"Karma Yoga Sastra Vol-1": अवतरणों में अंतर

that is, "the word ' bhaga ' includes the followings six things,  

property, knowledge, and apathy". The word 'aisvaryam' in  

this stanza is usually taken to mean ' Yogaisvaryam' (Yogic  

later on. But as ordinarily, the word ' aisvaryam ' is used to  

mean and include authority, success, and wealth, and the word  

in ordinary parlance, the entire meaning conveyed by the above  

stanza is included in the two words 'jnanam' and 'aisvaryam'',  

and in as much as the Blessed Lord has Himself accepted the  

San. 341. 25). The doctrine that the knowledge of the Atman is  

the only ideal of man in this world is a doctrine of the school  

of Renunciation, which says that, as worldly life is full of  

unhappiness, it should be given up ; it is not a doctrine of the  

Karma-Yoga science, and it is not proper to mix up these  

doctrines of different schools of thought and pervert the meaning  

follows that we must always maintain the union of jnanam  

along with jnanam, it necessarily follows that Action must be  

(prosperity)". The same thing is established by our personal  

that in as much as Action is not necessary for Release, all  

Action must be given up ultimately, that is, after the  

acquisition of Knowledge. But, as I am at present considering  

the question only of pain and happiness, and also as I have not  

yet gone into the examination of the natures of Action ( karma)  

and Release ( moksa ), I shall not here answer that exception.  

Metaphysics, and the Theory of Cause and Effect are, and then  

Discontent and at the same time Action itself, but to continue  

the performance of all Actions without entertaining any hope  

pleasure is in itself a happiness, which is always insufficient,  

inconstant, and beastly, and that the true ideal of man, who is  

endowed with Reason, must be higher than such happiness;  

which results from . Self-Realisation ; but that, although  

Metaphysical Happiness is, in this way, superior to Material  

effects of Actions in the shape of pain and happiness on the  

basis that Material Happiness is the highest ideal of man —  

ness merely. Because, looking upon a thing which can never  

by itself reach the state of perfection, as the 'highest' ideal, is  

as believing that water exists, where there is only a mirage.  

If one 's highest ideal is itself inconstant and incomplete, then,  

what else, except something inconstant can one acquire, by  

keeping that ideal before one's eyes ? This is what is meant  

There is much difference of opinion among Materialistic  

philosophers themselves as to how the word 'happiness', in the  

always to acquire Material Happiness; and they have,  

therefore, maintained that we must use the word 'benefit'  

'happiness' (sukham), and change the phrase 'greatest happiness  

of the greatest number' into the phrase 'greatest good or benefit  

of the greatest number'. But, even doing so, the objection that  

as also several other objections apply to this point of view. If  

one says that Mental Happiness must be taken into account,  

along with Material Happiness, then, the fundamental theorem  

that the morality of any particular Action must be decided by  

accepts the Metaphysical aspect of the matter. But, if in this  

way, you cannot escape accepting the Metaphysical aspect of  

the matter, then where is the sense of accepting it only half  

benefit of everybody', or 'the greatest happiness of the greatest  

number', or the highest development of humanness' or other  

such external tests or Materialistic methods of determining  

Action, and what Wrong Action or Non-Action must be  

determined by the Metaphysical tests of beatific happiness in  

one enters into Vedanta, everything becomes Brahmised  

(Brahma-maya), and the necessity of worldly life' cannot  

works on Vedanta, which can ordinarily be read now-a-days  

have been written principally by followers of the Path of  

life in the shape of Thirst is looked upon as totally insipid, it  

is true that the science of Karma-Yoga has not been properly  

expounded in their works. Nay, these writers, who are  

intolerant of rival cults, have foisted the arguments of the Path  

the belief that Samnyasa (Renunciation) and Karma- Yoga, are  

not two independent paths for obtaining Release (moksa), but  

side with the Path of Renunciation, aocording to the Vedic  

religion; and the promulgators of this path have very  

departing from the elementary principles of Vedanta. The  

Yoga. But, leaving aside the Gita for the moment, it will be  

seen that the system of expounding the science of the doable  

and the not-doable from the Metaphysical point of view was  

long before him, in Germany. However much one may  

understood who is the HE who sees this visible world, or who  

man in this world will always remain incomplete from the  

philosophical point of view. Therefore, the advice of  

even after the examination of the external world, one  

ultimately comes to basic principles like philanthropy, then,  

"we must say that by such examination, the importance of the  

belittled, but that this is one more proof of there being only  

themselves, there is no help for it. Our philosophers have  

the science of Karma- Yoga on the basis of Metaphysics. But,  

in as much as it is necessary to consider another contrary view  

and Wrong Action or Non-Action, I shall deal with that view  

before explaining how that justification has been made.  

THE INTUITIONIST SCHOOL AND THE  

(ADHIDAIVATA-PAKSA AND KSETRA-KSETRAJNA-  

Manu. 6. 46.  

or Wrong Action, or as to the doability or non-doability of  

any particular Action, he never troubles to find out how  

and whether the sum total of happiness caused by it is greater  

than that of unhappiness, nor does he enter into the con-  

by giving the beggar whatever he can; in the same way, when  

her child begins to cry, the mother does not stop to consider  

his judicial chair, he is inspired by the deity of Justice when  

he administers justice, and if he defies this inspiration, he  

and other virtues, are deities just like the deity of Justice.  

Every one by nature knows what the true forms of these  

reason, what can these deities do ? ,Now, it is true that there  

is sometimes a conflict between these deities themselves; then,  

we are in doubt as to the inspiration of which deity we should  

consider as predominant in doing a particular Action ; and  

besides the deities, of Justice, Kindness, etc. in order to  

satisfy this doubt. But even if, on these occasions, we do not  

enter into the intricacies of Metaphysical considerations,  

or of the weighing of pain or happiness, but only consult our  

immediately shows us which path is the more meritorious one;  

the God-given or., inherent power which every one possesses  

of choosing between good and bad. This very power has got  

the high-sounding name of, " Power of discriminating between  

person, on any occasion of doubt, thinks for a moment quietly  

attach to what virtue is ready listed with this sovereign deity  

in accordance with this list, as occasion arises. Suppose,  

ciples of Self-protection and Harmlessness, such as a famine,  

when we are in doubt as to whether Or not to eat uneatable  

Similarly, if there is a conflict between Self-interest, and philan-  

thropy, that situation too must he -solved by the help of this  

actions prepared by" the deity of Conscience, and he has  

lity; and Kindness, Gratitude, Generosity, Affection etc. are  

opinion that when there is a conflict between a virtue of a  

to this writer, there is ho other proper way of determining the  

the greatest number ' lies, yet in as much as our discriminating  

Reason does not possess the power or authority to order "us  

question whether or not one should do that which is beneficial  

to 'the greatest number ultimately remains unsolved, and  

will meet the same fate as that of a decision which may-  

purely Materialistic methods for determining the righteousness-  

ot unrighteousness of an Action, and is, therefore, the method  

ancient times, yet we oome across similar opinions in many  

places in our ancient treatises. We find in many places in the  

having left the body of Prahlada and entered the body of  

Indra. This deity who discriminates between doability and:  

non-doability, or righteousness and unrighteousness is called:  

himself in the form of a syena bird for testing the truthfulness-  

in the form of a dog for testing Yudhisthira. Even in the  

Memory (smrti), Acumen (medha), Perseverance (dhrti), and  

Forgiveness (ksama) are called deities; and out of these,  

the mind. The Mind itself is a deity, and the worship of it has  

been prescribed in the Upanisads, as being a symbol of the  

Parabrahman (Taj. 3. 4; Chan. 3. 18). When Manu says:  

believes to be pure", he may be said to have intended the  

we say instead : "Do as the Mental Deity (manodevata) pleases.  

quite the contrary meaning ; and on many occasions, when a  

But the true meaning of this phrase is that : 'One should do  

only that which the Mind considers as sacred or pure'. In the  

the meaning clearer by saying :  

(Manu-Samh. 4. 161).  

that is, "One should perform by efforts that Action by which i  

whatever is disliked by it", So also, Manu, Yajnavalkya, and  

the other Smrti-writers, in mentioning the fundamental rules  

vedah smrtih sadacarah svasya ca priyam atmanah I  

that is, "the Vedas, the Smrtis, good behaviour, and the  

satisfaction of one's Atman, are the four fundamental elements  

upon as pure' ; and it is quite clear that where the righteous-  

Dhrtarastra, after relating the stories of Prahlada and Indra  

(Ma. Bha. San. 124. 66).  

performed in any case. My readers will notice that by using  

'the greatest good of the greatest number' and the 'Mental  

Deity'. Even in the Manu-Smrti, that Action for having done  

which or when doing which one feels ashamed, is referred to as  

''tamasa', and that Action of doing which one does not feel  

ashamed, and whereby our innermost self (antaratman) remains  

happy, is referred to as 'sattvika' (Manu. 12. 35. 37) ; and these  

ideas are to be found also in the Buddhistic treatise  

when there is a doubt as to the doability or non-doability of  

any Action :  

(Sakun. 1. 20).  

dictates of their own Conscience". Controlling the mental  

impulses by concentrating the mind on a single object is the  

was at no time necessary to teach our people the method of  

making the mind peaceful and quiet, and doing that which the  

any matter. It is stated in the various Smrtis at the very  

define righteousness and unrighteousness after first completely  

seems at first sight extremely easy. But when one minutely  

considers what is meant by a ' pure mind ' from the philoso-  

namely, that they do not attach any importance to the Reason  

of the doer, does not apply to the Intuitionist theory. But  

told that whatever thing is taken considering it in all its  

bearings, and finding out whether or not it is performable or  

unperformable, doable or not-doable, or whether or not it will  

be advantageous or pleasant, is a thing which is not done by  

is an independent organ, namely, the Mind, which serves that  

purpose. Therefore, doability or non-doability, righteousness  

or unrighteousness are things which must be determined by  

the Mind, whether you call it an organ or a deity.  

would find any fault with it. But, Western Intuitionists have  

gone far beyond that. They say that deciding whether a thing  

righteous, is quite different from deciding whether a particular  

object is heavy or light, white or black, or whether a cal-  

methods, decide matters which fall within the second category;  

but the Mind itself is incapable of deciding on the matters  

discrimination between good and bad. They explain this by  

saying that in determining whether a particular calculation  

to say, before determining this question, the Mind has to go  

through some other actions or activities ; but the same is not the  

As -soon as we hear that somebody has murdered somebody  

has been done by him I ", and we have not to think about the  

matter at all. As the decision whioh we arrive at without  

sideration, cannot both be said to be the functions of one  

and the same mental capacity, we must say that Conscience  

saying, that from the fact that we can spontaneously  

conclusion that such matter must be different from  

consideration. Doing a thing quickly or slowly is a matter  

of practice. Take the case of calculations. Merchants quote  

it easily and without the slightest consideration. An excellent  

marksman easily shoots and kills birds on the wing; but  

mo one, on that account, says that there is soma independent  

culating the speed of flying birds or other scientific calculations  

as unnecessary. There is a story told of Napoleon Buonaparte,  

instantaneously on all occasions. Because, if such were the case,  

there would never have been any doubt as to whether ' a parti-  

only is such doubt occasionally experienced by every one, but,  

what is more, the decisions given by different persons as to the  

there is only one self -created deity in the form of 'Conscience',  

according as his mind is evolved or educated. There are many :  

aboriginal tribes who do not consider murder a crime, but even '  

aside the case of uncivilised human beings, yet, according to  

the customs of different countries, something which is  

another country. Marrying a second wife when the first one  

is alive, is considered a crime in England ; but nobody thinks  

much of it in India. Indians would feel ashamed of sitting in  

true that one feels ashamed of a wrong act as a result only of  

God-given or inherent Conscience, should not every one feel  

equally ashamed of the same act ? Even marauders consider it  

consider it a sign of patriotism to murder people who are  

subjects of a neighbouring nation ! !. If there is only one deity  

And if one admits different kinds of Conscience, according to-  

civilization or according to the customs of countries, then the  

self-created immutability of Conscience itself suffers. As man  

leaves the uncivilised state and is gradually more and more  

when in this way, the Reason has developed, man becomes  

capable of spontaneously conceiving such ideas as he would  

and without consideration. If we have to see things which are  

near or which are far, we have to contract the muscles and  

done so quickly that we never realise it ; but has any one, on  

that account, looked upon the consideration of the reasons for  

this process as useless ? In short, the Mind or the Reason of  

It is not that we decide between black and white by one kind  

of Reason and between good and evil by another kind of Reason.  

The only difference is that the Reason of a particular person  

may be uneducated or incompletely developed. Western  

Materialistic philosophers have' thus drawn the conclusion that  

ful power like Conscience in addition to the natural faculties  

of the Mind.  

arrives at a correct or incorrect decision according as it has  

been educated. They, therefore, say that everybody must  

rules explaining what this development is and how it is to be  

made. But they do not accept the position that the power of  

ordinary Reason of a man. The question as to how a man  

acquires knowledge and how the activities of his Mind and  

Reason are carried on, have been very minutely examined in  

ancient times. This examination is technically known as "the  

of discrimination between good and bad or any other Mental  

Deity as higher than the Atman when once one has properly  

understood this science of the Body and the Atman, it becomes  

I shall, therefore, in this place briefly considar the science of  

meanings of many of the doctrines of the Bhagavadgita.  

The body of man ( pinda, ksetra, or sarira ) may be said  

taken in from outside, and then all the material is selected or  

arranged, and having determined which of the material is  

useful for the factory and which not, the raw material taken  

In is manufactured into different articles and sent out, so also  

of the five primordial elements, are his organs. The, true or  

fundamental form of the objects in the world cannot be  

say that such form is the same as it appears to oul organs;  

but if tomorrow a human being acquires another new organ,  

then, from his point of view the qualities of the different  

objects in the world will be different. Human organs are of  

the anus and the generative organs are the five organs of  

Action. All the Actions which we perform by means of  

these, there are the five organs of perception, namely, the nose,  

the eyes, the ears, the tongue and the skin. "We perceive  

that we acquire of any external object, is the effect of its _  

to the touch, and it is elongated on being hammered. These  

and its other qualities which we perceive by means of our  

opinion. Just as there are doors in a factory for taking  

material in from outside and for sending out the material  

this way, we become aware of the external objects in the world  

through their medium. But the organs of perception do not  

material has come inside through these doors, the dealing  

when at noon the clock strikes twelve, it is not the ears which  

understand what o'clock it is. Just as each stroke falls, aerial  

vibrations come and strike the ears, and when each of these  

mind, we mentally calculate the sum of all these phenomena  

and decide what o'clock it is. Even the beasts have got the  

results from that diversity. In the Bhagavadgita, this is  

explained by saying : "indriyani parany ahuh indriyebhyah  

external objects, and the Mind is superior to all the organs".  

As has been stated above, if the Mind is not in its proper place,  

far been broadly referring to as the 'Mind', or how one and  

the same Mind acquires different names according to difference  

All the impressions which are created on the mind through  

the organs of perception have first to be placed together in one  

decide which of them are good and which bad, which acceptable-  

and when this examination has been made, we are induced to-  

do that thing which is good, beneficial, proper, or doable. This-  

unless our Atman has acquired the knowledge of which of  

these flowers have a good smell and which a bad one, we do-  

consequently perform the Action of plucking it. Therefore,,  

all mental activity falls into the following three broad  

decision which has been given by the Judge, so also are the acti-  

vities of that clerk whom we have so far broadly referred to as  

considering discriminatingly all the various objects which  

are perceived, and deciding that a particular thing is of a  

that is to say, the function of a Judge, belongs to the organ.  

referred to above, except the functions of this faculty of  

discriminating between good and evil, are carried out by the  

Ka. 23 and 27). This (minor) Mind, like a pleader, places  

decision; and therefore, it is called an organ which is 'samkalpa-  

arriving at any decision. The word 'samkalpam' is sometimes  

made to include also the factor of decision (Chandogya. 7. 4. 1.).  

as of a particular kind, or such activities as planning some  

Action, desiring, thinking, or conceiving, without arriving at  

decided on the goodness or badness of any particular act, and  

has decided what is acceptable, the Mind has also to perform  

the Registrar's function of bringing about, through the organs  

Is to say, of carrying into execution the decisions of Reason;  

It is true that considering how to carry into execution the  

decision which has been arrived at by the Reason is in a sense  

In the Sanskrit language; all the other mental activities  

except these are the functions of Reason. The Mind does not  

criminating between them and giving to the Atman the  

accurate knowledge of any particular object, or deciding that  

a particular thing is only of a particular kind after proper  

Effect between two things, are all functions of the Reason  

bharata in the following way in order to show the difference  

between the Reason and the (minor) Mind, namely : —  

(Ma. Bha. San. 251. 11).  

vyavasayah, that is, which discriminates and arrives at a  

decision, and the Mind (minor) is an organ which does the  

arrangements. In short, the Reason "is vyavasayatmika and  

in that place, the word buddhih means the organ which dis-  

before it. It has no other quality or function (Ma. Bha.  

Vana. 181. 26). Planning, desiring, wanting, memory, perse-  

attachment, hate, avarice, arrogance, . jealousy, anger etc.,  

are all qualities or faculties of the Mind (Br. 1. 5. 3; Maitryu.  

into the Mind. . However reasonable a man may be, and  

the feeling of pity is not aroused in his heart,, he will never be  

inspired by the desire to help the poor ; or, though he might  

courage. The Reason only tells us what the result will be-  

at those things which we want to do. But as desire, courage etc.,  

without the help of the Mind, never inspires the organs to do-  

anything. On- the other hand, though, -the Mind can inspire  

the organs when under the sway of Anger "etc., yet an Action-  

impulses, will not necessarily be morally pure. For instance,  

order that any good Action should be performed by a man,  

there must be a combination of a Reason which is pure,  

between good and bad, a Mind which will act according  

(Consciousness) and afta«fraram(Egoism) etc; and when the Mind  

parlance these words are used as being synonymous, there is  

only the two words Mind and Reason, out of the various words  

mentioned above, are used in scientific terminology in the  

becomes superior to the Mind, and the Mind becomes the clerk  

of the Reason. This is the purport of the following words,  

theless, even this clerk has, as mentioned above, to perform two.  

different functions ; the first of these is to properly arrange all  

medium of the- organs of perception, and to place those  

impressions' before the Reason for decision; and the second  

one is to carry "the order Or the message of the Reason to the  

are necessary to be performed for carrying out the decision of  

by one and the same clerk, so also is the case with the Mind.  

Suppose, you see a friend of yours and being inspired with the  

perception, have sent a message to the Reason through the  

medium of the Mind that your friend is near you, and that  

springs into the Mind in order to execute the decision of the  

Reason, and the Mind causes the word 'hullo !' to be uttered by  

function of the utterance of words has been described on that  

that is, "the Atman in the first place grasps all things through  

entering the chest, creates the lowest sound ; and this sound  

ultimately comes out of the mouth in the shape of labial,  

stanza are also to be found in the Maitryupanisad (Maitryu.  

7. 11.) ; and from this it is clear, that this stanza must be older  

science as 'nerves'. But according to that science, the nerves  

from those which carry the message of the Reason to the  

organs of Action through the medium of the Mind; and  

have two kinds of Mind. Our philosophers have not thought  

that there are two kinds of Mind; they have differentiated  

it acts according to the organs of Action, and where the organs  

of perception are concerned, it acts according to those organs.  

Both these ideas are essentially the same. According to the  

points of view of both, the Reason is the judge who decides,  

the function of conceiving ideas in relation to the organs of  

relation to the organs of Action, that is to say, it becomes the  

developing (i. e., making the vyakaranam of) anything, the  

Reason can be carried out. Therefore, in defining the Mind, it  

must not be forgotten, that even according to that definition,  

The definition of Reason given by me above, namely, that  

had been fixed. We cannot acquire the knowledge of anything  

unless it has been identified by the Pure Reason (vyavasaya-  

of that object, we do not conceive the intention or the desire  

of obtaining it. Therefore, just as in ordinary parlance, the  

word 'mango' is applied both to the mango-tree and the  

word 'buddhih' (Reason) for signifying the Pure Reason  

two meanings of (i) the organ which discerns and (ii) the  

Intention or Desire which subsequently arises in the human  

just as the additional word ' tree ' or ' fruit ' is used when it is:  

intended to show the two different meanings of the word  

the two meanings of the word ' buddhih ', the ' buddhih ' which  

discriminates, that is to say, the technical 'buddhih' is  

' vasanatmika buddhih'. In the Gita the word 'buddhih' has  

been used in both the above meanings (Gi. 2. 41, 44, 49 and 3.; 42);  

and in order to properly understand the exposition of the  

Karma-Yoga, both these meanings of the word 'buddhih ' have  

to do any particular act, he first considers whether it is good,  

or bad, doable or not-doable etc., by means of his Pure Reason.  

(that is, the vasanatmika buddhih) of doing that act enters his-  

mind, he becomes ready to perform the act. This is the order  

( namely the vyavasayatmika ) which has to decide between the-  

doability and the non-doability of any particular Action is  

Desires (buddhih) entering it. Therefore, the first theorem of  

the Karma-Yoga preached in the Gita is that the vyavasa-  

(Gi. 2. 41). Not only the Gita, but also Kant has- differen-  

tiated between two kinds of buddhih and he has described the  

particular act, one must, according to the doctrine of the'  

the doer of the act, before one looks at the effect of the  

act ( Gi. 2. 49 ); and in the same way when one considers-  

certain that these desires will be always pure or holy (GI. 2. 41).  

And if the desires themselves are not pure, how will the  

detail, even in the science of Karma-Yoga, the methods or  

pure. But some doctrinal commentators have disregarded  

to my readers how necessary it is to bear in mind the above-  

mutual relation.  

working of the human mind, and I have also mentioned the-  

other meanings of the word 'buddhih.'. Having in this way  

the question of the deity which discerns between good and  

deity serves is to choose between good and evil, it cannot be  

included in the (minor) Mind; and as there is only one  

matters and comes to a decision on them, we cannot give an  

numerous matters about which one has to think, discriminate,  

and come to a conclusion. In commerce, war, civil or  

criminal legal proceedings, money-lending, agriculture, and  

other trades, there arise any number of occasions on which  

function of discrimination is common to all these cases;  

and therefore, the buddhih (Reason) which makes that dis-  

upon as unacceptable to the buddhih of another person. But  

on that account, we cannot say that the organ of buddhih is  

eyes, and others one eye only, and some have dim vision, while  

the organ is one and the same. The same argument must be  

applied to the case of the buddhih. That same buddhih which  

profitable and what disadvantageous, what is righteous and  

what unrighteous, or what doable and what not-doable, and  

may glorify it in ordinary parlance by calling it a 'Mental  

Deity' yet from the philosophical point of view, it is one and  

and the Blessed Lord first says to Arjuna :—