Vol. 3 · pages 256–260

243 LITERATURE OF BRAHMINISM then it is obvious that parts of the Mahabharata were written after the invasion of Mohammad Ghori. The first Muslim invasion took place in 712 A.D. under Ibne Kassim. He captured some of the towns in Northern India but did not cause much destruction. He was followed by Mohammad of Gazni. He caused great destruction of Temples and Viharas and massacred priests of both religions. But he did not engage himself in building Mosques or Idgahas. That was done by Mohammad Ghori. From this it can be said that the writing of the Mahabharata was not complete till 1200 A.D. It seems that like the Mahabharata, the Ramayana has also gone through three editions. There are two sort of references to the Ramayana in the Mahabharata. In one case the reference is to ‘Ramayana’ without any mention of the author. In other the reference is to the Ramayana of Valmilki. But the present Ramayana is not the Ramayana of Valmiki. 1 In the opinion of Mr. C. V. Vaidya 2: “That the present Ramayana, even as it is approved and adopted by the searching and all-respected commentator Kataka, is not the Ramayana originally written by Valmiki, not even the most orthodox thinker will be disposed to doubt. Whoever even cursorily reads the poem cannot but be struck with the inconsistencies, the severances of connections, juxtapositions of new and old ideas which abound so greatly in the present Ramayana, whether we take the Bengal or the Bombay text of it. And one cannot but come to the conclusion that the Ramayana of Valmiki was substantially reconstructed at some subsequent date.” As in the case of the Mahabharata there has been an accretion to the subject matter of the Ramayana. Originally it was just a story of the war between Rama and Ravana over the abduction of Rama’s wife Sita by Ravana. In the second edition it became a story with a sermon. From a purely historical work it also became a didactic work aiming to teach a right code of Social, Moral and religious duties. When it assumed the form of a third edition it was, again, like the Mahabharat, made a repository of legends, knowledge, learning, philosophy and other arts and sciences. With regard to the date of the composition of the Ramayana one proposition is well established namely that the episode of Rama is older than the episode of the Pandus. But that the composition of the Ramayana has gone on paripassu along with the composition of the Mahabharata. Portions of Ramayana may be earlier than the Mahabharata. But there can be no doubt that a great part of the 1 Hopkins “The Great Epic of India”, p. 62. 2 The Riddle of the Ramayana Chap. II. p. 6.

244 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Ramayana was composed after a great part of the Mahabharata had already been composed. 1 (INCOMPLETE) II The literature from which I propose to draw upon consists of (1) The Bhagwat Geeta (2) The Vedant Sutras (3) The Mahabharat (4) The Ramayana and (5) The Puranas. In analysing this literature I propose to bring out only such facts as are capable of being suggested by inference a reason or reasons for the decline of Buddhism. Before proceeding to examine the subject matter of this lirerature I must deal with the question of the period when this literature came into existence. Not all will agree that the literature referred to came into being after the revolution of Pushyamitra. On the contrary most Hindus whether orthodox or not, learned or not, have an in-eradicable belief that their sacred literature is a very old one in point of time. Indeed it seems to be an article of faith with every Hindu which necessitates a belief in a very high antiquity of their sacred literature. (I) BHAGWAT GITA Beginning with the Bhagwat Gita, the date of its composition has been a matter of controversy. Mr. Telang 2 was of opinion that we should “take the second century B.C. as a terminous before which the Gita must have been composed”. The late Mr. Tilak 3 was convinced that the date of the present Gita must be taken as not later than 500 years before the Saka era” which means that the present Gita was composed somewhere about…. According to Prof. Garbe 4 the date of the composition of the Bhagwat Gita must be placed somewhere between 200 and 400 A.D. There is another view propounded by Mr. Kausambi and is based on quite indisputable data. Prof. Kausambi insists that the Gita was composed in the reign of Gupta King Baladitya. Baladitya belonged to the Gupta dynasty which supplanted the Andhra Dynasty in the year….. Baladitya came to the throne in the year 467 A.D. His reasons for so late a date for the composition of the Gita are two. Before Sankaracharya —who was 1 See the Appendix A to Hopkins “The Great Epic of India” for Parallel phrases in the two epics. 2 Introduction to his translation of the Bhagwat Gita in the “Sacred Books, of the East” Series. 3 Gita-Rahasva (Eng. Translation) Vol.II p.800. According in Mr. Tilak the original Gita must have been some centuries earlier. 4 Introduction to the Bhagwat Gita English Translation by Prof. Utgikar.

245 LITERATURE OF BRAHMINISM born in 788 A.D. and who died in 820 A.D. —wrote his commentary on the Bhagwat Gita, it was an unknown composition. It was certainly not mentioned in the Tatvasangraha by Shantarakshit who wrote his treatise only 50 years before the advent of Sankaracharya. His second reason is this. Vasubandhu was the originator of a school of thought known as ‘ Vijnan Vad’. The Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya contains a criticism of the Vijnan Vad of Vasubandhu. The Gita contains a reference 1 to the Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya. The Gita must therefore be after Vasubandhu and after the Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya. Vasubandhu was the preceptor of the Gupta King Baladitya. That being so the Bhagwat Gita must have been composed or at any rate portions of Gita must have been added to the original edition during or after the reign of Baladitya i.e. about 467 A.D. While there is a difference of opinion regarding the date of the composition of the Bhagwat Gita, there is no difference of opinion that the Bhagwat Gita has gone through many editions. All share the conviction that the Bhagwat Gita has not reached us in its original form but has undergone essential transformations at the hands of different editors who have added to it from time to time. It is equally clear that the editors through whose hands it has gone were not of equal calibre. As Prof. Garbe points out 2 “The Gita is certainly ‘ no artistic work which the all comprehending vision of a genious has created.’ The play of inspiration is indeed often times perceptible; not seldom, however, there are merely high-sounding, empty words with which an idea that has been already quite often explained, is repeated; and occasionally the literary expression is exceedingly faulty. Verses are bodily taken over from the Upanishad literature, and this is certainly what a poet filled with inspiration would never have done. The workings of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are systematized with a truly Indian pedantry, and much indeed besides this could be brought forward to prove that the Gita is not the product of a genuinely poetic creative impulse...” Hopkins speaks of the Bhagwat Gita as characteristic in its sublimity as in its puerilities, in its logic as in its want of it….Despite its occasional power and mystic exaltation, the Divine Song in its present state as a poetical production is unsatisfactory. The same thing is said over and over again, and the contradictions in phraseology and meaning are as numerous as the repetitions, so that one is not surprised to find it described as “the wonderful song, which causes the hair to stand on end”. 1 Gita Adhayaya XIII, Shloka, 4. 2 Ibid p. 3.

246 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES This is not to be rejected as the view of foreigners. It is fully supported by Prof. Rajwade 1 who goes to show that some of those who had a hand in the composition of the Bhagwat Gita were ignorant of the rules of grammar. While all are agreed that there have been different editions of the Gita under different editors, they are not agreed as to what parts of the Gita are original and what parts of the Gita are additions subsequently made. In the opinion of the late Rajaram Shastri Bhagwat the original Gita consisted only of 60 Shlokas. Humboldt was inclined to the view that originally the Gita consisted of only the first eleven Adhyayas (chapters) and that 12 to 18 Adhyayas were subsequent additions made to the original. Hopkins’ view is that the first fourteen Adhyayas constitute the heart of the poem. Prof. Rajwade thinks that Adhyayas 10 and 11 are spurious. Prof. Garbe says that 146 verses in the Bhagwat Gita are new and do not belong to the original Gita which means that more than one-fifth of the Gita is new. Regarding the author of the Gita there is none mentioned. The Gita is a conversation between Arjuna and Krishna which took place on the battle field, in which Krishna propounds his philosophy to Arjuna. The conversation is reported by Sanjaya to Dhritarashtra, the father of the Kauravas. The Gita should have been a part of the Mahabharata, for, the incident which formed the occasion for it, is natural to it, but it does not find a place there. It is a seperate indepenent work. Yet there is no author to whom it is attributed. All that we know, is that Vyas asks Sanjaya to report to Dhritarashtra the conversation that took place between Arjuna and Krishna. One may therefore say that Vyas is the author of the Gita. (2) VEDANT SUTRAS As has already been said, the Vedic literature consists of the Vedas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, and the Upanishadas. From the point of their subject matter, this literature falls into two classes (1) literature which deals with religious observances and rites and ceremonies technically called Karma Kanda and (2) literature which deals with the knowledge about God to use the Vedic equivalent; the Brahmanas, technically called ‘Gnanakanda’. The Vedas and the Brahmanas fall under the first category of literature, while the Aranyakas and the Upanishadas fall under the second. This Vedic literature had grown to enormous proportions and what is important is that, it had grown in a wild manner. Some system, 1 Bhandarkar Memorial Volume.

247 LITERATURE OF BRAHMINISM some coordination was necessary to bring order out of this chaos. As a result of the necessity for this coordination, there grew up a branch of inquiry called “Mimansa” i.e. an inquiry into the connected meaning of sacred texts i.e. the Vedic literature. Those who thought it necessary to undertake such a task of systematization and coordination divided themselves into two schools, those who systematized the ‘ Karmakand’ portion and these who systematized the ‘ Gnanakand” portion of the Vedic literature. The result was that there grew up two branches of the Mimansa Shastra, one called Purva Mimansa and the other Uttara Mimansa. As the names suggest, the Purva Mimansa deals with the early portion of the Vedic literature namely the Vedas and the Bramhanas. That is why it is called Purva (early) Mimansa. The Uttara Mimansa deals with the later portions of the Vedic literature namely the Aranyakas and Upanishads. That is why it is called Uttara (later) Mimansa. The literature connected with the two branches of the Mimansa Shastra is immense. Of this, two collections of Sutras stand out as the principal and leading works in this field of Mimansa. The authorship of one is attributed to Jaimini and that of the other is ascribed to Badarayana. Jaimini’s Sutras deal with ‘Karmakanda’ and Badarayan’s deal with ‘Gnanakand’. There is no doubt that there were prior to Jaimini and Badarayana, other authors who had written treatises on these subjects. Nonetheless the sutras of Jaimini and Badarayana are taken as the standard works on the two Branches of the Mimansa Shastra. Although the Sutras of both relate to that branch of inquiry called Mimansa, Jaimini’s sutras are called Mimansa Sutras 2 while those of Badarayana are called Vedanta Sutras. The term ‘Vedanta’ is taken to mean “the end of the Veda”, or the doctrines set forth in the closing chapter of the Vedas which comprise the Upanishads and as the Upanishads constitute “the final aim of the Vedas.” The Sutras of Badarayana which go to systematize and coordinate them have come to be called Vedanta Sutras, 3* or the doctrines set forth in the closing chapter of the Vedas which asked Sanjaya to report to. This is the origin of the Vedanta Sutras. 1 At a matter of fact the systematization of the Karmakand portion of the Vedic literature gave rise to two kinds of works (1) Kalpa Sutras and (2) Purva Mimansa Sutras. The former give only a ahort and concise description of the rituals enjoined in the Brahamanas; while the latter enunciate and support the general principle which the author of the Kalpa Sutra must follow, if he wishes to render his rules strictly conformable to the teaching of the Vadas. 2 They are also called Purva Mimansa or Karma Mimansa. 3 They also go by various other names such as Uttara Mimansa Sutras, Brahma Sutras or Saririka Sutras or Saririka Mimansa Sutras.