KRISHNA AND HIS GITA 367
Why? The only answer is that this modification came after Jaimini and not before—which is simply another way of saying that the Bhagvat Gita was composed after Jaimini’s Purva Mimansa.
If the Bhagvat Gita does not mention Purva Mimansa it does mention by name the Brahma Sutras [1] of Badarayana. This reference to Brahma Sutras is a matter of great significance for it furnishes direct evidence for the conclusion that the Gita is later than the Brahma Sutras.
Mr. Tilak [2] admits that the reference to the Brahma Sutras is a clear and defniite reference to the treatise of that name which we now have. It may be pointed out that Mr. Telang [3] discusses the subject in a somewhat cavalier fashion by saying that the treatise “Brahma Sutras” referred to in the Bhagvat Gita is different from the present treatise which goes by that name. He gives no evidence for so extraordinary a proposition but relies on the Conjectural statement of Mr. Weber [4] —given in a foot-note of his Treatise in Indian Literature, again without any evidence—that the mention of Brhma Sutras in the Bhagvat Gita “may be taken as an appellative rather than as a proper name.” It would not be fair to attribute any particular motives to Mr. Telang for the view he has taken on this point. But there is nothing unfair in saying that Mr. Telang [3] shied at admitting the reference to Brahma Sutra because he saw that Weber had on the authority of Winternitz assigned 500 A.D. to the composition of the Brahma Sutras, which would have destroyed his cherished theory regarding the antiquity of the Bhagvat Gita. There is thus ample internal evidence to support the conclusion that the Gita was composed after Jaimini’s Purva Mimansa and Badarayana’s Brahma Sutras.
Is the Bhagvat Gita anterior to Buddhism ? the question was raised by Mr. Telang:
“We come now to another point. What is the position of the Gita in regard to the great reform of Sakya Muni? The question is one of much interest, having regard particularly to the remarkable coincidences between Buddhistic doctrines and the doctrines of the Gita to which we have drawn attention in the footnotes to our translation. But the materials for deciding the question are unhappily not forth coming. Professor Wilson, indeed, thought that there was
1 Bhagwat Gita XIII. 4
2 Gita Rahasya II. p. 749.
3 Bhagvat Gita (S.B.E.) Introduction p. 31.
4 History of Indian Literature p. 242 f.n.
5 On the other hand, it may be said that Mr. Tilak readily admitted the reference because it was his opinion that Brahma Sutras were a very ancient treatise—see Gita Rahasya Vol. II.