Gita Rahasya -Tilak
|
CHAPTER XI
RENUNCITATION AND KARMA-YOGA
The origin of these two paths has been described in the Mahabharata by saying that after the Blessed Lord had, in the beginning of the world, directed Hiranyagarbha, that is, Brahmadeva, to create the world, the seven mind-born sons, Marici and others, came into existence from him; and these seven sons adopted YOGA, that is the Activistic (pravrtti) path of Action for properly carrying out the work of creation ; whereas, his other seven mind-born sons, namely, Sanatkumara, kapila, and others took up the SAMKHYA, that is, the Path of Renunciation (nivrtti) from birth; and later on , it is clearly stated that, from the point of view of Release, both these paths are equally useful (tulyabala), that is to say, they are different from each other and independent , and individually capable of bringing about the attainment to one and the same Paramesvara in the form of the Vasudeva [1]. In the same way, a distinction has been made between Hiranyagarbha as the founder of the Activistic Path and Kapila as the founder of the Samkhya Path, and it is nowhere stated that Hiranyagarbha later on gave up the performance of Action. On the other hand, it is stated that the Blessed Lord created the cycle of Yajnas in the shape of karma, in order to keep going without a hitch all the activities of the creation, and directed Hiranyagarbha, as also the other, to keep this cycle continually moving. [2]. From this, it is established beyond doubt that Samkhya and Yoga are two essentially independent modes of life. It will thus be seenthat the attempt of some commentators on the Gita to make out that the Karma-Yoga is inferior, is the result of a tra- dictionary insistence; and that the statement occurring every now and then in these commentaries that the karma-Yoga is merely a medium for the acquisition of Knowledge, or for Renunciation, is something, which these commentators say of their own accord, and which is not borne out by the Gita. In my opinion, this is the greatest fault of those commentators on the Gita who support the Path of Renunciation; and unless this doctrine-supporting point of view of the commentators is given up, the true and mystic import of the Gita can never be realised. It is not enough to say that Karma-Samnyasa and Karma-Yoga are individually equally productive of Release, and that one is not the preliminary part of the other; because , if both these paths are equally productive of Release, it follows that one may adopt whichever path he likes; and then, instead arriving at the conclusion that he must fight, Arjuna would have the choice of the two paths of fighting, or renouncing the world instead of fighting, after he had acquired Knowledge by the advice of the Blessed Lord.
|
|
