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.
The next piece of external evidence is furnished by the Vedänta-sûtras of Badarayava. In several of those Sutras, references are made to certain Smyitis as authorities for the propositions laid down. Take, for instance, 1,2, Ofori: 23,and many others. Now three of these Sûtras are very useful for our present purpose. The first we have to consider is Sûtra II, 3, 45. The commentators Sankarakarya, Ramanuga, Madhva, and Vallabha! are unanimous in understanding the passage in ‘Gita, chapter XV, stanza 7 (p. 112), to be the one there referred to by the words of the Sûtra, which are, ‘And it is said in a Smriti’ Nowa glance at the context of the Sûtra will, I think, satisfy us that the commentators, who are unanimous though representing different and even conflicting schools of thought, are also quite right. Sûtra 43, in the elliptical language charäcteristic of that branch of our literature, says, ‘ A part, from the statement of difference, and the reverse also ; some lay down that it is a fisherman or a cheat” Sûtra 44 runs thus, ‘ And also from the words of the Mantra.’ And then comes Sûtra 45 as set out above. It is plain, that the Sûtra No. 45 indicates an authority for something not specified, being regarded as part of some other thing also not specified. Now the discussion in previous Sûtras has been about the soul ; so we can have little difficulty in accepting the unanimous interpretation of the commentators, that the proposition here sought to be made out is that the individual soul is part of the Supreme Soul, which is the proposition laid down in the Gîtâ in the passage referred to. The next Sûtra to refer to is IV,1,10. I shall not set forth the other relevant Sûtras here as in the preceding case. I only state that the three commentators, Sankara, Ramânuga, and Madhva, agree that the Gita is here referred to, namely, chapter VI, stanza 11 seq. Vallabha, however, I am bound to add, does not agree with this, as he interprets the Sûtra in question and those which precede and follow as referring to an entirely different matter. If I may be permitted to say so, however, I consider his interpretation not so satisfactory as that of the three other and older commentators. Lastly, we come to Sûtra IV, 2-19. On this, again, all the four commentators are unanimous, and they say that Gita, chapter VIII, stanza 24 seq. (p. 80), is the authority referred to. And I think there can be very little doubt that they are right. These various pieces of evidence render it, I think, historically certain, that the Gita must be considerably prior to the Vedänta-sûtras; and that the word Brahma-sûtras, which occurs at Gita, chapter XIII, stanza 4 (p. 102), is correctly interpreted by the commentators as not referring to the Vedänta-sûtras, which are also called Brahma-sûtras, but to a different subject altogether!. When were the Vedantasûtras composed? The question must at once be admitted to be a difficult one; but I think the following considerations will show that the date of those Sûtras must, at the latest, be considerably earlier than the period which we have already reached in this part of our investigation. We may take it as fairly well settled, that Bhaza Kumirila, the celebrated commentator of the Parva Mimamsa school, flourished not later than the end of the seventh century
* I am indebted to Professor M. M. Kunte for a loan of Vallabhakarya’s commentary on the Sûtras noted in the text, I had not seen it in 1875, when I last discussed this question.
The next piece of external evidence is furnished by the Vedänta-sûtras of Badarayava. Several of those Sûtras refer to certain Smritis as authorities for the propositions they lay down — take, for instance, 1, 2, 3; 23, and many others. Now three of these Sûtras are very useful for our present purpose. The first we have to consider is Sûtra II, 3, 45. The commentators Sankarakarya, Râmânuja, Madhva, and Vallabha are unanimous in taking the passage referred to there by the words of the Sûtra — "And it is said in a Smriti" — to be the passage in Gîtâ, chapter XV, stanza 7 (p. 112). A glance at the context of the Sûtra will, I think, satisfy us that the commentators — unanimous despite representing different and even conflicting schools of thought — are also quite right. Sûtra 43, in the elliptical language charäcteristic of that branch of our literature, says, "A part, from the statement of difference, and the reverse also; some lay down that it is a fisherman or a cheat." Sûtra 44 runs thus: "And also from the words of the Mantra." And then comes Sûtra 45 as set out above. It is plain that Sûtra No. 45 indicates an authority for something unspecified, which is regarded as part of something else also unspecified. The discussion in the previous Sûtras has been about the soul, so we can have little difficulty in accepting the unanimous interpretation of the commentators: that the proposition here being established is that the individual soul is part of the Supreme Soul — which is precisely the proposition laid down in the Gîtâ in the passage referred to. The next Sûtra to consider is IV, 1, 10. I shall not set forth the other relevant Sûtras here as I did in the preceding case. I only note that three commentators — Sankara, Ramânuga, and Madhva — agree that the Gîtâ is referred to here, namely chapter VI, stanza 11 seq. Vallabha, however, I must add, does not agree; he interprets the Sûtra in question and those that precede and follow it as referring to an entirely different matter. If I may say so, I find his interpretation less satisfactory than that of the three other and older commentators. Finally, we come to Sûtra IV, 2, 19. Here again all four commentators are unanimous: they say that Gîtâ, chapter VIII, stanza 24 seq. (p. 80), is the authority referred to. And I think there can be very little doubt that they are right. These various pieces of evidence render it, I think, historically certain that the Gîtâ must be considerably prior to the Vedänta-sûtras, and that the word Brahma-sûtras, which occurs at Gîtâ, chapter XIII, stanza 4 (p. 102), is correctly interpreted by the commentators as referring not to the Vedantasûtras — which are also called Brahma-sûtras — but to an entirely different subject. When were the Vedantasûtras composed? The question must at once be admitted to be a difficult one; but I think the following considerations will show that those Sûtras must date, at the latest, considerably earlier than the period we have already reached in this part of our investigation. We may take it as fairly well settled that Bhaza Kumirila, the celebrated commentator of the Parva Mimamsa school, flourished not later than the end of the seventh century.
* I am indebted to Professor M. M. Kunte for lending me Vallabhakarya's commentary on the Sûtras noted in the text; I had not seen it in 1875, when I last discussed this question.