|
More than 35 years ago my teacher Walter Ruben, a well-known Sanskritist and the than director of the Institute for India Studies at the Humboldt University Berlin
where I was working as a young research scholar one day very much excited appeared in the Institute telling me that he had come across a very interesting book which I should read immediately. It was the Sri
Bhagavadgita Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-Sostra of Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
In those days it was by no means common at German universities to deal with 19th/20th India, but according to Walter Ruben the main aim of
studies on ancient India should be to contribute to a better understanding of contemporary India. Therefore besides his special interest in ancient Indian philosophy he was also very much interested in modern Indian
philosophical thoughts of which in his opinion the 'Gita-Rahasya' formed a very important specimen.
Of course, I knew Tilak as an outstanding figure of modern Indian history: He belonged to the group of orthodox Chitpavan Brahmins of Maharashtra, was
an Indian patriot and a leading politician of his time, closely connected with the slowly originating circles of Indian industrialists and also with the beginning of the Indian trade union movement; a renowned
scholar in the field of Indology and a philosopher in his own rights and besides this also a leading journalist and educator. Therefore I followed willingly Walter Ruben's advice and read Tilak's commentary on the
Gita and his translation.
It was not at all an easy task for me: the vast knowledge of the author of the 19th century European and North American philosophy, especially in
the field of ethics, combined with a comprehensive description and critical evaluation of the Indian philosophical heritage of at least 2 500 years - all this taken together makes the study of the Gita Rahasya a
very demanding one. But what struck me most was his interpretation of the Bhagavadgita. It is quite evident that the discussion of morality plays a very important if not the decisive role in the Gita, but to call it
a 'a treatise on right or proper action (Karma-Yoga) containing the philosophy of morality, based on brahmavidya as Tilak did seemed to me quite new. But what mattered most was that Tilak did not accept the
traditional understanding according to which in the Gita three or four paths to liberation had been discussed and explained, namely Karma Yoga, Raja Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga.
In the opinion of Tilak the crucial question of the Gita was 'to act or not to act', that means whether one should renounce all actions after one
had reached the realisation of the Divine or continue to act according one's duty - svadharma - with the aim of lokasa graha - the well-being of the world - which was answered by the Gita in favour of activity.
Tilak's Gita-Rahasya, written in the time between November and April 1910/11 in the Mandalay prison is according to Aurobindo the strongest and most
comprehensive work of Indian spirituality in which the importance of human action for the sake of humanity is justified, something which Aurobindo called indispensable to the idealism of the modern spirit. He wrote
on Tilak: 'His work on the Gita, no mere commentary, but an original criticism and presentation of ethical truths, is a monumental work though he did not share Tilak's opinion regarding the general content of the
Gita as being a treatise of ethics: '...the Gita is not a book of practical ethics, but of the spiritual life. Tilak in his commentary expressed his conviction that the Gita demands action even if one has reached
the supreme unity by jnana or bhakti in order to support the further development of the world. Therefore he wanted to overcome the traditional understanding of the Gita as containing only moksa marga.
In order to be able for unattached action, i.e., to act without being bound by the desire for the fruit of action one should aim at helping the
creator and dedicate his action to him as a sacrifice. For illustrating this kind of unattached action Tilak used a simile: you do not plant the trees the fruits of which you eat - this was done by the former
generation - just so you do something for the next generation without being able to harvest the fruits of this action.
In the framework of his highly interesting analysis of happiness and suffering Tilak discussed also an important problem of the Gita: Does the demand
for unattached action really imply to give up also all desire? There is no doubt upon the question that in the Gita it was convincingly shown that it is impossible to be even for a single moment without any action.
Tilak went into further detail and showed that it is not possible to act without motive - every action has a motive and a result - and that the virtue of contentment has its validity for Brahmins, e.g., regarding
wealth but not with regard to knowledge. Dissatisfaction in general has not to be condemned: 'But not the dissatisfaction which is at the root of the desire not to remain stagnant in the position which has fallen to
one's lot, but to bring it to as excellent a condition as possible by gradually improving it more and more, with as peaceable and equable a frame of mind as possible, is not a dissatisfaction which ought to be
discountenanced. In the opinion of Tilak discontent is the seed of all future prosperity and even of release without which the world is condemned to perish. Therefore the demand for unattached action has to be
understood according to Tilak as proper control of the mind, one should not be disappointed if the aim of the action cannot be reached immediately. In order to avoid suffering the attachment to the motive and to the
result of an action should be given up, that means to give up all thinking determined by 'egoness' and 'mineness'. All this Tilak said was taught in the Gita, where it was told how to act, mentioning equability as
the most decisive feature of a proper action.
In the view of Tilak action was given by Krishna not the status of a means for the purification of the mind in order to be ready for knowledge,
on the contrary, it was the path by itself leading to the supreme goal. That means that though Jnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga were also paid due attention by Tilak, these two paths were subordinated to Karma Yoga. He
was fully aware of the fact that by his understanding of the Gita as 'Karma-Yoga-Sostra' he was deviating from the traditional way of interpreting this important scripture. But he was convinced that his
understanding was the correct one because it represented the natural conclusion of the fundamental unity of Ishvara (god), man and universe which does not allow man to stop acting for that implies the neglect of the
world as one inseparable part of that unity.
To serve the world means according to Tilak the fulfilment of the will of god and forms therefore the safest way to liberation: The core of the
Gita consists in the opinion of Tilak in the teaching of doing one's duty in such a way that it leads to the liberation from the wheel of samsara. Since this is a very unique interpretation of the Gita, I was
wondering whether Tilak did rely in this on a certain tradition in the Indian philosophical heritage especially of the Maharashtrian Bhakti philosophy. And here Jnanadeva came to my mind for I had heard about his
translation and interpretation of the Gita. Both thinkers, Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Jnanadeva, have something in common. At first we have to mention the language they used.
Sri Aurobindo called the Gita-Rahasya 'the first prose writing of the front rank in weight and importance in the Marathi language, and the Jnaneshvari
can be seen as one of the first (if not the very first) philosophical work at all in Marathi language and most probably also the first in the field of poetry. Jnanadeva by his translation of one of the most
important scriptures of the Hindu religion in the language of the common people played a role in the history of Hinduism which can perhaps be compared with the German reformer of the Christian religion, Martin
Luther, though Luther (1483-1546) lived more than 200 years later. Regarding his world view it is possible to compare Jnanadeva with Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), the first German philosopher of importance, who
expressed his thoughts also in the vernacular language and who also like Jnanadeva defined the main aim of the human being as becoming one with the Divine.
Jnanadeva rejected an anthropomorphic concept of god and stressed the identity of natura naturans and natura naturata in the same way as Meister
Eckhart has done. For both philosophers god has to be seen everywhere in the world. This search for the Divine unity was so very much in contrast to the dogma of the Roman catholic church that Meister Eckhart was
suspected for heresy and he died in the papal prison in Avignon (France).
The role Jnanadeva played in the history of Hinduism was highly estimated by Tilak when he said: "A few years before the Hindu dynasty of
Daulatabad was destroyed by Mahomedans, Jnanadeva Maharaj, by our good fortune, gave a 'native clothing' to the Bhagavadgita, and brought about an 'over-flow of the knowledge of Brahman' propounded by the Gita into
the Maharashtriya provinces ..." Tilak knew the Jnaneshvari quite well. He mentioned Jnanadeva six times in the Gita Rahasya though perhaps Ramdas (Samartha), the 'active saint' seems of having been closer to
his own thoughts.
In describing the different schools regarding the interpretation of the Gita Tilak deals also with the saints of Maharashtra, who have substantiated
the doctrine of Devotion without discarding the doctrines of illusion and by whom according to Tilak devotion was taken as the easiest way to the realisation of the Divine and the path of devotion based on
non-duality was called the principal moral of the Gita.
In this connection he mentions especially the Jnaneshvari as the most valuable work with regard to this school, which though following the
interpretation of Shankara must be looked upon as an independent treatise of the Gita. Tilak praised Jnanadeva's wonderful skill 'of expounding the Gita, by numerous beautiful illustrations and comparisons' who had
propounded the doctrines of desireless action and especially the doctrine of devotion in a much better way than Shankara.
Later on in explaining the state of perfection of one who has fully realised the identity of atman and brahman, characterised by the mahavakya'aham
brahmasmi', Tilak quotes extensively from the Jnaneshvari in order to describe the equability of mind of such a person praising highly the sweet and attractive language and the impressive illustrations used by
Jnanadeva for the description of a devotee. In the chapter on Renunciation and Karma Yoga Tilak quotes Jnanadeva's description of a Jnanin in order to demonstrate his own point of view. It can be easily recognized
that Tilak not only knew the Jnaneshvari quite well but appreciated also his author very much.
Jnanadeva, 'the intellectual mystic' is called by Swami Ranganathananda an Advaita bhakta, a Jnana bhakta: 'The devotee should
realise God as all-pervasive; and where he casts his eyes, he should see God therein.' Ranade calls the Jnaneshvari one of the greatest commentaries on the Bhagavadgita and one can only agree with this verdict. One
of the most outstanding features of this book can be seen in the field of ethics. Jnanadeva analyses the various moral virtues and vices, mentioned in the Gita and describes them in a very impressive and detailed
manner. When we ask how far Tilak was influenced by Jnanadeva, we can clearly state that Tilak's understanding of the term 'yoga' in the Gita as meaning 'Karma Yoga' and the philosophical conclusions resulting out
of this are his own and original contribution to the history of ethics in India.
Jnanadeva in his Bhavartha Dpika or Jnaneshvari has mentioned all the four paths as leading to the supreme goal according to the Gita, being all
of them of equal value though bhakti without doubt has given some more importance by Jnanadeva. He also stresses the point that even after realisation one has to be active and has to act according to his dharma and
that this action should be dedicated to god as a sacrifice.
But no direct influence of Jnanadeva on Tilak regarding his evaluation of Karma Yoga can be seen. But what is common to both of them is the stress laid
on ethics in general within their respective commentaries. When Krishna describes himself as being always the most outstanding phenomenon of a certain group or class he calls the ethics among all sciences 'which
discriminates between good and evil and sides with duty and wisdom' we can take this as a symbol of Jnanadeva's high estimation for this philosophical discipline.
To my mind within this broader frame the Jnaneshvari can be taken as having given a valuable stimulation for Tilak's own considerations which
were determined by the political and philosophical needs of his time. Though Jnanadeva also stressed the point that non-attached action leads to liberation and one has to act also after one has reached liberation,
no direct influence of him on Tilak can be seen with regard to the interpretation of the term yoga. But nevertheless Tilak's Gitarahasya breathes the spirit of the Jnaneshvari insofar its pivot is also morality and
ethics. Tilak's translation and commentary of the Gita have to be taken as resulting out of the endeavour to adjust this text to the cultural and spiritual demands of his time just as Jnanadeva's Jnaneshvari has
been the product of his time. Tilak does not deal with the different virtues as Jnanadeva did. He just stresses in his note to Chapter XIII,7 of the Gita, that the description of jnana given there, affirms his
position, namely that a jnanin must continue to perform all actions with an unattached frame of mind. Whereas Tilak focused his attention on the demand for worldly activity and social responsibility in the
Jnaneshvari main stress was laid on compassion, equanimity and the grace of god respectively of the guru.
Grace is called one of God's attributes, and here it can be seen that new religious movements like the Ramakrishna Mission with its stress on
social service and the love to god had its roots in the Indian tradition of the bhakti mysticism and there is no need for deriving the concept of God's love and grace only from the Christian influence as we can read
it very often. It has to be mentioned within this context that it seems to be very important to take up detailed studies of the Indian middle ages in order to be able to understand the complex intellectual
development during the colonial time and to explain the fact that European thoughts could find an echo in the Indian cultural atmosphere.
Thoughts from outside to my mind can only be of some lasting influence if they fall on a fertile soil, that means that the cultural and
intellectual atmosphere must be in such a way that thoughts from outside can be understood and developed further. As another difference we have to state that whereas Jnanadeva always expressed his respect for his
teacher and was very much possessed by devotion to his guru Tilak, a 20th cent. thinker did not try to establish a new sampradaya or to derive his views from a teacher. In order to be able to understand fully
differences and common features of these two great personalities we have to look at them within the time they lived and try to find out how they responded to the problems of their time.
Jnanadeva's social environment was characterised by other problems than that of Tilak. Maharashtra at the end of the 13th cent. was an independent,
strong and culturally blossoming country, whereas Tilak suffered from the colonial exploitation of his country and had to struggle during his whole life for democratic rights and political self-determination of
India. He belonged to the intellectual elite whereas Jnanadeva though obviously also highly educated and perhaps accepted in some intellectual circles was socially stigmatised. He led the life of a sannyasin or of a
homeless sadhu in contrast to Tilak - a married man and an active politician. But nevertheless they both have much in common, especially the interest in morality and ethics, demonstrated by Jnanadeva in his unique
description of moral qualities, by Tilak in his explanation of why and how one has to act.
The society in which Jnanadeva lived was governed by the varna sramadharma, and he had to suffer from the tyranny of the orthodox brahmins since he and
his siblings were the children of a sannyasin and as such looked at as outcasts. The main aim of Tilak's translation and commentary was, first, to open up the whole spiritual wealth of the Gita, and by this to
awaken the Indian masses from all lethargy and to include them actively into the national movement and, second, to demonstrate that in the Indian tradition and especially in the Bhagavadgita thoughts were developed
appropriately in the same way or even better for forming the philosophical basis of modern ethics in the sense of a 'scientifical definition of the pure, complete and constant form of morality as he said. Tilak
relied on the Bhagavadgita in order to base his demand for activity philosophically. Regarding the question of influence within the field of philosophy we have to take into consideration that philosophy never is
developed within a vacuum, each time has its own problems and in every philosophy the time of its development is always directly or indirectly reflected in a certain way.
Jnanadeva's problems were different from those Tilak was confronted with. The vitality of a tradition can be recognized by its ability to
correspond with the further development and the change of thoughts though the form of it may become obsolete. The Gita quite obviously belongs to those traditions the living content of which can be sound and valid
for a very long time since it answers to questions of vital human importance. And in my opinion also the Jnaneshvari belongs to these traditions which are always new and vivid and able to influence our thoughts and
actions and to which also further generations may return from time to time for inspiration and orientation. But that does not mean that in the Gita or in the Jnaneshvari we can find solutions of all the problems we
are confronted with today. What we can do and what will be proved quite fruitful is to develop further thoughts contained in these scriptures according to the needs of our time.
That means that each generation will have its special understanding of scriptures like the Gita, and a tradition has always to be made one's own
in order to be of any influence. I think it is justified to call Jnanadeva a religious reformer, one who revived the traditional values by adapting them to the changed conditions in this case in the shape of a new
and original translation and interpretation of a religious text of decisive importance. The life in which Jnanadeva was casted enabled him to develop something new resulting out of the confluence of traditional
Sanskrit wisdom of the Brahmins with folk wisdom and folk religion. That is in my opinion the reason why his philosophical and religious thoughts till today have not lost their vitality. Even 700 years after his
death they contain fresh and new elements - for one who is searching for answers regarding the problems of our time.
Jnanadeva's views can be called a democratised religion because he translated an important religious scripture into the language of the people, he made
the Gita available in the Marathi language that 'this bliss has come within the reach of everyone as he put it. He explained this religious wisdom in such a way that it was understandable to the common man and
furthermore he stressed those passages of the Gita where the way to liberation was opened to everybody. He deals extensively with the passage of the Gita (Chapter IX,32) where it is said that everybody independently
of caste, creed, sex etc. can reach god. For him, the outcast son of a sannyasin, equality of men is a value of fundamental importance: "Therefore noble family, colour and caste are of no account; what is of
vital significance is to have love for me." And in connection with Chapter X, 40 he remarks: "Therefore, do not regard anything as small or great, give up all distinctions of high and low, but know for
certain I am all this universe."
When asking for the relevance of the Jnaneshvari in our time we have first of all to look at the remarks on moral rules of conduct. Here already his
starting point seems to me of importance: Whether one has got knowledge of the Self can be recognized by his behaviour, the criterion of true wisdom is how one acts, there must be coincidence between the action and
the declared principles of faith especially in politics everywhere in the world a desideratum.
Besides modesty and humility Jnanadeva deals extensively with harmlessness, ahimsa. He defines: "Now to conduct oneself with body, speech and mind
with the sole object of making the world happy is the essence of non-violence." Of course, his criticism of the vedic sacrifice with the slaughtering of animals is of no importance for us today, but when he
asks: "How can non-violence grow where only the seeds of violence are sown?" he has touched a very important problem of our time. Very often especially in the field of international conflicts we can
observe the desire to achieve non-violence through violence and how often this experiment was condemned to fail - instead of trying to avoid conflicts or solving them before they can escalate into a violent
confrontation.
Jnanadeva describes the conduct of one who has attained knowledge and whose mind became impressed with non-violence as determined by compassion. 'How
... can he think of wielding a weapon?' he asks. It is taken for granted that the demand for non-violence is not only valid with regard to actions but also to speech and thoughts.
Within the complex of consideration on non-violence Jnanadeva criticised the Ayurvedic medicine and with it the short-sightedness of men when trees
have been cut or animals have been killed in order to save human beings suffering from diseases. He is full of compassion with all living creatures in the environment including plants when he, e.g., regrets:
"The innocent trees which bear no enmity to others are cracked all over and thus reduced to a lifeless and dry state." and he compares the cutting of trees for the sake of a small fortune with buying a
cage after driving away the parrot. If one thinks of the time in which the saint lived one wonders how he was able to develop such modern ecological thoughts. But in order to understand this we have to point at the
long tradition of belief in the unity of human being and nature in India, for instance in the shape of the famous hymn to the earth (Atharvaveda XII,1) or the legend of Visvarupa (Taittiriya Sa hita II,5,1): Indra
gave the boon to the earth that everything dig out of it would grow again within one year.
This feeling of unity of human and natural environment has to be re-established not only in India. There is a direct connection in the view of
Jnanadeva between ahimsa and compassion, and compassion is closely linked with equanimity. A person of steady wisdom (sthitaprajna) is characterized by compassion to all creatures. "Just as mother earth does
not think of giving only to a superior and denying it to an inferior ..." so he is equally friendly with all creatures and looks after them like an affectionate nurse. It is quite natural, that as in any
comment on the Gita within the discussed moral standards also duty plays an important role. He says: "If a person ... is firm in the performance of his duty, he will accomplish all his desires without
effort..." But "... he who ignores his call of duty loses his freedom.
A small remark in connection with Gita VI, 17 can also be of relevance in our time if we think of the millions of starving people all over the world:
"A person should eat to live, and so he should eat wholesome food in moderation." We find many interesting passages more with regard to moral virtues and vices which are of relevance in our time but it is
not possible here to mention them all. In order to conclude: since Jnanadeva raised questions of general importance and answered them on the basis of a deep spiritual understanding combined with every day's
experience of the common man and with an intensive democratic feeling even today after more than 700 years we can get a lot of valuable suggestions for solving our problems by studying this book.
In view of the global crisis of our days a new value system is necessary. I think there is no need mentioning the different problems as the dangerous
change of climate, the consequences of the genetic technological manipulations, the existence of nuclear weapons, undernourishment of millions of people, civil wars in many places of the globe etc. It can be easily
recognized that either the humanity is able to come to its senses or the human race sooner or later will be an extinguished species as it was the dinosaur.
A society oriented only at individual profit, a society in which everything is only evaluated with regard to the question how much material gain
one can get and how much one has to pay, a society in which money is the measurement for everything can obviously have no future in view with the global problems. So it is quite useful to look at books like the
Jnaneshvari for answers to our problems. These answers are not contained in those books, for the questions we have are the questions of our time and we have to find the answers ourselves by reading those books and
finding our own concepts stimulated by the thoughts developed hundreds of years ago.
But what we are not allowed on pain of annihilation is to loose faith in man - according to Rabindranath Tagore the greatest ever possible sin.
Optimistically I say that man is not the wolf of man but man is god and god is man, that is to my mind the teaching of Jnanadeva's interpretation of the Gita.
We have to give up egoism, greediness, hatred and privileges and learn to love our neighbour.
This might be called an utopia. But utopia, a vision, is needed for orientation. One point seems to me very important in this connection. One alone is
weak. Only if going together with others he and she can become strong enough for influencing the course of history. But for this, aims in common with others too are necessary so that the feeling of 'we' can be
developed. It is this feeling of 'we' by which human civilization became possible.
To make men aware of the problems which are common to all the demands, raised 700 years ago and interpreted according to the needs of our time have to
be seriously taken into consideration in view of the severe situation we live in. We have to remember what Jnanadeva said: he vishvadi majhe ghare: the whole world is my home or to put it in the way Tilak has taught
us: we all are responsible to plant trees the fruit of which our children will harvest.
top
|
