________________
III - THE BHAGAVATA RELIGION AND THE GĪTĀ 761
the Brāhmanas have principally enunciated this Activistic religion of sacrificial Yajñas. As this religion was later on systematically expounded in the Mimānsä-Sūtras of Jaimini, it acquired the name 'Mimāmsaka-mārga'. But although the name 'Mimāmsā' was new, yet, the sacrificial religion was undoubtedly ancient, and was probably the first stage of the Vedic religion from the historical point of view. Before acquiring the name 'Mimāmsaka-märga', it used to be known as 'Trayi-dharma', that is, 'the religion supported by the three Vedas'; and the same name is to be found in the Gītā (See Gi. 9. 20 and 21). When this ritualistic Trayi-dharma was being rigorously observed, how was it possible to Realise the Parameśvara by this Karma, that is, this external paraphernalia of Yajñas and sacrificial rites? There then gradually arose the doubts and objections, that as Realisation was a mental process, it would be impossible to acquire Realisation, unless one contemplated on the form of the Parameśvara etc.; and this Trayi-dharma gradually came to include the Knowledge contained in the Upanisads, as is evident from the introductory passages at the commencement of the Chāndogya and other Upanisads. This Knowledge of the Brahman contained in the Upanisads has subsequently acquired the name, "Vedānta'. But although this word 'Vedānta' has come into existence subsequently like the word 'Mimāmsā', yet, the Knowledge of the Brahman, or the Path of Knowledge, does not, on that account, become something new. It is true that the Jñāna-kānda came to be formulated after the Karma-kānda; yet, one must not forget that both of them were ancient. The Kāpila-Samkhya philosophy is another and an independent branch of this path of Knowledge. I have stated in the Gītā-Rahasya, that whereas Vedānta was Non-Dualistic, Sāmkhya philosophy was Dualistic, and that the Sāmkhya doctrines regarding the genesis of the Cosmos are fundamentally different. But although the Non-Dualistic Knowledge of the Brahman mentioned in the Upanisads is fundamentally different from the Dualistic Sāmkhya philosophy, yet, from the point of view of Knowledge, both these paths were equally antagonistic to the prior ritualistic Path of Action (harmamārga). This naturally gave rise to the problem of the
