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.
We come next to the enumeration of the principal mountains which is contained in one passage of the Anugita. Those mountains are the Himalaya, the Pâriyâtra, the Sahya, the Vindhya, the Trikfizavat, the Sveta, the Nila, the Bhâsa, the Koshṭhavat, the Mahendra, the Mâlyavat, and perhaps the Guruskandha. I am not sure whether the last name is intended to be taken as a proper name, or only as an epithet of Mahendra. Now compared with the mountains mentioned in the Bhagavadgita, this is certainly a remarkable list. The Gita mentions only Meru* and Himalaya; while here we have in the Anugita the Sahya, and Malaya, and Trikûṭavat, and Nila (the same, I presume, with the modern Nilgiri, the Sanatorium of the Madras Presidency), which take us far to the west and south of the Indian peninsula; and the Mahendra and Mâlyavat, which, coupled with the mention of the river Ganges, cover a considerable part of the eastern districts. The Pariyâtra and Vindhya occupy the regions of Central India. The Anugitâ, therefore, seems to belong to that period in the history of India, when pretty nearly the whole if not absolutely the whole, of the Indian continent was known to the Sanskrit-speaking population of the country. When was this knowledge reached? It is difficult to fix the precise period ; and even if it could be fixed, it would not help us to fix satisfactorily any point of time to which the Anugita could be attributed. But it may be pointed out here, that in Patañgali’s Mahâbhâshya we have evidence of such knowledge having been possessed by the Aryas in the second century B.c. In truth, the evidence available in the Mahâbhâshya is even fuller than this in the Anugita. For Patañgali tells us of a town or city in the south named Kâ%#ipural; he speaks of the dominions of the Pandya kings, and of the Kola and Kerala districts* ; he refers also to the large tanks of the south; and he makes allusions to linguistic usages current in the southern and other provinces*. Before Patañgali's time there had taken place Mahendra’s invasion of Ceylon, and the invading army must have penetrated through the southern provinces. And there had been also put up the great Inscriptions of Asoka, which have attracted so much interest, and are proving such prolific sources of information in various departments of knowledge. One of these inscriptions was at Gaṅgam, which is not very far from the Mahendra mountain alluded to in the Anugitâ*. All these facts support the conclusion drawn by General Cunningham from the correctness of the information given to Alexander the Great by the Hindus of his time, namely, that ‘the Indians, even at that early date in their history, had a very accurate knowledge of the form and extent of their native land*.’ And not only do they support that conclusion, they show that the knowledge covered other facts regarding their native land than its form and extent. It follows consequently that this enumeration of mountains does not require the date of the Anugitâ to be brought down to a later period than the fourth century B.C., and leaves it open to us, therefore, to accept whatever conclusion the other evidence available may seem to justify. On the other hand, it is plain also, that it affords no positive information as to when the Anugitâ was composed, and therefore we need not dwell any further upon the point on the present occasion.
* Haug’s ed., p.183. And see generally on these tribes, Wilson’s Vishṇu Purâṇa (Hall’s ed.), vol. ii, p. 170 seq., and Santi Parvan (Moksha), chap. 207, st. 42.
* This is also mentioned in the AnugîtA, but in a different passage. The Nila is said by Professor Wilson to be a mountain in Orissa. But our suggestion has, I find, been already made by Dr. F. E. Hall also: see on this, and generally, Wilson’s Vishṇu Purâṇa, vol. ii, p. 141 seq. (ed. Hall). See also Indian Antiquary, VI, 133 seq.
We turn next to the list of principal mountains found in one passage of the Anugita. Those mountains are the Himalaya, the Pâriyâtra, the Sahya, the Vindhya, the Trikûṭavat, the Sveta, the Nila, the Bhâsa, the Koshṭhavat, the Mahendra, the Mâlyavat, and perhaps the Guruskandha. I am not certain whether that last name is meant as a proper name or merely as an epithet of Mahendra. Compared with the mountains mentioned in the Bhagavadgita, this is a remarkably fuller list. The Gita mentions only Meru* and Himalaya; the Anugita, by contrast, includes the Sahya, the Malaya, the Trikûṭavat, and the Nila — the last of these being, I presume, the modern Nilgiri, the sanatorium of the Madras Presidency — which carry us far to the west and south of the Indian peninsula, as well as the Mahendra and the Mâlyavat, which, taken together with the mention of the river Ganges, cover a considerable part of the eastern districts. The Pariyâtra and the Vindhya occupy the regions of Central India. The Anugitâ therefore appears to belong to that period in Indian history when very nearly the whole, if not absolutely the whole, of the Indian continent was known to the Sanskrit-speaking population of the country. When was this knowledge reached? It is difficult to fix the precise period; and even if it could be fixed, it would not help us pin down any point in time to which the Anugita might be attributed. It may be noted here, however, that Patañjali's Mahâbhâshya provides evidence that the Aryas possessed such knowledge in the second century B.C. Indeed, the evidence available in the Mahâbhâshya is even fuller than what appears in the Anugita. Patañjali mentions a town or city in the south named Kâ%#ipural; he speaks of the dominions of the Pandya kings and of the Kola and Kerala districts*; he refers to the large tanks of the south; and he alludes to linguistic usages current in the southern and other provinces*. Before Patañjali's time, Mahendra's invasion of Ceylon had already taken place, and the invading army must have passed through the southern provinces. There were also by then the great Inscriptions of Asoka, which have attracted so much interest and proved such prolific sources of information across many fields of knowledge. One of these inscriptions was at Gaṅgam, which is not far from the Mahendra mountain mentioned in the Anugitâ*. All these facts support the conclusion drawn by General Cunningham from the accuracy of the information given to Alexander the Great by the Hindus of his time — namely, that 'the Indians, even at that early date in their history, had a very accurate knowledge of the form and extent of their native land*.' More than that, they show that this knowledge extended beyond the form and extent of their native land to other facts about it as well. It follows that this enumeration of mountains gives no reason to bring the date of the Anugitâ down later than the fourth century B.C., and leaves us free to accept whatever conclusion the other available evidence may seem to justify. At the same time, it is equally clear that the list provides no positive information about when the Anugitâ was composed, and we need not dwell any further on the point on the present occasion.
* Haug's ed., p.183. And see generally on these tribes, Wilson's Vishṇu Purâṇa (Hall's ed.), vol. ii, p. 170 seq., and Santi Parvan (Moksha), chap. 207, st. 42.
* This is also mentioned in the AnugîtA, but in a different passage. Professor Wilson says the Nila is a mountain in Orissa. My suggestion has, I find, already been made by Dr. F. E. Hall as well: see on this, and generally, Wilson's Vishṇu Purâṇa, vol. ii, p. 141 seq. (ed. Hall). See also Indian Antiquary, VI, 133 seq.