The Bhagavadgîtâ, with the Sanatsugâtîya and the Anugîtâ — SBE Vol. 8 (trans. K. T. Telang, 1882)
The translator’s English as printed (K. T. Telang). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Apastamba assigns to them. The fact is further noteworthy, that in the Gita each caste has its own entirely distinct set of duties. There is no overlapping, so to say. And that is a circumstance indicating a very early stage in the development of the institution’. Besides, as already indicated, the duties laid down by Apastamba and Manu as common to Kshatriyas and Vaisyas are the very duties which make those castes dependent to a very great extent on the Brâhmaṇas. Lastly, it is not altogether unworthy of note, that in the elaborate specification of the best of every species which we find in chapter X, the Brâhmaṇa is not mentioned as the best of the castes, there is nothing to indicate the notion contained in the well-known later verse, ‘The Brâhmaṇa is the head of the castes. On the contrary, the ruler of men is specified as the highest among men”, indicating, perhaps, a state of society such as that described at the beginning of the extract from Professor Tiele’s work quoted above.
We come now to another point. What is the position of the Gita in regard to the great reform of Sakya Muni? The question is one of much interest, having regard particularly to the remarkable coincidences between Buddhistic doctrines and the doctrines of the Gita to which we have drawn attention in the foot-notes to our translation. But the materials for deciding the question are unhappily not forthcoming. Professor Wilson, indeed, thought that there was an allusion to Buddhism in the Gita, But his idea was based on a confusion between the Buddhists and the Kârvakas or materialists 4. Failing that allusion, we have nothing very tangible but the unsatisfactory ‘ negative argument’ based on mere non-mention of Buddhism in the Gita. That argument is not quite satisfactory to my own mind, although, as I have elsewhere pointed out 5, some of the ground occupied by the Gita is common to it with Buddhism, and although various previous thinkers are alluded to directly or indirectly in the Gita. There is, however, one view of the facts of this question, which appears to me to corroborate the conclusion deducible by means of the negative argument here referred to. The main points on which Buddha’s protest against Brahmanism rests, seem to be the true authority of the Vedas and the true view of the differences of caste. On most points of doctrinal speculation, Buddhism is still but one aspect of the older Brahmanism*. The various coincidences to which we have drawn attention show that, if there is need to show it. Well now, on both these points, the Gita, while it does not go the whole length which Buddha goes, itself embodies a protest against the views current about the time of its composition. The Gita does not, like Buddhism, absolutely reject the Vedas, but it shelves them. The Gita does not totally root out caste. It places caste on a less untenable basis. One of two hypotheses therefore presents itself as a rational theory of these facts. Either the Gita and Buddhism were alike the outward manifestation of one and the same spiritual upheaval which shook to its centre the current religion, the Gita being the earlier and less thorough-going form of it; or Buddhism having already begun to tell on Brahmanism, the Gita was an attempt to bolster it up, so to say, at its least weak points, the weaker ones being altogether abandoned, I do not accept the latter alternative, because I cannot see any indication in the Gita of an attempt to compromise with a powerful attack on the old Hindu system; while the fact that, though strictly orthodox, the author of the Gita still undermines the authority, as unwisely venerated, of the Vedic revelation; and the further fact, that in doing this, he is doing what others also had done before him or about his time; go, in my opinion, a considerable way towards fortifying the results of the negative argument already set forth. To me Buddhism is perfectly intelligible as one outcome of that play of thought on high spiritual topics, which in its other, and as we may say, less thorough-going manifestations, we see in the Upanishads and the Gîtâ*. But assume that Buddhism was a protest against Brahmanism prior to its purification and elevation by the theosophy of the Upanishads, and those remarkable productions of ancient Indian thought become difficult to account for. Let us compare our small modern events with those grand old occurrences. Suppose our ancestors to have been attached to the ceremonial law of the Vedas, as we are now attached to a lifeless ritualism, the Upanishads and the Gita might be, in a way, comparable to movements like that of the late Raja Rammohun Roy. Standing, as far as possible, on the antique ways, they attempt, as Raja Rammohun attempted in these latter days, to bring into prominence and to elaborate the higher and nobler aspects of the old beliefs. Buddhism would be comparable to the further departure from old traditions which was led by Babu Keshub Chander Sen. The points of dissent in the olden times were pretty nearly the same as the points of dissent now. The ultimate motive power also was in both cases identical—a sense of dissatisfaction in its integrity with what had come down from old times encrusted with the corruptions of years. In this view the old system, the philosophy of the Upanishads and the Gita, and the philosophy of Buddha, constitute a regular intelligible progression. But suppose the turn events took was different, as is supposed by the alternative theory indicated above. Suppose Babu Keshub’s movement was chronologically prior, and had begun to tell on orthodox society. Is it likely, that then one of the orthodox party would take up the position which Rammohun Roy took? Would he still rely on old authorities, but with sundry qualifications, and yet earnestly assail the current forms of orthodoxy? I do not think so. I think the true view to be, as already stated, very different. The Upanishads, with the Gita, and the precepts of Buddha appear to me to be the successive embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age, as it became more and more dissatisfied with the system of mere ceremonial then dominant.
* Cf. Sutta Nipâta, p. 32; and also Mr. Davids’ note on that passage in his Buddhism, p. 131. 2 P. 89 infra.
* Essays on Sanskrit Literature, vol. iii, p. 150. See our remarks on this point in the Introductory Essay to our Gita in verse, p. ii seq.
* Introduction to Gita in English verse, p. V seq.
Apastamba assigns to them. It is further worth noting that in the Gita each caste has its own entirely distinct set of duties, with no overlapping, so to speak — a circumstance that points to a very early stage in the development of the institution. Besides, as already noted, the duties that Apastamba and Manu lay down as common to Kshatriyas and Vaisyas are precisely the duties that make those castes heavily dependent on the Brâhmaṇas. Finally, it is not altogether without interest that in the elaborate enumeration of the best of every species found in chapter X, the Brâhmaṇa is not named as the best of the castes; nothing there suggests the idea contained in the well-known later verse, "The Brâhmaṇa is the head of the castes." On the contrary, the ruler of men is specified as the highest among men — indicating, perhaps, a state of society such as that described at the opening of the extract from Professor Tiele's work quoted above.
We come now to another point. What is the Gita's position regarding the great reform of Sakya Muni? The question is of considerable interest, especially given the remarkable coincidences between Buddhistic doctrines and the doctrines of the Gita to which we have drawn attention in the footnotes to our translation. But the materials needed to settle the question are unfortunately not available. Professor Wilson did think there was an allusion to Buddhism in the Gita, but his idea rested on a confusion between the Buddhists and the Kârvakas or materialists 4. Without that allusion, we have nothing very tangible beyond the unsatisfactory "negative argument" based on the mere non-mention of Buddhism in the Gita. That argument is not entirely satisfying to my own mind, although, as I have pointed out elsewhere 5, the Gita shares some of its ground with Buddhism, and although various earlier thinkers are alluded to directly or indirectly in the Gita. There is, however, one way of viewing the facts of this question that seems to me to corroborate the conclusion the negative argument points toward. The main points on which Buddha's protest against Brahmanism rests appear to be the true authority of the Vedas and the true view of caste distinctions. On most points of doctrinal speculation, Buddhism is still only one aspect of the older Brahmanism*. The various coincidences we have drawn attention to show this, if it needs showing. Now, on both these points, the Gita, while it does not go as far as Buddha goes, itself embodies a protest against the views current around the time of its composition. The Gita does not, like Buddhism, absolutely reject the Vedas, but it sets them aside. The Gita does not wholly uproot caste. It places caste on a less untenable basis. One of two hypotheses therefore presents itself as a rational account of these facts. Either the Gita and Buddhism were both outward expressions of one and the same spiritual upheaval that shook the current religion to its centre, the Gita being the earlier and less thoroughgoing form of it; or, Buddhism having already begun to make itself felt on Brahmanism, the Gita was an attempt to shore it up, so to speak, at its least weak points, the weaker ones being abandoned altogether. I do not accept the latter alternative, because I can see no indication in the Gita of any attempt to compromise with a powerful attack on the old Hindu system; while the fact that, though strictly orthodox, the author of the Gita still undermines the authority of the Vedic revelation as unwisely venerated, and the further fact that in doing this he was doing what others had also done before him or around his time, go, in my opinion, a considerable way toward strengthening the results of the negative argument already set out. To me Buddhism is perfectly intelligible as one outcome of that sustained reflection on high spiritual topics which, in its other and, we may say, less thoroughgoing manifestations, we see in the Upanishads and the Gîtâ*. But assume that Buddhism was a protest against Brahmanism prior to its purification and elevation by the theosophy of the Upanishads, and those remarkable productions of ancient Indian thought become difficult to account for. Let us compare our small modern events with those grand old occurrences. Suppose our ancestors were attached to the ceremonial law of the Vedas as we are now attached to a lifeless ritualism; the Upanishads and the Gita might then be compared, in a way, to movements like that of the late Raja Rammohun Roy. Standing as far as possible on the antique ways, they attempt, as Raja Rammohun attempted in these latter days, to bring into prominence and to elaborate the higher and nobler aspects of the old beliefs. Buddhism would be comparable to the further departure from old traditions led by Babu Keshub Chander Sen. The points of dissent in the olden times were much the same as the points of dissent now. The ultimate motive power was also identical in both cases—a sense of dissatisfaction, in its entirety, with what had come down from old times encrusted with the corruptions of years. Seen in this light, the old system, the philosophy of the Upanishads and the Gita, and the philosophy of Buddha form a regular and intelligible progression. But suppose events took a different turn, as the alternative theory indicated above supposes. Suppose Babu Keshub's movement came first chronologically and had already begun to make itself felt on orthodox society. Is it likely that one of the orthodox party would then take up the position Rammohun Roy took? Would he still rely on old authorities, but with sundry qualifications, and yet earnestly assail the current forms of orthodoxy? I do not think so. I think the true view, as already stated, is very different. The Upanishads, together with the Gita, and the precepts of Buddha appear to me to be the successive embodiments of the spiritual thought of the age, as it grew more and more dissatisfied with the system of mere ceremonial then dominant.
* Cf. Sutta Nipâta, p. 32; and also Mr. Davids' note on that passage in his Buddhism, p. 131. 2 P. 89 infra.
* Essays on Sanskrit Literature, vol. iii, p. 150. See our remarks on this point in the Introductory Essay to our Gita in verse, p. ii seq.
* Introduction to Gita in English verse, p. V seq.