Was the Bagavad Gita the Brahmin response to Buddhism?

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra and our friends. What should we gain, O Krsna, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?

PURPORT
According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: 1) a poison giver, 2) one who sets fire to the house, 3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, 4) one who plunders riches, 5) one who occupies another's land, and 6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting for any ordinary man, but Arjuna was not an ordinary person. He was saintly by character, and therefore he wanted to deal with them in saintliness. This kind of saintliness, however, is not for a ksatriya. Although a responsible man in the administration of a state is required to be saintly, he should not be cowardly. For example, Lord Rama was so saintly that people were anxious to live in His kingdom, (Rama-rajya), but Lord Rama never showed any cowardice.

The Buddha predates the Bhagavad Gita by a hundred years. Buddhism was the response to the Vedas however.

>>2918575

Seems likely. The Buddha himself apparently didn't know about it, so it can't be as old as some of Hindus claim.

>>2918607
Buddha references three Vedas during his time. There are four Vedas now. Gita was never mentioned and it's arguments never seen.

On the other hand, gitas makes arguments against Buddhist lifestyle and approach and teachings which apparently seems to gaining popularity.

Historians call the writing date of gita between 5th to 2nd century bce.

>>2918575
>Was the Bagavad Gita the Brahmin response to Buddhism?
gita only pays lip service to brahmins
it lets you be closer to God regardless of them, so it counters brahmins role in society