Note On Ratnagotravibhaga 01 52 Bhagvadgita XIII 32

This document is a scholarly note by V. V. Gokhale, published by V. V. Gokhale, that explores the relationship between the Jain text Ratnagotravibhāga and the Bhagavad Gita. Specifically, it focuses on Ratnagotravibhāga I. 52 and its striking similarity to Bhagavad Gita XIII. 32.

The author, Gokhale, begins by acknowledging Johnston's observation of a close parallelism between the Tathāgatagarbha theory in the Ratnagotravibhāga and the ātman (self) theories found in early Vedanta works like the Gaudapādakārikā. Gokhale then highlights the stanza Ratna. I. 52 and its potential, hitherto unnoticed, identification with Bhagavad Gita XIII. 32.

The core of the analysis lies in comparing the two stanzas:

• Ratnagotravibhāga I. 52 (as cited by Gokhale):

  yathā sarvagatam sauksmyād ākāśam nopalipyate / sarvatrāvasthitah sattve tathāyam nopalipyate // (1.52)

  "Just as ether, being subtle, is not stained by anything, similarly, residing in all beings, it is not stained."

• Bhagavad Gita XIII. 32 (according to the critical text):

  yathā sarvagatam sauksmyād ākāśam nopalipyate / dehe sarvatrāvashthitaḥ tathātmā sarvabhūteṣu // (XIII. 32)

  "Just as ether, being subtle, is not stained by anything, similarly, the Self, residing in all bodies, is not stained in all beings."

Gokhale notes that the first line of both stanzas is identical. However, the second line presents a significant variant that is crucial to his argument.

The Ratnagotravibhāga reading is "sarvatrāvasthitah sattve tathāyam" (residing in all beings, similarly this). The Bhagavad Gita reading, as accepted by the B.O.R.I., is "dehe tathātma" (in the body, similarly the Self).

Gokhale suggests that the Ratnagotravibhāga stanza, with its kārikās (verses) supplemented by explanatory verses and its author's characterization of the main text as a "summary of the meaning of verses," likely originated from a Buddhist canonical source. He emphasizes that the meaning of this stanza is expressed in different phrasing in other parts of the Ratnagotravibhāga, suggesting no direct borrowing from non-Buddhist sources like the Bhagavad Gita.

Conversely, Gokhale points out that R. Garbe identified Bhagavad Gita XIII. 32 as evidence of later Vedantic "Sanskritization" of the original Gita. This suspicion is further supported by the commentary of Rāma kaṇṭha (9th century AD), who, when commenting on this very verse, quotes a stanza from the Gaudapadakārikā. Rāma kaṇṭha introduces this quote by saying "thus it has been said by some knower of Brahman," implying that Bhagavad Gita XIII. 32 itself might have originated from early Vedantic literature.

Gokhale then delves into textual variations for Bhagavad Gita XIII. 32. He notes that one Devanagari manuscript omits the entire stanza, while another omits only the second half, which contains the variant "dehi" (in the body). He argues that "dehi" (supported by other manuscripts) is a lectio difficilior (more difficult reading) and might have been later changed to "dehe" to suit Vedantic interpretations.

Regarding the Ratnagotravibhāga reading of "satvo," Gokhale argues that Johnston's emendation to "sattve" is not well-justified. He finds strong support for "satvo" in the Tibetan and Chinese versions of the text. The Tibetan version reads: "de. bshin sems. can thams. cad. la / gnas hdi ne. bar gos. pa med //" which translates to something like "similarly, in all beings, this [one] residing is not stained." The Chinese version contains a word meaning "Buddhatvam" (Buddhahood) in place of "satvo."

Gokhale further argues that if "satvo" is emended to "sattve," the pronoun "ayam" (this) in the second line lacks a clear antecedent. He posits that "satvo" in Ratnagotravibhāga has a remarkable counterpart in "dehi" from some Bhagavad Gita versions. He suggests that "dehi" and the substitution of "atma" for "ayam" might have been later changes made to "Sanskritize" the verse for Vedantic purposes.

Gokhale concludes that the Ratnagotravibhāga reading "satvo tathayam," which fits the context of describing the satvadhatu (element of existence), is likely the older reading. He observes that various terms like satva, pudgala, jiva, atman were used by early Indian philosophers to describe subtle, persistent realities, with differing shades of meaning. The Ratnagotravibhāga uses terms like tathagatagarbha, dharmakaya, satvadhatu, or satva, while the Bhagavad Gita uses the Vedantic term atman. He suggests that the misuse and conflation of these terms is highlighted by a warning attributed to the Buddha: "There is no satva or atma here; these are only causally conditioned phenomena."

Finally, Gokhale mentions that besides the analyzed stanza, there are other instances of identical phrasing between the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Bhagavad Gita, such as Ratna. II. 38 and Bh. G. XI. 19, which also falls under Garbe's suspicion and exhibits similar metrical peculiarities.

In essence, the note argues that Ratnagotravibhāga I. 52, with its reading of "satvo," is likely an older, Buddhist-influenced verse that was later adapted and potentially "Sanskritized" in the Bhagavad Gita XIII. 32 to align with Vedantic concepts, particularly the notion of ātman. This textual comparison offers insight into the complex interrelationships between early Indian philosophical traditions.