* What should be done for the attainment of real good, and what should not be done as productive of mischief. See too p. 125.
* Le. contains nothing that is entitled to belief, as the Vedas, &c.
* No principle based on virtue and vice in the government of the world.
* They do not believe in any unseen cause, but say the lust of mankind is the cause of the universe.
* J.e. who have none of the means of reaching the next world.
* Such as that by propitiating a certain divinity by a certain rite they may obtain treasure and so forth,
* Till their last moments, thinking of making new acquisitions and preserving old ones.
p. 12
p. 116
to obtain heaps of wealth unfairly for enjoying objects of desire. ‘This have I obtained to-day ; this wish I will obtain ; this wealth is mine; and this also shall be mine; this foe I have killed ; others too I will destroy; I am lord, I am the enjoyer, I am perfect ', strong, happy ; I have wealth; I am of noble birth; who else is like me? 1 will sacrifice’; I will make gifts ; 1 will rejoice.’ Thus deluded by ignorance, tossed about by numerous thoughts, surrounded by the net of delusion, and attached to the enjoyment of objects of desire, they fall down into impure hell. Honoured (only) by themselves, void of humility, and full of the pride and frenzy of wealth, these calumniators (of the virtuous) perform sacrifices, which are sacrifices only in name, with ostentatiousness and against prescribed rules *; indulging (their) vanity, brute force, arrogance, lust, and anger ; and hating me in their own bodies and in those of others*. These enemies’, ferocious, meanest of men, and unholy, I continually hurl down to these worlds *, only into demoniac wombs. Coming into demoniac wombs, deluded in every birth, they go down to the vilest state, O son of Kunt!! without ever coming to me. Threefold is this way to hell,—
* Blessed with children, &c. Sridhara takes it to mean, ‘one who has done all he need do,’ and Ramanuga ‘ sufficient in himself.’
* T.e. get higher renown for sacrifices than others.
* That is, because of indulgence in vanity, &c. Vanity = believing oneself to have virtues which one has not; arrogance=proud disdain of others.
* There is trouble to oneself in sacrifices and to the animals killed for them.
* T.e. of God.
* The commentators render the original here by ‘the paths of lite and death,’ or ‘ path to hell.’
CHAPTER XVII, 3. 117
* There is trouble to oneself in sacrifices and to the animals killed for them.
* T.e. of God.
* The commentators render the original here by ‘the paths of lite and death,’ or ‘ path to hell.’
CHAPTER XVII, 3. 117
ruinous to the self ',—lust, anger, and likewise avarice; therefore one should abandon this triad. Released from these three ways to darkness, O son of Kuntt! a man works out his own salvation, and then proceeds to the highest goal. He? who abandoning scripture ordinances, acts under the impulse of desire, does not attain perfection *, nor happiness, nor the highest goal. Therefore in discriminating between what should be done and what should not be done, your authority (must be) scripture. And knowing what is declared by the ordinances of scripture, you should perform action in this world.
Cuarter XVII.
Arguna said :
What is the state of those, O Krishna! who worship with faith, (but) abandoning scripture oriinances—goodness, passion, or darkness ?
The Deity said :
Faith is of three kinds in embodied (beings), it is produced from dispositions‘. It is of the quality of goodness, of the quality of passion, and of the quality of darkness. Hear about it. The faith of all, O descendant of Bharata! is conformable to the
' Le. rendering the self unfit for any of the highest ends of man.
* Here, says Srfdhara, it is laid down that the triad is not to be got rid of save by following scripture rules.
* Le. fitness for the attainment of the summum bonum. As to acting from desire, see also p. 65.
* Le. the result of the actions in a former birth, cf. p. 56 supra.
118 pHacavapelTA.
heart’. A being here i is full of faith, and whatever is a man’s faith, that is a man himself?. Those of the quality of goodness worship the gods; those of the quality of passion the Yakshas and Rakshases*; and the others, the people of the quality of darkness, worship departed (spirits) and the multitudes of Bhiatas. Know those to be of demoniac convictions, who practise fierce penance * not ordained by scripture ; who are full of ostentatiousness and egoism, and of desire, attachment, and stubbornness; who are without discernment; and who torment the groups of organs in (their) bodies, and me also seated within (those) bodies. The food also, which is liked by all, and likewise the sacrifice, the penance, and gifts, are of three kinds. Listen to the distinctions regarding them as follows. The kinds of food which increase life, energy, strength, health, comfort, and relish, which are savoury, oleaginous, full of nutrition, and agreeable, are liked by the good. The kinds of food which are bitter, acid, saltish, too hot, sharp, rough, and burning, and which cause pain, grief, and disease, are desired by the passionate. And the food*® which is cold, tasteless, stinking, stale, impure, and even leavings, are liked by the dark. That sacrifice is good which, being prescribed in (scripture) ordinances, is performed by persons
And the food*® which is cold, tasteless, stinking, stale, impure, and even leavings, are liked by the dark. That sacrifice is good which, being prescribed in (scripture) ordinances, is performed by persons
' The hearts of gods are sad to be good, those of Yakshas &c. passionate, those of men mixed, and so forth.
* Faith is the dominant principle in man, and he is good, passionate, or dark, as his faith is.
3 Goldstficker, Remains, I, 154.
‘ Troublesome to oneself and others, as standing on heated stones, &c. ‘Egoism’ (Ahankara)=the feeling that one is worthy of honour, Nilakan/ha.
* Cf. Sutta Nipata, p.109,and Apastamba, p-31(p.62 in this series).
CHAPTER XVII, 18. 119
not wishing for the fruit (of it), and after determining (in their) mind that the sacrifice must needs be performed. But when a sacrifice is performed, O highest of the descendants of Bharata! with an expectation of fruit (from it), and for the purpose of ostentation, know that sacrifice (to be) passionate. They call that sacrifice dark, which is against the ordinances (of scripture), in which no food is dealt out (to Brahmazas, &c.), which is devoid of Mantras', devoid of DakshixA presents, and which is without faith. Paying reverence to gods, Brahmaaas, preceptors, and men of knowledge; purity’, straightforwardness, life as Brahmaéérin, and harmlessness, (this) is called the penance bodily. The speech which causes no sorrow, which is true, agreeable, and beneficial, and the study ® of the Vedas, (this) is called the penance vocal. Calmness of mind, mildness, taciturnity ‘, self-restraint, and purity of heart, this is called the penance mental. This threefold penance, practised with perfect faith, by men who do not wish for the fruit, and who are possessed of devotion, is called good. The penance which is done for respect, honour, and reverence ®, and with ostenta-
‘ Texts from the Vedas which ought to be recited on such occasions. Presents (Dakshivi) to Brahmamas are insisted on in Brshad-franyaka-upanishad, p. 661; Asvaléyana Grshya J, 23, 14.
* Cleanliness of body; straightforwardness =not doing prohibited acts; harmlessness=not injuring any living beings. These are ‘bodily,’ because the body is the main instrument in these actions.
® Le. recitation of the Vedas.
* This is part of the ‘mental penance,’ because the government of the tongué is a consequence of mental restraint ; the effect being, according to Sankara, put here for the cause.
* Respect=people rising to receive one, &c.; honour=people saying ‘this is a holy man,’ &c.; reverence=people washing one's feet, &c.
p. 120
* Respect=people rising to receive one, &c.; honour=people saying ‘this is a holy man,’ &c.; reverence=people washing one's feet, &c.
p. 120
tiousness, and which is uncertain and transient’, is here called passionate. And that penance is described as dark, which is performed under a misguided conviction, with pain to oneself, or for the destruction of another. That gift is said (to be) good, which is given, because it ought to be given, to one who (can) do no service (in return), at a (proper) place and time, and to a (proper) person. But that gift which is given with much difficulty, for a return of services, or even with an expectation of fruit *, is said to be passionate. And that gift is described as dark, which is given to unfit persons, at un unfit place and time, without respect, and with contempt. Om, Tad, and Sat, this is said (to be) the threefold designation of the Brahman. By that, the Brahmazas and the Vedas and sacrifices were created in olden times. Hence, the performance by those who study the Brahman, of sacrifices, gifts, and penances, prescribed by the ordinances (of scripture), always commence after saying ‘Om‘.’ Those who desire final emancipation perform the various acts of sacrifice and penance, and the various acts of gift, without expectation of fruit, after (saying) ‘ Tad®.’ ‘Sat’ is employed to express existence and goodness ; and likewise, O son of Prztha! the word ‘Sat’ is used to express an auspicious act. Constancy in
? The fruit of which is uncertain or perishable.
* Heaven &c. as a reward for liberality.
> Ie. the Brahman, according to Sridhara.
* Cf. Apastamba, p. 21 (p. 49 in this series), Niflakaasha cites texts to show that this and the other two words are used to designate the Brahman. The texts are from the Taittiriya, Aitareya, and A Aandogya-upanishads,
* Nilakan/ha says, ‘after “ Tad”’ means considering the act and all are Brahman, and cites p. 61 supra.
CHAPTER XVIII, 3. 121
(making) sacrifices, penances, and gifts, is called ‘Sat;’ and (all) action, too, of which that' is the object, is also called ‘Sat.’ Whatever oblation is offered, whatever is given, whatever penance is performed, and whatever is done, without faith*, that, O son of Pritha! is called ‘Asat,’ and that is nought, both after death and here*
Cuaprer XVIII.
Arguna said: O you of mighty arms! O Hrishitkesa! O destroyer of Kesin! I wish to know the truth about renunciation and abandonment distinctly.
The Deity said :
By renunciation the sages understand the rejection of actions done with desires. The wise call the abandonment of the fruit of all actions (by the name) abandonment. Some wise men say, that action should be abandoned as being full of evil; and others, that the actions of sacrifice, gift, and penance
' Le. either the Braliman itself, or sacrifice, penance, and gift.
* Cf. Sutta Nip4ta, p. 69.
Some wise men say, that action should be abandoned as being full of evil; and others, that the actions of sacrifice, gift, and penance
' Le. either the Braliman itself, or sacrifice, penance, and gift.
* Cf. Sutta Nip4ta, p. 69.
» The meaning of this whole passage seems to be that these three words, which designate the Brahman, have distinct uses, as specified. ‘Om,’ says Nilakaséha, is employed whether the action is done with any special desire or not. Those who study the Brahman there means ‘study the Vedas.’ ‘Tad’ is employed in case of actions without desires only. ‘Sat’ is employed, according to Sankara, in case of existence, such as the birth of a first son; * goodness,’ the reclamation of a bad man ; ‘auspicious acts,’ marriage, &c. The intelligent use of these terms as here specified is said to cure any defects in the actions, the various classes of wl.ich are mentioned before.
p. 122
should not be abandoned. As to that abandonment, O best of the descendants of Bharata! listen to my decision ; for abandonment, O bravest of men! is described (to be) threefold. The actions of sacrifice, gift, and penance should not be abandoned; they must needs be performed ; for sacrifices, gifts, and penances are means of sanctification to the wise. But even these actions, O son of Pvztha! should be performed, abandoning attachment and fruit; such is my excellent and decided opinion. The renunciation of prescribed action is not proper. Its abandonment through delusion! is described as of the quality of darkness. When a man abandons action, merely as being troublesome, through fear of bodily affliction, he does not obtain the fruit? of abandonment by making (such) passionate abandonment. When prescribed action is performed, O Arguna! abandoning attachment and fruit also, merely because it ought to be performed, that is deemed (to be) a good abandonment. He who is possessed of abandonment’, being full of goodness, and talented, and having his doubts destroyed, is not averse from unpleasant actions, is not attached to pleasant * (ones). Since no embodied (being) can abandon actions without exception’, he is said to be possessed of abandonment, who abandons the fruit of action. The threefold fruit of action, agreeable, disagreeable, and mixed, accrues after death to those who are not possessed of abandonment, but never to
* Without delusion no such abandonment will occur.
* Namely, final emancipation, by means of purity of heart.
* I.e. who has the frame of mind necessary for a good abandonment.
* Such as bathing at midday in summer, * Cf. p. 53 supra.
CHAPTER Xviil, 18. 123
* Namely, final emancipation, by means of purity of heart.
* I.e. who has the frame of mind necessary for a good abandonment.
* Such as bathing at midday in summer, * Cf. p. 53 supra.
CHAPTER Xviil, 18. 123
renouncers '. Learn from me, O you of mighty arms ! these five causes of the completion of all actions, declared in the Sankhya system *. The substratum, the agent likewise, the various sorts of organs, and the various and distinct movements, and with these the deities, too, as the fifth, Whatever action, just or otherwise, a man performs with his body, speech, and mind, these five are its causes. That being so, the undiscerning man, who being of an unrefined understanding, sees the agent in the immaculate self, sees not (rightly) 2. He who has no feeling of egoism 4, and whose mind is not tainted, even though he kills (all) these people, kills not, is not fettered * (by the action). Knowledge, the object of knowledge, the knower—threefold is the prompting to action. The instrument, the action, the agent, thus in brief is action threefold. Knowledge and action and agent
The original is sannyasf, but Sridhara is probably right in taking ut to mean one who has command of ‘abandonment.’ Sankara and Madhusfdana, however, take the word in its ordinary sense of ‘ ascetic.” What follows explains, says Sridhara, why ‘the fruit does not accrue to renouncers.’
* Sankara and Madhusfidana say this means Vedénta-sastra. Sridhara suggests also the alternative Sankhya-sdstra. Substratum =the body, in which desire, aversion, &c. are manifested ; agent= one who egoistically thinks himself the doer of actions; organs =senses of perception, action, &c.; movements=of the vital breaths in the body; deities= the deities which preside over the eye and other senses (as to this cf. Aitareya-upanishad, p. 45; Prasna, pp. 216, 217; Mundaka, p. 314; Aitareya-4ranyaka, pp. 88-270; and Max Miller's Hibbert Lectures, p. 204, note). * Cf. p. 106.
* Egoism=the feeling that he is the doer of the action; taint= the feeling that the fruit of the action must accrue to him.
* Cf. p. 45, and Dhammapada, stanza 294.
* Knowledge, i.e. that something is a means to what is desired ; object is the means; the knower is he who has this knowledge. When these co-exist we have action. The instrument=senses, &c.
p. 124
* Cf. p. 45, and Dhammapada, stanza 294.
* Knowledge, i.e. that something is a means to what is desired ; object is the means; the knower is he who has this knowledge. When these co-exist we have action. The instrument=senses, &c.
p. 124
are declared in the enumeration of qualities ' (to be) of three classes only, according to the difference of qualities. Hear about these also as they really are. Know that knowledge to be good, by which (a man) sees one entity, inexhaustible, and not different in all things (apparently) different? (from one another). Know that knowledge to be passionate, which is (based) on distinctions * (between different entities), which sees in all things various entities of different kinds. And that is described as dark, which clings to one created (thing) only as everything, which is devoid of reason, devoid of real principle, and insignificant *, That action is called good, which is prescribed, which is devoid of attachment, which is not done from (motives of) affection or aversion, (and which is done) by one not wishing for the fruit. That is described as passionate, which (occasions) much trouble, is performed by one who wishes for objects of desire, or one who is full of egotism *. The action is called dark, which is commenced through delusion, without regard to consequences, loss, injury, or strength*®. ‘That agent is called good, who has cast off attachment, who is free from egotistic talk, who is possessed of courage and energy, and unaffected by success or ill-success. That agent is called passionate, who is full of affections *,
? The system of Kapila. 2 Cf. p. 104.
* Cf. Kashopanishad, p. 129.
* Reason=argument in support; real principle=truth, view of things as they are; insignificant, i.e. in comprehensiveness.
® Le. ‘pride of learning,’ &c., Sankara; ‘egoism,’ Ramanuga.
* Consequences= good or evil resulting; loss=of wealth or strength ; injury =to others ; strength =one’s own capacity.
7 Le. ‘for children,’ &c., according to Stidhara; ‘for the action,’ according to others.
CHAPTER XVIII, 34. 125
® Le. ‘pride of learning,’ &c., Sankara; ‘egoism,’ Ramanuga.
* Consequences= good or evil resulting; loss=of wealth or strength ; injury =to others ; strength =one’s own capacity.
7 Le. ‘for children,’ &c., according to Stidhara; ‘for the action,’ according to others.
CHAPTER XVIII, 34. 125
who wishes for the fruit of actions, who is covetous, cruel, and impure, and feels joy and sorrow. That agent is called dark, who is without application, void of discernment, headstrong, crafty, malicious, lazy, melancholy, and slow. Now hear, O Dhanagigaya! the threefold division of intelligence * and courage, according to qualities, which I am about to declare exhaustively and distinctly. That intelligeace, O son of Prztha! is good which understands action and inaction *, what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, danger and the absence of danger, emancipation and bondage. That intelligence, O son of Przth4! is passionate, by which one imperfectly understands piety and impiety, what ought to be done and also what ought not tobe done. That intelligence, O son of Prtha! is dark, which shrouded by darkness, understands impiety (to be) piety, and all things incorrectly. That courage, O son of Pretha! is good courage, which is unswerving ‘, and by which one controls the operations of the mind, breath, and senses, through abstraction. But, O Arguna! that courage is passionate, by which one adheres to piety, lust, and wealth®, and through attachment® wishes,
' Le. attention to work; melancholy=always desponding and wanting in energy.
* The nature of the faculty of understanding ; and courage is the firmness of that faculty.
* Seep. 115. Sankara takes these to mean the ‘ paths’ of action and knowledge, and Nflakan/ha takes the next expression to mean that which is constant and that which is not consiant—nitya, anitya.
* Always co-existing with mental abstraction and supporting it.
* Three of the aims of mankind, the highest being final emancipation. In the view of the Gft4, piety, leading only to heaven, is of doubdful benefit.
* Le. to the action for attaining them, in the belief that one is
p. 126
* Three of the aims of mankind, the highest being final emancipation. In the view of the Gft4, piety, leading only to heaven, is of doubdful benefit.
* Le. to the action for attaining them, in the belief that one is
p. 126
O son of Prztha! for the fruit. That courage is dark, O son of Pritha! by which an undiscerning man does not give up sleep, fear, sorrow, despondency, and folly. Now, O chief of the descendants of Bharata! hear from me about the three sorts of happiness. That happiness is called good, in which one is pleased after repetition’ (of enjoyment), and reaches the close of all misery, which is like poison first and comparable to nectar in the long run, and which is produced from a clear knowledge of the self*, That happiness is called passionate, which (flows) from contact between the senses and their objects, and which is at first comparable to nectar and in the long run like poison. That happiness is described as dark, which arises from sleep, laziness, heedlessness, which deludes the self, both at first and in its consequences. There is no entity either on earth or in heaven among the gods, which is free from these three qualities born of nature. The duties of Brahmazas, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, and of Sidras, too, O terror of your foes! are distinguished according to the qualities born of nature ®*. Tranquillity 4, restraint of the senses, penance, purity, forgiveness, straightforwardness, also knowledge, experience, and belief (in a future world), this is the natural duty of Brahmazas. Valour, glory, courage, the doer of it; the ‘fruit’ scil. of the action performed with an eve to the three things named.
' Not at once, as in the case of sensuous pleasures.
* Cf. p. 51. The original has also been rendered by ‘ tranquillity of one’s own mind?’
* Cf. p. 59.
* Le. resulting from control of the mind, purity here is both external and internal. And see p. 119.
CHAPTER XVIH, 51. 127
' Not at once, as in the case of sensuous pleasures.
* Cf. p. 51. The original has also been rendered by ‘ tranquillity of one’s own mind?’
* Cf. p. 59.
* Le. resulting from control of the mind, purity here is both external and internal. And see p. 119.
CHAPTER XVIH, 51. 127
dexterity ', not slinking away from battle, gifts, exercise of lordly power ’, this is the natural duty of Kshatriyas. Agriculture, tending cattle, trade, (this) is the natural duty of Vaisyas. And the natural duty of Sidras, too, consists in service. (Every) man intent on his own respective duties obtains perfection*. Listen, now, how one intent on one’s own duty obtains perfection. Worshipping, by (the performance of) his own duty, him from whom all things proceed, and by whom all this is permeated, a man obtains perfection. One's duty, though defective, is better than another’s duty well performed‘. Performing the duty prescribed by nature, one does not incur sin. O son of Kuntt! one should not abandon a natural duty though tainted with evil; for all actions are enveloped by evil, as fire by smoke & One who is self-restrained, whose understanding is unattached everywhere, from whom affections have departed, obtains the supreme perfection of freedom from action * by renunciation. Learn from me, only in brief, O son of Kunt!! how one who has obtained perfection attains the Brahman, which is the highest culmination of knowledge. A man possessed of a pure understanding, controlling his self by courage, discarding sound and other objects of sense, casting off
* Le. in battle, Nilakan/ha seems to say. Sankara says it means ready resource whenever occasion arises.
* T.e. ‘power to restrain people from going astray,’ Nilakawsha.
* Eligibility for the path of knowledge.
* Cf. p. 56.
* Cf. p. 121; the evil appears to be the quality of ‘fettering’ the soul.
* Sttdhara compares p. 65 (V, 13) and distinguishes this from p. 64 (V, 8 seq.) Sankara says the perfection here spoken of is emancipation, and it is obtained by true knowledge.
p. 128
* Cf. p. 56.
* Cf. p. 121; the evil appears to be the quality of ‘fettering’ the soul.
* Sttdhara compares p. 65 (V, 13) and distinguishes this from p. 64 (V, 8 seq.) Sankara says the perfection here spoken of is emancipation, and it is obtained by true knowledge.
p. 128
affection and aversion ; who frequents clean places, who eats little, whose speech, body, and mind are restrained, who is always intent on meditation and mental abstraction !, and has recourse to unconcern, who abandoning egoism *%, stubbornness, arrogance, desire, anger, and (all) belongings, has no (thought that this or that is) mine, and who is tranquil, becomes fit for assimilation with the Brahman. Thus reaching the Brahman, and with a tranquil self, he grieves * not, wishes not; but being alike to all beings, obtains . the highest devotion to me. By (that) devotion he truly understands who I am and how great. And then understanding me truly, he forthwith enters into my (essence). Even performing all actions, always depending on me, he, through my favour, obtains the imperishable and eternal seat. Dedicating in thought‘ all actions to me, be constantly given up to me, (placing) your thoughts on me, through recourse to mental abstraction. (Placing) your thoughts on me, you will cross over all difficulties by my favour. But if you will not listen through egotism, you will be ruined. If entertaining egotism, you think that you may not fight, vain, indeed, is that resolution of yours. Nature®* will constrain you. That, O son of Kuntt! which through delusion you do not wish to do, you will do involuntarily,
‘ Abstraction is concentrated and exclusive meditation, Sankara. The other commentators take dhydnayoga as meditation simply,— as treated of in chapter VI, says Nflakantha.
* See p. 52.
5 I.e. comprehending his identity with the Brahman.
* Cf. p. 58.
* Pride of learning and cleverness, or of piety. See p. 124, note 5.
* The nature of a Kshatriya, Sankara.
CHAPTER XVIII, 69. 129
* See p. 52.
5 I.e. comprehending his identity with the Brahman.
* Cf. p. 58.
* Pride of learning and cleverness, or of piety. See p. 124, note 5.
* The nature of a Kshatriya, Sankara.
CHAPTER XVIII, 69. 129
tied down by your own duty, flowing from your nature. The lord, O Arguna! is seated in the region of the heart? of all beings, turning round all beings (as though) mounted on a machine, by his delusion. With him, O descendant of Bharata! seek shelter in every way*; by his favour you will obtain the highest tranquillity, the eternal seat. Thus have I declared to you the knowledge more mysterious than any mystery. Ponder over it thoroughly, and then act as you like. Once more, listen to my excellent words—most mysterious of all. Strongly | like you, therefore I will declare what is for your welfare. On me (place) your mind, become my devotee, sacrifice to me, reverence me, and you will certainly come to me. I declare to you truly, you are dear to me. Forsaking all duties *, come to me as (your) sole refuge. I will release you from all sins. Be not grieved. This‘ you should never declare to one who performs no penance‘, who is not a devotee *, nor to one who does not wait on (some preceptor)’, nor yet to one who calumniates me. He who, with the highest devotion® to me, will | proclaim this supreme mystery among my devotees, will come to me, freed from (all) doubts. No one
* Svet4svatara-upanishad, pp. 333-345; Kashopanishad, p. 157.
* Cf. p.114; by thought, word, and deed.
* Of caste or order, such as Agnihotra and so forth.
* All that has been taught in the Gfté.
* Sridhara renders this to mean, ‘who performs no pious acts.’
* Le. of God and a preceptor. Cf. last stanza of Svetasvataropanishad.
* Cf. p. 62. Sankara says all these elements must co-exist to give eligibility.
® I. ¢. belief that in disseminating it, he is serving me. Cf. Kashopanishad, p. 120,
(8) Kp. 120 v amongst men is superior to him in doing what is dear to me. And there will never be another on earth dearer to me than he. And he who will study this holy dialogue of ours, will, such is my opinion, have offered to me the sacrifice of knowledge '. And the man, also, who with faith and without carping will listen (to this), will be freed (from sin), and attain to the holy regions of those who perform pious acts*. Have you listened to this, O son of Prithé ! with a mind (fixed) on (this) one point only ? Has your delusion (caused) by ignorance been destroyed, O Dhanazigaya ?
Arguna said : Destroyed is my delusion ; by your favour, O undegraded one! I (now) recollect * myself. I stand freed from doubts *. I will do your bidding.
Sajigaya said :
with a mind (fixed) on (this) one point only ? Has your delusion (caused) by ignorance been destroyed, O Dhanazigaya ?
Arguna said : Destroyed is my delusion ; by your favour, O undegraded one! I (now) recollect * myself. I stand freed from doubts *. I will do your bidding.
Sajigaya said :
Thus did I hear this dialogue between Vasudeva and the high-minded son of Prtha, (a dialogue) wonderful and causing the hair to standon end. By the favour of Vy4sa, I heard this highest mystery, (this) devotion ®, from Kvishva himself, the lord of the possessors of mystic power, who proclaimed it in person. O king! remembering and (again) remembering this wonderful and holy dialogue of Kesava and Arguna, I rejoice over and over again. And remembering and (again) remembering that
' Which is the best of sacrifices; see p. 62.
* Cf. p. 72.
* Ie. understand my real essence, what I am, &c.
* As to whether the battle was right or not.
* The work is so called, as it refers to devotion.
CHAPTER XVIII, 78. 131
excessively wonderful form of Hari also, great is my amazement, O king! and I rejoice over and over again. Wherever (is) Krishua, the lord of the possessors of mystic power, wherever (is) the (great) archer, the son of Pyvztha, there in my opinion (are) fortune, victory, prosperity’, and eternal justice.
* Prosperity is the greater development of fortune.
SANATSUGATIYA.
INTRODUCTION
TO
SANATSUGATIYA.
THE Sanatsugattya is, like the Bhagavadgit4, one of the numerous episodes of the Mahabharata’. It is true, that it has never commanded anything like that unbounded veneration which has always been paid in India to the Bhagavadgita. Still it is sometimes studied even in our days, and it has had the high distinction of being commented on by the great leader of the modern Vedantic school-—Sankaratarya*, The Sanatsugatiya purports to be a dialogue mainly between Sanatsugata on the one side and Dhritard4shfra on the other. Sanatsugdta, from whom it takes its name, is said to be identical with Sanatkumara, a name not unfamiliar to students of our Upanishad literature. And Dhritarashfra is the old father of those Kauravas who formed one of the belligerent parties in the bellum plusquam civile which is recorded in the Mahabharata. The connexion of this particular episode with the main current of the narrative of that epos is one of the loosest possible character—much looser, for instance, than that of the Bhagavadgita. As regards the latter, it can fairly be contended that it is in accordance with poetical justice for Arguna to feel despondent and unwilling to engage in battle, after actual sight of ‘teachers, fathers, sons,’ and all the rest of them, arrayed in opposition to him; and that therefore it was necessary for the poet to adduce some specific explanation as to how Arguna was ultimately enabled to get over such natural scruples. But as regards the Sanatsugattya, even such a contention as this
But as regards the Sanatsugattya, even such a contention as this
* Mahabbirata, Udyoga Parvan, Adhyaya 41-46.
* Madhav Addrya, in speaking of Sankara’s works, describes him as having commented on the Senatsugitlya, which is ‘far from evil (persons, ' (asatsuddvam). Sahkara-vigaya, chapter VI, stanza 62.
p. 136
can have no place. For this is how the matter stands. In the course of the negotiations for an amicable arrangement! between the Pazdavas and the Kauravas, Safigaya, on one occasion, came back to Dhritarashéra with a message from the Pawdavas. When he saw Dhritardsh¢ra, however, he said that he would deliver the message in the public assembly of the Kauravas the next morning, and went away after pronouncing a severe censure on Dhritarashéra for his conduct. The suspense thus caused was a source of much vexation to the old man, and so he sent for Vidura, in order, as he expresses it, that Vidura might by his discourse assuage the fire that was raging within him. Vidura accordingly appears, and enters upon an elaborate prelection concerning matters spiritual, or, perhaps, more accurately quasi-spiritual, and at the outset of the Sanatsugdtiya he is supposed to have reached a stage where, as being born a Sidra, he hesitates to proceed. After some discussion of this point, between Vidura and Dhritardshfra, it is determined to call in the aid of Sanatsugata, to explain the spiritual topics which Vidura felt a delicacy in dealing with ; and Sanatsugata is accordingly introduced on the scene in a way not unusual in our epic and purdnic literature, viz. by Vidura engaging in some mystic process of meditation, in response to which Sanatsugdta appears. He is received then with all due formalities, and after he has had some rest, as our poem takes care to note, he is catechised by Dhritarashfra; and with one or two exceptions, all the verses which constitute the SanatsugAtiya are Sanatsugata’s answers to Dhritarashéra’s questions *.
This brief statement of the scheme of this part of the Mahdabhirata shows, as already pointed out, that the connexion of the Sanatsugatiya with the central story of that epic is very loose indeed; and that it might have been entirely omitted without occasioning any zsthetical or other defect. And therefore, although there is nothing positive
' See p. 3 supra. * After this cialogue is over, the dawn breaks, and Dhritara>hfra and the Kaurava princes meet in general assembly.
p. 137
And therefore, although there is nothing positive
' See p. 3 supra. * After this cialogue is over, the dawn breaks, and Dhritara>hfra and the Kaurava princes meet in general assembly.
p. 137
tending to prove the Sanatsugatiya to be a later addition to the original epos, still the misgivings which are often entertained upon such points may well, in this case, be stronger than in the case of the Bhagavadgita. The text, too, of the SanatsugAtiya is not preserved in nearly so satisfactory a condition as that of the Gita. I have had before me, in settling my text, the editions of the Mahabharata respectively printed and published at Bombay ', Calcutta, and Madras, and three MSS., one of which was most kindly and readily placed at my disposal by my friend Professor Ramkrishna Gopa/ Bhandarkar; the second by another friend, Professor Ab4gi Vishu Kathavaée ; and the third was a copy made for me at Sagar in the Central Provinces, through the good offices of a third friend, Mr. Vaman Mahadeva Kolhafkar. The copy lent me by Professor Bhandarkar comes from Puna, and that lent by Professor Kathavate also from Puna. This last, as well as the Sagar copy, and the edition printed at Madras, contains the commentary of Sankara#arya. And the text I have adopted is that which is indicated by the commentary as the text which its author had before him. But the several copies of the commentary differ so much from one another, that it is still a matter of some doubt with me, whether I have got accurately the text which Sankara commented upon. For instance, the Sagar copy entirely omits chapter V, while the other copies not only give the text of that chapter, but also a commentary upon it which calls itself Sankara#arya’s commentary®. Again, take the stanzas which stand within brackets at pp. 167, 168* of our translation. There is in none of the copies we have, any commentary of Sankarakarya on them. And yet the stanzas exist in the text of the Mahabharata as given in those copies which do contain Sahkara’s commentary. The matter is evidently one for further investigation. I have not, however, thought it
This contains Nilakas/ha’s commentary, but his text avowedly includes the text of Sahkara, and verses and readings contained in more modem copies.
* The commentary on the sixth chapter, however, takes up the thread from the end of the fourth charter.
* See p. 182, where one of the lines recurs.
p. 138
absolutely necessary to make such an investigation for the purposes of the present translation. But to be on the safe side, I have retained in the translation everything which is to be found in those copies of the Sanatsugatiya which also contain Sankara’s commentary. As to other stanzas— and there are some of this description—-which other MSS. or commentators vouch for, but of which no trace is to be found in the MSS. containing Sankara’s commentary ', I have simply omitted them.
As to other stanzas— and there are some of this description—-which other MSS. or commentators vouch for, but of which no trace is to be found in the MSS. containing Sankara’s commentary ', I have simply omitted them.
These facts show that, in the case of the Sanatsugatiya. the materials for a trustworthy historical account of the work are not of a very satisfactory character. The materials for ascertaining its date and position in Sanskrit literature are, indeed, so scanty, that poor as we have seen the materials for the Bhagavadgit4 to be, they must be called superlatively rich as compared with those we have now to deal with. As regards external evidence on the points now alluded to, the first and almost the last fact falling under that head, is the fact of the work being quoted from and commented upon by Sankaréfarya. In his commentary on the Svet4svatara-upanishad *, Sankara cites the passage about the flamingo at p. 149, introducing it with the words, ‘And in the Sanatsugata also.’ In the same* commentary some other passages from the Sanatsugatiya are also quoted, but without naming the work except as a Smriti, and mixing up together verses from different parts of the work.
This is really all the external evidence, that I am aware of, touching the date of the Sanatsugatiya. There is, however, one other point, which it is desirable to notice, though not, perhaps, so much because it is of any very great valuc in itself, as because it may hereafter become useful, should further research into the Mahabharata and other works yield the requisite information. There are, then, eight stanzas in the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahdbha-
* See note 1, p. 137. » P, 283. > P. 252. Sce, too, Sarfraka Bhashya, p. 828.
p. 139
There are, then, eight stanzas in the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahdbha-
* See note 1, p. 137. » P, 283. > P. 252. Sce, too, Sarfraka Bhashya, p. 828.
p. 139
rata (the Sanatsugatiya commencing at the forty-first chapter), seven of which are quoted in the Pa#éatantra', and the eighth in the Mahabhashya? of Patadgali. Of course, it almost goes without saying, that neither the Pa#atantra nor the Mahabhashya mentions the source from which they derive the verses in question. But I do not think it unallowable to make the provisional assumption, that they were derived from the Mahabharata, so long as we cannot produce any other, and more likely, source. It is true, that Professor Weber has, in another connexion, impugned the cogency of this argument. He seems to think, that the probability— in the case he was actually dealing with—of the Ramayaza having borrowed from the Mahabhashya, is quite as strong as the probability of the Mah4bh4shya having borrowed from the Ramayansa*. And doubtless, he would by parity of reason contend, in the case before us, that the probabilities, as between the Mahabharata on the one hand, and the Mahabhashya and the Pa#éatantra on the other, bear the same mutual relation. I cannot accept this view. I am not now concerned to discuss the merits of the conclusion in support of which Professor Weber has advanced this argument*. I am only considering, how far it affects the question now before us. And as to that question, I may say, that the Pa#éatantra expressly introduces the stanzas now under consideration with some such expression as, ‘ For it has been said,’ indicating clearly that it was there quoting the words of another®. And so, too, does the Mahabhashya,
* Cf. Kosegasten’s Pa#datantra, p. 28 (I, 28, Bombay S. C. ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XL, st. 7 (Bombay ed.); PaAsatantra, pp. 112 and 209 (II, 10; IV, 5, Bombay ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, 9; p. 35 I, 37, Bombey cd.) with chap. XXXVI, st. 34; p. 140 (II, 40, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVII, st.15; p. 160 (III, 62, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVII, st. 17, 18; p. 106 (II, 2, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVI st. 59.
® Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, st. 1, and Mab&bhashya VI, 1-4, p. 35 (Banfiras ed.)
? See Indian Antiquary IV, 247. The parallel from Madhava which Professor Weber adduces is quite inconclusive, and as far as it goes appears to me to militate against the Professor’s own view.
* I may, however, admit at once, that I ought not to have expressed myself as strongly as I did in the note which Professor Weber criticises.
® See p. 203 infra.
p. 140
* I may, however, admit at once, that I ought not to have expressed myself as strongly as I did in the note which Professor Weber criticises.
® See p. 203 infra.
p. 140
where the passage we refer to runs as follows: ‘(It is) laid down, (that there is) a sin in one of tender age not rising to receive (an elderly person), and (that there is) merit in rising to receive. How? Thus, “The life-winds of a youth depart upwards, when an elderly man approaches (him). By rising to receive (him), and salutation, he obtains them again.”’ It appears to me, that the indications of this being a quotation in the Bh4shya are very strong. But apart from that, I do demur to the proposition, that the probabilities are equal, of a work like the Mahabh4rata or Ramayana borrowing a verse from the Mah4bhashya, and vice versa. It appears to me perfectly plain, I own, that the probability of a grammatical work like the Bhashya borrowing a verse from a standard work like the Bharata or Ramayana for purposes of illustration is very much the stronger of the two. And this, quite independently of any inquiry as to whether the Bh4shya does or does not show other indications of acquaintance with the Bharata or the Ramayana.
If these arguments are correct, it seems to me that they carry us thus far in our present investigation—namely, that we may now say, that we have reason to believe some parts, at all events, of the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirtyeighth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahabharata to have probably been in existence prior to the sixth century A.C.'; and that some parts of the thirty-seventh chapter were probably extant in the time of Pataggali, viz. the second century B.c.2 Now, internal evidence does not yield any indications tending to show that the several chapters here referred to must have been prior in time to the chapters composing the Sanatsugatlya, which come so soon after them in the Mahabharata. On the contrary, it is not too much to maintain, that to a certain extent the style and language of the Sanatsugatiya is, if anything, rather indicative of its priority in time over the five chapters immediately preceding it. And, therefore, so far as this argument goes, it enables us—provisionally only, it must be
' See p. 29 supra. ® See p. 32 supra.
INTRODUCTION, I4qt
remembered —to fix the second century B.C.as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsugatiya.
And, therefore, so far as this argument goes, it enables us—provisionally only, it must be
' See p. 29 supra. ® See p. 32 supra.
INTRODUCTION, I4qt
remembered —to fix the second century B.C.as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsugatiya.
This is all the external evidence available for a discussion of the question—when the Sanatsugatiya was composed. We now turn to the internal evidence. Standing by itself, internal evidence is not, in my opinion, of much cogency in any case. Still in ascertaining, as best we can, the history of our ancient literature, even this species of evidence is not to be despised; it must only be used and received with caution. Under this head, then, we may note first the persons who are supposed to take part in the dialogue. Sanatsugata '—or Sanatkum4ra—as already pointed out, is a name already familiar to the readers of one of our older Upanishads—the KAandogya. Dhritardshéra is not known in the Upanishads, but he is an important personage in the epic literature. And it is to be remarked, that his character as disclosed in the Sanatsugdtiya is not at all similar to that which has attached itself to his name, alike in the later literature of our country, and in that popular opinion which was probably formed by this later literature. In the dialogue before us, he figures as an earnest inquirer after truth; he is described as the ‘talented king Dhritarash‘ra;’ and is addressed by Sanatsugata as, ‘O acute sir!’ ‘O learned person!’ True it is, that Nilakawtha in one place, as we have noticed in our note there’, endeavours to bring out the later view of DhritarAsh¢ra's character’; but it seems to me that that endeavour, based as it is on a forced and farfetched interpretation of a single word in our poem, is an unsuccessful one. None of the questions, which Dhritarashéra puts to Sanatsugata in the course of their dialogue, indicates the avaricious old man who wished to deprive his innocent nephews of their just rights in the interests of his own wicked and misguided sons. They rather indicate the bona fide student of spiritual lore, and thus point to what is, perhaps, an earlier view of Dhrstar4shéra’s character.
* See Hall's Sdtkhyasira, preface, pp. 14, 15. * P. 151, note 2.
® Nilakawsha himself, however, treats Dhritardshfra’s question latcr on as showing that be had attained indifference to worldly concems, That question docs not occar in Sahkara's text, Lut is given at p. 158 infra.
p. 142
14, 15. * P. 151, note 2.
® Nilakawsha himself, however, treats Dhritardshfra’s question latcr on as showing that be had attained indifference to worldly concems, That question docs not occar in Sahkara's text, Lut is given at p. 158 infra.
p. 142
If we look next to the general style of this poem, we find that it has none of that elaboration which marks what I have called the age of Kavyas and Nafakas. The remarks on this topic in the Introduction to the Gita apply pretty accurately to this work also. We observe here the same paucity of long-drawn compounds, the same absence of merely ornamental adjectives, the same absence of figures and tropes?; in one word, the same directness and simplicity of style. Furthermore, there is a somewhat greater want of finish about the syntax of our poem than there is even in the Gita. Such constructions as we find inter alia at chapter II, stanza 2, or 25, or at chapter III, stanza 14, or chapter IV, stanza 12, or in the early verses of the last chapter, indicate a period in the history of the language, when probably the regulations of syntax were not quite thoroughly established in practice.
If we turn to the metre of the poem, an analogous phenomenon strikes us there. Similar irregularities in the collocation of long and short syllables, similar superfluities and deficiencies of syllables, meet us in the Sanatsugatiya and the Bhagavadgita. And in the former work, as in the latter, the irregularities are less observable in the Anushfubh? than in the other metres used. Probably the explanation, apart from the great elasticity of that metre, is that the Anushfubh had been more used, and had in consequence become comparatively more settled in its scheme even in practical composition.
Looking now more particularly to the language of the work before us, we find one word to be of most frequent occurrence, namely, the word vai, which we have rendered ‘verily.’ It is not a common word in the later literature, while in the Upanishad literature we meet with great frequency, not merely vai, but the words, which I think are cognate with it, va and vava. The former word, indeed,
4 The five similes which occur, and which are nearly all that occur, in the poem, are the very primitive ones—of the hunter, of water on grass, the tiger of straw, death eating men like a tiger, dogs eating what is vomited, a branch of a tree and the moon, and birds and their nests.
® Cf. as to this the Nrisimha TaApinf, p. 105.
p. 143
appears to me to stand in some passages of the Upanishads for vai by euphonic alterations. Thus in the passage tvam va aham asmi bhagavo devate, aham vai tvam asi, it is difficult not to suppose that the va of the first part of the sentence is the same word as the vai of the second part, only altered according to the rules of Sandhi in Sanskrit.
Thus in the passage tvam va aham asmi bhagavo devate, aham vai tvam asi, it is difficult not to suppose that the va of the first part of the sentence is the same word as the vai of the second part, only altered according to the rules of Sandhi in Sanskrit.
A second point of similarity between the language of the Upanishads and that of the Sanatsygattya is to be found in the phrase, ‘ He who knows this becomes immortal.’ This sentence, or one of like signification, is, as is well known, of common occurrence in the Upanishads and in the Brahmasas. In the Bhagavadgita, the verses towards the end, which come after Krishza's summing-up of his instruction. seem to be of a somewhat analogous, though in some respects different, nature. And in the PurAzas we meet sometimes with elaborate passages extolling the merits of a particular rite, or a particular pilgrimage, and so forth. This form of the Phalasruti, as it is called, appears to have been developed in process of time from the minute germ existing in the Brahmazas and the Upanishads. In the Sanatsugatiya, however, we are almost at the beginning of those developments ; indeed, the form before us is identically the same as that which we see in the works where it is first met with. It is a short sentence, which, though complete in itself, still appears merely at the end of another passage, and almost as a part of such other passage.
There is one other point of a kindred nature which it may be well to notice here. As in the GitA, so in the Sanatsugatlya, we meet with a considerable number of words used in senses not familiar in the later literature. They are collected in the Index of Sanskrit words in this volume ; but a few remarks on some of them will not, it is thought, be entirely out of place here. The word marga'—in the sense of ‘worldly life’—is rather remarkable. Sankara renders it by ‘the path of samsdra’ or worldly life. And he quotes as a parallel the passage from the K/Andogya-
' I give no references bere, as they can be found in the Index of Sanskrit words at the end of this volume.
p. 144
Sankara renders it by ‘the path of samsdra’ or worldly life. And he quotes as a parallel the passage from the K/Andogya-
' I give no references bere, as they can be found in the Index of Sanskrit words at the end of this volume.
p. 144
upanishad which speaks of returning to the ‘path.’ There, however, Sankara explains it to mean the ‘path by which the sclf returns to worldly life,’ namely, from space to the wind and so forth into vegetables, and food, ultimately appearing as a foetus. Another remarkable word is ‘ varga.’ which occurs twice in the Sanatsugatiya. Sankara and Nilakan¢ha differ in their explanations of it, and Nilakastha indeed gives two different meanings to the word in the two passages where it occurs. We may also refer here specially to utsa, rétvig, and matva. In Boehtlingk and Roth’s Lexicon the only passages cited under ‘utsa’ are from Vedic works, except two respectively from Susruta and the Dasakumérafarita. One passage, however, there cited, viz. Vishzok pade parame madhva utsa4, is plainly the original of the passage we are now considering. As to ritvig in the sense it bears here, we see, I think, what was the earlier signification of that word before it settled down into the somewhat technical meaning in which it is now familiar. And matva in the sense of ‘meditating upon’ is to be found in the Upanishads, but not, I think, in any work of the classical literature. These words, therefore, seem to indicate that the Sanatsugatiya was composed at a stage in the development of the Sanskrit language which is a good deal earlier than the stage which we see completely reached in the classical literature.
Coming now to the matter of the Sanatsugatiya, it appears to me, that we there see indications pointing in a general way to the same conclusion as that which we have here arrived at. There is, in the first place, a looseness and want of rigid system in the mode of handling the subject, similar to that which we have already observed upon as characterising the Bhagavadgita. There is no obvious bond of connexion joining together the various subjects discussed, nor are those subjects themselves treated after any very scientific or rigorous method. gain, if the fourth chapter is a genuine part of the Sanatsugatiya, we have an elaborate repetition in one part, of what has been said in another part of the work, with only a few variations in words, andp. 145 perhaps fewer still in signification. As, however, I am not at present prepared to stand finally by the genuineness of that chapter, I do not consider it desirable to further labour this argument than to point out, that similar repetitions, on a smaller scale, perhaps, are not uncommon ina our older literature ?.
As, however, I am not at present prepared to stand finally by the genuineness of that chapter, I do not consider it desirable to further labour this argument than to point out, that similar repetitions, on a smaller scale, perhaps, are not uncommon ina our older literature ?.
Coming now to the manner in which the Vedas are spoken of in the work before us, there are, we find, one or two noteworthy circumstances proper to be considered here. In the first place, we have the reference to the four Vedas together with Akhy4nas as the fifth Veda. This is in conformity with the old tradition recorded in the various works to which we have referred in our note on the passage. The mention of the Atharva-veda, which is implied in this passage, and expressly contained in another, might be regarded as some mark of a modern age. But without dwelling upon the fact, that the Atharva-veda, though probably modern as compared with the other Vedas, is still old enough to date some centuries before the Christian era 4, it must suffice to draw attention here to the fact that the K kandogya-upanishad mentions that Veda, and it is not here argued that the Sanatsugatiya is older than the KAandogya-upanishad. We have next to consider the reference to the Saman hymns as ‘vimala,’ or pure. The point involved in this reference has been already sufficiently discussed in the Introduction to the Gita*; and it is not necessary here to say more than that, of the two classes of works we have there made, the Sanatsugatiya appears from the passage under discussion to rank itself with the class which is prior in date.
The estimate of the value of the Vedas which is implied in the Sanatsugatiya appears to coincide very nearly with that which we have shown to be the estimate implied in the Bhagavadgita. The Vedas are not here cast aside as useless any more than they are in the Bhagavadgita. For, I do not think the word Anrifas which occurs in one passage of the work can be regarded really as referring to those
See p. 181, note 3 infra. * P. 19 supra. * Pp. 19, 30
(8) L
p. 146
The Vedas are not here cast aside as useless any more than they are in the Bhagavadgita. For, I do not think the word Anrifas which occurs in one passage of the work can be regarded really as referring to those
See p. 181, note 3 infra. * P. 19 supra. * Pp. 19, 30
(8) Lp. 146 who entirely reject the Vedic revelation. But without going as far as that, the Sanatsugatiya seems certainly to join the Bhagavadgita in its protest against those men of extreme views, who could see nothing beyond the rites and ceremonies taught in the Vedas. A study of the Vedas is, indeed, insisted on in sundry passages of the Sanatsugatiya. But it is equally maintained, that the performance of the ceremonies laid down in the Vedas is not the true means of final emancipation. It is maintained, that action done with any desire is a cause of bondage to worldly life; that the gods themselves are ordinary creatures who have reached a certain high position owing to the practice of the duties of Brahmaéarins, but that they are not only not superior to, but are really under the control of, the man who has acquired the true knowledge of the universal self. On all these points, we have opinions expressed in the Sanatsugatiya, which conclusively establish an identity of doctrine as between the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgit4! on the one hand, and the Sanatsugatiya on the other. Lastly, we have an explicit statement, that the mere study of Vedic texts avails nothing, and that sin is not to be got rid of by one who merely ‘studies the R4 and the Yagus texts, and the Sama-veda.’ It is not necessary to repeat here the chronological deductions which may be based upon this relation between the SanatsugAtiya and the Vedas. We have already argued in the Introduction to the Bhagavadgita, that such a relation points to a period of Indian religious history prior to the great movement of Gautama Buddha ?.
There is, however, this difference, perhaps, to be noted between the Git4 and the Sanatsugatiya—namely, that the latter work seems to afford more certain indications of the recognition, at the date of its composition, of a G#anakanda as distinguished from a Karmakinda in the Vedas, than, we have seen, are contained in the Bhagavadgita®, The passage, for instance, which speaks of the A’‘andas as