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.
There are several other points of much interest in the Bhagavadgita, such as the reference to the Sankhya and Yoga; the place assigned to the Margasirsha month; the allusion to the doctrines of materialism ; the nearly entire coincidence between a stanza of the Gita and one in the Manu Smyiti. But in the present state of our knowledge, I do not think that we can extract any historical results from any of them. Without dwelling on them any further¹, therefore, I will only state it as my opinion, that the Sankhya and Yoga of the Gita are not identical with the systems known to us under those names, and that the Manu Smriti has probably borrowed from the Gita the stanza common to the two works.
We now proceed to a discussion of some of the external evidence touching the age of the Bhagavadgita. It is, of course, unnecessary to consider any evidence of a date later than the eighth century A.C., that being the date generally received, though not on very strong grounds, as the date of Śankarâkârya, the celebrated commentator of the Gîtâ*. For the period prior to that limit, the first testimony to consider is that of Bâṇabhaṭṭa, the author of the Kâdambarî. The date of Bâṇa is now fairly well settled as the middle of the seventh century A.c. The doubt which the late Dr. Bhâu Daji had cast upon its correctness’, by impugning the received date of king Harshavardhana, appears to me to have been satisfactorily disposed of by the paper of my friend Professor R. G. Bhaṇḍarkar on the Kâlukya dates’. In the Kâdambari, then, we have testimony to the existence of the Bhagavadgîtâ in the middle of the seventh century A.c. For in that work, which, as is well known, abounds with equivoques, we have a passage which compares the royal palace to the Mahabhârata, both being ‘ Anantagîtâkarzanânanditanaram 3,’ which, as applied to the royal palace, means ‘in which the people were delighted by hearing innumerable songs ;’ and as applied to the Mahabharata means ‘in which Arguna was delighted at hearing the Anantagîtâ” Anantagita is evidently only another name here for Bhagavadgita. The conclusion deducible from this fact is not merely that the Gita existed, but that it existed as a recognised portion of the Bharata, in the seventh century A.c. Now the Kadambari shows, in numerous passages, in what high esteem the Mahabharata was held in its days. The queen Vilasavati used to attend at those readings and expositions of the Mahabharata, which have continued down to our own times; and it was even then regarded as a sacred work of extremely high authority, in the same way as it is now. It follows, therefore, that the Gita must have been several centuries old in the time of Bâṇabhaṭṭa.
1 The word Brahma-nirvâṇa, which occurs so often at the close of chapter V and also at chapter II, 72, seems to me to indicate that nirvâṇa had not yet become technically pinned down, so to say, to the meaning which Buddhism subsequently gave to it, as the name of what it deemed the summum bonum. Nirvâṇa by itself occurs at VI, 15.
2 See some further remarks on these points in my Introduction to the Gita in verse.
3 Professor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 140) says Sankara was born in 788 A.D.; on the authority, I presume, of the Aryavidyasudhakara, p. 226,
There are several other points of considerable interest in the Bhagavadgita: the references to the Sankhya and Yoga; the position given to the month of Margasirsha; the allusion to materialist doctrines; and the near-perfect match between a stanza in the Gita and one in the Manu Smriti. In the present state of our knowledge, however, I do not think any of these yields historical conclusions. Without dwelling on them further¹, I will simply say that in my opinion the Sankhya and Yoga of the Gita are not identical with the systems we know under those names, and that the Manu Smriti has probably borrowed from the Gita the stanza the two works share.
We turn now to a discussion of some of the external evidence bearing on the age of the Bhagavadgîtâ. It is of course unnecessary to consider any evidence for a date later than the eighth century A.C., that being the date generally accepted — though not on very strong grounds — as the date of Śankarâkârya, the celebrated commentator of the Gîtâ*. For the period before that limit, the first testimony to examine is that of Bâzabhaf, the author of the Kâdambarî. The date of Bâṇa is now fairly well settled as the middle of the seventh century A.C. The doubt which the late Dr. Bhâu Daji had cast on its correctness¹, by challenging the received date of king Harshavardhana, seems to me to have been satisfactorily disposed of by my friend Professor R. G. Bhaṇḍarkar in his paper on the Kâlukya dates². In the Kâdambarî, then, we have testimony to the existence of the Bhagavadgîtâ in the middle of the seventh century A.C. That work, as is well known, abounds with equivoques, and it contains a passage comparing the royal palace to the Mahabhârata, both being 'Anantagîtâkarzanânanditanaram 3' — a phrase which, as applied to the royal palace, means 'in which the people were delighted by hearing innumerable songs,' and as applied to the Mahabhârata means 'in which Arjuna was delighted at hearing the Anantagîtâ.' Anantagîtâ is evidently only another name here for Bhagavadgîtâ. What this fact allows us to conclude is not merely that the Gîtâ existed, but that it existed as a recognised portion of the Bharata, in the seventh century A.C. Now the Kâdambarî shows, in numerous passages, how highly the Mahabhârata was esteemed in its day. The queen Vilasavati used to attend those readings and expositions of the Mahabhârata that have continued down to our own times; and it was regarded even then as a sacred work of extremely high authority, just as it is now. It follows, therefore, that the Gîtâ must have been several centuries old by the time of Bâṇabhaṭṭa.
1 The phrase Brahma-nirvâṇa, which appears so frequently at the end of chapter V and also at chapter II, 72, suggests to me that nirvâṇa had not yet been technically fixed, so to speak, to the meaning Buddhism later attached to it as the name for what it regarded as the summum bonum. Nirvâṇa by itself occurs at VI, 15.
2 See some further remarks on these points in my Introduction to the Gita in verse.
3 Professor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 140) says Sankara was born in 788 A.D., on the authority, I presume, of the Aryavidyasudhakara, p. 226.