The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)

There is one other line of argument, which leads, I think, to the same conclusion. There are several passages in the Gita which it is not very easy to reconcile with one another ; and no attempt is made to harmonise them. Thus, for example, in stanza 16 of chapter VII, Kyzsha divides his devotees into four classes, one of which consists of ‘ men of knowledge,’ whom, Kṛishṇa says, he considers ‘as his own self” It would probably be difficult to imagine any expression which could indicate higher esteem. Yet in stanza 46 of chapter VI, we have it laid down, that the devotee is superior not only to the mere performer of penances, but even to the men of knowledge. The commentators betray their gnostic bias by interpreting ‘men of knowledge’ in this latter passage to mean those who have acquired erudition in the Sâstras and their significations. This is not an interpretation to be necessarily rejected. But there is in it a certain twisting of words, which, under the circumstances here, I am not inclined to accept. And on the other hand, it must not be forgotten, that the implication fairly derivable Ne ee from chapter IV, stanza 38 (pp. 62, 63), would seem to be rather that knowledge is superior to devotion—is the higher stage to be reached by means of devotion as the stepping-stone. In another passage again at Gita, chapter XII, stanza 12, concentration is preferred to knowledge, which also seems to me to be irreconcileable with chapterVII, stanza 16. Take still another instance. At Gita, chapter V, stanza 15, it is said, that ‘the Lord receives the sin or merit of none.’ Yet at chapter V, stanza 29, and again at chapter IX, stanza 24, Kréshua calls himself ‘the Lord and enjoyer’ of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may well be asked, can the Supreme Being ‘enjoy’ that which’ he does not even ‘receive?’ Once more, at chapter X, stanza 29, Kṛishṇa declares that ‘none is hateful to me, none dear.’ And yet the remarkable verses at the close of chapter XII seem to stand in point-blank contradiction to that declaration. There through a most elaborate series of stanzas, the burden of Krisha’s eloquent sermon is ‘such a one is dear to me.’ And again in those fine verses, where Kṛishṇa winds up his Divine Lay, he similarly tells Arguna, that he, Arguna, is ‘dear’ to Kṛishṇa. And Kṛishṇa also speaks of that devotee as ‘dear’ to him, who may publish the mystery of the Gita among those who reverence the Supreme Being And yet again, how are we to reconcile the same passage about none being ‘hateful or dear’ to Kṛishṇa, with his own words at chapter XVI, stanza 18 and following stanzas? The language used in describing the ‘demoniac’ people there mentioned is not remarkable for sweetness towards them, while Kṛishṇa Says positively, ‘I hurl down such people into demoniac wombs, whereby they go down into misery and the vilest condition.’ These persons are scarcely characterised with accuracy ‘as neither hateful nor dear’ to Kṛishṇa. It seems to me, that all these are real inconsistencies in the Gita, not such, perhaps, as might not be explained away, but such, I think, as indicate a mind making guesses at truth, as Professor Max

‘ In chapter X the word occurs in two different senses in the same stanza (st. 7).

2 Compare the various passages, references to which are collected in the Sanskrit Index at the end of this volume.