Abstract

The Anugītā has been considered as the first gloss known to us on the Bhagavadgītā. The Anugītā set erroneous standard of commenting on the Bhagavadgītā. The entire Indian tradition of exegesis of the Bhagavadgītā followed, knowingly or unknowingly, the Anugītā in being free with the text of the Bhagavadgītā. On careful comparison of the Bhagavadgītā and the Anugītā, it becomes clear that the author of the two works cannot be the same person. The author of the Anugītā, while interpreting the Bhagavadgītā, does not adhere to the meaning of early source on which the Bhagavadgītā depended and changes their meaning. Secondly, much of the text of the Bhagavadgītā was overlooked and where the author of the Anugītā consulted the text, he had no firm grasp of semantics and syntax of Saṃskṛta and violates them while interpreting the Bhagavadgītā. Thirdly, without understanding or respecting the philosophical concepts, he makes patently absurd philosophical claims. Fourthly, if the interpretation of the Anugītā is accepted, then like the Anugītā itself, the Bhagavadgītā will become just an ill-fitting addendum to the narrative of Mahābhārata without contributing anything to the development of the narrative; on the opposite, it will appear as disrupting the natural flow of the narrative. Fifthly, the narrative of the Anugītā has a very loose thematic connection. And lastly, the errors by characters in making reference to persons in the dialogue in the Anugītā are narrative slips without any philosophical significance.