Tilak's karma-yoga reading
Bal Gangadhar Tilak · written 1910-11 in Mandalay prison, published 1915 · Pune; the book itself written in Mandalay prison, Burma
This reading sees the Gītā as a scripture spoken on a battlefield to a man who wanted to renounce, and it refuses to forget that setting. Kṛṣṇa does not lead Arjuna out of the war; he leads him back into it, freed from fear and self-interest. So the final teaching cannot be withdrawal. Knowledge matters, devotion matters, but both ripen into desireless action carried on for the welfare of the world. The seeker is asked not to leave the field of duty but to stand in it, doing what the hour demands and surrendering every fruit. Equanimity is proved in work, not in retreat.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a Sanskrit scholar, newspaper editor, and the foremost leader of the Indian freedom movement of his generation. Convicted of sedition in 1908, he spent six years in Mandalay prison in Burma, and there, writing in pencil, he completed the Gītā-Rahasya in a matter of months. The Marathi original appeared in Pune in 1915 after his release; translations into Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, and Kannada followed quickly, and B. S. Sukthankar's two-volume English rendering, Śrīmad Bhagavadgītā-Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-Śāstra, appeared in 1935, after Tilak's death in 1920. The book is in two parts: a long philosophical treatise first, then the Gītā with translation and notes.
Its argument was aimed at a consensus nearly a thousand years old. The classical bhāṣyas disagree about almost everything, yet from Śaṅkara onward they broadly agree that the Gītā finally points past action, whether toward knowledge or toward devotion. Tilak applied the Mīmāṃsā tests for the purport of a text, its opening, its conclusion, its repetitions, its stated fruit, its reasoning, and argued that every one of them resolves the Gītā into karma-yoga: the poem begins with a warrior laying down his bow and ends with him taking it up. He held that the realized person does not retire from work but continues it desirelessly for lokasaṃgraha, and he read the saintly activity of the ācāryas themselves, Śaṅkara included, as evidence. The book gave the freedom struggle its scripture of engaged duty and shaped the modern activist Gītā read by Gandhi's generation and after.
Whether the Gītā-Rahasya recovers the text's original activist intent or projects the urgencies of the freedom struggle back onto it remains debated between historians, traditional scholars, and Tilak's defenders.
Tilak's claim that pre-Śaṅkara commentators taught jñāna-karma-samuccaya, knowledge joined with continuing action, rests on inference from secondary notices, since those early commentaries do not survive.
Readers from Gandhi onward have disputed what Tilak's energism licenses in practice, taking the battlefield literally as a charter for vigorous, even forceful duty or insisting on a more inward reading.
Tilak's one move is to make karma-yoga the conclusion of the Gītā rather than a stage on the way to something quieter. For centuries the great bhāṣyas, whatever their metaphysics, agreed that the text finally points beyond action: to jñāna for Śaṅkara, to bhakti for the devotional ācāryas. Tilak applies the Mīmāṃsā tests of purport, the beginning, the end, the repetitions, the stated fruit, and finds that all of them point to action; the poem opens with a warrior refusing to fight and closes with him resolved to act. Knowledge and devotion are real, but they purify the actor; they do not retire him. Even the realized person keeps working, desirelessly, for the holding together of the world. Written in Mandalay prison amid the freedom struggle, the book asks a subject nation to hear its scripture as a summons to selfless work.
The Gītā is heard here as a śāstra of right action. Its question is Arjuna's question: what should I do, here, where my duty is terrible. The answer running through all eighteen chapters is one answer. Act, because the embodied being cannot help acting. Act without desire for the fruit, because attachment, not action, is what binds. Act for the holding together of the world, as Janaka acted, as Kṛṣṇa himself acts though he needs nothing. Equanimity of mind joined to energetic work in the world: that is the secret the title promises.
“this stanza is intended to explain only that both are permanent; and their mutual inter-relation is not stated here, nor was there any occasion for doing so.”
Gandhi answers the activist reading in Tilak's wake: the battle is the soul's, and anāsakti excludes violence
Reference: R. Minor, ed., Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita (SUNY, 1986)Aurobindo refuses both the merely patriotic and the renunciate readings; the paths fuse and exceed
Reference: R. Minor, ed., Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita (SUNY, 1986)To be answered by many is a measure of how far a reading carried, not of where it went wrong. A quiet section here means the argument simply ran elsewhere.
in their fuller words
Bal Gangadhar Tilak's Srimad Bhagavadgita Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-Sastra (1915), in the 1935 English translation by B. S. Sukthankar. Public domain. Verse-by-verse commentary section. Your authority extends only to the performance of Action; (obtaining or not obtaining) the Fruit, is never within [1] Annie Besant and Bhagvandas (Bhagavadgita, Theo. House, 1926, p 42) translate this stanza as: "All the Vedas are as useful to an enlightened Brahmana as is a tank in a place covered all over with water", which is similar to the interpretation of the author. Telang translates it as: "To the instructed Brahmana, there is in all the Vedas as much utility as ina reservoir of water into which waters flow from all sides" (S. B. E. Series, Vol VIII, p.48); and W. D. JP. Hill's translation is practically the same (the Bhagavadgita, Ox. Univ. Press, 1928, p.121). Both. these later authors have attached, explanatory notes, to which the reader is referred. The divergence is based on the interpretation of 'sarvatah samptute’, which is translated by some as "filled from all sides", and by others as, "when there is a flood on all sides". ~Translator. your authority (that is, never within your control); (therefore,) do not be one who performs Action with the (avaricious) motive (in the mind) that a particular fruit should be obtained (of his Action); nor do you also insist on not-performing Action. [The four quarters of this stanza are mutually complementary; and, therefore, without their overlapping each other, the entire import of the Karma-Yoga is given in a short and beautiful form; nay, one may even safely say that these four parts of the stanza are the catuh-sutri of the Karma-Yoga. It is stated to begin with, that "your authority extends only to the performance of Action". But as the Fruit of an Action is inseparable from the Action, there is room for the doubt that, ‘he who has the authority to perform the Action, has also the authority to take the fruit, since he who owns the tree, also owns the fruit'; therefore, in order to solve that difficulty, the Blessed Lord has pronounced in a clear way in the 2nd quarter of the stanza that, " your authority does not extend to the Fruit "; and then He has pronounced the 3rd proposition, which arises from that dictum, namely, "do not be one who performs Action having in mind the Hope for Fruit", (karmaphalahetuh, is a Bahuvrihi-samasa, thus, 'karmaphale hetur yasya sa karmaphalahetuh’), (that is, 'he is a karmaphalahetuh, whose motive is in the Fruit of the Action’ ~Translator.). But someone may advance the argument that because an Action and the fruit of it are mutually interlinked, one must give up the fruit (Action? ~Translator.) at the same time as giving up the Hope for Fruit. In order to make it clear that such an inference would not be correct, the clear advice has been given, that one should give up the Hope for Fruit but, at the same time, "one should not insist on not doing Action, that is, on giving up Action". In short, saying that one should perform Action, does not amount to saying that one should entertain the Hope for Fruit; and conversely, saying that one should give up the Hope for Fruit, does not amount to saying that one should eschew Action. The meaning of this stanza is, that one should necessarily perform one's duty, having given up the ' Hope for Fruit '; and that, one should not be attached to the Action, and at the same time should not give up the Action, "tyago na yukta iha karmasu napi ragah" (Yoga. 5.5, 54); and the meaning has been emphasised again in the 18th chapter, where it is stated that the obtaining of Fruit is not a matter -within one's own control, and that it is necessary to have the co-operation of many other things for that purpose (Gi. 18.14, 16 and Rahasya, Chapter V. and Ch. XII). The Blessed Lord now clearly defines the characteristics of Karma-Yoga by saying that, such Action means ‘Yoga’ or 'Karma-Yoga', ] §§ UNTeY: HE HAM AF cAacal TAT | faceataqeat: GAT Acal AAs ANT Feat Il 2.48 I am eaat we algae | aal May PIT: Heed: I 2.49 1 qe were GT CEIgT | TAIT Bwaes ANT: HAT BATALI 2.50Bal Gangadhar Tilak
in their fuller words
Bal Gangadhar Tilak's Srimad Bhagavadgita Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-Sastra (1915), in the 1935 English translation by B. S. Sukthankar. Public domain. Verse-by-verse commentary section. Janaka and others thus attained Release by performing Action. In the same way, it is proper that you should perform, Action, keeping an eye to universal welfare. [ The first part of this stanza contains an illustration of how Release is attained by means of Desireless Action; and a different subject-matter has been started from the second part of this stanza. It has been proved that although a Jhanin has nothing to do -with other people, yet, as such a person cannot escape the performance of Action, he must perform Action desirelessly. Although the argument that, 'since one cannot escape the performance of Action, one must perform it ', may be perfectly logical, yet, it does not satisfy ordinary persons as much as it should. They are afraid in their minds that Action is to be performed merely because it is unavoidable, and that nothing else is to be gained thereby. Therefore, the Blessed Lord starts the second part of the stanza in order to show that securing universal welfare by one's Action is a real ideal to be reached in this world by the JAanin. This is the reason for the words 'evapi' in the phrase 'lokasamgraham evapi'; and these words clearly show that a different subject has now been commenced. The word ‘loka’ in the phrase 'lokasamgraha' has a comprehensive meaning, and includes the putting, not only mankind, but the entire world, on a proper path, and making a ‘samgraha' of it, that is, maintaining, feeding, protecting, and defending it in a proper way, without allowing it to be destroyed. As these and other matters have been dealt with by me in an exhaustive manner, in Chapter XI of the Gita-Rahasya (pp.455 to 467), | shall not deal with them again here. The Blessed Lord now first explains why this duty or right of achieving 'lokasamgraha’' (universal welfare) falls to the lot of the Jhanin, ] UIA ASeATATATT WA: | SAGAN HE peda Il 3.21 IBal Gangadhar Tilak
in their fuller words
Bal Gangadhar Tilak's Srimad Bhagavadgita Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-Sastra (1915), in the 1935 English translation by B. S. Sukthankar. Public domain. Verse-by-verse commentary section. Karma-samnyasa and Karma-Yoga, both these (paths or Nisthas) are nihsreyasakara (that is, producing Release); but, (that is, though both may be of the same value from the point of view of Release), the worth (that is, the efficacy) of Karma- Yoga, out of these two, is greater than that of Karma- Samnyasa. [This question and answer are both unambiguous and clear. The word 'sreya' in the first stanza means 'more praise- worthy’, or, better; and, to the question of Arjuna about the relative value of the two courses, the reply of the Blessed Lord is, "karma-yogo visisyate", that is "the Karma-Yoga is the better (path) ". Nevertheless, as this doctrine is not consistent with the Samkhya theory, that a man must abandon or make a literal Sarnnyasa (Renunciation) of Action, after he has acquired Knowledge, some commentators, have taken hold of the word 'visisyate', and contented themselves with saying that that was a mere hollow praise of the Karma-Yoga by way of an arthavada, after they had ineffectually struggled to twist this plain-meaninged question and answer; and saying, that the true intention of the Blessed Lord was not to praise the Karma-Yoga! If it was the opinion of the Blessed Lord that there should be no Action after the acquisition of Knowledge, could He not have replied to Arjuna that: "out of these two paths, the Path of Renunciation is the better one "? But, as instead of doing so, the Blessed Lord, after saying in the first part of the second stanza that, "the paths of performing Action and abandoning Action, are both equally productive of Release", uses the word 'tu’, that is, 'but', in the second part of the stanza and unambiguously lays down the doctrine that, ‘tayoh’, that is, 'out of these two paths’, "the path of Performing Action is more praise-worthy (Sreya) than the path Abandoning Action", it is clearly proved that He -was of the opinion that in the siddhavastha (state of Perfection), the Jianin must still go on performing desirelessly, till death, as a duty, and for Universal Welfare, the same-selfless Action, which he was performing in the 'sadhanavastha' (the state of Perfecting) for acquiring-Knowledge. The same meaning has been made clear in. Gita 3.7, and the term 'visisyate' has also been used there; and in the next stanza, that is, in Gita 3.8, the words. "Action is superior to Inaction" were again clearly repeated. Now, it is true, that there are descriptions in several places in the Upanisads (Br. 4.4.22) to the effect, that Jfianins (those, who have acquired Knowledge) roam, about begging, without having any ‘lokaisana ' (desire for society), or 'putraisana’ (desire for children). But, it has. not been stated in the Upanisads that this is the only path, which can be followed after a man has acquired. Knowledge, and that there is no other path. Therefore, it. is not proper to attempt to harmonise the Gita with the above-mentioned sentences from the Upanisads. The Gita does not say that this Path of Renunciation described in the Upanisads is not productive of Release. But, the firm doctrine of the Gita is, that though the Karma-Yoga and Renunciation are both equally productive of Release, that is to say, though, from the point of view of Release, the effect of both is the same, yet, considering the course of life in the world, the better or more praise-worthy path is-to continue to desirelessly perform Action even after one has acquired Knowledge. This interpretation of mine is-not the one which has been accepted by the majority of commentators; and, they have treated the Karma-Yoga as secondary; but, in my opinion, these interpretations of the commentators are not plain and straight-forward; and, as | have given a detailed statement of my reasons for my interpretation in Chapter XI of the Gita-Rahasya (pp.420 to 431), | shall not take up space here by saying more about it. After the Blessed Lord had thus given His clear decision as to which of the two paths is more praise-worthy, HE now proves that though these two paths might appear different to people in ordinary life, yet, they are not essentially different, ] gga: a casa at a aha 4 area | feral fe Aeratel Ta SeacwAeAT II 5.3 Il aera arate: waetra A alts: | vHacaead: Veaaaead Hel 5.4 Il UcaHeA: Wea La TST TEAS | Ud aet F UT a a: Teak A: ward 5.5 Ga Fela TSATTAANTA: | antaht Aad Aces I 5.6 IBal Gangadhar Tilak
in their fuller words
Bal Gangadhar Tilak's Srimad Bhagavadgita Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-Sastra (1915), in the 1935 English translation by B. S. Sukthankar. Public domain. Verse-by-verse commentary section. Therefore, even these Actions (such as, Sacrifice, Charity etc.) must be performed, without Attachment, and having abandoned the Fruit (like other desireless Actions, and for universal welfare). This, O Partha, is My definite (and correct) opinion. [ This is a summary of the doctrine of Karma-Yoga enunciated before on numerous occasions, that the fault or the defect of Karma in not in the Karma itself, but is in the Hope of Fruit; and that all Actions should, therefore, be performed desirelessly, and having given up the Hope of Fruit. The Gita does not countenance the doctrine of the Sarnnyasa school, that all Action is faulty and, therefore, such as ought not to be performed (See Gita. 18. 48 and 49). The Gita advocates the samnyasa (Renunciation) of only kamya (desire-prompted) Actions. But, from this it would follow that since all the ritual and rites laid down by the Scriptures are 'kamya' or 'based on desire’ (Gr. 2.42, 44), one must necessarily renounce them: and if that is done, the Cycle of Yajfias (yajfiacakra) will come to an end (Gr. 1316),. and the world will run the risk of being devastated. Then, what is to be done? The Gita answers this question by saying that although the Scriptures have prescribed the performance of Yajfias, Charity etc. for obtaining heaven, it is not that these very Actions cannot be performed desirelessly, and for universal welfare, with the idea, that performing sacrifices, or giving gifts, or performing austerities is one's duty in this life. {See Gr. 17.11, 17, and 20). Therefore, just as other Desireless Actions are to be performed according to one's status in life, so also should. Sacrifices, Charity and other Actions be performed, giving up the Hope of Fruit, and without Attachment, because, such actions are always "pavana", that is, purifiers of the mind, and increase one's generosity. The words "etany-api" = "even these", used in the original text mean, "yajfia, dana, and other acts also; in the same way as other desireless actions". When, in this way, these Actions are performed, giving up the Hope of Fruit, or from the devotional point of view only with the idea of dedicating them to the, Paramesvara, the wheel of the world continues to roll; and, as there is.no more any Hope of Fruit in the mind of the doer, these Actions do not obstruct- Release; and all matters are properly settled. And this is, indeed, the final and definite doctrine of the Karma-Yoga- Science with reference to Actions. (see my commentary on Gita. 2.45). As this difference between the Path of Karma of the Mimamsa school and the Path of Karma-Yoga of the Gita has been clearly expounded by me in the Gita-Rahasya (see pp.403 to 409 and pp.478 to 482), | shall not further labour the point here. To proceed: after the Blessed Lord has thus defined the meanings of the words 'samnyasa' and 'tyaga' according to the Karma-Yoga-Science, in reply to the question of Arjuna, He further emphasises what He has said by showing the different ways of performing Karma, e. g., sattvika etc.,, ] gg Pater To Seare: aT TTT | Alerctes Uftcanreatae: Ufeab tia: tl 18.7 1 CaM UHH SAF ATMAAAA | a Seat Uae ant Fa anc AAI 18.8 Il ara acd ad Peaasstt | ay aac we 4a a CUM: Alera Aa: 11 18.9 1Bal Gangadhar Tilak
Of the seven hundred one verses of the Gītā, Tilak's karma-yoga reading’s commentators on this site comment on 700 in their own words.
These are chosen passages. To sit with every verse where Tilak's karma-yoga reading reads in its own way, follow it through the Gītā.
Tilak's karma-yoga reading through the Gītā →This school’s reading is the commentary of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, shown on every verse page and gathered in Tilak's karma-yoga reading through the Gītā.
- Bal Gangadhar Tilak on 2.47niṣkāma-karma as the Gītā's charter: the verse's four quarters named the catuḥ-sūtrī of Karma-Yoga, its close forbidding withdrawal too
- Bal Gangadhar Tilak on 3.20lokasaṃgraha and the acting sage: Janaka attains release through action, and the knower who cannot escape action keeps working for the world's welfare
- Bal Gangadhar Tilak on 18.6action as the poem's conclusion: the fault lies in the hope of fruit, not the act, expressly against the renunciation of action