purpose. I think here we have a distinct instance of a quotation from Patanjali, though Mr. Telang thinks that the writer of the Gîtâ is throwing out hints, which Patanjali afterwards adopts and systematises. But, again, it is not in a poem that we expect to find an exhaustive philosophical system. We should hardly go to Paradise Lost or the In Memoriam for detailed and scientifically-argued systems of divinity, political economy, or social science, though there is something on all these subjects to be found in them. The BhagavadGîtâ is a poem, and the method is evidently eclectic; and when the writer mentions the Sânkhya, the Yoga, the Vedanta, it appears to me more likely that he refers to the Sûtras than merely to the beliefs as they were discussed previous to their systematisation by the philosophical writers. It is, of course, true that the terms Sânkhya, Yoga, and Vedanta were in use before the Sûtras were written; but I judge from the parallel between the Gîtâ and the Yoga-Sûtras mentioned above as quoted by Mr. Telang, of which the most rational explanation seems to be that it is a quotation from Patanjali. Now, the date of Patanjali is still a debated question, no doubt; but Professor Max Müller places him after the third century A.D. It should also be noticed, that in one place Krishna says, "I am the author of the Vedantas,' where, Mr. Telang says, the reference may be to the latter portion of the Vedas; but, nevertheless, it looks like a reference to the Sûtras, so-called: while in another place the word Brahma-Sûtras occurs, which is a common name for the Vedânta-Sûtras, though Mr. Telang holds that it does not refer to the Sûtras at all in this place, but only to instruction about the Brahman.

10. Mr. Telang bases another argument for the very early composition of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ on its "style and language." He observes that it does not show the love for "compounds presented by what is called the classical literature." This is, of course, a question on which only those well acquainted with Hindu literature can judge. But I believe it is doubtful whether in this respect the Gîtâ is inuch more simple than the writings of Kâlidâsa, and Kalidâsa is put by Mr. Telang in the fifth century, and by Professor Max Müller in the sixth century A.D.

II. With regard to the references to the Vedas, and the somewhat "disparaging manner," as Mr. Telang observes, in which they are treated in the Gîtâ, I cannot see that that necessarily indicates antiquity, though the Upanishads treat many Vedic questions in much the same way. The object of the Gîtâ is to extol Krishna, in comparison with whom everything

must yield. This method of treatment might suit the third century after Christ, or even the tenth, as well as the age of the Upanishads.

12. Again, Mr. Telang seeks to prove that there are quotations in the Vedanta-Sûtras from the Gîtâ, and that the Vedanta-Sûtras are older than Pânini, the great grammarian, whom he places in the fourth century B.C. But both the fact of quotation and the dates are so involved in difficulties that I believe they are all very debatable, and I believe Professor Max Müller would place the Vedanta-Sûtras after the third century A.D. He says: "The philosophical Sûtras were, and are still, supposed by many scholars to belong to the centuries preceding our era. All I can say is, I know, as yet, of no sound arguments, still less of any facts, in support of such assertions." (India, p. 352.)

13. While we acknowledge, therefore, the extreme difficulty of fixing historical dates to many of the Hindu books, it must be allowed, I think, that there is no valid reason forthcoming at present for placing the Bhagavad-Gîtâ before the commencement of the Christian era.

14. While, however, we cannot at present fix the exact date of the Gîtâ, there are many bits of circumstantial evidence which seem to point to the conclusion that the story of Krishna in the poem was written after the beginning of the Christian era, and by one who had received some knowledge of the incarnation and teaching of Jesus Christ.

15. In this connexion it may be observed that the worship of Vishnu as the supreme god would seem to belong only to quite the latter phase of Hinduism. The Aryans first worshipped the sun; next Indra, the god of rain, becomes the chief deity adored the natural result, as Mr. Talboys Wheeler well suggests, of life in a tropical climate, where the rain is even more precious than the sun. When the worship of Vishnu as the supreme spirit really superseded that of Indra we cannot definitely say, but it seems to belong to the more metaphysical age of Hindu thought, and is not fully developed till we come to the period of the Purânas. It is only in the accounts of Krishna that are found in these writings-as in the Bhagavata-Purâna-that he is described as taking part in the overthrow of Indra. In the BhagavadGîtâ he is once or twice addressed as Vishnu. The doctrine of the avatâras, or incarnations, of Vishnu are also only first developed in the Purânas. Thus the legends of the Fish, the Tortoise, and the Boar are found in the Satapatha Brâhmana; but it is only in the-much later-Purânas that they are described as incarnations of Vishnu.

16. Still more striking is the character of the revelation made by Krishna. He preaches a new faith, personal devotion to him, as the embodiment of the divine. He speaks of it, as I have before shown, as the chief among the sciences, the chief among the mysteries, the best means of sanctification. This mystery he sets above "the Vedas, penance, gifts, and sacrifices.' It is to be a new creed, controlling all previous creeds. The language in which this new creed is conveyed is in itself remarkable:-The devotees, who worship Krishna, "dwell," he says, "in him, and he in them" they are << never ruined " : even "those who are of sinful birth, women, Vaisyas, and Sûdras, resorting to him, attain to the supreme goal.” Other quotations I have given above. Whence did the writer of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ derive these ideas of incarnation, sanctification, love, faith, the last overtopping and setting aside every previous Hindu rule of the religious life? Every one will allow, I think, that these are novel doctrines, of which there are no discernible germs in the Vedic literature. So remarkable an array of novelties of faith and practice could scarcely have been the production merely of the philosophical mind: in short, they bear evidence of having been derived from some foreign source; and they have the strongest resemblance to some doctrines which are peculiar to the revelation of Jesus Christ. Moreover, their connexion in the Gîtâ is incongruous: in many parts of the poem the current Hindu methods for attaining perfection and emancipation are laboriously set forth; the doctrine of metempsychosis is stated; and yet personal devotion to Krishna is made in one passage to render all these doctrines null and void. Still further, there is the most complete incongruity between some of the doctrines enunciated by Krishna, such as sanctification, forgiveness of sins, love, &c., in connexion with the worship of the incarnate deity, and his own character, as described in other portions of the Mahabharata. One scene is particularly repulsive, where, while he pronounces forgiveness of sins, he is described as standing to watch some dancing-girls, the skill of one of whom he rewards by telling her that if she will visit him, he will give her whatever she asks of him. Some of the accounts of these rewards to the forgiven would not bear transcription. His conversation with Bhima on the same occasion is also most repulsive from a moral point of view ; while at the same time it is stated that Krishna had many thousands of wives. In the professed histories of Krishna's life, which were, no doubt, all written after-some long after the Bhagavad-Gîtâ-as in the Harivamsa, which is

generally regarded as a later addition to the Mahâbhârata;
the Vishnu-Purâna; the Bhagavata-Purâna; and the com-
paratively modern Gîtà- Govinda-the incongruity between
the exalted doctrines of the Gîtâ and the character of
Krishna is much more strongly portrayed: for in those
productions he is exhibited, morally, under still darker
shades. In the midst of his immoralities, however, he is
still represented as doing works of mercy, some of which
bear a strange resemblance to the works of Christ, and, as
in the case of the doctrines noticed in the Gîtâ, forcibly
suggest the idea of adaptation. Thus, in the Mahâbhârata,
he is described as laying hold of the hand of the dead body
of the son of Jayadratha, when, upon his saying, "Arise!
"by the will of the Almighty the dead man instantly arose."
Earlier in the epic a woman, described as "of infamous
character," is made to say, "Every day I behold the divine
Krishna, and therefore all my sins are forgiven me." Can
this be a debased echo of Christ's mercy to "publicans and
sinners," and to the Magdalene? On a journey to Hastinapur,
as he came near to the city, "multitudes of Brahmans, with
clasped hands, besought him to forgive their sins:" and one
said, “What an auspicious day is this, in which men behold
your face to the cleansing of all their sins." In the Bhagavata-
Purâna, there is a very singular account of his curing a
hump-backed woman. She prays Krishna to allow her to
anoint him with saffron and sandal; he took compassion upon
her, and "placed his feet upon her feet, and his two fingers
beneath her chin, and raised her up, so that she became quite
straight, and by the touch of Krishna she was rendered young
and beautiful." As Mr. Talboys Wheeler remarks: "The
similarity between this story and the two events recorded in
St. Luke, xiii., and St. Mark, xiv., is too striking to be
passed over." The incongruity, however, between this act of
mercy, and the character of Krishna, as set forth in the
Purâna, is as great as it can well be; for he is described as
afterwards rewarding this restored woman by a visit, the
nature of which must be passed over in silence.

17. It is this incongruity between the higher teachings of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ and the other portions of it, as well as between those teachings and the character of Krishna, that strikes one as indicating a foreign source for those higher teachings; that suggests that these germs of thought, which we know of only as originating in their integrity with the Christian religion, may, or must, have been thence borrowed by the writer of the Gîtâ, to give a fresh glory to his doctrine. For, further, these are the very doctrines of Christianity that

1

1

we should expect to be received by a Hindu. The doctrines of the cross, the atonement, the vicarious sufferings of Christ, which were “to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," would be equally foolishness to the Hindu, and could not be accepted by him unless he became an absolute convert to Christianity. They could not be in any way adopted as a portion of Hinduism. It is remarkable, however, that there is a weird and most impressive picture drawn near the close of the Mahâbhârata, after the great war was over, totally different from anything that could be suggested by the Hindu doctrines of transmigration of souls, or absorption into the deity after death. The Pândavas, who had survived the war, were lamenting their friends, husbands, sons, and kinsfolk, whom they had lost in the great war, when, while bathing in the Ganges, the river "began to foam and boil," and suddenly the great chiefs who had perished in the war, "in full armour, seated in their chariots, ascended out of the water, with all their armies arrayed as they were on the first day of the Mahabharata All appeared in great glory and splendour, and more beautiful than when they were alive enmity had departed from among them widows, orphans, and kinsfolk were overjoyed, and not a trace of grief remained among them went to their husbands, daughters to their fathers, mothers to their sons, and sisters to their brothers, and all the fifteen years of sorrow which had passed since the war were forgotten in the ecstasy of seeing each other again. Thus the night passed away in the fulness of joy; but when the morning had dawned, all the dead mounted their chariots and horses, and disappeared." May not this be an echo of the Christian description of the resurrection? I would suggest that these gleanings from the Christian story, if such they were, were in all probability obtained, not from a study of the Christian writings, but from what was orally taught. This is, of course, only a suggestion of probability; I have no kind of proof to offer that such must have been the case. If so, however, it would, perhaps, further account for the fragmentary and partial knowledge that we seem to encounter.

widows

18. With regard to the position taken by Mr. Proctor, which I mentioned in the early part of the paper, that the history of Krishna illustrates the Sun-God myth, in that he was born in a cave, that his mother was a virgin, &c., I do not find, in what must be the earlier accounts of Krishna's birth, that such was the case. His mother, Devaki, was the wife of Vasudeva, who was his father. The birth was not in a cave, but in an ordinary dwelling. He was, moreover, the eighth