When was BG Written?

[Tirisilex]

When was the Bhagavad Gita written? I found three different answers.. One says 500 BC another 1500 BC and another says 3000 BC.. Which is it?

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste Trisilex:

Why would it matter? If it has value, and adds to people's lives, does it matter if it was written in 1990 or 8000 years ago. The words are godsends to some.

Why do you want to know? Is there some personal reason to prove or disprove its validity or something like that.

Or perhaps its just your curiousity. Obviously there are different POVs, not unexpectedly.

I myself asked a similar question here about 4 months back I think. It was never answered. Mine was, "When did the BG start having such a huge impact, and even be considered as 'The Book" Was it after the printing press, of before, during oral tradition times. Was it scribed by slaves or devotees for scholars to read? (Personally, I don't subscribe to the claims of its greatness.)

Aum Namasivaya

[Tirisilex]

I have 2 reasons.. 1 is out of pure curiosity and second so I have something to say to Christians when they try to convert me.. Chapter Sixteen: The Divine and Demoniac Natures of the BG is almost exactly like Galatians Chapter 5.. They say if Jesus hadn't of died on the cross the Holy Divine Spirit would not have been able to descend onto Earth but BG clearly shows otherwise..

[yajvan]

hari oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté

One cannot answer this question without asking when was the Mahābhārata written? The Bhāgavad gītā is considered part-and-parcel an ingredient of the Mahābhārata ( I know you know that :) ).
Yet there are some that offer the conjecture that the Bhāgavad gītā was written at a later date, then inserted into Mahābhārata. I do not take that position myself, nor would I waste one breath to argue either way.

What is available is when the Mahābhārata purportedly took place, based upon astrological indicators offered in the Mahābhārata ( hence my initial interest); I do not have this data at my finger-tips.

Yet I have seen dates offered on the authoring of the book - both AD and BC time frames, I have never really sought out an actual date. Why so ( for me) ? Sanātana dharma is rooted in eternity - not many ṛṣi's, muni's, and the like cared to time stamp their writings; for them it was all a continuum of 'now'.

That does not discount one's curiosity to know when this writing took place.
I have used this site in the past as a reference: http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_vartak.html

praṇām

[sanjaya]

The Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata. Mahabharata was written down sometime around 1200 BC, was it not? However, if I'm not mistaken it had been transmitted orally (like many ancient religious texts around the world) for quite a long while before this. And because people in ancient times had much better memories because of less usage of the written word, this transmission would have been quite accurate. I've read of the Mahabharata being dated to as early as 5000 BC. Anyway, someone let me know if I'm wrong, because I haven't done any serious research in this area.


I have 2 reasons.. 1 is out of pure curiosity and second so I have something to say to Christians when they try to convert me.. Chapter Sixteen: The Divine and Demoniac Natures of the BG is almost exactly like Galatians Chapter 5.. They say if Jesus hadn't of died on the cross the Holy Divine Spirit would not have been able to descend onto Earth but BG clearly shows otherwise..

Hi Tirisilex, I've got a few thoughts here.

1.) If Christians try to convert you, I've found that the best response is to politely and simply say that you're a Hindu, and that we don't convert to other religions because we don't want to lose our culture and adopt a foreign one. Some evangelicals will start going through the Ten Commandments and ask you "have you ever <insert broken commandment here>?" At this point you can interrupt and tell them that you don't buy into the notion that God will send you to hell for a single transgression of his law, or that a holy God is unable to be in the presence of imperfect people. No offense to evangelicals, but their arguments are very formulaic, and can easily be refuted if you don't happen to agree with all of their presuppositions. Evangelical arguments tend to only work with Western atheists who grew up in Christian homes and adhere to a Christian way of thinking (and thus hold to the evangelicals' presuppositions and view about the world).

2.) Even the late dates of the Bhagavad Gita's recording are well before the time of the New Testament. So it's entirely possible that St. Paul's views on the spirit and the flesh have their root in Hindu thought.

3.) All Christians believe that the Old Testament was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and this was before Christ's birth. Therefore, I'm not sure that any Christian would argue that it's impossible for God to inspire the writing of Scripture prior to Christ's death. You might be arguing a strawman if you choose to go this route. It would be more likely for a Christian to argue that "heathen" Indians aren't capable of hearing the voice of God unless we are converted, and that our rishis and saints were really inspired by demons. The pertinent proof-text that they will use will most likely be 1 Corinthians 10, which requires them to equate the Hindu devas with pagan Greek deities. It might be a better idea to demonstrate to your evangelist friends that Hinduism isn't paganism or polytheism, and that our belief in karma isn't a "license to sin." There's a popular belief in the West that Hinduism is a faith free of morals or personal accountability, and that we are free to live immoral lives without being held responsible by God. This prevalent view, I believe, is what must be refuted in order to disarm missionaries of their anti-Hindu arguments.

Anyway, I hope you find the information you're looking for!

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste,

Sri Krishna died in 3102 BCE.

That means the Bhagavad Gita took place a few decades before that.

I have heard of dates ranging from 5500BCE to 1350BCE.

As for christians trying to convert you, this is what you should respond with:

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Namaste,

Sri Krishna died in 3102 BCE.



It pains me no end when fellow Hindu kills off our worship able Lord, without understanding the divine nature of their appearance and disappearance
if we had read the Gita upon which we are commenting we would not make such a statement.

No wonder Lord Krishna says this

naham prakasah sarvasya
yoga-maya-samavrtah
mudho 'yam nabhijanati
loko mam ajam avyayam

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible. 7.25

Personally I prefer Hindus to know this, upon which one does not have to take birth again, when he say’s

ajo 'pi sann avyayatma
bhutanam isvaro 'pi san
prakrtim svam adhisthaya
sambhavamy atma-mayaya

Though I am eternal, imperishable, and the Lord of all beings; yet I (voluntarily) manifest by controlling My own material nature using My Yoga-Maya. 4.6

janma karma ca me divyam
evam yo vetti tattvatah
tyaktva deham punar janma
naiti mam eti so 'rjuna

One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna. 4.9

What is the use of speculating when Gita was spoken, if we can’t be bother to read its contents and understand it.

Sorry if you feel I am being pedantic.

Jai Shree Krishna

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste GP ji,

I apologize for the mistake, it was purely unintentional.

I actually thought of it after I had made the post (while outside my home) and you brought it up. :D

What I meant was the incarnation of Krishna (the body) is supposed to have died or shall we say Krishna "left" his body in 3102 BCE.

Namaskar.


Pranam

It pains me no end when fellow Hindu kills off our worship able Lord, without understanding the divine nature of their appearance and disappearance
if we had read the Gita upon which we are commenting we would not make such a statement.

No wonder Lord Krishna says this

naham prakasah sarvasya
yoga-maya-samavrtah
mudho 'yam nabhijanati
loko mam ajam avyayam

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible. 7.25

Personally I prefer Hindus to know this, upon which one does not have to take birth again, when he say’s

ajo 'pi sann avyayatma
bhutanam isvaro 'pi san
prakrtim svam adhisthaya
sambhavamy atma-mayaya

Though I am eternal, imperishable, and the Lord of all beings; yet I (voluntarily) manifest by controlling My own material nature using My Yoga-Maya. 4.6

janma karma ca me divyam
evam yo vetti tattvatah
tyaktva deham punar janma
naiti mam eti so 'rjuna

One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna. 4.9

What is the use of speculating when Gita was spoken, if we can’t be bother to read its contents and understand it.

Sorry if you feel I am being pedantic.

Jai Shree Krishna