Gita Satsang - Chapter 5 : Verse 2-5 Swami Dayananda's Commentary

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Commentary of Verses 2 to 5: This

commentary is from the Homestudy Course: First, the list wants to

thank Swamiji for his permitting us to use these notes for our

discussions. The electronic files were kindly provided by Swamini

Brahmaprakasananda, the resident acharya of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam,

Coimbatore, India. Swamiji's notes contains extensive discussions of

different terminologies that we come across in these verses and they

are not included in this presentation. The entire Homestudy Course

Notes for all the eighteen chapters contain nearly 2000 pages. The

Homestudy package consists of 2 bound volumes (Binders) and a

Cassettee tape. Those who are interested should contact Arsha Vidhya

Gurukulam (http://www.arshavidya.org/)

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

=============================

Swamiji's Commentary:

 

Verse 2: Sri Bhagavan said:

Both renunciation (of action) and performance of action as yoga lead

to liberation. But, of these two, the performance of action as yoga is

better than renunciation of action.

We have seen that, although the word sreyas means 'better,' it also

means moksa. Nisreyasa means the same. And what leads to moksa? Krsna

responds to Arjuna's question by saying that both sannyasa and

karma-yoga lead to moksa.

For Arjuna, it is an either-or situation. Either sannyasa can do it or

karma-yoga, but not both. For Krsna, however, there is no either-or;

sannyasa and karma-yoga both lead to moksa.

The problem here does not have a simple either-or solution. But to

appreciate this fact requires that both sannyasa and karma-yoga be

properly understood. In each life-style, there are advantages and

disadvantages, depending on the qualifications of the person. One

life-style may be advantageous to one person, while the other may be

advantageous to another.

Both life-styles have an equal status because both are means,

sadhanas. Therefore, between these two life-styles - sannyasa and

karma-yoga - there is a choice. But Krsna is not praising sannyasa as

a life-style; he merely states that there was such a life-style. Nor

does he ever say that sannyasa as a life-style is preferable to

karma-yoga. He praises sannyasa only as an end to be gained.

At the beginning of the third chapter, Krsna said that there were two

life-styles - jnana-yoga and karma-yoga. Jnana-yoga is characterised

by the pursuit of knowledge alone and karma-yoga combines the pursuit

of knowledge with karma. In the verse presently under study, Krsna

again refers to these two life-styles as being equal. Since both of

them are means, what else could he do? Even though Arjuna wants to

know only one of them, Krsna has to teach both. Therefore, once again,

Krsna seems to be confusing him.

It is wonderful if you understand Krsna's statement, 'Both

renunciation and karma-yoga lead to moksa,' but it can be exasperating

if you do not understand it. If both sannyasa and karma-yoga lead you

to moksa, you may also prefer sannyasa, as Arjuna did. It is like

being told that, to reach a certain place, there are two routes. One

route requires you to walk half a mile and the other route requires

you to walk five miles. Which one are you likely to choose? You will

no doubt choose the easier of the two, because we always go for the

easiest way to do anything.

Similarly, if both sannyasa and karma-yoga lead you to moksa, you will

choose the easier. And which is the easier? At first glance, it looks

as though sannyasa, doing nothing or doing very little, is easier.

But, in fact, sannyasa is definitely the more difficult of the two if

you are not ready for it. Krsna makes it very clear in this verse that

performing action is better than giving it up.

Renunciation of all actions means that you should be able to be with

yourself, you should be happy with yourself - for which you require

preparation. This is why Krsna says here that karma-yoga is better

than renunciation.

This does not mean, however, that no one should take sannyasa. It

simply means that sannyasa is difficult, and therefore, one should be

ready for it, as Krsna makes clear later on. Karma-yoga actually paves

the way to sannyasa.

Verse 3 : The person who neither hates nor longs (for anything) should

be known as always a renunciate O Arjuna, because one who is free from

the opposites (likes and dislikes) is effortlessly released from

bondage.

We saw that, in answer to Arjuna's question, whether sannyasa leads to

moksa or karma-yoga leads to moksa, Krsna said that both lead to

moksa. If you have the knowledge, you already are a sannyasi. If you

are not a jnani, there is a choice in that there are two life-styles

for pursuing the knowledge. But, having said this, Krsna hints at the

difficulties inherent in merely giving up all action, karma-sannyasa,

without the necessary preparation, by saying that karma-yoga is

preferable.

To say that karma-yoga is better than karma-sannyasa is strictly from

the standpoint of one's qualifications, since both are means for moksa

alone. The karma-yogi and the karma-sannyasi are both mumuksus; they

both desire liberation, freedom. The only difference is that the

karma-yogi has duties to perform and the sannyasi does not. And, if

you have no duties to perform, you should be able to live with

yourself and pursue knowledge to the exclusion of all else, which

takes a certain preparedness. This is why Krsna says that karma-yoga

is better than simply giving up action.

Verse 4: Children (those who do not know), (but) not the wise, argue

that knowledge and karma-yoga are different. The person who follows

even one (of the two) properly, gains the result of both.

By nature, of course, sannyasa and karma-yoga are different, one

implying the renunciation and the other the performance of activity.

Here, Krsna brings in the word sankhya in the place of sannyasa, the

reason for which we shall see later. In the compound sankhya-yogau,

sankhya means knowledge and yoga means karma-yoga. People argue that

knowledge and yoga are different, meaning that they are not only

different in nature, but their results are also different.

And who argues in this way? Krsna refers to such people here as

children, balah, meaning those who do not know. These people have

studied the sastra and know what it says, but do not know what it

means. Therefore, like children, they repeat what they have heard

without understanding. The child having been told by his father that

money is dangerous, keeps repeating the statement, 'Money is

dangerous.' But he does not know why. He does not know that his father

means that money, if not handled properly, is dangerous. There is

always some truth in such statements, but the child does not know the

meaning even though he may constantly repeat his father's words. In

the same manner these people repeat the words of the sastra without

knowing what they mean.

Verse 5: The end (moksa) that is gained by the sannyasis is also

reached by the karma-yogis. The one who sees knowledge and karma-yoga

as one, that person (alone) sees (the truth).

The knowledge, which is moksa, gained by the sannyasis, is also the

moksa reached by the karma--yogis in time. First, they gain

antah-karana-suddhi, a pure mind, and then they gain the knowledge.

Sthana means place or end and here the end is the knowledge that is

moksa for both the sannyasi and the karma-yogis.

The use of the words 'gained, prapyate,' and 'reached, gamyate,'

denotes a small difference here - the difference in the degree of

preparedness of the sannyasi and the karma-yogi. That which is

accomplished, prapyate by the sannyasi is reached, gamyate, by the

karma-yogi in time, meaning when his or her mind has been properly

prepared by living a life of karma-yoga. This, then, is the only

difference.

The karma-yogi lives a life of karma-yoga and gains the knowledge,

either by becoming a sannyasi or while still remaining a karma-yogi.

Either way, the person can gain the knowledge. Even when the knowledge

takes place, he or she can become a sannyasi or continue to remain as

a karma--yogi, as King Janaka did.

The one who understands this clearly, is a wise person, pandita,

whereas the others are children, balas, those who do not see clearly,

even though they have studied the sastra. One person may renounce

activities, looking upon renunciation as more desirable than

karma-yoga, while another may perform action and look upon it as more

desirable than sannyasa. Thus, we have these two groups of people, one

group insisting that you must renounce and the other group advocating

that you must do karma. In fact, neither group knows the truth.

There are those who, analysing the Gita in their own way, have tried

to prove that the Gita advocates karma only, that the performance of

karma alone produces moksa, and that it does not talk about sannyasa

at all. This is an error and it creates problems for others as well.

Krsna has said very clearly that there are two life-styles in this

world. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how anyone can

interpret the Gita to mean that karma alone produces moksa. But, being

prejudiced, being committed to the hard and fast conclusions they have

made before even studying the Gita, they do. This is why we have to

analyse if what they advocate is true and, to do so, we have to look

into the Gita and see what it actually does say.

To first make a conclusion and then look into the Gita to support your

conclusion is not inquiry, pramana-vicara. It is merely your own

interpretation. Pramana-vicara is to see what the Gita really says;

for this, one has to be highly objective. When one thinks, 'Because I

have sraddha in the Gita, I want to know what it says,' that is called

pramana-vicara.