A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c7.19

Language: English

c7.19.1

Grierson in the "Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics" points out in a very facile fashion, that "Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva, who was the founder of the new monotheistic religion, was the pupil of a sage named Ghora Āṅgirasa, who taught him so that he never thirsted again." In answer to such an identification of Kṛṣṇa, the son of Vasudeva, and Kṛṣṇa, the pupil of Ghora Āṅgirasa, we have to point out that this is merely an assertion without proof. It passes our understanding how for the simple reason that Kṛṣṇa, the pupil of Ghora Āṅgirasa, was the son of Devakī as mentioned in the Chhāndogya, he could be identified with Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī, of the Mahābhārata, where no mention is made whatsoever of Ghora Āṅgirasa who was the teacher of Kṛṣṇa in the Chhāndogya. Such a fact cannot be easily ignored in a work like the Mahābhārata which is expected to give us everything about the divine warrior Kṛṣṇa, and not leave the name of his teacher unmentioned. If the Kṛṣṇa of the Chhāndogya is to be identified with the Kṛṣṇa of the Mahābhārata, for that matter why should not we identify the Hariśchandra of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa who had a hundred wives with the Hariśchandra of mythology who had only one wife? Mere similarity of name proves nothing.

c7.19.2

It fills one with humour that a new facile philosophy of identifications Brāhmaṇa-wise should have been instituted in modern times by a host of critics of no small calibre when they would raise a huge structure of mythico-imaginary identifications by rolling together the god Viṣṇu of Vedic repute, Nārāyaṇa the Cosmic God, Kṛṣṇa the pupil of Ghora Āṅgirasa, and Vāsudeva the founder of a new religion, and thus try to prove that the sources of the religion of the Bhagavadgītā are to be found in the teaching of Ghora Āṅgirasa! There would seem to be some meaning, however, in the attempted identification of the Kṛṣṇa of the Chhāndogya with the Kṛṣṇa of the Bhagavadgītā, when, in verse 4 of the passage we are discussing, we are told that the gifts which such a sacrificer should make to priests are those of the following virtues : Tapas, Dānam, Ārjavam, Ahinsā and Satyavachanam. This list is closely similar to the list of virtues enumerated in the Bhagavadgītā XVI.1-2, where the same virtues are enumerated along with a number of other virtues, and almost in the same order. But this fact also proves nothing, because, as we have pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, the Bhagavadgītā is a congeries of quotations, phrases, and ideas borrowed from the Upanishads, and it is only by accident, as we may say, that the five virtues mentioned above should have been enumerated in the Upanishadic passage where Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī, is also mentioned.

c7.19.3

There is a story about the Delphic Oracle that a number of trophies were hung round about the temple in praise of the god who had saved so many souls at different times from shipwreck in the midst of waters. A philosopher went to the temple and asked, Yea, but where are those that are drowned ? Similarly may we say about the virtues in the Chhāndogya passage which are identical with the virtues in the passage from the Bhagavadgītā. True, that the virtues enumerated in the Chhāndogya almost correspond to the virtues enumerated in the Bhagavadgītā ; but, why, for the world, should not the essence of the teachings of Ghora Āṅgirasa have been incorporated into the Bhagavadgītā, when the Upanishad passage tells us that at the last moment of a man's life, he should take resort to these three thoughts : Thou art the indestructible, Thou art the unchangeable, Thou art the very edge of life ? Why should not the Bhagavadgītā have profited by these three expressions : Akshita, Achyuta and Prāṇasaṁśita? Why should it have left us merely with the advice that a man should utter Om at the time of his death and meditate upon God? Finally, we may say that the burden of the proof of the identification of the two Kṛṣṇas falls upon those who make the assertion, and so far as their arguments have gone, we do not think that they have, in any way, proved the identification at all.