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.
It appears to me, that this conclusion is corroborated by the fact that a few stanzas in the Gita are identical with some stanzas in some of the Upanishads. With regard to the epic age of Greece, Mr. E. A. Freeman has said that, in carrying ourselves back to that age, ‘we must cast aside all the notions with which we are familiar in our own age about property legal or moral in literary compositions. It is plain that there were phrases, epithets, whole lines, which were the common property of the whole epic school of poetry!” It appears to me that we must accept this proposition as equally applicable to the early days of Sanskrit literature, having regard to the common passages which we meet with in sundry of the Vedic works, and also sometimes, I believe, in the different Purâṇas. If this view is correct, then the fact that the Gita contains some stanzas in the very words which we meet with in some of the Upanishads, indicates, to my mind, that the conclusion already drawn from other data about the position of the Gita with regard to the Upanishads, is not by any means unwarranted, but one to which the facts before us rather seem to point.
And here we may proceed to draw attention to another fact connected with the relation of the Gita to the Vedas. In stanza 17 of the ninth chapter of the Gita, only Rik, Sâman, and Yagus are mentioned. The Atharva-veda is not referred to at all. This omission does certainly seem a very noteworthy one. For it is in a passage where the Supreme Being is identifying himself with everything, and where, therefore, the fourth Veda might fairly be expected to be mentioned. I may add that in commenting on Sañkarakarya’s remarks on this passage, Anandagiri (and Madhusûdana Sarasvati also) seems evidently to have been conscious of the possible force of this omission of the Atharva-veda. He accordingly says that by force of the word ‘and’ in the verse in question, the Atharvangirasas, or Atharva-veda, must also be included. Are we at liberty to infer from this, that the Atharva-veda did not exist in the days when the Gita was composed? The explanation ordinarily given for the omission of that Veda, where such omission occurs, namely, that it is not of any use in ordinary sacrificial matters, is one which can scarcely have any force in the present instance; though it is adequate, perhaps, to explain the words ‘those who know the three branches of knowledge,’ which occur only a few lines after the verse now under consideration. The commentators render no further help than has been already stated. Upon the whole, however, while I am not yet quite prepared to say, that the priority of the Gita, even to the recognition of the Atharva-veda as a real Veda, may be fairly inferred from the passage in question, I think that the passage is noteworthy as pointing in that direction. But further data in explanation of the omission referred to must be awaited.
1 Contemporary Review, February 1870.
It seems to me that this conclusion is reinforced by the fact that a few stanzas in the Gita are identical to stanzas found in certain Upanishads. On the subject of the epic age of Greece, Mr. E. A. Freeman has observed that, in taking ourselves back to that age, "we must cast aside all the notions with which we are familiar in our own age about property legal or moral in literary compositions. It is plain that there were phrases, epithets, whole lines, which were the common property of the whole epic school of poetry!" It seems to me that we must accept this proposition as equally applicable to the early period of Sanskrit literature, given the passages shared between various Vedic works, and also, I believe, sometimes between the different Purâṇas. If this view is correct, then the fact that the Gita contains certain stanzas in the very words we find in some of the Upanishads suggests to my mind that the conclusion already drawn from other evidence about the Gita's relationship to the Upanishads is far from unwarranted — it is, rather, a conclusion to which the facts before us seem to point.
At this point we may draw attention to another fact bearing on the Gita's relationship to the Vedas. In stanza 17 of the ninth chapter of the Gita, only Rik, Sâman, and Yajus are mentioned; the Atharva-veda is not referred to at all. This omission is certainly very noteworthy. It occurs in a passage where the Supreme Being is identifying himself with everything, and where one might therefore fairly expect the fourth Veda to be mentioned as well. I may add that in commenting on Sañkarakarya's remarks on this passage, Anandagiri — and Madhusûdana Sarasvati also — seems clearly aware of the possible significance of the Atharva-veda's absence. He accordingly argues that the word 'and' in the verse must be taken to include the Atharvangirasas, or Atharva-veda, by implication. Are we entitled to infer from this that the Atharva-veda did not yet exist when the Gita was composed? The explanation usually offered when that Veda is omitted — that it plays no part in ordinary sacrificial matters — can hardly carry much weight here, though it may adequately account for the phrase 'those who know the three branches of knowledge,' which appears only a few lines after the verse under consideration. The commentators offer no help beyond what has already been noted. On the whole, while I am not yet quite ready to say that the passage fairly supports the inference that the Gita was composed before the Atharva-veda was even recognised as a genuine Veda, I do think the passage is noteworthy as pointing in that direction. Further evidence bearing on this omission must, however, be awaited.
1 Contemporary Review, February 1870.