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 the view we have now expressed may be also supported by a comparison of the doctrines of the Anugita and Apastamba touching the duties of Brahmaṇas. According to Apastamba, the occupations lawful to Brâhmaṇas are the famous six referred to in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita, and two others superadded, namely, inheritance and gleaning corn in the fields. These last are not mentioned in the Anugita, or in Manu either, and are, even according to Apastamba, common to Brahmaṇas with Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. But as regards the six above referred to, it is worthy of note, that the Anugita apparently groups them into two distinct sets of three. The first set of three consists of those which, in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita, we have characterised as constituting rather the rights than the duties of Brâhmaṇas, and which the Anugita describes as ‘ means of livelihood for Brâhmaṇas. The other set of three consists of real duties,and these the Anugita speaks of as ‘ pious duties.’ This grouping appears to me to furnish powerful corroboration of the view put forward in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita. It would seem, that the possession of the moral and spiritual merits which, according to the Gita, constituted the duty of Brahmaṇas, in the simple and archaic society there disclosed, was developed, in a more advanced and artificial state of society, into the performance of the ‘pious duties’ of the Anugita and the duties which are ‘the means of livelihood.’ Then in the further social evolution, in the course of which the old spiritual view began to be forgotten, and the actual facts of the past began to be transmuted into the dogmatic rules of the future, the occupations of receiving presents, imparting instruction, and officiating at sacrifices, became the special occupations of the Brâhmaṇas, and the distinction between these occupations from their higher duties was thrown into the background; and accordingly we find no allusion to any such distinction in Apastamba or Manu, or, as far as I know, in any other later embodiment of the current ideas on the subject’. Ifall this has been correctly argued, the conclusion derivable from it is in entire accord with that which we have already drawn, namely, that the Bhagavadgita, the Anugita, and the Dharma-sûtra of Apastamba, belong to different stages of ancient Indian history, and that the stage to which the Gita belongs is the earliest, and that to which Apastamba belongs, the latest of such stages.
1 Cf. also Biihler’s Gautama, p. 175.
It seems to me that the view we have just expressed can also be supported by comparing the doctrines of the Anugita and Apastamba on the duties of Brahmaṇas. According to Apastamba, the occupations lawful to Brahmaṇas are the famous six referred to in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita, plus two others: inheritance and gleaning corn in the fields. These last two are not mentioned in the Anugita or in Manu, and even by Apastamba's account are shared by Brahmaṇas with Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. Regarding the six, however, it is worth noting that the Anugita apparently divides them into two distinct sets of three. The first set consists of those which, in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita, we characterized as constituting the rights of Brahmaṇas rather than their duties, and which the Anugita describes as "means of livelihood for Brâhmaṇas." The second set consists of real duties, which the Anugita calls "pious duties." This grouping seems to me to offer powerful corroboration of the view put forward in our Introduction to the Bhagavadgita. It would appear that the possession of the moral and spiritual merits which, according to the Gita, constituted the duty of Brahmaṇas in the simple and archaic society there disclosed, developed in a more advanced and artificial state of society into the performance of the "pious duties" and the duties that are "means of livelihood" found in the Anugita. Then, in the course of further social evolution, as the old spiritual view began to be forgotten and the actual facts of the past began to be transmuted into the dogmatic rules of the future, the occupations of receiving presents, imparting instruction, and officiating at sacrifices became the special occupations of the Brahmaṇas, and the distinction between these occupations and their higher duties was pushed into the background. Accordingly, we find no allusion to any such distinction in Apastamba or Manu, or, as far as I know, in any other later embodiment of the prevailing ideas on the subject. If all this has been correctly argued, the conclusion it yields is in complete accord with the one we have already drawn: that the Bhagavadgita, the Anugita, and the Dharma-sûtra of Apastamba belong to different stages of ancient Indian history, and that the stage to which the Gita belongs is the earliest, while that to which Apastamba belongs is the latest of those stages.
1 Cf. also Bühler's Gautama, p. 175.