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.
Iam unable to find anything else in the way of internal evidence bearing upon the date of the Anugita. It appears to me, that the date to which the investigation we have now gone through leads us, is one which, in the present state of our information, may be fairly accepted as a provisional hypothesis. It does not appear to me to conflict with any ascertained dates, while it is pointed to as probable by the various lines of testimony which we have here considered. We now proceed to discuss one or two other points which may have a bearing upon this topic, but which at present cannot yield us any positive guidance in our search for the date of the Anugîtâ. And first among these, let us consider the various names of deities that occur in different parts of the work. We have, then, Vishṇu, Sambhu, Gishṇu, Soma, Aditya, Sûrya, Mitra, Agni, Kandra, Rudra, Siva, Varuṇa, Pragâpati, Maghavat, Purandara, Indra, Brahman, Satakratu, Dharma, Nârâyaṇa, Vayu, Yama, Tvashṭṛi, Hari, Îsvara, and lastly Uma under three different names, namely, Uma, Mahesvari, and Parvati. Now, leaving aside for the moment the three names of Uma, which appear from the passage where they are used to be all three the names of the same goddess, there is no doubt that in the list above set out, some of the names are merely used in different passages, but still to indicate the same being. Thus, Indra, Satakratu, Purandara, and Maghavat are really the names of one and the same deity. But when Soma is mentioned as the deity presiding over the tongue, and Kandramas as the deity presiding over the mind, it becomes doubtful whether the two names do really indicate the same deity, albeit in later Sanskrit Soma and Kandramas both signify the moon. Similarly, when Arka is said to be the deity presiding over the eye, and Mitra over another organ, it seems open to question whether Arka and Mitra both signify the sun there, as they undoubtedly do in classical Sanskrit. True it is, that even in such a recent work as the Sankhya-sara, this mention of Arka and Mitra as presiding deities of two several organs does occur. But it is plain, that that circumstance can have no bearing on the inquiry before us, for the Sâñkhya-sâra is avowedly a compilation based on older authorities, and in the particular part under consideration, really reproduces a passage from some older work. It cannot, therefore, be argued, that because Arka and Mitra were identified with one another at the time of the Sankhya-sara, and yet are mentioned as deities of two separate organs, therefore, they must have also been regarded as one in the older original work where they are also mentioned as deities of two separate organs. And it may, perhaps, be remarked here in passing, that the Vedanta Paribhasha has Mṛityu instead of Mitra, which would get rid of the difficulty here altogether ; while as regards Soma and Kandramas, the passage in the Sâñkhya-sâra reads Praketas instead of Soma, which would get rid of the other difficulty above pointed out. Whether these discrepancies are owing to any tampering with the lists of organs: and deities, at a time when the later identifications between different deities took place, or whether they are to be explained on some other theory, it is impossible at present to say. And, therefore, it is also unnecessary to pursue the inquiry here any further. It must suffice for the present to have drawn attention to the matter.
I can find nothing else in the way of internal evidence bearing on the date of the Anugîtâ. The date to which our investigation points seems, given what we currently know, a reasonable provisional hypothesis. It does not appear to conflict with any established dates, and the various lines of testimony considered here all point toward it as probable. We now turn to one or two other points that may have a bearing on the question, but that cannot at present give us any firm guidance in our search for the date of the Anugîtâ. First among these, let us consider the various names of deities that appear in different parts of the work. They are: Vishṇu, Sambhu, Jishṇu, Soma, Aditya, Sûrya, Mitra, Agni, Kandra, Rudra, Siva, Varuṇa, Prajâpati, Maghavat, Purandara, Indra, Brahman, Satakratu, Dharma, Nârâyaṇa, Vayu, Yama, Tvashṭṛi, Hari, Îsvara, and finally Uma under three different names: Uma, Mahesvari, and Parvati. Setting aside for the moment those three names of Uma, which the passage where they occur shows to be names of the same goddess, there is no doubt that some names in the list above are used in different passages to indicate the same being. Thus Indra, Satakratu, Purandara, and Maghavat are all names of one and the same deity. But when Soma is named as the deity presiding over the tongue and Kandramas as the deity presiding over the mind, it becomes doubtful whether the two names really indicate the same deity, even though in later Sanskrit both Soma and Kandramas signify the moon. Similarly, when Arka is said to be the deity presiding over the eye and Mitra over another organ, it seems an open question whether both Arka and Mitra signify the sun there, as they unquestionably do in classical Sanskrit. It is true that even so recent a work as the Sâñkhya-sâra mentions Arka and Mitra as the presiding deities of two separate organs. But that circumstance plainly has no bearing on the inquiry before us, because the Sâñkhya-sâra is avowedly a compilation based on older authorities and in the particular passage under consideration actually reproduces a text from some older work. It cannot therefore be argued that because Arka and Mitra were identified with one another at the time of the Sâñkhya-sâra and yet are mentioned there as deities of two separate organs, they must also have been regarded as one in the older original work where they are likewise mentioned as deities of two separate organs. It may perhaps be noted in passing that the Vedanta Paribhasha has Mṛityu instead of Mitra, which would remove this difficulty entirely; and that regarding Soma and Kandramas, the passage in the Sâñkhya-sâra reads Praketas instead of Soma, which would remove the other difficulty pointed out above. Whether these discrepancies are due to some tampering with the lists of organs and deities at a time when the later identifications between different deities took place, or whether they are to be explained on some other theory, it is impossible at present to say. It is therefore equally unnecessary to pursue the inquiry further here. It must suffice for now to have drawn attention to the matter.