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.
A similar inference seems to be derivable from a comparison of the specific doctrines as to the duties of Brah- -maṇas which are enunciated in the Gita and the Anugita. In the latter work, the famous six duties are expressly mentioned. We have already argued in our Introduction to the Gita, that a comparison of the teaching of that work upon this point with the teaching of Apastamba and Manu shows the former to have been older than the latter. The six duties mentioned in the Anugita are those also mentioned by Manu and Apastamba. It follows, therefore, that the Gita is prior to the Anugîtâ also. Whether the Anugita is prior or subsequent to Manu and Apastamba, is a question which will have to be discussed in the sequel.
The net result of the whole of this comparison appears to me to clearly show the Anugita to be a work of considerably more recent date than the Bhagavadgita. What interval of time lay between the two, is a most interesting, but also a most difficult, question. The differences we have noted appear to me to indicate a pretty wide interval. If I am right in regarding the Gita as a work of what may be called, for practical purposes, the age of the older Upanishads, I am inclined to think that the interval between the Gita and the Anugîtâ must have been one of larger extent than even three or four centuries. For as we have already pointed out, the description of the various ‘Itihasas’ mentioned in the Anugita as ‘purâtana’—ancient—points to at least three or four centuries having elapsed between the close of the Upanishad period and the composition of the Anugita. It is obvious, however, that this result is not one with which we can rest satisfied. Even if it were more precise and accurate, it would only fix the age of the Anugita with reference to the age of another work itself of unknown and unascertained date. We must therefore endeavour to compare the Anugita with some other work, the date of which is better known. For this purpose, it seems to be not of any great use to refer to the Sankhya and Yoga-sûtras, although it is not improbable that some materials might be forthcoming for a useful comparison between them and the Anugîtâ. Neither the Sâñkhya nor the Yoga-sûtras can
A similar inference seems to follow from comparing the specific doctrines about the duties of Brahmaṇas set out in the Gita and the Anugîtâ. The latter work expressly mentions the famous six duties. In our Introduction to the Gita we have already argued that, when the Gita's teaching on this point is compared with the teaching of Apastamba and Manu, the Gita proves to be the older of the two. The six duties mentioned in the Anugîtâ are the same ones mentioned by Manu and Apastamba. It follows, therefore, that the Gita is earlier than the Anugîtâ as well. Whether the Anugîtâ is earlier or later than Manu and Apastamba is a question to be taken up in the sequel.
The overall result of this comparison seems to me to show clearly that the Anugita is a considerably more recent work than the Bhagavadgita. How large the interval between the two was is a most interesting, but also a most difficult, question. The differences we have noted seem to me to indicate a fairly wide gap. If I am right in treating the Gita as a work belonging to what may be called, for practical purposes, the age of the older Upanishads, I am inclined to think that the interval between the Gita and the Anugîtâ must have been greater than even three or four centuries. For, as we have already pointed out, the description of the various 'Itihasas' mentioned in the Anugita as 'purâtana'—ancient—points to at least three or four centuries having elapsed between the close of the Upanishad period and the composition of the Anugita. It is obvious, however, that this conclusion is not one we can rest satisfied with. Even if it were more precise and accurate, it would only fix the age of the Anugita relative to another work whose own date is unknown and unestablished. We must therefore try to compare the Anugita with some other work whose date is better known. For this purpose, referring to the Sankhya and Yoga-sûtras does not seem to be of much use, even though it is not unlikely that some material could be found for a worthwhile comparison between them and the Anugîtâ. Neither the Sâñkhya nor the Yoga-sûtras can