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.
Smritis and Sûtras of the names of those to whom those Smritis and Sûtras are respectively ascribed ?.
We must now leave these preliminary questions, unluckily in a state far from satisfactory, and proceed to that most important topic—the date when the Gita was composed, and the position it occupies in Sanskrit literature. We have here to consider the external evidence bearing on these points, which is tantalizingly meagre ; and the internal evidence, which is, perhaps, somewhat more full. And taking first the internal evidence, the various items falling under that head may be marshalled into four groups. Firstly, we have to consider the general character of the Gita with reference to its mode of handling its subject. Secondly, there is the character of its style and language. Thirdly, we have to consider the nature of the versification of the Gita. And fourthly and lastly, we must take note of sundry points of detail, such as the attitude of the Gita towards the Vedas and towards caste, its allusions to other systems of speculation, and other matters of the like nature. On each of these groups, in the order here stated, we now proceed to make a few observations.
And first about the manner in which the Gita deals with its subject. It appears to me, that the work bears on the face of it very plain marks indicating that it belongs to an age prior to the system-making age of Sanskrit philosophy. In 1875, I wrote as follows upon this point: ‘My view is, that in the Gita and the Upanishads, the philosophical part has not been consistently and fully worked out. We have there the results of free thought, exercised on different subjects of great moment, unfettered by the exigencies of any foregone conclusions, or of any fully developed theory. It is afterwards, it is at a later stage of philosophical progress, that system-making arises. In that stage some thinkers interpret whole works by the light of some particular doctrines or expressions. And the result is the development of a whole multitude of philosophical sects, following the lead of those thinkers, and all professing to
1 See, as to this, Colebrooke’s Essays, vol. i, p- 328 (Madras).
Smritis and Sûtras bear the names of those to whom those Smritis and Sûtras are respectively ascribed?
We must now leave these preliminary questions—unfortunately in a far from satisfactory state—and move on to the most important topic: when the Gita was composed, and what place it holds in Sanskrit literature. We need to consider two kinds of evidence bearing on these points: the external evidence, which is tantalizingly meagre, and the internal evidence, which is perhaps somewhat fuller. Taking the internal evidence first, the various items that fall under that heading can be arranged into four groups. First, we must consider the general character of the Gita with regard to how it handles its subject. Second, there is the character of its style and language. Third, we must consider the nature of its versification. Fourth and finally, we must take note of various points of detail: the Gita's attitude toward the Vedas and toward caste, its allusions to other systems of thought, and other matters of that kind. We now proceed to make a few observations on each of these groups, in the order just stated.
And first, the way the Gita handles its subject. The work seems to me to bear very plain marks on its face showing that it belongs to an age before the system-making age of Sanskrit philosophy. In 1875 I wrote as follows on this point: 'My view is that in the Gita and the Upanishads the philosophical content has not been worked out consistently or fully. What we find there are the results of free thought, brought to bear on different subjects of great moment, unconstrained by the demands of any predetermined conclusions or any fully developed theory. System-making comes afterwards, at a later stage of philosophical progress. At that stage, certain thinkers interpret whole works by the light of some particular doctrine or set of expressions. The result is the growth of a whole multitude of philosophical sects, following those thinkers' lead, and all claiming to
1 See, on this point, Colebrooke's Essays, vol. i, p. 328 (Madras).