The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)
The translator’s English as printed (K. T. Telang). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
The next .question to be discussed is the important one of the age of the work. The quotations already given above from Sañkarâkârya’s works, and one other which is referred to in the note below ', suffice to show that the Anugita must have been some few centuries old in the time of Sañkarâkârya. For whether we treat the Anugita as a part of the original Mahabharata or not, it is not likely that such a scholar as Sañkara would have accepted the book as a genuine part of the Mahabharata, and as a work of Vyasa, if it had not been in his day of some respectable antiquity, of antiquity sufficient to have thrown the real author into oblivion, and to have substituted in his place Vyasa, who lived at the junction of the Dvapara and Kali ages,, upwards of thirty centuries before the Christian era. The calculation is avowedly a very rough one, but I think we may, as the result of it, safely fix the third century of the Christian era as the latest date at which the Anugîtà can have been composed. Let us now endeavour to find out whether we can fix the date as lying within any better defined period. It is scarcely needful to say, that the Anugîtâ dates from a period considerably subsequent to the age of the Upanishads. The passages relating to the PrawasamvAda and so forth, which occur originally in the Upanishads, are referred to in the Anugîtâ as ‘ancient stories’—an indication that the Upanishads had already come to be esteemed as ancient compositions at the date of the latter work. It is not necessary, therefore, to go through an elaborate examination of the versions of the ancient stories alluded to above, as contained in the Upanishads and in the Anugita, more especially because it is possible for us to show that the Anugita is later than the Bhagavadgita, which latter work, as we have seen, is later than the Upanishads. And to this point we shall now address ourselves. We have already observed upon the story referred to at the opening of this Introduction, which, historically interpreted, indicates the priority of the Bhagavadgita to the Anugîtâ. This conclusion is confirmed by sundry other circumstances, which we must now discuss in some detail, as they are also of use in helping to fix the position of the work in the history of Sanskrit literature and philosophy. First, then, it seems to me, that the state of society mirrored in the Anugita indicates a greater advance in social evolution than we have already seen is disclosed in the Bhagavadgita. Not to mention decorations of houses and so forth, which are alluded to in one passage of the Anugita, we are here told of royal oppressions, of losses of wealth accumulated with great difficulty, and of fierce captivities ; we are told, to adapt the language of a modern English poet, of laws grinding the weak, for strong men rule the law; we have references to the casting of images with liquefied iron, and to the use of elephants as vehicles!; and we meet with protests against the amusements of music and dancing, and against the occupation of artisans”. True it is, that all these indications put together, fail to constitute what, according to the standard of modern times, would be called a highly artificial state of society. But it seems to me to mark a very perceptible and distinct advance beyond the social condition when mankind was divided into four castes or classes, with such a division of duties, to put it briefly, as that of preparation for a future world, government of this world, agriculture and trade, and service respectively *, Artisans, it will be observed, are not even referred to in the Bhagavadgita, nor is there any trace of royal oppressions, or unequal laws. Then as regards music, it may be noted, that there are references to it in the Bṛihadâraṇyaka and Kaushitaki-upanishads *, without any indications of disapprobation. The protest against music, therefore, and the sister art of dancing, is probably to be explained as evoked by some abuses of the two arts which must have come into prevalence about the time of the composition of the Anugita. A similar protest is found recorded in the Dharmasâstras of Manu and Apastamba and Gautama 5, We shall consider in the sequel the chronological positions of the Anugita with reference to those Dharmasâstras. But we have already pointed out that the Gita stands prior to them both 6.
! See Sankara, Sârîraka Bhashya, p. 726. That, however, may be a quotation from some other work. It may be noted that the passages quoted in the Bhashya on Sanatsugâtîya I, 20 and I, 41 are not to be traced in our copies, though expressly stated there to have been taken from the Anugita,
The next question to be discussed is the important one of the age of the work. The quotations already given above from Sañkarâkârya's works, and one other referred to in the note below¹, are enough to show that the Anugita must have been some few centuries old in the time of Sañkarâkârya. For whether we treat the Anugita as part of the original Mahabharata or not, it is unlikely that so great a scholar as Sañkara would have accepted the book as a genuine part of the Mahabharata, and as a work of Vyasa, had it not been in his day of some respectable antiquity — antiquity sufficient to have thrown the real author into oblivion and to have substituted in his place Vyasa, who lived at the junction of the Dvapara and Kali ages, upwards of thirty centuries before the Christian era. The calculation is admittedly a very rough one, but I think we may, as the result of it, safely fix the third century of the Christian era as the latest date at which the Anugîtà can have been composed. Let us now try to determine whether we can fix the date within any more precisely defined period. It scarcely needs saying that the Anugîtâ dates from a period considerably later than the age of the Upanishads. The passages relating to the PrawasamvAda and so forth, which occur originally in the Upanishads, are referred to in the Anugîtâ as "ancient stories" — an indication that the Upanishads had already come to be regarded as ancient compositions by the time the latter work was written. There is no need, therefore, to go through an elaborate examination of the versions of those ancient stories as they appear in the Upanishads and in the Anugita, especially since we can show that the Anugita is later than the Bhagavadgita, which latter work, as we have seen, is itself later than the Upanishads. To this point we shall now turn. We have already remarked on the story referred to at the opening of this Introduction, which, historically interpreted, indicates that the Bhagavadgita is prior to the Anugîtâ. This conclusion is confirmed by several other circumstances, which we must now discuss in some detail, since they also help to fix the position of the work in the history of Sanskrit literature and philosophy. First, then, it seems to me that the state of society reflected in the Anugita indicates a further advance in social evolution than we have already seen disclosed in the Bhagavadgita. Not to mention the decoration of houses and so forth, which are alluded to in one passage of the Anugita, we are here told of royal oppressions, of wealth accumulated with great difficulty being lost, and of fierce captivities; we are told — to borrow the language of a modern English poet — of laws grinding the weak, for strong men rule the law; we find references to the casting of images with liquefied iron and to the use of elephants as vehicles²; and we encounter protests against the amusements of music and dancing, and against the occupation of artisans³. True, all these indications taken together fall short of what, by modern standards, would be called a highly artificial state of society. But they seem to me to mark a very perceptible and distinct advance beyond the social condition in which mankind was divided into four castes or classes, with such a division of duties — to put it briefly — as preparation for a future world, government of this world, agriculture and trade, and service respectively⁴. Artisans, it will be observed, are not even mentioned in the Bhagavadgita, nor is there any trace of royal oppressions or unequal laws. As regards music, it may be noted that there are references to it in the Bṛihadâraṇyaka and Kaushitaki-upanishads⁵ without any sign of disapproval. The protest against music, and the sister art of dancing, is therefore probably to be explained as a reaction to certain abuses of those two arts that must have become prevalent around the time the Anugita was composed. A similar protest is found in the Dharmasâstras of Manu, Apastamba, and Gautama 5. We shall consider in the sequel the chronological position of the Anugita relative to those Dharmasâstras. But we have already pointed out that the Gita stands prior to them both 6.
See Sankara, Sârîraka Bhashya, p. 726. That, however, may be a quotation from some other work. It may be noted that the passages quoted in the Bhashya on Sanatsujâtîya I, 20 and I, 41 cannot be traced in our copies, though they are expressly stated there to have been taken from the Anugita.