APPENDIX.NEO-KRISHNA LITERATURE.

The Neo-Krishna movement is about twenty years old. Before 1880 Vaishnavism does not seem to have been in great favour with the higher castes of Bengal. Traditionally they were Saivas or Sāktas rather than Vaishnavas; and English education, which bore very heavily for half a century on every form of Hinduism seems to have told with peculiar severity on Krishnaism. But shortly after 1880 a great change becomes visible: Krishna begins to be praised on every hand, and ancient Vaishnava books are read and studied with avidity. The new movement seems to have owed its origin, on the one hand, to the teaching and influence of Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Keshub Chundra Sen, Bijoy Krishna Goswami and Shishir Kumar Ghose; and on the other, to the efforts of two or three noteworthy literary men, who threw themselves into the task of painting the character of Krishna with extraordinary enthusiasm. TheGītāat once leaped into greater prominence than ever: numberless editions and translations of it have been published. Many essays have appeared comparing Krishna with Christ and Vaishnavism with Christianity. Thus a large Krishna literature, both in English and Bengali, has sprung up. The following seem to be the more important books of this literature:—

1884

Essays inPrachāronKrishnacharitraby Bunkim Ch. Chatterji.

1886

1.Krishnacharitra, Bunkim Ch. Chatterji, 1st edition. A volume in Bengali prose on the character of Krishna.

1887

2.Raivatak, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on Krishna’s youth.3.The Bhagavad Gītā, or the Lords Lay, MohiniM.Chatterji. An English prose translation of the text and of parts of Sankara’s commentary. An attempt is made to put theGītāon the same level as the New Testament.

1888

4.Krishna Jivani, Prosanna Kumar Vidyaratna. A life of Krishna in Bengali prose.

1889

5.Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma, Gaur Gavinda Ray. The life and religion of Krishna from the standpoint of the New Dispensation: Bengali prose.

1890

6.Srimadbhagavadgītā, Krishnananda Swami (i.e.Krishna Prasanna Sen). The text in the Bengali character with a Bengali commentary and translation.

1892

Krishnacharitra, Bunkim Ch. Chatterji, 2nd edition. This edition contains a great deal of new matter.

7.Amiya Nimai Charity, Shishir Kumar Ghose. First part. A life of Chaitanya in Bengali prose.

1893

Amiya Nimai Charit. Second part.

8.Kurukshetra, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on Krishna at Kurukshetra.

1894

9.The Landmarks of Ethics according to the Gītā. Bulloram Mullick.

Amiya Nimai Charit. Third part.

1895

10.Kālā Chānd Gītā, Shishir Kumar Ghose. A sort of Krishnaite Song of Solomon in Bengali verse. It is said to have been composed in 1888.

1896

11.Srikrishna, his Life and Teachings, Dhirendra Nath Pal. 3 vols.

12.Srikrishner Kalanka Kena?Nava Kumar Devasarma. A Bengali prose defence of the character of Krishna.

13.The Bhagavad Gītā, Annie Besant. New and revised edition. An English prose translation with an introduction and a few notes.

14.Prabhās, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on the later years of Krishna’s life.

1897

15.Lord Gaurānga, Shishir Kumar Ghose, 1st volume. A life of Chaitanya in English prose, with a discussion of the doctrine of Incarnations.

1898

16.Krishna and Krishnaism, Bulloram Mullick.

Lord Gaurānga, 2nd volume.

17.Hindu Theism, Sitanath Tattvabhushan.

18.An Elementary Treatise on Universal Religion.Kshetra Mohan Mukerji. The religion of theGītāis here put forward as the universal religion.

1899

19.Incarnation, Nanda Krishna Bose. This treatise follows in most points the theory of Incarnation put forward inLord Gaurānga.

1900

20.The Young Men’s Gītā, Jogindranath Mukharji. An English prose translation with introduction and notes.

21.Srimadbhagavadgītā, Prasanna Kumar Sastri, 2nd edition. The text in the Bengali character, with several commentaries, and a Bengali translation by Sasadhar Tarkachuramani.

1901

22.The Imitation of Sreekrishna,S. C.Mukhopadhaya. A daily text-book, containing extracts in English from theGītā, theMahābhārata, and theBhāgavat Purāna.

23.Sree Krishna, Muralidhur Roy. An account, in English prose, of the life and character of Krishna.

24.Srimadbhagavadgītā, Bhudhur Chattopadhaya, 4th edition. The text in the Bengali character, with a Bengali commentary.

1903

25. A most elaborate edition of theGītā, edited by Damudar Mukerji, is being published in parts.

26. A Bengali verse translation of theGītāby Satyendra Nath Tagore is appearing inBhārati.

This revival of interest in Krishna and his worship is clearly part of the great national movement which has been so potent inBengal, religiously, socially and politically, these last twenty years. This period has witnessed the appearance of the whole Neo-Hindu movement, with its literature, lectures, societies and missionary propaganda, the rise of the Indian National Congress and of the social reform movement, the advance of native journalism to its present extraordinary influence, and the establishment of the native unaided colleges, which have so seriously changed the balance of influence in Higher Education. Neo-Krishnaism, then, is one result of the operation of that potent spirit whereby India has become conscious of her unity, and her sons have been roused to a vigorous defence of all that they have inherited from the past. This rise of the national spirit, though it may be troublesome in small matters to the rulers of India, is undoubtedly the last and greatest justification of English rule; and, while, with its exaggerations and insincerities and follies, it cannot fail to provoke criticism,[282]yet its power to awake self-reliance, self-respect and the passion for freedom ought to win for it the approval and the encouragement of all good men.

There can be no doubt that among the influences which have produced Neo-Hinduism, Christianity is one of the most potent, if not the chief. This is peculiarly evident in the case of the Neo-Krishna literature we are discussing. In 1899 the Bengal Librarian wrote, “There is no denying the fact that all this revolution in the religious belief of the educated Hindu has been brought about as much by the dissemination of Christian thought by Missionaries as by the study of Hindu scriptures; for Christian influence is plainly detectable in many of the Hindu publications of the year.” But beyond this general influence, which cannot fail to be noticed by anyone who will take the trouble to read the volumes, it is, we believe, perfectly plain that the very ideas which have given birth to the literature are the result of Christian influence. A distinct taste for such books as the Gospels has sprung up; and men have come to feel the need of a perfect character, such as Christ’s is, for daily contemplationand imitation. The Neo-Krishna movement endeavours to supply these needs from within Hinduism, offering theGītāinstead of the Gospels, and Krishna instead of Christ.[283]

Nobin Ch. Sen seems to have been the first to conceive the idea of a modern rendering of the character of Krishna; for he laid the project before some of his friends in 1882.[284]His famous epic trilogy,Raivatak,KurukshetraandPrabhās, are the result of this pregnant thought. But, while he and Shishir Kumar Ghose have done a great deal to popularize the movement, there can be no doubt that Bunkim Ch. Chatterji’sKrishnacharitrahas been by far the most influential volume in the whole of this literature. Gaur Gavinda Ray’s work,Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma, is a piece of excellent characterization, and has won the high regard of many thoughtful men.

The books on our list fall into two classes,HistoricalandTraditional. In the Historical class there are only two volumes, Tattvabhusan’sHindu Theism, and theYoung Men’s Gītā. These two frankly acknowledge that theGītāis a late book. In theYoung Men’s Gītā[285]its date is said to be a century or two before, or a century or two after, the Christian era; while inHindu Theism[286]theGītāis regarded as the point of transition from the old Vedānta to the religion of the Purānas. The standpoint of these two books is thus thoroughly historical, but it necessarily implies the abandonment of the divinity of Krishna.

All the rest of the books on the list fall into the second class; for they hold the traditional position about Krishna. Most of them make no attempt at criticism of the sources, but treat theMahābhārata, theGītā, theHarivansaand the Purānas as all historical and all equally trustworthy. A few of the authors,however, state plainly their own critical conclusions, and two or three enter into some discussion of the main problems. These attempts at criticism are the most pitiable parts of the whole literature. The talented author ofSrikrishner Jivana O Dharma, by far too sincere and candid to ignore the Puranic elements in the sources, frankly confesses their presence; yet, believing these books to be genuine representatives of the age of Kurukshetra, he is driven to the extraordinary conclusion that the Vedic, the Vedantic, and the Puranic ages were contemporaneous.[287]The late Bulloram Mullick, in discussing the eighteen Purānas, goes so far as to say, “Whatever may be the views of European savants, there is indubitable proof that some of these Purānas existed in the eleventh or twelfth century before Christ.”[288]Even Bunkim Chundra Chatterji himself not only unhesitatingly adopts Goldstücker’s rash guess, that Pānini’s grammar was written before the Brāhmanas and the Upanishads, but on the basis of that unwise conjecture, pushes back Pānini’s date to the tenth or eleventh centuryB. C.,[289]i.e., four or five centuries earlier than the pre-Buddhistic date which Goldstücker[290]wished to establish. Dhirendra Nath Pal, seeing that Bunkim Babu found it so easy to leap over a few centuries, goes a little further and suggests the twelfth or thirteenth.[291]But, indeed, without some such strange perversion of history, it is impossible to construct an argument for the authenticity of theGītāand the historicity of theMahābhāratathat shall have even the semblance of reason.

We note next that of all the books of the second class, Bunkim Chundra’sKrishnacharitrais the only work that gives any independent criticism: all the rest, with the single exception ofSrikrishner Jivana O Dharma, merely echo his arguments. Thus Bunkim Babu’s theory is the only one we need discuss.

Now the whole critical structure of theKrishnacharitrarests upon the passage on pages 41 and 42, where the date of Pānini is discussed. Pānini is pushed back to 1000B. C.; and, the ‘original’Mahābhāratabeing earlier than Pānini, we areasked to believe that it was produced within a century or two of Kurukshetra, and that it is in consequence trustworthy historically. The whole argument thus rests on the date of Pānini.

We translate this important passage:—

“Goldstücker has proved that, when Pānini’s Sūtra was composed, Buddha had not arisen. In that case Pānini must belong to the sixth centuryB. C.But not only that, in his time the Brāhmanas, the Aranyakas, the Upanishads and the other parts of the Vedas had not been composed. Apart from the Rig, the Yajur, and the Sāma Vedas, nothing else existed. Asvalāyana, Sānkhāyana and the rest had not appeared. Max Müller says that the age in which the Brāhmanas were composed began about 1000B. C.Dr. Martin Haug says that that was the end of the age, and that it began in the fourteenth centuryB. C.Therefore, if we say that Pānini must belong to the tenth or eleventh centuryB. C., we do not say too much.”

Now the first remark we make on this extraordinary piece of criticism is this, that Goldstücker and Max Müller are most unfairly conjoined to support a date which both of them would have indignantly repudiated. For Müller’s date for Pānini is the fourth centuryB.C.,[292]and Goldstücker never proposed to push him further back than the sixth century; indeed all that he claims is that he has brought forward evidence which affords a strongprobabilitythat Pānini preceded the origin of the Buddhistic creed.[293]Our next remark is that, though more than forty years have passed since Goldstücker’s book appeared,[294]he has convinced no one that the Brāhmanas and the Upanishads are posterior to Pānini’s grammar: opinions still differ as to Pānini’s precise date, but no scholar to-day puts him before the Brāhmanas.[295]

Can the grounds for this unanimity among modern scholars be vividly set forth? We believe they can. Here, as in our first chapter, we shall not attempt to fix a definite chronology, but shall simply aim at reachingthe relative ageof the great books we aredealing with; and we shall not deal with the meaning of disputed passages, but shall rest the case altogether on the clear and prominent features of history which every one can appreciate. There is, then, first of all the great broad fact that the Sūtras depend on the Brāhmanas, and are, in general, posterior to them, and thatthe language and style of Pānini’s Sūtras show that he belongs to about the middle of the Sūtra period.[296]All the detailed study of the last forty yearshas gone to strengthen this stable conclusion.

But there is another and still more conclusive proof that Pānini comes long after the early Brāhmanas.These ancient books are written in Vedic Sanskrit.[297]The early Upanishads are more modern in character, but even they belong to a stage of the language a good deal earlier than the Sūtras: Professor Macdonell’s words are, “the oldest Upanishads occupying a position linguistically midway between the Brāhmanas and the Sūtras.”[298]Thus the Brāhmanas were composed while Vedic Sanskrit was still the language of the Indo-Aryans. Now Pānini’s grammardeals with classical Sanskrit, not the Vedic speech. He deals with many points of Vedic grammar, it is true, but he deals with them as exceptions; his subject is classical Sanskrit. He laid down the law, which has ruled Sanskrit throughout the centuries since his day. Thus he arose at a time,when the language of the Brāhmanas had become archaic, and modern Sanskrit had taken its place.[299]It is thus absolutely impossible to believe that Pānini lived and wrote before the Brāhmanas were composed: to propose to put him back before their composition is much the same as proposing to push Johnson’s Dictionary back before Chaucer.

Another line of proof may also be indicated. Careful study of the early Brāhmanas has made it plain that they were composedafter the collection of the hymns of theRigveda, but before[300]the formation of theSanhitātext (i.e., the text in which the words are joined according to the rules ofSandhi) and thePada[301]text (i.e.the word by word text). The author of thePadatext is Sākalya.[302]Now Yāska refers to Sākalya as a predecessor;[303]and Yāska himself is earlier than Pānini.[304]Thus the historical order is the early Brāhmanas, theSanhitātext, Sākalya, Yāska, Pānini.

Bunkim Babu’s date for Pānini being thus altogether untenable, his whole argument for the historicity of thePāndava Mahābhārataand Krishna’s character as therein pourtrayed tumbles in ruins, and brings down with it all the rest of this Krishna literature.

We would invite our readers to turn away from these vain attempts to turn a myth into sober history, and to listen to the teaching of those really scholarly Indians who study Hinduism from a scientific standpoint. We have already referred to Sitanath Tattvabhushan’sHindu Theism, and we have frequently used Bose’sHindu Civilization under British RuleandR. C.Dutt’s works as authorities. We would now call attention to a monograph by one of the greatest scholars in Bengal (Comparative Studies in Vaishnavism and Christianity, by Brajendra Nath Seal), where[305]the growth of the Krishna legend is frankly discussed;[306]also to a very remarkable essay onBuddhist and Vishnuitein a recent number ofSāhitya[307]by the late Umes Chundra Batabyal, in which grave historical reasons are given for concluding that theGītāis in part at least a polemic against Buddhism; and to the late Mr. Justice Telang’s introduction to his translation of theGītā(S. B. E., vol. VIII), with regard to which readers will note, that, although the date is put a little earlier than most scholars would put it, no attempt is made to defend the traditional theory of the origin of the Song.

Footnotes

1.The philosophic basis of the book is primarily theSānkhyasystem which is essentially atheistic.

2.Dr. Lorinser’s attempt (Die Bhagavadgītā, übersetzt und erläutert von Dr.F.Lorinser, 1869) to prove that the author of theGītāborrowed many ideas from the Bible must be pronounced a failure.Cf.Garbe, 19, 83-85; Max Müller,Natural Religion, 97-100; Hopkins,R. I., 429.

3.On the religion of theRigvedasee Kaegi, 27-74; Hopkins,R. I.,Chaps.II-VI; Macdonell, 67-115; Bose,H.C.,I, 6-9; Dutt,C.A.I.,Vol.I,Chap.V; Monier-Williams,Chap.I.

4.Hopkins,R.I., 141; Macdonell, 385; Garbe, 1-2; Kaegi, 87.

5.E.g.,X, 90.

6.X, 81; 82; 121.

7.X, 129.

8.Kaegi, 3; Macdonell, 171-174.

9.Kaegi, 4; Macdonell, 174-185.

10.Kaegi, 5; Macdonell, 202ff.; Müller,A.S.L.,Chap.II; Bose,H.C.,I, 9-12.

11.Müller,A.S.L., 389.

12.Hopkins,R.I., 177.

13.Gough,Chap.I; Garbe, 2-7; Macdonell, 223; Hopkins,R.I., 204.

14.Müller,A.S.L., 313ff.; Macdonell, 204; Kaegi, 5.

15.Müller,A.S.L., 316ff.; Macdonell, 218ff.; Kaegi, 5; Bose,H.C.,I, 12-19.

16.For the teaching of the UpanishadsseeGough; Hopkins,R. I.,Chap.X; Garbe, 7-10.

17.SeeDeussen on each of these Upanishads, especiallyp.264; andCf.Macdonell, 226.

18.Garbe, 10; Macdonell, 390, 393.

19.Führer,Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni’s Birthplace, Arch. Surv. of India,Vol.XXVI, Allahabad, 1897; Macdonell, 13.

20.For the Sānkhya system,seeGarbe, 10, 11, 29, 36, 45; Macdonell, 390-395; Dutt,C. A. I.,Vol.I,pp.276ff.

21.Macdonell, 393.

22.Macdonell, 226; Deussen, 261, 523, 288, 544, 241.

23.Deussen, 264.

24.Katha, 3, 10-13; 6, 6; 6, 7-11; 6, 14-18;Svet.passim;Mundaka, 2, 1, 1-3;Mahānār, 63, 21.Cf.Deussen,ad loca.

25.Katha, 2, 23;Svet.3, 20;Mundaka, 3, 2-3.Cf.Hopkins,R.I., 238.

26.Svet.6, 23.

27.Svet.6, 13.

28.Müller,Anthrop. Rel., 345; Oldenberg,Budda, 56.

29.Weber,Sitz. Berli. Ak. 1890,p.930.

30.I. L., 159.

31.Deussen, 291, 308.

32.Deussen,ad loca; Macdonell, 226.

33.Deussen, 242.

34.Deussen,ad loca; Macdonell, 226.

35.Garbe, 14; Macdonell, 396; Hopkins,R. I., 495.

36.For the Yoga system,seeGarbe, 14-15; Macdonell, 396-399; Dutt,C. A. I.,Vol.I,pp.285ff.

37.Garbe, 16-18; Macdonell, 400-402.

38.Deussen, 4; Macdonell, 238; Dutt,C. A. I.,Vol.I, 119; Garbe, 69.

39.Deussen, 541-543; Macdonell, 238-239.

40.Macdonell, 239.Cf.Deussen, 543; Weber,I. L., 153ff.

41.Bose,H.C.,Vol.I, 4.

42.Garbha, 4;Prānāgnihotra, 1;Sūlika, passim.

43.Macdonell, 428; Hopkins,G. E. I., 18-23.

44.Macdonell, 282-4.

45.See Hopkins,G. E. I.,Chap.VI;R.I.350; Macdonell, 285-288.

46.Hopkins,G. E. I., 397-398; Macdonell, 283-286. Bunkim Chundra recognizes the second, third and fourth of these stages: seeKrishnacharitra,Chap.XI.

47.The Ordinances of Manu, Burnell and Hopkins,pp.XIX-XXVIII; Macdonell, 428.

48.Hopkins,G. E. I.,Chap.III;R. I., 265.

49.Hopkins,R. I.,Chaps.XIVandXV; Bose,H. C.,Vol.I, 3.

50.SeeTelang’s translation throughout, andcf.Hopkins,G. E. I., 28-46; Amalnerkar, 4-5.

51.Telang, 15.

52.Cf.Hopkins,R. I., 429.

53.G.,IV, 8.

54.Hopkins,R. I., 399.

55.G.,IV, 1-3.

56.G.,XVIII, 13.

57.G.,XVIII, 19.

58.G.,X, 26. This is a noticeable point; for Kapila is the only founder of a philosophical system known to the Epic; he alone is authoritative in all philosophical matters.SeeHopkins,G. E. I., 97.

59.G.,X, 24.

60.SeeHopkins,R. I., 414.

61.G.,X, 27.

62.G.,X, 27.

63.G.,X, 28.

64.G.,X, 31.

65.G.,II, 72;V, 24; 25; 26;VI, 15.

66.Hopkins,G. E. I., 88;R. I., 427.

67.Mahābhārata, Bhīshma Parvan.

68.G.,VIII, 24-25.

69.Amalnerkar, 13.

70.SeeJacob’s Concordance to the Principal Upanishads and Bhagavadgītā.

71.Mr. Justice Telang was inclined to put the date before the third centuryB.C., but his otherwise most judicious criticism is faulty in this that it does not take all the factors of the problem into consideration. Others, such as Müller, Weber, Davies and Lorinser, incline to a very late date, about the third centuryA.D.Most writers believe that the true date lies between these extremes. So Monier-Williams, Hopkins, Fraser and others. Prof. Amalnerkar’s pamphlet contains a number of most interesting points. His contention, that the phrase,Brahmasūtrapadaih(G.XIII, 4) refers to theVedānta Sūtras, and that theGītāis therefore the later work of the two, has been accepted by Max Müller (S. S. I. P., 155), but Prof. Hopkins thinks theGītāis earlier than the Sūtra (R. I., 400). The theory which Prof. Hopkins holds, that the Divine Song was originally an Upanishad, and that it was redacted, first as a Vishuite poem, and then a second time in the interests of Krishnaism (R. I., 389), would account, on the one hand, for the numerous inconsistencies in its teaching, and, on the other, for the very conflicting signs of date which it presents. For a criticism of Bunkim Chundra’s views,seethe Appendix.

Back to Index Next