Ramanuja’s Interpretation of the Bhagavad-gita
by Abani Sonowal | 2020 | 71,683 words
This page relates ‘Chapter 4: Jnana Yoga’ of the study on Ramanuja’s interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita (a narrative between Krishna and Arjuna). While Ramanuja expounds Vishishtadvaita philosophy, this study examines his interpretation compared to the text of Bhagavadgita.
Chapter 4: Jñāna Yoga
This chapter discusess about jñāna yoga and Rāmānuja’s commentary on jñāna yoga of Bhagavadgīta. Rāmānuja is a prominent propagator of path of Bhakti. According to him, through intense Bhakti only, a bhakta or a devotee realizes the identity between the individual self and the Supreme. For Rāmānuja, karma leads to jñāna and jñāna leads to Bhakti, and ultimately Bhakti is the means to salvation. From this point, we understand that karma, jñāna and Bhakti are three different disciplines independent of each other according to him. There is a difference between knowledge and jñāna. Knowledge ordinarily can be known directly through senses. But, jñāna is achieved through some other way above sense organs. Jñāna is both knowledge and cognition in Indian tradition. Jñāna is cognition but it is not knowledge.
Jñāna yoga generally means path of knowledge, the knowledge of the true nature of the self, and it also means the knowledge of the performance of the action. The central theme of the jñāna yoga is the realization of the true nature of the self and to know how to perform action prescribed in the Bhagavad-gītā. Jñāna yoga starts with sense control, by withdrawing senses from sense-object. Then, there comes the control of mind, and then follows the control of intellect in order to discriminate between perishable and imperishable. When ignorance is destroyed, self-knowledge is attained.[1] A jñāna yogi can discriminate between what is self and the body.
But, for Rāmānuja, jñāna yoga is just an indispensable part or preparatory stage to bhakti yoga only. He says an intellectual understanding of the self leads to karma yoga–doing action without any attachment to the fruits which in turn leads to jñāna yoga. This is a direct and complete realization of the self.[2] This confusion needs to be investigated critically by comparing with the verses in the Bhagavad-gītā. Jñāna yoga as the intellectual pathway to perfection is indeed different from jñāna as spiritual wisdom.[3] This distinction is not found in Rāmānuja’s jñāna yoga of Gītā Bhāṣya which requires an investigation.
In the Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna is confused as a common man whether karma yoga or jñāna yoga leads to the realization. It is taught that the practice of meditation i.e. jñāna leads to seeing the self or attainment of the self, and karma yoga is preparatory to the jñāna yoga. Kṛṣṇa making Arjuna confused advices him to engage in karma. Then Arjuna asks Kṛṣṇa to specify which one is the means of attainment of the self? Kṛṣṇa replies that karma and jñāna are not separated from each other, but are interrelated. One cannot be fulfilled without the other. Actions cannot be separated from jñāna, for they go together. These are the same i.e. thees are the two aspects of the same thing. But, for Rāmānuja, acceptance of this idea is very difficult. For Rāmānuja, karma yoga and jñāna yoga never bring liberation or salvation. For him, karma and jñāna, only bring the realization of the self. In commenting on Chapter III.1[4]
Rāmānuja writes:
“Steadfast practice of meditation (or jñāna) is alone the means for seeing the self, but the practice of action is preparatory to it.”
The meaning is that karma yoga alone brings about jñāna yoga, and that jñāna yoga alone brings about the vision of the self. But, this interpretation is contradictory for the readers.
Because in Chapter V.4[5] he says that,
“Those who are not possessed of true wisdom, they say that karma yoga alone brings about jñāna yoga, and that jñāna yoga alone brings about the vision of the self.”
What it means is Rāmānuja himself appears to be a person, who does not possess true wisdom, who distinguishes between karma and jñāna. And the person, who distinguishes between karma yoga and jñāna yoga, is not a realised self. But who is a jñāṇī? A jñānī is not such that he has achieved or gained the knowledge of the true nature of the self and the body only. But he should know how to perform action without considering fruits, agency. He should not remain without performing the action also. He should know what akarma, vikarma etc. are. Besides, a jñānī should know sannyāsa and tyāga and their differentiation.
A jñānī vests his agency of action to the Brahman and gives up the fruits of action. He gives up sarvakarmaphala. A jñānī is a tyāgi and sannyāsin. A jñānī is he, who does not differentiate between saṃkhya and yoga (saṃkhya yoga pṛthakbāla, pravadanti na panditah.) He is a jñānī who does not distinguish between knowledge and action i.e. jñāna and karma. He does not say that jñāna is independent of karma. But he says that both jñāna and karma go together. These are internally connected and interdependent also. Apart from this, since, Rāmānuja’s interpretation is concerned, by examining, it can be said that knowing about the real nature of the self itself is jñāna or knowledge. And for he, who realizes the self, there is no need of any kind of salvation; since there is nothing called salvation to be achieved. When one realizes the self, he being yukta with yoga performs what is required for him to do, but he is neither saṃyoga in action or fruits of the action nor is viyoga or viyukta from the action.
In Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya, we do not find a combination of knowledge and action i.e. jñāna- karma- sammuchāya. [6] Bhagavad-gītā is not against combination of jñāna and karma. This is taught in Chapter XVIII.18. Rāmānuja in Chapter XVIII.47[7] makes a distinction between karma and jñāna.
In the verse, he comments that:
“The discipline known as karma yoga though defective in performance is better (for one) than the discipline which is suitable to another, that is, jñāna yoga.”
In his interpretation he makes the sense of independency of jñāna and karma. That means both jñāna and karma are separated. There is no possibility of a combination of jñāna and karma as Rāmānuja understands in his interpretation of the verse. These, for him, are two different disciplines, which comes one after another. But, Bhagavad-gītā never introduces such distinctions of jñāna and karma anywhere. Jñāna and karma cannot be separated from each other. Although these two are distinct, yet these are inclusive to each other.
Besides, for Rāmānuja both karma and jñāna yoga is independent of each other and both bring the highest good independently which he comments in Chapter V.2[8] . By this Rāmānuja also tries to make a distinction of knowledge and action.
He comments that:
“Even to one who has the capacity for jñāna yoga (both) renunciation i.e. jñāna yoga and karma yoga are independent (of each other) and bring about the highest good.”
But these are not independent of each other; rather these are interrelated and interdependent. Without any one of these two, no one is possible. In the verse, Rāmānuja also comments that karma yoga excels over the jñāna yoga i.e. renunciation of action, and karma yoga is better than jñāna yoga. Again, for him, renunciation of action means jñāna yoga, that is, giving up of action or cessation of activities means jñāna yoga, which he comments in Chapter V.1 and 3[9] also. Besides, in Chapter III.19[10] he also comments that “only till the attainment of the self-action has to be performed.” This for Rāmānuja is that for the jñānī who has attained jñāna, there is no need for performance of the action. Here, Rāmānuja himself makes contradiction, because in Chapter V.1-2 he says that, jñāna means renunciation of action or giving up of action and in Chapter III.19 says that jñāna requires the performance of action. But renunciation of action does not necessarily mean jñāna yoga. Since jñāna requires the performance of action. Rāmānuja seems to be unclear about the concept.
Moreover, in Chapter V.3[11] Rāmānuja makes the distinction of karma yoga and karma sannyāsaṃ or renunciation of action. But, karma yoga and karma sannyāsaṃ or renunciations of action are both the same where knowledge of the self is involved. These are not two different things. A yogi or karma sannyāsin has to be free from kāngsati i.e. desire (V.3) He should not be attracted and aversed to the result of action and should not make any difference i.e. ‘dvando’ of good-bad, happiness-unhappiness arising from the result. If he is of this nature he is a yogi and a karma sannyāsin. The person who knows or understands, and who never hates or loves and who has no attraction or revulsion, he is every day a renouncer; and he, knows that there is no ‘dvando’ or difference or division of good and bad of any result of the action, he becomes free from both sukha and duḥkha or bondage easily. Therefore, in Chapter V.3 there is no mention of karma yoga by the author of the Bhagavad-gītā. It mentions only karma sannyāsaṃ and karma sannyāsin [who is nityasannyāsin. ] The moment when the author uses sannyāsin, it is all about sannyāsa or karma sannyāsa, but Rāmānuja is interpreting them in the sense of karma yoga.
A sannyāsi has to act with no kāngsati, no dreṣti i.e. without attraction and aversion to the result of the action. A sannyāsi should not act out of love or hatred making a distinction of the result. One has to act without creating duality i.e. hatred to one and love to one or vice versa. One should be free from attraction and aversion. A nityasannyāsin is always of this nature.
In Chapter V.4 Rāmānuja makes differentiation of both karma yoga and jñāna yoga and says that these are different and independent of each other, but he in Chapter V.4 himself recognises that “he who makes such a distinction or duality and say independent of each other is a child (bālā), he is a person of imperfect knowledge i.e., not paṇditaḥ” which contradicts with each other. This contradictory statement is a problem for Rāmānuja. He is unable to make a fit of these two statements. In Chapter V.4 it is taught that the person who says that karma yoga or yoga and saṃkhya or jñāna yoga are different and independent, he is a man of imperfect knowledge, and he is not wise. But, the one who adopts any one of them obtains the fruits of both according to Rāmānuja. Here, the problem is how can we obtain the fruits of both two different actions by only one means unless these are same? When one performs the one of these actions, one is performing the other also–then only one will get the fruits of both. So, when one is having the phala or fruits of both, then it indicates that these are not separated from each other.
Again, Rāmānuja in Chapter V.4 seems to have commited another mistake in making a separation of karma yoga and jñāna yoga i.e. yoga and saṃkhya having the same result. If any one performs any one of these two, he or she will obtain both the fruits. But until and unless these are same we cannot obtain the same fruit of both. So, when one is having the phala or fruits of both then it indicates that the two are not separated from each other. The problem of Rāmānuja in Chapter V.4 is cleared in Chapter V.5[12] . It is taught in the first half of the verse. The meaning is that ‘what is reached by sāṃkhya will be reached by yoga also.’ And in the second half, it is taught that ‘he, who sees (paśyati) that both sāṃkhya and yoga are to be one, he is the seer.’ It is not because of the result merely which is one, but these sāṃkhya and yoga both are one and the same. Since, these two are identical;therefore, result is also identical. It is not such that the result is identical and these two are identical.
Jñāna requires the performance of the action. Nobody can remain without performing action (III.5). Even in Chapter III.20 Kṛṣṇa says that Janaka and other, who were liberated continued to perform action. That is why Kṛṣṇa from Chapter II to Chapter V continuously and importantly stresses upon karma. Chapter III.25-26 are important because in these verses Kṛṣṇa is talking about ignorant (avidwāṃ) people. What is said here is that unlearned, unwise or ignorant people do work for the fulfilment of their desires because they want to achieve desires by performing action. While the learned or wise men do their work without the desire or attachment and not for the satisfaction of the desires, but the unity of the people, and therefore, he should continue to work for the lokasaṃgraha without attachment. The ordinary people do their action for their fulfilment of desires because they are ignorant, unwise. But he who is learned, wise should not distract from the performance of action being unattached. Because he has to set an example for the loka, so that, people do not go against the unity of the world or lokasaṃgraha, and has to perform action without the desire of their fulfilment.
But, Rāmānuja in his interpretation sometimes takes learned as those who know the śāstras, and sometimes he takes learned as those, who know only the self. So, unlearned are those, who are ignorant of the śāstras, but unlearned is also ignorant of the self. These two are different ideas, but why does Rāmānuja mix it up that is not known. This is a problem of Rāmānuja’s interpretation. In the Chapter III.25 he also comments that “the ignorant i.e. avidvāṃsaḥ performs action for seeking of the self.” But, he does perform an action out of attachment and fulfilment of desires. And, it is also said that he who is qualified for jñāna yoga should perform karma yoga only. But even when one is jñāni, he has to perform actions for the lokasaṃgraḥ. In the Chapter III.26 he said that the ignorant people are the aspirants of mokṣa, but they are not the aspirants who are after mokṣa, they are only attached to the fulfilment of their desires. So, they are attached to the action, but are not attached to mokṣa etc. Rāmānuja, in the verse also brings in the idea of karmavāda. Rāmānuja is deviating much from the truth of the meanings of the Bhagavad-gītā, for he is bringing many extraneous ideas like karmavāda etc.
In the Bhagavad-gītā, even a person who is jñānī, who has no abhāva, has to act like Janaka as taught in Chapter III.20. He has to perform action after attaining mokṣa for the lokasaṃgraḥ. Nobody can remain without performing action[13] ; even if he is jñānī or liberated, yet, everyone is to perform action. Kṛṣṇa in Chapter III.22-24[14] himself presents as an example.
In Chapter III.22 Kṛṣṇa taught that:
“O Arjuna in these three worlds I [Kṛṣṇa] have neither action to be performed nor have I [Kṛṣṇa] unobtained object which is to be obtained, still I engage in action.”
This has been also taught in Chapter IV.14[15]. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa having no caste, order and desires in the three worlds performs action for the protection of the world.
Again, in Chapter III.23-24 He says,
“O Arjuna if I [Kṛṣṇa] do not engage in action carefully at any time, all these people will follow My [Kṛṣṇa] path in every way”;
And:
“If I do not perform action then all these people will get destroyed and I will become the creator of confusion and shall be the destroyer of all these people.”
As far as Rāmānuja’s interpretation is concerned, he is unable to justify that everyone is to perform action in every way, because his nature or prakṛti compels to perform an action. Even, in his interpretation of Chapter III.24, he writes that “work alone should be done by one who is worthy of being distinguished as wise” which means an action is to be carried out by wise person only.
Moreover, in his interpretation of Chapter III.23 Rāmānuja has taken Kṛṣṇa as ‘the son of Vasudeva.’ But, the verse is not in the sense of son of Vasudeva. But, He is Vāsudeva i.e. Lord or God Vāsudeva. He does not have family dharma, so it is not saying that, if He does not perform family dharma the world will get ruined. But, if He does not perform action for the loka, then the world will get ruined. For, ordinary people will follow the principle of not performing action. He has to perform action without shakening as not being the son of Vasudeva, but as the Lord of the protection and sustenance of the world.
Rāmānuja, again in Chapter III.19 says that action has to be performed by jñānī till the self is attained. But this is a problem in Rāmānuja. In the verse, it is not taught that action has to be performed for the achievement of the self only. But, even, when a person realises the self, he also has to perform action. It is not such that actions are to be performed only for the attainment of the self as Rāmānuja commented in Chapter III.19. In this verse, for Rāmānuja, kaima yoga is superior to jñāna yoga which for all. For him, for the ajñānī who has not obtained knowledge, karma yoga is necessary, because he wants to achieve jñāna, and who have achieved jñāna, for him, karma yoga is necessary, since, for Rāmānuja it is superior to jñāna yoga.
But, what is taught in the verse is that the foremost sage Janaka had performed action not because he had to achieve jñāna, but he had to perform action because of the lokasaṃgraḥ. Janaka had already realised the self. But why he continued to perform action? He could have stopped performing action after realisation as Rāmānuja understands. But he continued to perform action. The reason is that it is for lokasaṃgraḥ i.e. unity of the loka or people. Keeping in mind this lokasaṃgraḥ, one has to perform an action even after realisation of self. Besides, Rāmānuja has interpreted this lokasaṃgraḥ as ‘the guidance and protection of the world,’ but it should be ‘guidance and protection of the unity of the loka.
In the Chapter III.29[16] Kṛṣṇa taught Arjuna that:
“Those who are deluded by the guṇas of prakṛti they are attached to the actions of the guṇas. Those, who know this truth should not disturb dull-witted persons those who do not know the truth.”
Rāmānuja interprets that when a person has the state of jñāna yoga or he is a jñānī, he has got nothing to perform or nothing to do the action. For Rāmānuja, “those who are not able to practice jñāna yoga, he is qualified for karma yoga only”, and “a jñānī should not cause dull-witted men to move away from karma yoga.” From his interpretation, it means that jñāna yogi or a jñānī does not have anything to perform. But this is completely wrong interpretation. For, everyone is made to perform action whether he is a karma yogi or jñāna yogi. No one can stop working. This is the truth. There is no cause of moving away from the action, even in the state of jñāna yoga also. It seems that Rāmānuja is maintaining a duality in that a jñāna yogi should not perform action and only karma yogi should perform action. But knowledge does not prevent action. Knowledge requires the performance of action. Therefore, there is no duality.
From the above interpretation of the verse, it is seen that the interpretation of Chapter III.29 and Chapter III.24 contradicts each other. Because in Chapter III.24 Rāmānuja says that “work alone should be performed by wise” and in Chapter III.29 says that “a jñānī does not have anything to perform.” Rāmānuja has not clarified why this is so. In Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya we do not find such clarification in this regard.
Since it has been said above that jñāna requires the performance of an action and nobody even a jñānī, can remain without performing the action. A person whether jñānī or ajñānī has to perform action. The person who is jñānī and continues to engage in activities he sees action in inaction and inaction in action by performing karma. He does not get deluded by knowing what action and what inaction are? Therefore, Kṛṣṇa appreciates the person who is jñānī, engages in action without cravings for fruits and saṃkapla. (IV.19)
In the Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna in Chapter IV.16[17] what is karma, akarma and vikarma which are very difficult to understand. The verse is not about what action or inaction are but about how one should perform action or inaction. If anyone tries to know what action and inaction are then he is asking or raising a wrong question. Even the riṣhis or muṇi get perplexed when asking this question instead of knowing how to perform the action. If it is once known then one is liberated from the bondage of action. So, the answer to the question even if someone asks it is given in Chapter IV.17. The verse says: karmaṇaḥ hi api bodhavyaṃ bodhavyaṃ ca vikarmaṇaḥ/ akarmaṇaḥ ca bodhavyaṃ gahanā karmaṇaḥ gati//H ere boddhavyaṃ means ‘to grasp’, gahanā means ‘movement of action’, akarma means ‘non-performance of action’, vikarma means ‘opposite of action or wrong action.’ The meaning is that know about all these because all these are essential in the performance of karma. Since Rāmānuja’s interpretation is concerned our task is to examine his interpretation whether it is faithful to the original meaning of the text or not. In this verse, Rāmānuja is overshooting the meaning of the word vikarma. He has interpreted the word vikarma differently. He said that vikarma means ‘varied actions’ such as occasional, obligatory or optional etc. But vikarma does not mean ‘varied actions’. Vikarma means ‘opposite of action or wrong action.’ It can mean the opposite of right action or good action. Rāmānuja also says that ‘vikarma’ should be given up. But all actions are equally important, and there is no mention of giving up of action in this verse rather one should know what is vikarma.
The Bhagavad-gītā also talks about action in inaction and inaction in action. This is such that there is the karma in akarma and there is the akarma in karma. Rāmānuja in his interpretation of Chapter IV.18 has not gone through the deeper meaning of the verse and its significance in one’s practical life. Here in this verse, he interprets that inaction for him is knowledge of the self which is different from the Self. But inaction does not only mean knowledge of the self. It is also the knowledge of the performance of the action. From the very beginning, Rāmānuja has identified knowledge with inaction. This is a problem in Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya. Because Rāmānuja forgets that there is jñānaṃ, jñeya and parijñātā (XVIII.18.) These are the impulsion for action i.e. karmachodaṇa. Therefore, how knowledge is inaction or inaction is knowledge for him? Knowledge is not inaction. If inaction is knowledge or knowledge is inaction then why he did not write ātmajñānaṃ instead of inaction. Veda Vyāsa is not using ātmajñāna as the self-knowledge, but he is using inaction or akarma which means the non-performance of the action. So knowledge is different from inaction. Let us examine what Chapter IV.18 of Bhagavad-gītā says: karmaṇyakarmayaḥ paśyedakarmaṇi ca karma yaḥ/ saḥ buddhimāna manuṣyeṣu saḥ yuktaḥkṛtsnakarmakṛt/ / This is of two-folded concept. Only a jñānī or a yogi understands this concept. What is said in this verse there is akarma in karma [i.e. inaction in action] and karma in akarma [i.e. action in inaction] and only a jñānī know this distinction. Let us discuss how inaction or akarma is there in action/ karma (karmāniakarmanaḥ). When a person performs Yajña karma which goes to Collectivity i.e. Brahman that action is not to be taken performed by the person. That is this is not his or her action or he or she has not done it, it is the action of the Collectivity. Though he or she participates in the action he/she remains as if he/she has not done it. He is akartā. He/she sees inaction in action. Let us take an example here; when Arjuna participates in action or in fight in the war he also does nothing according to this principle. What it means that he only participates in it since he is kṣatriya and by his position, it is required of him to fight when the fight has taken place. Though he kills somebody in the fight it does not bind him since it is not his action, it is the action of collectivity. Therefore, it is said that he is merely participating in it. Therefore, he is akartā. Practically, he is doing yet it is such that he is not doing anything. Again for example family is a Collectivity. The mother in the family always cooks for the family without motivated by what she likes or dislikes and eats always the last. Sometimes it may be good or it may not be good and she is not attached to that. She is doing the action of cooking but yet as if she is not doing. The act of cooking does not bind her because she is cooking for the collectivity i.e. family, not for herself.
Another principle of the action is ‘action or karma in inaction or akarma’ (akarmānikarma.) Somebody might think that if he does not do anything he is not performing action at all. This is a wrong concept according to the Bhagavad-gītā. What the Bhagavad-gītā says that even if someone is in a state of inaction he is actually in the state of action. How is it? Let us take an example. Arjuna when filled with grief in the battlefield says that ‘he will not fight’ he thinks that he is not doing anything. But he being deluded does not know that he is performing action which is running away from the battle out of fear, love of others. So Arjuna is performing an action i.e. running away from the battle without participating in it. When it is required of him to do something and he is not doing anything at all that is also action performed by him. That action can be said as vikarma or negative action or wrong action or the opposite of action i.e. ‘vikarmanaḥ in akarma.’ Sometimes karma becomes akarma and akarma becomes karma. When akarma becomes karma that karma binds the doer. In a way they are interrelated. Therefore who knows there is action in inaction and inaction in action he is wise.
Another example, when a child is drowning in water and the lifeguard is not doing anything even when he sees the child getting drown. That inaction of the lifeguard is an action performed by him which is running away from saving the child. So not doing anything means doing something.
In society, people think that when they do not perform action then they cannot be accused of action. But we forget that no one even for a moment can remain without doing any action. Everyone at every moment performs actions such as thinking, seeing, smelling, sitting etc.
The concept of karma, akarma and vikarma, and yoga, saṃyoga and viyoga in the Bhagavad-gītā are very difficult to grasp. No clear understanding and interpretation is found in Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya. Many interpreters say that akarma means knowledge or renunciation. All these are not fit with the text of the Bhagavad-gītā. Rādhākṛṣṇan also did not interpret at all. Saṃkarāchārya gives only a literal meaning. Tripurāri giving a literal meaning could not reflect the true concept of akarma. Rāmānuja in his interpretation of Chapter IV.16 says about akarma as “knowledge about the truth of the self of the agent of the action is spoken of as nonaction i.e. karma” which is not a clear understanding of the concept.
On the other hand, in Chapter IV.17 Rādhākṛṣṇan, Saṃkarāchārya and Tripurāri did not at all reflect what vikarma is? Swami Prabhupāda says that ‘the entire Gītā is directed towards Kṛṣṇa’s consciousness and to understand His consciousness and action one has to understand his relationship with the Supreme. But any other conclusion against this consciousness and its attendant actions are vikarma or prohibited action according to him.’ Rāmānuja here has interpreted the word ‘vikarma’ differently. He said that ‘vikarma’ means ‘varied actions’ such as occasional, obligatory or optional etc. But vikarma does not mean ‘varied actions’ but what vikarma means ‘opposite of action or wrong action.’ It can mean the opposite of right action or good action. Rāmānuja also says that ‘vikarma’ should be given up. But all actions are equally important, and there is no mention of giving up of action in this verse rather one should know what is vikarma. But all these interpretations are not fit with the meaning of the word vikarma since the author has tried to mention clearly in earlier pages.
In the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna in Chapter XIII.7-13 to be the metaphysical jñāna of kṣetra themselves but not as means for jñāna which are very important. And regarding the jñāna or knowledgeable resolve, all these verses should be read together and should not be read separately. For they indicate the preparation of jñāna or knowledgeable resolve.
Commenting on Chapter XIII of Bhagavad-gītā Rāmānuja in Gītā Bhāṣya explains different kinds of jñāna like knowledge of Kṣetra and kṣetrajña i.e. the field or the body and the knower of the body or field i.e. soul. The knowledge of both Kṣetra and kṣetrajña and who is the knower of these two is the Highest Knowledge according to Rāmānuja. In the Bhagavad-gītā humility, non-injury, purity, self-restraint, forbearance etc are also knowledge. But all these are taken to be the qualities of human being by Rāmānuja. Again sense gratification, absence of clinging to a spouse, home, non-attachment, constant equanimity of mind in all desirable and undesirable events, consistent devotion directed towards the Supreme Being alone, constant reflection on the knowledge of the self, contemplation at the attainment of truth are only knowledge in Bhagavad-gītā. But Rāmānuja takes these as the knowledge that which pertains to Self. But contrary to the claim of Bhagavad-gītā he takes other items in the list of knowledge as only wisdom practices and virtues which are means of Self realization. Regarding the knowledge of the nature of the individual self, Rāmānuja identifies Brahman with the individual self which is neither being nor non-being.
While reading Rāmānuja’s interpretation we find that he has not interpreted faithfully and deviated from the original meaning of the verses. He is breaking the verses and reading the Chapter XIII.7 independently which for him is the further modification of Chapter XIII.6. For him, this verse is the means of achieving jñāna. The problem is these are not merely the means of obtaining jñāna or knowledge and these are also not a further modification of the earlier verse. But these are jñāna themselves because in Chapter XIII.6 it is already said these are taken to be the jñāna of the kṣhetra. So this is an extra reading of Rāmānuja because it is not the modification for preparation for knowledge as Rāmānuja said but rather these are jñāna themselves. Besides, all these verses are the listing of the jñāna of kṣhetra, not the means of obtaining jñāna or means of producing jñāna. These jñāna or knowledge resolves are such as ‘ātmanitvam, adambhitvam, ahiṃsā, kṣhānti, śausam (13.7), vairājñyām, anahaṃkaraḥ (13.8), aṣaktiḥ, anabhisvangaḥ, iṣtāniṣtopapattiṣu nityam samachittatvam (13.9), avyabhichārini (13.10) and ‘adhyātmajñāna nityam, tatvajnāñam darśanaṃ’ etc. So these are not merely qualities or means of obtaining jñāna or knowledge. It is a wrong interpretation of Rāmānuja regarding jñāna.
Even in the Bhagavad-gītā it is not saying jñāna is as knowledge distinct from the action, but jñāna is resolve or knowledge resolve. Jñāna and karma both are correlated and one is complementary to the other. Jñāna is such that which is resolved in action and is expressed through action or karma. That is why there is karmachaudaṇa in jñāna. For example, jñānam, jñeya and parijñātā are the trividdhā of karmachaudaṇ (XVIII.18.) So jñāna is not merely knowledge but resolve. Many people think that knowledge means which are different from karma. But in Indian tradition jñāna is not separated from karma or action. They are very much related to each other.
In interpreting such jñāna from Chapter XIII.7-11 Rāmānuja has commited mistake. While interpreting Chapter XIII.8 he is commenting the word ‘anahaṃkāra’ taking as egotism.
He writes that:
“Freedom from egotism is being free of the mistaken regard as the self for the body which is other than the self.”
But this interpretation seems to be wrong actually. Because free from egotism or anahaṃkāra means free from ego-consciousness, not the identification of the body with the self as he is interpreting because this is a distinct element.
Rāmānuja in Chapter XIII.6 has misinterpreted of the word ‘dhṛti’. He is reading ‘dhṛti’ as ādhṛti which means for him ‘support.’ He writes in his interpretation that ‘as regard to the combination (of elements) which forms the ‘support’ of the consciousness, the term ādhṛti’ means ‘support.” Rāmānuja is reading the verse as ‘sanghātacetanā ādhṛti.’ But dhṛti is not written as ādhṛti and not found in the verse also. It should be read as ‘sanghātacetanā dhṛti’ but not as ādhṛti which has a specific character or nature. Regarding dhṛti it is mentioned also in Chapter XVIII.33-35 as dhṛti which means holding up or being capable of sustain. In these verses this means the characters which sustain or hold up with sat tva, rajas and tamas is called dhṛti. Rāmānuja’s reading according to the Bhagavad-gītā is not correct. Even Saṃkarāchārya also is reading it as dhṛti.
Again regarding dośa he is taking as evil. It means ‘see evil in the’ as Rāmānuja said in his interpretation. This is a problem in Rāmānuja. But the actual meaning of the dośa is defect, fault or blemish etc. but not sin, guilty or evil as Rāmānuja interprets. What it means is ‘dośānudarśanam’ which means ‘to see defect, fault, etc in jarā, mṛitu, old age etc. This dośa cannot be seen as sin or evil rather it should be defect etc.
Therefore, what is said in Chapter XIII.7-11 is all about jñānam i.e. knowledgeable resolve and what is other than these are ajñānam. The conclusion for this is given in Chapter XIII.11 itself when it is said “etat jñānam iti.”
The verse says that:
“adhyātmajñananityatvam tattvajñānārthadarśanam–etatjñānamiti proktamjñānam yadato’nyathā.”[18]
In the verse adhyātmajñananityatvam means constant resolve or jñāna of the self and the resolve itself is the inner self, i.e. self is the resolve or jñāna itself. So one should be constantly resolve in the self that is adhyātma jñāna. Tattvajñānārthadarśanam means one should always have the resolve for the self (tattva) i.e. think of the self. Etatjñānamiti means all these are jñānam i.e. knowledgeable resolve. Proktamjñānam yadato’nyathā means whatever else is there is ignorance or ajñānam. But Rāmānuja in this verse in his interpretation says that these are means for knowledge as mentioned earlier and ‘it is the means of the knowledge of the self. While it is clearly said that these are not means of the knowledge of the self but all jñānam themselves since it is said “etat jñānam iti.” Jñāna cannot be means for jñāna. Since they cannot recognize all these to be jñāna therefore they say that these are means of jñāna. Another problem is he is reading the word darśanam as chintanam. That is also should read what is said originally in the text of the Bhagavad-gītā.
In the Bhagavad-gītā in Chapter XVIII.19 Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that there are three kinds of jñāna, action/ karma and kartā according to the division of guṇas. The verse says ‘jñānaṃ karma ca kartā ca trividhā eva guṇabhedataḥ’ which means according to the division of the three guṇas jñāna or knowledge, karma or action and kartā or agent are of three kinds. Every person performs action according to these three guṇas. Therefore, there are three kinds of action such as sattvika, rajasika and tamasika in the context of the three guṇas. So, there are three kinds of jñāna or knowledge also according to the guṇas in the Bhagavad-gītā. Lord Kṛṣṇa in Chapter XVIII.20-22 states about the three kinds of jñāna. These are sattvika, rajasika and tamasika jñānas. The verses say: sarvabhūteṣū yena ekam bhāvamvyamikṣyate/ avibhaktvamvibhakteṣū tatjñānaṃ viddhi sat tvikam// pṛthaktvyena tu yatjñānaṃ nānābhāvānpṛthakvidhān/ vaitti sarveṣū bhūteṣū tatjñānaṃ viddhi rajasam// yattu kṛtsanvat ekasmin kārya saktam ahetukam/ atattvārthavat alpam ca tat tamasam udāhrtam// The meanings of the verses ‘know that knowledge to be of sattvika who sees the imperishable as undivided in all the divided bhūtas or existent’, ‘know that knowledge to be of rajasika which can be known by differentiation in all the bhūtas or beings of different kinds’, know that knowledge to be of tamasika which is attached to the single work as if it were all which is concerned with what is not the true significance of the things and which is insignificance.
Since, Rāmānuja’s interpretation is concerned while examining his interpretation of the verses we do not find the fourth kind of jñāna. Even there is no mention of karma and kartā in his Gītā Bhāṣya. Though it is not mentioned in the fourth kind of jñāna but there is fourth kind of jñāna. And this is Brahman jñāna which is beyond guṇas. This is not on the basis of the three guṇas. This is guṇātita jñāna. That is why it is said in Chapter II.45 by Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna ‘nistraiguṇṇya bhavārjuna.’ If we go by the word ‘guṇabhedataḥ’ then we will find only the three kinds and Rāmānuja is also understanding only through the word ‘guṇabhedataḥ’; therefore, for him, there are only three kinds of jñāna, karma and kartā.
A jñānī also said to be yogin in Bhagavad-gītā. The yogin is a jñānī since he is equal minded towards what is sukha and duḥkha; śītā and uṣṇa; regard and disregard, whose knowledge is only to Supreme; whose antaḥkaran is satisfied by the knowledge; who have conquered the senses; for whom a clod and a piece of gold is equal he is a jñānī or a yogin in the Bhagavad-gītā.
In the Bhagavad-gītā a yogin is such that who is established in Supreme Person i.e. Collective Person, has well control over the mind and attains peace. That yogin’s mind is not for others but for the institution i.e. collectivity because he has nothing to do for him. Because happiness and enjoyment is not in enjoying but enjoyment is in the collectivity. The enjoyment of the external object is a short duration activity. It is not permanent but enjoyment in Collective Purūṣa.
The Chapter VI.29 is metaphysical concept. In the verse it is said that the self is in everything i.e. in every bhūtas or existent beings and every bhūtas or existent beings are in the self or ātman. It is one and the same thing that the self is in all the bhūtas and all the bhūtas are in self. But one thing should be remembered that the ātman or the self is not the substance. It is the self, Brahman, it is finer than the finest, grosser than the grossest, lager than the largest and smaller than the smallest. It is the nature of the self i.e. everything is in the bhūtas and every bhūtas are in him i.e. self. And the yogin i.e. a karma yogi who is a jñānī who has the vision of this self he sees everything in the self and the self is in everything. This interpretation of the verse is problematic for Rāmānuja. Rāmānuja in his interpretation says that ‘the self is separated from other beings i.e. the selves.’
He writes that:
“Because there is similarity between his self and other beings (i.e. selves), when they are in a state of separation from the prakṛti.”
By this Rāmānuja wants to say that self is different from the beings or selves. But that is not correct. If the Self (here it is Samaṣti Purūṣa) is different, then the idea of ‘sarvabhūtasṭhām ātmanam’ which means all the bhūtas are in self and the self is in all the bhūtas will not make sense. There is no separation of the self. Self is one and it is collective. That is it is interrelated with all the selves. The self is always in yoga with the prakṛti so in that sense the Self is in the prakṛti and prakṛti is in the self.
Besides, Rāmānuja also maintains that the Self and the selves all are similar. But problem is that selves are not similar;they should be same or they are same only. If they are not same then how ‘self is collective’ will make sense? That is why ‘sarvabhūtasṭhām ātmanam’ i.e. the self is in all beings or bhūtas and all beings or bhūtas are in self. This idea is clear in Chapter VI.30 of Bhagavad-gītā. In this verse it is clearly said that a yogin who is pure, he sees the Self i.e. Supreme Person or Brahman or Samaṣti Purūṣa in all the selves because he has the vision of his self and sees all the selves in Him because of establishing in the self. And for a yogin who has the nature of such kind they are both visible to each other there is no confusion about it. The meaning is that everything is in the Self and Self is in everything and everywhere. A true yogin has such a vision about his self and the Self Supreme. The Self here it is Vāsudeva, the Samaṣti Purūṣa not only in the selves but everywhere and in everything. This is for Rāmānuja that self is in all the bhūtas and all the bhūtas are in the self means because of the similarity. But that is not the idea what is said in these two verses. The idea ‘I am in the bhūtas and all the bhūtas are in Me’ does not means similarity and similarity makes the sense of duality. That is a distinction. But there is no distinction here. This one and the same thing i.e. ‘all is in the one and one is in all.’ This is oneness and this is clearly taught in Chapter VI.31. Rāmānuja in this verse again talks of similarity of the Self and all the selves. But there is no similarity between Self and the bhūtas or selves. The idea is everything or every bhūtas are in the Self or the Self is in everything or every bhūtas. And a yogin who is established in oneness i.e. the Self (vāsudeva) worshipping Him attains Him in whatever way or manner he lives. So, there is no similarity of the bhūtas and the Self.
The nature of a yogin in the Bhagavad-gītā is such that who has equanimity in mind, speech, sleep and food. He has balance in eating, sleeping and also proper food and recreation, properly active in action and proper sleep and wakefulness. This is about the balance for sustenance of the body, the body which is called the kṣhetra of the kṣhetrajña. But it is not saying that one should not sleep, eat, drink, and eat etc. It is also not saying that one should sleep, eat, drink, and eat too muChapter But one should eat what is needed for the body. So the author Veda Vyāsa is not saying asceticism i.e. to abandon of eating, sleeping, drink etc.
But Rāmānuja in Chapter VI.17 is interpreting it using the word ‘moderate’ instead of using the word ‘balanced.’ He writes—
“yoga, which destroys all miseries that is removes bondage, becomes a success to him who is moderate in eating and recreation, exertion and in sleeping and waking.”
But it should be actually who is balanced. But too much making balance does not mean it is moderating. It is making balance only. The mind which is abided in the self should be free from all the longing, objects of desires. But one cannot give up desires. Desires will be there, but one should not see the objects out of too much of desires. There should be a balance for what is required. One should not have desire or attraction does not mean that one should not drink, eat, sleep or see, smell the objects. But thing is that one should see the things out of desires or one should not, drink or sleep out of desires, but out of balance i.e. what is required for him because one is not made to run after desire. One should abide in the self, in the collectivity. And when a yogin is abides in the collectivity then collectivity automatically will take care of the desires.
Bhagavad-gītā speaks of Highest Yogi in Chapter VI.32. Lord Kṛṣṇa says: ātmopomyena sarvatra samaṃ paṣchyati yaḥ’rjuna/ sukhaṃ vā yadi vā dukhaṃ saḥ yogi paraṃ mataḥ// The meaning is that he who sees because of similarities of the selves happiness and pain or misery everywhere same he is called a highest yogi. He is yogin who sees sukha or dukha (happiness and miseries) everywhere as the same in the manner every bhūta is in the self and self is in every bhūta he on account of this is regarded as the paramaṃ yogin or highest yogin. That yogin is supreme who is without sukha or dukha or with sukha or dukha. But it is not on account of the similarity between the self with others selves. But Rāmānuja here again brought the idea of similarity of the selves everywhere.
Here Rāmānuja also brought the idea of son’s birth and death in the form of happiness and miseries i.e. the birth of son everywhere is happiness and death of the son is misery like other in everywhere. But the problem is how can there be only the idea of the birth and death of the son where it is mentioned all about all the bhūtas. Since it is mentioned clearly in the earlier verses the happiness and miseries i.e. sukha and dukha of the true yogin lies in all the bhūtas but not only on account of the birth and death of the son like others. And that yogin who sees this is highest or supreme yogin.
Since, Kṛṣṇa speaks to Arjuna about yoga of meditation and mental concentration for attaining Brahman in Chapter VI.10 it is said that a yogi has to be in a balance or equal relationship with all beings in the society which is a solitary place for him. He should not be mixed up too much with the public but he is alone even with them. His citta i.e. thought should be controlled and must not have the sense of possession.
While this verse saying widely but Rāmānuja in this verse gives a very narrow interpretation. Rāmānuja interprets that ‘the yogi must stay in a spot which is solitary, i.e. devoid of people and free from noise. And even there he must be alone. He must not have a second person as his companion.’ From his narrow interpretation it can be said/understood that a yogi should search himself in forest or roam in forest leaving the society aside. But the idea is not that. What is the actuality is even among the people in the society one can be alone or in the world. For that one should not be engaged too much with the people directly, because one is engaged in the institution or in yoga. Therefore, it is said about ‘rahasi sṭhita’ ekānta sṭhita. And it also appears from his interpretation that a yogi must isolate his body i.e. he says ‘one must not depend on anything whatever other than the self.’ What it implies is even one must not depend on the body. How is it possible without depending on the body for a yogi for mediation? So this is not merely to isolate the body because a yogi must hold first to the self undisturbed by others.
Chapter VI.11-12 of Bhagavad-gītā should be read together to get the meanings relating to the meditation of yogin. The verses are actually saying about yogin who tries to control the body in posture. To control the body is to control the mind and to control the mind is to control the self. The body should be clean and if the body is in a clean place then the mind will be in a clean place i.e. in the body. Then one should start yoga in that clean place, clean body, so that the self can also be established there. Because body must be fixed since everything is in the body i.e. mind, self, citta etc. Body should be fixed in a clean place. And in a clean body i.e. in a fixed place the mind should be ekāgraḥ i.e. fixed or one pointed and it should not be going here and there i.e. wavering. It should not be multi pointed.
Rāmānuja in interpreting the Chapter VI.11 leads to a different direction which is not said in the verse and does not fit with the verse. He writes that ‘in a place which is pure–in a place which has never been impure, which is not managed nor owned by impure person.’ But this interpretation does not fit with the verse of the text. Because no doubt place has to be pure, but what is to do with untouchability? Basically, if the place is maintained by somebody it does no matter. It does not who has touched, owned or managed. Somebody has to clean the place or by himself. This is not acceptable because if it is taken into consideration then what is said in Chapter VI.9 will go against Chapter VI.11. Because there it is mentioned about equal minded towards everybody such as friends, foes, good, pāpi (sinner) etc. Even if he is equal minded then in this verse he is misinterpreting i.e. making discrimination. The same attitude at one place is different and at another place is different. So the place has nothing to do i.e. whether somebody has cleaned or owned or managed. That should not be a matter for a yogi.
In Chapter VI.1 Rāmānuja commits mistake while commenting in his Gītā Bhāṣya. But the verse says: ‘anāśritaḥ karmaphalam kārya karma karoti yaḥ/ saḥ sannyāsi ca yogi ca na niragniḥ na cākriyaḥ/ / The meaning of the verse is that he who performs actions which is to be done i.e. kārya karma without depending on the fruits of the action or being attached to the action he is sannyāsi and yogi but he is not sannyāsi and yogi who does not perform sacrificial fire or who gives up action. The meaning is that a sannyāsi or yogi performs actions for the collectivity and vested actions in the collectivity/institution. He performs yajña karma not for himself but for the Samaṣti Purūṣa i.e. Collective Person. He performs only yajña karma where there is no dependence or attachment of fruits etc. But he who does not carry the yajña karma he is not sannyāsi or yogi because he is not yuktḥ with the action and the result of action.
But the problem of Rāmānuja is taking yoga as jñāna yoga. He writes that ‘the process of yoga which is of the nature of the vision of the self is attained by both jñāna yoga and karma yoga.’ So from his interpretation it appears that he is taking ‘yoga’ as jñāna yoga. But yoga does not mean only jñāna yoga. Yoga is a discipline one has to be in a state of yoga while performing action and such other things i.e. jñāna, bhakti etc. Therefore, Rāmānuja cannot say that yoga means only jñāna yoga.
Secondly, Rāmānuja is taking sannyāsa as jñāna only. But it is not merely jñāna because sannyāsa may be both jñāna and yoga. A jñāni or yogi may be sannyāsi but not only jñāni because a jñāni in the sense of Rāmānuja may not be a sannyāsin. But both have to perform action whether a jñāni or sannyāsin. So Rāmānuja had to clarify this concept in his interpretation.
Thirdly, he mentions that ‘the fruits of actions means the fruits of svarga and such other and the works by themselves are end because it is constituted of the worship of the Supreme Person and there is nothing to be achieved by means of these works.’ This statement that he mentions is contradictory. Since there is no such fruits called svarga and liberation from the bondage of the fruits of the action is the result and he said himself works are themselves end in itself and there is nothing to be attained by these works then how can it be acceptable that performing action produce the result of svarga? This is the problematic part of Rāmānuja because of the non–carefulness of the interpretation of the verse where the verse is very straight forward.
The confirmation and clarification of what is called yoga in the earlier verse is mentioned clearly here in Chapter VI.2. In this verse it is said that the nature of the sannyāsa which is mentioned in the earlier verse, is called yoga. But he who does not gives up attachment or desire of the fruits of action i.e. ‘asannyasta saṃkalpa’ he is not a yogin. The meaning is that he who has own saṃkalpa he is not yogin. Saṃkalpa is there, it is not such that there is no saṃkalpa at all. But this saṃkalpa is to be the collective saṃkalpa which is vested in the collectivity i.e. Samaṣti Purūṣa. But there is no own saṃkalpa of the sannyāsi but saṃkalpa of the Purūṣa. It is not such that one should acquire saṃkalpa which is there in the Purūṣa but one should go with that saṃkalpa and by this saṃkalpa a sannyāsi or yogi performs action which is to be vested in the collectivity.
But Rāmānuja while interpreting is bringing jñāna yoga as sannyāsa. He writes ‘understand to be karma yoga only which they describe as sannyāsa, that is jñāna yoga, as the knowledge of the true nature of the self.’ This is for him sannyāsa means jñāna yoga and also knowledge of the true nature of the self. But sannyāsa means not giving up the action but performance of action which is vested in the collectivity and while performing such actions there is no saṃkalpa, since the saṃkalpa is there in the collectivity/institution. Moreover, though Rāmānuja has interpreted sannyāsa as jñāna yoga or the knowledge of the true nature of the self he could not differentiate jñāna yoga and the knowledge of the true nature of the self. Reason is that jñāna yoga does not mean only the knowledge of the true nature of the self, but it involves something more, i.e. the knowledge of the performance of action i.e. how to perform action without being attached to the desire of the fruits. And it is also not mentioned that jñāna yoga includes knowledge of the real nature of the self, but the knowledge of the real nature of the self does not include jñāna yoga i.e. it does not imply the jñāna yoga.
A yogin is satisfied in the ātman, but is not satisfied with objects. He sees ātman everywhere; therefore, for yogin seeing is also ātman. When a yogin who has achieved the ātman and apprehension of the self, he sees the self and remain in the self. Because it is actually belonged to the institution i.e. collectivity since everything is belonged to the collectivity. And once a yogin achieved the self nothing is left for him to gain which is superior to the self and once he is established in the self he is not in miseries. Here the idea is that when one is established in the self he is in the self and the self is also in him i.e. one is inside the other. And even if a yogin who is established in the self he is not disturbed by the miseries because he has obtained the self. But Chapter VI.23 is actually problematic for Rāmānuja.
Rāmānuja’s problem is that he interprets that:
“Let him understand that the separation from all association with pain–which constitutes the opposite of association with pain–to be what is denoted by the word ‘yoga.’”
This is actually problematic part of Rāmānuja. What Rāmānuja tries to say by this is that a yogin should be in viyoga from dukha or separation from all pains and saṃyoga with what is opposite of pain is yoga for him or viyoga from dukha is yoga. But that is not the idea what is said in this verse. The verse says ‘dukha-saṃyogaviyogaṃ yogaṃsaṃgitam’ which means that neither saṃyoga with the pain or dukha nor viyoga from the pain and therefore that state is called yoga. That means there is no separation from the pain and pleasure and conjunction with the pain and pleasure. That is a yogi must equally treat what is dukha and what is sukha but not separation from both and that is called yoga. One can avoid both pain and pleasure but cannot separate in the state of yoga. Because it is a balance of saṃyoga and viyoga in the state of yoga. Since everything is in the self and self is on everything. For example, when we are in the universe we are in the space but space or ākāsa does not bind us. That means we are in both space and air but they are not binding us. Ākāsa and air are there so we cannot avoid them but at the same time it does not bind us. So yoga is that where both saṃyoga and viyoga are in yoga and a yogi must be like this. So the self has to be in yoga with everything but not with viyoga or saṃyoga. So there is no question of separation of the pain from the yoga.
The yoga is difficult to be attained by a person of uncontrolled mind but is possible for him who is striving for it with a control mind. Therefore, Arjuna to know this yoga and yogin proceeds to ask questions to Kṛṣṇa in Chapter VI.36-39. He says a yogin who has śradhā i.e. faith for attaining Supreme but he is drifting in the middle, does he reach yoga? If a yogin who has started ritual or worship for attaining Brahman but he is drifting in the middle like a piece of clod does he reach Brahman? You [Kṛṣṇa] make me (Arjuna) to know the cut off this doubt since You [Kṛṣṇa] are the one to remove my (Arjuna) doubt.
Lord Kṛṣṇa is giving the answers of questions in Chapter VI.40 -46 put forward by Arjuna about an yogin who wishes to attain Supreme i.e. Brahman. But from all these it is seen that Rāmānuja commits some error interpreting the verses deviating from the original meaning of the text of the Bhagavad-gītā. In this verse, first Rāmānuja is taking it in literal sense. But it should be taken in a metaphorical sense. So the problem for Rāmānuja in this verse is regarding karmavāda i.e. rebirth. Since, it has been saying that Bhagavad-gītā does not accept the concept of karmavāda in the Bhagavad-gītā Rāmānuja is bringing the idea again and again in many verses unnecessarily.
He writes:
“The person who has fallen off from yoga is born again (reborn) in a house of the pure and prosperous, after attaining the world of those who do meritorious deeds.”
From his writings it seems that he brings the idea of karmavāda since he is taking it in a literal sense. Rather we should take in a metaphorical sense. So, if we take in metaphorical sense then the idea will be as such when a person tries for attaining yoga he is like the person being in disembodied person. But sometimes a person may not attain yoga, therefore, he falls back to his earlier stage because he does not succeed in attaining yoga. Though he does not reach his destination and falls back to his earlier stage but it does not mean that he is in that earlier stage or condition of the body. He reaches in a new condition of the body since the body is always conditioned by the time. Therefore, he though falls back to his earlier stage but he gets a new body or stage which is here termed a new birth i.e. he is reborn. And he is reborn in the pure and prosperous house from where he moves and he becomes like pure and prosperous. And he will live again for long time in that house since he is not reaching his destination. And this is the idea of reborn in the verse but this idea of reborn is not the reborn after death of the body and he will be born again after death. But it is as if according to Ramanuja reborn means rebirth after the death of the body. Therefore, the idea of this verse is not literal but it is metaphorical and this metaphorical idea of this verse is supported by Chapter VI.42.
Rāmānuja interprets Chapter VI.42 also in a literal sense. In this verse the idea is an alternative to him who falls back to the earlier stage who does not succeed in attaining yoga. And he again gets reborn when he falls back from yoga in a great family of yogin having acquired wisdom. But this reborn is not the birth after death but getting a new body after falling away from yoga because body is conditioned by time so each condition of the body is changing. Therefore, he gets reborn with a new body having great wisdom, the wisdom which may help him in attaining his destination i.e. yoga. He may not reach his destination or may not attain perfection but he will be one who will live among the wise person which will lead him to his destination. Therefore, regarding rebirth which is not the birth after death is supported by this verse. That is when a person gets a new body which is metaphorically called rebirth when he falls back from the way to attain yoga does not contradict with the earlier verse. And therefore, this kind of birth is very difficult to attain and that is how yoga has to be attained.
Chapter VI.43 also has been interpreted in a literal sense. Earlier the person who wished to attain yoga he endeavoured to move to yoga but on the way he did not reach his destination/perfection. Then he can recover when he falls back to earlier stage where he gets a new body or birth the desire which was there to attain perfection i.e. the association of that disposition of mind which was there earlier. That means though he falls back but he will have again the resolved mind and will not be lost. Here in this verse ‘purvadeha’ does not mean that there was a body earlier and there is new body also. There is one body only that is one birth and one death and getting new body means the changing condition of the body. So changing condition of the body means attaining a new condition which it is referred to here to ne body. So ‘purvadeha’ means a body which was earlier but the same with a different condition by the time. The verse 13th of chapter II does not contradict this idea.
In Chapter VI.44 Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna that though the person who is lacking self control after falling off from the way to yoga but he is carried away by the same force that which was practiced earlier to attain yoga or by the same practice of yoga which was done earlier. Even the person who is not engaged himself in yoga but has merely desirous of knowing the nature of the yoga he transcends the verbal Brahman (śabda brahman.) But regarding ‘verbal Brahman’ (śabda brahman) Rāmānuja has commited an error. For Rāmānuja verbal Brahman means prakṛti.
He writes,
“The verbal brahman (or the big thing which is describable by words) is the Brahman which is capable of being spoken of by the words gods, men, earth, sky, svarga etc namely prakṛti.”
From his interpretation it is seen that prakṛti is verbal Brahman which can be transcended. But verbal Brahman cannot be prakṛti because whenever we talk about gods, men, earth, sky there is very much reference in the Upanisads. Even when we say ‘tat tvam asi’ i.e. art thou that/that thou art (Chapter Up. 6.8.7) which means ‘Brahman is there.’ It is also true that we cannot say that Brahman is there because Brahman is not something like object which can be spoken of by the words. Brahman is very much there in prakṛti but we cannot say verbal Brahman is prakṛti. Brahman is revealed through prakṛti but it does not mean that He is prakṛti.
The Chapter VI.45 has also been interpreted in a literal sense by Rāmānuja. He interprets the word ‘anekajanmasaṃsiddhiḥ’ as ‘getting well accomplished in many births.’
He writes
“As the greatness of yoga is such therefore the yogin who puts forth effort with deliberate endeavour (to restrain the senses) becomes fully free from sins through the accumulation of the religious merit gathered in many births; and having become one who is well accomplished (for yoga) reaches certainly in the ends the supreme goal (of the vision of the self), even though he has wavered.”
But the word ‘anekajanmasaṃsiddhiḥ’ has a deeper meaning. It means falling back and try again and to get a new condition of the body (new birth). Since it is already mentioned that rebirth means falling back to earlier stage. But in between the body grows and changes because the body is conditioned by the time. Like, the body is reborn again and again means making effort in different body in different way. This is the idea of ‘anekajanmasaṃsiddhiḥ.’ And, when one does so he attains Supreme Goal i.e. yoga because his efforts never get lost. Moreover, Rāmānuja while interpreting said verse brings in the idea of karmavāda. For him ‘anekajanma’ means ‘many births’ i.e. the birth after death. For, he writes that ‘through the accumulation of religious merit gathered in many birth.’ This is a problem in Rāmānuja. For, it is not through accumulation of religious merit but it is the practice i.e. effort which is made every time after falling back to earlier stage which makes the person strengthen more and more which helps to attain Supreme Goal. That practice itself makes him easier to attain his destination. While doing so a yogin becomes superior to the tapaswi i.e. austere (tapaswsibhyaḥ), and is considered to be superior to those who possess vast knowledge of śāstras and also to those who is a karmī i.e. who performs action only for the result.
In Chapter VI.46 Kṛṣṇa speaks of the glories of yogins and advices Arjuna to be a yogin. For Him a yogin is superior to the tapaswi i.e. austere (tapaswsibhyaḥ), even a yogin is considered to be superior to those who possess vast knowledge of śāstras and also to those who is a karma i.e. who performs action only for the result. So a yogin is best and superior to all these. And in Chapter VI.47 it is said that among all the yogins he who is faithful or respectful to Me (Kṛṣṇa) established in Me and worship Me he is too regarded be Me to be highest Yogin in the Bhagavad-gītā.
Jñāna yoga in the Bhagavad-gītā is also discussed in Ch II. Since, a jñānī and yogi is of the same nature he is called sṭhitaprajña. Therefore, Arjuna being confused desires to know about the nature of sṭhitaprajña. In Chapter II.V.54 Arjuna says: sṭhitaprajñasya kā bhāṣā samādhisṭhasya keṣava/ sṭhitadhiḥ kiṃ prabhāṣet kiṃāsit vrajet kiṃ/ / The meaning is that Arjuna asked Kṛṣṇa about what is the definition of a person who is steady or sṭhitaprajña who is established in samādhi i.e. who have acquired samādhi, intelligence, prajñā? How to describe him is the first question asked by Arjuna in this verse i.e. how describe or characterise him, what kind of knowledge he has etc.? Secondly, whether he sits or not, speaks or not and walk or move or not? For Arjuna in his mind it is very clear that if a person is having self knowledge then there is no need of action, and for Arjuna knowledge and action cannot go together. In this verse there is given a very short commentary. And he also seems to go with Arjuna’s thinking and thereby says in his interpretation that action and jñāna do not go together. Of course he says that action is the means to jñāna. But for him when jñāna arises karma is gone. Therefore, he interpreted the second question as “how will a person of steady wisdom or sṭhitaprjña speak”? “How will he sit and how will he move or walk etc.”? These questions reflect that if somebody has the self knowledge he is not doer. Rāmānuja is not able to fathom the meaning of the question asking by Arjuna. In his mind when somebody has the knowledge there is no action. But sitting, speaking and walking or moving all are said to be the activity performs by him i.e. sṭhitaprjña. Same thing is said in Chapter II.V.58. Seeing, smelling, hearing are also the contract of the senses with the objects. We cannot withdraw our senses from the objects because hearing, smelling etc. are the contact of the senses with the objects. But only we can withdraw the attraction of the senses from the objects.
The problem of Rāmānuja on above question is the word ‘kiṃ’. Rāmānuja understands ‘kiṃ’ as ‘how’ i.e. “how will”. But the word ‘kiṃ’ is never understood as ‘how’. It is either as ‘what/ whether or does.’ So the question is ‘does he?’, ‘whether he?’ etc. The meaning is that after acquiring knowledge, being steady or sṭhitaprña does he/whether he perform(s) action or not etc.? This question has not been interpreted correctly by Rāmānuja as if it is the question of ‘how’. On the other hand while commenting on Chapter II.V.55 also, Rāmānuja commits mistake. In the verse it is taught that when the desires entered in the mind (manogotān) through the senses one should give them up (prajāhoti) all completely or put it in the fire or burnt up (prajāhoti). One cannot stop entering the desires through our senses in the mind. Although the desires are there but one should give up all and be sṭhita in the self and who is sṭhita in the self is he is said to be sṭhitaprjña. But Rāmānuja in his interpretation of this verse said that “the desires which have affected the mind give them up all completely.” But from his interpretation we see that he has interpreted the word ‘manogotān’ as ‘affected.’ But originally it is not ‘affected’ but it should be ‘entered’ that is the desires entered into the mind through the senses.
Secondly, from his interpretation it is understood that ‘a person of sṭhitaprajña or steady understanding should be satisfied in the Self with the self giving up of all the desires. But it seems to be wrong. Because giving up desires itself is being satisfied with the Self. It is not such that one should give up all the desires and be satisfied with the Self i.e. one after another. But it is at the same time simultaneously giving up means being satisfied with the Self. And only a man of this character is said to be sṭhitaprajña or steady understanding and nothing else.
In concluding the chapter, it is found that jñāna means always impulsion for action. Knowledge, knower and the known are impulsion for action. In Chapter XVIII.18 it is said ‘jñānaṃ jñeyaṃ parijñātā trividhā kamarchodanā.’ The meaning of the verse is that jñāna i.e. knowledge, jñeyaṃ i.e. object of knowledge and the parijñātā or the knower are the three impulsion for action. Without these three incitements or impulsions for action no action or karma is possible. What is saying here is that without jñāna no action is possible. So it is seen that to perform action jñāna essential i.e. how to perform action etc. And jñāna means it is resolved or reflected in action. Therefore, they are mutually inclusive. But unfortunately this very idea of the Bhagavad-gītā is absent in Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya. Knowledge and action i.e. jñāna yoga and karma yoga go together. One cannot achieve knowledge by not doing action because in the knowledge also action is involved and similarly by not beginning action one cannot reach the state of actionlessness or inaction. Inaction or actionlessnes also implies jñāna or state of knowledge. So karma yoga and jñāna yoga they are interrelated. Both are mutually and exclusively interdependent. Both jñāna and karma cannot be differentiated from each other. They are the twofold of the same thing. But it depends on the person with which aspect the person begins to realise the self whether karma yoga or jñāna yoga. But a karma yogi has to start with karma yoga and a jñāna yogi has to start with jñāna yoga.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Srinivas, N.K (2006): Essence of Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Pushtak Mahal, J-3/16, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002, pp-24-26.
[2]:
Achary, R.R U Ve (2013): Srimād Bhagavad Gītā with Gītā Bhāsya of Bhagavad Rāmānujachārya, ed. Srimatham. Com, page- 36.
[3]:
Radhakrishnan, S (2010): The Bhagavadgita, Harper Collins Publishers, Noida, India-201301, pp-55,56.
[5]:
saṃkhyayogo prthakbālāḥ pravadanti na panditāḥ/
ekampyāsthitaḥ samyagubhaḥ vindate phalam//
[6]:
Ādidevananda, S (2014): Śrī Rāmānuja GĪTĀ Bhāṣya–with Text and English Translation, Sri Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore, Chennai, page-17
[7]:
śreyānsvadharma viguṇaḥ paradharmāt svanuṣthitāt/
svadharme nidhanam śreyaḥ paradharmaḥ bhayāvaḥ//
[8]:
sannyāsaḥ karmayogaḥ ca niḥśreyasakarou ubhou/
tayusto karmasannyāsāt karmayogaḥ viśiṣyate//
[9]:
[11]:
jñeyaḥ saḥ nitya sannyāsī yaḥ na dveṣti na kāngsati/
nirdvandvoḥ hi mahābāho sukham bandhāt pramuchyate//
[12]:
yatsāṃkhyeḥ prāpyate sṭhānaṃ tadyogerapi gamyate/
ekaṃ sāṃkhyam ca yogam ca yaḥ paśyati saḥ//
[13]:
Bhagavadgītā, Chapter III.5
[14]:
[16]:
prakṛteḥ guṇa sammūḍāḥ sajjante guṇakarmasu/
tān akṛtsanvidaḥ mandān kṛtsanvit na vichālayate//
[17]:
kiṃ karma kiṃ akarma iti kavayaḥ api atra mohitā–tvatte karma pravakśāmi yadjñātvā mokshaye aśubhāt.
[18]:
Bhagavadgītā, Chapter XIII.11