Bhagavad-gita-rahasya (or Karma-yoga Shastra)

by Bhalchandra Sitaram Sukthankar | 1935 | 327,828 words

The English translation of the Bhagavad-Gita Rahasya, also known as the Karma-yoga Shastra or “Science of Right Action”, composed in Marathi by Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1915. This first volume represents an esoteric exposition of the Bhagavadgita and interprets the verses from a Mimamsa philosophical standpoint. The work contains 15 chapters, Sanskri...

Appendix 4: The Rise of the Bhāgavata Religion and the Gītā

I have stated in several places in the Gītā-Rahasya, and also above in this Appendix, that the principal subject- matter of the Gītā is to harmonise the Spiritual Knowledge of the Upaniṣads, and the Sāṃkhya theories about the Mutable and the Immutable, with Devotion, and' principally with Desireless Action; and thereby to fully justify the Karma-Yoga scientifically. But, those who do not realise the skilfulness of the Gītā in harmonising these various subjects, or those who have a pre-conceived notion that it will be difficult to harmonise all these subjects, get the impression that many of the statements in the Gītā are mutually conflicting. For instance, these critics object that the statement in the thirteenth chapter, that all whatsoever, which exists in this world, is nothing but the qualityless Brahman, is inconsistent with the statement in the seventh chapter that all this world is nothing but the qualityful Vāsudeva (7.19); as also that the statement that "Friend and foe are alike to Me" (9.29) is inconsistent with the other statement that "Jñānins and Devotees are much beloved of Me" (7.17; 12.19), both of which statements have been made by the Blessed Lord. But I have explained in many places in the Gītā-Rahasya, that there is no real conflict between these statements, and that although it was necessary to make these apprently conflicting statements in considering the same question, once from the Metaphysical point of view and again from the point of view of Devotion, yet, the Gītā has finally harmonised them from the comprehensive philosophical point of view. But, even to this explanation it is objected by some, that (i) although it is now possible to thus harmonise the Realisation of the imperceptible Brahman, with the Devotion to the perceptible Parameśvara, yet, it is impossible that there could have been any such harmonisation in the- original Gītā; that (ii) the original Gītā was not full of conflicting statements like the present Gītā, and that (iii) Vedāntists or the protagonists of Sāṃkhya doctrines interpolated statements in favour of their respective doctrines into the original Gītā. For instance, Prof. Garbe says that the original Gītā contained a harmonisation of Devotion with only Sāṃkhya and Yoga; and the harmonisation of Devotion with Vedānta and with the Karma-mārga of the Mīmāṃsā School was brought about by somebody afterwards; and he has even appended to his German translation of the Gītā, a list of those stanzas, which according to him had been subsequently interpolated into the original Gītā! These theories are entirely wrong in my opinion. These people have conceived these wrong ideas as a result of their having failed to understand the historical tradition of the various aspects of the Vedic religion, and the real meanings of the words 'sāṃkhya' and 'yoga' used in the Gītā, and especially because these people had before their eyes the history of the unphilosophical, that is, purely devotional Christian religion. The Christian religion was originally purely devotional; and the attempt to harmonise it with the philosophical doctrines of the Greeks, or with other philosophies, was made afterwards. But that is not the case with us. The Ritualist path of the vyavasāyātmikā school, the Knowledge preached by the writers of the Upaniṣads, and Sāṃkhya and Yoga, had all reached their highest development before the Path of Devotion arose in India. Therefore, it was impossible from the very beginning that our people should countenance an independent Path of Devotion, which would be independent of all these sciences, and especially independent of the Knowledge of the Brahman preached in the Upaniṣads; and when this impossibility is taken into account, one is forced to come to the conclusion, that the form of the preaching of the Gītā-religion must, from the very beginning, have been more or less similar to the exposition contained in the present Gītā. The exposition of the Gītā in the Gītā-Rahasya has been made by me on this basis; yet, as this is a very important question, I shall here briefly state what results are arrived at, according to me, regarding the original form and the tradition of the Gītāreligion, from the historical point of view.

I have shown in the tenth chapter of the Gītā-Rahasya that the most pristine form of the Vedic religion was not pre-eminently Devotional, or Realisational, or Yogic, but was ritualistic, that is, Actional; and that the Veda-Saṃhitās, and the Brahmanas have principally enunciated this Activistic religion of sacrificial Yajñas. As this religion was later on systematically expounded in the Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras of Jaimini, it acquired the name 'Mīmāṃsaka-mārga'. But although the name 'Mīmāṃsā' was new, yet, the sacrificial religion was undoubtedly ancient, and was probably the first stage of the Vedic religion from the historical point of view. Before acquiring the name 'Mīmāṃsaka-mārga', it used to be known as 'Trayī-dharma', that is, 'the religion supported by the three Vedas'; and the same name is to be found in the Gītā (See Bhagavadgītā 9. 20 and %l). When this ritualistic Trayī-dharma was being rigorously observed, how was it possible to Realise the Parameśvara by this Karma, that is, this external paraphernalia of Yajñas and sacrificial rites? There then gradually arose the doubts and objections, that as Realisation was a mental process, it would be impossible to acquire Realisation, unless one contemplated on the form of the Parameśvara etc.; and this Trayī-dharma gradually came to include the Knowledge contained in the Upaniṣads, as is evident from the introductory passages at the commencement of the Chāndogya and other Upaniṣads. This Knowledge of the Brahman contained in the Upaniṣads has subsequently acquired the name 'Vedānta'. But although this word 'Vedānta' has come into existence subsequently like the word 'Mīmāṃsā.', yet, the Knowledge of the Brahman, or the Path of Knowledge, does not, on that account, become something new. It is true that the Jñānakāṇḍa came to be formulated after the Karma-kāṇḍa; yet, one must not forget that both of them were ancient. The KapilaSāṃkhya philosophy is another and an independent branch of this Path of Knowledge. I have stated in the Gītā-Rahasya, that whereas Vedānta was Non-Dualistic, Sāṃkhya philosophy was Dualistic, and that the Sāṃkhya doctrines regarding the genesis of the Cosmos are fundamentally different. But although the Non-Dualistic Knowledge of the Brahman mentioned in the Upaniṣads is fundamentally different from the Dualistic Sāṃkhya philosophy, yet, from the point of view of Knowledge, both these paths were equally antagonistic to the prior ritualistic Path of Action (karma-mārga). This naturally gave rise to the problem of the harmonisation of Karma with Knowledge; and there had arisen two sects in this matter already in the times of the- Upaniṣads. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka and other Upaniṣads and the Sāṃkhya philosophers began to say that on account of the perpetual conflict between Karma and Jñāna, it was not only proper but even necessary to give up Karma after the- Acquisition of Knowledge; and on the other hand, the Īśāvāsya and other Upaniṣads began to say, that one cannot give up Karma even after the Acquisition of Knowledge, and that a Jñānin must continue performing Action for the purpose of carrying on the affairs of the world, after making his Reason, desireless, by cultivating apathy towards the world. An attempt has been made in the commentaries on these Upaniṣads- to do away with this conflict. But, these doctrine-supporting interpretations in the Śāṃkarabhāṣya are stretched; and they cannot be accepted if one considers the Upaniṣads independently,, as has been stated by me at the end of the eleventh chapter of the Gītā-Rahasya. It becomes clear from the exposition in the Maitryupaniṣad that this attempt was not restricted only to the harmonisation of Karma in the form of ritualistic- performances with the Knowledge of the Brahman; but that, about this time, attempts were also made to harmonise, as far as possible, the Science of the Mutable and the Immutable, which had arisen independently in the Sāṃkhya philosophy, with the Knowledge of the Brahman in the Upaniṣads. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka and other ancient Upaniṣads do not attach much importance to the Kapila Sāṃkhya philosophy. But, the Maitryupaniṣad wholly adopts the Sāṃkhya terminology, and propounds the theory that the 24 Elementary Principles of the Sāṃkhyas have originally sprung from one Parabrahman.. But even the Kapila Sāṃkhya philosophy is in support of Renunciation, that is to say, contrary to Energism (karma).

Therefore, it is seen that from very ancient times there were already three schools of Vedānta philosophy, namely,

(1) the path of merely performing ritual in the shape of Sacrifice etc.;,

(2) the path of abandoning Action, by means of Knowledge and. Apathy to the world, that is to say, the Path of Knowledge or the Sāṃkhya Path; and

(3) the Knowledge-Action (jñāna-karma-samuccaya) path of continually performing Action, with Knowledge, and with, an apathetic frame of mind.

From the Path of Knowledge, out of these three paths, the two- subsidiary branches of Yoga and Devotion have subsequently come into existence. It is stated in the Chāndogya and other ancient Upaniṣads, that it is necessary to meditate on the Brahman in order to acquire the Knowledge of the Para- brahman; and that it is necessary to concentrate the Mind, and for that purpose, to place before the eyes, in the first place, some qualityful symbol of the Parabrahman, in order to succeed in this thought, contemplation, or meditation. As the Concentration of the Mind acquired in worshipping the Brahman thus acquired a special importance later on, Yoga, in the shape of the 'Concentration of the Mind', became an independent path by itself; and, by a tangible human-formed Parameśvara being taken for worship, instead of a qualityful symbol, the Path of Devotion gradually came into existence.

This idea of Devotion in the Path of Devotion has not come into existence independently, at some intermediate period of time, and inconsistently with the Spiritual Knowledge contained in the Upaniṣads; nor has it been imported into India from some other country. When one considers seriatim all the various Upaniṣads, one comes to the conclusion that, in the beginning, the various parts of the Yajña, or the OM-kāra, and later on, Vedic deities like Rudra, Viṣṇu, etc., or qualityful perceptible symbols of the Brahman like Ether etc., came to be worshipped for the purpose of the meditation on the Brahman; and that with the same end in view, that is, with the idea of reaching the Brahman, the Devotion to, that is, a kind of worship of, Bama, Nṛsiṃha, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Vasudeva, etc., came to be started thereafter. Out of these, the Yoga-tattva and other Upaniṣads on the Yoga, or the Nṛsiṃha-tāpanī, Rāmatāpanī, and other Upaniṣads, which are devotional, are clearly seen to be more ancient than the Chāndogya and other Upaniṣads, when one considers their language. Therefore, it becomes necessary to say from the historical point of view, that the Paths of Yoga and' of Devotion, acquired importance only after the three paths of (i) Karma, (ii) Jñāna, or Saṃnyāsa, and (iii) Jñāna-Karma- samuccaya, described in the Chāndogya and other ancient Upaniṣads had come into existence. But, although the paths of Yoga and of Devotion acquired importance later on, the importance of the previous Knowledge of the Brahman was not thereby diminished; and it was not possible that it should be so diminished; and therefore, even in those Upaniṣads, which support Yoga or Devotion, we find statements that the Knowledge of the Brahman is the ultimate ideal of Devotion and of Yoga; and that Rudra, Viṣṇu, Acyuta, Nārāyaṇa, or Vāsudeva and ether objects of worship, are only forms of the Paramātman or of the Parabrahman (See Maitryupaniṣat (or Maitrāṇyupaniṣad) 7.7; Rāmapūrvatāpanīyopaniṣad 16; Amṛtabindu. 22 etc.). In short, the various subdivisions of religion, which have from time to time been promulgated by various Self-Realised (ātma-jñānin) sages into the Vedic religion, at different times, have arisen from the aspects of religion which were then already in vogue; and it has been the principal tendency of the growth of the Vedic religion, from the very beginning, to harmonise new aspects of religion with the older aspects; and the writers of the Smṛtis have later on expounded the arrangement of the various stages of life, by adhering to this tendency of harmonising various aspects of religion. When one considers this ancient Indian tendency of harmonising various aspects of religion, it is not proper to say that the G its- religion was the only exception to this previous and subsequent tendency.

I have mentioned above the general history of the growth of the principal aspects of the Vedic religion, namely, the ritualistic Karma mentioned in the Brahmanas, the Spiritual Knowledge in the Upaniṣads, the Kapila-Sāṃkhya philosophy, Yoga in the shape of Concentration of the Mind, and Devotion. Let us now consider the origin of the consideration of all these various aspects of religion which has been made in the Gītā–that is, whether it has been taken into the Gītā directly from various distinct Upaniṣads, or there is any intermediate stage. Where the Knowledge of the Brahman alone is being considered in the Gītā, stanzas from the Katha and other Upaniṣads have been adopted word for word into the Gītā; and where the Jñāna-Karma (Knowledge-Action) combination path is being dealt with, illustrations have been taken from the Upaniṣads of persons like Janaka etc. From these facts, one would think that the Gītā must have been based on the Upaniṣads themselves. But, if we consider the genesis of the Gītā-religion, which has been given in the Gītā itself, we find that the Upaniṣads are nowhere mentioned in it. Just as Sacrifice included in Knowledge is considered superior in the Gītā to the sacrifice of wealth (Bhagavadgītā 4.33), so also does the Chāndogyopaniṣad say that human life is a kind of Yajña (sacrifice), (Chāndogyopaniṣad 3.16, 17); and in describing the worth of such a sacrifice, it says that, "the Cult of this Yajña was taught by a Ṛṣi named Ghora Āngirasa to Devakīputra Kṛṣṇa". There is no authority for looking upon this Devakīputra Kṛṣṇa as the same as the Kṛṣṇa of the Gītā. But, even if it is assumed for a moment that both of them were one and the same, yet, it must still be borne in mind that Ghora Āngirasa has nowhere been mentioned in the Gītā as an authority for considering the Sacrifice included in Spiritual Knowledge as superior. Besides, although the path followed by Janaka was a combination of Jñāna and Karma, yet, Devotion had not been incorporated into that path in his times, as is quite clear from the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad; and, therefore, Janaka does not appear in the traditional history of the path, which combines Jñāna and Karma with Devotion; nor has the Gītā so included him. It is stated at the beginning of the fourth chapter of the Gītā (Bhagavadgītā 4.1–3) that the religion of the Gītā was first taught by the Blessed Lord to Vivasvān in the beginning of the Yuga, then by Vivasvān to Manu, and then by Manu to Ikṣvāku; but that, as it got lost in course of time, it had sprain to be preached to Arjuna. Although these stanzas are of utmost importance for understanding the growth of the Gītā-religion, commentators have not gone beyond giving their literary meaning, in order to elucidate them; and it would appear that doing so would even not have been in their interests. Because, if it were admitted that the Gītā-religion was originally of a particular cult, other religious cults could not but to that extent suffer in importance. But, I have shown with authorities in the commencement of the Gītā-Rahasya, as also in my commentary on the first and second stanzas of the fourth chapter of the Gītā, that the tradition of the Gītā is consistent with the tradition of the Bhāgavata religion in the Tretāyuga, that is, the last Yuga, which has been mentioned in the Nārāyaṇīya Upākhyāna of the Mahābhārata. Considering this similarity between the tradition of the Bhāgavata doctrine and of the Gītā-religion, one is forced to admit that the Gītā is a book which supports the Bhāgavata religion; and if there is any doubt about it, that is fully removed by the statement of Vaiśampāyana in the Mahābhārata (Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 346.10), that: "in the Gītā, only the Bhāgavata religion has been mentioned". When it has been thus proved, that the Gītā, is not an independent treatise dealing with Vedānta, that is to say, with the Spiritual Knowledge of the Upaniṣads, but that it supports the Bhāgavata religion, it need not be said that any criticism on the Gītā, which does not take into account the Bhāgavata religion, must be incomplete and confusing. I will, therefore, give here in short. all the available information regarding the date when the Bhāgavata religion was first promulgated, and as to what its original form was. I have stated above in the Gītā-Rahasya that this Bhāgavata religion was also known as the 'Nārāyaṇīya', the 'Sātvata', or the 'Pañcarātra' religion.

As, many of the Vedic religious treatises written after the date of the Upaniṣads and before the date of Buddha, have been lost, the only available principal works relating to the Bhāgavata religion, in addition to the Gītā, are the Nārāyaṇīya Upākhyāna mentioned in the 18th chapter of the Śāntiparva of the Mahābhārata (Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 334–351), the ŚāṇḍilyaSūtras, the Bhāgavata-Purana, the Nārada-Pañcarātra, the Nārada-Sūtras, and the works of Rāmānujācārya and others. Out of these, the works of Rāmānujācārya have been avowedly written in about the twelfth century of the Śalivāhana era for supporting a doctrine, that is to say, in order to harmonise the Gītā with the Qualified-Monistic (viśiṣṭādvaita) Vedānta of the Bhāgavata religion. Therefore, one cannot rely on these books for determining the original form of the Bhāgavata religion; and the same is the case with the books written by Madhvācārya and other followers of the Vaiṣṇava doctrine. The Śrīmad Bhāgavata-Purana is earlier in point of time than these. But, it is stated in the very beginning of this Purana (Śrīmad Bhāgavatpurāṇa Skan. 1. Ch. 4 and 5) that, because the exposition of the Renunciatory Bhāgavata religion contained in the Mahābhārata, and necessarily also in the Gītā, had not been made as it ought to have been made, and as Vyāsa on that account felt sorry, since "Desireless Action (naiṣkarmya) by itself was useless without Devotion", he, at the instance of Nārada, and in order to put an end to his mental anguish, wrote the Bhāgavata-Purāṇa which maintained the worth of Devotion. If this story is considered from the historical point of view, it will be seen that when the doctrine of Desireless Action to which importance had been given in the original Bhāgavata religion of the Bhārata, lost its influence in course of time, and Devotion acquired importance instead, the Bhāgavata-Purana came to be written in order to expound this second Bhāgavata religion (that is, in which Devotion was predominant). The Nārada-Pañcarātra is also of the same kind; that is, it deals purely with Devotion, and contains a specific reference by name to the Bhāgavata- Purāṇa of 12 skandhas, the Brahma-Vaivarta-Purāṇa, the Viṣṇu-Purāṇa, the Gītā, and the Mahābhārata (see Nā. Pañ. 2.7.28–32; 3.14.73 and 4.3.154).

It, therefore, follows that this work is less important than the Bhāgavata-Purāṇa for determining the original form of the Bhāgavata religion. It is possible that the Nārada-Sūtras and the Śāṇḍilya-Sūtras are earlier in date than the NāradaPañcarātra. Still, as the Nārada-Sūtras contain a reference to Vyāsa and to Śuka (Nārada-Sūtras83), there is no doubt that they are later in point of time than the Bhārata and the Bhāgavata; and as the Śāṇḍilya-Sūtras contain stanzas taken from the Bhagavadgītā (Śāṇḍilya-Sūtras 9.15 and 83), they must be later in point of time than, the Gītā and the Mahābhārata, though earlier than the Nārada-Sūtras (Na. Sū. 83). Therefore, in order to determine the original and the ancient ' form of the Bhāgavata religion, one has ultimately to rely on the Nārāyaṇīya Upākhyāna of the Mahābhārata. Both in the Bhāgavata-Purana (1. 3. 24) and in the Nārada-Pañcarātra (4. 3. 156–159; 4. 8. 81), Buddha has been referred to as an incarnation of Viṣṇu. But the ten incarnations mentioned in the Nārāyaṇīyākhyāna do not include Buddha; and Haṃsa is stated to be the first incarnation, whereas the incarnation of Kalki is mentioned immediately after that of Kṛṣṇa (Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 339.100). This fact also proves that the Nārāyaṇīyākhyāna is earlier in point of time than the Bhāgavata-Purana and the Nārada-Pañcarātra. In the Nārāyaṇīyākhyāna, there is a statement that the Bhāgavata religion, that is, the Nārāyaṇīya religion, was originally founded by the two Ṛṣis Nara and Narayana, who were the incarnations of the Parabrahman; and that when the Ṛṣi Nārada went at their direction to the Śvetadvīpa, the Blessed Lord Himself first preached this religion to him there; the statement in the Nārāyaṇīyākhyāna that the Śvetadvīpa, where the Blessed Lord resided, was in the Kṣīra-samudra, which was stated to be to the north of the Mountain Meru, is consistent with the ancient description of the Cosmos given in the Purāṇas; and no one on our side attaches much importance to it. But the Western Sanskritist Webber has perverted this very story, and started the argument that the Philosophy of Devotion mentioned in the Bhāgavata religion was imported into India from the Śvetadvīpa, that is to say, from some country outside India; and that in as much as this Philosophy of Devotion was in those days not in vogue in any religion except the Christian religion, the idea of Devotion was picked up by the followers of the Bhāgavata religion from Christian countries. But, there is proof that Panini knew the doctrine of Devotion to Vasudeva, and there are references to the Bhāgavata religion or to the Philosophy of Devotion both in the Buddhistic and Jain religious treatises; and there is no doubt that both Panini and Buddha lived before Christ. Therefore, even Western philosophers have now pronounced this argument of Webber to be without foundation. I have stated above that Devotion, as a part of religion, came into existence in India after the date of the Upaniṣad:; which contain Spiritual Knowledge. It is, therefore, beyond doubt that the Bhāgavata religion, which consisted of Devotion to Vasudeva, came into existence after the Upaniṣads, which preached Spiritual Knowledge, and before Buddha. The only question is how many centuries[1] before Buddha that religion came into existence; and although it is not possible to answer that question with absolute precision, yet, as will appear from what follows, it is not at all impossible to get a rough idea of its date.

It has been stated in the Gītā that the Bhāgavata religion preached by Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Vivasvān was lost before that date (Bhagavadgītā 4.2); and the philosophy of this religion gives the name 'Vāsudeva' to the Parameśvara, 'Saṃkarṣaṇa' to Jīva, 'Pradyumna' to Manas, and 'Aniruddha' to Ahaṃkāra. Out of these, Vasudeva is the name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself; Saṃkarṣaṇa is the nani3 of his elder brother Balarama; and Pradyumna and Aniruddha are names of his son and grandson. Besides, the word 'Sātvata', which is another name for this religion, is also the name of the community, namely, the Yadava community in which Śrī Kṛṣṇa was born. From this it is clear, that this religion was promulgated in the family and the community in which Śrī Kṛṣṇa was born, and that it was preached by Śrī Kṛṣṇa to his dear friend, Arjuna; and the story in the Purāṇas is the same. Besides, as there is also a tradition that the Sātvata community came to an end with the death of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, it was impossible that this religion could have been further promulgated even in the Sātvata community after the death of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. It is possible to historically explain the various names of this religion, by saying that this religion, which was thus promulgated by Śrī Kṛṣṇa, may have been in existence before His time to some extent or other under the name of the 'Nārāyaṇīya' or 'Pañcarātra' religion; and that it later on acquired the name of 'Sātvata', after it was spread in the Sātvata community; and that it came to be called the 'Bhāgavata' religion in the belief that the Blessed Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna were respectively the incarnations of Nara and Narayana. Thus, it is not necessary to imagine that there were three or four different Śrī Kṛṣṇas, and that each of them added a little to the religion; and there is in fact no evidence for coming to such a conclusion. This idea has gained ground on account of the good or bad changes which have taken place in the original religion. But if, though Buddha, Christ, or Mahomed were each one individual by themselves, there came about many good or bad changes in their religions, then there is no occasion in my opinion for believing that there must have been several Śrī Kṛṣṇas, on the ground that the original Bhāgavata religion later on acquired different forms, or -that different ideas later on gained ground regarding Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Whichever religion is taken, it is quite easy and natural that it should change its form in the course of time; and it is not necessary on that account to believe that there were several Kṛṣṇas, or Buddhas, or Christs, or Mahomeds.[2] Some people–especially Western imaginative people–have raised a doubt that Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Yādavas, the Pāṇḍavas, or the Bhāratī war, were not historical facts at all, but are mere imaginary personages or stories; and in the opinion of some other persons, the Mahābhārata is nothing but a tremendous metaphysical allegory dealing with the Absolute Self. But, any impartial man will have to come to the conclusion that all such doubts are without any basis, if he considers the evidence of ancient works. There is no doubt that there is historical authority at the root of these stories. In short, in my opinion, there were not four or five Śrī Kṛṣṇas, but there was only one historical personage of that name. Now, in considering the date of this Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Rao Bahadur Chintamanrao Vaidya has expressed an opinion that Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Yādavas, the Pāṇḍavas, and the Bhāratī war, were all synchronous, that is to say, they all existed at the commencement of the Kaliyuga; that according to the method of calculation of time mentioned in the Purāṇas, a period of five thousand years or more has elapsed since then; and that, this is the true date of Śrī Kṛṣṇa.[3] But if one considers the generations of various kings from the Pāṇḍavas upto the Śalivāhana era, which have been described in the Purāṇas, this date is inconsistent with that calculation. Therefore, on the authority of the statement in the Bhāgavata, or in the Viṣṇu-Purāṇa, that "there are 1115 (or 1015) years from the birth of the king Parikṣita upto the coronation of Nanda" (Śrīmad Bhāgavatpurāṇa 13.2.26; and Viṣṇu-Purāṇa 4.24.32), historical scholars have now come to the conclusion that the Pāṇḍavas and the Bhāratī war must have been at least 1400 years before the Christian era. Necessarily, this will also be the date of Śrī Kṛṣṇa; and if this date is accepted, it follows that Śrī Kṛṣṇa promulgated the Bhāgavata religion at least 1400 years before Christ, and about 800 years before Buddha. Some persons have raised an objection to this argument, that although Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the Pāṇḍavas may be historical personages, yet, a considerable time must have elapsed between the death Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the time when Brahmins gave to a Kṣatriya warrior like Him the position, first of a superman, then of Viṣṇu, and ultimately of the Parabrahman; and that on that account the date of the rise of the Bhāgavata religion cannot be looked upon as the same as the date of the Bhāratī war. But, this opinion seems to be worthless. There is a world of difference between the ideas of the modern critics as to who should be deified and who not, and similar ideas of people living three or four thousand years ago (Bhagavadgītā 10.41); and there are statements in Upaniṣads, which existed prior to the date of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, that a Jñānin himself becomes merged in the Brahman (Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad 4.4.6); and it is clearly stated in the Maitryupaniṣad that Rudra, Viṣṇu, Acyuta and Nārāyaṇa are all Brahman (Maitryupaniṣat (or Maitrāṇyupaniṣad) 7.7). Then, why should there have been delay in the matter of Śrī Kṛṣṇa acquiring the Parabrahman status? If we consider history, Buddha used to call himself 'brahmabhūta' (See Selasutta, 14; Theragāthā, 831); and he was worshipped as a god in his lifetime; and it appears from reliable Buddhistic works that shortly after his death, he had acquired the position of 'devādhideva', or of the Parabrahman according to Vedic religion; and the same is the case with Christ. It is true that Śrī Kṛṣṇa was not an ascetic like Buddha or Christ, and that the Bhāgavata religion does not support Renunciation. But, there could have been no difficulty on that account in the promulgator of the Bhāgavata religion acquiring the form of a god or of the Brahman from the very beginning, as was acquired by the promulgators of the Buddhist and Christian religions.

Though the date of Śrī Kṛṣṇa has been defined in this way, and, although it is proper and logical to look upon that date as the date of the rise of the Bhāgavata religion, Western scholars are, for quite a different reason, unwilling to do so. Many of these scholars are still of opinion that the Ṛg-Veda is not more ancient than 1500 or perhaps 2000 years before Christ, and therefore, they think it improbable that the devotional Bhāgavata religion could have come into existence about 1400 years before Christ; because the Vedic religious literature itself establishes the order that the Ṛg.-Veda was followed by the Yajurveda and the Brahmana treatises, and that the Upaniṣads dealing with Spiritual Knowledge and the Sāṃkhya philosophy came afterwards, and that the devotional philosophical books came into existence last of all; and if one considers the treatises on the Bhāgavata religion themselves, one also clearly sees that the Spiritual Knowledge of the Upaniṣads, the Sāṃkhya philosophy, Toga in the form of 'Concentration of the Mind', and other aspects of religion were current long before the advent of the Bhāgavata religion. Even if we economise time considerably, we have to admit that a period of at least ten to twelve hundred years must have elapsed between the date of the Ṛg-Veda and the advent of the Bhāgavata religion, in order to give sufficient time for these various aspects of religion to have come into existence and fully developed themselves; and if it is believed that the Bhāgavata religion was promulgated by Śrī Kṛṣṇa in His own time, that is to say, about 1400 years before Christ, then a sufficient period of time is not allowed for the growth of these various aspects of religion according to the opinion of these scholars; because, these scholars place the Ṛg-Veda itself at 1500 to 2000 years before Christ; and on that computation, one has to say that the Bhāgavata religion came into existence about 100 years or at most 500 to 600 years after that date; and therefore, some Western scholars have even come forward to dissociate Śrī Kṛṣṇa from the Bhāgavata religion on this or on some other meaningless excuse, and to say that the Bhāgavata religion must have come into existence after the date of Buddha. But, the references to the Bhāgavata religion, which the Jain and Buddhistic treatises themselves contain, clearly show that that religion must have been in existence before the date of Buddha; and therefore, Dr. Bühler has said that instead of placing the date of the advent of the Bhāgavata religion after the date of Buddha, the date of the Ṛg-Veda itself must be pushed back, as has been stated by me in my book called Orion.[4] The dates fixed by Western scholars for our Vedic literature on some insufficiently sound grounds, are wrong; and the date of the starting-point of the Vedic era cannot be taken at less than 4500 years before Christ, as has been proved in my book Orion on the strength of the phrases in the Vedas, which show the then existing Udagayana (i.e., period during which the Sun seems to travel towards the North ~Translator.); and this conclusion has now been accepted by many Western scholars. When in this way, the date of the Ṛg-Veda has been taken back, a sufficient period of time can be allowed for the growth of all the various aspects of the Vedic religion, and there is no more any necessity for pushing forward the date of the rise of the Bhāgavata religion. As the Brāhmaṇa treatises written after the Ṛg-Veda contain the astronomical calculation of the year starting with the Sun in the Kṛttikā constellation, their date has to be fixed at about 2500 years before Christ, as has been shown by the late Shankara Balkrishna Dikshit in his History of the Indian Astronomical Science (bhāratīya-jyotiḥ-śāstra) written in the Marathi language. But, I do not see this method of fixing the dates of ancient books by considering how the Udagayana was then started being applied to the Upaniṣads.

Some scholars have come to the conclusion that none of the Upaniṣads can be more than 400 to 500 years before Buddha, on the ground that the language and construction of devotional Upaniṣads like the Rāmatāpanī, or Yogic Upaniṣads like the Yogatattva, is not archaic. But, if one considers the matter according to the abovementioned method of calculation of time, it will be seen that such a conclusion is wrong. It is true that the dates of all the Upaniṣads cannot be fixed according to the astronomical method of calculation; yet, this method is very useful for fixing the date of the principal Upaniṣads. Prof. Max Müller[5] has said that, from the linguistic point of view, the Maitryupaniṣad is more ancient than Pāṇinī, because, we find in this Upaniṣad, many compounds of words, used in a chanda, which had gone out of vogue at the date of Panini, but which are to be found in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā. But the Maitrāyaṇyupaniṣad is not the very first nor a very ancient Upaniṣad. Not only has harmony been established between Knowledge of the Brahman and Sāṃkhya philosophy in the Maitrāyaṇyupaniṣad, but in many places, phrases or even stanzas from the Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Taittirīya, Katha, and Īśāvāsya are seen being taken as authorities. The actual names of these Upaniṣads are not mentioned in the Maitryupaniṣad; but as, in quoting these phrases, words implying quotation such as 'evam hyāha' or 'uktaṃ ca' (i.e., 'so it is said') are placed before the quotations, there is no doubt that these quotations are taken from some other book, and are not written by the writer of the Maitryupaniṣad; and one can easily determine which Upaniṣad has been quoted from, by a reference to these other Upaniṣads. Now, where the description of the Brahman in the shape of 'kāla' (Time) or 'saṃvatsara' (Year) is made in the Maitryupaniṣad (Maitryupaniṣat (or Maitrāṇyupaniṣad) 6.14), it is stated that: "the Dakṣiṇāyana (i.e., when the Sun seems to travel towards the South—Translator.) lasts from the day when the Sun enters to Maghā constellation until it reaches the centre-point of the Śraviṣṭhā, that is, the Dhaniṣṭhā constellation (cf. "maghādyaṃ śraviṣṭhārdham"); and that the Uttarāyaṇa (or Udagayana, during which the Sun seems to travel towards the North—Translator.) used to be from the beginning of the Sārpa, that is, the Āśleṣā constellation, in an inverse order upto the centre-point of the Dhaniṣṭhā constellation, that is, counting backwards as Āśleṣā, Puṣya, etc.". It is quite clear that these expressions, which show the method of calculation of the Udagayana must have been used with reference to the period of the Udagayana which was then in vogue; and in this way, the date of that Upaniṣad can easily be mathematically calculated. But no one seems to have considered the matter from this point of view. This state of the Udagayana, referred to in the Maitryupaniṣad, is earlier than the state of the Udagayana referred to in the Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa; because, it is clearly stated in the VedāṅgaJyotiṣa that the commencement of the Udagayana is from the beginning of the Dhaniṣṭhā constellation, whereas in the Maitryupaniṣad, the commencement is from the middle of the Dhaniṣṭhā. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the term 'ardhaṃ' in the phrase 'śraviṣṭhārdham' is to be interpreted as meaning 'exactly half or 'somewhere between Dhaniṣṭhā and Śatatārakā'. Whatever may be the case, there is no doubt about the fact that the state of the Udagayana mentioned in the Maitryupaniṣad is earlier in point of time than that mentioned in the Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa. Therefore, it must be said that the Udagayana at the date of the Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa was about half a constellation behind the Udagayana at the date of the Maitryupaniṣad. It is proved by astronomical calculations that the state of the Udagayana mentioned in the Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa existed about 1200 to 1400 years before Christ;[6] and in as much as the Udagayana takes about 480 years to recede by half a constellation, it follows by mathematical calculation that the Maitryupaniṣad must have been written somewhere between 1880 to 1680 years before Christ. At any rate, there is no doubt that this Upaniṣad was previous in point of time than the Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa. It need not, therefore, be said that the Chāndogya and other Upaniṣads, from which quotations have been taken into the Maitryupaniṣad, are still earlier in point of time. The date of the Ṛg-Veda being in this way fixed at 4500 years before Christ, that of the Brahmanas, dealing with sacrificial ritual, being fixed at about 2500 years before Christ, and that of the Chāndogya and other Upaniṣads dealing with Spiritual Knowledge being fixed at about 1600 years before Christ, the reason for which Western scholars bring forward the date of the Bhāgavata religion ceases to exist, and there is no more any difficulty in the way of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the Bhāgavata religion being tied together by the cord of synchrony, like a cow and a calf; and then, this date also becomes consistent with the state of things mentioned in Buddhistic treatises, or established by other historical evidence. The Vedic age comes to an end, and the Sūtras and the Smṛtis begin, at about this time.

The above-mentioned calculation of time proves beyond doubt that the Bhāgavata religion came into existence about 1400 years before Christ, that is to say, about 700 to 800 years before Buddha. This age is very ancient; yet, the Path of Action mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa-treatises is still more ancient, and, as has been stated above, the Spiritual Knowledge contained in the (Upaniṣads and in Sāṃkhya philosophy was fully in vogue long before the promulgation of the Bhāgavata religion. It is in my opinion, entirely wrong to imagine that a clever Jñānin like Śrī Kṛṣṇa would have promulgated His religion at such a. time without reference to this Spiritual Knowledge or these aspects of Religion; and that, even if He had done so, it would have become acceptable to the Rājarṣis and Brahmarṣis of those days or found circulation among the people. As the Jews to whom Christ first preached His religion, were not acquainted with religious philosophy at the time. He had no need to harmonise His own religion with any religious philosophy. It was enough for Him to show that His Philosophy of Devotion was only a continuation of the Ritualistic religion described in the Old Testament of the Bible; and that was all He attempted to do. But, when one compares this history of the Christian religion with the Bhāgavata religion from the historical point of view, one must not forget that the people to whom the Bhāgavata religion was preached were, at the time at which it was preached, fully conversant, not only with the Path of Action, but also with the Vedantic Knowledge of the Brahman and the Kapila Sāṃkhya philosophy, and that they had by that time also learnt to harmonise those three religion. It would have been most unreasonable to ask such people to put on the shelf their Ritualistic religion, or the Spiritual Knowledge derived from the Upaniṣads, or Sāṃkhya philosophy, and to accept the Bhāgavata religion merely by faith. Unless the Bhāgavata religion satisfactorily answered such questions as, 'what is the result of the sacrificial ritual described in the Vedic treatises and in vogue at the time'?, 'whether the Spiritual Knowledge mentioned in the Upaniṣads or in Sāṃkhya philosophy is futile?'. or, 'whether the Philosophy of Devotion can be harmonised with Yoga in the shape of Concentration of the Mind?', which questions would naturally arise, it would have been impossible for that religion to gain any ground at all. It, therefore, follows logically that, it was necessary to discuss all these matters, to start with, in dealing with the Bhāgavata religion; and the same conclusion is emphasised, if one considers the Nārāyaṇīyopākhyāna included in the Mahābhārata.

In this Ākhyāna, the Spiritual Knowledge of the Upaniṣads and the Sāṃkhya theory of the Perishable and the Imperishable have both been harmonised with the Bhāgavata religion; and it is clearly stated that:

"It is called the 'Pañcarātra' religion because the four Vedas and Sāṃkhya and Yoga are all included in it" (Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 339.107);

And that,

"all these (philosophies) including the Vedas and the Āraṇyakas (naturally also, including the Upaniṣads) are all parts of each other" (Śān. 348.82).

Although this explanation of the meaning of the word 'Pañcarātra' may not be grammatically correct, yet, it clearly shows that the Bhāgavata religion had, already to start with, harmonised all kinds of philosophies. Still, harmonising the Philosophy of Devotion with other aspects of religion is also not any important part of the Bhāgavata religion. It is not that the religious principle of Devotion was- first enunciated in the Bhāgavata religion. Worship of Rudra or of Viṣṇu in some form or other had been started before the advent of the Bhāgavata religion; and it becomes clear from the phrases quoted above from the Maitryupaniṣad (Maitryupaniṣat (or Maitrāṇyupaniṣad) 7.7), that the idea that any object of worship whatsoever is a symbol, or some kind of form of the Brahman, had also previously come into existence. It is true that the Bhāgavata religion has taken Vasudeva as an object of worship instead of Rudra etc.; but at the same time, it is admitted both in the Gītā and also in the Nārāyaṇīyopākhyāna, that whatever may be the object of worship, the worship reaches one and the same Bhagavanta, and that Rudra and Bhagavāna are not two. (Bhagavadgītā 9.23; Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 341. 20–26). Therefore, one cannot consider the worship of Vasudeva as the principal aspect of the Bhāgavata religion. The Sātvata community by which the Bhāgavata religion was observed, produced Sātyaki and other warriors, as also devotees of the Blessed Lord like Bhīṣma and Arjuna, and also Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who engaged and caused others to be engaged in numerous activities, involving personal prowess. Therefore, the most important teaching of the original Bhāgavata religion was, that the illustration of these persons should be copied by other devotees of the Blessed Lord, who should perform worldly activities like warfare, etc., which were then in vogue, according to the arrangement of the four castes. It is not that those times did not produce persons with a renounced frame of mind, who had adopted the principle of Devotion as a result of intense renunciation, and given up worldly life; but that was not the principal element of the Bhāgavata religion of the Sātvatas or of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The sum and substance of the advice of Śrī Kṛṣṇa is, that after the Devotee of the Blessed Lord has acquired the. Knowledge of the Parameśvara, by means of Devotion, he must, like the Parameśvara, exert himself for the maintenance, and upkeep of the world. Already at the time of the Upaniṣads, Janaka and others had laid it down that even, those people, who had Realised the Brahman, might with- out any difficulty take part in Desireless Action. But in those days, the Philosophy of Devotion had not entered their doctrine; and whether or not to perform worldly Action after the Acquisition of Knowledge was in those days, considered a matter of personal volition only (Vedānta-Sūtras 3.4.15). The Bhāgavata religion went beyond this and laid down that Desireless Energism (naiṣkarmya) was better than Total Renunciation; and it brought about a proper fusion of Energism, not only with Spiritual Knowledge, but also with Devotion. This is the most important achievement of the Bhāgavata religion in the history of the Vedic religion, and is something which is different from what was done by the Smārta religion. The original promulgators of this religion, namely the Nara and Nārāyaṇa Ṛṣis, also engaged in Desireless Energism in this, way; and- it is stated in one place in the Mahābhārata that everyone must do what was done by them (Śriman Mahābhārata Udyo. 48.21, 22); and in the Nārāyaṇīyākhyāna, the characteristic feature of this religion is clearly defined as "pravṛtti lakṣaṇaś caiva dharmo nārāyaṇātmakaḥ" (Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 347. 81), i.e., "the Narayana or Bhāgavata religion is Energistic or Activistic". This principle of Desireless Action of the Nārāyaṇīya or the Bhāgavata religion is known as 'naiṣkarmya';. and this was the most important aspect of the original Bhāgavata religion. But later on in course of time, this principle lost importance, and Devotion to Vāsudeva combined with apathy logically that, it was necessary to- discuss all these matters, to- start with, in dealing with the Bhāgavata religion; and the same conclusion is emphasised, if one considers the Nārāyaṇīyopākhyāna included in the Mahābhārata. In this Ākhyāna, the Spiritual Knowledge of the Upaniṣads and the Sāṃkhya theory of the Perishable and the Imperishable have both been harmonised with the Bhāgavata religion; and it is clearly stated that: "it is called the 'Pañcarātra' religion because the four Vedas and Sāṃkhya and Yoga are all included in it" (Ma, Bhā. Śān. 339. 107); and that "all these (philosophies) including the Vedas and the Āraṇyakas (naturally also, including the Upaniṣads) are all parts of each other" (Śān. 348.82). Although this explanation of the meaning of the word 'Pañcarātra' may not be grammatically correct, yet, it clearly shows that the Bhāgavata religion had, already to start with, harmonised all kinds of philosophies. Still, harmonising the Philosophy of Devotion with other aspects of religion is also not any important part of the Bhāgavata religion. It is not that the religious principle of Devotion was first enunciated in the Bhāgavata religion. Worship of Rudra or of Viṣṇu in some form or other had been started before the advent of the Bhāgavata religion; and it becomes clear from the phrases quoted above from the Maitryupaniṣad (Maitryupaniṣat (or Maitrāṇyupaniṣad) 7.7), that the idea that any object of worship whatsoever is a symbol, or some kind of f oral of the Brahman, had also previously come into existence. It is true that the Bhāgavata religion has taken Vasudeva as an object of worship instead of Rudra etc.; but at the same time, it is admitted both in the Gītā and also in the Nārāyaṇīyopākhyāna, that whatever may be the object of worship, the worship reaches one and the same Bhagavanta, and that Rudra and Bhagavāna are not two. (Bhagavadgītā 9.23; Śriman Mahābhārata San, 341.20–26). Therefore, one cannot consider the worship of Vasudeva as the principal aspect of the Bhāgavata religion. The Sātvata community by which the Bhāgavata religion was observed, produced Sātyaki and other warriors, as also devotees of the Blessed Lord like Bhīṣma and Arjuna, and also Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who engaged and caused others to be engaged in numerous activities, involving personal prowess. Therefore, the most important teaching of the original Bhāgavata religion was, that the illustration of these persons should be copied by other devotees of the Blessed Lord, who should perform worldly activities like warfare, etc., which were then in vogue, according to the arrangement of the four castes. It is not that those times did not produce persons with a renounced frame of mind, who had adopted the principle of Devotion as a result of intense renunciation, and given up worldly life; but that was not the principal element of the Bhāgavata religion of the Sātvatas or of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The sum and substance of the advice of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. is, that after the Devotee of the Blessed Lord has acquired the. Knowledge of the Parameśvara, by means of Devotion, he must, like the Parameśvara, exert himself for the maintenance, and upkeep of the world. Already at the time of the Upaniṣads, Janaka and others had laid it down that even those people, who had Realised the Brahman, might without any difficulty take part in Desireless Action. But in those days, the Philosophy of Devotion had not entered their doctrine; and whether or not to perform worldly Action after the Acquisition of Knowledge was in those days, considered a matter of personal volition only (Vedānta-Sūtras 3.4.15). The Bhāgavata religion went beyond this and laid down' that Desireless Energism (naiṣkarmya) was better than Total Renunciation; and it brought about a proper fusion of Energism, not- only with Spiritual Knowledge, but also with Devotion. This, is the most important achievement of the Bhāgavata religion in the history of the Vedic religion, and is something which is. different from what was done by the Smārta religion. The original promulgators of this religion, namely the Nara and Nārāyaṇa Ṛṣis, also engaged in Desireless Energism in this way; and it is stated in one place in the Mahābhārata that everyone must do what was done by them (Śriman Mahābhārata Udyo. 48.21, 22); and in the Nārāyaṇīyākhyāna, the characteristic feature of this religion is clearly defined as "pravṛtti lakṣaṇaś caiva dharmo nārāyaṇātmakaḥ" (Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 347.81), i.e., "the Nārāyaṇa or Bhāgavata religion is Energistic or Activistic". This principle of Desireless Action of tha Nārāyaṇīya or the Bhāgavata religion is known as 'naiṣkarmya'; and this was the most important aspect of the original Bhāgavata religion. But later on in course of time, this principle lost importance, and Devotion to Vāsudeva combined with apathy towards the world came to be looked upon as the important part of this religion, as is apparent from the Bhāgavata; and in the Nārada-Pañcarātra, mantras and tantras are included in the Bhāgavata religion along with the Philosophy of Devotion. Yet, it is patent from the Bhāgavata itself, that these are not the fundamental aspects of this religion; because, wherever there has been occasion in the Bhāgavata to refer to the Sātvata or the Nārāyaṇīya religion, it is stated that the religion of the Sātvatas or of Nārāyaṇa Ṛṣi (that is, the Bhāgavata religion) is 'of the nature of naiṣkarmya' (Śrīmad Bhāgavatpurāṇa 1.3.8 and 11.4.6); arid it is stated that it had become necessary to preach the Devotional Bhāgavata-Purāṇa (Śrīmad Bhāgavatpurāṇa 1.5.12), because due importance had not been given to Devotion in the 'naiṣkarmya' religion. This proves beyond any doubt that the original Bhāgavata religion was based on naiṣkarmya or Desireless Action, and that later on its form was changed in the course of time, and Devotion became the principal factor in it. I have already dealt above in the Gītā-Rahasya with the other various historical questions, namely, (i) what was the difference between the original Bhāgavata religion, which maintained a permanent fusion between Spiritual Knowledge, Devotion, and Prowess, and the path prescribed by the Smṛtis in the shape of the arrangement of the various stages of life; (ii) how, as a result of the growth of the purely ascetic Jain and Buddhist religions, the Karma-Yoga in the Energistic Bhāgavata religion lost ground, and it (the Bhāgavata religion) acquired its new form of Renunciation with Devotion; and (iii) how the Vedic sects which came into existence after the fall of Buddhism gave to the Bhagavadgītā itself either a renunciatory, or a purely Devotional, or a Qualified-Monistic (viśiṣṭādvaita) form. I shall, therefore, not repeat the same subject-matter here.

From the short dissertation made above, my readers will have seen

(i) when, the Bhāgavata religion first came into prominence in the ancient course of the "Vedic religion,

(ii) how, although it was Energistic in the beginning, it later on became devotional; and

(iii) how, still later on, in the time of Rāmānujācārya, it acquired the form of Qualified-Monism.

The most ancient of these various forms of the Bhāgavata religion, that is to say, the Desireless Activistic form, is the form of the Gītā-religion. I shall now briefly explain what inferences can be drawn about the date of this original Gītā. Although the time of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and of the Bhāratī war may be the same, that is to say, about 1400 years before the Christian era, yet, it cannot be said that the original Gītā and the original Bhārata, which are the two principal treatises dealing with the Bhāgavata religion, were also written at the same time. Whatever religious sect may come into existence, literature on it does not come into existence immediately; and the same argument applies to the Bhārata and to the Gītā. There is a story recited at the commencement of the present Mahābhārata, that after the Bhāratī war was over, Janamejaya, the great- grandson of the Pāṇḍavas made a sacrifice of serpents; that, Vaiśaṃpāyana recited to him for the first time the whole of the Bhārata including the Gītā; and that, when it had been recited by Sauti to Śaunaka, the Bhārata was thereafter promulgated. It is quite clear that some period of time must have elapsed between the date when the Bhārata came to be preached by Sauti and other preachers, and the date when it acquired its present tangible literary form; but there is now no means by which to definitely decide what that period of time was. Still, if one draws the conclusion that the archaic original epic-formed Bhārata came to be written within 500 years after the Bhāratī war, that will not be too daring a surmise; because, Buddhistic treatises were written in even a shorter period of time.after the death of Buddha. In writing an archaic epic, it is not enough to merely describe in it the feats of the principal hero; but it is necessary to say whether or not what was done by the hero was right. Nay, that this is possibly one of the most important parts of an archaic epic, appears from other such epics, in literatures other than the Sanskrit literature from the modern point of view, this justification of the deeds of the heroes must be made on the pure basis of Ethics. But, in ancient times, there was no difference between Religion and Ethics; and, therefore, there was no way in which to make this justification other than from the point of view of Religion; and then, as need not be said, it was necessary to justify their deeds on the basis of that very Bhāgavata religion, which had been promulgated '.by the heroes in the Bhārata, or which was acceptable to them.

But another reason for doing so was that, it was not possible to- fully justify the deeds or prowess of the heroes of the Mahābhārata on the basis of the religious principles of other religious paths, as all the other Vedic religious paths, besides the Bhāgavata religion, which were then in vogue, were more or less renunciatory. Therefore, it became necessary to expound the Energistic Bhāgavata religion in the original epic Bhārata. This was done in the original Gītā; and although it might not have been the first- treatise to categorically expound the original form of the Bhāgavata religion, yet, it is one of the principal books on that religion; and there seems to be no reason why its date should not be roughly fixed at about 900 years before Christ. Since the Gītā is, at any rate, the most important, if not the first treatise on the Bhāgavata religion, it was necessary to show that the Desireless Karma-Yoga promulgated by it was not inconsistent with the other religious paths then in vogue, namely, the Karma-kāṇḍa, the Spiritual Knowledge in the Upaniṣads, the Sāṃkhya philosophy, the Yoga philosophy dealing with 'Concentration of the Mind', and the Philosophy of Devotion; and I may even say that that was the principal object of this book. Some persons raise the doubt that, the systematic sciences of Vedānta and Mīmāṃsā could not have been dealt with in the original Gītā. as they came into existence only at a later date; and that, therefore, Vedānta must have been subsequently interpolated, into the Gītā. But, although the systematic sciences of Vedānta and Mīmāṃsā may have come into existence later on,, yet, as has been stated above, the subject-matter dealt with by them was very ancient. Therefore, there is no difficulty, from the point of view of time, in the way of these subjects having appeared in the original Gītā, Nevertheless, I do not say that no change was made in the original Gītā, when the original Bhārata became the Mahābhārata. History shows us that whatever religion is taken, sub-sects come into existence in it in course of time, as a result of differences of opinion; and the same. law applies to the Bhāgavata religion. It is clearly stated in- 'the Nārāyaṇīyopākhyāna itself, that the Bhāgavata religion was considered by some as four-folded (catur-vyūha), that is,, made up of the four aspects of Vasudeva, Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha; and that it was considered by others as three-folded, and by others as two-folded, and by others again as single-folded (Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 348.57); and some such other differences may also have arisen later on. At the same time, the Spiritual Knowledge contained in the Upaniṣads and the Sāṃkhya philosophy were being further developed. Therefore, if there was any dis-arrangement in the original Gītā, it would not have been unnatural, or inconsistent with the purpose of the original Gītā, for the writer of the new Bhārata to see that defect was removed, and that the Bhāgavata religion was made consistent with the growing knowledge of the Piṇḍa and the Brahmāṇḍa; and I have, therefore, shown in the Part of this Appendix headed 'the Gītā and the Brahma-Sūtras' above, that the present Gītā contains, on that account, a reference to the Brahma-Sūtras. There might also have been other similar differences in the original Gītā. Still, it was not possible that.many such changes should be made in the original Gītā. It does not appear that the authority of the Gītā was acquired -by it after the date of the Mahābhārata. I have stated above.that the Brahma-Sūtras themselves have taken the Gītā as authoritative by using the word 'Smṛti'. If a material change had been made in the original Gītā, when the original Bhārata was changed into the Mahābhārata, this authoritativeness of the Gītā would certainly have suffered. But instead of that, its authority has, on the other hand, increased. We have, therefore, to draw the inference that whatever changes were made in the original Gītā, they were not material, and that the changes which were made, were made in such a way as to promote and carry out its original import. It is clear from the various Gītās which have been mentioned in the different Purāṇas on the basis of the present Bhagavadgītā, that the form which it then acquired was a permanent form, and that there were no further changes in it. Because, if the Gītā had not become fully authoritative, that is to say, invariable, at least some centuries before the date of the most ancient of these Purāṇas, it would not have been possible to conceive the idea of including other Gītās on the basis of this Gītā in those Purāṇas. And the attempts made by various doctrine-supporting commentators to stretch the meanings of the words in one and the same Gītā in order to show that the purport of the Gītā was consistent with their own doctrines, would also in that case not have become necessary. A doubt is raised by some scholars that many changes must have been made from time to time in the Gītā in the present Mahābhārata, on the ground that the present Gītā contains many mutually contradictory doctrines. But, I have shown above that these inconsistencies are not substantial, and that this mental confusion is due to people not having properly understood the previous and subsequent Vedic methods of expounding religion. In short, it will be seen from the above exposition that (i) the original Bhārata and the original Gītā, which propounded the original Bhāgavata religion, were written about 500 years after the rise of the Bhāgavata religion, which harmonised the various ancient Vedic aspects of religion, and specially supported the Path of Energism, that is to say, about 900 years before Christ; that (ii) though, when the Bhārata was changed into the Mahābhārata, there might have been some minor improvements in the original Gītā, which would be promotive of its purport, yet, the form of the original Gītā was not then substantially changed; and that (iii) after the present Gītā had been included in the present Mahābhārata, there was no subsequent change in it, nor was it possible that any such change should take place. The fixing of the form and the date of the original Gītā and the original Bhārata have been made by me approximately and in a liberal way, because that amount of information which would be necessary for fixing those matters definitely is not now available. But, the same is not the case with the present Mahābhārata and the present Gītā; and there are ways available for fixing their respective dates. I have, therefore, discussed that matter separately in the next part of this Appendix. My readers must, however, bear it in mind that the present Gītā and the present Mahābhārata, that is to say, the forms in which the Gītā and the Mahābhārata are now found by us, after changes have taken place in their respective forms in course of time, are not the original forms of those respective books.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The word 'bhaktimān' (in Pali, 'bhattimā') appears in the Thera Gāthā (stanza 370); and one Jātaka even contains a reference to Devotion. Besides this, the well-known French Pali scholar Senart, delivered a lecture on the subject of 'The Origin of the Buddhistic religion' in 1909, in which he has clearly said that the Bhāgavata religion existed before the Buddhistic religion, cf:

"No one will claim to derive from Buddhism, Vishnuism or the Yoga. Assuredly Buddhism is the borrower" …

… "To sum up, if there had not previously existed a religion made up of the doctrines of Yoga, or Vishnuite legends, of devotion to Vishnu-Krishna, worshipped under the title of Bhāgavata, Buddhism would not have come to birth at all".

This essay of Senart has been published in the form of a translation in the issues of the Indian Interpreter, a Missionary quarterly published at Poona, for the months of October 1909 and Jan. 1910; the passages quoted above will be found at pages 177 & 178 of the January issue. Dr. Buhler also has said that "the ancient Bhāgavata, Sātvata or Pañcarātra sect, devoted to the worship of Narayana and his deified teacher Krishna-Devaki-putra, dated from a period long anterior to the rise of the Jainas in the 8th Century"–Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXXII (1894), p. 248. A further detailed exposition of this matter has been made in the. sixth part of this Appendix below, to which the reader is referred.

[2]:

The life of Śrī Kṛṣṇa includes amorous passages with Gopis (cowherdesses) side by side with prowess, devotion and philosophy and these things are mutually inconsistent. On this ground, many learned people maintain now-a-days that the Śrī Kṛṣṇa of the Mahābhārata was a different person from the Śrī Kṛṣṇa of the Gītā or of Gokul; and this opinion has been accepted by Dr. Bhandarkar in his book 'Vaiṣṇavism, Saivism, and other sects". But, according to me, such an opinion is incorrect. It may be that the amorous descriptions which we read in the stories about Gopis may have been added afterwards; and it is not necessary on that account to believe that there were various persons bearing the name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa; and there is no authority except imagination for doing so. Besides, it is not that stories about Gopis came into vogue for the first time in the days of the Bhāgavata; for, Gopis are referred to in the Buddha-carita (4.14) written by Aśvaghoṣa in the beginning of the Śaka era, as also in the Bālacarita (3.2) written by Bhāsa. I, therefore, consider the opinion of Chintamanrao Vaidya more to the point than that of Dr. Bhandarkar.

[3]:

This opinion of Bao Bahadur Chintamanrao Vaidya has been expressed in his English criticism on the Mahābhārata; and he also made the same statement in the lecture delivered by him on the same subject in Poona in 1914 on the occasion of the anniversary of the Deccan College.

[4]:

See the Review made by Dr. Bühler of my book Orion in the issue of the Indian Antiquary for September 1894 (Vol. XXIII, pp. 238–249).

[5]:

See Sacred Books of the East Series Vol. XV Intro pp. xlviii-lii.

[6]:

I have discussed the date of the Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa in my work Orion in English; the late Shankara Balkrishna Diksit has also done so in his book called 'Historical Survey of the Bhāratīya-Jyotiḥ Śāstra' (pp. 87 to 94 and 127 to 139). The date of Vedic treatises according to the Udagayana, has been considered in the same place.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: