17 Philosophy of activism of the bhagavadgītā

K Srinivas

Introduction

The Bhagavadgītā is the most important and widely read of the Hindu scriptures. It is part of the great epic, the Mahābhārata. Also, it belongs to the Sātvata or the Bhāgavata branch of Sri Vaişņava religion. In this lesson an attempt is made to highlight the philosophy of activism of the Bhagavadgītā. The Lord resorts to action in order to protect righteousness or dharma whenever it is subdued by non-righteousness or adharma. The battle between the Kauravas and Pāņdavas is fought only to resurrect dharma. The former represent adharma and the latter dharma. Lord Kŗşņa who acted as the charioteer of Arjuna, the third son of Pāņdu, teaches him the truth about the world, man and ethics and persuades him to fight the war against his own kith and kin who resorted to adharma. This fight to resurrect dharma involves the philosophy of activism.

2. Background

It is not all that easy to fix the date of the Gītā or the Mahābhārata. Many commentaries are written on the Gītā. But it is always better to understand the Gītā from the direct meanings of the words contained in it by setting aside the philosophy behind the commentaries. One of the most interesting features of the Gītā is that it teaches nişkāmakarma. Lord Kŗşņa persuades Arjuna, the third son of Pāņdu, not to renounce action. Before the start of the battle between the Kauravas and Pāņdavas at Kurukşetra, Arjuna after seeing his teachers and cousins in the battlefield became dejected and refused to fight the battle and decided to retire to forest. Then it is Lord Kŗşņa who taught him the philosophy of action by invoking the notion of ‘svadharma’. Thus Bhagavadgĩtā covers the teaching of Lord Kŗşņa to Arjuna. The Gītā introduces us to the term ‘yoga’ which means achievement. The object achieved or the process or the method to achieve it, the teaching of achievement and all other subsidiaries. For instance, how Arjuna got dejection and how he achieved it, is also a kind of yoga. If the practice of meditation is termed as yoga, then the kind of food that is eaten to fix the mind to attain steadiness is also a yoga. If that food is good from the spiritual point of view, then the discovery of the best in each of the categories such as foods, men, animals, trees, mountains is also a yoga. Therefore, the topics on which the Gītā speaks are all yogas.

Lord Kŗşņa, like Arjuna is a historical person. He was born in a cowherd’s family with divine powers. His name occurs in the Upanişads. Sometimes this historicity is mixed up with mythology and it is difficult to separate the two. The impact of mythology on the Bhāgavata is such that Lord Kŗşņa as an embodiment of love is turned into making him the husband of thousands of gopikas mysteriously spending his nights with all of them simultaneously. Of course, the loving God is always present in the hearts of all his devotees simultaneously. But in the Bhagavadgĩtā Kŗşņa is portrayed as the teacher of stern duty and shows not his loving nature but dreadfulness, destructive aspect of the Logos or the world-spirit. In essence Kŗşņa teaches us to follow the path of the World Spirit (Logos) which has both creative, sustaining, and loving aspects, but also the destructive aspects. One cannot simply follow what one likes and shirk what one dislikes. As part of World Spirit one has to follow all its aspects for otherwise one would separate oneself from the World Spirit by following one’s likes and dislikes. One’s being is rooted in the World Spirit. In fact, there is nothing like destruction for everything comes out of Being and goes back to it. Nothing comes out of Non-being and Nothing enters Non-being. Once we know this truth there exist no fear, no sorrow and no dejection.

The Bhagavadgĩtā provides us with the quintessence of the Vedas and epics. The systems may disagree with each other’s interpretation concerning liberation, the nature of Brahman, God, man and the world, but the Gĩtā attempts to reconcile the views of all schools and systems showing their significance in the philosophy of life. Each yoga or mārga has its own usefulness. The Gĩtā is a book that inspires people and guides them through all phases of life.

3. The Central Doctrines

The Gĩtā is essentially theistic in its doctrines. Brahman and God are identified with each other in the Gĩtā. Brahman is personal for Lord Kŗşņa calls himself both Brahman and God.

The world including the ātmans is only a part of Him. He transcends everything. Such a position, according to K.C.F. Krause, is called pan-entheism. Brahman or God are not found in the objects of the world, but are in Him. Only ignorant people think that God, who is originally unmanifest (avyakta) has become manifest (vyakta); but in spite of his manifestations god is far above them. They do not know the highest nature of God (param bhavam). He is not visible, because he is shrouded by Māyā (yogamāyā) which reveals his yogic power. God is unmanifest (avyakta) only from our point of view, but he is manifest to himself for he is self-conscious. He is one and undivided although he appears to be divided into the objects. All the living and non-living beings are only His parts. Even Prakŗti is His own power. The entire space is filled by Him. Here we have to understand Him both as transcendent and immanent. There is nothing other than God.

3.1. Puruşas

As regards ātmans (Puruşas) in the world, the transient (kşara) and the intransient (akşara) are two kinds of them. The latter is the unmanifest (avyakta). All the living creatures (bhūtas and jĩvas) are the transient and the intransient is the onlooker (kūţastha or sākşi). But the highest Ǎtman (Puruşottama) is other than the two. Of course the commentators differ on the interpretation of the nature of intransient ātman (akşara). This is witness consciousness for Śańkara and Madhva, This is treated as an unmanifest stage of God ready to create in Pāńcarātra. It is also the case that the expression ’unmanifest’ is used in two different senses. In one sense it is masculine in gender and God himself in a logically prior state to the manifest (vyakta). In its second sense it is neuter in gender representing Prakŗti, as in the Sāńkhya.

3.2. Māyā and Prakŗti

In the Gĩtā it is mentioned that Lord Krişņa as God possesses three energies. Māyā is the highest of the three. It belongs to God’s very being and his power of lordship. It is through this power God rules and controls the world. It is also called the mystery of his yoga (yogamāyā). Through this mysterious power God can appear as many, yet remains as one, pure and perfect. It is through this Māyā that he conceals himself from the world and ātmans. In addition to this Māyā, God has two powers-higher (para) and lower (apara). Both of them are known as Prakŗti. The finite ātmans constitute the higher. The lower produces the objects of the material world through the three attributes: the transparent, the active, and the dark (sattva, rajas, and tamas). The evolution of the material world through this lower Prakŗti is the same as in the Sāńkhya. However, the doubts remain concerning self-transformation or non-self-transformation of Prakŗti.

4. Ethical Action

The aim of the Gĩtā is to persuade Arjuna to take up the life of action. One finds in the Gĩtā an analysis of ethical action. Normally action is divided into motivated (kāmyakarma) and not motivated (nişkāmakarma) forms of action. The term ‘kāma’ in Sanskrit normally is translated to stand for desire. In other words, these two forms of action are normally translated as ‘action to fulfil a desire’ and ‘desireless action’ respectively or as ‘motivated action or action with a motive’ and unmotivated action or action without any motive’. But these translations may not really bring out the essence of ethical action in the Gĩtā. Can there be any action without any desire or motivation? If at all such actions are possible then there are aimless actions. No human being acts without a purpose. Even a cow does not move without a purpose, without a desire to eat hay. Is the teaching of the Gĩtā then unnatural? Its teachings become absurdity if we are led by the words ‘desireful’ and ‘desireless’ or ‘motivated’ and ‘unmotivated’. The best way of understanding the ethical teachings of the Gĩtā is possible through the traditional distinction made by the Mĩmāmsā and also the explanation given by the Gĩtā itself.

Traditionally two kinds of action are recognised. They are: non-obligatory (naimittika-karma) and obligatory (nitya-karma). The former are performed by the individuals for enjoying the fruits of their actions. They are ethical in nature but are performed for personal gains. But actions involving charities, prayers are performed without any reference to the results. They are only obligatory actions. The Mĩmāmsā enjoined certain sacrifices to gods, to ancestors, to the teachers, and to all the living beings of all the worlds. Also it recommended the performance of duties pertaining to one’s social class and stage of life as obligatory. The performance of such sacrifices and such duties sustains the universe and society. It also recommended certain other sacrifices like charities for men who desire sons, wealth, and so on. But they are only non-obligatory actions for they are performed by the individuals with a desire to achieve something. Let us imagine that there are two individuals helping police to capture an offender. One may help the police for the sake of reward announced by the police and other may help the police as an obligation towards society whether there is a reward or not. Similarly, all duties for sustaining the world and society are obligatory and are all actions without desire (kāma).Here in this context desire is understood as personal desire. All actions meant for enjoying their results are called actions with desire. The selfish and egoistic actions are called sakāmakarmas, and self-less and non-egoistic actions are nişkāmakarmas.

Strictly speaking there is no action which does not involve desire. Even to act in a rightful manner involves desire. An action without desire can be the action of a machine. Desirelessness in the ethics of the Gĩtā has to be interpreted as the absence of desire to enjoy the fruits of the action. Otherwise an action turns out to be egoistic for the agent desires to enjoy its fruits. The Gĩtā makes this point very clear in the following manner. First it interprets God himself as desire (kāma) in men which is not opposed to law (dharma) of the universe. If God himself is desire according to the law of the universe, there can be no escape from every type of desire just as it is not possible to escape from type of action. Therefore, desireless action has to be understood in terms of non-egoistic action. Desire is one of God’s forms. Without which no action can be performed. In the absence of action there is no support for the world and society. Lord Kŗşņa says that mean folk act only when they desire the result for themselves. Therefore, Arjuna should take shelter in reason (buddhi). He should act in accordance with the dictates of reason and such an action should be performed skillfully. Those who are motivated by the rational desire act in only one way for the reason is of only one type. Those who act irrationally act in many ways. 2+2=4 is the only one correct answer, but has many wrong answers. One who performs actions in accordance with the law of the universe as the guide is not bound by the results of those actions. All actions except those of sacrifice (yajnā) keep man in bondage. But the word ‘sacrifice’ is given a new meaning here in this context. It is giving away to gods, beasts, plants, ancestors, and even the spirits of the lower world. By such sacrifice all remain satisfied and work for the welfare of man and the world. All living beings are born out of food, food out of rain, rain out of sacrifice, sacrifice out of action, action out of Brahma, the creator God, Brahma out of the non-transient Puruşa (akşara). God himself is eternally active without any motive or desire.

4.1 Right and Wrong Action

The Gĩtā also aims at distinguishing right action from wrong action. Also it talks about non-action. Wrong action is one that is prohibited. The wise are those who see action in non-action and non-action in action. Non-action does not mean one does not act at all. It is a form of ethical action without any sense of egoity. Merit or demerit and the results of action do not matter to the agent of such an action. One who performs such a kind of action knows that he is performing it for the sake of law (dharma) but not for his own sake. In fact the action is performed by his body, which is the product of Prakŗti and its attributes, but not by him as ātman. Men should perform actions as skillfully as possible and surrender the fruits of action to God. The other forms of actions are sacrifice, charity, and penance. They come under the category of renunciation. They purify the soul. They are obligatory on the part of every individual. The fruits of those actions are not enjoyed by the agents of such actions. One who does not act out of ignorance is under the influence of tamas. Sometimes one may give up actions due to the trouble they involve under the influence of rajas. Both are wrong. A person must perform actions without any desire to acquire their results. Such actions are influenced by sattva. Such a person is the true renouncer of action. He is true knower (jňāni).

The three initiators of action are the knower, the known and the knowledge. The three factors of action are the agent, the action and the instruments of action. The knowledge that sees unity in multiplicity, the unmanifest Brahman in the manifested differences, is determined by sattva. That one which sees only differences as separate is determined by rajas. The actions prompted by sattava are non-egoistic in nature, whereas the actions prompted by rajas and tamas are egoistic in nature. Action is also classified into five kinds based on the causes that produce it. The action may be produced by the body, the agent (ātman), different types of instruments, different kinds of biomotor and vital functions, even fate as the unknown factor. The will of agent alone cannot produce what is aimed at.

Summary

To conclude, it is evident from the above analysis that the Gītā advocates philosophy of action by reminding an individual of his śvadharma. An individual has to perform any action with utmost skill so that the fruits of such an action would be left to the enjoyment of others. This is what is technically called a non-egoistic action (nişkāmakarma). Salvation, according to the Gītā, is possible only when the ways of action, devotion and knowledge are practiced in their right spirit. Each one of them requires the other two. The way of action which has to be selfless or non-egoistic is not possible without knowing why it has to be non-egoistic. Similarly, devotion is not possible without knowing why we should surrender ourselves to God. Knowledge is also useless unless we attach our mind to God. Knowledge is higher than the practice of yoga, meditation is higher than knowledge, renunciation of the fruits of action is higher than meditation. At the end it is the peace (śānti) which is higher than meditation. An ideal man, according to the Gītā, is one who realized his rational being (sthitaprajňa). He preserves his equanimity under all circumstances. He does not have any egoistic desires and looks upon events that happen without being disturbed. He does not have any desire or longing for the objects of his senses and can withdraw his mind and senses from all objects. According to Lord Krishna, both men and women can be ideal persons if they perform their duties in the spirit advocated by him.

Bibliography

• Eknath, Easwaran. The Bhagavad Gita. California: Nilgiri Press, 2007.
• Radhakrishnan, S. The Bhagavadgītā. London: Harper Collins, 1993.
• Sri Aurobindo. Essays on the Gita. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Dept., 2000.
• Swami Chidbhavananda. The Bhagavad Gita. Tirupparaitturai: Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam.1997.
• Swami Gambhirananda. Bhagavadgītā. With the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. Calcutta:
• Advaita Ashram, 1977.
• Swami Vivekananda. Thoughts on the Gita. Delhi: Advaita Ashram, 1998.