THE GRAMMAR OF THE GITA A VINDICATIONBY

B. N. KRISKNAMURTI SARMA

In the course of an article contributed by him. io the

Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume 1917, Prof. V. K Rajwade,a scholar of some repute, had unsparingly criticised the

Bhagavad-Glta, and opined that it could not be regarded as one

of the best poems in the world. He also pointed it out to be

full of grammatical absurdities and defects of diction and added

that it"offends against the economy of words by most egregi-

ously interspersing expletives like ^ r&, offi, <j,^ f and other

meaningless single words plentifully and by using expressions

that in no way add to or emphasise the meaning." ( p. 330. )>

that"tho

*

lavish of expletives the Glta does not mind lacu-

nae" (p. 332), and that" we should expect the Glta to be honey-

combed with purple passages if it were a poem and a poemworthy of being placed in the highest class of poetry." (p. 332).

The whole criticism is directed from two standpoints, the

aesthetic and the grammatical. The critic at the outset beginswith an elaborate citation of the definitions of poetry given byprominent literary critics Indian as well as European. Mam-matta and Jagannatha are cited. A host of English poets and

literary critics are approvingly quoted s Puttenham, Dryden,

Wordsworth, Coleridge, De Quincey, IJudson, Herbert Spencer,in the light of whose theories of poetry and its foundations

the art and diction of the Glta is pronounced to be poor and

clumsy.

Taking his stand upon the Sutras of Panini and Classical

Sanskrit, the critic proceeds to show that the Glta "abounds in

slovenly unclassical Sanskrit and mistakes of grammar."

The Glta, as every body knows, is a part and an importantpart of the Mahabharata. It shares the oddities of Epic style

even as any other portion of the Epic. Indeed, the Epic periodis recognised to be a distinctive epoch in the development of

the Sanskrit language and the Ramayana and the Mahabharataas works belonging to this period are far earlier in date of

composition if not of final redaction than the Sutra Period.

Paninfs Sutras do not affect the language of the Mahabharataanymore than they do the language of the Vedas or Upanisads*

The Grammar of the Gita"~A Vindication 285

No one should therefore presume to -judge either from the

vantage of Panlnlan grammar. The rules of Paiiini do not

and cannot apply to the Epic, It does not also apply to the

Glta which forms part of the Epic. I shall presently showthat the Glta does share the oddities of Epio style and that its

language is closely akin to that of the Epic* It is even

possible to point out parallel passages, lines and phrases, from

all other portions of the Epic to those of the Glta.

The entire criticism becomes groundless when ifc is re-

membered that no claim is or has ever been made on behalf

of the Glta that it is the beau ideal of Sanskrit poetry ! Hindutradition has not cared to attribute false perfection of anykind to it. The entire attitude which seeks to make it conformto classical definitions of Kavya given from the latest works of

Alarhkara and requires the author of the Glfca-whoever he bei

to embellish his verses with all the niceties of literary fiat is

wrong lock stock and barrel. The author of the Glta is nolaureate writing to win a smile from patronising lips or winksof approbation and nods of assent from gullible admirers. Heis in a word not a dilettante of poetry and the fine arts, but

a moralist and a philosopher. His words are addressed to

the earnest seeker who asks for the redeeming truth and not to

him who asks for purple patches of poetry wherewith to

amuse his leisure hours.

Far from being claimed as one of the best poems of the

world the Glta is always claimed to be and spoken of as an

Upanisad 1 It is what it claims to be a Yoga Sastra and an

Upanisad. It is a gross pel version of facts and a misnomerto call it a Kavya and then seriously proceed to adjudge its

merits as one.

The critic picks out grammatical mistakes which rangefrom indiscriminate use of AtmanSpada and Parasmaipada in

place of each other, absence of regular Samdhi and loose usage

of case-endings to clumsy and intricate constructions and

shifting of compounds.

These errors of commission and omission are too* trivial

to be taken into account. Everything is explained when weremember that we are dealing with Epic and not Classical

Sanskrit. One feature of Epic and Puranic Sanskrit is that

forms have not yet become stereotyped. Samdhi was a matter

of convenience in poetry. Indiscriminate use of Parasmaipada

286 Annals of the BhandarJtar Oriental Research Institute

and Atmanepada Is very common. But still there are othercases in which the padas are used scrupulously. In these andin many other particulars the G-Ita follows the Mahabharata.

Let us see how. Here are some parallel passages andphrases.

( Mahabharata. L 1. 243 ).

GitaLI. 272-6.

* \

- i L 2. 3.

\ 8. 4.

I L 9. 2.

\ I. 41. 22.i

: I I. 43. 5^

i

\ I. 45. 11.

III. lie. 9.

Ir^f cf

I I. 64. 40.

i I. 73. 19.

*& I I. 87. 10.

: I 1.89.1.334 ^ % f^sq- I

i I. 89. 10.

qf f^&srtTg; i i. 157.

|| IIL 215 26

5r?f ^rgfw^rf^1

n

The Grammar of the Gita-A Vindication 287

U III. 234. 13. 14.

Other parallels In Furanic diction are :-

H f^TFJcf I Bhagavafca. I\7 . 7. 2

n IV. 9. 31.

I IV. 25. 46.

\ IV. 26. 24.

An indiscriminate use of padas can be met with In plentyin the Bharata as well as in the Glta.

: ( II. 14. 24 ), ^rr, srgqr^ ^srw|, ?dN%, ( ill. GO. 11 )

apparently scrupulous use of padas is seen In :

nft ^Tftft t ( HI- 298. 102 ) p

I ( III. 314-45 )."

U

\

Odd usages are not uncommon :

meaning 3><tff<A ( I- 2. 117 )

( L 251. 23 )

I I. 257. 21.

I. 256. 24.

t 1. 178. 27.

III. 48. 36.

I III. 53. 16.

I (III. 251.10)

Lioose constructions are in evidence in :*

s^t^T ^Pfljtft I

H ( I. 148. 68 )

288 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

V. 112. 12 )

It will be readily seen from the foregoing parallelisms that

tlie Glta cannot possibly be isolated from the rest of theMahabharata and adjudged in any respect. It is part andparcel of the Epic. It errs with the Epic and rises with it.

The critic makes the greatest mistake when he utterlyoverlooks the indigenous commentaries on the Glta whichsatisfactorily explain many of his 'puzzles."

He thinks t"bat the author of the Glta has used 4j^TlTJ|f for

*fcilWI ( ch. 18. 5 ) 3F3jqr for apq^( 13. 11 ).* But this is clearlya misapprehension. The term sf^T^t has been actually used inthe text twice as also its synonyms 3TT% and f%^arFr. Thus theauthor of the Glta speaks throughout of

" wise men " as oppos-ed to mere " men." gitl^S^.* is said to be "

careless Sanskrit."But a little consideration would show that it is not the mistakeof the author of the Glta. The prose-order and explanation as

given by Baghavendra Svamin runs: cT%sft: ^i^4R: tt:

The critic has mis-read the words and played tricks with evidence.

The use of expletives is not always without reason. Norare they mere "stop-gaps

" and "fillers" as the critic thinks.Our commentators have always drawn attention to the exple-tives and explained their force. Students of Indian Philosophyare well aware of the value of su ch expletives in Indian pole-mical literature.

In the case of ^r^pr^rgrfir ^^^h^HJi^i ( 3. 20 ) in which thecritic wrongly renders <3n^g as

"preservation of Society,"

both the axpletives srfq and TJcf are necessary. In his own* The critic's reference is incorrect for ( 13, 12 ). Elsewhere there

are three more incorrect references.

The Grammar of the G-lta-A Vindication 289

masterly way Raghavendra Svamin explains them :

The critic patronisingly remarks*"

It is doubtful if it hasany meaning in ^4kfM^-dtw4l : ?Pc^?|fw ( 2. 16 ) and in

3fl%m% S clfgj^; ( 2. 17 )." The aufchor of Bhasyotkarsa-Dlpikaand Raghavendra agree that 5 implies emphatic iteration :

I ^TR^nfitr 3 T^-ffi%!% H The critic

unnecessarily confuses the whole issue by introducing a fanci-

ful distinction between a "popular and a philosophical notion."

To say ( as he does ) that"in the popular view only one thing

has an end while according to the philosophical view both

have an end " and so on ( p. 330 ) is fantastic nonsense.

The next complaint is that sometimes two words meaningthe same thing are used to

"fill up gaps.

"It is a pity that

he forgets that no two synonyms are ever exactly synony-mous. There is bound to be some slight shade of difference

between the two. He points out that ^R" and sfi%^ ( 4, 33 ),

3T^5 and g4 ( 12. 3 ), ^p; <Jt5f, STR^ W*m^^ ( 6-9 ) pairs

meaning the same thing are used side by side" without any

difference in sense being implied." Here again his lack of

acquaintance with Sanskrit commentaries is responsible

for this hasty criticism. With regard to sn%$ Samkara says

erafcfcns; 3m3OT3 T%3 %%S^rf%35 (Anandagiri.) The Gita-Tivrti

runs : f

The idea expressed is quite in line with

Vedantic tradition.

^R^ and &% are explained by Samkara and Ramamija as

static ( stable T and eternal. The Vivrti would have g% as

ftf^Elt. With regard to the three pairs*

p; to etc.*

Kagha-

vendra Svamin has a briiliant exposition which bears out the

niceties of Sanskrit vocabulary:

The critic writes:-"^fl^t is hard to construe and inter-

pret.w The difficulty again is due to scrupulous non-

cooperation with original texts and commentaries.^Samkara

does not feel it hard to "construe and interpret" I =e

\ Madhva finds it easier still : ^ ^^^k %fit

( Jayatirtha* )

12

290 Annals of the Shandarkar Oriental ^Research Institute

Sometimes the stop-gaps and fillers spoil the sense as in

-,,o- llR^cR |FTR% FTTr^M y*li^ ; T ^T ( 3. 39 ) as though Firewould envelop but not burn knowledge I" ( p. 331 ) This is

clearly disingenous. In the first place the word ^^in the text does not mean Fire. It is too commonplace.As "*\T^R1^ <^TiQ^l" facetiously remarks 3Ti^^T ^rfg'^cfT^ ^I*=^T^ g

\ Samkara himself gives a different interprefca-which gains ground under

*'

Prepositions are promiscuously used without anyapparent alteration in meaning.*' Then follows a list of suchforms. But it has to be suggested in reply that prepositionalforms besides usually indicating different and varying shadesof meanings are also used for the sake of style and in other

cases are to be attributed to the idiosyncrasies of authors,Here again the critic's list of forms is only partially correct.

Thus 5^13: indicates the buoyancy of Krsna and Arjunaas soon as they entered the field -a fact intended to be contrast-

ed with the gloom of the opposite party. "In spite of the

thundrous noise of the trumpets, blow of conches etc., fromthe enemy's ranks, Madhava and Arjuna blew their concheslouder still not in the least disheartened or perturbed by the

clamour of the opposite rank/* ( Madhusiidana Barasvati).

Sfg^f^T expresses Aryuna's over-anxiety to preserve the

chastity of the women-folk which he fears would be irre-

deemably jeopardised in the event of a national war and

consequent carnage.

etc. bear witness to his burning state of

emotions.

conveys an assurance.

denotes eternal bondage. ( Samkara).has the force of srfh^l^^q-gj^ q^^rfcf or

obviates any expectation on the part of the speaker:

Bhasyotkarsa Dlpika ).

Nllakantha defines ^rqralf asU Samkara takes it to mean ^rgfrT^cT. Another

commentary remarks)

The Grammar of the &itar*A Vindication 291

is the oppolste of and not the same as &ftfN> ( 11-32)**

(p 332. ) ! I wonder what is the point after all in this sapient

comment. If the critic means that It is misused he is sadly

mistaken. The reference here is not merely to one armybut to both. arfisfe 3T^re 3TOT srf^W^ ( Samkara ). Madhva writes

\ g^[ 133

fq ( Jayatlrtha )

without a preposition tho* unusual is excusable on

Epic grounds : ^ 3 3M 33*te : I- 44. 32.

The omission of srPf after an^TTRR: and f^pi: etc,

of stfcf

before ^T2lcT: can as well be supplied Irom the context and hence

do not count as serious errors.

On p, 335 the critic remarks " No one can trace the source

of his ( Krsna's ) statement that the =3 is the first of com-

pounds." Krsna however does not say it is the^rsf but

Jfbest

**

of compounds and the reason is not far to seek :

g^an^sraM: ( Madhusudana Sarasvati. cf. also Bhattoji )

%3$ ine

cftt ^rf% ^M ......*is deemed unnecessary because

it would" make the .Atman an agent in company with certain

other factors.'* But there is no need for such nervousness if

we understand 3ft as constituting the very reason of the

soul's inactivity..

( Samkara. ) But it remains to be seen whether the Glta is

pledged to this theory of the soul's inactivity. All that the

verse means to tell us is that the individual is not an absolu-

tely free and independent agent The trend of the Glta is

far from supporting any theory of the inactivity of the soul*

The verse in question simply warns us against arrogating to

ourselves the initiative and conduct of affairs. Baghavendra

sums up the whole : ^ ^FT ^|ftqTO>4 ^g^the

out a purpose and significance and we shall leave it at that.

Our critic is at a loss to understand how and why certain

things mentioned in Chapter X as specially significant or best

of their kind are really so I But his ignorance only ^^his audacity and he burst forth into facetious humour : Some

no doubt arl good and grand examples of divine greater

the Himalayas, the ocean and the Gange,, ; some splendid such

as the Sun, the Moon; some powerful as the wind, ""the lion eta But by which of these qualities shall we

292 Annals of the BJiandarkar Oriental Research Institute

terise the Sama Veda, Brhaspati, Bhrgu and Narada ? Theyare simply best of their kind 1" ( p. 334 ). A reference to the

commentaries at once clarifies the issue I Just see: *n&R ^?pjft,

: (Nllakantha, Madhu-sudana. )

( Srldhara. )

Madhusudana.) The story of Bhrgu's mys-terious third eye in virtue of which he roamed about the three

worlds to decide who was the best of the gods is current in the

Padma-Purana,

jfnRS* The cause of his greatness is given in the text itself

^rr'tTcr ^p^; ^T^^R ^r%^ snHF^ref *F% *rR?3p ( Samkara, Srldhara^Madhusudana ).

^fR[ and ^RT elude the critic. "What sort of greatness do

these possess and what sort of pride or pleasure can Krsna or

for the matter of that any one feel in calling himself 'gambling*which is simply a civilised form of filching ?" (p.335) sfR is not

tha dry disputation of two extinct volcanoes, Sathkara bringsout the innate dignity of Vada.

( Anandagiri and Madhusudana. )

The critic makes a colossal mistake when he thinks that

the so many things referred to by Krsna are in fact his ownalteregos or fchat any identification between them is meant I

The aim of Krsna's illustrations is to impress upon Arjuna the

fact that He is the Ruler of All, who empowers the mightiestand sustains tha weakest. His hand is felt not merely in

things great and good bub in things small or repellent ( ^3^-sRT^R ^<H;d-5sr: ). But nothing is repellent to him. He is equal-ly present in all : in the learned Brahman, the elephant, the

cow, the dog and the Candala. In fact he is in all high andlow, great and small, good and bad. The warrior's might is

due to Him and the gambler's cunning is due to Him. Nothingexists then which is not ultimately deiived from Him andwhich does not in ever so small or great a degree call up his

prowess and presence. There is nothing inherently shockingif the Glta fearlessly attributes gambling as an art to thedivine presence. The Lord himself is going to speak of him-self as the merciless slayer of all men. It is, however, a falsenotion that God resides only in good things. He lives inHeaven and Hell, suffers the play of good and evil but is notin turn affected by them. ( ^f4 f| *r4 sr?n ) In fact standards

The Grammar of the Glta-A Vindication 293

of anthropomorphism do not apply to Him. In his lectures on

the Gita, Babu Aurobindo Ghose clearly brings out the

thoroughness of the Hindu conception of God,

The critic further deplores that "tfcf ^ft etc, are considered

best among women because they happen to be feminine in

speech. But the heroines and noble ladies of our Epics-a

mere utterance of whose names soon after waking in the early

morning is deemed auspicious (as if the critic does believe in

such rank superstition. ) Slta, Tara, Anasuya, Mandodari,

Savitri, Damayantl and Taramati of blessed memory ......... ...

Sarasvati the goddess of speech have all been forgotten"

(*p.334 ). A reference to the commentaries again clarifies the

issue. Madhusudana explains : stf^M^ sft

The" noble ladies

'* are not forgotten.

3jf^ I According to another view the seven terms respecti *ely

denote seven ladies each famous in a particular respect

Elsewhere he remarks,"It is doubtful whether siWFlf: in

(17.23) refers to the caste or the Brahmana.

portion of the Vedas. In the latter case it ought to be

If it were the caste there is no reason why it should precede

the Vedas and sacrifices"

( p. SOT). -But the commentators are

sure that only the caste is meant. And the critics puzzle why

it should precede the Vedas andsacrifice^

is thus clearly

explained by Madhusudana. smpw ^fcT 5W<*fcP*558gFT I

is not wroDg as is made out. Kor is it

I ^T^IWcf bas thenecesary to have it as ^cTRT%n^f I T^IWcf as e

force of *Rta*P5l WP^Wft (Samkara. ) Madhusndana writes;

\

explained by Sridhara thus :

i

Some M clumsy and intricate constructions" are noticed :-

The critic asks" how are we to construe

The Vivrti suggests a simple construction:

. hs^T= Evidently Duryodhana means to refer to hu

aTStinctfrom the mercenary soldiers and allied

294 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

** The queerest stanza is ^ftwif ft ^RcTf (2. 67). For an intel-

ligible construction we have to alter the forms of certain words

as well as supply certain links"

( p. 328. ) But the verse is

sufficiently intelligible as it is. Nllakaiitha has a very

simple and catching interpretation. f|

I The Vivrti suggests a more definite and direct con-

struction. Some more verses^ are pronounced to be clumsy in

a footnote. But a reference to any recognised commentarywould set at nought all doubts and difficulties. Intricacythere is none to speak of. Mr. Gandhi once declared the

language of the Glta to be "incredibly simple.

"

The critic declares that ^oft HP? $Fg54 ( 4. 17 ) really meanscfift f| effeo^. But this is a needless emendation. He will do welt

to understand TTRT: after every one of the three genitives.

Sarhkara actually adopts the same procedure.: i Nllakantha and Srldhara suggest a similar

procedure. Raghavendra offers a different solution. (

Then comes a sententious remark."

It is rather strangethat Krsna, Arjuna and Vyasa so intimately cormecbed with

the story of the Mahabharata and the Glta should be men-tioned as the best of their clans, family or class. Can theybe so detached from self and so impartial as to look upon them-selves in that light?

"( p. 335 ) This is simply a mischiev-

ous stunt the only fitting answer to which is given by Sri

Krsna himself in 7. 19, 24, 25.

" Another source of filling out is a host of vocatives "

( p. 331. ) In the first place it should be remembered that the

use of vocatives is a very common feature of Epic style. The

Mahabharata, the Hamayana and the Puranas abound in voca-

tives. This should not be condemned as unnatural because

primitive poetry has an irrepressible tendency toward vocativeaddress. Tbere is nothing incompatible therefore if the Glta

too is given to the use of vocatives in a large measure. It is

a defect ( if you please ) which it shares in common with therest of the Epic. But not all of them oin be declared to be

meaningless. Most of them are quite contestual and signi-ficant. They contain so many hidden allusions, and sly hits.

The great commentators do not notice the vocatives.\ The Bhasyotkarsa

The Grammar of the G-ita-A Vindicatim

commentary of the Advaita school makes a consist-

ent and almost astonishing attempt to explain the import of

everyone of the vocatives occurring throughout the Gifca. The

success with, which the feafc is carried out is simply pheno-

menal. No other commentary so far as I am aware has at-

tempted anything like ifc with such wonderful capacity and

ingenuity, The critic's list of some twenty-four vocatives in all

( said to be meaningless ) vanishes into nothingness before

the myriads of instances selected and commented upon hy the

author of the Bhasyotkarsa-Dipika. Madhusudana Sarasvati

also notices some vocatives and explains their significance.

I have taken great pains to determine the variety and fre-

quency of suca vocatives and traca out the explanations there-

on offered by the author of Bhasyotkarsa-Dlpifcca] in particular

and other commentators in general.

1"36. A. B.* 3. 1-10-18.

1-31.

3~~3* A.. B.

2-45, 3-7, 4-5 A. B. 4-9 A. 4-37 A. 6-46, 8-27, 10-42,

18-34.

2-37, 60, 3-9, 39, 5-23, 6-35, 8-6. 9-23, 31. 18-60.

2-3, 42, 55, 72. 3-16, 22 A B. 4-11, 8-8, 14, 22, 27. 16-4

AB. 17-26.

2-14 A. 2-18, 28, 30. 3-25 A B. 4-7 ABC. 4-42 A11-6, 14-10.

2-26, 68. 3-28 AB. 3-43 AB, 5-3, 6. 6-35. 7-5. 18-1.

1-41 AB. 3-36 AB.

4-2 AB. 18-41.

4-31 AB.4-35 A. 6-2, 16-5.

2-48, 4-41. AB. 7-7 AB. 9-9. 18-29.

2-1. 6-33. 8-2.

1-28. AB. 6-34, 37, 39. 17-1.

2-41. 6-43 AB. 14-13.

7-11,16,23.17-12.8-1.

11-2 AB.4.

181.

* A, B, and C refer respectively to the equations of JUdbn-

85dana, BbWyotkarga-DlpiM and AnaBdagiri. Blank reference are

always to

296 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

10-19.

11-7.

1-37 AB.

The following are' some of the typical explanations of

vocatives :

1. l%^r ( 8-6 ) ^FcRfct ^'^R^^rR5~4^r ^Tict^fcf \

2. ^FT ( 10-41 ) TT^FT ST^^T incR cf^r f% \

3. R^r ( 7-7 )

4. cJT^ ( 1-41

^m ^ft= t

5, qrq- ( 2-3)

i

: t "Krsna himself had commendedArjuna's spirited speech before the Rajasuya in the

following terms :

U

( Sabha Parva. 17-1 )

Kuntfs heroism was well known. The day preceding the

great war she had sent a message to her sons reminding themof her slavery and encouraging them to fight to the death.

The Lord reminds Arjuna of the same by this gentle humor.

6. 5RTT (11-

Besides, the G-ifca is not so hopelessly vocative-ridden.There are a good number of passages wherein vocatives are notat all pressed into service-a fact which itself refutes the viewthat they are used merely as stop-gaps and fillers. Such ofthese are :

II 22-25 ; 33-36 ; 50-53 ; 61-67.III 17-20; 29-35 ; IV. 12-30. VI. 6-16; 17-31.VII 17-25. X 2-12. XIIL 3-30. XVIII. 7-28; 50-59.

The Grammar of the Glta-A Vindication 297

Furthermore, the Olta as a poem can boast of a number of

s wMch for brevity of style, chastity of expression and

Illation of thought are unrivalled. Examples are, IV-18*

Wl H-^. VI-1. ?. 5, 6, 16, 19, 46. VII 14. BO. YIIL 5, 6.

There are some sublime stanzas: V1II-9, 13, 17, 18, 19,-22.

[X. 27. X. 19-24.

An approach to rhyme is almost in evidence in the series

Stfc *WT-^ f^ : (X*J-14~17 ) w]lich recalls the famous

series in Adiparva or the equally memorable

in which the same refrain is kept up throughout a

whole chapter ( Udyoga parva 46. )

An earnest scholar may as well collect together many

stanzas with an aphoristic flavor. Sanskrit poetry can be

rightly proud of crisp sententious and pregnant verses like :

OT , v .,

and of many others besides, which want of space forbids

many aegories n the

13

298 Annals of the JBTiandar'kar Oriental Research Institute

the Glta into eighteen chapters. Madhusudana Sarasvatireads the concise phrase and Vedantic formuladr4Ht% ( That Thou Art ) into the scheme of the G-ifca andholds that the division into three saikas ( ST^E ) corresponds to

,three periods of the great sentence cTcX, c^

: %3[Tt ^Iffg'SnTTcHcpTS II B U

fTFTT*TT^ cfaio^pf s^Rlc^ I

Tc^T tl"*" $1

n

( Introd. to Glta Vyakhyana ).

Mr. Vasant G. Rele F. C. P, S., L. M. & S. in his,

Bhagavad Glta A Psycho-Analysis"

( Tarporewala &Sons, Hornby Road, Bombay ), has endeavoured to show thatthe Glta besides embodying the theory and practice of

psychology indicates the method of analysing, synthesisingand re-educating different phases of the mind of anindividual on the border land of mental derangement.Arjuna on the eve of the battle grew definitely psychotic,Krsna was an expert psycho-analyst and he subjected him to aprocess of psycho analysis and pointed out that hisdoubts and difficulties, moral misgivings and mental musingswere all due to a proper lack of harmony. Krsna sets towork to restore that harmony. Elsewhere Mr. Rele repre-sents the human nervous system as the famous Assvattha tree.

Whatever may be said of Rele's theories, XV Chapter,dealing with the Assvattha tree turned topsy turvy is an alle-

gory. Madhusudana saysThe conception of the World-

Cycle (s*HiTi'5b ) in the III Adhyaya which for somebime evenMr. Gandhi was trying to identify with his national panaceaof the spinning wheel (charkha), is an allegory far ahead of any-Miltonic, Shakespearean or Kalidasian ! Elsewhere the critic

remarks, "the way in which the artist deals with these topic*wpuld show his mettle Even K&lidasa

f Bhav&bhuti,

The Grammar of the Gita-A Vindication^ 299

Shakespeare, Milton or Shelley would have been on 'their trialand yet there is no doubt that they would have acquitted them-selves worthily." ( p. 333.) Indian poets have never claimedprecedence over the authors of the Ramayana and the Maha-bharata. They^

have all recognised their unchallengeablesuperiority. Bana himself bows down to Vyasa in an intro-ductory verse of the Harsacarita. It is mischievously out ofplace to pit against each other the author of the Glfca andMilton, Shelley or Shakespeare. They are not in pan materia.They have no common ground.

Lastly, the chapter of the Universal Vision in which isseen the whole Cosmos, the fight of the Kuruksetra, the sightof the armies being devoured by the awful jaws of the GreatOne is an allegory akin to~the one presented in the PurusaSukta with an immediate coloring. The essence of thatallegory notwithstanding disorderly groupings which thecritic points out, is contained in two verses which emphasisethe highest doctrine of fche Glta-the Immanence of God inall things, that He is the sole Ruler and [the One IndependentReality, that the whole scheme of organic and inorganic life

derives its support from Him.

This grand truth of things is the peculiar pride of theGita. No world-poet save the author of the Gita has everdeclared so solemn a truth in so impressive a manner.Kalidasa? not BhavabhutI not Shakespeare not Shelley notMilton has approached to anything like a glimpse of it.

And as against this a mendacious list of misused words,misplaced compounds, irregular forms, archaisms, absence of

samdhi etc., weighs nowhere. The author of the Gita himselfis not likely to be perturbed by such puerilities- His is the

vantage of an overflowing philosophical lay the burden of

which would run :

(IL46)And .this is bound to be the motto of Ms countless

followers gtill in the land of Bh&ra|a Varsa.