Authors Preface

I am only repeating the stale words uttered by Saints. How can an insignificant man like me know this?
  — Tukārāma.

Although in the beginning of this book, I have explained my reasons for publishing it, in spite of the fact that there are in existence many Sanskrit commentaries, or criticisms, or Prakrit translations, or exhaustive and universally accepted expositions of the Śrīmad Bhagavadgītā, yet, there is no better place than an Introduction for explaining all such things as cannot be included in the discussion of the subject-matter of the book itself. The first of these things is about the author himself. It is now nearly forty-three years since I made my first acquaintance with the Bhagavadgītā. In the year 1872, during the last illness of my father, the task of reading out to him a Prakrit commentary on the Bhagavadgītā called Bhāṣā-vivṛtti fell to my lot. At that date, that is, when I was only 16 years old, it was not possible for me to fully understand the import of the Gītā. Still, as the impressions made on the mind in young age are lasting, the liking for the Bhagavadgītā which then came into existence did not die out; and when I had later on made further studies in Sanskrit and English, I had occasion to read from time to time the Sanskrit commentaries and other criticisms, as also the expositions by many learned scholars in English and in Marathi on the Gītā.

I was then faced by the doubt as to why the Gītā, which was expounded in order to induce to fight that Arjuna, who was dejected by the idea that it was a sin to war with one's own relatives, should contain an Exposition of the manner in which Release could be obtained by Knowledge (Jñāna) or by Devotion (Bhakti), that is to say, only of the 'mokṣa-mārga'; and that doubt gradually gained ground, because, I could not find a satisfactory answer to that question in any commentary on the Gītā. It is quite possible that others too might have felt the same doubt. One cannot say no to that. When a person is engulfed in commentaries, he cannot find a different solution, though he may feel that the solution given in the commentary is not satisfactory. I, therefore, put aside all criticisms and commentaries, and independently and thoughtfully read the Gītā over several times. I then got out of the clutches of the commentators, and was convinced that the original Gītā did not preach the Philosophy of Renunciation (nivṛtti), but of Energism (Karma- Yoga); and that possibly, the single word 'yoga' used in the Gītā had been used to mean Karma-Yoga. That conviction was strengthened by the study of the Mahābhārata, the Vedānta- Sūtras, the Upaniṣads and other Sanskrit and English treatises on Vedānta; and believing that by publishing that opinion, there would be a fuller discussion on the subject, and that it would be easier to arrive at the truth, I delivered public lectures on the subject on four or five occasions at different times. One of these was delivered at Nagpur in January 1902, and the other one at the Śaṅkeśvara Maṭha in August 1904, in the presence of Jagadguru Śrī Śaṃkarācārya of the Karavīra and Śaṅkeśvara Maṭha, and at his request.

The summary of the lecture delivered at Nagpur was published in the newspapers at the time. With the same object, I also discussed the matter from time to time privately, whenever I had leisure, with some of my learned friends. One of these was the late Mr. Shripati Buva Bhingarkar. In his company, I had occasion to see some Prakrit treatises pertaining to the Bhāgavata cult, and some of the ideas explained in the Gītā- Rahasya were first fixed in the discussions between myself and the Buva. It is a matter of deep regret that he is not alive to see this work. Though my opinion that the creed preached in the Gītā was one of Action, had, in this way, become quite definite, and though I had decided to reduce it to writing, many years went by. But I thought that a considerable amount of misunderstanding would arise if I merely published in a book form, this moral of the Gītā. which had not been accepted in the commentaries, criticisms, or translations now commonly available, without assigning any reasons as to why I was unable to accept the conclusions arrived at by the former commentators. At the same time, as the work of dealing with the opinions of all the commentators, and exposing their incompleteness with reasons, and of comparing the religion expounded in the Gītā with other religions or philosophies was one entailing great labour, it was not possible for me to satisfactorily complete it, within a short period of time. Therefore, although my friends Daji Saheb Kharay and Dada Saheb Khaparday had, in anticipation and somewhat hastily, announced that I was shortly going to publish a treatise on the Gītā, yet, seeing that the material in hand was not sufficient, I went on putting off the work of writing the hook.

And later on, when in the year 1908, I was convicted and sent to Mandalay, in Burma, the chance of this book being written came practically to an end. But, when after sometime, Government was pleased to grant permission to take the books and other things essential for writing this book from Poona to Mandalay, the draft of this book was first made in the Mandalay Jail in the Winter of 1910–1911 (between Kartik Shuddha 1st and Falgun Vadya 30th of the Saka Year 1832); and thereafter, the draft was improved upon from time to time, as things suggested themselves to me; and those portions which had remained incomplete as the necessary books had not been available, were completed after my release from jail. Nevertheless, I cannot even now say that this work is complete in every respect; because, the elementary principles of Release (mokṣa) and Moral Philosophy are very recondite, and they have been so exhaustively expounded by ancient and- modern scholars, that it is very often difficult to correctly decide which portion of such expositions ought to be incorporated in this small book, without including too much.

But, my physical condition is now becoming weak, as described by the great Mahārāṣṭra poet Moropanta in the following āryā stanza:–

Old age, which is the spotless white banner carried by the army of attendants of Death, is already in sight |

And my body is exhausted in the struggle with diseases, which are the advance-guard of that army ||

And my contemporaries in life have passed on. So, having come to the conclusion that I should place before the public the information which I have gathered, and the ideas which have occurred to me, and that someone else possessed by the same inspiration (samānadharmā), will come to birth in the immediate or distant future, and develop and work them out, I have published this book.

Though I am not prepared to accept the opinion that the Gītā gives only an exposition of the paths of Release based on Renunciation, such as, 'the Knowledge of the Brahman' or 'Devotion', after proving worldly Action to be inferior and negligible, I must, at the outset, make it dear that I do not also say that there is no exposition at all in the Bhagavadgītā of the paths of obtaining Release. Nay; I too have shown in this book, that according to the philosophy of the Gītā, it is the primary duty of every human being in this world, to acquire the Knowledge of the pure form of the Parameśvara, and thereby to cleanse out and purify his own Reason as far as possible. But, that is not the principal subject-matter of the Gītā. At the commencement of the war, Arjuna was engulfed in a perplexity about what his duty was, namely, whether he should or should not take part in a war, which would ruin the welfare of his Ātman, in the shape of Release, as a result of his committing heinous sins like the destruction of his own clan, etc., though it was the duty of every Kṣatriya to fight. And I am of opinion that in order to clear this doubt, the Gītā has propounded the device of performing Action in such a way that one ultimately attains Release without committing sin, namely, the Karma-Yoga founded on Knowledge, in which Devotion is the principal factor, after it had fully expounded the Philosophy of Action and Non-Action, and also the various paths of attaining Release according to pure Vedānta Philosophy, and had established that no man is free from

Action, and that Action should never be given up. This exposition of Action and Non-Action, or of Morality and Immorality is called ' Ethics ' by modern purely Materialistic philosophers. It is not that I could not have made this exposition by following the usual procedure, and explained how this principle has been established by the Gītā, by commenting on the Gītā stanza by stanza. But, unless one is thoroughly conversant with the various philosophical doctrines, arguments and deductions pertaining to Vedānta, vyavasāyātmikā, Sāṃkhya, the Doctrine of Causality (karmavipāka) and Devotion, on the authority of which the doctrine of Karma- Yoga has been established in the Gītā, and the reference to which is sometimes very succinct, the full purport of the exposition made in the Gītā is not easily understood. I have, therefore, scientifically divided all the various subjects or doctrines, which one comes across in the Gītā, into chapters, and briefly expounded them, together with the most important logical arguments relating to them; and I have, at the same time, consistently with the critical methods of the present day, compared in brief and as occasion arose, the most important doctrines propounded in the Gītā, with the doctrines propounded in other religions and philosophies. It may thus be said that the essay 'Gītā-Rahasya' (the Esoteric Import of the Gītā), which is published in the beginning of this book, is by itself an independent, though a small, book on the. doctrine of Proper Action (Karma-Yoga). But, in any case, it was not possible to consider fully each individual stanza of the Gītā in a general exposition of this kind. I have, therefore, at the end of the book, translated the Gītā, stanza by stanza, and added exhaustive commentaries to the translations in different places, in order to explain the anterior and posterior context; or, in order to show how former commentators have stretched the meaning of some of the stanzas of the Gītā in order to support their own doctrines (See Gītā 3.17–19; 6.3; and 18.2); or, in order to show which of the various doctrines enunciated in the Gītā-Rahasya appear how and where in the Gītā, according to the catechismal method of the Gītā, It is true that by following this method, some subject-matter has been repeated; but, as I felt convinced that I could not in any other way fully dissipate the misunderstanding, which now exists in the mind of the common reader as regards the import of the Gītā, I have separated the exposition of the Gītā-Rahasya (Esoteric Import of the Gītā) from the translation itself; and thereby, it has become easy for me (i) to show with authorities and with former history, where and in what manner, the, doctrines of the Gītā with reference to Vedānta, Mīmāṃsā, Devotion etc., have appeared in the Bhārata, the Sāṃkhya system, the Vedānta-Sūtras, the Upaniṣads, the Mīmāṃsā. and other original texts, (ii) to explain in a lucid way the difference between Renunciation. (Saṃnyāsa) and Action (Karma-Yoga), as also (iii) to expound, in a proper way the importance of the Gītā, from the point of view of practical Action, by comparing the Gītā with other religious opinions or philosophies. If there had not been all sorts of commentaries on the Gītā, and if various persons had not interpreted the import of the Gītā, each in a different way, it would have been totally unnecessary for me to quote the original Sanskrit authorities which go to support the propositions laid down by me in my book. But such a thing, cannot be done in the present times; and it is likely that many may doubt the correctness of the import of the Gītā or of the propositions, laid down by me. I have, therefore, everywhere pointed out the authorities which support what I say, and in important places, I have given the original Sanskrit text of the authorities with translations. As many of these dicta are usually accepted as proved truths in books on Vedānta, my secondary object in quoting them has been, that my readers should get acquainted with them in the course of reading, and find it easier on that account to remember the doctrines embodied in those statements. But, as it is not likely that all readers will be knowing Sanskrit, I have arranged my book on the whole in such a way that, if any reader who does not understand Sanskrit, reads the book, omitting the Sanskrit stanzas, there will not be any interruption anywhere in the sense; on this account, it has became necessary in many places, to remain satisfied with giving a mere summary of the Sanskrit stanza, instead of giving a literal translation of it. But as the original stanza is given in each case, there is no risk of any misunderstanding arising as a result of this procedure having been followed.

There is a story told about the Kohinoor diamond that after it had been taken from India to England, it was again cut there, and on that account, it began to look more brilliant. This law, which is true in the case of a diamond, also applies to a jewel in the shape of truth. It is true that the religion pro- pounded by the Gītā is true and unshakeable. But, as the time at which and the form in which it was propounded and the other attendant circumstances have considerably changed, it does not strike may as brilliant as before. As the Gītā was propounded at a time, when 'whether to act or renounce' was considered a question of great importance, to be determined before arriving at a decision as to which act was good and which bad, many people look upon a considerable portion of it as now unnecessary; and, as that position has been further made worse by commentaries supporting the Path of Renunciation, the exposition of Karma-Yoga contained in the

Gītā has become very difficult to understand for many in the present age. Besides, some of our new scholars are of opinion that as a result of the present growth of the Material sciences in the West, the deductions laid down in ancient times with reference to the Karma-Yoga, on the basis of the Philosophy of the Absolute Self, cannot possibly be fully applicable to modern conditions. In order to prove that this idea is wrong. I have briefly mentioned in various places in my exposition of the Gītā -Rahasya (Esoteric Import of the Gītā) the doctrines of Western philosophers, which are similar to those in the Gītā. Really speaking, the exposition of Ethics in the Gītā is in no way fortified by such a comparison. Yet, those people whose eyes are dazzled by the present unheard of growth of the Material sciences, or who have learnt to consider the Science of Ethics, only externally, that is to say, only in its Material aspect, as a result of the present one-sided methods of education will be made to see clearly by means of this comparison that not only has human knowledge not yet gone beyond the doctrines laid down on this subject by our philosophers, for the simple reason that Ethics and the science of Release are both beyond Material Knowledge, but, deliberations are still going on these questions in the West, from the Metaphysical point of view, and the opinions of these Metaphysicians are not materially different from the doctrines laid down in the Gītā. This fact will be clearly borne out by the comparative exposition appearing in the different chapters of the Gītā-Rahasya. But, as this subject is very extensive, I must explain here, with reference to the summaries of the opinions of Western philosophers which 1 have given in various places, that, as my principal object has been only to expound the import of the Gītā, I have accepted as authoritative the doctrines laid down in the Gītā, and have mentioned the Western opinions only so far as was necessary in order to show to what extent the doctrines of Western moral philosophers or scholars tally with the doctrines in the Gītā; and this too has been done by me only to such an extent that the ordinary Marathi reader should experience no difficulty in grasping their import. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that those who wish to ascertain the minute differences between the two–and these differences are many–or to see the full argumentative exposition or developing out of these theorems, must examine the original Western books themselves. Western scholars say that the first systematic treatise on the discrimination between Right and Wrong

Action or on Morality was written by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. But in my opinion, these questions had been examined long before Aristotle in a more exhaustive and scientific manner in the Mahābhārata and in the Gītā; and no moral doctrine has yet been evolved, which is different from the doctrines metaphysically expounded in the Gītā. The solution given by Aristotle of the question whether it is better to spend one's life peacefully, in philosophical meditation, and living like a hermit, or to spend it in all sorts of political activities, is to be found in the Gītā; and the opinion of Socrates that whatever sin is committed by man, is committed by him only as a result of ignorance, is also to be found to a certain extent in the Gītā, because it is a doctrine of the Gītā that it is not possible for a man to commit any sin, after his Reason has become equable as a result of the Knowledge of the Brahman. The doctrine of the Epicureans and the Stoics that the conduct of the perfect Jñānin is a standard for everybody, from the moral point of view, is to be found in the Gītā; and the description of the perfect Jñānin, given by the philosophers belonging to these sects, tallies with the description of the Sthitaprajña (Steady- in-Mind) given in the Gītā. Similarly, the dictum of Mill, Spencer, Kant, and other

Materialistic philosophers, that the highest peak or test of Morality consists in everybody acting so as to promote the welfare of the whole of mankind, is included in the external characteristic of a Sthitaprajña described in the Gītā in the words "sarvabhūtahite-rataḥ"(i.e., "one busy promoting the welfare of all created beings"—Translator.); and the arguments relating to Ethics, and the doctrines regarding Freedom of Will, enunciated by Kant and Green, are to be found mentioned in the Gītā, on the authority of the Knowledge contained in the Upaniṣads. If the Gītā had not contained anything more than this, it would still have commanded universal respect. But the Gītā does not stop there. After showing that the conflict between Release (mokṣa), Devotion (bhakti), and Ethics (nīti-dharma) imagined by Materialistic philosophers, as also the conflict between Knowledge (jñāna) and Right Action (karma) imagined by the followers of the School of Renunciation (saṃnyāsa) were groundless, and also showing that the fundamental element in the brahma-vidyā (science of the Brahman), and in bhakti (the Path of Devotion) is the foundation of Ethics and good behaviour, the Gītā has shown what path of life should be adopted by a man by properly harmonising Knowledge (jñāna), Renunciation (saṃnyāsa), Right Action (karma) and Devotion (bhakti). The Gītā is thus essentially a treatise on Right or Proper Action (Karma- Yoga); and that is why it has been given a position of supreme importance in all Vedic treatises, which refer to it as 'brahmavidyāntargata (karma-) yoga-śāstra' (i.e., "the Science of Right Action included in the Science of the Brahman"~Translator.) The saying "gītā sugītā kartavyā kim anyaiḥ śāstra vistaraiḥ", i.e., "it is quite enough if one thoroughly studies the Gītā; what is the use of dabbling in the other Śāstras?" is indeed correct; and, therefore, it is my earnest and respectful request to everyone, who wishes to become acquainted with the basic principles of the Hindu Religion and Morality, that he should first study this wonderful and unprecedented book; because, as the Gītā expounds the root principles of the present Vedic Religion, as also its final aspect, based on Knowledge and giving primary importance to Devotion, and preaching the Karma-Yoga (Right Action), which (aspect) it had assumed after Sāṃkhya, Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā, Upaniṣads, Vedānta and other ancient Śāstras, which dealt with the Perishable and the Imperishable (kṣarākṣara) and the Body and the Ātman (kṣetra-kṣetrajña) had come to as perfect a state as possible, it may well be said that there is no other work in the whole of Sanskrit literature, which explains the principles of the present Hindu Religion in as succinct and yet as clear and unambiguous a manner as the Gītā.

From what has been stated above, my readers will get an idea as to the general trend of the exposition contained in the GītāRahasya. From the reference to the opinions of the earlier commentators on the Gītā, made in the beginning of the third chapter of the Śāṃkarabhāṣya on the Gītā, it would appear that these commentaries were in favour of Karma-Yoga (Right Action). These commentaries are not now available; therefore, there is no reason why this book of mine should not be called the first comparative exposition of the Gītā, in support of Right Action. The meanings of some stanzas given in this book are different from those given in the present commentaries, and I have also had to deal with many other subjects, which have nowhere been fully explained in the Marathi language. I have attempted to explain these subjects and the arguments in support of such explanation succinctly, but in as clear and easily intelligible a manner as possible; and notwithstanding repetition, I have purposely given, in many places, synonyms for various words, of which the meanings have not yet become current or commonly known in the Marathi language, side by side with those words; and I have also clearly shown in different places the most salient theorems in these subjects, by separating them from the exposition itself. Yet, it is always difficult to discuss scientific and difficult subjects in a few words; and the Marathi terminology of these subjects is also not yet definite. I am, therefore, alive to the fact that in this my new way of exposition, there may possibly creep in difficulty, unintelligibleness, or incompleteness, as a result of mental confusion, inadvertence, or for some other reasons. But the Bhagavadgītā is not something unknown to my readers. The Gītā is a book which is daily recited by many, and there are also many who have studied, or who are studying it scientifically. I have, therefore, to request such authoritative persons, that if this book comes to their hands, and they come across any flaws in it of the nature mentioned above, they will please draw my attention to them, so that I will consider the suggestions, and will also make the necessary corrections, if there is any occasion to bring out a second edition of this book. Some persons are likely to gather the impression that I have a particular system (saṃpradāya) of mine own, and that I have explained the Gītā in a special way, in support of that system. I must, therefore, make it clear here that the Gītā-Rahasya has not been written with reference to any particular person, or any particular system. I have put forward the clear meaning of the Sanskrit stanzas in the Gītā, according to my understanding. If, as a result of this straight-forward translation–and as Sanskrit is now widely understood, may people will easily see whether or not my translation is straightforward–my exposition assumes a doctrine-supporting character, then such character is of the Gītā and not mine. As the clear request of Arjuna to the Blessed Lord was: "Do not confuse me by placing before me several courses of conduct, but point out to me definitely only one course, which is the proper course" (Gī. 3.2; 5.17), it is clear that the Gītā must be in support of one particular opinion (Gī. 3.31);and I have set out to explain what that opinion is, by impartially interpreting the original Gītā. I have not preconceived a doctrine first, and then attempted to stretch the meaning of the Gītā, because the Gītā will not fit in with that doctrine. In short, my attempt is to popularise the true inner import of the Gītā with the devotees of the Gītā–to whatever doctrine such import may pertain–and I have come forward to make, so to say, such a Sacrifice of Knowledge (jñāna-Yajña) as is referred to by the Blessed Lord at the end of the Gītā; and I am sanguine that my countrymen, and co-religionists, will willingly give me this charitable offering of information in order to make my attempt flawless.

I have explained at length in the Gītā-Rahasya the reasons for the difference between the Esoteric Import of the Gītā according to me, and that propounded by ancient commentators. But, though there may be such a difference of opinion as to the teaching of the Gītā, yet, as I have always made use more or less, of the various commentaries or criticisms on the Gītā, as also of the former or modern Prakrit translations of the Gītā, as occasion arose in writing the present book, I must here say that I am deeply indebted to them. I must likewise express my gratitude towards those Western philosophers, to the theorems mentioned in whose works I have now and then referred. As it is doubtful whether it would have been possible for me to write this book without the help of all those works, I have quoted in the beginning of this introduction the following words of Tukārāma: " I am only repeating the stale words uttered by saints". That a work like the Gītā, which propounds Knowledge, untouched by Time, that is, equally true at all times, should, according to changing times, give fresh inspiration to human beings, is not a matter of surprise; because, that is the characteristic feature of such universal works. But, the labour spent on such works by ancient scholars is not, on that account, wasted. This same argument applies to the translations of the Gītā into English, German, and other languages- made by Western scholars. Though these translations are based primarily on the ancient commentaries on the Gītā, some Western scholars have also started interpreting the Gītā independently. But, these expositions of the Western scholars are to a certain extent incomplete, and in some places undoubtedly misleading and wrong, whether because, they have not property understood the principle of the true (Karma-) Yoga or the history of the Vedic religious systems, or because, they have principally inclined towards the external examination of the matter only, or, for some other similar reason. There is no occasion to consider or examine here in detail those works of Western scholars on the Gītā. In the Appendices to this book, I have stated what I have to say regarding the important questions raised by them.

Nevertheless, I must in this Preface refer to some writings in English on the Gītā, which I have recently come across. One such writing is that of Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks is a Theosophist and he has maintained in his book on the Gītā, that the Bhagavadgītā is in favour of Action (Karma-Yoga); and he has expressed the same opinion in his lectures. The second thesis is by Mr. S. Radhakrishnan of Madras, which has appeared in the form of a small essay in the International Ethical Quarterly (July 1911) published in America. In this work, the similarity between the Gītā and Kant on questions of Ethics and Freedom of Will has been shown. In my opinion, this similarity is even more comprehensive than has been shown in this essay; and the arguments of Green on the question of Ethics are even more consistent with the Gītā than those of Kant. But as both these questions have been dealt with by me in this book, I shall not repeat the same matter here. Pandit Sitanath Tatvabhushana has also recently published a book in English called Kṛṣṇa and the Gītā, which contains the twelve lectures delivered by that scholar on the Gītā. But, anyone who reads those books will be sure to notice, that there is a great deal of difference between the arguments contained in these books or in the book of Brooks and those advanced in mine. But, these writings show that my ideas about the Gītā are not newfangled; and, as these works are a propitious sign that people are paying more and more attention to the doctrine of Right Action (karma-yoga) in the Gītā, I am taking this opportunity of congratulating these modem writers.

It is true that this work was completed in the Mandalay Jail; but it had been written with a lead pencil, and it contained corrections and deletions in many places; so, when it had been returned to me after inspection by Government, it was necessary to make a fair copy of it for printing; and if I myself had to do that work, who knows how many months more would have passed before the work was published! But Messrs. Waman Gopal Joshi, Narayan Krishna Gogte, Ramkrishna Dattatraya Paradkar, Ramkrishna Sadashiva Pimputkar, Appaji Vishnu Kulkarni and other gentlemen, have willingly rendered assistance in this matter and quickly finished the work, for which I am grateful to them. Similarly Mr. Krishnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar, and especially Vedaśāstra- saṃpanna Dīkṣit Kāśīnāth Śāstri Lele, specially came here from Bombay, and took the trouble of reading the manuscript, and made many useful and critical suggestions, for which I am grateful to them. The reader, however, must not forget that the responsibility of the opinions expressed in this book is mine. In this way, the book was got ready for printing, but there was the risk of shortage of paper on account of the War. This difficulty was overcome by the timely supply of paper, which was good in my opinion, by Messrs. D. Padamji & Son, proprietors of the Swadeshi Paper Mills in Bombay; and it became possible to publish a book on the Gītā on good Indian paper. Yet, as the book was found to be larger than estimated, while the printing was in progress, there was again shortage of paper; and, if that deficit had not been met by the proprietor of the Reay Paper Mills, Poona, my readers would have had to wait for a few months more for the publication of the book. Therefore, not only I, but also my readers, must feel grateful to the proprietors of these two mills. The task of correcting proofs still remained. This was undertaken by Messrs. Ramkrishna Dattatraya Paradkar, Ramkrishna Sadashiva Pimputkar and Hari Raghunath Bhagvat. But of these, Mr. Hari Raghunath Bhagvat was alone attending to the work of verifying the references to other books made in different places, and of pointing out to me such defects as had remained. Needless to say, without the assistance of all these people, it would have been impossible for me to publish this book so soon. I, therefore, take this opportunity of sincerely thanking all these people. Finally, I must express my thanks to the owner of the Chitra-Shala Press, who undertook to publish this book carefully and as early as possible, and who has carried out his undertaking. Just as the assistance of many persons is necessary before the grain is turned into food for the eater, though there may be a harvest in the field, so also I may safely say, is the case with writers–at any rate, that was the case with me. And therefore, I once more sincerely thank all those persons who have helped me–whether or not I have specifically mentioned their names in the above list–and I end this preface.

The preface is over. Now, though I feel unhappy at the idea that that subject, in thinking on which I have spent many years, and the constant company of and meditation over which has brought so much satisfaction to my mind, and happiness into my heart, is now going to leave my hands in the shape of a book, yet, as these thoughts have come into my mind for the sole purpose of being handed down to coming generations–with interest, or at any rate, just as they are–I am placing this philosopher's stone, in the shape of a rāja-guhya (the king of mysticisms) of the Vedic religion into the hands of my promising readers, uttering the canon (mantra): "uttiṣṭhata! jāgrata! prāpyavarānnibodhata!", that is, "Arise, awake, and understand these blessings (conferred by the Blessed Lord)", and with feelings of affection. In this (mysticism) lies the entire essence of Right and Wrong Action, and the Blessed Lord Himself has confidently given us the assurance, that the observance of this Religion, even to a small extent, delivers a person from great difficulties. What more can anybody want? Keep in mind the universal rale that. "Nothing happens, unless something is done", and devote yourselves to Desireless Action; that is all. The Gītā. was not preached either as a pastime for persons tired out after living a worldly life in the pursuit of selfish motives, nor as a preparatory lesson for living such worldly life, but in order to give philosophical advice as to how one should live his worldly life with an eye to Release (mokṣa), and as to the true duty of human beings in worldly life. My last prayer to everyone, therefore, is, that ono should not fail to thoroughly understand this ancient science of the life of a householder, or of worldly life, as early as possible in one's life.

— BAL GANGADHAR TILAK

Poona, Adhika Vaisakha, Saka Year, 1837 p. lviii