KRISHNA AND HIS GITA 377
(iii) The second patch on the original Bhagvat Gita is the part which introduces the Sankhya and the Vedanta philosophy as a defence to the doctrines of Purva Mimansa which they did not have before. The Gita was originally only a historical Saga with the cult of Krishna came to be interwoven. The Philosophy portion of the Bhagvat Gita was a later intrusion can be proved quite easily from the nature of the original dialogue and the sequence of it.
In chapter I verses 20-47 Arjuna mentions those difficulties. In chapter II Krishna attempts to meet the difficulties mentioned by Arjuna. There are arguments and counter arguments. Krishna’s first argument is contained in verse 2 and 3 in which Krishna tells Arjuna that his conduct is infamous, unbecoming an Arya and that he should not play the part of an effeminate which was unworthy of him. To this, Arjuna gives a reply which is embodied in verses 4 to 8. In verses 4 to 5 he says, “how can I kill Bhishma and Drona who are entitled to highest reverence: it would be better to live by begging than kill them. I do not wish to live to enjoy a kindom won by killing old revered elders.” In verses 6 to 8 Arjuna says: “I do not know which of the two is more meritorious, whether we should vanquish the Kauravas or whether we should be vanquished by them.” Krishna’s reply to this is contained in verses 11 to 39 in which he propounds (i) that grief is unjustified because things are imperishable, (ii) that it is a false view that a man is killed when the atman is eternal and (iii) that he must fight because it is the duty of the Kshatriya to fight.
Any one who reads the dialogue will notice the following points:
(1) The questions put by Arjuna are not philosophical questions. They are natural questions put by a worldly man faced with worldly problems.
(2) Upto a point Krishna treats them as natural questions and returns to them quite natural replies.
(3) The dialogue takes a new turn. Arjuna after having informed Krishna positively and definitely that he will not fight, suddenly takes a new turn and expresses a doubt whether it is a good to kill the Kauravas or be killed by them.This is a deliberate departure designed to give Krishna a philosophical defence of war, uncalled for by anything said by Arjuna.
(4) Again there is a drop in the tone of Krishna from verses 31 to
- He treats the question as natural and tells him to fight because it is the duty of the Kshatriya to fight.
Anyone can see from this that the introduction of the Vedanta philosophy is quite unnatural and therefore a later intrusion. With regard to the introduction of the Sankhya philosophy the case is quite