08.01.09
Bazaz, Chap 13, “Role of Gita”
Chapter 12 from Bazaz, The Role Of The Bhagavad Gita in Indian History
Synthesising Diverse Concepts
IN pursuance of the Upanishadic saying eko sat viprah
bahuda vadante (That which exists is one; sages call it by various names), the author of the Gita has taken pains to synthe¬sise the different doctrines which were prevalent in the Indian society of his time in order to show that basically they do not contradict each other. Traditionally, the poem is considered to be the essence of the Upanishadic doctrines. In the introduc¬tion (dhyanam) to the Gita it is stated: “All the Upanishads are cows, the milker is Krishna, (the cowherd boy), Partha (Arjuna) is the calf; men of purified intellect are the drinkers, milk is the supreme nectar of the Gita.”l
The Hindu writers generally are, however, of the opmlOn that the Gita has successfully produced a comprehensive synthe¬sis of all the systems which had been developed in the country since the Vedic times.
Even a critic like D.D. Kosambi, asserting that synthesisa¬tion is “in the Indian character”, remarks:“A similar attitude is reflected in the philosophy of the Gita. No violence is done to any preceding doctrine except Vedic yajna. The essential is taken from each by a remarkably keen mind capable of deep and sympathetic study; all are fitted together with consummate skill and literary ability, and cemented by bhakti without developing their contradictions.”2
Among the ancient Indian schools of thought recognised by scholars, six are wholly or partially idealistic and three completely atheistic. Out of the former Nyaya and Vaishe¬shaka had faded out and their basic theories absorbed by other systems. Following the practice of the Brahmins to ignore the atheistic system or at least not to refer them by name, the Gita deals only with the idealistic systems and endeavours to synthesise them though it was found difficult even while doing so to altogether ignore the rationalist-materialist doctrines. But there can be no doubt that besides the Upanishads the other systems discussed by the author are the Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa and Vedanta. Dr. Radhakrishnan says:
“The different elements which at the period of the compo¬sition of the Gita, were competing with each other within the Hindu system, are brought together and integrated into a com¬prehensive synthesis, free and large, subtle and profound. The teacher refines and reconciles the different currents of thoughts, the Vedic cult of sacrifice, the U panishadic teachings of trans¬cendent Brahman, the Bhagavata theism and tender piety, the Samkhya dualism and the Yoga meditation. He draws all these living elements of Hindu life and thought into an organic unity. He adopts the method not of denial but of penetration and shows how these different lines of thought converge towards the same end.”3
What is the nature of the integration and synthesis which is claimed to have been brought about by the author of the Gita? Has he been able to evolve an eclectic philosophy by adopting positive and enduring elements from the various schools which he has described? There is no evidence of this. For what the author has done is to lay down the fundamental principles of the different philosophies as he understood them (or as he liked to present them) and then hold them as the right means to s:\lvation. Each system is praised in turn while under consideration in surprising disregard of the fact that such state¬ments are bound to contradict each other. “It is a medley of beliefs”, writes Hopkins, “as to the relation between spirit and matter, and other secondary matters; it is uncertain in its tone in regard to compartaive efficacy of action and inaction and in regard to practical man’s means of salvation.”4 But D.P. Hill disagrees with Hopkins, and believes that “the poem is
less a medley than reconciliation of beliefs.”5 His disagreement however loses force when he adds: “The poet is determined to appease the orthodox; the Veda and its devas, the Upanishads with the Vedantic theory of Brahman-Atman, the conceptions of purusha and ishvara, Samkhya knowledge and Yoga practice, none of these is neglected; liberation knowledge is won by work, by knowledge, by devotion-by all these three in due proportion, and over all there broods the grace of God that stirs and meets the love of man.”6 Thus the failure of the author to synthesise is admitted and his passion to impose unadulterated theism on all the systems is underlined. Nor does Hill establish the talent or integrity of the author of the Gita when he observes: “If Krishna at one time seems to exalt the “man of knowledge”, and at another the “votary”, he is but following the Indian customs of glorifying beyond all measure that one whose turn it is for praise.”7
While shedding light on different schools of thought the Gita describes three paths which lead to liberation from sam sara (cycle of rebirth!;). They are known as Jnana Marga (Path of Knowledge), Karma Marga (Path of Action or Work) and Bhakti Marga (Path of Devotion). All the three are considered to be .equally efficacious. Sri Krishna tells Arjuna; “However men approach Me, even so do I welcome them, for the path men take from every side is Mine, 0 Partha.”8
Again, while elaborating prakriti and purusha of the Samkhya, Sri Krishna says: “Some by meditation behold the Self in the Self by the Self; others by the Samkhya- Yoga and others by the Yoga of Action. Others also, ignorant of this, having heard of it from others, worship, and these also cross beyond death, adhering to what they had heard.”9
These pronouncements are taken as proof of the extreme tolerance of the Gita creed and the satisfactory synthesisation of all the systems. But let us examine the sacred poem a bit closely to see if this is so.
Upholding the effectiveness of knowledge and wisdom Sri Krishna says; “Knowledge-sacrifice is superior to wealth-sacri¬fice ; all karma culminates in knowledge.”lo “There is verily no purifier in the world like knowledge.” He who is perfected in Yoga finds it in the self in due season.”ll “As the burning fire reduced fuel to ashes, 0 Arjuna, so death the fire of knowledge reduce all action to ashes.”12 “The man who is full offaith obtaineth knowledge, and he also who hath mastery over his senses, and, having obtained knowledge, he goeth swiftly to the Supreme Peace.”13 “Even if you be the most sinful of sinners yet you can cross all sin by the raft of knowledge. “14 Earlier Sri Krishna had told Arjuna: “The man who rejoiceth in the self, with the self is satisfied, and is content in the self, for him verily there is nothing to do. For him there is no interest in things done in this world, nor any in things not done nor does any object of his depend on anything.”15 Such categorical statements may make the reader think that Sri Krishna has given his final verdict in favour of know¬ledge as the path of freedom. But that is not so.
Almost in the same breath in which Shri Krishna extols knowledge, he lavishes fulsome praise on action: “Janaka and others indeed attained to perfection by action; then having an eye to the welfare of the world also, thou should est perform action.”16 He, however, attaches a condition of non-attach¬ment to action: “Therefore without attachment, constantly perform action which is duty, for by performing action with¬out attachment, man verily reacheth the Supreme.”I?
To justify this stand of making performance of action as incumbent and necessary, Sri Krishna adds: “Whatsoever a great man does, the same is done by others as well. Whatever standard he sets, the world follows. There is not for Me any work in the three worlds which has to be done nor anything to be obtained, yet I am engaged in work. For, as ever I did not engage in work unwearied, men in every way will follow My path. If I should cease to work, these worlds would fall in ruin and I should be the creator of disordered life and destroy these people. “18
If this is so, one is provoked to ask why did not Sri Krishna qualify his praise of knowledge by an appropriate rider. Indeed Arjuna points this out demanding clear preference for one 0; the other.19 Confronted with a direct question which needs unequivocal reply, Shri Krishna admits that “Yoga by action
is better than renunciation of action (knowledge)”, but to maintain the spirit of synthesisation, promptly adds: “Children not sages, speak of the Samkhya (renunciation by knowledge) a~d the Yoga (practice of works) as different. He who applies hImself well to one, gets the fruit of both. The status which is obtained by Samkhyas (men of knowledge) is also reached by the yogins (men of action). He who sees that the ways of renunciation, knowledge and of action are one he (truly) sees.”19 Passing on to the path of devotion, Sri Krishna jettisons the two paths (of knowledge and action) and recommends it as the best and the only means to liberation: “Those who fixing their minds on Me worship Me, ever earnest and possessed of supreme faith, them do I consider most perfect in Yoga.”20 Those verily who, renouncing all actions in Me and intent on Me, worship meditating on Me, with whole-hearted Yoga, those I speedily lift up from the ocean of death and existence, o Partha, their minds being fixed on Me.”21 Pointing out that the difficulty of those who worship the abstract and unmanifested is greater because embodied men can not easily reach Him. Sri Krishna commends the worship of ~anifested personal God and says; “Place thy mind in Me, mto Me let thy Reason enter, then without doubt thou shalt abide in Me hereafter.”22 Sri Krishna calls this Bhakti Yoga as the life-giving wisdom stressing that those who are endued with it are surpassingly dear to Him.23 In thus dealing with the three paths of liberation the author of the Gita has neither integrated them nor produced any synthesis. He has no doubt strongly praised each in its turn but has failed even to dovetail them. The impression left un the mind of a sober student that the author of Gita more interested in conversion of intelligent people with rational minds to theism than in producing a synthesis of diverse con¬cepts, prepares the reader for meekly surrendering before the unseen Supreme Power . . Nor is the author’s dealing with the Samkhya and other phIlosophies in any way objective. Starting with the aim of
attempting a synthesis of incompatible concepts, the Blessed Lord makes the catholic declaration: “By meditation some perceive the self in the self by the self (Vedanta) ; others by the path of knowledge (Samkhya), and still others by the path of wor~s (Yoga). Yet others ignorant of this (the three paths) heanng from others worship (Mimamsa), and they too cross beyond death by their devotion to what they have heard.”
Then jumping from one topic to another and without being able to make a point or evolve a formula containing the positive and everlasting elements in the ancient Indian philosophies the author of the sacred poem lands himself into innumerable contradictions and inconsistencies. Either synthesisation was an impossible task or a real synthesis would have inevitably clashed with the objectives of neo-Brahminism which Sri Krishna had set before himself to achieve; therefore, the author of the Gita defined the ancient philosophies as suited his purpose of establishing the excellence of pet Vedanta. Whether it be the Samkhya, Yoga, Mimarnsa or any other darshana, he has presented their fundamental theories in a way as to support his thesis of personal God being supreme and all that exists in the world conditioned in accordance with His will. The distortion has taken place mostly in case of the Samkhya.
That t?e Samkhya with its conception of the plurality of purushas IS opposed to the doctrine of non-duality of self taught by the Vedanta is clear from the consistent refutation by the writings of Brahmin philosophers who preceded the author of the Gita. Even Badrayana, as we know, considered the Samkhya to be the most powerful opponent of the Vedas. But Sri .Krishna c~everl! planned to undermine the Samkhya by owmng and dlstortmg it. In the thirteenth canto of the poem, the Samkhya doctrines are described in some detail. Whether Kapila introduced purushas (conscious spirit) in his systems b~si?es pra.kriti (nature) or it was done by his successors, ~t IS certam that in addition to the plurality of ~urushas hiS .s~stem lays emphasis on the view that purusha IS merely a dlsmterested spectator and prakriti is the source of the universe. Sri Krishna admits that “prakriti and purusha
are both without beginning” and also that “modifications and gunas (qualities) are born of prakrili.” Explaining the doc¬trine further the Blessed Lord states: “He who seeth that matter verily performeth all actions, and that self is actionless, he seeth.”24 This is the core of the Samkhya.
But then to bring the Samkhya into line with the Vedanta Sri Krishna gradually gives the upperhand to the spirit (puru¬sha) which is unwarranted in Kapila’s system. Shri Krishna starts doing so with these words; “Matter is called the cause of the generation of causes and effects, spirit is called the cause of the enjoyment of pleasure and pain.”25
Next, the plurality of soul is thrown overboard ; “Seated equally in aU beings, the Supreme Lord, unperishing within the perishing-he who thus seeth, he seeth.”26 “Seeing indeed everywhere the same Lord, equally dwelling, he doth not des¬troy the self and thus treads the highest path.”27
The reference to the destruction of self may be to refute the criticism of the materialists who held that the concept of purusha was unnecessary in the Samkhya system. The author of the Gita pretends to be in agreement with the Samkhya doctrine but by the methods of suggestio falsi draws conclu¬sions opposed to those held by the Samkhya teachers. Finally, identifying the Samkhya with the Vedanata, Sri Krishna says; “When he preceiveth the diversified existence of beings as rooted in One, and spreading forth from It then he reacheth the Eternal.”28
In the fifteenth canto, Sri Krishna goes further and prea¬ches undisguised Vedanta though still using the terminology of the Samkhya. Purusha ceases to be an unconcerned spectator and becomes the Eternal, Unchanging, Supreme Self which pervades the universe and sustains it; all non-purusha things are considered destructible and the prakriti is no more begin¬ningless and endless. The new theory is nothing but pantheism of the Vedanta in its purest form. Sri Krishna says: “There are two energies (pursushas) in this world-the destructible and the indestructible; the destructible is all beings, the unchang¬ing is called the indestructible. The highest energy (purusha) is verily Another declared as Supreme Self, he who pervading
all, sustaineth the three worlds, the Indestructible Lord.”29
From the highly intellectual philosophy of the Samkhya the author of the Gita comes down to ritualistic system of Mimamsa. The old tradition of sacrifice, (yajna) and Vedic forms of worship had to be recognised; various gods, ancient and contemporaneous, and their worship, worship of ancestors, demigods, ghosts, devils, animals natural elements, trees etc., are revived. Some cantos of the poem especially VI, VII, and X depict religious conditions in India as they prevailed in post-Buddhist period. The great synthesiser does not reject the unhealthy trends in social life but accepts them as a neces¬sary evil; “They whose wisdom hath been rent away by desires go forth to other gods observing various rites, constrained by their own natures. Whatever form any devotee with faith wishes to worship, I make that faith of his steady. He, endowed with that faith, seeketh the worship of such a one, and from him he obtaineth his desires, the benefits being decreed by Me, alone.”
Dr. Radhakrishnan who asserts that the Gita has integrated diverse Indian philosophies, appreciates the retention of primi¬tive practices. Admitting that “many features of modern Hinduism are derived from very primitive sources”, the savant remarks: “Ever since the dawn of reflection the dream of unity has hovered over the scene and haunted the imagination of the leaders … Though Islam and Christianity by their militant attitude occasionally provoked similar developments in Hindu¬ism, its prevailing note continues to be of understanding and acceptance of the bona fides of other faiths. “29
But Gita Doctrine is neither integration of different philosophies nor synthesisation of diverse faiths. It only creates a bizzare amalgam which it has become in the eyes of unbiased students. “When the Gita is read as a unified whole these diverse views have to be artificially reconciled”, observes Khair.3o
Rather than having discovered a synthesis of different philosophies as claimed by Hindu writers, the Gita is, at best, a mosaic of various primitive and developed religious concepts. This is no merit. “Preservation or acceptance of primitive con-
cepts and notions”, says Laxman Shastri Joshi, “is not a mark of tolerance or generosity, it is rather a sign of weakness. Since the primitive notions lead to a general decay and demoralisation, they come to be replaced by the more developed ones. It is therefore an illusion to go on believing that they too contain, an element of truth. It becomes, on the contrary, in the course of evolution a duty to destroy them … When Buddhism, Islam and Christianity rushed forth to destroy the earlier primitive religions, they shattered a number of such illusions, and cleared the human mind of them. Hinduism on the other hand tried to preserve them. It was neither noble nor heroic, but it was weak and unable to do what it ought to have done.”31
Just as by distortion, misrepresentation and by laying undue emphasis on particular points the author of the Gita tries to show the other orthodox systems as not much different from the Vedanta, he has also taken some features of the heterodox systems without naming them or acknowledging the source, to strengthen his .own stand. Concepts have been stolen from Buddhism, Jainism and even Charvak’s Lokayata and placed in suitable contexts to serve the aim of the Vedanta or the cult of theism. This must have been done in view of the popularity of such heretic ideas among large sections of the people after the defeat of the Great Revolution. As pointed out by Kosambi the verses from 55 to 72 in the second canto would not have occurred to the author without a knowledge of Buddhism. Nirvana is a purely Buddhist ideal state of escape from the effect of karma and the Gita refers to it in verse 72 of the second canto and again in verse 25 of the fifth canto only taking care to add that it means absorption of individual self in the Universal Self. As Kosambi remarks “we may similarly trace other unlabelled schools of thought” in the Gita.32
In reply to Arjuna’s query about the man whose spirit is steadfast and mind stable, Sri Krishna describes qualities which can easily be traced to the heterodox doctrines. Says the Blessed Lord: “He whose mind is untroubled in the midst of sorrows and is free from eager desire amid pleasures, he from whom passion, fear and rage have passed away, he is called a
sthit~ prajna (a s~ge of settled intelligence).33 Again: “Man, mUSIng on the objects of sense, conceiveth an attachment to these; from attachment ariseth desire, from desire anger cometh forth. From anger proceedeth delusion, from delusion confused memory, from confused memory destruction of R.ea~o~; from destruction of Reason he perishes. But the dIsclplmed self moving among sense objects with senses free from attraction, and repulsion; he attaineth peace. In that peace the extinction of all pain ariseth for him for of him whose ~eart is peaceful, the Reason soon attaineth eq~ilibrium3
It WIll be seen that the entire emphasis for attainment of peace is on Reason and there is no stress on reliance on Vni¬ver.sal Self or Supreme Being: they are not even mentioned. ThiS was the trail blazed by the ancient rationalist philosophers and totally at variance with the cult of the personal God or the Vedanta taught by the Gita.
Discussing the Samkhya- Yoga in forth canto Sri Krishna observes: “He who that renounced actions by Yoga, who hath cloven asunder doubt by knowledge who is ruled by the self actions do not bind him. Therefore, with the sword of know~ ledge cleaving asunder this ignorance-born doubt dwelling in the heart be established in Yoga.”34
With such declarations one tends to think that the author of the sacred poem has dispensed with the need of a Personal God or any Supreme Being. A man can achieve liberation through self-effort and with the help of Reason. Again, “The man who rejoiceth in the self, with the self is satisfied and is content in the self for him verily there is nothing to do’ (not even to depend upon God). For him there is no interest in things done in this world, nor any things not done, nor doth any object of his depend on any being. “35
Equally incompatible with the God-oriented outlook is the advice for self-improvement given by Sri Krishna to Arjuna which is wholly in accord with the doctrines of the rationalists:
“Let a man raise himself by his own self; let him not debase himself. For he is himself his friend, his foe. To him who has conquered his (base) self by the (divine) self his own self is the friend; but to him who has not subdued theself his own self acts as the foe.”36
To fully enjoy life but with moderation and restraint was one of the cardinal principles of Charvaka’s philosophy. Some Lokayata teachers preached that the deliverance could be attained by adopting the middle path and harmony in life. The Buddhist philosophers incorporated this view in their code of conduct. The Gita is replete with verses alluding to these doctrines, of course, without mentioning their source; “Even here on earth everything is overcome by those whose, mind remains balanced.”37 “He who is happy within, who rejoiceth within, who is illuminated within, that Yogi becoming eternal goeth to the Peace of the Eternal.”38
Again the Gita proclaims: “That in which he findeth the supreme delight which the Reason can grasp beyond the senses, wherein established he moveth not from the Reality which having obtained, he thinketh there is no greater gain beyond, it ; wherein established, he is not shaken even by heavy sorrow. They should be known by the name of Yoga, this disconnec¬tion from the union with pain.”
About moderation Sri Krishna declares; “Verily, Yoga is not for him who eateth too much nor who abstaineth to excess, nor who is too much addicated to sleep, nor even to wake¬fulness, 0 Arjuna : Yoga killeth out all pain for him who is regulated in eating and amusement, regulated in performing actions, regulated in sleeping and waking.”39
This way of life with its rules and regulations drawn from ancient Indian Rationalist philosophy overrides asceticism, particularly tapas (self-torture), which is extolled by the author as daivi sampad (divine possession) at different places in the poem.
Woven around the faith in Deity, the ideas of unity,equality, equipoise, selfiessness, equity, and fellow-feeling etc., etc., are taken from the teachings, of the rationalists and materialists: “The self, harmonised by Yoga, seeth the self abiding in all beings and the all beings in the self; everywhere he seeth the same.” “He who, through the likeness of the self, 0 Arjuna,seeth equality in every thing whether pleasant or painful he is considered as a perfect yogin.”4o “He from whom the world
doth not shrink away who doth not shrink away from the world, freed from the anxieties of joy, anger and fear, he is dear to Me.41 “Alike to foe and friend, and also in fame and ignomity, alike in cold and heat, pleasure and pain, destitute of attachment. Taking equally praise and reproach, silent, wholly content with what cometh, homeless, firm in mind, full of devotion (for a noble cause) that man is dear to me.”42Having taken the concept of ananda (happiness) from Char¬vakas, hetu (causal theory) from Rationalist, nirvana from Buddhists, and kaivalya from Jainas, the author of the Gita uses them for the glorification of his favourite philosophy of the Vedanta.
And, finally, mention may be made of the institution of chaturvarnya (four-caste system) in Indian society which is the crassest contradiction of the concept of equality of men or human brotherhood. Yet the author of the Gita upholds both in the sacred poem. “The four castes were emanated from me” passionately asserts Sri Krishna, “and know me to be the author of them. “43 Describing in detail the qualities, work and even food of the different castes he leaves little doubt in the mind of the reader that the Brahmins are superior and the lower castes inferior in varying degrees; he underlines that the distinction is “nature-born”. When thereafter the Blessed Lord envisages also the unity of human race by saying that “I am the same in all beings, there is none hateful to Me nor dear”,44 or that “the man who sees the likeness of himself every¬where”,45 one is left puzzling which of the two inconsistent verdict is to be taken as the real teaching of the divine lore.
The borrowed notions of cosmopolitanism, fellow-feeling, harmony, moderation and equilibrium could not make neo¬Brahminism revolutionary, liberal or generous. We shall have to consider how far the Gita is tolerant to those who differ from the tenets finally adopted by it. But here it will suffice to say that the acceptance of all viewpoints, in however a mutilated form, is not the strength of the Gita; it is rather a symptom of imbecility and incurable weakness of neo-Brah¬minism ; “The tendency to surrender to any deity or prophet shows that weakness”, writes Joshi referring to Hinduism in
general. “When faith blinds vision, illusions throttle reason (and) emotions are entangled with delusive ideals of other¬worldly blessings, the mind naturally becomes weak and prone to surrender to anyone.”46
It is this object surrender what the contemporary Hindu philosophers praise as the spirit of integration and synthesisa¬tion in the Gita.