The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c22.61

v1.c22.61

The religious and philosophical views of the epics represent every shade of opinion from Vedic theism to philosophical pantheism with later forms of Sun-worship (in both epics) and sectarian cults of Durgā, Çiva, and Kṛishṇa-Vishṇu in the Mahā- bhārata, and Rāma-Vishṇuism superimposed upon the cult of Rāma as a hero demi-god in the Rāmāyaṇa. The religion assumed as orthodox in both epics is that which we call Brāhmanical. The Vedic gods with Brahmā at their head are to be worshipped, as a matter of course. In addition comes the constantly growing tendency to exalt the chieftain demi-god from his position as clan-hero god to a higher power, till he is identified with Vishṇu, the popular god of many clans. The cult of Vishṇu in this form comes under the hands of philosophers, who we may be sure had nothing to do with the original epic; and as god he is then interpreted according to the philosophical systems of the Sāṅkhya and Vedānta, which are united with the aid of the Yoga system. Of late years it has become usual for scholars to follow the lead of Professor Garbe, who has interpreted the chief philosophical tract of the Mahābhārata, the famous Bhagavadgītā, as a rewritten Sāṅkhya document of theistic tendency manipulated to serve the ends of Vedānta schoolmen. By excluding all the verses which teach the Vedānta doctrine, Garbe is naturally enabled to show a document which is not Vedantic; and it may be admitted that such a process makes a clearer and more attractive theological tract. But the historical effect produced is fallacious. Exactly the same mixture of Sāṅkhya and Vedānta permeates the teaching of the philosophical epic in many other passages; and unless one is willing to apply the same process and excise all objectionable matter in favour of a theory of Sāṅkhya priority in the philosophical disquisitions of *Çānti* or ‘quietism,’ one has no right to dissect the Bhagavadgītā into its supposititious prius and ‘later additions.’ The epic philosopher is never a Sāṅkhyan; he is a Sāṅkhya-Yogist, and it is this connecting link of the Yoga which to his mind makes it possible to unite two radically different systems¹. It must at least remain quite doubtful whether the philosophical parts of the epic, most of which have no radical connexion with the poem, were not originally composed in their present form, representing an attempt, on the part of later redactors, to weave into the epic a system of philosophy inculcating the belief in a theistic pantheism derived from Sāṅkhyan principles improved by the Yoga and then combined with the All-soul principle later called Vedānta. Vishṇu and Çiva both served the purpose of the philosophical interpretation. Both were popular gods who became the One God in turn (sectarian differences probably representing geographical distinctions), that One God who even in the Upanishads is also the All-god. For this reason many passages of the epic are on the philosophical-religious level of the Çvetāçvatara Upanishad.