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

And among the less ancient works, prior to which we may place the Gita on account of the facts now under consideration, are Manu and Apastamba. Now Manu’s date is not ascertained, though, I believe, he is now generally considered to belong to about the second or third century B.C.! But Dr. Bühler, in the Preface to his Apastamba in the present series, has adduced good reasons for holding that Apastamba is prior to the third century B.C.’, and we therefore obtain that as a point of time prior to which the Gita must have been composed.

The next important item of internal evidence which we have to note, is the view taken of caste in the Bhagavadgita. Here, again, a comparison of the doctrine of the Gita with the conception of caste in Manu and Apastamba is interesting and instructive. The view of Manu has been already contrasted by me with the Gita in another place*. I do not propose to dwell on that point here, as the date of Manu is far from being satisfactorily ascertained. I prefer now to take up Apastamba only, whose date, as just now stated, is fairly well fixed by Dr. Bühler. The division of castes, then, is twice referred to in the Bhagavadgita. In the first passage (p. 59) it is stated that the division rests on differences of qualities and duties; in the second (pp. 126, 127) the various duties are distinctly stated according to the differences of qualities. Now in the first place, noting as we pass along, that there is nothing in the Gita to indicate whether caste was hereditary, according to its view, whereas Apastamba distinctly states it to be such, let us compare the second passage of the Gita with the Sûtras of Apastamba bearing on the point. The view enunciated in the Gita appears to me plainly to belong to an earlier age— to an age of considerably less advancement in social and religious development. In the Gita, for instance, the duties of a Brâhmaṇa are said to be tranquillity, self-restraint, and so forth. In Apastamba, they are the famous six duties, namely, study, imparting instruction, sacrificing, officiating at others’ sacrifices, making gifts, and receiving gifts; and three others, namely, inheritance, occupancy, and gleaning ears of corn, which, it may be remarked en passant, are not stated in Manu. The former seem to my mind to point to the age when the qualities which in early times gave the Brâhmaṇas their pre-eminence in Hindu society were still a living reality’. It will be noted, too, that there is nothing in that list of duties which has any necessary or natural connexion with any privilege as belonging to the caste. The Law lays down these duties, in the true sense of the word. In Apastamba, on the contrary, we see an advance towards the later view on both points. You have no reference to moral and religious qualities now. You have to do with ceremonies and acts. You have under the head ‘duties ’ not mere obligations, but rights. For the duty of receiving gifts is a right, and so is the duty of teaching others and officiating at others’ sacrifices; as we know not merely from the subsequent course of events, but also from a comparison of the duties of Brâhmaṇas on the one hand, and Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sûdras on the other, as laid down by Manu and Apastamba themselves. Apastamba’s rules, therefore, appear to belong to the time when the Brâhmaṇas had long been an established power, and were assuming to themselves those valuable privileges which they have always claimed in later times. The rules of the Gita, on the other hand, point to a time considerably prior to this—to a time when the Brâhmaṇas were by their moral and intellectual qualities laying the foundation of that preeminence in Hindu society which afterwards enabled them to lord it over all castes. These observations mutatis mutandis apply to the rules regarding the other castes also. Here again, while the Gita still insists on the inner qualities, which properly constitute the military profession, for instance, the rules of Apastamba indicate the powerful influence of the Brâhmaṇas!. For, as stated before, officiating at others’ sacrifices, instructing others, and receiving presents, are here expressly prohibited to Kshatriyas as also to Vaisyas. The result of that is, that the Brâhmaṇas become indispensable to the Kshatriyas and Vaisyas, for upon both the duty of study, of offering sacrifices, and making gifts and presents is inculcated. In his outline of the History of Ancient Religions, Professor Tiele, speaking of the ‘increasing influence of the Brahmans,’ writes as follows: ‘Subject at first to the princes and nobles, and dependent on them, they began by insinuating themselves into their favour, and representing it as a religious duty to show protection and liberality towards them. Meanwhile they endeavoured to make themselves indispensable to them, gradually acquired the sole right to conduct public worship, and made themselves masters of instruction 2% And after pointing out the high position thus achieved by the Brahmans, and the low position of the Kâṇḍalas and others of the inferior castes, he adds: ‘Such a position could not long be endured; and this serves to explain not only the rise of Buddhism, but also its rapid diffusion, and the radical revolution which it brought about’®.” To proceed, however, with our comparison of the Gita and Apastamba. The superiority distinctly claimed by the latter for the Brâhmaṇa is not quite clearly brought out in the Gita. ‘Holy Brâhmaṇas and devoted royal saints’ are bracketed together at p. 86; while the Kshatriyas are declared to have been the channel of communication between the Deity and mankind as regards the great doctrine of devotion propounded by the Bhagavadgita. That indicates a position for the Kshatriyas much more like what the Upanishads disclose*, than even that which

1 Professor Tiele (History of Ancient Religions, p. 127) considers the ‘ main features’ of Manu to be ‘ pre-Buddhistic.’ pS SAE

3 See the Introductory Essay to my Bhagavadgita in English verse, published in 1875, p. cxii.