________________
INTRODUCTION.
227
which the work belongs was one in which the Upanishads were only reverenced as the authoritative opinions of cminent men, aot as the words of God himself'. In this respect, it may be said that the Anugita seems rather to belong to an carlier stratum of thought than even the Sanatsugatiya, in which a Głanakanda, as forming a part of the Vedic canon, seems to be recognised. But it is abundantly clear, that the Anugità stands at a very considerable chronological distance from the Bhagavadgita.
Such are the results of our investigation. We have not thought it necessary to discuss the verse or the language of the work. But it must in fairness be pointed out, that upon the whole, the verse and language are both pretty near the classical model. There are, it is true, a few instances of the metrical anomalies we have noticed elsewhere, but having regard to the extent of the work, those instances are far from being very numerous. The language and style, too, are not quite smooth and polished ; though, judging from them alone, I should rather be inclined to place the Sanatsugattya prior to the Anugita. But that suggests a question which we cannot now stop to discuss.
One word, in conclusion, about the translation. The text used has been chicily that adopted in the commentary of Arguna Misra, a commentary which on the whole I prefer very much to that of Nilakantha, which has been printed in the Bombay edition of the Mahabharata. Arguna Misra, as a rule, affords some explanation where explanation is wanted, and does not endeavour to suit his text to any fore. gone conclusion. His comments have been of the greatest possible help to me; and my only regret is that the only copy of his commentary which was available to me, and the use of which I owe to the kindness of my friend Professor Bhandarkar, was not as correct a one as could be desired. I have also looked into the Vishamasloki, a short work containing notes on difficult passages of the Mahabharata.
See p. 211 sapr.
See p. 146 sapn. The Buddhists seem to have borrowed the division of Karma and GAinakindus. See Dr. Kageodnalala Mitn's Lalita Vistana transl.), p. 21. The division, therefore, was probably older than the first centary C.
Q2
Digitized by Google
