. Dr. Betai has taken great pains in ch.8 and ch.9 to correlate M.G.'s views with those found in the B.G. As noted above M.G.'s views on Lord Krishna are his personal views that we fail to appreciate. Reference may be made here to Anandavardhana's views (Dhvanyāloka Ch. IV) on the Divine nature of the Lord, who for him is, as Vyāsa suggests, a "sanātanah” i. e. eternal spirit, bereft of physical contacts.
Dr. Betai could have enriched his efforts by adding as an appendix M.G.'s translation of the B.G. He could also have been more attentive in the task of presenting the rich bibliography in alphabetical order with due mention of the edition referred to, the year and place of publication, the publishers, etc. For example we yearned in vein to know who the auther of Amrita-tarangini on the B. G. is, and where and when it is published. In his second edition he could have pressed his publishers for a printing press that could have furnished diacritical marks for sanskrit words read in roman, script, p. 33 has 'krupā”. It should read ‘Kripā.'
But all this never diminishes the merits of his excellent work which makes a smooth reading and which we hail as a great great contribution in Gandhian studies which would have left a missing link but for Dr. Betai's contribution. We congratulate him and the publishers for the present work.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
