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.
Another point of similar bearing on our present investigation is the mode in which the story of Parasurâma is dealt with in the Anugita. There is in the first place no allusion to his being an incarnation of Vishṇu, nor to the encounter between him and his namesake, the son of Dasaratha and the hero of the Râmâyaṇa. We have, on the contrary, an explicit statement, that after the advice of the ‘ Pitṛis’ he entirely abandons the slaughter of the Kshatriyas, and resorting to penance thereby achieves final emancipation. We have elsewhere argued *, that the theory of Parasurâma being an incarnation of Vishṇu, must have probably originated prior to the time of Bhartṛihari, but later than the time of Kâlidâsa. The allusion to Parasurâma in the work before us does not, however, enable us to judge of its chronological position with reference to Kalidasa. But the last point discussed renders it unnecessary to consider this question further. It may be noted, by the way, that the Anugita represents Parasurama, although living in the Asrama or hermitage of his father, who was a Rishi, as mounting a chariot for the purpose of sweeping away the kinsmen of Kärtavirya. Whence he obtained a chariot in a hermitage, the Anugîtâ does not explain.
In connexion with the episode of Parasurâma, may be noted the list which occurs in the course of it, of the degraded Kshatriya tribes, of Dravidas, Sabaras, &c. Iam unable to see that those names can give us any further help in our present investigation than in so far as they show that, at the time of the Anugita, there must have been some information about the south of India available in the districts where the author of the Anugita lived. Some of the tribes mentioned appear to have been located far in the south of the Indian peninsula. But this is a point on which we shall have to say something more in discussing the next item of internal evidence to which we shall refer. Here it is enough to point out that some of the tribes mentioned in the Anugîtâ are also referred to in no less a work than the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa !.
1 See ‘ Was the Râmâyaṇa copied from Homer?’ pp. 56, 57-
Another point of similar bearing on our present investigation is the way the story of Parasurâma is handled in the Anugita. To begin with, there is no allusion to his being an incarnation of Vishṇu, nor to the encounter between him and his namesake, the son of Dasaratha and the hero of the Râmâyaṇa. On the contrary, there is an explicit statement that, on the advice of the Pitṛis, he abandons the slaughter of the Kshatriyas entirely and, by resorting to penance, achieves final emancipation. We have argued elsewhere* that the theory of Parasurâma as an incarnation of Vishṇu probably originated after the time of Kâlidâsa but before that of Bhartṛihari. The allusion to Parasurâma in the work before us does not, however, allow us to judge its chronological position relative to Kalidasa. But the last point discussed makes it unnecessary to pursue this question further. It may be noted in passing that the Anugita represents Parasurama as mounting a chariot to sweep away the kinsmen of Kärtavirya, even though he is living in the Asrama, or hermitage, of his father, who was a Rishi. How he came by a chariot in a hermitage the Anugîtâ does not explain.
In connection with the episode of Parasurâma, we should note the list that appears in the course of it — the degraded Kshatriya tribes, Dravidas, Sabaras, and so on. I cannot see that those names can take our present investigation any further, except insofar as they show that, at the time of the Anugita, some knowledge of southern India must have been available in the districts where its author lived. Some of the tribes mentioned appear to have been located deep in the south of the Indian peninsula. But this is a point we shall need to say more about when we discuss the next piece of internal evidence. Here it is enough to note that some of the tribes mentioned in the Anugîtâ are also referred to in no less a work than the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa!
1 See 'Was the Râmâyaṇa copied from Homer?' pp. 56, 57.