Gita composed before or after Buddha?

[Guest guest]

I am curious to know if the Gita was composed before or after Buddha. The reason is if Krishna came much before Buddha but the Gita was written around Buddhas time or after, how can we know if the Gita is spoken word of Krishna (God) since it was written centuries later? This is really something to think about!

[Guest guest]

about the bible

[vmnair]

Gita is definetly written before the time of Budha. Not only Gita, but all other Hindu epics are written before that. None of the Hindu epics ever mntioned about Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. All these religions are derived from Hindu religion.

[agraman]

There is no doube Gita was composed thousands of years ago before the death of Buddha.In that there is no mention of any religion or even abt Buddha.So there be no doubt abt that.

[Guest guest]

It must have been written before Buddha as it doesn't even mention his school of thought but mentions others. It may have been composed around the Vedantic period as it takes many idea from the Upanishads and is seen as an Upanishad itself. This is another reason why some Hindus see it a shruti.

 

However the Gita gained popularity when it was taken up as a principle scripture and was used as a weapon against buddhist conversions. Before this period the Gita was there but not so important or identified in the Hindu community. It may have been part of the Mahabharata before the Buddhist period and was extracted as a single scripture areound 500 - 300 BC.

[Guest guest]

I believe the Gita was composed before Buddha's time too but honestly those guys over at Dalistan.org said that the real Bhagavad Gita is nothing like what we read today. They said that the original is only a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna in which Krishna was forcing him to fight-only that and nothing divine about it. The original name was Geeta, however it got changed over time to Bhagavad Gita. They claim the philosophical aspect of it was added in by writers who took Buddha's thought and composed the Gita to fight off Buddhism and gain back Hinduism in India at that time. They also claim that Krishna was never considered an avatar during his time on earth and most Bhramins ridiculed him and made him out to be a pervert, when in reality he wasn't (hence, the pictures of him and gopis). They claim the fact that Krishna bieng considered divine is a new concept that came much later in time and basically he was just an oridnary human bieng during his time so to say. Obviously, they don't like Hindus but they do provide a lot of information and seem quite confident in their writings. They also say the Mahabharata has to connection to the Gita and Krishna only appears to be an ordinary person in there. Basically they are saying that if he is so divine then why was it only in the Bhagavad Gita?

 

In addition, Phulgenda Sinha's book "The Bhagavad Gita: As It Was" also had some kapila and Buddhist thought. Which again is confusing if the Gita was actually composed before Buddha. I am extremely confused on which Gita to rely on. I absolutely know in my heart that Krishna is divine and that will never change. It's just confusing when you read this stuff.

 

I'll try and find the link to the website article.

[vmnair]

All your doubts will be cleared if you visit "backtohome" site and talk to

Guru Sankarshandas Adhikari. For a wide explanation on Hinduism please visit

"viewzone" site. You can find out who lots of interesting matters about Abraham, Bible, Hinduism etc.. add www as prefix and com as sufix to these two sites

[vmnair]

Krishna is mentioned in many script like Mahabharata, Bhagavatham, Gita Govindam etc... Gita is spelled in many ways and all are same. There are 18 Chapters. You can download PDF format of Gita from website kairaly.net and Bhagawad Gita.

[vmnair]

Please contact me on my email. I'll send you some good links.

[The_Blessed_Guy]

GeetA is a composition of all time greatest seer Sri 'VedeVyaas' which is found as a chapter named 'Bheeshma Parva' of ever greatest epic 'MahAbhAarata' ! and MahAbhArata was composed in 'Dwaapar Yuga' in which incarnation of The Supreme happened in Lord Krishna name and form. As per Hindu mythology incarnation of The Supreme is in order given given hereinunder :

1. The King- Harishchandra ( Satyuga )

2. Lord RAma ( Treta yuga)

3. Lord Krishna ( DwApar Yuga) followed by

4. Lord Budha ( Kaliyuga )

[The_Blessed_Guy]

GeetA is a composition of all time greatest seer Sri 'VedeVyaas' which is found as a chapter named 'Bheeshma Parva' of ever greatest epic 'MahAbhAarata' ! and MahAbhArata was composed in 'Dwaapar Yuga' in which incarnation of The Supreme happened in Lord Krishna name and form. As per Hindu mythology incarnation of The Supreme is in order given given hereinunder :

1. The King- Harishchandra ( Satyuga )

2. Lord RAma ( Treta yuga)

3. Lord Krishna ( DwApar Yuga) followed by

4. Lord Budha ( Kaliyuga )

[Guest guest]

 

I believe the Gita was composed before Buddha's time too but honestly those guys over at Dalistan.org said that the real Bhagavad Gita is nothing like what we read today. They said that the original is only a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna in which Krishna was forcing him to fight-only that and nothing divine about it.

 

As far as I know there is no Buddhist talk in the Gita. Buddhists have their own philosophy and terms that they use and the Gita uses works and schools which all predate Buddhism. Let's not forget that Buddha was a Hindu and used local Hindu terms to explain his spiritual path. The word Nirvana was a Hindu word before it was Buddhist, used in the area that is today Nepal. Let's also not forget that buddhism didn't gain nationwide popularity until Emperor Asoka converted and promoted buddism over 200 years after Buddha.

 

The accusation about the gita only being about krishna talking about fighting with nothing philosophical about it is doubtful. There are many cases in Hindu scriptures where they talk of fighting, ethics, dharma, (e.g. ramayana) etc but these are not picked out and given a new name. It would've been silly just to pick out a dialogue about fighting and see it as a new book....aka the Gita. There has to be something speacial about it. It has to have special purpose.

 

For example 'Hanuman chalisa' has a purpose as being a prayer to Hanuman to instill good qualities in devotees and this was taken from the Tulsidas Ramayana. It would never have been extracted if there was nothing specal about it.

 

 

They claim the philosophical aspect of it was added in by writers who took Buddha's thought and composed the Gita to fight off Buddhism and gain back Hinduism in India at that time.

 

This is the most silliest accusation they have made. They really shoot themselves in the foot with this one, it actually shows their ignorance. It's true the Gita was used to fight off buddhism. BUT the philosophical teaching in the Gita can all be traced to the Upanishads, which have not been influenced by Buddhism but are the teaching of Hindu sages based on the Vedas. The Gita combine different schools of Hindu thought in one book. Please take time to read some Upanishads and you will see the strong connection. The practice behind raja yoga is mentioned in the Gita, even though the school founded by Sage Patanjali was around 200BC (after the Gita).

 

A word of advice, don't trust Marxist historians. They will distort and lie just to get their agenda across which is to destroy all religion and make everyone atheists. Indian Marxists are a particular breed of muppets in that they are quiet when it comes to criticise chrsistan and muslim religion since they need their support when fighting Hindus. When in reality marxists are supposed to be hostile to all religions. Dalistan cannot be trusted because their intense hatred of Hindus has blinded their judgement. Sure, it's true that dalits have been wronged and oppressed in history but their theories are far-fetched and they have their own political agenda now. They purposefully call themselves dalits now to evoke sympathy. The fact that right-wing christians as well as marxists are their prime suppoters shows how desperate they are. Marxists and christians are not supposed to be friends.

[Guest guest]

The Gita by itself contains no evidence to date it before or after the Buddha. What is known is the author is aware of the Sankhya School, the Yoga School and the Brahma-Sutras.

 

The Gita is dated in the bigger context of dating the Mahabharata. But dating the MB is no easy task. It has some portions in archaic sanskrit (pre-Panian) and some portions in classical Panian Sanskrit. It contains 2 avatar lists, one of which mention the Buddha as one of the avatars while the other does not mention the Buddha.

 

Since this text has evolved over time, it is hard to say when the Bhagavad Gita and Anu Gita were inserted into the text. There is no evidence beyond speculation to doubt if the Gita was originally a much smaller text.

 

Unlike the above, the Ramayana is written completely in classical sanskrit and is easily dated to the 7th century AD. The story of course is much older.

 

Cheers

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Srimad Bhagavad-Gita was spoken more then 5000 years ago by Lord Krishna in Kurukshetra. !

It's been coming down by disciplic succession through a chain of self-realized Spiritual Masters. THAT IS HOW IT WAS KEPT ALIVE. Gaura haribol!

The most recent recipient of His own Spiritual Master's mercy is His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada of the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya.

[Sephiroth]

 

I am curious to know if the Gita was composed before or after Buddha. The reason is if Krishna came much before Buddha but the Gita was written around Buddhas time or after, how can we know if the Gita is spoken word of Krishna (God) since it was written centuries later? This is really something to think about!

Written centuries later - true, but memorized by a specialized groups throughtout the centuries (word for word).

Brahmins in the past had a specific role - they just memorized dozens upon dozens of Puranas, Vedas and the Gita. And since Brahmins don't go to battle like Kyastrias or do other things like Vaisyhas and Sutras, their roles allocated to Spiritualism alone to ensure they become the backbone of Hindusm. And most Brahmin society is supported by the Government (Kyastrias).

Even Buddha didn't compile and write down his Discourse with his students rather, the students gathered together, discuss and wrote it down 3 months after Lord Buddha's Passing.

Matter a fact, Muhammad in Islamic Religion TRIED to follow the same method (as Gautama Buddha) to idolize Islamic Religion. He proclaimed that he received messages from his God but never bothered to write down. He knew he was going to die soon and he never commisioned anyone to compile and create Al Quran so he could double-check it and confirmed what he receive is same as what is compiled.

In sort, Muhammad wanted to make Muslims as Brahmins and Buddhist monks - to memorize Al Quran by heart and follow it but failed.

I was asked the same question in another forum - WHAT is the proof that Gita is same to what said by Sri Krishna some 5,000 years ago? Answer - it lies in how Hindus who follow Gita lives their life.

How do Buddhists know what they follow is same as what Gautama Buddha had stated? Answer again lies in how Buddhists live their lives.

[Guest guest]

 

Srimad Bhagavad-Gita was spoken more then 5000 years ago by Lord Krishna in Kurukshetra. !

The 5000 year date is wild speculation as there is no evidence for such a claim. The question is, how important is it for the Gita to be 5000 years old to command respect?

 

 

It's been coming down by disciplic succession through a chain of self-realized Spiritual Masters. THAT IS HOW IT WAS KEPT ALIVE. Gaura haribol!

Wrong. The Gita was written down in the Mahabharata and is not required to be passed down traditionally from master to master. Do not confuse oral traditions with written traditions. Shankara was the first in his line to bother with the Gita (there is no evidence of his guru or super-guru having shown any interest in the text). Same with other prominent commentators of that time.

 

By the same logic it is also not accurate to say Prabhupada got the BG from Madhva as they both interpret it differently. But like I said above, it is not required that the BG be got thru disciplic tradition.

 

Cheers

[DharmaRaja88]

What most people, especially western people, seem to forget is that the Buddha (which is a TITLE btw, as everyone can become a Buddha) lived in INDIA (was a prince in Nepal and went deeper in India for his spritual advancement), so his ideas came forth from the ideas that where already floating in India. His ideas, his thoughts, his philosophy was NOT NEW, it only was forgotten by the masses. I mean Meditation, detachment, conquering desire, thoughtless etc. where all ideas that already came to pass in the Vedas and Upanishads. It is just that India around the Buddha time was in ruin, nothing more then a shadow from its former glorious past. This may have been the effect of the Kurushetra war. As Krishna said, when a society finds it top point in culture and growth, it WILL fall in to ruins.

 

Now sinds Buddhisme and their thoughts actually derrives from other Hindu/Indian philosophy (i know buddhist never going to acknowledge this truth) its only normal that their thoughts and philosophies are similiar to each other. The fact is that each great spiritual master proclaim the truth in their own way, tone it down to the understanding of the people of the time and area from where he is from.

 

Like the fact that the Buddha never actually disputed the theory of Jivan or soul, he just said to people not to be attached to such an idea because it will hinder you to experience it yourself. This is because the people of that time (or all times) have wrong ideas about spiritual concepts and its better to not have these ideas because you will be open to the real truth, which will always be different from what books say (as books can not convert experience to people). In this way, the Buddha disputed a lot of 'Vedic' ideas, because the true meaning of those words where lost and people made their own ideas about that (which is illusion and thus ignorance). The Buddha also said that the true essence of the Vedas where the TRUTH yet their meaning was lost. This came to be because the Brahmin forgot their position and became corrupted. They corrupted the Vedas with them, selling the teachings for money and food. Creating new rituals so that there roll in Society did not fade away. The Buddha actually helped to change this but the corruption of the Brahmins have stained India and its philosophy for a long time after and is still strong till this day.

 

To answer your question, both the essence of the Gita and of the Buddha existed millenia's before both the Buddha and Krishna. Why? Because such ultimate truths dont change by time like the law of gravity. THe same philosophy has been taught 100.000 years ago and will be taught over 100.000 again (if we don't destroy ourself in this terrible age). We as people only forget it by time and a new teacher must come to remind us of the real truth of this world and our own human experience.

 

If we also go by the story, then the Mahabharat was a millenium earlier before the Buddha came (Krishna usually dated around 1500 bc to 900 bc). That Krishna was not seen as devine can be, that the Gita may or may not be said by Krishna can be, that does not mean the text of the Gita is less devine, less important or less relevant. No text that i know have the depth of the Gita. It truly is the light that brightens the human mind and together with deep detached meditation will create wonders!