Chapter 3: Karma Yoga

In the Bhagavad-gītā, karma simply means action of yajña. Karma yoga is a way by which one acts in accordance with what is to be done without consideration of desire and its consequences. A karma yogi performs works without craving for fruits. One can also reach highest Reality or salvation by performing desireless action.^[1] Actions emerge from Brahman and are to be done without attachment to the result or fruits. The actions which are done without attachment to the fruits go to the collective Person, i.e. Brahman. This is the idea of performing action in the Bhagavad-gītā.

In the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna the superiority of action over jñāna or sāṃkhyanam. Sāṃkhyanam means those who have the knowledge of the Self/ buddhi i.e. intellect. Sāṃkhyas i.e. jñānīs are capable of jñāna or knowledge, and yogins are capable of action. And Niṣṭhā means ‘a discipline of a way to either jñāna or karma.’ Therefore, in Chapter III.3 Kṛṣṇa explains to Arjuna that there is a twofold discipline, i.e. jñāna yoga for the Sāṃkhyas and karma yoga for the yogins. But, if we study Rāmānuja’s interpretation of the verse we see that Rāmānuja commits mistake while interpreting. In the verse, by the word ‘dvividhā niṣṭhā’ Rāmānuja tries to make two different niṣṭhā i.e. ways or disciplines which are separated. For him, a karma yogi is only for karma yoga and a jñāna yogi is only for jñāna yoga. But there is only one way or discipline i.e. niṣṭhā which is two folded. It can be said that these are two different aspects of the same thing. Rāmānuja is not able to accept ‘niṣṭhā’ as one and is two folded. ‘Two folded’ does not mean that they are two different things or they are separated.

In Bhagavadgītā Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna about naiṣkarmya (actionlessness.) This means inaction, and according to this teaching no one can enjoy the state of actionlessness i.e. inaction. Because not doing anything means also doing something. Therefore, no one can enjoy inaction. In this chapter (hereafter Chapter) an attempt is made to study critically to find out Rāmānuja’s development of his own concepts which are not consistent with Bhagavad-gītā by comparing the two texts i.e. Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya and Bhagavad-gītā.

In the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna how action originates. In Chapter III.15 it is taught that karma or action originates from Brahman (karmabrahmud bhavaṃ viddhi). In studying the Gītā Bhāṣya of Rāmānuja we find that commenting on the Chapter XIII.12 he says that karma originates because of the ignorance.^[2]

He writes,

“The association of the self with the two states of the effect and cause, however is brought about its being wrapped around by the ignorance consisting of karma; it is not brought about by its essential nature.”^[3]

By this statement Rāmānuja wants to say that karma is brought about by ignorance. But the question can be raised: how can action or karma be originated from ignorance since Kṛṣṇa Himself in Chapter III.15 says “karmabrahmud bhavaṃ viddhi” which means action originates from Brahman. In this verse Rāmānuja also commits another problem accepting the concept of karmavāda. While Bhagavad-gītā says “to be free from bondage of action or karma” Rāmānuja has in mind about the theory of karmavāda. For one bears the fruit of karma and one has to exhaust the fruits: he has to reborn again and again. But to be free from birth and death means free from the action only and what is free from action is not bound by the action. That means one is free from the attachments to the fruits, and one does not perform action with ahaṃkāra when he is free from bondage of action. But at the same time one has to continue to perform action because action always takes place in time.

Karma in the Bhagavad-gītā is yajña karma. It is a Collective Action. It is not personal or individual action. But it seems Rāmānuja is unable to accept this idea of collective action in his Gītā Bhāṣya. The idea of collective action is to be understood from the Chapter III.9 of Bhagavad-gītā.

The verse says:

yajñārthāt karmaṇānyatra lokoyaṃ karma-bandhanaḥ/
tad-arthaṃ karma kaunteya mukta-saṃgaḥ samācara//

The meaning of the verse is that:

“Perform action for the sake of the yajña which does not lead to the karmavandhana. But any other action, other than yajña karma, is an action of karmavandhana or leads to karmavandhana.”

Therefore, perform action for the sake of yajña and move free from the attachment or bondage of action. While one performs action for the sake of yajña, then karma will not bind him. But, when one performs action for own sake or for the enjoyment only then it will lead to the karmavandhana. Even, if one performs action i.e. yajña karma for the sake of own desires or enjoyments then it also leads to the bondage of action. One needs to perform action i.e. yajña karma, being free from all the desires, which never binds.

But, such a concept is very difficult to accept for Rāmānuja in his interpretation. Besides, there lies a problem in his interpretation. Rāmānuja is interpreting the verse from the point of view of karmavāda i.e. the theory of law of karma. Rāmānuja in this verse saṃsāra is understood as the world of bondage i.e. saṃsāravandhana. The idea of saṃsāra in his mind is that the same individual soul takes birth again and again, which is like cycle of death and rebirth. But, this idea is actually alien in this verse. He writes that ‘after eradicating the subtle impression of karma of that person which has been continued from the time immemorial.’^[4] Here what the verse says is very clear and straight forward i.e. perform action for the sake of yajña karma. If one performs action keeping in the mind the result of action for own sake and not performing action for sake of yajña, it will lead to the karmavandhana. Here, it is not talking about the karmavandhana of the past life etc. The reason is that when one performs action as yajña karma then karma will not bind the agent.

Since, action emerges from Brahman^[5] and also goes to Brahman^[6] , all the actions have to be performed as the yajña karma only^[7] since, Brahman is established in yajña^[8] . Besides these, there are other verses where it has been taught that everything is Brahman i.e. Brahman is yajña, agṇi, etc. In Chapter IV.24^[9] it is said that Brahman is the oblation in the Brahman, Brahman is the instrument offered in the Brahman and the result obtained out of performing action for Brahman is the Brahman only. And in Chapter IX.27^[10] also it is taught that everything has to be performed as yajña offering to yajña purūṣa i.e. Brahman. Even eating, performing, breathing, donating or charity, penance or austerity has to be performed as yajña offering to yajña purūṣa.

Yajña^[11] karma means the Collective Action. Brahman is yajña or Yajña Purūṣa which is Collective Person. But the question arises: how Brahman is a Collective Person? The answer is in Chapter VI.29 and Chapter V.7 of the Bhagavad-gītā. The Chapter VI.29 says ‘sarvabhūtasṭhamātmanaṃ sarvabhūtāni cātmanī’ means the Self is in all the bhūtas and also all the bhūtas are in the Self/Him. On the other hand, Chapter V.7 says ‘sarvabhūtātmabhūtātmā’ means the Self which is the self of all the selves/beings is Supreme Self. He is the Collective Person/Self since He is in all the bhūtas. Therefore, the Supreme Self i.e. Brahman is Collective Self/Person since He is in everything and everything is in Him. Besides, in Chapter IX.29 Kṛṣṇa says: ‘samo’ ham sarvabhūtesu’ which means ‘I exist equally in all the bhūtas or beings.’ Again in Chapter X.20 says ‘ahamātma sarvabhūtaśayasṭhita’ which means ‘I am the Self who is existent in all the selves or beings i.e. bhūtas.’

Moreover, in Chapter VII.7 Kṛṣṇa says:

“mayi sarvam idam protam sutre monigaṇāḥ eva”

Which means I [Kṛṣṇa/ Brahman] am strung in a single string in all the bhūtas just as the jewels are strung in a single string. Therefore, from the above discussion it can be understood that the Self i.e. Supreme Self is Collective Self/Person and He is the Brahman. But, for Rāmānuja it is very difficult to accept in his Gītā Bhāṣya such a teaching of the Bhagavad-gītā. Nowhere in his Gītā Bhāṣya is mentioned Brahman as Collective Person or Yajña Purūṣa and action performed for His sake as Collective action or yajña karma.

There are other verses where it is taught about Self’s Collectivity. The meanings of the verses are presented in a different way, though the meanings are same which refers to the Collective Person. These are Chapter VII.12^[12] and Chapter IX.4^[13] having same meanings. The meanings of the verses are ‘all the bhutas are in Him/Me (Brahman) and I/He am/is not in them.’ And this is also supported by Chapter IX.6^[14] . The meaning of the verse is that the relation of the sarva bhūtas and the Brahman i.e. the Collective Person is like the relation of the ākāśa and the vāyu/ air. Just as air or vāyu is in the ākāśa and moves everywhere, but ākāśa is not in the air, so as the Brahman, the Collective Person, is not in the bhūtas, but all the bhūtas are in Him. Just as ākāśa in not smeared by air (vāyu) and air does not bind ākāśa, so as the bhūtas do not bind Him, and He is not smeared by the bhūtas.

Since, the Bhagavad-gītā advocates yajña karma, or collective action and not individual action or personal action, it requires that every action has to be performed by the individual as yajña karma only i.e. collective action. Even the individual action can be yajña karma i.e. collective action. But the question emerges: how an action performed by an individual is yajña karma or collective action? When an individual performs action for example cooking, thinking that it is for him only then it is not yajña karma, since he has own personal desire, and performs action for the sake of fulfilment of his desire. It will bind him. But the same action, done by one may be a yajña karma or collective action, when he performs without thinking of fulfilling his desire, but because it is required of him to perform in the yajña. That means that the saṃkalpa of performing such action should come from Brahman, as Brahman is yajña according to Chapter IV.24 of Bhagavad-gītā. ^[15] If the conation is not collective, but individualistic, then that action is not collective action, and that will bind and lead to further bondage of fruits of action. All these understanding of the Bhagavadgītā is very hard to find in Gītā Bhāṣya of Rāmānuja. Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya has never mentioned a single word regarding this concept. This has a mark of failing to understand the text of the Bhagavad-gītā as a whole to unify the exact meanings.

Bhagavad-gītā speaks of three guṇas of prakṛti such a Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Guṇas are not active at the same time. Guṇas dominate each other and therefore one gūṇa becomes active at one time. That is, in performing an action one guṇa dominates the other two. But, it does not mean that other two guṇas do not exist. In the Bhagavad-gītā, it is taught that every action is performed by the guṇas or the prakṛti. One should remember that, the self which is different from the body i.e. prakṛti, does not perform action at all. It is the body which is made up of prakṛti that performs action. This idea can be understood from Chapter III.27. The verse says: prakṛte kriyamāṇāṇi guṇeḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ/ ahaṃkaraḥ vimurātmā kartāhāṃiti mānyte// The meaning is that actions are in every way done by guṇas of prakṛti, but not by the self. Though the actions are done by prakṛti or the guṇas of prakṛti, all the actions are emerged from the Brahman only. While Rāmānuja’s interpretation is concerned, it appears that he is unable to grasp what the verse is actually about. He has just given a literal meaning while commenting on the verse. In this verse there is a hidden truth indicated by the author of the Bhagavad-gītā and Rāmānuja it seems is unable to fathom it. In the verse the word ‘Kartāhāmiti’ means ‘I am the doer’ refers to Brahman or the Samaṣtipurūṣa. He is the doer and at the same time He is non-doer or akartā because He performs action by the means of prakṛti or guṇas. Prakṛti or guṇas are means or instruments only.

The guṇas of prakṛti or the prakṛti becomes active only in the presence of Brahman. Prakṛti is not the actor. It is the instrument of performing action only. Even, if it is said that prakṛti has done, but one should think that it is done by prakṛti in the presence of Brahman, because Brahman and prakṛti are not in the state of viyoga, but both are in the state of yoga (not in saṃyoga), even when they are distinct. But one should be careful that prakṛti is not Brahman. Both prakṛti and Brahman have to be present in performance of action, i.e. collective action. Therefore, ‘karmabrahmodbhavam viddhi’ does not contradict ‘prakṛte kriyamāṇāṇi guṇeḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ.’

The person who knows that actions emerge from Brahman and perform by Brahman through the means of prakṛti, i.e. guṇas as the instrument is not attached to the action and does not have the feeling that ‘I am the doer.’ He who thinks kartāhāmiti as ‘I am the doer’ is ignorant because he cannot discriminate between the self and the body. He thinks that the body is the self and self is the doer of action, therefore, he thinks ‘I am the doer.’ But he cannot think that all actions are being performed by the Supreme Person by the means of prakṛti since he is deluded and ignorant. And all actions go to Him, since actions emerge from Him. This idea is clear in Chapter III.30. The verse says: ‘mayi sarvāni karmāni sannyasya ādhyātmacetasā.’ Here ‘mayi’ means ‘in Me’, ‘sarvāni’ ‘all or complete action’, ‘sannyasya’ means ‘vested on Me or offer to Me’. The meaning is that all actions, fixing the mind in the self, should be performed and vested in Me (Brahman) without any desire, selfishness etc. Actions should be vested in Brahman, because actions emerge from Him and perform by Him through prakṛti, since prakṛti is instrument of performing actions. The person who performs action in this manner gets liberated from the bondage of action.^[16]

In Bhagavad-gītā in Chapter III.5 also Kṛṣṇa says that guṇas perform action and no one can remain without performing action; for guṇas will compel to perform ation. And Chapter XIV.19^[17] also says that no one sees agent of action other than the guṇas.

The idea of kartā and akartā in the Bhagavad-gītā has an important place. In the Bhagavad-gītā the Self is both kartā and akartā. In Chapter IV.13 Kṛṣṇa clarifies this idea to Arjuna. But many commentators including Rāmānuja are unable to harmonize the meaning of the verse and say that Brahman as both kartā and akartā is contradictory.

The verse says:

cāturvarṇyaṃ mayā sṛtaṃ guṇa karma vibhāgasa/
tasya kartārampi māṃ viddhi akartāraṃ avyayaṃ//

According to the verse:

“I [Kṛṣṇa] have created four varṇas^[18] according to the division of the guṇa and karma. Of that being the agent or doer i.e. kartā know Me [Kṛṣṇa] to be imperishable and non–agent or non–doer.”

Here, in this verse, for the critics Kṛṣṇa is both kartā and akartā, which is contradictory.

In this verse Brahman is the actor and yet He is not the agent of the action. He is not bound by the action, because He does not have any desire to be fulfilled by the actions. This is the motivation for performing action taught by Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gītā in Chapter IV.14-15.^[19] The meanings of the verses are ‘actions do not bind Me [Kṛṣṇa], nor do I [Kṛṣṇa] have attachment or desire to the fruits of action. He, who knows Me [Kṛṣṇa] in this way actions do not bind him.’ ‘Knowing these, the ancient seekers of realization performed action, therefore, do your [Arjuna] work as they did.’ If somebody knows this knowledge he is not even bound by the action. Kṛṣṇa has created the four varṇas, therefore, He is the kartā i.e. actor and yet action does not bind Him. Therefore, He is akartā (akartā avyayaṃ.)

But, there is deeper metaphysical explanation that too overcomes the contradiction. Kṛṣṇa as Self is kartā, because He performs action through the means of prakṛti, since prakṛti is also His manifestation. He is akartā, because He does not perform action directly, since He is distinct from prakṛti. Prakṛti is His means of performing action. Both prakṛti and the Brahman are two sides of the same thing. Brahman is the origin of action but prakṛti performs the action with its guṇas. One should remember that both prakṛti and Brahman should be present in the performance of the action. Therefore, it is cleared that He is both kartā and akartā and there is no contradiction in it.

On the otherhand, Chapter IV.15 is the conclusion of Chapter IV.13-14. The conlusion is how Kṛṣṇa performs action; how is He both kartā and akartā? Kṛṣṇa does not have any prayujana yet he performs actions. Kṛṣṇa says, ‘do perform your action, like how the ancient people have performed action who were after desire of mokṣa’ as I [Kṛṣṇa] performs action following them. In this verse mokṣa means mokṣa from the bondage of action but not liberation from saṃsāra as Rāmānuja interprets. It is also said in the second half of the verse that ‘Arjuna should perform action the way the earlier people have performed their action.’^[20] If he does so he will also be liberated from the bondage of action. Arjuna is supposed to perform action without any prayujana. For example, the war has come to him and he is supposed to participate in it without any desire or prayujana. If Arjuna performs action in this way then action will not bind him. Rāmānuja in this verse also commits mistake. He writes that ‘the ancient people were freed from the accumulated sins after knowing the teaching mentioned above.’ He is interpreting it in this way because of the conception of karmavāda in his mind. But the earlier people i.e. ancient people were not freed from sins; but they were freed from the bondage of the action that they had performed. It is not such that earlier sins were not there, and sated up because of these actions as Rāmānuja thinks.

In Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna the distinction between karma, akarma and also vikarma, and says that He is the performer of all actions who sees action in inaction and inaction in action.^[21] In Bhagavad-gītā non-performance or akarma itself is an action, when action is required. Not doing anything itself is karma, i.e. inaction is also doing something depending on the situation. When action is done as yajña karma without desire so that it does not lead to binding by action and that the performer remains a non-agent, then the action is as good as inaction. Many commentators including Rāmānuja take the meaning of akarma to be knowledge of self. In Chapter III.8 of Bhagavad-gītā the word akarmanaḥ is understood by Rāmānuja as the mediation or jñāna. But that appears to be an erroneous understanding.This engagement of action by a jñāni as action in inaction and inaction in action further discussed in Chapter IV of the thesis.

There are different kinds of actions that have been advocated by Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna in Chapter XVIII of Bhagavad-gītā. The three kinds of action or karma as sattvika, rajasika and tamasika are mentioned in Chapter XVIII.23-25^[22] of Bhagavad-gītā. The meanings of the verses are: ‘the action which is done as obligatory, devoid of attachment or sangaḥ and done without desire or aversion, by a person without the desire for fruits is called sattvika karma or action.’ On the other hand, rajasika karma or action is said to be such that the action which is done with bahulāyāsaṃ i.e. great deal of efforts by one and who has desire and egoism in performing action. While performing such action, he thinks that ‘I am the doer’ for a particular satisfaction of desire. Again, the third kind of action mentioned in Chapter XVIII.25 of Bhagavad-gītā is the tamasika karma. The tamasika karma is that which is done with delusion i.e. mohāt without one’s own competence and without any regard to consequences, loss and injury to other. It is done only with the one side of consequences without looking other consequences of the action.

Since these are the different kinds of actions/ karmas spoken by Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gītā while examining Rāmānuja’s interpretation we do not find the fourth kinds of action or karma in his Gītā Bhāṣya which the author Veda Vyāsa is trying to convey. This action is said to be the action or karma without the three guṇas i.e. guṇātita karma. This is the action of Brahman. But it appears that Rāmānuja is not able to justify the fourth kinds of action in his Gītā Bhāṣya.

Apart from the three kinds of actions, the Bhagavad-gītā speaks of the three kinds of kartā or agent, such as sattvika, rajasika and tamasika kartā. In Chapter XVIII.26^[23] it is taught about the sattvika kartā or agent. The sattvika kartā is that while performing action he is free from attachment. He does not have ahaṃkāra or he is anāhaṃvādi who is endowed with firm resolve (dhṛti). He can hold the action in any situation, he performs with enthusiasm, and he is not moved by success and failure. He does not bother about whatever results come out. He is said to be the sattvika kartā. On the other hand, the Chapter XVIII.27^[24] talks about rajasika kartā. A rajasika kartā is that while performing action he is attached to the desire, who is greedy/covetous, who works for the result only and causes harm to others, he is impure, who is subject to joy and sorrow, is said to be the rajasika kartā.

The third kind of kartā is the tamasika kartā taught in Chapter XVIII.28^[25] of Bhagavad-gītā. A tamasika kartā or agent is he who is unfit for works, but engages himself in perverse works; who is unrefined, indifferent, dishonest, given over to long meditation of evil deeds. He is said to be the tamasika kartā or agent.

Rāmānuja commenting on the different kinds of kartā or agent missed the fourth kind of kartā or agent. This is the hidden meaning of Bhagavad-gītā Vyāsa tries to convey. The fourth kind of kartā or agent is beyond the three guṇas and He is Brahman who is beyond the three guṇas. Even any person can also be niṣtraiguṇṇya, which is beyond the three guṇas. This has been taught in Chapter II.45 (triguṇṇya viṣayā vedā niṣtraiguṇṇya bhavārjuna.) Even in Chapter XIV.25 Kṛṣṇa says that any person can be beyond guṇas and transcends the guṇas. And, he is known as the guṇātita person.^[26] But unfortunately, Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya is unable to explain the fourth kind of kartā which is of important in knowing the harmonized meaning of the Bhagavad-gītā. It seems that the message of the Bhagavad-gītā has been overlooked by Rāmānujachārya.

In Bhagavadgīta Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna the necessity of the performance of action without the desire of fruits, attributing the agency to the Supreme Brahman, who is the Self of all selves. In Chapter II.47 Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna: karmaṇi eva adhikāraḥ te mā phaleṣū kadāchana/ mā karmaphalahetuḥ bhuḥ mā te sangaḥ astuakarmaṇi// The meaning of the verse is that ‘you [Arjuna] have only right in the performance of action, not in the fruits of action. Do not be the cause of the result of action and do not be attached to the inaction also.’ Rāmānuja has better understanding in this verse. In the following verses also Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna about the desireless action in the Bhagavadgītā. In Chapter III.19 Kṛṣṇa says: tasmād asaktaḥ satataṃ kārya karma samāchāraḥ/ asaktaḥ hi ācharan karma param āpnoti purūṣaḥ// The meaning is that ‘perform always prescribed actions which are to be done, without the attachment to the fruits: for performing action without the attachment to the fruits, leads to the realization of the Supreme Self.’ In Chapter V.10 it says: brahmani ādhāya karmāṇi sangaḥtyktvā karotiḥ yaḥ/ lipyate na saḥ pāpena padmapatram eva ambhasā// What it means is, ‘he who performs action by giving up attachment and vesting or depositing actions in Brahman he is untouched by sin, just as lotus is not touched by the water.’ Again in Chapter V.12 it says: yuktaḥ karmaphalaṃ tyaktvā śāntim āpnoti naiṣthikam/ ayuktaḥ kāmakārena phale saktaḥ nivadhyate// which means ‘the yuktaḥ i.e. karma yogi, who gives up the fruits of action attains peace, but ayuktaḥ i.e. sakām purūṣaḥ is bound by the desire of the fruits.’Besides, in Chapter IV.20^[27] , Chapter VI.1^[28] and Chapter XVIII.9^[29] Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna to give up fruits and attachment to the fruits of all actions.

While examining Rāmānuja’s comments on Chapter III.19 he appaears to be commited an error. For, he interprets that ‘the action has to be performed till the self is attained.’^[30] But in the verse it is not said that action has to be performed for the achievement of the self only or till the self is attained because even when a person realised the self he also has to perform action or karma has to be done. For example, great persons like Janaka and Kṛṣṇa had to perform action after realization. It is not such that actions are to be performed only for the attainment of the self as Rāmānuja sustains in his commentary.

Commenting on Chapter V.10 Rāmānuja also commits another problem. He writes, ‘here by the word brahman, prakṛti is mentioned.’ ‘While the prakṛti remains in the form of the senses, since the senses are the particular modification of the prakṛti, whoever, as taught in the passage, beginning with “even though he is seeing, hearing......(V.8) makes over all works to the brahman or the prakṛti, gives up attachment–such a person is not tainted by the sin.”^[31] But this seems to be not a correct interpretation, because Brahman is not prakṛti, although Brahman and prakṛti are two sides of the same thing. In Rāmānuja’s commentary Brahman is prakṛti or brahman. In this verse, Brahman is not taken in the sense of brahman, which is great womb of the Brahman (XIV.3). Because, Brahman is motivator of action and actions emerge from and also go to Him. ‘Brahman’ is to be taken in this sense, in this verse. It may be that, why Rāmānuja is bringing the idea that Brahman as prakṛti is earlier it is mentioned in Chapter III.15 of Bhagavad-gītā that karma originates from Brahman^[32] and later on in Chapter III.27 of Bhagavad-gītā it is taught that ‘prakṛti does acts.’ So, he thinks that this is one and the same thing i.e. Brahman is prakṛti and prakṛti is Brahman. But this is actually a mistake taking Brahman as prakṛti.

Besides, in this verse, Rāmānuja interprets that sannyāsa is in prakṛti. He writes:

“All actions mentioned in Chapter V.8 makes over all works to the brahman or prakṛti.”^[33]

But, sannyāsa is not to the prakṛti. But, it is only to the Brahman, vesting action on Brahman. No doubt prakṛti performs action, but as an instrumental cause only.

On the other hand, in interpreting Chapter III.12 though Rāmānuja is consistent with meaning of the verse still he brings the idea of ‘cycle of death and rebirth’ which makes it problematic. Because, in the verse there is nothing mentioned about the cycle of death and rebirth. He is really extrapolating much on this verse.

Since, it has been taught in Chapter V.14 that by performing action without the desire of its fruits requires one to give up the agency of action also. In Chapter V.14 Kṛṣṇa gives advice to Arjuna to give up the agency of all actions.

Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya commenting on this verse writes—

“The ‘master’ (Prabhu–that is, the jīva who is the master of body), in his own essential nature is not subject to Karma and therefore, does not initiate agency.”^[34]

But Bhagavad-gītā in this verse says:

na kartṛtvaṃ na karmāṇi lokasya sṛjati prabhuḥ/
na karmaphalasaṃyoga svabhāvas tu pravartate//^[35]

What it means is no action i.e. na karmāṇi, no agency i.e. na kartṛtvaṃ, even the relation of fruits and action i.e. na karmaphalasaṃyogaṃ have been created by Prabhuḥ i.e. the Brahman, who is the controller of the loka i.e. people of the world. But everything is happening in the cosmos compelling everyone to do, all behaving according to his own nature or svabhāva. On the other hand, other commentators have interpreted the expression ‘master’ of the world as God or the Supreme Self, such as Tripurāri. He in his interpretation says that, ‘the word prabhūḥ can also be interpreted to mean the individual self, but actually it indicates the God, but not the self, nonetheless many commentators including some Vaiṣṇava commentators understand it in this way.^[36] But there appears to be no explanation in Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya why the expression ‘prabhuḥ’ has to be interpreted in this way, when he himself in other places interprets prabhuḥ as God or Supreme Self.

Besides, Chapter III.27 also explains the idea of ‘non-agency of the action of the doer.’ But since, Rāmānuja’s interpretation is concerned, it seems that he is unable interpret according to the meaning of the verse. He has just given a literal meaning while interpreting the verse. In this verse there is a hidden truth, which the author of the Bhagavad-gītā has indicated, but Rāmānuja is unable to fathom. Here, the word ‘Kartāhāmiti’ means ‘I am the doer’ refers to Brahman or the Samaṣtipurūṣa. He is the doer and at the same time, He is akartā, because He performs action by the means of prakṛti or guṇas. Prakṛti or guṇas are means or instruments only, and the Self is only motivator.

Bhagavad-gītā is also advocating a distinction between the superior actions and inferior actions. Rāmānuja appears to be correct in interpreting the distinction of superior actions and inferior actions in Chapter II.49^[37] . There is a gap between these two actions, and Rāmānuja, unlike Śaṃkara is maintaining this gap. Superior actions are those actions which are associated with mental disposition i.e. buddhi, consisting of giving up of the attachment to the fruits, and maintaining the evenness of success and failure. And inferior actions are far away from or opposite of the superior actions. For him, this kind of action i.e. superior action removes all miseries arising from the state of saṃsāra and leads to the salvation. But, here in the phrase ‘superiority of action leads to salvation’ appears to be problematic. For, salvation is in itself in the performance of action. Rāmānuja consistently subscribes to the conception that salvation for him is the salvation from saṃsāra or liberation from saṃsāra. But he is not ready to accept anywhere in his interpretation that mokṣa is from the karmavandhana, but not from the saṃsāra. For him, to be in saṃsāra means all are in saṃsāravandhana. But, he forgets that even being in saṃsāra; one can be freed or liberated.

The teaching of Yoga in the Bhagavad-gītā is internally related to karma and akarma. In the Bhagavad-gītā, it is explained that yoga is neither saṃyoga nor viyoga. The Bhagavad-gītā says that a person is supposed to perform action in the state of yoga but not in saṃyoga or/and viyoga. Performing action in the state of yoga requires it to perform without the desire for fruits, controlling the sense organs from the sense objects, thinking that the action and result both go to Brahman as the Collectivity. The performance of action in the state of yoga does not bind him, because a karma yogi has no desire for the result of the action, but has an attitude of performing action in the collectivity. Hence, a yogi is devoid of saṃyoga and viyoga in action. While examining Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya it has been observed that he fails to hold the continuity of the meaning of the word ‘yoga.’ He also fails to give a clear explanation on ‘saṃyoga and vigoya’ in relation to karma or action. While interpreting yoga it is seen that he, at many times has used ‘yoga’ in what sense it is to be used according to the text of the Bhagavad-gītā. On the other hand, at some places he has given a literal meaning and other places deviate from the original meaning.

In Chapter II.48^[38] ‘yoga’ is used twice as yogaṣtha and as yoga. Yogaṣtha means ‘being established in yoga’ i.e., equal mindness towards success and failure. And ‘yoga’ means ‘equanimity of mind which is of the form of evenness in success and failure.’ In Chapter II.49^[39] the word ‘yoga’ is used together with buddhi i.e. buddhiyoga, which means ‘mental disposition’ according to Rāmānuja. Rāmānuja in Chapter II.5051^[40] interprets the same meaning with Chapter II.49. This understanding of Rāmānuja is somehow faithful to the text of the Bhagavad-gītā. Besides, in Chapter IV.28^[41] interpreting ‘yoga’ he takes the word ‘yoga’ as ‘disciplined of karma relating to austerities.’ But ‘yoga’ actually means balancing the relationship or equal relationship.

Rāmānuja fails to interpret the meaning of ‘yoga’ in relation with ‘saṃyoga’ and ‘viyoga’ in Chapter VI.23 of Bhagavad-gītā. The verse says: ‘dukhasaṃyogaviyogaṃyogasaṇgitam.’ The meaning is that neither saṃyoga with the pleasure or pain and happiness and unhappiness arising from the result of the action, nor viyoga from the same. This state is called yoga in the Bhagavad-gītā. A yogi must treat equally what is sukha or what is dukha, but should not be separated from it. One can avoid both sukha and dukha, but cannot separate himself in the state of yoga. It is like maintaining a balance. There is equanimity in yoga. Yoga means not too much smeared with the things, nor is it such that it is away from things. The person who is in yoga in action, jñāna and bhakti but, neither is in saṃyoga in the action or fruits, nor is viyoga from the action or jñāna is called a yogi in the Bhagavad-gītā. It is like a ‘lotus’ in the water. Just as a lotus is not touched by the water, nor is lotus viyoga from the water. But, yet it is in water without touching by water. On the other hand, it is like ākāśa and vāyu. Vāyu is in ākāśa, but ākāśa is not touched by the vāyu. So, action has to perform in such a way that it is not touched by the attachment of the fruits or result, and should not be viyoga from the action. The person who performs action in such a way, he is a yogi. As an example, Chapter VI.16^[42] of Bhagavad-gītā can be presented in it. The verse says, a yogi eats neither too much nor too less, neither sleeps too much nor too less, but a yogi should have the regulation of how much is needed for him to be fit for the collectivity. The meaning is that, a yogi must keep a balance of eating and sleeping etc. And only a true yogi of this nature can maintain this balance or equanimity. In our daily life this principle of the Bhagavad-gītā is very relevant. Performing action with yoga does not bind a person who performs it. He is said to be freed from the bondage of action.

Therefore, the person who performs action in yoga, he does not have attraction and aversion to the result, arising from it. He is a yogi, because he remains equal to whatever result arises from the action, whether good-bad, right-wrong, sukha- dukha or happiness and unhappiness etc. He remains same in heat and cold, pleasure and pain, arising from the action. He has an attitude of equal mindedness towards all these things. Since, he has no individualistic saṃkalpa^[43] of his own for the result of the action, but has the attitude of collective saṃkalpa, which is the saṃkalpa of the collectivity i.e. Brahman, whatever action he performs does not bind him, because he is in the state of yoga in action and not in saṃyoga with action. Let’s take an example. Family is a collectivity. The mother in the family always cooks for the family without motivated by what she likes or dislikes and eats always the last. The act of cooking does not bind her, because she is cooking for the collectivity i.e. family but not for herself. This is called the state of yoga in the Bhagavad-gītā. Here lies the idea of ‘inaction in action or akarma in karma’ since, the author has already mentioned that yoga is interconnected with ‘inaction in action.’ Another example, when a doctor performs a surgical operation to cure a patient as part of his requirement in the hospital and not for fees he will receive from the patient, even if the patient dies, he is not bound by that action, as it is the action of the hospital, which is a collectivity. He is in the state of yoga, but neither is in saṃyoga with action nor is in viyoga with the action.

Rāmānuja has not given any clear explanation on saṃyoga. Commenting on Chapter VI.23 he writes saṃyoga means ‘opposite of association with pain.’ This is not a correct explanation of saṃyoga. Saṃyoga in action in Bhagavad-gītā means attachment to the action as well as attachment to the fruits of the action. And viyoga means non-involvement in action. When a person acts out of desires or results of action arising from the action and performs action as his own and thinks that he is the doer, he is said to be in saṃyoga in the action. He performs action only for the result for his own sake, but not for the collectivity. Even though he performs action for the collectivity, he thinks that ‘I am the doer’ or ‘I have done it.’ That kind of person is not in the state of yoga, but in saṃyoga. Therefore, the person whose nature is as such, he feels pleasure when good results come and feels pain when bad results come out. He has the feeling of attraction and aversion for the result of the action. He has no equal mindedness towards the action and the result. For example, when Arjuna in Māhābharata war says, ‘I will not fight’, it is just because of saṃyoga with action of fighting against his kinsmen.

Bhagavad-gītā does not speak of performance of action in saṃyoga. But people perform action out of too much of desires and being in saṃyoga in action. When a student studies out of too much of intense desire to secure highest marks in the examination, he is in saṃyoga with the desire and action.And he is not indifferent to the result arising from the action. That is, if he scores highest marks, he will enjoy or feel happy, and if he does not score good marks, then he will feel pain or unhappy, and therefore, he may not be motivated to study any more, i.e. he will be in viyoga with the action of studying. But, if one performs the activity of study, being in yoga with it, he performs it as a collective action required by family, society etc. then that is the correct way of performing the activity of study if we go by Bhagavad-gītā.

It has already been mentioned earlier that viyoga in the Bhagavad-gītā means non-involvement in action or devoid of action. Rāmānuja here too appears that he fails to give a correct interpretation of viyoga. Commenting on Chapter VI.23 he writes that viyoga means ‘separation of all association with pain.’ That is too literal and it is obvious that pain or other cannot be separated from one’s life. It is in everyone’s life, but one has to be in the state of yoga i.e. maintaining a balance on pleasure and pain or pairs of opposites. The meaning has to be such that, viyoga cannot be separated, but can be separated even if it is there in one’s life.

Vikarma in Bhagavad-gītā means deviating from performing required actions. When one deviates from performing required action it means he performs a wrong action. Viyoga means devoid of action or non-involvement in action. It can be said that when Arjuna in the Mahābhārata war was despondent because of the attachment to his relatives, he suddenly entered into a state of viyoga i.e. non-involvement in action. And this is not fighting against the relatives. The reason is having attraction and aversion towards the relatives which is called saṃyoga. That is also his akarma/ inaction or non-performance of action. In a way, both akarma and viyoga are said to be vikarmaṇa i.e. performance of wrong action or negative action. This has been mentioned earlier. How is it so? Since, the question of vikarma is asked, it can be said that if Arjuna is required to perform action in war in the state of yoga which is devoid of saṃyoga and viyoga, and also akarma, he is not doing his duty/ karma, which is his dharma i.e. svadharma, not only by birth, but by position he is in war. Here not doing is also actually vikarma or performance of wrong action. But Arjuna is not performing his duty because of being ignorant about action and its relevant components such as akarma, vikarma, yoga, viyoga and saṃyoga.

The Bhagavad-gītā advocates the distinction of sannyāsa and tyāga in regard to the performance of action. These distinctions are mentioned Chapter V.1-6 of Bhagavad-gītā. We will examine Rāmānuja’s interpretation, and how far he is consistent in interpreting the verses adhering to the original meaning of the text of Bhagavad-gītā.

Arjuna desires to know the distinction between karma and sannyāsa. He misunderstands the distinction between karma and sannyāsa. Therefore, Arjuna asks a question to Kṛṣṇa in Chapter V.1^[44] and this misunderstanding of Arjuna is in the question itself. But this is not the misunderstanding of Arjuna only, but it seems it is also misunderstanding of Rāmānujchārya. In the verse the author Veda Vyāsa makes Arjuna to misunderstand about these two distinctions, so that Kṛṣṇa makes him to know correct things. Rāmānuja also appears to misunderstand following Arjuna without trying to fathom what the course of action is? The misunderstanding is ‘sannyāsaṃ karmanā’ which means ‘giving up of action.’ The word ‘sannyāsaṃ’ is not merely ‘giving up’, but it is supposed to be ‘giving up’ somewhere or at some particular place or location. In modern language, it can be said as vesting or depositing action somewhere and this is actually the collectivity.

According to the verse the action has to be performed. It is not such that one should give up action and acquire knowledge. While performing action one should not think himself that it is his action, though he thinks that ‘I have done it, I have performed it’, rather one should give it to collectivity or the Samaṣti Purūṣa. When an action is performed sannyāsa is possible. Sannyāsa does not mean nonperformance of action or giving up of action as understood by Rāmānuja following Arjuna. Sannyāsaṃ means performing action without concerning the fruits, but not giving up of the action. It means performing action by giving up of the fruits and agency vesting it in Brahman, who is the collective person.

Therefore, one has to perform both karma yoga and karma sannyāsa. Though it has been mentioned karma yoga and karma sannyāsa to be distinct, but these are same. When one has yoga of action, then it is karma sannyāsaṃ and where there is karma sannyāsaṃ, one has the yoga of action. Here yoga means it is neither saṃyoga nor viyoga. The meaning is that one has to perform action in such a way that it does not bind him. And it is not such that one has to give up action or one is not supposed to perform action at all i.e. viyoga. Therefore, one has to be in the state of yoga with the action i.e. performing action without ownership and vesting in the collectivity. Since, Rāmānuja is unable to understand it, he says that ‘karmasannyāsaṃ’ means ‘giving up’ of action i.e. ‘naiskarmya’ which for him is knowledge or jñāna.

Arjuna does not know that karma sannyāsa and karma yoga is one and the same but Rāmānuja also following Arjuna, [Arjuna says, karma yoga and karma sannyāsa are two different actions] interprets these two to be different. But karma yoga and karma sannyāsa is one and the same. It can be karma sannyāsa and at the same time it can be karma yoga.

Besides, Rāmānuja through this interpretation making Arjuna to think of giving up of jñāna and karma yoga, and makes a sequence, i.e. aspirant after mokṣa should practice first karma yoga and then jñāna yoga, and one has to go for mokṣa. But this is not sequence actually; it is one and the same thing. From one perspective it is karma yoga and from another perspective it is karma sannyāsaṃ, and from another perspective it is mokṣa. ^[45]

A sannyāsi has to perform action with no kāngsati or no dreṣti i.e. without attraction and aversion to the result of action. A sannyāsi is not supoosed to perform action out love or hatred making a distinction of result. One has to perform action without creating duality i.e. hatred to one and love to one or vice versa. One should be free from attraction and aversion. Such a sannyāsin is called in Bhagavadgītā a nityasannyāsin, and he is always of this nature.

The Chapter V.4^[46] is important in this regard. This verse is the result or confirmation of sannyāsin or nityasannyāsin. Rāmānuja in this verse has interpreted little differently, maintaining a sequence of sannyāsa and karma yoga. For it is like karma yoga leads to karma sannyāsa. It is obvious from his interpretation. He writes,‘he who has adopted yoga, that is, one who has taken to karma yoga and who is by himself a sage, that is given to meditation on the self, after going through with karma yoga with ease, attain Brahman, without delay or in a very short manner.’ This is a sequence for him but it is not. This should go simultaneously. This is because karma yoga involves sannyāsa. This is also for the reason that unless one performs karma how can he attain sannyāsa or be a sannyāsin?

In Chapter XVIII Kṛṣṇa advocates sannyāsa and tyāga. But Rāmānuja is not faithful to the meaning of the verses and converts the meaning of verses to make his interpretation consistent. In Chapter V.1 Arjuna asked a question to Kṛṣṇa to know about the difference of karma yoga and karma sannyāsa. Here, in Chapter XVIII.1^[47] also Arjuna asked the same question.

In this verse, Arjuna asked:

“Lord tell me, I wanted to know separately about what sannyāsa and tyāga are?”

Kṛṣṇa replied in Chapter XVIII.2 verse. The verse says:

kāmyanāṃ karmanāṃ nyāsaṃ sannyāsaṃ kavayaḥ viduḥ/
sarvakarmaphalatyāga prāhuḥ tyāgaṃ vichakṣaṇā//

The meaning of the verse is that ‘the panditaḥ or enlightened persons say that sannyāsa means giving up of desired actions or kāmmya^[48] karma such as yajña, tapaḥ and dāna etc. and the wise say that the giving up of all the fruits and attachment to actions i.e. sarvakarmaphalatyāga^[49] is called tyāga. It is also said that some say that karmas are defective, so karmas have to be abandoned or given up, but others wise say that actions such as yajña, dāna and tapaḥ etc. should not be given up (XVIII.3).

In Chapter XVIII.2 Rāmānuja also comments same thing that:

“Though Kṛṣṇa has used the word ‘sannyāsa’ in one place and ‘tyāga’ in another place from this it is learnt that the synonymity of the words ‘tyāga’ and ‘sannyāsa’ have been accepted by Him.”

What Rāmānuja tries to convey is that, both tyāgā and sannyāsa are of the same nature and identical. While examining his interpretation, the impression that Rāmānuja chnages the meaning of tyāga and sannyāsa. At first place while Rāmānuja giving the introduction in Chapter XVIII says that ‘both sannyāsa and tyāga have same meaning, and they are identical in nature which are the means of final release. ‘Tyāga for him means ascribing all agencies of action in Lord.’ But ascribing all agencies of action is called sannyāsa, but not tyāga, because sannyāsa means vesting or depositing of action or agency of action in Brahman. What Rāmānuja is trying to say is that there is the identity between sannyāsa and tyāga. But while reading the text it is found that the two are not identical as such, but different and distinct. But Rāmānuja consistently accepts the two as synonym. It appears that Rāmānuja fails to grasp what the Bhagavad-gītā is trying to convey, and therefore, makes no distinction of it. It is to be noted here that sannyāsa is for karma i.e. regarding kāmmya karma or desired action, but not of the karmaphala, and tyāga is regarding karmaphala. So, there is no difference actually. Because while saying about tyāga the sense is that the given up phala i.e. karmaphala and sangaḥ should go somewhere else. In giving up or abandoning the karmaphala and sangaḥ it is not important where it goes or who gets it. But in sannyāsa it is important where it goes? While performing such action one should fix the mind in the self, and perform action which is to be vested in Brahman without any desire, selfishness etc. Actions should be vested in Brahman, because actions are emerging from Him and are being done by Him through prakṛti, since prakṛti is instrument of performing actions. So, sannyāsa means all actions have to be deposited somewhere else. That is why it is called ‘saṃnyāsa.’ ‘Nyāsa’ means ‘depositing,’so actions have to be deposited. On the other hand, karmaphala cannot be deposited on someone, somewhere, it does not matter who gets it or where does it go. So, tyāga is karmaphala and sannyāsa is karma.

On the other hand, while commenting on Chapter XVIII.3^[50] Rāmānuja appears to have commited error.

He comments that:

“All works including sacrifices and other similar rites should be given up by one aspiring after salvation.”

This has been referred to by Rāmānuja to the followers of Kapila and the Vedas. But neither the followers of Kapila nor the Vedas say that actions, such as sacrifices have to be given up after salvation. Because all actions do not bind the doer, only the kāmmya karmas bind the doers. A sacrifice can be performed without desire and also not for salvation, because salvation does not come to picture while performing yajñas. Here, in this verse, the first half is advocated by the Jainas, and say that all actions such as yajña has to be abandoned and one has to be niṣkriyaḥ in this respect. And the second half of the verse is advocated by the Vedic people, who prefer that actions cannot be abandoned, because yajña, dāna and tapaḥ have to be done. So, Rāmānuja is following Jainas thought which does not fit with the meaning of the text.

Again, in Chapter XVIII.4^[51] which concerns the different kinds of tyāga Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya comments that ‘tyāga is relating to the fruits, as relating to the works themselves and as relating to agency–in the statement “making over all actions to Me with a mind devoted to the self, free from desire and selfishness, fight without the fever (of desire and anxiety).” This, Ramānuja has referred to the Chapter III.39 of Bhagavad-gītā. But there is another problem for Rāmānuja. For what he said is not tyāga, it is sannyāsa, because sannyāsa means vesting or depositing action in somewhere or making over agencies of all actions to Brahman. That is, when a person gives up actions i.e. agencies to Brahman is called sannyāsa, but is not tyāga. He also writes that “tyāga as relating to agencies in the giving up of the agency of oneself, by attributing the agencies to the Lord of all” is problematic. Because giving up of agencies to the Lord means vesting or depositing the agencies to the Brahman which is called sannyāsa, but is not tyāga.

One of the highly debatable teachings of Bhagavad-gītā is the teaching of svadharma. Svadharma in the Bhagavad-gītā is mostly discussed with reference to Chapter II.31-33^[52] , Chapter III.35^[53] and Chapter XVIII.47^[54] . But, regarding svadharma of Bhagavad-gītā Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya has not given any clear interpretation. To be able to discuss svadharma, it is necessary first to find out what/how dharma is advocated in the Bhagavad-gītā as any discussion regarding svadharma without the idea of dharma advocated in the Bhagavad-gītā is an incomplete discussion.

Arjuna’s confusion regarding varṇa dharma comes out clearly when he formulates his anxiety regarding fighting in the war. The war will destroy many families. In Chapter I.40-44^[55]

Arjuna articulates his anxiety keeping in view the possible destruction of families. He says:

“On the extinction of a family, the immemorial dharmas of that family disappear, when the dharmas disappear, adharma overtakes the whole family. By the prevalence of adharma, O Kṛṣṇa, the women of the family become corrupt, when women are corrupted, there will be intermingling of varṇas (varṇa–saṃkara), O descendant of Vṛṣṇis. Intermingling of varṇas leads the family of these destroyers of families also to hell; for, their forefathers fall (down to hell), deprived of the offerings of piṇda (rice-ball) and water. By these evil deeds of the destroyers of families which cause the intermingling of varṇas, the eternal dharmas of castes and families are subverted. We have heard, O Janārdana, that necessary is the dwelling in hell of the men whose family dharmas are subverted.”

In the above argument, Arjuna’s confusion regarding varṇa dharma is complete. He is not able to make a distinction between kula (family lineage), jāti (caste) dharma and varṇa dharma. He is confusing one with the other, as he is using kula, jāti and varṇa interchangeably throughout. The reason for this conflation is that he has linked varṇa to birth. This is the confusion we all suffer from even today. Regarding the above argument, while studying Rāmānuja’s interpretation of Bhagavad-gītā we find that Rāmānuja has not concentrated for interpreting the verses in it. He could not distinguish what is kula, jāti or caste dharma in the verses. This may be the weakness of Rāmānuja understanding the Bhagavad-gītā or it may be that knowingly avoiding the two.

When Kṛṣṇa discusses dharma, He never talks about kula (family) dharma or jāti (caste) dharma. He only talks of svadharma, paradharma or dharma in general. In Chapter XI.18 Arjuna refers to Kṛṣṇa in his Viśvarūpa as śāśvata dharmagoptā.

Kṛṣṇa himself talks of śāśvata, ekāntika dharma in Chapter XIV.27.^[56] The verse says:

“For I am the abode of Brahman, the Alive/Immortal and the Imperishable, the Eternal Dharma, and the Bliss of lone end.”

The shift in terms used by Kṛṣṇa is very significant. It shows that the Bhagavad-gītā was not composed to give ideological and moral support to varṇa or caste, and Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavadgītā was not justifying varṇa or jāti system. He is justifying śāśvata dharma ‘eternal dharma’, which is different from varṇa dharma, as the latter was not taken as eternal dharma. But Rāmānuja’s idea of dharma is different from the idea of dharma in the Bhagavad-gītā. For him, the dharma in the Bhagavad-gītā is varṇa dharma. For him dharma means varṇa dharma i.e. dharma of the four castes and stages in life as if dharma is varṇa dharma. In commenting Chapter IV.7 he writes, ‘for whenever there is decline of dharma, of that which is ought to be done, as determined by the arrangement of the four castes and stages in life.’ But the verse says ‘yadā yadāhi dharmsya glānīr bhavati bhārata–abhyutthānaṃ adharmasya tadātmānaṃ srijāmi ahaṃ.’^[57] The meaning of the verse is that whenever there is decline of dharma and increase of adharma ‘I’ [Kṛṣṇa] incarnate Myself. So, what the verse says is there is no such idea of varṇa dharma in this verse. Therefore, svadharma cannot be varṇa dharma.

When in Chapter IV.13^[58] Kṛṣṇa says: ‘I created the system of four-fold varṇa’ he is indicating that it will be destroyed too in time.

The metaphysical principle announced by Kṛṣṇa in Chapter II.27^[59] says:

“For, death is certain for one that is born and birth is certain for one that dies.”

That is to say that which has beginning, has end, and that has end had a beginning. Or that which is created in time, will meet its destruction in time and that which has met destruction had origin in time. Hence, when it is declared that cāturvarṇyaṃ ‘system of four-fold varṇa’ has been created, it is a signal that time will destroy it, as it is not eternal. Since, as shown above Kṛṣṇa is justifying śāśvata dharma ‘eternal dharma’ he is not justifying varṇa dharma.

Even, if Ṛgveda 10.90.11-12 accepts varṇa dharma, yet it is not declared as eternal. Ṛgveda 10.90.16 merely declares regarding the specific dharma advocated in Pūruṣa Sūkta: tāni dharmāṇi prathamāny āsan i.e. ‘these were the first dharmas to appear”, but did not claim that these are eternal dharmas. Regarding the specific dharmas, which emerged in Ṛgveda, it is repeated twice in 1.164.43, and 50 again in the same word as 10.90.16 that tāni dharmāṇi prathamāny āsan: ‘these were the first dharmas to appear”, but there also it was not claimed that these are eternal dharmas. Hence, Vedavyāsa claims that the origin of varṇa system is in Ṛgveda, and by following Ṛgveda he claims that varṇa system has an end too because it is not eternal.

So, the advocacy of svadharma is not advocacy of dharma of the varṇa to which one belongs. Scholars generally understand svadharma from the point of view of varṇa or caste. Even Rāmānuja too is not free from such idea. He is interpreting svadharma from the point of view of varṇa dharma in his Gītā Bhāṣya commenting on Chapter II.31. There are some verses that discusses about dharma of the caste or varṇa which is understood by readers to be svadharma. In Chapter II.31 Krṣṇa says ‘svadharmampi cāvekshya na vikampitum arhasi–dharmādhi yudhāt śreyaḥ anyata kṣhatriyasya na vidyate.’ Here the literal meaning of the verse is that ‘do not be scared, and you are not fit to be scared of seeing your own dharma i.e. kṣhatriya dharma, because for the kṣhatriyas, there is nothing higher than the dharma yuddha.’ In this verse, the context is, Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna to persuade him to fight against his cousins showing kṣatriya dharma to be his svadharma. But svadharma is not confined to the four varṇas and the dharma of the four varṇas is not the svadharma in Bhagavad-gītā. Then, how one has to understand the verse is it is not saying that Arjuna has to fight because of varṇa dharma [but for Rāmānuja it is svadharma]. What it actually says is that when the battle has started and Arjuna is to fight, but not being a kṣatriya by nature, but by the position in the battlefield. That is, when a battle started and it is required of him to fight according to the fighting position, since he has already participated. Arjuna’s position is to fight not because of varṇadharma by nature, but by situation which demands according to his position.

Rāmānuja has not been able to give any clear explanation on svadharma in his Gītā Bhāṣya. Svadharma for him is just varṇa dharma and performing varṇa dharma is svadharma for Rāmānuja. But, svadharma cannot be understood from the point of view of varṇa dharma, but varṇa dharma can be understood from the point view of svadharma. Svadharma does not mean varṇadharma, because varṇa dharma is contextual or is taken in contextual reference. Varṇadharma i.e. svadharma according to varṇa cannot be eternal. The dharma which is protected by the Supreme and performed by the svām i.e. the self is called svadharma. Svadharma does not get destroyed because the self does not give up its dharma.

Let us present a clear understanding of what svadharma is in the Bhagavad-gītā? Two ideas are involved here. We can understand svadharma from two perspectives which many commentators have failed to grasp. They understand literally from the point of view of varṇa dharma. The first perspective is from the svām- bhāva or the inner being of the self and secondly, svadharma is positioning. According to the first perspective svadharma can be understood as sva + dharma = svadharma. Sva means own (self) and dharma means ‘what is required to perform action in accordance with svabhāva in the Bhagavad-gītā.’ The word svabhāva is originated from svām- bhāva which means inner being of the self. In the Bhagavad-gītā, the explanation of svabhāva is given in Chapter VIII.3.^[60]

The meaning of the verse is that,

“Imperishable (akṣara) Supreme Brahman is svabhāva [which] is said to be the Adhyātma (the inner Self that dwells in the body).”

So, svabhāva is nothing but the imperishable supreme Brahman itself with limitations of the body, i.e. in the form of adhyātma ‘inner self’ that dwells in the body, but transcends it.

The Bhagavad-gītā does not equate svabhāva with prakṛti. Svabhāva is svāmbhāva, or being of the self. Just as the fire does not give up its dharma, so as the self or svām does not give up its dharma and that dharma is eternal. One has to perform action or dharma of the self, which is called his own dharma i.e. svadharma. In each and every position or the situation, one is required to perform his dharma without any discrimination. The action required may be by being member of the varṇa or the caste or any other position in which he is. All the time one is not required to perform his varṇa dharma, but one is required to perform his svadharma i.e. his dharma according to the position in which he is. That is actually svadharma in the Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore, when we say svadharma of the persons, we understand that a person has to perform his dharma in accordance with his svām- bhāva or inner being of the self.

While examining Rāmānuja’s commentary he in his Gītā Bhaṣya interpreting on Chapter XVIII. 41-44^[61] says that svabhāva for him is natural disposition which makes a person to perform his dharma. He says, ‘the disposition belonging peculiar to the Brahmana s, Kṣtriyas, Vaiśyas and sudras are their innate disposition’ which reflects to be constituted of prakrti or nature. Svabhāva is more than that. Since, it has already been said that svabhāva means inner being of the self (svām- bhāva), but not nature or prakṛti, prakṛti makes a person to perform his svadharma. Svabhāva in the Bhagavad-gītā is not nature or prakṛti or natural disposition, but is inner being of the person. The inner being of the person cannot be changed, but nature or prakṛti of the person of four castes may change because of guṇa and karma. Each member of the four castes has its natural disposition or prakṛti, which many understand as the svabhāva due to birth in a varṇa and which may undergo changes death and re-birth. In Chapter XVIII from 41-44 Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna about the duty of the four varṇas according to svabhāva or svām- bhāva, but not according to natural disposition as Rāmānuja comments in his interpretation. When a person is born as kṣatriya his nature/ prakṛti or disposition makes him to perform the duty of the kṣatriya such as protecting, participating in war, donation etc. These are generally said to be his svabhāva. But this svabhāva made up of prakṛti is not the svām- bhāva or inner being or self because at death it loses its nature and because the body does not belong to the self. The svabhāva or natural disposition of the body and the svām- bhāva or inner being cannot be equated. If we say that the nature/ svabhāva of the body as kṣatriya and the svabhāva which is svām- bhāva are same, then is the self in the body of a kṣatriya and śūdra different? Of course it is not, because the self is one and the same collectively in all the bodies. Therefore, the so called svabhāva of the four castes called nature or prakṛti are acquired by birth and get destroyed at death. But the self which is inner being or svām- bhāva remains same in each body outside the four castes also.

Their nature or prakṛti makes them to perform their dharma and to be four varṇas. Sometimes, they deviate from their own natural disposition or prakṛti or nature. Therefore, what makes them to be brahmanas or kṣatriya etc. are not their inner being or svabhāva. Svām- bhāva does not belong to any category of the four varṇas, but transcends them. So, what is being said is that nature or prakṛti of the varṇas is not to be equated with svām- bhāva. The nature or prakṛti of the varṇas are acquired by birth [or other], and gets destroyed at death. They are contingent and do not constitute the essence of the members of the varṇas.

Another perspective of svadharma that can be understood in Bhagavad-gītā is positioning. Svadharma in Bhagavad-gītā does not mean only varṇa dharma i.e. brahmana, kṣhatriya, vaiśya or śūdras etc. or the duty by birth. It is more than that. That is, what it means is positioning i.e. dharma according to the position. Therefore, one has to perform action according to the position in which he is. And, if one refuses to perform action according to the svabhāva of the position that he is in, then he is deviating from his performance of svadharma which can be termed as paradharma in the Bhagavad-gītā.

Arjuna in the battlefield regardless of varṇa and the enemy whether they are relatives, gūrus etc. has to fight due to his position in war. Since, he has already entered the battle field and sounded the war bugle; it is his svadharma to fight in the war now. And a great warrior like Arjuna cannot withdraw because of so-called love and compassion, from his position in war. The dharma of war is not killing or getting killed. War may get end without killing any one or without any one getting killed. Hence, it should not be a matter for him, who kills or who gets killed. He should not even think of winning in war. The war may get end with victory or defeat. Arjuna due to his situation has to fight irrespective of victory or defeat.

Therefore, Arjuna should not think that he will kill his gūrus, relatives etc. thinking that winning is certain. He may loss also. An erroneous thinking is going on in Arjuna’s mind as indicated by Veda Vyāsa which Rāmānuja could not grasp while interpreting it. Arjuna was ignorant; did not know principles of war and what his dharma is in his position. The purport of erroneous thinking in Arjuna’s mind is to show the dharma of the person in accordance with his situation [which called svadharma in the Bhagavad-gītā. ] His svabhāva makes him to perform his dharma according to that position. Therefore, svadharma does not mean only the dharma of the four castes i.e. varṇa dharma. Here it may be noted that the inner svabhāva of man and the svabhāva of his position is one and the same, as the inner pūruṣa/ brāhman is one and same as the outer pūrusa/ brāhman in which he has his position, and hence, svadharma of one is the same as the dharma of the position he is in.

Therefore, if Arjuna is refusing to participate in that dharma yuddha according to the position, then he is deviating from the dharma of the position [i.e. his svadharma] And, if he refuses to fight in which the fight has already started, then he is on his way to paradharma. In Chapter III.35 it says: śreyān svadharma viguṇaḥ paradharmāt svanuṣisthān/ svadharma nidhanaṃ śreyaḥ paradharma bhayāvaḥ/ / The meaning of the first half is that svadharma i.e. own dharma is better than none. And the second half is, death is better in one’s own dharma i.e. svadharma, and dharma or duty of the other bring fear or danger. Paradharma here actually refers to deviating from the dharma of the self, [not performing own dharma] and because of that it might bring danger in one’s life.

Bhagavad-gītā speaks of performance of svadharma as duty of a person and condemns performance of other dharma or paradharma i.e. deviating from own dharma. Śrī Kṛṣṇa clearly conveys this message to Arjuna. If we exmamine Rāmānuja’s interpretation of the verse in his Gītā Bhāṣya, we find that paradharma for Rāmānuja is jñāna or jñāna yoga. But that is wrong interpretation.

In commenting on Chapter XVIII.47 Rāmānuja writes:

“Therefore the discipline known as karma yoga though defective in performance is better (for one) than the discipline which is suitable to another, that is, jñāna yoga.”

This means karma yoga is svadharma and jñāna yoga is paradharma. But the problem of Rāmānuja is that paradharma cannot be jñāna yoga. Jñāna yoga is a discipline which involves karma. Paradharma means the dharma of the other [i.e. not doing karma when it is required to perform], but is not jñāna yoga as Rāmānuja has commented. One should not deviate from performing one’s own dharma i.e. svadharma, but deviating from performing one’s own dharma is paradharma, and he incurs kilbiṣam or pāpa according to the Bhagavad-gītā.

Besides, he is bringing the distinction of karma yoga and jñāna yoga. But the verse is about svadharma and paradharma, but not karma yoga and jñāna yoga as disciplines according to Rāmānuja. For him, svadharma is karma yoga and paradharma is jñāna yoga. But, there is no distinction of karma yoga and jñāna yoga. The Bhagavad-gītā does not speak that karma yoga is svadhrama. How could one understand it is, svadharma requires performnce of karma, but performing karma does not mean performance of svadharma. Svadharma involves performance of karma yoga. One has to perform svadharma by performing his dharma or karma only. Rāmānuja while interpreting is unable to clarify the distinction of svadharma and paradharma. Rāmānuja fails to grasp the meaning of svadharma in the Bhagavad-gītā.

Moreover, the problem of Rāmānuja commenting on Chapter II.31^[62] is that he has brought the idea of ‘righteous war.’ He writes, ‘to a kṣatriya indeed there is nothing more auspicious than a righteous war’. It is seen that this ‘Righteous war’ for Rāmānuja is ‘auspicious’ for Arjuna. But, how can he bring the idea of righteous war now here? For, so far, in Bhagavad-gītā in Chapter II the idea or issue is killing or fighting in war. Rāmānuja is bringing the idea in such a way that body is born and gets killed and not eternal, therefore, Arjuna should not grieve for it, and the soul cannot be killed because it is eternal and indestructible, unmanifested earlier, manifested in the middle and will again be unmanifest in the future. So, there is no question of killing them. Then, why should Arjuna grieve for that? But, the question: if Arjuna is grieving for that argument, then the argument is already gone or completed. Then, why the author is bringing another argument? There must be something else or remains something which is not yet explained and that something is regarding Arjuna’s wavering, while he should not waver. Now, the explanation that Rāmānuja has given so far, has to be understood in such a way that Arjuna is not yet become a person with such understanding that he will not waver from his dharma. But he is wavering from his dharma which is not yet gone. But the way Rāmānuja explained that Arjuna’s wavering should go. Therefore, this argument is established. On the other hand, in commenting on this verse it appears that Rāmānuja supports animal sacrifice which is not acceptable to the modern mind.

He writes in the verse–

“Animal sacrifice such as goat etc. in the agṇisomiya and such other sacrifices attains an auspicious body and of the svarga and such other happy result. And no injury is done to the sacrificed animal.”

But this is a very strange argument; for goats and other animals are not voluntarily participating in Yajña or sacrifice. Even the goat does not know that he is participating in the yajña.

Rāmānuja appears to have deviated from the actual meaning of the verses of Chapter II and III of the Bhagavad-gītā. In Chapter II.33, 40 Rāmānuja it appears that has not been able to unify the meanings of the verses. These meanings are internally connected and one has to understand the harmonized meanings of the Bhagavad-gītā.

In commenting on Chapter II.33^[63] he says:

“Arjuna being a kṣatriya, if he does not fight, he will forfeit unsurpassed bliss and acquire sin.”

But how is it so? What is that sin Rāmānuja has not proved here? He appears to have misunderstood it. But in this verse, Kṛṣṇa has given different meanings from the text where He says to Arjuna about the natural condition of the action. According to the verse, when action comes by itself and recognised it as dharma one should participate in it. There is no pāpa (sin) in it, rather there is dharma in it and one will not be in karmavandhana. But, if one refuses to participate, he incurs sin. And in Mahābhārata war, Arjuna himself is refusing to participate in war, but not by others. And this action i.e. refusal of participation in war is no more automatic action. Refusal is not automatic like coming of the action automatically. The action of refusal also binds, because that action also becomes an action of a person like Arjuna. When there is refusal of action then there is pāpa (sin). Because action will stick to him and he will loss his honour, since he has performed the action of refusal. But the action of war which has come automatically which is decided by collectively and when Arjuna is merely participating in it then there is no pāpa, rather there is merit which does not bind him.

The argument given in Chapter II.33 is supported by II.40^[64] where Kṛṣṇa emphasizes on the glories of karma. In this verse ‘Abhikrama’ means ‘initiation/initial of action or beginning of action.’ ‘Pratyavśyu vidyate’ means ‘there is no sin [i.e.there is no sin in initiation of action]. The meaning of the verse is that after initiation or beginning of action it does not stop by itself, it will be continued to be. One should not stop himself doing action after it begins. Since, the action does not get stop by itself, one should also not try to stop it. At the same time, there is no sin in initiation of action. There is no karmavandhana in it. Because one does not perform or initiate, it gets started automatically, so the question of attributing action does not arise. Without attributing action how should action be continued so that action does not get stopped? People think that when knowledge arises action will get stop, like Rāmānujachārya. For him, action is the means to knowledge. When there is knowledge, there is no action for him. But Bhagavad-gītā is not saying that. Because the saṃskṛt words ‘na iha abhikrama nāśo asti’ which means the efforts, beginning, initiation of action is not stopped. It will continue to be. At the same time, action is not attributed to the person or the self, because self does not perform action. This is the relation where action and the self go together. The action does not get stop and at the same time the action is not attributed to the self and does not bind the self.

Again, in the verse ‘Salpam asya dharmsya’ means even a little bit of action takes away from the great fear i.e. ‘trāyat mahataḥ bhayāt.’ There is no sin in initiating an action. If an action gets stop by the doer in middle then there will definitely be sin. This is what is said in this verse. But all the thinkers have the idea of karmavāda or saṃsāravandhana that saṃsāra is binding us and saṃsāra is full of sin, and when one is in saṃsāra it means he is in sin. But this is not the fact of the Bhagavadgītā and this verse does not say anything about this.

In this verse Rāmānuja also comments that,

“Even if it is begun and remains uncompleted, being interrupted in middle, it does not remain fruitless. There does not arise any sin even if what is begun by way of karma yoga and interrupted in middle.”

But this is completely a wrong interpretation. Since, he is having in his mind very idea of karmavāda, when an action is started it starts bearing fruits, though it is interrupted in middle, and there is no sin in it. But the idea is, once the karma has started and it should be continued without stopping by anyone. But the problem is if the action is stopped by someone in middle which has already been started, then there will be pāpa or sin in it. For example, the action of Arjuna in the battlefield is ‘he will not fight.’ Then, if Arjuna is interrupting the action which has already been started in middle then definitely there is pāpa or sin in it, because it is he who is interrupting in middle. He has no right to stop the action. It should be in such a way that there is the action, but no sin, since there is no sin in the performance of action, but there is sin in interruption of action in middle. The issue of karma is that it should be related in such a way that the self is not bound by the action. Action should be independent of result then only there will be no karmabandhana. But Rāmānuja could not maintain this idea.

Again, Rāmānuja interprets that:

“Even a small parts of this moral discipline known as karma yoga afford protection against great terror i.e. the terror of saṃsāra.”

But this is also completely wrong. It is not the terror of saṃsāra but the terror of karmavandhana i.e. bound by the action. One should perform action without getting bound by the action.

Since, Arjuna was despondent and ignorant because of the knowledge of the real nature of the self, wrong thinking on the performance of the action etc. there is an indication in Chapter II.36^[65] that something is wrong in his way of thinking, in the way of action, in the way of speaking. Suppose, Arjuna’s withdrawing himself from the battle is an action i.e. the action of withdrawing himself from the battle when the battle has already started. But what is wrong with that action is, he is doing something prohibited or which should not be done. Similarly, he is grieving for those who should not be grieved for. Also he is thinking of something which should not be thought of. Similarly, people will speak of abhāsyam i.e. what should not be spoken about. That means the entire structure of thinking, speaking, acting has gone wrong. So, the entire discussion is of correction of thinking, acting, speaking of Arjuna. But no commentators have understood this structure of thinking including Rāmānuja. Rāmājuna is interpreting in a straight forward way. For, Rāmānuja has already come with his Viśiṣṭādvaitic philosophy and colouring in repeating his interpretation. On the other hand, Kṛṣṇa has given in Chapter II.37^[66] a new argument, but Rāmānuja while interpreting it has not been able to explain complete meaning of the verse. For Rāmānuja, he interprets that if Arjuna is killed in war then he will attain heaven or if he wins the war then he will rule over the world and enjoy. But this is not proper argument according to the Bhagavad-gītā. This is not at all the alternatives of fighting in war. For Kṛṣṇa deliberately emphasizes on the third possibility. And this is, for example, if Arjuna is killed, he will attain svarga or if he wins then will rule over the world. But, if he is defeated and alive then what would happen, what would be the result. Rāmānuja is not giving the answer of the third possibility of the war. This cannot be a complete argument.

Since, this is not an argument whatever may be the result or outcome i.e. first, second or the third possibility, Arjuna should fight, and that is what actually is said in this verse. Here Arjuna’s determination of fighting is independent of the result which the author wants to highlight. But Rāmānuja is giving the expression as if it is based on result. The decision of fighting does not depend on any of the alternatives or results because nobody knows what will be the results.

So, Kṛṣṇa is giving the indication that Arjuna’s decision to fight or resolution to fight is independent of the results of the action. For, it is the decision of the action, but not for the result or consequence of the action. But the question is: how does one decide? The answer is found in Chapter II.38^[67] where it is said that action has to be independent of the result. But, if the action is the means for achieving salvation then it is problematic for Rāmājuna.

For, he writes,

“Therefore arise being convinced that engaging in war is the means for attaining the highest object of human pursuit known as salvation” (II.37).

But when one decides an action independent of the result, then it is itself a salvation from the action. When one indulges in action which is independent of the result, then that action does not bind. That is a salvation, salvation from the result of action. Salvation is not the result or it is not such which is to be achieved. In this regard Rāmānuja’s interpretation is problematic.

Again, in this verse Rāmānuja did not even mention about the third possibility of the battle. He mentioned only first and the second possibilities that is if pleasure and pain, loss and gain and defeat and win. But what is the argument about third possibility i.e. loss or defeat, but alive? But thing is that one should not look at any of these consequence, since win and defeat, loss and gain or victory, pleasure and pain are covered here. Since, one has to be independent of the result of action, should treat all the results to be same.

Besides, the argument put by the author in the verse is not grasped by Rāmānuja. The argument given in this verse is ‘how to perform action on the basis of the nature of the self’? While Kṛṣṇa is giving this argument on the basis of the nature of the self or ātman, then that argument is not as immortal, eternal, but something else i.e. thinking or decision. Because thinking and decision have to be done on the basis of the self. Though infinite self is not the thinker, doer etc. but, its way of acting is different. It cannot act directly because it is not an actor or action cannot be attributed to the self, since it neither kills nor gets killed. But the action has to be done by the prakṛti, the body. When thinking takes place as ‘I am the doer’, is the buddhi or mānas which is also a part/product of the body. So, it is the prakṛti which performs the action under the guidance of the Purūṣa or Ātman and the results derive from it such as pleasure-pain, victory-defeat etc. does not go to Him. Therefore, Arjuna’s decision has to be independent of all these. Actions should not be performed by ahaṃkāra.

The import of the argument in this verse is ‘who is the thinker in Arjuna’ or ‘who is the nimitta of the action in Arjuna’? The answer is not the self, because the self is not thinker, it is the ahaṃkāra who is thinking. For example, when one thinks that ‘I have done it’ or ‘I am doing’ is nothing but the ahaṃkāra in us who is doing. The decision for action does not emerge from the self as nimitta, but it emerges from the Supreme Self or Purūṣa i.e. Brahman. This has also been mentioned in Chapter XI.34 Kṛṣṇa has already killed all, but Arjuna as kṣatriya has to participate in the fight only. That is the nimitta of the action is Kṛṣṇa or the Brahman or it emerges from Him only. Arjuna here is only an instrumental cause. The purpose of the argument in this verse is making correction of the thinking process, how thinking takes place. Thinking is correct when one thinks not with ahaṃkāra; otherwise thinking will not be correct. Thinking has to take place with the self who is infinite, unmanifest, eternal etc. So ‘I will not fight’ is the example of thinking with ahaṃkāra by Arjuna.

Rāmānuja’s comment on Chapter II.41^[68] appears to be erroneous. In the verse ‘Vyavasāyātmika buddhi’ means ‘the buddhi which is ready for action or determined or resolute for action. This kind of buddhi is one only because it is determined to do a particular action. But, the buddhi which has so many branches or śakhās which has its different dimensions are called ‘avyavasāyika buddhi’ which cannot do anything. Because it’s pulling is in all dimensions. Those minds whose branches are many and pulling in indifferent dimensions are called kiṃkartavya vimurah. They cannot act because of desires pulling in different dimensions. But only the determined buddhi i.e. ‘vyavasāyātmika buddhi’ can do it.

Rāmānuja interprets that if the buddhi is not determined by the desires, but determined by the śāstras, then what the śāstras say one has to carry out. This buddhi is called ‘vyavasāyātmika buddhi’. The disposition of the mind is characterised by the determination. Here, when one is moved by the desires of objects, then that person does not have determined buddhi, because he does not have the determined nature of the self. It means the person does not know the true nature of the self thinking that the self is different from the buddhi.

According to Rāmānuja, if one does not know the true nature of the self, but has desire for svarga or salvation, then his buddhi is not determined. For him, the disposition of the mind toward the ritual is single. For Rāmānuja yajña is performed for salvation and all yajñas lead to salvation. That means different yajñas are meant for different salvation or result. Rāmānuja in his writings he is keeping karma as yajña karma which is the motive of the Bhagavad-gītā. And he seems to have a better understanding in it.

But in this verse the problem for Rāmānuja is he interprets that action is the means for accomplishment of salvation. But the action is not the means. Salvation is in the action itself. All the thinkers whether they are classical or modern always take jñāna, bhakti and karma as the means for salvation. But these are not the ways or means of salvation because salvation itself is in the knowledge, in action and in devotion. One should participate in action in such a way with yoga that the action does not bind him and when one performs action in this way that is what is meant by salvation. It is not something that is to be achieved by any means. So, Bhagavad-gītā is saying something and the commentators have understood something. They are so pre occupied by their own conception that they do not see what the text is saying. They are claiming in their commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā that the salvation of the individual self is by means of jñāna, bhakti and karma. Instead of taking all these as the means it should be taken in such a way that in bhakti itself there is the salvation. Bhakti means sharing and a bhakta is sharer. So, if a bhakta has the knowledge of sharing his bhakti with others then there is the salvation and so in case of jñāna and karma. But one is not independent of others. These three are different aspects of same thing.

The verses Chapter III.20-21 are of significance in the Bhagavad-gītā where Kṛṣṇa to teach and persuade Arjuna has given the name of king Janaka as an example of result of performance of action. In Chapter III.20 Kṛṣṇa says:‘karmaṇyeva ḥi saṃsiddhim āsthitā janakādayḥ’ which means that even king Janaka by performing action had attained perfection. Therefore, one has to perform action until the self is attained. It is not the action that is to be performed till the self is attained as Rāmānuja commented in Chapter III.19. In the verse, it is not said that action has to be performed for the achievement of the self only. But, even when a person realised the self, even he also has to perform action or action has to be done. For example, great persons like Janaka and Kṛṣṇa. If we study Rāmānuja’s interpretation then we see that Rāmānuja is commenting Chapter III.20 with his older understanding, that is, karma yoga is superior to jñāna yoga which is for all. For him, for the ajñānī who has not obtained knowledge, karma yoga is necessary, because he wants to achieve jñāna and who have achieved jñāna, for him karma yoga is necessary. Since, for Rāmānuja it is superior to jñāna yoga. But what the verse says is, the foremost sage Janaka had performed action not because he had to achieve jñāna, but he had to perform action because of the lokasaṃgraha. Janaka had already realised the self. But why he continued to perform action? He should stop performing action after realisation as Rāmānuja has commented. But Janaka continued to perform. The idea is that it is for lokasaṃgraha i.e. unity of the loka or people. But this lokasaṃgraha is not objective, but keeping in mind this lokasaṃgraha one has to perform action even those who have realised the self.

Besides, Rāmānuja has interpreted this lokasaṃgraha as ‘the guidance and protection of the world,’ but it should be ‘guidance and protection of the unity of the loka.’ The Chapter III.20 has immediate reference in Chapter III.21 where it says about lokasaṃgraha. Here, in verse pramāṇaṃ means ratio of action or principles of action. People follow the principles of actions when a great man applies such principle in performance of action. But they do not exactly follow the action as stated by Rāmānuja in this verse. He writes ‘whatever a distinguished man does that alone other men also do. To whatever extent he does the world follows.’ It means, Rāmānuja is saying that whatever a great man performs action ordinary people follow that action only. But this is not the meaning taught in this verse. The verse says: ‘yad yad ācarati śreṣṭhaḥ tat tad evetaro janaḥ -saḥ yad pramāṇaṃ kurute lokas tad anuvaratate’

Hence, what it says is, ordinary people follow the principles of action performed by a great man, but do not follow the action that he does. A great man has to perform action who has realised the self for the unity of the loka i.e. for the unity of the people i.e. lokasaṃgraham. So, a great man has to establish good principles for the unity of the loka or lokasaṃagraham. Because, if a great man like Kṛṣṇa and Janaka stop working then ordinary people following their principles will stop working. How do they follow is not by performing same action done by great man, because same action cannot be done, but only principles can be followed. For example, a great man can donate 1kg of gold easily but a common cannot donate i.e. same action cannot be done by others which have been done. But the point is that a common man can follow the principle in it i.e. the pramāṇaṃ and can follow it i.e. can donate a small amount of gold that he can afford. Therefore, common men follow the principle of action but not exactly the action of great man. Hence, it is seen that verse 21^st does not contradict with verse 20^th.

Sannyāsa and karma yoga are not separated though they are distinct, yet they are same. In Chapter V.6^[69] of Bhagavadagītā it is said that it is very difficult to adopt sannyāsa or renunciation without the adoption of karma yoga for attaining Brahman. But, he who i.e. a sage adopts yoga attains Brahman without any delay or a long gap. Rāmānuja in this verse has interpreted differently maintaining a sequence of sannyāsa and karma yoga which means one after another, i.e.e karma yoga and then sannyāsa. This is clear from his interpretation.

He writes that,

“He who has adopted yoga, that is one who has taken to karma yoga and who is by himself a sage that is given to meditation on the self, after going through with karma yoga with ease, attain Brahman, without delay or in a very short manner.”

What it reflects is, he maintains a sequence. But this is not a sequence. This should go simultaneously or together. Karma yoga involves sannyāsa. Unless one performs karma how would it be possible for him to attain sannyāsa? This is a problem for Rāmānuja in interpreting the verse deviating for the original meanings of the verse.

In Chapter V.10^[70] it is said that he who performs actions and vested all in the Brahman i.e. brahmanādhāya, giving up attachment he is not bound or stained by the sin, like a lotus leaf is not wetted by the water. There is nothing to vest on the prakṛti, because prakṛti is doing as an instrument. It should be vested on Brahman by the person who is performing. For example, hammer and the nail. To put the nail in the wood a person does this by the instrument hammer. Though it is in a way doing by the hammer, but it is the person’s action which is being done by the hammer. Hammer is an instrument only. So, it is karma sannyāsa, vesting action somewhere i.e. in the institution or collectivity.

Rāmānuja in Chapter V.11^[71] interprets that:

“Giving up attachment to svarga and such other fruits the yogins perform such work as can be carried out by the body, mind, intellect and the senses to attain purification of the self, that is for destroying the bondage of karma which has been acquired from old and which has affected the self (that is stood in the way of realization of its true nature.)”

But this is a problematic interpretation of Rāmānuja. In this verse it is not saying anything about ‘bondage of karma which has to be destroyed for the purification of the mind.’ The word ‘ātmaśūddhaye’ is not the result or consequence that is to be achieved after performing action without attachment through mind, body, intellect, senses etc. It is saying, if the yogins do not perform action without attachment (sangatyaktvā) then it will not be ātmaśūddhi; ātman (self) will become maliṇaḥ (dirty), because there will be smearing of ātman with the karma. But from Rāmānuja’s interpretation it is seen that, ‘if the question is asked why action has to be performed, the answer is ‘for the purification of mind.’ But that is not correct understanding of Rāmānuja. It is such that performing action means performance of action without attachment and that itself is purification of mind, ‘ātmaśūddhi.’

Therefore, the Chapter V.11is clear in Chapter V.12 verse that is if one is not performing action without attachment (sangatyaktwā) then he is performing action for the result only. The verse says ‘yuktaḥ karmaphalaṃ tyaktwā śāṇtimāpnoti’ which means being yuktaḥ with the action and also being yuktaḥ with abandoning or giving up the fruits but not yuktaḥ with the fruits one gets peace or attains peace. Earlier it is saying ‘sangatyaktwā’ i.e. giving up attachment, now in this verse in same sequence i.e. ‘karmaphalaṃtyaktwā’ i.e. giving up of the fruits.

Again, ‘ayuktaḥ kāme kārena phale sakto’ which means he who is ayuktaḥ in the action or not attached to action, but yuktaḥ with the phala by kāme kāreṇa i.e. attached to the fruits only, he becomes bonded or action binds him. Because he is ayuktaḥ with the action and yuktaḥ with fruits or result of the action so the action binds him. But here in this verse Rāmānuja though consistent with meaning of the verse with his interpretation still brings the idea of ‘cycle of death and rebirth’ makes it problem. In this verse nothing is mentioned about the cycle of death and rebirth. He is really extrapolating much on this verse.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Bhagavadggītā, Chapter III.20.

[2]:

Sampatkumaran, M.R. (2002): The Gita Bhasya of Ramanuja, Prof. M Rangacharya Memorial Trust, Chennai, page-377

[3]:

ibid

[4]:

ibid, page-82

[5]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter III.15: karmabrahmud bhavaṃ viddhi/

[6]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter III.30: mayi sarvāni karmāṇi sannyasya adhyātmacetasā/

[7]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter V.10: brahmani ādhāya karmāni/

[8]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter III.15: brahman nityam yajñe pratiṣthitam/

[9]:

brahmārpaṇam brahma habiḥ brahmāgno brahmaṇā hutam/
brahmaiva tena gantavyam brahmakarmasamādhinā//

[10]:

yatkaroṣi yat aśnāsi yatjuhoṣi dadāsi yat/
yatpasyasi kauteya tat kurūṣva madarpaṇam//

[11]:

The Bhagavadgītā mentions different kinds of yajña, dāṇa and tapaḥ such as sāttvika, rajasika and tamasika. The three kinds of yajñas are sāttvika yajña, rajasika yajña and tamasika yajña. The three kinds of dāṇaḥ (charity) are the sattvika, rajasika and tamsika dāṇaḥ and the three kinds of tapaḥ (penance) are sattvika, rajasika and tamasika tapaḥ.

[12]:

na tu aham teṣu te mayi/

[13]:

matsthāni sarvabhūtāni na cāham teṣu avasthitaḥ/

[14]:

yathākāśasithitaḥ nityam vāyuḥ sarvatragoḥ mahān/
tathā sarvāṇi bhūtāni matsthānī iti upadhāraya//

[15]:

brahmārpanam brahman habi brahmāgno’ brahmanhrutam/

[16]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter III.31

[17]:

nānyam guṇobhyaḥ kartāram yadā dṛṣtānupaścyati/

[18]:

Such as Brahmana, Kṣatrya, Vaisya and Sudra.

[19]:

na mām karmāṇī limpynati na me karmaphale spṛhā/
iti mām yaḥ abhijānāti karmabhiḥ na saḥ vadhyate//
evaṃ jñātvā kṛtam karma purvaḥ api mumukshubhiḥ/
kurū karma eva tasmāt tvaṃ purvaḥ purvataraṃ kṛtamn//

[20]:

Sampatkumaran, M.R. (2002): The Gita Bhasya of Ramanuja, Prof. M. Rangcharya Memorial Trust, Chennai, page-142

[21]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter IV.17–18:
karmaṇahi api boddhavyam boddhavyam ca vikarmaṇaḥ/
akarmaṇaḥ ca boddhavyam gahanā karmaṇaḥ gatiḥ//
karmṇyakarma yaḥ pśchyeta akarmaṇi ca karma yaḥ/
saḥ buddhimāṇ manuṣyeṣu saḥ yukta kṛtsankarmakṛt//

[22]:

nityaṃ sangarahitaṃ arāgadveṣataḥ kṛtam/
aphalaprepsunā karma yata tata sattvikam uchyate//
yattu kāmepsunā karma sāhaṃkārena vā punaḥ/
kriyate bahulāyāsam tat rājasam udāhrūtam//
anuvandham kṣhayam hiṃsaṃanavekṣya ca paurūṣam/
mohādārobhyate karma yat tat tāsam uchyate//

[23]:

muktasangaḥ anāhaṃvādi dhṛtyutsāhsamanvitaḥ/
siddhyasiddhyaḥ nirvikāraḥ kartā sattvikaḥ uchyate//

[24]:

rāgi karmaphalaprepsu lubdhaḥ hiṃsātmakaḥ aśuchiḥ/
harṣaśokānvitaḥ kartā rājasaḥ parikīrtitaḥ//

[25]:

ayuktaḥ prākṛtaḥ stabdhaḥ śathaḥ naiskṛtikaḥ alasaḥ/
viṣādi dirghasutrī ca kartā tāmasaḥ uchyate//

[26]:

A guṇātita person has to be such that, he, who is equal to regards and disregards, friends and foes, heat and cold, happiness and unhappiness and pleasure and pain, and also free from the agency of action.

[27]:

tyaktvā karmaphalāsangaṃ nityatṛptaḥ nirāśrayaḥ/

[28]:

anāśritaḥ karmaphalaṃ kāryaṃ karma karotiḥ yaḥ/
saḥ sannyāsi ca yogi ca na niragniḥ na ca akriyaḥ//

[29]:

sangaḥ tyaktvā phalaṃ caiva saḥ tyāgaḥ/

[30]:

Sampatkumaran, M.R (2002): The Gita Bhasya of Ramanuja, Prof. M. Rangachrya Memorial Trust, Chennai, pp-90-91

[31]:

ibid.page-148

[32]:

karmabrahmodbhavaṃ vidhi.

[33]:

Sampatkumaran, M.R (2002): The Gita Bhasya of Ramanuja, Prof. M. Rangachrya Memorial Trust, Chennai, pp-90-91

[34]:

ibid, page-151

[35]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter V.14.

[36]:

Tripurāri, B.V. Swami (2010): ‘Bhāgavad Gītā and its Feeling and Philosophy’, Mandala Publishing, 17 Paul Drive, san Rafael, CA 94903, printed in India by Palace Press Internatinal, page-197.

[37]:

dureṇa hi avaraṃ karma buddhiyogād dhanajaya/
buddhou śaraṇam anaviccha kṛpaṇāḥ phalahetavaḥ//

[38]:

yogaṣtha kurū karmaṇi sangaṃ tyaktvā dhananjaya/
siddhyasiddhyaḥ samaḥ bhūtvā samatvam yogaḥ uchyate//

[39]:

dureṇa hi avaraṃ karma buddhiyogād dhanajaya/
buddhou śaraṇam anaviccha kṛpaṇāḥ phalahetavaḥ//

[40]:

buddhiyuktaḥ jahāti īha ubhe sukṛtaduṣkṛte/
tasmāt yogāya yujyasva yogaḥ karmasu kauśalaṃ//
karmajaṃ buddhiyuktā hi phalaṃ tyaktvā manisiṇaḥ/
janmabandhavinirmuktāḥ padam gacchanti anāmayam//

[41]:

yogayajñāstathāpare/

[42]:

nāty aśnatastu yogo’ sti na caikāntaṃ anaśnataḥ/
na cāti svapnaśilasya jāgrato naiva cārjuna. //

[43]:

Desire

[44]:

sannyāsam karmaṇā kṛṣṇa punaryogam ca śaṃsasi/
yat śreyaḥ etayaḥ ekam tata me bruhi suniśchitam//

[45]:

Mokṣa here does not mean salvation or liberation from the saṃsāra as Rāmānuja interpretes. But it is mokṣa in the sense that it is in the karma yoga or karma sannyāsaṃ itself. There is nothing to be achieved after jñāna or karma or sannyāsaṃ. Mokṣa is there in the action or both karma yoga and sannyāsaṃ is mokṣa itself. It is not a goal that we reach one after another. It is, like, when we say that one has to perform action in the state of yoga, so that, it does not bind him by the fruits of action. Since, it is not his action that fruit will not come. So, there is the mokṣa in the action itself. For example, when a servant performs action for his master, that action is not his action, but it is the action of the master. And, the fruits derived from the action will go to him i.e. the master, but do not to the servant. So, it is the case, when a person performs action, it goes to the collectivity, but do not to him. The meaning here is, one is in yoga of the action, but not in viyoga or saṃyoga with action. One is participating only in action without knowing the action. When a person acts like this, he is mukta from the action, and there is no binding in that action.

[46]:

sāṃkhyayogo pṛthakbalāḥ pravadanti na paṇditaḥ/
ekamapyāsthitaḥ samyak ubhayoḥ vindate phalam//

[47]:

sannyāsasya mahābāho tatvam īcchāmi veditum/
tyāgasya ca hṛkeśa pṛthakkeśiniṣūdan//

[48]:

Kāmmya karma means desired actions which are performed for begetting wife, sons, money, and performing yajña karma, tapaḥ and dāna and also upāsanā etc. are for getting the desired objects are called kāmmya karma. And giving up of such karma is called sannyāsa by some scholars. But, agṇiḥotra is not kāmmya karma, because it is daily ritual or nitya karma.

[49]:

This means giving up of the attachment and desires of fruits of actions, worshipping Isvara, mother, father and also Yajña, tapaḥ and dāna etc. and also karma performed for the sake of livelihood etc. are called sarvakarmaphalatyāga in the Bhagavadgītā.

[50]:

tyājyam doṣvatitike karma prāhuḥ manīṣiṇaḥ/
yajña dāṇaḥ tapaḥ karma na tyājyamiti ca apare//

[51]:

. niśchayaṃ śr̥ṇū me tatra tyāge bharatasatatam/
tyāgaḥ hi purūśavyāghra trividhaḥ samprakīrtitaḥ//

[52]:

svadharmampi cāvekṣya na vikampitum arhasi/
dharmāthi yuddhāt śreyaḥ anyata kṣtriyasya na vidyate//
yadtīcchayā ca upapannam svargadvāram apāvṛtam/
sukhinaḥ kṣatriyāḥ pārtha labhante yuddham īdṛśyam//
atha ceta tvam īmam dharmyam saṃgrāmam na karisyasi/
tataḥ svadharmam kīrtim ca hitvā pāpam avāpsyasi//

[53]:

śreyānsvadharma viguṇaḥ paradharmāt svanuṣthitāt/
svadharme nidhanam śreyaḥ paradharmaḥ bhayāvaḥ//

[54]:

śreyānsvadharma viguṇaḥ paradharmāt svanuṣthitāt/
svabhāvaniyatam karma kurvan na āpnoti kilviṣam//

[55]:

kulakṣaye praṇaśyanti kuladharmāḥ sanātanāḥ/
dharme naṣṭe kulaṃ kṛtsnam adharmo 'bhibhavaty uta//
adharmābhibhavāt Kṛṣṇa praduṣyanti kulastriyaḥ/
strīṣu duṣṭāsu vārṣṇeya jāyate varṇasaṃkaraḥ//
saṃkaro narakāyaiva kulaghnānāṃ kulasya ca/
patanti pitaro hy eṣāṃ luptapiṇḍodakakriyāḥ//
doṣair etaiḥ kulaghnānāṃ varṇasaṃkarakārakaiḥ/
utsādyante jātidharmāḥ kuladharṃś ca śāśvatāḥ//
utsannakuladharmāṇāṃ manuṣyāṇāṃ janārdana/
narake aniyataṃ vāsoḥ bhavatīty anuśuśruma//

[56]:

. brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham amṛtasyāvyayasya ca /
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikāntikasya ca //

[57]:

Bhagavadgītā, Chapter IV.7

[58]:

cāturvarṇyaṃ mayā sṛṣṭaṃ/

[59]:

jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur dhruvaṃ janma mṛtasya ca /

[60]:

akṣaraṃ brahma paramaṃ svabhāvo 'dhyātmam ucyate/

[61]:

Brāhmaṇakṣatriyaviśāṃ śudrāṇām ca parantapa/
karmāṇi pravibhaktāni svabhāvaprabhavaiḥ guṇaiḥ//
śamaḥ damaḥ tapaḥ śaucham kṣāntiḥ ārjavam eva ca/
jñānam vijñānamāstikyam brahmakarma svabhavajam//
śauryam tejaḥ dhṛtidākṣyam yuddhe cāpyapalāyanam/
dānam īsvarabhāvaḥ ca kṣātram karma svabhāvajam//
kṛṣigorakṣyavāṇijyaṃ vaiśyakarma svabhāvajam/
paricharyātmakam karma śūdrasyaāpi svabhāvajam//

[62]:

svadharmampi cāvekṣya na vikampitum arhasi/
dharmāthi yuddhāt śreyaḥ anyata kṣtriyasya na vidyate//

[63]:

atha ceta tvam īmam dharmyam saṃgrāmam na karisyasi/
tataḥ svadharmam kīrtim ca hitvā pāpam avāpsyasi//

[64]:

nehābhikramanāśo’sti pratyavāyaḥ vidyate/
salpam asi asya dharmsya trāyate mahataḥ bhyāt//

[65]:

avāsyavādān ca bahun vadisyanti tava ahitāḥ/
nindantaḥ tava sāmarthyam tataḥ duḥkhataram nu kim//

[66]:

hataḥ vā prāpyasi svargam jitvā vā bhokṣyase mahim/
tasmāt utiṣtha kauteya yuddhāya kṛtaniśchayaḥ//

[67]:

sukhaduḥkhe same kṛtvā lābhālābho jayājayo/
tataḥ yuddhāya yujyasya na evam pāpam avāpsyasi//

[68]:

vyavasāyātmikā buddhiḥ ekā kurūnandana/
bahuśakhāḥ hi anantā ca buddhayaḥ avyavasāyinām//

[69]:

sannyāsastu mahābāho duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ/
yogayukto muṇibrahma nachireṇa adhigacchati//

[70]:

The verse has been mentioned earlier.

[71]:

kāyena manasā buddhyā kevale īndriyeḥ api/
yoginaḥ karma kurvantisangatyaktwā ātmaśūddhaye//