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.
Let us look at the matter now from a slightly different point of view. There are sundry words used in the Bhagavadgita, the significations of which are not quite identical throughout the work. Take, for instance, the word ‘ yoga,’ which we have rendered ‘ devotion.’ At Gita, chapter II, stanza 48 (p. 49), a definition is given of that word. In chapter VI, the signification it bears is entirely different. And again in chapter IX, stanza 5, there is still another sense in which the word is used*. The word ‘Brahman’ too occurs in widely varying significations. And one of its meanings, indeed, is quite singular, namely, ‘ Nature’ (see chapter XIV, stanza 3). Similar observations, to a greater or less extent, apply to the words Buddhi, Atman, and Svabhava?. Now these are words which stand for ideas not unimportant in the philosophy of the Bhagavadgita. And the absence of scientific precision about their use appears to me to be some indication of that non-systematic character of which we have already spoken.
* In the Preface to his Saakhya Sara, I think. ? This is all that we can infer from the few cases of division and classification which we do meet with in the Gita. A subject like that treated of in this work could not well be discussed without some classifications &c.
Let us now look at the matter from a slightly different angle. Certain words in the Bhagavadgita do not carry quite the same meaning throughout the work. Take, for instance, the word 'yoga,' which we have rendered 'devotion.' A definition of it is given at chapter II, stanza 48 (p. 49); in chapter VI it bears an entirely different meaning; and in chapter IX, stanza 5, it is used in yet another sense*. The word 'Brahman' too appears in widely varying senses, one of which is quite remarkable — namely, 'Nature' (see chapter XIV, stanza 3). Much the same can be said, to a greater or lesser degree, of the words Buddhi, Atman, and Svabhāva†. These are words that stand for ideas of no small importance in the philosophy of the Bhagavadgita, and the lack of any precise, consistent usage strikes me as further evidence of that unsystematic character we have already noted.
* In the Preface to his Sāṅkhya Sāra, I think. † This is all we can infer from the few cases of division and classification we do encounter in the Gītā. A subject like the one treated in this work could hardly be discussed without some classifications, and so on.