Bhagavad Gita discussion

[Jagat 1]

premoThe following discussion taking place on RISA. Thought it might be of some interest.

 

I've finally read the brief essay "The God of new things" by Pankaj Mishra that appeared in the _Boston Globe_ a couple of weeks ago. Mishra's thesis is pretty well encapsulated by the article's subtitle "WHy Hinduism is as much a political invention as an ancient tradition," but if you'd like to know more it can be found on the Web at <http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/335/focus/The_God_of_new_things+.shtml>.

 

In general, I am sympathetic to much in Mishra's argument, but there was one sentence that bothered me. He wrote, "Only a tiny minority of upper-caste Indians had known much about the Bhagavad-Gita or the Vedas until the 18th century, when they were translated by British scholars and then presented as sacred texts from the lost golden age of Hinduism." Now, I am willing to give Mishra the Vedas, but not the Gita. Of course, if 'knowing much about' the Gita required reading it in the original Sanskrit, then in the premodern period that would have meant a relatively small proportion of the population, since not many people were literate and of those who were literate most were literate in a vernacular, not in Sanskrit. Still, I would think that the Gita would have been widely known among those who had learned Sanskrit. The best evidence that I can think of is that it attracted many commentaries. (I have the vague notion that as one of Vedanta's prasthanatrayi [along with the Upanishads and the Brahmasutras], you had to comment on it if you wanted to demonstrate your chops in that tradition. So the Gita was commented on by the big five [or most of them] Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and Vallabha. But I'm not sure how widely the Gita was commented upon in other traditions.) I also assume that the Gita was translated into vernacular languages, making it available to literate non-Sanskrit readers, and also serving as evidence of its popularity. Finally, unless we are to assume that nothing from the literate tradition filtered down orally (and visually through temple art and so forth) to the illiterate, then it must be that many people knew the story of the Gita, some of its verses, some of its teachings, though I don't know whether that would count as 'knowing much about' the Gita by Mishra's lights.

 

Since many of you know premodern South Asia better than I do, I wanted to run this by you. Here are my questions--a kind of postsemester pop quiz: There is evidence (either in commentaries or other kinds of evidence ) that there the Gita was a popular text among the Sanskrit-literate in premodern South Asia. True or false? There is evidence (I am thinking primarily of translations and commentaries in the vernacular) that the Gita was a popular text among the literate, but non-Sanskrit-knowing in premodern South Asia. True or false? There is evidence (and here I am not even sure what would count as evidence) that the Gita was a popular text among the nonliterate in premodern South Asia. True or false?

 

I'd be interested to hear your answers.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jack Llewellyn

<hr>

There is nothing original in this view of Mishra's just like the rest of his cultural writing which is a rather watered down version of the standard Marxist analysis of the so called Indian Renaissance of the 18-19th century. The leading light of this bastion, Romilla Thapar has interpreted this revival as an Orientalist enterprise lapped up by the upper caste Hindus.(Pl see her book on the Shakuntala story). That goes with the general Marxist thesis that the upper caste Indian Brahmin kulaks were following their colonial masters and revelling in their own newly discovered identity as Aryans. The revival of the Gita has been viewed this way, and so was Marxist perception about the rise of the Vivekananda Advaita now been seen as a culminating in the Hindutva ideology encouraged by the erstwhile RSS links with Hitler.

 

Apart from the ad nauseum repetition of thesis taught in the Indian universities ever since the installation of Nurul Hasan as the Minister for Education in mid sixties by Indira Gandhi and the consequent take over of the history, sociology and language departments by the Nurul Hasan's Aligarh school, a whole army of historians and cultural writers has been generated (of which Pankaj is a typical specimen) who have studied nothing but the books of the leftists historians. Let alone the classical texts, ancient or medieval in Sanskrit or Persian, they have no serious proficiency in any Indian language. Not even at the doctoral level the history or sociology students in India are required as part of course work to know the texts in original. Sanskrit was kept out of Jawaharlal Nehru University till last year. Hence the understanding of the evidence is many times removed from reality and their consequent writing is an expression of anglophonic emaciation.

 

It is also not surprising that total neglect of Pali, Magadhi, Dingal, Saddukari, early brijbhasa, avadhi, and early kharo boli has made these self appointed cultural and religious historians ignorant in the musical, choreographic, religious, ritual, and a host of other arts that have constituted the hindu system of beliefs, practices and spiritual transcendence. It is a mistake of the gross misinformation that the Hindu had to know Sanskrit to know the finer points of the Gita. They have not only been expounded in last thousand years in all their depth in Harikathas, Bhagvat Paraaryanas, Ram Katha, HAri Saptahas, dozens of Dance and Drama forms classical and popular in dozens of languages and hundreds of dialects.

 

Only the culturally jaundiced who have no idea of how the Vaishnava thought has been transmitted from the sophisticated Sanskrit Gita Govind to the simplest mountain or jungle Pandavaani dramas, can argue that one has to know Sanskrit to know the Gita.

 

There is much more to this myopic understanding of the Indian scene. The Indian texts did not wait for print revolution to reach the masses. Many other media had been doing that job. And that is a long story!!

 

But may be it is of crucial interest for the teachers of Indian religions in North America and for the indian anglo monophones.

 

regards,

 

Bharat Gupt

Associate Professor, Delhi University,

<hr>

Dear Jack,

 

I think I should agree with Mishra on this point. The best example we have in, let alone the 18th century, the late 19th and early 20th century figure, Gandhi. Gandhi first read the Gita when he was in England and until that time, his only understanding of anything Hinduism was the orally transmitted bits and pieces of Ramayana story and other mythological stoies that his maid used to narrate to him. Until Gandhi wemt to South Africa, we must assume that Gandhi was one of many ordinary people and his acquaintance of the Gita would in that sense represent the majority Indian familiarity with the book even in the vernacular. That does not mean people did not hear of the story of Krishna and the Mahabharata war and the story of Krishna speaking to Arjuna in the battle field. The mere knowing or hearing of the Krishna's advice to Arjuna on the battle field does not mean that the people really knew that there was a text called BG in which that dialogue was narrated. The credit of popularising the Gita should really go to Edwin Arnold who retranslated the Gita of Wilkins and later BG Tilak brought the text into the mainstream politics by writing a commentary from the nationalist struggle point of view. Please note that I have not yet read Mishra's article but I am mainly responding to the points you have made.

 

Regards

 

Pratap Kumar

<hr>

Francis Buchanan's (aka Hamilton-Buchanan) observations (ca. 1812, Patna District, Bihar) may be of interest. The second paragraph makes reference to the Gita.

 

"In the higher kind of Bhasha, which is understood by few, the only composition at all common is the Ramayan of Tulasidas; but the other books mentioned in the account of Bhagalpur are here also occasionally used, as are also some others, such as the Jaimini Bharat and the Ramchandrika Rasapriya, and Satsayi-Dosa of Deva Das. Even in Patna, where the works of Tulasidas are better understood that [sic: than?] in any other part of these districts, the people of rank assemble to hear a man called a Pandit, who can read distinctly, and receives a trifle from each; not above 10 or 12 in any assembly understand the reader, and therefore some one of these explains the meaning of each sentence, after which the flock are told the name of some god, which they bawl out until they are out of breath. In some places I heard it alleged, that many diligently read Tulasidas who could not read any other book, nor even a letter on any common subject; and there is great reason to suspect that these people have committed the poem, or at least parts of it, to memory, by frequently having heard it read or repeated, and that they merely look on the book for the sake of form, as the act of reading is considered meritorious. A few persons of high rank understand Tulasidas, yet cannot read." [from Buchanan, Account of the Districts of Bihar and Patna in 1811-1812, vol. I, 295-296.]

 

And from page 300, same volume:

 

"The Maharashtra Brahmans of Gaya have studied somewhat the meaning of the Vedas, but have no pupils; for here, as well as in Bengal, the people in a great measure neglect these works, farther than to read certain portions of them in their ceremonies; but with their meaning, or the controversies that have arisen on this subject, they give themselves no sort of trouble. The Purans are a more favourite study, but the Sribhagwat and the Bhagawatgita of the Mahabharat are almost the only parts to which any attention is paid; these are read and the meaning explained. This, I am told by all the Pandits, is an exceedingly difficult matter, the true meaning being very much involved in mystery, and of course has given rise to numerous controversies. Five great doctors, Sridhara, Sangkara, Toshani, Sandarbha and Nilakantha, have with many others treated on the subject in books called Tipani, or explanations, and these have given rise to different schools. In this district the first is chiefly followed. He is said to have been a (Dandi) Brahman, who relinquished all the pleasures of the world, and assumed three different names in the three great works which he composed. As author of a commentary on the Sri Bhagwat he is called Sridhara, ...[etc.].

 

Best wishes,

 

Vijay Pinch

<hr>

Though it would be hazardous to posit a direct relation between the number of extant manuscripts of the Gita (whether in original or in vernacular translations) and the level of popular interest in it in pre-modern India, I thought it would be instructive to look at the data provided W.L. Manjul, Librarian at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Pune, in an article, "Bhagavadgitecha Vishva Sanchar" (Gitadarshan; a Marathi monthly April 1995: 9-48).

 

Manjul notes that 334 major libraries spread across India hold about ten million manuscripts about six million of which have been catalogued. He speculates that of these about 5000 involve the Gita. The various institutions of learning in Pune hold about 150 manuscripts on the Gita (out of over one million manuscripts). The Saraswati Bhavan library, Varanasi has 314 and Saraswati Mahal library, Thanjavur 116.

 

Outside India, the oldest translation of the Gita dates from about 1000 and is in Old Javanese. Manjul also mentions that in "The Persian Manuscripts of the Gita," an article written for First International Sanskrit Conference, Prof B.D. Varma lists and discusses about one dozen Persian translations of the Gita.

 

A quick glance at other articles from the back numbers of Gita Darshan suggests that there has been a continuous tradition of engagement with the Gita (at both elite and popular levels), in India. Following are some of the major efforts:

 

1290: First vernacular translation of the Gita (in Marathi) "Bhavarthadipika" of Jnaneshvara

 

1400: Madhav Panikkar's translation in Malyalam

 

Ca. 1500: Vaman Pandita's Yatharthdipika in Marathi where Vamana insists that the saguna aspect of brahman is superior to the nirguna one and identifies it uniquely with Sri Krishna (it would be instructive to study Vamana's links, if any, with Chaitanya sampradaya).

 

1582: Persian translation (an abridged version; being part of the translation of the Mahabharata sponsored by Akbar)

 

1656: Persian translation of Dara Shukoh.

 

Ca. 1700: Citsadanandalahari; Marathi tika in 11120 Ovis by Ranganath Mogarekar; closely follows Sankara and Madhusudana

 

1887: Bhashavivritti of Raghunathsastri Parvate in Marathi; closely follows Sankara

 

1889: Setubandhani of Vishnubua Brahmachari in Marathi; anticipates J. Krishnamurti.

 

The above efforts suggest that the Gita has been addressed from a variety of perspectives and that it would be disingenuous to impute a particular caste, class or an ideology bias to the Gita itself.

 

S.Tilak