Telang opens by disclaiming the authority his position would grant him: there is no scholarly consensus on the Bhagavadgîtâ, so "the conclusions arrived at in this Introduction must, therefore, be distinctly understood to embody individual opinions only, and must be taken accordingly for what they are worth." A translator in an authoritative series, telling the reader at the outset how much weight not to place on him.
The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)
Open to all
page 1
The translator’s English as printed (K. T. Telang). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
INTRODUCTION
IT has become quite a literary commonplace, that—to borrow the words of Professor Max Miiller in one of his recent lectures—history, in the ordinary sense of the word, is almost unknown in Indian literature’. And it is certainly a remarkable irony of fate, that we should be obliged to make this remark on the very threshold of an introduction to the Bhagavadgita ; for according to the eminent French philosopher, Cousin’, this great deficiency in Sanskrit literature is due, in no inconsiderable measure, to the doctrines propounded in the Bhagavadgita itself. But however that may be, this much is certain, that the student of the Bhagavadgita must, for the present, go without that reliable historical information touching the author of the work, the time at which it was composed, and even the place it occupies in literature, which one naturally desires, when entering upon the study of any work. More especially in an attempt like the present, intended as it mainly is for students of the history of religion, I should have been better pleased, if I could, in this Introduction, have concentrated to a focus, as it were, only those well ascertained historical results, on which there is something like a consensus of opinion among persons qualified to judge. But there is no exaggeration in saying, that it is almost impossible to lay down even a single proposition respecting any important matter connected with the Bhagavadgita, about which any such consensus can be said to exist. The conclusions arrived at in this Introduction must, therefore, be distinctly understood to embody individual opinions only, and must be taken accordingly for what they are worth.
1 Hibbert Lectures, p. 131.
2 Lectures on the History of Modern Philosophy (translated by O. W. Wight), vol. i, pp. 49, 50. At p. 433 seq. of the second volume, M. Cousin gives a general view of the doctrine of the Gita. See also Mr. Maurice’s and Ritte:’s Histories of Philosophy.
page 1
INTRODUCTION
IT has become quite a literary commonplace — to borrow the words of Professor Max Müller in one of his recent lectures — that history, in the ordinary sense of the word, is almost unknown in Indian literature. It is certainly a remarkable irony of fate that we should be obliged to make this observation at the very threshold of an introduction to the Bhagavadgita; for according to the eminent French philosopher, Cousin, this great deficiency in Sanskrit literature is due, in no small measure, to the very doctrines propounded in the Bhagavadgita itself. However that may be, this much is certain: the student of the Bhagavadgita must, for the present, go without the reliable historical information — concerning the author of the work, the time at which it was composed, and even the place it occupies in literature — that one naturally looks for when approaching any work. This is especially so in an attempt like the present one, intended as it mainly is for students of the history of religion; I would have been better pleased had I been able, in this Introduction, to bring into focus only those well-established historical results on which something like a consensus exists among qualified judges. But it is no exaggeration to say that it is almost impossible to lay down even a single proposition on any important matter connected with the Bhagavadgita about which any such consensus can be said to exist. The conclusions reached in this Introduction must therefore be clearly understood as representing individual opinions only, and must be taken accordingly for what they are worth.
1 Hibbert Lectures, p. 131.
2 Lectures on the History of Modern Philosophy (translated by O. W. Wight), vol. i, pp. 49, 50. At p. 433 seq. of the second volume, M. Cousin gives a general view of the doctrine of the Gita. See also Mr. Maurice's and Ritter's Histories of Philosophy.