Methodological Foundations of the Gita Rahasya

METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF
THE GITA RAHASYA

Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856 - 1920) was a great son of mother India. A front-ranking patriot, a reputed journalist, an eminent educationist, a profound scholar, and a man of spotless personal character and integrity, he made his mark in whatever he undertook. But perhaps the greatest achievement of his life, for which he will be remembered and respected so long as Hinduism survives, is his Gita-­Rahasya, a scholarly and original interpretation of the Bhagavadgita, written in Marathi, during the period from November 1910 to March, 1911 - while he was interned in Mandalay jail for his role as a freedom fighter.

In the Gita-Rahasya Tilak has tried to unravel the real import of the advice given by Lord Krishna to Arjuna, on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, just before commencement of the fratricidial was between the kauravas and the pandavas.

The urge for undertaking such an intellectual exercise arose out of Tilak’s conviction that the existing commentaries on the Bhagavadgita, written by the great medieval scholars (Achatyas) were biased, and hence, do not provide a correct interpretation of Lord Krishna’s utterances on the battlefield.

The Gita is universally acknowledged to be one of the three authoritative works or pillars of the Vedanta philosophy (known as Prasthanatraryi),the other two being the Upanishads and the Brah­masutra. The Upanishads are many in number, and written as they were by different authors at different times, contain diverse philosoph­ical views, some of which are prima facie mutually contradictory. Therefore, ordinary readers find it difficult to understand their true significance.

In the Brahmasutra (also known as the Vedanta Sutra and Sariraka Sutra) an attempt was made by Badarayana to harmonise the teachings of the Upanishads. But the result has not be very satisfactory, as the Sutras are written in the form of brief aphorisms and have again been interpreted differently by various scholars representing different sects, viz. Shakara (Advaita or monism), Ramanuja (Visistadavaita or quali­fied monism), Nimbarka (Bhedaveda or difference and non-difference), Madhava (Dvaita or dualism), and Vallabha (Sudhadvaitavada or pure non-dualism).

The Gita is a relatively consistent and compact work of seven hundred verses, divided into eighteen chapters, and its language is lucid and inspiring. It is believed to contain the quintessence of Hindu philosophy, as its author, Lord Krishna, tries to harmonise various conflicting beliefs and religious practices current at that time. Its appeal to successive generations of Hindus over a period of more than tow thousand years has been unique in the history of any reli­gious scripture. Millions of Hindus read it regularly for guidance and inspiration. Even many non-Hindus have acclaimed it as a great work in the realm of philosophy and ethics.

Devout Hindus consider the Vedas and the Upanishads (the latter forming the concluding portions of the former) to be of divine origin. They were revealed to the sears (Rishis) and, were not man-made. Hence they enjoy the highest status in Hindu thought. Every religion deals broadly with two kinds of problems; namely, those concerning the fundamental tenets and ideals that remain valid for all times and under all circumstances; and those which relate to the social, political and economic issues, and problems of the time. In Hindu thought the former is referred to as Sruti or knowledge revealed to the seers and the latter as Smriti, or that which is the creation of great saints and seers. Sruti always enjoys a higher status because it forms the fundamental basis of a religion which cannot be questioned by any body without being a heretic.

Although the Bhagavadgita is not asruti text, nevertheless, it enjoys a very high status as a religious work. Every devout Hindu believes Lord Krishna, the author of the Gita, to be an Avatar or Incarnation of God. The words coming out of the mouth of the God incarnate have, therefore, the highest validity and respectability in the eyes of believers.

Moreover, the Gita discusses certain issues concerning man’s duty in critical situations of life along with the criterion for judging what is right and what is wrong. Metaphysical questions are discussed in the contest of certain live issues that confront man every now and then. Hence, the Gita is used by millions as a moral and spiritual reference book for guidance in worldly life. This is not the case with many other scriptures.

The kind of problem that Arjuna faced several thousand years ago, are faced by most of us at certain critical moments in our lives. And the solution offered by the Lord in the distant past, remains valid even today, for they are based on a logical exposition of the nature of the ultimate reality or truth and man’s place and duty in the world. So long as the creation will continue man will again and again, be confronted with the same kind of problem as Arjuna faced, and will also be forced to seek proper solutions to them. The validity of the Gita is, therefore, universal and eternal.

Nevertheless, the interpretation of the message contained in the Gita has been a subject of fierce controversy. Obviously, Lord Krishna must have offered some specific advice to Arjuna in order to enable him to overcome the dilemma confronting him at that point of time. But scholars have interpreted the same words in different ways, thereby creating a lot of controversy and confusion. This is quite natural, for the prestige of the Gita is so great and its appeal so universal that each and every sect tried to find support in it for the particular religious views held by it. Even in our day to day mundane activities often we try to justify our actions and views on the authority of some great personality or book. No wonder, therefore, that the great medieval religious leaders representing various sects tried to enlist the support of the Gita in favour of their respective views.

In his boyhood Tilak was often told by his elders that if one wanted to attain salvation (Moksha) one must renounce the world and become a Sanyasin. This set him thinking. The question that arose in his mind was; does Hinduism want a devotee to give up or renounce the world in order to be able to attain the perfection of manhood? Tilak was also told that the Bhagavadgita was universally acknowledged as a book containing all the essential principles of the Hindu religion. Therefore, he thought that the Gita must provide an answer to his query and hence started studying it objectively without any pre-conceived ideas. The conclusion he arrived at was that “the Gita advocated the performance of action in this world even after the actor has achieved the highest union with the Supreme Deity by Jnana (Knowledge) or Bhakti (Devotion)” ¹

How and on what basis Tilak arrived at the above conclusion will be discussed elsewhere. Here we are primarily concerned with the methodology adopted by him and the influence of Positivism as propounded by Auguste Comte (the celebrated nineteenth Century French Philosopher) and some others on the author.

Comte (1798 - 1857) advocated adoption of the positive or scientific methodology, as opposed to the theological and metaphysical methodologies, used in earlier times. According to the Positive phi­losophy, it is not possible for man to know the essence of phenomena. We know only the constant relations between phenomena, the relation of succession and of similarity among facts or the constant resemblances which link phenomena together. The constant sequences, are termed their laws. “The laws of phenomena are all we know respecting them. Their essential nature, and their ultimate causes, either efficient or final, are unknown and inscrutable to us.² “According to Positivism, therefore, the origin and the end of the things are insol­uble problems. “Only that which lies intermediate between the two inscrutable termini of the world is an object of knowledge.³

According to Comte, the theological, the metaphysical and the positive methods have been successively used in human history. The theological age continued from the beginning of civilization upto about 1300 A.D. Then began the metaphysical age which ended in about 1800 A.D. Afterwords the scientific age, which is characterized by emphasis on analysis of phenomena began. The positive method supports the value of science for prediction and social control.

Comte says:

“In whatever way we study the general
development of the huma intellect,
whether according to the rational
method or empirically, we discover,
despite of all seeming irregularities,
a fundamental law to which its progress
is necessarily and invariably subjected.
This law consists in the fact that, the
mental constitution of man, and every
portion of it, of necessity, passes
through three successive phases, the
Theological, the Metaphysical and the
positive or physical. Thus man began
by considering phenomena of every kind
as dueto the direct and continuous
influence of supernatural agents; he
next regarded them as products of
different abstract forces, residing
in the bodies but distinct and hetero-
­geneous; while he ends by viewing them
as subjected to a certain number of
natural and invariable laws which are
merely the general expression of the relations
observed in their development.” ⁴

Sheer dialectal argumentations of the Cartesian and Hegelian type become negative. Hence, Comte argued that it was essential to utilise the positive methods and techniques of science for progress of civilization. This method supports the value of science for prediction and social control. In place of efficient and final causes, it lays emphasis on concomitance and sequence of phenomena for a scientific organisation of society. But the Positive philosophy “is not a recent invention of M. Comte, but a simple adherence to the traditions of all great scientific minds whose discoveries have made the human race what it is”⁵. Before Comte Kant also had maintained that we know nothing of Things in Themselves, (Noumena) but only of things as they are presented for us (Phenomena) though he admitted that be­yond the world of sense there may exist an omnipotent, omniscient cause of the world.

As Mill rightly points out, the Positive mode of thought is not necessarily a denial of the supernatural; it merely throws that question to the origin of all things. “If the universe had a beginning, its beginning by the very condition of the case, was supernatural; the laws of nature cannot account for their own origin” ⁶.

In the third chapter of the Gita-Rahasya, sub-titled Karma-Yoga ­Sastra, Tilak has briefly examined the different methods of scientific exposition, according to both Indian and Western theories. He says that the subject matter of any science may be discussed in three different ways, Adhi-Bhautika, (positive or materialistic), Adhi-Daivika (theological) and Adhyatmika (metaphysical). Citing the example of the Sun he says that when we look upon it not as a deity, but a “round ­mass of gross matter made up of the five primordial elements, and examine its various properties, such as its hear, or light, or weight, or distance, or power of attraction, etc., that becomes the positive or material examination of the Sun.”⁷. This method is used in all modern sciences, such as chemistry and physics, and Tilak adds that “materialists imagine that when they have examined in this way the visible properties of any object, that is all the need to do and that it is useless to further examine the objects in the world.” ⁸

But if this method is discarded and an attempt is made to discover what lies at the root of the material world, that is, “whether the activities of the objects are due to some inherent properties in them, or there is some other power or principle behind those activities, then one has to transcend the material examination of the object.”⁹ Repeating the example of the sun Tilak argues that if it is held that there “exists a deity called the ‘Sun’ which dwells within it, and that this deity carries on the activities of the material Sun, such examination is called an Adhi-Daivika (Theological) examination of the object.”¹⁰ According to this theory all worldly objects have their respective presiding deities without which activities of the former will stop.

The third theory is that “there exists in this world some Spiritual Force, i.e., factor of consciousness (eicehakti) impreceptible to the organs, which carries on all the activities of the external world; and that this spiritual force exists in the human body in the shape of an Atman and acquaints the human being with the entire creation.”¹¹ There also exists a corresponding supreme power of force (commonly referred to us Brahman). Which controls the entire creation and without which all worldly activities will cease. This is called an Adhyatmika (metaphysical) point of view.

These three ways of viewing the world have been in existence for a very long time and they have been followed even in Hindu religious books such as the Upanishad and the Bhagavadgita. Tilak quotes the examples found in the Brihadaranyaka and other Upanishads while considering whether the organs of perception (Jananendriya) or the vital force (prana) is superior, and adds that in deciding this question the respective strengths (of the Organs and Prana are considered. “Once from the point of view that they have deities like Agni etc., and again by considering their subtle (metaphysical i.e. adhyatmika) forms (Br. 1.5.1 and; chan. 1. and 3, kausi 2,8,) and the consideration of the form of the Isvara at the end of the seventh chapter and in the beginning of the right chapter of the Gita is also from this point of view.”¹² Out of these three methods discussed above, Tilak prefers the metaphysical (Adhyatmika) method, on the ground that Indian religious writers attach a higher importance to it.

In the fourth and fifth chapters of the Gita Rahasya Tilak has exam­ined various theories of happiness and unhappiness, as advocated by materialistic schools, such, as, the gross hedonism of Charvaka and Jabali, the refined hedonism of Hobbes and Helvetius, the altruism of Sidgwick and the utilitarianism of Bentham, Mill and Shaftesbury, and has rejected all of them as inadequate. Supporting the metaphysical point of view he says:

“... our philosophy of Karma-Yoga has
ultimately come to the conclusion that
the doctrines of the benefit of everybody’
or ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest
number’, or ‘the highest development of
humanness’, or other such external test or
Materialistic methods of determining
questions of Morality are inferior tests . . .” ¹³

In the sixth chapter Tilak has examined the intuitionist school of ethics as propounded by Christian writers. He considers this theory as unsatisfactory on the ground that “besides mind and intellect, there is no foundation for recognizing the existence of a separate and independent entity like conscience or moral intuition”.¹⁴ He feels that intuition is included in Vyavasayatmika buddhi or pure reason.

After discussing the various standards of ethical action as advo­cated by different schools, Tilak finally opts for the metaphysical world outlook. Observe the following comments.

“Therefore, one has to come to the
ultimate conclusion that there exists
in this activated living Body some
comprehensive and potent power which is
more powerful and more comprehensive
than the various dependent and one-sided
workmen in the Body who work in grades
rising from organs like the hands and feet
to life, Activity, Mind and Reason;
that this power remains aloof from all
of them, and synthesises the activities
of all of them and fixes for them the
direction in which they are to act, and
is an every-awake witness of all their
activities”. ¹⁵

Thus it is seen that Tilak finally chooses the metaphysical ap­proach to ethics, as he considers the hedonistic and intuitionist schools to be inadequate and unsatisfactory. According to him “the meaning of the words Brahmavidyayam Yogashastre is that the ethics of the Gita is based on the spiritual perception of the nature of reality.” ¹⁶

Comte wanted to elevate sociology to the rank of a positive science, using the same method as is applied in the natural sciences, namely, interrogation and interpretation of experience by means of induction and deduction. After a careful consideration of the “history of the world he came to the conclusion that the highest religion of every human being is to love the whole human race and to continually strive for the benefit of everybody While Mil, Spencer and some other English Philosophers support this view, kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and other German philosophers have proved that this positive method of considering ethics is” inefficient and they have recently revived in Europe the method of basing Ethics on Metaphysics adopted by our vedanta Philosophers.” ¹⁷

Tilak was considerably influenced by the methodology of T. H. Green, who deduced his ethical conclusions from his metaphysical views. Green was an idealist and believed in one absolute spiritual reality. His ethics is, therefore, based on a spiritual world out-look, as is the case with the followers of the Vedanta philosophy. Man according to Green, has no isolated existence. Hence he cannot “Contemplate himself as in a better state, or on the way to the best, without contemplating others.”¹⁸ In other words, “human perfection can not be pursued individually, in a selfish manner. It has to be sought collectively by all.¹⁹ Also in judging the moral worth of an action Green took into account the motive or intention of the person concerned. In his opinion, “It is not by the outward from...that we know what moral action is. We know it, so to say, on the/inner side.”²⁰ Tilak’s interpretation of the Gita bears stamp of these ideas.

In the Gita it is stated that after arriving at the battlefield, Arjuna found the armies of the Kauravas and pandavas arrayed against each other, ready to fight. Seeing his kith and kin on the opposite side of the battlefield, he became overwhelmed by compassing and grief. He was totally nervous and in no time the determination and courage with which he came to the battlefield to settle old scores with the kauravas, vanished. His limbs drooped, mouth dried up, body shivered and hairs stood on end. The great bow Gandiva slipped from his grip, and he experienced burning sensation of skin. He was even unable to stand as his head reeled. He saw bad omens and told Lord Krishna that he would not fight because he did not sire Kingdom and worldly pleasures at the cost of the blood of his Kinsmen.

Thus there was dramatic change in Arjuna’s mental condition within a short time, – after arrival at the battlefield and taking a glance at the general disposition of the two armies. In fact, even after arriving at Kurukshetra, his determination remained intact for some time as is evident from the fact that he had raised his bow and asked Lord Krishna, his Charioteer, to place the chariot between the two armies, so that he could have a look at the persons against whom he would have to fight and thus review the situation. A very valid question, therefore, arises as to what happened within such a short time that changed Arjuna’s mind so radically and dramatically? In other words, what was the cause of the sudden change in the attitude of Arjuna who came to fight but refused to do so just when each side was getting ready for it. After all, Arjuna was not a coward, nor was he a novice in the science and art or war-fare. He was reputed as one of the best, if not the best, heroes of his time, For such an outstanding soldier to suffer a nervous breakdown at the very beginning was most surprising. In a war what matters most is high morale, even if weak in physical strength. But Arjuna became dispirited before even an arrow was shot at him. What was the reason?

In appears that Arjuna suddenly felt that it would be morally wrong on his part to kill the Kauravas, who were his kith and kin although they had wronged him and his family in a number of ways. Verses 31 to 46 of Chapter 1 of the Gita contain the various arguments advanced by him in support of his changed attitude. But his main point was that it would be better to die without offering resistance than to incur sin by killing the near and dear ones. It is obvious, therefore, that Arjuna’s mind became confused as he could not decide what his proper duty or course of action was in that particular situation. In other words, he faced a moral dilemma, mainly because of lack of a proper perspective based on a true understanding of reality or truth underlying the phenomenal world.

Tilak says that the critical position in which Arjuna had found himself in the commencement of the Bhagavadgita, “as a result of being caught between two mutually contradictory paths of duty and became doubtful about his proper duty is not some thing unique”.²¹ Every now and then great and responsible persons who wish to discharge their duties in life consistently with righteousness and morality find themselves in such circumstances. He quotes several example from various sources, including Shakespear’ Hamlet, to prove the point. Hamlet became insane and finally met a tragic and because he could not decide whether he should kill his uncle who had murdered his father and married his mother, or pardon him because he was his own uncle and step-father. Fortunately such a calamity did not overtake Arjuna because he was luckly enough to get Lord Krishna’s moral support and guidance.

In trying to understand the true import of Lord Krishna’s advice to Arjuna, it is extremely important to understand the ethical, religious and metaphysical basis underlying it. Which form the core of vedanta Philosophy. Anybody who thinks that Lord Krishna had encouraged violence, or did not do so but recommended renunciation, or that he preached a philosophy of action, or of devotion etc., without understanding the metaphysical and ethical ideas of Hindu though in general and Vedanta philosophy in particular, on the basis of which the advice was tendered, will miss the point. In Hindu philosophy and religion various alternative paths for God realization (viz. those of knowledge, action, meditation, devotion etc.) have be prescribed depending on the situation, and the status of the aspirant. The Gita tries to harmonise these apparently contradictory means of attaining the summan bonum of life. It is easy for anyone following anyone of these means or methods (Yogas) to find passages in the Gita eu­logising or supporting a particular stand-point. That does not mean, however, that lord Krishna prescribed only one of these Yogas exclu­sively, without taking into consideration such factors as the status of the person concerned, and the situation in which he is placed. Once a principle or criterion is laid down (as was done by lord Krishna) a particular aspirant has to apply it to his own specific situation and choose his own course to action. Towards the end lord Krishna said:

Thus has knowledge most secret been declared to you by Me: reflect on it fully and act as you like (chap. 18.63)

This and other related issues will be considered in detail el­sewhere because they do not fall within the scope of the present discussion:

However, it is important to note here that excepting the first chapter which prepares the ground for lord Krishna’s exhaustive exposition of the Vedanta philosophy, all the other subsequent sev­enteen chapters of the Gita are full of subtle metaphysical and ethical thoughts. They relate to the nature of the Truth or Reality behind thee phenomenal world including the nature of human soul, its relationship with the Creator and the aim and purpose of human existence and how to achieve it. In fact, as already stated, lord Krishna has harmonised the various religious and metaphysical thoughts current at that time over the all embracing foundation of the vedanta philosophy.

Coming to the main point, it is found that although the Comtean methodology is valid for the material sciences which func­tion within the broad operations of space and time and sense ­perceptions, it hardly helps in spiritual and ethical realms. In his sociological theory Comte advocates universal love and brotherhood. This is very good and useful. But the question arises, why should one love others unless there is some common bond underlying everyone, past, present and future? like comte, the Utlitarians also advocate the highest good of the greatest number. Prima facie it looks very convincing and attractive. But there may be, and have been, situations in which the perception of the highest good is not only faulty but also positively harmful. Fanatics all over the world have fought wars and killed millions of innocent men, women and children, in the supposed pursuit of good as understood by them. In the absence of an underlying spiritual basis of criterion they could not be, at that particular point of time, questioned and contained. But future has always exposed the hollowness of all such beliefs and practices. As Swami Vivekananda points out, utilitarian standards cannot explain the ethi­cal relations of men...He says, “why should I do good to other men, and not injure them? If happiness is the goal of mankind, why should I not make myself happy and others unhappy.” ²²

Following the ideal of Vedanta philosophy, according to which there is only one Absolute Spiritual Reality behind the entire creation, Tilak prefers the metaphysical (Adhyatmikia) point of view to the posi­tive out look of Comte. If the matter is scrutinised to its logical end, it would appear that the Utilitarian (or the Positive) ideal of the greatest good of the greatest number is basically an outcome of some such spiritual outlook, although it may not be recognised or admitted. There is no reason why one should love others unless some basic identity at a deeper level is recognised. In the Vedanta philosophy this ba­sic identity rests on the recognition of the same eternal self (atman) in every creature. In the Gita it has been proclaimed, “the knowl­edge by which one sees the one undivided imperishable substance in all beings which are divided, should be known as Sattvika” (18.20) Therefore, although sociologically Comte and others like him may be correct, their theory do not adequately, account for ethical and spiri­tual values and truths. Jesus Christ demonstrated a similar spiritual outlook when he preached universal love and tolerance. He believed in the existence of one Supreme Father in the heaven as the source of all creation. He said, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.” (St. Luke, 27). Without some such fundamental belief a proper justification for advocating good of others is found wanting.

Now, the question arises, in the present age of science and ratio­nalism is there any justification for belief in any supernatural spiritual force (God or Brahman)? What justification or proof can be advanced in support of such a belief? According to Swami Vivekananda, reli­gion has to be realized internally by every one.” Religion, like other sciences, requires you to gather facts, to see for yourself, and this is possible when you go beyond the knowledge which lies in the re­gion of five senses.” ²³ The science of religion can be mastered not with the help of sense-organs but by intuition and introspection. Man has achieved great success in exploring the truth or law working in the physical universe. But very little effort has been made so far to discover the truth underlying the entire existence including spiritual experience. The same principle working in the outside world is also present in man. Prophets and seers have come face to face with this truth and they have broadly indicated the method to be used to share the same experience. The proof of religion lies in its experience in­ternally, through introspection and meditation. It is wrong to say that no proof exists. But the proper method and means must be adopted and the proper effort has to be made to get at the truth.

Tilak’s choice of the adhyatmika methodology is absolutely valid in as much as it is a time-tested principle in the realm of spiritual experience. Lord Krishna explained the true (spiritual) remove his ignorance, and after this was accomplished, it was not difficult for Arjuna to decide for himself what his duty was at that particular situation. There is no scope for any dogmatic assertion in this regard as it is quite possible that placed in a different situation another person (or even the same Arjuna) might have chosen a different course of action. There is no single fixed duty for all persons and under all circumstances or stations in life. However; there is a fixed criterion on the basis of which duty has to be determined and discharged, therefore, to say that Lord Krishna preached only this or that to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Would be dogmatic and not in keeping with the comprehensive and universal message of the Gita.

To sum up, tilak’s choice of the adhyatmika (metaphysical) method­ology is quite appropriate as the Gita is a work on metaphysics and ethics where the positive methodology has little applicability. In the Upanishads again and again we come across condemnation of the idea of separateness and emphasis on man’s spiritual kinship with all creation. It is interesting to note that this ‘basic oneness, this non-­separateness is the theme of modern scientific thought as well”.²⁴ The dichotomy between matter and spirit is tending to diminish, and in this changed situation the spiritual world-view is gaining ground, even in those areas which were earlier thought to belong to the domain of physical sciences.

REFERENCES

¹ Tilak, Bal Gangadhar: Om-Tat-Sat Srimad Bhagavadgita rahasya or karma-Yoga-Sastra, Tr. by B.S. Sukhtankar first English edition, (Poona, tilak Brothers, 1935), P. XXV,-here- in after referred to as Gita - Rahasya
² Mill, J. S. Auguste Comte and Positivism (The University of Michigan Press, 1961) P. 6
³ Falckenberg, R. History of Modern Philosophy Calcutta, Progres­sive Publishers, 1953), P, 555
⁴ Comte, Auguste The Crisis of Industrial Civilization: The Early Es­says of Auguste Comte (London, Heinemann Educational Books, 1977), P. 182
⁵ Mill, J. S. Op. cit., PP. 8-9
⁶ Ibid P. 14
⁷ Gita-Rahasya P. 84
⁸ Ibid,
⁹ Ibid
¹⁰ Ibid P .85
¹¹ Ibid
¹² Ibid
¹³ Ibid. P.164
¹⁴ Varma, Dr. V P The Life and Philosophy of Lokmanya Tilak (Agra, lakshmi Narain Agarwal, 1978), P. 484
¹⁵ Gita-Rahasya P. 199
¹⁶ Varma, Dr. V P. Op. cit. P. 484
¹⁷ Gita-Rahasya, P. 87
¹⁸ Green, T H Prolegomena to Ethics (London, Oxford University­ Press, 5th edition, 1906), P. 229
¹⁹ Basu, Dr. S. K. Foundations of the Political Philosophy of Sarvodaya (Delhi, Light and bliss Publishers, 1984), P.75
²⁰ Green, T. H. Op. cit., P. 229
²¹ Gita-Rahasya P. 40
²² Vivekananda, Swami: Jnana-Yoga (Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama, 5th impression, 1980), P. 11
²³ Vivekananda, Swami: The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama, 1989), Vol. VI, P. 133
²⁴ Ranganathananda, Swami: The Message of the upanishads (Bom­bay, Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, 1987), P. 110