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.
If these arguments are correct, it seems to me that they carry us thus far in our present investigation—namely, that we may now say, that we have reason to believe some parts, at all events, of the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirtyeighth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahabharata to have probably been in existence prior to the sixth century A.C.*; and that some parts of the thirty-seventh chapter were probably extant in the time of Patañpgali, viz. the second century B.c.2 Now, internal evidence does not yield any indications tending to show that the several chapters here referred to must have been prior in time to the chapters composing the Sanatsugâtiya, which come so soon after them in the Mahabharata. On the contrary, it is not too much to maintain, that to a certain extent the style and language of the Sanatsugatiya is, if anything, rather indicative of its priority in time over the five chapters immediately preceding it. And, therefore, so far as this argument goes, it enables us—provisionally only, it must be remembered—to fix the second century B.C.as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsugatiya.
* See p. 29 supra. ? See p. 32 supra.
If these arguments are correct, they seem to me to take us this far in our present investigation: we may now say that we have reason to believe at least some parts of the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahabharata were probably in existence before the sixth century A.C.*; and that some parts of the thirty-seventh chapter were probably extant in the time of Patañpgali, that is, the second century B.C.2 Now, internal evidence offers no indications suggesting that the several chapters referred to here must be earlier in date than the chapters making up the Sanatsujâtîya, which follow so soon after them in the Mahabharata. On the contrary, one can fairly maintain that, to a certain extent, the style and language of the Sanatsujâtîya are, if anything, rather more suggestive of its being earlier in time than the five chapters immediately preceding it. This argument therefore enables us — provisionally only, it must be remembered — to fix the second century B.C. as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsujâtîya.
* See p. 29 supra. † See p. 32 supra.