The results of our study may, therefore, be tabulated as follows, with the proviso that the long process of the growth of the Epic cannot be fully represented:— The Hymns of the Vedas. Compilation of the Vedas . . . KURUKSHETRA. The Brāhmanas. The prose Upanishads. Kapila. Buddhism and Jainism. The verse Upanishads. Patanjali. Bādarāyana. The Atharvan Upanishads. The third stage of the Epic and _Manu_ . . . THE GITA. It has thus become perfectly clear that THE GĪTĀ CANNOT HAVE BEEN UTTERED ON THE BATTLEFIELD OF KURUKSHETRA; for it is the last member of a long series, the final product of a clearly defined and elaborate process of development. To ascribe the _Gītā_ to the age of Kurukshetra is much the same as if one were to ascribe the poetry of Tennyson to the age of Alfred the Great. A thousand years intervene; the thought and toil of a millennium were needed to produce the great result. Had Krishna uttered these doctrines on the famous battlefield, we should inevitably have found references to them in the literature produced during the following centuries. But where in the Brāhmanas do we find any of the leading ideas of the _Gītā_? Even if men had disbelieved Krishna, his claim to be God incarnate would at least have drawn out a protest; but in no single Brāhmana or early Upanishad is there the slightest hint of anything of the kind. So far from there being any corroboration of the great myth in early literature, there is the clearest proof that it is false. In the _Kāthaka_ recension of the _Black Yajur Veda_ king Dhritarāshtra is mentioned as a well-known person[73]; yet in the whole literature of the Black Yajur there is no suggestion that Krishna claimed divine honours. _The Satapatha Brāhmana_, which is a product of the _Kuru-Panchāla_ country,[74] contains the names of a number of the heroes of the great war,[75] but never refers to Krishna as God incarnate; while in the _Chāndogya Upanishad_,[76] which belongs to the same district,[77] he is spoken of merely as a man: he is mentioned as a pupil of Ghora Angirasa and is called Krishna Devakiputra.[78] Nay, even in the earliest part of the _Mahābhārata_ itself Krishna is only a great chief, and not a deity at all.[79] Finally, the references to Pandu heroes and to the worship of Krishna and Arjuna in Pānini,[80] would lead to the conclusion that in Pānini’s day Krishna was not regarded as the supreme God, but as one among many;[81] and this cautious inference is corroborated by the fact that the _Mahābhāshya_ itself does not recognize him as the incarnation of Brahma, but as a hero and demi-god.[82] _Thus the whole of the Vedic literature, and the whole of the Sūtra literature, are destitute of a single reference to Krishna as the incarnation of the Supreme._ There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this overwhelming mass of evidence.[83]