English
This ekanta religion (ekanta-dharma) is dear to Narayana, and those who adhere to it attain to Hari, as Nilakantha, the commentator on the Maha-bharata, points out, without passing through the three stages of Aniruddha, Pradyumna and Samkarsana. The ekantin faith leads to much higher goals than the paths of those that know the Vedas and lead the lives of ascetics. The principles of this ekantin faith were enunciated by the Bhagavat himself in the battle of the Pandavas and the Kurus, when Arjuna felt disinclined to fight. This faith can be traced originally to the Sama-veda. It is said that, when Narayana created Brahma, he gave him this satvata faith, and from that time forth, as the Maha-bharata states, there has been a host of persons who were instructed in this faith and followed it. It was at a much later stage briefly described in the Hari-gita?. 'This faith is very obscure and very difficult to be practised, and its chief feature is cessation from all kinds of injury. In some places it is said to recognize one vyitha: in other places two, and in others three, vy#has are mentioned. Hari, however, is the final and absolute reality; he is both the agent, the action and the cause, as well as the absolute beyond action (akarta). There are, however, but few ekdantins in the world: had the world been filled with ekantins, who never injured anyone, were always engaged in doing good to others and attained self-know- 1 Ekantino niskama-bhaktah, Nilakantha’s commentary on the Maha-bharata, XII. 348. 3. © nS hari-gitasu samdasa-vidhi-kalpitah, Hari-gita. 53. The traditional teaching of the Gitd doctrines is represented as ancient in the Gitd itself (iv. 1-3), where it is said that Bhagavan declared it to Vivasvan, and he related it to Manu, and Manu to Iksvaku, and so on, until after a long time it was lost; it was again revived by Krsna in the form of the Bhagavad-gitd. In the Maha-bharata, xt. 348, it is said that Sanatkumara learned this doctrine from Narayana, from him Prajapati, from him Raibhya and from him Kuksi. It was then lost. Then again Brahma learned it from Narayana, and from him the Barhisada sages learned it, and from them Jyestha. Then again it was lost; then again Brahma learned it from Narayana, and from him Daksa learned it, and from him Vivasvan, and from Vivasvan Manu, and from Manu Iksvaku. Thus the tradition of the Bhagavad- gitd, as given in the poem itself, tallies with the Maha-bharata account. DI 35 546 The Philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita [cH. ledge, then the golden age, krta yuga, would have come again. This ekanta religion is a faith parallel to that of the Samkhya- yoga, and the devotee who follows it attains Narayana as his ultimate state of liberation. From this description in the Maha- bharata it seems that the doctrine of the Gitd was believed to be the ekantin doctrine originally taught by Narayana to Brahma, Narada and others long before the recital of the Gita by Krsna in the Maha-bharata battle. It is further known that it had at least four or five different schools or variant forms, viz. eka-vyiha, dvt- vyitha, tri-vyitha, catur-vyiiha and ekanta, and that it was known as the Satvata religion. Yamunacarya in his Agama-pramanya tries to combat a number of views in which the Bhagavatas were regarded as being in- ferior to Brahmins, not being allowed to sit and dine with them. The Satvatas, again, are counted by Manu as a low-caste people, born from outcast Vaisyas and not entitled to the holy thread}. The Satvatas were, of course, regarded as the same as Bhagavatas, and their chief duties consisted in worshipping for their living in Visnu temples by the order of the king?. They also repaired or constructed: temples and images for their living, and were there- fore regarded as outcasts. That the Bhagavatas did in later times worship images and build images and temples is also evident from the fact that most of the available Pafica-ratra works are full of details about image-building and image-worship. The Gita (1x. 26) also speaks of adoration with water, flowers and leaves, which undoubtedly refers to image-worship. Samkarsana, as the brother or companion of Krsna, is mentioned in Patajfijali’s Maha-bhasya (II. 2. 24) in a verse quoted by him, and in 11. 2. 34 he seems to quote another passage, in which it is related that different kinds of musical instruments were played in the temple of Dhana- pati, Rama and Kegava, meaning Balarama, Samkarsana and Krsna®. As Yamuna points out, the opponents of the Bhagavata school urge that, since the ordinary Brahminic initiation is not deemed 1 _vaisyat tu jayate vratyat sudhanvacarya eva ca karilsas ca vijanma ca maitrah sasvata eva ca. Agama-pramanya, p. 8. paficamah sdtvato naéma Visnor adyatanam hi sa pijayed ajfaya rajnam sa tu bhagavatah smrtah. Ibid. Sankarsana-dvitiyasya balam Krsnasya ardhitam. Maha-bhasya, 11. 2. 27. mydanga-sankha-panavah prthan nadanti samsadi prasade dhana-pati-rama-kesavanam. Ibid. 1. 2. 34. XIV] Bhagavata and the Bhagavad-gita 547 a sufficient qualification for undertaking the worship of Visnu, and since special and peculiar forms of initiation and ceremonial performances are necessary, it is clear that the Bhagavata forms of worship are not Vedic in their origin. The fourteen Hindu sciences, viz. the six vedangas on Vedic pronunciation (siks@), ritual (kalpa), grammar (vydkarana), metre (chandas), astronomy (jyotisa), lexicography (nirukta), the four Vedas, Mimamsa, argumentative works or philosophy (nyaya-vistara), the mythologies (purana) and rules of conduct (dharma-sastra), do not refer to the Pafica-ratra scriptures as being counted in their number. So the Bhagavata or the Pafica-ratra scriptures are of non-Vedic origin. But Yamuna contends that, since Narayana is the supreme god, the Bhagavata literature, which deals with his worship, must be regarded as having the same sources as the Vedas; the Bhagavatas also have the same kind of outer dress as the Brahmins and the same kinds of lineage. He further contends that, though s@tvata means an outcast, yet satvata is a different word from s&tvata, which means a devotee of Visnu. Moreover, not all Bhagavatas take to professional priestly duties and the worshipping of images for their livelihood ; for there are many who worship the images through pure devotion. It is very easy to see that the above defence of the Bhagavatas, as put forward by one of their best advocates, Yamunacarya, is very tame and tends to suggest very strongly that the Bhagavata sect was non-Vedic in its origin and that image-worship, image-making, image-repairing and temple-building had their origin in that particular sect. Yet throughout the entire scriptures of the Pafica- ratra school there is the universal and uncontested tradition that it is based on the Vedas. But its difference from the Vedic path is well known. Yamuna himself refers to a passage (Agama- pramanya, p. 51) where it is said that Sandilya, not being able to find his desired end (purusartha) in all the four Vedas, produced this scripture. The Gita itself often describes the selfish aims of sacrifices, and Krsna urges Arjuna to rise above the level of the Vedas. It seems, therefore, that the real connection of the Pasica- ratra literature is to be found in the fact that it originated from Vasudeva or Visnu, who is the supreme God from whom the Vedas themselves were produced. Thus the /svara-samhita (1. 24-26) explains the matter, and states that the Bhagavata literature is the great root of the Veda tree, and the Vedas themselves are but trunks of it, and the followers of Yoga are but its branches. Its 35-2 548 The Philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita [cH. main purpose is to propound the superiority of Vasudeva, who is the root of the universe and identical with the Vedas?. The affinity of this school of thought to the Upanisad school becomes apparent when it is considered that Vasudeva was regarded in this system as the highest Brahman®. The three other vyihas were but subordinate manifestations of him, after the analogy of prajfa, virat, visva and tazjasa in monistic Vedanta. Patarijali’s Maha-bhasya does not seem to know of the four vyihas, as it mentions only Vasudeva and Samkarsana; and the Gita knows only Vasudeva. It seems, therefore, that the vyiha doctrine did not exist at the time of the Gita and that it evolved gradually in later times. It is seen from a passage of the Maha- bharata, already referred to, that there were different variations of the doctrine and that some accepted one vyiha, others two, others three and others four. It is very improbable that, if the vyi#ha doctrine was known at the time of the Gita, it should not have been mentioned therein. For the Gita was in all probability the earliest work of the ekdntin school of the Bhagavatas®. It is also interesting in this connection to note that the name Narayana is never mentioned in the Gita, and Vasudeva is only identified with Visnu, the chief of the a@dityas. Thus Sir R. G. Bhandarkar says, “Tt will be seen that the date of the Bhagavad-gita, which contains Z mahato veda-vrksasya miila-bhiito mahan ayam skandha-bhitda rg-Gdyas te Sakha-bhitas ca yoginah jagan-milasya vedasya Vasudevasya mukhyatah praitpaddakata siddha@ miila-vedakhyata dvijah. Isvara-samhita, 1. 24-26. yasmat samyak param brahma Vasudevakhyam avyayam asmad avapyate Sastraj jndna-pirvena karmana. Pauskaragama, as quoted in Ramdnuja-bhdsva, i. 2. 42. The Chandogya Upanisad (vi. 1. 2) refers also to the study of ekdyana, as in the passage vadko-vakyam ekdyanam,; ekayana is also described as being itself a Veda in Sriprasna-samhita, 11.