Verse 2.2 [Selfishness Deprecated]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

कामात्मता न प्रशस्ता न चैवैहास्त्यकामता ।
काम्यो हि वेदाधिगमः कर्मयोगश्च वैदिकः ॥ २ ॥

kāmātmatā na praśastā na caivaihāstyakāmatā |
kāmyo hi vedādhigamaḥ karmayogaśca vaidikaḥ || 2 ||

It is not right to be absorbed in desires—“But there is in this world, no absolute absence of desire; for the study of the Vedas itself is prompted by desire, as also every act prescribed in the Veda.”—(2)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The man for whom desire for reward forms the sole motive to act is said to be ‘absorbed in desires’; and it is this character that is expressed by the abstract noun; the term ‘ātman’ in this compound denoting preponderance.

‘It is not right?,’—i.e., it is deprecated.

[An objection is raised]—“This deprecation leads us to infer that the said absorption in desires is prohibited.—This means that the text contains the prohibition of all such sacrifices as the Saurya and the like, which are performed with a desire for a definite reward. Or, why should we specify the Saurya and other sacrifices? All performance of actions is for the accomplishment of a desirable end; no one acts simply for the accomplishing of the act itself; in fact there is no action without results. As for the assertion (contained in 4.63) that ‘one should not act aimlessly’ [which might be taken to imply that there are aimless actions, such as] pouring libations on extinguished fire, or seeking for information regarding what is happening to kings and places of other countries,—in reality, in these cases also there is some result following from the act; and all that is meant by calling them ‘aimless’ is that they do not bring about any important results, in the shape of attainment of Heaven, acquisition of village-property and so forth, which are useful to men in the invisible and visible spheres. It might be argued that—‘It may be that the action brings about a reward; what is meant is that the man should have no desire for that reward; even though, in the very nature of things, the reward will follow.’ Even so the Saurya and other sacrifices would be without rewards; that alone is regarded as ‘reward’ which is actually desired; so that there could be no ‘reward’ for one who has no desires. In the ordinary world, we do not find any such activity as is absolutely independent of a desire for reward. Nor have we any such Vedic declaration as that ‘in connection with Vedic actions alone there should be no desire for reward.’ On the contrary, all Vedic acts have been prescribed as bringing definite rewards; so that if desire for rewards is interdicted, it would mean that the acts would not be done; and this would militate against the spirit of the Vedas. As regards the compulsory acts (prescribed in the Veda), there is no possibility of rewards in their case. Then again, since the prohibition in the text is a general one (and not restricted to Vedic acts only), it would lead to the cessation of all ordinary activity of the world, and would thus run counter to visible practice also, and it comes to this that no one should do anything, all should sit silent.”

To the above objection we make the following reply:—

(1) It has been argued that the Text implies the prohibition of the Saurya and such other sacrifices, which are admittedly prompted by desire for rewards; as regards this, the author is himself going to say (in Verso 5) that ‘the man fulfils the desires he may have entertained’; if he had meant to prohibit (by the present verse) such acts, how could there be any ‘entertainment’ or ‘fulfilment’ of desires?

(2) The second point urged is that, since the text does not specify Vedic acts alone, the interdict would apply to ordinary actions also. But the required specification has already been made by the text (in the preceding verse), where it says—‘Learn that Dharma’; which shows that it is Dharma (and not the ordinary activity of the world) that forms the subject-matter of the present discourse.

(3) The third point raised is that—“in as much as no rewards are mentioned in connection with the compulsory acts, there can be no possibility of any desire for rewards in the case of these; so that no useful purpose could be served by the prohibiting of such desires.”—

Now in answer to this we make the following observations:—

(a) By reason of no rewards being spoken of, no one would ever undertake the performance of any compulsory act, unless he were a person thoroughly conversant with the scriptures (and hence realising the importance of compulsory duties):

and (b) in the case of the Saurya and such other acts as have rewards mentioned in connection with them, finding that men are prompted to their performance by desire for those rewards, people might be led to the generalisation that whatever one is to do should be done with the desire for a definite reward; and thus come to undertake the performance of the compulsory acts also only through a desire for reward, oven though no such reward has been spoken of in the scriptures.

And it is with a view to preclude these possibilities that the text lays down the interdict. Though the general rule is that—

(a) an act which is mentioned as leading to a definite result can only be performed with a view to that result,

(b) while that which is laid down in the scriptures as not bringing any reward, and in connection with which one cannot assume a reward according to the principle enunciated in relation to the Viśvajit -sacrifice [Pūrvamīmāmsā-Sūtra, 4.3. 15-16; that where no reward is mentioned, the attainment of heaven should be regarded as the reward], can never be performed otherwise (than in the purely disinterested manner),—yet there may be persons who are conversant with this principle; and it is to these persons that the text addresses the exhortation; specially as it would be rather difficult to carry conviction to such persons by mere reasoning; and the requisite knowledge is conveyed in a simpler and easier manner by means of direct advice.

It is for this reason that the author has, in a friendly spirit, conveyed a teaching which is thoroughly established by proofs.

Though the word ‘Kama’ is generally found to be used in the sense of sexual desire, yet, since in the present context that sense is not applicable, it has to be taken as synonymous with ‘icchā’ (Desire) and ‘abhilāṣa,’ (Longing). So that in view of what follows, the meaning of the text comes to be that ‘one should not undertake the performance of all acts simply with a desire for reward.’

The opponent, taking the ‘absorption in desires’ to mean mere presence of desire in general, urges the following objection:—

“But there is in this world, no absolute absence of desires; that is, as a matter of fact, in this world, there is no activity for one who is entirely without desire. To say nothing of such acts as cultivation of land, trade and the like, which are done by men of experience,—even the ‘study of the Veda,’ the learning of the Veda, which the boy is made to do by his father and others, being even chastised by them, even this is not possible without some desire; reading consists in the uttering of words; and utterance never proceeds, like the sound of thunder, without desire.—‘Well, if the Boy desires to read, why is he beaten?’—It is by beating that his desire is aroused; the only difference is that in connection with things that the person likes, the desire arises of itself (and does not need an incentive in the shape of the beating).—Similarly ‘the acts prescribed in the Veda,’—as compulsory in connection with the Darśapūrṇa nāṣa and other sacrifices are not possible without desire. There is no possibility of a man giving away to Deities things that belong to himself, unless there is a desire in him for doing so. Hence the prohibition of ‘absorption in desires’ becomes an interdict upon all acts prescribed in the Veda and iu the Smṛtis.”—(3)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Much ingenuity has again been displayed to show that verses 2—5 are a ‘later interpolation.’ Burnell remarks that it must be so, because ‘in the old Vedic religion, all ceremonies and sacrifices were avowedly performed in order to gain desired objects of various kinds.’ He evidently forgot that what is expounded by Manu is not exactly what the writer speaks of as ‘the old Vedic religion.’

‘Na praśastā’—Because leading to new births, and obstructing Final Release.

Medhātithi, (p. 50, 1. 27)—Viśvajit-nyāya—see Mīmāṃsā Sūtra 4.3.15—16.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Bhagavadgītā, 3.5.—‘Apart from action done for sacrifice, all action tends to the bondage of men.’

Bhagavadgītā, 5.—‘Renouncing the fruit of the act, if one engages himself in it with a concentrated mind, he attains eternal peace; doing it without concentration, and drawn by desire to the fruit of the act, he becomes bound.’

Ibid, 6.27.—‘If one performs an act as a duty, without any regard for its fruit, etc.’

Ibid, 9.20.—‘Men learned in the three Vedas, drinking Soma, having their sins washed off, perform sacrifices and seek to go to heaven; having reached the sacred regions of Indra, they enjoy, in heaven, pleasures fit for the gods.’

Sūtasaṃhitā, 3.4.—‘It is only the unfortunate people who, imbued with due faith, betake themselves to acts prescribed as leading to certain desirable results; those are extremely fortunate who engage themselves only in those daily and occasional acts that are obligatory; for these latter liberation is obtained without effort; doing with due faith, as they do, every act simply because it is enjoined by the scriptures.’

Āpastaṃba, Dharmasūtra, 1.20.1-2.—‘One should not do his duties with the view to attain worldly ends;—those that bring no fruits are conducive to good.’

Ibid, 1.21-5.—‘Having fully comprehended the nature of acts, one should undertake that which he likes.’