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.
A.C. A considerable time prior to him must be placed the great commentator on the Mimâṃsâ-sûtras, namely, Sabarasvâmin. Ifwe may judge from the style of his great commentary, he cannot have flourished much later than Patañgali, who may now be taken as historically proved to have flourished about 140 B.C.* Nowa considerable time must have intervened between Sabarasvâmin and another commentator on the Pûrva Mimâṃsâ, whom Sabara quotes with the highly honorific title Bhagavan, the Venerable, namely, Upavarsha. Upavarsha appears from Sankara’s statement to have commented on the Vedantasûtras We have thus a long catena of works from the seventh century A.C., indicating a pretty high antiquity for the Vedânta-sûtras, and therefore a higher one for the Bhagavadgita. The antiquity of the Vedanta-sitras follows also from the circumstance, which we have on the testimony of Râmânuga, repeated by Mâdhavâkârya, that a commentary on the Sûtras was written by Baudhâyanâkârya #, which commentary Râmânuga says he followed. Baudhayana’s date is not accurately settled. But he appears to be older than Âpastamba, whose date, as suggested by Dr. Bihler, has already been mentioned®. The Vedântasûtras, then, would appear to be at least as old as the fourth century B.C.; if the information we have from Râmânuga may be trusted. A third argument may be mentioned, bearing on the date of the Vedânta-sûtras. In Sûtra 110 of the third Pada of the fourth Adhyâya of Pâṇini’s Sûtras, a Pârâsarya is mentioned as the author of a Bhikshu-sûtra. Who is this Pârâsarya, and what the Bhikshu-sûtra? Unluckily Patañgali gives us no information on this head, nor does the Kasika Vritti. But a note of Professor Târânâtha Tarkavâkaspati, of Calcutta, says that Pârâsarya is Vyâsa, and the Bhikshu-sûtra is the Vedânta-sûtras. If this is correct, the Vedänta-sûtras go very far indeed into antiquity. For Pâṇini can certainly not be assigned to a later date than the fourth century B.C., while that learned scholar, Professor Goldstucker, on grounds of considerable strength, assigned him to a much earlier date? The question thus comes to this, Is the remark of Professor Târânatha, above set out, correct? I find then, from enquiries made of my venerable and erudite friend Yagñesvar SAstrin, the author of the Âryavidyâsudhâkara, that the note of : Târânâtha is based on the works of Bhaffogi Dikshita, Nagogi Bhaṭṭa, and Gñânendra Sarasvati, who all give the same interpretation of the Sûtra in question. It is certainly unfortunate that we have no older authority on this point than Bha¢fogi. The interpretation is in itself not improbable. Vyâsa is certainly by the current tradition* called the author of the Vedânta-sûtras, and also the son of Parâsara. Nor is Bhikshu-sûtra a name too far removed in sense from Vedanta-stitra, though doubtless the former name is not now in use, at all events as applied to the Sûtras attributed to Bâdarâyaṇa, and though, it must also be stated, a Bhikshu-sûtra Bhâshya Vârtika is mentioned eo nomine by Professor Weber as actually in existence at the present day*. Taking all things together, therefore, we may provisionally understand the Bhikshu-sûtra mentioned by Pâṇini to be identical with the Vedânta-sûtras. But even apart from that identification, the other testimonies we have adduced prove, I think, the high antiquity of those Sûtras, and consequently of the Bhagavadgita.
! See Burnell’s Sâmavidhâna-brâhmaṇa, Introduction, p. vi note.
* The authorities are collected in our edition of Bhartṛihari (Bombay Series of Sanskrit Classics), Introd. p. xi note. See also Biihler’s Âpastamba in this series, Introd. p. xxviii.
* See Colebrooke’s Essays, vol. i, p. 332. An Upavarsha is mentioned in the Kathâsaritsâgara as living in the time of king Nanda, and having Pâṇini, Kâtyâyana, and Vyadi for his pupils.
* See the Râmânuga Bhashya; and the Râmânuga Darsana in Sarvadarsanasangraha.
5 Âpastamba, p. xvi.
A considerable time before him must be placed the great commentator on the Mimâṃsâ-sûtras, namely, Sabarasvâmin. Judging from the style of his great commentary, he cannot have flourished much later than Patañjali, who may now be taken as historically proved to have flourished about 140 B.C. A considerable time must also have intervened between Sabarasvâmin and another commentator on the Pûrva Mimâṃsâ whom Sabara quotes with the highly honorific title Bhagavan, the Venerable, namely, Upavarsha. Upavarsha appears from Sankara's statement to have commented on the Vedantasûtras. We have thus a long chain of works from the seventh century A.C., pointing to a pretty high antiquity for the Vedânta-sûtras, and therefore to a higher one for the Bhagavadgita. The antiquity of the Vedânta-sûtras follows also from the circumstance, attested by Râmânuja and repeated by Mâdhavâkârya, that a commentary on the Sûtras was written by Baudhâyanâkârya, which commentary Râmânuja says he followed. Baudhayana's date is not accurately settled, but he appears to be older than Âpastamba, whose date, as suggested by Dr. Bühler, has already been mentioned. The Vedântasûtras, then, would appear to be at least as old as the fourth century B.C., if the information we have from Râmânuja may be trusted.
A third argument may be mentioned, bearing on the date of the Vedânta-sûtras. In Sûtra 110 of the third Pada of the fourth Adhyâya of Pâṇini's Sûtras, a Pârâsarya is mentioned as the author of a Bhikshu-sûtra. Who is this Pârâsarya, and what is the Bhikshu-sûtra? Unfortunately Patañjali gives us no information on this point, nor does the Kasika Vritti. But a note of Professor Târânâtha Tarkavâkaspati of Calcutta states that Pârâsarya is Vyâsa, and the Bhikshu-sûtra is the Vedânta-sûtras. If this is correct, the Vedänta-sûtras go very far indeed into antiquity, since Pâṇini certainly cannot be assigned to a later date than the fourth century B.C., while that learned scholar Professor Goldstucker, on grounds of considerable strength, assigned him to a much earlier date. The question thus comes to this: is the remark of Professor Târânatha, set out above, correct? I find, from enquiries made of my venerable and erudite friend Yajñeśvara Śāstrin, the author of the Âryavidyâsudhâkara, that the note of Târânâtha is based on the works of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, Nāgoji Bhaṭṭa, and Jñānendra Sarasvatī, who all give the same interpretation of the Sûtra in question. It is certainly unfortunate that we have no older authority on this point than Bhaṭṭoji. The interpretation is in itself not improbable. Vyâsa is certainly called by the current tradition the author of the Vedânta-sûtras, and also the son of Parâsara. Nor is Bhikshu-sûtra a name too far removed in sense from Vedânta-sûtra, though the former name is certainly not now in use, at all events as applied to the Sûtras attributed to Bâdarâyaṇa; and it must also be stated that a Bhikshu-sûtra Bhâshya Vârtika is mentioned eo nomine by Professor Weber as actually existing at the present day. Taking everything together, therefore, we may provisionally understand the Bhikshu-sûtra mentioned by Pâṇini to be identical with the Vedânta-sûtras. But even apart from that identification, the other testimonies we have adduced prove, I think, the high antiquity of those Sûtras, and consequently of the Bhagavadgita.
! See Burnell's Sâmavidhâna-brâhmaṇa, Introduction, p. vi note.
* The authorities are collected in our edition of Bhartṛihari (Bombay Series of Sanskrit Classics), Introd. p. xi note. See also Bühler's Âpastamba in this series, Introd. p. xxviii.
* See Colebrooke's Essays, vol. i, p. 332. An Upavarsha is mentioned in the Kathâsaritsâgara as living in the time of king Nanda, and having Pâṇini, Kâtyâyana, and Vyadi for his pupils.
* See the Râmânuja Bhashya; and the Râmânuja Darsana in Sarvadarsanasangraha.
5 Âpastamba, p. xvi.