I
In
the whole range of Sanskrit literature there is hardly any other book which is
so popular and widely read and admired by all classes of Hindus as “The Bhagwad
Gita” or the “The Lord’s Song.” To be more precise, it is not a book in itself
but only an episode in the great Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, forming
the subject of one of the books which collectively form that great epic. It is,
however, the most beautiful, the most sublime and the most popular of all the
episodes of that story, unless the part describing the last days of the veteran
Bhishma after he had received his mortal wounds in the war and was awaiting
death on his warrior’s bed, viz., the bed of arrows, with its noble
disquisition on politics, on war and on the duties of a Kshattriya, be considered
to be entitled to an equal amount of praise and rank as high as the Bhagwad
Gita itself. The latter, however, is not so popular nor so widely read as the
Gita. The Mahabharata contains several Gitas, but it is the
Bhagwad Gita alone which is meant and understood when people talk of the
Gita. Of all the scared books of the Hindus (its sacredness being
unquestionably admitted by all), the Gita is perhaps the only one which is so
extensively read, admired and relied on, by all Hindu Sampradayas (religious
sects and schools of theology), orthodox or heterodox, reformed or unreformed.
The Brahmos and the Arya Samajists read it, quote it and comment
upon it as often and as admiringly as the Sanatanists and the Vedantists.
It receives the same homage from the Ramanujis, the Vallabhacharyas and
the Vaishnavas, as from the Nanakpanthis, the Dadupanthis,
the Kabirpanthis and the Gulabdasis. All the different classes of
Sanyasis and Sadhus, whose number is legion, read it, revere it and quote it in
support of their conflicting dogmas and contradictory doctrines and with an
equal amount of confidence. All do not accept it as a scripture claiming the
infallibility of the Vedas, but almost everybody attaches to it the authority
of a gospel of a very high, if not always the highest, authority. There are
hundreds and thousands of Hindu Sadhus and women who know nothing except the
Gita. There are very many amongst these who do not know the meaning of the
various verses composing it, but only the general sense of the whole. There are
vast numbers who have treasured it in their memories and repeat the whole every
morning, or twice a day. Many Sadhus carry it in a small ‘pocket’ edition on
their chest hung round their necks by a thread. Of all Sanskrit books, it has
been published in the largest number of editions and sizes. I wonder if there
is any other book, even in any of the vernaculars of India, except perhaps the Tulasi
Ramayana, which is printed and sold so largely as the Gita. Amongst the
English-knowing Hindus it is decidedly the most popular of all Hindu books. It
has by far the largest number of English translations and almost an incredible
number of translations in Hindi and the other spoken languages of India.
The
question, then, naturally arises, what is there in this book that gives it such
a universal popularity and which extorts such an unvarying and amazing amount
of homage from the different, often conflicting, at times bitterly warring,
elements which compose the Hindu community. Hinduism, which to an onlooker from
without and to a superficial observer from within, seems to be hopelessly
divided and split up amongst numerous apparently irreconcilable sections and
classes with their equally innumerable divisions and sub-divisions, seems to
have agreed to accept this book as an object of common veneration. The homage
paid to the Gita is, however, to be distinguished from the authority attached
to the Vedas in the eyes of all Hindus except the Brahmos and the
newly risen free thinkers or no thinkers at all. But while the Vedas are a
sealed book to a vast majority, the Gita is open and intelligible to a large
number. They can read it, understand it, and interpret it, every one in his own
way. It is a thing which at once appeals to their intelligence as well as their
emotions. It gives them plenty of scope for reflection, and spiritual exercise.
It is rigid and elastic at the same time. It broadens the vision and expands
the outlook without requiring a serious outrage on the affections. It is
invigorating as well as chastening. It stimulates one’s energies and subdues
one’s passions. It is a constant and ever recurring exhortation in favour of
right action without attachment to its results. It shows the way to the
balancing of the mind, assigning their proper places to the activities of the
body and the yearnings of the soul. It is a most audacious as well as a most
successful attempt to reconcile the different schools of religious thought that
prevailed in ancient India at the time of its composition. But what makes it so
universally acceptable is its attempt to answer the one great question
that has troubled the human soul in all times and that is always present to the
eyes of the mind under all circumstances, viz., how to reconcile the
apparent contradictions of life. Here we are in this world of conflict,
struggle and strife, more often surrounded by sin and sorrow than by virtue and
happiness, more dejected by the pettiness and meanness encompassing us, than
held up by the broadness of soul and the sympathy of heart which we only now
and then experience; more depressed by the inconsistencies of life, the
selfishness, the narrowness, the ugliness and the utter depravity of human
nature than elevated by that much-sought-after and much-talked-of harmony that is
said to prevail in the world, and by that disinterested love, beauty of
character and nobility of behaviour, which occasionally give an angelic
appearance to the son of man. In short, in this world there seems to be more to
dishearten and depress, than to encourage and sustain. There is often an
apparent and serious conflict of duties which is puzzling and heartrending.
There are times in the life of every thinking man when he is struck with the
apparent irreconcilableness of the laws of nature with what he has been taught
to believe as the laws of God and much more with what are the laws of man
sanctioned and enforced by authority. It is in moments like these that man
feels the wretchedness of his position and the misery involved by the doctrine
of the freedom of will. The question perplexes him so much as to make him wish
that he were not a free agent. He would rather know definitely what to do than
to enjoy and be proud of the freedom of thought and action granted to him by
nature. At some times intense natures are so much carried away by the apparent
conflict and uncertainty that they think it best to get rid of themselves by
laying violent hands on themselves. There are others who continue to grope in
the dark and let themselves drift. There are some who seek the advice of loving
friends and wise leaders and place their own freedom of will and thought in
their hands, which to them appear to be safer and stronger than their own.
There are a few, however, who seek an answer from their inner self or by
communion with God. The Gita or the Lord’s Song is an attempt to answer that
question for all and for all times to come. Hence its universal popularity
amongst and acceptability to all classes of people, irrespective of their
differences in creed, caste and colour. How to show that, apparent
contradictions notwithstanding, the world is still a consistent whole, how to
reconcile the conflict between duty and sentiment is the burden of the Gita.
Standing
on the field of battle between the two hosts of combatants ready to kill one
another, Arjuna, the Pandu Prince and the prop and pillar of Yudhishthira’s
army, found himself perplexed by the idea of killing his kith and kin,
those to whom he was bound by all the ties that are sacred and dear in this
world, viz., of blood, relationship, love and respect, for the sake of
things which he thought had no permanent value for him. Naturally enough he
felt appalled at the idea of having to kill a Guru like the celebrated Dronacharya
and a grand-father like Bhishma, for the sake of either of whom he
would be most willing to lay down his own life, if it were needed to defend
them or to save them from harm. But here he was required to kill them for the
sake of obtaining a kingdom for himself and his brothers, because kill them he
must before he could win a victory over the opposing forces of his cousin
Duryodhana. He knew well that so long as they viz., Bhishma and Drona,
were in the field, fighting for the opposite side, there could be no chance of
his vanquishing his adversaries. But what perhaps appalled him even more was
that besides being required to kill respected elders, loved relatives, friends
and comrades, he would be causing an awful carnage all round, harming and
destroying men who had done him no harm whatsoever. His duty as a Kshattriya
pledged to vindicate his own honor as well as his brother’s title to the Raj of
his father, to oust “an usurper who was oppressing the land, was in apparent
conflict with all that family ties and feelings of love and humanity would
dictate. As a sishya (a disciple) , as a grandson, as a brother, as a
friend and as a man, it was a sin for him to attempt the lives of those who
stood in the opposite ranks; as a prince and as a warrior; even as a brother of
Yudhishthira, husband of Draupadi, son of Kunti, it was his duty to fight for
the deliverance of his nation”; to restore to his brother what was lawfully and
by right his, and to teach a lesson to those who had viciously and out of pure
ill-will insulted his wife and his mother. To neglect this duty was as much a
sin. If, as Mrs. Annie Besant puts it,
“to
break family ties was a sin, to have the people in cruel bondage was a sin,
where was the right way?”
Apparently
slaying was a greater sin than the neglect of other duties and hence Arjuna’s
inclination to retire from the battle. But then there was Lord Krishna with
him, who had come to help him in the performance of his duty as a warrior and
to support him by his wisdom, as he had vowed to wield arms for no party in
this family war. He saw his duty clear before him. To his knowing eyes it was
only disgraceful but sinful as well (perhaps more sinful than disgraceful) for
a person born and bred as a Kshattriya, to be borne down by such
chicken-hearted skepticism just at the time of action, in the field of battle
and in the presence of the enemy. When the two cousins, Arjuna and Duryodhana,
had approached him to seek his help and co-operation for their respective
causes in the coming struggle, he had given Arjuna, the first of the two whom
he saw on waking up from sleep, the choice either to accept him alone as a
non-combatant determined not to take up arms for either party, or to take the
whole of his army with all their fighting paraphernalia, without him. Arjuna
had declared for the Lord alone without his army. Now was the occasion to
justify that choice and to prove how worthless brute force is without wisdom.
The whole of Krishna’s army without Krishna himself would not have availed
Yudhishthira if Arjuna had left the field of battle yielding to the influence
of that enervating philosophy of life which got hold of him just at the wrong
time. Krishna was bound to Arjuna by ties of personal love and regards. Besides
his own reputation being at stake, it would be sinful to allow such a wrong
view of life to prevail and cause the complete discomfiture and ruin of the
Pandavas. To allow this to happen would have been nothing short of criminal on
the part of a greater teacher like Krishna, because that would have been
allowing fraud, dishonesty, deceit and wrongful usurpation of other people’s
rights to go unpunished and unrighted. Krishna was hardly a man to let this
happen, at least without an effort to save the situation. So he set to his
task. How he performed it, with what logic and with what success, is the
subject matter of Gita.
The
doubt that troubled Arjuna is a very common one. It haunts human beings day and
night, and the number of those who actually succumb to it is by no means small.
It is a source of constant mental conflict in the East as well as in the West.
It makes no distinction of caste and colour. It is, however, difficult to have
a Krishna at your side every time this demon of doubt threatens to lead you
astray. Hence the value of the eternal message conveyed for all and for all
ages by the Lord’s Song called Bhagawad Gita.
II
But
has not the question been handled and answered by other prophets and greatmen,
seers and sages in India and in other climes? Have not the preachings of those
worthies answered for those for whom they were meant? Do we not find all that
is said in the Gita in books and treaties that existed in India and elsewhere
before the war of the Mahabharata and before the birth of Krishna? Does the
Gita teach anything new that was not known before? Did Krishna lay any claim to
originality? Was there no trace of what the Gita expounds, in the Vedas, the Brahmanas,
the Upanishads, the Sutras and the Smritis? The answer is
and must be that everything was there. The Lord taught and said nothing that
was not already there or what was quite new and original. Why, then, is the
Gita of all Hindu Sastras so popular and so universally acceptable? Because,
the story of the Gita is so natural and human, that it directly and
irresistibly appeals to the innermost core of every seeker after truth. It
starts where it just catches the heart of man in the natural course of life. It
anticipates the various pit-falls into which he is likely to fall in his
attempt to grapple with the problem of life, and then gradually extricates him
from the meshes of doubt. This latter function is performed with such skill and
such mastery of human nature as to make every prototype of Arjuna feel that he
is at home and ending with the Divine, winding up with a detail account of the
way and means of reaching the Divine, as to make the dialogue a complete whole,
a masterpiece endowed with the impressiveness of a life drama, with the
eloquence of wisdom and good sense, with the convincingness of sound reason and
logic, and re-assuring with the assurance of experience and practical
knowledge. Professing all along to deal with the deepest philosophy of life,
not unoften speaking in the language of mystery, it always concluded in such a
way as to make it appear an open secret. It speaks to you in the language of
love and regard, demanding from you the fullest shraddha (श्रधा) and confidence in the Lord, inspiring awe but
removing all causes of fear. Discoursing on philosophy and science, discussing
the most incomprehensible and abstruse of all the questions that ever arise
before the mental vision of man, -the question of what is Life and Death-
solving for you the great riddle of existence and non-existence, in short, unfolding
before your eager and wondering eyes the great mystery of creation and man’s
place therein, it speaks to you in tones of the most captivating music. Thus it
combines splendid prose with sublime poetry and thrills the listener with the
vibrations of its strings, harmonized and touched by a master hand. The fact
that the Gita is a song set to music by a great mind is often ignored by those
who seek its support for their own pet doctrines and dogmas. Its repetitions
and apparent contradictions puzzle them and they set themselves to reconcile
the same, forgetting altogether the extremely human and natural origin of the
song. The book was never composed to serve as doctrinal or polemical treatise.
The dialogue did not begin with a question of theology or religion or
philosophy. It began with the unwillingness of Arjuna to slay his own relatives
and friends. The writer aimed at nothing more than to give a life a picture of
how Krishna managed to persuade Arjuna to give up that mood, and a reading of
the book with this fact constantly borne in mind shows how beautifully he
succeeded therein. The repetitions and apparent contradictions being the very
essence of such a dialogue are quiet natural. Whether the whole of the dialogue
actually took place on the field of battle, as it is said to have done, or
whether it has been amplified subsequently by the author, we are not in a
position to say; though the latter seems to be more probable than the former.
That
the actual language employed in the Gita could not necessarily have been that
of Lord Krishna himself is more than probable and may tacitly be accepted for
all purpose of comment or criticism. If the tradition that ascribes the
authorship to yasa is true, and there is no particular reason to dispute it— it
may safely be inferred that the dialogue has lost nothing in being transmitted
in the language in which it has reached us, provided there has been no
tampering with it subsequently. Of this, however, we cannot be absolutely
certain, as there is not a vestige of doubt that the Mahabharata, as we have
it, must very largely and repeatedly tampered with, and no one can say with
confidence that the Gita has altogether escaped the meddlesome hands of these
literary busy-bodies. All the same it is difficult to lay one’s hand on any
particular verse or verses and assert convincingly that they are subsequent
interpolations. The book, therefore, must be taken and judged as it is. Even as
such, with the suspicious lurking in our minds that perhaps its original purity
has been tampered with by the interested machinations and mental aberrations of
some designing priest after it had left the hands of its noble author, its
charms are irresistible and its beauty unsurpassed, provided it is never
forgotten that it is a poem and a song first and an exposition of religious
truths afterwards. It is this latter character of it which puzzles people. Some
maintain that it teaches Advaitism, i.e., the existence of one entity
only, viz., Brahman, whilst others hold that it teaches Dvaitavada,
i.e., the co-existence of two entities, the human and the supreme
soul. The great Sankaracharya is the principal and most celebrated exponent of
the former view, while Ramanuja and numerous other teachers hold the other.
Surely there is enough in the text for either of these theories to be
maintained with a show of reason. We are, however inclined to think that the
collective weight of the whole poem favours the Dvaitavadis more than it
does the Advaitavadis. Each party, of course, uses the full force of all
the logic and argument they can command to explain away the verses that are
quoted against them. Much ingenuity and erudition has been spent in these
polemic discussions and some have been carried on with such nicety and subtlety
of reasons as to perplex the ordinary reader, though they might charm the
philosophical mind used to hair-splitting.
Then
there is the divergence between the Sankhyas and the Yogis, the
former being known as the Jnanakandis and the latter as Bhaktivadis(भक्तिवादी) and Karamkandis (कर्मकाण्डी). The Sankhyas hold that the Gita establishes
the superiority of jnana over all other ways of knowing an realizing the
supreme soul, while the Yogis dispute it, and argue that the lord has
given the foremost place to yoga and action, reducing all the different
ways of approaching the Almighty to the one supreme principle of Yoga.
If the language of the book is any guide to its subject, surely the latter
position seems to be the correct one. All the chapters of Gita end by giving a
name to the principal topic expounded therein and every one of these names has
the word yoga attached to it, such as the Sankhya yoga, the Karma yoga,
the Sanyasa yoga and so on. Then again there is another point on which there is
an equally great difference of opinion, viz., the position of Krishna
himself. The Sanatanists believe that he was an Avatar and spoke as if he and
the supreme soul were identical. The Arya Samajists on the other hand dispute
the doctrine of incarnation and say that Krishna never meant to claim divinity
of himself, and that in very many places in Gita itself he speaks of himself as
a human soul, as distinguished from the Divine and that in other places he only
professes to speak in the name of God.
The
disputants, however, in the eagerness of controversy and disquisition, entirely
forgot that the discourse was never started the object of expounding any of
these doctrines, its chief purpose being to persuade Arjuna to fight.
Any one studying the book with care will see at once that throughout the
eighteen discourses, the noble teacher never lost sight of his immediate object
even for a moment. All that he did was use every kind of argument to convince Arjuna
of the absurdity of his idea, of the unrighteousness of turning his back
from the battle-field and giving way to a sentiment unworthy of a warrior, of
the shamefulness of his abandoning a just cause and of the sinfulness of his
being carried away by a false sentiment. This was the immediate object which he
set before himself and in gaining it he enlisted all the different schools of
religious thought that at that time claimed allegiance in the country. In doing
so, he laid stress on their agreement in essence and showed that although known
by different names and supported by different arguments they were all unanimous
in the view of life which he wanted to unfold before Arjuna. In a masterly way
he met all the objections of Arjuna and explained away the flaws which Arjuna
found in his reasoning. If he is now and then seen entering into a minute
elucidation of certain abstruse points of dogma, it is only in reply to
question put by Arjuna or by way of amplification. But what is patent is, that
in the intricacies of the logical expositions and in the labyrinth of dogma he
never lets his immediate object slip out of his view. He returns to it again
and again, appealing now to his sense of honour, then to his sense of duty and
lastly to his reason. He goes further and quite in a human way calls his
affection and regards for him into requisition. He overawes and frightens him.
He claims confidence, devotion and obedience, and he succeeds. What he however
maintains and expounds with all the vigour of language and earnestness of soul
which he can command, is the supreme truth that, be the circumstances what they
may, “Life is a mission and duty (dharma) its highest law”; that in the
fulfillment of this mission and in the performance of his duty, lies the soul
path to salvation or eternal bliss, that to the extent of one’s success in fulfilling
this mission and in performing this duty will one ascend to the higher stage of
life, which bring one nearer the goal, viz., the realization of the supreme
soul and complete freedom from births or deaths, with the accompanying bliss (आनन्द) It is to this end that one has to make use of the Jnana,
Karma, Sanyasa, Dhyana, Vijnana and different other forms of yoga enumerated
therein. They are all means to an end, the immediate end being the fulfilling
of the mission of one’s life leading to the ultimate one, viz., the
realization of the perfect bliss called paramananda by unity with, or
nearness to, God. How to find out what is the mission of one’s life and what is
to be done by one to accomplish it, is also pointed out in the Gita. It is to
be determined partly by the condition (including time and place) of one’s
physical birth and partly by the condition of one’s real self, i.e., one’s
soul. That life is a mission, is no new truth, as it is written on every page
of Aryan scriptures. That this mission is determined by the condition of one’s
birth and soul, also finds ample exposition in the Hindu shastras, which
at the same time lay down every one’s dharma (duty) in general terms.
What particularly troubled Arjuna was whether it was not sinful to kill Drona,
Bhishma, and others even when the performance of his duty (Dharma) required
such slaughter? The reply of Krishna was that it was not. If in giving this
answer he gave a dissertation on the immortality of the soul, providing that no
one could really be killed, it was only by way of strengthening his argument.
What he meant to say definitely is that one’s individual Dharma is the supreme
law of his life, is the spring by which all its movements must be regulated. It
is the rudder of the ship, the compass, the guiding star and the supreme
determining entity. Everything else must be subordinated to it, put under its
guidance and control as existing for it and for the furtherance of its end. The
slaying of one’s nearest and dearest relative, not to speak of any enemy, is
not sinful if one cannot perform one’s duty (Dharma धर्म) but by slaying him. One’s dharma cannot be
anything but righteous. Hence anything which is necessary to be done in the
performance of Dharma cannot be sinful. A Raja commits no sin in punishing
thieves, robbers, dacoits and murderers. A patriot warrior commits no sin in
killing the enemies of his country in fair fight. A surgeon is not guilty of
any offence if he kills a man in the performance of surgical operation. No-body
should jump to the conclusion, however, that the Gita justifies the killing of
one’s adversaries or enemies at all times and on all occasions. As to the
detailed rulers of the conduct in the keeping of one’s Dharma, the Gita refers
us to the shastras. All that it lays down and lays down with emphasis
and without the a shadow of doubt is, that-once you know your duty or your
Dharma, you are not to be turned back from it by any consideration of
self-interest, love or mercy. You are not required to sacrifice any of these if
the performance of your duty does not call for such sacrifice. Where there is
no doubt as to the righteousness of a certain course in the performance of your
Dharma you are not to lightly justify the course which appears to you to be
otherwise unrighteous. But if after weighing all the pros and cons and scanning
it carefully in the light of your conscience and the teaching of Shastras,
you conclude that you cannot do your duty without running the risk of doing
what otherwise appears to you to be sinful, your path is clear, you must do the
former at any risk and at any cost. No consideration of self interest, love, or
mercy, no risk of calumny, pain and injury to self other should stand in the
way of your duty. That is the lesson of the Gita in the nutshell. That is the
burden of the song sung by Krishna on the field of Kurukshetra 5,000 years ago
in order to turn his friend and disciple Arjuna away from the sinful
inclination of his mistaken mind and to dispel the vapours of sentimental
ignorance and false love that were encompassing him when standing face to face
with his enemies, the enemies of his brother, the enemies of his king and the
enemies of his country, viz., the troops of the tyrant and the usurper
who had unjustly, unlawfully, by fraud, force and deceit deprived them of their
just rights and established a reign of terror and sin. There men were among
these troops whose claims called for consideration, mercy, respect, regards and
love from Arjuna. These claims were about to prevail and leaver him astray from
the path of duty when Sri Krishna interfered and pointed out the immorality and
the sinfulness of the proposed course. Sri Krishna had as much regards, respect
and love for Drona and Bhishma as Arjuna, but he could not allow the latter to
fall from his duty and thus damn his soul. He pointed out the path to him.
Arjuna saw it and followed it. Both saw that the immediate consequences of this
step would be terrible, and so they were; but once having seen their Dharma
there was nothing for them to follow it to the bitter end, relying upon the
ultimate and the final good of their own individual souls as well as of the
whole world. And so they did.
This
then is the message of the Gita. Everything is only subsidiary to it and
used as a means of elucidating and establishing this one truth. This is the
pivot round which every arguments turns and this the sun round which all the
planets with their satellites move. Let no one then confound what is only
subsidiary with the central teaching. Of course every one of the various
doctrines expounded or touched upon on the Gita has its own importance, every
one of them has its own axis round which to move, everyone has its own light to
shed, but the central sun of the whole system of the Gita is the truth that
everyone must do his own duty, be true to his own Dharma, at any cost, at any
risk and any sacrifice. It is exactly this that is meant by Sri Krishna when he
says:
“Better one’s own duty (dharma) though destitute of merit, than the duty of another, well discharged. Better
death in the discharge of one’s own duty; the of another is full of danger.”
III. 35, (Mrs. Besant’s translation).
This
couplet has nothing to do with creeds, doctrines and dogmas, although it is
often cited as opposed to a change of religion and faith. In the following
pages we intend to trace the different steps in the argument which Sri Krishna
employed with the object of persuading Arjuna to fight and in order to dispel
the doubt that had got hold of his mind about his duty on that particular
occasion.
The
very order of these steps, as well as the language used leaves no doubt as to
the Gita not having been composed as a doctrinal treatise. On the contrary in
some places, if it is not irreverent to say so, the argument seems to be more
in the nature of a special pleading than a solemn and serious dissertation on
religious doctrines. However, we shall be able to see the nature of the peal as
we proceed.
(a)
The first chapter or the discourse describes the despondent state of Arjuna’s
mind and is consequently called “Arjuna’s Vishada Yoga.” After giving a
vivid description of the field battle and of what Arjuna said when with Krishna
as his charioteer he was standing in the midst of two armies and observing the
arrangements of the two opposing hosts, the writer reproduces what Arjuna said
to Sri Krishna of his troubles. The account is extremely pathetic, the more so,
as the language employed is very simple and almost to a word similar to what
every ordinary person in the world uses in a state of mind like what Arjuna is
supposed to have been in at the time. Almost in a childlike way does Arjuna
exclaim:-
“Seeing
these my kinsmen, O Krishna, arrayed eager to fight, my limbs fail and my mouth
is parched, my body quivers, and my hair stands on end, Gandiva slips from my
hand and my skin burns all over. I am not ‘able to stand, my mind is
whirling.’”
The
nervousness that had taken possession of him is beautifully shown by making him
say, “And I see adverse omens, O Krishna.” This is followed by philosophical
questioning of the advantages that may be supposed to accrue by a successful
ending of the war to his side. Adds Arjuna:-
“Nor
do I see any advantages from slaying kinsmen arrayed in battle. For I desire
not victory, O Krishna, nor pleasures, what is kingdom to us? O Govinda, what
enjoyment, or even life? If those for whose sake we desire kingdom, enjoyments
or pleasure stand here in battle, abandoning life and riches, teachers,
fathers, sons, etc. Those I do not wish to kill, though myself slain, O
Madhusudana, even for the sake of the kingship of the three worlds.”
Next
is advanced the argument of the sin that is involved in the killing of the
relatives and kinsmen, even though these latter “with intelligence overpowered,
see no guilt in the destruction of family, no crime in hostility to friends.”
Their ignorance in no way palliates the sin of those “who see the evil in
destruction of family.” In conclusion comes the argument which in Arjuna’s eyes
appears to be the most conclusive and unanswerable, the subversion of family
(“Kula”)-dharma and corruption and perversion of the family ties which must
necessarily result from war.
“In
the destruction of family (kula), the immemorial (sanatana) family-dharma
(kula-dharma) perishes; in the perishing of the kula-dharma lawlessness
(adharma) overcomes the whole family (kula). Owing to the predominance of
adharma, O Krishna, the woman of the family became corrupt; women corrupted
give birth to illegitimate children and half-breeds (varna-shankaras).
These varna-shankaras drag to hell the slayers of the family, and the family,
as the ancestors (i.e., the kula-pitris) are deprived of the customary
offerings. Those that bring about this confusion, thereby destroying the
national religion (jati-dharma) as well as the family- dharma (i.e., the
kula-dharma), the men whose kula-dharma is thus extinguished, O Janardana,
abide (thenceforth) decidedly in hell. Thus have we heard.”
Having
argued this Arjuna concluded that he would rather slain by the sons of
Dhritarashtra “unresisting and unarmed, in the battle,” than commit such a
great sin himself. Having said so, he “sank down and on the seat of the
chariot, casting away his bow and arrow, his mind overborne by grief.”
III
The
second chapter (or discourse) opens with a touching and characteristic
remonstrance by Krishna worthy of a warrior-prince typical of his times. Says
he, “Whence, O Arjuna, hath his ignoble dejection befallen thee, which is
characteristic of the Anaryas (non-Aryas) and which is heaven-closing and
infamous. Yield no impotence, O Partha! It doth not befit thee. Shake off this
paltry faint-heartedness. Stand up, Parantapa (conqueror of foes)” This is
pre-eminently the language of a noble Kshattriya, of a man who knew what it
meant for a Kshatriya to behave on a field of battle in the way proposed by
Arjuna. The whole duty of an Arya-Kshatriya was summed in this pathetic
reproach, which must have conveyed volumes to a brave and renowned prince of
the royal blood such as Arjuna was. In one pithy but beautiful sentence it
pictured the infamy of the idea and its dismissal consequences. Strong
language, indeed, but for the position and the authority of the man who used it
with a sure and certain aim.
The
dart, however, failed, and Arjuna retorted in a language more full of
bitterness and depth of feeling than wisdom.
“How,
O Madhusudana, shall I attack Bhishma and Drona, with arrows in battle, they who
are worthy of reverence, O Slayer of foes? Better in this world to eat even the
beggar’s crust than to slay these gurus high-minded. Slaying these gurus, our
well-wishers, I should taste of blood-besprinkled feasts.”
Having
said this in anger, Arjuna regained himself immediately and proceeded to adopt
an attitude which he thought was more befitting his relationship with the great
Krishna, viz., one of a suppliant for knowledge, light and guidance.
“Nor
know I which for us be the better, that we conquer them or they conquer
us-these, whom having slain we should not care to live, even these arrayed
against us, the sons of Dhritarashtra. My heart is weighed down with the vice
of faintness5; my mind is affected with attachment in the matter of
Dharma. I ask thee which may be the better7 - that tell me
decisively. I am thy disciple, suppliant to thee; teach me. For I see not what
would drive away this anguish that withers up my senses, if I should attain
monarchy on earth without a foe, or even the sovereignty of the gods.”
Having
this addressed Krishna he is reported to have finished off by saying “I will
not fight.” He had, however, said enough to drive Krishna to the conclusion
that his own sentimental outburst against Arjuna had failed to produce the
desired effect and that he would require more subtle food for his mental
digestion to resume its normal state.
Krishna,
then undertook to lecture on the true philosophy of life and death,
distinguishing the permanent, eternal and indestructible soul from the
unpermanent, changing and decaying body. He began by pointing out that Arjuna
was grieving “for those that should not be grieved for,” because, said he,
“At
no time I was not, nor thou, nor these princes of men, nor verily shall we ever
cease to be hereafter. As he dweller in the body (meaning the spirit) findeth
in the body childhood, youth and old age, so passeth he on to another body the
contacts of the senses giving cold and
heat, pleasure and pain, come and go, unpermanent . The unreal hath no being;
the real never ceaseth to be****. These bodies of the embodied One, who is
eternal, indestructible and boundless, are known as finite. Therefore FIGHT, O
BHARATA!”Immediately, however, he
returns to the same argument and points out that “He who reagrdeth this
(i.e., the soul) as a slayer and he who thinketh he is slain, both of them are
ignorant. He slayeth not, nor is he slain. He is not born nor doth he die, nor
having been, ceaseth any more to be; unborn, perpetual, eternal and ancient, he
is not slain when the body is slaughtered. How can that man slay, O Partha! or
cause to be slain, him, whom he knoweth (to be) indestructible, perpetual,
unborn, undiminishing. As a man casting off worn out garments, taketh new ones,
so the dweller in the body (i.e., the soul) casting off worn out bodies
entereth into others that are new. Weapons cleave entereth into others that are
new. Weapons cleave him not, not fire burneth him, nor waters wet him, nor wind
drieth him away; uneleavable he, incombustible he and indeed neither to be
wetted nor dried away; perpetual, all-pervasive, stable, immoveable, ancient,
unthinkable, immutable he is called; therefore knowing him as such thou
shouldst not grieve.”
Thus
ends Krishna’s first argument, which expounds the immortality and the
indestructibility of the soul in stirring poetry. The expressions used have
almost to a word been borrowed from the Upanishadas, but the poetry is the
author’s own. The subject dealt with is, in certain respects, a very complex
one, not to be easily followed in all its various bearings and lines of thought
but the meaning and purport of the writer is quiet clear. One who reads the
Gita in order to understand the author’s mind need not enter into those labyrinths
of doctrinal of the nature and essence of the soul, as distinguished from the
body of man. For the purpose of the doctrinal controversy one had better look
into those elaborate Shastras where the subject has been discussed at length
and systematically. It is sufficient to know here what Krishna evidently wanted
Arjuna to understand, viz., that by killing the body he was not killing the
real man embodied in the body, and latter was quiet distinct in the nature and
the character from the former; the body being mortal and changeable, the soul
being eternal, immortal and indestructible.
The
second argument is based upon the inevitableness of death. “Or if thou
thinkest of him,” continues Krishna, “as being constantly born and
constantly dying, even then O! mighty armed, thou shouldst not grieve. For
certain is death for the born and certain is birth from the dead. Therefore,
over the inevitable thou shouldst not grieve.”
“Beings
are unmanifest in their origin, manifest in their midmost state unmanifest
likewise are they in dissolution: What room (is) then for lamentation?”
The
argument is wound up by pointing out that marvelous as the soul of man appears
to be, it is invulnerable and not a fit subject for grief. The third argument
is based on Arjuna’s individual “Dharma”.
“Further
looking to your own dharma,” says Krishna, “thou shouldst not tremble; for
there is nothing more welcome to Kshattriya than righteous war (धर्मर्मयुद्ध). Happy the Kshattriyas, O Partha, who obtain such a
fight, unsought, offering as an open door to heaven.” In the next four verses he points out the consequences
of not fighting, saying:-
“But
if thou wilt not carry on this righteous warfare, then destroying or
outraging thy own dharma and (with it) thy honour, thou wilt incur sin. Men
will recount thy dishonour (for all times to come11), and
to one highly esteemed, dishonor exceedeth death. The great warriors (or
charioteers, maharathi) will think thou fledst from the battle out of fear, and
thou, that wast highly thought of by them, wilt be lightly held. Many
unseemly words will be spoken by thy enemies, slandering thy
strength. What (can be) more painful than that? Slain, thou wilt obtain heaven;
victorious, thou wilt enjoy the earth; therefore, stand up, O son of Kunti,
resolute to fight. Not minding pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and
defeat, grid thee for the battle; (as) thou shalt incur no sin.”
The
rest of this chapter with the argument, which is based upon the philosophy of
Karma (action) without attachment to its fruits.
“Thy
business is with the action only,” says Krishna, “never with its fruits; so let not
the fruit of action be taken be thy motive; nor be thou to inaction attached. Perform
action, O Dhananjaya, dwelling in union with the Divine, renouncing attachments
and balance evenly in (i.e., without being distributed by) success of failure.
This equilibrium is called yoga (योग).” The principle argument relied upon in the first part
of the chapter based on the unborn and undying nature of human soul was in
accordance with the Philosophy of Sankhya, but with the doctrine of karma
began the teaching of yoga. In expounding this, Sri Krishna seems to speak
of the karmakandis (कर्मकाण्डी). “Who with karma (desire) as the immediate
object of the soul and heaven for its goal, offers birth, as the fruit of good
action and lay15 too much stress on the ceremonies for the attainment
of pleasure16 and lordship. Those who cling to pleasure and lordship
and whose minds are captivated by such teachings (as lead to the same) are not
endowed with that determined reason which is steadily bent on contemplation
(43).17 (Woe to the person) who cannot claim a determinate
reason, such as is one-pointed, because many-branched and endless are the
inclinations of one who possesses an indeterminate Buddhi.”
The
insulation contained in the last sentences is, of course, well-aimed. In verse
49 Krishna points out the inferiority of karma (action such as mentioned in 43)
to Buddhiyoga and calls upon him to take refuge in the pure Buddhi.
“as
pitiable18 are they who work for fruits. The Munis united to
Buddhi renounces the fruit which action yeildeth and (thus) liberated from the
bonds of birth, they attain the blissful state.”
Upon
this Arjuna asked the Lord to explain what is distinguishing mark of him who is
stable of mind and steadfast in contemplation.
“How
doth the stable-minded, O Keshava, how doth he sit and how walk?”
Slokas
55 to 72 contain the answer to this question, which is, so to say, the Lord’s
exposition of “Buddhi Yoga”.
“When
a man abandoneth, O Partha, all the desires of the heart and is satisfied in
the self by the self, then is he called stable in mind. He, whose mind is free
from anxiety and pains, indifferent amid pleasures, loosed from passion, fear
and anger, he is called a Muni of stable mind. He who on every side is without
attachment, whatever hap of fair and foul, who neither likes nor dislikes, of such
a one the understanding is well-poised19. The objects of sense turn away when rejected by an
abstemious soul but still desire of them may remain. Even desires, however, is
lost when the Supreme is seen. The excited senses of even a wise man carry away
his mind, (though he may bestriving hard to control them). (Therefore) having
restrained them all, he should sit harmonized, devote wholly to me, 20 for of him the
understanding is well-poised whose senses are mastered.
“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 the
destruction of Reasons; from destruction of Reasons , he perishes. But the
disciplined self, moving among sense-objects with sense free from attraction
and repulsion, mastered by the self, goeth to peace. In that peace the
extinction of all pains ariseth for him, for of him whose heart is peaceful the
Reason soon attaineth equilibrium. There is no pure Reason for the
non-harmonised, nor for the non-harmonised is there concentration; for him
without concentration there is no peace, and for the unpeaceful how can there
be happiness? Such of the roving sense as the mind yeildeth to, that hurries
away the understanding, just as the gale hurries away a ship upon the waters.
Therefore, O mighty-armed, whose senses are all completely restrained from the
objects of sense, of him the understanding is well-poised. That which is the
night of all beings, for the disciplined man is the time of walking; when other
beings are waking, then is it night for the muni who seeth. He attaineth
peace, into whom all desires flow as river flow into the ocean, which is filled
with water but remaineth unmoved- not he who desireth desires. Whose forsaketh
all desires and goeth onwards free from yearnings, selfless and without
egoism-he goeth to peace. This is Brahman state, O son of Pritha. Having
attained thereto none is bewildered. Who, even at the death hour, is
established therein, he goeth to the Nirvana of Brahman.”
So
far the argument originally started has been completed. With a view to make
Arjuna throw of his dejection and fight, Shri Krishna started first by rebuking
him and charging him with ‘un-Ayranly,’ unmanly and ignoble conduct. When that
failed to have its desired effect, he explained the delusion that underlay the
idea of Arjuna’s incurring the sin of killing Drona and Bhishma, etc., by
expounding the unborn and undying nature of the soul and declaring that it was
the latter that was the real man and not the body which was changeable,
transient and unpermanent. Then followed the inevitableness of death for every
one born and vice versa. The fourth step was to exhort him to be true to
his Dharma, regardless of consequences, and the fifth was asking him to perform
Karma without attachment to its fruit. The last is in fact the governing
principle of Gita, which has been explained, all through, time after time, in
different forms, under different heads and with different arguments. “Act in
the living present with unswerving loyalty to your Dharma, doing whatever is
necessary for the performance thereof, with no fear of incurring sin, provided
your acts are strictly actuated by a sense of duty and are not tainted by an
attachment to the senses or to the mundane fruit of your actions,” is the
sum-total of Krishna’s teachings to Arjuna. “Dharma” (duty) is the
supreme law of life that alone leads one to salvation and the state of supreme
bliss (paramananda), which is the goal of every human soul assuming a
body and subjecting itself, in the language of the uninitiated, to recurring
births and deaths. Everything else and every other consideration must besubordinated
to and controlled by your Dharma. All your energies and powers must be
concentrated on that point. That must be center of your system. There is no
going off and on. In the pilgrimage of your life you are successful in
proportion as you have found out your Dharma and stood to it. The day you
approach the highest rung in the ladder of your Dharma, you have crossed the
ocean of life, got rid of the births and deaths and reached your heaven. Then
you enjoy a state of perfect bliss. If on the other hand you betray your Dharma;
if you are carried away from it by other considerations, viz., your own
conceptions of virtues and vice, pleasure and pain, truth and falsehood; if you
fail to stand to your duty and make it the rule of life under all
circumstances, favourable or unfavourable; and if you allow yourself to be
guided by wrong ideas and false sentiments, you are surely on the road that
leads to destruction. By such a course you only deepen the whirlpool and
enhance the fury of the storm wherein the frail bark of the life of your soul
is being tossed up and down, forward and backward, without a way out, without a
star in the horizon to cheer it up in the hour of its difficulty, and without a
hope of its ever reaching the harbour of safety.
III
The
third chapter and all subsequent chapters are in a way only an amplification of
Karmayoga, the principal of which was touched upon and stated in the
second chapter. The mixing up of Buddhi yoga and Karmayoga,
however, and certain other expressions about the supreme excellence of
determinate reason, created some confusion in the mind of Arjuna and
consequently in the two verses of the third chapter he begs for the clearing up
of the doubt. Addressing Krishna he says,
“If
it be thought by thee that knowledge is superior to action, O Janardana,
why dost thou, O Kesava, enjoin on me this terrible action (i.e., war)?
With these perplexing words thou hast only confused my understanding; tell me,
therefore, with certainty the one way by which I may reach bliss.”
The
lord replied,
“In
this world there is a two-fold path, as I said before, O sinless one: that of
Yoga by knowledge (ज्ञानयोग) of the
Sankhyas: and that if Yoga by action (कर्मयोग)
of the Yogis. Man winneth not freedom from action by abstaining from activity,
nor by mere renunciation doth he rise to perfection, nor can any one, even for
instant remain really actionless; fro helplessly is every one driven to action
by the energies born of nature. Who sitteth, controlling the organs of action
but dwelling in his mind on the objects of senses, that bewildered man is
called a hypocrite. But who controlling the senses by the mind O Arjuna, with
the organs of actions without attachment, performeth yoga by action (कर्मयोग), he is worthy.”
“Perform
thou right action, for action is superior to inaction, and inactive, even the
maintenance of thy body would not be possible. The world is bound by action,
unless performed for the sake of sacrifice (यज्ञ); for that sake, free from attachment, O son of
Kunti, perform thou action. Having in ancient times emanated mankind togetherwith
sacrifice, the Lord of emanation (प्रजापनि) said: ‘By
this shall ye propagate; be this to you the giver of desires; with this nourish
ye the gods, may the gods nourish you; thus nourishing one another, ye shall
reap the supremest good. For, nourished by sacrifice, the gods shall bestow on
you the enjoyments you desire.’ A thief verily is he who enjoyeth what is given
by Them without returning Them aught. The righteous, who eat the remains of the
sacrifice, are freed from all sins; but the impious, who dress food for their
own sakes, they verily eat sin. Food from creatures become; from rain is the
production of food; rain proceedeth from sacrifice; sacrifice ariseth out of
action; know thou that from Veda action groweth, and Veda from the Imperishable
cometh. Therefore Brahman, the all-permeating, is ever present in sacrifice.
He, who the earth doth not follow the wheel thus revolving, sinful of life and
rejoicing in the senses, he, O son of Pritha, liveth in vain.” ( Verses 3-16,
ch. III) Verses 10-14 explain which is
meant by yajna, which is translated by the word sacrifice, though it
hardly gives the whole or correct idea of yajna. In verses 12 and 13
rather strong language is used in denouncing those selfish people who act with
the sole purpose of self-enjoyment, without any idea of Dharma or Karma.
But this is only by the by. Verses 14 and 15 reproduce the idea which is very
common in ancient Aryan literature, tracing the hand of god in every righteous
action enjoined by the Vedas; while verse 16th
emphatically lays down the consequences
of neglecting them. Verses 17th and 18th are again puzzling and conclude in the language of
riddles but the 19th is very clear and concludes the reasoning in the
verses 3 to 16. “Therefore, without attachment, constantly perform action which
is duty, for by performing action without attachment, man verify reacheth the
supreme.” With verse 20 begins another link in the chain of Krishna’s
persuasive armoury. Citing the example of Raja Janak (a highly respected name
in Hindu theological literature), he tells Arjuna that having an eye to the
protection of the masses also, he should perform action. He explains what he
means, in verses 21 to 26:-
“Whatsoever
a great man doeth, that other men also do; the standard he sitteth up, by that
the people go. Here is nothing in the three worlds, O Partha, that should be
done by me, nor anything unattained that might be attained; yet I mingle in
action. For if I mingled not ever in action unwearied, men all around would
follow my path, O son of Pritha. These worlds would fall into ruin, if I did
not perform action; I should be the author of confusion of castes, and should
destroy these creatures. As the ignorant act from attachment to action, O
Bharata, so should the wise act without attachment, desiring the
maintenance of mankind. Let no wise man unsettle the mind of ignorant people
attached to action; by acting in harmony with me let him render all action
attractive.”
In
verse 27 another argument is advanced, viz., that “all actions are wrought by
the energies of nature only; the self-deluded by egoism thinketh: ‘I am the
doer.’” Verses 28 an d29 repeat the non-attachment to the fruits of action is
the sign of perfect knowledge, the professor of which is exhorted not to
unsettle the minds of those whose knowledge is imperfect. In conclusion the
lord calls upon Arjuna to surrender all actions to Him in all sincerity to
heart and to engage in battle, giving up all hope and attachment and cured of
mental fever. Verses 31 and 32 are an attempt to inspire faith in His teaching. “Who abide ever is this teaching of mine, full of
faith and free from caviling, verily they are released from actions. But those
who carp at my teaching and act not thereon, senseless, deluded in all
knowledge, know thou them to be given over to destruction.”
Verse
35 gives the finishing touch by once more alluding to Arjuna’s own Dharma (duty)
as a Kshattriya (warrior) and by holding up the danger-signal against
the temptation of attempting to assume the duties (Dharma) of a
different class. “Better death in the discharge of one’s own duty; the duty of
another is full of danger.” Thus ends the masterly argument of Krishna. What
follow are replies to question put by Arjuna, elucidating the different points
that had indirectly and collaterally arisen in the course of the above
argument. These replies involved learned expositions of several knotty points
of doctrinal philosophy, but, in reality they are neither material to nor
important for, the main purpose of the dialogue. But there are plenty of
indications all through, that the latter is never dropped. Chapter III
concludes with an explanation of the origin of sin in answer to Arjuna’s query,
viz., “dragged on by what does a man commit sin, reluctantly, indeed, as
it were by force constrained?” In chapter IV is discussed the philosophy of
births and deaths, with a sermon on the nature, essence and kinds of
sacrifices. The chapter, however, winds up with an exhortation to fight, in the
last verse, which runs thus:-
“Therefore
with the sword of wisdom of the self , cleaving asunder this ignorance-born
doubt, dwelling in thy heart, be established in Yoga. Stand up, O Bharata.”
Chapter
V begins with a question by Arjuna as to which of the two, “Renunciation of
activities’ (सन्यास) or ‘Yoga’, is the better and more approved path. In
the very next verse Lord gives a decisive opinion in favour of ‘Yoga by action’
(कर्मयोग) in preference of ‘Renunciation of activities’.’ The
rest of the discourse is a detailed discussion of “Sannyasa Yoga”
followed by an equally masterly exposition of ‘Yoga by meditation’ (ध्यान योग) in the VIth Chapter.
Chapter
VII to XVI both inclusive contain the poetry of the book. From the doctrinal
point of view, the subject is practically the same but the language and the
sentiments constitute sublime poetry and divine music. To the language of
philosophy and that of science, in explaining the mystery of life and death,
are added the charm of expression and the freedom of flight on the wings of the
imagination. Riddles are explained away by riddles. The solutions are as
perplexing as the problems. All reserve is set aside and the most complex and
difficult of questions are met with the greatest boldness and in a tone of
absolute confidence and unswerving faith in self. It, is as if, talking of
serious matters in the language of disquisition, the writer suddenly remembers
that he is composing music and writing poetry and not a book on polemics.
Seemingly forgetful of the actual object in view, he transports himself to the
vastness of the limitless space and lets his imagination go free. Absorbed in
the beauty of his own expanded soul he sees nothing but beauty and harmony in
this universe, nay, even beyond and out of it.
Considered
from the point of view of the original object of the dialogue, it is a most
daring and successful effort to over-awe Arjuna as well as to inspire him with
confidence and faith in the wisdom of Krishna and in his to elicit implicit
obedience to his will. It is an appeal to fear, love, respect, and admiration
all combined, and wound up with the supreme authority of the Shastras. The
concluding verses of the XVIth chapter lay down that
“he
who, having cast aside the ordinances of the shastras, following the promptings
of desire, attaineth not to perfection, nor happiness, nor the highest goal.
Therefore, let the Shastras be thy authority in determining what ought not to
be done. Knowing what hath been declared by the ordinances of the Shastras,
thou oughtest to work in this world.”
The
reason for reference to the authority of the Shastras as regards the Duty of
Arjuna is clear enough. In chapter XVII is explained, in reply to a question to
Arjuna, the condition of a man who sacrifices with faith but casting aside the
ordinance of the Shastras. This leads to a discourse on sacrifices, followed by
a disquisition on the essence of ‘Renunciation’ (सन्यास) and
‘Relinquishment’ in chapter XVIII. In this last discourse, is practically
recapitulated the substance of the whole teaching of Gita in a rather simple
form, with special reference to the action of the three Gunas (energies),
Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, because there is not an entity, according
to Krishna, either on this earth or in heaven among the Gods that is free21 from these
three qualities born of matter. Then is described the distribution of duties
according to the qualities born of their own natures amongst the four principal
castes, viz., Brahmans, Kshattriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras (41 to 44),
every one reaching perfection by his being intent on his karma (45).
The
next verse points out that a man winneth perfection by worshipping Him from
whom all beings emanate and by whom everything is pervaded, in his own duty (कर्म); from which it only naturally follows that
“one’s
own duty is better though destitute of merits that the well-executed duty of
another22; he who doeth the karma laid down by his nature incurreth no sin.”
(47)
Stress
is again laid upon the same idea by saying (in 48) that “nature-born karma,
though defective, ought not to be abandoned (as) all undertakings indeed are
clouded by defects (दोष) as fire by smoke.” The
reader must have seen through the masterly ingenuity with which repeated
appeals are being made to Arjuna in the name of his Kshattriya Dharma.
The language used is very guarded. A distinction is made in the different
verses between Dharma and Karma,23 which is not very clear. The
words, “destitute of merit” and “defective” are evidently used in a comparative
sense to denote the superior merit and eventual excellence of the Brahman’s Dharma
and Karma as compared with those of a Kshattriya. All the same the
latter is clearly and unambiguously enjoined not to neglect his own. Not only
does he incur no sin by performing his own duty but that is only way for him to
wash off his previous sins, and improve his nature in order to gain the next step; verses 49 to
53 pointing out the way ‘ to be fit to become a Brahman.’ Even a Brahman,
however, is not free from the obligation to perform karma, though over
and above that, he must take refuge in the Lord, as it by His that he attaineth
the eternal indestructible abode. Speaking on behalf of the Lord, in the first
person singular, Krishna takes particular care not to let Arjuna elude
obedience to his wishes. He says:-
“Renouncing mentally all works in Me, intent on
Me, resorting to the Yoga of discrimination, have thy thought ever on Me. Thinking
of Me thou shalt overcome all obstacles by my grace: but if from egoism thou
shalt not listen, thou shalt be destroyed utterly. Entrenched in egoism
thou thinkest, ‘I will not fight’; to no purpose thy determination; nature will
constrain thee. O son of Kunti, bound by thine own Karma, born of thine own
nature, that which from delusion thou not to do, even that helplessly thou
shalt perform. Ishwara dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna,
by His Maya causing all beings to revolve, as though mounted on a
potter’s wheel. Flee unto Him for shelter with all thy being, O Bharata; by His
grace thou shalt obtain supreme peace, the ever-lasting dwelling place.”
Reader,
mark the threat contained in the words in italics and then the subsequent
cajoling into action on other grounds.
It
will be ridiculous to take very word literally, as, in that case the analogy of
the potter’s wheel will destroy all freedom of action on the part of man, which
is far from Krishna’s mind. The net of logic, philosophy, reason and faith
which Krishna so skillfully and so ingeniously wove round Arjuna’s heart and
brain, could not fail to have its effects. Arjuna’s doubts were completely
annihilated and having been entirely subdued he gave in. Says Arjuna at last,
“Destroyed
is my delusion. I have gained knowledge through Thy grace, O Achyuta. I
am firm, my doubts have fled away. I will do according o Thy word.”
So did Krishna triumph, and verily “Where ever is Krishna,
Yoga’s Lord, (योगेश्वर) and wherever is Partha, the Archer (धनुधमर), assured are there prosperity,
victory and happiness.” A nation’s prosperity and success depend upon wisdom
like that of Krishna and on bravery like that of Arjuna. The one without other
is incomplete and defective. Efficiency can best be secured by a combination of
both. This is corollary to the Bhagawad-Gita; disinterested performance of
one’s duty, without attachment to its fruit, at any cost and any risk, being
its burthen. This is a message of all times to come for men in general, be they
of any color or clime; but this is THE message for the descendants, successors
and countrymen of Krishna and Arjuna, swayed as they are, at present, by the
forces of ignorance, superstition, chicken-heartedness and false ideas of Dharma
and Karma. In unswerving loyalty to this truth-at any cost and under
any circumstances- lies the salvation of the present-day Indians. If ever any
nation stood in need of a message like that of Krishna, it is the Indians of
to-day. If ever the inheritors of Krishna’s name and glory stood in need of a
sound doctrine to lead them to success and prosperity amidst adverse
circumstances of the greatest awe-inspiring and fear-generating magnitude, it
is now. Let them invoke his aid by acting up to his message and we are sure all
their doubts will be dispelled, their unmanliness gone and the road to success and
glory gained but surely. It will a shame if the countrymen of Krishna let any
false ideas of Yoga prevail amongst them or let any false doctrines of
renunciation (सन्यास) and relinquishment enfeeble their arms. If no false notions of Dharma
are allowed to paralyse their minds and their hands, we are confident their
future is as assured as was the victory of Arjuna over the mighty forces of
Duryodhana, even though the latter had the bodily support of a Bhishma and a
Drona.
By-
Lala Lajpat Rai
