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.
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. Sanatsugâta¹—or Sanatkumâra—as already pointed out, is a name already familiar to the readers of one of our older Upanishads—the Khândogya. Dhṛitarâshṭra 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 Sanatsugâtiya 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 Dhṛitarâshṭra ;’ and is addressed by Sanatsugâta as, ‘O acute sir!’ ‘O learned person!’ True it is, that Nîlakaṇṭha in one place, as we have noticed in our note there’, endeavours to bring out the later view of Dhritarâshrra’s character³; but it seems to me that that endeavour, based as it is ona forced and farfetched interpretation of a single word in our poem, is an unsuccessful one. None of the questions, which Dhṛitarâshṭra puts to Sanatsugâta 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 Dhṛitarâshṭra s character.
1 See Hall's Sânkhyasâra, preface, pp. 14, 15- 2 P. 151, note 2.
3 Nîlakaṇṭha himself, however, treats Dhṛitarâshṭra’s question later on as showing that he had attained indifference to worldly concerns. That question does not occur in Sañkara’s text, but is given at p. 158 infra.
We have now exhausted the external evidence bearing on the question of when the Sanatsujâtîya was composed, and we turn to the internal evidence. Internal evidence standing alone carries no great weight, in my opinion, in any case. Yet in trying, as best we can, to reconstruct the history of our ancient literature, even this kind of evidence should not be dismissed—it must simply be used and received with caution. Under this head, then, we may note first the figures who are supposed to take part in the dialogue. Sanatsugâta¹—or Sanatkumâra—is, as already pointed out, a name familiar to readers of one of our older Upanishads, the Khândogya. Dhṛitarâshṭra does not appear in the Upanishads, but he is an important figure in the epic literature. It is worth remarking that the character he displays in the Sanatsujâtîya bears no resemblance to the one that has attached itself to his name in the later literature of our country and in the popular opinion that was probably shaped by that later literature. In the dialogue before us he appears as an earnest seeker after truth; he is described as the 'talented king Dhṛitarâshṭra,' and Sanatsujâta addresses him as 'O acute sir!' and 'O learned person!' Nîlakaṇṭha does, it is true, attempt in one place—as we noted in our note there—to bring out the later view of Dhritarâshrra's character³; but that attempt seems to me unsuccessful, resting as it does on a forced and far-fetched interpretation of a single word in our poem. None of the questions Dhṛitarâshṭra puts to Sanatsujâta in the course of their dialogue suggests the avaricious old man who wished to rob his innocent nephews of their just rights in the interests of his own wicked and misguided sons. They suggest instead the genuine student of spiritual lore, and so point to what is perhaps an earlier view of Dhṛitarâshṭra's character.
1 See Hall's Sânkhyasâra, preface, pp. 14, 15. 2 P. 151, note 2.
3 Nîlakaṇṭha himself, however, treats Dhṛitarâshṭra's question later on as showing that he had attained indifference to worldly concerns. That question does not occur in Sañkara's text, but is given at p. 158 infra.