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.
Dhṛitarâshṭra said :
Since some practise piety* in this world, and some likewise practise impiety in this world; is the piety destroyed by the sin, or else does the piety destroy sin ?
Sanatsugâta said :
Whichever? he adheres to, the man of understanding always destroys both by means of knowledge ; (that is) settled *. Likewise, in the other case #, the embodied (self) obtains merit; and to such a one sin (also) accrues; (that too is) settled*. Departing (from this world), he enjoys by his actions both (kinds of) fruit, which are not enduring 5—of actions (which are) pure, and of (those which are) sinful. The man of understanding casts aside sin by piety in this (world), for know that his piety is more powerful 5. Those Brâhmaṇas, in whom there is emulation’ about (their) piety, as there is in strong men about (their) strength, after departing from this world, become glorious in heaven 5. And to those in whom there is no emulation about (their) piety, that (piety) is a means of (acquiring) knowledge 1. Such Brâhmaṇas released from this (world), go to the heaven which is free from the threefold source of pain ?. People who understand the Vedas call his conduct good. (But) people closely connected *, as well as strangers, do not pay much regard to him. Wherever he may believe food and drink for a Brâhmaṇa to exist in abundance, like water on grass in the autumn, there would he live and not be vexed*. (To him) only that person is good, and no other (as a companion), who does nothing in excess, and who occasions fear and injury to a taciturn man5. And his food is acceptable to the good, who does not vex the self of a taciturn man, and who does not destroy the property of a Brâhmaṇa® A Brâhmaṇa should hold, that living in the midst of kinsmen, his actions should be always unknown’; and he should not think’ (about them). What Brâhmaṇa ought to think of the inner self, which is void of symbols 2, immovable, pure, and free from all pairs of opposites, in this way*? What sin is not committed by that thief, who steals away his own self4, who regards his self as one thing, when it is a different thing. The far-seeing Brâhmaṇa, who knows the Brahman, is not wearied 5, he receives nothing *; he is honoured, free from trouble’, and wise, but acts as if he was not wise® As dogs eat what is vomited, so do they, enjoying their own bravery?, eat what is vomited, always with disaster (to themselves). Those twice-born persons, who are not first! in respect of human wealth, but who are first in the Vedas?, are unconquerable, not to be shaken?: they should be understood to be forms of the Brahman. Whosoever may in this (world) know all the gods *—doers of favours—he is not equal to a Brahmaya, (nor even) he® for whom he exerts himself. The man who makes no efforts, and is respected, does not, being respected, think himself respected’, nor does he become vexed in consequence of disrespect. One who is respected ® should think it to be a natural operation of people, like their opening or closing of the eyelids, that the learned respect him in this world. One who is not respected should think, that the deluded people who do not understand piety, and who are devoid of (knowledge of) the world and the Sâstras, will never respect one who is worthy of respect. Respect and taciturnity?, verily, never dwell together; for this world is (the field) for respect, the next for taciturnity, as is understood’. For worldly wealth dwells in the sphere of respect !, and that, too, is an obstacle ?. While the Brahmic wealth*, O Kshatriya! is difficult to be attained by any one devoid of knowledge. The ways (to it) are stated by the good to be of various descriptions, and difficult to reach—truth, straightforwardness, modesty ‘, restraint (of senses), purity, knowledge, which are the six impediments (in the way) of respect and delusion.
kantha’s is not quite clear. May the expression on the second occasion mean, that the connexion by which beings are stated before to exist has had no beginning—has existed from eternity ? The translation should then run thus: ‘And beings exist by a connexion which had no beginning ;’ (see Sârîraka Bhâshya, p. 494.) Connexions of things=creation of universe by his power. + E.g. Agnishtoma, &c., Śaṅkara.
* Le. impiety or piety, sin or merit.
* In Śrutis and Smr‘tis, which Śaṅkara quotes. Khândogya, p.622; Muṇḍaka, p. 309; Bṛihadâraṇyaka, p. 911. See, too, Maitri, p. 192.
* Of the man devoid of knowledge. ° Cf. Gita, p. 76, and Bṛihadaraṇyaka, p. 636. ° See p. 164, note 9 infra.
7 The feeling of one’s own superiority over others in piety. ‘In the shape of Nakshatras,’ says Śaṅkara, which is not quite 8 intelligible. See Khândogya, p. 258, and Anugîtâ infra, p. 240.
Dhṛitarâshṭra said:
Since some people practise piety in this world and some likewise practise impiety, is the piety destroyed by the sin, or does the piety destroy the sin?
Sanatsujâta said:
Whichever path he adheres to, the man of understanding always destroys both by means of knowledge; that is settled. Likewise, in the other case, the embodied self4 obtains merit; and to such a one sin also accrues; that too is settled. Departing from this world, he enjoys by his actions both kinds of fruit—which are not enduring 5—of actions that are pure and of those that are sinful. The man of understanding casts aside sin by piety in this world, for know that his piety is more powerful 5. Those Brâhmaṇas in whom there is emulation about their piety, as there is in strong men about their strength, after departing from this world become glorious in heaven 5. And to those in whom there is no emulation about their piety, that piety is a means of acquiring knowledge 1. Such Brâhmaṇas released from this world go to the heaven which is free from the threefold source of pain. People who understand the Vedas call his conduct good. But people closely connected, as well as strangers, do not pay much regard to him. Wherever he may believe food and drink for a Brâhmaṇa to exist in abundance, like water on grass in the autumn, there would he live and not be vexed 5. To him only that person is good, and no other as a companion, who does nothing in excess and who occasions fear and injury to a taciturn man5. And his food is acceptable to the good, who does not vex the self of a taciturn man and who does not destroy the property of a Brâhmaṇa. A Brâhmaṇa should hold that, living in the midst of kinsmen, his actions should always be unknown; and he should not think about them. How should a Brâhmaṇa think of the inner self, which is void of symbols², immovable, pure, and free from all pairs of opposites, in this way? What sin is not committed by that thief who steals away his own self4, who regards his self4 as one thing when it is a different thing. The far-seeing Brâhmaṇa, who knows the Brahman, is not wearied 5; he receives nothing; he is honoured, free from trouble, and wise, but acts as if he were not wise. As dogs eat what is vomited, so do they, enjoying their own bravery, eat what is vomited, always with disaster to themselves. Those twice-born persons who are not first in respect of human wealth, but who are first in the Vedas, are unconquerable and not to be shaken; they should be understood to be forms of the Brahman. Whosoever may in this world know all the gods—doers of favours—he is not equal to a Brâhmaṇa, nor even he for whom he exerts himself. The man1 who makes no efforts and is respected does not, being respected, think himself respected, nor does he become vexed on account of disrespect. One who is respected should regard it as a natural operation of people—like their opening or closing of the eyelids—that the learned respect him in this world. One who is not respected should think that the deluded people who do not understand piety, and who are devoid of knowledge of the world and the Sâstras, will never respect one who is worthy of respect. Respect and taciturnity, verily, never dwell together; for this world is the field for respect, the next for taciturnity, as is understood. For worldly wealth dwells in the sphere of respect 1, and that too is an obstacle. While the Brahmic wealth, O Kshatriya! is difficult to be attained by anyone devoid of knowledge. The ways to it are stated by the good to be of various descriptions and difficult to reach—truth, straightforwardness, modesty, restraint of the senses, purity, and knowledge—which are the six impediments in the way of respect and delusion.
kantha's is not quite clear. May the expression on the second occasion mean that the connexion by which beings are stated before to exist has had no beginning—has existed from eternity? The translation should then run: 'And beings exist by a connexion which had no beginning;' (see Sârîraka Bhâshya, p. 494.) Connexions of things = creation of universe by his power. + E.g. Agnishtoma, &c., Śaṅkara.
* That is, impiety or piety, sin or merit.
* In Śrutis and Smr'tis, which Śaṅkara quotes. Khândogya, p. 622; Muṇḍaka, p. 309; Bṛihadâraṇyaka, p. 911. See, too, Maitri, p. 192.
* Of the man devoid of knowledge. ° Cf. Gita, p. 76, and Bṛihadaraṇyaka, p. 636. ° See p. 164, note 9 infra.
7 The feeling that one is more pious than others. 'In the shape of Nakshatras,' says Śaṅkara, which is not quite 8 intelligible. See Khândogya, p. 258, and Anugîtâ infra, p. 240.