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.
We have thus noticed all the salient points in the evidence, external and internal, which is available for determining the position of the Anugita in our ancient literature. Nobody who has seen even a little of the history of that literature will be surprised at the quantity or quality of that evidence, or the nature of the conclusions legitimately yiclded by it. We have endeavoured to express those conclusions in language which should not indicate any greater certainty attaching to them than can fairly be claimed for them. The net result appears to be this. The Anugîtâ may be taken with historical certainty to have been some centuries old in the time of the great Śaṅkarâkârya. It was very probably older than the Dharma-sûtras of Apastamba, but by what period of time we are not in a position at present to define. It was, perhaps, older also than the rise of Buddhism and Gainism, and of the Yoga philosophy ; but on this it is impossible to say anything with any approach to confidence. It is, on the other hand, almost certain that it belongs to a period very considerably removed from the older Upanishads ; probably removed by a distance of some centuries, during which ‘stories’ not contained in the Upanishads had not only obtained currency, but also come to be regarded as belonging to antiquity 2. And yet the period to which the work belongs was one in which the Upanishads were only reverenced as the authoritative opinions of eminent men, not as the words of God himself*, In this respect, it may be said that the Anugîtà seems rather to belong to an earlier stratum of thought than even the Sanatsugatiya, in which a Gñânakâṇḍa, as forming a part of the Vedic canon, seems to be recognised”. But it is abundantly clear, that the Anugita stands at a very considerable chronological distance from the Bhagavadgita.
* Cf. Anugita I, 36 with Vâska (ed. Roth), p. 190.
* Some of the Purâtana Itihâsas, e. g. that of Narada and Devamata, are not traceable in any Vedic work known to us. Devamata’s name I do not find referred to anywhere else.
We have now surveyed all the main points of the evidence, external and internal, that bears on the place of the Anugita in our ancient literature. No one with even a passing knowledge of that literature's history will be surprised by the quantity or quality of the evidence, or by the nature of the conclusions it legitimately yields. We have tried to express those conclusions in language that claims no greater certainty for them than can fairly be justified. The net result appears to be this. The Anugîtâ can be taken with historical certainty to have been several centuries old by the time of the great Śaṅkarâkârya. It was very probably older than the Dharma-sûtras of Apastamba, though we are not currently in a position to say by how much. It was, perhaps, also older than the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, and of the Yoga philosophy; but on this point it is impossible to say anything with any real confidence. On the other hand, it is almost certain that the work belongs to a period very considerably later than the older Upanishads — probably separated from them by several centuries, during which stories not found in the Upanishads had not only gained currency but had come to be regarded as belonging to antiquity 2. And yet the period to which the work belongs was one in which the Upanishads were revered only as the authoritative opinions of eminent men, not as the word of God himself*. In this respect it may be said that the Anugîtà seems to belong to an earlier stratum of thought than even the Sanatsujâtîya, in which a Gñânakâṇḍa as part of the Vedic canon appears to be recognised". But it is abundantly clear that the Anugita stands at a very considerable chronological distance from the Bhagavadgita.
* Cf. Anugita I, 36 with Vâska (ed. Roth), p. 190.
* Some of the Purâtana Itihâsas — for example, that of Narada and Devamata — cannot be traced in any Vedic work known to us. I find no reference to Devamata's name anywhere else.