CHRISTIAN TRACES IN THE BEIAGAWAD-GiTA.

October, 1873.]

as Dr. Roer, Bibl. Ind. vol. XV. pp. 37 and 97,

asserts of the Svetášratara and Katha Upa nishads) a system which, like the Bhagavad-Gita, seeks to unite the doctrines of the Sámkhya, Vedānta, and Yoga schools; they belong to the

295

again, is adduced to prove the possibility of the resurrection of the dead. Here too perhaps we have traces of a Christian legend.”

The Grantha-Upanishad is regarded by Weber as older, yet the mention of Vishnu (iii. 9),

latest of the Vedas—the Atharva-Veda–and in

and the expression Sraddhá (faith, iii. 4), as

the case of mone of them is there any convincing reason for looking on the hypothesis of their post-Christian origin as impossible. On the contrary, with regard to, the most important,

well as the whole contents, seem to point to the conclusion that this Upanishad also dates from the time at which the Vishnu-cultus began to develop itself under the modification of Chris

and, as I believe, the oldest, of them—the Sretáš

tian ideas.

ratara-Upanishad—there are externalindications of Christian influence. On this point Dr. Weber says, in his Indische Studien (I. p. 421ff): “With regard to the name of this Upanishad, we read at the conclusion of the sixth chapter, “By the power of his penance and the grace of

God, the wise Svetášvatara, who knew Brahma, communicated this excellent means of purifi eation to the neighbouring hermits. This high est secret in the Vedānta, coming from the times of old, is not to be communicated to an

unconsecrated person, or to an unlearned man, for he who consecrates the highest humility to God, and to his teacher as to God, he is illumi

nated by the things related here.' The name

of this sage, Svetášvatara, I have nowhere else met with. It may be the honorary title of some priest whose proper name has not come down to us.” And in the note, “According to Wil

son (As. Res. XVII. 187) Svetášva is a scholar of Śiva in his appearances as Sveta (white), in which he is to appear at the commencement of the Kaliyuga in order to instruct the Brahmans. He dwelt on the Himalaya, and taught the

Yoga. Besides Svetášva, he and three scholars, of whom the one was called Sveta (white), the other two Svetášikha (white hairs) and Svetalo hita (white blood). Perhaps we have here a mis sion of Syrian Christians. That their doctrines

would be put by their Indian scholars into a Brahmanical dress, and that of Christianity only the monotheism would remain, is natural.

In

the Mahābhārata, XII. 5743, the example of a Svetisya rājarsheh (white king), who, because he was dharmanishtha, raised his son to life

• That the author of the

svetášvatara-Upanishad

As to the relation of the Bhagavad-Gita to the Upanishad, I look on the former as later, principally because in the Bhagav wa-Gita the

use of Christian ideas and expressions is much more common and evident than in those

Upanish ids in which, as I think, we have only the first weak traces of such a borrowing. A second objection which might be raised rests on the similarity, pointed out in the com mentary, of several passages in the Bhagavad

Gita with sayings of Thomas à Kemp is 's theological doctrinest which emerge in Christian ity only in later times as the results of theo logical science. We might be confronted with

the maxim “He who proves too much proves nothing.” If we are to look upon the passages that remind us of the New Testament as bor

rowed, those that remind us of Thomas à Kem

pis must also have been borrowed, and so the date of the Bhagavad-Gita must be put later than according to probability it can be. To this I answer (1) that between the parallels cited in the commentary from Thomas à Kem pis and those from the New Testament a careful comparison will show an important difference in the kind and degree of coincidence, which is much more distinct and significant in the latter than in the former. (2) That Christian asceti cism and Indian Yoga have in many things internal points of contact, which of themselves would lead to similarity of expression, so that we need not assume any external influence to account for this similarity. (3) That even in the first centuries asceticism was already so far developed that we need not be surprised if

calls

+ Conf. Bhag. Gita, ii. 57 with De Imit. Chr. III.xxvi.;

the highest divine being Rudra (Siva), and therefore does

B. G. ii. 58 and I. C. III. i. ; B. G. iii. 60 and I. C. III. xxxiii.; B. G. ii. 64 and I. C. III. xii.; B. G. ii. 71 and I. C. III. xxxii.; B. G. iii. 30 and I. C. II. iv.; B. G.

not, like the author of the Bhagavad-Gita, belong to the Waishnavas, but to the followers of Siva, does not alter the contents of his doctrine.

That agrees in all important

ints with the Bhagavad-Gita, and the mention of Rudra not prevented the author of the latter book from mak

ing copious use of this Upanishad.

iii. 39 and I. C. III. lv.; B. G. v. 7 and I. C. II. i.; B. G. v. 20 and I. C. iii. 37; B. G. vi. 28 and I. C. II. viii.; B. G. vii. 3 and I. C. II. ix.; B. G. xii. 11 and I. C. III. li.; and B. G. xiii. 11 and I. C. I. xx.-E.D.