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.
There is but one other point on which we need say anything further. And that is connected with the definition of a Brâhmaṇa. That definition appears to me, to point to an earlier stage in religious progress than is indicated in Apastamba and Manu. The true Brâhmaṇa is he who is attached to the Brahman. Perhaps, this marks some little advance beyond the more general doctrine of the Gita, but it is still very far short of the petrified doctrine, if I may so call it, of the later law-givers. The Brâhmaṇa has not yet degenerated into the mere receiver of fees and presents, but is still in possession of the truth.
We thus see, that the external and internal evidence bearing upon the question of the position of the Sanatsugatiya in Sanskrit literature, seems to point to nearly the same period and place for it as for the Bhagavadgita. It is plain enough, that the evidence under both heads is extremely scanty and meagre. But such as it is, it appears to us to justify a provisional conclusion, that the Sanatsugatiya dates from a period prior to the rise of Buddhism, and forms part of that same movement in the religious history of ancient India of which the Gita is another embodiment. More than this, we are not at present in a position to assert. To this extent, the evidence enables us, I think, to go. And we accordingly hold, that unless other and further evidence requires a reversal of this judgment, the Sanatsugâtiya may be treated as a work nearly contemporary with the Bhagavadgita, and occupying generally the same point of view.
There is one other point worth addressing. It concerns the definition of a Brâhmaṇa — a definition that seems to me to point to an earlier stage of religious development than the one reflected in Âpastamba and Manu. The true Brâhmaṇa is he who is attached to the Brahman. This may mark a small advance beyond the more general teaching of the Gita, yet it falls far short of what I can only call the fossilized doctrine of the later law-givers. The Brâhmaṇa has not yet sunk into being a mere collector of fees and gifts, but still holds the truth.
We can see, then, that the external and internal evidence bearing on the question of the Sanatsujâtîya's place in Sanskrit literature points to roughly the same period and setting as for the Bhagavadgita. It is clear enough that the evidence on both counts is extremely scanty and meagre. But such as it is, it seems to us to justify a provisional conclusion: that the Sanatsujâtîya dates from a period before the rise of Buddhism, and forms part of that same movement in the religious history of ancient India of which the Gita is another expression. We are not currently in a position to assert anything beyond this. To that extent, I think, the evidence allows us to go. We therefore hold that, unless other and further evidence requires us to reverse this judgment, the Sanatsujâtîya may be treated as a work nearly contemporary with the Bhagavadgita, and occupying broadly the same point of view.