SRI
BHAGAVADGITA-RAHASYA
OR
KARMA-YOGA-S'ASTRA
( English Translation )
First Edition
VOLUME I
Published for Tilak Bros, by :— R. B. Tilak, Lokamanya
Tilak Mandir, 568, Naiayan Peth, Poona City, (INDIA).
AND
Printed by S. V. Parulekar at the Bombay Vaibhav Press,
Servants of India Society's Building, Sandhurst Road,
Bombay, ( INDIA ).
SV90
All rights including rights of translation, abridgement, summary,
synopsis, etc. are reserved by the Publishers,
hacalar Editions
" OF THE
JITA-RAHA!: ¥A
- ;,ion June 1915.
" lit' on; September 191.',
.oil, September 1918.
„,£*tion, 1923.
3£Jba^on in two Tiart?, 1924-1926.
Various Vernacular Editions
OF THE
GIIA-RAHASYA
MARATHI
First Edition, June 1915.
Second Edition, September 1915.
Third Edition, September 1918.
Fourth Edition, 1933.
First Edition in two parts, 1924-1926.
HINDI
First Edition, 1917.
Second Edition, 1918.
Third Edition, 1919.
Fourth Edition, 1924.
Fifth Edition, 1925.
Sixth Edition, 1928.
First Edition in two parts, 1926.
Seventh Edition, 1933.
GUJARATHI
First Edition, 1917.
Second Edition, 1924.
BENGALI
First Edition, 1924.
KANARESE
First Edition, 1919.
TELUGU
First Edition, 1919.
TAMIL
First Edition, (First Volume only'
Works of the Late LOK. B. G. TILAK-
1. The Arctic Home in the Vedas (In English).
2. The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the
Vedas (In English).
3. The Vedic Chronology and the Vedanga Jyotisha
(In English).
4. THE GITA-RAHASYA.
Marathi, in two volumes.
Gujarathi, (cloth bound) in one volume.
Hindi, „ ditto.
Kanarese, ,, ditto.
Bengali, „ ditto.
All the above books can be had of :—
Messrs. TILAK Bros.,
Lokamanya Tilak Mandir,
568, Narayan Peth,
Poona City (INDIA).
5. S'rimad Bhagavadglta, text, translation and important,
commentaries, in Hindi, Gujarathi, and Marathi. -"
6. Three-coloured portraits and pictures :•—
Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak,
size 20" by 27", 8 as. each.
size 12" by 18", 4 as. each.
The Battle-field of Kuru-Ksetra
size 20" by 27", 8 as. each,
size 12" by 18", 4 as; each..
PUBLISHER'S FOREWORD.
Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the author of the present
work, had intended to publish an English translation of his
work in order to give it an international circulation, which it
would necessarily not have in its Marathi form as originally
written out by him. It was his great ambition that the
interpretation put by him on the doctrine preached by the
Bhagavadgita, should come before the eyes of learned
philosophers, scholars, and alumni, all the world over, so that
he could have the benefit of their views on the line of argument
and interpretation adopted by him ; and he had in his life-time
made an attempt to get the work put into the English language.
He was, however, unable to see this matter through on account
of his numerous activities, and ultimately he suddenly fell ill
• and died, without seeing the realisation of his desire and
ambition.
After his demise, we his two sonB, as the publishers of his
works, tried to carry out this his wish, but were unable to give
the matter our whole-hearted attention, owing to being involved
in heavy litigation arising out of the chaos resulting from the
unfair advantage which certain interested parties took of his
death. We spent a large sum of money in trying to get the
work translated into English, but in spite of this expense, the
matter remained incomplete ; and in the meantime one of us,
viz., my brother, Shridhar died, leaving this task unfinished. I
am, therefore, now glad to announce that I have at last been
.able to successfully carry out the most cherished wish of my
father, as also of my brother, and am publishing this volume
on 1st August 1935, being the fifteenth anniversary of my
father's death ; and I shall feel that all the trouble which has
been,taken by me in bringing out this publication will be
more than amply rewarded, if it gets into international
circulation, and if I am thus enabled to fulfil the wishes of my
late father, and brother ; for, I shall then feel that I am free
from my obligations to the deceased. I am writing this
foreword on the seventh anniversary of my brother's death and
1 am dedicating this publication to- his memory.
PUBLISHER'S FOREWORD
I am grateful to the various photographers, photographs
taken by whom are reproduced in this publication ; as also to
the eminent writers and the publishers of works containing
leferences to the Glta, the Glta-Rahasya, and to my late father,
•extracts from whose publications or writings, have been
included in this publication.
My thanks are also due to a friend whose help was greatly
responsible for this publication seeing the light of the day,
and especially to Mr. A. V. Patvardhan, a member of the
Servants of India Society, and the Manager of the Arya-
Bhushan Press, Poona, who, out of regard for the late
Lokamanya Tilak, undertook the printing of this work at the
Bombay Vaibhava Press, without asking for any advance
payment, and has agreed to receive all charges payable to the
Press out of the sale proceeds of the book. In fact, but for
this most generous accommodation, it would have been
difficult for me to undertake and carry out such an expensive
and ambitious project, at least in my present circumstances, .
I must also here acknowledge my gratitude to the Translator
Mr. B. S. Sukthankar, who also has gladly consented to receive
the amount payable to him for the translation, out of the sale
proceeds of the book, in due course.
It is true that the price of the publication has been put
a little high for moderate purses, as also that I have had
to publish the book in two volumes, so as to partly meet the
coste of the Press out of the sale proceeds of the first volume ;
but this has been done as there was no alternative- course left
tome.
Nevertheless, I have not made this division arbitrarily, as
will appear from what follows. The book consists of two un-
«qual parts, as written, the first part being the Philosophical
Exposition, consisting of fifteen chapters and Appendices, and
going over the first 588 pages of the original text, and the
second consisting of the Glta, with its translation, and the
Commentary on Buch translation, stanza by stanza, which goes
over about 360 pages. In publishing the book in two volumes
I have included the first thirteen chapters of the Philosophical
Exposition in the first volume, and chapters 14 and 15 of the
PUBLISHER'S FOREWORD
Philosophical Exposition, and the Appendioes together with the
indices in the second volume, for the following reasons : —
(i) With the thirteenth ohapter, the" Exposition proper,
comes to an end; the three remaining chapters, though an
integral part of the Exposition, respectively contain only
1(0) an explanation ahout the continuity of the chapters of
■the Glta, (6) the Summing up, or resume, and (c) the
Appendices ; so that strictly speaking, the subject-matter does
not suffer by my division (sej the last words of the Author at
ihe end of the thirteenth chapter, on p. 618).
(ii) In writing the book itself, the late Lokamanya wrote
chapters I to VIII in one book, chapters IX to XIII, in the second
book ; chapters XIV and XV, and the External Examination
■(Appendices), and the translation of the first three Adhyayas
A chapters) of the Glta in the third book ; and the translation of
the Adhyayas four to eighteen of the Glta and his Pref aoe in
•the fourth book (see, Information regarding the original
manuscript of the Glta-Rahasya printed at p. xxviii following ) ;
■thus, the first Volume as now published contains a translation
of the subject-matter included in the first two books written
by the Author.
(iii) The Volumes, as now published are more or less of
■the same size and price, so that from the point of view of the
purchaser, it is easier for him to pay the purchase price of the
whole book in two, more or less equal instalments, at different
times. If the first Volume had been made to include the
fifteen chapters and the Appendices, its price would have been
much higher than as now fixed.
I have, however, implicit trust in the inherent spiritual
power of this wonderful and well-known work of a recognised
Oriental Scholar and Researcher, which enabled the first
iten thousand copies of the Marathi publication to be sold off
within a few months of its publication, and enabled it to go
into several editions in Marathi, and to be translated into half
a dozen Indian vernaculars ; and I am sure that the same
success will be met with by the present English translation.
Not only has the translator, Mr. B. S. Sukthankar, helped
me by not putting any financial pressure on me, but he has put
ihe translation through within a comparatively short space of
PUBLISHER'S FOREWORD
time after it had beenAe.ntrusted to him, by dint of untiring
energy, in spare time, in spite of the numerous other taxes on
his time and labour, apart from his professional work as an
Attorney-at-Law, which ties him down most part of the day to
his office ; and he has put me under further ohligations by
personally carefully examining all the proofs. He has also
to a certain extent given me financial accommodation for
meeting such payments as had to be met in advance ; and
I may without exaggeration say that but for his sympathy ^
accommodation, enthusiasm, and help, it would have been
difficult for me to bring out the present edition. A. grateful
mention must also be made of Dr. V. S. Sukthankar, of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Foona, for the
valuable help given by him in looking into the transliterated
Sanskrit portions of the work, and making such valuable'
suggestions regarding the publication, as a man of his
qualifications alone could make on account of his Continental
experience of publications of similar works.
Last, but not least, my sincere thanks are due to
Mr. B. M. Sidhaye, the Manager of the Bombay Vaibhav
Press, who has ungrudgingly spared no pains to make the'
technical and difficult printing of this book as faultless and
satisfactory as possible ; and but for whose obliging help it
would not have been possible to put this work through the
press during that short space of time in which it has been
actually printed.
; I feel that in quoting this stanza, with which I am ending
this Foreword, I am only voicing sentiments similar to those
expressed by my revered father in the concluding remarks of
his, Preface to the original Marathi work, in parting with
his precious thoughts and placing them into the hands of his
.readers : —
" Go little book from this my solitude ;
" I cast thee on the water, go thy ways ;
" And if, as I believe, thy tone be good,
" The world will find thee, after many days ".
(Southey)
Bombay, 1 _ r. B. TILAK,
25th May 1935./ Publisher.
PROMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GITA,
MR. TILAK, AND THE 'GlTA-RA.HASYA\
1. SWAMI VIVEKANAND.
The Qita is a bouquet composed of the beautiful flowers of
spiritual truths collected from the Upanishads.
Z. Dr. ANNIE BESANT.
•
Among the priceless teachings that may be found in the
great Hindu poem of the Mahabharata, there is none so rare
and precious as this, " The Lord's Song ". Since it foil from
the divine lips of Shri Krishna on the field of battle, and
stilled the surging emotions of his disciple and friend, how
many troubled hearts has it quieted and strengthened, how
many weary souls has it led to Him I It is meant to lift the
aspirant from the lower levels of Tenunoiation, where objects
are renounced, to the loftier heights, where desires are dead,
and where the Yogi dwells in calm and ceaseless contemplation
while his body and mind are actively employed in discharging
the duties that fall to his lot in life. That the spiritual man
need not be a recluse, that union with the divine Life may be
aohieved and maintained in the midst of worldly affairs, that
the obstacles to that union lie, not outside us, but within lis,
such is the central lesson of the BHAGAVAD-G-ITA.
It is a scripture of Yoga: now Yoga is literally Union ; and
it means harmony with the Divine Law, the becoming one with
the Divine Life, by the subdual of all outward-going energies..
To reach this, balance must be gained, as also equilibrium, so
that self, joined to the Self, shall not be affected by pleasure oj
pain, desire or aversion, or any of the " pairs of opposites ",
between which untrained selves swing backwards and forwards.
Moderation is, therefore, the key-note of the Gifca and the
harmonising of all the constituents of man, till they vibrate
in perfect attunement with the One, the Supreme Self. This is
the aim the disciple is to set before him. He must learn not
to be attracted by the attractive, nor repelled by the
repellent, but must see both as manifestations of the one
xii PROMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GITA ETC.
Lord, so that they may • be lessons for his guidance,
not fetters for his bondage. In the midst of turmoil, he must
rest in the Lord of Peao'e, discharging every duty to the fullest,
not because he seeks the results of his actions, but because it is
his duty to perform them. His heart is an altar ; love to his
Lord, the flame burning upon it; all his acts, physical and
mental, are sacrifices offered on the altar, and once offered, he
has with them no further concern.
As though to make the lessto more impressive, it was
given on a field of battle. Arjuna, the warrior-prince, was to
vindicate his brother's title, to destroy a usurper who was
oppressing the land ; it was his duty as prince, as warrior,
to fight for the deliverance of his nation and to restore order
and peaoe. To make the contest more bitter, loved comrades
and friends stood on both sides, wringing his heart with
personal anguish, and making the conflict of duties as well as
-physical strife. Gould he slay those to whom he owed love
and duty, and trample on ties of kindred 1 To break family
ties was a sin ; to leave the people in cruel bondage was a
-sin; where was the right way ? Justice must be done, else law
would be disregarded ; but how slay without sin 1 The answer
is the burden of the book : Have no personal interest in the
• event; carry out the duty imposed by the position in life, realise
that Ishvara, at once Lord and Law, is the doer, working out
the mighty evolution that ends in bliss and peace; be identified
with Him by devotion, and then perform duty as duty, fighting
■without passion or desire, without anger or hatred; thus
.Activity forges no bonds, Yoga is accomplished, and the Soul
js free.
Such is the obvious teaching of this sacred book. But as
. all the acts of an Avatara are symbolical, we may pass from
ithe outer to the inner planes, and see in the fight of Kurukshetra
the battle-field of the Soul, and in the sons of Dhritarashtra,
enemies it meets in its progress ; Arjuna becomes the type of
the struggling Soul of the disciple, and Shri Krishna is the
Logos of the Soul. Thus, the teaching of the ancient battle-
ifield gives guidance in all later days, and trains the aBpiring
•soul in treading the steep and thorny path that leads to peace.
PROMINENT PERSONALITIES OS THE GITA ETC, xiii
To all such, souls in the East and West come these divine •
lessons; for the path is one, though it has many names, and all'
Souls seek the same goal, though they may not realise theirunity.
(From Mrs. Besant's Pocket Gita published by G. A .
Natesan & Co. Madras.)
3. Pt. MADAN MOHAN MALAVIYA.
I believe that in the whole history of mankind, the -
greatest outstanding personality having the deepest and the
most pTof ound knowledge and possessing super-human powers
is Shri Krishna. I further believe that in all the living
languages of the world, there is no book so full of truth-
knowledge, and yet so handy as the Bhagavadgita.
This wonderful book of eighteen small chapters contains
the essence of the Vedas and the Upanishads, and is a sure
guide of the way to perfect happiness, here as well as hereafter.
It preaches the three-fold way of Knowledge, Action, and
Devotion, leading to the highest good of mankind. It brings
to men the highest knowledge, the purest love and the most-
luminous action. It teaches self-control, the threefold austerity,
non-violence, truth, compassion, obedience to the call of duty
for the sake of duty, and putting up a fight Against
unrighteousness (Adharma).
Full of knowledge and truth and moral teaching, it has
the power to raise men from the lowest depths of ignorance
and suffering to the highest glories of divine beings. To my
knowledge, there is no book in the whole range of the world's ■
literature so high above all as the Blmgavadgita, which is a
treasure-house of Dharma, not only for Hindus but for all
mankind. Several scholars of different countries have by
study of this book acquired a pure and perfect knowledge of
the Supreme Being Who is responsible for the creation,
preservation and destruction of the universe, and have gained
a stainless, desireless, supreme devotion to His feet. Those men
and women are very fortunate who have got this little lamp of
light full of an inexhaustible quantity of the oil of love,
showing the way out of the darkness and ignorance of the-
world. It is incumbent on such people to useit for all.
mankind groping in the darkness. :, , ,]; '\
xiv PROMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GlTA ETC.
4. SIR VALENTINE CHIROL.
There is no more beautiful book in the sacred literature of
the Hindus ;- theie is none in which the more enlightened find
greater spiritual comfort.
It was a Hindu gentleman and a Brahmin who told me
that if I wanted to study the psychology of the Indian unrest, I
should begin by studying Tilak's career. " Tilak's onslaught
in Poona upon Ranade, his alliance with the bigots of ortho-
doxy, his appeals to popular superstition in the new Ganapati
celebrations, to racial fanaticism in the ' Anti-Cow-Killing
movement ', to Mahratta sentiment in the cult which he
introduced of Shivaji, his active propaganda amongst school-
boys and students, his gymnastic societies, his preaching in
favour of physical training, and last but not least his control
of the Press, and the note of personal violence which he
imparted to newspaper polemics, represent the progressive
stages of a highly-organised campaign -which has served as a
model to the apostles of unrest all over India". This was a
valuable piece of advice, for, if any one can claim to be truly
the father of Indian unrest, it is Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
c (From Indian Unrest by Sir Valentine Chirol.)
5. HON'BLE G. K. GOKHALE.
Tilak's natural endowments are first-rate. He has used
them for the service of the country and although I did not
approve of bis methods, I never questioned his motives. There
is no man who has suffered so much for the country, who has
had in his life to contend against powerful opposition so much
as Tilak ; and there is no man who has shown grit, patience
t and courage so rare, that several times he lost his fortune and
by his indomitable will gathered it together again.
(From Dnyan-Prakash dated 3-2-1915).
6. MAHATMA M. E. GANDHI.
"Early in my childhood I had felt the need of a scripture
that would serve me as an unfailing guide through the trials
and temptations of life. The Vedas could not supply that
need, if only because to learn them would require fifteen to
sixteen years of hard study at a place like Kashi, for which
PROMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GITA, ETC. xv
I was not ready then. But the Gita, I had read somewhere,
-gave within the compass of its 700 verses the quintessence of
all the Shastras and the Upanishads. That decided me. I learnt
Sanskrit to enable me to read the Gita. To-day the Gita is not
only my Bible or my Koran ; it is more than that — it is my
mother. I lost my earthly mother who gave me birth long
ago ; but this eternal mother has completely filled her place
by my side ever since. She has never changed, she has never
failed me. When I am in difficulty or distress, I seek refuge
in her bosom.
It is sometimes alleged against the Gita that it is too
■difficult a work for the man in the street. The criticism,
I venture to submit, is ill-founded. If you find all the eighteen
chapters too difficult to negotiate, make a careful study of the
first three chapters only. They will give you in a nutshell
what is propounded in greater detail and from different angles
in the remaining fifteen chapters.
Even these three chapters can be further epitomised in a
,few verses that can be selected from these chapters. Add to
this the fact that at three distinct places, the Gita goes even
■further and exhorts us to leave alone all ' isms ' and take refuge
in the Lord alone, and it will be seen how baseless is the charge
that the message of the Gita is too subtle or complicated for
lay minds to understand.
The Gita is the universal mother. She turns away
nobody. Her door is wide open to any one who knocks. A
true votary of the Gita does not know what disappointment is.
He ever dwells in perennial joy and peace that passeth under-
standing. But that peace and joy come not to the sceptic or
to him who is proud of his intellect or learning. It is reserved'
only for the humble in spirit who brings to her worship a full-
ness of faith and an undivided singleness of mind. There
never was a man who worshipped her in that spirit and went
back disappointed.
The Gita inculcates the duty of perseverance in the face
■of seeming failure. It teaches us that we have a right to
-actions only but not to the fruit thereof, and that success and
failure are one and the same thing at bottom. It calls upon
xvi PROMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GlTA, ETC.
us to dedicate ourselves, body, mind and soul, to pure duty,,
and not to become,, mental voluptuaries at the mercy of all 1
chance desires and undisciplined impulses. As a "Satyagrahi",.
I can declare that the Gita is ever presenting me with fresh
lessons. If somebody tells me that this is my delusion, my
reply to him would be that I shall hug this delusion as my
richest treasure.
I would advise every one to begin the day with an early
morning recitation of the Gita. Take up the study of the Gitar
not in a carping or critical spirit, but in a devout and reverent
spirit. Thus approached, she will grant your every wish. Once
you have tasted of its sweet nectar, your attachment to it will'
grow from day to day. The recitation of the Gita verses will
support you in your trials and console you in your distress,
even in the darkness of solitary confinement. And, if with'
these verses on your lips you receive the final summons and'
deliver up your spirit, you will attain ' Brahma-Nirvana,' the'
Final Liberation.
The Gita enabled the late Lokamanya Tilak out of his
encyclopaedic learning and study, to produce a monumental,
commentary. For him it was a store-house of profound
truths to exercise his intellect upon. I believe his commentary
on the Gita will be a more lasting monument to his memory ..
It will survive even the successful termination of the struggle
for Swarajya. Even then his memory will remain as fresh as
ever on account of his spotless purity of life and his great
commentary on the Gita. No one in his life time, nor even,
now, could claim deeper and vaster knowledge of the Shastras
than he possessed. His masterwork commentary on the Gita
»is unsurpassed and will remain so for a long time to come.
Nobody has yet carried on more elaborate research in the--
questions arising from the Gita and the Vedas."
Paying a glowing tribute to the memory of the Late
Lokmanya Tilak, Gandhiji said "his vast learning, his immense
sacrifices and his life-long service have won for him a unique
'. jdace in the hearts of the people ".
(From Speeches of , Mahatma .Gandhi at Benares and-
at Oawnpore).
PROMINENT PERSONALITIES on the GITA, etc. xvii
7. BABU AUROBlNDO,GHOSE. ,
What is the message of the Gita anil what its working
value, its spiritual utility to {he human mind of the present
day, after the long ages that have elapsed since it was written
and the great subsequent transformation's of thought and
experience ? The human mind moves always forward, alters
its view-point and enlarges its thought-substance, and the
effect of these changes is to render past systems of thinking
obsolete or, when they are preserved, to extend, to modify
and subtly or visibly to alter their value. The vitality of
an ancient doctrine consists in the extent to which it naturally^
lends itself to such a treatment ; for that means that whatever
may have been the limitations or the obsolescences of the form
of its thought, the truth of substance, the truth of iivingi vision
and experience on which its system was built, is still sound
and retains a permanent validity and significance. The Gita
is a book that has worn extraordinarily well, and it is almost
as fresh and still in its real substance quite as new, because
always renewable in experience, as when it first appeared in
or was written into the frame of the ' Mahabharata '. It is
still received in India as one of the great bodies of doctrine
that most authoritatively govern religious thinking ; and its
teaching is acknowledged as of the highest value if not wholly
accepted, by almost all shades of religious belief and opinion.
Its influence is not merely philosophic or academic but
immediate and living, an influence both for thought and
action, and its ideas are actually at work as a powerful
shaping factor in the revival and renewal of a nation and
a culture. It has even been said recently by a great voice
that all we need of spiritual truth for the spiritual life is*
to be found in the Gita, It would be to encourage the
superstition of the book to take too literally that utterance.
The truth of the spirit is infinite and cannot be circumscribed
in that manner. Still it may be said that most of the main
clues are there and that after all the_ later developments of
spiritual experience and discovery, we can still return to
it for a large inspiration and guidance. Outside India
too it is universally acknowledged as one of the world's
xviii PROMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GITA, ETC.
great scriptures, although in Europe its thought is better
understood than its secret of spiritual practice.
Neither Mr. Tilak nor his works really require any
presentation of foreword.
His Orion and his Arctic Home have acquired at once a
world-wide recognition and left as strong a mark as can at all
be imprinted on the ever-shifting sands of oriental research.
His work on the Gita, no mere commentary, but an original
criticism and presentation of ethical truths, is a monumental
work, THE FIKST PBOSE WRITING OF THE FRONT HANK IN
WEIGHT AND IMPORTANCE IN THE MARATHI LANGUAGE, AND
LIKELY TO BECOME A CLASSIC. This one book sufficiently proves
that had he devoted his energies in this direction, he might easily
have filled a large place in the history of Marathi literature and
in the history of ethical thought, so subtle and comprehensive in
its thinking, so great the perfection and satisfying force of its
style. But it was psychologically impossible for Mr. Tilak to
devote his energies in any great degree to another action than
the one life-mission for which the Master of his works had
chosen him. His powerful literary gift has been given up to
a journalistic work, ephemeral as even the best journalistic
work must be, but consistently brilliant, vigorous, politically
educative through decades, to an extent seldom matched and
certainly never surpassed. His scholastic labour has been done
almost by way of recreation. Nor can anything be more
significant than the fact that the works which have brought
him a fame other than that of the politician and patriot, were
done in periods of compulsory cessation from his life work, —
planned and partly, if not wholly, executed during the impri-
sonments which could alone enforce leisure upon this unresting
worker for his country. Even these by-products of his genius
have some reference to the one passion of his life, the renewal,
if not the surpassing, of the past greatness of the nation by the
greatness of its future. His Vedic researches seek to fix its
pre-historic point of departure; the Gita-rahasya takes the
scripture which is perhaps the 'strongest and most comprehen-
sive production of Indian spirituality and justifies to that
spirituality by its own authoritative ancient message the sense
PBOMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GITA, ETC. xix
of the importance of life, of action, of human existence, of
man's labour for mankind which is indispensable to the
idealism of the modern spirit.
Mr. Tilak himself, his career, his place in Indian polities
are also a self-evident proposition, a hard fact baffling and
dismaying in the last degree to those to whom his name has
been anathema, and his increasing pre-eminence figured as a
portent of evil. Yet is Mr. Tilak a man of various and no
ordinary gifts, and in several lines of life he might have
achieved present distinction or a pre-eminent and enduring
fame. Though he has never practised, he has a close know-
ledge of law and an acute legal mind which, had he oared in
the least degree for wealth and worldy position, would have
brought him to the front at the bar. He is a great Sanskrit
scholar, a powerful writer and a strong, subtle and lucid
•thinker. He might have filled a large place in the field of
• contemporary Asiatic scholarship. He is the very type and
incarnation of the Maratha character, the Maratha qualities,
■the Maratha spirit, but with the unified solidity in the
•character, the touch of genius in the qualities, the vital force
in the spirit which make a great personality readily the
representative man of his people. The Maratha race, as their
soil and their history have made them, are a rugged, strong and
sturdy people ; democratic in their every fibre ; keenly intelligent
and practical to the very marrow ; following in ideas, even in
.poetry, philosophy and religion, the drive towards life and
action ; capable of great fervour, feeling and enthusiasm, like
all Indian people, but not emotional idealists; having in their
thought and speech, always a turn for strength, sense, accuracy,
lucidity and vigour; in learning and scholarship, patient,
industrious, careful, thorough and penetrating ; in life, simple,
hardy and frugal ; in their temperament, courageous,
pugnacious, full of spirit, yet with a tact in dealing with hard
facts and circumventing obstacles; shrewd yet aggressive
•diplomatists, born politicians, born fighters. All this Mr.
Tilak is with a singular and eminent completeness, and all on
a large scale, adding to it all a lucid simplicity and genius, a
secret intensity, and ; inner strength of will, a single-miaded-
Jiess in aim of quite extraordinary force, which remind one of
n PROMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GITA ETC.
the brightness, sharpness and perfect temper of a fine sword?
hidden in a sober scabbard.
The indomitable will and the unwavering devotion have-
been the whole meaning of Mr. Tilak's life; they arethe-
Teason of his immense hold on the people. For he does,
not owe his pre-eminent position to wealth and great,
social position, professional success, recognition by
Government, a power of fervid oratory or of fluent and/
telling speech; for he had none of these things to help him.
He owes it to himself alone and to the thing his life has
meant and because he has meant it with his whole mind and
his whole soul. He has kept back nothing for himself or
for other aims, but has given all himself to his country. -
As he emerged on the political field, his people saw more
and more clearly in him their representative man, themselves
in large, the genius of their type. They felt him to be of one
spirit and make, with the great men who had made their
past history, almost believed him to be a reincarnation of
one of them returned to carry out his old work in a new form .
and under new conditions. They beheld in him the spirit of
Maharashtra once again embodied in a great individual. He
occupies a position in his province which has no parallel
in the rest of India.
The landmarks of Mr. Tilak's life are landmarks also-
in the history of his province and his country.
His first great step associated him in a pioneer work-
whose motive was to educate the people for a new life under
the new conditions, on the one side, a purely educational .
movement of which the fruit was the Ferguson College, fitly
founding the reawakening of the country by an effort of
which co-operation in self-sacrifice was the moving spirit,
on the other, the initiation of the Kesari newspaper, which
figured increasingly as the characteristic and powerful
expression of the political mind of Maharashtra. Mr. Tilak's-
career has counted three periods each of which had an ■
imprisonment for its culminating point. His first imprison-
ment in the Kolhapur case belongs to this first stage of self-
development and development of the Maratha country for,
new ideas and activities and for the national future.
PROMINENT PERSONALITIES ON THE GITA ETC, xxi
The second period brought in a wider conception and
a profounder effort. For now it was to reawaken not only
the political mind but the soul of the people by linking its
■future to its past ; it worked by a more strenuous and popular
propaganda which reached its height in the organisation of
the Shivaji and the Ganapati festivals. His separation from
'the Social reform leader, Agarkar, had opened the way for the
•peculiar role which he has played as a trusted and accredited
■leader of conservative and religious India in the paths of
democratic politics. It was this position which enabled him
to effect the union of the new political spirit with the tradition
and sentiment of the historic past and of both with the
ineradicable religious temperament of the people of which
these festivals were the symbol. The congress movement was
'for a long time purely occidental in its mind, character and
methods, confined to the English-educated few, founded on the
political rights and interests of the people read in the light of
English history and European ideals, but with no roots either
in the past of the country or in the inner spirit of the nation.
Mr. Tilak was the first political leader to break through the
routine of its somewhat academical methods, to bridge the
gulf between the present and the past, and to restore continuity
to the political life of the nation. He developed a language
and a spirit and he used methods which indianised the
: movement and brought into it the masses. To his work of this
period we owe that really living, strong and readily organised
movement in Maharashtra which has shown its energy and
sincerity in more than one crisis and struggle. This divination
of the mind and spirit of his people and its needs and this
power to seize on the right way to call it forth prove strikingly
the political genius of Mr. Tilak ; they made him the on«3
man predestined to lead them in this trying and difficult
iperiod when all has to be discovered and all has to be
reconstructed. What was done then by Mr. Tilak in Mahara-
shtra has been initiated for all India by the Swadeshi
movement. To bring in the mass of the people, to found the
greatness -of ' the future on "the greatness of the past, to
infuse Indian politics with Indian religious fervour and
^spirituality, are the indispensable conditions for a great and
xxii PROMINENT PERSONALITIES OH THE GlTA ETC.
powerful political awakening in India. Others, writers,,
thinkers, 'spiritual leaders, had seen this truth. Mr. Tilak was
the first to bring it into the actual field of practical politics;
The second period of his labour for this country culminated
in a longer and harsher imprisonment which was as it were
the second seal of the divine hand upon his work ; for there
can be no diviner seal than suffering for a cause.
A third period, that the Swadeshi movement, brought'
Mr. Tilak forward prominently as an All-India leader r it gave
him at last the wider field, the greater driving power, the
larger leverage he needed to bring his life-work rapidly to a .
head, and not only in Maharashtra but throughout the
country. From the inception of the Boycott Movement to the
Surat catastrophe and his last and longest imprisonment>
which was its equal, the name and work of Mr. Tilak are a part
of Indian history.
These three imprisonments, each showing more clearly the
moral stuff and quality of the man under the test and glare of:
suffering, have been the three seals of his career. The first'
found him one of a small knot of pioneer workers; it marked
him out to be the strong and inflexible leader of a strong and
sturdy people. The second found him already the inspiring
power of a great awakening of the Maratha spirit ; it left him
an uncrowned king in the Deccan and gave him. that high
reputation throughout India, which was the foundation-stone
of his commanding influence. The last found him the leader
of an All-India party, the foremost exponent and head of a
thorough-going Nationalism ; it sent him back to be one of the
two or three foremost men of India adored and followed by
the whole nation. No prominent man in India has suffered
more for his country ; none has taken his sacrifices and
sufferings more quietly and as a matter of course.
All the Indian provinces and communities have spoken
with one voice, Mr. Tilak 's principles of work have beert
accepted ; the ideas which he had so much troubled to enforce
have become the commonplaces and truisms of our political
thought. The only question that remains is the rapidity of a new
inevitable evolution. That is the hope for which Mr. Tilak.
still stands, a leader of all India.
PR0MINENT,^|rS0NAL1TIB^0H thk GITAETC, xxiii
Mr, Tilak's name stands already for history as a Nation-
builder, one of the half-dozen greatest political personalities,
memorable figures, representative men of the nation in this
most critical period of India's destinies, a name to be
remembered gratefully so long as the country has pride in its
paBt and hope for its future.
MR. TILAK ON THE GlTA-RAHASYA.
Let me begin by telling you what induced me to take
up the study of Blmgvad Gita. When I was quite a boy, I was
often told by my elders that strictly religious and really
philosophic life was incompatible with the hum-drum life
of every day. If one was ambitious enough to try to attain
Moksha, the highest goal a person could attain, then he must
divest himself of all earthly desires and renounce this world.
One could not serve two masters, the world and God, I
understood this to mean that if one would lead a life which
was the life worth living, according to the religion in which
I was born, then the Booner the world was given up the better.
This set me thinking. The question that I formulated for
myself to be solved was : Does my religion want me to give
up this world and renounce it before I attempt to, or in order
to be able to, attain the perfection of manhood ? In my boy-
hood I was also told that Bliagvada Gita was universally
acknowledged to be a book containing all the principles
and philosophy of the Hindu Religion, and I thought if this
be so I should find an answer in this book to my query ; and
thus began my study of the Blmgvad Gita. I approaohed
the book with a mind prepossessed by no previous ideas about
any philosophy, and had no theory of my own for which
I Bought any support in the Gita. A person whose mind is
prepossessed by certain ideas, reads the book with a prejudiced
mind ; for instance, when a Christian reads it, he does not
want to know what the Gita says but wants to find out if
there are any principles in the Gita which he has already
met with in the Bible, and if bo the conclusion he rushes to is
that the Gita was copied from the Bible. I have dealt with this
tepic in my book Gita Bahasya and I need hardly say much
about it here, but what I want to emphasise is this, that when
you want to read and understand a book, especially a great
work like the Gita — you must approach it with an unprejudiced
and unprepossessed mind. To do this, I know, is one of the
most difficult things. Those who profess to do it may have
a lurking thought or prejudice. in their minds which vitiates
the reading of the book to some extent. However I am
describing to you the frame of mind one must get into if
TIL&K ON GITA-RAHASYA xxv
•one wants to get at the truth ; and however difficult it be,
at has to be done. The next thing one has to do is to take
into consideration the time and the circumstances in which
the book was written and the purpose for which the book
was written. In short, the book must not be read devoid of
its context. This is especially true about a book like Bliagvad
Gila. Various commentators have put as many interpretations
on the book, and surely the writer or composer could not have
written or composed the book for so many interpretations
being put on it. He must have put one meaning and one
purpose running through the book, and that I have tried to
find out. I believe I have succeeded in it, because having
no theory of mine for which I sought any support from the
book so universally respected, I had no reason to twist
'the text to suit my theory. There has not been a commentator
of the Gita who did not advocate a pet theory of his own
and has not tried to support the same by showing that
the Bliagvad Gita lent him support. The conclusion I have
come to is that the Gita advocates the performance of action
in this world even after the actor has achieved the highest
union with the Supreme Deity by Jnana (knowledge) or Bhakti
(Devotion). This action must be done to keep the world going
by the right path of evolution which the Creator has destined
the world to follow. In order that the action may not
bind the actor, it must be done with the aim of helping
His purpose, and without any Attachment to the coming
result. This I hold is a lesson of the Gita. Jnana-Yoga
there is, yes. Bhakti-Yoga there is, yes. Who says not ?
But they are both subservient to the Karma-Yoga preached
in the Gita. If the Gita was preached to desponding Arjuna
to make him ready for the fight — for the Action— how can
it be said that the ultimate lesson of the great book is
Bhakti or Jnana alone ? In fact, there is a blending of all
these Yogas in the Gita; and as the air is not Oxygen or
Hydrogen, or any other gas alone, but a composition of all
these in a certain proportion, so in the Gita all these Yogas
are blended into one. •
I differ from almost all the commentators when I say that
the Gita enjoins Action even after the perfection in Jnana and
TILAK OS GITA-RAHASYA
Bhakti is attained and the Deity is reached through these
mediums. Now, there is a fundamental unity underlying the
Logos (Ishvara), man, and world. The world is in existence
hecause the Logos has willed it so. It is His Will that holds
it together. Man strives to gain union with God ; and when
this union is achieved, the individual will merges in the
mighty Universal Will. When this is achieved, will the
individual say: "I shall do no Action, and I shall not help
the world"— the world which is, hecause the Will with Which
he has sought union has willed it to he so ? It does not stand
to reason. It is not I who say so : the G-ita says so. Shri
Krishna himself says that there is nothing in all the three
worlds that He need acquire, and still He acts. He acts because
if He did not, the world will be ruined. If man seeks unity
with the Deity, he must necessarily seek unity with the
interests of the world also, and work for it. If he does not.
then the unity is not perfect, because there is union between
two elements out of the three (man and Deity) and the third
(the world) is left out. I have thus solved the question for
myself and I hold that serving the wotH, and thus serving.
His Will) is the surest way of Salvation; and this way can be
followed by remaining in the world and not going away
from it.
(A summary of the speech of Mr. Tilak, re : Oita Raliasya)-
The Karma-Yoga which I preach is not a new theory ;
neither was the discovery of the Law of Karma made as
recently as to-day. The knowledge of the Law is so ancient
that not even Shri Krishna was the great Teacher who first
propounded it. It must be remembered that Karma-Yoga has
been our sacred heritage from times immemorial when we
Indians were seated on the high pedestal of wealth and lore.
Karma-Yoga or to put it in another way, the law of duty, is
the combination of all that is best in spiritual science, in
actual action and in an unselfish meditative life. Compliance'
with this universal law leads to the realisation of the most
cherished ideas of man. Suc'n was the doctrine taught by our
f oref athers, -who never intended that the goal of life should be
meditation alone. No one can expect Providence to protect
TILAK ON GlTA-RAHASYA xxvii
one who sits with folded arms and throws his burden on
others. God does not help the indolent. You must be doing
all that you can to lift yourself up, and then only may you
rely on the Almighty to help you. You should not, however,
presume that you have to toil that you yourself might reap>
the fruit of your labour. That cannot always be the case.
Let us then try our utmost and leave the generations to come
to enjoy that fruit. Remember, it is not you who bad planted
the mango-trees the fruit whereof you have tasted. Let the
advantage now go to our chil dren and their descendants. It is
only given to us to toil and work. And so, there ought to be no
relaxation in our efforts, lest we incur the curse of those that
come after us. Action alone must be our guiding principle,
action disinterested and well thought out. It does not matter
who the Sovereign is. It is enough if we have full liberty to
elevate ourselves in the best possible manner. This is called
immutable Dharma, and Karma-Yoga is nothing but the
method which leads to the attainment of Dharma or material
and spiritual glory. God has declared His will. HE has
willed that self can be exalted only through its own efforts.
Everything lies in your hands. Karma-Yoga does not look
upon this world as nothing ; it requires only that your motives
should be untainted by selfish interest and passion. This is
the true view of practical Vedanta, the key to which is apt to
be lost in sophistry.
(Poona Sarvajanik Sabha Quarterly).
xxx SOME INFORMATION RE : GlTA-RAHASYA
the Vedas, he discovered ' the Ancient Home of the Aryas '.
Although the Glta-Rahasya was the last book to be published
in point of time, yet, greater importance must he attached
"to that book than to the two other books, if one bears in mind
"the history of the writing of those two books. These two
books have come into existence only as a result of the
investigations made by him into the import of the Glta.
In his introduction to 'Orion', he has made a reference
to his study of the Glta,
These two books were published in due course, and they
were talked of all the world over ; but the Lokamanya could
not get a propitious moment for starting the writing of the
■Glta-Rahasya until he went to jail for the third time. The
ideas regarding the two other books were also conceited during
his previous imprisonments. He could not be free from the
burden of public work and get the necessary peace and leisure
for writing the book until he was in jail ; but, before he could
actually start writing the book, he had to overcome many
difficulties. It is best to describe these difficulties in his own
words : "Three different orders were received at three different
times regarding the book After a few days, the order
of leaving all my books with me was cancelled ; and a new
•order was received, that only four books should be left with
me at a time. When I complained about this to the Govern-
ment of Burma, another order was received, that all the books
should be left with me to enable me to write the book. At
the date when I was released from jail, the number of books
with me was between 350 and 400. I was given bound books
■(and not loose pages) for writing, after the pages in them
( had been counted and numbered on either side. I was not
given ink for writing but only a lead pencil and that too,
ready sharpened" (Interview with Lokmanya Tilak after
his release from jail, published in the Kesari of 30th
June 1914).
If the readers put some pressure on their imagination,
they cannot but have before their eyes a clear picture of what
difficulties had to be overcome by him and what trouble
he experienced while he was writing the book. Despite all this.
SOME INFORMATION RE : GlTA-RAHASYA rxxi
'he got the manuscript of the book ready for printing in the
winter of 1910. The fact of the rough draft of the book being
iready for printing is mentioned by him in a letter written
in the beginning of the year 1911; and that letter has been
,printed in toto in an issue of the Maratha, published in the
month of March. In order that the Exposition of the Glta
made by him in the Glta-Rahasya should be easier to follow
.for his readers, Lokamanya Tilak delivered four lectures
during the Ganapati festival in the year 1914 ; after this the
printing of the work was taken in hand, and the first edition
-of the book was published in June 1915. The subsequent
iistory is well-known to everybody.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
In placing before the public this English translation of
the GITA-RAHASYA (the Esoteric Import of the Gita) by the-
late Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the object of the
publishers has been to give this Exposition of the Message of
the Gita a far wider circulation than it could have in its
original Marathi form. It is true that the work has been
translated into some of the Indian vernaculars ; but that
circulation has necessarily been a limited one,
The late Lokamanya Bal Gangadbar Tilak was a spiritual
and intellectual giant. Ho was a monumental figure in the
histoiy of India, and it is a question whether he was more
a philosopher than a politician and statesman, in as much
as his statesmanship and his political activities would appear
to have been based on the Karma-Yoga and the principles of
Ethics, which he believed to have been expounded in the Gita.
In fact, the Gita and its teachings would seem to have been the
guiding beacon of his life ; and if one considers what he did for
India, and compares it with what he has preached in the Gita-
Bahasya, one will come to believe that he has practised what
he preached, ( which few people do ), and that his political
activities were a concrete example of that 'universal welfare '
( lohiMVitgralui ), which according to him, was preached .by
the Gita to be the basis of Karma- Yoga. And, one will not be
far wide of the mark, if one looks upon him as a maharti
in an age of National regeneration.
As a result of the various commentaries in ancient times
on the Siimad Bhagavadglta, this Divine Book has been
considered by some as advocating the Path of Renunciation,
whereas, others have interpreted it as advocating the Path of
Devotion. Both these being paths of indifference to the world
(nvrTiqiia), the effect of these commentaries has been to
emasculate the devotees of the Gita, and to fill them with an
apathy towards worldly affairs, and towards a spirited and
acti\ p n?< "onal existence.
The Lokamanya has, however, shown in this Exposition of
the Esoteric Import of the Gita, that the true path of life
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
taught by the Gita has been pure, righteous, and moral Action
in the affairs of the world (as against Senuneiation, or in-
difference to the world), based on the Spiritual Realisation of
the identity and equality of the Soul or Self (Atman) in all
created beings, and in which intense Devotion to the Almighty is
the most important factor. The Author has in effect proved that
the Gita does not support any individual mode of life, such as
Renunciation purely, or Action purely, or Devotion purely, but
that it preaches a fusion and harmony between all the three
modes of life, and declares the best mode of life to be incessant
Righteous Action ( " na fie srantasya sakhyaya devah ", i. e., " the
gods do not like any, except those who labour until they are
tired "), based on an Equability of Reason arising from the
Spiritual Realisation of the Absolute Self, combined with an
mtense Devotion to the Paramesvara (Almighty).
, Q At the 18th Session of the Maharastra Sahitya Parisad
uJtlaharashtra Literary Conference) held at Nagpur in the
year 1933, I tabled a Resolution that : " This Conference is of
opinion that there should be a Society for translating Marathi
literature into English, in order to give international
importance to the Marathi language ". This Resolution was
unanimously passed by the Conference, and pursuant co that
Resolution, I framed the draft of a scheme for the establish-
ment and registration of such a literary society.
While I was busy with this project, my friond and my
office client, Mr. R. B. Tilak, the surviving son of the late
Lokamanya Tilak, who had seen my English translations of some
Marathi poems which had been published in certain Magazines,
and who also knew of the Resolution passed at the islagpur
Conference, approached me with a request that I should'
undertake the translation into English of the Glta-Raliasya,
which is one of the most brilliant gems of Marathi literature,
and thus place before the public a ooncruto example of
the usefulness of the Resolution adopted at my instance
by the Maharastra Sahitya Parisad. As tho tusk' sot before
me was a stupendous one, both on account of its volume and
the labour involved, as also on account of the extremely
difficult and involved style of the author, 1 was at first
doubtful whether or rot 1 should undertake tlio work. In
v — vi
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
fact, the task of getting this work translated into English had
at first been attempted in the life-time of the late Lokamanya
Tilak, and again after his death, by his sons, as has been
mentioned by Mr. R. B. Tilak, in the Publisher's Foreword.
Being inspired, however, by the " spiritual power of this
wonderful and well-known work", which saw the sale of ten
thousand copies of the first Marathi edition of it " within a few
months of its being published " ( as stated in the Publisher's
Foreword ), and being further inspired by the advice of Vidula
to her son that, " muhurtam jvalifam sreyo rta ca dhumayitam
dram " ( Ma. Bha. U. 132. 15 ), that is, " it is better to shine
like a flame for a little while, than to perpetually smoulder ",
I resolved that I would see this work through at any cost. In
forming this resolve, I wanted to place before the Maharastra
public a concrete example of the usefulness of the Resolution.
which I had tabled at the Maharastra Sahitya Parisad, as also t;
place the real message of the Gita according to one of the ma
brilliant Indian philosophers as stated in the beginning of this.
Preface, before the world, which, to me, seems sadly in need of it
at the present moment. Having regard to the hold which the
English language has on the -world, no better medium could be
found for sending this message of the Gita to every home in every
corner of the world. There was a time when Indians considered it a
sacrilege to put religious and philosophical lore into the hands of
theunregenerate classes, and more so, into the hands of foreigners
who would, of course, be far beyond the pale of these classes ;
but, in my humble opinion, it is the sacred duty of any one
who possesses any kind of Knowledge, to place such Knowledge
at the disposal of those who are inclined to purify themselves
in the Flame of Knowledge ; for, " asamskrtas tu samskaryah
bhratrbhih purvasamskrtaih" ', i.e., "it is the duty of those who
have been previously initiated, to initiate their brethren, who
are uninitated ". And, if this Message of the Gita, which the
late Lokamanya Tilak, placed before hi3 Maharashtriyan
compatriots through this book, and which his sons circulated
further into India itself through the medium of its vernacular
translations, goes round the world, on the River of Time,
spreading the inspiration given by the original text, I shall feel
that I have diBoharged to a certain extent my obligations to my
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
mother-land, and to my mother-tongue, by advancing to a
■certain extent the spiritual regeneration of the world.
To enable the reader to understand the method followed
by me in this translation, I would like to draw his attention to
-the rules, printed immediately after this preface at p. xxxix,
which fhave attempted to follow.
As will be seen from the details about the original work
which are given at p. xxviii, the whole book was written by the
Author in the Mandalay jail within the period of about five
months from 2nd November 1910 to 30th March 1911. So
great has been my anxiety to place this wonderful interpreta-
tion of the philosophy of the G-ita before the world at large,
that I have translated the whole of the book within about the
same time, that is, from 20th May to 14th November 1934, by
devoting every spare moment to the translation in spite of
:my other work. This was, of course, the first draft of the work
which I prepared ; and the same has been subsequently revised,
;re-cast, and even re-written by me in some places, as the
printing was going on.
The translation of the first six chapters (about 147 pages
• of the original), had been prepared by another gentleman, and
'the type-written copy of it was placed by the publishers in
my hands ; but I have not mada any use of it whatsoever, as I
have preferred to have a homogeneous, and consistent style
and method of translation for the whole text, which would be
■ entirely mine.
In translating, I have attempted to be as faithful to the
■text as possible, as I have thought that in the case of a
.philosophical and technical book written by a genius like the
late Lokamanya, it would be extremely wrong to take any
liberty whatsoever with the text. The late Lokamanya,
besides being a great philosopher, and a great statesman, was
also a master of the Marathi language ; and even an apparently
insignificant word used by him has an immense modifying or
limiting value, and the omission sf even a small conjunction;
or the translation of an 'and' as an 'or,' would considerably
injure the sense intended to be conveyed by the author. I have,
.therefore, not changed the text at all, but only altered the garb •
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
or the medium of expression ; for, a translation is no translation,
if it is not faithful. I have not even broken up long and
involved sentences ; for, though a sentence may be long and
involved, each portion of it has a bearing and a limiting value
on the remaining portions of the sentence ; and breaking up
such a sentence into several small sentences, would make it
lose its cumulative force, and to that extent the meaning
intended to be conveyed by the author would be disabled. In
following this procedure, I have satisfied myself by thinking,
that if there are persons in India, who can without difficulty
understand the long and involved sentences in the original
Marathi text, there cannot be a dearth of intelligent persons
in the world, who will be able to understand the same
sentences, with their long and involved construction, in the
garb of the English language and character. Some readers
will possibly find the sense being continually interrupted by
the Sanskrit quotations. But the rendering of those quotations
has been made in such a way, that if the reader reads only the
English rendering without reading the quotation, he will
find that the rendering fits into the sentence and that the
sense runs on without any interruption.
I had at one time thought of omitting the quotations, and
giving only the English rendering, but I realized that I would
thereby be destroying the characteristic feature of the style of
the Author, though it would have made reading easy.
As stated above, I have made this translation both as
a national duty which I owe to my mother-tongue, as
also with the idea of placing the immortal Spiritual
Knowledge contained in the Glta-Rahasya within the grasp of
everyone, whose Destiny inspires him to study it with
attention ; and, I have no doubt that every reader who goes
through these pages conscientiously and sincerely, and with
an unbiassed, impartial, and Truth-seeking mind will be
spiritually benefited by doing so.
Before concluding this foreword, I must express my
appreciation of the sincere pains taken by the Manager and.
the staff of the Bombay Vaibhava Press for ensuring the
correct printing of the press copy, which has been- considerably
/
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE xxxvii
troublesome on account of the Sanskrit quotations and words,
which are printed in a transliterated form ; and I have even been
allowed, as an exceptional case, to make corrections when
the form was on the machine ready for printing. My
gratitude is due to my brother Dr. V. S. Sukthankar, the
Chief Editor of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in
charge of the Critical edition of the Mahabharata, who has
for some time looked into the transliterated portions and made
very valuable suggestions regarding the translation. My
thanks are similarly due to Professor A. B. Gajendragadkar
of the ElphinBtone College, Nyaya-Ratna Dhundiraj
G. Vinod M. A., and Mr. S. A. Sabnis, Solicitor, for the
■suggestions occasionally made by them, and the encourage-
ment I have received from them. My thanks are lastly due
to Mr. P. B. Gothaskar, retired Librarian of the Bombay
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, who on account of
having been in touch with the publication of the Journal of
that Society, was of great use to me in correcting the earlier
proofs and who, in carefully revising those proofs, also drew
my attention to such sundry inaccuracies, as he thought, had
remained in the translation, so as to enable me to correct them,
if necessary. The final proofs were corrected by me. Apart
from the printer's devils which have inevitably crept in,
it is necessary to mention the mistake in the heading of
Chapter XII, in which the word 'Siddha-Vyavahara ' is wrong,
and the correct word, as in the original, is only ' Vyavahara.'
In concluding this Preface, I cannot but follow the
injunction of the Blessed Lord that, " yat karosi yad asnasi yaj
juhosi tat kurusva mad arpartam ", (Gi. 9. 27), which has
also been carried out by the Author himself (see foot-note to ;
Author's Dedication) ; and I humbly dedicate this compilation
to the Paramesvara in the shape of the Eternal Trinity of
(i) Sri Maha LaksmI Indira, the Goddess of Wealth, tbe consort
of Sri Visnu, Who claimed my Devotion, and was the
cause of my taking this work in hand and completing
it, (ii) Sri Maha Kali Parvati, the Goddess of Destruc-
tion, Who destroyed the Knot of Ignorance in my heart
< " ajnana-hrdaya-grantlri "— Siva-Gita, 13. 32 ), and opened
my eyes to the Realities of Life, and kept my footsteps
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
continually on the Path of Knowledge, and (iii) Sri Maha
SarasvatiVidya, the Goddess of Learning, Who has now claimed
me for Her own, and compelled me to cast this Fruit of my
Action (karmany evadhikaras te maphalem kada ca na — GrI. 2. 47)>
in the shape of this translation, on the River of Time, which
circumscribes and goes round the whole world, and Who is
verily my Mother (for I am a Sarasvat by birth !).
OM-TAT-SAT.
snm srnfar^r swwrrf^ i gff miff tf?t msfr iwr i
¥(%■ wrif s£ht gstfr i MivcMiQ atetsrr ii
12th toeYm } B - S " SDKTHANKAE.
3 V' "WWs^S^g
GENERAL RULES RE : THE TRANSLATION xxxix
GENERAL RULES REGARDING
THE TRANSLATION.
(i) Wherever a philosophical Sanskrit word used in the
Marathi text (not being a technical philosophical term which
has been Anglicised), has been rendered by me into English, I
have, wherever necessary, placed immediately after such
rendering the actual word used by the author in the original, in
italics, and within brackets ; e. g., bodily (kayika), Self-Realised
{atma-jnamn), occasional (naimittika), etc, This has been done to
enable such of my readers as are acquainted with Sanskrit to
understand what the author himself wanted to say, in case my
rendering has not been correct.
(ii) If the word in the original text is a technical philoso-
phical word, which has been Anglicised, I have used the word
in Roman characters, beginning with a capital letter, e. g„
JIva, Paramesvara, Prakrfci, Paramatman, Atman etc.
(iii) Diacritical signs have been used in order to ensure
correct pronunciation by the reader, whose attention is drawn
to the tabular statement at p. xl showing what diacritical
sign has been used for indicating which sound,
(iv) Technical philosophical Bnglish words are used with
an initial capital letter in order to distinguish them from
when they are not so used, e. g., Real, Matter, Spirit, the
Imperceptible, Knowledge, Mind, Consciousness, the Quality-
less etc., unless they have been used as adjectives, or in a
non-technical sense, e. g., the qualityless Brahman etc
(v) If in the text itself, there is a Sanskrit word in
brackets after another Sanskrit word, (which latter one has
been rendered by me into English), the Author's word in
brackets, though in Sanskrit, has not been put into italics, in '
order to distinguish the case from where I have put such words
in italic characters, in brackets, after the rendering, as
mentioned in (i) above.
(vi) If the Sanskrit word in the original has been retained
in the translated text, its rendering in English is placed after
it in brackets; e. g., the karya ( product ), karma ( Action ) etc-
This has been done only where the retention has been necessary
on account of the context.
xl GENERAL RULES RE : THE TRANSLATION
(vii) I have not added anything of my own in the translated
text except as follows :-In almost all places where the Author
has given a Sanskrit quotation, he has immediately after-
wards translated this quotation or given a summary of it in
Marathi ; and this, of course, has been translated into English.
In some places, however, the Author has not translated a
Sanskrit quotation into Marathi ; and in these cases, I myBelf
have translated it into English, for the convenience of the
reader not acquainted with Sanskrit ; but, wherever this has
been done, I have added the word " — Trans." after the trans-
lation. Any inaccuracies in such translations, would, of
course, be mine. Where, however, such a quotation has been
from the Gita itself, I have rendered into English, the transla-
tion of that quotation, as made by the Author himself, in his
translation of the stanzas of the Gita (See Vol. II of this work).
SCHEME OF TRANSLITERATION OF SANSKRIT
3? .
an .
? .
i •
*r .
m
•
it
3ft
a
a
i
I
u
u
T
e
ai
o
mi
k
kh
■ 9
gh
. ii,
c
. ch
■ J
.jh
. a
. t
. th
5T ... .
■■ d
« ... .
.. dh
H ...
.. n
*r ...
.. t
* ...
.. th
a ... .
.. d
* ...
.. dh
*r ... .
.. n
7 ... .
■■ P
tf ... .
.. ph
? ...
b
bh
m
y
r
h
- (anusvara) m , : (tisarga) ah, ^ ks, % ,_/»
•S (avagraha) '
PICTORIAL MAP OF PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOLS xli
EXPLANATION OF THE PICTORIAL MAP OF THE
PROMINENT SCHOOLS OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
mentioned in the GITA-RAHASYA,
Shown on the wrapper
and opp, page 18.
The river is the River of Time, on the banks which are the
■various Ages through which India has passed, namely, (1) the
Vedic Age, (2) the Age of the ..Gita, (3) the Age of Buddha,
(i) the Age of Shri Shankaracharya, (5) the Age Jnaneshvara,
Tukarama and others being the Age of Devotion, (6) the Age of
Shri Samaitha Ramadasa, showing the revival of Action, and
W'the deputation of Indian Leaders at the gates of the Houses
■of Parliament and (8) Mahatma Gandhi, in the Present Age.
Nos. 1, %, 6, 7 and 8 are the Ages of Action, or of Karma-
Yoga starting with the Vedic Karma age, and ending with the
present days, and forming a big L, which means the Lucky
Ages, whereas Nos. 3, i and 5 are the Ages of Renunciation,
which are only a small passing cloud on the Karma-Yoga
tradition of India.
The narrow bed of the river in the Ages of Renunciation,
.spreads out as it flows down along the plains of the Ages of ;
Action, suggesting the widening out of the view-point of
Philosophy from the narrow Pass of Renunciation to the broad
Fields of Action.
The two inset pictures in the form of the ' Svastika ' show
■the five Pandavas on the Kuru field, and the five Indian
leaders near the Houses of Parliament, in each case, on the
Field of Action. The last picture is of Mahatma Gandhi, the
latest Karma-Yogin of India.
R. B. TILAE.
xlii AUTHOR'S DEDICATION
AUTHORS DEDICATION.
(IN SANSKRIT VERSE)
How very profound is the importance of the Glta, whichi
was expounded in ancient times by wise men, and which was
further explained in various ways by Acarayas, and how
limited is the scope of my intelligence ? Still, I am impelled)
by my rashness to explain the same once more, keeping before
my eyes the old Sastras as well as notable modern ideas ; and:
honourable people desiring to understand what is doable
and what not-doable, deserve to hear this (new) explanation.
Having made this request to revered persons in the sweet.
words of Kalidasa, I, a Brahmin, (by name) Bala, the son
of Gahgadhara, born in the family of Tilaka, belonging to.
the clan {gotra) of the Rsi Sandilya, and a resident of the
town of Poona, situate in the Maharastra, following the path
of the Good, and with the words of Hari * in my mind, do>
dedicate this work to the Lord of Laksml, the Soul of the
"World, in the Salivahana Saka 1837. May the Blessed Lord,,
the Highest Purusa, be pleased by this dedication.
* " Whatever you do, or eat, or offer by way of sacrifice, or
give, or perform by way of austerity, dedicate all that to Me,,
0, son of Kunti ".
(Gils 9. 27).
AUTHOR'S PREFACE xliii
AUTHORS PREFACE.
I am only repeating the stale words uttered by Saints I
How can an insignificant man like me know this ? «
— Tukarama.
Although in the beginning of this book, I have explained
my reasons for publishing it, in spite of the fact that there are
in existence many Sanskrit 'commentaries, or criticisms, or
Prakrit translations, or exhaustive and universally accepted
expositions of the Srimad Bhagavadglta, yet, there is no better
place than an Introduction for explaining all such things as .
oannot be included in the discussion of the subject-matter of
the book itself. The first of these things is about the
author himself. It is now nearly forty-three years since I made'
my first acquaintance with the Bhagavadglta. In the
year 1872, during the last illness of my father, the task of
reading out to him a Prakrit commentary on the Bhagavadglta
called BhMirvivrtti fell to my lot. At that date, that is, when
I was only 16 years old, it was not possible for me to fully
understand the import of the Gita. Still, as the impressions
made on the mind in young age are lasting, the liking for
the Bhagavadglta which then came into existenoe did not
die out; and when I had later on made further studies in
Sanskrit and English, I had occasion to read from time to
time the Sanskrit commentaries and other criticisms, as also the
expositions by many learned scholars in English and in
Marathi on the Gita. I was then faoed by the doubt as to why
the Gita, which was expounded in order to induce to fight that
Arjuna, who was dejected by the idea that it was a sin to war
with one's own relatives, should contain an Exposition of the j
manner in which Release could be obtained by Knowledge
(Jnana) or by Devotion (Bhakti), that is to say, only of the
' moksa-marga' ; and that doubt gradually gained ground,
because, I could not find a satisfactory answer to that question
in any commentary on the Gita. It is quite possible that
others too might have felt the same doubt. One cannot say no
to that. When a person is engulfed in commentaries, he
cannot find a different solution, though he may feel that the
solution given in the commentary is not satisfactory. I'
xliv AUTHOR'S PREFACE
therefore, put aside all criticisms and commentaries, and
independently and thoughtfully read the Glta over several
times. I then got out of the clutches of the commentators, and
waB convinced that the original Glta did not preach the
Philosophy of Renunciation (mvrtti), but of Energism (Karma-
Yoga) ; and that possibly, the single word ' yoga ' used in the
■Gita had been used to mean Karma-Yoga. That conviction
was strengthened by the study of the Mahabharata, the Vedanta-
Sutras, the ITpanisads and other Sanskrit and English treatises
on Vedanta ; and believing that by publishing that opinion,
there would be a fuller discussion on the subject, and that it
would be easier to arrive at the truth, I delivered public
lectures on the subject on four or five occasions at different
times. One of these was delivered at Nagpur in January 1902,
and the other one at the Sankesvara Matha in August 1904,
in the presence of Jagadguru Sri Sarhkaracarya of the
Karavira and Sankesvara Matha, and at his request. The
summary of the lecture delivered at Nagpur was published
in the newspapers at the time. With the same object, I also
discussed the matter from time to time privately, whenever
I had leisure, with some of my learned friends. One of these
was the late Mr. Shripati Buva Bhingarkar. In his company,
I had occasion to see some Prakrit treatises pertaining to the
Bhagavata cult, and some of the ideas explained in the Gita-
Rahasya were first fixed in the discussions between myself
and the Buva. It is a matter of deep regret that he is not
alive to see this work. Though my opinion that the creed
preached in the Glta was one of Action, had, in this way,
become quite definite, and though I had decided to reduce it
-to writing, many years went by. But I thought that a
considerable amount of misunderstanding would arise if
I merely published in a book form, this moral of the Gita>
which had not been accepted in the commentaries, criticisms,
or translations now commonly available, without assigning
any reasons as to why I was unable to accept the conclusions
arrived at by the former commentators. At the same time,
as the work of dealing with the opinions of all the commenta-
tors, and exposing their incompleteness with reasons, and of
comparing the religion expounded in the Glta with other
AUTHOR'S PREFACE x lv
religions or philosophies was one entailing great labour, it
was not possible for me to satisfactorily complete it, within
a short period of time. Therefore, although my friends Daji
Saheb Kharay and Dada Saheb Khaparday had, in anticipation
and somewhat hastily, announced that I was shortly going
to publish a treatise on the Gita, yet, seeing that the material
in hand was not sufficient, I went on putting off the work
of writing the hook. And later on, when in the year 1908,
I was convicted and sent to Mandalay, in Burma, the chance
of this book being written came practically to an end. But,
when after sometime, Government was pleased to grant
permission to take the books and other things essential for
writing this book from Poona to Mandalay, the draft of this
book was first made in the Mandalay Jail in the Winter
of 1910-1911 (between Karfcik Shuddha 1st and Falgun Vadya
30th of the Saka Year 1832); and thereafter, the draft was
improved upon from time to time, as things suggested
themselves to me; and those portions which had remained
incomplete as the necessary books had not been available,
were completed after my release from jail. Nevertheless,
I cannot even now say that this work is complete in every
respect; because, the elementary principles of Release (moksa)
and Moral Philosophy are very recondite, and they have
been so exhaustively expounded by ancient and- modern
scholars, that it is very often difficult to correctly decide
which portion of such expositions ought to be incorporated
in this small book, without including too much. But, my
physical condition is now becoming weak, as described by
the great Maharastra poet Moropanta in the following
a rya stanza:- ,
Old age, which is the spotless white banner carried by the
army of attendants of Death, is already in sight I
And my body is exhausted in the struggle with diseases,
which are the advance-guard of that army ll ;
and my contemporaries in life have passed on. So, having
come to the conclusion that I should place before the public the
information which I have gathered, and the ideas which have
occurred to me, and that someone else possessed by the same
xlvi AUTHOR'S PREFACE
inspiration ( samanadharma ), will come to birth in the
immediate or distant future, and develop and work them out,
I have published this book.
Though I am not prepared to accept the opinion that the
Glta. gives only an exposition of the paths of Release based
on Renunciation, such as, 'the Knowledge of the Brahman'
or 'Devotion', after proving worldly Action to be inferior and
negligible, I must, at the outset, make it dear that I do not
also say that there is no exposition at all in the Bhagavadglta
of the paths of obtaining Release. Nay ; I too have shown in
this book, that according to the philosophy of the Glta, it is the
•primary duty of every human being in this world, to acquire
the Knowledge of the pure form of the Paramesvara, and
thereby to cleanse out and purify his own Reason as far as
possible. But, that is not the principal subject-matter of the
Glta. At the commencement of the war, Arjuna was engulfed in
a perplexity about what his duty was, namely, whether he
should or should not take part in a war, which would ruin the
welfare of his Atman, in the shape of Release, as a result of his
committing heinous sins like the destruction of his own clan,
etc., though it was the duty of every Ksatriya to fight.
And I am of opinion that in order to clear this
•doubt, the Glta has propounded the device of performing
Action in such a way that one ultimately attains Release
without committing sin, namely, the Karma-Yoga founded on
Knowledge, in which Devotion is the principal factor, after it
'had fully expounded the Philosophy of Action and Non-Action,
.and also the various paths of attaining Release according to
■pure Vedanta Philosophy, and had established that no man is
.free from Action, and that Action should never be given up.
This exposition of Action and Non-Action, or of Morality and
Immorality is called ' Ethics ' by modern purely Materialistic
philosophers. It is not that I could not have made this
exposition by following the usual procedure, and explained
how this principle has been established by the Glta, by
commenting on the Gita stanza by stanza. But, unless one is
thoroughly conversant with the various philosophical doctrines,
arguments and deductions pertaining to Vedanta, Mimamsa,
Sarhkhya, the Doctrine of Causality (karma-mpdka) and
AUTHOR'S PREFACE xlvii
Devotion, on the authority of which the doctrine of Karma-
Yoga has been established in the Gita, and the reference to
which is sometimes very succinct, the full purport of the
exposition made in the Gita is not easily understood. I have,
■therefore, scientifically divided all the various subjects or
■doctrines, which one comes across in the Gita, into chapters,
and briefly expounded them, together with the most important
logical arguments relating to them ; and I have, at the same
■time, consistently with the critical methods of the present day,
■compared in brief and as occasion aros?, the most important
doctrines propounded in the Gita, with the doctrines
propounded in other religions and philosophies. It may thus
be said that the essay ' Gita-Rahasya ' (the Esoteric Import
■of the Gita), which is published in the beginning of this book,
'is by itself an independent, though a small, book on the.
■doctrine of Proper Action (Karma-Yoga). But, in any case,
•it was not possible to consider fully each individual
stanza of the Gita in a general exposition of this kind.
I have, therefore, at the end of the book, translated the Qlta,
stanza by stanza, and added exhaustive commentaries to the
translations in different places, in order to explain the
anterior and posterior context ; or, in order to show how former
commentators have stretched the meaning of some of the
stanzas of the Gita in order to support their own doctrines
(See Gita 3. 17-19 ; 6. 3 ; and 18. 2); or, in order to show which
of the various doctrines enunciated in the Gita-Rahasya appear
how and where in the Gita, according to the catechismal
method of the Gita, It is true that by following this method,
■some subject-matter has been repeated ; but, as I felt convinced
'that I could not in any other way fully dissipate the misunder-
standing, which now exists in the mind of the common reader
as regards the import of the Gita, I have separated the
■exposition of the Gita-Rahasya (Esoteric Import of the Gita)
from the translation itself ; and thereby, it has become easy
for me (i) to show with authorities and with former history,
where and in what manner, the , doctrines of the Gita with
reference to Vedanta, Mimamsa, Devotion etc., have appeared
in the Bharata, the Samkhya system, the Vedanta-Sutras, the
Upanisads, the Mimamsa. and other original texts, (ii) to
xlviii ATTTHOK'S PREFACE
explain in a lucid way the difference between Renunciation.
(Sarhnyasa) and Action (Karma-Yoga), as also (iii) to expound,
in a proper way the importance of the Gita, from the point of
view of practical Action, by comparing the Gita with other
religious opinions or philosophies. If there had not been all
sorts of commentaries on the Gita, and if various persons had.
not interpreted the import of the Gita, each in a different
way, it would have been totally unnecessary for me to quote-
the original Sanskrit authorities which go to support the
propositions laid down by me in my book. But such a thing,
cannot be done in the present times ; and it is likely that many
may doubt the correctness of the import of the Gita or of the
propositions, laid down by me. I have, therefore, everywhere-
pointed out the authorities which support what I say, and in.
important places, I have given the original Sanskrit text of the
authorities with translations. As many of these dicta are
usually accepted as proved truths in books on Vedanta, my
secondary object in quoting them has been, that my readers
should get acquainted with them in the course of reading, and
finu it easier on that account to remember the doctrines embo-
died in those statements. But, as it is not likely that all
readers will be knowing Sanskrit, I have arranged my book on
the whole in such a way that, if any reader who does not
understand Sanskrit, reads the book, omitting the Sanskrit
stanzas, there will not be any interruption anywhere in the
sense ; on this account, it has became necessary in many places,
to remain satisfied with giving a mere summary of the Sans-
krit stanza, instead of giving a literal translation of it.
But as the original stanza is given in each case, there is no
, risk of any misunderstanding arising as a result of this
procedure having been followed.
There is a story told about the Kohinoor diamond that after
it had been taken from India to England, it was again cut there,
and on that account, it began to look more brilliant. This
law, which is true in the case of a diamond, also applies to a
jewel in the shape of truth. It is true that the religion pro-
pounded by the Gita is true and unshakeable. But, as the
time at which and the form in which it was propounded and
the other attendant circumstances have considerably changed,-
AUTHOR'S PREFACE x ii s
it does not strike may as as brilliant as before. As the Gita
was propounded at a time, when ' whether to act or renounoe *
was considered a question of great importance, to be determined!
before arriving at a decision as to which act was good and
which bad, many people look upon a considerable portion of it
as now unnecessary ; and, as that position has been further
made worse by commentaries supporting the Path of Renuncia-
tion, the exposition of Karma-Yoga contained in the Gita has
become very difficult to understand for many in the present
age. Besides, some of our new scholars are of opinion that
as a result of the present growth of the Material sciences in
the West, the deductions laid down in ancient times with
reference to the Karma-Yoga, on the basis of the Philosophy
of the Absolute Self, cannot possibly be fully applicable to.
modern conditions. In order to prove that this idea is wrong,.
I have briefly mentioned in various places in my exposition of
the Gita-Rahasya (Esoteric Import of the Gita) the doctrines of
Western philosophers, which are similar to those in the Gita.
Really speaking, the exposition of Ethics in the Gita is in no-
way fortified by such a comparison. Yet, those people whose
eyes are dazzled by the present unheard of growth of the
Material sciences, or who have learnt to consider the Science
of Ethics, only externally, that is to say, only in its Material
aspect, as a result of the present one-sided methods of education,
will be made to see clearly by means of this comparison that,
not only has human knowledge not yet gone beyond the
doctrines laid down on this subject by our philosophers, for the
simple reason that Ethics and the science of Release are both
beyond Material Knowledge, but, deliberations are still going;
on on these questions in the West, from the Metaphysical
point of view, and the opinions of these Metaphysicians are
not materially different from the doctrines laid down in the-
Gita. This fact will be clearly borne out by the comparative
exposition appearing in the different chapters of the Gita-
Rahasya. But, as this subject is very extensive, I must
explain here, with reference to the summaries of the opinions
of Western philosophers which 1 have given in various places,
that, as my principal object has been only to expound the
import of the Gita, I have accepted as authoritative the
vii — viii
1 AUTHOR'S PREFACE
doctrines laid down in the Gita, and have mentioned the
Western opinions only so far as was necessary in order to
show to what extent the doctrines of Western moral philoso-
phers or scholars tally with the doctrines in the Gita ; and this
too has been done by me only to such an extent that the
ordinary Marathi reader should experience no difficulty in
grasping their import. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that
those who wish to ascertain the minute differences between the
two— and these differences are many — or to see the full argu-
mentative exposition or developing-out of these theorems, must
examine the original Western books themselves. Western
scholars say that the first systematic treatise on the discrimina-
tion between Right and Wrong Action or on Morality was
written by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. But in my
opinion, these questions had been examined long before
Aristotle in a more exhaustive and scientific manner in the
Mahabharata and in the Gita ; and no moral doctrine has yet
been evolved, which is different from the doctrines metaphysi-
cally expounded in the Gita. The solution given by Aristotle
of the question whether it is better to spend one's life peace-
fully, in philosophical meditation, and living like a hermit, or
to spend it in all sorts of political activities, is to be found in
the Gita ; and the opinion of Socrates that whatever sin is
committed by man, is committed by him only as a result of
ignorance, is also to be found to a certain extent in the Gita,
because it is a doctrine of the Gita that it is not possible for a
man to commit any sin, after his Reason has become equable
as a result of the Knowledge of the Brahman. The doctrine
of the Epicureans and the Stoics that the conduct of the perfect
Jnanin is a standard for everybody, from the moral point of
view, is to be found in the Gita; and the description of the
perfect Jnanin, given by the philosophers belonging to these
sects, tallies with the description of the Sthitaprajna (Steady-
in-Mind) given in the Gita. Similarly, the dictum of Mill,
Spencer, Kant, and other Materialistic philosophers, that the
highest peak or test of Morality consists in everybody acting
so as to promote the welfare » of the whole of mankind, is
included in the external characteristic of a Sthitaprajna
descibed in the Gita in the words " sarvabhutahite-ratah " (i. e.,
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
"one busy promoting the welfare of all created beings" — ■
Trans.); and the arguments relating to Ethics, and the
doctrines regarding Freedom of Will, enunciated by Kant and
Green, are to be found mentioned in the Gita, on the authority
of the Knowledge contained in the Upanisads. If the Gita had not
contained anything more than this, it would still have comman-
ded universal respect. But the Gita does not Btop there. After
showing that the conflict between Release (moksa), Devotion
(bhakti), and Ethics {nlti-dbarma) imagined by Materialistic
philosophers, as also the conflict between Knowledge (jiiana)
and Right Action ( karma ) imagined by the followers of
the School of Renunciation ( samnyasa ) were groundless, and
also showing that the fundamental element in the brahma-
vidya (science of the Brahman), and in bhakti (the Path of
Devotion) is the foundation of Ethics and good behaviour, the
Gita has shown what path of life should be adopted by a man
by properly harmonising Knowledge (jnana ), Renunciation
(samnyasa), Right Action (karma) and Devotion (bhakti). The
Gita is thus essentially a treatise on Right or Proper Action
(Karma- Yoga) ; and that is why it has been given a position
of supreme importance in all Vedic treatises, which refer to it
as ' brdhmavidyantargata (karma-) yoga-sastra (i. e., " the Science
of Right Action included in the Science of the Brahman" —
Trans.) The saying " gita sugita kartavya kirn anyaih sastra
vistaraih", i.e., " it is quite enough if one thoroughly studies the
Gita ; what is the use of dabbling in the other Sastras ?" is
indeed correct ; and, therefore, it is my earnest and respectful
.request to everyone, who wishes to become acquainted with the
basic principles of the Hindu Religion and Morality, that he
should first study this wonderful and unprecedented book ;
because, as the Gita expounds the root principles of the present
Vedic Religion, as also its final aspect, based on Knowledge
and giving primary importance to Devotion, and preaching the
Karma-Toga (Right Action), which (aspect) it had assumed after
Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimarhsa, Upanisads, Vedanta and other
ancient Sastras, which dealt with the Perishable and the
Imperishable (ksaraksara) and the Body and the Atman (ksetra-
ksetrajna) had come to as perfect a state as possible, it may
' well be said that there is no other work in the whole of Sanskrit
Hi AUTHOR'S PREFACE
literature, which explains the principles of the present Hindu
Religion in as succinct and yet as clear and unambiguous
a manner as the Glta.
From what has been stated above, my readers will get an
idea as to the general trend of the exposition contained in
the Gita-Rahasya, From the reference to the opinions of the
earlier commentators on the Glta, made in the beginning of
the third chapter of the Samkarabhasya on the Glta, it would
appear that these commentaries were in favour of Karma-Yoga
(Right Action). These commentaries are not now available ;
therefore, there is no reason why this book of mine should not
be called the first comparative exposition of the Glta, in
support of Right Action. The meanings of some stanzas
given in this book are different from those given in the present
commentaries, and I have also had to deal with many other
subjects, which have nowhere been fully explained in the
Marathi language. I have attempted to explain these subjects
and the arguments in support of such explanation succinctly,
but in as clear and easily intelligible a manner as possible ;
and notwithstanding repetition, I have purposely given, in
many places, synonyms for various words, of which the
meanings have not yet become current or commonly known
in the Marathi language, side by side with those words ; and
I have also clearly shown in different places the most salient
theorems in these subjects, by separating them from the
exposition itself. Yet, it is always difficult to discuss scienti-
fic and difficult subjects in a few words ; and the Marathi
terminology of these subjects is also not yet definite. I am,
therefore, alive to the fact that in this my new way of
exposition, there may possibly creep in difficulty, unintelli-
gibleness, or incompleteness, as a result of mental confusion,
inadvertence, or for some other reasons. But the Bhagavad-
glta is not something unknown to my readers. The Glta is a
book which is daily recited by many, and there are also many
who have studied, or who are studying it scientifically. I have,
therefore, to request such authoritative persons, that if this
book comes to their hands, and they come across any flaws in
it of the nature mentioned above, they will please draw my
attention to them, so that I will consider the suggestions, and.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE liii
will also make the necessary corrections, if there is any
occasion to bring out a second edition of this book. Some
persons are likely to gather the impression that I have a
particular system {sampradaya) of mine own, and that I have
explained the Glta in a special way, in support of that system.
I must, therefore, make it clear here that the Gita-Rahasya has
not been written with reference to any particular person, or
any particular system. I have put forward the clear meaning
of the Sanskrit stanzas in the Glta, according to my understand-
ing. If, as a result of this straight-forward translation —
and as Sanskrit is now widely understood, may people will
easily see whether or not my translation is straight-forward —
my exposition assumes a doctrine-supporting character, then
such character is of the Glta and not mine. As the clear request
of Arjuna to the Blessed Lord was : " Do not confuse me by
placing before me several courses of conduct, but point out to
me definitely only one course, which is the proper course"
(Gl, 3. 2 ; 5. 17), it is clear that the Glta must be in support of
one particular opinion (Gi. 3. 31); and I have set out to explain
what that opinion is, by impartially interpreting the original
Glta. I have not preconceived a doctrine first, and then
attempted to stretch the meaning of the Glta, because the Glta
will not fit in with that doctrine. In short, my attempt is to
popularise the true inner import of the Gits with the
devotees of the Glta — to whatever doctrine such import may
pertain — and I have come forward to make, so to say, such
a Sacrifice of Knowledge (jnana-yajna) as is referred to by
the Blessed Lord at the end of the Glta; and I am sanguine
that my countrymen, and co-religionists, will willingly give
me this charitable offering of information in order to make my
attempt flawless.
I have explained at length in the Gita-Rahasya the reasons
for the difference between the Esoteric Import of the Glta accord-
ing to me, and that propounded by ancient commentators.
But, though there may be such a difference of opinion as to the
teaching of the Glta, yet, as I ha?e always made use more or less,
of the various commentaries or criticisms on the Glta, as also
of the former or modern Prakrit translations of the Glta, as
occasion arose in writing the present book, I must here say that
liv AUTHOR'S PREFACE
I am deeply indebted to them. I must likewise express my
gratitude towards those Western philosophers, to the theorems
mentioned in whose works I have now and then referred. As
it is doubtful whether it would have been possible for me to
write this book without the help of all those works, I have quoted
in the beginning of this introduction the following words of
Tukarama : " I am only repeating the stale words uttered by
saints". That a work like the Gita, which propounds*
Knowledge, untouched by Time, that is, equally true at all
times, should, according to changing times, give fresh inspira-
tion to human beings, is not a matter of surprise ; because, that
is the characteristic feature of such universal worka. But, the
labour spent on such works by ancient scholars is not, on that
account, wasted. This same argument applies to the transla-
tions of the Gita into English, German, and other languages-
made by Western scholars. Though these translations are
based primarily on the ancient commentaries on the Gita,
some Western scholars have also started interpreting the Gita
independently. But, these expositions of the Western scholars are
to a certain extent incomplete, and in some places undoubtedly
misleading and wrong, whether because, they have not property
understood the principle of the true (Karma-) Yoga or the
history of the Vedic religious systems, or because, they have
principally inclined towards the external examination of the
matter only, or, for some other similar reason. There is no
occasion to consider or examine here in detail those works of
Western scholars on the Gita. In the Appendices to this book,
I have stated what I have to say regarding the important
questions raised by them. Nevertheless, I must in this
Preface refer to some writings in English on the Gita,
which I have recently come across. One such writing is that
of Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks is a Theosophist and he has
maintained in his book on the Gita, that the Bhagavadgita is
in favour of Action (Karma-Yoga); and he has expressed the
same opinion in his lectures. The second thesis is by Mr. S-
Radhakrishnam of Madras, which has appeared in the form
of a small essay in the International Ethical Quarterly
(July 1911) published in America. In this work, the similarity
between the Gita and Kant on questions of Ethics and
AUTHOR'S PREFACE Iv
Freedom of Will has been shown. In my opinion, this
similarity is even more comprehensive than has been shown in
this essay ; and the arguments of Green on the question of
Ethics are even more consistent with the Glta than those of
Kant. But as both these questions have been dealt with by me
in this book, I shall not repeat the same matter here.
Pandit Sitanath Tatvabhushana has also recently published
a book in English called Krsna and the Gitfi, which contains
the twelve lectures delivered by that scholar on the Glta. But,
any one who reads those books will be sure to notice, that
there is a great deal of difference between the arguments
contained in these books or in the book of Brooks and those
advanced in mine. But, these writings show that my ideas
about the Gita are not new-fangled ; and, as these works are
a propitious sign that people are paying more and more
attention to the doctrine of Right Action {karma-yoga) in the
Glta, I am taking this opportunity of congratulating these
modem writers.
It is true that this work was completed in the Mandalay
Jail ; but it had bBen written with a lead pencil, and it
contained corrections and deletions in many places ; so, when
it had been returned to me after inspection by Government, it
was necessary to make a fair copy of it for printing ; and if
I myself had to do that work, who knows how many months
more would have passed before the work was published ! But
Messrs. Waman Gopal Joshi, Narayan Krishna Gogte,
Ramkrishna Dattatraya Paradkar, Ramkrishna Sadashiva
Pimputkar, Appaji Vishnu Kulkarni and other gentlemen,
have willingly rendered assistance in this matter and quickly
finished the work, for which I am grateful to them. Similarly
Mr. Krishnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar, and especially Vedasastra-
sampanna Dlksit Kasinath Sastri Lele, specially came here
from Bombay, and took the trouble of reading the manuscript,
and made many useful and critical suggestions, for which I am
grateful to them. The reader, however, must not forget that
the responsibility of the opinions expressed in this book is
mine. In this way, the book was got ready for printing,
but there was the risk of shortage of paper on account of
the War. This difficulty was overcome by the timely supply
Ivi AUTHOR'S PREFACE
of paper, which was good in my opinion, by Messrs D. Padamji
& Son, proprietors of the Swadeshi Paper Mills in Bombay;
and it became possible to publish a book on the Gits
on good Indian paper. Yet, as the book was found to be
larger than estimated, while the printing was in progress,
there was again shortage of paper ; and, if that deficit had
not been met by the proprietor of the Reay Paper Mills,
Poona, my readers would have had to wait for a few months
more for the publication of the book. Therefore, not only I,
but also my readers, must feel grateful to the proprietors
of these two mills. The task of correcting proofs still
remained. This was undertaken by Messrs Ramkrishna
Dattatraya Paradkar, Ramkrisbna Sadashiva Pimputkar and
Hari Raghunath Bhagvat. But of these, Mr. Hari Raghunath
Bhagvat was alone attending to the work of verifying the
references to other books made in different places, and
of pointing out to me such defects as had remained.
Needless to say, without the assistance of all these people,
it would have been impossible for me to publish this book
so soon. I, therefore, take this opportunity of sincerely
thanking all these people. Finally, I must express my thanks
to the owner of the Chitra-Shala Press, who undertook to
publish this ,book carefully and as early as possible, and who
has carried out his undertaking. Just as the assistance
of many persons is necessary before the grain is turned into
food for the eater, though there may be a harvest in the field,
so also I may safely say, is the case with writers— at any
rate, that was the case with me. And therefore, I once more
sincerely thank all those persons who have helped me— whether
or not I have specifically mentioned their names in the above
list — and I end this preface.
The preface is over. Now, though I feel unhappy at the
idea that that subject, in thinking on which I have spent
many years, and the constant company of and meditation
over which has brought so much satisfaction to my mind,
and happiness into my heart, is now going to leave my
'. hands in the shape of a book, yet, as these thoughts have come
' into my mind for the sole purpose of being handed down
to coming generations— with interest, or at any rate, just as
AUTHOR'S PREFACE lvii
-they are— I am placing this philosopher's stone, in the shape
of a raja-guhya ( the king of mysticisms ) of the Vedia
religion into the hands -of my promising readera, uttering
the canon (mantra): " uitistluita I jagralu, \ prap^mranr
nibodhataV, that is, "Arise, awake, and understand these
blessings (conferred by the Blessed Lord)", and with faeiings
of affection. In this (mysticism) lies the entire essence ct Bight
and Wrong Action, and the BlessedLord Himself has confidently
given us the assurance, that the observance of this Religion,
even to a small extent, delivers a person from great diffi-
culties. What more can anybody want ? Keep in mind the
universal rale that. "Nothing happens, unless something
is done ", and devote yourselves to Desireless Action ; that is all.
The Glta. was not preached either as a pastime for persons
tired out after living a worldly life in tho pursuit of selfish
motives, nor as a preparatory lesson for living such worldly
life, but ia order to give philosophical advice as to how one
should live his worldly life with an eye to Release (nuk^a\ and
as to the true duty of human beings in worldly life. My
last prayer to everyone, therefore, is, that ono should not fail
to thoroughly understand this ancient science ot the life
of a householder, or of worldly life, as early as possible in
one's life.
Poona, Adhika Vaisakha, ) „
Saka Year, 1837. J
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.
( GENERAL ).
Subject. Page.
Title-page ... ... ... ... "i
Various vernacular editions of the Gita-Rahasya ... v
Publisher's Foreword ... •■■ ■■• v "
Publisher's Dedication ... ... to face viii
Opinions of prominent personalities on the Gita,
Gita-Rahasya, and Lok. Bal Gangadar Tilak ... xi
Mr. Tilak on the Glta-Rahasya ... ... xxiv
Some information regarding the manuscript of the
Glta-Rahasya ... ... •■• xxviii*
Translator's Preface ... ... ... xxxii
General Rules regarding the Translation ... xxxix
Scheme of transliteration of Sanskrit words ... xl
Explanation of pictorial map of Schools of
Philosophy ... ... ... — xli
Author's Dedication ... ... ••• xlii
Author's Preface ... ... ... ... xliii
Contents of Volume I (General) ... ... Iviii
Detailed contents of Volume I, with special reference
to the subject-matter of chapters I to XIII ... lix
List of Illustrations ... ... ... lxxi
Detailed contents of chapters XIV and XV, and
Appendices, included in Vol. II ... ... Ixxii
Explanation of Abbreviations ... ... Ixxvii
Chapters I to XIII of the Gita-Rahasya or the
Karma-Yoga-Sastra ... ... ... 1 to 618
Text of the Bhagavadgita
Note .■—Volume II will contain Chap. XIV and XV of the
Exposition, the Appendioes, the text of the Gita with
translation of each stanza and • commentaries on such transla-
tion, and several indices.
Detailed Contents of Volume I with special reference
to the subject-matter of chapters I to XIII
CHAPTER I-INTRODUCTORY.
The importance of Srimad Bhagavadglta — the words used
at the end of each chapter of the Gita showing the conclusion
of the chapter — the meaning of the word 'Gita' — description of
several other Gitas and the inferiority of these Gitas and of
the Yoga-Vasistha etc. — methods of examination of a book —
modern external critics of the Bhagavadglta — the explanation
of the moral of the Gita as given in the Mahabharata — the
Prasthanatrayl ( i. e., the Upanisads, the Vedanta-Sfttras and
the Bhagavadglta), and the doctrine-supporting commentaries
on it — explanations of the moral of the Gita according to these
commentaries — Sri Sarhkaracarya — Madhusudana — 'Tat-Tvam-
Asi ' — the Paisaea-Bhasya — Ramanujacary a — Madhvacarya —
VallabhSclrya — Nimbarka — Siidharsvami — Jrianesvara — the
point of view of all of them is to support some doctrine or
other — the method of finding out the import of a work, without
seeking to support a doctrine — how that method is neglected
by the doctrine-supporting method— the introductory remarks
and the concluding portion in the Gita — the deadlock arising
from mutually conflicting Ethical principles, and the resulting
confusion as to one's duty — the advice in the Gita for solving
that confusion ... ... ... p. 1 to 39
CHAPTER -II. KARMA-JIJNABA-
(THE DESIRE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ACTION)
Two English (foreign) examples of the doubt about duty—
the importance of the Mahabharata from this point of view — the
doctrine of Non-Violence (ahimsa-clliarma), and the exceptions to
it — the doctrine of Forgiveness (ksama), and the exceptions to
it — the discrimination between Truth (satya) and Falsehood
(anrta) according to our Sastras — a comparison of that discrimi-
nation according to English (foreign) Ethics -superiority and
importance of the point of view of our philosophers — the
observance of a vow (pratijm) and its linn itations— the doctrine
of Not-Stealing, and the exceptions to it— the exceptions to
Ix DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
the doctrine that ' living is mrae important than dying ' —
self-defence — duties owed to one's mother, father, preceptor
{guru) and other revered persons, and the exceptions to the
same— the relative importance of the restraint of Desire (Kama),
Anger (krodlia) and Avarice (lobha)— the occasions and the
limits of Time and Place for showing courage, and other
virtues— the relative importance of different courses of
Action — the subtle distinction between Morality {dharma) and
Immorality (adharma), and the wonderfulness of the
Gita... ... ... ... ... p, 40-69
CHAPTER III.
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA.
(The Science of Right Action).
The importance of the Desire to know the Right Action
{karma-jijnasaj — the first Chapter of the Gita and the necessity of
the Science of Right Action— the definition of the meaning of
the word 'Karma'— the subject of Karma according to Mlmamsa
writers — the definition of the meaning of the word ' Yoga '
according to the Gita — Yoga= Karma-Yoga, and that is the only
doctrine which is expounded — synonyms for Right Action
{karma) and Wrong Action or Non- Action {akarma) — the three
methods of scientific exposition, namely the Materialistic
(adhibhautika), the Intuitionist (adhidaivika), and the Metaphy-
sical (adhyatmika) — why these methods came into existence — the
opinion of Comte — the Metaphysical point of view is the best
according to the Gita — two meanings of the word 'dharma' (i)
with ref erenoe to the next world and (ii) with reference to this
world — the system of the four castes and other systems— it is
* dharma ', because it maintains the world — 'dharma ' in the form
of precepts (codaria)— ordinary rules for distinguishing between
righteous and unrighteous Action (dharmadharma) — the doctrine
of ' mahiija.no yena gatah sa panthah ', i. e., 'that path is the true
one which is followed by the great', and the exceptions to it—
the doctrine of 'ati sarvatra varjauet', i. e., 'avoid extremes', and
, its incompleteness— the definition of Righteousness by consi-
dering what is not objected to (avirodha)— -the object of the
science of Karma-Yoga ... ... ... p, 70-101
DETAILED CONTENTS OS VOLUME I Iri
CHAPTER IV.
ADHIBHAUTIKA-SUKHAVADA.
( The Materialistic theory of Happiness ).
An indroduction to the outlines of the subject — principles
determining Morality (dharma) and Immorality (adharma)—
Carvaka's doctrine of unalloyed selfishness — 'far-sighted
selfishness ' of Hobbes — Philanthropy is as much an inherent
desire as selfishness — the doctrine of Yajnavalkya of the benefit
of the Atman {atmartha) — the doctrine of the combination of
self-interest and other 's-inteiest, or 'enlightened self-interest ' —
the objections to that doctrine — the doctrine of giving higher
importance to other's-interest — the doctrine of 'the greatest
good of the greatest number' — the objections to that doctrine—
who is to decide in what the greatest good of the greatest
number lies, and how — the superiority of the Reason (buddhi)'
of the doer, over the Action itself — why one should do good to-
others — the perfect state of mankind — that which is meritorious-
(sreya), and that" which is pleasurable (preya) — the transitoriness
of Happiness and Unhappiness, and the immutability of Moral
principles ... ... ... ... p. 102-128
CHAPTER V.
SUKHA-DTTHKHA-VrVEKA.
( The Consideration of Happiness and Unhappiness ).
The inclination of everyone towards Happiness— the
characteristic features of and difference between Happiness and'
Unhappiness — whether Happiness is an independent thing, or
means only the absence of Unhappiness — the opinion of the
School of Renunciation — the refutation of that opinion — fcho
doctrine of the Gita — Happiness and Unhappinoss ure two-
independent feelings (bham) — the contrariety hntweon the
Happiness and TJnhappiness arising in this world— whether
there is more of Happiness or of Unhappiness in worldly ltt\H»
the Western theory that there is a prepondemmm of 1Tai>pfnes8=
that worldly life is full of happftiess does not follow tail tile
fact that all mankind does not commit Hillside the uuwttol--
lable growth of the Desire for tIttppJMf!g=-=ih<? imjmasibftfty i&
lxii DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
extinguishing the Desire for Happiness by enjoying Happi-
ness — therefore, there is a preponderance of Unhappiness in
worldly life— the propositions of our philosophers, consistent
with this point of view — the opinion of Schopenhauer — the
iisefulnesss of Dissatisfaction— how to avoid its evil effects-
experiencing of Happiness or Unhappiness is within one's
control, and characteristic features of the Hope for Fruit of,
Action — prohibition of the Abandonment of Action, since -
Unhappiness can be averted only by giving up Hope for Fruit
•of Action— the limits of restraint of the organs— the fout
aphorisms (siitras) of the doctrine of Eight Action — the animal
nature of Bodily, that is, of Material Happiness— the superi-
ority and immutability of Happiness which is born of the
Atman, that is, of Metaphysical Happiness — the blending of
these two kinds of Happiness is the ideal according to the
doctrine of Sight Action— the happiness born of the enjoyment
of Bodily pleasures, is inconstant and unfit to be an
ideal— the incompleteness of the Doctrine of Material
Happiness ... ... ... ... p. 129-166
CHAPTER VI.
ADHIDAIVATA-PAKSA AND KSETRAKSETRAJNA-
VICARA.
( The Intuitionist School and the Consideration of the
Body and the Atman ).
The Western School of ' Conscience '—similar references
in Indian philosophical works to the Goddess of the Mind
( manodeixUS )— the objections of the Materialistic school
against the Intuitionist school— the decision as to what ought
not to be done can be quickly made, by habit and practice—
- Conscience ' is not an independent force — the objections of the
Metaphysical school— the great factory of the human Body—
the respective functions of the organs of Perception and the
organs of Action— the respective functions of the Mind and the
Reason— the difference and inter-relation between the Discern-
ing (Pure) Reason {mjavasayatimka buddhi) and Practical Reason
•(vasanatmika buddhi)— the Discerning Reason is initially one,
.but is of three different kinds, according as it is sattvika, etc.—
DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I lxiii
Conscience is included in, and not different from, Discerning
Reason — the nature of tho Consideration of the Body and the
Atman, and of the Perishable and the Imperishablo, and its
relation to the doctrine of Karma-Yoga (Right Action) — the
meaning of the word ' ksetra ' (Body) — the existence of the
' ksetrajm ' that is, of the Atman — introduction to the Consi-
deration of the Perishable and the Imperishable ... p. 187-201
CHAPTER VII.
K1PILA-SAMKHYA-SASTRA OB KSARAKSARA-
VICARA.
■{The Kapila-Sarhkya Philosophy or the Consideration of tho
Mutable and the Immutable).
Systems of philosophy dealing with the Mutable and the
Immutable — the Atomic Theory of Kanadas — Kapila-SSrhkhya-
the meaning of the word ' Samkhya ' — works dealing with the
Kspila-Sarhkhya System — the Doctrine of Satkarya-vada (some-
thing being produced out of something which existed)— the
fundamental substance of the world, or Prakrti is one— mttva,
raja, and tarna are its three constituents— the Static or aatnya
condition (samyavastha) of the three constituents, and the
creation of various objects by their mutual intermixtures-
Matter (Prakrti) is imperceptible, unbroken, homogeneous, and
inactive — the evolution of the Pei!!~?tib';9 (?^to) out of the
Imperceptible (avyakta) — Mind and Reason i^y'ig- from
Matter— the Gross (Materialistic) Monism (Non-Dualism) of
Haeckel, and, tracing the origin of the Atman from Matter are
not acceptable to Sarhkhya philosophy — Matter ( prakrti) and 1 -
Spirit ( purusa) are two independent Prinoiples^-of these, the
Spirit ( purusa) is inactive, qualityless, and apathetic, and all
activity is of Matter ( prakrti) — the unfurlment of the Ooamos*f
is due to the union of the two — Release (mokqa) is attained 'by
Realising the difference between Matter and Spirit — whose J
■the Release, of Matter or of the Spirit ?— innumerable Spiaji^
of the Sarhkhya system, and the sole Spirit of the Vedantigj£«H."
the condition of being beyond tho three constituents (trigwwtitfa 1
vastlm)— the difference between the doctrines, of the flSnj^jjK^: ;
■system, and similar doctrines of the Gita ... p, 202-228^
lxiv DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
CHAPTER VIII.
The CONSTRUCTION ahd DESTRUCTION OF the
COSMOS.
The unfurlment of Matter — the characteristic features of
(Spiritual) Knowledge (jnana) and worldly knowledge
{ujilana) — the various theoiies as to the Creation of the Coamos,.
and their ultimate oneness — the modem theory of Evolution, and.
its similarity to the Sarhkhya theory of the ' Developing-out '
of the Constituents (guviotkarsa) — an exposition of the theory of
the order of unfurlment of the Constituents of Matter, or of
the theory of the development of Constituents ( gunotkarsa-
vada, or gumpannama-vada ) — the growth from Prakrti, first>
of Discerning Reason {vyavasayatmika buddhi), and then of
Individuation (ahamkara) — their innumerable sub-divisions-
under three main heads — the growth from Individuation of
eleven elements, including the Mind, in the organic world, and
of the five Subtle (fine) Elements called 'Tanmatras' in the-
inorganic world — the reason why there are only five fine-
elements (Tanmatras), and only eleven subtle organs — the evo-
lution of the Gross from the Subtle — Cosmic Tree of 2S
elements— The Cosmic Tree (brahma-vrksa) of the Anuglta and
the Pipal-Tree (asvattha) in the Q-Ita— the different Sarhkhya and
Vedantic methods of classifying the twenty-five elements— the
relative tabular statement — the order given in books on
Vedanta of the creation of the five gross primordial elements—
and the subsequent growth of all gross objects by Panclkarana
(unifying of five)— its comparison with the Trivrtkarana
(union of three) mentioned in the Upanisads— the living
creation and the Subtle Body (linga-iarlra)— the difference-
between the Subtle Body according to the Vedanta and the
Sarhkhya philosophies— the activity (bhava) of the Reason, and
the Karma of Vedanta— Cosmic Destruction {pralaya )— the
period from Cosmic Creation to Cosmic Destruction— the
duration of a Kalpayuga— the day and night of Brahma-
deva, and the duration of his life— the contrast and similarity
of this Theory of the Evolution of the Cosmos with other
Tories - ... ... p. 239-267'
DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I . lxv
CHAPTER IX.
ADHYATMA.
( The Philosophy of the Absolute Self )
Objections to the Duality of Matter and Spirit— the
method of considering that which is beyond both — the
Absolute Self ( paramatma or para purusa) is beyond both — the
Trinity of Matter (Cosmos), Spirit (Jiva) and the Highest
Isvara (Paramesvara) — the description of the form of the
Paramesvara as given in the Gita — the Perceptible (vyakta)
or Qualityful (saguya) form, and its inferiority — the Impercep-
tible, capable of Perception by Illusion ( Maya ) — the three
divisions of the Imperceptible into (i) qualityful (ii) quality-
less and (iii) qualityful-qualityless— similar descriptions
in the Upanisads — the methods of worship (vidya) and symbols
■ ( pratika ) mentioned in the Upanisads for worship ( upasana ) —
of the three imperceptible forms, the qualityless is the
best — (p. 289) — the scientific exposition of the above doctrines —
the moot meanings of the words ' Qualityful ' (sagitna) and
'Qualityless' (nirguna) — the natural idea of Immortality — how
the Knowledge of the universe is acquired, and what it consists
of — the description of the process of acquiring Knowledge, and
definition of Names and Forms— the Appearance of Names
and Forms, and the Thing-in-Itself (vastu-tatvaj^the definition
of the Real (satya); Names and Forms are unreal (asatya)
because they are perishable, and the Thing-in-itself (vastit-tatva)
is Real, because imperishable — the Thing-in-Itself is the
imperishable Brahman, and Names and Forms are illusory—
the meaning of the words Real (satya) and Illusory (mithya)
in Vedanta — the embodiment of Material Sciencos is Names
and Forms (p. 30/2) — the theory of vijnana is not acceptable
to Vedanta — the ancientness of the doctrine of Maya — the
form of the immutable (nitya) Brahman, clothed in Names
and Forms, and of the Embodied (sarira) Atman is the same —
why both are said to be of the form of Consciousness
[tit) — the identity of the Brahman and the Atman is expressed
by saying: "what is in the body (pirtda) is also in the Cosmos
(brahmanda)" — the bliss of Realising the Brahman (brahma-
nanda )— the death of the Ego — the fourth state ( turiyavastha)
ix-2
Ixvi DETAILED CONTENTS 01 VOLUME I
and the exclusive contemplation of the One Entity, without
separate consciousness of the Known and the Knower
( mrvikcdpa-samadhi )— the ultimate limit of Immortality and
the death of Death (p. 321) — the growth of Dualism ( dvaita-
vada)— both the Glta and the Upanisads propound the
Non-Dualistic Vedanta— how the qualityful Maya ( Illusion )
grows out of the Qualityless { nirguna ) — the ' vivarta ' theory
and the ' gumparinaina' theory — the doctrines of the
Philosophy of the Absolute Self, in short, regarding the
Cosmos ( jagat ), the Personal Self ( jlva ) and the Highest
Isvara ( Paramesvara ), ( p. 336 )— the Reality or Unreality
of the Brahman— 'Om-Tat-Sat ' and other symbols of
the Brahman — how the Personal Self {jlva) is a part of the
Paramesvara— the Paramesvara is unbounded by Time and
Space (p. 341)— the ultimate doctrine of the Philosophy of
the Absolute Self— the feeling of Equability ingrained in
the bodily organs — the nature of Release (moksa) and a
description of the State of Perfection fsiddhavasthaj, (p. 346) — ■
an exposition giving the literal meaning of the Nasadlya-
Sutta in the Rg-Veda — the inter-relation between the previous
and the subsequent chapters ... ... p. 268-358
CHAPTER X.
KARMA-VIPAKA AND ATMA-SVATAMTRYA.
(The Effect of Karma and Freedom of Will).
The Maya-world and the Brahman-world— the strata of
the Body ; and the Subtle Body to which Karma clings— the
mutual relation between Karma, Names and Forms, and
Maya — the definitions of Karma and Maya— as the origin of
Maya cannot be found, it is eternal, though it is dependent —
the expansion of Matter embodied in Maya, or the Cosmos,
is Karma— therefore, Karma is also eternal— the uninterrupted
working of Karma— the Paramesvara gives the Fruit of
Action according to the Action, without interfering with the
matter (p. 368)— the adherence of the bond of Karma, and an
introduction to the theory of Freedom of Natural Inclination
(pravrtti smtamtrydj—fhe division of Karma into Accumulated
(samcita), Commenced (prarabdlia), and To-Be-Performed
(foiyamana)— the Accumulated Karma is exhausted only by
DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I livii
Its being suffered (" prarabdha karmanam bhogad em ksayah") —
"the Doctrine of ' Naiskarmyasiddhi ' (Release by refraining
from Action) of the Mimarhsa School, is not acceptable to the
Vedantists — there is no escape from the Bond of Karma,
except by Jnana (Knowledge)— the meaning of the word
' Jnana ' — the Embodied Atman is free to acquire Knowledge
(p. 389), but as it does not possess implements for doing so, it
is to that extent dependent — even the most trifling Action,
performed for obtaining Release is not wasted— therefore,
success will be obtained sometime or other by hard work—
the nature of the Destruction of Karma — one cannot escape
Karma, but should give up the Hope of Fruit— the bond of
"Karma is in the Mind, not in the Karma— therefore, whenever
Jnana is acquired, Release is the only possible result — the
importance, nevertheless, of the hour of close of life (p. 400)
the Kanna-kanda and the Jiana-kanda — the Yajna prescribed
'by the Srutis, and that prescribed by the Smrtis— the state of
a householder involving .the performance of Action — its two
divisions into Knowledge-full and Knowledge-leBs Action-
different ultimate states accordingly — the Devayana and the
Pitryana paths— whether these words indicate the time of
death, or deities— the third path namely, the path to hell— a
description of the condition of one who is Free from Re-birth
lijimnmukta) ... ... ... ... p. 359-415.
CHAPTER XL
SAMNYASA and KARMA- YOGA.
(Renunciation and Karma-Yoga.)
The question of Arjuna as to whether Samnyasa or Karma-
Yoga was the better course— similar paths of life according to
Western philosophy — synonyms of the words 'Samnyasa' and
■'Karma-Yoga' — -meaning of the word ' Samnyasa ' — Karma-
Yoga is not a part of Samnyasa, but both are independent of
■each other — the confusion created in this matter by commen-
tators — the clear doctrine of the Glta that the path of Karma-
Yoga is the better of the two — the perversions made by the
commentators belonging to the School of Renunciation— the
reply to the same— Arjuna cannot be looked upon as Ignorant
■hjnani), (p. 432) —the reason given in the GHS why -Karat it-
Yoga is superior— from times immemorial, the course of conduct
lsviii DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
(acara) has been two-fold, and therefore, useless for determining
which is bettei — the three Nisthas according to Janaka and the
two Nisthas according to the Glta — it does not follow that Karma
should be renounced, because it creates a bond ; it is enough if
one renounces the Hope for Fruit of Action— it is impossible to
renounce Karma — if one renounces Karma, one will not get
even food to eat— even if as a result of Knowledge, there is no
duty of one's own to perform, and one's desires are extinguished,
one cannot escape Karma — it is, therefore, essential to continue
Karma desirelessly, even after the Acquisition of Knowledge —
the illustrations of the Blessed Lord and of Janaka — the
giving up of the Hope of Fruit of Action — indifference towards
the world (vairagya) and enthusiasm for Action ( p. 455 ) —
Universal Welfare (lokasamgraha) and the nature of it — this
is the true resolution of the Realisation of the Brahman
(brahmajnana) — still, this universal welfare must be obtained
according to the arrangement of the four castes and desirelessly
(p. 467) — the path of leading one's life in four stages, which is
described in the Smrti texts — the importance of the state of a
householder (grhastliasrama) — the Bhagavata dootrine — the
original meanings of the word 'Bhagavata' and 'Smarta' — the
Glta supports the Karma-Yoga, that is to say, the Bhagavata
doctrine— the difference between the Karma-Yoga of the Glta
and the Karma-Yoga of the Mlmamsa School — the difference
between Bhagavata Sarhnyasa and Smarta Sarhnyasa— points of
similarity between the two— the ancientness of the Vedie
Karma-Yoga in the Manu-Smrti and of the Bhagavata
doctrine— the meaning of the words used in the Gita to show
the close of a chapter— the wonderfulness of the Gita, and the-
appropriateness of the three parts of the Prasthanatrayl'
(p. 490)— a concise statement in a tabular form showing the
points of difference and similarity between the Sarhnyasa
(Samkhya), and Karma-Yoga (Yoga)— the different ways of
leading one's life— the doctrine of the Gita that Karma-Yoga
is the best of all— hymns (mantra) from the Isavasyopanisad
in support of this proposition— a consideration of the
Samkarabhasya on those hymns— authorities from the Manu
and other Smrtis in support of the fusion of Knowledge and
Aotion - ». ... ... p. 416-509-
DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I kix
CHAPTER XII.
SIDDHAVASTHA AND VYAVAHARA.
( The State of a Perfect, and Worldly Affairs )
The perfect state of society— in this state, everyone is a
Steady-in-Mind (sthitaprajna) — the climax of Morality — the
Sthitaprajna according to Western Philosophy— the state of a
Sthitaprajna, which is beyond laws — the behaviour of the
Kanna-yogin Sthitaprajna is the climax of Morality — the
difference between the Morality of a selfish society, and the
Absolute Ethics in the State of Perfection — the description of the
best of men according to the Dasahodlia— but, the immutability
of Ethical principles is not affected by this difference
{p. 526)— on what basis this difference is observed by the
Sthitaprajna' — the welfare or happiness of society, or the benefit
of all living beings — but Equability of Eeason (samya-bitddhi)
is superior to these external considerations — a comparison of
the doctrine of Equability of Reason with the theory of ' the
greatest good of the greatest number ' — living in the world
with Equability of Reason — philanthropy and one's own
maintenance — Self -Identification ( atmaupamya ) — the compre-
hensiveness, importance, and logical explanation of that
doctrine — ''the universe is the family' ^vasudhaiva-kutumbaham')
>(p. 544)— though one might acquire Equability of Reason, one
cannot give the go-bye to considerations of who is deserving
and who not — absence of enmity ( nirvaim ) does not mean
inactivity, or non-resistance — ' measure for measure ' — the
restraint of evil-doers— the justification of patriotism, clan-
pride etc. — observing the limits of Time and Place, and Self-
defence— the duty of the Jnanin (scient) — universal welfare and
Karma-Yoga— summary of the 'subject— self-interest, other's-
interest, and the highest interest (paramartha) ... p. 510-565
CHAPTER £111.
BHAKTI-MARGA.
(The Path of' Devotion.)
The difficulty of ordinary persons of small intelligence in
Realising the qualityless form of the Brahman— the means of
lxx DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
acquiring Knowledge, Religious Faith (sraddha) and Reason —
both these are mutually dependent — the accomplishment of
practical purposes by Faith— though one may acquire Know-
ledge of the Paramesvara by Faith, that is not enough— in
order to be able to assimilate that Knowledge, it is necessary
to contemplate on the Paramesvara with an intense and
desireless love— this is called DEVOTION— the Contemplation
of the Qualityful Imperceptible, is laborious and difficult of
achievement — therefore, it is necessary to have some definite
object for worship — the Path of Knowledge and the Path of
Devotion lead to the same goal — nevertheless, Devotion cannot-
become a Nistha like Knowledge— the visible form of the
Paramesvara, accessible by love, which is taken for Devotion —
the meaning of the word ' pratilat ' — the meaning of the words
' raja-vidya ' and ' raja-guhya ' — the lovingness in the Gita
(p. 585) — any one of the innumerable manifestations of the
Paramesvara can be taken as a symbol (pratlka) — different-
symbols taken by different people and the resulting confu-
sion — how that can be avoided — the difference between the
symbol (pratlka) and the belief with which one worships the
symbol — whatever the symbol is, the result obtained is
according to one's belief about it — worship of different deities
—but the One who gives the Fruit is the Paramesvara and not .
the deity — whichever deity is worshipped, that becomes an
informal worship of the Paramesvara — the superiority of the
Path of Devotion in the Gita from this point of view — the
purity or impurity of Devotion and Love— improvement takes-
place by gradual degrees, as a result of industry, and perfection
is reached after many births— that man who has neither Faith
nor Reason is lost— whether by Reason or by Devotion, the
knowledge of the same Non-Dual Brahman is obtained (p. 601) —
all the doctrines pertaining to the theory 'of Causality
(karma-vipaka-prakriya) and the Philosophy of the Absolute
Self, also stand good in the Path of Devotion—See, for
instance, the form of the Personal Self {'jiva'), and of the
Paramesvara according to the Gita— nevertheless, there is
Bometimes a verbal difference rn these doctrines— for instance,.
Karma now becomes the same as the Paramesvara— dedication -
to the Brahman (brahmarpana) and dedication to Krsna
DETAILED CONTENTS OF VOLUME I Ixxi
(krsiyurpaya)— but these verbal differences aie not made, if
confusion results— the fusion of Faith and Spiritual Knowledge
in the Glta Religion— there is no room for ' Sariinyasa ' in the
Path of Devotion — there is no conflict between Devoticn
(bhakti) and Action [karma) — devotees of the Blessed Lord
and Universal Welfare — worship of and sacrifice to the
Blessed Lord by one's own Actions only — whereas the Path
of Knowledge is open to the three re-generate classes, the Path
of Devotion is open to women and to SSdras etc.— there is
Release, even if one surrenders oneself to the Paramesvara at
the time of death— the superiority of the Religion of the Gita
over other religions ... ... ... p. 566-618
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Bhagavan Shree Krishna,.. ... ... Frontispiece.
A page from the Author's note-book ... back of do.
Author, Translator, and Publishers ... to face p. iv
Lokamanya Tilak's residence at Poona „ p. v
Publisher's Dedication ... ... „ p. viii
Lokamanya Tilak Mandir ... „ p. xii
Lokamanya Tilak in England ... „ p. xiii
Silver caskets presented to the Author „ p. xiv
Statue of the Author in Poona ... „ p. xv
Profile of the Author ... ... „ p. xxii
The Translator ... ... „ p. xxxviii
Three-coloured portrait of the Author „ p. lxxx
Pictorial Map of Schools of Philosophy „ p. 18
Full text of the Glta .,„ „ p. 618
Irxiz COiiiTESTS OF CROP. 3IT T Z7 & iE?ESi>rCIS
TME2JL&D
Caettnte of chapters XIV and. XV aoi of the Appendices,
which are inchiaW In tie 5so»d Volants
ef tie Book.
CSAPTE5 117.
I Tzh Ccaiinuit j od" tie chipife-rs of its Glte }.
Tsr. Etti'sdi cf pr"jTi.ng E.sTj3,j=ct — sei&ntlsc asecatecisistic
— tbt g'X'i aad bad ssp^s of tie c&tecaistic method — Hia
tegmti^g of ths G-'u — iu- first chapiter — ia toe second
chapto, ts sibj'fect-^: ittoT Etaite with, oaiy two Paths of life,
narnsij, lift HSnJchvi ana the Yoga — the exposition &t Earma-
Yo'ga ir: fe third*, fourth aod fifth chapter — Equability of
P.«a=cn ( yiirvj'i-'swyihi } Is tetKr i.-j,n Karma — it is impossible
to gst rid 'A Karma — Karma-Toga is superior to Simkhyar
I? feiha — the necessity of tie control of all organs 1 in order to
attain Epabfllty of Keason ( mmya-buddM) — the method of
control of the organs mentioned in the sixth, chapter — it is not
proper to divide the Glta into the three parts, Action f /.ami},
Devotion { bhakti ) and Knowledge (jiiam ) — Knowledge and
Devotion are the means, of attaining Equability of Season.
according to the Karma-Yoga — therefore, the Glta cannot be
divided into three six-chaptered parts, one part for 'ham,' one
for 'W and one for 'as' — the exposition of jgana' and 'ryfiayw.'
is given in chapters VII to ZH, for the successful practice of
Karma- Yoga, and not independently — a. summary of chapters
VII to XII— even in these chapters of the Glta, Devotion and
Knowledge haTe not been dealt with, independently, but are
intermingled with each other, and they have been given the
single name 'jfiam-vijnana'— a summary of chapters XIII to
XVII— the summing np in the eighteenth chapter is in support
of Karma- Yoga— therefore, considering the introductory and
final chapters {upakrama-upsamham} according to rules of the
Mimamsa, Karma-Yoga is seen to be the doctrine propounded
by the Glta— the four-fold goal of human life (purusartha)—
'urtha (wealth) and ' Kama ' (Desire) must be consistent with
COMOTTS OF CHAP. XIV, XV & APPENDICES Issiii
'dharrna (Morality) — but Release (moksa) is not in conflict
■with Molality (dharma) — how the Gita came to he explained
away as supporting Renunciation — Is notSamkhya + Desireless
Action = Karma-Yoga, to be found in the Gita ?— nevertheless
Karma-Yoga is the doctrine ultimately expounded— prayer to
'the followers of the Path of Renunoiation.
CHAPTER. XV.
UPASAMHARA.
( Resume or Summary )
Difference between the science of Karma-Yoga and the
formulating of rules of Worldly Morality (acarasantgraha) —
the erroneous idea that Ethics cannot be properly justified by
Vedanta — Gita does that very thing — the Exposition of the
■religion of the Gita solely from the point of view of Ethics-
Reason is superior to Karma — the Naknlopakhyana — similar
theorems in Buddhism and Christianity — comparison of the
doctrine of Equability of Reason in the Gita, with the two
Western doctrines of ' greatest good of the greatest number '
and ' Conscience ' — similarity between Western Metaphysics
and the Exposition in the Gita — the doctrines of Kant and
Green — Vedanta and Ethics — the reason why there are various
codes of Ethics, and differences of opinion about the construc-
tion of the Body and the Cosmos — the important part of the
Metaphysical exposition in the Gita — the harmonising of
Release ( moksa ), Ethics and worldly life — Renunciation
according to Christianity — the Western idea of Action based on
the search for Happiness — comparison of the same with the
•Karma-marga in the Gita— difference between the arrangement
of the four castes and Ethics — the Western Karma-marga is
based on elimination of pain, and the Gita Teligion is based on
■Desirelessness— a short history of the Karma-Yoga in the
Kaliyuga— Jain and Buddhist monks— the Sarhnyasin followers
of Samkaracarya — the Mahomedan rule — the Devotees of the
Blessed Lord, the galaxy of saints, and Ramadasa — the living-
ness of the Gita religion— the fearlessness, immutability, and
equality of the Gita religion— prayer to the Almighty.
taiv CONTENTS OF CHAP. XIV, XV & APPENDICES
APPENDICES.
An External Examination of the Glta.
The Glta has been included in the Mahabharata for a
proper reason and at a proper place, it is not spurious nor
interpolated— PART I : the useful purpose of the GITA and the
MAHABHARATA— the present form of the Glta— the present
form of the Mahabharata— the seven references in the Maha-
bharata to the Glta — similar stanzas and similarity of language
in both — also similarity of meaning — which proves that the
Glta and the Mahabharata were written by the Eaoie author —
PART II : A comparison of the GITA and the UPANISADS—
similarity of language and similarity of meaning — the
Metaphysical Knowledge in the Glta is taken from the-
Upanisads— the theory of Maya (Illusion) in the Upanisads
and in the Glta — What the Glta contains more than the
Upanisads— the consistency between the Samkhya system and-
Vedanta — the worship of the Perceptible or the Path of
Devotion — but the most important subject is the exposition of
the Path of Karma-Yoga — the Yoga mentioned in the Glta for
the control of the organs, the Patanjala Yoga, and the
Upanisads — PART III :— Which, was first in point of time, the
GiTA or the BRAHMA-SUTRAS ?— the clear reference to the
Brahma-Sutras in the Glta — the repeated reference in the
Brahma-Sutras to the Glta. by the word ' Smrti '—a considera-
tion of the relative chronological position of the two books-^-
the Brahma-Sutras are either contemporary with or prior in
point of time to the present Glta., but not- subsequent — one sound
reason for the Brahma-Sutras being referred to in the Glta—
PART IV:— The RISE of the BHAGAVATA DOCTRINE „
and the GITA— the Path of Devotion in the Glta is consistent
■with Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga — it is not that the doctrines
of Vedanta have been subsequently inserted in the Gita-^-
the most ancient form of the Vedic religion is pre-eminently
for Action— the subsequent growth of Vedanta, Samkhya, and
Renunciation— the harmonisation of the two Paths of life had
been arrived at already in^ ancient times — the subsequent
growth of Devotion — the consequent necessity for making:
Devotion consistent, from its very inception, with the former
paths of life— that is the trend of the Bhagavata doctrine, and
CONTENTS OF CHAP. XIV, XV & APPENDICES lxxv
also of the Glta— the combination of Spiritual Knowledge with
Action in the.Glta is from the Upanisads, but there is the addi-
tion of Devotion — the ancient treatises on the Bhagavata doctrine,
the Gita and the Narayaniyopakhyana — the date of Sri Krsna
and of the growth of the Satvata or Bhagavata religion is the
same — that time, is about 700 to 800 years before Buddha, or
about 1500 years before Christ— the reasons for thinking so—
the impossible position arising out of a different conclusion—
the original aspect of the Bhagavata religion supports Inaction—
the next aspect is Devotional — and the final aspect is for
Qualified Monism ( Visistadvaita )— the original Glta is
about 900 years before Christ-PART V:— THE DATE OF
THE PRESENT GlTA— the date of the present Glta is the
same as of the present Mahabharata — out of these, the present
Mahabharata is prior in point of time to Bhasa, Asvaghosa
Asvalayana, Alexander, and the method of starting the year
with the Sun in Aries (Mesa), but subsequent to Buddha;
so it is about 500 years prior to the Saka era — the
present Glta is prior in point of time to Kalidasa,
Banabhatta, the dramatist Bhasa, the Puranas, Baudhayana,
and the Mahayana sect in Buddhism, that is, about 500 years
before the Saka era— PART VI : GtTA and the BUDDHIST
LITERATURE— the similarity betweeD the description of the
' Sthitaprajna ' in the Glta and the ' Arhata ' of Buddhism —
the nature of the Buddhist religion, and its growth out of the
previous Brahmin religion — Buddha has discarded the doctrine
of the Atman in the Upanisads, and has adopted only a course
of conduct consistent with Renunciation (nivrtti) — the visible
reasons for this Path of life according to the Buddhist religion,
or the four arya truths — the similarity between the Vedic Smarta
religion, and the duties of a householder according to
Buddhism— all these ideas are originally from the Vedic
religion — the reason, nevertheless, for considering the Maha-
bharata and the Glta independently — the improbability of the
subsequent Devotional Buddhist religion having been evolved
out of the original Renunciatory Buddhist religion, which
denied the existence of the Atman— the growth of the Maha-
yana Sect— reasons for concluding that the Path of Devotion
based on Action (pravrtti) in the Mahayana creed has been
kxvi CONTENTS OF CHAP. XIV, XV & APPENDICES
adopted from the Gita, and the consequent conclusion as to the
date of the Gita-PART VII :-GlTA and the CHRISTIAN
BIBLE— the improbability of the Gita having adopted any
principle from the Christian religion— the Christian religion
is not a gradual and independent development out of the
Jewish religion— opinions of old Christian scholars as to how
it came into existence— the Esin sect and Greek philosophy—
the astonishing similarity between the Buddhist and Christian
religions— but the priority in point of time of the Buddhist
religion is undoubted — evidence in support of the fact that the
Buddhist monks (yatin) had entered Jewish territory in
ancient times — the high probability, therefore, of the
elementary principles of Christianity having been adopted from
Buddhism, and consequently from the Vedic religion or from
the Gita— the resulting irresistible conclusion as to the
undoubted antiquity of the Gita.
ABBREVIATIONS ksvit
Explanation of the Abbreviations used in the Glta-
Rahasya, and information about the treatises
referred to by the Abbreviations.
NOTE :— These are not in the same order as in the original,,
as they have been re-arranged aooording to the English
Alphabet, whereas in the original, thoy are arranged aooording
to the Marathi Alphabet — Trans,).
Ai. Bra. Aitareya Brahmaita; paficika and khaipja, (Dr. Houda's
Edition).
Ai. or 1 Aitareyopamsad; chapter, khawfa and stanza (Ananda-
Ai. U. J srama Edition ).
Asta. Astavakragita; chapter and stanza, { GltU-Samgmha
published by Messrs Ashtekar & Co. )
Atharva. Atkarvaveda; the figures after this show respectively,
the Mnda, the sukta, and the rcu.
Bhag. Srlmad Bhagavatapurana, (Nirnaya-Sagara Edition).
Bha. Jyo. Bliaratuja Jyotth Sastra ( Written by the lata
Balkrishna Dikshit ).
Br. or "I Brliadaraityakopamsat ; adhymja, brahmiia and inanlm
Brha. J ( Anandasrama Edition ). The usual reference is to thu
Kanvapatha, but in one place, there is a reference to
the Madhyandina-sakha.
Bra. Sfl. See. Ve. Su. below.
Chan. Chandogyopanisat ; chapter, Ichandu and mautrit. (Anan-
dasrama Edition),
Da. or 1 The Dusabodha of Sri Samartha ( Edition of the
Dasa. j Satkaryottejaka Sabha, Dhulia ).
Ga. Tukarama's GatM (Damodar Savlarama'a Edition, 1900).
Gl. Bhagavadgita, chapter and stanza ; Gl. Sam. Bha. ; UUu
Samkarabhasya. Gita. Ea. Bha , Gild. Bamfutitjalihiiayu.
The Anandasrama Edition of the Git.i and of the
Samlcarabhasya contains at the end a glossary, which I
have found very useful ; and I am vary grateful for it
to the compiler. The Ramanujabhamja is the one
printed in the Venkatesvara Press; The Uudhva-
bhaw is the one printed by Krishnaeharya of Kumbha-
konam; The Anandagiri Commentary, and the
Paramtirlha-wapa, are those printed in the Jagadbi-
Ixxviii ABBREVIATIONS
tecchu Press ; the MadhusUdana Commentary is the
one printed in the Native Opinion Press ; the Srldhari
and Vamani (Marathi) Commentaries are those printed
in the Nirnayasagara Press ; the Paisacabhasya is the
one printed in the Anandasrama Press; the Tatvadlpika
of the Vallabha school is the one printed in the Guzarati
Printing Press ; the NilakanthZ is from the Bombay
Mahabharata ; and the Brahmanandi is the one printed
in Madras ; these are the commentaries of which I
have made use. But, as the Guzarati Printing Press'
has recently published together in one volume all
these commentaries except the Paisacablidsya and the
Brahamanandi, as also the commentary of the
Nimbarka School and some other commentaries, in all
fifteen, that one volume is now sufficient for all needs.
C~~\- P r f ^'fu-Ba]iasya. The first essay of this book.
Hari, Harivamsa; parva, chapter and stanza (Bombay Edition).
Isa. Isavasyopanisat. (Anandasrama Edition).
Jai. Sii. The Mimaftisa-Svtras of Jaimini ; chapter, pada, and
sutra. (Calcutta Edition).
Jfia. JMnesvari with translation ; Indira Press Edition.
Ka. or 1 Kathopanisat; valll and mantra (Anandasrama
Katha. J Edition).
Kai. Kaivalyovanisal. ; khanda and mantra ; Twenty-eight
Upanisads (Nirnaya-Sagara Edition).
Eausi. Kausitakyupanisat or Kausltald Brahmaiwpanisat;
chapter and khanda ; sometimes the first chapter of
this Upanisad is referred to as the third chapter
according to the order of the Brahmanas ; (Ananda-
srama Edition).
Kena. Kenopanisat ( = Talavakaropanisat ), khanda and mantra
(Anandasrama Edition).
Ma. Bha. Sriman Mahabharata. The following letter shows the
various Parvas, and the numbers are of the chapters
and the stanzas. I have everywhere used the Sanskrit
Edition published at 'Calcutta by Babu Pratapchandra
Roy. If the same stanzas have to be referred to in
the Bombay edition, they will be found a little in
advance or behind.
ABBREVIATIONS kxis
^laitryu. Mailryupanisat or ikitm/amjupaimt ; prapBthaka and
mantra (Anandasrama Edition),
llanu. Mann-SmTti, chapter and stanza. (Dr. Jolly's Edition ;
but in the Maudalik's or in any other edition, these
stanzas will mostly he found in the same places ; the
commentaries on Mann are from the Maudalik
edition).
Matsya. Matst/a-Purrum (Anandasrama Edition).
Ml. Pra. Mitinda Prasna, Pali text, English trail.Oation.
(Sacred Books of the East Series).
Mun. or \ Mitudakopanisat; muiulahi, khawla mid mantra
Munda. J ( Anandasrama Edition ).
2to. Pan. Xdrada Pailoaratm. (Calcutta edition).
Wa. Su. NCtrada-SUtras (Bombay edition).
Nrsimha. U. Nrsimhottam tapan'mopanisat.
Pafica. Pancadasi with commentary (Nimaya-Sagara Edition).
Patanjala-Su. Putaiijala-Yoga-FlTtfras. (Tnkarama Tatya's
Edition).
Prasna. Prasnopanisat ; prahire and mantra. (AnandiWiumi
Edition),
Bg. Hg-veda ; mandala, sTikla, and rca.
Ramapu. RamapUrvatapinyupanimt (Anandasrama Edition),
S. B. E. Saert'd Books of this Uaxl timi's.
Sam. Ka. Samkhya Kiirikti (Tukaramu Talya'n Kdilioii).
San. Su. Sandilya-X films (Bombay Edition).
Siva. S'iva-tjita ; chapter and stanza; (Tilii-Xai'iiijraiia of
Messrs Ashtekar & Co.,
Surya. Gl. SUrya-Oild ; chapter and sfair/a, (Madras Rdition).
Sve. Rmlasmrfaropaidsal; chapter add mtmlrti (Anandasninia
Edition).
Tai. or \ Taittiriya Upan,iy.d ; valli, anuatlai, and mantra
Tai. U. J (Anandasrama Edition).
Tai. Bra. Taittiriya BrUli.rnaya ; kanila, prapathnka, annuahi
and mantra (Anandasrama Kdition).
Tai. Sarh. Taittiriya Hamhila ; kilvdn, praputlmka, amnika and
mantra.
Tuka. Ga. Tukarama'e CJUtlui ; See Ga. above.
Vaja. Sam. Vdjammeyi ftxinhitti ; chapter and vi intra (Beliitr
Edition).
Iks ABBREVIATIONS
Valmiki Ra. orl Valmiki Ramayana; kanda, chapter and)
Va. Ra. J stanza (Bombay Edition).
Ve. Su, Vedarita-Sutras or Brahma-Sutras ; chapter, pada, and*
sutra.
Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. &amlearabliasya on the Vedania-Siitras ; the--
Anandasrama Edition has been used everywhere.
Visnu. Visnu-Puraya ; amsa, chapter, and stanza (Bombay
Edition).
Yajna. YajHavalkya-Smrti ; chapter and stanza (Bombay
Edition) ; I have in one or two places referred to the-
Apararlca commentary (Bombay Edition) on this.
Yo. orl Yoga-Vusistha ; chapter, sarga, and stanza. There-
Yoga, J are two sub-divisions, Pu. (purvdrdha) and
U. ( uttarardln ) of the sixth chapter (Commentated'
Nirnaya-Sagara Edition).;
NOTE :— Besides these, there are many Sanskrit, English,.
Marathi, and Pali treatises, which have been mentioned in.
various places ; but as a general rule, the names of those books-
have been given in full, wherever they occur, or they have-
been mentioned in such a way as to be easily intelligible ;
and they have, therefore, not been mentioned in the above list-
5K1 OANfcSAYA NAMAH
OM TAT SAT
S'RIMAD BHAGAVADGITA RAHASYA.
OR
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ENERGISM
(PROPER ACTION)
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
Narayavam mniaskrtya naram cairn narottamam 1
devim Sarasuatirn Vyasam tato jayam udiraijet II *
Mahabharata (opening ver.se)
The S'limad Bhagavadglta is one of the most brilliant
and pure gems of our ancient sacred books. It would be
difficult to find a simpler work in Sanskrit literature or even
in all the literature of the world than the G-Ita, which explains
to us in an unambiguous and succint manner the deep and
sacred principles of the sacred science of the SELF (Atman),
after imparting to us the knowledge of the human body and
the cosmos, and on the authority of those principles acquaints
every human being with the most perfect and complete
condition of the Self, that is to say, with what the highest-
manhood is, and which further establishes a logical and
admirable harmony between Devotion (bhakli) and Spiritual
Knowledge (jfiana), and ultimately between both these and the
duties of ordinary life enjoined by the S'Uslras, thereby inspiring
the mind, bewildered by the vicissitudes of life to calmly and,
what is more, desirelessly adhere to the path of duty. Even
* This verse means that one should first offer obeisance to
Narayarja, to Nara, the most excellent among men, to Devf
Sarasvati, and to Vyasa and then begin to recite the "Jaya", 'tat is,
the Mahabharata. The two Rsis Nara and Narayaea were the two
1-2
GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
if one examines the work looking upon it as a poem, this work,
which simplifies to every reader, young or old, the numerous
abstruse doctrines of Self-Knowledge in inspired language and
is replete with the sweetness of Devotion plus Self-Realisation,
will certainly he looked upon as an excellent poem. The
pre-eminent worth, therefore, of a book which contains the
quintessence of Vedic religion, uttered by the voice of the
Blessed Lord can best only be imagined. It is stated at the
commencement of the Anuglta, that after the Bharata war
was over, and S'ri Krsna and Arjuna were one day chatting
together, Arjuna conceiving the desire of hearing the Glta. again
from the lips of the Blessed Lord, said to Sri Kraiia : — " I have
forgotten the advice you gave me when the war commenced ;
so, please repeat it to me. " In reply the Blessed Lord said to
him that even He could not repeat that advice in the same
way, because on the previous occasion the advice had been
given, when His mind was in the highest Yogic state (Ma. Bh.5.
As'vamedha. 16, stanzas 10-13). Really speaking, nothing
was impossible for the Blessed Lord, but His answer that it
would be impossible for Him to repeat the Glta, clearly
reveals the excellent worth of the Glta. The fact that the Gits
is considered by all the different traditionary schools of the
Vedic religion for over twenty-five centuries to be as venerable
and authoritative as the Vedas themselves is due to the same
components into which the Paramatman had broken itself up Bad
Arjuna and Sri Krsaa were their later incarnations, as has been
stated in the Mahabharata (Ma, Bha. U. 48. 7-9 and 20-22; and
Vana. 12. 44-46). As these two Bsis were the promulgators of the
NarayaDiya or the Bhagavata religion, consisting of Desireless
Action, they are first worshipped in all the treatises on the
Bhagavata religion. In some readings, the word 'cairn' is used
instead of 'Vyasa' as in this verse, but I do not think that is
correct; because, although Nara and Narayapa were the promulgators
of the Bhagavata, religion, yet I think it only proper that Vyasa,
who wrote both the Bharata and the Glta, which are the two principal
works relating to this religion,' should also be worshipped in the
beginning of the book. "Jaya" U the ancient name for the
Mahabharata.
INTRODUCTORY
cause ; and on the same account, this work, which ie as old
as the Smrtis, has been appropriately, though figuratively
described in the Gita-dhyana as follows ;—
sarvopanisado yavo dogdha Gopulanandwiah I
Partho mtsah sudhir bhokta ducjdham Gltamrtafh muhat II
that is :— " All the Upanisads are, so to say, cows, the Blessed
Lord Sri Krsna is Himself the drawer of the milk (milk-man),
the intelligent Arjuna is the drinker, the calf (which causes
the flow of the milk in the cows), and (when these unpreceden-
ted circumstances have come about) the milk which has
been drawn, is the Gita-nectai of the highest order. " It
cannot, therefore, be a matter of surprise that any number of
translations, commentaries, or expositions of this work have
appeared in all the vernacular languages of India ; but, after
the Westerners have got acquainted with Sanskrit, there have
been made any number of translations of the Gita into Greek,
Latin, German, French, English etc., and this wonderful work
has now come to be known throughout the world.
Not only does this work contain the quintessence of all the
Upanisads, but the full name of this work is "Srlmad Bhagavad-
glfca Upanisat ". The enunciative words, convoying that the
chapter is closed, which are ussd at the end of each chapter of
the Gita contain the words "iti srlmad Bhagavadgitasu-
Upanisatsu Bralimaadyayavi. yogasastre 8ri-KriRiarju.nasaiiiixide"
etc. i.e., " thus the conversation between Sri-Krsna and Arjuna
on the Karma-yoga science, (that is to say, on the science of
the yoga based on the knowledge of the Brahman) in the
Upanisad sung by the Blessed Lord. " Although these
enunciative words are not to be found in the original Bharataj
yet as we find them in all the editions of the Gita, one may
draw the inference that, that mode of enunciation must have
come into vogue, when the Gita was for the first time separated
from the Mahabharata for daily recital, that is to^ say, before
any commentary was written on it ; and I shall explain later
on the importance of these words in determining the import
of the Gita from this point of view. For the present, it is
necessary for us to consider only the words " Bhagavadgitasu
Upanimtsu. " Although the word " Upanisat " is of the neuter
GITA-BAHASYA OR KARMA-TOGA
gender in the Marathi language, yet as it is of the feminine
gender in Sanskrit, so the idea " the Upanisad sung, that is,
told by the Blessed Lord " is conveyed, in Sanskrit, by the
expression " Srimad Bhagavadglta Upanisat ", a compound
of an adjective and a noun in the feminine gender ; and
although the work is singular in number, yet as it has become
customary to refer to it in the plural number by way of respect,
one comes across the plural seventh-case-ended form of
" S'rimad Bhagavaclgitasii,panisatsu". Even in the commentary
(bhasya) written by S'arhkaTacaTya, we come across the
expression " iti gitasu ' ' in the plural number with reference
to this work. But in contracting the expression, the affixes
or words used for indicating respect and also the common-
noun " Upanisat " at the end, indicative of a class, being
dropped, the two first-case-ended singular words " S'rimad
Bhagavadglta " and " Upanisat " have at first been changed
into " Bliagavadgita " and later on merely " Gita ", which is a
feminine and extensively contracted form,— as has been the
case with the names Kena, Katha, Ghandogya etc., If the word
" Upanisat " had not occurred in the original name, then the
name of this work would have been contracted into the neuter
form " Bhagavadgitarh " or merely " Gltam " as has been the
case with " Bhagavatarh " or " Bharatarh " or " Goplgltarh ", but
as, instead of that, the word has remained in the feminine form
as " Bhagavadglta, " or " Gita, " we must always take the word
" Upanisat " as implied after it. The word " Anuglta " has
been interpreted in the same way in the commentary of
Arjunamisra on the Anuglta.
But we find that the word " Gita " is applied not only to
the Bhagavadglta of 700 verses but also in an ordinary meaning
to many other works dealing with Spiritual Knowledge. For
instance, in certain sundry chapters of the Moksaparva
included in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, we find that
the names Pihgalagita, Sarhpakaglta, Mankiglta, Bodhyaglta^
Vicakkhyuglta, Haritaglta, Vrtragita, Parasaragita, and"
Harhsagita have been used and one part of the Anuglta in the
Asvamedhaparva has been called by the separate and special
name of " Brahrnanaglta ". Besides these, there are also-
numerous other gltas which are well-known, such as the-
INTRODUCTORY 5
AvadhQtagita, Astavakragita, Isvaragita, Uttaragita, Kapilaglta,
Ganesaglta, Devlgita, Pandavaglta, Brahmaglta Bhiksugita,
Yamaglta, Ramagita, Vyasagita, Sivaglta, Sutaglta, Siiryaglta,
etc. Some of these exist independently, whereas the others are
to be found in different Puranas. For instance, the Ganesagita,
is to be found at the end of the Ganesapurana in the Krida-
khanda in the 138th to 148th chapters and one may say that it
is a faithful copy of the Bhagavadgita, with slight verbal
differences. The Isvaragita is to be found in the first eleven
chapters in the Uttaravibhaga of the Kurmapurana, and the
Vyasagita starts in the next chapter. The Brahmaglta is to be
found in the first twelve chapters of the latter portion of the
fourth i. e., the Yajna-vaibhava kharida of the Suta-Samhita
included in the Skandapurana and the Sutaglta is in the
subsequent eight chapters. There is to be found a Brahmaglta
different from this Brahmaglta of the Skandapurana, in the
173rd to 181st stanzas of the latter half of the chapter on
" Nirvana ", in the Yogavasistha. The Yamaglta is of three
kinds. The first is to be found in the seventh chapter of the
3rd part ( arhsa ) of the Yisnupurana, the second one in the
381st chapter of the 3rd division ( khanda ) of the Agnipurana
and the third one in the 8th chapter of Nrsimnapurana. The
same is the case with the Ramaglta. The Ramagita which is
in common acceptance in this part of the country is to be found
in the fifth sarga of the Uttarakanda of the Adhyatma
Ramayapa and this Adhyatma Ramayana is looked upon as a
part of the Brahmandapuraiia. But there is also another
Ramaglta to be found in the work known as " Gurujnana-
vasistha-tafctvasarayana " which is well-known on the Madras
side. This book deals with Vedanta philosophy and is divided
into three divisions ( ka-nd/ts ) called the Jnana, Upasana, and
Karma. In the first eighteen chapters of the second part {padaj
called the Upasanakanda, we find the Ramagita and in the first
five chapters of the third part ( pada ) of the third kanda, called
the Karmakanda, we find the Suryagita. The Sivaglta is said
to be in the Patalakhanda of the Padmapurana. But, in the
edition of this purana which .has been printed in the
Anandashrama Press in Poona, we do not find the Sivaglta.
Pandit Jwalaprasad has stated in his book called Astadasa-
GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
puranadarsana ( Survey of the eighteen Puranas ) that it is to
be found in the Gaudiya Padmottarapurana, and in the table
of contents of the Padmapurana which is given along with
those of other Puranas in the Naradapurana, we find a
reference to the Sivaglta. Besides these, the Hamsaglta is to
be found in the 13th chapter of the 11th skandha of the Srf
BhSgavatpurana and the Bhiksuglta is to he found in the 23rd
chapter of the same skandlm, ; and the Kapileyopakhyana
contained in the chapters 23 to 33 of the third skandha, is also
known as Kapilagita. But I have seen an independent printed
book by the name Kapilagita. This Kapilagita deals principally
with the Hathayoga, and one finds it stated in it that it has
been taken from the Padmapurana ; however, not only do we
not find it in the Padmapurana, but as we find in it in one
place (4. 7) such words as " Jaina " " Jangama " (lingaita), and
"Sophi" (a Mahomedan saint), we have.to say that it must hare
been written after the Mahomedan rule commenced. As in
the BhSgavatpurana, so also in the Devlbhagavata, we find a
Glta from the 31sfc to the 40th chapters of the seventh skandha,
and as that glta is supposed to have come out of the mouth of
the Devi, it is called the " Deviglta ". Besides {these, a
summary of the Bhagavadgita itself is to be found inj the 380th
chapter of the third khanda, of the Agnipurana as also in the
247th chapter of the purmkluinda of the Garudapurana. In
the same way, although it is stated that the work " Yogava-
^ sistha " was recited by Vasistha to Raroa in the Rama
incarnation, yet we find a summary of the Bhagavadgita t
which was preached to Arjuua by the Blessed Lord in the
subsequent Krsna incarnation, reproduced in the last, that is r
in the Nirvana chapter, in which many verses are taken as
they are from Bhagavadgita, and it is given the name
"Arjunopakhyana"(Gf. Yoga. 6, Pu. Sarga. 52-58). I have
stated above that the Sivaglta is not to be found in the
Padmapurana printed at Poona, but though that is so, yet a
Bhagavadglta-mahStmya is described from the 171st to the
188th chapters of the Uttarakhanda of this edition (of the
Padmapurana), and one chapter of this mahalmya is dedicated
to each chapter of the Bhagavadgita and it also contains
traditionary stories about the same. There is besides one
INTRODUCTORY
Gita-mahatmya in the Varahapurana and it is said that there is
also a third Gita-mahatmya in the Saiva or Vayupurana. But
I do not come across it in the Vayupurana printed in Calcutta*
A small chapter of nine verses called " Gita-dhyana " is to be
found printed in the beginning of the printed editions of the
Bhagavadglta, but I cannot say from where it has been taken.
Nevertheless, the verse " Bhismadroiia-tata Jayadratha-jala "
(from these nine verses) is to be found, with slight verbal
differences, at the very commencement of the recently
published drama of Bhasa called " Urubhanga ". There-
fore, it would seem that this Gita-dhyana must have come
into vogue probably after the date of the dramatist Bhasa.
Because, it would be more proper to say that the Gita-dhyana
has been prepared by borrowing different verses from different
texts and writing some new verses, rather than to say that a
well-known dramatist like Bhasa has taken that verse from the
Gita-dhyana. As the dramatist Bhasa lived before Kalidasa*
his date cannot at most be later than Saka 300. *
From what has been stated above, one can understand
which and how many copies, and good or bad imitations;
summaries and mahuhnijas of the Gita are to be found in the
puranas. One cannot definitely say to what puranas some
gitas like the Avadhutagita, the AstSvakraglta, etc., belong,
and if they do not form part of any puranas, then by whom
and when they were independently written. Yet, if one
considers the arrangement or the disposition of subject matters,
in all these gitas, one will see that all these works musC
have been written after the Bhagavadglta had come into,
prominence and acquired general acceptance. Nay, one may
even go further and say that these various gitas have been,
brought into existence with the idea that the sacred literature
of a particular sect or a purana does not become- complete
unless it contains a gita similar to the Bhagavadglta. As in
the Bhagavadglta, the Blessed Lord first showed to Arjuna his.
Cosmic Form and then preached to him the Divine Knowledge,
* Moat of the above-mentioned Gitas and also several other
Gitas (including the Bhagavadglta) have been printei by Mr. Uari
Raghunath Bhagwat.
GITA-RAHASYA ok KARMA-YOGA
-so also is the case with the S'ivaglta and Devigita, or the
-Ganes'agita; and in the S'ivagita, Is'varagitS, etc., we find
•many verses taken literally from the Bhagavadglta.
Considering the matter .from the point of view of Spiritual
Knowledge, these various gitas do not contain anything more
than the Bhagavadglta; but, what is more, the wonderful
skill of establishing a harmony between the Realisation
.of the Highest Self (adhyatma) and Action (karma) which
is seen in the Bhagavadglta, is not to be found in any-
one of these gitas. Somebody has subsequently written the
Uttaragita as a supplement to the Bhagavadglta in the form of
a conversation between Krsna and Arjuna, in the belief that
the Patafrjala-yoga or the Hatha-yoga or the Philosophy of
Renunciation (sammjusa) by Abandonment of Action (karma)
has not been sufficiently well described in the Bhagavadglta,
and the Avadhuta, the Astavakra and some other gitas are
■purely one-sided, that is to say, they are only in support of the
;path of Renunciation ; and the Yamagita, Pacdavaglta, and
■some other gitas are very small and purely devotional, like
•eulogistic hymns. It is true that the same is not the case
'with the Sivaglta, the Ganes'agita and the Suryaglta and they
■contain a skilful harmonising of Action and Spiritual
Knowledge ; yet, as that exposition in them has been more or
less adopted from the Bhagavadglta there is no novelty about
them. Therefore, these pauranic stale gitas which have come
into existence later on, fall into the shade before the profound
and comprehensive brilliance of the Bhagavadglta and the
excellence of the Bhagavadglta has been all the more established
■and enhanced by these imitation gitas ; and the word " gita "
has come to mean Bhagavadglta principally. Although the
■works Adhyatma Ramayana and Yogavasistha are more
exhaustive, yet from their construction, they are evidently of
a later date. The (Jurujnanavasistha-tafctvasarayana of the
Madras Presidency is a very ancient work according to some,
but I am not of that opinion, because it contains a reference
to 108 Upanisads and it cannot be said that all of them are
ancient ; and if one considers the Suryaglta, we find in it a
reference (see 3. 30) to Qualified-Monism (visistadvaita), and in
some places the arguments too seem to have been adopted from
INTRODUCTORY
the Bhagavadglta (1. 68), and therefore, one has to come to the
■conclusion that even this work was written much later on,
possibly even after the date of S'ri S'amkaracarya.
Although there were many gltas, yet inasmuch as the
Bhagavadglta was of unquestionable excellence, as shown
above, later philosophers, following the Vedic cult, thought it
proper not to take much notice of the other gltas and to
examine only the Bhagavadglta and explain its import to their
■co-religionists. The examination of a work is of two kinds ;
there is the internal examination and the external examination.
If one considers the book as a whole and extracts the inner
meaning, the import, the implied meaning, or conclusions
Bought to be proved by it, that is called the " internal
examination ". Considering where a particular work was
written, who wrote it, what kind of language is used in it, to
what extent good sense or sweetness of sound are to be found in
it from the poetical point of view, whether the diction of it is
grammatically correct, or it contains any old archaic
•constructions, what opinions, places or personages are mentioned
in it, and whether or not such references enable you to
determine the date of the work or the social conditions availing
at the time when the work was written, whether the ideas in
the book are original or are borrowed from some one else, and
if borrowed, then which they are, and from whom they are
borrowed, etc. — which is an exposition of the purely external
aspects of the book, — is called the " external examination " of
the work. Those ancient commentators who have written
-commentaries ( bhusya ) or criticisms ( tlka ) on the Glta have
not given much attention to these external aspects. Because,
-considering these matters, while examining a supernatural
work like the Bhagavadglta, would, in their opinion, be like
wasting time in merely counting the petals of an excellent
flower, instead of admiring its scent, colour or beauty or in
-criticising the combs of a honey-comb full of honey ; but
■ following the example of Western critics, modern scholars are
now devoting much attention to the external examination of
*the Glta. One of these has counted the archaic constructions
in the Gifca and come to the conclusion that this work must
have been written at least a few centuries before the birth of
10 GITA-RAHA.SYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Christ ; and that, the doubt that the path of Devotion described,
in the Gita may have been adopted from the Christian religion
( which was promulgated at a later date ) is absolutely without
foundation. Another scholar has taken it for granted that the
atheistic opinions which have been mentioned in the 16th
chapter of the Gita, must, most probably, be Buddhistic, and
come to the conclusion that the Gita must have come into-
existence after the date of Buddha. Another scholar says that
as in the verse " brahmasuira padais-caiva " in the 13th chapter,
the Brahma-Sutras have been mentioned, the Gita must have
been written after the date of Brahma-Sutras; on the other-
hand, several others say that as the Gita has undoubtedly been
taken as an authority in some places at least in the Brahma--
Sutras, one cannot imagine that the Gita was later than the
Brahma-Sutras. Still other scholars say that there could have
been no time for Sri Krsna to recite the Bhagavadgita of 700
stanzas to Arjuna on the battle-field during the Bharata war.
In the hurry and scurry of the war, the most that Sri Krsna .
could have told Arjuna would be about 40 or 50 very important
and crucial verses or the import of them and that the
expansion of these verses must have been made later on
when the story of the war was recited by Sarhjaya to
Dhrtarastra or by Vyasa to Suka or by Vaisampayana to
Janamejaya, or by Suta to Saunaka, or at least when the
original Bharata was expanded by some one into the
' Mahabharata '. When such an idea has taken root in the
mind regarding the construction of the Gita, scholars have
taken to diving into the ocean of the Gita and some scholars
have declared seven * and others twenty-eight or thirty-six or
one hundred verses to be the original verses of the Gita 1 Some
* At present, there is one Gita which consists only of seven
verseB, namely, the following : — (1) "Om ilyeialsaraih Brahma
etc." (Gi. 8. 13); (2) " sthune ffrfikesa tava prakirtya etc." (GI. 11. 36)
(3) "sarvatah pmipudam tat" etc, (Gi. 13. 13); (i) kavim purmam-
amiaiitciram" etc. (GI. 8. 9). (5) "urdhva mulamadhah sakham" etc.
(Gi. 15. 11); (6) " sarvasya caham hrdi sammvifto etc." (Gi. 15. 15);
(7) ''manmam bhava madbhakto -etc" (GI. 18. 65); and there are
various other abbreviated editions of the Gita based on the^
same sample.
INTRODUCTORY 11
have even gone to the length of saying that there was no-
occasion whatsoever for explaining to Arjuna the philosophy
of the Brahman on the battle-field and that this excellent
treatise on the Vedanta philosophy has been interpolated by
some one later on into the Mahabharata. It is not that these
questions of external examination are totally useless. For
instance, let us take the illustration of the petals of the flower or
of the honey-comb which was mentioned above. In classifying
vegetables, it is very necessary to consider the petals of their
flowers ; and it has now been proved mathematically that there
are to be found combs for storage of honey in a honeycombi
which are made with the idea of economising as far as possible
the quantity of wax and thereby reducing as far as possible
the surface area of the external envelopes or combs without in
any way reducing the cubic contents of the comb in weight of
honey, and that thereby the inherent skill and intelligence of
the bees can be proved. Therefore, taking into account these
uses of such examination, I too have in the appendix at the end
of this book, considered some important points arising in the
external examination of the Gita. But those who want to
understand the esoteric import of any book, should not waste
time in these external examinations. In order to show the
difference between those who understand the hidden message of
VakdevI and those who formally worship her, the poet Murari
has given a very excellent illustration. He says : —
abdhir kwghita eoa vauarabliutaih Mm I aisijn
gatiibhimlam I
apatrUanimagnapivanitantir-jaiiati mantlulnilah II
If one wants to know of the immense depth of the ocaan,
whom should he ask of it V It is true that on the occasion of
the war between Rama and Ravaua, powerful and agile monkey
warriors crossed the ocean without difficulty and reached
Ceylon (Lanka); but how could these poor fellows have gained
any knowledge of the immense depth of the ocean ? The only
one who can know truly of this depth is the great Mandaracala
(Mandara mountain) rooted in paljala, which was placed by the
gods at the bottom of the ocean, in order to make of it a
"mantha" or churner at the time of the churning of the ocean.
n gita-kahasya or karma-yoga
According to this logic of the poet Murari, we must now take
into account only the words of those scholaTS and learned
pereonB who have churned the ocean of the Gita in order to
■draw out its moral. The foremost of these writers is the writer
of the Mahabharata. One may even say that he is in a way
the author of the present-day Gita. I will, therefore, in the
first place shortly explain what is the moral involved in the
Gita according to the writer of the Mahabharata.
From the fact that the Gita is called " Bhagavadgita " or
" the Upanisad sung by the Blessed Lord " one sees that the
"advice given in the Gita to Arjuna is principally of the
Bhagavata religion, that is to say, of the religion promulgated
by the Bhagavan, because, Sri Krsna is known by the name
" Sri Bhagavan " usually in the Bhagavata religion. It is
stated in the commencement of the fourth chapter of the
-Gita (4. 1-3) that this religion was nothing new, but was
something which had been preached by the Bhagavan to
Vivasvan and by Vivasvan to Manu and by Mann to Iksvaku.
And in the exposition of the Narayaniya or Bhagavata religion
at the end of the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, after the
tradition of the Bhagavata religion in the various incarnations
of Brahmadeva, that is, during the various kalpas has been
described, it is stated in the description of the Tretayuga out of
the present life of Brahmadeva, that : —
Tretayuaadau, ca tato Yivauvn Manave dadau I
Manns' ca lohubhrlijarthafn sutayekwakave dadau I
Iksmkund cu kathito vyupya lokvnawsthitah II
(Ma. Bha. San. 348. 51-52).
i.e., "the Bhagavata religion has been traditionally handed down
by Vivasvan to Manu and by Manu to Iksvaku ". These two
■traditions are consistent with each other (see my commentary
on Gi. 4. 1). And in as much as the traditions of two different
religions cannot be the same, one comes to the necessary
conclusion, on seeing this unity of traditions, that the Gita
religion and Bhagavata religion must be one and the same.
But this matter does not depend on inference alone. Because,
in the exposition of the Narayaniya or Bhagavata religion
which is to be found in the Mahabharata itself, Vais'arhpayana
INTRODUCTORY 13
has described the summary of the G-ita to Janamejaya in the
following words ;-
e mm esa mahun dharmah sa te purmm nrpottama I
hithito HarigUami sainasauidhikalpitah U
(Ma. Bha. San. 346. 10).
that is ; "Oh excellent king, Janamejaya ! this magnificent
Bhagavata religion together with its ritual was described by
me to you concisely on a former occasion namely, in the
Harigita, that is, in the Bhagavadglta. ' ' And in the second
foilowing chapter, it is clearly stated that this exposition of
the Marayanlya religion :-
samupodhesmnlkem Kumpandavaijor mrdlie I
Arjune vimanaske ca glta Bhagavata svayam II
(Ma. Bha. San. 348. 8).
that is ; " was made by the Blessed Lord when during the
fight between the Kauravas ar.d the Pandavas both the armies
had become ready for war and Arjuna had become dejected
i.e. 'mnumski.' " From this it follows beyond doubt that
the word " Harigita " in this place means the Bhagavadglta
and nothing else. Thus, the preceptorial tradition of these
two religions is the same. This " Bhagavata " or " Narayaniya "
religion which has been twice mentioned in the G-ita as being
the subject matter of exposition, has the other names of
" Satvata " or " Ekantika " religion, and where that religion
is being expounded in the Mahsbharata, its two-fold quality
is described thus :-
Ntirayauaparo dharmah punara urttidurlabhdh I
pravHtilaksams caiva dharmci Naivi/ayatmatoh II
(Ma. Bha. San. 347. 80-81)
that is ; " this Narayaniya religion is such as'obviates re-birth
(pumr-janma) i. e. gives complete Release (moksa) and is also
Energistic ( pravrttipara)" and then it is clearly explained how
this religion is Energistic.
The word " Energism " (praurtii) is understood in popular
acceptance as meaning, performing desirelessly the duties
which pertain to one's status" in life, according to Hie
arrangement of the four castes, without taking up Asceticism
{saHimjasa). It, therefore, follows that the senium given J«
14 GfTA-EAHASYA OB KAKMA-YOGA
the Gita to Arjuna is of the Bhagavata religion and, in as
much as that religion is Energistic, it also follows that the
-writer of the Mahabharata looked upon that advice also as
Energistic. Nevertheless, it is not that the Gita. contains only
the Energistic Bhagavata religion. Vais'ampayana has further
said to Janamejaya :
yatlnam capi yo dharmah m te purmm nrpottama I
kathito Harigilasu samasavidhikalpitah II
(Ma. Bha. S'an. 348. 53).
that is : — " this Bhagavata religion and side hy side with it
( capi I the renunciatory religion of ascetics (samnyasi) together
with the relative ritual has, excellent King, been explained
hy me to you before in the Bhagavadgita ". Still, although
the renunciatory religion has in this way been mentioned in
the Glta side hy side with the energistic religion of Action,
yet the tradition of the Glta religion of Manu, Iksvaku etc.
which has been mentioned in the Gita does not at all apply
to the renunciatory religion ; it is consistent only with the
tradition of the Bhagavata leligion. It, therefore, follows
Irom the statements referred to above that according to the
writeT of the Mahabharata, the advice which has been given to
Arjuna in the Glta relates principally to the Energistic Bhaga-
vata religion traditionally handed down from Manu to Iksvaku
etc., and that it contains a'reference to the renunciatory path of
ascetics only as a side reference. That this progressive or Ener-
gistic Naray amy a religion in the Mahabharata and theBhagavata
religion of the Bhagavata-Purana are fundamentally one and
the same, will he seen to be quite clear from the statements
made by Prthu, Priyavrata, Prahlada and other devotees of the
Blessed Lord or from the other descriptions of the path of
Desireless Action which are to be found elsewhere in the
Bhagavata ( Bhagavata. 4. 22. 51-52 ; 7. 10. 23 and 11. 4. 6 ).
But the true purpose of the Bhagavata-Purana is not to justify
the Energistic principles in favour of Action contained in
Bhagavata religion. This justification is to be found in the
Mahabharata or principally in the Gita. But, it is stated in
the earlier chapters of the Bhagavata, that while justifying
■these principles, Sri Vyasa forgot to define the moral value of
INTRODUCTORY 15
the devotional aspect of the Bhagavata religion, and as
Desireless Action ( miskarmya ) by itself is useless without
Devotion ( Bhagavata. 1. 5. 12 ), the Bhagavata-Purana had to
be subsequently written to make up for this deficit. From this,
the real import of the Bhagavata-Purana becomes quite clear ;'
and on that account, the Euergistic aspect of the Bhagavata
religion has not been as forcefully emphasised in the Bhagavata
as the devotional aspect of devotion to the Blessed Lord, which
has been explained by the recitation of numerous stories. Nay,
the writer of the Bhagavata says that all yoga of Energism
( Karma-Yoga ) is useless in the absence of Devotion ( Bhag
1. 5. 34 ). Therefore, the Bhagavata-Purana which lays stress
on Devotion is not — although it relates to the Bhagavata
religion — as useful for determining the moral laid down in the
Glta, as the Narayamya Upakhyana of the Bharata itself which
contains the Glta ; and if the Bhagvata-Purana is made use of
for that purpose, then one must do so, bearing clearly in mind,
that both the object and the time of the Bharata and the
Bhagavata are quite different. The various questions as to
-what were the original forms of the renunciatory religion of
monks and of the Energistic Bhagavata religion, what the
reasons were for this difference, in what respects the form of
ithe original Bhagavata religion has changed in present times
■etc. will be considered later on in detail.
I have so far dealt with what the moral of the Glta is
according to the writer of the Mahabharata himself. Let us
now see what the purport of the Glta is according to those
persons who have written commentaries [bhasya) and criticisms
on the Glta. Among these commentaries and criticisms, the
bhasya on the Glta, of Sri Sarhkaracarya is considered to be the
most ancient. But there is no doubt that there had been
numerous other commentaries or criticisms on the Glta before
that date. These commentaries, however, are not now available
and therefore, there are now no means for determining in what
way the Glta was interpreted in the interval between the date of
the Mahabharata and the birth of Sarhkaracarya. Nevertheless, -
it is quite clear from the references to the opinions of these
earlier critics which are to be found in the Samkarabhasya
itself ( Gl. Sam. Bha. Introductions to Chap. 1 and 3 ) that the
16 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
commentators who had come before Samkaracarya had placed,
an Energistic interpretation on the Gita, as combining Actiotu
with Spiritual Realisation, that is to say, to the effect that
every man who had acquired spiritual knowledge had never-
theless to continue performing the duties pertaining to his-
particular status in life so long as he lived— as had been done
by the writer of the Mahabharata. But as this doctrine of the
Vedic Karma-Yoga was not palatable to Samkaracarya, he has-
in the commencement of the Bhasya, in the introduction, clearly
stated that he had written the Bhasya with the sole intention,
of refuting that opinion and of explaining what the esoteric
moral of the Gita was according to himself. As a matter of
fact, this is exactly what the word " bhasya " means. The two*
words "' commentary " ( bhasya ) and " criticism " ( t'ika, ) are, it
is true, often used as being synonymous. But ordinarily
" tlka " means explaining the plain meaning of the original
work and making the understanding of the words in it easy ;
but the writer of the "bhasya" does not remain satisfied with
that ; he critically and logically examines the entire work and:
explains what its purport is according to his opinion and how
that work has to be interpreted consistently with that purport.
That is the nature of the Samkarabhasya on the Gita. But th&
different way in which the Acarya has interpreted the moral of
the Gita requires the previous history to be shortly mentioned
before one understands the underlying reason for it, The
Vedic religion was not purely ritualistic (tanfrilca) and the
TJpanisads had minutely considered even in very ancient times,
the deep underlying import of it. But as these Upanisads have
been written by different rsis at different times, they contain
various kinds of thought and some of them are apparently
mutually contradictory. Badarayanacarya has reconciled
these inconsistencies and he has in his Brahma-Sutras
harmonised all the Upanisads ; and on that account, the
Vedanta-Sutras are considered to he as authoritative on this
matter as the Upanisads themselves. These Vedanta-Sutras
are also known by the other names of " Brahma-Sutras " or
" Sariraka-Sutras ". Yet the consideration of the philosophy of
the Vedic religion does not end here. Because, as the spiritual
knowledge in the Upanisads is primarily ascetical, that i=>
INTRODUCTORY ' IE"
renunciatory, and as the Vedanta-Sutras fcaire beam wrattiasc
only with the intention of harmonising the Upaoisatk, ™« iw&
nowhere even in the Upanisads any detailed sad fegial
exposition of the Energistio Vedic religion. Therefore, wIkb
as stated above, the Energistio Bhagavadgita for the first time
supplemented the philosophy of the Vedic religion it became, as
a supplement to the religious philosophy in the Yedas and in.
the Upanisads, a work as authoritative and acceptable as both;
and later on, the Upanisads, the Vedanta-Sutras and the
Bhagavadgita acquired the colbctive name of "Prasthana-
trayi " (the Trinity of Systems). " Prasthana-trayl "
means the three principal authoritative works or pillars of the
Vedic religion which systematically and scientifically
expounded the two paths of Renunciation (mvrfti) and
Energism (pixivrtti). When once the Bhagavadgita came in
this way to be included in the " Prasthana-trayl " and tha
sovereignty of this "Prasthana-trayl" came to be firmly
established, all religious opinions or cults which were,
inconsistent with these three works or which could not find a
place in them, came to be eonsiderc-d as inferior and unaccept-
able by the followers of the Vedic religion. The net result of
■ this was that the protagonist Acaryas of each of the various-
cults which came into existence in India after the extinction
of the Buddhistic religion, such as, the Monistic fadvaita), the
Qualified-Monistic ( visistudmita ), the Dualistic (dvaita) and
and the Purely Monistic (sudtlhadiaila) cults with the super-
added principles of Devotion ( bhakii ) or Renunciation
( sanvmjasa ) had to write commentaries on all the three parts of
the Prasthana-trayl ( and, necessarily on the Bhagavadgita.
also ), and had somehow or other to prove that according to>
these three works, which had become authoritative and
acceptable as Scriptures long before those cults came into-
existence, the particular cult promulgated by them was the
correct cult, and that the other cults were inconsistent with
those Soriptures. Because, if they had admitted that these
authoritative religious treatises would support other cults
besides those propounded by themselves, the value of their
particular cult would to that extent suffer and that was not
desirable for any of these protagonists. When once this rule
3-4
18 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
of writing sectarian ( santpradayilca ) commentaries on the
Prasthana-trayi supporting a particular doctrine came into
vogue, different learned writers began to propound in their
criticisms their own interpretations of the moral of the Gita
■on the authority of the commentaries pertaining to their
particular doctrine and such criticisms began to gain authority
in those particular sects. The commentaries or criticisms
which are now available on the Gita, are more or less all of
this kind, that is to say, they are written by Acaryas pertaining
to diverse sects ; and on that account, although the original
Bhagavadgita propounds only one theme, yet it has come to be
believed that the same Gita supports all the various cults.
The first, that is the most ancient of these cults is that of
Sri Samkaracarya, and from the point of view of philosophy,
that cult has become the one most accepted in India. The
first Samkaracarya was born in the year 710 of the Salivahana
■era (788 A. D.) and in the 32nd year of his age, he entered the
caves (Salca. 710 to 742.) i. e. 788-820 A.D.'' The Acarya was a
superman and a great sage and he had by his brilliant intellec-
tual power refuted the Jain and the Buddhistic doctrines which
had then gained ground on all sides and established his own
Non-Dualistic (advaita) doctrine; and, as is well-known, he
established four monasteries (mafha) in thef our directions of India
for the protection of theVedic religion contained in the Srutis and
Smrtis and for the second time in the Kali-Yuga gave currency
to the Vedic renunciatory doctrine or cult of Asceticism
< saiimnasa ). Whatever religious doctrine is taken, it
naturally falls into two divisions ; one is the philosophical
aspect of it and the other, the actual mode of life prescribed by
it. In the first part, the meaning of Release (moksa) is usually
explained in a scientific and logical way after explaining what
conclusions must be drawn as to the nature of the Paramesvara
after a proper consideration of the material body fpinda) in its
relation to the Cosmos (bmhmanda) ; in the other part, there is
an explanation of how a man has to lead his life in this world,
so that such mode of life should become a means for obtaining
* In my opinion, the date of the first Samkaracarya' mnst be
pushed back by at least 100 years, and I have given my reasons for
doing so in the Appendix.
INTRODUCTORY 19
that Release (mokfa). According to the first of these, that is to
say, according to the philosophical aspects of the doctrine,
Sarhkaracarya says that (1) the multiplicity of the various
objects in the world, such as, " I ", " You ", or all the other
things which are visible to the eye, is not a true multiplicity,
hut that there is in all of them a single, pure, and eternal
Highest Self ( Parabralimmi ), and various human organs
experience a sense of multiplicity as a result of the Illusion
(mm/S) of that Parahrahman ; (2) the Self (Ahimn) of a man
is also fundamentally of the same nature as the Parahrahman-
and (3) that it is not possible for any one to obtain Release
fmoksa) except after the complete Realisation (jnuna) or
personal experience of this identity of the Atman and the
Parahrahman. This is known as Non-Dualism ( admita-vada ),
because, the sum and substance of this doctrine is, that there
is no other independent and real substance except one pure
self-enlightened, eternal, and Released Parahrahman ; that the
multiplicity which is visible to the eyes is an optical illusion
or an imaginary experience resulting from the effect of Illusion
(maya) ; and that Maya is not some distinct, real, or indepen-
dent substance, hut is unreal (mthyu) ; and, when one has to
■consider only the philosophical aspect of the doctrine, it is not
necessary to go deeper into this opinion of Sri Sarhkaracarya.
But that does not end there. Coupled with the Non-Dualistic
philosphy there is another proposition of the Sarhkara doctrine
relating to the mode of life, that, although it is necessary to
perform the Actions pertaining to the state of a householder in
order to acquire the capacity of realising the identity of the
Brahman and the Atman by the purification of the mind, yet it
will be impossible to obtain Release unless one discontinues
ihose aotions later on and ultimately gives them up and takes
up samnyasa (asceticism); because, in as much as Action'(/ca?-ma)
.and Knowledge (jMna) are mutually antogonistic like light
.and darkness, the knowledge of the Brahman does not become
■perfect unless a man has entirely conquered all root tendencies
.(■msaria) and given up all Actions. This second proposition is
known as the Path of Renunciation ( nivrtti-marga ), or because
in this path one ultimately gives up all Actions and remains
rsteeped in Knowledge or Realisation it- is also called
30 GlTA-RAHASYA OH KARMA-YOGA
" sai'unyasa-ni&tha" (the Path of Renunciation) or "jrlana-nidha'
( the Path of Realisation ). It is stated in the SarhkarabMsy:
on the Upanisads and on the Brahmasutras that not only th
Non-Dualistic philosophy hut also the Path of Rtnunciatioi
that is to say, both the aspects of the cult of Samkara hav
been preached in those books ; and in the Bhasya on the Glta, .
definite conclusion has been drawn that the teaching of th
Bhagavadgita is the same ( GI. Sam. Bha. Introduction; ai>
Brahnia-Su. Sam. Bha. 2. 1. 14 ) ; and as authority for that. 1
has quoted such sentences from the Git a a,s " jPanatjiah san
karmuni Ihisma-sut kurute " i. e., " all Action {karma) is redue
to ashes in the fire of jnana " (Gi. 4. 37) and "sarm hirnuikML
Partita jiiaiie jxjrisantapyaie " i.e., " all Actions culminate i
Realisation (jiianaj " ( Gi 4. 33 ). In short, the Siir±arabhL=y
has been written in order to show that the teaching of the GM
is consistent with that particular Yedie path which — aftt
proving it to he the most excellent one — was recommended "nj
Sarhkaraearya, after he had refuted the Buddhistic .doctrines :
and further, to show that the Glta is net in favour of the
combination of Knowledge with Action, which was prescribed
by the previous commentators: and to show that the Blesssd
Lord has in the Glta preached to Arjuna the dc-etrine of the
Samkara cult, that Action is only a means of aocjalring
Knowledge and is inferior and that Release is ultimately
obtained only by Knowledge combined with Renunciation of
Action. If there had been any commentary on the Gits, bsfcre the
date of Saiiikaiacaiya. interpreting it as favouring Asoeiieism,
such a commentary is not now available. Therefore, we
must any that the first attempt to deprive the Gita of its
Energistic form and to give it a Renunciatory doctrinal form
was made by the Samkarabhasya. Those commentators on the
Gita who eaaie after Sri Samkaracarya and who followed bis
doctrines, such as, Madhusudana and others, have in this
natter principally adopted the procedure of the Acarya. Yet,
later on, there came into existence another queer idea,
namdy that the principal saeied canon enunciated in the
Chaniegyopanisaa, namely, " TAT TTAM ASI " ie., "THAT
( Paiabrahnian ) ART THOU ( SVetaketu ) ", which is one of the
sacred canons of the Non-Dualistic cult, is the canon which has.
INTRODUCTORY U
"been expatiated upon in the eighteen chapters of the CfltS, hut
that the Blessed Lord has changed the order of the three parts
of that sacred canon and taken " (mm " first and " tat " after
that and " asi " last, and He has in this new order impartially
allotted six chapters of the Gita to each of these parts' equally I
The Paisaca-bhasya on the Gita does not pBrtain to any
particular doctrine but is independent and it is believed to have
been written by Hanuman i. e., by Marutl. But such is not
the case. This Bhasya has been written by the philosopher
Hanuman, who has also written a criticism on the Bhagavata
and it supports the path of Renunciation and in it, in some
places, interpretations have been copied verbatim from the
Sarhkarabhasya, In the same way, the older or modern
Marathi translations of or commentaries on the Gita principally
follow the Sarhkarabhasya ; and the English translation of the
Bhagavadglta by the late Kashinath Trimhak Telang, published
in the Sacred Books of East Series brought out by Professor
Max Muller, is stated by him at the end at the introduction to
that translation, to be as far as possible consistent with Sri
Sarbkaraclrya and the commentator;-; of hi-; school.
When once in this way, doctrinal commentaries on the
Gita and on the other two works out of the Prasfchina-fcrayl
"began to be written, the same course wan later on followed by
persons holding other doctrinal views. About 250 years after
the coming to existence of the Sarnkara tradition which
maintained the theory rjf Illusion (nwii/U). Non-P:mli«im (idaiiia)
and Renunciation {miitmjwa.1, Sri Ramsvnujac&rya (born Saka
93S i. e, 1016 A. DJ founded the Qualified-Monism ( diidail ixtHa)
tradition ; and in order to substantiate that cult he also, like Sri
Sariikaraearya.lias written independent commentaries (Itlinimu) on *
"the Prasfijanartrayi. including, of course, the Gits, This school
is of the opinion that the doctrines of the UnranUty of Illusion
(nidga} and Ncsn-Thialism laid down by Sarhkarac&rya were not
■correct and that although the three principles of ComefgumwCB
(fun), Cosmos ( jagal / and Isvara were independent, f(4 )l) flf
much as jim, Lie., consciousness (a//, and fcho Oomw (wlijpb
is aai L a, unconscious ) were both the body of ntic 'Mul Wl§
same Isvara, therefore, the dl-aa(-bodUn1 Tfivfij'tt wse (W» iWu
one abae and that out of this mUU ' ell ' ftlld 'wit * ill t^
22 GITA-RAKASYA OE KARMA-YOGA.
body of the Isvara, the gross at and the gioss acit 01 the
numerous forms of Life and the Cosmos came into existence
later on ; and Ramanujacarya says that from the philosophical
point of view, this is the doctrine which has been enunciated
by the Upanisads and the Brahma-Sutras (Gl. Rama. 2. 12 ; -IS.
2). One may even say that the works of Ramanujacarya were
responsible for the Qualified-Monism doctrine finding its way
into the Bhagavata religion; because, the previous exposition
of the Bhagavata religion to be found in the Mahabharata and
in the Glta is seen to be on the basis of the Non-Dualistic cult.
As Ramanujacarya belonged to the Bhagavata religion, he
ought to have naturally realised that the Glta enunciated the
Energistic path of Karma-Yoga. But as at the date of
Jlainauujacarya, the Karma-Yoga of the original Bhagavata
religion had practically come to an end and it had acquired
a Qualified-Monistic ( visistadvaita ) form in its philosophical
aspect, and principally a Devotional form from the point
of view of the mode of life, Ramanujacarya drew the
further conclusions that although jrlam, Icanna and bltakti
(Devotion) are all three referred to in the Glta, yet the doctrine
enunciated in the Gita is in essence Qualified-Monistic from
the point of view of philosophy, and of Devotion to the
Vasudeva from the point of view of mode of life; and that the
Path of Action ( Imrma-nistha ) was something which led to Path
ofifcnGwL;>ge_( Jiiwm-nisiUU ) and was not something indepen-
dent ( Gi. Ra. Bha. iu.-l-&od-3rl ). But although Ramanuja-
carya had effected a change in the cult of Samkara by
substituting the Qualified-Monism for Non-Duality and
Devotion for Renunciation, yet if Devotion is looked upon as
the highest duty of man from the point of view of mode of life,,
then the lifelong performance of the worldly duties pertaining
to one's particular status, becomes an inferior mode of life ; and
on that account the interpretation put on the Glta by
Ramanujacarya must also be looked upon as in a way in
favour of Renunciation of Action. Because, when once the
mind has become purified as a result of an Energistic mode of
life, and man has attained Realisation ( jnaim j, whether he,
thereafter, adopts the fourth stage of life and remains steeped
in the contemplation of the Brahman or he is steeped in the.
INTRODUCTORY 23-
unbounded loving worship of the Vasudeva is just tie same-
from the point of view of Action (karma) ; that is to say, boii
are Renunciatory. And the same objection appliss to the other
cults which came into existence after the date of Ramanujs-
carya. Although Ramanujaearya may have been right in.
saying that the theory of the Non-Reality of Illusion is wrong
and that one ultimately attains Release only by devotion to the
Vasudeva, yet looking upon'the Parabrahman and the Conscious
Ego (jiva ) as ONE in one way, and different in other ways
is a contradiction in terms and an, inconsistency. Therefore, a
third school which came into existence aftor the date of Sri
Ramanujaearya, is of the opinion, that both must be looked upon
as eternally different fiGm each other and that there never
can be any unity between them, wnetnoi partial or total, and
therefore, this school is known as the Dualist.\\ school. The
protagonist of this school was Sri Madhvacarya"; -Efiig^
Srimadanandatlrtha. He died in Saka 1120 ( 1198 A.D. ) and
according to the Madhva school, he was then 79 years old.
But Dr. Bharidarkar has in the English Book "Vaisnavism,
Saivism, and other sects" recently published by him, established
on the authority of stone inscriptions and other books ( see
page 59 ) that Madhvacarya must ha taken to have lived
from Saka 1119 to 119S ( 1197 to 1276 A. D. ). Madhvacarya
has shown in his commentaries on the Prasthana-trayl
(which includes the Gita) that all these sacred books are
in favour of the theory of Duality. In his commentary
on the Gita, he says that although Desireless Action has
been extolled in the Glta, yet Desireless Action is only a
means and Devotion is the true and ultimate cult, and
that when once one has become perfect by following the
Path of Devotion, whether one thereafter performs or does not
perform Action is just the same. It is true that there are some-
statements in the Glta such as, " dhijanut Icannuphalatyayah '"
...i. e., " the abandonment of the fruit of the action ( i. e. t
Desireless Action ) is superior to the meditation on the
Paramesvara ( i. e., Devotion ) " etc. which are inconsistent
with this doctrine ; but, says the Madhvabhasya on the Gita, such
sentences are not to be understood literally but as mere expletives
and unimportant ( Gi. Mabha. 12. 30). The fourth school is the
24 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA- YOGA
school of Sri Vallabhacarya (born in Saka 1401 i. e. 1479 A. D.)
This is also a Vaisnava School like those of Ramanuja and
Madhvacarya. However, the opinions of this school Regarding
ihe Conscious Ego ( jlva A Cosmos < jagat ), and Isvara are
different from the opinions of the Qualified-Monism or the
Dualistic Schools. This school accepts the doctrine thai the
•Conscious Ego (jlva) when pure and unblinded by Illusion
■(maya) and the Parabrahman are one, and are not two distinct
things ; and that is why, this school is known as the pure
Non-Dualistic (suddhudvuila), school. Nevertheless this School
•differs from the Sarhkara school on account of the other
doctrines pertaining to it, namely that, the Conscious Ego
i(jiva) and the Brahman cannot be looked upon as one and the
same in the same sense as , ' ""ubne by Sri Sarhkaracarya but
that the varioup Souls are particles of the Isvara, like
sparks of firo ; that the Cosmos, which is composed of Illusion,
M not unreal ( mithya ) but Illusion is a Force which has
separated itself from the Isvara at the desire of the Para-
anesvara, that the Conscious Ego (jlva) which has become
•dependent on Illusion, cannot acquire the knowledge necessary
for obtaining Release except by divine pleasure ; and that,
therefore, Devotion to the Blessed Lord is the most important
means of obtaining Release. This pleasure of the Paramesvara
is also known by the other names of ' pusti ' ' posana ' etc.
and, therefore, this cult is also known as ' pusti-marga '. In
■the books of this school on the Gita, such as the TaUmdlpika
And others, it is laid down that in at; much as the Blessed Lord
has, after first preaching to Arjuna the Sarhkhya philosophy
and the Karma-Yoga, ultimately made him perfect by treating
him with the nectar of the philosophy of Devotion, Devotion
but above all, the Devotion included in 'pasti-marga' — which
entails the abandonment of home and domestic ties — is the
most concentrated moral of the Gita and that on that account
ithe Blesssd Lord has in the end given the advice : — " sarm-
dhannan parityajya lrmmehiiii saranam iraja " — i.e.," give up
all other religions and surrender yourself to Me alone " ( Gi.
18. 66 ). Besides these, there is .another Vaisnava cult, entailing
the worship of Radhakrsna, which- was promulgated by
ITimbarka. Dr. Bhandarkar has established that this Acarya
INTRODUCTORY 25
Hived after the date of Ramanujacarya and before the date of
Madhvacarya ; that is to say about Saka. 1084 (1162 A. D.) Tin
■opinion of Nimbarka carya regarding the Conscious Ego (Jim) th<
■Cosmos /jagat) and the Isvara is, that although these three an
different from each other, yet the existence and activity of th<
■Conscious Ego (jlva) and of the Cosmos are not independent bul
depend upon the desire of the Isvara; and that the subtle elements
of the Conscious Ego (jiva) and of the Cosmos are contained ir
■the fundamental Isvara. In order to prove this doctrine
Nimbarka has written an independent bhaxi/a on the Vedanta-
siitras, and Kesava Kasmiri Bhattacarya, who belongs to this
■ school has written a commentary on the Bhagavadglta called
" " Taltvapralaisika ' and has shown in it that the moral laid
down by the Gita is consistent with the doctrines of this school.
In order to differentiate this school from the Qualified-Monism
.school of Ramanujacarya, one may refer to it as the Daal-Non-
Dual (dixutadvaita! school. It is quite clear that these differenl
Devotional sub-cults of Duality and Qualified- Monism which
• discard the Samkara doctrine of Maya have come into existence
because of the belief that Devotion, that is, the worship of a
tangible thing, loses foundation and to a certain extent
becomes forceless, unless one looks upon the visible objects in
the world as real. But one cannot say that in order to justify
Devotion, the theories of Non-duality or of Illusion have to bb
discarded. The saints in the Maharastra have substantiated the
doctrine of Devotion without discarding the doctrines of Illusion
and Non-Duality ; and this course seems to have been followed
from before the time of Sri Saihkaraoarya. In this cult, the
doctrines of Non-Duality, the illusory nature of things, and
the necessity of abandonment of Action which are the
concomitant doctrines of the Samkara cult are taken for
granted. But the advice of the followers of this school, such as
the Saint Tukaram, is that Devotion is the easiest of the
means by which Release in the shape of realising the identity
of the Brahman and the Atman, can be obtained : " if you
want to reach the Isvara, then this is the easiest way " ( Tuka.
•Ga. 3002. % ) ; and they say that the path of Devotion based on
Non-Duality is the principal moral of the Gita in as much as
the Blessed Lord himself has first told Arjuna that "Idesodlri-
26 GITA-BAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
katarastesam avyaldasaldacetasam " ( Gl. 12. 5 )...i. e., " con-
centrating the mind on the Intangible Brahman is more
difficult " and subsequently told him that : " bhaktastetiva me
priyah " i. e., " my devotees are most beloved of me " ( Gi. 12.
20 ). The summing up of the Gita. which has been made by
Sridhar SvamI in his commentary on the Glta. ( Gl. 18. 78 ) is
of this kind. But, the most valuable work relating to this
school, though in the Marathi language, is the Jfianesvari. In
this work it is stated that the Doctrine of Karma is dealt with
in the first four out of the 18 chapters of the Glta, the Doctrine
of Devotion in the next seven and the Doctrine of Jnana in the
subsequent chapters and Jfianeavara himself has at the end of
his book said that he has written his commentary " aftti-
consulting the Bhasyakaras (Sarhkaracarya)." But, as Jnanesvara.
Maharaja had the wonderful skill of expounding the meaning
"of the Glta, by numerous beautiful illustrations and com-
parisons and also, as he has propounded the doctrines of
Desireless Action and principally the doctrine of Devotion in a
much better way than Sri Sarhkaracarya, the Jfianesvari must
be looked upon as an independent treatise on the Gita.
Jnanesvara Maharaja himself was a yogi. Therefore, he has
written a very detailed commentary on that verse in the sixth
chapter of the Glta which deals with the practice of the
Patanjala Yoga, and in it he has said that the words of the
Blessed Lord at the end of the chapter namely : " tasimdyoyi
bhavurjuna "...i. e., "therefore, Oh Arjuna, become a Yogi, that
is, become proficient in the practice of the Yoga " show that the
Blessed Lord has declared the Patanjala Yoga to be the
' pantktni.ja ' i. e., the most excellent of all paths. In short,
different commentators have interpreted the Glta in their
own ways by first declaring the Energistic path of Action
( Karma-Yoga ) preached by the Gita to be inferior, that is to
say, merely a means for Realisation (jilana), and then going
on to say that the Gita has preached the various philosophical
doctrines, as also the highest duties from the point of view of
Reltase, which are prescribed, by their respective schools, such
as: Non-Dualism based on the doctrine of Illusion, coupled with
Renunciation of Action; or Qualified-Monism based on the-
reality of Illusion, coupled with Devotion to the Vasudeva; or ■
INTRODUCTORY
Dualism, coupled with worship of theVisnu; or pure Non-dualism,,
coupled with Devotion; or the Non-Dualism of the Saihkara
oult, coupled with Devotion; or Pataiijala yoga, coupled with
Devotion; or Devotion pure and simple; or Yoga pure and
simple; or Realisation of the Brahman pure and simple,* — all
of which are paths of Release, based on Renunciation. No one
says that the Bhagavadglta looks upon the Karma-Yoga as the
most excellent path of life. It is not that I alone say so. Even
the well-known Marathi poet Vaman Pandit is of the same
opinion. In his exhaustive commentary on the Gita, in the
Marathi language known as Yathartlia-dipika, he first says : — ■
" But Oh, Blessed Lord, in this Kali-yuga each one interpretes
the Gita according to his own opinion ", and he goes on to say :
" Everyone on some pretext or other gives a different meaning-
to the Gita but I do not like this their doing, thoughjhey are
great ; what shall I do, Oh, Blessed Lord ? " This isTS^
complaint to the Blessed Lord. Seeing this confusion of the
diverse opinions of the commentators, some scholars say that
in as much as these various traditionary doctrines of Release
are mutually contradictory and one cannot definitely say that
any particular one of them has been recommended by the Gita,
one has to come to the conclusion that the Blessed Lord has on
the battle-field at the commencement of the war described
individually, precisely, and skilfully all those various means
of attaining Release — and specially, the three paths of Action
(karma), Devotion (bhakti), and Realisation (jilana) and
satisfied Arjuna in whose mind there had arisen a confusion
about these diverse means of attaining Release. It is true that-
some commentators do maintain that these descriptions of the
various means of Release are not several or unconnected with
each other, but the Gita has harmonised them with each other ;
and finally, there are also to be found others who say that
although the teaching of the Biahman in the Gita is apparently
easy, yet the true import of it is very deep and no one can
4 *The Beveral commentaries on the Gita by the Aearyos of the
various cults and the important criticisms pertaining to tho-e cults
in all fifteen, have been recently published at the Guzrathi Printing
Press. This book is very useful for studying the opinions advanced
by the various commentators Bide by side.
28 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
understand it except from the mouth of a preceptor (Gi. 4. 34.),
and that though there may be numerous criticisms on the Gita,
yet, there is no other way to realise the true meaning of it,
except from the mouth of a preceptor.
These numerous interpretations of the Bhagavadgita,
namely, the Energistic interpretation consistent with the
Bhagavata religion made by the writer of the Mahabharata
.and the other purely Renunciatory ones made by several later
Acaryas, posts, yogis, or devotees of the Blessed Lord,
consistently with the different traditionary schools to
which they respectively belonged, are likely to cause
confusion and one will naturally ask whether it is possible that
all these mutually contradictory interpretations can be put on
one and the same work ; and if it is not only possible but even
desirable, then why so ? !No one can entertain any doubt that
Jhsse-^arTous Acaryas who wrote the commentaries were
learned, religious and extremely pure-minded. Nay, one may
even say that the world has not to this day produced a
philosopher of the calibre of Sri. Sarhkaracarya. Then why
should there have been such a difference between him and the
later Acaryas ? The Gita is not such a pot of jugglery, that any
one can extract any meaning he likes out of it. The Gita had
been written long before these various schools of thought came
into existence, and it was preached by Sri Krsna to Arjuna not
to increase his confusion but to remove it ; and it contains a
preaching of one definite creed to Arjuna( Gi. 5. 1, i ), and the
effect uf that advice on Arjuna has also been what it ought to
Jiave been. Then, why should there be so much confusion about
the teaching of the Gita ? This question seems a really
difficult one. But the answer of it is not as difficult as would
appear, at first sight. Suppose, looking at a sweet and nice
food-preparation, one says that it is made of wheat, and another
one says it is made of ghee and a third one says, it is made of
sugar, according to his own taste ; then, which one of them will
you call wrong ? Each one is correct in his own way and
ultimately the question what that food-preparation is, remains
unsolved. Because, as it is possible to mix wheat, clarified
butter, and sugar and to prepare from them various kinds of
eatablessuoh as 'ladus,' 'jilebi', 'ghiwar' etc. the particular eatable
INTRODUCTORY 29
cannot be sufficiently defined by saying that ghee or wheat
or sugar is the principle element in it. Just as when the ocean
was churned, though one person got nectar, another one got
poison, and others got LaksmI, Airavata, Kaustubha, Parijata,
and other articles, yet the real nature of the ocean was not
thereby fixed, so also is the case of the commentators who have
churned the ocean of the Gita on a doctrinal basis, or one may
even say that just as, the same Sri, Krsna Bhagavana who had
entered the Durbar at the time of the assasiuation of Kamsa,
appeared to various persons in different forms, that is, he
appeared to athleteslike adamant and to women like the God of
Beauty ( Madana ) and to parents like their own son etc. (Bhag.
10. Pu. 43. 17), so also although the Bhagavadgita is one and
the same, people following different cults see it in a different
light. Whatever religious cult may be taken, it is quite clear
that ordinarily it must be based on some authoritative reli^ious^
text or other ; otherwise that cult will be considered to be
totally without authority and will not be acceptable to people.
Therefore, however numerous the different cults of the Vedic
religion may be, yet with the exception of a few specified
things, such as, the Isvara, the Conscious Ego and the Cosmos
and their mutual interrelations, all other things are common
to all the various cults; and therefore, in the various doctrinal
commentaries or criticisms which have been written on our
authoritative religious texts, ninety per cent of the statements
or stanzas in the original work are interpreted in more or less
the same way. The only difference is as regards the remaining
statements or doctrines. If these statements are taken in their,
literal meaning, they cannot possibly be equally appropriate to
all the cults. Therefore, different commentators, who have
propounded different doctrines, usually accept as important only
such of these statements as are consistent with their own
particular cult, and either say that the others are unimportant,
or skilfully twist the meanings of such statements as might
be totally inconsistent with their cults, or wherevsr possible,
they draw hidden meanings or inferences favourabla to them-
selves from easy and plain statements, and say that the
particular work is an authority for their particular cult. For
instance, see my commentary on Gita 2. 12 and 16 ; 3. 19 ; 6.
30 GTTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
3 and 18. 2. But it will be easily seen that laying down in
this way that a book has a particular purport, and examining
in the first place, without prejudice, the whole of the work, and
drawing its implied purport without insisting that one's own
cult is propounded by the Glta, or on any such other thing, are
two totally different things.
If one gives up the doctrinal method of determining the
purport of a book as faulty, one must show what other means
there are for determining the import of the Glta. There is an
old and more or less generally accepted rule on this matter in
the form of a verse of the Mimarhsa writers, who were
extremely skilful in determining the meanings of a particular
book, chapter, or sentence. That verse is as follows ;—
upakramopasamharav abhyaso 'purvatu phalam I
arthamdopapattl ca liiiyaik tWpari/aniryaye tt
The Mimarhsa writers say that if one has to find out the purport
■of 'any particular writing, chapter, or book, then the seven
things mentioned in the above verse are necessary ( i. e., liiiga ).
and all these seven things have got to be considered. The first
two out of these are ' upakramopasaniharau ', which mean the
beginning and the end of the book. Every writer starts
writing a book with some motive or other in his mind ; and
when that particular object has been achieved, he completes his
book. Therefore, the commencement and the end of the work
have first to be taken into account in determining the purport
of the book. Geometry has defined a straight line as a line
which goes from the point of commencement straight to the last
point without swerving above or below or to the right or to the
left. The same rule applies to the purport of a book. That
purport which is properly fixed between the beginning and the
end of the book and does not leave or divert from either of them,
is the proper purport of it. If there are other roads for going
from the beginning to the end, all those roads must be
considered as crooked roads or bye-paths. When the direction
of the purport of a work has in this way been fixed with due
consideration for the commencement and the end, one should
ssa what things are told repeatedly in it, that ie to say, of
what things an ' abhyasa ' has been made. Because, whatever
;thing is intended by the writer of a book to be proved, he shows
INTRODUCTORY 31
numerous reasons in support of it on numerous occasions and
refers to it as a definite proposition over and over again, saying
each time : " therefore, this thing is proved ", or, " therefore,
this particular thing has got to he done ", The fourth and the
fifth means for determining the purport of the work are the
new-ness ( apurmta ) and the effect [phala ) of it. ' ApTtrvata '
means something new. Unless the writer has something new
to tell, he is usually not induced to write a new book ; at any
rate, that used to be so when there were no printing-presses.
Therefore, before determining the purport of a book one has in
the first instance to see what it contains which is new,
particular, or not previously known. In the same way. if some
particular result has been achieved by that writing or by that
book, that is to say, if it has had some definite effect, then one
.must also take into account that result or effect. Because, in
■as much as the book has been written with the express
intention that that particular result or effect should be
■achieved, the object of the writer becomes clearer from the effect
•which has been achieved. The sixth and the seventh means
are ' artharacia ' and ' upapntti '. ' Artharuda ' is a technical
*erm of the Mimamsa school ( Jai.-Su. 1. 2. 1-18 ). Although
the thing about which a statement is to be made or the fact
which is to be proved is fixed, the writer nevertheless, deals
with many other things as occasion arises, whether by way of
illustration or by way of comparison in the course of the
argument, and whether for showing consistency or for showing
the similarity or the difference, or in order to support his own
side by showing the faults of the opposite side, or for the sake
of grace or as an exaggeration, or by way of stating the
previous history of the question, or for some other reason, with
the idea of supplementing the argument, and sometimes
without any reason whatsoever. The statements, which are
made by the writer on such occasions, are given by way of
glorification merely or of further elucidation or are only
supplemental, though they might not be totally irrelevant to
the subject-matter to be proved ; and therefore, it is not certain
that such statements are always true. *
• : I£ the Btatamsuta miide m the arlhaviida are consistent with the
actual state of things, it is oalled 'amwada,' if inconsistent it is
33 GlTA-BAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
One may even say that the writer is not particularly
careful to see whether or not the statements made in the-
artliavada, are literally true ; and therefore, one is not justified
in looking upon the statements made in an artliavada, as
authoritative, that is to say, as indicating the conclusions
arrived at by the writer with reference to the various subject-
matters in it. Looking upon them as pure glorifications, that
is to say, as hollow, irrelevant, or mere praise, the Mimarhsa
writers call them ' artliavada ', and they do not take into
account these statements in determining the final conclusion to
be drawn from the work. Even after all this, one has still to
sea ultimately the u-papatti. ' VpapaUi ' or ' upaptxdana '
is the name given to the refuting of all things which would
prove the contrary case and the subsequent logical and
systematic martialling of things, which support one's own case,,
when you are proving a particular point. When the two ends,,
being the upalmana and the upasaiiJiura, have once been
fixed, the intervening line can be defined by the consideration
of the artliavada and the upapatti. As the arthamdcc
shows you what subject matter is irrelevant or merely
atixilliary, the man who attempts to determine the conclusion
of the book, does not touch the several bye-paths when once
the artliavada has been determined ; and when once all the bye-
paths have been abandoned and the reader or the critic takes
to the correct path, the ladder of upipafti like the wave of
the sea pushes him forward from stage to stage further and
further from the beginning until at last he reaches the con-
clusion. As these rules of determining the purport of a book
laid down by our ancient Mimamsa writers are equally
accepted by learned persons in all countries, it is not necessary
to further labour their usefulness or necessity. *
called 'gmmuAa', and if it is neither, it is called 'Uuiartliuvada' .
'Jrthamda' Is a common word and these arc the three Bub-divisions-
of arthttvada according to the truth or falsj-hood of the statements
made in it.
* These rules of determining the import of a book are seen to.
be observed even in English Courts of justice. For instance, if it
is not possible to understand any particular judgment, such,
meaning is decided by considering the result (phala) of that.
INTRODUCTOKY 33
Here some one may ask : Did not the various Acaryas, who
founded the various cults, know these rules of Mimamsa ?
And, if one finds these rules in their own works, then what
reason is there for saying that the purport of the Gita drawn
by the Mimamsa school is one-sided ? To that, the only answer
is, that once a man's vision has become doctrinal, he naturally
adopts that method by which he can prove that the cult which
he follows is the cult established by authoritative religious
treatises. Because, doctrinal commentators start with this
fixed pre-conceived notion regarding the purport of a book, that
if it yields some purport, inconsistent with their own doctrine,
that purport is wrong, and that some other meaning is intended ;
and though some rule of the Mimamsa logic is violated when
they attempt to prove that the meaning, which in their opinion
is the proved correct meaning has been accepted everywhere,
these commentators, as a result of this fixed pre-conviction are
not in the least perturbed thereby. The works Mitaksara and
Dayabhaga etc. which deal with the Hindu Law, attempt to
harmonise the Smrti texts on this principle. But the books of
Hindu Law are not unique in this respect. Even, the numerous
sectarian writers belonging to the numerous subsequent sects,
of Christian and Mahomedan religions, twist in the same way
the original works on those religions namely the Bible and
Quran, and it is on the same principle that tho followers of
Christ have ascribed meanings to some of the sentences in the
Old Testament of the Bible, which are different from those
given to them by the Jews. Nay, wherever the number of the
authoritative treatises or writings on any subject is fixed in
advance and one has to subsequently justify one's own
position on the basis of these limited authoritative books, the
same method of determining the meaning of any book is seen
to be followed. This also accounts for the way in which
present-day legislators, pleaders or judges, very often twist
judgment, namely, the Decreo or order passed on it; and if the
judgment contains any statements wlich are not necessary for
determining the point at issue, these statements are not taken as
authorities ior the purpose of later cases. Such statements are
known as "obiter dicta" or " useless statements ", and strictly
speaking this is one kind of '< arthacadi ".
K R
34 G-lTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
one way or the other, former authoritative or legal treatises.
If such be the case with purely worldly matters, what wonder
is there that divergent commentaries based on different
traditions have been written on the Upanisads and the Vedanta-
Sufcras and side by side with them, on the third book out of the
Prasthanatrayi, namely, the Bhagavadglta ? But if one leaves
aside this doctrinal method, and pays a little attention to the
upakrama, wpaminlura etc., of the Bhagavadglta, it will
be seen that the Blessed Lord preached the Gita to Arjuna at
the critical moment before the Bharata war was actually
started, when the armies of both sides had formed themselves
into ranks on the Kuruksetra and were on the point of
opening the fight, and that He has done so with the idea of
inducing Arjuna, — who had become dejected and was on the
point of renouncing the world, — to perform his duties as a
warrior by preaching to him the gospel of the Brahman.
When Arjuna began to see who had come to fight with him
taking the part of the unjust Duryodhana, he saw the old
ancestor Bhisma, the preceptor Dronacarya, the preceptor's son
Asvatthaman, the Kauravas ( who though antagonistic were yet
his cousins ), and his next-of-kin, relations, friends, maternal
uncles, paternal uncles, brothers-in-law, kings, princes, etc. ;
.and realising that in order to win the kingdom of Hastinapura,
he would have to kill these people and thereby incur the
greatest of sins like the destruction of one's own clan, his mind
suddenly became dejected. On the one hand, the religion of
the warrior was saying to him: "Fight!", and on the "other
hand, devotion to his ancestors, devotion to his preceptors, love
for his brethren, affection for his relatives, and other natural
laws were pulling him backwards. If he fought, it would be a\
fight with his own people, and thereby he would incur the
terrible sin of killing his ancestors, preceptors, relatives etc. ;
and if he did not fight, he would be failing in his duty as a
warrior ; and when in this way he was between the frying-pan
and the Are, he was in the same position as a person caught
between two fighting Tarns ! He was indeed a great warrior,
hut when he was suddenly caught in the moral net of
righteousness and unrighteousness, he felt faint, his hair rose
on end, the bow in his hand fell down and he suddenly flopped
INTRODUCTORY 35
down in his chariot, crying : "I shall not fight 1 ", and ultimately
the distant feeling of his duty as a warrior was overcome by the
naturally more proximate feeling of love for his brethren and he
in self-deception began to think to himself : — "It would be
better to beg in order to fill the pit of the stomach, rather than
that I should win the kingdom by committing such terrible sins
as killing ancestors or preceptors or brethren or relatives or ex-
terminating even the whole clan. It does not matter one whit if
my enemies, seeing me unarmed at this moment, come and cut my
throat, but I do not wish to enjoy that happiness which is steeped
in the blood of my own relatives killed in warfare, and burdened
with their curses. It is true the warrior-religion is there, but if
on that account I have to incur such terrible sins as killing my
own ancestors, brethren, or preceptors, then, may that warrior-
religion and warrior-morality go to perdition. If the other
side, not realising this, have become cruel in heart, I ought not
do the same thing ; I must see in what consists the true
salvation of my Self, and if my conscience does not consider it
proper to commit such terrible sins, then, however sacred the
warrior-religion may be, of what use is it to me in these
circumstances ? " When in this way his conscience began to
prick him and he became uncertain as to his duty ( dliarma-
sammudjia ) and did not know which path of duty to follow, he
surrendered himself to Sri Krsna, who preached the Gita, to him
and put him on the right path ; and when Arjuna, wanted to
back out of the fight, fearing that it would entail the death
of Bhisma and others— though it was his duty to fight — Sri
Krsna made him take up the fight of his own accord. If we
have to extract the true purport of the teaching of the Gita,
such purport must be consistent with this ' upakrama '
( beginning ) and 'upasamhara' (conclusion). It would have
been out of place here for Sri Krsna to explain how Release
could be obtained by Devotion ov by the Knowledge of the
Brahman or by the Patanjala-yoga, which were purely
renunciatory paths or paths entailing asceticism and abandon-
ment of Action. Sri Krsna did not intend to send Arjuna
to the woods as a mendicant by making a samnyasin of him,
filling his mind with apathy (vairiigya), nor to induce him to
go to the Himalayas as a yogin wearing a loin cloth (kaupina)
36 GITA-RaHaSYA OR KARMA-YOGA
and eating the leaves of the nim-tree. Nor did the Blessed
Lord intend to place in his hands oymhals and a drum and a
harp instead of bow and arrow.? and to makehim dance again like
Brhannali before the entire warrior community of India, on
the sacred field of the Kura, steeped in the beatific happiness
of loudly reciting the name of the Blessed Lord with supreme
devotion, to the tune of those muBical instruments. The dance
which Arjuna had t-o make on th& battle-field of Kura, after
having finished his period of remaining incongnifco (ajnula-vasa)
was of quite a different nature. When the Blessed Lord was
preaching the Gita, He has in numerous places, and showing
reasons at every step and using the conjunction 'lasmat' i.e.,
1 for this reason ' — which is an important conjunction showing
the reason — said: — "tusmudyudhyasm Bliarata" — i.e., " there-
fore, Arjuna, fight " (Gl. 2. 18), or "fasmad uttitflia Kamitei/a
yaddhaija krluniscayah" — i.e., "therefore, determine to fight
and rise ( Gi. i. 37 ), or " tasnuid asahtah sutatain karyam karma
mvwaun " — i. e., " therefore, give up attachment, and do your
duty" ( Gi. 3. 19 ), or, "~ku.ru karmaiva tasnuit team " — i.e.
" therefore, perform Action " ( Gi. 4. 15 ), or " tasmut
mdmanumara yudhya ca " — i.e., "therefore, think of me and
fight " ( Gi. 8. 7 ) ; " the doer and the causer of everything is I
myself, and you are only the tool ; and therefore, fight and
conquer your enemies " ( Gi. 11. 33 ) ; " it is proper that you
should perform all Actions, which are your duties according to
the Sastras *' ( Gi. 16. 24 ) — all which is a preaching definitely
Energistic ; and in the eighteenth chapter of the upasamhura
(conclusion), He says again : " you must do all these duties "
(Gi. 18. 6), as His definite and best advice ; and ultimately
asking Arjuna the question : — " Oh, Arjuna, has your self-
deception, duo to ignorance, yet been removed or not ? " ( Gi.
18. 72 ), He has taken an acknowledgment from him in the
following words : —
imUomohnh smrlir labdha tvatprasadan mayacyuta I
slbito'smi gulusamdehah Icarisye vacanam tava II
i. e., " my doubts and my ignorance about my duties, have now
been removed ; I shall now do as You say ". And it is not
that this acknowledgment was merely orally given by Arjuna,
but thereafter, he did really fight and in the course of the fight
INTRODUCTORY 37
arising on that occasion, he has actually killed Bhlsma, Karna,
Jayadratha, and others as occasion arose. The objection taken
to this by some is that : the advice given by the Blessed Lord
preached Realisation (jnana) based on Renunciation (safmnjasa),
or Yoga or Devotion, and that that was the principal subject-
matter of proof ; but that as the war had already started, the
Blessed Lord has here and there briefly praised in His preaching
the worth of Action and allowed Arjuna to complete the war
which had been started ; that is to say, the completion of the
war must not be looked upon as the central or the most
important factor hut something which was auxilliary or merely
an artliavada. But by such a spineless argument, the vpakrama,
upasamhara and phala of the Gita is not satisfactorily accounted
for. The Blessed Lord had to show the importance and
necessity of performing at all costs the duties enjoined by one's
dliarma while life lasts, and the Gita has nowhere advanced
any such hollow argument as the one mentioned above for
doing so ; and if such an argument had been advanced, that
would never have appealed to such an intelligent and critical
person like Arjuna. When the prospect of a terrible clan-
destruction was staring him in the face, whether to fight or not,
and, if fighting was the proper course, then how that could be
done without incurring sin, was the principal question before
him ; and however much one tries to do so, it will be impossi-
ble to dismiss, as an artliavada, the definite answer given to
this principal question in the following words, namely : —
" Fight with a disinterested frame of mind," or " Perform
Action ". Doing so would amount to treating the owner of
the house as a guest. I do not say that the Gita has not
preached Vedanta, or Devotion or the Patafijala Yoga at all.
But the combination of these three subjects which has been
made by the Gita must be such that thereby Arjuna, who was on
the horns of a terrible dilemma of conflicting principles of
morality, and who had on that account become so confused
about his proper duty as to say : " Shall I do this, or shall I do
that ? ", could find a sinless path of duty and feel inclined to
perform the duties enjoined on him by his status as a warrior.
In short, it is perfectly clear that the proper preaching in this
place would be of Energism (pravrttij and that, as all other
38 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
things are only supporting Energism, that is, as they are all
auxiliary, the purport of the Gita religion must also be to
support Energism, that is, to support Action. But no com-
mentator has properly explained what this Energistic purport
is and how that implied moral can be authoritatively based on
Vedanta philosophy. Whichever commentator is taken, he
totally neglects the upalmma of the Gita, that is, its first,
chapter and the concluding upasainliCira, and the phala, and
becomes engrossed in discussing from a Renunciatory point of
view how the preaching in the Gita about the Realisation of
the Brahman or about Devotion support their respective cults:
as though it would be a great sin to link together a permanent
union between Knowledge and Devotion on the one hand and
Action (karma) on the other ! The doubt mentioned by me was
experienced by one of these commentators who said that the
Bhagavadglfca must be interpreted keeping before one's eyes the
life of Sri Krsna himself ;* and the Non-Dualistic philosopher
Paramahamsa Sri Krsnananda Svami, who has recently died
at Kasi (Benares) has in the short Sanskrit monograph written
by him on the Gita entitled Gitartlia-paramarsa made the
definite statement that : "tasmat gita nama Bmhviavidyamulum
nitisastram" — i. e., " therefore, the Gita is the philosophy of
Duty, that is, the philosophy of Ethics based on the science of
the Brahman (bralunuMya) " t The German philosopher
Prof. Deussen, in his work called The Philosophy of tlte
Upanisads has given expression to the same thoughts in one
place with reference to the Bhagavadglta, and several other
* The name of this commentator and some extracts from his
commentary were communicated to me many years ago by a
respectable scholar, but I cannot trace that letter anywhere in the
confusion of my papers ; and I have also forgotten the name of
the commentator ; so I have to beg this respectable scholar to
communicate that information lo me again if he chances to read
this book.
t Sri Krsnananda Svami has written four monographs on
this subject which are named Sri Gita-Rahasya, Gitaitha-p'aiaia
Ol&rtha-paramarsa and Gita-saroddhara, and they have all been
collected and published together at Rajkot. The above quotation is
from the GUni'tha-paramarsa.
INTRODUCTORY 39'
Eastern and Western critics of the Gita have expressed the
same opinion. Nevertheless, none of these persons have
thoroughly examined the Gita or attempted to clearly and in
detail show how all the statements, deductions,' or chapters in
it can be explained as being connected together on tho basis of
the philosophy of Enorgism (Ivrma). On the other hand.
Prof. Deussen has said in his book that such a conclusion
would be very difficult to justify. * Therefore, the principal
object of this book is to critically examine tho Gits, in that
light and to show the complete consistency which is to bo found
in it. But before I do so, it is necessary to deal in greater
detail with the nature of the difficulty experienced by Arjuna
as a result of his having been caught on the horns of the
dilemma of mutually contradictory ethical principles, for other-
wise, the readers will not realise the true bearing of the subject-
matter of the Gita. Therefore, in order to understand tha
nature of these difficulties in the shape of having to decide
between Action and Inaction and to explain how a man on
many occasions becomes non-plussed by being caught in the
dilemma of " Shall I do this, or shall I do that ? ", we shall now
first consider the numerous illustrations of such occasions,
which are come across in our sacred books and especially in the
Mahabharata.
* Prof. Deussen's The Philosophy of the Upanisadt, P. 362, Eng:
Trans. 1906.
CHAPTER II.
THE DESiRE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ACTION
(KAR-MA-JIJNASA.)
kim kanra kirn akarmeti havwjo'py at fa mohituh I *
Gifca. 4. 16.
The critical position in which Arjuna had found himself
in the commencement of the Bhagavadgita, as a result of heing
caught between two mutually contradictory paths of duty and
become doubtful about bis proper duty is not something unique.
The cases of persons who, taking up Asceticism (samnyasa),
give up the world and live in the woods, or of self-centred
weaklings who meekly submit to all kinds of injustice in the
■world without a nmrmei, are different. But those great and
responsible persons, who have to live in society and to do their
duties consistently with righteousness and morality often find
themselves in such circumstances. Whereas Arjuna got
confused and was filled with this desire to know his proper
duty in the commencement of the war, Yudhisthira, was in the
same position when he was later on faced with the duty of
performing the sraddha ceremonies of the various relatives who
had been killed in the war ; and the Santiparva has come to be
written in order to pacify the doubts by which he was then
puzzled. Nay, great writers have written charming poems or
excellent dramas based on such puzzling situations of duty and
non-duty which they have either found in history or imagined.
For instance, take the drama Hamlet of the well-known English
dramatist Shakespeare. The uncle of the Prince of Denmark,
named Hamlet had murdered his ruling brother, that is, the
father of Hamlet, and married his widow and seized the throne.
This drama has portrayed in an excellent manner the state of
mind of the young and tender-hearted Hamlet, who on this
* " What is doable (right action), and what it is not-doable
(wrong action or inaction) is a question which puzzles even sages".
In this place, the word "a/carmn" (not-doable) must be interpreted
as meaning < absence of action' or 'wrong action' according to
the context. See my commentary on the verse.
KARMA-JIJNASA 41
'Occasion was faced with the puzzle as to whether he should put
to death his sinful uncle and discharge his filial obligations
towards his father, or pardon him, because he was his own
uncle, his step-father, as also the ruling king ; and how he
later on became, insane because he did not find any proper path-
shower and guardian like Sri Krsna ; and how ultimately the
poor fellow met his end while vacillating between " to be " and
" not to be ". Shakespeare has described another similar
occasion in a drama of his called Coriolanus. Coriolanus
was a brave Roman potentate, who had boon driven out of
Rome by the citizens of Rome and on that account had gone
• and joined hands with the enemies of Rome, whom he promised
never to forsake. After sometime, the camp of the hostile
army under his command came to be placed outside the gates
of Rome itself, he having attacked and defeated the Romans
and conquered teiritory after territory. Then, the women of
Rome put forward the wife and the mother of Coriolanus and
advised him as to his duty to his motherland, and made
him break the promise given by him to the enemies of
Rome. There are numerous other similar examples of persons
being puzzled as to duty and non-duty in the ancient or the
modern history of the world. But it is not necessary for us to
go so far. We may say that our epic Mahabharata is a mine
of such critical occasions. In the beginning of the book
(A. 2), while describing the Bharata, Vyasa himself has
qualified it by the adjectives " sulamrirtha-uytiijayukkim " (i. e.,
filled with the discrimination between subtle positions ) and
" anelca samayaiwitam " (i.e., replete with numerous critical
occasions ), and he has further praised it by saying that, not
only does it contain the philosophy of Ethics ( dharma-sastra),
the philosophy of wealth {arlha-sastra) and the philosophy of
Release ( molcsa-saxtra ) but that in this matter, "yad ihasii
tad anyatra yan nehasti na hi! kvacit", i.e., "what is to be found
here, is to be found everywhere and what cannot be found here
can be found nowhere else". (A. 62. 53). It may even be said
that the Bharata has been expanded into the ' Mahabharata '
for the sole purpose of explaining to ordinary persons in the
simple form of stories how our great ancient personages have
behaved in numerous difficult circumstances of life; for,
42 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
otherwise, it would not be necessary to writs 18 partus (cantos)
for describing merely the Bharata war or the history known
as Maya'.
Some persons may say : " Keep aside the case of Sri
Kisna and Arjuua ; why is it necessary for you or us to enter
into such deep questions ? Have not Manu and the other
writers of the Smrtis laid down in their own books, clear rules
as to how persons should behave in worldly life ? If one
follows the ordinary commandments prescribed for everybody
in all religions, such as : 'Do not commit murder ', ' Do not
hurt others', ' Act according to moral principles', ' Speak the
truth ', ' Respect your elders and your preceptors', ' Do not
commit theft or adultery', etc., where is the necessity of enter-
ing into these puzzling questions ?" But I will in reply ask
them : "So long as every human being in this world has not
started living according to these rules, should virtuous people,
by their virtuous conduct, allow themselves to be caught in the
nets spread by rascals or should they give measure for measure
by way of retaliation and protect themselves ?" Besides, even
if these ordinary commandments are considered as unchanging,
and authoritative, yet responsible persons are very often faced
with such situations, that two or more of these commandments
become applicable simultaneously ; and then, the man is
puzzled as to whether he should follow this commandment or
that commandment, and loses his reason. The situation into
which Arjuna had found himself was such a situation ; and
the Mahabharata contains in several places critical descriptions
of similar circumstances having engulfed other illustrious
persons besides Arjuna. For instance, let us take the precept of
"Harmlessness" (ahimsa) which is one of the five eternal moral
principles enjoined by Manu (Manu. 10. 63) as binding on all
the four castes namely, "ahimsa sat yam asteijaih saucamindriya-
nigrahah " i. e., Harmlessness (ahiihsa), Truth (satya), Not-
stealing (asteyai, Purity of the body, the mind, and of speech
(saucal, and Control of the organs {indriya-nigraha). "Ahimsa
paramo dharmah" i. e., "Harmlessness is the highest religion"'
(Ma. Bha. A. 11. 13.), is a principle which has been accepted as
pre-eminent not only in our Vedic religion but in all other-
religions. The religious commandments given in the Buddhistic.
KARMA-JIJUTIM. 43
and Christian sacred books have given the first place to the-
commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' as has been done by Manu.
'Hi'hsa' does not mean only destroying life but also includes,
harming the minds or the bodies of others. Therefore, 'ahimsa'
means 'not harming in any way any living being'. Patricide,
matricide, homicide, etc. are the most terrible forms of himsa
and this religion of Harmlessness is looked upon as the highest,
religion according to all people in the world. But, assuming
for the sake of argument that some villain has come, with
a weapon in his hands to kill you, or to commit rape on your
wife or daughter, or to set fire to your house, or to steal all
your wealth, or to deprive you of your immoveable property ;
and, there is nobody there who can protect you ; then should
you close your eyes and treat with unconcern such a villain
(atatayin) saying : " ahimsa paramo dliarmah ?" or should you, as
much as possible, punish him if he does not listen to reason ?
Manu says : —
gurum va btUaurddlum va brahmanain va baliusrutam 1
atatayinam ayaniani hanyad evavicarayan II
i.e., " such an atatayin that is, villain, should be killed without
the slightest compunction and without considering whether
he is a preceptor {yum) or an old man or a child or learned
Brahmin ". For the Sastras say : on such an occasion, the
killer does not incur the sin of killing, but the villain is
killed by his own unrighteousness (Manu. 8. 350). Not only
Manu, but also modern criminal law has accepted the
right of self-defence with some limitations. On these
occasions, self-protection is considered to be of higher
importance than Harmlessness. The killing of tender infants
{bhrfiiia-liatya) is considered to be the most objectionable of
murders; but, if the child is being born by transverse presentation,
is it not necessary to cut the child and deliver the mother T
The slaughter of animals for the purposes of ritualistic
sacrifice (yajiia) is considered blameless even by the Vedas
(Manu. 5. 31) ; yet, that at least 'can be avoided by making an
animal of flour for purposes of sacrifice (Ma. Bha. San. 337 ;
Aim. 115. 56). But how are you going to stop the killing of
the numerous micro-organisms with which the air, water, fruit
44 GITA-'RAHASYA OE, KARMA-YOGA.
etc., and all other places are filled ? Arjuna in the Maha-
WiM-ata sa.yi :-
stiksmaijoifuii bhTitani larkaqamijfmi kladcit I
pakxmano 'pi aipatc.nn ye.sdm syat slcandha-pari/ai/ah II
(Ma. Bha. San. 15. 26).
i.e., " there are in this world so many micro-organisms invisible
to the naked eye, of which the existence can, however, he
imagined, that merely by the moving of one's eye-lids, their
limbs will be destroyed " 1 Then, where is the sense of repeat-
ing orally : ' Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not kill " ? It is on
the basis of this discrimination, that hunting has been justified
in the Anusasanaparva (Ami. 116). In the Vana-parva, there
is a story that a Brahmin, being urged by anger to destroy
a virtuous woman, and heing unsuccessful, surrendered himself
to that woman ; then, that woman sent him to a hunter in
order to learn from him the true import of one's duties. This
hunter earned his living by selling flesh and he was extremely
devoted to his parents. Seeing the way in which the hunter
was earning bis living, this Brahmin was filled with intense
surprise and sorrow. Then the hunter explained to him the
true principle of Harmlessness and opened his eyes ! Does
not everybody eat everybody else in this world 1 " Jh'o jimsya
jivanam ' (Bhaga. 1. 13, 46) i.e., " life is the life of life ", is an
eternal truth; and it is stated not only in the Smrtis (Maim. 5.
28 : Ma. Bha. 15. 21) but also in the Upanisads (Ve. Su. 3. i. 28;
Chan. 5. 2. 1 ; Br, 6. 1. 14) that in times of distress " pruii'isyun-
nam id am Mr nam", i.e., " all this is the food for life ". If every
one becomes harmless, how is warriorship to continue ? And
when once warriorship has come to an end, subject-people will
have no protectors and anybody will he in a position to destroy
anybody else. In short, the ordinary rules of morality are not
always sufficient, and even the most principle maxim of Ethics,
namely that of Harmlessness, does not escape the necessity of
discrimination between the duty and the non-duty.
The Sastras have recommended the qualities of forgiveness,
peace and kindness 'consistently with Harmlessness, but how
will it be possible to practise peace on all occasions 1 Prahlada
in the Mah&bharata first points out to his grandson Bali, that
people will not stop at openly running away with even the
KARMA-JTJXaSA 45
wife and children of an always peaceful man and he advises
Bali as follows :-
na sreyah sntatam tejo na nityam sreyani kfamn I
tasman nityam ktsamii tata pandilair apamdita II
i. e. " Forgiveness in all cases or warlikeness in all cases ia
not the proper thing. Therefore, 0, my son ! the wise have
mentioned exceptions to the law of forgiveness" (Vana. 28. 6, 8).
Prahlada has then described some of the occasions which
would be proper occasions for forgiveness, but Prahlada does
not explain the principle by which these occasions are to be
recognised ; and if some one takes ad vantage of the prescribed
exceptions, without knowing the occasions when they apply,
he will be guilty of misbehaviour ; therefore, it is extremely
important to understand the principle by which these occasions
are to be recognised.
There is another law which has become wholly authori-
tative and acceptable to everybody in the world, whether old
or young, and male or female, in all countries, and among all
religions, and that is the law of Truth. Who can sufficiently
praise the worth of Truth ? ' Stain' and ' satyain- ' came into
existence before the world. The Vedas extol the worth of
Truth by saying that it is satya which controls the firmament,
the earth, tho air and the other primordial elements. See the
incantations : " Hani ca satyain (vhhidilhat tajiaso 'dhyajayata "
(R. 10. 190. 1) i. e. " Law (rtum) and Truth (safi/am) have been
brought into existence after tho performance of effulgent
penance ", and " satyenotfabhiia bhumih. " (Ft. 10. 85. 1) i.e. " the
Earth has become dignified on account of Truth ". The root
meaning of the word ' satya ' is ' which exists, ' that is, ' which
never ceases to exist, ' or ' which is not touched by the past,
present or the future ' ; and therefore, the value of salya has
been properly described by saying : " there is no religion like
Truth, Truth is Parabrahma ". The statement : " nasti satyUt
parn dharmah " (San. 162. 24) i. e. " there is no religion higher
than Truth ", is found in many places in the Mahabharsta.
which also says :-
asvamedJiusahasram ca satyam ca Maya dhrtam I
nkamedha-sahasrad did satyam em -cisivjate II
UX1A l^A^^AU J
i. e. " when the respective merits of a thousand asmmedha
yajrias and of Truth were weighed in the scale, it was found
that Truth weighed more " (A. 74. 102). This refers to the
ordinary rule of Truth. Manu in addition says about speaking
the truth that :-
vacy artha niyalah sarve vufimTda vagvinihsrtuh I
tain fu yah stenayed vacant sa sarcasteya-krnnarah II
(Manu. 4. 256).
i. e. " all the activities of mankind are carried on by speech;
there is no other means like speech for the communication of
thoughts ; then, that man who sullies this fountain-head of
speech, which is the basic foundation of all these activities,
that is to say, the man who is false to his own speech must be
said to be despoiling everything at one stroke". Therefore, says
Manu: " satyaputam vaded Tucaih " (Manu, 6. 46) that is, "Speak
only that which has been purified by Truth. " In the Upanisads
also, the law of Truth has been given a higher place than all
other laws, in the following words: "safyam, mda \ dharmam, cam I ' '
(Tai. 1. 11, 1) that is : "Speak the truth, do what is right " ; and
Bhiama, who was lying on the bed of arrows, after having in the
Santiparva and the Anusasanaparva taught to Yudhisthira
all the various laws, has before yielding up his breath preached
to every one the law of Truth as being the sum and substance
of all laws, in the following words : "satyesu yatitavyam mh
sal yam, hi paramam balam" i.e. "You should strive for Truth,
in as much as Truth is the highest power." (Ma. Bha. Anu.
167. 50). "We find that the vary same laws have been adopted
into the Buddhistic and Christian religions.
Can any one dream that there can be exceptions to this
eternally-lasting law of Truth, which is thus established on all
hands? But life in this world, which is full of villains, is
difficult. Suppose, you have seen some persons escaping from
the hands of marauders and hiding in a thick forest; and the
marauders, who follow them with naked swords in their hands,
stand before you and ask you, where those people are ! What
answer will you give ? Will you speak the truth or will you
•save the lives of unoffending and innocent people ? I ask this
KARMA-JIJNASA 47
"question because, preventing the murder of innocent people is
-according to the Sutras a religion, as highly important as
'Truth itself. Manu Ra,ys:—"iuiprs(ah kasyadd bruyun na
■canyuyeiia prcclmfah" (Maim. 3. 110; Ma. Bha. San. 287. 34) —
that is, "Do not speak to anyone unless he questions you, and if
.some one asks you a question unjustly, then, do not give a
reply, even if you are questioned"; and, "junaim api hi medhavl
jadarcd loka acaret ' ' — i.e. "even if you know the answer simply
say : 'hm ! hm !' like an ignorant person", and save the
situation. Very well ; hut, is not saying merely : 'Hm 1 hm !'
in effect speaking the untruth V It is stated in many places in
the Bharata itself that : na ri/Ujena cared dliarmam", i.e. "do not
■somehow satisfy yourselves by being false to morality;
morality is not deceived, it is you who are deceived" (Ma. Bha.
A. 215. 34). But if you cannot save the situation even by
saying : ' Hm 1 hm ! ', what is to be done ? What will you do
if a thief is sitting on your chest with a dagger in his hand
and asking you where the money is, and you are sure to lose
your life if you do not give a proper reply ? Tho Blessed Lord
Sri Krsna who understood the inner meaning of all laws says
to Arjuna in the Karnaparva (Ka. 69. 61), after giving him the
illustration of highway robbers mentioned above, and later on
in the Satyanrtadhyaya, of the Sfintiparva, Bhisma also says to
Yudhisthira : — "
akUjanena ceil moltso nuvakujii hrtiliafncmm I
avasyaih kujitavye va saiikemn i:Up\j ahTijanut I
ireyas iatranrtaih valdam xutyad ifi dcurUum II
(San. 109. 15, 16.)
i.e. "if you can escape without speaking, then do not speak
under any circumstances: hut if it is necessary to spwk, or if
hy not speaking you may rouse suspicion in the mind (of
another), then, telling a He has been found, after mature
deliberation, to be much better than speaking the truth."
Because, the law of Truth is not confined to speech, and that
conduct which leads to the benefit of all, cannot be looked
upon as objectionable merely on the ground that the vocal
•expression is untruthful. That by which everybody will
48 GriA-RAHASYA ok KARMA-YOGA
harmed is neither Truth nor Harmlessness. Narada says to
Suka in the Santiparva on the authority of Sanatkumara :-
salyasya vacanam sivyah satyildapi hitam vadet i
ynd bhuta-hitam atyantam etat satyam matarn mama II
(Ma. BhS. San. 329. 13 ; 287. 19).
i. e., "speaking the truth is the proper thing ; but rather than
truth, speak that which will lead to the welfare of all ; because,
that in which the highest welfare of all consists is in my
opinion the real Truth ". Seeing the words ' yad bhuta-hitam ',
one will certainly think of the modern western Utilitarians,
and these words may be looked upon as an interpolation. I,
therefore, say that these words have appeared more than twice
in the Vanaparva of the Bharata in the conversation between
the Brahmin and the hunter ; and in one of those places, there
is a verbal change as : " ahinisa satya-uacamin sarm-bhUta-
hitam param " (Vana. 206. 73), and in another place, there is
another verbal difference as : "ijad bhuta-hitam atyantam tat
satyam iti dliaranu " (Vana. 208. 4). There is no other reason for
the fact that the truthful Yudhisthira confused Drona by the
ambiguous answer : " naro va kuiljaro va " i. e., "either the
man (named Asvatthama) or the elephant ", and the same rule
applies to other similar things. Our religion does not ask us to
save the life of a murderer by telling a lie. Because, as the
Sastras themselves have prescribed the punishment of death for
a murderer, such a person is certainly punishable or fit for
death, All the Sastras say that one who bears false witness
on such or similar occasions, goes to hell personally, and also
sends to ths" same place seven or more of his ancestors (Manu.
8.J9-49 ; Ma. Bha. A. 7. 3). But what are you going to do
""when, as in the illustration of the highway robbers given above
from the Karna-parva, speaking the truth will lead to innocent
persons being unnecessarily killed ? The English writer Green
has in his book named Prolegomena to Ethics said that books on
moral philosophy are silent on this question. It is true that
Manu and Yajhavalkya look upon such situations as excep-
tions to the law of Truth. But as even according to them,
KARMA-JIJNASA 49
untruthfulness is the less praiseworthy conduct, they have
prescribed a penance for it in the following words :-
tat pauanai/a nirvapyas caruh sarasvato dvijaih II
( Yajiia. 2. 83 ; Manu. 8. 104-6 ).
i. e., "Brahmins should expiate that sin by offering the 'Saras-
vata' oblation". ?
Those learned Western philosophers who have not been
surprised by the exceptions to the law of Harmlessness, have
attempted to blame our law-givers on account of the exceptions
to the law of Truth 1 I will, therefore, explain here what,
authoritative Christian preachers and Western writers on.
Ethics have said on this subject. The following words of St.
Paul who was a disciple of Christ namely : ''for, if the truth of"
God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory ; why
yet am I also judged as a sinner ? " ( The Romans 3. 7 ) are to-
be found in the New Testament of the Bible ; and Millman,
who has written a history of the Christian religion says that
ancient Christian preachers very often followed the same
principle. Moralists will not in the present times, as a rule,,
consider it justifiable to delude people or to cheat them and
convert them. Nevertheless, even they do not say that the law
of Truth is without exception. Take, for instance, the book on.
Ethics written by the scholar Sidgwick, which is being taught
in our colleges. Sidgwick decides questions of morality, where
there are doubts as to what is doable and what not-doable, by
the rule of the ' greatest happiness of the greatest number' ; and
by the test of that principle he has ultimately laid down that :
"We do not think that truth ought always to be told to>
children, or madmen, or invalids, or by advocates ; and we are
not sure that we are bound to tell it to enemies or robbers, or
even to persons who ask question! „kich they know they have
no right to ask (if a mere refusal to answer would practical!?.,
reveal an important secret)". (Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics
Book III Chapter XI, Paragraph 6, p. 355, 7th Edition. Also
see pp. 315-317). Mill has included this exception to the law
of Truth in his book on Ethics. * Besides these exceptions,
* Mill's Utilitarianism, Chapter II, pp. 33-34 ( loth M.
LoEgman's 1907 ).
.50 GITA-RAHASYA OB KAEMA-YOGA
Sidgwiok also says in his book that : "Again, though we
esteem candour and scrupulous sincerity in most persons, we
scarcely look for them in a diplomatist who has to conceal
secrets, or in a tradesman describing his goods, (for purchasers
can find out the defects of what they buy)". * In a third
place, he says that similar exceptions are made in favour of
Christian missionaries and soldiers. Leslie Stephen, another
Western writer, who discusses Ethics from the material point
of view, gives other similar illustrations and says ultimately
that : " It seems to me that the known consequences of
an action must always be relevant to its morality. If
I were absolutely certain that a lie would do good, I
should certainly hesitate before speaking the truth, and the
certainty might be of such a kind as to make me think it a
duty to lie ". f Green, who has considered the subject of
Ethics from the metaphysical (adhi/afma) point of view,
definitely says with reference to such occasions, that in these
cases the principles of Ethics do not satisfy the doubts of men ;
and ultimately comes to the conclusion that : " A true Moral
Philosophy does not recognise any value in conformity to the
universal rule, simply as such, but only in that which
ordinarily issues in such conformity, viz., the readiness to
sacrifice every lower inclination in the desire to do right for
the sake of doing it ". I The same is the opinion of other
Western writers on Ethics, such as, Bain, vVhewell, and
others. §
If you compare the rules laid down by the Western
philosophers mentioned above, with the rules laid down by our
* SidgwicU's Methods of Ethics, Book IV Chap. Ill, Para. 7.
P. 454, Ifk JM. and Book II Oliap. V Para. 3, P. 169.
f Leslie Stephen's, Science of Ethia Cha. IX. Para 29, p, 369
ij^tii 'Ed) " And the certainty might be of such a kind as to make
ine think it a duty to lie ".
t Green's Prolegomena to Ethics Para 315 p. 379, 5th Cheaper
Edition. ,
§ Bain's Menial and Moral Science, p. 445 (Ed. 1875); Whewell's
Elements of Morality, Bk. II, Oh. XIII and XIV, (4th Ed. 1864).
KARMA-JIJNASA 51
lawgivers, you will clearly see who had greater respect for
Truth. It is true that our religions texts (Sastra-s) say :-
na narmayuktain vacanam Mnasti
m strisu rajan na vivahakale I
pranatyaye sarvadhanapahare
pancamtuny ahur aputakani II
(Ma. Bha. A. 82. 16).
i.e., " There is no sin in speaking the untruth on the following ")
' five occasions, namely, if in joke or wh ile speaking with wom en ■;
or at th e time of marria ge, or if yo ur lif e is in danger, or for
protecting youT own property. " (See alecT^an" 109 and Mami._
8. 110). But that does not mean that one must always speak
the untruth in speaking with women, and these exceptions
are to be understood in the same way in the Mahabharata, as
those mentioned by Prof. Sidgwick with reference to " children,
■or madmen or invalids ". But Western philosophers, who have
shelved the metaphysical as also the next-world view of the
matter, have gone further and have barefacedly permitted even
merchants to tell any lies they like for their own benefit, which
is a thing our lawgivers have not done! It is true that
where there is a conflict between Verbal Truth, that is to Bay,
truthful speech, and Practical Truth, that is to say, the benefit
of humanity, they have permitted that the situation may be
saved by telling a lie, if, from the practical point of view,
that is unavoidable. Nevertheless, as they look upon the
moral laws of Truth etc. as permanent, that is to say,
immutable under all circumstances, they have considered this
speaking of untruth as a sin to a certain extent, from the next-
world point of view, and have prescribed relative panances.
Purely materialistic philosophers will say, that these penances
are mere bug-bears. But as those who prescribed these penances
or those for whom these penances were prescribed, were not of
the same opinion, one has got to say that both these classes
look upon these exceptions to the law of Truth as the less
proper course of conduct ; and the same moral has been
conveyed by the relative traditional stories on this point.
For instance, Yudhisthira, on a difficult occasion, half-
heartedly and only once, uttered the words " nam va
52 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
kuiijaro va." But on that account his chariot, which till
then used to move in the air about four inches above-
the surface of the earth began to move in contact with
the earth like the chariots of other people, and he had also to
spend a few hours in hell, as has been stated in the Maha-
bharata itself (Drona. 191. 57, 58 and Svarga. 3.15). In the
same way, as Arjuna killed Bhisma, taking shelter behind
Sikhandi, though according to the laws of warfare, he had to
suffer defeat later on at the hands of his son Babhruvahana,,
as has been stated in the Asvamedhaparva (Ma. Bha. Asva. 81.
10). From this it will be seen that these exceptions, which
have been contigently permitted, are not to he treated as the
rule or as authority, and that our religious writers have drawn,
the following ultimate philosophical proposition, namely :-
almahetoh pararthe va narmahasySsrayat tatha I
ye mrsa na vadantVia te mrah svargayamlnah II
that is : " those persons alone attain heaven, who never speak
the untruth in this world, whether for their own benefit, or
for the benefit of others, or in joke ; " as was explained by
Mahadeva to Parvatt. (Ma. Bha. Anu. 144. 19).
The law of Truth consists in performing one's promisee
or vows. Sri Krsna and Bhisma both said, that the Himalaya
might move from its site, or fire itself would become cold, but
■what they had said would not be otherwise (Ma. Bha. A. 103
and U. 81. 48) ; and even Bhartrhari has described righteous-
persons in the following terms :~
tejasrinah wkham asun api samfyajanti I
satymratavysanino 11a puuah pivtijmm II
(Nitisataka.110)
that is : " illustrious i.e. high-principled persons will willingly
sacrifice their lives, but will not break a vow ". In the same
way, the vows of Dasarathi Ramchandra of being true to his
speech and shooting only one arrow have become as famous as his-
vow of monogamy, as appears from : " dvih saram liabhisamdliatte
Rumo dvir nabhibhasate " i.e., " Sri Rama had not to draw an
arrow twice nor did lie prevaricate " — (Subhasita) ; and there
are tales in the Puranas ; that Harishchandra served as a
domestic for drawing water in the home of a burner of dead.
KARMA-JIJNASX 53
hodies in order to cany out a promise whioh lie had given in
a dream. But, on the other hand, it is stated in the Vedas that
even the gods themselves broke the pledges made by them with
Vrfcra' or found out some loop-holes in them and killed Vrtra;
and the murder of Hiranyakasipu is justified in the Puranas on
the same basis. Besides, some agreements made in ordinary
life are such as are considered unlawful or unfit for observance
according to law. A similar story is related in the Maha-
bharata with reference to Arjuna. Arjuna had made a vow
that he would immediately behead any person who asked him
to surrender his Gandiva bow to another. Later on, when
Karna had defeated Yudhisthira in the war, and Yudhisthira
naturally said to him (Arjuna) in despair : " What has been
the use of your Gandiva bow to us 1 Throw it away from
your hands ", Arjuna rose, sword in hand, to behead
Yudhisthira. But as Sri Krsna was near him at the time, he
critically expounded to him the religion of Truth from the
philosophical point of view, and said to him : " You are a fool,
you do not understand the subtle points of morality, and you
must learn them from your elders; you have not learnt at the
feet of elders — ' mi vrddliah sevitas Ivatja '. If you wish only
to be true to your vow, then deprecate Yudhisthira, because
for respectable persons, deprecation is as painful as
death, etc."; and he thus saved him from the sin of murder
.of an elder brother which he would have thoughtlessly
.committed, as has been stated in the Karnaparva. ( Ma. Bha.
Karna. 69 ). The discrimination between Truth and Falsehood
which was made by Sri Krsna on this occasion, has been
subsequently preached by Bhisma to Yudhisthira in the
.Satyanrtadhyaya of the Santiparva ( San. 109 ) ; and all must
bear it in mind in relation to the affairs of ordinary life. Yet,
it is difficult to explain how to recognise these subtle excep-
tions, and my readers will readily notice that although the law
■of fraternity was in this particular case looked upon as
superior to the law of veracity, yet, the occasion mentioned in
the Gita was just the oppposite, and there the warrior-religion
has been pronounced to be superiot'to the law of fraternity.
If there is so much difference of opinion with reference to
Harmlessness (ahinisa) and Veracity (satya), then why should
54 GITA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
one be surprised if the game line of reasoning is applied to the
third common law, namely of. Not-Stealing (asteya)'! If
stealing or taking away by force that wealth which a man has
lawfully acquired is permitted, then people will stop accumula-
ting wealth, and all will suffer ; and chaos will reign as a
result of the arrangement of society being broken up. But,
there are exceptions to this rule. When such a calamity
(apatti) arises that food cannot be had, whether for money or
by labour or for charity on account of a general famine, shall
we look upon as a sinner, some person who thinks of saving
his life by committing theft ? There is a story in the
Mahabharata that when such a difficult contingency befell
Visvamitra, as a result of famine for twelve consecutive years,
he was on the point of saving his life by stealing a leg of dog's
flesh hung up in the home of a butcher (San. 141), and by
eating that uneatable food ; thereupon, this butcher gave him.
much advice based on the Sastras, not to commit the sin of
eating such uneatable food, and that too by theft, and quoted :
" palica panmnakliu bhakw^b " ( Manu. 5. 18 ). * But Visva-
mitra rejected that advice, saying :-
pibanty evodakam gavo maydukesu ruvatsv api I
>ia te 'dhikaro dharmc. 'sti ma bhur atmaprasamsakah II
* Out of the animals who have five toes, such as, the dog, the
monkey etc. Maim and Yajfiavalkya have prescribed the porcupine
(which has arrow-like hair), sallaka, (this is a kind of a porcupine),
the iguana, the tortoise, and the hare as edible (Manu 5. 18 .
YajBa. 1. 177). Manu has included in the list also tbe 'khadga'
that is, the rhinoceros ; but commentators say that there is a doubt
about that animal. If this doubtful case is omitted, only five
animals remain, of which the flesh is edible, and this is what is
meant by the words :-'' pafica pancamkhci b/m&§yah " i. e., "it ia only
five five-toed animals which are edible". Still, the Mimamsa
writers interprete this as meaning that, those who are allowed to
eat flesh should not eat the flesh of any five-toed animals except
these ; and not that one must necessarily eat the flesh of these
animals. This technical interpretation is known as 'parisamkfiyn' .
The rule '' paiica pancanakha bhuksyah " ia an illustration of this
'parisamkhya'. "Where flesh-eating is itself unlawful, the eating
of the flesh of these animala is also unlawful.
KARMA.-JIJNASA 55
that is :-" butcher !, cows do not stop drinking water,
although frogs remonstrate. Keep quiet ! you have no right to
explain principles of morality to me, do not boast un-
necessarily ". Visvamitra has on this occasion also said:
" jivitam marauat sreyo jiuan dharmam avcipnuyut " i. e., "if one-
remains alive, then he can think of religion ; and therefore,
even from the point of view of religion, keeping alive is better
than dying " ; and Manu has given the illustration not only of
Visvamitra but also of Ajigarta, Vamadcva, and other rsis whc>
have, in similar circumstances, behaved similarly ( Manu. 10.
105-108 ). The English writer Hobbes says in his book that r
"If in a great famine, he takes the food by force or stealth,
which he cannot obtain for money nor charity ; or, in defence
of his life, snatch away another man's sword, he is totally
excused for the reason next before alleged " ; * and Mill has
said that in such circumstances, it is the duty of every
human being to save his own life even by commiting theft.
But are there no exceptions to this theory of Visvamitra.
that : ' Keeping alive is better than dying ' ? Keeping aliv&
is not the only thing worth doing in this world ' Even crows
keep alive, for many years, by eating the pinda offerings.
Therefore, Virapatni Vidula says to her son that : "Rather
than that you should rot in the bed or remain cooped up in the
house for a hundred years, it is better that you show warrior-
like prowess even for a few hours and then die " — " muliurtam
jralita'h sreyo na ca dhumayituw ciram " ( Ma. Bha, U. 132. 15 ).
If one is bound to die either to-day or to-morrow or at any rate
aft9r a hundred years ( Bhag. 10. 1. 38 ; Gi. 2. 27 ), then why be
afraid of it or cry or dread it or lament ? Prom the
metaphysical point of view, the Self (Atmaii) is eternal and
never dies. Therefore, in considering the question of death, all
that one has to consider is the body which has fallen to one's
lot according to one's destiny ( prarabdlta ). This body is perisha-
ble in any case. But in as much as this perishable human
body is the only means by which one can perform whatever is
* Hobbes' Leviathan, Part II Cliap. XXVII P. 1S9, ( Morley'ff
Universal Library Edition) ; Milk', Utilitarianism, Chap. V. P. 95
(loth Ed.). — " Thus, to save a life, it may not only be allowable,
but a duty to steal etc. "
A
56 GTTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA.
to be performed in this world for the benefit of the A traan, even
Mami says : " atmanam salataih rak/tet durair apt dhamir api "—
i.e. " it is better first to protect one's Self (utman) before protect-
ing one's wife, children or property (7. 213). Yet, noble souls
have willingly sacrificed their lives in the fire of duty, in order
to obtain something much more permanent than this peri-
shable human body, e.g. for their God or religion, or for the
sake of truth, or for acting according to their avowed purpose
or sacred vow, or their professed course of conduct, ov for
protecting their reputation, or for the sake of success, or for the
benefit of the entire world 1 There is a story in the Raghuvamsa
that Dilipa, while offering his body to a lion in order to protect
the cow of Vasistha from him, said to him : " People like me
are indifferent towards the human body which is made up of
the five elements; therefore, look at my virtuous body rather
than at my physical body " (Raghu, 2. 57) and the story of
Jimiitavahana having sacrificed his own body to an eagle in
order to protect the lives of serpents, is to be found in the
Katliasmtsagara, as also in the Nagananda drama. In the
Mrcchakatika (10. 27) Carudatta says :-
na bhlto maranad asmi kevalam dutitam yasah \
visuddhasya hi me mrtyuh putmjanmasamah lala II
that is : " I am not afraid of death; I am unhappy only because
my reputation will be tarnished. If my reputation remains
untarnished, then even if I have to suffer death, I will be as
happy about it as if a son were born to me"; and on this same
principle, the king Sibi, in order to protect a kapota bird,
which had surrendered itself to him, took the form of a syena
bird and cut off pieces of flesh from his own body and offered
them to the Dharma who was hunting the Icapola bird; and
when a sword made out of the bones of a rsi named Dadhici
was needed for killing Vrtra, the enemy of the gods, all the
gods went to that rsi and said to him : " sarlratyugam loka-
hilartliam bhavan Icartum arkati " i. e. " Rsi, be pleased to
give up your life for the sake of the benefit of all ", and
thereupon, that rsi most willingly gave up his life and allowed
the gods to take his bones. These stories are to be found
KARMA-JIJN1SA
respectively in the Vanaparva and the Santiparva of the
Bharata (Vana. 100 and 131 ; San. 342). When the god Surya
i(Sun) came to know that India was going to the most generous
Karua in the form of a Brahmin for begging from him the
shield and ear-ornaments {kavuca-kundala) with which he had
•come to birth, he (Siirya), warned Kama not to part with the
•same by gift to anybody and said to him that though he
'(Earns) was known as a most magnanimous person, yet he
should not part-with the shield and ear-ornaments to anybody,
as his life would be in danger if he did so ; and " mrtasya
klrhja kirn karyam " i. e. " once he was dead, fame would be
of no use to him. " Hearing this message of the Sun-god,
Karna gave him the fearless reply that: " jwifenapi me raksya
kirtis tad -uiddhi me vratam " i. e. " I do not care, if I lose my
life, but protecting my reputation is my avowed purpose "
-{Ma. Bha. Vana. 299. 38). I may even say that such warlike
.doctrines as : " If you die you will go to heaven and if you
win, you will enjoy the wealth of the earth" (Gi. 2. 37) or
"" svadliarme nidhanam sivi/ah " (Gl. 3. 35), i. e. " Even if you meet
your death, in acting according to your own religion, yet there
3s virtue in that", are based on the same principle ; and
■consistently with that principle Sri Samartha Bamadasa Svami
has preached that : " If you think of your reputation , you wil l
have no happiness and if you_pursne happines s, _vou will hav e
'to"sacrTrTciryour r eputat ion " (Dasa. 12. 10. 19 ; 19. 10. 25) ; and
that therefore : " When you have shed your body, your renown
should survive you ; my mind ! righteous persons should
act in this way ". Nevertheless the questions : " What is the
use of renown after you are dead, though it may be true that
by doing good to others you obtain renown ?" or, " Why should
a righteous man prefer death to disgrace ? (GI. 2. 34), or
prefer doing good to others to saving his own life ?" will not
be satisfactorily answered unless one enters into the consider-
-tiori of the Self and the Non-self (utmanatma) ; and even if
these questions are answered otherwise, yet in order to under-
stand on what occasions it is proper to sacrifice one's life and
when it is not proper to do so, one has also to consider the
■question of the philosophy of Action and Non-Action
(karmakarma) ; otherwise, far from acquiring the glory of
58 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
having sacrificed one's ] jfe, one will have incurred the sin of
having foolishly committed suicide.
The religion of worshipping and serving one's mother,
father, preceptor, etc., who are worshipful persons, as if they
were deities, is looked upon as an important religion out of the
several general and generally accepted religions, Because, if
such were not the case, the family, the gurukula and even
society itself will not ho properly arranged. Therefore, not
only in the Smrti treatises but also in the Upanisads, it is
stated that each preceptor after firjt preaching " salaam vada I
dharmam cava I ", i.e., " speak the truth, live righteously " to the
disciple who left him to go home after finishing his instruction,
used next to preach to him : " matrdevo bhava I pitrdevo bhava '
ucanjadevo bhava I " i.e. " treat your mother, your father, and
your preceptor as if they were gods " (Tai. 1. 11. 1. and 2); and
that is the sum and substance of the chapter on the coversation
between the Brahmin and the hunter in the Mahabharata
(Vana. 213). But even in this religion, unexpected
difficulties arise. Manu has said :
upadhyayun dasacaryah acaryanam satam pita I
mliasiwh tu pitrn mata gauravertatiricyate II
(Manu. 2. 145).
i. e. " thep receptor is more in worth than ten lecturers, th e
father is worth more_than a hundr ed prec eptor s ! _and th e mothe r
is worth more than a thousand fathers '. Yet, it is a well-known
skiryTIrat because his mother had committed a grievous sin,
Parasurama, at the instance of his father, cut her throat
(Vana. 116. 14); and in the Cirakarikopakhyana of the Santi-
parva (San. 265) the question of the relative propriety of killing
one's mother at the behest of one's father or of disobeying one's
father, has been considered in all its bearings with arguments
pro and con in a separate chapter by itself. From this it will
be seen that the practice of discussing such subtle positions in
life from the ethical point of view was fully in vogue at the
date of the Mahabharata. Every one is conversant with the
story of Sri Ramacandra ha-ving at the behest of his father
willingly accepted banishment into the forests for 14 years in
order to give effect to the promise made by his father. But the
ETARMA-JUNiSA 59
prinoiple which has been enunciated above with reference to-
the mother, has occasionally to be applied to the case of the
father. For instance, if after a son has become a king by his
own prowess, he has occasion to try some crime committed by
his father, should he in his capacity as a king, punish his-
father or let him off because he is his father ? Manu says :-
pitacaryah suhrn rriata bharya putrah purohtah I
nadaivjyo nama rajno 'sti yah svadharme na (istliati II
i. e. "May he be a father or a preceptor or a friend or a son or
a priest, may she be a mother, or a wife, if he or she have not
behaved according to their own duties, they are not unpuni-
shable for the king; that is, the king must give them condign
punishment" (Manu. 8. 335; Ma. Bha. San. 121. 60). Because, in
this situation, the religion of sonhood is inferior to the religion
of kinghood. And it is stated both in the Bharata and the
Ramayana, that the most illustrious King Sagara, belonging
to the Suryavamsa banished his son, acting on this principle,
because he found that his son was unreasonable and ill-
behaved and was harassing his subjects. (Ma. Bha. 107; Rama.
1. 38). Even in the Mami-Smrti, there is a story that a rsi
named Angirasa, having acquired excellent knowledge already
at a tender age, his uncles (paternal and maternal) and other
elders began to learn at his feet; on one such occasion Angirasa, .
in addressing them, naturally used the words : 'my children'
which are used by a teacher in addressing his pupils-'putovfca
iti hoKica jnanena parigrhi/a tan" i.e. "having imparted know-
ledge to them, he addressed them as 'my children' !" — Then what
an uproar arose I All the old people became livid with anger,
and were convinced that the boy had become arrogant; and they
made a complaint to the gods that he should be properly puni-
shed. The gods listened to the pleadings on either side, and
ultimately gave the decision that the words which Angirasa had
used in addressing them were perfectly proper; because :-
na term vrddho bhauati yenasya palitam sirah I
yo vai yuvapy adhiyanas tan devah sthaoirain viduh II
that is :-" if his hair have become white, a man does not on
that account alone, beoome old ; although a man may be young,
60 GITA-BAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
yet if he is learned, the gods look upon him as old " (Manu. 2.
156 ; and also Ma. Bha. Vana. 133. 11 ; Salya, 51. 47). This
principle has been accepted not only by Manu and Vy asa but also
by the Lord Buddha. Because, the first line of the above verse
from the Smrti has been adopted verbatim into the well-known
Buddhistic treatise on Ethics, in the Pali language, known as
the ' Dliammapada ' * (Dhammapada, 260) ; and later on
it is said in the same book that the man who has become mature
only by age, has lived in vain ; and that in order that a
person should become truly religious and old, he must have
acquired the virtues of veracity, harmlessness etc. ; and in
another treatise named ' Cullavayya ', the Lord Buddha has
himself permitted that even if the bliiksy, ( mendicant ) who
may be preaching may be young, yet he should sit on a high
pedestal and preach the religion to other bluksus who had
been previously invested into the creed and may be older than
Mm (Cullavagga, 6. 13. 1). The story of Prahlada having
disobeyed his father Hiranyakasipu, and won the Blessed LoTd
mentioned in the Puranas is well-known; and from these
stories it will be seen that as a result of other important
considerations coming into existence, one has unavoidably to
temporarily forget not only the relationship between the older
and the younger in age, but also the universally accepted
relationship between father and son. But if, when such an
occasion has not arisen, an arrogant son begins to abuse his
father, will he not be looked upon as a brute ? Bhisma has
* The work ' Dhammnpada ' has been translated into
English in the Sacred Books of the East Series Vol X and the
Cullaeni/ga has also been translated into English in the Volumes
XVII and XX of the same aeries. Mr. Yadavarao Varvikar, has
ako translated the Dhammapada into Marathi, and that was first
published in the Kolhapur Oranthamala and later on as an
independent book. The verae in Pali in the Dhammapada is as
follows :-
MB tenathero hoti ymassa palitam siro \
St* paripaHo vayo tctssa moghct-jinno ti mccati \\
vrll t word 'thera' is applied to Bnddhist mendicants. It is a
Order ,pti on from the Sanskrit word " sthavira".
KAKMA-JUNlSA 61
said to Yudhisthira : " ivmir aar'njTw piirto matrtas ceti me
matsh " (San. 108. 17), i. p. " the preceptor is superior even to
the mother ot the father. "' But it is stated in the Mahabharata
itself, that when the preceptor of the king Marutta had
abandoned him for his seltisli interests, Marutta said :-
guror apt/ amltptasi/a hiiriiaWmvn ajUmilah I
utjmthapratipaiutdit/a ■iiya!/n,im hlijvati siiijmm fl
(Ma. BUS. A, 142. 53-53).
i. e. " Even a preceptor, who, disregarding what ought to be
done and what ought not to be done, takes up arrogantly the
wrong path, deserves punishment ". This verse lias appeared
four times in the Mahabharata. (Ma. Bha. A. 142. 52-53 ; IT.
179. U ; San. 57. 7 ; 140. 48). Out of these, the reading in the
first reference is as above and in the other references, the fourth
part of the verse reads: " tlando bhamli sasvatah " or " pnriti/ago
lidhiyate ''. But where this verse has appeared in the Valmiki
Bamayana (Rama. 2. 21. 13), the reading mentioned above is the
only reading which has appeared; and. therefore, I have adopted
it in this book. The fights between Bhlsma and Parsurama and
between Aijumi and Drona were justified on the same principle
and when the preceptors of Prahlada appointed by Hiranya-
kasipu began to advise him against worshipping the Blessed Lord,
he has disregarded their advice uii the same principle. In the
Santiparva, Bhlsma hiin&eli ;:-ays to Sri Kisna that, although a
preceptor may be venerable yet he also must be bound by rules
of Ethics ; otherwise .-
mma,tjaty~igiii<~i Inbdhun quruii apt ca Kesarn I
nihamSi samare pTipjn ksatriyah. sa hi dharmaiit II
(San. 55. 16).
that is : " Oh Kesava, that ksatriya is truly law-abiding, who
kills such persons as break laws, ethical principles, or rules of
proper conduct, or is greedy or sinful, notwithstanding that they
occupy the position of pracaptors." So also, in the Taittiriyo-
panisad, after first stating : " acanjadevo bhaoo, ", i.e., " Treat
your proceptor, as a deity ", it is immediately afterwards stated
that : " yany asmilhaih sucaritam i tuiii tvaijopasijani I no itarmii II"
(Tai, 1. 11. 2), i.e., " Imitate only such of our actions as are
62 GITA-BAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
good, and disregard the others ". From this, it is quite clear
that the net advice of the Upanisads is that, even if the elders
are god-like, because they are preceptors, or parents, yet, do not
become addicted to drink, because they were addicted to drink ;
because, the position of ethical principles or of laws is even
nigher than that of the mother or the father or the preceptor,
etc. The statement of Manu that : " Follow your religion ; if
any one destroys his religion, that is to say, disregards it, that
religion will, without fail, destroy him." (Manu. 8. 14-16), has
been made on the same principles. The king is a deity who is
even more worshipful than the preceptor (Manu. 7. 8, and Ma.
Bha. San, 68. 40). But, the Manu-Smrti says that even he does
not escape the binding force of laws, and that if he breaks
them, he will be destroyed ; and the same idea is conveyed by
the histories of the two kings Vena and Khaninetra mentioned
in the Mahabharata (Manu. 7, 41 and 8. 128 ; Ma. Bha. San. 59.
92-100 and Asva. 4).
Control of the organs is placed on the same level with
Harmlessness {ahimsa), Veracity {satya), and Not-stealing
(astei/a), in the ordinary general religions (Manu. 10. 63). All
the Sastras contain the advice that Desire (kama ), An ger
lykrod lm) and Avarice \iobha) a re the en emies of "man, and that
unless they are fully conquered, neither he nor society will in
any way be benefitted ; and it is stated in the Viduraniti, as
also in the Bhagavadgita, that :-
irividham narakasyeda/h dvarain nasanam atmamh I
kamah krodhas tatha loblias tasmad etat trayam ti/ajef II
i.e., " Ka ma, krodha and Ic bba are the three gateways of hell ;
and as they are destructive agents, they must be eschewed "
<GI. 16. 21 ; Ma. Bha. IT. 32. 70). But the Blessed Lord has
in the Gita itself described his own form in the following
words : " dharmaviruddko bhutesu kamo 'smi Uharatarsablia "
(GI. 7. 11), i.e„ " _Ajjunal Jjtmjhat kama (desire) which
exists in the hearts of l iyjngthings, bBingconsistenTwitbTTaw
(dliarma)". Therefore, UiaTllmold^slrerwBcTnsTncOTs^ent
with dliarma is the gateway of hell and other kinds of kama are
not proscribed by the Blessed Lord ; and even Manu has said :
"parityajed arthakamau yau syatam dharmavarjitau", i.e.,
KABMA-JIJNASA 63
"' that wealth (artha) and desire (hlma) which are inconsistent
with justice (dhanna) should be eschewed" (Manu. -4. ITS).
If to-morrow all living beings decide to say good-bye to the
Lord Kama, and to observe celibacy the whole of their lives,
the entire living creation will come to an end within fifty
or at most one hundred years, and the silence of death
will reign everywhere ; and that creation, in order to save
which from destruction, the Blessed Lord takes incarnations
every now and then, will within a short lime, be destroyed.
Kama and krndlta are enemies, it is true, but, when ? : if you
allow them to become uncontrolled. Even Maun and the other
writers of the Sastras have accepted the position that kdma and
krodlia are extremely essential, within proper limits, in order
that the world should go on ( Manu. 5. 56 ). The highest
civilisation consists in putting a. proper restraint on these
powerful mental impulses, and not in totally destroying them.
It is stated in the Bhagavata that :-
lake vtjamyanusamadijascm
mti/anti jantor na hi tatm co'hmi l
ryavastliitis tcsti viwluiuajiln- ' !
sitrugrahat'ruxu nhrlfir isffi II
(Bhag. 11. 5. 11).
i. e. " In this_ worl d, it is not n ecessary Jjg_ t ell any »ne_ to
indulge in the enjoyment of jiexuaMiiteroourse or in e ating
fleslTor drinking~wiiie7 These arc things which humarTliBings
wanTn"atura ny7~Snd it is" in order to systematise 'ITiesethreo
impulses, that is to say, in order to give them a systematic
basis by subjecting them to limitations or restraint, that the
writers of the Sastras have ordained marriage, and the Soma-
yaga and the Sautramani-yajfia respectively for them ; but even
with reference to these mattors, the most excellent course is
Renunciation (mvrlti), that is to say, Desire] ess Action".
Although the word ' nivrttt ', when used in relation to fifth-
>case-ended nouns, means, ' renunciation of a particular thing '
■or 'giving up a particular Action altogether'; yet, iw the
.adjective ' nivrtta ' is in the Karma-Yoga applied to the noun
'karma', the word 'nivrllu-lcarma', it must be borne in mind,
means 'Action which is to be performed desirelesely'; and the
64 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
word has been used clearly in those meanings in the Manu-
Smrti and in the Bhagavata-purana ( Manu. 12. 89 ; Bhag. 11.
10. 1 and 7. 15. 47 ). In speaking about anger (krodha) Bharavi.
says in the Kirata-kavya (1. 33) that :-
amarsasunyena janasya jantima
na jatahardena na -ridvisadarah II
i. e., "if a man does not get angry or annoyed when he has been
insulted, it is just the same whether he is your friend or
whether he hates you I" Vidula has said, that from the point of
view of the warrior (ksatriya) religion :-
etavan eva puruso yad amarsi yad aksami I
ksamavan niramarsas ca naiva stri na punah puman II
( Ma. Bha. U. 132. 33 ).
i. e., "he who gets angry ( on account of injustice ) and wk>'
does not submit (to insult), is truly a man. He who does not
get angry or annoyed is neither a woman nor a man". It has
already been stated above that in order that the world should
go on, there must not be either angeT or valour at all times, or
forgiveness at all times. The same law applies to avarice
(lobha) ; because, even if a man is a samnyasi (ascetic) yet he
wants Release (moksa).
Vyasa has stated in various stories in the Mahabharata,.
that the various virtues of valour, courage, kindness, probity,,
friendship, impartiality etc., are, in addition to their mutual
oppositions, also limited by considerations of time and place.
'Whatever the virtue may be, it is not equally appropriate in all
circumstances. Bhartrhari says that :-
upadi dliain/am alhabhyudaye ksarria
sadttsi vakpatuta yudhi vikmmah I
( Niti. 63 ).
that is : "Courage is a virtue in days of misfortune, forgiveness-
in days of power (that is, notwithstanding that you are in a.
position to punish), oratory in an assembly, and valour in
warfare". In times of peace, there are not wanting mere
talkers like Uttara; but although there may be many Hambira-
raos who are courageous enough to shoot arrows through the
nose-iings of their wives, it is only one of them who acquits
KARMA-JTJNASA 65
himself with credit as an archer on the battle-field ! Not only-
are courage and the other abovementioned virtues really-
appropriate in the respective circumstances mentioned, but they
cannot even be properly tested except in such circumstances.
There are not wanting shoals of school-friends; but, "mlcasagravw
tu tesam vipat", i.e. "adversity is their touchstone". Misfortune
is the true test for trying them. The word ' circumstances '
above includes considerations of worthiness and unworthiness,
in addition to considerations of time and place. No virtue is
greater than impartiality. The Bhagavadgita itself clearly
says that being: " samah sarvesu bhtUesu", i.e., "impartial
towards all created things", is a characteristic feature of a
perfect being (siddlia). But, what does this impartiality mean ?
If somebody showers charity on each and every one alike, that
is to say, without considering their respective merits, shall we
call him a wise man or a fool ? This question has been
answered in the Gita itself in the following words : "dese laM
capalre ca tad danam sattvikam viduh", i.e., "that charity which.
is made with proper regard for the place, the time, and the
worthiness (of the party) is the pure (saltvilca) charity"
(Gi. 17. 20). Considerations of time, are not limited to the
present time. As times change, bo also changes take place in the
laws relating to worldly life; and therefore, if one has to
consider the propriety or otherwise of any thing psi-taining to
ancient times, one has necessarily to consider also the ideas of
righteousness or unrighteousness prevailing at that time. Mann
(1. 85) and Vyasa (Ma. Bha. San. 359. 8) say :-
amje krtayuge dharmas tretayam dvupare 'pare I
anye Jtaliyuge nrnain yugahraaunurupatah II
i. e., "the laws relating to the Krta, Treta, Duapam and the-
Kali-yuga are all different according as the yugas (eras) change".
And it is stated in the Mahabharata itself that in ancient
times, women were not restricted by marriage, and they were
entirely independent and unchecked in that matter ; but, when
the evil effects of this kind of life manifested themselves later
on, Svetaketu laid down the limitation of marriage ( Ma. Bha.
A. 122 ) ; and Sukracarya was the first one to promulgate the
prohibition against drink (Ma. Bha, A. 76). Needless to say,
9-10
66' GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
there must be different standards for considering the laws
pertaining to the times when these restrictions were not in
vogue, than those relating to the times when they came into
vogue ; and in the same way, if the laws which are in force in
the present age are changed in the future, then the considera-
tion of the righteousness or unrighteousness of actions in the
future will also be on a different basis. As there are considera-
tions of time, so also are there considerations of the customs of
the country, the customs of the family, as also the customs of
the community ; for, custom is the root of all religion. Never-
theless, there are inconsistencies even among customs. Bhlsma
has described the differences between customs in the following
words :
na hi sarvaMIdh kascid ucarah sampravarlate I
tenaivanyah prabhavati so 'param badliate puruA II
( San. 259. 17. 18 ).
"that is : "One cannot find any custom, which is "beneficial to
everybody, at all times. If you take one custom, another one
is better, and if you accept the second custom, it is again
■contrary to a third one " ; and he has said that we have to
discriminate between customs and customs.
If I go on solving in this way all the riddles about what
should be done and what should not be done [Icarmdlcarma) and
what is righteous and what unrighteous (dliarmadliarma), I shall
have to write a second Mahabharata myself. I have laboured
on this subject so long only with the idea of impressing on the
mind of my readers how the circumstances in which Ai'juna
-found himself in the beginning of the Gita as a result of a
conflict between fraternal affection and a warrior's duties were
not something out of the common ; and how similar circum-
stances very often befall great and responsible persons in life,
giving rise sometimes to a conflict between the principles of
Harmlessness and Self-protection, or of Veracity and general
welfare, or between the protection of one's person and one's
imputation, or again between different duties arising out of
different aspects of the same situation ; and how, many excep-
tions thus arise, which are not provided for by ordinary and
: generally accepted moral laws; and lastly, how^-pa such
KARMA-JIJNASA 61'
occasions, not only ordinary, but even very clever and
learned persons, naturally feel the desire of finding out
whether or not there is some definite formula or basis for
determining what should be done and what not, or, what
is one's duty and what is not one's duty. It is true that
some concessions have been made in the Sastras to meet
calamities like a famine which are technically known as
4 apaddharma '. For instance, the writers of the Smrtis say
that in such calamities ( apatlmla ) a Brahmin incurs no
sin, if he takes food in any place; and in the Chandogyo-
panisad, there is even a story of Usasticakrayana having done
so. (Yajfia. 3. 41; Chan. 1. 10). But there is a world of differ-
ence between those circumstances and the circumstance men-
tioned above. In the case of famine, there is a conflict between
religious principles on the one hand and hunger, thirst, and
other bodily needs on the other, and the bodily organs drag you
in one direction and religious principles in the opposite_direc-
tion. But in many of the circumstances mentioned above, the
conflict is not between bodily impulses and religious principles
but there is an inter-conflict between two principles laid down
in the Sastras themselves and it becomes necessary to consider
minutely whether to follow this religious preoept or that; and
though it may be possible for person? of ordinary intelligence
to arrive at a decision on a few such occasions by considering
what pure-minded persons have done in the past in similar cir-
•cumstances, yet on other occasions, even sages are puzzled;
because, the more one thinks about a particular matter, more
and more of doubts and counter-arguments come into existence,
and it becomes very difficult to arrive Jat a r definite conclusion;
and if a proper decision is not arrived at, there is a risk of
one's committing an unlawful thing or even a crime. Consi-
dering the matter from this point of view, it will be seen that
the discrimination between the lawful and the unlawful or
between the doable and the not-doable becomes an independent
science by itself, which is even more difficult than the sciences
of logic or grammar. In old Sanskrit treatises, the word
J nlti-sMra ' ( Ethics ) used to be applied principally to
regal jurisprudence (raja-nlh) and the doable and the not-
idoable used to be technically called ' dliarma-sastra '. But as
68 GITA-RAHASYA OS KARMA-YOGA
the word ' niti ' includes both duty arid good conduct, I have va
this book referred to the discussion of the questions of
righteousness and unrighteousness or of what ought to be done
and what ought not be done, by the name ' mti-sastra '. In
order to show that this science, which expounds Ethics, or
shows what is doable and what is not-doable, or what is
righteous and what unrighteous, is indeed a very difficult
science, the sentence " suksma gatir hi dharmasya ", i.e.
" the true nature of righteousness, that is to say, of
the Ethics of worldly life, is very subtle ", occurs several
times in the Mahabharata. It is extremely difficult to
satisfactorily answer such questions as : — How did five
Pandavas many one Draupadi 1 or, Why did Bhisnia,
Drona and others sit quiet, as if with a dead heart, when
attempts were made to denude Draupadi ?, or, Whether
the principle ; '" arthisya puniso dasah dusas to artho na kasyacit"
i.e., " man is the servan t o f wealt h (art ha), wealth is the s ervant
of nobody " (Ma. JJha. ±iM. 43. 35), e nunciated by Bh]sm a~"an3
Drona, in justification of their having sided with the wicked
Duryodhana in the civil war is or is not correct ? or, if
service is looked upon as dog-like, as is shown by the words :
" seva soavrttir akhyata ", i.e., " servitude is said to be the
tendency of a dog " (Manu. 406) and is accordingly considered
eschewable, then why did Bhisma and others not give up the
service of Duryodhana, rather than becoming the slaves of
wealth ? Because, on such occasions different persons arrive
at different inferences or decisions according to different
circumstances. Not only are the principles of justice
extremely subtle (" suksma gatir hi dliarmasya ", Ma. Bha.
Anu. 10. 70 ), but, as is stated later on in the Mahabharata
itself, there are numerous branches to those principles and
the inferences which can be drawn from them are numerous
( " bahusakha hy anantika ", Ma. Bha. Vana. 208. 2). Tuladhara
also, where he is discoursing on questions of morality,.
in the Tuladhara-Jajali conversation, says': " suksmatvan na
sa vijnatum sakyate bahurdhnavah ", i. e., " as morality
is subtle and complicated, one very often does not know what
it is " (San. 261. 37). The writer of the Mahabharata was
fully conversant with these subtle occasions, and he has.
KARMA-JIJNASS. 69
collected together different traditionary stories in the
Mahabharata in order to explain how great men behaved in
the past in those ciTcumstanc.es. But it was necessary to
scientifically examine all these subjects and to enunciate the
universal principle underlying them, in a religious work like
the Mahabharata. Vyasa has explained this underlying
principle in the Bhagavadgita, taking his stand on the advice
given in the past by Sri Krsna to Avjuna on the piotoxt of
removing his doubts about his duty ; and, therefore, the Glta
has become the mystic Upauisad and the crown jewel of the
Mahabharata, and the Mahabharata has become an illustrated
and detailed lecture on the fundamental principles of Right
Action (Karma-Yoga) which have been enunciated in the
Gita. I have to suggest to those who imagine that the Glta
has been subsequently interpolated into the Mahabharata
that they should pay close attention to this fact. Nay, the
uniqueness and special feature of the Gita consists in this very
thing. Because, although there are numerous treatises like the
Upanisads etc. which deal with the pure science of Release
(moksa) that is, with Vedanta, or like the Smrtis which merely
enunciate rules of righteous conduct such as Harmlessness etc.,
yet there is not to be found, at least in these days, another
ancient work in the Sanskrit literature like the Gita which,
discriminates between the doable and the not-doable (karya-
kUrya-i-yamsthiti) on the authority of the extremely recondite
philosophy of the Vedanta. Devotees of the Glta need not be
told that the word ' kuryakarya-vijavasthiW has not been coined
by me, but is from the Gita itself (Gita. 16. 24). In the Yoga-
vasistha, Vasistha has ultimately preached to Sri Rama, the
path of Energism (Karma-Yoga) based on Self-Realisation
( jTuma ), as has been done in the Gita; but such works, which
have been written after the date of the Gita, and which are
only imitations of it, do not in any way detract from the
.uniqueness of the Glta, to which I have referred above.
CHAPTER III
THE SCIENCE OF RIGHT ACTION
( KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA )
tasmad yogaya yujyasva yogah karmasu kausalam I *
Gita 2. 50 r
If a man is not actuated by the desire of acquiring tee-
knowledge of a particular science, he is unfit to study that
science, and explaining such a science to such an unfit person
is like pouring water on an obverse vessel. Sot only is the
disciple not benefited by it, but even the preceptor wastes his
labour, and both waste their time. Therefore, the aphorisms
"atliato dliarmajijnasu, " and "athato brahmajijnasa " appear
at the beginning of both the Jaimini and the Badarayana-
Sutras. Just as the teaching of the Brahman is best imparted
to a 'mumuksu' (one who is desirous of Release) or as the
teaching of Law or justice is best imparted to one who
seeks that knowledge, so also is the teaching of the Science of
of Right Action (Karma) most properly given to the person
who has been inspired with the ' jijnasa ' ( desire of knowing )
how to rightly perform Action while leading a worldly life ;
and that is why I have -disposed of the ' athato ' in the first
chapter and have outlined the nature of ' kwmajijfuisa ' and
the importance of the science of Karma-Yoga in the second
chapter. Unless a man has by experience found where his
difficulty lies, he does not realise the importance of the science
of getting over that difficulty ; and if this importance is not
realised, a science which has been learnt merely by rote, is
later on found difficult to remember. Therefore, good teachers-
first ascertain whether or -not the disciple has been inspired
with, desire for the knowledge, and if there is no such inspira-
tion, they attempt to rouse the desire. The Science of Right
Action (Karma-Yoga) has been expounded in the Gita on this
* "Therefore, take shelter in the Yoga ■ ! < Yoga ' is the name
given to the skill, the wisdom or the gracefulness of performing
Action [Karma)" : such is the definition or connotation of the
term 'Yoga', which has been more fully dealt with later on in thia
chapter.
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 71
basis. When, being beset with the doubt whether or not he*
should take part in a war in which he would be responsible for
the slaughter of ancestors and preceptors 'and also of all kings
and brethren, Arjuna was inspired by the desire to give up the-
war and renounce the world, and when he was not satisfied by
the ordinary arguments that abandoning a duty which had
befallen him was a foolish and weak act and that by doing
so, far from obtaining heaven he would on the other hand,
suffer disgrace, Sri Krsna preached to him the science of
Karma- Yoga, after in the first instance seeming to ridicule
him by saying : " asoci/au aniiasoaas tvaih prajnavadaihs ca
bliasase" i. e., '" you lament those for whom you ought not to
lament and at the same time, tell me big tales about the know-
ledge of the Brahman ". I have shown in the last ^chapter
that the doubt by which Arjuna had been beset, was not
groundless, and that even great sages are in certain circum-
stances, puzzled as to 'what to do and what not to do '. But
the starting advice of Sri Krsna to Arjuna is : that it is not.
proper to give up Action (karma) on the ground that numerous
difficulties arise in the consideration of what should be done
and what should not be done]; that, a wise man should practise
such a 'yoga' or device whereby instead of Actions being done
away with in the world, one will only escape their evil effects
or binding ['force, and that: " tasniad yogaya wjliasva" i.e.,
" therefore, you, should do the same ". This 'Yoga' is the
science of 'KARMA-YOGA' ; and in as much as, the circum-
stances in which Arjuna found himself were not unique, but
every one of us comes across small or big difficulties of the
same nature in worldly life, it is necessary that we should all
profit by the exposition of this Karma-Yoga science which has
been made in the Bhagavadglta. But whichever science is
taken, it is necessary to properly define the important words
occurring in its exposition so that their meanings are properly
understood, and to first precisely explain the fundamental
outline of the exposition of that science; otherwise, many
misunderstandings or difficulties subsequently arise. Therefore,
following this usual practice, I shall first examine and explain
the meanings of some of the important words which occur in.
this science.
73 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
'The first of these words is 'KARMA'. The word ' karmi '
comes from the root ' At ', and means ' doing ', ' affairs ', or
'activity' ; and that same ordinary meaning is intended in the
Bhagavadgita. My only reason for explaining this is, that the
Teader should not he confused by the limited and restricted
meaning 1 ; in which this word has been used in the Mimarhsa
philosophy or in other places. Whichever religion is taken, it
prescribes some Action or other for reaching the Is vara.
According to the ancient Vedic religion, this Action was
sacrificial ritual ; and the Purva-Mimamsa of Jaimini has been
written with the sole purpose of showing how the various
different and sometimes apparently contradictory statements
which are to be found in the Vedic treatises regarding the
performance of this sacrificial ritual can be reconciled with
«ach other. According to Jaimini, the performance of this
Vedic or Srauta ( prescribed by the Srutis ) sacrificial ritual was
the principal and the ancient religion. Whatever a man does,
must be taken to have been done by him for the purpose of the
'yajiia' (sacrifice). If he earns money, he must earn it for the
sake of the yajiia ; and if he collects grain, that also must be
understood to have been done for the yajiia ( Ma. Bha. San. 26.
25 ). In as much as the Vc-das themselves have enjoined the
performance of the yajnas, any Action done for the purpose of the
yajiia cannot of itself be a source of bondage to man ; it is a
"•^Sniffor theyaina an5~"h0t,- 3E- independent object; and
therefore, the effect of that Action is included in the result to
be achieved by the yajna ; it has no independent effect. But
although these Actions, which are performed for the purpose of
the yajiia, may not have an independent effect, yet the yajiia
itself leads to heaven (which, according to the Mimarhsa6chool,
is a kind of happiness), and the performer of the yajiia performs
it willingly, only in order to attain heaven. Therefore, the
performance (karma) of the yajiia itself falls into the category
of ' purusdrtha ' (something which a man desires). Any parti-
cular thing which a man likes and which he desires to attain'
is called ' purtisartha' (Jai. Su. i, 1.1 and 2). ' Kratu' is a
synonym for ' yajiia ' and therefore, the word ' kratvartha ' is
also used in place of the word ' yajMrtha ' and therefore, all
Actions fall into the two divisions of 'yajiiartlia' ('kratvartha' )
EA.RMA-YOGA-SASTRA 73
that' is, Actions which do not give' any independent fruit or
benefit and are, therefore, non-binding, and 'pnrusartha' that is,
.Actions performed for the benefit of the doer and, therefore,
binding. The Sarhhitas and the Brahmanas contain nothing
else but a description of sacrificial ritual. It is true that in
the Rg-Veda-sarhhita there are verses (sukta) in praise of Indra
■and the other gods ; but as these are to be used only at the time
■ of the yajiia, the Mimarhsa writers say that all Sruti treatises
preach only the yajiia and other sacrificial ritual. These
■orthodox ritual-masters, and pure karma-mdins say that heaven
can be attained only by performing the sacrificial ritual
prescribed by the Vedas and not otherwise ; and that, that is so,
whether you perform the yajilas ignorantly or after Realising
the Brahman. Although this sacrificial ritual is accepted by
the Upanisads, yet their worth is declared to be lower than that
■of the Knowledge of the Brahman, and the Upanisads say that
though heaven may be attained by the yajiias, Realisation of
the Brahman (brahma-jiiam) is necessary for attaining the true
Release. The desire-prompted Actions in the shape of sacrificial
ritual, described in the second chapter of the Bhagavadgita by
the words " vedavudaratah Purlha namjadastiti vadinah " ( Gl. 2.
42 ) are the above-mentioned sacrificial ritual, performed
without having realised the Brahman. In the same way, the
sentence yajnarlhat karmavo 'uyalm loko 'yam Icarnuibmtdluirmh"
i.e., " Actions performed for the purpose of the yajiia, do not
■create bondage ; all other Actions have a binding force " ( Gl.
3. 9 ) is only a repetition of the opinion of the MlmarhsS
school. Besides this sacrificial ritual, (being the Actions
prescribed by the Vedas and the Gratis), there are other Actions,
necessary from the point of view of religion, which have been
prescribed by the Manu-Smrti and other religious treatises,
having regard to the division of society into the four castes.
For instance, fighting has been prescribed for the warrior
(kgatriya), trade for the merchant (aiisya) etc. ; and, as these
have been for the first time systematically prescribed in the
.Smrti writings, they are referred to as 'Smarta' (prescribed
by the Smrtis) Actions or yajiias* There are besides these
Actions prescribed by the Srutis and the Smrtis, other
leligious Aotions, e.g., fasting, austerities etc., which have
74 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOeA
for the first time been described in detail in the Puranas r
and these may, therefore, be described as ' pauranika, karnur
( Actions ). All these Actions are again sub-divided into-
everyday (nitya), occasional (naimiUika), and for-a-particular-
purpose (kamyaj Actions. Such Actions as must be performed
every day, such as bathing and offering prayers at twilight, ar&
called nitya-karma. By performing these, no special purpose-
(artha-si'Mhi) is achieved; but if they are not performed, one.
incurs sin. Naimittika (occasional) Actions are such as have
to be performed because some occasion necessitating thr-m has.
arisen, such as, the pacification of unauspicious stars, penances
etc. If that occasion for which we perform this pacification or
penance had not come into existence, there would be no
necessity for performing this Action. In addition to these >
there are certain other Actions which we very often perform
because we desire a particular thing and for acquiring that
thing, as enjoined by the Sastras. These Actions are kumyu
(desire-prompted) actions; e.g., sacrificial ritual for causing
rain or for obtaining a son. In addition to these everyday,
occasional, and desire-prompted Actions, there are other Actions
such as, drinking etc. which have been pronounced to b&
totally objectionable by the Sastras and therefore, they are-
named nisiddlui (objectionable) actions. Which Actions are.
everyday Actions, which occasional, which desire-prompted
and which objectionable has been laid down by our religious
treatises ; and if any parson versed in religion is asked whether
a particular act performed by a particular person is sinful or
virtuous, he will consider whether that particular Action is
yajnartha or purusarthu or nitya or mimitiika or kamya or
nisiddha according to the directions of the Sastras and give his
opinion accordingly. The view-point of the Bhagavadglta is.
more exhaustive than this or may even be said to be beyond
this. It may be that a particular Action has not been pro-
nounced as objectionable by the Sastras ; nay, it may even have
been prescribed as proper, e.g., in the case in point, the warrior-
religion was the 'prescribed ' (vihita) thing for Arjuna; but on
that account, it does not follow that one should always perform
^ that Action, nor also that it will always be certainly beneficial;
i sp.it the injunctions of the Sastras are very often mutually
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 75
contradictory, as has been shown in the previous chapter. The
subject-matter of the Gita is to show whether or not there are
any means for ascertaining what course should be followed by
a person on such an occasion and if so, what those means are.
It is not necessary for the purpose of this exposition to pay any
special attention to the divisions of 'karma ' mentioned above.
In order to explain to what extent the doctrines laid down
by the Mimamsa school regarding the sacrificial ritual etc.
prescribed by the Vedas or the other duties prescribed for the
four castes are consistent with the Karma-Yoga advooated in
the Gita, their theories have been examined in the Gita as
oocasion arose ; and in the last chapter, the question whether
or not a Self -Realised (jiianin) man should perform sacri-
ficial ritual has been precisely answered (Gl. 18. 6). But
in as much as the principal subject-matter of the Gita is more
exhaustive than this, the word ' Karma ' as used in the exposi-
tion made in the Gita must not be taken in the restricted
meaning of Actions prescribed by the Srutis or the Smrtis, but
in a more comprehensive meaning. In short, all the Actions
which a man performs, e.g., eating, drinking, playing, sitting,
rising, residing, breathing, smiling, weeping, smelling, seeing,
speaking, hearing, walking, giving, taking, sleeping, waking,
killing, fighting, meditating or contemplating, commanding, or
objecting, giving, performing sacrificial ritual, agriculture or
commerce, desiring, deciding, keeping quiet, etc., etc., etc., are all
included in the word ' Karma ' as used in the Bhagavadglta,
whether those Actions are bodily (liayilca) or vocal (vacilca) or
mental (manasika) (Gita 5. 8-9). In short, even the remaining
alive or the dying of the body itself, are Actions, and as
occasion arises, it becomes necessary to consider whioh of the
two actions of 'remaining alive ' or ' dying ' is to be chosen. -
When this consideration arises, the word ' karma ' (Action) can
also be understood in the meaning of Duty (kartaoya-lairma) or
proper action (rihita-luirim) (Gl. 4. 16). We have so far
considered the actions of human beings. Going beyond this,
the word ' karma ' is also applied to the activities of the
moveable and immoveable world, 'that is to say, even of life-
less things. But that matter will be considered in the-
subsequent chapter on Cause and Effect (karma-vipalca-prabiya).
7fi GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
The word " YOGA " is even more complicated in its
meaning than the word ' karma '. The present-day ordinary
meaning of this word is ' controlling the mental impulses of
the organs by means of prunayama, i.e., 'control of the breath'
or ' the Yoga of mental absorption or meditation prescribed by
the Patarijala-Sutras ', and the word has been used in the same
meanings also in the Upanisads (Katha. 6. 11). But it must
first be borne in mind that this restricted meaning is not the
meaning in which it has been used in the Bhagavadglta. The
word ' Yoga ' comes from the root ' yuj ' which means ' to join ',
and its root meaning is 'the state of union', 'combination',
' addition ' or ' co-existence ' or ' staying together ', and later on,
it has also come to mean the ' means ', ' device ' or ' method ' or
' thing to he done ', that is, the ' Karma ' (Action) which is
necessary for acquiring that state, and the Amarakosa has
given all these meanings of the word in the following sentence:
"yogah sahnakanoixji/a-dhyam-sai'Hgati-yiiktisu'' ( 3. 3. 22 ). In
practical astrology, if some planets have become propitious or
unpropitious, we say that they are forming a propitious or
unpropitious 'yoga', and the word 'yoga in the phrase 'yoga-ksemd
means 'acquiring such things as one has not got' (Gi. 9. 22). On
seeing that Dronacarya would not be vanquished in the Bharati
war, Sri Krsna has, in the following words said that: " there was
only one ' yoga ' (means or ' trick ') for vanquishing him " .—
"eko hiyogo 's.i/n bhaved vadhaya", i.e., "he can be killed only by
one trick " (Ma. Bha. Dro. 181. 31) and later on He has narrated
,bow He had killed Jarasaihdha and other kings for the
protection of the Religion by means of ' yoga '. It is stated in
the TJdyoga parva that after Bhlsma had taken away the
damsels Amba, Ambika and Ambalika, the other kings pursued
Jlim crying : " Yoga, Yoga " (U. 172), and the word ' yoga ' has
been used in the same meaning in numerous other places in the
Mahabharata. In the Gita, the words ' yoga ', ' 1/09/ ' or other
compounds from the word ' yoga ' have occured about 80 times.
'But nowhere except in at most four or five places has it been
used in the meaning of ' Patanjala-yoga ' (Gi. 6. 12 and 23).
"We find almost everywhere the word used more or less in the
■meaning of ' means ', ' skilful device,' 'method', ' the thing to be
-done';', ' union ', etc., and it must be said that this is one of the
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 77
comprehensive words used in the Gita-science. Still, it is not
enough even to say in a general way that 'yoga' means 'means'
'skilful device' or 'method'. Because, according as the speaker
may wish, it may be a means of Renunciation (samnyusa) or
Action (Icarma.) or mental control (citta-nirodha) or of Release
{Moksa) or of something else. For instance, the word 'yoga'
has been used in the Gita itself, in three or four places, to
signify the divine skill or wonderful power of the Blessed Lord
in creating the variegated perceptible creation (Gi. 7. 25 ; 9.
5 ; 10. 7 ; 11. 8) and on that account, the Blessed Lord has
been referred to as ' Yogeivara (Gi. 18. 75). But this is not the
principal meaning of the word 'yoga in the Gita. Therefore, in
order to explain what particular skill, means, method or
process is principally signified in the Gita by the use of the
word 'yoga', this word has intentionally been clearly defined in
the Gita itself as : "yogah kwtnasu kausalam" (Gi. 2. 50) i.e.
" 'yoga' means some special skill, device, intelligent method, or
graceful way of performing Actions"; and in the Sarhkara-
bhasya on this phrase, the phrase 'karmasu Icausalam' has been
interpreted as meaning : "the device of eliminating the natural
tendency of karma to create a bondage". Normally, there are
numerous 'yoga or means of performing one and the same action,
but the best of all these methods is specially referred to as 'yoga'.
For instance, the earning of money can be achieved by theft or
deceit or by begging or by service or by borrowing or by
physical labour, and many other such ways ; and although
the word ' yoga ' can be applied to each of these ways, according
to the root meaning of the word, yet, 'earning money by one's
own labour without sacrificing one's independence ' is
principally referred to as " the yoga of acquiring wealth "
( dravya-prapti-yoga ).
If the Blessed Lord Himself has intentionally and
specifically defined the word ' yoga ' in the Gita itself as :
" yogah Icarmam Icausalam " i. e., "'Yoga' means a special device
of performing Actions", then, there should strictly speaking
remain no doubt whatsoever about the primary meaning of
this word in the Gita. But, as several commentators have
extracted various hidden meanings from the Gita by twisting
the meaning of this word, disregarding this definition of the
78 ~ GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
word given by the Blessed Lord Himself, it is necessary here
to go deeper into the meaning of the word 'yoga\ in order to
■clear that mis-interpretation. The word 'yoga' appears for the
first time in the second chapter of the Gita and at that very
place the meaning of that word is explained. AfteT haying
justified the war on the authority of the Samkhya philosophy,
the Blessed Lord goes on to say that He will next give Arjuna
the justification of the war on the authority of the Yoga ( Gl.
2. 39 ), and He, to begin with, describes how the minds of persons .
■ continually engrossed in desire-prompted Action like sacrificial
ritual, become disintegrated on account of the desire for the
reward { Gi. 2, 41-46 ). He then goes on to say that Arjuna
should not allow Ms mind to he disintegrated in this way, and
should " give up all attachments ( asakti ), but not think
of giving up Action ", and He has further said to him :
'" become steeped in the yoga ( yogastlia ) and perform Actions "
■ (Gi. 2. 48) and in the same place the word ' yoga ' has been to
begin with clearly defined as meaning : " ' Yoga ' means
■ equability of mind towards success or failure ". Then, He goes
■on to say : " this ' yoga ' of equability of mind is better than
performing Actions with the desire for the fruit " (Gi, 2. 49)
and that " when the mind is equable, the doer is not affected by
the sin or the virtue of the Action, and, therefore, acquire this
Yoga". Immediately thereafter, He again defines the nature of
' ' Yoga ' by the words : " yogah karmam kausalam " (Gi. 2. 50).
From this, it becomes clear that the special device mentioned to
■ start with by the Blessed Lord for the sinless performance of
Actions, namely an equable mind, is what is known as
'' leausala ' (skilful device) and that performing Actions by this
' kausala ' or device is, in the Gita, known as ' yoga ' ; and this
very meaning of that word has further been made perfectly
•clear by Arjuna who says: " yo 'yam yogas tvayo proktah
.samyem Madhusuciam" (Gi. 6. 33), i.e., "this yoga of equality, that
is, of an equable frame of mind which has been prescribed by
you to me". There are two ways in which the Self-Realised man
should live in this world which have been prescribed by the Vedic
religion in existence long before the date of Sri Sarhkaracarya.
One of these ways is the literal abandonment (samnyasa) or
giving up itgaga) of all Action after Self -Realisation, and the
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA - 79
other way is of not giving up Actions even after Self-Realisa-
tion, but going on performing them while life lasts, in such
a way that one does not thereby incur either sin or merit. It is
with reference to these two paths that the words 'samnyasa' and
* karma-yoga ' have been used later on in the Gita (Gl. 5. 2).
''samnyasa ' means ' give up ' and ' yoga ' means ' stick to ';
therefore, these are two independent paths of the giving up or
the sticking to Action. The two words ' samlchya ' and ' yoga '
■(Samkhya-yogau) are two abbreviated terms, which are used later
•on with reference to these two paths (Gl. 5. 4). It is true
that the sixth chapter of the Gita contains a description
■of the postures (asanas) of the Patanjala-yoga necessary
-for steadying the mind; but for whom has that description
been given ? Not for the ascetic, but for the Karma-
Yogi, i. e,, for the person who continues skilfully
-performing Actions, and, in order that he might thereby
acquire an equable frame of mind. Otherwise, the sentence
'" tapasvibhyo 'dhiko yogi", i.e., "the yogi is superior
to the ascetic" is meaningless. Also, the advice given to
Arjuna at the end of this chapter in the terms "tasmad yogi
bhavarjuna" (6. 46), i.e., "therefore, O Arjuna, become a yogi",
does not mean "take to the practice of Patanjala-Yoga" but
has to bs taken as meaning "become a yogi, who performs
Actions skilfully or a Karma-Yogi", in which meaning that
word has been used in the phrases : "yogasthah (cam kurmuni" (2.
48) i.e., perform Action, having become a yogi", or after that :
"tasmad. yoguya yujyasoa yogah karmasu kauialam (Gi. 2. 50), i.e.,
"therefore, take shelter in yoga; 'yoga' means the skill of per-
forming Action", or at the end of the fourth chapter, "yogam
Stisthottistha Bharata' (4. 42), i.e., "take shelter in the yoga, O,
Bharata, and stand up". Because, His saying "follow the
Patanjala-yoga and stand up and fight" would be impossible
and even improbable. It has been clearly stated previously
that : Icarmayogeija yoginam" (Gi. 3. 3) i.e., "yogis are persons
who perform Actions"; and in the exposition of the Narayaniya
or the Bhagavata religion in the Mahabharata, it is stated that
persons belonging to that religion 'do not abandon worldly-
affairs but perform them skilfully ( "suprayuktena Icarmana" )
and attain the Paramasvara ( Ma. Bhs. San. 34S. 56 ). From
80 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
this it follows, that the words ' yogi ' and ' Icarma-yogi ' have>
been used synonymously in the Gita, and that they mean : " a-
psrson who performs Action according to a particular device. "'
Yet, instead of using the long word ' karma-yoga ', its abbrevia-
ted form ' yoga ' has been more frequently used both in the Gita
and in the Mahabharata. The word ' yoqa ', which has been
used by the Blessed Lord three times in succession in the
stanza : " this yoga which I have explained to you had been
taught by me before to Vivasvan ( Gi. 4. 1 ) ; Vivasvan taught
it to Manu, but as this .(/03a subsequently ceased to exist, I had
once more to-day to explain that yoga to you ", has not beea
intended to mean the Patanjala-yoga ; and one has to under-
stand it a3 meaning " a particular kind of device, method, or
process of performing Action ". In the same way, the reference-
by Safijaya to the conversation between Sri Krsna and Arjuna
as ' yoga ' ( Gi. 18. 75 ) means the same thing. Although Sri
Samkaracarya himself followed the path of Renunciation, yet
he has in the beginning of his Glta-bhasya pointed out the two
divisions of the Vedic Religion into ' pravrtti ' and ' nivrtti ' and
the word ' yoga ' has been interpreted by him in some plaoes.
according to the definition given by the Blessed Lord as;
" samyag darsanopaya Icarmanusthanam " ( Gi. Bha.. 4. 42 ) and in.
other places as " yogah yuktih " ( Gi. Bha. 17. 7 ). In the same
way also in the Mahabharata, these two words have been
clearly defined in the Anugita in the phrase "pravrtti laksam
yogah jiiawuii samnyasa laksavam " i. e., " yoga means the path
of Energism {pravrtti-marga) and juana means the path of
Renunciation ( samnyasa or nivrtti-marga ) (Ma. Bha. Asva. 43.
25 ) and even in the Narayaniyopakhyana at the end of the
Santiparva the words ' samkhya ' and ' yoga ' have occurred on
numerous occasions in these two senses, and it is explained how
and why these two paths were created by the Blessed Lord in
the beginning of the creation itself (Ma. Bha. San. 240 and 348).
That this Narayamya or Bhagavata religion has been pro-
pounded in the Bhagavadglta will become perfectly clear from
the quotation from the Mahabharata which has been given at
the beginning of the first chapter. Therefore, one has to say
that the meanings of ' samkhya ' as ' nivrtti ' and of ' yoga ' as-
'pravrtti ', which are their ancient technical meanings accord-
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 81
ing to the Narayaniya religion, are also their meanings in th»
Gita ; and, if anybody has any doubts about this, these doubts,
ought to be fully cleared by the definition of that word given
in the Gita as : "samatmm yoga neonate", i.e., " 'yoga' is the name
given to equability" or " yogah karmasu kausalam ", i. e., " 'yoga'
means skill in Action, " as also by such phrases used in the
Gita as " lairma-yogeya yoginam " etc. ; and, it is established
beyond argument that the word ' yoga ' has been used in the
Gita in the sense of only the path of Energism (jn-avrtti-rmrga) 1
i. e., the " KARMA- YOGA ". Not only in the Vedic religious
treatises, but also in the Buddhistic religious treatises in Pali
and in Sanskrit, the word Yoga is found to have been used in
this meaning. For instance, in the Pali work, named Milinda-
prasna written about Sake 200, we come across the word.
"Pubba-yoga (pUroa-yoga ) " where its meaning has been defined,
as "pubbakamma" fparva-karma) (Mi. Pra. 1.4); and in the 50th.
verse of the first canto fsargal of the Sanskrit poem Buddha-
carita written by the poet Asvaghosa in the beginning of the-
Salivahana era, we find the following statement :— " (karyahcah
yogavidlum dcijamm-apmplam-myair-Javaho jaguina " i. e.
"The king Janaka had become an UcUrya (preacher) for teach-
ing the Yoga methods (yoga-vidhil to Brahmins, and such a,
preceptorship had not been acquired by any one before him. '"
In this place, the word ' yoga-vidhi ' has to be interpreted as
meaning "the method (vidhi) of the Desire-less Karma- Yoga".
Because, the Gita, and all the other works emphatically say
that that was the true bearing of the mode of life of Janaka
and Asvaghosa has in the Buddlia-carita (9. 19-20) given the
illustration of Janaka himself in order to show " how Release
can be obtained notwithstanding that one leads the life of a.
house-holder ". When it has been in this way proved that even
according to the Buddhistic treatises, this path of Action,
prescribed by Janaka was known as 'yoga', one has to under-
stand the word ' yoga ' used in the Gita also in the same
meaning ; because, the Gita itself says that the path prescribed
by Janaka is the very path it advocates (Gi. 3. 20). We will
later on consider in greater detail the two paths of 'Samkhya '
and 'Yoga'. The matter under consideration at present is in
what meaning the word 'yoga' has been used in the Gita.
11—12
S2 GLTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
When the principal meanings of the words 'yoga, namely,
" Karma- Yoga', and ' yogi ', namely ' Karma-Yogi ', have in this
way been established, it is not necessary to say in so many
words what the subject-matter of the Bhagavadgita. is. The
Blessed Lord Himself refers to the advice given by Him
as ' yoga ' ( Gi. 4. 1-3 ). Not only that, but as I have already
.stated above, Arjuna in the sixth chapter ( GI. 6. 33 ), and
•Sanjaya in the conclusion ( upasamhara ) at the end of
the Gita ( Gi. 18. 75 ) have characterised the preaching
of the Gita as ' yoga '. In the same way, in the enunciatory
words used at the end of each chapter of the Gita signify-
ing the conclusion of the chapter ( which is technically
•called samkalpa ), it is clearly stated that the Science
•of Yoga ( yoga-sastm ) is the subject-matter of the Gita;
but none of the commentators on the Gita, seem to have paid
any attention to this meaning of the word in the samkalpa.
After the the two opening words "Srlmad-Blmgavadgltusu
npanisastu"in this samkalpa, come the two words "brahrta-
vidyayam yoga-sastre" '. Out of these, the first two words mean
"in the Upanisat sung by the Blessed Lord" and it is quite
•clear from the following two words that "the Yoga-Sastra which
is one of the Brahma-Vidyas", that is, the KARMA-YOGA-
■■SASTRA, is the subject matter of the Gita. ' Brahma-vidya '
means 'Knowledge of the Brahman' {Brahmajumia); and when
that has been acquired, the Self -Released man has two cults or
paths open before him (Gi. 3.3). One is the Samkhya path or the
xa/imyasa (Renunciation) path, that is, the path of abandoning
all wordly affairs or Actions after Self-Realisation, and living
like an apathetic (viralda) person ; and the other path is the
path of Yoga or of Kamia-Yoga, that is to say, of not giving
up wordly affairs but continuing to perforin them in such a
■way that they do not create any difficulty in the matter of
obtaining Release. Out of these two paths, the first one is
also known as the 'path of Self -Realisation' (jilana-mstha ) and
.an exposition of that will be found to have been made by many
rsis in the Upanisads and other writers. But there is no
scientific exposition anywhere, except in the Gita, of the
Karma-Yoga, which is included in the Brahma-vidya. There-
fore, it now becomes quite clear that those persons who first
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 83
prepared that samkalpa — and, as I have stated above, it must
have been there before any of the commentaries on the Gita
were written, since it is to be found in all the editions of the
Gita — must have added the words "brahm-vklyayam yoga-sastre"
in this samkalpa. on proper authority, and intentionally, for
emphasising the uniqueness of the subject-matter of the GitS-
sastra, and not uselessly or frivolously ; and at the same time,
we also easily understand what the import of the Gita was
understood to be before any commentaries in support of
particular cults came to be written on it. It is our great
fortune that this work of preaching the Karma- Yoga was taken
on his. own shoulders by Sri Krsna Bhagavan, who was the
promulgator of this path of Yoga and who was the personified
4 Is vara of all y ogas' ( ' Yoges vara ' is 'yoga' plus 'Isvara'), and
who has explained the esoteric import of it to Arjuna for the
benefit of the whole world. It is true that the words 'karma-
j/oga' and ' kanna-yoga-sastm' are longer than the words 'yoga'
and 'yoga-sastra' used in the Gita; but in order that there
should no more be any doubts as to what the Gita preaches,
I have intentionally given the name "Karma-Yoga-Sastra" to
this work and to this chapter.
That science by means of which we can decide suoh ques-
tions as : Which is the best and purest of the several 'yogas',
means, or processes in which a -particular Action can be perfor-
med; whether it can be always followed; if not, what are the
exceptions to it, and how they arise ; why is that path which we
call good, really good, or that which we call bad, really bad, and
on the strength of what, is this goodness or badness to be deoided
and who is to do so or what is the underlying principle in it etc.
is known as the ' KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA ' (science of Karma-
Yoga) or, as expressed briefly in the- Gita 'YOGA-SASTRA ' (the
science of Yoga). 'Good' or 'bad' are words in ordinary use and
the following other words : propitious and unpropitious, or bene-
fioial and harmful, or meritorious and non-meritorious, or sin
and virtue, or righteous and unrighteous, are used in the same
■sense. The same is the meaning conveyed by the word-couples
■doable and not-doable (kanja and akarya), duty and non-duty
{kai-tamja and akartavya), just and unjust (nyayya and amjayya).
Nevertheless, as the various persons who have used these
""fUr ,.
84 GIT1-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
words have different ideas about the formation of the universe?
there have also come into existence, different ways in which
the ' Karma-Yoga ' science has been expounded. Whatever
science is taken, the subject-matter of it can be discussed
ordinarily in three ways :— (1) considering the various objects-
in the physical world from the point of view that they really are
as they are perceived by our organs, and that there is nothing-
beyond, is the first of these methods, which is known as-
"ADHI-BHAUTIKA" (positive or materialistic) way of
considering them. For instance, when you look upon the Sun
not as a deity, but as a round-mass of gross matter made up of
the five primordial elements, and examine its various
properties, such as its heat, or light, or weight, or distance, or
power of attraction, etc., that becomes the positive or material-
examination of the Sun. Take the tree as another illustration.
If we do not consider the internal force in the tree which is
responsible for its getting leaves etc., but consider the tree
purely externally, that is, consider only the facts that when the
seed is put into the earth, it takes root and becomes a sprout,,
whioh grows later on and goes through the visible changes of
leaves, flowers, fruits etc., that is a purely material examina-
tion of the tree. The examination of the subject-matter in
Chemistry or Physics or the science of electricity or other-
modern sciences is of this kind. Nay, materialists imagine,
that when they have examined in this way the visible
properties of any object, that is all they need to do and that it
is useless to further examine the objects in the world.
(2) When we discard this point of view, and examine what
there is at the root of the object in the material world and
whether the activities of these objects are due to some inherent
properties in them or there is some other power or principle
behind those activities, then one has to transcend the material,
examination of the object. For instance, if we believe that in
the gross or'lifeless globe of the Sun, made up of the five
primordial elements, there exists a deity called the ' Sun '
which dwells within it, and that this deity carries on the
activities of the'material Sua, such examination is called an
ADHI-DAIVIKA (Theological) examination of the object.
According to this point of view, there are in the tree, water*
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 85
air, etc., innumerable deities, which are distinct from those
objects, and which activate those objects. (3) But, when
instead of believing in this way that there are millions and
millions of independent deities in all the various objects in the
gross world, we believe that there exists in this world.some
Spiritual Force, i.e., factor of consciousness (ctccliakti)
imperceptible to the organs, which carries on all the activities
of the external world ; and that this Spiritual Force exists in
the human body in the shape of an Atman and acquaints the
human being with the entire creation ; and that this cosmos is
kept going by that force, such consideration of the object is
called an ADHYATMIKA (metaphysical) examination of
the object. For instance, metaphysicians believe that the
movements of the Sun and the Moon or even of the leaves
of the tree are inspired by this unimaginable Power and that
there are not different and independent deities in the Sun
or in other objects. These throe ways of examining any
subject-matter have been in existence from times immemorial
and they seem to have been followed even in the Upanisads-
For instance, in the Brhadaranyaka and other Upanisads,
while considering whether the organs of perception
{ J nanendriija ) or the vital force ( prana ) is superior, their
respective strengths are considered, once from the point of view
that they have deities like Agni etc., and again by considering
their subtle ( metaphysical i. e., adliyatmika ) forms ( Br. 1. 5. 21
and 22 ; Chan. 1. 2 and 3 ; Kausi 2. 8 ) ; and the consideration
of the form of the Isvam at the end of the seventh chapter and
in the beginning of the eight chapter of the G-ita is also from
this point of view. Out of these three methods, our religious
writers attach a higher importance to the metaphysical
( adhyatmika ) method of consideration than to others, relying
on the authority " adlujatma-vidtja vidyunam " (Gi. 10. 32) i. e.
" the metaphysical science is the highest of all sciences ". But
in modern times, the meanings of these three words are to a
certain extent changed and the well-known French
Materialist Comte * has given the hig hest importan ce
* Augusts Comte was a groat philosopher who lived in
France in the last century. Ha wrote a very important book on
Sociology and has shown for tbo first time how tie constitution of
86 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
to the Positive ( material ) exposition. He says that there is
no sense in trying to find out the fundamental element, if any,
which exists at the root of the world ; and in as much as this
element is always unknowable {agarnya) it is neither possible
nor proper to found on it the edifice of a science. When the
aboriginal man for the first time, saw trees, clouds, volcanoes
and other moving objects, he credulously began to believe that
they were all deities. According to Comte, this was the
Theological consideration of the universe. But man very soon
gave-up this idea and began to think that there must be some
element in the shape of an Atman in all these objects-
According to Comte, this is the second stage of the progress of
human knowledge; and this stage is called by him the
Metaphysical stage. But when even after considering the
universe in this way, actual practical scientific knowledge did
not grow, man ultimately began to examine deeper and deeper
only the visible properties of the objects in this world ; and on
that account, man has now begun to exercise greater control
over the external world, as a result of his having been able to
invent steam-engines, telegraphs etc. Comte calls this the
Positive adhibhautika ) consideration and he has come to the
conclusion that this method of consideration of any science or
object is the most profitable one. According to Comte, we must
adopt this method for scientifically considering Sociology or
the science of Karma-Yoga ; and after a careful consideration
of the history of the world, this philosopher has drawn the
following conclusion regarding the science of wordly life,
from that point of view, namely that: the highest religion of
society can be scientifically considered. He has come to the
conclusion after considering numerous sciences, that whichever
science is taken, the consideration of it is first Theological and then
Metaphyseal and that, lastly it attains the Positive form. These
three systems have been respectively given by me the ancient names-
of ' adhiduwika ' ' adhyatmiia ' and ' adhibhautika ' in this book..
Comte has not invented these methods. They are old methods 1 but
he has fixed a new historical order for them and the only discovery
made by hiia is that of all tile three, the positive ( adhibhautika )
system of consideration is the best. The most important of thc-
• tvotBb of this writer have been translated into English.
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA. 8?
every human being is to love the whole human race and
to continually strive for the benefit of everybody. Mill,
Spencer and other English philosophers may be said to-
support this opinion. On the other hand, Kant, Haegel,
Schaupenhaur and other German philosophers, have proved,
that this positive method of considering Ethics is inefficient,
and they have recently revived in Europe the method of basing.
Ethics on Metaphysics adopted by our Vedanta philosophers.
This matter, however, will be dealt with in greater detail
later on.
The reason why different writers have used the different,
words ' karija ' and ' akarya ' (doable and not-doable), ' dliarnvya "
and ' adliarnuja ' (moral and immoral) in the meaning of
' good ' and ' bad ' although they all convey the same meaning,
is that every one has his own different way or view of dealing;
with a particular subject-matter. The question of Arjuna was-
whether or not that war in which he would have to kill
Bhlsma, Drona, etc., was meritorious (Gi. 2. 7); and if a.
Materialist had to answer this question, he would have,
critically considered the palpable profit or loss of it to Arjuna
personally, as also the results of it on the entire society and
would have declared whether the fight was just ( nyayya ) or
unjust ( anijaijya ) ; because, these Materialists do not admit
of any other test for determining the goodness or badness of
any particular Action except the material, that is, the actual,
external results of that Action on the world. But such an
answer would not have satisfied Arjuna ; his vision was more
comprehensive ; what he wanted was to know whether that
war would in the end benefit his Self (atman), not in this
world alone, but from the next-world point of view. He had
no doubt as to whether or not he would acquire the kingdom
or material happiness as a result of the death of Bhlsma
and Drona or whether his rule would be more benefioial
to people than the rule of Duryodhana. In short, he had to see
whether or not what he did was 'dharinya' (moral) or 'adlmrmya'
(immoral), ' pimya ' (non-sin) or ' papa ' (sin); and the exposition
in the Gita has been made from that point of view. Not only
in the Gita but also in other places in the Mahabharata has the
examination of karma (Action) and alcanna (non-Action)"been
S8 GtTA-RAHASYA OH KARMA-YOGA
made from this next-world and Metaphysical point of view and
in it, the two words 'dharma and 'adharma have been primarily
used in order to show the goodness or badness of any particular
act. But as the word 'dharma' and its opposite correlative
'adharma are likely to create confusion on account of their
very comprehensive meaning, it is necessary to discuss here in
greater detail the meanings in which those words have been
principally used in the science of Karma- Yoga.
The word 'DHARMA' is in ordinary practice very often
used to imply only the path leading to next-world happiness.
When we ask some one "What is your dharma (religion)"?
our intention is to ask him by what path he goes — whether
"Vedic, Buddhist, Jain, Christian, Mahomedan or Parsi — for
acquiring happiness in the .next world ; and the reply which he
gives is also from the same point of view. In the same way,
where the subject-matter of the Vedic yajftas and yagas instru-
mental to the acquisition of heaven is being considered, the
word 'dharma' is used in the same [meaning, as in the canon
"ailiuto dliarmajijuUsu" etc. but the word 'dharma is not to be
understood in such a restricted meaning, and it is very often
used for indicating the limitations of worldly morality, as in the
phrases, 'rajarlharma' (the duty of kings), 'praj adharma (the duty
of subjects), 'desadharma (the duty of a country), ' j natidlmrma
{the duty pertaining to a caste), ' kuladlmrma' (the duty pertaining
to clan or family), 'milradharma' (one's duty as a friend) etc. If
these two meanings of the word 'dharma are to be individually
explained, the dhurma relating to the life after death may be
called ' moksadhaniKi ' or simply ' moksa ' and the dharma
relating to this worldly life, i. e., Ethics may be given the
name of ' dharma ' simply. For instance, in enumerating the
four ideals of manhood (puru&rtki), we say 'dharma' (morality),
J artha' (wealth), 'kTnwt (desire), 'moksa' (Release). If 'mokt-a
is meant to be included in the first word 'dlianm, then it
would not be necessary to mention 'moksa' as an independent
ideal at the end. Therefore, we must say that the writers of
our scriptures use the word 'dharma in this place as meaning
the numerous ethical duties -which form part of our worldly
life. The same meaning is conveyed by the words kartavya-
karma ( duty ), 'niti' ( Ethics ), ' nitidharma ' ( morality ) or
KARMA-YOGA-SS.STRA 89
"sadacarava' (good conduct) used now-a-days. But in ancient
Sanskrit treatises, the words ' nili ' or 'nitisastra were used
principally with reference to regal jurisprudence (rajaniti) and
therefore, the ordinary exposition of duty (kartainja-karma) or
good conduct (sad-rar(ana) used to be called the 'exposition of
dharma (dlmrnvi-prarai'ana) instead of the ' exposition of nlti '
( 'niti-pramcana' ). But this technical distinction between the
two words nlti. ' and ' dharmi ' has not been adopted in all
Sanskrit treatises; and, therefore, I too, have used the terms
'nlti', 'Icaiiartja or simply 'dliarmu' as synonymous ; and, where
the subject of Release (molcsaj has to be considered, I have used
the independent terms ' adhyutma ' (Metaphysics) or ' bhakti-
marga (Path of Devotion). The word 'dharma' has appeared on
numerous occasions in the Mahabharata, and whenever it has
been said there that a particular person is bound to
•do a particular thing according to his 'dharma', the
word 'dharma means ethical science ( kartaiya-sastra ) or
the then sociology (xamuja-vyaazstha-sustra) ; and wherever
there has been occasion to refer to the paths leading to next-
world happiness, in the latter half of the Santi-parva, the
specific word ' nwkbu-dharnia ' has been used. So also in the
Manu-Smrti and other Smrti texts, in mentioning the specific
duties of the four castes, Brahmin, ksatriya, vaisya, and sudra,
the word 'dharma ' has been used on many occasions and in many
places ; and even in the Bhagavadglta the word 'dliarnia' has
been used as meaning ' the duties of the four castes in this
world ' in the expression " svadlwrmam api caveksya" (Gl. 2. 31 )
where the Blessed Lord is telling Arjuna to fight, having
regard to what his 'dharma' is, and also later on in the expres-
sion :" svadharme nidlianam sreyah paradliarmo bhayavahah"
(Gl. 3. 35), i.e., "it is better to die performing one's caste duties ;
following the duties enjoined on another caste is dangerous ".
The ancient this had created the institution of the four castes —
which was in the nature of a division of labour — in order that
all the affairs of society should go on without a hitch, and that
society should be protected and maintained on all sides, without
any particular person or group of persons having to bear the
whole burden. Later ■ on, people belonging to this sooiety
".fcecame 'jatimatropajivi' that is "persons, who forgetting their
90 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
respective caste duties, belonged to a particular caste merely by-
reason of birth." and became mere nominal Brahmins, ksatriyas,
vaisyas, or sudras ; but let us keep that thing aside for a time.
Originally, this institution had been made for the maintenance-
of society and it is quite clear that if any one of the four castes.
had given up the 'dliarma' i. e., duties allocated to it, or if any
particular caste had totally ceased to exist and its place had
not been taken by some other persons, the entire society would to
that extent have been disabled and would later on have either
been gradually destroyed or at least have sunk to a very low
stage. There are numerous societies in the Western hemisphere,-
which have come to prominence notwithstanding that they do-
not have the institution of the four castes. But we must not
forget that although the institution of the four castes may not
be in existence among them, yet all the duties of the four
castes are seen being performed in those societies, if not in th&
shape of castes, at any rate by some other arrangement in the
shape of professional divisions or classes. In short, when we
use the word ' dharma ' from the worldly point of view, we-
consider in what way society will be maintained (dharana) and
benefited. Manu has said that that ' dharma ' which is-
'asukhodarka', that is to say, 'from which unhappiness ulti-
mately results' should be given up (Manu. 4. 176) ; and Bhisma
says in the Satyanrtodhyaya of the Santiparva (San. 109. 12),
where the exposition of 'dharma' and 'adiianna ' is made, and
before that, Sri Krsna also says in the Earnaparva ( Ma. Bha-
Karna. 69. 59 ), that :-
dharaifdd dharmam ihj ahar dliarmo dharuyate prajah I
yat syad dliaraiia sanyuktam sa dharma iti niicayah II;
that is, " the word Dharma comes from the root dhr, i. e.,.
to hold or uphold, and all human beings are held together
by dharma. That by which the holding together (of all human
beings) takes place is dharma". Therefore, when this dharma
ceases to be observed, the binding-ropes of society may be said
to have become loose, and when these binding ropes are
loosened, society will be in the same position as the planetary
system consisting of the Sun and the planets would be in the
sky*without the binding fores of gravitation or as a ship-
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 91
would be on the ocean without a rudder. Therefore, Vyasa in*
the Bharata gives the advice that, in order that society should
not come to an end by reaching such a lamentable state, money
(arthal if it has to be acquired, must be acquired by 'dharma',
that is, without disturbing the arrangement of society ; and if
the desires, such as the sex impulses (kama) etc. have to be
satisfied, that should also be done consistently with 'dharma ' ; .
and he says at the end of the Bharata that :-
Urdhvabahur viraumy esah na ca Icascic chrnoti mam I
dharmad artlias ca kamai ca sa dhanmh lam na sevyate II
i. e,, "Oh people I am haranguing you with raised hands, (but) '
no one listens to me ! if both wealth (artha) and desires (kama) •
can be acquired by dharma, (then) why do you not follow such
a dhanna? " My readers will from this understand the chief
meaning in whioh the word ' dharma ' has been used in the
expression dharma-sam/u'ta, when the Mahabharata, from the
point of view of 'dharma', is looked upon as the fifth Veda or-
dharma-samhita ; and for the same reason, namely, on the
ground that it is a dharma-grantha, has the Mahabharata been
included among the religious texts prescribed for daily recital
in the Brahma-yajfia (ritual for Brahmins) — as is shown by the
use of the symbolical words : " Narwja-nai'n namaskrtya " — along
with the two treatises Purva-Mlmamsa and Uttara-Mlmamsa
(which deal with the question of next- world happiness).
Reading the exposition made by me above of what is .
dhanm and what is adharma, some one may object : if you
accept these principles of 'the maintenance of society' (samaja-
dmramj and 'general welfare' (surm-bhuta-hitani), as mentioned
in the second chapter when discussing the question of Truth
and Falsehood (satyanrta), then there is no difference between
your point of view and the Materialistic point of view ; because. -
both these principles are outwardly real, that is Materialistic.
This question has been dealt with by me in detail in the next
chapter. For the present, I will only say that although we
accept maintenance of society as being the chief outward use
of dhanna, yet we never lose sight of the Redemption of the
Atman falma-kalyanaj or Release (rholcsa) which is the highest
ideal according to the Vedic or all other religions and which is
the special feature of our view-point. Whether it is mainten—
-92 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA.
ance of society or the general material welfare of everybody, if
these externally useful principles obstruct the Redemption of
the Atman, we do not want them. If even our works on
medicine maintain that the medical science is a useful science,
because it serves as a means for obtaining Release (moksa), by
protecting the body, then it is absolutely impossible that our
religious writers would divorce the Karnia-Yoga-Sastra, which
■ considers the most important subject of the performance of
various worldly Actions, from the Metaphysical philosophy of
Release. And therefore, we look upon that Action which is
favourable to our Metaphysical betterment as 'pumja (reli-
giously meritorious), 'dharma' (moral), or 'svhlta (good) and
that which is unfavourable to it, as ' papa ' (sinful), 'adharma
(immoral), or 'asubhd (bad). It is for this very reason that we
use the words ' dharma ' and ' adharma ' (notwithstanding that
they have a double meaning and are to a certain extent ambi-
guous) in place of the words ' kartavya ' (duty) ' akartavya '
(non-duty) and ' karya ' (doable) and ' aluirya ' (non-doable).
Even when the worldly affairs or activities in the external
world are primarily to be considered, we consider whether or
not these activities are conducive to Atmic * benefit, simul-
taneously with considering their external effects. If a Mate-
rialist is asked why I should sacrifice my own benefit for the
benefit of others, what answer can he give except by saying :
"That is ordinary human nature " ? The writers of our Sastras
have seen further than this and the science of Karma-Yoga has
been considered in the Mahabharata from this comprehensive
Metaphysical standpoint, and Vedanta has for the same reason
been dealt with in the Bhagavadgita. Even the ancient Greek
philosophers were of the opinion that one has to take 'the
greatest benefit' or 'the climax of virtue' as the highest ideal
of mankind and dealt with the question of the doable and the
not-doable from that point of view ; and Aristotle has in his
book on Ethics said that all these things are included in the
Atmic benefit (1. 7, 8). Yet, Aristotle has not given due
importance to Atmic benefit. That is not the case with our
philosophers. They have 'laid down, that Atmic benefit or
[*TMs word 'Atmic' (i. e., of the 'Atman') has been coined by
:me on the analogy 'Vedic' Trans.]
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 93
Metaphysical perfection is the first and the highest duty of
every man ; that the question of the doable and the not-doable ■
must be considered on the basis that Atmic benefit is more-
important than any other benefit; and that, it is not proper
to consider that question without reference to Metaphysical
philosophy. The same position seems to have been accepted in
modern times by some Western philosophers, in dealing with
the question of the doable and the not-doable. For instance,
the German philosopher Kant first wrote the metaphysical
book Critique of Pure Reason, that is, of ' vyavasayatmika ',
(i.e., pure) ' buddhi ' (i.e., Reason), and subsequently the book
Critique of Practical Reason, that is, of ' vasanatmaka ' (i.e.
practical) 'buddhi' (i.e., Reason). * And even in England,.
Green has started his book entitled Prolegomena to Ethics
with the consideration of the Atman, which is the bed-rock of
the entire universe. But, as the works of purely materialistic
philosophers on Ethics are principally taught in our colleges
the fundamental principles of the Karma-Yoga mentioned in
the Gita, are not well understood even by learned persons
among us, who have had an English education.
It will be clear from the exposition made by me above
why we apply the common word ' DHARMA ' chiefly to
wordly morality or to systems laid down for the maintenance
of society. Not only in the Sanskrit treatises, Mahabharata
and Bhagavadglta, but also in vernacular works is the word
' dharma ' always used as meaning worldly duties or laws-
We understand the words ktiladliarrna and kidacara as
synonymous. The Marathi poet, Moropant, has used the word
' dharma ' in this sense, in describing the incident in the
Bharata war when Karna had got out of his chariot for raising
the wheel of his chariot which had sunk into the earth, and
Arjuna was on the point of killing him. Karna then said :
" It is not the ethics of warfare (yuddhadliarma) to kill an
enemy when he is unarmed," and Sri Krsna retaliated by
reminding him of the previous incidents of the attempted
* Kant was a German philosopher, and he is looked upon at
the father of modern philosophy. Two of -his works, the Critique ■
of Pure Reason and the Critique of Pratical Reason are well-known..
The work written by Green is known as Prolegomena to Ethics.
<I4 GITA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
•denuding of DraupadI, or the murder of Abhimanyu, when
alone, by a number of persons, and asking him : "Where was
then your dharma, Oh, Radhasuta ?' ' with reference to all those
incidents ; and even in the Mahabharata the word ' dharma'
has been used in relating this incident in the expression
" leva te dharmas tada gatah ", i.e., " where did your ' dharma '
(morality) go then?", and it is shown that it is morally
right to give measure for measure to such immoral persons.
In short, as it has become usual, whether in Sanskrit
or in Prakrit literature, to use -the word 'dharma'
as indicating the rules of morality which have been
laid down by high and reverend persons, with reference to
various matters, for the maintenance of society, I have
-adopted the same word in this book. These rules, which
have been laid down by reverend people (sista) and which
have become acceptable on all hands and are known as
' respectable behaviour ' (sistucara), are, from this point of view,
the root of morality {dharma) ; and therefore, in the
Mahabharata (Anu. 104. 157) and also in the Smrti treatises
there are such statements as : ' acaraprabhavo dliarmah ", i.e.,
'" morality springs from custom " or : " acarah paramo dharmah",
i.e., " rules of custom are the highest morality " (Manu. 1. 108),
■•or (where the origin of morality is mentioned), "vedah smrtih
sadacarah svasya ca p, riyarnutmanah ", (Manu. 2. 12), i.e., 'the
Vedas, the Smrtis, good conduct and that which we ourselves
•desire." But that is not enough for the science of Karma.
Yoga, and, as has been stated by me before in the second
chapter, it is necessary to fully and critically consider what
■ causes led to a particular acura or code of conduct being fixed.
We must also here consider another definition of the word
'' dharma ' which is come across in ancient treatises. This is
the definition given by the Mimamsa school. That school
•says : " codanalaksano 'rtho dfuirmah " ( Jai. Su. 1.1. 2 )
'' Oodana ' means ' inspiring,' that is, some authoritative person
rsaying or ordering : " Do this " or " Do not do this ".So long as
no one has laid down such a limitation or such a limitation
has not come into existence, bne . is at liberty to do what he
likes. This means that dharma originally came into existence
.as a result of suoh limitations, and this definition of morality
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA * 95
is to a certain extent similar to the opinions of the well-known
English writer Hobbes. The human being, in the aboriginal
condition behaved according to the particular frame of mind
ruling at the time. But when he later on found out that Buoh
unrestricted behaviour wag not beneficial on the whole, he
came to the definite conclusion that it was in the best interests
•of everybody to lay down and observe certain restrictions on
the self -inspired actions of the organs, and every human being
began to observe these limitations, which have gained ground
on account of general acceptance ( sistucara ), or for some other
reason, as if they were laws ; and when such limitations grew
in number, they formed themselves into a code. I have
mentioned in the previous chapter that the institution of
marriage was not at first in vogue, but was brought into
existence by Svetaketu, and also that the prohibition against
drink was first laid down by Sukracarya. In defining the word
dlmrma as : " codamlaksano 'tiho dliarmah " only the fact of
such restrictions having been dictated by these law-givers has
been taken into account and the motives of Svetaketu or of
.Sukracarya in laying down these limitations has been lost
sight of. Even in the case of a rule of morality ( dharma ),
some one first realises its importance and then it is
promulgated. It is not necessary to ask anyone to eat, drink,
and make merry, because, those are the inherent tendencies of
the physical organs. That is what is meant by Manu when he
says : " na mamsabhaksane doso na madye ivx ca maitlmne "
■( Manu. 5. 56 ), i. e., '^Eating flesh or drinking wine or
enjoying sexual intercourse, is not sinful. ", that is, there is
nothing in them which is contrary to the rules of nature. All
these things are the inherent desires, not only of ,'men but of
every living being[ "pravHtir esa bhutanam", i. e., " these are
the tendencies of created beings ". Morality consists in
putting proper limitations on an unrestricted course of life
resulting from passions in the interest of the maintenance
•of society or of general welfare. Because : —
Uharanidra bluiyamailhunam ca
samanyam etat pasubhir nafanam I
dliarmo hi tesam adhlko visefto
dharmem hinah pasubhih mmanah II
96 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
i. e. " eating, sleeping, fear, and sexual relations are the?
heritage of men, same as of animals ; dlianna, ( that is, restrain-
ing them by rules of morality ), is the difference between man
and beast ; and those who are not governed by this code of
morality may be looked upon as beasts. " There is in the
Santiparva of the Mahabharata, a similar verse ( San. 294. 29 }
and the verse in the Bhagavata, which prescribes limitations
on the desires of hunger etc. has been quoted in the previous
chapter. In the same way what the Blessed Lord is referring
to, is the nature of morality to lay down limitations on
unrestricted mental impulses, where in the Bhagavadgita,
He says to Arjuna : — ■
indriyasyendriyasij arthe raga dvesau vvavasthitau I
tayor m vasam agacchet tau hy asya paripanlhinau II
i.e. "the attractions and repulsions between the organs of sense
on the one hand and the various objects which are pleasurable
or repulsive to them on the other are unchangingly inherent.
One should not become their slaves, because, both love and hate
are enemies". The organs of a man urge him to behave like a
beast, and his intelligence pulls him in the opposite direction.
'Those persons who redeem themselves by sacrificing the animal
tendencies rampant in their bodies into the fire of this warfare
are the true sacrificeTS, and are indeed blessed.
Call dharma, 'Ucam-prablmva' (born of custom), or call it
'dharanat' (something which upholds or keeps together), or call
it 'codanalaksava' (some precept which has been dictated), which-
ever definition of dharma (worldly morality) is accepted, none
of them is much, useful for coming to a definite conclusion,
when«*pne has to decide between what is moral and what
imnforal. The first definition only tells us what the funda-
mental form of dharma is! The second definition tells us what
its external use is, and the third definition tells us that moral
restrictions were laid down in the beginning by some persons or
other. Not only is there much difference between customs and
customs but, as there are numerous consequences of one and the
same act, and also as the 'cotiana' i.e., precepts of different rsis
are also different, we have to look out for some other way of
. determining what the dharma is, when there are doubts in the.
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA
99
matter. When Yaksa asked Yudhisthira -what this othe?rt aln
was, Yudhisthira replied :- ' a "' e
. It
tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinnah •
" ' , 1. o.,
naiko rsir yasya ■vacah pramanam I ,. ^
dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam f 0T
mahdjano yena gatah sa, pantluih II \ a ^
(Ma.Bha. ¥ana. 312. 115).
that is : " inferential logic is uncertain, i. e., it is such that if
will give birth to various inferences according to different
degrees of keenness of intelligence in me'n ; the Srutis, that iff
the precepts of the Vadas, are all mutually conflioting ; and,-af
regards the Smrtis, there is not a single rsi (sage) whose preoepi
we can look upon as more auftoritative than that of othera
Well, if we seek the fundamental principle of this^(woil|||
dharma, it is lost in darkness, that is ; 'tt)»^
cannot be understood by a man of i
Therefggg^bg jgath whi ch"' hW ;
~._^.,.^ x,^-!^ oidMrma". ; Very\^I^KMf "S-ib'-i^f
(rmmjanOii't iT SHf ' ; " ' Ul: ^ : ' -^•'^ L
id to meaii'*a''iai
pereciBaHMB!^- -Bfecause; fbl
laM dronby ordinary
minds are never trout]
and what is wrong$
like " andhenaiva niyct:
led by the blind ", as*
interprete the word
venerable persons'— and
above verse-^then, .where is there, any >iiniformity1
behaviour?: The sinless "RamaCaridra "discarded'
though she had passed through'thte r ciraeal of fire, merely 'o'fl
ground of public criticism; and the same Ramacandra,
order that Sugriva should be on his side, entered into an-
offensive and defensive alliance with him, by making him,
'tulyarimitra', i. e., ' with common friends and enemies ', and
killed Vali who had in no way wronged him ! Parasurama.
murdered his own mother at the behest of his father 1 , mt,
as regards- the Fandavas, five of them had only one wife ! I 13 '
13-14
96 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
'nsider the gods in the heavens, then some of them are the
jours of Ahilya, whereas others are seen lying in the sky
mutilated bodies, being wounded by the arrows of Rudra,
i Brahmadeva because he ran after his own daughter in
form of a stag (Ai. Bra. 3. 33). With these things
e his mind's eye, Bhavabhuti has put the words :
idhas te na vicaramyacaritah", i.e., "one must not attach too
Auch importance to the doings of these old people " in the
iiouth of Lava in the Uttararamaearitra. A writer, who
"has written in English the history of the Devil, has said
in his book that if one considers the history of the warfare
between the supporters of the gods and of the Devil, we see that
very often the gods (dews) have cheated the non-gods (daityas) ;
and in the same way, in the IJausitakl-Brahmanopanisad (See,
Kausi. 3. 1 as also Ai. Bra. 7. 28), Indra says to Pratardana :
"I have killed Vrtra (although he was a Brahmin) ; I have
aces the ascetic Arunmukha, and thrown the
lives ; and, breaking all the various treaties which
Be by me, I have killed the friends and clansmen
find also killed the demons named Pauloma and
yet on that account, " tasya me tatra na loma ca
I e., " not a hair of my head has been touched ".
pays : "You have no occasion to consider the evil
these venerable persons, but, as stated in the
Taittiriyopanisad ( Taitti. 1. 11. % ), imitate only their good
actions, and neglect the rest ; for instance, obey your father,
as was done by Parasurama, but do not kill your mother ",
■then, the primary question of how good actions are to be
•differentiated from bad actions again arises. Therefore, after
laving described his various deeds as mentioned above, Indra
says to Pratardana : "Bearing in mind that that man who has
fully Realised his Self is not prejudicially affected by patricide,
matricide, infanticide, theft, or any other sinful actions, try
and realise in the first instance what the Atnian is, so that all
your doubts will be answered" ; and he has thereafter explained
to Pratardana the science of the Atnian. In short, although
the precept "nmhajano yena yatah sa panthah" may be easy to
allow for ordinary persons; yet it does not meet all possible
ontingencies ; and thoughtful persons have ultimately to enter
KARMA-YOGA-S ASTRA
into the Philosophy of the -Atman (atma-jnava) and ascertain
the true principle underlying the actions of the venerable
persons (maliajanah), however deep that principle may be. It
is for this reason that the advice : "m devacaritam caret ".i.e.,
"one must not follow only the external actions of gods", is
given, Some persons have hit upon an easier way for
determining the doable and the not-doable. They Bay that
whatever virtue is taken, we must always take care against
excess of it, foT such excess turns a virtue into a vice. Charity
is a virtue; but, " atidanad balir baddkah ", i. e., " because of too
much charity, Bali was undone ". The well-known Greek
philosopher Aristotle has in his book on Ethics prescribed the
same test for distinguishing between the doable and the not-
doable ; and he has clearly shown how every virtue, in excess,
is the cause of one's undoing. Even Kalidasa has come to the
conclusion ( see Raghuvarhsa 17. 47 ) that courage, pure and
simple, is like the cruel behaviour of an animal like a tiger ;
and morality, pure and simple, is nothing else but cowardice ;
and that the king Atithi, used to rule by a judicious admixture
of the sword and regal jurisprudence. If a man speaks too
much, he is talkative, if he speaks too little, he is reserved ; if
he spends too much, he is a spendthrift, if he spends too little,
he is a miser ; if he is too advanced, he is wayward, and if he
lags behind, he is a laggard ; if he insists on anything too
much, he is obstinate, and if he insists too little, he is fickle ;
if he is too accommodating, he makes himself cheap, and if he
remains stiff, then he is proud : this is how Bhartrhari and
•others have described some good and bad qualities. However,
such a rule of the thumb does not overcome all difficulties,
because, who is to decide what is 'too much', and what is
^moderate' ? What may be 'too much' for one or on any parti-
cular occasion, may be too little for another person or on
another occasion. Jumping into the firmament at the moment
of his birth in order to catch hold of the Sun was as nothing to
Maruti (VS. Rama. 7. 35). Therefore, as the syena bird advised
the King Sibi, every man, when faced with the discernment
between the duty (dharmal and the non-duty (adharrna)
should on every occasion consider the relative merits and
the importance or unimportance of mutually conflicting duties,
100 GITA-BAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
and intelligently arrive at a conclusion as to the true duty or
proper Action :—
avirodhat tu yo dliarmah sa dharmah satyavikrama I
virodhisu mahlpala itiscitya gurulaghawm I
na iadha vidyate yatra tarn dharrmni samupaearet II
(Ma. Bha. Vana. 131. 11. 12 and Manu. 9. 299X
i. e., "Oh, Satyavikrama 1 that is dharma (duty) in which there
is no contradiction ; Oh, King !, if there is such a contradiction,,
then come to a decision as to the relative worth of the act and
the opposition, and follow that path of duty in which,
there is no opposition-". But one cannot, on that account
only, say that the true test of determining the proper
conduct on a doubtful occasion is to discriminate between the
duty and the non-duty. Because, as we often see in ordinary
life, different learned people discriminate in different ways.
j,o their own lights, and arrive at several different.
! regards the morality of a particular act ; and this,
meant by the words, "tarko 'pratisthah " in the.
Ibove. We must, therefore, now see whether or not
py other means for arriving at a correct solution of
Iful points about the duty and the non-duty ; and if
|ose means are ; and if there are more than one ways,,
i is the best way of all. This is what science has to
determine for us. The true characteristic feature of a science-
is : " anehasamsayocchedi paroksarthasya darsakam ", i. e., " it
must remove confusion regarding matters which the mind
cannot at first grasp on account of numerous doubts which
spring up, and make their meaning free from doubt and easy,,
and, even give a proper insight into matters which might not.
be actually before the eyes or which may be matters of the
future " ; and the fact that by learning astronomy, one can.
predict the occurrence and the time of future eclipses justifies.
the words "paroksarthasya darsakam" used in the latter part of
the above definition. But in order that all these various,
difficulties should be solved, one has first to see what these,
difficulties are. And, therefore, ancient as also modern writers,
before dealing with the subject-matter to ba proved by a science'
first enumerate all the other existing aspects of the same-
KARMA-YOGA-SASTRA 101
'subject-matter, and show the faults or insufficiency in them.
Following this method, I shall, before mentioning the YOGA
or devioe established or preached in the Gits for determining
the doability or non-doability. of any . particular Action, first
consider the more well-known of the other devioes which are
prescribed by philosophers for the same purpose. ■ It is true
that thea&'other devices were not very much in vogue in India
but were promulgated principally by Western philosophers.
But it cannot, on that account, be said that I shquld not
^consider them in this book ; because, it is necessary to be
acquainted- with these other devices, if even to a small extent,
not only for the purpose of comparison, but also in order to
understand the true importance of the Metaphysical ( adkyat-
mika) Karma- Yoga expounded in the Glta.
CHAPTER IV.
THE MATERIALISTIC THEORY OF HAPPINESS
(IDHIBHAUTIKA SUKHAVADA)
duhkhad uddvijate saruah saroasya sukhafit Ipsitam I *
Mahabhaiata. Santi. 139, 61.
As we hare seen that stock precepts like : 'mahajano yena
gatah sa panthah', i. e. 'follow the path which has been followed
by venerable persons', or, 'aU. sarwtra varjayet', i. e., 'do too-
much of nothing', do not satisfactorily explain : (J-)' why
Manu and the other legislators laid down the rules of 'aUfnsa
satyamasteya' (Non-Violence, Veracity, Not-stealing) ?so., (ii)
whether those rules are mutable or immutable, (iii) what their
extent or the fundamental principle underlying them is, and
(iv) which precept should be followed when two or more of
them are equally in point and yit conflict with each other, it is
STneoessary for us to see whether or not there are any
Tnitft means for properly determining these questions, and
aging which is the most beneficial or meritorious path of
J^jVas also, in what way and from what point of view we
aine the relative importance or the greater or less
p£, mutually conflicting principles of morality. I have-
^^^ past chapter explained that there are three ways of
considering the questions involved in the exposition of Action
and Non-Action, namely, the Positive, (Mkibkautika), the
Theological (adhidaivika), and the Metaphysical (adhyatmika),
just as in the case of the scientific exposition of other matters.
According to our philosophers the most exoellent of these ways
is the Metaphysical way. But, as it is necessary to carefully
consider the other two methods in order to fully understand the
importance of the Metaphysical method, I have in this ohapter
first considered the fundamental Materialistic principles under-
lying the examination of the question of Aotion and Non-
Action. The positive physical sciences, which have had an
immense growth in modern times have to deal principally
with the external or visible properties of tangile objects.
* that is : — ''Every one is unwilling to suffer pain and every-
one wants happineBs".
ADHIBHAUTIKA SUKHAVADA 103
Therefore, those persons who have spent their lives in studying'
the physical sciences, or who attach much importance to the
critical methods particular to these sciences, get into the habit,
of always considering only the external effects of things ; and
their philosophical vision being thereby to a certain extent,
narrowed, they do not, in discussing any particular thing,
attach much importance to causes which are Metaphysical, or
intangible, or invisible, or which have reference to the next,
world. But, although on that account, they leave out of
consideration the Metaphysical or the next-world point of
view, yet, as codes of morality are necessary for the satisfactory
regulation of the mutual relations of human beings and for
public welfare, even these philosophers, who are indifferent,
about life after death or who have no faith in intangible or'
Metaphysical knowledge, ( and also necesssarily no faith in.
God ), look upon the science of Proper Action (Karma-Yoga) as.
a most important science ; and, therefore, there has been in the.
past and there is still going on, a considerable amount of
discussion in the West, as to whether the science of Proper andi
Improper Action can be satisfactorily dealt with in th&
same way as the physical sciences, that is to say, by
means of arguments based on purely worldly and visible,
effects. As a result of this discussion, modern Western-
philosophers have made up their minds that the science of
Metaphysics is of no use whatsoever for the consideration of
Ethics, that the goodness or badness of any particular Action,
must be determined by considering only those of its external
effects which are actually visible to us, and that we can do so.
Any act which a man performs, is performed by him either for
obtaining happiness, or for warding off unhappin3ss. One may
even say that ' the happiness of all human beings ' is the-
highest worldly goal, and if the ultimate visible resultant of all
Action is thus definite, the correct method of deciding Ethical,
■problems, is to dstermins the moral value of all Actions by
weighing the greater or lesser possibilities of each Action
producing happiness or preventing unhappiness. If one judges,
the goodness or badness of any particular object in ordinary
life by considering its external usefulness, e. g., if we decide-
that that cow whioh has short horns and which is dooile, and
204 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KABMA-YOGA
■at the same time gives a large quantity of milk is the best
flow, then on the sams principle, we must also consider that
Action as the most meritorious one, from the ethical point of
view, of which the external result of producing happiness or
preventing unhappiness is the highest. If it is possible to
■decade the ethical value of any particular act in such an easy
■and scientific way, namely, by considering the greater or less
value of its purely external and visible effects, one should not
trouble about entering into the discussion of the Self and Non-
Self (Ufmaruttinal ; "arte cen madhu liiukla kimartliam parvatam
vrapl "* i. e., "if one can get honey near at hand where he sits,
then where is the sense of going into the hills to look for
honey-combs ? " I call this method of determining the
morality of any particular Action by considering merely its
external results the ' adlubliautika suk/uivt'ila ' (the Materialistic
Theory of Happiness), because, the happiness to be considered
for determining the morality of any Action is, according to
Litany, actually visible and is external — that is, is such as
Tom the contact of the organs with external objects, and
fteiilly Materialistic (UdhibluiiUika) — and this school has
Ireen brought into existence by those philosophers who
he world from the purely positive or Materialistic
(fiew. But, it is not possible to fully discuss this
this book. It would be necessary to write an
nt book to even merely summarise the opinions of
the different writers. I have, therefore, in this chapter collected
together and given as precisely as possible as much general
information about this Materialistic school of Ethics as is
.absolutely necessary for fully understanding the nature and
importance of the science of Proper Action expounded in the
Bhagavadgvta. If any one wants to go deeper into the
matter, he must study the original works of the Western philo-
'•' 1'ke wotd 'aria' in this atanaa has been .interpreted by some
as meaning the 'rut' tree (swallow-wart or calotropis gigantea).
IS nt, in his commentary on the SumkarabliSsya on the Brahma-Sutras
3, 4, 3, Anandagiri has defined the word 'arks' as meaning 'near.'
Tha other p&it of this verse is "stidhasy artfiasya mmpraplav k$
«idt'«n yuittam-acant" ', i.e., if the desired object is already achieved,
•what wise man will make further efforts ?
ADHIBHAUTIKA STJKHAVADA 105
-gophers. From my statement above, that Materialistic philo-
sophers are apathetic about the science of the Atman or about
the next world, one must not draw the conclusion that all the
learned persons who subscribe to this path, are selfish, self-
centred or immoral. There belong to this school high-minded
philosophers like Comte, Spencer, Mill, and others, who
most earnestly and enthusiastically preached that striving
for the benefit of the whole world by making at least
one's worldly outlook as comprehensive as possible (if
•one does not believe in the next world), is the highest duty
of every man; and as their works are replete with the most
noble and deep thoughts, they ought to be read by every one.
.Although the paths of the science of Proper Action are many,
.yet, so long as one has not given the go-bye to the external
ideal of 'the benefit of the world', one must not ridicule a
^philosopher on the ground that his method of dealing with the
philosophy of Ethics is different from one's own. I shall now
.precisely and in their proper order, consider the various divi-
sions into which the modern or ancient Materialistic philoso-
phers fall, as a result of differences of opinion between them
as to whether the external material happiness which has to be
-considered for determining the ethical propriety or impropriety
of an action is one's own happiness or the happiness of another,
.and whether of one person or of several persons; and I shall
also consider to what extent these opinions are proper or
faultless.
The first of these classes is of those who maintain the
theory of pure selfish happiness. This school of thought says
■that there is no such thing as life after death or as philan-
thropy; that all Metaphysical sciences have been written
by dishonest people to serve their own ends; that the only
.thing which is real in this world is one's own interest; and
/that, that act by which this self-interest can be achieved or
whereby one can promote one's own material happiness is the
most just, the most proper, and the most meritorious act.
This opinion was, at a very early date, vociforously proclaimed
in India by Carvaka. and the mischievous advice given by
Jabali to Sri Eama at the end of the Ayodhyakanda of the
JRamayana, as also the Kanikanlti in the Mahabhirata (Ma,
106 GfTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Bha. A. 143), pertains to this school of thought. The opiniom
of the illustrious Carvaka was that when the five primordial
elements are fused together, they acquire the quality of an.
Atman, and when the body is burnt, the Atman is burnt with.
it; therefore, a wise man should not bother about the Atman,.
but should enjoy himself so long as life lasts, even borrowing.
money for the purpose, if necessary; one should '' mam krtva
ghrtam pibet ", i. e., "borrow money and drink clarified butter",.
because there is nothing after death. As Carvaka was born
in India, he satisfied himself with prescribing the drinking:
of clarified butter (ghrtam pibet) otherwise, this canon would
have been transformed into ' math krtva surarh pibet ', i. e.,
'borrow money and drink wine'. This school says: "What
is this dharma and this charity ? All the objects which have.
been created in this world by the Paramesvara, — what did I
say ? I have mads a mistake ! Of course, there is no-
Paramesvara— all the things which I see in this world have
oome into existence only for my enjoyment, and as I can see
no other purpose for them, there is, of course, no such purpose.
When I am dead, the world is over; and therefore, so long as-
I am alive, I shall acquire all the various things which can,
be acquired, acquiring this to-day and that to-morrow, and
thereby I shall satisfy all my desires. If at all I go in for
any religious austerity or charity, that will be only to
inorease my reputation and worth; and if I make a rajastiyct.
yajna or an asvamedlia yajiia, that too will be for the sole
purpose of establishing that my power is unchallenged in all
directions. In short, the EGO, the 'I' is the only focus of
this world, and this 'I' is the sum and substance of all
morality; all the rest is false ". The description of godless.
endowment (asuri sampatti) given in the 16th chapter of the Gits
in the words: "isvaro 'ham ahcuh bhogi siddhdham balavan
sukhi " (Gi. 16. 14), i. e., " I am the Isvara, I am the one who
enjoys, and I am the siddha (perfect), the all-powerful,and the
happy", applies quite appropriately to the opinions of persons-
. who follow this philosophy. If instead of Sri Krsna, there had
been some person like JabaK belonging to this sect for advising
Arjuna, he would, in the first place, have slapped Arjuna on the-
face, and then said to him : "What a fool are you ! When yom
ADHIBHAUTIKA SUKHAVADA 107
jave without effort got this golden opportunity of fighting and
conquering everybody and enjoying all kinds of royal enjoy-
ment and happiness, you are uttering the most foolish things,
being lost in the futile confusion of 'shall I do this, or shall I do-
that' ! You will not get such a chance again. What a fool are
you to think of the Atman and of relatives 1 Strike I and enjoy
the empire of Hastinapura after having removed all the thorns
from your path ! In this lies your truest happiness. Is there
anything in this world except one's visible material happiness 1"
But, Arjuna was not anxious to hear such a disgustingly
selfish, purely self-centred, and ungodlike advice ; and he had,
already in advance, said to Sri Krsna :
eta?i no, hantum icchami ghnato 'pi MadhusUdana l
api trmlohjarajuasija lietdh Mm nu mahikrte II
(Gi. 1. 36).
that is, "If I had to acquire for myself (by this war), the-
kingdom even of the three worlds — to say nothing of the-
kingdom of this world — (that is, such physical pleasures), I do
not desire for that purpose to kill the Kauravas. I do not
mind if they slit open my throat". Even a mere reference to-
this ungodlike self-centred and entirely selfish doctrine of
material happiness, which Arjuna had, in this way, denounced
in advance, would amount to a refutation of it. This
extremely low stage reached by the school of Material
Happiness, which looks upon one's own physical pleasures
as the highest ideal of man, and throws religion and
morality to the winds, and totally disregards what
happens to other people, has been treated by all writers on
the science of Proper Action, and even by ordinary people, as
extremely immoral, objectionable and disdainable. Nay ! , this
theory does not even deserve the name of Ethics or of an ex-
position of morality ; and therefore, instead of wasting more
time in considering this subject, we will now turn to the next
class of Materialistic philosophers.
Pure and naked selfishness or self-centredness never suc-
ceeds in the world; because, although physical and material
pleasures may be desirable to every one, yet, as is a matter of
actual experience, if our happiness interferes with the happi-
GITA-BAHASYA OR KABMA-YOGA
mess of others, those others will certainly do us harm. Therefore
■other Materialistic philosophers maintain that although one's
happiness or. selfish purposes may be one's goal, yet, in as
much as it is not possible for one to acquire such happiness,
unless one makes some sacrifices for other people similar to
.those one oneself wants from them, one must long-sightedly
take into account the happiness of others in order to obtain
-one's own happiness. I put theBe Materialistic philosophers in
■the second class. It may be said that the Materialistic exposi-
. tion of Ethics truly begins at this point. Because, instead of
saying like Carvaka, that no ethical limitations are necessary
for the maintenance of society, persons belonging to this school
have made an attempt to explain their own view as to why
-these limitations must be observed by everybody. These
people say that, if one minutely consid ers how the theory o f
Har mlessneBB camTTnto this _world, and why people follow
that doctrine, there is no other reasonliTthe root "oT~it excep t
thelear b ased on s elfish consid erations that, ' ifl _ kill others ,
■ otherB will kill me, and then Twill lose my happ iness', andthat
.all other mora l precepts have come into existence a s a result
■oft his selfish fear in the same way as this la w of Harm less-
Jiesg, If we suffer pain, we cry, and if o thers suffer pain, we
i eel pity for them . But why ? BMaus£the_Jejitha^_we_in
our turn may have to suf fer th e same pain, that is, of course,
. theth ought of our jwgsible future unhappin gs~comes to our
.rninpX Charity, generosity, pity, love, gratefulness, humble-
ness, friendship, and other qualities which at first sight appear
to be for the benefit of otheTS are, if we traoe them to their
.origin, nothing but means of acquiring our own happiness or
warding off our own unhappiness in another form. Every body-
soever helps others or gives in charity with the internal
motive that -if he found himself in the same position, other
.people should help him; and we love others, only in order
■that others should love us. At any rate, the selfish idea that
■other people should call us good is at the back of our minds,
'The expressions ' doing good to others ' and ' the welfare of
-others' are words based on confusion of thought. What is
real, is one's own selfish purpose; and one's own selfish purpose
.means obtaining one's own happiness or warding off one's own
ADHIBHAUTIKA SUKHAVADA 109"
Junhappiness. This amount s to saying that a mother suckles*
i her baby not on~aceount of love, but she does this selfish act'
in order to~iase herself (as herTr eastiT are full of milk and'
she feels tbe^mconvenTenceTof the pressure), or in~or3er that
the" child, after growing up, shOUl fTovFler and" give her
happiness^ The tact that peopli~of this school of thought ,
' axEflttEat it is neoessary to long-sightedly observe such moral;
principles as will permit of the happiness of others — though
that may be for obtaining one's own happiness — is the im-
portant difference between this school of thought and the
school of Carvaka. Nevertheless, the idea that a human,
being is nothing but a statue cast into the mould of selfish
physical desires, which is the opinion of the Carvaka sohool,
has been left untouched by this school. This opinion has been
supported in England by Hobbes and in France by Helvetius.
But there are not to be found many followers of this school in'
England or anywhere else. After the exposition of Ethics by
Hobbes had been published, it was refuted by philosophers like-
Butler, * who proved that human nature as a whole is not
absolutely selfish, and that there exist in a human being
from birth such other qualities as humanity, love, gratitude
etc., to a greater or less extent, side by side with selfishness ; and',
therefore, in considering any act or any dealing from the
ethical point of view, one should instead of considering only
the qualities of selfishness or even of long-sighted selfishness,
always consider the two inherent distinct tendencies of human
beings, namely, 'selfishness', [svartlia) and the 'unselfishness',
(parurtlia). If even a cruel animal like a tigress is prepared to-
sacrifice her life for the sake of her eubs, it follows that saying
that the emotions of love and philanthrophy come into-
existence in the human mind merely out of selfishness is futile,
and that weighing between the duty and the non-duty merely
from the point of view of long-sighted selfishness is
* The opinion of Hobbes has been given in the book called
Xeviathan 5 and the opinions of Butler are to be found in his Essay
called Sermons on Human Nature. M.orrey bas given the summary of
the book of Helvetius in his (Morley's) book on Diderot, (Volume
TT. Ohnn VV
110 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
scientifically incorrect. Out ancient writers had not lost sight
■of the fact that persons, whose intelligence has remained
"unpuiified on account of their having remained wholly
engrossed in family life, very often do whatever they do in
this world for others, only with an eye to their own
benefit. The saint Tukaram has said : "the daughter-in-law
•weeps for the mother-in-law, but the motive in her heart
is quite different " ( Ga. 2583. -2 ) ; and some of our
philosophers have gone even beyond Helvetius. For
instance, in commenting on the proposition laid down by Sri
Sarhkaracarya in -his Brahma-Siitrabhasya (Ve. Su.Sam. Bha.
%. 2. 3) on the authority of the Gautama-Nyayasutra (1. 1, 18)
' prawrtana laksaiia dosa\', i. e., 'all human activity, whether
selfish or unselfish, is faulty', inandgiri says that : " We practis e
kindness or benevolencD towards others only in order to remove
that pain" which results from the emotTorTarpity awa^enrngm
our hearts? 1 This~argumenfoF Anandgiri is "to be found in
.almraFail our books on the Path of Renunciation, and all that
is principally attempted to be proved from it is, that all Actions
are selfish, and, therefore, noa-performable. But in the conver-
sation betwean Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitieyi, which
appears twice in the Brhadarariyakopanisad (Br. 2. 4 ; 4. 5), this
very argument has been made use of in another and a strange
■way. In answering the question of Maitreyi: "How can one
acquire immortality ? ", Yajnavalkya says to her : "0 Maitreyi,
the husbandjsjoyedby the wife, not for the sake of theTfusband,
but? or thesake of her own atman; in t he same w a^t6e^so"n~"is
not loveTBy us tor his own sake; we love him for our own sake! *
'Theiame law applies towealth, animals,liria~aTr61heTo^iicts.
J utmanastu kamaya sarvpni priyam bhavati', i, e., 'We like all
things for the sake of our Self (utimn)', and if all love is in
* "What say you of natural affection ? Is that also a species of
self-love? Yes; all is self-love. Your children are loved only
because they are yours. Your friend, for a like reason. And your
gantry engages you only so far as it has a connection with your-
self" : this is the way in which Hnme has referred to this line of
argument in his hook Of lie Dignity or Memnus of Human Nature.
Hume's own opinion in the matter is different.
ADHIBHAUTIKA SUKHA.VADA. Ill
this way based on Self, must we not, in the first place, find
•out what our Utman (Self) is ? " And, therefore, the concluding
advice of Yajfiavalkya is; "atma va are drastavyah srotavyo
mantavyo nidiihyasitavyah" , i. e., "See (first) what the atman
'(Self) is, hear the -utman, and meditate and contemplate on
the atman ". When the true form of the Atman has in this
way baen realised by following this advice, the whole world
becomes Self-ised {atma-maya), and the distinction between
selfishness {svHrtlia) and unselfishness (parartha) in the mind
■ceases to exist. Although this argument of Yajfiavalkya is
apparently the same as that of Hobbes, yet, as can be easily
seen, the inferences drawn by them respectively from that
advice are contrary to each other. Hobbes attaches higher
importance to selfishness, and, looking upon all philanthrophy
as long-sighted selfishness, says that there is nothing in this
world except selfishness; whereas Yajfiavalkya, relying on the
woT&'sva' (one's own) in the phrase ' svartha' (selfishness),
■shows, on the authority of that word, that from the Meta-
physical point of view, all created beings are harmoniously
■comprised in our Atman and our Atman is likewise harmo-
niously comprised in all created beings; and he, in that
way, gets rid of the apparently dualistic (dvaita) conflict
between the interest of oneself and the interest of others.
These opinions of Yajfiavalkya and of the school of Eenun-
ciation will be considered in greater detail later on. I have
referred here to the opinions of Yajfiavalkya and others only
for the purpose of showing how our ancient writers have more
or less praised or accepted as correct the principle that 'the
■ordinary tendency of human beings is selfish, that' is, is con-
cerned with their own happiness ', and drawn from it inferences
which are quite contrary to those drawn by Hobbes.
Having thus proved that human nature is not purely
selfish and is not governed wholly by the tanas quality, nor
totally ungodly (as has been maintained by the English
writer Hobbes and the French writer Helvetius), and that a
benevolent (sattvika) mental impulse forms part of human
nature from birth along with the selfish impulse, and that
•doing good to others is not long-sighted selfishness, one has
to give equal importance to the two principles of smrtha, i. e..
112 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
one's own happiness and parartha, i. e., the happiness of others,,
in building up the science of the doable and the not-doable 1
(karyakarya-vyavasthiti). This is the third division of
Materialistic philosophers. Nevertheless, the Materialistic view-
that both svartha and parartha deal only with worldly happi-
ness, and that there is nothing beyond worldly happiness,
is also held by this school. The only difference is that people'
who belong to this school consider it their duty to take into-
account both self-interest (svartha) and other's-interest
{parartha) in determining questions of morality, because they
look upon the impulse of doing good to others as, as much an
inherent impulse, as the selfish impulse. As normally there
is no conflict between self-interest and other's-interest, all
the Actions which a man performs are primarily also beneficial-
to society. If one man accumulates wealth, that ultimately
benefits the whole society; because, society being a collection-'
of numerous individuals, if each individual in it benefits
himself without harming others, that is bound to benefit the
whole society. Therefore, this school of philosophers has laid'
down that if one can do good to others without neglecting one's
own happiness, it is one's duty to do so. But, as this school
does not admit the superiority of other's-interest and advises
that one should each time, according to one's own lights,,
consider whether one's own interests or the interests of others-
are superior, it is difficult to decide to what extent one should-
sacrifice one's own happiness for the happiness of others when
there is a conflict between self-interest and other's-interest,.
and there is very often a chance of a man falling a prey to
considerations of his own interests. For instance, if self-
interest is considered to be as important as other's-interest, it
is difficult to decide by reference to the doctrines of this school
of thought, whether or not one should, for the sake of truth,,
suffer considerable financial loss— to say nothing of the much
more serious question whether or not one should, for the sake-
of truth, 'sacrifice one's life or lose one's kingdom. Persons
belonging to this school may possibly praise a benevolent man
who sacrifices his life for the advantage of another, but if they
are themselves faced with a similar situation, these philoso-
phers, who habitually sit on the two stools of self-interest and.'
ADHIBHAUTIKA SUKHAV1DA 115
other's-interest, will certainly be dragged towards self-interest.
This school believes that they do not look upon other's-interest
as a long-sighted variety of selfishness (as was done by Hobbes),
but that they minutely weigh self-interest and other's-interest
in a scale, and very skilfully decide in what self-interest lies;
and, on that account, they glorify their doctrine by calling it
the path of ' enlightened ' (udfitta) or 'wise' self-interest (but self-
interest in any case ! ) * But see what Bhartrhari says :—
eke satpurusuh pararthaghntakah svarthan parityajya ye I
sanzanyastu parartham udyamabhrtah svartha 'virodliena ye I
te'mi mamvarakmsah parahitani svarthaya nighmnti ye I
-. . yetu ghnanti nirarthakam •parahitam teke na jrmimafie II
M 1 - (Ni. Sa. 74)
[that is, "those who do good to others, sacrificing their own
> interests are the truly good persons ; those who strive for tha ;
'good of others, without sacrificing self-interest, are ordinary (
\ persons; those who harm others, for their self-interest, must be <
looked upon not as human beings but as godless beings
(raksasah) ; ' but I do not know how to describe those who are-
worse than these, that is, those who needlessly harm the
interests of others". In the same way in describing the most
exoellent form of regal morality, Kalidasa says : — ""—
svasuklmnirabhilamh khidyase lokalwloh \
pratidimm athava te vrttir evam vidhaiva I!
(Sakuntala 5. 7).
that is, "you strive every day for the welfare of others without
considering your own happiness, or it may be said that such is
your natural instinct or vocation". Neither Bhartrhari nor
Kalidasa had to see how to discriminate between Eight Action
or Wrong Action (karmakarma) or righteousness and unrighte-
ousness (dkarmadharma) by adopting both the principles of
self-interest and other's-interest into a science of Right Action
(Karma-Yoga), and judiciously weighing them. Nevertheless,
* This is called in English ' enlightened self-interest '. _ I
have translated the word 'enlightened' into Marathi as ' udaita ' or
15-16
114 GlTA-RAHASYA. OR KARMA-YOGA
the highest place which has been given by them to persons who
sacrifice self-interest for other's-tateiest is justifiable even
from the point of view of Ethics. Persons belonging to
this school of thought say, that although other 's-interest
may be superior to self-interest from the philosophical
point of view, yet, in as much as we have not to consider
-what ideally pure morality is, but only how 'ordinary'
persons should act in the ordinary affairs of the world, the
prominence given by us to 'enlightened self-interest' is proper
-from the worldly point of view. * But in my opinion, there is
no sense in this argument. The weights and measures used in
•commerce are as a rule more or lesB inaccurate ; but if, taking
•advantage of that fact, the greatest possible accuracy is not
maintained in the standard weights and measures kept in
public offices, shall we not blame the persons in authority ?
The same rule applies to the philosophy of Karma-Yoga. Ethics
lias been formulated only in order to scientifically define the
■pure, complete, and constant form of morality ; and, if any
science of Ethics does not do this, it must be said to be useless.
•Sidgwick is not wrong in saying that 'enlightened self-interest'
is the path of ordinary people. Bhartrhari says the game
thing. But if one examines what the opinion of these ordinary
people about the highest morality is, it will be seen that, even
in their opinion, the importance given by Sidgwick to en-
lightened self-interest is wrong, and the path of spotless
morality or the path followed by saints, is looked upon by
them as something much better than the ordinary selfish path;
and, that is what is intended to be conveyed by the stanzas of
Bhartrhari quoted above.
I have so far dealt with the three divisions of the School
of Material happiness, namely, the purely selfish, the long-
sighted selfish, and the enlightened selfish (which is both
the former ones combined), and I have pointed out what the
* Siigvmk'a Methodt of EthksBookl, 0^ v II 8 2 pp 18 29-
also Book IV Chap. IV, § 3 p. 474. Sidgwick has no't invented
this third path ; bat ordinary well-educated English p 00 ple usually
iollow this path of morality which is also known as 'Common sense
morality'.
IDHIBHAUTIKA SUKHAVADA 115
principal short-comings of their respective systems are. But
this does not exhaust all the divisions of the Material happi-
ness school. The next division, that is to say, the best division
of this school is the one of the henevolent (sattvito) Materialis-
tic philosophers, who maintain that: one should decide the
ethical doability or non-doability of all Actions by judiciously
weighing the Material happiness of not only one human being,
hut of the entire human race.* It is not possible that one and
the same act will cause happiness to all persons in the world
or in a society at one and the same time. If one person looks
upon a particular thing as productive of happiness, it produces
unhappiness to another person. But, just as light is not
considered objectionable on the ground that the owl does not
like it, so also if a particular thing is not profitable
to some persons, it cannot be said, even according to the
Karma- Yoga science, that it is not beneficial to all; and
on that account, the words 'the happiness of all persons'
■fsarvabhutahita) have to be understood aB meaning the 'greatest
happiness (good) of the greatest number'. In short, the opinion
of this school is that, "we must consider only suoh acts as
ethically just and fit to be performed, as are conducive to the
greatest good of the greatest number ; and that, acting in that
way is the true duty of every human being in this world." This
doctrine of the school of Material happiness is acceptable to the
Metaphysical school. Nay, I may even say that this principle
•was propounded by the Metaphysicians in very ancient times,
and the Materialistic philosophers have now turned it to use
in a particular way. It is a well-known fact, as has been
said by the Saint Tukaram that, " saintly _j£rsons_comeJ2 i
. life only for the_bene fit of the world; th ey suffer in bod y
i n order to do good to o thers". Needless to say, there is no
dispute about the correctness or the propriety of this principle,
Even 'in the Bhagavadgita, in describing the characteristic
features of saints (jfianin) who practise the perfect Yoga—
of course, the Karma- Yoga— the words " sarvabhutahite ratah "
1. e., " they are engrossed in doing good to all created beings "
* BeEtham, Mill etc. are the protagonists of this Sohool. I hava
translated, the words 'greatest good of the greatest number' as the
^greatest happiness of the greatest number', in this book.
116 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KAEMA-YOGA
have been clearly used twice (Gl. 5. 25 ; 12. 4) ; and it becomes--
quite clear from the statement from the Mahabharata quoted
in the second chapter above: "yad bkutahitam atyantam tat
salytm iti dharana". (Vana 208. 4), i. e., "that is Truth
according to dharma in which the highest benefit of all lies, "'
that our ancient writers used to take into account this
principle in deciding what is just {dharma) and what unjust
(adharma). But, looking upon the promotion of the welfare-
of all created beings as the external characteristic feature
of the conduct of jnamns, and occasionally making use of
that principle in a broad way for determining what is just
and what unjust, is something absolutely different from taking,
for granted that that is the substance of Ethics, and dis-
regarding everything else, and erecting an immense structure
of the science of Ethics on that foundation alone. Materialis-
tic philosophers accept the latter course and maintain that
Ethics has nothing to do with Metaphysics. It is, therefore,
necessary for us to see now to what extent they are correct.
There iB a great deal of difference between the meanings of the
two words ' happiness '(mkha) and 'benefit'- (i#a); but, although'
for the moment that difference is not taken into coneideratioa
and the word ' saroabhutahita ' is taken as meaning 'the greatest
happiness of the greatest number ', yet it will be seen, that
numerous important difficulties arise, if we rely only on this
prinoiple for distinguishing the doable from the not-doable.
Suppose, a Materialist follower of this principle was advising.
Arjuna: what would he have told him ? Would he not have
said: If as a result of your becoming victorious in the
Bharatiya war, you bring about the greatest happiness of the
greatest number, then it is your duty to fight, even if you
might kill Bhisma. Apparently, this advice seems very easy
But, if we go a little deeper, we realise its insufficiency and
the difficulties involved in it. 'Greatest number' means
how much? The Pandava army was of seven aksauUnis
(a unit for measuring the numbers of soldiers). But, the
Kaurava army was of eleven aksauhwis. Can one, therefore
argue that the Pandavas were in the wrong, on the ground
that if the Pandavas had been defeated these eleven Kaurava.
akscmhws would have become happy? To decide questions of
ADHIBHAUTIKA SUKHAVADA UT
morality merely on the basis of numbers would be wrong.on any
number of occasions, to say nothing of the Bharatiya war.
Even in ordinary life everyone believes, that that act whioh
ipleases even one good man is more truly a good act than the aot
which gives happiness to a hundred thousand evil-doers. In
order to justify this belief, the happiness of one saint has to
be given a higher value than the happiness of a hundred
thousand evil-doors, and if one does that, the fundamental
principle that ' the greatest external happiness of the greatest
number is the only test of morality' becomes, to that extent,
weak. One has, therefore, to say that numbers have no fixed
bearing on morality. It must also be borne in mind that
some thing which is ordinarily considered as productive of
happiness by all persons is, by a far-sighted person, seen to be
disadvantageous to all. Take for example the cases of Socrates
and Jesus Christ. Both of them were preaching to their
■countrymen what, in their respective opinions, was ultimately
beneficial. But their eountrymen denounced them as 'enemies
of society', and put them to death. The people, as also their
leaders, were acting on the principle of the 'greatest good of
the greatest number' ; but, we do not now say that what the
ordinary people then did was just. In short, even if we for a
moment admit that 'greatest good of the greatest number' is the
■only fundamental principle of Ethics, yet, we do not thereby
■solve to any extent the questions, in what lies the happiness of
millions of persons, how that has to be ascertained, and by
whom. On ordinary occasions, the task of finding this out
may be left to those persons whose happiness or unhappiness is
under consideration. But, as it is not necessary to go so deep
into the matter on ordinary occasions, and, as ordinary persons
do not possess the mental grasp to understand and decide fault-
lessly in what their happiness lies on extraordinary and
■difficult occasions, putting into the hands of such uneducated
persons the solitary ethical principle of 'the greatest good of
the greatest number' js like placing a fire-brand into the hands
■of an evil spirit, as is apparent from the illustrations of the
*wo leaders given above. There is no sense in the repartee :
"Our ethical principle is correct ; what can we do if ignorant
ipersons have WTongly applied it ? " Because, although the
118 GlTi-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
principle may be correct, one must at the same time explain
who are the proper persons to give effect to it, and when and}
how these persons do so, and other similar limitations of the
principle. Otherwise, ordinary people will needlessly indulge
in the fond belief that they are as capable of determining
questions of morality as Socrates, and serious consequences are
likely to follow.
This theory is open to other objections which are more
serious than the two objections : (i) questions of morality
cannot be properly decided by reference to numbers alone and
(ii) there is no definite external measure for logically proving
in what lies the greatest good of the greatest number, which I
have mentioned above. For instance, only a little considera-
tion will show that it is very often impossible to fully and
satisfactorily decide whether a particular Action is just or
unjust by considering merely its external effects. It is true-
that we decide whether a particular watch is good or bad, by
seeing whether or not it shows correct time ; but before applying
this rule to human actions, one must bear in mind, that man
is not merely a watch or a machine. It is true that all saints
strive for the benefit of the world. But we cannot draw the
definite converse conclusion that every person who strives for
the benefit of the world must be a saint. One must also see
what that man's frame of mind is. This is the great difference
between a man and a machine ; and therefore, if some one
commits a crime unintentionally or by mistake, it is legally
considered a pardonable offence. In short, we cannot arrive at
a correot decision as to whether a particular act is good or bad,,
just or unjust, or moral or immoral by considering merely its
external result or effect, that is, by considering whether or not
that act will produce the greatest good of the greatest number.
One has also necessarily to consider at the same time, the
reason, the desire, or the motive of the doer of the act. There
was once an occasion to construct a tramway for the benefit
and happiness of all the citizens of a big city in America.
But there were delays in obtaining the requisite sanction from
the proper authorities. Thereupon, the direotors of the tramway
company gave a bribe to the persons in authority, and
the necessary sanction was immediately obtained ; and, the
ADHEBHAUTIKA SUKHAVADA 11»
construction of the tramway being complete soon afterwards,,
all the people in the city were in consequenoe considerably
convenienoed and benefited. Some time after that, the bribery-
was found out, and the manager of the tramway was criminally
prosecuted. There was no unanimity in the first jury, so a second,
jury was empanelled and the second jury having found the
manager guilty, he was convicted. In such a case, the prin-
ciple of the greatest good of the greatest number is useless
by itself. The external effect of the bribery, namely, that,
the tramway came to be constructed because the bribe
was given, was the greatest good of the greatest number r
yet, on that account, the fact that the bribe was given does
not become legal* Though the external effects of the two
several acts of giving in charity desirelessly in the belief,
that it is one's duty to do so (datavyam), and of giving iru
charity for the sake of reputation or for some other purpose-
are the same, yet, even the Bhagavadgita distinguishes between,
the two by saying, that the first gift is satlvilm (benevolent)
and that the second gift is rajasa (desire-prompted) (Gi. 17,
20-23); and the same gift, if made to an unworthy person
is said to be tamasa and objectionable. Even ordinary
people consider a poor man's giving a few pies for a charitable:
purpose as of the same moral value, as the gift of a hundred
rupees by a rich man. But, if the matter be considered by an.
external test like ' the greatest good of the greatest number ',
we will have to say that these two gifts are not of the same
moral value. The great drawback of the Materialistic ethical
principle of the ' greatest good of the greatest number ' is, that,
it does not attach any importance to the motive or the reason,
of the doer, and if one says that the inner motive has to be
taken into account, then the fundamental condition of the
greatest external good of the greatest number being the only
test of morality is not satisfied. As the Legislative Council or
Assembly is a collection of many individuals, it is not
necessary to ascertain what the state of their conscience was,
when we consider whether or not the laws made by them are-
proper; and it is enough if one considers only the external
* This illustration is taken from the book, Th Ethical Problem
of Dr. Paul darns, (pp. 58 and 69, 2nd Edition).
120 GITA-BAHASYA OB KAKMA-YOGA
aspect of the laws, namely, whether or not the greatest good
of the greatest number will result from them. But, as will be
clear from the illustrations given above, the same test does not
apply to other oases. I do not say that the principle of 'the
greatest good or happiness of tha greatest number' is utterly
useless. One cannot have a more excellent principle for con-
sidering external matters; but in considering whether a parti-
cular thing is morally just or unjust, it is very often necessary
to consider several other things besides this external principle ;
and therefore, one cannot safely depend on this principle alone
for determining questions of morality ; and all that I say is,
that it is necessary to ascertain and fix upon some principle,
more definite and faultless than this. The same moral is
conveyed by the statement : "The Reason (buddhi) is of
greater importance than the Action" (Gl. 2. 49), made in the
very beginning of the Gita. If one considers only the external
Action, it is often misleading. It is not impossible for a man
to be subject to excessive anger, notwithstanding that he
continues to perform his external Actions of religious austeri-
ties. But on the other hand, if the heart is pure, the external
act becomes immaterial, and the religious or moral value of
■an insignificant external act like the giving of dried boiled rice
by Sudama to Sri Krsna is considered by people to be as great
as the public distribution of tons of food, which will give great
happiness to a great number. Therefore, the well-known German
philosopher Kant * has treated the weighing of the external
and visible effects of an act as of minor importance and has
started his exposition of Ethics witn a consideration of the
jurity of mind of the doer. It is not that this shortcoming of
the Materialistic theory of happiness was not noticed by the
-principal supporters of that theory. Hume has clearly said
-that in as much as the acts of a person are considered a test
•of his morality as being the index of his disposition, it
is impossible to decide that they are praiseworthy or
unworthy merely from their external effects ; t and even Mill
* Kant's Theory of Ethics (Trail, by Abbott) 6th Ed. p7o\
) ''For as actions are objects of our moral sentiment, so far
«raly aa they are indications of the internal character pa9Bions,
and affections, it is impossible that they can give rise either to
SDHIBHAUTIKA SUKHAV&DA 12-1
accepts the position that 'the morality of any act depends
entirely upon the motive of the doer, that is to say, upon the
reasoning on which he bases that act. ' But, in order to
■support his own point of view, Mill has added a rider to this
principle that, ' so long as the external act is the same, its
moral value remains the same, whatever may have been
.the desire which prompted it '. * This argument of Mill is
only doctrinal. Because, if the Reason (buddhi) is different,
then, though two acts may be the same in appearance, yet
they can never have the same value essentially. And Green,
therefore, objects that the limitation : ' so long as there is no
difference in the (external) act ' etc. laid down by Mill, itself
falls to the ground t. The same is the opinion expressed in
the Gita. Because, the Gita says that even if two persons
have given the same amounts for the same charitable purpose —
that is, even when their external act is just the same — it is
possible that one gift will be aattoika, and the other one will
be rujasa or even tamasa if the two persons have different
reasons for the gift. But I shall deal in greater detail with
this question later on, when I compare the Eastern and the
Western opinions in the matter. All that I have to prove
at the moment is, that even this refined form of the
Materialistic theory of happiness, — which depends only on
the external results of an Action — falls short on the mark
in determining questions of morality; and Mill's admission
quoted above is, in my opinion, the best possible proof of
that fact.
praise or blame, where they proceed not from these principles but
are derived altogether from external objects". Hnme's Inquiry
■concerning Human Understanding. Section VIII Part II ( p. 368 of
Hume's Essays. The World Library Edition ).
* 'Morality of the action depends entirely upon the inten-
tion, that is, upon what the agent mils to do'. But the motive,
that is, the feeling which makes him will so to do, when it makes
no difference in the act, makes none in the morality. "
Mill's Utilitarianism p. 39 (27 f).
| Green's 'Prolegomena to Ethics' § 292 Note. p. 348 (5th
Cheaper Ed.).
122 GftA-BAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
The greatest drawback of the theory of 'the greatest
good of the greatest number' is that it does not take into
consideration the Beason (buddlti) of the doer. Because, the
writings of Mill himself show that, even if his arguments-
are accepted, this principle of determining questions of:
morality merely by external results, is applicable only within-
specified limits, that is, is one-sided, and cannot be equally
applied to all cases. But, there is a further objection to
this theory, namely that, as the entire argument of the
theory has been developed on the basis that other 's-interest is.
superior to self-interest, without explaining why or how it is-
so, the theory of 'enlightened self-interest' gets a chance
of pushing itself forward. If both self-interest and other's-
interest have come into existence with man, why should one
look upon the good of the greatest number as more important
than one's own interest ? The answer, that other's interest
should be protected because it involves the greatest good of the
greatest number is not satisfactory ; because the question itself
is why I should bring about the greatest good of the greatest
number. It is true that this question does not always arise,
since one's interest, as a general rule, lies in promoting the
interests of others. But, the difference between this last and
fourth stage of the Materialistic theory of happiness and its-
third stage is, that the followers of this last school believe that
where there is a conflict between self-interest and other 's-
interest, the duty of everybody is to sacrifice self-interest and
to strive for other's-interest, instead of following the path of
'enlightened self-interest.' Is not some explanation due in
support of this particular feature of this Materialistic theory of
happiness ? As "one learned Materialistic philosopher belonging
to this school realised this difficulty, he has examined the
activities of all living beings, from the minutest organisms to
the human race, and come to the conclusion that in as much as
the quality of maintaining one's own progeny or community
just as one maintains oneself, and of helping one's fellows
as much as possible without harming any one, is to be seen
being gradually mora and more developed from the stage of
minute organisms to the human race, we must say that that is.
the principle feature of the mode of life of the living world-
ADHIBHAUTIKA 8UKHAV1DA 123
This feature is firstly noticed in the living world in the pro-
duction of progeny and protecting it. In those minute
organisms in which the difference of the sexes has not been
developed, the body of one organism is seen to grow until it
breaks into two organisms ; or, it may even be said, that this
minute organism sacrifices its own life for the sate of its
progeny, that is to say, for the sake of another. In the same
way, animals of both sexes in grades of life higher than that of
these organisms, are seen to willingly sacrifice their own
interests in the living world for the maintenance of their
progeny; and this quality is seen to be always growing; so-
that, even in the most aboriginal societies, man is seen
willingly helping, not only his own progeny, but also his tribe;
and therefore, the highest duty in this world of man, who is
the crown jewel of the living world, is to attempt to perma-
nently do away with the present apparent conflict between
self-interest and other's-interest by further developing this ten-
dency of created beings of finding happiness in other's-interest
as if it was self-interest, which is observed to become stronger
and stronger in the rising grades of creation.* This argument
is correct. There is nothing new in the prinoiple that, as the
virtue of philanthrophy is to be seen even in the dumb world,
in the shape of protection of progeny, it is the highest duty of
enlightened man to carry that virtue to its perfection. Only,.
aB the knowledge of the material sciences has now considerably
increased, it is now possible to develops more systematically
the Materialistic demonstration of this principle. Although
the point of view of our philosophers was Metaphysical,,
yet, it has been stated in our ancient treatises that :
asladasa puranSnam saram. saram samuddhrtam l
paropakarah punyaya papaya parapidartam II
that is, "doing good to others is meritorious, and doing harm,
to others, sinful ; this is the sum and substance of the eighteen
* This argument is to be found in the Data of Ethics written by
Spencer. Spencer has explained the difference between his opinions
and the opinions of Mill in his letters to Mill, and this bouk con-
tains extracts from this correspondence. See pp 57 and 123. Also-
see Bain's Mental and Moral Science, pp. 721 and 722, (Ed. 1875;.
124 GITA-aAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
^Puranas" ; and, even Bhartrhari says that : "svartho yasya
parartha em sa puman ekah satam agranih", i. e., "that man with
whom other's-interest has become self-interest is the best of
good men". But, when we consider the scale of life gradually
rising from the minutest organisms to the human race, another
• question also arises, namely : is the virtue of philanthrophy the
only virtue which has been fully developed in the human race,
■ or have other benevolent (sattvika) virtues, such as justice,
.kindness, wisdom, far-sightedness, logic, courage, perseverance,
forgiveness, control of the organs, etc., also been developed in
.man ? When one thinks of this, one has to say that all virtues
.have been more fully developed in the human race than in
any other living being. We will for the present refer to this
aggregate of sattvika qualities as 'humanness'. When in this
-way 'humanness' is seen to be superior to philanthrophy, one
has, in determining the propriety or impropriety or the
morality of any particular Action, to examine that Action
from the point of view of its 'humanness' — that is, from the
ipoint of view of all those various qualities which are seen to
be more developed in the human race than in other living
beings— rather than from the point of view of its philanthropi-
.calness. We must, therefore, come to the conclusion, that it is
better to call that Action alone virtuous, ot to say that that
alone is morality, which will enhance the state of being human
or the 'humanness', of all human beings, or which will be
■ consistent with the dignity of such 'humanness', instead of
merely relying on the virtue of philanthrophy, and somehow or
other getting rid of the matter. And when one accepts this
comprehensive view-point, the consideration of 'the greatest
good of the greatest number', becomes only an insignificant
part of such view-point, and the doctrine that the righteousness
or unrighteousness of all Actions has to be tested only by that
test falls to the ground, and we see that we have also to take
'humanness' into account. And when one considers minutely
in what 'humanness', or 'the state of being human' consists,
vthe question "atma va are drastavyah" naturally crops up, as
stated by Yajfiavalkya. An Amerioan writer, who has written
-an exposition of Ethics, has given this comprenensive quality
■of 'humanness' the name of 'Atma'.
ADHIBHATJT1KA SUKHAVADA US-
From what has been stated above, one will see how even
"the upholders of the theory of Material happiness have to rise
from the lowest stage of pure selfishness or pure physical
happiness of one's self to the higher stage of philanthrophy,
and ultimately to that of humanness. But, as even in the
idea of humanness, the upholders of the Material happiness
theory attach importance solely to the external physical
happiness of all human beings, even this final stage of
Materialism, which disregards internal purity and internal
happiness, is not flawless in the eyes of our Metaphysicians.
Although we may accept in a general way that the whole
struggle of mankind is directed towards obtaining happiness
or preventing unhappiness, yet, until one has in the first place
satisfactorily solved the question as to whether true and
permanent happiness is material, that is, lies in the enjoyment
of worldly physical pleasure or in something else, one cannot
accept as correct any Materialistic theory. Even Materialistic
philosophers admit that mental happiness stands on a higher
footing than physical happiness. If one promises to a human
being all the happiness which it is possible for a beast to enjoy,
and asks him whether he is prepared to become a beast, not a
single human being will say yes. In the same way, an
intelligent person need not be told that that particular
peace of mind which results from deep meditation on
philosophical problems is a thousand times better than
material wealth, or the enjoyment of external pleasures. And
even considering the general opinion on the matter, it will
be seen that people do » not 'accept as wholly correct
the doctrines that morality depends on numbers, that
whatever a human being does is for Material happiness, and
that Material happiness is the highest ideal of a human
being. We believe that the humanness of a human being
lies in possessing such an amount of mental control as to
be able to sacrifice external happiness and even one's own
life in order to act up to such moral principles as Veracity
etc., which are of greater importance than life or external
happiness from the Metaphysical point of View; and also-
Arjuna had not asked Sri Krsna how much happiness would'
result to how many persons by his taking part in the war,.
126 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
hut he had said: "Tell me in what lies my highest benefit,
that is the highest benefit of my Atman" (Gi. 2. 7; 3. 2).
This constant benefit or happiness of the Atman lies in the
peace {sanfi) of the Atman; and it is stated in the Brhadaranya-
kopanisad (Br. 2. 4. 2) that however much of material happi-
ness or wealth one might obtain, there is no hope of obtaining
by that alone the happiness or peaoe of the Atman —
"amrtatvasya tu nasasti vittena"; and in the Kathopanisad,
it is stated that although Death (Mrtyu) was ready to bestow
on Naciketa, sons, grand-sons, animals, grain, . money and
other kinds of material wealth, he gave to Mrtyu the definite
leply : " I want th e know ledge of the Atman, I do not want
wealth"; and after differentiating between 'preya', i, e., that
worldly happinesB which is pleasing to the organs, and
4 sreya ', i. e. the true benefit of the Atman, it is stated : —
sreyas ca preyas ca manusyam etas
tau samparitya vivinakti dhirah I
sreyo hi dhiro 'bHpreyaso vrrate
preyo mamdo yogaksemad vrtfite II
(Katha. 1. 2. 2)
fthat is, " when man is faced with 'preya' (trans ient external
plea sure of t he organs) antPsra/q' (true and permanent benefit),
Tie elects betw een the two. He who is wise prefers sreya to
jtreya, and the weak-minded man prefers preya, that isrexternal
"Egpin^Lioi^l? 11 ^ °^ *^ e Atman". It i s, the refore, - not
■correct to believe that trie highest goal of man in JhjT world js
theJpEysicaT happiness 'obtainable through theTorgans in
worldly life^and that whatever a man does~is~do'ne~by him
^merely fbr^the sake of obtaining' eiternalTTihat'^s, Material
happiness or for preventing unhappines^
Not dnlyTTthe internal happiness obtainable through
Reason, or Metaphysical happiness of greater worth than the
-external happiness obtained through the medium of the organs,
but the physical pleasure which exists to-day comes to an end
to-morrow, i. e., is transient. The same is not the case with
rules of Ethics. Non-violence, Veracity and other moral
principles are looked upon by people as independent of external
ADHIBHATJTIKA SUKHAVADA 12?
circumstances, that is, of external happiness or unhappiness
and as being constant in their application at all times and
in all circumstances, that is to say, they axe looked upon as
permanent by everybody. Materialism cannot satisfactorily
explain the reason why moral principles have this permanence
which does not depend on external matters, nor how it comes
into existence. For, whatever general doctrine is laid down by
reference to happiness or unhappiness in the external world,
yet, in as much as all happiness or unhappiness is inherently
transient, all doctrines of morality founded on such a transient
foundation are equally weak, i.e., non-permanent; and, on that
account, the ever-lasting permanence of the law of Truth seen
in one's being ready to sacrifice one's life in the interests of
Truth, irrespective of considerations of happiness or unhappi-
ness, cannot be based on the doctrine of the ' greatest happi-
ness of the greatest number'. Some persons advance the
argument, that if in ordinary life even responsible persons
are seen taking shelter behind falsehood when faced with the
problem of sacrificing their lives, and if we see, that in suoh
Bircumstances even philosophers are not punctillious, then it
is not necessary to look upon the religion of Truth etc, as
aternal; but this argument is not correct. Because, even those
people who have not got the moral courage or do not find it
Bonvenient to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Truth, admit
by their own mouths the eternal nature of this principle of
morality. On this account, in the Mahabharata, after all
she rules of ordinary life which lead to the acquisition of
wealth (artha), desires (kama) etc have been dealt with,
Vyasa ultimately in the Bharata-Savitri, (and also in the
Viduranlti), has given to everybody the following advice
namely :—
na jatu teaman na bkayan no. lobhad
dharmam tyajed jivitasyapilietoh I
dharmo nityah sukhaduhkhe to anitye
jivo nityoh hetur asya tv a?utyah " II
(Ma. Bha. Sva. 5. 6; U. 39.13, 13),
that is : " although happiness and unhappiness is transient, yet
norality is constant: therefore, one should not abandon moral
1*8 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA*-
principles, whether for desire of happiness or out of fear, or
avarice, or even if life itself is threatened. Life is funda-
mentally eternal and its objects, such as, happiness, or un.
happiness, etc, are t ransien t. " And that, therefore, instead
of wasting time in thinking of transient happiness or un,
happiness, one should link eternal life with eternal religion.
In order to see how far this advice of Vyasa is correct, we
have now to consider the true nature of happiness and un-
happiness and to see what permanent happiness is.
CHAPTER V
THE CONSIDERATION OF HAPPINESS AND
UNHAPPINESS
( SUKHA-DUHKHA-'VTv'EKA. )
mkham atyantikam yat tat buddHgrahjam atindriyam I *
Gita. 6. 21.
Our philosophers have accepted the position that every
human being in this world is continually struggling in order
to obtain happiness, or to increase the amount of happiness
which he has obtained, or to obviate or reduce his unhappiness.
In the Santiparva, Bhrgu says the Bharadvaja (Ma. Bha. San.
190. 9) that :-"iha khdu amumims ca loke vastupravrttayak
sukhartham abMdhlyante na hy atahparam visistataram asli",
i. e., "in this world or elsewhere, all activity is for obtaining:
happiness, there is no other goal except this for dharma, artfoa,
or kama." But, our philosophers say, though a man is suddenly
seized by the hand of death, while he is grabbing a false coin in
the belief that it is true because he does not understand in what
true happiness lies, or while he is spending his life in the hope
that happiness will come sometime or other, his neighbour does,
not become any the wiser on that account, and follows the
same mode of life ; and the cycle of life goes on in this way,
nobsdy troubling to think in what true and permanent
happiness lies. There is a great deal of difference between the
opinions of Eastern and Western philosophers as to whether
life consists only of unhappiness, or is principally happy or
principally unhappy. Nevertheless, there is no difference of
opinion about the fact that whichever position is accepted, the
advantage of a man lies in obtaining the highest measure of
happiness by preventing unhappiness to the greatest possible
extent. The words 'Mtarn' (advantage), or 'sreyas' (merit), or
'kdyanam' (benefit) are ordinarily more often used than the word
'sukham' (happiness) ; and I shall later on explain what the
difference between them is. Yet, if one takes for granted that
the word ' happiness ' inc ludes all kinds of benefits, then the
* "That happiness is the most beatific happiness which
being obtainable only by means of Reason Ibuddfii). is inilfmnnrlont
of the organs (indriyavi)."
17-18
130 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA- YUUA
proposition that ordinarily every human being strives to obtain
happiness may be said to be generally accepted. But, on that
account, the definitions of pain and happiness given in the
Parasaraglta included in the . Mahabharata, (Ma. Bha. San.
295. 27) namely : "yad istam tat sukham prahuh dvesyam duhkham
ihesyate", i. e., "that which is desired by us is happiness, and
that which we dislike, or which we do not desire is unhappi-
ness", do not become entirely faultless from the philosophical
point of view. Because, the word 'ista' in this definition car.
also be interpreted to mean 'a desirable thing or object'; and. jf
that meaning is accepted, one will have to refer to a desirable
object as 'happiness'. For example, although we might desire
water when we are thirsty, yet water, which is an external
object, cannot be called 'happiness'. If tbii were so, one will
have to say that a person who is frowned in the waters of a
river, has been drowned in happiness I That organic satis-
faction which results from the drinking of water is happiness.
It is true that men desire this satisfaction of the organs or this
happiness, but we cannot, on that account, lay down the broad
proposition, that all that is desirable must be happiness.
Therefore, the Nyaya school haB given the two definitions:
"anukulavedanlyam sukham", i. e., "desirable suffering is
"happiness ", and "pratikulavedaniyam duhkham' ', i.e., "undesirable
suffering is unhappiness", and it has treated both pain and
"happiness as some kind of suffering. As these sufferings are
fundamental, that is to say, as they start from the moment of
hirth, and as they can be realised only by experience, it is not
possible to give better definitions of pain or happiness than
these given by the Nyaya school. It is not that these sufferings
in the shape of pain and happiness result only from human
activity; but, sometimes the anger of deities gives rise to
intractable diseases, and men have to suffer the resulting
•unhappiness ; therefore, in treatises on Vedanta, this pain and
"happiness is usually divided into 'adhidamka' (god-given),
'adhibhautika' (physical), and ' adhyatmika' (metaphysical).
Out of these, that pain or happiness which we suffer as a result
of the blessings or the anger of deities is known as ' adhidmvika ',
and that pain or happiness, in the shape of warmth or cold,
which results from the contact of the human organs with the
HiFiTNESS AND UNHAPPINESS 131
external objects in the world composed of the five primordial
elements (such as the earth etc.), is called ' adhibhautika'; and
all pain and happiness which arises without any such external
contact, is called 'adhyatmika'. When this classification of pain
and happiness is accepted, pain, like fever etc., when it results
from the disturbance of the internal ratio of wind, bile etc. in
the body, and the peaceful health, which results from that inter-
nal ratio being correct, fall into the category of Metaphysical
(adhyatmika,) pain and happiness. Because, although this pain
and happiness is bodily, that is to say, although it pertains to
the gross body made up of the five primordial elements, yet, we
cannot always say that it is due to the contact of the body with
external objects. And therefore, even Metaphysical pain and
happiness have, according to Vedanta philosophy, to be further
sub-divided into bodily-metaphysical, and mental-metaphysical
pain and happiness. But, if pain and happiness is, in
this way further divided into bodily and mental divisions,
it is no more necessary to recognise the adhidaivika pain and
happiness as a distinct class. Because, as is clear, the pain
or happiness which arises as a result of the blessings or the
anger of deities, has ultimately to be borne by man through
his body or through his mind. I have, therefore, not followed
the three-fold division of pain and happiness made in Vedanta
-terminology, but have adopted only the two divisions, external
or bodily {bahya or sarir), and internal or mental (abhyantara
or minasika); and I have in this book called all bodily pain
.and happiness 'adhibhautika' (physical) and all mental pain
.and happiness ' adhyatmika ' (Metaphysical). I have not made
.a third division of adhidaivika ( god-given ) pain and happiness,
as has been done in books on Vedanta philosophy, because,
in my opinion, this two-fold classification is more convenient
for dealing scientifically with the question of pain and happi-
ness; and this difference between the Vedanta terminology
and my terminology must be continually borne in mind in
reading the following pages.
Whether we look upon pain and happiness as of two
kinds or of three kinds, nobody wants pain; therefore, it is
stated both in the Vedanta and the Sarhkhya philosophies
(Sam. Ka. 1: Gl. 6. 21, 22), that preventing every kind of
pain to the greatest possible extent, and obtaining the utter-
132 G1TA-RA.HASYA or KARMA-YOGA.
mast and. the permanent happines is the highest goal' of niam
When in this way, the uttermost happiness has become to
highest goal of man, we have naturally to consider tlw
questions: what is to be called the uttermost, the real, and'
the permanent happiness, whether or not it is possible to>
obtain it, and if so, when and how it can be obtained etc.;
and when you begin to consider these questions, the nest
question which arises is, whether pain and happiness are
two independent and different kinds of sufferings, experiences,
or things, as defined by the Nyaya School, or whether the.
absence of the one can be referred to as the other, on the
principle that ' that which is not light, is darkness '. After
'"saying that : " When our mouth becomes dry on account of
thirst, we drink sweet water in order to remove that un-
happiness; when we suffer on account of hunger, we eat nice
food in order to alleviate that suffering ; and, when the sexuali
desire is roused and becomes unbearable, we satisfy it by
sexual intercourse with a woman "j Bhartrhari in the lastj
~ line of the stanza saysr-
pratikdro vyadheh. sukham Hi viparyasyati japak I
that is, " when any disease or unhappiness _has_J>e£ alien,
you, the_ removal of it^^y^wrWswiTdf thought, referred-
to^ai^happiness 1 """! There is no such independent" thing as-
happiness ^which goes beyond the removal of unhappiness.
It is not that this rule applies only to the selfish activities
of men. I have in the last chapter referred to the opinion
of Anandagiri, that even in the matter of doing good to others,
the feeling of pity invoked in our hearts on seeing the un-
happiness of another becomes unbearable to us, and we do-
the good to others only in order to remove this our suffering
in the shape of our being unable to bear it. If we accept
this position, we will have to accept as correct the definitions
of pain and happiness given in Mahabharata in one place,,
namely : —
tTStiaiiiprdbhavam duhkham duhkhartiprabhavarh sukham I
(San. 25. 22; 174. 19).
that is, "some Thirst first comes into existence; on account
Of the suffering caused by that Thirst, unhappiness comes
"HAPPINESS AND UNHAPHNESS ' 133 -
into existence; and from the suffering caused by that un-
happiness, happiness subsequently follows". In short,
according to these philosophers, when some Hope, Desire, or,
Thirst has first entered the human mind, man thereby begins
to suffer pain, and the removal of that pain is called happiness,;
happiness is not some independent thing. Nay, this school
has even gone further and drawn further inferences that all,
the tendencies of human life are Desire-impelled or Thirst-
prompted; that Thirst cannot be entirely uprooted, unless all
the activities of worldly life are abandoned ; and that, unless
Thirst is entirely uprooted, true and permanent happiness,
«annot be obtained. This path has been advocated as an
alternative path in the Brhadaranyaka (Br. 4. 4. 22; Ve.
Su. 3. 4. 15); and in the Jabala, Sarhnyasa and other
Upanisads, it has been advocated as the principal path. This
idea has also been adopted in the Astavakraglta (9. 8 ; 10. 3-8)
and in the AvadhutagltS (3. 46). The ultimate doctrine of
this school is that the man who desires to obtain the highest
happiness or Release, must give up worldly life as early as
possible, and follow the path of Renunciation (samnyasa)'<
and the path of the Abandonment of the Actions which haye
been prescribed by the Srutis and the Smrtis ( srauta-smartor
karma-samnyasa), described in the Smrti treatises, and which
was established in the Kali era by Sri Samkaracarya is based
on this principle. If there is no such real thing as happiness,
and, if whatever is, is unhappiness, and that too based on
Thirst, then it is clear, that all the bother of self-interest or
other's-interest will be obviated and the fundamental equable
frame of mind ( sand) will be the only thing to remain, when
these diseases in the shape of Thirst etc. are in the first place
entirely uprooted; and for this reason, it is stated in the
Fingalaglta in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, as also
in the Mankiglta, that .—
yae ca kammkfiam loke yac ca divyam mahat sukham I
tT&uiksayasukhasyaite riarhatah sodasifo kalam II
(San. 174. 48 ; 177. 49)
i. e., "that happiness which is experienced in this world, by the
satisfaction of desires (kama), as also the greater happiness
134 GlTi-EA.HASYA OR KARMA-YOGA.
which is to be found in heaven, are neither worth even one-
sixteenth of the happiness which results from the destruction
of Thirst". The Jain and the Buddhistic religions have
later on copied the Vedic path of Renunciation ; and therefore.
in the religious treatises of both these religions, the evil effects
and discardability of Thirst have been described as above, or
possibly in even more forcible terms. (For example, see the
Trsnavagga in the Dhammapada). In the treatises of the
Buddhistic religion to be found in Tibet, it is even stated that-
the above-mentioned stanza from the Mahabharata was uttered
by Gautama Buddha when he attained the Buddha-hood. *
It is not that the above-mentioned evil effects of Thirst
have not been acknowledged by the Bhagavadglta. But, as
the doctrine of the Gifca is that the total abandonment of
Action is not the proper course for obviating those evil effects,
it is necessary to consider here somewhat minutely the above
explanation of the nature of pain and happiness. We cannot, in
the first place, accept as totally correct the dictum of the
Saihnyasa school, that all happiness arises from the preventing
of pain, such as Thirst etc. Wishing to experience again
something, which one has once experienced (seen, heard, etc.) is
xnown as Desire (kama, vasana, or iccha). When this desire
becomes stronger as a result of the pain due to one's not
obtaining soon enough the desired object, or when the obtained
happiness being felt to be insufficient, one wants more and
more of it, this desire becomes a Thirst (trsya). But if Desire is
satisfied before it has grown into Thirst, we cannot say that
the resulting happiness arises from the removal of the un-
happiness of Thirst. For instance, if we take the case of the
food which we get every day at a stated time, it is not our
experience that we feel unhappiness every day before taking
food. If we do not get food at the proper time, we will suffer
unhappiness as a result of hunger, but not otherwise. But
* See Rockhill's Life 0/ Buddha, p. SS. This atanza has
appeared in the Pali book called Uicma (2. 2) ; but, it is rot stated
there that it was uttered by Buddha when he attained the 'Buddha-
hood', from which it can be clearly seen that these stanzaB could
not have been originally uttered by Buddha.
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 135
even if we do not in this way distinguish between Thirst and
Desire, and say that both are synonymous, the doctrine that
the root of all happiness is Thirst is seen to be incorrect. For
instance, if we suddenly put a piece of sugar-candy into the
mouth of a child, the happiness which it experiences cannot be
said to have resulted from the destruction of a previous Thirst-
Similarly, if while walking along the road, one comes across a
beautiful garden and hears the melodious notes of a cuckoo, or
coming across a temple on the way, one sees in it the beautiful
image of the deity, one thereby experiences happiness, though
there had been no previous desire of obtaining those particular
objects. If we think over these illustrations, we have to-
abandon the above-mentioned definition of happiness of the
Sarhnyasa school, and say that our organs have an inherent,
capacity for feeding on good or bad objeots, and that when
they are in that way carrying on their various activities, they
come into contact sometimes with a desirable and sometimes,
an undesirable object, and we, thereupon, experience either
pain or happiness, without having had any previous Desire or
Thirst for it. With this purport in mind, it is stated in
the Gita (Gi. 2. 14), that pain and happiness arises as a
result of 'matrasparsa', that is, of contact with cold or warm
objects etc. The external objeots in the world are technically
known as ' matra ', and the above statement in the Gita means-
that the contact (sparsa), i. e., the union of these external
objects with our organs results in the suffering (vedana) of pain
or happiness. That is also the doctrine of the science of Karma-
Yoga. Nobody can satisfactorily explain why a harsh sound
is undesirable to the ear, or why a sweet drink is pleasurable
to the tongue, or why the light of the full moon is pleasing to
the eyes. All that we know is that when the tongue gets a
sweet liquid to taste, it is satisfied. As Material Happiness is,
by its very nature, wholly dependent on the organs, happiness
is very often experienced by merely carrying on the particular
activities of the organs, whatever the ultimate result of our
doing so may be. For instance, the words which sometimes
naturally escape oar lips when some idea enters our mind, are-
not uttered by us with the idea of acquainting someone else-
136 GIT&-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
■with our thoughts. On the other hand, there is sometimes even
a risk of some hidden design or scheme in our minds being
•divulged by these automatic activities of the organs, and of
■our being thereby harmed. When little children first learn to
walk, they aimlessly walk about the whole day, because they
-then experience happiness by the mere act of walking.
Therefore, the Blessed Lord, instead of saying that all happiness
■consists of the absence of unhappiness, says that -.-"imiriyasyen-
driyasyarthe raga dvesau vyavasthitau" (Gl. 3. 34), i. e,, the attrac-
tion and repulsion which exists between the organs of the
sense on the one hand, and their relative objects, such as, sound,
touch, etc., on the other hand, are both 'vyavastMta', i.e., funda-
mentally self-existing ; and His advice is that all that we have
to see is how these activities will become beneficial or can be
made by us beneficial to our Atman; and that therefore, instead
•of attempting to destroy the natural impulses of the mind,
or of the organs, we should keep our mind and organs under
control in order that those impulses should be beneficial
to us, and not let the impulses get out of control. This advice,
and saying that one should destroy Thirst and along with
Thirst all other mental impulses, are two diametrically
•opposite things. The message of the Gita is not that one
should do away with all activity or prowess in the world;
but, on the other hand, it is stated in the 18th Chapter of
the Gita (18. 26) that the doer must, side by side with
equability of mind, possess the qualities of perseverance and
enthusiasm. But we will deal with this matter in greater
detail later on. All that we have to see for the present is
whether pain and happiness are two independent states of
imind or whether one of them is merely the absence of the
■other; .jad what the opinion of the Bhagavadglta on this
matter is will be easily understood by my readers from what
has been stated above. Not only have 'sukham' (happiness)
and ' duhkham ' (pain) been independently dealt with in des-
cribing what the 'kaetra' (field) is (Gl. 13.6), but (Gl. 14.6,7),
Happiness is said to be the sign of sattazm (purity) and Thirst
■of rajas ( passion ), and sattvam and rajas are considered two
independent qualities. From this also it is clear, that pain
and happiness have, in the Bhagavadglta, been considered as
HAPPINESS AND UN-HAPPINESS 137
two mutually opposite and distinct frames of mind. The
fact that the Gita looks upon rujasa-tyaga (abandonment
"based on passion) as inferior , as is shown by the words :
■"One does not derive the result of Abandonment by abandoning
some Action on the ground that it leads to unhappiness; for
suoh an abandonment is rajasa " (Gi. 18. 1), also refutes the
doctrine that all happiness is based on the destruction of
'Thirst.
Even if we believe that happiness does not consist of the
■destruction of Thirst or of the absence of unhappiness, and
that happiness and unhappiness are two independent thingSi
yet, in as much as both these sufferings are mutually opposite
•or contrary to each other, we are next faced with the question
whether it is possible for a man to experience the pleasure of
happiness, if he has never suffered unhappiness. Some
philosophers say that unless unhappiness has in the first
instance been experienced, it is impossible to realise the
^pleasure of happiness. Others, on the other hand, pointing at
the perpetual happiness enjoyed by deities in heaven, say that
previous experience of unhappiness is not at all necessary for
realising the pleasure of happiness. One can experience the
sweetness of honey, jaugery, sugar, the mango-fruit or the
plantain before having previously tasted any saltish object.
In the same way, since happiness also is of various kinds, one
can, without any previous experience of unhappiness,
«xperience perpetual happiness without getting tired of it, by
enjoying in succession diverse kinds of happiness, e. g., by
moving from a mattress of cotton on to a mattress of feathers,
•or from a fixed palanquin to the more comfortable swinging
jpalanquin. But, if one considers the ordinary course of life
in this world, it will be seen that all this argument is useless.
As the Puranas show cases of even gods coming into
•difficulties, and as even heavenly happiness comes to an end
after one's acquired merit has been exhausted in due course of
time, the illustration of heavenly happiness is not appropriate ;
and even if it were appropriate, what use is the illustration of
heavenly happiness to us ? Although we may believe that :
"rrityam eva sukham svarge", i. e., "in heaven there is permanent
happiness", yet, it is stated immediately afterwards that .—
138 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGi
" sukham duhkham ihchhayam " (Ma. Bha. San. 190. 14), i. e.,
" in this world, pain is mixed with happiness " ; and consistently
with that position even Ramdasa Svami has described his own
personal experience as follows : " JWho is there in t his world
who is wholly happy 1 Consult your mind, s earch and see ".
And, as is actually experienced by us ui this life, we have also>
to admit the correctness of the following advice given by
Draupadi to Satyabhama, namely : —
sukham sukheneha na jatu labhyam
duKkhena sadhvi labliate sukhani 1
(Ma. Bha. Vana. 233. 4)
that ie, " h appine ss never comes out of happiness ; in order that
a saintly woman should experience hap~pmess7 she must suffer-
unhlippmesa or trouble^". Because, though" a fruit may be
placed on your lips, you have still to take the trouble of pushing
it into the mouth, and if it falls into your mouth, you have
still to take the trouble of chewing it. At any rate, this much
is unquestionable, that there is a world of difference between
the sweetness of the happiness which comes after unhappiness,
and the sweetness of the happiness which is experienced by a
man who is always engrossed in the enjoyment of the objects of
pleasure. Because, by continually enjoying happiness, the
keenness of the appreciative power of the OTgans which enjoy
the happiness is dulled, and as is well-known :—
prayeqa srlmatam lolte bhoktum saktir na wdyate I
kasthany api hijlryante daridraruim ca sarvasah II
(Ma. Bha.. San. 28.59)
that is, " rich people do very often not have even the power of
enjoying tasteful food, and poor people can appreciate and
digest even uncooked wood ". Therefore, in considering worldly
life, it is uselss to consider further whether it is possible
to enjoy continual happiness without unhappiness,
"sukhasyanantaram duhkham duhkhasyanantaram sukham" (Vana,
260. 40 ; San. 25.23), i. e., " unhappiness follows on the steps of
happiness, and similarly happiness comes in the wake of
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 139'
unhappiness ", or as has been described by Kalidasa in the-
Meghaduta :-
kasyaikardam sukliam upanatam duhkham ekaniato va I
nicair gacclwtty upari ca dasa cakranemikramena II
that is, " no one experiences continual happines s or con tinuaj-
unhappinessTpain_anf happiness always move alternately up-
and down like the points on tEe circumference of "a'wh'eeT*^
Sufi^s^rIe~c"ase7 r wMther~becli, : use' this" "unhappiness lias been
created in order to increase the sweetness of happiness or
because it has some other purpose in the scheme of activity of
Matter {prakrti). It may-not be quite impossible to continually
obtain one object of pleasure after another, without getting
tired of enjoyment ; but it is absolutely impossible, at any rate
in this Icarma-bhumi, i. e., world of Action (destiny ?) to-
totally abolish unhappiness and continually experience nothing
but happiness.
If worldly life does not consist only of happiness, but is
always a mixture of pain and happiness, the third question
which naturally arises in due course is, whether there is more
of happiness or of unhappiness in life. Many Western
philosophers, who look upon Material Happiness as the highest,
goal of life say, that if there were more of pain than of
happiness in life, many, if not all, persons would not have
troubled to live worldly life, but would have committed suicide.
But, in as much as man does not seem to be tired of living, he
must be experiencing more of happiness than of unhappiness-
in life, and therefore, happiness must be looked upon as the
highest goal of man, and the question of morality and
immorality must also be solved by that standard. But, making
suicide depend in this way on worldly happiness in not, really
speaking, oorrect. It is true that sometimes a man, getting
tired of life, commits suicide; but people look upon him as an
exception, that is, as a lunatic. From this it is seen that
ordinarily people do not connect committing or not committing
suicide with worldly happiness, but look upon it as an
independent thing by itself ; and, the same inference follows if
one considers the life of an aborginy, which would be looked
upon as extremely arduous by civilised persons. The well-
known biologist Charles Darwin, while describing in his-
140 GlTi-RAHASTTA OR KA$MA-YOGA„
"Travels the aboriginies he oame across in the extieme south of
South America says, that these aboriginies, men and women,
■remain without clothes all the year round, even in their
■extremely cold country ; and, as they do not store food, they
have for days together to remain without food; yet, their
numbers are continually increasing* But, from the fact that
■.these aboriginies do not commit suicide, no one draws the
.inference that their mode of life is full of happiness. It is
true that they do not commit suicide ; but if one minutely
•considers why that is so, one will see that each one of these
persons is filled with extreme happiness by the idea that "_I_am
a hum an being and not a beast " ; and he considers the
happiness of being a humaiTbeing so much greater than all
■other happiness, that he is never prepared to lose this superior
happinesB of being a man, however arduous his life may be.
.Not only does man not commit suicide, but even birds or
.beasts do not do so. But can one, on that account, say that
-their life is full of happiness ? Therefore, our philosophers
.say, that instead of drawing the mistaken inference that
the life of a man or of a bird or beast is full of happiness
from the fact that they do not commit suicide, the only true
inference which can be drawn from that fact is that: what-
ever the nature of a man's life, he does not set much store
by it, but believes that an incomparable happiness lies in
having become a living being (saeetana) from a lifeless being
iaeetam), and more than anything else, in having become
.a man. It is on that basis that the following rising grades
have been described in the Sastras : —
bhufanam prarjinah sresthah prartiriam buddhijmnah\
buddhimatsu varah srestka narem brahmanah smrtah II
brahmaTiesu. ca vidvamsah vidvatsu krtabuddhayah I
krtabuddhisu kartarah kartrsu brahmavadinah II
(Manu. 1. 96. 97; Ma. Bha. Udyo. 5. 1 and 2).
that is, "the living being is superior to the dead; the intelli-
.gents are superior among the living; men aTB superior among
•the intelligent; Brahmins, among men; learned Brahmins
among Brahmins; doers, among the enligtened-minded, and
* Darwin's Naturalist's Voyage round tht World, Chap. X.
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 141
brahmavadin (those who belong to the cult of the Brahman),,
among the doers "; and on the same basis, it is stated in verna-
cular treatises, that out of the 84 lakhs of forms of life (yoni)>
the human life is the most superior; that among men, he who-
desires Eelease (mumuksu) is most superior; and, that among
mumuksus, the perfect (siddha) is the most superior. That-
is also the purport of the proverb " life is dearer than anything,
else", (sabase jiva pyara); and for this very reason, if someone
eommits suicide, finding life full of unhappiness, people look
upon him as insane, and the religious treatises count him as
a sinner (Ma. Bha. Karna. 70. 28); and an attempt to commit,
suicide is looked upon as a crime by law. When in this way
it has been proved that one cannot, from the fact that a man
does not commit suicide, properly draw the conclusion that,
life is full of happiness, we must, in deciding the question,
whether life is full of happiness or unhappiness, keep aside
for the time being the natural blessing of having been bom.
a human being oil account of previous destiny, and consider-
only the events of the post-natal worldly life. The fact that-
man does not commit suicide or continues to live is accounted:
for by the Energistic principle of life; it is not any proof of
the preponderance of happiness in worldly life as stated by
Materialistic philosophers. Or, saying the same thing in
other words, we must say that the desire not to commit
suicide is a natural desire; that this desire does not arise as a
result of the weighing of the happiness and unhappiness in
life; and that therefore, one cannot from that fact draw the-
conclusion that life is full of happiness.
When in this way we do not, by confusion of thought,.
mis up the blessing of being born a human being with the
nature of his subsequent life, and recognise ' being a human,
being ' and ' the ordinary life or the usual activities of men '
as two distinct things, there remain no other means for deciding,
the question whether there is more of happiness or of un-
happiness in worldly life for the being which has taken the
superior human form, than considering low many of the-
' present ' desires of every man are satisfied and how many
disappointed. The reason for saying 'present ' desires is that,,
those things which have become available to all persons in.
142 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
■oivilised life, become every-day happenings, and we forget the
happiness they produce; and we decide the question of the happi-
ness or unhappiness of worldly life by considering only how
many of the things, which have newly become necessities, are
obtained by us. There is a world of difference between (i) com-
paring the means of happiness which are available to us
to-day with how many of them were available to us a hundred
years ago, and (ii) considering whether or not I am happy
to-day. For instance, anybody will admit that the present-day
travelling by train is much more comfortable than travelling
"by bullock-cart, which was in vogue a hundred years ago.
But we have now forgotten this happiness of train-travel,
•and we are unhappy only if some day a train gets late, and
we receive our mail late. And therefore, the ' present ' happi-
ness or unhappiness of man is usually considered by thinking
of his present needs and disregarding all the means of happiness
which have already become available; and, if we try to con-
sider what these needs are, we see that there is no end of them.
If one desire is satisfied to-day, another new desire takes its
place to-morrow, and we want to satisfy this new desire; and
as human desire is thus always one step ahead of life, man
is never free from unhappiness. In this place, we must bear
■oarefully in mind the difference between the two positions
that 'all happiness is the destruction of desire' and that
'however much of happiness is obtained, man is still un-
satisfied'. Saying that 'all happiness is not the absence of
unhappiness, but pain and happiness are two independent
kinds of OTganic sufferings' is one thing, and that 'one
is dissatisfied, because new kinds of happiness are wanted,
without taking into account the happiness which may at any
time already be part of one's life', is another thing. The first
-of these two dicta deals with the actual nature of happiness;
and the second, with whether or not a man is fully satisfied
T)y the happiness he has obtained. As the desire for objects
of pleasure is a continually increasing desire, a man wants to
enjoy over and over again the same happiness which he has
already enjoyed, though he may not get new kinds of happiness
everyday, and thus human desire is never controlled. There is
a story told of a Roman Emperor named Vitalius that in order
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 143
ito experience over and over again the pleasure of eating
tasteful food, he used to take medicines for vomitting the food
which he had already eaten, and dine several times every day '
But the story of ,the repentant king Yayati is even more
instructive than this. After the king Yayati had become old
as a result of the cursa of Sukracarya, the latter, by a pang of
kindness, gave him the option of giving his old age to another
person and taking in exchange his youth. Thereupon, he took
the youth of his son Puru in exchange for his own oldness, and,
"having enjoyed all objects of pleasure for a thousand years, he
found by experience that all the objects in the world were
incapable of satisfying the desire for happiness of even one
human being; and Vyasa has stated in the Adiparva of the
Mahabharata that Yayati then said :
na jatu, kamah kamanam upabhngena samyati l
havisa krsvavartmeva bhuya wablduardhate II
(Ma. Bha. A. 75.49)
that is, " by enjoying objects of pleasure, the desire for the
objects of pleasure is not satisfied, but on the other hand this
desire grows more and more, just as fire burns more and more
by sacrificial offerings being thrown into it " ; and the same
stanza is to be found in the Manu-Smrti (Manu. %. 94). The
inner reason for this is that, notwithstanding the abundance of
means of pleasure, the desire for happiness is never quenched
only by enjoying happiness, in as much as the hunger of the
organs is always on a rising scale, and it has to be restrained
in some other way; and this principle has been fully accepted
by our religious writers who have in the first place prescribed
that every one must put a restraint on the enjoyment of
pleasure. If those who say that enjoyment of objects of
pleasure is the highest goal in this world apply their mind
to this doctrine which is based on experience, they will easily
Taalise the absurdity of their beliefs. This doctrine of the
Vedic religion has also been accepted in the Buddhistic
religion and there is a statement in the Buddhistic treatises
that the following words came out of the mouth of the king
-144 GTTi-BAHASYA on KARMA-YOGA
named Mandhata mentioned in the Puranas (instead of Yayati)>
at the moment of his death : —
na kahupanavassena titti kamesu vijjati\
api dibbesu Tcamesv, ratifn so nadhigacchati II
(Dhammapada, 186-187).
that is, "although coins called ' Mr^apana' fall as a shower
of rain, there is no satisfaction {titti means trpti) of Desire,
and the desires of a desirer are not satisfied even by getting-
the happiness of heaven ". As it is thus imposible that the
happiness of enjoying objects of pleasure cau ever be con-
sidered sufficient, every man thinks that 'I am unhappy',,
and when this mental frame of mankind is taken into account,
then, as stated in the Mahabharata :-—
sukhad bahutaram duhkham jivite riasti samsayahl
(San. 305. 6; 330. 16).
that is , " in this life (samsara), unhappiness is more thani
happiness "; or as stated by the Saint Tukaram : " if yoiL
consider happiness, it is as small as a grain; and if you con-
sider unhappiness, it is as big as a mountain (Tuka. Ga. 2986).
The same is the doctrine laid down by the writers of the'
TJpanisads (Maitryu 1. 2-4), and it is stated also in the Gita
that the life of man is inconstant and the 'home of unhappiness',.
and that life in the world is not lasting and is ' devoid of
happiness ' (Gl. 8. 15 and 9. 3). The same is the opinion of th&>
German philosopher Schopenhauer, and he has made use of a.
very curious illustration for proving it. He says that we
measure the happiness of a man by considering how many of
his desires for happiness, out of the total possible desires for
happiness, are satisfied; and if the enjoyment of happiness-
falls short of the desire for happiness, we say that the man is-
to that extent unhappy. If this ratio- id to be explained
mathematically we have to divide the enjoyment of happiness
by the desire for happiness and show it in the form of a.
c l- a. enjoyment of happiness. „ L ^. '■
fraction, thus : desira fcr happiness But tins is such a queer
fraction that its denominator, namely, the desire for happiness,.
is always increasing in a greater measure than its 'numerator,,
namely, the enjoyment of happiness; so that,' if this'fraotiori i*
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 145
in the beginning J^ it becomes later on 3/10, that is to say, if
the numerator increases three times, the denominator increases,
five times, and the fraction becomes more and more incomplete.
Thus, it is futile to entertain the hope of a man becoming
fully happy. In considering how much there was of happiness
in ancient times, we consider only the numerator of this
fraction by itself and do not pay any attention to the fact that
the denominator has now increased much more than the
numerator. But when we have to consider only whether a
human being is happy or unhappy without reference to time,
we must consider both the numerator and the denominator ;
and we see that this fraction will never become complete.
That is the sum and substance of the words of Manu:
"najatu kamahkamamm" etc. (2. 94). As there is no definite
instrument like a thermometer for measuring happiness and
unhappiness, this mathematical exposition of the mutual ratio
of pain and happiness might not be acceptable to some; but
if this argument is rejected, there remains no measure for
proving that there is a preponderance of happiness in life
for man. Therefore, this objection, which applies as much
to the question of happiness as of unhappiness, leaves un-
touched the general proposition in the above discussion, namely,
the theorem proved by the uncontrollable growth of the
desire for happiness beyond the actual enjoyment of happiness.
It is stated in Mahomedan history, that during the Mahomedan
rule in Spain, a just and powerful ruler named Abdul Rahiman
the third * had kept a diary of how he spent his days and
from that diary he ultimately found that in a rule of 50 years
he had experienced unalloyed happiness only for 14 days; and
another writer t has stated that if one compares the opinions
of ancient and modern philosophers in the world and especially
in Europe, the number of those who say that life is full of
happiness is seen to be about the same as of those who say
that life is full of unhappiness. If to these numbers we add
the numbers of the Indian philosophers, I need not say which
way the scale will turn.
* Moors in Spain p. 128 (Story of the Nations geriea).
t Macmillan's Promotion of Happiness p. 26.
146 GlTA-RAHASYA oe KARMA-YOGA
Reading the exposition made above regarding the happi-
ness and unhappiness of worldly life, some follower of the
Sarhnyasa school will retaliate : " although you do not accept
the doctrine that there can he no peace unless one gives up
all Thirst-prompted Actions on the ground that happiness is
not some actual entity, yet, if even according to yourselves,
dissatisfaction arises from Thirst and unhappiness later on
springs from dissatisfaction, why do you not say that man
should give up Thirst and, along with Thirst, all wordly
Actions — whether those Actions are for his own good or for the
.good of others — at any rate for removing this dissatisfaction,
and then Temain perpetually satisfied ?". In the Mahabharata
itself, we find statements like: " asamtosasya nasty antas tustis tu
jparamafo suhham", i. a, " there is no end to dissatisfaction, and
xsontentment is the soul of bliss." (Ma. Bha Vana, 215. 22);
.and both the Jain and Buddhistic religions are based on the
same foundation ; and in the Western countries, Schopenhauer
has maintained * the same opinion. But on the other hand,
one may ask whether one should cut off the tongue altogether
because it sometimes utters obscene words, and whether people
have discontinued the use of fire and given up cooking food on
the ground that houses sometimes catch fire. If we make use of
/electricity, to say nothing of fire, in daily life, by keeping them
Tinder proper control, it is not impossible for us to dispose of
Thirst or dissatisfaction in the same way. It would be a
•different matter, if this dissatisfaction was wholly and on all
occasions disadvantageous ; but on proper consideration we see
that such is not the case. Dissatisfaction does not mean merely
craving or weak-kneedness. Such a kind of dissatisfaction has
been discountenanced even by philosophers. But the dissatis-
faction which is at the root of the desire not to remain stagnant
in the position which has fallen to one's lot, but to bring it to as
excellent a condition as possible by gradually improving it
more and moTe, with as peaoeable and equable a frame of mind
* Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation Vol. II Chap.
46. The description given by him of the unhappiness of worldly
life is excellent. The original work is in the German language,
and it has been translated into English.
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 147
-A3 possible, is not a dissatisfaction which ought to he discoun-
tenanced. It need not be said that a society divided into four
■castes will soon go to rack and ruin if the Brahmins give up
the desire for knowledge, the Ksatriyas for worldly prosperity,
and the Vaisyas for property. With this purport in view,
Vyasa has said to Yudhisthira: — " yajno vidya samuttkanam
-asamtosah sriyamprati " ( San. 23. 9 ), i. e., "sacrifice, learning,
effort, and dissatisfaction in the matter of worldly acquisitions",
are virtues in the case of Ksatriyas. In the same way, Vidula
in advising her son says: " samtoso vai iriyafii hanti " " ( Ma.
Bha. U. 132. 33 ), i. e.," by contentment, worldly prosperity is
destroyed "; and there is also a statement on another occasion
that: " ammtosah iriyo mvlam" (Ma. Bha. Sabha. 55.11)*
i. e., " dissatisfaction is the root of prosperity". Although
contentment is referred to as a virtue in the case of Brahmins,
it only means contentment with reference to wealth or worldly
prosperity, according to the four-caste arrangement. If a
Brahmin says that the knowledge which he has acquired is
enough for him, he will bring about his own undoing, and the
same will be the case with the Vaisyas or the Sudras, if they
always remain satisfied with what they have acquired accord-
ing to their own status in life. In short, discontent is the seed
of all future prosperity, effort, opulence and even of Release ;
and, it must always be borne in mind by everybody, that if
this discontent is totally annihilated, we will be nowhere,
whether in this world or in the next. In the Bhagavadglta
itself, in listening to the advice of Sri Krsna, Arjuna has said:
"" bhuyah kathaya trptir hi srnvato nasti me 'mrtam " (Gi. 10. 18),
i. e., "I am not satisfied with what I have heard of your nectar-
like speech, therefore, describe to me more and more of your
manifestations" ; and then the Blessed Lord has again started
enumerating his manifestations. He did not say to him :
" -restrain your desire, dissatisfaction or discontent is
improper". From this it follows that even the Blessed Lord
Himself considered it proper that One Bhould entertain
disoontent about a good or beneficial matter, and there is a
* cf : " Unhappiness is the oauae of progress." Dr. Paul
-Cams in The Ethical Probkm p. 251 (2nd Ed.)
148 GlTA-RAHASYA OR ' KARMA-YOGA
stanza of Bhartrhari that : "yasasi cabMracir vyasamm srvtau "
etc., i. e., "there ought to be liking or desire, but that should be
for success ; and one must also have a vice, but that should be
of learning ; that vice is not prohibited". Still, we must control
discontent, in the same way as Desire, Anger etc., because if it
becomes uncontrolled, it will clearly end in our undoing ; and
therefore, the endowment (sampaiti) of those persons who
continually run after worldly happiness piling thirst on thirst,
and hope on hope with the sole object of enjoying objects of
pleasure is referred to as " ungodly endowment " ( asara
sampat ) in the 16th Chapter of the Gita. Not only are the pure
(sattvika) tendencies in the human mind destroyed by such
greediness and the man undone, but, in as much as it is
impossible that Thirst should ever be quenched, the desire for
enjoyment of objects of pleasure grows continually, and man's-
life is ended in the greed. But on the other hand, giving up
all kinds of Thirst, and with it, all Actions, in order to escape
this evil effect of Thirst or discontent is also not the pure-
( sattvika) path. As has been stated above, Thirst or discontent
is the seed of future prosperity : and therefore, instead of
attempting to kill an innocent man out of fear for a thief, one
has to carefully consider what Thirst "or discontent causes-
unhappiness, and adopt the skilful middle path of giving up
only that particular hope, thirst or discon^snt which produces-
unhappiness, and it is not necessary for that purpose to give ujf
all kinds of Action whatsoever. Tba devioe or skill (tosa/a*/
of giving up only that hope which causes unhappiness and
performing one's duties according to one's status in life is-
known as Yoga or Karma-yoga ( Gi. 2. 50. ) j and, as that is the
Yoga which has been principally dealt with in the Gita, I shall
consider here in a little more detail what kind of hope has
been looked upon by the Gita as productive of unhappiness.
In describing above the, actual nature, of human pain and
unhappiness, I have stated that a man hears by his ears, feels
by bis skin, sees by his eyes, tastes by his tongue, andsmells by
his nose ; and that a man is happy or unhappy according as
these activities of his organs are consistent with their natural
tendencies. But, the question of pain and happiness is not
completely exhausted by making this definition. Although it
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 149
is necessary that the organs should, in the first instance, come
into contact with external objects in order that Material pain
or happiness should arise, yet, if one considers in what way
this pain or happiness is subsequently experienced by man, it
will be seen that a man has ultimately to perform the function
of realising, that is, of taking on himself, this pain or happi-
ness, which results from the activities of the organs, by means
of his Mind {manas). ' caksuk. pasyati rupani mamsa na tu
caksusa", i. e., " the function of seeing is not performed solely
by the eyes : the assistance of the mind is absolutely necessary
for it" (Ma. Bha. San. 311. 17) ; and it is stated in the Mahabhara-
ta that if that mind is in pain, then even having seen is as if you
have not seen, and even in the Brhadaranyakopanisad, there are
such statements as : " anyatramam abhuvam nadarsam ", i. e.,
" my mind was elsewhere, and therefore, I did not see ", or,
'"anyatramam abhuvam riasrausam", i. e., "my mind was else-
where, and therefore, I did not hear " ( Br. 1. 5. 3 ). From this it
becomes clear, that in order to experience Material pain or
happiness, the organs are not sufficient by themselves, but
require the assistance of the Mind ; and as regards Metaphysical
pain or happiness, it is purely mental. It, therefore, follows
that all experience of pain or happiness ultimately depends
on the Mind ; and if this is true, it naturally follows that it is
not impossible to control the experience of pain or happiness if
one controls the mind. With regard to these facts, Manu has
described the characteristics of pain and happiness in a different
way than the Nyaya school. He says :
sarvafn paravaiam duhkham sarvam atmavasam sukham I
etad vidyat samasena laksanam sukhaduhkhayoh 11
( Manu. 4. 160 ).
•that is, " all that which is subject to the control of others
(external objeots) is unhappiness, and all that which is subject
to the control of oneself (of one's mind) is happiness ; these are
in brief the characteristic features of pain and happiness".
The word 'suffering' (vedana) used in the connotation of pain
and happiness given by the Nyaya school, includes both
physical and mental suffering, and it also shows the actual
external nature of pain and happiness ; and when one bears in
150 GlTA-BAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
mind that Manu is referring principally to the internal
experience of pain and happiness, there remains no incon-
sistency between these two definitions. When in this way, we
do not make the experience of pain or happiness depend on.
the organs :
blmwjyam etad duKkhasya yad etan ndnudtttayet t
that is, " not brooding on one's unhappiness, becomes the most
potent medioine for doing away with unhappiness" (Ma, Bha.
San. 205. 2 ) ; and we find numerous illustrations in history,^ of
people having hardened their minds, and willingly sacrificed
their lives for the sake of their Religion or of Truth. There-
fore, says the Gita, when one does what one has to do with-
perfect mental control and after giving up the DESIRE FOR
THE RESULT (phalasa) and with a frame of mind which k
equal towards pain and happiness, there remains no fear or
possibility of experiencing the unhappiness of Actions, and it
does not become necessary to give them up. Giving up the
desire for the result does not mean giving up the resulting
benefit, if it has been acquired, nor entertaining a desire that
no one should ever get that benefit. In the same way, there is
a world for difference between the desire for the result and the
Desire, Hope, or Motive for performing Action, or employing
a particular means for obtaining a particular result. There
is a difference between merely desiring to move one's hands
and feet and desiring to move one's hands for catching
or one 's feet for kicking some one else. The first desire extends
merely to the doing of the act and there is no other motive
behind it ; and if we give up this desire, all Action will
come to an end. Besides having this desire, a man must also
have the knowledge that every act is sure to have some
result or consequence; and not only must he have that
knowledge, but he must entertain the desire of doing a.
particular act with the intention of thereby producing some
particular result; otherwise, all his Actions will be as
pointless as those of a madman. All of these desires, motives,
or arrangements do not ultimately produce pain ; nor does the
Gita ask you to give them up. But if one goes much further
than that, and allows his mind to be afflicted by the.
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 151
ATTACHMENT (asakti), ambition, pride, self-identification,
or insistence of MINE-NESS (mamatva ), which exists in the.-
mind of the doer with reference to the result of the Action in
the shape of the feeling that : "whatever action is performed by
ME is performed by ME with the intention that ' I ' should:
necessarily get a particular benefit from a particular act of
MINE "; and if thereafter there is any obstruction in the-
matter of getting the desired result or benefit, the chain of
misery starts. If this obstruction is inevitable and is an act
of Pate, man only suffers from despair ; but, if it is the handi-
work of another person, it gives rise later on to anger or even-
hate, and this hate leads to evil action, and evil action leads to-
self-destruction. This attachment, in the shape of MINE-
NESS, for the result of the Action, is also known as 'phatasa "
( hope of benefit ), ' sarnga ' ( fondness ), ' ahamkara-buddhi *
( egoism ), and ' kama ' ( desire ) ; and in order to show that the-
chain of unhappiness in life really starts at this point, it is:
stated in the second chapter of the Gita, that Desire springs,
from Attachment for objects of pleasure, Anger ( hrodha ) from.
Desire, Mental Confusion (moka) from Anger, and ultimately,,
the man himself is destroyed ( Gl. 2. 62, 63 ). When I have thus
established that Actions in the gross material world, which are
lifeless in themselves, are not themselves the root of unhappi-
ness, but that the true root of unhappiness is the Hope for result*
Desire, or Attachment with which man performs those Actions,,
it naturally follows that in order to prevent this unhappiness,
it is quite enough if a person, by controlling his mind, gives up.
the Attachment, Desire or Hope of result entertained by him
towards the objects of pleasure ; and it follows logically that it
is not necessary to give up all objects of pleasure, or Actions, or
Desires as prescribed by the Sarhnyasa school. Therefore, it is
next stated in the Gita ( Gi. 2. 64 ), that that man who-
partakes of the objects of pleasure he comes across in the world,,
with a deBireless and unattached frame of mind, without
entertaining any hope of result, is the true ' sthifaprajna *
( steady-in-mind ). The activity of Action in the world never
comes to an end. Even if man ceases to exist in this world.
Matter (prakrti) will carry on its activities according to its
constituent qualities ( ffura-dharma ). Gross Matter would not
153 GlTA-RAHASYA. OB KARMA.-YOGA
in any way be happy or unhappy on that account. Man
arrogates to himself an undue importance, and becomes
attached to the activities of Matter, and in that way suffers
pain and happinesB. But if he gives up this attachment, and
performs all his Actions in the belief that 'gurfi guyesa vartante',
i. e., " all activities are going on according to the constituent
qualities of Matter " ( GI. 3. 38 ), there will remain no unhappi-
ness in the shape of discontent. Therefore, Vyasa has advised
Yudhisthira that instead of lamenting that worldly life is
principally unhappy, and attempting to give up such life, one
should believe that Matter is carrying on its own activities,
and that.—
sukham va yadi va duhkham priyam va yadi vapriyam I
praptam praptam upasita hrdayenaparajitah H
(Ma, Bha. San. 25. 26).
"that is, "one should put up with whatever takes place, whenever
it takes place, without being disheartened, ( that is to say,
without becoming dejected, and giving up one's duty ), whether
it causes happiness or unhappiness, and whether it is
pleasurable or unpleasant." The full importance of this
advice will be appreciated when one bears in mind that
one haB to perform some duties in life, even suffering the
pain which they cause. In the Bhagavadgita itself, the
characteristic features of the sthitaprajfia are described in the
words: "yah sarvatranabhsnehas tat tat prapya suhhasvhhm"
{% 57), i. e., "that man who, when anything favourable or
unfavourable happens, always remains unattached, and
neither welcomes it nor dislikes it, is the true sthttaprajna" ; and
in the fifth chapter it is stated that, "naprahrsyet priyam prapya
■nodvijet prapya capriyam " ( 5. SO ), i. e„ "when you experience
happiness, you should not on that account become excited ;
and when you experience unhappiness, you should also not on
that account become dejected " ; and it is stated in the second
•chapter, that this pain and happiness must be borne with a
■desireless frame of mind (2. 14, 15) ; and the same advice has
been repeatedly given in various other places ( Gi. 5. 9; 13. 9 ).
In the terminology of Vedanta Philosophy, doing this is called .
HAPPINESS AND TINHAPPINESS 153
'dedicating all Actions to the Brahman' (Brahtriarparfa), and
in the Path of Devotion, the word ' Krsriarparia' (dedication to
Krsna) is used instead of ' Brahmarpava ' (dedication to the
Brahman) ; and this is the sum and substance of the whole of
ihe preaching of the Glta.
Whatever the nature of the Action, when one does not give
■up the Desire to do it, nor also one's activity, but goes on
performing whatever one wants to do, being equally prepared
"for the resulting pain or happiness, with an aloof frame of
mind, and without entertaining the hope for the result, not only
■does one eseape the evil effects due to non-control of Thirst or
■discontent, but also the danger of the world becoming desolate
.as a result of Action being destroyed in the attempt to destroy
Thirst; and all our mental impulses remain pure and become
beneficial to all created beings. It is clear beyond doubt that ,
in order in this way to be able to give up the hope for the
result, one must obtain perfect control over the mind and over
the organs by means of Apathy {vairagya). But, there is a world
■of difference between (i) keeping one's organs under control and
allowing them to perform their various activities, not for a sel-
fish purpose, but apathetically and desirelessly and for the wel-
-fare of others, on the one hand, and (ii) deliberately destroying
all Actions, that is to say, all the activities of the various
organs in order to kill Thirst, as prescribed by the Path of
Renunciation, on the other hand. The Apathy and Control, of
the organs prescribed by the Glta is of the first kind and not of
the second kind ; and in the same way, in the conversation
between Janaka and the Brahmin in the Anugita ( Ma. Bha.
Asva. 32, 17-23 ) the king Janaka says to Dharma, who had
appeared to him in the form of a Brahmin that :
smu buddhim ca yam jnatva sarvatra visayo mama II
naham atmartham icchami gandlian ghranagatan apt, I
mham atmartham iccltami mano nityam manontare I
mano me nirjitam tasmad vase Ksthati sarvada ll
that is, "I will describe to 'you that apathetic frame of mind
(vairagya) with which I enjoy all objects of pleasure. I do not
154 GITA-RAHAYSA OK KABMA-YOGA
'for myself smell any scent, nor do I not 'for myself see any-
thing with my eyes etc ; and I do not also put to use my mini
for my Self (atmartha), that is, for my own benefit ; therefore,.
I have conquered my nose (eyes etc.) and my mind, and they
are all under my control ". This is what is meant by the'
statement in the Gita ( Gi. 3. 6, 7 ) that he who merely chokes
up the impulses of the organs but contemplates objects of
pleasure by his mind is a hypoorite, and he who conquers the
desiring frame of mind by means of mental control, and allows
all his mental impulses to carry on their various activities for
the benefit of the world is the real superman. The external
world, or the activities of the organs are not something which-
we have brought into existence, but they aTe self-created ; and'
however self -controlled a samnyasi may be, yet, when hi*
hunger becomes uncontrollable, he goes out to beg for food
(Gi. 3. 33) ; or when he has sat for a considerable length of
time in one place, he gets up and stands for some time. If we
see that however much there is of mental control, one cannot,
escape the inherent activities of the organs, then the wisest
course is seen to be not to perversely attempt to destroy the-
impulses of the organs, and at the same time all Actions and
all kinds of Desire or Discontent (Gi. 2. 47 ; 18. 59), but to givfr
up the hope for the result by controlling the mind, and to loot
upon pain and happiness as alike (Gi. 2. 38), and to perform all
Actions desirelessly and for the benefit of the world as
prescribed by the Sastras. Therefore, the Blessed Lord first
tells Arjuna in the following stanza :
harmony evadhikaras te ma phalesu kada.ama I
ma karmaphalahetur bhuh ma tesango 'stvakarnmrdK
( Gi. 2. 47 ).
that, in as much as you have been born in this world of
Action, therefore, " your authority extends only to the per-
formance of Actions' ' ; but bear in mind that this your authority
extends only to the performance of Action which ought to be-
performed (that is, to kartavya). The word 'eva' which means
'only', clearly shows that the authority of man does not extend 1
to anything other than Jcarma, that is, to the result of the karma.
But the Blessed Lord does not leave this important matter to bes
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 155
understood merely by inference, and He again, and in per-
fectly clear words, says in the second quarter of the stanza, that,
"your authority never extends to the result of the Action", be-
cause, getting or not getting the result of the Action is not a.
matter which is within your control, hut is always in the gift .
of the Paramesvara or is dependent on the entire Effect of
Causes (karma-vipaka) in the world. Hoping that a particular-
thing whioh is not within one's control should take place in a
particular way, is a sign of madness. But the Blessed Lord
has not left even this third thing for inference, and has in the.
third quarter of the stanza said : " therefore, do not perform any
Aotion, keeping in mind the hope for the result of the Action";,
whatever may be the result of your Action according to the-
general law of Cause and Effect, will be its effect ; it is not pos-
sible that such result should be more or less, or take place earlier
or later, aocording to your desires, and by entertaining any such,
desire, it is only you who suffer unnecessary pain and trouble.
But here some persons — especially those who follow the Path of"
Renunciation — will object : " Is it not better to give up Action
( karma ) altogether rather than engaging in the useless procedure,
of performing Actions and giving up the hope of the result 1"
And therefore, the Blessed Lord has in the last quarter of the.
stanza made the definite statement that " do not insist upon
not performing Action," but perform Action according to the-
authority which you possess, though without entertaining any
hope for the result. These doctrines are so important from the.
point of view of Karma-Yoga, that the four quarters of the above
stanza may be said to be the four aphorisms (catuh-sutri) of the
science of Karma-Yoga or of the Glta religion.
If worldly activity is not to be given up, although happi-
ness and unhappiness always befall you alternatively in life,
and although it is an established fact that the sum total of"
unhappiness is greater than that of happiness, then some persons-
are likely to think, that all human efforts towards the total eli-
mination of unhappiness and the acquisition of total happiness-
are futile ; and if one considers only Material Happiness, that,
is to say, happiness in the shape of the enjoyment of external
objects of pleasure through the medium of the organs, this-
their objection will have to be admitted to be substantial. Just.
156 GITA-BAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
.as &9 Moon never comes within the grasp of the little children
who spread out their little hands towards the heavens in order
to catch hold of it, bo also those persons, who run after Material
Happiness in the hope of reaching the highest form of happi-
ness, will in any case And it very difficult to reach the highest
form of happiness. But as Material Happiness is not the only
kind of happiness, it is possible to find out the way of acquiring
the highest and the constant form of happiness, even in this
.difficult position. As has been stated above, when happiness
is divided into the two divisions of physical and mental
happiness, one has to attach a higher importance to the
activities of the mind than to the activities of the body or of
the organs. Even the well-known Materialist philosopher
Mill has admitted in his book on Utilitarianism, * that the
theorem that the merit of Mental happiness is higher than that
of bodily (i. e., Material) happiness, which has been laid down
by scients(jrearem), is not made by them as a result of any
arrogance about their own knowledge but because the true
greatness or appropriateness of the superior human birth
•consists in Knowledge. Dogs, pigs, oxen etc. also like the
happiness of the organs in the same way as human beings ;
and if the human race was of the opinion that enjoyment of
objects of pleasure is the only true happiness in the world,
then man would be ready to become a beast. But in as much ag
nobody is willing to become a beast, notwithstanding that
he can thereby obtain all the physical happiness which can be
got by beasts, it is clear that there is something more in a
human being than in a beast. When one begins to consider
what this something is, one has to investigate into the nature
of that Atman which acquires the knowledge of one's Self and
•of the external world by means of the Mind and of the Iteason
.(buddhi ); and when one has once begun to think of this matter,
one naturally comes to the conclusion that, that happiness
* " It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied ; better to be Secrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And
if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they
only know their own side of the question ". Utilitarianism p. 14
(Longman's, 1907).
HAPPINESS AND TJNHAPPINESS 157
which is to be found in the extremely noble activities and iru
the purest state of the Mind and of the Reason is the highest,
or the most ideal happiness of mankind, as compared with the
happiness of the enjoyment of objects of pleasure, which is
common to man and beast. This kind of happiness is self-
controlled, that is, it can be acquired without depending on
external objects, and without reducing the happiness of others,
and by one's own exertions; and as a man becomes better
and better, the nature of this happiness becomes more and more
pure and unalloyed. Bhartrhari has said that " mamsi ca
paritu$te ko'rthavan ko daridrah ", i. e., " when the mind
is satisfied, the begger is the same as the rich man ",
and the well-known Greek philospher Plato has main-
tained that Mental Happiness is superior to bodily ( that is,
external or Material ) happiness, and that, that happiness
which can be realised only by means of the Reason, (which
is the highest Metaphysical Happiness), is superior even to'
Mental Happiness. * Therefore, even if we for the time being
keep aside the question of Release, the fact that that Reason,
alone can obtain the highest happiness, which is engrossed in
the contemplation of the Atman, is definitely proved; and
therefore, after happiness has been divided in the Bhagavad-
gita into the three divisions of sattvika, rajasa and tamasa,
it is first stated that " tat sukham sattvikam proktam atmabuddhi-
prasadajam ", i. e., " that Metaphysical Happiness which is
the result of the contentedness of the Self-engrossed
Reason (that is, of the Reason which having realised the true
nature of the Atman, namely, that there is only one Atman
in all created beings, is engrossed in that idea) is the sattvika
(placid), that is, the most superior kind of happiness (Gi. 18. 37)r
and the Gita goes on to say that the Material Happiness
arising from the organs and the objects of the organs is of a
lower grade, that is, is rajasa (Gi. 18. 38); and that the happi-
ness which arises from sleep, or idleness or which confuses
the mind is the most inferior form, that is, is tamasa. That
is the meaning which is conveyed by the stanza from the Gita
which has been quoted at the commencement of this chapter.-
and the Gita itself says (Gi. 6. 25) that when a man has onos
* Republic (Book IX).
158 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
•experienced this beatific happiness, he is not shaken from
this peaceful mental frame, whatever the magnitude of the
misfortune which subsequently befalls him. This beatific happi.
ness is not to be found even in the enjoyment of heavenly
-objects of pleasure, and the Reason of a man has in the
first instance to become absolutely contented before he can
experience it. He who is always engrossed in the enjoyment
•of the objects of pleasure, without seeing how he can keep his
frame of mind contented, experiences happiness, which is
temporary and inconstant Because, that organic happiness
which exists to-day, ceases to exist tomorrow ; and what is
more, that thing which our organs look upon as productive of
happiness to day, becomes for some reason or other, productive
. of unhappiness tomorrow. For instance, the same cold water
which is desirable in summer, becomes undesirable in winter ;
.and even if one acquires the happiness, the desire for happiness,
as has been mentioned above, is never fully quenched. Therefore,
although the world 'happiness' can be applied comprehen-
sively to all kinds of happinesB, yet, one has to differentiate
between happiness and happiness. In ordinary practice, the
word ' happiness ' means principally ' organic happiness'.
But when it becomes necessary to differentiate between the
happiness of the enjoyment of objects of pleasure from that
happiness which is beyond the organs, that is, which is beyond
organic happiness, and which can be realised only by the self-
engrossed Reason, the Material Happiness which consists of the
enjoyment of objects of pleasure, is called simply ' happiness '
{sukhamoi preyas), and the Metaphysical Happiness which is
born of Self -Realisation (atma-buddhi-prasadaja) is called
"* beatific happiness ' ( sreyas), blessing ( tedyanam), amelioration
Y Mam ), beatitude (ananda), or peace ( ianti). The distinction
made between 'preyas' and 'sreyas' by Naciketa in the
sentence from the Kathopanisad quoted at the end of the last
chapter, has been made on this basis. Mrtyu ( Death ) had
already in the beginning explained to him the esoteric
:secrets of Fire (agm). But, when after having acquired that
happiness, Naciketa asked for the blessing of being
explained what was meant by the Knowledge or
-Realisation of the Atman ( atmainam ), Mrtyu tempted him
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 159
■with many other kinds of worldly happineBS instead. But
Jfaciketa was not tempted by these transient Material kinds
■of happiness, or things which appeared pleasing { preyas) on
the face of them, and extending his vision, he insisted on
having, and ultimately succeeded in acquiring, that philosophy
•of the, Atman which led to the blessing ( sreyas ) of his Atman
i Self ) and was ultimately beneficial. In short, our philoso-
phers have been looking upon that Reason-born happiness or
Metaphysical beatitude, which results from the Realisation of
the Atman, as the most superior happiness and their advice ia
.that this happiness is such as can be obtained by everybody,
in as much as it is self-controlled, and that everybody should
■tiy to acquire it. That wonderful and special happiness
which belongs to mankind in addition to its beastly qualities
is this happiness; and this happiness of the Atman (atma-
mnda) is the most constant, the most independent and the
most excellent of all happiness, in as much as it is independent
of external circumstances. This peace is called in the Glt3
X CrI. 6. 15 ) by the name of the Peace ( santi ) of Emancipation
,{ nirvana I ; and it is also the climax of happiness which
pertains to the Brahmi state of the sthitaprajiia ( steady-in-
mind ) described in the Glta ( Gi. 2. 71 ; 6. 28 ; 12. 12 ; 18. 62 ).
In this way, we have proved that the peace or happiness
■of the Atman is the most excellent of all happiness, and that
.as it is self-controlled, it is such as can be acquired by every-
body. But by proving that gold is the most valuable of all
metals, iron and other metals do not oease to be useful ; and
though sugar is sweet, one cannot do without salt ; and the
«ame is the case with the happiness of the Atman or of Peace
.(santi). At any rate, it cannot be disputed that Material
■ objeots are necessary for the protection of the body, along
with this Peace; and therefore, in the phrases used for
.blessing, one does not say simply : " santirastu, " (May-
there be santi 1 , i. e., Peace ), but say : " santih pas/it tuftii
■castu", that is, 'May there also be pusti ( Material Happi-
ness ), and tusti (contentedness) along with saidi (jmea)\
If our philosohpers had been of the opinion that <a»%
nought to acquire contentedness (tusti) by haviug «ws»£j
Peace ( santi ), there would have been no oecasfoa to *Kl
160 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
to this phrase, the word l pusti'. Nevertheless, it is also not
proper to have an inordinate desire for increase of Material
Happiness (that is, pusti). Therefore, this phrase means: " May
you have Peace, Material happiness and also Contentedness-
in proper proportions, and that you must obtain them ". The-
same is the moral of the Kathopanisad. The only matter
which has been described in detail in this Upanisad is that
after Naciketa had gone to the sphere of Yama, that is, of'
Death, Yama asked him to ask for three blessings, and that.
Yama accordingly gave him the three blessings which he had
asked for. But after Mrtyu had asked Naciketa to ask for
blessings, Naciketa did not in the first place ask for the blessing:
of Brahman-Realisation [Brahmajnana), but first said : " My
father has got angry with me; may he become propitious to me ";
and then, "teach me the science of Fire (agni), that is, of all
sacrificial ritual which will give me material opulence " ; and,
when he had acquired these blessings, he asked for the third
blessing saying: "teach me the Knowledge of the Atman". But
when Mrtyu began to say to him that he would give him!
(Naciketa) additional happiness instead of this third blessing,
Naciketa has insisted: "now explain to me that Brahma-
jnana which will lead to sreyas", instead of aspiring for
possessing more of the knowledge of sacriflcal ritual than was
necessary for obtaining preyas. In short, as stated in the
last mantra of this Upanisad, Naciketu obtained both the
1 Brakma-vidya ' (knowledge of the Brahman), an&'yoga-vidhi"
(sacriflcal ritual ), and he was emancipated (Katha 6. 18)..
From this it follows, that the combination of jnana and karma
is the summary of the preaching of this Upanisad. There is
also a similar story about Indra. Not only had Indra himself
acquired fully the Knowledge of the Brahman, (Brahmajnana)
but he had taught the science of the Atman (atmavidya) to.
Pratardana, as has been stated in the Kausitakyupanisad.
Yet, after Indra had lost his kingdom and Prahlada had
become the king of the three spheres, Indra went to Brhaspati,.
the preceptor of the gods, and asked him to explain to him
in what sreyas lay. Then Brhaspati taught the dethroned
Indra the Brahmavidya, that is, the Knowledge of the Atman,.
(fflrmjnana) and said to him that that was all which was-
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPI5TESS - 161.
sreyas (eliirac chreya iti)r But 'Indra was not satisfied audi
again asked the question: "koviseso bhai)et')",i.e., >" Is" there.
anything more ? "; thereupon Brhaspati sent him to Sukraoarya.
There, there was a repetition of the same process, and 1
Sukracarya said to him : ' " That something , more is known
to Prahlad. " Then at last Indra went to Prahlada in the>.
form of a Brahmin and became his disciple, and after same
time had passed, Prahlada explained to him that ' iUam ', { the
habit • .f behaving consistently with Truth and Morality ) was
the master-key for gaining the kingdom of the three spheres,
and that that was also known as sr eyas. Then, when Prahl34a.
said to him : " I am very much pleased by your service, I shall-
give you whatever blessing you may ask ", Indra, in the form of
the Brahmin, said to him: " Give me your ' illam ' ". When Pra-
hlada consented, the deity 'silam', and after it Morality fdharm-
am), Veracity (safyam), good conduct (vrtta), and ultimately
opulence (iri) and other deities left the body of Prahlada and
entered the body of Indra, and in this way Indra regained his
kingdom : such is the ancient story which has been told by
Bflisma to Yudhiathira in the Santiparva ( San. 124 ). Although
the Knowledge of the Brahman by itself may be wortb more
than prosperity {aisvanjain) by itself, yet, in as much as who-
ever has to live jn this world is under the obligation and has
also the moral right to acquire material prosperity for himself or
for his own country in the same way ae it is possessed by others
or by other countries, the highest ideal of man in this world, as
is apparent from this beautiful ptory, is seen to be the combin-
nation of Peace (sanii), and Material Happiness (pufti), or of
desired things (preyas) and true and lasting benefit (sreyas), or of
Knowledge (jnanam) and prosperity (aisvaryam), according to our
Ka.rma-Yoga w>i m».e. Has that Bhagavan than Whom there is)
none higher in this world, and Whose path is followed ,by.
others ( Gi. 3. 33 ), Himself given up prosperity and wealth?
The word 'bhaga' has been defined in the Sastras as :
aiivaryasga samagrasya dliarmasya yasasah iriyah I
jnamvairagyayos caiva sarmam bhaga itiraria H
(Visnu. 6. 5. 74).
21—22
162 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
that is, "the word ' bhaga ' includes the followings six things,
namely, complete Yogic prosperity, righteousness, success (
property, knowledge, and apathy". The word 'aisvaryam' in
this stanza is usually taken to mean ' Yogaisvaryam' (Yogic
prosperity ), because the word ' srl ', that is, wealth, appears
later on. But as ordinarily, the word ' aisvaryam ' is used to
mean and include authority, success, and wealth, and the word
*jMnam ' includes apathy and righteousness, we may say that
in ordinary parlance, the entire meaning conveyed by the above
stanza is included in the two words 'jnanam' and 'aisvaryam'',
and in as much as the Blessed Lord has Himself accepted the
■combination of jnanam and aisvaryam, other persons should
■consider that as proper and act accordingly ( Gl. 3. 21 ; Ma. Bha.
San. 341. 25). The doctrine that the knowledge of the Atman is
the only ideal of man in this world is a doctrine of the school
of Renunciation, which says that, as worldly life is full of
unhappiness, it should be given up ; it is not a doctrine of the
Karma-Yoga science, and it is not proper to mix up these
doctrines of different schools of thought and pervert the meaning
of the Glta. And as the Glta itself says that mere prosperity
without Knowledge is a godless prosperity (asurasampatti), it
follows that we must always maintain the union of jnanam
•with aisvaryam, or of ais uaryam with jnanam, or of santi with
jtusti. When it is admitted that aiivayram is necessary, though
along with jnanam, it necessarily follows that Action must be
performed. Manu has said that: " Jcarmany arabharrianam hi
pwmsam srlr nisevate " ( Manu. 9. 300 ), i. e., " in this world,
only those persons who perform Action, acquire srl
(prosperity)". The same thing is established by our personal
experience, and the same is the advice given in the Glta to Arjuna
<Gi, 3. 8 ). Some persons take the objection to this position
that in as much as Action is not necessary for Release, all
Action must be given up ultimately, that is, after the
acquisition of Knowledge. But, as I am at present considering
the question only of pain and happiness, and also as I have not
yet gone into the examination of the natures of Action ( karma)
and Release ( moksa ), I shall not here answer that exception.
I shall explain in detail in the ninth and tenth chapters what
Metaphysics, and the Theory of Cause and Effect are, and then
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS 163
in the eleventh chapter, I will prove that even this objection is
groundless.
I have so far shown that pain and happiness are two
independent and different sufferings ; that, as it is impossible to
satisfy the desire for happiness by the enjoyment of happiness,
we find that in ordinary life the sum total of unhappiness is
always greater ; that, in order to escape this unhappiness, the
most meritorious thing to do is not to totally destroy Thirst or
Discontent and at the same time Action itself, but to continue
the performance of all Actions without entertaining any hope
ior the result; that, the happiness of enjoying objects of
pleasure is in itself a happiness, which is always insufficient,
inconstant, and beastly, and that the true ideal of man, who is
endowed with Reason, must be higher than such happiness;
"that, this true ideal is the happiness of the peace (sonft)
which results from . Self-Realisation ; but that, although
Metaphysical Happiness is, in this way, superior to Material
Happiness, yet, one must possess with it also a proper quantity
of worldly objects; and that therefore, we must also make
Effort, that is, perform Action, desirelessly. When these
conclusions have been firmly established by the Karma- Yoga
science, I need not further say that it is wrong to decide
questions of Morality by the consideration of the external
effects of Actions in the shape of pain and happiness on the
basis that Material Happiness is the highest ideal of man —
■even looking at the question from the point of view of Happi-
ness merely. Because, looking upon a thing which can never
by itself reach the state of perfection, as the 'highest' ideal, is
misusing the word 'highest' ( parama I, and is as unreasonable
as believing that water exists, where there is only a mirage.
If one 's highest ideal is itself inconstant and incomplete, then,
what else, except something inconstant can one acquire, by
keeping that ideal before one's eyes ? This is what is meant
by the words : "dharmo nityah sukliaduhkhe to anitye ' ', i. e„
■"morality is immutable; pain and happiness are mutable".
There is much difference of opinion among Materialistic
philosophers themselves as to how the word 'happiness', in the
phrase 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number', is to be
understood. Some of these philosophers are of opinion that, in
164 Giri-BAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
as much as man is very often willing to sacrifice his life for
the sake of Veracity, or of his Religion, casting aside all
Material Happiness, it is not proper to say that his desire is
always to acquire Material Happiness; and they have,
therefore, maintained that we must use the word 'benefit'
{kiiam), or the word 'good' (kcUyariam) instead of the word
'happiness' (sukham), and change the phrase 'greatest happiness
of the greatest number' into the phrase 'greatest good or benefit
of the greatest number'. But, even doing so, the objection that
the Reason (tmddhi) of the doer has not been taken into account,
as also several other objections apply to this point of view. If
one says that Mental Happiness must be taken into account,
along with Material Happiness, then, the fundamental theorem
that the morality of any particular Action must be decided by
its external effects, is falsified, and one, to a certain eitent,
accepts the Metaphysical aspect of the matter. But, if in this
way, you cannot escape accepting the Metaphysical aspect of
the matter, then where is the sense of accepting it only half
way 1 Therefore, our philosophy of ' Earma-Yoga has
■ultimately come to the conclusion that the doctrines of 'the
benefit of everybody', or 'the greatest happiness of the greatest
number', or the highest development of humanness' or other
such external tests or Materialistic methods of determining
■questions of Morality are inferior tests, and that what \s Right
Action, and what Wrong Action or Non-Action must be
determined by the Metaphysical tests of beatific happiness in
the shape of Self -Realisation, and the attendant Pure Reason
of the doer. The case is different, of course, of those persons
who have sworn not to enter into the philosophy of things
beyond the external world, under any circumstances. Other-
wise, it only logically follows that one has got to go beyond
Mind and Reason, and look upon the permanent benefit of the-
permanent Atman as the most predominant factor, even in the
Karma-Yoga science. The belief of some persons that when
one enters into Vedanta, everything becomes Brahmised
(Brahma-maya), and the necessity of worldly life' cannot
satisfactorily be accounted for, is wrong. As the varidus
works on Vedanta, which can ordinarily be read now-a-days
have been written principally by followers of the Path of
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINBSS 165
denunciation, and as in the Path of Renunciation, worldly
life in the shape of Thirst is looked upon as totally insipid, it
is true that the science of Karma-Yoga has not been properly
expounded in their works. Nay, these writers, who are
intolerant of rival cults, have foisted the arguments of the Path
■of Renunciation on the Karma- Yoga, and attempted to create
the belief that Samnyasa (Renunciation) and Karma- Yoga, are
not two independent paths for obtaining Release (moksa), but
that Samnyasa is the only correct Path according to the Sastras.
But such a view is incorrect. The Path of Karma-Yoga has-
been independently followed from times immemorial, side by
side with the Path of Renunciation, aocording to the Vedic
religion; and the promulgators of this path have very
.satisfactorily expounded the science of Karma-Yoga, without
departing from the elementary principles of Vedanta. The
Bhagavadglta is a work pertaining to this Path of Karma-
Yoga. But, leaving aside the Gita for the moment, it will be
seen that the system of expounding the science of the doable
and the not-doable from the Metaphysical point of view was
started, even in England itself, by writers like Green, * and
long before him, in Germany. However much one may
■consider the visible world, so long as one has not properly
understood who is the HE who sees this visible world, or who
Tpsrforms these Actions, the consideration of the highest duty of
man in this world will always remain incomplete from the
philosophical point of view. Therefore, the advice of
YajBavalkya: u atma va are drastavyah srotavyo maniavyo
mdidhyasifavydh ", is literally applicable to the present case. If
even after the examination of the external world, one
ultimately comes to basic principles like philanthropy, then,
"we must say that by such examination, the importance of the
soience of the Highest Self (adhyatma) is not in any way
belittled, but that this is one more proof of there being only
■one Atman in all created things. If Materialistic philosophers
■cannot transcend the limitations which they have placed on
themselves, there is no help for it. Our philosophers have
* ProUgonum to Ethiei, Book I ; and Kant's Mttaphytus of
Morals ( trans, by Abbott, in Kant's Theory ofEthta).
166 Gm-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
BXtended their sight far beyond that, and have fully justified
the science of Karma- Yoga on the basis of Metaphysics. But,
in as much as it is necessary to consider another contrary view
(■purva-pakqa), which deals with the subject of Right Action
and Wrong Action or Non-Action, I shall deal with that view
before explaining how that justification has been made.
CHAPTER VI.
THE INTUITIONIST SCHOOL AND THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE BODY AND THE ATM AN.
(ADHIDAIVATA-PAKSA AND KSETRA-KSETRAJNA-
YICARA).
satyaputain vaded vacarh manahputam samacaret *
Manu. 6. 46.
There is another method of the consideration of the-
question of Action, Non-Action, and Wrong Action, besides
the Positive or Material method, namely, the Intuitionist
(adhidaivata) method. Those who belong to this school say
that, when a man decides as to what is Action, Non-Action,
or Wrong Action, or as to the doability or non-doability of
any particular Action, he never troubles to find out how
pain * or happiness will result from any particular Action,
and whether the sum total of happiness caused by it is greater
than that of unhappiness, nor does he enter into the con-
sideration of the Atman and the Non-Atman; and many-
persons do not understand these intricate questions. Nor even-
does everybody do every particular act for his own happiness.
Whatever arguments may be advanced by Materialist philoso-
phers, if one considers minutely for a moment what the state
of mind of a person is in determining the righteousness or
unrighteousness of any particular Action, it will be seen that
inherent and noble mental impulses like pity, kindness,
philanthropy etc. impel him to do any particular act on the-
spot. For instance, when a man sees a beggar, his mind is
inspired by the feeling of pity before the thought as to what
benefit will be acquired by his Self or by his giving the beggar
something in charity entere it, and he gets rid of the matter
by giving the beggar whatever he can; in the same way, when
her child begins to cry, the mother does not stop to consider
* " Speak that which has been purified (become pita) by satyam
(veracity); and behave in that way which your Mind considers
as pure ".
168 GETA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
low much how many people will be benefitted by her feeding
it, but she at onee begins to feed it. Therefore, the true
foundations' of the seience of Karma-Yoga are- these noble
mentanmpulses. These "mental impulses have Hot been given
to us by anybody, but they are Nature-born ot inherent, or,
in a .sense, serf -created deities. When a judge is seated in
his judicial chair, he is inspired by the deity of Justice when
he administers justice, and if he defies this inspiration, he
administers injustice. The inherent mental impulses of kind-
ness, pity) philanthropy, gratitude, love for one's duty, courage
and other virtues, are deities just like the deity of Justice.
Every one by nature knows what the true forms of these
deitias are. If ha defies the inspirations of these deities on
account of avarice, hatei or jealousy, or for some such other
reason, what can these deities do ? ,Now, it is true that there
is sometimes a conflict between these deities themselves; then,
we are in doubt as to the inspiration of which deity we should
consider as predominant in doing a particular Action ; and
then it becomes necessary fqr us to consider some .other power
besides the deities, of Justice, Kindness, etc. in order to
satisfy this doubt. But even if, on these occasions, we do not
enter into the intricacies of Metaphysical considerations,
or of the weighing of pain or happiness, but only consult our
Mental Deity (manodenita), that is, our Conscience, that deity
immediately shows us which path is the more meritorious one;
and therefore, ^Conscience is superior to all deities. The word
" Conscience ' (mmodevaiu) is not to be understood as meaning
and including desire^ anger,;, avarice, or the other emotions
which inhabit the mind, but as jnea.ning, in the present contest,
the God-given or., inherent power which every one possesses
of choosing between good and bad. This very power has got
the high-sounding name of, " Power of discriminating between
the good and the bad" (sad-asad-mveka-buddh), * and if a
person, on any occasion of doubt, thinks for a moment quietly
and with a peaceful mjnd, this deity which, discriminates
between the right and the wrong (sad-amd-uvecana-demta)
* Thia ' aad-asad viveka-buddhi ' tiieans ' Oonacienca' in English';;
and the ' adhidaivata paij» ' ia the Intuitionist School.
INTUITIONfer SCHOOL & th!b 66d^ & ATMAN 169
■will never fail him. Nay", on such occasions, we say to other
persons: "Consult your own mind". What importance to
attach to what virtue is ready listed with this sovereign deity
■which immediately gives you her decision on any matter
in accordance with this list, as occasion arises. Suppose,
there is an occasion 1 when there is a conflict between the prin-
ciples of Self-protection and Harmlessness, such as a famine,
when we are in doubt as to whether Or not to eat uneatable
food; then, we should consult- our Conscience, and immediately
it will come out with the decision : " Eat the uneatable food ".
Similarly, if there is a conflict between Self-interest, and philan-
thropy, that situation too must he -solved by the help of this
Mental Deity. Orie writer 1 has after peaceful thought stumbled
■on 'this list of the relative values' of righteous and unrighteous
actions prepared by" the deity of Conscience, and he has
published it in his book. * In this list, the highest place has
been given to the feeling 1 of Reverence combined with Humi-
lity; and Kindness, Gratitude, Generosity, Affection etc. are
given the consecutive lower grades. This writer 3s of the
opinion that when there is a conflict between a virtue of a
low'er order, and a virtue of a higher order, one must attach
higher importance to the virtue oi the higher order. According
to this writer, there is ho other proper way of determining the
doability or non-doabillty 6r the righteousness or unrighteous-
ness of any Action; bedause, even if we extend our vision
as fax as possible, and decide in what the ' greatest good of
the greatest number ' lies, yet in as much as our discriminating
Reason does not possess the power or authority to order "us
to dd that in which the good ' of the greatest number lies, the
question whether or not one should do that which is beneficial
to 'the greatest number ultimately remains unsolved, and
again the whole niatter remains in abeyance. The decision
of J the doability or non-doability of an Action arrived
sX after a far-sighted consideration of pain and happiness
' i
* This writer is James Wartinein, and hs has pnbli9hed 4Mb
list in his work entitled " types of Ethical Tfieoty" (Vol. II. p. 266;
3rd Ed.). MaitiAean calls Ms school the Kio-psychologioal School.
But I include this school in the Intnitioniat School.
170 GM-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
will meet the same fate as that of a decision which may-
have heen given by a judge who has not received proper
authority from the king. Mere far-sightedness cannot
tell a person to do something, or that he must do some
particular thing ; because, far-sightedness being a human
product, it cannot control human beings. On such occasions,
there must be some one else having a higher authority than
ourselves who gives the command ; and this function can be
satisfactorily discharged only by this God-given Conscience,
which is superior to man, and therefore, in a position to-
exercise authority over man. As this deity is self-created it is
also usual, in ordinary parlance to say : "My Conscience-
(manodevata) tells me a particular thing". The fact that when,
a man has committed a sinful action, he is subsequently
ashamed of it, and that his inner consciousness bites him, is-
nothing else but the punishment of this Mental Deity ; and
that proves the existence of this independent Mental Deity.
For otherwise, we cannot, according to this school of thought,,
explain why our Conscience pricks only ourselves.
The summary given above is of the opinions of the
Intuitionist School in the Western countries. In these-
countries, this body of thought has been principally
promulgated by Christian preachers ; and in their opinion, this-
God-given method is superior to, and easier to follow than the
purely Materialistic methods for determining the righteousness-
ot unrighteousness of an Action, and is, therefore, the method
which should be acted upon. Although in India there was no ■
such independent section of the science of Kamia-Yoga in.
ancient times, yet we oome across similar opinions in many
places in our ancient treatises. We find in many places in the
Mahabharata that the various mental impulses have been given>
the forms of deitieB. I have referred in the foregoing pages to the
story of the deities of Morality (dharmamj, Prosperity fsn) etc.
having left the body of Prahlada and entered the body of
Indra. This deity who discriminates between doability and:
non-doability, or righteousness and unrighteousness is called:
'JQharmam', and there are stories that this deity had manifested
himself in the form of a syena bird for testing the truthfulness-
of the King Sibi, and first in the form of a yakqa and later oa
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 171
in the form of a dog for testing Yudhisthira. Even in the
Bhagavadglta (10.34), Fame (klrti/, Opulence (iri), SpeeohYwfc),
Memory (smrti), Acumen (medha), Perseverance (dhrti), and
Forgiveness (ksama) are called deities; and out of these,
memory, aoumen, perseverance, and forgiveness are qualities of
the mind. The Mind itself is a deity, and the worship of it has
been prescribed in the Upanisads, as being a symbol of the
Parabrahman (Taj. 3. 4; Chan. 3. 18). When Manu says:
"mamhpTUam samacaret" (6. 46), i. e., "Do what the Mind
believes to be pure", he may be said to have intended the
Mental Deity by the word 'mams' (Mind). In ordinary affairs,
we say instead : "Do as the Mental Deity (manodevata) pleases.
In the Marathi language, the word 'manahpVta' has acquired
quite the contrary meaning ; and on many occasions, when a
person does whatever he likes, he is said to behave 'manahputa 1 .
But the true meaning of this phrase is that : 'One should do
only that which the Mind considers as sacred or pure'. In the
fourth chapter of the Mam-Samhifa, Manu himself has made
the meaning clearer by saying :
yat karma kurvato 'sya syat pariiown, 'taratmanah I
tat prayatnem kurvlta viparitam tu, varjayet II
(Manu-Samh. 4. 161).
that is, "One should perform by efforts that Action by which i
one's innermost Atman is satisfied ; and one shonld give up
whatever is disliked by it", So also, Manu, Yajnavalkya, and
the other Smrti-writers, in mentioning the fundamental rules
of practical morality such as the rules of Morality applicable
to the four castes, etc. have said :
vedah smrtih sadacarah svasya ca priyam atmanah I
etao caturvidltam prahuh saksad dltarmasya laksanam II
(Manu. 2. 13).
that is, "the Vedas, the Smrtis, good behaviour, and the
satisfaction of one's Atman, are the four fundamental elements
of righteousness (dhxrmam). The meaning of the words 'the
satisfaction of the Atman' is, 'that whioh one's Mind looks
upon as pure' ; and it is quite clear that where the righteous-
173 GIT5.-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
mess or unrighteousness of any particular Action could not be
•decided by consulting the Srutis, the Smrtis, and the principles
of gojbd behaviour (sadacara), the fourth means of deciding the
matter was considered to be its 'manah^mtata', i. e., its 'being
■ considered as pure by the Mind'. In the Mahabharata,
Dhrtarastra, after relating the stories of Prahlada and Indra
rmentioned in the last Chapter, has said in describing 'silam',
ithat :
yad amjetptii Mam m mjad atmanah karma paurusam I
apatrapeta va yena va tat Jmryat kathaniama H
(Ma. Bha. San. 124. 66).
-that is, "That Action of ours which is not benefioial to others,
• or of vi;hich we ourselves would feel ashamed, should not be
performed in any case. My readers will notice that by using
ihe expressions 'is not beneficial to others' and 'feel ashamed '■
this verse haB included in the same place both the doctrines of
'the greatest good of the greatest number' and the 'Mental
Deity'. Even in the Manu-Smrti, that Action for having done
which or when doing which one feels ashamed, is referred to as
''tamasa', and that Action of doing which one does not feel
ashamed, and whereby our innermost self (antaratman) remains
happy, is referred to as 'sattvika' (Manu. 12. 35. 37) ; and these
ideas are to be found also in the Buddhistic treatise
' Dhammapada (See Dhammapada, 67 and 68). Ealidasa says that
when there is a doubt as to the doability or non-doability of
any Action :
satam hi samdehapadew vastusu
pramanam antahkaravapravrttaydh I
(Sakun. 1. 20).
<ihat iB, "saintly persons always consider as authoritative the
dictates of their own Conscience". Controlling the mental
impulses by concentrating the mind on a single object is the
^province of the Patanjala Yoga, and as this Yoga-Sastra
.has been in vogue in India from very ancient times, it
was at no time necessary to teach our people the method of
making the mind peaceful and quiet, and doing that which the
Mind considered as proper, whenever there was any doubt about
INTUrriONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 173
any matter. It is stated in the various Smrtis at the very
commencement, that the Rsis who wrote them, used always to •
define righteousness and unrighteousness after first completely
concentrating their minds (Manu. 11) ; and the method of thus-
consulting the dictates of Conscience on any matter also-
seems at first sight extremely easy. But when one minutely
considers what is meant by a ' pure mind ' from the philoso-
phical point of view, this facility of the matter disappears ;
and on that account, our philosophers have not based the
edifice of Karma-Yoga on it. We must now consider what
this philosophical point of view is; but before I do so, I will
here explain briefly how the Western Materialistic philosophers
have refuted this Intuitionist theory. Because, although the
reasons adduced by the Materialists and the Metaphysicians
may be different, yet as the result arrived at by both is the
same, I shall first deal with the arguments of the Materialists,-
in order that the importance and the propriety of the argu-
ments of the Metaphysicians should be the better understood
by my readers.
As the Intuitionist School has, as mentioned above, given,
the highest place to Conscience Pure, it is clear that the
objection against the Materialistic philosophy or morals,,
namely, that they do not attach any importance to the Reason
of the doer, does not apply to the Intuitionist theory. But
when one minutely considers what is to be called the ' Pure i
Conscience' in the shape of a Mental Deity which dis- j
criminates between the Right and the Wrong {sad-asad-iiveka' ]
buddhih), it will he seen that other unconquerable difficulties]
arise with reference to this theory also. Nobody need be ^
told that whatever thing is taken considering it in all its
bearings, and finding out whether or not it is performable or
unperformable, doable or not-doable, or whether or not it will
be advantageous or pleasant, is a thing which is not done by
the nose or the eyeB or any other organs, and that there
is an independent organ, namely, the Mind, which serves that
purpose. Therefore, doability or non-doability, righteousness
or unrighteousness are things which must be determined by
the Mind, whether you call it an organ or a deity.
If that were all that the Intuitionist school said, nobodjr
174 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
would find any fault with it. But, Western Intuitionists have
gone far beyond that. They say that deciding whether a thing
is good or bad (so* or asat), just or unjust, righteous or un-
righteous, is quite different from deciding whether a particular
object is heavy or light, white or black, or whether a cal-
culation is correct or incorrect. The Mind can, by logical
methods, decide matters which fall within the second category;
but the Mind itself is incapable of deciding on the matters
mentioned in the first category, and that is a thing which oan be
•done only by the Mental Deity in the shape of the Power of
discrimination between good and bad. They explain this by
saying that in determining whether a particular calculation
is correct or incorrect, we first examine the additions or multi-
plications involved in it, and then arrive at a decision, that is
to say, before determining this question, the Mind has to go
through some other actions or activities ; but the same is not the
.case in the matter of the discrimination between good and bad.
As -soon as we hear that somebody has murdered somebody
■else, we immediately utter the words: "What a bad thing
has been done by him I ", and we have not to think about the
matter at all. As the decision whioh we arrive at without
;any consideration, and the one which we arrive at after con-
sideration, cannot both be said to be the functions of one
and the same mental capacity, we must say that Conscience
1 is an independent Mental Deity. As this power or deity is
■ equally awake in the hearts of all human beings, every
k -one looks upon murder as a crime, and nobody has to
I '.be taught anything about the matter.' This Intuitionist
••argument is answered by Materialistic philosophers by
saying, that from the fact that we can spontaneously
arrive at a deoision on any matter, we cannot draw the
conclusion that such matter must be different from
.another matter as to which we come to a decision after proper
consideration. Doing a thing quickly or slowly is a matter
of practice. Take the case of calculations. Merchants quote
the rate for the seer immediately on being given the rate for
the khandy, by mental calculation. But on that account,
their deity of calculation does not become different from the
same deity of the best mathematicians. By habit, something
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 175
leconies so much part and parcel of oneself, that one does
it easily and without the slightest consideration. An excellent
marksman easily shoots and kills birds on the wing; but
mo one, on that account, says that there is soma independent
•deity of marksmanship. Not only that, but no one, on that
.account, considers the science of marksmanship or of cal-
culating the speed of flying birds or other scientific calculations
as unnecessary. There is a story told of Napoleon Buonaparte,
that as soon as he stood on the battle-field and cast only one
glance all round, he could immediately find out the weakest
point of the enemy. But, on that account, nobody said that
the science of warfare is an independent deity, and that it
is in no way connected with other mental faculties. It may
be that one man has a greater aptitude for a particular thing
than another. But on that account, we do not say that the
two have two different kinds of intelligence. Besides,
it is not that the decision on questions of doability or
non-doability, or of righteousness or unrighteousness is made
instantaneously on all occasions. Because, if such were the case,
there would never have been any doubt as to whether ' a parti-
cular thing ought to be done or ought not to be done '.■ Not
only is such doubt occasionally experienced by every one, but,
what is more, the decisions given by different persons as to the
■doability or non-doability of the same Action are different. If
there is only one self -created deity in the form of 'Conscience',
why should there be this difference 1 Therefore, we have to say ,-
•that a man comes to a decision on any particular matter, .
according as his mind is evolved or educated. There are many :
aboriginal tribes who do not consider murder a crime, but even '
■eat human flesh with pleasure ! But if we for a moment leave
aside the case of uncivilised human beings, yet, according to
the customs of different countries, something which is
■considered objectionable in one country is wholly acceptable in
another country. Marrying a second wife when the first one
is alive, is considered a crime in England ; but nobody thinks
much of it in India. Indians would feel ashamed of sitting in
■an assembly without their turbans on ; but in England people
•consider taking off one's hat as a sign of respect ! If it were
true that one feels ashamed of a wrong act as a result only of
176 GETA-EAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
God-given or inherent Conscience, should not every one feel
equally ashamed of the same act ? Even marauders consider it
disgraceful to draw a sword against a, person whose food th,ey
have eaten ; but, even powerful civilispd nations in the West
consider it a sign of patriotism to murder people who are
subjects of a neighbouring nation ! !. If there is only one deity
in the shape of Conscience, why should there be thiB difference ?
And if one admits different kinds of Conscience, according to-
civilization or according to the customs of countries, then the
self-created immutability of Conscience itself suffers. As man
leaves the uncivilised state and is gradually more and more
oivilised, so also are his Mind and Reason developed;, and
when in this way, the Reason has developed, man becomes
capable of spontaneously conceiving such ideas as he would
have been incapable of conceiving in his former uncivilised
condition. We may even say that the Reason being developed
in this way is a sign of civilisation, Just as a civilised or
educated person's not asking for everything which he casts his.
eyes on is a sign of the control over the organs which has
become ingrained in him, so also has the mental faculty of
choosing between good and evil gradually grown in mankinds
and it has now become so much part of human nature that
we give our decision as to the morality of a thing spontaneously
and without consideration. If we have to see things which are
near or which are far, we have to contract the muscles and
tendons of the eyes to a greater or lessT extent, and this is
done so quickly that we never realise it ; but has any one, on
that account, looked upon the consideration of the reasons for
this process as useless ? In short, the Mind or the Reason of
man are the same at all times and with referenoe to all matters.
It is not that we decide between black and white by one kind
of Reason and between good and evil by another kind of Reason.
The only difference is that the Reason of a particular person
may bB more developed, whereas the Reason of another person
may be uneducated or incompletely developed. Western
Materialistic philosophers have' thus drawn the conclusion that
when we bear in mind this difference, and also take into
aocount our experience that being able to do any particular
thing quickly is only a matter of habit or practice, we have no
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 177 -
(
.reason for imagining that there is an independent and wonder-
ful power like Conscience in addition to the natural faculties
of the Mind.
The ultimate decision of our ancient philosophers on this
matter is similar to that of the Western Materialistic
philosophers. They admit the principle that it is necessary to-
consider any particular matter quietly and with a peaceful
mind. But they do not accept the position that there is one
kind of Reason which decides the question of righteousness and
unrighteousness and another kind of Reason which decides
whether a particular thing is black or white. The Mind
arrives at a correct or incorrect decision according as it has
been educated. They, therefore, say that everybody must
m^ke an effort to develop his Mind ; and they have also given
rules explaining what this development is and how it is to be
made. But they do not accept the position that the power of
discrimination between good and bad (aad-aaad-oioeunta-sakti) is
some independent heavenly gift whioh is different from the
ordinary Reason of a man. The question as to how a man
acquires knowledge and how the activities of his Mind and
Reason are carried on, have been very minutely examined in
ancient times. This examination is technically known as "the
consideration of the Body and the Atman" (ksetra-ksetrajrla-
viwTaj. 'ksetra' means the body and 'ksetrajfia' means the
Atman. This ksetra-ksetrajna-oicara is the foundation of
Metaphysics ; and as it is impossible to look upon the Power
of discrimination between good and bad or any other Mental
Deity as higher than the Atman when once one has properly
understood this science of the Body and the Atman, it becomes
perfectly clear how the IntuitioniBt arguments are insufficient.
I shall, therefore, in this place briefly considar the science of
the Body (ksetra or Field) and the Atman (ksetrajila). Thereby,
my readers will be able to properly understand trie correct
meanings of many of the doctrines of the Bhagavadgita.
The body of man ( pinda, ksetra, or sarira ) may be said
to be a great factory. As in any factory raw material U first
taken in from outside, and then all the material is selected or
arranged, and having determined which of the material is
useful for the factory and which not, the raw material taken
2a— 24
178 ' GITA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
In is manufactured into different articles and sent out, so also
are there numerous activities going on, every moment in the
human body. The first of the means man has for acquiring
the knowledge of the various objects in the world, made up
of the five primordial elements, are his organs. The, true or
fundamental form of the objects in the world cannot be
iealised by any one by means of his organs. Materialists
say that such form is the same as it appears to oul organs;
but if tomorrow a human being acquires another new organ,
then, from his point of view the qualities of the different
objects in the world will be different. Human organs are of
two kinds, namely, organs of Action ( htrnwndriya ) and organs
of perception (jfkmendriya). The hands, the feet, the voice,
the anus and the generative organs are the five organs of
Action. All the Actions which we perform by means of
our body are performed through these five organs. Besides
these, there are the five organs of perception, namely, the nose,
the eyes, the ears, the tongue and the skin. "We perceive
■colour by the eyes, taste by the tongue, sound by the ears,
•smell by the nose, and touch by the skin. All the knowledge
that we acquire of any external object, is the effect of its _
■colour, taste, sound, smell or touch, and nothing else. For
instance, take a pieoe of gold. It looks yellow, it seems heavy
to the touch, and it is elongated on being hammered. These
and its other qualities which we perceive by means of our
organs, is what is 'gold ' in our eyeB; and when these qualities
are seen to recur in any particular object, then suph object
becomes an independent physical objsct named 'gold' in our
opinion. Just as there are doors in a factory for taking
material in from outside and for sending out the material
Ijinside, so also, the organs of perception are the doors
aan body for taking material inside and the organs
| are the doors for sending that material out. When
of the Sun fall on any object and enter our eyes on
lected, our Atman perceives the colour of that object ;
In the minute atoms of soent, emanating from that
ae and strike our olfactory nerves, we smell it. The
> of the other organs of perception are carried on in the
same way ; and when the organs perception are functioning in
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & X.TMAN 179
this way, we become aware of the external objects in the world
through their medium. But the organs of perception do not
themselves acquire the knowledge of the activities whitth they
carry on ; and therefore, these organs of perception are ! not
called 'jnata ' (Knower), but they have been referred to 1 as the
portal* for taking in material from outside. When external
material has come inside through these doors, the dealing
with it afterwards is the function of the Mind. For instanoe,
when at noon the clock strikes twelve, it is not the ears which
understand what o'clock it is. Just as each stroke falls, aerial
vibrations come and strike the ears, and when each of these
strokes has in the first place created a distinot effect on the
mind, we mentally calculate the sum of all these phenomena
and decide what o'clock it is. Even the beasts have got the
organs of perception, and as each stroke of the clock falls, it
causes an effect on their mind through their ears. But their
mind is not sufficiently developed to be able to total
up the number of strokes and to understand that it is twelve
o'clock. Explaining this in technical language, it is said that
although a beast is capable of perceiving individual phenomena
by themselves, yet, it is not able to perceive the unity which
results from that diversity. In the Bhagavadgita, this is
explained by saying : "indriyani parany ahuh indriyebhyah
param manah", (Gri. 3. 42), i.e., "the organs are superior to the
external objects, and the Mind is superior to all the organs".
As has been stated above, if the Mind is not in its proper place,
we do not see anything although the eyes may be open, nor do
we hear anything though the ears may be open. In short,
the external material comes into the factory of the Body
through the organs of perception to the clerk called 'Mind',
and this clerk subsequently examines that material. We will
now consider how this examination is done, and how it
becomes necessary to further sub-divide that which we have so
far been broadly referring to as the 'Mind', or how one and
the same Mind acquires different names according to difference
in its funotions.
All the impressions which are created on the mind through
the organs of perception have first to be placed together in one
place and by comparing them with each other, one has first to
180 GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
decide which of them are good and which bad, which acceptable-
arid which objectionable, which harmful and which beneficial p
and when this examination has been made, we are induced to-
do that thing which is good, beneficial, proper, or doable. This-
is the ordinary course. For instance, when we go into a,
garden, impressions of the various trees and flowers in it are
made on our minds through our organs of perception. But
unless our Atman has acquired the knowledge of which of
these flowers have a good smell and which a bad one, we do-
not get the desire of possessing a particular flower, and 1
consequently perform the Action of plucking it. Therefore,,
all mental activity falls into the following three broad
divisions, namely : (1) having acquired the knowledge of
external objects by means of the organs of perception,,
arranging all these impressions, or carefully classifying them
for purposes of comparison, (2) after this classification has-
been made, critically examining the good or bad qualities of
the different objects and deciding which object is acceptable
and which not; and (3) when the decision has been made,,
feeling the desire to acquire the acceptable and reject the
unacceptable, and getting ready for appropriate action. It is
not that these three functions must take place immediately one
after the other, and without there being any interval of time
between them. We may in the present feel the desire of
acquiring some object which we may have seen in the past ;.
nevertheless we cannot, on that account, say that any one of
these three functions is unnecessary. Just as though the Court
of Justice is one and the same, the work in it is divided in the
following way, namely, the two parties or their respective
pleaders first place their respective evidence and witnesses before
the Judge, and the Judge gives his decision after considering the
evidence on either side, and the Sheriff ultimately carries out the
decision which has been given by the Judge, so also are the acti-
vities of that clerk whom we have so far broadly referred to as
the* Mind', divided. Out of these activities, the function of
considering discriminatingly all the various objects which
are perceived, and deciding that a particular thing is of a
particular kind (euameva) and not of another kind {rianyatha) r
that is to say, the function of a Judge, belongs to the organ.
INTUrriON-IST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 181
called 'Eeason' (buddhih); and all the mental functions
referred to above, except the functions of this faculty of
discriminating between good and evil, are carried out by the
organ called ' Mind ' (mams), according to the terminology
of both the Vedanta and the Sarhkhya philosophies (Sam.
Ka. 23 and 27). This (minor) Mind, like a pleader, places
ibefore the Eeason the various ideas that a particular thing
is like this (samkalpam) or is like that (vikcdpam) etc., for
decision; and therefore, it is called an organ which is 'samkalpa-
mkalpatmakam', that is, which merely forms ideas without
arriving at any decision. The word 'samkalpam' is sometimes
made to include also the factor of decision (Chandogya. 7. 4. 1.).
But in this particular place, the word ' samkalpam ', has been
used to mean and include merely realising, or believing, or
taking for granted, or understanding that a particular thing
as of a particular kind, or such activities as planning some
Action, desiring, thinking, or conceiving, without arriving at
;any decision (mscayah). But the function of the Mind is not
.exhausted after placing various ideas for decision before the
Eeason in this way like a pleader. When the Reason has
decided on the goodness or badness of any particular act, and
has decided what is acceptable, the Mind has also to perform
the Registrar's function of bringing about, through the organs
•of Action, that thing which has been found acceptable, that
Is to say, of carrying into execution the decisions of Reason;
.and therefore, the Mind can also be defined in another way.
It is true that considering how to carry into execution the
decision which has been arrived at by the Reason is in a sense
■samkalpa-vikalpatmaka; nevertheless thatprocesB has been given
ithe independent name ' vyakaranam', that is, 'development',
In the Sanskrit language; all the other mental activities
except these are the functions of Reason. The Mind does not
•discriminate between the various ideas in the mind. Dis-
criminating between them and giving to the Atman the
accurate knowledge of any particular object, or deciding that
a particular thing is only of a particular kind after proper
classification, or arriving at a definite inferenoe, and deciding
.as to the doability or non-doability of any particular Action
.after inferentially determining the relation of Cause and
182 • GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Effect between two things, are all functions of the Reason
»nd are known in Sanskrit as ' vyavasayah' or 'adhyavasayah'.
Therefore, ■ these two words have been defined in the Maha-
bharata in the following way in order to show the difference
between the Reason and the (minor) Mind, namely : —
" vyavasayatmika buddMh memo vySkaranStmakam "
(Ma. Bha. San. 251. 11).
ihat is, "the 'buddhih' (Reason) is an organ which does the
vyavasayah, that is, which discriminates and arrives at a
decision, and the Mind (minor) is an organ which does the
vyaharayam, that is, carries out the development or the further
arrangements. In short, the Reason "is vyavasayatmika and
the mind is vyakarar/atmakam ". Even the Bhagavadgita.
uontains the words "vyavasayatmilca buddhih" (Oil. 2. 44); and
in that place, the word buddhih means the organ which dis-
oriminates and decides. The buddhih ■ is like a sword. Its.
Eunction is only to cut whatever comes before it or is brought
before it. It has no other quality or function (Ma. Bha.
Vana. 181. 26). Planning, desiring, wanting, memory, perse-
verance, faith, enthusiasm, kindness, interestedness, affection,
pity, gratitude, sexual impulses, shame, joy, fear, love,
attachment, hate, avarice, arrogance, . jealousy, anger etc.,
are all qualities or faculties of the Mind (Br. 1. 5. 3; Maitryu.
6, 30), and man is prompted to perform any particular actr
according to the particular mental impulse which has .sprung
into the Mind. . However reasonable a man may be, and
even if Jia fully " understands how poor people suffer, yet, if
the feeling of pity is not aroused in his heart,, he will never be
inspired by the desire to help the poor ; or, though he might
feel the desire to fight,' he will not fight if "he is wanting in.
courage. The Reason only tells us what the result will be-
at those things which we want to do. But as desire, courage etc.,
are not the faculties of the Reason, Reason by it-self, that is r
without the help of the Mind, never inspires the organs to do-
anything. On- the other hand, though, -the Mind can inspire
the organs when under the sway of Anger "etc., yet an Action-
which may have been performed without the discrimination^
of the Reason and .merely by . the inspiration of the mental
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 18?
impulses, will not necessarily be morally pure. For instance,
if something is given in charity without exercising the Reason
and merely under the impulse of the feeling of pity, there is
a chance of its having evil effects if the charity is given to an.
undeserving person. In short, the mental impulses by them-
selves are blind without the help of Reason. Therefore, in
order that any good Action should be performed by a man,
there must be a combination of a Reason which is pure,
that is to' say, such as will arrive at a correct deoisioa
between good and bad, a Mind which will act according
to the dictates of the Reasou, and organs which are subject
to the oontrol of Mind. Besides the words 'buddluh' and
'manas\ the other 1 words 'antahkaranam' and 'cittam' are also in
vogue. As the word awtdhkarayam out of these means the
internal (i. e., antah) organ (i. e., kamnmn or indriyam),' it
usually includes the mams (Mind), buddluh (Reason), cittam.
(Consciousness) and afta«fraram(Egoism) etc; and when the Mind
first contemplates external objects, it becomes cittam, (i. e.»
Consciousness), (Ma. Bha. San. 274. 17). But, as in ordinary
parlance these words are used as being synonymous, there is
very often a confusion as to what meaning is intended ia
which place. In order that such a confusion should not arise*
only the two words Mind and Reason, out of the various words
mentioned above, are used in scientific terminology in the
specific meanings mentioned above. When in this way a
differentiation has been made between the Mind and the
Reason, the Reason in its capacity of a judge, necessarily
becomes superior to the Mind, and the Mind becomes the clerk
of the Reason. This is the purport of the following words,
used in the CHta, namely, "irianasas hi para buddluh", i. e„ ' the
Reason is superior to or beyond the Mind" (Gl. 3. 42). Never-
theless, even this clerk has, as mentioned above, to perform two.
different functions ; the first of these is to properly arrange all
the impressions whioh have come from outside, through the
medium of the- organs of perception, and to place those
impressions' before the Reason for decision; and the second
one is to carry "the order Or the message of the Reason to the
organs of Action after the Reason has arrived at a < deoision>
and make these organs perform those external Actions whioh
184 GlTA-KAHASYA OS KARMA-YOGA
are necessary to be performed for carrying out the decision of
the Reason. Just as very often in a shop, the duty of
purchasing merchandise for the shop and also the duty of
sitting in the shop and selling the goods are both carried out
by one and the same clerk, so also is the case with the Mind.
Suppose, you see a friend of yours and being inspired with the
■desire of calling him, you say to him 'hullo !' ; then, let us see
■what are the ^various functions which are carried out in
your antahkaraTfam. First, your eyes, that is, the organ of
perception, have sent a message to the Reason through the
medium of the Mind that your friend is near you, and that
knowledge is conveyed through the Reason to your Atman.
Here, the first function, namely, of the acquisition of
knowledge, is over. Then the Atman, through the medium of
the Reason decides to call the friend ; next, the desire to speak
springs into the Mind in order to execute the decision of the
Reason, and the Mind causes the word 'hullo !' to be uttered by
the organ of Action. In the SiksU-grantha of Panini, the
function of the utterance of words has been described on that
hasis as follows :—
atma buddhya sametyarthan mano yunkte viwksaya I
rnanah kayagmm almnii so prerayaii marutam I
marutas turasi caran mandram jamyati svaram II
that is, "the Atman in the first place grasps all things through
the medium of the Reason, and creates in the Mind the desire
to speak ; then the Mind sets in action the bodily heat (kayagni)
which in turn Bets the breath in motion ; then this breath
entering the chest, creates the lowest sound ; and this sound
ultimately comes out of the mouth in the shape of labial,
guttural, or other sounds." The last two lineB of the above
stanza are also to be found in the Maitryupanisad (Maitryu.
7. 11.) ; and from this it is clear, that this stanza must be older
than Panini. * 'kayagni' is known in present-day medical
* Max MUller has said that Maitryupanisad mnBt be earlier
in point of time than Panini. Bee Sacred Books of the Essfc
Series Vol. XV pp. xlvii— li. This matter lias been more fully
dealt with by me in the Appendices,
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 185
science as 'nerves'. But according to that science, the nerves
•which bring in the perception of external objects are different
from those which carry the message of the Reason to the
organs of Action through the medium of the Mind; and
therefore, according to Western medical scientists, we must
have two kinds of Mind. Our philosophers have not thought
that there are two kinds of Mind; they have differentiated
ietween the Reason and the Mind, and have said that the Mind
is dual, that ia to say, where the organs of Action are coacerned
it acts according to the organs of Action, and where the organs
of perception are concerned, it acts according to those organs.
Both these ideas are essentially the same. According to the
points of view of both, the Reason is the judge who decides,
and the Mind becomes samkalparvikalpatmakam, that is, performs
the function of conceiving ideas in relation to the organs of
perception, and becomes vyalcaranaimakam. that is, executive, in
relation to the organs of Action, that is to say, it becomes the
actual provocator of the organs of Aotion. Nevertheless, in
developing (i. e., making the vyakaranam of) anything, the
Mind has very often to conceive ideas (that is, make safnludpam
and vihalpam) in order to see in what way the dictates of the
Reason can be carried out. Therefore, in defining the Mind, it
is usual to say simply "mmkalpa-'dkdpaimakam manah" ; but, it
must not be forgotten, that even according to that definition,
both kinds of functions of the Mind are inoluded.
The definition of Reason given by me above, namely, that
it is the organ which discerns, is intended only for the purpose
of minute scientific discussions. But, these scientific meanings
of words are always fixed subsequently. It is, therefore,
necessary to consider here also the practical meanings which
the word 'buddhih' had acquired before this scientific meaning
had been fixed. We cannot acquire the knowledge of anything
unless it has been identified by the Pure Reason (vyavasaya-
imika buddhih); and unless we have acquired the knowledge
of that object, we do not conceive the intention or the desire
of obtaining it. Therefore, just as in ordinary parlance, the
word 'mango' is applied both to the mango-tree and the
mango-fruit, so also ordinary people very often use ths single
word 'buddhih' (Reason) for signifying the Pure Reason
186 . . GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
(vyavasayatmika buddhih), as also the fruits of- that Reason
in the shape of Desire etc. For instance, when we say that
the buddhih of a particular person is evil, we intend to say-
that his ' Desire ' is evil. As ' Intention ' or ' Desire ' are both
faculties of the Mind from the scientific point of view, it is not
correct to refer to them by the word ' buddhih '. But, before
the word 'buddhih' had been scientifically analysed, the word!
'buddhih' had begun to be used in ordinary parlance in the
two meanings of (i) the organ which discerns and (ii) the
Intention or Desire which subsequently arises in the human
mind aB a result of the functioning of that organ. Therefore^
just as the additional word ' tree ' or ' fruit ' is used when it is:
intended to show the two different meanings of the word
'mango', so also, when it is necessary to differentiate between
the two meanings of the word ' buddhih ', the ' buddhih ' which
discriminates, that is to say, the technical 'buddhih' is
referred to by qualifying it by the ad jective ' vyavasayatmika *
and Desire is referred to as Bimply 'buddhih' or at most as
' vasanatmika buddhih'. In the Gita the word 'buddhih' has
been used in both the above meanings (Gi. 2. 41, 44, 49 and 3.; 42);
and in order to properly understand the exposition of the
Karma-Yoga, both these meanings of the word 'buddhih ' have
to be continually kept before the mind. ■ When man begins
to do any particular act, he first considers whether it is good,
or bad, doable or not-doable etc., by means of his Pure Reason.
{vyavasayatmika buddhih), and when the Desire or Intention
(that is, the vasanatmika buddhih) of doing that act enters his-
mind, he becomes ready to perform the act. This is the order
of the mental functions. When that buddhih out of the two-
( namely the vyavasayatmika ) which has to decide between the-
doability and the non-doability of any particular Action is
functioning properly, the Mind is not polluted by improper-
Desires (buddhih) entering it. Therefore, the first theorem of
the Karma-Yoga preached in the Gita is that the vyavasa-
yatmika buddhih (Pure Reason) must be made pure and steady
(Gi. 2. 41). Not only the Gita, but also Kant has- differen-
tiated between two kinds of buddhih and he has described the
functions of the vyavasayatmika buddhih (Pare Reason) and of
the vyavaharika or vasaruitmika buddhih (Practical Reason) in
INTUmONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & A.TMAN 187
two different books. * Really speaking, steadying the Pure-
Reason ib the subjeot-niatter of the Patafijala Yoga-SSstra,-
and not of the Karma- Yoga SSstra. But in considering any
particular act, one must, according to the doctrine of the'
Glta, first consider the desne or the uosanflfjiiifca buddliih of
the doer of the act, before one looks at the effect of the
act ( Gi. 2. 49 ); and in the same way when one considers-
the question of Desires it will be seen that the man whose
pure Reason has not become steady and pure, conceives
different shades of desire in his mind, and therefore), it is not
certain that these desires will be always pure or holy (GI. 2. 41).
And if the desires themselves are not pure, how will the
resulting Action be pure 1 Therefore, one has to consider in
detail, even in the science of Karma-Yoga, the methods or
means which have to be employed to keep the vyaoasuyatmika
buddhih pure, and therefore, the Patafijala Yoga has been,
desoribed in the sixth chapter of the Bhagvadgita as one of
the means by which the vyavasayatmka buddliih oan be made
pure. But some doctrinal commentators have disregarded
this fact and drawn the inference that the Glta supports and"
preaches the Patafijala Yogal From this it will be olear-
to my readers how necessary it is to bear in mind the above-
mentioned two meanings of the word ' buddhh ' and their
mutual relation.
j I have in this way explained what the respective functions-
df the Mind and the Reason are, after explaining the internal
working of the human mind, and I have also mentioned the-
other meanings of the word 'buddhih.'. Having in this way
differentiated between the Mind and the ' vyauisayatmka
Uuddhih' (Pure Reason), let us see how this aspect affecte-
the question of the deity which discerns between good and
evil {Sad-asad-viueka-devctia). As the only purpose which this
deity serves is to choose between good and evil, it cannot be
included in the (minor) Mind; and as there is only one
* Kant calls the vyavasayitmika buddhih Pare Reason; and the
vasanatmika buddhih Practical Reason^ and he has dealt with these -
two kinds of Season in two separate books.
188 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
*' vyamsayatmika buddhih' (Pure Reason) which considers all
matters and comes to a decision on them, we cannot give an
independent place for the sad-asad-mvecam sakli (power of
-discriminating between good and evil). There may ob
numerous matters about which one has to think, discriminate,
and come to a conclusion. In commerce, war, civil or
criminal legal proceedings, money-lending, agriculture, and
other trades, there arise any number of occasions on which
one has to discriminate. But, on that account, the vyaraMyat-
mikd buddhih in each case does not become different. The
function of discrimination is common to all these cases;
and therefore, the buddhih (Reason) which makes that dis-
crimination or decision must also be one only. But in as
much as the buddhih is a bodily faculty (sarira-dharma) just
like the Mind, it can be sattviki, rajasi, or tamasi according to
previous Actions, hereditary impressions, or education or
for other reasons; and therefore, a thing which might be
acceptable to the buddhih of one person may be looked
upon as unacceptable to the buddhih of another person. But
on that account, we cannot say that the organ of buddhih is
■ different in each case. Take for instance, the case of the eye.
■ Some people have squint eyes, while others have half -closed
eyes, and others one eye only, and some have dim vision, while
• others have a clear vision. But, on that account, we do not
Bay that the eye is a different organ in each case, but say that
the organ is one and the same. The same argument must be
applied to the case of the buddhih. That same buddhih which
differentiates between rice and wheat, or between a stone and a
diamond, or which distinguishes between black and white,
or sweet and bitter, also discriminates between what is to be
feared and what not, what is good and what evil, what is
profitable and what disadvantageous, what is righteous and
what unrighteous, or what doable and what not-doable, and
oomes to a final decision in the matter. However much we
may glorify it in ordinary parlance by calling it a 'Mental
Deity' yet from the philosophical point of view, it is one and
the same vyamsayatrtika buddhih (pure Reason). That is why in
the 18th Chapter of the Glta, one and the same buddluh has
. been divided into the three kinds of sattviki, rajasi, and tamasi
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMA.N 189'
and the Blessed Lord first says to Arjuna :—
pravrtHm ca nierttim ca karyakarye bhayabhaye I
bandham moksam ca ya vetti buddhih sa Partita sattoiki II
(Gl. 18. 30)
that is, "that buddhih which ( properly ) understands which-
Action should he begun and which not, which is proper to be-
performed and which not, what should be feared and what not H
what leads to bondage and what to Release (moksa), is the-
satttriki buddhih " ;
and then He goes on to say : —
ynya dharmam adharmam ca karyam cakaryam (ca ca I
ayuthavat prajanati buddhih sa Partha rajasi ll
(GI. 18. 31)
that is, "that buddhih which does not make a proper discrimi-
nation between the dharmam ( righteous ) and the adharmam
(unrighteous), or between the doable and the not-doable, that
buddhih is rajasi";
and He lastly says :—
adharmam dharmam iti ya manyate tamasavrta I
saroarthan viparitams ca buddhih sa Partha tamasi ll
(GI. 18. 32)
that is, "that buddhih which looks upon that afl righteous--
(dharmam) which is unrighteous (adharmam), that is to say, whioh
gives a totally perverse, that is, contrary verdict on all matters
is the tamasi buddhih". From this explanation, it will be clear
that the theory that there is an independent and distinct deity
of which the function is sad-asad-woekah, (i. e„ discrimination
between good and evil) is not accepted by the Gita. That does
not mean that there can never exist a buddhih (Reason) which
will always choose the right thing. What is meant is that the
buddhih is one and the same, but the sattiika auality °f
choosing only the right thing is acquired by it by previous
impressions, or by education, or by control of the organs, or by
the nature of the food which a man eats etc, and in the
190 ' GlTA-EAHASYA OE KARMA-TOGA
absence of such factors as previous impressions etc., that same
■buddhih becomes rajasl or tamasl, not only in the matter of the
discrimination between the doable and the not-doable but also
in all other matters. Such is the import of the above stanzas.
The facts of the difference between the buddhih of a thief and
that of an honest man, or of persons belonging to different
countries is explained by this theory in a satisfactory way, in
which it cannot be explained by looking upon the Power of
-discrimination between good and evil (sad<isad-mvecam-saM)
as an independent deity. "Making one's buddhih, sattviki, is
what one oneself can do ; and it cannot be done without the
control of the organs. So long as the vyavasayatrmlca buddhih
acts only according to the dictates of the organs, without
discriminating between or examining what promotes one's true
benefit, it cannot be called Pure (saddha) ; therefore, one must
not allow the buddhihto become the slave of the Mind and the
•organs, but one must on the other hand arrange it so that the
Mind and the organs are under its control, This principle has
been enunciated in numerous places in the Bhagavadgita
<Gl. 2.' 67, 68 ; 3. 7, 41 ; 6. 24, 36) and, on that account, the body,
has been compared to a chariot in the Kathopanisad, and it is
metaphorically stated that in order that the horses in the shape
■of the organs which pull that chariot should be properly guided
in the path of the enjoyment of objects of pleasure, the
■charioteer in the shape of the vyamsayatmika buddhih has to
•courageously keep taut and steady the reins in the shape of the
Mind ( Katha. 3. 3. 9) ; and in the Mahabharata also, the same
simile has been adopted in two or three places with some
■slight difference (Ma. Bha. Vana 210. 25 ; Strl. 7. 13; Asva. 51. 5).
'This simile is so proper for describing the function of the
control of the organs, that the famous greek Philosopher Plato
has in his book (Phoedrus. 246) made use of the same illustra-
tion in describing the control of the organs. This illustration
■does not appear literally in the Bhagavadgita. Yet, the
•description of the control of the organs in the above-mentioned
stanzas has been made keeping this illustration in mind, as
•cannot but be noticed by anybody who keeps in sight the
previous and posterior context of this subject-matter.
Ordinarily, that is, when it is not necessary to make subtle
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY*. ATMAN 191
scientific distinctions, this is known as 'manomgrahri (control
of the Mind) ; but when, as mentioned above, a distinction is
made between the manas (Mind) and the buddhih ( Reason), the
function of control falls to the share, not of the Mind, but of
"the pure (vyavasayalmika) Reason. In order this cyavasayatmilm.
iuddhih should become pure, the principle that there is only
one Atman in all human beings, must be deeply impressed on
the mind by realising the true nature of the Paramesvara
whether by the mental absorption (samadhi) taught in the
Tatanjala Yoga, or by Devotion or by Knowledge ( jilti,m )
or by Meditation (dhyam). This is what is known as Self-
devoted (atma-mstha) buddhih. When the vijavasayailfixka
iuddhih has in this way become Self-devoted (atmaniqtha),
and the Mind and the organs have learnt to act according
iio its directions as a result of mental control, Desire, Intention,
or other mental functions (manodharma) or the ■msawfitflv.ka
buddhih (Practical Reason), naturally become pure and chaste,
■and the bodily organs naturally tend towards sattvika actions.
From the Metaphysical point of view, this is the foundation
of all good actions, that is to say, the esoteric* teaching
•(rahasya) of the science of Proper Action (Karma-Yoga).
My readers will now have realised why our philosophers
have not accepted Conscience as an independent deity, in
addition to the ordinary functions of the Mind and the Reason.
From, their point of view, there is no objection to looking
upon 'the Mind or the Reason as deities by way of glori-
fication; but they have come to the conclusion that con-
sidering the matter scientifically, there is no third element
like Oonscience which is distinct from and in addition to the
two things which we call manas (mind), and buddhih (Reason)
-and which is inherent. We now clearly seethe propriety of
the word satam having been used in the phrase 'satam hi
mfndeha paclesu ' etc. Those whose minds are pure and Self-
deVoted (atmanistha), need not at any time be afraid of cop-
suiting their Conscience (antahkarana). We may even say
that they should purify their Mind as much as possible before
performing any Action, and consult their Conscience, But,
there is no sense in dishonest people saying : " We do the same
thing ", because, the Conscience of both is not the same, and
GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
whereas the Conscience of saints is sattvilca, that of thieves
is tamasa. In short, that which the Intuitionist School refers-
to as ' the Deity which discerns between Good and Evil' (the*
sad-asad-viveka-devata), is seen not to be an independent deity
when the matter is considered from the philosophical point
of view, but to be only the Self-devoted and the sattvika form
of the vyawsayatmika buddhih. This is the theory of our
philosophers, and when this theory is accepted, the Intuitionist
point of view naturally falls to the ground.
When we have thus seen that the Materialistic aspect is
one-sided and insufficient, and also that the easy device foundl
out by the Intuitionist school is ineffective, it becomes
necessary for us to see whether or not there is some other way
for justifying the doctrine of Karma-Yoga. This way is the
Metaphysical aspect of the matter; because, when we have,
once come to the conclusion that there is no suoh indepen-
dent and self -created (smyambhu) deity like the sad-asad-viveka-
buddhih (Conscience), notwithstanding the fact that the Reason
is superior to external Action, it becomes necessary to consider,
even in the science of Karma-Yoga, how one can keep one's
Reason pure in order that one should be able to perform pure
Action, what is meant by Pure Reason, and how the Reason,
can be made pure; and the consideration of these questions,
cannot be complete unless one leaves aside the Material
soiences which deal only with the external physical world,
and enters into Metaphysics. Our philosophers have laid
down the ultimate doctrine, in this matter, that the Reason,
which has not fully realised the true and all-pervading nature
of the Paramesvara, is not pure; and the science of the Highest
Self (adhyatma) has been expounded in the Gita solaly in order
to explain what this Self-devoted Reason [atmanistha buddhih)-
is. But. disregarding this anterior and posterior context, some
doctrinal commentators on the Gita have laid down the con-
elusion that Vedanta is the principal subject-matter of exposi-
tion in the Gita. It will be shown later on exhaustively
that this conclusion arrived at by these commentators as to the
subject-matter expoundsd in the Gita, is not correct. I have for
the time being only to show how it is necessary to consider the
question of the Atraan when one wishes to find out how the
INTUITIONtST-SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 193
Beason is to be purified. This question of the Atman has to be
considered from two points of view : — (1) the first method of
exposition is to examine one's own body,' (piydah, ksetra, or •
sariram), as also the activities of one's Mind, and to explain how
as a result of such examination, one has to admit the existence
of the Atman in the shape of a ksetrajHa, or an owner of the
Body (Gl. Chap. 13). This is known as the suriraka-vicara or
the KSETRA-KSETRAJNA-VICARA (the Consideration of
the Body and the Atman) ; and that is why the Vedanta-Sutras
are known as sarlraka (dealing with the Body) sutras. When
in this way we have examined our Body and Our Mind, we> '
have next to consider (2) whether the elementary principle
which is arrived at by such examination, and the principle
which is arrived at by the examination of the brahmandam or the
visible world around us, are the same or are different.' The
examination of the world made in this way'is known, as the
KSARAKSARA-VICaRA or the VYAKTAVYaKTA-VICARA ■
(the consideration of the Mutable and the Immutable, or
the consideration of the Perceptible and the Imperceptible).
The 'kqara' or 'vyakta' is the name of all the mutable objects
in the world, and aksara or avyakta is the name of the essential
and eternal element in the mutable objects in this creation
(Gi. 8. 21 ; 15. 16). The fundamental Element which we dis-
cover by further examining these two elementary principles
arrived at by the consideration of the Body and the Atman
and of the Mutable and the Immutable, and which is the Ele- "
ment from which both these elements have been evolved, and
whioh is beyond ( para ) both of them, and is the Root Element '
of everything, is called the Absolute Self (Paramatman) or the
Purusottamah (Gi. 8. 20): All these ideas are to be found in the
Bhagavadgita, and the science of Proper Action has been
expounded in it by showing how the buddhih is ultimately
purified by the Realisation (jnanam) of this Element in the
shape of the Paramatman, which is the Root Cause of every-
thing. If, therefore, we have to understand this method of '
exposition, we must also follow the path which has been
followed in the Gita. Out of these two subject-matters, the •
knowledge of the brahmandam or the consideration of the '
Mutable and .the- Immutable (ksceraksara) will be dealt'with''
25-26
194 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
in the next chapter. I shall now complete the science of the
pinda, or the consideration of the Body and the Atman which T
had ooramenced in this chapter in order to explain the true
nature of the Conscience, and which has remained incomplete.
I have finished my exposition of the gross Body made up of
the five primordial elements, the five organs of Action, the five
organs of Perception, the five objects of these five organs of
Perception in the shape of sound, touch, colour, taste, and
smell, the Mind which is the conceiver of ideas {samlcalpa-
tihalpa), and the Pure Reason (vyavasayatmika buddluh). But that
does not exhaust the consideration of the Body. The Mind and
the Reason are the means or the organs for thought. If the
gross Body does not possess movement (cetana) in the form of
Vitality ( pranah ) in addition to these, it will be just the same
■whether the Mind and the Reason exist or not. Therefore, it is
necessary to include one more element in the Body in addition
to these other things, namely, Movement (cetana). The word
'cetana', is sometimes also used as meaning the same thing as
'caitanyam' ( Consciousness ). But one must bear in mind that
the word cetana has not been used in the sense of caitanyam
in the present context, 'cetana here means the movement,
activity, or the vital motion of the Life forces seen in the
gross Body. That cicchakfih ( Power of Consciousness ) by
means of which movement or activity is created even in
Gross Matter, is known as caitanyam ; and we have now
to consider what that Power is. That factor which
gives rise to the distinction between "mine", and "other's"
•which is to be seen in the Body in addition to its Vital
activity or Movement, is a different quality altogether;
Because, in as much as the Reason is only an organ which
<somes to a decision after proper consideration, Individuation
(ahamkarah), which is at the root of the distinction between
one's and another's, must be looked upon as something different
from Reason. Like and dislike, pain and happiness, and other
correlative couplets (dvaniduam) are the properties of the Mind.
But as the Nyaya school looks upon these as properties of the
Atman, Vedanta philosophy includes them among the properties
of the Mind in order to clear that misunderstanding. In the
same way, that fundamental element in the shape of Matter
INTTTITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 195
'( prakrti ), from which the five primordial elements have sprung,
is also included in the Body (Gl. 13. 5, 6). That Pow& by
which all these elements are controlled or kept steady, is again
a different power (Gl. 18. 33), and it is called 'dhrti' (co-hesion). '
That amalgamated product which results from the combination
of all these things is scientifically called the
'savikara sarira' (activated Body), or 'ksetra' ; and this is
what we, in ordinary parlance, call the aotivated
{savikara) human body, or the pinda. I have defined the
word ' ksetra ' in this way, consistently with the Glta. But
in mentioning the qualities Desire, Hate etc., this definition
is sometimes more or less departed from. For instance, in
i;he conversation between Janaka and Sulabha, in the Santi.
parva (San. 320), the five organs of Action have not been
mentioned in the definition of the Body, but instead of them
ithe six qualities of Time-feeling (Ma), Realisation of Good
and Evil (sad-asad-bhavdh). Method (vidhih), Vitality (sukram),
and Strength (bala) have been mentioned. According to this
■classification, the five organs of Action have to be included
in the five primordial elements, whereas according to the
classification adopted in the Glta, we are to include Time in
the Ether (akasam), and Method, Vitality, Strength etc^
in the five primordial elements or in Matter. Whatever may
be the case, the word ' ksetra ' conveys only one meaning to
everybody. That collection of mental and bodily elements or
qualities in the shape of pranah (Life force), which has specific
activities (tisista-cetana), is known as ' ksetra '. As the word
'sarira' is also applied to dead bodies, the different word
ksetra' has been used in this particular place, 'ksetra'
■originally means 'field', but in the present context, it has
■been used metaphorically as meaning the ' activated (savikara)
■and living (sajiva) human body '. That which has been referred
to by me above as a great factory is this ' ksetra '. The organs
of Perception, and the organs of Action, are the portals of
this factory for taking in material from outside and for sending
out the manufactured products respectively and, the Mind,
the Reason, Individuation (ahamkara), and Activity (cetana)
are the workmen in this factory; and all the functions carried
■on or caused to be carried on by these workmen, are referred
196 GlTA-RAHASYA oB KARMA-YOGA
to as the activities (vyaparah), feelings (vikarah), or properties
(dJiarmah) of this Body.
When in this way, the meaning of the word ' ksetra ' has.
been defined, the next question which naturally arises is,
to whom does this ksetra or field belong, is there or is there
not some owner for this factory ? Although the word 'Atman v
is very often used in the meaning of ' Mind ' or ' Conscience '
or 'one's Self ', yet, its principal meaning is 'the owner of the
Body (ksetrajna) ". "Whatever functions are performed by man,
and whether they are mental or bodily, are carried on by his
internal organs such as buddhih etc., his organs of Perception
such as the eyes etc., and his organs of Action, such as hands,,
feet, etc. In the whole of this group, the Mind and the Reason-
are the most superior. But although they may, in this way,
be superior to the other organs, yet they are both funda-
mentally the manifestations (vikarah) of Matter (prakrti) or
of the gross Body, just like the other organs. (See the next -
chapter.) Therefore, although the Mind and the Reason may
be the highest of all the organs, yet they cannot do anything
beyond their particular functions, and it is not possible that
they should be able to do anything else. It is true that the
Mind thinks and the Reason decides. But, knowing this,
we do not arrive at a conclusion as to for whom the Mind'
and the Reason perform these functions, or as to who performs-
that synthesis which is necessary for obtaining a synthetic
knowledge of the diverse activities carried on by the Mind:
and the Reason on various occasions, or as to how all the organs
subsequently receive the directions to perform their various
functions consistently with that synthesis. It cannot be said '
that all this is done by the gross Body of man. Because,
when 'cetatta' or activity leaves this gross Body, this gross
Body is unable to perform these functions although it remains
behind; and as the component partB of the gross Body, namely,
the flesh, the muscles, etc., are the result of food, and these-
are continually worn out and continually re-formed, it cannot
be said that the feeling of sameness by which a person
realises that '' I ", who saw a particular thing yesterday, am
the same as the ' I ' who see a different thing to-day, is the-
property of the continually changing gross Body. If, however,.
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL &,the BODY & ATMAN ,497
one leaves aside the gross Body, and says that cetana (Activity)
is the owner of the hody, then, in deep sleep, one does not
continue to possess the 'I' feeling although such activities
.or cetaria as breathing or blood-circulation are going on.
■(Br. 1. 1. 15-18). It, therefore, follows that Activity or the
functioning of Life forces, is a specific quality which has been
acquired by the gross Body, and is not the controlling factor,
owner or power which synthesizes all the activities of the
organs (Katha. 5. 5). The possessive case adjectival forms
' mine ' or ' another's ' prove to us the existence of the quality
of Individuation (akamkSrah). But by knowing that, we do
not come to a conclusion as to who this 'aham' or 'I' is.
If you say, that this 'I' is a pure illusion, then the experience
of everybody is just the contrary; and imagining something
which is inconsistent with this personal experience of every-
body, would place one in the position desoribed by Sri.
Samartha Ramadasa as: "saying something which is in-
consistent with experience is wholly tiresome ; it is as useless
as opening one's mouth wide and crying" (Dasa. 9. 5. 15);
and even if we do this, the fact of the synthesis of the
activities of the organs is not satisfactorily explained. Some
go so far as to say that there is no such individual thing as ' I '
but that the name ' I ' should be given to the conglomeration
or the fusion of all those elements, such as, the Mind, Reason,
Activity, gross Body etc., which are included in the word
' ksetra '. But we see by our own eyes, that by merely piling
.a piece of wood on another piece of wood, we cannot make a
box. ; nor is motion created in a watch by merely putting
together all its various wheels. We cannot, therefore, say
that activity arises by mere juxta-position. Nobody need be
told that the various activities of the ksetra are not purely
-foolish activities and that there is some specific intention
or object in them. "Who is it that gives this direction to
the various workmen, such as, buddlah etc., in the factory
of the Body? Juxta-position (samghatah) means merely
putting together. Although several things may be put
together, it is necessary to thread them together in order
that they should form one whole. Otherwise, they will
become disorganised at any moment. We have now to
198 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
see what this thread is. It is not that the Glta does not accept
the principle of conglomeration (samghatah) ; but that is looked
upon as part of the ksefra (Gi. 13. 6). We do not thereby get
an idea as to who the ksetrajna or the owner of the Body is-
Some persons think, that conglomeration gives rise to some new
quality. But this opinion itself is not correct; because,
philosophers have after mature consideration oome to the
conclusion that that which was not in existence before, in
some form or other, cannot come into existenoe anew (Gi. 2. 16),
But even if we keep this doctrine aside for a moment, the next
question which naturally springs up is why should we not look
upon the new quality which arises in the conglomeration, as.
the owner of the Body ? To this, some Materialist philosophers,
reply, that a substance cannot be different from its qualities, and
that the qualities want some superintendence (adhisthanamj, and,
therefore, instead of looking upon the property acquired by the
Aggregate as the owner of the Body, we look upon the Aggre-
gate itself as such owner. Very well ; then why do you not
say 'wood' instead of 'fire', or 'cloud' instead of 'electricity', or
'the earth' instead of 'the gravity of the earth' in ordinary
parlance 1 If it is not disputed that there must he in existence
some Power which is distinct from the Mind and the Reason
in order that all the activities of the Body should be carried on
systematically and according to some proper arrangement,
then can we, because the seat of that Power is still unknown
to us, or because we cannot properly explain the full nature
of that Power or of that seat, say that that Power does not
exist at all ? ~&o person can sit on his own shoulders ; in
the same way, it is absurd to say that an Aggregate (samghatah)
gives to itself the knowledge of itself. Therefore, we come to
the emphatic conclusion even from the logical point of view,
that THAT THING for the enjoyment or the benefit of
which, the various functions of the Aggregate of the bodily
organs etc. are carried on, must be something which is quite
distinct from the Aggregate itself. It is true that this Element
which is distinct from the Aggregate, is an element which
cannot become an object of perception (jneya) or become visible
to itself like other objects in the creation, since it is self-
enlightened. But, on that account, the fact of its existence
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 19»
cannot oome into question ; because, theie is no rale that all
objeots must fall into tb.9 single category of the 'perceivable''
(jfieya). All objects fall into two categories, namely, the*
'jftata' and the 'jneya', i. e., the Perceiver, and That which
is perceived by the Perceiver, and if some thing does
not fall into the second category, it can come into the first
category and its existence is as fully established as the
existence of the Perceivable. Nay, we may go further and say
that in as much as the 5.tman, which is beyond the Aggregate
(samghata) is itself a Knower, there is no wonder that it does-
not become the subject-matter of the knowledge which it
acquires ; and therefore, Yajnavalkya has said in the
Brhadaranyakopanisad, that "wjnataram are kena vijaniy<W\
i. e„ "Oh ! how can there be some one else, who can know That
which knows everything ? " (Br. 2. 4. 14). Therefore, one has
to come to the ultimate conclusion, that there exists in this
activated living Body some comprehensive and potent Power
which is more powerful and more comprehensive than the-
various dependent and and one-sided workmen in the Body
who work in grades rising from OTgans like the hands and feet
to Life, Activity, Mind and Reason ; that this Power remains
aloof from all of them, and synthesizes the activities of all of
them and fixes for them the direction in which they are to act,
and is an ever-awake witness of all their activities. Thia
dootrine has been accepted both by the Sarhkhya and Vedanta
philosophies, and the modern German philosopher Kant has
shown by minutely examining all the activities of Reason
that this is the doctrine which one arrives at. The Mind, th&
Reason, Individuation or Activity are all qualities or com-
ponent parts of the Body, that is, of the ' ksetra '. The inspirer
of these components is different from them, independent of
them, and beyond them. " yo luddheh paratas tu mh " (Gi. 3.
42), i. e., " It is beyond the grasp of the Reason ". This is-
what is known in the Sarhkhya philosophy as ' purusa ', and
in Vedanta philosophy as 'ksetrajna', that is to say, the 5-tman
which knows or controls the Body ; and the aotual experience
which every one has of the feeling that ' I am ', is the most
excellent proof of the existence of this Knower of the Body
(Ve-Su. Sam. Bha. 3. 3. 53, 54). Not only doss nobody think
i2Q0 . GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
' that ' I am not ', but even if a person by Ms moutb utters
' the words : ' I am not ', he thereby inferentially acknowledges
- the existence of the Atman or -the ' I ' which is the subject of
the predicate ' am not '. The Vedanta philosophy has been
propounded only in order to explain as clearly as possible the
, fundamental, pure, and qualityless form of this kselrajm or
Atman, which manifests itself in this way in the body in the
individuated and qualified form 'I' (Gi. 13. 4); nevertheless
this conclusion is not arrived at by merely considering the
Body, that is to say, the Icselra. I have stated before that we
have to see what can be ascertained by considering the Cosmos
(brahrmndam) that is to say, the external world, in addition to
, consideration of the Body and the Atman. This consideration
of the Cosmos is known as ' ksaraksara-vkara '. B'j considering
the Body and the Atman, we come to know the fundamental
. element (ksetrajila or Atman) which exists in the kselra (the
Body, or the pinda) and by considering the Mutable and the
Immutable ( ksaruksara ), we understand the fundamental
element in the Cosmos (brahrrianda), that is, in the external
creation. When in this way, the fundamental elements of the
Body (pinda) and of the Cosmos (brahnianda) have been definitely
and severally fixed, Vedanta philosophy, after further con-
, sideration comes.to the conclusion that both these are uniform
or one and the same— or that WHATEVER IS IN THE
BODY (PINDA), IS ALSO IN, THE COSMOS (BRAH-
MANDAM).* This is the ultimate truth of the moveable and the
* The classification made in oar philosophy of Ajuraijaro-oicoc*
and tjelro ttsetrajna-viaira was not known to Green. T e t the expo-
sition oi MetaphysicB made by him in the commencement of his
book called Prolegcmem to Ethics, has been made by him in a twofold
way, namely, regarding the ' Spiritual Principle in Nature ' and
the ' Spiritual Principle in Man ' s and later en, he has shown the
identity between the two. The lc$etra-k$elrajTia-viaira includes such,
mental philosophies as Psychology etc , and the i-saraiiara-vimra
includes such sciences as Physics, Metaphysics etc. and even
Western philosophers have accepted the position that the nature
of the Atman has to be arrived at, after taking into consideration
all these things.
INTUITIONIST SCHOOL & THE BODY & ATMAN 201
ummoyeable Cosmos. When we realise that this kind of exa-
mination has been made even in the Western countries, and
that the doctrines advanced by Western philosophers like Kant
etc. are very much akin to the doctrines of Vedanta philo-
sophy, we cannot but feel a wonder about the supermanly
mental powers of those persons, who laid down these doctrines
of "Vedanta by mere introspection, in an age when the Material
sciences were not so advanced as they are in the present day ;
hut we must not stop with feeling wonder about this matter,
— we must feel proud of it.
CHAPTER VII.
THE KAPILA SAMKHYA PHILOSOPHY OR THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTABLE AND
THE IMMUTABLE.
(KAPILA SAMKHYA-SASTRA OR KSARAKSARA-
VICARA).
prakrtm'purusum caiva viddhyanadi iibhav apt *
Gita. 13. 19.
I have stated in the last chapter, that simultaneously
with the consideration of the Body and the Lord or Superin-
tendent of the Body — the ksetra and the ksetrajm-ot\e must also-
consider the visible world and the fundamental principle
in it — the 'ksara' (mutable) and the 'aksara' (immutable)—
and then go on to the determination of the nature of the
Atman. There are three systems of thought which scienti-
fioally consider the mutable and the immutable world.
The first of these is the Nyaya school and the second one
is the Kapila Sarhkhya school. But the Vedanta philosophy-
has expounded the form of the Brahman in a third way
altogether, after proving that the propositions laid down by
both of those systems of thought are incomplete. Therefore,.
before considering the arguments advanced in the Vedanta phi-
losophy, it is necessary for us to see what the ideas of the
Nyaya school and of the Sarhkhya school are. In the Vedanta-
Sutras of B adarayanacarya, the same method has been adopted,
and the opinions of the Nyaya school and of the Sarhkhya.
school have been refuted in the second chapter. Although
the whole of this subject-matter cannot be given here, yet, I
have in this and the next chapter given as much information
about it as is necessary for understanding the mystic import
of the Bhagavadglta. The propositions laid down by the
Sarhkhya school are of greater importance than those laid
down by the Nyaya school. Because, as Badarayanacarya has
said (Ve. Su. 2. 1. 12 and 2. 2. 17), though no respectable and
* '' Know that both the prakrti (Matter) and the piirusa (Spirit)
are eternal".
SAMKHYA SYSTEM & KSAR&KSAEA-VICA.RA 203
leading Vedanta philosopher has accepted as correct the Nyaya
doctrines laid down by the followers of Kanada, yet, as many
of the propositions of the Kapila Samkhya-sastra are to be-
found in the Smrti writings of Manu and others and also in.
the Glta, my readers must first become acquainted with them.
Nevertheless, it must be stated right in the beginning that
though many ideas of the Samkhya philosophy are to be found
in the Vedanta philosophy, yet the readers must not forget
that the ultimate doctrines laid down by the Sarhkhya school
and the Vedanta school are extremely different from each
other. There has also been raised an important question,
namely, whether the Vedantists or the Samkhya philosophers
are the originators of those ideas which are common to the
Vedanta and the Samkhya philosophy. But it is not possible
to go so deep into that subject-matter in this book. Possibly,
the Upanisads (Vedanta) and the Samkhya philosophy grew
up side by side like two children, and the doctrines found in.
the Upanisads, which are similar to the Sarhkhya doctrines,
may have been independently arrived at by the writers of
the Upanisads ; or on the other hand, the writers of the
Upanisads may have borrowed some of these doctrines from
the Samkhya philosophy ; or thirdly, Kapilacarya may
have improved upon the doctrines laid down by the ancient
Upanisads according to his own opinions, and formulated the
Samkhya philosophy. All these three positions are possible.
But taking into account the fact that though the Upanisads.
and the Sarhkhya philosophy are both ancient, the Upanisads
are the more ancient (Srauta) of the two, the last supposition
seems to be the most credible of the three. Whatever may be
the truth, when one has once become acquainted with the
doctrines laid down by the Nyaya and the Samkhya schools of
philosophy, it becomes easier to grasp the principles of Vedanta,
especially of the Vedanta in the Glta. Therefore, let us first
consider what the opinions of these two Smarta sastras about
the formation of the universe aTe.
Some persons have a wrong idea that the only object of Nyaya
(i. e,, Logic) is to decide what conclusions can subsequently be-
drawn by inference from some desired or given data and which
of these inferences are correct, and whioh wrong, and why.
r 204 ■ GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA.
Proving by means of inference etc. is a part of Logic. But
that is not the most important part ; classifying or enumerat-
ing the various things in the world, that is to say, the subject-
matter of proof (apart from the question of proving them),
finding out what are the fundamental classes or things under
which all the substances in the world can be classified, as a
result of the gradual evolution of things in the lower orders
into things in the higher orders, finding out what their nature
and qualities are, and how other things came into existence
out of these things, and how all these things can be proved,
and all such other questions are included in Logic. Nay, one
may go further and say that this science has come into exist-
ence only for this purpose, and not merely for considering the
■question of inference. It is in this way that the Nyaya-sfltras
of Kanada are begun and worked out. The followers of
Kanada are known as Kanadas. In their opinion the root
cause of the world is Atoms. The definition of atoms given by
Kanada and the one given by Western natural scientists is the
fame. When after dividing and sub-dividing things you come to
the stage when division is no more possible, you have reached
the atom or 'paramanu' ( parama + anu ), that is, the ultimate
entity. As these atoms coalesce, they acquire new qualities
as a result of the union, and new things are created. There
are also atoms of the Mind and of the Body, and when these
unite, life results. The atoms of the earth, water, fire and air
are fundamentally different from each other. The fundamental
atomB of the earth, have four qualities, namely, form, taste,
smell, and touch ; those of water have three such qualities,
those of fire, two, and those of air, only one. In this way the
entire cosmos is from the very beginning filled with perma-
nent and subtle atoms. There is no other root cause of the
world except the atoms. The commencement (aramblia) of the
mutual coalition or union of the original and permanent
atoms results in all the perceptible things in the world com-
ing into existence. This theory propounded by the Nyaya
.school regarding the creation of the perceptible universe is
technically known as ' arantbha-vada ' (Theory of Commence-
ment), and some followers of that school never go beyond this.
There is a story about one of them, that when those who were
SAMKHYA SYSTEM & KSARAKSARA-VICARA 205
around him at the moment of his death, asked him to take the
name of God, he uttered the words: "pilavahl pilaoahl pllavahl"-
" atoms I atoms ! atoms 1 ". Nevertheless, other followers of the
Nyaya school believe that Isvara is responsible for bringing'
about the fusion or union of atoms and they in that way
complete the chain of the creation of the universe; and these
are known as theistic Logicians. In the second sub-division
of the second chapter of the Ved&ntaSutras (2, 2. 11-17), this
Atomic theory, and immediately thereafter, also the theory
that the Isvara is merely the immediate cause (2. 2. 37-39) has
been refuted.
Reading what is stated above regarding this Atomic
theory, those of my readers who have studied English will
at once think of the Atomic theory advanced by the modem
chemist Dalton. But in the Western countries, the Atomic
theory of Dalton has now been put into shade by the'
Evolution theory of the well-known biologist Darwin. In the
same way, in India in ancient times, the Samkhya philosophy
has put into the background the theories of Kanada. Not only
can the Kanada school not explain satisfactorily how Aotivity
was first imparted to atoms, but their theories cannot also-
explain how the rising gradation of living things like trees,
animals, and men came into existence, nor also how that which
was lifeless became living, and several other things. This expla-
nation was given in the 19th Century in the Western count-
ries by Lamarque and Darwin, and in our country in ancient
times by Kapila. The summary of the opinions of both these-
schools is that the Cosmos or universe came to be created by
the bursting forth of the constituents of one original substance;
and on this account, the Atomic theory lost ground in India
in ancient times, and now in the Western countries. Similar-
ly, modern physicists have now also proved that the atom is
not indivisible. It was not possible in ancient times to prove
the Atomic theory or the Evolution theory by analysing and
examining various material objects in the world by means of
physics and other natural sciences. Experimenting again and
again on the various objects in the world, or determining
their qualities by analysing them in various ways, or making a
comparison between the organs of the bodies of numerous present
206 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
ind former living things in the living world, and such other
present day devices of the natural sciences were not available
to Kanada or to Kapila. They have deduced their propositions
from whatever material was before their eyes at the time.
Still it is a matter of great surprise that the philosophical
propositions laid down by the Samkhya philosophers as to how
the growth or formation of the universe must have come about
are not much different from the scientific propositions laid
down by modern natural scientists. As the knowledge of
biology has grown, the material proof of these opinions can
now be given more logically, and by the growth of know-
ledge of the natural sciences, human beings have undoubtedly
benefited to a considerable extent from the Material point
of view. But in order to impress on the minds of my
readers that the modern natural scientists cannot tell
us muoh more than Kapila as to how diverse perceptible
created things came into existence out of one impercep-
tible prakrti (Matter), I have in various places later
on referred shortly to the propositions laid down by
Haeckel for comparison side by side with the propositions of the
Kapila Sarhkhya school. These propositions were not for the
first time promulgated by Haeckel, and he has himself clearly
admitted in his works that he was expounding his propositions
on the authority of the works of Darwin, Spencer, and other
previous natural scientists. Yet Haeckel has for the first time
described succinctly and in an easily intelligible way all these
various propositions, after properly co-ordinating them, in
lis book known as The Riddle of the Universe; and I havei
therefore, for the sake of convenience, taken Haeckel as the
protagonist of all these natural scientists, and referred prin-
cipally to his opinions in this and the next Chapter. I need
not say that this reference is only brief, because it is not
possible to consider those propositions in this book in greater
detail, and those who want further information about them
must refer to the original works of Spencer, Darwin, Haeckel
and other scholars.
Before considering the Kapila Sarhkhya philosophy, it
must be mentioned that the word 'Samkhya' is used in
two different meanings. The first meaning is the Samkhya
SAMKHYA SYSTEM & KSARAKSARA-VICARA 207
-philosophy expounded by Kapilacarya, and that meaning has
been adopted in this Chapter and in one place in the Bhagavad-
glta (Gi. 18. 13). But besides this specific meaning, it is
usual to include philosophy of every kind in the general name
'Samkhya', and it also includes the Vedanta philosophy
In the phrase ' Samkhya-mstha ' or ' Samkhya-yoga ' this ordinary
meaning of the word ' Samkhya ' is intended; and wherever
the scients who follow this nistha (doctrine) have been
referred to as ' Samkhya ' in the Bhagavadgita later on (Gi.
2. 39; 3. 3; 4. 5; and 13. 34), not only the followers of the
Kapila Samkhya school, but also the Vedantists who have
abandoned all Actions by atmanatma-vicara (by considering
what does and what does not pertain to the Self); and who are
.lost in the contemplation of the Brahman, are intended. As the
word ' Samkhya ' comes from the root ' Sam-khya ' (calculation),
its primary meaning is ' one who counts '; and etymologists
■say that, as the fundamental elements according to the Kapila
philosophy are just twenty-five, the followers of that philo-
sophy originally got the specific name of 'Samkhya' (in the
sense of " counters "), and later on the word 'Samkhya' acquired
the comprehensive meaning of philosophy of every kind. I,
therefore, think that after the practice of referring to Kapila
ascetics as ' Samkhya ' had first come into vogue, Vedanta
ascetics also later on came to be known by that name.
Whatever may be the case, in order that confusion should not
•arise as a result of this double meaning of the word ' Samkhya ',
I have used the elongated heading of ' Kapila Samkhya-Sastra '
for this chapter. There are sutras (Aphorisms) in the Kapila
Samkhya-Sastra just as in the Kanada Myaya philosophy.
But as neither Gaudapada nor Sri Sarhkaracarya, who wrote
the Sarira-bhasya, have taken these sutras as authorities in
.their works, many scholars are of opinion that they could
not be ancient. The Samkhya-Karika written by Isvarakrsna
is considered to be older than them. Gaudapada, the chief
preceptor of Sarhkaracarya, has written a bhasya (Commentary)
•on that work and even in the Samkarabluisya itself, extracts
have been taken from these Karikas, and the translation of
that work into the Chinese language made before 570 A. D.
208 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA.
is now available. * Isvarakrgna has stated at the end of
these Karikas, that he has in his work given a summary in
seventy couplets in the arya metre of a previous extensive-
book of sixty chapters called Sasti-Tantra (omitting some
chapters). The work Sasti-Tantra is now not available, and.
I have, therefore, considered the fundamental propositions of
the Kapila Sarhkhya-Sastra on the authority of these Karikas.
In the Mahabharata, the Samkhya doctrines have been men-
tioned in many chapters. But as in that work, the Vedanta
doctrines have been always mixed up with the Samkhya
doctrines, it becomes necessary to consider other treatises in
order to decide what the pure Samkhya philosophy was ; and
for that purpose, no work older than the Sarhkhya-Karikas
is at present available. The pre-eminent worth of Kapila
becomes clear from the following words of the Blessed Lord 1
in the Glta: " siddhariam Kapilo munih" (Gl. 10. 26 ) r
that is, " from among the Siddhas, I am the Kapila muni ".
Nevertheless, it is not known where and when Kapila R?I
lived. There is a statement in the Santiparva of the Maha-
bharata that Sanatkumara, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatsujata,
Sana, Sanatana and Kapila were the seven Mind-born sons of
Brahmadeva, and that they were born with ' Knowledge
(340.67); and in another place (San. 218), we find the Samkhya
* Mack information is now available about Isvarakrsna from
Buddhistic -works. The preceptor of the Buddhistic scholar Vasu-
bandhu was a contemporary opponent of IsvarakiBQa and the his-
tory of thiB Vasubandhu written by Paramartha (449 to 569 A. D.)r
in the Chinese language has now been published. Or. Takakasu has,
on the strength of thiB, come to the conclusion that Isvarakrsna
must have lived about 450 A. D. (See Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1905. p. 33 to 53). But accord-
ing to Dr. Vincent Smith, Vasubandhu himself must be plaoed some-
where in the 4th century (about 280-369 A. D.), because a trans-
lation of his works has been made in 404 A. D. into the Ohinese-
language. When the date of Vasubandhu is in this way pushed
back, the date of Isvarakrsna is also pushed back to the same extent,
that is to say, by about 200 years; and must be taken at about
240 A. D. (See Vincent Smith's Early History of India, 3rd
Edition, p. 328.).
SAMKHY A' SYSTEM & KSARaKSARA-VIGaRA 209
philosophy explained to Janaka by Asuri, the disciple of Kapila,
and PaScasikha, the disciple of Asuri. Again in the Santi-
parva (301. 108, 109) Bhisma also says, that the science which
was once propounded by Samkhya about the formation of the
universe is everywhere to be found " in the Puranas, in history
and in books on political economy and other placea ". Nay, it-
may even be said that: "juuna'h ca lake yad iluxsti latitat Sam-
khijugatam tac ca malum mahatntan ", that is, " all the knowledge
in this, world originates in the Sarhkhya philosophy "(Ma.
Bha. San. 301. 109). When one considers in what way the-
Evolution theory is being everywhere taxed into commission
by the Western writers, one should not be surprised if every
one of our writers has to some extent or other drawn upon our
ancient Samkhya philosophy, which is a match for the Evolu-
tion theory. Stupendous ideas like the theory of gravity of
the earth, or the ulkranti-tattva * (Evolution theory) in the-
scienoe of the creation, or the theory of the unity of Brahman
and the Atman, come into the mind of some superman once in
a way in thousands of years. Therefore, the practice of ex-
pounding one's own arguments, on the authority of any
universal doctrine or comprehensive theory accepted at the:
time,, is seen followed in books in all countries.
This introduction has become necessary because the study
of the Kapila Sarhkhya philosophy is now out of date. Let
us now consider what the principal propositions of the Kapila
Samkhya philosophy are. The first proposition of the-
Sarhkhya philosophy is that nothing new comes into existence
in this world; because, only sunya (nothing) and nothing else-
can be produced by sunya (that is, which did not exist before).
Therefore, it muBt always be taken for granted that all the
* I have used the word ' ulkranti-tattva ' hero as meaning 'the
Evolution theory ' because it is used in that sense now-a-days.
But ' ulkranti ' means ' death ' in Sanskrit. Therefore, in my
opinion it would be more proper to use the expressions ' gunavi-
Vata 1 (the expansion of the constituents), ' gunoti'ir$i ' (the dif-
fusion or growth of the constituents), gunipunnama ' (the develop-
ment of the constituents) used in the Samkhya philosophy for
denoting the 'Evolution theory 1 instead' of the term ' utkrantiJuttva '.
27-28
210 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
qualities which are to be seen in the created products {karya)
must be found at least in a subtle form in the karar/a
from which the products were created (Sam. Ka. 9). Accord-
ing to the opinions of Buddhists and of Kanada, one- thing is
destroyed and out of it another thing comes into existence; for
instance, the seed is destroyed, and from that the sprout comes
into existence, the sprout is destroyed, and from that the tree
comes into existence, and so on. But the Samkhya and the
Vedanta philosophers do not accept this proposition. They
maintain that those elements which existed in the seed of the
tree are not destroyed, but they have absorbed other elements
into themselves from the earth and from the air, and thereby
the new form or state of a sprout is taken up by the seed (Ve.
Su. Sam. Bha. 2. 1. 18). Similarly, even if wood is burnt, it is
only transformed into smoke, ashes etc., and not that the ele-
ments in the wood are totally destroyed and a new thing in
the form of smoke comes into existence. It is stated in the
Chandogyopanisad that: " katham asatah. saj jayeta?", i.e.,
''how can something which exists come out of something
which never existed?" (Chan. 6. 2. 2). The fundamental ,
Cause of the universe is sometimes referred to as ' asat ' in the
Upanisade (Chan. 3. 19. 1 ; Tai. 2. 7. 1). But Vedanta philo-
sophy has laid down that that word is not to be interpreted as
meaning ' aUuvm ' (non-existing) but as indicating only the
non-existence of such a perceptible state as can be denoted by
name or form (Ve. Su. 2. 1. 16, 17). Curds can be made only
ont of milk, not from water ; oil comes out of ' til '
(sesamum), not out of sand; from these and other actual experi-
ences, one must draw the same conclusion; because, if one
accepts the position that those qualities which do not exist in
the karana (cause) can arise independently in the karya (pro-
duet), one cannot explain why it should not be possible to
produce curds from water. In short, that which is now in exist-
ence cannot have come into existence out of something which
originally did not exist. Therefore, the Samkhya philosophers
have laid down the proposition, that whatever product you
may take, its present concomitants and qualities must in some
form or other have been in existence in its original cause.
This proposition is known as ' satkarya-vada ' (theory of some-
SAMKHYA SYSTEM & KSARAKSARA-VIOARA 311
thing being produced out of something which existed). Even
modern natural scientists have laid down the proposition that
the gross elements and the potential energy in all things are
permanent, and whatever changes of form anything may go
through, yet in the end the sum total of all material concomi-
tants and of all potential energy in the world is always the
same. For instance, even if we see a lamp burning and the oil
disappearing, yet the atoms of oil are not totally destroyed,
but continue to exist in the form of soot, smoke, or other subtle
components; and, if all these subtle components are taken
together and weighed, their weight will be the same as the
total weight of the oil and of all those other matters from the
air which were mixed with it when it was burning; and it has
now been proved that the same rule applies to potential
energy. But although these two propositions of modern phy-
sics and of the Samkhya philosophy may be apparently
similar, yet it must not be forgotten that the proposition of
the Samkhya philosophy has reference only to the fact of one
thing being created out of another thing, that is to say, it
refers specifically to the theory of Causes and Effects, whereas
the proposition of modern physics is much more comprehensive.
The very important difference between these two proposi-
tions which has now been proved by actual experiments and
mathematics, is that no quality in any product can arise out of
any quality which was not in the cause, and what is more,
that the material elements and the potential energy in the
■causes are in no way destroyed by reason of their having been
transformed into products, and that the sum total of the
weights of the material elements and the potential energy of
any product in its various states is always the same, and is
neither increased nor decreased. Looking at the matter from
this point of view, it will be seen that the propositions which
have been given at the commencement of the second chapter
Of the Bhagavadglta. (Gi. 2. 16), such as : " nasato vidyate
bhavah". I e., "that which is not, will never come into
existence " etc., have greater similarity with the proposition of
modern physics, than with the mere satkaryamda which deals
with causes and products, though they apparently look like
213 ' GlTA-RAHASYA or KARMA-YOGA
satkaryavada. The purport of the above quotation from the
Chandogyopanisad is also the same. In short, the doctrine of
of sattcaryavada is acceptable to the Vedanta philosophy.
Nevertheless, according to the Monistic (advaita) Vedanta
philosophy, this proposition does not apply to anything beyond
the qualified (saguya) universe, and how the qualified universe
appears to have come into exsistence out of the qualityless
[mrguTta) must be explained in some other way. This theory
of the Vedanta will be fully dealt with later on in the chapter
on Metaphysics (adhyatma). As in this place we have to
consider only how far the Sarhkhya philosophers have gone,
we will take for granted the doctrine of satlcanjavada and see
how the Sarhkhya philosophers have made use of it in dealing
with the question of the Mutable and the Immutable.
When once this satkdryaoada is taken as proved, then,
according to the Sarhkhya science, the theory that . the visible
universe came into existence out of sunya, there having been,
nothing whatsoever in existence before, naturally falls to the
ground. Because, sunya means non-existing, and that which
exists can never come into existence out of that which does j
not exist. Therefore, it becomes absolutely clear that the '
universe must have come into existence out of some substance
or other, and that all those constituents (gunas) which we now;-
see in the universe must have also been in this original
substance. Now, if you look at the universe, many objects
in it, such as trees, animals, men, stones, gold, silver, diamonds*
water, air etc., are perceptible to our organB, and their forms
and qualities are all different. The Sarhkhya doctrine is that
thiB diversity or difference is neither permanent, nor funda-
mental and that the fundamental substance in all things, or
Matter, is only one. Modern ohemists had analysed various
objects and had originally arrived at 62 fundamental elements.
But as the Western natural scientists have now proved that
these 62 elements are not eternal and that there must have
been some one fundamental substance from which the sun
the moon, the earth, the stars, and the rest of the universe' was
created, it is not neoessary to further labour this proposition.
This original or fundamental substance at the root of all the
things in the universe is known in Sarhkhya philosophy as-
SAMEHYA SYSTEM & ESARAKSARA-VlCARA 213
* PRAERTI '. Prakrti means 'fundamental' and all things
whioh subsequently arise out, of prakrti' are called ' vikrti ' or
the vikaras (transformations) of the fundamental substance.
But though there is only one fundamental substance in
all things, if this substance had also only one constituent
quality, then according to the salkuryamda, other qualities
could not have arisen out of this one quality ; whereas, looking
at the stones, earth, water, gold, and various other things in the
world, we find that they have numerous qualities. Therefore,
the Samkhya philosophers have first carefully considered the
■constituents of all the various things and divided these
■constituents into three classes, namely, the sattva, the rajas and
the lamas, (the placid, the active and the ignorant). Because,
whatever object may be taken, it naturally has two states,
namely, its pure, unadulterated, or perfect state and the
■opposite of it, its imperfect state ; and it is seen that its
tendency is to move from its imperfect state to its perfect
state. Out of these three states, the state of perfection
is called by the Samkhya philosophers the sattviki state, the
inperfect state is called the iamasi state, and the state of
progression is called the rajasi state; and according to them the
ihree qualities, sattva, rajas and tamas, are to be found from the
very beginning in Matter (prakrti), which is the fundamental
substance of all things. Nay, it may even be said, that
thesB three constituents together make up Matter. In as muoh
the strength of each of these qualities is the same jn the
beginning, Matter is originally equable. This equability exist-
ed in the beginning of the world and will come again when the
world comes to an end. In this equability, there is no
.activity and everything is at rest ; but, later on, when these three
constituents begin to vary in intensity, various things spring
out of Matter as a result of the progressive constituent, and
the creation begins. Here the question arises as to how the
difference arises in the intensity of the three constituents,
sattva, rajas and tamas, which were originally equal in
intensity. To this the reply of the Samkhya philosophers is,
that that is the inherent characteristic of Matter (SSm, E8,
61). Though Matter is gross, yet it carries out all this activity
■of its own accord. Out of theBe three constituents, knowledge
21* GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YoGA
or intelligence is the sign of the sattva, and the rajas constituent,
has an inspirational tendency, that is to say, it inspires a,
person to do some good or evil act. [These three constituents-
can never exist by themselves independently. In everything,
there is a mixture of all the three constituents ; and in as much
as the mutual ratio of the three constituents in this mixture
always varies, the fundamental Matter, though originally one,,
assumes the various forms of gold, earth, iron, water, sky, the
human body etc. as a result of this diversity in constituents.
As the intensity or proportion of the sattva constituent is
higher than that of the rajas and tamas constituents in the
object which we consider as sattvika, all that happens Sb that
these constituents being kept in abeyance are not noticed by
us. But strictly speaking, it must be understood that the
three constituents sattva, rajas and tamas are to be found even
in those objects which are sattvika by nature. There does not
exist a single object which is purely sattvika, or purely rajasa^
or purely tamasa, In each object, there is an internal warfare
going on between the three constituents, and we describe a.
particular object as sattvika, rajasa, or tamasa according to-
that one of these three constituents which becomes predominant.
(Sam. Ka. 13; Ma. Bha. Asva-Anugita-36 and San. 305).
For instance, when in one's own body the sattva consti-
tuent assumes preponderance over the rajas and tamas consti-
tuents, Knowledge comes into being in our body and we
begin to realise the truth about things and our mind
becomes peaceful. It is not that in this mental condi-
tion, the rajas and the tamas constituents cease to exist in the
body; but as they are repressed, they do not produce any effect.
(Gi. 14. 10). If instead of the sattva constituent, the rajas con-
stituent assumes preponderance, then avarice arises in the
human heart, and the man is filled with ambition and he is-
inspired to do various actions. In the same way, when the
tamas constituent assumes preponderance over both the sattva
and the rajas constituents, faults like sleep, idleness, confused
memory etc. arise in the body. In short, the diversity which
exists among the various objects in the world, such as gold,,
iron, mercury etc. is the result of the mutual warfare or
diversity in intensity of the three constituents, sattva, rajas
SAMKHYA SYSTEM & KSARAKSARA-VICARA 215
and Tamos. The consideration as to how this diversity arises
when there is only one fundamental Matter is known as
' rijnana '; and this includes all the natural sciences. Tor
example, chemistry, the science of electricity, physics etc. are
all diverse kinds of j nana, that is, they are vijuana.
This fundamental Matter, which is in an equable state, is
' AVYAKTA ', that is, not perceptible to the organs ; and all
the various objects which come into existence as a result of the
mutual internal warfare of its satt on, rajas and tainas consti-
tuents, and become perceptible to the organs, that is to say, all
which we see or hear or taste or smell, or touch, goes under the
name of ' vyakta ' according to the Samkhya philosophy.
' VYAKTA ' means all the objects which are definitely percept-
ible to the organs, whether they become perceptible on account
of their form, or colour, or smell, or any other quality.
Perceptible objects are numerous, and out of them, trees,
stones etc. are GROSS (sthvla); whereas others like the Mind,
Reason, Ether etc., though perceptible to the organs, ara
SUBTLE (suksma). The word suksma does not here have its-
ordinary meaning of ' small '; because, though ether is suksma,
it has enveloped the entire universe. Therefore, suksma is to
be taken to mean the opposite of ' sthula ', or even thinner than
air. The words 'gross' or 'subtle' give one an idea about
the conformation of the body of a particular thing ; and the
words 'vyakta' (perceptible) and 'avyakta '(imperceptible) show
whether or not a particular thing can be perceived by us in
reality. Therefore, although two different things may both be
subtle, yet one of them may be perceptible and the other
imperceptible. For instance, though the air is subtle, yet as
it is perceptible to the sense of touch, it is considered to be
wjakta ; and prakrti (Matter), the fundamental substance of all
things, being much more subtle than air itself, is not percept-
ible by any of the organs and is, therefore, amjakla. Here a
question arises, namely : if prakrti is not perceptible to any
organ, then, what evidence is there that it exists ? To this the
reply of the Samkhya philosophers is, that by considering the
various objects, it is proved by inference by the law of
' satkuryaoada' that the root of all of them, though not
actually perceptible to the organs, must nevertheless be in
216 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA ,;
existence in a subtle form (Sam. Ka. 8); and the. Vedalita
philosophers have accepted the same line of argument for
proving the existence of the Brahman. (See the Samkarabhasya
on Katha. 6. 12, 13). When you once in this way acknow-
ledge prakrti to ba extremely subtle and imperceptible,
the atomic theory of the Nyaya school naturally falls
to the ground. Because, even if atoms are considered
imperceptible and innumerable, yet, in as much as each
atom is, according to the Nyaya theory, an independent
entity or part, the question as to what matter any two
atoms are composed of still remains. Therefore, the doctrine
of the Saihkhya philosophy is, that in prakrti there are no
different parts in the shape of atoms, that it ig consistent
and homogeneous or unbroken in any part, and that it
perpetually pervades everything in a form which is avyakta
•{that is, not perceptible to the organs) and inorganic. In
^escribing the Parabrahman, Sri Samartha Ramadasa Svaml
says in the Dusabodlia (Da. 20. 2. 3.) :-
" In whichever direction you see, it is endless; there
" is no end or limit anywhere ; there is one independent
"homogeneous substance; there is nothing else".'
The same description applies to the prakrli of the Saihkhya
philosophy. Matter, made up of three constituents, is im-
perceptible, self-created, and homogeneous, and it eternally
saturates everything on all sides. The Ether, the air, and
other different things came into existence afterwards ; and
although they may be subtle, yet they are perceptible; and
'prakrti ' which is the fundament or origin of all these is
imperceptible, though it is homogeneous and all-pervading.
Nevertheless, there is a world of difference between the
Parabrahman of Vedanta philosophy and the prakrti of
Sarhkhya philosophy; because, whereas the Parabrahman is
Vitalising and unqualified, prakrti is inactive ( gross ) and
is qualified, since it possesses the sattva, rajas and tamos
qualities. But this subject-matter will be more fully con-
sidered later on. For the moment, we have only to consider
what the doctrines of the Sarhkhya philosophy are. ; When
the words auksma, Mala, wjalsia, and avyakta have been
defined as above, one comes to the inevitable conclusion
SAMKHYA SYSTEM & KSARAKSARA-VICARA 217
that in the beginning of the universe, every object is in the
form of subtle and imperceptible prakrti and that it after-
wards becomes vyaltta ( perceptible to the organs ), whether
it is subtle or gross; and that at the time of pralaya (total
destruction of the universe), when this its perceptibtle form is
destroyed, it again becomes merged into imperceptible Matter
and becomes imperceptible. And the same opinion has been
expressed in the Gita (Gi. 2. 28 and 8. 18). In the Sarhkhya
philosophy, this imperceptible Matter is also known as 'aksara
(Immutable) and all things which are formed out of it are
known as 'ksara' (Mutable). ' ksara' is not to be understood
as meaning something which is totally destroyed, but only
the destruction of the perceptible form is here meant, 'prakrti '
has also other names, such as, ' pradhdna ' (fundamental), ' guria-
icsobhini ' (stirrer up of the constituents), 'bahudhanalca ' (many-
seeded), and ' prasam-dharmini ' (generative). It is 'pradhana
(fundamental), because, it is the fundamental root of all objects
in the universe; it is 'gurtaksobhiifV (stirrer up of constituents),
because, it of its own accord breaks up the equable state of
its three constituents (gums); it is ' bahudhanaka ' (many-seeded),
because, it contains the germs of differentiation between
various objscta in the shape of the three constituents; and it is
' prasaoa-dluinnini" (ganjrative), because, all things are born
or come into existence out of it. That is why these different
names are given to Matter. This pralcrli is known in
Vedanta philosophy as 'Maya' (Illusion) or an illusory
.appearance.
"When all things in the world are classified under the two
•divisions of ' Perceptible ' and ' Imperceptible ' or ' Mutable ' and
'Immutable', the next question which arises is into what
categories the Atman, the Mind, Intelligence, Individuation,
and the organs, which have been mentioned in the last chapter
■on the ksetra-ksetrajna-mcara, are to be put according to
Sarhkhya philosophy. The ksetra and the organs being gross,
they will of course be included in the category of the Percepti-
ble. But how is one to dispose of the Mind, Individuation,
Intelligence, and especially of the Atman ? The modern
eminent European biologist Haeckel says in his books that
318 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
the Mind, Intelligence, Individuation and the Atman are all
faculties of the body. We see that when the brain in a.
man's head is deranged, he loses memory and even becomes-
mad, Similarly, even if any part of the brain is deadened
on account of a blow on the head, the mental faculty of that,
part is seen to come to an end. In short, mental faculties are
only faculties of gross Matter and they can never be separated
from gross Matter. Therefore, the mental faculties and the
Atman must be classified along with the brain in the category
of the Perceptible. When you have made this classification,,
the imperceptible and gross Matter is ultimately the only
thing which remains to be disposed of, because all perceptible-
objects have sprung out of this fundamental imperceptible-
There is no other creator or generator of the world except-
prakrti. When the Energy of the fundamental Matter ( prakrti )■
gradually increases, it acquires the form of caitanya (conscious-
ness) or of the Atman. This fundamental prakrti is governed by
fixed laws or rules like the satkaryavuda, and in accordance-
with those laws, the entire universe, as also man, is acting
like a prisoner. Not only is the Atman not something
different from Matter, but it is neither imperishable nor
independent ; then, where is the room for salvation ?. The
idea which a person has that he will do a particular thing-
according to his own will is a total illusion ; he must go where
prakrti (Matter or Nature) drags him. In short, as the late-
Mr. Shankar Moro Ranade has stated in the 'Dhrupad*
(stanza) at the commencement of the drama Kalahapuri--
" The world is a vast prison, all created beings are
" prisoners, the inherent qualities of Matter are
" shackles which nobody can break ".
Haeckel's opinion is that this is the way in which the
existence of the living and the non-living world goes on. Andi
because according to him the universe originates from a single,
gross, and imperceptible prakrti, he has named his doctrine
' advaita' (non-dualism)*. But in as much as- this advctita-
* Haeokel's original word is 'Monism', and ho has written an,
independent work on it.
SAMKHYA SYSTEM & KSARAKSARA-VICARA 219
doctrine is based on something which is gross, and as it
incorporates everything within gross Matter, I have named it
'jaMdvaita ' (Gross Non-dualism) or Non-dualism based on the
Natural sciences.
But the Sarhkhya philosophy does not accept this Gross
Non-dualism. They accept the position that the Mind, Reason
and Individuation are qualities of Gross Matter which consists
of the five primordial elements and consequently it is stated in
the Samkhya philosophy that Reason, Individuation, and other
qualities gradually spring out of the fundamental imperceptible
Matter. But according to the Saihkhyas, it is impossible that
consciousness (caitartya) should spring out of gross Matter; not
only that, but the words " I know a particular thing " cannot
come to be used unless the one who knows, understands, or sees
Matter, is different from Matter, in the same way as no one
can sit on his own shoulders; and looking at the affairs of the
world, it is the experience of every one that whatever he knows
or sees is different from himself. The Samkhya philosophers
have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the one who knows
(jnata) and that which is to he known (jneya), the one who
sees and that which is to be seen, or the one who sees prakrti
and Gross prakriti muet be two fundamentally different things
(Sam. Ka.17). The one which has been described in the last
chapter as the ksetrajna, or the Atman, is the one which sees,
knows or enjoys, and it is known in the Samkhya philosophy as
PTJRUSA (Spirit), or ' jfia ' (jnata). As this Knower is different
from Matter, it follows that the Knower is inherently quality-
less, that is, beyond the three constituents of prakrti, namely,
sattva, rajas and tamas; that the Knower does not go through
any change of form and does nothing else except seeing and
knowing, and that all the activity which is going on in
the world is only the aotivity of prakrti. In short, the
doctrine of the Sarhkhya philosophers is that if MATTER
f prakrti) is acetana (lifeless), SPIRIT (purum) is sacetana
(vitalised); if Matter is responsible for all activity, Spirit is
apathetic and non-active; if Matter has three constituents, Spirit
is iuneonstituted ; if Matter is blind, Spirit is seeing; and that
these two different elements in this world are eternal, inde-
pendent, and self-created. And it is with reference to this-
220 GITA-KAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
.doctrine that the Bhagavadgita first says : " prakrtim purusam
■caiva viddhy anadi ubhav api ", that is, " prakrti and purusa
are both without a beginning and are eternal " (Gi. 13. 19),
and then goes on to say : " karj/akara?fa kartrtve hetuh
prakrHr ucyate", i.e., the activities of the body and of
the organs are carried on by prakrti : and that, "purustA
sukhaduhkhanam bhoktrtve hetur ucyate", i. e., "the purusa is
responsible for our experience of pain aud happiness ". But
although the doctrine, that prakrti and purusa (Matter and
Spirit) are both eternal, is acceptable to the Gita, yet it must
be borne in mind that the Gita does not look upon these two
elements as independent and self-oreated, as is done by
Sarhkhya philosophers. Because, in the Gita itself the Blessed
Lord has referred to Matter as his Illusion (Gl. 7. 14; 14. 3);
and as regards the Spirit, he has said : " mamaivaviso jlvaloke "
<<Gi. 15. 7), i. e., " It is a part of me ". Therefore, the Gita has
gone further than the Sarhkhya philosophy. But we . will keep
aside this aspect for the time bsing, and consider further what
.pure Sarhkhya philosophy says.
According to Sarhkhya philosophy, all the objects in
■the world are divided into three classes :-the amjalda (the
fundamental Matter or nature), the vyakta (the forms taken
by it), and the purusa (j'Jia), the Spirit or the Knower. But
in as much as the form of perceptible objects out of these
is destroyed at the time of pralaya ( total destruction ),
imperceptible Matter (prakrti) and Spirit (purusa) are
the only two elements which remain in the end ; and in as
much as it is a proposition of the Sarhkhya philosophers, that
these two fundamental principles are eternal and self-created,
,they are called ' dvaiti ' (those who accept TWO principles).
They do not accept any other fundamental principle
besides Matter and Spirit, such as Isvara, Time, inherent
Nature or anything else. * Because, in as much as
* Isvarkrsoa w»a a total atheist (niiiharavadi). tlu has stated
in the last three summarising arya couplets of his Samkhya-KariB,
■that tlere were 70 aryas (conpkts) in the Samkhya-Brika on the
principal Bubject-matter. Bat in the hdition which has beeu printed
in Bombay by Tukaram Tatya, which contains the translations of
Colebrooke and Wilson, there are only 69arySsoa the principal
SAMKHYA SYSTEM & KSARAKSARA-VIOARA 321
according to that philosophy the qualified Isvara, Time, or
inherent Nature are all perceptible, they are included in the
perceptible objects which arise out of imperceptible Matter;
and if you look upon the Isvara as qualitylass, then having,
legard to the law of satktiri/ai'arlri, Matter with its three consti-
tuents cannot spring out of a qualitylass fundamental element.
Therefore, they have definitely laid down that there is no third
fundamental element in addition to prakrti and ■purmxt as a
cause of the universe; and having in this way defined only two
fundamental elements, they have according to their own
opinion worked out how the entire universe was created out
subject. Therefore, Mr. Wilson was necessarily faced with the
question which this ' <Kh unuplet was; but that couplet not having
been available to him, bis difficulty has remained unsolved. In my
opiniou, tilid couplet must bii after the present 6[st couplet. Because,.
the commentary uf Gaudapada on the 61st couplet is not on one
couplet, but on two couplets. And if the symbolical phrasts ill
this commentary are taken and a verse is written, it will run as-
follows :
karanam ismram eke Iruvate kalam pure swibhamia va i
pryal} kathatii niryunato vyakt<ih Lal,h svabhtivub ca ||
And this verse fits in with the anterior and posterior context. I
thisk that some one ba9 subsequently omitted fcr.is arya t as it
supports atueisn. But as this ultra-critical man who has
omitted the original couplet, forgot to delote tbe commentary
on the verse which was omitted, we can now reconstruct that verse.
For this, we must be grateful to this officious man. It would
appear from the first hymn of tho sixth chapter of the
Svetasvataropanisad, that in ancient times, people used to look
upon Inherent Nature and Time as the fundamental causes of the
world and the Vedantists used to go further and to look upon the
'Isvara' as such cause. That hymn is as follows : —
svabliatam eh kavnyo vadanti kalam tnthanye parimuhyamanah [
devasyai^a mahimti tut hke yenedalii bhramyate brahmacakram ||
And in order to Bhow that not even one of these three were
accepted by the Samkhya philosophers as a fundamental Oause,-
IsvarakrsBa put tbe couplet mentioned above after the 61st.
couplet.
n% GITA-RAHAfcrA OB KARMA-YOGA
of these two fundamental elements. Th°y sny that though the
<nialityless paruta (Spirit) is unable to do anything itself,
yet,, in the same way as the cow gives milk for its calf, or iron
acquires the quality of attraction by the prnximiiy of a magnet,
so also immediately on the pur/iyi coming into union with
prakrli, pralrti which was originally imperceptible "begins
to place bef ore the punt -c the subtle, and the gross perceptible
diffusion of ita own constituents ( Sam. Ea. 57 V .Although the
purusu may be srirftn'm- (v~i<ilised) and. :ijfi<' !f <J, (fcnower), yet, in
as much as it is h'nrla (isolated), that is, (ynalityless, it has
not got the necessary perquisites for pcforming actions itself';
and although pmkrti can perform actions, yet, in as much as
it is gross and acetan" (lifeless), it cannot understand what to do
and what not to do. Therefor?, just as when there is a
partnership between a blind man and ft lame man, the
lame man sits on the siirmlders of the blind man, and both of
them begin to loiiow tits road, so also when lifeless Matter
becomes united with the vitalised Spirit, all the activities
in the world come in m existence (Sam. Ka. ,"31 ): and just as
in a drama an actress ones takes one part and' after some time
again another part and performs her dance for the entertain-
ment of the audience, so also prnkrli for the benefit of the
puram ( for 'purusarlha' ), and though the piinisa gives nothing
in return, takes up numerous parts in the drama by changing
the mutual ratio ol the ■jaltiii, rajas, and lamn.s constituents,
and continually performs its dance before the puruxi (Sam.
Ka. 59). But so long as the Spirit, being entranced by this
dance of Matter or Ky false pride (Gl. 3. 37) unjustifiably
arrogates to itself this activity of Matter, and enmeshes itself
in the strands of pain and happiness, it will never attain
salvation. But on that day, when the Spirit realises that Matter
with its three constituents is different and that it, the Spirit, is
something different, the Spirit may well be said to be released,
(Gl. 1.3. 29, 30 ; 14. 20). Because, strictly speaking, the Spirit is
fundamentally neither a doer nor is it bound. It is independent
and by its very nature isolated, that is,- it is non-active.
Whatever happens is being done hy Matter. . Nay, in as much
as the Mind and even Reason aTe manifestations of Matter,
■whatever knowledge is acquired by ReaBon is the result of the
riAMKllYA HYSTEM & KSAKSESARA-VICABA ?S3
activity ;ol; l! {,itvtwh;v This itno^edgb'-ioMlwefcMd.Vn.iinely,
IgtU'lhll, riljiiiiiiaud tMnniia (kti. ia.':;0-:J'21 i Out of tiiase.'iwluBi
Eeaftot »cipiiwfc-vtlm ; sSHti-lsa Hud' t~i~ knciuslrtlySi;-' thsn$$ifii
reiiUsBSjtliati itdsditfe^r.1, fi-om TVf&tttr. 'Che snlltH,. >ajf<$'^Tul
iam'Jt :PirnBtitiien't3 - .',r& tke r, inKfihmffi.! of A-I ; • tr>.- r tmf'rtf^tfUS
Spirit. ThebptticfeesiUiMes^O-jifi t»v/,-W/. wKh ifr i.hifia winstil
Maatfl. isite mim* (-itfu. tfli» Win. , 0) ">!') 'vVhp;. Hii,* miri'M 1
liwooi'-s clear, thai ie t.'>"<;a'h -wlifin v,h« fiteui i . u nicliies;
maiitiusta.tifaiixff Miifc.r, hklBIW xoil"nl > Ihfj tha'-'iipii-it'aaes-
teiithih eleat ■miccoi- ite awlitU'.flv idurrtity; linniiily, that it' ia
different -from. 1 "Matter, JMWl'TjTLme' M?-ttor, bewnrhig sfianie*
fasted, isti>ps' iier.'il.inc L e i "li6fiurn^ tho 1 - Hpirit,.- 'When 'ttaJ ! Statb. - «
daquirbd,.iho-itipirit. it .released f row ali' bonds a»d ettainsritB;
taHereai :■ isolation. '. -Isolation- fktaix/Jx/tif iwrnis ifehfeiisfcater.iffll
Igittg 'rixtriUc'- (isolatsd),.lljat: is, lteirig , VRfA$h> laud nafcjbethgr
iSpithrwiifc 'Matter ; -and: it, isLt'his'rMiiralr "Kfcaliaiiof.itli'e "fcijiirite,
iMktett i»_.«eilsd jno/.'si. (Belaafehoi^aalviiUoii-iby^heifcatJEhjnfci
pbitetiutHwiiiSi ^.:"Bwt sbuia iMmkh.th, .philosophers r baVb -Jiisaiktfjm.
deJMtrto.(ju9stioB.klietLhsr ia ttus'.Rtstlv-ffc . ; s"tbx j Spirit wibjshs
ai»ad«nsi-Matitor-.oi Matter' which abuistonirtise "Burnt,. iTttffll
quusMoa-is 1 - 1 lis surao type \bs fcite ."question, wirotiies:- Foe ^rifes
is,_too tallfcr the "husLaud-or -the .husband ' too alinri i or jibes
■iV^e.ja-tifl; sfjjno fnay uhiidc'ii lis equaliy-viieicE, > rteeriuaa whimi,
two.JiiiqgSi-are fliTOTcod iKi!fle:icb -othan- toeiM' id no rpoiutilly
oojwitietjiig.iwlio.lian iH^KWlunn, a-; \ .tseeibabUiitY'ltsfiTO'eaclia
oHmt;,:'Butl"if one- givtB tMis- aiiw'tian of tun h-amfcltvivpliilot*?
gophers d*pi(junSMers,(i'Hvit will Ire aeen nasi' to to irapcopferit
from -their? fp.ointisirf' (view, in- as jau'oh-as according tpr?4h*e
tiaimkhy&iv pliilxiBOTjliy, the- Spirit being-; withcrivii'flhaiitiedy;
non-active,hia:ndimptltheiic/'tli6 performance oftlwifaetiisnsiofof
'giving up''; or: "iftickiog to' oanhot tecUcJ tally ~-t!ptm.yi»&;;
be ascribad to the; 'Spirit (Gli / 13. > -31, -'&!).* < Therefore, jtfeif
.Samkhyas 'hatfefconie to tlier,i)tn:kision tlmt it- is. Matter, (vhiclre,
has got- feharquiality of activity), wliicit'maat be' said to, isavitx
the Spirit, that \is-ita Bay, it in .'' pmkrti "* wbiohiottaiaflditaot,
•own Release fromhthe ,SpirW {Sfev ■K.g.bioaad affityKAMftof
In short, BiJlease iiTnot a«iindepeitdent->stai)2' inirkh rasultoitoA'-
th* Spirit f rom-aomei outsidft.aKeE6y,.'UUs ttsukite atet u wtjjioh dies
different from its fundamental and inherent state ; just as ths
326 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
not escape the cycle of birth and death; then he may take birth
in the sphere of gods, as a result of the preponderance of the
sattva constituent or in the sphere of humans, as a result of
the preponderance of the rajas constituent, or in the sphere of
animals, as a result of the preponderance of the tamos consti-
tuent (Sarh. Ka. 44, 54). These results, in the shape of the
cycle of birth and death, befall a man as a result of the
preponderance or minimisation of the sattva, rajas and tamas
constituents in the Matter which envelopes him, that is, in
his Reason. It is stated even in the Glta (Gi. 14. 18), that :-
"iirdhvam gacclumti sattvasthah", that is, " persons in whom the
sattvika constituent predominates go to heaven", and tamasa
parsons go to perdition. But these resulting states in the
shape of heaven etc., are non-permanent. For that Spirit
which wishes to become released from the cycle of birth and
death, or according to the terminology of the Sarhkhya
philosophy, which has to maintain its difference or isolation
from Matter, there is no other way except transcending the
"three constituents and becoming viralda ( desireless ). Kapila-
carya had acquired this asceticism and Knowledge from his
very birth. But it is not possible that every man can be in
this state from the moment of his birth. Therefore, everyone
must by means of the discrimination of fundamental prin-
ciples realise the difference between Matter and Spirit and
try to purify his Reason. When by such efforts, the Reason
becomes sattvika, there arise in that Reason itself the qualities
of Realisation ( jnana ), Asceticism (vairagya), and Power
(aisvarya), and the man ultimately reaches isolation. The
word 'aisvarya' (power) is used here in the sense of the
Yogic power of acquiring whatever may be desired. According
to the Saihkhya philosophy, Righteousness (dharma) is included
■in the sattvika constituent ; but Kapilacarya has ultimately
made the distinction, that by mere dharma one acquires only
'heaven, whereas Knowledge and Asceticism give Release or
Isolation, and effect a total annihilation of the unhappiness of
a man. That man who, as a result of the preponderance of
the sattvika constituent in his bodily organs and in his Reason,
has realised that he is distinct from Matter with its three con-
stituents, is called triguyatita (one who has transcended the sattva
SJLMKHYA SYSTEM & KSARAKSAEA-VICAEA 327
rajas and tamas constituents) by the Samkhyas. In this state
of a friguifltita, neither the saitva, nor the rajas, nor the tamas
constituent continues to exist ; therefore, considering the matter
minutely, one has to admit that this state is different from
either the saitvikl, or rajasi, or tarmsl states of mind; and
following this line of argument the Bhagavata religion, after
■dividing Devotion (bliakti) into ignorant, progressive, or placid,
has described the disinterested and non-differentiating de-
votion of the man who has transcended the three constituents
as mrgu-na, that is, unaffected-by-quality (Bhag. 3. 29. 7-14).
But it is not proper to extend the principle of division
beyond the three divisions of placid, progressive, and ignorant.
Therefore, the Sarhkhya philosophers include the trigunatita
•state of transcending the three constituents in the placid
{sattvika) state on the basis that it results from the highest
•expansion of the placid constituent ; and the same position has
also been accepted in the Glta. For instance, the non-differen-
tiating knowledge that every thing is one and the same is,
according to the Glta, placid knowledge (Gl. 18. 20); and where
the description of the sattvikl state of mind is given in the
fourteenth chapter of the Glta, the description of the state of
transcending the three constituents is given later on at the end
of the same chapter. But it must he borne in mind that in
as much as the Gita does not accept the duality of Matter
and Spirit, the words 'prakrti ', 'purusa ', ' trigwnxiUta ', which are
technical terms of Sarhkhya philosophy are always used in a
■slightly different meaning in the Gita; or in short, the Glta
permanently keeps the rider of the monistic (adoaita) Para-
•brahman on the Dualism (dvaita) of the Sarhkhya philosophy.
For instance, the difference between Matter and Spirit
according to the Sarhkhya philosophy has been described in
-the 13th chapter of the Gita (Gi. 13. 19-34). But there th e
words 'prakrti' and 'purusa' are synonymous with the words
* hsetra ' and ' ksetrajna '. Similarly, the description in the
14th chapter of the state of transcending the three constituents
(Gi. 14. 22-27) is of the siddha or released man who, having
escaped the meshes of Maya (Illusion) with its three consti-
tuents, has realised the Paramatman (Supreme Spirit) which
228 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
is beyond both Matter and Spirit, and not of a Samkhya
philosopher, who looks upon Matter and Spirit as two distinct
principles and who looks upon the isolation of the Spirit as
the state of transcending the three constituents of Matter.
This difference has been made perfectly clear by me in the
subsequent chapter on adhyatma (philosophy of the Highest Salf).
<But as the Blessed Lord has, while supporting the adh/atma
or Vedanta philosophy in the Gita, in many places made
use of the Samkhya terminology and arguments, one is
likely to get the wrong idea, while raiding the Gita, that it
accepts as correct the pure Samkhya philosophy. Therefore,
I have repeated here this difference between the Samkhya
philosophy and the propositions similar to it in the Gita.
Sarhkaracarya has stated in the Vfdanta Sutra-bhaiya, that
he is prepared to accept all the propositions of the Samkhya
philosophy but not to give up the aduaita theory of the
Upanisads that there is only one fundam3ntal principle in the
world, namely, the Parabrahman (Supreme Spirit), which is
beyond both Matter and Spirit and from wnich the entire
creation, including Matter and Spirit, has sprang (Ve. Si.
Sarh. Bha. %. 1. 3); and the same line of argument applies to
the arguments in the Gita.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE DESTRUCTION'
OF THE COSMOS.
gui;a gunesu, jayante tatraiva nivisanti ca I *
Mahabharata, Santi. 305. 23.
I have so far dealt with the nature of the two independent
■fundamental principles of the world according to the Kapila
Sarhkhya philosophy, namely. Matter and Spirit, and have
described how one has to release one's Self from the network of
the constituent qualities of Matter which it places before one's
eyes, as a result of its union with Spirit. But the explana-
tion of how this 'Sarhsara' (worldly illusion) is placed by
Matter before the Spirit— this its diffusion, or its drama which
Marathi poets have given the vivid name of ' samsrtica pirhga '
(the fantastic dance of worldly life), and which is called
"the Mint of Matter" by Jfianesvara Maharaja— and in what
way the same is destroyed, has still to be given ; and I shall
deal with that subject in this chapter. This activity of Matter
is known as "the Construction and Destruction of the Cosmos" ,
because, according to the Sarhkhya philosophy, prakrti (Matter)
has created this world or creation for the benefit of in-
numerable Spirits. Sri Saraartha RamadSsa has in two or
three places in the Dasabodha given a beautiful description
* "Constituents ( gunas) are born ont of constituents, and are
merged in them".
230 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KAKMA-YOGA
of how the entire Cosmos is created from Matter, and I have
taken the phrase "Construction and Destruction of the
Cosmos " from that description. Similarly, this subject-matter
has been dealt with principally in the seventh and eighth
chapters of the Bhagavadgita, and from the following prayer
of Arjuna to Sri Krsna in the beginning of the eleventh chapter,
namely: bhavapymjau. hi bhulamm srutau vistaraso maya"
(Gi. 11. 2), i. e., " I have heard (what You have said ) in detail
about the creation and the destruction of created beings ; now
show me actually Your Cosmic Form, and fulfill my ambition",
it is clearly seen that the construction and the destruction of
the Cosmos is an important part of the subject-matter of the
Mutable and the Immutable. The Knowledge by which one
realises that all the perceptible objects in the world, which
are more than one (are numerous), contain only one
fundamental imperceptible substance, is called 'jflana*
(Gi. 18. 20); and the Knowledge by which one understands
how the various innumerable perceptible things severally
camo into existence out of one fundamental imperceptible
substance is called ' vijnana '; and not only does this subject-
matter include the consideration of the Mutable and the
Immutable, but it also includes the knowledge of the Body
and the Atman and the knowledge of the Absolute Self.
Acoording to the Bhagavadgita, Matter does not carry on
its activities independently, but has to do so according to the
will of the Paramesvara (Gi. 9. 10). But, as has been stated be-
fore, Kapila Rsi considered Matter as independent. According
to the Sarhkhya philosophy, its union with Spirit is a sufficient
proximate cause for its diffusion to commence. Matter needs
nothing else for this purpose. The Samkhyas say that as soon
as Matter is united with Spirit, its minting starts ; and just as-
in spring, trees get foliage and after that, leaves, flowers, and
fruits follow one after the other (Ma. Bha. San. 231. 73; and
Manu, 1. 30), so also is the fundamental equable state of
Matter disrupted, and its constituents begin to spread out.
On the other hand, in the Veda-Saihhitas, the Upanisads,
and the Smrti texts, the Parabrahman is looked upon as
fundamental instead of Matter, and different descriptions are
found in those books about the creation of the Cosmos from
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 231
that Parabrahman (Highest Brahman), namely that : "luranya--
garbhah samavartatagre bhutasya jatah patir eka asit", i. e.,
"the Golden Egg first came into existence" (Rg. 10. 121. 1).
and from this Golden Egg, or from Truth, the whole
world was created (Rg. 10. 72; 10. 190); or first, water was
created (Rg. 10. 83. 6; Tai. Bra. 1. 1. 3. 7; Ai. U. 1. 1. 2), and
from that water, the Cosmos; or that when in this water an
egg had come into existence, the Brahmadeva was born out
of it, and either from this Brahmadeva, or from the original
Egg, the entire world was later on created (Manu. 1. 8-13 j
Chan. 3. 19); or that the same Brahmadeva (male) was turned,
as to half of him, into a female (Br. 1. 4. 3 ; Manu. 1. 32); or
that Brahmadeva was a male before water came into existence
(Katha. 4. 6); or that from the Parabrahman only three elements,
were created, namely, brilliance, water and the earth (food), and
that later on, all things were created as a result of the inter-
mixture of the three (Chan. 6. 2-6). Nevertheless, there is a,
clear conclusion in the Vedanta-Sutras ( Ve. 85. 2. 3. 1-15 ), that
the five primordial elements, namely. Ether (akasa) etc., came
into existence in their respective order from the fundamental
Brahman in the shape of the Atman (Tai. U. 2. 1); and there
are clear references in the Upanisads to pmkrti, mahat, and
Other elements, e. g., see Katha (3. 11), Maitrayani (6. 10),
Svetasvatara (4. 10; 6. 16) etc. From this it can be seen that
though according to Vedanta philosophy, Matter is not
independent, yet after the stage when a transformation makes
itB appearance in the Pure Brahman in the shape of an
illusory Prakrti, there is an agreement between that philosophy
and the Sarhkhya philosophy about the subsequent creation
of the Cosmos; and it is, therefore, stated in the Mahabharata
that: "all knowledge which there is in history or in the
Puranas, or in economics has all been derived from Sarhkhya.
philosophy" (San. 301. 108, 109). This does not mean that
the Vedantists or the writers of the Puranas have copied
this knowledge from the Kapila Sarhkhya philosophy; but
only that everywhere the conception of the order in which
the Cosmos was created is the same. Nay, it may even be
said that the word 'Sarhkhya' has been used here in the
comprehensive meaning of ' Knowledge '. Nevertheless,
332 . GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
KapilScarya has explained the order of the cieation of the
Cosmos in a particularly systematic manner from the point
of view of a science, and as the Samkhya theory has been
principally accepted in the Bhagavadgita, I have dealt with
it at length in this chapter.
Not only have modern "Western materialistic philosophers
accepted the Samkhya doctrine that the entire perceptible
Cosmos has come out of one avyakta (imperceptible to the
oigans), subtle, homogeneous, unorganised, fundamental
substance, which completely pervades everything on all sides,
but they have come to the further conclusions that the energy
in this fundamental substance has grown only gradually,
and that nothing has come into existence suddenly and like
a spout, giving the go-bye to the previous and continuous order
of creation of the universe. This theory is called the Theory
of Evolution. When this theory was first enunciated in the
Western countries in the last century, it caused there a great
commotion. In the Christian Scriptures, it is stated that
the Creator of the world created the five primordial elements
and every living being which fell into the category of
moveables one by one at different times, and this genesis was
believed in by all Christians before the advent of the Evolution
Theory. Therefore, when this doctrine ran the risk of being
refuted by the Theory of Evolution, that theory was attacked
on all sides, and that opposition is still more or less going on
in those countries. Nevertheless, in as much as the strength
of a scientific truth must always prevail, the Evolution Theory
of the creation of the Cosmos is now becoming more and more
acceptable to all learned scholars. According to this theory,
there was originally one subtle, homogeneous substance in thB
Solar system, and as the original motion or heat of that
substance gradually became less and less, it got more and more
condensed, and the Earth and, the other planets gradually came
into existence, and the Sun is the final portion of it which has
now remained. The Earth was originally a very hot ball,
same as the Sun, but as it gradually lost its heat, some portion
of ithe original substance remained in the liquid from, while
other portions became solidified, and the air and water which
surround the earth and the gross, material earth under themi
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 333
'Came gradually into existence; and later on, all the living
and non-living creation came into existence as the result of
the union, of these three. On the line of this argument,
Darwin and other philosophers have maintained that even
.man has in this way gradually come into existence by
evolution from micro-organisms. Yet, there is still a great
deal of difference of opinion between Materialists and Meta-
physicians as to whether or not the Soul (Atman) should be
considered as an independent fundamental principle. Haeckel
-and some others like him maintain that the Soul and Vitality
have gradually come into existence out of Gross Matter, and
support the jadadvaita (Gross Monistic) doctrine; on the other
hand, Metaphysicians like Kant say that in as much as all
■the knowledge we get of the Cosmos is the result of the synthe-
tic activity of the Sou!, the Soul must be looked upon as an
independent entity. Because, saying that the Soul which
perceives the external world is a part of the world which is
perceived by it, or that it has come into existence out of the
world, is logically as meaningless as saying that one can sit
■on one's own shoulders. For the same reason, Matter and
Spirit are looked upon as two independent principles in the
Sarhkhya philosophy. In short, it is even now being main-
tained by many learned scholars in the Western countries
that however much the Materialistic knowledge of the universe
may grow, the consideration of the form of the Root Principle
of the Cosmos must always be made from a different point of
view. But my readers will see that as regards the question
■of the order in which all perceptible things came to be created
from one Gross Matter, there is not much difference of opinion
between the Western Theory of Evolution, and the Diffusion-
out of Matter described in the Sarhkhya philosophy; because,
the principal proposition that the heterogeneous perceptible
Cosmos (both subtle and gross) came to be gradually created
from one imperceptible, subtle, and homogeneous fundamental
Matter, is accepted by both. But, as the knowledge of the
Material sciences has now considerably increased, modern
natural scientists have considered as prominent the three
•qualities of motion, heat and attraction, instead of the three
■qualities of sattua, rp.jas, and tamas of the Sarhkhya philosophy.
234 GTTl-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
It is true that from the point of view of the natural sciences,
it is easier to realise the diversity in the mutual strength of
heat or attraction than the diversity in the mutual intensity
of the three qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamos. Nevertheless,,
the principle: " guya guvesu, vartante" (Gl. 3. 28), i.e., "con-
stituents come out of constituents", which is the principle
of the diffusion or expansion of constituent qualities, is.
common to both. Samkhya philosophers say that in the
same way as a folding-fan is gradually opened out, so also
when the folds of Matter in its equable state (in which its
sattva, rajas, and tamas constituent qualities are equal) are
opened out, the whole perceptible universe begins to come into-
existence; and there is no real difference between this con-
ception and the Theory of Evolution. Nevertheless, the fact that.
the Gita, and partly also the Upanisads and other Vedic texts
have without demur accepted the theory of the growth of the
gunas (constituents) side by side with the Monistic Vedanta
doctrines, instead of rejecting it as is done by the Christian
religion, is a difference which ought to be kept in mind from
the point of view of the Philosophy of Raligion.
Let us now consider what the theory of the Samkhya phi-
losophers is about the order in which the folds of Matter are un-
folded. This order of unf oldment is known as ' gunotkarsa-vada '
(the theory of the unfolding of constituent qualities ), or ' guna-
pmrjama-vada ' ( the theory of the development of qualities ).
It need not be said that every man comes to a decision
according to his own intelligence to perform an act or that he
must first get the inspiration to do an act, before he commences
to do the act. Nay, there are statements even in the
Upanisads, that the universe came to be created after the One
fundamental Paramatman was inspired with the desire to
multiply, e. g., " balm syam prajayeya " ( Chan. 6. 2. 3 ; Tai.
Z. 6 ). On the same line of argument, imperceptible Matter
first comes to a decision to break up its own equable state and
to create the perceptible universe. Deoision means 'vyavasaya',
and coming to a decision is a Bign of Reason. Therefore, the
Samkhya philosophers have come to the conclusion that the
first quality which comes into existence in Matter is Pure
(deciding) Reason ( vyavasayatmika buddhi j. In short, in the
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OP THE COSMOS 235
same way as a man has first to be inspired with the desire of
doing some particular act, so also is it necessary that Matter-
should first be inspired with the desire of becoming diffuse.
But because man is vitalised, that is to say, because in him
there has taken place a union between the Reason of Matter
and the vitalised Spirit ( Atman ), he understands this deciding
Reason which inspires him ; and as Matter itself is non-vital
or Gross, it does not understand its owd Reason. This is the
great difference between the two, and this difference is the
result of the Consciousness which Matter has acquired as a
result of its union with the Spirit. It is not the quality of
Gross Matter. When one bears in mind that even modern
Materialistic natural scientists have now begun to admit that
unless one credits Matter with some Energy which, though non-
self-intelligible ( asvayamvedya J, is yet of the same nature as
human intelligence, one cannot reasonably explain the mutual
attraction or repulsion seen in the material world in the shape
of gravitation, or magnetic attraction or repulsion, or other
chemical actions, * one need not be surprised about the-
proposition of the Sarhkhya philosophy that Reason is the first
quality which is acquired by Matter. You may, if you like,
give this quality which first arises in Matter the name
of Reason which is non-vitalised or non-self-perceptible
* ''Without the assumption of an atomic soul, the commonest
and the moat general phenomena of Chemistry are inexplicable.
Pleasure and pain, desire and aversion, attraction and repulsion,
must be common to al] atoms of an aggregate ; for the movements
of atoms which must take place in the formation and dissolution of
a chemical compound can be explained only by attributing to them
Sensation and Will" — Haeckel in the Peng'sisofthe Plaslidule cited in
Martineau's Types of Ethical Theory, Vol. II, p. 399, 3rd Ed. Haeckel
himself explains this statement as follows : " I explicitly Btated-
that I conceived the elementary psychic qualities of sensation and
mil which may be attributed to atoms to be unconscious— just as-
unconscious as the elementary memory which I, in common witb the
distinguished psychologist Ewald Hering, consider to be a common
function of all organised matter, or more correctly the living.
substances "—The Riddle of the Universe, Ohap. IX p. 63 ( E. P. A.
Cheap. Ed. ).
236;.; GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
{ asvaydnwedya ). , But it is clear that the desire which a man
gets and the desire which inspires Mattter belong originally to
one and. the same class; and, therefore, both are defined in the
gam© way in both the places. This Reason has also such other
names as ' makat ', ' jilana ', ' mati ', ' asuri ', ' prajnu ' ' kkyati '
etc. Oat of these, the name ' mahat ' ( first person singular
masculine, mahan, i. e., ' big ' ) must have been given because
Matter now begins to be enlarged, or on account of the
importance of this quality. In as much as this quality of
' mahan ' or Reason is the result of the admixture of the three
constituent qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas, this quality of
Matter can later on take diverse formB, though apparently it is
singular. Because, though the sattva, rajas and tamas con-
stituents are apparently only three in number, yet, in as much
as the mutual ratio of theEe three can be infinitely different
in each mixture, the varieties of Reason which result from the
infinitely different ratios of each constituent in each mixture
can also be infinite. This Reason, which arises from imper-
ceptible Matter, is also subtle like Matter. But although
Reason is subtle like Matter, in the sense in which the words
'perceptible', 'imperceptible', 'gross', and 'subtle' have been
explained in the last chapter, yet it is not imperceptible like
Matter, and one can acquire Knowledge of it. Therefore, this
Reason falls into the category of things which are ' vyakta '
( i. e., perceptible to human beings ) ; and not only Reason,
but all other subsequent evolutes (vikara) of Matter are also
looked upon as perceptible in the Sarhkhya philosophy. There
is no imperceptible principle other than fundamental Matter.
Although perceptible Discerning Reason thus enters imper-
ceptible Matter, it (Matter) still remains homogeneous. This
homogeneity being broken up and heterogeneity being acquired
is known as ' Individuation ' (prthaktva) as in the case of
mercury falling on the ground and being broken up into small
globules. Unless this individuality or heterogeneity comes
into existence, after Reason has come into existence, it is
impossible that numerous different objects should be formed
out of one singular Matter. This individuality which
subsequently arrives as a result of Reason is known as
'Individuation' ( ahamkara), because, individuality is first
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 337
expressed by the words ' I — you ', and saying ' I — you ' means
' akamkara ', that is, saying 'aham' 'aham' ( T T ). This quality
of Individuation which enters Matter may, if you like, be
called a non-self-perceptible ( asvayamvedya ) Individuation,
But the Individuation in man, and the Individuation by reason
of which trees, stones, water, or other fundamental atoms
spring out of homogeneous Matter are of the same kind; and
the only difference is that as the stone is not self-conscious, it
has not got the knowledge of ' aham ' ( 'I' ), and as it haB'not
got a mouth, £t cannot by self -consciousness say ' I am
different from you '. Otherwise, the elementary principle of
remaining separate individually from others, that is, of con-
sciousness or of Individuation is the same everywhere. This
Individuation has also the other names of 'taijasa'/abhimSna',
'bhutadi, and 'dhatu'. As Individuation is a sub-division of
Reason it cannot come into existence, unless Reason has in the
first instance come into existence. Samkhya philosophers havs,
therefore, laid down that Individuation is the second quality,
that is, the quality whioh comes into existenoe after Reason. It
need not be said that there aTe infinite varieties of Individuation
as in the case of Reason, as a result of the differences of the
sattva, rajas and tamas constituents. The subsequent qualities are
in the same way also of three infinite varieties. Nay, every-
thing which existB in the perceptible world falls in the same
way into infinite categories of suttvika, rajasa and tamasa ; and
consistently with this proposition, the Gita has mentioned the
three categories of qualities and the three categories of
Devotion ( Gi. Chap. 14 & Chap. 17 ), ' •
When Matter, which originally is in an equable state,
acquires the perceptible faculties of Discerning Reason and
Individuation, homogeneity is destroyed and it begins to be
transformed into numerous objects. Yet, it does not lose its
Bubtle nature, and we may say that the subtle Atoms of the
Nyaya school now begin to come into existence. Because, before
Individuation came into existence, Matter was unbroken and
unorganised. Reason and Individuation by themselves are,
strictly speaking, only faculties. But, on that account the above
proposition is not to be understood as meaning that they exist
independently of the substance of Matter. What is meant is t
238 GfTi-BABASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
iksti w's&ii these f sralfes enis» fie faafamenial, haraBgeBeang,
and naorgaaisee Master, iliSJt Mafoser Itetf a>Mpixas libe fonn
of psrossptlblg, tetsnogsawtts, aod dgaaisai snSsianee. Wlieh
fiHBj&aiaeiitsl Msfocr 'n&s thus aci^iteBd the fa®mitj of IsesosBiBg
traasfcjin&d iofo vari&os digests "by Maans of IndiTidnaiioB, its
further &vfcl«pir<eni falls irAo two categories. Ona of tiiessis
the creation consisting of life itavfeg organs, sac a as trees,
man etc., and its other is of the world consisting of
nuMganfe'i} things. In this place the word "organs* is to Ik
understood as mssaiiEg only " toe faculties of the organs of
■organis&d beings '. Because, the .gross body of organised
beings is included in the gross, that is, unorganised world, and
their 5lman falls into the different category of ' Spirit '.
Therefore, in dealing -with the organised world, Samkhya.
philosophy leaves oat of consideration the Body and the
Atinan, and considers only the organs. In as much as there
can be no third substance in the world besides organic and
inorganic substances, it goes without saying that Individuation
■cannot give rise to more than two categories. As organic
faculty is more powerful than inorganic substance, the organic
world is called suttwka, that is, something which comes into
existence as a result of the preponderance of the aittm
constituent ; and the inorganic world is called tamoso, that is
something which comes into existence as a result of the
preponderance of the tamos constituent. In short, when the
•faculty of Individuation begins to create diverse objects, there
is sometimes a preponderance of the sattuka constituent,
leading to the creation of the five organs of Perception, the five
organs of Action, and the Mind, making in all the eleven
fundamental organs of the organic world ; and at other times,
there is a preponderance of the tarnas constituent, whereby the
five fundamental Fine Elements (tanmalra) of the inorganic
world come into existence. But in as much as Matter still
continues to remain in a Bubtle form, these sixteen elements,
which are a result of Individuation, are still subtle elements*
* If I were to convey this import in the English language, I
would say :-
The Primeval matter ( Pralriti ) was at first liomogineotis. It
retdvni (Budihi) to unfold itself, and by the principle of differentiation
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 239
The Pine Elements (tanmatras) of sound, touch, colour,
taste and smell— that is to say, the extremely subtle
fundamental forms of each of these properties which do not
mix with each other— are the fundamental elements of the
inorganic creation, and the remaining eleven organs, including
the Mind, are the seeds of the organic creation. The explana-
tion given in the Samkhya philosophy as to why there aTe
-only five of the first kind and only eleven of the second kind
deserves consideration. Modern natural scientists have divided
•the substances in the world into solid, liquid, and gaseous.
But the principle of classification of substances according to
■Sarhkhya philosophy is different. Samkhya philosophers say
that man acquires the knowledge of all worldly objects by
means of the five organs of Perception; and the peouliar
■construction of these organs is such that any one organ
perceives only one quality. As the eyes cannot smell, the
■ears cannot see, the skin cannot distinguish between sweet
and bitter, the tongue does not recognise sound, and the nose
cannot distinguish between black and white. If the five
organs of Perception and their five objects, namely, sound,
touch, sight, taste, and smell, are in this way fixed, one cannot
fix the number of the properties of matter at more than five.
Because, even if we imagine that there are more than five such
properties, we have no means to perceive them. Each of these
five objects of sense can of course be sub-divided into many
-divisions. For example, though sound is only one object of
sense, yet, it is divided into numerous kinds of sound, such as
small, large, harsh, hoarse, broken or sweet ; or, as described
in the science of music, it may be the note B or E or C etc. ;
•or according to grammar, it may be guttural, palatal, labial
etc.; and similarly, though taste is in reality only one object
■of sense, yet, it is also divided into many kinds such as, sweet,
pungent, saltish, hot, bitter, astringent, acid etc ; and although
(Ahajnkara) became heterogeneous. It then branched off into two
sections-one organic (Sendriya) and the otter inorganic (Nirin&riya).
There are eleven elements of the organic and five of the inorganio
■creation. Punish" or the observer is different from all these and
ialls under none of the above categories. , w
240 GlTi-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YO&A
colour is in reality only one object of sense, it is also divided:
into diverse colours such as white, black, green, blue, yellow,
red etc ; similarly even if sweetness is taken as a particular
kind of taste, yet. the sweet tastes of sugarcane, milk, jaggery,
or sugar are all different divisions of sweetness ; and if one-
makes different mixtures of different qualities, this diversity-
of qualities becomes infinite in an infinite number of ways. But,,
whatever happens, the fundamental properties of substance can
never be more than five ; because, the organs of Perception are only
five in number and each of them perceives only one object of
sense. Therefore, although wa oo not come across any.'object
which is an object of sound only or of touch only, that is, in.
which different properties are not mixed up, yet, according to-
Sarhkhya philosophy, there must be fundamentally only
five distinct subtle tanmatra modifications of fundamental.
Matter, namely, merely sound, merely touch, merely colour,..
merely taste, and merely smell — that is, the fine sound element
fiabriarfanmatra), the fine touch element (sparsa-tanmatra), the
fine colour element (rupa-tanmatra), the fine taste element
{rasa-tanmatra) and the fine smell element (gandha-tcmmatra),
I have further on dealt with what the writers of the Upanisads-
have to say regarding the five Fine Elements or the five
primordial elements springing from them.
If, after having thus considered the inorganic world and'
come to the conclusion that it has only five subtle fundamental;
elements, we next consider the organic world, we likewise come;
to the conclusion that no one has got more than eleven-
OTgans, namely, the five organs of Perception, the five organs
of Action and the Mind. Although we see the organs of hands,,
feet etc., only in their gross forms in the Gross Body, yet, the.
diversity of the various organs cannot be explained, unless we
admit the existence of some subtle element at the root of eachi
of them. The western Materialistic theory of Evolution bas-
gone into a considerable amount of discussion on this question.
Modern biologists say that ■ the most minute fundamental'
globular micro-organisms have only the organ of skin, and
that from that skin other physical organs have come into'
existence one by one. They say, for instance, that the eye
came into existence as a result of the contact of light with the-
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 241
skin of the original micro-organism ; and that, similarly, the
other gross organs came into existence by the contact of light
etc. This doctrine of Materialistic philosophers is to be
found even in Sarhkhya philosophy. In the Mahabharata
there is a description of the growth of the organs consistent
with the tenets of Sarhkhya philosophy, as follows : —
sabdaragut srotram asija jayate bhuoitutmanah. I
ruparag'at tatha caksuh ghranam gandhajighrl-saya II
( Ma. Bha. San. 313. 16 ).
that is, "When the Atman in a living being gets the desire of
hearing sound, the ears come into existence ; when it gets the
desire of perceiving colour, the eyes are formed ; when it gets
the desire of smelling, the nose is created". But the Sarhkhya
philosophers say that though the skin may be the first thing-
to come into existence, yet, how can any amount of contact of
the Sun's rays with the skin of micro-organisms in the living
world give rise to eyes— and that too in a particular portion of
the body — unless fundamental Matter possesses an inherent
possibility of different organs being created ? Darwin's theory
only says that when one organism with eyes and another
organism without eyes have been created, the former lives
longer than the latter in the struggle for existence of the
material world, and the latter is destroyed. But the Western
Materialistic science of biology does not explain why in the
first place the eyes and other physical organs at all come into
existence. According to the Sarhkhya philosophy, these
various organs do not grow one by one out of one fundamental
organ, but when Matter begins to become heterogeneous as
a result of the element of Individuation, such Individuation
causes the eleven different faculties or qualities, namely,
the five organs of Perception, the five organs of Action
and the Mind, to come into existence in fundamental Matter,
independently of each other and simultaneously (yugapaf) ; and
thereby, later on, the organic world comes into existence. Out
of these eleven organs, the Mind is dual, that is, it performs
31—32
342 GITA-RAHASYA oe KARMA-YOGA
two different functions, according to tie difference in the
organs with which it worts, as has been explained before it
the sixth chapter : that ia to say, it is discriminating and
classifying {jathkalpti-iihalpfitnyika) in co-operation with the
organs of Perception and arranges tie various impressions
experienced by tie various organs, end after classifying them.
places them before Reason for dasision; and it is executive
(ryaMranatmaliaj in co-operation with tie organs of Action,
tlat is to say, it executes tie decisions, arrived at by Season
with the help of tie organs of Action. In tie Upanisads,
the organs themselves are given the name of 'Vital Force'
( fjrana ); and the authors, of the Upankads (Mnnda S. 1 .3),
like the Sarhkhya philosophers, are of the opinion tlat these
vital forces are not the embodiment of tie five primordial
elements, tat are individually born out of the Paramatman
(Absolute Self). Tie number of these vital forces or organs
is stated in the TJpanisads to be ssven in some places and to be
ten, eleven, twelve, or thirteen in otter places; but Sri
Samkaracarya has proved on the authority of the Vedanta-
Sutras, that if an attempt is made to harmonise the various
statements in the Upanisads, the number of these organs is
fixed at eleven (Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. i. 4. 5, 6); and in the Gita
it has been clearly stated that "indriyani dasaikam ca" (GS.
13. 5), i. e., "the organs are ten plus one, or eleven". In
short, there is no difference of opinion on this point between
the Samkhya and the Vedanta philosophy.
According to the Samkhya philosophy, after the eleven
organic faculties or qualities, which are the basis of the organic
world, and the five subtle elementary essences [fanmafras)
which are the basis of the inorganic world have thus come into
existence as a result of sattvilta and lamam Individuation
respectively, the five gross primordial elements (which are also
called 'n'seso'), as also gross inorganic substances, come into
.existence out of the five fundamental subtle essences
/fanmiK-Vas/; and when these inorganic substances, come into
contact '-,witl the eleven subtle organs, the organic universe
cames in H existence.
The M^ er in whicl1 tte T *"ous Elements come out of
fundamen g^*^tter according to Sarhkhya philosophy, and
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 243
which has been so far described, will be clear from the
genealogical tree given below : —
THE GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE COSMOS.
SPIRIT -»( Both self-created and eternal )-s-MATTER.
(Quality-less.) ( Imperceptible and Subtle )
(Synonyms ; jfia, (Possesses the sattea, rajas, and
Observer etc.) tamas constituents)
(Synonyms : pradhana. amjakta, inaya,
praswm-dharmim etc.)
MAHAN OR REASON
( Perceptible and Subtle )
Synonyms : usuri, mati, jnuna, khyati, (etc.)
AHAMKARA (Individuation)
(Perceptible and Subtle)
( Synonyms : abhimana, taijasa, etc. )
S5.TTVTKA CREATION TAMASA CREATION
(i.e., Perceptible & Subtle organs) (i.e., Inorganic world)
3«
C3 CD
OH
*t
m ft
~3
ED q>
| | I Five TANMATRAS
Five or- Five or- MIND. (Subtle)
gans gans |
of of Five PRIMORDIAL
PERCEP- ACTION. ELEMENTS
TION. or
VISES AS (Gross).
There are thus twenty-five elementary principles, counting the
five gross primordial elements and Spirit. Out of these, the
twenty-three elements including and after Mahan (Reason),
are the evolutes (vikaras) of fundamental Matter. But even
then, the subtle Tanmatras and the five gross primordial
elements are substantial {clravyatmaka ) evolutes and
Reason. Individuation, and the organs are merely faculties
or qualities. The further distinction is that whereas these
244 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA r
twenty-three elements aie perceptible, fundamental Matter
is imperceptible. Out of these twenty-three elements, Cardinal
Directions (east, west etc.,) and Time aie included by Samkhya
philosophers in Ether (akaia), and instead of looking upon
Vital Force ( prima ) as independent, they give the name of
Vital Force to the various activities of the organs, when these
activities have once started (Sam. Ka. 29). But this opinion
is not accepted by Vedantists, who consider Vital Force as an
independent element (Ve. Su. 2. 49). Similarly, as has been
stated before, Vedantists do not look upon either Matter or
Spirit as self-created and independent, but consider them to
be two modifications (vibhuti) of one and the same Paramesvara.
Except for this difference between the Samkhyas and the
Vedantists, the other ideas about the order of creation of the
Cosmos are common to both. For instance, the following
description of the Brahmavrksa or Brahmavana, which has
occurred twice in the Anugita in the Mahabharata (Ma. Bha.
Asva. 35. 20-23 and 47. 12-15) is in accordance with the
principles of Samkhya philosophy :-
avyahtdlnjapmbhai'o buddhiskmidhamayo mahan 1
mahahay'iikaravitapah indriyantarakotarah U
mahabhutaviscikhas ca visesapralisakhatxin I
sadaparvah sadupuspah subhasubhaphalodayah n
ujlnjah sitrvahhutaiium brahmairksah sanatamh I
enam chitfva ca bhittm ca tattvajhanusina budhah 11
hifhu sniigamuyan pusan mrtyujamnajarodayan 1
nirmamo mraha'iikaro maajate mtra sandayah II
that is : " the Imperceptible (Matter) is its seed, Reason ( mahan )
is its trunk, Individuation ( ahamkara ) is its principal foliage,
the Mind and the ten organs are the hollows inside the trunk,
the (subtle) primordial elements (the five tanmatms ) are its
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF the COSMOS 245
five large branches, and the Visssas or the five Gross primordial
elements are its sub-branches, and it is always covered by
leaves, flowers, and auspicious or inauspicious fruit, and is
i;he fundamental support of all living things; such is the
ancient gigantic Brahmavrksa. By cutting it with the phi-
losophical sword and chopping it up into bits, a scient should
destroy the bonds of Attachment (samga) which cause life, old
age, and death, and should abandon the feeling of mine-ness
and individuality; in this way alone can he be released".
In short, this Brahmavrksa is nothing but the ' dance of
•creation' or the 'diffusion' of Matter or of Illusion. The
practice of referring to it as a ' tree ' is very ancient and dates
from the time of the Rgveda, and it has been called by the
name ' the ancient Pipal Tree ' (sanatana asvatthavrlcsa) in the
Upanisads (Katha. 6. 1). But there, that is, in the Vedas,
■the root of this tree (Parabrahman) is stated to be above and
the branches ( the development of the visible world ) to be
below. That the description of the Pipal tree in the Grita has
been made by harmonising the principles of Samkhya philoso-
phy with the Vedic description has been made clear in my
commentary on the 1st and 2nd stanzas of the 15th chapter of
the Gita.
As the Samkhyas and the Vedantists classify in different
ways the twenty-five elements described above in the form
■of a tree, it is necessary to give here some explanation about
this classification. According to the Samkhyas, these
twenty-five elements fall into the four divisions of (i)
fundamental prakrti, (ii) pr-ak-rti-vilcrti, (iii) vikrti and
{iv) neither prakrti nor vikrti. (1) As Prakrti is not created
from anything else, it is called fundamental prakrti (Matter).
(2) When you leave this fundamental Matter and come to the
second stage, you come to the element Mahan. As Mahan
springs from Prakrti, it is said to be a vikrti or an evolute
of fundamental Matter; and as later on, Individuation comes
•out of the Mahan element, this Mahan is the prakrti or root
of Individuation. In this way this Mahan (Reason) becomeB
tike prakrti or root of Individuation on the one hand, and the
rikrti. (evolute) of the fundamental Prakrti (Matter) on the
other hand. Therefore, Samkhya philosophers have classified
Glrl-BAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
it under the heading of ' prakrti-vikrti ' ; and in the same way
Individuation ( ahamkara ), and the five Tanmatras are also
classified under the heading of ' prakrti-vikrti '. That element
which, being itself horn out of some other element, i. e., being
a vikrti, is at the same time the parent ( prakrti ) of the
subsequent element is called a ' prakrti-vikrti '. Ma hat (Reason}
Individuation, and the five Tanmatras, in all seven, are of this
kind. (3) But the five organs of Perception, the five organs
of Action, the Mind, and the five Gross primordial elements,
which are in all sixteen, give birth to no further elements.
On the other hand, they themselves are born out of some
element or other. Therefore, these sixteen elements are not
called 'prakrti-vikrti', but are called 'vikrti' (evolutes).
(4) The Spirit (Purusa) is neither prakrti nor vikrti; it is an
independent and apathetic observer. This classification has
been made by lavarakrsna, who has explained it as follows :-
mulaprakrtir avikrtih maliadaduah prakrlidkrtayah sapta I
sodasakastu vikaro na prakrtir m viktrtih pumsah H
that is: "The fundamental Prakrti is ' a-vikrli ', that is, it is
the vikara ( evolute ) of no other substance ; Mahat and the
others, in all seven — Mahat, Ahamkara and tbe five Tanmatras
are prakrti-vikrti ■ and the eleven organs, including the Mind,
and the five gross primordial elements, making in all sixteen,
are called merely vikrti or vikara ( evolutes ). The Purusa
(Spirit) is neither a prakrti nor a vikrti" (Sam. Ka. 3). And these
twenty-five elements are again classified into the three classes
of Imperceptible, Perceptible and Jna. Out of these, funda-
mental Matter is imperceptible, the twenty-three elements,
which have sprung from Matter are perceptible, and the Spirit
is'Jfia'. Such is the classification according to Sarhkhya
philosophy, In the Puranas, the Smrtis, the Mahabharata
and other treatises relating to Vedic philosophy, these same
twenty-five elements are generally mentioned (See Maitryu.
6. 10: Manu 1, 14, 15). But in the Upanisads, it is stated that
all these are created out of the Parabrahman, and there is no
further discussion or classification. One comes across such
CONSTEUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 247
classification in treatises later than the Upanisads, but it is
different from the Samkhya classification mentioned above*
The total number of elements is twenty-five. As sixteen
elements out of these are admittedly Vikrtis, that it, as they
are looked upon as created from other elements, even according
to Samkhya philosophy, they are not classified in these treatises-
as prakrti or fundamental substances. That leaves nine
elements :-(l) Spirit, (2) Matter, (3-9) Mahat, Ahamkara and
the five subtle elements (Tanmatras). The Samkhyas call
the last seven, after Spirit and Matter, 'prakrli-vikrW. But
according to Vedanta philosophy, Matter is not looked upon.
as independent. According to their doctrine, both Spirit and
and Matter come out of one Paramesvara (Absolute Isvara).
If this proposition is accepted, the distinction made by Samkhya
philosophers between fundamental Prakrti and prakrH-vikrti
comes to an end ; because, as Prakrti itself is looked upon as
having sprung from the Paramesvara, it cannot be called the
Root, and it falls into the category of 'prakrU^vikrli'. There-
fore, in describing the creation of the Cosmos, Vedanta philoso-
phers say that from the Paramesvara there spring on the one
hand the Jlva (Soul), and on the other hand, eight-fold Prakrti
(i. e., Prakrti and seven prakrti-vihrtis, such as Mahat etc.,)
(Ma. Bha. San. 306. 29, and 310. 10). That is to say, according
to Vedanta philosophers, keeping aside sixteen elements out
of twenty-five, the remaining nine fall into the two classes of
' Jiva ' (Soul) and the ' eight-fold Prakrti '. This classification
of Vedanta philosophers has been accepted in the Bhagavad-
gita; but therein also, a small distinction is ultimately made.
What the Samkhyas called ' Purusa ' is called ' Jlva ' by the
Glta, and the Jlva is described as being the ' pam-prakrti' or
the most sublime form of the Isvara, and that which the
Samkhyas call the 'fundamental Prakrti' is referred to in.
the Gita as the ' apara ' or inferior form of the Paramesvara
(G-I. 7, 4, 5.). When in this way, two main divisions have been
made, then, in giving the further sub-divisions or kinds of the
second main division, namely, of the inferior form of the
Isvara, it becomes necessary to mention the other elements
which have sprung from thiH inferior form, in addition to that
inferior form. Because, the inferior form (that is, the funda-
248 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
mental Prakrti of Samkhya philosophy) cannot be a kind or
sub-division of itself. For instance, when you have to say
how many children a father has, you cannot include the father
in the counting of the children. Therefore, in enumerating
the sub-divisions of the inferior form of the Paramesvara,
one has to exclude the fundamental Prakrti from the eight-fold
Prakrti mentioned by the Vedantists, and to say that the
remaining seven, that is to say, Mahan, Aharhkara, and the
five Fine Elements are the only kinds or sub-divisions of the
fundamental Prakrti; but if one does this, one will have to say
that the inferior form of the Paramesvara, that is, fundamental
Prakrti is of seven kinds, whereas, as mentioned above, Prakrti
is of eight kinds according to the Vedantists. Thus, the
Vedantists will say that Prakrti is of eight kinds, and the Gita
will say that Prakrti is of seven kinds, and an apparent conflict
will come into existence between the two doctrines. The
author of the Gita, however, considered it advisable not to
create such a conflict, but to be consistent with the description
of Prakrti as ' eight-fold '. Therefore, the Gita has added the
eighth element, namely, Mind, to the seven, namely Mahan,
Aharhkara, and the five Fine Elements, and has stated that
the inferior form of the Paramesvara is of eight kinds (Gl. 7. 5).
But, the ten organs are included in the Mind, and the five
primordial elements are included in the five Fine Elements.
Therefore, although the classification of the Gita, may seem
different from both the Samkhya and the Vedantic classifi-
cation, the total number of the elements is not, on that
account, either increased or decreased. The elements are
everywhere twenty-five. Yet, in order that confusion should
not arise as a result of this' difference in classification, I have
shown below these three methods of classification in the form
of a tabular statement. In the thirteenth chapter of the
Gita (13. 5), the twenty-five elements of the Samkhyas are
enumerated one by one, just as they are, without troubling to
classify them; and that shows that though the classification
may be different, the total number of the elements is every-
where the same :-
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 249
CLASSIFICATION
of the twenty-five
FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS.
Samkhya
•classification.
1. Neither pra-
krti nor
vikrti.
•1. Fundam e n-
td,l prakrti.
7. Prakrii-vi
Hi.
16. Vikaras.
Elements.
1 SPIRIT.
1PBAK-
RTI.
1 Mahan.
1 A h a m -
kara.
5 T a, n -
matras.
1 MIND
5 Org a n s
of Perce-
ption.
Organs
of Action
Primor -
dial Ele-
ments.
K 3
Vedauta
classification.
Gita
classification,
(1) (1)
The superior para Prakrti,
form of Para-
brahman
(8)
The infer i o r
form of Para-
brahman
{eight-fold).
35
35
(16)
These sixteen
Elements are
not looked
upon as Fun-
da mental
Elements by
Vedantists,
as they are
vikaras) ( evo-
lufces!
35
J 1 '
apara Prakrti.
(8)
These are eight
sub-divisions
of the
apara Prakrti.
(15)
These fifteen
Elements are
not looked
upon as Fun-
d amenta 1
Elements by
the Gita, as
they are
vikaras ( evo-
lutes).
35
I have thus concluded the description of how the homo-
geneous, inorganic, imperceptible, and gross Matter, which
was fundamentally equable, acquires organic heterogeneity
as a result of Individuation after it has become inspired by the
non-self-perceptible 'Desire' (buddhi) of creating the \!;ible
universe, and also how, later on, as a result of the principle
of the Development of Constituents (gui\apari\mma), namely
250 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
that, "'Qualities spring out of qualities " ( gurui gunesu jayante},
the eleven sattuika subtle elements, which are the fundamental
elements of the organic world come into existence on the
one hand, and the five subtle Fine Elements ( tanmatras ),
which are the fundamental elements of the tcimasa world come
into existence on the other hand. I must now explain in what
order the subsequent creation, namely, the five gross primordial
elements, or the other gross material substances which spring
from them, have come into existence. Saihkhya philosophy
only tells us that the five gross primordial elements or Visesas
have come out of the five Fine Elements, as a result of guya-
■parimma. But, as this matter has been more fully dealt with
in Vedanta philosophy, I shall also, as the occasion has
arisen, deal with that subject-matter, but after warning my
readers that this is part of Vedanta philosophy and not of
Saihkhya philosophy. Gross earth, water, brilliance, air and
the ether are calhd the five primordial elements or Visesas.
Their order of creation has been thus described in the
Taittirtyopaaisad :-"«/(« wifc tilcasuh sambhniah\ ak'iiad vayuhy
vayor ayiuh I ayner apah i adblu/ah prtldvi I prtluoyu osadhayah I "
etc. (Tai. U. 2. 1). From the Paramatman, (not from the funda-
mental Gross Matter as the Sarhkhyas say), ether was first
created; from ether, the air; from the air, the fire; from the fire,
water; and from water, later on, the earth has come into being.
The Taittiriyopanisad does not give the reason for this order.
But in the later Vedanta treatises, the explanation of this
order of creation of the five primordial elements seems to be
based on the gimapariiidnvi principle of the Samkhya system.
These later Vedanta writers say that by the law of " guna
guveaa mrlaiite" (qualities spring out of qualities), a substance
having only one quality first conies into existence, and from
that substance other substanoes having two qualities, three
qualities etc., subsequently come into existence. As ether
out of the five primordial elements has principally the quality
of sound only, it came into existence first. Then came into
existence the air, because, the air has two qualities, namely, of
sound and touch. Not only do we hear the sound of air, but
we feel it by means of our organ of touch. Fire comes after
the air, because, besides the qualities of sound and touch, it
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 251
has also the third quality of colour. As water has, in addition to-
these three qualities, the quality of taste also, water must
have come into existence after fire; and as the earth possesses
the additional quality of smell besides these four qualities,,
we arrive at the proposition that the earth must have sprung'
later on out of water. Yaska has propounded this very
doctrine (Nirukta 14. 4). The Taittiriyopanisad contains the
further description that when the five gross primordial elements
had come into existence in this order, "prthivya osadliayah I
osadkibhyo'nnam\ annat pumsah\" (Tai. 2. 1), i. e., "from the.
earth have grown vegetables; from the vegetables, food; and
from food, man. This subsequent creation is the result of the
mixture of the Ave primordial elements, and the process of that
mixture is called ' paHci-Icararia' in the Vedanta treatises.
Paficl-karana means the coming into existence of a new
substance by the mixture of different qualities of each of the
five primordial elements. This union of five {panclkaranaY
can necessarily take place in an indefinite number of ways.
In the ninth dasaka (collection of ten verses each) of the-
Dasabodlw, it is stated :
By mixing black and white I we get the grey colour I
By mixing black and yellow I we get the green colour II
(9. 6. 40)
And in the 13th dasaka, it is stated as follows :-
In the womb of that earth I
there is a collection of an infinite number of seeds m
When water gets mixed with the earth I
sprouts come out II
Creepers of variegated colours I
with waving leaves and flowers are next born H
After that come into existence l
fruits of various tastes II
The earth and water are the root I
of all oviparous, viviparous, steam-engendered,
and vegetable life !!■
252 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Such is the wonder I
of the creation of the universe (I
There are four classes and four modes of voice l
eighty-four lakhs * of species of living beings II
Have come into existence in the three worlds I
which is the Cosmic Body " II
(Dasabodha 13. 3. 10-15).
This description in the Dasabodha given by Samartha Itamadasa
is based on this idea. Bnt it must not be forgotten that by the
union of five ( pandkaram ) only gross objects or gross bodies
come into existence, and this gross body must become united
first with subtle organs and next with the Atman or the Spirit
before it becomes a living body.
I must also make it clear here that this union of five,
which has been described in the later Vedanta works, is not to
he found in the ancient TJpanisads. In the Chandogy opanisad,
these Tanmatras or primordial elements are not considered to
be five; but brilliance, water and food (earth) are the only three
which are considered as subtle fundamental elements, and the
ientire diverse universe is said to have come into existence by the
* This idea of 84 lakhs of births is irom the Puranas, and it
is quite dear that it is only approximate. Nevertheless, it is not
totally without foundation. Western natural scientists believe,
according to the Theory of Evolution, that the human being has
«ome into existence by evolution from one Bubtle micro-organism
in the form of a living nodule at the beginning of the universe.
From this idea, it becomes quite clear how many generations of
each sub.-equent specieB (yoni/ must have come into existence and
passed away in Older that this subtle nodule should have become
a. groBB nodule, and that this gtoss nodule should in ita tain have
been transformed into a living bacillus and this bacillus been evolved
into the next subsequent Jiving organism. From this an English
biologist has worked out a calculation, that for the smallest fish in
water to develop its qualities and ultimately assume the form
of a human being, there must have been at least 53 lakhs and 75
thousand generations of intermediate species and that the number
of these generations may as well be ten times as much. These are
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 253
mixture of these three, that is, by 'trivrtkarana' ; and it is stated
in the Svetasvataropanisad that: "ajam ekvah lohitasuklahTsnam
bahvih prajak STJanianam sarupah" ( Sveta. 4. 5 ), i. e., "this
she-goat (aja) is red, or of the nature of fire ; and white, or of the
nature of water; and black, or of the nature of earth ; and is thus
made of three elements of three colours, and from it all creation
I praju) embodied in Name and Form has been created. In the
6th chapter of the Chandogyopanisad has been given the
conversation between Svetaketu and his father. In it, the
father of Svetaketu clearly tells him : "O, my son I in the
commencement of the world, there was nothing except 'elcam
evadvitlyain sat' (single and unseconded sat), that is to say,
nothing else except one homogeneous and eternal Parabrahman.
How can 'sat' (something which exists) come into existence
out of 'asat' (something which does not exist) ? Therefore, in
the beginning sat pervaded everything. Then that sat
conceived the desire of becoming multifarious, that is,
heterogeneous, and from it grew one by one, brilliance ftejas)
water (upa) and food (prihvi) in their subtle forms. Then, after
the Parabrahman had entered these three elements in the form
the species ranging from the small aquatic animals upto the human
being If, to this are added the number of minute aquatio
organisms lower down in the scale of life, it is impossible to ascer-
tain how many more lakhs of generations will have to be counted.
Prom this it will be clear to what extent the idea of these genera-
tions in the purana of Materlialistic scientists has exceeded the idea
of $1 lakhs of species in our Puranas. The same law applies to the
calculation of limt. Geo-biologiats say that it is impossible to form
even a rough idea of the date when living micro-organisms first
camo into existence on the earth, and that aquatic micro-
organisms nust have come into exi»tence crores of years ago. If
further concise information is required about this matter, ttie reader
is referred to The Last Link by Ernst Haeckel, witb notes etc. by
Dr. Id. Gadow (1^98). The above particulars have been taken from
the appendices. The 84 lakhs of generations mentioned in the
Puraoas are to be counted as follows: — 9 V U* for aquatic
animals, 10 lakhs for birds, 11 lakhs for germs, 20 lak'is for beasts,.
30 lakhs for immoveable things and 4 lakhs for mmkiud (Pee
Dasabodha 20. 6 I.
254 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-Y03A
-of Life, all the various things in the universe which are
identified hy Name and Form oa me into existence as a result
■ of the union of those three f trivrtkarana). The red (lohita)
■ colour, which is to be found in the gross fire or the Sun or in
electricity, is the result of the subtle fundamental element of
brilliance ; the white (sukla) colour, of the fundamental subtle
■■ element of water ; and the black (krsna) colour, of the funda-
mental subtle element of earth. In the same way, subtle fire,
. subtle water, and subtle food (prthvl) are the three fundamental
elements which are contained even in the food which man eats.
Just as butter comes to the surface when you churn curds, so
' when this food, made up of the three subtle elements enters the
■ stomach, the element of brilliance in it, creates gross, medium
. and subtle products in the shape of bones, marrow and speech
. respectively ; and similarly, the element of water (apaj creates
: urine, blood and Vital Force ; and the element of earth (prthvi)
. creates the three susbstances, excrement, flesh and mind" (Chan.
■ 6. 2-6). This system of the Chandogyopanisad of not taking
the primordial elements as five, but as only three, and of
explaining the creation of all visible things by the union of
these three substances ( trivrtkarana ) has been mentioned in
^the Vedanta-Sutras (2. 4. 20), and Badarayanacarya does not
even mention the word 'Pancikarana'. Nevertheless, in the
'Taittirlya (2. 1), Prasna (4._ 8), Brhadaranyaka (4. 4. 5) and
other Upanisads, and in the Svetasvatara itself (2. 12) and in
the Vedanta-Sutras (2. 3. 1-14) and lastly in the Gita (7. 4; 13. 5),
five primordial elements are mentioned instead of three ; and
in the Garbhopanisad, the human body is in the very beginning
stated to be 'pancatmaka', that is, made up of five; and the
Mahabharata and the _ Puranas give clear descriptions of
Pancikarana (Ma. Bha. San. 184-186). From this it becomes
. quite clear, that the idea of the 'union of five' (pancikaraya)
becomes ultimately acceptable to all Vedanta philosophers and
that although the 'union of three' ( trimtkamva ) may have been
ancient, yet, after the primordial elements came to be believed
to be five instead of three, the idea of Pancikarana was based
on the same sample as the Trivrtkarana, and the theory of
Trivrtkarana went out of vogue. Not only is the human body
formed of the five primordial elements, but the meaning of the
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION of the COSMOS 255
word Pafiwkarana has been extended to imply that each one of
these five is divided in five different ways in the body. For
instance, the quinary of akin, flesh, bone, marrow, and muscles
grows out of earth etc. etc. ( Ma. Bha. San. 186. 20-25; and
Dasabodha 17. 8). This idea also seems to have been inspired
by the description of Trivrtkarana in the Chardogyopanisad
mentioned above. There also, there is a statement at the end
that brilliance, water, and earth are each to be found in three
different forms in the human body.
The explanation of how the numerous inactive (acetana),
ithat is to say, lifeless or gross objacts in the world, which can
ba distinguished by Name and Form, came into existence out
■of the fundamental imperceptible Matter — or according to the
Vedanta theory, from the Parabrahman — is now over. I shall
now consider what more the Sarhkhya philosophy tells us
about the creation of the saccfain (that is, active) beings in
the world, and later on, see how far that can be harmonised
with the Vedanta doctrines. The body of living beings comeB
into existence when the five gross primordial elements sprung
from the fundamental Matter are united with the subtle organs.
But though this body is organic, it is still gross. The element
which activates these organs is distinct from Gross Matter
rand it is known as Spirit ( purusa ). I have, in the previous
'chapter, mentioned the various doctrines of the Sarhkhya
philosophy that this Spirit is fundamentally inactive, that
the living world bagins to come into existence when
this Spirit is united with fundamental Matter, and that
'when the Spirit acquires the knowledge that "I am
-different from Matter", its union with Matter is dissolved,
failing which it has to peregrinate in the cycle of birth
and death. But as I have not, in that ohapter, explained
how the Atman — or according to Samkhya terminology,
the Purusa — of the person, who dies without having realised
that the Atman is different from Matter, gets one birth
.after another, it is necessary now to consider that question
more in detail. It is quite clear that the Atman of the man
who dies without having acquired Self-Realisation does not
escape entirely from the meshes of Matter ; because, if such
were the case, one will have to say with CarvSka, that every
256 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA.
man escapes from the tentacles of Matter or attains Release-
immediately after death ; and Self -Realisation or the difference
between sin and virtue will lose its importance. Likewise, if
you say that after death, the Atman or the Spirit alone survives,
and that it, of its own accord, performs the action of taking
new births, then the fundamental theorem that Spirit is inactive
and apathetic, and that all the activity is of Matter iB
contradicted. Besides, by acknowledging that the Atman takes
new births of its own accord, you admit that to be its property >
and fall into the impossible position that it will never escape
from the cycle of birth and death. It, therefore, follows that
though a man may have died without having acquired Self-
Realisation, his Atman must remain united with Matter, in
order that Matter should give it new births. Nevertheless,
as the Gross Body is destroyed after death, it is quite clear that
this union cannot continue to be with Matter composed of the
five gross primordial elements. But it is not that Matter-
consists only of the five gross primordial elements. There are
in all twenty-three elements which arise out of Matter, and the
five gross primordial elements are the last five out of them.
When these last five elements (the five primordial elements) are
subtracted from the twenty-three, eighteen elements remain,
It, therefore, follows as a natural conclusion that though a
man, who dies without having acquired Self-Realisation
escapes from the Gross Body made up of the five gross primordial
elements, that is to say, from the last five elements, yet, his
death does not absolve him from his union with the remaining
eighteen elements arising out of Matter. Reason (Mahan) Indi-
viduation, Mind, the ten organs, and the five Fine Elements are
these eighteen elements. (See the Geneological tree of the Cosmos
given at page 243). All these elements are subtle. Therefore,
that Body which is formed as a result of the continued union
of Spirit ( puruxa ) with them is called the 'Subtle Body', or the
'Linga-sarlra' as the opposite of the Gross Body or 'Sthula-
sarira' (Sam. Ka. 40). If any person dies without having
acquired Self -Realisation, this his Subtle Body, made up of the
eighteen elements of Matter, leaves his Gross Body on his
death along with the Atman, and compels him to take birth
after birth. To this, an objection is raised by some persons to-
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 357
the following effect : when a man dies, one can actually see
that the activities of Reason, Individuation, Mind, and the ten
organs come to an end in his Gross Body along with life ;
therefore, these thirteen elements may rightly be included in the
Subtle Body ; but there is no reason for including the five Fine
Elements in the Subtle Body along with these thirteen elements.
To this the reply of the Sariikhya philosophers is, that the
thirteen elements, pure Reason, pure Individuation, the Mind
and the ten organs are only qualities of Matter, and in the
same way as a shadow requires the support of some substance
or other, or as a picture requires the support of the wall or of
paper, so also must these thirteen elements, which are only
qualities, have the support of some substance in order that they
should stick together. Out of these, the Atman (purusa),
being itself qualityless and inactive, cannot by itself become
the support for any quality. When the man is alive, the five
gross primordial elements in his body form the support for
these thirteen elements. But after his death, that is, after the
destruction of the Gross Body, this support in the shape of the
five primordial elements ceases to exist. Therefore, these
thirteen elements, which are qualities, have to look for some
other substance as a support. If you say that they can get the
support of fundamental Matter, then, that is imperceptible and
in an unevolved condition, that is to say, eternal and all-perva-
sive ; and therefore, it cannot become the support of qualities like
Reason etc., which go to form one small Subtle Body. There-
fore, the five Pine Elements, which are the bases af the five gross
primordial elements, have to be included in the Subtle Body side
by side with the thirteen qualities, as a support for them in the
place of the five gross primordial elements which are the
evolutes of fundamental Matter (Sam Ka. 41). Some writers
belonging to the Sariikhya school imagine the existence of a
third body, composed of the five Fine Elements, intermediate
between the Subtle Body and the Gross Body, and maintain
ithat this third body is the support for the Subtle Body. But
that is not the correct interpretation of the forty-first couplet •
of the Sariikhya Karika, and in my opinion these commentators
have imagined such a third, body merely by confusion of
thought. In my opinion this couplet has no use beyond
258 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
explaining why the five Fine Elements have to be included
in the Subtle Body along with the thirteen other elements,
namely, Reason etc *.
Anybody can see after a little thought, that there is not
much of a difference between the Subtle Body made up of
eighteen elements described in the Samkhya philosophy and
the Subtle Body described in the Upanisads. It is stated in
the Brhadaranyakopanisad that: "just as a leech (jalayuka)
having reached the end of a blade of grass, places the anterior
part of its body on the next blade (by its anterior feet), and
then draws up the posterior part, which was placed on the
former blade of grass, in the same way, the Atman leaves one
body and enters the other body " (Br. 4. 4. 3). But from this
single illustration, the two inferences that (i) only the Atman
■enters another body and that (ii) it does so immediately
after leaving the first body, do not follow. Because, in
■the Brhadaranyakopanisad itself, there is another statement
further on (Br. 4. 4. 5), that the five subtle elements, the Mind,
the organs, Vital Force and a man's righteous or unrighteous
record, all leave the body along with the Atman, which goes
according to its mundane Actions to different spheres, where
it remains for sometime. (Br. 6. 2. 14 and 15). In the same
way, it becomes quite clear from the description of the course
* It can be aeen from a versa in the book of Bhatta Kumarila
known aB MlmatiisaJloka-vuHika (Atma-vada, stanza 6'2), that he
interprets this couplet in the same way as myself. That verse is as
follows : —
ant&rTtbhavadeho hi nesyate vindhyavasitia I
tadastitve pramanam hi na Mmcid avagamyate l| 62 ||
that is, "Vindhyavasin did not accept the existence of an antarabhava,
that IB to say, of a 'deha' or Body which is intermediate between the
Subtle Body and the Gross Body. There is no authority for saying
that there is such an intermediate body". Isvarakrsna, used to live
in the Vindhya mountains; that is why he was known as
* Vindhyavasin'. The antarabham (intermediate) Body is also known
as ' gandharva'. (See Amarakosa 3. 3. 182, and the commentary on
it by Ksirasvami, published by Mr, KrlBhnaji Govind Oak and p. 8
«f the introduction to that work. )
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 359
followed by Jiva along with the fundamental element of water
<(apa) in the Chandogyopanisad (Chan. 5. 3. 3; 5. 9. 1) as also from
■fche interpretation put thereon in the Vedanta-Sutras (Ve.
Su. 3. 1. 1-7) that the Chandogyopanisad included the three
fundamental elements, viz., water (apa) and along with it
brilliance (tejas) and food (anna) in the Subtle Body. In
short, it will be seen that when one adds Vital Force and
' dharmadharma' (i. e. righteous and unrighteous actions) or
Karma to .the Samkhya Subtle Body of eighteen elements, one
.gets the Vedantic Subtle Body. But in as much as Vital
Force ( pi-ana) is included in the inherent tendencies of the
■eleven organs, and righteous and unrighteous action (dharm-
adharma) are included in the activities of Reason and Mind, one
may say that this difference is merely verbal, and that there
is no real dfferenee of opinion about the components of the
Subtle Body between the Vedanta and the Samkhya philosophies.
It is for this reason that the description of the Subtle Body
According to the Sarhkhyas as "mahadadi stiksmaparyantam"
!has been repeated, as it is, in the words "maliadadyavisesantam,'
;in the Maitryupanisad (Mai. 6. 10). * In the Bhagavadgita,
the Subtle Body is described as consisting of "manah-
■gasthanindriyanT (Gi. 15. 7), that is, of "the mind and the five
organs of Perception" ; and further on there is a description
that life, in leaving the Gross Body, takes with itself this
Subtle Body in the same way as the breeze carries scent from
the flowers : "vai/ur gaiidhan ivasayut" (GI. 15. 8). Nevertheless
in as much as the metaphysical knowledge in the Gita, has
been borrowed from the Upanisads, one must say that the
* In the copy of the llaitryupanisad included in the
Auandashrama Edition of Dvatrimsadupanisad (thirty-two Upanisads),
'the reading of the hymn referred to above has been given as:
" mahaiadyamvisesaniam" , and the same has been accepted by the
■commentators. If this reading is accepted then the 'Mahat' element
"which is at the beginning of the list has to be included in the Subtle
Body and the ' Visesas ' or five primordial elements, indicated by the
words 'visesantam' t have to be left out. That is to say, you have to
interpret it as meaning that the 'mahat' out of "mahadadyam"
ihaB to be taken, and the ' viieja ' oat of ' vise$anlam ' has to be left out.
But, where the beginning and the end are both mentioned, it is
260 GITA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
Blessed Lord has intended to include the five organs of Action,,
the five Fine Elements, Vital Force, and sin and virtue, in the-
words "the six organs including the mind". There is a state-
ment also in the Manu-Smrti that after a man dies, he
acquires a Suhtle Body made up of the five Fine Elements in.
order to suffer the consequences of his virtuous or evil actions
(Manu. 12. 16, 17). The words "vayur gamlhan ivasayai" in the
Gita, prove only that this body must be subtle ; but they do not
convey any idea as to the size of that body. But from the
statement in the Savitryupakhyana in the Mahabharata
(Ma. Bha. Vana. 296. 16), that Yama took out a Spirit as.
large as a thumb from the (gross) body of Satyavana — -
" amgiistlvimStram purusam mscakarsa yamo balat " — it is clear
that this Subtle Body was in those days, at least for
purposes of illustration, taken to be as big as a thumb.
I have so far considered what inferences lead one to the-
conclusion that the Subtle Body exists, though it might be
invisible to the eyes, as ako what the component parts of that.
Subtle Body are. But it is not enough to merely say that the
Subtle Body is formed by the combination of eighteen elements-
excluding fundamental Matter and 14ie five gross primordial-
elements. There is no doubt that wherever this Suhtle Body
exists, this combination of eighteen elements will,;according to
its inherent qualities, create gross parts of the body, like hands
and feet or gross organs, whether out of the gros&
bodies of parents, or later on, out of the food in the gross-
material world ; and that it will maintain such a body. But,,
it remains to be explained why this Subtle Body, made up by
the combination of eighteen elements, creates different bodies,
right to take both or to omit both. Therefore, according to Prof.
Deusaen, the nasal ' m ' at the end of the word ' mahadadyam ' should
be omitted and tbe hymn should be read as '' mahidadyn vihsantam"
(mahadadi+ avisefantam). If that is done, the word Wseja' comes into-
existence, and the same rule becoming applicable to the ' mahnt ''
and to the 'cmi&esa.', that is, both to the beginning and the end,
both get included in the Liilga sarira. This is the peculiarity of
this reading; but, it must be borne in mind, that whichever reading-
is accepted, there is no difference in the meaning.
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OP THE COSMOS 361
such as, animals, birds, men etc. The elements of conscious-
ness in the living world are called 'Purusa' by the Samkhyas,
and according to them, though these 'Purusas' are in-
numerable, yet, in as much as each Purusa is inherently
apathetic and inactive, the responsibility of creating different
bodies, such as, birds, beasts etc. cannot rest with the Purusa.
According to Vedanta philosophy, these differences are said to
arise as a result of the sinful or virtuous Actions performed
during life. This subject-matter of Karma- Vipaka (the effects
caused by Actions) will be dealt with later on. According to
Samkhya philosophy, Karma cannot be looked upon as a
third fundamental principle which is different from Spirit and
Matter ; and in as much as Spirit is apathetic, one has to say
that Karma (Action) is something evolved from the sattva,
rajaft, and tamas constituents of Matter. Reason is the most
important element out of the eighteen of which the Subtle Body
is made up ; because, it is from Reason that the subsequent
seventeen elements, namely, Individuation, etc. come into
existence. Therefore, that which goes under the name of
'Karma' in Vedanta philosophy is referred to in Samkhya
philosophy as the activity, property, or manifestation of
Reason resulting from the varying intensity of the sattva,
rajas and tamas constituents. This property or propensity of
Reason is technically called 'Bhava', and innumerable Bhavas
come into existence as a result of the varying intensity of the
sattva, rajas and tamas constituents. These Bhavas adhere to
the Subtle Body in the same way as scent adheres to a
flower or colour to cloth (Sam. Ka. 40). The Subtle Body
takes up new births according to these Bhavas, ot — in Vedantic
terminology — according to Karma ; and the elements, which
are drawn by the Subtle Body from the bodies of
the parents in taking these various births, later
on acquire various other Bhavas. The different categories
of gods or men or animals or trees, are the results of the
combination of these Bhavas (Sam. Ka. 43-55). When the
sattvika constituent becomes absolute and pre-eminent in these
Bhavas, man acquires Self-Realisation and apathy towards the
world, and begins to see the difference between Matter and
Spirit ; and then the Spirit reaches its original state of Isolation
262 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
(kaivalya), and the Subtle Body being disoaided, the pain of
man is absolutely eradicated. But, if this difference between.
Matter and Spirit has not been realised, and merely the sattvw
constituent has become predominant, the Subtle Body is re-born,
among gods, that is, in heaven; if the rajas quality has become-
predominant, it is Te-born among men, that is, on the earth; and
if the tamos quality has become predominant, it is re-born in
the lower (tiryak) sphere (Gl. 14. 18). When in this way it has
been re-born among men, the description of how a Imlala (state
of the embryo a short time after conception), a budbuda
(bubble), flesh, muscles, and other different gross organs grow
out of a drop of semen has been given in Samkhya philosophy
on the basis of the theory of "guna gunesu jayante". (Sam.
Ka. 43 : Ma. Bha. San. 320). That description is more or less
similar to the description given in the Garbhopanisad-
Although the above-mentioned technical meaning given to the
word 'Bhava' in Samkhya philosophy may not be found in
Vedanta treatises, yet, it will be seen from what has been stated
above, that the reference by the Blessed Lord to the various
qualities "buddhir jiianam asammoliah ksama satyam damak
samah" by the use of the word 'Bhava' in the following verse
(Gl. 10. 4, 5; 7. 12) must primarily have been made keeping in
mind the technical terminology of Samkhya philosophy.
When, in this way, all the living and non-living perceptible
things in the universe have come into existence one after the
other out of fundamental imperceptible Matter (according to
the Samkhya philosophy), or out of fundamental Parabrahman
in the form of Sat (according to the Vedanta philosophy), all
perceptible things are, both according to the Samkhya and
Vedanta philosophies, re-merged either into imperceptible Matter
or into fundamental Brahman in a way which is the reverse of
the order of development of constituents mentioned above, when
the time for the destruction of the Cosmos comes (Ve. Su.
2. 3. 14 ; Ma. Bha. San. 232) ; that is to say, earth, out of the
five primordial elements, is merged into water, water into fire,
fire into air, air into ether, ether into the Fine Elements,
the Fine Elements into Individuation, Individuation into
Reason, and Reason or Mahan into Matter and-according to the
Vedanta philosophy— Matter becomes merged into the funda-
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 363
mental Brahruau. What period of time lapses betweun the
creation of the universe and its destruction or merging in
nowhere mentioned in the Samkhya Karika. Yet, I think
that the computation of time mentioned in the Manu-Sarhhita
(1. 66-73), Bhagavadgila (8. 17), or the Mahabharata (Sftn,
231) must have been accepted by the Samkhya philosophers
Our Uttarayana, that is, the period when the Sun seams,
to travel towards the North is the day of the gods,
and our Daksioayana, when the Sun seems to travel
towards the South, is the night of the gods ; because, there are
statements not only in the Smrtis, hut also in astronomical
treatises that the gods live on the Mem Mountain, that is to-
say, on the north pole, (Surya-Siddhanta, 1. 13 ; 12. 35. 67).
Therefore, the period made up of the Uttarayana and the
Daksinayana, which is one year according to our calculations,
is only one day and one night of the gods, and three hundred
and sixty of our years are" three hundred and sixty days and
nights or one year of the gods. We have four yugas called,
Krta, Treta, Dvapara and Kali. The periods of the yugas are
counted as four thousand years for the Krta, three thousand
years for the Treta, two thousand years for the Dvapara and one
thousand years for the Kali. But one yuga does not start
immediately after the close of the previous one, and there are
intermediate years which are conjunctional. On either side of the
Krta yuga, there are four hundred years ; on either side of the.
Treta, three hundred ; on either side of the Dvapara, two hundred;
and on either side of Kali there are one hundred. In all, these
transitional periods of the four yugas amount to two thousand
years. Adding these two thousand years to the ten thousand
years over which the Krta, Treta, Dvapara and Kali yugas
extend, we get twelve thousand years. Now, are these twelve
thousand years of human beings or of the gods ? If these ara
considered to be human years, then, as more than five thousand
years have elapsed since the commencement of the Kali yuga,
not only is the Kali yuga of a thousand human years over*
but the following Krta yuga is also over, and we must believe
that we are now in the Treta yuga. In order to get over-
this difficulty, it has been stated in the Puranas that theses
twelve thousand years are of the gods. Twelve thousand
264 GlTA-RAHAYSA OR KARMA-YOGA
years of the gods mean 360x12000=43,20,000, that is, forty-
three lakhs and twenty thousand years. The fixing of the
yuga in our present almanacs is based on that method of
calculation. This period of twelve thousand years of the
gods, is one mahayuga of human beings, or one cycle of four
yuga^of the gods. Seventy-one such cycles of yugas of the
gods make up one ' manvantara ', and there are fourteen such
manvantaras. But, at the commencement and the end of the
first manvantara and subsequently at the end of each
manvantara, there is a conjunctional period equal to one Krta
yugai that is to say, there are fifteen such conjunctional
periods. These fifteen conjunctional periods and fourteen
manvantaras make up one thousand yugas of the gods or one day
of Brahmadeva (Surya-Siddhanta 1. 15-20); and one thousand
more such yugas make up one night of Brahmadeva, as has been
stited in the Manu-Smrfci and in the Mahabharata (Manu. 1.
6&-W and 79; Ma. Bha. San. 231. 18-31 and the Niiukta by
Yaska 14. 9). According to this calculation, one day of
Brahmadeva amounts to four hundred and thirty-two crores
of human years, that is to say, 4,320,000,000 years. And
this is called a ' kalpa ' *, When, this day of Brahmadeva or
kalpa starts :-
avyaktad vyaktayah sarvah prabhavanty aharagame I
ratryagame praliyante tatraivavyaktasamjiiake II
(Gi. 8. 18).
that is, " all the perceptible things in the universe begin to be
created out of the Imperceptible; and when the night of
Brahmadeva starts, the same perceptible things again begin
to be merged in the Imperceptible", as has been stated in the
Bhagavadglts (GI. 8. 18 and 9. 7), as also in the Smrti treatises,
and elsewhere in the Mahabharata. There are besides this,
other descriptions of Cosmic Destruction ( pralaya ) in the
Puranas. But as in those pralayas the entire universe,
* A calculation of yugas etc. according to astrological science
has been made by the late Sbankar Balkrishna Dikshit in his work
Bharatiya Jyotihsastra in various places to which the reader is
referred. See pages 103 to 105 and p. 193 etc.
CONSTBUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 265
Including the Sun and the Moon, are not destroyed, they are
not taken into account in the consideration of the creation and
the destruction of the Cosmos. One kalpa means one day or
one night of Brahmadeva and 360 such days and 360 such
nights make up one of his years, and taking the life of
Brahmadeva at one hundred such years, one half of his life
is now over and the first day of the second half of his life,
that is, of his fifty-first year, or the Svetavaraha kalpa has now-
started; and there are statements in the Puranas that out of
the fourteen manvantaras of this kalpa, six manvantaras are
over, as also 27 mahayugas out of the seventy-one mahayugas
of the seventh manvantara called Vaivasvata, and that the
first coram, or quarter of the 28th mahayuga of the Vaivasvata
manvantara is now going on (See Visnu-Purana 1. 3). In the
Saka year 1821, exactly five thousand years of this Kaliyuga
were over ; and according to this calculation, there were in the
Saka year 1821, three lakhs and ninety-one thousand years
still in hand for the pralaya in the Kaliyuga to take place ;
therefore, the consideration of the Mahapralaya to take place
■at the end of the present kalpa is a far, far, distant thing.
The day of Brahmadeva, made up of four hundred and thirty-
two crores of human years, is now going on and not even the
noon of that day, that is to say, seven manvantaras are
yet over.
As the description which has beBn given above of the
creation and the destruction of the Cosmos is consistent with
Vedanta philosophy— and if you omit the Parabrahman, also
•consistent with Sarhkhya philosophy — this tradition of the
order of formation of the universe has been accepted as correct
by our philosophers, and the same order has been mentioned in
the Bhagavadglta. As has been stated in the beginning of this
■chapter, we come across other ideas regarding the creation of
■the universe in some places in the Srutis, the Smrtis, and the
Puranas, namely, that the Brahmadeva or Hiranyagarbha first
came into existence, or that water first came into existence and
a Golden Egg was born in that water from the seed of the
Paramesvara etc. But all these ideas are looked upon as
inferior or merely descriptive ; and when there is any occasion
4o explain them, people say that Hiranyagarbha ox Brahma-
266 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
deva is the same as Matter. Even the Blessed Lord has in the*
Bhagavadgita called this Matter of three constituents by the-
name 'Brahma' in the words "mama yonir mahad brahma"
(Gl. 14. 3), and He has said that from this His seed, numerous
beings are created out of Matter, as a result of three
constituents. Vedanta treatises say that the description found
in different places tbat Daksa and other seven mind-born sons,
or the seven Manus, were born from. Brahmadeva, and that
they thereafter created the moveable and immobile universe
(Ma. Bha. A. 65-67 ; Ma. Bha. San. 207 ; Manu. 1. 34-63),
which is once referred to also in the Gita (Gl. 10. 6), can be
made consistent with the above-mentioned scientific theory of
the creation of the Cosmos, by interpreting Brahmadeva as
meaning Matter ; and the same argument is also applicable in
otber places. For instance, in the Saiva or Pasupata Darsana,
Siva is looked upon as the actual creator and five things,
causes, products etc. are supposed to have come into existence
from him; and in the Narayamya or Bhagavata religion,
Vasudeva is supposed to be the primary cause, and it is stated
that Samkarsana (Jiva or Soul) was first born from Vasudeva,.
Pradyumna (Mind) from Sarhkarsana, and Aniruddha
(Individuation) from Pradyumna. But as, according to the
Vedanta philosophy, Jiva (Soul) is not something which comes
into existence anew every time, but is a permanent or eternal
part of a permanent or eternal Paramesvara, the above-
mentioned doctrine of the Bhagavata religion regarding the
birth of Jiva has been refuted in the second portion of the
second chapter of the Vedanta-Sutras (Ve. Su. 2. 2. 42-45) ;
and it is stated there that this doctrine is contrary to the
Vedas, and, therefore, objectionable ; and this proposition of
the Vedanta-Sutras has been repeated in the Gita (Gl. 13. 4;
15. 7). In the same way, Samkhya philosophers believe that
there are two independent principles, Prakrti and Purusa.
But Vedanta philosophy does not accept this dualism, and says
that both Prakrti and Purusa are manifestations of one eternal
and qualityless Absolute Self (Paramatman) ; and this doctrine
has been accepted in the Bhagavadgita (Gi. 9. 10). But, this
matter will be more fully dealt with in the next ohapter. I
have to state here only this, that although the Bhagavadgita
CONSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION OF THE COSMOS 26T
accepts the principle of the devotion to Vasudeva and the
theory of Action ( pravrtti ) propounded in the Narayanlya or
Bhagavata religion, it does not accept the further doctrine of
that religion, that Samkarsana (Jtva) was first created out of
Vasudeva, and Pradyumna (Mind) out of Sarhkarsana, and
Aniruddha (Individuation) out of Pradyumna ; and the words
Sarhkarsana, Pradyumna, or Aniruddha are nowhere come
across in the Gita. This is the important difference between
the Bhagavata religion mentioned in the Pancaratra, and the
Bhagavata religion mentioned in the Gita. I have expressly
mentioned this fact here in order that one should not draw the
mistaken conclusion that the creed of devotional schools like
the Bhagavata school regarding the creation of the Cosmos or the
the Jiva-Paramesvara is acceptable to the Gita, from the mere
fact that the Bhagavata religion has been mentioned in the
Bhagavadgita. Let us now consider whether or not there is
some element or principle at the root of the perceptible and
imperceptible or mutable and immutable universe, which is
beyond the Prakrti and Purusa mentioned in Samkhya
philosophy. This is what is known as Adhyatma (the?
philosophy of the Absolute Self) or Vedanta.
CHAPTER IX.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF.
(ADHYATMA)
paras tasmat tu bhavo 'nyo 'vt/aldo '■mjaktut sanatanah I
yah sa sarvesu bhutesu nasyatsu na vinasyati II *
(Gi. 8. 20).
The sum and substance of the last two chapters was that
what was referred to as the ksetrajna (Owner of the Body) in
the consideration of the Body and the Atman is known in
Samkhya philosophy as ' Purusa '; and that when one considers
the question of the construction and the destruction of the
mutable and immutable or the moveable and immoveable
■world, one arrives finally, according to the Samkhyas, at only
two independent and eternal fundamental elements, namely,
Matter and Spirit; and that it is necessary for the Spirit to
realise its difference from Matter, that is, its isolation, and
transcend the three qualities (become trigumtlta) in order to
obtain the total annihilation of its pain and attain Release ',
Modern natural scientists explain the order in which Matter
places its evolution before Spirit, after its union with Spirit,
in a way slightly different from the Sarhkhyas ; and, as the
natural sciences are further developed, this order is likely
to be improved. But the fundamental proposition that all
perceptible objects have come into existence in a gradual order
out of one imperceptible Matter as a result of the development
of the constituents, cannot possibly be altered. Nevertheless,
looking upon this as the subject-matter of other sciences, the
lion of Vedanta does not enter into any dispute about it. That
lion wants to go beyond all these sciences, and determine what
Absolute Element is at the root of the Cosmic Body, and how
a man should be merged in It ; and in this its province it will
not be out-roared by any other science. As jackals . become
* " That second imperceptible substance, which is higher than
rthe (Samkhya) Imperceptible, and which is eternal, and which is
not destroyed even when all other living things are destroyed",
is the ultimate goal.
THE PHILOSOPHY OP THE ABSOLUTE SELF Z6£
mute in the presence of the lion, so do all other sciences in the
presence of Vedanta ; therefore, an ancient classical writer has-
appropriately described Vedanta in the following words :-
tavat garjardi sasfrani jamtmka ripine yatha i
na garjati mahasaktih yavad vedantakesari II
that is : " other sciences howl lik ejackals in the wo ods, so long ,
as the jion of Ved anta, the all-powerful, does not roar l'. The
'"Observer ' which lias been located after the consideration of
the Body and the Atman, namely, the Purusa (Spirit) or
Atman (Self), and imperceptible Matter with its sattva, rajas
and tamos constituents which has been located after the-
consideration of the Mutable and the Immutabie, are both
independent according to the Samkhyas, who say that, on that,
account, the fundamental Element of the world must be looked,
upon as dual. But Vedanta goes further, and says that in as-
much as the spirits of the Samkhyas are innumerable (though,
they are qualityless), it would be prima facie better and more
proper from the logical point of view (i) to carry to its-
logical conclusion and without exception, the theory of the-
unifying tendency of Knowledge, described in the words,
"awbhaktam vibliaktesu", which is seen rising from lower
grades to higher grades, and as a result of which tendency .
all the various perceptible objects in the universe can be
included in one imperceptible Matter, and (ii) to include
both Matter and these innumerable Spirits finally and
without division in the Absolute Element, than to believe
that fundamental Matter is capable of first ascertaining
in what the good of each one of these innumerable
Spirits lies, and of behaving accordingly (Gl. 18. 20-22)..
Diversity is the result of Individuation, and if Spirit is
qualityless, these innumerable Spirits cannot possess the
quality of remaining distinot from each other ; or, one has to
say that they are not fundamentally innumerable, but that
this innumerability has arisen in them as a result of their
oontact with the quality of Individuation possessed by Matter^.
There arises also another question, namely, is the union whioh
takes place between independent Spirit and independent Matter
real or illusory ?. If you say it is real (permanent), then, in as.
370 GITA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
much as it can never be got rid of, the Atman can never attain
Release according to the Samkhya doctrines ; and if you say it
is illusory, then, the statement that Matter begins to place its
evolution before Spirit, as a result of its union with Spirit,
falls to the ground. Even the illustration that Matter keeps up
a continual dance for the benefit of Spirit, in the same way as
the cow gives milk for the benefit of its calf, is inappropriate ;
because, you cannot explain away the relation between Matter
and Spirit in the same way as you can explain the love of the
. cow for her calf on the ground that it has come out of her womb
' ("Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. 2. 2. 3). According to Samkhya philosophy,
Matter and Spirit are fundamentally extremely different from
■ each other and whereas one is gross (jada), the other is
■ self-conscious (sacetana). If these two substances are extremely
different and independent of each other at the commencement
of the world, why should one act for the benefit of the other ?
Saying that such is their inherent quality is not a satisfactory
answer. If one has to rely on an inherent quality, why find
fault with the Gross-Non-Dualism (jadadvaita) of Haeckel?,
Does not Haeckel say that in the course of the growth of the
constituents of fundamental Matter, it acquires the Self-cons-
■ oiousness of looking at itself or of thinking of itself ? But if
the Samkhyas do not accept that position, and if they
■differentiate between the 'Observer' and the 'visible world', why
should one not make further use of the logic by which one
arrives at this differentiation 1 Howmuchsoever one may
examine the visible world, and come to the conclusion that the
sensory nerves of the eye possess particular properties, yet, the
■ one who has ascertained this, remains a separate entity. When
in this way the Spirit which sees the visible world is found to
be different from the visible world which it sees, then, is there
■or is there not some way for us for ascertaining who this
'Observer' is, as also whether the real form of the visible
universe is as we perceive it by our organs, or different from it ?
Samkhya philosophers say that, as these questions can never
be solved, one is driven to look upon Matter and Spirit as two
fundamentally different and independent elements ; and if we
consider the matter purely from the point of view of natural
rsciences, this opinion of the Samkhyas cannot be said to be
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 371
incorrect ; because, the 'Observer ', or what is known in Vedanta
as the 'Atman', cannot at any time become perceptible to the
■ organs of the Observer, that is, to its own organs, as a separate
entity, in the same way as we can examine the properties of
the other objects in the universe as a result of their having
become perceptible to our organs ; and how can human organs
examine such a substance which is incapable of perception by
the organs, that is, beyond the reach of the organs (indriyatita) ?
'The Blessed Lord has himself described the Atman in the
Uhagavadgrta in the following words : —
naimm chindanti sastruni uainam daliati pavakah \
na cainam Medayaitty apo iia sosayati marutah n
(Gi. 2. 23).
that is, "it, that is, the Atman cannot be cut by weapons, it
cannot be burnt by fire, it cannot be wetted by water or dried
up by wind". Therefore, the Atman is not such a thing that
it will be liquified like other objects by pouring on it a liquid
■substance like sulphuric acid, or that we will beable to see its
interior by cutting it by sharp instruments in a dissecting
room, or that by holding it over fire it will be turned to gas,
■ or that it will be dried up by wind 1 " In short, all the devices
which natural scientists have got for examining worldly objects
fall flat in this case. Then, how is the Atman to be examined?
The question does appear to be difficult ; but if one ponders a
little over the matter, it will be seen to be not difficult. How
have even the Sarhkhyas determined that Spirit is qualityless
-and independent ? Have they not done that by experience got by
their own consciousness? Then, why not make use of the same
method for determining the true nature of Matter and Spirit 1
Herein lies the great difference between Materialistic philoso-
phy and the philosophy of the Absolute Self. The subject-
matter of Materialistic philosophy is perceptible to the organs,
whereas that of the philosophy of the Absolute Self is beyond
the organs, that is, it is self -perceptible, or something which
•one oneself alone can realise. It may be argued that if the
Atman is self-perceptible, then let each person acquire such
•knowledge of it as he himself can : where is the use of the
272 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
philosophy of the Absolute Sslf? This objection will be
proper, if the Mind or the Conscience of each man were equally-
pure. But, as we know by experience that the purity or-
strength of everybody's mind is not the same, we have to-
accept as authoritative in this matter the experience of only
those persons whose minds are extremely pure, clean, and
broad. There is no sense in carrying on a foolish argument
that ' I think like this' or 'you think like that ' etc. Vedanta
does not ask you to abandon logic altogether. All that it says
is that since the subject-matter of the philosophy of the
Absolute Self is self-perceptible, that is, as it is not capable
of discernment by Materialistic methods, those arguments,
which are inconsistent with the personal and direct
experience which supermen, possessing an extremely pure,
clean, and broad mind, have described regarding the Absolute
Self, cannot be taken as correct in the consideration of that
philosophy. Just as in Materialistic sciences, inferences incon-
sistent with physical experience are considered useless, so in
the philosophy of the Absolute Self, personal experience or some-
thing which one's Atman has realised is considered of higher
value than technical skill. That teaching which is consistent
with such self-experience is acceptable to the Vedantists.
Srtmat Sarhkaracarya has laid down this very principle in
his commentary on the Vedanta-Sutras, and those who wish
to study the philosophy of the Absolute Self must always
bear it in mind. There is an ancient saying that :-
acintyah khalu ye bham na tarns tarhsna sadhaijet I
prakriibhyah param yat tu tad acintyasya laksanam II
that is, " one should not, by mere imagination or inference,,
draw conclusions about those objects on which it is impossible-
to contemplate as they are beyond the reach of the organs ;
that substance which is beyond Matter, ( which is the
fundamental substance of the entire universe ), is. in this way,
incapable of contemplation " ; and this stanza has been,
adopted in the Mahabharata (Ma. Bha. Bhistna 5.12) and also in
the commentary of Sri Sarhkaracarya on the Vedanta-Sutras,
but with the reading ' yojayet ' instead of 'sadhayet'. (Ve. Su.'
Sam. Bha. 2. 1. 27). It is similarly stated in the Mundako-
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 273
panisad and the Kathopanisad, that knowledge of the Absolute
Self cannot be got merely by imagination ( Mun. 3. 2. 3 ;
Katha. 2. 8. 9 and 22 ). That is why the Upanisada have an
important place in the philosophy of the Absolute Self. Much
attention had been paid in India in ancient times to the
question of concentrating the mind, and there was developed
in our country an independent science on that subject which is
known as the ( Patanjah ) Yoga science. Those venerable
Itsis who, being experts in that science, had besides minds
which were naturally very pure and broad, have described in
the Upanisads the experience gained by them by introspection
about the nature of the Atman, or all that with which their
pure and peaceful minds were inspired. Therefore, for drawing 1
any conclusion about any Metaphysical principle, one cannot
but refer to these Sruti texts ( Katha. 4. 1 ). One may find
various arguments which support and justify this self-
experience according to one's own acumen ; but thereby,
the authoritativeness of the original self-experience does not
suffer. It is true that the Bhagavadgita is a Smrti text;
but, I have explained in the very beginning of the first chapter,
that it is considered to be as authoritative in the matter as the
Upanisads. I have, therefore, in this chapter first explained
with authorities, but simply— that is, without giving reasons —
the doctrines propounded in the Gita and in the Upanisads
about this unimaginable Substance which is beyond Matter,
and I have considered later on in the chapter in what way
those theories can be scientifically supported.
The Bhagavadgita does not accept the Samkhya dualism
of Matter and Spirit, and the first doctrine of the philosophy
of the Absolute Self in the Gita, as also in Vedanta, is that
there is at the root of the moveable and immoveable world, a
third Principle which is all-pervading, imperceptible and
imperishable, and which is beyond both Matter and Spirit.
Although the Samkhya Prakrti is imperceptible, it is qualityful
(saguna), because, it is composed of the three constituents. But
whatever is qualityful is perishable. Therefore, that something
else which, being imperceptible, still survives after this
qualityful imperceptible Matter has been destroyed, is the real
and permanent Principle of the entire Cosmos — as has been
35—36
274 GlTA-RAHAS YA OR KARMA-YOGA ,:
stated in the Gita in the course of the discussion on Matter and
Spirit in the stanza (GI. 8. 20) quoted at the beginning of this
chapter ; and later on, in the fifteenth chapter, after referring
to the Mutable and the Immutable — the Perceptible and the
Imperceptible — as the two Sarhkhy a elements, the Gita says : —
uttamdh purusas tv anyah paramatmefy udahrtah I
yo lokatrayam avisya bibharty avyaya Uvarah II
that is, "that Purusa, which is different from both these (Matter
and Spirit) is the Super-Excellent, the One which is known as
the Absolute Atman, the Inexhaustible and the All-Powerful ;
and, pervading the three-sphered universe, It protects it." As
-this Spirit is 'beyond' both the Mutable and the Immutable,
•that is, beyond the Perceptible and the Imperceptible, it is
properly called (See Gi. 15. 18) 'the Absolute Spirit'
{purusottama). Even in the Mahabharata, Bhrgu has said to
Bharadvaja as follows in defining the word 'Paramatman':
atma ksetrajna ity uktdh samyuktah prakrtair gmjaih I
fair eva tit vinirmuktah paramatmefy udahrtah II
(Ma. Bha. San. 187. 24).
that is, "when the Atman is imprisoned within the body, it is
called Ksetrajna (or Jlvatman, i. e. personal Self) ; and when the
same Atman is released from these 'prakrta' qualities, that is,
from the qualities of Matter or of the body, it is known as the
Paramatman (Absolute Self)". One is likely to think that these
two definitions of the 'Paramatman' are different from each
other ; but really speaking, they are not so. As there is
only one Paramatman, which is beyond the Mutable and
Immutable Cosmos, and also beyond the Jlva (or, beyond both
imperceptible Matter and Spirit, according to the Saihkhya
philosophy) a two-fold characteristic or definition of one and
the same Paramatman can he given, by once saying that It is
beyond the Mutable and the Immutable, and again saying that
It is beyond Jiva (Soul) or the Jlvatman (i. e. Purusa). Bearing
this aspect in mind, Kalidasa has described the Paramesvara
in the Kumarasai'nbhava in the following words : "You are the
Matter which exerts itself for the benefit of the Spirit, and You
are also the Spirit which, apathetic Itself, observes that
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 275
Matter" (Kuma. 2. 13). So also, the Blessed Lord has said in
-the Gita: "mama yoiur maliadbrdhma" , i.e., "Matter is My
generative principle (yoni) or only one of My forms" (14. 3) and
that "Jiva or Soul is a part of Ms" (15. 7); and in the
seventh chapter, the Blessed Lord says : —
bhUmir apo 'nalo uayuh kltam memo buddhir eva ca I
ahamkara itiyam me bhinna prakrtir astadha II
(GI. 7. 4).
that is, "the earth, water, fire, air, ether, the Mind, Reason, and
Individuation is My eightfold Prakrti" ; besides this (apareyam
itastv anyam), "that Jiva (Soul) which is maintaining the whole
of this world is also My second Prakrti" (Gi. 7. 5). The twenty-
five Samkhya elements have heen referred to in many places in
"the Mahabharata. Nevertheless, it is stated in each place
that there is beyond these twenty-five elements an Absolute
Element (paramatattva), which is the twenty-sixth (pdvimia)
Element, and that a man does not become a ' buddna ' (scient)
unless he has realised It (San. 308). Our world is nothing but
that knowledge which we get of all the objects in the world by
means of our organs of Perception; that is why Matter or
Creation is sometimes referred to as 'jriana ' (Knowledge), and
from this point of view, the Spirit becomes 'the Knower'i. e.
jnata (San. 306. 35-41). But the real TO BE KNOWN*
(jueya) is beyond both Matter and Spirit, that is, beyond both
Knowledge and Knower, and, that is what is known as the
Absolute Spirit ( paramapurusa) in the Gita (Gi. 13'. 12). Not
only the Gita, but also all the works on Vedanta philosophy
are repeatedly exhorting us to realise that parama or para
(that is, Absolute) Spirit which pervades the -entire Cosmos
and eternally maintains it; and they say that It is One, that
It is Imperceptible, that It is Eternal, and that It is Im-
mutable. The adjectives 'ahsara' (Immutable) and 'avyakta'
(Imperceptible) are used in Samkhya philosophy with reference
to Prakrti (Matter), because, it is one of the Samkhya doctrines
that there is no other fundamental cause of the Cosmos which
is more subtle than Prakrti (Sam. Ka. 61). But— and my
readers must bear this in mind— as, from 'the point of view of
Vedanta, the Parabrahman alone is a-ksara, that is, something
376 GtrA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
which Ib never destroyed, and also a-wyakta, that is, im-
perceptible to the oigans, the same terms ' aksara ' and ' avyakta r
are UBed in the Glta for referring to the form of the Para-
brahman which is beyond Matter (Gl. 8. 20; 11. 37 ; 15. 16, 17)_
It is true that when this point of view has been accepted
it would be incorrect to refer to Matter as aksara (imperishable
or immutable) though it may be avyakta (imperceptible) ; but as-
the Glta accepts the doctrines of the Samkhya system,
regarding the order of creation of the Cosmos to such extent as
they can be accepted without prejudicing the omnipotence of
this Third Element ( Absolute Spirit ) which is beyond both
Matter and Spirit, the Perishable and the Imperishable or the
Perceptible and the Imperceptible Cosmos haB been described,
in the Gita without departing from the fixed terminology of the
Sarhkhyas; and therefore, when there is occasion to describe
the Parabrahman, it becomes necessary for the Glta to refer to.
it as the Imperceptible (avyakta) beyond the (Samkhya) tar
perceptible, or the Immutable (aksara) beyond the (Samkhya),
immutable. See, for instance, the stanza given at the
commencement of this chapter. In Bhort, in reading the Glta,
one must always bear in mind that the words ' avyakta ' and.
' aksara ' are both used in the Glta, sometimes with reference
to the Prakrti (Matter) of Samkhya philosophy, and at other-
times with reference to the Parabrahman of Vedanta
philosophy, that is, in two different ways. That further
Imperceptible, which is beyond the imperceptible of the
Sarhkhyas, is the Root of the Cosmos according to Vedanta..
I shall later on explain how, as a result of this difference
between Samkhya and Vedanta philosophy regarding the
Root Element of the world, the form of Moksa according to-
the philosophy of the Highest Self is also different from that
according to Samkhya philosophy.
When you once reject the Samkhya dualism of Matter
and Spirit, and say that there is a Third Element which is
eternal, and which is at the root of the world in the form of a
Paramesvara or a Purusottama, the further questions which
necessarily arise are: what is the form of this third funda-
mental Element, and what is the nature of its relation to
both Spirit and Matter? The three, Matter, Spirit, and!
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 277
Absolute Isvara are respectively called Cosmos, Jiva and
Parabrahman in Metaphysics (i. e., the philosophy of the
Absolute Self). The main object of Vedanta philosophy is to
determine the exact nature of, and the mutual relationship bet-
ween, these three substances; and one finds this subject-matter
discussed everywhere in the TJpanisads. Nevertheless, there
is no unanimity of opinion amongst Vedantists on this point ;
some of them say that these three substances are funda-
mentally one, while others say that the Jiva (personal Self)
and the Cosmos are fundamentally different from the Para-
mesvara, whether to a small or a large extent ; and on that
account, the Vedantists are divided into Advaitins (Monists),
Visistadvaitins (Qualified-Monists), and Dvaitins (Dualists).
All are unanimous in accepting the proposition that all
>the activities of the Jiva and of the Cosmos are carried on
according to the will of the Paramesvara. But some believe
ithat the form of these three substances is fundamentally homo-
genous and intact like ether ; whereas, other Vedantists say
that since the Gross can never become homogeneous with the
self-conscious, the personal Self (jura) and the Cosmos must
be looked upon as fundamentally different from the
Paramesvara, though they are both included in one Parame-
svara, in the same way as the unity of a pomegranate is
not destroyed on account of there being numerous grains in
it ; and whenever there is a statement in the TJpanisads that •
all the three are ' one ', that is to be understood as meaning
' one like the pomegranate '. When in this way, diversity of
opinion had arisen as regards the form of the Self (jiva),
•commentatore supporting different creeds have stretohed the
meanings not only of the TJpanisads, but also of the words
in the Glta, in their respective commentaries. Therefore, the
■subject-matter really propounded in the Glta has been
neglected by these commentators, in whose opinion the principal
subject-matter to be considered in the Glta has been whether
the Vedanta of the Glta is Monistic or Dualistic. However,
before considering this matter further, let us see what the
Blessed Lord has Himself said in the Glta about the mutual
relationship between the Cosmos ( praktti ), Jlva ( atman or
jaunim ), and Parabrahman (Paramatman or Purusottama, i.e.,
278 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Absolute Atman or Absolute Spirit). My readers will see-
from what follows that there is unanimity on this matter
between the Glta and the Upanisads, and all the ideas in the
Glta are, to be found in the Upanisads, which were earlier
in point of time.
In describing the Purusottama, Para-purusa, Paramatman.
or Parabrahman, which is beyond both Matter and Spirit, the
Bhagavadglta has first said that it has its two forms, namely
the vyakta and the avijakta (that is, the one which is perceptible
to the eyes, and the one which is imperceptible to the eyes).
It is clear that the vyakta form out of these two, that is to
say, the form which is perceptible to the organs, must be
possessed of qualities (sagaria). Then remains the impercep-
tible form. It is true that this form is avijakta, that is, it is
not perceptible to the organs ; but from the fact that it is
imperceptible to the organs, it does not follow that it must be
qualityless ; because, though it might not be perceptible to the
eyes, it can still possess all kinds of qualities in a subtle
form. Therefore, the Imperceptible also has been further
subdivided into sagmia (possessed of qualities), saguna-nirguna
(qualified and qualityless) and iiirguya ( qualityless ). , The
word ' gwia ' is here intended to mean and include all the
qualities which can be perceived not only by the external
organs, but also by the Mind. As the Blessed Lord Sri
Krsna, who was a living incarnation of the Paramesvara,
was personally standing in front of Arjuna to advise him,
He has indicated Himself in the first person by referring to
His perceptible form in the following phrases in various
places in the Glta. " Prakrti is My form "(9. 8); "the Jlva
(Self) is a part of Me " (15. 7) ; "I am the Atman inhabiting
the heart of all created things " (10. 20) ; " all the various
glorious (srimat) or magnificent (vibhutimat) beings which
exist in the world have been created out of a part of Me "
(10. 41);. "keep your mind fixed on Me and become My
devotee " (9. 34) ;" in that way, you will come to be merged,
in Me. I am telling you this confidently, because you are
dear to Me" (18. 65); and after having satisfied Arjuna by
showing him His Cosmic Form that all the moveable and the
immoveable Cosmos was actually contained in His perceptible
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 279
form, He ias ultimately advised Arjuna, that, as it was easier
to worship the perceptible form than to worship the imper-
ceptible form, he should put faith in Him (Gl. 12. 8), and that
He was the fundamental repository of the Brahman, of perennial
Release, of eternal Religion and of beatific happiness (Gl, 14.
27). Therefore, one may safely, say that the Gita from
beginning to end describes only the perceptible form of the
Blessed Lord.
But one cannot, on that account, look upon as correct the
opinion of some, followers of the Path of Devotion or of some
commentators, that a perceptible Paramesvara is considered to
be the ultimate object of attainment in the Gita ; because, side
by side with the descriptions referred to above of His perceptible
form, the Blessed Lord has Himself stated that it is illusory,
and that His imperceptible form, which is beyond (para) that
perceptible form, and which is not cognisable by the organs, is
His principal form. For instance, He says :
avyaktam vyaUimapamuim mamjante mamakiddhayahi ■
nara'h bhamm ajanaiito mamawjayavi amiitamam II
that is, "whereas I am imperceptible to the' organs, ignorant
people consider Me as perceptible and do not take cognisance
of My superior and imperceptible form which is beyond the
perceptible form" ' (7, 24) ; and farther on, in the next verse
(7. 25), He has said : "as I am clothed in My YOGA-MAYA
(illusory form), ignorant people do not recognise Me". In the
same way, He has' given the explanation of His perceptible
form in the fourth chapter (4.6) as follows: "although I ani
not subject to birth and am eternal, yet I embody Myself in My
own Prakrti and take, birth, that is, become perceptible by My
own MAY A (gvatmanifiyaija)". He has sfrid later on in the
seventh chapter that' : " "Matter made up of three constituents
is my DIVINE ILLUSION, those who conquer that ILLUSION
become merged in Me;' and those low-natured fools whose
perception is destroyed by it, are' not merged in Me. (7. 14, 15) ,'
and He has ultimately in the eighteenth chapter advised Arjuna
as follows: "O Arjuna ! the Isvara resides in the hearts of all
living beings in the form of Self {jiva ), and he controls the
activities of all created beings 6y his ILLUSION as if they
380 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
were machines". It is stated in the Narayanlya chapter in the
Santiparva in the Mahabharata that the Blessed Lord had
shown to Narada also that Cosmic Form which He had shown
to Arjuna (San. 339) ; and I have explained already in the first
chapter that the Gita advocates the Narayaniya or the
Bhagavata religion. After the Blessed Lord had thus shown
to Narada His Cosmic Form with its myiiad eyes, colours and
other visible qualities, He says to him :
maya hyesa raaya srsta yan mam pasyasi narada I
sarvabhutagunair yuktam rtaivam tvam jnaturn arhasi n
(Ma. Bha. San. 339. 44).
that is, "that My form which you see is an ILLUSION ( rriaya )
created by Me ; but do not, on that account, carry away the
impression that I am possessed of the same qualities as are
possessed by created things" ; and then He goes on to say : "My
real form is all-pervasive, imperceptible, and eternal and that
form is realised by the Released." (San. 339. 48). We must,
therefore, say that the Cosmic Form, which had been shown to
Arjuna as stated in the Gita, was illusory. In short, although
the Blessed Lord has attached importance to His perceptible
form for purposes of worship, the doctrine laid down by the
Gita will, from the above statements, be clearly seen to be that
(i) the excellent and superior form of the Paramesvara is His
imperceptible form, that is, the form which is not cognisable by
the organs; i ii I that His changing from the Imperceptible to
the Perceptible is His MAYA (Illusion); and(iii) that unless a
man conquers this Maya, and realises the pure and imperceptible
form of the Paramesvara, which is beyond the Maya, he cannot
attain Release. I will consider later on in detail what is
meant by MAYA. It becomes quite clear from the statements
quoted above that the theory of Maya was not an invention of
Sri Samkaracarya, and that even before his time it was an
accepted theory in the Bhagavadgita, the Mahabharata, and
also in the Bhagavata religion. Even in the Svetasvataro-
panisad, the creation of the Cosmos is described as follows :
"mayam tu prakrtim vidyan mayinam tu mahesvaram" (Sveta.
4. 10), that is, "Maya is the Prakrti (the Sarhkhya Prakrti)
THE PHILOSOPHY OP THE ABSOLUTE SELF 281
and the Lord of that Maya is the Paramesvara; that Para-
mesvara creates the universe by His Maya (Illusive Force)".
Although it is thus clear that the superior form of the
Paramesvara is not perceptible, hut is imperceptible, yet, it is
necessary to consider whether this imperceptible form has
qualities or is qualityless; because, we have before ourselves the
example of a qualityful imperceptible substance in the form of
the Sarhkhya Prakrti which, being imperceptible, is at the same
time possessed of qualities, that is, which possesses the sattva,
rajas, and tamas qualities ; and according to some persons, the
imperceptible and superior fomi of the Paramesvara must
also be considered qualityful in the same way. These people
say that in as much as the imperceptible Paramesvara
■creates the perceptible Cosmos, though He may do so by His
Maya (Gi. 9. 8), and as He also resides in the htart of every-
body and makes them carry on their various activities (18. 61);
in as much as He is the recipient and the Lord of all sacrifices
<9. 24) ; in as much as all the Bhavas (that is, rational activities)
in the shape of pain and happiness of all living beings spring
from Him (10, 5); in as much as He is the one who creates
devotion in the hearts of living beings; and as "labhate at
tatah Icaman mayaiva vihitan hi mn" (7. 22), that is, as "He is
the giver of the result of the desires of living beings";
•therefore, though He may be imperceptible, that is, though
He may not be perceptible to the organs, yet He must be
looked upon as possessed of the qualities of mercy, potentiality
etc., that is, possessed of qualities [sagwna). But on the other
hand, the Blessed Lord Himself says: "na mam karmatfi
limpanti", that is, "I am never polluted by Action " or, which
is the same thing, by qualities (4. 14); foolish people suffer
from MOHA (ignorance) as a result of the qualities of Prakrti,
and look upon the Atman as the doer (3. 27 ; 14. 19) ; as this
-eternal and non-active Paramesvara inhabits the hearts of
living beings in the form of JIva (13. 31), people, who are
overwhelmed by ignorance, become confused, though the
Paramesvara is really speaking untouched by their activity
or action (5. 14, 15). It is not that the forms of the Parame-
svara who is imperceptible, (that is, imperceptible to the
organs) have thus been described as only two, namely,
282 GITA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
qualityful (saguna) and qualityless (mrguna) \ but in some-,
places both the ;forms are naked up in describing the
imperceptible Parameavara. Jot instance, there are mutually
contradictory saguna-nirguna descriptions of the Paramesvara
in the ninth chapter of the Gita where it is stated that v
" bhutabhrt na ca bhataitho" (9. 9j, that is, "I am the
fundamental support of all created things, and yet, I am not in_
them ", and in the thirteenth chapter, where it is stated that : "the
Parabrahman is neither sat (real) nor asat, i.e., illusory" (13. 12),
"It appears to be possessed of all organs, yet, is devoid of organs,
and is qualityless, and at the same time the eiperiencer of the
qualities" (13. 14) ; "It is distant, and yet It is near" (13. 15) £
"It is undivided, and yet It appears to be divided" (13. 16).
^Nevertheless, in the beginning of the Gita, already in the
second chapter, it is stated that "this Atman is imperceptible,
unimaginable iacirdija) and immutable, i. e., arikurya" (2.25);
and there is in the thirteenth chapter, a description of the
superiority of the imperceptible form of the Paramesvara,.
which is pure, qualityless {nirguya), unorganised (niravayava),
unchanging (rdrvikam), unimaginable (atiniya) and eternal
(aw/li), in the following words : — "this absolute Atman
(Paramatman) is eternal, qualityless, and inexhaustible, and
therefore, though It might reside in the body, It does nothing
and is not effected by anything" (13. 31).
As in the Bhagavadgita, bo also in the TTpanisads is the
fora of the imperceptible Paramesvara found described in three
ways, that is, sometimes as being saguna (qualityful), sometimes
as -sagii'.n-niryuya (qualityful and qualityless), and sometimes as
nirguw: (qualityless). It is not that one must always have a
visible icon before oneself for purposes of worship. It is possible
to worship a form which is indefinite (nirakara), that is, which
is imperceptible to the eyes and the other organs of Perception.
But, unless that which is to be worshipped is perceptible to the
Mind, though it might be imperceptible to the eyes and other
organs of perception, its worship will be impossible. Worship
means contemplation, visualising by the Mind (manaa) or
meditation ; and unless the Mind perceives some other quality
of the object of contemplation— even if it cannot perceive its
form— how can the Mind contemplate on it? Therefore*
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 283-
wherever the contemplation, mental visualisation or meditation,
of or on the imperceptible Paramesvara, that is, on the;
Paramesvara who is not visible to the eyes, has been mentioned.
in the Upanisads, He has been considered as possessed of
qualities (sagwna). These qualities which are imagined to exist
in the Paramesvara are more or less comprehensive or more or
less sattvika according to the merit of the worshipper, and'
everyone gets the result of his worship in the measure of his
faith. It is stated in the Chandogyopanisad (3. 14. 1) that
"man {purusa) is the embodiment of his determination (i.e., he
is kratumaya), and he gets his meed after death, according to his-
'kratu' (determination)" ; and it is also stated in the Bhagavad-
glta that : "those who worship deities are merged in the deities,
and those who worship ancestors are merged in the ancestors
(Glta 9. 25), or "yo yacchraddliah sa em sah", that is, "every, one
obtains results according to his own faith (17. 3). Necessarily,
therefore, different qualities of the imperceptible Paramesvara.
to be worshipped have been, described in the Upanisads
according to the difference in the spiritual merit of the wor-
shipper. This portion of the Upanisads is technically called,
'VIDYS.'. Vidya means the path (in the form of worship) of
reaching the Isvara, and any chapter in which such path is
described has the suffix 'vidya' placed at the end of its name.
Many forms of worship are described in the Upanisads*
such as Sandilya-vidya (Chan. 3. 14), Purusa-vidya (Chan. S.
16, 17), Paryamka-vidya (Kausl. l),Pranopasana (Kausl. 2) eto.j
etc., and all these forms have been dwelt upon in the third,
section of the third chapter of the Vedanta-Sutras. In these
chapters, the imperceptible Paramesvara has been described
as qualityful in the following terms : e. g., ' manomaya ' (mind-
embodied), ' prayasarira ' (embodiment of Vital Force), ' bharupa "
(of shining .appearance), ' saiyasamkalpa' (Truth-formed),
akasatma' (ether-like), 'm-tHtfazmtf' (all-capable), 'sarvakama'
(fulfiller of all desires), ' sarvagandha ' (embodiment , of alL
scents), and ' sarvarasa ', i.e., embodiment of all tastes (Chan., 3.,
14. 2); and in the Taittfayopanisad (Tai. 2. 1-5; 3. 2-6) the;
worship of the Brahman in a rising scale has been described,
as the worship of food, life, mind, practical knowledge,
(vijnana), and joy (amnda); and in the Brhadaranyaka, GSrgya
284 GtTi-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
Balaki has prescribed to Ajatasatru tie worship of the Spirit
in the Sun, the Moon, ether, the air, fire, water, or the cardinal
points, as being the form of the Brahman ; but Ajatasatru has
told him that the true Brahman is beyond all these, and
ultimately maintained that the worship of Vital Force
(pravopasana) is the highest. But this list does not end here.
All the forms of the Brahman mentioned above are technically
called 'pratlka' (symbols), that is to say, an inferior form of
the Brahman adopted for worship, or some sign indicating
the Brahman ; and when this form is kept before the eyes in
the shape of an idol, it becomes a 'pratima' (icon). But all
the Upanisads lay down the doctrine that the real form of the
Brahman is different from this (Kena 1. 2. 8). In some places,
this Brahman is defined so as to include all qualities in only
three qualities, as in the following expressions: "satyan
jmnam ananfam brahma" (Taitti. 2. 1), or " vijnamm anandam
brahma" (Br. 3. 9. 28), or that the Brahman is of the form of
satya ($at),jnana (cit), ananda (joy), or is ' saccidaaanda' in form.
And in other places, there are descriptions which include
mutually contradictory qualities, in the same way as in the
Bhagavadglta, like the following: "the Brahman is neither
sat (real) nor asat, i. e., illusory" (Rg. 10. 129), or is "artor aifiyan
imhato mahiyan", that is, smaller than an atom and larger
than the largest (Katha 2.20), or "tadejati tannaijati tad dure,
tad antike", that is, "It does not move and yet It moves, It
is far away and yet It is near (Isa 5; Mun. 3. 1. 7), or "It has
the appearance of possessing the qualities of all organs"
' ( sarvendriyagunabhasa ), and yet is ' sarvendriyavivarjita ', i. e.,
devoid of all organs (Sveta. 3. 17). Mrtyu, in advising
Naciketa, has kept aside all these descriptions, and said that
i the Brahman is something which is beyond righteousness,
beyond that which is done and that which has not been done,
and beyond that which has happened and that which is
capable of happening, i. e., 'bhavya' (Katha 2. 14); and
-. similar descriptions are given by Brahmadeva to Rudra in
the chapter on the Narayanlya religion in the Mahabharata
(Ma. Bha. San. 351. 11.); and by Narada to Suka in the chapter
• on Moksa (331. 44). Even in the Brhadaranyakopanisad
■(Br. 2. 3. 2), it is stated in the beginning that there are three
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 285 •
iconical forms of the Brahman, namely, earth, water, and fire •
and two non-iconical forms, namely, air and ether ; and it is
then stated that the forms or colours of the ether-formed
[sarabhuta) spirits into which these non-ioonioal forms are
transformed, ohange; and it is ultimately stated that "neti, ,
neti", that is, " It is not this ", " It is not this ", that is to say,
whatever has been described so far, is not the Brahman; the
Parabrahman is something which is beyond (para) this non-
iconical or iconical substance (which can be identified by
Name and Form) , and is ^agrhya', i. e., incomprehensible, and
' avarnanlya ', i. e., indescribable (Br. 2. 3. 7 and Ve. Su. 3. 2. 22).
Nay, the Brahman is that which is beyond all objects
whatsoever which can ba named; and the words "neti, neti",
that is, "It is not this, It is not this" have become a short
symbol to show the imparceptible and qualityless form of
that Brahman; and the same description has appeared four
times in the Brhadaranyakopanisad (Brha. 3. 2. 29 ; 4. 2. 4 ;
4. 4. 22; and 4. 5. 15); and in the same way, there are also
descriptions in other Upanisads of the qualityless and
unimaginable form of the Parabrahman, such as, "yato vaco
nivartante aprapya manasa saha" (Taitti. 2. 9), or "adresyam
(adrsya), agrahyam" (Mun. 1. 1.6), or "na cahsusa grhyate
ma 'pi vaca (Mun, 3. 1. 8), that is, "That which is not visible-
to the eyes, and which cannot be described by speech", or:
aiabdam asparsam arupam avyayam
tatha 'rasa'h vityam agandhavac ca yat I
anady anantam mahatah param dhruvaih
mcayya tan mrtyumukhat pramucyate II
that is, It does not possess the five qualities of sound, touch,
colour, taste, and smell, which are possessed by the five
primordial elements, and is without beginning, without end,
and imperishable (See Ve. Su. 3. 2. 22-30). In the description of
the Narayaniya or Bhagavata religion in the Santiparva of the
Mahabharata, the Blessed Lord has described His real form to
Narada as being " invisible, unsmellable, untouchable, quality-
less, inorganic (niskala), unborn, eternal, permanent and
inactive (niskriya); and said that such His form is known as
286 GTTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
''vasudeua paramatman' ( Vasudeva, the Absolute Atmah);
and that He is the Paramesvara who has transcended the three
constituents, and who creates and destroys the universe (Ma.
Bha. San. 339. 31-38).
Not only in the Bhagavadglta but also in the Bhagavata
or Narayanlya religion described in the Mahabharata, and
eyen in the Upanisads, the imperceptible form of the Parames-
vara is considered to be superior to His perceptible form, and
}his imperceptible form is again described in three ways F
that is, as being qualityful, qualityful-qualityless and quality-
less, as will appear from the quotations above. Now, how is
one going to harmonise these three mutually contradictory
forms with the superior and imperceptible form of the
Paramesvara ? Out of these three forms, the qualityful-quality-
less or dual form may be looked upon as a step between the
saguya (qualityful) and the nirguna (qualityless) or the ajfieya
'(unknowable) ; because, one can realise the qualityless form
■only by, in the first place, realising the qualityful form, and
then omitting quality after quality ; and it is in this rising
grade that the worship of the symbol of the Brahman has been
described in the Upanisads. For instance, in the Bhrguvalli
in the Taittirlyopanisad, Bhrgu has said to Varuna in
the first place that anixa (food) is Brahman, and thereafter he
has in a gradual order explained to him the other forms of the
Brahman, namely, Vital Force (prams), Mind (mams), diverse
'knowledge (vijnana) and joy i. e. ananda (Taitti. 3. 2-6). Or, it
may even be said that, since that which has no qualities cannot
be described by adjectives showing quality, it is necessary to
•describe it by mutually contradictory adjectives; because, when
you use the words 'distant' or 'real {sat) our mind gets
inferentially the idea that there is some other thing, which is
near or illusory (asat). But, if there is only one Brahman to
be found on all sides, what can be called near or illusory, if
one calls the Paramesvara distant or real (sat) ? Therefore,
.one cannot but use such expressions as, 'It is neither distant
nor near, It is neither real nor illusory' and thereby get rid of
.mutually dependent quality-couplets like distant and near, or
illusory and real ; and one has to take advantage of these
•mutually contradictory adjectives in ordinary conversation for
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF ' 387
showing that, that which remains, and which is qualityless,
and is such as exists everywhere and at all times, in an
-unrelated and independent state, is the true Brahman (Gl. 13. 12).
In as much as whatever is,, is Brahman, it is distant and it is
also near, it is real ot existent, and, at the same time, it is
-unreal or illusory ; and looking at the matter from another
point of view, the same Brahman may be defined at the same
time by mutually contradictory adjectives (Gl. 11. 17 ; 13. 15).
But though, in this way, one justifies the dual qualification of
'qualityful-qualityless' yet, it still remains to explain how the
two mutually contradictory qualifications of 'qualityful' and
^qualityless' can be applied to the same Paramesvara. When the
imperceptible Paramesvara takes up a perceptible (vyaktai form
which is cognisable by the organs, that may be said to be His
Maya or illusion ; but when He changes from the Qualityless to
the Qualityful without becoming perceptible to or cognisable by
the organs, and remains imperceptible, how is He to be called ?
For instance, one and the same indefinite Paramesvara is
looked upon by some as qualityless, and is described by the
words "neti, neli", that is, "It is not this, It is not this"; whereas
others consider him qualityful, that is, as possessing all
qualities and being the doer of all things, and being kind. Then
it becomes necessary to explain, what the reason for this is, and
which is the more correct description, as also to explain how
the entire perceptible universe and all living beings came into
existence out of one qualityless and imperceptible Brahman.
To say that the imperceptible Paramesvara, who brings all
projects to a successful conclusion, is, as a matter of fact,
qualityful, and that His description in the Upanisads and in
the Gits as 'qualityless' is an exaggeration or meaningless
praise, would be like cutting at the very root of the philosophy
■of the Absolute Self; because, characterising as an exaggeration
'the conscious self-experience of great Rsis, who, after concen-
trating their minds and after very minute and peaceful
■meditation, have expounded the doctrine, that that is the true
form of the Brahman which: "yato vaco nivartante aprapya
.manam saha" (Tai. 2. 9), that is, "is unrealisable by the mind,
and which cannot be described by speech" ; and saying that
ithe true Brahman must be qualityful, because our minds cannot
288 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
grasp the idea of an eternal and qualityless Brahman, would 1
be as reasonable as saying that one's own candle-light is-
superior to the Sun ! It would be different, of course, if this
qualityless form of the Paramesvara had not been explained
and justified in the Upanisads or in the Gita ; but such is not
the case. The Bhagavadglta does not rest with saying that
the superior and true form of the Paramesvara is imperceptible,,
and that His taking up the form of the perceptible Cosmos is
His MAYA (Gl. 4. 6). The Blessed Lord has said to Arjuna
in clear and unmistakable terms that : "as a result of MOHA
(ignorance) arising from the qualities of Prakrti, FOOLISH
PEOPLE consider the (imperceptible and qualityless) Atman
as the performer of Actions" (Gi. 3. 27-29) ; the Isvara does
nothing, and people are deceived as a result of IGNORANCE
(Gl. 5. 15) ; that is to say, though the imperceptible Atman or
the Absolute Isvara is fundamentally qualityless (Gl. 13. 31),
people as a result of 'confusion' or 'ignorance' foist on Him,
qualities like activity etc., and make Him qualityful andi
imperceptible (Gi. 7. 24). From this, it follows that the true-
doctrines of the Gita about the form of the Paramesvara are-
that : — (1) though there is any amount of description of the-
perceptible form of the Paramesvara in the Gita, yet. His
fundamental and superior form is imperceptible and qualityless
and people look upon Him as qualityful by IGNORANCE or
MOHA ; (2) the Samkhya Prakrti is His perceptible diffusion
that is to say, the whole of this cosmos is the ILLUSION of
the Paramesvara ; and (3) the Samkhya Purusa, that is, the
personal Self, is fundamentally of the same form as the
Paramesvara, and is qualityless and inactive -like the-
Paramesvara, but people consider him as a doer (kartaj as a
result of IGNORANCE. The same are the doctrines of Vedanta
philosophy. But in later Vedanta treatises, some amount
of distinction is made between Maya (illusion) and Avidya
(ignorance) in enunciating these doctrines. For instance, in
the Pancadail, it is stated in the beginning, that the Atman
and the Parabrahman are originally identical, that is, are both
of the form of the Brahman, and that when this Brahman, in
the form of Consciousness (cit) is reflected in the form of Maya
(Illusion), Prakrti oomposed of the sattva, rajas and tamas--
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 289
constituents (the Saihkhya fundamental Prakrti) comes into
existence. But later on, this Maya is subdivided into 'maya'
(illusion) and 'avidya' (ignorance) ; and it is stated that we have
pufe'maj/S when the pure (suddha) sattva component, out of the>
three components of this Maya is preponderant, and the
Brahman which is reflected in this pure maya, is called the
qualityful or perceptible Isvara (Hiranya-garbha); and, if this
sattva component is impure (asuddhal, that Maya becomes
'avidya' (ignorance^ and the Brahman which is reflected
in it is given the name of 'jlva' (Panca. 1. 15-17). From
this point of view, it is necessary to make a two-fold
distinction between one and the same Maya, by looking
upon maya as the cause of the 'perceptible Isvara' springing
out of the Parabrahman, and 'avidya' as the cauBe of the
'Jlva' springing but of the Parabrahman. But, this
distinction has not been made in the Glta. The Glta says that
the Jlva becomes confused (7. 4-15) as a result of the same
Maya by means of which the Blessed Lord takes up his
perceptible or qualityful form (7. 25), or by means of which
the eight-fold Prakrti, that is, all the various objects in the world
are born from Him (4. 6). The word ' avidya ' does not occur
anywhere in the Glta, and where it appears in the Svetasva-
taropanisad, it is used to signify the diffusion of Maya
(Sveta 5. 1). I shall, therefore, disregard the subtle difference
made in later Vedantic treatises between avidya and maya
in relation to the Jiva and the Isvara, merely for purposes
of facility of exposition, and take the words maya, avidya
and ajnana as synonymous, and shortly and scientifically deal
with the question as to what is ordinarily the elementary form
of this Maya with its three constituents or of avidya, ajnana,
or molia, and also how the doctrines of the Glta or of the
Upanisads can be explained with reference to that form.
Although the words nirgum and saguva are apparently
insignificant, yet, when one considers all the various things
which they include, the entire Cosmos verily stands in front of
one's eyes. These two small words embrace such numerous
and ponderous questions as : how has the unbroken entity of
that enternal Parabrahman, which is the Root of the Cosmos,
been broken up by its acquiring the numerous activities or
37—38
, 590 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
-qualities which are perceptible to human organs, though it
■was originally ONE, inactive, and apathetic ?; or, how is that,
which was fundamentally homogeneous, now seen to be trans-
formed into distinct, heterogeneous, and perceptible objects?;
how has that Parahrahman, which is mrvikara (immutable),
■and which does not possess the various qualities of sweetness,
pungency, bitterness, solidity, liquidity, heat or cold, given
rise to different kinds of tastes, or to more or less of solidity
or liquidity, or to numerous couples of opposite qualities, such
as, heat and cold, happiness and pain, light and darkness, death
and immortality ?; how has that Parabrahman, which is
peaceful and undisturbed, given rise to numerous kinds of voices
•or sounds ?; how has that Parabrahman, which does not know
the difference of inside or outside, or distant or near, acquired
the qualities of being here or further away, near or distant,
•or towards the East or towards the West, which are qualities
-of directions or of place 1 ; how has that Parabrahman, which
is immutable, unaffected by Time, permanent and immortal
been changed into objects, which perish in a longer or shorter
space of time ? ; or how has that Parabrahman, which is not
affected by the law of causes and products, come before us in
the form of a cause and a product, in the shape of earth and
the earthenware pot ? Or, to expreBB the same thing in short, we
"have now to consider how that which was ONE, acquired
•diversity; how that which was non-dual, acquired duality;
how that which was untouched by opposite doubles (dvamdm),
"became affected by these opposite doubles; or,, how that which
■was unattached (asamga), acquired attachment (samga).
Samkhya philosophy has got over this difficulty by imagining
•a duality from the very beginning, and by saying that
<jualityful Prakrti with its three constituents, is eternal and
independent, in the same way as the qualityless and eternal
Purusa (Spirit). But, not only is the natural tendency of the
human mind, to find out the fundamental Root of the world,
not satisfied by this duality, but it also does not bear the test
of logic Therefore, the writers of the Upanisads have gone
beyond Prakrti and Purusa, and laid down the doctrine that
the qualityless (nirgwna) Brahman, which is even higher than
the saccidananda Brahman, i. e., the Brahman possessed of the
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 291
qualities of eternal Existence (sat), ConsoiousneBB (at), and
Joy (ananda), ie the root of the world. But, I must now explain
"how the Qualityful (saguya) came out of the Qualityless
iturguya); because, it is a dootrine of Vedanta, as of Samkhya
philosophy, that that which is not, is not; and that that which
is, can never come into existence out of that which is not.
According to this doctrine, the Qualityful (saguw), that is,
the qualityful objects in the world cannot come into existenoe
out of the Brahman which is qualityless (nirguna). Then,
whence has the Qualityful come? If one says that the
Qualityful does not exist, then, one can see it before one's
eyes; and, if one says that the Qualityful is Real (existing),
in the same way as the Qualityless, then, in as muoh
as the forms of qualities like, sound, touch, form, taste etc.,
which are perceptible to the organs, are one to-day and different
to-morrow, that is, are ever-changing, or mother words, are
perishable, mutable, and inconstant, one has to say, that the
all-pervading Paramesvara is, so far at least as this qualityful
-part of Him is concerned, (imagining of course, the
Paramesvara to be divisible), perishable. And how can one
.give the name of Paramesvara to something, which is divisible
and perishable, and which always acts in a dependent way,
and subject to the rules which regulate the creation ? In short,
whether you imagine that all qualityful objects, which are
perceptible to the organs, have sprung out of the five primordial
elements, or whether you imagine with the Sarhkhyas or the
material scientists, that all objects have been created from one
and the same imperceptible but qualityful fundamental
Matter, whichever position you take up, so long as this funda-
mental Prakrti (Matter) has not been divested of perishable
•qualities, one certainly cannot describe these five primordial
elements or this fundamental substance in the shape of Prakrti
as the imperishable, independent, or immortal element of the
world. Therefore, he who wants to accept the theory of
Prakrti, must either give up the position that the Paramesvara
is eternal, independent and immortal, or he must try to find
■out what lies beyond the five primordial elements, or beyond the
fundamental qualityful Prakrti known as ' Prakrti '; and there
:is no third alternative. In the same way, as it is impossible to
292 GM-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
qieach. thirst by a mirage, or to get oil out of sand, so a&o is
it futile to hope that immortality can ever come out of that
■ which is palpably perishable; and, therefore, Yajnavalkya has
definitely told Maitreyi that, however much of wealth one may
acquire, yet, " amrtatiazya tu nasasti vittem" (Br. 2. 4. 2), i. e.,
"Do not entertain the hope of obtaining immortality by such
wealth". Well: if you say that immortality is unreal, then,
every man entertains the hope that the reward which he wishes
to obtain from a king should be available for enjoyment after
his death to his sons, grand-sons etc., so long as the Svui and
the Moon last ; or, we even find that, if there is a chance for a
man to acquire long-standing or permanent fame, he does not
care even for life. 5ot only are there prayers of the ancient
Bsislike: "OIndra! give us ' akdta sraixi', that is, imperi-
shable fame or wealth" (Bg. 1. 9. 7) or, " Soma! make me
immortal in the sphere of Vaivasvata (Yama)" (Bg. 9. 133. 8)
to he found in extremely ancient works like the Rgveda, but
even in modern times, pure Materialists like Spencer, Kant,
and others are found maintaining that " it is the highest moral
duty of mankind in this world to try to obtain the permanent
happiness of the present and future generations, without being
deluded by transient happiness". From where has this idea of
permanent happiness, beyond the span of one 's own life, that
is to say, of immortality come ? If one says that it is inherent
nature, then, one is bound to admit that there is some immortal
substance beyond this perishable body ; and, if one says that
such an immortal substance does not exist, then, one cannot
explain in any other way that mental tendency which one
oneself actually experiences. In this difficulty, many Materi-
alists advise that, as these questions can never be solved, we
should not attempt to solve them, or allow our minds to travel
beyond the qualities or objects which are to be found in the
visible world. This advice seems easy to follow ; but, who is
going to control the natural desire for philosophy which exists
in the human mind, and how ? ; and, if this unquenchable desire
for knowledge is once killed, how is knowledge to be increased?
Ever since the day when the human being came into this world r
he has been continually thinking of what the fundamental
immortal principle at the root of this visible and perishable
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 393
world, is; and, how he will reach it; and, however much the
Material sciences are developed, this inherent tendency of the.
human mind towards the knowledge of the immortal principle
will not be lessened. Let the material sciences be developed'as
much as they can, philosophy will always packet all the know*
ledge of Nature contained in them, and run beyond 1 That was'
the state of things three or four thousand years ago, and the
same state of things is now seen in Western countries. Nay, on
that day when this ambition of a human being comes to an end,
we will have to say of him " so mi mukfo 'thaw, pasuh. ", that
is, " he is either a Released soul, or a brute ! "
No philosophers from any other country have yet found an
explanation, which is more reasonable than the one given-
in our ancient treatises, about the existence of an Element,
■which is unbounded by time or place, and is immortal,
eternal, independent, homogeneous, sole, immutable, all-
pervasive, and qualityless, or as to how the qualityful creation
came into existence out of that qualityless Element. The
modern German philosopher Kant has minutely examined the
reasons why man acquires a synthetic knowledge of the
heterogeneity of the external universe, and he has given the
same explanation as our philosophers, but in a clearer way and
according to modern scientific methods ; and although Haegel
has gone beyond Kant, yet his deductions do not go beyond
those of Vedanta. The same is the case with Schaupenhaur.
He had read the Latin translation of the Upanisads, and he
himself has admitted that he has in his works borrowed ideas
from this " most valuable work in the world's literature ".
But it is not possible to consider in a small book like this, these
difficult problems and their pros and cons, or the similarity
and dissimilarity between the doctrines of Vedanta philosophy,
and the doctrines laid down by Kant and other Western
philosophers, or to consider the minute differences between
the Vedanta philosophy appearing in ancient treatises like
the Upanisads and the Vedanta-Sutras, and that expounded
in later works. Therefore, I have in this book broadly
ireferred to only that portion of them to which it is necessary-
to refer in order to impress on the minds of my readers the
veracity, the importance, and the reasons for the Metaphysical
394 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
doctrines in the Glta, on the authority principally of the-
Upanisads, and the Vedanta-Sutras, and of the Bhasyas-
(commentaries) of Sri Samkaracarya on them. In order to-
determine what lies beyond the Samkhya Dualism of Matter
and Spirit, it is not sufficient to stop with the distinction
made by Dualists between the Observer of the world and the
visible world ; and one has to consider minutely the form of
the knowledge which the man who sees the world gets of the
external world, as also how that knowledge is acquired, and.
what that knowledge consists of. Animals Bee the objects in
the external world in the same way as they are seen by men.
But, as man has got the special power of synthesising the
experience impressed on his mind through organs of Perception
like the eyes, ears, etc., he has got the special quality that he
aoquires the knowledge of the objects in the external world.
It has already been explained by me in the chapter on the
Body and the Atman, that that power of synthesis, which is
responsible for this special feature in man, is a power which is
beyond Mind and Reason, that is to say, is a power of the
Atman. Man acquires the knowledge, not of only one object,.
but also and in the same way, of the various relations in the
shape of causes and products, between the diverse objects ia
the world — which are known aa the laws or principles of
Creation ; because, although the various objects in the world
might be visible to the eyes, yet, the relation of causes and
products between them is not a thing which is actually visible ;
and that relation is determined by the intellectual activity of
the one who sees. For instance, when a particular object has
passed before our eyes, we decide that he is a soldier by seeing
his form and his movement, and that impression remains fixed.
in our minds. When another similar object passes before our
eyes in the wake of the first object, the same intellectual
process is repeated, and our Reason decides that that object is
a second soldier ; and when, in this way, we, by our memory y
remember the various impressions, which our mind has
received one after the other, but at different moments or times,.
and synthesise them, we get the synthetical knowledge of
these various impressions that an ' army ' has been passing in
front of our eyes. When the mind has decided by looking at
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 295
the form of the object which comes after the army, that he is
a 'king', the former impression about the army, and the- new-
impression about the king, are once more synthesised by our
mind, and we say that the procession of the king is passing.
From this, it becomes necessary for us to say, that our
knowledge of the world is not some gross object which is
actually perceived by the organs, but that ' knowledge ' is the-
result of the synthesis of the various impressions received
by the mind, whioh is made by the ' Observing Atman ';
and for the same reason Knowledge (Jiiana) has been defined
in the Bhagavadglta by the words : " aoibhaldam vibkaktesit ",.
that is, by saying that : " that is true knowledge by-
means of which we realise the non-diversity or unity in
that which is diverse or different" (Gl. 18. 20). T ' But if one-
again minutely considers what that is of which impressions
are first received on the mind through the medium of the organs*
it will be seen that though by means of the eyes, ears, nose
etc., we may get knowledge of the form, sound, smell or other
qualities of various objects, yet, our organs cannot tell us
anything about the internal form of that substance which
possesses these external qualities. We see that wet earth is
manufactured into a pot, but we are not able to know what the
elementary fundamental form of that substance which we
call 'wet earth', is. When the mind has severally perceived the-
various qualities of stickiness, wetness, dirtiness of colour, or
rotundity of form in the earthenware pot, the 'Observing'
5.tman synthesises all these various impressions, and says r
"this is wet earth" ; and later on when the Mind perceives the
qualities of a hollow and round form or appearance, or a firm
sound, or dryness of this very substance (for there is no reason,
to believe that the elementary form of the substance haB
changed), the 'Observer' synthesises all these qualities and calls
the substance a 'pot'. In short, all the change or difference-
takes place only in the quality of 'rupa' or 'akara', that is,
'form', and the same fundamental substance gets different nameB
* Cf. "Knowledge is first produced by the synthesis of what i»
manifold". Kant's Critique of Pure Season, p. 64, Hax MSller'g,
translation, 2nd Edition. ,
296 GlTl-BAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
after the 'Observer' has synthesised the impressions made by
these various qualities on the Mind. The most simple examples
of this are the sea and the waves, or gold and ornaments ; beoause>
the qualities of colour, solidity or liquidity, and weight, in
these various objects, remain unchanged and the 'rupa' (form)
and name are the only two things which change ; and, therefore!
these easy illustrations aTe always mentioned in Vedanta
philosophy. The gold remains the same ; but the ' Observer 'i
who synthesises the impressions received by the Mind, through
the organs, of the changes which have taken place at different
times in its form, gives to this fundamentally one and the
same substance different names at different times, e. g., once
'necklace', at another time ' armlets '; once ' bangles ', and at
another time a ' necklet '; once ' rings ', and at another time a
' ohandrahara ' etc. These various NAMES which we give to
objects from time to time, and the various FORMS of those
objects by reason of which those names changed, are referred to
in the Upanisads as 'NAMA-RUPA' (Name and Form) and
this technical term also includes all other qualities (Chan. 6. 3 ,
and 4; Br. 1. i. It); because, whatever quality is taken, it must
have some Name or Form. But although these NAMES and
FORMS change every moment, yet, there is underlying them
some substanoe, which is different from that Name and Form,
and which never changes; and it becomes necessary for us
to say,. that numerous films in the shape of Name and Form
have come on this fundamental substance, in the same way
as some floating substance (taranga) comes on the surface of
water. Our organs cannot perceive anything except Name
and Form; therefore, it is true that our organs cannot realise
that fundamental substance which is the substratum of
these Names and Forms, but is different from them. But,
though this Elementary Substance, which is the foundation
of the entire universe, may be imperceptible, that is, un-
cognisable by the organs, yet, our Reason has drawn the
definite inference that it is 'sat', that is, really and
eternally to be found in and under this Name and Form,
and never ceases to exist; because, if you say, that there
is fundamentally nothing beyond the Name and Form
which is perceptible to our organs, then a ' necklace ' and
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 297
'bangles' will become different objects, and there will be
no foundation for the knowledge acquired by us, that both are
made of one and the same substance, gold. All that we will be
able to say is : ' this is a necklace ', ' these are bangles '; but
we will ■ not be able to say that ' the necklace is of gold '. It,
therefore, logically follows that that gold, with which we
connect the necklace or chain embodied in a Name and Form by
means of the words ' is of ' in the sentences ' the necklace is of
gold', ' the chain is of gold ', etc., is not non-existent like the horn
of the hare ; and that the word ' gold ' gives one the idea of that
substance which has become the foundation of all golden
ornaments. When the same logical argument is applied to all
the various objects in the world, we come to the conclusion
that the various objects having Names and Forms which we
come across, such as, stones, pearls, silver, iron, wood, etc.,
have come into existence as a result of different Names and
Forms having been super-imposed on one and the same eternal
substance ; that all the difference is only in the Name and
Form and not in thB fundamental substance ; and that there
permanently exists at the bottom of all Names and Forms
only one homogeneous substance. ' Existing at all times in
a permanent form in all substances ' in this way, is technically
known in Sanskrit as ' satta-samanya '.
This doctrine of our Vedanta philosophy has been accepted as
correct by modern Western philosophers like Kant and others ;
and this invisible substance, which is different from all Names
and Forms, and which is the root of the universe embodied in
Name and Form, is in their books referred to as' 1 Thing-in-itself
(vastu-tattmj ; and the Name and Form which becomes
perceptible to the eyes and the other organs is called by them
"external appearance" " But it is usual in Vedanta philosophy
to refer to this everchanging external Appearance embodied in
* This subject-matter haa been considered in tlie Critique of
Pure Reason by Kant. He has named tlie fundamental substance
underlying the world as ''Ding n» rich" (the Thing-in-itself) ; and I
have translated those words by 'vastu-tattva'; the external appearance
of Name and Form has been named by Kant as 'Erscheimmg'
(Appearance). According to. Kant, the 'Thing-in-itself cannot be
known, . - . - . •
298 GfTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
Name and Form as 'mithya ' (illusory), or 'iwsawnta' (perishable) ^
and to refer to the Fundamental Element as 'satya' (Seal) or
'amrta' (immortal). Ordinary people define the word 'satya' by-
saying 'eaksur w» satyam', that is, "that which is seen by the-
eyes is real"; and if one considers the ordinary course of life,,
it is needless to say that there is a world of difference between
seeing in a dream that one has got a lakh of rupees, or hearing,
about a lakh of rupees, and actually getting a lakh of rupees.
Therefore, the dictum 'caksur vai satyam' (i. e., that is Real,
which is seen by the eyes) has been enunciated in the
Brhadaranyakopanisad (Br. 5. 14. 4) in order to explain whether
one should trust more one's eyes or one's ears, if one
has merely heard something by mere hearsay, or if one has
actually seen it. But, what is the use of this relative definition
of 'satya (Reality) for a science by which one has to determine
whether the rupee which goes under the visible Name of
'rupee' or is recognised by its Form, namely, by its round'
appearance, is Real '! We also see in the course of ordinary
affairs, that if theTe is no consistency in what a man says, andi
if he now says one thing and shortly afterwards another thing,
people call him false. Then, why should not the same
argument be applied to the Name and Form called 'rupee' (not
to the underlying substance) and the rupee be called false or
illusory ? For, we can take away the Name and Form, 'rupee'
of a rupee, which out eyes see to-day, and give it to-morrow the
Name and Form of 'chain' or 'cup' ; that is to say, we see by our
own eyes that Names and Forms always change, that is, are not
constant. Besides, if one says that nothing else is true except
what one sees by one's eyes, then, we will be landed in the
position of calling that mental process of synthesis by means
of which we acquire the knowledge of the t world, and which
is not visible to our eyes, unreal or false; and, thereby,,
we will have to say that all knowledge whatsoever which we
acquire is false. Taking into account this and such other
difficulties, the ordinary and relative definition of 'satya
namely, "that alone is 'saiga' (Real) which can be seen
by the eyes", is not accepted as correct; and the word 'satya"
has been defined in the Sarvopanisad as meaning something-
which is imperishable, that is, which does not cease to exist,
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 399-
Y>
hough all other things have ceased to exist : and in the same-
way, satya has been defined in the Mahabharata as :
satyam mma 'vyayam nityam avikari tathaiva ca \ *
(Ma. Bha. San. 162. 10)
that is, "that only is Beal which is avyaya (i.e., never
destroyed), nitya (i. e., always the same), and avikari (i. e., of
which the form is never changed)". This is the principle
underlying the fact that a person who now says one thing and,
shortly afterwards another thing is called 'false' in common
parlance. When we accept this non-relative definition of the
Beal (satya), one has necessarily to come to the conclusion that
the Name and Form which constantly changes is false, though
it is seen by the eyes ; and that the immortal Thing-in-itself
(vastu4attm), which is at the bottom of and is covered by that
Name and Form, and which always remains the same, is Real,
though it is not seen by the eyes. The description of Brahman,
which is given in the Bhagavadglta in the following words,
namely, "yah so sarve&t bhutequ vasyatsu na vinasyati" (Gl. 8..
20; 13. 27), that is, " that is the immutable (aksara) Brahman,
which never ceases to exist, although all things, that is, the
bodies of all things encased in Name and Form are destroyed",
has been given on the basis of this principle ; and the same
stanza has again appeared in the description of the NarSyanlya
or Bhagavata religion in the Mahabharata with the different
reading "bhutagramasariresu" instead of "yah sa narvesu bhutesu"
(Ma. Bha. San. 339. 23). In the same way, the meaning of the
16th and 17th stanzas of the second chapter of the Gita is the
same. "When, in Vedanta philosophy, the ornament is referred,
to as 'mithya' (illusory) and the gold as 'satya' (real), one has
not to understand that comparison as meaning that the
ornament is useless, or invisible to the eyes, or totally false,,
that is, mere earth to which gold foil has been attached, or not
in existence at all. The word 'mithya' has been used there with
reference to the qualities of colour, form etc., and of appearance
* In defining the word « real ' (sat or tatya), Green has said :
"whatever anything is really, it is unalterahly" (Prolegomena to Ethics r
§ 25.) This definition of Green and the definition in the Mahi-
bliarata are fundamentally one and the same.
300 GITA.-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
of an object, that is, to its external appearance, and not to the
fundamental substance; because, as must be borne in mind, the
fundamental substance is always 'satya (Real). The Vedantist
has to ascertain what the fundamental substance underlying
the covering of Name and Form of various objects is ; and
that is the real subject-matter of philosophy. Even in ordinary
life, we see that although a large sum may have been spent by
us on labour for manufacturing a particular ornament, yet, it"
one is forced to sell that ornament to a merchant in adverse
circumstances, the merchant says to us: "I do not take into
account what expenses you have incurred per tola for
manufacturing the ornament ; if you are prepared to sell me this
ornament as gold by weight, I will buy it" I If the same idea
is to be conveyed in Vedanta terminology, we will have to say
that, "the merchant sees the ornament to be illusory, and only
the gold to be real". In the same way, if one wishes to sell a
newly built house, the purchaser pays no attention to what
amount has been spent for giving that house prettiness (rupa -
form), or convenience of arrangement (akrti= construction), and
says that the house should be sold to him by the value of the
timber and other material which has been used in constructing
the house. My readers will get a clear idea from the above
illustrations about the meaning of the reference by Vedantists
to the Name-d and Form-ed ( mmarajmtmaka ) world as illusory
and to the Brahman as real. When one says that the visible
world is 'mithya' (illusory), one is not to be understood as
meaning that it is not visible to the eyes ; the real meaning
is that the numerous appearances of various objects
in the world resulting from Time or Space and diversified
by Name and Form are perishable, that is, ' mithya '
and that that imperishable and immutable substance which
exists eternally under the cloak of this Name and Form is
permanent and real. The merchant considers bangles, anklets,
chain, armlets, and other ornaments as ' mithya ' ( illusory ) and
gold alone as safya ( real ). But in the factory of the goldsmith
of the world, various Names and Forms are given to one and
the same Fundamental Substance, and' such various ornaments
as gold, stone, timber, water, air etc. are formed out of that
Substance. Therefore, the Vedantist goes a little deeper than
THE PHILOSOPHY Off THE ABSOLUTE SELF 3(H
the ordinary merchant, and looks upon all Names and Forms,,
such as, gold, silver, or stone etc. as imthya ( illusory ), and
looks upon the Fundamental Substance being the substratum
of all those objects, that is, the Thing- in-itself ( vastu-tattva )-
as ' satya ' ( immutable or real ). As this Thing-in-itself has no-
qualities of Name, Form etc., it is impossible that it should ever-
become perceptible to the organs like eyes etc. But not only
can one form a definite inference, by means of one's Reason,
that it must exist in an imperceptible form, though it is
invisible to the eyes, or unsmellable by the nose, or untouchable
by the hand, but one has also to come to the conclusion that
the immutable 'THAT ' in this world is the real Thing-in-itself.
This is what is known as the Fundamental Real in the world.
But, some foolish foreign scholars and some local soholars
considered as 'philosophers ', without taking into account these
technical Vedantic meanings of the words ' satya ' and ' mithya ',
or taking the trouble to see whether or not it is possible for the
word 'sattja' to have a meaning different from what they think,
ridicule Vedanta by saying : " that world which we actually
see with our own eyes is called ' mithya ' (illusory) by the
Vedantists I Now, what is to be done ?" But aB Yaska has said
it, a pillar is not to blame because a blind man does not see
it 1 It has been stated over and over again in the Chandogya
(6. 1 and 7. 1 ), Brhadaranyaka ( 1. 6. 3), Mundaka (3. 2. 8),
Prasna. (6. 5 ), and other Upanisads that the ever-changing
(that is, perishable) Names and Forms are not real, and
that he who wishes to see the Real (that is, permanent)
Element, must extend his vision beyond these Names and
Forms ; and these Names and Forms have in the Eatha (2. 5}
and Mundaka (1. 2. 9) been referred to as 'avidya', and ultimately
in the Svetasvataropanisad as 'maya' (Sve. 4. 10). In the
Bhagavadgita, the same meaning is conveyed by the words
'maya' 'moha', and 'ajnam'. That which existed in the
commencement of the world was without Name and Form, that
is, it was qualityless and imperceptible; and the same thing
later on becomes perceptible and qualityful, as a result of its
acquiring Names and Forms (Br. 1. 4. 7 ; and Chan, 6. 1. 2, 3).
Therefore, the mutable and perishable Name and Form 1 is given
the name 'Maya' and the visible or qualityful world is said to
GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA.
;be the illuBory Mayic drama or 'lila' of the Isvara. From this
3>oint of view, the Samkhya Prakrti is nothing but Mays
composed of the saitva, rajas and tamas constituents, that is to
say, Maya possessing Name and Form, though it might be
imperceptible ; and the creation or extension of the perceptible
universe, described in the eighth chapter as having sprung from
this Prakrti, is also the evolution of that Maya embodied in
qualityful Names and Forms ; because, whatever quality may
be taken, it is bound to be visible to the organs, that is to say,
to be embodied in Name and Form. All the Material sciences
fall in this way into the category of Maya. Take History,
■Geology, Electricity, Chemistry, Physics or any other science ;
all the exposition to be found in it is only of Names and Forms,
that is to say, only of how a particular substanoe loses one
Name and Form and acquires another Name and Form. For
instance, these sciences only consider how and when that which
is known as 'water' acquires the name of 'steam', or how
various aniline dyes, having the red, green, blue, or various
other colours, which are only differences of Name and Form,
are formed from one black substanoe called coal-tar, etc
Therefore, by studying these sciences which are engrossed in
Names and Forms, one cannot acquire the knowledge of the'Real
Substance, which is beyond Names and Forms; and it is clear that
he who wishes to find the form of the Real Brahman must extend
his vision beyond these Material sciences, that is to say, beyond
these sciences which deal only with Names and Forms. And
the same meaning is conveyed by the story at the commence-
ment of the seventh chapter of the Chandogyopanisad. In the
beginning of the story, Narada went to Sanatkumara, that is,
to Skanda, and said : "Give me knowledge of the Atman".
In reply, Sanatkumara said to him: "Tell me what you
have learnt, so that I will tell you what comes next ". Narada
said: "I have learnt all the Vedas, namely, the Eg. and the
other Vedas, in all four, as also History and Puranas (which is
the fifth Veda), and also Grammar, Mathematics, Logic, Fine
Arts, Ethics, subsidiary parts of the Vedas (veda&ga), Morality,
Black Magic, Warfare {ksatra-vidya), Astrology, the science of
.Serpents, Deities etc.; but I have not thereby acquired the
knowledge of the Atman, «nd I have, therefore, come to you ".
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 303
.In reply to that, Sanatkumara said : "All that you have learnt
■deals only with Names and Forms and the true Brahman is
€ar beyond this Nama-Br&hnia (the Brahman qualified by
JJames)"; and he has afterwards gradually described to Narada
the Immortal Element in the form of the Absolute Spirit,
which is beyond Names and Forms, that is to say, beyond the
.Samkhya imperceptible Prakrti, as also beyond Speech, Hope,
Project, Mind, Reason (jnana) and Uie(prarta), and is
superior to all of them.
All that has baen said before may be summarised by
saying that though the human organs cannot actually perceive
■or know anything except Names and Forms, yet, there must
be some invisible, that is, imperceptible, eternal substance
which is covered by this cloak of non-permanent Names and
Forms ; and that, it is on that account that we get a synthetic
knowledge of the world. Whatever knowledge is acquired,
is acquired by the Atman; and therefore, the Atman is called
the 'Jfiata' (Knower). Whatever knowledge is acquired by
this Knower, is of the Cosmos defined by Name and Form; and,
therefore, this external Cosmos defined by Name and Form
is called 'Jnana' (Ma. Bha. San. 306.40); and the Thing-in-it-
,ae\t(vastu4<ittva) which is at the root of this Name-d and Fora-ed
(mmarupatmaka) Cosmos is called the ' Jfieya '. Accepting
this classification, the Bhagavadgita says that the ' Icsdrajfia
■aima ' is the Jfiata and the eternal Parabrahman, uncognisable
by the organs is the Jfieya (Gi. 13. 12-17); and dividing
.Jnana (Knowledge) subsequently into three parts, the Know-
ledge of the world arising on account of diversity or mani-
manifoldness, is called rajasa knowledge, and the synthetic
knowledge ultimately obtained from this diversity is called
■saitvika knowledge (Gtf. 18. 20, 21). To this an objection is
raised by some to the effect that it iB not proper for ub to make
the three-fold division of Jfiata, Jfiana, Jfieya (the Knower,
Knowledge, and the To-Be-Known) ; and that there is no
■evidence before us for saying that there is anything in the world
except that of which we get knowledge. The visible things,
such as, cows, horses, etc., which are seen by us are nothing
' but the Knowledge which we have acquired; and although
this Knowledge is Real, yet, as there is no means except
, 304 GtTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
Knowledge itself for describing that of which this Knowledge-
has been acquired, we cannot say that there are any external
objects besides this Knowledge which are independent sub-
stances, nor that there is some other independent substance,
which is at the root of all these external objects ; because, if
there is no Knower, then there is no world. which can be'
known. Looking at the matter from this point of view, the-
third division of Jneya out of Jnata, Jnana, and JfLeya drops-
out, and the Jnata and the Jnana which he acquires, are the
only two things which remain; and if this logic is carried
a little further, then, in as much as the 'Knower' or 'Observer''
is also a kind of Jnana (Knowledge), nothing- else except
Jnana (Knowledge) remains. This is known as ' Vijnana-vada V
•and that has been accepted as correct by the Buddhists follow-
ing the Yogacara path, who have laid down the doctrine that
there is nothing independent in this world except the Jnana
(Knowledge) or the Jnata (Knower); nay, that even the world
itseif does not exist, and that whatever is, is nothing but the-
Knowledge of mankind. Even among Western writers, there
are some who support this doctrine, like Hume and others;
but Vedanta philosophy does not accept this doctrine, which.
has been refuted by Badarayanacarya in the Vedanta-Sutras
•'(Ve. Su. 2. 28-32), and by Srlmat Sarhkaracarya in bis Bhasya-
(commentary) on those Sutras. It is true that a man realises
ultimately only the impressions made on his Mind ; and this is-
what we call ' Jnana '; but if there is nothing else except this
Jnana, how can one account for the diversity which is realised-
by our ReaBon in the various kinds of Jnana, e. g., between the
'cow 'being a different Jnana, the 'horse' being a different
Jnana, or ' I ' being a different Jnana ? The mental process of
acquiring knowledge is everywhere the same, and if there is
nothing else except such Jnana, then, how have the differences
between a cow, a horse etc. arisen ? If some one says that the
Mind creates these different divisions of Knowledge at its sweet
will like a dream-world, one cannot explain this somewhat
of consistency which is to be found in the Jnana acquired in a
waking state, which is different from the dream-world ( Ve. Su.
' Sam. Bha. 2. 2. 29 ; 3. 2. 4 ). Besides, if you say that there is
"no other thing except Jnana, and that the Mind of the 'Observer*
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 305
creates all the various things, then each ' Observer ' must get
the ego-ised knowledge that " my mind, that is, I myself, am
the pillar " or " I myself am the cow ". But since buoIi is not
the case, and everyone gets the experience that he himself is
something different and that the pillar, the cow etc. are subst-
ances which are different from himself, Sarhkaraoarya has
adduced the doctrine that there must be some other independent
external things, in the external world, which are the foundation
of the Knowledge acquired by the Mind of the Observer (Ve.
Sfl. Sara. Bha. 3. 2. 28 ). Kant is of the same opinion, and he
has clearly said that although the synthetical process of human
Season is necessary for acquiring the knowledge of the world,
yet, this knowledge is not something self-created, that is,
unfounded or new which has been spun out by human Reason,
but is always dependent on the external things in the world.
Here an objection may be raised that : " What ! your
Sarhkaraoarya once says that the external world is MithyS
(illusory); and lor refuting the Buddhistic doctrines, the
same Sarhkaracarya maintains that the existence of the
external world is as real as the existence of the Observer 1
How are you going to reconcile these two things?" This
question has already been answered before. When the
Acarya calls the external world 'mithyW (illusory) or 'asatya'
(unreal), he is to be understood as saying that the visible Name
and Form of the external universe is unreal, that is to say,
perishable. But although the external appearance embodied in
Name and Form is said to be illusory, yet, one doss not thereby
prejudice the doctrine that there is some Real substance at the
bottom of it, which is beyond the reach of tbe organs. In
short, just as we have laid down the doctrine in the chapter on
the Body and the Atman, that there is some permanent Atman-
Element at the root of the perishable Names and Forms, like
the bodily organs etc, so also, have we to come to the conclusion
that there is some permanent substance at the root of the
external universe clothed in Names and Forms. Therefore,
Vedanta philosophy has laid down the doctrine that there is
under the ever-varying (that is, illusory) appearance both oi
the physical organs and of the external world,
(nitj/a), that is, Real (satya) substance. The
306 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
•whether the two fundamental substances in these two cases are
one and the same or are different. But before considering that
question, I shall first consider precisely the allegation which
is sometimes made as regards the modernity of that doctrine.
Some persons say that although the Vijrianavada of the
Buddhists is not acceptable to Vedanta philosophy, yet, in as
much as the opinion of Sri Sarhkaracarya that the Name-d and
Form-ed ( ' iwmarupatmakal appearance of the external world,
which is visible to the eyes, is illusory, and that the imperish-
able substance underlying it is Real— which is known as the
'MAYA-VADA'— is not to be found in the ancient Upanisads,
it cannot be considered as part of the original Vedanta
philosophy. But, if one carefully considers the UpanisadB,
he will easily see that this objection is totally without
foundation. I have already stated before that the word
'satya' (Real) is applied in ordinary parlance to those
things which are actually visible to the eyes; Therefore,
in some places in the Upanisads, the word 'satya' has
been used in this its ordinary meaning, and the Name-d
and Form-ed external objects, visible to the eyes, have been
called 'satya ; and the Fundamental Substance which is clothed
by those Names and Forms is oalled 'amrta'. For instance, in
the Brhadaranyakopanisad (1. 6. 3), it is stated that
"tadetadamrtam satyenacchannam" , that is, "that amrta is covered
by satya"; and the words amrta and safjw have been immediately
afterwards denned as : "prana va amrtam namarupe satyam
tabhyam ayam praruzschannam", that is, "prana (Vitality) is
amrta (eternal) and Name and Form is satya (RealJ ; the prana
is clothed by this satya in the shape of Name and Form". The
word prana is here used in the meaning of the Parabrahman
in the form of prana. From this it is seen that those things
which are known as 'mithya' and 'satya' in the later Upanisads,
were originally respectively known as 'satya' and 'amrta'. In
some places, this amrta is referred to as 'satyasya satyam', that
is, "the ultimate satya (Reality), which is at the core of the
satya (Reality) visible to the eyes" (Br. %. 3. 6). But, the
abovementioned objection does not become substantiated by
reason of the fact merely that the visible universe has been
leferred to as satya in some places in the Upanisads ; because,
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 307
in the Brhadaranyaka itself, the final proposition stated is that
everything else except the Atman-formed Parabrahman is
'artam', that is, perishable (Br. 3. 7. 23). When the search for
the Fundamental Substance underlying the world waB first
started, the world which was visible to the eyes was first
looked upon as satya, and the investigators began to find out
what other subtle satya was at its core. Then it was found
that the form of that visible world which was being oalled
satya, was perishable ; and that there was at its core, some
other imperishable, that is, amrta substance. As it became more
and more necessary to define clearly this difference between
the two, the two words 'avidya' and 'vidya' came to be used
in place of the words 'saiga' and 'amrta', and ultimately, the
terminology 'maya' and 'satya' or 'mithya' and 'satya' came into
vogue; because, as the root meaning of the word 'satya' is,
'eternally lasting', people began latterly to consider it improper
to refer to perishable and ever-changing Names and Forms as
'satya'. But, though the words 'maya' or 'mithya' may have
thus come into vogue subsequently, yet, the ideas that the
appearance of worldly objects which is visible to one's eyes
is perishable and asalya, and that the 'Elementary Substance'
whioh underlies it, is alone sat or satya, have been in vogue
from ancient times ; and even in the Rg-veda, it is stated that :
"ekam sad vipra BAHUDHA vadanti" (1. 164. 46 and 10. 114. 5)
— "that which is fundamentally one and permanent (sat), is
given different NAMES by the viprah (scients)" — -that is to
say, one and the same Real and eternal thing appears in
different appearances as a result of Names and Forms. The
word 'maya' has also been used in the Rg-veda to mean
"making one form to appear as numerous" ; and there is a
statement in it that "indro mayabhih purw&pah iyate", that is,
"Indra takes up various shapes by his Maya" (Rg. 6. 47. 18).
'The word 'maya' has been once used in the Taittirlya Saihhita
in the Bame sense (Tai. Sam. 1. 11), and ultimately in the
■Svetasvataropanisad, the word 'maya has been applied to
Names and Forms. But although the practice of applying the
-word 'maya' to Names and Forms first came into vogue at the
date of the Svetasvataropanisad, yet, the idea that Names and
Jorms are non-permanent (amtya), and unreal (asatya), is prior
GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
in point of time ; and it is clearly not an idea, which has been
invented by Samkaracarya by perverting the meaning of the
word 'maj/a'. Those who have not got the moral courage to
fearlessly call the appearance of the Name-d and Form-ed
universe 'mithya' as has been done by Sri Samkaracarya, or
those who are even afraid to use the word 'maya' in the same
sense, as has been done by the Blessed Lord in the Bhagavad-
glta, may, if they wish, use the Brhadaranyakopanisad
terminology of 'satya and 'amrta' without any objection.
Whatever may be said, the proposition that a distinction was
made between Names and Forms as 'viriasV (perishable) and
the Fundamental Substanoe underlying them as 'amrta' or
'avinaW (imperishable), even in the times of the ancient Vedas,
does not thereby suffer,
The province of Adhyatma ( the philosophy of the Absolute
Self ) does not end after deciding that in order that the Atman
should acquire the Knowledge, which it acquires, of the
various Name-d and Form-ed objects in the external world,
there must be, in the external world, at the root of these various
objectB, some ' some thing ' in the shape of a fundamental and
permanent substance, which is the foundation or counterpart
of such Knowledge, and that "otherwise it is impossible to
acquire that Knowledge. Vedantins call this Permanent
Substance, which is at the root of the external world,
'Brahman' ; and, it is necessary to determine the form of this
Brahman, if it is possible to do so. As this Eternal Substance,
which is at the root of all Name-d and Form-ed things is
imperceptible, its form can clearly not be perceptible, or sthula
(gross), like the form of objects embodied in Name and Form.
But if you omit objects which are perceptible and gross, yet,
1 there are numerous other objects which are imperceptible, such
' as, the Mind, Memory, Desire, Life, Knowledge etc. ; arid it is
not impossible that the Parabrahman is of the form of any one
of them. Some say that the Parabrahman is of the same form
as Prana (Vital Force). The German philosopher Schaupenhaur
has come to the decision that the Parabrahman is the embodi-
ment of Desire. As Desire is a faculty of the Mind, the
Brahman may, according to this opinion, be said to be made up-
of -Mind (Tai. 3. 4). But, from what has been stated so far,
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 309
one may say that : ' prajnamm brahma ' (Ai. 3. 3), or " vijnamm
brahma" (Tai. 3. 5), i. e., "Brahman is the knowledge acquired
by us of the diversity in the gross material world". Haegel's ,
doctrine is of that kind. But in the Upanisads, the form of
the Brahman has been made to include sat, that is, the common
quality of Existence possessed by all things in the world (or
their ' sattasamanyatva ') as also Bnanda ( Joy ), along with
Knowledge in the form of Consciousness (i. e.. cidrupi jnana)\
and the Brahman is said to be ' ' saetidananda in form. Another
form of the Brahman is the OM-kara. The explanation of this
form is as follows :-All the eternal Vedas first came out of the
OM-kara; and in as much as Brahmadeva created the entile
universe from the eternal words in the Vedas, after the. Vedas
had come into existence (Gl. 17. 23; and Ma. Bha, San. 231. 56-
-58), it is clear that there was nothing in the beginning except
the OM-kara, and, therefore, the OM-kara is the true form
■of the Brahman (Mandukya. 1 : Taitti. 1. 8). But, if you
•consider the matter from the purely Metaphysical. pofnt; of
view, all these forms of the Parabrahman possess more or less
the character of Name and Form ; because, all these " forms are
perceptible to human organs, and all that men come to know in
this way, falls into the category of Names and Forms. Then,
how is one going to determine the true form of that eternal,
all-pervasive, homogeneous, permanent, and immortal Element
<Gi. 13. 12-17), which is the foundation of these Names and
Forms ? Some Metaphysicians say that this Element must for
ever remain uncongnisable by our organs ; and Kant has even
given up the further consideration of this subject-matter. In
the Upanisads also, the uncognisable form of the Parabrahman
has been described by saying "neti. «eft'"-that is. It is not
something about which something can be told— the Brahman is
beyond that ; It is not visible to the eyes ; and "yato vaco
nivartante aprapya manasa saha", that is, "It is beyond speech
and also beyond the Mind". Nevertheless, the philosophy of
the Absolute Self has come to the conclusion that even in this
difficult position, man can, by his Reason, determine the nature
of the form of Brahman. We must first find out which one
is the most superior and comprehensive of the various
imperceptible things mentioned above, namely, Desire, Memory
310 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Determination, Hope, Life, Knowledge etc., and look upon
the highest of them all as the form of the Parabrahman ;
beoause, it is an indisputable fact that the Parabrahman is-
the highest of all imperceptible substances. When one
considers Desire, Memory, Hope, Determination etc. from this
point of view, one sees, as has been shown in the chapter on the
Body and the Atman, that these are all natural faculties of the
Mind ; that the Mind is, therefore, higher than them all ;
that knowledge is higher than the Mind ; that Reason is
higher than Knowledge, as Knowledge is only an inherent
faculty of Reason; and that ultimately that Atman
of which the Reason is a servant, is the highest of
all (Gl. 3. 42). If the Atman is higher than Desire, the
Mind and the other imperceptible substances, it naturally
follows, that the Atman must be the form of the Parabrahman.
The same argument has been adopted in the seventh chapter
of the Chandogyopanisad, and Sanatkumara has said to Narada,
that the Mind is higher ibhuyas) than speech, Knowledge is
higher than the Mind, and Strength (bala) is higher than Know-
ledge; and in as much as, going up in this way, the Atman
is the highest of all (bhuman), the Atman must bB the true
form of the Parabrahman. From among English writers,
Green has accepted this doctrine; but as his arguments are
slightly different in nature, I will concisely mention them here
in Vedantic terminology. Green says that there must be some
substance uniformly underlying the various Names and Forms
in the external universe, which (substance) is the counterpart
of the Knowledge created by the Atman by synthesising the
various impressions of Names and Forms made on the Mind
through the organs; otherwise, the Knowledge resulting from
the synthesis made by the Atman will be self-conceived and
without foundation, and will fall flat like the Vijfiana-vada-
We call this ' Something ', Brahman; but Green accepts the
terminology of Kant, and calls it the Thing-in-itself (vastu-
tattva) : this is the only difference between us and Green. In.
any oase, the vastu-taltva (Brahman) and the Atman remain-
ultimately the only two correlative things. Out of these,,
although the Atman oannot be grasped by the Mind or by
Reason, that is to say, although it is beyond the reach of the=
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 311
organs, yet, taking as correct one's self -experience, we come
to the conclusion that the Atman is not Gross, but is Thought-
formed (cidrupi), or of the form of Consciousness (caitanya-npl).
Having in this way determined the form of the Atman, we
have next to determine the form of the Brahman. That Brahman
or vastu-tattva is either (1) of the same form as the Atman
or (2) is different in form from the Atman; these two things alone
are possible; because, there is no third thing which now remains
exoept the Brahman and the Atman. But, it is our experience
that if any two objects are different in form, then their effects
and products must also be different. Therefore, in any
science, we determine whether two things are the same or
different, by considering their effects. For instance, if the
roots, rootlings, bark, leaves, flowers, fruits etc. of two trees
are the same, we come to the conclusion that they are the same ;
and if they are different, we say that the trees are different.
When the same argument is applied in the present case, we
see that the Atman and the Brahman must be uniform ;
because, as has been mentioned above, the synthesis o£ the
impressions created on the Mind by the various objects in the
world, which (synthesis) results from the activity of the
Atman, must be the counterpart of the synthesis of all the
objects in the world made by the Brahman or vastu-tattia
(whioh is the Root of those objects) by breaking up their
diversity ; if not, all Knowledge will be without foundation
and will fall flat. And, it now follows as a natural conclusion
that though these two Elements, which arrive at two exactly
similar syntheses may be in two different places, they cannot
be different from each other ; and that, the form of the
Brahman must be the same as the form of the Atman. * In
short, from whichever point of view one considers the matter,
it now follows that not only is the Brahman-Element under-
lying the Names and Forms in the external world, not gross
like Matter embodied in Names and Forms, but also the
various forms of the Brahman, which are embodiments
respectively of Desire, Mind, Knowledge, Life, Vital Force, or
the logos OM-kara, are forms of a lower order, and the true
form of the Brahman is beyond all of them and superior to
* Green's Prolegomena to Ethics, §§ 26 to 36.
312 GlTl-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
all of them, that is to Bay, is of the form of the pure Atman.
And it also follows from what has been stated in various
places in the Glta on this subject, that the doctrine of the Glta
is the same (Gl. 2. 20 ; 7. 7 ; 8. 4 ; 13. 31 ; 15. 7, 8). But, it
must not be thought that this doctrine of the identity of the
Brahman and the Atman was found out by our Bsis merely by
some such logic ; because, as has been stated in the beginning
of this chapter, no proposition can be definitely laid down in
the philosophy of the Absolute Self by means of Reason alone
and it must always be supported by self-experience. We also
see even in the Material sciences, that we first get an expe-
rience and later on come to know or find out the reasons for
it. For the same reason, hundreds of years before the rational
explanation for the identity of the Brahman and the Atman
was found out, our ancient Rsis had first come to the conclu-
sion that: "neha nanasti kimcava" (Br. 4. 4. 19; Katha. 4. 11),
i. e„ "the diversity which is visible in this world is not real ",
and that there is at the bottom of that diversity an Element
which is one in all directions, immortal, imperishable, and
permanent (Gi. 18. 20); and had, by introspection, arrived at the
ultimate conclusion that the Imperishable Element clothed
in Names and forms in the external world and the Atman-
element to be found in our bodies, which is beyond Reason,
are one and the same, that is, they are both homogeneous,
immortal, and inexhaustible; or that whatever element is in
the Cosmos (brahmay.da) also resides in the human body
( pfada ); and in the Brhadaranyakopanisad, Yajnavalkya says
to Maitreyl, to GargI, Varum and others, and to Janaka that
this is the mystic import of Vedanta (Br. 3. 5-8, 4. 24). It has
been stated earlier in the same TJpanisad, that he who has
understood that "aham brahmasmi", i. e., "I am the Para-
brahman", has understood everything (Br. 1. 4. 10); and in the
sixth chapter of the Chandogyopanisad, the father of Svetaketu
has explained to him this elementary principle of the Monistic
(advaita) Vedanta in various ways. In the beginning of the
ohapter Svetaketu said to his father.— "In the same way as
one knows all the Name-d and Form-ed transformations of mud
when he once knows what there is in a ball of mud. tell me
that one thing by knowledge of which I will come to know
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 313
about all things ; because, I do not know that one thing ".
His father then explained to him by nine different illustra-
tions, namely, of rivers, the sea, water, salt, eto. that: "that
Element (tat) which is at the root of the visible world and
thou (tvam), that is to say, the Atman in thy body, are one
and the same thing; that is, "tat tvam asi"; and when thou
hast understood what thy Atman is, thou wilt of thy own
accord understand what is at the root of the Cosmos"; and
every time, the canon "tb&tvam asi" "thou art that"
is repeated (Chan. 6. 8-16). "tat tvam asi" is one of the
important canons of Monistic Vedanta, and that is translated
into Marathi by "jem pindim tern bi-ahmadm", i. e., "that
which is in the Body, is also in the CogmofeV.
We have, in this way, proved that~the Brahman is the
same in form as the Atman. But, soTg&Mfe likely to think
that because the Atman is believJijgfSpfe of the form of
Consciousness (tidrupi), the Brahman 4|aKpf that form (i, e.,
ridrupi). It is, therefore, necessary to gjffKhere some further
explanation of the true nature of tha^B^ftman, and at the
same time of the true nature of the^Sjiman. eit or jnana
(Knowledge) is a quality acquired by Reason— which is gross
in nature — by contact with the Atman jjout. in as much as
it is not proper to arrogate this quality ~! of. Reason to the
Atman, one must, from the philosophical pointiof view, look
upon the fundamental form of the Atman^&jualityless and
unknowable. Therefore, though the Brahmmft of the same
nature as the Atman, it is, according to sojrqjw) gome extent
improper to say that both or either of these|iSof the same
nature as tit (Consciousness or Enowledge).;J>*y^is not that
their objection extends only to the Brahman and 'Atman being
conscious in form ; but, it naturally follows;' (jb\at it is also
not proper according to them to apply the adjective sat (Real)
to the Parabrahman; because, sat and asat (Reality and
Illusion) are two qualities, which are contrary to eaoh other,
and always mutually dependent, and which are usually
mentioned with reference to two different things. He who has
never seen light, can never get an idea of darkness; and what
is more, he cannot even imagine the couple (dmmdva) of light
and darkness. The same argument applies to the couple of
314 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
sat and asat (Real and Illusory). It is quite clear that when,
we notioe that some objects are destroyed, we begin to divide
all things into two classes of asat (perishable) and sat (non-
perishable) ; or, in other words, in order that the human mini
should conoeive the two ideas of sat and asat, it is necessary
that these two opposite qualities should come before the human
eyes. But, if there was only one substance i» the beginning,,
how can one apply to this Fundamental Substance the two
mutually dependent words sat and asat, which came into-
existence by being applied to two different substances after
duality had first come into existence ? Because, if you.
call that fundamental substance, sat, then the question arises--
whether at that time (that is, before duality had come into-
existence) there was in existence something else by the side of
it. Therefore, in the Nasadlya-Sukta of the Rg-Veda, no-
adjective is applied to the Parabrahman and the Fundamental
Element of the universe is desoribed by saying : "in the
commencement of the world, there was neither sat nor asat, but-
whatever there waB, was one", and that the couples of sat and:
asat came into existence afterwards (Rg. 10. 129) ; and it is-
stated in the Gita that he whose Reason has become free from
the doubles of sat and asat, hot and oold, etc. reaches the-
nirdvamdva (beyond-doubles) sphere of the Brahman, which is
beyond these doubles (Gl. 7. £8 ; Z. 45). From this it will be
seen how difficult and subtle are the ideas in the phis.cwophy
of the Absolute Self. If one considers the matter m:-rr]y from-
the logical point of view, one is forced to admSv this un-
knowability of the Parabrahman or of the Atra&n. But
although the Parabrahman may, in this way, be qualityless
and unknowable, that is, beyond the reach of the organs, yet,.
as every man has a self-experience of his own Atman, it is-
possible for us to get the self-experience that the indescribable
form of this qualityless Atman which we realise by means of a
visionary experience (saksatkara), is the same as of the*
Parabrahman ; and therefore, the proposition that the-
Brahman and the Atman are uniform does not become meaning-
less. Looking at the matter from this point of view, it is
impossible to Bay more about the form of the Brahman than-
that : "the Brahman is the same in form as the Atman" : and
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 315
one has to depend for all other things on one's own self-
experience. But, in a scientific exposition which has to appeal-
to Reason, it is necessary to give as much explanation as is-
possible, by the use of words. Therefore, although the-
Brahman is all-pervasive, unknowable, and indescribable, yet,,
in order to express the difference between the Gross World 1
and the Brahman-Element (which is the same in nature as the
Atman), the philosophy of the Absolute Self considers the-
quality of caitanya (Consciousness), which becomes visible to
us in Gross Matter after its contact with the Atman, as the
pre-eminent quality of the Atman, and says that both the
Atman and the Parabrahman are cidrupi or caitanya-rupi
(Conscious or Knowing, in form) ; because, if you do not do so,
then, in as much as both the Atman and the Brahman are
qualityless, invisible, and indescribable, one has, in describing
them either tosit quiet, or, if someone else givessome description
of them by means of words, one has to say : "neti neti I etasmad
anyat param asti I ", i. e., "It is not this, this is not It (Brahman),
(this is a Name and Form), the true Brahman is something
else, which is quite beyond that", and in this way, do nothing
else except restricting oneself to negatives (Br. 2. 3. 6). It
is, therefore, that cit (Knowledge), sat ['sattamatratva or
Existence) and ananda (Joy) are commonly mentioned as the-
attributes of the Brahman. There is no doubt that these-
attributes are much higher than all other attributes ; neverthe-
less, these attributes have been mentioned for the only purpose
of acquainting one with the form of the Brahman, as far a&
it is possible to do so by words ; and it must not be forgotten
that the true form of the Brahman is qualityless, and that onfr
has to get a self-experience (aparoksawubhava) of it in order to-
understand it. I shall now concisely explain what our
philosophers have said regarding the way in whioh this self-
experience oan be had, that is to say, in what way and when-
this indescribable form of the Brahman is experienced by the
brahma-mstha (the devotee of the Brahman).
The identification of the Brahman with the Atman is
described in Marathi by saying "what is in the pinfa (Body),
is also in the brahmartda (Cosmos); and it logioally follows
that when once a man has experienced this identity of the
316 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Brahman and the Atman, there can no more remain any
difference between the jnata or observing Atman, and the jneya
or the subject-matter to be seen. But, a doubt is likely to arise
that if a man does not escape from his eyes and other organs,
so long as he is alive, how can one get over the fact that these
organs are different from the objects which are perceptible to
the organs ? ; and, if one does not get rid of this difference,
how is one to realise the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman ? And, if one considers the matter only from the point
■of view of the organs, these doubts do not at first sight seem
improper. But, if you consider the matter deeply, it will be
seen that the organs do not perform the function of seeing
external objects of their own accord, "caksuh pasyati rupani
manasa m tu caksusa" (Ma. Bha. San. 311.17) — in order to see
anything (and also in order to hear anything etc.), the eyes (as
also the ears etc.) require the help of the Mind. It has been
stated before that if the Mind is vacant, objects in front of the
eyes are not seen. "When one takes into account this common
experience, one sees that if the Mind is taken out of the
organs, the dualities in the obje'ots of the senses become non-
existent to us, though they might exist in the external world,
notwithstanding that the organs of eyes etc. are perfectly
in order ; and it is easy to draw the inference that the Mind
■will in this way become steeped in the Atman or in the
Atman-formed BrahmaD, and one will begin to get a visionary
experience {saksatkara) of the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman. That man who has attained this mental state by
meditation, mental isolation, worshipping in solitude, or by
intense contemplation of the Brahman, will not perceive the
dualities or differences in the visible world, although they may
be before his eyes ; and then he realises the form of the sole
(admita) Brahman of his own accord. In this beatific ultimate
state, which is the result of the fullest Realisation of the
Brahman, the three-fold difference, that is, tripuH of Knower,
Knowable, and Knowledge, or the dual difference of worshipper
and worshipped ceases to exist. Therefore, this state of the
mind cannot be described by one person to another person ;
because, it is dear that immediately on uttering the word
'another', this state of mind is destroyed, and the man returns
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 317
from the advaita (non-dual) into the dvaita (dual). Nay, it is
even difficult for anybody to say that he himself has.
experienced this state of mind 1 Because, as soon as you utter
the word ' I \ there arises in the mind the idea of a difference
from others, and such an idea is obstructive to the realisation of
the identity between this Brahman and the Atman. It is for
this reason that Yajnavalkya has described this state of beati-
tude in the Brhadaranyaka as follows : — "yatra Id dvaitam iva
bhavaHtad itara itaram pasyati jighrati irnoti
vijanatH yatra tvasya sarvam atmaivabhut tat kena kam
pasyet .jighret srnuyat vijaniyat\...vijmtm , am are
kena vijamyat \ etauad are khalu, amrtatvam iti. I i. e., "so long as-
the duality of the Observer and the observed existed, the one
was seeing the other, smelling the other, hearing the other, and
knowing the other ; but when everything assumes the form of
the Atman, (that is, when there no more remains the-
difference between oneself and another), then, who is to see,
smell, hear or know whom ? man I how can there be
another one to know him who is himself the Knower ? " (Br. 4.
5. 15 ; 4, 3. 27). When everybody is in this way merged in
the Atman or in the Brahman, or becomes atmabhuta or
brahmabhuta, the doubles of pain and happiness, or fear,
lamentation etc. cease to exist (Isa. 7) ; because, in order that
one should feel feaT, or lament, the one to be feared ot lamented
must be different from oneself, and there is no room for a
difference of this kind, when one has realised the identity of
the Brahman and the Atman. This state of being free from
pain, lamentation etc. is called the 'anandamaya' state (the
beatific state) ; and, it is stated in the Taittiriya Upanisad,
that this amnda (joy or beatitude) is Brahman (Tai. 2. 8 ; 3. 6).
But, even this description is not perfect ; because, where does
the experiencer of this beatitude now remain any more ? It is,
therefore, stated in the Brhadaranyakopanisad that Self-
beatitude (atmananda) is something by far stranger than
ordinary joy (Br. 4. 3. 32). Having regard to this insufficiency
of the word 'omanda' (beatitude), which occurs in the
description of the Brahman, the person who has realised the
Brahman (bralima-vetta) is, in some other places, described only
as "brahma bhavati ya evaiii veda" (Br. 4. 4, 25) or "brahma veda
318 GlTA-RAHAS?A OH KARMA-YOGA
brahmaim bhavati" (Mun. 3. 2. 9) "he, who has realised the
Brahman, has become the Brahman", that is to say, omitting the
word 'ananda', from the description. In the same way as, after a
lump of salt has been dissolved in water, the difference that
one part of the water is saltish and another of it is not
saltish does not remain, so also, once a man has realised the
identity of the Brahman and the Atman, everything
becomes merged in the Brahman. This beatific condition of
the mind has been described in the Upanisads as above
( Br. 2. 4. 12 ; Chan. 6. 13 ). But that saint Tukarama about
whom was said "jayaci vade nitya vedanta vayV, ( i. e., " one
whose voice always uttered Vedanta") has described his
self-experience in the following words by taking the
sweet illustration of jaggery instead of this other saltish
illustration :—
As jaggery is sweet I so has God come to be verywhere II
Now whom shall I worship i God is inside as also outside II
(Tu. Ga. 3637).
This is what is meant by saying, that though the
Parabrahman is imperceptible to the organs and unrealisable
by the mind, yet it is 'svanubhawgamtja', that is, it can be
realised by every man by his self -experience. The unknow-
ability of the Parabrahman which is spoken of, belongs to the
stage in which there is a Knower and a To-Be-Known; it
does not belong to the phase of the Realisation of Non-dualism.
So long as one has the feeling that he is something different
from the world, it is not possible for a man, whatever he may
do, to fully realise the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman. But, although a river cannot swallow the sea, yet,
it can fall into the sea and become merged into it ; so also, may
a man dive into the Parabrahman and realise it; and then
he reaches the Brahm-ised (brahmamaya) state of "sarva-
bhutastham atmanam sarvabhutani catmani" ( Gl. 6. 29 ), i. e.
"all created beings are within himself, and he is within all
created things."' In order to explain that the full
Realisation of the Brahman depends on one's own self-
experience, the form of the Parabrahman has been skilfully
and paradoxically described as follows : "avijnataih mjanatam
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 319
■mjnaiam avijanataih" { Kena. 2. 3 ), " those who say that they
have Realised the Parabrahman have not really Realised It;
they alone have Realised It, who do not Realise that they
have Realised It"; because, when a person says that he has
Realised the Parabrahman, there is clearly in his mind the
dual feeling that he ( the Jiiata ) is something different from
the Brahman ( the Jneya ) which he has known, and, there-
fore, his non-dual Realisation of the identity of the Stman
.and the Brahman is, at this stage, to that extent, upripe or
incomplete. Therefore, one who says this, admits by his own
mouth that he has not really Realised the Brahman. On the
other hand, when the dual feeling of T and 'Brahman' haB
disappeared, and the identity of the Brahman and the Atman
has been fully Realised, the words "I have understood That "
■( that is, necessarily, something which is different from me )
.cannot be used. Therefore, when a man is in this condition,
ihafc is to say, when the Realissr (jntini ) is unable to say that
he has Realised the Brahman, he may be said to have Realised
the Brahman. That a Realiser Bhould be thus totally merged,
-engrossed, totally dissolved, saturated or dead into the
Parabrahman, as a result of a total annhiliation of the feeling
-of duality, would commonly be looked upon as difficult. But
our philosophers have after personal experience come to the
conclusion that this state of 'n/ruoiio' ( dissolution ), which at
first sight appears difficult, can ultimately he reached by a
man by practice (ablujasa) and by renunciation (vairSgya).
.Some people raise an objection that in as much as the dual
feeling of egoism is destroyed or dies in this state of mind,
this is a kind of self-destruction. But any one can see that
■this objection is without foundation, when one realises that
.though a man cannot describe this state when he is experienc-
ing it, yet, he can afterwards remember it.* But even a
* This feeling of non-duality or of non-differentiation which
results from meditation and concentration ia also experienced by
smellin g a chemical gas called nitrous-oxide. This gas ia known as
'laughing gas' (Bee Will to Believe and Other Essays on Popular
Philosophy by William James, pp. 234-298 ). But the great
difference between the two is, that this state is artificial, whereas
330 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
stronger illustration than that is the experience of saints-
Leave aside the self-experienoes of ancient siddha ( released )
souls. Even in modern times, Tukarama, that highest among
the devotees of the Blessed Lord, has said :
I saw my death by my own eyes I
that spectacle was incomparable I
(Ga. 3579).
in describing this state of ultimate bliss in figurativa
language, and with great exuberation and appreciation. By
the worship of, and meditation on, the qualityful perceptible or
imperceptible Brahman, the devotee gradually rises and
ultimately reaches such a state that he Realises the identity of
the Brahman and the Atman, which is described by the words
"aham brahmasmi" (Br. 1. 4. 10), i. e., "I am the Brahman" ; and
then he becomes steeped to such an extent in that state, that he
does not think of what state he is in, or of what he is
experiencing. In as much as he has not ceased to be awake,
this his state cannot be called the dream-state or the sleeping-
state ; and, it cannot be called a waking-state, as all the
activities based on duality, which are carried on in the waking-
state, are stopped. Therefore, this state is referred to as the-
'turiya (fourth) state, which is different from the ordinary
dreaming (svapna), sleeping (susupti) or waking ( jagrti ) states ;
and as the 'nirviladpa' (i. e., in which there is not the slightest
feeling of duality) form of meditation has been prescribed by
the Patanjala Yoga as the principal means for reaching this
state, it is stated in the Gita that one should spare no pains for
acquiring by practice this 'nirvikalpa-samadhi-yoga' (GJ. 6. 20-23).
This feeling of the identity of the Brahman and the Atman is
the most complete state of Knowledge ; because, when the
world becomes Brahmified (brahmarupa), that is, One in form,
one has reached the climax of the process of knowledge which
is described in the Gita by the words "avibhaktam vibhaktesu"
— unifying that which is diverse — and it is not possible to get
the state attained by self -absorption ( samadhi) is true and natural.
But, I have mentioned this here, because the existence of a state
of non-dual feeling ( abhsda-bhava ) can be proved by the evidence.
of this artificial state of mind.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 321
•any further knowledge about anything. In the same way,
when one has experienced this immortal Element which is
beyond Name and Form, one automatically escapes the oyole
of birth and death, since birth and death is included in the
category of Name and Form, and such a man has gone beyond
Name and Form (Gi. 8. 21). Therefore, Tukarama has referred
to this state as "the death of death" (Ga. 3580) ; and
Yajfiav&lkya has, for the same reason, referred to this state as
the limit or climax of immortality. This is indeed the 'state
of being released from birth' (jivan-muktamsthfi). It is Btated
in the Patarijala Yoga-Sutras, and also in other books, that ia
this state of mind, a man acquires superhuman powers like
levitation etc. (Patarijala Su. 3. 16-55) ; and, it is on this
account that some persons take to Yoga practices. But, as
has been stated by the author of the Yoga-Vasistha, the power
of levitation etc. is neither an ideal, nor any part of the state
of a Brahman-engrossed (brahma-wstha), and the man who is a.
Birth-released (jiwnmukta ) makes no attempt to acquire these
powers, which very often are not to be seen in him (Yo. 5, 89).
Therefore, not only are these powers not referred to in the
Yoga-Vasistha, but one does not come across them anywhere
even in the Glta. Vasistha has clearly said to Rama, that these
wondertul powers are only tricks of Maya, and are not the
science of the Brahman. They may be true ; I do not insist
that they cannot be true, but in any case, they undoubtedly do
not form part of the brahma-vidya (science of the Brahman).
Therefore, the Brahma-Vidya science says that whether these
powers are acquired or not, a man should pay no attention to
them, nor entertain any hope or desire about them, but should
exert himself only in such efforts as will be sufficient to enable
him to reach the ultimate beatific Brahmified state, in which he
feels that there is only one Atman in all created beings.
Realisation of the Brahman is the purest state of Atman ; it is
neither magic nor Mayic wonders ; and therefore, not only is
the worth of the science of the Brahman not increased by such
wonders, but they cannot be any proof of the worth of that
science. Birds, or in these days even aeronauts, fly in the
sky ; but, on that account no one considers them as knowers of
the Br< hman. Nay, people, who have acquired the powers of
4i— 42
322 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
levitation mayj like Aghoraghanta in the Malati-Madhava,- be
cruel and treacherous persons.
The indescribable experience of the beatitude of realising
the identity of the Brahman and the Atman cannot be fully
related by one person to another; because, in doing so, one
has to use the Dualistic phraseology of T and 'You', and
one's entire experience of non-duality cannot be described in
this Dualistic phraseology. Therefore, the dtscriptions of this
ultimate state which are to be found in the Upanisads must
also be considered incomplete or unimportant; and if these
descriptions are unimportant, then the purely Dualistic
descriptions, which are found given in the Upanisads for
explaining the creation or the formation of the universe, must
also be considered unimportant. For instance, the descrip-
tions of the creation of the visible universe to be found in the
Upanisads, that the qualityful Purusa, named Hiranyagar-
bha, or the various perceptible objects in the world like
apa ( water ) etc. gradually came into existence out of the
pure, permanent, all-pervading and immutable Atman-formed
Brahman; or that the Paramesvara first created these Names
and Forms, and then entered them ( Tai. 2. 6; Chan. 6. 7. 3 ;
Br. 1. 4. 7 ) etc., cannot be correct from the point of view of
Non-Dualism; because, if the qualityless Paramesvara,
realisable only by Knowledge, pervades everything, it is
scientifically without foundation to say that one created the
other. But, as the Dualistic phraseology is the only possible
medium for explaining the formation of the universe to
ordinary persons, the above mentioned descriptions of the
perceptible universe, or of Names and Forms, have been given
in the Upanisads. Nevertheless, even in these descriptions
the substratum of Non-Dualism is, in many places, kept
intact, and it is made quite clear that though the Dualistic
phraseology has been used in the descriptions, Non-Dualism
is the true doctrine. Just as, though we now definitely know
that it is not the Sun which revolves, we still speak of the
rising or the setting of the Sun, so also, although it was
definitely known that one and only one Parabrahman, in the
form of the Atman, pBrvades everything in all directions and
without division, and that It is immutable, yet, we come
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 3Z3
across expressions like "the perceptible universe was created
■out of the PaTabrahman" in the Upanisads ; and in the same
way, also in the GIta, although the Blessed Lord has said: "My
true form is imperishable and unborn" ( Gl. 7. 25 ), yet, He at
the same time says, "I create the whole world" ( Gi. 4. 6 ). But
some scholars, neglecting the meaning underlying these
descriptions, and looking upon them as literally true and
important, lay down the proposition that the Upanisads
support the Dvaita ( Dualistie ) or Visistadvaita ( Qualified
Monistic ) theory. They say that if one believes that there
is only one qualityless Brahman which pervades everything,
one cannot explain how the mutable, perishable, and quality-
ful objects came into existence out of this immutable
Brahman ; because, although one may describe the Name-d and
Form-ed universe as ' Maya ', yet, in as much as it is logically
impossible for the qualityful Maya to come into existence out
■of the qualityless Brahman, the theory of Son-Dualism falls
to the ground. Rather than that, it would be more proper
{ i ) to accept as eternal a qualityful but perceptible form of
the Name-d and Form-ed ' perceptible universe like Prakrti, as
is done in Sarhkhya philosophy, and ( ii ) to imagine that at the
innermost core of this Prakrti, there is another permanent
element in the shape of the Parabrahman ( Br. 3. 7 ), just as
there is steam in an iron engine, and ( iii ) to believe that
these two Elements form a Unity like the grains in a pome-
granate. But. in my opinion, it is not proper to ascribe this
meaning to the Upanisads. It is true that the Upanisads
contain descriptions which are sometimes Dualistie, and at
other times purely Non-Dualistic, and that we have to reconcile
them with each other. But, we cannot reconcile the various
statements in the Upanisads with each other by accepting the
Dualistie point of view, as satisfactorily as can be done by
accepting the .Non-dualistic point of view, and saying that
when the qualityless Brahman is taking up a qualityful form
an illusory Dualistie state seems, only to that extent, to have
come into existence. For instance, the words in the phrase
^tat tvam asi' can never be satisfactorily explained from the
Dualistie point of view. It is not that Dualists did not
realise this difficulty. But these Dualists have analysed that'
334 GEFA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
phrase by saying that 'tat tvam' means 'tasya tvam', that is r
"Thau art OS That, which is something different from thee ;
thou art not That Itself" ; and they have, in this way, somehow
or other explained away this very important canon, and
satisfied themselves. But those persons who understand even a
little of Sanskrit, and whose minds are not perverted as a
result of obstinacy, will at once see that this forced meaning i&
not correct. In the Kaivalyopanisad (Kai. 1. 16), the terms
'tat' and 'tvam' have been interchanged by analysing the phrase
'tat tvam asi' as "sa tvamem tvameva tat" (i. e., "It is thou,
thou art It"), and this canon has been proved to be in support
of Non-Dualism. What more shall I say ? Unless one
excises away the major portion of the Upanisads, or in-
tentionally closes one's eyes to them, it is impossible to show
that there is any other import in the Upanisad science except a
Hon-Dualistic import. But, as these arguments are endless, I
shall not further discuss the matter here. Those, who are
in favour of any opinion other than the Non-Dualistic theory,
aie perfectly welcome to accept it. I do not think that
anything except a Non-Dualistic import could have been
intended to be conveyed by those noble souls, who, after
describing their self-experience in unmistakable terms by
saying: "neha nariasti Mmcana" (Br. 4. 4. 19 ; Katha. 4. 11), i. e.,
"there is no diversity of any kind in this world", and that
whatever there is, is fundamentally "ekamevadvitiyam" (Chan.
6. 3. 2), i. e., "one only, without a second", have gone further
and said : "mriyoh sa mrtyum apnoti ya iha rianeva pasyatC, that
is, "he who sees diversity in this world, falls into the cycle of
birth and death". But, though there is room for doubt
whether all the Upanisads convey one and the same
import, since there are different Upanisads of the
different branches of the Vedas, one does not experience the
same difficulty in the case of the Glta. As the Glta is a
single work, it is clear that it expounds one kind of Vedanta ;
and, when one considers what that Vedanta is, one has to
interpret the Glta as expounding the Non-Dualistic doctrine
that the only Reality is "That which remains over after all
created things are destroyed" ( Gi. 8. 20), and Which pervades
on all sides all the material bodies (piytfa ) as It pervades the
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 325
Oosmos ( brahmaQiJa ), ( Gi. 13. 31 ). Nay, the principle of
identifying everything with oneself (atmaupamya), which has
been mentioned in the Giti, cannot be fully explained by any
aspect of Vedanta other than a Non-Dualistic aspect. I do
not mean to suggest that all the various philosophical
speculations or doctrines, which were expounded at the time
of Sri Sariikaracarya, or after him, in support of the Non-
Dualistio theory, have been accepted m toto in the Gita. The
Gita was in existence before the Dualistic, Non-Dualistic and
the Qualified-Monistic doctrines had been formulated; and I
also accept the position that the Gita cannot, on that account,
contain any doctrinal arguments belonging to any particular
sect. But this does not prevent one from saying that the
Vedanta expounded in the Gita is generally of the Non-
Dualistic kind supported by the Samkara Bchool ( the school of
Sri Sariikaracarya ), and not Dualistic. But, although, from
the point of view of philosophy, there is some common ground
between the Gita and the Samkara school, yet, from the point
of view of mode of life, the Gita gives higher importance to
the doctrine of Action ( Karma-Yoga ) than to the doctrine
of Renunciation of Action ( Karma-Samnyasa ) which is sup-
ported by Sariikaracarya. But, this subject-matter will be
•considered later on. What I am dealing with at present is
the question of philosophy, and all that I have to say here is
that this philosophy is of the same kind in the GltS as in the
;Sarhkara school, that is, it is Non-Dualistic; and that is the
reason why the Samkarabhaaya on the Gita is considered
more valuable than the other doctrinal commentaries.
When one has thus come to the conclusion that there
remains behind only one immutable and qualityjess Element
.after all Names and Forms are eliminated, from the point of
view of Knowledge, and that one has, on that account, to
accept Non-Dualism after full and minute consideration, it
becomes necessary to explain how the variegated peroeptible
/jualityful universe came into existence out of one qualityless
and imperceptible Element, from the point of view of Non-
Dualistic Vedanta. It has' been stated before that the
Samkhyas have got over this difficulty by looking upon Matter
with its three constituents (that is, qualityful Matter) as eternal
326 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
and independent, in the same way, as the qualityless Spirit.
But, if in this way one looks upon qualityful Matter as
independent, the fundamental Elements of the world become
two, and the theory of Non-Dualism, which has been un-
conditionally accepted as correct for the various reasons
mentioned above, comes into question ; and if one does not
look upon qualityful Matter as independent, it becomes
impossible to explain how the variegated qualityful universe
came into . existence out of one fundamental qualityless
substance ; because, the theory that it is not possible for the
Qualityful to come into existence out of the Qualityless,
that is to say, for something to come into existence out of
something which does not exist — according to satkaryavada' 1 '—
has also been accepted by Non-Dualists. In short, there is a
difficulty on either hand. Then, how are we to get over this
dilemma ? One must find out some way for explaining how
the Qualityful came into existence out of the Qualityless
without giving the go-bye to Non-Dualism, and that way seems
to be closed to us by the theory of satkaryavada. True, the
position is a difficult one. Nay ; according to some, this is
the principal difficulty in the way of accepting Non-Dualism,
and, on that account, they accept Dualism. But the Non-
Dualists have, by their intelligence, found out a skilful and
unquestionable way for getting over this difficult position.
They say that the theory of satkaryavada or of the gvma-
parinamavada f applies only when the cause cad the product
are both of the same kind or class ; and on that account, even
Non-Dualists will accept that the Real and Qualityless
Brahman cannot give birth to a Real and Qualityful Maya;
but, this admission is effective only when both the substances
are Real ( satya ). Where one substanoe is Real, and the other
one is only a reflection of it, satkaryavada does not apply.
The Sarnkhyas consider Prakrti as an independent Real
substance, in the same way as the Purusa. Therefore, they
cannot, having regard to the theory of satkaryavada, account
for the outcome of a qualityful Prakrti from a qualityless
Purusa. But as the Non-Dualistic Vedanta holds that though
* See p, 210 above. — Translator, t See p. 234 above.— Trans.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 327
Maya may be eternal, it is neither Real nor independent, but
is, as stated in the Gita, a 'folly' (moha), an 'ignorance'
■'( ajnana ), or an 'illusion ( rrinya ) seen by the organs', the objec-
tion based on satkaryavada, does not in the least affect the
Non-Dualistic doctrine. If a son is born to a father, we can
say that he is the result of the guita-parinama of the father ;
but when there is only one individual, namely, the father, and
he is seen appearing sometimes in the guise of an infant, and
sometimes of a young man, and sometimes of an old man,
there does not exist, as we readily realise, the relation of cause
and product, or of gum-parinama between the man and his
various disguises. In the same way, when we have come to
the conclusion that there is only one Sun, we say that the
reflection of that Sun seen in water is a kind of illusion, 1 and
that there is cot another Sun which has come into existence
by guya-parinama ; and astronomy tells us that when once
the true form of a planet has been defined by means of a
telescope, that form of it which we see by the naked eyes, is
only an appearance resulting from the weakness of our eyes
and the immense distance of the planet from us. From this,
it becomes clear that a particular thing cannot be looked
upon as an independent, real, and existing thing, merely on
account of the fact that it is actually perceptible to our eyes
and other organs. Then, why should we not make use of the
same argument in the philosophy of the Absolute Self, and
say that the qualityless Parabrahman which has been
defined by the telescope of the knowledgeful (spiritual) eyes- is
the only thing which is Real, and that the Names and Forms,
which are visible to the knowledgeless natural eyes, is not the
product or result of, or something which has come out of, this
Parabrahman, but is purely a deceptive and illusory
appearance due to the incapacity of our organs 1 The objection
that the Qualityful cannot come into existence out of the
Qualityless can itself not be made here; because, the two
substances do not belong to the same category, and whereas the
one is Real, the other is merely an appearance ; and it is
common experience, that, though there may be fundamentally
one Real substance, the appearances of that same substance
change according to the faulty vision, or the ignorance, or. the
328 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
blindness of the perBon who Bees. Take, for instance, the two
•qualities, namely, the words which can be heard by the ears, or
the colours which can be seen by the eyes. Natural sciences
Lave by minutely analysing the word or sound, which can be
heard by the ears, clearly proved that 'sound' is nothing but
waves or vibrations of the air. In the same way, it has now
been determined by minute researches that the red, yellow, blue
and other colours, which are visible to the eyes, are the evolutes
of one fundamental sunlight, and that this sunlight itself is a
kind of motion or vibration. If, although 'motion' or
vibration is fundamentally one, the ears recognise it as 'sound'
and the eyes as 'colour', then, the same argument being applied
in a more comprehensive way to all the various organs, it
follows that (i) the different human senses attribute (i. e., make
an adhyaropa of ) the different qualities of sound, colour, etc.,
which (qualities) are embodied in Name and Form, to one and
the same Fundamental Substance, and thereby various
appearances come into being ; that (ii) it is not necessary for
these appearances, qualities, or Names and Forms to exist in
the Fundamental Substance ; and that (iii) the coming into
existence of all Names and Forms can thus be logically
explained without the help of the doctrine of satkaryavada.
And in order to establish this proposition, VedSnta philosophy
gives the various illustrations of a string being taken for a
serpent, or a shell being taken for silver, or one thing
being seen as two things by poking the finger
under the eyeball, or the same substance being seen
to be of different colours by the use of spectacles of
different colours. It is true that a man will always
perceive the various Names and Forms or qualities in the
world, in as much as he can never get rid of his organs.
But, this relative appearanoe of the world, which, is seen
by the eyes of the organised human being, cannot be said
to be the fundamental, that is, the non-relative and eternal
form of the world. If human beings come to have fewer or
more organs than they have at present, they may not see the
universe in the same way as they now see it ; and, if this is
true, then, on being asked to explain the eternal and real
nature of the Element which is at the root of the world,
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 329
•without reference to the organs of the person who sees, one
las to answer by saying that the Fundamental Element is
•quality less, and our seeing it as qualityful is the result of the
nature of our organs, and not the quality of the Fundamental
•Substance. Such questions do not arise in the Material
sciences, because, in those sciences only such things are to be
examined as are perceptible to the organs. But, from the
fact that a man or his organs come to an end, we cannot
conclude that the Paramesvara also comes to an end; nor
•can we conclude from the fact that a man sees Him as
being of a particular kind, that His Real, non-relative form,
which is uncircumscribed by Time, is what the man sees.
Therefore, in that philosophy of the Absolute Self in whioh
one has to determine the fundamental form of the Reality
which is at the root of the universe, one must give up the
relative and dependent vision of the human organs, and one
has ultimately to consider the matter purely by his spiritual
vision, that is to say, as far as possible, by Reason only;
and when that is done, all the qualities which are perceptible
to the organs automatically drop off; and one sees that the
real form of the Brahman is beyond the reaoh of the organs,
that is, qualityless; and that that form is a super- excellent
form. But who is going to describe that which is qualityleBs
and how?. Therefore, the Non-Dualist Vedanta haB laid
down the proposition that the ultimate, that is to
say, the non-relative and eternal form of the Parabrahman
is not only qualityless but indescribable, and that, man sees
a qualityful appearance, in this qualityless form, by
reason of his organs. But, here again a question arises as to
how the organs have acquired the power of changing the
Qualityless into the Qualityful. The reply of the Non-Dualist
Vedanta to this is : as human knowledge stops at this stage,
one has either to say that this must be called the ignorance
of the organs, and that their seeing the appearance of the
•qualityful universe in the qualityless Parabrahman is due to
that ignorance ; or, one has to oontent oneself with drawing
the definite inference that the visible universe (Prakrti) is
only a ' divine illusion ' of the qualityless Paramesvara, since
the organs themselves are part of the creation of the Para-
330 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
mesvara (Gi. 7. 14). My readers will understand from this the>
import of the statements in the Gita (Gi. 7. 14, 24, 25) that-
though the a-pmbuddha, that is, those who see merely by the
physical organs, see the Paramesvara to be perceptible and
qualityful, yet, His real and excellent form is quality less ^
and that Realising that form by spiritual vision is the climax
of Knowledge. But though, in this way, one arrives at the
conclusion that the Paramesvara is fundamentally qualityless,.
and that the human organs see in Him the variegated
appearance of the qualityful universe, yet, it becomes necessary
to precisely explain in what meaning the word ' qualityless *
has to be taken in this proposition. It is true that though
our organs attribute the qualities of sound, colour etc., to
vibrations of air, or mistake a shell for silver, the vibrations
of air do not possess the quality of sound or colour, nor does-
the shell possess the quality of silver ; but, from the fact that
the Fundamental Substance does not contain the particular
attributed qualities, one cannot draw the necessary conclusion
that It will not possess other qualities. Because, as we actually
see, though the shell does not possess the quality of silver, yet,.
it possesses some qualities other than those of silver. Tbis,
therefore, gives rise to the following difficulty, namely, though
one admits that the fundamental Brahman does not possess the
qualities which are ascribed to it by one's organs as a 'result
of one's ignorance, how can one be sure that the Parabrahman
does not possess other qualities ; and if it possesses other
qualities, how is it qualityless ? But, if one considers the
matter a little minutely, it will be seen that even assuming
the fundamental Brahman to possess qualities other than those
ascribed to it by the organs, how are we going to find them
out f The qualities which a man perceives are perceived by
him through the medium of his organs ; and those qualities,
which are not perceptible to the organs, cannot be known. In
short, even if the Parabrahman possesses some qualities other
than those which are ascribed to it by our organs, it is not
possible for us to know them ; and saying that the Para-
brahman does possess qualities is illogical, if it is impossible
for us to know those qualities. Therefore, Vedantists
understand the word ' guna ' as meaning 'qualities which
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 331
aie knowable by human beings 1 , and formulate the proposition
that the Brahman is ' quality less ' in this sense. Non-dualistic
Vedanta does not say that the fundamental Parabrahman
cannot possess qualities or powers which are beyond the
imagination of human beings, and no one, as a matter of fact,
can say that. Nay, even the Vedantists say that the ignorance
of the organs or Maya, which was mentioned above, must be
an unimaginable power of that fundamental Parabrahman.
The three-constituented Maya or Prakrti is not some
independent substance ; but, what happens is that the human
organs, as a result of ignorance, ascribe (make an adhyaropa
of) a qualityful appearance to one homogeneous, and quality-
less Brahman. This theory is known as ' VIVARTA-VADA '.
The explanation given by the Non-Dualistic Vedantists as to
how the variegated qualityful universe first came to be seen*
if the qualityless Brahman was the only Fundamental
Substance, is as follows . — The Kanada Nyaya philosophy
propounds the doctrine that innumerable atoms are the funda-
mental cause of the universe, and the followers of Nyaya
philosophy consider these atoms to be Real. They have,,
therefore, come to the conclusion, that the various objects in
the world begin to come into existence when these innumerable
atoms begin to ooalesce. As according to this theory, the
universe starts to come into existence when the union between
the atoms commences to take place, it is called ' Ararhbha-vada '
(the Theory of Commencement). But Samkhya philosophy
does not aooept this Nyaya theory of innumerable atoms, and
says that the Fundamental Root of the Gross world is ' one,
homogeneous, real, and three-constituented Prakrti '; and they
say that the perceptible world comes into existence as a result
of the unfurling or pariijama of the constituents of this three-
constituented Prakrti. This doctrine is known as the ' Ouna-
parinama-vada ' (Theory of the Development of Constituents),
because, it maintains that the -entire perceptible universe is the
result of the unfurling of the constituents of one fundamental
qualityful Prakrti. But both these theories are negatived by
the, Non-Dualistic Vedantists. As atoms are innumerable,
they cannot be the Boot of the world according to Non-
Dualism ; and the Dualistio theory, that though Prakrti is one,
•332 GXTA-RAHASYA. OK KARMA-YOGA
it is different from Purusa and independent, ia also incon-
sistent with Non-Dualism ; but, when in this way, both these
theories are negatived, it becomes necessary to explain how the
qualityful universe came into existence out of one qualityless
Brahman ; because, according to the satkaryavada, the Quality-
ful cannot come into existence out of the Qualityless. To this,
the reply of the Vedantists is, that the doctrine of
satkaryavada applies only where both the Cause and the
Product are Real substances ; where the fundamental
substance is one, and only its forms or appearances are
changed, this theory does not apply; because, as is common
experience, seeing various appearances of one and the same
thing is not a quality of that thing, and these various
appearances can come into existence as a result of the
difference in the vision of the persons who see. * When
this theory is applied to the qualityless Brahman and the
qualityful universe, one has to say that the Brahman is
•qualityless, and that an appearance of qualityfulness
comes into existence in it, as a result of the nature of
the human organs. This is known as the ' Vivarta-vada. '
According to Vivarta-vada, there is believed to be only one,
fundamental, Real substance, and it is said that numerous,
unreal or constantly changing Appearances are ascribed to it ;
•and in the Guna-parinama-v&da, two Real susbtances are
taken for granted from the very commencement, and it is said
that the Gunas ( constituents ) of one of these t<" become
unfurled, and that all other things in the uniyss* which are
possessed of various qualities come into existence in con-
sequence. The impression of the existence of a serpent, where,
as a matter of fact, there is only a string, is the Vivarta-vada ;
and, fibres being formed into a rope, or curds out of milk, is
the Guna-parinama-vada. Therefore, in the book called
Vedantasdra, these two theories are described and differentiated
..between in the following words : —
yas tattviko 'nyathab/iavah parinama udiritah l
ataitviko 'nyathabhavo vivartah sa udfrifafc II ( Ve. Sa. 21 ).
^0 * To explain this meaning in English, we have to say :
pTippearances are the results of subjective conditio n, viz., the
. senses of the observer, and not of the Thing-in-itoeli
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 33$
that is, "when from one fundamental substance, another
substance of a different nature comes into existence essentially,
that is, really, that is called (guya- ) jnriyiama; but when-
instead of this, the fundamental substance looks something-
different I atattvika ), it is said to be vivarta". The Ararhbha-
vada is the theory of the Nyaya school, the Guna-parinama-
vada is the theory of the Samkhya school, and the Vivarta-
vada is the theory of the Non-Dualist Vedanta school. The-
Non-Dualist Vedantists do not look upon the two qualityful.
substances, atoms and Prakrti, as different from or independent
of the qualityless Brahman ; but by their doing so, the-
objection that the Qualityful cannot spring out of the Quality-
less arises on account of satkarya-vada ; and in order to get
rid of that objection, the Vivarta-vada has come into existence.
But, the conclusion drawn by some, that, on that account the-
Vedantists will not at any time or cannot acoept the Guna--
parinama-vada is wrong. The principal object of the Vivarta-
vada is to show that (i) the objection of the Sarhkhyas, or of other
Dualists against Non-Dualism, namely, that the qualityful'
Prakrti or Maya cannot spring out of the qualityless Brahman,,
is not impossible to answer, and that (ii) it is possible for our-
organs to see innumerable Mayic (illusory) appearances in one-
qualityless Brahman. "When this object has been achieved, that,
is to say, when it has been proved by Vivarta-vada, that it is
possible to see the Appearance of the three-constituented*
qualityful Prakrti in one qualityless Parabrahman, Vedanta
philosophy has no objection to accept that the further develop-
ment of that Prakrti has taken place according to the Guna-
parinama-vada. The chief doctrine of Non-Dualistic Vedanta.
is that the fundamental Prakrti is an Appearance, or an>
Illusion, and that it is not Real. But once this first,
Appearance of Prakrti begins to be seen, Non-Dualist
Vedantists have no objection to accept that the appearances,.
which are subsequently evolved from this one original
Appearance, are not-independent ; and to acoept that the-,
qualities of one appearance spring out of the qualities of
another appearance, and that, in this way, appearances possess-
ing various qualities have come into existenoe. Therefore,
although the Blessed Lord has said in the Glti. that
334 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
"'Prakrti is nothing but My Maya" (Gl. 7. 14 ; 4. 6), the Gita
itself also says that this Prakrti, which has become imbued
with or inhabited by the Paramesvara (Gl. 9. 10), is further
developed according to the rule "ffuya gunesu vartanle" (Gl. 3.
28 ; 14. 23). From this it will be clear, that when once the
appearance of Maya has taken place in the fundamentally
<raalityless Brahman acoording to Vivarta-vada, the principle
■of gunotkarsa (Development of Constituents) has been accepted
even by the Gita for explaining this Mayic appearance, that is,
this further development of Prakrti. It is not that because
you say that the entire visible world is a Mayic appearance,
therefore, there cannot be some such rule like gunotkarsa
■which controls the changes in form which take place in this
Appearance. Vedantists do not wish to deny that the further
development of this Mayic appearance iB bound by rules. All
that they say is that these rules are also Mayic, like the funda-
mental Prakrti, and that the Paramesvara is the Over-Lord of
all these Mayic rules, and is beyond them, and that it is by
His power that some sort of permanence or regularity has
come into these rules. It is not possible for the qualityful,
that is, perishable Prakrti, which is in the form of an
Appearance, to lay down rules which are not circumscribed by
Time.
From the foregoing discussion, my readers will understand
the nature and the mutual relationship between the Jiva
{personal self) and the Paramesvara (the Absolute Tsvara), or
according to Vedantic terminology, between Maya (that is,
the universe which has been brought into existence by Maya),
the Atman, and the Parabrahman. From the point of view
of the philosophy of the Highest Self, all the things in the
universe are divided into two classes, namely, 'Names and
Forms, and the Eternal Element ' ( nitya-tattm ) clothed in
those Names and Forms. Out of these, ' Names and Forms '
are known as the qualityful Maya or Prakrti. But when you
eliminate the Names and Forms, the Eternal Element (nitya-
dravya) which remains, must be qualityless; because, no
juality can exist without the support of a Name and Form.
This eternal and imperceptible Element is the Parabrahman ;
and- the weak organs of human beings see the qualityful
THE PHILOSOPHY OF. THE ABSOLUTE SELF 335*
Maya as a growth out of this qualityless Par.abrahman. This
Maya is not a Real substance, and it is only the Patabrahman
which is Real, that is, uueircumseribed by Time, and
nevet-changing. These are the doctrines which relate to
the nature of the Names and Forms of the visible universe
and the Parabrahuian clothed by them. Now, when the
human being is viewed from the same point of view, it is
seen that the human body and organs are substances defined
by Name and Form, like other substances in the visible world,
that ia to say, that they fall into the category of the
non-permanent Maya ; and that the Annan, which is clothed
by this Body and organs, falls into the category of the
eternal Parabrahman ; or, that the Brahman and the A-.ftman
are^ona and the same. My readers must have now noticed
the differsnos between these Non-Daalifitic doctrines,
which do not look upon the external world as an independent
substance in this sense, and the Buddhistic doctrinasv
Buddhists, who believe in the v"ijaaiia-vada, gay that the
external world does not exist at all, and that Jftaaa
( Knowledge ) alone is Real : and Vedantists look lipon sflly
the ever-changing Names and Forms of the external universe
as-unreal, and say that under these Names and Forms, as also
in the human body, there is, in both cases, one and the same
Mman-formBd Substance; and that this homogeneous Atman-
Element is the ultimate Reality. In the same way, Samkbya
philosophy has accepted xhe synthesis of the diversity of
created things by the law of ' 'aribfioklam abhnlctefsu," only so'
far as it applies to Gross Matter; but, as the Vedantists have
got over this difficulty of the vtfkiir'jaivda. and established the
doctrine that "whatever U in the Bziy, is also in the Oosmos,"
■the innumerable Purusas and the Prakrti of Samkbya 1
philosophy have, in Vedanta, philosophy, been comprised in
one Paramatman by the principle of Non-Dualism (admita)
or Non-Division ( atibhaga ). The purely Materialistic
philosopher Haeckel was, it is true, a Non-Dualist. But he
includes even Consciousness ( mifw/n ) in Gross Matter, and'
Vedanta philosophy doeg not give pre-eminence to the Gross,
but proves that the immortal and independent' Tnougfht-
tformed M<fc-BpO-Paratoahman, which is uncirfaamscribed
336 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
by Time or Space, is the Fundamental Boot of the world : this-
is the most important difference between the Non-Dualism of
of the philosophy of the Absolute Self and the Gross-Non-
Dualism (jadddwifa) of Haeokel. The same doctrines of
Non-dualistic Vedinta have been mentioned in the Glta ; and
an ancient poet has summarised the Non-Dualistic Vedanta
philosophy very concisely as follows : —
UoMrdhena pravaksyami yaduktam granthakolibhih I
brahma gatyam jagan mithyajivo brahmaim naparah II
that is, "I will explain in half a stanza the summary of a
million books— (1) the Brahman is Beal, {%) the world (jagat )'
that is, all the Names and Forms in the world, are rmthya, or
perishable, and (3) the Atman of a man and the Brahman are-
fundamentally ONE and the same, and not two. " If anybody
does nob appreciate the word 'mithya' in this stanza, he is quite
welcome to read the third section of the stanza as 'brahmamriant
jagat satyam\ consistently witb the Brhadaranyakopanisad;-
thereby, the purport does not change at all as has beeri stated'
before. Nevertheless, many Vedantists enter into a fruitless
discussion as to whether the invisible but eternal Fundamental
Element of the visible world, in the shape of the Brahman,,
should be called sat (satya) or asat (asatya=anrta). I shall,
therefore, explain here concisely what the underlying principle
in this discussion, is. This discussion has come into existence-
because the word sat or satya haB two different meanings ; and
if one first carefully considers in what meaning the word sat
has been used by any particular person, no confusion will
arise ; because, everybody acoepts tho -"'jtinotion that though-
the Brahman is invisible, it is Reai , and that though the
Name-d and Form-ed Cosmos is visible, yet, it is ever-changing.
The ordinary meaning of the word sat or satya is : (1) that
whioh is, at the moment, actually visible to the eyes, that is
to say, perceptible (whether this visit's appearance of it,,
does or does not change to-morrow) ; and the other meaning of
that word is : (2) that of which the nature always remains the
same, and never changes, notwithstanding that it is invisible-
to the eyes, i e., imperceptible. Those who aooBpt the first
meaning say, that the Name-d and Form-ed world whioh is.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF. THE ABSOLUTE SELF 337
visible to the eyes is satya (visible) and that the Parabrahraan
is just the opposite, that is, it is not visible to the eyes and
therefore, asat or asatya (invisible). Fop instance, in the
Taittirlyopanisad, the visible world has been called 'sat', and
that which is beyond the visible world, has been oalled ' tyai '
(THAT, that is, which is beyond) or 'anrta ' (invisible to the
eyes) ; and the Brahman is described by saying that that
substance which was in existenca at the commancemant of the
world has bacoma two-fold as follows:— "sicca tyaccfibh wat \
niruktam alniniktam ca I nilayanam canilw/anaiii ca I vijaanan
cavijUanam ca\ satyani canrtam ci\" (Tai. 2 6), that is: "It
became " sat (visible to the eyes) and That (which is beyond) ;
describable and indescribable; dependant and independent;
known and unknown (unknowable) ; and real (visible) and
invisible ". But though the Brahman has in this way been
described as ' anrta ', the word anrta does not mean false
or unreal ; but later on, in the Taittiriyopanisad itself, it
is stated that " this anrta (invisible) Brahman is the ' pratistha '
(support) of the world, that it does not depend on anything
else, and that he who has realised this need not fear
anything". From this it is clear, that though there is a
difference in words, there is no difference in the intended
meaning. In the same way, it is ultimately said that " asadva
idam agra asit", that is, "this world was as 2t (Brahman) in
the beginning" ; and, a3 stated in the Jjtg-Veda (10. 129. 4), the
sat, that is, the Name-d and Form-ed perceptible world, is said
to have subsequently grown out of it (Tai. 2. 7). From this,
it becomes quite clear that the word 'asat' has been used here
only in the meaning of avyakta, that is, not visible to the eyes ;
and in the Vedanta-Sutras, Badarayanacarya has interpreted
those words in the same meaning ( Ve. Si. 2. 1. 17). But, those
who interpret the word 'sat' or 'satya, as meaning existing
permanently, or ever-lasting, though not visible to the eyes
(which is the second of the two meanings mentioned above),
give to the invisible but immutable Parabrahman the name
sat or satya and call the Name-d and Form-ed Maya, aiat or
asatya, i. e., perishable. For instance, there is a description in
the Chandogya that: "saddva saumyedam agra asit
katham asatah sajjayeta", that is, "0 my son 1 this world was
43-44
338 GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
originally sat (Brahman) ; how can 'sat', that is, that which
exists, come into existence out of something which is asat, that
is, which never was in existence ? " (Chan. 6. 2. 1, 2). But in
this Chandogyopanisad itself, the Parabrahman has in one
place been called 'asat.' in the sense of avyakta, that is.
imperceptible (Chan. 3. 19. 1). * This confusing method
by which the same Parabrahman was at different times and
in different meanings given the mutually contradictory
names of once 'sat' and at another time 'asat' — which was a
method promoting verbal warfare, though the intended
import was the same — gradually wore out; and ultimately,
ithe one terminology of calling the Brahman sat or satya, i. e.,
eternally lasting, and the visible world asat or perishable, has
become fixed. In the Bhagavadgita, this ultimate terminology
las been accepted and in the second chapter, the Parabrahman
has been described as sat and imperishable, and Names and
tforms are described as asat, that is, perishable, in those
meanings of those words ( Gl. 2. 16-18); and the same iB the
doctrine of the Vedanta-Sutras. Nevertheless, the old
terminology of the Taittiriyopanisad of referring to the visible
world as 'sat' and to the Parabrahman as 'asat' or as 'tyat'
{ THAT = that which is beyond ) has not been totally exter-
minated ; and what the original meaning of the description
of the Brahman in the Gita ( Gl. 17. 23 ) as 'OM-Tat-Sat' must
bave been, can very clearly be seen by reference to the old
terminology. 'OM' is a Vedic prayer in the form of a mystic
■word, and it has been explained in various ways in the
Upanisads ( Pra. 5 ; Man. 8-12; Chan. 1. 1. ). 'tat' means 'THAT',
that is, the indescribable Element which is far beyond the
visible world, and 'sat' is the visible world which can be seen
by the eyes ; and this canon means that these three together
constitute the Brahman. And it is with this import that the
* Even among the English writers on Metaphysics, there is a
difference of opinion as to whether the word real, i. e„ sat should
be applied to the appearance of the world (Miba) or to the vastu-
tailva (Brahman). Eant looks upon the Appearance as sat real) and
■calls the vastu-tattm, imperishable. But, Haeckcl, Green and others
call the Appearance, asat (unreal), and the vastu-tattva, sat (real).
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 339
Blessed Lord has said in the Glta ( Gl. 9. 19 ; that "sad asac-
•caham arjum", that is, "sat is the Parabrahman and asat is
the visible world, and I am both". Still, in as much as the
Glta propounds the Earma-Yoga, it has been explained at the
-end of the seventeenth chapter that by taking the word 'sat'
in the canon, OM-Tat-Sat, as meaning Action, which is good
-from the point of view of respectability, or which has been
done with a good intention, or of which the result is good,
and by taking the word 'tat' as meaning, Action, which is
beyond the above-mentioned Action, that is, which has been
performed by giving up the desire for fruit, as and when
occasion arises to use that canon, the doctrine of Karma-Yoga
can be fully supported on the basis of this description of the
Brahman. As that which has been referred to as 'sat' in the
canon, is nothing else but the visible world, that is to say,
Karma (See the next chapter), this interpretation of the
■definition of the Brahman in terms of Karma, easily arises
out of the original interpretation. There are to be found in the
■Upanisads other descriptions of the Brahman than 'om-tatsat',
" neti neti ', ' saccidamnda ' and ' satyasya satyam '; but as they
are not necessary for understanding the meaning of the Glta,
I have not given them here.
When the mutual relationship between the Cosmos {jagat),
the personal Self (jiva) and the Paramesvara (Paramatman)
'have been explained in this way, it becomes quite clear in
-what sense one has to take the word ' ansa ' used by the
Blessed Lord in the phrases " the Jiva is an 'amsa' of Myself "
iQl. 15. 7), and "I have pervaded the whole of this world by one
*amsa'" (Gl. 10. 42) in the Bhagavadgita, and also used by
Badarayanacarya in the Vedanta-Sutras (Ve. Su. 2. 3. 43 ; 4. 4,
19), or the word ' pada ' used in the Purusa-Sukta in the line
'" pado 'sya visva bhutani tripud asyamrtam divi "—'the jagadatman
(the Cosmic-Self) Which has pervaded the moveable and the
immoveable, and yet remained over ten fingers '. Although
the Paramesvara or the Paramatman is all-pervading, yet,
as It is unorganised, homogeneous, and devoid of Name and
T?orm, that is to say, uncuttable ( acchedya ) and immutable
iavikarya), it is impossible to break It up into individual pieces
<Gi. 2. 25). Therefore, in order to distinguish between this
340 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA- YOGA
homogeneous Parabrahman which pervades everything on all
sides, and the Atman within the body of a man, one has to
say in common parlance that the ' sarira-atman ' (the Atman
within the body) is an ' amsa ' (part) of the Parabrahman.
Yet, the word ' amsa ' or ' part ' has not to he taken in the
meaning of ' an independent piece which has been cut-
out ', or ' one of the grains taken out of the numerous grains
in a pomegranate ' ; and it must be taken in its elementary
meaning to indicate that the Atman is a part of the
Parabrahman in the same way as ether ( akaia ) in the house or
in an earthenware pot ( matliakusa, ghatakasa ) are parts of an
all-pervading ether ( See AmrtabindQpanisad 13 ). The
Samkhya Prakrti, and the homogeneous element accepted by the
Materialistic Gross-Non-Dualism of Haeckel, are in the same
way qualityful, that is, limited, parts of the Real qualityless
Paramesvara. Nay, whatever perceptible or imperceptible
fundamental element is arrived at according to the
Materialistic sciences, (then may it be how much soever
comprehensive like ether), it is only a Name and Form broken
in upon by Time and Space, that is to say,, it is perishable and
limited. It is true that it has occupied the Parabrahman to
the extent of its capacity, but instead of the Parabrahman
being thereby in any way limited, It has fully pervaded and
saturated the former and one cannot gauge to what extent It
remains over. Although the words ' dasamgula ' (ten fingers),
or ' tripada ' (three steps) have been used in the Purusa-Sukta
in order to indicate to what extent the Paramesvara has gone
beyond the visible universe, yet, they are to be taken as
meaning 'ananta' (endless); because, striotly speaking,
Space and Time, weights and measures, and even numbers are
only kinds of Names and Forms ; and it has been shown
above that the Parabrahman is beyond all these Names and
Forms. Therefore, the Parabrahman has been described in the
ITpanisads as, that Element which swallows up or absorbs
' kala ' (Time), which ' kula ' has swallowed up everything
(Mai. 6. 15) ; and the same is the purport conveyed by the
descriptions to be found in the Glta and in the Upanisads of
the habitation of the Paramesvara, such as, " na tad bhasayate
mryo na sasamko na pavakah ", that is, " there is no such
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 341
luminary object like the Sun or the Moon or Fire for illumi-
nating the seat of the Paramesvara, who is self-illumined"
(01. 15. 6 ; Katha. 5. 15 ; Sve. 6. 14). The Sun, the Moon, the
stars, etc., are Name-d and Form-ed perishable objects. That
self-illumined Knowledge-filled Brahman which is "jyotisam
jyotih " (Gl. 13. 17 ; Br. 4. 4. 16)— that is, " brilliance of
brilliance " — extends endlessly beyond all of them ; and it is
stated in the Upanisads that not only does It not depend
on any other luminary objects, but whatever light is possessed
by the Sun, the Moon etc., is obtained by them from this self-
illumined Brahman (Mun. 2. 2. 10). Take the most subtle or
the most distant object, which is made perceptible to the organs
by instruments invented by Material sciences; it is but the
world denned by Name and Form, which is circumscribed by
the limitations of Time and Space. As the true Paramesvara
is in them, and yet different from and more comprehensive
than all of them, and also homogeneous and uncircumscribed
by the bonds of Names and Forms, that is to say, as He is
independent, it is not possible for the devices or instruments of
Material sciences, which consider merely Names and FormB, to
find out the ' amrta-tattva ' (imperishable Element) which is the
Boot of the world, though they might beoome a thousand times
more subtle or comprehensive than they are at present. That
imperishable, immutable and undying element must ultimately
be found out by the Path of Knowledge shown in the
philosophy of the Absolute Self.
From the exposition of the principal doctrines of the
philosophy of the Absolute Self and their concise scientific
explanation given so far, it will be clear why all the
perceptible Name-d and Form-ed appearances of the
Paramesvara are Mayic or perishable, why His imperceptible
form is superior to them, why His qualityless form, that is, the
form undefined by Name and Form, is still superior, and why
it is stated in the Gita that the qualityless form seems quality-
ful as a result of ignorance. But this work of setting out
these doctrines in words can be easily done by anyone who has
acquired a little knowledge like me; there is nothing much in
that. In order that these doctrines should be impressed on the
mind, engraved on the heart and ingrained in one's flesh and
342 GTTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
bone after they have been understood, and that one should
thereby fully realise that there is only one Parabrahman
which saturates all living things ; and in order that by reason,
of such feeling, one should acquire an immutable mental frame
which will enable one to behave with equability towards
everybody in times of misfortune, it is necessary to have
the continual additional help of impressions acquired during,
numerous births, control of the organs, persevering practice,
meditation, and worship. Therefore, the summary of all the
above doctrines, and the highest doctrine of the philosophy
of the Absolute Self is : only that man may be said to have
become fully saturated with the knowledge of the Brahman
in whose every action the principle, "there ie only one Atman
in all created things", has become naturally and clearly
visible, even in times of distress ; and such a man alone get&
Release ( Gi. 5. 18-20; 6. 21, 22). The ' earthenware pot' of
that man in whom such behaviour is not to be seen is to that
extent imperfectly or insufficiently 'baked', in the fire of the
Knowledge of the Brahman. This is the difference between
real saints and mere Vedantists; and, therefore, in describing
Knowledge, it is stated in the Glta that true Knowledge may
be said to have been acquired, when noble emotions like
"humility (amamtoa), peaceful ness (santi), self-control.
(atmanigraha), equability of mind (samabuddhi)" are awakened,.
whereby the total purification of the mind is continually
expressed in conduct, instead of saying that 'Knowledge is
the understanding by Reason of what is at the root of the
external world' ( Gi. 13. 7-11 ). That man whose Discerning.
Reason has become devoted to the Self, that is, has
become steady in the contemplation on the Self and
Non-Self, and who has Realised the identity of the Atman
with all created beings, must, undoubtedly, also possess a
Desiring Reason which is pure. But, as there is no other
external measure except a man's conduct for finding out the-
state of his Reason, the words ' jnana' ( Knowledge ) or
' stmabuddhi ' ( equable mind ) are usually made to include the
pure Discerning Reason, the pure Desiring Reason, and pure
Conduct; this thing must be borne in mind, especially in
these days of bookish knowledge. There may be many who>
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 34?
can give long dry discourses on the Brahman, and also others
who hearing those discourses will nod their heads in apprecia-
tion and say 'Hear, hear', or, like courtiers in a drama, say,.
"Let us hear the same thing again ■" (Gi. 2. 29 ; Ha. %. 7 1 ; but,
as stated above, that man who has become internally and
externally pure, that is, equable in mind, is the true devotee of
the Atman, and he alone attains Release, and not mere learned
men who may be how well-read or intelligent soever, [t has been
plainly stated in the Upanisads that: "nnijam atma praixtctmena
labhyo na medhaya na bahuna srutena" (Ka2. 22; Mun 3. 2. 3.),.
( that is, " this Atman is not reached by giving discourses, nor
by intelligence, nor by great learning " — Trans.), and the Saint
Tukarama has also said : — " you have become a Pandit (i.e.,.
learned man), you interpret the Puranas t but you do not know
who you are II " (Ga. 2599). See how narrow our minds are I'
The words ' attains Release ' easily come out of our mouths,
as if Release is something different from the Atman. There-
would be difference between the Observer and the visible-
world, before the Knowledge has been acquired that the
Brahman and the Atman are identical ; but, our Vedantists-
have come to the conclusion that when one has fully Realised
the identity of the Brahman and the Atman, the Atman is merged
into tbe Brahman, and the brahmajnanl (one who has Realised
the Brahman) acquires the form of Brahman wherever he is ; and.
this Metaphysical state is known as the ' brahmanir mnyt
Release,' which is not given by anybody to anybody, and
whioh does not come from anywhere, and for obtaining which
it is not necessary to leave this world and to go to another
world. Whenever and wherever the complete Realisation of
the Atman comes, Release is obtained at that very moment
and at that place ; because, Release is the fundamental pure,
state of the Atman, and is not some independent thing or
plac6. There is a stanza in the Siva-Gita that :—
moksasya na hi vaso 'sti na gramantaram eva va I
ajnanahrdayagranthiriaso moksa iti smrtah »
(Siva. 13. 32)
that is, " Release is not in a particular place, nor has one to go-
to some other town or country in order to obtain it: the destruc-
346 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
Towards all created beings I
lie is friendly, looking upon all as one l
He is kind to all I
with a sense of equability II
He does not know the word ' I ' i
he does not say of anything that it is ' mine *
Experience of pain and happiness I
for him there is none
(Jna. 12. 145-149).
And Jnanesvara has thus, by giving numerous illustrations,,
and in very sweet and attractive language, described ia
Marathi the equability of the Biahmified man ; and we may
safely say, that this description contains a summary of the
description of the Brahmi state given in four different places
in the Glta. This is what is to be ultimately acquired by
Spiritual Knowledge.
My readers will have understood from what has been,
stated above, how the tradition of Spiritual Knowledge, which
is the root of the science of Release, has come to us in an
unbroken line from the Upanisads right upto Tukarama. But,
in order to impress on my readers that this knowledge had
come into existence in our country even before the date of the
Upanisads, that is to say, already in very very ancient times,
and that the ideas in the Upanisads have gradually grown
from those times, I shall give here, before concluding, a
well-known hymn (stikta) from the Rg-Veda, which is the
foundation even of the Spiritual Knowledge in the Upanisads,
together with its Marathi translation. Not only do we not
come across in the scriptures of any religion, critical
philosophical ideas, as to what the unknowable Fundamental
Element of the Cosmos must have been, and how this
variegated visible universe sprang from it, which are as
comprehensive, independent and root-touching as those in
this hymn, but no one has yet come across any text replete
with such Spiritual Knowledge, which is equal to it in "point
of antiquity. Therefore, many wonder-struck Western
scholars have translated this hymn into their various
THE PHILOSOPHY OP THE ABSOLUTE SELF 347
languages, looking upon it as important, from the point of
view of religious history, for showing how the natural
tendency of the human mind runs beyond the Name-d and
Form-ed universe to reach the permanent and unimaginable
Brahman-Energy which is beyond it. This hymn is the 129th
hymn in the tenth mandala of the Rg-Veda, and iB known as-
the 'Nasadiya-Sukta', having regard to its commencing words.
And this Sukta has been adopted in the Taittiriya Brahmana
( 2. 8. 9 ), and the description given in the Narayanlya or the
Bhagavata religion in the Mahabharata as to how the universe
was first created by the desire of the Blessed Lord has been,
based on this hymn ( Ma. Bha. San. 342. 8 ). According to-
the general index ( sarvanukramardka ), the Rsi of this hymn
is Paramesthi Prajapati, its deity is the Paramatman, and it
consists of seven stanzas ( rca ) in the tristup metre, each
stanza containing four lines of eleven words each. As the
words, sat and asat, have a double meaning, the difference of
opinion among the writers of the tfpanisads, as regards-
describing the Fundamental Element of the world as 'sat\
which has been referred to earlier in this chapter, is also to be
found in the Rg-Veda. For instance, this Fundamental.
Cause of the world is in some places described by saying "ekam
sad vipra bahudha. vadanti" ( Rg. 1. 164. 46 ), or " ekam santam
bahudha kalpayanti" ( Rg. 10. 114. 5 )— that is, "It, being one.
and sat ( i. e. lasting for erer ), has been given different names-
by people "; whereas in other places, it has been desoribed by
saying: "duvanam pilrvye yuge 'satah sad ajayata" (Rg. 10.72. 7),
that is, "the sat, that is, the perceptible universe, came into
existence out of the asat, that is, the Imperceptible, even
before the gods had oome into existence." In addition
to this, there are other descriptions all differing from,
each other in the Rg-Veda itself as to how the entire universe
came into being out of one visible Element, e. g., : — in the
beginning of the world, there was the Golden Embryo (Uramja-
garbha), of which both death and immortality are shadows, and.
It later on created the entire world (Rg. 10. 121. 1, 2) ; or, that,
a Virata-formed Purusa existed at first, and from him the
entire world was created by means of a sacrifice (Rg. 10. 90): or,,
that there was apa (water) at first, and in that water Prajapati
348 GtTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
came into existence (Rg. 10. 72. 6 ; 10. 82. 6) ; or, that ria and
saiya first came into existence, and afterwards, darkness ; and
after that, water {samudra), the year etc. came into existence
<Rg. 10. 190. 1). These Fundamental Elements mentioned in
the Rg-Veda have been later on referred to as follows :— (1) in
the Taittiriya Brahmana, water has been referred to as the
Fundamental Element as : "apo va idam agre salilam asit" (Tai.
Bra. 1. 1. 3. 5), i. e., "all this was liquid water in the beginning";
(2) in the TaittirlyoDanisad, asat has been mentioned as the
Fundamental Element, as : "asad va idam agra asit" (Tai. 2.7 ),
i. e., "all this was asat in the beginning" ; (3) in the
Chandogyopanisad, sat has been mentioned as the Fundamental
Element, as : "sad eua saumyedam agra asit" (Chan. 6. 2), i. e.,
"all this was sal in the beginning" ; or, (4) ether is said to be
such Element, as : "ukasah parayanam" (Chan. 1. 9), i. e.,
"ether was the root of everything" ; (5) in the Brhadaranyaka,
death (mrlyu) is mentioned as the Fundamental Element, as :
"naiveha kimcanugra asm mrtyuriaivedam aurtam asit" (Br. 1. 2. 1),
i. e., "in the beginning, there was nothing whatsoever ; every-
thing was covered by death" ; and (6) in the Maitryupanisad,
darkness [tamas] has been mentioned as the Fundamental
Element, as : "tamo va idam agra asid ekam" (Mai. 5. 2), i. e.,
"this entire universe was in the beginning tamas ( tamoguni,
darkness)", and sattva and rajas afterwards came into existence
out of it. In the same way, the Manu-Smrti contains the
following description of the commencement of the universe,
consistent with these descriptions in the Vedas: —
asid idam tumdbhutam aprajnatam alaksanam I
apratarbjam avijneyam prasuptam iva saroatah II
that is, "all this was first covered up by darkness (tamas),
and it was undiscernible and as if in a sleeping state, so
that it would be impossible to differentiate between one thing
and another ; thereafter, the imperceptible Paramatman entered
it and first created water" ( Manu. 1. 5 — 8 ). Such and other
different descriptions about the Fundamental Substance
existing at the commencement of the universe must have been
in vogue even at the time of the Nasadlya-Siikta; and the
■question as to which of these Fundamental Substances, was
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 349
the really fundamental one, must also then have arisen.
Therefore, the Rsi of that hymn gives the following explana-
tion, in order to explain what the truth ( bija ) about the whole
thing was in the following words :
nasadasln no sad asit tadamm,
nasid rajo no vyoma paro yat I
kim avarivah kulia kasya karma-
nnambhah kim asld gahanam gabhimm II 1 II
that is : (1) "then, that is, in the beginning, there was neither
asat, nor sat, nor the firmament ( antariksa ), nor the ether
( okasa ) beyond it. ( In this state ) who ( can be said to have )
covered ( whom ) ? Where 1 For whose benefit 1 Was there
( even ) unfathomable and deep water ?"*
na mrtyur asid amrtam na tarhi
na ratrya anha asit praketah I
anid auafam soadhaya tad ekam
tasmad dhamjan na parah kimcariasa II 2 II
that is: (2) "then, death, that is, the perishable, visible, mortal
universe was not existing ; and, therefore, there was not (the
distinction of) also (another) amrta, i. e., imperishable, eternal
substance. (Similarly) there was no means ( = praketa) for
finding out the difference between day and night. (Whatever
there was) That solitary thing was breathing, that is, throbbing
by soadM, that is, by its own power, without there being any
air. Except or beyond that, there was nothing."
tama asit tamasa gudham agre
'praketam salilam sarvama idam I
tucchenabhvapihitam yad asit
tapasas tan mahina 'jayataikam ll 3 ll
that is : (3) "though there was (said to be) darkness in the
beginning ; or that all this was water enveloped in darkness
devoid of any differentiation ; ( or ) that abhu, that is, the all-
pervading Brahman was ( from the beginning ) covered by
tuccha, that is, by illusory Maya ; yet, that came into existence
* First red : — I have given the above meaning, analysing the
words 'kim asid' in the fourth line as "asit kim"; and the purport of
it is, "water did not exist then" ( Tai. Bra, 2. 2. 9 ).
350 GlT£-KAHAS5rA OR KARMA-YOGA
.as a result of austerity (subsequently, by transformation), from
the fundamentally one Brahman" *
kamas tad agre samavartatadhi
manaso retah prathamam yad asit l
sato bandhum asah niravindan
hrdi pratisya kavayo manisa n 4 n
■that is : (4) "the semen, that is, the seed of the Mind (of This)
which first came into existence, became Kama (that is, the
desire or the power to create the world). (This is) the (first)
relation between sat, that is, the perishable visible world, and
* Third Tea: — Soma commentators consider the first three
lines of ttiis stanza as independent, and interpret it by saying that
in the beginning of the universe, there was "darkness, or water
covered by darkness, or abhu (void) covered by lueeha". But,
according to me that interpretation is not correct. Because, if in
the first two stanzas there i 6 a clear statement that nothing whatso-
ever existed in the beginning, it is not possible that it should be
stated in this rca that there was in the beginning either darkness
or water — which i» something quite the opposite. Besides, accord-
ing to this interpretation, the word ynt in the third part of the
stanza has to be considered meaningless; therefore, it becomes
necessary to refer the word l yaf, in the third part of the stanza, to
the word 'fat' in the fourth part, and to interpret the stanza as has
been done by me above. This Tea has been included in this hymn
as an answer to those persons who maintained that there were in
the beginning substances like water etc.; and what the Rsi intended
to say was that there were no fundamental substances like darkness,
water etc., as was said by these people, but that, all that was the
further development of one and the same Brahman. As the two
wordB Huccha' and 'abhu' are mutually opposite, the word abhu
means opposite of tuceha, that is to say, big or powerful, and the
same meaning has been given to it by Sayanacarya in the other
two places where that word occurs in the Bg-Veda
( R?. 10. 27. 1, i). In the Paneadaii (Ohitra. 129, ISO ), the word
tucch> has been interpreted as meaning Maya ( See Nrsim. TJtta. 9).
Therefore, abhu has not to be interpreted as meaning 'void' but as
Parabr hman. The word ah (fl + a») in the phrase 'sarvam 5f>
4iiW is the past tense form of the root W, and it means 'asit',
that is, 'was'.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 351
the asat, that is, the fundamental Parabrahman, as has been
ascertained by scients by means of their Reason, by meditating
•in their minds".
firasclno utato rasmiresam
adhah svid asid upari sM asit I
retodha asan mahimana asan
snadha avastat prayatih parastat II 5 II
that is: (5) "(this) rasmi, that is, shred or ray, fell transversely
{between) them ; and if you say it was below, it was also
above; (some of these) became retodha, that is, productive of
seed, and (growing) became bigger. Their self-prowess
■(svasakti) pervaded on one side, and prayati, that is, development -
•(pervaded everything) on the other side".
ho addha veda ka iha pra vocat
kuta ajata kuta iyam. visrstih I
arvag deva asya visarjanena-
tha Ico veda yata ababhuva n 6 ll
■that is : (6) " who is there who can in greater (than this) detail
•( pra ), explain how came the visarga, that is, the development
.( of the sat ) and from whom it came ? Who knows this
definitely ? Even the gods came after the visarga of this
■{visible sat universe). Then who is to know from where
it came ?"
iyam visrstir yat ababhuva
yadi va dadhe yndi va na dadhe I
t/o asyadhyaksah parame vyoman
so anga veda yadi va na veda ll 7 ll
that is : (7) "The adhyalcsa ( Hiranyagarbha ) of this universe,
inhabiting the highest ( parama ) firmament, may know the
place from where the development of this sat came about, or,
from where it was created, or was not created; or, even the
Hiranyagarbha may not be knowing it 1 ( Who is in a position
to say that ? )".
The sum and substance of Vedanta philosophy is, that one
should not remain enmeshed in the various Name-d and
Form-ed, mutable and perishable Appearances which are
-perceptible to the eyes or the other organs, but should recognise
by means of Knowledge that THERE IS SOME, ONE AND
IMMORTAL ELEMENT, which is beyond them; and, the
353 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
fact that the Reason of the Rsi who composed this hymn
unerringly grasped the crux of the whole matter at the first
attempt, clearly showB the keenness of his introspection!
Instead of entering into a discussion with persons, who raised
the questions, whether That, which existed in the beginning
of the universe and before the various things in the world
came into existence, was sat or asat, death or immortality,
ether or water, light or darkness etc., this Rsi speeds beyond
all of them, and says that sat and asat, mortal and immortal
light and darkness, the covering and the covered, the giver of
happiness and the fetler of happiness, are mutually dependent
opposites, which came into existence after the visible world
was created; and he asks, whe was there to cover whom before
these opposite couples in the world came into existence, that is-
to say, when there was no such difference as this one and that
one. The Rsi of this hymn, therefore, says, to start with, that
it is not proper to describe the Fundamental, homogeneous,
Substance as sat or asat, ether or water, light or darkness, death
or immortality, or by such other mutually dependent expres-
sions ; he says, that whatever there was, was stranger than all
these things ; that It was one and one alone, and was throbbing
in all directions by its inexhaustible energy ; and that there
was nothing else which was a mate to it or which covered it.
The root word ' an ' in the verb 'anit' in the second rca means
to breathe or to throb ; and the word ' prana ' is derived from
that root. But who can say that That, w'.ich was neither sat
nor asat, was breathing like a living being ? and where was
the air to breathe ? Therefore, the words avatam ( that is,
without air ) and smdhaya ( by its own prowess ) have been
added to the word 'anil', and the idea that the Fundamental
Element of the world was not Gross Matter, which (idea>
pertains to the stage of Non-Dualism, has been very skilfully
described in the language of Dualism by saying that "that
ONE substance was breathing or throbbing by Its own prowess
without air, that is, without depending on air 1" ; and the
apparent contradiction in terms, which is involved in this,
is 'the result of the insufficiency of Dualistic terminology.
The descriptions of the Parabrahman to be found in the
Upanisads, such as, "neti, neli", or " ekamevadvitiyam" or "' sve
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 355
mahimni pratisthitah" (Chan. 7. %i. 1 ), that is, "that which
subsists by Itself alone, by Its own prowess, that is, without
depending on anyone else", are mere repetitions of this idea.
It is clear that that indescribable Element, which has been
referred to in this hymn as throbbing in all directions at the
commencement of the entire universe, will survive when
the entire visible universe is destroyed. Therefore, this same
Parabrahman has been described in the Gita with a slight
amplification, in the words: "Which is not destroyed though
all other things are destroyed" (Gi. 8. 20); and it is stated
later on ( GI. 13. 12 ) by clear reference to this hymn that " It
is neither sat nor asat". But, if there was nothing in the
beginning except the qualityless Brahman, a difficulty arises-
as to how to dispose of such descriptions as, " there were in the-
beginning, water, darkness, or the couple of abhu and tuecha",
which are to be found even in the Vedas. Therefore, this Bsi
says in the third rca, that the descriptions, which we come;
across, to the effect that in the beginning of the universe there-
was darkness, or water clothed in darkness, or, that abhu-
( Brahman) and the Maya ( tucclia ) which covered It, existed
from the very beginning, are descriptions of the ONE and
sole, fundamental Parabrahman, after It had developed into
a diversified expansion by the prowess of Its austere medita-
tion, and not of Its fundamental state. The word 'tapa*
in this rca is intended to describe the wonderful Spiritual:
power of the fundamental Brahman, and the same thing is'
described in the fourth rca. ( See Mun. 1. 1. 9 ). It need not b&'
said that that Fundamental Substance, the Tesult of the-
prowess of Which is this entire universe, according to the-
saying : etavan asya mahima 'to jyayams ca purusah" (l&g. 10. 90. >
3 ), is beyond such universe and superior to and different
from everything. But, though this Rsi had, in this - way, at a
stroke cast off all Dualistic couples like, the object to be seen
and the observer, the enjoyer and the enjoyed, the clother and
the clothed, darkness and light, mortal and immortal etc., and
come to the conclusion that there was fundamentally only one
unmixed wonderful Parabrahman in the form of Consciousness
( i. e., cidrupi ), yet, when he was faced with the problem of
having to explain how the diverse, perishable, (malityful,
45-46
354 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA.
Name-d and Form-ed universe, consisting of the couples of
water etc. or the three-constituented Prakrti from which it
{ the universe ) sprang, had come into existence out of this
ONE and sole, indescribable, and qualityless Element, he had
to take shelter under the Dualistic terminology of Mind,
Desire, asat, sat etc., and he ultimately frankly admits that
this question is beyond the grasp of human Reason. In the
fourth k5, the fundamental Brahman has been referred to as
asat; but that ward cannot be interpreted as meaning 'nothing';
because, already in the second tcU, there is a clear statement
that ' It is'. Not only in this hymn, but in the Rg-Veda and
the Vajasaneyi Samhita, moot questions have been asked,
making use of the language of ordinary parlance, by comparing
the visible world with a sacrifice ( yajna ), and asking from
where the ingredients such as, clarified butter, dried sticks etc.
necessary for performing the yajna were initially brought
( Rg. 10. 130. 3 ); or, by taking the illustration of a house, and
asking the question as to from where the timber ( funda-
mental Prakrti ) for constructing this imposing edifice of ether
and the earth, which is actually visible to the eyes, out of one
Fundamental qualityless Substance, was brought; such as,
"Mm sdd vavam kau sa vrksa asa yalo dyavaprthwi nhtiitahsuh
( Rg. 10. 31. 7 ; 10. 81. 4 ;' Vaja. Sam. 17. 20 ). ' These questions
cannot be answered further than by saying what has been
said in the fourth and fifth stanzas of this hymn, that is to
say, by saying that the Kama-formed Element of creating
the universe, somehow or other came into existence in
the Mind of that indescribablo ONE and Bole Parabrahman,
and that the entire development of sat, that is, the imposing
edifice of ether and earth, came into existence as a result of its
branches spreading out above and below, and in all directions >
like the threads in a piece of cloth or the rays of sunshine.
(Vaja. Sam. 33. 74). And, therefore, the meaning conveyed in
this hymn has been adopted in the Upanisads in the words :
"so 'kamayata I balm syam prajayeyeti\ " (Tai 2. 6 ; Chan. 6. 2.
3), that is, " that Parabrahman acquired the Desire of becoming
multifarious" (See Br. 1.1. 4); and even in the Atharva-Veda,
there is a statement that ' Kama ' (Desire) came first into
existence out of the Fundamental Substance at the root of the
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF 355
visible world (Atharva. 9. 2. 19). But, the wonder about this
hymn ia, that instead of becoming a slave to Eeaaon like the
Samkhyas, and imagining the existence of another self-created
and independent element like Fundamental Matter, because
the question of the creation of the Qualityful from the
Qualityless, or of the asat from the sat, or of the dvamdva
{subject to doubles) from the rurdvamdva (beyond doubles I. or of
the sanga (attached) from the asanga (unattached), is beyond the
grasp of human intelligence, this B?i frankly says : "Say that
you do not understand that which you do not understand ; but
on that account, it is not proper to give to the Illusion in the
form of the visible world, the same value as the indescribable
Brahman, which has been definitely ascertained by means of
an absolutely purified Mind and as a self-experience. Besides,
one must also realise that even if one considers, the three-
constituented Prakrti as a second independent substance, one
still cannot answer the question as to how Eeason (mahan) or
Individuation first entered that substance, in order that the
universe should be created ; and if this difficulty cannot be
•overcome, where is the point in looking upon Prakrti as
independent ? All that one need say is, that it is impossible to
understand how Prakrti or sat came into existence out of the
fundamental Brahman. For that, it is not necessary to look
upon -Prakrti as independent. It is not possible even for gods to
•find out how sat came into existence; much less, then, for human
intelligence; because, as even the gods came into existence
after the visible world, how can they know anything about it f
(G-i. 10. 2). But, some one may here raise the following doubt:
it is stated in the Bg.-Veda itself that the Hiranyagarbha is
prior in point of time and superior even to the gods, that He
alone was in the beginning "bhutasya jatah putireka asit"
(Bg. 10.121.1), that is, "the ' pati' , oi 'king', or , adhyaksa i
of the entire universe "; then, how can He not be knowing
this Thing?; and, if it is possible for Him to have known it,
how can you say that It is unknowable ? Therefore, the Hsi
gives, in the beginning, a formal answer to that question by
saying: "Yes, He may be knowing the answertoit'Y but,
immediately thereafter, this Bsi who seeks by his Reason
±o fathom the knowledge of even Brahmadeva, ultimately and
356 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
in a state of doubt says: "Or, Ho may even not be knowing
it ' "Who can say ?; because, as He also falls within the
category of sat, how can this 'adhyaksa' or king of the
universe, who lives in what is in fact ether (ukasa), though
you may call it ' parama ', have a definite knowledge about
something which existed before sat or asal, ether or water,
came into existence?" But, although he does not know how
this ONE, asat, that is, imperceptible, and qualityless Substance
came into contact with the variegated Name-d and Form-ed
sat, that is, Prakrti, yet, he does not swerve from his Non-
Dualistic conviction that this fundamental Brahman is ONE
and only ONE !. This is an excellent example of how the
human mind fearlessly roams about like a lion in the
impregnable forests of unimaginable things, on the strength
of its sattvika devotion and its pure inspiration, and defines,
to whatever extent it can, the unimaginable things existing
in that forest; and it is really a matter of great surprise that
this hymn is to be found in the Bg-Veda. The subject-matter of
this hymn has bsen very minutely examined in our country,
and also by Kant and other philosophers in the Western
countries, by considering the Brahmanas, the TJpanisads, and
the later treatises on Vedanta philosophy (Taitti. Bra. 2. 8. 9).
But, nobody has so far gone beyond giving to the opposite
party convincing arguments like the Vivartavuila for making
firmer, clearer, or logically more unquestionable those very
doctrines which inspired the pure mind of this Rsi, as.
appearing in this hymn; and we need not entertain any hopes
that anybody will do so.
The chapter on the philosophy of the Absolute Self,
(ladhyalim) is now over. Before I go further, I will, following
the usual practice ■ of the 'kesari' (lion), and look back on the
subject-matter or road which I have so far traversed; because,
unless such a lion-look has been given, there is a risk of the
link between this subject-matter and the next being lost, and
of one'6 going astray. In the beginning of this book, after
introducing my readers to the subject-matter, I have concisely
explained to them the nature of Karma-jijlaga ( Desire for
Action), and shown to them in the third chapter, that the
science of Karma-Yoga ( Proper Action ) is the subject-matter
THE PHILOSOPHY OP THE ABSOLUTE SELF 357
of exposition in the Gita. Then, after having proved in the
fourth, fifth and sixth chapters, by considering the question, of
happiness and unhappiness, tli.it the Matcri'uistic exposition of
this subject-mstter is one-sided and insufficient, and-that its
Intuitional exposition id lam?, I haw, before entering into the
Metaphysical exposition of Ksirma-Yuga. and already in the
sixth chapter, dealt wilh I he ini o stion ; r the Body and the
Allium in order to determine what cl e Atman is; and having
in the seventh and eighth chami-vs d.plf with the subjoot-
matter of the Mutable and the Immutable according to the
Dualistie Samkhya philosophy, I have in this' chapter
explained what the nature ol the A tin an is. and in what way
ONE, sole, immortal and qnalitytess Aiman-Element saturates
fully and eternally holii the Body and the Cfosmos; and TUbrfe
finally drawn the conclusion that the Yoga of aoquii'in'g an eqiiB^'
ble frame of Mind, which believes that there is only one 'SirhaBr
in all created beings, and keeping that name of Mind ■pei-pd- 1
tually alive, is the clima.c of iSeil'-Knowh d^.'e (Utmnjriamt) and *f
3eh'-Happiness (™<7™??i/rr); and that the highest hum anndss ba-
nian, that is, the fulfilment of the purpose if human birtb, l, '6r-
the highest ideal of a human being, oorwfa'is in bringing one's 1
mind to this pure Self-Devoted (fitmu-mf-rlm) state. Having, iw
this way. determined what the. highest .Mel a/physical ideal (if
mankind is, the question as to the ba-n's on which one has to'
perform all the various Actions in this world, it, as to wliatU& r
the nature of that Pure Reason with which those Actions "are
to be performed, which is the principal question in the science
of Karma-Yoga, is ipKojuctv solved. Because, as iided not be
told, all these Actions must be performed in such a way as will
not be ultimately inconsistent with, but will foster, thaT
equable frame of mind, which looks upon the "Brahman as-
identical with the Atman. This Metaphysical philosophy of
Karma-Yoga has been explained to Arfuna in the Bha^vart-
gita. But, the justification of the Karma-Yoga is not thereby'
finished. Some persons say that in as much as the Actions 't'o r
be performed in this Wame-d and Pbrm-ed world' are^
inconsistent with Self-Knowledge, a sclent must give theriHljS?
And, if that were so, all the activities in the world "WOtald/
become unpexformable, and consequently, the science of wha
360 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KABMA-YOGA
fundamentally to the Brahman-world, yet, like other
things in the visible world, it is covered by bodily organs
in the shape of Names and Forms, and these Names
and Forms in the shape of the bodily organs are perishable-
Therefore, every human being is naturally desirous of
knowing how it is possible to escape from these Names and
Forms, and to attain immortality ; and, in order to consider
what mode of life has to be adopted for satisfying that desire,
which subject belongs to the science of Karma-Yoga, we must
now enter the Dualistic territory of the non-permanent
MAYA-WORLD which is bound by the laws of Karma
(Action). If there is fundamentally only one permanent and
independent Atman, both in the Body and in the Cosmos, the
questions which necessarily arise, are, what are the difficulties
which are experienced by the Atman in the body, in Realising
the Atman in the Cosmos, and how those difficulties can be
overcome ; and, in order to solve these questions, it becomes
necessary to expound what Names and Forms are ; because,
as all objects fall into the two classes of the Atman or
Parabrahman, and the Name-d and Form-ed covering on It,
nothing else now remains for consideration except the Name-d
and Form-ed covering. As this Name-d and Form-ed covering
is dense in some cases and thin in other eases, the objects in
the visible world fall, according to Vedanta, into the two
classes of sacetana ( Activated) and acetana ( No,:- Activated ),
and even the Activated are again sub-divided into animals,
birds, men, gods, gandharvas, and demons etc. There is no
place where the Brahman in the shape of Atman does not
exist. It is in the stone, and It is in the human being. But,
as there is a difference according to whether a light is put into
an iron box, or in a lantern with more or less clean glasses,
though it may be one and the same light, so also, although the
Atman-Element is everywhere the same, the different
divisions of Activated and Non-Activated arise, as a result
of the difference in density of the clothing of Names and
Forms in each case. Nay, that is the reason why, even
among the Activated, the power of acquiring Knowledge is not
the same in the case of men and beasts. It is true that the
Atman is the same everywhere ; yet, as it is fundamentally
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 361
vqualityless and apathetic, it cannot by itself do anything,
■without some Name-d and Form-ed means like the Mind,
Reason etc.; and, as these means are not fully available to the
Atman except in the human birth, such birth is considered to
be the most superior of all. When the Atman has got this
human birth, this its Name-d and Form-ed clothing falls into the
two divisions of Gross and Subtle. According to Vedanta, this
gross clothing is the embodiment of the mixture of blood and
semen ; and whereas, muscles, bones, and nerves grow from the
semen, skin, flesh, hair etc. grow from the sonita, that is, from
the blood ; and all this is referred to as the 'annamaya-kosa
( covering made up of food ). When we pass this covering and
go further inside, we come across Life in the shape of breath,
that is, the ' pranamaya-kosa'; the Mind, that is, the manormya-
kosa; Reason, that is, the jnanamaya-lcosa; and ultimately, the
■anandamaya-kosa. The Atman is beyond all these ; and there-
fore, in the Taittirlyopanisad, Varuna has acquainted Bhrgu
with the various forms of the Atman by describing to him the
various envelopes (lcosa) rising from the annamaya-kosa to the
anandamaya-kosa ( Tai. 2. 1-5; 3. 2-6 ). Vedantists refer to these
envelopes ( kosa ), except the Gross Body, such as the Prana-
covering etc., together with the subtle organs and the five Fine
Elements ( Tanmatras ) aa the 'linga or the 'suksma sarlra'
( the Subtle Body ). But, instead of explaining the fact
•of the Atman taking births in various species of life (yonij by
imagining the existence of diverse ' Bhavas ' of the Reason
( See p. 261 above — Trans. ) as is done by the Samkhyas, they
say that that is the result of Karma-Vipaka, or the fruit of
Action. It has been clearly stated in the Gita, the Upanisads,
and the Vedanta-Sutras, that this Karma clings to the support
of the Subtle Body, and when the Atman leaves the Gross Body,
this Karma accompanies the Atman, embodied in the Subtle
Body, and compels it to take birth after birth. Therefore, in
considering the difficulty which stands in the way of the
embodied Atman attaining the Parabrahman, or obtaining
Release, after escaping the cycle of birth and death in the
shape of Names and Forms, one has to consider both Karma
and the Subtle Body. Out of these, the Subtle Body has been
dealt with before, both from the point of view of the Sarhkhya
362 GtTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
philosophy, as of Vedanta ; and, therefore, I shall not repeat
the same subject-matter here. In this chapter, I have considered
only the nature of that Karma or Action, whereby the Atman
falls into the cycle of birth and death instead of Realising the
Brahman, and also how a man has to live in this world in
order that the Atman should escape that cycle and acquire
immortality. Those qualities of Time and Space embodied in
Name and Form, as a result of which the fundamental, non-
perceptible, and qualityless Parabrahman existing at the
commencement of the world, appears in the form of the visible
world, are known in Vedanta philosophy as ' Maya ' (Gl. 7. 24,
25), and that also includes Karma (Br. 1. 6. 1). Nay, we may
even say that ' Maya ' and Karma ' are synonymous ; because,
unless some Karma or Action has been performed, it is not
possible for the Imperceptible to become Perceptible, or for the
Qualityless to become Qualityful. Therefore, the Blessed Lord
has, after first saying "I take birth in Prakrti by my Maya"
(GI. 4. 6), defined Karma later on in the eighth chapter of the-
Gita itself, as : "the Action, whereby the variegated Cosmos,
such as, the five primordial elements etc comes into existence
out of the imperishable Parabrahman is known as ' Karma "
( Gi. 8. 3 ). Karma has been here used in the comprehensive-
meaning of Activity or Action-whether it is performed by a
human being or by the other objects in the world, or it is the
activity comprised in the Cosmos itself coming into existence.
But, whatever Action is taken, its result always is that one
Name and Form is changed, and another comes into existence
in its place ; because, the Fundamental Substance, which
is covered by this Name and Fjrm, never changes
and always remains the same. For instance, by the
Action of weaving, the name 'thread ' disappears, and the same
substance gets instead the name of ' cloth '; and by the Action
of a potter, the name 'pot' takes the place of the name
'earth'. Therefore, in defining Maya, Karma or Action is
sometimes not mentioned at all, and only Name and Form
are included in Maya. Yet, when one has to consider Karma
by itself, one has to say that the form of Karma is the
same as the form of Maya. Therefore, it is more convenient
to make it clear in the very beginning that Maya, Names and
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 363
Forms, and Karma are fundamentally the same in nature-
One can, it is true, make the subtle distinction that MAYA
is the common word, and its Appearance has the specific name
of Names and Forms, and its Activity, the specific name of
KARMA. But, as ordinarily it is not neoessary to make
this distinction, these three words are very often used
synonymously. This clothing (or this upadhi i. e., super-
imposed covering) of perishable Maya on one part of the
Parabrahman, which is visible to the eyes, has been described
in Samkhya philosophy as the three-constituented Prakrti.
Samkhya philosophers look upon Purusa and Prakrti as
two self-created, independent and eternal Elements. But,
as Maya, Names and Forms, or Karma change constantly, it
would be logically incorrect to look upon them as of the same
standard as the permanent and immutable Parabrahman;
because, as the two ideas, 'permanent ' and 'non-permanent',,
are contrary to each other, both of them cannot become
applicable at the same time. Therefore, Vedantists have come
to the conclusion that Perishable Prakrti or Maya, in the shape
of Karma, is not independent, but that the Appearance of a
qualityful Maya is seen in the one, permanent, all-pervading,
and qualityless Parabrahman by the feeble human organs. But,
it is not enough to say, that Maya is not independent, and that
one only sees this Appearance in the qualityless Parabrahman.
Although, according to Vivartavada, if not according to the
Gunaparinama-vada, it is possible to see this Appearance of
qualityful Names and Forms, that is, of Maya in the qualityless
and eternal Brahman, yet, we are faced with the further
question, namely, when, in what order, and why, did this
qualityful Appearance, which is seen by human organs, appear
in the qualityless Parabrahman ? or, to say the game thing in
ordinary language, when, and why, did the eternal and
thought-formed Paramesvara create the Name-d and Form-ed,.
perishable, and gross universe ? But, as this subject is unknow-
able, not only to human beings, but even to gods, and to the
Vedas, as stated in the Nasadlya-Sakta in the Rg-Veda (Rg. 10.
129; Tai. Bra. 2.8. 9) one cannot answer that question better
than by saying: "this is an unknowable pastime (lila) of
the qualityless Parabrahman, which has been realised by
364 GlTA-RAHASYA OH KARMA-YOGA
Knowledge." (Ve. S2.-2. 1. 33). One has to take it for granted
that ever since the commencement of things, Name-d and
Form-ed perishable Karma, or qualityful Maya, has been seen
side by side with the qualityless Brahman. Therefore, Karma
embodied in Maya has been called eternal in the Vedanta-
Sutras ( Ve. Su. 2. 1. 35-37 ), and even in the Bhftgavadglta,
the Blessed Lord has, after saying that Prakrti is not
independent, but "is My Maya" ( Gi. 7. 14 ), said further on
that this Prakrti, that is, Maya, and Purusa are both 'eternal
{ Gi. 13. 19). In the same way, in describing Maya,
Sarhkaracarya has said in this Bhasya or commentary, that
J ' saroajneSDarasya 'tmabhute iva 'vidyakalpite narmrupe
tattvawjatvabhyam anirixicanitje samsaraprapancabijahhute sar-
vajnasyesmrasija 'maya' ' sahtih' ' pmkrtir' Hi ca srutismrtyoi'
abhilapyete " ( Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. 2. 1. 14. ), i. e., "the Names and
Forms imagined to exist in the fundamental Brahman as a
result of the ignorance ( of the organs ), which are supposed to
be of the nature of the Atman of the All-Scient Paramesvara,
but of which, it is not possible to say whether they are
different or not-different (tattuanyaiua) from the Paramesvara,
since they are Gross, and which are the root of the ( visible )
expansion of gross world, are, in the Sruti and Smrti texts,
called the ' maya', 'sakli' or 'prahW of the all-knowing Para-
mesvara"; and "as the subsequent universe seems to have come
into existence from the Paramesvara on account of His Maya,
this Maya, though perishable, is essential and extremely useful
for the creation of the visible univeise, and it is seen to have
been given the names of ' aoyakta ', ' akasa ' and 'aksara ' in the
Upanisads" (Ve. Su. Sam. Bha,. 1. 4. 3). The Samkhyas look
upon the Elements, Knowledge-formed (cinmaya) Spirit, and
inactive (acefana) Maya (Prakrti) as independent and eternal ;
'but, it will be seen from the above, that, though Vedantists
admit the eternity of Maya from one point of view, they do not
accept the position that Maya is self-created and independent ;
and on that account, in describing the Maya embodied in
worldly life by comparing it to a tree, the Gita says, "narupam
.asyeha tathopalabhyate ricinto m cadir nam sampratistha" (Gl. 15.
3), i. e., "the FORM, END, BEGINNING, root, or habitation of
ithis tree of worldly life (saihsara vrksa) cannot be found". In
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 365
the same way, the descriptions which are come across in the
third chapter, such as, "karma brahmodblmvam viddhi" (Gl. 3.
15), i. e., "Karma was created out of the Brahman" ; or,
"yajnah karmasamudbhavah" (Gl. 3. 14), i. e., "even the Yajna
springs out of Karma" ; or, "sahayajnah prajah sntva" (Gi. 3.
10), i. e., "the Biahmadeva created praja {srsti) and yajna
(Karma) at the same time", mean that, "Karma, or Yajna in
the form ■ of Karma, and the srsti, that is, praja (the creation)
all came into existence at the same time". Then whether you
say that this srsti came into existence out of Brahmadeva
himself, or, in the words of the Mimamsa school, that it was .
created by Brahmadeva from the eternal Vedic words, the
meaning is the same (Ma. Bha. San. 231 ; Manu. 1. 21). In
short, Karma is the activity which is to be seen in the
fundamental qualityless Brahman, at the time when the visible
world began to be created. This activity is known as the
Name-d and Form-ad Maya, and the activities of the Sun, the
Moon, and all the other objects in the world have gradually
come into existence from this fundamental Karma (Br. 3. 8. 9)..
Scients have determined by means of their Reason that this,
Karma or Maya, performed at the time of the creation of the
universe, which is the foundation of all the activities
in the world, is some unknowable pastime (Ma) of the
Brahman, and not something independent of the
Brahman. * But, as the scients cannot go further, it is
not possible f oi them to ascertain ' when ' this wonder, or these
Names and Forms, or this Karma embodied in Maya first came
into existence. Therefore, when it is necessary to consider
only this Karma-world ( karma srsti ), it is usual in the Vedanta
science (Ve. Su. 2. 1. 35) to refer to this dependent, perishable
Maya and, at the same time, the Karma which is appurtenant,
to it, as 'eternal' (amdi). It must be borne in mind that
the word 'amdi' in this place does not mean fundamentally
' without beginning ' ( nirarambha ) and independent, like the
* "What belongs to mere appearance is necessarily sub-
ordinated by reason to the nature of the Thing-in-itself " Kant's-
Metaphysics of Morals (Abbot's trans, in Kant's Theory of Ethics^.
p. 81). [In one edition, this page is shown as 18-Trans. ]
366 GITA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
Paramesvara, as is maintained by the Sarhkhyas, but
' durjneyaraniblia ' that is, " something, the beginning of which
cannot be known ".
But, although we are not in a position to say definitely
when and why the Knowledge-formed Brahman first began
to take up the Appearance of the visible world, yet, the rules
by which the further activities of this Karma in the shape of
Maya go on, are fixed; and many of those rules can be
determined by us. The order in which the various Name-d
and Form-ed objects in the world came into existence out of
the fundamental Prakrti, that is, out of eternal Karma in the
shape of Maya, has been described by me according to the
Sarhkhya philosophy in the eighth chapter of this book ; and I
have, in the same place, mentioned the doctrines of modern
Material sciences for comparison. It is true that Vedanta does
not look upon Prakrti as self-created like the Parabrahman;
but, as the further development of Prakrti, according to
Sarhkhya philosophy, is acceptable to Vedanta, I will not
repeat that subject-matter here. Yet, in the order of the
creation of the universe from fundamental Prakrti in the
shape of Karma, whioh has been described above, I have
nowhere considered the ordinary rules according to which man
has to suffer the results of Karma (Action). It is, therefore,
necessary to consider those rules now. This is known as
'KARMA-VIPAKA*. (effect of Karma). The first of the
rules relating to Karma-Vipaka is that once the Karma
is started, its activity or expansion continues without a
break; and, though the day and night of Brahmadeva may
be over and the universe destroyed, yet, this Karma survives
in the form of a seed ; and, when the universe begins to come
into exiBtenoe again, fresh sprouts grow out of that seed of
Karma. It is stated in the Mahabharata that :
ypsam ye yard k irmani prak srstyam pratipedire I
tany eva pratipadyante srjyrtmanah punah punah II
( Ma. Bha. San. 231, 48, 49 ; Gi. 8 18 and 19 ).
that is, " those very Actions which have been committed by any
"being in the previous world, find him again and again (whether
lie may will it or no)". Not only is it that "gaharia karmano
«7arih"(Gi. 4.17)— "the effects of Karma are unfathomable"—
EFFECT of KARMA, AND FREE WILL 367
Tni t, even the persistence of Karm a is very difficult to get rid of.
Nobody has got rid of K«r ma ~ TTJa.jgiqd J _J)k)jV B by Karma.
The S un an d the M oon move on ac coun t of Karma; and
B rahmad eva, VJsnu Sankar, and other qualityful gods also
are_alHied up in Karma. All the more so, Indra and ethers.
Qualityful ( saqjina ) means, defined by Name and Form ; and
being defined by Name and Form means Karma, or the result
of Karma. In as much as it is not possible to say how Karma,
in the shape of Maya, first came into exit-tence. it is also not
possible to soy when man first got involved in the cycle of
Karma. But, once he has got into that cycle, however he may
have got into it, he cannot later on, that is, after his Name-d and
Form-ed body has bs3n destroyed, escapa taking up different
Forms in this world as a result of his Actions. Because,
as Material scientists have now definitely established, the
energy of Karma is never destroyed, and that energy which
appears to-day under one Name and Form, reappears
under another Name and Form when the former Name
and Form has been destroyed-/ and, if he cannot escape
taking up other Names and Forms after one Name and Form
has been destroyed, one cannot definitely say that these
various subsequent Names and Forms will be lifeless, and
that it is not possible for them to be something different. This
recurrence of Names and Forms is known as the cycle of
births and deaths, or mmsara, according to the Philosophy of
the Absolute Self; and that Energy, which is the foundation
* It is not that this idea of re-incarnation has been accepted
only in the Hindu religion or by theists. Although the Bu Id Lists
■do not believe in the Atman, yet, they liave wholly adopted the
theory of re-incarnation into their religion; and, even in the
twentieth century, the invetprately atheistic G-orman philosopher
Nietzsche, who pronounced that ' Sod is dead ', has accepted the
theory of re-incaination. He has said that lie was inspired with
the idea or explanation that: as the perpetually recurring trans-
formations of the energy of Karma are limited, and Time is eternal,
a Name and F rm which has once been created, must occur again;
and, therefore, the cycle of Karma is established even from the
point of view of the Material sciences. (Nietzsche's Eternal
Jtemrrmce, Complete works, Engl. Trans. Vol. XVI. pp. 235-256).
368 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
of these Names and Forms, is synthetically called Brahman,,
and distributively, Jivatman. It is stated in the Mahabharata
and in the Manu-Smrti, that, strictly speaking, this Atman.
neither comes to birth nor dies; that it is eternal, that is,,
perpetual; but that, as it is involved in the cycle of Karma,,
one cannot escape taking up another Name and Form, when
one Name and Form has been, destroyed ; one has to suffer
to-morrow for what one does to-day, and day after to-morrow,
for what one does to-morrow; nay, one has to suffer in the
next birth for what one does in this birth, and in this way
the cycle of the universe is continually going on; and that
tlw results of these Actions have to be borne not only by
ourselves, but even by the sons, grand-sons, and great-grand-
sons, who come to birth out of our Name-d and Form-ed body
(Manu. 4. 173; Ma. Bha, A. 80. 3). Bhisma says to Yudhisthira
in the Santiparva that :-
U-&
papam karma krtam kiincid yadi iasmn na drsyafe l
nrpate tamja putresu pautresv api ca naptrsu n
ij-j iiAvv^- U— y-f (San. 129. 21.]
that is : " King, although a particular man may not be seen
to Buffer the results of his evTTacliiblisTyet, hTs^sonsTgralidsons-
and great-grandsons hav"e"to~s uffer them" ~Tand we actually see
thatsomelHBur abTeTiseases recur hereditarily. In the same
way, the fact of one person being born a beggar, and another
person being born in the family of a king, has also to be
explained by the theory of Karma ; and, according to some,,
this is the proof of the correctness of the theory of Karma.
Once this cycle of Karma is started, the Paramesvara Himself
does not interfere with it. Seeing that the entire universe is-
going on by the will of the Paramesvara, who other than the
Paramesvara can be the giver of the fruit of our Actions (Ve.
Su. 3. 2. 38 ; Kau. 3. 8) ? And, for this reason, the Blessed
Lord has said, "labhate ca tatah kaman mayaiva vihitan hi tan"
(Gl. 7. 22), i. e., "the desired result, which is prescribed by Me,
is acquired by man". Vedanta, therefore, comes to the
ultimate doctrine that though the act of prescribing the result
of an Action belongs to the Paramesvara, ye.t, in as much as-
these results are fixed according to a man's good or bad Actions,.
EFFECT OF KAEMA, AND FBEE WILL 369
that is, according to the worth of his Action, Non-action, or
Bad action, the Paramesvara is, strictly Bpeaking, apathetic in
this matter ; and that, therefore, if there is the distinction of
good or bad among men, the Paramesvara does not, on that
account, beoome liable to the blame of partiality (vaisamya) or
cruelty (nairghrnya), (Ve. Su, 2. 1. 34) ; and with reference to
this position, it is stated in the Gifca that : "samo 'ham mrva-
bMiesu" (G-I. 9. 29), i. e,, "I am equal towards all", or,
nadatte kasyacit papam na cazva sukrtam vibhuh II
(Gl. 5. 14, 15)
that is : "the Paramesvara does not accept either the sin or the
meritorious Action of anybody ; the cycle of the inherent effects
of Karma or Maya is continually going on ; eaoh oreated being
has to suffer happiness or unhappiness according to its own
Actions". In short, although it is not possible for human
reason to explain when Karma was first started in the world
by the desire of the Paramesvara, or when man first came
within the clutches of Karma, yet, in as much as the further
consequences or fruits of Karma are found to result according
to the laws of Karma, human reason can come to the definite
conclusion, that every living being has been caught in the
prison of eternal Karma in the shape of Names and Forms,
from the very commencement of the world. This is what is
meant by the quotation given at the commencement of this
chapter, namely, "karmana badhyate jantuh"
The words 'samsara', ' prakrli', 'maya', 'visible world', or
'rules or laws of creation' ( srdi ) mean the same thing as ' the
eternal oourse of Karma'; because, the laws of creation are the
laws which govern the changes which take place in Names
and Forms ; and, from this point of view, all Material sciences
come under the denomination of Maya defined by Names and
Forms. The rules or limitations of this Maya are hard and
comprehensive ; and therefore, even a pure Materialist like
Haeckel, who was of the opinion that there is no Funda-
mental Element which is at the root of or beyond the visible
world, has laid down the proposition that a man must gc
where the cycle of creation drags him. According to this
philosopher, the feeling which every man has, that he should
47-48
370 GTTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
obtain a release from his perishable Name-d and Form-ed
Appearance, or that he will obtain immortality by doing a-
particular thing, is a mere illusion. Not only are the Atman
or the Paramatman not independent, and not only is immorta-
lity a humbug, but, no human being in this world is a free
agent to do any particular act. As whatever act a man does
to-day is the result of what has been done before by him or by
his ancestors, it is also never dependent on his will, whether
or not to do a particular thing. For example, a desire to steal
nice things belonging to others comes into existence in the
hearts of particular persons against their will, as a result
of previous Actions or hereditary impressions ; and
they are inspired to steal that particular thing.
In short, these Materialists are of the opinion that the
principle mentioned in the Glta, namely, "anicchan api varsneya
balad ioa niyojitah" (Gi. 3. 36), i. e., "a man commits sin,
although he might not desire to do it", applies in all places in
the same way, that there are no exceptions to it, and that there
is no way of escaping it. From this point of view, a desire
which a man gets to-day is the result of his Aciion of
yesterday, and the desire he had yesterday was the result of
his action of day before yesterday ; a man can never do
anything by his independent volition, as this chain of causes
is endless ; whatever happens is the result of former actions or
of destiny, because people give the name Destiny to pre-destined
Karma ; and, if a man is, in this way, not free to do or not to
do a particular Action, it becomes futile to say that he should
improve his conduct in a particular way, or that he should,
in a particular manner, realise the identity of the Brahman
and the Atman and purify his intelligence. Like a log which
has fallen in the stream of a river, one must without demur
go wherever Maya, Prakrti, the laws of Creation, or the Stream
of Karma drags him, whether that is progress or regress. In
reply to this, some other evolutionist Materialists say that in
as much as the form of Prakrti is not steady, and Names and
Forms continually change, man should watch and find out by
what rules of creation these changes take place, and bring about
such a change in the external creation as will be beneficial
to him; and we see in actual life, that by following this logic,
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 371
man utilises flie or electricity for his own benefit. Similarly,
it is our experience that human nature can to some extent
be altered by effort. But, the question in hand is not whether
or not there can be a change in the formation of the universe
or in human nature, nor whether or not man should effect
such a ohange; and we have, at the moment, to determine
whether or not a man is in a position to control or to yield
to the inspiration or desire which he has to bring about
such a change. And if, from the point of view of Materialistic
philosophy, the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of this desire is
pre-destined by the laws of Prakrti, or of Karma, or of the
■Creation, according to the principle ' buddhih Jcarmanusarini ',
then it follows, according to this philosophy, that a man is
not free or independent to do or not to do a particular Action.
This doctrine is known by the. name ' vasanasvatamtrya '
( Freedom of Desire ), or ' icckasvalamtrya' ( Freedom of Wil l ),
or ' pravrttisvatamtrya' ( Freedom of Inclinatio n )■ And if one
considers the matter purely from the point of view of the
Effects of Karma ( karma-vipaka ) or of the purely Materialistic
philosophy, one has to come to the conclusion that no man has
got any kind of freedom of inclination or freedom of will, and
that every man is circumscribed in all directions like the
unbreakable iron ring fixed on the wheel of a cart. But, if
one takes the evidence of his own Conscience in this matter,
it will be seen that although one may not possesB the power of
making the Sun rise in the West, yet, we believe that doing or
not doing, after careful consideration, whatever one intends
to do by his own hands, or, where there is one course which is
sinful and another whioh is meritorious, or one course which
is righteous and another which is unrighteous, choosing the
good or the bad course out of the two, is a thing whioh is
subject to the control of a man's desire. We have now to see
whether this belief is right or wrong. If one says that this
belief is wrong, then those who commit thefts or murders are
judged to be wrong-doBrs on the basis of this belief, and are'
punished accordingly; and, if one says that it is correot, then
the Theory of Karma, or the Theory of Karma- Vipaka or the
laws of the visible creation fall to the ground. As in the
Material sciences,' one has to consider only the actions of
'§72 GlTA-BAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
11 gross substances, this question does not arise there. But, it
acquires importance in the science of Karma-Yoga, which
deals with the duty and the non-duty of those who have-
acquired Knowledge, and it has to be answered; because, if it
is definitely proved that there is no freedom of inclination for
man, then the science of right or wrong ( vidMnisedha-sastra ),
which shows how to purify the mind, or explains whether a
particular thing should be done or should not be done, or
whether a particular thing is righteous or unrighteous,
automatically loses need of consideration ( Ve. Su, 2. 3. 33 );*
and the height of manhood will oonsist in remaining in the-
eternal bondage of Mahamaya or Prakrti, whether personally
or as a result of heredity. Or, where is there any manhood
left at all ? Manhood will have to be considered if a person is
fai a position to control anything at all. What can there be
"except imprisonment and serfdom where a man has not the
smallest authority or will ? Like the bullocks tied to a plough,
every one will have to toil under the authority of Prakrti, and
as our poet Shankara says, "the shaokles of the inherent
' 'qualities of substances" must be perpetually kept by oneself
on his feet ! The attention of all scholars has been fixed on the
question of the Freedom of Will, as a result of Karma-Vada
( Theory of Karma ) or Daiva-Vada ( Theory of Destiny ) in
our country, and of the Theory of Providence in the Christian
religion in former years, and of the Theory of the Laws of
Nature propounded by Materialistic philosophers in modern
times ; and any amount of discussion has taken place, and is
still taking place on this question. But as it is impossible
to deal with the whole of that matter here, I am in this chapter
dealing only with what the idea of the Bhagavadglta and of
Vedanta philosophy on that question is.
* Thia portion of the Vedanta-Butma is nailed the 'jivahirtr-
tvadhihmma', and the first of these Sutras is 'iarta s'astrarthaeatvat,*
that io to say, 'in order that the science of right or wrong should
have aoy significance, the Jlva (Personal Self) must be considered as
a doer'. When one oonsiderj the Sutra of Panlni (Pa. 1. 4.54)
that: — •' mataihirah karla" (i.e., the doer is independent), the word"
' larta ' couveys the impression of Freedom of Self; and it will ba
Been that this a&hiiarana deals with that question.
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 373
It is true that the course of Karma is eternal, and that even
the Paramesvara does not interfere with the course or cycle of
Karma which has once heen started. But according' to our
philosophers, the doctrine of Adhyatma ( Philosophy of the
Absolute Self ), that the visible world is not purely Karma or
merely Names and Forms, that there is some imperishable
independent Atman-formed Brahman-world which is clothed
by thesa Names and Forms, and that the Atman within the
human body is a particle of that permanent and independent
Parabrahman, shows the path for getting out of this seemingly
unconquerable difficulty. But, before explaining this path, it
is necessary to complete the description of the process of .the.
Effects of Karma, which has remained incomplete. It is not
that the rule that one has to suffer according to what one does,
applies only to a particular individual. . A family, a.
community, a nation, or even the whole universe cannot
.escape suffering the consequences of their Actions in the game
way as an individual cannot do so ; and in as much as every
human being is born in some family, some community, or some
country, it has to soma extent to suffer on account of the
Actions not only of itself, but also of the community or
society, such as, the family etc. to which it belongs, But, as
one has to refer ordinarily only to the Actions of a particular
individual, the divisions of Karma, in the Theory of the
Effects of Karma, have been made primarily by reference to
a single individual. For instance, Manu has divided the eyij
actions of a man into bodily ( Myika ), vocal ( mcika ) and.
mental ( mamsika ) ; and of these, prostitution, murder, and
theft are called bodily Actions; the four Actions, namely,
speaking what is painful, speaking an untruth, speaking what
is derogatory, and speaking what is incoherent, are called
vocal Actions; and the three Actions, namely, desiring the
wealth of another, desiring the evil of another, and false
insistence, are said to be mental Actions; and having inthiB
way classified evil Actions or sins into ten kinds (Manu.
12.5-7; Ma. Bha. Anu. 13.), their effects are next enumerated.
Yet, this differentiation is not final; because, later on, in
this very chapter, Karma has again been divided into
zattvika, rajasa, and tamasa; and the characteristics of
374 GITA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
these three kiads of qualities (guna), or of Karma, which
have been given there are primarily the same as those given id
the Bhagavadgita (Gl. 14. 11-15 ; 18. 23-25 ; Manu. 12. 31-34) .
But, the division of Karma which one commonly comes across
in the subject of the Effect of Actions is different from both
these divisions; and according to that division, Karaia is
divided into 'mincita' (Accumulated). ' 'prarabdha (Commenced),
and 'kriymnaya' (Being-suffered). Whatever Action has been
performed by a man upto date, whether he has performed it in
this birth or in the previous births, is his 'sa/hcita, i. e.,
'Accumulated' Karma. This samcita is also known as 'adrsta
(invisible), or, in the terminology of the Mimamsa school,
'aparea' (strange). The reason for this terminology is, that
any particular Action is visible only during that particular
time when it is being performed; and when that time has gone,
it does not any more remain in its actual form, but all that
remains is its subtle, that is, invisible, or apurva, that is,
strange effects (Ve. Su, Sam. Bha. 3. 2. 39,40). Whatever
may be said, the words 'samcita , 'adrsta, or 'apurva' undoubtedly
mean the 'accumulation' of the effects of all the various
Actions performed upto the moment of performing the last
Action. It is not possible to suffer the effects of all these
Accumulated Actions at the same time; because, the
consequences of these Accumulated Actions can produce either
good or bad, that is, mutually contrary effects. For instance,
some Accumulated Actions lead to heaven, whereas others
lead to hell ; and, the results of all of them cannot possibly be
enjoyed at one and the same time, but have to be enjoyed one
after the other; and therefore, those out of the 'samcita'
(Accumulated) Actions, of which the results are first begun to
be suffered are known as 'prarabdha' (Commenced Actions), or
'that sathcita, which has started'. In the Marathi language,
the word 'prarabdha' is very often used synonymously with
'samata' ; but it will be seen that this meaning is not correct,
and that scientifically speaking, 'prarabdha' is only a sub-
division of 'samcita', which is the total aggregate of Actions.
prarabdha is not the whole of samcita, but that portion of
samcita, the effects (karya) of which, one has begun to suffer
for; and, therefore, 'prarabdha is also called 'arahdha-harya
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 37&
(Commenced Action). In addition to Commenced and
Accumulated Action, a third division of Karma is ordinarily
made, namely, the 'kriyamava'. 'kriyamana' is a derivative
participle indicating the present tense, and means 'that Aetion
which is now going on, or which we are now performing'-
But, whatever we are now doing is the lesult of the Commenced
Karma, that is to say, of that portion of Accumulated Karma
which we have commenced to suffer for. Therefore, I do not
see any reason for making the third division, 'kriyamava*
(Being-suffered). It is true that one can differentiate between.
Commenced and Being-suffered Karma by saying that the
Commenced Karma is the cause and the Being-suffered is its effect
(phala), that is to say, its produot (karya). But, this distinction
is of no use in the process of suffering the results of Aotions.
Some word is necessary to indicate those Actions, out of the
Accumulated Karma, which one has not yet commenced to suffer
for, that is to say, which remain over after the Commenoed
is deducted from the Accumulated. Therefore, in the Yedanta
Sutras (Ve. Su. 4. 1. 15), Commenced Karma is known as
'prarabdha-karya' , and all the Actions which are not 'prarabdha'
are known as 'ariarabdha-karya' (Actions, which one has not
yet begun to suffer for). In my opinion, it is scientifically
more accurate to divide Accumulated Action (saiiieita-karya)
into prarabdha-karya and ariarabdha-karya in this way ; and
therefore, instead of understanding the word 'kriyamaria
(Being-suffered) as a derivative participle indicating the
present tense, we oan look upon it as indicating the future
tense on the strength of the Sutra of Panini: "vartamana
samipye vartamanavadva" (Pa. 3. 3. 131), and interpret it as
meaning "that, which is to be suffered for, soon in the future" ;
in this way, kriyamana will mean anarabdha-kanja, and the
words prarabdha (Commenced) and kriyamaria (To-be-SuffeTod)
will respectively be synonymous with arabdha-kanja
( Commenced Karma ) and amrabdha-karya (Uncommenced
Karma) of the Vedanta-Sutras. But now-a-days, afc any rate,
no one interprets the word 'kriyamana' in that way; and
kriyamaria is interpreted as meaning the Actions which
are now being suffered for. But, if it is taken in that
meaning, not only has one to call the result of prarabdha
376 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
ly the name kriyamwia, but the interpretation becomes further
subject to the serious objection, that none of the words 'samcita',
'prarabdha' or 'kriyamaya' can be used for showing the
anafabdha-karya. On the other hand, it is also not proper to
disregard the ordinary meaning of the word 'kriyanmna'.
Therefore, instead of accepting the commonly accepted divi-
sions of Karma in the santcita, prarabdha, and kriyamana, in
discussing the process of suffering the results of Actions, I
divide Karma into arabdha-karya ( Commenced Karma ) and
anarabdha-kdrya ( Uncommenced Karma ) ; and that is also
scientifically more convenient. The action of 'suffering' is
divided, according to the tense, into 'that which has been
suffered' ( past ), 'that which is now being suffered' ( present ),
and 'that which has still to be suffered' (future). But, in the
science of the Effects of Karma, Karma cannot be divided
into three divisions in this way. Because, that portion of
Accumulated Karma ( samcita ), which is suffered for after
having become Commenced Karma ( prarabdha ), produces
results which go again to 6well the ranks of Accumulated
Karma { samcita): and, therefore, in considering the question
of the suffering for Actions, it is not necessary to divide
samcita further than into prarabdha, which means that which one
has begun to suffer for, and anarabdha, which meanB that which
one has not yet begun to suffer for. When the effects of all
Actions have, in this way, been classified into a two-fold
division, the science of the effects of Karma now tells us
about the suffering of those effects, that Accumulated Karma
is all that has to be suffered for. Out of this, those Actions,
the suffering of the effects of which has resulted in one's
acquiring the present birth, that is to say, that portion of
Accumulated Karma which has become Commenced Karma,
cannot be escaped suffering for — "prarabdhakarmariam bhogad
evaksayah". In the same way as an arrow, which has left
one'B hands, cannot come back, but must go on upto its
destination, or, as once the wheel of the potter starts to revolve,
it will go on revolving until the force of the revolution has
been exhausted, so also does prarabdha, that is, |hat Karma for
the Tesults of which one has begun to suffer, go on. Whatever
has been started, must come to an end; there is no esoape
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 377
from it. But, the same is not the case with the Karma, which
is anarabdha-karya- One can totally annihilate all this
kind of Karma by means of Knowledge. As a result of this
important difference between the Commenced Karma (prarabdha
.karya) and Uncommenced Karma (ariarabdha karya), the scient
has got to patiently wait for a natural death, even after having
acquired Knowledge, that is to say, until the Karma, which has
started with his body coming to birth, comes to an end. If
instead of doing so, he puts an end to his life, then, although
he may have destroyed his ariarabdha Karma by means of
Knowledge, yet, he will have to take another birth for
suffering the effects of that prarabdha-karma, which made him
take the former birth, and the suffering of which has remained
incomplete as a result of his perversity in putting an end to
iis life ; and both the Vedanta and the Samkhya philosophy
have drawn the conclusion that on that account he will
necessarily not attain Belease (Ve. Su, 4. 1. 13-15 and S&m.
JJa, 67), Besides, committing suicide in defiance of these
natural laws will be another Karma, which will have been
started, and it will be necessary to take another birth to suffer
the consequences of that Karma. From this, it will be clear,
that from the point of view of the doctrine of Karma, even
suicide is a madness.
I have now mentioned the divisions of Karma from the
point of view of suffering the Effects of Karma. I shall now
consider in what way, that is, by what device one can esoape
the bonds of Karma. The first of these devices is that
prescribed by the supporters of the Karma-Vada (Doctrine of
Karma), 'anarabdha-karya' has been defined by me above as
those Accumulated Actions, for which one has to suffer in the
future — whether they can be suffered for in this life or it is
necessary to take other births to suffer them. But, disregarding
this meaning, some followers of the Mlmamsa school have
found out a way, easy in their opinion, for obtaining Release.
As has been stated before in the third chapter, Karma is
•divided by the Mlmamsa school into nitya (daily), naimittika
■(occasional), kamya (desire-prompted), and nisiddha (forbidden).
Out of these, if one fails to perform the daily Actions like
.samdhya (worship at twilight) etc., one incurs sin; and the
378 GlTA-EAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
occasional Actions have to be performed whenever the occasion
arises. Therefore, according to the Mlmarhsa school, both these-
kinds of Actions have to be performed. That leaves the kamya
and the nisiddha Actions. Out of these, one incurs sin by
performing the msiddha (forbidden) Actions, and, therefore,
they should not be performed ; and as, by performing the
kamya (desire-prompted) Actions, one has to take birth after
birth to suffer their effects, they too should not be performed..
When a man, in this way, mentally balances the effects of
Actions, and gives up some Actions and performs others
according to the prescribed rites, he must automatically obtain
Release : because, ; the prarabdln-karma is exhausted by its
being suffered for in this life ; and by performing the daily
and the occasional Actions and eschewing the forbidden ones
in this life, one escapes perdition ; and by giving up desire-
prompted Actions, there does also not remain the necessity of
enjoying heavenly happiness. When the suffering in thiB-
world and in hell and in heaven has thus been exhausted, no
other state is possible for the Atman except Release. This
doctrine is known as 'karma-mukti' or 'naiskarmya-dddhi'
(salvation by absistence from Action). The state in which in
spite of performing an Action, one is in the same position as-
if one did not perform it, that is to say, in which the doer does
not suffer the bondage of the sin or the merit of the Action, is
known as the 'naislcarmya' state. But, Vedanta philosophy has
proved that, one does not fully succeed in miskarmya by this
device of the Mlmamsa school (Ve. Su. Sarh. Bha. 4. 3. 14) ;
and for the same reason, the Glta says: "naiskarmya does not
result from abstinence from Actions, nor does one obtain.
Release by giving up Action" (Gi. 3. 4). In the first place, it
is impossible to eschew all the forbidden Actions, and Ethics
itself says that by making a naimittika (occasional) prayascitta
(self-imposed penance), one does not entirely get rid of the sin
of having performed that forbidden Action. Yet, even taking,
it for granted that such a thing is possible, the statement of the
MJmamsa school that by suffering for the 'prarabdlta' Karma, and 1
performing the various perf ormable Actions in the manner men-
tioned above in this life, or by not performing them, one exhausts
accumulation of samcita Karma, is itself not correct ; because >•
EFFECT OF KAKMA, AND FREE-WILL 379
if the results of two accumulated Actions are contrary to-
each other, e. g., if the effect of one is heavenly happiness, and
that of the other, the tortures of hell, then, as it is not possible
to suffer both at the same time and at the same place, it is-
impossible to exhaust the suffering for the effects of the entire
'samcita' Karma by the 'prambdiia' which has been started in
this life, and by the Actions which have to be performed in
this life. It is stated in the PaTasaraglta in the Bharata that.,
kadacit sukrtam tola kutaslham iva tistliati I
nmjjamamsya sariisare yuvad duhkhad vimucyate II
( Ma. Bha. San. 390. 17 )
that is, "s ometimes, th e meritorious _ Actions previously
performed by~aTman waTtTto^iv^TuihTiheirT)enencial effects )■
until he has escaped from the pain of this worldly Tife'Vand
thTsame argument~applies to the Accumulated sins. Thus,.,
suffering the effects of Accumulated Karma is not exhausted in
one life, and some portion of the Accumulated Karma, always
remains over as anarabdha-karya ( Uncommenced Karma ); and,
even if all Actions in this life are performed in the manner -
mentioned above, one still does not escape having to take
another birth for suffering the Uncommenced Karma which is •
part of the Accumulated Karma. Therefore, Vedanta philo-
sophy has come to the conclusion, that this seemingly easy _
device of the Mimamsa school for obtaining Release, is false
and misleading. No Upanisad has mentioned this way of
escaping the bondage of Karma. This device has been erected
merely on the foundation of inference, and this inference does
not stand the test till the end. In short, expecting to escape
the bondage of Karma merely by performing Karma, is as •
foolish as expecting a blind man to save another blind man by
showing him the right way. Well ; if one does not accept this
device of the MlmSihsa school, and sits idle without performing
any Action, expecting thereby to escape the bondage of Karma,
that too is not possible ; because, not only does the suffering
for the Uncommenced Karma Temain in balance, but
the idea of giving up Karma, as also the act of sitting idle
are both (omasa Actions in themselves, and one cannot escape
having to take another birth in order to suffer the effects of
380 GM-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
4hese tamasa Actions, simultaneously with suffering for those
of the TJneommenced portion of one's Accumulated Karma
.{See Gl. 18. 7 and 8). Besides, so long as this body is alive,
breathing, sleeping, sitting and such other Actions continue;
and, therefore, the position of giving up all Actions also
becomes untenable; and it has been stated in various places
in the Gita, that no one can even for a single moment escape
Karma in this world ( See Gl. 3. 5; 18. 11 ).
When it has thus been proved, that whether the Action be
good or bad, man must always be ready to suffer the effect of
it by taking some birth or other ; that Karma is eternal and
that even the Paramesvara does not interfere with its
unbreakable continuity ; that it is impossible to give up all
Actions; and that one cannot escape the bondage of Karma by
performing some Actions and not performing others as advised
by the Mlmarhsa school, the next question which crops up is: —
how can one satisfy the natural desire of a human being
to escape the • cycle of Karma in the shape of perishable
Names and Forms, and to go and be merged into the
Immortal and imperishable Element, which is at the root of
-.that cycle. In the Vedas as also in the Smrti texts, many
devices, such as, sacrifices etc. have been prescribed for
•obtaining benefit in the life after death. But, from the point
■of view of the philosophy of Release, all these are of a lower
order; because, even if one attains heaven by performing
meritorious acts like sacrifices etc., yet, whan the benefit of
.that meritorious Action is over, one does not escape having to
•come back again to the land of Action (Jcarmwthumi ) sometime
•or other, though it may be after the expiry of a very long
period of time ( Ma. Bha. Vans. 259 and 260; Gl. 8. 25 and 9.20)
In short, it is quite clear, that this is not the correct path for
being merged into the immortal substance and finally and
permanently escaping from the troublesome cycle of births
.and deaths by escaping the clutches of Karma. According to
-the philosophy of the Absolute Self, Jnana (knowledge) is the
. -only way to permanently esoape this troublesome cycle, that
1b to say, to obtain Release. 'Jfiana' does not mean the
knowledge of the ordinary things of life (vyavahara-jnana), or
-..the knowledge of the creation defined by Names and Forms,
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 381
but the Realisation of the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman. This is also known as 'VidyS', and the word 'udya'
which has been used in the line " karmaria badhyale jantuk
vidyaya tu pramucyate", i. e., "a man is tied by karma and.
released by vidya", which has been quoted in the beginning of
this chapter, means 'Jnana' (Knowledge). In the Bhagavadglta.
the Blessed Loid says to Arjuna : —
jiianiagmh sarvakarmani bhasmasat kurute 'rjuna I
(Gl. 4. 37).
that is, "all Karma is reduced to ashes in the fire of
Knowledge" ; and also in the Mahabharata, it has been statedi
in two placeB, that :
bijany agny upadagdhani m rohanii yatha punah I
jmnadagdhais tatha kleiair natma sampadyate punah II
(Ma. Bha. Vana. 199. 106, 107 : San. 311. 17).
that is, "in the same way as a seed, which has been burnt, wilt
not take root, so also when the suffering (of Karma) has beem
burnt by Jnana, it does not have to be suffered for again by
the Atman." In the Upanisads also, there are several phrases-
which mention the great worth of Jnana, aB follows :—"ya
evam vedaham brahmasmiti sa idam sarvam bhavati" (Br. 1. 4. 10),.
i. e., "he who realises that he is the Brahman, becomes
immortal Brahman" ; or, in the same way as water does not
adhere to the lotus leaf, so also is that person who-
has acquired the Knowledge of the Brahman not defiled-
by Karma (Chan. 4. 14. 3) ; or, one who realises the Brahman
obtains salvation (Tai. 2. 1); or, he, who has Realised.
that everything is saturated by the Atman, is not at any
time affected by sin (Br. 4. 4. 23); or " jfiatva demm mucyate
sarvapasaih" ( Sve. 5. 13; 6. 13), i. e., "a man escapes-
from all bonds after he has acquired the knowledge of the
Paramesvara "; or " ksiyante casya karma^i tasmin drste paravare"
( Mun. 2. 2. 8 ), i. e., "when one has Realised the Parabrahman,.
all his Karma is destroyed"; or, "vidyayamrtam aSnute" ( Isa. 11 ;,
Maitryu. 7. 9 ), i. e„ " by vidya ( Knowledge ), immortality is
attained"; or "tameva viditvati mriyum eti nanyah paMah
vidyate 'yanaya" (Sve. 3. 8), i. e., "by Realising the Paramesvara^
one acquires immortality ; there is no other path for attaining
382 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
"Release." And if we consider the matter scientifically, we
become more convinced of the same conclusion. Because,
•although whatever there is in the visible world is an embodi-
ment of Karma, yet, in as much as that is a pastime of the
Parabrahman which is the foundation of the entire universe,
no Kanna can affect the Parabrahman ; and, the Parabrahman
though responsible for the doing of all things yet remains un-
affected. As has been stated in the beginning of this chapter, all
theobjeots in this world are divided into the two classes, Karma
■( Maya ) and Brahman, according to the philosophy of the
Absolute Self. The only thing which he, who wishes to escape
from one of these classes, that is, from Karma, can do, is to go
into the other class, namely, into the Brahmani because, there
being two fundamental classes of all things, there is no third
•state, which is free from Karma other than the Brahman-state.
But, in order to achieve this Brahman-state, it is necessary to
first properly understand what it is; otherwise, one will go to
do one thing and actually do another thing. It will be like
"vimyakam prahurvaifo racayamasa vanaram", i. e., "I wanted
to make an image of Ganapti, but ( not succeeding in it ) I
"have made an image of a monkey." Therefore, it follows
logioally from the philosophy of the Absolute Self, that the
trrue msans of esoaping from the bonds of Karma is to aoquire
a true knowledge of the form of Brahman, that is to say, of
the identity of the Brahman and the At' -in, and of the
■unattachedness of the Brahman. The >,dme meaning is
conveyed by the statement of the Biased Lord in the Glta
that : "he who realises that Kai^a does not affect Me,
because I am not attached to it, becomes free from
the bonds of Karma" (Gl. 4. 14 and 13. 23). But, it must not
be forgotten that the word 'Jnana' in this place does not mean
merely bookish knowledge, or the mere mental process, as has
been stated in the very beginning of the Samkarabhasya on
the Vedanta-Sutras. 'Jnana' means 'the state of becoming
brahmi-bhiita (merged in the Brahman), or the Brahml-state,
which a man acquires after having acquired Spiritual
Knowledge and conquered his OTgans.' The whole of this
meaning is intended in each place. The' same definition of
Jnana according to the philosophy of the Absolute Self has
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 383
been mentioned at the end of the last chapter; and even in the
Mababharata (San. 320. 30), Janaka has said to Sulabha that :-
"jfianena kurute yatnam yatnena prapyate mahat", i.e., "when a
man has acquired Jiiana, which means Jfiana in the form of
mental activity, he is inspired to effort; and by this path
of effort, he ultimately reaches the Mahat-Element
(Paramesvara)". The philosophy of the Absolute Self cannot
tell one anything more than what path has to be followed, and
where one has to go, in order to attain Release. When
philosophy has told one these things, it is for everybody by
his own efforts to remove all the thorns or obstacles which
there may be in the path prescribed by it, and to clear up the
load, and ultimately attain the ideal by that road. But, even
this effort may be made in different ways, such as, the
Patafijala-Yoga, Meditation on the Absolute Self, Devotion,
or Renunciation of the fruit of Effort etc. (Gi. 12. 8-12) ; and
on that account, a man is very often confused. Therefore, the
Glta after first mentioning the Desireless Karma-Yoga as the
most important of these means, has also described in the sixth
chapter the various devices of yama (restraint) — niyama
(religious observance) — asana (pose)— praTjayama (control of
breath)— pralyaliara (withdrawing the organs from the objects
■of sense) — dharaw /'keeping the mind collected) — dhyana
-(meditation) — samadhi (mental absorption into the object of
meditation) etc. which are appurtenant to it ; and from the
seventh ohapter onwards, it is stated how this Realisation of
the Paramesvara is acquired, while observing the Karma- Yoga,
iby means of meditation on the Absolute Self or by the easier
Path of Devotion ( Gi. 18. 56 ).
Though it is thus established beyond doubt that Abstention
from Action is not the way for escaping the bonds of Karma ;
that ultimate Release is attained only by keeping the Mind
pure, by Realising the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman, and by behaving like the Paramesvara; and that the
idea of giviDg up Action is an illusion, because, no one can
escape Karma, yet, the fundamental question, whether it is
within the control of man to make that effort which has to be
made in order to acquire the Knowledge necessary for making
ihis course of Action successful, or whether he must go
384 GITA.-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
wherever Name-d and Form-ed Prakrti will drag him, Btill
remains unsolved. The Blessed Lord Himself has said;:
"prakrtim yanti bhutani nigrahah kirn karisyati" ( Gl. 3. 33), i. e.,
"what will determination do ?; every living being is bound to-
act according to its inherent tendencies"; and that, "mithyaisa
vyavasayas te prakrtis tvam iiiyoksyati', i. e., "your efforts and
determination are useless ; your Prakrti ( inherent tendencies )
will drag you even where you do not want to go" ( Gl. 18. 5ft-
and 2.60) ; and even Manu has stated that "bcdavan indriyagramo
vidvamsam api karsati" ( Manu. 2. 215 ), i. e., "the organs are
too much even for scients"; and the sum and substance of the
process of Causality ( karmarvipaka-prakriya ) is the same ;
because, once one admits that all the desires in the mind of a
man are the result of previous Karma, one has to come to the
conclusion that man has to move perpetually from one Karma,
to another Karma in the cycle of Destiny. Nay; one may
even say that the inspiration to escape Karma, and Karma,
itself, are mutually antagonistic. And, if this is true, then
one falls into the impossible position ( apatti ) than no man is.
free to acquire Jnana ( Knowledge ). To this the answer of
the philosophy of the Absolute Self is that, in as much as the
Element which is the support of the Name-d and Form-ed
visible world also circulates in the gross human body in the
form of an Atman, the Actions of a human being are to-
be considered from the point of view both of the Body
and of the Atman. Out of these, in as much as the.
Atman-formed Brahman is fundamentally one, and only
one, it can never be dependent ; because, in order that,
one should be dependent on another, the distinction of 'one'
and 'another' must remain. In the present place, that 'another^
is Nam-ed and Form-ed Karma. But Karma is non-perm,anent f .
and is essentially the pastime (HIS) of the Parabrahman ; and,,
therefore, although it acts as a covering over one part of the
Parabrahman, it can undoubtedly never enslave the
Parabrahman ; besides, as I have already stated before, that.
Atman which synthesises all the activities in the world of
Karma, and gives rise to one's knowledge of the creation, must
be different from the Karma-world, that is to say, it must
belong to the Brahman-world, It, therefore, follows that the;
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 385
Parabrahman and the embodied Atman {sarira- atman), which
is fundamentally a part of the Parabrahman, are both
fundamentally independent, that is to say, that they are both
outside the province which is subject to the control of
Prakrti. Oat of these two, the Paramatman is eternal and
all-pervading, and is always in the pure and released state ;
and that is all the knowledge which human intelligence can
get of it. But, as the Jivatman (personal Atman), which is
a part of the Paramatman (Supreme Atman), is caught inside
the cage of the Body and Reason and the other organs, though
fundamentally it is in a pure and released form, and
quality less, and a non-doer, the inspiration which it gives to-
the human mind, can be actually perceived by us by personal
experience. Although there is no force in free vapour, yet,
when it is enclosed in a vessel, it begins to exert a pressure on
that vessel. In the same way, when the Gross Body burdened
by previous Karma, and the organs, enclose the Jiva (personal
Atman), which is a particle of the Supreme Atman (Gi. 15. 7),
the bodily organs acquire the desire and inclination to do
those Actions which can liberate it (the Jiva) from this
enclosure, (or, which are favourable to Release) ; and, that is
what is known in ordinary parlance as, 'the independent
tendencies of the Atman'. The reason for my saying in
'ordinary parlance' is that, in its pure released state, or, 'from
the philosophical aspect of it ', the Atman is desireless and a
non-doer (akarta), and all the activity is of Prakrti (Gi. 13. 29
and Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. 2. 3. 40 ). But, Vedantins do not with
the Samkhyas say that this Prakrti, of its own accord, performs
Actions which favour Release ; because, if one says so, it
follows that gross Prakrti can blindly release even those who
have no Knowledge. And, we cannot also say that, that
Atman which is fundamentally a non-doer, will, of itself, that
is to say, without any provocation, and by inherent tendencies,
become a doer. Therefore, Vedanta explains the independence
of the Atman by saying, that although the Atman is
fundamentally a non-doer, yet, on account of the provocation,
of the enclosure of the body, it, to that extent, becomes
apparently a provocator or inspirer ; and, when by reason of
some cause or other, the Atman acquires this foreign
49—50
386 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA.
power of provocation, this provocation is distinct from the
laws of Karma and independent, 'Independent' (when applied
to the Atman ) does not mean 'non-provocative'; and the
Atman in its fundamental, pure state is also not a doer. But,
instead of everytime giving this lengthy explanation, it is
usual to speak of this as the independent tendency, or the
inspiration, of the Atman. This inspiration whioh is received
by the organs through the Atman as a result of its being
enclosed in an enclosure, and the inspiration which is received
by the organs as a result of their contact with the objects in
the external world, are two entirely different things. Eat,
drink, and make merry are the inspirations of the organs; and
the inspiration of the Atman tells us to perform actions which
are favourable to Release. The first kind of inspiration
belongs purely to the external world, that is, to the Karma-
world ; whereas the second inspiration, namely, that of the
Atman pertains to the Brahman-world; and as these two kinds
«f inspiration are at the outset mutually contradictory, the
greater part of a man's life is spent in the mutual warfare
between them. Out of these, when a man does not accept the
inspiration from the Karma-world in matters of doubt ( Bhag.
11. 10. 4 ), but begins to act according to the independent
inspiration of the Atman — and that is, what is understood by
true atma-jnam ( Spiritual Knowledge ), or atma-nisthu
< devotion to the Atman )— all the Actions which he
performs are naturally favourable to Release ; and, ultimately
visuddhadhxrma suddhem buddhem ca sa buddhiman I
■rimalatma ca bhavati sametya vimalatmand 1
soatantras ca svatanlrena svatardratvam avapnufe II
that is:— "the fundamentally INDEPENDENT embodied
Atman becomes merged in the permanent, pure, knowledge-
ful (buddhaj, untarnished, and INDEPENDENT Supreme
Atman" (Ma. Bha. San. 308. 27-30). This is. what is meant by
the statement above that Release is obtained by knowledge.
But, on the other hand, when the inherent tendencies of the
gross body and organs inspired by Prakrti, that is to say, the
inspirations from the Karma-world become predominant, a man
goes to perdition. It is with reference to this independent
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 387
power of the enclosed embodied Atman to force the body and
the organs to perform Actions favourable to Release, and in
that way, to obtain Release by the Realisation of the identity
of the Brahman and the Atman, that the Blessed Lord has
explained to Arjuna the principle of the independence of the
Atman or of self-dependence, in the following words . —
uddhared atmana 'tmavarn nutmanam avasadayet I
atmaiva hy atmano bandhur atmaim ripur atmanah II
( Gi. 6.5 )
that is, "man must obtain his Release himself ; he should not
allow himself to be discouraged by anything; because (each
one) one is one's own brother (benefactor), as also one's own enemy
(destroyer)". And, it is with the same idea that the Yoga-
Vasistha has deprecated Destiny, and with great detail extolled
the eminence of manhood (Yo. 2. sarga. 4-8). When a man
aots in this way, realising the principle that there is only one
Atman in all created things, his conduct is described as
sadacararia ( meritorious Action ), or Action favourable to
Release; and, as it is the independent nature of the Jlvatman
to inspire the body and the organs towards Action of this kind,
the conscience of the evil-doer always bears testimony in
favour of meritorious Action ; and, therefore, even evil-doers
repent of their evil deeds. Intuitionists refer to this matter as
the independent inspiration of a deity in the form of Con-
science, but considering the matter from the scientific point of
view, Reason cannot possibly escape the bonds of Karma,
as it is an evolute of Gross Matter; and it is clear,
that this inspiration must come from the Atman whioh is
outside the Karma-world. In the same way, the expression
'Freedom of Will' used by Western scholars is not correct from
the point of view of Vedanta philosophy ; because, as Desire or
Will is an inherent tendency of the Mind, and as Reason, and
along with Reason, the Mind, are, as stated in the eighth
chapter, also the un-self-intelligible evolutes of Gross Matter
in the shape of Karma, it ( the Mind ) cannot by itself escape
the bondage of Karma. Therefore, Vedanta philosophy has
laid down that true independence is not of the Mind, nor of
the Reason, but of the Atman. It is not necessary for anybody
388 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
to give this independence to the Atman, nor can anyone 1
depiive the Atman of it. When the particle of the independent.
Supreme Atman gets caught within an enclosure, it, of itself,
and independently, gives an inspiration to the Mind and to-
the Reason in manner mentioned above. If any one disregards-
these inspirations of the internal organs ( antahkarana ), we
must with the Saint Tukarama say :
Who has thereby lost anything ? I
one has oneself done harm to oneself II
( Ga. 4448 )
The same principle has been referred to in the Gita in the-
words "na Mnasty atman utmanam", i, e., "he who does not ruin
himself, obtains the highest salvation"; and the same principle-
has again been clearly repeated in the Dasabodha ( Gi. 13. 28 ;
Dasa. 17. 7- 7-10 ). The fact that a man naturally feels that,
he can do a particular thing independently, notwithstanding
that he is tied down hand and foot by the laws of an apprently
inpregnable Karma-world, cannot be explained in any way as
satisfactorily as by concluding, as stated above, that the
Brahman-world is different from the Gross Material world..
Therefore, that man who does not accept as correct the
science of the Absolute Self, must either accept the position of
the eternal slavery of mankind in this matter, or he must give
up the question of the independence of inherent tendencies as
unsolveable. I have explained the independence of inherent
tendencies, or Freedom of Will, on the basis of the proposition
of Non-Dualistic Vedanta, that the Jlvatman (personal Atman)
and the Paramatman (Supreme Atman) are fundamentally
uniform (Ve. Su. Sam. Bha, 2. 40). But for those who do not
accept this Non-Dualistic doctrine, or when Dualism has to-
be accepted in order to justify the Path of Devotion, it is said
that this power of the Jlvatman is not its own power, but is
received by it from the Paramesvara. But, in any case, it is
always said that in order to acquire this power, the Jlvatman
must first make the necessary effort, having regard to the-
principle enunciated in the Eg-Veda, that "na rte sramtasya
sakhyaya devah" (Rg. 4. 33. 11), i. e., "the gods do not help any
one except the man who makes effort, until he is tired" ; and 1 -
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 389
the prinoiple of personal effort, and inferential!? the principle
of the Freedom of the Atman, is left intact (Ve. Su. 2. 3. 41, 42 ;
■Gl. 10. 5 and 10). Nay, the Buddhists do not accept the theory
of the Atman, or of the Parabrahman ; hut though they do not
accept the theory of the Realisation of the Brahman or of the
Atman, their religious treatises contain the advice that "attana
(atmaiia) codayattanam" , i. e., "one must put oneself into the
right path" ; and in support of that doctrine, it is said that :
atta (atrria) hi attano natho aita hi attano gati 1
fasma sanjamaya 'Itanam assafn (asvam) bhaddam va vaijijo II
(Dhammapada, 380).
that is, "one is the owner of oneself, and there is no other
redeemer for oneself except one's Atman ; therefore, just as a
merchant keeps under proper control his good horBe, so must
one keep oneself under proper control"; and the importance and
the existence of the freedom of the Atman is there shown in
the same way as in the Glta. (See, Mahaparinibbana-sutta,
2. 33-35). The French Materialist Comte must also be included
in this class ; because, although he does not accept the theory
of the Absolute Self, yet, he has, as a matter of personal
experience, that is to say, without any logical justification
accepted the fact that every person can by his own efforts
improve his conduct and his circumstances.
Although, it has in this way been proved that (i) the
Realisation of the identity of the Brahman and the Atman is
the most successful method for escaping the bonds of Karma,
and acquiring the metaphysically perfect state of Realising
that there is only one Atman in all created beings, and that
(ii) it is within the control of everybody to acquire that
Realisation, yet, we must also remember the second fact, that
.even this independent Atman cannot get rid of this mill-stone
■of Prakrti round its neck in a moment. As, though an artisan
is very skilful himself, he cannot do anything without imple-
ments, and he has to spend sometime in repairing the imple-
ments, if they are not in proper condition, so also is the case
with the personal Self. It is true that the personal Self is free
to give to the organs the inspiration to acquire Knowledge ; yet,
scientifically, it is fundamentally quality less and isolated, or, as
390 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
stated above in the seventh chapter, it has eyes, hut is lame
(Maitryu. 3. 2, 3; Gi. 13. 20) ; and therefore, it does not possess
the implements which are necessary (e. g., the wheel, to a potter*
etc. ) for doing a particular Action according to a particular
inspiration. The Body, the Reason, and the other organs are
evolutes of Matter. Therefore, the personal Self has got to
bring about its own Release, through the medium of the bodily
organs etc., which it has got according to its Commenced Action
(prurabdlia-liarma). As the Reason is the most important
organ among the bodily organs, the personal Self ( Jivatman )
has to first inspire the Reason, if it has to get anything done
by any of the organs. But, having regard to one's inherent
tendencies, which depend on previous Action, it is not certain
that this Reason will always be pure and suttuika. And there,
fore, in order that this Reason should be released from the
meshes of three-constituented Matter, and become introspective-
sutt'iiha, and Self -devoted ( atmanistlw, ), that is, such as will
listen to the dictates inspired by the Self, and decide to
perform only such Actions as are beneficial to the Self, one
has to practise Renunciation (vairagya) for a considerable
length of time. Even then, hunger, thirst, and other corporeal
needs and those Accumulated (samcita) Actions, for the
consequences of which one has begun to suffer, do not in any
case leave one till death. Therefore, although the Atman is
free to give to the corporeal organs the inspiration to perform
Actions favourable to Release, yet, as all the subsequent
Actions have to be performed through Matter, as a result of
the superimposition of a corporeal body on the Atman, it
(the Atman) is, to that extent, dependent, like a carpenter, a
potter, or other artisans ; and, it has first to purify its
implements, namely, the corporeal organs etc., and to keep
them under its control (Ve. SQ. %, 3. 40). This thing cannot be
achieved at once, and has to be acquired gradually and
courageously ; otherwise, the organs will positively rear up on
their haunches like a frightened horse. Therefore, the Blessed
Lord has said that Reason needs the help of courage fdhrti) for
acquiring control over the organs (Gi. 6. 25) ; and later on in
the eighteenth chapter, dhrti has, in the same way as Reason,
heen divided into the sattvilca, rajasa and tamaw classes (Gi. 18.
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 391
33-35). Out of these, one has to discard the rajasa and famasa
stages, and to control the organs in order to make one's Reason
sattvilca. Therefore, the place, method of sitting, and the food,
proper for the performance of this Yoga in the form of
practising control over the organs, have been described in the
sixth chapter of the Glta. And, it is further stated in the
Glta that when practice has been performed in this way
''sanaih, sanaik" (Gl. 6. 25), i. e., gradually, the Mind (titta}
becomes steady, and the organs come under one's control ; and
thereafter, after the lapse of a considerable length of time (not
at once), one realises the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman ; and by the acquisition of Knowledge, the bondage of
Karma is broken : "atmavantam na karmarti rribadhnanti
dlumanjaya", i. e., "such a person who has realised the Atman,
cannot be bound by Karma (Gl. 4. 38-41). But, because the
Blessed Lord has prescribed the practice of Yoga in solitude 1
(Gl. 6. 10), one must not understand the import of the Glta as
being that one should give up all the activities in the world,
and spend one's life in the practice of Yoga. Just as a
merchant starts business with what little capital he has, and
gradually acquires vast wealth by such business, so also is the
case of the practice of Karma-Yoga prescribed in the Glta.
This Karma- Yoga has got to be started by exercising as much
control over the organs as is possible, and thereby, gradually,
more and more of control over the organs is acquired. At tha
same time, it is also not proper to always sit in a gossiping
place ; because, thereby the habit of concentration, which has
been acquired by the Mind, is likely to weaken. Therefore,
when one is continually practising Karma- Yoga, it is necessary
to spend sometime every day or at intervals in solitude
(Gi. 13. 10). But, the Blessed Lord nowhere says, that for that
purpose one should give up one's ordinary activities in life.
On the other hand, this control of the organs has been
prescribed in order that one Bhould be able to perform one's
activities in life with a desireless frame of mind, and the
advice of the Glta is, that while control of the organs is being
practised, one must simultaneously, continually, and according
to one's own abilities, practise the desireless Karma-Yoga, and
not wait till one has acquired complete control over the .organs.
GlTA-RAHASYA or KARMA-YOGA
According to the Maitryupanisad and the Mahabharata, one
«an acquire equability of Reason within sis months, if one is
intelligent and determined (Maitryu. 6. 28 ; Ma. Bha. San. 239.
32 ; Asva. Anugita. 19.66). But, a doubt is likely to be Taised
here, that this sattvika, equable, and Self -devoted frame of the
Mind, which has been described by the Blessed Lord, may not
be acquired by some, as a result of their inherent nature, even
in six years, to say nothing of six months; and that, if this
practice remains incomplete, not only will perfection or Release
not be reached in this life, but the practice will have to be
started from its very commencement in the next birth ; and, if
the practice in this next birth also remains incomplete, as in
in the previous births, such a person will never acquire
perfection. And, on that account, it is also likely
to be believed that one must learn to acquire the non-subjective
and non-objective mental absorption ( nirvikalpa-samadhi*) by
practising the Patanjala Yoga before starting the practice of
the Karma-Yoga. Arjuna was beset by this very doubt, and
he has in the sixth chapter of the Gita ( Gl. 6. 37-39 ) asked Sri
Krsna, what a man should do in these circumstances. To this
question, the Blessed Lord has replied that, as the Atman is
immortal, the impressions received by it in this life through
the Subtle Body, whatever they may be, are not destroyed ; and
that such a 'yogabhrasta (apostate from Yoga), that is, one who
has abandoned the Karma-Yoga without having completely
acquired it, starts his efforts in the next birth from the
point where he has left off in this birth; and that, in this
way, gradually "anekajanmasamsiddhas tato yati param gatim"
( Gl. 6. 45 ), i. e., "he ultimately acquires perfection after many
births, and obtains Release". The statement in the second
chapter that "svalpam apj asya dharmasya trayate mahato bhayat"
( Gl. 2. 40 ), i. e., "even a little practice of this method, that is,
of the Karma-Yoga, redeems a person from great danger", is
with reference to this proposition. In short, although the
* 'nirmkalpa-mmadhi' U defined in Apte's San.-k.nt dictionary
as; <'an exelusiva contemplation upon the one entity without the
distinction and eepaiate consciousness of the Kaover, the Known
and the Knowing, and without even self-consciousness ( Apte, 3rd
Edition, 1924 )— Translator.
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 393
Atman of a person is fundamentally independent, yet, as a
result of the impure inherent nature of the Body, which a
..person has acquired as a result of his previous ActionB, it ia
not possible for him to acquire complete Release in one life.
But on that account, "nfitmanam avamanyeta purvabhirasamrddhi-
,bhih" ( Manu. 4. 137 ), i. e. "no one should despair, nor should
•one waste one's whole life in practising the Patanjala-Yoga, that
is, the mere gymnastic exercise of the organs, by a foolish
insistence that one will acquire complete Release in one life"-
The Blessed Lord has said in the Glta, that there is no haste
where the Atman is concerned; that, one should acquire as much
Yogic strength as can possibly be acquired in this life, and
.start the praotice of Karma- Yoga; that thereby, the Mind
gradually becomes more and more sattvika, and pure ; that, not
■only this small practice of the Karma-Yoga, but even the
mere desire to practise it, will forcibly push forward a man as
if he had been put into a grinding mill, and ultimately oause
■the complete merger of the Atman into the Brahman, if not
to-day, to-morrow, and in the next birth, if not in this birth ;
that, therefore, even the smallest practice of the Karma-Yoga,
■ or even the desire to practice it, is never wasted ; and that this
is the most important characteristic f bature of the Karma-Yoga
( See my Commentary on Gl. 6. 15. ). One must not restrict
•one's attention to this life, and give up coinage, but should
continue one's practice of performing desireless Action,
independently, courageously, and according to one's own
abilities. This bondage of Matter which one considers to be
indissoluble in this life or to-day, as a result of pre-destination
•( praktana-samskara ) will become gradually and automatically
loose, by the gradually increasing practice of Karma-Yoga ;
and when this goes on for some time, "bahunam janmamm
ante jnanavan mam prapadyate" (Gl. 7. 19 ), — sometime or otheri
as a result of the complete acquisition of Knowledge, the
bondage of or the dependence on Matter is broken, and the
Atman at last acquires its fundamental or perfect qualityless
free state, or Release. What is impossible for a man ? The
well-known proverb, 'if a man performs the proper duties of
'manhood, he will become the same as the Narayana', is only
a repetition of this proposition of Vedanta ; and, it is on this
394 GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
very account that the writer of the Yoga-Vasistha has, in the
chapter dealing with those who desire Release ( mumuhsu )»■
praised the worth of Effort, and laid down the firm proposition,
that by Effort everything is ultimately achieved (Yo. %. 4. 10-18).,
Although it has in this way been definitely proved, that
the personal Self is fundamentally free to make the effort of
acquiring Knowledge, and that by ceaseless effort based on
self-dependence, it, sometime or other, escapes from the clutches
of pre-destined (praktana) Karma, yet, it remains to give some'
further explanation as to what is meant by the annihilation
of Karma (karma-hsaya), and when it takes place, 'karma-
ksaya' means the total, that is, the balanceless release from the
bonds of Karma. But, as has been stated before, though a
man may have acquired Knowledge, yet, in as much as he does
not escape Karma (Action) in the form of drinking, eating,,
sleeping, sitting, etc. so long as his body lives, and, in as much
as his Commenced (prarabdha) Karma is not annihilated'
otherwise than by suffering, he cannot determine to destroy his
body by suicide. Therefore, although all the Karma done
before the acquisition of Knowledge is annihilated by the
acquisition of Knowledge, yet, the soient has to perform some
Karma or other, so long as he is alive, even after the acquisition
of Knowledge. Then, how is he to be released from this-
Karma ? ; and, if there is no such Telease, there is no-
annihilation of the previous Karma, nor is there any Release
(moksa) later on. The answer of Vedanta philosophy to this
doubt is, that although Karma, in the shape of Names and'
Forms, does not at any time leave the Name-d and Form-ei
body of a scient, yet, in as much as the Atman is competent to
adopt or reject such Karma, a man can, by conquering his organs
and destroying the Attachment, which exists in the case of
every living being towards the Karma, so to say, kill the sting of
Karma, though he may be performing it. Karma is inherently
blind, lifeless (acetana), and dead. It does not by itself either
catch hold of or leave anybody ; inherently, it is neither good
nor bad. But, a man, by allowing his Self to get entangledi
in this Karma, giveB it the character of good or bad, beneficial
or malefic, by his Attachment (asakti). Therefore, when this;
Attachment in the shape of a feeling of mine-ness (mamatva}-
EFFECT OB 1 KARMA, AND FREE WILL 395
comes to an. end, the bondage of Karma may be said to>
be broken; then let that Karma remain or not remain. On the
basis of this proposition, it is stated in the Gita in several
places that : true abstention from Action ( naiskarmya ) consists
in this, and not in the abandonment of Action ( Gi. 3. 4 ) ;
your jurisdiction extends to the performance of Action, you
cannot control getting or not getting the fruit of the Action
( Gi. 2. 47 ); "karmendriyaih karmayogam asaklah" (Gi. 3. 7 ), i. e.,
"let the organs of Action perform their various Actions without
entertaining any hope for the fruit"; tyaktm karmaphalasangam"
( Gi. 4. 20 ), i. e., "having given up the fruit of Action";
sarvabhutaimabhii'atma kuruann api na lipyate" ( Gi. 5. 7 ), i. e.»
"that man, whose mind has become equable towards all created
things, is not bound by Actions, though he may perform them";
"sarvakarmaphalatyagam kuru" ( Gi. 12. 11 ), i. e., "give up the
fruit of all Actions"; "karyam ity eva yat karma myatam kriyate"
( Gi. 18. 9 ), i. e., "those who perform whatever Action befalls
them, looking upon it as a duty, are satlmka"; "cetasa sarva-
karmani mayi smhnyasya" (Gi. 18. 57), i. e., "dedicate all Actions to-
Me when you act". The question whether or not the scient
should perform all Actions which arise in life, is an independent
question ; and the doctrine of the Gita on that point will be
considered in the next chapter. We have, for the present, to ■
consider only what is the real meaning of the dictum that all
Karma is reduced to ashes by Jfiana ; and from the quotations
from the Gita which have been given above, the opinion of the
Gita, on this question becomes quite clear. We apply this
logical argument everywhere in ordinary life. For instance,,
if a person unintentionally gives a push to another person, we-
do not call him a rowdy; and, even under the criminal law,
death caused by mere accident is not looked upon as murder.
If fire burns a house, or a deluge washes away a field, does one
consider the fire or the rain as criminals ? If one considers
only Action by itself, there will be found in every act some or
other fault, defect, or evil, from the point of view of the
human being ; because, "sarvararnbha hi dosena dhumenagvir
ivavrtah" (Gi. 18. 48), i. e., "just as fire is enveloped in smoke, so-
also is all Action ( arambha ) enveloped in some fault or
other". But the fault which the Gita advises one to
396 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
.give up, is not this fault. The Gita, has laid down that the
evil or virtue, which we ascribe to any particular Action
of a man, doeB not lie in the Action itself, but depends on
the frame of mind of the man who does it ; and, from this
point of view, eliminating the evilness from an Action, meanB
the doer of the Action keeping his Reason or Mind pure
(Gl. 2. 49-51); and, even in the Upanisads, importance is
attached to the Reason of the person who performs the Action,
aB follows :
nana eva manusyaijam karanam bandhamoksayoh l
bandhaya visayasangi mokse mrvisayam smrtam II
( Maitryu. 6. 34 ; Amrtabindu. 2 )
that is: "the mind of a man is the only (eva) cause for his
being bound Iby Karma) or being Released; when the mind is
enslaved by objects of pleasure, it is bound; and when it goes
beyond those objects (becomes niroisaya ), that is, when it
becomes desireless {niskama), or unattached (nihsanga), that is
Release". The Bhagavadglta has principally stated in what
way one can acquire this equability of the mind by the
Realisation of the identity of the Brahman and the Atman;
and when this state of mind has been acquired, Action is
totally destroyed, notwithstanding that it is performed.
Karma is not destroyed by becoming homeless (niragm),
that is, by Renunciation (samnyasa), and by giving up
sacrificial ritual to fire etc; nor by remaining Actionless
(akriya), that is, by remaining idle without performing any
Action whatsoever (Gi. 6. 1). Whether a man desires it or no,
the wheel of Matter will go on; and, therefore, man must
also move round and round with it (Gi. 3. 33; 18. 60). But,
that man, who does not dance as a dependent on Matter like an
ignorant person, but keeps his mind steady and pure by control
of the organs and performs all Action, which befalls him in the
ordinary course of life, as a duty merely, and calmly, and
without allowing his mind to become attached, is the true
. ■ emotionless (virakta) man, the true Steady-in-Mind (sthitaprajna),
and one, who may be said to be truly merged in the Brahman
{GI. 3. 7; 4. 21 ; 5. 7-9; 18. 11.). A scient may perhaps renounce
the world, and give up the Action of ordinary life, and go and
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 397
sit in a forest ; but it is wrong to imagine that by his having, .
in this way, abandoned the duties of ordinary life, he has
annihilated them (GT. 3. 4). One must bear in mind the
principle that whether he performs Actions or not, the
annihilation of his Karma is the result of his having attained
equability of mind, and not of his having abandoned, or of
his not performing, Action. For explaining the true nature of
the annihilation of Karma, the illustration given in the •
XIpanisads and in the Gita (Chan. 4. 14. 3 ; Gl. 5. 10), that the
scient, that is, one who performs Actions by dedicating them
to the Brahman, or without Attachment, is not touched by
Karma, in the same way as water being on the leaf of the lotus
flower does not adhere to it, is more appropriate, than the
illustration that Karma is burnt by Knowledge, in the same
way as fuel is burnt by fire. Karma is essentially never burnt, .
nor is it at all necessary to burn it. If Karma is Name and
Form, and if Name and Form means the visible world, then
how is this visible world to be burnt up?; and, assuming for
the sake of argument that it is burnt, then, according to the
theory of Satkarya-vada, the utmost that can happen, is that its
Name and Form will be changed. As Name-d and Form-ed
Karma or Maya changes eternally, man cannot totally destroy
this Name-d and Form-ed Karma, however much of a Self-
knower he may become, though he may, as he wills, bring
about a change in the Name and Form ; and such a thing can
be done only by the Paramesvara (Ve. Su, 4. 4. 17). But, the
seed of goodness or evilness, which did not exist inherently
in this gross Karma, and which a man instills into it by his
feeling of mine-ness, can be destroyed by him ; and what has ■
to he burnt up by him, is this seed. That man alone who has
burnt this seed of mine-nbss in his ordinary activities, by
maintaining an equable frame of mind towards all created
things, is the Blessed, the Accomplished (krtakrtya), and the
Released ; and his Karma is Baid to have been burnt by the
fire of Knowledge, though he may be performing all Actions
( Gl. 4. 19 ; 18. 56 ). In as much as the being burnt up of
Karma in this way is entirely dependent on the Mind being .
free from objects of pleasure, and on the Realisation of the -
identity of the Brahman and the Atman, no time is lost in .
398 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
such Realisation performing its function of destroying Karma,
in the same way as fire begins to exercise its function of
burning, the moment it comes into existence. The moment
Realisation comes, Karma is immediately destroyed. Neverthe-
less, the moment of death is considered to be mora important
than all other times in this matter, because death is the las't
moment in a man's life ; and, though the Ohcommenced
Accumulated Karma may have been destroyed by previous
Realisation, yet the Commenced (prarabdha) Karma is not
destroyed. Therefore, if this Realisation of the Brahman does
.not continue till the end, the good or bad Actions which may
have been performed in the meantime as a result of Commenced
Karma, will become desireful (sakama), and one will not be
able to escape having to take a fresh birth to suffer their
consequences. It is true that that man who has become really
Released from birth (jhnnmukta) is not subject to this fear.
But, when one is considering this subject-matter scientifically,
one has also to consider the possibility that the Knowledge of
the Brahman, which has been acquired before death, may not
continue till the end. Therefore, philosophers consider the
exact moment of death as of greater importance than the time
before death ; and they say that the Realisation of the identity
of the Brahman and the Atman must necessarily take place at
that moment, that is, at the moment of death ; and that other-
wise Release is not possible. On the basis of this theory the
Gita, on the authority of the TJpanisads, states that : "by
remembering Me at the moment of dpsth, and Realising
that there is no other than I, the man is Released" (Gl. 8. 5).
According to this proposition it follows that, any man,
who has spent the whole of his life in evil deeds, will
become Released by Realising the Paramesvara at the
moment of death, which, according to some, is not correct;
but, if one considers the matter carefully, it will be
seen that there is nothing wrong in it. The man who has
spent the whole of his life in evil deeds cannot acquire purity
of mind, and Realise the Brahman at the moment of death.
As in all other matters, it is necessary to acquire the habit
of devoting the Mind to the Brahman; and, it will be very
•difficult, nay impossible, for the man who has not even once
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 399
in his lifetime Realised the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman, to get that experience suddenly at the moment of
•death. Therefore, the second important teaching of the Glta
"in this matter is, that everyone should continually carry on
the practice of abstracting his mind from the objects of
pleasure, so that there is no difficulty in that state of mind
being present at the moment of death, and the man being
thereby ultimately Released ( Gl. 8. 6,7 and 2, 72). But, for
critically examining this philosophical doctrine, let us suppose
that someone, as a result of the impressions of previous lives,
Realises the Paramesvara suddenly only at the moment of
death. No doubt, the case of such a man will be perhaps
one in a hundred thousand, nay, one in a million; but, we
have to disregard the fact that such a case is difficult to come
across, and to consider for the present what will happen if
.such a case actually takes place. As Realisation has come to
such a man, though only at the moment of death, the Uncom-
menced Karma of such a man is destroyed, and the Commenced
Karma comes to an end at the moment of death by its having
been suffered for in this life. Therefore, such a man has no
Karma left which has to be suffered for; and, it then necessarily
follows, that he becomes free from all Karma, that is, from
the cycle of life (samsara). This proposition has been
expounded in the Glta, in the stanza: "api est suduracaro bhajate
mam amnyabhak" , i. e., "even a great evil-doer will be
released, if he worships the Paramesvara with the idea that
there is no one else to worship"; and it has been accepted even
by the other religions of the world. It may be borne in mind
that the word 'awmyabhava signifies the state of mind of
a person, whose mind is fully merged in the Paramesvara,
and the person who 6imply utters the words "Rama, Rama"
by the mouth, while his mind is engaged somewhere else, is not
meant. In short the importance of the Realisation of the
Paramesvara is such that the moment it comes, all the
Uncommenced Accumulated Karma is destroyed at a stroke.
Whenever this state of Mind comes, it is welcome ; but our
philosophers have concluded that it is essential that such a
state should continue in existence at the moment of death, or,
if one has not acquired that Realisation before death, that one
400 GlTA-RAHASSA OR KARMA-TOGA
should acquire it at least at the moment of death ; otherwise,.
some desire or other will remain in balance at that moment,-
and re-birth will not be averted ; and if re-birth is not averted,.
Release (mokm) also becomes impossible.
We have so far dealt with the questions, what the bondage
of Karma is; what is meant by the destruction of Karma ; and
how that is brought about, and when. Now, I will shortly
consider the state in which those persons who have not escaped
the bondage of Karma, and destroyed the consequences of
Karma find themselves after death, according to the Vedic
religion, and close this chapter. This question has been dealt
with at great length in the Upanisads (See Chan. 4. 15 ; 5. 10«-
Br 6. 2. 2. 16 ; Kau. 1. 2. 3). And all these Upanisads have been
harmonised in the third pada of the fourth chapter of the
Vedanta-SQtras. But, it is not necessary to go into the whole
of that discussion here, and we have only to consider the two
courses which are mentioned in the Bhagavadglta (Gi. 8. 23-27).
The Vedic religion is divided into two well-known divisions,
Karma-Kanda and Jnana-Kanda. The original meaning of the
Karma-Kanda out of these, is the worship of the Sun, Fire,
India, Varuna, Rudra and other Vedic deities by sacrificial
ritual, and obtaining children and grand-children, and cows,
horses, or other wealth in this life, and a happy state after
death by the grace of those deities. As at the present day, this-
sacrificial ritual of the Srutis has more or less ceased to exist v
people devote themselves to the worship of God, and to the
meritorious Actions, like charity etc., enjoined by the Sastras, in
order to achieve this object. But, it is clear from the Rg-Veda
that in ancient times, people used to worship these deities by
sacrificial ritual not only for personal benefit, but also for the
benefit of the community ; because, the Suktas in the Rg-Veda
are full of praise of the deities Indra etc., whose favour had
to be acquired for these purposes; and everywhere we come
across prayers like "0 God 1 give us children and wealth";
"make us live a hundred years"; "do not kill us, or our children
or our warriors, or our cattle"."" As these ritualistic practices
* These prayers are to be come across in many places but instead
of mentioning all ol them, I Trill only mention the prayer which is-
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 401
are common to the three Vedas, this course of worship was
known in ancient times as 'trayi dharma; and there is a detailed
description in the Brahmanas as to the way in which they are
to be performed. But, as the ritual prescribed for these various
sacrifices was different in the different Brahmanas, doubts
arose as to which one was correct. Therefore, Jaimini has
made a collection of explanatory rules for bringing about
harmony between these mutually contradictory ritualistic
directions. The rules laid down by Jaimini are known as
'Mlmarhsa-Sutras' or the 'Purva-Miraarhsa'; and, therefore, the
ancient Karma-kanda came later on to acquire the name of
the 'Mlmarbsaka-marga'; and, as that name is still in vogue v
I have made use of it on various occasions in this book. But,
it must be remembered that though the word 'mlmamsa' came
into vogue only in later timeB, this Karma-marga of sacrificial
ritual has been current from very ancient times. The word
'mimamsa' occurs nowhere in the Gita, and that is why wa
find in it the words 'trayi dharmi" (Gi. 9. 20-21), or, 'trayl-vidya'
instead, Aranyakas and Upanisads are v artJc treatises,
later in point of time than the Brahmanas, wL"c^ describe the
sacrificial ritual laid down by the Srutis. As thest. treatises
maintain that sacrificial ritual is inferior, and that th&
Knowledge of the Brahman is superior, the religion described
in these later works is known as 'Jnana-kanda'. Yet, as the
different Upanisads contain different ideas, it was also necessary
to harmonise them. This has been done by Badarayanacarya in
his Vedanta-Sufcras, which are also known as the Brahma-Sutras,
or the Sarlra-Sutras or the Uttara-Mlraarhsa. In this way, the
Purva-Mlmamsa and the Uttara-Mimamsa are at present the two
treatises which deal with the Karma-kanda and the Jnana-
kanda respectively. Strictly speaking, both these works funda-
mentally discuss the meanings of Vedic expressions, that is to
say, of the Mlmamsa ; yet, it is usual to refer to the followers
of the Karma-kanda as 'Mlmarhsakas', and to the followers of
the Jnana-kanda as 'Vedantins'. The followers of the Karma-
kanda! that is to say, the Mlmarhsakas say that the observance
come ajruss in eVory day worship, nausiy, ''/no nasloke tcmaye ma no
ai/au ma no goju ma no ahesu rWijah | vlran ma no rudra Ifiamito vadhir
havifmantuh sadamittva havamah \\ ( Pg. 1. ]14. 8 )
51-52
402 GITA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
■of the four months, and of the sacrificial ritual, such as, the
Jyotistoma-yajna, etc. are the important doctrines of the Sruti
Teligion; and that according to the Vedas, he alone will acquire
Release who performs that Karma, Whoever he may be, he
must not give up this sacrificial Karma; and if he does so, he
must be taken to have abandoned the Sruti religion; because,
the Vedic sacrificial ritual was created at the same time as the
Universe, and the virtuous circle of men performing it and
pleasing the deities, and the deities in return producing rain
and the other things needed by men, has been going on from
times immemorial. At present, we do not attach much
importance to these ideas, because the Sruti religion of sacrificial
Titual is not now in vogue. But, as the state of things was
■different at the time of the Gita, the importance of this circle
of sacrifice has been described as above in the Bhagavadglta
■( G5. 3. 16-25 ). Nevertheless, it becomes clear from the Gita,
that as a result of the Knowledge conveyed in the Upanisads
this Karma ritual had even then acquired an inferior place
from the point of view of Release (2. 41-46); and this inferiority
has k.irtased late, on by the growth of the doctrine of non-
sacrifice ''"' :' .jsa). It is clearly mantioned in the Bhagavata
teligion, that although sacrificial ritual is prescribed by the
Vedas, the appurtenant slaughter of animals is not a proper
thing, and that the ritual should be performed by offering
only grain ( Ma. Bha. San. 336. 10 and 337 ). On that account,
< and also to soma extent, because the Jains later on raised the
same kind of objection), the ritual prescribed by the Srutis has
at present reached such a state, that persons who keep burning
a perpetual fire as prescribed by the Srutis ( that is. agnihotris)
are rarely to be come across even in sacred places like Benares,
and one hears that somebody has performed an animal sacrifice
like the Jyotistoma, only sometimes in 20 or 25 years. Yet,
as the Sruti religion is the root of all Vedic religion, the
respect felt for it still continues, and the Sutras of Jaimini
have become authoritative as a science explaining its meaning.
But, although the Sruti ritual has in this way fallen into the
back-ground, the other ritual mentioned in Sinrtis like the
Manu-Smrti etc.— which is known as the five principal sacrifi-
cial rites ( pafica mafiayajaa )— is still in vogue; and the same
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 403
argument is applied to them as to the cycle of sacrificial ritual
prescribed by the Srutis mentioned above. For instance, Manu
and other Smrti writers have mentioned five daily aaorifioial
rites to be performed at home, which do not entail the slaughter
of animals, namely, the study of the Vedas as a brahma-yajfia,
oblations to the ancestors as a pitr-yajna, oblations into the fire
as a deva-yajOa, offering of food as bali as a bhuta-yajfia, and
entertaining guests as a maausya-yajna; and the ritual
prescribed for a man in the state of a householder is, that he
should partake of food after he has in this way satisfied
respectively the Rsis, the ancestors, the deities, the spirits of
the departed, and men, by these five sacrifices. ( Manu. 3.
68-123). The food whioh remains over after the performance
of these sacrifices is known as 'amrta', and the food whioh
remains over after everybody has eaten is known as 'vighasa'
.(Manu. 3. 285). The 'amrta' and the 'vighasa' is the proper and
beneficial food for the householder; and it is stated not only in
*he Manu-Smrti, but also in the Rg-Veda and in the Glta, that
if a person does not follow this precept, but eats food only by
himself, he eats 'agha' or sin, and he is to be known as 'aghast'
i Rg. 10. 117. 6; Manu. 3. 118; Gi. 3. 13). Besides, these five
prinoipal sacrifices, the Upanisads and the Smrtis also consider
other acts which are productive of publio benefit, such as, charity,
truth, kindness, and non-slaughter as proper for the householder
■( Tai. 1. 11 ); and, in these texts we find the clear statement :
"prajatantum ma vyavacehetsih", i. e., "enlarge thy family, and
iperpetuate thy generation." All these Actions are looked upon
as a kind of sacrifice, and the Taittiriya-Saihhita explains the
reason for performing them by saying that a Brahmin comes
to birth with three kinds of indebtedness, namely, to the
IRsis, to the deities, and to his ancestors. Of these, the
.indebtedness to the Rsis must be satisfied by the study of
ithe Vedas; the indebtedness to the deities, by sacrifice ;
and the indebtedness to the ancestors, by procreation ;
otherwise, there is no Release for him ( Tai. Sam. 6. 3. 10. 5 ).*
* The statement in the Taittirlya Samhita is as follows :
"'jiyamcmo vai brahmanas tribhir rmm jayate brahmaearyena
Tjibhyo ynjnem devshhyah prajaya pitrbhyah e}« va anrw yah putri
ifljt/i hrahmadari vasiti. "
404 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
There is a story in the Adiparva of the Mahabharata thatr
Jaratkaru did not follow this precept but started austere
religious practices before marrying; that, as a result of his
having thus destroyed his possible children, he saw bis
ancestors named Yayavara dangling in the air; and that, in.
performance of their injunctions, he later on married. ( Ma,
Bha. A. 13). It is not that all this Karma or sacrifice is to be
performed only by Brahmins; and as even women and Sudras
are competent to perform all other Karma, except the Vedic
sacrificial ritual, all the Karma performed according to the
classification of the four castes made by the writers of the
Smrtis — e. g., warfare by Ksatriyas etc. — is also a YAJNA.
(sacrifice); and the word YAJNA has been used in this
comprehensive meaning in these texts. Manu has said that
whatever is proper for anyone, is his religious austerity.
(TAPA), (11. 236); and it is stated in the Mahabharata that:
urambliayajnuh lesatras ca haviryajna visah smrtah I
paricarayajiiah sUdraS ca japayajm dvijalayah II
( Ma. Bha. San. 237. 12 )'
that is "aratiibha (industry), havi (corn etc), service, and prayer-
are the four Yajnas, which are proper for the Ksatriyas, the-
Vaisyas, the Sudras, and the Brahmins respectively. In short,,
as Brahmadeva has created all the human beings in the world
and with great propriety prescribed for them their various duties
(Karma) in life (Ma. Bha. Anu. 48. 3; and Gi. 3. 10 and 4. 32),.
all the Kansas enjoined by the Sastras for the four classes, are
Yajnas in a way; and if all these Yajnas or Sastra-enjoined 1
Karma, or trades, or duties are not kept going by everybody
according to his own status, the entire community will suffer,
and will ultimately run the risk of being destroyed. It,
therefore, follows that Yajnas, in this comprehensive meaning,
are always necessary for public benefit.
Here a question arises as follows: — as this course of life,
in which predominance is given to Yajnas, and which is proper
for the householder according to the Vedas and according to
the arrangement of the four oastes made by the Smrtis, is
nothing but the performance of Karma, will a man, who
performs this household Karma properly in the manner
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FEBE WILL 405
prescribed by the SSstras, that is, morally, and according to
Sastric injunction, thereby escape the cycle of birth and death?
And if he escapes that cyole, then where is the importance of
Jfiana? The Jfiana-kanda and the Upanisads olearly say that
unless a man realises the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman, and acquires apathy towards Karma, he will not
escapB the cycle of birth and death, or from the Name-d
and Form-ed Maya or Illusion; and if one considers the religion
laid down by the Srutis and the Smrtis, it will be seen that
Karma predominates the life of everybody, which (life) is
nothing but a Yajfia in its comprehensive meaning. Besides, it
is clearly stated in the Vedas themselves, that no Karma
performed for the sake of Yajna, creates bondage, and that
heaven is attained only by the performance of Yajnas. Even
if the question of heaven is kept aside, Brahmadeva himself has
laid down the rule that rain does not fall unless India and
other deities are kept satisfied, and the deities are not satisfied
except by the performance of a Yajna. Then, what esoape is
there for anybody, unless he performs Yajnas or Karma ? The
■chain of creation has been described by Manu, and in the
Mahabharata, the Upanisads, and even in thd Gita as follows:-
agnau prastahutih samyag adityam upatisthate l
adityaj jayate vrstir vrster armam tatah prajah H
that is, "when the material sacrified in the Yajna reaohes the
Sun through the medium of the fire, the Sun causes rain, rain
causes food, and the food causes living beings" ( Manu. 3. 76 ;
Ma. Bha. San. 262. 11; Maitryu. 6. 37; and Gi. 3. 14). And if
these Yajnas are to be performed by Karma, how will it do
•to give up Karma? If the Karma in the shape of Yaj&as is
given up, the wheel of the world will come to a stop, and
nobody will have anything to eat. The answer of the
Bhagavata doctrine and of the Gita science to this objection
is, that they do not ask anybody to give up the sacrificial
ritual ( Yajna) prescribed by the Vedas, or any other Karma in
the shape of Yajfia prescribed by the Smrtis or performed in
ordinary life; that they accept the argument that if this cycle
of Yajnas, which has been going on from times immemorial is
■stopped, the world will become desolate ; and that, therefore,
406 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGa
they also lay down the proposition that nobody should give up.'
Yajnas which entail Karma ( Ma. Bha. San. 340; Gi. 3. 16. ).
Nevertheless, it has been clearly stated in the Jnana-kanda,.
that is, in the TJpanisads themselves, that unless Karma is-
destroyed by Jfiana and Renunciation, there can be no Release:.
and therefore, they harmonise both these propositions and come
to the conclusion that all Actions or Karma must be performed,.
giving up the desire for the fruit or reward, and desirelessly
or with an apathetic frame of mind ( Gi. 17-19). If one
performs the sacrifices, such as, the Jyotistoma etc., prescribed-
by the Vedas, with a frame of mind which entertains the hope-
of heaven, one will undoubtedly reach heaven; because, what
is laid down in the Vedas cannot be false; yet, in as much as
heaven is not permanent, the Upanisads themselves say that:
prapyantam Icarmanas tasya yat ldmceha karotyayam l
tasmal lokat pumrety asmai lokaya karmaim* II
that is,"when the fruit of meritorious Action in the shape of
sacrifices etc. performed in this life, is exhausted by enjoyment
in heaven, the orthodox performer of the Yajfia has to come
back once more from heaven to this Karma-world or earth."
(Br. 4.4, 6; Ve. Su. 3. 1. 8: Ma. Bha. Vana. 360. 39); and even.
the way of coming down from heaven is described in the
Chandogyopanisad ( 5. 10. 3-9 ). The following slightly
derogatory statements in the Bhagavadgita, namely,.
"kamatmajiah svargaparah" ( Gi. 2. 43), ( i. e., "desire-filled,
persons running after heaven" — Trans.), or "traigunyavisaya
vedah" (Gi. 2. 45), (i. e., "the Vedas, which deal with matters
relating to the three constituents" — Trans.), have been made
with reference to these orthodox persons; and it is again clearly
stated in the ninth chapter that: "gatagatam kumakania
labhante" (Gi. 9. 21), i.e., "such persons have to move backwards
and forwards between the heaven and this world". This
moving backwards and forwards cannot be escaped otherwise
than by the acquisition of Knowledge; and unless these transi-
* In reading the second part of this stauza. ' punaretyasmai '
should be broken up as 'punanii' and 'asmai\ so that the requisite
number of letters will not be found wanting. One has to do thi&
very often in reading Vedic treatises.
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FEEE WILL 407 j
tions are over, the Atman does not get true bliss, perfection,
or Release. Therefore, the summary of the advice given in
the Glta to everybody is, that one should perform not only the
sacrificial ritual etc., but also all other acts prescribed for the
four different castes, realising the identity of the Brahman
and the Atman, and with equability of mind, and unattachedly,.
so that one will keep going the cycle of Karma and at the
same time be Released ( Gi. 18. 5, 6.). It is not that a Yajna or
sacrifice is performed merely by uttering the word "idamamuka.
devatiiyai m mama" (i. e., "this is for such and such a deity and
not for me" — Trans.) with reference to some deity, and offering'
sesamum, rice, or animals into the sacrificial fire. It is more
meritorious to offer up animal tendencies like, Desire, Anger
etc., which are in everybody's body, by way of sacrifice into.
the fire of mental control in the shape of an equable frame of
mind, than to slaughter the animals themselves ( Gi. 4 33 ) >
and it is in support of this proposition, that the Blessed Lord
has said both in the Gita and in the Narayaniya-Dharma that ;
"from among the sacrifices, I am the sacrifice in the shape of
prayer", that is, the highest form of sacrifice ( Gi. 10. 25; Ma.
Bha. San. 3. 37.); and the Manu-Smrti says, that by continual
prayer a Brahmin attains Release, whether he does anything
else or not (Manu. 2. 87). The most important element in a
Yajna is the giving up of the idea of mine-ness (rnamatm) with,
reference to the object thrown into the sacrificial fire, by
uttering the words: 'na mama' (i. e., 'this is not for me'), at the
time of the throwing; and the same is the underlying import of
charity etc. Charitable gifts stand on the same footing as
sacrificial Yajfias. In short, one may say that doing a particular
Karma, in which there is no selfish purpose, with a pure frame
of mind, is a Yajna in itself. When one accepts this definition,
of a Yajfia, all acts done with a selfless and desireless frame
of mind become a great Yajfia in a comprehensive meaning,
and the doctrine of the MImamsa school that no act performed
for the purpose of a Yajfia becomes a source of bondage, which
has reference to sacrifice of wealth, applies to all desireless
actions. And as, in performing these actions, the desire of
fruit has also been given up, the man has not to move like a
shuttle between heaven and earth, and he ultimately aoquires
408 GlTl-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
the blissful state of Release, though lie may be performing all
that Karma (Gi. 3. 9). In short, although samsUra (life)
entails the performance of Karma or Yajfia, the performers fall
into two divisions, namely, those who go through life (samara)
in the manner prescribed by the Sastras, but with the desire
of reward (the orthodox ritualists), and those who go through
life with a desireless frame of mind, and merely as a duty
(the scients). And the doctrine of the Gita, is, that persons
falling in the first of these divisions, that is to say, the pure
orthodox ritualists, obtain non-permanent fruit in the shape
of heaven ete., whereas the others, that is, the Jflanins who
perform all Actions by Jnana or with a desireless frame of
mind, obtain permanent reward in the shape of Release. The
Gita nowhere asks us to give up Karma for the sake of Release.
On the other hand, it is clearly stated in the commencement
of the eighteenth chapter that the word 'tyaga'=givingup,
has been used everywhere in the Gita as meaning not the
denunciation of Action, but the Renunciation of the reward
of Action.
As the fruits of Action which are obtained by the orthodox
ritualists and by the scients following the Karma-Yoga, are
in this way different, those persons have to go to different
spheres by different paths after their death; and these paths
are respectively known as 'pitryaya ' and 'devayana' (San. 17.
15, 16) ; and these two paths are described in the eighth chapter
of the Gita on the basis of the Upanisads. The man who has
acquired Knowledge— and he must have acquired this Know-
ledge at least at the moment of death— (Gi. 2. 72) goes and
reaches the sphere of the Brahman, after his body has fallen
and has been burnt in fire, through that fire, passing through
the flames, daylight, the bright half of the month and the six
months of the ultarayaija; and as he attains Release there, he
does not take birth again and come back to this mortal world ;
but, that man, who has been a mere orthodox performer of
ritual and has not acquired Knowledge, reaches the sphere
of the Moon, through the smoke of the same fire, and through
night, and the dark half of the month, and the six months
of the daksirtayam ; and when he has enjoyed the reward of all
the meritorious Actions, which he has performed, he again
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FEEE WILL 409
returns to this world. This is the difference between the two
paths (Gl. 8. 23-27). As the Upanisads use the word'araV
(flame) instead of ' jyotih ' (flame), the first path is also called
' arciradi ', and the second path is called ' dhumradi '. When
one hears in mind the terminology that our uttarayaya (period
during which the Sun is seen moving towards the North) is
the day of the deities living on the North Pole, and our
daksinayana (when the Sun is seen moving towards the South)
is their night, it becomes quite clear that the first out of these
two paths, namely, 'arciradi' ( jyotiradi) is lighted from
beginning to end, and that the other one or the dhumradi is
one of darkness throughout. In as much as Jfiana (Know-
ledge) is an embodiment of light, and the Parabrahman is
"jyotisam jyotih" (Gl. 13. 17), i. e., "the brilliance of all
brilliance", it is only proper that the path taken by the
scients (Jnanins) after death should be lighted; and the
adjectives 'sukla ' (white) and 'krsna ' (black) used in the Glta with
reference to these two paths, mean that they are respectively
lighted and dark. The Glta. does not mention the stages sub-
sequent to the uttarayaw, but the Nirukta of Yaska contains
a description of the spheres of the Gods, the Sun, the lightning,
and the mental Purusa, which come after the uttarayaria
(Nirukta 14. 9) ; and the descriptions of the devayana given
in the various Upanisads are harmonised in the Vedanta-
Siitras in which all the subsequent stages after the vttarayana,
namely, the year (samvatsara), the spheres of the air, the Sun,
the Moon, lightning, Varuna, Indra, PrajSpati, and ultimately,
the sphere of the Brahman are described (Br, 5. 10 ; 6. 2. 15 ;
Chan. 5. 10 ; Kausl. 1. 3. ; Ve. Su. 4. 3. 1-6).
I have thus far given the description of the various stages
in the devayana and the pitryana paths ; but as the stages of the
■day, the bright half of the month, and the uttarayana among
them commonly denote Time, the questions which next arise
are whether the devayana and the pitryana have or at any time
had or had not, any reference to Time. Although the words,
■day, night, bright half of the month etc. denote Time, yet, the
other stages which are mentioned, namely, fire, flame, sphere of
air, sphere of lightning etc. do not denote Time ; and if one
believes that a scient reaches different spheres after death
410 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
according as he dies during the day or during the night, the-
importance of Jnanaal^o comes to an end. Therefore, in the
Vedanta-Sutras, the words, fire, day, uttarayana etc. are not
understood as denoting Time, but are interpreted as referring,
to the deities embodied in those ideas ; and it is stated that
these deities take the Atmans of the ritualists or of Jnanins to-
the sphere of Moon, o? the sphere of Brahman, by different,
paths (Ve. Su. 4. 2. 19-21 ; 4. 3. 4). But, there is a doubt,
as to whether or not this opinion is acceptable to the
Gita; because, not only does the Gita not mention the
subsequent stages of the uttarayaria, which do not denote
Time, but the Blessed Lord has Himself made a definite
reference to Time in mentioning the two paths, in the words-
"I shall mention to you that TIME, dying at which TIME the
Karma-Yogin returns or does not return" (Gl. 8. 23); and, there
is a statement in the Mahabharata, that when Bhisma was
lying on the bed of arrows, he was waiting for the uttarayana
that is, for the time when the Sun begins to move towards the
North, for giving up his life (Bhl. 120 ; Ann. 167). From this,,
it is clear that at some date in the past, the day, the bright
half of the month, or the uttarayaria were looked upon as proper
times for dying. Even in the Rg-Veda, where the devayam
and the pitryam are described (Rg. 10. 88, 15 ; and Br. 6. 2. 15),.
a meaning denoting Time is intended. For this and many
other reasons, I have come to the conclusion that when the
Vedic Rsis were living near the Meru or the North Pole, that is-
to Bay, near the place in the Northern hemisphere, where the
Sun is continually visible above the horizon for six months,,
the lighted period of the uttarayaw, lasting for six months,,
must have come to be considered an appropriate time for dying;
and, I have made a detailed exposition of this theory in another
work of mine. But, whatever the reason may be, there is no.
doubt that this belief is a very ancient one, and this belief has
become merged, at least indirectly if not directly, in the belief
in the two paths of the devayana or the piiryana ; nay, according
to me, one can trace the idea of these two paths to this belief.
Otherwise, there is no explanation for the fact that two words
having distinct meanings, namely, kala (Time), (Gi. 8. 23) in
one place and 'gati' (goal), or 'stW (path), (Gl. 8. 26 and 27) in,
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 4ir
another plaoe, have been used in the Bhagayadglta with reference-
to the devayana and the pitryana. In the Samkarabha9ya on the-
Vedanta-Sfitras, it is stated that the Time-denoting meaning of
the words devayana and pitryana is the one described in the Smrtis,
which is applicable only to the Karma-Yoga , and that the true-
Brahmajnanin reaches the sphere of Brahman through the light-
ed path described in the Srutis which is governed by deities ;
and in this way, the 'Time-denoting' and the 'deity-denoting'
meanings have been disposed of (Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. 4. 2. 18-21)..
But in my opinion, if one considers the original Vedanta-Sutras
themselves, the meaning given by Badarayanaoarya of the
word 'devayana as deity-denoting, by taking the words
uttarayana etc. as referring to deities, and not to Time, must have
been the one in general acceptance ; and it is not proper to believe
that the path mentioned in the Gita is an independent path-
different from this path of devayana mentioned in the Upanisads.
But, there is no necessity to go into such deep waters here; because,
although there is a difference of opinion on the question whether
the words, day, night, uttarayana etc. in the devayana and pitryana
were, from the historical point of view, originally Time-denoting
or not, yet, there is no doubt that this Time-denoting meaning
ultimately dropped out, and that these two words devayana and-
pitryana have ultimately come to commonly and definitely
mean, that whenever a man may die, and without any reference-
to the time when he dies, the Jfianin reaches the other world by
the lighted path according to his Karma, and the orthodox
ritualist reaches it by the dark paths. Therefore, whether one
considers the words 'day' and 'uttarayana' as indicative of
deities as Badarayanaoarya says, or one considers them figura-
tively as the rising stages of the lighted path, the proposition
that the ordinary meaning of those words in those contexts is-
indicative of the path followed, is not affected.
But, whether it is the devayana or the pitryana, these paths-
are obtained only by those who perform the Karma recom-
mended by the Sastras, that is, righteous Karma ; because, it ir
quite clear that though the pitryana path is of a lower order-
than the devayana path, yet, as it takes a person to the sphere
of the Moon, which is a kind of heaven, he must have performed
some righteous Action or other, prescribed by Sastras, in this-
412 GlTA-KAHASYA OS KARMA-YGGA
life in order to have deserved experiencing the happiness of
that sphere ( Gi. 9. 20-21), It is, therefore, clearly stated in
the Upanisads that those persons who do not perform in this
life even a little of the righteous Karma prescribed by the
Sastras, but are steeped in the performance of Actions which
are 'kapuya', i. e., sinful, cannot obtain either of these pathsi
and immediately after death, they either take birth in the
'tiryak' species, that is, in the species of birds, beasts etc., or
repeatedly go to the sphere of Yama, that is, to hell. This is
known as the 'Third' path ( Chan. 5. 10. 8 ; Katha. 2. 6. 7 ) ;
and it is stated even in the Bhagavadglta that purely demonian
> {amri) or sinful persons attain this low state (GI. 16. 19-21; 9.
12; Ve. 85. 3. 1. 12, 13; Nirukta 14. 9).
I have bo far explained the manner in which a human
being reaches three different states after his death, having
regard to his Karma, according to the ancient tradition of
the Vedic religion. It is true that Release is attained only by
the devayana path out of these three; yet, this Release is attained
only ultimately, after rising step by step through the various
■ stages of the wclradi(piiryana) path. This path has also the
other names of krama-mulcti' (gradual Release); and, in as
much as ultimate Release is attained by going to the sphere
of the Brahman after the fall of the body, that is, after death>
it is also called 'videha-mukti' (body less Release); but the pure
philosophy of the Absolute Self asks why it should be necessary
for the man, in whose mind the Realisation of the identity of
the Brahman and the Atman is continually present, to go
anywhere else to reach the Brahman, or to wait for death.
The Knowledge of the Brahman which is acquired by the
worship of symbols like the Sun etc. taken for worship, that
is to say, by the worship of the qualityful Brahman, is, in the
beginning, a little incomplete; because, thereby the mind
•conceives the ideas of the sphere of the Sun, or of the
sphere of the Brahman, and there is a risk of these ideas
remaining fixed in the mind, to a greater or less extent, even
at the moment of death. It is, therefore, proper to say that
in order to remove this defect and attain Release, such persons
'must go by the devayana path (Ve. Su. 4. 3. 15); because, it is a
firm dootrine of the philosophy of the Absolute Self that every
EFFECT OF KARMA, AND FREE WILL 413
man reaches after death a 'gati' (goal) which is consistent with'
the desire or 'krafu' present in his mind at the moment of death-
( Chan. 3. 14. 1 ). But, the man, in whose mind there does not .
exist the Dualistic differentiation between the Brahman and
his own Atman resulting from the worship of a qualityful
Brahman, or for any other reason ( Tai. 2. 7 ), has evidently
not to go anywhere else for attaining the Brahman, in as-
much as he is perpetually Brahman-natured, It is for this',
reason that Yajflavalkya has told Janaka in the Brhadaranyaka
(Br. 4. 4. 6) that the vital airs (praifa) of the man who has
become totally desireless, as a result of the pure Realisation
of the Brahman, do not go anywhere else — "na tasya pram
itikrarrianti brahmaiva san brahmapyeti"; — and that such a ■
person is always full of the Brahman and merged in
the Brahman; and there are statements both in the
Brhadaranyaka and the Katha Upanisads that such
a person "ATRA brahma satnasnute" (Katha. 6.14), i. e., .
"Realises the Brahman HERE"; and on the authority
of these Srutis. it is stated in the Sivagita, that it is not
necessary to leave one's place in order to obtain Release. The
Brahman is not suoh a thing that it can be said to be in a
particular place, and not to ba in a particular place (Chan.
7. 25 ; Mun. 2. 2. llj. Then, where is the necessity for the
person who has acquired complete Realisation to go to the
sphere of the Sun through the utlaraijana, by these gradual
steps, in order to attain the Brahman? "brahma veda
brahmaiva bhauati" (Mun. 3, 2. 9). i. e., "that man who has
realised the Brahman, has become the Brahman in this world ", .
that is, wherever he is ; because, in order that it should be
necessary for somebody to go to another place, the distinction
between the one place, and the other place, which depends on
Time or Space, must have remained; and these differences
oannot exist in the final, that is to say, the Non-Dual and
Supreme Realisation of the Brahman. Therefore, why should
that man, whose permanent mental state is: " yasya sarvam
atmaivu 'bhuf" (Br. 2. 4. 14) or, "sarvam khalv idaih brahma"
(Chan 3. 14.1), or "aham brahmasmi" (Br. 1,4. 10), i.e., "I
myself am the Brahman", go to another place for attaining-
the Brahman ? He is always Brahmified (brahma-bhuta). As
414 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
■stated at the end of the last chapter, there are descriptions
in the Glta itself, of such supreme scients, in such words
as follows: — " abhito brahma mrvayam vartate viditatmanam"
i(Gi. 5. 26), — since the man, who has given up the Dualistio
" feeling and Realises the nature of the Atman, has not to go
anywhere else for attaining Release, though he may have to
wait for death in order to exhaust his Commenced Karma,
the reward of Release in the shape brahma nirvana is always in
front of him; or, "iliaiva tair jitah sorgo yesam samye sthitafo
mamah" (Gi. 5. 19), i. e., "those men, in whose minds the equa-
lity of all created beings in the form of the identity of the
Brahman and the Atman is fixed, have conquered both life and
death in this world (without having to depend on the devayana
.path)" ; or, "bhutaprthagbhavam ekastham anupasyati" , i. e., "that
man for whom the diversity in the various created things has
disappeared, and who has begun to see them unified (ekastham},
that is, as of the same nature as the Paramesvara, has 'brahma
sampadyate", i. e., ' gone and joined the Brahman' " (Gi. 13. 30).
In the same way, the meaning of the words "who knows
■essentially" in the sentence "the Karma-Yogin WHO KNOWS
ESSENTIALLY the devayana and pitryarja paths, is not
■confused" which has been quoted above, seems to be "who has
Realised the ultimate form of the Brahman" (Bhag. 7. 15. 56),
This is the complete Brahmified (brahma-bhuta) state, or the
most supreme Brahml-state, and Srlmat Saihkaracarya has
stated in his Sarlraka-bhasya (Ve. Su. 4. 3. 14), that this is the
most Supreme or the most complete state of the Realisation of
the Absolute Self. Nay, in order to acquire this state, a man
must be said to have become the Paramesvara in a way ; and,
it need not be said further, that persons who have thus become
Brahmified may be said to have gone beyond the rules of what
•should be done and what should not be done in the world of
Actions; because, as the Realisation of the Brahman is always
awake in the case of these people, whatever they do is always
inspired by a pure and desireless frame of mind, that is to say,
is always free from sin or merit. As it is not necessary to
go somewhere else or to die, in order to attain the Brahman
after this state has been reached, such a Steady-in-Mind
devotee of the Brahman {(sthitaprajna brahmanistha) is known
EFFECT OF KABMA, AND FREE WILL 415
-•as 'jivan-mukta' (birth-released), (See Yo. 3. 9). Though
Buddhists do not admit the existence of the Atman or of the
Brahman, yet, they have accepted the position that this
■desireless state of a. jimn-mukta is the ultimate ideal of man;
and they have accepted this doctrine with nominal verbal
■ differences in their religious treatises (see the Appendices).
Many persons say that as this ultimate self-lesB state is
naturally antagonistic to the ordinary Actions of life, the man,
who has reached this state, automatically escapes Karma and
becomes an ascetic (samnyasin). But, as will be seen from the
exposition in the next chapter, this position is not accepted by
the Gita ; and the doctrine of the Gita is that it is more proper
for the Birth-released man to go on performing all Actions,
till he dies, desireless] y, and for the public benefit, as is done
by the Paramesvara himself. This doctrine of the Gita has
.■also been accepted in the Yoga-vasistha (Yo. 6. TJ, 199).
CHAPTER XI.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA,
( SAMNYASA AND KARMA-YOGA ).
sanmyasah karmayogas ca nihsreyasakarauubhau I
tayos hi hirmasamnyasat karmayogo visisyate II *
Glta, 5. 2,
I have, in the last chapter, considered in detail the position
that there is only one way, in which one can escape the toils
of eternal Karma, by Realising by personal experience the
Parabrahman, which exists homogeneously in all created
things ; as also the questions whether man is or is not free to<
Realise that immortal Brahman, and how he should perform'
the transient affairs or Actions in the Maya-world in order to-
obtain that Realisation ; and I drew the conclusions, that
bondage is not the characteristic feature of Action, but of
the Mind; and that, therefore, by performing these Actions
with a pure, that is, with a disinterested frame of mind,,
after having by means of mental control gradually
reduced the Attachment which one has for the result of
the fruit of Action, the Realisation of the Atman, in the shape
of an equable frame of mind, gradually saturates the
corporeal organs, and complete Release is ultimately obtained.
In this way, I have answered the question as to what is
required to be done as being the means for acquiring the
highest of ideals in the shape of Release, or the perfect state
* " Renunciation (samnyasa) and Energism (karma- yoga) are
both ruhbreyasakara, i. e., productive of Release ; but out of the two.
Adherence to Action (liarma-yoya) is superior to the Renunciation
\ot Action (karma-samnyasa)". The meaning, in "which the word
^' samnyasa' nBed in the first line iB to be taken, becomes clear from
the phrase ' htrma sarhnyasa ' used in the second line. These
questions and answers from the Gxta are found adopted at the
beginning of the fourth chapter of the GraneSaglta, and there, the
present verse has been given with a slight verbal difference as,.
" kriyayogo viyogab capy ubhau moixasya sadhane | layor madkye kriyS'
yogas tyagat tasya tiiiijyaie II ".
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 417
according to the philosophy of the Absolute Self. We have
now to consider the most important question, whether after
having thus broken the bondage of Karma and fully Realised
the Brahman, as a result of the purification of his Mind arising
from his having acted in this way, that is, from his having
performed Desireless Actions according to his own capacity
and status, a scient or Steady-in-Mind ( sthitaprujna ) should
subsequently, that is, when being in the state of a Perfect
{siddha), continue performing Action, or, looking upon himself
as one who has performed all that was to be performed,
because he has acquired all that was to be acquired, consider
all Actions in the world of Illusion as useless and inconsistent
with Knowledge, and totally give them up ; because, logically
speaking, in such a situation, both the positions of totally
abandoning Action (karma-samnyasa), and performing those
Actions upto death with a desireless frame of mind {karma-
yoga), are possible; and, as it is more convenient to chalk out
one's course of action consistently with that mode of life which
is the better of the two, from the very beginning, that is to-
say, while one is training onself ( swihunamxtha ), no
Metaphysical exposition on Action and Non-Action becomes
complete, unless one comparatively considers both these modes
of life. It would not have been sufficient to say to Arjuna
that after the Realisation of the Brahman, it is just the same
whether one performs or does not perform Action (Gl. 3. 18) on
the ground that a man, whosB Reason has become equable
towards all created beings as a result of Knowledge, is not
affected by the merit or demerit of any Action (Gi. i. 2J, 21),
since Reason is superior to Action in all the affairs of life.
The definite injunction of the Blessed Lord to Arjuna was:
"Fight"! ( yudhyasva!), (Gi. 2. 18); and it would be necessary to
adduce some cogent reasons in support of this firm advice
rather than placing before him the indecisive advice that it was-;
just the same whether he fought or did not fight after he had
acquired Realisation. Nay, the doctrine of the Gita has come
into existsnce only in order to explain why a wise man must
perform a particular act, notwithstanding that he sees before
his eyeB the terrible consequenoes of it; and this is indeed the
most important feature of the Gita. If it is true that a man is
53—54
418 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
bound by Action, whereas, he gets salvation by Knowledge,
why should the person, who has acquired Knowledge, at all
perform Action? Though the doctrines, that destruction of
Karma [karma-ksaya) does not mean Abadonment of Action,
that Action is annihilated by its being performed after one has
given up the hope for the Fruit of the Action, and that it is
not possible to give up every kind of Action etc., are true, yet,
it does not thereby conclusively follow, that one should not
give up as much of Action as one can; and logically thinking,
suoh a conclusion does arise. Because, as has been stated in
the Gita, in the same way as it is no more necessary to go to a
well for water, when water is to be found in all directions, so
also has a scient no more to depend on Action for anything,
after he has acquired that Knowledge, which can he acquired
by the performance of Action (Gl. 2. 46), Therefore, Arjuna
has said to Sri Krsna in the commencement of the third
chapter as follows: if in Your opinion the desireless or equable
frame of mind is superior to Action, I shall make my Reason
pure like that of a Sthitaprajua; why do You compel me to
perform a terrible act like war" ? (Gl. 3. 1), In reply to this
question, the Blessed Lord has Baid that no one can escape
Action etc., and in that way justified the doctrine of Action.
But, if philosophy has prescribed the two paths of Sarhkbya
(Renunoiation) and Energism (Karma-Yoga), it follows
naturally that after the acquisition of Knowledge, a man
may follow whichever path he considers better. Therefore, in
the commencement of the fifth chapter, Arjuna has again said
to the Blegsed Lord that He should not mis up the two courses
of life, but should explain to him (Arjuna) in a definite way
which of the two was superior (Gl, 5. 1) ; if, after the acquisition
of Knowledge, it was just the same whether Action was
performed or not performed, he would perform Action or not
perform it as he liked ; but, if performing Action was the
better course of the two, the Blessed Lord should tell him the
reason why that was so, so that, he would act according to His
directions. This question of Arjuna is not something new.
In the Yoga-Vasistha (5. 56. 6), Rama has asked the same
question to Vasistha, and in the Ganesagita (4. 1) the king
named Varenya has asked the same question to Ganesa ; and it
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 419
<even appears from the works of Aristotle that this question
had been raised in very ancient times in Europe in Greece,
-where philosophical ideas first originated. This same question
hag been raised at the end of the book on Ethics written by
•this well-known Greek philosopher (10. 7 and 8) ; and he has,
in the first instance, expressed his opinion that true happiness
•consists in a scient spending his life in the quiet contemplation
on philosophy instead of in the ups and downs of life (sanisara)
or of political activity. Yet, in the book written by him
subsequently on Politics (7. %. and 3), Aristotle himself says : —
some philosophers are engrossed in thoughts of philosophy and
others in political activities ; and if one considers whioh of
these two modes of life is better, one must say that both the
paths are to a certain extent proper ; nevertheless, it would be
wrong to say that Non-Action is better than Action, * because,
'happiness is nothing but Action; and one may safely say that
the acquisition of true nobility consists to a considerable extent
of Action founded on Knowledge and the principles of Ethics.
From the fact that Aristotle has made two different statements
in two different places, the importance of the clear statement
in the Gita that "karma jyayo hy alcarmayah" (Gl. 3. 8)—
ACTION IS SUPERIOR TO NON-ACTION-becomes clear
to the reader. Augusta Comte, a well-known French philo-
sopher of the last century says in his book on Material
Philosophy that :— "it is misleading to say that it is better to
spend one's life in the contemplation of philosophy ; and
the philosopher, who adopts such a course of life, and abandons
the doing of whatever public welfare it is possible for him to
do, must be said to misuse the material which is at his
disposal". On the other hand, the German philosopher
Schopenhauer has maintained that in as much as all the
activities of the world, nay, even keeping alive itself, is
painful, the true duty of every human being in this world is to
learn philosophy and to destroy all this Action as early as
possible. Comte died in 1857 A. D. and Schopenhauer in 1860
* "And it iB equally a mistake to plaz& inactivity above action, for
happiness is activity, and the actions of the just and the wise are
the realisation of much that is noble". (See Aristotle's Politics
trans, by Jowett. Vol. I. p. 212. The italics are ours).
420 GIT&-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
A. D. The school of Schopenhauer has been continued in
Germany by Hartmann. It need not be said that the English
philosophers Spencer, Mill, and others are of the same opinion
aB Comte. But the modern Materialistic philosopher Nietzsche
has gone beyond all these philosophers, and he has in his works
so severely criticised those who are for giving up Action, that
according to him, it is not possible to refer to the supporters of
Renunciation ( karma-samnyasa) by any milder terms than
'fools of fools'. *
Just as in Europe there have been two schools of thought
from the time of Aristotle upto the present day, so also, have
there been two modes of life according to the Vedic religion
in India from ancient times upto the present day (Ma. Bha.
San. 349. 72). Out of these two, one course is known as the
Samnyasa-Marga or Sarhkhya-nistha or merely SAMKHYA
or Jnana-nistha (because, it consists of being continually
steeped in Knowledge); and the other path is known as the
Karma-Yoga or shortly YOGA or Karma-nistha. I have
already in the third chapter clearly explained that the
words Samkhya and Yoga do not respectively indicate the
Kapila-samkhya and the Patafijala-yoga. But, in as much as,
the word 'samnywsa' is also rather ambiguous, it is necessary
to explain its meaning here more fully. The word ' samnyasa '
does not in this place mean 'not marrying', or 'giving up
wife and children and wearing saffron-coloured robes ', in case
* 8ully has in his book Pessimism given the names 'Optimism'
and 'Pessimism' respectively to Karma-Yoga and Karma-Tyaga
(Samkhya or Kenunriation). But, in my opinion, these names are
not correct. 'Pessimism' implies the meaning of < whiner ' or
'despondent'. But those persons who give up wordly life, looking
upon it as trauBH-ntj are joyful; and though they give up Buch life,
they do so joyfully Therefore, it is not correct, according to me, to
refer to them as 'P. ssiraists'. Bather than that, it would be more
proper to refer to Kerma-Yoga in English as 'Energism', and to the
Samkhya or the Samnyasa path as 'Quietism'. As Knowledge of
the Brahman is common to boih these paths according to the Vedic
religion, happiness or peace is the same according to both; we do
not make the difference that ons path leads to happiness and the
other to unhappine?s, or that one is hopeful and the other hopeless.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 431
one has married, or ' merely adopting the fourth stage of life '.
Because, though Bhisma was a celibate, he was taking part
in politics till the moment of his death ; and Srlmat Sarh-
karacarya, after passing to the fourth state straight from the
iirst state of celibacy, or in the Maharastra, Sri Samartha
Ramadasa, remaining a celibate mendicant for life, have
brought about the salvation of the world by spreading
Knowledge. The crucial point in the present place is whether
after having acquired Knowledge, a man should take part in
all the activities of the world aa duties and for public welfare,
or should entirely give them up, looking upon them as
illusory. He who takes part in these activities is the Karma-
Yogin, whether he has married or has not married, and whether
he wears white clothes or saffron-coloured clothes. Nay, for
performing these activities, it is sometimes more convenient
to remain unmarried or to wear saffron-coloured robes, or to go
and live outside the town ; because, by doing so, there is no
obstruction in the way of applying one's whole time and
energy to public welfare, as it does not entail the worry
jof maintaining a family. Though such persons may be
ascetics according to the dress which they wear, yet, essentially
they are Karma-Yogins ; but on the other hand, such persons
as look upon all worldly activities as useless, and abandon
them and sit quiet, may be said to be asoetics, whether they
have entered the fourth state of life or not. In short, the Glta
does not attach importance to white clothing or saffron-
coloured clothing or to marriage or celibacy, but considers
only whether the scient takes or does not take part in worldly
activities, in differentiating between Renunciation and Ener-
gism. All other things are of no importance, at any rate
according to the religion of the Glta. The words ' karma-
smhnyasa ' or ' karma-tyaga ' would be more appropriate and
unambiguous in the present plaoe than 'samnyasa' (Renun-
ciation) or 'calwthasrama ' (the fourth state). But, as it is
more usual to use the single word 'sanmyasa' rather than the
two words mentioned above, I have here explained the
-technical meaning of that word. Those, who consider worldly
.activities as fruitless, give up worldly life ; and, entering the
forests, take to the fourth state of life, according to the Smrti
iU GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
religion ; and, therefore, this path of Abandonment of Action,
is called 'Samnyasa'. But, the important factor in that
procedure is the Abandonment of Action, and not the saffron-
coloured robes.
Though it is thus usual either to continue the performance of
Action (Karma-Yoga) or to abandon Action (Karma-Sarhnyasa),
after the complete acquisition of Knowledge, doctrine-
supporting commentators on the Gita have in this place raised
the question whether both these paths are equally independent
and in a position to give Release, or whether the Karma-Yoga,
is the preliminary or first step, and one has ultimately to
abandon Action, and renounce the world in order to attain
Release. It is seen that these two courses of life have been
mentioned as independent paths in the second and third
chapters of the Gita. But those commentators, in whose opinion
it is impossible to attain Release unless a man renounces the
world and abandons the ordinary activities of life, — and who-
have started commenting on the Gita with the preconceivei
notion that that must be the doctrine propounded by the Gita—
pronounce the sum and the substance of the Gita to be thafc
"Kaima-Yoga, is not an independent path of obtaining Release;,
that one must, in the beginning, perform Actions in order to>
purify the mind, but ultimately go in for Renunciation ; and that
Renunciation is the paramount and the ultimate cult." But
if this meaning is adopted, then the importance of the word,
'dvividha' (two-fold) in'the statement of the Blessed Lord that
the Sarhkhya (Samnyasa) and Yoga (Karma-Yoga) are two
kinds of cults in this world ( Gl. 3. 3), is lost. The word
'Karma- Yoga' can be interpreted in three different ways : (l^
according to the first interpretation, Release is obtained by
performing the Karma laid down by the Srutis and the Smrtis,
or the duties of the four castes, such as sacrifice etc. But this
interpretation of the Mlmarhsa school is not acceptable to the
Gita (2. 45); (2) the second meaning is, that Action should be
performed, but only for the purification of the Mind, in' aB
much as the performance of Action (Karma-Yoga) is essential
for the purification of the Mind. According to this interpreta-
tion, Karma-Yoga becomes the anterior part or the preliminary
preparation for the Renunciation (Samnyasa) state. But thfe
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA. 423
is not the Karma-Yoga mentioned in the Gita. (3) The
important question in the Glta is, whether or not a scient, who
has Realised in what the benefit of his Self lies, should go on
performing till death the worldly Actions, prescribed for the .
caste to which he belongs, such as, fighting etc.; and the
Karma-Yoga described in the Glta is, that even a scient, who
has acquired Knowledge, must perform the Actions prescribed
for the four castes with a distinterested frame of mind
(Gi. 3.55); and it can never be a preliminary preparation for
Renunciation; because, in this path, a man can never abandon
Action, and the only question is of obtaining Release. But,
the Gita clearly says that in as much as Knowledge has already
been acquired by the man, Desireless Action does not become a
source of bondage; and that the Release which can be obtained
by Renunciation, can also be obtained by this Karma-Yoga
(Gi. 5. 5.) Therefore, the words: "ioke smin dvividha mstha" in
the Gita (Gi. 3. 3) must be interpreted as indicating that the
path of Karma-Yoga taught by the Gita is not a preparation
for Renunciation, but that both these paths are equally good
(tulyahala), from the point of view of Release, after Realisation
has come (Gi. 8. 2). That is why the Blessed Lord has disting-
uished between these two paths in the latter half of the stanza
(Gi. 3. 3) by saying: "jnanayogem samkhyanam karma-yogena
yoginam" ( i. e. "the path for Release followed by Samkhyas is
the Jnana-Yoga, and that followed by Yogins is the Karma-
Yoga"-Trans.); and the two words 'anye' (the one) and 'apare' (the
other) in the line "anye samkhyena yogena karma-yogena capare"
in the thirteenth chapter, do not become appropriate unless
these two paths are considered independent ( Gi. 13. %i).
Besides, if one considers the history given in the Mahabharata
of the Narayaniya doctrine, from which the Activistic path
(Yoga) has been adopted into the Glta, the same proposition is
confirmed, The origin of these two paths has been described
in the Mahabharata by saying that after the Blessed Lord
had, in the beginning of the world, directed Hiranyagarbha,
that is, Brahmadeva, to create the world, the seven mind-born
sons, Marici and others, came into existence from him; and
these seven sons adopted YOGA, that is the Activistic {pravrtti)
path of Action for properly carrying out the work of creation ;
Mi <cM&-Bjm&WA <m KM»-Y©S.&
£.8ij@.a, sail .pt'nws talk up libs &MKHTYA, itat ik„ iSa IRsjkk
■af JRBWflclialSSsWi ihbiivH'h') .feiftSJJ Mnfit; smrfl lata 'an, at, its .likasiff
#atocl iptiai;, fr'piu siw -j»fe>t rf «ew ijjf Itefease, iktt Abbs wife
>iir:« ^Quajiy v.ssrfc'H 'tivUrAdul, Stat fe to hsj., "fiag 1 are iffiSsHalt
*j'a'.u .a&jih. lyjiuty ^j.aci jjudv^iifesS, «»3 ?»tEr&teiuSy (MzpsTilte rf
I'jSftSgitig iibpiiij, itiuf sAtsistiaskaui' w i'mv iifli! ^ie «aas JiasmiEiB-
s-yaw-a fc ik? it\uv.:.' itf rtUs vssj.cWra {KLs.. "Sin Baa. $4*'. "■•&• SS.
■$?-" ?.!. :1c 5, as «i,v:.b W'ST , a distitsittttfe iass Iftfirs sa&Ss bstjraaa
Hfejuyatga/Mta. as tiis fcupswlsr stf nfes Ajsjf'Afe jRsiEi and
KajpEa as to :J'rt.«!i6Ki¥j- as j/ta SaanStSijS. PaSa, sad ii is
WJWhwi esteiteni iiLat J&aBf.agartta !»ter -35a gaTe ag fife
ij?ii'j;iBita«i»* -i>5 A'Afco.. Oe tts Miter aatai- at as ssakal
(tat ifaj Jifeiwad f.i-.>r,d ensdeA ifiS» 'irysb- rf T-sjiuas in
Site silisjjf; «£ Esi'-aa, if; 'j»fe to tsep giissg tiMhan a iiids
all ?.h« a'Sivhlti* <.-J si 71 .:-. wssiti.'Ma, arf .SirasieQ HiraqfagscrHiia,
as also te ol'aw g'/fe, iiu tew tM? cycle oaEiiij-re&Ejr JHCTiiig.
< Sis, Bias, 4a;;.. 3VX *i-JS sad 339, wl 5T>. From fti, ft is
f&hahtfah?L I'sy.o.'.'i dwvt ifaaA SafflHsya snd Yog's, ae two
m^miMl'j ifc(fej«;jferjf, /ni«3^s of life. It *w«l tiUs d=- seen
th&t fes aiiism^t .of fcwa* ivtomesiiMoTS on fee GiS to mate
<*jt tiLat tS)« &a /ma- Yoga !« iofe-riw, Is fee zesali a: a,iia-
'Jitfoflary UiishUiMx; -ciA ihattte gtatemfent wearrinj; erery
r»w and ton In tose oorHrrieiifcariss that the Xansa-Yoga
i« tnerclf a nwdfani lor tke acqiikitiioa of Knowledge, or for
R«mtKir4tk>f!, fij >;anetMflg, which these comnKntators Bay
uf tbtiif own tiwjwl, and wbieb is not boine out by the <a.
In wiy opinion, tliin Ik th« greatest fault of tboge conmifentatois
on the QltA who Bupport the Path of HenuEoiation ; and unless
tiiln dootrifni-wippoiting point of view of the commentatore is
#ivfifi up, the true and mystic import of the Gita can never be
Malifwsd.
It 1h not enough to say that Karma-Samnyasa and Karmar
Vo^a aro individually equally productive of Release, and that
olio ifi not thfe preliminary part of the other; because, if both
theBe paths are equally productive of Release, it follows that
one may adopt whichever path he likes ; and then, instead of
arriving at the conclusion that he must fight, Arjuna would
have the choice of the two paths of fighting, or renouncing
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 425
the world instead of fighting, after he had acquired Knowledge
by the advice of the Blessed Lord. Therefore, Arjuna has
asked the natural and straight question, namely, "tell me
in a definite way which of these two pathB is more proper "
(Gi. 5. 11), so that it would be easy for him to act aocording to
that path. Arjuna having asked this question in the
beginning of the fifth chapter, the Blessed Lord has immedia-
tely in the next verse given a clear answer to it, namely,
"though the Path of Renunciation, and the Path of Karma-
Toga are both equally productive of Release (nihsreya&a),
yet, out of these two paths THE WORTH OR IMPORTANCE
OF KARMA-TOGA IS GREATER ( oisisyate)", (Gi. 5. 3);
and I have designedly quoted this stanza at the beginning of
this chapter. It is not that these are the only words in the
Glta which support the superiority of Karma-Toga. There are
several other statements in the Glta which contain that advice
to Arjuna, such as, : — "tasmad yogaya yujyasm" (GI. 2. 50),
i. e., "therefore, adopt the Karma-Toga" ; or, "ma te samgo
'sloakarmam" (Gi. 2. 47), i. e,, "do not insist on not perform-
ing Actions"; or,
yastv indriyani manasa myamyarabhate 'rjuna I
Icarmendriyaih karma-yogam asaktah so. itisisyate n
(Gi. 3.7.)
that is, instead of abandoning Action, "controlling the organs
by the Mind, and using the organs of Action for performing
Actions with a desireless frame of mind is VISESA
(more IMPORTANT), ( visisyate )" ; because, in any casei
"karma jyayo by akarmanah", i. e., "Action is SUPERIOR
(sredlia) to Inaction" (Gi. 3. 8) ; "therefore, go on performing
Actions" (Gi. 4. 15) ; or, "yogamatixtlwttistha" (Gi. 4. 2), i. e.»
"accept the Path of (Karma-)Toga and stand up to fight" ; or
"(yogi)jnanibhyo 'pimato 'dhikah",i.s., "the merit of the (Karma-)
Yogin is more (adhihahj than that of the Jnana-margin (of
Saiimyasa)" ; or, "tasmad yogi bliavarjima" (Gi. 4. 6), i. e„
"therefore, O Arjuna, become a (Karma-) Togin" ; or, "mam
anusmara yudhya ca" (Gi.8. 7), i.e., "think of me and fight" etc,
etc.; and in that advice the clear words 'JYAYAH't
'ADHIKAR', ' VISISYATE' have been used in order to show
426 GITA.-RAHA.SYA OB KARMA-YOGA
that the merit of Karma-Yoga is higher than that of Renuncia-
tion or Non-Action. And even in the summing up in the 18th.
chapter, the Blessed Lord has again said (Gi. 18, 6, 7) that, "it.
is my DEFINITE and BETTER opinion that it is not proper
to abandon those Actions which have been prescribed, and that,
one must always perform Actions without being attached to
them". From this, it is established beyond doubt, that accord-
ing to the Gita,, Karma-Yoga is superior to Renunciation.
But how will this doctrine of the Glta be appreciated by
these commentators, whose doctrinal opinion is that Renuncia-
tion or Devotion is the ultimate and most superior duty, and that
Karma is merely a means for the purification of the Mind, and
not the principal ideal or duty? It is not that they had not
seen that the Glta has clearly given a higher importance to
Karma-Yoga than to Renunciation ; but, if they aocepted this
opinion as correct, their doctrines would become inferior ; and,
therefore, these doctrine-supporting commentators have
experienced considerable difficulty in disposing of the question
put by Arjuna, and the answer given to it by the Blessed Lord,
in the beginning of the fifth chapter, though they are both-
clear, logical, and unambiguous. Their first difficulty has
been that the question ay to which one out of the two paths,
namely, Action or Inaction, is superior, does not arise, unless
both these paths are considered independent; because, if, as
these commentators say, Karma-Yoga is only a preliminary
preparation for Jnana or Knowledge, it naturally follows that
the preliminary part is inferior, and that Jnana or Samnyasa
is superior ; and then, there would remain no room for Arjuna
to ask the question he asked ; but, if it is admitted that the
question was a proper one, it becomes necessary to admit that
these two paths are independent; and, if that admission is made,
the position that the Path of Renunciation supported by them
is the only path which leads to Release, becomes untenable !
Therefore, they have first passed judgment that the question
asked by Arjuna was itself not proper ; and they have made up
their minds to say the same thing about the reply of the
Blessed Lord ! But, even after this struggle, the clear answer-
given by the Blessed Lord to Arjuna that: "the merit or
superiority of the Karma-Yoga is GREATER (visesa)",{Orl 5. %)»
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 427
cannot be satisfactorily explained ; and, therefore, these com-
mentators have gone to the length of laying down, on their
own hook, and contrary to the anterior and posterior context,
that the statement "karm-yogo visisyate", i. e., "the superiority
of Karma- Yoga is greater," is a fallow praise of the Karma-
Yoga, or merely an artha-vada ( See. p. 31 above — Trans.); and
that, even according to the Blessed Lord, the Path of Renuncia-
tion is better ; and they have, in this way attempted to satisfy
themselves (Gl. Sam. Bha. 5. % ; 6. 1, 2 ; 18. 11). Not only in
the Sarhkarabhasya, but also in the Ramanujabhasya has this
stanza been interpreted as being a mere praise of the Karma-
Yoga and an obiter dicta (artha-vada), (Gi. Ra. Bha. 5. 1) ;
because, although Ramanujacarya was not a Non-Dualist, yet,
as in his opinion Devotion was the principal ideal, Karma-Yoga
became merely a means for Devotion based on Knowledge (Gi.
Ra. Bha; 3.1). My readers will see how the meaning in the
original is stretched and mutilated, where the original work
and the commentators support different doctrines, and the
commentators begin to comment on the original in the firm
belief that the doctrine supported by them is borne out by the
original. Were not Sri Krsna or Sri Vyasa in a position to
clearly say to Arjuna in plain Sanskrit : "0 Arjuna, your
question is improper" ? But as, instead of doing so, it has been
stated in numerous places that "Karma-Yoga is superior", one
has to say that the doctrine-supporting interpretation, which
has been put on the stanza by these commentators, is incorrect;
and if one refers to the previous and the subsequent context,
this inference is fortified. Because, it is stated in various
places in the Gita, that the scient does not abandon Action, but
performs all Actions with a disinterested frame of mind after
attaining Realisation. (Gi. 2. 64; 3. 19 ; 3. 25; 18. 9). Srimat
Sarhkaracarya has, in his Sarhkarabhasya, in the beginning
raised the question whether Release is obtained by means of
Knowledge, or by the combination of Knowledge and Action i
and he has expounded the import of the Gita as being that
Release is obtained by Knowledge alone, by the destruction of!
Karma resulting from Knowledge, and that Karma is not
necessary for Realisation ; and, he has from this drawn the]
subsequent inference, that the Blessed Lord must be considered
428 GITA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
to have accepted the position in the Gita, that even according
to the Gita, Karma becomes meaningless when once the Mind
has been purified, as Karma is not necessary for obtaining
Release; and that as Karma is inherently binding or
inconsistent with Knowledge, a scient must give up (Action
after acquiring Knowledge. That school of thought which says
that even after having acquired Knowledge, a man must
perform Action, is known as the Knowledge- Action (jmm-
karmasamuccaya) school, and the above-mentioned argument of
Sri Sarhkaracarya is the principal argument against it. The
same argument has been accepted even by Madhvacarya (Gl
Ma. Bha. 3. 31). But from my point of view, this argument
is neither satisfactory nor unanswerable ; because (1) although
Desire-prompted (kamya) Actions are binding and contra-indica-
ted for Knowledge, the same reasoning does not apply to Desire-
less {niskuma) Actions ; and (2) although Action may not be
necessary for obtaining Release after having acquired
Knowledge, that does not negative the proposition that a scient
must, for other cogent reasons, perform Desireless Action,
though he has obtained Realisation. It is not that Karma has
come into existence only for the purpose of purifying the Mind
of those who desire Release, nor that that is the sole object of
Karma. Therefore, one may say, that a scient has to perform
the various activities in the world of Karma, which are
appropriate for him according to his status in life, for other
reasons than the obtaining of Release. I have in this chapter,
later on, considered in detail, what these reasons are. For the
moment, I will only say that the doctrine of the Gita was
expounded for the sole purpose of explaining these reasons to
Arjuna, who was desirous of becoming an ascetic ; and one
cannot draw the inference that the Gita supports the Path of
Renunciation, by arguing that after the purification of the
Mind, performance of Action is not necessary for obtaining
Release. It is true that the followers of Samkaracarya hold
that after the acquisition of Knowledge, one must renounoe
the world and give up Action ; but on that account it does
not follow, that the same is the teaching of the Gita, or that
one has to interpret the Gita in a manner consistent with
the doctrines laid down by Sarhkarlcarya or some other
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 4!59
doctrinaire, after first taking it for granted that the doctrine
expounded by Samkaracarya or such other doctrinaire,
is the only true doctrine. It has been definitely laid
down in the Gita that even after the acquisition of
of Knowledge, it is better to perform Action than to renounce
the world ; then you may call it a different school of thought
or give it some other name. Still, it must be borne in mind
that, although according to the Gita, Energism (Karma-Yoga)
is in this way stated to be superior, the Gita does not maintain
like other schools, whioh oannot endure a different philosophy,
that the Path of Renunciation is altogether objectionable; and
nowhere in the Gita has any disrespect being shown for that
path. On the other hand, the Blessed Lord has clearly stated
that both the Path of Rsnunciation and the Path of Energism
or Action (Karma- Yoga) equally lead to Release, that is to say,
that they are both of the same value from the point of view of
Release; and later on, the Blessed Lord has stated that "ekam
samkhyam ca yogam ca yah pasyati sa pasyali" ( Gl. 5. 5), i. e.,
"that man who has realised that both these paths are of equal
value, has realised the true principle", as also that even in the
'Karma- Yoga,' one has to make a 'Renunciation ' of the hope for
the fruit of Aotion — "na hy asamnyasla samkalpo yogi bhavati
has ca m" ( Gl. 6. 2), (i. e., "unless a man performs a santnyasa
Ifyaga) of the saihkalpa, that is, of the hope of reward, born of a
desireful mind, he does not become a (Karma-) Yogin" — Trans.)
and He has in this way skilfully harmonised as far as possible
these two paths. But, though from the point of view of
Release, the two paths of either abandoning Karma or continuing
to perform Karma after acquiring Knowledge (and not before) ■
may be of the same value, yet, from the point of view of
worldly affairs, the most superior mode of life is to keep the
Renunciation in the Mind itself, and to go on performing
lifelong the Action whioh is beneficial to the world, through
the medium of the bodily organs; because, the Blessed Lord has
definitely said that in such a mode of life, both Renunciation
and Action find a place ; and Arjuna has, according to thiB
advice, become ready to fight. This is really the difference
between the scient (jnaain) and the ignorant (ajnania). jK one
considers only the sarira-karma, that is, the Actions whioh are no
©tra.-*&&&$S A « E&MMA-^g&g&
-»*».: "iisi ats igaEssad lKebcgi jpafiyssffiE itan wSih sai ssaiiifflfi
fistesete., aadi flbs stasnA, waiBi sa ^isaaiaidieii Saaaaa :;:&! I , i%
TKe daoaurjaas at ihi '&Tla. faas Ik™ sspanEsfeifi ibjr tSqe dri*z.sriislt
-jiiaitfe, "wfe; Atnifra* irs jsE&HEiaaS % Mas waff eess. jraie
Jri fe BoiSj is tfe sacfi, fait Sue Miail is SSaeni"'..
Eccffls sasibj ssgscafcas <s£ Sb ~Ps& of BfflHmmriaiiaE ga
jjmrsies se& saysu'Ms asiftet fifest: "%. isiara© il.arfe tSiia
ajfefce Jjijees. s r J jjwfenm JjrfEss: imft. i&fe ates ms swan
"by fes BisssaS IotS, lease® be huh! fee fast Ssa Asfnaa
Bsa scJl B-"i &zqxl&A Skmsria^gia, ara3 was at cily far
lpafomiiiiig Adieus issr jmsMyhas ife HEbA Tie- paih af
ifflcrarB-&/aoir {AJBax.iEJEHri its Asfea) is tfc? psswar 'Metbs in
the state cf a .«&i/si r'PfnssM- stisb aeairiiang to ihe Blessed
Lerf*'. Eat, this imses ifei fee BlsaseS Los5 feared that
it Ms tad M4 Axjssa that Is was isiKSfaaii, te i Aijasay wisuM
"ha?© insisted on aoqjnfcfcg cojaplese Knowledge, as was dace %
Uaeiteta in the K&iicpssfcad; aad ttea He (ihs Blsssed Lord)
wonM hare to Initiate Arjtjua into lie complete luacwledge,
awi -when flue ccasplsie EjHSwledg* had Wn impaired, Is
(Arfffaa) would giTft up war-faie and beKsiae an asesrie, and
upssi His {the Biassed Lard's) plans afcsai rhe war: and that,
the Blessi&d Lord exp«j»inaed rhe Gljs to Ms most teloted
derotfeg, in oraa - to deceive him. In say (pinion, oas saEoot
do better tiac gire up all argnmenr with persons wao, in
order to he able 10 snppcin their own doctriBB, sicop 50 low
as to suggest that the Blessed Lord was guilty of Sue's 3 mean
action as to deceive His own helctYed disciple. Bat ic arfer
that ordinary people should not. he taken in hy this deceptive
argument, I say that. Sri Kreia had not to he afraid of
anyone, if He had wanted to say Arjnaa in clear terms : " you
are ignorant, and therefore, you must go od performing
Actions"; and if after that, Arjnna had become rebeEioas,
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA. 431
the Blessed Lord was quite capable of keeping him in
ignorance, and making him fight according to his inherent
tendencies [prakrti-dharma), (G-I. IS. 59 and 61); but instead of
doing so, He has over and over again explained to Arjuna the
meaning of !jna?ia' and ' cijnana' (Qi. 7, 2; 9. 1; 10. 1; 13. 2i
14. 1), and at the end of the fifteenth chapter, He has said to
Arjuna: "by understanding this science, a man becomes a
scient, and a perfect being (Gi. 15. 23) ; and having in this
way made of Arjuna a complete scient, the Blessed Lord has
made him fight of his own free will (Gi. 18. 63). From this, it
becomes abundantly clear that the best mode of life for a scient
according to the BleBsed Lord, is to continue to perform Action
■desirelessly, even after having acquired Knowledge. Besides,
even if Arjuna is, for the sake of argument, looked upon as
ignorant, one cannot say that Janaka and other ancient Karma-
Yogins, as also the Blessed Lord Himself, whose illustrations
have been given by the Blessed Lord in support of His doctrine,
were all ignorant. Therefore, one has to say that this fallow
argument, based on a doctrinal insistence, is totally improper
and objectionable, and that the Glta has expounded nothing
but the doctrine of Action combined with Knowledge.
It has become necessary for me to go in for this intro-
duction, in order to show that the two paths of Abandonment
•of Action (Samkhya) and Energism (Karma-Yoga) were in
vogue from times immemorial, not only in our country, but
in other countries ; and to show how and why doctrine-
supporting commentators have perversely dealt with the
the two important doctrines of the Glta on this subject,
namely that, (1) these two paths are independent, that is, not
inter-dependent, from the point of view of Release ; and are
of equal value ; and that one is not a part of the other ; and
that, (2) out of these two, Karma-Yoga is the superior path,
though these doctrines are quite clear by themselves. I will
now consider the subject-matter of the present chapter, namely,
the reasons which have been given in the Glta for proving that
even in the state of Perfection, the path of Karma- Yoga, that
is, of performing Actions till death with a desireless frame of
mind, is more meritorious than Abandonment of Action. Some
■of these matters have been explained by me in the chapter on
432 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
Happiness and Unhappiness (sukha-duhkha-viveka) above ; but f
as the argument in that chapter was restricted to the question
of happiness and unhappiness, it was not possible for me to
fully deal with this subject-matter there. I have, therefore,
started this independent chapter here. I have explained in th»
last chapter that the Vedic religion is divided into the Karma-
kanda and Jnana-kanda, and shown what the difference between
the two, is. Out of them, there are directions in the Karma-
kanda, that is, in the Sruti texts, such as, the Brahmanas, and
partly also in the Upanisad texts, that every man, be he a Brah-
min or a Ksatriya, must maintain a sacred fire, and perform the
'jyotistoma' and other sacrificial ritual according to his own
status; and there also clear statements that it is the duty of
every one to marry and increase his generation. See for
instance, the statements: "etad vai jaramaryam satram ,jjad
agnihotram", i. e„ "this sacrifice in the shape of the sacrificial
Are {aynihotm) must be kept alive till death" (Sa. Bra. 12. 4. 1. 1); .
or "prajutantum ma iryavatchhetsih." . i. e. "do not break the
thread of thy generation" (Tai. U. 1. 11. 1); or "isaiiasyam idam
sarvam", i. e., "whatever is in this world, should be located'
into the Paramasvara, that is to say, one should realise that it
is of the Paramesvara and not of oneself"; and, with this
desireless frame of mind,
kaman neveha karmani jijlvisec chatam samah I
evam tmyi namjalheto 'sti m karina lipyate nare li
(Isa. 1 and 2)
that is, "one should entertain the desire of living upto a hundred
years, which is the limit of the life of man, whilst performing.
Actions; and when Actions are performed 'evam', that is, with
that Uovasya (god-dedicating) frame of mind, they will not-
have a binding force (lepa) on you (on any human being), and
there is no other way for escaping (that lepa or bondage)".
But, when one leaves the Karma-kanda and moves on to the
Jnana-kanda, one also comes across contradictory statements
in the same Vedic treatises, such as, "brahmavidapnoti param"
(Tai. 2. 1. 1), i. e., "Release is obtained by Knowledge of the
Brahman" ; or, "nanyah pantha vidyate 'yanuya" (Sve. 3. 8), i. e.,
"there is ,no "other path, except Knowledge, for obtaining
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 433
Release" ; or "purve vidoamsah prajam na kamayante l kim prajaya
karisyamo yesam no 'yam atmjii 'yam loka iti te ha sma putraisanayas
ca vittaisaijayas ca lokaisartayas ca vyutthayatha bhikqacaryam
caranti" (Br. 4. 4. 22 and 3. 5. 1), i. e., "the sciente of yore did
not have any desire for children ; they used to- say: 'as we see
that the whole world is nothing but our Atman, why should
we have any (other) generation ?' and, without entertaiaing the
'esaya', that is, desire, for wealth,, children, heaven, and the
other spheres, such scients used to renounce those things, and
roam about the world at will begging for alms" ; or, "suoh
persons, who have thus become ascetics, attain Release (Mun^
1. 2. 11) ; or, ultimately "yad ahar eva virajet tad altar eva
pravrajet" (Jaba. 4), i. e., "on such day as your mind beoomes
apathetic, on that day you should renounce the world", As the
directions of the Vedas are in this way two-fold (Ma. Bha.
San. 240-6), it becomes necessary to see whether there is some
other means of deciding which of the two paths,- namely,
Activism (pramtti) or Renunciation (mvrtti), Karma-Yoga or
Sarhkhya, is superior. The question could have been decided
by considering the 'acara', that is, the conduct, usage, or oustom
of well-behaved persons fsisia) ; but, in this matter, even tha
conduct of such persons is seen to be two-fold. It is clear
from history that Suka, Yajnavalkya, and others had taken
to the Path of Renunciation, whereas Janaka, Sri Krsna,
Jaiglsavya and other scients had adopted the Path of Action.
Therefore, Badarayanacarya has said in the argument in the
demonstrated conclusion {siddhanta-paksa), that both these paths
are 'tuiyam tu darsanam', that is, of equal value from the point
of view of oonduot (Ve. SB. 3. 4. 9); and there is even a Smrti
text that :-
viveld sarvada muktah lairvaio nasti kartrta I
alepawdam asritya srlkrsnajawxkau yatlia II
that is, "that person who has acquired complete Knowledge-
of the Brahman, is always a non-doer (akarta), isolated
(allpta), and eternally released like Sri Krsna and Janaka". *
• Anandagiri has taken this statement as being from the Smftis
in his commentary on the Samkarabhasya on the Kathopaoisad
(Katha. 2. 19). I have not found whure the original is.
SK — Sfi
iZi &ITI-BAHA3TA GE SASlf A-YOC-A
i.i the same -ray, in the BbagaTadgira. after trientiflning'the
t.-adition 3! "he ICanna-Y iga r'roni itanii :o Iksvakn etc,
it is stated ".bat: "'i'im jilffl'-ii .otViot ':wma manxtir apt
mumuk-vhhh" > r il i, 15), L ?-. ''knowing "his, sdents like
Janaka and otbers performed Action, in indent times";
and in the YaaavSsiatha and the Bhseavata. there have been
given other illastrariona besides "bat 31 -Janata fYo. 5. 75;
Bhsaa. J. 5, 43-45'. If Mine one ioubra -.vhethar Janaka and
otaers bad acquired wmpiete Inowledes at the Brahman, I
say :bat. it. is sleari" statad in the Yasavasiitha that ail these
Tisrsang were 'jimmnnkta' fbirth-?sIessed N ; and, nor only ia the
7 isaTsais'.ba. but also in the Maha'onarata, TySaa is 3tated
to have sent bis son 3uka nlfcimacdj ta .Janaka in order ro get
Miupleta Knowied^c? cf fee science :f Bslease {Ma. Bha.
San. 325. and Yra. 2. 1). 3o also, a^en in "be Upanis3ds. there
are traditions that tbe kins Arrraari Kaikayi bad taught the
Knowledge of tbe Brahman to the i?si Uddalaka, and that
A„arasarn. tbe kins if TTasi. bad taught it fc Gargya Balati
f3f, I. 1 1 Y«, -here is nowhere any stat-amanr that either
Aavsnati ir Janaka bad jriTan tip their kiasrdem, and bad
taken to Benunciauon in tbe f:rm cr tbe Abandonment of
Aition. On tbe idler band. in. tbe conversation between
Jhnaka- and Sulabha, be i-Iinaka) Srat describes to bar his
cwn stats by saying. ''I iin ittacbmentless. that ia, I am
ruling without, being aTOadtied : and if one ci my bands is
annointsd with aandal-w-xd pasta, and tbe other band era
off, the- pain and the pleasure cf bote, wcula be the same" etc.;
arid then goes ca to say: —
inrk.v 'is _~./:i*i/>ii ni.iii'nl . r -s/.;'« ' vjai/ 'nok-^C'-'iZTamai^ i
j ?i;7»3ru'-'w.'iJ"i. ■:vtlxntj ike Tic&.'KSiLsr'^'.'io: j^/iahi
fo&majuttiiii.k -vjru.':J:,v]e ■'/ixiijaj. i-iik4mittitzrsiaah.n
faJiiiyhhaju'ii aprj iva-'n jOcnam. ksrma cz "mimum i
r i-nye>ji:':'i arma ky SorT ™.rf/ai re-ea ntiili^t'iuirtiz n
( Ma. Bha. San. 350. 38-M).
that fe, * r chose who know tbs science of Release baTS prescribed
ir.r% different syataES: (1/ acfjniring '"jSi-im.\ and abandoning
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA. 435
all Action; that is known by the experts in the science of
Release as 'Jfiana-nistha; (2) in the same way, other subtle
philosophers mention a Karma-nistha ; but besides the pure
Jnana-nistha and the pure Kaima-nistha, this (3) third
Nistha or path, (that is, the path of performing Aotion
after having destroyed Attachment by means of Know-
ledge ) has been mentioned to me by that sage (Pancasikha)".
The word 'nistha' means 'that course of leading one's life
by which ultimate Release is obtained' ; and ev.en in the
■Samkarabhasya on the Glta, the word 'nistha' has been
interpreted as meaning 'anusthet/atatparyam', that is, the
'tatparata (being engrossed) in that which is 'anustlveya'- (to be
performed in life). Out of these paths of living one's life,
Jaimini and other followers of the Mlmarhsa school have not
given any importance to Knowledge, but have maintained that
Helease is obtained solely by performing sacrificial ritual : —
ijanu bahiibhih yajiiaih bralimana veda-paragah I
sastrani cet pramayum syuh praptus te paramam gatim II
( Jai. Su. 5. 2. 23)
because, if one believes the oontrary, the injunctions of the
Sastras, that is, of the Ve'das, will become futile. ( See the
Sabara-bhasya on Jai. Su. 5. 2. 23) ; and the writers of the-'
Upaniaads, as also Badarayanacarya have treated all saorificial
ritual as inferior, and laid down the doctrine that Release is
obtained by Knowledge, and that it cannot be obtained by
anything other than Knowledge (Ve. Su. 3. 4. 1, 2). But
Janaka says that Pancasikha (being himself a follower of
•Samkhya philosophy) had taught a third system (nistha) distinct
from both these systems, namely, of performing Actions, being
-free from Attachment. It becomes clear from the words
"distinct from both these nistha" that this third system is not
a part of either of the two systems, but is a totally independent
■one. This third system of Janaka has been ultimately
mentioned even in the Vedanta-Sutras (Ve. Su. 3. 4. 32-35) ;
and even in the Bhagavadglta, it is this third system of
Janaka — with the addition of Devotion — which has been
mentioned. But the doctrine of the Gita is, that the path of
.the Mlmarhsa school, that is, of Karma without Jnana, does
JMrt JfefcdiD iUu«HJ6, DK1 fflLty T» JDBBWBn >9i. £. £l-44.; i. '&);
-&M., iiiaE paih wcist ooas jot jnnmua SaJsaas can aki. not ia
e&lieiis. 'nit/titi? •: iweanse. ite ttafimiiiffi of '•MSK'nt as i past
w&ifli. liitimaieiT jsaxn to Bsfoass rte bbbstok: 'iw *wBjiin^
l!flewf hie, ilimangi it jfifatriiig in & EEnerbl vet it lin TuaniB
Boawj* of "tfHnagnt. Jiiiaia las jefensti id tuns- ffsjhos. jb^
ait yia* Zarms-n&rgfc af ias MjesusS sbiliiiL. •wiisst. BEsflnfla
£ir.iwi«Qg4, has been orniswd Tam "the abet a: 'lustiff. KmUm
wsiwr TBniBjiiag tw*j bsts test fissffiriiiBC in H£ "reciimiiig if
fee •acini vumms xn%i& G-DM <;&1 S. ?). TltesE ass aa SFSam nf
Pure Knowledge ^mcinrai, end -fche system af inawikfeB
oombiiKfli with Dwinjsss Anfem TTn^) : sue. in snurara of
T/'ijfe sapojwi oca f .tf insas two systanffi. (TiamaJT, nf lis flfefl
BTfisaai acDarding 15 J&nakai fes iusiarieslL SiBEsfem rf
Jaaiib has besi: ■a^m.iuiaA a£ : "''karmxiwuu h m,rmmSiam
CartulX ;/w»'.'Ka'jjc!r.'" fGi. 3. 36 J, I. £. "Jixsks aai nifbas
olnsaJiied Stleasi o-iy by perEanniDg Asians in life my".
U-ren if wt 3c not t&£* irfto aconcm lie cssi 3? Jszsiia. safl
other Sjsfcriys kiagE. YySsa pmtrsataS ins rwj 'twb-aya snns»
Dist&nmirh and Fs.rdn_ in order to iasp Tnihriihi^ ii& ruins
lias id' Ticitrsvjrya ; sua hs wrote the Mahlti&radS riy liiae
years 1 ooatiaawiE isiiTur in order to raosea 1215- "aarln: tad it
Ss w%]i-knwwn litai in "she Kailyngs, Sri ScrisjSis^ya, wis
was i piotagaolwt r .€ tihe Samnyasa sehod fas5»5 sn ias Smrife^
je-^stafciMied tie Hindu religras iy ik sufer-iaaaaa
infeHligtaefe and icchstry, TJay, iie wnrM nasli fiaais iato
tzislsnoe when Ej-airmadera was isady to psrf^rzn Acnka;; aad,
as I baTt stated aliOT-c, itere is a simiemiTsi in ibe ifleser^rasai
flf tis SiiijiaLljii doefcrine in sie ita&aiiiarata, thai Maiaci
and tbe 9ti*T eii mind-bHrn bodb csinie into Erisifince cot of
Briiaaa.fe~2, sod stock to i2ae Activfetic pasi t3i d^ih,
wkiiosit taking K' afcotiicis'ia, in onier to keep alrre iise cooisb
f ;i Action, mrtiers=a6 ite otlbsr Kven mind-tern sons of
ButhmnAevn, aurskly, Sanattanmara aad others, were iMm
iiirtii foe f jt'ffi lite-It's and followers of tbe Pali of Bemificia-
ticalMa Bra. Sin. 39 and MO). The e-xplanadon as 10 wiy
tiioee wbo bad r-.Ab-id the Brahman, and even Braimadeva
hioMelf, adopt d this Activistic i>ata fpmvrtti-tmrga} of
pwformiug At-ti-ju, Eas been given in the VedlantanSitras in the
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 437
following words : "yawd adhikaram avasthitiradhikarinam" (Ve-
Su. 3. 3. 32), i. e., "until that which has been prescribed for a
particular person by the Paramesvara has been completely
performed, he does not escape the performance of Action".
This explanation will be considered later on. Whatever the
explanation may be, this much becomes dear, namely, that
the two Paths of Action (pravrtti), and Inaction (nivrtii),
were followed by scients from the very commencement
of the world ; and therefore, it is clear that one cannot decide
■as to which of the two is the better path merely from the
•conduct of scients.
But, the next argument of Asceticists is that, although one
cannot, merely from the consideration of conduct, decide whether
Inaction is better than Action, since the traditional conduct is in
this way two-fold, yet, as it is clear that there is no Release until
one has broken the bondage of Karma, it follows that it is more
beneficial to discard the ties of desire-creating Karma, or Aotion,
as early as possible after the acquisition of Knowledge. In the
Sukanusasana chapter of the Mahabharata — this chapter is also
known as 'Sukanuprasna' — the Path of Renunciation has
been advocated; and there, to the following question made by
Suka to Vyasa, namely,
yad idam vedavacanam kuru karma tyajeti ca I
ham diiam vidyaya yanli kani ca gacchanti karmana n
( San. 240. 1 )
that is, "the Vedas enjoin the performance of Aotion, as also
the Abandonment of Action; therefore, tell me what results are
obtained by 'vidya', that is, by Knowledge without Action, or
by Action alone", Vyasa in replying has said :
karmam badhyate jantur vidyaya tu pramucyate I
tasmat karnia na kuruanti yatayah paradarsinah it
(San. 240. 7)
that is, "by Karma, the created being is bound, and by
Knowledge he is released; therefore, the through-seeing
Yatins or ascetics, do not perform Action". I have
already fully dealt with the first part of this stanza in
the last chapter. There is not the slightest dispute about
the proposition: "karmava badhyate jantur vidyaya tu
438 GITA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
pramu/Mjate'\ And I have shown in that chapter that if one
considers what is meant by the words "karmana badhyate",
one sees that, gross or lifeless Karma by itself does not either
hind or release anybody; that, man is bound by Karma as a
result of his Hope for Fruit, or by his own Attachment; and
that, when this Attachment has been got rid of, a man stands
Released, notwithstanding that ha may be performing Action
by his external organs. With this idea in mind, Sri Eamacandra
says to Laksmana in the Adhyatma-Eamayana, that:
pravahapaliiah karyam kurvanr. api na lipyate i
bahye sanatra kartrtvam amhann api rughava II
that is, "the man who has fallen in the stream of minima
(worldly life), which is the embodiment of Action, remains
untouched, though he may externally perform all sorts of
duties". When one considers this doctrine of the philosophy
of the Absolute Self, one sees that it is no more necessary to
abandon Action on the ground that it is productive of unhap-
pinegs, and that it is enough if one makes one's mind pure and
equable, and gives up the hope of reward. In short, though
theie may be an opposition between Knowledge and Desireful
Action, no kind of opposition can exist between Knowledge
and Desireless Action. Therefore, in the Anuglta, instead of
the phrase ''fasmat karma na kurvanti", i. e., "therefore Actions-
are not performed", it is stated that:
tasmat karmasu nihsneha ye kecit pamdarsinah ll
(Asva. 51. 33.)
that is: "therefore, through-seeing scients are not attached to
Action"; and before that sentence, there is a clear defence and
advocacy of the Karma-Yoga in the following words, namely,
kurvate ye ta karmani sraddadhana vipascitah I
anasiryogasamyuktas te dhirah sadhudarsinah n
(Asva. 50. 6,7 )
that is, "those acients, who, having faith, adopt the (Karma-)
Yoga path and perform Actions without entertaining desire,
are sadhudarsin" . In the same way, in the advice given by
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 43*
Saunaka to Yudhisthira in the Vanaparva, there has been
added to the following first part of the stanza,
yadidam vedavacamtii kuru karma tyajeti ca I
the following latter part, namely,
tasmad dharman iman sarvan riabhimanat sarmcaret, II
(Vana. 2, 73).
that is, "though the Vedas enjoin both the performance of and
the abandonment of Action, one should perform all one's duties
(Karma) without entertaining the pride (of being the doBr)" ;
and in the Sukanuprasna also, Vyasa has in two plaoes clearly
said to Suka that:—
esapuroalara crttir brahmanasya vidhlyate I
jnanavan era Ixtrmani kurvan sarvatra sklhyati n
( Ma. Bha. San. 237. 1; 334. 39.)
that is, "obtaining Release by acquiring Knowledge and also
performing Actions, is the most ancient {purvataraj method of
Brahmins". It is clear that Karma combined with Jfiana, and
after the acquisition of Jnana, is intended by the words
jnanavan eva. When one considers dispassionately these
statements which support either side of the question, it becomes
clear that the argument "karm-jna badliyate jantuh", does not
yield the only inference "tasmai karma na kuruanti", i. e., "there-
fore, Actions are not performed", which supports Abandonment
of Action, but also the equally important inference "tastnat
karmasu nihsnehah", i. e., "therefore, one does not become
attached to Karma "—which is in support of Desireless Action.
It is also not that I alone dTaw this two-fold inference of my
own accord, but even Vyasa himself has clearly expressed
this meaning in the following verse from the Snkamiprssrsa ,
namely,
drau imai atha panthanau yasmiii vedah pratistlulah I
pravrttilaksano dharmah nivrttis ca vibliasitah II *
( Ma, Bha. San. 240. 6 ).
* There are the following other readings of this part oftha
second line of the stanza, namely, ' niirltii en subtiafitah ' and
440 GITA.-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
that is, "such are the two modes of life, both of which are
equally supported by the Vedas, — the one is the Activistic path,
and the other is of Inaction, that is, of Renunciation". So
also, as I have mentioned before, is it stated in the Narayanlya
doctrine that these two paths have existed independently from
the commencement of the world. Bat, as both these paths have
been mentioned independently, as occasion arose, in the Maha-
bbarata, we find in one and the same Mahabharata statements,
which support the Path of Inaction, side by side with state-
ments, which support the Path of Activism; and in the
commentaries on the Glta, which support the Path of
Renunciation, the statements supporting the Path of Inaction
have been referred to as the only important ones, as though
there could ba no other path, or as if any other path which
might be possible, was either inferior, or only a preparatory
step of the Path of Renunciation. But, this kind of argument is
only doctrinal ; and on that account, though the meaning of the
Glta is clear and plain in itself, it has now-a-days become
unintelligible to many. The stanza " dvav imav atha panthamm"
etc., is of the same importance as the stanza "We 'smin
dvividha mstka" (Gi. 3. 3) in the Glta; that is to say, one can
clearly see the intention to refer in this place to two modes of
life which are of equal value, But soma persons, closing their
eyes to this plain meaning, and to the previous and subsequent
context, attempt to maintain that this verse indicates only one
path and not two paths.
Though the Vedic religion thus falls into these two
independent paths of Karma-Sarhnyasa (Sarhkhya) and Desire-
less Action (Yoga), yet, as the Gita does not look upon them
as equally good alternatives, but is of the firm opinion that
'the Karma- Yoga is superior to the Path of Renunciation',
it further says, in support of the superiority of Karma-Yoga,
that it will be impossible for us to abandon Karma, so long as
the world in which we live, as also our very existence in it
for even a single moment, is itself Karma ; and if one has to
live in this world, that is to say, in this land of Actio n, how
nivrttii at vibKaviiah'. Whichever reading iB takeo, tun words
" dvav imau " appear ia the beginning in each reading 1 , and from
this, it is clear that these two paths are independent.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 441
•can one escape Action ? We see ourselves that thirst, hunger,
and other desires do not leave us so long as our body lives
{(31. 5. 8, 9) ; and if the Path of Renunciation gives us the
liberty of performing a disgraceful Action like begging for
satisfying those desires, what prevents us from performing
all other worldly Actions, prescribed by the Sastras, with a
■desireless frame of mind ? If a person wishes to give up the
performance of these other Actions, fearing that he will lose
the happiness of the Brahman, or forget his Non-Dualistie
Realisation of the identity of the Brahman and the Atman,
by becoming bound up in the bonds of Karma, his mental
■oontrol must be looked upon as still imperfect; and all
Abandonment of Action made when the mental control is
not perfect, is, according to the Glta, the result of ignorance
{moha) and is a tamasa or futile act (Gl. 18. 7; 3. 6). Not only
is this so, but it naturally follows that in order to perfect such
imperfect mental control by means of the purification of the
mind, such a man must continue to perform the Karma
prescribed by the Srutis or Smrtis for a householder, such as,
sacrificial ritual, charity etc,, which promotes the desireless
frame of mind. In short, such an Abandonment of Action
is never meritorious. Well ; if you say that the man's mind is
unaffected by objects of pleasure and is under his control, then
why should he be afraid of Karma, or, why should he take up
the futile attitude of not-performing Action ? Just as an
umbrella made for protecting against rain, can be tested only
in the rain, so also, or, by the comprehensive test of Kalidasa.:-
vikaralietau sati vikriyante I
yesam na cetamsi ta eoa dhlrah ll
(Kumara, 1. 59)
that is : " that man, whose mind does not fall a prey to mental
confusion, when the objects which create the emotions are
in front of the eyes, may truely be said to be brave", is the
control of the mind really tested by means of Karma ; and the
fact as to whether or not the mind has become perfeot is
ascertained not only by others, but also by the doer of the
Actions himself. It, therefore, follows, even on this basia, that
vthose Actions which befall one acoording to the injunctions
ii-Z GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
of the Sastras, that is to say, those Actions which befall one
in the stream of life, must be performed (Gi. 18. 6). If one
says, " I am not afraid that the acquired purification of my
mind will be affected by the performance of Action, because,
my mind is under proper control; but I do not wish to waste
my time in the performance of Action, and thereby un-
necessarily tire my body, if it is not necessary to do so for
obtaining Release", such an abandonment of Action, which
is due to the contemptible fear of troubling the body, becomes
a ' raj .na' abandonment, and the fruit or good result to be
obtained by Abandonment ot" Action, is not obtained by the
man who abandons Action in this way (Gi. 18. 8). Then^
why is Action to ba abandoned at all '! If some one says
that it is not proper for the Self, which pertains to the perma-
nent world of the Brahman, to take part in Action, which per-
tains to the Maya-world and is non-permanent, even such an
objecticn is not proper ; because, if the Paiamatman Itself is-
covered by Maya, where is the objection for a man to be clothed
in Maya in the same way ? Just as there are the two -divisions,
of the wcrfd, namely, the Brahman-world and the Maya-world,
so also are there the two divisions of the Self and of the corporeal
organs in the case of a human being. Out of these, couple the
Self with the Brahman, merge the Self in the Brahman, and,,
keeping your mind unattached in this way, by realising the-
identity of the Brahman and the Atman, perform all the
activities in the Maya-world by the Mayic corporeal organs ;
that is all When one behaves in this way, not only will there
be no obstruction to one's obtaining Release, but further, the
proper portions will be joined together, and one will not incur
the blame of not having shown proper respect to, or having
disjointed, any portion of the creation ; and one will obtain the
merit of having performed one's duty both in the Maya-world
and in the Brahman-world— this world and the next. This
is the theory which has been supported in the Isavasyopanisad
(Isa. 11). But, these statements from the Srutis will be
considered in detail later on. For the time being, I will only
say that the statement in the Gita, that the scients, who realise
the identity of the Brahman and the Atman, perform all
activities in the illusory world merely by their body or merely
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 443
by their organs (Gl. 4. 21 ; 5. 12), means the same thing ; and
the propositions in the Gits (Gl. 18. 9), that "the true sattvika
Abandonment of Action consists in performing Actions with
an unattached frame of mind, without entertaining the hope of
reward, and merely as a duty", and that "the non-performance
of Action is not the true abandonment of Action", have been
made to bring out this idea. Though Karma belongs to the
Maya-world, the Paramesvara has created it for some-
unintelligible reason ; and, it is not within the power of any
human being to stop it ; it is within the power only of the
Paramesvara to do so; and there is no doubt that the
performance of Actions merely by the body, keeping the Reason
unattached, does not prevent a person from obtaining Release.
Then, where is the objection to performing the Actions
prescribed by the Sastras through the medium solely of the'
organs and being renounced in Mind ? It is said in the Gita
that, "na hi kaicil ksanum api jalu tistliaty akarmahri" (Gi. 3. 5 »
18. 11), i. e., "in this world, no one can for a single moment
remain without performing Action"; and, in the Anuglta, that
"naiskarmyamnaea loke 'smin muhurtam api labhyate" (Aiva.
20. 7), i. e., "in this world, there is no escape from Karma (for
anybody) even for a single moment". Not only men, but even.
the Sun and the Moon are continually performing Action !
Nay: as it is definite that Karma is nothing but the creation,
and that the creation is nothing but Karma, we ourselves see
that the activities of the world, that is to say, Karma, does not
rest for a moment. The Blessed Lord has said in the
Bhagavadglta (Gi. 3. 8) that, "if one gives up Action, it will
be impossible to get food to eat, and Draupadi has said to
Yudhisrtiira in the Mahabharata that "akarmanam vai bhutamm
vrttih sijan na hi kacana" (Vana. 32. 8 ), i. e., "living beings
cannot exist without performing Action"; and accordingly,
even Sri Samartha Ramadasa Svami says in the Dasabodha,
after having referred to the Knowledge of the Brahman, that :
"if one tries to reach the highest goal, giving up the activities
of life I one will not get even food to eat" I (Da. 12. 1. 3). And,
if one considers the life of the Blessed Lord Himself, He is"
seen to be performing the Action of helping saints and
destroying villains in this illusory world from Yuga to Yuga..
444 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
by taking up various incarnations (Gi. 4. 8. and Ma. Bha. San.
1539. 103); and the Blessed Lord has Himself said in the Glta,
that if He did not perform these Actions, the world would
become desolate and be destroyed ( Gi. 3. 24 ). If the Blessed
Lord Himself is, in this -way, performing Actions for the
-maintenance of the world, it clearly follows that there is no
sense in saying that the performance of Action after the
-acquisition of Knowledge is useless. Therefore, the Blessed
Lord advises everybody in the name of Arjuna, according to
"the rule, "yah kriyavan sa panditah" ( Ma. Bha. Vana. 312. 108 ),
i. e. "that man is the truly learned man, who is a doer", that
-since nobody in this world can escape Karma, one must
perform all the duties which befall one according to one's
own status in life, giving up the desire for fruit, that is, with
one's mind in a state of renunciation, in order that one should
not be affected by Karma; and that this is the only and the best
way (Yoga) which is possible for man. Matter (praktti) will
always go on performing its activities; but when one gives up
the egotistical idea that he is the performer of the Action, one
is Released (Gi. 3. 27; 13. 29; 14. 19; 18. 16). Not only is the non-
perfoimance of Action, or Renunciation in the shape
of the Abandonment of Action (as prescribed by the
Samkhyas), not necessary to obtain Release, but it is never
possible to entirely abandon Action in this world of Action.
To this, some persons raise a further objection, that though
it may not be necessary to abandon Action for breaking the
bondage of Karma, and it may be enough to merely give
up the desire for the fruit of Karma, yet, when the mind has
become desialess as a result of the acquisition of Knowledge,
and all desires have been destroyed, there remains nothing
which will provoke one to perform Action ; and therefore, if not
■as a result of the fear of unnecessarily taxing the body, at
least as a result of the destruction of Desire, Karma comes to
an rmd of itself. The highest goal of a man in this world is
the obtaining of Release; and, as the man who has obtained
such Release by means of Knowledge has no more any 'esana'
-(desire) for children, wealth, or heaven (Br. 3. 5. 1 and 4. 4. 22),
it is the natural, inherent and ultimate result of such Jnana, that
Karma should leave such a person, although he may not wish
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 445
to give it up. That is why it is stated in the Uttaraglta that:
jnanamrtena trptasya krtukttyasya yoginah I
na casti kimcit kartavyam asti cm. na sa tattvavit II
(Uttara. 1, 23).
that is, "for that man who has become Accomplished {krtakrtya),.
as a result of having drunk the nectar of Knowledge, no further
duty remains; and if any further duty remains, that man is not
a real 'tattvavit', i. e., Jnanm".*" And if this is looked upon as a
fault in a Jnanin, that is wrong. As a matter of fact, Sri.
Sarhkaracarya has said that this is an ornament of the person.
who has acquired the Knowledge of the Brahman — "alamkaro
hy ayam asmakam yad brahmatmauagatau saiyam sarvakariavya-
tahanih" (Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. 1. 1. 4). So also, are there such:
statements in the Gita as, "tasya karyam na mdyate" (Gl. 3. 17),.
i, e„ ,: for the Jnanin, nothing remains to be done"; or, "for
him, there is no necessity of the Vedic Karma-ritual" {Gl. 2. 46)..
or, "ycgariidhasya tasyaiva samah karatiam ucyate" (Gl. 6. 3),.
i. e., "when once a man has become steeped in the Yoga,
abandonment (sama) becomes necessary (karana) for him" ; and
such adjectives as "sarmrambhaparityagi" (Gj. 12. 16), i, e.
"one who has given up all activities" and "aniketah" (Gl. 12_
19), i. e., "one who has no home" etc. hare been used in the
Gita with reference to a Jnanin. Some persons, therefore, think
that the Bhagavadglta accepts the position that Karma leaves
a man of its own accord, after the acquisition of Knowledge,,
But, in my opinion, these meanings ascribed to these words
and sentences in the Gita, as also the arguments mentioned
above, are not correct. I will, therefore, set out hexe in short
what I have to say to the contrary.
As I have already shown above in the chapter on Happiness- 4
and Unhappiness, the Gita does not accept the position, that
when a man has acquired Knowledge, all his wishes or desires.
■* The idea that this verso ia from the Sruti» is not corr«;t. It.
does not appear in the Samkara-bhasy.j on the Yedanta-SStras; but it
lias been taken by Samkaraeaiyain hi' BhSsya on tha Sanatsujatlya,
and it is there stated to be from the LiDga-pnrana. It is dearly not.
in support of Karma-Yoga, but of the Sam iyas»-m5rga. There are.
similar statements in Buddhistic works (See the Appendix,!.
446 &ITA.-RAHASYA OK KAEMA-YOGA
must necessarily have come to an end. There is no unhappiness
in merely having a desire or a wish, and the true root of
unhappiness is the Attachment, which is part of the Desire.
Therefore, the doctrine of the Gita is, that instead of killing
desires of all kinds, one should only give up the Attachment to
•the objects of desire, and go on performing all Actions. It is not
-that when this Attachment is given up, activity must also be
simultaneously given up. Nay, it is impossible that activity
should come to an end, though Desire may have come to an
end ; and we see that whether there is Desire or not, everyday
.Actions like breathing etc. continue. But why go so far?
Remaining alive, even for a single moment, is an Action by
itself : and though a man may have acquired perfect Knowledge,
-this living does not come to an end by his desire or by the
destruction of his desires. It is a matter of everybody's
experience, that no Jnanin commits suicide because he has
acquired Knowledge ; and that is why the Gita says that "na
hi kvitit ksanam api jalu listhaiy akarmakrt" (Gl. 3. 5), i. e., "no
one, whoever he is, can remain without performing Action".
'The first doctrine of the Karma-Yoga in the Gita is, that hi
this world of Action, Action is something which befalls every
one naturally, and that it is not only a part of the stream of
life, but also inevitable, and not dependent on the desire of
man. When it has thus been proved that there is no mutual
and permanent relationship between Desire and Action, the
■statement, that Karma must come to an end simultaneously
with the destruction of desire, falls to the ground of itself;
and then the question naturally arises as to in what way the
scient (Jnanin) should perform those Actions, which befall him
even after the destruction of Desire. The reply to this question
is given in the third chapter of the Gita (See Gl. 3. 17-19, and
my commentary on it). The Gita accepts the position that
there remains no duty for the Jnanin, after the acquisition of
Knowledge, as of his own. But it goes further and says that
no man, whoever he may be, escapes Action. The two
propositions that the Jnanin (scient) is free from duty and that
he does not escape Karma, appear to some persons mutually
■contradictory. But the same is not the case with the Gita. It
harmonises them by saying that in as much as Karma is
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 447
unavoidable, the scient must perform it even after the
acquisition of Knowledge ; but, in as much as a Jfianin has no
more any duty for his own Self, it now becomes necessary
for him to perform all his duties desirelessly. In short,
the word 'tasya' (that is, 'for the Jnanin') in the line "fasya
karyam na vidyate", in the seventeenth stanza of the third
chapter is more important than the words " karyam na vidyate" ;
and the sum and substance of the stanza is, that as there is
nothing more to be got by a Jnanin ' as for himself ', he must
thereafter, that is, after the acquisition of Knowledge, perform
his duties desirelessly ; and the same purport has been conveyed^
to Arjuna by the words, " tasmad asaktah satatam karyam karma
■samaeara" (Gi. 3. 19), i. e., "therefore, go on performing
•whatever duties have befallen you, according to the injunction
•of the Sastras, without becoming attached to the Karma, and
■do not give up the Karma ", by using the cause-denoting word
'tasmat' in the beginning of the stanza. When this relation
of data and conclusion between the seventeenth and the
nineteenth verses of the third chapter, as also the entire
context of the chapter, is taken into account, it will be seen
that it is not correct to take the words "tasya karyam na vidyate' '
as an independent proposition, as is done by the supporters
•of the Path of Renunciation, The best proof of this position
are the' following illustrations. In support of the proposition-
that one has to perform all the duties which befall one as a
■result of the injunctions of the Sastras, even after the acqui-
sition of Knowledge, though no duty for one's own benefit
remains, the Blessed Lord says immediately afterwards that :-
na me partha 'sti kartavyam trisu, lokesu, kimcana I
nanavaptam avaptavyam varta eva ca Icarmani II
(G5. 3. 22).
that is : "0 Partha, there is not (remaining) for Me any duty
which is Mine in this three-fold universe, nor is there (in Mo
any desire to obtain) anything which has not been obtained
by Me; see that I am also nevertheless performing Karma".
The words, "na me kartavyam asti ", i. e., "for me, no duty has
remained " in this stanza have been said with reference to
the words, "tasyu karyam na vidyate.", i. e., "for him, there
448 GfTA-BAHASYA m KAMA-YOGA
j&zisSne no 4tJt5'"* , , in tfes former stemsa (Gl 8. 17); ami,
ii=TcfisnE, it is {pits efeai Sat Hkees foEr tsr Sine stomas tear
-j it ths jTOpaaLtien Sisi, "iSiaagfc hj Siiy assy have ramaiiBd
as a rasaJi <& the acquisition of Kasowlwige, yet, amd siren for
that very reason, ijas laost par-Harm all fes iiriMS pssoriW
oy tie Sisssrasi, -sri& aa unattached frame ©f miiad". Other-
wise, His 0wa SlustiailoB given 1st fie Biassed Lard far
emphasidag the .losfcrina enunciated in ths sjania, "itas«i
iarytiAi s-j ddyils ets '"., bssoaaes totally cut of pla-M; aaiti*
impossiMs position of the enanciated doctrine ■hieing 'different
from the ffitaferation given, will arise. la order to gel ewer
this Impassible position. His commantatois, who follow tie
Berraneiaffoa school, interpret the word 'funtSt*, in H»
sentence "taimM asari/oi szfafew tsUr^am hi,nra samsmra." >
in quite a different way. Aecarding to them, the main doctrine
of the BhagaTa.djpta is feat &e seient mast give up Action,
But Arjnoa was not a seient; therefore — ■' iagm&i ' — the Blessed
Lord has enjuined him to perform Kanna, But as I have
already explained above, tie argument that Arjsna was still
ignorant, afwi haying heard the Gltl, is incorrect.
Besides, even though the meaning of the word ' ia-snm ' may be
thus stretched, the illustration about Himself given by the
Biassed Lord, in support- of the main proposition, % the
words * na me parlha. 'tti Imrtaiyam etc.", i. e., "I am per-
forming Action, although no duty is left for Me for My own.
benefit", cannot be properly explained in the same way.
Therefore, the word ' i<i»ja ' in the sentence " i-igya Icaryam w»
lidyate " must be considered important instead of the words-
" liaryar/i na vidyaie " : and when that is done, the sentence
' i'lgmad asahtah satafa'tn karyani karma tamaoara " most be
interpreted as meaning: "you are a seient; and, therefore,
it is true that there is no Karma left for yon for your owe
personal benefit ;but, for the very reason that such Karma
is not necessary for your own benefit, do whatever duties
befall you according to the Sastras, with the feeling ' this fc
not fur me ', that is, with a desireless frame of mind ". In
short, according to the Glta, the idea ' this is not for me ' does
not become a reason for not performing Karma, and we
have to draw the inference, that as Action is unavoidable
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 449
therefore, this unavoidable Action, which has been prescribed
by the SSstras, must be performed with a self-sacrificing
frame of mind; and, considering the matter from the point of
view of consistency, the same meaning has to be adopted. This,
is the great and important difference between Renunciation of
Action (Karma-Sarhnyasa) and Energism (Karma-Yoga).
Those who follow the Renunciation school say: "nothing has
remained for you to do; therefore, do nothing"; and the Glta.
says: "nothing has remained for you to do, for your own
benefit; and, therefore, do henceforth whatever you have to do,
giving up selfish desires, and with an unattaohed frame of
mind". Why should two such different inferences arise from
one and the same sentence 1 The only reply to this is, that as
the Gits considers Karma as unavoidable, the conclusion,
'therefore, give up Action', cannot at all arise according to the
philosophy of the Glta. Therefore, the Glta has drawn the
conclusion that Action should be performed, giving up
selfish desires, from the data 'it is not for your benefit.' The
argument adopted by Vasistha in the Yoga-Vasistha, after he
had preached the Knowledge of the Brahman to Rama, for
inducing him to perform Desireless Action is the same; and
the above-mentioned doctrine of the Bhagavadgita has been
adopted literally at the end of the Yoga-Vasistha ( See Yo. 6.
U. 199 and 216. 14; and my commentary on the translation of
Gi. 3. 19). The teaching of the Glta has been adopted in the
Buddhistic religion in the sacred books of the Mahayana sect,
in the same way as it has been adopted in the Yoga-Vasistha.
But, I have not dealt with that matter here, as it will be
straying from the subject, and I have considered it later in the
Appendix.
When a man has got the Knowledge of the Atman,
the individualistic language of ' I ' and ' mine ' does not
remain (Gi. 18. 16 and 26); and therefore, the Jnanin is said to
be 'nir-mama. 'nir-mama means, one who does not say, 'mine',
'mine' (mama); and Jnanesvara Maharaja has conveyed the same
idea in describing the Jfianin in the following stanza
( omvim ) :
He does not know the word 'I' I
he does not say of anything that it is 'mine' I
57-58
450 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Experience of pain and happiness I
for him there is none II
( Jfia. 12. 149. See p. 346 above).
But, it must not he forgotten that although the feeling of T
or 'mine' may be got rid of, as a result of the Knowledge of the
Brahman, their place is taken by the words 'the world' and
'for the world' — or speaking in the language of Devotion, by
the words 'the Paramesvara', and 'of the Paramesvara'. Every
ordinary human being in the world carries out all his activities
with the feeling of 'mine', or, 'for my benefit'. But, as that
man who has become a scient, has lost his 'mine-ness' {mamatm) l
he begins to perform all the activities in the world created by
the Isvara with the feeling (the mine-less, i. e., nirmama feeling)
that they are of the Paramesvara, and that the Paramesvara
has created him for performing them : this is the difference
between the Jnanin and the Ajnanin (Gl. 3. 27, 28). When one
takes into account this doctrine of the Glta, the plain meaning
of the words, " 'sama' becomes a 'kararia' to the person who has
become steeped in Yoga", becomes apparent (See. Gl. 6. 3 and
my commentary on it). Some commentators on the Gita
interpret this stanza as meaning that, the man, who has become
steeped in Yoga, should thereafter take to 'sama' that is, 'sMi',
and do nothing else. But this meaning is not correct, 'sama'
means ' peace of mind ' ; and instead of describing that ' sama'
as the ultimate 'result' (karya), it is said in this stanza that
thiB 'sama' or 'sanli' is the 'cause' (kararia) of something else—
"samah kararum ucyate". Therefore, 'soma' must be considered
as a 'kararia' (cause), and we must see what the 'karya' (result)
of it is. If one considers the previous and subsequent context,
it becomes clear that that result (karya) is 'Karma' ; and
then this stanza has to be interpreted as meaning, that the
Yogin should make his mind peaceful, and perform all his
further activities by means of that sama or sawti (peace);
and one cannot interpret it, as has been done by the
commentators, as meaning that 'the Yogin (yogarudha) should
give up Karma'. In the same way, the words "sarvarambha-
parityagi" and "anihetah" must be interpreted as indicating the
Abandonment of the Hope of Fruit, rather than the Abandonment
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 451
of the Action itself, as has been shown by me in my commentary
attached to the translations of the verses in the various places.
The seoond illustration given by the Blessed Lord in addition
to His own, for proving the proposition that the JnSnin must
perform all the various duties prescribed for the four castes,
giving up the Hope for Fruit, and according to the Sastras, is
that of Janaka. Janaka was a Karma-yogin of a very high
order. He had become unselfish to such a great extent that
he is said to have uttered the words: "milhilayam pradiptaya/h
na, me dahyati ki/hcana" (San. 275. 4 and 219. 50), i, e., "I will
not feel it at all, even if the capital of my kingdom is burnt";
and in explaining why he was still carrying on the activities
of ruling, though he had no selfish interest or advantage or
disadvantage of his left, Janaka himself says: —
devebhyas ca pitrbhyas ca bhutebhyo 'tithibhih saha l
ity artham sarva evaite aamammbha bhavanti oai II
( Ma. Bha. Asva. 32. 24 )
that is, "all these activities are going on for the benefit of the
gods, of the ancestors, of all created beings Ibhuta), and of my
guests, and not for myself". It need not be said that if noble
souls like Janaka and Sri Krsna do not come forward for the
benefit of the world, when no duty of any kind is left for their .
own benefit, or when they have no desire to obtain any
particular thing for themselves, this world will become
desolate — "utsideyur ime lokah" ( Gl. 3. 24 ).
Some people say that there is not much of a difference
between the doctrine of the Gita that the desire for the fruit
must be given up, and that ifc is not necessary to give up
desires of all kinds, and the doctrine of the Destruction of
Desire; because, as there is no stimulus left towards Action,
whether it is Desire which is destroyed, or the hope for the
fruit which is destroyed, the ultimate result of Karma being
given up, follows in either case. But, this objection is based
on ignorance, that is to say, it is [raised because the true
meaning of the words 'hope for fruit' (phalasa) has not been
understood. Giving up the hope for fruit, does not mean giving
up all kinds of Desire, or entertaining the desire that nobody
should get the fruit of one's Action, or that if somebody gets
453 GrTA-RAHASYA OR KABMA-YOGA
it, he should not enjoy it. As has been stated by me above
in the fifth chapter, the words 'phalasa\ 'sanga' or 'harm'
have been used in the Glta to indicate the ATTACHMENT
(asakti) or INSISTENCE (agrafia) that, ' I am doing this parti-
cular Action in order that the fruit of it must accrue to ME '.
But, though one does not entertain the AMBITION, or the
INSISTENCE, or the vain Attachment, that the fruit should
be obtained, it does not follow that the desire, and also the
enthusiasm, to do a particular thing which has fallen on one's
shoulders, as a duty, should also disappear with this insistence.
It is true that those persons, who do not see anything in this
world except their own benefit, and who are continually
steeped in performing Actions merely by the ambition of
reaping some fruit or other, will not believe that it is possible
to perform Actions, giving up the hope for fruit. But, the
same is not the case with those persons, whose mind has-
become equable, and is in a state of Renunciation as a result
of Knowledge. In the first place, the belief that the fruit
which one obtains for a particular Action, is the fruit
of that Action, is itself wrong. If there is not the assistance
of the liquidity of water, or of the heat of fire, it will not he
possible for man to cook anything, in spite of all his efforts;
and the possessing or not possessing of these qualities by fire
etc. is not something, which is within the control of man, or
subject to his efforts. Therefore, a man has to make all his
various efforts, after having first acquired the knowledge of
these self -existent activities in the world of Action, and of
the way in which these various activities will become helpful
to his own efforts. Therefore, whatever fruit is obtained by a
man by his own Action, is not actually the fruit of his Action,
but must be said to be the fruit of the union of his Action with
the self-existent forces existing in the world of Action, which
are promotive of his efforts. But, it very often happens that a
man has not acquired a complete knowledge of all these various
natural activities, the promotiveness of which is, in this way,
necessary to make his efforts successful; and in some cases, it is
impossible for him to acquire this knowledge. This is known
as DESTINY. If the assistance of natural activities, which
are not within our control and which may not even be known
RENUNCIATION and KARMA-YOGA 453
to us, is thus necessary in order that success should crown our
■efforts, believing that ' I will do a particular thing purely by
my own efforts' is naturally an extremely foolish belief (Gi. 18.
14-16); because, in as much as the fruit to be obtained by the
co-operation between the known and the unknown activities
of the natural world of Action and the efforts of man, is the
result of the laws of Action (Karma), there will not be the
slightest difference, so far as the success of the effort goesi
whether one entertains the desire for fruit, or does not entertain
it; and there is only the chance of one's hope for tbe fruit oausing
one unhappiness. Nevertheless, the activities of Nature do not
of their own accord bring about that thing which a man wants-
As it is necessary to add salt to the flour, in order to make the
hread palatable, so also is it necessary to add some human
effort, more or less, to these self-existent activities of the
Natural world of Action, in order that they should become
beneficial to man. Therefore, those persons, who are scients
and discriminators, do not entertain any Attachment or
ambition about the fruit of their Action, and perform the small
or big portion of Sastra-enjoined Action which is destined for
them, consistently with their authority, in the eternal course
of Karma (pravaha-patita), in order to carry on the activities
of the world; and they rely on the co-operation (sunyoga)
between Action (Karma) and Destiny (Dharma), so far as the
question of the success of the effort goes; or, speaking in the
language of Devotion, they rely on the desire of the Parame-
svara, so far as that matter goes. This is what is implied in
the advice: "Your authority extends only to the performance
of Action; obtaining the result is not a matter which you can
control" (Gl. i. 47), given by the Blessed Lord to Arjuna.
When one goes on performing Action, without entertaining
any hope for the fruit, one does not have any reason for feeling
unhappy about the fruitlessness of the Action, if for any reason
it becomes fruitless, as one has performed the duty of doing
the Action, which is the only thing within one's control. For
instance, the science of Medicine tells us, that unless the thread
of life (that is, the inherent strength of the vital elements in
the body) is strong, a patient never gets well merely hy
Medicines ; and, as the strength of this thread is the result of
454 GIT5.-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
many pie-destined or hereditary causes, that is a matter whioh
is outside the control of the doctor, and it is even impossible
for him to definitely calculate the quantity of that strength-
Yet, we actually see, that considering it his duty to give
medicine to his patients, a doctor medicates thousands of
patients in this way, to the extent of his abilities, and purely
with the intention of doing good to others. When a doctor
has thus disinterestedly performed his duty of giving medicine,
not only does he not become despondent, if a particular patient
is not oured, but he even draws up with a peaceful mind the
statistics, that a particular percentage of patients is cured by
a particular medicine. But, when the son of that same dootor
falls ill, and he has to give medicine to him, he forgets the
fact that there is such a thing as 'the thread of life,' and
becoming confused by the selfish Hope of Fruit, in the shape
of the idea that 'my son must get well', he calls in another
doctor to treat his son, or at any rate for consultation. This
simple illustration will explain what is meant by the selfish
Attachment to the Result of Action, and how it is possible to
perform some Action merely as a duty, even when there is no
hope as regards the result- It is true that in order that
the Hope for result may thus be destoryed, the mind
has to be imbued with Renunciation, by means of
Knowledge. But, just as when one is asked to take away
the colour (characteristic) from a piece of cloth, it does not
become necessary to destroy the cloth, so also, when it is said
that one should not entertain Desire, Attachment, or Low
in the matter of Action, it does not follow that Action itself
should be given up. If it were to become impossible to perform
Action as a result of Renunciation, that would be a different
matter. But, not only is it possible to perform Action,
in spite of Renunciation, but also, as we ourselves see, nobody
can at any time escape Karma. Therefore, the true prinoiple
of leading one's life, from the point of view of Ethics, and.
from the point of view of Release, is that the scient should,
after acquisition of Knowledge, perform those very Actions,,
which are performed by the ignorant with a Hope for Result,
but looking upon advantage or disadvantage, happiness or
unhappiness as one and the same (Gi. %. 38) ; and courageously
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 455
and enthusiastically, but with a pure Reason, that is, being
renounced or indifferent in the matter of the fruit (Gl. 18. 26k
and -with a peaceful mind, according to his own authority,
and purely as a matter of duty (Gl. 6. 3). This is the course
of Aotion, which has been adopted by numerous Steady-in-
minds (stltitaprajrla), by devotees of the Blessed Lord, by
parsons who have acquired the highest knowledge, nay, even
by the Blessed Lord Himself ; and the highest goal of man
consists in this Path of Energism (Karma-Yoga); and the
Bhagavadglta proclaims in unquestionable terms that ultimate
Release results from this ' Yoga ' on aocount of the worship
of and meditation on the Paramesvara whioh it entails
(Gl. 18. 46). If in spite of this, some one intentionally mis-
understands the matter, we must look upon him as unfortunate.
Spencer did not accept the Metaphysical point of view. Yet f
he has in his book called the Study of Sociology come to the
conclusion, that since, even from the Materialistic point of
view, it is not possible for a man to cause anything to happen
at once in this world, and human efforts are fruitful, fruitless,
or more or less fruitful in proportion to the way in which
the hundreds of other causative things, which are necessary for
it to happen, have happened previously, the wise man must
go on performing his duties peacefully and enthusiasticallyt
without entertaining any Desire for Result of Action, though
the ordinary man is induced to perform the Action only by
desire for the fruit— which is the same as what the Glta
Even if it is thus proved that the scient must, so long as
life lasts, desirelessly perform all the duties, which befall him
in the course of life, having given up the Hope for Result, the
* "thus admitting that for the fanatic, some wild anticipation
is needful as a stimulus; and recognising the usefulness of his
delusion as adapted to his particular nature °nd his particular
function, the man of higher type must be content with greatly
moderated expectations, while he perseveres with undiminished efforts.
He has to see how comparatively little can be done, and jet to find
it worth while to do that little: so uniting philanthropic energy
with philosophic calm" — Spenoer's Study of Sociology 8th Ed.
p. 403. ( The italics are ours ;. If, in this sentence, une substitutes
456 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
subject matter of Kama- Yoga is not exhausted -unless it is
explained why, and for what purpose, these Actions at all
come into existence. Aud, therefore, the last and the most
important direction of the Blessed Lord to Arjuna in support
of the doctrine of Karma-Yoga is that: " lokasamgraliam
eva 'pi sampasyan kartum arhasi" (Gi. 3. 20), i. e., " even having
regard to publio benefit {lokasamgraha), you must perform
these Actions". Public benefit does not mean 'making
societies of men' or 'making a farce of performing Action like
other people, though one has the right to abandon Action, in order
that ignorant people should not give up Action, and in order
to please them'; because, the object of the Glta is not that
people should remain ignorant, or that scients should make
a farce of performing Action, only in order to keep them
ignorant. Far from any hypocrisy being advised, when
Arjuna was not satisfied by arguments which would have
been conclusive for ordinary people, such as, "people will sing
YOUR disgrace" (Gi. 2. 34 ) etc., the Blessed Lord goes on to
give more weighty and philosophically more powerful
arguments. Therefore, the word 'samgraha', which has been
defined in dictionaries to mean 'protecting,' 'keeping', 'regula-
ting' etc., has in this placate be taken in all those meanings
according to tbe context; and when that is done 'lokasamgraha'
{public benefit) means "blading men together, and protecting,
maintaining and regulating them in such a way that they might
acquire that strength which results from mutual co-operation,
thereby putting them on the path of acquiring merit while
maintaining their good condition." The words 'welfare of a
nation' have been v-A in the same sense in the Manu-Smrti
(7. 144) and the wed 'lokasamgraha' has been defined in the
the words 'maddtnad by the qualities of Matter' (Gi. 3. 29), or,
'befooled by Individuation (ahamBra)' (Gi. 3. 27), or, tha word
' fool ' used by. tbe dramatist BLSaa (see p. 430 above — Trans.) for the
word 'fanatic', and one substitutes the word 'vidvun' (scient)
(Gi. 5.25) for the words 'man of higher type', and the words
' indifference towards the i rait of Action,' or 'abandonment of the
fruit of Action', for the words 'greatly moderated expectations',
one may almost say that Spencer has copied the doctrine of the
Gita, , •
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 457
Samkarabhasya as meaning "lokasyonmargapi'avrttinivaraxiam"
(i. e., "weaning men from the tendency to take to the path of
wrong"); and from this it will be clear, that my interpretation
of that word as meaning "making wise, those persons who
behave recklessly as a result of ignorance, and keeping them
together in a happy state, and putting them on the path of .
self-amelioration" is neither strange nor without authority
The word 'samgrahd has been explained in this way. I must
now make it clear that the word 'loka' in 'lokasarugraha' does
not indicate only mankind. It is true that the word 'loka-
sarhgralia' ordinarily means 'the benefit of human beings', as
man is superior to the other created beings in the world"
Yet, in as much as the Blessed Lord also desires that the
bhurloka, satyaloJca, pitrloka, devaloka, and the several other
loka or worlds, which have been created by Him, should also
be properly maintained and go on in a proper way, I must
say that the word ' lolaxsamgraha ' has, in this place, the
comprehensive meaning that the activities of all these various
spheres should go on properly in the same way as those of
mankind, (lokasafngraha=lokanafii samgrahdh, i. e., the main-
tenance of various worlds). The description given above by
Janaka of the way in which he performed his duties refers
to the sphere of gods and the sphere of ancestors ; and it is
stated in the description of the cycle of Yajfias (sacrifioial
ritual), which has been given in the third chapter of the
Bhagavadglta, and in the Narayaniyopakhyana of the
MahSbharata, that Brahmadeva has created the Yajiia in order
■that the sphere of humans, as also the sphere of gods, should
be maintained (Gl. 3. 10-12). From this, it becomes clear that
"the word ' lolcasamgraha ' has been used in the Bhagavadglta to
mean the maintenance, not only of human beings, but that the
human and all the other spheres, such as of the gods etc., should
be maintained, and that they should become mutually beneficial.
This authority or right of the Blessed Lord of performing loka-
samgraha by maintaining the entire universe in this way,
is acquired by a man when he becomes a Jnanin as a result of
rthe acquisition of Knowledge. Whatever is considered proper
by a JfUnin, is also considered proper by other people, and
Jthey behave accordingly (Gl. 3. 21); because, ordinary people
458 CHTA-RAHASYA OB KAKMA-YQGA
believe that it is the Tight of Jfianins (soients) to consider with
a peaceful and equable mind, in what way the maintenance and-
uplift of the entire world can best be carried on, and to lay down
the rules of Ethics accordingly; and such a belief is not
ill-founded. Nay, one may even say that ordinary people put
faith in Jfianins in this matter, because they themselves do-
not understand these things correctly. It is for expressing
the same idea that Bhisma has said to Yudhisthira in the
Santiparva that :-
lokasamgrakasamyuktam vidhatra vihitaih piira l
suksmadharmarthaniyatam satam caritam uttamam II
(Ma. Bha. San. 258. 25)
that is, "Brahmadeva himself has created the most excellent
lives of saints in order to explain which path of duty should
be adopted on critical occasions, as beir.g universally beneficial"-
It, therefore, follows that lokasangraha does not mean some
humbug or other, or, a trick for keeping people in ignorance,
but means one of the import; bt duties created by Brahmadeva
for saints; because, the world is likely to be destroyed if Action
based on Knowledge disappears from the world. The same
purport is conveyed by the following words of the Blessed
Lord, namely, "if I do not perform this Action, all these 'loka
that is, spheres, will be destroyed" (3. 24). The scients are the
eyes of the world; and if they give up their duties, the world
will become blind, and cannot but be destroyed. It is the
scients who have to make people wise and ameliorate their
condition. But, such a thing cannot ba done by mere oraL
directions, that is, by mere advice ; because, as we always see
it in the world, if some one merely preaches the Knowledge
of the Brahman to those people, who are not in the habit of
behaving righteously, and whose minds are not purified, they
misapply the knowledge, saying, "what is yours is mine, and
what iB mine is also mine". Besides, it is usual for people to
test the correctness of the advice given by a particular person
by reference to his own behaviour. Therefore, if the scient
does not perform Action himself, that becomes an excuse for
ordinary people to become idle. This is what is meant by
'buddhi-bheda' (difference of vision); and in order that such a
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 459
difference of vision should not arise, and that people should
beoome really desireless, and should be alive to their duties, it
is the duty (not the hypocrisy) of scients to remain in worldly
life and to give a living lesson to ordinary people of moral
behaviour (sadacxrana), that is, of living their lives desirelessly,
by showing them their own behaviour. Therefore, the Gita says
that a scient never acquires the right to give up Action, and
that it is necessary for him to perform the various duties which
have been enjoined for the four castes, for promoting universal
benefit, if not for their own benefit. But, as the followers of the-
school of Renunciation are of opinion that the Jnanin need not
perform the activities enjoined on the various castes, with a
desireless frame of mind, or need not even perform them
at all, the commentators belonging to this school of thought,
have made a mess of the doctrine of the Giti. that a scient
must go on performing Actions for universal benefit ; and they
seem to be prepared to indirectly, if not directly, suggest that
the Blessed Lord has Himself given only hypocritical advice !'
But, it beoomes clear from the previous and subsequent context
that this forceless interpretation of the word ' lokasamgraba r
used in the Gita, is not correct. The Gita does not in the first
place admit the position that the Jnanin has got a right to-
give up Action ; and lolcasamgraha is the most important-
reason out of the various reasons adduced in the Gita for
the Jnanin not doing so. It is, therefore, absolutely unjust
to first take it for granted that a Jnanin can give up Aotion
and then to interpret the word lolcasamgralta as meaning
something hypocritical. Man has not come into this
world merely for his own benefit. It is true that ordinary
people are engrossed in selfish activities as a result of
ignorance. But, if a man, to whom the whole world has-
become identified with himself as " sarvabhutastham aJtrnoMxin
sarvabhutani catmani", i.e., "I am in all created beings, and.
all created beings are in me", says: "Release has beeni
attained by ME, now why should I care if everybody else is-
unhappy ? ", he will be degrading his own Knowledge by his
own mouth. Is the Atman of a scient something which is
independent or individual 1 So long as his Atman was covered
by the cloak of ignorance, the difference between 'I' andV
460 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
'the world ' existed; but after the acquisition of Knowledge,
the Atman of the world becomes bis own Atman; and
therefore, Vasistha has said to Rama in the Yoga-Vasiatha
that :-
yawl lohxparamarso nirudho nasti yoginah I
tavad rudkasamadhitvam na bhavaty eva nirmcdam II
(Yo. 6. Pu. 128. 9?)
that is, "so long as the duty of looking after other people (that
is of lokasanigratia) remains to howsoever small an extent, it
■ cannot be said that the state of the person, who has attained
Yoga, has become free from blame". For such a man to become
■ engrossed in the happiness of meditation, is to some extent
like attending only to his own selfish needs. The chief fault
in the argument of the supporters of the school of Renuncia-
tion, is that they disregard this factor. It is not possible to
■come across any one who is more a Jnanin, more desireless, or
more fully a Yogin, than the Blessed Lord. But if even the
Blessed Lord Himself takes incarnations from time to time
for universal benefit, e. g., for "the protection of saints, the
destruction of villains, and the re-establishment of religion
•(dliarma)", ( Gi. 4. 8), it would be totally improper for a Jnanin
to give up universal welfare, and say: "that Paramesvara who
has created all these various spheres, will maintain them in
any way He likes; that is no part of my duty"; because, after
the acquisition of Knowledge, the difference of 'Paramesvara',
T and "the world' does not remain; and if such a difference
remains, then such a man is not a Jnanin : he is a hypocrite.
If a Jnanin becomes uniform with the Paramesvara as a
result of Jnana, how will he escape the necessity of performing
that Action which isparformedbythe Paramesvara, in the same
way as it is performed by the Paramesvara, that is, desirelessly
(Gl. 3. 22 and 4. 14 and 15)? Besides, whatever the Paramesvara
has to do, has to be done by Him through the medium of
■sclents. Therefore, active noble sentiments, full of sympathy to-
wards all created beings, must arise in the mind of the man who
has had the direct Realisation of the form of the Paramesvara
in the shape of the feeling that 'there is only one Atman in all
■created beings'; and the trend of his mind must naturally be
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 461
towards universal welfare. The Saint Tukarama has with;
that intention described the characteristic features of a saint-
by the following words: —
Of them who are unhappy and in distress I
he who says that they are his 1
That man should be recognised as a saint I
know that God is in such a man I
(Ga. 960. 1-2)
Or,
He who spends his energies in doing good to others I
has realised the true state of the Atman I
(Ga. 4563).
And he has described Saints, that is, those noble souls who-
have Realised the Paramesvara by means of Devotion in the-
following terms :-
The incarnations of saints are for the public welfare I
they labour their own bodies for the benefit of
others II
(Ga. 929).
And Bhartrhari has said that,, " svartho yasija parartha eva sa-
puimn ekah satam agranlh", i. e., "that man with whom the
interests of others have become identical with his own, is
really the highest of saints". Were not Manu and other
law-makers, Jnanins ? But, instead of exaggerating the worth
of the illusion in the shape of the pain of Desire, and destroying
all natural instincts, such as, of doing good to others etc-
along with Desire, they have laid down the Sastric bonds,
such as the arrangement of the four castes etc., for the
universal benefit ( lokasavigraha ). The laws which prescribe
learning for the Brahmins; warfare, for the Ksatriyas ;
agriculture, protection of oattle, and business for the Vaisyas i
and service for the Sudras and which have been enjoined by the
Sastras consistently with the characteristic qualities of the
different castes, have not bean made for the benefit of every
individual, It is stated in the Manu-Smrti, that the division .
462 GITA-RAHAYSA OB KARMA-YOGA
<rf vocations among the four castes, has been made for
universal benefit, bearing in mind the fact that in the interests
of the protection of society, some persons must for a consider-
able length of time study warfare and be ready for war, and
that others have got to meet the other needs of society by
attending to agriculture, business, education, and other matters;
and even the Gita supports the same division (Manu, 1. 87 ;
Gl. 4 13 ; 18. 41). I have stated above that if any of these
four castes ceases to perform its duties, then to that extent,
society will be incapacitated, and even runs the risk -of being
destroyed. Nevertheless, it is not that this vocational division
is uniform everywhere. The arrangements which have been
■suggested for the maintenance of society by the ancient Greek
Philosopher Plato in his book on this subject, and by the
modern French Philosopher Comte in his book called Natural
Philosophy, though similar to the arrangement of the four
wastes, are yet, to some extant, different from the arrangement
of four castes mentioned in the Vedic religion, as will be seen
by any one reading those books. Many questions have
arisen on this point, such as, which arrangement of society
is the best of these all; or, whether this goodness of arrange-
ment is relative; and whether there can be a change in it
by reference to change of times ; and, the welfare of society
{lokasamgraha) has become a very important science at the
present day in Western countries. But, as my present object
is only to elucidate the import of the Gita, it is not necessary
for me to consider those questions here. It cannot be doubted
that at the time of the Gita, the arrangement of the four
castes was rigidly enforced, and that it had originally been
given effect to for the welfare of society. Therefore, I have
to mention here emphatically, that lokasamgraha according
to the Gita means, giving to other people a living example
■of how one can perform desirelessly all the various activities,
which are allotted to one, according to the arrangement of the
four castes. Scients are not only tha eyes, but also the
preceptors of society. Therafore, in order to effect lokasamgraha
as mentioned above, it becomes necessary for them to engage
in such activities, as will prevent the disruption of the self-
maintaining and self-uplifting capacity of society, and will
RENUNCIATION and KARMA-YOGA 463
allow it to grow, after they have in the first place weeded
out whatever they might find faulty in the prevalent social
arrangements, having _ regard to the changed times and
places, as was done by Svetaketu. In order to effect universal
welfare in this way, Janaka continued to rule till the end of
his life instead of renouncing the world, and Manu consented
to become the first king; and it is for this reason that there is
frequent advice in the Gita to Arjuna to engage in the warfare,
which was the law for him in accordance with the arrangement
of the four castes, by the use of such expressions as the f ollowing:-
"svadharmam api caveksya m vikampitum arhasi" ( Gl. 2. 31), i. e.
"it is not proper that you should bemoan having to perform that
duty which is your lot according to your caste"; or, "svabhava-
niyatam karma human napnoti kilbisam" (Gl. 18. 47), i, e., "by
■doing that duty which has been enjoined on you by the arrange-
ment of the four castes, having regard to characteristic
•natures, you will not incur any sin". No one says that one
•should not, to the best of one's capacity, acquire the Knowledge
of the Paramesvara. Nay, it is the doctrine also of the Gita
that it is the highest duty of every human being in this world
to acquire this Knowledge. But, as the benefit of one's own
Atman also includes exerting oneself to the fullest extent of
■one's abilities, for the benefit of the all-pervading Atman, the
Gita goes further and says that the Realisation of the identity
of the Brahman and the Atman ultimately resolves itself into
bringing about lokasamgralm. Nevertheless, from the fact that
-a particular person has acquired Knowledge of the Brahman,
it does not follow that he, on that account, becomes capable of
personally taking part in all the various vocations in the
world. Both Bblsma and Vyasa were great Jnanins, and great
•devotees of the Blessed Lord. But no one says that Vyasa
could have carried out the work of warfare as well as Bhisma;
and even if one considers the gods, one does not find that the
work of destroying the world has been entrusted to Visnu
.instead of Sankara. The state of being birth-released ( jivan-
.mukta) is the last stage of the mind 's freedom from objects of
.pleasure, and of an equable and pure Reason, and of Metaphysical
.excellence; it is not a test of excellence in Material vocations.
Therefore, the Gita, has again preached twice in the same chapter
464 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
that the Jfianin must, after acquisition of Knowledge, continue-
to perform that business or duty for the universal welfare
which is consistent with his. caste, and which he had been
performing during the whole of his life consistently with the
arrangment of the four castes, which has been based on
inherent qualities, because, it is likely that he will be an adept"
in that business alone; and that if he takes to any other-
business, there is a chance of harm being done to society (Gi. 3.
35; 18. 47). This diverse capacity, which exists within every
person, consistently with the god-given inherent natural,
characteristics, is known as 'adhikara' ( qualification or autho-
rity) ; and it has been stated in the Vedanta-Siitras, that "yavad
adhikaram avaslhitir adhikarinam" (Ve. Su. 3. 3. 32), i. e,, "even
if a man has acquired the knowledge of the Brahman, he must
go on performing those duties, which are his lot according to
his qualification (adlukara), so long as he lives, for the welfare
*3f society". Some say that this injunction of the Vedanta-
Siitras applies only to persons, who are really men of high
authority; and if one considers the illustrations given in the
commentaries on these Sutras, in support of the Sutra, it is
seen that they are of Vyasa and other persons holding high:
authority. But, the original Sutra makes no mention of the
greatness or the smallness of authority. Therefore, the word
' adhikara' must be taken to mean high or low qualification of
every kind; and if one considers minutely and independently
what this qualification is, and how it is acquired, it is seen that
in as much as the Paramesvara created man simultaneously
with society, and society simultaneously with man, every
human being, as a result of the arrangement of four castes, or
of any other social arrangement consistent with the division,
of inherent qualities, acquires, by birth, the high or low
qualification of maintaining and uplifting society, according to
his or her own powers, and proportionately with whatever
intellectual capacity, authoritative capacity, financial capacity,
or physical capacity is naturally possessed by him, or can be
acquired by him having regard to his status in life. Just as
extremely small wheels are necessary along with large wheels
in order that any machine should work properly, so also
iB it necessary that the authority of common-place persons.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 465
should be exercised properly and fully in the same way as the-
authority of superior persons like Vyasa and others, in order
that the immense and ponderous aotivity or mechanism of the
Cosmos should continue to work in a properly regulated
manner. Bacause, if potters do not manufacture pots or
weavers do not weave clothes, the maintenance of society
(lokasamgraha) cannot be satisfactorily oarried out, even if
the king protects society proparly ; or, if the most insignificant
pointsman or cabinman in a railway administration does not
properly perform his duty, it will not be possible for the-
railway train to rush along with safety and with the speed
of wind, both during the day and during the night, as it now
does. Therefore, it follows from the above argument advanced,
by the writer of the Vedanta-Siitras, that even an ordinary
person, and not only superior parsons like Vyasa and others —
whether such ordinary person is a king or is a poor man —
must not, after acquisition of Knowledge, fail to exercise the
large or small authority of carrying out public welfare, which. "
has properly befallen him ; but should, so long as life lasts,
execute that authority desirelessly, and as a matter of duty,
to the fullest extent of his powers and his intelligence, and as
far as circumstances will permit. It is not proper for him .
to say that if he does not do it, somebody else will ; because,
in that case, not only does one man fall short in the
performance of the total work of society, and thereby society
lose its aggregate power, but, as another person cannot do that
particular work as well as a Jfianin, the general welfare of
society suffers to that extent. Besides, as has been mentioned
above, the mental frame of other people is also disturbed by
the example of Abandonment of Action by a Jfianin. It is-
true that the followers of the Samnyasa school sometimes say
that when one's own Atrnan has obtained Release, by the
Mind having been purified as a result of Karma, one should
be satisfied with that ; and without caring if the whole world
goes to dogs, one should neither perform lolcasamgraha, nor
cause it to be performed — " lokasamgrahadharmam ca tmva
Jcuryanna kdrayet" (Ma. Bha. Asva. Anugita. 46 39). But,
it becomes quite clear from the justification which they
advance about the life of Vyasa and others, or from the advice
59—60
466 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
given by Vasistha or Pancasikha to Rama or Janaka to go on
performing their duties of maintaining and uplifting society-
according to their authority till death, that the doctrine of the
Sarhnyasa school is one-sided, and is not a scientific verity
which will stand firm at all times. Therefore, it must be said
that one should not pay attention to this one-sided advice, and
that the only path which is excellent and is consistent with
the Sastras is to continue Action beneficial to society, so long
as life lasts, even after having acquired Realisation, and with
due regard to one's own qualification, following the illustration
of the Blessed Lord Himself. Nevertheless., this lokasamgraha
must not be performed, entertaining any Hope foT Fruit
(plialasa); because, if one entertains the Hope for r?Tuit, though
it may be about lokasamgraha, one cannot but suffer un-
happiness, if that hope is frustrated. Therefore, a man should
not entertain the proud or desireful thought that ' I shall
bring about lolmsamgraha , and a man has to bring about
lokasamgraha merely as a duty. It is for the same reason
that the Gita has used the rather longish phraseology
of: " lokasamgraham evapi sampasyan", i. e., "you must
perform Action, keeping in sight ( sampasyan ) public
welfare" (Gl. 3. 20), instead of saying that ' lokasamgrahartha'
means, "for obtaining fruit in the shape of public welfare ".
It is true that loltasamgraha is an important duty; hut it must
not be forgotten that the advice given by the Blessed Lord to
Arjuna in the previous verse (Gl. 3. 19) that all acts should be
performed being free from Attachment, applies equally to
loltasamgraha.
If it is proved by logical argument that the opposition
between Jfiana and Karma is an opposition between Jfiana and
Desireful Karma, that there is no opposition between Jfiana and
Dasireless Karma from the Metaphysical point of view, and that
as Karma is unavoidable, and is also essential from the point
of view of lokasamgraha, even a Jnanin must, so long as life
lasts, continue to perform the duties of the four castes, accord-
ing to his qualification, and without Attachment; and if the
Gita says the same thing, a doubt naturally arises as to what
becomes of the Sarhnyasa (ascetic) state, out of the four states
of life, which have been described in the Smrti tests of the
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA- YOGA 467
Tedic religion. In the Manu-Smrti and other Smrtis, the four
-states (asrama), namely, celibacy, householdership, living in
the woods, and asceticism have been mentioned; and it is there
stated that after the Mind has been gradually purified by
carrying out the duties of education (adhyayana), sacrificial
ritual, charitable gifts etc. which befall a person according
to the arrangement of the four oastes, as prescribed by the
Sastras, in the first three states of life, a man should in the end
literally give up all Action and renounce the world, and attain
Release (See Manu. 6. 1 and 33-37). From this it follows,
that according to all the writers of the Smrtis, though sacri-
ficial ritual and charitable gifts etc. are proper to the state of
a householder, yet, their only purpose is the purification of the
Mind, that is to say, to bring one to the stage of Realising that
there is only one Atman in all created beings, by the gradual
elimination of one's Attachment to objects of pleasure, and of
one's self-serving Reason, which (elimination) results in the
gradual increase of the desire to do good to others; and that
once this mental state has been acquired, one must in the end
literally abandon all Action and take to the fourth state of
Samnyasa (Asceticism) in order to obtain Release. This is the
Path of Samnyasa which was established by Sri Sathfcaracaiya
in the present Kali-yuga, and Kalidasa, who followed the
teaching of the Smrtis, has described the powerful kingB of
■the Solar Dynasty ( suryawmsi ), in the beginning of the
.Raghuvamsa as follows: —
saiiave 'bhyastavidyomam yauvane visayaisiriam l
mrdliake munivrttimm yogenante tanutyajam »
(Raghu. 1. 8.)
that is, "they were such as performed abhyasa (brahmacarya) as
children, took up the worldly life entailing the enjoyment of
the objects of pleasure in their youth (grlmsthasrama), they
lived in the woods during old age, or led the life of a mum
and ultimately took their Atman into the Brahman according-
ito the rules of the Samnyasa state, by practising the Pataftjala-
468 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Toga and gave up their lives. Similarly, it is stated in the
iukanuprasna in the.Mahabharata that :-
catu&padi hi mhireni brahmawyesii pratisthita I
etam aruhyaiiihsrerum brahmcdoke mahiyate II
(San. 241. 15).
hat is, "this ladder with four steps (in the shape of the four
tages) ultimately leads to the state of the Brahman. When.
n this way, a man goes up this ladder from one state into the
text higher state, he ultimately acquires greatness in the
phere of the Brahman". And after that, the following order
las been described, namely :-
kasayam pacayitvasu irenisthanesu ca trim I
prawajea ca param sthanam parivrajyam anuttamam II
(San. 344. 3).
ihat is, " a man should, in the three steps of this ladder, destroy
is early as possible his kilbisa, that is, his faults in the shape
if selfish tendencies, or Attachment to objects of pleasure,
md should then renounce the world ; parivrajya, that is,.
Samnyasa is the most excellent state of all ". This same
sourse of going from one state to another state of life has
also been mentioned in the Manu-Smrti (Kami. 6. 4). But
Manu had fully realised the fact that if in this way there was
an inordinate increase in the desire of people to take up the
fourth state, the activity in the world would be destroyed,,
and society would ultimately be lamed. Therefore, after
having definitely enjoined the performance of all activities
which are necessary to be performed in the previous states
of a householder, and which consisted of acts of valour or of
universal welfare, Manu has laid down the clear limit in the-
following words, namely :
grhasthastu yada pasyed mlipalitam atmanah I
apuiyasyaim capo/yam tad arayyam jsamasrayet II
(Manu. 6. 2).
that is, " when his body has become covered with wrinkles, and 1
he has seen his own grand-children, the householder should:
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA
become a denizen of the woods, and should take Samnyasa ".
The Manu-Smrti gives the following reason why this limit has
'to be followed, namely : in coming to birth, every man brings
on his back the three debts (duties) to the Rsis, to his ancestors,
and to the deities. Therefore, until a man has discharged all
■these three obligations, that is, to the Rsis, by the study of
Vedas ; to the ancestors, by the procreation of off-spring; and
■to the deities, by the performance of sacrificial ritual, he is
not in a position to give up worldly life and take Samnyasa ;
and if he does so, he will go to perdition as a result of his
not having discharged the indebtedness which he has acquired
as a result of his birth. (See, Manu. 6. 35-37 ; and the canon
[mantra) from the Tai. Sam. quoted in the last chapter).
According to ancient Hindu Law, a man 's children, and even
his grand-children, had to discharge the debts of their ancestors,
without pleading the law of limitation; and they used to
consider it a great misfortune to have to die without having
discharged the debts due to others. When this fact is brought
to mind, my readers will clearly understand what the intention
•of our law-givers was, in referring to the above-mentioned
important social duties, as ' debts '. Kalidasa has said in the
Baghuvamsa that all the kings belonging to the Solar Dynasty
{suryavamsi) led their lives according to the rules laid
down by the Smrtis, and that they used to leave the state of
the householder after (not before) installing their sons on the
■throne, after the sons had grown up and become capable of
ruling (Raghu. 7. 68). And there is statement in the
Bhagavata (Bhag. 6. 5. 35-42), that because Narada advised
the sons of Daksa Prajapati named Haryasva and also again
his several other sons named Sabalasva to take to the Path of
Samnyasa before they had married, and made Sarimyasins of
them, Daksa-Prajapati reprimanded Narada for this his unlaw-
ful and objectionable behaviour, and laid a curse on him. From
this, the original idea of this arrangement of the four states
appears to have been, that when a man has lived his worldly
life according to the injunctions of the Sastras, and his ohildren
have become more capable than him, he should not interfere
with their enthusiasm yielding to the interfering tendency of
•old age; but should become ™''" aJ ™i°i™ ~j"» as. JA.« nf
470 GlTA-EAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
acquiring Release; and should of his own accord and volun-
tarily give up worldly life. The same idea is conveyed in the
advice given by Vidura to Dhrtarastra in the Viduraniti in the
following words :-
utpadya putran anrvainsca kriva
vritim ca tebhyo 'mvidhaya kamcit I
stKane kumarih pratipadya sarva
aranyasavistho 'tha munir bubhuset II
(Ma. Bha. U. 36. 39)
that is, " after a man has begotten sons in the state of a house-
holder, and left no debts to be discharged by them, and made-
some arrangements for their maintenance, and after having
got all - his daughters properly married, he should become
a denizen of the woods and satisfy his desire of renouncing the
world"; and the idea of ordinary people about worldly life
in this country is more or less consistent with the dictates of
Vidura. Nevertheless, as it was believed that giving up
worldly life and taking to Samnyasa was the highest ideaL
of manhood, the beneficial direction of the three previous stages
of life laid down by the writers of the Smrtis for the successful
carrying out of the ordinary affairs of the world, gradually
lost importance ; and people came to the stage of saying, that
if a man had at birth, or in comparatively young age, acquired.
Knowledge, it was not wrong for him to renounce the world
at once without waiting to go through the other three stages —
" brahmacaryad era pravrajet grhad va variad va " ( Jaba. 4). For
the same reason, Kapila has given the following advice to-
Syumarasmi in the Gokapiliya catechism in the Mahabharata,.
namely :-
sarirapaktih karmayi jnanam tu parama gatih I
kasaye karmabhih pakve rasajnane ca tisthati II*
(San. 269 38)
* This verse has been adopted in the Samkarabhasya on the
Vedanta-Sutras, and there it runs aa follows:—
hi^ayapahtih karrnani jfianalh tu parama gatih \
ktjaye karmabhih pakve tato jnanampravartate ||
(Ve. 85. Sam. Bha. 3. 4. 26 )
I have quoted the verse hero as I found it in the Mahabharata..
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 471
that is, "the object of Karma is to eliminate the disease in the
body in the shape of Attachment to objects of pleasure, and Jnana
is the highest and the ultimate goal; when the disease in the
shape of ignorance, or the kasaya, in the body is eliminated,
as the result of Karma, desire for the Knowledge of the essence
(rasa) is created". In the same way, it is stated in the ohapter on
Release (moksa) in the Pingalaglta, that "nairasyani paramam
sukliam", i. e., despair ia the highest happiness" or, "yo 'sau.
praifintikorogastamtrsnamtyajatahsukham", i. e., "until the
fatal disease, in the shape of Desire, has left the body, there
can be no happiness" ( San. 174. 65 and 58 ). And in addition
to the statements in the Jabala and Brhadaranyaka Upanisads,
there are also statements in the Kaivalya and Narayan-
opanisads that "na hxrmana na pi-ajaya dhanena tyagenaike
amrtatvam anasuh", i. e„ "not by Karma, nor by progeny, or
money, but by tyaga (Renunciation), is Release attained by
some" (Kai. 1. 2; Nara. U. 12. 3. 3 and 78). If the doctrine of
the Glta is that even a Jfianin must go on performing Action
till the end, I must explain how these statements have to be
disposed of. The same doubt arose in the mind of Arjuna, and
he has in the beginning of the eighteenth chapter asked
the Blessed Lord:— "then, explain to me what Renunciation
(samnyasa) and Abandonment (tyaga) respectively are". But
before considering the reply given by the Blessed Lord to this
question, it is necessary to consider here shortly another
equally important Vedic Path of Action, which has been
mentioned in the Smrti texts in addition to this Path of
Renunciation.
This path of four steps, namely, celibacy, householdership,
living in the woods, and asceticism is known as the 'Siriarta'
path, that is, 'the path prescribed by the writers of the Smrtis'.
This arrangement of the four states has been made by the
writers of the Smrtis, consistently with the growth in a man's
age, in order to mutually harmonise the contradictory state-
ments in the Vedas, which enjoin the Performance of Action,
as also the Abandonment of Action; and if the literal
Abandonment of Action is considered the highest ideal, it would
not be incorrect to consider the path of four steps laid down
by the writers of the Smrtis for leading one 's life, as the means
472 GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
or the preliminary preparation for reaching that ideal. It is
true that if one accepts these rising steps of leading one's life,
the activity of the world will not oome to an end, and the
Karma laid down by the Vedas, can be harmonised with the
Knowledge expounded in the Upanisads. Yet, in as much as
the state of the householder is the state which provides the
other three states with food ( Manu. 6. 89), the importance of
the state of a householder has ultimately been frankly
acknowledged in the Manu-Smrti, and even in the Mahahharata
in the following stanza:
yatha mataram asrifya sarve jivanti jantavah I
evam garliasthyam asrilya vartanta itarasramah II
( San. 268. 6)
that is, "as all living beings {jantavah) live by the support of
of the mother (earth), so also do the other three states live on
"the support of the state of a householder" ( See San. 268. 6; and
Manu. 3. 77 ). And Manu has referred to the other three
states of life as rivers, and to the state of the householder as
the sea (Manu. 6. 90; Ma. BhS. San. 295. 39). If the importance
of the state of a householder is thus unquestionable, where is
the sense of the advice that one must sometime give up the
state of the householder, and make a Renunciation of Action
( karmasamnyasa)1 Is it impossible to perform the duties of
the state of a householder even after the acquisition of
Knowledge? No; then, where is the sense of saying that a
Jnanin should go out of worldly life? The perfect Jnanins
who lead their liveB deBireleasly, are certainly more capable
and fit for performing universal welfare, than ordinary people
who entertain some selfishness or other in their hearts. There-
fore, if a Jnanin is given permission to leave worldly life,
just when his capacity has become perfect as a result of
Knowledge, that society, for the benefit of which the arrange-
ment of the four castes has been made, will suffer serious loss.
The oase would be different if some persons left society and
went to live in the forest for want of physical strength; and
that muBt have been the idea of Manu in relegating
Renunciation (samnyasa) to old age. But, as has been stated
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 473
above, this beneficial limit was not observed. Therefore,
although the writers of the Smrtis had created the rising ladder
of the four states, in order to harmonise the two-fold .order of
the Vedas, viz., to perform Action, and to give up Action, the
Blessed Lord, who was undoubtedly as competent, or even
more competent that the writers of the Smrtis, to harmonise
•these dictates of the Vedas, has Himself revived, and fully
■supported, in the form of the Bhagavata religion, the Path
-which combines Karma with Jnana, and which was followed
by Janafca and others in ancient times. The difference
between the two is, that in the Bhagavata doctrine, reliance is
not placed only on Metaphysical ideas, but the additional easy
Temedy of Devotion to Vasudeva has been added. But, a
detailed discussion of this matter will be made later on in the
-thirteenth chapter. Although the Bhagavata religion is
Devotional, yet, as it has adopted the important principle
enunciated in the Path prescribed by Janaka, namely, that
after the acquisition of the Knowledge of the Paramesvara,
a Jnanin should not take to Sarhnyasa in the Bhape of
Abandonment of Action, but should go on desirelessly perfor-
ming all his activities till death for universal welfare, giving
Tip the Hope for Fruit of Action ( phalasa ), both paths are
identical from the point of view of Karma, that is to say, they
hoth embody the union of Jnana with Karma, or are Activistic.
As the first protagonists of this Activistic religion were the
two Rsis, Nara and Narayana, who were living incarnations of
the Parabrahman, the ancient name of this religion is the
'Narayanlya Religion'. Though, both these Rsis had acquired
the highest Knowledge, they adviBed people to perform Action
■desirelessly, and did so themselves (Ma. Bha. U. 48. 21); and
therefore, this religion has been described in the Mahabharata
by saying: "pravrtlilaksanas caiva dharmo narayaimtmakah" (Ma.
Bha. San. 347. 81 ), or, " pravrtiilakmnavi dharmam rnr narayano
'bravit" — the religion propounded by the Rsi Narayana was life-
long Activistic (Ma. Bha. San. 217. 2). This religion is the
Satvata or Bhagavata religion, and it has been clearly stated
in the Bhagavata, that the form of this Satvata or original
Bhagavata religion was 'naiskarmya-lakmna', that is, desirelessly
Activistic ( See Bhag. 1. 3. 8 and 11. 4. 6). This Activistio
474 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
path was also known as 'Yoga', as is clear from the line-
"pravrttilaksano yogah jnanam samnyasalaksariam" in the;
Anugita [Ma. Bha. Asva. 43. 25); and, that is why the religion
propounded in the Gita by Sri Krsna, who was the incarnation,
of Narayana, to Arjuna, who was the incarnation of Kara, has-
been oalled 'Yoga' in the Gita itself. Some persons now-a-days
believe that the Bhagavata and the Smarta paths originally came
into existence as a result of a difference between the objects of
worship; but according to me, this belief is wrong; because,
although the objects of worship in these two paths may be
different, yet the Metaphysical Knowledge contained in both is
the same; and when the Metaphysical foundation of both was
the same, it is not likely that these ancient Jnanins, who were
steeped in this Supreme Knowledge, would have kept up
differences between themselves, merely on account of a differ-
ence in the objects of worship. For this reason, it is stated
both in the Bhagavadglta (9. 14) and in the Sivagita (12. 4) that,
whatever is worshipped, the worship ultimately reaches
one and the same Paramesvara; and these two deities
have been described in the NarSyaniya doctrine in the
Mahabharata as being identical, by saying that Narayana.
is the same as Rudra, that the worshippers of Narayana
were the worshippers of Rudra, and the enemies of
Narayana, the enemies of Rudra (Ma. Bha. San. 341. 20-2&
and 342. 129). I do not say that the difference between Saivism
and Vaisnavism did not exist in ancient times. What I mean
to say is that the original reason for the difference between
the Smarta and Bhagavata paths, was not the difference in
the objects of worship, namely, Siva and Visnu ; and tHat these
two paths must have first come into existence as a result of
a difference of opinion on an important point, namely, whether
Asceticism or Activism should be followed after the acqui-
sition of Knowledge. After a considerable lapse of time, when
this Activistic path or Karma- Yoga of the original Bhagavata
religion ceased to exist, and it got its present form of the pure
worship of Visnu, tnat is to say, a more or less Non-Activistic-
form, and on that account, people began to fight with each
other merely on the ground that the deity of one was Siva,
whereas the deity of the other was Visnu, the words 'Smarta *
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 475
and 'Bhagavata' became respectively synonymous withi
' Saiva ' and 'Vaisnava '; and ultimately the Vedanta of these-
present-day followers of the Bhagavata religion (Dualism or
Qualified Monism), and their astrology, that is to say, the
observance of the eleventh day of the month, as also the way
of applying the sandal-wood paste on the forehead, became
different from the Smarta way. But, it becomes quite clear-
from the word ' Smarta ' that these differences were not real,,
that is, original. As the Bhagavata religion was promulgated'
by the Blessed Lord Himself, there is no wonder that the object
of worship in it should be the Blessed Lord Sri Krsna or Visnu.
But, as the root-meaning of the word ' Smarta ' is ' prescribed
by the Smrfcis ', the deity worshipped according to the Smarta path-
need not be Siva ; because, it is nowhere stated in the works
of Manu or other ancient Smrti texts, that Siva is the only
deity which should be worshipped. On the other hand, Visnu
has been mentioned more often, and in some places Ganapati
and other deities are also mentioned. Besides, as both the
deities Siva and Visnu are Vedic, that is, as both have been,
mentioned in the Vedas, it is not proper to refer to only one
of them as 'Smarta'. Besides, Sri Sarhkaracarya is looked-
upon as a protagonist of the Smarta religion ; yet, Sarada
(goddess of learning — Trans.) is the deity worshipped in the
Sarhkara monasteries ; and wherever there has been occasion-
in the Sarhkarabhasya to refer to the worship of an idol, the
Acarya has referred, not to the Siva-linga, but to the Saligrama
that is, the image of Sri Visnu (Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. 1. 2. 7;
1. 3. 14 and 4. 1. 3; Chan. Sam. Bha. 8. 1. 1). There is also a
tradition that the worship of the Pancayatana (group of five
deities) was first started by Sarhkaracarya. Therefore, it
follows that according to the original meaning of these words,
people disregarded whether a person worshipped Siva or Visnu,
and considered those as SMARTA, whose ultimate ideal;
was to first go through worldly life in youth as prescribed
by the Sastras, and consistently with the arrangement of
the four states laid down systematically and in detail
in the Smrti texts, and to take Sarhnyasa, or the fourth
state, by giving up Action altogether in old age; and*
considered those as BHAGAVATA, who believed that all the
476 GtTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
Actions appropriate to the state of a householder should be
performed desirelessly till death, according to the advice of
the Blessed Lord, simultaneously with the acquisition of
Knowledge and with the possession of a passionate devotion
to the Blessed Lord ; and in these meanings, these two words
are respectively synonymous with Samkhya and Yoga or
Samnyasa and Karma-Yoga. Samnyasa subsequently ceased
to exist as a state of life, whether as a result of the incarna-
tions taken by the Blessed Lord, or because the importance of
the state of a householder, which included Spiritual Knowledge,
began to be realised; and it has been included among the Kali-
varjya, that is, those things which are prohibited in the Kali-
yuga according to the Sastras * But, later on the protagonists
of the Buddhist and the Jain religions accepted the opinions of
the Kapila-Sarbkhya school, and brought into prominence the
-doctrine that Release is impossible unless a man takes
Samnyasa, and gives up worldly life. It is well-known in
history that Buddha himself gave up his kingdom and his wife
and children and entered the Samnyasa state in youth.
Although Sri Samkaracarya refuted the Jain and Buddhistic
doctrines, yet the path of Asceticism, which was principally
put into vogue by the Jains and Buddhists, was allowed to
remain by the Acarya as being the Samnyasa prescribed by
the Srutis and the Smrtis; and he has, therefore, interpreted
the Gita as supporting the Samnyasa path. But, really
speaking the Gita is not a work which supports the Smarta
path ; and although the earlier portions of it refer to the Samkhya
or the Samnyasa path, the later portions, which contain the
conclusion, support the Activistic or Bhagavata religion, as
* See the chapter of Kali-varjya in the third part (pariccheda)
■of the Nirnaya-Sindhu. Here, the Smrti texts, '' agnihotram gavalam-
Iham samnyamm pahpailr/iam | demrac ca sulotpattih halau panca
vimrjayet" u, and "samnyasai ca na iartavyo brahmanem tijanau" etc.,
are mentioned. The first of these two tests means that agnihcira,
(perpetnal sacred fire), slaughter of cowa, Samnyasa, partaking of
meat at the time of the performance of the iraddha (ancestor-
■worahip), and myoga (procreating off-spring from the wife of another
—Trans.), these five are prohibited in the Kaliyuga. The prohibition
against Samnyasa, out of these, was removed by Samkaracarya.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 477
has been mentioned by me already in the first chapter to have
been stated by the author of the Mahabharata itself. As both'
these paths are Vedic, it is possible to harmonise them with,
each other to a considerable extent, if not wholly. But
harmonising them in this way, is one thing, and saying that,
the Gita supports only the Path of Renunciation, and that the
references in it to the Path of Energism as being productive of
Release, are merely praise, is quite a different thing. As.
a result of difference in taste, one man may prefer the Sraarta
religion to the Bhagavata religion; or he may consider as-
more convincing the reasons which are commonly givem
in support of the Abandonment of Action. I will not deny
that possibility. For instance, no one has any doubt that
Sri Samkaracarya favoured the Smarta or Samnyasa path,
and looked upon all other paths as based on ignorance. But,,
on that account, one cannot conclude that that was the-
purport of the Gita. If you do not accept the doctrines laid,
down by the Gita, do not follow them. But, it is not proper on
that account to interpret the statement, "there are, inthis-
world, two independent Nisthas or paths leading to Release
for living one's life," made in the commencement of the Gita, as
meaning that: "the Samnyasa path is the only true and superior-
path". These two paths, which have been described in the
Gita, have been current in the Vedic religion, independently
of each otber, even from before the days of Janaka and
Yajfiavalkya; and we see that persons like Janaka, on whom
the duty of the maintenance and uplift of society had befallen,,
as a result of their status as Ksatriyas, or hereditarily, or
as a result of their own prowess, continued their activities
desirelessly, even after the acquisition of Knowledge; and were
spending their lives in bringing about the benefit of the world.
Bearing in mind this status of oertain persons in society, the
Mahabharata contains two Buch distinct statements, according
to difference in status, as, "sukham jivanti munayo bhaiksyavrt-
tim sairiasntah", i. e., "ascetics living in the woods, joyfully
accept the status of beggars" (San. 178. 11), and "danda em hi
rajendra ksairadlwrmo na mundanam", i. e., "it is the duty of
the Ksatriyas to maintain and uplift people by punishment, and
not to shave off the hair on their heads" ( San. 23. 46). But,.
478 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
from this, one must not conclude that Karma-Yoga was the
proper duty only for the Ksatriyas, who were responsible for
the maintenance of society. The true meaning of the above
■statement from the science of Karma-Yoga is, that every man
must, after the acquisition of Knowledge, go on performing
-those duties, which are his according to his qualification
(adhikara); and it is on this account, that it is stated inthe
Bharata that, "esa purvatara vritltir brahmanasya vidhiyate" (San.
237), i. e., "even the Brahmins used, in ancient times, to continue
Yajfias and Yagas, according to their qualification, after the
acquisition of Knowledge"; and in the Manu-Smrti, the Vedic
Karma-Yoga has been considered more proper for all classes
"than the Samnyasa path ( Manu. 6. 86-96). It is also nowhere
stated that the Bhagavata religion exists only for the
Ksatriyas; but on the other hand, it has been praised by saying
that it is accessible even to women, Sudras etc. ( Gi. 9. 32 );
and there are also definite stories in the Mahabharata that
this religion was followed by the Tuladhara, or a merchant,
and Vyadha, or a hunter, and that these taught it to the
Brahmins (San. 261; Vana. 215); and the illustrations, which
are given in the books on the Bhagavata religion, of prominent
persons who followed the Desireless Karma-Yoga are not only
of Ksatriyas like Janaka and Sri Krsna, but also of learned
Brahmins like Vasistha, Jaiglsavya, VySsa and others.
Although the Gita supports only the Energistic Path,
it must not be forgotten that it does not look upon the path of
performing Aotion without Knowledge as leadiug to Release.
There are also two paths of performing Knowledge-less
Actions. The one is of performing Actions hypocritically
'(with damblia), or with an ungodly (asuri) frame of mind; and
the other, is of performing them with religious faith (sraddha).
Out of these, the path of hypocrisy, or the asuri path, was
considered objectionable and productive of perdition, not only
by the Gita, but also by the writers of the Mimarhsa; and even
in the Rg-Veda, religious faith has been extolled in many
places (Rg. 10. 151; 9. 113. 2 and 2. 12. 5). But, the Mimarhsa
school says, with regard to those who perform Karma without
Knowledge, but putting faith in the Sastras, that if a man
performs ritual throughout life merely with religious faith,
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 479
and relying on the Sastras, he will ultimately attain Release,
though he may not have had a true Realisation of the form
of the Paramesvara. I have stated in the last chapter that
this path of the Mimarhsa school has been current from very
ancient times in the shape of the Karma-kanda. Jaimini says
that it is nowhere stated either in the Veda-Samhitas or
in the Brahmanas that the Path of Samnyasa was essential ;
and that, on the other hand, there are clear statements in the
Vedas, that Release is attained by remaining in the state
of a householder (Ve. Su. 3. 4. 17-20); and this statement of
his is not ■without foundation. Because, this ancient path of
of the Karma-kanda came to be first looked upon as inferior
only in the Upanisads. Although the Upanisads are Vedic,
yet, they are later in point of time than the Samhitas and the
Brahmanas, as is clear from the method of dealing with the
subject-matter adopted in them. It is not that people had not
acquired the Knowledge of the Paramesvara before that date.
But the opinion that a man should apathetically abandon
lotion, after the acquisition of Knowledge, in order to attain
Release, first began to be acted upon only at the time of the
Upanisads ; and thereafter, the Karma-kanda described in the
Samhitas and in the Brahmanas came to be looked upon as
inferior. Before that date, Karma was considered superior.
When the Path of Samnyasa, that is, of Knowledge coupled
with apathy towards the world, thus beoame preponderant
in the time of the Upanisads, Jnanins naturally began
to neglect ritualistic sacrifices, as also the religious
injunctions prescribed for the four castes; >and the idea that
iniversal welfare (lokasamgraha) was a duty, began to lose
ground. It is true that the writers of the Smrtis have stated
in their works, that the sacrificial Karma enjoined in the
Srutis, and the duties proper for the four castes enjoined in the
Smrtis must be performed during the state of a householder ;
and they have in that way praised that state. But, as even
according to the writers of the Smrtis, indifference towards
the world, or the state of Asceticism, was excellent, it was
not possible that the inferiority placed on the Karma-kanda
by the Upanisads, should be reduced by the arrangement of
the four stages of life enjoined in the Smrtis. In this stati
480 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
things the Gita has come forward to harmonise the Jfiana-
kanda with the Karma-kanda, without deprecating either, by-
tacking on both of them to Devotion. The Gita accepts
the doctrines of the writers of the Upanisads that there is
no Release without Jnana, and that by sacrificial ritualistic
Karma, one can at most attain heaven (Munda. 1. 2. 10;
Gl. 2. 41-45). But, it is also a doctrine of the Gita, that
in order that the affairs of the world should go on, the wheel
of Yajnas, or of Karma, must be kept going on; and that
it is foolish to give up Karma at any time; and therefore,,
the Gita advises that instead of performing the sacrificial
ritual and other acts prescribed by the Srutis, or the worldly
activity enjoined by the arrangement of the four castes,,
merely with religious faith and ignorantly, one should perform
them with a frame of mind which combines Spiritual-
Knowledge with indifference towards the world and merely as-
a duty, so that the Karma which is performed will not obstruct
Release, and at the same time, the circle of the Yajnas will-
not be disrupted. It need not be said that this skill of the
Gita of harmonising the Jnana-kanda with the Karma-kanda
(that is, Sarhnyasa and Karma) is better than what the writers
of the Smrtis have done ; because, by the path prescribed in
the Gita, the benefit of the collective Atman, which pervades-
the creation is achieved without at the same time in any way
prejudicing the benefit of the individual Atman. The Mimamsa.
school says that as Karma is eternal, and is enjoined by the
Vedas, one must perform it although one may not have
acquired Knowledge; many (but not all) writers of the
Upanisads treat Karma as inferior, and say that it must be
given up by cultivating indifference towards the world; or, at
any rate, one may safely say, that they are inclined to do so;
and the writers of the Smrtis harmonise these two opinions by
differentiating between youth and old age, and relying on the
arrangement of the four states, and by saying that Actions
should be performed in the three previous states of life, and.
that after the Mind has been purified by the performance of
Actions, one should in old age give up Action and renounce
the world. But the path prescribed by the Gita is different
from all these three paths. Though there is an opposition
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 481'
between Jflana and Desire-prompted Action, there is no
opposition between Jiana and Desireless Action; therefore, the
Glta asks you to perform all Actions desirelessly, and never to
give them up. If these four doctrines are compared with each
other, it will be seen that all accept the position that Karma is
necessary before Knowledge is acquired. But, the Upanisads
and the Glta say that Actions performed in that state and
merely with religious faith do not yieldany fruit except heaven.
As to whether Karma should or should not be performed after
this, that is, after the acquisition of Knowledge, there is a.
difference of opinion even among the writers of the Upanisads.
Some of the Upanisads say, that the man who has become fit
for Release after all desire has been destroyed in his heart as a,
result of Knowledge, need not perform Desire-prompted
Actions, which lead only to heaven; and, other Upanisads,
such as, Isavasya etc., insist that all these Actions must
nevertheless be kept going on in order that the activities of
the world should go on. It is quite clear that the GitS accepts
the second one out of these two paths prescribed by the
Upanisads (Gi. 5. 2). But, though it may be said that the Jfianin,
who has become fit for Release, should go on desirelessly
performing all Actions for universal welfare, a doubt naturally
arises here as to why he should perform such Karma like
sacrificial ritual, which leads only to heaven. Therefore, this
doubt has been raised in the beginning of the eighteenth
chapter, and the Blessed Lord has given His clear decision,
that in as much as, "sacrificial ritual, charity, austerity"
etc, always have the effect of purifying the Mind, and of
making the Mind more and more desireless, "these actions
also" (etany api) should be performed by the Jnanin desire-
lessly, continually, and without Attachment, for social welfare
(Gi, 18. 6.). When all acts are desirelessly performed in this
way, that is, with the intention of dedicating them to the
Paramesvara, that amounts to the performance of a stupendous
Yajna in the wide sense of the term ; and then, the Karma
performed for the sake of this Yajna does not become a source
of bondage (Gi. 4. 23). Not only that ; but as all these Actions
have been performed desirelessly, they do not produce the
bondage-creating result in the shape of the attainment of
K1 fi9
482 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
"heaven, whioh Bprings from sacrificial ritual, and do not
stand in the way of Release. In short, although the Karma-
kanda of the Mlmarhsa school has been kept intact in the Gita,
yet, it has been kept intact in such a way, that it definitely
leads to Release instead of making a person journey to and
from heaven, since all Actions have to be performed desire-
lessly. It must be borne in mind that this is the important
difference between the Karma-marga prescribed by the
Mlmarhsa school and the Karma-Yoga prescribed by the Gita;
and that both are not the same.
I have, thus, explained that the Bhagavadgfta has advocated
■the Activistic Bhagavata religion or the Karma-Yoga, as also
what the difference is, between this Karma-Yoga and the
Karma-kanda of the Mlmarhsa school. I shall now consider
the difference in principles between the Karma-Yoga of the
Gita and the arrangement of the four states made by the writers
>of the Smrtis on the authority of the Jnana-karida. This
difference is very subtle; and strictly speaking, there is no need
to enter into a fruitless discussion about this matter. Both
accept the position that every one must perform the duties
proper to the first two states of life for the purification of the
Mind. The only point of difference is whether after the
acquisition of Knowledge, one should continue performing
Action or renounce the world. Here, some are likely to think
"that as such Jfianins are necessarily few and far between, it is
not necessary to trouble much about whether these few persons
-perform or do not perform Action. But this position is not
correct; because, as the conduct of the Jfianins is considered
exemplary by other people, and also as every man directs his
"behaviour from the very beginning according to what his
ultimate end is, the question 'what the Jnanin should do' is
a very important question from the general point of view. It
is true that the Smrti texts- say that a Jnanin should finally
renounce the world. But, as has been stated above, there are
exceptions even to this rule according to the directions of the
■Smrtis. For instance, in the Brhadaranyakopanisad, Yajfia-
Talkya has given a considerable amount of advice about the
Knowledge of the Brahman to Janaka; 1 but, he has nowhere
•said to Janaka: "you now give up ruling and renounce the-
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA. 483
-world". It is stated there, on the contrary, that those Jnanins
who give up worldly life after the acquisition of Knowledge,
•<lo so beoause they do not like ( m kamayante) worldly life
( Br. 4. 4. 22 ). From this, the opinion of the Brhadaranya-
kopanisad seems clearly to be that taking or not taking
Sarhnyasa, after the acquisition of Knowledge, is a matter
purely within the discretion of everybody; and that there is
no permanent relationship between the Knowledge of the
Brahman and Sarhnyasa; and this statement in the Brhadar-
anyakopanisad has been explained in the same way in the
Vedanta-Sutras (Ve. Su. 3. 4. 15). Samkaracarya has definitely
laid down that it is not possible to attain Release unless Action
is abandoned after the acquisition of Knowledge; and he has
attempted to show in his Bhasya that all the Upanisads
are in favour of that proposition. Nevertheless, even Sri
Samkaracarya has admitted that there is no objection to one's
performing Actions till death, according to one's own qualifica-
tion in life, even after the acquisition of Knowledge, as was
done by Janaka and others. (See Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. 3. 3. 32; and
G-i. Sam. Bha. 2. 11 and 3. 20). From this it is clear that even
.the school of Sarhnyasa or the Smrtis do not look upon the
•performance of Action, after the acquisition of Knowledge, as
objectionable; and that this school of thought allowB some
Jnanins to perform Actions according to their own qualifica-
tions, though as exceptions. The G!ta widens the soope of this
exception and says that every Jfianin must go on performing
the duties enjoined on the four castes, even after the acquisition
of Knowledge, as a matter of duty, and for universal welfare.
It, therefore, follows that though the religion of the Gita is
more comprehensive, the principle established by it is faultless,
even from the point of view of the Samnyasa school; and if
one reads the Vedanta-Sutras independently, he will notice that
even in them, the Karma- Yoga combined with Knowledge has
been considered acceptable as being a kind of Sarhnyasa. (Ve.
• Su. 3. 4. 26; 3. 4. 32-35).* Nevertheless, it is necessary to show
* This portion of the Vedan'a-Sutraa has been interpreted in
a slightly different way in the Sarhkarabhasya, But, according to
me, the words "vihitattvac casramakurmapi" (3.4. 32) mean: '< there
is no objection to the JSanin doing the various acts prescribed for
484 GrTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA- YOGA
what becomes of the fourth state or Samnyasa in the shape of
Abandonment of Action, which has been prescribed in the
Smrti texts, if Karma has to be performed lifelong, though
desirelessly. Arjuna waB thinking that the Blessed Lord
would sometime or other say to him that it was not possible to
attain Release unless sometime or other Sarhyasa in the shape
of Abandonment of Action was taken ; and that, he would then
get a chance of giving up fighting on the authority of some-
thing the Blessed Lord had Himself said. But, when Arjuna
saw that the Blessed Lord did not even touch the question of
Samnyasa by Abandonment of Action till the end of th&
seventeenth chapter, and that He over and over again advised
the Abandonment of the Fruit of Action, he, in the commence-
ment of the eighteenth chapter, has at last said to the Blessed-
Lord : " then, tell me the difference between Samnyasa
(Renunciation) and Tyaga (Abandonment) ". In replying to-
this question of Arjuna, the Blessed Lord says : " O Arjuna, if
you think that the path of Karma-Yoga which I have
described so far, does not include Samnyasa, you are wrong.
Karma-Yogins divide all Actions into ' kamya', that is, Actions
performed with an Attached frame of mind, and ' niskama ',
that is, Actions performed without Attachment. (These two
are referred to as ' pravrtta ' and ' vivrtta ' Action respectively
in the Manu-Smrti 12. 89). Out of these, the Karma-Yogin
totally gives up all Actions which fall into the category of
Desireful Actions, that is to say, he makes a ' Samnyasa ''
(Renunciation) of them. That leaves the niskama (Desireless)
or the nivrtta Actions. It is true that the Karma- Yogia
performs these Desireless (niskama) Actions ; but in performing
them he has made a ' Typ.^a ' ( Abandonment ) of the Hope for
Fruit. In short, how doas one escape Samnyasa or Tyaga,
even in the Path of Karma-Yoga ? "Whereas the followers of
the Smrtis literally renounce Karma, the Yogins in the Path
of Karma-Yoga renounce instead, the Hope for the Fruit of
the various states, because they are proper (vikita)". In short,
according to me, the Vedanta-Sutras have accepted both the
positions of the Jfi&nin performing Actions, and also not perform-
ing them.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 485
Action. But, in either case, Samnyasa is a common factor "
i(See my commentary on Gl. 18. 1-6). Nay, that man who
has started performing all Actions desirelessly and with
■the idea of dedicating them to the ParamesvaTa, must
be said to be an ' eternal ascetic ' {'nitya-samnyasin'), though he
may be a householder (Gl. 5. 3). This is the principal doctrine
•of the Bhagavata religion; and it is this doctrine which has
been preached by Narada to Yudhisthira in the Bhagavata-
Purana after he had first explained to him the duties of the
"four states of life. As has been stated by Vaman Pandit in
his commentary on the Glta, that is, in the Yathartha Dlpika
>(18. 2), it is not that there is no Samnyasa unless a man
"shaves off his hair, and throws away the sacred thread"; or,
•takes a staff in his hand and goes about begging; or, gives up
all Action and goes and lives in the forest. Renunciation
•(samnyasa) and indifference towards the world (vairagya) are
properties of the Mind; they are not the properties of the staff,
■or of the hair on the head, or of the sacred thread. If one says
that they are the properties of the staff etc. and not of the
Mind or of Knowledge, then even the man who holds the
handle of the royal umbrella or of any umbrella, must get the
same Release as is obtained by a Sarimyasin. It is stated in
the conversation between Janaka and Sulabha, that:
tridandadisu yady asti mokso jnanena kasyacit I
chatradisu katham f na syat tulyahetau parigrahe il
(San. 320. 42).
Because, in either case taking the staff in the hand is a common
•factor. In short, the control of the body, of the speech, and of
the mind is the true 'tridanda', (three-fold staff), (Manu. 12. 10);
^nd the true Samnyasa is the Renunciation of the Desire-
prompted frame of Mind (Gl. 18. 2); and as one cannot escape
that Samnyasa in the Bhagavata religion (Gl. 6. 2), so also can
-one not escape the Action of keeping the mind steady or of
eating etc. in Sarhkhya philosophy. Then, where is the sense
■of making childish objections that the Path of Karma-Yoga
■does not include Samnyasa in the shape of Abandonment of
Action, and is, therefore, contrary to the injunctions of the
■Smrtis or unacceptable; and fighting about white clothes or
486 GlTA-EAHASYA oe KARMA-YOGA
saffron-coloured robes? The Blessed Lord has candidly and
without bias said that :
ekafa safnkhyam ea yogam ca yah pasyati sapasyati i
(Gl. 5. 5.)
that is, " that man IB truly wise who has realised that
Samkhya and (Kanna-) Yoga are not two from the point of
view of Release, but are one and the same"; and it is stated even
in the Bharata that, " samkhyayogem tulyo la dharma eka-nla-
sevitah " (San. 348. 74;, that is, " the Ekantika or Bhigavata
religion is equal in merit to the Samkhya religion". In short,
in as much as true indifference to the world (miragya) or
1 eternal renunciation ' (Ttitya-samnya&i), (5. 3), consists in
merging all selfish interests in universal interests, and in
desirelessly performing all duties which befall one in worldly
life according to one's own qualifications, so long as life lasts,
for the welfare of all created beings, and purely as duties,
those who follow the Path of Karma- Yoga never literally
abandon Karma and beg. But, though there may be this
seeming difference in outward action, the essential principles
of Eenuciation (samityasaj and Abandonment (tyaga) continue
in the Path of Karma-Yoga ; and therefore, the Gita lays down
the ultimate doctrine that there is no opposition between the
Desireless Karma-Yoga and the arrangement of states of life
according to the Smrti texts.
Brora what has been stated above, it might be thought by
some that an attempt has been made in the Gita to harmonise
the Karma-Yoga with the Path of Renunciation, because, the
Path of Renunciation prescribed by the Smrtis was an
ancient religion ; and that the Path of Karma-Yoga was a
later creation. But, anybody will see that such is not the
oase, if the matter is considered from the historical point of
view. I have already stated before that the most ancient form
of the Vedic religion consisted of the Karma-kanda. By the
Knowledge imparted in the Upanisads, the Karma-kanda
gradually became inferior, and Samnyasa in the shape of
Abandonment of Action gradually came into vogue. This was
the seoond step in the growth of the tree of the Vedic
Teligion. But even in those times, philosophers like Janaka
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 487
and others used to harmonise the Karma-kapda with thft
Knowledge propounded in the Upanisads, and to go on
desirelessly performing Actions till death. Therefore, this
second stage of the tree of Vedic religion must be said
to fall into two classes ; the one was the class to which
Janaka and others belonged, and the other was the
class to which Yajaavalkya and others belonged. The
arrangement of stages of life made in the Smrtis was the third
step. But, this third step was also two-fold like the second
step. It is true that the Smrti texts praise the worth of the-
fourth state of life entailing the Abandonment of Action; but
at the same time, the Karma-Yoga, which included Knowledge
and which was followed by Janaka and others, has also been
mentioned by the Smrti texts as an alternative for the Samnyasa
state. For instance, take the Manu-Smrti, which is the founda-
tion of all the Smrti texts. It is stated in the sixth chapter of
this Smrti, that a man should gradually rise from the state of
the celibate to the states of the house-holder and of the denizen
of the woods, and should ultimately take up the fourth state,
which entailed the Abandonment of Action. But, when this
description of the fourth state, that is, of the religion of
ascetics (Yatins) is over, Manu, after saying by way of
introduction that: "I have so far described the religion of
Yatins, that is, of Samnyasins; I will now explain the Karma-
Yoga of the Vedic Samnyasins", and explaining how the state
of the householder is superior to the other states, goes on to
describe the Karma-Yoga to be followed in the desireless
state of the householder, as an alternative for the Samnyasa
state or for the religion of Yatins (Manu. 6. 86-96); and later
on in the twelvth chapter, this religion has been described as
the "Vedic Karma-Yoga", and it is stated that this path is
as nihsreyasalcara, that is, as productive of Release as the fourth
state (Manu. 12. 86-90). The doctrine of Manu also finds a
place in the Yajfiavalkya-Smrti. In the third chapter of this
Smrti, after the description of the religion of Yatins is over,
the conjunction 'or' {a'lvivd) is used, and then it is stated that
even the householder, who is a devotee of Knowltdge, and who
speaks the truth, attains Release (without taking Samnyasa),
(See Yajna. 3. 204 and 205). In the same way, YaaJ^a has
488 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
stated in his Nirukta, that the ascetics, who abandon Action,
as also the Karma-Yogins, who perform Action though they
have acquired Knowledge, go to the next life by the devayam
path (Ni. 14. 9). Another authority in support of this
proposition, besides Yaska, is of the writers of the
Dharma-Sutras. These Dharma-Sutras are in prose and
scholars believe them to be earlier in point of time than
the Smrti texts, which aTe written in verse. Wb are not
concerned at the moment with considering whether this
opinion is correct or not. Whether it is correct or incorrect,
the only important thing we have to consider in the present
chapter is that the importance of the state of a householder
or of the Karma-Yoga has, in these works, been stated to be
more than has been done in the statements quoted above from
the Manu and the Yajiiavalkya Smrtis. Manu and Yajna-
valkya have referred to the Karma- Yoga as an alternative
for the fourth state ; but Baudhayana and Apastaihba have
not done so ; and they have clearly stated that the state of
the house-holder is the most important state, and that
immortality is subsequently attained in that state only. In
the Baudhayana Dharma-Sutras, after referring to the
statement "jayamano vai brahmanas trihhir njava jayate" —
that is, "every Brahmin in coming to birth brings with
himself the burden of three debts " etc. found in the Taittiriya-
Samhita, it is stated that the man who takes shelter into the
state of a householder, which entails the performance of
saorificial ritual etc., in order to discharge these debts, attains
the sphere of the Brahman; and that those who attach
importance to the state of celibacy, or of Sarhnyasa, are ruined
(Bau. 2. 6. 11. 33 and 34) ; and there is a similar statement
also in the Apastaihba Sutras (Apa. 2. 9. 24. 8). It is not
that the fourth state of Sarhnyasa has not been described in
these two Dharma-Sutras; but, even after describing that
state, the importance of the state of the householder has been
stated to be greater. From this fact, and especially from the
fact that the adjective ' Vedic ' has been applied to the Karma-
Yoga in the Manu-Smrti, the following two things become
absolutely clear, namely, (i) that even in the times of the
Manu-Smrti, the state of the householder, which entailed the
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 489
Desireless Karma- Yoga, was considered more ancient than
the Path of Renunciation by Abandonment of Action ; and
^that (ii) from the point of view of Release, it was considered
as meritorious as the fourth state. As the leaning of the
commentators on the GltS was towards Samyasa, or towards
Devotion coupled with Abandonment of Action, the above
■statements from the Smrtis are not found referred to in their
commentaries; but, though they have disregarded those
statements, the ancientness of the Karma-Yoga is not thereby
in any way diminished. Nay, one may even without objeotion
say that as this path of Karma- Yoga was the more ancient
one, the writers of the Smrtis had to accept it as an alternative
for the Path of Renunciation. This is the Vedic Karma- Yoga.
This was practised by Janaka and others before the times of
Sri Krsna. But, as the Blessed Lord added the creed of
Devotion to that Path, and gave it further circulation, His
religion came to be known as the ' Bhagavata Doctrine '. I
shall later on consider historically how this Karma-Yoga
-again came to be looked upon as inferior, and the Path of
Renunciation acquired greater importance, although the
Bhagavadglta had in this way declared Karma-Yoga to be
superior to Renunciation. All that I have to say for the
present is that the Karma-Yoga is not later in point of time
than the Path prescribed by the Smrtis, and that it has been
in vogue from the anoient Vedio times.
My readers will now appreciate the inner reason for the
■words " iti irimad bhagavadgitasu upamsatsa brahmavidyayafn
yogasastre ", used at the end of each chapter of the Gita. The
Upanisad which has been sung by the Blessed Lord contains
the Brahmavidya like all other Upanisads. But, these words
mean that it does not contain only the Brahmavidya, and that
the principal object of the Bhagavadglta was to support only
the Yoga or the Karma- Yoga, out of the two paths of Samkhya
and Yoga (the Vedantic Sarimyasa, and the Vedantic Karma-
Yoga), which are included in the Brahmavidya. Nay, one may
■even without objection say that the Bhagavadgitopanisad is
the most important treatise on the science of Karma-Yoga ;
because, although the Karma-Yoga has been in vogue from
tHe timeB of the Vedas, yet, except for some few references
GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
like "kwrvann^ eveha Tmrmani" (Isa. 2), or "arabhya karmaivt-
yuy.anvita.ru " (Sve. 6. 4), or, " simultaneously with the Vidya r
ritual, such as, svadhyaya etc., should be performed " (Tai. 1. 9)>
there is nowhere any detailed explanation of the Karma-Yoga
in any of the Upanisads. The Bhagavadglta is the principal*
authoritative treatise on that subject ; and it is also proper
from the point of view of poetio literature that that Bharata;.
which describes the lives of the great heroes in the Bharata-
land should also explain the theory of the Karma-Yoga in
its relation to Metaphysics. This also now clearly explains,
why the Bhagavadglta was included in the Prasthanatrayl;
Although the Upanisads are fundamental, yet, as they have-
been written by various Rsis, the ideas contained in them are
diverse, and in some places apparently mutually contradictory.
It was, therefore, necessary to include the Upanisads in the
Prasthanatrayl, along with the Vedanta-Sutras, which
attempted to harmonise them. If the Glta did not contain,
anything more than the Upanisads and the Vedanta-Sutras,.
there would be no point in including the Glta in the Prastha-
natrayl. But, the trend of the Upanisads is principally
towards the Path of Renunciation, and they support chiefly
the Jnana-marga (Path of Knowledge) ; and when one says-
that the Bhagavadglta supports the Karma-Yoga based on
Devotion simultaneously with Knowledge, the distinction of
the Bhagavadglta becomes clear, and at the same time the
appropriateness of the three parts of the Prasthanatrayl
also becomes clear. Because, if the authoritative treatises on
the Vedic religion had not dealt with both the Vedic paths of
Jfiana and Karma (Samkhya and Yoga), the Prasthanatrayl.
would to that extent have remained incomplete. Some people
think, that as the Upanisads are ordinarily in support of
Samnyasa, there will arise a mutual opposition between the
three parts of the Prasthanatrayl, if the Glta. is explained as-
being in support of Action ; and the authoritativeness of the
three parts will be endangered. Such a doubt would be
appropriate if the Samkhya or Samnyasa was the only
true Vedic Path to Release ; but, I have shown above,,
that in some Upanisads at any rate, such as the Isavasya-
and others, the Karma- Yoga has been specifically
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 491
mentioned. Therefore, if one layB down the proposition, as
has been done in the Glta, that the Vedio Religion is not to be
looked upon as a one-handed man, that is, as being only in
support of Sarhnyasa; and that although it has only
one head, namely, Brahmavidya, yet, Sarhkhya . and'
Karma- Yoga, which, from the point of view of Release,,
are of equal value, are its right hand and left hand respectively,
there remains no opposition between the Glta and the
Upanisads. Nay, as the Upanisads support the one path, and
the Gita the other path, these two parts of the Prasthanatrayl
are seen to be mutually co-operative like two hands, instead
of being mutually antagonistic. In the same way, the Glta
does not acquire the subordinate position of merely repeating
what has already been said, which it would acquire if it is said
to be supporting only what the Upanisads have maintained.
As the doctrine-supporting commentators on the Gita have
neglected this question, I have shortly set out in the following
table in two columns, opposite each other, the principal reasons
which the supporters of the two independent paths of Sarhkhya
and Yoga adduce in support of their respective doctrines,
in order that the similarity and the difference between the
two should be easily ascertained. This tabular statement will
also clearly show the important differences between the
arrangement of the states of life according to the Smrtis and
the original Bhagavata religion: — •
After acquisition of the
BRAHMAVIDYA or the KNOWLEDGE of
the ATMAN
KARMA-SAMNYASA KARMA-YOGA
(Sarhkhya) (Yoga)
Release is obtained only by 1. Release is obtained only by
Knowledge of the Atman, Knowledge of the Atman,
and not by Karma. The and not by Karma. The
happiness of heaven, happiness of heaven, ob-
obtained by oredulously tained by credulously per-
performing saorificial ri- forming sacrificial ritual is
tual, is inconstant. inconstant.
492
GTTA-RAHASYA. OK KARMA-YOGA
2. In order to acquire the
Knowledge of the Atman,
the Mind must be made
steady, desireless, apathe-
tic, and equable by means
of the control of the organs.
3. Therefore, break the bonds
of the objects of pleasure,
which please the organs,
and be free.
4. Action, which is productive 4.
of Desire, is causative of
pain and bondage.
:5. Therefore, though Action 5.
has to be performed until
the mind is purified, it must
ultimately be given up.
As Karma performed in 6,
connection with sacrificial
ritual does not create bond-
age, there is no objection
to its being performed
In order to acquire the
Knowledge of the Atman, '
the Mind must be made
steady, desireless, apathetic
and equable by means of
the control of the organs.
Therefore, do not give up the
objects which please the
organs; but maintain your
association with them
apathetically, that is desi-
relessly, and test the con-
trol you have over the
organs. Desirelessness does
not mean inactivity.
If you consider in what
unhappiness and bondage
lies, you will see that
lifeless (acetana) Karma
does not bind or leave
anybody ; and that the
cauBe of bondage and-
unhappiness is the Desire
ot the hope of reward exist-
ing in the Mind of the doer.
Therefore, even after the
purification of the Mind,
perform all Action courage-
ously and enthusiastical-
ly, giving up the Hope for
Fruit. One cannot give up
Karma, even if one wishes
to give it up. Karma is the
Creation; and it has no rest.
All Actions which are per-
formed with a desireless
frame of mind or with the
idea of dedicating them to
the Brahman are a great
EENUNCIATION and KARMA-YOGA
493
during the stats of a house-
holder.
As the natural needs of the
Body cannot he escaped
from, it Is not improper to
beg, for earning one's
livelihood, after haying
taken Samnyaga.
After Acquisition of Know- 8.
ledge, no duty remains to
you for your own benefit;
and there is no necessity to
act for universal welfare.
9. Nevertheless, persons of high 9.
authority may, till death,
carry on their duties, after
Acquisition of Knowledge,
as was done by Janaka and
'Yajiia' (sacrifice). There-
fore, all duties, which are
appropriate to one's own-
status in life should be per-
formed desirelessly, as pure
duties; and these should be
performed continually.
, Begging for earning one's
subsistence is also Karma,
and that too, 'disgraceful'.
If this Karma is to be-
performed, why not perform
all other Actions desireless-
ly ? Besides, if the state of
a householder is done away
with, who is going to give
you food?
After Acquisition of Know-
ledge, although no duty
remains to you for your
own benefit, yet, you cannot
escape Karma. Therefore,
whatever duties are enjoin-
ed by the Sastras should
be performed with a selfless
(nirmama) frame of mind,
saying: 'I do not want it,'
and with an eye to'univers-
al welfare. No one can
escape lokasaiugraha (uni-
versal welfare). For inst-
ance, see the life of the
Blessed Lord Himself.
According to the arrange-
ment of the four castes,
which is based on the divi-
sions of the qualities (gwnar
vibhaga), every one acquire
494
GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
and others, but
exceptions.
only as
10. But in any case, Samnyasa 10.
in the shape of abandon-
ment of Action is the best.
The duties of the three other
states are the means, or the
preparatory stages, for the
purification of the Mind;
and there is an inherent
oppsosition between Jfiana
and Karma. Therefore,
acquire purification of the
Mind as early as possible
in the earlier stages of life,
and after having acquired
Knowledge, take ultimately
to Samnyasa in the shape
of Abandonment of the
Action. If you have
acquired purification of
the Mind with birth or in
young age, there is no
necessity of performing
the duties pertaining to the
state of a householder. The
true state of Samnyasa
cosists in the literal Aban-
donment of Action.
11. Even _ after Abandonment 11.
of Action, you must observe
the rules of sama, dama,
etc.
by birth great or small
authority; and this authori-
ty, which is acquired
according to one's own
state in life (dharma) must
be exercised, till death,
desirelessly and without
exception; because, this
cycle of activities has been
created by the Paramesvara
for the maintenance of the
world.
It is true that by perform-
ing the Actions pertaining
to worldly life in the
manner enjoined by the
Sastras, one acquires the
purification of the Mind.
But, purification of the
Mind is not the only use
of Karma. Karma is
necessary in order that the
activities of the world
should go on. In the same
way, though there is an
opposition between Jfiana
and Desire-prompted Acti-
on,there is none between
Jfiana and Desireless
Action; and therefore, after
the purification of the
Mind, continue the Actions
prescribed for the various
castes, abandoning the hope
of the Fruit of Action, and
desirelessly, till death, for
the benefit of the world.
This is the true Samnyasa;
it is neither possible nor
proper, to literally abandon
Karma (Action) at any
time.
After Acquisition of Know-
ledge, take Samnyasa in
the shape of Abandonment
of the Fruit of Aotion, and
observe all the rules arising
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 495
as a result of Self-identifi-
cation (almaupamya), except •
sama, darna etc.; and per-
form by means of this
sama or peaceful frame of
mind, all the, duties en-
joined by the Sastras, till
death, for the purpose of
universal welfare. Do not
give up DeBireless Action,
12. This path is eternal, and 12. This path is eternal, and
has the support of the haB.the support of the Srutis
Srutis as also of the Smrtis. as also of the Smrtis.
13. This path was adopted by 13. Vyasa, Vasistha, Jaigi-
Suka, Yajiiavalkya, and savya, and others, as also
others. Janaka, Sri Krsna and
others followed this path.
ULTIMATE RELEASE.
( moksa )
Both these paths or Nisthas are based on the Knowledge of
^he Brahman, and as the desirelessness or peacefulness of the
Mind is a common factor in both, both the paths ultimately
lead to Release ( Gi. 5. 5. ). The important difference between
the two is that in the one case Karma (Action) is abandoned
after Jnana (Knowledge), and in the other, Desire-prompted
•(kamya) Action is abandoned, and Desireless Action is
continued.
These two paths of abandoning Action and not abandoning
Action have both been adopted and followed by Jnanins after
the Acquisition of Knowledge. But Action can be abandoned
•or performed even when Knowledge has not been acquired. It
is, therefore, also necessary to shortly consider here this
Action or Abandonment of Action, which is based, not on
Knowledge, but on Ignorance. That is why three varieties of
Abandonment of Action have been mentioned in the eighteenth
chapter of the Glta. Some persons abandon Action for fear of
physical labour, though they have not acquired Knowledge.
This is described in the Glta as a 'rajasa fyaga' ( GI. 18. 8). In
496 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
the same way, many persons perform sacrificial ritual only witl
religious faith (sraddha), though they have not acquired Know-
ledge, But the Gita says this path of performing Action leads
only to heaven and not to Release (Gi. 9. 20). As the perform-
ance of sacrificial ritual prescribed by the Srutis is not now in
vogue, some persons think that the doctrine of the Gita relating
to the pure Karma-marga supported by the Mimamsa school,
is not of much use in these days. But, such a belief is not
correct; because, although the sacrificial ritual enjoined by
the Srutis has gone out of vogue, the ritual prescribed by the
Smrtis, in the shape of the duties enjoined on the four castes,
is still in existence. Therefore, the dictum of the Gita with
reference to people who perform Desire-prompted Actions
like sacrificial ritual, with religious faith, though ignorantly,
also applies in the present day to people who perform the
duties enjoined on the four castes, with religious faith, though
without Knowledge. If one visualises the activities of the
world, it will be seen that the majority of persons in society
perform their various duties, keeping religious faith in the'
Sastras, and according to the accepted moral code. But such
persons have not fully acquired the Knowledge of the
Paramesvara. Therefore, these credulous persons, who per-
form sacrificial Karma, are in the same position as those who
make calculations by mental arithmetic without understand-
ing the reasons for that calculation given in Mathematics.
As these persons perform the ritual in manner enjoined by
the Sastras and with religious faith, it is performed correctly,,
and will be productive of merit (punya) or of heaven. But,
as the doctrine of the Sastras themselves is that Release
cannot be obtained except by Knowledge, such persons cannot
possibly obtain any result more valuable than heaven. There-
fore, those persons who wish to obtain that immortality which
is beyond the happiness of heaven— and this is, indeed, the
true highest ideal of man — should, in the beginning, as a
means, and later on, that is, in the state of perfection, for the
purpose of universal welfare, (which means, so long as life
exists), accept the path of performing Action desirelessly, with
a frame of mind chastened by Knowledge, and with the Reali-
sation that, ' in all created beings there is only one Atman '.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 497
Of all the paths of leading one's life, this path is the best. In
the tabular statement above, I have called this path, Karma-
Yoga, on the authority of the Gita; and it is usually referred
to by some writers aB the Path of Action (karma-marga), or
the Activistic Path (pravrtti-marga). But the words Karma-
marga or Pravrtti-marga ordinarily also connote the heaven-
producing path of performing Action, with religious faith, but
without Knowledge. It, therefore, becomes necessary to use
two distinct words in order to make clear the difference between
the Knowledge-less but Faith-full Karma, and the Desireless
Karma performed with Knowledge; and for this reason, the
Manu-Smrti, as also the Bhagavata, call Knowledge-less
Karma, 'pravrtta-karma, and Desireless Karma baBed on
Knowledge, 'nivrtta-karma' ( Manu. 12. 89; Bhag. 7. 15. 47). But
even these words are, in my opinion, not as unambiguous as
they ought to be; because, the word 'nivrtti' is ordinarily used
as meaning 'recoiling (becoming paravrtta) from Karma'. In
order that such a doubt should not remain, the word 'karma' is
added after the word 'nivrtta', and when that is done, the
adjective 'nivrtta' does not mean 'abstaining from Karma'; and
we get the interpretation 'nivrtta-karma' = 'Desireless Action'.
But whatever is done, so long as the word 'nivrtta' is used, the
idea of the Abandonment of Action inevitably enters the mind.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is better to call the path of
performing Desireless Action, after the acquisition of Know-
ledge, by the name 'Karma-Yoga' instead of calling it 'nivrtti'
or 'nivrtta-karma'; because, when the word 'Yoga' is tacked on
after the word 'Karma', it naturally means "the device of
performing Action without obstructing Release," and Karma
based on ignorance is also naturally eliminated. Nevertheless,
if one wishes to refer to this path as 'Karma-marga' or
'Pravrtti-marga, without forgetting that the Karma-Yoga of
the Gita is based on Knowledge, there is no objection to the
same being done; and in some places, I myself have used the
same words for indicating the Karma-Yoga of the Gita for
diversity of language. I have in the following tabular
statement shown the opinion of the Gita as to the two paths of
Abandonment of Action and Performance of Action, which
are based respectively on Knowledge and Ignorance.
498
GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
WAY OF LEADING LIFE
GRADE
! ULTIMATE
SPHERE
1. Performing Actions only
f oi one's own happiness, egotist-
ically, with an ungodly (axuri)
frame of mind, or hypocritic-
ally, or being prompted by
avarice— (Gi. 16. 16)— the
ASURA, or UNGODLY path.
1. Although the Knowledge
of the form of the Parames-
vara by the Realisation that
there is only one Atman in
all created beings has not been
acquired, performing all Desire-
prompted Actions with faith,
and according to moral prin-
ciples, and consistently with
the injunctions of the Sastras,
or the Vedas (Gi. 2. 41-44
and 9. 20)— PURE KARMA,
or TRAYI— DHARMA or
MIMAMSAKA-MARGA.
1. After the Acquisition of
the Knowledga of the Para-
mesvara, by the desireless
performance of,the duties en-
joined by the Sastras, giving
up all Action, and finding
happiness only in Jnani
(Gi. 5. 2)— PURE JNANA
or the SAMKHYA or the
SMARTA-MARGA.
1. Performing life-long
Desireless Actions, in the
beginning, for the purification
of the Mind, and afterwards,
that is, after having thereby
acquired the Knowledge of the
Paramesvara, for universal
welfare (lolcasavigraha), in the
same way as was done by the
Blessed Lord (Gi. 5. 2)— tb
KNOWLEDGE-ACTION path
or KARMA-YOGA, ,or the
BHAGAVATA-MARGA.
LOWEST
MEDIUM
(.Best, accord-
ing to the
MImarhsa
school)
SUPERIOR
BEST OF
ALL
HELL
HEAVEN
(Release,
(3 according
■% to tbe
£ I Munamsakas)
CO
l->
>>
RELEA-
SE [mak-
RELEA-
SE (moh-
sa)
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 499
In short, although Action (Karma) is not necessary for
obtaining Release, yet, the Glta has declared the path of
•desirelessly and continuously performing Action as the best
path of all, for other co-existent reasons, namely, because it is,
in the first place, unavoidable, and secondly because, it is
•essential for the maintenance of the world. Or, the ultimate
■•doctrine of the Glta is that the union of Action and Spirit-
ual Knowledge is the best, and that mere Action or mere
.Spiritual Knowledge is each one-sided, according to the state-
ment of Manu that: "krtabuddhisu kartarah karlrsu brahma-
vadimh" (Manu. 1". 97).
Really speaking this chapter ought to end here. But, it is
necessary to say something here about the quotations given
.above in various places for showing that the doctrine laid
down by the Glta has the authority of the Srutis and the
.Smrtis; because, many persons have come to the conclusion
•that all the Upanisads support Renunciation (samnyasa or
nivrtti ) by reading the doctrine-supporting commentaries on
the Upanisads. I do not say that the Path of Renunciation is
not supported by the Upanisads at all. It is stated in the
Brhadaranyakopanisad (4. 4. 2<i), that after they have Realised
that the Parabrahman is the only Reality, "some Jfianins do
not any more entertain in their hearts the desire for children
(pufraisana), or the desire for wealth (vittaisaw), or the desire for
higher worlds (lokaisapa), and saying: 'what have we to do with
•children? the whole world is our Self (Atman)', they go about
the world contentedly, and earn their livelihood by begging".
But it is nowhere stated in the Brhadaranyaka that all persons
who have Realised the Brahman should follow this path. Nay,
.there is a statement in this very Upanisad that that king
Janaka, to whom this advice was given, had reached the
highest peak of the Knowledge of the Brahman, and had
become immortal. But, it is nowhere stated that he had, like
Yajnavalkya, given up the world and taken Samnyasa. There-
fore, it becomes quite clear that the Brhadaranyakopanisad
accepted both the Desireless Karma-Yoga of Janaka and the
Path of Abandonment of Action followed by Yajnavalkya, as
alternative paths; and the author of the Vedanta-Sutras has
<come to the same conclusion (Ve. Su, 3. 4. 15 ). The
500 GITA-RAKASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Kathopanisad lias gone even further than this, and, as 1 have-
stated before in the fifth chapter, it says, according to me, that
the Desireless Karma- Yoga is the only proper path of life-
The same conclusion is arrived at in the Chandogyopanisad
(8. 15. 1), and there is a clear statement in it at the end, that
"the Jnanin who first finishes his course of education at the
hands of his preceptor, and thereafter lives in his family and'
follows the rules of Ethics and morality, goes to the sphere of
the Brahman and does not return"; and sentences from the
Taittiriya and the Svetasvatara Upanisads having the san»
purport have been quoted by me above ( Tai. 1. 9 and Sve. 6. 4).
Besides, we do not see it stated in the Upanisads, that those
who have advised the Knowledge of the Brahman to others,,
or their disciples who had acquired the Knowledge of the
Brahman, adopted Renunciation in the shape of Abandonment
of Action, except one or two like Yajnavalkya. On the other
hand, they seem to have been householders, from the descrip-
tions which have been given of them. One cannot, therefore,,
look upon all the Upanisads as supporting Samnyasa, and has
to say that some of them mention the alternative paths of
Samnyasa and Kaima-Yoga, whereas others support the union
of Jnana and Karma (jnana-karma-samuccaya). But, the-
doctrine-supporting commentaries on the Upanisads do not
show these differences, and they usually say that all the
Upanisads support only one Path — and that too principally
the Samnyasa Path. In short, these doctrine-supporting
commentators have dealt with both the Glta and the Upanisads
in the same way; that is to say, these commentators have had
to stretch and mutilate some hymns in the Upanisads, as has
been done by them in the matter of some of the stanzas in the
Glta. Take, for example, the case of Isavasyopanisad, Though
this Upanisad is short, that is, consisting only of eighteen'
stanzas, it is considered to be of greater importance than the'
other Upanisads; because, this Upanisad has been mentioned in
the Vajasaney i Samhita, whereas the other Upanisads have been
mentioned in the Aranyakas; and it is generally accepted that
the Brahmanas are of lesser importance than the Samhitas, and
the Aranyakas of lesser importance than the Brahmanas. This
Isavasyopanisad is from top to bottom in support of the
harmonising of Jnana and Karma. It is stated in the very
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 501
first hymn (mantra) of this Upanisad that, "whatever existed in
the world must be considered as 'Isavasya', that is, located in
the Paramesvara; and in the second hymn, there is a clear
statement that, "one should desire to live for a hundred years
■while performing Action desirelessly". This statement from
the Isavasya has been quoted as an authority for the harmonis-
ing of Jfiana and Karma, wherever there was occasion to
deal with the Karma- Yoga in the Vedanta-Sutrag, as also in
other places. But, the Isavasya Upanisad does not rest there.
In order to support the statement made in the second stanza,
it subsequently starts the exposition of 'avidya', that is, ,
Karma, and ' vidya ', that is, Jfiana ; and in the ninth stanza,
it is stated that "persons who devote thmselves only to avidya
or Karma enter darkness, and those who are steeped merely
in vidya or the Knowledge of the Brahman enter a still darker
darknesB ". Having in this way shown the inferiority of
pure avidya (Karma), and pure vidya (Jfiana), this Upanisad
explains in the eleventh stanza the necessity of the union of
4 vidya ' and ' avidya ' in the following words :-
vidyam ca 'vidyam ca yas tad vedobhayam saha l
avidyaya mrtyum tirtva vidyaya 'mrtam asnute II
Isa. 11.
The plain and clear meaning of this stanza is: "that man,
who understands both vidya (Jnana) and avidya (Kaima) at the
same time, goes (easily) through the affairs of the ' mrtyu '
that is, of the perishable illusory world, by means of aMya
that is, Karma ; and attains immortality by means of vidya,
that is, of the Realisation of the Brahman "; and the same idea
is repeated in the three succeeding stanzas (Isa. 12-14), in
•which vidya is referred to as ' sairibhuti ', that is^ the original
■cause of the world, and avidya, which is different from that
■vidya, as 'asaffibhuti' or 'vinasa'. From this, it bsoomes quite,
clear that the Isavasyopanisad is in favour of the simultaneous,
possession (vhhayam saha) of vidya and avidya. In the above
•stanza, the words ' mrtyu and ' amrta ' are mutual opposites,
just like ' vidya ' and ' avidya '. Out of them, amrta quite clearly
means the imperishable Brahman, and it follows that mrtyft,
which is the opposite of it, means the perishable mriynrhkn
^mortal world) or the lifq iji this world ; and both these, wotds
503 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
have been used in the same sense in the Nasadlya-Sukta
of the Rg-veda (Rg. 10. 129. 2); When one interprets the-
eleventh stanza of the Isavasyopanisad, whioh has been quoted
above, taking these clear meanings of the words vidya etc.,.
that is, taking vidya as meaning Jfiana, avidya as meaning
Karma, amrta as meaning the Brahman, and mrtyu as meaning
the mortal world, it will he clearly seen that the simultaneous
possession (ekakalina-samuccaya) of vidya and avidya is men-
tioned in the first line of this stanza : the separate results of
both are mentioned in the second part of the stanza, in order
to further emphasise that statement. Both these results are
considered desirable by the Isavasyopanisad, and the simulta-
neous possession of Jfiana and Karma has been advocated in
this TJpanisad. Carrying on properly the affairs of the mortal
world, or going through those affairs successfully is called
' loka-samgratta ' in the Gita. It is true that obtaining Release
is the duty of every man ; yet, as it is also essential that he
should simultaneously bring about universal welfare (loha-
samgraha), the Gita has laid down the doctrine that the
Jfianin should not give up this Karma, which is productive of
universal welfare; and the same doctrine has been propounded.
in the line, "avidyaya mrlyum tirtva vidyaya 'mrtam asnute"
mentioned above, with only a verbal difference. In shorty
it will be seen that not only is the Gita consistent with the-
Upanisads, but that the proposition definitely propounded by
the Isavasyopanisad has been accepted in toto in the Gita. The
Satapatha-Brahmana is a part of that very Vajasaneyr
Sarhhita, of which the Isavasyopanisad is a part; and the
Brhadaranyakopanisad is to be found in the Aranyakas of
the Satapatha-Brahmana; and this ninth hymn (mantra) of
the Isavasyopanisad, namely, "persons who are steeped in
pure Knowledge (vidya), that is, in the Realisation of the
Brahman, enter a still greater darkness" has been literally
adopted in it (Br. 4. 4. 10). This Brhadaranyakopanisad con-
tains the story of the King Janaka, and the illustration of that
Janaka has been taken by the Blessed Lord in support of the
theory of Karma-Yoga (Gl. 3. 20). This establishes all the-
more firmly, the relation between the Isavasyopanisad and
the Karma-Yoga of the Bhagavadgita referred to by me above.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 503
But those commentators whose sectarian doctrine is that
there is only one path mentioned in each and every Upanisad
for obtaining Release, and that too the Path of Indifference
(vairagya) or Sarhnyasa (Renunciation), and that the Upanisads
cannot prescribe two paths, are driven to somehow or other put
a stretched and different meaning on this clear sacred hymn
(mantra) in the Isavasyopanisad; otherwise, these hymns-
negative their doctrines; and that is a thing they do not want.
Therefore, in commenting on the eleventh hymn in the
Samkarabhasya, the word 'vidya' is not taken to mean Jnana.
(Knowledge), but upasam (worship). It is not that the word
'vidya' does not mean 'upasam' (worship). In the phrases
Sand-iiyi-vidya' etc. 'vidya.' means 'upasam'. But, that is not
the principal meaning of that word. It is not that Sri
Sarhkaracarya did not or could not have realised this faot.
Nay, it is impossible that he did not realise it; because, there
are statements in the other Upanisads, Buch &B,"vidyaya vindate
'mrtam" f Kena. 2. 12); or " pranasyadhyatmam njnayamrtam
asnute" (Prasna. 3. 12); and in the seventh prapathaka of the
Maitryupanisad, the hymn "vidyam ca 'vidyaih ca" etc., being the
eleventh hymn of the Isavasyopanisad, has been taken literally;
and immediately before it, the hymn in Katha. 2. 4, and after
it, the hymn in Katha. 2. 5 are to be found; that is to say,
these three hymns are to be found in the same place one after
the other, and the central hymn is from the Isavasyopanisad;
and each of the three verses contains the word 'vidya'. From
this it follows, that according to the Maitryupanisad, the
word 'vidya' in the Isavasyopanisad must be taken to mean the
same thiog as in the Kathopanisad, that is to say, Jnana.
But, in the Samkarabhasya on the IsavSsya, it is stated that.-
if the words '-vidya' and 'amrta' in the eleventh hymn of the
Isavasyopanisad are taken in their ordinary meaning of
'vidya' = Knowledge of the Self, and amrta = moksa, one will
have to say that the union of Jnana (vidya) and Karma (avidya}
has been prescribed by this Upanisad; but, in as much as such
a combination is logically incorrect, the words 'vidya and
'amrta' must be taken in their respective inferior meanings
of ' worship of a deity' and ' sphere of the deities ' respectively.
In short, in order that this hymn in the Isavasya should not
504 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
falsify the principal doctrine of the Samkara school that:
"after the Acquisition of Knowledge, one must not perform
Actions ; because, the combination of Jnana and Karma can
never be logical ", the eleventh hymn of the Isavasya has been
interpreted, as mentioned above, in the Sarhkarabhasya, by
taking the inferior meaning of the word K vidya', with the
clear intention of harmonising all the statements in the
Srutis with the doctrine of the Samkara school; and from the
point of view of the justification of a doctrine, this mis-
interpretation was not only important but necessary. But
those, who do not accept the fundamental proposition that all
the Upanisads must support only one particular line of
thought, and that the Srutis cannot prescribe two different
modes of life, have no occasion to pervert the meanings of
the words 'vidya' and 'amrta' in the above hymn. Although
one accepts the principle that the Parabrahman is
' ekameoadvitlyam' (one, and one only), it does not follow that
there cannot be more than one path of Realising that Para-
brahman. As it is possible to have two stair-cases for going
to the same floor, or two roads for going to the Bame place, so
also can there be two methods or Nisthas for acquiring Release;
and it has, therefore, been clearly stated in the Bhagavadgita
that "loke'smin dvivldha nistha". When it is once admitted
that it is possible to have two Nisthas (paths of Release), it
does not become impossible that some Upanisads should '
describe the Jnana-nistha, and others describe the Jiiana-
Karma-combined Nistha. Necessarily, there does not
remain any ocoasion to pervert the clear, natural, and
unequivocal meaning of the words used in the Isavasyo-
panisad on the ground that they are inconsistent with the
JfLana-nistha. There is another reason for saying that Srlmat
Samkaracarya aimed rather at insisting on a homogeneity in
the Upanisads on the question of the Sarhnyasa-nistha than
at accepting the clear meaning of the hymn. In the Samkara-
bhasya on the Taittirlya Upanisad (Tai. 2. 11), only the
portion "avidyaya mrtyum tirtva vidyaya 'mrtam asnute", out of
the hymn in the Isavasya, has been given; and there has been
joined to it a statement from the Manu-Smrti (Manu. 12. 104)
that "tapasa kalmasam hanti vidyaya. 'mrtam asnute", and the
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA- YOGA 505
■word 'vidya' in both, these lines has been taken by Sarhkaracary a
in only one meaning, namely, Brahma-jnana, which is the
original and primary meaning. But, here the Acarya says that
the word '^"Ww^ 'swimming over' implies that the action of
swimming through the mortal sphere ( mrtyu-loka) is first
completed, and afterwards (not simultaneously) the action of
obtaining immortality by vidya follows ; but I need not point
out that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the words
"ubhayam saha" in the firBt half of the hymn; and it seems that
this meaning must have been left out in the Samkarabhasya
on the Isavasya, possibly for this reason. Whatever may be
the case, this clearly shows why a different explanation of the
eleventh hymn of the Isavasya was given in the Samkarabhasya
on it. This reason is merely a desire to support a doctrine,
and those who do not accept the doctrinal vision of commenta-
tors, may not accept this explanation. I am certainly willing
that, as far as possible, one should avoid having to give up an
interpretation adopted by a superman like SrlmatSarhkaracarya
But, such a position is bound to arise when one gives up the
doctrinal vision; and, therefore, even other commentators have,
before me, interpreted the hymns in the Isavasyopanisad in a
way different from that adopted in the Samkarabhasya, that is
to say, in the same way as has been done by me. For instance,
in the commentary by Uvatacarya on the Vajasaneyi-Sarhhita,
and necessarily on the Isavasyopanisad, it is stated in
expounding the canon, 'vidyant ca 'vidyam ca' that, "vidya means
the Knowledge of the Atman, and avidya means Karma, and
immortality or Release is obtained by the combination of both";
and Anantacarya has in his commentary on this Upanisad
.accepted this interpretation, which combines Knowledge and
Action; and he has ultimately clearly said that the doctrine
expounded in this hymn is the same as that underlying the
statement in the Glta, that : " yai sainkhyaih prapyate sfhanam
tad yogavr api gamyate" ( Gl. 5. 5); and that the words 'samkhya'
and 'yoga' in this stanza in the Glta respectively connote
'Jnana' and 'Karma'. *In the same way, Apararkadeva has
* All these commentaries on the Isavasyopanisad have been
given in the edition of the Isavasyopanisad printed in the Ananda-
ahram Press at Poena; and the commentary of Apararka on the
506 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
given the eleventh hymn of the Isavasya in his commentary
on the Yajnavalkya-Smrti (Ya. 3. 57 and 205), and interpreted
it as supporting the combination of JSana and Karma, as was
done by Anantacarya. From this it will be clear to my
readers, that I have not been the first person to interpret this
hymn from the fsavasyopanisad in a way different from that
in which it has been interpreted in the Samkarabhasya.
So far we have considered the hymn in the Isavaayopanisad
itself. Let us now consider shortly the statement "tapasa
kalmasam hanti vidyaya 'mrtam asnute" from the Manu-Smrti
which has been quoted in the Samkarabhasya. This is the-
104th stanza of the twelvth chapter of the Manu-Smrti, and
that chapter deals with the Vedio Karma-Yoga, as will be seen
from Manu. 12. 86. In the course of the disquisition on the
Karma-Yoga, Manu says,
tapo vidya ca riprasya nihsreyasakaram param I
tapasa kalmasam hanti vidyaya 'mrtam asnute n
that is. — "tapa and (ca) mdya, these (that is, necessarily both)^
are producers of excellent Release to the Brahmin"; and having
stated this in the first part of the Btanza, he, in order to show
the use of both these things, says in the second part of the
stanza: "by tapa (religious austerity) all sin is annihilated, and
by vidya, one obtains amrta, that is, Release". From tbis, it is
quite clear that Manu had, in this place, implied the combina-
tion of Jfiana and Karma, and that he had in this stanza
adopted the doctrine enunciated in the eleventh hymn in the-
Isavasya Upanisad. This meaning is further emphasised by
the statements in the Harlta Smrti. This Harita-Smrti is
available independently, and is also included in the Nrsimha-
YajBavallsya-Smrti has also been Btparaiety priuted in the
Anandashram Press. The translation of tbe Isavasyopanisad
included in the translations of the TJpanisads made by Prof.
Mas Muller ia not according to the Samkarabhasya, and he has stated
his reasons for doing so at the end of his translation (Sacred Booh
of the East Series Vol. I, p. 314-320). The commentary of Ananta-
carya had not come to the hands of Prof. Mas. MUller ; and he also
does not seem to have understood why different meanings are-
given for the same words in different places in the Samkarabhasya.
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 507 J '
Purana (Nr. Pu. 57-61). The Nrsimha Purana (61. 9-11) and the
Harlta-Smrti (7. 9-11) contain the following stanzas regarding
the combination of Knowledge (Jnana) and Action (Karma) :-
yathasm rathahinas ca ratkas casvair vina yatha I
evam tapas ca vidya ca ubhav api tapawinah II
yathannam madhusamyukfam madhu cannena samyutam \
evam tapas ca vidya ca samyuktam bhesajam mahat II
dvabhyam eva hi paksabhyam yatha vai paksinam gatih l
tathmva jnunalcarmabhyam prapyate brahma sasvatam II
that is, "In the same way, as horses without a ohariot, or
a chariot without horses (are of no use), the same is the
case with the tapa of the tapasvin, and vidya. In the same
way, as anna (food) mixed with madhu (honey), and honey
mixed with food become a potent medicine, so also do ' tapa *"
and ' vidya ', when combined, In the same way as birds acquire
motion by means of two wings, so also is the immutable -
Brahman acquired as a result of the combination of Jriana
and Karma". These statements in the Harita-Smrti are-
also to be found in the second chapter of the Vrddhatreya-
Smrti. From these statements, and especially from the-
illustrations which have been given in them, one clearly
understands in what way the statements of the Manu-Smrtf
are to be interpreted. I have stated before that Maim includes
all the Karma (ritual or Action) ' enjoined for the four caster
in the word 'tapa' (Manu. 11. 236); and it will now be seen that
the observance of tapa and svadhyaya-pravacana which has
been prescribed in the Taittirlyopanisad ( Tai. 1. 9), has been
prescribed accepting the position of the combination of Jnana
and Karma. The same is the summary of the whole of the-
Yoga-Vasistha; because, in the beginning of this book, Sutlksna
has asked whether Release is obtained by Jnana alone, or by
Karma alone, or by the combination of both; and in replying
to that question, after first stating that, "just as the movement
of birds in the sky is made by two wings, so also is Release
obtained by the combination of Jnana and Karma, and per-
fection is not attained by only one of them", by taking the
illustration of the wings of the birds from the Harita-Smrti^
the Yoga-Vasistha has been written in order to prove that
508 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
proposition in detail (Yo. 1. 1. 6-9). Similarly, in the book
itself, Vasistha has again and again given to Rama the advice
that, "perform all your activities in life, keeping your mind
pure like a jivan-mukta" (Yo. 5. 17. 18-26); or "as it is not
possible to give up Action (Karma) so long as life lasts (Yo. 6.
TJ. 2. 42), psrform the duty of protecting and maintaining that
kingdom which has fallen on your shoulders by virtue of your
caste" (Yo. 5. 5. 54 and 6, TJ. 213. 50); and the summing up of
the work, as also what Sri Ramacandra did afterwards, is
consistent with that advice. But, as the commentators on the
Yoga-Vasistha, belonged to the Samnyasa school, they have
passed a judgment on their own hook, that Jnana and Karma
are not 'yugapat', that is, 'proper at the same time,' although
the illustration of the two wings of a bird is perfectly clear in
itself. But, this interpretation is a stretohed, unintelligible,
and doctrinal interpretation, as will be seen by any one who
reads the original work by itself, without the commentary.
There is a well-known treatise in the Madras Presidency
known as Gurujnana-vasistha-Tattvasarayana, which is sub-
divided into three parts, namely, JnSna-kanda, Upasana-
kanda and Karma-kanda. I have stated before that this work
is not as old as it is made out to be. But, although, it might
not be ancient, yet, as it accepts the position of the combina-
tion of Jnana and Karma, it is necessary to mention it in this
place. As the Vedanta in this work is Non-Dualistic, and
as it lays a speoial emphasis on Desireless Action, the doctrine
supported by it may safely be said to be different from the
doctrine supported by Sri Samkaracarya, and independent.
This doctrine is known on the Madras side as 'Anubhava-
dvaita ' ; and really speaking this is only an imitation of the
Karma-Yoga in the Glta. Yet, it is stated in it, that this
conclusion is arrived at by all the 108 Upanisads, instead of
supporting it on the authority of the Gita ; and besides, it also
includes two new Gitas, namely the Rama-gita and the Surya-
glta. This book will correct the impression some persons
have, that accepting the Monistic {adoita) theory amounts to
an acceptance of the Abandonment of Action; and it will
now be clear from the authorities given above, that the
■statement that the Desireless Karma- Yoga is supported only
RENUNCIATION AND KARMA-YOGA 509<
by the Saihhitas, the Brahmanas, the Upanisads, the Dharma-
Sutras, the Manu and Yajnavalkya-Smrtis, the Mahabharata,.
the Bhagavadglta, the Yoga-Vasistha, and lastly by the
Tattvasarayana, but is not aooepfcable to the Srutis and the
Smrtis, and that the Srutis and the Smrtis support only the-
Path of Renunciation, is without any foundation whatsoever.
I have so far proved that in order to carry on the
activities of the mortal world or for universal welfare, the
simultaneous combination of Dasireless Action, according to
one's own qualification, with Release-giving Knowledge, is-
necessary according to the G-Ita: or, as has been stated by the
Maratha Poet Sivadina-kesari : "that man who has attained'
the highest ideal, attending also to his worldly activities V'
such a man is good indeed, he is good indeed II " ; that this
Path of Karma-Yoga has been in vogue from ancient times,
and was accepted by Janaka and others ; and that it is also
known as the Bhagavata religion, because, it was eitended
further and revived by the Blessed Lord. It is now necessary,,
from the point of view of general welfare (loka-mmgraha),
to deal with the question of how the scients, who follow this '
path, carry on their worldly activities simultaneously 'with-'
the acquisition of the highest ideal of man. But, as th&
present chapter has been lengthened out to a considerable,
extent, I shall deal with this subject in the nest chapter;
CHAPTER XII.
THE STATE AND THE ACTIVITIES
OF THE SIDJHA (PERFECT).
(SIDDHAVASTHA AND SIDDHA-VYAVAHAEA)
sarvesam yah suhrn nityam sarvesaih ca kite ratah I
karmana mamsa vaca sa dharmam veda jajale II *
Mahabharata, Santi. 361. 9.
That school of thought according to which nothing remains
to be done by way of duty after a man has acquired the
Knowledge of the Brahman and his mind has become extremely
equable and desireless, and according to which a Jnanin should,
on that account, give up entirely the painful and insipid
activities of a transient worldly life with an apathetic frame
of mind, can never think that the Karma-Yoga, or the mode
of life appropriate to the state of a householder, is a science
which deserves consideration. They admit that before a man
takes Samnyasa, his Mind must have been purified and Know-
ledge acquired ; and they, therefore, admit that one must iead
one's worldly life in a way which will purify the Mind and
make it sattvika. But, if one believes that leading the worldly
life till death is foolish, and considers it to be the highest
duty of everyone in this life to renounce the world (take
Samnyasa) as early as possible, Karma-Yoga has no in-
dependent importance; and the scholars, who belong to the
School of Renunciation, do not trouble to deal with the
question of the doable and the not-doable in the state of
a householder, beyond, concisely and when occasion arises,
considering how one should lead one's worldly life, and
advising that one should go up the ladder of the four states
of life (airamn) described by Manu and other philosophers
and reach as quickly as possible the last step of that ladder,
namely, of Samnyasa. That is why Srlmat Sarhkaracarya,
who was the principal protagonist of the Path of Renuncia-
tion in the Kaliyuga, has ia his commentary on the Gits
* "That man, who, by his actions, by his mind, and by bis
speech ia continually engrossed in the welfare of others, and who
is always a friend of others, he alone, Jajali, may be said to
have understood what Morality (dharma) is ".
STATE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PERFECT 511
■either belittled the statements in the Glta advising Energismi
or considered them to be merely laudatory, and drawn the
ultimate conclusion of the Glta that the whole of it has
supported the doctrine of the Abandonment of Action (karma-
samnyasa) ; or why other commentators have, consistently with
their own doctrines, stated the import of the Gita to be that
the Blessed Lord advised Arjuna on the battle-field to follow
only the renunciatory paths of Release, namely, the path of
pure Devotion, or the Patafijala-Yoga. There is no doubt that
the Knowledge of the Absolute Self included in the Path of
Renunciation is faultless; and that the equability of Reason, or
the desireless state of mind produced by it, is acceptable to and
admitted by the Gita. Nevertheless, the opinion of the
Samnyasa school, that one must entirely abandon Action
in order to obtain Release is not acceptable to the Glta ; and
I have shown in detail in the last chapter that the most
important doctrine laid down by the Glta is, that the Jnanin
must, even after the acquisition of Knowledge, perform all
the activities of life, with the help of the feeling of
indifference to the world and the equability of mind, which
results from the Realisation of the Brahman. When it is
admitted that (i) the deletion of Knowledge-full [jnana-yukta )
Action from the world will result in the world becoming blind
and being destroyed ; and that ! ii even Jfianins must desirelessly
perform all the duties of worldly life, and so give to ordinary
people a living example of a good and pure life, since it is
the desire of the Blessed Lord that the world should not be so
destroyed and that its activities should go on without a hitch .
and that (iii) this path is the most excellent and acceptable
of all, it becomes necessary to consider in what way such
a Jnanin performs the activities of his worldly life; because,
as the life of such a Jnanin is nothing but an example set by
him to other people, the consideration of that example auto-
matically discloses to us the device sought by us for making
a true discrimination between morality (dharma) and im-
morality (artliarma), between the doable (karyai and the non-
doable (akarya) and between the duty (kartavya) and the non-
duty {alcartavya). This is the important difference between
the Path of Renunciation and the Path of Karma-Yoga. That
513 gita-rahasya or karma-Yoga
man whose Pure Reason {vyavasayatmika buddfnh) has become
capable of realising the identity, that "there is only one
Atman in all created things", on account of its having become
steady by means of mental control, must also possess a Desire
(vasaria) which is pure. And when his Practical Reason
{vasanatmika buddhih) has in this way become pure, equable,,
mine-less {nirmama) and sinless, it is impossible that he should
commit any sin or any Action obstructive of Release;
because, (i) whatever Action is prompted by a pure desire, is
bound to be pure, seeing that in the usual order of things, there
is first a desire, and that suoh desire is followed by appropriate
action; and (ii) whatever is pure, is promotive of Release. We
have, therefore, in this way found such a preceptor as will,
give to us a visible reply, in the form of his own life, to the
difficult question of the discrimination between what should
be done and what should not be done (karmakarma-vicikitsa) t .
or, between what is a duty and what is not a duty {karyakarya-
vyavastfdti), (Tai. 1. 11. i: GI. 3. 21). Such a preceptor was-
standing in life before Arjuna in the form of Sri Krspa : and'
. this preceptor has, after clearing the doubt in the mind of
Arjuna that a Jnanin must abandon such Action as warfare
etc. because it created bondage, given to Arjuna clear advice
as to the device by which one can lead his life in this
world, without committing sin and consistently with the-
science of the Absolute Self (adhyatma), and induced him to-
fight. But, it is not possible for every one to get such
preceptors ; and one also ought not to entirely depend on the
external activities of such saints, as has been mentioned by
me towards the end of the third chapter, when I was consider-
ing the proverb "rnahajanoyena gatah sa panlhah" (i, e., "follow
the path which has been followed by the great"). It is,,
therefore, necessary to minutely examine the course of life
of those Jnanins, who are examples to the whole world, and
to consider what the true fundamental element in that course-
of life is. This subject is known as the Science of Karma-
Yoga ; and the state and the actions of the Jnanins mentioned
above, is the foundation of this science. If all men in this-
worid " become Knowers of the Atman and Karma-yogins
in tliis way, there would be no necessity of a Science of.
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 513
Karma-Yoga. It is stated in one place in the Narayaniya.
religion, that .—
eJcantino M purusa durlabha bahavo nrpa I
yady ekanfibhir aklrnam jagat syat kurumndana II
ahimsakair atmavidbhih sarvabkutahite rataih l
bhavet krtayugapraptih asihkarmaaivarjita II
(San. 348. 62, 63).
that is, " it is difficult to find many persons who fully and
completely follow the Bhagavata doctrine, which is ' Ekantika ',
that is, Activistic. If this world is filled with Self-knowing:
harmless Jiianins, following the Ekanta doctrine, who
continually tax themselves for general welfare, all 'aslh-
karma ', that is, desire-prompted or selfish Action, will disappear
from this world, and the Krta-yuga will oome again I ";
because, as all persons will be Jnanins in such a state of
things, no one will cause harm to no one. Not only that,
but every one will always keep before Mb own mind in what
the general welfare lies, and regulate his conduct accordingly,
with a pure and desireless frame of mind. It is the opinion
of our philosophers that such a state of society existed at some
very ancient date, and that it will recur again (Ma. Boa.
San. 59. 14); but Western scholars say on the authority of
modern history, that though such a state of things never
existed before, it is possible that such a state of things may
come into existence, sometime or other in the future, as a
result of the advancement of mankind. However, as I am
not now conoerned with history, I may without being contra-
dicted say, that according to both opinions, every person
in this state, which is supposed to be the highest or the most
perfect state of society, will be fully a Jnanin, and every
Action of his is bound to be pure, beneficial, and moral, or the
pinnacle of dutifulness. The well-known English biologist
Spencer has expressed this opinion at .the end of his work on
Ethics; and he says that the same doctrine had been formerly
laid down by the ancient Greek philosophers. * For example,
* See Spencer's Data of Ethics, Chap. XV, pp. 215-21,8. Spencer
has called this 'Absolute Ethics'.
65-66
5M GTFA-BAHAYSA OS KARMA-YGGA
the Grak pUIssopiisr ?li w sa/i la bis work that, that Action
»::■;': s.TO:iri to be- p.--,pa: tc i:..-. ptiluSGp'-_=T. met be beme-
S;iil j* fist: iiit ordinary persons da n,it understand these
pri; r jipl-;<i cf Ei*oIm; and thai fey mist, taeefrre. look upon
fe risckijt; cf p'-.II»jpb.BTS as a'ltaoiitaim. Another Greek
psiioeophsi aaaijd ArMctb says in. his fcoor on Ethics (3. 4J
that tn% dichiaa. given hy a -JiUntn is always correct, because,
he his nadariKod fe trjs pria-iipia: and this decision or
condist of a JiSain is exemplary for cc,j.er«. A third Greek
phibswpier, iiaaisdEpisaraa, in describing such anexempiary
and "higlaly cultivated Jaanin, says teat ha is '" peaceful,
<xria.h\i, and probably always ;' jjfnl liks ths Param&ivsra;
and thai fe?a ia not t'r.i slightest harm, dans by him to other
people, or by othsr people to him".* My readers will realise
how si-mlar Shis dsseriplba is to the description giren in the
Bhagivadgfta of tne Stsady-ia Mind l-sthifaprajaa), of the one
■who is beyond the three cjostituents Urigu,niltlta), or of the
highest Dsvois% f p-irama-bhakta), or the Brahman-merged
(brahma-bha/'i). In the Bhagaradglta, the characteristics
of the Sthitaprajna have been mentioned in three or four
places in the following words, namely: "gas/nan jtoddjate loko
lokan norlvijale ca yah- " (GI. 12. 15 J, i. e., " one, of whom
people do not get tired, and who is not tired of people"; or,
who 13 always cheerful, and always free from the doubles of
joy and sorrow, fear and dislike, happiness and unhappiness,
and is always content with himself ("afmany euaimana
tuttah", Gi. 2. 55); or, one whose Reason is not moved by the
three constituents ("gunair yc wi vicalyale", Gi. 14. i'i); or,
one for whom praise or adverse criticism, honour or
dishonour is juat the same, and who, realising the identity
of one Atman in all created things (Gi. 18. 54). does his
duty with an equable frame of mind, without Attachment,
* Epicurus held the virtuous state to be a "tranquil, un-
disturbed, innocuous, non-competitive fruition, which approached
moat nearly to the perfect happiness of the Gods", who '-neither
suffered vexation in themselves, nor caused vexation to others".
Spencer's Data of Ethics p. 278 ; Bain's Menial and Moral Selena,
Ed. 1875, p. 530. Snch a pewon is known as the 'Ideal Wise
Han '.
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 515
courageously, and enthusiastically ; or, is " samalostasma-
kaHcana" (Gi. 14. 24), (i. e., one who looks upon earth,
•stone, and gold as the same — Trans.); and this state is
known as the State of the Perfect (siddhavastha), or the Brahml
state. The Yoga-Vasistha and other works refer to this state
as the state of being free from re-birth ( jivanmuktavastha ).
As this state is extremely difficult of accomplishment, the
■German philosopher Kant says that the description given
by Greek philosophers of such a state, is not of the state of
any living being ; but that they have personified the 'Pure
Desire', which is the root of all Ethics, in order to impress the
elements of pure morality on the minds of people ; and have
•created this picture of a super-Jnanin and moral person out
of their own imagination. But, our philosophers say that
•such a state of things is not an imaginary state, and that it
can be accomplished by man in this life by mental control
.and effort ; and we have seen actual examples of such
persons in our country. Nevertheless, such a thing is not a
matter of ordinary occurrence, and there is possibly only one
among thousands who makes any effort in this direction ; and
it is clearly stated in the Glta that only one, out of the
•thousand who maka an effort in this direction, ultimately
: attains this beatific ideal state, at the end of innumerable lives
,(GI.7. 3).
However difficult of accomplishment this state of a
• Sthitaprajna (sthitaprajnacastha) or this state of being free
from re-birth (jivan-muktavastha) may be, it follows from the
description of such a man, which has been given above, that
•the man, who has once accomplished this ultimate state, does
not need to be taught any laws about what should be done or
-should not be done, i.e., of Ethics ; because, as the purest, the most
■ equable and the most sinless frama of mind is the essence of
morality, laying down laws of Ethics for such a Sthitaprajna
■would be as unreasonable as imagining that the Sun is
.surrounded by darkness, and holding up a torch for it. There
may be a doubt as to whether or not a particular person has
reached this highest of states. But, when once it has been
established by whatever means that a particular person has
.reached this state, no proposition is possible, except the
516 GITA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
Metaphysical proposition mentioned above, regarding the merit-
or de-merit of his actions. Just as regal authority is vested in
one independent person or collection of persons, and as,
according to some Western jurists, the ruler is not governed by
any laws, though the ruled are so governed, so also are the'
Sthitaprajfias vested with authority in the kingdom of Ethics.
No Desire exists in their minds ; and, therefore, they are not
induced to perform Action by any motive, except the fact that
it is a duty enjoined by the Sastras ; and therefore, the words
sin or meritorious action, morality or immorality, can never
be applied to the conduct of such persons, who are filled by a
stainless and pure desire. They have gone beyond the bounds
of sin and merit. Samkaracarya has said that:
nistraigurtye pathi vicaratam ko vidhih ko nisedhah i
that is, "laws dictating what is proper and what improper do
not apply to persons who have gone beyond the three
constituents"; and Buddhistic writers have said that: "just as-
the purest diamond does not require to be polished, so are the
actions of that person who has reached the state of Absolution
(nirvana) not required to be limited by rules of conduct"
(Milindaprasna 4. 5. 7). This is the import of the statement,
made by Indra to Pratardana in the Kausitakyupanisad
(Kausl. 3. 1), that the Self-knower (atmajftanin) is "untouched
by the sins of matricide, patricide, or infanticide"; or of the
statement in the Glta (Gl. 18. 17), that "a man who has totally
lost the feeling of individuation [ahamlcara) is untouched by
sin or merit, even if he kills others (See PaficadasI 14. 16 and
17); and the same principle has been repeated in the Buddhistic
work called ' Dltammapada' (See Dhammapada, stanzas 294 and
295 ). * Nay, according to me, the statement of St. Paul,
* The statement from the Kausitakyupanisad is: "yo mam
vijaniyati msya hmcit karmam hk> miyate nci matrvadhena na pitrvadhma
mi steyena m bhrunahatyaya \ "; and the stanzas in the Dhammapada-
are as follows :-
•Btatarark pitaraih hantva rajano dve ca khattiye [
ratktham sanucaram hantva amgho yati brahmano || (294)
mataram pitaraih hantva rajano dve ca sotthiye \
vtyyagdha pa/ncamam hantva anigho yati brahmano \\ (295),
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 517
the disciple of the Lord Christ, in the New Testament of
the Bible that: " all things are lawful for me " ( 1. Oori. 6.
12; Romans 8. 2), or the statement of St. John that:
"it is not possible that any sin is committed by those who
have become the sons (perfect disciples) of the Lord" ( John. 1.
3. 9) conveys the same import. Those who have got into the
habit of arriving at a decision about morality by merely
■considering the external Action, without attaching proper
importance to mental purity, may consider this doctrine as
strange; and some people perversely interpret ' not bound by
rules of right or wrong' as meaning 'one who commits any
wrong he likes,' and distort the doctrine mentioned above by
me as meaning "the Sthitaprajna is at liberty to commit any
sin he likes". But, just as the fact that a blind man does not
.see a pillar, is not the fault of the pillar, so does the fact of these
objectors, who have become blind because they support a
.particular doctrine, not clearly understanding the meaning of
the doctrine mentioned above, not become a fault of the
doctrine. Even the Glta accepts the position that the purity
of anybody's mind has fiist to be tested by his external
(that is, (294) "in killing a mother or a father, or two kings of
a warrior race, or destroying a whole kingdom with its inhabitants,
a Brahmin (still) remains sinless"; (295) "in killing a mother,
a father, two Brahmin kings, and an eminent man, to make up
five, a Brahmin (still) remains sinless"— Trans.)
This idea in the Dhammapada has evidently been borrowed from
the Kausltskyupanisad. Bat the Buddhistic writers do not take
those words in their literal meaning of matricide or patricide,
and have understood mother (inaia ) as meaning thirst (ttffS), an ^
father ( pita ) as meaning self-respect (abhimana), Bnt, in my
•opinion, these writers have adopted these figurative meanings only
because they have not properly understood the principle of Ethics
conveyed in this verse. In the Kausitakynpanisad, before the
verse u matrvadhem pitrvadherta" etc., it is stated by Indra that;
"even if I kill Vrfcra, a Brahmin, I do not thereby commit any
sin"; and it is quite clear from this, that actual murder was
•referred to. The commentary of Max Eialler on this verse in his
English translation on the Dhammapada (S. B. E., Volume X,
pp. TO and 71) is, according to me, du9 to misunderstanding.
518 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
actions; and the Metaphysical science does not wist
to apply the abovementioned doctine to those imperfect
persons, the purity of whose mind remains to be tested,,
even a little, by that test. But the case is different with
the man who has reached the state of perfection, and
whose mind has undoubtedly become entirely merged in the
Brahman and infinitely desireless ; and although some Action*
of his might appear improper from the ordinary point of -new,
yet, as it is admitted that his mind is perfectly pure and
equable, it follows that such Action, however it appears to the
ordinary observer, must be essentially sinless ; or, it must have
been committed for some ethically correct reason, and is not
likely to be founded on avarice or immorality like the actions
of ordinary people. The same is the reason why Abraham in
the Bible was not guilty of the sin of attempting infanticide,
though he was about to kill his son ; or, why Buddha did not
inour the sin of murder, when his father-in-law died as a result
of his curse ; or, why Parasurama was not guilty of matricide
though he killed his own mother. And the advice given in the
Glta to Arjuna by the Blessed Lord that, " if your mind is pure
and stainless, you will not be guilty of the sin of having killed
your ancestor or your preceptor, though you may happen to
kill Bhlsma and Drona in warfare, according to the duty of
the Ksatriyas, and without having any hope of any benefit to-
be derived thereby ; because, in such ciroumstances, you have
become merely an instrument for carrying into effect the desire
of the Paramesvara" (GI. 11. 33), is based on the same
principle. We see in ordinary life that if a millionaire
snatches away money from a beggar, the millionaire is not
called a thief, but it is believed that the beggar has committed
some wrong, and that on that account the millionaire has
punished him. This argument applies still more appropriately,
or more fully, to the conduct of the Sthitaprajna, the arhata, or
the devotee of the Blessed Lord ; because, the Reason of the
millionaire may on occasion falter, but it is a settled fact that
such emotions cannot touch the Reason of the Sthitaprajna. Ae
the Paramesvara, the Creator of the universe, is untouched
by sin or merit, notwithstanding that He performs all Actions,
so also is the state of these saints, who have become merged
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 519
in the Brahman, always holy and sinless. It may even be
said that laws of conduct are framed on the baBis of the
Actions performed by such persons on previous occasions, of
their own free will ; and on that acoount, these saints become
the fathers of those laws of behaviour, and are never the slaves
of them. Such illustrations are come across not only in the
Vedic religion, but also in the Buddhistic and Christian,
religions ; and this principle was accepted even by the ancient
Greek philosophers ; and in the present age, Kant * has in his
book on the science of Ethics proved this by conclusive
reasons. When it has thus been proved what the unpollutabla
original spring or the stainless model of all rules of Morality
is, such persons as want to scrutinise the fundamental
principles of Ethics, or of the doctrine of Energism (karma-
yoga) must mioutdly examine the lives of such holy and.
stainless saints. That is why Arjuna has asked Sri Krsna
the following questions in the Bhagavadgita, namely; — •
" sthitadhth kim prabhassfa kim asita vrajeta kim " (Gi. 2. 54),
i.e., "how does the Sthitaprajfia speak, sit, move about ?" ;
or, in the fourteenth chapter, " tear lingtus tringurian elan,
alito bhavati prabho, himactirah " (Gi. 14. 21), i. e., " how
does a man go beyond the three constituents, (become a
trigunailta), what is his behaviour, and how is such a man to
be recognised ?" As an assayer tests the golden ornament,
which has been taken to him for examination, by comparing it
with a sample piece of hundred carat gold in his possession,
so also is the behaviour of the Sthitaprajfia a test for deciding
* " A perf eetly good will would therefore be eq-ially subject to
objective laws (viz., laws of good), but could not be conceived
as obliged thereby to act lawfully, because of itself from it3
subjective constitution, it can only be determined by the concep-
tion of good. Therefore, w imperatives bold for the Divine will?
or in general for a holy will; ought is here out of place, because
the volition is already of itself necessarily in nnis .n with the
law ". Kant's Metaphysic of Morals, p. 31. (Abbot's trans, in
Kant's Theory of Ethics, 6th Ed). Nietzsche does not accept any
Metaphysical basis; yet, in the description of a superman given
by him in bis books, he has said that such a person is beyond good
and evil, and one of his books is entitled Beyond Good and Evil,
520 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
between the duty and the non-duty, the just and the unjust ;
and the implied meaning of these questions is that the Blessed
Lord should explain to Arjuna what that test was. Some
persons say that the descriptions which have been given by
the Blessed Lord of the state of the Sthitaprajna or of the
Trigunatlta, in reply to this question, are of Jfianins following
the Path of Renunciation, and not the Karma- Yoga ; because,
it is with reference to such persons that the adjective
*mrairayah' (i. e., homeless — Trans.), (Gl. 4. 20) has been used in
the Gita. ; and in the twelvth chapter, where the description of
the Sthitaprajna devotees of the Blessed Lord is being given,
the words "sarmrafnbhaparityagl" (i. e., "one who has abandoned
all arambha or commencement of Action — Trans.), (Gi. 12. 16),
and "anilketah" (i. e., "one who has no abode" — Trans.),
{Gi. 12. 19), have been used clearly. But the words 'nirusrayah'
or 'ardkstah' do not mean 'one who does not remain in a home,
but roams about in a forest', and they must be taken as
synonymous with "anasritah karmaphalam" (i. e., "not taking
shelter in the Fruit of the Action"— Trans.), (GI. 6. 1), that is
to say, as meaning 'one who does not take shelter in the Fruit
of Action', or, 'one, the home of whose mind, is not in that
Fruit', as will be clearly seen from my commentaries on
the translations of those respective verses. Besides, it is stated
in the description itself of the Sthitaprajna, that "he moveB
about among the objects of pleasure, keeping control over his
organs", that is, he performs Actions desirelessly (GI. 2. 64);
and, in the stanza which contains the word 'nirasrayah' occurs
also the description, "karmany abhipravrtto'pi naiva kimdt karoti
sab", that is, "he is free from and untouched by all Actions,
though he performs them". The same argument must be
applied to the use of the word 'amketah' in the twelvth chapter ;
because, in that chapter, after having praised the abandonment
of the Fruit of Action (not the Abandonment of Action), the
Blessed Lord has gone on to describe the characteristics of His
devotees, in order to explain what peace (santi) is obtained by
performing Action after abandoning the Hope for Fruit
{phalasa) ; and in the same way, a description has been given
in the eighteenth chapter, of a person who has been merged in
the Brahman, in order to explain how peace is obtained by
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 521
performing Actions without being attached to the Fruit of
Action (G-1. 18. 50). It, therefore, becomes necessary to come to
the conclusion that these descriptions are not of persons who
follow the Path of Renunciation, but of Karma-yogins. It is
not that, the Knowledge of the Brahman, the peace of mind,
the Self-identification (atmaupamya/, or the Desirelessness of
Mind, of the Karma-yogin Sthitaprajna, is different from those
.of the Sarhnyasin-Sthitaprajna. As both are perfect Knowers
of the Brahman, the mental frame and the peace of mind are
the same in either case ; but the one is merely engrossed in
Peace fsanti), and does not care for anything else ; whereas, the
other is continually bringing into use his peace of mind and
his Self-identification in his activities of ordinary life, as
occasion arises. This is the important difference between the
two from the point of view of Karma. Therefore, that
Sthitaprajna, whose personal conduct has to be taken as an
example for determining what is right and what is wrong in
ordinary life, must be one who performs Action, and not one
who has abandoned Action or is a beggar (bhiksu). The sum
and substance of the advice given to Arjuna in the Gita is, "it
is not necessary to give up Action, nor can you give it up ; but.
Realise the identity of the Brahman and the Atman and
keep your pure Reason ( uyavasayatmiha buddhi) equable like
that of a Karma-yogin, so that your Practical Reason
'( vasanatmika buddhi ) will thereby also become pure, mine-
less, and saintly, and you will not be caught in the bondage
■of Karma"; and that is why in explaining to Jajali the
principle of Ethics embodied in the stanza quoted at the
beginning of this chapter, namely, "that man who, by his
Actions and by his speech, is continually engrossed in the
■welfare of others, and who is always a friend of others, may
alone be said to have understood what morality (dharma)
is", Tuladhara has mentioned Karma, side by side with Speech
and Mind, and even before mentioning them.
It is not necessary to explain principles of Ethios in
•detail to that man, whose mind has become equable towards
all created things, like that of a Karma-yogin Sthitaprajna or
a Jlvanmukta, and all whose selfish interests have been
merged in the interests of others. He may be said to have
523 GlTA-RAHASYA OH KARMA-YOGA
become self-enlightened or a 'buddka'. As Arjuna had reached
that stage, it was not necessary to give him any advice beyond,
stating: "make your mind equable and steady, and instead of
falling in the futile mistake of giving up Action, make your
mind similar to that of the Sthitaprajna, and perform all.
Action which has befallen you according to your status in
life." Yet, as this Yoga in the shape of equability of mind,,
cannot, as has been stated above, be attained by every one in-
one life, the life of a Sthitaprajna must be a little more
minutely examined and explained for the benefit of ordinary
people. But, in making this disquisition, one must also bear
in mind that the Sthitaprajna, whom we are going to consider,
is not a man living in a society which has reached the perfect
state of the Krta-yuga, but is one who has to live in a society
in this Kali-yuga, in which almost all people are steeped in.
their own selfish interests. Because, however great and.
complete the Knowledge of a man may be, and whatever the
state of equability of Mind which he has reached, it will not.
do if he adopts the practice of harmlessness, kindness,
peacefulness, forgiveness etc., which are permanent virtues
of the highest order, in dealing with persons whose
minds are impure, and who are caught within the toils of
Desire, Anger etc. * It need not be said that the rules of
Right and Wrong, applicable to a society in which the
majority is of avaricious persons, must be at least somewhat.
different from the rules of Right and Wrong and of Absolute-
* " In the second place, ideal conduct such as ethical theory
is concerned with, is not possible ior the ideal man in the midst-
of men otherwise constituted. An absolutely just or perfectly
sympathetic person could not live and act accordisg to his nature
in a tribe of cannibals. Among people who are treacherous and/
utterly without scruple, entire truthfulness and openness must
bring ruin ". Spencer's Data of Ethics, Chap. XV, p. 280.
Spencer has called this ' Relative Ethics '; and he says lhat : " On
the evolution-hypothesis, the two (Absolute and Relative Ethics)
presuppose one another ; and only when they co-exist, can there
exist that ideal conduct which Absolute Ethics has to formulate,
and which Relative Ethics has to take as the standard by which to-
Mtimate divergencies from right, or degrees of wrong".
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WOKLDLY AFFAIRS 523
Ethics applicable to a society in which every person is a.
Sthitaprajna ; otherwise, saints will have to leave this world,
and evil-doers will he the rulers everywhere. This does not
mean that saints must give up their equable frame of mind ;
but there are kinds and kinds of equability of mind. It is
stated in the Glta that the hearts of saints are equal towards
"brahmaye gavi hastini" (Gi. 5. 18), i. a, "Brahmins, cows, and
elephants". But if, on that account, some one feeds a
Brahmin with the grass which has been brought for the cow
or feeds the cow with the food which has been cooked for the
Brahmin, shall we call him a wise man ? If persons following
the School of Renunciation do not attach any importance to-
this question, the same cannot be done by people who follow
the Karma-Yoga. The Sthitaprajna lives his life in this
world, taking into aocount what the nature of Right and
Wrong was in the perfect state of the Krfca-yuga, and deciding
what changes are necessary in those rules, in this world of
selfish persons, having regard to the difference of Time and
Place ; and it will be clear from what has been stated in the
second chapter above, that this is the most difficult
question in Karma-Yoga. Saints perform their duties in this
life apathetically, and only for the benefit of suoh selfish
people, instead of getting angry with them, or allowing their
own equability of mind to change on account of their avarici-
ous tendencies. Bearing this principle in mind, Sri Samartha
Ramadasa has, after having in the first part of the Dasabodha
dealt with the Knowledge of the Brahman, started in the
eleventh chapter a description of the activities performed by
such Sthitaprajfias or saints for social welfare, with indif-
ference to the world, or desirelessly, and with the intention of
instilling wisdom into such people (Dasa. 11. 10; 12. 8-10; 15.
2); and he has stated later on in the eighteenth chapter, that
one should thoroughly understand and grasp the traditions,
stories, stratagems, devices, circumstances, intentness of
pursuit, inferences, cleverness, diplomacy, forbearance,
aouteness, generosity, Metaphysical Knowledge, devotion,
aloofness, indifference to the world, daringness, assiduity,
determination, firmness, equability, discrimination, and
numerous other qualities of such Jnanins (Dasa, 18. 2). But
.524 GlTi-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
as such disinterested persons have to deal with avaricious
persons, the ultimate advice of Sri Samaitha is:-
Meet baldness with boldness I impertinence by impertinence I
villainy by villainy l must be met U
( Dasa. 19. 9. 30 )
Iu short, when a man descends from the state of perfection
fo ordinary life, it is undoubtedly necessary to make some
changes in the rules of Right or Wrong which apply to the
highest state.
To this position, Materialistic philosophers raise the
following objection, namely: if, when one descends from the
perfect state into ordinary society, one has to deal with many
things with discrimination, and modify Absolute Ethics to a
certain extent, where is the permanence of Ethical principles,
and what becomes of the axiom "dharmo nityah", i.e., "Morality
is immutable," which has been enunciated by Vyasa in the
Bharata-Savitrl ? They say that the immutability of Ethics
from the point of view of Metaphysics is purely imaginary,
and that those are the only true rules of Ethics, which come
into existence consistently with the state of society at parti-
cular periods of time, on the basis of the principle of the
'greatest good of the greatest number'. But, this argument is
not correct. Just as the scientific definition of a straight line
or of a perfect circle does not become faulty or purposeless,
because no one can draw a straight line without breadth or a
faultless circumference of a circle as defined in Geometry, so
also is the case with simple and pure rules of Ethics. Besides,
unless one has determined the absolutely pure form of any-
thing, it is not possible to bring about improvements in the
various imperfect forms of it which we come across in life, or
to ascertain the relative worth of the various forms after
•careful consideration; and that is why the assayer first decides
what is pure hundred carat gold. Persons who live only
according to the times, and without taking into account the
absolute form of Ethical principles, will be in the same
.-position as sailors on a ship, who guide the rudder on the
boundless ocean, considering only the waves and the wind, and
•without taking into account the compass, which shows the
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 525-
cardinal directions, or the Polar star. Therefore, even consider-
ing everything from the Materialistic point of view, it is
necessary to first fix some principle of Ethics, which is-
unchangeable and permanent like the Polar star; and once this
necessity has been admitted, the entire Materialistic argument
falls to the ground. Because, as all enjoyment of objects of
pleasure which causes pain or happiness falls into the Name-dj
and Form-ed, and therefore, the non-permanent or perishable
category of illusory objects, no principle of Ethics based on such
enjoyment, that is, on merely external effects, can be permanent-
Such Ethical principles must go on changing as the ideas of
the material, external, pain and happiness on which they
are based, change. Therefore, if one has to escape from,
this perpetually changing state of Ethics, one must not take
into account the enjoyment of objects of pleasure in this
illusory world, but must stand on the sole Metaphysical
foundation of the principle, "there is only one Atman in all
created things"; because, as has been stated before in the
ninth chapter, there is nothing in this world which is perma-
nent except the Atman ; and the Bame is the meaning conveyed
by the statement of Vyasa : " dlwrmo nitydh sukhaduhkhe tv
anitye", i. e., "the rules of Ethics or of pure behaviour are
immutable, and happiness and unhappiness are transient
and mutable". It is true that in a society which is full of
cruel and avaricious persons, it is not possible to fully observe-
the immutable Ethical laws of harmlessneas, truth, etc.; but
one cannot blame these Ethical laws for that. Just as one
cannot, from the fact that the shade of an object cast by
the Sun's rays is flat on a flat surface, but is undulating on an
undulating surface, draw the inference that the shade must be
originally undulating, so can one not, from the fact that one
does not come across the purest form of Ethics in a society
of unprincipled persons, draw the inference that the imperfect
state of Ethics which we come accross in an imperfect society
is the principal or the original form of Ethics. The fault
here is not of Ethics, but of the society ; therefore, those who
are wise, do not quarrel with pure and permanent laws of Ethios
but apply their efforts towards elevating society, so as to-
bring it to the ultimate highest state. Although our
536 GiTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
philosophers have mentioned some exceptions to the permanent
laws of Ethics in dealing with avaricious persons in society,
as being unavoidable, they also mention penances for acting
according to such exceptions; and this will also dearly
explain the difference pointed out by me in previous chapters
in explaining to my readers that Western Materialistic
Ethical science bare-facedly supports and propounds these
exceptions as laws, and by confusion of thought, looks
upon the principles of discrimination between external results,
which are useful only for fixing these exceptions, as the true
laws of Ethics.
I have thus explained that the true foundation of Ethics
is the frame of mind and the mode of life of the Sthitaprajna
Jfianin (the Steady-in-Mind scient) ; and why, although the
laws of Ethics to be deduced from the same are permanent
and immutable in themselves, they have got to be varied in
an imperfect state of society ; and, how and why the
immutability of fundamental laws of Ethics is not affected,
though these laws may be varied in that way. I shall now
consider the question first mentioned by me, namely, what is
the hidden significance or fundamental principle underlying
the behaviour of a Sthitaprajna Jfianin in an imperfect society.
I have stated before in the fourth chapter that this question
•can be considered in two ways: the one way is to consider the
state of mind of the doer as the principal factor ; and the other
way is to consider his external mode of life. If one considers
the matter only from the second point of view, it will be seen
that all the activities of the Sthitaprajna are prima facie for'
the benefit of the world. It is stated in two places in the Glta
that, saints who have acquired the highest Knowledge, are
"engrossed in bringing about the welfare of all created things",
that is, they are " sarvabhutahiteratah " ( Gl. 5. 25 and 12. 4 ) ;
and the same statement also appears in various places in the
Mahabharata. I have stated above that the laws of
harmlessness etc., which are followed by Sthitaprajna Jnanins,
are in fact 'dharmd, or the model of pure behaviour. In
explaining the necessity of these rules of harmlessness etc., and
in describing the nature of these laws of Ethics (dkarma), the
Mahabharata contains various statements explaining their
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 527
■asternal usefulness, such as : — "ahimsa satyavacamfa sarva-
bhutahitam param" (Vana. 206. 73), i. e,, "non-violence and
truthfulness are laws of Ethics, beneficial to everybody"; or,
"dharavad dharmam ity ahuh" (San. 109. 12), i. e., "it is called
dharma, because it maintains the world" ; or, "dharmam hi
ireya ity ahuh" (Anu. 105. 14), i. e., "that is dharma, which is
beneficial" ; or, "prabhavarthaya bludarwm dharmapravacamm
krtam" (San. 109. 10), i. e., "laws of Ethics have been made for
the amelioration of society" ; or, "lokayalrartham eveham
■dharmasya rdyamah krtah I ubhayatra sukhodarkah" (San. 258. 4),
L e., "laws of Ethics have been made in order that the activities
of society should go on, and that benefit should be acquired in
•this life and the next". In the same way, it is stated that,
when there is a doubt between what is right and what is wrong,
■the Jnanin —
loltayatra ca drastavya dharmas catmahitani ca I
(Anu. 37. 16 ; Vana. 206. 90)
that is, "should discriminate between external factors like the
usual activities of men, laws of Ethics, and one's own benefit",
and decide what is to be done ; and the king Sibi has, in the
Vanaparva, followed the same principle for discriminating
between right and wrong (Vana. 131. 11 and 12). From these
-statements, it will be clearly seen that the 'external guiding
factor' of the mode of life of a Sthitaprajiia, is the advancement
■of society ; and if this is accepted as correct, the next question
which faces us is : why do Metaphysicians not accept the
Materialistic Ethical law of 'the greatest happiness or, (using
the word 'happiness' in a more extensive meaning), benefit, or
advantage of the greatest number'? I have shown above in the
fourth chapter that the one great drawback of the principle of
the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number' is, that it does not
provide for either, the happiness or amelioration resulting from
Self-Realisation, or the happiness in the next world. But this
drawback can to a great extent be removed by taking the word
'happiness' in a comprehensive meaning ; and the Metaphysical
argument given above in support of the immutability of
Ethical laws, will, therefore, not appear of importance to many.
It is, therefore, necessary to again give a further elucidation
528 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA.
of the important difference between the Metaphysical and the-
Materialistic aspect of Ethics.
The question whether a particular act is ethically proper or
improper can be considered in two ways : (1) by considering
merely its external result, that is to say, its visible effect on the
world ; and (2) by considering the Reason or the Desire-
of the doer. The first method of consideration is known as
the MATERIALISTIC (adhsbhauHka) method. In the second
method, there are again two sub-divisions, each of which has
a different name. I have in the previous chapters referred,
to the doctrines that (i) in order that one's Action should be
pure, one's Practical Reason has got to be pure, and that
(ii) in order that one's Practical Reason should be pure, one's
Pure Reason, that is, the reasoning faculty, which discriminates
between what ought to be done and what ought not to be done,
has got to be steady, equable, and pure. According to these
doctrines, one has to see whether the Practical Reason whioh
prompted a particular action was or was not puro, in order-
to determine whether the Action is pure; and when one wishes -
to consider whether the Practical Reason was or was not pure,,
one has necessarily to see whether the Deciding Reason was-
or was not pure. In short, whether the Reason or the Desire
of the doer was or was not pure, has ultimately to be judged
by considering the purity or the impurity of the Deciding
Reason (Gi. 2. 41). When this Deciding Reason is considered
to be an independent deity, • embodying the power of dis-
crimination between Right and Wrong (sadasadvivecana-sakti),
that method of consideration is called the INTOTTIONIST'
(adhidaivilta) method; but if one believes that this power is
not an independent deity, but is an eternal organ of the
Atman, and on that account, one looks upon the Atman,
instead of the Reason, as the principal factor and determines-
the pureness of Desire on that basis, that method of determin-
ing principles of Ethics is known as the METAPHYSICAL
(adhyatmika) method. Our philosophers say that this Meta-
physical method is the best of all these methods ; and although
the well-known German philosopher Kant has not clearly
enunciated the doctrine of the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman, he has commenced his disquisition of the principles of
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 5m
Ethics, with a consideration of Pure Reason, that is, in a way;
from the Metaphysical point of view; and he has clearly stated
there his reasons for doing so. * Graen is of the same opinion:
but these matters cannot be dealt with in detail in a small
book like this. I have, in the fourth chapter above, explained
by giving a few illustrations why, in finally deciding questions
of Ethics, one has to pay more special attention to the pureness
of the Reason of the doer, than to the external result of his
Aotions; and this subject-matter will ba further considered in
the fifteenth chapter when I will compare the Western and the
Eastern ethical laws. For the time being, I will only say
that, in as much as it is necessary that there should be a desire-
to perform any particular Action before it is actually per-
formed, the consideration of the propriety or the impropriety
of such Action, depends entirely on the consideration of the
purity or the impurity of the Reason. If the Reason is sinful,
the Action will be sinful; but, from the fact that the external
Aotion is bad, one cannot draw the conclusion that the Reason,
also must be bad; because, that act may have been performed
by mistake, or as a result of a misunderstanding, or as a
result of ignorance; and in these cases it cannot be said to be
ethically sinful. The Ethical principle of 'the greatest
happiness of the greatest number' can apply only to the
external results of Actions; and as no one has so far invented
any external means for definitely measuring the external
results of such Actions in the shape of pain or happiness, it is
not certain that this test of Morality will always give us a
oorrect result. In the same way, however wise a man may be,
if his Reason is not pure, it is not certain that he will on
every occasion behave in a morally correct way. And the
position will be much worse if Mb own selfish interests are in
any way affected in that matter; because, "svarthe sarve-
vimuhyanti ye 'pi dharmavido janah" (Ma. Bha. Vi. 51. 4), i. e„
"all are blinded by selfish interests, even if they are well-
varsad in Morality" — Trans.). In short, however much a man
may be a Jnanin, or well-versed in Morality, or wise, if his
* Bee Kant's Theory of Ethics trans, by Abbott, 6th Ed.,
especially Metaphysics of Morals therein.
67—68
530 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Reason has not become equable towards all created beings,
it is not certain that his Actions will always be pure or
morally faultless. Therefore, our philosophers have decided
definitely that in dealing with ethical problems, one must
consider principally the Reason of the doer, rather than the
external results of his Actions ; and that equability of Reason
is the true principle underlying an ethically correct mode of
life. And the Blessed Lord has given to Arjuna the following
advice on the same principle in the Bhagavadglta :
durena hy avaram karma buddMyogad dhananjaya l
buddhau, saranam anvkcha krpanah phalahetavah H *
(Gi. 2. 49).
Some say that the word ' buddhi ' in this stanza is to be
understood as meaning 'Jnana' (Knowledge), and that a higher
place has been given to Jnana, as between Jnana and Karma.
But, according to me, this interpretation is incorrect. Even
in the Samkarabhasya on this stanza, the word 'buddhi-yoga'
has been interpreted as meaning 'samatva-buddhi-yoga (the
Yoga of equability of Reason) ; and further, this stanza occurs
in that part of the Gita which deals with the Karma-Yoga.
Therefore, this stanza must be interpreted with referenoo to
Karma only ; and such an interpretation is also naturally
arrived at. Those who perform Actions fall into the two
categories of (i) those who keep an eye merely on the fruit —
for example, on the question, how many persons will be benefited
thereby, and to what extent ; and (ii) those who keep then-
Reason equable and desireless, and remain unconcerned as to the
Sruit of the Action, which (fruit) results from the combination
of Action (knrmaj and Destiny (dharmai. Out of these, this
stanza has treated the 'pludahetaval}, that is, 'those who perform
Action, keeping an eye on the result of the Action', as krpana,
* The literal meaning of this veraeis :— Dhan»3jiya! (pure)
Action is very much inferior to the Toga of the (equahle) Reason ;
(therefore), rely on (the equable) Eeason. Those (persons), who
perform Actions keeping an eye to the Fruit of Action, are
' trpuna', that is, of an inferior order".
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 531
that is, of a lower order from theethical point of view; and those
who perform Aotion with an equable Reason as superior. That
is what is meant by the statement in the first two parts of
the stanza, namely, " durena hy avaram karma buddhiyogad
dhananjaya", i.e., "0 Dhananjaya, Aotion alone is very much
inferior to the Yoga of the equable Reason"; and that is the
answer given by the Blessed Lord to the question of Arjuna
"How shall I kill Bhisma, Drona and others?" The implied
meaning of this is, that one has to consider not merely the
Aotion of dying or of killing, but the motive with which that
Action has been performed; and therefore, the advice has been
given in the third part of the stanza that: "Rely on your
Reason (buddhi), that is, on the equable Reason (sama-buddhi)";
and later on, in the summing up in the eighteenth chapter, the
Blessed Lord has again said: "Perform all your Actions,
relying on the Yoga of the equable Reason". That the GltS,
looks upon the consideration of the Action itself as inferior,
and of the motive which inspires the particular Action as
superior, will be apparent from another stanza in the Gita. In
the eighteenth chapter, Karma has been classified into sattrika,
rajasa, and tamasa. If the Gita had intended to consider only
the result of the Action, the Blessed Lord would have said that
those Actions, which produce the greatest good of the greatest
number, are sattvika; but, instead of doing so, it is stated in the
eighteenth ohapter that, "that Action is the most excellent,
■which has been performed desirelessly, that is, after abandoning
the Hope for the Fruit of the Action" (Gi. 18. 23). Therefore,,
the Gita, in discriminating between the doable and the not-
doable, attaches a higher importance to tho desireless, equable,
and unattached Reason of the doer, than to the external result
of the Action; and if the same test is applied to the conduct of
the Sthitaprajfia, it follows that the true principle involved in
the mode of life of a Sthitaprajfia is the equable Reason with
which he behaves towards his equals and his subordinates; and
that the welfare of all created beings resulting from such a
mode of life is the external or concomitant result of that
equability of Reason. In the same way, it is improbable that
the man whose Reason has reached the perfectly equable state,
■will pBrt'orm Action with the sole idea of giving merely
532 GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
Material happiness to other people. It is true that he will not
causa harm to others. But, that cannot be considered to be his.
principal ideal; and all the activities of a Sthitaprajna are
directed towards more and more purifying the minds of all the
persons forming a society, and thereby enabling such persons-
to ultimately reach the Metaphysically perfect state he himself
has reached. This is the highest and the most sattmka duty of
mankind. We look upon all efforts directed merely towards-
the increase of the Material happiness of human beings as.
inferior or rajasa.
To the doctrine of the Glta that in order to decide between)
the doable and the not-doable, one has to attach a higher
importance to the pureness of the motive of the doer than to-
the result of the Action, the following mischievous objection
has been raised, namely, if one does not take into account the-
result of the Action, but merely considers the pureness of the-
motive, it will follow that a person with a pure Reason can
commit any crime he likes; and that he will then be at liberty
to perform all sorts of crimes ! This objection has not been*
imagined by ma, but I have as a matter of fact seen objections-
of this kind which have been advanced agaist the Glta religion
by some Christian missionaries.' 5 ' But, I do not feel the slightest
compunction in characterising these allegations or objections-
as totally foolish and perverse. Nay, I may even go so far as'
to say that these missionaries have become as incapable of
even understanding the Metaphysical perfection of the=
Sthitaprajna described in the Vedic religion on account of aa
over-weening admiration for their own religion, or of some other
nefarious or evil emotions, as a black-as-ebony Negro from
Africa is unfit for or incapable of appreciating the principles o£
Ethics accepted in civilised countries. Kant, the well-knowm
German philosopher of the nineteenth century, has stated in
several places in hiB book on Ethics, that one must consider'
only the Reason of the doer, rather than the external result.
* One missionary from Calcutta has made this statement; and
the reply given to it by Mr. Brooks appears at the end of his
treatise Kurukjetra (Kuruksetra, Vyasasrama, Adyar, Madras, pp.-
48.52).
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 533
of his Action, in deciding questions of Ethics.* But, I have
nowhere come across any such objection having been raised
to that statement of Kant. Then how can suoh an objection
apply to the principle of Ethics enunciated by the Gita ?
When the Reason has become equable towards all created
beings, charity becomes a matter of inherent nature; and
therefore, it is as impossible that a person who has acquired
this highest Knowledge, and is possessed of the purest Reason,
should commit sin, as that nectar should cause death. When
the Gita says that one should not consider the external result
of the Action, that does not mean that one is at liberty to do
what one likes. The Gita says: though a person can
hypocritically or with a selfish motive, appear to be charitable,
he cannot hypocritically possess that equability of Reason
and stability, which can arise only by Realising that there
is but one Atman in all created beings; therefore, in con-
sidering the propriety or the impropriety of any Action, one
has to give due consideration to the Reason of the doer, instead
of considering only the external results of his Action. To
express the matter in short, the doctrine of the Gita is that
Morality does not consist of Material Action only, but that
it wholly depends on the Reason of the doer ; and the Gita says
later on (Gl. 18. 25), that if a man, not realising the true
principle underlying this doctrine, starts doing whatever he
likes, he must be said to be tamasa or a devil. Once the mind
has become equable, it is not necessary to give the man any
further advice about the propriety or the impropriety of
Actions. Bearing this principle in mind, Saint Tukarama has
* "The second proposition ia : That an action done from duty-
•derives its moral worth, not from th« purpose which is to be attained
by it, but from the mixLm by which it is determined". The moral
worth of action "cannot lie anywhere but ia the principle of the will,
without regard to the ends which can be attained by aotion".
Xant's Metaphysic of Marah (trans.by Abbott in Kant's Thory of
JZthics, p. 16. The italics are the author's and not our own).
And again, "When the question is of moral worth, it is not with'
the actions whioh we see that we are concerned, but with those
inward principles of them which we do not see", p. 24. Ibid.
534 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
preached to Shivaji Maharaja the sole dootrine of Karma-Yoga,
same aa the Bhagavadglta, in the ahhanga:-
"This has only one merit-producing meaning I
there is only one Atman, that is, God in all created beings it-
(Tu. Ga. 4428. 9).
But, although the essential basis of proper conduct {sadacararm)
is the equable Season, I must repeat here that, one cannot
from that fact draw the inference that the man who performs
Action, must wait for performing Action until his Reason has-
reached that stage. It is the highest ideal of everybody to
make his mind like that of a Sthitaprajna. But it is stated
already in the commencement of the Gita, that because this is
the highest ideal, one need not wait for performing Action
until that ideal has been reached; that one should in the
meantime perform all Actions with as much unselfishness as
possible, so that thereby the Reason will become purer and
purer, and the highest state of perfection will ultimately be
reached ; and that one must not waste time by insisting on
not performing any Action until the perfect state of the Reason,
has been reached (Gl. 2. 40).
A further objection is raised by many that, although it has
in this way been proved (i) that the ethical principle of 'sarva-
bhuta-hita ' or of the greatest good of the greatest number ' is
a one-sided and superficial (sakhagraM) principle, as it applies,
only to external Actions, and (ii) that the ' equability of
Reason ' according to which ' there is only one Atman in all
created beings' is a thing whioh goes- to the root of the matter
(is mulagrahi), and must, therefore, be considered as of higher
importance in determining questions of Morality, yet, one does
not thereby get a clear idea as to how one should behave in
ordinary life. These objections have suggested themselves to
the objectors principally by seeing the worldly behaviour of
Sthitaprajnas, who follow the Path of Renunciation. But.
anybody will see after a little thought, that they cannot apply
to the mode of life of the Karma-yogin Sthitaprajna. Nay; we
may even say that no ethical principle can more satisfactorily
justify worldly morality, than the principle of considering
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 535
that there is only one Atman in all created beings, or of Self-
identification (atmaupamya). For example, let us take tha
doctrine of charity, which has been given an important place
in all countries and acoording to all codes of Ethics. This
doctrine can be Justified by no Materialistic principle, as
satisfactorily as by the Metaphysical principle that ' the
Atman of the other man is the same as my Atman *. The
utmost that Materialistic philosophy can tell us is, that
philanthropy is an inherent quality which gradually grows,
according to the Theory of Evolution (utlcranti-vada). But not
only is the immutability of the principle of philanthropy not
established by that philosophy, but, as has been shown by me
before in the fourth chapter, when a man is faced with a
conflict between his own interests and the interests of others,
the ' enlightened selfish ', who would like to sit on two stools,
thereby get a chance of justifying their own attitude. But
even to this, an objection is raised by some, that it is no use
proving the immutability of the principle of philanthropy. If
every one tries to serve the interestg of others believing that
there is only one Atman in all created beings, who is going
to look after his interests ; and if in this way, his own
interests are not looked after, how will he be in a
position to do good to others 1 But these objections
are neither new, not unconquerable. The Blessed Lord has
answered this very question in the Bhagavadglta on the
basis of the Path of Devotion, by saying ; "tesam nilyWdyu-
ktUnam yogaksemam vahamy aham" ( Gl. 9. 22 ), ( i. e., "I look
after the maintenance and welfare of those persons, who are
permanently steeped in Yoga"— Trans.) ; and the same
conclusion follows on the Metaphysical basis. That man, who.
is inspired with the desire of achieving the benefit of others,
has not necessarily to give up food and drink ; but he must
believe that he is maintaining and keeping alive his own body
for the benefit of others. Janaka has said (Ma. Bha. Asva. 32)
that the organs will remain under one's control, only if one's
Reason is in that state, and the doctrine of the MlmamsS school
that, 'that man is said to be amrtusi, who eats the food
which has remained over after the performance of the sacrificial
offering', is based on the same idea (Gi. i. 31). Because, as the
536 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Yajfta is, from their point of view, an Action for the
maintenance and conduct of the world, they have come to the
conclusion, that one maintains oneself and should maintain
oneself, while performing that act of public benefit ; and that,
it is not proper to put an end to the cycle of Yajflas for one's
own selfish interest. Even according to the ordinary worldly
outlook, one sees the appropriateness of the statement made by
Sri Samartha Ramadasa in the Dasabodha that :
That man is continually achieving the good of others I
That man is always wanted by everybody I
Then what can he need I in this world ? II
(Dasa. 19. 4. 10).
In short, it never happens that the man, who toils for public
■welfare, is found to suffer for want of being maintained. A
man must only become ready to achieve the good of others
•with a desireless frame of Reason. When once the idea, that
all persons are in him and that he is in all persons, has been
fixed in a person's mind, the question whether self-interest is
distinct from the interest of others, does not arise at all, The
above-mentioned foolish doubts arise only in the minds of those
persons who start to achieve 'the greatest good of the greatest
number', with the Materialistic dual feeling that 'I' am
different from 'others'. But, the man who starts to achieve the
good of others with the Monistic idea that "sarmm k!ialv idam
brahma" (i. e., "all this which exists is the Brahman"— Trans.),
is never assailed by any such doubts. This important difference
between the Metaphysical principle of achieving the welfare
of all created beings, on the basis that there is only one Atman
in all created beings, and the Materialistic principle of general
welfare, arising from a discrimination between the duality of
self-interest and others-interest, or from the consideration of
the good of the multitude, has got to be carefully borne in
mind. Saints do not achieve public welfare with the idea
of achieving public welfare. Just as giving light is the
inherent quality of the Sun, so does aohieving the good of
others become the inherent quality of these saints, as a result
of the complete realisation of the unity of the Atman in all
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 537
•created things ; and when this has become the inherent quality
of a saint, then, just as the Sun in giving light to others
also gives light to itself, so also is the maintenance of such
a saint achieved automatically by the activities directed by
him towards the interests of others. When this inherent
tendency of doing good to others is coupled with an unattached
Reason, saints, who have realised the identity of the Atman
and the Brahman, continue their beneficent activities, without
caring for the opposition they come across, and without
trying to discriminate between whether it is better to suffer
adversity or to give up public welfare ; and if occasion
arises, they are even ready to and indifferent about sacrificing
their own lives. But, those who distinguish between
self-interest and other's-interest, and begin to discriminate
between what is right and what is wrong by seeing which
way the scale turns when they weigh self-interest against
other's-interest, can never experience a desire for public
welfare, -which is as intense as that of such saints. Thereforei
although the principle of the benefit of all created beings
in acceptable to the Gita, it does not justify that principle by
Vae consideration of the greatest external good of the greatest
number, but looks upon the consideration of whether the
numbers are large or small, or the consideration of the large
-or small quantity of happiness, as short-sighted and irrelevant;
and it justifies the equability of Reason, which is the root
of pure conduct, on the basis of the eternal Realisation of
the Brahman which is propounded by Metaphysical philo-
sophy.
From this it will be seen how a logically correct justifi-
cation of one's making efforts for the benefit of others or of
universal welfare, or of charity, can be arrived at from the
point of view of Metaphysics. I will now consider the
fundamental principles, which have been enunciated in our
Sastras for guiding the behaviour of one person towards
another in society, from the point of view of equability of
Reason. The principle that " yatra va asya sarvam atmaivabhut"
■(Br. 2. 4. 14), i. e., "the man for whom everything has been
merged in the Self (Atman)", behaves towards others with
a perfectly equable mind, has been enunciated in the Isavasya
538 GlTA-RAHASrA OR KARMA-TOGA
(Isa. 6) and Kaivalya (Kai. 1. 10) Upamsads, in addition to>
the Brhadaranyaka, as also in the Manu-Smrti (Manu. 12. 91
and 125); and this same principle has been literally enunciated
in the sixth chapter of the Glta, in the words " sarvabhutastham
atmanam sarvabhutani catmcmi" (Gl. 6. 29), (i. e., "he sees
himself in all created things, and all created things in
himself" — Trans.). The Self-identifying (atmaupamya) outlook
is only another form of this principle of believing in the
unity of 5.tman in all created things, or of the equability
of Reason. Because, if I am in all created things, and
all created things are in me, it naturally follows that
I must behave towards all created things, in the same,
way as I would behave towards myself ; and, therefore,,
the Blessed Lord has told Arjuna, that that man must be
looked upon as the most excellent Karma-yogin Sthitaprajna,
who "behaves towards all others with equability, that is, with
the feeling that his Atman is the same as the Atman of
others"; and he has advised Arjuna to act accordingly
(GH. 6. 30-32). Ab Arjuna was duly initiated, it was not
necessary to further labour this principle in the Glta. But,
Vyasa has very clearly shown the deep and comprehensive
meaning embodied in this principle, by enunciating it in
numerous places in the Mahabharata, which has been written
in order to teach Religion and Morality to ordinary people
iMa. Bha. San. 238. 21; 261. 36). For example, in tha
conversation between Brhaspati and Yudhisthira in the-
Mahabharata, this same principle of identifying one's Atman
with others, which has been succinctly mentioned in the.
Upanisads and in the Glta, has at first been mentioned in the
following words :-
atmopamas tu bhutesu yo vai bhavaiipunisah. I
nyastadaydo jiiakrodhah sa pretya sukham edhate II
(Ma. Bha. Anu. 113. 6)
that is, "that man, who looks upon others in the same way
as ha looks upon himself, and who has conquered anger,,
obtains happiness in the next world"; and then, without
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 53»
completing there the description of how one person should
behave towards others, the Mahabharata goes on to say :-
na tat parasya samdadhyal pratikulam yad atmanah I
esa samksepato dharmah kamad anyah prauartate ll
(Ma. Bha. Ann. 113. 8)
that is, "one should not behave towards others in a way which
one considers adverse or painful to oneself ; this is the essence
of all religion and morality, and all other activities are based
on selfish interests"; and it lastly says :-
pratyakhyane ca dans ca sukhaduhkhe priyapriye \
aimaupamyena purusah pramanam adhigacchati ll
yathaparah prakramate paresu tatha pare prakramante
'parasmin I
tathaioa tesUpama jiualoke yatha dharmo nipunenopadistah n
(Anu. 113. 9 and lO).
that is, " in the matter of pain and happiness, the palatable or
the unpalatable, charity or opposition, each man should decide
as to what should be done to others, by considering what his
own feelings in the matter would be. Others behave towards
one, as one behaves towards others ; therefore, wise persons
have stated, by taking that illustration, that dliarma means
behaving in the world, by placing oneself in the position of
others". The line " ria tat parasya samdadhyat pratikulam yad
atmanah ", (i.e., " one should not behave towards others, in a
way which one oonsiders adverse or painful to oneself"—
Trans.) has also appeared in the Viduraniti (Udyo. 38. 72) ; and
later on, in the Santi-parva, Vidura has explained the same
principle again to Yudhisthira (San. 167. 9). But, "do not
cause pain to others, because that which is painful to yourself
is also painful to others ", is only one part of the doctrine of
Self-identification ; and some people are likely to be assailed-
by the doubt that, we cannot deduce from this doctrine the
definite inference that : " as that which is pleasant to yourself
will also be pleasant to others, therefore, behave in such a way
that pleasure will be caused to others ". Therefore, Bhisma in,
540 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
explaining the nature of dharma (Morality) to Yudhisthira has
gone further and clearly indicated both the aspects of this law
in the following words :-
yad anyair vihitam necched atmanah karma pumsah I
na tat parem kurvlta janann apriyam atmanah H
jivitam yah svayam cecchet katham so 'nyam praghatayet I
yad yad atmani cecclieta tat parasyapi cintayet il
(San. 258. 19, 21)
that is, " one should not behave towards others in that way in
which one, by considering one's own happiness, desires that
others should not behave towards one. How can that man,
who desires to live himself, kill others? One should
always desire that others should also get what one
oneself wants". And in mentioning the same rule
in another place, Vidura has, without using the adjectives
' anukula ' (favourable) and ' pratikida ' (unfavourable), laid
down a general rule, with reference to every kind of behaviour,
in the words :-
tasmad dJiarmapradhanena bhavitavyafo yat atmana I
tatha ca sarvahhutesu. wrtitavyam yathattnani n
(San. 167. 9)
that is, "control your organs, and t.'have righteously; and
behave towards all created beings, as if they are yourself " ,
because, as Vyasa says in the Sukanuprasna,
yavan atmani vedaima tavan Stma paratmani l
ya eixuh satatam veda so 'mrtatvaya kalpate v
(Ma. Bha. San. 238. 22)
that is, "there is in the bodies of others, just as much of Atman'
as there is in one's own body. That man who continually
realises this principle, comes to attain Release". Buddha did
not accept the existence of the Atman ; at any rate, he has
clearly stated that one should not unnecessarily bother about
the consideration of the Atman. Nevertheless, in teaching
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 541
how Buddhist mendicants should behave towards others, even>
Buddha has preached the doctrine of Self-identification
(almaupamya) in the following words : —
yatha akam tatha ete yatha ete tatha aham I
attanam (atmanam) upamam katva (hrtva) na haneyya m ghataye \\,
(Suttanipata, Nalakasutta, 27)
that is, "as I am, so are they; as they are, so am I; taking
(thus) an illustration from oneself, one should not kill or
cause (the) death (of anybody)". Even in another Pali treatise
called Dhammapada, the seoond part of the above stanza has
appeared twice verbatim ; and immediately thereafter, the
stanzas occurring both in the Manu-Smrti (5.45) and
Mahabharata (Ami. 113. 5) have been repeated in the Pali
language in the following words :—
suhhakamani bhutani yo dandena vihimsati I
attano sukliamesano (icclum) pecya so na labhate sukham II
(Dhammapada. 131)
that is, "that man, who for his own (attano) benefit, kills with-
a rod other persona, who also desire happiness (like himself ),-
does not obtain any happiness after death" (pecya -pretya). As
we see that the principle of Self-identification is recognised in
Buddhistic works, although they do not admit of the existence
of the Atman, it becomes quite clear that these ideas have been
taken by Buddhist writers from Vedic texts. But this matter
will be further considered later on. The above quotations will
clearly show that even from ancient times, we Indians have
believed that that man, whose state of mind is "sarvabhUtastham
atmanam saroabhutani catmani" (i. e., "all created things are in'
me, and I am in all created things"— Trans.), always conducts
himself in life by identifying others with himself ; and that
that is the important principle underlying such conduct. Any
one will admit that this principle or canon (sulra) of Self-
identification used in deciding how to behave with other
persons in society, is moTe logical, faultless, unambiguous,,
comprehensive, and easy than the Materialistic doctrine of the
'greatest good of the greatest number' ; and is such as will easily
542 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
"be grasped by even the most ignorant of persons. * This
fundamental principle or mystio import of the philosophy of
Right and Wrong (esa samksepato dharmah) ia justified in a
more satisfactory way from the Metaphysical point of view
than from the Materialistic point of view, which takes into
account only the external effects of Actions; and therefore,
the works of Western philosophers, who consider the question
of Karma- Yoga merely from the Materialistic point of view,
do not give a prominent place to this important doctrine of
the philosophy of Right and Wrong. Nay, they attempt to
explain the bond of society on merely external principles like
the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number ' etc., without
taking into consideration this canon (sutra) of the principle
of Self-identification. But, it will be seen that this easy
ethical principle of Self-identification has been given the
highest place not only in the Upanisads, the Manu-Smrti,
■the Glta, the other chapters of the Mahabharata, and the
Buddhistic religion, but also in other countries and in other
religions. Tha commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself" (Levi. 19. 15; Matthew, 23.39), to be found in
Christian and Jewish religious texts, is nothing but this rule
in another form. Christians look upon this as a golden rule,
that is to say, as a rule as valuable as gold; but their religion
does not explain it by the principle of the unity of the Atman.
The advice of Christ that, "And as ye would that men should
do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Matthew 7. 12; Luke
6. 31) is only a part of tho sutra of Self-identification; and the
Greek philosopher Aristotle has literally enunciated this same
principle of behaviour for men. Aristotle lived about 300
years before Christ, but the Chinese philosopher Khun-Phu-Tse
(corrupted in English into 'Confucius') lived 200 years before
* The word 'sutra' is defined as "alpaisaram asamdigdham saravad
vtiwttomuifcim \ astobham anavadyam ca sutram sutravido mduh". Those
various meaningless letters which are added in a mantra for the
purpose of convenience of recitation, without adding to the
meaning, are called •stohhak$ara' (complementary words). There are
no such meaningless words in a sutra, and therefore, the adjective
'astobham' has been nsed in the de6nition above
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 543
Aristotle, and he has enunciated the above rule of Self-
identifieatioo by a single word according to the practice of
<the Chinese language. But, this prinoiple was enunciated in
■our country, long before Confucius, in the Upanisads ( Isa. 6;
Kena. 13); and later on in the Bharata, and the Gita; and also
an the works of Maratha saints by such words as: "like unto
oneself I one should consider others" II ( Dasa. 12. 10. 22): and
■there is also a proverb in Marathi which means, 'one should
judge thB world by one's own standard'. Not only is this so,
but it has been Metaphysically explained by our ancient
philosophers. When one realises that (i) religions other than
the Vedic religion have not logically justified this generally
accepted canon, though they have mentioned it, and (ii) that
this canon cannot be logically justified in any way except by
the Metaphysical principle of the identification of the Brahman
with the Atman, one will clearly see the importance of the
Metaphysical Ethics preached in the Gita, or the Karma-Yoga.
This easy principle of 'Self-identification', (atmaupamya)
which regulates the mutual behaviour of persons living
in a society, is so comprehensive, so easy to understand,
and so universally accepted, that when once one lays down the
■rule: "Realise the identity of the Atman in all created beings,
and behave towards others with an equable frame of
mind, as if they are yourself", it is no more necessary to lay
■down such individual commandments as: be kind to others ;
help others as much as possible ; bring about their welfare; put
them on the path of advancement; love them; do not get tired
of them; do not hurt their feelings; behave towards them with
justice and equality; do not deceive any one; do not deprive
any one of his wealth or of his life; do not tell any one an
untruth; bear always in mind the idea of bringing about the
•greatest good of the greatest number; behave towards all,
looking upon them as the children of one and the same
father, and as if they were your brothers etc. Everybody
■eoever naturally understands in what his happiness or unhap-
piness lies; and, as a result of the family system, he realises
•the truth of the rule that he must love his wife and children
in the same way as he loves himself, according to the doctrines,
~'atma vai putrariamasi" (i. e., "your son is the same as your-
544 GlTA-EAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
self" — Trans.), or "ardham bharyii sarirasya" (i. e "your wife is
half of your body" — Trans.). But, the ultimate and most,
comprehensive interpretation of the canon of Self -identification
is, that the highest idea of manhood and the most
complete fructification of the arrangement of the four
states of life consists in: (i) realising that family life
is but the first lesson in the science of Self-identification,,
and (ii) instead of being continually engrossed in the family,
making one's Self-identifying Reason more and more com-
prehensive, by substituting one's friends, one's relations, or
those born in the same gotra (clan) as oneself, or the inhabitants
of one's own village, or the members of one's own community,,
or one's co-religionists, and ultimately all human beings, or
all created beings, in the place of one's family, thereby realis-
ing that that Atman, which is within oneself is also withia
all created beings ; and that one should regulate one's conduct
accordingly. And, it then naturally follows that the sacrifi-
cial ritual etc., or Karma, which enhances one's capacity to-
achieve this ideal state, is a purifier of the Mind, and a moral
aot, that is, such a duty as ought to be performed in the state
of a householder. Because, as I have already explained before,
the true meaning of the word ' atta-suddhi ' (purification of
the Mind) is the total elimination of selfishness, and the-
Eealisation of the identity of the Brahman and the Atman ;
and the writers of the Smrtis have enjoined the performance
of the various duties pertaining to the state of a householder
only for that purpose. The same is the deep meaning under-
lying the advice given by Yajhavalkya to Maitreyi in the
words ' atma va are drastavijah ' ( ' see first who the Atman is '— -
Trans.). The philosophy of Karma-Yoga, which has been,
based on the foundation of the Knowledge of the Supreme
Self, advises every one not to limit the extent of the Atman
by saying "atma vai putranamasi"; and says that one should,
realise the inherent comprehensiveness of the Atman by
feeling that, "lokovai ayamatma", (i. e., "your Atman is the
whole universe"— Trans.), and that every one should regulate
one's activities, believing that " udaracaritariam tu vasudhaiva
kutumbakam" , i. e,, "the whole universe is the family of
noble-minded persons". And I am confident that, in this-
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 545
matter, our philosophy of Karma-Yoga will not only be not
inferior to any other ancient philosophy of Karma-Yoga, but
will even embrace all such philosophies like the Paramesvara,
Who has embraced everything and has remained over to the
extent of of ' ten fingers '.
But, even to this position an objection is raised by some
that : when a man has by this Self-identification acquired the
comprehensive Vedantic vision of "uasiidhniua kutumbakam"
(i. e., 'the universe is the family' — Trans.), not only will virtues
like pride of one's country, or of one's family or olan, or of
one's religion etc., as a result of which some nations have now
been fully advanced, he totally destroyed, but even if some
one comes to kill us or to harm us, it will beoome our duty not
to kill him in return with a harmful intent, having regard to
the words of the Glta : "nirvairah sarvabhiitesu" (Gl. 11. 55)
(i. e., non-inimical towards all created beings — Trans.), (See
Dhammapada, 338) ; and as a result of evil-doers being
unchecked, good persons will run the risk of being the victims
of evil deeds ; and, as a result of the preponderance of evil-
doers, the entire society or even a country will be destroyed.
It is clearly stated in the Mahabharata itself that "na pope
pratipapah syat sadhur em sada bliavet" (Ma. Bha, Vana.
206. 44), i. e., "do not become an evil-doer in dealing with
evil-doers, but behave towards them like a saint"; because,
"enmity is never done away with by enmity or by evil-doing"—
"na capi vairam vairena kesava vyupasamyati' ; that, on the
other hand, the man whom we defeat, being inherently
evil-minded, becomes more evil-minded as a result of the defeat,
and is only waiting for the chance of revenging himself
again — "jayo vairam prasrjati' ; and that, therefore, it is proper
to circumvent evil-doers by peace (Ma. Bha. Udyo. 71. 59
and 63). And these very stanzas in the Bharata have been
copied in the Buddhistic treatises (See Dhammapada, 5 and 201;
Mahavagga, 10. 2 and 3) ; and even Christ has repeated the
same principle by saying: "Love your enemies" (Matthew,
5. 44), and, "but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew, 5. 39), or "And
unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the
other" (Luke, 6. 39). The same was the advice of the Chinese.
546 GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
philosopher La.-0-Tse, who lived before Christ, and there are
even stories of this having been done by Ekanatha Maharaj and
others from among our Maratha saints. I have not the
slightest intention of belittling the sacred importance of these
examples, which show the highest development of the principle
of forgiveness or peace. There is no doubt that the religion of
Forgiveness will, just like the religion of Truth, always remain
permanent and without exception in the ultimate or the most
perfect state of society. Nay, we even see in the imperfect
condition of our present society, that results are achieved on
various occasions by peace, which cannot be aohieved by
anger. When, in trying to find out what warriors had come
forward to help Duryodhana, Arjuna saw venerable persons
like ancestors and preceptors among them, he realised that in
order to circumvent the evil-doings of Duryodhana, he would
lave to perform not only Action, but also the difficult action
of killing by his weapons those preceptors who had sold
themselves for money (Gl. %. 5) ; and he began to say, that
according to the rule, "na pupe praiipapah syat", it was not
proper for him to become an evil-doer because Duryodhana had
become an evil-doer; and that "even if they kill me, it is proper
for me to sit quiet with a 'non-inimical' mind" (Gi. 1. 46). The
religion of the Gits has been propounded solely for solving
this doubt of Arjuna ; and on that account, we do not anywhere
come across an exposition of this subject, similar to the
exposition made in the Gits. For instance, both the Christian
and the Buddhistic religions adopt the principle of Non-Enmity,
as is done by the Vedic religion; but it is nowhere clearly stated
either in the Buddhistic or in the Christian religious treatises, —
or at any rate not in so many words — that it is not possible
for the conduct of a person, who gives up all Energistic Action
and renounces the world, disregarding universal welfare and
even self-preservation, to be in all respects the same as
the conduct of the Karma-yogin, who, notwithstanding that
tiis Reason has become non-inimical and unattached, takes
part in all Energistic activities with that same non-inimical,
and unattached Reason. On the other hand, Western
moralists find it very difficult to harmonise properly the
advice of Non-Enmity given by ChriBt with worldly
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 547
morality, * and Nietzsche, a modern German philosopher, has
fearlessly stated his opinion in his works, that the ethioal
principle of Non-Enmity is a slavish and destructive principle,
and that the Christian religion, which gives a high plaoe to
that principle, has emasculated Europe. But, if one considers
our religious treatises, one sees that the idea, that the two
ethical and religious courses of Renunciation and Energism
are to be distinguished from each other in this matter, was
•accepted by and was well-known not only to the Glta but even
to Manu. Because, Manu has prescribed the rule, "krudhyam-
torn na pratikrudhyet", i.e., "do not become angry in return
towards one who has become angry towards you" (Manu. 6. 48),
only for Samnyasins, and not for the householder or in regal
.science. I have shown above in the fifth chapter, that the
method adopted by our commentators of mixing up the
■mutually contradictory doctrines pertaining to the two paths
of Renunciation and Karma-Yoga, without taking into account
■what dictum applies to which path, and how it is to be used,
■gives rise to a confusion regarding the true doctrine of
Karma-Yoga. When one gives up this confusing method
adopted by the commentators on the Glta, one can clearly
^understand in what sense the word Non-Enmity (nirmira)
is understood by the followers of the Bhagavata religion or
Karma-yogins. Because, even Prahlada, that highest of
the devotees of the Blessed Lord, has himself said that,
'"tasrrian nityam ksama tata panditair apavadita" (Ma. Bha.
Vana. 28. 8), i. e., "therefore, my friend, wise men have every-
where mentioned exceptions to the principle of forgiveness ",
in order to show how the Karma-yogin householder should
behave on thesB occasions. It is true that the ordinary rule
• of the doctrine of Self-identification is, that one should not
• cause harm to others by doing such Actions as, if done to
oneself, would be harmful; yet the Mahabharata has made
it clear, that this rule should not be followed in a society,
where there do not exist persons who follow the other
religious prinoiple, namely, "others should not cause harm
* See Paulsen's Systemof Ethics, Book III, Chap. X (Eng. Trails.)
.and Nietzsche's Anti-Christ.
548 QITA.-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
to us", which is a corollary from this first principle. The-
word ' equability ' is bound up with two individuals, that is, it
is relative. Therefore, just as the principle of Non-Violence
is not violated by killing an evil-doer, so also is the principle
of Self-identification or of Non-Enmity, which is observed by
saints, in no way affected by giving condign punishment to
evil-doers. On the other hand, they acquire the merit of
protecting others by having opposed the injustice of evii-doers.
That Paramesvara, than Whom nobody's Reason can be more
equable, Himself takes incarnations from time to time for
protecting saints and destroying evil-doers, and thereby brings
about universal welfare (lokasamgraha), ( Gl. 4. 1 and 8); then?
how can the case of ordinary persons be different? To say that
the distinction between those who are deserving and those
who are undeserving, or between what is proper and what
improper, disappears, as a result of one's vision having become
equable in such a way that he says: 'vasudhaiva lattumbalmm*
(i.e., "the whole world is my family" — Trans) or of one's
giving up the Hope for Fruit of Action, is a confusion of
thought. The doctrine of the Gita is that mine-ness (mamatoa}
is the predominant factor in the Hope for Fruit; and that
unless that feeling is given up, one cannot escape the bondage
of sin or merit. But, though I may have no object to achieve
for myself, I nevertheless commit the sin of helping evil-doers
or undeserving persons, and of harming deserving saints and
eve u society itself to that extent, if I allow some one to take
that which he ought not to get. Just as, though a multi-
millionaire like Kubera goes to purchase vegetables in the
market, he does not pay a lakh of rupees for a bundle of
coriander leaves, so also does the man, who has reached the
state of perfection, not forget the discrimination as to what
is good for whom. It is true that his Season has become
equable. But, 'equability' does not mean giving to a man the
grass, which is fit for a cow, and to a cow, the food which is-
proper for a man; and with the same intention, the Blessed
Lord has said in the Gita that that sattuika charity which is to
be made as datavija, that is, because it is a duty to give, must
be given, considering "dese Icale ca patre ca", that is,
considering the propriety of the place, the time, and the;
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 549
<deservingness of the person ( Gl. 17. 20 ). In describing
■this equable state of mind of saints, Jnanesvara has
compared them to the earth. The earth is also known as
"sarvasaha" (i. e., one who bears everything— Trans.). But,
if this bearer-of-everything earth is given a kick, it proves
its ' equability ' by giving to the kicker an equally strong
■counter-kick. This clearly shows how one can make a non-
animical (nirvaira) resistance, even when there is no enmity
an the heart; and that is why it is stated in the chapter on
Causality of Action above (Effect of Karma) that the Blessed
Lord remains free from the blame of partiality (vaisamya), cruelty
{nairghrnya) etc., notwithstanding that He deals with people
.as: "ye yatha mam prapadyante ta/hs tatfmva bhajamy aham"
(Gl. 4. 11), i. e., " I give to them reward in the same manner
-and to the same extent as they worship me". In the same
■way, in ordinary life and according to law, no one calls the
Judge, who directs the execution of a criminal, the enemy
,of the criminal. According to Metaphysics, when a man's
Beason has become desireless and has reached the state -of
equability, he does not of his own accord do harm to anybody;
and if somebody is harmed as a result of something which
ie doBS, that harm is the result of the Karma of such other
,j>8Tson; or in other words, the desireless Sthitaprajfia does
not, by the act which he performs in these circumstances — even
if it appears as terrible as matricide, or the murder of a
preceptor— incur the bondage or the taint of the good or evil
■flffects of the act.' (Gi. 4. 14; 9. 28; and 18. 17). The rules of
eelf-defence included in criminal law are based on the same
•principle. There is a tradition about Manu that when he was
/requested by people to become a king, he at first said : ' I
do not wish to become a king for punishing persons who
-commit sins, and to thereby incur sin"; but when in return,
"tarn ahmvan prajah ma bhlh kartrneno gamisyati (Ma. Bha.
-San. 67. 23), that is, "people said to him: 'do not be afraid,
tfhe sinner will incur the sin, and you will acquire the merit
of having protected the people", and, when on top of it,
•they further gave him a promise that : " we will give' to you
toy way of taxes that amount which will have to be expended
ior the protection of the people", he consented to become a
550 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
king. In short, the natural laws of a reaction being equal ii>
intensity and effect to the action, which is seen in the lifeless
world, is translated into the principle of 'measure for measure'
in the living world. Those ordinary persons whose Mind has
not reached the state of equability, add their feeling of mine-
ness {mamatva) to this law of Cause and Effect, and making
the counterblow stronger than the blow, take their revenge for
the blow; or if the other person is weak, they are ready to take
advantage of some trifling or imaginary affront, and rob him
to their own advantage, under pretext of retaliation. But, if a.
man, whose Mind has become free from the feelings of revenge,
enmity, or pride, or free from the desire of robbing the weak
as a result of anger, avarice, or hatred, or free from the desire
of obstinately making an exhibition of one's greatness,,
authority, or power, which inhabits the minds of ordinary
people, merely turns back a stone which has been thrown at
him, that does sot disturb the peacefulness, non-inimicality,.
and equability of his Mind; and it is on the other hand his
duty, from the point of view of universal welfare, to take such
retaliatory action, for the purpose of preventing the predo-
minance of wrong-doers and the consequent persecution of the
weak in the world (Gl. 3. 25 ); and the summary of the entire-
teaching of the Glta is that : even the most horrible warfare
which may be carried on in these circumstances, with an
equable state of mind, is righteous and meritorious. It is not
that the Karma-yogin Sthitaprajna disregards the religious
doctrines of behaving non-inimically towards everybody, not
doing evil to evil-doers, or not getting angry with those who
are angry with one. But, instead of accepting the doctrine of
the School of Renunciation that 'Non-inimicality' (nirvuiraY
means inactivity or non-retaliation, the philosophy of Karma-
Yoga says, that 'rurvaira' means merely giving up 'vaira ' or
'the desire to do evil'; and that in as much as nobody can
escape Karma, one should perform as much Karma as is-
possible and necessary for retaliation or for social welfare,
without entertaining an evil desire, and as a matter of duty,-
and apathetically, and without Attachment (Gi. 3. 19 ); and
therefore, instead of using the word 'mroaira' by itself, th&
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 551
Blessed Lord has placed the important adjective 'matkarmakrt*
before it, in the stanza:
matkarmakrt matparamo madbhaktah sangavarjitah I
mrvairah sarvabhutem yah sa mam eti paridava II
( Gl. 11, 55 )
which (word 'matkarmakrt') means 'one who performs Action
for Me, that is, for the Paramesvara, and with the idea of
dedicating it to the Paramesvara' ; and the Blessed Lord has
thus interlocked non-inimicality with Desireless Action, from
the point of view of Devotion. And it has been stated in the
Samkarabhasya and also in other commentaries that this
stanza contains the essential summary of the doctrine of the
Glta. It is nowhere stated in the Gita that one should give
up all kind of Action, in order to make one's mind non-
inimical (nirvaira), or after it has become non-inimical. When
a man in this way performs that amount of Action which is
necessary for retaliation non-inimically and with the idea of
dedicating it to the Paramesvara, he commits no sin what-
soever; but what is more, when the work of retaliation is over,
the desire to wish the good of the person whom he has punished,
by Self -identification, does not leave his mind. For example,
when Bibhisana was unwilling to attend to the obsequial
ceremonies of Havana, after the sinless and non-inimical
Ramacandra had killed him (Ravana) in war, on account of
his (Ravana's) evil doings, Sri Ramacandra has said to
Bibhisana: —
maranantani vairani nivrttam nah prayojanam I
kriyatam asya samskaro mamapyesa yatha tava ll
(Valmlki Ra. 6. 109. 25)
that is; "the enmity (in the mind of Ravana) has come to an
end with his death. My duty (of punishing evil-doers) has
come to an end; now he is my (brother), just as he was your
(brother); therefore, consecrate him into the fire". This principle
mentioned in the Ramayana has also in one plaoe been,
mentioned in the Bhagavata ( Bhag. 8. 19. 13); and the same
552 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
principle is conyeyed by the traditions in the Puranas that the
Blessed Lord had afterwards benevolently given an excellent
state to those very evil-doers whom He Himself had killed.
Sri Samartha has used the words "meet impertinence by
impertinence" ( see p. 524 above — Trans. ) on the basis of the
same principle ; and in the Mahabhaiata, Bhisma has, on the
same principle, said to Parasurama: —
yo yatha vartate yasmin tasminn evam pravartayan I
nadharmavi samavcipnoti nacasreyas ca vindati il
(Ma. Bha. Udyo. 179.30)
that is, "theie is no breach of religion (immorality) in behaving
towards another person in the same way as he behaves towards
you; nor does one's benefit thereby suffer"; and further on in
Satyanitadhyaya of the Santiparva, the same advice has
again been given to Yudhisthira in the following words: —
yasmin yatha vartate yo manusyah
tasmins tatha mrtitavyam sa dharinah I
mayacaro mayaya badhitavyah
sadhvacarah sUdhuna pratyupeyah II
( Ma. Bha. San. 109. 29 and Udyo. 36. 7)
that is, "Religion and Morality consist in behaving towardB
others in the same way as they behave towards us;
one must behave deceitfully towards deceitful persons, and
in a saintly way towards saintly persons". So also in the
Rg-veda, Indra has not been found fault with for his
deceitfulness, but has on the other hand, been praised in the
following words: "tram mayWiir anavadya mayimm vrtram
ardayah I " ( Rg. 10. 147. 2; 1. 80. 7), i. e„ "0, sinless Indra i you
have by deceit killed Vrtra, who was himself deceitful"; and
,the poet Bharavi has in his drama Kiraiarjuniyam repeated in
the following words the principle enunciated in the Rg-veda:
vrajanti te mudlwdhiyah parabhavam I
bhavanii mayavisu ye m mSyinah II
( Kira. 1. 30)
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS' 553
■that is, "those, who do not become deceitful in dealing with
deceitful persons, are themselves destroyed". But in this place
it must also be borne in mind that if it is possible to offer
-retaliation to an evil-doer by a saintly act, such saintly
act should in the fiist instance be attempted ; becausei
from the fact that the other man has become an evil-doer,
it does not follow that one should also become an evil-doer
with him, nor does it follow that others should cut their
noses because some one has cut' his own nose; nay, there
is even no Morality in that. This is the true meaning of the
•canon "na pape pratipapah syat" (i. e„ "do not beoome an evil-
■doer towards an evil-doer" — Trans.); and for the same reason,
Vidura, after having first mentioned to Dhrtarastra in the
Viduraniti, the ethical principle that, "na tatparazya samdadkyat
pratikulam yad atmanah", i. e., "one should not behave towards
■others in a way which is undesirable from one's point of
view", immediately afterwards says: — •
akrodhena jayet hrodham asadhum sadhuna jayet I
jayet kadaryain danena jayet satyena canrtam II
(Ma. Bha. Udyo. 38. 73, 74 )
that is, "the anger (of othere) should be conquered, by one's
peacefulness; evil-doers should be conquered by Baintlineas ;
the miser should be conquered by gifts; and falsehood should be
■conquered by truth". This stanza has been copied word for word
in the Buddhistio treatise on Morality in the Pali language,
known as the Dhammapada, in the following stanza: —
akkodhe?ia jine kodlunh asadhum sadhuna jine l
jine kadariyam danena saccen alikavadinam ll
(Dhammapada, 323)
and, in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, Bhlsma, in counsel-
ling Yudhisthira, has praised this ethical principle in the
following terms: —
karma caitad asadhumm asadlm sadhuna jayet l
dharmena nidhanam sreyo na jayah papakarmana II.
; (Ma- Bha. San. 95. 16)
554 GlTA-RAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
that is, "the asadhu, that is, 'evil' actions of evil-doers
(asadhunam) should be counteracted by saintly actions;
because, even if death follows as a result of righteousness
or Morality, that is better than the victory which follows
from a sinful action". But, if the evilness of evil-doers is
not circumvented by such saintly actions, or, if the counsel of
peacefulness or propriety is not acceptable to such evil-doers,,
then according to the principle "kantakenaim Imntakam (i. e.,
"takeout a thorn by a thorn" — Trans.), it becomes necessary
to take out by a needle, that is, by an iron thorn, if not by an
ordinary thorn, that thorn which will not come out by the
application of poultices ( Dasa. 19.9. 12-31) ; because, under
any circumstances, punishing evil-doers in the interests of
general welfare, as was done by the Blessed Lord, is the first
duty of saints from the point of view of Ethics. In enuncia-
ting the proposition "evilness should be conquered by
saintliness", the fact that the conquest of or the protection
from evil is the primary duty of a saint, is first taken for
granted; and the first step to be taken for attaining that result
is mentioned. But, it is nowhere stated by our moral
philosophers, that if protection against evil-doers cannot be
obtained by saintliness, one should not give 'measure for
measure', and protect oneself, but should allow oneself to-
bacome a victim of the evil-doings of villains; and it must be
borne in mind that, that man who has come forward to cut the
throats of others by his own evil-doings, has no more any
ethical right to expect that others should behave towards him
like saints. Nay, it is clearly stated in our religious treatises,,
that when a saint is thus compelled to perform some unsaintly
Action, the responsibility of such unsaintly Action does not
fall on the pure-minded saint, but that the evil-doer must be
held responsible for it, as it is the result of his evil doings
( Manu. 8. 19 and 351); and the punishment, which was meted
out by the Blessed Buddha himself to Devadatta, has been
justified in Buddhistic treatises on the same principle (Milinda-
Pra. 4. 1. 30-34). In the world of lifeless things, action and
re-action always take place regularly and without a hitob. It
is true that as the activities of a man are subject to his desires,,
and also, as the ethical knowledge necessary for deciding when.
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 555
to use the trailokya-ci?iiamani-inatra ( infallible remedy ) in
dealing with evil-doers, is very subtle, even a meritorious
person is at times in doubt as to whether that which he would
like to do is right or wrong, moral or immoral — "few karma
Mm akarmeti Tiavayopy atra mohitah" (Gl. 4, 16), (i. e., " what
should be done and what should not be done is a question which
puzzles even learned persons" — -Trans.). On these occasions,
the right thing to do is to take as authoritative the decision
which is arrived at by the pure mind of a saint, who has
reached the highest state of complete equability of Reason^
instead of depending on the wisdom of wise persons, who are
always more or less subject to selfish desires, or merely on one's
own powers of reasoning and discrimination; because, as
arguments and oounter-argumants wax in direct ratio with
the power of inferential logic, these difficult questions are
never truly or satisfactorily solved by mere wisdom, and.
without the help of pure Reason; and one has to seek the
shelter and protection of a pure and desireless preceptor to
arrive at such a solution. The Reason of those law-givers,,
who are universally respected, has become purs in this way;
and, therefore, the Blessed Lord has said to Arjuna in the
Bhagavadgita that: — "lasmac chastram prartm^am (e karya-
karyam-vyavasthitau" (G-I. 16. 24), i. e., "in discriminating
between what should be done and what should not be done, you
must look to the authority of the religious and moral treatises".
At the same time, it must not be forgotten, that saintly
law-givers like Svetaketu, who oome later in point of time,
acquire the authority of effecting changes even in these
religious principles.
The prevalent misconception regarding the oonduot in.
life of non-inimical and peaceful saints is due to the fact that
the Path of Karma-Yoga is now practically extinct, and the
Path of Renunciation, whioh considers all worldly life as
discardable, is on all hands being looked upon as superior
The Gtta neither advises nor intends that when one becomes
non-inimical, one should also beoome non-retaliatory. To that
man who does not care for universal welfare, it is just the
same whether or not evil-doers predominate in the world, and
whether or not he oontinues to live, But, the philosophy of
356 GlTA-RAHAYSA OR KARMA-YOGA
■Karma-Yoga teaches us that though the Karma-yogins, who
have leached the most perfect state, behave non-inimically
.towards all created beings, recognising the identity of the
Atman in all, they never fail to do that duty which has
befallen them according to their own status in life, after
■ discriminating between who is worthy and who unworthy,
with a frame of mind, which is unattached; and that any
Action which is performed in this manner, does not in the
least prejudicially affect the equability of Reason of the doer.
When this principle of the Karma-Yoga in the Glta has been
accepted, one can properly account for and justify the pride
of one's family, the pride of one's country, or other similar
duties on the basis of that principle. Although the ultimate
doctrine of this philosophy is that, that is to be called Religion
which )eads to the benefit of the entire human race, nay of
all living beings, yet, as pride of one's family, pride of one's
religion, and pride of one's country are the ascending steps
which lead to that highest of all states, they never become
unnecessary. Just as the worship of the qualityful (saguna)
Brahman is necessary in order to attain to the quality less
(nirguna) Brahman, so also is the ladder of pride of one's
family, pride of one's community, pride of one's religion, pride
of one's country etc. necessary in order to acquire the feeling of
"vasudliaiva kutumbakam" (i. e., "the whole universe IB the
family" — Trans.); and as every generation of society climbs up
this ladder, it is always necessary to keep this ladder intact.
In the same way, if persons around one, or the other countries
around one's country, are on a lower rung of this ladder, it is
not possible for a man to say that he will always remain alone
on a higher rung of the ladder; because, as has been
stated above, those persons who are on the higher steps of
that ladder, have occasionally to follow the principle of
measure for measure', in order to counteract the injustice of
those who are on the lower steps. There is no doubt that
the state of every human being in the world, will improve
gradually and reach the stage when every one realises the
identity of the Atman in every created being. At any rate,
it is not improper to entertain the hope of creating such a
frame of. mind in every human being. But^ it naturally
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 557
follows .that so long as every one has not reached this ultimate-
state of development of the Atman, saints must, having regard
to the state of other countries or other societies, preaoh the
creed of pride of one's country etc., which will for the time
being be beneficial to their own societies. Besides, another-
thing, which must also be borne in mind is that, as it is not
possible to do away with the lower floors of a building, when-
the higher floors are built; or, as the pick-axe does not cease to
be necessary, because one has got a sword in one's hand; or, as
fire does not cease to become necessary, because one has also
got the Sun, so also does patriotism, or the pride of one's
family, not become unnecessary, although one has reached the
topmost stage of the welfare of all created things. Because,
considering the matter from the point of view of the reform of
society, that specific function, which is performed by the'
pride of one's family, cannot be got merely out of pride of'
one's country, and the specific function, which is performed'
by the pride of one's country, is not achieved by the Realisa-
tion of the identity of the Atman in all created beings, In-
short, even in the highest state of society, patriotism and pride-
of one's family and other creeds are always necessary
to the same extent as Equability of Reason. But, as one
nation is prepared to cause any amount of harm to~
another nation for its own benefit, on the basis that the pride
of one's own country is the only and the highest ideal, such a .
state of things is not possible if the benefit of all created
beings is looked upon as such ideal. If there is a conflict
between the pride of one's family, the pride of one's country,
and ultimately the benefit of the entire human kind, then,,
according- to the important and special preaching of that
Ethics, which is replete with Equability of Reason, duties of
a lower order should be sacrificed for duties of a higher order.
When Vidura was advising Dhrtarastra, that rather than not
give a share of the kingdom to the Pandavas, at the desire of
Duryodhana, and thereby run the risk of the whole clan being
destroyed in the resulting war, he (Dhrtarastra) should give
up the single individual. Duryodhana, though Duryodhana
CM&&M&&<f-& lit iMSMiSrfO®^
•■a ,:.i my, "?' r«- -#?,» oiwiiliwte ha-- (V-Idaia^ iiranppputofc"
:! 'f, tnnfc x-" l ll."''-' s - v fO f, f" i "•} iiltyrl'llA jrrMvVTil. :JJ(L>0,'\
l.fit, .ih&. -lul _'JB'. j6t ,i)aiih£. ii. Ill
i.at, ia, ■'"w'')K*i'' 1 .ti'SiS v.'wivily: tw> ■iflvson ;sav as-- ibandoned:
w ayrtt«\f.tr.a! i. i,.wn, '- ■'jimliv "ilAV m- ifaandrmEa: "Dr'tke--
ii>ri-»nt.i.v.-. if ru'isuv. t. .r-w _7iay .» thauaoneri: ana .or'Ste-
.j>nforttorj -if ,!■.> ,-.-t,iii;.r:. -iv-ri -.lie- larih .nay <)ft iinaniiDnefl".
" : '>.ft ij'fT-;rfr,lftinfrit.innai- JioW: a wne Mt ay r ,he 3TSE :btB«
p,tI-b if '..hi* -■.iiii.t-«« I . i.ifrt '•X.er r'raifth. pare af: -.±E stanza
■ri.-ii.'i:si.t,(>o. he jpfr.i-itijtft if :,h.E jrpf.6cf.ion if ih& Annan. Ansr
I..;- Torn "fulfil)' i ■>. -.'ii-n/non .wor.oiur. "Alia doctrine- afcSeif--
jrofp.-ifi.-uj %r/rjiif« '.r; j. -inft-ri -.f.rjffiv. ^ottmmnir.y (Minify; or
ivnnjirf n .'.i? inn,-, ^rr-v w t, iiwk ,o in individual: .md
Tjriiari -inf. u-iniiii.'-rn ,hfr 'Tsins; »rM&tion jf one man "or a
':uni1v h rarnily jir ^ iiwn. i, ,-,own for i joimtry, 95c.. me,
■,»^ ilr&r'y" .hal. '.ba vnrri ' Attnan 1 mist be sonsidered to larry
,, iij^cJifT 'rJiiB :-.Viau itil ,hf! itlier. '.hings. iSFevertheiess. soma
sflfigh jfrenns- ir .jfrnfum uiawmainted ' vith ethical minaixAss.
-;firnpt,inii« fnt'MTTjrfif, i .1 f is -ia.rt, of th& stanza :n. quite a ;pbt7esh&
*ay, '.lint, m fro -lay, an importing merely selfishness: it iff.
r.Vin-tvfnTO, ii«iB*«i7 ; it> munfciim here. Miat this principl& or tire-
prhfofitii'i" nt l; ri8 Atman is not ilia r mme as the princiDiB af
^Iffehiwiw. rtfifiaUHfi, thesa moral pnilosophers who have-
-U-tOtM'A the path advnnated by Sia self-worshippBT Carvaka
■w .-lm"1i«h 'Stifl, fit, nhap. !(i) flannot preach ~o any ana 'he
■liMi'.-ii'ii'in -if 'liB'iiiiwii-Hfl !in' ona^i own seitfah interests, The
vnr.-l rr\>" -ii Mm ihmm atansla inss not indioata- mataiy a
3PlK«h iil.urfiflh 'ii il-, .liniit. 'in iiiKerprBtad aataeaninp 'for defaad-
iiiti <irtf«e!f iKa'aif>. i wirunity, if it hasaome'; and thfr same
mnaiiiviw in i,ii no i'lintiit in liotionaries. There k a world of
rtiffimmra hfitwfifin idlflRhnass and protection of the Self
(Aimruii. fldiiMiriij hi m (ip,tnment of others, being inspired hy
tJto rtnaivn af rmioyiimr nhioc.ta of pieasure, or hy avarice, and for
ofln's nwn ImiiRfif; j« seiflRfineas. This ia inhuman and forbiddan,
and- it m dtatoH in thn first thrae pftrta of the abova 3tanza, that
onn-mimt; always oonsWer the bsnaftfe of the multitude, rather
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORLDLY AFFAIRS 559
than of an individual. Yet, as there is one and the same
Atman in all created things, everyone has an inherent natural
light of being happy in this world; and no single individual
or society in the world can ever ethically acquire the right to
cause the detriment of another individual or society by
■disregarding this universal, important, and natural right,
merely because the one is more than the other in numbers, or
in strength, or because the one has a larger number of means
~than the other for conquering the other. If, therefore, some
one seeks to justify the selfish conduct of a society, which is
bigger in numbers than another society, on the ground
that the benefit of a larger multitude, is of higher
importance than the benefit of an individual or of a smaller
multitude, such a method of reasoning must be looked upon as
demonical (raksasi). Therefore, the fourth part of the stanza
says, that if other people behave unjustly in this way, then the
inherent ethical right of everybody of protecting himself, is of
higher importance than the benefit of a larger multitude; nay,
■of even the whole world; and this has been mentioned along
with the matter explained in the first three parts of the stanza,
as an important exception to the principle enunciated in them.
Further, it must also be realised, that one can bring about
universal welfare only if one lives; therefore, even considering
the matter from the point of view of universal benefit, one has
to say with VisvSmitra that "jh-an dharmam avapnuyat", i. e.,
■"one can think of Morality, only if one remains alive"; or,
with Kalidasa that, "sariram adyam khalu dharmasadhanam"
{Kuma. 5. 33 ), i. e., "the body is the fundamental means of
bringing about Morality"; or, with Manu, that, "atmanam
salaiarh mkset", i. e„ "one should always protect oneself". But
although this right of self-protection thus becomes higher than
the benefit of the world, yet, as has been mentioned above in
the second chapter, saints are, of their own will, willing on
■several occasions to sacrifice their lives for their family, or
country, or religion, or for the good of others; and the same
principle has been enunciated in the three parts of the above
■stanza. As on these occasions, the mac of his own free will
sacrifices his important right of sBlf-proteotion, the ethical
"value of such an act is considerad higher than |that of all other
560 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
acts, Yet, it becomes quite clear from the story of Dhrtarastra,
mentioned above, that mere learning or logic is not sufficient,
to rightly determine whether such an occasion has arisen, and
that in order to arrive at a correct decision on that matter, the-
inner consciousness (antahJcarana) of the person, who wishes to-
deoide, must first have become pure and equable. It is not.
that Dhrtarastra was so feeble-minded as not to understand the
advice which was given by Vidura. But, as has been stated'
in the Mahabharata itself, his Reason could not become-
equable as a result of his love for his son. Just as Kubera is-
never in need for a lakh of rupees, so the man whose Mind
has become equable, experiences no dearth of the feeling of the
identity of the Atman in the members of a family, or a oountry,.
or in co-religionists, or any other inferior orders of identities-
All these identities are included in the identity of the-
Brahman and the Atman; and saints carry on the maintenance
and welfare of the world by preaching to different persons
either their duty to their country, or their duty to their family f
or other narrow religions, or the comprehensive religion
of universal welfare, as may be meritorious for a particular-
person on a particular occasion, according to the state of his-
Reason, or for his own protection. It is true that in the-
present state of the human race, patriotism has become the
highest religion; and even civilised countries utilise their
learning, skill, and money, in contemplating on and preparing
for the destruction of as large a number of persons in as short
a time as possible, from a neighbouring inimical country, as-
soon as the occasion arises. But Spencer, Comte, and other
philosophers have distinctly maintained in their works, that
one cannot, on that account, look upon that as the highest,
ethical ideal of the human race ; and I do not understand how
that objection, which has not been raised to the doctrine
preaohed by them, can become effective as against the doctrine
of the identity of the- Atman in all created beings, which arises
from our Metaphysical philosophy. As, when the child is
young, one has to make its clothes as will fit its body— or
perhaps slightly bigger, because it is growing— so also is the
case with the Realisation of identity of the Atman in alL
created beings. Be it a society or an individual, if the-
' STATE OF A SIDDHA & WOELDLY AFFAIRS 561
ideal placed before it, in the shape of the identity of the Atman
in all created beings, is consistent with the spiritual
qualification of that individual or society, or at most a little
advanced, it will be beneficial to it ; but if one asks that
society or individual to achieve some thing, how excellent
soever, which is more than it can accomplish, it will never be
benefited by it. That is why the worship of the Parabrahman
has been prescribed in the Upanisads by rising gradations,
though in fact the Parabrahman is not circumscribed by any
grades ; and though a warrior olass is not necessary in a
society in which every one has reached the state of a
Sthitaprajna, yet, our religion has included that caste in the
arrangement of the four castes, having regard to the
contemporary state of other societies in the world, and on the>
basis of the principle " atrmmm saiatam rakset " (i.e., " protect
yourself at all timse"— Trans.) ; and even in that highest and
ideal state of society which has been mentioned in his works
by the Greek philosopher Plato, the highest importance has-
been given to the class which becomes proficient in warfare by
constant practice, because that class occupies the position of
protectors of society. This will clearly show that though
philosophers are always immersed in the contemplation of the
highest and purest of ideas, they never fail to take into
account the then prevailing imperfect state of sooiety.
When all things have been considered in this way, it
becomes clear that the true duty of scients is (i) to keep their
own Reason free from objects of pleasure, peaceful, non-
inimical, and equable, by Realising the identity of the
Brahman and the Atman ; and (ii) without getting disgusted
with ordinary ignorant people, because they themselves have
attained this high state of mind, and without perverting the
Reason of such ordinary people, by themselves abandoning
worldly duties and accepting the state of Abandonment of
Action (karma-saAmyasa), to preach to people whatever is
proper for them, having regard to prevailing conditions, and
to place before their eyes the living example of a model moral
life, in the shape of their own desireless adherence to duty ,*
and (iii) in that way to place all on the path of betterment, as
gradually and peacefully as possible, but at the same time
71-72
562 GlTA-KAKASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
enthusiastically. This is what is done by the Blessed Lord <by
taking various incarnations from time to time ; and the sum
and substance of the entire philosophy of the Glta is, that
scients should follow the same example, and should at all
times continue to do their duty in this world desirelessly, and
to the best of their abilities, and with a pure mind, and
without an eye to the Fruit ; that they should be willing to lay
down their lives, if necessary, while they are doing so
(Gl. 3. 35) ; and that they must not under any circumstances
fail in their duty. This is what is known as universal welfare
{lokasamgraha) ; and this is the true Karma- Yoga. It was only
when the Blessed Lord had explained to Arjuna this wisdom
about what should be done and what should not be done, on
the basis of Vedanta, simultaneously with explaining Vedanta
to him, that Arjuna, who at first was on the point of giving
up warfare and taking up the life of a mendicant, was later
on ready to participate in the terrible war — not only because
the Blessed Lord asked him to do so, but voluntarily. This
principle of the equable Reason of the Sthitaprajna (Steady-
i'n-Mind), which had been preached to Arjuna, being the
fundamental basis of the philosophy of Karma-Yoga, I have
in this chapter taken that as a hypothesis, and after having
explained how the highest principles of Ethics are justified
and explained on the basis of that principle, I have afterwards
shortly stated the prominent parts of the philosophy of Karma-
Yoga, such as: how people should behave towards each other in
society from the point of view of Self-Identification; what
modifications become necessary in the principles of Absolute
Ethics, as a result of the law of 'measure for measure', or as
a result of the worthiness or unworthiness of the person one
has to deal with; as also how saints living in morally imperfect
societies have to follow principles of morality, which are
exceptions to the general principles etc. If the same method
of argument is applied to the questions of justice, charity,
philanthropy, kindness, non-violence, truth, not-stealing and
other eternal principles, and if even a separate treatise is
written on each of these subjects, in order to show what modifi-
cations will have to be made in the case of each of them, as
occasion arises, consistently with the present morally imperfect
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORDLY AFFAIRS 563
state of society, they will not be exhausted; and that is also not
the principal object of the Bhagavadgita. I have, in the second
chapter of this book, touched on the questions of how a confliot
arises between Non-Violence and Truth, or Truth and Self-
Protection, or Self -Protection and Peacefulness etc., and how,
on that account, there arises at times a doubt as to what
•should be done and what should not be done. It is clear, that
on such occasions, saints make a careful discrimination
between 'ethical principles,' 'ordinary worldly affairs,' 'self-
interest', 'benefit of all created things' etc., and then arrive at a
decision as to what should be done and what should not be
done; and this fact has been definitely stated by the iyem
bird to king Sibi in the Mahabharata; and the English writer
Sidgwick has, in his Book on Ethics, propounded the same
principle in great detail, and by giving many examples; but
ithe inference drawn from this fact by several Western philoso-
phers, that the accurate balancing of self-interest and other's-
interest, is the only basis for determining ethical laws, has
never been accepted by our philosophers ; because, according
■to our philosophers, this discrimination is very often so subtle
and so 'anaikantika', that is, so productive of so many conclu-
sions, that unless the Equability of realising that 'the other
man is the same as myself, has been thoroughly impressed on
one's mind, it is impossible to arrive at an invariably correct
discrimination between what should be done and what should
not be done, merely by inferential reasoning; and if one does
so, it will be a case of 'the pea-hen tries to dance because the
•the peacock dances'. This is the main drawback in the
arguments of Western Utilitarians like Mill and others. If
'because an eagle, swooping down, takes a lamb in its claws
'high up in the air, a crow also attempts to do so, he is sure to
come to grief; therefore, the Glta says, that it is not sufficient
-to place reliance merely on the outward devices adopted
.by saints; and that one must depend on the principle of
an equable Reason, which is always alive in their hearts;
and that Equability of Reason is the true root of the
philosophy of Karma-Yoga. Some modern Materialistic
philosophers maintain that SELF-INTEREST is-.the basic
foundation of Ethics; whereas others give that place to
564 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
PHILANTHROPY, that is, 'the greatest good of the greatest-
number'. But I have shown above in the fourth chapter, that,
these principles, which touch merely tie external results ofi
Action, do not meet all situations; and that one has necessarily
to consider to what extent the Reason of the dber is pure. It'
is true that the discrimination between the outward effects of
Action, is a sign of wisdom and far-sightedness. But, far-
sightedness is not synonymous with Ethics; and, therefore, our
philosophers have come to the conclusion that the true basis of
Proper Action does not lie in the mere mercenary process of
discriminating between different external Actions; and that' the
HIGHEST IDEAL (paramartha) in the shape of Equability oft
Reason, is the fundamental basis of Ethics; and one comes to-
the same conclusion if one properly considers what the mosti
perfect state of the Personal Self (jwatman), is ; because, though
many persons are adepts in the art of robbing each other by
avarice, nobody says that this cleverness, or the futile-
Knowledge of the Brahman, consisting of knowing in what?-
'the greatest good of the greatest number' lies, is the highest
ideal of everyone in this world. That man alone is the highest
of men, whose Reason is pure. Nay; one may even say that
the man, who, without having a- stainless, non-inimical, and
pure mind, is only engrossed in the calculating discrimination
between outward Actions, runs the risk of becoming a-
hypocrite (See Gl. 3. 6). If one accepts Equability of Reason,
as the basis of the philosophy of Karma-Yoga, this objection,
does not arise. It is true that by taking Equability of Reason
as the fundamental basis, one has to consult saints for'
determining between morality and immorality, in circum-
stances of exceptional difficulty; but there is no help for that.
Just as when a man is down with a very serious illness, its-
diagnosis or treatment is impossible without the help of a-
clever doctor> so also will it be futile for an- ordinary person*
to proudly imagine that he will be able to arrive at a faultless-
decision between morality and immorality, without the help
of saints, and merely on the basis of the principle of 'the-
greatest good of the greatest number', when there is a difficult-
and doubtful situation. One must always increase Equability
of Reason by constant practice;, and when the minds of all
STATE OF A SIDDHA & WORDLY AFFAIRS 565
the human beings in the world gradually reach the state
of perfect Equability in this way, the Krtayuga will
start, and the highest ideal or the most perfect state of the
human race will be reached by everyone. The philosophy
of the Duty and Non-Duty has been evolved for this purpose ;
and, therefore, the edifice of that philosophy must also be based
on the foundation of Equability of Reason. But, even if one
does not go so deep as that, but only considers Ethics from the
point of view of the test of public opinion, the theory of
Equability of Reason expounded in the Glta, is seen to be more
valuable and more consistent with fundamental principles,
than the Western Materialistic or Intuitionist philosophies, as
will be apparent from the comparative examination of these
different principles made by me later on in the fifteenth chapter.
But, before coming to that subject, I shall deal with one
important part of the explanation of the import of the Glta,
•which still remainB to be dealt with.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE PATH OF DEVOTION.
( BHAKTI-MARGA ).
aarva dharman parilyajya warn ekam iarayam vmja\
aham tva sarvapapebhyo mokxcyisyami ma iucah. (I *
(Gl. 18.66).
I have so far dealt, from the Metaphysical point of view,
with the question of how the Desireless Realisation of the
identity of the Atman in all created beings, which is instilled
into the body, is the foundation of the Karma- Yoga and of
Release ; and of how this pure Reason is acquired by Realising
the identity of the Atman and the Brahman ; and why every
one must, so long as life lasts, perform the duties, which have
befallen him according to his status in life, with his pure
Reason. But, the subject-matter preached in the Bhagavadgita
is not thereby exhausted ; because, although there is no doubt
that the Realisation of the identity of the Brahman and the
Atman is the only true Reality and the ideal, and that " there
is nothing in the world which is equally holy " (Gl. i. 38), yet,
in as much as the consideration of that subject-matter, which
has been made so far, as also the path or manner of acquiring
that Equability of Reason, is wholly dependent on the Reason
itself, ordinary persons feel a doubt as to how one can acquire
that keenness of Intelligence by which that path or manner
oan be fully realised, and whether if somebody's Reason is not
so keen, that man must be considered as lost ; and such a doubt
is certainly not ill-founded. They say : if even the greatest of
Jnanins have to say ' neti, neti ' ( i. e., 'It is not this, It is not
that'— Trans.) in describing that your immortal highest Brahman
(Parabrahman), which is clothed in the perishable Name-d
and Form-ed Maya, how are ordinary persons like us to under-
stand it ? Therefore, why should any one be found fault with
* " Give np all kinds of religiona (dharma)^ that is, means of
attaining the Paramesvara, and surrender yourself to Me alone. I
shall redeem you from all sins, do not be afraid". See the
explanation of the meaning of this stanza at the end of this-
chapter.
THE "PATH OF DEVOTION 567
if he asks to be shown some easy path or manner, by following
which this deep knowledge of the Brahman can come within
the periphery of his limited receptiveness ? It is stated in the
Glta and'in the Kathopanisad that though there are many who;
being struck by astonishment, describe their experience of the-
Atman (that is, of the Brahman), and though there are others
who listen to that description, yet, no one understands that
Atman ( Gi. 2. 29 ; Katha. 2. 7 ) ; and there is even a very
instructive story about this in one place in the Sruti texts.
In this story, there is a description that when Baskali asked
Bahva the question: " My lord, explain to me, please, what the
Brahman is", Bahva would not give any answer. Though
Baskali repeated that question, Bahva was still silent. When-
this had happened three or four times, Bahva said to Baskali :
"I have been all this while giving an answer to your question,
and yet you ' do not understand it. What more oan I do ?
The form of the Brahman cannot be described in any way, and
therefore, remaining quiet and not giving any description of
it, is the truest description of the Brahman. Have yon
now understood it ?" ( Ve. Su. Sam. Bha. 3. 2. 17 ). In short,
how is a man possessing only an ordinary Reason to-
realise this indescribable, unimaginable Parabrahman, which
is absolutely different from the visible world ( drsyasrsti-
wlaksaoa), and which can be described only by keeping quiet,
which can be seen only after the eyes have ceased to see,
and which can be Realised only after one has ceased to-
Realise ? (Kena.2, 11) ; and how is a man to thereby acquire the.
state of Equability and afterwards attain Release ? If
there is no means except a keen intelligence for realising by-
personal experience and in all its bearings, the form of the-
Paramesvara described by the words "there is only one Atman
in all created beings", and for thereby attaining the highest
excellence, then, millions of people in the world must give up
the hope of attaining the Brahman, and sit quiet; because,
highly intelligent people are necessarily always few. If one
says that it 'will be enough to place reliance on what these
scients say, we come across numerous differences of opinion
even among the scientB. Besides, if one says that it is enough
to merely place such reliance, it necessarily follows that the
568 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
path of 'faith' or 'belief' is open for acquiring this recondite
Knowledge, in addition to the path of Reason ; and really-
speaking, it will be seen that Knowledge does not become
complete or even fruitful without Religious Faith (sraddha).
That all Knowledge is acquired merely by Intelligence, and
that no other mental faculties are necessary for that purpose
is an idle belief of certain philosophers, whose minds have
become crude as a result of life-long contact with sciences
based on inferential reasoning. For instance,, let us take the
proposition that, ' to-morrow morning the Sun will rise again '.
We think that the knowledge contained in this proposition is
absolutely immutable. Why 1 Because, we and our ancestors
have seen this occurrence going on uninterruptedly so long.
But, if one considers the matter deeply enough, it will be seen
that the fact that one and one's ancestors have so far seen the
Sun rising daily can never become a reason for the Sun to
rise to-morrow, that the Sun does not rise every day in order
that one should see it rise, nor because one sees it rise ; and
that the reasons for the Sun to rise are quite different. And
if the fact that you see the Sun rise every day, cannot be a
reason for the Sun to rise to-morrow, what guarantee is there
that the Sun will rise to-morrow ? After a particular occur-
rence haB been observed to take place in the case of a particular
thing for a GREAT LENGTH of TIME, concluding that that
occurrence will continue in future PERMANENTLY is a
kind of Faith; and although we may give it the high
sounding name of 'inference', yet, it must be borne in mind
that this inference is not an inference based on a considera-
tion of Cause and Effect, and arrived at by the Intelligence,
but is fundamentally based on Faith. The inference
drawn by ub that because Rama finds sugar sweet, Soma
will also find it sweet, is, as a matter of fact, fundamentally
of the same nature; because, though it is true that our Intelli-
gence actually experiences the knowledge that sugar is sweet,
yet, when we go beyond that, and say that all persons find
sugar sweet, we have to combine Faith with Intelligence. In
the same way, it need not be told that in order to understand
the principle of Geometry, that it is possible to have two
straight lines which will never touch each other, however far
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 569
•they may be extended, one has to go beyond the bounds of all
[personal experience, with the help of Faith. Besides, all the
activities of the world go on with the help of inherent mental
faculties like Faith, Love etc., and Intelligence does nothing
beyond controlling these mental faculties. I have explained
above in the chapter on the Body and the Atman, that when
once the good or bad nature of any particular thing has been
ascertained by the Intelligence, the further execution of that
decision has to be carried out with the help of the Mind or of
the mental faculties. Therefore, in order to perfect the
knowledge which has been acquired by Intelligence, and in
•order that that knowledge should be translated by means of the
Intelligence into behaviour and action, such knowledge has
always to Tely on Faith, Kindness, Affection, Love of Duty,
and other inherent mental tendencies; and that knowledge
which does not rely on the help of these mental tendencies
after they have been awakened and purified, must be looked
upon as bare, incomplete, perversely inferential, and barren or
immature. Just as the bullet in a gun oannot be fired without
the help of gunpowder, so also can the knowledge acquired
merely by Intelligence not redeem any one without the help
of mental qualities like Love, Faith, etc.; and this principle
was fully known to our ancient Bsis. For example, it is
stated in the Chandogya that in order to prove to Svetaketu that ,
the imperceptible and subtle Parabrahman is the fundamental
cause of the visible world, his father, asked him to bring the
•fruit of a banian tree (vata-vrksa), and to see what was inside.
When Svetaketu had cut open that fruit and seen inside, he
:said : "there are innumerable minute seeds or grains inside."
When his father again said to him : " take one of those seeds,
and tell me what is inside it ", Svetaketu replied : " I see
nothing inside the seed ". To that his father replied : "0 my
•son, this tremendous banian tree (vata-vrksa) has sprung from
that nothing which you see inside" ; and his father has
lultimately said to him, " iraddJiasva ", i. e., "put faith in this",
that is, "do not merely keep this idea in your Mind, and say
'yes' to my face, but go beyond it ; in short, let this principle
be impressed on your heart, and let it be translated into your
■actions" (Chan. 6. 12). If Faith is ultimately necessary in
570 GlTA-EAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
order to obtain the definite knowledge that the Sun is going to
rise to-morrow morning, then it undoubtedly follows that after
having gone by the cart-road of Intelligence as far as possible
for completely Realising the eternal, unending, all-causing,
all-knowing, independent, and vital Principle, Which is the
root of the entire universe, one has to go further, at least to
some extent, by the foot-path of Faith and Affection. That
woman whom a man looks upon as venerable and worshipful,
because she is his mother, is looked upon by others as an
ordinary woman, or according to the scientific camouflage of
words of Logicians, she is "garbhadharanaprasawdi stritva-
samajiyamcchedakavaechinriavyaktivisesah''. Prom this simple
example, one can easily understand the difference brought about.
by pouring the Knowledge acquired by mere inference, into'
the mould of Faith and Affection ; and for this very reason, it
is stated in the Glta that "the most excellent Karma-Yogin
from among all, is the one who has Faith" (Gi 6.47);
and, as has been stated above, there is also a theorem of the
Philosophy of the Absolute Self that, " acinlyah khalu ye bliaw-h
na tarns tarkeria dntayet ", i. e., "the form of those objects which,.
being beyond the organs, cannot be imagined, should not be
determined merely by the help of inference ".
If the only difficulty were that the qualityless Parabrah-
man is difficult to Realise for ordinary persons, then, that
difficulty could be overcome by Faith or confidence, though there-
might be a difference of opinion among the intelligent persons ;
because, in that case we could judge for ourselves which of
these intelligent persons was more reliable, and put faith in
bis statements (Gi. 13. 25). In logic, this course is known as.
' upta-vacana-pramaria ' (i. e., "belief in the statements of a
credible person" — Trans.), 'apta' means a reliable person.
If we look at the affairs of the world, we see that hundreds of
persons carry on their activities, relying on the statements of
trustworthy persons. There will be very few persons who
will be in a position to explain scientifically why two into
five is equal to ten and not seven, or why when a second
figure one is placed after the first figure one, we get
eleven, and not two. Nevertheless, the affairs of the world
are going on in the belief by Faith that these statements-
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 571
are true. We will oome aoroas very few persona who will have
an actual personal knowledge of the fact whether the height of
the Himalayas is five miles or ten miles ; yet, if some one asks
us what the height of the Himalayas is, the figure of " 23000
feet ", learnt by heart by us in school from books on Geography
at once escapes from our lips I Then, if some one says to us :
' describe the nature of the Brahman \ what is the objection
to our saying : ' it is qualityless '? Although the ordinary man
in the street may not have sufficient intelligence to investigate
into whether or not it is really qualityless, and to discuss the
pros and cons, yet, Faith is not such a quality that it is
possessed only by persona of the highest intelligence. Even
the most ignorant man has no dearth of faith, and if he carries
on all his numerous affairs with the help of Faith, there is not
the slightest difficulty in the way of his believing by Faith
that the Brahman is qualityless. Even if one considers the
history of the doctrine of Release, it will be seen that even
before Jnanins had come to the conclusion that the Brahman
is qualityless, after having analysed its nature and form, man
had by Faith come to the conclusion that there was, at the
bottom of the created universe, some Principle far different
from and stranger than the perishable and mutable things in
the world, Which was eternal, immortal, independent, omnipo-
tent, omniscient, and all-pervasive ; and he had been worship-
ping it in some form or other. It is true that he could not at
that time explain or justify this Knowledge ; but even in the
Material sciences, the rule is that the experience comes first,
and the explanation or justification of it comes afterwards.
For instance, before Bhaskaracarya discovered the principle of
gravity of the earth, and ultimately Newton discovered the
principle of gravity of the entire universe, the fact that the
fruit from a tree falls down to the earth, was known to every
one from times immemorial. The same argument applies to
Metaphysics. It is true that the purpose of Intelligence is to
analyse the Knowledge which has been acquired by Faith, and
to give an explanation of it ; but though a proper explanation
of that Realisation is not forthcoming, it cannot, on that
account, he said that the Knowledge which haa been acquired
by Faith is a mere illusion.
572 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
If it were enough, merely to believe that the Brahman is
qualityless, there is no doubt that that could be done merely
by Faith as stated above (GI. 13. 25). But, as has been stated
at the end of the ninth chapter, the bare Realisation that the
Brahman is qualityless, is not enough to enable a person to
reach his highest ideal in this world, namely, the Brahnu state
or the state of the Siddha (Perfect). That Knowledge must be
made to permeate the heart and the bodily organs by means of
intense practice and continual habit, and the Realisation of
the identity of the Brahman and the Atman must become an
inherent nature, by means of constant behaviour consistent
with that idea ; and the only way for achieving that result is
to imbibe the nature and form of the Paramesvara by
Love, and to make one's mind uniform with the Paramesvara.
This measure or method has been in vogue in our country
from times immemorial, and it is known as "Worship
{upasaim) or Devotion ibhakti). The Sandilya-SStra defines
' Bhakti ' as : "sa (bhaktih) paranuraktir Iivare", i.e., ' Kiakti ' is
the ' para,' that is, the most intense love towards the Isvara "
( San. Su. 2 ). ' para ' does not mean only ' most intense '; but
it must also be purposeless (wirhetuka), that is, it must not be
for this or that purpose, but unselfish and immutable. It is
stated in the Bhagavata-Purana that it must be " ahetukya.
vyavahita ya bhaktih purusottame " (Ma. Bha. 3. 29. 12) ; becausei
when the Devotion is purposeful (sdhetuka), and the man says :
■" 0, God ! give me a particular thing," it, to some extent,
acquires a mercenary appearance like the Desireful Vedic
sacrificial ritual. When Devotion thus becomes mercenary or
rajasa, one does not thereby acquire purification of the Mind ;
and if the purification of the Mind is not complete, Metaphysic-
al excellence or the obtaining of Release is to that extent
prejudiced. As the principle of total desirelessness, which
is part of the philosophy of the Highest Self (adhyatma-sastra),
thus also finds a place in the Path of Devotion, the Gita has
divided the devotees of the Blessed Lord into four classes, and
has stated that the Devotee, who worships the Paramesvara,
' artharthV, that is, ' with some particular motive', is of a lower
order, and the Jiianin, who like Narada and otherg, worships
the Blessed Lord merely as a matter of duty, like other desireless
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 57?
Actions, though he has Realised the Paramesvara and has,
therefore, nothing more to obtain (Gi. 3. 18) is the most
excellent of all (Gi. 7. 16-18). This Devotion is of nine kinds
according to the Bhagavata-Purana as follows t-
smvanam kirtanam visrioh smaranam padasevamm I
arcanath vandanani dasyam sakhyant atmanivedanam U
(Bhag. 7. 5. 23).
(that is : " listening to the praise of Visnu, praising'
Him, thinking of Him, serving at His feet, worshipping
Him, bowing down hefore Him, being His slave, loving
Him, and dedicating oneself to Him " — Trans.) ; and in
the Bhakti-Sutra by Harada, it is divided into eleven
classes. But, as all these kinds of Devotion have been
described in detail in the Dasabodha and other Marathi books,,
I will not further discuss them here. Whatever may be the
nature of the Devotion, it is clear that the ordinary purpose of
Devotion, namely, of cultivating an intense and Desireless
love for the Paramesvara, and forming one's mental
tendencies accordingly, must be carried out by every man with
the help of his Mind ; because, as has been explained by me
above in the sixth chapter, the internal organ of Intelligence
does nothing beyond deciding between what is good or bad,
righteous or unrighteous, and performable or unperformable ;.
and all the other mental functions have to be carried out by
the Mind itself. Therefore, we now arrive at the Dual 1
division, (i) the Mind, and (ii) the object of worship, that is to
say, the object which is to be loved ; but that most excellent
form of the Brahman, which has been advocated in the
Upanisads, is beyond the organs, imperceptible, eternal,
qualityless, and ' ehimevadvitiyam. ' (i. e., ' one alone, without a
second' — Trans.) ; and'therefore, one cannot start one's worship
with the Brahman. Because, when one Bealises this excellent
form of the Brahman, the Mind does not any more remain a
separate entity, and, as has been stated before in the chapter
on the Philosophy of the Absolute Self, the worshipper and the
worshipped, or the Knower I jnata) and the Knowable (jaeya)
both become uniform. The qualityless Brahman is the ultimate ■
goal, it is not the means to be employed for reaching the goal ;.
574 GITA- RA r TA STA OB KARMA-YOGA
and unless the mind acquires, by some means or other, the
capacity of becoming unified with the qualityless Brahman,
one cannot personally get a vision of this excellent form of
the Brahman. Therefore, the Form of the Brahman which has
to be taken for the Devotion or Worship to be performed, as a
means of Realising the Brahman, is of the second order, that
is to say, it is the qnalityful (sagum/ form, which can be
Realised by the Mind, on account of the difference between the
worshipper and the worshipped ; and therefore, wherever the
worship of the Brahman has been prescribed in the Upanisads,
the Brahman to be worshipped has been described as qnalityful,
notwithstanding that it is imperceptible. For example,
although that Brahman, of which the worship has been
prescribed in the Saniflya-Vidya, is imperceptible, that is,
formless, yet, it is stated in the Chandogyopanisad, that it must
possess existence (salya-samkalpaj, and also all such faculties as
smelling (gandha), tasting (ram), and acting (karma), which are
perceptible to the Mind (Chan. 3. 14). Although the Brahman
to be worshipped is in this case qnalityful, yet, it is impercept-
ible (avtjdkta), that is, formless (rtirakara). But, the natural
formation of the human Mind is such that man finds it
extremely difficult, or almost impossible, to love or to make his
mind uniform, by meditation and concentration, with an object
from even among the qnalityful objects, which is imperceptible,
that is, which, having no definite form, smell, etc., is, on that
account, not cognisable by the organs. Because, as the Mind
is naturally restless, it cannot understand on what to con-
centrate itself, unless it has before itself, by way of support,
some steady object, which is perceptible to the organs. If this
mental act of concentration is found difficult even by
Jfianins. how much more so then by ordinary people ? There-
fore, just as in teaching Geometry one has to draw on a slate
or on a board, by way of sample, a small portion of a line, in
order to impress on the Mind the nature of a straight line,
which, though in itself eternal, endless, and hreadthless. that
is to say. imperceptible, is yet qualityful, because it possesses
the quality of length, so also, ordinary people at least have got
to keep before the mind, some perceptible object, which has a
1 pratyaksa ' (visible) Name and Form, in order that they
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 575
■should acquire affection for and make their minds uniform
with the Paramesvara, Who is the cause of everything,
omnipotent, and omniscient, that is to say, qualityful, but who
is yet formless, that is to say, imperceptible ( avyakta ). *
Nay, unless some perceptible thing has been seen, the human
mind cannot conceive the idea of the Imperceptible, For
instance, it is only after one has seen by one's own eyes the
perceptible colours red, green etc., that the common and
dmperceptible idea of 'colour' comes into existence in the
human mind, and not otherwise. You may call this the
natural quality or the defect of the human mind. Whatever
may be the case, so long as the embodied human being cannot
<get rid of this mental quality, there is no other way except to
descend from the Qualityless into the Qualityful, and into the
^Perceptible Qualityful rather than the Imperceptible Quality-
ful, for purposes of Worship (upasana) or Devotion (bhakti).
Therefore, the path of worshipping the Perceptible, has been
•in vogue since times immemorial, and ultimately in Upanisads
like the Bama-tapanlya and others, the worship of the percep-
tible form of the Brahman, in the shape of human beings, is
mentioned ; and in the Bhagavadgita also, this doctrine has
heen reiterated in the following logical form : —
kleso 'dhikataras tesam avyaktasaktacetasam |
avyakta hi gatir duhkltan dehavadbhir avapyaie It
( GI. IS. 5 ).
"that is, " that man who wishes to concentrate his Mind ( Oitta)
on the Imperceptible {avyakta), suffers much; because, to the
* In this matter, the following stanza is mentioned as being
from the Yoga-Va9istha :
ah;aravagamalabdhaye yatha sthulavartula-
dffatparigrahah \
suddhabuddhaparilabdhaye tatha daru-
mrnmayaiilamayarcanam II
that is, "as pieces of stonB are arranged (before a child), in order to
acquaint it with letters, so are idols of wood, or earth, or stone
"taken, in order to acquire knowledge of the pure and knowledgeful
Parabrahman ". This stanza, however, is not to be found in the
Toga-Vaaistha.
576 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
human being, clothed in a body and organs, it is inherently
difficult to reach this state of the Imperceptible ". This-
path of ' visible experience ' is known as the " Path of
Devotion ". When onoe the form of the Parabrahman has been,
defined by means of the Intelligence, concentrating the mind
on Its imperceptible form by means of thought, will be possible-
for an intelligent person ; not that it is impossible; but in as
much as this act of attaching the 'Mind' on the Imperceptible,
has to be accomplished by the help of Faith or Affection, one
does not escape the necessity of Faith and Affection 1 in this
path. Therefore, from the philosophical point of view, even-
the worship of the saccidananda Brahman (the Brahman which:
is eternal, conscious, and joyful), must be included in the Path
of Devotion, which is founded on Love. Nevertheless, as the-
form of the Brahman, which is taken for purposes of medita-
tion in this path, is essentially imperceptible, and is accessible-
only to the Reason, that is, only to Jfiana, and is the most
important factor, it is usual not to refer to this path as the
Path of Devotion, but as Contemplation of the Absolute Self,
(adhyatma-vicam), the Worship of the Imperceptible {avyaktopa-
sana) or simply Worship (upamna), or the PATH OF KNOW-
LEDGE ; and although the Brahman which is worshipped is-
Tequired to be qualityful, yet, if one takes a perceptible,,
instead of an imperceptible form, and especially a human form,
for worship, that makes it the PATH OF DEVOTION. But, it
will be clearly seen, that (i) though the paths may be two, yet
since one attains the same Paramesvara, and ultimately
acquires Equability of Reason by either path, these two paths are
eternal stair-cases for rising to the same floor, which are used
by different persons according to their respective qualifications;
and that (ii) the ideals do not become different because the
paths are different. Out of these, the first step of the one
staircase is Intelligence, whereas the first step of the other
staircase is Faith and Love ; and whichever path is followed,
the man acquires the same kind of Realisation of the same
Paramesvara, and attains the same Release, Therefore, the
doctrine that, "there is no salvation unless it is based on
actually experienced Knowledge", is common to both the paths.
Then, where is the sense of entering into the futile discussioa
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 577
as to whether the Path of Knowledge is superior or the
Path of Devotion is superior ? Though these two paths are at
first different having regard to the qualification of the man,
they are ultimately of the same value in effeot, and are both
called ' Adhyatma ' (the Philosophy of the Absolute Self) in the
GIta (Gi. 11. 1). But although Knowledge and Devotion are of
the same value as means ( sadhana ), yet, there is this important
difference between .the two, that whereas Devotion can never
become a Nistha, Knowledge can become a Nistha, that is, the
highest stage in the State of Perfection (siddhavastha). It is true
that one can get the same Knowledge of the ParameSvara.
by means of Devotion, as by means of the Contemplation
of the Absolute Self, or the Worship of the Imperceptible
(Gi. 18. 55) ; but if, after having acquired this Knowledge,.
the man gives up worldly life and remains steeped in the
Knowledge, the GIta calls him a ' Jnana-nistha ' and not
a ' Bhakti-nistha.' As the process of Devotion is based on
the duality of the worshipper and the worshipped, no Devotion
or any other kind of worship survives in the ultimate state of
the merger of the Atman into Brahman. The ultimate resolu-
tion of Devotion is into Knowledge ; Devotion is a means for
acquiring Knowledge, it is not a goal in itself. In short,
Knowledge becomes a means, as meaning the worship of the
Imperceptible ; whereas, it becomes a Nistha, that is, an
ultimate state, as meaning the direct Realisation of the
identity of the Brahman and the Atman ; and when it is
necessary to make this difference clear, the two words ' Jnana-
marga ' and ' Jnana-nistha ' are not used synonymously,
but the word ' Jnana-marga ' is used to indicate the worship of
the Imperceptible in its preparatory stages, and the word
' Jnana-nistha ' is used to indioate the State of Perfection
{siddhavastha), which consists of ^giving up all Aotion after
Acquisition of Knowledge, and becoming 'engrossed in
Knowledge. That is to say, Jnana once becomes a 'means
(Jfiana-marga), in the sense of the Worship of the
Imperceptible (avyaktopasana), or the Meditation on th&
Absolute Self (adhyatma-vicara) ; and it becomes a Nistha, that
is to say, the ultimate state of Abandonment of Action, in
the sense of a Direct Realisation (aparoksanubhava) ; andthe
73 — 74.
578 GlTA-BAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
same is the case with Karma. That Karma (Action) which
has to be initially performed according to the limits laid down
by the Sastras for the purification of the Mind is a means
(sadhana). By this Karma, the Mind becomes purified and
Knowledge and Peace are ultimately acquired; but when,
instead of remaining Bteeped in this Knowledge, the man
continues to perform Desireless Action peacefully, so long as
life laBts, this Desireless Action combined with Knowledge is
a Karma which becomss a Nistha, (Gl. 3. 3). But, the same is not
the case with Devotion. Devotion is only a path, tliat is to
say, it is a means of acquiring Knowledge ; it is not a Nistha.
Therefore, in the beginning of the Glta, only the two NisthSs
of Jnana (Samkhya) and Yoga (Karma) have been dealt with ;
and in mentioning the various means, ways, ritual, or paths
of acquiring the Karma-Yoga-Nistha, out of the two (Gl. 7, 1),
the Glta has described the two sister paths of the Worship of
the Imperceptible (Jfiana-marga) and the Worship of the
Perceptible (Bhakti-marga), which have been in vogue from
times immemorial, and states that the Worship of the
i Imperceptible out of the two is fraught with difficulty,
whereas the Worship of the Perceptible, or Devotion, is a path
which is easier, that is, is such as can be followed by every
body ; or as Tukarama has said : " if you want to reach the
Paramesvara 1 then this is the easier path II " (Ga. 3002). The
ancient Upanisads deal with the Jfiana-marga (the Path of
Knowledge) and the Sandilya-Sutra and other Sutras or the
Bhagavata, and other works, praise the Path of Devotion ; but
no ancient religious treatise is seen to have differentiated
between the Jfiana-marga and the Bhakti-marga as two paths,
according to the qualification of the person, and to have
ultimately harmonised both of them with the Path of
Desireless Action, as has been impartially done in the Glta.
If one considers, as mentioned above, what should be done
by man, who is embodied in a Body and organs, in order
to acquire the true and self -experienced Knowledge of the
.form of the Isvara, to the effect that there is only one
Paramesvara in all created beings, one comes to the conclusions
that, (i) although the eternal, inexpressible, and unimaginable
form of the Paramesvara, which can be described only by the
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 579
■words " It is not this, It is not this " (' neti, neti '), is the most
superior form, yet, as it is QUALITYLESS, UNKNOWABLE,
AND IMPERCEPTIBLE, the Dualistio difference of the
worshipper and the worshipped does not remain any more
when it has been Realised ; that, (ii) therefore, worship (upasaria)
•cannot start with that form ; that, (iii) that form is something
which is to be reached, and not the means of reaching it ; and
'that, (iv) worship (upasana) is a means for acquiring the Non-
Dualistic state of becoming uniform with that form. There-
fore, that object which has to be taken for this worship, has
necessarily to be a qualityful object. The all-knowing, omni-
potent, all-pervading, and uncircumscribed form of the
Brahman is such a form, that is, a QUALITYFUL form.
But, as such a form is ACCESSIBLE ONLY TO THE
INTELLIGENCE, AND IMPERCEPTIBLE, that is, not
perceptible to the organs, it is a difficult form for purposes of
worship. Therefore, in all religions, man is seen to naturally
adopt for purposes of ' Devotion ', in preference to both these
forms, that sympathetic and easily accessible QUALITYFUL,
LOVE-EARNED, PERCEPTIBLE, and VISIBLE Parame-
svara, Who, notwithstanding that He is the unimaginable,
omnipresent, all-pervading, and all-powerful Self of the whole
world, will yet speak with us, love us, place us on the path of
righteousness, and lead us to a happy state ; Whom we oan
call our own ; Who will be sympathetic towards our pain and
.happiness, and forgive our sins ; with referenoe to Whom we
can establish the direct relation that He is ours, and we are
His ; Who will protect us like a father ; Who will be a mother
to us; or Who will be " gatir bharta prabhuh salcsi nivasah
saravwh mhrt" (Gl, 9. 17 and 18), i.e., "our goal, our
maintainor, our owner, our companion, our home of protection
and rest, our ultimate support and hope, our friend and our
protector"; and Whom we can, on that account, realise by
love and caressingly ; and Who is truthful, endowed with all
glory, the ocean of kindness, the lover of His devotees, tb.B
holy of holies, the height of magnanimity, the height of kind-
ness, the most revered, the height of beauty, and the home of
all qualities. These two last kinds of the form of the
fundamentally unimaginable and ' one only, without a second '
580 GlTi-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
Parabrahman, which aie visible to man by means of the
mental spectacles of Love, Devotion, etc., are, in Vedanta
philosophy, given the technical name of 'Isvara.' If the
Paramesvara is all-peivading, why has Pandurahga or Vithoba.
a dimitautive form ? To this question, the answer given by;
Tukarama is :-
Tuka says that although the Hari is
all-pervading and only one i
He has become small for purposes of Devotion Hi
(GS. 38.7);
and the same doctrine has been expounded in the Vedanta-
Sutras (1. 2. 7). Even the Upanisads, in describing the
worship of the Brahman, do not mention only, Life, Mind, and
other qualityful, but purely imperceptible things, but they at
the same time mention the worship of qualityful, perceptible
objects like the Sun (adityd) or the food, etc. (Tai. 3.26 ; Chan. 7);
and in the Svetasvataropanisad, after describing the ' Isvara '
as: " rriayam tu prakrtim vidyat mayinam tu malmvaram"
(Sve. 4. 10), that is, " Maya is the name given to Matter
fprakrti), and the Lord of this Maya is the highest Tsvara
{mahesvara)" , the qualityful Isvara is further described as:
"jftatoa detain mucyate sarvapasaih", that is, " by knowing this
god (dew), one becomes free from all.bonds" (Sve. 4. 16) — which
is more or less the same as in the Glta. The Name-d and
Form-ed object necessary for purposes of worship as the
symbol, sign, incarnation, particle, or representation of the
worshipped Parabrahman, is known in Vedanta philosophy as
a ' pratilca '. The etymological meaning of ' praiika ', is prati+~
ika, that is, ' one, who is turned, towards (prati) ourselves '; and
that side or portion of any particular object, which first
becomes perceptible to us, and whereby we subsequently
obtain a knowledge of it, is called 'pratika'. Accordingto
this meaning, any perceptible side, part, or particular
incarnation of the all-pervading Paramesvara can become a
' prutika' for acquiring His Knowledge. For instance, in the
conversation between the Brahmin and the VySdha (hunter),
the Vyadha, after explaining the Knowledge of the Absolute
Self to the Brahmin, says in the end: "pratyaksam mamayo
dharmas tarn ca pasya dvijottama" (Vana. 213. 3), i. e„ "Omost
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 581
-excellent among Brahmins, now see my visible religion" ; and
he then takes the Brahmin to his aged parents and says,
"these are my 'visible deities', and serving them with all my
heart and soul, as if they are the Paramesvara, is my 'visible'
(pratyakaa) religion " ; and even in the Glta, the Blessed Lord
has, before mentioning the worship of His perceptible form,
said with the same object, that this Path of Devotion is :
rajavidya rajaguhyam pavitram idam uttamam I
pratyaksavagamam dharmyam susukham kartutn avyayam II
(GI. 9. 2), '
'that is, "the most superior among all Vidyag and all
mysticisms, (raja-vidya and raja-guhya), excellent, sacred,
literally VISIBLE, consistent with Religion, easily observable,
and inexhaustible". The two compound words 'raja-vidya,' and
'raja-guhya' are analysed as : 'vidyanam raja' (sovereign of all
cults) and 'guhyanam raja' (the sovereign among ail
mysticisms) ; and in forming the compound, the word 'raja' tb
placed first according to the rules of Sanskrit grammar. But
instead of this, some people analyse the word 'raja-vidya' as
'rajfiam vidya' (the cult of kings), and say that, when in
ancient times Rsis (ascetics) used to explain the Brahma-
Vidya to icings, as stated in the Yoga-Vasistha (Yo. 2. 11.
J.6-18), this Brahma-Vidya or Knowledge of the Absolute Self
came to acquire the names of 'raja-mdya' and 'raja-guhya' ; and
that therefore, the Glta must be taken to have used these two
words in the same meaning, that is, as meaning not Devotion,
but the Knowledge of the Absolute Self. As the path
mentioned in the Gita was traditionally followed by kings, such
-as, Manu, Iksvaku etc, (Gi. 4.1), one cannot definitely say that
.^he words 'raja-vidya' and 'raja-guhya' have not been used in
"the Gits in the meaning of 'the cult of kings' or the 'mysticism
of kings', that is to say, the cult or the mysticism, which was
accepted by kings (raja-manya). But, if these meanings are
accepted, it has still to be borne in mind that they have not
been used in the present context with reference to the Path of
Knowledge; beoause this chapter of the Glta in which this
stanza appears is, on the whole, in support of the Path of
Devotion (See GI. 9. 22-31) ; and although the Brahman to be
GlTA-RAHABYA OB KABMA-YOGA
reached may be the game, yet, in as much as it is clearly stated
in the GltS itself (Gl. 12. 5), that the Jnana-mirga to be f ollowedt
as a means, in the philosophy of the Absolute Self, is 'accessible
only to the Intelligence' (buddhigamya), and therefore 'imper-
ceptible' {avyokta) and 'difficult' {duKkharkaraka}, it is not likely
that the Blessed Lord can now refer to that same path as
'pratyakwvagamam', that is, 'perceptible', and 'kartum smukharrf
(easy to follow). It, therefore, follows, on the ground of consis-
tency in the subject-matter of the chapter, as also on the ground
of the appropriateness of the words 'pratyaksamgantnM and
'kartum susukhatn', which can apply wholly and on all fours
to the Path of Devotion, that the word 'raja-widya' in this
context indicates only the Path of Devotion. The word 'vidya'
does not indicate only 'the Knowledge of the Brahman' ; and.
it has been used in the Upanisads to indicate 'the means or
oaths by which that Knowledge can be acquired', e. g.,
Sandilya-Vidya, Prana-Vidya, Harda- Vidya, etc.; and all such
various Vidyas, or paths, which have been mentioned in the-
Upanisads, have been considered in the third section of the
third chapter of the Vedanta-SQtras. It also appears from the
Upanisads, that these Vidyas were kept secret, and that in
ancient times they used to be taught to no one except one's
disciples. Therefore, whatever the Vidya was, it was bound'
to be mystic (guhya). But, although these various mystie
Vidyas or paths, which were a means for the Acquisition of
the Brahman, were many, yet, among all of these means,
the Vidya in the shape of the Path of Devotion men-
tioned in the Glta, was the highest ('guhyanam vidyanam cct
raja', i. e., the king of mysticisms and Vidyas— Trans.);
because, this path is not 'avyakta' (imperceptible) like the
Vidya in the Jnana-marga, but is actually visible to the eyes,.
and, on that account, easy to follow. This is how I read that
stanza. If the Glta had supported only the Path of Knowledge,
which is accessible only to the Intelligence, it is doubtful,
whether all the sects of the Vedic Religion would have clung,
to this treatise, as has been done by them during the last
hundreds of years. The sweetness, affectionateness, and.
charm, which permeates the Glta is due to its having
propounded the Path of Devotion. The Blessed Lord Sri Krsna,
THE PATH OP DEVOTION 58$,
who was the living incarnation of the Parameavara, was, in
the first place, the person who sung the Glta ; and further,
instead of preaching the barren Knowledge of the unknowable
Parabrahman, the Blessed Lord has given advice in the Glta
to Arjuna in different places like : " every thing is invested in
ME " (7. 7) ; " all this is MY Maya " (7. 14) ; "there is nothing
which is different from ME" (7. 7); "to ME friends and
enemies are alike" (9. 29); "I have created this universe "
(9. 4) ; and ultimately, " I am the root of the Brahman and of
Release * (14. 27) ; or " I am the Purusottama " (15, 18) ; and
therefore, " give up all other religions and worship only ME,
I will redeem you from all sins, do not be afraid " (18. 66)
which is advice, which refers in the first person to His
qualityful and perceptible form. On this account, the hearer
gets the feeling that he is actually standing before a living,
equal-visioned, extremely affectionate, and most reverential
Purusottama ; and his Nlstha becomes fired on the Knowledge
of the Atman. But this is not all ; for, instead of dividing
the chapters severally between Jnana on the one hand, and
Devotion on the other, Jnana is amalgamated with Devotion,
and Devotion is amalgamated with Jnana, so that there is no-
mutual conflict between Knowledge and Devotion, or between
Intelligence and Love ; and one experiences the sweetness of
the Knowledge of the Paramesvara, while at the same time
acquiring that Knowledge ; and the feeling of Self-Identifica-
tion with all living beings being aroused in the Mind, it
acquires the most wonderful peaoe and the bliss of content,
The Karma-Yoga is further tacked on to this, like adding
sugar to milk ; then, what is the wonder that our philosophers
have laid down the proposition that the Knowledge expounded
in the Gila is, as is said in the Isavasyopanisad, beneficial
both in 'mrtyu' and 'amrta', that is, both in this world and the.
next ?
Prom what has been stated above, my readers will have
understood what is meant by the Path of Devotion, what is the*
similarity and the dissimilarity between the Path of Know-
ledge and the Path of Devotion, why the Path of Devotion is
called the royal path (the royal Vidya) or the easy ladder, and
also why, the Path of Devotion has not been referred to as an
584 GlTi-BAHASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
independent Nistha in the Glta. But, it is now necessary to
point out a position of danger, which exists in this easy, long-
standing, and visible path of acquiring Knowledge ; otherwise,
there is a chance that an anwary wayfarer along the roadi
may fall into that pit. This pit-fall has been clearly defined
in the Bhagavadgltl, and that is the important point of
difference between the Vedic Path of Devotion and other paths
of Devotion, Although it is generally accepted that, in order
that the human Mind should become attached to the Para-
brahman, and that a man should acquire an equable 'Reason
by means of the purification of the Mind, there must be seme
oualityM and perceptible object as a symbol (pratlkti of the
Parabrahman in front of the Devotee, and that otherwise, the
Mind cannot become steady, yet, as will be clear from history,
there are grave disputes about what that symbol should be.
From the Metaphysical point of view, there is no place in the
world where the Paramesvara does not exsist ; and even in the
Bhagavadgita, after Arjuna had asked Sri Krsna the following
■question, namely, "tell me which various objects I should
meditate on, as being Your Manifestations" (Gl. 10. 18), the
Blessed Lord has, in the tenth chapter, mentioned the Mind
out of all organs, the Himalayas out of all immoveables, the
Yajfia by way of repetition of prayers out of all Yajnas,
Visuki among the serpents, Prahlada among the demons>
Aryama among the ancestors, Citraratha among the
Gandharvas, the pipal-tree out of all trees, the eagle among
the birds, Bhrgu out of the great Rsis, the letter ' A ' out of all
letters, and Vianu out of all the various Suns, as being the
numerous forms of Himself, which fill the moveable and the
immoveable world on all sides ; and He has ultimately said -
yad yad vtbhutimat satlvarn inrmd urjitam em va l
tat tad evavagaecha tvam mum tejomsasambhawm II
(Gl. 10. 41).
that is, "O, Arjuna understand that all things which are
possessed of excellence, wealth, or prowess, are created from a
part of My effulgence; what more shall I say? I have
pervaded the whole of this universe by only a part of Myself ">'
and He has given to Arjuna an actual experience of this
• THEJPATH OF DEVOTION 585
.proposition, by showing to him His Cosmic Form in the next
chapter. If all the things or qualities to be seen in the world
are only forms or symbols of the Paramesvara, how can one gay '
■that the Blessed Lord is in one of them and not in another ;
and who is going to say it ? It becomes logically neoessary
to say that He is near and yet afar ; existent and yet non-
existent, also beyond both ; the eagle, as also the serpent ; the
• death, as also the one who dies ; the one who creates obstacles,
and the one who removes them ; the one who creates fear, and
. one who removes it ; the terrible and yet the not-terrible ; the
pleasant and yet the unpleasant ; the one who causes the rain,
and the one who prevents rain from falling (Gi. 9. 19
and 10. 32) ; and Tukarama Buva, a devotee of the Blessed
Lord, has with the same import said :-
Tuka says whatever name you give I
such jiame is proper for this Viththala II
(Tu. Ga. 3065.4).
ilf everything in this world is in the same way in part a form
■of the Paramesvara, why should not such persons as cannot at
a stroke grasp this all-pervasive form of the Paramesvara,
take for worship, in the beginning, any one of these numerous
things, as a means or a symbol for Realising this
.imperceptible and pure form ? Some may worship the Mind,
•others may perform the Yajna of wealth, others again the
Yajna of prayer, some may worship the eagle, others may
worship only the Sacred symbol ' OM ', some may worship
Visnu and others Siva, some may worship Ganapati, and
-others Bhavani, some again may look upon their parents as
:the Paramesvara and serve them, whereas others might choose
for worship a form which is much more comprehensive, such as
rthe Virata form made up of all created beings. One may
prescribe the worship of the Sun, whereas others may say that
Sri Krsna or Sri Ramaoandra is better than the Sun. But, as
the idea that all these Forms are fundamentally one and the
same, has been lost sight of, as a result of Ignorance or
Delusion, or as it is not to be found at all in some religions,
a false arrogance sometimes arises as to the relative merits of
rthese objects of, worship, and matters i come to physioal
586 GIM.-R4HASYA OB KARMA.-YOGA
violence. If one for the moment keeps out of consideration!
the mutual conflicts between the Vedic, Buddhistic, Jain,
Christian, or Mahomedan religions, the history of Europe-
shows us that matters had come to the point of the worshippers
of one and the same qualityful and perceptible Christ,
murdering each other, as a result of difference in ritualistic
practices ; and quarrels are even now going on among the
worshippers of the Qualityful, on the ground that the deity
worshipped by one is better than the deity worshipped by
another, because the former is Formless, and the latter has-
a Form. Unless one explains whether there is a way for
bringing these quarrels arising in the Path of Devotion to a
close, and if so, which that way is, the Path of devotion does,
not become free from danger; and we shall, therefore,,
consider what the reply of the Glta to that question is. I needi
not say that in the present state of India, it is of special
importance to give a proper answer to this-question.
The methods of contemplating in the first place, or placing
before one's eyes as a symbol, the form of any one of the
numerous qualityful Manifestations of the Paramesvara, in
OTder to acquire Equability of Reason by steadying the Mind,,
have been described in the ancient Upanisads ; and ultimately
in the later Upanisads like the Rama-Tapani, or the Glta, the
unlimited and concentrated worship of a human-formed,,
qualityful Paramesvara has been considered as the principal
means of reaching the Paramesvara. But, although the
worship of Vasudeva has been given an important position
in the Glta, in so far as it is a means to an end, yetr
considering the matter from the Metaphysical point of view,
it has been stated in the Vedanta-Sutras (Ve. Su. 4. 1. 4), as
also further on in the Glta itself, that a symbol (pratika) is
only a kind of means, and that the true all-pervading and
permanent Paramesvara cannot be limited to any one of these
symbols. What more shall I say ? Whatever qualityful, that
is, Name-d and Form-ed perceptible object is taken, it is
nothing but Maya, and he who wishes to see the true
Paramesvara, must ultimately extend his vision beyond such
qualityful forms. It is clear that no manifestation, out of the
many manifestations of the Paramesvara, carl be more*
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 587
comprehensive than the Cosmic Form which was shown by the-
Blessed Lord to Aijuna ; yet, after this same Cosmic Form had
been shown by the Blessed Lord to Marada, He has said, " this
form which you see is not My true form, this is only a Mays ;
and in order to see My real form, you must go beyond this
May& " (see Narayanlyadharma, San. 339. 44) ; and even in
the Glta, the Blessed Lord has clearly given to Arjuna the
advice that :-
aoyaktam vyaktimapannam munsyanie mam abuddhayah I
param bhavam ajananto mamavyayam auuttamam ii
(Gl. 7. 34),
that is, " although I am imperceptible, ignorant people call
Me perceptible, or endowed with a human form (Gl. 9. 11) ;
but that is not My true form ; My imperceptible form is My
true form". Also, although the Upanisads prescribe the Mind»
the Speech, the Sun, Ether, and numerous other perceptible and
imperceptible symbols of the Brahman for purposes of worship*
yet, it is ultimately clearly stated, that that which is
accessible to the eyes, or the speech, or the ears, is not the true
Brahman, but :
yan manasa na manute yend 'hur mano matam I
lad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedafn yad idam upasate II
(Kena. 1. 5-8).
that is " That, which cannot be meditated on by the Mind, but
on the contrary, the power of meditation of Which includes-
the Mind, is the true Brahman ; that which is worshipped (as
a ' pratika ', i.e., symbol) is not the (true) Brahman " ; and the
same meaning is conveyed by the canon (sutra) " neti, neti ".
Take the Mind, or Ether (akaha), or according to the path of
the worship of the Perceptible, take the Salagrama, or the
Sivalinga, or the tangible form of Sri Krsna, or of some Saint,
or take a temple which contains a stone or a metal idol of a
god, or a musjid or a temple which contains no idol ; all these
are mere means for steadying the Mind, that is, for fixing the
Mind on the Paramesvara, like the go-carts of little children.
However much these symbolB, taken by different persons
according to their own liking or according to their respective
spiritual qualifications, may be loved by them, like the go-carts
588 GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
of children, which are simple or coloured, or of sandal-wood,
or to which a tambourine or a jingling bell is attached, yet,
one must realise that the true Paramesvara is ' not in these
symbols ' — ' na pratike na hi sah ' (Ve. Su. 4. 1. 4)-but is beyond
them; and for the same reason, is the proposition laid down in
the Bhagavadglta that: " those ignorant persons, who do not
understand My Maya, do not Realise Me " (Gl. 7. 13-15). The
.power of redemption which is contained in the Path of
Devotion is not a power possessed by some living or lifeless
image, or by a building of brick and mortar ; but that belief,
whioh every worshipper for his own convenience holds with
reference to such image, to the effect that it is the Isvara, is
the thing which really redeems. LBt the symbol be of stone, or
of metal, or of anything else, it can never be worth more than
what it really is. Whatever may be your faith with reference
to the symbol, it is the fruit of your Devotion, which the
Paramesvara — not the symbol — gives you. Then, where is the
sense of fighting that the symbol chosen by oneself is better
■than the one chosen by another 1 If your faith is not
.pure, then, however good the symbol may be, what is the use
of it 1 If the whole day you are engaged in deceiving others,
.then, it will be impossible for you to attain the Paramesvara,
notwithstanding that you go to worship an idol in a temple,
or go for worship in some temple which does not contain any
.image, and whether every morning and evening, or on feast
days. Sri Samartha has described persons who go into temples
for listening to sermons (purava) in the following terms t
Sensual persons go to the temple for listening to the sermons I
but their eyes are fixed on the ladies who are present I
At the same time, those who have come with the intention
of stealing I
steal your shoes and go away <i *
(Dasa. 18. 10. 26).
If idols of deities or temples had any redeeming power in
themselves, then even such sensual persons or thieves must
attain .Release. Some people believe that Devotion to the
* It is usual in India to leave one's shoes outside the temple
when one enters it for worship, and that is how the shoes are
stolen — Translator.
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 589'
Paramesvara is only for the purposes of Release ; but those
persons who wish to obtain some Material or selfish object,,
must demote themselves to the worship of different deities ; and
it is said in the Glta itself that such persons run after these
deities, with such selfish motives (Gi. 7, 20). But the Glta itself
says later on, that the idea that these deities, of their own
accord, give you the reward of the worship is philosophically
incorrect (Gi. 7. 21). It is a definite doctrine of the
Philosophy of the Absolute Self, that whichever deities you
worship with whatever desire in your heart, giving the fruit of
that worship is not in the hands of that deity, but of the all-
pervading Paramesvara (Ve. Su, 3. 2. 3841) ; and the same
doctrine has been accepted by the Glta (Gi. 7. 22). But, though
the Paramesvara Who gives the reward may, in this way, be
One, yet, as He gives a different reward to each one according
to his good or evil intentions (Ve. Su. 2. 1. 34-37), the results of
the worship of different symbols or deities are seen to be •
different from each other ; and it is with this import in mind,
that the Blessed Lord has said in one place :
ir.addliamayo 'yam puruso yo yacchraddhah sa eva sah l
(Gi. 17. 3 ; Maitryu. 4. 6),
that is, "man /is governed by Faith; whatever may be the
symbol which is taken, as his Faith, so does the man become "; ,
and in another place :-
yanti devavrata devan pitrn yanti pitrwatah I
bhutani yanti bhutejya yanti madyajino 'pi mam II
(Gi. 9. 25).
that is, "those who worship deities, reach the sphere of the ••
deities ; those who worship ancestors, the sphere of ancestors ;
those who worship the departed, reach that of the dead ; and
those who worship Me, reach Ma " ; or again in a third place :-
2,e yatha mam prapadyante tains tathaiva bhajamy aliath il
(GI. 4. 11).
that is, "in that way, in which people are devoted to Me, in the
iame way, am I devoted to them ". The Salagrama is only a
stone. If you entertain the faith with reference to it that it is
Pisrju, you will reach the sphere of Vispu ; if you worship the
aarae symbol believing that it is some past being like a Yaksa, .
590 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
or a demon, etc., you will reach the spheres of past
beings like a Yaksa or a demon, etc. All our philosophers have
accepted the doctrine that the fruit is of your Faith, and not
of the symbol ; and the same is the reason for the ordinary
practice of instilling life into an image (making a praya-
pratistha) before taking the image for worship. That deity,
which is believed to inhabit any particular image, in
worshipping that image, is the deity of which a praria-pratislha
is made in that image. No one worships any image without
believing that it is inhabited by the Paramesvara; that is,
merely believing that it is earth, or stone, or metal, having
some particular form ; and if any one worships it in that way,
Ihen, the man will undoubtedly reach the state of the earth, or
the stone, or the metal, according to the above-mentioned doctrine
enunciated by the Glta. When in this way a difference has
been made between the symbol, and the Faith with which thst
■symbol is worshipped, no reason remains for quarrelling about
•the symbol, whatever that symbol may be ; because, the idea
that the symbol is the god or Paramesvara, no more remains.
That omnipresent Paramesvara, Who gives the reward for all
Actions, looks only to the Faith of the devotees. Therefore,
Tukarama has said that the 'Paramesvara takes into account
-only the Faith', and not the symbol whioh is worshipped.
Those persons who have realised this principle of the Path of
Devotion, do not obstinately insist that "that form of the
Isvara or the symbol which I worship, is the only true symbol,
and that other symbols are false" ; but he has the charitable
feeling, that whatever may be the symbol which is taken, all
-those who worship the Paramesvara through that symbol, reach
one and the same Paramesvara ; and then he realises the truth
of the statement of the Blessed Lord that : —
ye 'py anyadevatabhaktah yajante sraddhayanvitak l
te 'pi mam em kaunteya yajanty avidhipurvakam II
(GI. 9. 33),
that is, "although the ritual, or the external routine, or the
means employed, may not be suoh as have been enjoined by
the SSstras, yet, those who worship a deity with Faith (that
is, believing that the pure Paramesvara is in that deity)
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 591
worship (indirectly) only Me ". The same meaning has been
conveyed in the Bhagavata, with a slight verbal difference
(Bhag. 10. Pa. 40. 8-10); and in the Sivaglta the above stanza
iaB been taken word for word (Siva. 12. 4); and the same is
the meaning of the statement in the Vedas that: "ekaih
sad vipra bahudha vadanti" (that is, "the one Reality is given
various names by learned people" — Trans.), (Rg. 1. 164. 46),
From this it becomes clear, that this principle has been in
vogue in the Vedic Religion from very ancient times; and
the fact 'that in modern times, the fault of intolerance
of other religions was not to be found in a man of prowess like
JSrl Sivajl Maharaja, who was a believer in the Vedic Religion,
even when he was at the height of his power, is due to this
prinoiple. That men should not realise the true principle
that the Isvara is all-pervading, omnipresent, omnisoient,
-omnipotent, and possibly even beyond all that, that is to say,
unimaginable ; that they should entertain a false pride about a
.Name and Form, and insist that the particular perceptible form
-which was taken up by the Paramesvara at a particular time,
or in any particular place, by being born from particular
parents, in any particular caste, with a particular Name and
Form, is the only true form of the Paramesvara; and that
they should, on that account, come to the stage of cutting
each other's throats with a sword, is a proof of the most
.regrettable stupidity of men. It is true that the Path of
Devotion mentioned in the Grita is called a ' raja-vidya '. But,
if one considers in which oountry there have been first born
any religious preachers who have irradicated false begotisms
an the Path of Devotion (i) by preaching, that: "My visible
form is only a Maya, if you wish to see My true Form, trans-
cend that Maya and go beyond ", as was done by the Blessed
Lord, or (ii) by Realising the unity of all religions by means of
the sattvika knowledge-full vision of " avibhaktaih vibhaktesu "
(i. e., "the unity in the division "—Trans.) ; or, if one considers
which oountry contains the largest number of followers of their
opinion, I must say that the first place has to be given to this
our India, When this philosopher's stone of a 'raja-vidya' and
•of a 'raja-ffuhya' is in our hands, it is certainly a matter of great
misfortune that some of us should put on our eyes the
593 GITA-RAHaSYa OR KARMA-YOGA
spectacles of ignorance, and say that that philosopher's stone
is nothing hut a flint !
It is thus true, that whatever symbol is taken, the result
got by following the Path of Devotion is the result of the
belief with which we invest that symbol, and not of the
symbol ; and that, therefore, it is useless to go on fighting about
the symbol itself. But, now a doubt arises that that pure form
of the Parmesvara with which the symbol has to be invested,,
can very often not be readily imagined by many people, on
account of their inherent nature or their ignorance. Then,,
how is it possible for such persons to place absolute faith in
the symbol and attain the Parames vara? It is not enough to ■
say that in the Path of Devotion, the work of Knowledge is
done by Faith, and that one should imagine the pure form of
the Paramesvara by confidence or by Religious Faith, and'
invest the symbol with that belief ; because, although holding
a particular belief is a characteristic feature of the Mind,,
that is, of Faith, yet, one cannot do without supporting that
, Faith by Intelligence, since, Faith and Love, like all other
mental qualities, are by themselves to a certain extent blind,
and they, by themselves, cannot understand to which object
one should pin one's faith, and which not, or what one should 1 ,
love and what not. This question must be solved by everybody
by his own Intelligence ; because, there is no other organ except
the Intelligence whioh can discriminate ; and, therefore, though
the Intelligence of a particular person might not be very keen, .
yet, it must be capable of, at any rate, determining on
what things to pin his faith ; otherwise, this blind Faith
and this blind Love will both be deceived and 'fair
into a pit-fall. On the contrary, if one exercises only
his Intelligence without Faith, there is no saying what
turn it will perversely take ; for, the keener the Intelligence, the
wilder will be its run. Besides, as has been stated by me
already in the beginning of this chapter, mere Knowledge
acquired by Intelligence is not capable of doing anything
useful, unless it is supplemented by mental processes like Faith
etc. ; and therefore, Faith and Knowledge or Mind and Reason
have always to be linked 'together. But, in as much as the
Mind and the Reason are both manifestations of the three-
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 593
-constituented Matter, each of them can from birth naturally fall
into the three classes, sattvika, rajasa, and tamasa ; and though
the combination of the Mind and the Reason be permanent,
the natures, beliefs, and Actions of different persons will differ
in the proportion in which these will be more or less pure. If
the Eeason itself is from birth impure or rajasa or tamasa, then,
as the decision made by it as to a particular thing being good
or bad will be wrong, blind Faith, though it may be sattvika
or pure, will notwithstanding be misguided; and, if the Faith is
itself impure from birth, then, the fact that the Reason is
sattvika is useless; because, in these circumstances, the Faith
will not listen to the dictates of the Reason. But, ordinarily
the Mind and the Reason are not individually impure; and if
the Reason of a man is inherently impure, his Mind, that is,
his Faith, is also more or less impure; and in these circum-
stances, this impure Reason more and more confuses the
inherently impure Faith. We find in ordinary life that in
these circumstances, however much of advice may be given to
a person about the pure form of the Paramesvara, such advice
is not fully impressed on his Mind; or very often — and specially
if the Faith and the Reason are both initially immature and
weak — the man takes a perverse view of that advice itself. For
instance, when Christian Missionaries begin to preach to the
ebony-black Abyssinian in Afrioa about the Christian religion,
he cannot by any means get a true idea of the Father in Heaven
or of the Christian religion; and it has been observed that
whatever is said to him, is imbibed by him in an incongru-
ous meaning, according to his immature Reason ; and,
therefore, as an English writer * has said, one must bring
such persons to the state of a modern man, in order that they
should be in a position to understand reformed religion.
Although the preceptor may be the same, there is a difference
* " And the only way, I suppose, in which beings of so low an
order of development (e. g., an Australian savage or a Bushman)
could be raised to a civilised level of feeling and thought, would
be by cultivation continued through several generations ; they
would have to undergo a gradual process of humanisation before
they could attain to the capacity of civilisation ". Dr. ifaudsley's
Body and Mind. Ed. 1873, p. 57.
ik. na
594 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
between disciple and disciple ; and Bhavabhuti means the same
thing when he says that though the Sun may ba one and the
same, its light can cause fire by passing through a prism, but does
not have the same effect on a clod of earth (IT. Rama. 2. 4); and
it would appear that it was principally for this Reason, that
Sudras and other ignorant classes were in ancient times looked
upon as unfit for listening to the Vedas. * This subject-matter
has been dealt with in the eighteenth chapter of the Gits, and
there, after stating that Reason is inherently of the three
kinds, sattvika, rajasa and tamasa, (18.30-32), just as' Faith is
of those three kinds (17. 2), the Blessed Lord has stated that
in as much as the Faith of different persons is in this way
different from birth according to their respective bodily
natures (17. 3), sattvika persons naturally put faith in deities,
rajasa persons in Yaksas and demons, and tamasa persons put
faith in ghosts and dead beings and spirits ( Gi. 17. 4-6 ).
But, if the fact of a man having a pure and impure Faith
depends in this way on his inherent nature, a question
naturally arises as to whether or not this Faith will gradually
get better, and sometime or other reach the absolutely pure,
that is to say, the sattvika state after Devotion has, in the first
instance, been practised according to one's own qualification.
The above difficulty in the Path of Devotion is of the same
nature as the difficulty which arises in the subject of Cause
and Effect, namely, whether or not a man is free to acquire
Knowledge ; and the reply to both is the same. That is why
after having advised Arjuna in the beginning that "mayyeva
mam adhatsva" (Gi. 12. 8), i. e., " concentrate your mind on My
pure form", the Blessed Lord has later on explained the
different paths of fixing the form of the Paramesvara in one's
mind in the following words : "if you cannot concentrate
your mind on Me, then practise doing so, that is, make a
continual effort of doing so ; and if you cannot perform that
practice, then perform for My sake such Actions as will have
the effect of purifying the Mind ; and if you cannot do even
that, then abandon the Fruit of Action, and thereby attain to
Me" (GI. 12. 9-11 ; Bhaga. 11. 11. 21-25). If the inherent bodily
* See Max Mallet's Three Lectures on the Vedanta Philosophy
pp. 72-73. ,
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 595
mature or prakrti is tamasa, the attempt of concentrating one's
mind on the pure form of the Paramesvara, will not become
■successful at once or in one life. But as in the Karma-Yoga,
■so also in the Path of Devotion, nothing is wasted ; and the
Blessed Lord has given an assurance to everyone that :—
bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam p>-apadyale l
vasudevah sarvam iti sa mahatma sudurlabhah it
(GI. 7. 19).
"that is, "bnce a man has started on the Path of Devotion, then
in the next birth, if not in this birth, he will acquire the true
Knowledge df the form of the Paramesvara, to the effect that
'everything is pervaded by Vasudeva'; and by the Acquisition
of such Knowledge, he will ultimately attain Release". In
the sixth chapter also, the Blessed Lord has said with reference
to those who practise the Karma-Yoga that "anekajanma-
samsiddhas tato yati paraih gatim" (6. 45) — (i. e., "acquiring
success, after many births, he reaches the most superior state" —
Trans.); and the same rule applies to the Path of Devotion.
One should start by imagining as pure a form as it is possible
for one to imagine, having regard to one's bodily nature, of
that deity which one wishes to invest in the symbol. For
sometime, the Paramesvara (not the idol), gives you the reward
of this conviction (7. 22); but later on, there does not remain
ithe necessity of any other means of purifying the mind, and
;this continued Devotion to the Paramesvara, which is kept
■going according to one's spiritual qualification, results in this
Faith being purified; and gradually the Realisation of the
Paramesvara also goes on increasing, and ultimately the Mind
acquires the belief that "vasudevah sarvam" (i. a "Vasudeva
is everything" — Trans.); and there no more remains any differ-
ence between the worshipper and the worshipped, and the Self
ultimately becomes merged in the pure joy of the Brahman.
All that is required is that the man should not give up his
•efforts ; in short, the doctrine of the Glta is, that in the same
way as, the moment the man acquires the desire of practising
the Karma-Yoga he is drawn towards complete perfection, as
though he had been put into a grinding-mill ( GI. 6. 44), so
also, in the Path of Devotion, when once the Devotee has
596 GITA-RAHAYSA OR KARMA-YOGA
consigned himself to the Paramesvara, the Blessed Lord
Himself gradually inoreases his Nistha, and makes him.
ultimately fully realise His own form ( Gl, 7. 21; 10. 10); and
that by this Knowledge (not by barren or blind Faith) the
Devotee of the Blessed Lord ultimately attains Release. This
state, which is ultimately acquired by gradually rising in the
Path of Devotion, being the same as the ultimate state
acquired by the Path of Knowledge, the description which
is given in the twelvth chapter of the Gita of the ultimate
state of the Devotee, is absolutely the same as the description,
given, in the second chapter, of the Sthitaprajna, as will be
noticed by anybody who reads those descriptions. It follows
from this, that though the Path of Knowledge and the Path of
Devotion are different from each other in the beginning, and
though some follow the one path, and others follow the other
path according to their own qualifications, yet, both these
paths ultimately come together, and the Devotee acquires the
same state as is acquired by the Jfianin. The difference
between these two paths is that in the Path of Knowledge,
Knowledge is acquired from the very beginning by Reason ;
whereas, in the Path of Davotion, that same Knowledge is
acquired by means of Faith. But, the Blessed Lord says that
this initial difference disappears later on, and—
sraddhavan labhate jnanam tat parah samyatendriyah I
jfianavi labdhva param santim aciremdhigacchati II
(Gl. 4. 39).
that is, "if the man who is filled with Devotion pursues
Knowledge by controlling the organs, he gets the practical
personal experience of the Knowledge of the identity of the
Atman and the Brahman, and he soon thereafter acquires,
complete Peace by means of such Knowledge " ; or—
bhaktya mam abhijanati yavan yas casmi tatvatah l
tato mam tatvato jnatva visate tad anantaram II
(Gl. 18. 55).
that is, " by means of Davotion, one acquires the philosophical
knowledge of who ' I ', the Paramesvara, am, and how much
I am ; and after this Knowledge has been acquired (not bef ore),.
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 597
"the Devotee comes to be merged in Me" (See Gl, 11. 54).
* There is no third way except these two ways for acquring
the fullest knowledge of the Paramesvara. Therefore, that
man who does not possess in himself either Intelligence or
Devotion, may, as has been stated further on in the Gita itself,
■be considered as totally lost: "ajflas cairaddadhanas ca
samsayatma vinasyati" (Gl. 4. 40).
To the doctrine that, by Faith and Devotion a man
■ultimatejy acquires a complete Realisation of the identity of
the Brahman and the Atman, some logicians have raised an
objection to the following effect, namely : if the Path of
Devotion starts with the Duality that the worshipper is
different from the worshipped, how will the person ultimately
realise the Non-Dualistic Knowledge of the identity of the
Atman and the Brahman ? But this doubt is based on con-
fusion of thought. If all that these objectors want to say,
is that when once the Knowledge of that identity has been
acquired, Devotion will, to that extent, come to an end, there
is nothing wrong in that position ; because, even Metaphysics
accepts the position that when the trinity of the worshipper,
the worshipped, and the worship, is at an end, that which we
ordinarily oall Devotion comes to an end. But, if this objection
means that the Path of Devotion, which is based on Duality,
can never lead to Non-Dualistic Knowledge, then this objection
■will be proved to be groundless, not only by logic, but also by
the experience of well-known Devotees of the Blessed Lord
There is no objection, from the point of view of logic, to the
■position that the feeling of difference gradually disappears, as
the Devotion towards the Paramesvara becomes more and more
steady in the heart of the Devotee ; because, even in the
Brahman-world, there is no difficulty in the way of globules
* An attempt has been made in the Sandilya-Sutra to show
that Devotion is not a means of acquiring Knowledge, by emphasis-
ing the word 'alhi' in this stanza, and to show that it is an
independent goal' to be acquired by itself (Su. 15). But this
meaning is a distorted meaning, like other doctrine-supporting
interpretations; and is not a correct and straight-forward
Interpretation,
598 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
of mercury becoming unified later on, though they appear as-
separate entities in the beginning ; and we Bee ourselves person-
ally that the process of unification, in other matters also,
starts with diversity ; and it is a well-known illustration,
that a worm becomes a hornet by continually contem-
plating on a hornet. But, the actual experience of saints
is a more convincing answer to this objection than mere
logic; and among all these, I consider the practical'
experience of that king among Devotees, the saint Tukarama,
as of the utmost importance. No one need be told that the
Knowledge of the Absolute Self (adhyatma), which had been
acquired by^ the saint Tukarama, had not been acquired by
him by reading treatises like the TJpanisads. Nevertheless,.
in his Gatha, about 300 to 350 abhahga stanzas are devoted
to the description of the state of Non-Duality ; and in those
stanzas, the doctrine of "vasudevah sarvam" (Gl. 7. 19), (i.e.,
"Vasudeva is every thing"— Trans.), or, asstatedby Yajfiavalkya
in the Brhadaranyakopanisad, "sarvam atmaivabhut" (i.e.,
everything has become identified with the Self "—Trans.),
has been propounded, as being based on personal experience.
For instance : —
As every part of jaggery is sweet I
so has God come to be everywhere I
Now whom shall I worship I God is inside as also outside n
The film on the water 1 is not separate from the water l
Just as gold gets a name by being made into an ornament I .
Tuka says, so are we "
(Gatha. 3627)
The two first lines have been quoted by me in the chapter on
the Philosophy of the Absolute Self (see p. 318 above— Trans.);.
and I have shown there the complete similarity between the
meaning conveyed by them and the Knowledge of the identity
of the Brahman and the Atman expounded in the TJpanisads.
When the saint Tukarama himself describes in this way the
supreme state which is reached by the Devotee, as a matter of
his own personal experience, it is strange that argumentative-
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 599
people should dare to make such foolish assertions as: "it is
not possible to acquire the Knowledge of Non-Dualism by the
Path of Devotion ", or, "one can attain Release by putting
blind faith in the Paramesvara ; Knowledge is not necessary
for that purpose".
Not only do the propositions that, ' the ultimate ideal in
the Path of Devotion and in the Path of Knowledge is the
same ' and that ' one ultimately attains Release by the
experienced Realisation of the Paramesvara ', remain
unchanged in both these Paths, but all the other doctrines,
which have been mentioned either in the chapter on the
Absolute Self, or in the chapter on Cause and Effect, have
been left untouched in the Path of Devotion mentioned in the
Gita. For example, some persons maintain that according to
the Bhagavata religion, the universe was created in the
following four-stepped way, namely, that Jlva in the form of
the Sarhkarsana first came into being out of the Paramesvara in
the form of Vasudeva ; Pradyumna, that is, the Mind, sprang
from Sarhkarsana; and Aniruddha, that is, Individuation,
sprang from Pradyumna, thus making a ' caturvyuha' (i. e., four
steps — Trans.) ; whereas, there are others who believe that the
true 'vyulia ' of the creation was of only three, or two, out of
these four steps, or of Vasudeva alone. It has been proved in the
Vedanta-Sutras on the authority of the Upanisads, that these
ideas about the coming into existence of the Personal Self
(jlva) are not correct, and that from the Metaphysical point of
view, the Personal Self is an eternal portion of an eternal
Paramesvara (Ve. Su. 2. 3. 17 ; and 2. 2. 42-45). Therefore, the
Bhagavadglta has not accepted this idea of a four-stepped
(caturvyuha) evolution as pertaining to the pure Path of
Devotion, and has accepted the above-mentioned doctrine of
the writers of the Vedanta-Sutras with reference to the Personal
Self ( Gi. 2. 24; 8. 20; 13. 22; and 15. 7). In short, although
the principles of the worship of Vasudeva and of Karma-
Yoga have been adopted into the Gita from the Bhagavata
religion, yet, it can be clearly seen that the Gita has not
countenanced any blind or foolish ideas about the form of the
Personal Self in the shape of the Atman (ksetrajna) and of the
Paramatman, which are inconsistent with the Philosophy of
600 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
the Absolute Self. But, it must not be forgotten that, though
the Glta is so strong on establishing a complete harmony
between Devotion and the Philosophy of the Absolute Self, or
between Faith and Knowledge, yet, it becomes necessary to
make minor verbal changes in the doctrines of the Philosophy
of the Absolute Self in adopting them into the Path of
Devotion; and that, that has been done in the Glta. Some
persons seem to have conceived the misunderstanding that
as a result of these verbal differences between the Path of
Knowledge and the Path of Devotion, there is a* mutual
conflict between the various doctrines, which are enunciated
in the Gita, once from the point of view of Devotion, and
again from the point of view of Knowledge ; and that there
are inconsistencies, to that extent, in the Glta, But, I am of
opinion that these conflicts are not substantial, and that these
doubts arise as a result of the doubters not having clearly
understood the harmony which has been brought about by our
philosophers between the Philosophy of the Absolute Self and
Devotion. It is, therefore, necessary to deal in some detail
with that matter heTe. As it is a doctrine of the Philosophy
of the Absolute Self, that there is only Atman in the Body and
in the Cosmos, which (Atman) has become clothed in a Name
and Form, we say from the Metaphysical point of view that
"sarvabhTdastham atmanam sarvabhutani catmani (Gl. 6. 29),
i. e., "that Atman which is in Me, is also in all other created
beings", or again, "idam sarvam atmaiva," i. e., "all this is the
Atman"; and the saint Tukarama has with the same idea said:
"Tuka says, whatever I come across 1 1 think that it is myself" II
(Ga. 4444. 4). But, in the Path of Devotion, the imperceptible
Paramatman takes up the form of the perceptible Paramesvara ;
and therefore, we find in the chapter on Devotion in the Gita,
the following propositions, instead of the above-mentioned
propositions, namely, such propositions as " yo rtiam pasyaii
sarmtra sarvam ca mayipasyati' (Gi. 6. 29), i. e., "I (the Blessed
Lord) am in all created beings, and all created beings are in
Me"; or, "vasudevah sarvam iti" (Gl. 7. 19), i. e., "Whatever is,
is full of Vasudeva;" or, " sarmbhutany asesena draksasy
atmanyathe mayi" (Gl. 4. 35. ), i. e., "When you have acquired
Knowledge, you will see all created beings in Me, as also in
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 601
.-yourself"; and for the same reason, the Devotee of the Blessed
lord has been described as follows in the Bhagavata-Purana:-
sarvabhutesu yah pasyed bhagavadbhavam atmanah l
bhutani bhagavaty atmany esa bhagavatotlamah II
(Bhag. 11. 2. 45; and 3. 24. 46),
that is, "that Devotee, who does not entertain in his mind any
•such differentiation that I am something different, the Blessed
Lord is something different, and all other people are something
' -different, but who keeps in his mind the belief, with reference
to all created beings, that he and the Blessed Lord are one
.and the same, and who believes that all created beings subsist
in the Blessed Lord as also in himself, is the most excellent
amongst the Devotees of the Blessed Lord". Nevertheless, it
will be seen that the only change which has been made is,
*that we have substituted the words 'the perceptible Parame-
svara' for the words 'the imperceptible Paramatman' from the
Philosophy of the Absolute Self. As the Paramatman in the
"Philosophy of the Absolute Self is imperceptible, the fact that
"the entire universe is pervaded by the Atman, has been proved
in that philosophy by means of logic; but as the Path of
Devotion is based on personal experience, the Blessed Lord has
■now described the numerous perceptible manifestations of the
Paramesvara, and He has, by endowing Arjuna with super-
natural sight, now given him a visible proof of the fact that
the entire universe is pervaded by the Paramesvara, (pervaded
by the Atman), (Gi. chapters X and XI). In the Philosophy
of the Absolute Self, He has stated that Karma is destroyed
by Knowledge; but, as it is a doctrine of the Path of Devotion,
•that there is nothing else in the world except the qualityful
Paramesvara, and that He is Himself Knowledge as also
Action, the Knower as also the Doer, and the One who causes
Action as also the one who gives the Fruit of Action, there is
now made no differentiation between different Actions (karma)
such as, 'samcita', 'prarabdha', 'kriyamana' etc.; and it is stated
"that the One "Who gives the desire to perform the Action, as also
the Fruit, and the One Who destroys the bondage of the Action,
is the Paramesvara alone. For instance, the saint Tukarama,
602 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
imagining himself in solitude with the Paramesvara, lovingly
but fearlessly asks Him'_:
0, Pandurahga, listen to what I say I
I have to say something to You in solitude I
If I can be redeemed by my 'samcita' I
then what is the use of You ? n
(Gatha, 499);
and he conveys the same meaning in another place in the-
following words, namely,
Neither 'prarabdha,' nor 'Icriyamaria, I
nor 'samcila' exists for the Devotee I
If he sees that the Paramesvara alone has become everything I
and has pervaded everything in and out II
( Gatha, 1023);
and it has been stated by the Blessed Lord even in the
Bhagavadgita that "Uvarah sarvabhutamm hrddese 'rjuna
Usthati" (18. 61), i. e., "the Blessed Lord Himself has His abode
in the heart of all persons, and makes them do all Actions
mechanically". It has been proved in the chapter on Cause
and Effect, that the Atman is absolutely free to acquire
Knowledge; but instead of that, there now occur statements in
the chapter on Devotion, to the effect that the Eeason itself is
guided by the Paramesvara, such as, "tasya tasyacalain sraddham
tarn em vidadhamy aham" (Gl. 7. 21), (i. e., "Whatever form of
deity any Devotee may desire to worship with Devotion, I
steady his devotion thereon"— Trans.) or "dadami buddhiyogam
tarn yena mam upayanli te" (GH. 10. 10), (i. e., "to them, I give'
the Yoga of the (equable) Reason, to enable them to come and
reach me"— Trans.);, and in as much as all the Action, which,
is performed in the universe, is carried on by the authority
of the Paramesvara, it is stated in the Philosophy of Devotioni
that the wind blows out of dread of His anger, and that the
Sun and the Moon rotate as a result of His strength (Katha. 6.
3, Br. 3. 8. 9); nay, that even the leaf of a tree does not move
unless He desires it ; and on that account, we come across
statements in the Philosophy of Devotion, that man is only
a tool which is put forward (Gi. 11. 33); and that the Parame-
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 603
-svara inhabits his heart, and makes him meohanically perform
all his various actions like a machine. Tukarama Buva says:-
The created being is only a nominal doer l
his life is wasted in saying 'this is mine', 'this is mine' II
( Ga. 2310. 4).
In order to carry on properly the various activities of the
world and to maintain its beneficial condition, it is necessary
that everybody must continue performing Action; and the
summary of the advice given above is, that instead of perform-
ing these Actions with the feeling that they are 'mine', as is
done by ignorant people, the Jnanin should perform all Actions
till death with the idea of dedicating them to the Brahman,
consistently with the principle enunciated in the Tsavasy-
opanisad; and the same advice has been preached to Arjuna by
the Blessed Lord in the following words: —
yat karosi yad asnasi yaj juhosi dadasi yat l
yat tapasyasi kaunteya tat Iturusva mad arpaiiam II
( Gl. 9. 27 )
that is, "whatever you do, or eat, or offer by way of sacrifice,.
or give, or perform by way of austerity, dedicate all that to
Me," so that you will not be caught in the bondage of the
Karma. This very stanza from the Bhagavadgita has been
taken into the Siva-gita; and the same meaning has been
conveyed in thB following stanza in the Bh&gavata: —
Wyena vaca manasendriyair va
buddhyatmanil va 'misrtasvabhdvat I
karoti yad yat sakalaih parasmai
narayariayeti samarpayet tat H
( BhSg. 11. 2- 26),
that is, "all that we do, as a result of the inspiration of the
Body or Speech, ot Mind, or of the organs, or of the Intelligence,
or of the Atman, or according to our inherent nature, should
be dedicated by us to the highest of the highest (paratpara)
NSrayapa". In short, that which is known as the combination
of Knowledge and Action, or the Abandonment of the Hope of
Fruit, or as Action performed with the idea of dedicating it
to the BTahman (Gi. 4. 24 ; 5.10 ; 12. 12) in the Philosophy of
604 GlTA-RAKASYA OS KARMA-YOGA
the Absolute Self, is now known as "Action performed with
the idea of dedicating it to Sri Krsna". At the root of the fact
that persons who follow the Path of Devotion utter the words
'Govinda', 'Govinda' each time they partake of food, is the idea
of dedicating everything to Sri Krsna. The Jfianin Janaka said
that all his activities were carried on by him desirelessly, for
public welfare ; and the Devotees of the Blessed Lord perform
even the Action of partaking of food or drink, with the sole
idea of dedicating it to Sri Krsna. The prevalent practice of
uttering the words, 'idarn krsndrpanam astu" (i. e. "this is
dedicated to Sri Krsna" — Trans.) uttered at the end of feasts
given to Brahmins, or other religious performances, or of
making an oblation of water with the words, "harir data
harir bhokta" (i. e., "the Blessed Lord is the Giver, the
Blessed Lord is the Enjoyer" — Trans.) owes its origin to the
above stanza from the Bhagavadglta. It is true that the
same thing has now happened to these utterances, as happens
•when the ear-ornaments disappear and the holes in the ear,
which held those ornaments, remain ; and the officiating priest
.now utters these words like a panot, without understanding
.the true deep import conveyed by them ; and the person who
gives the feast, performs the physical exercise of making an
oblation of water, like a deaf person ; but, if we go to the root
of the matter, this is nothing but a way of performing all
Actions, after having given up the Hope of Fruit ; and if one
makes fun of this practice, the practice does not come into
disrepute, but the person who makes fun, only makes an
exhibition of his own ignorance. If every one performs all
his Actions in this life— and even the Action of remaining
alive — with the idea of dedicating them to Sri Krsna, and
abandoning the Hope of Fruit, where is the room for a sinful
desire, and how can any person perform any sinful Action ?
And also, where is the necessity of separately giving the
advice that one should perform Action for the benefit of others,
or even sacrifice one's life for the benefit of others ? As both
one's self, and every one else, has been included in the
Paramesvara, and as the Paramesvara is included in one 's self
and every one else, both one's-interest and others-interest
are merged in the highest goal in the shape of the dedication
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 605
to Sri Krsna; and then, the following words of the saint
Tukarama, namely, " the incarnations of saints are for
the benefit of the world I they labour their own bodies by
philanthropy ", applies everywhere. I have proved logically
in the last chapter, that there is no difficulty about the
personal maintenance of that person, who performs all
Actions with the idea of dedicating them to Sri Krsna ;
and it is with the same purport that the Blessed Lord has now
conveyed the assurance in the Philosophy of Devotion in the
Glta that : " tesam nityabhiyuktanam yogaksemam vahamy aliam "
(Gl. 9 22), (i. e., "I look after the maintenance and welfare of
those persons who are continually steeped in the Yoga " —
Trans.) It is, therefore, not necessary to mention specifically
that the highest of the Devotees of the Blessed Lord have
to gradually raise Devotees of the lower orders to higher stages,
without upsetting their devotion, and according to their respec-
tive competence, in the same way as the Jfianins, who have
reached the highest state, must place ordinary persons on the
Path of Righteousness, without upsetting their Intelligence
(making a 'buddlri-bheda'), (Gi. 3. 26). In short, all the dootrines
which have been propounded in the Philosophy of the Absoluts
Self, or in the Philosophy of Cause and Effect, have in this way
been left untouched in the Philosophy of Devotion, with only
verbal differences; and it will be seen, that this method of
harmonising Knowledge with Devotion, had come into vogue
in India in very ancient times.
But, if a totally different meaning results from a verbal
change, such a verbal change is not made ; because, under any
circumstances, the meaning of the words is the most important,
factor. For instance, if we make a verbal change in the
doctrine from the Philosophy of Cause and Effect that every-
body must personally make an effort for the Acquisition of
Knowledge, and for thereby bringing about his own Eelease, and
say, that even this Action is to be performed by the Parame-
svaia, the ignorant will become idle. Therefore, the doctrine
"aimaiva hy atmano bandhuh atmaiva ripur atmanah" (Gl. 6. 5.) i. e.,
"one is one's own friend and also one's own enemy", is also
enunciated in the Philosophy of Devotion as it is, that is to
say, without any verbal alteration. I have quoted above the
«06 GlTA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
stanza of Tukarama, " Who has thereby lost anything ? I one
has oneself done harm to oneself" (Ga. 4448), (See p. 388
above— Trans). But the saint Tukarama has in a still more
explicit way said:
"There is not with God, the bundle of Release l
that He can come and give it to you, as an object by
itself l
One must conquer one's organs and liberate one's mind I
from the objects of pleasure u t
( Ga. 4297 ).
I have quoted above in the tenth chapter a similar stanza from
the Upanisads, namely, 'mana era rnanusyanam karanam bandha-
moksayoh," ( i. e., "the Mind alone is the reason for the Bondage,
or the Release of man" — Trans). It is true that the Parame-
svara is the performer of, and the One who causes to be per-
formed, all the various makes and breaks in the world; yet, the
doctrine of the Philosophy of Cause and Effect, that He gives a
reward to every human being according to his own deeds,
which has been formulated in order that He should not remain
open to the charge of cruelty or partiality, has, for the same
reason, been adopted without any verbal alteration in the
Philosophy of Devotion. In the same way, although the
Isvara is looked upon as perceptible for purposes of worship,
yet, the doctrine of the Philosophy of the Absolute Self, that
'whatever is perceptible, is only Maya, and that the true
Paramesvara is beyond that Maya', is not given up in
the Philosophy of Devotion; and I have stated above
that the form of the Jlva, according to the Vedanta-Sutras,
has been retained unchanged in the Glta for the same
reason. This skill of our Vedic religion of harmonising
the natural inclination of the human mind towards the
Visible or the Perceptible, with the recondite doctrines
of philosophy, is not to be seen in the Philosophy of
Devotion of any other people, in any other country. When
these people once attach themselves to some qualityful form of
the Paramesvara, and thus come into the sphere of the Percept-
ible, they remain entangled in that sphere ; and, not being
able to see anything else besides that form, a vain gloTy about
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 607
their own qualityful symbol, takes hold of their minds ; and
when this happens, they wrongly begin to differentiate between
Philosophy on the one hand, and the Path of Devotion on the
other hand. But, as the dawn of philosophy had taken place in
our country from extremely ancient times, there is seen no
conflict between Devotion and Spiritual Knowledge in the
religion of the Glta; and, whereas the Vedic Path of Knowledge
is chastened by Devotion, the Vedic Path of Devotion is likewise
■chastened by Knowledge ; and therefore, whichever Path is
taken by* man, he ultimately attains the same excellent state.
The importance of this harmony between imperceptible
Knowledge and perceptible Devotion, was not fully appreciated
% the philosophers pertaining to the religion which adhered
■merely to the perceptible Christ ; and it is not a matter of
■surprise, that from their one-sided and philosophically short-
sighted point of view, there should appear to them an inconsist-
ency in the philosophy of the Glta. But, the most surprising
part of it all is, that instead of appreciating this valuable
•quality of our Vedio religion, some imitative persons
.among us have come forward to find fault with that very
Teligion ! This is an excellent example of the saying in the
Maghakavya that :
athava 'bhinivistabuddhisu 1 vrajati vyarthalmtam subhasitam ll ,
i. e., "when once the Mind is engrossed by a false idea, even
that which is true, is not appreciated by it" (Maghakavya
16. 43). -
The importance, which is attached to the fourth stage of
life in the Path of Renunciation mentioned in the Smrtis, is
not attached to it in the Philosophy of Devotion, or in the
Bhagavata religion. It is true that the religious arrangement
of the four castes and the four stages of life, is also mentioned
in the Bhagavata religion; but, as the principal emphasis of
that religion is on Devotion, that man whose Devotion is the
most intense, is the best of all, according to the Bhagavata
•religion, whether he is a householder, or a denizen of the woods
or a Samnyasin; and that religion does not attach much
importance to these modes of life (Bhag. 11. 18. 13, 14). The
state of a Samnyasin is a very important part of the religion
608 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
of the Smrtis, but not of the Bhagavata religion. Nevertheless,-
there is no rule that those who follow the Bhagavata religion,,
should never become Sarhnyasins ; and it is stated in the Glta
itself that Asceticism and Energism (Karma- Yoga) are both of
equal value, from the point of view of Release. It is not
impossible to come across people following the Path of
Devotion, who have given up all their worldly activities, and
become indifferent to the world, without having actually taken
up the state of a Samnyasin. Nay, we even come across such
persons from early times; but I have clearly 1 shown
above in the eleventh chapter, that such persons
did not carry any weight at that time ; and that
in the Bhagavadgita, Energism (Karma-Yoga) has been
considered superior to Abandonment of Action ( Karma-
' TySga). This importance of the philosophy of Karma- Yoga
gradually lost ground as time went, and in modern times it is
the common belief of even persons following the Bhagavata
religion, that the Devotee of the Blessed Lord is a person who-
pays no attention to worldly affairs, but is steeped in Devotion,
with total indifference to the world. It is, therefore, necessary
to again explain here at some length what the chief doctrine
and the true advice of the Glta on this matter is, from the
point of view of Devotion. The Brahman, according to the
Philosophy of Devotion or the Bhagavata religion, is the
qualityful Bhagavan (Blessed Lord) Himself. If this Blessed
Lord Himself carries on the activities of the world, and
maintains the world by taking up various incarnations for the
protection of saints and the punishment of evil-doers, it need
not be said that the Devotees of the Blessed Lord must them-
selves follow the same example for the benefit of the world.
Sri Hanuman was the greatest devotee of Sri Ramacandra; but
he did not give up the task of punishing evil-doers like Ravana
and others by his own prowess. Even Bhlsma is considered
to be one of the greatest of the devotees of the Blessed Lord,
but though he was himself a celibate throughout life he still
carried on the work of protecting his kingdom and those on his
side, according to his own status in life, so long as he was
alive. It is true that when a man has Realised the Parame-
svara by means of Devotion, he has no more anything left to-
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 609
acquire for his own benefit; but the Path of Devotion, which is
founded on Love, does not eradicate noble sentiments like
kindness, generosity, love of duty, etc.; and these emotions
become on the contrary extremely purified; and then, instead of
falling into the logical dilemma of whether to perform Action
or not to perform Action, the Devotees of the Blessed Lord
necessarily and naturally acquire a tendency, which promotes
universal welfare and according to which, "the incarnations
of saints are for the welfare of the wotH I they labour their
own bodies by philanthropy II " (Ga. 929. 3) ; because, they
' acquire a non-differentiating frame of mind, as described above
in the eleventh chapter, according to which :
He who takes to his bosom I such as are helpless ll
And he who shows to his male and female servants l
the same kindness which he shows to his son ii
(Ga. 960).
If one says that it is the Paramesvara Who creates the world
and carries on all the activities in it, it becomes clear that the
arrangements of the four castes, which exist in order to
satisfactorily carry on the activities of that creation, have
come into existence by His will ; and even in the Glfca, the
Blessed Lord has clearly said that : " caturvarnyam maya srstam
gurtahtrmavibliagasah" (G5. 4. 13), (i. e„ "I myself have created
the four castes, according to the divisions of the qualities and
of Karma" — Trans.). In short, it is the desire of the
Paramesvara that every one should perform his social duties
according to his own qualifications, and thereby bring about
universal welfare (lokasamgraha) ; and it then logically follows
that the Paramesvara causes a human being to be born in order
to make him a tool for getting performed by his hands, a
particular portion of these worldly activities, which are going
on by His will ; and if a man does not perform that duty which
the Paramesvara has intended that he should perform, he
incurs the sin of not having carried out the behests of the
Paramesvara Himself. If a man entertains the egotistical
idea that "these Actions are Mine or that I perform them for
my self-interest", then he will have to suffer the good or evil
consequences of those Actions. But the Glta says, that when
77-78
610 GITA-RAHASYA OR KARMA-YOGA
a man performs those Actions merely as duties, and with the
idea of dedicating them to the Paramesvara, in the belief that
He is causing to be performed those Actions, which He intends
to perforin, by making him the man a tool for performing them
(Gi. 11. 33), there is nothing wrong or improper about them ;
and, on the contrary, carrying out one's own duties in this way
amounts to a kind of sattvika worship of the Paramesvara Who
lives in all created beings. The Blessed Lord has explained,
biy way of summary, the full sum and substance of His advice
in the following words: "the Paramesvara remains in the
hearts of all created beings, and makes them dance about like
mechanical toys ; therefore, the ideas that ' I give up a
particular Action ' or that ' I perform it ' are both false ; give
up the Hope of Fruit, and continue performing all Actions
with the idea of dedicating them to Sri Krsna ; even if you
determine that you will not perform those Actions, you will be
forced to perform them as a result of your inherent nature
(prakrli-dkirma) ; therefore, you must merge all selfish
interests in the Blessed Lord, and perform all Actions which
have befallen you, according to your status in life, for
universal welfare, with an eye to the highest ideal
{paramartlia), and with perfect indifference to the world; I am
doing the same thing ; see My example, and act accordingly ".
As there is no conflict between Jfiana and Desireless Karma,
so also does there arise no conflict between Devotion, and
Actions performed with tha idea of dedicating them to Krsna.
Saint Tukarama, the king of Devotees in the Maharashtra, has
explained his merger into the form of the Paramesvara, Who
is " anoranliMn maiiato mahiyan" (Katha. 2. 20; Gi. 8. 9), i. e.,
" smaller than the atom, and bigger than the biggest ', as a
result of Devotion ; and he has clearly said that he was living
in the world only for the purpose of doing good to others, in
the following ablwtiga stanzas :-
I (Tuka) am more minute than the minutest atom I
I am as big as the firmament I
I have annihilated by swallowing that body 1
which is only a form of the Cosmic Illusion ll
I have gone beyond the trinity I
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 611
a light has heen lighted in this Body I
Tuka says that : " now I I survive only for philanthropy"!!
(Ga. 3587).
He has nowhere stated that there is no more anything left for
him to do, as is said by those who follow the Path of
Samnyasa; in the same way, the opinion of the saint
Tukarama on this matter becomes quite clear from the
following other abltailga stanzas, namely,
Taking up the beggar's bowl i
fie on such a disgraceful life ! I
Such persons will by NarSyana l be always abandoned II
(Ga. 2595^
or,
The Real-worshipper {salyavadi) performs all the activities •
of worldly life 1
in the same way as the lotus remains in the water,
untouched by the water I
Tie 'who ib philanthiopical, he who is kindly towards
all created beings I
he is in the state of being merged in the Atman 1
(Ga. 3780. 2. 3).
But, although the saint Tukarama was a householder, his
inclination was towards Abandonment of Action; and
therefore, if one wants a full explanation of the doctrine of
the Gita, or of the characteristic of the Bhagavata religion,
namely, ' intense Devotion combined with Desireless Action,
performed with the idea of dedicating it to the Paramesvara ',
he mast turn to the work Dasabodha, written by Sri Samarfcha
Ramadasa Svami, who was the ' venerable preceptor ' to whom
saint Tukarama himself directed Sivaji Maharaja to 'surrender
himself '. He (Ramadasa) has said, that ordinary people should
learn to perform their own Actions, by seeing how the Siddhas,
who have become perfect by realising the pure form of the
Paramesvara, keep performing their own Actions, desirelessly,
according to their own qualifications, and in order to " make
many persons wise " (Dasa. 19. 10. 14) ; and after repeating
several times that "unless a man does something, nothing
happens" (Dasa. 19. 10. 25 ; 12. 9. 6 ; 18. 7. 3), he has said as
follows in the last diiaine, in order to establish a complete
612 GlTA-RAHASYA OE KARMA-YOGA
harmony between the power of Karma and the redeeming
power of Devotion :
Strength lies in activity i the strength will be his who is
active I
But in such a man there must be I the seat of the Blessed!
Lord ii
( Dasa. 20. 4. 36 )
The same meaning is conveyed by the words: "mam anusmara
yudhya ca " ( Gl. S. 7 ), i. e., "always remember me and fight";
or, by the statement at the end of the sixth chapter that, "even
among the Karma-yogins, the Devotee is the most excellent";
and, there is also a statement in the eighteenth chapter that:
yatah pravrttir bhutanam yena saroam idam tatam I
svakarmam tarn abhyarcya siddhim vindati manavah II
(Gl. 18. 46)
that is, "man attains perfection (siddhi) by worshipping by Desire-
less Actions, proper to his status in life (and not by flowers, or by
words merely) that Paramesvara, Who has created the whole
of this world". Nay; the meaning of this stanza and even of
the entire Gita, is that by performing Actions desirelessly,
according to one 's own status in life, a man performs a sort of
worship, devotion, or prayer of that Virata-formed Paramesvara.
Who is inside all created beings. When the Gita asks a
person to perform the worship of the Paramesvara by Actions
proper to his status in life, it is not to be understood as saying
that the nine kinds of Devotion, such as, "sravanam kirtanam
visrioh", ( i. e., "saying or hearing the praise of the Lord
Visnu" — Trans.) are not acceptable to it. But the Gita says,
that (i) it is not proper to abandon Action as being inferior,
and to remain steeped only in this nine-fold form of Devotion;
(ii) that one must perform all the various Actions, which have
befallen one, according to the injunctions of the Sastras, and
that (iii) "these Actions should not be performed, as pertaining
to oneself, but with the idea of the Paramesvara in the Mind,
and with a mine-less (nirmama) frame of mind, believing that
they are the Actions of the Paramesvara, and for the benefit of
the world created by Him; so that, the Karma is not wasted, but
on the other hand, these Actions amount to the service or
worship of, or the Devotion to the Paramesvara : and instead
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 613
•of one's acquiring the sin or merit of the Action, one attains a
blissful state". Those commentators on the Gita, who follow
the Path of Devotion, disregard this doctrine ; and in their
works, they explain the purport of the Gita to be, that Karma
or Action is inferior and Devotion is paramount. But, this
summary drawn by commentators pertaining to the School of
Devotion, is as one-sided as that drawn by the followers of the
School of Eenunoiation. The Path of Devotion mentioned in
the Gita is based on Action, and the most important principle
in it is, tHat the worship of the Paramesvara is made not only
by speech or by flowers, but also by Desireless Actions,
pertinent to one's own status in life ; and that such a worship
must necessarily be performed by everybody. And, as this
prinoiple of Devotion cum Action has not been enunciated
anywhere else in the same way as in the Gita, this must be
■considered to be the characteristic of the Philosophy of
Devotion mentioned in the Gita.
Although in this way, I have established a complete
consonnance between the Path of Knowledge and the Path of
Devotion from the point of view of Karma-Yoga, yet, I must,
before concluding, clearly mention the one important factor
which is to be found in the Philosophy of Devotion in addition
to those found in the Philosophy of Knowledge. As the Path
of Knowledge is based entirely on Intelligence, it becomes
difficult to follow for ordinary persons of poor intelligence ;
and, as has been stated above, it is easy for everybody to
follow the Path of Devotion, as it is based on Faith, and is
accessible by love, and visible. But, there is another difficulty
in the Path of Knowledge besides its being difficult to follow.
If one considers the Mimarhsa of Jaimini, or the Upanisads, or
the Vedanta-Sutras, they are full of discussions about
sacrificial ritual prescribed by the Srutis, or about the
Parabrahman in the form of "neti, wti" (i. e., "It is not this,
It is not that " —Trans.), which are based on Abandon-
ment of Action ; and they have ultimately laid down that
the right of performing sacrificial ritual prescribed by the
Srutis as a means of acquiring heaven, as also of reciting the
Vedas and the Upanisads, which was necessary for obtaining
Release, belonged only to the three upper classes (Ve. Su.
614 Gffii-BABASYA OB KARMA-YOGA
1. 'i. 2&-'iB). How tie women belonging to these three classes,
or the ordinary men and women engaged in agriculture, and
other occupations, for the benefit of society, according to
the arrangement of the four castes, are to obtain Release, is
a Question wMdi has not been considered in these hooks. "Well ;
if one says that women and Sudras can never attain Release
because the Vedas are thus inaccessible to them, then, there
are statements in the TJpanisada that Gargi and other women
obtained Perfection by acquiring Knowledge; and there are
statements in the Purarias that Vidura and other Sudras did
likewise ( Ve. Sfi. 3, 4. 36-39 ). Therefore, one cannot lay
down the proposition, that it is only the men folk belonging to
the three upper classes, who obtain Release ; and if one accepts
the position that even women and Scdras can obtain Release,
then, one must explain by what means they can obtain
Knowledge. Badarayanacarya mentions the means : "visesmm-
yrahas ai" (Ve. bu. 3. 4. 38), i. e., "the special favour of the
Paramesvara" ; and it is stated in the Bhagavata (Bhag. 1. 4. 25)
that this means, in the shape of Devotion cum Action, has been.
mentioned as a special favour (visemnugraha), "in the Bharata
and naturally also in the Gita, because the Srutis cannot be
heard by women, Sudras, or nominal Brahmins (of the
Kali-yuga)". Although the Knowledge which is acquired by
this path, and the Knowledge of the Brahman mentioned in
the TFpanisads, are one and the same, yet, the difference between
men and women or between Brahmins, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas,
and Sudras does not any more remain in this path, and the
special quality of this path has been mentioned in the Gita in
the following stanza : —
iniim hi partita vyapairitya ye 'pi syiih papayonayah I
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras te 'pi ydnti param gatim II
( Gl. 9. 32)
that is, "0, Partha, by taking shelter in Me, women, Vaisyas
and Sudras and other lower classes, in which birth has been
taken as a result of sin, attain the highest perfection"; and!
this same stanza has appeared again in the Anugita in the
Mahabharata (Ma. Bha. Aava. 19. 61) ; and, it is stated in the
conversation, between the Brahmin and the hunter (vyadha) in the
Vanapaiva, that the desh-selling hunter has explained how
THE PATH OF DEVOTION" 61.5
Bdease can be attained by acting according to Line's cwu
duties dssiraleasly: and the- same explanation litis boon given
in the Santi-parva by Tuladhara, who was » merchant, to l.lip
Brahmin ascetic Jajali (Ma. Bhs. Vaua, ^06-21.4; Sau. 260463).
From this it follows that, that; man whoso Reason \\u.f become
equable towards all, is the highest of mm, whether he ia a
carpenter, or a merchaut, or a butcher, hy profession. It ip
clear that, according to the Blessed Lord, the spiritiiul worth
of a man does not depend on the profession followed by him,
or on the casta to which ha belongs, hut entirely on the purity
of his conscience. Wheu in this way, the gateway of Bvleam
has been opened to all people in society, there arises in
the hearts of all such persons, a strange solf-eonHeiousiioxs,
of which the nature can be ganged from tlio history of the
Bhagavata religion in Maharashtra. To the Paramesvara,
women, or the lowest of mixed tribes, or Brahmins are the
same. "The Paramesvara craves (only) for your Faith". He does
not care for symbols, or for the black or white colour of the
skin, nor does He care for the difference between men and
women, or castes like the Brahmins or the Candalas (tribes bom
of the mixture of Brahmins and Sudras). The saint Tukirima
says that: —
Brahmins, Ksatriyas. Vaisyas, and Sudras I
and the Candalas, all have the right I
As also children, women, men, I and oven prostitutes II
Tuka says that he has I found by experience I
That even others, who are devout I
experience happiness by their good fortune il
(Ga. 2382. 5, 6)
Way ; it is a doctrine of the Glta, that " however sinful a man
may be, if he surrenders himself to the Blessed Lord, wholly
and solely, even at the moment of his death, the Paramesvara
does not cast him off" (Gi. 9. 30; and S. 5-8). Seeing the
word ' prostitutes ' in the above stanza, some learned persons,
who parade their purity, might feel offended ; but it must ho
said that such persons do not understand the true principle of
Religion. This doctrine has been adopted not only in the
Hindu religion, but also in the Buddhist religion fMilinda-
Prasna 3. 7. 2); and theia are stories in Buddhistic religious
616 GlTA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
treatises, that Buddha initiated a prostitute by name Amrapali,
as also a thief by name Agullmala ; and there is a statement
even in the Christian scriptures that because one of the
two thieves, who were crucified at the same time as the Lord
Christ, surrendered himself to the Lord at the moment of his
■death, he was saved by the Christ on that account (Luke. 23. 42
and 4:J) ; and the Lord Christ has Himself said in one place
that even prostitutes, who put faith in His religion would
obtain, salvation (Matthew. 21. 31 ; Luke. 7. 50). And I'have
.shown above in the tenth chapter that the same conclusion is
arrived at even from the point of view of the Philosophy of
the Absolute Self (adhyulmu). But, although this religious
doctrine is logically unquestionable, yet, a man, the whole
of whose life has been spent in doing evil actions, will, in all
probability, not get the inspiration of surrendering himself
wholly and solely to the Blessed Lord at the moment of
his death ; and then nothing more results beyond mechanically
opening the mouth in the throes of death to utter
the letter ' Ba ', and then closing it for ever by uttering
the next letter ' ma '. Therefore, the definite assurance of the
Blessed Lord to everybody is that, if a man throughout
his life, and not only at the moment of death, keeps the
thought of the Blessed LoTd continually in his mind, and
performs all Actions pertaining to his status in life, solely with
the idea of dedicating them to Him, then, whatever may be the
■caste to which he belongs, he is as good as Released, notwith-
standing that he has been performing Actions (Gl. 9. 26-28 and
30-34).
When one considers and takes into account the sense of
Equality appearing in the Philosophy of Devotion taught by the
Gita, and its capacity to enable all equally, to easily grasp the
Knowledge of the identity of the Brahman and the Atman
mentioned in the Upanisads, without sacrificing the ordinary
activities of worldly life, and without establishing any
difference between the four castes or the four stages of life, or
the communities, or even between men and women, one
"understands the true import of the summing up of the Religion
of the Glta made by the Blessed Lord in the last chapter of the
Glta, by way of a definite assurance, in the following terms :
THE PATH OF DEVOTION 617
" give up all other religions (dliarma), and surrender yourself
solely to Me ; I shall redeem you from all sins, do not be afraid".
The word ' dharma ' has here been used in the comprehensive
meaning that, all the practical paths or means, which have
been shown for acquiring the highest excellence of the Self, in
the shape of reaching the Paramesvara, by remaining free
from sin, while following the ordinary activities of life, are
' dliarma ' (duty). In the Anuglta, in the conversation between
the preceptor and the disciple, the Rsis are said to have
questioned Brahmadeva as to which of the various paths, such
as, Non-Violence, Veracity, Penances, Spiritual Knowledge,
Sacrificial ritual, Charity, Karma, Renunciation etc.,
mentioned by different people, was the most correct one
(Asva. 49); and even in the Santi-parva, a question has been
asked in the Uhccha-vrtyupakhyana as to which of the various
paths, such as, the duties enjoined on the householder, or
on the denizens of the woods, or on kings, or the service of
one's parents, or death on a battle-field for the Ksatriya, or
religious contemplation for the Brahmin, etc., was the most
acceptable path, as all these had been mentioned in the Sastras
as the means of acquiring heaven. These various paths of dliarma
or Dharmas may appear to be mutually inconsistent; but,
in as much as the ultimate ideal of ' equality of affection
towards all created beings ' is reached by means of the concen-
tration of the Mind by Faith, arising from one's taking to any-
one of these paths, the writers of the Sastras consider all these
practical paths as of equal value. Nevertheless, as there is a
likelihood of the Mind becoming confused as a result of. its
being caught in the various paths of the worship of
different symbols, the final and definite assurance of the Blessed
Lord, not only to Arjuna, but to everybody in the name of
Arjuna, is that, one should give up all the various paths
of Purification of the Mind, and should "surrender yourself
solely to ME ; I shall redeem you from all sins, do not be
afraid". Even the Saint Tukarama makes his ultimate prayer
to God, which entails the annihilation of diverse kinds of
■dliarma, in the following words. —
Burn that knowledge, burn that wisdom I
may my Faith remain on the feet of the Viththala II
618 GITA-RAHASYA OK KARMA-YOGA
Burn those religious practices, burn that contemplation I
may my Mind remain fixed on the feet of the Viththala II .
(Ga.'3464)
This is the pinnacle of definite advice, or of prayer.
'Devotion ' is the last sweet mouthful out of the golden dish;
of Srlmad Bhagavadgita. We have taken this mouthful of
Love ; now let us take the final sip of water ( aposni ) '"' and;
prepare to rise from the feast.
* This is a religions practice followed by Brahmins in India
who take a final sip of water, known as 'apomti,', from the hollow o£
palm, uttering a mantra ( sacred words ), just before finishing the
dinner and rising — Trans.
END OF VOLUMll, I
ip^i!tlip!r||p*riii||^i]ifi|
*i=;=fji*.| [ |l- E is-|«ij?|fIr = s||i*|
LfllPl^l1»4lfllS:Hh|||i({||
- r ?»i"*WHi I ft i
III if ill fill
|J.j|j|!jI
ti l rti!pl
Il« I Fl ' r » bEI
- C * ' B til f£
ftfi
III tr£i£f«t
UhHmm
f::-t!ilEt;"
lit tiyM<l
iUm-frtti
fill
MP
HI
M
: Hi H j !it! i I ! i ? [
■ Willi's f 1 : : il.1i i sh s P f ? .■ kI-s » b rii
?lu.illUjfl5«1iilhT<iJ»gp:iii;i-tHi)
^rni'tliH*!! S If til ! sill In ^ ifil I 1 i Lii Ji
■jllflMHkrtSlli^iFlliiiMlfrti IP- ! r
BjliffHer&B&liIlp^lrlliilMlir^.l! 1 -!
lykilllhiifiiilliiiiililiiillifniifl
»***-i5iliU!wlj:;«if]g?!ilJifphf||[Ji!s
«•:-£: islet's eefttsl I* fe l «= si »£«-,- » „Ji£ fo itr e&
If sl«iiffif
t! ^!y||{;ifii jlfill fif#fi!*
niiffrlEfifli-fil^iiUt
?R1j nifliHllflHilltjl fill h : if|i!!!»
«:iii*EllHII|i|'. iiiiuUHi" -iZ$ SiP fits
I hiif I hiliiA -A l *w i, Mi* -JHl^l I : liil
fjiiflfljillfhiHKiHrtlhHtfirilTififl
it'll .
eI 5 foil
Effflf :e El 111
{jlllililllli
5111 e fi'"l''-S* g iflill & SI
i!f!ili!illfiiiiilki;l!
5MllllIiPf!-iH
$f|f- Ifff l^fW
;!-|i^ Sift Sl«lK
illUUfoUiUilll
^%%k El si^i*E - ill,.
fiir^:iiliiiii!lii;iii1iii!Iiilti,tiiiiil!
IP*: Hi*
'Is:;!!**
«!H!RlhU!
1 14 1 • l*»* tl* M* If' e •fIPl«=!llt^ilfIrP:
iiiililillui i i«ii!i sitlftif Hi Ihif 5 rfi*
:?-=-r;li*M--lS!!i^ l '":- 5 lii.!fi=Slh(s
it fit t l£ *s e - still &Irf?*J-:i*fJ E i si jU *!£•"£
Ipfi if li* lUii {Hill! f 11 J "If 1
IliilllltJ^iltililliillilfifllillliltllill
Ill If I Il^#ilfl¥ "rl Pfrfl
«iilllll^lrllliiBilll!ll!iI^UHfliIlil
iff:
ml
f::f:i|li?|811j[f|ir|liifi:s|. itniiUWi
M Mm i'll Pifll? P lilHK
Hjl iHifflii! P lifflfl if I {illji,
iiiiiiiiillBi'irfliflllill^liirfilililii
•:lN||||if'-
;||fl!f iMiMlj
-lllflllirilflf
■min mm [n \\\\h
lidfh: sf ?!iilillllbl|{iJl^-rl!i!L"li5:*
fit, it In f : fi n
If hll=fii^i*rs ilflt^ eP^I-Pr-Pl!--^
l1l!f!i!ifilbr E illilliiK';iifiif
ihHJ
^--illlPllllf^ili-iMMi'iiiviIIil.:^--*]
eII 1^1 1 1 II ::SH*ii«;Ii !-:?-: 1 1 ^l-i = 1. till
UfKniililtldi'HllitlrbrliSlitliril-
IHhi liil ill 5 i!Ii illy ililf II l kA* iiU
tit 'ill f 1 1 & till fMftll'i'lliiJ IP Kit
litl-llUlirtKtiglflSellil'ggigtl-iicIilli
? h?l list iinil if IMltlfA \m ir p
hilt[H|i|fihfifii{*Ef*n|||iilhrH|li-r
'iEsilili , l S; l'E»ltii'*?. rl'ti E,IJ » » fl*f - £ I -lull
if if II! Hit i f ill I il eI I *l nil i lUhUmn
fliiillllll^HlliliiiiirHnilfllliiliM
iliSffiS*!!!*! ill •lilt'll If 6 -**'*ll*f s ^rf 1
Iftf 1 in |!ii{S«n{m! |f,: ^- ,r
UUHlunf Hill
hi sp litis 1 InliljfitiJ
I! ! ft i!i K | ri mi If! il
niHrtlitillutlllt
l tr ' , i;ljtl&li If * 'l&S'Nfflli'"!" UU Hil- *
**. irt ftli I'l'ni H'l ; -*»^t illfli Hiifi
i f tl T iI | f ^ll-llfilill ill I
mf *i
FefcVI
i{^f!piHft!P!iiiiHiitiii*?ifti«iiii
li*1flf , rfr*l»l ,, l»i" , E'IJ»flI»^*iS l; JfIl-«'l
Hiifi? S:ililiHt!*rt?i!ii flJ^mf^f
fpiji!
!
luff; r«f**l
llliiil!
|ii!ii|||!iHIH||||fP^||r|4ti|i|!|l|fi*
f fmMifHffiliiit ipp ¥ifi i» !|i h]
■"'Mtrfmirfffi It & f \m mmm
i!fiiill!ilii!ililll!flllillliirfll!i
iiiMiiiiiliiiiflifi! HiUlmmim
U ill' 8
2 IN "'
! tilil!
"*i lH;i*;II«ii*fiiih|i*U s t*5f"it»|?l-«
tL, t I|^r|||P{|||IiS|^iff|||i<ii':
1 4 in if iiiuiltti in
% if -*i i "i i 1 * i III - 6,1 1
|tlti|itlllllif {?*r;ii i k §
l||[{!'Hi!i|iiqil^PtlHf|j||||fjB|lli'
II Hlfi i| ii{;{ t hi I | hi:
!lh
'^E!:
;fi;|l!l
ilfi!
*4ll^ii*Ii r Ms fill - £ 6 £* BE' '* p-g E'£ *-&S'F &- E E^-n I
ills H till °I*'*6-E*ilf6; - ! iiiB ii! in * -ft
lii I ?4«m{fPi pi jii! IF
tsf Jillif r= nliliE iuiiIlf-iJt* ill! itilil
\%\Vt\
MumltWMlkrAm
iiibli*^sH:iMiiIi B Jit!i«li*'i!*iftM^
ir^Illliilllll lifllljfiiJfllfl^f
\w4 W if K B « Nil * ft «i
l *US*It'1Ulll**- : -li'Ui««*iil« , |t!H'"
yMSlLsliOlyiliiilliiilliiilifiiii:.
These blank pages have been included in this volume for
the convenience of the reader, if he wishes to make anv notes.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11