Appendix 5: The Date Of The Present Gītā

I have proved above in a general way that the Bhagavadgītā. is the most important work dealing with the Bhāgavata religion; that this Bhāgavata religion came into existence about 1400 years before Christ; and that the original Gītā must have come into existence some centuries after that; and I have also said that though the original Bhāgavata religion favoured Desireless Action, it gradually assumed a Devotional form, and ultimately came to include the principles of Qualified-Monism (viśiṣṭādvaita). More information about the original Gītā or the original Bhāgavata religion is not available, at least at the present day; and the same was the case with the present Mahābhārata and the present Gītā about 50 years ago. But, as a result of the efforts of Dr. Bhandarkar, the late Mr. Kashinathpant Telang, the late Mr. Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit, and Rao Bahadur Chintamanrao Vaidya, many proofs have now. become available for fixing the data of the present Bhārata and the present Gītā; and very recently, the late Mr. Tryambak Gurunath Kale has also adduced some more proofs.

This part of the Appendix has been briefly made up by me by putting together all these matters and adding to them whatever addition was necessary in my opinion. In the beginning of this Appendix I have shown with proofs that the present Mahābhārata and the present Gītā must have been written by one and the same hand. When these two treatises are accepted as being written by the same hand, and therefore necessarily contemporaneous, one can easily fix the date of the Gītā by fixing the date of the Mahābhārata. I have, therefore, in this- part of the Appendix mentioned first the various important proofs which are now available for fixing the date of the present. Mahābhārata, and then shown independently those proofs, which are useful for fixing the date of the present Gītā. I have followed this course in order that the fixing of the date of the Gītā should not suffer, if someone finds the proofs adduced by me for fixing the date of the Mahābhārata not sufficiently definite.

The fixing of the date of the Mahābhārata

The Mahābhārata is an extremely extensive work; and it is stated in that book itself, that it consists of one hundred thousand stanzas. But Rao Bahadur Vaidya has shown in the first Appendix to his criticism in English on the Mahābhārata, that the present edition of the Mahābhārata consists of less than that number of stanzas, and that we do not arrive at that total, even by adding the Harivaṃśa to it.^[1] Nevertheless, there is no reason for not accepting the position that the larger book, which came into existence when the Bhārata became the Mahābhārata, must have been more or less the same as the present edition of the Mahābhārata. I have stated above that this Mahābhārata makes a mention of the Nirukta of Yāska and of Manu-Samhita, and that the Gītā even mentions the Brahma-Sūtras.

The other proofs which are available for fixing the date of the Mahābhārata are as follows:–

(1) This book of eighteen parvas and the Harivaṃśa, found their way into the Java and Bali Islands before Saka 400 to 500; and it has been translated into the ancient language of those places known as 'Kavi'; and the following eight parvas of that translation, namely, the Ādi, Virāṭa, Udyoga, Bhīṣma, Āśramavāsī, Musala, Prāṣṭhānika, and Svargārohaṇa parvas are now available; and some of them have been printed. But, although the translation has been made into the Kavi language, the original Sanskrit stanzas from the Mahābhārata have been retained in many places. I have considered some of the stanzas from the Udyogaparva. All these stanzas can be found here and there in the chapters of the Udyogaparva of the Calcutta edition of the present Mahābhārata. This proves that the Mahābhārata of a hundred thousand stanzas had become authoritative in India at least 200 years before Saka 400; because, it would otherwise not have been necessary at all to take it into the Java and Bali Islands. The Mahābhārata has also been translated into the Tibetan language, but, that is later in point of time than this,^[2]

(2) There is now available a stone inscription of the Gupta kings made in Cedi Saṃvat 197, that is to say, the 367th year of the Śaka era, which contains a clear reference that the Mahābhārata was a book of a hundred thousand verses; and this reference clearly proves that the Mahābhārata must have been in existence at least 100 to 200 years before Śaka 367.^[3]

(3) Many of the dramas of Bhāsa, which have now been published, have been written on the basis of certain chapters of the Mahābhārata. It, therefore, follows that the Mahābhārata was then available and was looked upon as authoritative. The drama, Bālacarita of Bhāsa contains a reference to the incidents of the youth of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and to Gopis. Therefore, we have to say that the Harivaṃśa must also then have been in existence. There is no doubt that Bhāsa lived before Kālidāsa. Tanjore Ganapati Shastri, who has edited the dramas of Bhāsa, has stated in his preface to the drama that Bhāsa lived even before Cāṇakya; because, a stanza found in the dramas of Bhāsa, is to be found in the Artha-Śāstra of Cāṇakya; and it is clearly stated in that place that that stanza is a quotation. Bat although this period of time is not definite, yet, Bhāsa can certainly not be placed in my opinion later than the second or third century A. D.

(4) It is established from Buddhistic treatises, that a Buddhist poet named Aśvaghoṣa lived at the beginning of the Śalivāhana era. This Aśvaghoṣa wrote two epics in Sanskrit on the Buddhistic religion, called Buddhacarita and Saundarānanda. In both these epics, stories from the Bhārata have been referred to. There is besides a book in the shape of a lecture on the Vajrasūcikopaniṣad which is attributed to Aśvaghoṣa; or it may even be said that this Vajrasūci Upaniṣad was written by him. Prof. Webber published this book in Germany in 1860, and it contains the stanzas "saptavyādkā daśārṇeṣu" etc. from the Śrāddha-Māhātmya, in the Harivaṃśa (Harivaṃśa 24.20 and 21); and some other stanzas from the Mahābhārata itself (such as, Ma. Bhā. Śān. 261.17). This clearly proves that the present Mahābhārata of a hundred thousand stanzas including the Harivaṃśa was in existence before the commencement of the Saka era.

(5) The Bhārata and the Mahābhārata have been independently referred to in the Āśvalāyana-Gṛhya-Sūtra (3. 4. 4), and a stanza from the Yayāti Upākhyāna of the Mahābhārata (Śriman Mahābhārata Ā. 78.10) appears in one place in the Baudhāyana-Dharma-Sūtra (2.2.26). Bühler says that this one stanza is not sufficient proof for saying that the Mahābhārata existed before Baudhāyana^[4]; but this objection is groundless, because the Gṛhyaśeṣa-Sūtra of Baudhāyana contains a reference to the Viṣṇu-Sahasranāma (Bau. Gṛ. Śe. 1 22.8); and further on, in the same Sūtra (2. 22. 9), the stanza "patraṃ puṣpaṃ phalaṃ toyaṃ" etc. from the Gītā (Bhagavadgītā 9.26) has been mentioned. These references in the BaudhāyanaSutra were first pointed out by the late Mr. Tryambak Gurunath Kale^[5]; and they prove that the objection raised by Prof. Bühler is groundless, and that both Āśvalāyana and Baudhāyana were conversant with the Mahābhārata. Bühler has established on other evidence that Baudhāyana must have lived about 400 years before Christ.

(6) Where the incarnations of Viṣṇu have been mentioned in the Mahābhārata itself, there is no reference to Buddha; and where the ten incarnations are mentioned in the Nārāyaṇīyopākhyāna (Śriman Mahābhārata Śān. 339. 100), the Haṃsa is taken as the first incarnation, and Kalki is placed immediately after Kṛṣṇa to make up the total of ten. Yet, where the future state of the Kali-Yuga is referred to in the Vanaparva, it is stated that:–"eḍūkacinhā pṛthivī na devagṛha-bhūṣitā", i.e., "on the earth,, there will be 'eḍūka' instead of temples of gods" (Ma. Bhā, Vana. 190. 68). An eḍūka is a pillar, tower, and other edifice, erected as a memorial over some buried hair, tooth etc. of Buddha; and it is now-a-days known as 'ḍāgobā'. 'Ḍāgobā' is a corruption from the Sanskrit word 'dhātu-garbha' (in Pali, ḍāgobā), and 'dhātu' means the 'memento which is buried'. In Ceylon and in Burma there is many a ḍāgobā, in numerous places. This shows that the Mahābhārata must have been written after the date of Buddha, but before he was looked upon as an incarnation. The words 'Buddha' and 'Prati-Buddha' occur in various places in the Mahābhārata (Śān. 194.58; 307.47; 343.52). But there the words only mean a Jñānin, a Knower, or a Sthitaprajña. That word does not seem to have been taken from the Buddhist religion; nay, there is good reason for believing that the Buddhists themselves have taken these words from the Vedic religion.

(7) In the Mahābhārata, the enumeration of constellations does not start with Asvini, but with Kṛttikā. (Śriman Mahābhārata Anu. 64 and 89); and the zodiacal signs Meṣa, Vṛṣabha, etc., are nowhere mentioned. This is a matter of very great importance from the point of view of the date of the Mahābhārata; because, one can easily draw the inference from this fact that the Mahābhārata must have been written before the zodiacal signs Meṣa, Vṛṣabha etc. were known in India as a result of contact with the Greeks, that is to say, before the date of Alexander. But a still more important fact is the enumeration of the constellations starting with Śravaṇa. It is stated in the Anugītā that Viśvāmitra started the enumeration of the constellations with Śravaṇa (Śriman Mahābhārata Aśva. 44.2, and Ādi 71.34). That has been interpreted by commentators as showing that the Uttarāyaṇa then started with the Śravaṇa constellation, and no other interpretation is proper. At the date of the Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa, the Uttarāyaṇa used to start with the Sun in the Dhaniṣṭhā. constellation. According to astronomical calculations, the date when the Uttarāyaṇa should start with the Sun in the Dhaniṣṭhā constellation comes to about 1500 years before the Saka era; and according to astronomical calculations, it takes about a thousand years for the Uttarāyaṇa to start one constellation earlier.. According to this calculation, the date when the Uttarāyaṇa ought to start with the Sun in the Śravaṇa constellation comes to about 500 years before the Saka era. Therefore, it can be proved mathematically that the present Mahābhārata must have been written about 500 years before the Saka era. The late Mr. Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit has drawn the same conclusion in his Bhāratīya Jyotiḥ-Śāstra. (Bhāratīya Jyotiḥ Śāstra pp. 87–90, 111 and 147). The important feature of this evidence is that the date of the present Mahābhārata cannot be taken to much more than 500 years before the Śaka era.

(8) Rao Bahadur Vaidya has in his criticism in English on (the Mahābhārata shown that the Greek ambassador named Megasthenes, at the Court of Chandragupta (320 B. C.), knew some of the stories in the Mahābhārata. The works of Megasthenes are not now available in their entirety. But extracts made from them by other persons have been collected together, and were first published in German; and they have been translated into English by M'Crindle. It is stated in this book, (pp. 200–205), that the Heracles mentioned by Megasthenes was none but Śrī Kṛṣṇa; and that at the date of Megasthenes, this Śrī Kṛṣṇa, used to be worshipped by the Śauraseni people, and that these Śauraseni people used to live in Muttra.^[6] It is also stated there that Heracles was the fifteenth in line of descent from Dionisus; and there is a statement even in the Mahābhārata (Śriman Mahābhārata Anu. 147.25–33) that Śrī Kṛṣṇa was fifteenth in line of descent from Dakṣa Prajapati. Also the descriptions given by Megasthenes (p. 94) of the karṇa-prāvaraṇa, ekapāda (one-footed ~Translator.), lalāṭākṣa (cyclops, with one eye only in the forehead~Translator.) and other strange people, and of ants (pipīlikā) who bring up gold are also to be found in the Mahābhārata (Ma, Bhā. Sabhā. 51 and 52). These and other- facts clearly prove that not only the Mahābhārata but also the history of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa were in Vogue already at the date of Megasthenes.

When it is remembered that all the proofs mentioned above are not mutually inter-dependent but are independent, it becomes clear beyond doubt that the present Mahābhārata was in vogue at least about 500 years before the Saka era. It is quite likely that some stanzas have been interpolated into or deleted from the Mahābhārata after that date. But we are now dealing with the question not of any particular stanzas but of the principal book itself; and it is quite clear that this book must have been written at least 500 years before the Saka era.

I have shown at the commencement of this Appendix that the Gītā is a part of the Mahābhārata, and has not been interpolated into it. subsequently; therefore, the Gītā must be considered to be of the same date. The original Gītā may have been earlier than this; because, as has been shown in the fourth part of this Appendix, the tradition of the original Gītā has to be- taken much further back. But, whatever may be said, it is absolutely clear that its date cannot be placed after the date of the Mahābhārata. This fact is established not merely by the evidence mentioned above; for, there is also independent evidence about it, which I shall now place before my readers.

The fixing of the date of the Gītā

The evidence mentioned above does not contain a clear reference by name to the Gītā. Its date has been fixed there by reference to the Mahābhārata. I shall now set out the evidence which contains a clear reference to the Gītā. But before I do so, it must be mentioned that the late Mr. Telang has fixed the date of the Gītā as being before Āpastamba, that is to say, at least 300 years before Christ; and Dr. Bhandarkar has in his book in English named Vaiṣṇavism, Activism, and other sects accepted the same opinion.^[7] Prof. Garbe is of the opinion that the date fixed by Mr. Telang is not correct, and that the original Gītā must have been written about 200 years before Christ, and that it was revised in the second century after Christ.

But it will be seen that the opinion of Dr. Garbe is incorrect for the following reasons:–

(1) The Śāṃkarabhāṣya is the most ancient among the criticisms and commentaries on the Gītā which are now avail- able. Śrī Śaṃkarācārya has also written a commentary on the Sanatsujātīya chapter of the Mahābhārata; and he has in many places in his works taken the statements from the Anugītā, the Manu-Bṛhaspati conversation, and the Śukānupraśna in the Mahābhārata as authoritative. It is, therefore, clear that in his times, the Mahābhārata and the Gītā, used to be looked upon as authoritative. The birth of Śrī Śaṃkarācārya is fixed at Saka 710 on the authority of a sectarian stanza,.as has been proved by Prof. Kashinath Bapu Phatak. But in my opinion this date must be taken back by another hundred years; because, it is stated in the book named Darśana-Prakāśa, which belongs to the Mahānubhāva sect, that Śrī Śaṃkarācārya entered the cave in the year "yugma payodhi rasanvita śāke", that is, in Śaka 643^[8]; and at that time, the Ācārya was only 32 years old. Therefore, the date of his birth is proved to be Śaka 610. In my opinion, this date is more correct than the date fixed by Prof. Phatak. But I cannot deal with that question in detail here. In the Śāṃkarabhāṣya on the Gītā, many previous commentators are referred to; and Śaṃkarācārya has in the very beginning of that commentary stated that he has refuted the opinions of all the previous commentators and written a new commentary on the Gītā. Therefore, whether one takes the date of the birth of the Ācārya as Śaka 610 or Śaka 710, the Gītā must undoubtedly have been in vogue at least 200 to 300 years before that time. Let us now see in what way and to what extent we can go further back than that date, for fixing the date of the Gītā.

(2) The late Mr. Telang Las shown that Kālidāsa and Bāṇabhatta both knew of the Gītā. The stanza "anavāptaṃ avāptavyaṃ na te kiṃcana vidyate" in the Viṣṇu-Stuti in the Raghuvaṃśa (10.31) of Kālidāsa, is similar to the stanza "nān avāptam avāptavyaṃ " etc., in the Gītā (Bhagavadgītā 3.22); and in the paranomastic (śleṣa-pradhāna) sentence "mahābhāratam ivānanta gītā karṇan ānanditataraṃ" in the Kādambarī of Bāṇabhatta, there is a clear reference to the Gītā. Kālidāsa and Bhāravi are clearly referred to in a stone inscription dated Śaka 556; and it is now definitely proved, as shown by the late Mr. Pandurang Govind Shastri Parakhi, in his essay in Marathi on Bāṇabhatta, that Bāṇabhatta was in the service of the king Śrī Harṣa, in about Śaka 528.

(3) In the Bhīṣma-parva of the Mahābhārata, which has found its way into Java, there is a chapter called the 'Gītā'; and in it, we find word for word 100 to 125 stanzas from various chapters in the Gītā. But there are no stanzas in it from the 12th, 15th, 16th, and 17th chapters. Yet, there is no objection, on that account, to saying that the Gītā was then as in its present form; because, the Gītā has been translated there into the Kavi language, and the Sanskrit stanzas found in it are taken by way of extracts or illustrations here and there. 'Therefore, it would not be proper to draw the conclusion that the Gītā then contained only as many stanzas as are found in this translation. Dr. Narhar Gopal Sardesai got this information in Java when he went there; and he has published it in the issue of the Modern Review for July 1914 as also in the Magazine called Chitramaya Jagat. It is clear from this, that the Bhīṣmaparva of the Mahābhārata contained the Gītā at least 200 years before Saka 400 to 500, and that the stanzas in it were in the same sequence as in the present Gītā.

(4) In the first chapter of this book, I have given some information about the references to the Gītā or the other Gītās written on the basis of the Bhagavadgītā, which are found in the Viṣṇu-Purāṇa, the Padma-Purana etc. In order that the Gītā should have been adopted in this way, it must have become authoritative and an object of respect even in those days. It is clear that nobody would otherwise think of imitating it. It is, therefore, also clear that the Gītā must be at least 100 to 200 years earlier in point of time than the earliest of these Purāṇas. One cannot take the commencement of the age of the Purāṇas at later than the second century A. D.; and therefore, the date of the Gītā is taken back at any rate to somewhere about the beginning of the Śaka era.

(5) It has been stated above that both Kālidāsa and Bāṇa. knewabout the Gītā.

The dramas of Bhāsa, who lived before Kālidāsa, have been recently published. In the drama called Karṇabhāra, out of these dramas, we find the following as the twelfth stanza:

hato 'pi labhate svargaṃ jitvā tu labhate yaśaḥ |
ubhe bahumate loke nāsti niṣphalatā rage ||

This stanza is exactly the same as the stanza: "hato va prāpsyasi svargaṃ" etc. (Bhagavadgītā 2.37); and, as it is proved from the other dramas of Bhāsa that he was fully acquainted with the Mahābhārata, one can safely draw the conclusion that in- writing the stanza mentioned above, he had in mind the stanza in the Gītā referred to above. It, therefore, follows that the Mahābhārata and the Gītā existed before the date of Bhāsa. Pandit Ganapati Shastri has proved that Bhāsa must have lived 200 to 300 years before the Śaka era. But, some are of the opinion that he lived 100 to 200 years after the Śaka era. Even if this latter opinion is correct, the Mahābhārata and the Gītā must have become commonly accepted books at least 100 to 200 years before the date of Bhāsa, that is to say, about the beginning of the Saka era.

(6) But, the late Mr. Tryambak Gurunath Kale has published in the English magazine issued by the Gurukul and called the Vedic Magazine, a forcible proof about old writers–having adopted stanzas from the Gītā ("Vol. 7, Nos. 6 and 7 pp. 528–532, Mārgaśīrṣa and Pauṣa Saṃvat 1970). Before this publication, Western Sanskritist were of opinion that the; Gītā was not found referred to in any books more ancient than the Sanskrit dramas or the Purāṇas, e. g., in the Sūtra treatises etc.; and that therefore, the Gītā must have been written shortly after the age of the Sūtras, that is to say, in about the second century of the Christian era. But the late Mr. Kale has shown that this surmise is wrong.

In the Baudhāyana- Gṛhyaśeṣa-Sūtra (2.22.9), the stanza, "patraṃ puṣpaṃ" etc. (Bhagavadgītā 9.26) has been taken 'verbatim with the opening remark "tadāha bhagavān" in the following words:–

deśābhāve dravyābhāve sādhārṇe kuryān manasā vārcayed iti |
tadāha bhagavān–
patraṃ puṣpaṃ phalaṃ toyaṃ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati tad ahaṃ bhakty upahṛtam aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ || iti;

And it is stated further on, that one should become meekminded by Devotion and then recite these incantations, of. "bhaktinamraḥ etān mantrān adhīyīta"; and it is stated at the end of the third praśna of this Gṛhyaśeṣa-Sūtra, that by reciting the twelve-lettered incantation "om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya", one acquired the same merit as that of performing an Aśvamedha-Yajña. From this it is clear that the Gītā, as also the worship of Vāsudeva, was fully in vogue before the date of Baudhāyana.

Besides this, there is the following sentence in the Pitṛmedha-Sūtra of Baudhāyana, in the beginning of the third praśna, namely,

jātasya vai manuṣyasya dhruvaṃ maraṇam iti vijānīyāt tasmāj jāte na prahṛṣyen mṛte ca na viṣīdet,

Which can clearly be seen to have been inspired by the following stanza in the Gītā:–

jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyuḥ dhruvaṃ janma mṛtasya ca |
tasmādaparihārye 'rthe na tvaṃ śocitum arhasi ||
  (Bhagavadgītā 2. 27);

And when, in addition to this, you take the stanza "patraṃ puṣpaṃ" etc., there remains no doubt whatsoever about the matter. It has been stated above that we find in the Baudhāyana-Sūtra, one stanza from the Mahābhārata itself.

The date of Baudhāyana is about 100 to 200 years before Āpastamba; and Prof. Bühler has come to the conclusion. that the date of Āpastamba cannot be more than 300 years before Christ.^[9] But, in my opinion, that date must be taken slightly forward; because, there is no mention in the Mahābhārata of the zodiacal signs Meṣa, Vṛṣabha etc.; and the sentence "mīnameṣayor meṣavṛṣabhayor va vasantaḥ" of Baudhāyana has been quoted in the Kāla-Mādhava, and has also been taken in the Bhāratīya-Jyotiḥ-Śāstra (p. 102) written by the late Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit. From this also, one can draw the definite inferences, that the Mahābhārata is earlier in point of time than Baudhāyana; that Baudhāyana lived at least 400 years before the Śaka era; and that the Mahābhārata and the Gītā were written at least 500 years before the Śaka era.

The late Mr. Kale has placed the date of Baudhāyana at 700 to 800 years before Christ, but that is not correct. He has evidently lost sight of the statement of Baudhāyana regarding the zodiacal signs.

(7) It will be clearly seen by anybody from the above evidence that the present Gītā was in existence at least 500 years before the Śaka era; that it was known both to Baudhāyana and Āśvalāyana; and that one can trace the gradual history of it uninterruptedly right down to the date of Śrī Śaṃkarācārya. But all this evidence is from Vedic religious treatises; the evidence which I am now going to mention is from literature other than Vedic literature, that is to say, from Buddhistic literature; and the above-mentioned ancientness of the Gītā is more forcibly and independently established, in an unambiguous way, by that evidence. I have stated above the opinions of Bühler and of the celebrated French scholar Senart that the Bhāgavata religion had come into existence before Buddhism; and I have dealt with the question of the growth of Buddhism and of its relation to the Hindu religion etc., independently, in the next part of this Appendix. I am giving here in short only such references as are necessary for fixing the date of the Gītā. From the sole fact that the Bhāgavata religion was previous to Buddhism, one cannot draw the definite conclusion that the Gītā was also prior in point of time to Buddha; because, there is no definite evidences for saying that the Bhāgavata religion came into existence simultaneously with the Gītā. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether or not Buddhist writers refer anywhere specifically to the Gītā. It is clearly stated even in the ancient Buddhistic treatises, that the four Vedas, the Vedāṅgas, the Vyākaraṇa, Astronomy, Itihāsa, Nighaṇṭu and other hooks relating to the Vedic religion existed at the time of Buddha. There is, therefore, no doubt that the Vedic religion had reached its perfection before the date of Buddha. Although the new religious sect which was formed after that date by Buddha, was, from the Metaphysical point of view, un-Ātmic (denying the existence of the Ātman—Translator.), yet, from the point of view of conduct in life, it followed the Path of Renunciation preached in the Upaniṣads, as will be shown in the next part. But at the date of Asoka, this state of Buddhism had changed and Buddhist mendicants had given Tip living in the woods, and are seen to have gone as far as China towards the East, and as far as Alexandria and Greece towards the West, for the propagation of religion, and on other philanthropic missions. Why Buddhist mendicants gave up living in the woods and started doing philanthropic works Is a question of immense importance in the history of Buddhism.

If one considers the ancient Buddhistic treatises, it is stated in the Khaggavisāṇa-Sutta in the Sutta-nipāta that the 'bhikṣu' (mendicant), who reached the state of an arhata (Perfect) should live in the woods like a rhinoceros, without doing anything; and it is stated in the Mahāvagga (5.1.27) in the story of Sonakolīvisa, the personal disciple of Buddha that:

"for the mendicant who has reached the state of nirvāṇa (Annihilation)–

katassa paṭicayo natthi karaṇīyaṃ na vijjati,

"nothing remains to be done, and nothing of what has been done remains to be suffered for".

This is Pure Renunciation, similar to the Path of Renunciation of our Upaniṣads. Not only is the sentence "karaṇīyaṃ na vijjati" similar in meaning to the words "tasya kāryaṃ na vidyate" in the Gītā, but it is word for word the same. But when this original renunciatory mode of life of Buddhist mendicants changed, and they began to perform philanthropic works, there arose a conflict between the old thought and the new thought, and those who belonged to the former began to call themselves 'theravāda' (older sect), and the new school of thought called their sect 'mahāyāna' (superior path) and began to refer to the older sect as 'hīnayāna' (inferior path). Aśvaghoṣa belonged to the Mahayana sect, and was of the opinion that, Buddhist yatins should take part in philanthropic works-. Therefore, in the advice which Buddha is shown to have given', to Nanda, at the end of the poem Saundarānanda, when Nanda had reached the state of an arhata, he first says:–

avāptakāryo 'si parāṃ gatiṃ gataḥ na te 'sti kiṃcit karaṇīyam aṇvapi |
  (Sau. 18.54)

That is, "your duty in life is over, you have acquired the highest state; now there does not remain for you even the least duty (of your own)".

And then, he goes on to say:–

vihāya tasmād iha kāryam ātmanaḥ kuru sthirātman parakāryam apy atho |
  (Sau. 18. 57)

That is, "therefore, give up Action for yourself, hut become perfectly equable in Reason, and perform Action for others";

There is a world of difference between the preaching of Buddha in the ancient books, which advocated Abandonment of Action, and the words put by Aśvaghoṣa into the mouth of Buddha in the Saundarānanda-kāvya; and it will be seen that this argument of Aśvaghoṣa, is similar not only in meaning but also literally and word for word to what is stated in the third chapter of the Gītā, namely,

tasya kāryam na vidyate,

I.e., "for him no duty (for his own benefit) has remained"–(Trans,)...

And,

tasmād asaktaḥ satataṃ kāryaṃ karma samācara,

I.e., "therefore, perform desirelessly that duty which has befallen you" (Bhagavadgītā 3.17, 19).

From this, one can draw the inference that this argument has been; borrowed by Aśvaghoṣa from the Gītā; because, as has been shown above, the Mahābhārata existed before Aśvaghoṣa. But this fact does not remain only in inference. It is stated in the book called, Tārānātha, which is a history of (Buddhism written in the Tibetan language, that the "Jñānin Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Gaṇeśa" were, responsible for Rāhulabhadra, the preceptor of Nagarjuna, who was the principal protagonist of the Mahayana sect, getting the idea of this Activistic improvement in the original renunciatory path of the Buddhists. This book (Tārānātha) was translated' into German from the Russian, but not into English I have taken an extract from it (Tārānātha) from the book written by Dr. Kern in 1896 on the Buddhist religion.^[10] Even Dr. Kern is of opinion that there is a reference to the Bhagavadgītā, by the word 'Śrī Kṛṣṇa'. There are some stanzas in the book named Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka out of the Buddhist religious treatises of the Mahāyāna sect, which are quite similar to the stanzas in the Bhagavadgītā. But, this and all other matters will be considered by me in the next part of this Appendix. All that I have to say at present is that Buddhist writers themselves admit that though the original Buddhistic religion advocated Asceticism, the Bhagavadgītā was responsible for the coming into existence of the Mahāyāna sect, which advocated Action and Devotion; and the similarity shown above between the writings of Aśvaghoṣa and the Gītā only strengthens this conclusion. Western scholars have come to the conclusion that Nāgārjuna, the first promulgator of the Mahāyāna sect, lived 100 to 150 years before the Śaka era; and it is quite clear that the Mahāyāna doctrine must have been initiated during the reign of the king Aśoka. Therefore, it is proved independently from Buddhistic books and from the histories of Buddhism written by Buddhist writers themselves, that the Bhagavadgītā was in existence before the rise of the Mahāyāna sect, and possibly even before the date of Aśoka–that is, at least 300 years before the Christian era.

When one considers all the proofs mentioned above, there does not remain the slightest doubt that the present Bhagavadgītā was in existence at least 500 years before the Saka era. The opinions of Dr. Bhandarkar, the late Mr. Telang, Rao Bahadur Chintamanrao Vaidya, and the late Mr. Dikshit were more or less the same, and they must be taken as correct on this point. The opinion of Prof. Garbe is different; and he has taken the words "yogo naṣṭaḥ"–i.e., " in whom Yoga has been destroyed", from the stanzas relating to the tradition of the Gītā doctrine in the fourth chapter of the Gītā, as an authority for his opinion; and he has interpreted the word 'yogo' there to mean 'Pātañjala-Yoga'. But I have shown above with authorities that the word 'yogo' in this place does not mean 'PātañjalaYoga" but means Karma-Yoga.

Therefore, the opinion of Prof. Garbe is wrong and unacceptable. It, therefore, follows beyond doubt that the date of the present Gītā must be taken as not later than 500 years before the Śaka era. I have shown in Part IV above that the original Gītā must have been some centuries older.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

"The Mahābhārata, a Criticism" p. 185. Wherever this criticism of Rao Bahadur Vaidya on the Mahābhārata has been referred to, this book is meant.

[2]:

See the reference to the Mahābhārata of the Java Island at pp. 32-38 of the issue of the Modern Review for July 1914. A reference to the Mahābhārata in the Tibetan language has been made in Rockhill's Life of the Buddha, p. 228, Note I.

[3]:

This stone inscription has been fully reproduced at page 134 of the third part of the book called Inscriptionum Indicarum, and it has been referred to by the late Mr. Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit in his Bhāratīya Jyotiḥ-Śāstra at page 108.

[4]:

Sacred Books of the East. Vol. XIV. Intro, p. xli

[5]:

The whole of the essay of the late Mr. Tryambak Gurunath Kale has been published in The Vedic Magazine and Gurukul Samachar Vol. VII Nos. 6,7, pp. 528-532. There the name of the writer is. wrongly mentioned as 'Prof. Kale'.

[6]:

See M'Crindle's Ancient India–Megasthenes and Arrian pp. 200- 205. This statement of Megasthenes has been fortified in a very curious way by a recent discovery. The Progress Report of the Archaeological Department of the Bombay Government for the year 1914 has been recently published. It reproduces the inscription on a garuḍadhvaja (eagle monolith) known as 'Khāmbabābā' at Besanagar near Bhilsā in the Gwalior State In that inscription, it is stated that a Greek or yavana named Heliodorus who had been converted to Hinduism, had constructed a temple to Vāsudeva in front of that monolith; and that this Heliodorus was the ambassador sent by the Greek king Antiocledes who ruled at Takṣaśilā, to the Court of the king Bhagabhadra ruling at Bhilsā. It has now been established from the coins of the king Antiocledes, that he was ruling in 140 B. C. This, therefore, clearly establishes not only that the worship of Vasudeva was already in vogue at this time, but also that yavanas had started building temples to Vasudeva. I have stated above that not only Megasthenes, but also Pāṇinī knew of the worship of Vāsudeva.

[7]:

See Telang's Bhagavadgītā, S. B. E. Vol. VIII Intro pp. 21 and 34; Dr. Bhandarkar's Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism, and other sects, p. 13;; Dr. Garbe's Die Bhagavadgītā p. 64.

[8]:

This is a peculiar Sanskrit way of describing dates; yugma means two; payodhi means 'ocean', of which there were believed to "be four; and rasa means 'taste', of which there are six kinds; and those digits are to be read from right to left; thus we get the Śaka year 642. ~Translator.

[9]:

See Sacred Books of the East Series, Vol. II. Intro, p. xliii; and also the same Series Vol. XIV. Intro, p, xliii.

[10]:

See Dr. Kern's Manual of Indian Buddhism, Grundriss III. 8, p.122. The principal book of the Mahayana sect called Amitāyu-Sutta was translated into Chinese about 148 A. D.