CHAPTER 9

Essays on the Bhagwat Gita : Philosophic Defence of Counter-Revolution:

Krishna and His Gita

The first page of 'Essays on the Bhagvat Gita' is
autographed by Dr. Ambedkar. Next 42 pages consist of analytical notes
on Virat Parva and Uddyog Parva including the table of contents on this
subject. The table of contents is printed in the schemes. This file contains
two typed copies of an essay entitled 'Philosophic Defence of Counter-
RevolutionKrishna and His Gita '. The last sentence of this essay is
left incomplete. The total number of typed pages of this essay is 40 only.
The notes on Viral Parva & Udyog Parva are printed in the next
chapters.Editors.

What is the place of the Bhagwat Gita in the literature of ancient India? Is
it a gospel of the Hindu Religion in the same way as the Bible is of the
Christian Religion? The Hindus have come to regard it as their gospel. If it
is a gospel, what does it really teach? What is the doctrine it stands for?
The variety of answers given to this question by students competent to
speak on the subject is really bewildering. Bohtlingk [f9]says:
" The Gita contains by the side of many high and beautiful thoughts, not
only a few weak points ; contradictions (which the commentators have tried
to pass over as excusable), repetitions, exaggerations, absurdities and
loathsome points."'
" Hopkins
[f10]
speaks of the Bhagvat Gita as a charactaristic work of the
Hindu Literature in its sublimity as in its puerilities, in its logic as in its want
of it; ..... an ill-assorted cabinet of primitive philosophical opinions." In his
judgment:
"Despite its occasional power and music exaltation, the Divine song in its
present state as a poetical production is unsatisfactory. The same thing is
said over again, and the contradictions in phraseology and in meaning are
as numerous as the repetitions, so that one is not surprised to find it
described as "the wonderful song, which causes the hair to stand on end."
Holtzrnan
[f11]
says:
"We have before us (in the Bhagvat Gita) a Vishnuite revision of a
pantheistic poem."
Garbe
[f12]
observes :
"The whole character of the poem in its design and execution
is preponderatingly theistic. A personal God Krishna stands forth in the
form of a human hero, expounds his doctrine, enjoins, above all things, on
his listener, along with the performance of his duties, loving faith in Him
and self-surrender:...... And by the side of this God(who is) delineated as
personally as possible, and who dominates the whole poemstands out
frequently the impersonal neutral Brahman, the Absolute, as the highest
principle. At one time Krishna says that He is the sole Highest God who
has created the world and all beings and rules over it all ; at another time,
he expounds the Vedantic doctrine of Brahman and maya-the Cosmic
Illusion, and expounds as the highest goal of human being that he be freed
from the World-Illusion and become Brahman. These two doctrinesthe
theistic and the pantheisticare mixed up with each other, and follow each
other, sometimes quite unconnected and sometimes loosely connected.
And it is not the case that the one is represented as a lower, exoteric. (Text
p. 9) and, (p. ) as the higher esoteric doctrine. It is nowhere taught that the
Theism is a preliminary step to the knowledge of the reality or that it is its
symbol, and that the pantheism of the Vedanta is the (ultimate) reality itself
; but the two beliefs are treated of almost throughout as though there was
indeed no difference between them, either verbal or
real." Mr. Telang says :
[f13]

"There are several passages in the Gita which it is not very easy to
reconcile with one another ; and no attempt is made to harmonise them.
Thus, for example, in stanza 16 of Chapter VI I, Krishna divides his
devotees into four classes, one of which consists of `men of
knowledge', whom, Krishna says, he considers 'as his own self'. It would
probably be difficult to imagine any expression which could indicate higher
esteem. Yet in stanza 46 of chapter VI, we have it laid down, that the
devotee is superior not only to the mere performer of penances, but even
to the men of knowledge. The commentators betray their gnostic bias by
interpreting 'men of knowledge' in this latter passage to mean those who
have acquired erudition in the Shastras and their significations. This is not
an interpretation to be necessarily rejected. But there is in it a certain
twisting of words, which, under the circumstances here, I am not inclined to
accept. And on the other hand, it must not be forgotten, that the
implications fairly derivable from Chapter IV, stanza 39 (pp. 62, 63), would
seem to be rather than knowledge is superior to devotionis the higher
stage to be reached by means of devotion as the stepping stone. In
another passage again at Gita, Chapter XII, stanza 12, concentration is
preferred to knowledge, which also seems to me to be irreconcileable with
Chapter VII, stanza 16. Take still another instance.
At Gita, Chapter B stanza 15, it is said, that 'Lord receives the sin or merit
of none.' Yet at Chapter V, stanza 24 Krishna calls himself the Lord
and enjoyer," of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may be well asked,
can the Supreme Being 'enjoy that which he does not even receive?' Once
more at Chapter X, stanza 29, Krishna declares that 'none is hateful to me,
none dear.' And yet the remarkable verse at the close of Chapter XII seem
to stand in pointblank contradiction to that declaration. There through a
most elaborate series of stanzas, the burden of Krishna's eloquent sermon
is 'such a one is dear to me.' And again in those fine verses, where Krishna
winds up his Divine Law, he similarly tells Arjuna, that he,
Arjuna, is 'dear' to Krishna. And Krishna also speaks of that devotee
as 'dear' to him, who may publish the mystery of the Gita among those who
references Supreme Being.
[f14]
And yet again, how are we to reconcile the
same passage about none being 'hateful or dear' to Krishna, with his own
words at Chapter XVI, stanza 18 and following stanzas? The language
used in describing the 'demoniac' people there mentioned is not
remarkable for sweetness towards them, while Krishna says positively, ' I
hurl down such people into demoniac wombs, whereby they go down into
misery and the vilest condition.' These persons are scarcely characterized
with accuracy 'as neither hateful nor dear' to Krishna. It seems to me, that
all these are real inconsistencies in the Gita, not such, perhaps, as might
not be explained away, but such, I think, as indicate a mind making
guesses at truth, as Professor Max Muller puts it, rather than a mind
elaborating a complete and organized system of philosophy. There is not
even a trace of consciousness on the part of the author that these
inconsistencies exist. And the contexts of the various pasages indicate, in
my judgment, that a half-truth is struck out here and another half-truth
there, with special reference to the special subject then under discussion;
but no attempt is made to organize the various half-truths which are
apparently incompatible, into a symmeterical whole, where the apparent
inconsistencies might possibly vanish altogether in the higher synthesis."
These are the views of what might be called modern scholars. Turning to
the view of the orthodox Pandits, we again find a variety of views. One
view is that the Bhagvat is not a sectarian book. it pays equal respect to
the three ways of salvation (1) Karma marge or the path of works
(2) Bhakti marga or the path of devotion and (3) Jnana marga or the path
of knowledge and preaches the efficacy of all three as means of salvation.
In support of their contention that the Gita respects all the three ways of
salvation and accepts the efficacy of each one of them, the Pandits point
out that of the 18 Chapters of the Bhagvat Gita, Chapters I to 6 are
devoted to the preaching of the Jnana marga, Chapters 7 to 12 to the
preaching of Karma marga and Chapters 12 to 18 to the preaching of
Bhakti marga and say that this equal distribution of its Chapters shows that
the Gita upholds all the three modes of salvation.
Quite contrary to the view of the Pandits is the view
of Shankaracharya and Mr. Tilak, both of whom must be classed amongst
orthodox writers. Shankaracharya held the view that the Bhagvat Gita
preached that the Jnana marga was the only true way of salvation. Mr.
Tilak
[f15]
does not agree with the views of any of the other scholars. He
repudiates the view that the Gita is a bundle of inconsistencies. He does
not agree with the Pandits who say that the Bhagvat Gita recognizes all the
three ways of salvation. Like Shankaracharya he insists that the Bhagvat
Gita has a definite doctrine to preach. But he differs from Shankaracharya
and holds that the Gita teaches Karma Yoga and not Jnana Yoga.
It cannot but be a matter of great surprise to find such a variety of opinion
as to the message which the Bhagvat Gita preaches. One is forced to ask
why there should be such divergence of opinion among scholars? My
answer to this question is that scholars have gone on a false errand. They
have gone on a search for the message of the Bhagvat Gita on the
assumption that it is a gospel as the Koran, the Bible or
the Dhammapada is. In my opinion this assumption is quite a false
assumption. The Bhagvat Gita is not a gospel and it can therefore have no
message and it is futile to search for one. The question will no doubt be
asked : What is the Bhagvat Gita if it is not a gospel? My answer is that the
Bhagvat Gita is neither a book of religion nor a treatise on philosophy.
What the Bhagvat Gita does is to defend certain dogmas of religion
on philosphic grounds. If on that account anybody wants to call it a book of
religion or a book of philosophy he may please himself. But essentially it is
neither. It uses philosophy to defend religion. My opponents will not be
satisfied with a bare statement of view. They would insist on my proving my
thesis by reference to specific instances. It is not at all difficult. Indeed it is
the easiest task.
The first instance one comes across in reading the Bhagvat Gita is the
justification of war. Arjuna had declared himself against the war, against
killing people for the sake of property. Krishna offers a philosophic defence
of war and killing in war. This philosophic defence of war will be found in
Chapter II verses II to 28. The philosophic defence of war offered by the
Bhagvat Gitaproceeds along two lines of argument. One line of argument is
that anyhow the world is perishable and man is mortal. Things are bound to
come to an end. Man is bound to die. Why should it make any difference to
the wise whether man dies a natural death or whether he is done to death
as a result of violence? Life is unreal, why shed tears because it has
ceased to be? Death is inevitable, why bother how if has resulted ? The
second line of argument in justification of war is that it is a mistake to think
that the body and the soul are one. They are separate. Not only are the two
quite distinct but they differ in-as-much as the body is perishable while the
soul is eternal and imperishable. When death occurs it is the body that
dies. The soul never dies. Not only does it never die but air cannot dry it,
fire cannot burn it, and a weapon cannot cut it. It is therefore wrong to say
that when a man is killed his soul is killed. What happens is that his body
dies. His soul discards the dead body as a person discards his old
clotheswears a new ones and carries on. As the soul is never killed,
killing a person can never be a matter of any movement. War and killing
need therefore give no ground to remorse or to shame, so argues the
Bhagvat Gita.
Another dogma to which the Bhagvat Gita comes forward to offer a
philosophic defence is Chaturvarnya. The Bhagvat Gita, no doubt,
mentions that the Chaturvarnya is created by God and therefore
sacrosanct. But it does not make its validity dependent on it. It offers a
philosophic basis to the theory of Chaturvarnya by linking it to the theory of
innate, inborn qualities in men. The fixing of the Varna of man is not an
arbitrary act says the Bhagvat Gita. But it is fixed according to his innate,
inborn qualities.
[f16]

The third dogma for which the Bhagvat Gita offers a philosphic defence is
the Karma marga. By Karma marga the Bhagvat Gita means the
performance of the observances, such as Yajnasas a way to salvation. The
Bhagvat Gita most stands out for the Karma marga throughout and is a
great upholder of it. The line it takes to defend Karma yoga is by removing
the excrescences which had grown upon it and which had made it appear
quite ugly. The first excrescence was blind faith. The Gita tries to remove it
by introducing the principle of Buddhi yoga
[f17]
as a necessary condition for
Karma yoga. Become Stihtaprajna i.e., 'Befitted with Buddhi' there is
nothing wrong in the performance of Karma kanda. The second
excrescence on the Karma kandawas the selfishness which was the
motive behind the performance of the Karmas. The Bhagvat Gita attempts
to remove it by introducing the principle of Anasakti i.e., performance of
karma without any attachment for the fruits of the Karma
.
[f18]Founded in
Buddhi yoga and dissociated from selfish attachment to the fruits of Karma
what is wrong with the dogma of Karma kand?this is how the Bhagvat Gita
defends the Karma marga.4 It would be quite possible to continue in this
strain, to pick up other dogmas and show how the Gita comes forward to
offer a philosophic defence in their support where none existed before. But
this could be done only if one were to write a treatise on the Bhagvat Gita.
it is beyond the scope of a chapter the main purpose of which is to assign
to the Bhagvat Gita its proper place in the ancient Indian literature. I have
therefore selected the most important dogmas just to illustrate my thesis.
Two other questions are sure to be asked in relation to my thesis. Whose
are the Dogmas for which the Bhagvat Gita offers this philosophical
defence? Why did it become necessary for the Bhagvat Gita to defend
these Dogmas?
To begin with the first question, the dogmas which the Gita defends are
the dogmas of counter-revolution as put forth in the Bible of counter-
revolution namely Jaimini's Purvamimamsa. There ought to be no difficulty
in accepting this proposition. If there is any it is largely due to wrong
meaning attached to the word Karma yoga. Most writers on the Bhagvat
Gita translate the word Karma yoga as 'action' and the word Janga yoga,
as 'knowledge' and proceed to discuss the Bhagvat Gita as though it was
engaged in comparing and contrasting knowledge versus action in
a generlized form. This is quite wrong. The Bhagvat Gita is not concerned
with any general, philosophical discussion of action versus knowledge. As
a matter of fact, the Gita is concerned with the particular and not with the
general. By Karma yoga or action Gita means the dogmas contained
in Jaimini's Karma kanda and by Jnana yoga or knowledge it means the
dogmas contained in Badarayana's Brahma Sutras. That the Gita in
speaking of Karma is not speaking of activity or
inactivity, quieticism or energism, in general terms but religious acts and
observances cannot be denied by anyone who has read the
Bhagvat Gita. It is to life the Gita from the position of a party pamphlet
engaged in a controversy on small petty points and make it appear as
though it was a general treatise on matters of high philosophy that this
attempt is made to inflate the meaning of the words Karma and Jnana and
make them words of general import. Mr. Tilak is largely to be blamed for
this trick of patriotic Indians. The result has been that these false meanings
have misled people into believing that the Bhagvat Gita is an independent
self-contained book and has no relation to the literature that has preceded
it. But if one were to keep to the meaning of the word Karma yoga as one
finds it in the Bhagvat Gita itself one would be convinced that in speaking
of Karma yoga the Bhagvat Gita is referring to nothing but the dogmas of
Karma kanda as propounded by Jaimini which it tries to renovate and
strengthen.
To take up the second question : Why did the Bhagvat Gita feel it
necessary to defend the dogmas of counter-revolution? To my mind the
answer is very clear. It was to save them from the attack of Buddhism that
the Bhagvat Gita came into being. Buddha preached non-violence. He not
only preached it but the people at large-except the Brahmins
had acepted it as the way of life. They had acquired a repugnance to
violence. Buddha preached against Chaturvarnya. He used some of the
most offensive similes in attacking the theory of Chaturvarnya. The frame
work of Chaturvarnya had been broken. The order of Chaturvarnya had
been turned upside down. Shudras and women could become sannyasis, a
status which counter-revolution had denied them. Buddha had condemned
the Karma kanda and the Yajnas. he condemned them on the ground
of Himsa or violence. He condemned them also on the ground that the
motive behind them was a selfish desire to obtain bonus. What was the
reply of the counterrevolutionaries to this attack? Only this. These things
were ordained by the Vedas, the Vedas were infallible, therefore the
dogmas were not to be questioned. In the Buddhist age, which was the
most enlightened and the most rationalistic age India has known, dogmas
resting on such silly, arbitrary, unrationalistic and fragile foundations could
hardly stand. People who had come to believe in non-violence as a
principle of life and had gone so far as to make it a rule of lifeHow could
they be expected to accept the dogma that the Kshatriya may kill without
sinning because the Vedas say that it is his duty to kill? People who had
accepted the gospel of social equality and who were remaking society on
the basis of each one according to his meritshow could they accept
the chaturvarnya theory of gradation, and separation of man based on birth
simply because the Vedas say so? People who had accepted the doctrine
of Buddha that all misery in society is due to Tanha or what Tawny calls
acquisitive instincthow could they accept the religion
whichdeliberatly invited people to obtain boons by sacrifices merely
because there is behind it the authority of the Vedas? There is no doubt
that under the furious attack of Buddhism, Jaimini'scounter-revolutionary
dogmas were tottering and would have collapsed had they not received the
support which the Bhagvat Gita gave them. The philosophic defence of the
counter-revolutiona.ry doctrines given by the Bhagwat Gita is by no means
impregnable. The philosophic defence offered by the Bhagvat Gita of
the Kshtriya's duty to kill is to say the least puerile. To say that killing is no
killing because what is killed is the body and not the soul is an unheard of
defence of murder. This is one of the doctrines which make some people
say that the doctrines make one's hair stand on their end. If Krishna were
to appear as a lawyer acting for a client who is being tried for murder and
pleaded the defence set out by him in the Bhagvat Gita there is not the
slightest doubt that he would be sent to the lunatic asylum. Similarly
childish is the defence of the Bhagvat Gita of the dogma of chaturvarnya.
Krishna defends it on the basis of the Gunatheory of the Sankhya. But
Krishna does not seem to have realized what a fool he has made of
himself. In the chaturvarnya there are four Varnas. But
the gunas according to the Sankhyas are only three. How can a system of
four varnas be defended on the basis of a philosophy which does not
recognise more than three varnas? The whole attempt of the Bhagvat Gita
to offer a philosophic defence of the dogmas of counterrevolution is
childishand does not deserve a moment's serious thought. None-the-less
there is not the slightest doubt that without the help of the Bhagvat Gita the
counter-revolution would have died out, out of sheer stupidity of its
dogmas. Mischievous as it may seem, to the revolutionaries the part
played by the Bhagvat Gita, there is no doubt that it resuscitated counter-
revolution and if the counterrevolution lives even today, it is entirely due to
the plausibility of the philosophic defence which it received from the
Bhagvat Gitaanti-Veda and anti-Yajna. Nothing can be a greater mistake
than this. As will appear from other portions of the Bhagvat Gita that it is
not against the authority of the vedas and shastras (XVI, 23, 24: XVII, I I,
13, 24). Nor is it against the sanctity of the yajnas (III. 9-15). It upholds the
virtue of both.
There is therefore no difference between Jaimini's Purva Mimansa and
the Bhagvat Gita. If anything, the Bhagvat Gita is a more formidable
supporter of counter-revolution than Jaimini's Purva Mirnansa could have
ever been. It is formidable because it seeks to give to the doctrines of
counter-revolution that philosophic and therefore permanent basis which
they never had before and without which they would never have survived.
Particularly formidable than Jaimini's Purva Mimansa is the philosophic
support which the Bhagvat Gita gives to the central doctrine of
counterrevolutionnamely Chaturvarnya. The soul of the
Bhagvat Gita seems to be the defence of Chaturvarnya and securing its
observance in practice, Krishna does not merely rest content with saying
that Chaturvarnya is based on Guna-karma but he goes further and issues
two positive injunctions.
The first injunction is contained in Chapter III verse 26. In this Krishna
says: that a wise man should not by counter propaganda create a doubt in
the mind of an ignorant person who is follower of Karma kand which of
course includes the observance of the rules of Chaturvarnya. In other
words, you must not agitate or excite people to rise in rebellion against the
theory of Karma kand and all that it includes. The second injunction is laid
down in Chapter XVIII verses 41-48. In this Krishna tells that every one do
the duty prescribed for his Varna and no other and warns those who
worship him and are his devotees that they will not obtain salvation by
mere devotion but by devotion accompanied by observance of duty laid
down for his Varna. In short, a Shudrahowever great he may be as a
devotee will not get salvation if he has transgressed the duty of the
Shudranamely to live and die in the service of the higher classes. The
second part of my thesis is that the essential function of the Bhagvat gita to
give new support to Jaimini at least those portions of it which offer
philosophic defence of Jaimini's doctrineshas become to be written after
Jaimini's Purva Mimansa had been promulgated. The third part of my
thesis is that this philosophic defence of the Bhagvat Gita, of the doctrines
of couter-revolution became necessary because of the attack to which they
were subjected by the revolutionary and rationalistic thought of Buddhism.
I must now turn to the objections that are likely to be raised against the
validity of my thesis. I see one looming large before me. I shall be told that
I am assuming that the Bhagvat Gita is posterior in time to Buddhism and
to Jaimini's Purva Mimansa and that this asumption has no warrant behind
it. I am aware of the fact that my thesis runs counter to the most cherished
view of Indian scholars all of whom, seem to be more concerned in fixing a
very ancient date to the compositon of the Bhagvat Gita far anterior to
Buddhism and to Jaimini than in finding out what is the message of the
Bhagvat Gita and what value it has as a guide to man's life. This is
particularly the case with Mr.Telang and Mr.Tilak. But
as Garbe
[f19]
observes "To Telang, as to every Hinduhow much so ever
enlightenedit is an article of faith to believe in so high an antiquity of the
Bhagvat Gita and where such necessities are powerful criticism indeed
comes to an end."In the words of Prof. Garbe : -
"The task of assigning a date to the Gita has been recognized by every
one who has earnestly tried to solve the problem, as being very
difficult ; and the difficulties grow (all the more) if the problem is presented
two fold, viz., to determine as well the age of the original Gita as also of its
revision. I am afraid that generally speaking, we shall succeed in arriving,
not at any certainties, but only at probabilities in this matter."
What are the probabilities? I have no doubt that the probabilities are in
favour of my thesis. Indeed so far as I can see there is nothing against it. In
examining this question, I propose first to advance direct evidence from the
Gita itself showing that it has been composed after Jaimini's Purva
Mimansa and after Buddhism.
Chapter III verses 9-13 of the Bhagvat Gita have a special significance. In
this connection it is true that the Bhagvat Gita does not refer to Jaimini by
name: nor does it mention Mimansa by name. But is there any doubt that in
Chapter III verses 9-18 the Bhagvat Gita is dealing with the doctrines
formulated by Jaimini in his Purva Mimansa? Even Mr. Tilak
[f20]
who
believes in the antiquity of the Bhagvat Gita has to admit that here the Gita
is engaged in the examination of the Purva Mimansa doctrines. There is
another way of presenting this argument. Jaimini preaches pure and
simple Karma yoga. The Bhagvat Gita on the other hand
preaches anasakti karma. Thus the Guta preaches a doctrine which is
fundamentally modified Not only the Bhagvat Gita modifies the Karma yoga
but attacks the upholders of pure and simple Karma yoga in somewhat
severe terms.
[f21]
If the Gita is prior to Jaimini one would expect Jaimini to
take note of this attack of the Bhagvat Gita and reply to it. But we do not
find any reference in Jaimini to this anasakti karma yoga of the Bhagvat
Gita.
Why? The only answer is that this modification came after Jaimini and not
beforewhich is simply another way of saying that the Bhagvat Gita was
composed after Jaimini's Purva Mimansa.
If the Bhagvat Gita does not mention Purva Mimansa it does mention by
name the Brahma Sutras
[f22]
of Badarayana. This reference to Brahma
Sutras is a matter of great significance for it furnishes direct evidence for
the conclusion that the Gita is later than the Brahma Sutras.
Mr. Tilak [f23]admits that the reference to the Brahma Sutras is a clear
and defniite reference to the treatise of that name which we now have. It
may be pointed out that Mr. Telang
[f24]
discusses the subject in a somewhat
cavalier fashion by saying that the treatise "Brahma Sutras" referred to in
the Bhagvat Gita is different from the present treatise which goes by that
name. He gives no evidence for so extraordinary a proposition but relies on
the conjectural statement of Mr. Weber
[f25]
given in a foot-note of his
Treatise in Indian Literature, again without any evidencethat the mention
of Brhma Sutras in the Bhagvat Gita "may be taken as an appellative rather
than as a proper name." It would not be fair to attribute any particular
motives to Mr.Telang for the view he has taken on this point. But there is
nothing unfair in saying that Mr. Telang [f26]shied at admitting the
reference to Brahma Sutra because he saw that Weber had on the
authority of Winternitz assigned 500 A.D. to the composition of the Brahma
Sutras, which would have destroyed his cherished theory regarding the
antiquity of the Bhagvat Gita. There is thus ample internal evidence to
support the conclusion that the Gita was composed after Jaimini's Purva
Mimansa and Badarayana's Brahma Sutras.
Is the Bhagvat Gita anterior to Buddhism? the question was raised by Mr.
Telang:
"We come now to another point. What is the position of the Gita in regard
to the great reform of Sakya Muni? The question is one of much interest,
having regard particularly to the remarkable coincidences between
Buddhistic doctrines and the doctrines of the Gita to which we have drawn
attention in the footnotes to our translation. But the materials for deciding
the question are unhappily not forth coming. Professor Wilson, indeed,
thought that there was an allusion to Buddhism in the Gita.
[f27]
but his idea
was based on a confusion between the Buddhists and theCharvakas or
materialists.
[f28]
Failing that allusion, we have nothing very tangible but the
unsatisfactory 'negative argument' based on mere non-mention of
Buddhism in the Gita. That argument is not quite satisfactory to my own
mind, although, as I have elsewhere pointed out,
[f29]
some of the ground
occupied by the Gita is common to it with Buddhism, and although various
previous thinkers are alluded to directly or indirectly in the Gita. There is,
however, one view of the facts of this question, which appears to me to
corroborate the conclusion deducible by means of the negative argument
here referred to. The main points on which Budddha's protest
against Brahmanism rests, seem to be the true authority of the Vedas and
the true view of the differences of caste. On most points
of doctrinal speculation, Buddhism is still but one aspect of the older
Brahmanism
[f30]
. The various coincidences to which we have drawn
attention show that, if there is need to show it. Well now, on both these
points, the Gita, while it does not go the whole length which Buddha goes,
itself embodies a protest against the views current about the time of its
composition. The Gita does not, like Buddhism, absolutely reject the
Vedas, but it shelves them. The Gita does not totally root out caste. It
places caste on a less untenable basis. One of two hypothesis therefore
presents itself as a rational theory of these facts. Either the Gita and
Buddhism were alike the outward manifestation of one and the same
spiritual upheaval which shook to its centre the current religion, the Gita
being the earlier and less thorough going form of it ; or Buddhism having
already begun to tell on Brahmanism, the Gita was an attempt to bolster it
up, so to say, at its least weak points, the weaker ones being altogether
abandoned. I do not accept the latter alternative, because I cannot see any
indication in the Gita of an attempt to compromise with a powerful attack on
the old Hindu system while the fact that, though strictly orthodox, the
author of the Gita still undermines the authority, as unwisely venerated, of
the Vedicrevelation; and the further fact, that in doing this, he is doing what
others also had done before him or about his time ; go, in my opinion, a
considerable way towards fortifying the results of the negative argument
already set forth. To me Buddhism is perfectly intelligible as one outcome
of that play of thought on high spiritual topics, which in its other, and as we
may say, less thorough going, manifestation we see in the Upanishads and
the Gita
[f31]
."
I have quoted this passage in full because it is typical of all Hindu
scholars. Everyone of them is most reluctant to admit that the Bhagvat
Gita is anyway influenced by Buddhism and is ever ready to deny that
the Gita has borrowed anything from Buddhism. It is the attitude of
Prof. Radhakrishnan and also of Tilak. Where there is any similarity in
thought between the Bhagvat Gitaand Buddhism too strong and too close
to be denied, the argument is that it is borrowed from the Upanishads. It is
typical of the mean mentality of the counterrevolutionaries not to allow any
credit to Buddhism on any account.
The absurdity of these views must shock all those who have made a
comparative study of the Bhagvat Gita and the Buddhist Suttas. For if it is
true to say that Gita is saturated with Sankhyaphilosophy it is far more true
to say that the Gita is full of Buddhist ideas.
[f32]
The similarity between the
two is not merely in ideas but also in language. A few illustrations will show
how true it is.
The Bhagvat Gita discusses Bramha-Nirvana.
[f33]
The steps by which one
reaches Bramha. Nirvana are stated by the Bhagvat Gita to be
(1) Shraddha (Faith in oneself); (2) Vyavasaya (Firm determination):
(3) Smriti (Rememberance of the goal); (4) Samadhi (Earnest
contemplation) and (5) Prajna (Insight or True Knowledge). From where
has the Gita borrowed this Nirvana theory? Surely it is not borrowed from
the Upanishads. For no Upanishad even mentions the word Nirvana. The
whole idea is peculiarly Buddhist and is borrowed from Buddhism. Anyone
who has any doubt on the point may compare this Bramha-Nirvana of the
Bhagvat Gita with the Buddhist conception of Nirvana as set out in
the Mahapari-nibbana Sutta, It will be found that they are the same which
the Gita has laid down for Bramha-Nirvana. Is it not a fact that the
Bhagvat Gita has borrowed the entire conception of Brmhma Nirvana
instead of Nirvana for no other reason except to conceal the fact of its
having stolen it from Buddhism?
Take another illustration. In Chapter VII verses 13-20 there is a
discussion as to who is dear to Krishna; one who has knowledge, or one
who performs karma or one who is adevotee. Krishna says that the
Devotees is dear to him but adds that he must have the true marks of a
Devotee. What is the charcter of a true Devotee? According to Krishna the
true devotee is one who practices (1) Maitri; (loving Kindness);
(2) Karuna (compassion): (3) Mudita (sympathizing joy) and
(4) Upeksa (unconcernedness). From where has
the Bhagvate Gita borrowed these qualifications of a perfect Devotee?
Here again, the source is Buddhism. Those who want proof may compare
the Mahapadana Sutta,
[f34]
and the Tevijja Sutta
[f35]
where Buddha has
preached what Bhavanas (mental attitude) are necessary for one to
cherish for the training of the heart. This comparison will show that the
whole ideology is borrowed from Buddhism and that too word for word.
Take a third illustration. In chapter XIII the Bhagvat Gita descusses the
subject of Kshetra-Kshetrajna. In verses 7-11 Krishna points out what is
knowledge and what is ignorance in the following language:
"Pridelessness (Humility), Unpretentiousness, Non-injury or
Harmlessness, Forgiveness, Straight-forwardness, (uprightness),
Devotion to Preceptor, Purity, Steadiness, Self-
restraint,Desirelessness towards objects of sense, absence of Egoism,
Reflection on the suffering and evil of Birth, Death, decrepitude and
disease, Non-attachment, Non-identification of oneself with regard to son,
wife and home and the rest, Constant even-mindedness on approach of
both (what is) agreeable and (what is) disagreeable unswerving devotion to
Me with undivided meditation of Me, Resort to sequestered spots
(contemplation, concentration, in solitude), Distaste for the society
of worldly men, Incessant application to the knowledge relating to self,
Perception or realisation of the true purport of the knowledge of the Tattvas
(Samkhya Philosophy), all this is called 'knowledge'; what
is Ajnana (Ignorance) which is the reverse thereof." Can anyone who
knows anything of the Gospel of Buddha deny that the Bhagvat Gita has
not in these stanzas reproduced word for word the main doctrines of
Buddhism?
In chapter XIII verses 5, 6, 18, 19, the Bhagvat Gita gives a new
metaphorical interpretation of karmas under various heads
(1) Yajnas (sacrifices); (2) Dana (Gifts); (3) Tapas (penances); (4) Food
and (5) Svadhyaya (Vedic study). What is the source of this new
interpretation of old ideas ? Compare with this what Buddha is reported to
have said in the Majjhina Nikaya 1, 286 SuttaXVI. Can anyone doubt that
what Krishna says in verses 5,6, 18, 19 of chapter XVII is a verbatim
reproduction of the words of Buddha?
These are only a few illustrations I have selected those of
major doctrinal importance. Those who are interested in pursuing the
subject may take up the reference to similarities between Gitaand
Buddhism given by Telang in the footnotes to his edition of
the Bhagvat Gita and satisfy their curiosity. But the illustrations I have
given will be enough to show how greatly the Bhagvat Gitais permeated by
Buddhistic ideology and how much the Gita has borrowed from Buddhism.
To sum up the Bhagvat Gita seems to be deliberately modelled
on Buddhists Suttas. The BuddhistsSuttas are dialogues. So is the
Bhagvat Gita. Buddha's religion offered salvation to women
and Shudras. Krishna also comes forward to offer salvation to women
and Shudras. Buddhists say,"I surrender to Buddha, to Dhamma and
to Sangha." So Krishna says, "Give up all religions and surrender unto
Me." No parallel can be closer than what exists between Buddhism and
BhagvatGita.
IV
I have shown that Gita is later than Purva Mimansa and also later than
Buddhism. I could well stop here. But I feel I cannot. For there still remains
one argument against my thesis which requires to be answered. It is the
argument of Mr. Tilak. It is an ingenious argument. Mr. Tilak realizes that
there are many similarities in ideas and in words between the
Bhagvat Gita and Buddhism. Buddhism being earlier than the
Bhagvat Gita, the obvious conclusion is that the Bhagvat Gita is the debtor
and Buddhism is the creditor. This obvious conclusion is not palatable to
Mr. Tilak or for the matter of that to all upholders of counter-revolution. With
them it is a question of honour that counter-revolution should not be shown
to be indebted to Revolution. To get over this difficulty Mr. Tilak has struck
a new line. He points out the distinction between Hinayana Buddhism
and Mahayana Buddhism and say, that Mahayana Buddhism was later
than Bhagvat Gitaand if there are any similarities between the Buddhism
and Bhagvat Gita it is due to the borrowing by the Mahayanist from the
Bhagvat Gita. This raises two questions. What is the date of the origin of
the Mahayana Buddhism? What is the date of the composition of the
Bhagvat Gita? The argument of Mr. Tilak is ingenious and clever. But it has
no substance. In the first place, it is not original. It is based on certain
casual remarks made by Winternitz
[f36]
and by Kern
[f37]
in foot-notes that
there are certain similarties between the Bhagvat Gita and
the Mahayan Buddhism and that there similarities are the result
of Mahayana Buddhism borrowing its ideas from the Bhagvat Gita. Behind
these remarks there is no evidence of special research either on the part
ofWinternitz, Kern or Mr. Tilak. All of them seem to be led away by the
assumption that the Bhagvat Gita is earlier than Mahayana Buddhism.
This leads me to examine the question of the date of the Bhagvat Gita
particularly with reference to the theory as put forth by Mr. Tilak. Mr.
Tilak
[f38]
is of opinion that the Gita is part of theMahabharata and that both
have been written by one and the same author named Vyasa and
consequently the date of the Mahabharata must be the date of the Bhagvat
Gita. The Mahabharata, Mr. Tilak argues, must have been written at least
500 years before the Shaka Era on the groung that the stories contained in
the Mahabharata were known to Megasthenes who was in India about 300
B.C. as a Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. The
Shaka Era began in 78 A.D. On this basis it follows that the Bhagvat Gita
must have been composed before 422 B.C. This is his view about the date
of the composition of the present Gita. According to him, the original Gita
must have been some centuries older than Mahabharata If reliance be
placed on the tradition referred to in the Bhagvat Gita that the religion of
the Bhagvat Gita was taught by Nara to Narayan in very ancient times.
Mr. Tilak's theory as to the date of the composition of the Mahabharata is
untenable. In the first place, it assumes that the whole of the Bhagvat Gita
and the whole of Mahabharat have been written at one stretch, at one time
and by one hand. There is no warrant for such an assumption, either in
tradition, or in the internal evidence of these two treatises. Confining the
discussion to the Mahabharata the assumption made by Mr. Tilak is quite
opposed to well-known Indian traditions. This tradition divides
the compostion of the Mahabharata into three stages;
(1) Jaya (2) Bharata and (3) Mahabharata and assigns to each part a
different author. According to this tradition Vyasa was the author of the 1st
edition so to say of the Mahabharata called 'Jaya'. Of the Second Edition
called 'Bharata'tradition assigns the authorship to Vaishampayana and that
of the Third Edition called Mahabharata to `Sauti'. That this tradition is well-
founded has been confirmed by the researches of Prof.Hopkins based on
the examination of internal evidence furnished by the Mahabharata.
According to Prof. Hopkins
[f39]
there have been several stages in the
composition of the Mahabharata. As has been pointed out by
Prof. Hopkins
[f40]
in the first stage it was just a Pandu Epic consisting of
plays and legends about heroes who took part in the Mahabharata war
without the masses of didactic material. Such a Mahabharata, says Prof.
Hopkins, may have come into existence between 400-200 B.C. The
second stage was the remaking of the epic by the inclusion of didactic
matter and the addition of Puranic material. This was between 200 B.C.
and 200 A.D. The third stage is marked when (1) the last books were
added to the composition as it stood at the end of the second stage with
the introduction of the first book and (2) the
swollen Anushasana Parva was separated from Shanti Parva and
recognized as a separate book. This happened between 200 to 400 A.D.
To these three stages Prof. Hopkins adds a fourth or a final stage of
occasional amplification which started from 400 A.D. onwards. In coming to
this conclusion Prof. Hopkins has anticipated and dealt with all the
arguments advanced by Mr. Tilak such as the mention of Mahabharata
in Panini
[f41]
and in the Grihyasutras.
[f42]
The only new pieces of evidence
produced by Mr. Tilak which has not been considered by Prof. Hopkins are
two. One such piece of evidence consists of the statements which are
reported to have been recorded byMegasthenes
,
[f43]the Greek
Ambassador to the court of Chandra Gupta Maurya, and the other is the
astronomical evidence
[f44]
, in the Adi Parva which refers to
the Uttarayana starting with the Shravana constellation. The facts adduced
by Mr. Tilak as coming from Megasthenes may not be denied and may go
to prove that at the time of Megasthenes i.e., about 300 B.C. a cult of
Krishna worship had come into existence among
the Sauraseni community. But how can this prove that the Mahabharata
had then come into existence? It cannot. Nor can it prove that the legends
and stories mentioned by Megasthenes were taken by him from the
Mahabharata. For there is nothing to militate against the view that these
legends and stories were a floating mass of Saga and that it served as a
reservoir both to the writer of the Mahabharata as well as to Greek
Ambassador.
Mr. Tilak's astronomical evidence may be quite sound. He is right in
saying
[f45]
that "it is stated in the Anugita that Visvamitra started the
enumeration of the constellation with Shravana (Ma.Bha.Asva.44.2, and
Adi.71.34). That has been interpreted by commentators as showing that
the Uttarayana then started with the Shravana constellation, and no other
interpretation is proper. At the date of the Vedanga-
Jyotisa, the Uttarayana used to start with the Sun in
the Dhanistha constellation. According to astronomical calculations, the
date when the Uttarayanashould start with the Sun in the Dhanistha
constellation to about 1,500 years before the Saka era; and according to
astronomical calculations, it takes about a thousand years for the
Uttarayana to start one constellation earlier. According to this calculation,
the date when the Uttarayana ought to start with the Sun in
the Shravana constellation comes to about 500 years before the Saka era.
This conculsion would have been proper if it was true that
the Mahabharata was one whole piece, written at one time by one author.
It has, however, been shown that there is no warrant for such an
assumption. In view of this Mr. Tilak's astroncomical evidence cannot be
used to determine the date of the Mahabharata. It cam be used only to
determine the date of that part of the Mahabharata which is affected by it
in this case the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata. For these reasons
Mr. Tilak's theory as to the date of the composition of the Mahabharata
must fall to the ground. Indeed any attempt to fix a single date for a work
like the Mahabharata which is a serial story produced in parts at long
intervals must be regarded as futile. All that one can say is that the
Mahabharata was composed between 400B.C. to 400A.D. a conclusion too
broad to be used for the purpose which Mr. Tilak has in view. Even this
span seems to some scholars to be too narrow. It is contended
[f46]
that the
reference to Edukas in the 190th Adhyaya of the Vanaparva has been
wrongly interpreted to mean Buddhist Stupas when, as a matter of fact, it
refers to the Idgahas created by the Muslim invaders for Muslim converts.
If this interpretation is correct it would show that parts of the Mahabharata
were written about or after the invasions of MohammedGhori.
Let me now turn to examine Mr. Tilak's theory as to the date of the
composition of the Bhagvat Gita. There are really two propositions
underlying his theory. First is that the Gita is part of the Mahabharata, both
are written at one time and are the handiwork of one man. His second
proposition is that the Bhagvat Gita has been the same what it is today
from the very beginning when it first came to be written. To avoid confusion
I propose to take them separately.
Mr. Tilak's object in linking the Gita with the Mahabharata in the matter of
its composition is quite obvious. It is to have the date of the Mahabharata
which he thinks is known to derermine the date of the Bhagvat Gita which
is unknown. The basis on which Mr. Tilak has tried to establish an integral
connection between the Mahabharata and the Bhagvat Gita is
unfortunately the weakest part of his theory. To accept that the Gita is a
part of the Mahabharata because the author of both is Vyasa- and this is
the argument of Mr. Tilakis to accept a fiction for a fact. It assumes that
Vyasa is the name of some particular individual capable of being identified.
This is evident from the fact that we have Vyasa as the author of
the Mahabharata, Vyasa as the author of the Puranas, Vyasa as the author
of Bhagvat Gita and Vyasa as the author of the Bramha Sutras. It cannot
therefore be accepted as true that the same Vyasa is the author of all
these works separated as they are by a long span of time extending to
several centuries. It is well-known how orthodox writers wishing to hide
their identity get better authority for their works by the use of a revered
name were in the habit of using Vyasa as a nom-de-plume or pen name. If
the author of the Gita is a Vyasa he must be a different Vyasa. There is
another argument which seems to militate against Mr. Tilak's theory
of synchroniety between the composition of the Bhagvat Gita and
the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata consists of 18 Parvas. There are also
18 Puranas. It is curious to find that Bhagvat Gita has also
18 Adhyayas. The question is : Why should there be this parallelism? The
answer is that the ancient Indian writers regarded certain names and
certain numbers as invested with great sanctity. The name Vyasa and the
number 18 are illustrations of this fact. But there is more in the fixation of
18 as the chapters of the Bhagvat Gita than is apparent on the face of it.
Who set 18 as the sacred number, the Mahabharata or the Gita? If the
Mahabharata, then Gita must have been written after the Mahabharata. If it
is the Bhagvat Gita, then the Mahabharata must have been written after
the Gita. In any case, the two could not have been written at one and the
same time.
These considerations may not be accepted as decisive against
Mr. Tilak's first proposition. But there is one which I think is decisive. I refer
to the relative position of Krishna in the Mahabharata and in the
Bhagvat Gita. In the Mahabharata, Krishna is nowhere represented as a
God accepted by all. The Mahabharata itself shows the people were not
prepared even to give him the first place. When at the time of
the Rajasuya Yajna, Dharma offered to give Krishna priority in the matter
of honouring the guest, Shishupalathe near relation of Krishna
protested and abused Krishna. He not only charged him with low origin, but
also with loose morals, an intriguer who violated rules of war for the sake of
victory. So abhorent but so true was this record of Krishna's foul deeds that
when Duryodhan flung them in the face of Krishna, the Mahabharata itself
in the Gada Parva records that the Gods in heaven came out to listen to
the charges made by Duryodhan against Krishna and after listening
showered flowers as a token of their view that the charges contained the
whole truth and nothing but the truth. On the other hand,
the BhagvatGita presented Krishna as God omnipotent, omniscient,
omnipresent, pure, loving, essence of goodness. Two such works
containing two quite contradictory estimates about one and the same
personality could not have been written at one and the same time by one
and the same author. It is a pity that Mr. Tilak in his anxiety to give a pre-
Buddhist date to the composition of the Bhagvat Gita should have
completely failed to take note of these important considerations.
The second proposition of Mr. Tilak is equally unsound. The attempt to fix
a date for the composition of the Bhagvat Gita is nothing but the pursuit of
a mirage. It is doomed to failure. Thereason is that the Bhagvat Gita is not
a single book written by a single author. It consists of different parts written
at different times by different authors.
Prof. Garbe is the only scholar who has seen the necessity of following
this line of inquiry. Prof. Garbe hold that there are two parts of the Bhagvat
Gita one original and one added. I am not satisfied with this statement. My
reading of the Bhagvat Gita leads me to the conclusion that there have
been four separate parts of Bhagvat Gita. They are so distinct that taking
even the present treatise as it stands they can be easily marked off.
(i) The original Gita was nothing more than a heroic tale told or a ballad
recited by the bards of how Arjuna was not prepared to fight and how
Krishna forced him to engage in battle, how Arjuna yielded and so on. It
may have been a romantic story but there was nothing religious or
philosophical in it.
This original Gita will be found embedded in Chapter I, Chapter II,
verses.. . .. and Chapter XI verses 32-33 in which Krishna is reported to
have ended the argument:
" Be my tool, carry out my will, don't worry about sin and evil resulting
from fighting, do as I tell you, don't be impudent.". This is the argument
which Krishna used to compel Arjuna to fight. And this argument of
coercion and compulsion made Arjuna yield. Krishna probably threatened
Arjuna with brute force if he did not actually use it. The assumption
of Vishva-rupa by Krishna is only different way of describing the use of
brute force. On that theory it is possible that the chapter in the present
Bhagvat Gita dealing with Vishva-rupa is also a part of the original Bhagvat
Gita.
(ii) The first patch on the original Bhagvat Gita is the part in which Krishna
is spoken of as Ishvara. the God of the Bhagvat religion. This part of the
Gita is embedded in those verses of the present Bhagvat Gita which are
devoted to Bhakti Yoga.
(iii) The second patch on the original Bhagvat Gita is the part which
introduces the Sankhya and the Vedanta philosophy as a defence to the
doctrines of Purva Mimansa which they did not have before. The Gita was
originally only a historical Saga with the cult of Krishna came to be
interwoven. The Philosophy portion of the Bhagvat Gita was a later
intrusion can be proved quite easily from the nature of the original dialogue
and the sequence of it.
In chapter I verses 20-47 Arjuna mentions those difficulties. In chapter II
Krishna attempts to meet the difficulties mentioned by Arjuna. There are
arguments and counter arguments. Krishna's first argument is contained in
verse 2 and 3 in which Krishna tells Arjuna that his conduct is infamous,
unbecoming an Arya and that he should not play the part of an effeminate
which was unworthy of him. To this, Arjuna gives a reply which is
embodied in verses 4 to 8. In verses 4 to 5 he says, "how can I
kill Bhishma and Drona who are entitled to highest reverence: it would be
better to live by begging than kill them. I do not wish to live to enjoy
a kindom won by killing old revered elders. " In verses 6 to 8 Arjuna says: "I
do not know which of the two is more meritorious, whether we should
vanquish the Kauravas or whether we should be vanquished by
them. "Krishna's reply to this is contained in verses 11 to 39 in which he
propounds (i) that grief is unjustified because things are
imperishable, (ii) that it is a false view that a man is killed when
the atman is eternal and (iii) that he must fight because it is the duty of
the Kshatriya to fight. Any one who reads the dialogue will notice the
following points:
(1) The questions put by Arjuna are not philosophical questions. They are
natural questions put by a worldly man faced with worldly problems.
(2) Upto a point Krishna treats them as natural questions and returns to
them quite natural replies.
(3) The dialogue takes a new turn. Arjuna after having informed Krishna
positively and definitely that he will not fight, suddenly takes a new turn and
expresses a doubt whether it is agood to kill the Kauravas or be killed by
them.This is a deliberate departure designed to give Krishna a
philosophical defence of war, uncalled for by anything said by Arjuna.
(4) Again there is a drop in the tone of Krishna from verses 31 to 38. He
treats the question as natural and tells him to fight because it is the duty of
the Kshatriya to fight.
Anyone can see from this that the introduction of the Vedanta philosophy
is quite unnatural and therefore a later intrusion. With regard to the
introduction of the Sankhya philosophy the case is quite obvious. Often it is
expounded without any question by Arjuna and whenever it has been
propounded in answer to a question that question has nothing to do with
the war. This shows that the philosophic parts of the Bhagvat Gita are not
parts of the original Gita but have been added later on and in order to find
a place for them, new, appropriate and leading questions have been put in
the mouth of Arjuna which have nothing to do with the mundane problems
of war.
(iv) The third patch on the oriinal Bhagvat Gita consists of verses in which
Krishna is elevated from the position of Ishwara to that
of Parmeshwara. This patch can be easily detected as being
chapters X and XV where Krishna says: (Quotation not mentioned) ..........
As I said, to go in for a precise date for the composition of the Bhagvat Gita
is to go on a fool's errand and that if an attempt in that direction is to be of
any value, effort must be directed to determine the date of each patch
separately. Proceeding in this way it is possible that what I have called the
original unphilosophic Bhagvat Gita was part of the first edition of
the Mahabharata called Jaya. The first patch on the original Bhagvat Gita
in which Krishna is depicted as Ishvara must be placed in point of date
sometimes later than Megasthenes when Krishna was only a tribal
God.
[f47]
How much later it is not possible to say. But it must be
considerably later. For it must be remembered that the Brahmins were not
friendly to Krishnaism in the beginning. In fact they were opposed to it.
[f48]
It
must have taken some time before the Brahmins could have become
reconciled to Krishna worship.
[f49]

The second patch on the original Bhavat Gita. having reference
to Sankhya and Vedanta must for reason already given be placed later
than the Sutras of Jaimini and Badarayana. The question of the date of
these Sutras has carefully been examined by Prof. Jacobi
[f50].
His conclusion
is that these Sutras were composed sometime between 200 and 450 A.D.
The third patch on the original Bhagvat Gita in which Krishna is raised
into Parmeshvara must be placed during the reign of the Gupta Kings. The
reason is obvious. Gupta kings made Krishna-Vas.udev their family deity
as their opponents the Shaka kings had made Mahadeo their family deity.
The Brahmins to whom religion has been a trade, who were never devoted
to one God but came forward to worship the deity of the ruling race thought
of pleasing their masters by making their family deity into a high and
mighty Parmeshvar. If this is correct explanation then this patch on the
original Bhagvat Gita must be placed between 400 and 464 A.D.
All this goes to confirm the view that the attempt to place the
Bhagvat Gita prior in point of time to Buddhism cannot succeed. It is the
result of wishful thinking on the part of those who have inherited a positive
dislike to Buddha and his revolutionary gospel. History does not support it.
History proves quite abnormally that at any rate those portions of the
Bhagvat Gita which have any doctrinal value are considerably later in point
of time to the Buddhist canon and the Sutras of Jaimini and Badarayana.
The discussion of the dates not only proves that the Bhagvat Gita is later
than Hinayana Buddhism but is also later than Mahayana Buddhism. The
impression prevails that Mahayana Buddhism is later in origin. It is
supposed to have come into being after A.D. 100 when Kanishka held the
third Buddhist Council to settle the dissension in the Buddhist Church. This
is absolutely a mistake.
[f51]
It is not true that after the Council a new creed
of Buddhism came into existence. What happened is that new names of
abuse came into existence for parties which were very old. As
Mr. Kimura has shown the Mahayanist is simply another name for the sect
of Buddhists known as Mahasanghikas. The sect of Mahasanghikas had
come into being very much earlier than is supposed to be the case. If
tradition be believed the sect had come into being at the time of the First
Buddhist Council held at Pataliputra 236 years after the death of Buddha
i.e., 307 B.C
[f52]
for settling the Buddhist canon and is said to have led the
opposition to the Theravad sect of Buddhism which later on came to be
stigmatized as Hinayana (which means those holding to the low path).
There could hardly be any trace of Bhagvat Gita when the Mahasanghikas
later known as Mahayanists came into being.
Apart from this what have the Mahayanists borrowed from the
Bhagvat Gita? Indeed what can they borrow from the Bhagvat Gita? As Mr.
Kimura points out the doctrine of every school of Buddhism is mainly
concerned at least with three doctrines: (1) Those which deal with cosmic
existence; (2) Those which deal with Buddhology; and (3) Those which
deal with conception of human life. Mahayana is no exception to this.
Except probably on Buddhology the Mahayanists could hardly use
the Bhagvat Gita to draw upon So different is the aproach of the two on the
other doctrines and even this possibility is excluded by the factor of time.
The foregoing discussion completely destroys the only argument that
could be urged against my thesisnamely that the Bhagvat Gita is very
ancient, pre-Buddhistic in origin and therefore could not be related
to Jaimini's Purva Mimansa and treated as an attempt to give a philosophic
defence of his counter-revolutionary doctrines.
To sum up, my thesis is three-fold. In other words it has three parts. First
is that the Bhagvat Gita is fundamentally a counter-revolutionary treatise of
the same class as Jamini's Purva Mimansathe official Bible of counter-
revolution. Some writers relying on verses 40-46 of Chapter II hold the view
that the Bhagvat Gita is
{In all the copies available with us, the essay has been left here
incomplete, as is seen from the above sentenceEditors.)