Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Significance of Three Errors in the First Chapter of Bhagavadgītā

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recognition of three errors in verses 1.10, 11, and 36 of Bhagavadgītā and the truth behind it is essential to grasp the beginning of the tread of thought developed by Vedavyāsa from the first to the last verse of the entire text spanning over 18 chapters. Generally, only the first error in verse 1.10 has received recognition, but as soon as the error is recognized there was attempt either to interpret the verse violating its syntax and semantics to make its meaning consistent with epic facts or to redraft the verse taking it as an error of a copyist, who has exchanged Bhīṣma with Bhīma and vice versa while copying the original. But, the attempt to remove the errors by interpretation or redrafting makes the interpreters ignore the significance of the errors in development in the argument and the readers become blind to the logic of thought as it is developed in Bhagavadgītā spanning over the entire text of Bhagavadgītā.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cf. Śrīmadbhagavadgĩtā, Vedāntācārya-Śri-Veñkaṭanāthakṛta-Tātparyacandrikākhyaṭīkāsaṃvalita-Śrīmad-Rāmānujācācrya-viracitabhāṣyasahitā, ed. Śankara, M. R., and Āpṭe,V. G., ĀĀS 92 (Bombay 1923), p. 29ff

  2. Śrīdhara, Śrīmad-Bhagavadgĩtā (ed. K. S. Agāśe) Poona (ĀĀS) 1901.

  3. Śriman Mahābhāratam vol. III, with Bhārata-bhava- dīpa by Nilakaṇṭha (Poona 1931), part VI Bhīṣma- parvan, p. 43.

  4. Śrimadbhāgavadgītā, Ānandagiri-kṛtaṭīkāsaṃvalita-Śāñkara-bhāṣya-samavetā, ed. Kāśīnāth/Āpṭe, ĀĀS 34 (Bombay 1936), p. 11–12.

  5. The present author being aware of multiple recensions of Bhagavadgītā was comparing them. During comparison, he became aware of the modification done in the text. But a discussion regarding whether the modification is inadvertent substitution of one word for another by some copyist in supposedly original Śāradā recension, or the modification is deliberate correction of vulgate recension, which is supposedly original for some, to make it correct as per epic facts is beyond the scope of the present essay. The present author has tried to interpret Bhagavadgītā by taking vulgate recension as original with the hypothesis that the error is deliberately put by the author in the mouth of Duryodhana. For the issue of temporal priority of Bhāskara’s commentary to Śāradā recension of Mbh and for the entire controversy surrounding the correct interpretation of Bhagavadgītā 1.10 and its correct text cf. J. A. B. van Buitenen, “Contribution to the Critical Edition of the Bhagavadgītā,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 85, No. 1 (Jan.–Mar., 1965), pp. 99–109.

  6. The exegetical principle followed by the present author in interpretation of Bhagavadgītā is based on sanctity of tradition. Therefore, the present author takes traditional stories surrounding the composition of text seriously even when these are not historically established facts, and even when the traditional story is not an authentic part of the text itself. The present author consciously follows this principle. No text can actually incorporate the hermeneutic principle of its own interpretation, as that would itself require another principle for interpretation. It will be beyond the scope of the present essay to go into details of exegetical principles the present author has followed in interpreting Bhagavadgītā. The correctness of the exegetical principle can be established by the fact of coherence in the text achieved without vivisection of the text (as core/periphery or original/extrapolation, etc.) or modification of the text.

  7. Sukthankar, V.S, et al., eds. The Mahābhārata [hereinafter MBh], 19 vols. Poona: B.O.R.I.,1933-59; 1.57.72-73: cf. 1.1.52 and 1.99.14.

  8. MBh, 1.54.3-5

  9. MBh, 1.57.74; cf.12.327.18.

  10. MBh, 1.1.19

  11. MBh, 1.1.205 and 1.56.17

  12. MBh, 1.1.191

  13. MBh, 1.56.15

  14. MBh, 1.2.235

  15. MBh, 1.2.95-231

  16. In Bhagavadgītā, the knowledge given to Arjuna by Kṛṣṇa is declared by the author to be rājavidyā rājaguhyaṃ, i.e., skill of administration, secrets of administration in IX.2. The secrecy of administrative skill had been emphasised not once, not twice but at least eight times in Bhagavadgītā. The teaching of Bhagavadgītā is described as rahasyam (IV.3), i.e., mystery. It is guhyānām jñānam (X.38), i.e., hidden knowledgeable resolve. It is paramaṃ guhyamadhyātmasamjñitaṃ (XI.1), i.e., the most secret song of adhyātma. Bhagavadgītā itself is guhyatamaṃ śāstraṃ (XV.20), i.e., the most secret instrument of ruling (text). According to Bhagavadgītā (XVIII.63), Arjuna was given guhyād guhyataraṃ jñānaṃ, i.e., knowledgeable resolve more secret than the secret one. The advice of Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna was sarvaguhyatamaṃ (XVIII.64), i.e., the greatest of all secrets, paramaṃ guhyaṃ (XVIII.68), and guhyaṃ param (XVIII.75), i.e., the ultimate secret. It is this mysterious or secret nature of the teaching of Bhagavadgītā and it being rājavidyā (administrative knowhow) and rājaguhyaṃ, i.e., the administrative secret (IX.2), it is related to Upaniṣadas as these texts too imparted knowledgeable resolve, which was rahasyam (mystery) or guhyam (secret). Hence, there arose the need for using language, which is both revealing and concealing. The reasons for concealment are the same as reasons for prevention of this knowledge falling into the wrong hands, which were mentioned in Bhagavadgītā XVIII.67.

  17. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar-Writings and Speeches, Vol 3, p 361.

  18. Plato, Republic, 334a ff.

  19. Two issues are involved in drawing the conclusion that the essence of yuddha is not engagement for killing or getting killed rather the essence of yuddha is saṃgrāma “forceful/rightful settlement.” First issue is the argument for this conclusion. The argument for the conclusion is not based on semantics of words like yuddha, saṃgrāma, etc. rather it is based on philosophical harmonization of apparently incongruous text. The second issue is the statement of the conclusion, which requires semantic distinction between apparently synonymous expressions like yuddha, saṃgrāma, etc. The present author is making this kind of semantic distinctions on the basis of an important hermeneutic principle for interpreting Bhagvadgītā, which is that when the author of Bhagvadgītā uses different expressions for referring to the same phenomenon (yuddha, saṃgrāma, etc.) or the same thing (deha, śarīra, etc.) or when the author is addressing the same man using different expressions (bhārata, kaunteyah, puruṣarṣabha, etc.), then for understanding the verse one has to pay attention to the connotation of the specific expression used in it, and the connotation has to be gleaned out of its yogaja meaning by looking at the root from which the expression is derived. Hence, we cannot simply equate the meanings of expressions like raṇa (BG. I.22, I.46, II.35, and XI.34), saṃgrāma (BG. II.33), Yuddha (and cognate expressions: BG. I.4, I.9, I.23, I.33, II.31, II.32, II.37, II.38, and XVIII.43), āhava (BG. I.31), and saṅkhya (BG. I.47 and II.4) even if all of them refer to war in Bhagavadgītā.

References

  • Agāśe, K. S. (Ed.) Poona (ĀĀS) (1901). Śrīdhara, Śrīmad-Bhagavadgĩtā.

  • Ambedkar, B., published by Education Dept., Govt. of Maharastra, (Bombay) (1979). Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar-Writings and Speeches, Vol 3.

  • Hamilton, E., & Cairns, H., The Princeton University Press (1961). The collected dialogues of Plato: Including the letters (Bollingen Series LXXI), Republic.

  • Kāśīnāth, & Āpṭe (Ed.) ĀĀS 34 (Bombay) (1936). Śrimadbhāgavadgītā, Ānandagiri-kṛtaṭīkāsaṃvalita-Śāñkara-bhāṣya-samavetā.

  • Nilakaṇṭha (Poona) (1931). Śriman Mahābhāratam vol. III, with Bhārata-bhava- dīpa, part VI Bhīṣma- parvan.

  • Śankara, M. R., & Āpṭe, V. G. (Ed.) ĀĀS 92 (Bombay) (1923). Śrīmadbhagavadgĩtā, Vedāntācārya-Śri-Veñkaṭanāthakṛta-Tātparyacandrikākhyaṭīkāsaṃvalita-Śrīmad-Rāmānujācācrya-viracitabhāṣyasahitā.

  • Sukthankar, V. S, et al. (Eds.) Poona: B.O.R.I.,1933-59, The Mahābhārata, 19 vols.

  • van Buitenen, J. A. B. (1965). Contribution to the critical edition of the Bhagavadgītā. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 85(1), 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793022, India

    Binod Kumar Agarwala

Authors
  1. Binod Kumar Agarwala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Binod Kumar Agarwala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agarwala, B.K. The Significance of Three Errors in the First Chapter of Bhagavadgītā . J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res. 32, 19–30 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-015-0013-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-015-0013-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation