Appendix 7: The Gītā and the Christian Bible

When it has in this way been definitely established, as- mentioned above, that the devotional Bhāgavata religion came into existence in India about 1400 years before Christ, and that the Gītā written by Śrī Kṛṣṇa was, according to the opinion of Buddhist writers themselves, responsible for Activistic Devotional doctrines entering the original renunciatory Buddhistic religion promulgated before the date of Christ, the argument advanced in certain Christian Missionary treatises that, because many of the doctrines of the Gītā are to be found in the Christian Bible, that is, in the New Testament, these doctrines must have been taken into the Gītā from the Christian religion, and especially the statements made by Dr. Laurincer in his German translation of the Gītā, published in 1869, will necessarily be seen to be absolutely false.

Dr, Laurincer has shown at the end of his book (that is, of his German translation of the Gītā) more than a hundred cases of similarity of words between the Bhagavadgītā and the Bible, and principally the New Testament For instance, the sentence "At that day, ye shall know that I am in my father, and ye in me, and I in you" (John. 14.Z0), is not only similar in meaning but also almost word for word the same as the following sentences from the Gītā, namely,

yena bhūtāny aśeṣeṇa drakṣyasy ātmany atho mayi,

I.e., "by this Knowledge, you will realise that all beings are in you, and also in Me"—(Translator.), (Bhagavadgītā 4 35),

And,

yo mam paśyati sarvatra sarvaṃ ca mayi paśyati,

i.e., "he who sees that I, the Parameśvara Paramātman am everywhere, and sees all beings in Me "—(Translator.).

Similarly, the sentence "he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father and will love him" (John 14.21) is in every way similar to the sentence,

priyo hi jñānino 'tyartham ahaṃ sa ca mama priyaḥ,

I.e., "I am much beloved of the Jñānin, and I too love (much) the Jñānin"—(Translator.), (Bhagavadgītā 7.17).

From this and many other similar sentences, Dr. Laurincer has drawn the conclusion that the writer of the Gītā knew about the Bible; and he has said that the Gītā must have been written about 500 years after the Bible. An English translation of this portion of the work of Dr. Laurincer had been published in Vol. II. of the Indian Antiquary; and the late Mr. Telang has, in the introduction to his versified translation of the Bhagavadgītā, fully refuted that argument^[1]. Dr. Laurincer is not looked upon as a Western Sanskritist, and his knowledge and pride of the Christian religion was more than his knowledge of the Gītā. Therefore, his opinions have not been accepted not only by the late Mr. Telang, but also by important Western Sanskritists like Max Müller and others. That all the statements made by him, showing hundreds of similarities of ideas and words between the Gītā and the Bible, would turn round on him like ghosts, when once it was proved that the Gītā was earlier than Christ, had possibly never entered the head of poor Laurincer! But the saying that, things which one does not see even in one's dreams, sometimes actually happen, is true,; and, really speaking, it is not even necessary now to give any reply to the arguments of Dr. Laurincer. Yet, as these false opinions of Dr. Laurincer are seen being repeated in authoritative English works, it is necessary to mention here in short what has now been found, after modern researches in this matter. It must first be borne in mind that from the mere fact that there are similar doctrines in two different books, one cannot definitely determine which' book was written first and which afterwards. Because, there arise the two possibilities that (1) the ideas in the first book may have been taken from the second book, or (2) the ideas; in the second book may have been taken from the first book. Therefore, after one has first independently determined the dates of two books, one has to subsequently decide who has taken from whom. Besides, as it is not impossible that similar thoughts should strike two writers in two different countries independently of each other, whether at the same time or at different times, one has, in considering the similarity between the two books also to consider whether or not that similarity could have arisen in an independent way; and whether or not there was any mutual intercourse between the two countries in which these two books were written, and, on that account, a chance of these ideas having gone from one country to the other. When once the matter has been considered from all points of view, it is not only impossible that anything should have been taken into the Gītā from the Bible, but on the other hand, it will be seen to be perfectly possible that such of the doctrines enunciated in the Christian Bible as are similar to those in the Gītā, must have been taken into the Bible from Buddhism–that is, ultimately from the Gītā, or from the Vedic religion–by Christ or by His disciples; and some Western scholars have now begun even to openly say so. When in this way, orthodox Christians saw that the scales were turned against them, it is no wonder that they were greatly surprised about the matter, and felt inclined to flatly deny this fact. But all that I have to say to such persons is that, as this question is not religious, but historical, the only logical and honest thing which everyone–and especially those who have themselves raised the question of the similarity of ideas–can do, is to joyfully and impartially accept all the inferences which can be drawn according to ordinary: historical methods from the material which has now become available to us.

The New Testament has been written as an improvement on the Jewish religion propounded in the Jewish Bible, that is to say, in the Old Testament of the Bible. God is known in the Jewish language as 'Iloha' (Ilāha, in Arabic); but according to the rules made by Moses, the principal deity of worship in. the Jewish religion has been given the special name of 'Jehovah'. Western scholars themselves have now proved that the word 'Jehovah' is not an original Jewish word, but has come from the Chaldean word 'yavhe' (in Sanskrit, yavha). Jews are not idolaters. The principal observance of their religion consists in pleasing the Jehovah by sacrificing animals or other things into the fire, and following the code of religion and morality laid down by God, and thereby obtaining the happiness of themselves and of their community in this world. To mention the matter in short, the Jewish religion is Activistic and ritualistic like the Vedic Karma-kāṇḍa. Christ has, on the other hand, preached in numerous places that, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" (Matthew 9.13); "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon" (Matthew 6.24); "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and come and follow me" (Matthew 19.21); and when He sent His disciples to different, countries for propagating His religion, He told them: "Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves" etc., (Matthew 10.9–13), and asked them to follow other similar rules of Renunciation.

It is true that the modern Christian countries have coolly shelved this preaching of Christ. But,, just as the cult of Śaṃkarācārya does not become a cult of royal pleasure, because, the present Śaṃkarācārya owns- elephants and horses, so also can we not, on account of this- behaviour of the Western Christian countries, say that the original Christian religion supported Activism. Just as,, though the original Vedic religion was based on ritualistic- performances (Karma-kāṇḍa), the Path of Knowledge (Jñāna- kāṇḍa) later on sprang out of it, so also are the Jewish and the Christian religions mutually inter-related. But, the Christian, religion did not gradually come out of the Jewish religion, as the Jñānakāṇḍa, and later on, the Devotional Bhāgavata religion, came out of the original ritualistic Karma-kāṇḍa in hundreds of years. History tells us that a sect of ascetics called ESI or ESIN suddenly came from somewhere into the Jewish countries about 200; years at most before Christ. Although these Esis belonged to the Jewish religion, yet they had given up sacrificial ritual, and used to spend their lives in a peaceful place in contemplation of the Almighty, and they used at most to take part in harmless occupations like agriculture etc. for maintaining themselves. The most prominent principles of this sect were to remain celibates, to eschew meat and liquor, not to kill animals, not to take oaths, and to live together socially in monasteries; and, if any one of them acquired any property, to look upon that property as the common property of the society; and if anyone had a desire to enter their sect, it was necessary for him to serve as an apprentice for at least three years, and after that to consent to observe certain rules. Their monastery was at Endgi on the western coast of the Dead Sea, and they used to live there peacefully and as ascetics. The respectful references made by Christ Himself and His disciples in the New Testament to the opinions of the Esi sect (Matthew 5.34; 19.12; James 5.12; The Acts 4.32–35), clearly show that Jesus Christ was a follower of this sect, and He has to a great extent furthered the renunciatory religion of this sect. But though the renunciatory devotional path of Christ is in this way traced to the Esi sect, still it is necessary to give some satisfactory explanation from the historical point of view, as to how the renunciatory Esi path suddenly came into existence out of the original Activistic Jewish religion. Some answer this question by saying that Christ did not belong to the Esi sect. But though this statement is taken as correct, one cannot in that way escape the questions, (i) what was the origin of the renunciatory religion preached in the New Testament of the Bible, and (ii) how such a religion suddenly entered the Activistic Jewish religion; for, the only difference is, that instead of having to explain the origin of the Esi sect, one has to answer these two questions; because, nothing comes into existence anywhere suddenly. It grows gradually, and the growth starts from a much earlier period; and it is a well-established rule of Sociology, that where such a growth is not noticed, the matter is usually found to have been adopted from a foreign country or from a foreign people. It is not that the former Christian writers had not realised this difficulty; but before Europeans had come to know about Buddhism, that is to say, upto the 18th century of the Christian era, Christian research scholars were of the opinion, that the renunciatory doctrines of the Esi sect must have entered the Activistic Jewish religion, as a result of the philosophy of the Greeks, and especially of Pythagoras, after an intimate relationship had been established between the Greeks.and the Jews. Recent researches prove this inference to be false. Yet, this shows that the idea, that it was not naturally possible for the Esi or Christian renunciatory religion to have come out of the ritualistic Jewish religion, and that there must have been some reason for it which was outside the Jewish religion, is not a new idea; and that this idea had been accepted as correct by Christian scholars before the 18th century.

Colebrooke has said that there is a great deal of similarity between the philosophy of Pythagoras and that of Buddhism^[2]; and therefore, if the above theory is accepted, the parentage of the Esi sect naturally comes to be traced to India; but it is also not now necessary to mince matters about this question. It will.be seen by a comparison of the Buddhistic religious works with the New Testament of the Bible that the similarity between not only the Esi religion but also the life of Christ and the preachings of Christ on the one hand and the Buddhism on the other hand, is a hundred times greater than the similarity between the Esi or the Christian religion and Pythagorian philosophers. Just as the Devil tried to tempt Christ, and just as Christ fasted for forty days when He acquired the state of a Siddha (perfect man), so also did Māra tempt Buddha, and Buddha on that occasion fasted for fortynine days (seven weeks) as has been stated in the biography of Buddha. In the same way, performing by the force of Faith alone such things as walking on water, making one's face or body suddenly appear brilliant like the Sun, or redeeming even thieves or prostitutes, who had surrendered themselves, are similar in the case of Buddha and of Christ; and the principal moral precepts of Christ, such as, "Love thy neighbour", or "Love thy enemies" etc., will sometimes be found to have been given word for word, before the date of Christ, in the Buddhistic religion. The philosophy of Devotion did not originally form part of Buddhism. But, as has been stated above, that principle had been adopted by the Mahayana Buddhist sect at least 200 to 300 years before Christ, from the Bhagavadgītā. But Mr. Arthur Lilly has authoritatively shown in his books that this similarity does not exist only as regards these things, but that there are hundreds of other small and big incidents, in which there is a similar similarity between the Christian and the Buddhist religions. Nay, the symbol of the Cross, which has become sacred to Christians on account of the. fact that Christ was crucified on a Cross, had also become a holy symbol in the Vedic and Buddhistic religions in the shape of a 'svastika', hundreds of years before Christ; and modern research scholars have proved that not only in Egypt and other countries in the ancient continents of the earth, but even in Peru and Mexico in America, the svastika was looked upon as an auspicious sign many centuries before Columbus^[3].

From this one has to draw the conclusion, that the svastika sign, which had become a matter of regard and reverence long, before the date of Christ, was made use of in one particular way by the devotees of Christ. There is also a great deal of similarity between the Buddhist monks and the old Christian missionaries (specially the earliest preachers) so far as their dress and religious observances are concerned. For instance, the ceremony of initiation after a bath, that is to say 'baptism', was in vogue long before the date of Christ; and it has now been proved that Buddhist monks had wholly adopted the procedure of sending religious preachers to different countries and thus propagating their religion, long before the date of Christian missionaries.

It is quite natural for a thinking person to ask himself why there should be such a strange and comprehensive similarity between the lives and the moral preachings of Buddha and Christ,, and also between the religious observances of both these religions.^[4] This similarity first came to the notice of Western scholars by the study of Buddhistic treatises, some Christian scholars began to say that Buddhists must have adopted these principles from the Asiatic Christian sect known as the 'Nestorian' sect. But such a thing is absolutely impossible; because, the founder of the Nestorian sect himself came into existence about 425 years after Christ, whereas Buddha was born about 500 years before Christ, that is to say, nearly 900 years before Nestor; and it has now been established beyond doubt from the stone inscriptions of Asoka that in his times, that is to say, at least 250 years before the Christian era, Buddhism was followed to a very large extent in India and in the surrounding countries, and works containing the life of Buddha etc. had also been written.

The ancientness of the Buddhistic religion being in this way undoubtable, there remain only two possible conclusions regarding the similarity to be seen between the Christian and the Buddhistic religions, namely, that

(1) this similarity must have arisen in the two places independently of each other, or that

(2) these principles must have been taken by Christ or His disciples from Buddhism.

Prof. Rhys-Davids says that this similarity has arisen as a result of the similarity between the circumstances of both Christ and Buddha, and that it has arisen in both the places naturally and independently^[5].

But anyone will realise after a little consideration that this solution is not satisfactory; because, when anything comes into existence anywhere independently, it grows very gradually, and we can also see the course of the growth. For instance, we can logically show the gradual growth of the Jñāna-k3nda out of the Karmakāṇḍa, and also how the philosophy of Devotion, the Pātañjala-Yoga, and ultimately 'the Buddhistic religion grew gradually out of the Jñāna-kāṇḍa, that is, from the Upaniṣads. But the renunciatory Esi or Christian religions have not grown in the same way from the Activistic Jewish religion. And I have stated above that modern Christian scholars have now admitted the position that the Christian religion came into existence suddenly, and that there was some cause outside the Jewish religion which was responsible for its having done so. Besides, the similarity between the Christian and the Buddhistic religions is so strange and so complete, that it is impossible for such a similarity to arise in an independent way. It would be. different if it could be proved that it was totally impossible for Jewish people to have come to know anything about Buddhism. But history clearly proves that after the date of Alexander–and certainly at the date of Asoka inference; and he has mentioned in his book the similar opinions of the French scholars Emile Bournouff and Rosni in support of his opinion^[7]; and Prof. Sedan, who was the Professor of Philosophy at Leipzig University in Germany, has also expressed the same opinion in his books on this subject.

The German Professor Schroeder has said in one of his Essays that the Christian religion is not exactly similar to Buddhism; that, though there may be a similarity between the two in some matters, there is a great deal of dissimilarity in other matters; and that, therefore, the opinion that the Christian religion was derived from the Buddhistic religion cannot be accepted. But, as this statement is irrelevant, it does not carry any weight whatsoever. It is nobody's case that the Christian and Buddhistic religions are similar to each other in all respects; because, if such were the case, nobody would have said that these two religions are, different from each other. The principal question is, what was the reason for the renunciatory devotional Christian religion being promulgated as an improvement on the fundamentally purely Activistic Jewish religion; and when one thinks of the history of the Buddhist religion, which was undoubtedly more ancient than the Christian religion, it does not appear.historically logical to say that the renunciatory principles of Ethics and Devotion in Christianity were discovered by Christ independently. There is no information to be found in the Bible as to what Christ was doing from the 12th to the 30th year of His life, or where He was during that period. And it is quite clear that He must have spent this time in the acquisition of knowledge, in religious meditation, and in travel. Therefore, it is impossible to say definitely that He could not have come into contact, directly or indirectly, with Buddhist monks during this period of His. life; because, the activities of Buddhist monks had at that date gone as far as Greece. There is a clear statement in a book to be found in a Buddhist monastery in Nepal that Jesus Christ had at that time come to India, and that He there acquired the. knowledge of Buddhism. This book was found by a Russian named Nicholas Notovisch, and he published a translation of it into the French language in 1894. Many Christian scholars say, that though the translation of Notovisch may be correct,, the original book itself is a fraud written by someone; and I too am not very emphatic on the position that these scholars should accept that book as authentic. Whether the book found, by Notovisch was reliable or not, it will be quite clear from the dissertation made by me above that, from the purely historical: point of view, it was not impossible, at least for the disciples of Christ who wrote His life in the New Testament,, if not for Christ Himself, to have become acquainted with Buddhism; and if this position is not improbable, it does not appear logical to say that the strange similarity to be found between the lives or the preachings of Christ and Buddha, wassomething which came into existence independently^[8].

In short,, the purely ritualistic path of the Mīmāṃsakas, the Knowledge- Action (naiṣkarmya) path of Janaka and others, the Path of Knowledge and Renunciation of the writers of the Upaniṣads and the Sāṃkhya philosophers, the Pātañjala Yoga in the shape of 'Concentration of the Mind', and the Pañcarātra or the Bhāgavata religion, that is, the Philosophy of Devotion, are all religious paths which grew originally from the ancient Vedic- religion. Leaving aside, out of these, the Path of the Knowledge of the Brahman, the Path of Energism, and the Path of Devotion,. Buddha has preached his renunciatory religion to the four castes, on the basis of the philosophy of (i) Yoga in the form of 'Concentration of the Mind', and (ii) Karma-Saṃnyāsa (Abandonment of Action); but the supporters and followers of Buddha, later on added to his religion the principles of Devotion and of Desireless Action, and spread this reformed Buddhistic religion on all sides. After the Buddhistic religion had in this way spread everywhere at the date of Aśoka, the principles of Renunciation began to find a way into the purely Activistic Jewish religion; and Christ ultimately added to it the Philosophy of Devotion, and established His own religion. When one gives proper weight to this gradual growth, which is established by historical facts, one comes to the definite conclusion that far from the Gītā having taken something from the Christian religion, as suggested by Dr. Laurincer, there is a very strong.probability, and almost a certainty, that the principles of Self- Identification, Renunciation, Non-Enmity, and Devotion, to be found in the New Testament of the Bible, must have been taken.into the Christian religion from Buddhism, and therefore, indirectly from the Vedic religion; and that, Indians had no need to look to other people for finding these religious principles. I have in this way considered the seven questions mentioned by me at the beginning of this Appendix. Other important questions such as, what was the effect of the Bhagavadgītā on the Path of Devotion now followed in India etc., arise in the train of these questions. But, instead of saying that these questions have a bearing on the Gītā, one must say that they deal with the ancient history of the Hindu religion. For this reason, and principally because this Appendix has been lengthened out beyond my expectations, although I have attempted to make it as short as possible, I shall now finish this External Examination of the Gītā.

–-:o:–-

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

See Bhagavadgītā translated into English blank verse, with notes etc. by K. T. Telang 1875 (Bombay). This book is different from the translation in the Sacred Books of the East Series by the same author.

[2]:

See Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I. pp. 399, 400.

[3]:

See, The Secret of the Pacific by C. Reginald Enoch, 1912,. pp. 248-252.

[4]:

Mr. Arthur Lily has written a separate book on this subject called Buddhism in Christendom; and he has also briefly expressed Us opinion in the last four chapters of his book, Buddha and Buddhism. The exposition made by me in this part of the Appendix, has been made principally on the authority of this book. The book Buddha and Buddhism was published in 1900 in The World's Epoch Makers Series; and in the tenth part of that book, about 50 similarities between the Buddhist and the Christian religions have been shown.

[5]:

See Buddhist Suttas, S. B. E. Series, Vol. XI, p. 163.

[6]:

See Plutarch's Morals–Theosophical Essays, translated by C. N. King (George Bell & Sons), pp. 96 and 97. There is a reference in tie Mahāvaṃśa written in the Pali language (29,39) to a Greek, that is, yavana town named Alasandā (yona-nagarā 'lasandā); and it is stated there that some years before the Christian era, while the work of building a temple was going on in Ceylon, many Buddhist monks had gone from that place to Ceylon for the celebration. The English translator of the Mahāvaṃśa says that a town named Alasandā established by Alexander in Kabul is meant in this place, and not Alexandria in Egypt. But this is not correct; because, this small place would not have been referred to by anybody as a city of yavanas. Besides, the stone inscription of Asoka mentioned above, itself contains a clear reference to Buddhist monks having been sent to the, kingdom of the yavanas.

[7]:

See Lilly's Buddha and Buddhism pp. 158 ff.

[8]:

The same is the opinion of Mr. Rameshchandra Dutt, and he has expressed it in detail in his book. See Rameshchandra Dutt's History of Civilisation in Ancient India Vol, II, Chapter XX pp. 828-340.