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.
INTRODUCTION. 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 in our older literature 1.
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 Âkhyânas 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 ?, it must suffice to draw attention here to the fact that the Khandogya-upanishad mentions that Veda, and it is not here argued that the Sanatsugâtiya is older than the Khândogya-upanishad. We have next to consider the reference to the Sâman 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 Sanatsugâtiya 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 Sanatsugâtiya 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 Anvzkas which occurs in one passage of the work can be regarded really as referring to those 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 Brahmaʼârins, 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 Bhagavadgita, 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 Ṛik 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 Sanatsugâtiya 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.
1 See p. 181, note 1 infra. 2 P. 19 supra. 5 Pp. 19, 20.
INTRODUCTION. 145 Perhaps fewer still in meaning. As, however, I am not yet ready to stand finally by the genuineness of that chapter, I do not think it worth pressing this argument further than to point out that similar repetitions, on a smaller scale perhaps, are not uncommon in our older literature 1.
Coming now to how the Vedas are spoken of in the work before us, we find one or two noteworthy points worth considering here. First, there is the reference to the four Vedas together with Âkhyânas as the fifth Veda. This accords with the old tradition recorded in the various works cited in our note on the passage. The mention of the Atharva-veda — implied in this passage and stated explicitly in another — might be taken as a sign of a later date. But without dwelling on the fact that the Atharva-veda, though probably later than the other Vedas, is still old enough to predate the Christian era by several centuries, it is enough to point out here that the Khandogya-upanishad mentions that Veda, and no argument is being made here that the Sanatsujâtîya is older than the Khândogya-upanishad. We must next consider the reference to the Sâman hymns as vimala, or pure. The point this reference involves has already been discussed at sufficient length in the Introduction to the Gita; it need only be said here that, of the two classes of works distinguished there, the Sanatsujâtîya, judging from the passage under discussion, ranks itself with the class that is earlier in date.
The estimate of the Vedas implied in the Sanatsujâtîya appears to coincide very closely with the estimate we have shown to be implied in the Bhagavadgita. The Vedas are not dismissed as useless here any more than they are in the Bhagavadgita. I do not think the word Anvzkas, which occurs in one passage of the work, can really be taken as referring to those who reject the Vedic revelation entirely. Short of that, however, the Sanatsujâtîya certainly seems to share the Bhagavadgita's protest against those men of extreme views who could see nothing beyond the rites and ceremonies the Vedas teach. A study of the Vedas is indeed insisted upon in various passages of the Sanatsujâtîya. But it is maintained with equal firmness that performing the ceremonies prescribed 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 attained a certain elevated position through the practice of the duties of Brahmaʼârins, yet are not only not superior to the man who has acquired true knowledge of the universal self, but are actually under his control. On all these points the Sanatsujâtîya expresses opinions that conclusively establish an identity of doctrine among the Upanishads, the Bhagavadgita, and the Sanatsujâtîya. Finally, there is an explicit statement that the mere study of Vedic texts avails nothing, and that sin cannot be shed by one who merely studies the Ṛik and the Yajus texts and the Sama-veda. There is no need to repeat here the chronological conclusions that may be drawn from this relationship between the Sanatsujâtîya and the Vedas. We have already argued in the Introduction to the Bhagavadgita that such a relationship points to a period of Indian religious history prior to the great movement of Gautama Buddha.
1 See p. 181, note 1 infra. 2 P. 19 supra. 5 Pp. 19, 20.