Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Minor Religious Systems v1.c4.s6: VI. The Sources of the Religion of the Bhagavadgītā

Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems v1.c4.s6

Language
English

VI. The Sources of the Religion of the Bhagavadgītā

v1.c4.s6.1

§ 28. This constant insistence on actions being done without any regard for the fruit, that is, disinterestedly or selflessly, forms a peculiarity of the Bhagavadgītā. But the idea is not new. In the Īśopaniṣad it is stated in the second verse that a man should desire to live a hundred years doing actions resolutely, and in that way and no other, will action not contaminate him. And the non-contamination as the result of an elevated state of mind is spoken of in ChU. IV, 14, 3; BU. IV, 4, 23; and MaiU. VI, 20.

v1.c4.s6.2

The attributes of the Supreme Being the Gītā draws from the Upaniṣads, as has been already shown in the remarks on the different chapters. While the personality of God is fully acknowledged in certain parts of the Upaniṣads, mere Brahman, the personality of which is not so distinct, is also spoken of in some places. When the Bhagavadgītā takes in these passages, it takes care to distinctly personalise the Akṣara or Brahman, as we have shown. The source from which the Gītā derives its doctrines about the conquest of the self and the attainment of a condition of peace and serenity, is the general atmosphere of religious and moral sentiment that came to prevail from the beginning of the earliest Upaniṣad speculations to the formation of definite religious systems, orthodox and heterodox. Consequently, though the Gītā speaks of the Brahma-Nirvāṇa, it ought not to be supposed that it borrows this doctrine of final peace and serenity from Buddhism. The source resorted to by these systems was common to all.

v1.c4.s6.3

Besides the Upaniṣads and the religious and moral atmosphere prevalent at that time, the Gītā avails itself of the philosophy that had come into existence in early times. This is the philosophy of the Sāṁkhya and the Yoga. Though the twenty-four principles of the former system, together with the Puruṣa or soul as the twenty-fifth, as known in later times, and the doctrine of the activity of the Prakṛti only and the non-activity of Puruṣa are alluded to in the Bhagavadgītā, still it adds another soul called the Uttama Puruṣa or the Supreme Soul, which is not found in the later Sāṁkhya, thus giving a theistic character to the philosophy. In their account of the creation the Purāṇas follow this philosophy, and the later Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva systems adopt it in a more or less qualified manner. But the word Sāṁkhya does not seem to be used in the Bhagavadgītā to indicate the later non-theistic system. In the second chapter and in the fifth, Sāṁkhya indicates a philosophy based upon knowledge, and Yoga, one based on action. Again the five causes that are alluded to in the last chapter as mentioned in the Sāṁkhya system do not appear to be known to the later Sāṁkhyas. The speculative philosophy, therefore, that existed about the time of the Śvetāśvatara-Upaniṣad and the Bhagavadgītā, was known by the name of Sāṁkhya, and out of it grew the non-theistic system of later times. The Yoga, the philosophy of action, too did prevail, but it culminated, as indicated before, into a concentration of mind, the ordinary operations being suspended, on the Brahman, Akṣara, or the Supreme Soul.

v1.c4.s6.4

§ 29. Thus the Bhagavadgītā is the result of the development of the religious and philosophic speculation that prevailed before the rise of Buddhism. But the origin of the idea of Bhakti, or love of God, which is the characteristic of the work, has formed the subject of a great deal of speculation in modern times, and to this point we will now turn. In the Upaniṣads, Upāsanā, or fervent meditation of a number of things, such as Manas (mind), the sun, the Puruṣa in the sun or the moon, food, vital breath, etc., regarded as Brahman, i. e. thinking of them as Brahman, is prescribed. Such a fervent meditation cannot but magnify the thing and give it a glorious form, so as to excite admiration and even love. Again what is called the Internal Ātman (soul) is said in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka to be dearer than a son, wealth and everything else (I, 4, 8). Here the word Ātman may possibly be taken to mean one's own soul. In the same Upaniṣad there is another passage which runs thus: "This is that Great Unborn, who is of the form of thought among vital airs, who dwells in the cavity of the heart, who is controller of all, ruler of all, the lord of all. By doing good or evil deeds he does not become better or worse. He is the ruler of all beings, he is the causeway or dike that separates things from one another and prevents them being confused together (he is the preserver of order). The Brāhmaṇas desire to know him by the words of the Vedas, by worship, charity and austerity. Knowing him, one becomes a sage. The recluses, desiring him as the place to live in, renounce the world. On this account the wise men of old did not desire progeny, saying to themselves: 'What shall we do with progeny, when we have got this Being, this world to live in?'; and thus they gave up desire for sons, wealth and the world, and lived the life of mendicants" (IV, 4, 22). Now, if those wise men of old gave up all the pleasures of the world to contemplate and dwell with the Supreme Being, so eloquently described, must it not be considered that they were actuated by love for him, though the word Bhakti does not occur here? And at the bottom of all those rapturous sayings about the peace attained by seeing the Supreme Soul in the world and the heart of man, there must be a feeling akin to love. And during the period when the Ṛgveda poetry was composed, love for God or gods was often an abiding sentiment in the heart of the poet, as is evident from the words: "Dyaus is my father" (RV. I, 164, 33); "Aditi (the boundless) is father, mother, and son" (RV. I, 89, 10); and from such prayers as "O father Dyaus, avert all evils", "Be accessible to us and gracious as a father to the son", etc. Though the later sacrificial ritual destroyed the spirit of these verses and converted them into simple verbal formulae, still, the feeling that was in the heart at the time when they were composed, must have continued, though it found no expression for a time and exhibited itself again mixed with wonder and admiration in the times of the Upaniṣads. It certainly was not absent during this last period. The text about the two birds, the friends and companions of each other, by which are meant the Supreme and individual souls exists in the Ṛksaṃhitā (I, 164, 20) and is repeated in the Muṇḍaka-Upaniṣad (VII, 1, 1).

v1.c4.s6.5

In the last (MU. III, 2, 3) and in the KU. (II, 23) there is a verse to the effect that this Supreme Soul is not to be attained by lectures (from a teacher), nor by intelligence, nor by much learning; he is to be attained by him whom the Supreme Soul favours; to him he discloses his form. Again we have the doctrine that the supremely wise Being, the life of all, leads a man to do good deeds, whom he desires to elevate (KBU. III, 8); and another, that God dwelling in the heart of all beings controls them, which latter forms the subject of a celebrated passage in the BU. III, 7. From this it is clear that the doctrine that the individual soul is dependent on the Supreme and that the latter alone works out his salvation, was acknowledged in Upaniṣad times.

v1.c4.s6.6

§ 30. In this manner all the points that constitute the Ekāntika religion of the Bhagavadgītā are to be found in the older religious literature. The word Bhakti, however, in the sense of love is not to be found except in a verse in ŚU. But that word is not always used in the sense of love even by Rāmānuja. In his system Bhakti means constant meditation and corresponds to the Upāsanā of the Upaniṣads. The word etymologically signifies resorting to and then loving the thing resorted to. It is used in this sense by Pāṇini in Sūtra IV, 3, 95; but the word, as explained by the commentators, has a passive sense and means a thing resorted to, liked or loved; and general and special terminations are prescribed, which, when affixed to a noun, indicate one by whom the thing expressed by the noun is liked or loved. In this sense the word Bhakti is used by Yāska also, when he speaks of certain things as Agnibhaktīni, Indrabhaktīni, i. e. things which resort to, or relate themselves to, Agni, etc. Thus the idea of love was associated with the word in early times, though it then signified loved instead of love. Properly speaking, by the rules of Pāṇini himself, it ought to signify the latter, as the suffix *ti* indicates Bhāva or condition. Howsoever the word may have come into use in later times, the thing expressed by it, viz. love for the Ātman or the Supreme Soul, was an idea implied and often expressed by the word *priya* or *preyas* in the Upaniṣad period.

v1.c4.s6.7

§ 31. The state of things which must have led to the evolution of the religion of the Gītā seems to me to be this. About the time when the systems of religion we have been considering arose, there was a tendency amongst the people which often worked itself out, as is evident from the Pāli Birth-Stories, to give up worldly life and betake themselves to a residence in forests or mountains. Even Buddhism, Jainism and other like systems considered an ascetic life to be a *sine qua non* of religious elevation. There is reason to believe that Śramaṇas existed before the rise of Buddhism. The religious systems that had sprung up were mostly atheistic. The Indian mind had become prone to indulge in mere moral discourses and thoughts of moral exaltation, unassociated with a theistic faith, as appears clear from Buddhism and other systems and also from dry moral dissertations of which the Mahābhārata is full. Such a system as that of the Bhagavadgītā was, therefore, necessary to counteract these tendencies. Theistic ideas were so scattered in the Upaniṣads, that it was necessary for practical purposes to work them up into a system of redemption

v1.c4.s6.8

capable of being grasped easily. These appear to be the conditions under which the Gītā came into existence. I am not inclined to dissolve Vāsudeva and Arjuna into solar myths; but Vāsudeva could not have been living when the Bhagavadgītā was composed as a discourse delivered by him, any more than Buddha was living when his discourses were reduced to the form of books. It is worthy of remark that both of them are called Bhagavats when speaking. Vāsudeva must already have been deified before the Bhagavadgītā was written.

v1.c4.s6.9

As regards the attitude of the Bhagavat to the older belief, it is evident that it is conservative and he came to fulfil the law and not supersede it. It must already have been seen that he looks at the sacrificial religion from almost the same point of view as the Upaniṣads. The cherishing of desires which the sacrificial rites encouraged is considered harmful, and the fruit attained by means of them is perishable. It was because this Ekāntika religion was so conservative, that it gradually made its way into Hindu society in general, though it did not succeed in uprooting the religion of sacrifices. Still it always retained its character as a religion for women and for all castes, Śūdras included, and in its later development it was associated with such Vedic rites as then remained when it was professed by the Brāhmaṇas, but not so associated when its followers were of lower castes, among whom it continued to exercise great influence. The Bhagavat's attitude towards the worshippers of other gods has already been explained. It was strictly liberal. All worship, to whomsoever it was directed, reaches him ultimately, but the devotees of other gods do not know Bhagavat as he truly is and thus go wrong. This attitude must have had something to do with the influence of the Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa cult over the lower classes.

Linked texts (9)