Chapter VII: 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. The _Gītā_ at 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 in _Prachār_ on _Krishnacharitra_ by 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_, Mohini M.
Chatterji. An English prose translation of the text and of parts of
Sankara’s commentary. An attempt is made to put the _Gītā_ on 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 the _Gītā_ is 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 in _Lord 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 the _Gītā_, the
_Mahābhārata_, and the _Bhāgavat 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 the _Gītā_, edited by Damudar
Mukerji, is being published in parts.

26. A Bengali verse translation of the _Gītā_ by Satyendra Nath
Tagore is appearing in _Bhārati_.

This revival of interest in Krishna and his worship is clearly part of the great national movement which has been so potent in Bengal, 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 contemplation and imitation. The Neo-Krishna movement endeavours to supply these needs from within Hinduism, offering the _Gītā_ instead 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_, _Kurukshetra_ and _Prabhās_, 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’s _Krishnacharitra_ has 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, _Historical_ and _Traditional_. In the Historical class there are only two volumes, Tattvabhusan’s _Hindu Theism_, and the _Young Men’s Gītā_. These two frankly acknowledge that the _Gītā_ is a late book. In the _Young 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 in _Hindu Theism_[286] the _Gītā_ is 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 the _Mahābhārata_, the _Gītā_, the _Harivansa_ and 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 of _Srikrishner 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 century B. 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 the _Gītā_ and the historicity of the _Mahābhārata_ that shall have even the semblance of reason.

We note next that of all the books of the second class, Bunkim Chundra’s _Krishnacharitra_ is the only work that gives any independent criticism: all the rest, with the single exception of _Srikrishner 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 the _Krishnacharitra_ rests upon the passage on pages 41 and 42, where the date of Pānini is discussed. Pānini is pushed back to 1000 B. C.; and, the ‘original’ _Mahābhārata_ being earlier than Pānini, we are asked 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
century B. 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 1000 B. C. Dr. Martin Haug says that that was
the end of the age, and that it began in the fourteenth century B.
C. Therefore, if we say that Pānini must belong to the tenth or
eleventh century B. 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 century B.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 strong _probability_ that 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 reaching _the relative age_ of the great books we are dealing 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 that _the 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 years _has 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 grammar _deals 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 composed after the collection of the hymns of the _Rigveda_, but before[300] the formation of the _Sanhitā_ text (_i.e._, the text in which the words are joined according to the rules of _Sandhi_) and the _Pada_[301] text (_i.e._ the word by word text). The author of the _Pada_ text 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, the _Sanhitā_ text, Sākalya, Yāska, Pānini.

Bunkim Babu’s date for Pānini being thus altogether untenable, his whole argument for the historicity of the _Pāndava Mahābhārata_ and 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’s _Hindu Theism_, and we have frequently used Bose’s _Hindu Civilization under British Rule_ and R. 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 on _Buddhist and Vishnuite_ in a recent number of _Sāhitya_[307] by the late Umes Chundra Batabyal, in which grave historical reasons are given for concluding that the _Gītā_ is in part at least a polemic against Buddhism; and to the late Mr. Justice Telang’s introduction to his translation of the _Gītā_ (_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.

Footnote 282:

Many of the wisest Indians have spoken out on this subject. The latest
utterance is an article on _Pseudo-Nationalism_ in _the Indian
Messenger_ for August 9th.

Footnote 283:

Many other signs of Christian influence might be noted: thus _the
Young Men’s Gītā_ is a counterblast to a Christian edition of the
Song, and it is besides most evidently arranged and printed in
imitation of some tasteful edition of _the Imitation of Christ_; while
_the Imitation of Sreekrishna_ proclaims its origin by its very name.

Footnote 284:

See an essay by Hirendra Nath Dutta, which originally appeared in
Sāhitya, now republished as an appendix to Nobin Chundra Sen’s
_Kurukshetra_.

Footnote 285:

p. ii.

Footnote 286:

pp. 74-76.

Footnote 287:

p. 1.

Footnote 288:

_Krishna and Krishnaism_, 16.

Footnote 289:

_Krishnacharitra_, 42.

Footnote 290:

_Pānini, his Place in Sanskrit Literature_, 227.

Footnote 291:

_Srikrishna, his Life and Teachings_, vol. I, p. xxv.

Footnote 292:

_Physical Religion_, 76.

Footnote 293:

_Pānini, his Place in Sanskrit Literature_, 227.

Footnote 294:

It was published in 1861.

Footnote 295:

Macdonell, 430-431; Kaegi, 7; Max Müller, _Physical Religion_, 63-64;
Haraprasad Sastri, _A School History of India_, 4-7; R. C. Dutt,
_Brief History of Ancient and Modern India_, 17, 27; Böhtlingk’s
_Pānini_ (Leipsic, 1887); Weber, _Indische Studien_, V, 1-172;
Hopkins, _R. I._, 350; Bühler in _S. B. E._, vol. II, pp. xxxv,
xxxix-xlii; Eggeling in _S. B. E._, vol. xii, p. xxxvii; Bhandarkar,
_Early History of the Deccan_, 5.

Footnote 296:

Max Müller, _A. S. L._, 311-312; Macdonell, 36, 39, 268. Cf. what
Whitney says, “The standard work of Pānini, the grammarian-in-chief of
Sanskrit literature, is a frightfully perfect model of the Sūtra
method” (_Oriental and Linguistic Studies_, I, 71).

Footnote 297:

Max Müller, _Natural Religion_, 296; Macdonell, 203-4.

Footnote 298:

Macdonell, 205.

Footnote 299:

Max Müller, _A. S. L._, 138; _Natural Religion_, 297-298; Macdonell,
22-23.

Footnote 300:

Macdonell, 50.

Footnote 301:

On these texts see Kaegi, Note 77; Macdonell, 48, 50.

Footnote 302:

Macdonell, 51.

Footnote 303:

Macdonell, 268.

Footnote 304:

Macdonell, 269. Goldstücker (_op. cit._ p. 225) acknowledges that
Yāska earlier than Pānini.

Footnote 305:

pp. 8-10.

Footnote 306:

See also Bose, _H. C._, 33-35.

Footnote 307:

13th year, 1st part.

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are
referenced.
○ While the title page included with the source files shows
Neil Alexander to be the author, the original publication is
attributed to John Nicol Farquhar.