[70]. See Jacob’s Concordance to the Principal Upanishads and Bhagavadgītā.
[71]. Mr. Justice Telang was inclined to put the date before the third century B.C., but his otherwise most judicious criticism is faulty in this that it does not take all the factors of the problem into consideration. Others, such as Müller, Weber, Davies and Lorinser, incline to a very late date, about the third century A.D. Most writers believe that the true date lies between these extremes. So Monier-Williams, Hopkins, Fraser and others. Prof. Amalnerkar’s pamphlet contains a number of most interesting points. His contention, that the phrase, Brahmasūtrapadaih (G. XIII, 4) refers to the Vedānta Sūtras, and that the Gītā is therefore the later work of the two, has been accepted by Max Müller (S. S. I. P., 155), but Prof. Hopkins thinks the Gītā is earlier than the Sūtra (R. I., 400). The theory which Prof. Hopkins holds, that the Divine Song was originally an Upanishad, and that it was redacted, first as a Vishuite poem, and then a second time in the interests of Krishnaism (R. I., 389), would account, on the one hand, for the numerous inconsistencies in its teaching, and, on the other, for the very conflicting signs of date which it presents. For a criticism of Bunkim Chundra’s views, see the Appendix.
[72]. Dutt, C. A. I., Vol. I, 9-11; Bunkim Ch. Chatterji, Krishnacharitra, 46; Macdonell, 174-175, 285; Hopkins, R. I., 33, 177-179.
[73]. Macdonell, 285; Weber, I. L., 90.
[74]. S. B. E., Vol. XII, pp. XLI-XLII; Macdonell, 213.
[75]. S. B. E., Vol. XIV, Index. Cf. Weber, I. L., 186; Krishnacharitra, 31.
[76]. 3, 17, 6. See Dutt, C. A. I., Vol. I, 189; Weber, I. L., 71; Bose, H. C., Vol. I, 26; Hopkins, R. I., 465.
[77]. Weber, I. L., 70.
[78]. Whether Krishna Angirasa in the Kaushītaki Brāhmana be the same person as Krishna Devakiputra, or not, we cannot tell.
[79]. Dutt, C. A. I., Vol. I, 127; Bose, H. C., Vol. I, 33-34; Hopkins, R. I., 403; Monier-Williams, 112.