The Samkhya System: A History of the Samkhya Philosophy c7.2

c7.2

THE process by which the Bharatan epic grew into the vast text-book of ethics and philosophy as well as of statecraft and strategy must have occupied some centuries, and there is every reason to believe that the philosophical portions were by no means the first to be added. The four main sections of philosophic import are the *Sanatsujāta-parvan* of the fifth book (chapters 40-45), the *Bhagavadgītā* in the sixth book (chapters 25-42), the *Mokṣadharma* in the twelfth book (chapters 174-367), and the *Anugītā* in the fourteenth book (chapters 16-51). Of these the *Bhagavadgītā* is beyond doubt or question the oldest, a fact which is clearly attested by metre and language alike, and even its date is very doubtful. The latest attempt to estimate it is that made by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar,[*] who bases on the fact that the *Bhagavadgītā* does not recognize the Vyūhas of the deity, Saṁkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, an argument in favour of the *Bhagavadgītā* dating from at least the fourth century B.C. But the argument will not bear investigation, since it rests only on the view that the *Bhagavadgītā* must have accepted and mentioned that portion of the Bhāgavata doctrine, had it been in existence at the time when the *Bhagavadgītā* was finally redacted, and this assumption has not any justification. A very different result would be obtained if we were to accept the theory that the *Bhagavadgītā* shows clear traces of the influence of the Christian Gospels, but that theory rests merely on similarities of thought and language which may have their source merely in the essential similarity of human thought.* Assuming that the *Bhagavadgītā* is of independent Indian origin, Garbe† has endeavoured to show that it was originally a theistic tract, with a philosophical basis in the Sāṃkhya-Yoga system, and in this form belongs to the early part of the second century B.C., while in its present form, in which it has been affected by Vedāntism, it belongs to the second century A.D. But part of his argument rested on the theory that the reputed founder of the Yoga Sūtra, Patañjali, was identical with the grammarian, and therefore belonged to the second century B.C., and with the disappearance of this doctrine‡ his earlier date becomes extremely improbable. We are, therefore, left to conclude that the *Bhagavadgītā* as we have it is probably not later than the second century A.D., though even for that date there is no absolutely cogent proof. In any case, it may be assumed that its material is often older, and the same considerations apply to the other philosophical portions of the *Mahābhārata*.