Chapter 6: Conclusion

The Bhagavad-gītā is a dialogue between Kṛṣṇa and warrior Arjuna. The Bhagavad-gītā is essentially a text in which the meanings to be understood is internally connected. Many readers understand Bhagavad-gītā to be repetitive and contradictory. Chapter III.30 is repeated in Chapter XII.6, Chapter XVIII.57. Chapter III.35 is repeated in Chapter XVIII.47. Moreover, Chapter IX.34 is repeated in Chapter XVIII.65. Repetitions are to be assumed as having significance. Regarding internal contradiction, as an example, verses 45 (II) and 15 (XV) present themselves as contradicting eachother. And Chapter IV.13 contradicts the meaning. Such contradictions form a ground and challenge for initiating re-readings. Interpretations which have not successfully dealt with these issues are to be considered inadequate. This in turn initiates a re-reading of the commentaries and interpretations with a turn to the original text.

As we understand that the text Bhagavad-gītā is free from any polemics and contradictions, it is superbly integral teaching of all the yogas. Not a single yoga can be adopted as a means of liberation. It is not only jñana and bhakti propagated by Śaṃkara and Rāmānuja as the means of salvation. All the yogas are equally important.

In this chapter, an attempt is made, to sum up, the findings of the preceding chapters. Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya is one of the notable classical commentaries. After investigating his Gītā Bhāṣya it is found that Rāmānuja has interpreted Bhagavad-gītā from Viśiṣtādvaitic philosophy. Since, his philosophy is triadic; he also applies this system in his Gītā Bhāṣya. The metaphysics of the Gītā Bhāṣya for Rāmānuja is triadic, i.e. the God, soul and the world. Though the Bhagavad-gītā accepts that the body of God is constituted of soul and the world i.e. the matter, but the Bhagavad-gītā does not advocate this triadic method as the only metaphysics of Bhagavad-gītā. It is more than this method.

We have also found some other metaphysical principles in Bhagavad-gītā such as sat, asat, bhāva and abhāva etc. and in this regard, Chapter II.16, 22 and 27 are very important as the metaphysical principle of the Bhagavad-gītā. This idea which is an important teaching of Bhagavad-gītā has been overlooked by Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya. This metaphysical principle as the metaphysics of the Bhagavad-gītā has been discussed in Chapter II of the thesis.

Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya is also unable to present the idea of collective self. Instead of that, he is presenting the idea of the multiplicity of selves in his Gītā Bhāṣya. That is, for him, selves are many in numbers. He takes the idea of the multiplicity of the selves from verses 12 and 53 of Chapter II of Bhagavad-gītā. The self in the body of a human being is different from the self of the animal according to Rāmānuja. Therefore, for Rāmānuja, the words ‘you’, ‘me’, ‘he’ etc. implies that selves are many. Besides, for Rāmānuja, there are different classes of selves. Some selves are ever eternal who are in continuous service to God, some are liberated selves as they were once in bondage and some are bound selves that exist in human beings. But the idea of Rāmānuja’s selves to be many in number and to be of different classes proved to be wrong. Because the self is one in the Bhagavad-gītā, and that self is collective in all the bodies. The Chapter II of Bhagavad-gītā in verses 13, 21, 22 teach the idea of collective self. This idea of collective self has been further discussed in Chapter II.

In Chapter III (Karma Yoga), it has been observed that Rāmānuja in his Gītā Bhāṣya is unable to give a clear conception of karma, akarma, vikarma, yoga, viyoga and saṃyoga. He fails to give a natural interpretation of the idea of the Bhagavad-gītā. Even in his Gītā Bhāṣya, we do not find the idea of action as collective action which means yajña karma. Yajña karma means the action of the Brahman. Every action in the Bhagavadgīta has to be performed as yajña karma. The idea of yajña karma has been discussed in Chapter III.9, 15 and 30, Chapter V.10 and Chapter IX.27 of Bhagavad-gītā. These verses teach that all actions have to be performed as yajña karma which goes to Him i.e. the Brahman. This is for the reason that Brahman is established in yajña. ^[1]

Action or karma in Bhagavad-gītā is collective or yajña karma, it is not an individual action, because the Self or Purūṣa is Collective (samaṣti purūṣa) which is Brahman. Brahman is Collective Person i.e. samaṣti purūṣa or Yajña Purūṣa in the Bhagavadgīta. This idea of Collective Self has been discussed in Chapter II.30, Chapter V.7, Chapter VI.29, Chapter IX.29 and Chapter X.20. All these verses teach that Brahman is Collective Person; since He is in all the bhūtas or existent. But in the Gītā Bhāṣya of Rāmānuja, this idea of Collective Self or Yajña Purūṣa found to be missing. Besides, Chapter VII.12 and Chapter IX.4-6 also teach the idea of Collective Self although verses are presented in different ways. But the meanings are the same.

Moreover, in the Gītā Bhāṣya, Rāmānuja is unable to explain svadharma of the Bhagavad-gītā. He interprets svadharma from the point of view of varṇa dharma, and for him, svadharma is confined to varṇa dharma. But, Bhagavad-gītā’s idea of svadharma is more than varṇa dharma. Svadharma in its wider sense is dharma of the self or the jīva, and para–dharma is completely different from a jīva’s dharma. Performance of varṇa dharma does not mean the performance of svadharma. Performing svadharma includes varṇa dharma. Therefore, svadharma transcends varṇa dharma.

Although in Chapter II.31 Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna that the war is for lokasaṃgraḥ, Arjuna’s participation in the war is his svadharma, and that is taken in contextual reference to persuade Arjuna to fight in a war: since, he was deluded and ignorant because of love and compassion of near and dear ones. One has to perform svadharma with self; since the self transcends guṇas. Self does not act, but the body performs in association with self. Arjuna in the war was more involved in saving the kūla or jāti dharma than performing his svadharma according to his position. Therefore, svadharma is positioning as well as acting in association with self.

In Chapter IV (Jñāna Yoga) it is observed that Rāmānuja is unable to make a combination of jñāna and karma. He in many verses makes the statement that both jñāna and karma are independent of each other. There is no possibility of a combination of jñāna and karma. Jñāna and karma do not go together according to Rāmānuja. Therefore, in his Gītā Bhāṣya we do not find jñāna-karma-samucchāya. But jñāna and karma or even bhakti, they are not independent of each other rather interdependent. These are not separated though these may be distinct from each other. Neither is jñāna nor is karma independent of each other. Both go together. If there is no karma, then there is jñāna and vice-versa. To act as prescribed in the Bhagavad-gītā, we need jñāna;and jñāna means resolve i.e. jñāna is resolved in action or karma.

In Chapter V (Bhakti Yoga) we have observed that Bhakti in the Bhagavad-gītā is anannya Bhakti or exclusive Bhakti, i.e. it is one-pointed, but is not anya- anya or many types of Bhakti. It is unswerving or it is avybhichāri Bhakti. This avyabhichāri bhakti has been taught to Arjuna by Kṛṣṇa in Chapter XIV.26 also. In the verse, it has been explained that the person or the devotee who worships or is devoted to Me [Kṛṣṇa] continuously, he transcending the three guṇas becomes fit for attaining the Sacchidānanda Brahman i.e. the Brahman who is ‘sat-cit-ānanda.’ In this verse, it has been tried to convey that by transcending the three guṇas, a devotee has to attain liberation, worshipping Him with avyabhichāri bhakti, which is called in the verse as avyabhichāri bhakti yoga. Rāmānuja in this verse also brought the idea of karmavāda unnecessarily in his interpretation.

On the other hand, readers who claim that Rāmānuja introduced prapatti in his Gītā Bhāṣya as an alternative means of salvation is found to be missing. Even, the Bhagavad-gītā does not advocate prapatti as an alternative means to salvation. Bhagavad-gītā’s point is that everyone is fit to attain mokṣa without any distinction of caste, creed or sex. In Chapter IX.32, Chapter XVIII.62 and 66 śaraṇam mean ‘being devoid of shameful, fear and attachment to Him i.e. by giving up of the attachment, egoness from the body thinking that Lord is the only refuge and all in all. So, śaraṇam is to be taken in this sense in Bhagavad-gītā. Taking śaraṇam in this sense there is no need for differentiating between bhakti and prapatti. Prapatti itself is the performance of bhakti; so there cannot be an independent means of liberation apart from bhakti in the Bhagavad-gītā.

After review of Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V it is seen that karma, jñāna and bhakti cannot be separated. These three are distinct from each other and at the same time these are mutually inclusive to each other. Chapter XVIII.18 says: ‘jñānam jñeya parijñātā trividham karmachodana. So, it is seen that to perform action it is needed jñāna of performing that action i.e. how to perform action etc. and jñāna means it is resolved or reflected in action. Therefore, theses are mutually inclusive.

After carefully examining Rāmānuja’s interpretation of the Bhagavad-gītā, the following important points have been observed. Rāmānuja interprets Bhagavad-gītā from Viśiṣtādvaitic point of view according to which Supreme Reality is Brahman and the jīva and jagat i.e. soul and the world are constituent parts of his body as His attributes. He interprets Bhagavad-gītā in light of his system of philosophy only, but not in the way the text is to be interpreted. He interprets the Bhagavad-gītā to make it consistent with his system of philosophy. Almost all the ancient thinkers who interpreted Bhagavad-gītā are not consistent with the meanings of the verses.

Rāmānuja being influenced by Gītārthasaṃgraḥa^[2] of Yamunāchārya has interpreted Bhagavad-gītā from bhakti point of view. Although all the three yogas are distinguishable, Bhagavad-gītā prescribes all the three yogas for the attainment of Highest Reality, Rāmānuja nonetheless emphasized on bhakti. Perhaps, the reason is that Rāmānuja was very much influenced by the bhakti movement of Vaiṣṇavas in South India. The bhakti Movement or Vaiṣṇava Movement was first propagated by the Ālvārs^[3] in the 7^th or 8^th century A.D. The Ālvārs of South India constituted a school of Vaiṣṇava mystics and saints who used to compose devotional songs of Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa worship and adoration in Tamil language.^[4] The system of Vaiṣṇavism founded by the Ālvārs believed Viṣṇu as the Highest Reality. Vaiṣṇavism, one of the oldest monotheistic religions in India where Viṣṇu, also called Hari, Nārāyaṇa, Kṛṣṇa, etc. are worshipped as the Supreme God. Worship of Nārāyaṇa or Viṣṇu and devotion to Him constitute the means of liberation.

On the other hand, it may be that Rāmānuja was one of the disciples of Yamunāchārya^[5] though they have not met each other. When Yamunāchārya heard of Rāmānuja’s great study of scriptures and famous learning through his disciple Kāṇcipuraṃ in Srīrangam, he called for Rāmānuja to be his disciple. But unfortunately before Rāmānuja’s arrival, Yamunāchārya’s had died and left three wishes to be fulfilled by Rāmānuja. These are a) propagation of bhakti cult^[6] , b) composition of a commentary on Brahma- Sūtra and c) a commentary on Bhagavad-gītā from a devotional point of view.^[7] Rāmānuja promised that he would fulfil these three desires one by one.

In Rāmānuja’s interpretation there is always a conception of the cycle of death and rebirth i.e. the theory of karmavāda. The abiding concept of Rāmānuja while interpreting Bhagavad-gītā is the Law of Karma. He in interpreting most of the verses brought this idea of the law of karma though Bhagavad-gītā does not say anything about the Law of Karma. It is his permanent in his interpretation. Bhagavad-gītā says about karmavaṇdhana but not karmavāda i.e. Law of Karma. He mixed up karmavaṇdhana of Bhagavad-gītā with karmavāda of Indian philosophy. Karmavaṇdhana and karmavāda are different from each other. In the Bhagavad-gītā there are no concepts of karmavāda i.e. the theory of the law of karma. But there is the karmavandhana i.e. the bondage of action. Bondage of action i.e. karmavandhana and karmavāda are not same. Though it is said in Chapter III.9 about karmavandhana here it is not talking about the karmavandhana of the past life etc but people wrongly interpret karmavandhana as karmavāda like Rāmānujachārya. The verse says ‘yajñārthāt karmaṇānyatra lokoyaṃ karma-bandhanaḥ–tad-arthaṃ karma kaunteya mukta-saṃgaḥ samācara.’ The meaning of the verse is that perform the 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.

Bhagavadagītā does not speak of karmavāda or the theory of the law of karma. But Bhagavad-gītā speaks of karmavandhana. It is the fact that the Bhagavad-gītā was actually composed after Buddhism; it is Buddhist’s doctrine of karmavāda that most of the interpreters try to incorporate in their interpretations. These interpreters have tried to interpret Bhagavad-gītā keeping in mind Bhuddhist’s doctrine of karmavāda to make their interpretations consistent with the doctrine. Traditional thinkers generally interpret from the point of view of Jaina also try to reconcile their interpretations/ teaching of Bhagavad-gītā with karmavāda. Therefore, they claim that four varṇas according to Bhagavad-gītā are due to the law of the karma. But it is clearly taught in Chapter IV.13 that four varṇas have been created according to their divisions of guṇa and karma. There is nothing to deal with the theory of the law of karma or caste or jāti. And the division of karma according to the guṇa is taught in Chapter XVIII.23-25.

Secondly, karmavāda is denied in Chapter V.14. What is taught in this verse is categorical. Here the karmaphala of an action or karmaphalasaṃyoga is not there. God has not created any karmaphala. It is our imagination only. There is no question of transfer of karmaphala in the Bhagavad-gītā. Because the verse clearly says that no action (na karmāṇi) no agency (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.

Thirdly, karmavāda is denied because action in the Bhagavad-gītā is collective or yajña karma and it is done for collectivity. Since all actions are collective action and are done for collectivity there is no question of karmavāda. Because in performing such action there is no karmavandhana since every action or karmaphala is deposited/vested in the collectivity.

On the other hand, interpreters or readers may claim that Chapter II.27 of the Bhagavad-gītā speaks of karmavāda or cycle of death and birth. As an example we may refer to Rāmānujcharya. Rāmānuja is reading a cycle, i.e. death–birth–death and again birth i.e. rebirth. But this reading as argued above appears to be erroneous. This claim is not at all accepted.

The Bhagavad-gītā is a critical of karmavāda or response to karmavāda. It is against Buddhism because it denies karmavāda. Therefore, binding in the Bhagavad-gītā is not in the sense of cycle of death and birth. Binding means the bondage of action due to the attachment to the fruits of action.

Therefore, karmavandhana or bondage of action means that when a person performs the action only out of desires and only for desires of its fruits and cannot get out of the desires then that action leads him to karmavandhana. He performs the action only for desires of fruits not for the sake of action that it is required him to perform. One should perform action as yajña not out of the desire of fruits but it requires him to perform the action without desires for fruits, then he is always free from bondage action i.e. karmavandhana. He is never bound by the desires of its fruits. He comes to know that every action bears fruits but that does not mean that one should perform action having desires of the fruits. If one performs the action that he will have fruits definitely action will bind him. But that does not mean karmavāda or law of karma where there is an idea of the cycle of death and rebirth as Rāmānuja said. Unlike him, the Bhagavad-gītā does not advocate the law of karma. But Rāmānuja is taking karmavaṇdhana as karmavāda. For he believes in liberation after death i.e. videha mukti but does not believe in jīvan mukti.

Some other verses where Rāmānuja has brought the idea of karmavāda in his Gītā Bhāṣya are Chapter II.31, 38, Chapter V.14 and 16, Chapter II.51, Chapter III.4, 8. In Chapter V.14 he says that ‘agency and others are not originated from intrinsic nature but by subtle impressions arising from the flow of the previous karma.’ and in 16^th he says ‘the enemy of knowledge i.e. ignorance which conceals knowledge is produced in the form of the accumulation of countless karma flowing from the time immemorial’ and this ignorance is destroyed by the five knowledge of the self which is unlimited, uncontracted, illuminates everything as it is in itself. But there is no mention of the theory of karmavāda in this verse.

Rāmānuja the way he is interpreting the Bhagavad-gītā is not actually interpretation. But in the name of the interpretation of the Bhagavad-gītā he is trying to render Bhagavad-gītā making consistent with karmavāda. Because everywhere in all the chapters he is bringing the idea if karmavāda. Since, karmavāda is his presupposition, it is not yet expound in the Bhagavad-gītā. Yet he is trying to give meanings of the verses in such a way that there is consistency with the karmavāda. That is his enterprise is not an enterprise of interpretation of the Bhagavad-gītā but it is an enterprise of making Bhagavad-gītā consistent with karmavāda.

According to Rāmānuja, liberation means salvation from the saṃsāra after death. But Gītā’s conception of salvation or liberation is not freedom from the saṃsāra after death. It is completely different from other conception of liberation. Many interpreters hold that mokṣa means mokṣa from the saṃsāra. But Bhagavad-gītā’s conception of mokṣa is the mokṣa from the karma or action or result of the action. But how it is possible? It is by doing the action without the desire for fruits which is not attributed to the individual but to the collectivity which does not bind since it goes to the collectivity i.e. Purūṣa or Supreme Self because it is not individual’s action. So he is not bound by the action. For example, the Kurūkṣhetra battle; the battle is an action of the collectivity. When a person like Arjuna is involved in the battle is made to participate and follow the principles of the war. If he wins in the battle and he does not calculate it i.e. the result then he is not accused that he has done it by himself. So it is not his action. It is the action of the collectivity. Even someone may go against the collective action, that is, if he thinks that it is done by him and because of his ahaṃkāra he will be accused against the collectivity. The collectivity i.e. Kurūkṣhetra battle cannot decide victory or loss of someone’s in the battle, but it is by those who are engaged in it. If someone, who thinks of it as done by him then it is said to have an āśūri svabhāva (evil nature). But Bhagavad-gītā is against this. It is said that do not look after the result but perform yajña karma which is collective without thinking that it is done by only one individual. There is an indication there about what and how to do or what ought to do and ought not to do. But there is no such conception of rebirth in the Bhagavad-gītā. What does Gītā say is that one should perform action without looking at the result or treating all the results to be the same (sama) like pleasure, pain, loss and gain, happiness and unhappiness etc. Because it is the action of the collectivity or Purūṣa and since Brahman is devoid of desire, sorrow etc and lacks nothing so there is no question of gaining and losing etc.

The nature of salvation in the Bhagavad-gītā is very remarkable. Everyone is fit for salvation by their karma, jñāna or bhakti. Rāmānuja advocating the idea of Prapatti as an alternative means to liberation in Chapter IX.30 has brought the idea that even a sudurāchāri or sudurāchar also attain perfection by anannya bhakti i.e. taking resort to the Supreme and in Chapter IX.32 he says, by taking resort or refuge in the Supreme, the women (strī), Vaiśyas, Sūdras and also Chandāl attain bhagavadprāpti. But this idea of Rāmānuja contradicts with Chapter XVIII.44 while commenting on the verse where Rāmanuja comments that Sūdra cannot or is not capable of liberation. They are not fit or liberation is not for them. Only the rest of the castes are for liberation. Commenting on Chapter XVIII.44 Rāmānuja writes that ‘the duty of the Sūdras arising from the innate disposition is service to the rest three castes such as Brahmanas, Kṣhatryas and Vaiśas only. Control of the senses and such other duties are common to those who, among the first three castes, seek for the final release.’ By this Rāmānuja means that liberation is only for the first three castes and control of the mind and such other duties are for them only but not for Sūdras. This is strange because Bhagavad-gītā is not discriminating for the liberation of the devotees. In Chapter IX.32 it is said even the women, Vaiśas, Sūdras and sinful are also capable of liberation if they find refuge in Kṛṣṇa. Even a sudurāchāri is capable of salvation (IX.30.) Rāmānuja is forgetting that in Chapter IX.33 it is said that man can attain the highest beatitude by performing action according to their innate dispositions or svabhāva. Therefore, it needs extreme care in advocating the idea of prāpatti as an alternative means to liberation. From the above points, it seems that Rāmānuja is not faithful to the idea of prāpatti in his Gītā Bhāṣya.

Bhagavad-gītā is an essential text for human life in modern times. The teaching affects the daily life of a reasonably well-placed person. The message of the Bhagavad-gītā is universal. It is always everlasting and evergreen. The study of the Bhagavad-gītā as a whole helps us for ourselves to discover what it means to act without attachment to the fruits of action.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

brahman nitya yajñe pratiṣthitam/

[2]:

Commentary on Bhagavadgītā with thirty two verses in light of bhakti or devotion.

[3]:

Ālvārs were the earliest Vaiṣṇavite saints in South India. They preached bhakti or devotion to One God Viṣṇu. The word Ālvār means one who is well versed in the knowledge of God and is also mad with love for Him. There were 12 Ālvārs including one female known as Āndal.

[4]:

This reference is taken from the ‘Authors Note’ of “A Critical Study Philosophy of Rāmānuja” written by Anima Sen Gupta, pp. xix,xx,xxi.

[5]:

Yamunāchārya was a great Vaiṣṇava scholar who was in search of a young man to propagate bhakti cult in proper manner and spirit.

[6]:

That is Rāmānuja is said to be the first systematic propagator of bhakti cult in South Inida.

[7]:

A. Sen, Gupta (2008): A Critical Study of the Philosophy Rāmānuja, Chaukhamba Amarabharati Prakashan, page-5