Gita Satsangh Chapter 12: Introductory Summary by Swami Dayananda Saraswati

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

This introductory summary is taken from Swamiji's Homestudy Notes to

Holy Gita. Those who haven't read any of the previous chapters, this

summary provides substantial insights.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

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

 

In the 12th chapter the topic is predominantly devotion, bhakti.

Bhakti is from the root bhaj used in the sense of service. Dedicated

action to Isvara who is in the form of dharma is called bhakti. One

who conforms to dharma and avoids adharma, looking upon it as Isvara

is a bhakta, a karmayogi.

 

The chapter opens with a question by Arjuna. It is in the same vein

as all his other questions in the Gita. His conflict lies in the fact

that his mind is in sannyasa but he is being called to duty. Everyone

has such a conflict in one form or another. Even in the early morning

you wonder, " Should I get up or should I lie in for a while? " You

start the day with a conflict of pravrtti and nivrtti and this

continues in various forms. Arjuna's mind is still not settled. In

the second chapter he declared that he was not interested in kingdom

and comforts and preferred a life of bhiksa. After using the word

bhiksa, he was obsessed with sannyasa.

 

His commitment is of course for Sreyas and he wants sannyasa for

that. The action he is called to is a terrible one. He has to fight a

war. If it were a prayer like sandhyavandanam, or a ritual like

agnihotra it would not be a problem. His difficulty is that he has to

kill all these great men like Bhisma and Drona for whom he has so

much respect. How can he fight against people who deserve his

worship? In the same chapter he said further that it was not possible

for him to engage in such a battle. He would rather live a sadhu's

life and gather alms, bhiksa. Such a lifestyle is possible for only

for two types of people, a brahmacari or a sannyasi, a renunciate.

Arjuna cannot be a brahmacari now, he has already married and has a

grown-up son. He can only become a sannyasi which is exactly what he

thinks is good for him now. He has said so in so many words. " I do

not want a kingdom because I do not think it will remove my sorrow.

Therefore I want sreyas, I am your student, please teach

me.sisyaste'ham iadhi mam tvam prapannam. " Arjuna had a commitment

for this knowledge. He wanted Sreyas, not sannyasa but he thought

sannyasa would be more conducive to his gaining Sreyas.

 

Then Lord Krishna taught him the nature of atma in the second

chapter. He also told him that all the Vedas talk about ends within

samsara, not going beyond the three gunas. Therefore, he

said, " Arjuna, may you become one who is above these three gunas,

nistraigunyo bhavarjuna. " Then he told him to get up and fight and

talked to him about karmayoga. " You have choice only regarding

action, never the result, karmanyeva adhikaraste ma phalesu kadacana. "

 

Then Arjuna asked a question. He wanted to know the characteristics

of a wise man, sthitaprajnasya ka bhasa. Indirectly he was asking

whether a wise man would live in this world and perform all actions

like any one of us. Bhagavan answered by saying that the one who is

happy with himself is a wise man. What is day for the ignorant is

night for him and what is night for him is day for the other which

means what is true to him is not true to the other and what is true

to the other is not true to him, ya nis'a sarvabhutanam tasyam

jagarti samyaml yasyam jagrati bhutani sa nisa pagyato muneh. When

that is so, how can one describe a sthitaprajna to one who is not one?

 

If you are not a wise man, no description is going to help you

because it takes a wise man to understand a wise man. And if you are

already a sthitaprajna, a wise man, you do not need to have a wise

man described to you. Still Krishna made an attempt using an example.

As waters entering into the ocean which is brimful bring about no

change to the ocean, similarly all objects enter into a wise man

leaving no trace at all. He is happy. Nothing elates or depresses him.

 

Then Arjuna had another question. He understands very well that

Krishna has his heart in knowledge because by knowledge alone one

becomes a sthitaprajna, a wise man. If that is so, he wonders, " Why

are you asking me to engage in this fight? " Since knowledge

liberates, Arjuna wants to pursue only knowledge. He has no value for

all these activities Krishna is asking him to engage in. " You seem to

contradict your own words, because you praise knowledge and at the

same time ask me to do karma " , he tells him. It is evident that

Sreyas which is moksa is gained by knowledge. Yet he is asked to

engage in this action. And it is not an easy task; it implies

bloodshed. It seems to Arjuna that Krishna wants to deny him 3reyas

by divertingrhis attention in another direction. All this is implied

when he asks, " Which do you consider better, Krishna, karma or

jnanam?, jyayasl cet karmanaste mata buddhir janardana. " The third

chapter is the response to this. Lord Krishna does not give him a

definite answer. He only tells what karmayoga is, and what is

sannyasa. Both are for jnanam. The difference is only in lifestyle,

lokesmin dvividha nistha. One is a life of renunciation, the other a

life of activity with proper attitude which is good for purification

of the mind, cittasuddhi. Thereby, you are able to understand what is

being said.

 

If you are ready for sannyasa, be a sannyasl; if not, be a karmayogi.

There is no choice in this really. It is like a fifteen year old

asking if next year he should be 16 or 25. Sannyasa is maturity and

to gain maturity you have to go through karmayoga. Therefore, between

sannyasa and karmayoga there is no choice. It is entirely decided by

what you are ready for. Krishna carefully explained karmayoga and

sannyasa hoping Arjuna would not ask this question again. But, after

waiting for some time, in the fifth chapter Arjuna asks the same

question in a different form. Hoping perhaps that Krishna has

forgotten his original question, he asked, " You are praising both

yoga and sannyasa, Krishna. Between the two, please tell me

definitely which one you consider to be best. " sannyasam karmanam

Krishna punaryogam ca tamsasi yat sreyah etayor ekam tanme bruhi

suni^citam. Initially he asked about knowledge and karma, here he

calls it sannyasa and yoga. It is the same question with different

terminology. Again Lord Krishna does not answer directly. He

says. " What is achieved by the sannyasls is also accomplished by the

karmayogls, yat sankhyaih prapyate sthanam tad yogairapi gamyate. "

And further, " The one who looks at both sannyasa and karmayoga as the

same (means for one common end), he alone sees, ekam sankhyam ca

yogatn yah paiyati sa pasyati. "

 

Here in the 12th chapter Arjuna asks the same question in an slightly

different form. He wants to know which of two groups of people are

better - those who pursue nirguna-brahman, meaning they pursue the

knowledge of atma being Brahman free from all attributes, or those

who worship the Lord in the cosmic form which he has just seen, in a

way. The karmayogl is doing his duties towards family, society, his

country and even the devatas with Isvararpana-buddhi and meditating

upon saguna-Brahman. None of these duties exist for a sannyasl. His

life is one of dedicated pursuit of knowledge nothing else. He also

declares his pursuit with external symbols like kasayam, the orange

cloth, the rudraksamala, and kamandalu after performing a stipulated

ritual in which he takes an oath that he will no longer be a cause of

fear for any living being including plants, animals, human beings and

all the devatas. He gives abhaya to all of them. And he pursues

nirgunam Brahma to the exclusion of everything else. Though the word

upasana is used, nirgunam Brahma cannot be meditated upon; it has to

be understood. How are you going to meditate upon something free from

attributes which, moreover, is the meditator's svarupa? Nirguna-

brahma-upasana is the pursuit of knowledge. " Those who meditate upon

me as that tarn ye paryupasate, come to me directly, te mam eva

yanti. They are me, because what they are meditating upon is atma and

I am the atma of every one. " Knowing that they are me, they are non-

separate from me, " Bhagavan says.

 

Instead of phrasing his question with reference to their activity,

Arjuna has worded it in terms of their meditation. But it is the

same question. In terms of lifestyle Arjuna's question was whether

sannyasa or karma-yoga was better. But here the quesiton is asked in

terms of topic. For a karma-yogi the topic is saguna-brahma Isvara.

For the sannyaslit is nirguna-brahman.

 

What is the difference between this question and Arjuna's questions

in the third and fifth chapters? There is no difference. In the

eighteenth chapter he words it differently still asking whether

tyaga. meaning karma-phala-tyaga or sannyasa is better. Again Lord

Krishna answers him until at last his questions come to an end. In

18th chapter Arjuna says, " My delusion is gone; I have recovered my

senses and will do as you say, nasto mohah smrtirlabdha..karisye

vacanam tava. "

 

Because the chapter is called bhaktiyoga, it is a common

misconception that this is another yoga. Yoga here, as in all the

other chapters, means topic. There is no independent means called

bhaktiyoga. Lord Krishna has made it clear that freedom is through

knowledge and there are two lifestyles one can live in the pursuit of

that knowledge, sannyasa or karmayoga. Both have the same end so what

is achieved by the sannyaslis also accomplished by the karmayogls.

The one who sees both of them as the same, a means for one common

end, he alone sees, ekam sankhyam ca yogam yah pasyati sa pasyati.

 

In spite of that, Arjuna wants to know who is better, the one who

pursues nirguna-brahma meaning knowledge of atma or the one who

worships the cosmic form, the .fcarmayogJwho is doing saguna-brahma-

upasana. Those who worship IsVara as one who is in the form of the

whole universe and conforms to the law of dharma looking upon it also

as IsVara is a karmayogi, a devotee. There are a lot of people who

followc/Aarma but they do not look upon it as Isvara. They have

understood that what they expect of others is expected of them and

act accordingly to avoid conflict. Though they are in conformity with

dharma, they are not karmayogis if they do not accept I$vara because

when dharma is not looked upon as Igvara, there is no Isvararpana-

buddhi. The karmayogi, however, not only offers ail actions to

I^vara, he meditates upon Isvara. Both are worship of Is " vara. Any

ritual like agnihotra is worship. And if it is combined with upasana,

a mental action, it is an even more efficacious worship. Every form

of worship comes under karmayoga. Whether it is simple repetition of

the Veda or mental repetition of a prayer, it is a karma. So

karmayoga is not merely service. It is any activity performed with

ISvara in view including prayer and meditation. Karma is threefold,

mental, oral and physical. And if you are invoking I$vara through any

one of them, it is karmayoga. There is no separate bhaktiyoga. I

repeat this here because the confusion is so rampant. It is a common

misconception that there are four yogas, jnanayoga, karmayoga,

bhaktiyoga and hathayoga.

 

A sannyaslrenounces all enjoined duties both what is to be done

daily, nityakarma, and what is to be done occasionally,

naimittikakarma, consisting mainly of rituals and prayers. Besides

that he gives up all duties towards family, society, country and even

devatas. His pursuit is purely knowledge. The karmayogls, on the

other hand, are obliged to do the enjoined duties. Therefore we have

two sets of people, one pursuing knowledge to the exclusion of

everything else, the sannyasls, or jfianayogls and the other pursuing

knowledge in conjunction with karma as a yoga,the karmayogis.

 

Now suppose there is one bhaktiyogl. Does he have duties or not? He

does daily puja, studies the puranas etc. all of which are karmas. So

in what way is bhaktiyoga separate from karma? And if he is a real

devotee even when he doing some other type of action he does not

become a non-devotee. A real devotee is a devotee all the time. In

order to make that a reality one does all this puja etc. How can we

say that a karmayogi does not have bhakti? For a karmayogl there is

no act which is not an act of worship. As I said, even an ethical

person, however esteemed he may be, is not a karmayogi if he does not

accept Igvara. He has to be matkarmakrt, one who sees dharma as

IsVara and does all action for the sake of IsVara. We can never say

that this karmayogi is without bhakti. And neither is there any

sannyasl without bhakti because sannyasa is only to know Isvara.

There is no bhaktiyogl. Lord Krishna has said lokesmin dvividha

nistha, in this world there are two committed lifestyles for moksa,

that of a sannyasl and that of a karmayogi.

 

Not understanding this, there are those who claim that there are four

types of people, one for each yoga. For those who are intellectual

there is jnanayoga, for the emotional, bhaktiyoga, for the extrovert,

karmayoga and for the dullard, hathayoga. We are all intellectuals

and who does not have emotions? Who is not extrovert? Even the most

introverted person has some extroverted activities. And who does

not need some exercise? Asanas are done by sannyasls, by karmayogls

and by anybody who wants to keep his body fit. Which of these is

not meant for everyone? It is very clear that the problem lies in not

understanding what sannyasa is, what karmayoga is, what jfianam is,

what moksa is.

 

It is not bhaktiyoga that is presented here but bhakti, in

particular, saguna-brahma-upasana.