Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaishnava Sect c9: Lecture II. The Life of Krishna Vāsudeva and the Early Progress of Bhāgavatism

Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaishnava Sect c9

Language
English

Lecture II. The Life of Krishna Vāsudeva and the Early Progress of Bhāgavatism

c9.2

If Krishna is a human teacher, the question naturally arises when he lived. If the traditional connection of Krishna with the battle of Kurukshetra has any foundation in fact, then it must be admitted that he lived before the compilation of the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā of the Yajurveda, for, one of his traditional contemporaries, Dhṛtarāṣṭra Vaichitravīrya, a prominent figure in the Kurukshetra story, is mentioned in the Kāṭhaka.¹

c9.3

¹ Weber, Ind. Lit., p. 90 n.

c9.4

In the Aihole inscription of the Chalukya king Pulakeśin II, dated *Saka* 556 (expired), *i.e.*, A.D. 634-35, it is stated that at that time 3,735 years had passed since the Bhārata war, *i.e.*, the battle of Kurukshetra. The date of the battle according to this calculation is 3102 B.C., which is the starting point of the so-called *Kali-Yuga* era. But, as pointed out by Fleet,² the reckoning was not founded in Vedic times. It is an invented one, devised by the Hindu astronomers and chronologists for the purposes of their calculations some thirty-five centuries after the initial point which they assigned to it. As a matter of fact another school of Hindu astronomers and historians represented by Vriddhagarga, Varāhamihira and Kalhaṇa placed the heroes of the Kurukshetra story 653 years after the beginning of the Kali Yuga and 2,526 years before the Śaka ēra (i.e., in B.C. 2449).¹ A recent writer tries to reconcile the conflicting views presented by the two schools of chronologists by suggesting that the Śaka-kāla of Varāha is really Śākya-kāla, i.e., the era of the Buddha's Nirvāṇa. This view is not only opposed to the evidence of Kalhaṇa but is flatly contradicted by Bhaṭṭotpala who explains Śaka-kāla of the Bṛhat-Saṁhitā passage as Śakanṛipa-kāla (era of the Śaka king).²

c9.5

² JRAS, 1911, pp. 479 ff., 675 ff.

c9.6

¹ Bṛhat Saṁhitā, xiii, 3; Rājatarangiṇī, i, 48-56

c9.7

² The Bṛhat-Saṁhitā by Varāha with the commentary of Bhaṭṭotpala, edited by Sudbākara Dvivedi, p. 281 — Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, Vol. X, Pt I, 1895.

c9.8

A third tradition is recorded by the compilers of the Purāṇas. A verse found with slight variants in the Matsya, Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Viṣṇu, and Bhāgavata Purāṇas states that "from Mahāpadma Nanda's inauguration to Parikshit's birth the interval is known as 1,015 years." (1,050 or 1,500 according to some manuscripts) :—

c9.9

Yāvat Parikshito janma
yāvan Nandābhishechanam
evam varshasahasramtu
jñeyampañchadaśottaram.³

c9.10

³ Pargiter, Dynasties of the Kali Age, p. 58.

c9.11

The date of Nanda's accession according to Geiger is 343 B.C.¹

c9.12

¹ Mahāvaṃsa, p. xlvi.

c9.13

343 B.C. + 1015 = 1358 B.C. 343 B.C. + 1050 = 1393 B.C. 343 B.C. + 1500 = 1843 B.C.

c9.14

c. 1400 B.C. (or c. 1800 B.C.) in round numbers is, therefore, the Purāṇic date of Parkshit's birth which, according to the Mahābhārata, immediately followed the battle of Kurukshetra.

c9.15

In view of the conflicting tradition regarding the date of the battle, we cannot say that implicit reliance can be placed on the early chronology of the astronomers or of the poets and chroniclers who compiled the epic, the Purāṇas and the annals of Kashmir.

c9.16

Kṛiṣhṇa certainly lived before the Buddha, as he is mentioned in the Chhāndogya Upanishad which is a pre-Buddhistic work. The evidence of the Ghata Jātaka, where Kṛiṣhṇa is mentioned as a brother and contemporary of Ghata, the Bodhisattva, points to the same conclusion. His Guru Ghora Āṅgirasa is also mentioned in the Kaushītaki Brāhmaṇa,² and the Kaṭhaka Saṃhitā³ which are also pre-Buddhistic works. Jaina tradition makes Kṛiṣhṇa a contemporary of Arishṭanemi or Neminātha, the 22nd Tīrthankara who is the immediate predecessor of Pārśvanātha, the 23rd Tīrthankara.¹ As Pārśvanātha probably flourished about 817 B.C.,² Kṛṣṇa, if Jaina tradition is to be believed, must have lived long before the closing years of the ninth century B.C. The name of the Vṛṣṇi or Sātvata family to which Kṛṣṇa belonged is unknown to the Ṛig Veda but is frequently referred to in the Brāhmaṇas. The overthrow of the family is alluded to by Kauṭilya in the *Arthaśāstra* attributed to him.

c9.17

² xxx, 6.

c9.18

³ i, 1.

c9.19

¹ Jacobi, Jaina Sūtras, Part I, pp. 271-279; II, pp. 112-119.

c9.20

² Mrs. Stevenson's Heart of Jainism, p. 48.

c9.21

Regarding the life history of Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva we know very little if we leave aside the epic and Purāṇic legends. "As far as it is known," says an American writer in speaking of the great Athenian sage, "the life of Socrates, in its merely outward bodily incident, may be told in a paragraph." Such unfortunately is also the case with Vāsudeva.

c9.22

For a life of Kṛṣṇa our sources are :—

c9.23

(1) The Chhāndogya Upanishad.
(2) The incidental notices in the *Indika* of Megasthenes, and the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali.
(3) The Buddhist *Ghata Jātaka* and the Jaina *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*.
(4) The *Mahābhārata*, the *Harivaṃśa*, the Purāṇas, and the sectarian Upanishads.

c9.24

The exact date of the *Chhāndogya Upanishad* is not known, but it is certainly pre-Buddhistic. Referring to the date of the Upanishads, Macdonell says :¹ " The earliest of them can hardly be dated later than about 600 B.C. since some important doctrines first met with in them are presupposed by Buddhism. They may be divided chronologically on internal evidence into four classes. The oldest group consisting in chronological order of the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka*, *Chhāndogya*, *Taittirīya*, *Aitareya*, *Kaushītaki*, is written in prose which still suffers from the awkwardness of the *Brāhmaṇa* style." Dr. R. L. Mitra in the introduction to his translation of the *Chhāndogya Upanishad* observes,² " An attempt has lately been made to prove that some of the doctrines in the *Chhāndogya* in common with the other Upanishads are of Buddhist origin, and consequently the work itself is of a post-Buddhistic era. But the argument used to establish this hypothesis is founded on a *petitio principii*. It begins by assigning to Buddha what, as philosophic ideas, were probably well known long before they were adopted by the founder of Buddhism, and then argues the works in which they occur to be posterior to the system of Sākyasiṅha; when the character of those very works indicates the assumption to be utterly unfounded. The Upanishads belong to an age of search and enquiry, the Sāṅkhya to doubt following enquiry, and the Bauddha philosophy to an epoch when doubt and disbelief taking possession of men's minds, dared at last to raise their heads boldly against God Himself. The hypothesis of the post-Buddhist origin of the Upanishads would reverse this order, and begin with the infidelity of Sākya to be followed by the doubt of Kapila and then the enquiry of the Upanishads.''

c9.25

¹ Hist. Sans. Lit., p. 205.

c9.26

² Pp. 23-24.

c9.27

The accepted dates of the *Indika* of Megasthenes and of the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali are, as is well known, the fourth and second centuries B.C., respectively. As regards the date of the *Jātaka*, bas-reliefs of the second century B.C. have been found illustrating a number of *Jātaka* stories. The *Jātaka* Book, according to Rhys Davids,¹ is an example of that pre-Epic form of literature of which there are so many other shorter specimens preserved for us in the earlier canonical texts. The date of the *Uttarādhyayana* is also not certain. Jaina tradition attributes its lectures to Mahāvīra. Its *niryukti* or commentary is ascribed to Bhadrabāhu (fourth century B.C.) in the *Vṛitti* of the *Ṛishimaṇḍala Sūtra*.² It forms a part of the Jaina Canon which was reduced to writing in or about the fifth century A.D.

c9.28

¹ Buddhist India, p. 206.

c9.29

² See Jacobi, The Kalpa Sūtra of Bhadrabāhu, 1879, p. 12.

c9.30

The date of the *Mahābhārata* has been discussed with great acumen by Washburn Hopkins who has given much study to this treasure house of Indian religious lore. It is true that Pāṇini and Āśvalāyana knew a *Mahābhārata*, but their epic was not our present epic. "The Pāṇḍu epic as we have it represents a period subsequent not only to Buddhism 500 B.C., but to the Greek invasion 300 B.C. Buddhist supremacy already decadent is implied by the passages which allude contemptuously to the *edūkas* or Buddhistic monuments as having ousted the temples of the gods. Thus in iii, 190,65 'They will revere *edūkas*, they will neglect the gods;' *ib.* 67, 'the earth shall be piled with *edūkas*, not adorned with god-houses.' With such expressions may be compared the thoroughly Buddhistic epithet, *Cāturmahārājika*, in xii, 339, 40, and Buddhistic philosophy as expounded in the same book."

c9.31

"The Greeks are described as a western people (north-western, with Kāmbojas), famous as fighters." "The Romans, Romakas, are mentioned but once, in a formal list of all possible peoples, ii, 51,17 (Cannibals, Chinese, Greeks, Persians, Scythians, and other barbarians), and stand thus in marked contrast to the Greeks and Persians, Pahlavas, who are mentioned very often. It is clear from this that, while the Greeks were familiar, the Romans were as yet but a name. Further, the distinct prophecy that 'Scythians, Greeks and Bactrians will rule unrighteously in the evil age to come,' which occurs in iii, 188, 35 is too clear a statement to be ignored or explained away. When this was written the peoples mentioned had already ruled Hindustan.”

c9.32

The *Śānti-parva* mentions Yāska, the author of the *Nirukta*¹ and Vārshagaṇya,² the Sāṁkhya philosopher who probably flourished in the fifth century after Christ.³

c9.33

¹ 342, 73.

c9.34

² 318, 59.

c9.35

³ *JRAS*, 1905, pp. 47-51.

c9.36

The *Harivaṁśa* is regarded as a part of the *Mahābhārata*. From the Khoh Copper Plate Inscription of Sarvanātha dating from 532-33 A.D. we learn that the *Mahābhārata* in the sixth century A.D. consisted of 1,00,000 *ślokas* (*Śatasāhasrī-Saṁhitā*). As it would have been impossible to speak even approximately of 1,00,000 verses without the *Harivaṁśa*, scholars think that the work must have formed a part of the *Mahābhārata* in the sixth century A.D. There is some reason to believe that the *Harivaṁśa*, or at least a part of it, existed before Aśvaghosha, for, an important episode about Bhīshma mentioned in the twentieth chapter of the work, but not in the *Mahābhārata*, is alluded to in the *Buddhacharita*, and two verses from the *Harivaṁśa* are quoted in the *Vajrasūchī*.⁴ But the *Harivaṁśa* is later than the Greek invasion and the beginning of commercial intercourse with the Roman Empire for it mentions the Denarius.¹

c9.37

⁴ Raychaudhuri, *Studies in Indian Antiquities*, p. 174 ; Winternitz, *History of Indian Literature*, Vol. I, p. 464.

c9.38

¹ See Viṣhṇu-parva, 55 50 and Hopkins, G.E.I., p. 387.

c9.39

The genuine Purāṇas which relate the Kṛiṣhṇa story cannot be placed earlier than the third or fourth century A.D. because they contain lists of kings of India down to the Andhra or Gupta monarchs. The original texts cannot perhaps be placed later than 500 A.D. because all the eighteen Purāṇas are mentioned in the last book of the Mahābhārata which attained its present bulk before the sixth century. Bas-reliefs have been found at Bādāmi illustrating a number of Purāṇic stories about Kṛiṣhṇa, which date from the sixth century A.D.²

c9.40

² MASI, No. 25, Bas-reliefs of Badami by R. D. Banerji, pp. 19, 24 ff.

c9.41

We have independent proof of the existence of the Vāyu, Agni, Mārkaṇḍeya, Bhāgavata and Skanda Purāṇas in some shape in the seventh century A.D.³ Telang points out that the Śaṅkara Vijaya attributed to Ānandagiri, a pupil of Śaṅkara, contains quotations from the Skanda, Mārkaṇḍeya, Bṛihannāradīya, Viṣhṇu and Bhāgavata Purāṇas.⁴ But the antiquity of the work is not above suspicion. Mr. K. G. Sesha Aiyar says that Abhinavagupta, a writer of the tenth century, refers to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in his commentary on the Gītā.⁵ It has been pointed out by Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarkar¹ that the *Mukundamālā*, attributed to the Ālvār Kulaśekhara, contains a verse from the same *Purāṇa*.* The sectarian Upanishads evidently belong to the Purāṇic age.

c9.42

³ V. Smith's E. H. I., Age of the Purāṇas.

c9.43

⁴ Indian Antiquary, 1876, 290.

c9.44

⁵ IHQ, 1931, 729.

c9.45

¹ Vaiṣṇavism, etc., pp. 49-50.

c9.46

Whatever may be the date of Krishna, he certainly lived before 600 B.C. as he is mentioned in the *Chhāndogya Upanishad*. To reconstruct a life of the teacher on the evidence of the *Hari-vamśa* or the *Purāṇas* which in their present shape are separated by an interval of many centuries from his time, will be building castles on a morass. The same remark applies to the sectarian Upanishads.

c9.47

The evidence of the *Mahābhārata* must be used with caution. Though certain parts of the poem are undoubtedly old and contain genuine historical tradition, yet the date of the work as a whole is not far removed from the age of the *Purāṇas*; and it is not always easy to separate the kernel of the epic from the husk. We shall make use only of those portions of the epic account which are corroborated by external evidence.

c9.48

The *Jātaka* and the Jaina *Sūtra*, too, cannot be implicitly relied on. They are in no sense historical records and contain a good deal of what is untrustworthy. But they have the merit of preserving versions of the Krishna story free from the extravaganzas of the epic and the Purāṇas. The Indika and the Mahābhāshya contain important hints, but being post-Buddhistic their value is considerably less than that of the Chhāndogya Upanishad; and it is from the last work that we can expect to get the most authentic information regarding the founder of the Bhāgavata religion.

c9.49

² xi, 2, 36.

c9.50

The unanimity of Hindu, Jaina and Buddhist tradition would seem to indicate that Vāsudeva was really a scion of the royal family, Yādava, Vṛishṇi or Sātvata, of Mathurā, "Upper Madhurā" according to the Ghata Jātaka. The conclusion accords with the statement of Megasthenes regarding the connection of the Indian Herakles with the Sourasenoi and Methora.¹ The city of Mathurā is apparently referred to as the Mahāsthāna, "great place," of the Blessed Vāsudeva in an inscription of the time of the Saka Satrap Soḍāsa, assignable to the first century A.D. The name of his father is Vasudeva according to the epic, the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra and the Aphsaḍ Inscription of Adityasena, Vasudeva Anakadundubhi according to the Purāṇas² and Upasāgara according to the Ghata Jātaka. The name of his mother was certainly Devakī.³ The existence of a brother named Baladeva or Saṅkarshaṇa is vouched for by all the authorities¹ including the *Mahābhāshya* which contains the passage—*Saṅkarshaṇa dvittayasya balam Krishṇasya vardhatām*.

c9.51

¹ McCrindle's Megasthenes and Arrian, p. 201.

c9.52

² Matsya, 46, 2; Vāyu, 96, 144.

c9.53

³ Chh. Up., iii, 17, 6; Mbh., i, 109, 33; the Uttarādhyayana; the Bhitari Pillar Inscription of Skanda Gupta.

c9.54

¹ Mbh., ii, 79, 28; Cowell's *Jātaka*, Vol. IV, p. 51; the *Uttarādhyayana*.

c9.55

The story of Krishṇa’s questionable relations with the Gopīs is found only in the *Harivamśa* and the *Purāṇas*, and is not met with in the *Jātaka* or the epic, not even in the reviling scene in the *Sabhā-parva*. Even a critic like Hopkins observes:² "Modern writers......forget that the lower side of Krishṇa is one especially Purānic. In short they read history backwards......In Krishṇa’s case the tricky, vulgar, human side is a later aspect, which comes to light most prominently in the Genealogy of Vishnu and in the Vishnu Purāṇa, modern works which in this regard contrast strongly with the older epic,...It is not till he becomes a great, if not the greatest, god that tales about his youthful performances when he condescended to be born in low life begin to rise."

c9.56

² *The Religions of India*, p. 467.

c9.57

We have practically no authentic information as to the way in which the childhood of Krishna was spent. The most probable view is that he lived with his preceptor Ghora Āṅgirasa and returned to Mathurā on arriving at adolescence. The *Purāṇas* mention Sāndīpani as a teacher of Kṛṣṇa. But that sage is said to have given instruction in the science of arms and not in religion or philosophy, and the Yādava prince is reputed to have studied under him after the overthrow of Kaṁsa at Mathurā. The story of Sāndīpani may or may not be historical. But it does not in any way conflict with the theory of Kṛṣṇa's residence with Ghora for purposes of religious and philosophical studies.

c9.58

The idea of the pastoral Kṛṣṇa and some of the Purāṇic stories about his childhood are evidently borrowed from the Viṣṇu legends in the Vedic literature. In the Ṛgveda, 1,22,18, Viṣṇu is called Gopā. In 1,154,6 we have a reference to the many-horned swiftly-moving cows in the abode of Viṣṇu. In 1,155,6, Viṣṇu is described as a youth who is no longer a child. In VII, 99,5, we have the story of Sambara's defeat at the hands of Viṣṇu. In the Bodhāyana-Dharma-sūtra¹ Viṣṇu is called Govinda and Dāmodara though there is no indication of his identification with Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva. But though the idea of a pastoral Kṛṣṇa may have been borrowed from the Vedas its development was clearly due to some such tribe as the Ābhiras who were closely connected with the Pāṇḍu migration to the south.²

c9.59

¹ ii, 5, 24.

c9.60

² Cf. Kanakasathai's Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago, p. 57.

c9.61

The story of Krishna's quarrel with Kamsa has some appearance of reality It is related in the *Jātaka* as well as in the epic and is alluded to by Patañjali.

c9.62

It is not a little surprising that the *Jātaka* is silent about the connection of Krishna with the Pāṇḍavas. The Pāṇḍavas are known to many *Jātakas*,¹ but nowhere is there any reference to their connection with Vāsudeva. But the story of Herakles and Pandaia narrated by Greek writers undoubtedly proves the antiquity of the tradition regarding Krishna's connection with the Pāṇḍu family. In the Great Epic Krishna figures as a friend and counsellor of the Pāṇḍavas, especially in their struggles against Jarāsandha, King of Magadha, and Duryodhana, King of the Kurus. As said by Smith, the modern critic fails to find sober history in the bardic tales about these feuds. But as deductions regarding Krishna's character have been freely made on the strength of these legends, they cannot "only be mentioned and laid aside." Hopkins observes in his *Religions of India*,² "the Krishna of the epic is a sly, unscrupulous fellow, continually suggesting and executing acts that are at variance with the knightly code of honour." That remark is one-sided will be apparent to every reader of the Great Epic.

c9.63

¹ E.g., the Kunāla Jātaka; the Kurudhamma Jātaka; the Dhūma kāri Jātaka; the Dasa Brāhmaṇa Jātaka.

c9.64

² P. 388.

c9.65

Hopkins takes note only of the few episodes in the epic in which Kṛiṣhṇa's character appears in an unfavourable light, but ignores the numerous episodes in which he appears as the embodiment of all that is good. He himself says that "the priests of Çiva were the last to retouch the poem" and that "there is as much Çivaism in the poem as there is Vishṇuism."² Sectarian rancour may have been at the bottom of this darkening of the character of Vāsudeva.³ Indications of sectarian animosity are not rare in the epic. In xii, 342, 109-116, there is a clear reference to a quarrel between Nārāyaṇa and Siva.

c9.66

² Op. cit., p. 349, n.

c9.67

³ The tricky vulgar side of Kṛiṣhṇa's character may have been partly derived from the Vishṇuite legends in the Vedic literature. In Ṛig Veda, i, 61. 7, Vishṇu stole the cooked mess. In i, 154 he receives the epithet Kuchara, 'who does a blamable action.' Vishṇu often resorts to cunning device to help Indra and other friends and to discomfit the Asuras (Keith, Religion and Philosophy of the Veda, I, 110-11) just as Kṛiṣhṇa does to assist Arjuna, son of Indra, and his brothers.

c9.68

That a section of the orthodox Brāhmaṇists were not favourably disposed towards Kṛiṣhṇa and his worship is apparent from the reviling scene of the Sabhā-parva :—

c9.69

Yadyayaṃ jagataḥ kartā
yathainaṃ mūrkha manyase
kasmānna Brāhmaṇaṃ samyag
ātmānamavagachchhati.⁴

c9.70

¹ R. I., p. 356 n.

c9.71

⁴ Mbh., ii, 42, 6.

c9.72

“If this one (Krishna) is the lord of the universe as this fool representeth him, why doth he not regard himself as a Brāhmaṇa?”

c9.73

Krishna is not the only teacher whose character has been blackened by hostile poets. In the Rāmāyaṇa,¹ the Buddha is branded as a thief and an atheist:—

c9.74

¹ ii, 109, 34. *Cf.* the Kapālin's utterance in the *Mattavilāsa-prahasana*—*Namaḥ Kharapaṭāyeti vaktavyam yena coraśāstram praṇitam. Athavā Kharapaṭā-dapyasmin adhikāre Buddha evādhikaḥ.*

c9.75

*Yathā hi cauraḥ sa tathāhi Buddha*
*Stathāgataṃ nāstikamatra viddhi.*
*Tasmāddhi yaḥ śakyatamah prajānāṃ*
*Sa nāstike nābhimukho budhaḥ syāt.*”

c9.76

Although recognised as an avatāra in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa he is said to have come down not to establish religion but to delude the enemies of the gods²:—

c9.77

² Bh. Purāṇa, 1, 3, 24.

c9.78

“*Tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya suradviṣām*
*Buddhonāmnā’ñjanasutaḥ Kikaṭeshu bhaviṣyati.*”

c9.79

In the Life of Madhva Śaṅkara is represented as an incarnation of a demon.³

c9.80

³ C. N. Krishnaswami Aiyar, *Śrī Śaṅkarācārya*, p. 5.

c9.81

In order to get the real history of the Sātvatas or Vṛṣṇis and their prophet Krishna Devakīputra we must turn to the Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas and the Upanishads. Gobala Vārshṇa is mentioned as a teacher in the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā*¹ and the *Jaiminīya Upanishad Brāhmaṇa*.² Vārshṇeya is the patronymic of Sūsha in the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa*.³ Vārshṇya is the patronymic of a man in the *Satapatha Brāhmaṇa*.⁴ The Satvats are mentioned in the *Satapatha*⁵ and the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇas*.⁶ The inference is legitimate that the Satvats, Sātvatas or Vṛishṇis were a famous people in the Brāhmaṇic age, and that they had produced at least one teacher of repute in the early Vedic times. The Aryan nationality of the Sātvatas is hinted at in the Tusam Rock inscription.

c9.82

¹ ii, 11. 9, 3.

c9.83

² i, 6, 1.

c9.84

³ iii, 10, 9, 15.

c9.85

⁴ iii, 1, 1, 4.

c9.86

⁵ xiii, 5, 4, 21.

c9.87

⁶ viii, 14, 3.

c9.88

It was among this people that Kṛishṇa was born. We learn from the *Arthaśāstra* attributed to Kauṭilya that the Vṛishṇis were a *Saṅgha* or ‘corporation.’ Their political constitution was therefore similar to that of the Sākyas among whom Gautama Buddha was born. Their irreverent attitude towards Brāhmaṇas is alluded to by all our authorities.⁷

c9.89

⁷ Kauṭilya, *Arthaśāstra*, 1919, p. 12; *Mahābhārata*, xvi, 15-22; Cowell's *Jātaka*, Vol. IV, pp. 55-56, Vol. V, p. 138.

c9.90

In the *Chhāndogya Upanishad* Kṛishṇa is represented as the son of Devakī and a pupil of Ghora Aṅgirasa. The *Rishi* Ghora Āṅgirasa was a priest of the sun.¹ The *Chhāndogya* text gives an account of the doctrines which he taught his disciple. In the opinion of the *Rishi* the *Purusha* (man) may be compared to a *yajña* (sacrifice). When the man is hungry, thirsty and enjoys no pleasure his condition corresponds to the *dīkshā* or initiation, when the performer of a sacrifice has to fast and abstain from all worldly pleasure. When he eats, drinks and enjoys himself his condition corresponds to the *upasada* when the sacrificer breaks the fast and takes food. When he laughs, feeds and indulges in pleasure his state corresponds to the *Stutaśastra* when there are music, singing of hymns and the recitation of sacred books. Penance, almsgiving, straightforwardness, harmlessness and truthfulness constitute the fee. When the man is conceived in his mother's womb, people say *soshyati* “The mother will give birth,” when the child is born, they say *asoshṭa* “The mother has given birth,” these correspond to the use of such expressions in the actual sacrifice. The death of a man corresponds to the final sacrificial bath (*avabhṛitha*).

c9.91

¹ Kaush. Br., 30, 6; Hopkins, R. I., p. 466.

c9.92

Having thus explained this subject (*Purusha-yajña Vidyā*) to Kṛishṇa, the son of Devakī, the *Rishi* added:—“Let him when his end approaches meditate on these three: ‘O Thou art the Imperishable! Thou art the Unchangeable (or Unfailing)! Thou art the true Essence of Life.'" Hearing this Kṛiṣṇa is said to have "lost all thirst for other knowledge." The sage then quoted two Ṛig-Vedic verses bearing on the subject:

c9.93

"Adit pratnasya retasaḥ
Udvayantamasaspari jyotiḥ paśyanta uttaraṃ
Svaḥ paśyanta uttaraṃ
Devaṃdevatrā Sūryamaganma jyotiruttamamiti
Jyotiruttamamiti."

c9.94

"Having beheld the glory of the First Cause—that exquisite light, high above all darkness—and having beheld it also in our own hearts, we attain to that god of gods and noblest of all lights, the Sun—the noblest of all lights."' ¹

c9.95

¹ In the *Bhīṣmastavarāja* (Mbh. xii, 47, 38-40) Kṛiṣṇa is described in similar terms by Bhīṣma.

c9.96

In the *Upanishad* passage mentioned above Kṛiṣṇa is associated with a school of thought that rejected the ritualistic interpretation of sacrifice (*Vidhi-yajna*) and gave a new meaning to human life and activities. Man's life is as sacred as a sacrifice and death is merely the final sacrificial bath provided he pays *dakṣiṇā* to his fellow beings in the shape of charity, non-violence, truthfulness and other virtues. He should when death approaches him meditate on the Imperishable, the Unfailing, the True Essence of Life and remember the "exquisite light, high above all darkness." Such a man can verily attain to the Sun, god among the gods, the noblest of all lights.

c9.97

The doctrines which Kṛṣṇa learnt from his Guru reappear in the Gītā which is attributed to the former. In the Upanishad Kṛṣṇa learnt that all the acts of life constitute a sort of sacrifice offered to the deities in the case of a man who leads a pious life—a life that enables him to attain to the "god among the gods." With this doctrine we may compare the teaching of the Gītā, ix, 27.

c9.98

Yat karoshi yadaśnāsi
yajjuhoṣhi dadāsi yat
yat tapasyasi Kaunteya
tatkurushva madarpanam.

c9.99

In the Gītā, iv, 33 Kṛṣṇa makes little of dravyamayayajña (material sacrifice) as his Guru does of vidhi-yajña.

c9.100

In the Upanishad Kṛṣṇa learnt that "Tapo-dānamārjjavamahimsāsatya-vachanam" are as efficacious (dharmapuṣṭikara) as gifts to priests in an ordinary sacrifice. In the Gītā he teaches—"Dānam damaścha yajñaścha srādhyāyam tapa ārjjavam ahimsā satyam" are his who is born to godlike endowments.¹

c9.101

¹ Gītā, xvi, 3.

c9.102

We shall place side by side a few more passages of the Upanishad, and the corresponding texts of the Bhagavadgītā. It will be seen that Krishna, like Ghora, emphasises the need of meditation "at the last hour" on the "word which knowers of the Veda call Imperishable" and "the sun-coloured being beyond the darkness," as the best means of attaining to the Supreme Celestial Person.¹

c9.103

¹ Cf. Hill, Gītā; also Mbh., xii, 47, 40, "Mahatastamasaḥ pāre Purushaṃ hyatitejasam yaṃ jñātvā mṛtyumatyeti tasmai jñeyātmane namaḥ"—Bhīshmastavarāja.

c9.104

1. Antavel āyāmetat trayam 1. Antakāle chamāmeva pratipadyeta-akshitama- smaraṇmuktvākalevaram syachyulamasi prāṇ- paramāmpurushaṃdivyaṃ śamsitamasīti. yāti Pārthānuchintayan —Gītā, viii, 5-8. Prayāṇakāle . . . . . Yadaksharaṃ vedavido vadanti sayātiparamāṃgatim —viii, 10-13.

c9.105

2. Udvayantamasaspari 2. Anusmaredyaḥ sarvasya jyotiḥ paśyanta utta- dhātāramachintya rūparaṃ svaḥ paśyanta mūḍīyavarṇaṃ-tamasaḥ uttaraṃ devaṃdevatrā parastāl satamparaṃ Sūryamaganma. purushamupaiti divyam —viii, 9-10.

c9.106

How are we to account for these coincidences? They cannot be fortuitous. In the Upanishad and in the *Gītā* we find the same doctrines associated with the name of one and the same person (Kṛiṣhṇa, the son of Devakī). There is no escape from the conclusion that these doctrines were actually learnt by Kṛiṣhṇa from Ghora Āṅgirasa, and were transmitted by him to his disciples—the Bhāgavatas—and formed the kernel of the poem known as the *Bhagavadgītā*.

c9.107

Though the *Gītā* contains the doctrines which Kṛiṣhṇa inherited from his Guru, yet it is by no means a product of the age in which Kṛiṣhṇa lived. Kṛiṣhṇa himself is mentioned in one of the oldest *Upanishads*, while the *Gītā* presupposes the existence of all the classical *Upanishads* by its reference to the *Brahmasūtras*.¹

c9.108

¹ *Gītā*, xiii, 5.

c9.109

*Ṛiṣhibhirbahudhāgītam*
*chhandobhirvividhaiḥ prithak*
*Brahmasūtrapadaiśchaiva*
*hetumabhirviniśchitaiḥ.*

c9.110

“Hear and learn from me the Supreme Soul (*Kṣhetrajña*) that has been celebrated in many ways by *Ṛiṣhis* in various metres, and by the words of the *Brahmasūtras*, which are definite and furnished with reasons.”² Here the words *Brahma-sūtrapadaiḥ* seem to Max Müller to refer clearly to the recognised title of the *Sūtras* of Bādarāyaṇa.

c9.111

² Max Müller's *Indian Philosophy*, p. 118.

c9.112

The words " definite and argumentative " can refer to Sūtras only. Now as the Brahmasūtras refer, by the name of Śruti, to the Bṛihadāraṇyaka, Chhāndogya and other ancient Upanishads, the Gītā must be considered to be posterior to all these works. Even if the reference, in the Gītā, is to an earlier recension of the Brahmasūtras long anterior to the extant aphorisms attributed to Bādarāyaṇa, it cannot be denied that the " Lord's song " presupposes the classical Upanishads, for it is impossible to conceive of a Brahmasūtra however ancient which is not based on those texts.¹

c9.113

¹ Garbe seems to think that the Gītā shows acquaintance with the Kaṭha, Śvetāśvatara and even the Nṛisiṃha tāpanīya Upanishads (Introduction to the Bhagavadgītā translated by N. B. Utgikar, Indian Antiquary, 1918, p. 31).

c9.114

Several scholars have attempted to fix the date of the Gītā. According to Telang " the Gītā must have been composed at the latest somewhere about the fourth century B.C." ² Dr. Macnicol observes in his Indian Theism,³ " the Gītā is post-Buddhistic, and at least a considerable part of it is pre-Christian."

c9.115

² Introductory Essay to the Bhagavadgītā, p. xcii.

c9.116

³ P. 76.

c9.117

The Gītā is mentioned in the Kādambarī of Bāṇabhaṭṭa, the court-poet of Harshavardhana, who flourished in the first half of the seventh century A.D. In the Kādambarī one of the equivoques runs as follows :—

c9.118

“*Mahābhāratamivānantagītākarṇanānanditanaram*” —“(the royal palace) in which people were gratified by hearing innumerable songs was like the *Mahābhārata*, in which Nara (Arjuna) was gratified by hearing the *Anantagītā*.”

c9.119

The testimony of the Khoh Copper-plate Inscription of Sarvanātha carries the proof of the antiquity of the *Gītā* several centuries further back. We learn from that inscription that the *Mahābhārata* in the first half of the sixth century A.D. contained one hundred thousand *ślokas*. As Professor Macdonell points out, it certainly included the twelfth and thirteenth books, and even the supplementary book called the *Harivaṃśa* without any of which it would have been impossible to speak even approximately of one hundred thousand verses. As the *Gītā* is alluded to in the twelfth book¹ it must have existed long before the sixth century A.D. The *Anugītā* which forms part of the fourteenth book of the *Mahābhārata*, also presupposes the existence of the *Bhagavadgītā*. There can be no question that the *Gītā* is one of the older poems of the Great Epic.

c9.120

¹ xii, 348, 8, 53.

c9.121

The *Gītā* was certainly known to Kālidāsa and the author of the extant *Brahmasūtras*. As pointed out by Mallinātha, Telang and Garbe, the passage in the *Kumārasambhava* of Kālidāsa where Aṅgiras says to Himālaya:

c9.122

*sthāne tvām sthāvarātmānam*
*Viṣṇum āhur manīṣiṇaḥ*,¹

c9.123

¹ vi, 67. 2 Telang's Introductory Essay to the Bhagavadgītā, p. xci. 3 xiii, 5. 4 Max Müller's Indian Philosophy, p. 119. 5 Act III. Ed. by Ganapati Śāstri, p. 74.

c9.124

“Rightly do the wise call thee Viṣṇu in the shape of a mountain,” we have an unmistakable reference to the *Gītā* x, 25 (*asmi sthāvarāṇām Himālayaḥ*) both in form and in sense. The extant *Brahmasūtras*, when they refer to *Smṛiti*, refer clearly to passages taken from the *Bhagavadgītā* also. Under *Sūtra*, i, 2, 6, Śaṅkara quotes *Gītā* xviii, 61. Under *Sūtra* ii, 3, 45 all the famous commentators (Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Madhva) cite *Gītā*, xv, 7. Again under iv, 2, 22 all these commentators refer to the same passage—that at the close of the *Gītā*, Chap. viii.² But as the *Gītā* cetainly appeals to the *Brahmasūtras*³ this reciprocal quotation according to some scholars might be accounted for by their being contemporaneous.⁴ The *Chārudatta* attributed to Bhāsa, a predecessor of Kālidāsa, seems to allude to the *Brahmasūtras*.⁵ In his introduction to the sacred laws of Āpastamba Dr. Bühler observes⁶ “he (Āpastamba) knew not only the unsystematic speculations contained in the *Upanishads* and *Āraṇyakas*, but a well-defined system of Vedāntic philosophy identical with that of Badarāyaṇa's *Brahmasūtras*." The same writer says that "on linguistic grounds Āpastamba cannot be placed later than the third century B.C."'¹ If the views of Max Müller and Bühler are accepted then the *Brahmasūtras* as well as the *Bhagavadgītā* must have existed at least as early as the third century B.C. From the absence of any allusion to the *Vyūha* doctrine in the *Gītā* Sir R. G. Bhandarkar concludes that it was earlier than the Ghosuṇḍī and Nānāghāṭ inscriptions and the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali (second century B.C.) all of which show acquaintance with the *Vyūhavāda*. Garbe thinks that the mention in the *Gītā* of the word Himālaya, the modern form of the older Himavat, makes an impression of relative lateness. It should however be remembered that Simalia, the ancient Babylonian queen of the snow mountains, can hardly be dissociated from the name Himālaya,² though it must be conceded that the occurrence of the word Himālaya in Sanskrit literature is comparatively late. An important thing to remember is that the *Gītā* is one of the older poems of an epic which was virtually completed before the beginning of active intercourse with Rome (first century B.C.), for while the Yavanas and Pahlavas are mentioned very often, the Romakas are mentioned but once and we have no reference to the *Denarius* until we come to the supplementary book styled the *Harivamśa*. Hill rightly points out that the *Gītā* was written at a time when the idea of Vāsudeva as supreme was far from meeting with that tolerant acceptance among the orthodox which it afterwards won.¹

c9.125

¹ P. xliii. A date in the second century B.C. is suggested by Hopkins in the Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 249.

c9.126

² Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 76.

c9.127

¹ Cf. Gītā, vii, 19; ix, 11.

c9.128

If the extant *Brahmasūtras* show acquaintance with the Buddhist *Vijñānavāda* and *Śūnyavāda* and the *Bhāgavata* doctrine of the *Vyūhas* as suggested by Śaṅkara, then the *Brahmasūtra* mentioned in the *Gītā* and the aphorisms of Āpastamba must refer to an earlier recension of the work.

c9.129

The precise extent of Kṛṣṇa’s own contributions to the doctrines contained in the *Gītā* cannot easily be ascertained. From the importance attached to “*dama, tyāga* and *apramāda*” in the *Bhāgavata* inscription of Heliodoros at Besnagar, one is tempted to infer that these doctrines were believed to have been taught by the Master Himself. “*dama*, and *tyāga*,” self-restraint and self-denial are inculcated in the *Gītā*, xvi, 1-2, xviii, 2,51, etc., and *pramāda*, heedlessness, is considered to be the product of *tamas* (darkness) and is classed with those “impediments “by crossing beyond which the embodied soul attains *amṛtam*,” deathlessness. But these precepts are not to be found in the corresponding passage of the *Chhān-* dogya Upanishad¹ which embodies the teaching of Ghora Āṅgirasa.

c9.130

¹ Gītā, xiv, 17-20; cf. Chhāndogya, iii, 17, 4.

c9.131

| Chh. Up. | Gītā. | Bes. Ins. |
| *Tapodānamārjjā-vam ahiṃsā satyavachanamiti* | *Dānam Damaścha yajñaścha svādhyāyam tapa ārjjavam ahiṃsā satyam akrodha styāgaḥ śāntir apaiśunam. Sattvātsaṃjāyate jñānaṃ rajaso lobha eva cha pramāda mohau tamaso bhavato' jñānameva cha guṇānetānatyatrin dehidehasamudbhavān janma mṛtyu jarā duḥkhair vimukto' mṛtamaśnute.*² | *Triṇi amuta padāni suanuṣṭhitāni nayamtisvaga dama chāga apramāda* |

c9.132

² Gītā, xiv, 17-20.

c9.133

We have seen that the *Bhāgavata* religion, the parent of modern *Vaishṇavism*, arose in the Mathurā region, and that its founder was a scion of the *Vṛishṇi* or *Sātvata* branch of the *Yādava* clan and a disciple of the Ṛishi Ghora Āṅgirasa, a priest of the Sun.

c9.134

There is much truth in Grierson's surmise that the *Bhāgavata* doctrine was a development of the Sun-worship that was the common heritage of both branches of the Aryan people—the Iranian and the Indian.³ All the legends dealing with the origin of the *Bhāgavata* religion are connected in some way or other with the Sun. According to the *Śānti-parva* of the *Mahābhārata*, the *Sātvata* code had been declared in ancient times by the Sun—*Sātvatam vidhimāsthāya prāk Sūryamukhanisṛtam*.¹ In the *Gītā* the *Bhagavat* says:—

c9.135

³ Ind. Ant., 1908, p. 253.

c9.136

¹ Mbh., xii, 335, 19.

c9.137

*Imam Vivasvate yogam proktavānahamavyayam*
*Vivasvān Manave prāha Manur Ikshvākave'bravīt*.²

c9.138

² Gītā, iv, 1.

c9.139

“To Vivasvat (the Sun) I expounded this immutable doctrine of control; to Manu did Vivasvat declare it; Manu told it to Ikshvāku.”³

c9.140

³ Hill, *Bhagavadgītā*, 137.

c9.141

It was one of the solar deities, *viz.*, Vishnu, who became the One God of the *Bhāgavatas*. Vāsudeva’s *Garuda* (Eagle vehicle) and *Chakra* (discus) are also connected with solar legends.⁴ The close connection between *Bhāgavatism* and Solar worship is also possibly suggested by the Khoh Copper-plate Inscription of Sarvanātha, of A.D. 512-13, which records the grant of a village on the river Tamasā for the purposes of shrines of the *Bhagavat* and of *Āditya-bhaṭṭāraka*.⁵

c9.142

⁴ Macdonell, *Vedic Mythology*, p. 39.

c9.143

⁵ Fleet, *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, Vol. III, 127.

c9.144

We have already noticed the doctrines which Krishna learnt from the priest of the sun, and which he undoubtedly transmitted to his disciples, as is proved by their reappearance in the *Bhaga-* vadgītā. We have also seen that though the Gītā is not the work of Krishna himself or of any of his contemporaries, yet it has preserved, with certain modifications, the actual teachings of the Master and his Guru inflated no doubt by other sayings traditionally attributed to the former. In the history of Bhāgavatism the Gītā occupies a position similar to that which the Dhammachakkappavattana Sutta occupies in Buddhism. The services rendered by the compiler of the Bhagavadgītā to the system of Krishna finds its closest parallel in what the author of the Sāmkhyakārikā did for the system of Kapila.

c9.145

It is twice asserted in the Śānti-parva of the Mahābhārata that the Bhāgavata, or Ekāntika, religion was the burden of the teaching of the Gītā:—

c9.146

“Evamesho mahān dharmaḥ sate pūrvam nṛpottama
Kathito Harigītāsu samāsavidhikalpitaḥ.”¹

c9.147

¹ Mbh., xii, 346, 11.

c9.148

“Samupodheshvanīkeshu Kuru Pāṇḍavayormṛdhe
Arjune vimanaskecha gītā Bhagavatā svayam.”²

c9.149

² Mbh., xii, 348, 8.

c9.150

The Bhagavadgītā is a work which, in spite of its apparent simplicity, has baffled many commentators and critics.³ To some it appears full of contradictions; to others, it is a patchwork of three or four layers set one above another. To others again the central theme is clear, while the work is full of digressions and repetitions. According to Holtzmann it is a Vishṇuite remodelling of a pantheistic poem; according to Hopkins it is a Kṛishṇaite version of an old Vishṇuite poem, which in turn was a late Upanishad; according to Deussen it is a late product of the degeneration of the monistic thought of the Upanishads representing the period of transition from theism to realistic atheism; according to Garbe it is the text-book of the Bhāgavatas revised in a Vedāntic sense by the Brāhmaṇas; according to Macnicol it is rightly to be described as an Upanishad which, though it has more unity than most of its kind, contains interpolations emphasizing the view of one school or another. The Vaishṇava view is put forward in the Gītārthasaṃgraha of Yāmunāchārya. Yāmuna following the ancient oral teaching analysed the work as a consistent exposition of the doctrine of Bhakti supplemented by a description of the Karma and Jñāna Yogas as subordinate to the main theme. The prominent features of the Gītā teaching have been sought to be indicated by Dr. Seal in his *Comparative Studies in Vaishṇavism and Christianity*,¹ and a full summary of the work has been given by Sir R. G.

c9.151

³ See Garbe, Introduction to the Bhagavadgītā, translated by Utgikar, pp. 1 ff.; Macnicol, Indian Theism, pp. 76 ff. T. Rājagopāla Chariar, The Vaishnavite Reformers of India, pp. 44 f.

c9.152

Bhandarkar in his *Vaisnavism*. The question of the relation of the *Gītā* to Christianity will be discussed in my next lecture.

c9.153

The central theme of the *Gītā*, as understood in the light of Ghora’s teaching and the *Bhāgavata* inscription of Besnagar, is adoration of Vāsudeva, the god of gods (*devadeva*)¹ whose emblem is the sun-bird *Garuda* Vainateya. The way to reach immortality (*amṛtam*), the supreme eternal deathless abode, *paramadhāma*, *para sthāna*, *pada anāmaya*, *sthāna śāśvata*, *svaga*, of the *devadeva*, “the light of lights that overpasses darkness,” is not the performance of ordinary material sacrifice (*vidhiyajña*, *dravyamaya yajña*) but a spiritualised sacrifice the most essential element of which is the practice of self-control (*dama*), abandonment of the fruit of every work (*tyāga*) and crossing beyond the three “strands” (*guṇa*), especially “darkness” (*tamas*) which is productive of heedlessness (*pramāda*). “He who with unwavering practice of devotion (*bhaktiyogena*) does me (Vāsudeva) service (*sevate*) has crossed beyond the strands, and is fit for Brahman’s being. The ground of Brahman am I (Vāsudeva), of deathlessness (*amṛta*) immutable, of right everlasting, and of pleasure absolute.”[²]²

c9.154

¹ Cf. *Gītā*, x, 15; xi, 13.

c9.155

² Hill, *Bhagavad Gītā*, 205.

c9.156

The new religion taught by Krishna seems to have been first adopted by his tribe, the Yādavas, especially by the Sātvata sept to which the Master himself belonged. In the Śānti-parva we often find the name Sātvata used as a synonym for Bhāgavata without any ethnic signification whatever. In the Tusam Rock Inscription of the fourth or fifth century A.D.¹ an Āryya-Sātvata-Yogāchāryya is mentioned.

c9.157

¹ Corp. Ins. Ind., Vol. III, p. 270.

c9.158

In the fourth century B.C. the strongest adherents of Vāsudeva were to be found only in the Mathurā region, for we learn from Megasthenes that the people who held Herakles in special honour were the Sourasenoi (Sūrasenas) who possessed two large cities, Methora (Mathurā) and Kleisobora, and through whose country flowed a navigable river called the Jobares (Jumna).²

c9.159

² McCrindle, Megasthenes and Arrian, p. 201.

c9.160

We hear little about the Bhāgavatas in the third century B.C. But we have a good deal of information regarding the condition of the sect in the second century B.C. The preference which Aśoka openly avowed for Buddhism, and his active propaganda undoubtedly brought his favourite doctrine to the front in the third century B.C., and pushed the rival creeds to a corner.

c9.161

It is a noticeable fact that the Bhāgavatas are almost wholly ignored in the ancient literary and epigraphic records of the Buddhists in Magadha and the neighbouring provinces, but are constantly mentioned from the time of Pāṇini onwards in the records, literary and epigraphic, of the Western part of Northern India. The Aṅguttara Nikāya mentions the Ājīvikas, the Nigaṇṭhas, the Muṇḍa-Sāvakas, the Jaṭilakas, the Paribbājakas, the Magaṇḍikas, the Teḍaṇḍikas, the Aviruddhakas, the Gotamakas and the Devadhammikas¹ but never the Vāsudevakas and the Arjunakas. The Seventh Pillar Edict of Aśoka mentions the Brāhmaṇas, the Ājīvikas and the Nigaṇṭhas or Jainas, but not the Bhāgavatas. There is a solitary reference to Vāsudevavatikā and Baladevavatikā, i.e., the worshippers of Vāsudeva and Baladeva (Saṅkarshaṇa), in a passage occurring in two Canonical Commentaries known as the Chulla Niddesa and Mahā Niddesa.²

c9.162

¹ Aṅguttara, III, pp. 276-77, Dialogues of the Buddha, Part I, p. 220.

c9.163

² Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems, p. 3.

c9.164

The omission of the Vāsudevakas or the Bhāgavatas in almost all the early records of the Buddhists in Eastern India is probably due to the fact that they were as yet a local sect confined to the Jumna Valley included among the Devadhammikas or some other sect, and little known in Magadha and its neighbourhood, though well known to the people of Gandhāra and parts of Central India. The early canonical literature of the Buddhists took note only of the important Kosalan and Magadhan sects, while the Pillar Edicts of Aśoka were intended mainly for the "home provinces" from which the land of the *Bhāgavatas* was presumably excluded. The Niddesa list,¹ on the other hand, apparently originated among the followers of Mahā Kachchāyana who was the first among the chief disciples of Śākyamuni through whose agency Buddhism gained ground in the Mathurā region.²

c9.165

¹ Chulla Niddesa, pp. 173-74. I owe this reference to Dr. Barua.

c9.166

² Vide the Madhura Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya.

c9.167

Whatever may have been the state of the *Bhāgavatas* in the third century B.C., we learn from the inscriptions at Ghosuṇḍī and Besnagar that in the second century B.C. the *Bhāgavata* religion had overstepped the boundaries of the Mathurā region and spread to the Indian Borderland, and that its fame had reached the ears of non-Indian peoples some of whom became converts to the faith.

c9.168

The Ghosuṇḍī Stone Inscription³ records the erection of a *pūjā* stone wall (*Silāprākāra*) at the Nārāyaṇavāṭa by Sarvatāta Gājāyana, the son of a Pārāśarī, a performer of the *Aśvamedha* sacrifice, for *Bhagavat*, *Sarveśvara* (supreme lord), Saṅkarshaṇa and Vāsudeva.

c9.169

³ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. X, Appendix, p. 2; xvi, 25; Indian Antiquary, 1932, 203 ff.

c9.170

The worship of Saṅkarshaṇa is alluded to in the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*. Mention is made in that work of a class of ascetics "with shaved head or braided hair" who adored Saṅkarṣaṇa as their *devatā*. In the earlier part of the *Mahābhārata* Saṅkarṣaṇa is the elder brother of Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva¹ and his helper in the struggle against Kaṃsa.² He is held in special honour by Duryodhana, king of the Kurus, while his brother receives the homage of the Pāṇḍus. In the *Bhīṣmaparva* and the *Ahirbudhnya Saṃhitā* Saṅkarṣaṇa appears as an exponent of the *Sātvata* or *Pañcarātra śāstra*. In the religious philosophy of Bhāgavatism as expounded in the *Nārāyaṇīya* section of the *Śāntiparva*, Vāsudeva is identified with the *Paramātman* (Supreme Soul), while Saṅkarṣaṇa is identified with the individual soul or *Jīva*.

c9.171

¹ Mbh., ii, 79, 23.

c9.172

² Mbh., ii, 14, 34.

c9.173

Yaṃ praviśya bhavantīha muktā vai drija sattamāḥ
Sa Vāsudevo vijñeyaḥ paramātmā sanātanaḥ³

c9.174

³ Mbh., xii, 339, 25.

c9.175

Jñeyaḥ sa eva rājendra jīvaḥ Saṅkarṣaṇaḥ prabhuḥ.⁴

c9.176

⁴ Mbh., xii, 339, 40.

c9.177

In the worship of Saṅkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva we have the germ of the *Vyūha* doctrine of the Bhāgavatas or Pañcarātras. The doctrine of the *Vyūhas* is thus stated by Grierson.⁵ "The Bhagavat Vāsudeva, in the act of creation produces from Himself, not only *prakṛiti*, the indiscrete primal matter of the Sāṁkhyas, but also a *Vyūha* or phase of conditioned spirit called Saṅkarṣaṇa. From the combination of Saṅkarṣaṇa and *prakṛiti* spring *manas*, corresponding to the Sāṁkhya *buddhi* or intelligence, and also a secondary phase of conditioned spirit called Pradyumna. From the association of Pradyumna with *manas* spring the Sāṁkhya *ahaṅkāra* or consciousness, and also a tertiary phase of conditioned spirit known as Aniruddha. From the association of Aniruddha with *ahaṅkāra* spring the Sāṁkhya *Mahābhūtas* or elements with their qualities, and also Brahmā, who, from the elements, fashions the earth and all that it contains."¹

c9.178

⁵ Ind. Ant., 1908, p. 251.

c9.179

¹ Sir R. G. Bhandarkar points out that the *Gītā* contains no allusion to the *Vyūhas*. It however mentions as *Prakṛitis* of Vāsudeva the five elements, the mind, *Buddhi*, egoism and *Jīva* (vii, 4-5). The three *Prakṛitis*, *Jīva*, mind and egoism were later on personified into Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha (*Vaiṣṇavism*, pp. 12-13). Patañjali probably alludes to the *Vyūhas* in the passage of the *Mahābhāshya*—*Janārdana-stvātmachaturtha eva*. The first clear enunciation of the *Vyūha* doctrine occurs in the *Nārāyaṇīya* section of the *Śānti Parva* which is older than Śaṅkara and probably also than the *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*—(Sir R. G. Bhandarkar's *Vaiṣṇavism*, p. 4, and Dr. Seal's *Comparative Studies in Vaiṣṇavism and Christianity*, p. 30). The earliest *Pañcharātra Saṁhitās* that refer to the *Vyūha* doctrine may be of a somewhat later date (Schrader, *Introduction to the Pañcharātra*, pp. 96ff.) The *Nārāyaṇīya* and the *Saṁhitās* do not give a consistent account of the *Vyūhas*. *Cf.* Grierson, *Ind. Ant.*, xxxvii, 1908, pp. 377, 379, including notes, and Schrader, *op. cit.*, 35 ff., 50 ff , 143 ff., 152 ff.

c9.180

It should be noted that the Ghosuṇḍī record which we owe to a horse-sacrificing votary of the Blessed Ones, Saṅkarshaṇa is not a mere emanation from Vāsudeva, but is styled *Bhagavat* and *Sarveśvara* equally with his more famous brother. Saṅkarshaṇa had undoubtedly his special votaries as is proved by the evidence of Kauṭilya and the story of his relations with Duryodhana narrated in the Great Epic.

c9.181

We now come to the Besnagar Column Inscription of Heliodoros.¹ It was found on the base of a detached pillar standing to the north-east of Besnagar in the Gwalior territory. The Greek king Antialkidas mentioned in the inscription is supposed to have reigned in the second century B.C.²

c9.182

¹ Vogel, *Garuḍa Pillar of Besnagar*, *Arcn. Sur. Ind.*, 1908-09, p. 126. *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. X, Appendix, p. 63.

c9.183

² V. A. Smith's "A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon," pp. 65-66.

c9.184

The first part of the inscription records the erection of a *Garuḍadhvaja* of Vāsudeva, the god of gods, by the *Bhāgavata* Heliodora, the son of Diya (Dion), the Takhkhasilāka (native of Taxila), a *Yona* ambassador, who came from Mahārāja Amtalikita (Antialkidas) to Rājan Kāsiputa Bhāgabhadra the Saviour (*trātāra*); who was prospering in the fourteenth year of his reign :—

c9.185

*Devadevasa Vā(sude)rasa Garuḍadhvaje ayam* *kārite i(a) Heliodoreṇa Bhāga* *vatena Diyasa putreṇa Takhkhasilākena*

c9.186

Yona-dūtena āgatena mahārājasa
Amtalikitasa upā(ṃ)tā sakāsam Raño
Kāsi putasa Bhāgabhadrasa trātārasa
vasena (chatu) daseṃnarājena vadhamānasa

c9.187

The second part of the epigraph runs as follows :—

c9.188

Trini amuta padāni (su)anuṭhitāni
Nayamti svaga dama chāga apramāda

First 187 of 273 passages. Read on

Linked texts (48)