166 REV. RICHARD COLLINS, M.A. 
purpose. I think here we have a distinct instance of a quota- 
tion from Patanjali, though Mr. Telang thinks that the writer 
of the Gita is throwing out hints, which Patanjali afterwards 
adopts and systematises. But, again, it is not in a poem that 
we expect to find an exhaustive philosophical system. We 
should hardly go to Paradise Lost or the In Memoriam 
for detailed and _ scientifically-argued systems of divinity, 
political economy, or social science, though there is something 
on all these subjects to be found in them. The Bhagavad- 
Gita is a poem, and the method is evidently eclectic ; and 
when the writer mentions the Sankhya, the Yoga, the 
Vedanta, it appears to me more likely that he refers to the 
Sitras than merely to the beliefs as they were discussed 
previous to their systematisation by the philosophical writers. 
It is, of course, true that the terms Sainkhya, Yoga, and 
Vedanta were in use before the Sitras were written ; but I 
judge from the parallel between the Gita and the Yoga-Siitras 
mentioned above as quoted by Mr. Telang, of which the most 
rational explanation seems to be that it is a quotation from 
Patanjali. Now, the date of Patanjali is still a debated 
question, no doubt; but Professor Max Miiller places him 
after the third century A.D. Itshould also be noticed, that in 
one place Krishna says, ‘lam the author of the Vedantas,” 
where, Mr. Telang says, the reference may be to the latter 
portion of the Vedas; but, nevertheless, it looks lke a 
reference to the Stitras, so-called: while in another place the 
word Brahma-Siitras occurs, which is a common name for the 
Vedanta-Stitras, though Mr. Telang holds that it does not 
refer to the Sitras at all in this place, but only to instruction 
about the Brahman. 
10. Mr. Telang bases another argument for the very 
early composition of the Bhagavad-Gité on its ‘style and 
language.” He observes that it does not show the love for 
“compounds” “presented by what is called the classical 
literature.’ This is, of course, a question on which only 
those well acquainted with Hindu literature can judge. But 
I believe it is doubtful whether in this respect the Gita is 
much more simple than the writings of Kalidasa, and Kéli- 
dasa is put by Mr. Telang in the fifth century, and by Pro- 
fessor Max Miiller in the sixth century A.D. 
11. With regard to the references to the Vedas, and the 
somewhat ‘‘ disparaging manner,” as Mr. Telang observes, in 
which they are treated in the Gita, I cannot see that that neces- 
sarily indicates antiquity, though the Upanishads treat many 
Vedic questions in much the same way. The object of the 
Gita is to extol Krishna, in comparison with whom everything 
