Materialism and the Bhagawadgita

BY K. B. KRISHNA, M.A., Ph.D. (Harvard)

I

INTRODUCTION

"When you want to read and understand a book, especially a great work like the Gita–you must approach it with an un-prejudiced and unprepossessed mind."

"The next thing one has to do is to take into consideration the time and circumstances in which the book was written and the purposes for which the book was written. In short the book must not be read devoid of its context."

"The conclusion I have come to is that the Gita advocates the performance of action..."

B. G. Tilak, "Gitarahasya," cited below: pp. 232-4.

The Bhagawadgita is unintelligible save in the context of pre-Buddhist philosophical speculations. In it are found concessions to the Vedas.^l In it are found Upanishadic speculations. ² In it are found Sankhya and Yoga.³ It is a medley of beliefs as to the relation between spirit and matter, and as to other secondary matters. It is certain and uncertain in its tone in regard to the comparative efficacy of action and inaction, and in regard to the practical man’s means of salvation.⁴ Its patch-work origin explains its philosophical inconsistencies ⁵–yet more apparent than real. It is an assorted cabinet of the philosophical opinions of the day.⁶

The history of Hindu Philosophy confirms Hegel’s Law of Triadic Development. The Vedas constitute the beginnings of Hindu philosophical speculations.⁷ They represent the first attempt at envisaging reality. The vague cosmological speculations of the Vedas yielded to the concrete, material enrichment of priestdom. These two contradictions of the Vedic period–insufficient cosmologies, and priestdom with its concrete material bases–paved the way for Upanishadic speculations. The Upanishads represent the second main attempt at envisaging reality. They improved the cosmologies of the Vedas by including elements like fire, water, air, and earth. They rejected the hedonism of the priests by advocating the other extreme of asceticism. This was a necessity on the part of the Upanishadic thinkers in order to undermine priestdom. These attempts constitute the thesis and the antithesis of Hindu philosophical development. The Gita represents the third attempt at envisaging reality. It did not reject any of the Vedic or Upanishadic speculations. It violently rejected the school of Lokayats. It followed the track of centrism, or opportunism. It attempted a synthetic unity without elevating the philosophic level higher than the Vedas, or the Upanishads, or the Lokayats.⁸ It did not even choose a "middle way" like Buddha’s. It did not reject the Plurality of the Vedas or the Unity of the Upanishads. It admitted the possibility of both. It did not reject the hedonistic activisin of the Vedas, nor the ascetic quietism of the Upanishads. It admitted the possibility of both, asserting that complete development of personality is impossible without activism and quietisms. ⁹

But the Hindu attempts at envisaging reality did not end with the Gita. They continued. The Gita again became the thesis. Buddhism and Jainism became its anti-theses. They rejected the priestdom of the Vedas, "the soul theories" of the Upanishads and the centrism of the Gita. In their attack, they raised the philosophical level higher than any of the previous systems excepting Lokayata. They brought philosophy from the "skies" to the "earth." They represented "a movement of Asiatic Reformation" on a wider scale. Then came Neo-Brahmanism, a swing to the past with its feet in the "existent." The synthetic result is modern Hinduism. The attempts are not yet dead. We find them in the Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Maha Jana Sabha, Regeneration of Untouchables, Theosophical Movement, Gandhism, Industrialism, and British Rule. Yet reality is not discovered. The Hindu thinkers, in their attempts at envisaging reality, created a structure peculiar to India–its caste system, its ikons, and iconoclasts–a gothic architecture of philosophical systems, sublime and ridiculous. The same perennial contradictions run through the ages. One wonders whether the Hindu society was ever mobile. It was mobile and immobile; mobile in those protestant sects which formed castes of their own, immobile in those that perpetuated priestdom. This was the reason for the prevalence of innumerable sects and creeds in India. History moves in contradictions. Philosopher Hegel was right, and Indian History is his chief witness.

II

AUTHOR

There is much doubt about the authorship of this work. Most scholars agree that this is not an original poem composed by a single hand, but an ancient work, rewritten and enlarged.¹⁰ By whom was the ancient work written? This is of importance for our purpose. Without being dogmatic, it can be said that this was written by Krishna. That Krishna is not a legendary figure but a historical personage is accepted by modern scholars. ¹¹

Very little of historical accuracy is known of him. Krishna was a Kshatriya warrior who fought at Kurukshetra. His father’s name was Vasudeva, and his mother’s Devaki. He had an elder brother named Bala Rama or Samkarsana. He sprang from the ancient Vrisni or Satvata branch of the family of Yadu. Their home was perhaps in the neighbourhood of Mathura.

The Rig Veda had been composed. The Yajurveda was being completed. Sacerdotalism was laying its dead hand on the more simple and joyous faith of early days. Religion was in the grasp of priests. But the Kshatriyas seem to have revolted from the priestly dominance. In Kshatriya circles there grew up a body of speculative thought and mystical doctrine, which later the more spiritually-minded Brahmins themselves were eager to learn.¹² Krishna grew up in such circles and later raised the standard of revolt against orthodoxy.

We also find that Krishna received instructions from Ghora Angirasa. So records the Chandogya Upanishad. There we read of Krishna, son of Devaki, learning from a priest of the Sun those lessons of the meaning of sacrifice, the merit of virtue, so inimical to orthodox priests. These appear in the Bhagawadgita. Beyond these dim pictures of Krishna, the warrior, of Krishna, the student, no more is known of him.¹³

What are the lessons that Krishna learnt from his master Angirasa? He learnt that

1. the life of man in its various states, and his death, may be compared to the various ceremonies observed in ritual sacrifices, and that the mystic meaning of sacrifice is the life of man himself;

2. the practice of certain virtues–austerity, liberality, uprightness, harmlessness, and truthfulness–is as effective as the offering of customary gifts to the priests;

3. at the hour of death, a man should think, "Thou art the imperishable, the never failing, and the very essence of life."¹⁴ These lessons are indeed revolutionary. Krishna reoriented them in the Gita.¹⁵ In the Gita, sacrifice is interpreted in no narrow ritualistic sense, but ennobled as a constant, living attitude. All work for God, rightly performed, is a sacrifice that leads the worshipper to Him. By insisting on the practice of virtues, Krishna aimed at dealing a death-blow to priestdom.

III

DATE OF THE TEXT

The date of this text is quite uncertain. Vaidya thinks that the date must be some centuries before 500 B. C.¹⁶ Tilak puts the Gita in about the 4th century B. C.¹⁷ Telang, Bhandarkar and Dixit place it in about 300 B. C.¹⁸ Winternitz¹⁹ and Hill²⁰ assign 200 B. C. as the period when the Gita appeared in its present form. Gowen writes, "that the date may well have been as late as the second or third century A. D. when Brahmanism was rallying its forces to stem the tide of popular Buddhism."²¹ European scholars generally place the Gita at the beginning of the Christian Era. And it is generally agreed that the matter referred to in the Bhagavadgita belongs to a very ancient period. It is also agreed that the Gita has undergone several interpolations.²² The Gita may be considered to be a pre-Buddhist work, but many additions have taken place up to as late as the early Christian Era. The later interpolations are entirely Brahmanic. In this way we can account for the inconsistencies in the Gita and for the absence of Buddhist or Jaina references.

Since the date of the work is so uncertain we cannot possibly know exactly the social conditions that gave rise to the Gita. We can only infer from the passages in the Gita about the conditions of those days. The Gita shows the imminence of a schism in Brahmanism. It shows the presence of several evils–priestdom, caste supremacy, asceticism–denounced previously by several thinkers. But the most important point in the Gita is the need for a theory before action. The war has to be fought. Arjuna must be consoled. His action would contravene existing social laws. How to fight? To obviate this difficulty. Krishna gave his discourse–an essentially centrist discourse–trying to reconcile various conflicting ideas of the day.

IV

DIATRIBES AGAINST THE MATERIALISTS OF THE DAY

In the Gita we find violent diatribes against the materialists of the day.

Says Krishna to Arjuna: ²⁵

"There are two orders of created beings in this world, thee Divine and the Devilish; the Divine order has been described at length; of the Devilish, O Son of Pritha, hear from me.

Neither action nor inaction²⁶ do devilish men know; cleanness is not in them; nor even right conduct nor truth.

‘Without truth,²⁷ without basis,²⁸ is the universe,’ they say, ‘and without Lord; born of mutual union, caused by lust²⁹–naught else’.

Holding this view, lost souls of feeble judgment, they come forth with cruel deeds as enemies to destroy the world. They turn to desire insatiable, they are possessed of hypocrisy, pride, and frenzy; in their delusion they grasp untrue ideas, and do their business, sworn to vows impure.

"They turn to care’s unbounded that end with death.³⁰ Enjoyment of desires they make their goal, assured that that is all. Bound by hundreds of bonds of hope, given up to desire and wrath, for the indulgence of their desires they seek unjustly to gather wealth.

‘This have I gained to-day; this desire I shall attain; this wealth is mine; this also shall be mine hereafter; that enemy have I slain, and others also shall I slay; I am a lord; it is I who enjoy; perfect am I, strong, happy;

Wealthy am I, high-born; what other is like to me? I shall sacrifice, I shall give alms, I shall make merry,’–thus speak they, by ignorance deluded.

Led to error by many a fancy, covered with the net of delusion, attached to the indulgence of desire, into foul hell they fall.

Conceited, stubborn, filled with the pride and intoxication of wealth, they offer nominal sacrifices, not in accord with rule, but of hypocrisy.

Turned to the thought of I, to strength and pride, desire and wrath, they hate me in their own and other’s bodies, malicious men.

These cruel haters, lowest of mankind and vile, I hurl for ever in birth’s cycles into Devilish wombs.

They enter a Devilish womb, in birth after birth deluded; to me they never win, O Son of Kunti, but go thence to the lowest way.

Desire, wrath, and greed–this is the triple gate of hell, destructive of the self; therefore, these three should one abandon.

The man, O Son of Kunti, who from these three gates of darkness is released, works weal for self; thence goes he to the highest way.

He who forsakes the ordinance of scripture³¹ and lives under the influence of desire, gains not perfection, nor pleasure, nor the highest way.

Therefore, let scripture be thy rule for the determination of right acts and wrong; that work which the scriptural ordinance enjoins thou shouldst know and here perform."

Comment is hardly necessary on these passages. These reveal indirectly the central ideas of the materialists of the day, of course as seen by an opponent. While Krishna tried to reconcile Sankhya and Yoga, he rejected entirely the materialist school. Although he was influenced by that school in his mild attacks on the Vedas, sacrifices, the caste system, and determinism, he belonged to a more liberal and less Vedic party.³² We now examine such liberal materialist and positive aspects ofthe Gita.

V

MATERIALIST AND POSITIVE ASPECTS OF

THE BHAGAWADGITA

(A) KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION; TREORY AND PRACTICE.

The Bhagawadgita forms part of the Bhismaparva of the Maha Bharata. The Epic is mainly concerned with the struggle for sovereignty between the Kauravas and their cousins, the sons of Pandu. The struggle culminates in the battle at Kurukshetra, where Krishna acts as the Pandava Arjuna’s charioteer. On the eve of the battle, Arjuna falters. He hesitates to fight. Krishna encourages him, in a long argument, to fight. The argument is the theme of the Bhagawadgita.

When Arjuna falters, Krishna urges him to fight. He reminds him of his Kshatriya duty to fight when the cause is just.³³ He tells him of the need for combining theory and practice.³⁴ At the time when the Bhagawadgita appeared, men were so devoting themselves to speculation on metaphysical problems as to exaggerate the efficacy of pure knowledge for salvation (Moksha). Action of every kind was thought not merely to be an obstacle to leisured contemplation, but positively a bar to liberation. For centuries, some of the Upanishads had taught that to know is to be. The aim of the ascetic aspirant was to know, and not to act. Krishna by no means scorns knowledge. More than once he breaks out into a panegyric on "knowledge" and the "knower."³⁵ Yet nonetheless he combats the wide-spread fallacy that the man of knowledge should aim at complete inaction. Inaction is neither right nor possible. Theory and practice, knowledge and work are not opposed, but are, as the learned realise, two sides of one’s well-balanced mode of life. Knowledge must find its complement in work. Its function is to bring all work to true fulfillment.³⁶

Krishna again and again urges Arjuna to action. He combines the knowledge-method of Sankhya with the work-method of Yoga. Some kind of work is inevitable. It is only by doing his duty that a man can reach that perfect state when action no longer hinders liberation. Theory is useless without practice. Without work life cannot be sustained. So work is better than inaction.³⁷ Perfection it attained only through work.³⁸ Work should be done for the sake of example.³⁹ The wise and ignorant alike must work. All through his argument, Krishna urges Arjuna into work, into action. No wonder that Tilak⁴⁰ and Aurobindo⁴¹ saw in the Bhagawadgita nothing but action.

(B) ATTACK ON THE VEDAS.

In his further argument with Arjuna, Krishna makes some interesting observations on the Vedas. The Vedic path is fraught with uncertainty and doubt. Here Krishna is repeating his predecessors, Kapila and Brihaspati. Krishna speaks with contempt of the "flowery speech" spoken by witless fools who see nothing beyond the Veda. For the Veda is concerned with material rewards.⁴²It brings no message to this fleeting and illusory world. Krishna does not blame the Veda. He accepts it for what it is. He only blames those fools who cannot see that beyond, and including, the Vedic realm lies higher truth. They say, "There is naught else." ⁴³ The Veda is like "a tank flooded with waters from all sides." The tank itself is small and bounded by its shores. From all sides there flow the boundless waters that cover it. Why should a wise man use nothing but the tank when all these waters are at hand from which it draws its limited supply? So too, in ancient days when only the teaching of the Veda was available, it served its purpose. But now a higher all-inclusive knowledge has dawned, a wisdom offering deliverance from this transitory world. Krishna therefore urges Arjuna to rise superior to the Vedic realms. Here we have a sedate protest against the Vedas:

1. The Vedic path is fraught with uncertainty and doubt

2. The Veda is concerned with material rewards.

3. The Vedas served a historical purpose, and are now no longer adequate for the present needs. ⁴⁴

At the same time, the Vedas are not absolutely rejected by Krishna. They may have many uses for a prudent Brahmin. ⁴⁵

(C) FREE WILL VERSUS DETERMINISM.

Krishna expounds another doctrine in the course of his argument with Arjuna. His discourse on nature and duty is interesting.⁴⁶ According to Krishna, duty is conditioned by nature. It is the nature of Kshatriyas to fight for a just cause. Therefore, being a Kshatriya, it is Arjuna’s duty to fight. A man must do the duty which his own nature bids him do. Each man possesses his own special nature whose promptings it is idle to defy. All existences follow their nature, and what shall coercing it avail? Even the man of knowledge acts according to his own nature. Better is one’s own law of works, though in itself faulty, than an alien law well wrought out. Death in one’s own law of being is better. Perilous is it to follow an alien law.

This idea is exploited by the defenders of the caste-system. The idea they deduce, by way of an implication, is the acceptance of the order which a man inherits. This is not what Krishna meant. By nature, Krishna meant "nature as self-determined in the individual." Both man and nature are determined. Within this determinism, man is yet free to act. Consciousness is an instrument of nature when it acts. Nine-tenths of freedom of will is a palpable fiction. The will acts not by its own self-existent action at a given moment, but by the past, heredity, training, environment, and the whole complex thing called Karma. The whole nature plus the man determine what the action is at a given moment. Nature forms in man and within man. It is mixed up with other determining elements.⁴⁷ The will of the ego is a will determined by matter. It is a part of the nature as it has been formed in us by the sum of its own past action, and self modification. The nature and will in men so formed determine our present action. There is no first action in nature which has no determining past behind. Even passivity, refusal to will, is itself a choice of nature.⁴⁸ The very form of the Gita implies that Arjuna is free to choose. When Krishna has finished his teaching, he says:

"This knowledge have I taught thee....fully consider this; then as thou wilt, so act." ⁴⁹

Yet at the same time he tells Arjuna that it is a delusion to think that he is a separate individual agent.⁵⁰ There is freedom in the Gita, but it is a freedom working within the bounds of an ultimate determinism.

Orthodox students of the Bhagawadgita vulgarised this revolutionary side of Krishna’s teaching. They cited these very passages for the defence of the caste-system and of fatalism. Krishna emphasised without doubt that within determinism there is free will (choice). The will is limited. Yet it acts. If this is the case, nature and conduct vary. They are not fixed. As nature changes, so does will, so does duty. If this interpretation is adhered to, the whole edifice of the caste-system will go overboard.

Krishna is dialectical. Will is free. It is non-free at the same time. Work, and yet do not work.⁵¹ Sacrifice, yet do not sacrifice.⁵² Reject the Vedas, yet do not reject them, those that are useful. True renunciation, and true performance are not opposed.⁵³ They are one and the same. Asceticism is not done away with by Krishna. He prescribes a temperate method.⁵⁴ In this vein Krishna propounds his doctrine.

(D) ATTACK ON THE CASTE-SYSTEM.

Krishna’s discourse on the caste-system is also vulgarised. Nowhere in the Gita does Krishna speak of caste by birth. He speaks of castes formed according to nature. No one is free from the influence of three strands (gunas, qualities). This is an old idea. Even the Greeks held this idea. Plato, too, held this idea. These three qualities are Purity (Sattva), Energy (Rajas), and Darkness (Tamas). A man acts according to the predominance of strand in him. A Brahmin is one in whom the Purity strand is predominant. A Kshatriya is one in whom the Energy strand is predominant and so on. Duty is conditioned by nature. This is all that Krishna says. He does not speak about the birth of caste. If a man be born a Brahmin, yet the Purity strand may not be predominant in him. It is the same with Kshatriyas. All that Krishna says is, "Act according to nature." Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra are terms by which Krishna depicts the various strands in people.⁵⁵ He added that performance of duty conditioned by nature leads to perfection.⁵⁶ This point if rightly understood is a mild attack on the caste-system. But orthodox students falsified Krishna’s teaching for their own ends.

(E) KRISHNA’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO INDIAN PHILOSOPHY.

Krishna throughout the discourse followed the track of centrism. He was afraid to reject the traditions. Yet he made serious inroads upon their validity. He reconciled theory and practice, work and no work, free will and determinism, sacrifices and no sacrifices, asceticism and non-asceticism. He followed an eclectic, pseudo-dialectical, compromising method throughout. But in one thing he was consistent, in that he was bitter against out and out materialists.⁵⁷ At times he was vague and uncertain. With all these defects, his contributions to Indian Philosophy are revolutionary. They are these:-

1. He emphasised knowledge and action. This is the leading idea of his work.

2. He emphasised the unity of theory and practice. This corresponds to the Marxian idea of unity of theory and practice.⁵⁸

3. He did not deny the role of will. Yet he stated clearly that will itself is determined. He undermined "fatalism" by this idea. This also corresponds to the Marxian idea of will.⁵⁹ To Krishna the individual is real and important; yet he is bound by Nature.

4. He attacked the Vedas mildly.

5. He did not speak of the caste-system as one resting on birth but as one based upon individual differences and qualities. Here, too, he mildly attacked the caste-system.

6. He preached toleration.

If Krishna had not followed the track of centrism, if he had attempted a reconciliation of the opposites–a unity of the opposites–he would have checked the progress of Brahminism. Buddha chose a middle way. Krishna chose a centrist way. Both in their own ways contributed to the movement of materialist and positive thought in India.

VI

INFLUENCE OF THE BHAGAWADGITA ON

CONTEMPORARY POLITICS

The influence of orthodox texts on contemporary politics is not unusual in India. Ram Mohan Roy took his stand on the Vedas,⁶⁰ although the Brahmo Samaj later rejected them.⁶¹ According to Roy, the Vedas sanctioned no idolatry, taught monotheism, ignored caste, prohibited the burning of widows. He was a reformer. He had to fall on a text, and he found it in the Vedas.⁶² At that time Vedic learning was at a low ebb.⁶³ Right or wrong, Roy took his stand on the Vedas.

The Vedas also influenced the Arya Samaj. In spite of the advance made in Vedic learning, and due to ignorance of English, Dayananda declared his belief in every word and letter of the Vedas. To him, not only was everything that was contained in the Vedas perfect truth, but he went a step further; and by the most incredible interpretations succeeded in persuading himself and others that everything worth knowing, even the most recent inventions of modern science, were alluded to in the Vedas. Steam-engines, railways, and steam-boats–all were shown to have been known, at least in the germ, to the poets of the Vedas, for Veda, he argued, means divine knowledge, and how could anything have been hid from that?⁶⁴

It is not necessary to refute these assertions. The Vedas, as Krishna says in the Bhagawadgita, are of "flowery speech." They speak of "material rewards." They contain hymns of class and race war against Dasyas.⁶⁵ There is nothing sacred in the Vedas, but vulgar pretentions of a Brahmanic oligarchy.⁶⁶ Yet this movement took its stand on the Vedas. It became a romantic anti-Western movement, and in some respects a reforming movement.

The Vedas influenced Tilak. His researches into the antiquity of the Vedas commanded the admiration of European scholars. Most of Tilak’s views are now rejected.⁶⁷

To Gandhi, the Vedas constitute the sum of human knowledge.⁶⁸

B. C. Pal finds the word Swaraj interpreted in the Vedas.⁶⁹ Just as Dayananda saw modern science in the Vedas, so Pal saw Swaraj in them. This shows the ridiculous length to which these men have gone to bolster up their causes.

Like the Vedas, the Bhagawadgita influenced contemporary political thought in India variously. Gandhi writes that the New Testament really awakened in him the rightness and value of Passive Resistance, and that the Bhagawadgita deepened this impression.⁷⁰ The spirit of the Sermon on the Mount competes almost on equal terms with the Bhagawadgita for the domination of his heart.⁷¹ He writes: "Nothing delights me so much as the music of the Gita or the Ramayana by Tulsi Das, the only two books in Hinduism I may be said to know. When I fancied I was taking my last breath, the Gita was my solace."⁷² He agrees with the Bhagawadgita that masses follow classes. He might have seen the verification of his statement in his own case. A Vaisya by birth, a lawyer by profession, a religious orthodox reformist leader by dint of circumstances, he won the masses, still under the influence of religion, to his cause.⁷³ No wonder he freely renders a verse of the Bhagawadgita into meaning that masses follow classes. Gandhi saw in the Bhagawadgita not only a replica of the Bible but an instrument to lead the masses in his own way in the name of religion.

Tilak studied the Bhagawadgita in a different light. Of all the leaders in India, Tilak stands pre-eminent as a gifted revolutionary leader. He was the first to break the amiable Indian National Congress from its traditional and academic methods, and to root it in the masses. It was in 1907 at Surat on the question of self-government for India within the British Empire.⁷⁴ He was the first to coin the word "Swaraj."⁷⁵ He was the first to bring "agitation and propaganda" as the right methods for the popularisation of political ideas to the masses. ⁷⁶ He was the first to reorient traditional literature for revolutionary purposes in a popular language.⁷⁷ He was the spearhead of nationalism which is wholly based on Hinduism.⁷⁸ To Tilak also is due the conversion of the Congress to the doctrine of boycott as a means of securing self-government (Swaraj).⁷⁹ Above all he is the first to bring "action" to the forefront of Indian politics.

For his theory of Action he resorted to the Bhagawadgita. To him it is a song of "action." He says:

"Merely reciting Sivaji’s story like a lord does not secure independence.⁸⁰ It is necessary to be prompt in engaging in desperate enterprises like Sivaji and Baji, knowing you good people should take up swords and shields at all events now. We shall cut off countless heads of enemies. Listen. We shall risk our lives on the battle-field in a national war. We shall shed upon the earth the life-blood of the enemies who destroy our religion. We shall die after killing only, while you will hear the story like women."⁸¹

Like the Brahmins of yore, who advised the masses to take up arms against an unjust ruler, ⁸² so does this Maratha Brahmin advocate armed resistance to foreign rule by the masses. Like Krishna in the Bhagawadgita, he advises the masses to wage a national war against the English. He says, "This is called Hindustan. How is it that the English rule here?"⁸³

On one occasion, he said:

"Did Sivaji commit a sin in killing Afzalkhan or not? The answer to that question can be found in the Mahabharata itself. Srimat Krishna’s advice in the Gita is to kill even our own teachers and our kinsmen. No blame attaches to any person if he is doing deeds without being actuated by a desire to reap the fruits of his deeds."⁸⁴

This is exactly what Krishna told Arjuna.⁸⁵ Tilak interpreted the Gita as suited to the contemporary political situation in India. Again he said:

"Do not circumscribe your vision like a frog in a well; get out of the Penal Code and enter the extremely high atmosphere of the Srimat Bhagawadgita and consider the actions of great men."⁸⁶

Here he expressed the opinion that great men were above the common principles of morality. In this way the Bhagawadgita contributed to the revolutionary movement of the middle classes in India.⁸⁷

The Gita influenced other leaders more in their private, lives than in their public ones. It is said of Malaviya that he could not make a speech in the Legislative Assembly without quoting a verse from the Gita.

The Gita is important even today if rightly interpreted for the situation in India. In this respect Tilak is still unexcelled.⁸⁸

  

l Like concessions to sacrifices, etc. But Krishna gave a different interpretation to the word "sacrifice."

2 Like insistence on action being done without any regard far the fruit; Isopanishad, Verse 2; Ch. U IV. 14. 3; BU IV. 23; and Mai U. VI. 20.

See R. G. Bhandarkar: "Vaishnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems," Collected Works, Ed. by N. B. Utigikar, Vol. IV, pp. 37-8.

H. Raychaudhuri: "Early History of Vaishnava Sect." 1920, pp. 48-50.

3 R. G. Bhandarkar: op. cit., p. 38; "Besides the Upanishads and the religious and moral atmosphere prevalent at that time, the Gita avails itself of the philosophy that had come into existence in early times. This is the philosophy of Samkhya and Yoga." See Bhagawadgita, Chapters II, III, IV.

4 Cf, E. W. Hopkins: "Religions of India," 1908, p. 390.

5 Cf. Ibid, p. 400.

6 Cf. Ibid, p. 399.

Bhandarkar, op. cit., p. 39, "Bhagawadgita is the result of development of the religious and philosophic speculation that prevailed before the rise of Buddhism."

7 B. Barua: "A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy," 1921, p. 5.

8 Almost all speak of the synthetic nature of the Gita. See Aurobindo Ghose, "Essays on the Gita," Vol. I., 1926, pp. 9-10. M, Rangacharya, "Bhagawadgita," p. 5.

Aurobindo Ghose: "Essays on the Gita," First Series, p. 96. "The Gita in its foundation is a Vedantic work."

Ibid, p. 115: ". . . the Gita founds its synthesis of Vedanta, Sankhya and Yoga, its synthesis of knowledge, work, and devotion."

9 D. D. Vadekar: "Bhagawadgita," 1928, pp. 37-40.

10 W. Douglas P. Hill: "Bhagawadgita," 1928, Introduction. p. 14. I followed this work closely.

11 See for a discussion, whether Krishna was a mythological or historical figure; and for references–Hill: op. cit., p. 4–5; Aurobindo Ghose. "Essays on the Gita." 1st Series, 2nd Edition, 1926, He does not deny that there existed an historical Krishna (pp. 19-20). But he regards the author of the Bhagawadgita as God himself descended into humanity (p.15).

12 Hill, op. cit., p. 8.

13 Hill, op. cit., p. 9.

14 Hill, op. cit., pp. 5-6.

15 H. Ray Chaudhuri: "Materials for the Study of Early History of Vaishnava Sect," 1920. pp. 48-50.

See Bhagawadgita XVI, 1-3; VIII, 11-13, I. 21; XI, 42; XVIII, 73.

16 C. V. Vaidya: "History of Sanskrit Literature," IV section, pp. 34-46.

17 B. G. Tilak: "Gita Rahasya," p. 564.

18 See for a discussion in V. Mangalvedkar. "The Philosophy of Action," 1928, P XLIV ff.

19 D. D. Vadekar: "Bhagawadgita." p. 5.

20 Winternitz: "History of Indian Literature," pp. 437-438.

22 Hill: op. cit., pp. 17-18.

23 H. H. Gowen: "A History of Indian Literature." 1931, p. 236.

24 See for opinions of Garbe, Winternitz, and other scholars in Vaidya. ‘Sanskrit Literature,’ 4th section. p. 23.

25 Hill, op. cit., pp. 244-8 (chap. 16. verses 6-24).

26 Sankara, one of the commentators of this text, writes: "Neither those acts which ought to be performed to achieve the end of man, nor those acts from which they should abstain to avert evil."

27 This is said to mean that no reliance can be placed on the truth of the Vedas and Puranas.

28 With no moral government. The: "basis" is either "right or wrong" according to Sankara, or "Brahman" according to Ramanuja, another Commentator of the text.

29 Sankara notes: "This is the view of the Lokayatikas (materialists), that sexual passion is the sole cause of all living creatures."

Thomson following Schlegel, whose view is defended by Lassen, translates: "They deny that the Universe...has arisen in certain succession, or anything else, save that it is there for the sake of enjoyment."

Davies notes: "They deny such a succession in the order of development or creation, as the Samkya or Yoga system taught."

Sankara writes, "Arising in no serial order, with nothing but desire for its motive force."

30 Davies translates, "They ignore everything beyond death, caring only for the enjoyments of the present world."

31 Sastra is a wide term, which may include the Vedas and the Dharma Sastras. The materialists deny the Scriptures. Hence this polemic against them.

For Ramanuja’s commentary on this part of the text, see: Iswaradatta, 1930. pp. 302-308.

For Sankara’s commentary, see Bhagawadgita by A. Mahadeva Sastri, Part I. 1897: pp. 287-292.

32 J. C. Thomson: "Bhagawadgita." 1855, p. XLIV.

33 Bhagawadgita, ii, 31-38.

34 Ibid, ii. 39.

35 Ibid, iv. 35-41.

36Aurobindo Ghose: "Essays on the Gita," 1st series, p. 98. "Action in the Gita is a permanent foundation."

See also, Ibid, 2nd series, p. 467.

37 Bhagawadgita. iii, 3-8.

38 Ibid, iii, 17-20a.

39 Ibid, iii, 20b-26.

40 ‘B. G. Tilak: "Srimad Bhagawadgita Rahasya" or "Karmayoga Sastra." 1910-11. Tilak wrote this while he was in prison. He placed action in the forefront of the Gita doctrine.

41 Aurobindo Ghose: "Essays on Gita" 2nd series, last 2 chapters. According to him, the core and message of the Gita is action. Bhagawadgita. XVIII. 18. "Knowledge and action are closely connected…."

42 Bhagawadgita, ii, 43.

43 Ibid, ii, 42.

44 Bhagawadgita, ii, 40-46.

45 Ibid, ii. 46.

46 Ibid, iii. 33-35.

Aurobindo Ghose: "Essays in Gita," 2nd series, p. 318.

47 See Aurobindo Ghose: "Essays on Gita." 2nd edition. 2nd series. pp. 324-325.

48 Aurobindo Ghose: "Essays in Gita," 2nd series, pp. 328-329

49 Bhagawadgita, XVIII, 63.

50 Ibid, XVIII, 59-61.

51 Ibid, IV, 16.23.

52 Ibid, IV, 25-23.

53 Ibid, V, 2-5; VI, 1, 2.

54 Ibid, VI. 10-17.

55 Bhagawadgita, XVIII, 40-49,

56 Ibid, XVIII, 45-49.

57 Ibid, XVI, 6.

58 J. Stalin: "Leninism," Vol. I, pp. 94-95.

59 V. I. Lenin: "Collected Works, Iskra Period," Vol II, p. 67.

"That ideologists (conscious leaders) cannot divert the movement is to ignore the elementary truth that consciousness participates....in creation."

For a discussion of the role of will in Marxism, see: T. B. H. Brameld, "A Philosophic Approach to Communism," 1933, pp, 38-40.

60 Max Mueller: "Biographical Essays," 1884-1900, 18-21.

61 Ibid, p. 40. 168. "In 1850 the Brahmo Samaj solemnly pronounced the dethronement of the Veda."

62 Ibid. pp. 18-19.

63 Ibid, p. 19.

64 Ibid, p. 170 ff.

65 Rig Veda (Griffth’s) Book I: Hymn 33, Verses 4, 9. These hymns are addressed to Indra to destroy wealthy Dasyas and those who differed from their religious practices. Indra is a wealth-giver to these poets of the Rig Veda.

66 Compare the strictures of Lokayats on the Vedas.

67 B. G. Tilak: "Orion on the Antiquity of the Vedas," (Of the European scholars. Jacobi is the only one who accepted Tilak’s researches. For a discussion, see C. V. Vaidya, "History of Sanskrit Literature," 1930, Vol. I. pp. 29-40. Tilak has written another work, "The Arctic Home in the Vedas," 1925.)

N. C. Kelkar: "Life and Times of Lokamanya Tilak," 1928. pp. 436-470. G. Buhler: "Notes on Jacobi’s Age of the Vedas and on Tilak’s Orion," in Indian Antiquary, Vol. 23, 1894. pp. 238-249.

‘Gandhi: "Speeches and Writings," p. 1054, "I believe in the Vedas, the Uptnishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name Hindu Scriptures. . ."

68 B. C. Pal: "Nationality and Empire," 1916.’ pp. 33-34.

69 M. K. Gandh: "Speeches and Writings." (4th edition, ‘Notes on Madras’) p. 161.

70 Gandhi: "Speeches and Writings." op. cit., p. 338.

72 Gandhi: Ibid., p. 1058. (This essay on "Hinduism" reveals his reactionary conception of Hinduism and its political significance.)

73 Gandhi: Ibid., p. 342.

74 The first open rupture between the followers of Gokhale and those of Tilak took place at the Benares meeting of the Congress in 1905, and the final schism at the Surat Congress of 1907 when the meeting dissolved in disorder. "Political India," 1932, edited by John Cumming, (Sir Evan Cotton, "Some Outstanding Political leaders.") p. 187.

For the description of this incident, see: A. C. Mazumdar. "Indian National Evolution," 2nd series, 1917, pp. 104-113. See also, H. P. Modyz, "Sir Pherosha Mehta," 1921, Vol. II. pp. 519-557.

Cf. B. G. Tilak: "Speeches and Writings," p. 210. He says the split was due to differences of opinion as to method of work rather than to divergence in ideals.

Aurobindo Ghose: "An appreciation of B. G. Tilak" (in B. G. Tilak’s Writings and Speeches, 3rd edition, Madras, 1922, p. 6: "The Congress movement was for a long time purely occidental in its mind, character and methods confined to the English-educated few, founded on the political rights and interests of the people read in the light of English history and European ideals; but with no roots either in the past of the country or in the inner spirit of the nation. Mr. Tilak was the first political leader to break through the routine of its somewhat academical methods, to bridge the gulf between the present and the past, and to restore continuity to the political life of the nation. He developed a language and spirit, and he used methods which Indianised the movement and brought into it the masses.")

75 J. Coatman: "Years of Destiny," 1932, p. 89. "He also was first to conceive and organise consistent action directed towards the achievement of nothing less than Home Rule for India." "The word ‘Swaraj’ now so well known as the synonym for Home Rule was coined by him and his criticism was directed against the very bases and sanctions of British Rule in India."

Cf. B. C. Pal: "Nationality and Empire," pp. 33-4. "This word Swaraj, recently introduced into opt current political literature by Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji, though evidently borrowed from the political records of the Maharatta Confederacy...."

Tilak, as a Marathi Brahmin, might have discovered that word in those records. Gandhi, "Speeches and Writings," p. 1014, says–" The inspiration of his life was freedom for his country which he called Swaraj;" p. 1017, "He breathed into us the spirit of Swaraj."

76 Aurobindo Ghose: "Appreciation," op. cit., p. 7.–"To bring in the mass of the people, to found the greatness of the future on the greatness of the past, to infuse Indian politics with Indian religious fervour and spirituality, are the indispensable conditions for a great and powerful political awakening in India. ...Mr. Tilak was the first to bring it into the actual field of practical politics."

See Ibid., p. 11, for his ability to unite all classes of men behind him, particularly the masses.

77 See Report of the Sedition Committee. 1918, pp. 2-3.

78 Cotton, op. cit., p. 186.

79 Ibid., p. 187.

80 Cf. J. Stalin’s remark, "Independence is not a gift." Leninism. Vol. I, p. 277.

81 Quoted in Report of the Sedition Committee, p. 2.

82 Mahabharata, Santi Rajadharma Parva, 78. In reply to the question of Yudhisthira as to "Who would protect the Brahmins and their Vedas if all the Kshatriyas proved hostile to the Brahmins; and what then should be the duty of the Brahmins and who would be their refuge?

Bhishma says: "By penances, by Brahmacharya (vow of celibacy), by weapons, and might applied with or without the aid of deceit, the Kshatriyas should be subjugated...All persons should take up arms for the sake of Brahmins…"

83 Quoted in Sedition Committee Report, p. 2.

84 Quoted in Sedition Committee Report, p. 3.

85 Bhagawadgita, IV, 16-23.

86 Quoted in Sedition Committee Report. p. 3.

87 Sir H. V. Lovett: "The rise of an extremist Party," in Cambridge History of India, Vol. VI, p. 552.

88 For a summary of Tilak’s Gitarahasya in English, see: V. Mangalvedkar, "The Philosophy of Action," 3rd ed., Madras, 1928.