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.
Although the information here set out from these various sources is not easily to be harmonised in all its parts, the preponderance of testimony seems to be in favour of regarding the portion of the Asvamedha Parvan embraced in our translation as containing three distinct sections, viz. the Anugita, the Brâhmaṇa Gita, and the Guruśishyasaṃvâda. And some indirect support for this conclusion may be derived from one or two other circumstances. In the Sâñkhya-sâra of Vigñâna Bhikshu—a work which, as we shall see in the sequel, expressly mentions the Anugita— we have a passage cited as from the ‘ Bharata?’ which coincides almost precisely with a passage occurring in chapter X XVII of our translation (see p. 335). And in the Bhashya of Sañkarâkârya on the Bhagavadgita, chapter XV, stanza 1, we have a citation as from a ‘ Purâṇa ” of a passage which coincides pretty closely with one which occurs in chapter XX of our translation (see p. 313). If the discrepancies between the quotations as given by Vigñâna Bhikshu and Sankara, and the passages occurring in our text, may be treated merely as various readings—and there is nothing inherently improbable in this being the case—it may be fairly contended, that neither Sankara nor Vigñâna Bhikshu would have used the vague expressions, ‘a Purâṇa, or even ‘the Bharata,’ if they could have correctly substituted in lieu of them the specific name Anugita. And this, it may be said, is a contention of some weight, when it is remembered, that both Sankara and Vigñâna show, in other parts of their writings, an acquaintance with this very Anugîtâ. If this reasoning is correct,
1 In the beginning of his gloss on the Anugita he says, that he proposes to explain difficult passages in the Anugita, &c.—Anugîtâdishu. And at the outset of his gloss on the whole Parvan he says. that in the Anugita we have a statement of the miseries of birth, &c. as a protest against worldly life ; in the Brahma Gita we have a recommendation of Prâṇâyâma, &c.; and in the Gurusishyasamvada we have a eulogium on the perception of the self as distinct from Prakṛiti or nature, and incidentally a protest against Pravṛitti or action. a PF 27
Although the information gathered here from these various sources cannot easily be reconciled in every detail, the weight of testimony seems to favour treating the portion of the Asvamedha Parvan covered by our translation as containing three distinct sections: the Anugîtâ, the Brâhmaṇa Gita, and the Guruśishyasaṃvâda. Some indirect support for this conclusion can be drawn from one or two other circumstances. In the Sâñkhya-sâra of Vijñâna Bhikshu—a work which, as we shall see later, expressly mentions the Anugîtâ—there is a passage cited as from the 'Bharata' that coincides almost exactly with a passage occurring in chapter XXVII of our translation (see p. 335). And in the Bhashya of Sañkarâkârya on the Bhagavadgita, chapter XV, stanza 1, there is a citation as from a 'Purâṇa' of a passage that corresponds pretty closely to one occurring in chapter XX of our translation (see p. 313). If the discrepancies between the quotations as given by Vijñâna Bhikshu and Sankara and the passages in our text can be treated merely as variant readings—and there is nothing inherently unlikely about this—it may fairly be argued that neither Sankara nor Vijñâna Bhikshu would have used the vague expressions 'a Purâṇa' or even 'the Bharata' if they could have correctly replaced them with the specific name Anugîtâ. And this, it may be said, carries some weight when one remembers that both Sankara and Vijñâna show, in other parts of their writings, a familiarity with this very Anugîtâ. If this reasoning is correct,
1 At the beginning of his gloss on the Anugita, he says that he proposes to explain difficult passages in the Anugita, &c.—Anugîtâdishu. And at the outset of his gloss on the whole Parvan he says that in the Anugita we have a description of the miseries of birth, &c. as an argument against worldly life; in the Brahma Gita we have a recommendation of Prâṇâyâma, &c.; and in the Gurusishyasamvada we have a eulogy of the perception of the self as distinct from Prakṛiti or nature, and incidentally an argument against Pravṛitti or action. a PF 27