Gita and Gospel
GITA AND GOSPEL.
BY
NEIL ALEXANDER.
Calcutta
THACKER, SPINK & CO.
1903.
CALCUTTA:
PRINTED BY THACKER, SPINK AND CO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Chap. I.—WHAT IS THE _Bhagavadgītā_? . . . 1
Chap. II.—PLATO’S JUST MAN . . . 21
Chap. III.—THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH . . . 26
Chap. IV.—VIRGIL’S NEW AGE OF JUSTICE AND PEACE 36
Chap. V.—JESUS OF NAZARETH . . . 41
APPENDIX.—NEO-KRISHNA LITERATURE . . . 67
ABBREVIATIONS.
AMALNERKAR: Amalnerkar, _Priority of the Vedanta-Sutras over the
Bhagavadgītā_.
BOSE, _H. C._: Bose, _Hindu Civilization under British Rule_.
DEUSSEN: Deussen, _Sechzig Upanishad’s des Veda_.
DUTT, _C. A. I._: Dutt, _Civilization in Ancient India_.
_G._: _The Gītā._
GARBE: Garbe, _The Philosophy of Ancient India_.
GOUGH: Gough, _The Philosophy of the Upanishads_.
HOPKINS, _R. I._: Hopkins, _The Religions of India_.
HOPKINS, _G. E. I._: Hopkins, _The Great Epic of India_.
KAEGI: Kaegi, _The Rigveda_ (Arrowsmith’s translation).
KIDD, _P. W. C._: Kidd, _Principles of Western Civilization_.
KRISHNACHARITRA: Bunkim Chundra Chatterji, _Krishnacharitra_, fourth
edition.
MACDONELL: Macdonell, _Sanskrit Literature_.
MOMMSEN: Mommsen, _History of Rome_.
MONIER-WILLIAMS: Monier-Williams, _Brahmanism and Hinduism_.
MÜLLER, _A. S. L._: Müller, _Ancient Sanskrit Literature_, second
edition.
MÜLLER, _S. S. I. P._: Müller, _Six Systems of Indian Philosophy_.
_S. B. E._: _The Sacred Books of the East._
SCHÜRER, _H. J. P._: Schürer, _History of the Jewish People in the Time
of Jesus Christ_.
SEAL: Brajendra Nath Seal, _Comparative Studies in Vaishnavism and
Christianity_.
TELANG: Telang, _The Bhagavadgītā, &c._ (Sacred Books of the East, vol.
VIII.)
WEBER, _I. L._: Weber, _Indian Literature_.
CHAPTER I.
WHAT IS THE _BHAGAVADGITA_?
In the whole literature of the world there are few poems worthy of
comparison, either in point of general interest, or of practical
influence, with the _Bhagavadgītā_. It is a philosophical work, yet
fresh and readable as poetry; a book of devotion, yet drawing its main
inspiration from speculative systems; a dramatic scene from the most
fateful battle of early Indian story, yet breathing the leisure and the
subtleties of the schools; founded on a metaphysical theory originally
atheistic,[1] yet teaching the most reverent adoration of the Lord of
all: where shall we find a more fascinating study? Then its influence on
educated India has been and still is without a rival. Everybody praises
the Upanishads, but very few read them; here and there one finds a
student who turns the pages of a Sūtra or looks into Sankara or
Rāmānuja, but the most are content to believe without seeing. The
_Gītā_, on the other hand, is read and loved by every educated man. Nor
is there any need to apologize for this partiality: the Divine Song is
the loveliest flower in the garden of Sanskrit literature.
For the Western mind also the poem has many attractions. The lofty
sublimity to which it so often rises, the practical character of much of
its teaching, the enthusiastic devotion to the one Lord which breathes
through it, and the numerous resemblances it shows to the words of
Christ, fill it with unusual interest for men of the West. But while it
has many points of affinity with the thought and the religion of Europe,
it is nevertheless a genuine product of the soil;[2] indeed it is all
the more fit to represent the genius of India that its thought and its
poetry are lofty enough to draw the eyes of the West.
What, then, is the _Gītā_? Can we find our way to the fountain whence
the clear stream flows?
A. When the dwelling-place of the ancient Aryan tribes was partly on the
outer, partly on the inner, side of the Indus (primeval patronymic of
both India and her religion), and the tribesmen were equally at home on
the farm and on the battlefield, then it was that the mass of the lyrics
that form the _Rigveda_ were made. We need not stay to set forth the
various ways in which this unique body of poetry is of value to modern
thought. For us it is of interest because it gives us the earliest
glimpse of the religion of the Indo-Aryans. That religion is
polytheistic and naturalistic. The Vedic hymns laud the powers of nature
and natural phenomena as personal gods. They praise also, as distinct
powers, the departed fathers. Such is undoubtedly the general character
of the religion of that age. On the other hand, the hymns to Varuna
bring us very near monotheism indeed.[3]
It is, however, only at a later period when the Aryan conquest had moved
out of the Punjab to the South and West, and just on the eve of the
formation of the _Rigveda_ as a collection of religious hymns, that we
find the beginnings of philosophic speculation.[4] A few hymns, chiefly
in the tenth Mondol, ask questions about the origin of the universe, and
venture some naive guesses on that tremendous subject. Some of the
hymns[5] take for granted the existence of primeval matter, and ask how
or by whom it was transformed into a _cosmos_. In others[6] there is
more monotheistic feeling, and a Creator, either Hiranyagarbha or
Visvakarman, is described. In others[7] the strain of thought is
agnostic.
B. With the collection of the hymns of the _Rigveda_ we pass into a new
and very different period, the literature of which is altogether
priestly. To this age belong the two great sacerdotal manuals, the
_Sāmaveda_[8] or Chant-book, and the _Yajurveda_[9] or Sacrifice-book,
and those extraordinary collections of priestly learning, mythology and
mysticism, the Brāhmanas.[10] These books introduce us to changed times
and changed men, to new places and a new range of ideas. The fresh
poetry of the youth of India has given place to the most prosaic and
uninteresting disquisitions in the whole world.[11] The home of this
literature is the great holy land of Brahman culture, stretching from
the Sutlej on the West to the junction of the Jumna and the Ganges at
Prayāga.[12] In this period the doctrine of the transmigration of the
soul first appears.[13]
C. The Aranyakas[14] and Upanishads[15] place before us a further
development of Indian religion. Reflection led to the perception of the
great truth, that the kernel of religion is not the ritual act but the
heart of piety behind it. Many a man who had found the endless formulæ
and the showy ceremonial of the sacrifice a serious hindrance to real
religion, sought refuge from the noise and distraction of the popular
cult in the lonely silence of forest or desert. To run over the
sacrifice in one’s own mind, they reasoned, was as acceptable to the
gods as to kill the horse or to pour the ghee upon the altar fire. But
they soon reached the further position, that for the man who has
attained TRUE KNOWLEDGE sacrifice is altogether unnecessary. For
knowledge of the world-soul emancipates a man from the chain of births
and deaths and leads to true felicity. The main purpose, thus, of the
Upanishads, is to expound the nature of the world-soul. Their teaching
is by no means uniform. Not only do the separate treatises differ the
one from the other; contradictory ideas are frequently to be met with in
the same book. They all tend to idealistic monism; they all agree in
identifying the soul of man with the world-soul; but on the questions,
whether the latter is personal or impersonal, how spirit and matter are
related, and how the human soul will join the divine soul after death,
there is no unanimity.[16]
There is thus no speculative system to be drawn from these books. Those
of their ideas that are held with settled, serious conviction, are
taught rather dogmatically than philosophically; and, on the other hand,
where there is freedom of thought, there is rather a groping after the
truth than any definite train of illuminative reasoning. Yet this
occasional, conversational, unconventional character gives these simple
and sincere treatises their greatest charm, and fits them for that
devotional use to which so many generations of pious readers have put
them. To this early period there belong only the first great group of
prose Upanishads, the _Brihadāranyaka_, _Chāndogya_, _Taittirīya_,
_Aitareya_, _Kaushītaki_ and parts of the _Kena_.[17]
D. In bold contrast to this unsystematic meditation on the Eternal
Spirit there stands out the severe, clear-cut, scientific system of
Kapila,[18] the first Indian thinker who dared to trust the unaided
human mind. Buddhist tradition recognizes that he preceded Buddha, and
connects him with Kapila-vastu, the birth-place of Buddha, the site of
which was discovered as recently as December 1896.[19] He drew a sharp
distinction between matter and spirit and declared both to be eternal,
without beginning and without end. The material universe develops in
accordance with certain laws out of primeval matter, _prakriti_. Spirit,
on the other hand, exists as an indefinite number of individual souls,
each eternal. There is no supreme divine spirit. The value of this
system lies chiefly in its severely logical method, which demands that
all reasoning shall proceed from the known elements of experience. It
has exercised a very great influence on Indian thought, partly by its
method, but still more perhaps through its cardinal ideas, the eternity
of matter, the eternity of individual souls, the three _gunas_, the
great cosmic periods, and _kaivalya_, _i. e._, the attainment of
salvation through the separation of the soul from matter. This great
system is known by the name Sānkhya, _i. e._, enumeration, seemingly on
account of the numbering of the twenty-five _tattvas_, or principles,
which it sets forth.[20]
Such is the _Sānkhya_ system; but it would be dangerous to affirm that
the whole came from Kapila; for no treatise written by him has come
down. The earliest systematic manual of the philosophy extant to-day is
the _Sānkhya-Kārikā_ of Isvara-Krishna, which dates from the early
Christian centuries.[21]
E. Shortly after the Sānkhya system, and in close dependence upon it,
there appeared Buddhism and Jainism; but as these great religions
exercised no very definite influence on the main stream of Indian
thought for several centuries, we shall not linger over them.
F. We notice next the second great group of Upanishads, the _Katha_,
_Isā_, _Svetāsvatara_, _Mundaka_, _Mahānārāyana_,[22] which are all
written in verse. That this group is later than the great prose
Upanishads is abundantly clear from the changed form as well as from the
more developed matter. “As contrasted with the five above-mentioned
Upanishads with their awkward Brāhmana style and their allegorical
interpretations of the ritual, the _Katha Upanishad_ belongs to a very
different period, a time in which men began to coin the gold of
Upanishad thought into separate metrical aphorisms, and to arrange them
together in a more or less loose connection.”[23] Further signs of their
belonging to another stage of thought are their references, more or less
clear, to the Sānkhya and Yoga philosophies,[24] and their tendency to
adopt the doctrine of Grace,[25] _i.e._, that salvation is not a fruit
of true knowledge, but a gift of God. The idea of _Bhakti_, which became
afterwards so popular, appears in this group of Upanishads only
once.[26] Here also for the first time in Sanskrit literature the word
_Sānkhya_ occurs as the name of a system.[27]
But while these five metrical treatises are clearly later than the prose
Upanishads, scholars are not agreed on the question of their relation to
the great systems. Some[28] hold that the _Katha_ is earlier, others[29]
that it is later, than Buddhism; Weber[30] believes that the
_Svetāsvatara_, _Mundaka_, and _Mahānārāyana_ depend not only on
Kapila’s system, but also on the _Yoga Sūtras_ of Patanjali (see below),
while others[31] believe that in these Upanishads we have scattered
pieces of teaching which were later systematized. But whatever be the
truth on these points, it is clear that these five are posterior to the
first group, that their relative age is _Katha_, _Isā_, _Svetāsvatara_,
_Mundaka_ and _Mahānārāyana_,[32] and that this last belongs to quite a
late date.[33] Along with these verse Upanishads we may take three prose
works, which are manifestly still later,[34] the _Prasna_,
_Maitrāyanīya_ and _Māndūkya_.
G. Several centuries after the Sānkhya there appeared the Yoga
philosophy, the text-book of which is the _Yoga Sūtras_. According to
Indian tradition the founder of the school and the author of the Sūtras
was Patanjali,[35] the well-known scholar who wrote the _Mahābhāshya_ on
Pānini’s grammar. He accepts the metaphysics of the Sānkhya system, but
postulates the existence of a personal god, and urges the value of Yoga
practices for the attainment of _Kaivalya_, that isolation of the soul
from matter, which, according to Kapila, is true salvation. Thus not one
of the three main elements of his system is original; for Yoga practices
have existed from a very early date in India. Yet his system is
sufficiently marked off from others, first by his combination of Yoga
practices with Sānkhya principles and a theistic theology, and,
secondly, by his systematic treatment of Yoga methods.[36]
H. Later still than the Yoga philosophy is the systematic statement of
the Vedānta point of view by Bādarāyana in his Sūtras, which are known
either as _Brahma-sūtras_, _Sārīraka-sūtras_ or _Vedānta-sūtras_.[37]
I. We next notice the latest development of Upanishad teaching, namely,
that found in the Upanishads of the _Atharvaveda_. With the exception of
three, namely, the _Mundaka_, _Prasna_ and _Māndūkya_ Upanishads, which
we have already noticed, they are all very late.[38] They fall into four
great groups, according as they teach (_a_) pure Vedantism, (_b_) Yoga
practices, (_c_) the life of the Sannyāsin, or (_d_) Sectarianism.[39]
For our purpose the last of the four is of the most importance. “These
sectarian treatises interpret the popular gods Siva (under various
names, such as Isāna, Mahesvara, Mahādeva) and Vishnu (as Nārāyana and
Nrishinha) as personifications of the Atman. The different Avatārs of
Vishnu are here regarded as human manifestations of the Atman.”[40] Let
readers note that the doctrine of Avatārs is quite unknown in the Vedas,
the Brāhmanas, the early Upanishads and the Sūtras.[41] We may also note
that in groups (_a_) and (_b_) we find what is not found in earlier
Upanishads, namely, the phrase _Sānkhya-Yoga_ used as the name of a
system.[42] Here also the doctrines of Grace and _Bhakti_, the
beginnings of which we found in the verse Upanishads, are regularly
taught.
J. The last development that we need mention is the teaching of the
_Mahābhārata_ and _Manu_. We take them together, not only because each
of them is the final product of long centuries of growth and
compilation, but because they are so closely related to each other in
origin, that it is hardly possible to take them separately.[43] In the
first book of the _Mahābhārata_ we are told that the poem originally
consisted of only 8,800 _slokas_, and that at a later date the number
was 24,000. The complete work now contains over 100,000 _slokas_.[44] We
need not here enquire when the simple heroic lays were composed, which
lie at the basis of the great composition as it has come down to us; nor
need we stay to decide at what period it finally reached its present
labyrinthine structure and immense dimensions.[45] It is sufficient for
our purpose to notice that scientific investigations have laid bare four
stages in the formation of the Epic:—(_a_) early heroic songs, strung
together into some kind of unity: this is the stage recognised in Book
I, when the poem had only 8,800 _slokas_, and is in all probability the
point at which it is referred to by Asvalāyana; (_b_) a Mahābhārata
story with Pandu heroes, and Krishna as a demi-god: this is the form in
which it had 24,000 _slokas_, and is the stage of the poem referred to
by Pānini; (_c_) the Epic re-cast, with Krishna as All-god, and a great
deal of didactic matter added; (_d_) later interpolations.[46] Scholars
are able to fix, within certain limits, the dates of these various
stages. We need not attempt to be so precise: for us it is enough that
_the representation of Krishna as the Atman belongs to the third stage
of the growth of the Epic_. Parallel with this third stage is the final
redaction of _Manu_.[47] The philosophic standpoint of these two great
works is practically the same, being now the _Sānkhya-Yoga_, now a
mixture of Sānkhya, Yoga and Vedantic elements.[48]
But the main thing to notice is that in these books we are already in
modern Hinduism. Turning from the Vedas to them we find ourselves in an
altogether new world. There are many new gods; most of the old
divinities have fallen to subordinate places. New customs, new names and
ideas are found everywhere. The language too has changed: new words, new
expressions and new forms occur in plenty; old words occur in new
senses; while many others have disappeared.[49]
* * * * *
Let us now turn to the _Gītā_. What is its place in this long
succession? Clearly it is posterior, not only to our first, but also to
our second group of Upanishads. For it echoes the _Katha_, the
_Svetāsvatara_, and several of the others repeatedly;[50] its
versification is decidedly later in character;[51] the doctrines of
Grace and of _Bhakti_, which are found in these Upanishads only in germ,
are fully developed in the _Gītā_;[52] while the whole theory of Krishna
is a fresh growth.
The _Gītā_ may also be shewn to belong to the same age as the Atharvan
Upanishads. It has in common with them (_a_) the identification of
Krishna and Vishnu with the _Atman_, (_b_) the doctrine of Avatārs,[53]
(_c_) the doctrines of Grace and _Bhakti_, (_d_) the Sānkhya-Yoga.
But we may go further, and show that the _Gītā_ is in its teaching, in
general, parallel with the third stage of the _Mahābhārata_ and with
_Manu_. For while the usual philosophic standpoint in the Song is
Sānkhya-Yoga, there are frequent lapses to the Vedānta; and there is an
evident effort here and there to combine all three.[54] This is
precisely the position of _Manu_ and the Epic, as we have seen. Note
that in the _Gītā_ the Yoga philosophy is already old, so old that it
has fallen into decay, and requires to be resuscitated.[55] The Sānkhya
is not a loose group of ideas, but a formed system, as appears from the
phrases _Sānkhya-Kritānta_[56] and _Guna-sankhyāna_.[57] Kapila, its
author, is so far in the past that he is canonized as the chief of the
_Siddhas_.[58] There are many minor points which the _Gītā_ holds in
common with the _Mahābhārata_, and which are not found earlier. The
latter half of the tenth chapter is full of Epic mythology. There Skanda
is the great warrior-god,[59] as in the _Mahābhārata_,[60] there too we
find the horse Uccaihsravas,[61] the elephant Airāvata,[62] the snake
Vāsuki,[63] the fish Makara.[64] _Nirvāna_ is used in the _Gītā_[65] for
‘highest bliss,’ ‘Brahmic bliss,’ precisely as in the Epic.[66] In the
_Mahābhārata_ Bhīshma, after receiving his mortal wound, has to wait for
the _Uttarāyana_ (the northward journey of the sun), _i. e._, he has to
wait until the sun passes the southern solstice, before he can die in
safety.[67] In the _Gītā_ we find a similar idea: only those devotees
who die during the _Uttarāyana_ go to Brahman; those who die during the
_Dakshināvana_ return to earth.[68] This dogma is not found in the early
Upanishads nor yet in the Sūtras.[69]
A study of the language of the _Gītā_[70] leads to the same conclusion.
A portion of its vocabulary is the same as that of the first group of
Upanishads; a larger portion coincides with our second group; a still
larger coincides with the diction of the Atharvan group; and finally,
much that is found in no Upanishad is characteristic of the Epic.
We need not attempt to fix the date[71] of the poem, for that is not
only impossible as yet, but is quite unnecessary for our purpose. What
we wish to do is to show that the religious literature of India displays
a long, regular, evolutionary process, that the _Gītā_ belongs to the
same period as the third stage of the _Mahābhārata_, and is itself
clearly the result of all the preceding development.
* * * * *
Can we then accept the declaration of the poem itself, that it was
uttered by Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra?—That necessarily
depends upon the history and the chronology. At what point then in the
historical development of the literature which we have been studying
does the famous battle stand?—According to all scholars the great war
and the compilation of the _Vedas_ both belong to the same period.[72]
The results of our study may, therefore, be tabulated as follows, with
the proviso that the long process of the growth of the Epic cannot be
fully represented:—
The Hymns of the Vedas.
Compilation of the Vedas . . . KURUKSHETRA.
The Brāhmanas.
The prose Upanishads.
Kapila.
Buddhism and Jainism.
The verse Upanishads.
Patanjali.
Bādarāyana.
The Atharvan Upanishads.
The third stage of the Epic and _Manu_ . . . THE GITA.
It has thus become perfectly clear that THE GĪTĀ CANNOT HAVE BEEN
UTTERED ON THE BATTLEFIELD OF KURUKSHETRA; for it is the last member of
a long series, the final product of a clearly defined and elaborate
process of development. To ascribe the _Gītā_ to the age of Kurukshetra
is much the same as if one were to ascribe the poetry of Tennyson to the
age of Alfred the Great. A thousand years intervene; the thought and
toil of a millennium were needed to produce the great result.
Had Krishna uttered these doctrines on the famous battlefield, we should
inevitably have found references to them in the literature produced
during the following centuries. But where in the Brāhmanas do we find
any of the leading ideas of the _Gītā_? Even if men had disbelieved
Krishna, his claim to be God incarnate would at least have drawn out a
protest; but in no single Brāhmana or early Upanishad is there the
slightest hint of anything of the kind. So far from there being any
corroboration of the great myth in early literature, there is the
clearest proof that it is false. In the _Kāthaka_ recension of the
_Black Yajur Veda_ king Dhritarāshtra is mentioned as a well-known
person[73]; yet in the whole literature of the Black Yajur there is no
suggestion that Krishna claimed divine honours. _The Satapatha
Brāhmana_, which is a product of the _Kuru-Panchāla_ country,[74]
contains the names of a number of the heroes of the great war,[75] but
never refers to Krishna as God incarnate; while in the _Chāndogya
Upanishad_,[76] which belongs to the same district,[77] he is spoken of
merely as a man: he is mentioned as a pupil of Ghora Angirasa and is
called Krishna Devakiputra.[78] Nay, even in the earliest part of the
_Mahābhārata_ itself Krishna is only a great chief, and not a deity at
all.[79] Finally, the references to Pandu heroes and to the worship of
Krishna and Arjuna in Pānini,[80] would lead to the conclusion that in
Pānini’s day Krishna was not regarded as the supreme God, but as one
among many;[81] and this cautious inference is corroborated by the fact
that the _Mahābhāshya_ itself does not recognize him as the incarnation
of Brahma, but as a hero and demi-god.[82] _Thus the whole of the Vedic
literature, and the whole of the Sūtra literature, are destitute of a
single reference to Krishna as the incarnation of the Supreme._ There is
only one conclusion to be drawn from this overwhelming mass of
evidence.[83]
It is strange that educated Hindus should have clung so long to the idea
that the _Gītā_ is a real utterance of Krishna. The very fact that the
poem has always been regarded, not as _Sruti_, but simply as _Smriti_,
should have been enough to suggest the truth. A piece of genuine divine
teaching, uttered in such circumstances, and before the composition of
the earliest Upanishads, would have inevitably found a place among the
most authoritative scriptures of the faith. The fact of its having been
always regarded as _Smriti_ is sufficient proof by itself that the book
does not belong to the Vedic age at all. Another consideration ought
also by itself to have been sufficient to save Hindus from such a grave
error, namely, this, that _no great religious advance or upheaval
followed the time when Krishna is supposed to have lived and taught_.
Contrast the mighty revolutions that followed the work of Buddha, of
Christ and of Mahommed; and the emptiness of the Krishna claim will
become at once apparent.
Again, the subject of all the early Upanishads is the nature of the
Supreme Spirit, whether called the _Atman_ or _Brahma_. If on the field
of Kurukshetra, Krishna had claimed to be the Supreme, as the _Gītā_
says he did, can any one believe that the claim could have been passed
unnoticed in the Upanishads? Krishna is mentioned in the _Chāndogya_;
Brahma is the subject of the _Chāndogya_: yet there is not the slightest
hint anywhere that Brahma has been incarnated, far less that Krishna is
Brahma. Such evidence is surely irresistible.
One reason why the truth about this myth has been so long in finding its
way into the minds of educated Hindus is undoubtedly to be found in the
wretchedly inadequate way in which Sanskrit literature is taught in the
Universities of India. In Calcutta at least most men who take Sanskrit
as one of their subjects for the B. A. Degree get through their
examination without having the slightest knowledge of the history of the
literature.[84] For some curious results of this very deficient
training, see the Appendix.
With Krishna, all the other so-called Avatārs vanish; for they rest on
foundations still more flimsy and fanciful. They merely serve as signal
proofs of the tendency inherent in the Hindu mind to believe in
incarnations and to see such around them. This tendency was already
living and creative long before the Christian era, and it has kept its
vitality down to the present day; for though Chaitanya, the
sixteenth-century reformer, is the most noteworthy of those who within
recent times have been counted Avatārs, he is by no means the last: the
late Ramkrishna Paramhamsa was regarded as such,[85] and some of her
admirers claim the same honour for Mrs. Annie Besant.[86] Further, this
making of Avatārs is but one aspect of that passion for deifying men
which has characterized Hinduism from first to last,[87] a passion which
has set many a modern Englishman among the gods. Even such a
whole-hearted Christian as John Nicholson did not escape.[88]
The story, then, that Krishna uttered the Song on the battlefield, is a
pious imagination. All scholars hold the war to be historical; Krishna’s
name can be traced in the literature from the Upanishads downwards; it
is possible, or even probable, that he was a Kshattriya prince[89] who
fought in the war; but _the assertion that on the field he claimed to be
the supreme being, is absolutely negatived by all the early history and
literature of India_.
* * * * *
How then are we to account for the _Gītā_? Whence came its power and its
beauty? and how did it reach the form it has?—We must recognise the
action of three factors in the formation of the Song, the philosophy,
the worship of Krishna, and the author. We have already traced in
outline the genesis of the philosophy; there remain the cult and the
author.
All our scholars recognize that Krishna-worship has existed in India
since the fourth century B. C. at least; for there can be no doubt that,
when Megasthenes says that Herakles was worshipped in Methora and
Kleisobora,[90] he means that Krishna was worshipped in Mathura and
Krishnapur. How much further back the cult goes we have no means of
learning. Nor does it really matter for our purpose. The important thing
to realize is the existence of this worship of Krishna, before his
identification with Vishnu[91] and final exaltation to the place of the
supreme pantheistic divinity.
The author of the _Gītā_ was clearly a man of wide and deep culture. He
had filled his mind with the best religious philosophy of his country.
He was catholic rather than critical, more inclined to piece things
together than to worry over the differences between them. Each of the
philosophic systems appealed to his sympathetic mind: he was more
impressed with the value of each than with the distinctions between
them. But his was not only a cultured but a most reverent mind. He was
as fully in sympathy with Krishna-worship as with the philosophy of the
Atman. Indeed, it was the union of these qualities in him that fitted
him to produce the noblest and purest expression of modern Hinduism. For
Hinduism is just the marriage of ancient Brāhmanical thought and law
with the popular cults. But without his splendid literary gifts the
miracle would not have been possible. The beauty, precision and power of
the diction of the poem, and its dignity of thought, rising now and then
to sublimity, reveal but one aspect of his masterly literary ability.
Much of the success of the poem arises from his genuine appreciation of
the early heroic poems, which he heard recited around him, and from his
consequent decision to make his own Song, in one sense at least, a
heroic poem. Lastly, there is the shaping spirit of imagination, without
which no man can be a real poet. With him this power was introspective
rather than dramatic. No poet with any genuine dramatic faculty would
have dreamed of representing a warrior as entering on a long philosophic
discussion on the field of battle at the very moment when the armies
stood ready to clash. On the other hand, what marvellous insight is
displayed in his representation of Krishna! Who else could have imagined
with such success how an incarnate god would speak of himself? Nor must
we pass on without noticing that, though the situation in which the Song
is supposed to have been produced is an impossible one, yet for the
author’s purpose it is most admirably conceived: how otherwise could the
main thought of the book—_philosophic calm leading to disinterested
action_—have been so vividly impressed on the imagination?
This author, then, formed the idea of combining the loftiest philosophy
of his country with the worship of Krishna. He would intertwine the
speculative thought that satisfied the intellect with the fervid
devotion which even the uncultured felt for a god who was believed to
have walked the earth. Philosophy would thus come nearer religion, while
religion would be placed on far surer intellectual ground. His tastes
led him to connect his work with the romantic poems of the day; his
genius suggested the situation, a dialogue between a noble knight and
the incarnate divinity; his catholicity taught him to interweave the
Sānkhya with the Yoga and both with the Vedānta; and as we have seen,
his penetrative imagination was equal to the creation of the subjective
consciousness of a god-man.
We can now answer the question which stands at the head of this chapter,
What is the _Bhagavadgītā_? It consists of two distinct elements, one
old, one original. The philosophy is old; for it is only a very
imperfect combination[92] of what is taught in earlier books. The
original element is the teaching put into Krishna’s mouth about his own
person and the relation in which he stands to his own worshippers and to
others. Of this part of the teaching of the _Gītā_ we here give a brief
analysis:—
Krishna is first of all the source of the visible world. All comes
from him,[93] all rests in him.[94] At the end of a Kalpa everything
returns to him,[95] and is again reproduced.[96] He pervades all
things;[97] and again, in another sense, he is all that is best and
most beautiful in nature and in man.[98] But while Krishna is thus
the supreme power in the universe,[99] he is altogether without
personal interest in the activity therein displayed:[100] he sits
unconcerned,[101] always engaged in action,[102] yet controlling his
own nature,[103] and therefore never becoming bound by the results
of his action.[104] This conception of the Supreme, as at once the
centre of all activity and yet completely detached, enables the
author, on the one hand, to soften the seemingly hopeless
contradiction involved in identifying the king, warrior and
demon-slayer, Krishna, with the passionless, characterless
_Atman_[105] of the Upanishads, and, on the other to hold up Krishna
as the supreme example of Action Yoga.
We now turn to Krishna’s relation to his worshippers. Knowledge is
good;[106] mental concentration is better;[107] disinterested action
is better than either;[108] but the supreme wisdom is faith in
Krishna and boundless devotion to him.[109] Such is the teaching of
the _Gītā_. The worst epithets are kept for those who fail to
recognise him as the Supreme, who disregard him, carp at him, hate
him.[110] To those who resort to Krishna,[111] who place faith in
him,[112] who shower on him their love, devotion and worship,[113]
who rest on him,[114] think of him[115] and remember him[116] at all
times,—to them are promised forgiveness,[117] release from the bonds
of action,[118] attainment of tranquillity,[119] true knowledge[120]
and final bliss[121] in Krishna.[122]
Since all the gods come from Krishna,[123] and since he is in the
last resort the sole reality,[124] worship offered to other gods is
in a sense offered to him.[125] He accepts it and rewards it.[126]
This is in accordance with his indifference to men: to him no one is
hateful, no one dear.[127] Yet the highest blessings fall only to
those who recognize him directly.[128]
Clearly our author formed his conception of the man-god with great
skill, and fitted it into his general scheme with all the care and
precision he was capable of. On this elaboration of the
self-consciousness of Krishna he concentrated all his intellectual and
imaginative powers. And with what unequalled success! Could any greater
compliment be paid an author than to have sixty generations of cultured
readers take the creation of his mind for a transcript from history?
* * * * *
The masses of evidence we have marshalled to prove that Krishna never
claimed to be God, may be briefly summarised as follows:—
1. The situation in which the _Gītā_ is said to have been uttered at
once strikes the historical student as suspicious: one can scarcely
believe that there was ever a battle in which such a thing could have
taken place; and, on the other hand, it makes such an excellent
background to the theory of Action Yoga, that one cannot help believing
that it was invented for the very purpose. Further investigation leads
to the following results:—
2. The characteristic religious and philosophical ideas of the _Gītā_
are not found in any books produced immediately after the age of
Kurukshetra. If we start with the teaching of that age, we have to trace
the stages of a long and clearly-marked development before we reach the
ideas of the _Gītā_.
3. The diction of the _Gītā_ is not the Vedic Sanskrit of the early
_Brāhmanas_ (which are the literature of the period following
Kurukshetra), but belongs to a very much later stage of the language.
4. The fact that the _Gītā_ is not _sruti_, but _smriti_, proves that it
comes neither from Krishna, nor from the time of Kurukshetra.
5. Krishna Devakiputra is known in the later Vedic literature as a man,
and in the Sūtra literature as a hero or demi-god, but never as the
supreme being.
6. The fact that there is not a single reference in the whole of the
Vedic literature, nor yet in the Sūtra literature, to Krishna as the
incarnation of Brahma, makes it impossible for us to believe that at the
battle of Kurukshetra he claimed to be such.
7. The fact that there was no revival or reformation of religion in the
age of Kurukshetra proves that God was not incarnated then.
Footnote 1:
The philosophic basis of the book is primarily the _Sānkhya_ system
which is essentially atheistic.
Footnote 2:
Dr. Lorinser’s attempt (_Die Bhagavadgītā_, übersetzt und erläutert
von Dr. F. Lorinser, 1869) to prove that the author of the _Gītā_
borrowed many ideas from the Bible must be pronounced a failure. _Cf._
Garbe, 19, 83-85; Max Müller, _Natural Religion_, 97-100; Hopkins, _R.
I._, 429.
Footnote 3:
On the religion of the _Rigveda_ see Kaegi, 27-74; Hopkins, _R. I._,
Chaps. II-VI; Macdonell, 67-115; Bose, _H.C._, I, 6-9; Dutt, _C.A.I._,
Vol. I, Chap. V; Monier-Williams, Chap. I.
Footnote 4:
Hopkins, _R.I._, 141; Macdonell, 385; Garbe, 1-2; Kaegi, 87.
Footnote 5:
_E.g._, X, 90.
Footnote 6:
X, 81; 82; 121.
Footnote 7:
X, 129.
Footnote 8:
Kaegi, 3; Macdonell, 171-174.
Footnote 9:
Kaegi, 4; Macdonell, 174-185.
Footnote 10:
Kaegi, 5; Macdonell, 202 ff.; Müller, _A.S.L._, Chap. II; Bose,
_H.C._, I, 9-12.
Footnote 11:
Müller, _A.S.L._, 389.
Footnote 12:
Hopkins, _R.I._, 177.
Footnote 13:
Gough, Chap. I; Garbe, 2-7; Macdonell, 223; Hopkins, _R.I._, 204.
Footnote 14:
Müller, _A.S.L._, 313 ff.; Macdonell, 204; Kaegi, 5.
Footnote 15:
Müller, _A.S.L._, 316 ff.; Macdonell, 218 ff.; Kaegi, 5; Bose, _H.C._,
I, 12-19.
Footnote 16:
For the teaching of the Upanishads _see_ Gough; Hopkins, _R. I._,
Chap. X; Garbe, 7-10.
Footnote 17:
_See_ Deussen on each of these Upanishads, especially p. 264; and
_Cf._ Macdonell, 226.
Footnote 18:
Garbe, 10; Macdonell, 390, 393.
Footnote 19:
Führer, _Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni’s Birthplace_, Arch. Surv. of
India, Vol. XXVI, Allahabad, 1897; Macdonell, 13.
Footnote 20:
For the Sānkhya system, _see_ Garbe, 10, 11, 29, 36, 45; Macdonell,
390-395; Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. I, pp. 276 ff.
Footnote 21:
Macdonell, 393.
Footnote 22:
Macdonell, 226; Deussen, 261, 523, 288, 544, 241.
Footnote 23:
Deussen, 264.
Footnote 24:
_Katha_, 3, 10-13; 6, 6; 6, 7-11; 6, 14-18; _Svet._ passim; _Mundaka_,
2, 1, 1-3; _Mahānār_, 63, 21. _Cf._ Deussen, _ad loca_.
Footnote 25:
_Katha_, 2, 23; _Svet._ 3, 20; _Mundaka_, 3, 2-3. _Cf._ Hopkins,
_R.I._, 238.
Footnote 26:
_Svet._ 6, 23.
Footnote 27:
_Svet._ 6, 13.
Footnote 28:
Müller, _Anthrop. Rel._, 345; Oldenberg, _Budda_, 56.
Footnote 29:
Weber, _Sitz. Berli. Ak. 1890_, p. 930.
Footnote 30:
_I. L._, 159.
Footnote 31:
Deussen, 291, 308.
Footnote 32:
Deussen, _ad loca_; Macdonell, 226.
Footnote 33:
Deussen, 242.
Footnote 34:
Deussen, _ad loca_; Macdonell, 226.
Footnote 35:
Garbe, 14; Macdonell, 396; Hopkins, _R. I._, 495.
Footnote 36:
For the Yoga system, _see_ Garbe, 14-15; Macdonell, 396-399; Dutt, _C.
A. I._, Vol. I, pp. 285 ff.
Footnote 37:
Garbe, 16-18; Macdonell, 400-402.
Footnote 38:
Deussen, 4; Macdonell, 238; Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. I, 119; Garbe, 69.
Footnote 39:
Deussen, 541-543; Macdonell, 238-239.
Footnote 40:
Macdonell, 239. _Cf._ Deussen, 543; Weber, _I. L._, 153 ff.
Footnote 41:
Bose, _H.C._, Vol. I, 4.
Footnote 42:
_Garbha_, 4; _Prānāgnihotra_, 1; _Sūlika_, passim.
Footnote 43:
Macdonell, 428; Hopkins, _G. E. I._, 18-23.
Footnote 44:
Macdonell, 282-4.
Footnote 45:
See Hopkins, _G. E. I._, Chap. VI; _R.I._ 350; Macdonell, 285-288.
Footnote 46:
Hopkins, _G. E. I._, 397-398; Macdonell, 283-286. Bunkim Chundra
recognizes the second, third and fourth of these stages: see
_Krishnacharitra_, Chap. XI.
Footnote 47:
_The Ordinances of Manu_, Burnell and Hopkins, pp. XIX-XXVIII;
Macdonell, 428.
Footnote 48:
Hopkins, _G. E. I._, Chap. III; _R. I._, 265.
Footnote 49:
Hopkins, _R. I._, Chaps. XIV and XV; Bose, _H. C._, Vol. I, 3.
Footnote 50:
_See_ Telang’s translation throughout, and _cf._ Hopkins, _G. E. I._,
28-46; Amalnerkar, 4-5.
Footnote 51:
Telang, 15.
Footnote 52:
_Cf._ Hopkins, _R. I._, 429.
Footnote 53:
_G._, IV, 8.
Footnote 54:
Hopkins, _R. I._, 399.
Footnote 55:
_G._, IV, 1-3.
Footnote 56:
_G._, XVIII, 13.
Footnote 57:
_G._, XVIII, 19.
Footnote 58:
_G._, X, 26. This is a noticeable point; for Kapila is the only
founder of a philosophical system known to the Epic; he alone is
authoritative in all philosophical matters. _See_ Hopkins, _G. E. I._,
97.
Footnote 59:
_G._, X, 24.
Footnote 60:
_See_ Hopkins, _R. I._, 414.
Footnote 61:
_G._, X, 27.
Footnote 62:
_G._, X, 27.
Footnote 63:
_G._, X, 28.
Footnote 64:
_G._, X, 31.
Footnote 65:
_G._, II, 72; V, 24; 25; 26; VI, 15.
Footnote 66:
Hopkins, _G. E. I._, 88; _R. I._, 427.
Footnote 67:
_Mahābhārata_, Bhīshma Parvan.
Footnote 68:
_G._, VIII, 24-25.
Footnote 69:
Amalnerkar, 13.
Footnote 70:
See _Jacob’s Concordance to the Principal Upanishads and
Bhagavadgītā_.
Footnote 71:
Mr. Justice Telang was inclined to put the date before the third
century B.C., but his otherwise most judicious criticism is faulty in
this that it does not take all the factors of the problem into
consideration. Others, such as Müller, Weber, Davies and Lorinser,
incline to a very late date, about the third century A.D. Most writers
believe that the true date lies between these extremes. So
Monier-Williams, Hopkins, Fraser and others. Prof. Amalnerkar’s
pamphlet contains a number of most interesting points. His contention,
that the phrase, _Brahmasūtrapadaih_ (_G._ XIII, 4) refers to the
_Vedānta Sūtras_, and that the _Gītā_ is therefore the later work of
the two, has been accepted by Max Müller (_S. S. I. P._, 155), but
Prof. Hopkins thinks the _Gītā_ is earlier than the Sūtra (_R. I._,
400). The theory which Prof. Hopkins holds, that the Divine Song was
originally an Upanishad, and that it was redacted, first as a Vishuite
poem, and then a second time in the interests of Krishnaism (_R. I._,
389), would account, on the one hand, for the numerous inconsistencies
in its teaching, and, on the other, for the very conflicting signs of
date which it presents. For a criticism of Bunkim Chundra’s views,
_see_ the Appendix.
Footnote 72:
Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. I, 9-11; Bunkim Ch. Chatterji,
_Krishnacharitra_, 46; Macdonell, 174-175, 285; Hopkins, _R. I._, 33,
177-179.
Footnote 73:
Macdonell, 285; Weber, _I. L._, 90.
Footnote 74:
_S. B. E._, Vol. XII, pp. XLI-XLII; Macdonell, 213.
Footnote 75:
_S. B. E._, Vol. XIV, Index. _Cf._ Weber, _I. L._, 186;
_Krishnacharitra_, 31.
Footnote 76:
3, 17, 6. _See_ Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. I, 189; Weber, _I. L._, 71;
Bose, _H. C._, Vol. I, 26; Hopkins, _R. I._, 465.
Footnote 77:
Weber, _I. L._, 70.
Footnote 78:
Whether Krishna Angirasa in the _Kaushītaki Brāhmana_ be the same
person as Krishna Devakiputra, or not, we cannot tell.
Footnote 79:
Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. I, 127; Bose, _H. C._, Vol. I, 33-34; Hopkins,
_R. I._, 403; Monier-Williams, 112.
Footnote 80:
The reference to Krishna and Arjuna runs _Vāsudevārjunābhyām vun_ (IV,
3, 98), words which put the two on one level.
Footnote 81:
Hopkins, _G. E. I._, 390-395.
Footnote 82:
Hopkins, _G. E. I._, 395.
Footnote 83:
We need not stay to ask whether the _Srimadbhāgavat_ and other Purānas
can be trusted as evidence for the life of Krishna; for all scholars
agree that, while ancient Purānas existed, all those that have come
down to us reflect _a later stage of Hinduism than that of the
Mahābhārata_; and that, while they contain much that is old scattered
up and down their pages, the oldest fragments are of the same general
date as the _Mahābhārata_ and _Manu_. Hopkins, _R. I._, 434-445;
Macdonell, 299-302; Dutt, _C. A. I._, I, 19; II, 211; Müller, _A. S.
L._, 61; Kaegi, 8, 105; _Krishnacharitra_, Chaps. XIV-XVI.
Footnote 84:
The study of Prof. Macdonell’s excellent manual ought surely now to be
made part of any Sanskrit course prescribed for a University degree in
India.
Footnote 85:
Bose, _H. C._, Vol. I, 5.
Footnote 86:
_The Student’s Chronicle_, May 1903, p. 6.
Footnote 87:
For some amusing instances _see_ Hopkins, _R. I._, 522, note, and
_cf._ Monier-Williams, Chap. X.
Footnote 88:
Monier-Williams, 260.
Footnote 89:
Garbe, 85; Monier-Williams, 98, 112, note.
Footnote 90:
McCrindle, _Ancient India_, 201. _Cf._ Hopkins, _R. I._, 459;
Macdonell, 411; Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. I, 219; Garbe, 19, 83.
Footnote 91:
That it was only at a very late date that this identification took
place is evident from the fact that it is not once mentioned in the
early literature. Even in two of the Vishnu Upanishads of the Atharva
Veda, the _Atmabodha_, and the _Nārāyana_, Krishna is referred to as a
mere man. Apart from the _Gītā_ and the _Mahābhārata_, the earliest
reference to him as God incarnate is in the _Gopālatāpanīyopanishad_.
See Weber, _I. L._, 169; and _cf._ Garbe, 18-19, 85; Bose, _H. C._,
Vol. I, 25-26; Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. II, 191.
Footnote 92:
For the inconsistencies of the _Gītā_, see Telang, p. 11; Hopkins, _R.
I._, 390, 399, 400.
Footnote 93:
VII, 6; 10; IX, 8; 10; 13; XIV, 3.
Footnote 94:
VII, 7; IX, 5.
Footnote 95:
IX, 7.
Footnote 96:
IX, 7.
Footnote 97:
IX, 4.
Footnote 98:
VII, 8-11; X, 20-38.
Footnote 99:
IX, 10; 17-18.
Footnote 100:
IV, 14.
Footnote 101:
IX, 9.
Footnote 102:
III; 22-24.
Footnote 103:
This is Telang’s translation of two very difficult, yet very
instructive phrases. In the _Gītā_ the word _prakriti_ is used, first
for the primeval matter of the Sānkhya system (III, 27; 29; IX, 8, 10,
12; XIII, 19, 20, 23, 29), and secondly for the primeval matter of
personal character, each man’s natural disposition (III, 33; VII, 20;
XI, 51; XVIII, 59). There is then a third class of passages in which
the word is used in the Sānkhyan sense, but, _by the addition of a
personal pronoun_, _prakriti_ is made to belong to Krishna personally
(VII, 4, 5; IX, 7, 13). Here we have one of the devices our author
employed to give the great old phrases a vivid personal colouring. Now
such a phrase as “my prakriti” is already ambiguous; so we are not
surprised to meet with two passages, in which it is impossible to tell
whether the meaning is metaphysical or ethical (IV, 6; IX, 8).
Probably the author intended to suggest both meanings. Most
translators take the meaning to be metaphysical, but Telang may be
right in taking it as ethical: Krishna is regarded as the ideal of
Action Yoga. For a similar use of the personal pronoun compare
_sarvakarmāni mayi sannyasya_ (XVIII, 57) with _sarvakarmāni
sannyasya_ of the _Paramahansopanishad_. Pages 706, 708 and 709 of
Jacob’s _Concordance to the Principal Upanishads and Bhagavadgītā_ are
peculiarly instructive in this connection.
Footnote 104:
IV, 14; IX, 9.
Footnote 105:
X, 12, 20.
Footnote 106:
III, 3; IV, 36-38; XII, 12.
Footnote 107:
XII, 12; XIII, 24.
Footnote 108:
II, 47-53; III, 7, 30; IV, 14-23; V, 2; VI, 1; XII, 12; XVIII, 1-11.
Footnote 109:
VII, 13-14; XII, 20.
Footnote 110:
VII, 15; IX, 11-12; XVI, 6-20.
Footnote 111:
II, 61; VII, 14; XII, 6; XVIII, 57.
Footnote 112:
XII, 2.
Footnote 113:
VI, 14, 31; IX, 13-14, 22, 30, 34; X, 8-10; XII, 2, 6-7, 14.
Footnote 114:
IV, 10; VII, 1, 29; IX, 32.
Footnote 115:
VI, 14; X, 9; XVIII, 57-58.
Footnote 116:
VIII, 5, 7, 14.
Footnote 117:
X, 3; XVIII, 66.
Footnote 118:
IV, 14; IX, 28; XVIII, 49.
Footnote 119:
V, 29; VI, 15; XVIII, 62.
Footnote 120:
X, 11.
Footnote 121:
VI, 15; VIII, 15.
Footnote 122:
IV, 9; VII, 19; VIII, 5, 7, 15-16; IX, 25, 28, 32, 34; XII, 8; XIII,
18; XIV, 2; XVIII, 55-56, 62, 65.
Footnote 123:
X, 2.
Footnote 124:
X, 1-3, 20.
Footnote 125:
IX, 23.
Footnote 126:
VII, 21-22.
Footnote 127:
IX, 29.
Footnote 128:
IX, 22; X, 7-11.