Gita Satsang - cogitations-Ranade on Antinomies-Part4

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

cotd.]

Supremacy of Action

 

( a ) Three Reasons. Now it cannot be again said that the upshot of

the teaching of the Bhagavadgita is its advocacy of the life of

activism. It insists upon Karma Yoga which is the chief point of its

discussion. Krishna wanted to put Arjuna on his mettle and to make

him fight the battle and Karma-Yoga was the theory which he

advocated. If we put together all the utterances in the Bhagavadgita

in this matter, we may say that there are five or six different

reasons which the Gita assigns for the supremacy of this doctrine of

activism.

 

In the first, the Gita relies upon three kinds of laws :

the law of the body,

the law of society, and

the law of the universe.

Each of these laws supports the doctrine of activism

 

"shariira-yaatraa api cha te na prasiddhyeet akarmaNaH .III:8." is

what the law of the body advocates.

 

"loka-sa~Ngraham eva api saMpashyan kartum arhasi .III:20. is the law

of society which requires us to be active for its welfare.

 

"evaM pravartita.n chakra.n na anuvartayati iha yaH .III:16. is the

law of the wheel of the Universe which is perpetually and unceasingly

rotating and of which we form a part.

 

If we want to be conscious of it we must become a worthy part of it.

So these laws - the law of the body, the law of society and the law of

the universe- indicate and even vindicate activism.

 

( b ) Criticism- We may take here the liberty of pointing out certain

fallacies which in its poetic oratory the Gita makes.

 

In the first place,

"karmaNaa eva sa.nsiddhim aasthitaaH janaka aadayaH .III:20. which

appeals to the personality of Janaka is an argumentum ad hominem.

 

"yat yat aacharati shreshhThaH tat tat eva itaraH janaH .III:21. is

an argumentum ad verecundium, as it appeals only to the practice of

respectable persons.

 

The third fallacy is what we may call argumentum ad theonem. This is

a word which I myself have coined on the analogy of hominem, populem

and verecundium. Here we have an appeal to the power and actions of

God Himself, for example :

 

"na me paartha asti kartavya.n trishhu lokeshhu ki~Nchana .

na anavaaptam avaaptavya.n vartaH eva cha karmaNi .. II:22 ..

 

yadi hi ayam na varteya.n jaatu-karmaNi atandritaH .

mama vartma anuvartante manushhyaaH paartha sarvashaH .. III:23 ..

 

utsiideyuH ime lokaaH na kuryaa.n karma chet aham.h .. III:24 ..

 

chaaturvrNyaM mayaa sR^ishhTa.n guNa-karma-vibhaagashaH .. IV:13 ..

 

Here God is put on a par with the human activist, and all creative

activity in the universe and society is attributed to Him. This is

the first point of our discussion in the present chapter where we are

setting forth the different arguments in favour of activism.

 

There is one point which we must make clear. Those who have read

Aristotelian Ethics know the great stress which he lays upon the

contemplative life. This contemplative life is not very different

from what the Bhagavadgita calls Jnana Yoga. So can we not borrow a

word from Greek philosophy which can be pitted against this kind of

activism ? We can. In Greek 'theoria' is a very peculiar ward. In the

first place, it means vision or perception ; secondly, it means

intellection or knowledge, and thirdly, it means ecstasy or

illumination. Similar are the implications of the Sanskrit word

Jnana. A philosophy of Jnana might well be called a philosophy of

theoretism. So we may well regard the contrast between Karma and

Jnana as a contrast between activism and theoretism. This one word

theoretism includes in it all the different aspects of perception,

intellection and ecstatic enjoyment.

 

Next: to be cotd.]

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IN KANT AND THE BHAGAVADGITA :