Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/333

 October, 1873.] CHRISTIAN TRACES IN THE BHAGAVAD-GiTA. 295 (as Dr. Roer, Bibl. Ind. vol. XV. pp. 37 and 97, usserts of the iSvetusvatara and Katha Upa¬ nishads) a system which, like the Bhagavad-Gita, seeks to unite the doctrines of the Sdnkhya, Veddnta, and Yoga schools ; they belong to the latest of the Vedas—the Atharva-Veda—and in the case of none 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, and, as I believe, the oldest, of them—the Sretds- vutara- Upanishad—there are external indications 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, 4 By the power of his penance and the grace of God, the wise tivetdscatar/, who knew Brahma, communicated this excellent means of purifi¬ cation to the neighbouring hermits. This high est secret in the Vedanta, 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.’ Tho name of this sage, Svetdsvatara, 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) Svetasva is a scholar of Siva in his appearances as Sveta (white), in j which he is to appear at the commencement of | the Kaliyuga in order to instruct the Brahmans, j He dwelt on the Himalaya, and taught tho Yoga. Beside* Svetasva, he and three scholars, of whom the one was called Sveta (white), the other two Svetasikha (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 Mahdhhdrata, XII. 5743, the example of a Svetdsya rdjarsheh (white king), who, because he was dharmanishtha, raised his son to life again, is adduced to prove the possibility of the resurrection of the dead. Here too perhaps we have traces of a Christian legend. ”* The Granthi-Upanishad is regarded by Weber as older, yet the mention of Vishnu (iii. 9), and the expression Sraddhd (faith, iii. 4), as 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¬ tian ideas. As to the relation of the Bhagavad-Gita to the Upanishad, I look on the former as later, principally because in the Bhigavid-Gita the use of Christian ideas and expressions is much more common and evident than in those Upanishads 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 tho similarity, pointed out in the com¬ mentary, of several passages in the Bhagavad- Gita with sayings of Thomas a Kempis’s theological doctrines! 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 a 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 k 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 aud significant in tho latter than in the former. (2) That Christian asceti¬ cism and Indian Yoga have in many things i internal points of contact, which of themselves j would lead to similarity of expression, so that account for this similarity. (3) That even in the first centuries asceticism was already so far developed that we need not be surprised if the highest divine being Rudra (Siva), and therefore does not, like the author of the Bhagavad-Gita, belong to tho Vnishoavas, but to the followers of Siva, does not alter the contents of his doctrine. That agrees in all important points with the Bhagavad-Gita, and the mention of Rudra has not prevented the author of the latter book from makr ing copious use of this Upanishad. f Conf. Bhaq. Gita, ii. 57 with De Jmit. Chr. III. xxvi.; B. G. ii. 58 and 1. C. III. i.; B. G. iii. 60 and I. C. III. xxxiii.; B. G. ii. 61 and I. C. III. xii.; B. G. ii. 71 aud I. C. III. xxxii.; B. G. iii. 30 and 7. C. II. iv.; B. G. iii. 39 and 7. C. III. Iv.; B. G. v. 7 and 7. C. II. i.; B. G. v. 20 and 7. C. iii. 37 ; B. G. vi. 28 and 7. C. II. viii.; B. G. [ vii. 3 and 7. C. II. ix.; B.G. xii. 11 and 7. C. III. Ii.; aud
 * we need not assume any external influence to
 * That tho author of the dvct&ivatara-Upanishad calls
 * B, G. xiii. 11 and 7. C. I. xx.—Ed.