SANATSUGATIYA.INTRODUCTION TO SANATSUGATIYA. Tue Sanatsugatiya is, like the Bhagavadgitd, one of the numerous episodes of the Mahabharata}. It is true, that it has never commanded anything like that unbounded veneration which has always been paid in India to the Bhagavadgita. Still it is sometimes studied even in our days, and it has had the high distinction of being com- mented on by the great leader of the modern Vedantic school—Saikarakarya?, The Sanatsugdtiya purports to be a dialogue mainly between Sanatsugdta on the one side and Dhritarashéra on the other. Sanatsugata, from whom it takes its name, is said to be identical with Sanatku- mara, a name not unfamiliar to students of our Upanishad literature. And Dhritardsh¢ra is the old father of those Kauravas who formed one of the belligerent parties in the bellum plusquam civile which is recorded in the Mahabharata. The connexion of this particular cpisode with the main current of the narrative of that epos is one of the loosest possible character—much looser, for instance, than that of the Bhagavadgita. As regards the latter, it can fairly be contended that it is in accordance with poetical justice for Arguna to feel despondent and unwilling to engage in battle, after actual sight of ‘teachers, fathers, sons,’ and all the rest of them, arrayed in opposition to him; and that therefore it was necessary for the poet to adduce some specific explanation as to how Aruna was ultimately enabled to get over such natural scruples. But as regards the Sanatsugatiya, even such a contention as this ' Mahibhérata, Udyoga Parvan, Adhydya 41-46. * Madhavasirya, in speaking of Si works, describes him as having commentei on the Sanatsugdttya, which is ‘far from evil (persons)” [asatsudG- tam], Sankara-vigaya, chapter VI, stanza 62.136 SANATSUGATIVA, 3 can have no place. For this is how the matter stands, Ip the course of the negotiations for an amicable arrangement! between the Paxdavas and the Kauravas, Safigaya, on one occasion, came back to DhritarAsh/ra with a message from the Pazdavas. When he saw Dhritarashéra, however, he said that he would deliver the message in the public assembly of the Kauravas the next morning, and went away after pronouncing a severe censure on Dhritarashéra for his conduct. The suspense thus caused was a source of much vexation to the old man, and so he sent for Vidura, in order, as he expresses it, that Vidura might by his dis. course assuage the fire that was raging within him. Vidura accordingly appears, and enters upon an claborate prelection concerning matters spiritual, or, perhaps, more accurately quasi-spiritual, and at the outset of the Sanatsugatiya he is supposed to have reached a stage where, as being born a Stidra, he hesitates to proceed. After some discussion of this point, between Vidura and Dhritarashtra, it is determined to call in the aid of Sanatsugata, to explain the spiritual topics which Vidura felt a delicacy in dealing with ; and Sanatsugdta is accordingly introduced on the scene in a way not unusual in our epic and purdzic litera- ture, viz. by Vidura engaging in some mystic process of meditation, in response to which Sanatsugdta appcars. He is received then with all due formalities, and after he has had some rest, as our poem takes care to note, he is catechised by Dhritarash‘ra; and with one or two exccp- tions, all the verses which constitute the Sanatsugattya are Sanatsugata’s answers to Dhritardshéra’s questions *. This bricf statement of the scheme of this part of the Mahabharata shows, as already pointed out, tfiat the con- nexion of the SanatsugAtiya with the central story of that epic is very loose indeed; and that it might have becn entirely omitted without occasioning any zsthetical or other defect. And therefore, although there is nothing positive jee p. 3 supra. ® Afier this dialogue is over, the dawn breaks, and Dhritarishfra and the Kaurava princes mect in general assembly.INTRODUCTION, 137 tending to prove the Sanatsugatiya to be a later addition to the original epos, still the misgivings which are often entertained upon such points may well, in this case, be stronger than in the case of the Bhagavadgita. The text, too, of the Sanatsugatiya is not preserved in nearly so satis- factory a condition as that of the Gita. I have had before me, in settling my text, the editions of the Mahabhérata respectively printed and published at Bombay !, Calcutta, and Madras, and three MSS., one of which was most kindly and readily ‘placed at my disposal by my friend Professor Ramkrishva Gopa/ Bhandarkar; the second by another friend, Professor Abagi Vishvu Kathava/c ; and the third was a copy made for me at Sagar in the Central Provinces, through the good offices of a third friend, Mr. Vaman Maha- deva Kolharkar. The copy lent me by Professor Bhandar- kar comes from Pua, and that lent by Professor Kathavafe also from Pua, This last, as well as the Sagar copy, and the edition printed at Madras, contains the commentary of Sankaradirya. And the text I have adopted is that which is indicated by the commentary as the text which its author had before him. But the several copies of the commentary differ so- much from onc another, that it is still a matter of some doubt with me, whether I have got accurately the text which Saikara commented upon. For instance, the Sagar copy entirely omits chapter V, while the other copies not only give the text of that chapter, but also a commentary upon it which calls itself Saikarasarya’s com- mentary*, Again, take the stanzas which stand within brackets at pp. 167, 168° of our translation. There is in none of the copies we have, any commentary of Safikara- 4arya on them. And yet the stanzas exist in the text of the Mahabharata as given in those copies which do contain Safikara’s commentary. The matter is evidently one for further investigatior I have not, however, thought it tains Nilakan/ha’s commentary, but his text avowedly includes the ‘ext of Saikara, and verses and readings contained in more modern copies. ‘The commentary on the sixth chapter, however, takes up the thread from ‘he end of the fourth chapter. * See p. 18a, where one of the lines recurs.138 SANATSUGATIYA. a absolutely necessary to make such an investigation for the purposes of the present translation, But to be on the safe side, I have retained in the translation everything which is to be found in those copies of the Sanatsugatiya which also contain Sankara’s commentary. As to other stanzas. and there are some of this description—which other MSS, or commentators vouch for, but of which no trace is to be found in the MSS. containing Sankara’s commentary’, I have simply omitted them. These facts show that, in the case of the Sanatsugatiya, the materials for a trustworthy historical account of the work are not of a very satisfactory character. The mate- rials for ascertaining its date and position in Sansktit litera- ture are, indeed, so scanty, that poor as we have seen the materials for the Bhagavadgita to be, they must be called superlatively rich as compared with those we have now to deal with. As regards external evidence on the points now alluded to, the first and almost the last fact falling under that head, is the fact of the work being quoted from and commented upon by Sankaraéarya. In his commentary on the Svetdsvatara-upanishad*, Saikara cites the pas- sage about the flamingo at p. 189, introducing it with the words, ‘And in the Sanatsugata also.’ In the same® com- mentary some other passages from the SanatsugAtiya are also quoted, but without naming the work except as a Smriti, and mixing up together verses from different parts of the work, This is really all the external evidence, that I am aware of, touching the date of the Sanatsugatiya. There is, how- ever, one other point, which it is desirable to notice, though not, perhaps, so much because it is of any very’ great value in itself, as because it may hereafter become useful, should further research into the Mahabharata and other works yield the requisite information. There are, then, eight stanzas in the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahabhi- * See note 1, p. 137- * R283. 2 P. 252, See, too, Strtraka Bhashya, p. 828.INTRODUCTION. 139 rata (the Sanatsugatiya commencing at the forty-first chapter), seven of which are quoted in the Pa#katantra', and the eighth in the Mahbhashya? of Patafigali. Of course, it almost goes without saying, that neither the Pa#éatantra nor the Mahabhashya mentions the source from which they derive the verses in question, But I do not think it unallow- able to make the provisional assumption, that they were derived from the Mahabharata, so long as we cannot produce any other, and ‘more likely, source. It is true, that Professor Weber has, in another connexion, impugned the cogency of this argument. He seems to think, that the probability— in the case he was actually dealing with—of the Ramayana having borrowed from the Mahabhashya, is quite as strong as the probability of the Mahabhashya having borrowed from the RamAyawa%. And doubtless, he would by parity of reason contend, in the case before us, that the probabi- lities, as between the Mahabh4rata on the one hand, and the Mahabhashya and the Pafatantra on the other, bear the same mutual relation. I cannot accept this view. I am not now concerned to discuss the merits of the conclusion in support of which Professor Weber has advanced this argu- ment‘, I am only considering, how far it affects the question now before us. And as to that question, I may say, that the Paaéatantra expressly introduces the stanzas now under consideration with some such expression as,‘ For it has been said,’ indicating clearly that it was there quoting the words of another 5, And so, too, docs the Mahabhashya, * Cf, Koscgarten’s Pandatantra, p. 28 (I, 28, Bombay S. C. ed.), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XL, st. 7 (Bombay ed.) ; Pafthatantra, pp. 112 and 209 (11, 10; JV, 5, Bombay gd), with Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, 93 p. 36 (37 Tombay ed.) wth chap. XXXVI, st. 343 p. 140 (II, 40, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVIL, st. 155 p. 160 (IIT, 6a, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVII, 8.17, 185 p. 106 (II, 2, Bombay ed.) with chap. XXXVI, st. 59. ? Udyoga Parvan, chap. XXXVIII, st. 1, and Mahabhashya VI, 1 4, p- 35 (Banaras ed.) See Indian Antiquary 1V, 247. The parallel from Madhava which Professor Weber adiduces is quite inconclusive, and as far as it gocs appears to me to militate against the Professor's own view. I may, however, admit at once, that I ought not to have expressed inyself ‘s strongly as I did i the note which Professor Weber criticises. Sce p. 203 infra,140 SANATSUGATIYA. where the passage we refer to runs as follows: ‘(It is) laid down, (that there is) a sin in one of tender age not rising to receive (an elderly person), and (that there is) merit in rising to receive. How? Thus, “The life-winds of a youth depart upwards, when an elderly man approaches (him). By rising to receive (him), and salutation, he obtains them again.”’ It appears to me, that the indications of this being a quotation in the Bhdshya are very strong. But apart from that, I do demur to the proposition, that the probabilities are equal, of a work like the Mahabharata or Ramayana borrowing a verse from the Mahabhashya, and vice versa. It appears to me perfectly plain, I own, that the probability of a gram- matical work like the Bhashya borrowing a verse from a standard work like the Bharata or Ramayana for pur- poses of illustration is very much the stronger of the two. And this, quite independently of any inquiry as to whether the Bhashya does or does not show other indications of acquaintance with the Bharata or the Ramayawa. If these arguments are correct, it seems to me that they carry us thus far in our present investigation—namely, that we may now say, that we have reason to believe some parts, at all events, of the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty- eighth, and fortieth chapters of the Udyoga Parvan of the Mahabharata to have probably been in existence prior to the sixth century A.C.'; and that some parts of the thirty-seventh chapter were probably extant in the time of Patafigali, viz. the second century B.C.2 Now, internal evidence does not yield any indications tending to show that the scveral chapters here referred to must have been prior in time to the chapters composing the Sanatsugétiya, which come so soon after them in the Mahabharata. On the contrary, it is not too much to maintain, that to a certain extent the style and language of the Sanatsugatiya is, if anything, rather indicative of its priority in time over the five chapters immediately preceding it. And, therefore, so far as this argument gocs, it enables us—provisionally only, it must be 2 See p. a9 supra. + See p. 32 supra.INTRODUCTION, 141 remembered—to fix the second century B.c.as a terminus ad quem for the date of the Sanatsugatiya. 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. Sanatsugata '—or Sanatkumara—as already pointed out, is a name already familiar to the readers of one of our older Upanishads—the KAandogya. Dhvitarash/ra 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 Sanatsugatiya 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 Dhritardsh/ra ;’ and is addressed by Sanatsugata as, ‘O acute sir!’ ‘O learned person!’ True it is, that Nilakawfha in one place, as we have noticed in our note there*, endeavours to bring out the later view of Dhritarashéra’s character*; but it scems to me that that endeavour, based as it is on a forced and far- fetched interpretation of a single word in our poem, is an unsuccessful one. None of the questions, which Dhrita- rishira puty to Sanatsugata 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 } See Hall's Sdikhyasara, preface, pp. 14, 15+ tt, note 2. * Nilahantha himself, however, treats Dhvitarishéra’s question later on as showing that he had attained indifference to worldly concerns, That question oes not occur in Satkara’s text, but is given at p. 158 infra,142 SANATSUGATIYA. If we look next to the general style of this poem, we find that it has none of that elaboration which marks what I have called the age of Kavyas and Nafakas. The remarks on this topic in the Introduction to the Git apply pretty accurately to this work also. We observe here the same paucity of long-drawn compounds, the same absence of merely ornamental adjectives, the same absence of figures and tropes?; in one word, the same directness and simplicity of style. Furthermore, there is a somewhat greater want of finish about the syntax of our poem than there is even in the Gita. Such constructions as we find inter alia at chapter II, stanza 2, or 25, or at chapter III, stanza 14, or chapter IV, stanza 12, or in the carly verses of the last chapter, indicate a period in the history of the language, when probably the regulations of syntax were not quite thoroughly established in practice. If we turn to the metre of the poem, an analogous phe- nomenon strikes us there. Similar irregularities in the collocation of long and short syllables, similar superfluities and deficiencies of syllables, mect us in the Sanatsugatiya and the Bhagavadgita. And in the former work, as in the latter, the irregularities are less observable in the Anushtubh? than in the other metres used. Probably the explanation, apart from the great elasticity of that metre, is that the Anushéubh had been more used, and had in consequence become comparatively more settled in its scheme even in practical composition, Looking now more particularly to the language of the work before us, we find one word to be of most frequent occurrence, namely, the word vai, which we haye rendered ‘verily.’ It is not a common word in the later literature, while in the Upanishad literature we meet with great frequency, not merely vai, but the words, which I think are cognate with it, va and vava. The former word, indeed, 1 The five similes which occur, and which are nearly all that occur, in the poem, are the very primitive ones—of the hunter, of water on grass, the tiger of straw, death eating men like a tiger, dogs eating what is vomited, of a tree and the moon, and birds and their nests. 1 Cf, as to this the Nrisimha Tépint, p. 105.INTRODUCTION, 143 appears to me to stand in some passages of the Upanishads for vai by euphonic alterations. Thus in the passage tvam va aham asmi bhagavo devate, aham vai tvam asi, it is difficult not to suppose that the va of the first part of the sentence is the same word as the.vai of the second part, only altered according to the rules of Sandhi in Sanskrit. ‘A second point of similarity between the language of the Upanishads and that of the Sanatsugatiya is to be found in the phrase, ‘He who knows this becomes immortal.’ This sentence, or one of like signification, is, as is well known, of common occurrence in the Upanishads and in the Brah- manas. In the Bhagavadgita, the verses towards the end, which come after Krishna's summing-up of his instruction, seem to be of a somewhat analogous, though in some respects different, nature. And in the Purazas we meet sometimes with elaborate passages extolling the merits of a particular rite, or a particular pilgrimage, and so forth. This form of the Phalasruti, as it is called, appears to have been developed in process of time from the minute germ existing in the Brihmaias and the Upanishads. In the Sanatsugatiya, however, we are almost at the beginning of those develop- ments; indeed, the form before us is identically the same as that which we see in the works wherc it is first met with. It is a short sentence, which, though complete in itself, still appears merely at the end of another passage, and almost as a part of such other passage. There is one other point of a kindred nature which it may be well to notice here. As in the Gita, so in the Sanatsu- gatiya, we mect with a considerable number of words used in scnses ngt familiar in the later literature. They are collected in the Index of Sanskrit words in this volume ; but a few remarks on some of them will not, it is thought, be entirely out of place here. The word marga?—in the sense of ‘worldly life’—is rather remarkable. Safkara tenders it by ‘the path of sams4ra’ or worldly life. And he quotes as a parallel the passage from the K/andogya- "I give no references here, as they can be found in the Index of Sanskrit Words at the end of this volume.144 SANATSUGATIVA, eee upanishad which speaks of returning to the ‘path.’ There, however, Sankara explains it to mean the ‘path by which the self returns to worldly life,’ namely, from space to the wind and so forth into vegetables, and food, ultimately appearing as a foetus. Another remarkable word is ‘ varga,’ which occurs twice in the Sanatsugdtiya. Satikara and Nilakaztha differ in their explanations of it, and Nilakantia indeed gives two different meanings to the word in the two passages where it occurs. We may also refer here specially to utsa, rztvig, and matva. In Boehtlingk and Roth’s Lexicon the only passages cited under ‘ utsa’ are from Vedic works, except two respectively from Susruta and the Dasakumara- Aarita. Onc passage, however, there cited, viz. Vishzoh pade parame madhva utsaf, is plainly the original of the passage we are now considering. As to ritvig in the sense it bears here, we see,.1 think, what was the earlier signification of that word before it settled down into the somewhat technical meaning in which it is now familiar. And matva in the sense of ‘ meditating upon’ is to be found in the Upanishads, but not, I think, in any work of the classical literature. These words, therefore, seem to indicate that the Sanatsu- gatiya was composed at a stage in the development of the Sanskrit language which is a good deal earlier than the stage which we see completely reached in the classical literature. Coming now to the matter of the Sanatsugattya, it appears to me, that we there see indications pointing in a general way to the same conclusion as that which we have here arrived at. There is, in the first place, a looseness and want of rigid system in the mode of handling the subject, siinilar to that which we have already observed upoh as charac- terising the Bhagavadgité. There is no obvious bond of connexion joining together the various subjects discussed. nor are those subjects themselves treated after any very scientific or rigerous method. Again, if the fourth chapter is a genuine part of the Sanatsugatiya, we have an elaborate repetition in one part, of what las been said in another part of the work, with only a few variations in words, and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 repeti- tions, on a smaller scale, perhaps, are not uncommon in 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 Akhydnas 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 re- garded as some mark of a modern age. But without dwell- ing 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 Sanatsugatiya is older than the K/dn- dogya-upanishad. We have next to consider the reference to the Siman 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 ig prior in date. The estimate of the value of the Vedas which is implied in the SanatsugAttya appears to coincide very nearly with that which we have shown to be the estimate implicd 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 Anritas which occurs in one passage of the work can be regarded really as referring to those See p. 181, note x infra, * Pag supra, ¥p. 19, 204 (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 sce 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 cere. monics 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 Sanatsu- gatiya, 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 Rié 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 Sanatsugdtiya and the Vedas. We have already argued in the Introduction to the Bhagavad- gita, 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 Gita and the Sanatsugdtiya—namely, that the latter work scems to afford more certain indications of the recognition, at the date of its composition, of a G#anakanda as distinguished from a Karmakénda in the Vedas, than, we have scen, are contained in the Bhagavadgita®. The passage, for instance, which speaks of the A’fandas 35 a "Ch. p. 16 supra, * Ch. pp. 25, 26. Pap