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 point to consider is as to the authorship of the Gita. The popular notion on this subject is pretty well known. The whole of the Mahabharata is, by our traditions, attributed to Vyâsa, whom we have already noticed as a relative of the Kauravas and Pâṇḍavas; and therefore the Bhagavadgita, also, is naturally affiliated to the same author. The earliest written testimony to this authorship, that I can trace, is to be found in Sankarafarya’s commentary on the Gita‘ itself and on the Bṛihadâraṇyakopanishad. To a certain extent, the mention of Vyâsa in the body of the Gita would, from a historic standpoint, seem to militate against this tradition. But I have not seen in any of the commentaries to which I have had access, any consideration of this point, as there is of the mention in some
* See to this effect M. Fauriel, quoted in Grote’s Greece, II, 195 (Cabinet ed.) ? Compare also Weber's History of Indian Literature (English translation), p.187. The instruction, however, as to ‘the reverence due to the priesthood’ from ‘the military caste,’ which is there spoken of, appears to me to be entirely absent from the Gita; see p. 21 seq. infra.
* Westminster Review, April 1868, p. 388 seq.; and Remains, I, 104, 105.
* P. 6 (Calcutta ed., Samvat, 1927).
5 P. 841 (Bibl. Indic. ed.) ; also Svetasvatara, p. 278.
The next point to consider is the authorship of the Gita. The popular view on this subject is well enough known. Our traditions attribute the whole of the Mahabharata to Vyâsa, whom we have already noted as a relative of the Kauravas and Pâṇḍavas, and so the Bhagavadgita naturally comes down to the same author. The earliest written testimony to this authorship that I can trace appears in Sankarafarya's commentary on the Gita itself and on the Bṛihadâraṇyakopanishad. From a historical standpoint, the fact that Vyâsa is mentioned within the body of the Gita might, to some degree, seem to count against this tradition. Yet in none of the commentaries I have been able to consult have I found any discussion of this point, of the kind that does exist regarding the mention in some
* See to this effect M. Fauriel, quoted in Grote's Greece, II, 195 (Cabinet ed.); compare also Weber's History of Indian Literature (English translation), p. 187. The instruction, however, regarding the reverence the military caste owes to the priesthood, which is mentioned there, seems to me to be entirely absent from the Gita; see p. 21 seq. infra.
* Westminster Review, April 1868, p. 388 seq.; and Remains, I, 104, 105.
* P. 6 (Calcutta ed., Samvat, 1927).
5 P. 841 (Bibl. Indic. ed.); also Svetasvatara, p. 278.