365bet娱乐

The 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补 (xii. 348) associates the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻 with the doctrines of the Ek膩nti-痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补蝉. It is said there that the God Hari (产丑补驳补惫腻苍 Hari) always blesses those that are devoted to God without any idea of gain (别办腻苍迟颈苍) and accepts their adorations, offered in accordance with proper rites (vidhi-prayukta)^[1]. This 别办腻苍迟补 religion (别办腻苍迟补-dharma) is dear to 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺, and those who adhere to it attain to Hari, as N墨laka峁噒ha, the commentator on the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补 , points out, without passing through the three stages of Aniruddha, Pradyumna and Samkar峁�a峁嘺. The 别办腻苍迟颈苍 faith leads to much higher goals than the paths of those that know the Vedas and lead the lives of ascetics. The principles of this 别办腻苍迟颈苍 faith were enunciated by the Bhagavat himself in the battle of the 笔腻峁囜笉补惫补蝉 and the Kurus, when Arjuna felt disinclined to fight. This faith can be traced originally to the 厂腻尘补-veda. It is said that, when 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 created 叠谤补丑尘腻, he gave him this 蝉腻迟惫补迟补 faith, and from that time forth, as the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补 states, there has been a host of persons who were instructed in this faith and followed it. It was at a much later stage briefly described in the Hari-驳墨迟腻 ^[2]. This faith is very obscure and very difficult to be practised, and its chief feature is cessation from all kinds of injury.

In some places it is said to recognize one 惫测奴丑补: in other places two, and in others three, 惫测奴丑补s are mentioned. Hari, however, is the final and absolute reality; he is both the agent, the action and the cause, as well as the absolute beyond action (1 补办补谤迟腻). There are, how ever, but few 别办腻苍迟颈苍s in the world: had the world been filled with 别办腻苍迟颈苍s , who never injured anyone, were always engaged in doing good to others and attained self-knowledge, then the golden age, 办峁泃补 yuga , would have come again. This 别办腻苍迟补 religion is a faith parallel to that of the 厂腻峁僰丑测补-yoga, and the devotee who follows it attains 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 as his ultimate state of liberation. From this description in the Mah膩产丑腻谤补迟补 it seems that the doctrine of the 骋墨迟腻 was believed to be the 别办腻苍迟颈苍 doctrine originally taught by 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 to 叠谤补丑尘腻, 狈腻谤补诲补 and others long before the recital of the 骋墨迟腻 by 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 in the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补 battle. It is further known that it had at least four or five different schools or variant forms, viz. eka-惫测奴丑补, dvi-惫测奴丑补, tri-惫测奴丑补, catur-惫测奴丑补 and 别办腻苍迟补, and that it was known as the S膩tvata religion.

驰腻尘耻苍腻肠腻谤测补 in his 膧驳补尘补-辫谤腻尘腻峁噛补 tries to combat a number of views in which the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补蝉 were regarded as being inferior to Brahmins, not being allowed to sit and dine with them. The 厂腻迟惫补迟补蝉, again, are counted by Manu as a low-caste people, born from outcast 痴补颈艣测补蝉 and not entitled to the holy thread^[3]. The 厂腻迟惫补迟补蝉 were, of course, regarded as the same as 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补蝉, and their chief duties consisted in worshipping for their living in 痴颈峁ａ箛耻 temples by the order of the king^[4]. They also repaired or constructed temples and images for their living, and were therefore regarded as outcasts. That the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补蝉 did in later times worship images and build images and temples is also evident from the fact that most of the available 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补 works are full of details about image-building and image-worship. The 骋墨迟腻 (ix. 26) also speaks of adoration with water, flowers and leaves, which undoubtedly refers to image-worship. Samkar峁�a峁嘺, as the brother or companion of 碍峁涐梗峁嘺, is mentioned in 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈鈥檚 惭补丑腻-bh膩峁�ya (11. 2. 24) in a verse quoted by him, and in 11. 2. 34 he seems to quote another passage, in which it is related that different kinds of musical instruments were played in the temple of Dhana-pati, 搁腻尘补 and 碍别艣补惫补, meaning 叠补濒补谤腻尘补, Samkar峁�a峁嘺 and 碍峁涐梗峁嘺^[5].

As 驰腻尘耻苍补 points out, the opponents of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 school urge that, since the ordinary Brahminic initiation is not deemed a sufficient qualification for undertaking the worship of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻, and since special and peculiar forms of initiation and ceremonial performances are necessary, it is clear that the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 forms of worship are not Vedic in their origin.

The fourteen Hindu sciences, viz.

• the six 惫别诲腻峁単补蝉 on
  1. Vedic pronunciation (艣颈办峁Ｄ�),
  2. ritual (kalpa),
  3. grammar (惫测腻办补谤补峁嘺),
  4. metre (chandas), 
  5. astronomy (箩测辞迟颈峁�a),
  6.  lexicography (nirukta),
• the four Vedas,
• 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻,
• argumentative works or philosophy (苍测腻测补-vistara),
• the mythologies (辫耻谤腻峁嘺)
• and rules of conduct (诲丑补谤尘补-艣腻蝉迟谤补),

do not refer to the 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补 scriptures as being counted in their number.

So the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 or the 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补 scriptures are of non-Vedic origin. But 驰腻尘耻苍补 contends that, since 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 is the supreme god, the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 literature, which deals with his worship, must be regarded as having the same sources as the Vedas; the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补蝉 also have the same kind of outer dress as the Brahmins and the same kinds of lineage. He further contends that, though 蝉腻迟惫补迟补 means an outcast, yet 蝉腻迟惫补迟补 is a different word from 蝉腻迟惫补迟补, which means a devotee of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻.

Moreover, not all 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补蝉 take to professional priestly duties and the worshipping of images for their livelihood; for there are many who worship the images through pure devotion. It is very easy to see that the above defence of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补蝉, as put forward by one of their best advocates, 驰腻尘耻苍腻肠腻谤测补, is very tame and tends to suggest very strongly that the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 sect was non-Vedic in its origin and that image-worship, image-making, image-repa峁僴g and temple-building had their origin in that particular sect. Yet throughout the entire scriptures of the 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补 school there is the universal and uncontested tradition that it is based on the Vedas. But its difference from the Vedic path is well known. 驰腻尘耻苍补 himself refers to a passage (膧驳补尘补-辫谤腻尘腻峁噛补 , p. 51) where it is said that 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补, not being able to find his desired end (辫耻谤耻峁Ｄ乺迟丑补) in all the four Vedas, produced this scripture.

The 骋墨迟腻 itself often describes the selfish aims of sacrifices, and 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 urges Arjuna to rise above the level of the Vedas. It seems, therefore, that the real connection of the 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补 literature is to be found in the fact that it originated from 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 or 痴颈峁ａ箛耻, who is the supreme God from whom the Vedas themselves were produced. Thus the 莫艣惫补谤补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (1. 24-26) explains the matter, and states that the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 literature is the great root of the Veda tree, and the Vedas themselves are but trunks of it, and the followers of Yoga are but its branches. Its main purpose is to propound the superiority of 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补, who is the root of the universe and identical with the Vedas^[6].

The affinity of this school of thought to the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 school becomes apparent when it is considered that 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 was regarded in this system as the highest Brahman^[7]. The three other 惫测帽丑补蝉 were but subordinate manifestations of him, after the analogy of 辫谤补箩帽腻, 惫颈谤腻迟, 惫颈艣惫补 and taijasa in monistic 痴别诲腻苍迟补. Pata峁卝ali鈥檚 惭补丑腻-bh膩峁�ya does not seem to know of the four 惫测帽丑补蝉, as it mentions only 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 and Samkar峁�a峁嘺; and the 骋墨迟腻 knows only 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补. It seems, therefore, that the 惫测奴丑补 doctrine did not exist at the time of the 骋墨迟腻 and that it evolved gradually in later times. It is seen from a passage of the Mah膩产丑腻谤补迟补 , already referred to, that there were different variations of the doctrine and that some accepted one 惫测奴丑补 , others two, others three and others four.

It is very improbable that, if the 惫测奴丑补 doctrine was known at the time of the 骋墨迟腻 , it should not have been mentioned therein. For the 骋墨迟腻 was in all probability the earliest work of the 别办腻苍迟颈苍 school of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补蝉^[8]. It is also interesting in this connection to note that the name 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 is never mentioned in the 骋墨迟腻 , and 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 is only identified with 痴颈峁ａ箛耻, the chief of the 腻诲颈迟测补蝉.

Thus Sir R. G. Bhandarkar says,

鈥淚t will be seen that the date of the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻, which contains no mention of the 惫测奴丑补s or personified forms, is much earlier than those of the inscriptions, the Niddesa and 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈, i.e. it was composed not later than the beginning of the fourth century before the Christian era; how much earlier it is difficult to say. At the time when the 骋墨迟腻 was conceived and composed the identification of 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 with 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 had not yet taken place, nor had the fact of his being an incarnation of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻 come to be acknowledged, as appears from the work itself....

痴颈峁ａ箛耻 is alluded to as the chief of the 膧dityas and not as the supreme being, and 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 was 痴颈峁ａ箛耻 in this sense, as mentioned in chapter X, because the best thing of a group or class is represented to be his 惫颈产丑奴迟颈 or special manifestation^[9].鈥�

The date of the 骋墨迟腻 has been the subject of long discussions among scholars, and it is inconvenient for our present purposes to enter into an elaborate controversy. One of the most extreme views on the subject is that of Dr Lorinser, who holds that it was composed after Buddha, and several centuries after the commencement of the Christian era, under the influence of the New Testament. Mr Telang in the introduction to his translation of the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻 points out鈥攁s has been shown above鈥攖hat the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻 does not know anything that is peculiarly Buddhistic. Attempt has also been made to prove that the 骋墨迟腻 not only does not know anything Buddhistic, but that it also knows neither the accepted 厂腻峁僰丑测补 philosophy nor the Yoga of 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈鈥檚 Yoga-蝉奴迟谤补. This, together with some other secondary considerations noted above, such as the non-identification of 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 with 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 and the non-appearance of the 惫测奴丑补 doctrine, seems to be a very strong reason for holding the 骋墨迟腻 to be in its general structure pre-Buddhistic. The looseness of its composition, however, always made it easy to interpolate occasional verses. Since there is no other consideration which might lead us to think that the 骋墨迟腻 was written after the Brahma-蝉奴迟谤补s , the verse Brahma-蝉奴迟谤补-padai艣 caiva hetumadbhir vini艣citai岣� has to be either treated as an interpolation or interpreted differently. 艢补峁卥补谤补 also thought that the Brahma-蝉奴迟谤补 referred to the 骋墨迟腻 as an old sacred writing (蝉尘峁泃颈), and this tallies with our other considerations regarding the antiquity of the 骋墨迟腻.

The view of Dr Lorinser, that the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻 must have borrowed at least some of its materials from Christianity, has been pretty successfully refuted by Mr Telang in the introduction to his translation, and it therefore need not be here again combated. Dr Ray Chaudhury also has discussed the problem of the relation of Bh膩gavatism to Christianity, and in the discussion nothing has come out which can definitely make it seem probable that the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 cult was indebted to Christianity at any stage of its development; the possibility of the 骋墨迟腻 being indebted to Christianity may be held to be a mere fancy. It is not necessary here to enter into any long discussion in refuting Garbe鈥檚 view that the 骋墨迟腻 was originally a work on 厂腻峁僰丑测补 lines (written in the first half of the second century B.C.), which was revised on Ved膩ntic lines and brought to its present form in the second century A.D.; for I suppose it has been amply proved that, in the light of the uncontradicted tradition of the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补 and the 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补 literature, the 骋墨迟腻 is to be regarded as a work of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 school, and an internal analysis of the work also shows that the 骋墨迟腻 is neither an ordinary 厂腻峁僰丑测补 nor a 痴别诲腻苍迟补 work, but represents some older system wherein the views of an earlier school of 厂腻峁僰丑测补 are mixed up with Ved膩ntic ideas different from the 痴别诲腻苍迟补 as interpreted by 艢补峁卥补谤补. The arbitrary and dogmatic assertion of Garbe, that he could clearly separate the original part of the 骋墨迟腻 from the later additions, need not, to my mind, be taken seriously.

The antiquity of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 religion is. as pointed out by Tilak, acknowledged by Senart (The Indian Interpreter, October 1909 and January 1910) and B眉hler (Indian Antiquary, 1894), and the latter says,

鈥淭he ancient 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补, S膩tvata or 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补 sect, devoted to the worship of 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 and his deified teacher 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 顿别惫补办墨-putra, dates from a period long anterior to the rise of the Jainas in the eighth century B.C.鈥�

And assuredly the 骋墨迟腻 is the earliest available literature of this school. As regards external evidence, it may be pointed out that the 骋墨迟腻 is alluded to not only by 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 and 叠腻峁嘺, but also by 叠丑腻蝉补 in his play 碍补谤峁嘺-产丑腻谤补^[10]. Tilak also refers to an article by T. G. Kale in the Vedic Magazine , vii. pp..528-532, where he points out that the 叠辞诲丑腻测补苍补-骋峁沨测补-艣别峁�a-蝉奴迟谤补, 11. 22. 9, quotes the 骋墨迟腻, ix. 26, and the 叠辞诲丑腻测补苍补-笔颈迟峁�-medha-蝉奴迟谤补, at the beginning of the third 辫谤补艣苍补, quotes another passage of the 骋墨迟腻^[11].

Incidentally it may also be mentioned that the style of the 骋墨迟腻 is very archaic; it is itself called an 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, and there are many passages in it which are found

• in the 墨艣a (墨艣a, 5, cf. the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻, xm. 15 and vi. 29),
• 惭耻峁囜笉补办补 (惭耻峁囜笉. 11. 1. 2, cf. the 骋墨迟腻 , xm. 15),
• 碍腻迟丑补办补 (11. 15, 11. 18 and 19 and 11. 7, cf. the 骋墨迟腻, viii. 11; 11. 20 and 29)
• and other 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s.

We are thus led to assign to the 骋墨迟腻 a very early date, and, since there is no definite evidence to show that it was post-Buddhistic, and since also the 骋墨迟腻 does not contain the slightest reference to anything Buddhistic, I venture to suggest that it is pre-Buddhistic, however unfashionable such a view may appear. An examination of the 骋墨迟腻 from the point of view of language also shows that it is archaic and largely un-P膩峁噄nean.

Thus from the root yudh we have yudhya (viii. 7) for yudhyasva; yat, which is 腻迟尘补苍别-pada in P膩峁噄nean Sanskrit, is used in parasmai-pada also, as in vi. 36, vii. 3, ix. 14 and xv. 11; ram is also used in parasmai-pada in x. 9.

The roots 办腻峁卥峁�, vraj, 惫颈艣 and 颈帽驳 are used in P膩峁噄nean Sanskrit in parasmai-pada, but in the 骋墨迟腻 they are all used in 腻迟尘补苍别-pada as well鈥�

• 办腻峁卥峁� in 1. 31,
• vraj in 11. 54,
• 惫颈艣 in xxiii. 55
• and 颈帽驳 in vi. 19 and xiv. 23.

Again, the verb ud-vij, which is generally used in 腻迟尘补苍别-pada, is used in parasmai-pada in v. 20; 苍颈惫补蝉颈峁�y补蝉颈 is used in xii. 8 for nivatsyasi, m膩 艣耻肠补岣� for m膩 艣oc墨岣� in xvi. 5; and the usage of 辫谤补蝉补惫颈峁�y补诲丑惫补尘 in 111. 10 is quite ungrammatical.

So 测补尘补岣� 蝉补峁儁补尘补迟腻尘 in x. 29 should be 测补尘补岣� sa峁儁acchat膩m, he sakheti in xi. 41 is an instance of wrong sandhi, priy膩y膩rhasi in xi. 44 is used for priy膩y膩岣� arhasi, sen膩n墨n膩m in x. 24 is used for 蝉别苍腻苍测腻尘^[12].

These linguistic irregularities, though they may not themselves be regarded as determining anything definitely, may yet be regarded as contributory evidence in favour of the high antiquity of the 骋墨迟腻. The 骋墨迟腻 may have been a work of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 school written long before the composition of the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补, and may have been written on the basis of the Bh膩rata legend, on which the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补 was based. It is not improbable that the 骋墨迟腻, which summarized the older teachings of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 school, was incorporated into the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补, during one of its revisions, by reason of the sacredness that it had attained at the time.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Ek膩ntino ni峁�k膩ma-bhakt膩岣�,
      N墨lakantha鈥檚 commentary on the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补, xii. 348. 3.

[2]:

kaihito hari-驳墨迟腻su sam膩sa-vidhi-kalpita岣�, Hari-驳墨迟腻. 53. The traditional teaching of the 骋墨迟腻 doctrines is represented as ancient in the 骋墨迟腻 itself (iv. 1-3), where it is said that Bhagav膩n declared it to Vivasv膩n, and he related it to Manu, and Manu to Iksv膩ku, and so on, until after a long time it was lost; it was again revived by 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 in the form of the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻. In the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补, xii. 348, it is said that Sanatkum膩ra learned this doctrine from N膩r膩yana, from him Praj膩pati, from him Raibhya and from him Kuksi. It was then lost. Then again 叠谤补丑尘腻 learned it from N膩r膩yana, and from him the Barhisada sages learned it, and from them Jyestha. Then again it was lost; then again 叠谤补丑尘腻 learned it from N膩r膩yana, and from him Daksa learned it, and from him Vivasv膩n, and from Vivasv膩n Manu, and from Manu Iksv膩ku. Thus the tradition of the Bhagavad驳墨迟腻, as given in the poem itself, tallies with the 惭补丑腻-产丑腻谤补迟补 account.

[3]:

vai艣y膩t tu j膩yate vr膩ty膩t sudharm膩c膩rya eva ca
k膩r奴峁�a艣 ca vijanm膩 ca maitra岣� sa艣vata eva ca.
      Agama-辫谤腻尘腻峁噛补 , p. 8.

[4]:

pa帽cama岣� s膩tvato n膩ma Vi峁ａ箛or 膩yatan膩峁� hi sa
p奴jaye岣� 膩j帽ay膩 r膩j帽膩峁� sa tu bh膩gavata岣� sm峁泃a岣�.
      Ibid.

[5]:

Sa峁卥ar峁�a峁嘺-dvit墨yasya bala峁� 碍峁涐梗峁嘺sya ard岣�itam.
      惭补丑腻-bh膩峁�ya, II. 2. 27.

m峁沝a峁単a-艣a峁卥ha-pa峁嘺v膩岣� p峁泃ha帽 nadanti sa峁僺adi
pr膩s膩de dhana-pati-r膩ma-ke艣av膩n膩m.
      Ibid. 11. 2. 34.

[6]:

mahato veda-r峁沰峁�asya mul膩-bhuto mah膩n aya峁�
skandha-bh奴t膩 峁沢-膩dy膩s te 艣膩kh膩-bh奴t膩艣 ca yogina岣�
jagan-m奴lasya vedasya 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补sya mukhyata岣�
praiip膩dakat膩 siddh膩 m奴la-ved膩khyat膩 dvij膩岣�.
      莫艣惫补谤补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, 1. 24-26.

[7]:

yasm膩t samyak para峁� brahma V膩sudev膩khyam avyayam
asm膩d av膩pyote 艣膩str膩j j帽膩na-p奴rve峁嘺 karma峁嚹�.
      Pau峁�kar膩gama, as quoted in 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补-产丑腻峁�y补, 11. 2. 42.

The Ch膩ndogya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 (vii. 1. 2) refers also to the study of 别办腻测补苍补, as in the passage v膩ko-v膩kyam 别办腻测补苍补峁� ; 别办腻测补苍补 is also described as being itself a Veda in 艢r墨pra艣na-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, 11. 38, 39:

vedam 别办腻测补苍补峁� n膩ma ved膩n膩m 艣irasi sthitam
tad-arthakam pa帽ca-r膩iram mok峁�a-da峁� tat-kriy膩vat膩m
yasminn eko mok峁�a-m膩rgo vede prokta岣� san膩tana岣�
mad-膩r膩岣峢ana-r奴pe峁嘺 tasm膩d 别办腻测补苍补m bhavet.

See also the article 鈥淭he 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补s or 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补-艣膩stra,鈥� by Govind膩c膩rya Sv膩min, J.R.A.S. 1911.

[8]:

That the 别办腻苍迟颈苍 faith is the same as the S膩tvata or the 笔补帽肠补-谤腻迟谤补 faith is evident from the following quotation from the 笔腻诲尘补-迟补苍迟谤补, iv. 2. 88:

s奴ris suh峁沝 bh膩gavatas 蝉腻迟惫补迟补岣� pa帽ca-k膩la-vit
ek膩ntikas tan-maya艣 ca pa帽ca-r膩trika ity api.

This faith is also called 别办腻惫补苍补, or the path of the One, as is seen from the following passage from the 莫艣惫补谤补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, 1. 18:

mok峁Ｄ亂an膩ya vai panth膩 etad-anyo na vidyate
tasm膩d 别办腻测补苍补峁� n膩ma pravadanti man墨峁�i峁嘺岣�.

[9]:

Vai峁ａ箛avism and 艢aivism, p. 13.

[10]:

Tilak quotes this passage on page 574 of his Bhagava岣�-驳墨迟腻-rahasya (Bengali translation of his Marathi work) as follows:

hato 鈥檖i lab岣�ate svarga峁� jitv膩 tu lab岣�ate yaia岣�
ubhe ba岣�umate loke n膩sti ni峁�phalat膩 ra峁噀,

which repeats the first two lines of the 骋墨迟腻, 11.37.

[11]:

Bod岣ツ亂ana-G峁沨ya-艣别峁�a-蝉奴迟谤补:

tad 膩ha 产丑补驳补惫腻苍,
patram pu峁�pam phala峁� toya峁� yo me bhakty膩 prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upah峁泃am a艣n膩rni prayat膩tmana岣�.

Also 叠辞诲丑腻测补苍补-笔颈迟峁�-medha-蝉奴迟谤补:

yatasya vai numu峁�yasya dhruvam mara峁嘺m
iti vij膩n墨y膩t tasm膩j j膩te na prah峁涐梗yen mrte ca na vi峁Ｄ玠eta.

Compare the 骋墨迟腻, j膩tasya hi dhruvo m峁泃yu岣�, etc.

N.B. 峁琱ese references are all taken from Tilak鈥檚 Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻-rahasya pp. 574, etc.

[12]:

For enumeration of more errors of this character see Mr V. K. Rajwade鈥檚 article in the Bhandarkar commemoration volume, from which these have been collected.