Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1As, 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 146 SANATSUGATIYA.
2The 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 146 SANATSUGATIYA. 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 "Cf. p. 16 supra. * Cf. pp. a5, 26. *P.17. INTRODUCTION, 147
3p. 16 supra. * Cf. pp. a5, 26. *P.17. INTRODUCTION, 147 referring ‘of themselves’ to the Brahman, and the passage which refers to an understanding of the Brahman by means of the Vedas, according to the principle of the moon and the branch—these seem rather to point to a portion of the Vedas which was regarded as giving instruction in true knowledge, as distinguished from merely laying down various sacrifices and ceremonials for special purposes. In fact, in one passage we have the germ of the whole VedAntic theory as afterwards settled. For there we are told, that sacrifices and penances are laid down as the preliminary steps towards the acquisition of true knowledge. By those sacrifices one is purified of one’s sins, and then acquires a knowledge of the supreme self as described in the Vedas— which, I apprehend, must mean the Upanishads. . There is but one other point on which we need say anything further. And that is connected with the definition of a Brahmana. That definition appears to me, to point to an earlier stage in religious progress than is indicated in Apastamba and Manu. The true Brdhmama 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 Brahmana 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 cnables us, I think, to go. And we accordingly hold, that unless L2 148 SANATSUGATIYA. other and further evidence requires a reversal of this judgment, the Sanatsugatiya may be treated as a work nearly contemporary with the Bhagavadgit4, and occupying generally the same point of view.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1As, 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 146 SANATSUGATIYA.
2The 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 146 SANATSUGATIYA. 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 "Cf. p. 16 supra. * Cf. pp. a5, 26. *P.17. INTRODUCTION, 147
3p. 16 supra. * Cf. pp. a5, 26. *P.17. INTRODUCTION, 147 referring ‘of themselves’ to the Brahman, and the passage which refers to an understanding of the Brahman by means of the Vedas, according to the principle of the moon and the branch—these seem rather to point to a portion of the Vedas which was regarded as giving instruction in true knowledge, as distinguished from merely laying down various sacrifices and ceremonials for special purposes. In fact, in one passage we have the germ of the whole VedAntic theory as afterwards settled. For there we are told, that sacrifices and penances are laid down as the preliminary steps towards the acquisition of true knowledge. By those sacrifices one is purified of one’s sins, and then acquires a knowledge of the supreme self as described in the Vedas— which, I apprehend, must mean the Upanishads. . There is but one other point on which we need say anything further. And that is connected with the definition of a Brahmana. That definition appears to me, to point to an earlier stage in religious progress than is indicated in Apastamba and Manu. The true Brdhmama 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 Brahmana 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 cnables us, I think, to go. And we accordingly hold, that unless L2 148 SANATSUGATIYA. other and further evidence requires a reversal of this judgment, the Sanatsugatiya may be treated as a work nearly contemporary with the Bhagavadgit4, and occupying generally the same point of view.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.