Part 21 - Chemists of the Metallic School: Govinda or Bhikshu Govinda

He is the eighth in the list from Nagarjuna. If Nagarjuna flourished in the first century B.C., Govinda should have flourished in the 8th. century A.D., at the latest. He was a Sannyasi and preceptor of Sankaracharya, who flourished in the 8th century A. D. This corroborates the validity of our assumption based on the principle we have adopted for the purpose.

Dr. Sir P. C. Roy is not inclined to identify Govinda, the chemist, with Govinda, the preceptor of Sankaracharyya, on the following grounds;—

(1) It is questionable whether at such an early date (i.e., 8th. century A.D.) the progress of chemical knowledge, as revealed in Rasa-hridaya by Bhikshu Govinda or Bhagbat Govinda, had been attained in India; and

(2) In the colophon at the end of one of the three manuscripts discovered, it is stated that the book was written by Bhikshu Govinda, at a respectful request made by Madana-ratha, king of the Kiratas, who himself was a great chemist. This is followed by an expression “Let Tathagata (Buddha) be for what is good”. From this Dr. Roy has inferred that Govinda, the author of Rasa-hridaya, was of the Buddhistic persuasion. “We have no valid reasons”, says Dr. Roy, “to believe that Sankara, the sturdy champion of Brahminical faith.........should have sat at the feet of a Guru of the opposite creed”.

To the first of the points raised by Dr. Roy against the identification of Govinda; the author of Rasa-hridaya, with Govinda, the spiritual guide of Sankaracharya, our reply will be only a repetition of what we have already proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that long before the death of Varaha-mihira, who died, according to Dr. Roy himself, in 587 A. D., chemical knowledge of the Hindus had attained such a state of development as has not been surpassed by anything contributed by later compilers.

Our reply to the second point raised by Dr. Roy is that (a) Govinda, the preceptor of Sankaracharya was a Bhikshu or Sannyasi, and as such, did not belong to any particular creed or caste. A real Sannyasi has no caste and no creed—his is a universal religion. Apart from that, a real Hindu, not to speak of an ascetic like Sankaracharya while adhering rigidly to the customs and manners prescribed by his forefathers, which are calculated to foster the well-being of the society as a whole, should always be ready to learn from wise men of any creed or caste. Instances of this mentality are not rare even in our days. Moreover, to say that “Let Tathagata be for the good,” which the author might have said to please the Buddhist king, does not indicate that the former was of Buddhistic persuasion. We should not forget that Buddha has all along been revered by the Hindus as an incarnation of the Deity. It cannot be said that Jayadeva was the earliest person to whom the idea occurred for the first time. He could not have taken, defiance of the religious notions existent at his time, the bold step of composing a hymn to Buddha, regarding him as an incarnation of the supreme Deity. The field had evidently been prepared for the attitude which was taken by Jaya-deva, one of the most ardent devotees of Vishnu. As a matter of fact Sakya-sinha, one of the several Buddhas, did not introduce any new system of religion into India. He himself was a Hindu and only adopted the philosophy enunciated by the previous Buddhas who were nothing but a class of wise Hindus. The activity of Sankaracharya was not directed against Buddha himself, but against the Buddhistic philosophy, which was not propounded by Sakya-sinha but had been in existence for several centuries before his birth, and against the awfully corrupt practices resorted to by the Buddhists of later days, in direct contravention of the teachings of the Buddhas. What led to the popularity of Sakya-Sinha, the Buddha was his piety, his self-renunciation, his denunciation of the praktice of animal sacrifices, which, of course, had never been approved of by the society as a whole, and the simple mode of his teaching the ignorant mass, which presented a contrast to the attitude the Indian sages generally take in keeping themselves aloof from the society.

Taking all these facts into consideration, we cannot discard the truth of the time-honoured tradition that Govinda, the chemist, was the spiritual guide of Sankaracharya, especially in view of the fact that the age of the chemist Govinda coincides with that of Govinda; the philosopher of the 11th century A. D.

The books which Govinda is said to have compiled are two, via., Rasa-Hridaya and Rasa-Sara. The authorship of Rasa-Sara is attributed by Dr. Roy to a different Govinda. We have been giving our careful attention to this point, and decide to wait before we arrive at a decision on this matter.