`

éçäväsya upaniñad

by
Swami Tyagishanandaji Maharaj
SWAMI TYAGISHANANDA:- Born in 1881 at Trichhur in the royal family of Cochin
as V.K. Krishna Menon had his primary education in Trichhur, did I.A at Maharaja
College,Ernakulam getting First in Sanskrit and the Gold Medal, under the Madras
University and later did B.A and Law at the Presidency College at Madras During these
days he came into contact with Swami Ramakrishnananda at the Ramakrishna Math,
Mylapore which gave a definite form to his spirit of Tyaga and Service. He got spiritual
initiation from Swami Brahmananda and secured tremendous patience and life long
self-effort. After graduation in Law he practiced for some time and later gave up it all
together because of an incident of telling lies in a case. He became the Headmaster at
the Middle School of ‘Vivekodayam Sangha’ (Sri Ramakrishna Gurukula) at Trichur in
1924 and got his L.T Degree. Teaching was his life-long habit. He undertook the Kerala
Flood Relief of 1924. During this time he started living at the School premises in a small
hut. Along with the influence of Ramakrishna-Vivekananda ideas he was a great
admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and used Khadi throughout. The teachers and the
students of the school spun Khadi and wore it and it became famous for its nationalistic
principles and teachings. Mahatma Gandhi visited the school and blessed. He started a
Hostel seperatly for Boys and Girls for Harijan children education in 1927 at South
Puranattukara village, inspite of the social opposition. He begged from door to door to
maintain it and few young men influenced by him joined as his companaions and many
even joined the Order. He was a strict disciplinarian observing Ekadashi Vrata. Once
he wanted to test whether he was truly practicing Swami Vivekanada’s ‘Daridra Devo
Bhava’ and feeling the presence of Shiva in every Jiva. He took a vow to worship the
first beggar he saw and worship him as Narayana and complete the Dwadashi
Parayana. Next day what he encountered - meeting a Lepor begger made him disturb
for a moment but regaining he brought him inside and worshipped him formally and
served him to his heart’s content. He continued to observe this vow on all Ekadashis
life-long. He lived at Tiruvannamalai with Ramana Maharshi for some time.
He joined the Order in 1922 at Madras and got his Sannyasa Deeksha from
Swami Shivananda in 1932. He was the first President of the Vilangana Ramakrishna
Ashrama. Years of hard struggle amidst adversity broke his health and was transferred
for rest to Bangalore and was appointed as its President in 1938 where he stayed till his
last. He attained Mahasamadhi away on August 6,1951. He was known for his erudite
scholarship and sterling spiritual qualities in the Sangha. His discourses and talks on
the Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutra and Bhagavata, without any reference to notes
and commentaries are a legend. His work on ‘Narada Bhaktisutras’ which is a master
piece and the article for the Cultural Heritage of India ‘Message of Bhagavata’ are
witness to his deep scholarship. Besides these two works, Svetasvatra Upanishad and
Mandukya Karika are available to us. Efforts are being made to make available his
talks on Isavasyopanishad, Bhagavad Gita, Avatara and varied allied spiritual topics.
The Shlokas very dear to him were the following ones:-
zÉÉliÉÉ qÉWûÉliÉÉå ÌlÉuÉxÉÎliÉ xÉliÉÉå
uÉxÉliÉuÉssÉÉåMüÌWûiÉÇ cÉUliÉÈ|
iÉÏhÉÉïÈ xuÉrÉÇ pÉÏqÉpÉuÉÉhÉïuÉÇ
eÉlÉÉlÉWåûiÉÑlÉÉÅlrÉÉlÉÌmÉ iÉÉUrÉliÉÈ|| 1 ||
AÉlÉÑprÉ¶É zÉÉx§ÉåprÉ¶É MÑüzÉsÉÉå lÉUÈ |
xÉuÉïiÉÈ xÉÉUqÉÉS±ÉiÉç mÉÑwmÉåprÉ CuÉ wÉOèûmÉSÈ || 2 ||

2
REV. SWAMI TYAGISHANANDAJI MAHARAJ
CLASS TALKS/NOTES

ISAVASYOPANISHAD

All spiritual knowledge is revealed by the ancient Rishis on the basis of their own spiritual
experiences. They believe that they have come into direct, actual contact with the underlying
reality of themselves and the world in the depths of their Samadhi through spiritual practice.
The truths they reveal are felt by them as having been revealed to themselves by this
underlying reality or Atman or Brahman. Hence it is said in the Purusha Sukta that the real
author of these Vedas is God himself. Hence they may be called the word of God or Gospel.
So these ancient revelations may, therefore, be considered the Gospel of the rishis as they are
the teachings of God himself given to the world by the rishis to whom they were first
revealed vide. Purushasukta: iÉxqÉÉiÉç rÉ¥ÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïWÒûiÉÈ etc., where yajna
means both God, the personification of self-sacrifice as well as the sacrifice itself. The rishis
themselves were embodiments of this sacrifice viz. the distinction of egoism and all its
products. The essence of such a Gospel must necessarily be expected to be, the experience of
God through the destruction of AWûƒ¡ûÉU and qÉqÉMüÉU and realization of the identity
with God himself.

Veda is one of names of God, according to vishnusahasranama uÉåSÉå uÉåSÌuÉSlrÉ…

¡ûÈ. The Gita also says uÉåSæ¶É xÉuÉæïUWûqÉåuÉ uÉå±Éå
uÉåSÉliÉM×ü²åSÌuÉSåuÉ cÉÉWûqÉç |. This Veda deals with God and is means for
god-realization. God is the goal and Dharma is the means. The latter consist of all those
activities which lead to the destruction of egoism, which is the only obstacle to God
realization. The topic of Brahman or God is the main subject matter of the Upanishads, which
give the essence of the Vedas as Brahman or Atman. Though the Upanishads deal also with
the spiritual practices which are helpful to the realization of God, they give mainly only the
essentials of spiritual practice. The main details of this practice have to be gathered from the
ritualistic portion of the Srutis (the mantras and brahmanas). Of these mantras and
brahmanas, Yajurveda is the most important. It deals with, as its very name indicates, yajna
or Worship of God through self-sacrifice. It has come down to us in books or shakas,
Krishna-yajurveda and Shukla-yajurveda. In the former the mantras and their meanings and
applications are all jumbled up together and hence the characterization of it as Krishna or
black. Perhaps because the rituals prescribed by it and the ideal placed by it before its
votaries is of the attainment of worldly and sensual satisfaction. Such karma is called
‘Krishna-karma’ or black karma as it leads only to further ignorance or darkness and
continued entanglement in samsara as distinguished from Shukla-karma which leads to purity
of mind and realization of God. Both these karmas are distinguished from one another by
Patanjali as MüqÉÉïzÉÑYsÉÉMÚüwhÉÇ rÉÉåÌaÉlÉÎx§ÉÌuÉSÍqÉiÉUåwÉÉqÉç
where, Patanjali also notes that, the activity of a realized man is above both Shukla & Krishna
IV.7. In the Shuklayajurvedathe whole thing is more neatly arranged, the mantras being
separated from the other passages. This was done by the great sage Yajnavalkya. So we may
consider Yajnavalkya as the rishi of Shuklayajurveda and the Veda itself as the Gospel of
Yajnavalkya. (It deals with nishkama karma which leads to purity of mind and realization of
God. This gospel is called Shukla for these two reasons).

3
The Isavasyopanishad belongs to this Veda and therefore we may consider Yajnavalkya as
the rishi of this Upanishad to whom it was first revealed by God himself. But as the
Upanishads consists of the last chapter of the Veda and the revealer of this last chapter
according to the Vedic text is Dadhyangatharvana, Yajnavalkya may be considered only as
one of the rishis who compiled the Shuklayajurveda and incorporated the teachings of
Dadhyangatharvana. According to Madhva, this Upanishad came from Svayambhuva Manu
who praised the Lord Vishnu with these verses, when the latter appeared in his avatara as
Yajna the son of Akuti. The rishi is thus svayambhuva Manu and the subject matter is the
praise of God as Yajna.

The lives of these rishis viz. Yajnavalkya and Dadhyangatharvana as depicted in the Vedic
tradition as well as the puranas give us some idea of what their teachings could be. Thus the
Bhagavata records that Yajnavalkya was a student of Vaisampayana from whom he learnt the
Yajurveda in its original form. There was some misunderstanding between the Guru and
Shishya and the disciple had to vomit all that he had learnt as per the guru’s demand and that
subsequently as Shuklayajurveda was revealed to him by his tapas. The Bhagavata records in
XII-6.63 that the misunderstanding was based upon the sishya’s disregard of his co-disciples
and his arrogance in considering himself superior to them ÌuÉmÉëÉuÉÅuÉqÉl§ÉÉ
ÍzÉwrÉåhÉ rÉSÍbÉiÉÇ irÉeÉ AɵÉÏÌiÉ ||. This shows how egoism was at the root of
trouble which made him lose his hard earned knowledge and that he got it back only as a
result of tapas in the form of repentance and tyaga of ahamakara-mamakara and by worship
of God. The word vipravamantra shows that Yajnavalkya was a man who did not care much
for the traditional special dignities and privileges claimed by the Brahmin and his main fault
in the eyes of his co-disciples might have been his wider sympathies for the rights of one and
all for Brahma-vidya which was denied by custom and the disregard of traditions. This (wider
sympathies) liberalism in matters of caste and his universal sympathy for all is borne out by
his words in shanti parva (318:88-89) – mÉëÉmrÉ ¥ÉÉlÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÉiÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉɲÉ
uÉæzrÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìÉSÌmÉ lÉÏcÉÉSÍpɤhÉqÉç | ´ÉkSÉiÉurÉÇ ´ÉkSkÉÉlÉålÉ
ÌlÉirÉqÉç | lÉ ´ÉÎkSlÉÇ eÉlqÉqÉ×irÉÔ ÌuÉzÉåiÉÉqÉç || xÉuÉåï uÉhÉÉïÈ
oÉë¼hÉÉÈ oÉë¼eÉÉ¶É | xÉuÉåï ÌlÉirÉÇ urÉÉWûUliÉå cÉ oÉë¼ | iÉiuÉÇ
zÉÉx§ÉÇ oÉë¼oÉÑkrÉÉ oÉëuÉÏÍqÉ xÉuÉïÇ ÌuɵÉÇ oÉë¼ cÉæiÉiÉç
xÉqÉxiÉqÉç || These passages show that Yajnavalkya had no objection to receive or
impart brahma-vidya or the Vedas to one and all without distinction of creed, caste, sex or
color. This liberalism is attested by his giving brahmavidya even to his wife Maitreyi as
mentioned in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad although the rights of women to study used to be
denied to them by the orthodox. This liberalism and wide sympathy are rooted in his
realization of the divinity of the whole world in a spirit of worship of God. Most probably
this was what, put out his orthodox guru. The story of the return of the Vedas might be based
upon his disgust for the orthodox custom and of his promulgation of the new enlightened
doctrine of equality of all. The very name Yajnavalkya means the teacher of Yajna or the
worship of the whole world as God. SkrÉ…¡ûÉjÉuÉåïhÉ (cf.Madhu-vidya of Br. Up.)
taught brahma-vidya to Aswinis, who were sudras by birth and were refused atma-vidya by
devas. They had controlled their senses – aswas. They are healer of disease, the disease of
samsara.

Both the rishis Yajnavalkaya and Dadhyanga taught jivanmukti as the goal of life and
illustrated their teachings by their own example. Naturally we must therefore expect the
Isopanishad which claims these two as its rishis to contain the same teachings in its twin

4
aspects or realization of the divinity of the whole world and of one’s own self and expressing
such realization in actual life in the form of service of the world as worship of God without
distinction of caste, creed or color and without being affected by fear or favor. (For a detailed
account of the essential teachings of these two ref. Br. Up II.5 & Chap III & IV- which deals
with his answers, to the various enlightened vedantins of his time in the assembly of the King
Janaka and his teachings to Janaka himself). Brihadaranyaka is also, one of the Upanishads
belonging to the same Veda and it may be considered only as the elaboration of the teachings
of Isopanishad, many of whose mantras are actually quoted in Brihadaranyaka.

The very setting of the Isopanishad gives us a further clue in understanding jivanmukti as the
essence of its teachings. In the first place, it comes at the end of the Shuklayajurveda which
deals with Yajna. It represents the culmination of the life of worship and service. Beginning
with the darsha-sacrifice, it takes the aspirant from the stage of groping in darkness,
symbolized by the new moon ritual (darsha – new moon) to the highest level of spiritual life
based on the realization of the identity of one’s own self with God and the universes as
symbolized by the final verse of the text which identifies the essence of man with the essence
of the sun. The intervening chapters prescribe various Sadhanas to suit the adhikara of the
spiritual aspirant in various stages of his spiritual ascent, such as Aswamedha which
symbolically represents the control of the senses. Purusha-medha symbolizes the conquest of
egoism Sarva-Medha (total renunciation.) The positive and negative aspects of spiritual
practice are dealt with, in various chapters and mantras by Shuklayajurveda. Thus there is
Shiva samkalpasukta in the first 6 mantras of 34th chapter. There is Purusha-sukta in Chap.31.
It is here for the first time we find the constant assertion of the rishis that he has gone beyond
darkness and realized God. uÉåSÉWûqÉåiÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉÇ qÉWûÉliÉÇ, and that, there
is no other method, of attaining immortality. It is also asserted in the same sukta that yajna is
the law of life of all wise men from time immemorial see rÉ¥ÉålÉ
rÉ¥ÉqÉrÉeÉliÉSåuÉÉÈ | , in the 32nd chap. We get a grand description of God realization.
In the 16th verse of this chapter, we find a prayer for the welfare of all those who are engaged
in spiritual Sadhana and social service. ‘CSÇ qÉå oÉë¼ cÉ ¤É§ÉÇ cÉ EpÉå Í
´ÉrÉqÉzlÉÑiÉÉqÉç qÉÌrÉ SåuÉÉ SkÉÉiÉÑ Í´ÉrÉqÉѨÉqÉÉqÉç iÉxrÉæ iÉå
xuÉÉWûÉ ||. In this mantra, when spiritually understood as different from the ritualistic
interpretation, oÉë¼, means the spiritual aspirant and ¤É§É means he who saves from
injury or harm. (¤É§ÉÉiÉç ÌMüsÉ §ÉÉrÉiÉå CirÉÑSaÉëÈ ¤É§ÉxrÉ zÉoSÉå
pÉÑuÉlÉåwÉÑ ÂSÈ) (Raghuvamsha). Sri means spiritual prosperity. This anxiety for the
welfare of all is also mentioned in mantras of Chap.22. AÉoÉë¼lÉç oÉë¼hÉÉå
oÉë¼uÉcÉïxÉÏ eÉÉrÉiÉÉqÉç AÉUÉ·íå UÉeÉlrÉÈ zÉÔUÉ CwÉurÉÉåÅÌiÉurÉÉkÉÏ
qÉWûÉUjÉÉå eÉÉrÉiÉÉÇ SÉåakÉëÏ kÉålÉÑuÉÉåïRûÉlÉQèuÉÉlÉÉzÉÑÈ
xÉÎmiÉÈ mÉÑUÎlkÉrÉÉåïwÉÉ ÎeÉwhÉÔ UjÉå¸ÉÈ xÉpÉårÉÉå rÉÑuÉÉxrÉ
rÉeÉqÉÉlÉxrÉ uÉÏUÉå eÉÉrÉiÉÉÇ ÌlÉMüÉqÉå ÌlÉMüÉqÉå lÉÈ mÉeÉïlrÉÉå
uÉwÉïiÉÑ TüsÉuÉirÉÉå lÉ AÉåwÉkÉrÉÈ mÉcrÉliÉÉqÉç ||. The mantra of Yajna as
consisting in co-operation with God in redeeming man is mentioned in the 21st mantra of the
same chapter ÌuɵÉÉå SåuÉxrÉ lÉåiÉÑÈ qÉiÉÉåï uÉÑUÏiÉ xÉZrÉqÉç | ÌuɵÉÉå
UÉrÉ CwÉÑkrÉÌiÉ ±ÑqlÉÇ uÉ×hÉÏiÉ mÉÑwrÉxÉå xuÉÉWûÉ | Its liberalism in
extending the benefits of spiritual education to one and all without distinction of caste, creed,
color or sex is shown by the mantra XXVI. rÉjÉåqÉÉÇ uÉÉcÉÇ
MüsrÉÉhÉÏqÉÉuÉSÉÌlÉ eÉlÉåprÉÈ oÉë¼UÉeÉlrÉÉprÉÉÇ zÉÔSìÉrÉ cÉÉrÉÉïrÉ
cÉ xuÉÉrÉ cÉÉUhÉÉrÉ cÉ || (quoted by Sw V.) In the XX: 25 the benefits of
cooperation between spirituality and social service is mentioned – rÉ§É oÉë¼ cÉ ¤É§ÉÇ
cÉ xÉqrÉgcÉÉæ cÉUiÉÈ xÉWû | iÉÇ sÉÉåMÇü mÉÑhrÉÇ mÉë¥ÉåwÉÇ rɧÉ

5
SåuÉÉÈ xÉWû AÎalÉlÉÉ || That the zÉÔSì is treated on terms of equality is seen from
various other mantras also (xviii: 18). The divinity of the whole world is mentioned in xiv; 20
– AÎalÉSåïuÉiÉÉ uÉÉiÉÉå SåuÉiÉÉ xÉÔrÉÉåï SåuÉiÉÉ and xvii; 19 - -
ÌuɵÉiɶɤÉÑÂiÉ ÌuɵÉiÉÉåqÉÑZÉÈ ÌuɵÉiÉÉåoÉÉWÒûÂiÉ ÌuɵÉiÉxmÉÉiÉç
xÉÇ oÉÉWÒûprÉÉÇ kÉqÉÌiÉ xÉÇ mÉiɧÉæ±ÉïuÉÉpÉÔqÉÏ eÉlÉrÉlÉç SåuÉ
LMüÈ || The whole Rudradhyaya is a description of the divinity of everything in the same
way as the purushsukta. Even the lowest of animals and vegetables and criminals and sinners
among men as also those who are in the lower ranks of social order are also described as only
manifestations of Rudra vide Chap.xvi. From the beginning of the text, in various contexts
the idea of the identity of man and the universe is repeated over and over again in ritualistic
symbolic language as in III;9. AÎalÉerÉÉåïÌiÉÈ erÉÉåÌiÉUÎalÉÈ xuÉÉWûÉ xÉÔrÉÉåï
erÉÉåÌiÉÈ erÉÉåÌiÉÈ xÉÔrÉïÈ xuÉÉWûÉ etc. Similarly in xii; 14 we find the famous
mantra WÇûxÉÈ zÉÑÍcÉwÉiÉç uÉxÉÑUliÉËU¤ÉxÉiÉç etc. So also, in vii; 42: xiii; 46
we find the sun identified with the atman, i.e. identification of the essence of nature with the
essence of man. xÉÔrÉï AÉiqÉÉ eÉaÉiÉxiÉxjÉÑwɶÉ. It is this idea that culminates in
the famous expression – rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ in Isa xvi.
In fact, the whole ritual of the Shuklayajurveda is so planned that these ideas of the divinity
of the man and the universe is dinned into the ear and mind of the ritualistic in various forms
in symbolic language till he is able to receive the highest teaching towards the end of the
whole Veda. That the aim of the whole text is the realization of this highest truth is clear from
the upakrama and upasamhara. Thus in the very first chapter we find in the first mantra the
ritualistic is reminded that all the rituals contained in the book are meant only to take him to
perfect divine activity. SåuÉÉå uÉÈ xÉÌuÉiÉÉ mÉëÉmÉïrÉiÉÑ ´Éå¸iÉqÉÉrÉ
MüqÉïhÉå | A prayer is addressed in the same chapter to Agni or divine light to lead the
performer to the highest truth through the ritual, AalÉå uÉëiÉmÉiÉå uÉëiÉÇ
cÉÉËUwrÉÉÍqÉ iÉcNûMåürÉÇ iÉlqÉå UÉkrÉiÉÉqÉç |
CSqÉWûqÉlÉ×iÉÉixÉirÉqÉÑmÉæÍqÉ | Again in the same chapter we find another
famous mantra that all ritual is only worship of God, SåuÉxrÉ iuÉÉ xÉÌuÉiÉÑÈ
mÉëxÉuÉåÅ͵ÉlÉÉåÈ oÉÉWÒûprÉÉÇ mÉÔwhÉÉå WûxiÉÉprÉÉqÉç || (I.10). It
is interesting to note in this connection how the Veda takes ashwins and pushan among the
deities as more helpful than the others in bringing about the birth of God (sav-prasav) in our
hearts. We have already seen how the aswins were sudras by birth, who attained divinity
through spiritual practice. Pushan is also considered as a Sudra among the gods vide
Brihaddevata (Brhd). I; 4:13, which says that the other gods who belonged to the other 3
castes found themselves unsuccessful without the help of pushan iÉiÉç lÉæuÉ
urÉpÉuÉiÉç xÉÈ zÉÉæSìÇ uÉhÉïqÉxÉ×eÉiÉ mÉÔwÉhÉqÉç | CrÉÇ uÉæ
mÉÔwÉÉ CrÉÇ ÌWû CSÇ xÉuÉïqÉÑwrÉÌiÉ rÉÌSSÇ ÌMügcÉ || This surely reflects
the same idea put forth by Swamiji ‘that unless one is prepared to see God even in those who
are in the lower ranks of society or of creation, society is bound to suffer and the spiritual
aspirant will not be successful in his spiritual practices'. This mantra wants all orthodox ultra-
ritualists to (take advantage of) worship even the sudras if they want to be successful in their
ritual, as sudras are also as much part of God as anybody else. If one does not see divinity in
any part or aspect of creation one has not attained the highest. In rounding up the whole,
Yajnavalkya praised to the God Pushan to reveal his divinity for it is only with the help of
Pushan that the divinity of his own self is capable of being realized. ÌWûUhqÉrÉålÉ
mÉɧÉåhÉ etc. and mÉÔwɳÉåMüwÉåï (Isa. 15 &16), the reference to
xÉirÉkÉqÉÉïrÉ kÉ×¹rÉå is reminiscent of Vedic prayer CSqÉWûqÉlÉ×iÉÉiÉç
xÉirÉqÉÑmÉæÍqÉ | Thus it will be seen that the ritual is in terms of various powers of
nature. It is a Sadhana in recognizing and worshiping the one God or atman which is the

6
essence of everything.

Other mantras like XI.1-5 also show how ritual is intended to include control and
concentration of mind and other aspect as spiritual practice. Yet other mantras like XI.7 show
how the rishi was conscious of the necessity for Chittashuddhi as the result of the ritual. Yet
others like III.60 show the place of bhakti in ritual. §ÉrÉqoÉMÇü rÉeÉÉqÉWåû, SåuÉÈ
xÉÌuÉiÉÈ mÉëxÉÑuÉ xÉÌuÉiÉÈ mÉëxÉÑuÉ rÉ¥ÉÇ mÉëxÉÑuÉ rÉ¥ÉmÉÌiÉÇ
pÉaÉÉrÉ | ÌSurÉÉå aÉlkÉuÉÉïÈ MåüiÉmÉÔÈ MåüiÉÇ lÉÈ mÉÑlÉÉiÉÑ
uÉÉcÉxmÉÌiÉÈ uÉÉcÉÇ lÉÈ xuÉSiÉÑ, §rÉqoÉMÇü rÉeÉÉqÉWåû xÉÑaÉÎlkÉÇ
mÉÑ̹uÉkÉïlÉÇ EuÉÉïÂMüÍqÉuÉ oÉlkÉlÉÉiÉç qÉ×irÉÉåÈ qÉѤÉÏrÉ
qÉÉÅqÉ×iÉÉiÉç | §rÉqoÉMÇü rÉeÉÉqÉWåû xÉÑaÉÎlkÉÇ mÉëÌiÉuÉåSlÉÇ
EuÉÉïÂMüÍqÉuÉ oÉlkÉlÉÉiÉç CiÉÉå qÉѤÉÏrÉ qÉÉÅqÉ×iÉÈ || Yet others pray for
spiritual values iÉåeÉÉåÍxÉ iÉåeÉÉå qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû uÉÏrÉïqÉÍxÉ uÉÏrÉïÇ qÉÌrÉ
kÉåÌWû oÉsÉqÉÍxÉ oÉsÉÇ qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû AÉåeÉÉåÍxÉ AÉåeÉÉå qÉÌrÉ
qÉlrÉÑUÍxÉ qÉlrÉÑÇ qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû xÉWûÉåÍxÉ xÉWûÉå qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû ||
Others like XIX.30 explain how the ritual is expected to take to the highest realization
through various stages – uÉëiÉålÉ SϤÉÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ SϤÉrÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ
SͤÉhÉÉqÉç | SͤÉhÉrÉÉ ´É®ÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ ´É®rÉÉ xÉirÉqÉÉmrÉiÉå | vide
also XX.24. AprÉÉSkÉÉÍqÉ xÉÍqÉkÉqÉalÉå uÉëiÉmÉiÉå iuÉÌrÉ | uÉëiÉÇ cÉ
´É®ÉÇ cÉ EmÉæÍqÉ ClkÉåiuÉÉ SÏͤÉiÉÉåÅWûqÉç || All these show that the Vedic
ritual is a synthesis of all yogas employing all methods of spiritual practices. This spirit of
synthesis also finds its culmination in Isopanishad which describes Jivanmukti.

All the above facts about the spirit of the teachings of Shuklayajurveda as well as of its
teaching should be kept in mind in understanding the essential teachings of the
Isavasyopanishad, which forms the quintessence of the whole Veda. This Upanishad is of
prime importance to the members of the Ramakrishna Order, since they are supposed to
belong to Shuklayajurveda. It is the spirit of this Upanishad that pervades the principles of
practice of spiritual life as explained by Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda. It is in
this Upanishad we find the spirit of synthesis and harmony of all spiritual practices and
religions mentioned and it is the liberal views of Yajnavalkya in matters of rights of women
and of lower castes for Brahmavidya and realization of God which is one of the special
features of the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Swamiji. Here again we find in
Shuklayajurveda the characteristic teaching of Sri Ramakrishna that the gods of all religions
represent the same entity viz. Atman, vide XVII.27 – ‘rÉÉå lÉÈ ÌmÉiÉÉ eÉÌlÉiÉÉ rÉÉå
ÌuÉkÉÉiÉÉ kÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ uÉåS pÉÑuÉlÉÉÌlÉ ÌuɵÉÉ | rÉÉå SåuÉÉlÉÉÇ lÉÉqÉkÉÉ
LMü LuÉ iÉÇ xÉqmÉëzlÉÇ pÉÑuÉlÉ rÉlirÉlrÉÉ || and XXXII.1 –
iÉSåuÉÉÎalÉxiÉÉÌSirÉxiɲÉrÉÑxiÉSÒ cÉlSìqÉÉÈ | iÉSåuÉ zÉÑ¢Çü iÉSèoÉë¼
iÉÉ AÉmÉÈ xÉ mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉÈ || The spirit of service which characterizes our order
along with it spiritual culture without any contradiction between the two is capable of being
traced to the teaching of Yajnavalkya and the Isopanishad which form one of the basic
sources of the teaching of the Gita also.

SHANTI PATHA

The study of every Upanishad is usually preceded by the shanti patha or Peace Chant. This is
meant to make the mind peaceful and unperturbed and free from distractions so that the mind
may be concentrated on the understanding of the text whose study follows, so that the study
may be spiritually fruitful. The Shuklayajurveda itself contains a chapter which deals with

7
Shanti (xxxvi). Many of the famous verses which are usually repeated in shanti pathas are
found in this chapter. Thus we have the famous Gayatri (xxxvi.3) included in this chapter
although it finds a place in many other chapters also in different contexts. So also we find
zÉÇ lÉÉå ÍqɧÉÈ (xxxvi.9), Similarly AÉmÉÉå ÌWû ¸É qÉrÉÉå pÉÑuÉÈ (14-16) and
(24- iÉŠ¤ÉÑSåïuÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉÑUxiÉÉiÉç zÉÑ¢üqÉÑŠUiÉç | mÉzrÉåqÉ zÉUSÈ
zÉiÉÇ eÉÏuÉåqÉ zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ ´ÉÑhÉÑrÉÉqÉ zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ mÉëoÉëuÉÉqÉç
zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ ASÏlÉÉÈ xrÉÉqÉ zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ pÉÔrÉ¶É zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÉiÉç || There
is also the famous mantra (xxxvi.17) ±ÉæÈ zÉÉÎliÉÈ ... etc. Another mantra which speaks
of the part of love in bringing about the peace of mind is (xxxvi.18)- kÉ×iÉå kÉ×ÇWû
qÉÉ ÍqɧÉxrÉ qÉÉ cɤÉÑwÉÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ xÉqÉϤÉliÉÉqÉç |
ÍqɧÉxrÉÉWÇû cɤÉÑwÉÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ xÉqÉϤrÉå | ÍqɧÉxrÉ
cɤÉÑwÉÉ xÉqÉϤÉÉqÉWåû ||, where the word ÍqÉ§É means “universal friend or
benefactor’ as well as God in that aspect. But tradition has fixed certain mantras for
santipathas in connection with Upanishads. As the Upanishads belong to the five Vedas
including Shuklayajurveda there are different set of mantras for the Upanishads belonging to
each Veda. As Muktikopanishad points out, the shantipatha for all Upanishads belonging to
Rigveda is uÉÉXèû qÉå qÉlÉÍxÉ mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉ etc. GauÉåSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ
SzÉxÉÇZrÉÉMüÉlÉÉqÉç EmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ ‘uÉÉXèûqÉå qÉlÉÍxÉ’ CÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ ||
For the Upanishads belonging to Shuklayajurveda (19) the shanti is mÉÔhÉïqÉSÈ etc.
zÉÑYqÉrÉeÉÑuÉåïSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ
LMüÉålÉÌuÉÇzÉÌiÉxÉÇZrÉÉMüÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ mÉÔhÉïqÉSÈ CÌiÉ
zÉÉÎliÉÈ || M×üwhÉrÉeÉÑuÉåïSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ ²Ȩ́ÉÇzÉiÉç
xÉÇZÉrÉÉMüÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ xÉWûlÉÉuÉuÉiÉÑ CÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ ||
xÉÉqÉuÉåSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ wÉÉåQûzÉxÉÇZrÉÉMüÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ
AÉmrÉÉrÉliÉÑ CÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ || AjÉuÉïuÉåSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ LMü̧ÉÇzÉiÉç
xÉÇZrÉÉMüÉlÉÉÇ EmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ pÉSìÇ MühÉåïÍpÉËUÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ ||
Mahavakyaratnavali says thus uÉÉMçü mÉÔhÉï xÉWûlÉÉmrÉÉrÉÇ pÉSìÇ
MühÉåïÍpÉUåuÉ cÉ mÉgcÉ zÉÉÎliÉ mÉÍjÉiuÉÉ AÉSÉæ mÉjÉåiÉç uÉÉYrÉÉÌlÉ
AlÉliÉUqÉç || Of the ten main Upanishads as mentioned in the sloka
DzÉMåülÉMüPûmÉëzlÉqÉÑhQûqÉÉhQÕYrÉÌiÉÌiÉÌiÉÈ LåiÉUårÉÇ cÉ
NûÉlSÉåarÉÇ oÉ×WûÉSÉUhrÉMÇü iÉjÉÉ etc.’, have got the shanti according to the
veda they belong. zÉÉliÉrÉÈ mÉgcÉkÉÉ mÉëÉå£üÉ uÉåSÉlÉÑ¢üqÉhÉålÉ uÉæ
uÉÉXèûqÉ qÉlÉÍxÉ zÉÉlirÉæuÉ CiÉUårÉÇ mÉëmÉirÉiÉå DzÉÇ
mÉÔhÉïqÉSålÉæuÉ oÉ×WûSÉUhrÉMÇü iÉjÉÉ xÉWûlÉÉÌuÉÌiÉ zÉÉlirÉÉ cÉ
iÉæ̨ÉUårÉÇ MüPÇû cÉ uÉæ AÉmrÉÉrÉÎliÉ CÌiÉ zÉÉlirÉæuÉ MåülÉ
NûÉlSÉåarÉ xÉÇ¥ÉMåü pÉSìÇ MühÉåïÍpÉ qÉl§ÉåhÉ mÉëzlÉ qÉÉhQÕûYrÉ
qÉÑhQûMüqÉç ||

The mantra mÉÔhÉïqÉSÈ etc. is found in its present from in Brihad. V.I, but an earlier and
slightly different form of the same is found in the Atharva Veda X: 8.29. This mantra has
erÉå¹oÉë¼ or AÉiqÉÉ as its deity or subject-matter as it appears in the Atharvaveda and
its rishi is MÑüixÉ || The Brihadaranyaka (Brihad) version of it appears to be a later
addition as it is a part of ÎZÉsÉÉ MüÉhQû of Brihad. It gives us a very grand conception of
the absolute which forms the subject-matter of all Vedanta. The mantra is variously
interpreted by different schools, each according to his own conception of the highest reality.
The literal meaning of the verse is not difficult to understand: - mÉÔhÉï means that which
is full in itself or that which fills everything. Literally, the mantra, therefore, means that is
fullness itself and this is also fullness. Taking (bringing) out the fullness out of fullness, only
fullness still remains. Fullness here of course, means infinity of the Absolute. To Sankara

8
‘That’ means the Nirguna Brahman which is beyond name and form and ‘This’ refers to
Saguna Brahman or Iswara as grasped by mind and words and which manifests as the
universe. So he explains the mantra as meaning that the Nirguna Brahman and the Saguna
Brahman are in reality One, and the former is untouched by any world process or by being
conceived of or described by the mind or words. The Saguna Brahma is only an appearance
to him, the highest reading of the Absolute by the human mind which works only within the
framework of time, space and causation. No idea of the Absolute necessitated by the
weakness or limitations of the human mind can make any real change in the Absolute itself.
The Absolute as it is realized after transcending the limitation of the mind is what is referred
to as 'That' and the Absolute as it is grasped by the mind is what is referred to by ‘This’ in the
mantra. Since the latter also is in reality only the former, if all misconception about it caused
by the incapacity of the mind to grasp it were removed, the Saguna Brahman which is one
with Nirguna Brahman will be realized in its real nature as the same as the Absolute. So the
second line would mean, according to him, if the real absolute is realized it will be also
realized that the Saguna Brahman and the universe are nothing but the Absolute and that only
the Absolute exists, everything else having name and form including the creator and the
created universe being ephemeral and false. This mantra therefore according to his is a fit
subject for meditation at the beginning of the study of the Upanishad which presumes to
teach the Absolute which is really beyond all thought so that in spite of all attempts at
description by the Srutis this absolute is only to be experienced and not known by the
spiritual aspirant, the scriptures being capable of helping the aspirant through his own
Sadhana to have the first hand direct experience.

If the expression ‘This’ is taken as referring to Jiva instead of Saguna Brahman, the mantra
can also be taken to mean Jivanmukti, where the individual soul or Jiva realizes itself as
nothing else than Brahman itself and so identical with God and the universe as well. God also
is infinite and Jiva also is infinite really, although it is only a manifestation of God. When the
real nature of the Jiva and world is realized as Brahman the individual also becomes Brahman
itself and remains as such till the death of his body without being affected by any of sense
objects or bound by desires or his activities. This is jivanmukti. This Jivanmukti is the
essential meaning of all Shanti mantras.

To the other schools of Vedanta, this personal God or Iswara is always only Saguna having
innumerable auspicious attributes. Even when the Vedas describe Iswara as Nirguna, nirguna
only means, according to them, that the Iswara is beyond satwa, rajas and tamas.
Nirgunatvam is only another attribute of Iswara which is negative in contrast with positive
attributes. He is the cause of the universe which is an effect.

To the Visishtadvaitin, the world is as real as Iswara Himself. For he believes in

Satkaryavada, the doctrine of causation according to which the effect is not a new product but
is only a manifestation of what already and always existed in the cause. The effect is nothing
but the cause in its state of manifestation and the cause is nothing but the effect in a subtle
form. The visishtadvaitin therefore, understands this mantra in terms of his idea of causation.
God as well as the universe is both real and identical. Both of them are absolute. Even after
the cause manifests itself as the Absolute effect, since both cause and effect are the same,
only God remains as the universe. According to Gopalananda who leans towards
Visishtadvaita, the first line refers to creation and the second line absorption and when ‘this’
infinite world which is the effect comes out of or manifests itself out of ‘that’ viz. Iswara,
Iswara does not lose the infinitude. Similarly when this world is absorbed into Iswara at the

9
time of pralay, only Iswara remains. So this infinite world is, before creation and after
dissolution, only the Infinite Iswara and therefore in the state of manifestation also it is
nothing but Iswara. Sankara also has no objection to this interpretation, only he would add
this manifest world as well as the creator is only the appearances and not real in the sense in
which the absolute is real.

To Madhwa, Iswara is only the efficient cause and not the material cause at all and ‘This’
infinite manifest world can never be Iswara before srushti or after pralaya nor in the state of
manifestation. Therefore, he finds it difficult to interpret ‘This’ as meaning the universe, for
if he takes it as meaning the universe, he would be admitting that God and the Universe are
the same and identical. So he takes ‘this’ to mean only the ‘avatara’. So the mantra would
mean only that God is infinite and that his avatara also is infinite and that God does not lose
his infinitude even when he takes birth as an avatara. The avatara also does not lose his
infinitude when he withdraws his name and form and goes back to his original state of
Iswara.

There are also some modern interpretations given to this mantra from the mathematical
standpoint. The modern mathematician thinks that his conception of infinity is what is
actually given in this mantra. To him his infinity cannot in anyway be affected by any
addition, subtraction, multiplication or division. If an infinite number is taken away from the
infinity or added to it, infinity remains unaffected. But the conception of the mathematician is
not what vedantins speak of as the Absolute Brahman. The Vedantin’s Brahman is beyond all
conception itself. Even when he uses expressions like infinite or absolute he is fully
conscious that these words denote only an idea, not the Absolute itself. But the infinity of
mathematicians denotes a number and quantity although it may be infinitely large. It is
something which could be manipulated within mathematical equations as it is designated by
(as) ‘n’. It means only any number or quantity however big but still having characteristics of
other number or quantities. Therefore it is only a relative conception which holds well only
when the mind works in the waking state. It has no reference to the Reality as it exists in
itself beyond the three states of consciousness. Moreover the mathematicians deal with
abstractions based on observations of sense data. Their conceptions of infinity is always
colored or limited by the sense data on which it is based and their equations can be tested by
further observation of sense object. The vedantic Absolute is of an entirely different order
altogether. It is the reality and not an abstraction and it is realized only when one goes beyond
the mind and the senses. Nor can it be tested or verified by anything other than itself.
Observations of sense data can never prove or disprove this Absolute which is a matter of
direct experience called AmÉËU¤ÉÉlÉÑpÉuÉ as distinct from mÉëirÉ¤É or
AlÉÑqÉÉlÉ based upon it. Moreover there are different degrees of infinity capable of being
conceived of from the standpoint of mathematics. Thus a straight line, according to Euclid,
can be infinitely extended and therefore be conceived of as infinite in it-self. But a plane
surface consisting of length and breadth can be infinitely extended likewise and may
therefore be conceived of as infinite. But it will be readily admitted that the infinity of a line
cannot be exactly the same as the infinity of the plane surface of 2 dimensions. Similarly
there can be infinity of 3 dimensions also in terms of space and time together. We shall not be
surprised if further infinities are added in course of time each more comprehensive than the
preceding. The very fact that one could conceive of lower infinities and higher infinities or
smaller infinities or bigger infinities and more comprehensive or less comprehensive
infinity’s shows that the mathematicians are not dealing with the real infinity or the Absolute
which is beyond all relative conceptions. The infinity of the mathematician is the sum total of

10
numbers or quantities which are parts each of which in finite. The total sum of any number of
finite parts can itself be only big, but not infinite and still definite however vague it may be.
Again the infinite or absolute of Vedanta is more of the nature of consciousness and life than
the infinity of mathematics which deals only with physical or material entities. The Vedantins
Absolute is all-pervasive and the very stuff of the universe including life and mind
themselves. It is beyond subject and object. The whole physical universe, according to
modern scientists has become finite, its infinitude being only of the nature of a sphere. This
conception of the infinity of the universe may be acceptable to Madhwa who finds a
difference between God and the universe and to whom therefore the two cannot be the same.
If at all the mantra has any relation to mathematical infinity it can refer only to the second
infinity and not the first. This may be taken as meaning mathematician’s infinity and this
infinity and not the first this may be taken as meaning mathematician’s infinity and this
infinity may be considered as an abstraction from the Absolute Brahman which remains
unaffected by any abstractions made by the mathematicians.

It is usual to repeat the word zÉÉÎliÉ thrice after reciting this mantra before beginning the
study of the text itself. This repetition three times is with reference to the three fold nature of
all obstructions to study and spiritual life. This three fold nature may be understood as
referring to adhyatmic, adidaivic and adibhautic obstacles. The orthodox people understand
by adhyatmic those which pertain to the body, by adidaivic as those caused by devas,
navagrahas, stars etc. and by adibhautic as those caused by ghosts, demons etc. But a better
interpretation of these expressions would most probably be the adhyatmic as relating to the
Atman or spiritual. Adidaivic as that which is caused by external agencies and adibhautic as
caused by body which is made up of pancha bhutas. The triple nature of obstructions to
spiritual life may have reference to the three fold covering of the spirit viz. the xjÉÔsÉ,
xÉÔ¤ÉqÉ, and MüÉUhÉ or the obstacles caused by the ̧ÉÌuÉkÉMüUhÉ or the 3
functions of the mind-intellect, emotion and will which are the sources of error, suffering and
sin. Whatever interpretation is accepted it would suit the context because what is wanted by
the student is complete freedom from all kinds of distractions which might possibly occur.

UPANISHAD

The Upanishad, according to all school, deal with Brahmavidya or Atmavidya. The
Brahmavidya has got two aspects - the theoretical as well as practical. The theoretical aspect
consists of a knowledge or understanding of the nature of God, man and the universe. There
are 2 varieties of this knowledge, one of which is purely intellectual and the other based upon
actual experience. Both these are generally included under the name Jnanam (sometimes
distinguished as Jnana & Vijnana). The practical aspect consists of life in the light of such
knowledge. This life also has 2 aspects - The life of the merely intellectual knower and that
which is based on actual experience, the former being only a means to the latter which is the
end or goal of life. There are many interpretations of the Upanishads due to the differences in
understanding the nature of these 2 aspects of theory and of practice. These interpretations
are based on the particular experiences and opinions of the interpreters themselves or of the
acharyas of a particular school of thought to which they belong. Very often the text is
interpreted in terms of the teaching of some other text such as the agamas, puranas etc. This
attempt is like putting the cart before the horse, for the srutis are authorities in themselves. It
is the puranas or agamas which are the later texts that have to be understood in terms of the
srutis and not vice versa. The srutis themselves according to all orthodox schools are self-
revealing and must be understood in their own light. If at all any help is to be derived from

11
other texts, it must be from other sruti texts, preferably those belonging to the same sakha of
the Vedas and which purport to be the teachings of the same rishi. If a particular text is a part
of a bigger whole the assistance of the teachings of the bigger whole may be taken to
understand the teachings of the part. Further than that it is unsafe to rely upon later texts like
the puranas or agamas to understand any sruti text or to import into the text one’s own
opinions or the opinions of the school to which one belongs. But these restrictions do not
apply to men of realizations who have actual experience of the Absolute Reality. They have
the right to interpret the scriptures in the light of their own spiritual experiences to suit the
needs of succeeding generations. Cf. Narada Bhakti Sutra 12 and notes there on. Also Sri
Ramakrishna’s words, that when there is a contradiction between his own experience and the
words of the sruti he would invariably accept the former. The various commentaries that are
available may all be helpful to spiritual life to particular sets of aspirants. But we may not
agree with them when they criticize the interpretation given by commentators belonging to
other school (most of whom are not realized persons at all but who rely upon grammar &
nirukta for their interpretations). Most of these interpretations are partial and do not cover all
the four aspects of spiritual life or knowledge as mentioned above. The teaching of the text of
the Isopanishad is comprehensive and all inclusive and covers the whole field of spiritual
knowledge and life in both stages of mere aspiration as well as realization. There is really no
opposition or contradictions between these various aspects of brahmavidya life which covers
all departments of known activity and knowledge covers all aspects of knowledge of truth
and life must always be based upon such knowledge and knowledge must express itself in
life. Therefore there is no opposition between knowledge and life in either stage whether that
of the aspirant or the adept. Similarly there is no opposition or contradiction between the
knowledge and life of the aspirant and those of the realized man. The former is not only a
means to the latter but is actually based upon the model of the latter. It is the knowledge and
life which have become natural to man of realization that is understood by the aspirant
intellectually with the help of scriptures and gurus and practiced with effort by the aspirant to
attain realization. This is admitted by all Acharyas. Thus Sankara says xÉuÉï§ÉæuÉ ÌWû
AkrÉÉiqÉzÉÉx§Éå M×üiÉÉjÉïsɤÉhÉÉÌlÉ rÉÉÌlÉ iÉÉlrÉåuÉ xÉÉkÉlÉÉÌlÉ
EmÉÌSzrÉliÉå rɦÉxÉÉkrÉiuÉÉiÉç || (Gita Bhashya ii, 55). Madhwa says iɲæ
ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÑÍpÉÈ xÉÉkrÉÇ ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉ rɨÉÑ ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ iɲæ ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÑÍpÉÈ
xÉÉkrÉÇ ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ rɨÉÑ ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ rɨÉÑ sɤÉhÉqÉç || (ii, 56 Gita).
Similarly Nilakantha says on Gita xvii, 25 rÉSåuÉ ÌWû qÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ
xuÉÉpÉÉÌuÉMÇü zÉÏsÉÇ iÉSåuÉ qÉÑqÉѤÉÔhÉÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉåhÉ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå
CÌiÉ mÉëÍxÉ®åÈ ||
As the Jivanmukti viveka notes at the stage prior to the realization of the goal the seeker of
God is free from cravings as a result of vigilant practice and they are held in control only with
great effort whereas after the realization these desires cease altogether and freedom from
cravings becomes natural. The Naishkarmyasiddhi of Suresvaracharya says
EimɳÉÉÅÅiqÉmÉëoÉÉåkÉxrÉ iuɲå¹OûiuÉÉSrÉÉå aÉÑhÉÉÈ | ArÉliÉiÉÉå
pÉuÉlirÉxrÉ lÉiÉÑ xÉÉkÉlÉÃÌmÉhÉÈ || ÌuɱÎxjÉiÉrÉå mÉëÉMçü rÉå
xÉÉkÉlÉpÉÔiÉÉÈ mÉërɦÉÌlÉwmɱÉÈ sɤÉhÉpÉÔiÉxiÉÑ mÉÑlÉÈ
xuÉpÉÉuÉiÉxiÉå ÎxjÉiÉÉÈ ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥Éå | eÉÏuÉlqÉÑÌ£üËUÌiÉ CqÉÉÇ uÉSÎliÉ
AuÉxjÉÉÇ ÎxjÉiÉÉiqÉxÉqoÉÉåkÉÉÇ oÉÉÍkÉiÉ pÉåkÉmÉëÌiÉpÉÉÇ AoÉÉÍkÉiÉ
AÉiqÉmÉëoÉÉåkÉÇ xÉÉqÉjrÉÉïiÉç || From the above passages it is clear that spiritual
life in both stages is the same, only in the stage of the aspirant effort is necessary while in the
stage of the adept it has become natural. Effort is necessary suitable to he stage of the aspirant
in his gradual development to the highest state.

12
Many of the orthodox commentators treat the text as an independent one as it does not form
part of the whole Suklayajurveda. Some like Sankara definitely go to the extent of saying that
the last chapter consisting of the Upanishad has no connection with karma at all and not used
in ritual as laid down by the previous portions of the Veda. Their interpretations also of the
mantras of the Upanishad do not explain how the fortieth chapter is a logical development of
what precedes and how it represents the culmination of spiritual life which is depicted in the
earlier portions of the Veda. The mantras of the Upanishad are divided also, according to
Sankara into groups some dealing with the realized man and some with the aspirant. There is
no such necessity for bifurcation in the light of what Sankara himself has said as noted above
xÉuÉï̧ÉuÉ ÌWû AkrÉÉiqÉzÉÉx§Éå etc. He also contradicts his own admissions in his
commentaries on the Gita and the Brahmasutras when he says in the Isa Bhashya that the
realized man does not do any karma. In his Brahmasutra Bhashya, on IV.1; 15
AlÉÉUokÉMüÉrÉåï LuÉ iÉÑ mÉÔuÉåï iÉSuÉkÉåÈ He definitely says that even a man
of realization has to live till his prarabda karma wears out. This is an admission based on Ch.
Up. Statement iÉxrÉ iÉÉuÉSåuÉ ÍcÉUÇ rÉÉuÉiÉç lÉç ÌuÉqÉÉå¤rÉåÅjÉ
xÉqmÉixrÉå || (VI: 14, 2). Similarly in his Brahmasutra Bhashya on IV: 1, 19
pÉÉåaÉålÉ iÉÑ CiÉUå ¤ÉmÉÌrÉiuÉÉ xÉqmɱiÉå || He admits again that prarabda
cannot be got over by a man of realization. From these two statements of Sankara in his
Brahma sutra Bhashya supported by him with copious arguments and authority of the suits
and actual experience of the realized man themselves it is clear that Sankara has no real
objection to a realized man living an active life for the service of the world, if it is consistent
with his prarabda. In his Bhashya on Br. Su. III:4,14, he admits against his own commentary
on Isopanishad that the man of realization can, if he likes of his own free will, live an active
life of service and that the second mantra of the Upanishad is meant to eulogize such divine
activity – ‘xiÉÑiÉrÉå AlÉÑqÉÌiÉuÉÉï|’ and his Bhashya says, rÉÉuÉ‹ÏuÉÇ MüqÉï
MÑüuÉïirÉÌmÉ ÌuÉSÒÌwÉ mÉÑÂwÉå lÉ MüqÉï sÉåmÉÉrÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ
ÌuɱÉxÉÉqÉjrÉÉïiÉç || Again in his Gita Bhashya on II,11, he admits that a man of
realization like Bhagavan Sri Krishna, live an active life of service or lokasangraha. Only, he
would not call such activity of a realized man by the name of karma, which according to him,
exclusively be limited to mean selfish activities based upon egoism and desire for the
enjoyment of worldly fruits. rÉxrÉ iÉÑ A¥ÉÉlÉÉiÉç UÉaÉÉÌS SÉåwÉiÉÉå uÉ
MüqÉïÍhÉ mÉëuÉרÉxrÉ rÉ¥ÉålÉ SÉlÉålÉ iÉmÉxÉÉ uÉÉ ÌuÉzÉÑ®xÉiuÉxrÉ
¥ÉÉlÉqÉÑimɳÉÇ mÉUqÉÉjÉïiÉiuÉÌuÉwÉrÉÇ LMüqÉåuÉåSÇ xÉuÉï oÉë¼
AMüiÉ×ï cÉ CÌiÉ | iÉxrÉ MüqÉïÍhÉ MüqÉïmÉërÉÉåeÉlÉå cÉ ÌlÉuÉרÉåÅÌmÉ
ÍsÉMüxÉXèûaÉëWûÉjÉïÇ rɦÉmÉÔuÉïÇ rÉjÉÉ mÉëuÉ×̨ÉÈ iÉjÉæuÉ
MüqÉïÍhÉ mÉëuÉרÉxrÉ rÉimÉëuÉ×̨ÉÃmÉÇ SØzrÉiÉå lÉ iÉiÉç MüqÉï rÉålÉ
oÉÑ®åÈ xÉqÉÑŠrÉ xrÉÉiÉç, rÉjÉÉ pÉaÉuÉiÉÉå uÉÉxÉÑSåuÉxrÉ
¤ÉɧÉMüqÉï cÉå̹iÉÇ lÉ ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ xÉqÉÑŠÏrÉiÉå mÉÑÂwÉÉiÉïÍxÉ®rÉå iɲiÉç
iÉiTüsÉÉÍpÉxÉlkrÉÉWûƒ¡ûÉUÉpÉÉuÉxrÉ iÉÑsrÉiuÉÉ̲SÒwÉÈ | iÉiuÉÌuɨÉÑ
lÉÉWÇû MüËUqÉÏÌiÉ qÉlrÉiÉå lÉ cÉ iÉiTüsÉÇ AÍpÉxÉlkɨÉå, ... rÉÌS mÉÔuÉïÇ
eÉlÉMüÉSrÉÈ iÉiuÉÌuÉSÉåÅÌmÉ mÉëuÉרÉMüqÉÉïhÉÈ xrÉÑÈ iÉå
sÉÉåMüxÉXèûaÉWûÉjÉïÇ aÉÑhÉÉ aÉÑhÉåwÉÑ uÉiÉïlÉiÉç CÌiÉ ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ LuÉ
xÉÇÍxÉήqÉÉÎxjÉiÉÉÈ MüqÉïxÉlrÉÉxÉå mÉëÉmiÉåÅÌmÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ xÉWû
LuÉ xÉÉÇÍxÉήqÉÉÎxjÉiÉÉÈ lÉ MüqÉïxÉlrÉÉxÉÇ M×üiÉuÉliÉÈ CirÉjÉï etc. and
vide also his Bhashya on MÑürÉÉï̲²ÉÇxiÉjÉÉxÉ£üÉÈ
ÍcÉMüÐwÉÑïsÉÉåïMüxÉXèûaÉëWûqÉç and the various verses beginning with
MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï rÉÈ mÉzrÉåiÉç etc. The orthodox commentators again do not consider
the sruti as applicable to all varnas and ashramas alike as well as to all sexes and age groups.
There is no evidence in the text itself to make its application thus partial to a few only. Thus

13
the Upanishad mentions only Nara or man in general terms as being influenced by the
teachings of the Upanishads ‘lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉUå’. Similarly the use of ‘rÉÈ’ in
general terms in rÉå Måü cÉÉÅiqÉWûlÉÉå eÉlÉÉÈ, rÉxiÉÑ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ,
rÉÎxqÉlÉç xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ, rÉåÅÌuɱÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå, rÉ E ÌuɱÉrÉÉÇ
UiÉÉÈ, rÉå xÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå, rÉ E xÉqpÉÔirÉÉÇ UiÉÉÈ etc. in the sense
of ‘whoever’ shows that the Upanishad itself speaks of any man in general. To confine it to
any particular varna or ashrama goes not only against the facts mentioned in the Upanishads
themselves but also of the teaching of the Suklayajurveda itself as we have already noted
before rÉjÉåqÉÉÇ uÉÉcÉÇ MüsrÉÉhÉÏ etc., also against all beings born of the same
purusha vide Purush sukta. The rishis Kavasha, Aitareya, Kakshivat were all born of Sudra
mothers although they were the seers of Vedic mantras. (Vide Aith. Brah.II;8;1 and Kausitaki
Brah. XII,3 where Kavasha is said to be SÉxrÉÉÈ mÉѧÉÈ who was acknowledged as a
rishi by such known sages as Viswamitra, Vamadeva, Vasishta etc. who admitted his
superiority in knowledge and culture lÉqÉxiÉåxiÉÑ iuÉÇ uÉæ lÉÈ ´Éå¸ÉåÅÍxÉ |
Aitareya, see Sankara Bhashya on LåiÉUårÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉSè | qÉWûÏSÉxÉÉå
lÉÉqÉiÉÈ CiÉUÉrÉÉÈ AmÉirÉÇ LåiÉUårÉÈ ||, corroborated by Vidyaranya’s story of
his life in his commentary on Aitareyaranyaka. Kakshivan was the son of a sudra woman as
narrated in Mahabharata AÉÌSmÉuÉï 104 iÉxrÉÉÇ Mü¤ÉÏuÉSÉSÏlÉç
zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ GÌwÉÈ iÉS eÉlÉrÉÉqÉÉxÉ || Similarly Janasruti and Satyakama
Jabali of Ch. Up. The Sudra Paijavan otherwise known as sudra is said to have performed
yajna with Viswamitra as his purohit (vide Nirukta II; 24-6 and Shantiparva 60:39 –
ÌuɵÉÉÍqÉ§É GÌwÉÈ xÉÑSÉxÉxrÉ mÉæeÉuÉlÉxrÉ mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÉå
oÉpÉÔuÉ || and zÉÔSìÈ mÉæeÉuÉlÉÉå lÉÉqÉ xÉWûxÉëÉhÉÉÇ zÉiÉÇ SSÉæ
LålSìÉalÉålÉ ÌuÉkÉÉlÉålÉ SͤÉhÉÉÇ CÌiÉ lÉÈ ´ÉÑiÉÇ || In the Chandogya we read
of Janasruti and Satyakama Jabala as having got Brahmavidya though the former is expressly
called Sudra and the latter the son of a servant woman. The Upanishads again contain the
name of many Brahmavits belonging to Kshatriya class and who were ruling emperors like
Janaka, Aswapati, Kaikeya, Ajatasatru, Pravahana Jabali etc. from whom Brahmin students
received Brahmavidya. Yajnavalkya, Uddalaka Aruni, Janasruti and others were all
Grihastha-brahmavits and many of the rishis of Vedic mantras were Grihasthas and women.
Brihadaranyaka speaks of Maitreyi and Gargi among brahmavits. (Sudra Kamalakar says
zÉÔSìÉ uÉÉeÉxÉlÉåÌrÉlÉÈ CÌiÉ aÉÉæQûÌlÉoÉlkÉå S¤ÉÉå£åüÈ | The Varna
Kriyagomati also quotes the passage from the Kurma Purana ‘sudra vajasaneyina.’ The
Harivamsha says xÉuÉåï oÉë¼ uÉÌSwrÉÎliÉ xÉuÉåï uÉÉeÉxÉlÉåÌrÉlÉÈ |
One peculiar feature of this Upanishad is the serious attempt it makes to reconcile,
harmonize, synthesize and integrate the various differing religious and philosophical ideas
and views about spiritual life that was current in the Vedic days. This reminds us of a similar
attempt made by Bhagavan Sri Krishna in the Gita and of Sri Ramakrishna and Sw.
Vivekananda in our own days. Thus God and the world, philosophy and religion, theory and
practice, saguna and nirguna Brahman, jnana-karma-bhakti yogas, activity and inactivity,
renunciation and service, God with form and without form, enjoyment without bondage, life
and freedom, the conflict between ritualists and spiritualists in vedic days, are all found
happily synthesized in this Upanishad.

Thus far is Anubandhacatushtaya viz. adhikari, vishaya (abhidheya), sambandha and

prayojana. Thus everybody is an adhikari who has got arthitva and samarthya i.e. the desire to
study and know and by samarthya we mean the capacity to understand and benefit by the
teachings of the book. These are the 2 characteristics of an adhikari mentioned by Sankara
himself in his Brahamasutra Bhashya. Each one of these by itself is not sufficient. Both must

14
be present to make one an adhikari. The subject matter (vishaya) is Brahmavidya in all its
aspects. The sambandha or relation of these texts to the other parts of Suklayajurveda is as
already pointed out that of a fitting conclusion to the whole teaching of the veda which helps
the student of the Veda to remind himself of the fundamental teachings of the whole Veda
before he finishes his study of it and enables him to put the teachings into practice in the
proper spirit. The prayojana or purpose is the achievement of the goal of life known as
Jivanmukti which means freedom from bondages of karma and its fruits in the form of
miseries of samsara even while alive, based upon the realization of the highest Truth.
The understanding of the text is helped by consideration of the various points mentioned in
upakrama, upasamhara etc. and ‘arthat, prakaranat, lingat etc.’ as per the verses noted under
Gita.

In the Upanishads we find the upakrama and upasamhara etc. all deal with Jivanmukti of the
type exemplified and illustrated by the lives of the great avataras like Rama, Krishna and
Ramakrishna, as we shall find in the detailed study of the text. Among modern interpretation
of the text the interpretations of Swami Vivekananda and Aurobindo may be read with profit
although the two do not agree about the detailed interpretations of the mantras. Swami
Vivekananda’s interpretations as given in his lecture “God in Everything” (Vol.II:p-146
onwards), is more or less a running commentary based upon Sankara with this difference that
Swamiji takes the text as (applying to a Jivanmukta) dealing with Jivanmukti and as equally
helpful to all people. In this connection we may note the opinion of Mahatma Gandhi also
about this Upanishad. According to him the first verse of this Upanishad is the quintessence
of the whole of Hinduism and if only this verse is left and all other scriptures are lost,
Hinduism and Hindu spirit will still remain eternally alive.

Some say that the previous 39 chapters are meant to give Chittashuddhi by the performance
of the rituals to enable the aspirants to become Adhikaris for the Brahmavidya of the 40th
chapter – AÍkÉMüÉUÈ ÍcɨÉzÉÑήqÉç ÌuÉlÉÉ lÉ EimɱiÉå | ÍcɨÉzÉÑή¶É
xuÉuÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉÉåÍcÉiÉMüqÉÉïcÉUhÉålÉ CÌiÉ mÉëjÉqÉÇ MüqÉïMüÉhQÇû
mÉëÌiÉmÉÉÌSiÉqÉç | AjÉ CSÉlÉÏÇ ÍcɨÉzÉÑ®rÉÉÌSrÉjÉÉå£Çü aÉÑhÉuÉliÉqÉç
AÍkÉMüÉËUhÉÇ EmÉSå¹ÒÇ ¥ÉÉlÉMüÉhQÇû LiÉålÉ cÉUhÉålÉ AkrÉÉrÉålÉ
mÉëÉUprÉiÉå || If this view is correct then nobody who has not performed all the srauta
ritual would attain chittashuddhi necessary to begin the study of Isopanishad and would never
understand the necessity of practicing the real essential spiritual practice of Tyaga and Yoga.

SLOKA – 1:- The translation and the notes given in the Madras edition is based upon
Sanakara Bhashya. The translation given in the appendix is based upon the original
interpretation more or less colored by modern views about the practical application of
Vedanta to life. The following is another attempt at the detailed interpretation of the mantras
in the light of the life and teachings of Sw. Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna.

The first mantra may be split up into various topics. The first topic is dealt with in the first
pada DzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç The very first word (shows) suggests the main topic
of all vedantas viz. the nature of God. The word ‘Isa Vasyam’ may be split up differently as
done by various commentators. It may be taken as a compound word (samasa) Isa + vasyam
or Isa + avasyam or the expression may be taken as 2 different words Isha Avasyam or Isha
vasyam (also Isha + avasayam). The word Ish or Isha means the Lord or Master, the one
Independent Being on whom everything else depends. The word Ish can also mean one who
has conquered his own mind and senses and who is master of himself, one who has realized

15
God as his own self and has become thereby God himself and can thus be called Ish or Isha.
Thus the very first word gives a clue to the essence of the teachings of the whole Upanishad
viz. realization of God through self-control and other spiritual practices thereby establishing
his mastery of the forces of maya.

The Ish or Isha that is referred to is to be understood in terms of what is given in the previous
portions of Suklayajurveda. Various powers of nature are deified and worshipped as symbols
or representatives of God in the various rituals prescribed in these earlier portions of the
Vedas. Thus Surya, Vayu, Agni to whom payers are addressed and offerings are made in
these rituals are not really the physical things – the solar orb or the blowing wind or the
burning fire. They are only pratikas of the one and the only God who is the master of all
nature and without whom all nature is powerless. That it is this God that is worshipped in
various rituals is abundantly made clear by the descriptions of the objects of worship
scattered about in the previous portions of the Veda, especially the Purusha sukta, Siva
samkalpa sukta, Rudradhyaya etc. in the light of the forgoing passages the word Isha or Ish
refers to the personal God of Theism, the God of Love who responds to the loving prayers
and worship of devotees and is always ready to help them. But the Upanishad has also a
higher and more philosophical conception of God as Pure Consciousness or Atman of the
devotee himself and of the whole universe. This higher aspect is also foreshadowed in the
previous portions of the Veda in such expressions as xÉÔrÉï AÉiqÉÉ eÉaÉiÉÈ
iÉxrÉÑwÉwcÉ iÉlqÉå qÉlÉÈ ÍzÉuÉxɃ¡ûsmÉqÉç etc. This aspect of God is referred
to subsequently in the Upanishad in such expressions as zÉÑ¢üqÉMüÉrÉqÉuÉëhÉqÉç
etc., xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ cÉÉÅÅiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ cÉÉÅÅiqÉÌlÉ,
rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ etc. Thus God as conceived by this
Upanishad is both the Atman of philosophy, Brahman of Religion, Personal God being
nothing else than the higher self of the devotee himself conceived in the initial stages of
spiritual life as a person. He is only the highest reading of the Absolute by the human mind
before the Absolute is actually realized and of whom all the deities of karma kanda are only
names and forms or aspects or limbs as pointed by the expression qÉ ‘rÉÉå SåuÉÉlÉÉÇ
lÉÉqÉkÉÉ LMü LuÉ’ etc. iÉSåuÉÉÎalÉÈ This ideal of personal God of the theists is
conceived of only on the pattern of the man of realization or Jivanmukta or Avatara, and is
only a magnified edition of the perfect human being. The expression Ish or Isha carried with
it this suggestion also in as much as it is applicable to both. A life of unselfish service is a
characteristic of an Avatara or jivanmukta. Isvara also is conceived of in the Purusha sukta
etc. as an embodiment of self-sacrifice and service. His activities consisting of creation,
protection and dissolution are undertaken only in the interests of and for the benefit of
struggling souls. He himself is not in the least affected by these activities or by their fruits. If,
therefore, the theistic God as well as the Jivanmukta are proto-types of each other, the human
being also who follows in their footsteps must be as unaffected by the karma and the fruits
thereof as per ÌuɵÉÉå SåuÉxrÉ lÉåiÉÑÈ qÉirÉÉåï uÉÑUÏiÉ xÉZrÉqÉç of S.Y veda.

Isha again is described as having become the world. This idea of God being the material and
efficient cause of this world is suggested in various mantras of the previous portions of the
Suklayajurveda, vide ‘mÉÑÂwÉ LuÉåSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç’. It is these two ideas about the
nature of God that is expressly described in the next few words in the first two padas. The
root uÉxÉ has got various meanings such as to dress, to cover, to dwell or inhabit, to scent or
smell, to love, to kill etc. uÉÉxrÉqÉç or AÉuÉÉxrÉqÉç can be derived from the root
uÉxÉ in all these senses. Sankara takes uÉÉxrÉqÉç to mean ‘to be covered’ –
AÉcNûÉSlÉÏrÉqÉç As an Advaitin, to him the whole world of senses and thought prevent

16
us from knowing this actual reality. To a knowing man only God exists and the world
disappears. This is considered by him poetically or metaphorically to be covering the natural,
sensual and conceptual aspects of the world by its real divine aspect as God. Therefore the
expression DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉqÉç means to him seeing only God, which is meant by the
expression ‘covering the world’ with God or dressing up the world with God to the theist
belonging to the other schools of vedanta uÉÉxrÉ means ‘fit for dwelling’. The expression
DzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉqÉç therefore, would mean that (everything) the whole world is the abode of
God and everything belongs to God, that is to say God is the AliÉrÉÉïÍqÉlÉç || He, who
resides in everything as its inner essence, and controls everything, while the former
interpretation lays the emphasis on the transcendence of God as God must be bigger than the
world to envelop it, the latter interpretation emphasizes the immanent aspect of God.
Whereas in the first interpretation the world is left unnoticed as it is covered by God, the
latter interpretation the world is also cognized along with God – its inner witness and
controller, where as the former is suggests the unreality of the world in itself, the latter takes
the world also to be real. Except for these differences all the schools of Vedanta agree in
considering God both as transcendent as well as immanent. Therefore we may take both
interpretations as justifiable though each school tries to find fault with the other. Since
Sankara’s interpretations implies, according to the other schools, as the world is only covered
and not destroyed. It is in a way, tacit admission even by Sankara that the world really exists
but it is only covered. To justify Sankara’s main thesis that the world is in reality only God
and its sensual and conceptual appearances is unreal, it must be this appearance that forms a
cover which hides the reality as suggested in the latter mantra ÌWûUhqÉrÉålÉ
mÉɧÉåhÉ. To understand this mantra in terms of, or constant with the idea of the 15th
mantra, CzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉqÉç is to be split up into ‘ish’ or DzÉÉ + AuÉÉxrÉqÉç (and not
‘AÉuÉÉxrÉqÉç’ or mere uÉÉxrÉqÉç) AuÉÉxrÉqÉç meaning (not to be covered or
uncovered – ‘lÉ uÉÉxrÉqÉç’). Then the expression would mean the whole world must be
uncovered i.e. Maya which forms a cover must be removed and the truth made to shine. This
will fit in more with Sankara’s ideas than his actual interpretation of the words which one
subjected to criticism by other schools. The root uÉxÉ is to be taken to mean to kill or
destroy. In this sense Maya or the cover is not only to be removed but actually to be
destroyed. Anything that could be so destroyed could be so destroyed, must by nature be
impermanent and so unreal. For, if it is really ‘real’ it can never be destroyed since the
sensual and conceptual aspects of the universe are to be destroyed all of them are unreal and
God is the only reality. This destruction of Maya is to be achieved by realization of God with
the help of God Himself. The word uÉÉxrÉqÉç can also be taken as meaning ‘to be dressed
in’ as pointed out by Aurobindo. In this sense also DzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉqÉç would mean that the
whole universe is to be dressed in or clothed in God. Even Sankara’s commentary would not
be inconsistent with this interpretation. In the sense of covering or dressing as Sankara takes,
we have to understand the expression as suggesting that even to Sankara the highest
realization is not inconsistent with perception of the world. He only insists that in seeing the
world the Jivanmukta is only seeing God. His idea of Jivanmukti itself would be meaningless
and inconsistent with his own life as well as that of those Jivanmuktas like Janaka,
Ramakrishna etc. if Sankara thought of Jivanmukti as complete destruction of the world. In
Jivanmukti or realization it is not the world that is destroyed but our ignorance about its real
nature egoism and its appearances based upon it. This realization must be differentiated from
mere intellectual knowledge or understanding. It is an experience or Anubhava of a higher
sort than the ordinary knowledge. So by the expression ‘isha vasyam’ we must understand
this higher and more direct experience. From the devotional standpoint this higher experience
includes not only the experience of God as the reality but also as the highest Bliss. God is the

17
highest Bliss than man hankers after (c.f Bri. I:4;8 iÉSåiÉiÉç mÉëårÉÈ mÉѧÉÉiÉç
mÉëårÉÉå ÌuɨÉÉiÉç mÉëårÉÉå AlrÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïxqÉÉiÉç AliÉUiÉUÇ
rÉSrÉqÉÉÅÅiqÉÉ AÉiqÉlÉxiÉÑ MüÉqÉÉrÉ xÉuÉïÇ ÌmÉërÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ || and
II:4;5 – LwÉÉÅxrÉ mÉUqÉÉ xÉqmÉiÉç LwÉÉåÅxrÉ mÉUqÉÉlÉlSÈ
LiÉxrÉæuÉÉlÉlSxrÉ AlrÉÉÌlÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ qÉɧÉÉqÉÑmÉeÉÏuÉÎliÉ || and IV:3;32-
33 UxÉÉå uÉæ xÉÈ LwÉ LuÉ AÉlÉlS rÉÉÌiÉ|| Tai.II:61 – end of Bhruguvalli and
Anandavalli and Suklayajurveda XXIII;19 aÉhÉÉlÉÉÇ iuÉÉÇ aÉhÉmÉÌiÉÇ
WûuÉÉqÉWåû ÌmÉërÉÉhÉÉÇ uÉÉÇ ÌmÉërÉmÉÌiÉÇ WûuÉÉqÉWåû ÌlÉkÉÏlÉÉÇ
iuÉÉÇ ÌlÉkÉÏmÉÌiÉÇ WûuÉÉqÉWåû also Madhu-vidhya of Brihadaranyaka –
qÉkÉÑuÉÉiÉÉ GiÉÉrÉiÉå) Sh.Yaj.Veda XIII:27-29. In terms of this aspect of God
uÉÉxrÉqÉç may be interpreted in the sense of ‘to be loved’. God is the fittest object to be
loved and the source of all beauty and happiness. Even the pleasure of the senses which man
loves so much are only partial manifestations or reflections or misreading of this one divine
Bliss. The world of senses and ideas is a source of joy only because it is a form of God seen
through ignorance. The highest happiness or bliss can be derived from the world only if its
real nature as God is realized. Therefore God is the fittest object to be loved and the world is
to be loved as God. Ishavasyam therefore, would mean that it behoves one to get maximum
happiness from the world by loving it as God and experiencing it as God and serving it as
God (cf. Swamiji’s words to Ingersoll vide Life p.127… every one is God to me). All the
rituals that are mentioned in the previous portion of the Suklayajurveda are only way of
worshipping and serving God and expressing ones’ love to Him.

CSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç means ‘all this’. It may be taken as referring to all the rituals prescribed in
the previous portions of the text or all activities in general or all aspects of the universe in
general or ‘idam’ may refer to microcosm and its activities of the body and mind of the
individual as well as those of the cosmic forces and activities or energy. All this that could be
sensed or thought of are all only forms of God who is the source and agent of all activities,
movements, forces etc. in the world. That is why in the ritual previously prescribed not only
the objects of nature but all the activities of nature are worshipped as God. DzÉÉ
uÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç | therefore, draws attention to the necessity of seeing God in all
activities as well as object of the world and converting all activities into acts of loving
worship in the form of service of the world. Thus Isa vasyamidam sarvam is an injunction
which lays on all the duty of knowing, loving and serving the whole world as God. It thus
advocates a synthesis of Jnana, Bhakti, and Karma by the direction of intellect, emotion and
will and body, mind and senses to God who is identified with the Paramatman.

yiTk jgTya< jgt!

eÉaÉÌiÉ stands for the whole universe and eÉaÉiÉç stands for all the individuals in it. The
whole universe is always changing in space and time. Worlds come into existence and go out
of existence every moment. Suns, stars, planets are always actively moving from place to
place and undergoing change in their very substance. The earth itself is never stationery on
account of its yearly and motions and has gradually evolved out of incandescent gas. All
organic and inorganic beings which inhabit this earth have been evolving from the dawn of
time. The body and mind of every individual are in a constant state of flux like the particles
of a stream or a flame. All the living beings are born and die. Similarly every cell in the body
and every thought or feeling in the mind change every moment. The whole world, therefore
along with all the individuals in it down to the minutest atom or electron or the living cell are
ephemeral and impermanent. Every change can be thought of or understood and every

18
moment cognized only in relation to or on the background of something more permanent.
Every movement or change of the movement can be understood only as caused by some
force. This unchanging permanent background as well as the prime force or energy is what is
known as DzÉÉ or God. In the cognition of every object or action, He is inevitably involved
as its material and efficient cause. Every act of cognition must also have naturally the
unchanging pure consciousness which is aware of the cognition itself. It is this pure
consciousness or Atman who is God and who is the master of all creation and of all activity
that has to be realized as per the injunction ‘Isa vasyam’. He is in everything and everything
is in Him. Everything lives and moves and has its being only in and through Him and His
activities. He is the controller and master of all and everyone is only His servant. Without
Him not even a blade of grass can move. He is the only free agent and independent being on
whom everything else depends. The very changefulness or ephemeral nature of the universe
and the individual is an, is an invitation to see this un-changeful permanent essence and
background of it. The whole universe as well as the human body, mind and senses are only
instruments which drive man to seek God. ‘Jagat’ comes from the root aÉÉ meaning ‘to go’.
It means that which is always going i.e. not stationery or permanent. Every word in Sanskrit
meaning ‘to go’ also means ‘to know’. Therefore the word ‘jagat’ also suggests the world
which by its very ephemeral nature leads man to realization of God. The whole sentence,
therefore, of the first 2 padas suggests the only prime duty of all intelligent beings to be only
the realization of God as the permanent essence of the changing ephemeral world of man and
nature. In relation to the ritual prescribed in the previous portion of the Veda ‘jagat’ refers to
the fruit of action and ritual such as the mÉÑ§É and xuÉaÉï all of which are not worthy of
being aspired after being only ephemeral. All ÌuÉwÉrÉÍxÉZÉÉs can lead only to sorrow
and misery, as they can never be permanently enjoyed. Similarly all the objects worshipped
in the ritual whose protection is sought in various ways are only frail and leaky rafts that can
never be relaied upon to take one across the perils and miseries of life. So both the objects of
worship as well as the fruits of the ritual aspired after, must be understood as only consisting
in God Himself appearing in various names and forms (vide oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ
oÉë¼WûÌuÉÈ ...). Similarly all ritualistic acts, the mantras used in the rituals, the utensils
and instruments used and the materials of offering and everything also connected with the
ritual must be understood by the wise man as only forms of God including the offer-er
himself (cf. oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ | AWÇû ¢üiÉÑUÈA rÉ¥ÉÈ || of Gita) and also Bhagavat
X:23;47 SåzÉÈ MüÉsÉÈ mÉ×jÉMçü SìurÉÇ qÉl§ÉÈ iÉl§ÉÈ GÎiuÉeÉÉå AalÉrÉÈ
SåuÉiÉÉ rÉeÉqÉÉlÉ¶É ¢üiÉÑkÉqÉï¶É rÉlqÉrÉÈ || SØzrÉiÉå oÉë¼uÉiÉç
xÉuÉïqÉç (Vol. Ramayana, Balakhanda XIV.10 and also vide Bhagavata IV.21

AxÉÉÌuÉuÉ AlÉåMüaÉÑhÉÉåÅaÉÑhÉÉå AkuÉUÈ mÉ×iÉÎauÉkÉSìurÉaÉÑhÉÌ

¢ürÉÉåÌ£üÍpÉÈ xÉqmɱiÉå AjÉï AÉzÉÉrÉ ÍsÉ…¡ûlÉÉqÉÍpÉÈ
ÌuÉzÉÑ®ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉkÉlÉÈ xuÉÃmÉiÉÈ mÉëkÉÉlÉMüÉsÉ AÉzÉÉrÉ kÉqÉï
xÉXçaÉëWåû zÉUÏU LwÉ mÉëÌiÉmɱiÉå cÉåiÉlÉÉ Ì¢ürÉÉTüsÉiuÉålÉ
ÌuÉpÉÑÈ ÌuÉqÉÉurÉiÉå rÉjÉÉlÉsÉÉå SÉÂwÉÑ iɪÒhÉÉiqÉMüÈ || and also
xÉWûxÉëlÉÉqÉç where sÉÉåMü is one of the names of God,

also Bhag.IV:24;40 lÉqÉÈ mÉÑhrÉÉrÉ sÉÉåMüÉrÉ AqÉÑwqÉæ pÉÔËUuÉcÉïxÉå

||, which shows that svarga is only God. Also Bri. IV; 4; 13: xÉ E sÉÉåMü LuÉ ||
AÉiqÉÉlÉqÉåuÉ sÉÉåMüqÉÑmÉÉxÉÏiÉ & I; 4; 15-16: ArÉÇ uÉÉ AÉiqÉÉ
xÉuÉåïwÉÉÇ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ sÉÉåMüÈ |, IV; 3; 20 – 32: xÉÉåÅxrÉ mÉUqÉÉå
sÉÉåMüÈ etc. Also xÉuÉïÇ ZÉÎsuÉSÇ oÉë¼ | and xÉuÉïÇ ÌWû LiÉiÉ oÉë¼ |

19
AÉiqÉÉ LuÉ CSÇ xÉuÉïÇ | of Ch. VII; 25; 1-2, LwÉ E ÌWû LuÉ xÉuÉåï uÉåSÉ |
A§ÉÌWû LiÉå xÉuÉåï LMÇü pÉuÉÎliÉ | Bri. I:4;6 &7 and xÉÈ CSÇ xÉuÉïÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ
| I;4; 9 -10 and CSÇ xÉuÉïÇ rÉSrÉqÉÉiqÉÉ | II;4;6 and II;5;7.

The whole of the first two lines speaks of the necessity for ÌuÉuÉåMü and meditation viz.
finding out the Atman in the changing phenomena as well as the fact that all phenomena
exists only in the Atman and that all phenomena are really only Atman himself and keeping
this always in mind without forgetting it – ÌlÉÌSkrÉÉxÉlÉ. This is the positive aspect of
realization which is further explained in detail in mantras 4 – 8. It is equally applicable to the
realized man as well as the aspirant, the Grihastha and the Sannyasin, the Dvijas as well as
the non-dvijas, male as well as the females, boys as well as the elders, ritualist as well as
philosophers and devotees and public workers. The necessary consequence, of this realization
of God in everything and its effect on life is pointed out in the next two lines iÉålÉ
irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑÎgeÉjÉÉÈ and qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉqÉç || The first
speaks about enjoyment through renunciation and service and the second of self-control. The
central point of both these is irÉÉaÉ which is dealt in all its various aspect in the Gita. In
fact we may take the Gita to be a commentary on this one aspect of spiritual life. When the
whole world is in a process of change itself, is meant to help the realization of the unchanging
background or essence viz. God or Atman, it behoves us to make the best use of this
inevitable change to further our progress towards the goal, viz. realization of God, instead of
allowing this change to take us away from it by negligence or carelessness. When the scheme
of the world-process is to enable us to evolve into God, it is wisdom to co-operate with God
and to take a hand in our own redemption with the grace of God (ÌuɵÉÉå SåuÉxrÉ
lÉåiÉÑÈ qÉirÉÉåï uÉÑUÏiÉ xÉZrÉqÉç). All progress or growth naturally involves a
readiness to give up the present lower stage to future higher stage. This giving up is called
‘renunciation’ or irÉÉaÉ and the taking up of the higher stage is ‘service’ or ‘yoga’. All
spiritual life involves both tyaga as well as yoga which form the obverse and reverse of the
same coin of spiritual progress. The one cannot be had without the other. Yoga must be
always accompanied by tyaga. If only one is possible ‘tyaga’ is to be preferred to ‘yoga’,
because even if it does not enable one to rise higher it prevents one from falling lower. So
yoga is all important from this standpoint. But such a thing as ‘tyaga’ by itself is not possible
without yoga. If yoga also is not attempted with tyaga, the chances are that one would not be
successful even in tyaga. This aspect is further elaborated in the Upanishad in the mantra 9 –
14. iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑÎgeÉjÉÉÈ suggests both these aspects as a necessary element of
all spiritual practice. The principle enunciated in these lines is equally applicable to all,
though Sankara apparently wants to confine it to Brahmin Sannyasins. Tyaga is the law of
life which is only a struggle for securing maximum enjoyment or bliss. Every aspect of life is
covered by this spirit of ‘tyaga’ whether this tyaga is voluntary or involuntary. This is what
the Gita means when it says xÉWûrÉ¥ÉÉÈ mÉëeÉÉÈ xÉ×¹uÉÉ etc. Even the ordinary
enjoyment of sensual and worldly pleasures is not possible without giving up some comfort
or convenience or wealth or independence or honor or morality. The (small self or the ego)
sacrifice of the little self is inevitable in every act of life. Such being the case, it is wisdom to
give up, for a noble and a higher cause, voluntarily and joyfully xÉͳÉÍqɨÉå uÉUÇ
irÉÉaÉÉå ÌuÉlÉÉzÉå ÌlÉrÉiÉå xÉÌiÉ (Hitopedesha), as Swamiji very often quotes in his
lectures. This tyaga has got various aspects as applicable to various stages of spiritual ascent
and to different adhikaris in different circumstances and conditions. Thus beginning from
giving up of mere ease and comfort there are higher and higher aspects of Rajasic and Satvic
tyaga which finally culminates in the Nirguna Tyaga of the man of realization. The various
aspects such as ÌuÉwÉrÉ irÉÉaÉ and xÉ…¡ûirÉÉaÉ or external and internal renunciation,

20
MüqÉï irÉÉaÉ | TüsÉ irÉÉaÉ | mÉÉmÉmÉÑhrÉ irÉÉaÉ | AÍpÉqÉÉlÉ irÉÉaÉ |
AWûƒ¡ûÉU irÉÉaÉ | qÉqÉMüÉU irÉÉaÉ | AÌuÉkÉÉ irÉÉaÉ | MüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉ
irÉÉaÉ | MüqÉMüÉgcÉlÉ irÉÉaÉ | aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉ irÉÉaÉ | self-surrender or
mÉëmÉÌ¨É and dedication or AmÉïhÉÇ of one’s own whole life, body and mind to God
along with the tyaga of all prescribed scriptural Dharmas – all these and various other shades
of tyaga have been explained by Bhagavan in the Gita (Chapter XVIII). All there are
suggested by the expression irÉ£åülÉ. The word irÉ£ü is taken by Sankara as meaning
irÉÉaÉ | iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑÎgeÉjÉÉÈ, would therefore, mean literally ‘therefore enjoy
through renunciation’. Although the root pÉÑeÉç literally means, only to eat food or enjoy
pleasure and happiness, Sankara explains it in the sense of protect or nourish
mÉÉsÉrÉåjÉÉÈ. This mÉÉsÉlÉqÉç or protection is only protection of one’s own Atman
according to him. Even if we take it in the sense of mÉÉsÉlÉqÉç, it is better to understand
the word not only as referring to one’s own self but to those of others also. One can save
one’s soul only by finding one’s soul in others also and helping others to realize their own
soul. There is really no contradiction between saving oneself and saving others. One’s own
self interest is safeguarded only by the safety of others. Human welfare whether worldly or
spiritual or moral, is indivisible (cf. xuÉÉjÉÉåï rÉxrÉ mÉëÉjÉï LuÉ ÌWû mÉÑqÉÉlÉç
LMüÈ xÉiÉÉÇ AaÉëhÉÏ – Bhartrihari). Therefore pÉÑÎgeÉjÉÉÈ may be taken as an
injunction to service on the basis of the realization of the divinity of the whole universe and
identity of one’s own self with the universe. Even according to Sankara all ashramas are only
training grounds in Tyaga. None of the ashramas deserves the name of Ashrama if those who
are in that ashrama do not carry out their duties in a spirit of tyaga. Thus the Brahmachari is
trained in tyaga in discharge of his various duties such as study of scriptures, service to the
Guru, ÍpɤÉɳÉç, giving up the luxuries, observance of Brahmacharya vrata etc. The
Grihastha also gets further training in tyaga, in the form of yajna, dana, tapas, dana taking the
form of annadana, vidyadana, jivitadana, dharmadana and in his duty to do every action in the
spirit of DµÉUÉmÉïhÉ. He is required, according to the sastras to observe Brahmacharya
even in his married life as laid down in the vedic injunction rÉ¥ÉålÉ SåuÉåprÉÈ
mÉëeÉrÉÉ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉÈ oÉë¼cÉrÉåïhÉ GwÉÑprÉÈ | The various ways in which he
is to observe Brahmacharya is laid down by Bodhayana in the
aÉ×½xÉÔ§ÉmÉËUpÉÉwÉÉ thus on the basis of the injunctions of the srutis AjÉ uÉæ
pÉuÉÌiÉ eÉÉrÉqÉÉlÉÉå uÉæ oÉë¼hÉÈ Ì§ÉÍpÉÈ GhÉuÉÉlÉç eÉÉrÉiÉå
oÉë¼cÉrÉåïhÉ GÌwÉprÉÈ rÉ¥ÉålÉ SåuÉåprÉÈ mÉëeÉrÉÉ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉÈ CÌiÉ ||
(Tait. Samhita VI: 3; 10-5) and
AjÉ uÉæ pÉuÉÌiÉ – ‘eÉÉrÉqÉÉlÉÉå uÉæ oÉëɼhÉÉÎx§ÉÍpÉUç GhÉuÉÉ
eÉÉrÉiÉå oÉë¼cÉrÉåïhÉ GÌwÉprÉÉå rÉ¥ÉålÉ SåuÉåprÉÈ mÉëeÉrÉÉ
ÌmÉiÉ×prÉÈ’ CÌiÉ || 1||
oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ urÉÉZrÉÉxrÉÉqÉÈ || 2 ||
AÉ xÉqÉÉuÉiÉïlÉÉSåuÉæiÉ°uÉÌiÉ ‘lÉÉcÉÏhÉïuÉëiÉÉå oÉë¼cÉÉUÏ pÉuÉÌiÉ’
CÌiÉ iÉSÉ´ÉqÉÉå urÉÉZrÉÉiÉÈ || 3 ||
AiÉ FkuÉïÇ oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ rÉålÉÉlÉ×hÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ || 4 ||
xuÉSÉU CirÉåMüqÉç || 5 ||
qÉl§ÉuÉimÉërÉÉåaÉ CirÉåMüqÉç || 6 ||
GiÉÉÌuÉirÉmÉUqÉç || 7||
AjÉÉÍkÉoÉë¼cÉrÉïqÉç ÌuÉuÉÉWåû ̧ÉUɧÉqÉç || 8 ||
GiÉÉæ ̧ÉUɧÉqÉç || 9 ||
AqÉÉuÉÉxrÉÉrÉÉÇ mÉÉæhÉïqÉÉxrÉÉÇ ´ÉÉ®Ç SiuÉÉ pÉÑYiuÉÉ
cÉæMüUɧÉqÉç || 10 ||
mÉUx§ÉÏwÉÑ ÌSuÉÉ cÉ rÉÉuÉ‹ÏuÉqÉç || 11 ||

21
AalrÉÉkÉårÉå ²ÉSzÉUɧÉqÉç || 12 ||
AÉaÉërÉhÉå̹mÉzÉÑoÉlkÉÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉuÉxÉjÉåwuÉåMüUɧÉqÉç || 13 ||
LuÉqÉåuÉ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ uÉåSMüqÉïxÉÑ || 14 ||
cÉÉiÉÑqÉÉïxrÉåwÉÑ xÉÇuÉixÉUqÉç || 15 ||
rÉjÉÉmÉërÉÉåaÉqÉlrÉåwÉÑ rɥɢüiÉÑwÉlrɧÉiÉÉæï SÏbÉïxɧÉåwÉÑ
kÉqÉïuÉëiÉåwÉÑ cÉ || 16 ||
iÉSåiÉ®qrÉåï mÉÑhrÉÇ mÉѧrÉqÉÉrÉÑwrÉÇ xuÉarÉïÇ
rÉzÉxrÉqÉÉlÉ×hrÉÍqÉÌiÉ urÉÉZrÉÉiÉÇ oÉë¼cÉrÉïqÉç || 17 ||

cf. Grihyasutra 1-17 and also Satapata I.72 – GhÉÇ uÉæ eÉÉrÉiÉå rÉÉåÅÎxiÉ
eÉÉrÉqÉÉlÉ LuÉ SåuÉåprÉÈ GÌwÉprÉÈ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉÈ qÉlÉÑwrÉåprÉÈ |

Similarly in Bodhayana grihya sutra I;7;1-21 it is laid down that the Grihastha who wants to
have good and spiritual sons should observe a period of Brahmacharya after marriage
extending from 3 days to one year. The Grihastha has to avoid a lustful woman in marriage
and has to yield to sexual embrace only in the interests of Dharma if and when the wife has a
craving for a son. The demands of Dharma are satisfied when one child is born and the wife
becomes the mother of the husband after he takes birth as the child. Sexual connection with
the wife after the birth of a child is as sinful as incest. Even a householder is not compelled
by the sastras to have a child. The Sastras are only permissive in this respect. mÉëeÉÉ in
the language of the sastras does not mean merely one’s own son, as Bodhayana points out
that praja means also one whom the householder teaches or to whom the householder
officiates as a priest in a sacrifice and one whom he initiates into oÉë¼cÉrÉï. The word
mÉëeÉÉ itself comes from the preposition mÉë + root eÉlÉç meaning mÉëMüwÉåïhÉ
eÉlÉlÉqÉç || One who is spiritually regenerated is mÉëeÉÉ.
The aÉ×WûxjÉ is the supporter and servant of the whole society. All the other ashramas
depend upon aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉ. He is the only earning member and all others live upon his
earnings. It is the duty of the aÉ×WûxjÉ to observe also the various ritualistic Dharmas of
the sastras. He has to earn wealth by righteous means and distribute it to others including the
devas and pitris, men and animals in the mÉgcÉrÉ¥ÉÉ and in the form of SͤÉhÉÉ,
SÉlÉ, ÍpɤÉÉ, WûÉåqÉ, ´ÉÉ®É, etc. All rituals involve the SͤÉhÉÉ or sacrificial fee
to the officiating priest. SͤÉhÉÉ has to be in return for any work. kÉlÉÇ is a special gift
for lÉ× rÉ¥É (AÍjÉÍjÉ mÉÔeÉ), pÉÔiÉrÉ¥É, AÍjÉÍjÉ SåuÉÉå pÉuÉ. Gita III; 13
rÉ¥ÉÍzɹÉÍzÉlÉ ... , IV.21 ûrÉ¥ÉÉÍzɹÉqÉ×iÉpÉÑeÉÈ ... .

The smritis and srutis make it a duty on the part of all Grihasthas to practice tyaga formally
every day of his wealth and resources before he can enjoy them himself. Another duty that is
laid upon his is to give ÍpɤÉÉ to Brahmacharins and Sannyasins. He who refuses to offer
ÍpɤÉÉ when these come on their daily rounds commits sin. The texts go to the extent of
saying that the Brahmacharin and ascetic are masters of food. If one eats without giving to
these he should perform penance of cÉÉlSìÉrÉhÉqÉç, vide Parasara I: 46 & 47. Bhagavata
IV: 22; 44-45 says that the whole wealth in this world really belongs only to the spiritual man
and it is only by his kindness that everybody else is entitled to enjoy this world. (also Manu I;
100-1)

In giving to the Brahmachari and Sannyasin, the householder does nothing but giving his
property to the rightful owner. He, who does not give ÍpɤÉÉ, therefore is as guilty as a
thief or a robber. The aÉ×WûxjÉ however, should not give ÍpɤÉÉ to Brahmanas who do
not practise the duties enjoined upon them and observe spiritual discipline. If any such

22
Brahmin is supported by offer of ÍpɤÉÉ in any village the state should punish the whole
village as a supporter of thieves. Even the Brahmacharin or Sannyasin who is entitled and
whose duty is to beg should not beg for anything which is meant only for the satisfaction of
the senses.

Thus plenty of opportunities are provided to and duties lay upon the householder to distribute
his wealth and properties among the deserving as an act of worship of god. Similarly
restrictions are laid upon him even in earning his livelihood or wealth. The rules of
Varnadharma in their economic aspect apply only to people in the aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉ and
are meant to provide particular professions and avocation to each member of the society to
earn his living by legitimate means without trespassing upon the similar right of others. One
who oversteps the bound rules of dharma by adopting the profession of another Varna is
considered guilty of sin. The caste system was based upon the principle of division of labour
and co-operative service. Each Varna has to serve the whole society through that kind of
service to which he is predominantly fit by his nature and capacities and he is entitled to his
livelihood and the satisfaction of his needs by the service and contribution of others. Each
labourer was worthy of hire but each had to earn his livelihood by the discharge of his duties
to others. kÉlÉÇ cÉ kÉqÉæïMüTüsÉqÉç (Bhag.XI; 5:12) || c.f also rÉssÉpÉxÉå
ÌlÉeÉMüqÉÉåïmÉɨÉÇ ÌuɨÉÇ iÉålÉ ÌuÉlÉÉåSrÉ ÍcɨÉqÉç (Sankara). The
Brahmana caste was not expected to earn anything at all if he is to lead an ideal life and he
had to give him service free without any expectation of remuneration. He was to live on the
grains which had fallen on the field after the harvest. This kind of livelihood was called
EgcÉÍzÉsÉ. Manu and Bhagavatam also call this by the name of ‘Ritam’. A lower means of
livelihood is by the acceptance of voluntary donations made by other individual or state from
their wealth earned by righteous means and which comes of its own accord without request or
begging. This is called AqÉ×iÉqÉç in Bhagavatam and Manu. A still lower means is what
is got by begging for what is absolutely necessary. If all these means are not available he can
earn his livelihood by agriculture, cattle breeding and by trade. He is never allowed to earn
his livelihood by selling his services to another or begging dependent upon another like a
dog. Agriculture as a means of livelihood is names as mÉëqÉ×iÉqÉç and that by trade
xÉirÉÉlÉ×iÉqÉç and living by dependence on another is called µÉuÉ×̨É. Even one
who takes to agriculture as a profession, should not store more than what will suffice for one
day. He who has no accumulation of goods for more than one day, and who does not care for
the morrow is the best among the Brahmin earners. But if he is not strong enough to live that
kind of life, he is allowed to store what he needs for 3 days or if even that is not possible he
can have grains as much as can be stored in a MÑüqpÉÏ or a MÑüxÉÔsÉ or granary but
not more. But the ideal Brahmin should not even when in distress hanker for the acquisition
of wealth by excessive attachment or by doing what is forbidden. He who sits about the
accumulation of wealth loses his status of oÉëɼhrÉqÉç and the accumulation of vast
wealth is a calamity for Brahmana. vide Manu Chap. IV.

The 3 means of livelihood mÉëÌiÉaÉëWûqÉç, AkrÉÉmÉlÉ and rÉÉeÉlÉ among the 6

duties prescribed for a Brahmana are not meant primarily as a means of livelihood. The
Brahmana is expected to discharge his duties even though he gets no remuneration in return.
No doubt it is laid down as a duty of those who are benefited by his services as a teacher or a
priest and who make donations they should pay Dakshinas or fees but the Brahmana has no
right to expect them although he gets them as a result of the discharge by others of their own
duties. Even the Dakshina that he gets is meant only to help him to discharges his own duties
although in extreme case of personal need he is permitted to use a portion of it for satisfying

23
such needs. Thus in ancient days it was the duty of the Brahmana to educate everyone (that
came to him) who resorted to him and to maintain all his students without expectation of
remuneration and as all people were expected to study and the qualified teachers only used to
support many disciples along with their own family. For this purpose all those who were rich
as well as the state had to make donations to the Brahmana. The SÉlÉÇ that are given on
specific religious occasions are mainly meant only to allow him to discharge this duty. The
Brahmana has, therefore, to receive mÉëÌiÉaÉëWûqÉç when it is voluntarily offered by
others in a religious spirit of service. Being a duty he would be guilty of sin if he refused to
accept mÉëÌiÉaÉëWûqÉç although he has no right to expect it. He can make use of such
mÉëÌiÉaÉëW only in public service and he has a right to enjoy only a portion of it in
maintaining himself and his family along with the maintenance of others. Society will suffer
if the teacher does not discharge his duties to the disciples and dependents, on account of his
poverty or physical weakness or bad health and consequent engagement in other professions,
to earn his livelihood. That is why mÉëÌiÉaÉëW is made a duty instead of a right.
Whenever it is possible one should refuse to maintain himself out of such funds donated only
for public service. If possible he should confine himself for his maintenance to SͤÉhÉs
received in return for expert advise or service as he is also a labourer worthy of his hire. Even
in officiating as a priest (i.e. helping others to worship God properly in the right spirit) he is
expected to give his service free and not to make it a profession. He who takes fee for helping
another to realize God is a despicable Brahmana. Therefore it is said in the Bhagavatm that
Vishwaraupa refused to do such a contemptible thing as to act as a priest when Indra
approached him for help in the performance of a sacrifice although he agree to help him
without any remuneration as a public service

It is clear that even a Grihastha had to practice irÉÉaÉ in the discharge of all his duties to
Gods, Pitris and men and animals and he has to give up all his ambitions to earn wealth and
enjoy luxuries and confine his satisfaction of even personal needs to what is absolutely
necessary to the maintenance of the body which is the necessary instrument for kÉqÉï.
Although he is capable to earn his livelihood by other means which are open to ordinary
people he is expected to give up all such opportunities. It is only when he is unable to
discharge his duties to others for want of proper means such as wealth and health that he is
allowed to resort to lower means to earn the wherewithal to discharge his duties (eÉÏÌuÉiÉÇ
qÉUhÉÉiÉç ´ÉårÉÈ eÉÏuÉlÉç kÉqÉïqÉç AuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç). When anybody is
forced by extra-ordinary and abnormal circumstances to do certain acts which are not
ordinarily sanctioned by the social rules and regulations in the interests of kÉqÉï and public
service, when otherwise the spiritual interests of others as well as himself are likely to suffer,
such deviations from social kÉqÉï in the interests of spiritual kÉqÉï are called
AmÉ®qÉÉïÈ. They are called kÉqÉï although they are deviations from social xuÉkÉqÉï
only because spiritual kÉqÉï is superior to social rules and regulations and because such
deviations are accepted only in the interests of higher kÉqÉï and because they are capable of
wiping out the sin resulting from the transgression of the lower kÉqÉïs. AÉmÉ®qÉï are
therefore, duties undertaken only under special circumstances where true kÉqÉï is itself at
stake. Again such deviations are allowed even from the social standpoint when society itself
is threatened by danger to its very existence such as war, pestilence, riots, foreign invasions
etc. Even in such cases it is ordained that the person who has taken AÉmÉ®qÉï by
following the vocations of another caste should resume his proper Svadharma and abandon
the wealth thus acquired by him and perform a mÉëÉrÉÍ¶É¨É when the calamity or distress
ceases. The distress or AÉmÉiÉç that is kept in view in permitting the AÉmÉ®qÉï is not
the personal distress of the performer in the course of the pursuit of his own worldly

24
prosperity or sensual pleasures. If AÉmÉ®qÉï is allowed under such circumstances it will
ring the death-knell of all xuÉkÉqÉï altogether... So AÉmÉ®qÉï should not be invoked or
accepted unless in very extreme cases of danger to Dharma itself. This is made clear when
Bodhayana Dharma Sutra says in II; 2-80 that for saving cows and Brahmins or preventing
uÉhÉïxɃ¡ûU the Brahmana and Vaisya may take to arms from their concern for kÉqÉï.

Thus even when a man is forced to adopt AÉmÉ®qÉï he does it only in a spirit of Tyaga.
Even an ordinary householder is expected to be a irÉÉaÉÏ even though he may be staying in
his home with his wife and children. Thus the Bhagavata says that he should live unattached
in his own home as if he were only a guest with no sense of ownership or rights over
anything or anybody at home including even his wife and children oÉëɼhÉxrÉ ÌWû
SåWûÉåÅrÉÇ ¤ÉÑSìMüÉqÉÉrÉ lÉåwrÉiÉå (Bhag. XI: 17.42 & 51 – 59).

If a Grihastha lives according to the prescription of the scriptures he is as good a Tyagi as a

Sannyasi who has taken orders. Such a Grihastha is called a qÉÉæͤÉMü, one who given
higher value to Moksha than to ordinary social duties and is characterized as ESÉxÉÏlÉ in
Garuda Purana when he continues to be a Grihastha without becoming a formal sannyasi
while he who observes all the social duties prescribed by the Sastras and who is engaged in
maintaining a family is called a xÉÉkÉMü. CSÉxÉÏlÉ xÉÉkÉY¶É aÉ×WûxjÉÉå
̲ÌuÉkÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç | MÑüOÒûqÉoÉpÉUhÉå rÉÑ£üÈ xÉÉkÉMüÉåÅxÉÉæ
aÉ×WûÏ pÉuÉåiÉç || GhÉÉÌlÉ §ÉÏhrÉÑmÉM×üirÉ irÉYiuÉÉ pÉÉrÉÉï
kÉlÉÉÌSMüqÉç | LMüÉMüÐ ÌuÉcÉUåiÉç rÉxiÉÑ ESÉxÉÏlÉÈ xÉ qÉÉæͤÉMüÈ ||
Jivankmukti is possible even from one who has not taken formal Sannyasa (Rama, Kirshna,
Janaka, Ajatasatru). Therefore the expression iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ need not be
interpreted as referring only to Sannyasins but to all of whom are expected by the Sastras to
live a life of Tyaga in whichever Ashrama they may be. The Sastras do not force every
‘Tyagi’ to become a formal Sannyasi.

From the above we can see that the expression iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ can be
understood in different ways according as we understand the meaning of the three words
iÉålÉ, irÉ£åülÉ, pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ. iÉålÉ may be understood as meaning ‘by that’ i.e. by
seeing god in everything as a result of such realization as mentioned in the first half.
irÉ£åülÉ in the sense of ‘tyagena’ or by renunciation i.e. by giving up attachment to all
ephemeral aspects of the world which naturally accompanies or follows or precedes such
realization, pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ as meaning mÉÉsÉrÉåjÉÉÈ in both the senses of protecting
one’s own self as well as helping others to protect their own self by such realization. When
the words are taken in these senses, the meaning of the ‘pada’ as a whole will be understood
as applying to both, - the Sadhaka as well as the Siddha, the Grihastha as well as the
Sannyasin. So far as the Siddha or the realized man is concerned it cannot be taken as an
injunction as he is beyond all Vedic injunctions and prohibitions and free to live his life in
any way he thinks fit, whether in a state of absolute mediation or in the service of the world
as occasions and situations prompt him to do. Whether apparently he is inactive or patently
engaged in service, his whole life after such renunciation will be of great service to others
through precepts as well as example. Even his activity is as good as inactivity and his
inactivity as good as activity (cf. MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï rÉÈ mÉzrÉåiÉç of the Gita). The
passage, therefore, can only mean the description of his nature after realization. It only means
that inevitably he cannot help being of service to the world whether he is patently active or
inactive. ‘mÉÉsÉrÉåjÉÉÈ’ may mean not only protecting other men i.e. helping them to
realize God but protecting or giving strength and life to the scriptures themselves as

25
mentioned in Narada Bhakti Su. pÉuÉiÉÑ ÌlɶÉrÉSÉRûrÉÉïiÉç F²ïÇ
zÉÉx§ÉU¤ÉhÉqÉç |

As applied to the aspirant it is certainly an injunction or a direction to practice irÉÉaÉ in

every act of life and be helpful to all through the proper discharge of his duties to them
including his own dependents as in the case of the Grihastha as well as the whole society and
the world even in the case of Sannyasins, Brahmacharins etc.

The root pÉÑeÉç also means to enjoy or to suffer. Therefore the passage may be taken to
mean a direction to sacrifice oneself for the good of the world and to enjoy the bliss of such
sacrifice. When such sacrifice is done in a spirit of loving service the very pain and strain and
suffering involved in the (sacrifice) act is automatically transmuted into joy. A spiritual
aspirant deserves to have only this kind of joy of life and must give up all other worldly
enjoyments. The enjoyment of a man who sees God in everything as per the first 2 padas is
really the enjoyment of God himself. Even when he is in contact with objects of the senses,
his renunciation of the ephemeral aspect of the world results only in the enjoyment of the
Bliss of God. Even the sense pleasures which naturally may result from such sense contact as
well as the sufferings which may, like-wise result will all be enjoyable to him as aspects of
Divine Bliss. The irÉÉaÉ of sense pleasures only takes the shape of merging them in the
bliss of God realization and in such enjoyments sense pleasure ceases to be a cause of
bondage as it looses its sting on account of its identification with the superior bliss of such
God-realization (c.f UxÉÉåÅmrÉxrÉ mÉUÇ SØwOèuÉÉ ÌlÉuÉiÉïiÉå). The root
pÉÑeÉç may be understood in its literal sense of taking food. We have already seen how the
Grihasthas have the right to take food only after feeding others and to enjoy only such food
which is left after serving others. We have also seen how he has to practice severe Tyaga
even in earning his livelihood. So far as the Sannyasin also is concerned he is entitled to have
his food at the expense of the Grihastha only in return for the life of renunciation and service
which he has taken up. The Sannyasin has already given up all his properties and the
comforts of a home in his attempt at realisation of God. He has, therefore, no home or wealth
or wife or children to give up after his sanyasa. He has left to himself as his own duty his
body and mind and he has to make use of both these in the service of the world as worship of
God before he is entitled to receive his food from Grihasthas. He therefore, is also a labourer
worthy of his hire for the service he does to society through his examples and precept. He is
the spiritual guru par excellence and only if he discharges his duty by way of spiritual
ministration to others is he entitled to his food. In order to be of service to the public
spiritually he has to acquire that spirituality himself by spiritual practice such as self-control,
renunciation of ego, attachment, desire for sense pleasures, etc. He has also to study the
scriptures before he can become a teacher. Therefore, in spending his time in study and
spiritual practice he is not only serving himself for the service of others, over and above this
he is expected to actively engage himself in serving others even socially by starting and
maintaining institutions like schools, hospitals etc. with the help of public contributions. He
has to efface himself in such services as relief work etc. As he has no money of his own it is
part of his duty to make the public interested in such service and make them contribute their
share for such public service. The Grihastha who is the real earner cannot be a whole time
worker and therefore the Sannyasin has to step in and dedicate his body and mind through
such service. His activity is, therefore, more productive in a truer sense than that of a
householder, a capitalist or an industrialist. His work is man-making and never affects
anybody detrimentally. All the parties concerned including the beneficiaries as well as the
contributors get the full benefit out of his activity at the least cost. His activity is therefore as

26
much even economically productive. It is only in return for such selfless service that society
has to feed him. He is, therefore not a parasite who lives upon others earnings. If government
servants as well as school teachers or merchants are entitled to get paid for mere clerical work
or for tyrannizing over others in their own self-interest surely the Sannyasin who works
selflessly for the good of the public is entitled at least to his bare physical needs so that he
may only be of service to others. It is only when the Sannyasin does not do his duty to the
public that he becomes a parasite. Thus even the Sannyasin deserves the food that he eats by
his selfless service to the public. Therefore the injunction iÉålÉç irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ
is as much applicable to the Sannyasin as to the Grihastha even if we understand the word
pÉÑeÉç in the sense of taking food.

It will thus be seen that the program of social service taken by the Sannyasins of our order as
per the instructions of Sw. Vivekananda is quite consistent with the teachings of ancient
teachers. Only we must not forget the spirit in which such service is undertaken, is quite
different from the ordinary kind of social work. To us social service is also worship of God in
the spirit of this Upanishad and the aim of it is the acquisition of the purity of mind which
leads to the realization of God and to help others to attain this realization by the removal of
obstacles in the way such as ignorance, ill-health, selfishness etc. This kind of service blesses
him that gives and his that receives and nobody lose anything.

The word pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ may also be understood as meaning ‘surrender’. In Karma Yoga it
is a surrender of the desire for fruits. The Vedic rituals as laid down in the previous portions
of the S.Y.V have to be performed in the spirit of MüqÉïhrÉåuÉÉÍkÉMüÉUxiÉå qÉÉ
TüsÉåwÉÑ MüSÉcÉlÉ qÉÉ MüqÉï TüsÉWåûiÉÑpÉÔïÈ etc. and also see ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ
xÉ…¡ûUÌWûiÉÇ AUÉaɲåwÉiÉÈ M×üiÉqÉç etc., also qÉÑ£üxÉ…
¡ûÉåÅlÉWÇûuÉÉSÏ etc. In Bhakti yoga, Tyaga takes the form of mÉëmÉÌ¨É as
advocated by Ramanuja. Prapatti is defined as taking complete refuge in the Lord or
zÉUhÉÉaÉÌiÉ. All activity is to be done only as worship of the Lord (iÉ¨É MüqÉï
mÉËUiÉÉåwÉÇ rÉiÉç). All agency of the action is surrendered to the Lord and the
devotee feels himself only as an instrument in His hands to be made use of in any way he
likes. The fruits of action also belong only to the Lord and in making any offerings to the
Lord he is only surrendering to the rightful owner what legitimately belongs to him like the
earnings of a slave or servant. This is the meaning of the direction that every act is to be done
as AmÉïhÉqÉç of God (xÉuÉïMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï, oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ etc. and
rÉiMüUÉåÌwÉ rÉSzlÉÉÍzÉ etc.) of Gita and AmÉïhÉqÉç is defined in the Kurma Purana
thus: oÉë¼hÉÉ SÏrÉiÉå SårÉÇ oÉë¼hÉå xÉÇmÉSÏrÉiÉå | oÉë¼æuÉ SÏrÉiÉå
cÉåÌiÉ oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÍqÉSÇ mÉUqÉç || lÉÉWÇû MüiÉÉï xÉuÉïqÉåiÉiÉç
oÉë¼æuÉ MÑüÂiÉå xÉSÉ | LiÉiÉç oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ mÉëÉå£Çü GÌwÉÍpÉûÈ
iÉiuÉSÍzÉïÍpÉÈ || mÉëÏhÉÉiÉÑ pÉaÉuÉÉlÉÏzÉÈ MüqÉïhÉÉÅlÉålÉ zÉɵÉiÉÈ |
MüUÉåÌiÉ xÉiÉiÉÇ oÉÑ®rÉÉ oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÍqÉSÇ mÉUqÉç rÉ²É TüsÉÉlÉÉÇ
xÉlrÉÉxÉÇ mÉëMÑüuÉïlÉç mÉUqÉåµÉUå | MüqÉïhÉÉqÉåiÉSè CirÉÉWÒûÈ
oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉqÉlÉѨÉqÉqÉç || iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉåuÉåiÉ xÉiÉiÉÇ MüqÉï rÉÉåaÉ
mÉëxɳÉkÉÏÈ iÉ×miÉrÉå mÉUqÉåzÉxrÉ iÉimÉSÇ rÉÉÌiÉ zÉɵÉiÉqÉç ||
AmÉïhÉqÉç – MÔüqÉïmÉÑUÉhÉ || mÉëmÉÌ¨É – AÉlÉÑMÔüsrÉxrÉ xɃ¡ûsmÉÈ
mÉëÉÌiÉMÔüsrÉxrÉ uÉeÉïlÉqÉç | UͤÉwrÉiÉÏÌiÉ ÌuɵÉÉxÉÈ
aÉÉåimÉ×iuÉuÉUhÉÇ iÉjÉÉ || AÉiqÉÌlɤÉåmÉMüÉmÉïhrÉå wÉÎQèuÉkÉÉ
zÉUhÉÉaÉÌiÉÈ | According to this definition, it consists of absolute self-surrender and
signifies a resolve to follow the will of God, not to cross His purposes, to believe that he will
save, to seek help from Him and Him alone and to yield up one’s spirit to Him in all

27
meekness. The followers of Ramanuja think that there are 3 main elements in mÉëmĘ́É.
The devotee realizes that he exists only for the highest Atma and to please Him by his service
and for this he surrenders himself. Another element is the surrender of the burden of
meditation. One who practices mÉëmÉÌ¨É says to the Lord as it were, that he is unable
even to meditate and prays to Him to give him the fruits of it. The third element in
mÉëmÉÌ¨É is the surrender of the fruit (ref. Elements of Vedic religion by V.K.
Ramanujachari).

According to Rajayoga it consists in ÍcɨÉuÉ×̨ÉÌlÉUÉåkÉ through 8 yogic practices

such as – Yama, Niyama etc. DµÉUmÉëÍhÉkÉÉlÉ is one of the practices advocated by
Patanjali and means complete surrender and dedications of all actions to God. In Jnana Yoga
it is done by a clear understanding that all activities belong only to prakriti c.f. aÉÑhÉÉ
aÉÑhÉåwÉÑ uÉiÉïliÉå CÌiÉ qÉiuÉÉ lÉÉlÉÑwÉ‹iÉå || mÉëM×üirÉæuÉ cÉ
MüqÉÉïÍhÉ Ì¢ürÉqÉÉhÉÉÌlÉ xÉuÉïzÉÈ etc., (CÎlSìrÉÉhÉÏÎlSìrÉÉjÉåïwÉÑ uÉiÉïliÉ
CÌiÉ kÉÉUrÉlÉç zÉÉUÏUÇ MåüuÉsÉÇ MüqÉï MÑüuÉïlÉç) etc. of the Gita.
According to the Bhagavatam, Karma is laid down by the scriptures only to help the
achievement of freedom from Karma (MüqÉïqÉÉå¤ÉÉrÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÌuÉkɨÉå
½aÉSÇ rÉjÉÉ || XI:3-44 vide also X: 84: 35-38.

The line is interpreted taking iÉålÉ as referring to DzÉÉ in the previous line and irÉ£åülÉ
as meaning S¨ÉålÉ. The meaning of the injunction according to this would be that one
should be satisfied with what is given by God in His infinite wisdom and grace as fit for the
devotee under the special circumstances and conditions. God knows best what is good for us
for our spiritual progress. Sometimes He may give pain and suffering if that is more helpful
to us for realization of God. Even pain and suffering are, therefore, to be taken by the devotee
as only a blessing from God meant for our own redemption. These are only like bitter pills
given by the doctor to the patient or a painful operation done by a surgeon to cure the patient
from a sore or the punishment given by a parent or a teacher to the son or a disciple for the
latter’s own good. Thus we find in the Bhagavatam, how the devotees accept their miseries as
blessings from God. Very often disappointments and failures are one’s best friends in
spiritual life as Sw. Vivekananda has pointed out. If one is a true devotee, again, he will
never be lacking in whatever is necessary for his bare ordinary physical needs. God will see
to it that such harmless needs are satisfied so that the devotee’s mind may not be distracted
by such obstacles (cf. AlÉlrÉÉͶÉliÉrÉliÉÉå qÉÉqÉç etc.). rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉ in this verse
must be understood as meaning rÉÉåaÉ and ¤ÉåqÉ also some commentators like
Ramanuja take it as rÉÉåaÉxrÉ ¤ÉåqÉÈ. In either case the sloka asserts that Bhagavan is
anxious to make the devotees spiritual progress easy for him. Thus Ramanuja says qÉiÉç
mÉëÉÎmiÉsɤhÉÇ rÉÉåaÉ AmÉÑlÉUÉuÉ×̨ÉÂmÉÇ ¤ÉåqÉÇ cÉ uÉWûÉÍqÉ.
Venkatanatha qÉimÉëÉÎmiÉ AmÉÑlÉUÉuÉ×̨ÉÃmÉÇ AÉqÉÑÎwqÉMÇü
rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉÇ
zÉUÏUrÉɧÉɱjÉïkÉlÉÉÌSsÉÉpÉiÉimÉËUmÉÉsÉlÉÃmÉqÉæÌWûMÇü
rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉÇ cÉ iÉæÈ AmÉëÉÍjÉïiÉqÉÌmÉ AWûqÉåuÉ uÉWûÉÍqÉ
mÉëÉmÉrÉÉÍqÉ || GhÉÍqÉuÉ iÉSÏrÉ rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉ pÉÉuÉÇ AWÇû ÌoÉpÉÍqÉï
CÌiÉ uÉÉ GhÉÇ mÉëuÉ×®Ç CuÉ qÉå WØûSrÉÉiÉç lÉÉmÉxÉmÉïiÉÏÌiÉ A£æüÈ
| rÉjÉÉ ÌWû qÉ°£üÉÈ qÉÉÇ ÌuÉlÉÉ ¤ÉhÉqÉmrÉÉÅÅiqÉkÉUhÉÇ lÉ sÉpÉliÉå
iÉjÉÉ AWûqÉÌmÉ iÉÉlÉç ÌuÉlÉÉ ¤ÉhÉqÉmrÉÉÅÅiqÉkÉUhÉÇ AsÉpÉqÉÉlÉÈ
iÉSÏrÉ xÉMüsÉ rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉ ÌlÉuÉÉïWûMüÉå pÉuÉÉÍqÉ rÉå rÉjÉÉ qÉÉÇ
mÉëmɱliÉå iÉÉÇxiÉjÉæuÉ pÉeÉÉqrÉWûÍqÉÌiÉ qÉqÉ xuÉÉpÉÉurÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ
pÉÉuÉÈ || Vallabhacharya rÉÉåaÉÇ CWû sÉÉåMåü xÉåuÉÉåmÉrÉÉåaÉjÉïÇ

28
kÉlÉkÉÉlrÉuÉx§ÉÉÌS sÉÉpÉÇ ¤ÉåqÉÇ cÉ AqÉÑ§É AÉirÉÎliÉMÇü ´ÉårÉÉå
qÉÉå¤ÉsɤÉhÉÇ uÉWûÉÍqÉ | rÉÉåaÉÇ xÉåuÉÉjÉïÇ kÉlÉÉÌS xÉqmĘ́É
sÉÉpÉÇ xÉåuÉlÉå qɱÉåaÉÇ uÉÉ ¤ÉåqÉÇ iÉimÉÉsÉlÉÇ pÉÌ£ü
ElqÉÑZÉÏMüUhÉÉiqÉMÇü qÉ°ÉuÉÃmÉÇ uÉÉ AWÇû mÉÑÂwÉÉå¨ÉqÉÈ
uÉWûÉÍqÉ mÉÉsÉrÉÉÍqÉ CirÉjÉïÈ | Nilakanta – rÉÉåaÉÇ xÉåuÉÉjÉï kÉlÉÉÌS
xÉqmÉÌ¨É sÉÉpÉÇ xÉåuÉlÉå qɱÉåaÉÇ uÉÉ ¤ÉåqÉÇ iÉimÉÉsÉlÉÇ pÉÌ£ü
ElqÉÑZÉÏMüUhÉÉiqÉMÇü qÉ°ÉuÉÃmÉÇ uÉÉ AWÇû mÉÑÂwÉÉå¨ÉqÉÈ
uÉWûÉÍqÉ mÉÉsÉrÉÉÍqÉ CirÉjÉïÈ | Sankarananda : rÉ²É iÉåwÉÉÇ
ÌlÉirÉÉÍpÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉÇ rÉÉåaÉÉå ÌlÉUliÉU oÉë¼ÌlÉ¸É iÉxrÉ
¤ÉåqÉÇ AÉkrÉÉÎiqÉMüɱÑmÉSìuÉæÈ ÌuÉcNåûSUÉÌWûirÉÇ iÉSWÇû xÉuÉïSÉ
MüUÉåÍqÉ CirÉjÉïÈ || Sridhara: rÉÉåaÉÇ kÉlÉÉÌS sÉÉpÉÇ ¤ÉåqÉÇ cÉ
iÉimÉÉsÉlÉÇ qÉÉå¤ÉÉZrÉÇ cÉ || Raghavendra: rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉÇ ²l²æMüpÉÉuÉÈ
rÉÉåaÉxrÉ ¤ÉåqÉ CÌiÉ uÉÉ AmÉëÉmiÉmÉëÉÎmiÉÈ rÉÉåaÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉÃmÉÈ
iÉxrÉ ¤ÉåqÉÈ AlÉliÉiuÉÇ uÉWûÉÍqÉ AWÇû AmÉÑlÉUÉuÉ×̨ÉsɤÉhÉÇ
uÉWûÉÍqÉ AWÇû AmÉÑlÉUÉuÉ×̨ÉsɤÉhÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉÉjÉïÇ SSÉÍqÉ CirÉjÉïÈ
|

All these commentaries show that the ordinary interpretation of the word ‘yogakshema’ is not
what is intended here. So Sankara’s interpretation of the word must be understood only in the
light of these later commentaries. God is more anxious about the spiritual welfare of his
devotees than for their worldly prosperity which after all is of no value in the eyes of either
God or the devotees themselves but which is dangerous and risky in as much as it may only
(separate) raise a barrier between them. The sentence also suggests that, whatever happens,
he gets in life by chance or as a result of his self effort are all attributed, by the devotee, to
God’s Grace only. Even if some favors are shown by other men he takes it only as coming
from God. As a result of this attitude he gets rid of all Ahamkara and Abhimana and pride of
self achievement. At the same time he gets rid of all feeling of dependence on others or on his
own self-efforts. It is thus a great help in spiritual life. In fact also God is the giver of all
fruits of Karma. Therefore, the Br.Su. III:2; 38-39 TüsÉqÉiÉç EmÉmɨÉåÈ |
´ÉÑiuÉÉŠ. The Sruti that is referred to in the latter sutra is Brihad. IV: 4; 24 xÉ LwÉ
qÉWûÉlÉeÉ AÉiqÉÉ A³ÉÉSÉå uÉxÉÑSÉlÉÈ kÉlÉSÉiÉÉ | A³ÉS – A§ÉÇ
mÉëÉÍhÉprÉÉå SSÉÌiÉ CÌiÉ || The Chand. also says that the God is the giver of all
blessings. (LiÉÇ xÉ rɲÉqÉÈ CirÉÉcɤÉiÉå LiÉÇ ÌWû xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ uÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ
AÍpÉxÉÇrÉÉÎliÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ LlÉÇ uÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ AÍpÉxÉÇrÉÎliÉ rÉ LuÉÇ uÉåS |).
God is the repository of all the auspicious things which man hankers after and therefore, he
who worships Him is also endowed with all the virtuous qualities – LwÉ E LuÉ uÉÉqÉlÉÏÈ
LwÉ ÌWû xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ uÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ lÉrÉÌiÉ. God is called uÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ as he is the giver of
all blessings. In Chandogya III: 15; 1 also He is called uÉxÉÑSÉlÉ and as MüÉåwÉ. He is
the repository of all uÉxÉÑu or wealth as well as the real treasure.

qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ means ‘don’t be hankering after the satisfaction of worldly desires or worldly
prosperity’. Desires for sense pleasure or worldly prosperity are due to ignorance of the
divinity of the universe. He who knows that everything is God can have all his desires
directed only to God–realization. When the desires are thus properly directed towards God,
such desires do not create any bondage and therefore are not known as MüÉqÉ but only as
mÉëåqÉ or pÉÌ£ü or qÉÑqÉѤÉiuÉ. Such desires are not to be avoided but cultivated
with effort. They are like thorns which are made use of to take out another thorn which has
entered the soul as in the case of xÉixÉ…¡û which removes all SÒxÉçxÉ…¡û. So
Sandilya says in the pÉÌ£üqÉÏqÉÉÇxÉÉ Sutra 21 WåûrÉÉ UÉaÉiuÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ cÉå³É

29
E¨ÉqÉÉxmÉSiuÉÉiÉç xÉ…¡ûuÉiÉç. It is only the former, namely, the desire for worldly
pleasures that is dangerous and the injunction is only to avoid such danger. The danger is
pointed out in the Gita III: 37-41 MüÉqÉ LwÉ ¢üÉåkÉ LwÉ etc. vide also XVI: 21-23
̧ÉÌuÉkÉÇ lÉUMüxrÉåSqÉç etc. Desire is common to all living beings and every instinct
craves for satisfaction of the desire. It is not ordinarily possible to suppress or repress these
desires and if they are repressed may give rise to all kinds of physical and mental
disturbances which are very injurious to moral and spiritual life. The injunction ‘qÉÉ
aÉ×kÉÈ’ does not refer to such repression. These instincts have only to be sublimated. The
best way of conquering desires and passions, therefore, as Sri Ramakrishna has pointed out is
to redirect them towards God. Vide also Narada Bhakti Sutra iÉSÌmÉïiÉÉÎZÉsÉÉcÉÉUÈ
xÉlÉç MüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉÉÌS AÍpÉqÉÉlÉÉÌSMÇü iÉÎxqɳÉåuÉ MüUhÉÏrÉqÉç || 65
|| All these instincts are only different manifestations or aspects of the one urge for perfection
which is possible only in God realization. All the energies released by these instincts are
given their natural outlet in such redirections towards God and they all find satisfaction in the
attainment of their real goal, viz. realization of God and they do not produce any untoward
effects on the body and mind, as they are allowed full scope for proper legitimate self
expression. Forcible repression is neither advocated nor advisable as pointed out in the Gita
ÌlÉaÉëWÇû ÌMÇü MüËUwrÉÌiÉ. Narada also says in Sutras 7 – 11 that ‘ÌlÉUÉåkÉ’
takes the form of dedication of the whole of one’s activity to God (vide notes thereon).
Conquest of desires is a very difficult process and can be achieved only by graduated
exercise. As far as possible one should try to keep oneself aloof from objects which are likely
to stimulate the senses. As the M. Bh. Points out the senses become powerful only when they
come in contact with their natural sense objects. For a novice, therefore, it is safer to keep out
of contact with such tempting objects. But this practice is not always successful and
sometimes if by any accident such practitioner comes into contact with such sense object he
is liable to be tempted again as exemplified in the stories of Rishyasringa in the Ramayana
and Saubhari in the Bhagavata and Vishwamitra and Menaka. Some, therefore, advocate the
natural enjoyments of the desires till one is surfeited (feed to excess) as the best means of
conquering desires. For when one is surfeited one is likely to develop distaste for such
enjoyment. But this view also is not correct. No man has ever developed desire less-ness or
dispassion through such practices. If this argument is true or correct every rake, every black-
marketer, every glutton should have developed into sages (lÉ eÉÉiÉÑ MüÉqÉÈ
MüÉqÉÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉpÉÉåaÉålÉ zÉÉqrÉÌiÉ WûÌuÉwÉÉ M×üwhÉuÉiqÉåïuÉ
pÉÔrÉ LuÉÉÅÍpÉuÉkÉïiÉå || Manu XI; 94 (cf. Shantiparva 180-26 n iÉ×ÎmiÉÈ
ÌmÉërÉsÉÉpÉå AÎxiÉ iÉ×whÉÉ lÉ AÎ°È mÉëzÉÉqrÉÌiÉ | xÉÇmÉëeuÉsÉÌiÉ xÉÉ
pÉÔrÉÈ xÉÍqÉÎkpÉËUuÉ mÉÉuÉMüÈ)
The experiment was tried by Yayati and he found that even after ten thousand years of
enjoyment, the desires only grew more and more powerful with every enjoyment. It is after
such personal experience of the futility of such enjoyment for the conquest of such desires
that he has given the advice to his successors and future generations lÉ eÉÉiÉÑ MüÉqÉÈ
etc.

Both the above views, when taken together only show that extreme enjoyment of the senses
may be equally dangerous if their limitations are not properly understood. Unintelligent
asceticism is condemned in the Gita (XVIII- AzÉÉx§ÉÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ bÉÉåUÇ etc. …
iÉÉlÉç ÌuÉή AÉxÉÑU ÌlɶÉrÉÉlÉç. Moderate and controlled enjoyment is what is
spiritually beneficial in the case of persons whose desires and passions are violent and strong.
That is why our scriptures advocate aÉÉWïûxjrÉÉ´ÉqÉ for such people. It is only when
one gets strong in his will power by constant exercise of wholesome restrictions by the

30
discharge of his duties in the Grihasthashrama that he is considered fit to take up the rigors of
Sannyasin’s life. The various vratas, fast and vigils, self-control and continence
(oÉë¼cÉrÉï), self-less public service as we noted above makes Sannyasa life easy for him
in later life. (cf. Manu’s advice – GhÉÉÌlÉ §ÉÏhrÉmÉÉM×üirÉ qÉlÉÉå qÉÉå¤Éå
ÌlÉuÉåzÉrÉåiÉç. This does not apply to persons ‘who by their previous Samskaras are
ready to take up the higher spiritual life with all its rigors in right earnest in quest of God. In
the case of such a man it is highly inadvisable to take up worldly enjoyments as a Grihastha
as an exercise for developing Vairagyam (cf. St. Paul’s words –“it is better to marry than to
burn” which shows that the aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉ is prescribed only for those who have not
yet become Adhikaris for the higher Sadhanas in the Sannyasasrama. It would seem from
same saying of Sri Ramakrishna that he also advocates the enjoyment of sense pleasures as a
preliminary step to renunciation as when he says “The soul becomes restless for God when
one is through with the enjoyment of worldly things” – P.196 Gospel).

Gospel P.461 records how Sri Ramakrishna himself voluntarily resorted to the enjoyment of
sense-pleasures for getting rid of his desires for their satisfaction. The saying on p.196 is not
an advice to all irrespective of their AÍkÉMüÉU. All his sayings were directed only to
particular individuals. Many of them like the present one are directed only to persons whose
passions are strong and who would be injuring themselves if they take to repressions of those
passions by force or violence. Moreover it is seen that it is only a statement of fact that
Vairagyam is not possible to a man when he has not already acquired it by the necessary
preliminary practices whether in this life or previous one. When one’s mind is, predisposed
towards spiritual life, as a result of previous spiritual practices, and their resulting Samskaras
as per mÉÔuÉÉïprÉÉxÉålÉ iÉålÉæuÉ (Gita). He is an AÍkÉMüÉUÏ not for the
controlled enjoyment of a Grishasta’s life but for the higher spiritual enjoyment of a
Sannyasin’s life. That is why we find the great Acharya’s life like Sanakara, Madhva take up
Sannyasa even in their childhood without entering Grihasthasrama. This is the line followed
by Suka and Nachiketas, Narada, Markendeya and other great sages. That is why we find
Smritikaras like Apasthambha and Upanishads like Jabolopanishad and Brihadaranyaka
permitting aspirants aspiring after higher spiritual life to enter the xÉlrÉÉxÉÉ´ÉqÉ direct
from the oÉë¼cÉrÉÉïzÉqÉ. Thus Apasthambha says AiÉ LuÉ oÉë¼cÉrÉïuÉÉlÉç
mÉËUuÉëeÉÌiÉ AiÉ LuÉ oÉë¼cÉrÉÉï´ÉqÉÉiÉç oÉë¼cÉrÉïuÉÉlÉç
AÌuÉmÉÑsiÉoÉë¼cÉrÉïÈ mÉëuÉëeÉÌiÉ mÉëuÉëerÉÉÇ MÑürÉÉïiÉç rÉÌS
iÉSæuÉ mÉYuÉMüÉwÉÉrÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ) c.f Shankara Bhashya on Br.Su.III:4; 17, 19,
20 regarding authority for Sannyasashrama).

Sri Ramakrishna could not have advised everybody to adopt this practice is clear from all his
sayings (teachings) to all his Sannyasin disciples (otherwise Swamiji and other disciples
would have been advised by him to enter Grihasthashrama before taking Sannyasashrama).
He says “the fact is that one does not feel the longing to see or know God as long as one
wants to enjoy worldly objects”, clearly here the reference is to one who is desirous of such
enjoyment. It refers only to such people who are not able to profit by the experience of others
as recorded in the scriptures as in the stories of Yayati, Pururavas, Saubhari etc. given in the
Puranas and not to those who are wise enough to profit by such experience. The saying on
P.461 (Gospel) is not meant to be followed in all cases indiscriminately whenever the desire
arises in the mind. Such a course of action as part of Sadhana relates only to innocent desires
which arise in the mind of a man who has already succeeded in conquering all the dangerous
ones, beforehand such as giving up Kamini-Kanchana which is most harmful for spiritual
life. It relates only to a Sannyasin who has already given up the pleasures of the sex and the

31
pleasures that can be bought with money. It is quite natural even for a Sannyasin to have such
cravings as hunger and thirst or for study of books or to go on pilgrimage etc. These desires
are not in themselves dangerous and may be conquered by enjoyment of the various desires
that assail the spiritual man there are 2 main types. There are certain objects which are
capable of creating attachment and bondage according to the universal experience of all
spiritual men. It would be safe to avoid them altogether as per the rule mÉë¤ÉÉsÉlÉÉiÉç
ÌWû mɃ¡ûxrÉ SÕUÉiÉç AxmÉzÉïlÉÇ uÉUqÉç not to enter into the mire of Samsara
is preferable to wash the dirt of it after entering it. Prevention is better than cure. The
xÉlrÉÉxÉÉ´ÉqÉ direct from oÉë¼cÉrÉÉï´ÉqÉ in the case of deserving aspirants is
meant to save them from getting dirty whereas the Sannyasa taken by Grishasthas is meant
for cleansing them of the impurities acquired during the Grihasthashrama. The most serious
and dangerous obstacles are described as Kamini-kanchana by Sri Ramakrishna. Those who
can afford and who are strong enough will be wise if they avoid them altogether. There may
be other objects which may be capable of tempting only particular individuals. What such
objects are, are to be determined by each aspirant by his own experience. Such objects also, it
is better to avoid altogether if one is strong enough. That is why Sankaracharya insists on it in
Sannyasashrama as a necessity, as it avoids the contact with sense objects which are likely to
tempt. Moreover, the example of Sri Ramakrishna and other Jivanmukta Purushas or
Avataras is not always fit to be initiated by the aspirants who would do well to put into
practice the instructions given by them as Sri Ramakrishna himself said many times. What
may not injure them may really injure us who are not fit Adhikaris. (cf. Suka’s words to
Parikshit about Krishna’s relations with Gopis kÉqÉï urÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÉå Sع DµÉUÉhÉÉÇ
iÉÑ xÉÉWûxÉqÉç | iÉåeÉÏrÉxÉÉqÉç lÉ SÉåwÉÉrÉ uÉ»åûÈ xÉuÉïpÉÑeÉÉå
rÉjÉÉ || lÉæiÉiÉç xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç eÉÉiÉÑ qÉlÉxÉÉÌmÉ ½lÉϵÉUÈ |
ÌuÉlÉzrÉirÉÉcÉUlÉç qÉÉæžÉiÉç rÉjÉÉÅÂSìÉåÅÎokÉeÉÇ ÌuÉwÉqÉç ||
DµÉUÉhÉÉÇ uÉcÉÈ xÉirÉÇ iÉjÉæuÉ AÉcÉËUiÉÇ YuÉÍcÉiÉç || iÉåwÉÉÇ rÉiÉç
xuÉuÉcÉÉårÉÑ£Çü oÉÑήqÉÉlÉç iÉiÉç xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç ||
MÑüzÉsÉÉcÉËUiÉålÉæwÉÉÍqÉWû xuÉÉjÉÉåï lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | ÌuÉmÉrÉïrÉåhÉ
uÉÉÅlÉjÉÉåï ÌlÉUWûƒ¡ûÉËUhÉÉÇ mÉëpÉÉå (Bhag. X:33;30-33) (cf. "while the great
beast is shaking the earth, grazing on lotus stalks, keeping alert among the waters – copying
me the wretched creature will die, like a calf having eaten mine”- Buddha in connection with
Devadatta imitating him.)

That is why Sri Krishna says in the Gita rɱiÉç AÉcÉUÌiÉ ´Éå¸È iɨÉSåuÉåiÉUÉå
eÉlÉÈ | xÉ rÉimÉëqÉÉhÉÇ MÑüÂiÉå sÉÉåMüxiÉSlÉÑuÉiÉïiÉå || which is a
direction to wise men or leaders of society to be careful not to set a bad example to others.
The important words in that sloka are ‘rÉimÉëqÉÉhÉÇ MÑüÂiÉå’ which mean ‘the
principle on which he acts’. Wise men’s actions must be understood in terms of their
principles as explained by themselves and it is these principles that have to be adopted and
not the individual actions themselves. The principle of their actions is freedom from
attachment and Ahamkara and if this inner freedom has been acquired by the aspirant he also
will not be affected by any action done by his although his reaction to the same situation may
or may not and need not be the same as that of the Guru. Sri Ramakrishna was one of those
who had this inner freedom from attachment and Ahamkara and unless we also have this
inner freedom it would be very foolish to follow his example in the matter of all the practices
he has undertaken. He himself has warned us about this. Thus we see there are 2 aspects of
this irÉÉaÉ, the ÌuÉwÉrÉirÉÉaÉ and xÉ…¡ûirÉÉaÉ or oÉÌWûÈirÉÉaÉ and
AliÉxirÉÉaÉ vide N.B. Su. iɨÉÑ ÌuÉwÉrÉirÉÉaÉÉiÉç xÉ…¡ûirÉÉaÉÉŠ. Also
ÌuÉuÉåMücÉÔQûÉqÉÍhÉ -372-373. AliÉxirÉÉaÉÉå oÉÌWûÈ irÉÉaÉÉå

32
ÌuÉU£üxrÉæuÉ rÉÑerÉiÉå | irÉeÉirÉliÉoÉïÌWûxxÉ…¡û ÌuÉU£üxiÉÑ
qÉÑqÉѤÉrÉÉ || oÉÌWûxiÉÑ ÌuÉwÉrÉæxxÉ…¡Çû iÉjÉÉ AliÉUWûqÉÉÌSÍpÉÈ
ÌuÉU£ü LuÉÇ zÉYlÉÉåÌiÉ irÉ£ÑÇü oÉë¼ÍhÉ ÌlÉ̸iÉÈ || See also Shanti 162.17-
irÉÉaÉÈ xlÉåWûxrÉ rÉxirÉÉaÉÉå ÌuÉwÉrÉÉhÉÉÇ iÉjÉæuÉ cÉ |
UÉaÉSåwÉmÉëWûÏhÉxrÉ irÉÉaÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ lÉÉÅlrÉjÉÉ || Also Shanti 12.35-
AliÉoÉïÌWû¶É rÉiÉç ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç qÉlÉÉå urÉÉxÉgaÉMüÉUMüqÉç |
mÉËUirÉerÉ pÉuÉåiÉç irÉÉaÉÏ ÌWûiuÉÉ mÉëÌiÉÌiɸÌiÉ ||. cf. also
rÉÉåaÉcÉÉÍxɸ VI. 11.5-134 also refers to this inner 'Tyaga'. xÉuÉåïcNûÉÈ
xÉMüsÉÉÈ zɃ¡ûÉÈ xÉuÉåïWûÉÈ xÉuÉïÌlɶÉrÉÉÈ ÍkÉrÉÉ rÉålÉ mÉËUirÉ£üÉÈ
qÉWûÉirÉÉaÉÏ xÉ EcrÉiÉå || (Yogavasishtha VI.6.115.134) of these two aspects the
inner tyaga is more important than the outer tyaga. It is because Rishyasringa and others had
no inner tyaga but only the outer one that, they fall a prey, afterwards. One who has this inner
tyaga can never be tempted even if he is in contact with all the tempting objects in the world.
The external tyaga is of great help in the beginning but it must always be supported by
internal tyaga before he can perfectly be safe from all temptations. The Grihasthas who
cannot practice the external renunciation of Kamini- kanchana can and must practice this
internal renunciation and must be followed up with external renunciation when the time is
ripe. That is why Sannyasa is prescribed for them at the fag end of their life. Those who take
to Sannyasa from the very beginning and who have thus the benefit of oÉÌWûÈirÉÉaÉ at
first should not rest satisfied with this mere external renunciation and must assiduously
cultivate AliÉxirÉÉaÉ. Thus both the varieties of renunciation are mutually helpful and
should be practiced by all with varying emphasis on the one or the other according to one’s
AÍkÉMüÉU. The word irÉÉaÉ is more applicable to oÉÌWûÈirÉÉaÉ and
uÉæUÉarÉqÉç or ÌlÉxxÉ…¡ûiuÉ to AliÉirÉÉaÉ. In the Gita, we find external
renunciation of action is called xÉlrÉÉxÉ and the internal renunciation by the name of
irÉÉaÉ (18 chap.) MüÉqrÉÉlÉÉÇ MüqÉïhÉÉÇ lrÉÉxÉÇ. In the third ch. Bhagavan says
that he who gives up externally without giving up internally also is ÍqÉirÉÉcÉÉU |
MüqÉåïÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ xÉÇrÉqrÉ Superior to such one is another who has internal
renunciation rÉxiÉÑ CÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ etc. There is another important difference to
be noted between irÉÉaÉ and uÉæUÉarÉ. irÉÉaÉ suggests more the effort of the will in
conquering the passions and other obstacles to spiritual life. This practice is mainly meant for
persons who are actually confronted with such obstacles. irÉÉaÉ is thus an active
employment of will-power in spiritual practice. uÉæUÉarÉqÉç on the other hand is more
passive. It relates to the state of the emotions. It is freedom from the impurities attached to
emotions such as UÉaÉ, ²åwÉ etc. it is more mental than physical. It is therefore, an aspect
of AliÉxirÉÉaÉ. It can also be a state of the mind before any passions arise which may
necessitate the effort of the will to conquer it as in irÉÉaÉ. Thus irÉÉaÉ in its broadest
sense may include all the negative practices relating to all the functions of the mind, intellect,
emotion and will. As applied to the intellect it is freedom from ignorance, delusion etc. As
applied to emotion it is freedom from passions such as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ etc. As applied to
will it take the form of self control including such practices as one mentioned in
wÉOèMüxÉqÉmĘ́É. zÉqÉ, SqÉ, EmÉUÌiÉ, ÌiÉÌiɤÉÉ, ´É®É, xÉqÉÉkÉÉlÉ |

iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ may be taken as referring to the volitional aspect, qÉÉ
aÉ×kÉÈ to the emotional aspect and DzÉÉuÉxrÉÇ etc. to the intellectual aspect. There are
various methods of Sadhana prescribed by the scriptures for cultivating Vairagyam. The
Vairagyam is often classified as real and pseudo. The former is again subdivided into Para
and Apara. SعÉÅÅlÉÑ´ÉÌuÉMüÌuÉwÉrÉÌuÉiÉ×whÉxrÉ uÉzÉÏMüÉUxÉg¥ÉÉ
uÉæUÉarÉqÉç iÉimÉUÇ mÉÑÂwÉZrÉÉiÉåÈ aÉÑhÉuÉæiÉ×whrÉqÉç || The

33
latter is of many varieties such as qÉMïüOû, zqÉzÉÉlÉ, mÉëxÉuÉ, AÉiÉÑU etc. The
only sure way is the realization of God. Nobody who has not realized God can consider
oneself safe. In the case of the aspirants the following are some of the practices advocated –
(1) Intellectual conviction through study of scriptures and reasoning about the existence of
God and of the possibility of realizing such God only through such Vairagyam and Tyaga.
Such conviction must form a background to all spiritual practices, positive as well as
negative. Such intellectual jnanam is considered as one of the best purifying agents as the
Gita says AÌmÉ cÉåSÍxÉ mÉÉmÉåprÉ xÉuÉåïprÉÈ mÉÉmÉM×ü¨ÉqÉÈ | xÉuÉïÇ
¥ÉÉlÉmsÉuÉålÉæuÉ uÉ×ÎeÉlÉÇ xÉliÉËUwrÉÌiÉ || rÉjÉækÉÉÇÍxÉ
xÉÍqÉ®ÉåÎalÉpÉïxqÉxÉÉiÉç MÑüÂiÉå iÉjÉÉ ¥ÉÉlÉÉÎalÉÈ xÉuÉïMüqÉÉïÍhÉ
pÉxqÉxÉÉiÉç MÑüÂiÉå iÉjÉÉ || lÉ ÌWû ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ xÉSØzÉÇ mÉÌuɧÉÍqÉWû
ÌuɱiÉå etc. This represents the positive intellectual practice including ´ÉuÉhÉ, qÉlÉlÉ,
ÌuÉcÉÉU according to Jnana Yoga as well as the knowledge of the ephemeral nature of
worldly pleasures and of its harmful after-effects of their enjoyment as well as of the
superiority of the bliss of God-realization (vide Gita XVIII – mÉËUhÉÉqÉå ÌuÉwÉÍqÉuÉ
etc. and also Patanjali mÉËUhÉÉqÉiÉÉmÉxÉÇxMüÉUSÒÈZÉæÈ
aÉÑhÉuÉ×̨ÉÌuÉUÉåkÉÉŠ xÉuÉïqÉåuÉ SÒÈZÉÇ ÌuÉuÉåÌMülÉÈ (II:15) 2. The
cultivation of love and devotion towards God. The purifying influence of Bhakti is referred to
by Bhagavan in Gita IX,30-34. AÌmÉ cÉåiÉç xÉÑSÒUÉcÉÉUÉå pÉeÉiÉå
qÉÉqÉlÉlrÉpÉÉMçü xÉÉkÉÑUåuÉ xÉ qÉliÉurÉÈ xÉqrÉMçü urÉuÉÍxÉiÉÉå ÌWû
xÉÈ || and oÉÉkrÉqÉÉlÉÉåÅÌmÉ xÉ qÉ°£üÈ ÌuÉwÉrÉæUÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ ||
mÉëÉrÉÈ mÉëaÉqpÉrÉÉ pÉ£ürÉÉ ÌuÉwÉrÉælÉÉïÍpÉpÉÔrÉiÉå || rÉjÉÉÎalÉÈ
xÉÑxÉÍqÉ®ÉÍcÉïÈ MüUÉåÌiÉ LkÉÉÇÍxÉ pÉxqÉxÉÉiÉç | iÉjÉÉ qÉ̲wÉrÉÉ
pÉÌ£üÈ E®uÉ LlÉÉÇÍxÉ M×üixlÉzÉÈ || Also Bhag I.6.23. qÉiMüÉqÉÈ zÉlÉMæüÈ
xÉÉkÉÑÈ xÉuÉÉïlÉç qÉÑgcÉÌiÉ WØûcNûrÉÉlÉç ||
Where devotion to God has not yet arisen, such love and devotion towards saints may be
cultivated as their elevating company may help in creating the necessary Vairagyam or
Tyaga. So the Bhagavatam says in III.23.55 xÉ…¡ûÉåÅrÉÇ xÉÇxÉ×iÉåWåïûiÉÑÈ
AxÉixÉÑ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉå ÍkÉrÉÉ | xÉ LuÉ xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ M×üiÉÉå ÌlÉxxÉ…
¡ûiuÉÉrÉ MüsmÉiÉå || also III.25.20 and 24 mÉëxÉ…¡ûqÉeÉUÇ mÉÉzÉÇ
AÉiqÉlÉÈ MüuÉrÉÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ | xÉ LuÉ xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ M×üiÉÉå
qÉÉå¤É²ÉUqÉmÉÉuÉ×iÉqÉç ||xÉ…¡ûxiÉåwuÉjÉ iÉå MüÉrÉïÈ xÉ…
¡ûSÉåwÉWûUÉ ÌWû iÉå || Also XI. xÉixÉ…¡ûÉiÉç zÉlÉMæüÈ xÉ…¡Çû
AÉiqÉeÉÉrÉÉÌSwÉÑ ÌuÉqÉÑcrÉiÉå || vide also Narada qÉÑZrÉiÉxiÉÑ qÉWûiÉç
M×ümÉrÉæuÉ pÉaÉuÉiM×ümÉÉsÉåzÉÉ²É | qÉWûixÉ…¡ûxiÉÑ
SÒsÉïpÉÉåÅaÉqrÉÉåÅqÉÉåkÉ¶É || 38&39. Also Bhag I.6.23. qÉiMüÉqÉÈ
zÉlÉMæüÈ xÉÉkÉÑ xÉuÉÉïlÉç qÉÑgcÉÌiÉ WØûcdrÉÉlÉç || Constant meditation on
God, on the holy attributes of God and the saintliness of saints keeps the mind saturated with
holy and pure thoughts and prevents evil desires arising in the mind. The mind also should be
constantly engaged in good works such as worship, selfless service etc. (vide Nar. Bha.
Sut.76 -77) pÉÌ£üzÉÉx§ÉÉÍhÉ qÉlÉlÉÏrÉÉÌlÉ iÉSÒ¯ÉåkÉMüMüqÉÉïÍhÉ
MüUhÉÏrÉÉÌlÉ | xÉÑZÉSÒÈZÉåcNûÉsÉÉpÉÉÌSirÉMåü MüÉsÉå
mÉëiÉϤrÉqÉÉhÉå ¤ÉhÉÉkÉïqÉÌmÉ urÉjÉïÇ lÉ lÉårÉqÉç | Also Pancadashi
iÉΊliÉlÉÇ iÉiMüjÉlÉÇ AlrÉÉålrÉÇ iÉimÉëoÉÉåkÉlÉÇ LiÉSåMümÉUiuÉÇ cÉ
oÉë¼ÉprÉÉxÉÇ ÌuÉSÒoÉÑïkÉÉÈ || cf also pÉÌ£üUxÉÉqÉ×iÉÍxÉlkÉÑ When he
speaks of pÉÌ£üUxÉÉqÉ×iÉÍxÉlkÉÑ on the authority of the verse uÉÉÎapÉÈ
xiÉÑuÉliÉÉå qÉlÉxÉÉ xqÉUliÉÈ iÉluÉÉ lÉqÉliÉÉåÅmrÉÌlÉzÉÇ lÉ iÉ×miÉÉÈ |
pÉ£üÉÈ xÉëuɳÉå§ÉeÉsÉÉÈ xÉqÉaÉëÇ AÉrÉÑÈ WûUåUåuÉ xÉqÉmÉïrÉÎliÉ ||
Also AkrÉÉiqÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉiÉç ÌlÉSìÉrÉÉÈ sÉÉåMüuÉÉiÉÉïrÉÉÈ

34
zÉoSÉSåUjÉïÌuÉxqÉ×iÉåÈ YuÉÍcÉiÉç lÉÉÅuÉxÉUÇ SiuÉÉ
ÍcÉliÉrÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉÌlÉ || Vide note under AurÉÉuÉרÉpÉeÉlÉÉiÉç in Narada
Bakthi Sutra 36 and Puja. Unless the mind is thus kept engaged Satan will find enough
opportunities to tempt. Complete self-surrender to God and taking refuge in His Grace and
prayer for freedom from passions and complete dedication of all actions and their fruits to
Him are all helpful to free the mind from desires and passions (cf. prayers in Bhagavata by
Prahlada, Rantideva, Kuntidevi etc. (III) The Raja Yoga also prescribes various methods to
acquire freedom from obstacles to spiritual life which are called ‘ÌuÉiÉMïü’ and
‘AliÉUÉrÉ’. One of the methods advocated in Patanjali III; 33 ÌuÉiÉMïüoÉÉkÉlÉå
mÉëÌiÉmɤÉpÉÉuÉlÉqÉç || Also I.29&30 iÉiÉÈ mÉëirÉMçü
cÉåiÉlÉÉÍkÉaÉqÉÉåÅliÉUÉrÉÉÅpÉÉuÉ¶É |
urÉÉÍkÉxirÉÉlÉxÉÇzÉrÉmÉëqÉÉSÉsÉxrÉÉÌuÉUÌiÉpÉëÉÎliÉSzÉïlÉÉÅsÉokÉ
pÉÔÍqÉMüiuÉÉlÉuÉÎxjÉiÉiuÉ. Thoughts inimical to Yoga should be counteracted by
contrary thoughts. Another method is the practice of rÉqÉ, ÌlÉrÉqÉ, and the other 8 angas
of Yoga. He again advocates the conquering of the YsÉåzÉÉs such as AÌuɱÉ, AÎxqÉiÉÉ,
UÉaÉ, ²åwÉ, etc. through iÉmÉxÉç, xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉ, DµÉUmÉëÍhÉkÉÉlÉ vide
Patanjali II: 1 & 2 iÉmÉxxuÉÉkrÉÉrÉåµÉUmÉëÍhÉkÉÉlÉÉÌlÉ Ì¢ürÉÉrÉÉåaÉÈ
xÉqÉÉÍkÉ pÉÉuÉlÉÉjÉïÈ YsÉåzÉiÉlÉÔMüUhÉÉjÉï¶É || By Tapas, here is meant the
attempt to reduce all physical needs as far as possible and to avoid all luxuries. It also
includes the graduated system of exercises physical as well as mental which are specially
meant for the conquest of passions, self-control and strengthening of the will-power. It
involves repeated attempts at conquering these passions and strengthening the will whenever
the opportunity presents itself for self conquest even in everyday life. The very sincere
attempts, to put forth the whole of our will-power whenever an opportunity arises, gradually
strengths the will. Even though our first few attempts may or may not produce visible results
at the time. Every failure in spite of an honest and sincere attempt is a stepping stone to
success as in the case of physical exercise.

The ‘antarayas’ which are obstacles to Yoga are described as those that disturb the mind –
ÍcɨÉÌuɤÉåmÉ in Su. I,30. The remedy for these antarayas is also mentioned in Sutra I
-28 iÉ‹mÉxiÉSjÉïpÉÉuÉlÉqÉç and in Sutra I -32 iÉiÉç mÉëÌiÉwÉåkÉÉjÉïÇ
LMüiuÉÉprÉÉxÉÈ that is, intense application to one thing so that the mind may not have
any opportunity to attend to temptations. Sutra I – 33 also prescribes some other methods for
pacifying the mind such as practice of sympathy, compassion etc.
qÉæ§ÉÏMüÂhÉÉqÉÑÌSiÉÉåmÉå¤ÉÉhÉÉÇ
xÉÑxÉÑZÉSÒÈZÉmÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉhÉÉÇ pÉÉuÉlÉÉiÉÈ ÍcɨÉmÉëxÉÉSlÉqÉç
|| (IV) The Karma Yoga also has its own prescriptions for cultivation of Vairagyam. Every
ritual prescribed involves both Tyaga and Yoga. The ‘Homa’ is symbolic of
SåuÉiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ SìurÉirÉÉaÉ or renouncing all ephemeral pleasures. So also every
offering made in Puja (rɱÌS¹iÉqÉÇ sÉÉåMåü of Bhagavatam) Yajna, Dana, Tapas
which are elements of Karma Yoga are all exercises in renunciation. uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉkÉqÉï
also is rooted in actual self-sacrifice and self-less service. Every ‘vrata’ is also an exercise in
renunciation as it involves fasts and vigils, practice of Brahmacharya, avoidance of luxuries,
giving up of meat and fish etc. Thus all religious practices prescribed by the scriptures have
as one of their aims the cultivation of the spirit of renunciation. (All the practices prescribed
in the previous 39 chapters of Suklayajurveda involve such exercises in Tyaga and Yoga and
the fruits promised for the performance of these rituals must be understood only in terms of
the spiritual enjoyment that comes through Tyaga and Yoga as per the 1st Mantra of Isa
iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ. Very often it is the positive practice of Yoga that forms

35
the best remedy for selfishness and passions and desires. A frontal attack on such passions
and desires often results in too much attention being directed towards sense - pleasures and
the objects of the senses so much so it acts as a kind of silent meditation on such pleasures
and objects of sense though unintentionally and consequently the desires and passions get
more and more strengthened. That is why Sri Ramakrishna warns us about the danger of such
practices and advises up to keep out mind positively engaged in good thoughts and activities
such as Japa, meditation, worship, selfless service etc. and to practice every one of our duties
as a act of worship of God by seeing God in everything and associating his name and idea
with everyone of our natural activities with the help of mantras (cf. xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ
iÉqÉprÉcrÉï) etc.

MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉqÉç - This means ‘to whom does kÉlÉqÉç belongs and who is the
rightful master and enjoyer of it? The question is meant to show that nobody in entitled to
consider that he is the proprietor of any property or wealth he may find himself in possession
of and over which he ignorantly thinks he has the right of enjoyment or disposal. The whole
world only really belongs to God and only He can claim to be the real owner or master of it.
All wealth belong only to Him and He disposes it off as He deems fit. This is made clear by
the fact of the experience of many people who are not allowed to make use of what they have
earned either through disease or death or through robbery or by deception by others. Very
often even wives, children and other relatives help in the loss of such property. Moreover,
even before the wealth is lost or spend man loses all peace of mind on account of fear of such
loss. Even whenever he has got an opportunity to spend, the expected enjoyments do not but
results only in further misery (AjÉïxrÉ xÉÉkÉlÉå ÍxÉ®Éæ EiMüwÉåï U¤ÉhÉå
urÉjÉå | lÉÉzÉÉåmÉpÉÉåaÉ AÉrÉÉxɧÉÉxÉͶÉliÉÉpÉëqÉÉå lÉ×hÉÉqÉç ||
iÉxqÉÉSlÉjÉïÇ AjÉÉïZrÉÇ zÉårÉÉåjÉÏï SÕUiÉÈ irÉeÉåiÉç || – Bhagavatam XI:
18;17-21) (The whole chapter may be read in this connection) cf. also Pancadasi –
iÉ×ÎmiÉSÏmÉqÉç – AjÉÉïlÉÉqÉÉeÉïlÉå YsÉåzÉÈ iÉjÉæuÉ mÉËUmÉÉsÉlÉå
lÉÉzÉå SÒZÉÇ ÍkÉaÉjÉÉïlÉç YsÉåzÉMüÉËUhÉÈ | Narada also says in VII.13,31 etc.
mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ kÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ YsÉåzÉÇ sÉÑokÉÉlÉÉqÉç AÎeÉiÉÉiqÉlÉÉqÉç
pÉrÉÉSsÉokÉÌlÉSìÉhÉÉÇ xÉuÉïiÉÉåÍpÉÌuÉzÉ̃¡ûhÉÉqÉç || UÉeÉiÉÈ cÉÉåUiÉÈ
zɧÉÉåÈ xuÉeÉlÉÉiÉç mÉzÉÑmÉͤÉiÉÈ | AÍjÉïprÉÈ MüÉsÉiÉÈ xuÉxqÉÉiÉç
ÌlÉirÉ mÉëÉhÉÉjÉïuÉ°rÉqÉç || zÉÉåMüqÉÉåWûpÉrÉ¢üÉåkÉUÉaÉYqÉæorÉ
´ÉqÉÉSrÉÈ | rÉlqÉÔsÉÉÈ xrÉÑÈ lÉ×hÉÉÇ eÉarÉÉiÉç xmÉ×WûÉÇ
mÉëÉhÉÉjÉïrÉÉå oÉÑkÉÉÈ || cf. also Sankara AjÉïqÉlÉjÉïÇ pÉÉuÉrÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ
lÉÉÎxiÉ iÉiÉÈ xÉÑZÉsÉåzÉÈ xÉirÉqÉç | mÉѧÉÉSÌmÉ kÉlÉpÉÉeÉÉÇ oÉÏÌiÉÈ
xÉuÉï§ÉæwÉÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉ UÏÌiÉÈ || Thus worldly wealth and prosperity is not worth
earning by effort as it only involves the possessor of it more and more in xÉÇxÉÉUSÒÈZÉ.
It is only the fool that will make effort in earning it and enjoy the thought of becoming the
owner of it. By its very nature worldly prosperity or wealth is transitory and ephemeral. That
is away it is called SìurÉ, that which runs away or melt away, that is why the Skanda purana
describes as kÉlÉqÉç everything other than Krishna or God M×üwhÉurÉÌiÉËU£Çü
rÉiÉç kÉlÉxÉÇÍ¥ÉiÉqÉç || The goal of life is only realization of God and one should
strive after only such realization of God. All activities should be directed towards the
achievement of that goal. Therefore, Narada says that poverty is much better than worldly
prosperity as a means of achieving the goal. AxÉiÉÈ ´ÉÏqÉSÉlkÉxrÉ SÉËUŸÇ
mÉUqÉgeÉlÉqÉç | AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ SËUSìÈ mÉUqÉϤÉiÉå ||
SËUSìÉå ÌlÉUWÇû xiÉqpÉÉå qÉÑ£üxxÉuÉïqÉSæËUWû | M×ücNíéûÇ
rÉSØcNûrÉÉ AÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ iÉή iÉxrÉ mÉUÇ iÉmÉÈ || ÌlÉirÉÇ
¤ÉÑi¤ÉÉqÉSåWûxrÉ SËUSìxrÉ A³ÉMüÉÌXû¤ÉhÉÈ | CÎlSìrÉÉhrÉlÉÑzÉÑwrÉÎliÉ

36
ÌWÇûxÉÉ AÌmÉ ÌuÉÌlÉuÉiÉïiÉå || SËUSìxrÉæuÉ rÉerÉliÉå xÉÉkÉuÉÈ
xÉqÉSÍzÉïlÉÈ | xÉÎ°È Í¤ÉÎliÉ iÉÇ iÉwÉï iÉiÉÈ AÉUÉiÉç ÌuÉwÉÑkrÉÌiÉ ||
xÉÉkÉÔlÉÉÇ xÉqÉÍcɨÉlÉÉÇ qÉÑMÑüScÉUhÉæÌwÉhÉÉqÉç | EmÉå¤rÉæÈ
ÌMÇü kÉlÉxiÉqpÉæUxÉSÉ´ÉrÉæÈ | It seems this praise of poverty is a little
exaggerated, for enforced poverty does not bring about spiritual results but only make up the
sufferer hanker after worldly prosperity more and more. The starving man will be more eager
for food than God. If poverty were so helpful for spiritual practices, majority of people would
have attained God long ago. Such poverty is spiritually helpful only if it is voluntarily
undertaken, when one renounces wealth which one possesses finding it dangerous for
spiritual progress. That is why MüÉgcÉlÉirÉÉaÉ is considered so important in spiritual
life. That is why Bhagavan is described as ÌlÉÎwMügcÉlÉeÉlÉÌmÉërÉ, the friend of the
poor and lowly. No doubt when a man is already a devotee and he is obstructed in spiritual
progress by material prosperity which clouds his vision and makes him arrogant and proud.
Bhagavan who is the friend of the devotee shows his grace to the devotee by removing the
obstacles, this giving his devotion full freedom to manifest it. That is what really happened in
the case of Mahabali, Indra the kings imprisoned by Jarasandha as described in the
Bhagavatam: VIII.22. oÉë¼lÉç rÉqÉlÉÑaÉ׺ûÉÍqÉ iÉ̲zÉÉå
ÌuÉkÉÑlÉÉåqrÉWûqÉç | rÉlqÉSÈ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xiÉokÉÉå sÉÉåMÇü qÉÉÇ cÉ
AuÉqÉlrÉiÉå || Also X.88.8. rÉxrÉÉÅWÇû AlÉÑaÉ׺ûÉÍqÉ WûËUwrÉå iÉiÉç
kÉlÉÇ zÉlÉæÈ | iÉiÉÉåÅkÉlÉÇ irÉeÉlirÉxrÉ xuÉeÉlÉÉÈ SÒÈZÉSÒÈÎZÉiÉqÉç ||
xÉ rÉSÉ ÌuÉiÉjÉÉå±ÉåaÉÉå ÌlÉÌuÉïhhÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç kÉlÉåWûrÉÉ | qÉiÉç
mÉUæÈ M×üiÉqÉæ§ÉxrÉ MüËUwrÉå qÉSlÉÑaÉëWûqÉç || vide also X.25.16&17
sÉÉåMåüzÉqÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ MüÉæžÉiÉç WûËUwrÉå ´ÉÏqÉSÇ iÉqÉÈ |
qɨÉÉåÅxÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉlÉpÉ…¡ûÈ mÉëzqÉÉrÉÉåmÉMüsmÉiÉå || Also X.27.16.
qÉÉqÉæµÉrÉïqÉSÉlkÉÉå ÌWû ShQûmÉÉÍhÉÇ lÉ mÉzrÉÌiÉ | iÉÇ pÉëÇzÉrÉÉÍqÉ
xÉqn°rÉÉå rÉxrÉ cÉ CcNûÉÍqÉ AlÉÑaÉëWqÉç ||
The real devotee does not care for wealth even when it comes to him as a result of his past
karma like Ambarisa. Even those devotees whose minds have been temporarily clouded by
such worldly prosperity only thank God when their wealth is taken away from them and even
pray to Him in their lucid intervals to free them from this obstruction (Bhagavata X:73;9-13)
lÉÉjÉ AluÉxÉÔrÉÉqÉÉå qÉÉaÉkÉÇ qÉkÉÑxÉÔSlÉ | AlÉÑaÉëWûÉå rÉ°uÉiÉÈ
UÉ¥ÉÉÇ UÉerÉcrÉÑÌiÉÌuÉpÉÉå || UÉerÉæµÉrÉïqÉSÉå³É®Éå lÉ zÉårÉÉå
ÌuÉlSiÉå lÉ×mÉÈ | iuÉlqÉÉrÉÉqÉÉåÌWûiÉÈ ÌlÉirÉÉ qÉlrÉliÉå
xÉqmÉSÉåÅcÉsÉÉÈ || uÉrÉÇ mÉÑUÉ ´ÉÏqÉSlɹSعrÉÉå ÎeÉaÉÏwÉrÉÉÅxrÉÉ
CiÉUåiÉUxmÉ×kÉÈ | blÉliÉÈ mÉëeÉÉÈ xuÉÉÈ AÌiÉÌlÉbÉ×ïhÉÉÈ mÉëpÉÉå
qÉ×irÉÑÇ mÉÑUÈ iuÉÉ ÌuÉaÉhÉrrÉ SÒqÉïSÉÈ || iÉ LuÉ M×üwhÉ A±
aÉpÉÏUUqWûxÉÉ SÒUliÉuÉÏrÉåïhÉ ÌuÉcÉÉÍsÉiÉÉÈ Í´ÉrÉÈ | MüÉsÉålÉ
iÉluÉÏpÉuÉiÉÉåÅlÉÑMüqmÉrÉÉ ÌuÉlɹSmÉÉïÈ cÉUhÉÉæ xqÉUÉqÉç iÉå || cf.
also Mahabali's words VIII.22.4. mÉÑÇxÉÉÇ zsÉÉbrÉiÉqÉÇ qÉlrÉå ShQÇû
AWïû¨ÉqÉÉÅÌmÉïiÉqÉç || Also VIII.23.2 cf. also Prahlada's words iurÉæuÉ S¨ÉÇ
mÉSqÉælSèiÉqÉÔÎeÉïiÉÇ WØûiÉÇ iuÉuÉæuÉɱ iÉSåuÉ zÉÉåpÉlÉqÉç |
qÉlrÉå qÉWûÉlÉç AxrÉ M×üiÉÉå WûÉå AlÉaÉëWûÉå ÌoÉpÉëÇÍzÉiÉÉå rÉiÉç Í
´ÉrÉÈ AÉiqÉqÉÉåWûlÉÉ || (cf. lÉÔlÉÇ qÉå pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç iÉѹÈ
xÉuÉïSåuÉqÉrÉÉå WûËUÈ | rÉålÉ lÉÏiÉÉå SzÉÉqÉåiÉÉÇ ÌlÉuÉåïS¶ÉÉÅÅiqÉlÉÈ
msÉuÉÈ || Bhikshugita Ch.XVII) Vasudeva’s words X: 84-64 qÉÉ UÉerÉ´ÉÏUpÉÔiÉç
mÉÑÇxÉÈ ´ÉårÉxMüÉqÉxrÉ qÉÉlÉS | xuÉeÉlÉÉlÉç EiÉ oÉlkÉÔlÉç uÉÉ lÉ
mÉzrÉÌiÉ rÉjÉÉ AlkÉSØMçü || When the devotees themselves are likely thus to be
tempted by wealth, such wealth is doubly dangerous to one who has no love for God or
spiritual life. It will be a means for committing spiritual suicide, like a rope to hang him. If at

37
all anybody can be safe in the possession of wealth it is only he who is master of his own self
and who is free from all desires for worldly enjoyments cf. Janaka’s AlÉliÉÇ oÉsÉ qÉå
ÌuÉ¨É rÉxrÉ qÉå lÉÉÅÎxiÉ ÌMügcÉlÉ | ÍqÉÍjÉsÉÉrÉÉÇ mÉëSÏmiÉÉrÉÉÇ lÉ qÉå
ÌMügcÉlÉ S½iÉå || One who has realized God, like Janaka has become God himself and
as such Sri or Lakshmi is always ready to serve him as her own Lord. With regard to
everybody else she is cÉmÉsÉÉ or cÉgcÉsÉÉ which are other names for Lakshmi. She
also likes to be with those in whom God always dwells. Therefore, it is only one who keeps
God always in his heart that can have the real favors of Lakshmi and not even one who is her
own devotee (cf. Bhagavatam I:18-20 LiÉÉuÉiÉÉÅsÉÇ lÉlÉÑ xÉÔÍcÉiÉålÉ aÉÑhÉæÈ
AÌiÉxÉÉqrÉÉlÉÌiÉzÉÉrÉlÉxrÉ | ÌWûiuÉæiÉUÉlÉç mÉëÉjÉïrÉiÉÉå ÌuÉpÉÔÌiÉ
rÉxrÉÉÌXûbÉëUhÉÑÇ eÉÑwÉiÉå AlÉÍpÉmxÉÉåÈ || and VIII:8;23 LuÉÇ
ÌuÉqÉ×zrÉ AurÉÍpÉcÉÉËU xɪÒhÉæuÉïUÇ ÌlÉeÉæMüÉ´ÉrÉiÉÉ aÉÑhÉÉ
´ÉrÉqÉç | uÉuÉëå mÉUÇ xÉuÉïaÉÑhÉæUmÉåͤÉiÉÇ UqÉÉ qÉÑMÑülSÇ
ÌlÉUmÉå¤ÉÇ DÎmxÉiÉqÉç ||). When a devotee gets her real favor she does not appear as
mere worldly prosperity but as such spiritual attributes as complete freedom from desires,
AWûƒ¡ûÉU etc. ´ÉÏaÉÑïhÉÉ lÉæUmÉå¤ÉÉÅűÉÈ || This is the real wealth and such
people who have got it are called iÉmÉÉåkÉlÉÉÈ | ÌuɱÉkÉlÉÉÈ | AÉiqÉkÉlÉÉÈ
etc.This is quite consistent with the vedic root meaning of the kÉlÉç to bear fruit. It is this
fruit that one should aspire to earn through one’s self-effort. It is only one who has earned his
spiritual kÉlÉqÉç that can be considered as master of kÉlÉqÉç. It is only one who is not a
devotee of God or who has no control over his self that need be afraid of wealth. Wealth
cannot injure a man who is a devotee of God. So, Brahma says in the Bhagavatam III.9.6
iÉÉuÉ°rÉÇ SìÌuÉhÉaÉåWûxÉÑWØûͳÉÍqɨÉÇ zÉÉåMüÈ xmÉ×WûÉ
mÉËUpÉuÉÉå ÌuÉmÉÑsÉ¶É sÉÉåpÉÈ | iÉÉuÉiÉç qÉqÉåÌiÉ AxÉSuÉaÉëWû
AÉÌiÉïqÉÔsÉqÉç || rÉÉuÉ³É iÉå AÌXûbÉëÇ ApÉrÉÇ mÉëuÉ×hÉÏiÉ sÉÉåMüÈ |
That is why Jadabharata also says in V.14.2 that kÉlÉqÉç is only a means of righteousness
of the nature of worship of God and that only the foolish man who puts into any other use
comes to grief. iÉiÉç rÉjÉÉ mÉÑÂwÉxrÉ kÉlÉÇ rÉiÉç ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç
kÉqÉÉæïmÉÌrÉMÇü oÉWÒû M×üxNíûÉÌSaÉiÉÇ xÉɤÉÉiÉç
mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉUÉkÉlÉsɤÉhÉÉårÉÉåÅxÉÉæ kÉqÉïÈ iÉÇ iÉÑ xÉÉqmÉUÉrÉ
ESÉWûUÎliÉ | iÉ®qrÉïÇ kÉlÉÇ SzÉïlÉ
´ÉuÉhÉÉÅÅxuÉÉSlÉÉÅÅxuÉÉSlÉÉÅuÉbÉëÉhÉxɃ¡ûsmÉurÉuÉxÉÉrÉ
aÉ×WûaÉëÉqrÉÉæmÉpÉÉåaÉålÉ MÑülÉÉjÉxrÉÉÅÎeÉiÉÉÅÅiqÉlÉÉå iÉjÉÉ
xÉÉjÉïxrÉ iÉjÉÉÅÎeÉiÉÉÅÅiqÉlÉÉå ÌuÉsÉÑqmÉÎliÉ || That is why Prithu also says in
IV.22.45.6 xÉålÉÉmÉirÉ cÉ UÉerÉÇ cÉ etc. That is why Prabuddha condemns those
who run after wealth which is so transitory in IX.3.19. ÌlÉirÉÉÎeÉïiÉålÉ ÌuɨÉålÉ
SÒsÉïpÉålÉ AÉiqÉuÉ×̨ÉlÉÉ aÉ×WûÉÅmÉirÉÉÅÅmiÉmÉzÉÑÍpÉÈ MüÉ
mÉëÏÌiÉÈ xÉÉÍkÉiÉæÈ cÉsÉæÈ ||
kÉlÉqÉç can be said to belong really to one who is not a slave to it. One who earns only for
the sake of sense enjoyment cannot be the master of it, but only a slave of his desires. Even
when he has earned wealth, it is the wealth that really owns him and makes him dance to its
tune. One can be said to be the master of it only when he can make use of wealth in the
proper direction at his own will without being driven by it to do things which are against
Dharma. Therefore, Indra says in VI.7.11 and 12 AWûÉå oÉiÉ qÉrÉÉÅxÉÉkÉÑM×üiÉÇ
uÉæ SpÉëoÉÑSèkrÉÉ | rÉlqÉrÉÉ LãµÉrÉïqɨÉålÉ aÉÑÂÈ xÉSÍxÉ
MüÉiM×üiÉÈ || MüÉå aÉ×brÉåiÉç mÉÎhQûiÉÉå sɤqÉÏÇ
̧ÉÌuɹmÉmÉiÉåUÌmÉ | rÉrÉÉ AWûqÉÉÅÅxÉÑUÇ pÉÉuÉÇ lÉÏiÉÈ A±
ÌuÉoÉÑkÉåµÉUÈ || Real wealth to a spiritual man is only God himself. What is not
attained when God is attained? To him to whom God himself is a slave and for whom God is

38
eager to give all that he desires but who nevertheless does not need anything else than Go and
who is always contented only with God, there is nothing more to be earned. That is why God
is named as the greatest wealth (LwÉÉåÅxrÉ mÉUqÉÉ xÉqmÉiÉç -vide Brhad.). This is
also one of the reasons why uÉxÉÑ which means wealth is one of the names of God
(uÉxÉÑuÉïxÉÑqÉlÉÉ xÉirÉÈ - Sahasranama Sl.25) - cf. Also WÇûxÉzzÉÑÍcÉwÉiÉç
uÉxÉÑUliÉËU¤ÉxÉiÉç -Chandogya) He who enjoys God and sings His glories is really a
wealthy person – kÉlÉxÉlÉrÉÈ. In fact even the worldly prosperity that comes to a man as a
result of his past karma is really given to him only by God (TüsÉqÉiÉ EmÉmɨÉåÈ -
Br.U. III: 2-38). That is why the only duty of man with regard to wealth is to give it up in the
service of God and His devotees who are the real owners just as the gardener’s duty is to
deliver the produce of the garden to the master of the garden. Whatever wealth a man is able
to earn could not have been earned without the grace of God and Dharma prevailing in
society on account of Dharma that enables him to enjoy the fruit of his own labor. So even
from the ordinary social standpoint wealth belongs to society or community as a whole. The
possessor of wealth is in the economic sense, only a trustee for society which is the
beneficiary. If the possessor of wealth, therefore, utilizes his earnings only for himself and
not in the service of God and society, he is a cheat and a thief (Gita C¹ÉlpÉÉåaÉÉÎlWû
uÉÉå SåuÉÉ SÉxrÉliÉå rÉ¥ÉpÉÉÌuÉiÉÉÈ | iÉæSï¨ÉÉlÉmÉëSÉrÉæprÉÉå rÉÉå
pÉчåû xiÉålÉ LuÉ xÉÈ ||) vide Narada’s words rÉÉuÉΰrÉåiÉ eÉPûUÇ ... xÉ
xiÉålÉÉå ShQûqÉWïûÌiÉ |) Thus primarily God is the only real wealth as it is understood
economically in the ordinary sense, is something which hides or covers this real wealth. That
is why the Upanishad says the first two lines that one should remove this covering which is
so ephemeral (eÉaÉiÉç) in order to enjoy the real wealth which everybody possesses at all
times as his birthright. It is this wealth that has to be enjoyed through renunciation as per the
3rd line – iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ and it is for the sake of this enjoyment which is
always present in one’s own heart that one has to give up all sense pleasures as per qÉÉ
aÉ×kÉÈ | This wealth is unique in its nature. To earn this wealth one need not exploit
others as in the attempts of economic wealth. One cannot be wealthy economically without
deriving somebody else of his share. But in earning this real wealth one, not only does not
injure another but one is positively helpful to another. An earner of this wealth, therefore, has
no necessity to be jealous of another nor desire another’s wealth nor be afraid of others –
MüxrÉ mÉÑlÉÈ LiÉ®lÉÇ lÉ MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç AÌmÉ CÌiÉ AÍpÉmÉëÉrÉÈ |
xÉuÉÉïhrÉÌmÉ ArÉjÉÉjÉÉïÌlÉ SìurÉÉÌlÉ EimɱliÉå iÉSè rÉjÉÉ Îx§ÉrÉqÉç CÌiÉ
AlrÉjÉÉ pÉÑÇ£åü AlrÉjÉÉ mÉѧÉÈ AlrÉjÉÉ mÉëÉbÉÔhÉïMüÈ iÉjÉÉ cÉ
MüOûMüMåürÉÔUÉSÏlrÉsɃ¡ûUhÉÉÌlÉ AlrÉgcÉ mÉÑÂwÉqÉç
EmÉÌiɹqÉÉlÉÉÌlÉ SØzrÉliÉå | AjÉÈ xÉuÉÉïjÉïxrÉ rÉxrÉ
xuÉxuÉÉÍqÉxÉqoÉlkÉÈ xÉÉ iuÉÌuÉ±É | ÌlÉxmÉ×WûxrÉ rÉÉåaÉÉåÅÍkÉMüÉUÈ
CÌiÉ uÉÉYrÉÉjÉïÈ || Sankarananda also says that the second line gives the means for the
realization prescribed in the previous line – iÉiÉç oÉÑSèkrÉÑimÉÉSå xÉÉkÉlÉqÉÉWû
iÉålÉåÌiÉ | eÉaÉSè oÉÑ®åUlÉÑimÉÉSå xÉuÉïxÉ…¡ûmÉËUirÉÉaÉsɤÉhÉÇ
EmÉÉrÉqÉÉWû ||

Some commentators like Madhva take the whole qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉqÉç
together and interpret it as meaning ‘one should not beg of another’ for the sake of any
worldly wealth or prosperity but should be satisfied with what the Lord gives –
MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉÇ qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ|, consistent with this they interpret the previous line
in the sense “one should enjoy only what God has given” Sankara also gives an alternate
interpretation taking the whole line qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ ... uÉiÉç ; as only one injunction and
says that MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç suggests not only “of another” but also “of oneself”. According to

39
this one should not have any desire to enjoy the sense pleasures which may be bought with
wealth which he finds himself in possession of . Madhva’s interpretation of the whole verse is
based upon oÉë¼ÉhQûmÉÑUÉhÉ (the passage means –‘because Prakriti is incapable of
motion of herself, therefore, the Sruti says that the world is indwelt by the Lord. Since
Vishnu has entered into Prakriti in order to cause her evolution therefore, he is called the
Lord of Prakriti. Since evolution is under His control everything is said to belong to Him.
Enjoy then that only which He has given and not beg from others” (xuÉiÉÈ
mÉëuÉ×irÉzÉ£üiuÉÉiÉç DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ eÉaÉiÉç | mÉëuÉרÉrÉå
mÉëM×üÌiÉaÉÇ rÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉ mÉëM×üiÉϵÉUÈ | iÉSkÉÏlÉ
mÉëuÉ×̨ÉiuÉÉiÉç iÉSÏrÉÇ xÉuÉïqÉåuÉ rÉiÉç | iɬ¨ÉålÉæuÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ
AiÉÉå lÉÉÅlrÉÇ mÉërÉÉcÉrÉåiÉç CÌiÉ oÉë¼ÉhQåû ||

Thus we see how this first mantra of Isopanishad epitomizes all elements of spiritual life as it
is applicable to all Varnas, all Ashramas and both sexes. The essence of spiritual life is fully
manifested only in the realized man who sets the standard for all aspirants each of whom tries
to approximate as far as possible to the perfect standard set by him. This essence consists in
the realization of God in everything and loving and serving Him through the loving service of
the world. Both the positive and negative aspects of renunciation and service which form the
national ideals of India according to Sw. Vivekananda, are laid down in this mantra as the
main spiritual duty of man to which all other duties must be subordinated. The whole
teaching of the Karma kanda is thus condensed in this one mantra coming as it does at the
end of the mantras used for ritual and standing as it does at the beginning of the teaching of
Jnana, it synthesizes and harmonizes all aspects of spiritual practice – Bhakti, Jnana and
Karma. The whole of the subsequent portions of the Suklayajurveda as well as the Upanishad
is only an expansion of the ideas contained in this first mantra as we shall see in the next
Sloka. The first line DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ may also be taken as explaining the philosophical
significance of the name Vasudeva given to God which means ‘He who dwells in everything
and in whom everything dwells’.

MÑüuÉï³ÉåWû MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåcNûiÉÇ xÉqÉÉÈ |

LuÉÇ iuÉÌrÉ lÉÉlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉUå || 2 ||

This Sloka is taken by orthodox commentators to refer to only the aspirants. But this Sloka
applies to all aspirants as well as adepts and to all Ashramas and Varnas and to both sexes.
The word lÉUå in general applied to all human beings. zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ cÉ eÉÉrÉliÉå
qÉÑlÉrÉÉå uÉåSmÉÉUaÉÉÈ Mbh. Adi.53, 136. According to Vyasa in Br. Su. I: 3-25,
all men have got the right to aspire for perfection although very few actually do it
WØû±mÉå¤ÉrÉÉ iÉÑ qÉlÉÑwrÉÉÍkÉMüËUiuÉÉiÉç || Sankara says on this Sutra
zÉÉx§ÉÇ ÌWû AÌuÉzÉåwÉmÉëuÉרÉqÉÌmÉ qÉlÉÑwrÉÉlÉåuÉ AÍkÉMüUÉåÌiÉ
and quotes Jaimini VI:1-4 TüsÉÉjÉïiuÉÉiÉç MüqÉïhÉÈ zÉÉx§ÉÇ xÉuÉÉïÍkÉMüÉUÇ
xrÉÉiÉç and in Sutra 8 of the same Chapter and Pada, Badarayana himself is said to be
opposed to the restriction of the meaning of the word qÉlÉÑwrÉ to only males. eÉÉÌiÉÇ
iÉÑ oÉÉSUÉrÉhÉÈ AÌuÉzÉåwÉÉiÉç iÉxqÉÉiÉç Îx§ÉrÉÌmÉ mÉëiÉÏrÉiÉå
eÉÉirÉjÉïxrÉ AÌuÉÍzɹiuÉÉiÉç || According to this reasoning Sastram is applicable to
the whole species. Jaimni also mentions that it is applicable to all the four Varnas in Sutra 25
of the same Pada cÉÉiÉÑuÉïhrÉïqÉç ÌuÉzÉåwÉÉiÉç although the orthodox people think
otherwise. Though Atreya, an orthodox pundit is said to be opposed to this liberal view,
Badari a great vedic scholar pulverizes all the arguments brought forward by Atreya to
restrict the scope of the Sastra to the ‘Traivarnikas’ (vide Sutra 27 ÌlÉÍqɨÉjÉåïlÉ

40
oÉÉkÉËUÈ iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉuÉÉïÍkÉMüÉUÇ xrÉÉiÉç || At the close of the discussion in
the following Sutras Badari confronts his opponents with the vedic injunction which makes a
UjÉMüÉU carpenter as well as a ÌlÉwÉÉSxjÉmÉÌiÉ a chief of the aboriginal tribes living
in the forest eligible to perform Vedic Yajnas. Thus in Sutra 44, uÉcÉlÉÉiÉç UjÉMüÉxrÉï
AÉkÉÉlÉå AxrÉ xÉuÉïzÉåwÉiuÉÉiÉç and in Sutra 51 xjÉmÉÌiÉÈ ÌlÉwÉÉSÈ
xrÉÉiÉç zÉoSxÉÉqÉjrÉÉïiÉç, Jaimini approves Badari’s viewpoint. As a Nishada
belongs to an uncultured wild tribe we must take it that this injunction extends to all human
beings. The Rg.VIII:63;7 rÉiÉç mÉÉgcÉeÉlrÉrÉÉ ÌuÉwÉÉ ClSìå bÉÉåwÉÉ
AxÉפÉiÉ quoted in the Nirukta. Durgacharya, the commentator explains thus ÌlÉwÉÉS
mÉgcÉqÉÉÇ AÉiÉÉïÈ xÉliÉÈ uÉwÉÉïpÉÉuÉå AxiÉÑ uÉëiÉ LuÉ ClSìqÉç || This
shows that the non-varna also had the right to pray to God with vedic verses. Panchajana is
explained in the Nirukta in connection with Rg.X; 53.4 where occurs the expression
mÉgcÉeÉlÉÉÈ qÉqÉ WûÉå§ÉÇ eÉÑwÉkuÉqÉç | This is a prayer uttered by the
Hotru priest so that his priestly sevices may be accepted by all men. Yaska explains
mÉgcÉeÉlÉÉÈ as cÉiuÉÉUÉå uÉhÉÉåïÈ ÌlÉwÉÉSÈ mÉgcÉqÉ CÌiÉ
AÉæmÉqÉlrÉuÉÈ and he says in explanation of the name Nishadaha – ÌlÉwÉÉSÈ
MüxqÉÉiÉç ÌlÉwÉÉxÉSlÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ ÌlÉwÉhhÉÇ AÎxqÉlÉç mÉÉmÉMüÍqÉÌiÉ
lÉæ£üÉÈ | Nishada is thus so called because he is repository of all sins. Therefore this
Vedic Mantra shows that the Rishi expected even the ‘Nishadas’ to perform Yajna even
though they were lower in caste to the Sudras. This Nirukta passage is also quoted by
Sankara in Bhashya on Br. Su. I:4;12 – mÉëhÉÉSrÉÉå uÉÉYrÉzÉåwÉÉiÉç | In this
Bhashya Sankara says MæüͶÉiÉç iÉÑ SåuÉÉÈ ÌmÉiÉUÉå aÉlkÉuÉÉï AxÉÑUÉÈ
U¤ÉÉÇÍxÉ cÉ mÉgcÉ mÉgcÉeÉlÉÉÈ urÉÉZrÉÉiÉÉÈ | AlrÉæ¶É cÉiuÉÉUÉå
uÉhÉÉïÈ ÌlÉwÉÉSmÉgcÉqÉÉÈ mÉËUaÉ×WûÏiÉÉÈ YuÉÍcÉŠ rÉiÉç
mÉÉgcÉeÉlrÉrÉÉ ÌuÉwÉÉ CÌiÉ mÉëeÉÉmÉU mÉërÉÉåaÉÈ
mÉgcÉeÉlÉzÉoSxrÉ SØzrÉiÉå || In commenting on this Anandagiri says A§É
mÉgcÉxÉÇZrÉÉrÉÉÈ EmÉsɤÉhÉiuÉÉiÉç mÉgcÉeÉlÉzÉoSålÉ
xÉuÉïmÉëeÉÉaÉëWûhÉÍqÉirÉjÉïÈ | In later times the orthodox Smritikaras defined
ÌlÉwÉÉkÉ and xjÉMüÉU as a xɃ¡ûUeÉÉÌiÉ or half-breed to get over the difficulty
created by the vedic passage. But even the Smritikaras had to admit that all Anuloma sons
follow only the caste of their mother. vides Vishnupurana XVI – 2, AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉÈ iÉÑ
qÉÉiÉ×xÉuÉhÉïÈ || Also Sankha- uÉæzrÉålÉ zÉÔSìÉrÉÉqÉÑimÉÉÌSiÉÈ
zÉÔSìæuÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ | Medhatiti on Manu X – 6 says that it is only because of this
principle that Pandu and Dhritarashtra were considered as Kshatriyas, while Vidura was
considered as a Sudra. zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ cÉ eÉÉrÉliÉå qÉÑlÉrÉÉå uÉåSmÉÉUaÉÉÈ
|| GwrÉzÉ×…¡ûÉå qÉ×aÉÏmÉѧÉÈ MühÉuÉÉå oÉÌWïûxÉÑiÉxiÉjÉÉ |
AaÉxiÉxrÉ uÉÉÍxɸ¶É EuÉïzrÉÉÇ eÉÌlÉiÉÉuÉÑpÉÉæ || xÉÉåqÉ´ÉuÉÉxiÉÑ
xÉmrÉÉïÇ iÉÑ A͵ÉlÉÉuɵÉxÉqpÉuÉÉæ || xMülSxxMü³ÉålÉ zÉÑYsÉålÉ
eÉÉiÉzzÉUuÉhÉå mÉÑUÉ || LuÉqÉåuÉ cÉ SåuÉÉlÉÉqÉç GwÉÏhÉÉÇ cÉæuÉ
xÉqpÉuÉÈ
| sÉÉåMüuÉÉSmÉëuÉ×̨ÉÌWïû lÉ qÉÏqÉÉÇxrÉÉ oÉÑkÉæxxÉSÉ || So even if
Rathakara and Nishada were to be considered as Anuloma sons, they can have only the rights
and privileges of the Sudras and when they are entitled to perform Yajnas it is a general
sanction for all Sudras. Many of the Sutrakaras like Apastamba, Bodhayana, Satyaashadha,
Bharadvaja etc., admit in their Srauta and Grihyasutras the right of Rathakara and Nishada for
Vedic study and Yajna.
Vide Bodhayana Gr. Sut. II -56 II.5.6 uÉxÉliÉå oÉëɼhÉqÉÑmÉlÉrÉÏiÉ aÉëÏwqÉå
UÉeÉlrÉÇ zÉUSÏ uÉæzrÉÇ uÉwÉÉïxÉÑ UjÉMüÉUqÉç | The same rule is given in

41
Bharadvaja Gr. Su.I -1. See also in Apasthamba Sutra V: 3 -18 uÉxÉliÉÉå oÉëɼhÉxrÉ
aÉëÏwqÉÉå UÉeÉlrÉxrÉ WåûqÉliÉÉå uÉÉ zÉUiÉç uÉæzrÉxrÉ
uÉwÉÉïUjÉMüÉUxrÉ | Satyashada Kalpa Sutra. III.1 ÌlÉwÉÉSUjÉMüÉUrÉÉåÈ
AÉkÉÉlÉÉSÎalÉWûÉå§ÉSzÉïmÉÔhÉïqÉÉxÉÉæ cÉ ÌlÉrÉqrÉrÉiÉå | (Bharadvaja
Srauta Sutra V: 2.8 says expressly that there was another school of vedic teachers who held
that the Sudras also had rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU | ÌuɱiÉå cÉiÉÑjÉïxrÉ uÉhÉïxrÉ
AalrÉÉkÉårÉÍqÉirÉåMåü lÉ ÌuɱiÉå CÌiÉ AmÉUqÉç || Perhaps this school is
represented by Badari as mentioned by Jaimini. Perhaps this may be a reference also to the
opinion of Bhrigu who expressed to Bharadvaja as described in Shanti Parva 188:14 -15
where the former says to the latter uÉhÉÉï¶ÉiuÉÉU LiÉå ÌWû | LwÉÉÇ oÉëɼÏ
xÉUxoÉiÉÏ || kÉqÉÉåï rÉ¥ÉÌ¢ürÉÉ iÉåwÉÉÇ ÌlÉirÉÇ lÉ mÉëÌiÉÌwÉkrÉiÉå ||
Perhaps it is this opinion that is recorded by Manu when he says in X.126. lÉ zÉÔSìå
mÉÉiÉMÇü ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç lÉ cÉ xÉÇxMüÉUqÉWïûÌiÉ | lÉÉÅxrÉÉÍkÉMüÉUÉå
kÉqÉåïÅÎxiÉ lÉ kÉqÉÉïiÉç mÉëÌiÉwÉåkÉlÉqÉç || and Manu - 127
kÉqÉåïmxÉÉåxiÉÑ kÉqÉï¥ÉÉÈ xÉiÉÉÇ uÉ×̨ÉqÉlÉÑ̸iÉÉÈ | qÉl§ÉuÉeÉïÇ lÉ
SÒwrÉÎliÉ mÉëzÉÇxÉÉÇ mÉëÉmlÉÑuÉÎliÉ cÉ ||) Even this is tried to be denied by
some later commentators. There are also other Vedic passages like R.V IX: 66-20 & V: 32;
11 & VIII: 46; 32 which admit the right of the Sudras to the worship of the Vedic gods. Thus
in the first passage Agni is called the teacher or inspirer of all people mÉÉgcÉeÉlrÉÈ
mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÈ in the second, similarly Indra is described as mÉÉgeÉlrÉ. In the third a
priest is described as having taken hundred cows from a Dasa as Dakshina for officiating as a
priest at his sacrifice. We have already seen how Visvamitra officiated at the sacrifice of
Sudra Paijavana. Manu X.41 admits the right of all the six AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ castes for
Upanayana and Mitakshara on Yajnavalkya I.92 & 95 says that the AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ - castes
have their Upanayana performed according to the rules of the caste of the mother. This is a
tacit unconscious admission of the rights of the Sudras to Upanayana and Yajna. The
AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ sons are products of regular marriages and no marriage could be performed
without the Vedic rites. The six AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ castes mentioned by Manu must include the
sons of Traivarnika fathers and Sudras mothers. Otherwise there cannot be six AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ
castes but only three. So the marriage of the three higher castes with the Sudra woman must
have been performed with Vedic rites which ensure the rights of the Sudra woman as in the
case of the higher caste-woman who takes part in the vedic ritual. The rule that the
AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ castes including the sons of Kshatriya and Vaisya-woman are to be treated
only as Sudras shows that if these have the right for %pnynm! which is meant for vedic

42
study the three other AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ sons of the Sudra mother cannot be denied the same
right. In fact, it is this right that is conceded by Manu. To say that the Upanayanam is to be
performed according to the caste of the mother is also an admission that three Anulaem
sons of Sudra mother have to perform their Upanayana according to the rules for Upanayana
of the Sudras. Bodhayana Dharma Sutra I.8.13 & 14 show that Nishada is a Sudra and the
sons of a Nishada with a Nishadi for five generation becomes entitled to Upanyana after the
fifth generation. ÌlÉwÉÉSålÉ ÌlÉwÉɱÉqÉç AÉmÉgcÉqÉÉ‹ÉiÉÉå AqÉWûÎliÉ
zÉÔSìiÉÉqÉç iÉqÉÑmÉlÉrÉåiÉç wÉ¹Ç rÉÉerÉåiÉç | If the sixth generation of a
Nishada can become entitled to EmÉlÉrÉlÉ & rÉ¥É it is idle to refuse their right to their
fathers, grandfathers etc. There are also other unconscious admissions in the Sutras. Thus the
Apasthamba Srauta Sutra I.19.8 refers specially to a special rite to be performed by a Sudra
Yajamana in a soma Yaga in connection with WûÌuÉwM×üiÉç. WûÌuÉwM×üiÉç LÌWû
CÌiÉ oÉëɼhÉxrÉ WûÌuÉwM×üiÉ AÉaÉÌWû CÌiÉ UÉeÉlrÉxrÉ WûÌuÉwM×üiÉ
AÉSìuÉ CÌiÉ uÉæzrÉxrÉ WûÌuÉwM×üiÉç AÉkÉÉuÉ CÌiÉ zÉÔSìxrÉ || This special
reference to Sudra as a Yajamana along with the other castes would be meaningless unless
Sudra also had rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU in ancient days. Satapatha I: 1. 4.13 says that in ancient
days it is the sacrificer’s wife that had to respond to this call in SzÉïmÉÔhÉïqÉÉxÉ. This
shows that clearly that sacrificer could have been only of the Sudra caste as otherwise there
would be no meaning for the call AÉkÉÉuÉ in the case of the Sudra. Again there is a
prescription as a substitute for mÉrÉÉåuÉëiÉ in the case of Sudra in Soma Yaga qÉxiÉÑ
(whey) zÉÔSìxrÉ. If the Sudra had no right to perform Soma Yaga there could not have
been any mÉrÉÉåuÉëiÉ or any necessity for a substitute being prescribed. This
prescription, therefore, is another unconscious admission that the Sudra is entitled to Soma
Yaga. Again in connection with the Pitri Medha the Sudra is also included along with other
castes when the Satapatha prescribed various kinds of sepulchral mound for the various
castes. If the Sudra had no right for the Pitri Medha sacrifice in ancient days there would have
been no necessity to include his name in this list and then to prescribe a special kind of
mound for him. (vide XIII.8.3.11 A¸ÏuÉSblÉÇ zÉÔSìxrÉ CÌiÉ ÌmÉiÉ×qÉåkÉå | Again
in Asvalayana Grihyasutra, in prescribing certain rites at the time of xÉqÉÉuÉiÉïlÉqÉç a
special prescription for Sudra is also included Vide III.8 FÂ xÉUhÉeÉÏÌuÉlÉÈ | This
shows that he also must have had the right for EmÉlÉrÉlÉ and right for vedic study in
ancient times as otherwise no xÉqÉÉuÉiÉïlÉqÉç could have been thought of in his case.
Ashvalayana Srauta Sutra II.1 mentions a caste called EmÉ¢Ñü¹ which is not one of the
Dvijatis but which is till authorized to perform vedic AalrÉÉkÉårÉ and is permitted to

43
consecrate the vedic fires in autumn. The Katyayana Srauta Sutra I.4.5 gives the right to all
except Sudras who were deficient in limb and who were not learned in the Vedas or who
were impotent A…¡ûWûÏlÉ A´ÉÉå̧ÉrÉ wÉhQû zÉÔSìuÉeÉïqÉç | Of course the
orthodox commentator takes Sudra as separate from the others although A…¡ûWûÏlÉ etc
appears only as a qualification of the Sudra. If these are not taken as qualification of the
Sudra even Brahmins who are deficient in limb or who are not leaned in the Vedas of who are
impotent will have no AÍkÉMüÉU. If the commentators’ interpretation is taken, therefore,
99.9 percent of the Brahmanas by birth will have no right to perform the Vedic ritual. If the
Sutra is understood as prohibiting only a Sudra who is deficient in limbs etc. all other Sudras
will have to be taken as entitled for the Vedic ritual. Moreover, the prohibition of an A
´ÉÉå̧ÉrÉ Sudras shows the possibility of a ´ÉÉå̧ÉrÉ Sudra which suggest that Sudras
also had the right to become a ´ÉÉå̧ÉrÉÉs but who out of Tamas, negligence, idleness,
indifference etc. neglect the opportunities to qualify as a Srotiryas. The orthodox
commentator’s interpretation the Sutra also goes against the right and practice of all Dvija’s
for xÉÇxMüÉU of EmÉlÉrÉlÉ even though they are deaf or dumb or idiots or defectives.
This right is conceded by all writers. In Bodhayana Grihya Sesah Sutra even describes the
procedure for the Upanayanam of such people vide 2.9.14 which includes all such defectives
wÉhQû eÉQû YsÉÏoÉ AlkÉ urÉxÉÌlÉ orÉÉÍkÉiÉ ElqÉ¨É WûÏlÉÉ…¡û oÉÍkÉU
AÍkÉMüÉ…¡û qÉÉrÉÉuÉÏ AmÉxqÉÉUÏ ÍµÉÌ§É MÑü̹ SÏbÉïUÉåÌaÉhÉ¶É LiÉålÉ
urÉÉZrÉÉiÉÉ CirÉåMåü | (cf. Pandu, Dhritarashtra, Vyasa). A Brahmapurana passage is
also quoted to this effect. Therefore, the Katyayana Sutra may not be taken as meant for
excluding the defectives belonging to the higher castes and must be taken only as referring to
defective Sudra. Apastamba Dharma Sutra I.2.5.16 mentions, in the context of the duties of
Brahmacharins, Sudras also in relation to AÍpÉuÉÉSlÉqÉç lÉÏcÉæÈ zÉÔSìÈ
mÉëÉgeÉÍsÉÈ | in commenting upon Tait. Aranyaka VI.10.24, Bhattabhaskara includes all
castes and Ashramas. xÉuÉåïÅmrÉÉ´ÉÍqÉhÉÈ xÉuÉåïÅÌmÉuÉÍhÉïqÉÈ | In
Tantravartika of Kumarila Bhatta on Jaimini I.2.2, in trying to establish what constitutes
Brahminhood, he says that AkrÉÉmÉlÉ cannot be considered as a special characteristic
which distinguishes the Brahmanas. In this connection he admits the possiblility of even
Sudras being AkrÉÉmÉMüs. AkrÉÉmÉlÉÉÌS AÌmÉ ÍpɳÉcÉÉU ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉ uÉÉæzrÉ
mÉëÌiÉrÉÉåÌaÉiuÉÉiÉç xÉÎlSakÉqÉç | xÉuÉïÇ cÉ SÒ¹zÉÔSìåwÉÑ
xÉqpÉÉurÉqÉÉhÉiuÉÉiÉç AÌlÉͶÉiÉqÉç | This envisages the possibility of Sudras
teaching the Veda. But how could Sudra teach the Veda if he has not studied them himself?
This, therefore, must have referred to the prevalence of such teachers in those days and of the

44
practice of Sudras studying the Vedas. Gautama prescribes a penalty for Sudras reciting the
Vedas. Such a prescription could have been necessitated only if there were Sudras in his days
who studied the Vedas. Similarly Vishnu Sutra V.115 and Yajnavalkya II.241 penalize
feeding of Sudra Sannyasins. Formal Sannyasa is not possible for anybody who has not
studied the Vedas and who has not performed Virajahoma. The penalising of feeding of
Sudra Sannyasins should have been necessitated by the practice current in those days of
Sudras also becoming Sannyasins which involves the knowledge and use of the vedic
mantras. That such a practice has the sanction of hoary antiquity in Mahabharata, AÉ
´ÉqÉuÉÉÍxÉMümÉuÉï 26:Sl.32 – 33 which describe how Vidura was a Sannyasi and his
body had, therefore, to be buried and not cremated. rÉÌiÉkÉqÉïqÉuÉÉmiÉÉåÅxÉÉæ On
this Nilakanta says “zÉÑSìrÉÉålÉÉæ eÉÉiÉÉlÉÉqÉç AÌmÉ rÉÌiÉkÉqÉÉåïÅxiÉÏÌiÉ
SÍzÉïiÉqÉç. This is also supported by Santi Parva 63.12. zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉåÈ
¢ÑüiÉMüÉrÉïxrÉ M×üiÉxÉliÉÉlÉMüqÉïhÉÈ | AprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉUÉeÉxrÉ zÉÔSìxrÉ
eÉaÉiÉÏmÉiÉå || AsmÉÉliÉUaÉiÉxrÉÉÅÌmÉ SzÉkÉqÉïaÉiÉxrÉ uÉÉ | AÉ´ÉqÉÉ
ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉÈ xÉuÉåï AuÉeÉïÌrÉiuÉÉ ÌlÉUÉÍzÉwÉqÉç || Commenting on this
Nilakanta says ‘zÉÔSìÉåÌmÉ lÉæ̸MÇü oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ uÉlÉmÉëxjÉÇ uÉÉ
xÉMüsÉÌuɤÉåmÉMüMüqÉïirÉÉaÉÃmÉÇ xÉlrÉÉxÉÇ uÉÉ AlÉÑÌiɸåSåuÉ’ ||
This clearly gives the Sudra the right to lÉÉæ̸Mü oÉë¼cÉrÉï also along with the other
Ashramas including Sannyasa. lÉÉæ̸Mü oÉë¼cÉrÉï is possible only to one who has
finished the ‘EmÉMÑüuÉÉïhÉ oÉë¼cÉrÉï’ and is taken up only by a man who is
anxious to devote his whole life to vedic study. If vedic study had been interdicted by the
Sastras a Sudra could never have been considered by Mhb. As entitled to lÉÉæ̸Mü
oÉë¼cÉrÉï or Sannyasa. At least it must be admitted that Nilakantha, an orthodox
commentator could not have approved of it, if it were against the Sastras and if it were
against the social custom prevailing in his days. There is another story in Mhb, Anusasana X
which described how a Sudra performed ‘Tapas’ under the instruction of a Brahmana and as
a result of the mÉÑhrÉ thus earned by him he was born a prince in his next life while the
teacher himself was born as a priest as a punishment. If iÉmÉxÉç means
‘xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉmÉëuÉcÉlÉ’ as per the opinion of lÉÉMüÉå qÉÉæªsrÉ recorded by Tait.
Up. then surely the instruction given by Brahmana to the Sudra must have been in the Vedas.
xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉmÉëuÉcÉlÉåuÉåÌiÉ lÉÉMüÉå qÉÉæªsrÉÈ iÉή iÉmÉÈ iÉή iÉmÉÈ
| This story although probably intended to dissuade Brahamanas from teaching the Veda to
one and all indiscriminately, clearly shows the possibility of some Brahmanas teaching the
Sudras also. The story only says that the Sudra benefitted by the study which shows that he

45
has not committed any sin by studying the Vedas or doing Sadhana according to the
teachings of the Vedas. It is by prohibition by attaching a sin or penalty that the Brahmanas
gave up the practice of teaching the Sudras. Even as the story stands, Mbh only wants to
emphasize the inadvisability of teaching the Vedas to one and all without first making sure
whether the disciple is properly initiated to receive the Vedas – through SϤÉÉ vide sloka 69
which says that the ascetics go through the ÌS¤ÉÉ in silence before instructing – iÉxqÉÉiÉç
qÉÉælÉålÉ qÉÑlÉrÉÈ SϤÉÉÇ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ cÉ AÉSØiÉÉÈ | SÒ£üxrÉ pÉrÉÉiÉç
UÉeÉlÉç lÉÉpÉÉwÉliÉå cÉ ÌMügcÉlÉ || Here Mauna means silence not in the ordinary
sense but in the sense of imparting the proper discipline of mind through proper exercise of
qÉlÉlÉqÉç – qÉælÉÇ qÉÑlÉÉåpÉÉïuÉqÉç. Therefore Maunam only means proper
training of the mind as well as development of character through ÌuÉuÉåMü, uÉæUÉarÉ,
zÉqÉ, SqÉ, etc in the same way as the sage Pippalada required of his disciple before he
gave them Brahmavidya as is recorded in the beginning of the Prasna Up. He wanted them to
undergo such disciplines in his presence for one full year before he imparted Brahmavidya to
them. Similarly the Ch. Up also records how Satyakama Jabala who was born only of a Sudra
maid-servant was taught Brahmavidya by the sage Haridrumata Gautama only after he
became convinced of his fitness first by his uprightness, frankness, truthfulness and then by
his readiness to serve the Guru by looking after cows. He gave him formal instruction only
when he found that the boy was capable of thinking and doing ‘ÌuÉcÉÉU’ by himself
without the help of anybody else. It is described how by his self-discipline his face beamed
with the light of spiritual intelligence ‘oÉë¼uÉcÉïxÉç’. The same Up. also records how
Satyakama Jabala himself dealt with his disciple Upakosala Kamalayana by making him
undergo the necessary discipline. These stories show that even if the word ‘Tapas’ in the
M.bh. story means only meditation on Brahman or on Vedantic truths based upon the
Mahavakyas, the teachers have to ascertain whether the disciples have the necessary
qualification in the interest of the disciples themselves as otherwise they are likely to
misunderstand the teachings and make use of it in such a way as to injure themselves as well
as the public. That is why the M.bh. says that the sages took care to make them undergo the
preliminary discipline to give them the qualification to receive Brahmavidya through Diksha.
If Brahmavidya is imparted to one who has no such qualification the sins committed by the
disciple by the improper application of the teachings are due to the teacher’s neglect of his
duty and therefore, the teacher has to suffer for it as in the case of the teacher in the M.bh.
story who seems to have imparted instructions only for the sake of remuneration or Dakshina
that he got. The teacher was a trader in religion and that is why he had to be reborn as a priest

46
but fortunately for the disciple although the teacher was negligent in his duty and was
prompted by improper motives and had, therefore, to suffer. The disciple himself happened to
be actually deserving though by birth he happened to be a Sudra as in the case of
Satyakamajabala and therefore, he benefitted by the teaching as a result of which he was born
a prince in his next life. The teacher suffered in this case not for the evil deeds of the disciple
but for his own failure in discharging his duties properly. Therefore the M.bh says ‘sages first
perform Diksha to all who go to them for instruction before they actually instruct for fear that
they may be doing wrong if they instruct beforehand. First they make the student fit in
character and conduct and make him a real ‘̲eÉ’ through ‘uÉëiÉ’ and then instruct. That is
the law. The Sl.71 make this point clear ‘EmÉSåzÉÉå lÉ MüiÉïurÉÈ MüSÉÍcÉSÌmÉ
MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç | EmÉSåzÉÉή iÉiÉç mÉÉmÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÈ xÉqÉuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç
|| Sl. 68 says ‘iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉÎ°È lÉ uÉ£üurÉÇ MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç AaÉëiÉÈ
xÉÔ¤qÉÉaÉÌiÉÌWïû kÉqÉïxrÉ SÒ¥ÉåïrÉÉ ÌWû AM×üiÉÉiqÉÍpÉÈ || This shows
that an ‘AM×üiÉÉiqÉÉ,’ one who is not properly trained and cultured cannot understand
the subtleties of Dharma and so there is a likelihood of his committing sin. Hence the first
business of the Guru is to make his Sishya a M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ through proper xÉÇxMüÉU
and SϤÉÉ as mentioned in Sl.69 already noted above. Sl. 72 makes it clear that it is the
teacher who instructs for mere money without caring to look into the qualification of the
disciple who is condemned and not one who does it out of love and in a spirit of service.
ÌuÉqÉ×zrÉ iÉxqÉÉiÉç mÉëÉ¥ÉålÉ uÉ£üurÉÇ kÉqÉïÍqÉcNûiÉÉ |
xÉirÉÉlÉ×iÉålÉ ÌWû M×üiÉÈ EmÉSåzÉÈ ÌWûlÉÎxiÉ ÌWû || The very question of
Yudhishtara in answer to which Bhisma gives this story shows which way the wind blows
ÍqɧÉxÉÉæWûÉSïrÉÉåaÉålÉ EmÉSåzÉÇ MüUÉåÌiÉ rÉÈ | eÉÉirÉÉkÉÉUxrÉ
UÉeÉwÉåï SÉåwÉxiÉxrÉ pÉuÉåiÉç lÉ uÉÉ || This shows that the doubt is with
reference to whether it is wrong on the part of the teacher to teach a low-born disciple for
personal considerations and whether it is not right if in a spirit of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû the
teacher take up the responsibility of educating all. The answer intended by the story is that is
the education is imparted in the proper spirit with no selfish motives and for no personal
consideration but only for the discharge of the Brahmana’s duty to educate all out of pure
love and a spirit of service after taking proper precautions to make him fit to receive the
teaching the teacher is not guilty of any Adharma but he would be guilty if he does otherwise.
This is quite consistent with the teaching of the Mahopanishad which says AÉSÉæ
zÉqÉSqÉmÉëÉrÉæÈ aÉÑhÉæÈ ÍzÉwrÉÇ ÌuÉzÉÉåkÉrÉåiÉç | mɶÉÉiÉç
xÉuÉïÍqÉSÇ oÉë¼ zÉÑ®È iuÉÍqÉÌiÉ oÉÉåkÉrÉåiÉç || A¥ÉxrÉ

47
AkÉïmÉëoÉÑ®xrÉ xÉuÉïÇ oÉë¼åÌiÉ rÉÉå uÉSåiÉç |
qÉWûÉlÉUMüeÉÉsÉåwÉÑ xÉÈ iÉålÉ ÌuÉÌlÉrÉÉåÎeÉiÉÈ || mÉëoÉÑ®oÉÑ®åÈ
mÉë¤ÉÏhÉpÉÉåaÉåcNûxrÉ ÌlÉUÉÍzÉwÉÈ lÉÉÎxiÉ AÌuɱÉqÉsÉÍqÉÌiÉ
mÉëÉ¥ÉxiÉÑ EmÉÌSzÉåªÒÂÈ || First the teacher has thus to test the disciple and see
whether he has the requisite moral purity and if he finds the disciple has not the necessary
purity he should give the necessary training for the development of such purity. Only then the
instruction that everything is God including the guru and disciple is to be given. If the highest
truth is imparted to an ignorant or half-awakened disciple the teacher will be only sending the
disciple to hell along with himself. One whose intellectual power is sufficiently awakened
and whose mind is completely freed from the cravings for worldly pleasures and who does
not hanker for worldly betterment in the future is alone fit to be instructed in this highest truth
that there is in reality no duality and that there is not even evil or Maya different from the
Atman. It would seem, however, that the Uttara Ramayana story of Rama punishing the
Sudra-Sannyasin goes against the spirit of this story in the M.bh. where the Sudra is only
benefited by his Tapas. This only makes clear that there was something wrong in the Tapas of
the Sudra-Sannyasin who was punished by Rama. It was an instance of one who undertook
Tapas for a wrong purpose because of his misunderstanding the spirit of the scriptures. His
Tapas were only like that of Ravana, Vrikasura or Hiranyakasipu. It was meant only for self-
aggrandizement and enslavement and exploitation of the world. It is the result of imparting
instruction to one who is not yet fit for it. Vide notes on Ramayana for details. It is made
abundantly clear in various scriptures such as the Mbh. That it is character and conduct that
form the first qualification for higher vedic instruction. In fact it is this qualification that is
meant when it is laid down that it is only a Dvija who is entitled for vedic study. That such a
requirement is not meant to exclude the sons of Sudra parent is clear from such passages as
Vana Parva 211-12 where DharmaVyadha says zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ ÌWû eÉÉiÉxrÉ
xɪÒhÉÉlÉç EmÉÌiɸiÉÈ | uÉæzrÉiuÉÇ sÉpÉiÉå oÉë¼lÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉiuÉÇ
iÉjÉæuÉ cÉ || AeÉïuÉå uÉiÉïqÉÉlÉxrÉ oÉëɼhrÉqÉÍpÉeÉÉrÉiÉå || This
substantiates and justifies Satyakama being considered a fit for ‘Upadesham’ by his Guru
because of his guilelessness and straightforwardness. In V.P 2125;13-12 Dharmavyadha
again emphasizes that it is character and conduct that constitute ̲eÉiuÉqÉç and a Sudra
who acquires it automatically becomes a Dvija and a Brahmin by birth becomes a Sudra if his
conduct and charcter is bad oÉëɼhÉÈ mÉiÉlÉÏrÉåwÉÑ uÉiÉïqÉÉlÉÉå
ÌuÉMüqÉïxÉÑ | SÉÎqpÉMüÉå SÒwM×üiÉÈ mÉëÉrÉÈ zÉÔSìåhÉ xÉSØzÉÉå
pÉuÉåiÉç || rÉxiÉÑ zÉÔSìÉå SqÉå xÉirÉå kÉqÉåï cÉ xÉiÉiÉÉåÎijÉiÉÈ iÉÇ

48
oÉëɼhÉqÉWÇû qÉlrÉå uÉרÉålÉ ÌWû pÉuÉå̲eÉ || In the AÉeÉaÉUmÉuÉï of
uÉlÉmÉuÉï Yudhishtira says to Nahusha xÉirÉÇ SÉlÉÇ ¤ÉqÉÉ zÉÏsÉÇ
AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ iÉmÉÉå bÉ×hÉÉ | SØzrÉliÉå rÉ§É UÉeÉålSì xÉ oÉëɼhÉ CÌiÉ
xqÉ×iÉÈ || When Nahusha replies that these are seen in all people including Sudra,
Yudhishtira, says zÉÔSìå iÉÑ rÉ°uÉåiÉç sɤqÉ Ì²eÉå iÉiÉç cÉ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | lÉ
zÉÔSìÉå pÉuÉåiÉç zÉÔSìÈ oÉëɼhÉÉå oÉëɼhÉÉå lÉ cÉ | rɧÉæiÉiÉç
sɤrÉiÉå xÉmÉï uÉרÉÇ xÉ oÉëɼhÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ | rɧÉæiÉiÉç lÉ pÉuÉåiÉç
xÉmÉï iÉÇ zÉÔSì CÌiÉ ÌlÉÌSïzÉåiÉç || Nahusha then replies that if conduct and
character were the only test these questions birth, etc becomes useless for determining Varna.
rÉÌS iÉå uÉרÉiÉÉå UÉeÉlÉç oÉëɼhÉÈ mÉëxÉqÉÏͤÉiÉÈ | uÉ×jÉÉ eÉÉÌiÉÈ
iÉSÉ AÉrÉÑwqÉlÉç M×üÌiÉrÉÉïuÉ³É ÌuɱiÉå || M×üÌiÉ means will power & effort.
Yudhistira replies eÉÉÌiÉU§É qÉWûÉxÉmÉï qÉlÉÑwrÉiuÉå qÉWûÉqÉiÉå |
xɃ¡ûUÉiÉç xÉuÉïuÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ SÒwmÉUϤrÉÉ CÌiÉ qÉå qÉÌiÉÈ || xÉuÉåï
xÉuÉÉïxÉÑ AmÉirÉÉÌlÉ eÉlÉrÉÎliÉ xÉSÉ lÉUÉÈ | uÉÉXèûqÉæjÉÑlÉqÉjÉÉå
eÉlqÉ qÉUhÉÇ cÉ xÉqÉÇ lÉ×hÉÉqÉç || CSqÉÉwÉïÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ cÉ rÉå
rÉeÉÉqÉWåû CirÉÌmÉ | iÉxqÉÉiÉç zÉÏsÉÇ mÉëkÉÉlÉå¸Ç ÌuÉSÒÈ rÉå
iɨuÉSÍzÉïlÉÈ || mÉëÉXèû lÉÉÍpÉuÉkÉïlÉÉiÉç mÉÑÇxÉÉå eÉÉiÉMüqÉï
ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | iÉSÉÅxrÉ qÉÉiÉÉ xÉÉÌuɧÉÏ ÌmÉiÉÉ iuÉÉcÉÉrÉï EcrÉiÉå ||
iÉÉuÉiÉç zÉÔSìxÉxÉÉå ½åwÉ rÉÉuÉiÉç uÉåSå lÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå | iÉÎxqɳÉåuÉ
qÉÌiÉ ²ækÉå qÉlÉÑÈ xuÉÉrÉÇpÉÑuÉÉåÅoÉëuÉÏiÉç || M×üiÉM×üirÉÉÈ
mÉÑlÉuÉïhÉÉïÈ rÉÌS uÉרÉÇ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | xɃ¡ûUxiÉ§É lÉÉaÉålSì oÉsÉuÉÉlÉç
mÉëxÉqÉÏͤÉiÉÈ || rÉ§É CSÉlÉÏÇ qÉWûÉxÉmÉï xÉÇxM×üiÉÇ
uÉרÉÍqÉwrÉiÉå iÉÇ oÉëɼhÉqÉWÇû mÉÔuÉïqÉÑ£üuÉÉlÉç
pÉÑeÉaÉÉå¨ÉqÉç || The authority of the Rishis quoted by Yudhishtira in this connection
occurs in connection with the mÉërÉÉeÉ – offerings which are introductory offerings to the
principal offerings in the SzÉïmÉÔhÉïqÉÉxÉ. It means ‘of whatsoever caste we may be
we celebrate the sacrifice’. Again in rɤÉmÉëzlÉ, uÉlÉmÉuÉï 313 Yudhishthira says in
answer toYaksha's Question (UÉeÉlÉç MÑüsÉålÉ uÉרÉålÉ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉålÉ
´ÉÑiÉålÉ uÉÉ | oÉëɼhrÉÇ MåülÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ mÉëoÉëÔÌWû LiÉiÉç
xÉÑÌlÉͶÉiÉqÉç ||) ´ÉÑhÉÑ rÉ¤É MÑüsÉÇ iÉÉiÉ lÉ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉå lÉ cÉ
´ÉÑiÉqÉç | MüÉUhÉÇ ÌWû ̲eÉiuÉå cÉ uÉרÉqÉåuÉ lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ || uÉרÉÇ
rɦÉålÉ xÉÇU¤rÉÇ oÉëɼhÉålÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | cÉiÉÑuÉåïSÉåÅÌmÉ
SÒuÉ×ï¨ÉÈ lÉ zÉÔSìÉSÌiÉËUcrÉiÉå || cf. in Anusasana I.43 see what Maheshvara
himself says to Uma LÍpÉxiÉÑ MüqÉïÍpÉSåïuÉÏ zÉÑoÉæUÉcÉËUiÉæÈ CWû |

49
zÉÔSìÉå oÉëɼhÉiÉÉÇ rÉÉÌiÉ uÉæzrÉÈ ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉiÉÉÇ uÉëeÉåiÉç || LiÉæÈ
MüqÉïTüsÉæSåïuÉÏ lrÉÔlÉeÉÉÌiÉMÑüsÉÉå°uÉÈ |
zÉÔSìÉåmrÉÉaÉqÉxÉqmɳÉÉå ̲eÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ xÉÇx¢ÑüiÉÈ || oÉëɼhÉÉå
uÉÉÅmrÉxɲبÉÈ xÉuÉïxɃ¡ûUpÉÉåeÉlÉÈ || oÉëɼhÉrÉÇ
xÉuÉïxɃ¡ûUpÉÉåeÉlÉÈ | oÉëɼhrÉÇ xÉqÉlÉÑixÉ×erÉ zÉÑSìÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ
iÉÉSØzÉÈ || MüqÉïÍpÉÈ zÉÑÍcÉÍpÉSåïuÉÏ zÉÑ®ÉiqÉÉ ÌuÉÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ |
zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ xÉåurÉÈ CÌiÉ oÉë¼ÉlÉÑzÉÉxÉlÉqÉç || xuÉpÉÉuÉÇ MüqÉï cÉ
zÉÑpÉÇ rÉ§É zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ ÌiɸÌiÉ | ÌuÉÍzÉ¸È xÉ Ì²eÉÉiÉåuÉæï ÌuÉ¥ÉårÉÈ
CÌiÉ rÉå qÉÌiÉÈ || lÉ rÉÉåÌlÉÈ lÉÉÅÌmÉ xÉÇxMüÉUÈ lÉ ´ÉÑiÉÇ lÉ cÉ xÉliÉÌiÉÈ
| MüÉUhÉÉÌlÉ Ì²eÉiuÉxrÉÇ uÉרÉÇ LuÉ iÉÑ MüÉUhÉqÉç || xÉuÉÉåïÅrÉÇ
oÉëɼhÉÉå sÉÉåMåü uÉרÉålÉ iÉÑ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | uÉëѨÉå ÎxjÉiÉxiÉÑ
zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ oÉëɼhÉiuÉÇ ÌlÉrÉcNûÌiÉ || There is a similar conversation between
Bhrigu and Bharadvaja in Santi Parva Chap. 188 & 189 where in, to questions raised by
Bharadvaja, Bhrigu explains what constitutes ‘Varna’. Here also it is explained that it is
character and conduct that makes one a Brahmana and that it is only a falling away from the
ideal that necessititated the formation of castes other than the Brahmana. Each caste,
therefore, says Bhrigu, should be recognized by their ‘Guna’ and ‘Karma’. Since all Varnas
were originally only Brahmanas all are entitled to the study of the Vedas and for the
performance of Yajnas which alone can enable them to rise to their former status of
Brahminhood. Brahma was a Brahmana and the first progenitors Marichi etc. were also
Brahmanas and if birth were the only criterion for determining uÉhÉï then the progeny of
his Brahmin ancestors must all be Brahmanas by birth and they would be entitled
automatically to all the rights and privileges of the Brahmanas. If on the other hand it has to
be admitted that the other castes came into existence only because of the change in aÉÑhÉ
& MüqÉï, then it is an admission that uÉhÉï depends only on aÉÑhÉ and MüqÉï.
Therefore, whoever is a Brahmana by character and conduct must automatically be entitled to
the privileges of that uÉhÉï. So in either case Vedic study and Yajna cannot be desired to
anybody on account of mere birth. (The whole of these two chapters may be read with
advantage) lÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉÉåÅÎxiÉ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ xÉuÉïÇ oÉëɼÍqÉSÇ eÉaÉiÉç |
oÉë¼hÉÉ mÉÔuÉïxÉ×¹Ç ÌWû MüqÉïÍpÉuÉïhÉïiÉÉÇ aÉiÉqÉç || ...
ÌWÇûxÉÉÅlÉ×iÉÌmÉërÉÉfÉç sÉÑokÉÉÈ xÉuÉïMüqÉÉåïmÉeÉÏÌuÉlÉÈ |
M×üwhÉÈ zÉÉæcÉmÉËUpÉë¹ÉÈ iÉå ̲eÉÉÈ zÉÔSìiÉÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ || ...
CirÉåiÉæÈ MüqÉïÍpÉÈ urÉxiÉÉÈ Ì²eÉÉÈ uÉhÉÉïliÉUÇ aÉiÉÉÈ | kÉqÉÉåï rÉ¥ÉÌ
¢ürÉÉ uÉÉ LwÉÉÇ ÌlÉirÉÇ lÉ mÉëÌiÉÌwÉkrÉiÉå | uÉhÉÉï¶ÉiuÉÉUÈ LiÉå ÌWû

50
LwÉÉÇ oÉëÉ¼Ï xÉUxuÉiÉÏ | ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉ oÉë¼hÉÉ mÉÔuÉïÇ sÉÉåpÉÉiÉÑ
A¥ÉÉlÉiÉÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ | vide Chap.188. In explaining these Nilakantha says in 188.4
uÉhÉÉïÈ xÉÉÎiuÉMÇü UÉeÉxÉÇ iÉÉqÉxÉÇ ÍqÉ´ÉÇ cÉåÌiÉ xuÉcNûiuÉÉÌS
xÉÉqÉrÉÉiÉç aÉÑhÉuÉרÉÇ uÉhÉïzÉoSålÉ EcrÉiÉå | On Sl.5 he says ÍxÉiÉÈ
xuÉcNûÈ xɨuÉaÉÑhÉÈ mÉëMüÉzÉÉiqÉÉ zÉÉqÉSqÉÉÌSxuÉpÉÉuÉÈ
sÉÉåÌWûiÉÉå UeÉÉåaÉÑhÉÈ mÉëuÉ×irÉÉiqÉÉ zÉÉærÉïiÉåeÉÉÌS xuÉpÉÉuÉÈ
mÉÏiÉMüÈ UeÉxiÉqÉÉå urÉÉÍqÉ´É M×üwrÉÉÌS ÌlÉWûÏlÉMüqÉïmÉëuÉiÉïMüÈ
AÍxÉiÉÈ M×üwhÉÈ AÉuÉUhÉÉiqÉÉ iÉqÉÉåaÉÑhÉÈ xuÉiÉÈ
mÉëMüÉzÉmÉëuÉ×̨ÉWûÏlÉÈ zÉMüOûuÉiÉç mÉUmÉëårÉïÈ || On Sl.14 he says
oÉëÉ¼Ï uÉåSqÉrÉÏ cÉiÉÑhÉÉïqÉÌmÉ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ oÉë¼hÉÉ
mÉÔuÉïÌuÉÌWûiÉÉ | sÉÉåpÉSÉåwÉåhÉ iÉÑ A¥ÉÉlÉiÉÉÇ iÉqÉÉåpÉÉuÉÇ
aÉiÉÉÈ zÉÔSìÉÈ AlÉÍkÉMüÉËUhÉÉå uÉåSå eÉÉiÉÉÈ CirÉjÉïÈ || This shows that
there is nothing to prevent a Sudra by birth from studying the Vedas or performing Yajnas
provided he gives up his Tamas and elevates himself in character and conduct and becomes
more qualified by the development of Sattva and Rajas through self-effort under the guidance
of the higher Varnas. It is to help the Sudra thus to qualify himself that he is placed under the
kind care of the Brahmanas whose duty it is to improve his character and conduct and then
instruct him in the Vedas and make him do the Sadhanas prescribed by the Vedas. If the
Brahmana fails in his duty thus to make him qualified he is guilty of sin. This is also the
meaning of the story already mentioned before and which appears in Anusasana X. Santi 189
says after enumerating the characteristics which constitute the four varnas. irÉ£üuÉåSxiÉÑ
AlÉÉcÉÉUÈ xÉ uÉæ zÉÔSì CÌiÉ xqÉ×iÉÈ | zÉÔSìå cÉæiÉiÉç pÉuÉåiÉç
sɤqÉÇ Ì²eÉå iÉŠ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå || lÉ uÉæ zÉÔSìÉå pÉuÉåiÉç zÉÔSìÈ
oÉëɼhÉÉå oÉëɼhÉÉå lÉ cÉ | This shows that the Sudra is one who has given up his
study of the Veda through his Tamas and fallen into evil ways. If a man born of Sudras
parents develops the proper character and conduct he is also to be considered as a ̲eÉ and is
entitled to all the rights and privileges of the ̲eÉÉs such as vedic study and performance of
Yajnas. Santi – 60 is another chapter which gives the Sudra their right to perform the Vedic
Yajnas, without uttering the Mantras aloud. (According to the orthodox commentators this
right is limited only to the performance of Yajnas … aloud but this limitation is not
authorized or necessitated by the words of the text itself. It is a gratuitous addition to what the
text actually says to bring into accord with the views of certain Puranas of a later age. But
even accepting this interpretation leads to exactly opposite conclusions.) The highest among
the Yajnas is the qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥ÉÉ and that which is done externally and physically is the

51
lower. The permission this given to ‘Manasapuja’ is, therefore, clearly an admission that
lower forms of Yajna are also not impossible for him. The prohibition of loud utterance of
Vedic Mantras only, if any will therefore, has to be explained as being based upon selfish
economic considerations. Such an explanation will be unwarranted as the Brahmana is, by his
character and conduct above such things. Bhishma, therefore, in this chapter only tries to give
the Sudras the substance of Dharma and Vyasa in recording it is only giving the Sudra the
right to save himself even if the higher castes refuse to teach him and officiate for him in the
ritualistic vedic sacrifice aimed at satisfying only demi-gods such as Indra, Varuna etc. It is
specially said in this chapter that the Sudra is ‘Prajapatya’, the special favorite of Prajapati or
God himself who is more anxious to save his ignorant and disabled children in exactly the
same spirit as Jesus Christ in his parable of the lost sheep. The word ‘Prajapatya’ is used by
Bhishma and Vyasa in exactly the same sense and in the same spirit of love and sympathy, as
the word ‘Harijan’ given by Mahatmaji to these socially down-trodden people. To Prajapati
all his children are ‘Praja’ are equally dear and as Swami Vivekananda points out if any
special consideration is to be paid, it is to the least qualified and the weakest and therefore,
education is more needed in their case than in the case of the highly qualified Brahmanas who
are better able to look after themselves. An independent study of the chapter without
importing any ideas from outside makes it clear to anyone who is unprejudiced by the
traditional social custom and usage that the right given to Sudra in this chapter extends to all
Yajnas as are performed by the other three castes and if at all any distinction is made in the
case of the Sudra it is only to emphasize that the Sudra has no duty to perform such Yajna as
in the case of the other castes. The earlier portions of the chapter deal only with the minimum
duty expected of the four castes and are not intended to give any right and privileges. Thus
the minimum duty of the Brahmana is said to be xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉ and that of a Kshatriya the
protection of the people and the destruction of their enemies, that of the Vaisya is the rearing
and protection of animals like cows and that of Sudra the service of the other castes. These
are the only essential duties of the four castes and if they omit these they will be falling away
from their caste-status. The other duties are optional and if they omit these they do not fall
away from their Varna. mÉUÌlÉ̸iÉMüÉrÉïxiÉÑ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉålÉæuÉ oÉëɼhÉÈ |
MÑürÉÉïSlrÉiÉç lÉ uÉÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç qÉæ§ÉÉå oÉëɼhÉ EcrÉiÉå || (This
reminds us of the words of Manu eÉmrÉålÉæuÉ iÉÑ xÉÇÍxÉkrÉåiÉç oÉëɼhÉÉå
lÉÉÅ§É xÉÇzÉrÉÈ MÑürÉÉïSlrÉiÉç lÉ uÉÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç qÉæ§ÉÉå oÉëɼhÉ
EcrÉiÉå ||) mÉËUÌlɸiÉMüÉrÉïxiÉÑ lÉ×mÉÌiÉÈ mÉËUmÉÉsÉlÉÉiÉç |
MÑürÉÉïiÉç AlrÉiÉç lÉ uÉÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç LålSìÉå UÉeÉlrÉ EcrÉiÉå ||

52
ÌmÉiÉ×uÉiÉç mÉÉsÉrÉåiÉç uÉæzrÉÉå rÉÑ£üÈ xÉuÉÉïlÉç mÉzÉÔÌlÉWû |
ÌuÉMüqÉïÈ iÉkpÉuÉåSlrÉiÉç MüqÉï rÉiÉç xÉ xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || U¤ÉrÉÉ xÉ ÌWû
iÉåwÉÉÇ uÉæ qÉWûiÉç xÉÑZÉÇ AuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉÌWïû
uÉæzrÉÉrÉ xÉ×wOèuÉÉ mÉËUSSÉæ mÉzÉÔlÉç || mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉÌWïû
uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ SÉxÉÇ zÉÔSìÇ AMüsmÉrÉiÉç | iÉxqÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìxrÉ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ
mÉËUcÉrÉÉï ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || iÉåwÉÉÇ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉhÉÉŠæuÉ qÉWûixÉÑZÉÇ
AuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç || Here in the word zÉÑ´ÉÔhÉÉ is given as different from
mÉËUcÉrÉÉï as in Anusasana 143. zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ means only the desire for study or
´ÉuÉhÉ. mÉËUcÉrÉÉï of the Brahmana is conducive to zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ. After
enumerating some of the optional duties, Bhishma goes on to say that Yajna which has been
prescribed for the other three Varnas is to be done by the Sudra also and quotes the authority
of the ancient practice in the matter E£Çü §ÉrÉÉhÉÉÇ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ rÉ¥ÉÈ iÉxrÉ
(zÉÔSìxrÉ) cÉ pÉÉUiÉ | xuÉÉWûÉMüÉUuÉwÉOèMüÉUÉæ qÉl§ÉÉæ zÉÔSìå
ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || iÉxqÉÉlÉç zÉÔSìÈ mÉÉMürÉ¥ÉærÉïeÉåiÉ oÉëyquÉÉlÉç
xuÉrÉqÉç | zÉÔSìÈ mÉæeÉuÉlÉÉå lÉÉqÉç xÉWûxÉëÉhÉÉÇ zÉiÉÇ SSÉæ
LålSìÉalÉålÉ ÌuÉkÉÉlÉålÉ SͤÉhÉÉÇ CÌiÉ lÉÈ ´ÉÑiÉqÉç | rÉiÉÉå ÌWû
xÉuÉïuÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ rÉ¥ÉÈ iÉxrÉæuÉ pÉÉUiÉ | AaÉëå xÉuÉåïwÉÑ rÉ¥ÉåwÉÑ
´É®ÉrÉ¥ÉÉå ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || All though this is the reading in certain editions, according
to certain other version the second line is read as xuÉÉWûÉMüÉUç uÉwÉOèMüÉUÉå
qÉl§ÉÈ zÉÔSìå lÉ ÌuɱiÉå, and instead of oÉë¼uÉÉlÉç xuÉrÉqÉç others read
AuÉëiÉuÉÉlÉç xuÉrÉqÉç. The liberal minded accept the previous version as it is more
consistent with the views of the M.bh. expressed elsewhere and referred to by us previously,
as well as the subsequent portions of this chapter itself. Even according to the orthodox
version it is clear that the right to Yajna itself is not denied nor the use of the vedic mantras
but only the use of the particular mantras, vis. xuÉÉWûÉ & uÉwÉOèû. On the other hand
the right to Yajna is expressly admitted by even their own version of the text. The
´É®ÉrÉ¥É is said to be the highest for all the Varnas although the orthodox try to interpret
this ´É®ÉrÉ¥É as referring only to qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥É. The word only means Yajna done with
proper faith ´É®É. It is only a praise of all rÉ¥É if it is done with ´É®É for the purpose of
realizing God and not for selfish purposes. cf ‘rÉÉå rÉÉå rÉÉÇ rÉÉÇ iÉlÉÑÇ pÉ£üÈ
´É¬rÉÉÍcÉïiÉÑÍqÉcNûÌiÉ’ etc. of Gita, and also ‘A´É®rÉÉ WÒûiÉÇ S¨ÉÇ’ etc. This
is common to all the Varnas even according to the orthodox reading the right to
‘mÉÉMürɥɒ is not denied. These ‘mÉÉMürÉ¥És’ are rituals to be performed at home
by every Grihastha which involves the offering of cooked food. It includes all the

53
Mahayajnas which are unavoidable other than Brahmayajna. All these Pakayajnas involve the
chanting of Mantras by the perfomer himself. No priests are required. It is only the big public
sacrifices that require the help of priests for their performance. That is the force of the word
xuÉrÉqÉç. Just like the other three castes Sudra also has the right to perform these
mÉÉMürÉ¥ÉÉs individually by himself. This right is conceded by various other texts also.
(Vide Gautama X. 66 & 67: AlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÉå AxrÉ lÉqÉxMüÉUÉå qÉl§ÉÈ
mÉÉMürÉ¥ÉæÈ xuÉrÉÇ rÉeÉåiÉ CirÉåMåü || LaghuVishnu V.9 also says:
mÉgcÉrÉ¥ÉÌuÉkÉÉlÉÇ iÉÑ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÅÌmÉ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | iÉxrÉ mÉëÉå£üÉå
lÉqÉxMüÉUÈ MÑüuÉïlÉç ÌlÉirÉÇ lÉ WûÏrÉiÉå || Vishnu Purana III. 8.33 says: SÉlÉÇ
cÉ S±ÉiÉç zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ mÉÉMürÉ¥ÉærÉïeÉåiÉç cÉ | ÌmɧrÉÉÌSMÇü cÉ
uÉæ xÉuÉïÇ zÉÔSìÈ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ iÉålÉ uÉæ || Yajnavalkya I.121. pÉÉrÉÉïUÌiÉÈ
zÉÑÍcÉÈ oÉ×irÉpÉiÉÉï ´Éɮ̢ürÉÉUiÉÈ | lÉqÉxMüÉUåhÉ qÉl§ÉåhÉ
mÉgcÉrÉ¥ÉÉlÉç lÉ WûÉmÉrÉåiÉç || On this Mitakshara gives the view of same that
lÉqÉxMüÉU qÉl§É is SåuÉiÉÉprÉÈ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉ¶É qÉWûÉrÉÉåÌaÉprÉ LuÉ cÉ |
lÉqÉÈ xuÉkÉÉrÉæ xuÉÉWûÉrÉæ ÌlÉirÉqÉåuÉ lÉqÉÉå lÉqÉÈ || This is interesting
as showing that the Sudra can utter even xuÉÉWûÉ & xuÉkÉÉ which are supposed to be
prohibited by some of the orthodox schools and as per the orthodox reading of the M.bh.
Santi Parva text. This shows also that the other reading is more consistent and acceptable.
Medhatiti on Manu III.121 says lÉqÉxMüÉUÉå AlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÈ lÉ SåuÉiÉÉmÉÉSqÉç.
But this also is not acceptable to the Sruti text which declares Prajapati as the God of the
Sudras in the later position of the chapter. It is also interesting to note that Laghu Vishnu
quoted above agree that the Sudras have got the right for all the mÉgcÉqÉWûÉrÉ¥ÉÉs
which includes oÉë¼rÉ¥É. It is, therefore, an admission that the Sudra has the right for the
study of the Vedas also. This is quite consistent with the other reading of the sloka
oÉë¼uÉÉlÉç xuÉrÉqÉç where oÉë¼uÉÉlÉç refers to oÉë¼rÉ¥É. It would thus
seem that the orthodox version is meant only to emphasize that priesthood and teaching of the
Vedas should be considered the exclusive right of only Brahmins. Even in the case of public
yajnas such AµÉqÉåkÉ etc. where the services of priests are required and where Dakshinas
are offered the Shanti passage seems to be more liberal than the orthodox people want. The
reference to Paijavana as Sudra who offered di][a to his priests when he performed the rÉ¥É
according to the LålSìÉalÉ - mode, shows that even public yajnas were performed in ancient
times by Sudras as the LålSìÉalÉ - rite is only a subsidiary rite in a Soma Yaga which is a
public yajna. Therefore these passages show that all the Yajnas are allowed to Sudras also
and the prohibition seems to have come in during the later ages only when people who were

54
not sufficiently cultured and who were avaricious began to encroach upon the special
privileges of the Brahmanas for the exclusive acceptance of Dakshinas for officiating as
priests and for teaching the Vedas. Such an encroachment naturally occurred when powerful
foreign tribes invaded and settled down in India and claimed all the privileges to themselves
and began to question the exclusive rights of the Brahmanas. It may not be merely the
mercenary motive that leads to this prohibition. These wild tribes who declared themselves as
Hindus and wanted all the privileges of the higher Hindus and wanted to follow their customs
and practices were found too uncultured to be taken into the Hindu-fold at once in the
interests of Hindu religion and society. Just as once before it happened at the time of the
writing of the Brahmana-texts the pure religion of the Vedas became contaminated when it
spread among the masses and had to be brought back to its pristine purity by writing special
commentaries known Brahmanas and first as it happened subsequently when Buddhism
spread among uncultured tribes and became contaminated as a result of its very liberalism,
Hinduism was threatened with the same fate as that of Buddhism as a result of its adoption by
wild foreign tribes and had to save itself by preventing these new converts from poisoning the
Hindu culture by their own interpretations. This could have been possibly done by totally
prohibiting such uncultured converts from taking up the role of teachers and priests in their
new found enthusiasm to help others. This could have been the only reason for saying that
Sudras were devoid of any uÉëiÉ. It is only wrongly understood in a later age as meaning
that the Sudra should not be allowed to perform the Vratas as in Manu IV.80 lÉ zÉÔSìÉrÉ
qÉÌiÉÇ S±ÉiÉç lÉ EÎcNû¹Ç lÉ WûÌuÉwM×üiÉqÉç | lÉ cÉÉÅxrÉ EmÉÌSzÉåiÉç
kÉqÉïÇ lÉ cÉÉÅxrÉ uÉëiÉqÉÉÌSzÉåiÉç which is the same as Vasistha 18.14 and
Vishnu 71:48-52. This only means that if the Sudra is one without uÉëiÉ and the necessary
Samskara, he should not be taught without previous training in conduct and character through
Vratas undertaken at the guidance of proper qualified teacher. So it was not meant to prevent
him from acquiring the necessary Samskara or culture in contact with cultures people on the
principle of xÉixÉ…¡û and xÉÉkÉÑxÉåuÉÉ. The prohibition must, therefore, be
understood only as referring to Sudras who have not the benefit of having such xÉixÉ…¡û.
That is why it was made the preliminary condition that they should develop the necessary
culture and Adhikara through the service of spiritual people, the Brahmana. Therefore
Mitakshara on Yajnavalkya III.62 explains the words of Manu about Vratas in the case of
Sudras as only applicable to those Sudras who are not in attendance upon the culture classed
and establishes that such Sudras can perform the Vratas. Aparanka on the same verse Manu
IV.80 explains that the Sudra cannot perform Vratas in person but only through the medium

55
of a Brahmana. This only means that an uncultured man cannot become cultured or improve
in his character and conduct except through the help of a cultured spiritual man. When Manu
II.32 prescribes that the Sudra should be given a name connected with service he indicates
that the Sudra could perform the ceremony of lÉÉqÉMüUhÉ. Medhatithi on Manu IV.80
says that the prohibition to give advice and impart instruction in Dharma applies only when
these are done only for making one’s livelihood. But if the Sudra is a friend of the Brahmana,
friendly advice and instruction can be given. The Brahmana is not allowed to offer religious
instruction gratis indiscriminately to one and all but only to those who have a desire and
capacity and the Sudra is expected to demonstrate his Adhikara by his willingness to place
himself under the care and guidance of cultured people and by a formal request for spiritual
and moral help. This is all what our Santi passage could have meant even if we accept the
orthodox reading AuÉëiÉuÉÉlÉç instead of oÉë¼uÉÉlÉç. AuÉëiÉuÉÉlÉç must be
taken as an adjective qualifying ‘Sudra’, the two together meaning that Sudra who is
Avratavaan. Thus even according to the orthodox reading it is only these special clans of
Sudras who are prevented from the ritualistic external Yajna with the use of xuÉÉWûÉ &
uÉwÉOèû since they are AuÉëiÉuÉÉlÉç. This is also made clear expressly by the same
chap. 34-35 ‘rÉŠ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç ̲eÉÉiÉÏlÉÉÇ zÉÔSìÈ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÈ AÉuÉëeÉåiÉç |
MüsrÉÉÇ iÉålÉ iÉÑ iÉå mÉëÉWÒûÈ uÉ×̨ÉÇ kÉqÉïÌuÉSÉå eÉlÉÉÈ || Here
uÉ×Ì¨É means the proper training in conduct and character and respectful treatment, vide
Apte’s Dictionary. It need not be understood as orthodox people take to mean ‘means of
livelihood’ or mere profession or work. The Sloka means ‘if the Sudra is anxious and eager to
have Sravanam (zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÑ) or vedic study he must approach the teacher of the cultured
caste (̲eÉÉÌiÉ). Whoever is thus approached by the Sudra should treat him respectfully and
not contemptuously as the teacher would treat a member of any other caste who approaches
him for the same purpose. He should not be rejected off-hand but as required even in the case
of other caste before they are initiated to the study of Vedas etc. through EmÉlÉrÉlÉ. That
this could be the only meaning is clear from the fact that Shanti 64 & 65 describe how
Bhagavan Narayana Himself exhorted the king Mandhata to impart culture and to civilize and
to bring into the Hindu fold all the wild and foreign tribes such as Yavana, China, Kirata,
Gandhara, Sabara, Saka, Pallava, Andhra, Paundra, Pulinda etc and in this list Sudras are also
included

qÉÉiÉÉÌmɧÉÉåÌWïû zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ MüiÉïurÉ xÉuÉïSxrÉÑÍpÉÈ |

AÉcÉÉrÉïaÉÑÂzÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ iÉjÉæuÉ AÉ´ÉqÉuÉÉÍxÉlÉÉqÉç ||
pÉÔÍqÉmÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ MüiÉïurÉÉ xÉuÉïSxrÉÑÍpÉÈ |
uÉåSkÉqÉïÌ¢ürÉɶÉæuÉ iÉåwÉÉÇ kÉqÉÉåï uÉÏkÉÏrÉiÉå ||

56
One should be given proper training in moral character and conduct through proper
discipline. That is what is laid down by the knowers of Dharma as the duty of the Dvija’s in
such cases. That in ancient times many such people were thus helped to become civilized and
cultured is borne out by the historical fact of many such tribes being absorbed into the Hindu
fold and their becoming good orthodox Hindus with all Vedic study and privileges as in the
case of Rajputs, Pallavas and Andhras etc. There is also provision in the Vedic literature for a
ceremony to take such people into the Hindu fold. Thus the Tandya Brahmana prescribes
Vratyastoma for bringing such people to the orthodox Vedic culture in chap XVII.1-4.
Katyayana Srouta Sutras XXII.4.1-28 say that by performing these Vratyastomas they
become eligible for social intercourse with the orthodox Aryas. The Paraskara Grihya II.5
even allows Upanayana and Vedic study after Vraatyastoma.

iÉåwÉÉÇ xÉÇxMüÉUåmxÉÑÈ uÉëÉirÉxiÉÉåqÉålÉ CwOèuÉÉ MüÉqÉÇ

AkÉÏrÉÏUlÉç urÉuÉWûÉrÉÉïÈ pÉuÉliÉÏÌiÉ uÉcÉlÉÉiÉç ||

Historically the Basenagar inscription shows that the Yavana Heliodorus became a
Bhagavata. Many of the inscriptions in the caves of Nasik etc show that many of the donors
are said to be Yavanas. Indian princes married Huna princesses for example Allata of Guhila
dynasty married a Huna princess Hariyadevi, King Yashashkarmadeva of Kalachuri dynasty
was the son of Karnadeva and Aapalladevi, a Huna princess. These are attested to by
inscriptions. Mahabhharata Santi Parva XXII.11 speaks of Jayadrata having Yavan women in
his harem. All such marriages must have been legitimate marriages as the children by such
marriages became the ruling princes after the death of their fathers. All legitimate marriages
could not have been performed without Vedic rituals nor could the coronation of the issue of
such marriages taken place without vedit rituals and utterance of mantras. Even recent
historic times Shivaji who was not a Ksatriya by birth was crowned according to vedic rites
by the most orthodox vedic scholarof the time Gaga Bhatta of Benaras because was found fit
to be so crowned as a Ksatriya king by virtue of his Guna and Karma. The word Svayam in
the Sloka may be taken as meaning that there is no restriction to Yajna being performed by
the Sudra for his own regeneration and the prohibition is limited only to his officiating as a
priest to others. So even the orthodox version of the Santi passage is to be understood as
meaning that the Sudra who is willing to undergo the necessary discipline under a qualified
Guru should resort to such a Guru and request him for help. That in such a case if the Guru
finds him not fit by conduct and character to receive vedic instruction or to perform vedic
Yajnas he should treat him as he would treat any boy of the higher caste who goes to him for
such instruction and make him fit by the necessary training and discipline and when he
becomes fit by such training he should be given instruction in the Vedas and helped to
perform the Yajnas and that he should not be rejected off hand and that during the period of
training no vedic mantras like Svaha and Vashat need be used by the Sudra personally but
only by the Guru himself on behalf of the disciple even as in the case of Samskaras of
children of higher castes before their Upanayana. That such a thing is allowed is seen from
the Varaha Purana which says AqÉl§ÉxrÉ iÉÑ zÉÔSìxrÉ ÌuÉmÉëÉå qÉl§ÉåhÉ
aÉ×½iÉå – where the Sudra is not able to utter the Mantras, Mantras may be recited by the
Guru or the priest! There can be no objection to this even from the orthodox people as even
the Brahmasutra admits that even the meditations connected with the ritual should be done by
the priest as he has been paid for it AÉÎiuÉïerÉqÉç CÌiÉ AÉæQÒûsÉÉåÍqÉÈ iÉxqÉæ
ÌWû mÉËUÌ¢ürÉiÉå. When meditation itself can be done by the priest there is nothing to
prevent the utterance of the Mantras being done by the priests themselves as is usually done

57
today even in the case of the higer castes who have not studied the Vedas. The only
qualification which this Shanti text insists upon for the performance of the Yajna is ´É®É
and this ´É®É should be, according to the text respected as the highest form of God Himself
in whomsoever it may appear. Therefore the text continues to say SæuÉiÉÇ ÌWû
qÉWûiÉç ´É®É mÉÌuɧÉÇ rÉeÉiÉÉÇ cÉ rÉiÉç || This shows that ´É®É is the
greatest purifying agency which makes a man fit for performing Yajnas. This reminds us of
the greatness of ´É®É insisted upon by all orthodox writers and in the Srutis and the
condemnation of A´É®É vide Gita ch.XVII. Also Chandogya rÉSåuÉ ÌuɱrÉÉ etc.
Bhagavata XI.27 ´É®rÉÉåmÉWØûiÉÇ mÉëå¸qÉç etc, Manu IV 225.226 says
´É®ÉmÉÔiÉÇ uÉSÉlrÉxrÉ WûiÉqÉ´É®rÉåiÉUiÉç | ´É®rÉå¹Ç cÉ mÉÔiÉïÇ cÉ
ÌlÉirÉÇ MÑürÉÉïSiÉÎlSìiÉÈ | ´É®ÉM×üiÉå ½¤ÉrÉå iÉå pÉuÉiÉÈ
xuÉÉaÉiÉækÉïlÉæÈ || M. bh. A´É®É mÉUqÉÇ mÉÉmÉÇ ´É®É
mÉÉmÉmÉëqÉÉåÍcÉlÉÏ || c.f also Brihad III.6.21 MüÎxqÉlÉç lÉÑ rÉ¥ÉÈ
mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÈ CÌiÉ | SͤÉhÉÉrÉÉÍqÉÌiÉ | MüÎxqÉlÉç lÉÑ SͤÉhÉÉ mÉëÌiÉ̹iÉÉ
CÌiÉ | ´É®rÉÉÍqÉÌiÉ Tait. Up. ´É®rÉÉ SårÉqÉç A´É®ÉÅSårÉqÉç || Suta Samhita
IV.2.1 ´É®rÉÉ UÌWûiÉÇ xÉuÉïÇ TüsÉÉrÉ lÉ MüSÉcÉlÉ || It is this ´É®É that
makes a Brahmana what he is. It is naturally present in him. It is this which makes him fit to
be the teacher and priest of the other three Varnas who are all prompterd in their actions by
worldly desires. They make the Brahmana perform the Yajnas for them so that these Yajnas
may be done with proper Sraddha. It is he who can guide them to know their higher interests
and lead them to the highest goal. Therefore he deserves the highest worship by all those who
are naturally guided by their natural desires. Similarly the Sudra also like others should take
refuge in him and worship him. In this respect the Sudra is like any other caste who are
governed by desires as he is also born of the same God who is the protector of all. In fact he
is more loved by God than the other castes who have studied the Vedas and therefore the
Brahmanas should be eager to help him more than the others who have neglected their
opportunities. A Sudra with Sraddha but with no knowledge of the scriptures is more
deserving of spiritual help from the Brahamanas as Sraddha, their God is present in such
Sudra. SæuÉiÉÇ ÌWû mÉUÇ ÌuÉmÉëÉÈ xuÉålÉ xuÉålÉ mÉUxmÉUqÉç |
ArÉeÉlÉç CWû xɧÉæÈ iÉå iÉæxiÉæÈ MüÉqÉæÈ xÉqÉÉÌWûiÉÉÈ ||
xÉÇxÉ×¹ÉÈ oÉëɼhÉæÈ LuÉ Ì§ÉwÉÑ uÉhÉåïwÉÑ xÉ×¹rÉÈ | SåuÉÉlÉÉqÉÌuÉ
rÉå SåuÉÉÈ rÉiÉç oÉëÑrÉÈ iÉå mÉUÇ ÌWûiÉqÉç || iÉxqÉÉiÉç uÉhÉæïÈ
xÉuÉïrÉ¥ÉÉÈ xÉÇxÉ×erÉiÉå lÉ MüÉqrÉrÉÉ | GarÉeÉÑxxÉÉqÉÌuÉiÉç
mÉÔerÉÉå ÌlÉirÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç SåuÉÌuÉiÉç ̲eÉÈ AlÉ×arÉeÉÑUxÉÉqÉÉ cÉ
mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ EmÉSìuÉÈ || Santi 41-44. On Sl. 42 Nilakantha says xÉ×¹rÉÈ
xÉliÉÉlÉÉÌlÉ iÉålÉ xÉuÉåïwÉÉÇ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ oÉëɼhÉeÉiuÉÉiÉç AxirÉåuÉ
zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ rÉ¥Éå AÍkÉMüÉUÈ || In saying this he shows himself in his usual
manner as a champion of Sudra’s rights. We differ from him only when he says that the
Yajna referred to in this chap is qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥É which is unwarranted and unnecessary and
which goes against his own Catholicism and liberalism which he has fearlessly expressed in
his commentary on other parts of the M. bharata where the Sudra’s right is conceded by the
text itself. The text continues in this chapter also to express only the same idea when it says
in continuation rÉ¥ÉÉå qÉlÉÏwÉrÉÉ iÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïuÉhÉåïwÉÑ pÉÉUiÉ | Here there
is no necessity to interpret qÉlÉÏwÉrÉÉ as referring to qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥ÉÉ as Neelakantha
says when he comments on it thus iÉjÉÉ cÉ qÉÉlÉxÉå SåuÉiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ
SìurÉirÉÉaÉÉiqÉMåü rÉ¥Éå xÉuÉåï uÉhÉÉï AÍkÉÌ¢ürÉliÉå CirÉjÉïÈ | qÉlÉÏwÉÉ
never means qÉlÉxÉç but only wish and intelligence. qÉlÉÏwÉrÉÉ, therefore, may be
taken as meaning according to AÍkÉMüÉU which involves only AÍjÉïiuÉ & xÉÉqÉirÉï. In
the sense of wish it shows AÍjÉïiuÉ and in the sense of intelligence it means ‘xÉÉqÉjrÉï’.

58
The word also means (according to Sayana on Rg V.V.83.10) a Vedic hymn. He interprets
qÉlÉÏwÉÉ there as xiÉÑÌiÉ. xiÉÑÌiÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉuÉÉlÉÍxÉ. Taking the word in this
sense the sentence would mean that all the Varnas can perform Yajnas with Vedic hymns.
Anticipating some objection that both society as well as the gods will non-cooperate with
such a Yajna performed by a Sudra with Vedic hymns the text continues to say that where
there is Sraddha all people will and must cooperate. lÉ AxrÉ rÉ¥ÉM×üiÉÉå SåuÉÉÈ
DWûliÉå lÉ CiÉUå eÉlÉÉÈ | iÉiÉÈ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ uÉhÉåïwÉÑ ´É®ÉrÉ¥ÉÉå
ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || On this Nilakantha says (of course as referring to only qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥É)
AxrÉ qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥ÉMüiÉÑïÈ SåuÉÉÈ CiÉUå eÉlÉÉ¶É lÉ DWûliÉå CÌiÉ lÉ | AÌmÉ
iÉÑ ´É®ÉmÉÔiÉiuÉÉiÉç xÉuÉåïÅÌmÉ AxrÉ rÉ¥Éå pÉÉaÉÇ MüÉqÉrÉliÉå
CirÉjÉïÈ || The Brahmana has got this Sraddha by his very nature. If he hasn’t he is no
Brahmana. Therefore with that Sraddha which is natural to him he always serves the other
Varnas in performing Yajnas with the proper Sraddha. His Sraddha influences others also and
gives them also the necessary Sraddha when he cooperates with their Yajna and instructs
them as to how to do the Yajna properly. It is because of this natural Sraddha that the
Brahmana is entrusted with the duty of rÉÉeÉlÉqÉç or helping others to perform the Yajnas
properly. So the text continues to say xuÉÇ SæuÉiÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÈ xuÉålÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ
mÉUÉlÉç uÉhÉÉïlÉç ArÉeɳÉåuÉÇ AÉxÉÏiÉç | AkÉUÉå ÌuÉiÉÉlÉÈ xÉÇxÉ×¹Éå
uÉæzrÉÉå oÉëɼhÉÈ Ì§ÉwÉÑ uÉhÉïuÉÑ rÉ¥ÉxÉ×¹È || The latter half of this
Sloka refers expressly to the ritualistic Yajna as is clear from the use of the expression
ÌuÉiÉÉlÉ – means sacrificial hearth or altar. The sentence refers to how members of the
other three Varnas become Brahmanas through performance of such a ritualistic Yajna with
proper Sraddha. The Diksha undergone at the beginning of such a ritualistic Yajna is meant
expressly to create the proper Sraddha and therefore it is said that rÉ¥ÉSϤÉÉ confers the
status of a Brahmana. So the Satapata Brahmana says AjÉÉÅ§É A®É eÉÉrÉiÉå rÉÉå
oÉë¼hÉÉå rÉÉå rÉ¥ÉÉ‹ÉrÉiÉå | iÉxqÉÉSÌmÉ UÉeÉlrÉÇ uÉÉ uÉæzrÉÇ uÉÉ
oÉëɼhÉæirÉåuÉ oÉëÔrÉÉiÉç | oÉëɼhÉÉå ÌWû eÉÉrÉiÉå rÉÉå
rÉ¥ÉÉ‹ÉrÉiÉå | So also III.2. So also Aitareya Brahmana VII.2.3 xÉ ÌWû SϤÉqÉÉhÉ
LuÉ oÉëɼhÉiÉÉqÉprÉÑmÉæÌiÉ | All Varnas are relatives of each other and are alike
entitled to Vedic culture and Samskaara. They are only varieties of Brahmana really. The
Vedas are common to all of them. They are made Brahmanas if they resolutely take to Vedic
study and culture and to Vedic practices. So the text says iÉxqÉÉiÉç uÉhÉÉïÈ
GeÉuÉÉå ¥ÉÉÌiÉuÉhÉÉïÈ xÉÇxÉ×erÉiÉå iÉxrÉ ÌuÉMüÉUç LuÉ | LMÇü xÉÉqÉç
rÉeÉÑUåMÇü GaÉåMüÉ ÌuÉmÉë¶ÉæMüÉå ÌlɶÉrÉå iÉåwÉÑ xÉ×¹È || This is
quite consistent with the views of Yajnavalkya and Bhrigu which we have already noted
before from Santi 318.89 and Santi 188.1-16. Vide also Vanaparva chap 148-9. 18-23 where
Hanuman says to Bhima that all Varnas are alike in their rites, observances and their devotion
to one deity and to one set of Mantras and Veda. This chapter quotes the further authority of
the Rishis for the proposition that every man has got the right to perform the Yajna if there is
Sraddha even if he is a thief or a sinner. All such people deserve praise and not condemnation
and all such people should be encouraged to perform such Yajnas according to their capacity
and intelligence and desire (i.e if there is AÍkÉMüÉU) and helped to perform them by all
persons who are free from envy and jealousy. A§É aÉÉjÉÉÈ rÉ¥ÉaÉÏiÉÉÈ MüÐiÉïrÉÎliÉ
mÉÑUÉÌuÉSÈ | uÉæZÉÉlÉxÉÉlÉÉÇ UÉeÉålSì qÉÑlÉÏlÉÉÇ rɹÒÍqÉcNûiÉÉqÉç
|| EÌSiÉåÅlÉÑÌSiÉå uÉÉÅÌmÉ ´É®ÉkÉÉlÉÉå ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ | uÉÌ»Çû
eÉÑWûÉåÌiÉ kÉqÉåïhÉ ´É®É uÉæ MüÉUhÉÇ qÉWûiÉç || rÉiÉç xMü³ÉÇ AxrÉ
iÉimÉÔuÉïÇ rÉSxMü³ÉÇ iÉSÒ¨ÉUqÉç | oÉWÕûÌlÉ rÉ¥ÉÃmÉÉÍhÉ
lÉÉlÉÉMüqÉïTüsÉÉÌlÉ cÉ || iÉÉÌlÉ rÉÈ xÉqmÉëeÉÉlÉÉÌiÉ
¥ÉÉlÉÌlɶÉrÉÌlÉͶÉiÉÈ | ̲eÉÉÌiÉÈ ´É®rÉÉåmÉåiÉÈ (one who has become a

59
̲eÉÉÌiÉ because of his ´É®É) xÉ rɹÒÇ mÉÑÂwÉÉåÅWïûÌiÉ || xiÉålÉÉå uÉÉ
GwÉrÉÈ iÉÇ mÉëzÉÇ xÉÎliÉ xÉÉkÉÑ cÉæiÉSxÉÇzÉrÉqÉç | xÉuÉïjÉÉ xÉuÉïSÉ
uÉhÉæïÈ rɹurÉÍqÉÌiÉ ÌlÉhÉïrÉÈ || lÉ ÌWû rÉ¥ÉxÉqÉÇ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç ̧ÉwÉÑ
sÉÉåMåüwÉÑ ÌuɱiÉå | iÉxqÉÉiÉç rɹurÉÍqÉirÉÉWÒûÈ mÉÑÂwÉåhÉ (cf Gita
rÉå qÉå qÉiÉÍqÉSÇ ´É®ÉuÉliÉÉåÅlÉxÉÔrÉliÉÉå etc.) ´É®ÉmÉÌuɧÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ
rÉjÉÉzÉÌ£ü rÉjÉåcNûrÉÉ || EÌSiÉåÅlÉÑÌSiÉå means that which is prescribed by the
Vedas and that which is not. ̲eÉÉÌiÉÈ ´É®rÉÉåmÉåiÉÈ – One who has become a
Dvijaati because of his Sraddha.

There are, of course, also a few other chapters in the M. bharata which appear to say that
Brahmin is only born and that one cannot attain the status of a Brahmana in this life itself but
only in another birth, however perfect he might become in conduct and character with the
help of self effort. But if these chapters are read carefully and understood in the proper light
consistent with the other liberal teachings of Bharata, they will be found as noted above to
substantiate the contention that all are entitled to vedic culture and civilization. For example
chap 27 to 29 of Anusasana deals with the story of Matanga who was asked by his father to
help him in performing a Yajna. In going to the forest to collect the necessary material he
cruelly beat the young asses that were yoked to the cart. Seeing the fate of these asses the
mother ass consoles them by saying that though Matanga was born and bread up as a
Brahmana he was really a Chandala and nothing better could be expected of him. If he were a
real Brahmin he would have been a friend of all living beings. Hearing the words of the she-
ass Matanga becomes discomfited and performs Tapas to attain real Brahminhood. Indra
appears before him and is prepared to give any boon his devotee wants but when he comes to
know that what Matanga wanted was to attain real Brahmanahood Indra dissuade him from
his rash attempt to attain Brahminhood in this life itself through such ascetic practices. In that
connection Indra seems to say as understood by the orthodox commentators that one who is
not a Brahmana by birth and parentage cannot attain Brahmanahood except a future birth.
This story is on of those taken advantage of by orthodox people to show that no other caste
can become a Brahmana in this life itself and that Brahminhood is conferred by birth alone.
But the words used in the text as well as the very setting of the story shows that the real
emphasis is not upon birth but on character and conduct. It is because of his bad conduct that
Matanga was adjudged to be not the son of his Brahmana father but as the product of an illicit
connection of his mother with a barber. Nilakantha expressly says in his commentary:
AlÉzÉiÉç ¢ÔüUiuÉÍsÉ…¡åûlÉ | Mere birth and ritualistic Samskaras such as
aÉpÉÉïkÉÉlÉ, xÉÏqÉliÉÉå³ÉrÉlÉ etc. were not effective in changing his inborn character
where such character is not formed through personal effort, Sraddha, Satsanga and moral and
spiritual Sadhana these ritualistic Samskaras are thus shown to be really of no practical value.
This is admitted by the Gautama Dharma Sutra VIII.22-25, AjÉÉŹÉæ AÉiqÉaÉÑhÉÉÈ
SrÉÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ ¤ÉÉÎliÉUlÉxÉÔrÉÉ zÉÉæcÉqÉlÉÉrÉÉxÉÈ qÉ…
¡ûsÉMüÉmÉïhrÉqÉxmÉ×WûÉ || rÉxrÉæiÉå cÉiuÉÉËUÇzÉiÉç xÉÇxMüÉUÉÈ lÉ
cÉ A¹Éæ AÉiqÉaÉÑhÉÉÈ lÉ xÉ oÉëɼhÉÈ xÉÉrÉÑerÉÇ xÉÉsÉÉåirÉÇ cÉ
aÉcNûÌiÉ || rÉxrÉ iÉÑ ZÉsÉÑ cÉiuÉÉËUÇzÉiÉç xÉÇxMüÉUÉhÉÉÇ
LMüSåzÉÉåÅÌmÉ | A¹ÉuÉÉiqÉaÉÑhÉÉÈ xÉ oÉëɼhÉÈ xÉÉrÉÑerÉÇ
xÉÉsÉÉåYrÉÇ cÉ aÉcNûÌiÉ || This shows that more importance is to be paid to actual
transformation of character than to ritualistic Samskaras. The author of the Mahabharata
could not possibly say knowing well his own birth as well as the birth of his own father and
sages like Vasistha, Kavasha, Aitareya etc. that one who is born of low parentage cannot
become a Brahmana by transformation of character through self effort. It is seen in the
Bharata itself that the author is fully aware of this possibility when he says: eÉÉiÉÉå

60
urÉÉxÉÎxiÉ MæüuÉirÉÉïÈ µÉÉmÉÉYrÉÉxiÉÑ mÉUÉzÉUÈ |
aÉÍhÉiÉÉaÉpÉïxÉqpÉÔiÉÉå uÉÍxɹ¶É qÉWûÉqÉÑÌlÉÈ || oÉWûuÉÉåÅlrÉåÅÌmÉ
ÌuÉmÉëiÉiuÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉÉÈ rÉå mÉÔuÉïqÉ̲eÉÉÈ || iÉmÉxÉÉ oÉëɼhÉÉ
eÉÉiÉÉÈ xÉÇxMüÉUxiÉ§É MüÉUhÉqÉç | iÉ§É AËU¸zÉålÉÈ
MüÉæUurÉÈoÉëɼhrÉÇ xÉÇÍzÉiÉuÉëiÉÈ || iÉmÉxÉÉ qÉWûiÉÉ UÉeÉlÉç
mÉëÉmiÉuÉÉlÉç GÌwÉxÉiÉqÉ | ÍxÉlkÉѲÏmÉ¶É UÉeÉÌwÉïÈ SåuÉÉÌmɶÉ
qÉWûÉiÉmÉÈ || oÉëɼhrÉÇ sÉokÉuÉÉlÉç rÉ§É ÌuɵÉÉÍqɧÉxiÉjÉÉ qÉÑÌlÉÈ
|| etc. In fact in the very next chapter it is recorded how Vitahavya who was a king became a
Brahmana in that very birth through the grace of his Guru. So this chapter we are considering
now could not have been meant by the author to discredit himself and his statements
elsewhere. The emphasis, therefore, should be on the expression
AmÉëÉmiÉM×üiÉÉiqÉÍpÉÈ in Sl.28 of chap.27 and
SÒwmÉëÉmÉqÉÉM×üiÉÉiqÉÍpÉÈ in Sl.12 of chap.29. Even in chap.28, Sls. 14&15 it
is expressly stated that one could attain a higher status only if he conquers his real enemies-
Kama, Krodha etc. even if he is born of superior parentage. iÉSåuÉÇ zÉÉåMüWûwÉæï
iÉÑ MüÉqɲåwÉÉæ cÉ mÉѧÉMü | AÌiÉqÉÉlÉ AÌiÉuÉÉSÉæ cÉ mÉëÌuÉzÉåiÉå
̲eÉÉkÉqÉqÉç || iÉÉǵÉåiÉç zɧÉÔ eÉrÉÌiÉ zɧÉÔlÉç xÉ iÉSÉ AÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ
xɪÌiÉqÉç || If proper emphasis is put on these words of Indra it is clear that what Indra
means is that it is M×üiÉÉiqÉiuÉqÉç or the culture of mind and character and not birth nor
ascetic practices nor ritualistic Samskaras that makes one a real Brahmin. Nowhere in the
story is it said that Matanga became a M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ but only that he performed ascetic
practices without any effect on his conduct and character. On the other hand it is specially
said that the boon he begged of Indra was for Siddhis and name and fame which shows how
his character was untouched by his Tapas. Vide XXIX.22-23 rÉjÉÉMüÉqÉuÉÏWûÉUÏ
xrÉÉÇ MüÉqÉÃÌmÉ ÌuÉWû…¡ûqÉÈ | oÉ뼤ɧÉÉÌuÉUÉåkÉålÉ mÉÔeÉÉÇ cÉ
mÉëÉmlÉÑrÉÉqÉWûqÉç || rÉjÉÉ qÉqÉ A¤ÉrÉÉ MüÐÌiÉïÈ pÉuÉåiÉç | Indra was,
therefore, right in telling Matanga that he need not expect to become a Brahmin without any
improvement in his character and conduct which was the source of his being considered as a
non-brahmana. Vide also Indra’s words iÉrÉÉåÅjÉïÇ lÉÉÅÌiÉuÉiÉïiÉå iÉmÉxÉÉ
xÉuÉïjÉÉ lÉ pÉÌuÉwrÉÌiÉ || in XXVIII.5, XXVII.29. This story, therefore, must be taken
only as illustrating that it is only character and conduct that counts just as in the Satyakama
story whereas Satyakama was considered a Brahmana because of his frankness, guilelessness,
straight forwardness and eagerness for oÉë¼ÌuÉ±É although he was born of a maid
servant. Matanga who was born of a Brahmana woman is shown to be really a Chandala
because of his cruelty to animal and want of universal love which is characteristic of a
Brahmana. This is quite consistent with the views of all sane Acaryas like Apastamba and
other Smritikaras. Vide Apastamba Sutra AkÉqÉïcÉrÉïrÉÉ mÉÔuÉÉåï uÉhÉïÈ
eÉbÉlrÉÇ eÉbÉlrÉÇ uÉhÉïqÉÉmɱiÉå eÉÉÌiÉmÉËUuÉ×iÉÉæ || (Yajnavalkya
I.96 Bodhayana I.8.13&14 which we have already noted before). Manu says rÉÉå
AlÉkÉÏirÉ Ì²eÉÉå uÉåSÇ AlrÉ§É MÑüÂiÉå ´ÉqÉqÉç | xÉ eÉÏuɳÉåuÉ
zÉÔSìiuÉÇ AÉzÉÑ aÉcNûÌiÉ xÉÉluÉrÉÈ || This shows that change of Varna can take
place in this life itself. Cf also the statements of the Smritikaras that he who does not perform
xÉlkrÉuÉlSlÉ regularly becomes a Sudra in this life itself. xÉlkrÉÉWûÏlÉÈ
AzÉÑÍcÉÌlÉïirÉqÉlÉWïûxxÉuÉïMüqÉïxÉÑ xÉ zÉÔSìuÉiÉç oÉÌWûwMüÉrÉïÈ
xÉuÉïxqÉÉiÉç ̲eÉMüqÉïhÉÈ || Manu and Daksha eÉÏuÉqÉÉlÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç
zÉÔSìÈ qÉ×iÉÈ µÉÉ cÉ AÍpÉeÉÉrÉiÉå || If change of caste in this life itself is
admitted there is nothing imposible or wrong if we understand this story only as emphasizing
change of Varna in this life itself. In chap. 49 of the Anusasanaparva itself Bhisma himself
admits that a foundling belongs to the caste of the foster parents. It is only in consonance with

61
this that Karna was considered a Sudra although by parentage he was the son of Kunti, a
Kshatriya woman. qÉÉiÉÉÌmÉiÉ×pÉrÉÉÇ rÉÈ irÉ£üÈ mÉÍjÉ rÉÈ iÉÇ
mÉëMüsmÉrÉåiÉç | lÉ cÉÉÅxrÉ qÉÉiÉÉÌmÉiÉUÉæ ¥ÉÉrÉåiÉÉÇ xÉ ÌWû
M×ü̧ÉqÉÈ || AxuÉÉÍqÉMüxrÉ xuÉÉÍqÉiuÉÇ rÉÎxqÉlÉç xÉqmÉëÌiÉ sɤrÉiÉå |
rÉÉå uÉhÉïÈ mÉÉåwÉrÉåiÉç iÉÇ cÉ iɲhÉïxiÉxrÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå || AÉiqÉuÉiÉç
iÉxrÉ MÑüuÉÏïiÉç xÉÇxMüÉUÇ xuÉÉÍqÉuÉiÉç iÉjÉÉ | irÉ£üÉå
qÉÉiÉÉÌmÉiÉ×prÉÉÇ rÉÈ xÉ uÉhÉïÇ mÉëÌiÉmÉxrÉiÉå || iɪÉå§ÉoÉlkÉÑeÉÇ
iÉxrÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç xÉÇxMüÉUÇ AcrÉÑiÉ || This shows Bhisma, the narrator of the
story was aware of the possibility of the son of Sudra parents becoming Brahmanas if only
the parents had discarded the child and if he was brought up by Brahmin parents. It will be an
irony to contend that a child of Sudra parent if properly brought up by Brahmins cannot
become a Brahmin if his parentage is known though both the children have the benefit of the
same training and breeding in the same Brahmin family the only difference being the parents
of the one have been a little more merciful than the other. C.f Vanaparva 200 where
Markandeya condemns and proclaims the futility of mere ascetic practices without purity of
heart and holiness by which only high status can be attained and where the Rishi says that he
who has no feeling of kindness cannot be freed from sin, that real asceticism is always
accompanied by kindness and that hard-heartedness is the enemy of asceticism.
AÎalÉWûÉå§ÉÇ uÉlÉå uÉÉxÉÇ zÉUÏUmÉËUzÉÉåwÉhÉÇ | xÉuÉÉïhrÉåiÉÉÌlÉ
ÍqÉjrÉÉ xrÉÑÈ rÉÌS pÉÉuÉÉå lÉ ÌlÉqÉïsÉÈ || rÉå mÉÉmÉÉÌlÉ lÉ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ
qÉlÉÉåuÉÉ‚rÉMüqÉïoÉÑήÍpÉÈ | iÉå iÉmÉÎliÉ qÉWûÉiqÉÉlÉÈ lÉ zÉUÏUxrÉ
zÉÉåwÉhÉqÉç || lÉ ¥ÉÉÌiÉprÉÉå SrÉÉ rÉxrÉ zÉÑYsÉSåWûÉå ÌuÉMüsqÉwÉÈ
ÌWÇûxÉÉ xÉÉ iÉmÉxÉxiÉxrÉ lÉ AlÉÉÍzÉiuÉÇ iÉmÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÇ || ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ
MüqÉïhÉÉ uÉÉÅÌmÉ eÉUÉqÉUhÉqÉåuÉ cÉ urÉÉkÉrÉ¶É mÉëWûÏrÉliÉå
mÉëÉmrÉiÉå cÉ E¨ÉqÉÇ mÉSqÉç || 97 – 107. If Matanga’s Tapas is judged in the
light of Markandeya’s this view of Tapas we can easily understand how his ascetic practices
was not real ‘Tapas’ at all but was the Tamasic and Rakshasa variety of it as mentioned in
Gita XVII.4-6. It is only just that Indra told Matanga that that kind of Tapas which did not
result in purification of character cannot give him Brahminhood in that life itself. For
Brahminhood always involves benevolence towards all creatures, self-control, self-sacrifice,
freedom from desires etc as explained by Bhisma himself in Moksha Dharma of Santi Parva.
lÉ ¢ÑükrÉåiÉç lÉ mÉëWØûwrÉåiÉç cÉ qÉÉÌlÉiÉÉåÅqÉÉÌlÉiÉ¶É rÉÈ
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwuÉpÉrÉSÈ iÉÇ SåuÉÉ oÉëɼhÉÇ ÌuÉSÒÈ || eÉÏÌuÉiÉÇ rÉxrÉ
kÉqÉÉïjÉïÇ mÉUÉjÉïÇ rÉxrÉ eÉÏÌuÉiÉqÉç | AÌWûUɧÉÇ cÉUåiÉç MüÉÎliÉÇ
iÉÇ ... ÌuÉSÒÈ || etc. wherever, therefore, we see in the Mahabharata a statement that a
Sudra is not entitled to Yajna or the study of the Vedas it must be understood only in this
broad and liberal sense that uncultured and brutal men should first be cultured and tamed and
made human before they can be safely entrusted with the powers which they might otherwise
misuse. The word xÉÇxMüÉU should be understood as meaning only conduct and character
and eÉÉÌiÉ must be understood as this second birth in conduct and character which only can
be considered as giving him a human birth as no individual can be called a man unless he has
humanity. rÉÉåÌlÉ also should be taken only as meaning the source of Varna, viz.
uÉרÉqÉç etc. or the particular attributes which are said to go to make up that particular
Varna such as ‘Sama, Dama’ etc. for Brahmanas as these are the real causes or basis of
Brahminhood etc. It is only when he has cultured a particularly human character or interest in
Dharma that he can legitimately claim that he belongs to human species or eÉÉÌiÉ. C.f the
words of Mahabharata AÉWûUÌlÉSìÉ pÉrÉqÉæjÉÑlÉÇ cÉ xÉÉqÉÉlrÉqÉç LiÉiÉç
mÉzÉÑÍpÉlÉïUÉhÉÉqÉç | kÉqÉÉå ÌWû iÉåwÉÉqÉÍkÉMüÉå ÌuÉzÉåwÉÈ
kÉqÉåïhÉ WûÏlÉÉÈ mÉzÉÑÍpÉxxÉqÉÉlÉÉÈ || (‘Dharma’ – the special character and

62
attributes of man). From the physical stand point he may inherit from his parents only the
physical and biological characteristics. The Jiva that inhabits that body brings along with its
Sukshma Sarira which consists mÉëÉhÉqÉrÉ, qÉlÉÉåqÉrÉ and ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉqÉrÉ Koshas
all the previous Samskaras which it has earned in its previous births. These Samskaras must
be given opportunity to manifest themselves through training and education (That is social
heredity). This social heredity which individual imbibes from society has got the capacity to
put him in his proper place in the society. If he cooperates with society and takes advantage
of the opportunities given by his environment he can improve upon his previous Samskaras.
For this, self effort and AÍjÉïiuÉ & xÉÉqÉjrÉï are necessary. This xÉÉqÉjrÉï means the
co-operation of his Prarabdhakarma. One can improve only within the limits set by his
Prarabdhakarma that manifests itself in the form of the desire to learn and worship and the
readiness to place oneself under the direction and guidance of a Guru. This is the sign of
Sraddha and it is this Sraddha that entitles a man to education and enables him to take
advantage of the opportunities afforded by society. All our Sastras admit this capacity of man
to improve himself through self effort and when the Sastras and the Vedas prescribe various
rules and regulations they take for granted this freedom and capacity of man to adopt their
teachings. When Dharmas are prescribed even for the Sudra they tacitly admit that Sudra also
has got the freedom and capacity to improve himself. The relation between mÉÑÂwÉMüÉU
or self effort and SæuÉ or fate is clearly brought about by Bhishma himself in Anushasana
VI.7-22 rÉrÉÉ oÉÏeÉÇ ÌuÉlÉÉ ¤Éå§É EmiÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ ÌlÉwTüsÉqÉç | iÉjÉÉ
mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUåhÉ ÌuÉlÉÉ SæuÉÇ lÉ ÍxÉkrÉÌiÉ || ¤Éå§ÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUxiÉÑ
SæuÉÇ oÉÏeÉqÉÑSìÉWØûiÉqÉç | ¤Éå§ÉoÉÏeÉxÉqÉÉrÉÉåaÉÉiÉç iÉiÉÈ xÉxrÉÇ
xÉqÉ×krÉiÉå || MüqÉïhÉÈ TüsÉÌlÉuÉ×į̈ÉÇ xuÉrÉqÉzlÉÉÌiÉ MüÉUMüÈ
mÉëirɤÉÇ SØzrÉiÉå sÉÉåMåü M×üiÉxrÉÉÅmÉM×üiÉxrÉ cÉ || zÉÑpÉålÉ
MüqÉïhÉÉ xÉÉæZrÉÇ SÒÈZÉÇ mÉÉmÉålÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ | M×üiÉÇ TüsÉÌiÉ
xÉuÉï§É lÉÉÅM×üiÉÇ pÉÑerÉiÉå YuÉÍcÉiÉç || M×üiÉÏ xÉuÉï§É sÉpÉiÉå
mÉëÌiɸÉÇ pÉÉarÉxÉÇrÉÑiÉÉqÉç | AM×üiÉÏ sÉpÉiÉå pÉë¹È ¤ÉiÉå
¤ÉÉUÉuÉxÉåcÉlÉqÉç || iÉmÉxÉÉ ÃmÉxÉÉæpÉÉarÉÇ U¦ÉÉÌlÉ ÌuÉÌuÉkÉÉÌlÉ cÉ
| mÉëÉmrÉiÉå MüqÉïhÉÉ xÉuÉïÇ lÉ SæuÉÉiÉç AM×üiÉÉiqÉlÉÉ || (This is the
AM×üiÉÉiqÉiuÉqÉç referred to by Indra in the story) iÉjÉÉ xuÉaÉï¶É pÉÉåaÉzÉcÉ
ÌlÉ¸É rÉÉcÉ qÉlÉÏÌwÉiÉÉ | xÉuÉïÇ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUåhÉ M×üiÉålÉåWû
EmÉsÉprÉiÉå || erÉÉåiÉÏÇÌwÉ Ì§ÉSzÉÉ lÉÉaÉÉÈ rɤÉɶÉlSìÉÅMïüqÉÉÂiÉÉÈ
xÉuÉåï mÉÑÂwMüÉUåhÉ qÉÉlÉÑwrÉÉiÉç SåuÉiÉÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ || AjÉÉåï uÉÉ
ÍqɧÉuÉaÉÉåï uÉÉ LåµÉrÉïÇ uÉÉ MÑüsÉÉÎluÉiÉqÉç | ´É϶ÉÉÅÌmÉ SÒsÉïpÉÉ
pÉÉå£Çü iÉjÉæuÉ AM×üiÉMüqÉïÍpÉÈ || zÉÉæcÉålÉç sÉpÉiÉå ÌuÉmÉëÈ
¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÉå ÌuÉ¢üqÉåhÉ iÉÑ | uÉæzrÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUåhÉ zÉÔSìÈ zÉÑ
´ÉÔwÉÉ Í´ÉrÉqÉç || ´ÉÏ – worldly prosperity as well as spiritual virtues. (C.f
Bhagavatam ´ÉÏaÉïhÉÉ lÉæUmÉå¤ÉɱÉ) lÉ ASÉiÉÉUÇ pÉeÉlirÉjÉÉïÈ lÉ
YsÉÏoÉÇ lÉÉÅÌmÉ ÌlÉÎw¢ürÉqÉç | lÉ AMüqÉïzÉÏsÉÇ lÉ AzÉÔUÇ iÉjÉÉ lÉæuÉ
AiÉmÉÎxuÉlÉqÉç || rÉålÉ cÉåiÉç MüqÉïTüsÉÇ lÉ xrÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïqÉåuÉ ATüsÉÇ
pÉuÉåiÉç | sÉÉåMüÉå SæuÉÇ xÉqÉÉsɤrÉ ESÉxÉÏlÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç lÉlÉÑ ||)
(c.f Gita III. EixÉÏSårÉÑËUqÉå sÉÉåMüÉÈ etc.) AM×üiuÉÉ qÉÉlÉÑwÉÇ MüqÉï
(that self effort for improvement for which only man is capable of) rÉÉå
SæuÉqÉlÉÑuÉiÉïiÉå | uÉ×jÉÉ ´ÉÉqrÉÌiÉ xÉÇmÉëÉmrÉ mÉÌiÉÇ YsÉÏoÉÍqÉuÉ
A…¡ûlÉÉ || M×üiÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUxiÉÑ SæuÉqÉåuÉÉÅlÉÑuÉiÉïiÉå | lÉ
SæuÉqÉM×üiÉå ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç SÉiÉÑqÉWïûÌiÉ || See also sl 43
rÉjÉÉÅÎalÉÈ mÉuÉlÉÉå®iÉÈ xÉÑxÉÔ¤qÉÉåÅÌmÉ qÉWûÉlÉç pÉuÉåiÉç | iÉjÉÉ
MüqÉïxÉqÉÉrÉÑ£Çü SæuÉÇ xÉÉkÉÑ ÌuÉuÉkÉïiÉå || rÉjÉÉ iÉæsɤÉrÉÉiÉç
SÏmÉÈ mɾûÉxÉqÉÑmÉaÉcNûÌiÉ | iÉjÉÉ MüqÉï¤ÉrÉÉiÉç SæuÉÇ

63
mÉë¾ûÉxÉqÉÑmÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || (The whole chapter may be read). Even in Santi 296
Bhisma records the conversation between Janaka and Parasara where in reply to Janaka’s
question as to how difference in caste could have taken place when all people are really born
of Brahmana Parashara says that the offspring procreated is none else than the procreator
himself and that it is only in consequence of a falling away from Tapas that this distribution
into four orders took place. eÉlÉMü EuÉÉcÉ – uÉhÉÉåï ÌuÉzÉåwÉuÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ
qÉWûwÉåï MåülÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå | LiÉÌScNûÉqrÉWÇû ¥ÉÉiÉÑÇ iÉiÉç oÉëÔÌWû
uÉSiÉÉÇ uÉU || rÉSåiÉiÉç eÉÉrÉiÉåÅmÉirÉÇ xÉ LuÉÉÅrÉÍqÉÌiÉ ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ |
MüjÉÇ oÉëɼhÉiÉÉå eÉÉiÉÉå ÌuÉzÉåwÉaÉëWûhÉÇ aÉiÉÈ || mÉUÉzÉU
EuÉÉcÉ | LuÉqÉåiÉiÉç qÉWûÉUÉeÉç rÉålÉ eÉÉiÉÈ xÉ LuÉ xÉÈ | iÉmÉxÉxiÉÑ
AmÉMüwÉåïhÉ eÉÉÌiÉaÉëWûhÉiÉÉÇ aÉiÉÈ || xÉѤÉå§ÉÉŠ xÉÑoÉÏeÉÉŠ
mÉÑhrÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ xÉqpÉuÉÈ | AiÉÉåÅlrÉiÉUiÉÉå WûÏlÉÉiÉç AuÉUÉå lÉÉqÉç
eÉÉrÉiÉå || Here ¤Éå§É and oÉÏeÉ must be understood in the sense of mÉÉæÂwÉ and
SæuÉ as explained in the previous passage in Anusasana VI. It is an admission of the
important place of self effort and the influence of environment and social heridity in the
present make up of a man along with his previous Samskara. Both the Samkaras earned in the
previous birth and brought with him by the Jiva when he enters a new body that is given by
the parents and the Samskaras that he earns by self effort and the influence of environment
can help the Jiva to make or mar its future. A good Samskara brought from the previous life
may be spoilt by present effort in a wrong direction and it is only because of this that higher
castes can fall into lower castes or become mÉÌiÉiÉÉ. Similarly the bad Samskaras brought
from a previous birth may be improved upon by self effort in the proper direction this birth. A
son who is born of a Brahmana can, therefore, says Parasara, becomes a Kshatriya or Vaisya
etc. by difficiency in Tapas. This view agrees exactly with the views of Bhrigu expressed to
Bharadvaja already noted above. To Janaka’s further question as to how could man devoted
to Tapas attain to the status of Brahmanas, Parasara replies that the status of highsouled
persons that succeed in the cleansing their souls by Tapas are not affected by their low births
and he quotes the names of innumerable Rishis who have become Brahmanas though born of
low birth through their Papas, eÉlÉMü EuÉÉcÉ _ oÉë¼hÉæMåülÉ eÉÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ
lÉÉlÉÉiuÉÇ aÉÉå§ÉUÈ MüjÉqÉç | oÉëWÕûÌlÉ CWû sÉÉåMåü uÉæ
aÉÉå§ÉÉÍhÉ qÉÑÌlÉxɨÉqÉç || rÉ§É iÉ§É MüjÉÇ eÉÉiÉÉÈ zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ
xÉqÉÑimɳÉÉÈ ÌuÉrÉÉålÉÉæ cÉ iÉjÉÉÅmÉUå || mÉUÉzÉU EuÉÉcÉ - UÉeÉlÉç
LiÉ°uÉåiÉç aÉëÉ½Ç AmÉM×ü¹ålÉ eÉlqÉlÉÉ | qÉWûÉiqÉlÉÉÇ xÉqÉÑimĘ́ÉÈ
iÉmÉxÉÉ pÉÉÌuÉiÉÉiqÉlÉÉqÉç || EimÉɱ mÉѧÉÉlÉç qÉÑlÉrÉÉå lÉ×mÉiÉå
rÉ§É iÉ§É Wû | xuÉælÉæuÉ iÉmÉxÉÉ iÉåwÉÉÇ GÌwÉiuÉÇ ÌuÉSkÉÑÈ mÉÑlÉÈ
|| ... LiÉå xuÉÉÇ mÉëM×üÌiÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉÉÈ | uÉæSåWû iÉmÉxÉ AÉ´ÉrÉÉiÉç
| mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉ uÉåSÌuÉSÉå SqÉålÉ iÉmÉxÉæuÉ ÌWû || (In this list Matanga is one)
Among the common duties of all castes mentioned by Parasara is included Atmajnanam also
which shows that the Sudra is entitled to Atmajnanam. AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ ÌiÉÌiɤÉÉ cÉ
kÉqÉÉï xÉÉkÉÉUhÉÉ lÉ×mÉ || He then proceeds to point out how one can raise himself
up in the scale of Varna as well as fall down from it by his own effort asnd with the help of
Satsanga and through SÒxxÉ…¡û in this life itself. ÌuÉMüqÉÉïuÉÎxjÉiÉÉÈ uÉhÉÉïÈ
mÉiÉliÉå lÉ×mÉiÉå §ÉrÉÈ | E³ÉqÉÎliÉ rÉjÉÉ xÉliÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ CWû
xuÉMüqÉïxÉÑ || lÉ cÉÉÅÌmÉ zÉÔSìÈ mÉiÉiÉÏÌiÉ ÌlɶÉrÉÈ lÉ cÉÉÅÌmÉ
xÉÇxMüÉUÍqÉWûÉÅWïûiÉÏÌiÉ uÉÉ | ´ÉÑÌiÉmÉëuÉרÉÇ lÉ cÉÉxrÉ kÉqÉïÇ
AÉmlÉÑiÉå lÉ cÉÉÅxrÉ kÉqÉåï mÉëÌiÉwÉåkÉlÉÇ M×üiÉqÉç || This Sloka
reminds us of Manu X.126 already noted above and must be understood in exactly the same
sense. Parasara then says how good Brahmanas well versed in the teachings of the Srutis
honour a Sudra who has thus raised himself with the help of Satsanga or Sadhuseva as

64
Brahma himself and how he (Parasara) himself honours such a man as Vishnu, uÉæSåWû
MÇü (oÉë¼) zÉÔSìqÉÑSÉWûUÎliÉ Ì²eÉÉÈ qÉWûÉUÉeÉ ´ÉÑiÉÉåmÉmɳÉÉÈ |
AWÇû ÌWû mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ lÉUålSìÈ SåuÉÇ ÌuɵÉxrÉ ÌuÉwhÉÑÇ eÉaÉiÉÈ
mÉëkÉÉlÉqÉç || xÉiÉÉÇ uÉרÉqÉÍkɹÉrÉÌlÉ WûÏlÉÉÈ EήkÉÏwÉïuÉÈ |
qÉl§ÉuÉeÉïÇ lÉ SÒzÉçÈrÉÎliÉ MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉÈ mÉÉæ̹MüÐÈ Ì¢ürÉÉÈ || This
Sloka again reminds us of Manu X.127 (vide notes under that Sloka) qÉl§ÉuÉeÉïqÉç here
also means only that he need not utter the Mantras as in the case of children belonging to
higher castes when their pre-upanayana Samskaras are done and the same may be done as in
the case of such children by the Brahmanas whom these Sudras serve.

rÉjÉÉ rÉjÉÉ ÌWû xɲبÉqÉÉsÉqoÉÌiÉ CiÉUå eÉlÉÉÈ |

iÉjÉÉ iÉjÉÉ xÉÑZÉÇ mÉëÉmrÉcÉ CWû cÉ qÉÉåSiÉå ||

These Slokas clearly show that even persons in the lowest order may practise the observances
of the higher castes like Yajna and study and get all the benefits from such performance. This
is quite consistent with what Parasara has already said in 295.14 iÉmÉÈ xÉuÉïaÉiÉÇ
iÉÉiÉ WûÏlÉxrÉÉÅÌmÉ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉxrÉ SÉliÉxrÉ
xuÉaÉïqÉÉaÉïmÉëuÉiÉïMüqÉç || It is also consistent with what he has said in 293.3-5
where he says that the purpose of Sudras associating with the higher castes as his Dharma is
only to imbibe from their masters all those higher qualities which made them what they are,
just as a piece of white cloth assumes the colour with which it is dyed. xÉΰxiÉÑ xÉ
xÉÇxÉaÉïÈ zÉÉåoÉiÉå kÉqÉïSÍzÉïÍpÉÈ | ÌlÉirÉÇ xÉuÉÉïxiuÉuÉxjÉÉxÉÑ lÉ
AÍxÉÎ°È CÌiÉ qÉå qÉÌiÉÈ || rÉjÉÉ ESrÉÌaÉUÉæ SìurÉÇ xÉͳÉMüwÉåïhÉ
SÏmrÉiÉå | iÉjÉÉ xÉiÉç xÉͳÉMüwÉåïhÉ WûÏlÉuÉhÉÉåïÅÌmÉ SÏmrÉiÉå ||
rÉÉSØzÉålÉ ÌWû uÉhÉåïlÉ pÉÉurÉiÉå zÉÑYsÉqoÉUqÉç | iÉÉSØzÉÇ MÑüÂiÉå
ÃmÉqÉåiÉSåuÉqÉuÉåÌWû qÉå ||

We thus see how in various parts of the Mahabharata some of the great sages who had raised
themselves up from the lower rungs of the social order through their own self effort and
Satsanga and Sadhuseva and Sraddha have declared in unequivocal terms the possibility of
others also acquiring the same high Brahmana status in this very life itself and thus qualify
themselves for vedic study and Yajna by their conduct and character. This idea is clearly
stated by Vyasa himself when he exports his first disciples to propagate the Veda and its
teachings among all the people without distinction of caste, creed, colour or sex. The only
condition for imparting the Veda that Vyasa insists upon is that they should ascertain whether
the aspirant for Vedic study has the necessary qualification in respect of conduct and
character and capacity for understanding. The story is mentioned in Santi 327. After learning
the Vedas from Vyasa his immediate disciples pray to the Guru for a boon that nobody else
should be taught the Vedas as they have been done as they desired to be superior toeverybody
else in this respect. Sensing the selfishness behind their request the generous Vyasa tells them
that he had taught the Vedas to them with the only intention that they may propagate it
among all people for the welfare of the whole world and exorts them to teach the Vedas to
one and all. EcÉÑÈ iÉå xÉÌWûiÉÉ UÉeÉlÉç CSÇ uÉcÉlÉqÉѨÉqÉqÉç | rÉÌS
mÉëÏiÉÈ EmÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉå kÉlrÉÉÈ xqÉÈ qÉÑÌlÉxɨÉqÉç || MüÉǤÉÉqÉÈ
uÉrÉÇ xÉuÉåï uÉUÇ SÉiÉÑÇ qÉWûÌwÉïhÉÉ | wÉ¸È ÍzÉwrÉÉå lÉ iÉå ZrÉÉÌiÉÇ
aÉcNåûS§É mÉëxÉÏS lÉÈ || cÉiuÉÉUxiÉå uÉrÉÇ ÍzÉwrÉÉÈ aÉÑÂmÉѧɶÉ
mÉgcÉqÉÈ | CWû uÉåSÉÈ mÉëÌiɸåUlÉç LwÉ lÉÈ MüÉÎXç¤ÉiÉÉå uÉUÈ ||
ÍzÉwrÉÉhÉÉÇ uÉcÉlÉÇ ´ÉÑiuÉÉ urÉÉxÉÉå uÉåSÉjÉïiÉiuÉÌuÉiÉç |

65
mÉUÉzÉUÉÅÅiqÉeÉÉå kÉÏqÉÉlÉç mÉUsÉÉåMüÉjÉïÍcÉliÉMüÈ ||
uÉåSÉjÉïiÉiuÉÌuÉiÉç suggests that he is the most qualified to expand the view of the
Vedas in this respect. If Vyasa does not know the spirit of the Vedas who can expound it
better. mÉUÉzÉUÉiqÉeÉ suggests how could it be otherwise when he himself was only the
son of a fisher woman who has risen up to his present position of Vedic Rishi in this birth
itself in spite of his low birth. Even his father Parasara being only the son of a Chandali
woman. Vide eÉÉiÉÉå urÉÉxÉxiÉÑ MæüuÉirÉÉïÈ µÉmÉÉYrÉÉ iÉÑ mÉUÉzÉUÈ |
kÉÏqÉÉlÉç shows that there is nothing to prohibit anybody from studying the Vedas
provided he has the intellectual capacity for the same. Vyasa could learn the Vedas because
he was qualified and his birth had nothing to do with his Buddhi.
mÉUsÉÉåMüÉjÉïÍcÉliÉMüÈ means sÉÉåMüxrÉ mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉjÉïÍcÉliÉMüÈ –
one who always thought about the spiritual welfare of the whole world – not merely from the
social stand point of mere tradition and custom but from that of the mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉjÉï
or Moksha. His one purpose was to help everybody to attain Moksha. How could such a man
grant the selfish prayer of the Sishyas who showed themselves by their request to have not in
the least understood the spirit of the Vedas by heart. It was the duty of the Guru to correct
the Sishyas and to explain to them what the true spirit of Vedas is. Therefore Vyasa tells
them: EuÉÉcÉ ÍzÉwrÉÉlÉ zÉqÉÉïiqÉÉ kÉqrÉïÇ lÉæ´ÉårÉxÉÇ uÉcÉÈ |
oÉëɼhÉÉrÉ xÉSÉ SårÉÇ oÉë¼zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉuÉå iÉjÉÉ | oÉë¼sÉÉåMåü
ÌlÉuÉÉxÉÇ rÉÉå ´ÉÑuÉÇ xÉqÉÍpÉMüÉXç¤ÉiÉå || Three classes of people are shown
in this Sloka as entitled to the benefit of the study of the Vedas – (1) a Brahmin by birth, (2)
he who is anxious to study the Vedas (3) he who is anxious to realize God and attain
Brahmaloka. pÉaÉuÉliÉÉå oÉWÒûsÉÉÈ xÉliÉÑ uÉåSÉå ÌuÉxiÉÉrÉïiÉÉqÉrÉqÉç |
lÉ AÍzÉwrÉå xÉqmÉëSÉiÉurÉÉå lÉ AuÉëiÉå lÉ AM×üiÉÉiqÉÌlÉ || LAiÉå
ÍzÉwrÉaÉÑhÉÉÈ xÉuÉåï ÌuÉ¥ÉiÉurÉÉ rÉjÉÉjÉïiÉÈ | lÉ AmÉUÏͤÉiÉcÉÉËU§Éå
ÌuÉ±É SårÉÉ MüjÉÉgcÉlÉ || rÉjÉÉ ÌWû MülÉMÇü zÉÑ®Ç
iÉÉmÉcNåûSÌlÉMüwÉåïhÉæÈ | mÉUϤÉåiÉ iÉjÉÉ ÍzÉwrÉÉlÉç D¤ÉåiÉç
MÑüsÉaÉÑhÉÉÌSÍpÉÈ || These verses show what qualifications Vyasa expects of an
aspirant of the study of the Vedas. These qualifications are expected of all aspirants to
whatever caste they may belong by birth. The first qualification is that he should be ready to
place himself unreservedly under the Guru and be prepared to obey all his orders. The word
ÍzÉwrÉ comes from the root zÉÉxÉç. The Sishya must be interested in the Sastra
scriptures, Sasta (zÉÉxiÉÉ) (the real teacher or master inside himself i.e God, the
Antaryamin.) c.f AliÉzzÉUÏUå zÉÉxiÉÉ eÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ xÉuÉÉïiqÉÉ - Yajurveda and the
human guru as ther personification and representative of both the above i.e the Sishya must
be ready to obey and act up to injunctions of his Guru as if the Guru is God Himself,
provided the words of the Guru do not go against the Sastras but are consistent with them.
Vide Apastamba AÉcÉÉrÉÉïkÉÏlÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç AlrÉ§É mÉiÉlÉÏrÉåprÉÈ lÉ
xÉqÉÉSåzÉÉå ÌuɱiÉå || Bodhayana xÉuÉï§É
AmÉëÌiÉWûiÉaÉÑÂuÉÉYrÉÉåÅlrÉ§É mÉÉiÉMüÉiÉç ||

Also Prahalad’s words in Bhag. VII.6 aÉÑ E£üqÉÌmÉ lÉ aÉëɽÇ

rÉSlÉjÉåïÅjÉïMüsmÉlÉqÉç | rÉSÒYirÉÉ lÉ mÉëoÉÑkrÉåiÉ
xÉÑmiÉxiuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÌlÉSìrÉÉ || lÉ ´É®krÉÉiÉç qÉiÉÇ iÉxrÉ
rÉjÉÉÅkÉÉåÅlkÉlÉÉrÉMüÈ ||

M.bh.Vana Parva 52-53 Udyoga 179.24, Santi 57.7 &40.48. RamayanaII.21.13

aÉÑUÉåUmrÉuÉÍsÉmiÉxrÉ MüÉrÉÉïMüÉrÉïqÉeÉÉlÉiÉÈ |
EimÉjÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉxrÉ lrÉÉrrÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ zÉÉxÉlÉqÉç ||

66
See also Shanti 55.16 xÉqÉrÉirÉÉÌaÉlÉÉå sÉÑokÉÉlÉç aÉÑÃlÉÉÌmÉ cÉ MåüzÉuÉ
| ÌlÉWûÎliÉ xÉqÉUå mÉÉmÉÉlÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÈ xÉ ÌWû kÉqÉïÌuÉiÉç ||
c.f also Manu VIII.335 Shanti 121.60 ÌmÉiÉÉcÉÉrÉïÈ xÉÑWØûlqÉÉiÉÉ pÉÉrÉÉï
mÉѧÉÈ mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÈ | lÉ AShQûrÉÉå lÉÉqÉ UÉ¥ÉÈ AÎxiÉ rÉÈ xuÉkÉqÉåï
lÉ ÌiɹÌiÉ ||

The ‘Gunas’ of the Sishya are thus enumerated in various texts.

AÉÎxiÉMüÉå kÉqÉïzÉÏsÉÉ¶É uÉæwhÉuÉÈ zÉÑÍcÉÈ | aÉqpÉÏU¶ÉiÉÑUÉå zÉÏUÈ
ÍzÉwrÉ CirÉÍpÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || mÉgcÉUÉ§É || The Satvata Samhita says zÉUÏUÇ
uÉxÉÑÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ uÉÉxÉÈ MüqÉïaÉÑhÉÉlÉxÉÔlÉç | aÉÑuÉïjÉïÇ kÉÉUrÉåiÉç
rÉxiÉÑ xÉ ÍzÉwrÉÉå lÉ CiÉUÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || Padmapurana, Uttarakanda ch XXV.
rÉxiuÉÉcÉÉrÉïmÉUÉkÉÏlÉÈ iɲÉYrÉÇ zÉÉxrÉiÉå WØûÌS | zÉÉxÉlÉå
ÎxjÉUuÉ×ÌiÉ¶É ÍzÉwrÉÈ xÉΰÂSÉWØûiÉÈ || The Diksha Tattva says uÉÉXèûqÉlÉÈ
MüÉrÉuÉxÉÑÍpÉÈ aÉÑÂzÉÑ´ÉÔwÉhÉå UiÉÈ | LiÉÉSØzÉaÉÑhÉÉåmÉåiÉÈ
ÍzÉwrÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ lÉÉUS || SåuÉiÉÉcÉÉrÉï zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉÇ
qÉlÉÉåuÉÉMçüMüÉrÉMüqÉïÍpÉÈ | zÉÑ®pÉÉuÉÉå qÉWûÉåixÉÉWûÉå
oÉÉå®É ÍzÉwrÉ ESÉWØûiÉÈ || zÉÉliÉÉå ÌuÉlÉÏiÉÈ zÉÑ®ÉiqÉÉ ´É®ÉuÉÉlÉç
kÉÉUhɤÉqÉÈ | xÉqÉjÉï¶É MÑüsÉÏlÉ¶É mÉëÉ¥ÉÈ xÉŠËUiÉÉå uÉëiÉÏ ||
LuÉqÉÉÌSaÉÑhÉærÉÑï£üÈ ÍzÉwrÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ lÉÉÅlrÉjÉÉ || Vedantadeshika
defines Sishya in its Nyasavimshati thus: xɯÒÎ®È xÉÉkÉÑxÉåuÉÏ
xÉqÉÑÍcÉiÉcÉËUiÉÈ iÉiuÉoÉÉåkÉÉÍpÉsÉÉwÉÏ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÑÈ irÉ£üqÉÉlÉÈ
mÉëÍhÉmÉiÉlÉmÉUÈ mÉëzlÉMüÉsÉmÉëiÉϤÉÈ zÉÉliÉÉå SÉliÉÈ AlÉxÉÔrÉÈ
zÉUhÉÇ EmÉaÉiÉÈ zÉÉx§ÉÌuɵÉÉxÉzÉÉqÉÏ ÍzÉwrÉÈ mÉëÉmiÉÈ mÉUϤÉÉÇ
M×üiÉÌuÉSÍpÉqÉiÉÇ iɨuÉiÉÈ ÍzɤÉhÉÏrÉÈ || c.f also the qualifications of Sishya
given in the Gita, Bhagavatam etc. Sankara gives the qualifications of an Adhikari thus:
qÉåkÉÉuÉÏ mÉÑÂwÉÉå ÌuɲÉlÉç EWûÉmÉÉåWûÌuÉcɤÉhÉÈ | AÍkÉMüÉUÏ
AÉiqÉÌuɱÉrÉÉÇ E£üsɤÉhÉsÉͤÉiÉÈ || ÌuÉuÉåÌMülÉÉå ÌuÉU£üxrÉ
zÉqÉÉÌSaÉÑhÉzÉÉÍsÉlÉÈ | qÉÑqÉѤÉÉåUåuÉ oÉë¼ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÉ rÉÉåarÉiÉÉ
qÉiÉÉ || - Vivekachudamani. Nirukta II.4 says AxÉÔrÉMüÉrÉ AlÉ×eÉuÉåÅrÉiÉÉrÉ
lÉ qÉÉ oÉëÔrÉÉÈ | uÉÏrÉïuÉiÉÏ iÉjÉÉ xrÉÉÇ rÉqÉåuÉ ÌuɱÉÈ
zÉÑÍcÉqÉmÉëqɨÉÇ qÉåkÉÉÌuÉlÉÇ oÉë¼cÉrÉÉåïmÉmɳÉÇ rÉxiÉålÉ uÉÉ
SìÓ½åiÉç MüiÉqɶÉlÉÉÅÅWû iÉxqÉæ qÉÉ oÉëÔrÉÉÈ ÌlÉÍkÉmÉÉrÉ oÉë¼lÉç
||

Manu VIII.350 aÉÑÂÇ uÉÉ oÉÉsÉuÉ×®Éæ uÉÉ oÉëɼhÉÉå uÉÉ oÉWÒû

´ÉÑiÉqÉç | AÉiÉiÉÉÌrÉlÉqÉÉrÉÉliÉÇ WûlrÉÉSåuÉÉÅÌuÉcÉÉUrÉlÉç || See also

67
Udyoga 33.79 wÉÌQûqÉÉlÉç mÉÑÂwÉÉå eɽÉiÉç ÍpɳÉÉÇ lÉÉuÉÍqÉuÉÉqpÉÍxÉ
| AmÉëuÉ£üÉUqÉÉcÉÉrÉïÇ AlÉkÉÏrÉÉlÉÇ GÎiuÉeÉqÉç ||

These words are given as the words of ‘Ìuɱɒ personified to Brahman as the Guru. In these
words she request God the Guru not to make a gift of her to persons who are full of enemity,
who are not free from guile and whose minds are not controlled but to give her only to one
who is known to be pure in mind, whose mind is not intoxicated with sensual pleasure and
desire for them who has sufficient intelligence to understand them and who is practising
Brahmacharya and Ahimsa and who is capable of protecting her as a treasure. Manu says :
AÉcÉÉrÉïmÉÑiÉÈ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÑÈ ¥ÉÉlÉSÉå kÉÉÍqÉïMüxzÉÑÍcÉÈ AÉmiÉÈ
zÉ£üÉå AjÉïSÈ xÉÉkÉÑÈ xuÉÈ AkrÉÉmrÉÉÈ SzÉkÉqÉïiÉÈ || kÉqÉÉïjÉÉæï
rÉ§É lÉ xrÉÉiÉÉÇ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ uÉÉÅÌmÉ iÉ̲kÉÉ iÉ§É ÌuÉ±É lÉ uÉ£üurÉÉ
zÉÑpÉÇ oÉÏeÉÍqÉuÉ EwÉUå || ÌuɱrÉæuÉ xÉqÉÇ MüÉqÉÇ qÉiÉïurÉÇ
oÉë¼uÉÉÌSlÉÉ | AÉmɱÌmÉ ÌWû bÉÉåUÉrÉÉÇ lÉ iÉÑ LlÉÉÇ DËUhÉå
uÉmÉåiÉç || ÌuÉ±É oÉëɼhÉqÉåirÉ AÉWû zÉåuÉÍkÉÈ iÉå AÎxqÉ U¤É
qÉÉqÉç | AxÉÔrÉMüÉrÉ qÉÉÇ qÉÉ SÉÈ iÉjÉÉ xrÉÉÇ uÉÏrÉïuɨÉqÉÉ ||
rÉqÉåuÉ iÉÑ zÉÑÍcÉÇ ÌuɱÉÇ ÌlÉrÉiÉoÉë¼cÉÉËUhÉqÉç | iÉxqÉæ qÉÉÇ
oÉëÔÌWû ÌuÉmÉëÉrÉ ÌlÉÍkÉmÉÉrÉ AmÉëqÉÉÌSlÉå || The last two Slokas are an
explanation of the Nirukta passage quoted above. ÌuÉmÉë here does not mean Brahmana
because in that case even the other Traivarnikas will not have any right for vedic study which
is against all Smritis and Srutis. The word must be understood only as meaning what is
understood by the word qÉåkÉÉuÉÏ as is explained by Sayana in his commentary on Rg
V.X.112.9 & X.40.14.

The next qualification is that he should not be an AuÉëiÉ | uÉëiÉ comes from the root
uÉ×, to choose, from which the word Varnas also is derived. uÉëiÉ means all those
exercises which train and strengthen the will power such helps him to carry through to its
legitimate end any work or action which he has chosen or undertaken for oneself. uÉëiÉ
may be positive or negative, mÉëuÉ×ÌiÉÃmÉ AÉåUç ÌlÉuÉ×ÌiÉÃmÉ || The Nirukta
explains the word thus. uÉëiÉÍqÉÌiÉ MüqÉïlÉÉqÉç uÉ×hÉÉåÌiÉ + CÌiÉ xÉiÉÈ |
CSqÉÌmÉ CiÉUiÉç uÉëiÉÇ LiÉxqÉÉSåuÉ ÌlÉuÉ×ÌiÉMüqÉï uÉÉUrÉiÉÏÌiÉ xÉiÉÈ ||
According to the first meaning Vrata means a rite or Karma, according to the second it is of
the nature of ÌlÉuÉ×ÌiÉ or renunciation. Putting the two meanings together we may consider
that exercise as ‘Vrata’ which includes the positive as well as the negative aspect, i.e that
activity which has its aim in the renunciation of Kama, Krodha etc. ‘Avrat’, therefore, means
one who has no ‘Vrat’ in this sense i.e one who has not got the will power or trained his will
power through exercise which would enable him to complete without a break down in the
middle all spiritual exercises undertaken voluntarily on the basis of the teachings of the
Rishis. This qualification emphasizes that vedic study is not for the mere pleasure of studying
and purposeless. As a result of the study he should understand what Sadhanas he has to do for
self realistion and choose for himself those Sadhanas for which he is fit by his Adhikara and
then practice it with determination and will power fully to the very end as directed by the
scriptures. To get this capacity he must exercise himself under the guidance of his Guru and
in obedience to his orders as a preliminary step to the study of the Vedas. It is only one who
has undergone such preliminary discipline that can benefit by vedic study. So Vyasa insists
that Veda should not be taught to one who is an AuÉëiÉ. It is interesting to note in this
connection how the same word AuÉëiÉ is used in the Vedas themselves in relation to
SxrÉÑ or SÉxÉ who are supposed to be identical with Sudras Vide Rg V I.51.8 where the
SxrÉÑ is described as AuÉëiÉ as distinct from Barhishaman. Also Rg. V VII.6.3 where the

68
Dasyus are called A¢üiÉÑ, aÉëÍjÉlÉÈ, qÉ×kÉëuÉÉcÉÈ, mÉÍhÉ, ArÉ¥É, etc. Vide
also Tai. Brahmana I.2.6 where the Sudra is described as AxÉÑU and Tai. Samhita IV.3.11.1
where Dasyus are called AxÉÑU. The word SxrÉÑ itself means one who is an enemy of
society and morality. It was such a man who was kept at arms length lest he should vitiate
Aryan culture and society and had to be fought and conquered just as a policeman has to
bring round a recalcitrant member of the society even by so force if necessary. The
opposition of Aryans to Dasyus must be understood only in this sense and not in the sense of
conquest and exploitation vide also Rg V I.7.5.3, VI.14.3 where also Dasyus are called
AuÉëiÉ. It would thus be seen that only those who are AuÉëiÉÉs and who are Dasyus that
should not be taught and this only in their own interests as well as in the interests of society.
It is only because, if power is placed in the hands of people who do not know how to use it, it
may injure them as well as others, as when a child is taught how to use a knife or a gun. The
various stories of Suras doing Tapas and of vicious kings performing Yajnas for self
aggrandizement and exploitation of others are illustrations in point. When these Dasyus
surrender themselves to the cultured to be properly disciplined they are to be given exercises
in selfless public service. Those who thus choose to train themselves by genuine selfless
public service under the guidance of qualified Gurus are called Dasas. Thus aspirants for
higher culture must first become Dasas. Where these Dasas develop sufficient culture and
become very anxious for spiritual regeneration of themselves through higher Vedic Sadhanas
and become sincerely sorry if they are refused such highs Vedic study, that is to say, when
they have developed sufficient capacity and desire for higher vedic culture they are fit to be
called Sudras. Such Sudras are fit to be instructed and taught the Vedas as they have properly
qualified themselves. Such choice of higher spiritual culture in preference to the life of
Tamas and Rajas makes them one of the uÉhÉïs as uÉhÉï is defined by Nirukta. According
to Nirukta the word Varna is derived from the same root uÉ× from which the word ‘Vrata’
comes. uÉhÉÉïÈ uÉËUiÉÑÇ AWûÉïÈ aÉÑhÉMüqÉÉïÍhÉ cÉ SØ¹É rÉjÉÉ rÉÉåarÉÇ
ÌuÉërÉliÉå rÉå iÉå uÉhÉÉïÈ || Varnas are those who are capable of choosing for
themselves naturally or by training a life of spiritual culture and who are accepted by
qualified teachers as fit for vedic study and culture on the basis of conduct and character.
Thus all those who are Avratas are outside the pale of uÉhÉï, whatever their parentage may
be according to this definition of uÉhÉï. Vyasa thus in his exhortation to his disciples only
insists upon this qualification that they should be Savratas and not Avratas and does not
prohibit them from teaching Vedas to all Savratas and who come within the pale of uÉhÉï
thereby. That is why we find he specifically mentions later on that all the four Varnas may be
instructed in the Vedas. When, therefore, we find in some of the Brahmana texts some
interdict on the Vedas being taught to Sudras it is those who are Avratas that are to be
understood as referred to in such passages in the light of Brahmana texts themselves which
characterize the Sudras as AxÉÑrÉï, SxrÉÑ, AuÉëiÉ, etc. Vide also Tai. Brahmana
III.2.3.9 which speaks of Sudra as having been born of AxÉiÉç | AxÉiÉÉå uÉ LwÉ
xÉqpÉÔiÉÈ rÉiÉç zÉÔSìÈ | A Sudra is one who is born of AxÉiÉç. Here AxÉiÉç is to
be understood in the sense of definition of AxÉiÉç in Gita XVII AxÉÌSirÉÑcrÉiÉå
mÉÉjÉï lÉ cÉ iÉiÉç mÉëåirÉ lÉÉå CWû |

The next qualification is that he should be a M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ as Vyasa says that Veda should
not be given to one who is an AM×üiÉÉiqÉÉ. The word M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ means one whose
mind has been properly cultured. Whereas ‘Avrata’ suggests the necessity of previous
training and disciplinary exercises. M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ refers to the result of such training. Mere
external exercises without internal transformation of character will not be sufficient to qualify
one for Vedic study. That is why M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ is mentioned as a separate qualification. It is

69
this M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ that is referred to as a necessary qualification in all the previous stories
we have referred to already. It is because of the lack of this qualification that Matanga was
not considered a Brahmana by Indra inspite of the fact that he did Tapas for so many years.
Therefore, Vyasa lays it down as the foremost preliminary duty of a teacher to test the
qualifications of the aspirant before teaching him the Vedas and to make him properly
qualified before he is actually taught through proper disciplinary exercises. ‘lÉ AmÉUÏͤÉiÉ
cÉÉËU§ÉÇ’ etc. The reference to MÑüsÉ must be properly understood. MÑüsÉ comes
from the root MÑüsÉç, to gather together or bind together. MÑüsÉ, therefore, means a
group of people who are bound together by a common ideal and a spirit of mutual love and
service. The family is such a natural unit and is a training tround for the cultivation of all
social virutes as love and service. One who is brought up in a good family will have these
special virtues as signs of good breeding. If a student has already been trained thus properly
through good breeding at home, there may not be any further necessity for special training for
the development of these virtues. Therefore, the Guru is asked to test the disciple with
reference to MÑüsÉ also when Vyasa says: D¤ÉåiÉç MÑüsÉaÉÑhÉÉÌSÍpÉÈ || This
applies equally to all applicants whatever their parentage may be. The word MÑüsÉ has no
reference to birth at all. It refers only to the previous history of the disciple and his breeding.
Vyasa specially says that study becomes effective only in proportion to his capacity for
understanding and diligence in study. To ensure this the clear direction is given by Vyasa that
teachers should not put their Sishyas to all kinds of work in their own selfish interest, as the
Sishya may not get sufficient time for study in that case. Whatever work is given to the
Sishya must be only in Sishya’s own interest to discipline him properly and make him look
upon all work as a Sadhana in the form of selfless service of God. The Sishya also should not
be put to such work as involve risk or danger to his spiritual life or physical life or to his
studies. lÉ ÌlÉrÉÉåerÉÉ¶É uÉÈ ÍzÉwrÉÉÈ AÌlÉrÉÉåaÉå qÉWûÉpÉrÉå |
rÉjÉÉqÉÌiÉ rÉjÉÉmÉÉPÇû iÉjÉÉ ÌuÉ±É TüÍsÉwrÉÌiÉ || By this injunction Vyasa
means to remove all temptations from the mind of the teacher to exploit the Sishya for selfish
purposes and to ensure especially to the Sudra sufficient time and opportunity to study
without leaving burdened with other duties. For, Vyasa thought, like Swami Vivekananda,
that if the Sudra is less intelligent and more tamasic by nature it is all the more reason that he
should be provided with greater and better opportunities than others who are more intelligent
and more diligent. He next says xÉuÉïxiÉUiÉÑ SÒaÉÉïÍhÉ xÉuÉÉåï pÉSìÉÍhÉ
mÉzrÉiÉÑ || This shows how Vyasa wanted that vedic education should be given to one
and all without distinction of caste or sex. For Vyasa says there is no man who is not entitled
to education and spiritual life however low he may be by birth or in the social scale or by
economic conditions. In these words Vyasa teaches the ideal of Universal education which
even modern politicians may try to follow and emulate. To say that everybody is entitled to
education, however, is not to club them all together in one class and prescribe the same
course of study indiscriminately to one and all. All students have to be classified into
different groups with special reference to their AÍkÉMüÉU so that each may get what he is
capable and desirous of. It is on this basis of AÍkÉMüÉU that the applicants have been
divided into four classes in their own interests. But no one is to be denied that education for
which he is fit – secular as well as religious. Everybody is equal with regard to this right for
study and self improvement. Therefore Vyasa says ´ÉÉuÉrÉåiÉç cÉiÉÑUÉå uÉhÉÉïlÉç
M×üiuÉÉ oÉëɼhÉqÉaÉëiÉÈ uÉåSxrÉ AkrÉrÉlÉÇ ÌWû CSÇ oÉë¼MüÉrÉïÇ
qÉWûiÉç xqÉ×iÉqÉç || xiÉÑirÉjÉïÍqÉWû SåuÉÉlÉÉÇ uÉåSÉÈ xÉ×¹ÉÈ
xuÉrÉqpÉÑuÉÉ || rÉÉå ÌlÉuÉïSåiÉç xÉqqÉÉåWûÉiÉç oÉëɼhÉÇ
uÉåSmÉÉUaÉqÉç || xÉÈ AÍpÉkrÉÉlÉÉiÉç oÉëɼhÉxrÉ mÉUÉ
pÉÔrÉÉSxÉÇzrÉqÉç | rÉ¶É AkÉqÉåïhÉ ÌuÉoÉëÔrÉÉiÉç rɶÉÉÅzÉqÉåïhÉ

70
mÉ×dNûÌiÉ | iÉrÉÉåÈ AlrɧÉÈ mÉëæÌiÉ ÌuɲåwÉÇ cÉÉÅÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ | LiÉiÉ
uÉÈ xÉuÉïqÉÉZrÉÉiÉÇ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉxrÉ ÌuÉÍkÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ | EmÉMÑürÉÉïŠ
ÍzÉwrÉÉhÉÉÇ LiÉŠ WØûÌS uÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç || In this passage all the four Varnas are
specifically mentioned and Vyasa enjoins all his Sishyas to teach the Vedas to all the four
Varnas according to their ‘Adhikara’ and not to reject anyone on the ground of mere birth.
All applicants are to be admitted to the particular class to which they are found fit on the
basis of their breeding and qualifications and character. Where such qualifications are lacking
to admit them to the preparatory class and make them fit to receive the Vedas. In making this
classification one who is born and brought up in a spiritual and educated family and who,
therefore, has the advantage of good breeding at home or one who is naturally qualified by
his Purva Samskaras, will naturally be placed in a higher class. That is the meaning of the
expression M×üiuÉÉ oÉëɼhÉqÉaÉëiÉÈ | Even among those who have had no such
previous training and breeding at home and who have to be trained afresh those who have the
capacity to come up to the mark with lesser training in a shorter time should be given
preference to those that require more training before they become fit. Those that become fit
earlier should not be made to wait till every applicant comes to the same level and he should
be given the opportunities to study the Vedas earlier than the others just as it is advocated in
modern times by Dalton plan of education. The word Brahmana in this passage means one
who is fit to study the Brahma or Vedas. Agrat means earlier. The passage does not mean that
the teacher should place a Brahmana by birth in front of him when he teaches the other
classes as the passage is sought to be interpretted by the orthodox commentators. It is only a
question of precedence on the ground of fitness. Orthodox commentators, again, try to
understand this passage as applicable only to Mahabharata and that only to hearing and not to
reading or studying. If ´ÉÉuÉrÉåiÉç is taken only in that restricted sense of hearing it
would equally apply to the other Varnas and they also would not have any right to read or
study the Vedas or even M. bh. This surely cannot be the view of Vyasa. It goes against the
orthodox view itself that all the Traivarnikas have Veda Adhikar. So it is inadvisable to
restrict the meaning of the word ´ÉÉuÉrÉåiÉç to mere hearing as such an interpretation
would record upon themselves like a bomarang. Nor is it advisable to restrict the application
of this injunction to M. bh. when it goes clearly against the whole text which would never
refer even once to the M. bh. in this context, but only to Vedas and their propagation. The
Sudra himself who recites the M.bh. is not one among the Traivarnikas and therefore, this
interpretation that it applies only to M. bh. would go against the receiver himself and against
Vyasa himself who taught him. Therefore, this passage is a clear enunciation of Vyasa’s view
that everybody is entitled to vedic study. There are some people who are anxious not only to
prevent the Sudra from studying the Vedas but deny him the right even to oÉë¼ÌuɱÉ.
But surely this is going too far in the face of Vyasa’s own statement in the M. bh. about
Vidura, Dharma Vyadha etc. being oÉë¼ÌuÉiÉç although they did not belong to
Traivarnika class by birth. It also goes against Sri Krishna’s words in the Gita that all are
entitled to oÉë¼ÌuɱÉ. Îx§ÉrÉÉå uÉæzrÉÉÈ iÉjÉÉ zÉÔSìÉxiÉåÅÌmÉ rÉÉÎliÉ
mÉUÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç | It would also go against the words of Vyasa himself in the Bhagavata
where M.bh. is said to have been composed to give the benefit of oÉë¼ÌuÉ±É even to
those who had no opportunity to study the Vedas. x§ÉÏ zÉÔSìÉ̲eÉoÉlkÉÔlÉÉÇ §ÉrÉÏ
lÉ ´ÉÑiÉÉåaÉÉåcÉUÉ | CÌiÉ pÉÉUiÉqÉÉZrÉÉlÉÇ M×ümÉrÉÉ qÉÑÌlÉlÉÉ
M×üiÉqÉç || Bhagavatam also says pÉÉUiÉurÉmÉSåzÉålÉ uÉåSÉjÉï¶É
ÌlÉÃÌmÉiÉÈ which clearly shows that the Bharata is only an exposition of the teachings of
the Vedas for those who cannot understand the meaning of Vedic texts and for those who had
no opportunities for the study of them. It also goes against the various Phalasrutis given in the
Bharata itself where Sudra is also included as attaining the highest through the study of the

71
Gita and other texts in the M.bh. xÉÑaÉÌiÉÇ rÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìrÉÉåÌlÉÈ mÉPÇû¶É
zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ qÉWûiuÉqÉÏrÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìxxÉÑZÉqÉuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | etc. Thus
´ÉÉuÉrÉåŠiÉÑUÉå uÉhÉÉïlÉç should not be taken as meaning that the Sudras can be
allowed only to hear the words of the text and not to understand the meaning and benefit by it
as some orthodox people would like. There are some Smritikaras who go to the extent of
denying the Sudras the right of even hearing the Vedas casually or accidentally and prescribe
penalties if any Sudra happens to hear the Veda and higher penalties if he understands the
Vedas. But all this goes against the liberal spirit of Vyasa as evidenced by this passage and
against some of his Sutras in Brahma Sutras where he clearly says that everybody can have
oÉë¼ÌuÉ±É even without studying the Vedas and practising Yajnas prescribed by them.
c.f AÌmÉ cÉ xÉqÉëÉkÉlÉå mÉëirɤÉÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉprÉÉqÉç |
ÌuÉzÉåwÉÉlÉÑaÉëWû¶É | AiÉ LuÉ cÉ AalÉÏlkÉlÉɱlÉmÉå¤É etc. III.2.24,
III.4.38, III.4.25. It is clearly laid down that these rules apply to the teaching and study of the
Vedas and that this study and propagation of the Vedas among one and all is the greatest of
all duties to society and the best way of worshipping God and Vyasa says
uÉåSxrÉÉkrÉrÉlÉÇ ÌWû CSÇ etc. This line mentions only Veda and not M. bh. Vyasa
then proceeds to tell us that the Vedas are meant only to glorify God and therefore, a teacher
who rejects an applicant who is qualified to learn the Vedas as per the conditions mentioned
above on any other ground will be failing in his duty both to God and man and therefore, he
is sure to be defeated in his purpose of retaining his superior status, because of the capacity of
such a qualified aspirant to realise God even without the help of such a teacher by his own
meditations, helped by the grace of God and thus he would be able to attain the real essence
of the Vedas. This is what is mentioned in the next three lines. xiÉÑirÉjÉïÍqÉWû
SåuÉÉlÉÉqÉç etc. The word Brahmana in the second line is used in the same sense as in
M×üiuÉÉ oÉëɼhÉqÉaÉëiÉÈ, viz., one who is qualified to realise God and to study the
Vedas. uÉåSmÉÉUaÉ in that line means one who has alreay attained this qualification. The
expression means one who has obtained that which takes him across the ocean of the Vedas.
AÍpÉkrÉÉlÉ in the third line means one’s own direct meditation without learning the Vedas.
xÉqqÉÉåWûÉiÉç shows that he who rejects such a disciple is doing so only out of his
delusion and foolishness in thinking that he can prevent anybody from the benefit of Vedic
study and God realisation. That such a qualified man can get the essence of the Vedas and
even become a Vedic Rishi without the help of such a teacher is amply borne out by the lives
of Kavasha, Aitareya etc. who became Vedic Rishis although the orthodox teacher refused to
teach them or allow them to take part in Vedic sacrifices. That such teachers will fall into
disgrace by such foolishness is also demonstrated in the same stories where the proud and
arrogant Brahmana teachers had to seek the aid of such rejected students as when they sought
the help of Kavaha whom they had once rejected. Vyasa, therefore, says in the next few lines
that by such rejection of qualified pupils for study of the Vedas will only end in creating ill
feeling between them which is not good for either party. Just as the teacher is enjoined not to
reject a qualified pupil the aspirant is also enjoined not to demand when he is not properly
qualified. As we have already noted if the teacher is forced to teach one who is not morally
and spiritually fit to receive the knowledge and make use of it properly such teaching is
injurious to the pupil, teacher and the society. Vyasa then concludes his exhortation by saying
that his disciples should keep all these rules in mind with regard to vedic teaching and study
and should always take the opportunity of serving the whole world by teaching Vedas to all
qualified aspirants when he says LiÉiÉç uÉÈ xÉuÉï qÉÉZrÉÉiÉÇ etc. That the Sishyas
also understood that Vyasa also meant all these exhortations only with reference to the
teachings of the Vedas is also clear from their reply uÉåSÉlÉç AlÉåMükÉÉ MüiÉÑï rÉÌS
iÉå ÌuÉÌSiÉÇ mÉëpÉÉå and in Vyasa’s further words to them AmÉëqÉÉSxiÉuÉ

72
MüÉrÉÉåï oÉë¼ ÌWû mÉëcÉÑUcNûsÉqÉç || (Sl.s 4&6 of the next chapter) Here
oÉë¼ means uÉåS.

We thus see how even in the days of Vyasa there were a few orthodox people who were
learned in the Vedas and who wanted to keep the benefit of the Vedas to themselves without
propagating the vedic teachings to the masses and how Vyasa took care to liberalise their
views by exhorting them to teach the Vedas to all. In this liberalism he has the authority of
the Veda itself where he says rÉjÉåqÉÉÇ MüsrÉÉhÉÏÇ uÉÉcÉÇ etc. He has also the
support of great Rishis like Brigu, Markandeya, Yajnialkya and great spiritual personalities
like Dharmavyadha, Yudhistira and Vidura. He has also the support of the Upanishads. The
Chandogya Upanishad says with regard to the Pranavidya that even dry trees would be
regenerated, if that Vidya is given to it rɱmrÉålÉiÉç zÉÑwMüÉrÉ xjÉÉhÉuÉå
oÉëÔrÉÉiÉç erÉÉrÉåU³ÉåuÉ AÎxqÉlÉç zÉÉZÉÉÈ mÉëUÉåWåûrÉÑÈ
TüsÉÉzÉÉÌlÉ. Vide V.2.3 with regard to the Vaishvanaravidya, Asvapah Kaikeya, that total
teacher tells his disciples when they approach him for instruction that there was no man in his
kingdom who was not learned in the Vedas nor anybody who was not a performer of Vedic
Yajnas. c.f V.11.5 lÉ qÉå xiÉålÉÉå eÉlÉmÉSå lÉ MüSrÉÉåï lÉ qɱmÉÉå lÉ
AlÉÉÌWûiÉÉÎalÉÈ lÉ AÌuɲÉlÉç lÉ xuÉæUÏ xuÉæËUhÉÏ etc. Vaisvanara Vidya also
says in V.23.24 that there is no harm even if Veda is given to a Chandala since that will be
only a worship of Vaishvanara or the Omnipresent God. iÉxqÉÉiÉç E Wû LuÉÇ ÌuÉiÉç
rɱÌmÉ cÉhQûÉsÉÉrÉ EÎcNû¹Ç mÉërÉcNåûiÉç AÉiqÉÌlÉ Wû LuÉ AxrÉ iÉiÉç
uÉæµÉÉlÉUå WÒûiÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ iÉSåwÉ zsÉÉåMüÈ rÉjÉåWû ¤ÉÑÍkÉiÉÉ
oÉÉsÉÉ qÉÉiÉUÇ mÉrÉÑïmÉÉxÉiÉå LuÉÇ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ
AÎalÉWûÉå§ÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå || Although this passage is taken by orthodox
commentators to refer to the actual EÎcNû¹Ç or the leavings of food the context does not
warrant such interpretation.The word really means the Saguna Brahman called Vaishvanara
who is dealt with in this context. The word is actually used in the Vedas in the EcNûϹÇ
xÉÔ£üÉ of the Ayarvavada in the sense of God. God is called EÎcNû¹Ç in two senses – 1.
that it is polluted by being uttered by the mouth. In teaching another about God one has to
utter it with the mouth and in thus doing the Absolute becomes circumscribed and limited and
thus in a sense becomes polluted by the mouth. It is only the Saguna Brahman that can be
taught thus for the Absolute is only to be experienced and not talked about. c.f. Sri
Ramakrishna’s parable that real Brahman can never become EÎcNû¹Ç. Also aÉÑUÉåxiÉÑ
qÉÉælÉÇ urÉÉZrÉÉlÉÇ ÍzÉwrÉÉxiÉÑ ÍNû³ÉxÉÇzÉrÉÉÈ | 1) Bahva’s teaching to
Basakali quoted by Sankara in his Sutrabhasyam. The context agrees with this interpretation
as the Vidya deals with God in everything. 2) It may also mean EiÉç + z¹. Ut is the name of
God in Chandogya as shown in the first two chapters. It means that which is absolutely pure
and above Samsara. Ízɹ means that which is left after all Samsara vanishes. It also means
that which is taught like Shisya. Therfore EÎcNû¹Ç means that which exists in the beginning,
middle and end without being affected by Maya or Samsara and which could be taught to the
disciple by word of mouth. This meaning also fits in with the context. Therefore, the passage
which is given as the TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉ of uÉæµÉÉlÉUÌuÉ±É must be understood as referring
to the teacher of uÉæµÉÉlÉUÌuÉ±É even to a Chandala. One who is an adept in
uÉæµÉÉlÉUÌuÉ±É sees only God in every being and in teaching another as an act of
worship of God in everybody without distinction of caste or colour in the spirit of
DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç. Therefore, the TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉ is correct in saying that no
sin attaches to one who gives the Vidya even to a Chandala. The Sloka quoted as authority
shows how the whole world is eagerly expecting such a oÉë¼ÌuÉSè or
uÉæµÉÉlÉUÌuÉiÉç to teach them about God as hungry children resort to their mother for

73
food. The simile is particularly happy in suggesting how a Guru is prompted to teach others
by a love which can be compared only to that of a mother towards her children. It does not
make a distinction between any of the children but equally protects all accoding to their
desets of AÍkÉMüÉU. c.f. Sri Ramakrishna’s parable about the mother cooking food for all
children. The Ch.Up. also points out in the tory of Ushashi Chakrayana in the first chapter
how a oÉë¼ÌuÉiÉç does not care for caste by birth and how Ushashi takes EÎcNû¹Ç, the
forbidden food even from a Sudra. I.10. Agnihotra in this section of Vaishvanara has no ref.
to the ritualistic to eating (food) as some commentators make it. Agni here is Vaishvanara
both words meaning the same thing and Hotram means worship. So Agnihotram means
worship of God in the form of worship of the whole universe. I.12 shows how even dogs
were singing xÉÉqÉuÉåS and taught a Brahmana. iÉxrÉæ µÉÉ µÉåiÉÈ
mÉëSoÉïpÉÔuÉ etc. It is called zÉÉæuÉ EªÏiÉ or canine chart. In the
mÉgcÉÉÎalÉÌuɱÉ, the TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉ says that even ‘Mahapatakis’ such as thieves,
adulterers, etc who were worse qualified morally and spiritually than a decent Sudra can be
benefited by that Vidya and the man who gives that Vidya to such people and who associates
with them for that purpose will not be affected by any sin. In the BhumaVidya we find
Narada approaching Sanat Kumara declaring that he had not benefited by the study of all the
Sastras as such study had not enabled him to attain Brahman. This shows that the study of the
scriptures and the ritualistic observances prescribed therein are not absolutely necessary for
qualifying one for oÉë¼ÌuɱÉ. But TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉ says that it is purity of heart that
qualifies one for oÉë¼ÌuɱÉ. The Sishya Narada himself who was instructed in
pÉÔqÉÉÌuÉ±É was himself only a Sudra by birth and the teacher Sanatkumara who came
to be known as Skanda according to this Upanishad was himself one who had not undergone
all the Vedic Samskaras from his childhood as pointed out by the Puranas. He deserved the
title xMülS which means one who has left over only because he left over the whole of Vedic
Karmaskanda at one jump and became a Jnani without the help of any ritual. So both Guru
and Sishya do not seem to have paid any special value to the rituals prescribed by the
Karmakanda. The SWûUÌuÉ±É in the 8th chapter describes how Prajapati gave the ÌuɱÉ
even to the Sura Virochana. Asuras are people who are interested in selfish wordly pleasures.
AxÉÑwÉÑ UqÉiÉå Sankara explains AxÉÑU in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya as meaning
only such men. When even such men are entitled to oÉë¼ÌuÉ±É Upanishads could not
have thought of denying the right to pure minded Sudras. It is, therefore, quite understandable
that the liberalism of this Upanishad could not have found anything objectionable in giving
the xÉÇuÉaÉïÌuÉ±É to Janasruti who is expressly stated to be Sudra in the text or the
wÉÉåQûzÉMüsÉÉÌuÉ±É to Satyakama Jabala who is described as the son of a maid
servant. There is no necessity to twist the meanings of the word zÉÔSì for satisfying the
sriuples of orthodox conservatives or to make Satyakama Jabala the son of a Brahmin
woman, imagining all kinds of stories for which there is no warrant or authority in any of the
Srutis.

It would seem, however, from a study of the so called Apasudradhikarana of the

Brahmasutras I.3.34-38 which are in explanation of the Chandoya passages dealing with
xÉÇuÉaÉïÌuÉ±É and wÉÉåQûzÉMüsÉÉoÉë¼ÌuÉ±É which are referred to above and
the orthodox commentaries on these that the Sudras have no right to Brahmavidya . But if we
take the Brahmasutras to be the same teaching of the same Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharata
and whom even orthodox commentators consider only as a son of a fisherwoman, the
orthodox interpretation would go against the life and teachings of the author of the Sudras
himself as recorded in his own works the Mahabharata and the other texts as we have noted
above. It will be also against the teachings of the Vedas themselves and of the Upanishads

74
and other texts of Prasthanatraya – the Gita and the Brahmasutras. Therefore, these
interpretaions have to be rejected in the light of all the authorities quoted above. These
interpretations, moreover, are also vitiated for the following reasons:

1) They are based upon not on the texts themselves but on extraneous considerations
based upon the social conditions prevailing at a very much later period in India’s
history when the commentators lived.
2) They are not supported by any authoritative passage from the Mantra portion of the
Vedas and deliberately omit all scriptural passages which expressly admit the equality
of Sudras with other castes such as are referred to in the notes above.
3) Sankara, the earliest commentator as well as others introduce all kinds of cock and
bull stories to explain away the express references given to Sudras in these two
Vidyas stories which have no place in any of the vedic literature and which are
inconsistant with the teachings of same Upanishad.
4) It involves text torturing, not only the texts of the Upanishads but also of Brahma
Sutras.
5) The only authority which Sankara could find to support his interpretation is a passage
from Brahmanas and not from the Upanishads themselves. iÉxqÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìÉå
rÉ¥Éå AlÉuÉMçüJmiÉÈ which refers only to Yajna and not Brahmavidya which is
the subject matter of the Brahma Sutras based upon the Upanishads. This passage
could not have been understood in the same sense by Jaimini and Sabara, his
commentator because they do not refer to it even once as an authority for the
proposition that Sudra had no right to Yajna as though it is they who are more
concerned with rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU than Brahmasutra and its commentators. If such a
clear passage had been available to them they would have made full use of it in their
writings. Evidently therefore, this passage has only dubious authority for in relation to
rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU. The passage itself in its context can be seen to be meant entirely
for a different purpose and to be capable of an interpretation which is more consistant
with the context.
6) Historically, the Brahmanas were written long before the Upanishads came into
existence and could have had no reference to Brahmavidya taught by the Upanishads
as the former do not envisage Brahmajnana at all according to the orthodox
commentators themselves.
7) The Upanishads are considered by all orthodox vedantist as self revealing and their
teachings as self evident being the essential portions of the Srutis which form the
highest Pramana. It would be inconsistent with this thesis to invoke the aid of other
texts than the Upanishads themselves in understanding their teachings. Therefore,
they cannot derive any support from other texts as they do.
8) According to all these orthodox commentators where there is a conflict between a
Sruti and a Smriti, the Sruti has to be understood in terms of the teaching of the Sruti
and not vice versa and if any Smriti is in conflict with any Sruti text the Smriti is to be
rejected or to be interpreted in terms of the Sruti. It is therefore, ideal for them to

75
 interpret the Upanishads in terms of some stray passages from the Smritis which are
opposed to Srutis as these commentators have done omitting all references to other
Smriti texts, which give the right to Sudras also.
9) Passages such as ´ÉÉuÉrÉåŠiÉÑUÉå uÉhÉÉïlÉç etc in the M.bh. are misquoted
and misinterpreted to support their pet doctrines.
10) Their interpretations are inconsistent with their other writings and their own lives.
Thus Sankara’s interpretations are inconsistent with their other writings and their own
lives. Thus Sankara’s interpretations is inconsistent with his writings on the Adhikara
for Brahmavidya in the Vivekachudamani and the Brahmasutra Bhasya itself where
he never refers to any caste disability at all but on the other hand throws open the
portals of Brahmavidya to one and all without any reference to caste, creed or colour
and without any reference to rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU. He expressly says in his Sutra
Bhasya that the Karmakanda has nothing to do with Brahmavidya which can be had
without any practice of Vedic Karma. It is also against his Manisha panchaka where
he recognizes even a Chandala as his Guru. cÉhQûÉsÉÉåÅxiÉÑ xÉ iÉÑ
̲MüÉåÅxiÉÑ aÉÑÂËUirÉåwÉÉ qÉlÉÏzÉçÈAÉ qÉqÉ || It also goes against the
spirit of his Advaita doctrine as very ably pointed out by Ramanuja in his commentary
on the Brahmasutra.
11) Ramanuja thus says: If knowledge were the only means to Brahmavidya as the
Advaitin’s contend, such knowledge can come to Sudra also through observation and
reasoning independent of Srutis. If meditation on such knowledge is required in
addition, such meditation can be made on the truth arrived at without any help from
the Upanishads. Only if we hold that it depends on Gods’s pleasure and grace and
such grace is dependent upon meditation based upon knowledge acquired by the study
of Veda after the Upanayana ceremony that we can validly hold that Sudra has no
Adhikara, as he cannot study Veda after Upanayana and cannot, therefore, please God
even if he meditates on Truth independently arrived at. Ramanuja further argues
against Sankara thus: As, according to Sankara, Jnanis are above vedic injunctions
and prohibitions, they can give Brahmavidya to the Sudras even on the basis of the
Upanishads without caring for any prohibition. So meditations based upon the
Upanishads also are possible for Sudras. As knowledge is dependent only on the
means for knowledge without any reference to caste any such teaching given by a
Brahmavit on Upanishadic Vidyas must produce its natural result. Thus all
Upanishadic meditations will be available to a Sudra also if only he can get a
Brahmavit as his Guru. Removal of ignorance does not depend upon caste by birth or
social restrictions or ritualistic prohibitions. No Upanayanam, no vedic study, no
Upanishadic Mahavakyas are necessary for the knowledge of Brahman as knowledge
does not depend upon any likes and dislikes or choice but only on proper favourable
conditions. Moreover, to Sankara, recitation of the Vedas and performance of yajna is
not a preliminary qualifications as he points out in his discussion on Adhikara. So,
Ramanuja makes both these qualifications necessary for Brahmavidya. He who does
not perform Svadhyaya and Yajna daily does not get the capacity for Brahmavidya.
As the Sudra does not possess these qualification he is not entitled to Brahmavidya.
The incapacity comes from his not having read the Vedas. But all his arguments
against Sankara cannot save him from admitting the right of xjÉMüÉU and ÌlÉwÉÉS
to yajna. Ramanuja also argues that as the Itihasas and the Puranas are only
commentaries on the Vedas those who have not read the texts cannot benefit by the
commentaries and hence no knowledge is obtained from M.bh. etc will serve his
purpose. Thus in his anxiety to prove that Advaita is wrong he goes to absurd lengths

76
 to prevent the Sudras from benefiting even by the Itihasas and Puranas, whereas in his
saner moments he has been so gracious and kind to Sudras and even untouchables
many of whom he raised to the status of Brahmanas. It is well known now in his
actual life he went against the orthodox social prejudices of the age and gave the
Mantras to one and all and broadcast the Mantra received from his Guru amongst the
masses even against the Gurus injunction on the ground that the Mantra is capable of
saving from sin it must be able to save the worst sinner also and if the Mantra is pure
in itself it cannot be polluted by being recited even by the greatest sinners. It is also
well known how he was anxious to take initiation from a non-dvija devote named
Tirukachinambi whom he worshiped as Guru and how he gave up even his wife
because she insulted his Guru who was a man of low caste. It is also said how he set
an example to the orthodox people by getting into the hut of his untouchable disciples
and instructed them and gave the benefit of his company on his way back to the
temple from bath as the disciple was prevented by tradition and custom from entering
the temple. It is also on record how he allowed several families of untouchables called
Tirukulattars to enter the temple. All these incidents in his life show how much
interested he was in the spiritual welfare of one and all without distinction of caste
and in this he only showed himself a true follower of the Alwars the most important
of whom Nammalvar was only a Sudra and Tiruppanalwar who was an untouchable
and Tirumangaialwar was only a low caste robber chieftain. We can therefore
understand that Ramanuja’s anxiety in his Sri Bhashya which was meant only for the
orthodox Brahmins was only to placate the orthodox Pandits and make use of any
stick available to thrash his advaitic opponent. His commentary on
AmÉzÉÔSìÉÍkÉMüUhÉ, therefore, cannot be considered to reflect his real opinion
nor is it consistence with the liberal teachings of these Alwars as well as the Agamas
and the Bhakti Sastras which are held as authoritative by him and his followers.
Ramanuja is an advocate and upholder of Bhakti as the highest and best means of
Mukti. According to him this Bhakti is the essential teaching of the Srutis and
according to all Bhakti Sastras, according to the orthodox commentators themselves
everybody is an Adhikari for Bhakti. Therefore, consistent with his own teachings
about the essence of Srutis he cannot seriouly contend that the Sudras have no
Vedadhikara.
12) Similarly Madvacharya also cannot seriously mean that the Sudras have no
Vedadhikara. For, he would be contradicting himself his own teachings in his other
works. In his Chandogya Bhasya he expressly says: xÉuÉïuÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉÉhÉÉÇ cÉ
¥ÉÉlÉÉlqÉÉå¤ÉÉå ÌuÉÌlÉͶÉiÉÈ AlirÉÉlÉÉÇ xjÉÉuÉUÉhÉÉÇ cÉ iÉjÉÉÌmÉ
rÉÌiɨÉqÉÈ Similarly in his Gita Tatparya Nirnaya he quotes with approval so
many passages to show that a devotee of God is above all caste rules and restrictions
and that he must be taken to be a Brahmana on account of his sattvika nature. xÉiuÉ
xÉiuÉÉÍkÉMüUeÉÉå UeÉÉåÍpÉÈ iÉÉqÉxÉÉÈ iÉjÉÉ uÉhÉÉï
ÌuÉpÉ£üɶÉiuÉÉUÈ xÉÉÎiuÉMüÉ LuÉ uÉæwhÉuÉÉÈ || Ch. IV. Further on
he says again uÉæwhÉuÉÉ xÉÉÎiuÉMüÉ LuÉ iÉÉqÉxÉÉ LuÉ cÉÉmÉUå
SÉæsÉïprÉ xÉÑsÉpÉiuÉålÉ iÉåwÉÉÇ uÉhÉÉïÌS ÍpɳÉiÉÉ
xuÉÉpÉÉÌuÉMüÉå oÉëɼhÉÉÌS zÉqÉÉSæUåuÉ ÍpɱiÉå |
rÉÉålÉÉåpÉåSM×üiÉÉå pÉåSÈ ¥ÉårÉÈ AÉæmÉÉÌSMüxiuÉrÉqÉç | Again
in Ch. XVIII he says that all these castes are only varieties of Bhagavatas and that
even an untouchable who is a devotee and who is, therefore, predominantly Sattvika
in nature is far superior to all so called socially higher castes by birth if they are
devoid of Bhakti. rÉå iÉÑ pÉÉaÉuÉiÉÉuÉhÉÉïÈ iÉåwÉÉÇ pÉåSÉåÅrÉÇ

77
DËUiÉÈ xÉiuÉÉÍkÉMüÈ mÉÑsMüxÉÉåÅÌmÉ rÉxiÉÑ pÉÉaÉuÉiÉxxÉSÉ
§ÉæÌuɱqÉɧÉÉÅÌuÉwhÉÉåÈ rÉå xÉuÉÉïÍkÉYrÉå lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ ...
AÍkÉMüÉÈ cÉåiÉç aÉÑhÉÉÈ zÉÔSìå oÉëɼhÉÉÌSÈ xÉ EcrÉiÉå |
oÉëɼhÉÉåÅÌmÉ AsmÉaÉÑhÉMüÈ zÉÔSì LuÉåÌiÉ eÉÏÌiÉïiÉÈ
‘xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï’ CÌiÉ uÉcÉlÉÉiÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÉÌSwuÉÌmÉ
zÉqÉÉÌS AlÉÑuÉ×̨ÉÈ ¥ÉÉrÉiÉå | lÉ ÌWû zÉqÉÉÌSMÇü ÌuÉlÉÉ iÉxrÉ
AÍpÉiÉÉå AcÉïlÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ | xÉqrÉMçü zÉqÉÉÌSÍpÉUcÉïlÉÇ
AprÉcÉïlÉqÉç | lÉ cÉ zÉqÉÉSÏlÉç ÌuÉlÉÉ ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ etc. Dvaita
commentators like Vyasaraya Swami and Raghavendra Swami criticize the orthodox
Mimamsaka view on Sudra’s Yajnadhikara and controvert their argument thus in their
commentary on Madhva Bhashya: lÉ iÉÑ erÉÉåÌiɹÉåqÉÉÌS MüqÉïhÉÉqÉç
AÉWûuÉlÉÏrÉÉÌS AÎalÉÌuÉ±É xÉÉkrÉiuÉÉiÉç iÉrÉÉå¶É AÉkÉÉlÉ
EmÉlÉrÉlÉÉkÉÏlÉiuÉÉiÉç iÉrÉÉå¶É uÉxÉliÉÉÌSuÉÉYrÉÉprÉÉÇ
§ÉæuÉÍhÉïMüÉlÉÉqÉåuÉ ÌuÉkÉÉlÉÉiÉç iÉåwÉÉqÉåuÉ AÍkÉMüÉUÉÌSÌiÉ
qÉÏqÉÉÇxÉMüÉå£üUÏirÉÉ AlÉÍkÉMüÉUÈ | AlÉÎalÉiuÉålÉ AlÉÍkÉMüÉUå
xjÉMüÉUÉZrÉ xɃ¡ûUeÉÉiÉåUÌmÉ AlÉÍkÉMüÉU AÉmÉÉiÉÉiÉç
uÉwÉÉïxÉÑ UrÉMüÉU AÉSkÉÏiÉ CÌiÉ ´ÉÑirÉÉ iÉxrÉÉÌmÉ
AÉkÉÉlÉÉåmÉaÉqÉÉiÉç “M×üÌiÉMüÉxÉÑ AÎalÉqÉÉSkÉÏiÉ” “lÉ£Çü
aÉÉWïûmÉirÉqÉÉSkÉÏiÉ” CirÉÉÌSlÉÉ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ AÉkÉÉlÉÌuÉÍkÉÈ |
uÉxÉliÉÉÌS uÉÉYrÉÉÌlÉ iÉÑ aÉÑhɲrÉrÉÑ£üiuÉåÅÌmÉ
ÌuÉÍkÉsÉÉbÉuÉÉrÉ M×ų̈ÉMüÉÌSuÉÉYrÉålÉ mÉëÉimÉoÉë¼hÉÉSÏlÉÉÇ
uÉxÉliÉÉÌSÌlÉrÉqÉmÉUÉÍhÉ | zÉÔSìxrÉ iÉÑ GiuÉliÉUå AÉkÉÉlÉÈ
CirÉÌmÉ xÉÑuÉcÉiuÉÉŠ EmÉlÉrÉlÉWûÉåqÉxjÉmÉiÉÏ̹ AuÉMüÐÍhÉï
oÉë¼cÉÉËU AÍkÉMüÉËUMü rÉÉaÉÉÌSuÉiÉç sÉÉæÌMüMüÉalÉÉæ CÌiÉ |
AÎalÉ AxÉÉkrÉ xÉlkrÉÉåmÉÉxÉlÉÉSÉæ EmÉlÉÏiÉqÉɧÉxrÉ
oÉëɼhÉÉSåÈ AkrÉrÉlÉÉiÉç mÉëÌaÉuÉ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ AÍkÉMüÉU
AmÉËUWûÉUÉŠ| ... lÉÉÅÌmÉ AÌuÉkÉiuÉÉiÉç AlÉÍkÉMüÉUÈ | AkrÉrÉlÉ
ApÉÉuÉåÅÌmÉ UjÉMüÉUÉSåÈ AÉkÉÉlÉ¥ÉÉlÉxrÉ CuÉ |
oÉëɼhÉÉSåUÌmÉ xuÉzÉÉZÉåiÉUzÉÉZÉÉÌuÉÌWûiÉ A…¡û¥ÉÉlÉxrÉ
CuÉ zÉÔSìÉSåUÌmÉ “oÉëɼhÉÉå lÉ WûliÉurÉÈ” CÌiÉ
ÌlÉwÉåkÉuÉÉYrÉÉjÉï¥ÉÉlÉxrÉ CuÉ EmÉSåzÉÉÌSlÉÉ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ
erÉÉåÌiɹÉåqÉxrÉÉÌmÉ xÉqpÉuÉÉiÉç | iÉlqÉiÉå lÉ
̧ÉÍpÉuÉåïSæÌuÉïkÉÏrÉiÉå CÌiÉ uÉåSÉliÉU AkrÉrÉlÉxrÉ
AÌuÉÌWûiÉiuÉåÅÌmÉ “xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉåÅkrÉåiÉurÉÈ” CirɧÉ
xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉzÉoSxrÉ xuÉzÉÉZÉÉmÉUiuÉålÉ LMüuÉåSaÉiÉzÉÉZÉÉliÉU
AkrÉrÉlÉxrÉ AÌuÉÌWûiÉiuÉÉiÉç | ÌMÇü cÉ iuÉrÉÉ xÉuÉïzÉÌ£ülÉrÉå
AlkÉÉSåÈ AÉerÉÉuÉå¤ÉhÉÉÌS A…¡ûWûÉlÉålÉ zÉYrÉÉ…¡û
EmÉxÉÇWûÉUåhÉ ÌlÉirÉMüqÉÉïÍkÉMüÉUÈ A…¡ûÏM×üiÉÈ | LuÉÇ cÉ
iɲSåuÉ zÉÔSìÉSåUÌmÉ AÎalÉÌuɱÉWûÉlÉålÉ A…
¡ûÉliÉUÉåmÉxÉÇWûÉUåhÉ ÌlÉirÉåwÉÑ AÍkÉMüÉUÈ ÌMÇü lÉ xÉrÉÉiÉç |
Vide also the explanation of these words of Vyasaraya Swami which makes the ideas
clearer. These commentators, however, in criticising the views of the other schools
are interested only in upholding Madhva’s view given in his Bhasya about the
relevent text applicable to deny the Sudra the right of Yagnadhikara. They are as
orthodox as any other commentators in denying the Sudra’s right to Vidya & Yajna.
The passage quoted by Madhva in support of this is lÉ AÎalÉlÉï rÉ¥ÉÉå lÉ Ì¢ürÉÉ
lÉ xÉÇxMüÉUÉå lÉ uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ zÉÔSìxrÉ | This passage is said to be from
Painga Sruti. This Sruti text is not available anywhere and does not come under any of
the lists of Vedic books recognized or accepted by any other schools. The Madhva

78
 commentaries, therefore, can be accepted by us only as showing that no extant text
(Sruti) can be adduced as authority to deny the Sudra’s right. We thus see how the
orthodox commentators are at their wits end in finding out even a single relevant
indisputable authority to support their orthodoxy and have to resort to all kinds of
tricks to extort some meaning which they want out of the vedic texts. They thereby
not only proclaim the Sudra’s right by their mutual contradictions of their own views
given in other texts and they go against all accepted canons of interpretation.
13) One of the accepted rules of interpretations is that wherever there is a condemnation
in a Sruti passage, that condemnation is to be understood as means only to eulogise or
praise the opposite. Vide Jaimini II.4.21 lÉ AÎalÉlÉï rÉ¥ÉÉå lÉ Ì¢ürÉÉ lÉ
xÉÇxMüÉUÉå lÉ uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ zÉÔSìxrÉ | and Sabara’s commentary thereon.
Sabara says lÉ ÌWû ÌlÉlSÉ ÌlÉl±Ç ÌlÉÎlSiÉÑÇ mÉërÉÑerÉiÉå | ÌMÇü iÉÌWïû?
ÌlÉÎlSiÉÉiÉç CiÉUiÉç mÉëzÉÇÍxÉiÉÑqÉç | iÉ§É lÉ ÌlÉÎlSiÉxrÉ
mÉëÌiÉwÉåkÉÉå aÉqrÉiÉå | ÌMüliÉÑ CiÉUxrÉ ÌuÉÍkÉÈ | The Tantravartika
of Kumarila Bhatta on Jaimini I.2.7 also approves this principle of Sabara when he
says rÉjÉÉ uɤrÉÌiÉ lÉ ÌWû ÌlÉlSÉ ÌlÉl±Ç ÌlÉÎlSiÉÑÇ mÉëuÉiÉïiÉå AÌmÉ
iÉÑ ÌuÉkÉårÉÇ xiÉÉåiÉÑqÉç | Vide Anandagiri also on Brihadaranyaka Bhasya
Vartika for the same principle. This principle is fit to be applied also in support of the
Sudra, wherever any Sruti passage condemns the Sudra. The orthodox people are
guilty of not applying this rule of interpretation when it comes to a question of Sudra.

Another rule of interpretation accepted by all orthodox schools is that Sruti is

authoritative (Pramana) only in matters relating to the other world (alaukika) which
cannot be verified by Pratyaksha and Anumana. In matters which are Pratyaksha or
observable, the Pratyaksha Pramana is superior to other Pramanas. Thus Sabara says
in his commentary on Jaimini I.3.2 iÉjÉÉ mÉëirÉÑmÉxjÉÉÌmÉiÉÇ
ÌlÉrÉqÉÉlÉÉÇ AÉcÉÉUÉhÉÉÇ (rules laid down in the Smritis about everyday
social life) SعÉjÉïiuÉÉSåuÉ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉç ... iÉålÉ rÉå SعÉjÉÉïÈ iÉå
iÉiÉ LuÉ mÉëÉqÉÉhÉqÉç rÉå iÉÑ ASعÉjÉÉïÈ iÉåwÉÑ
uÉæÌSMüzÉoSÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉqÉç | Vide also Jaimini I.1.5 AjÉåï
AlÉÑmÉsÉokÉå etc. that is, in respect of an object otherwise unknown, according
to which the authority of the (Vedas) Sruti should not be invoked to show that heat
destroys cold which is a matter of common experience. So Sankara says that even
Sruti cannot superside the authority of science based upon the observation on
questions of matter and its property etc. mÉëirɤÉÉÌS AlÉÑmÉsÉokÉå LuÉ
ÌWû ÌuÉwÉrÉå ´ÉÑiÉåÈ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉç lÉ iÉÑ mÉëirɤÉÉÌS
ÌuÉwÉrÉå || Vide Gita Bhashya on XVIII. 66 lÉ cÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉU
ÌuÉ®ÉjÉïÌuÉwÉrÉå ´ÉÑiÉåÈ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉÇ MüsmrÉiÉå |
Brihadaranyaka Bhashya on III.3.1 mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉU AÌuÉwÉrÉqÉåuÉ ÌWû
mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉUÇ ¥ÉÉmÉrÉÌiÉ | Bri. II.1 lÉ cÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ
mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉUåhÉ ÌuÉÂkrÉiÉå | lÉ cÉ AÎalÉÈ zÉÏiÉÈ AÉÌSirÉÉå lÉ
iÉmÉÌiÉ CÌiÉ uÉÉ SعÉliÉzÉiÉålÉ AÌmÉ mÉëÌiÉmÉÉSÌrÉiÉÑÇ zÉYrÉqÉç |
mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉUåhÉ AlrÉjÉÉ AuÉaÉiÉiuÉÉiÉç Bri. II.1.20 cf. also Gita
Bhasya lÉ ÌWû ´ÉÑÌiÉzÉiÉqÉÌmÉ zÉÏiÉÉåÅÎalÉÈ AmÉëMüÉzÉÉå uÉÉ CÌiÉ
uÉSlÉç mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉÑmÉæÌiÉ | rÉÌS oÉëÔrÉÉiÉç zÉÏiÉÉåÅÎalÉÈ
AmÉëMüÉzÉÉå uÉ CÌiÉ iÉjÉÉÌmÉ AjÉÉïliÉUÇ ´ÉÑiÉåÌuÉïuÉͤÉiÉÇ
MüsmrÉqÉç | Similarly Madhvacharya also says in his Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya 3-4.
lÉ cÉ AlÉÑpÉuÉÌuÉUÉåkÉå AÉaÉqÉxrÉ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉç | Similarly he
says in his Gita Bhasya on IX.12. ArÉÑÌ£üqÉSèprÉÈ rÉÑÌ£üqÉÎliÉ LuÉ

79
 oÉsÉuÉÎliÉ uÉÉYrÉÉÌlÉ | xÉÉqrÉåÅÌmÉ uÉÉYrÉrÉÉåÈ
sÉÉåMüÉlÉÑMÔüsÉ AlÉlÉÑMÔüsÉrÉÉåÈ AlÉlÉÑMÔüsÉrÉÉåÈ
sÉÉåMüÉlÉÑMÔüsÉqÉåuÉ oÉsÉuÉiÉç | So, Tikacharya says in his Nyaya
Sudha I.4 EmÉmÉÌ¨É AÌuÉ®Éå ÌWû uÉåSÉjÉÉåï aÉëÉ½È AlrÉjÉÉ
ÌuÉcÉÉUzÉÉx§É AlÉÉUqpÉmÉëxÉ…¡ûÉiÉç | On II.2.7 he says
mÉëqÉÉhÉÉÌuÉÂ®È mÉëqÉÉhÉÉlÉÑxÉÉUÏ cÉ xÉÔ§ÉMüÉUxrÉ
AÍpÉmÉëÉrÉÈ MüsmÉlÉÏrÉÈ | Vide also II.2.8 mÉëirɤÉqÉåuÉ
AÎZÉsÉÉiÉç AlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉiÉç AÉaÉqÉÉŠ uÉUÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç |
AlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉaÉqÉrÉÉåÈ mÉëirɤÉqÉÔsÉiuÉålÉ iÉiÉÈ mÉëirɤÉqÉåuÉ
iÉiÉÈ mÉëirɤÉqÉåuÉ uÉUÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç |
sÉÉåMüÉlÉÑxÉÉUåhÉæuÉ mÉUqÉÉjÉÉåï oÉÉå®urÉÈ lÉ AurÉjÉÉ |
sÉÉåMülrÉÉrÉxrÉæuÉ iɯÉåkÉ EmÉÉrÉiuÉÉiÉç | According to these
principles of the relative superiority of the Pramanas the commentaries on the
AmÉzÉÔSìÉÍkÉMüÉUhÉ will be found to be defective as they go against observed
facts as well as reason and hence their interpretation of the Srutis and Sutras based
upon them are unacceptable because it goes against the facts of Karasha, Aitareya,
Narada, Valmiki etc. and of Vidura, Dharmavyadha, Suka etc., of Swami
Vivekananda, Keshab Sen, Ramalingaswami, of Maitreyi, Gargi, Raikwa etc. being
all Brahmavits as accepted by all orthodox people. Moreover in the matter of their
inconsitence on Upanayanam for ÌuɱÉÍkÉMüÉU & rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU they go
against the principle accepted by Mimamsakas that the Upanayana has only a seen
result (SعÉjÉï) and no AsÉÉæÌMüMüÉjÉï or ASعÉjÉï. Vide Jaimini VI.1.35.
xÉÇxMüÉUxrÉ iÉSjÉïiuÉÉiÉç ÌuɱÉrÉÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ | On this Sutra,
Sabara explains ÌuɱÉjÉïÇ EmÉÉkrÉÉrÉxrÉ xÉqÉÏmÉqÉÉlÉÏrÉiÉå lÉ
ASعÉjÉïqÉç SعÉjÉïqÉåuÉ LwÉÉ ÌuɱÉrÉÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ| The
Upanayana thus being only SعÉjÉï cannot be denied to anybody on the basis of
mere ´ÉÑÌiÉuÉÉYrÉ, on the authority of any ´ÉÑÌiÉuÉÉYrÉ as the result is
something which could be seen.
14) The commentators have overlooked the essential difference between a) eÉÉÌiÉ &
uÉhÉï b) Ritualistic Samskara on the one hand and mental, moral and spiritual
Samskara on the other. c) Upanayana for vedic study and that for Brahmavidya as
pointed out by Ratnaprabha (commentary on Sankara Bhashya) d) Parental biological
heredity and individual heredity based on the past Karma of the individual himself. e)
Social restrictions & spiritual qualifications. They have also overlooked the supreme
importance of self effort and the influence of the environment on heredity.

For all these reasons mentioned above and others too numerous to mention the
orthodox commentary on the AmÉzÉÔSìÉÍkÉMüUhÉ is unacceptable. If we want
to understand the Sutras in their proper sense we have to understand them consistently
with all the authorities that we have quoted above – Vedic as well as post -Vedic –
which do not deny the Sudras the right but concede it explicitly and implicitly. In
that case we shall see that the Sutras are not meant for denying such right but to
establish and proclaim such right. How to interpret it thus we shall see later on.

We thus see how we are compelled to differ from our venerable Acharyas in the matter of the
scope of the teaching of the first Sloka as well as of the whole Upanishad.

The essence of spiritual life is the same for one and all without the distinction of caste,
colour, sex or age. It consists of only Tyaga as well as Yoga in their various aspects

80
according to each one’s Adhikara. The whole of the rest of the Upanishad is only an
expansion of the idea contained in the first Mantra.

MÑüuÉï³ÉåuÉåWû MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåcNûiÉÇ xÉqÉÉÈ |

LuÉÇ iuÉÌrÉ lÉÉlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå || 2 ||

Mantras 2 &3 are complimentary to each other and form a distinct separate group dealing
with the place of Karma in spiritual life. Consistent with the understanding of the first Mantra
we have to differ from orthodox commentators with reference to the scope of the teachings of
these Mantras. To us this Mantra is also applicable to everyone without distinction, aspirant
as well as adept, man and women, Divas and non divas. The Mantras insist that spiritual life
in any of its stages from the lowest rung of the ladder to the highest is essentially opposed to
inactivity due to ignorance, idleness, negligence etc., which are qualities of Tamas. It is also
opposed to all selfish desires for the satisfaction of the worldly pleasures in this world or next
which are the qualities of Rajas. Desires in itself is not however essentially unspiritual. In fact
one who has no desire at all cannot be called a living being. The Tyaga mentioned in the first
Sloka should not be understood as meaning, giving up all desires as well as actions so long as
one is alive, one cannot necessarily get rid of desires or activities. One can only make them
pure and Satvik and direct them towards proper goals. If they are thus trained these desires
and activities will themselves be the spiritual aspirant’s best friends. Therefore Sankara
includes qÉÑqÉѤÉiuÉqÉç or yearning for spiritual realization as one of the most
important qualifications. Similarly Bhakti is accepted by all Acharyas as a great help to
realization. So, the Vivekacudamani, says qÉÉå¤ÉMüÉUhÉxÉÉqÉaêrÉÉÇ pÉÌ£üUåuÉ
aÉUÏrÉxÉÏ. It is universally admitted that Bhakti involves an intense yearning for God.
Even Sankara says in his Su.Bh. on IV – 1- 1 that all Upasana involves that restlessness and
yearning which characterizes a loving wife and when her husband is away krÉÉrÉÌiÉ
mÉëÉåÌwÉiÉlÉÉjÉÉ mÉëÌiÉÍqÉÌiÉ rÉ ÌlÉUliÉUxqÉUhÉ mÉÌiÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ
xÉÉåiMühPûÉ xÉÉ LuÉqÉç AÍpÉkÉÏrÉiÉå. Similarly Sraddha which is considered an
important element in all spiritual life involves an element of active desire for realization of
Truth. So also a desire for xÉixÉ…¡û is helpful according to all Acharyas. c.f Sandilya Sutra
21 – WåûrÉÉ UÉaÉiuÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ cÉåiÉç lÉ E¨ÉqÉÉxmÉSiuÉÉiÉç xÉ…¡ûuÉiÉç,
according to which Bhakti is not to be condemned because it is by the nature of Raga or
desire, because it is directed to a worthy object as in the case of Satsanga, vide also Kapila’s
words in the Bhag. III: 25. 20 – 24. mÉëxÉ…¡ûqÉeÉUÇ mÉÉzÉÇ AÉiqÉlÉÈ
MüuÉrÉÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ | xÉ LuÉ xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ M×üiÉÉå
qÉÉå¤É²ÉUqÉmÉÉuÉ×iÉqÉç || iÉ LiÉå xÉÉkÉuÉÈ xÉÉkuÉÏ xÉuÉïxÉ…
¡ûÌuÉuÉÎeÉïiÉÉÈ | xÉ…¡ûxiÉåwÉÑ AjÉ iÉå mÉëÉjrÉïÈ xÉ…¡ûSÉåwÉWûUÉ
ÌWû iÉå || So also Bhagavan says in Ch XI: 12; 1. lÉ UÉåkÉrÉÌiÉ qÉÉÇ rÉÉåaÉÉå lÉ
xÉÉÇZrÉÇ kÉqÉï LuÉ cÉ | lÉ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉxiÉmÉxirÉÉaÉÉå lÉ C¹ÉmÉÔiÉïÇ lÉ
SͤÉhÉÉ | uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ rÉ¥ÉÈ NûlSÉÇÍxÉ iÉÏjÉÉïÌlÉ ÌlÉrÉqÉÉÈ rÉqÉÉÈ | rÉjÉÉ
AuÉÂlkÉå xÉixÉ…¡ûÈ xÉuÉïxÉ…¡ûÉmÉWûÉå ÌWû qÉÉqÉç || Cf. also III.23.55
xÉ…¡ûÉåÅrÉÇ xÉÇxÉ×iÉåWåïûiÉÑÈ AxÉixÉÑ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉå ÍkÉrÉ | xÉ LuÉ
xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ M×üiÉÉå ÌlÉxxÉ…¡ûiuÉÉrÉ MüsmÉiÉå || Similarly the divine
discontent which refuses to be satisfied with what one has already achieved and refuses to sit
quiet unless and until the highest perfection is reached, is part of all spiritual life. Without
such discontent and aspiration for the highest, spiritual life is likely to become stagnant. A
desire for Sadhana and Dharma is likewise not opposed to spiritual life. Even for the realized
man a desire to serve and worship the whole world as a manifestation of God is quite
consistent with his realization. It may even be that in the interest of such service and worship,

81
he may keep up by force, if necessary, some insignificant harmless desires so that he may
continue to live and be useful to others. Such desires are not inconsistent with spiritual life or
harmful to it is shown in life and teachings of all Acharya purushas and Avataras who are
reported to be very much anxious to establish Dharma, to teach others, to save the good from
the wicked etc., (i.e. mÉËU§ÉÉhÉÉrÉ xÉÉkÉÔlÉÉÇ, ÍcÉMüÐwÉÑïÈ
sÉÉåMüxÉÇaÉëWûqÉç) c.f also teachings of SRK and SV (Gospel 322-323) at request
of Hriday SRK asking Mother to cure him of some illness and Lakshmana’s question “Why
this desire to live” and Nikasha’s reply as to why she was running away seeing Rama
entering Lanka after Ravana’s death.

Manu is therefore right when he says at the beginning of the second chapter, as a preface to
the exposition of principles of Dharma ÌuÉ²Î°È xÉåÌuÉiÉÈ xÉÎ°È ÌlÉirÉÇ
A²åwÉUÉÌaÉÍpÉÈ | WØûSrÉålÉ AprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÉå rÉÉå kÉqÉÉåï iÉiÉç
ÌlÉoÉÉåkÉjÉ || MüÉqÉÉiqÉiÉÉ lÉ mÉëzÉxiÉÉ lÉ cÉæuÉåWû AÎxiÉ AMüÉqÉiÉÉ
MüÉqrÉÉå ÌWû uÉåSÉÍkÉaÉqÉÈ MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉ¶É uÉæÌSMüÈ ||
xɃ¡ûsmÉqÉÔsÉÈ MüÉqÉÉå uÉæ rÉ¥ÉÉÈ xɃ¡ûsmÉxÉqpÉuÉÉÈ | uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ
rÉqÉ kÉqÉÉï¶É xÉuÉåï xɃ¡ûsmÉeÉÉ xqÉ×iÉÉÈ || AMüÉqÉxrÉ Ì¢ürÉÉ
MüÉÍcÉiÉç SØzrÉiÉå lÉåWû MüÌWïûÍcÉiÉç | rÉiÉç rÉiÉç ÌWû MÑüÂiÉå MüqÉï
iɨÉiÉç MüÉqÉxrÉ cÉå̹iÉqÉç || iÉåwÉÑ xÉqrÉMçü uÉiÉïqÉÉlÉÉå
aÉcNûirÉqÉUsÉÉåMüiÉÉqÉç | rÉjÉÉ xɃ¡ûsmÉiÉÉǶÉåWû xÉuÉÉïlÉç
MüÉqÉÉlÉç xÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå, that he is proposing to expound Dharma as understood by the
realized persons of old who are free from greed and hatred and which is sanctioned and
approved by the human conscience at all times. It is the experience of all Dharmistas that
ordinary selfish desire is ignoble and worthy of being shunned by all people who are
interested in higher spiritual life. But unfortunately there is nobody alive who can be free
from all desires altogether. So one can at best purify these desires and sublimate them by
redirecting them to the highest spiritual goal. Thus the desire for the study of records of the
spiritual life and struggles of the ancient realized persons is not bad in itself worthy of being
only spurned on the ground that it is a desire. On the other hand it is something which is
worthy of being desired. Similarly a desire for transmuting all activities into spiritual practice
through the process of Karmayoga as advocated by the scriptures is not bad in itself, but is
even laudable. All desire is based on the idea of the goodness of the goal being good. No
doubt our ideas of the goodness of the goal may sometimes be only imaginary and hence
wrong. But that only shows how we should have correct ideas either on the basis of our own
experiences and realizations or those of the realized men of the old who have handeddown
their experience and ideas of the ultimate goal of human life and of the proper means of
attaining that goal in the form of the scriptures. For the mere reason that some desires are bad
and hence not condusive to the attainment of this goal which is foolish to consider all desires
as condemnable in themselves. All those Sadhanas which are helpful for attaining the highest
realization are worthy of being adapted by us in our life, provided we have got correct ideas
about such means. We should not therefore, fight shy of all desires altogether, because
otherwise we will be missing the goal itself. Sadhana is a form of activity which requires self
effort and the use of the will and such self effort and use of the will is initiated only by desire
to attain a goal which we have found to be worthy and acceptable. Without such a desire,
therefore, no voluntary activity is possible in pursuit of the highest goal of life. Whatever acts
we do including all Sadhanas are in a way a play or sport of desire. If, therefore, one desires
to attain immortality or Moksha one has to lean upon the help and support of pure and worthy
desires. Everybody attains a wish-for goal of human life only in terms of his proper
understanding of the goal initiating a pure and noble desire. Note here how Manu makes a

82
distinction between good desires and bad desires in terms of the goodness or the badness of
the goal aspired for. When he says MüÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ lÉ mÉëzÉxiÉÉ - he refers to selfish
desires or sense pleasures. But when he says MüÉqrÉÉå ÌWû uÉåSÉÍkÉaÉqÉÈ he refers
to selfless desires for spiritual bliss and the means of its attainments. Note also how he
distinguishes between good and bad Sankalpas upon which these desires are based. Sankalpa
means xÉqrÉMçü MüsmÉlÉÉ – i.e to find out what is really good. For directing one’s
activities one must have a clear conception of the rightness of the purpose or goal of action
through the use of xÉSxÉ̲uÉåMüoÉÑή and then strongly desire or yearn to achieve it.
This is part of all Dharma. That is why in the first Sloka he has used the word xÉqrÉMçü as
an element in xɃ¡ûsmÉ, as he knows fully well that all attainment depends upon the strong
desire based upon the connection of the goodness of the goal. That is the reason why
Yajnavalkya also speaks of xÉqrÉMçü xɃ¡ûsmÉeÉÈ MüÉqÉÈ as one of the elements
and the basis of Dharma when he says ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ xqÉ×ÌiÉxxÉSÉcÉÉUÈ xuÉxrÉ cÉ
ÌmÉërÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | xÉqrÉMçü xɃ¡ûsmÉeÉÈ MüÉqÉÈ xÉɤÉÉiÉç kÉqÉïxrÉ
sɤÉhÉqÉç xÉqrÉMçü MüÉqÉÈ CÌiÉ | This expression is usually misunderstood by
commentators (orthodox) vide Yajnavalkya Smriti I – 7 and Mitakshara on the same.
Mitakshara explains xɃ¡ûsmÉeÉÈ MüÉqÉÈ as the desire born out of a good resolve and
which is not opposed to the scriptures such as “I shall not drink water except at meals”. The
example given shows how he has mistaken the full import of the expression xÉqrÉMçü
MüÉqÉÈ as one of the roots of Dharma. Yajnavalkya however makes his idea of the highest
Dharma clear in the next verse when he says that, that alone is the highest Dharma by which
one realizes the Atman by Yoga (So the quotation rÉ¥ÉÉcÉÉUSqÉÉÌWÇûxÉÉ SÉlÉÈ
xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉMüqÉïhÉÉÇ | ArÉÇ iÉÑ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ rÉiÉç
rÉÉåaÉålÉÉiqÉSzÉïlÉqÉç |). This shows that Sankalpa and Kama must refer not to
puerile and childish desires as given by Mitakshara but by the desire based on the resolve to
achieve the best in the highest goal of life that is meant by it. Not to drink water except at
meals has nothing to do with Dharma as it is not a means for achieving Atmadarshanam. That
is why Bhagavan also gives a place to pure desire consistent with Dharma in spiritual life (cf
Gita quotation kÉqÉÉïÌuÉ®Éå pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüÉqÉÉåÅÎxqÉ pÉUiÉwÉïpÉ VII -
6). Note how he distinguishes this kind of Kama while prohibiting ignoble Kama in this very
Sloka itself, where he speaks of oÉsÉqÉç - as MüÉqÉUÉaÉÌuÉuÉÎeÉïiÉqÉç. This Sloka
clearly points out in the second line that how Kama can be consistent with Dharma. Here also
it cannot be taken merely as referring to desires such as not inconsistent with the words of the
scriptures as Sankara explains when he says kÉqÉÉïÌuÉ®Éå kÉqÉåïhÉ
zÉÉx§ÉÉjÉåïlÉÉÌuÉÂ®È rÉÈ mÉëÉÍhÉwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüÉqÉÈ rÉjÉÉ
SåWûkÉÉUhÉqÉɧÉɱjÉÉåïÅzÉlÉmÉÉlÉÉÌSÌuÉwÉrÉÈ xÉ MüÉqÉÉåÅÎxqÉ.
Unless Sankara is understood to mean by what he himself means by the word zÉÉx§ÉÉjÉï
as he himself explains it in his introduction to Gita Bhasya where he says iÉxrÉÉxrÉ
aÉÏiÉzÉÉx§ÉxrÉ xÉǤÉåmÉiÉÈ mÉëÌrÉeÉlÉÇ mÉUÇ ÌlÉ´ÉårÉxÉÉUÇ
xÉWåûiÉÑMüxrÉ xÉÇxÉÉUxrÉ AirÉliÉÉåmÉUqÉsɤÉhÉqÉç | Further on he says
that Dharma is AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉ ÌlɸÃmÉ ÌlÉ´ÉårÉxÉmÉërÉÉåeÉlÉ. If kÉqÉï
AÌuÉ®MüÉqÉÈ is taken as desire consistent with this Dharma and Sastra we have no
objection to accept this interpretation. For this would then mean only all desires which are the
means of realization and which are not opposed to such realization. Sastra in Sastrarta may
also be understood as referring to what Bhagavan himself refers to Sastram in the Gita XV
Ch. CÌiÉ aÉë½iÉqÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉÍqÉSqÉÑ£Çü qÉrÉÉlÉbÉ etc., which also leads only to
realization of God or Atman. Sastra may also be understood in its etymological sense as
zÉÉxÉlÉÉiÉç §ÉÉrÉiÉå CÌiÉ – that, which saves through the categorical or moral
imperative which is the same thing as the dictates of conscience or the inner voice of God

83
who is called Sasta in the Vedas. AliÉmÉëÌuÉ¹È zÉÉxiÉÉ eÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ xÉuÉÉïiqÉÉ.
(Suklayajurveda) The Antaryamin who guides all from inside, in this sense zÉÉxiÉÉ, can
lead only with Dharma for guiding the soul to attain the highest goal of realization. If by
zÉÉxiÉÉ is meant nearly the scriptural text, these texts will be an unsafe guide in the matter
of Dharma as there are so many injunctions in the texts which contradict one another and
which may be injurious spiritually. Therefore kÉqÉïÌuÉ®Éå MüÉqÉ should be taken
only as meaning those pure desires which are prompted by God Himself from inside or by
xÉSxÉ̲uÉåMüoÉÑή or moral sense and which has got as its only goal freedom from
bondage and realization of perfection. Incidentally we may also mention that Sankalpa or
Sankalpaja Kama or Dharma Virudha Kama emphasizes the subjective element in all Dharma
viz. the purity of the motive as distinct from the rightness or goodness of the goal. That pure
desires for achieving self realization or for effective means thereof are not condemnable is
clear from many Upanishadic texts also (Bri. Up. IV-4.22 – iÉqÉåiÉÇ
uÉåSÉlÉÑuÉcÉlÉålÉ oÉëɼhÉÉ ÌuÉÌuÉÌSzÉÎliÉ rÉ¥ÉålÉ SÉlÉålÉ iÉmÉxÉÉ
AlÉÉzÉMåülÉ | LiÉqÉåuÉ mÉëuÉÉÎeÉlÉÉå sÉÉåMüÍqÉcNûliÉÈ mÉëuÉëeÉÎliÉ |
LiÉiÉç Wû xqÉ uÉæ mÉÔuÉåï ÌuɲÉÇxÉÈ mÉëeÉÉÇ lÉ MüÉqÉrÉliÉå | ÌMÇü
mÉëeÉrÉÉ mÉËUwÉrÉÉqÉÈ rÉåwÉÉÇ lÉÈ ArÉqÉÉiqÉÉ ArÉÇ sÉÉåMüÈ CÌiÉ
iÉå Wû xqÉ mÉѧÉæwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É ÌuɨÉæwÉhÉÉrÉɶÉ
sÉÉåMæüwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É urÉÑijÉÉrÉ ÍpɤÉÉcÉrÉïÇ cÉUÎliÉ and also Gita IV –
qÉÉÍqÉcNûÉmiÉÑÇ kÉlÉgeÉrÉ. Note this passage refers to two different kinds of
desires which are opposed to each other. One kind of desire is directed towards the realization
of the Atman through Yajna, Dana, Tapas, etc, study of the Veda all of which are means for
such realization. That is the course of the world ÌuÉÌuÉÌSkÉÎliÉ which means
uÉå¨ÉÑÍqÉcNûÎliÉ – i.e desires to realize. Such a desire is held laudable. It is in pursuit of
this desire and to satisfy it the people become Sannyasins, fully convinced of the futility of a
Grihastha’s life in quest of children, wealth, and celestial sense enjoyment in another world.
Desires for these things form the other variety of desires which are dangerous to spiritual life
and therefore only fit to be given up as practiced and prescribed by the wise men of the
world. It is, therefore, clear from this passage that the desire for realization and for the
practice of Sadhanas for the same is to be distinguished from the desire for selfish sense
pleasure and worldly properity. Note the word CcNûliÉÈ also, which shows all desires to
give up for worldly prosperity etc. need not be given up on the ground that it is also a desire
(c.f Katha IV: 1; 1, Sloka 15 – 16. mÉUÉÎgcÉ ZÉÉÌlÉ urÉiÉ×hÉiÉç xuÉrÉqpÉÔÈ
iÉxqÉÉiÉç mÉUÉXèû mÉzrÉÌiÉ lÉÉliÉUÉiqÉlÉç | MüͶɮÏUÈ
mÉëirÉaÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉç L¤ÉiÉç AÉuÉרÉcɤÉÑÈ AqÉ×iÉiuÉÍqÉcNûlÉç. Here
desire for Mukti is said to be the means for practicing spiritual discipline such as sense
control, mind control, renunciation, meditation on the Atman etc., vide also Katha II: Sloka
15 – 16 rÉÌScNûliÉÉå oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ cÉUÎliÉ rÉÉå rÉÌScNûÌiÉ iÉxrÉ iÉiÉç. III:
Sloka 2 ApÉrÉÇ ÌiÉiÉÏwÉïiÉÉÇ mÉÉUqÉç, where ÌiÉiÉÏwÉïiÉÉÇ means
iÉiÉÑïÍqÉcNûÉ meaning the desire to cross. Note also that it is this desire for the highest
realization and for the means of such realization that is mentioned in all the Upanishads as the
most important qualification which makes a Sishya an Adhikari for Vidya. Thus in Katha we
find Nachiketa being described as withdrawing all temptations offered by Mrityu as a test of
his Adhikara and at the same time choosing Brahma Vidya as his boon inspite of the Guru’s
attempt to dissuade him from praying for such a boon. It is this which pleases the Guru and
makes him congratulate the Sishya as a xÉirÉkÉ×ÌiÉ one who is determined to realize the
highest truth or God and nothing else. We find Yama here classifying all desires into two
groups ´ÉårÉqÉç as well as mÉëårÉxÉç, the former being consent with the realization of
God and the later with the selfish enjoyment of the worldly or sensual pleasures. He says that

84
he only is a true hero who can distinguish between these two and stick to the former only
rejecting the later. (cf: Ch. I &II). Similarly we find in Tait.Up. Bhriguvalli, Bhrigu going to
Varuna and expressing to him his desire for Brahma vidya. AkÉÏÌWû pÉaÉuÉÉå
oÉë¼åÌiÉ. In Prasna. Up. we find six vedic scholars going to Pippalada and expressing to
him their desire for Brahma vidya. When the sage wants them that they should undergo
further discipline of Brahmacharya for another year, they come again after undergoing such
discipline and put various questions to him desiring to get their doubts cleared. Similarly in
the Ch. Up., we find the students (going to the Gurus) like Narada, Svetaketu and other Vedic
scholars approaching their teachers and expressing to them their desire to learn. Even Indra
and Virochana are described as having approached Prajapati himself with the desire for
Brahma vidya. In fact, in all the Vidyas of Ch. Up., there is the same procedure of the Sishyas
going to the Guru and expressing to him their desire to learn. It is only this expression of
desire which the Gurus accept as the prime qualification for instruction. Though the word
Upanayana used, it is used only in its pure etymological sense of going to the teacher with the
desire to be instructed. That, no ritualistic Upanayana is required for Brahma vidya is clear
from the statement iÉÉlÉç Wû AlÉÑmÉlÉÏrÉæuÉ LiÉSÒuÉÉcÉ. Ch. Up. V: 11, 7 Also
(EmÉÉrÉlÉMüÐirÉÉï EuÉÉxÉ) & Bri. Up. VI: 2.7. xÉ uÉæ aÉÉæiÉqÉç iÉÏjÉåïlÉ
CcNûÉxÉÉ CÌiÉ EmÉæqrÉWÇû pÉuÉliÉÍqÉÌiÉ uÉÉcÉÉ Wû xqÉæuÉ mÉÔuÉï
EmÉrÉÎliÉ xÉ Wû EmÉÉrÉlÉMüÐirÉÉï EuÉÉxÉ | Here the Guru requires the Sishya
Gauthama to formally express to him his desire for inspection as per the ancient practice and
Gauthama simply says “I approach you with the desire to learn”. The Sruti then goes on to
point out the aspirant for Brahma vidya who are formally admitted as students or disciples by
mere expression of such desires in ancient times. The words of these two Sruti passages are
quite clear on this point although the orthodox commentators express that this holds good
only when the Sishya belongs to the higher class and Guru to a lower caste, which
explanation is absolutely unwarranted by the words of the text itself. Many of the Sishyas in
quest of Brahmavidya are already vedic scholars and have already finished their ritualistic
Upanayana long before they approached their Guru for Brahmavidya. So there could not have
been any necessity for fresh ritualistic Upanayanam. In the Gita also we find Arjuna
approaching Bhagavan for instruction only with the desire to be enlightened on what is
´ÉårÉxÉç, (MüÉmÉïhrÉ SÉåwÉ). Even in the XI Ch. we find him expressing to
Bhagavan his desire to see His Universal form Virat Svarupa Sì¹ÒÍqÉcNûÉÍqÉ iÉå
ÃmÉqÉç Sl.3, ÌuÉ¥ÉÉiÉÑÍqÉcNûÉÍqÉ pÉuÉliÉqÉç.13. CcNûÉÍqÉ iuÉÉÇ Sì¹ÒÇ
iÉjÉæuÉ.46 and it is in pursuance of such desire and request that Bhagavan shows him His
different forms. Even in the beginning of the XVIII Ch. it is only in response to Arjuna’s
desire to know the difference between Sanyasa and Tyaga that Bhagavan gives His
instructions. The various other parts of the text Arjuna is seen repeatedly questioning
Bhagavan to clear his doubts on various points and we may say that the whole of the Gita
teaching is given only in reply to such questions. This shows how the Sishya should be
always ready to put the questions to the Guru to clear the doubts and for elucidation of
intricate points in the teachings. All these questions are only expression of the desire to know
more and more. In fact Bhagavan expressly says in Ch. IV that this Pariprasna i.e always
questioning and enquiring is one of the qualifications which make a good Sishya. It is only
when the Sishya is too idle and lazy to think about the problems himself and to have doubts
that the Guru makes him think and create doubts in him so as to create the desire in him to
know more about the topic and more clearly induce him to put questions to the Guru to get
such doubts cleared. In fact it is for this express purpose that the Acharyas raise
‘Purvapaksha’ in their commentary before they give the Siddhanta or settle correct

85
conclusions. All these show what a high place the pure desire occupies in spiritual life and
practice.

In fact, desire is the very root of creation as mentioned in Nasadiya Sukta (R.V: X: 129, 4)
MüÉqÉxiÉSaÉëå xÉqÉuÉiÉïiÉÉÌS qÉlÉxÉÉå UåiÉÈ mÉëjÉqÉÇ rÉSÉxÉÏiÉç | It is
this prime orginal desire and volition of God to sacrifice himself that is referred to in the
Purushasukta. So also we find in the Upanishads the same desire and volition referred to as
the first step in all account of creation in such terms as Kama, Likshana, etc
MüÉqÉxiÉSaÉëå xÉqÉuÉiÉïiÉÉÌS qÉlÉxÉÉå UåiÉÈ mÉëjÉqÉÇ rÉSÉxÉÏiÉç
(Tait.) iÉSæ¤ÉiÉ oÉWÒûxrÉÉÇ mÉëeÉÉrÉårÉåÌiÉ (Ch. Up. VI: 23) Prasna VI:3 xÉ
D¤ÉÉÇcÉ¢åü MüÎxqɳÉWûqÉÑi¢üÉliÉ Ei¢üÉliÉÉå pÉÌuÉwrÉÉÍqÉ MüÎxqÉluÉÉ
mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉå mÉëÌiɸÉxrÉÉÍqÉÌiÉ |). Also Aitereya I.I.1 AÉiqÉÉ uÉÉ CSqÉåMü
LuÉÉaÉë AÉxÉϳÉÉlrÉiÉç ÌMügcÉlÉÍqÉwÉiÉç | xÉ C¤ÉiÉ sÉÉåMüɳÉÑ xÉÑeÉÉ
CÌiÉ. The whole of creation bears the impression of this initial movement of the creator’s
will and desire. That is why the whole of creation is in a state of motion and flux along with
each individual element in it, which led to is being named ‘Jagat’ as in the I Verse of Isa. Up.
Activity is thus the natural characteristic of every thing in this creation. It is only when the
whole world is dissolved at the time of ‘Pralaya’ that one can expect the cessation of this
activity. Even in the state of ‘Pralaya’ the potentiality of this activity still remains. As per the
Nasadiya Sukta which speaks of ‘AÉhÉÏSuÉÉiÉÇ,’ it breathed breathlessly. Every fresh
manifestation of the Universe and its evolution is the result of the reaction against the action
of ‘Prakriti’ or Maya in making the infinite finite. Every activity is therefore, in the form of a
going back of the finite to the infinite and of an expansion due to this previous contraction.
Every activity, therefore, has its prime object – the restoration of the finite to its natural
infinity or to put it in other words, every activcity is a divine activity originating in the Divine
Will with the realization of the absolute as its purpose. That is why in the Gita, Bhagavan
says that ‘Yajna’ or Divine activity is coeval with creation itself xÉWûrÉ¥ÉÉÈ mÉëeÉÉ
xÉ×wOèuÉÉ etc. Thus the whole of biological evolution is only a cosmic manifestation of
spiritual practice though in its earlier stages it may be apparently unconscious, unintelligent
and involuntary. Even the physical laws of attraction or chemical affinity are only nascent
stages of desire and love which manifest themselves in their fuller glory in the later stages of
creation, love and sacrifice, co-operation and service are thus at the very root of the world
process. Even modern scientist have begun to take this view of things vide Patrick etc. It is
said in the Mhb. that human beings have come into possession of body and Indriyas and mind
as a result of this primary desire to attain perfection in realization of its true nature as the
absolute vide Santi Parva 213. 16 zÉoSUÉaÉÉiÉç ´ÉÉå§ÉqÉxrÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå
pÉÉÌuÉiÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | ÃmÉUÉaÉÉiÉç iÉjÉÉ cɤÉÑÈ bÉëÉhÉÇ aÉlkÉÎeÉbÉפÉrÉÉ
Vide also Bhag.XI xÉ×¹É mÉÑUÉÍhÉ ÌuÉÌuÉkÉÉÌlÉ etc and Aita. Ar. II Ch.3 rÉ
AÉåwÉÍkÉuÉlÉxmÉiÉrÉÉå rÉŠ ÌMügcÉ mÉëÉhÉpÉÔiÉç xÉ
AÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉÌuÉxiÉÉUÉÇ uÉåS AÉåwÉÍkÉuÉlÉxmÉÌiÉwÉÑ ÌWû UxÉÉå
SØzrÉiÉå ÍcɨÉÇ mÉëÉhÉpÉ×ixuÉåuÉ AÉÌuÉxiÉUÉqÉÉiqÉÉ iÉåwÉÑ ÌWû
UxÉÉåÅÌmÉ SØzrÉiÉå lÉ ÍcɨÉÍqÉiÉUåwÉÑ mÉÑÂwÉåwuÉåuÉ
AÉÌuÉxiÉUÉqÉÉiqÉÉ xÉ ÌWû mÉë¥ÉÉlÉålÉ xÉqmɳÉÇ AiÉÉå ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ
uÉSÌiÉ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ mÉzrÉÌiÉ uÉåS µÉxiÉlÉÇ uÉåS sÉÉåMüÉsÉÉåMüÉæ
qÉirÉåïlÉÉqÉ×iÉqÉÏmxÉÌiÉ LuÉÇ xÉqmɳÉÈ etc, also Bhag. XI. Raga or desire for
something better and Dvesha or discontent with the existing state of affairs which is
responsible for evolving life out of matter and mind out of life is also primarily responsible
for the final manifestation of the Atman and its true nature. All huan equipment is meant by
nature of God only to enable man to realize his own nature as the Brahman Absolute. That is

86
why Bhagavan in Bhagavata calls man as oÉë¼ÉuÉsÉÉåMüÉÍkÉwÉhÉÈ. That is why
Dharma is considered as the distinguishing charactersitc faculty of man (cf. Mbh.
AÉWûUÌlÉSìÉpÉrÉqÉæjÉÑlÉÇ cÉ ) etc.

It is as a result of self-effort and God’s Grace that the finite has been evolving higher and
higher though unconsciously there is an inner urge in the whole of nature as well as in each
individual which raises them and makes them evolve into higher beings without any
conscious volition until the individual reaches the stage of man, when he becomes conscious
of his individuality and becomes self-centered in the consciousness of himself as a separate
being from others. He becomes eager to satify this inner urge with the help of all the
instruments such as the senses, Manas, Buddhi etc. for himself without caring for others. That
is to say, the ego manifests itself in man with higher powers to satify its original craving.
Henceforth man becomes the master of his own destiny consciously and self-effort becomes
volitional but still it is the same prime inner urge which manifested itself at the beginning of
creation and took various higher and higher forms in the course of evolution of physical,
chemical, biological (biotic) and psychic urges that now manifests in a higher form as the
moral urge and the spiritual urge. This is possible only after the consciousness of the
individuality or ego as developed in the stage of man and hence Dharma and Moksha as
Purusharthas appeal only in the human stage of evolution. Here there is not only a
consciousness the goal of life and evolution but also of the means of attaining it, together
with the consciousness of his own higher powers and capacity to achieve the goal. He also
becomes capable of knowing what is good and what is bad, of right and wrong, of truth and
falsehood, of beauty and ugliness etc. In other words, he gets the power of discrimination.
With this power comes effort (self-effort) to achieve the real goal and escape from all the
obstacles that stand in his way. In short, he becomes capable of not only ‘Pravritti’ but also
‘Nirvritti’, the latter taking the form of irÉÉaÉ, uÉæUÉarÉ, wÉQèûaÉÑhÉxÉqmĘ́É,
qÉÑqÉѤÉÑiuÉ etc., the former unfortunately by the time his egoism and capacities
develop, man is still in the grip of some of the limitations put on its new-found freedom by
the vestiges of the earlier stages of his evolution which prevent him from achieving his goal
in one life. Traces of these earlier stages are found in the form of Tamas & Rajas although he
has developed the capacity for Sattva. Unless he gets free from these shackles, human nature
which is freely Satvic cannot have free play and take him to final goal. His Satvic nature,
however, has got the capacity to assert itself against the previous Samskaras of Rajas &
Tamas being really more powerful than the latter and having been developed only for this
purpose.

According to principles of biological evolution in its relation to the development of each

individual of the species, the growth of man from the stage of egg and Zygote to the foetus
and to that of full-grown child ready for exit from the mother’s womb at the time of birth
follows exactly on the pattern of evolution of life and of the race. This is called the principle
of Recaptulation (cf. C.W. - II. 18). The whole process of evolution is condensed into a
shorter period of about 10 months. Just as at the beginning of evolution the main
characteristics of the evolving being was its inertia, absence of consciousness etc. which are
characteristic of Tamas and this was followed by the capacity to move and live of its own
accord even at the expense of others which are the characteristics of Rajas. We find in the
course of the development also Tamas gradually giving place to Rajas. When the child is
born it is only a young animal but capable of living its own life independently with its own
capacities to take food and digest, to breathe, to have its own blood circulation etc. without
being slavishly depending on the mother’s blood circulation etc. for keeping its continuity of

87
life. But still in the early stages of its babyhood it is more Tamasik than Rajasik. But
gradually instead of its helplessly lying on its back and merely crying for the satisfaction of
its vital needs it takes a hand in its own further development by gradually crawling on its own
chest and walking on all fours, trying to stand erect and walk without any external help or
prompting. Later on it learns to use its own hand and go about here and there without any
conscious purpose or aim or being aware of its own interests. He thus becomes more and
more Rajasic. His mental powers gradually manifest themselves and in the earlier stages there
powers are used indiscriminately in the interest (selfish) of himself. He becomes always
interested in play, in the use of his senses and limbs which give him pleasure without any
thought of right or wrong. The Satvic nature, at this time, is under the control of vital
cravings such as that for food and drink or in other words, the demands of the body and life
representing Tamas-Rajas exploits the mental powers for its own use. It is through education
that these mental powers or the Satvic aspect of its being is gradually strengthened and
disciplined and enabled to control both the physical and vital activities and utilize them for its
own purposes without being exploited by them. It is only when the Satvic powers become
stronger and more powerful that the individual can really claim to have attained the stage of
manhood. Before that stage he is still only a vegetable or animal according as Tamas or Rajas
predominate. To live like a man is to lead a disciplined life free from the control of Rajas and
Tamas and in the full use of all the powers acquired in the course of evolution consciously or
purposively for the attainment of the highest goal with the help of Sattva. One who thus does
not have knowledge of the real goal of life and the means of its attainment which is the
characteristic of Sattva and does not sub-ordinate the demands of body and life to such
attainment that is to say, control Rajas and Tamas through Sattva and make full use of them
Satvic powers to attain the highest perfection that he is capable of, his life is not really a
human life. He cannot therefore, be said to be alive on the human plane. He is more dead than
alive. To have attained the human body with all its powers, capacities and opportunities, not
to have made use of them is really to fall away from man-hood into the previous stage of
evolution. He is said to be only breathing like a pair of bellows and not like a living human
being. Realization of God through spiritual practice is the sign of real life. It is only in
‘Jivanmukti’ perfection and fullness and maturity of human life is achieved. Only a
Jivanmukta is entitled to be called a ‘man’. All others who are struggling to attain it
voluntarily and consciously are only in the stage of spiritual childhood. Therefore, Sw. V.
says that education must be man-making and it is the manifestation of perfection already in
man and religion is the manifestation of the divinity already in man Real human activity is,
therefore, always educative and religious and religion & education become synonymous with
one another. That is why the Katha Up. Says AÉiqÉlÉÇ UÍjÉlÉÇ ÌuÉή zÉUÏUÇ
UjÉqÉåuÉ iÉÑ | oÉÑ먂 iÉÑ xÉÉUÍjÉÇ ÌuÉή qÉlÉÈ mÉëaÉëWûqÉåuÉ cÉ ||
CÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ WûrÉÉlÉç AÉWÒûÈ ÌuÉwÉrÉÉÇxiÉåwÉÑ aÉÉåcÉUlÉç |
AÉiqÉåÎlSìrÉqÉlÉÉårÉÑ£Çü pÉÉå£åüirÉÉWÒûqÉïlÉÏÌwÉhÉÈ ||
rÉxiuÉÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉuÉÉlÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ ArÉÑ£åülÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ xÉSÉ | iÉxrÉåÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ
uÉzrÉÉÌlÉ xÉSµÉÉ CuÉ xÉÉUjÉåÈ || rÉxiuÉÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉuÉÉlÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ
AqÉlÉxMüÈ xÉSÉÅzÉÑÍcÉÈ | lÉ xÉ iÉimÉSqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ xÉÇxÉÉUÇ
cÉÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || rÉxiÉÑ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉuÉÉlÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ xÉqÉlÉxMüÈ xÉSÉ
zÉÑÍcÉÈ | xÉ iÉÑ iÉimÉSqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ iÉimÉSqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ rÉxqÉÉSè
pÉÔrÉÉå lÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå || ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉxÉÉUÍjÉrÉïxiÉÑ qÉlÉÈ mÉëaÉëWûuÉÉlÉç
lÉUÈ | xÉÉåÅkuÉlÉÈ mÉÉUqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ iÉ̲whÉÉåÈ mÉUqÉÇ mÉSqÉç ||
CÎlSìrÉåpÉrÉÈ mÉUÉ ½jÉÉïÈ AjÉåïprÉ¶É mÉUÇ qÉlÉÈ | qÉlÉxÉxiÉÑ mÉUÉ
oÉÑÎ®È oÉÑ®åUÉiqÉÉ qÉWûÉlmÉUÈ || qÉWûiÉÈ mÉUqÉurÉ£Çü
AurÉ£üÉiÉç mÉÑÂwÉÈ mÉUÈ | mÉÑÂwÉÉ³É mÉUÇ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç xÉÉ MüɸÉ

88
xÉÉ mÉUÉaÉÌiÉÈ || LwÉÈ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ aÉÔRûÉiqÉÉ lÉ
mÉëMüÉzÉiÉå | SØzrÉiÉå iÉÑ AaÉëçrrÉÉ oÉÑSèkrÉÉ xÉÔ¤qÉrÉÉ
xÉÔ¤ÉqÉSÍzÉïÍpÉÈ | The same allegory is repeated in all the scriptures. In this beautiful
and suggestive allegory every object in the world is said to have its own individual self-
manifest or un-manifest. Each of these individual selves or Jivatma is described to have got
himself into the body as a chariot and evolution and development are said to be only directed
towards the attainment of highest perfection or divinity in self-realization. The Jivatman is
said to be on a pilgrimage to perfection described here as the highest status of God-hood. He
is travelling in the chariot constituted by the body, by the road constituted by the world of
sense-objects. Life is thus only a process of self-realization with the help of the body. The
Indriyas are compared to the horses, the Manas to the reins and Buddhi to the charioteer. If
any of these is not in proper health and in good working order, the chariot will not move and
the goal will not be reached. So proper living should be based upon a training of these
instruments and not in disabling or destroying them and in making the proper use of them.
The horses should be under the control of the charioteer through the reins and they must be
properly yoked to the chariot and the charioteer must not only be trained in the art of driving
but also must be strong enough to hold the reins firmly in hand and to control the restive
horses. But even these are not sufficient. The charioteer must also know where to go and
what is the destination is and must be under the orders and control of the pilgrim who has got
into the chariot. Thus the Buddhi must be under the control of Jivatman and must know the
goal of lie as self-realization and the means of attaining it and must be an expert in
controlling the senses through the Manas. All of which must be well-trained and kept healthy
through proper exercise, food etc. The whole fate of the pilgrim is in the hands of the
charioteer and the Jivatman cannot expect to realize God except through the help and co-
operation and willing obedience of the Buddhi. It is only in human life that the Jivatman gets
the help of this Buddhi and therefore, only in human life he can attain his goal. It is only one
who is capable of controlling the senses through the Manas and Buddhi and making use of
them properly that can be said to be alive as a man and manliness should be shown by such
control and proper use. If the Buddhi is not under control, the powerful restive senses will
bring the Jivatman to the ruins and therefore, he who does not exert this control and use these
instruments properly when he has the capacity and opportunity to do it he is as good as
committing suicide, either voluntarily or in-voluntarily through ignorance or negligence or
other pre-occupations. This allegory is adopted in the Bhagavata also in VII: 15; 41-46 with
more and fuller details by Narada AÉWÒûzzÉUÏUÇ UjÉÇ CÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ WûrÉÉlÉç
ApÉÏwÉÔlÉç qÉlÉÈ CÎlSìrÉåzÉqÉç | uÉiqÉÉïÌlÉ qÉɧÉÉÈ ÍkÉwÉhÉÉÇ cÉ
xÉÔiÉÇ xÉiuÉÇ oÉ×WûioÉlkÉÑUqÉÏzÉxÉ×¹qÉç || A¤ÉÇ SzÉmÉëÉhÉÇ
kÉqÉÉïkÉqÉÉæï cÉ¢åü AÍpÉqÉÉlÉÇ UÍjÉlÉÇ cÉ eÉÏuÉÇ | kÉlÉÑÌWïû iÉxrÉ
mÉëhÉuÉÇ mÉPûÎliÉ zÉUÇ iÉÑ eÉÏuÉÇ mÉUqÉåuÉ sɤrÉqÉç || UÉaÉÉå
²åwÉ¶É sÉÉåpÉ¶É zÉÉåMüqÉÉåWûÉæ pÉrÉÇ qÉSÈ |
qÉÉlÉÉåÅuÉqÉÉlÉÉåÅxÉÔrÉÉ cÉ qÉÉrÉÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉ qÉixÉUÈ || UeÉÈ
mÉëqÉÉSÈ ¤ÉÑiÉç ÌlÉSìÉ zɧÉuÉxiÉÑ LuÉqÉÉSrÉÈ | UeÉxiÉqÉÈ
mÉëM×üiÉrÉÈ xÉiuÉÈ mÉëM×üiÉrÉÈ YuÉÍcÉiÉç || rÉÉuÉiÉç lÉ×MüÉrÉUjÉÇ
AÉiqÉuÉzÉÉåmÉMüsmÉÇ kɨÉå aÉËU¸cÉUhÉÉcÉïlÉrÉÉ ÌlÉzÉÉiÉÇ |
¥ÉÉlÉÉÍxÉÇ AcrÉÑiÉoÉsÉÉå SkÉiÉç AxiÉzɧÉÑÈ xuÉÉUÉerÉiÉÑ¹È EmÉzÉÉliÉ
CSÇ ÌuÉeɽÉiÉç || lÉÉå cÉåiÉç mÉëqɨÉqÉç AxÉÌSÎlSìrÉuÉÉÎeÉxÉÔiÉÉ
lÉÏiuÉÉ EimÉjÉÇ ÌuÉwÉrÉSxrÉÑwÉÑ ÌlÉͤÉmÉÎliÉ | iÉå SxrÉuÉÈ
xÉWûrÉxÉÔiÉqÉç AqÉÑÇ iÉqÉÉåokÉå xÉÇxÉÉUMÔümÉå EÂqÉ×irÉÑpÉrÉå
ͤÉmÉÎliÉ | In this description of spiritual life Narada adds some other details such as
kÉqÉÉïkÉqÉï as the wheels of the chariot and the Pranas as the spoke of the wheels. He

89
also introduces into the allegory the picture in Mundaka Upanishad of the Jivatman making
use of the Pranava or Omkara as a Dhanu or bow and his own individuality or ego as the
arrow to be shot at Brahman as the aim. Jivatma here is not a mere pilgrim as in the Katha
Up. but a warrior who has gone out in his chariot to fight his enemies which are here
described as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. According to Narada, if the Buddhi is not properly used
the restive horses or the Indriyas are not properly controlled through the Manas, the horses
are said to take the warrior away and leave him stranded in the midst of robbers, via, the 3
gunas, who may despoil him and even murder him. He may not only be unable to win the
fight over his enemies but may get into greater danger and risk to life. It is interesting to note
the comparison of Gunas to robbers which reminds us of S.R.K’s teachings, it is said, and
these robbers may throw him into the dark well of Samsara. One is, therefore, warned not to
be negligent or careless in making proper use of the opportunities of all that is afforded by a
birth in a human body. We find the same allegory mentioned in the Maitreyi Up. and Ch. Up.
with slight variations such as making the Jivatman himself the charioteer. In the light of this
conception of human life and its goal, there are various descriptions in other texts such as the
Bhagavatam of man committing suicide or cheating himself if he does not struggle for self
realization by Tyaga and Yoga in their various forms. cf. Bhagavatam XI: 23, 22 & 23
sÉokuÉÉ eÉlqÉ AqÉUmÉëÉjrÉïÇ qÉÉlÉÑwrÉÇ iÉiÉç ̲eÉÉaÉëçrÉiÉÉÇ
iÉSlÉÉSØirÉ rÉå xuÉÉjÉïÇ blÉÎliÉ rÉÉÎliÉ AzÉÑpÉÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç ||
xuÉaÉÉïmÉuÉaÉïrÉÉå²ÉïUÇ mÉëÉmrÉ sÉÉåMüÍqÉqÉÇ mÉÑqÉÉlÉç SìÌuÉhÉå
MüÉå AlÉÑwÉ‹iÉå qÉirÉÉåïÅlÉjÉïxrÉ kÉÉqÉÌlÉ || Here wealth or worldly prosperity
or struggle for the same is said to be the cause of self destruction. Note Dvijagryata here
means not birth in a Brahmin family but the spiritual second birth which makes a man a Dvija
or twice-born (cf. also Ch. 19:17 -18 lÉ×SåWûqÉÉ±Ç xÉÑsÉpÉÇ xÉÑSÒsÉïpÉÇ
msÉuÉÇ xÉÑMüsmÉÇ aÉÑÂMühÉïkÉÉUqÉç | qÉrÉÉ AlÉÑMÔüsÉålÉ
lÉpÉxuÉiÉåËUiÉÇ mÉÑqÉÉlÉç pÉuÉÉÎokÉÇ lÉ iÉUåiÉç xÉ AÉiqÉWûÉ || Where
instead of human life being considered as a journey in a chariot, it is described as a journey
across the ocean of Samsara in a boat. The human body is compared to the boat and the Guna
to helmsman, divine grace as a favorable wind. If one neglects all these opportunities to cross
over the ocean of Samsara he is said to be as good as committing suicide. Notice in this
allegory the place given to the favorable wind which is the driving force, viz, the grace of
God. The Guru’s word is said to be only to steer the boat. The human birth is thus intended
by God’s grace only for the crossing of the ocean of Samsara and the forces of evolution
working from inside as the inner urge for perfection is the real force behind all human
activity. This inner urge is always in our favor. Man has only to take full advantage of it
through spiritual practice with the help of the Guru. This spiritual practice is only an exercise
of his own free will and self-effort (Paurusha) and he has only himself to thank if he ruins
himself by not taking advantage of the opportunities thus afforded for self-realization. Self-
effort should be in the direction of self- control, self-surrender etc. as well as meditation etc.
This is mentioned in the next Sloka rÉSÉÅUqpÉåwÉÑ ÌlÉÌuÉïhhÉÉå ÌuÉU£üÈ
xÉÇrÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ AprÉÉxÉålÉÉiqÉlÉÉå rÉÉåaÉÏ kÉÉUrÉåScÉsÉÇ qÉlÉÈ (11:20;
18) etc. Thus self-effort is only to give full play to the God’s grace and to the removal of
obstacles to its working in the form of AWÇûMüÉU, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. The
legitimate use of our free will, therefore, is to surrender ourselves to the divine influence or
grace. Ahankara itself is to be made use for destroying itself. In the 7 Chap of same skanda
11, he refers to sex desires or sex enjoyment as leading to man’s fall after climbing up the
ladder of evolution and attaining manhood rÉÈ mÉëÉmrÉ qÉÉlÉÑwÉÇ sÉÉåMÇü
qÉÑÌ£ü²ÉUqÉmÉÉuÉ×iÉqÉç aÉ×WåûwÉÑ ZÉaÉuÉiÉç
xÉ£üxiÉqÉÉÃRûcrÉÑiÉÇ ÌuÉSÒÈ || Note the expression AÉÃRûcrÉÑiÉqÉç which

90
suggest the heights to which the Jiva has climbed up in the course of evolution when he
attains the human birth. To throw away such a high status like a bird voluntarily in
involuntarily is as dangerous as a fall after climbing up a tree. Among the animals the bird is
specially mentioned as the one which can climb very high. If having soared very high in the
heavens the bird were to close its wings, naturally it will fall down and die. The foolish man
who does not use his powers is said to share the same fate as the bird. Note also in this Sloka
it is Garhastya-life that is described as the cause of the fall and consequent ruin. Putting these
slokas together we get Kama – kanchana as the cause of one’s spiritual ruin. And human
dignity and status can be sustained only by the renunciation of these two as Sri Ramakrishna
says. See also XI: 7; 19 -23 where Bhagavan emphasizes the part of self-effort in man’s
spiritual uplift – mÉëÉrÉåhÉ qÉlÉÑeÉÉÈ sÉÉåMåü sÉÉåMüiÉiuÉÌuÉcɤÉhÉÉÈ |
xÉqÉÑ®UÎliÉ ÌWû AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ AÉiqÉlÉæuÉ AzÉÑpÉÉzÉrÉÉiÉç || AÉiqÉlÉÈ
aÉÑÂUÉiqÉæuÉ mÉÑÂwÉxrÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | rÉiÉç
mÉëirɤÉÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉprÉÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ AxÉÉæ AlÉÑÌuÉlSiÉå || mÉÑÂwÉiuÉå cÉ
qÉÉ kÉÏUÉÈ xÉÉÇZrÉrÉÉåaÉÌuÉzÉÉUSÉÈ | AÉÌuÉxiÉUÉÇ mÉëmÉzrÉÎliÉ
xÉuÉïzÉÌ£ü EmÉoÉ×ÇÌWûiÉqÉç || LMü̧̲ÉcÉiÉÑwmÉÉSÉå oÉWÒûmÉÉSÈ
iÉjÉÉÅmÉSÈ | oÉyurÉÈ xÉÎliÉ mÉÑUÈ xÉ×¹ÉÈ iÉÉxÉÉÇ qÉå mÉÉæÂwÉÏ
ÌmÉërÉÉ || A§É qÉÉÇ qÉÉaÉïrÉÎliÉ A®É rÉÑ£üÉÈ WåûiÉÑÍpÉUϵÉUÇ |
aÉ×½qÉÉhÉæÈ aÉÑhÉæÈ ÍsÉ…¡æûÈ AaÉëɽqÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉiÉÈ || In these slokas
Bhagavan described the glory of the human birth in as much as it is only in human birth that
the Jiva gets the free will and capacity for self-effort for realizing divinity as its true nature,
thus making use of what is known to understand the un-known and the un-knowable. Man is
his own Guru and even if he is left to himself without any guide he can raise himself up to
divinity through his own self-effort. In XI:5;14 -16 it is said in the words of Rishi Chamasa
that he who does not realize God in everything and who kills animals in the sacrificial ritual
in expectation of heaven and who misses thereby mukti which is his birthright is thereby
committing spiritual suicide. rÉå iÉÑ AlÉåuÉÇÌuÉSÉå AxÉliÉÈ xiÉokÉÉÈ
xÉSÍpÉqÉÉÌlÉlÉÈ mÉzÉÔlÉç Sì½ÎliÉ ÌuÉ´É®ÉÈ mÉëåirÉ ZÉÉSÎliÉ iÉå cÉ
iÉÉlÉç || ̲wÉliÉÈ mÉUMüÉrÉåwÉÑ xuÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ WûËUqÉϵÉUÇ qÉ×iÉMåü
xÉÉlÉÑoÉlkÉåÅÎxqÉlÉç oÉ®xlÉåWûÉÈ mÉiÉlirÉkÉÈ rÉå MæüuÉsrÉÇ
AxÉÇmÉëÉmiÉÉÈ rÉå cÉ AiÉÏiÉÉ¶É qÉÔRûiÉÉ §ÉåuÉÌaÉïMüÉ ÌWû
A¤ÉÍhÉMüÉÈ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ bÉÉiÉrÉÎliÉ iÉå || Here also the Grihastha’s attachment to
excessive ritualism as a means of intensive sense-enjoyment is said to be the cause of his
down-fall and he is therefore, considered to be committing suicide. Vide also X: 87-88 for the
same idea of spiritual suicide. X: 63; 40-41 says that a man who does not take refuge at the
feet of God being deluded by his attachment to wife, children, family etc. is thereby cheating
himself. rÉlqÉÉrÉÉqÉÉåÌWûiÉÍkÉrÉÈ mÉѧÉSÉUaÉ×WûÉÌSwÉÑ | ElqÉ‹ÎliÉ
ÌlÉqÉ‹ÎliÉ mÉëxÉ£üÉÈ uÉ×ÎeÉlÉÉhÉïuÉå || SåuÉS¨ÉÍqÉqÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ
lÉ×sÉÉåMÇü AÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ | rÉÉå lÉ AÉÌSìrÉåiÉ iuÉimÉÉSÉæ xÉ zÉÉåcrÉÉå
AÉiqÉuÉgcÉMüÈ | X.51.47 speaks of a home as a dark well into which a man falls like a
beast, if after obtaining the human birth he does not utilize these opportunities to realize God.
in the words of Mucukunda) sÉokuÉÉ eÉlÉÉå SÒsÉïpÉqÉç A§É qÉÉlÉÑwÉÇ
MüjÉÉÎgcÉiÉç AurÉ…¡Çû ArɦÉiÉÉå AlÉkÉ | mÉÉSÉUÌuÉlSÇ lÉ pÉeÉÌiÉ
AxÉqqÉÌiÉÈ aÉ×WûÉlkÉMÔümÉå mÉÌiÉiÉÉå rÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÑÈ || Here such a man
is compared to a beast or an animal instead of a bird as was done by Bhagavan. The
illustrations of the Pasu & Khaga only emphasize the fact that he falls to a lower states from
which it was only with great difficulty that he had climbed up to the status of man. It means
more or less the same thing which Jesus meant when he speaks of man giving up his birth
right for a mess of pottage. Here the emphasis is on the positive aspect of spiritual practice.

91
The same glory of human birth is mentioned also by Bhagavan Ananta in VI.16.58
sÉqkuÉåWû qÉÉlÉÑwÉÏÇ rÉÉåÌlÉÇ ¥ÉÉlÉÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉxÉqpÉuÉÉÇ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ
rÉÉå lÉ oÉÑkrÉåiÉ lÉ YuÉÍcÉiÉç zÉqÉqÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | Later on he follows up this
statement that the highest self interest & duty of man is realization of God. LiÉÉuÉÉlÉåuÉ
qÉlÉÑeÉæÈ rÉÉåaÉlÉæmÉÑhÉoÉÑήÍpÉÈ xuÉÉjÉïÈ xÉuÉÉïiqÉlÉÉ ¥ÉårÉÈ
rÉimÉUÉiqÉæMüxÉzÉïlÉqÉç | In V.1.16 it is said that even a Mukta purusha must
continue to live until he works out his Prarabdha and his actions in this stage of Jivanmukti
do not entail any bondage which will lead to another birth. qÉÑ£üÉåÅÌmÉ iÉÉuÉiÉç
ÌoÉpÉ×rÉÉiÉç xuÉSåWÇû AÉokÉïqÉzlÉlÉç AÍpÉqÉÉlÉzÉÔlrÉÈ |
rÉjÉÉlÉÑpÉÔiÉÇ mÉëÌiÉrÉÉiÉÌlÉSìÈ ÌMÇü iÉÑ AlrÉSåWûÉrÉ aÉÑhÉÉlÉç lÉ
uÉׇåû || For such a man even if he has to remain as a Grihastha on account of his
Prarabdha the discharge of the duties of that Ashrama even after attaining Mukti does not
lead to untoward consequences. pÉrÉå mÉëqɨÉxrÉ uÉlÉåwuÉÌmÉ xrÉÉiÉç (rÉiÉÉå
uÉxÉliÉå xÉWû wÉOèxÉmɳÉÉÈ) ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉxrÉÉiqÉUiÉåÈ oÉÑkÉxrÉ
aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉÈ ÌMÇü lÉÑ MüUÉåÌiÉ AuɱqÉç (sin or impurity). In these words
Bhagavan Himself advises Priyavrata to continue to live as a Grihastha just as Sri
Ramakrishna advised Nag Mahashaya to set an example to Grihasthas and for lokasangraha.
In IV.23.28 again we find the statement that he who does not make use of his human birth for
its legitimate purpose, viz. to attaining Mukti is thereby cheating himself and injuring
himself. xÉ uÉÎgcÉiÉÉå oÉiÉ AÉiqÉkÉ×Mçü M×ücNíåûhÉ qÉWûiÉÉ pÉÑÌuÉ
sÉokuÉÉ AÉmÉuÉarÉïÇ qÉÉlÉÑwrÉÇ ÌuÉwÉrÉåwÉÑ ÌuÉwÉ‹iÉå || c.f. also
Sankara’s statement in the Vivekachudamani sÉokuÉÉ MüjÉÉÎgcÉiÉç lÉUeÉlqÉ
SÒsÉïpÉÇ iɧÉÉÌmÉ mÉÑÇxiuÉÇ ´ÉÑÌiÉmÉÉUSzÉïlÉqÉç | rÉxiÉÑ
AÉiqÉqÉÑ£üÉæ lÉ rÉiÉåiÉ qÉÔRûkÉÏÈ xÉ ÌWû AÉiqÉWûÉ xuÉÇ ÌuÉÌlÉWûÎliÉ
AxÉSèaÉëWûÉiÉç || where he says that a man who is foolish enough not to exert for self
liberation verily commits suicide by attachment to things which are unreal. All these passages
make it clear that the one and only duty and privilege of the human being is to struggle and
asset himself against the slavery and limitations put upon his glory or perfection by his lower
nature which he has in common with animals and vegetables and from which he could free
himself with the help of all the forces which God has placed at his disposal. To neglect it is to
be something less than a man and is a fall from manliness and humanity. This is Manava
Dharma and it is this which the Mahabharata refers to when it says kÉqÉÉåï ÌWû
iÉåwÉÉqÉÍkÉMüÉå ÌuÉzÉåwÉÈ kÉqÉåïhÉ WûÏlÉÉÈ mÉzÉÑÍpÉÈ xÉqÉÉlÉÉÈ |
All these prescriptions of the Vedas which go against this prime dharma are only false
dharmas. That is why the Bhagavata says that the real dharma consisting of Tyaga & Yoga is
Dharma free from all falsity and it is this highest Dharma that it advocates kÉqÉïÈ
mÉëÉåÎefÉiÉMæüiÉuÉÉåÅ§É mÉUqÉÉå etc. This Dharma is also called sometimes by
the name of Bhagavata Dharma as distinct from the mere prescriptions of the Srutis & Smritis
which are called Shrouta & Smarta Dharmas in as much as it is nothing but the means for the
realization of Bhagavan or God. The real Manava Dharma is the same thing as the Bhagavata
Dharma and it is this that Bhagavan refers to in the Gita.

Its root as well as print is Bhagavan. Man in his real nature is God Himself. It is God as
Antaryamin from inside or the inner Sasti that constantly guides him or goads him and urges
him not to remain contended until his real nature is realized. All the expressions of real
Dharma in their multifarious forms and aspects are the result of this inner urge for this
expression of divinity. The word Dharma is itself very suggestive of its real nature. It means
the finite individual soul as in the expression AhÉÑUåwÉ kÉqÉï in Katha Up. I.21. Vide
also its use in Gudapada III.1.4,6 etc where Sankara interprets the word as meaning “Atman”.

92
The nature of the individual soul is as we have seen in the struggle to regain its natural
divinity or perfection as in the form of an expansion as a reaction to the contraction due to the
limitations placed upon it by Maya. This natural struggle as it manifest itself in man through
the inner urge for perfection is the very essence of the human soul and therefore it is right to
characterize the human soul as Dharma itself personified. It ceases to be itself if it loses this
essential character characteristic. Dharma also means God as in the xÉWûxÉëlÉÉqÉ
kÉqÉÉåï kÉqÉïÌuÉSÒ¨ÉqÉÈ | This suggests that God is the real personification which is
the individual aspires to attain through his struggle. Thus the essential characteristic of pure
Dharma in itself is suggested by the word Dharma itself. The word Dharma is derived from
the root kÉ× meaning to sustain or preserve or hold together as well as to preserve with
determination and resolution. It is from this root that the word Dharma as well as Dharana are
derived. The word Dharma is therefore cognate with these words. Dhruti is that aspect of the
Buddhi which refuses to succeumb to obstacles and persists not only in maintaining the
postion already gained but in pushing forward in the face of these obstacles with untiring zeal
and enthusiasm until the highest is attained. Its characteristics are described in the Gita XVIII
Sl. 33-35. kÉ×irÉÉ rÉrÉÉ kÉÉUrÉiÉå qÉlÉÈ mÉëÉhÉåÎlSìrÉÌ¢ürÉÉÈ |
rÉÉåaÉålÉÉurÉÍpÉcÉÉËUhrÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï xÉÉΨuÉMüÐ || rÉrÉÉ iÉÑ
kÉqÉïMüÉqÉÉjÉÉïlkÉ×irÉÉ kÉÉUrÉiÉåÅeÉÑïlÉ | mÉëxÉ…¡åûlÉ
TüsÉÉMüÉǤÉÏ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï UÉeÉxÉÏ || rÉrÉÉ xuÉmlÉÇ pÉrÉÇ
zÉÉåMÇü ÌuÉwÉÉSÇ qÉSqÉç LuÉ cÉ | lÉ ÌuÉqÉÑgcÉÌiÉ SÒqÉåïkÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ
xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï iÉÉqÉxÉÏ || Although there are thus these three aspects of Dhruti it is only
the first variety that is really human consistent with the really Sattvic nature of the human
status. It will be noted that this is described in the Sloka as one of the elements of Yoga and
that it is that Vritti of the mind which hold up and supports the right activities of Manas,
Prana & Indriyas in Yoga or spiritual practices. The word Dharana as used in the Yogasastra
of Patanjali as the sixth among the eight elements of Yoga is that mental effort based upon
this Dhruti in its progress toward Samadhi. It is defined by him SåzÉoÉlkÉͶɨɶÉ
kÉÉUhÉÉ | This definition is explained as meaning the reapeated attempts at fixing the
mind on Atman as seated in various Cakras of the body. But the Gita does not accept this
purely technical definition of Dharana when in the VI chapter Bhagavan describes the
process in Slokas VI.24, 25 & 26. xÉÇMüsmÉmÉëpÉuÉÉlMüÉqÉÇxirÉYiuÉÉ
xÉuÉÉïlÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | qÉlÉxÉæuÉåÎlSìrÉaÉëÉqÉÇ ÌuÉÌlÉrÉqrÉ xÉqÉliÉiÉÈ ||
zÉlÉæÈ zÉlÉæÂmÉUqÉåSè oÉÑ®èrÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉaÉ×WûÏiÉrÉÉ | AÉiqÉxÉÇxjÉÇ
qÉlÉÈ M×üiuÉÉ lÉ ÌMüÎgcÉSÌmÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉåiÉç || rÉiÉÉå rÉiÉÉå ÌlɶÉUÌiÉ
qÉlɶÉgcÉsÉqÉÎxjÉUqÉç | iÉiÉxiÉiÉÉå ÌlÉrÉqrÉæiÉSÉiqÉlrÉåuÉ uÉzÉÇ
lÉrÉåiÉç || The place of Dhruti in this process is clearly brought out by the words
oÉÑ®èrÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉaÉ×WûÏiÉrÉÉ. This Dhruti is exerted in withdrawing the mind from
tempting sensual pleasurable objects and directing the mind toward the Atman. It is a
repeated exercise in self-restraint and concentration on the Atman. These are the two aspects,
positive & negative, in which the Dhruti functions. It may be noted that in this description
Bhagavan does not allude to the various Cakras in the body at all. This place of Dhruti in
Dharana is again referred to in Gita XVIII 29 – 35. XVIII 29 oÉÑ®èrÉÉ ÌuÉzÉÑ®rÉÉ
rÉÑ£üÉå kÉ×irÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ ÌlÉrÉqrÉ cÉ etc. This Dhruti is also said to be the
characteristic of Sattvik karta (actor) in XVIII.26: kÉ×irÉÑixÉÉWûxÉqÉÎluÉiÉÈ | It is
also said to be one of the elements in ‘SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç’. In XVI-3: iÉåeÉÈ ¤ÉqÉÉ
kÉ×ÌiÉÈ zÉÉæcÉqÉSìÉåWûÉå lÉÉÌiÉqÉÉÌlÉiÉÉ | etc. That is why Nachiketas is
called xÉirÉkÉ×ÌiÉ in Katha Up II.9. It will be thus seen that Dharana is a mental activity
of the Sattvik man of a Daivisampat to concentrate the mind in the higher self after
withdrawing it from lower self. Dharma mainly concerns itself with conduct and behaviour

93
externally. It is that kind of external activity which is designed to strengthen Dhruti & help
Dharana. It is based upon a consciousness of the goal of human life and activity as the
realization of the unity or perfection or realization of God in other words. Its root is the inner
urge; its fruit is realization of God. Its nature is regulation of conduct and behaviour to help
this realization by strengthening Dhruti and facilitating Dharana. That is why Mahabharata
defines Dharma as kÉÉUhÉÉiÉç kÉqÉï CirÉÉWÒûÈ kÉqÉÉåï kÉÉUrÉiÉå mÉëeÉÉÈ
| rÉixrÉÉ®ÉUhÉxÉÇrÉÑ£üÈ xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ ÌlɶÉrÉÈ || Santi 109. Bhagavan also
defines it in almost the same terms in Karna Parva 65.59. The derivation of the word from the
root Dhru in its relation to Dharana is clearly referred here. But conduct & behaviour may be
concerned not only with the individuals effort at self realization unconcerned with &
independent of his place in society. Man is a social animal & he lives always in the company
of others. His conduct and behaviour, therefore, whether physical or spiritual must always
have some relation to the conduct and behaviour of the other members of society, in a family
or in a village, tirbe or nation or the entire humanity. Its activities covering the entire field of
human life will have their percussions and effects on the others members of the society. Even
in following his own individual Dharma he has to adjust himself to the similar individual
Dharmas of others and to the good and welfare of the society and humanity as a whole. This
good and welfare of humanity and society or Lokasangraha is not conceived in terms of
material properity for satisfaction of mere sensual pleasures but in terms of spiritual
realization. The real society is concerned only in the association of various individual aiming
and struggling to attain the same peculiarly human goal of realization of spiritual perfection,
each according to his special tastes, capacities and aptitudes, making full use of the inner
divine urge and the facilities and powers afforded by human birth. Lokasangraha is only in
terms of Lokasreyas and not of Preyas. The purpose of the association of individuals in a
society is only cooperation and mutal help in the attainment of this Sreyas by all the
individuals free from obstructive interference from other individuals arising and struggling to
attain the same goal. Not only there is this freedom from interference from others but positive
help from others. The defects and weakness of the various individuals will be removed by the
speial capcities and powers of other members. Each member has to adjust his conduct to the
head of the others and the whole society should be organized in such a way as to give the
maximum freedom and advantage to each individual to reach the goal without interference
from others and without being limited by his own shortcomings. ‘Each for all and all for
each’ is the principle to be adopted in a good organization of the society for the spiritual
welfare of all. This is the spirit behind the Hindu conception of the social order known as
Varnashrama which is said to be initiated first by Bhagavan Himself in the Gita IV.13 c.f also
Purushasukta where the whole society is compared to an organism where each organ has to
cooperate for the good of the whole organism. The word Dharana used in the definition of
Dharma in the M.bh. is to be understood not only in terms of the individual but also in his
relations to society and other individuals. That is why it is said kÉqÉÉåï kÉÉUrÉiÉå
mÉëeÉÉÈ. Thus in this definition both the personal and social aspect of Dharma as the
means for spiritual realization through the Dharana & Dhruti of each individual and the
identity of the spiritual nature of the goal of both the individual as well as society is
beautifully brought out. If Dharma is understood in this sense there can never be a conflict
between the interests of the society and that of the individual. What is good for the one must
be good for the other.

It naturally ensures the preservation of humanity through preservation of man’s

predominantly Sattvic nature. That is why Manu says that Sattva is the sɤÉhÉ of kÉqÉï -
iÉqÉxÉÉå sɤÉhÉÇ MüÉqÉÈ UeÉxÉxiuÉjÉï EcrÉiÉå xÉiuÉxrÉ sɤÉhÉÇ

94
kÉqÉïÈ ´ÉrÉæ¸qÉåwÉÉÇ rÉjÉÉå¨ÉUqÉç || In deciding in what human activity
constitutes Dharma one has, therefore, always to keep in mind the special characteristic and
Sattva guna as described in the scriptures vide Gita XIV.6: iÉ§É xɨuÉÇ
ÌlÉqÉïsÉiuÉÉimÉëMüÉzÉMüqÉlÉÉqÉrÉqÉç | xÉÑZÉxÉ…¡åûlÉ oÉklÉÉÌiÉ
¥ÉÉlÉxÉ…¡åûlÉ cÉÉlÉbÉ || XIV.11: xÉuÉï²ÉUåwÉÑ SåWåûÅÎxqÉlmÉëMüÉzÉ
EmÉeÉÉrÉiÉå | ¥ÉÉlÉÇ rÉSÉ iÉSÉ ÌuɱÉSè ÌuÉuÉ×®Ç xɨuÉÍqÉirÉÑiÉ ||
XIV.14: rÉSÉ xɨuÉå mÉëuÉ×®å iÉÑ mÉësÉrÉÇ rÉÉÎliÉ SåWûpÉ×iÉç |
iÉSÉå¨ÉqÉÌuÉSÉÇ sÉÉåMüÉlÉqÉsÉÉlmÉëÌiÉmɱiÉå || XIV.16: MüqÉïhÉÈ
xÉÑM×üiÉxrÉÉWÒûÈ xÉÉΨuÉMÇü ÌlÉqÉïsÉÇ TüsÉqÉç | XIV.17:
xɨuÉÉixÉgeÉÉrÉiÉå ¥ÉÉlÉÇ UeÉxÉÉå sÉÉåpÉ LuÉ cÉ | XIV.18: FkuÉïÇ
aÉcNûÎliÉ xɨuÉxjÉÉ qÉkrÉå ÌiɸÎliÉ UÉeÉxÉÉÈ | etc. the nature of the Sattvic. The
group of Sattvic qualities described as SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç in the beginning of the Ch. XVI.
The nature of Sattvika Shraddha, Yajna, Dana, Tapas and of food is described in Ch. XVII.
The nature of Sattvika Karma and Sattvica Karta, Sattvika Jnanam Sattvika Buddhi, Sattvika
Dhruti and Sattvika Tyaga are all mentioned in Ch. XVIII. Vide also Bhagavatam XII.
Dharma should be characterized by the various elements of the Sattva Guna mentioned in
these texts both in its individual and social aspects. mÉëÉÍhÉlÉÉÇ cÉ
xÉÑZÉmÉëÉmiÉrÉå kÉqÉÉåïÅÍpÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | SÒÈZÉmÉËUWûÉUÉrÉ
cÉÉkÉqÉïÈ mÉëÌiÉÌwÉkrÉiÉå || We are now in a postion to understand the
comprehensive nature of Dharma and its relation to the various partial definitions given in the
scriptures in various places to emphasis particular aspects. Thus the M.bh. says in Santi
109.10 just before giving the definition of kÉqÉï (kÉÉUhÉÇ kÉqÉï CirÉÉWÒûÈ)
mÉëpÉuÉÉjÉÉïrÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ kÉqÉïmÉëuÉcÉlÉÇM×üiÉqÉç | rÉiÉç xrÉÉiÉç
mÉëpÉuÉxÉÇrÉÑ£Çü xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ ÌlɶÉrÉÈ || The use of the word mÉëpÉuÉ
here is misunderstood. It does not mean worldly properties or success as many translators
understand. In fact the word has no such meaning at all. It is derived from the root
mÉëpÉÔ. The word mÉëpÉuÉ means only ‘source’ or ‘origin’ or ‘control’ or ‘mastery’
or ‘expansion beyond’. mÉëpÉuÉÉjÉï MüqÉï only means that which helps man to
advance step by step higher and higher in the course of his pilgrimage of life and enables him
to expand from his finitutde to infinity and transcend Rajas & Tamas or his lower nature
through control and mastery of instincts and passions and inertia which belong to this lower
nature and thus enable him to go back to his original source and attain his pristine purity and
realization of God. mÉëpÉuÉ is one of the natures of Vishnu or God. Vide Gita IX
mÉëpÉuÉÈ mÉësÉrÉÈ xjÉÉlÉÇ ÌlÉkÉÉlÉÇ oÉÏeÉqÉurÉrÉqÉç | Sl.12 of the same
Ch. is another definition of Dharma AÌWÇûxÉÉjÉÉïrÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ
kÉqÉïmÉëuÉcÉlÉÇ M×üiÉqÉç | rÉixrÉÉSÌWÇûxÉÉxÉÇrÉÑ£üÈ xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ
ÌlɶÉrÉÈ || This definition emphasizes the negative and social aspect of Dharma whereas
Sl.10 emphasises its individual aspect and positive aspect. Every act of Dharma must be
characterized by Ahimsa. That is to say it shold not be injurious or harmful to anybody else
although it may be helpful to himself. Thus the fanatic Muslim who thinks of killing a man of
another religion thinking that it is his duty cannot be considered as having discharged his
Dharma even though it may be an act of selfless sacrifice of his own life in the name of God
as in the case of the murderer of Shraddhananda. Himsa must also be understood not only in
terms of injury to life nd property etc. but injury to spiritual life and progress. It may take the
form of consciously or unconsciously restricting the freedom of others in discharge of their
Dharma. This is a more serious injury than mere injury to life & property etc. In fact
sometimes depriving another of his life or property or of his freedom to ruin himself
spiritually by force, if necessary, may be prompted by the spirit of Dharma in the higher
interests of the other man, and may, therefore, be Dharma under the peculiar conditions and
circumstances in which the act is done. Thus Rama’s action in killing Ravana or Krishna’s in

95
killing Kamsa is not only not against Dharma but is the highest Dharma in as much as it was
in the interest of the whole society as well as of the individual and Dharma itself that this
force had to be applied to bring round the recalcitrants to the path of Dharma and save others
from the injury done to their Dharma by the Adharma. Thus such injury or taking of the life
of an individual or restraining his freedom to ruin himself cannot be considered as Himsa or
violence or injury. Mere pain or suffering as a result of one’s act does not constitue Himsa. In
many cases such infliction of pain or suffering on others is undertaken only in the interest of
the person who is made to suffer. It is this suffering that is caused as punishment for wrong
doing that dedeems him from his evil ways and therefore may be an act of mercy and love, as
when a father or teacher punishes the son or the student or a king or a judge punishes a
criminal. Such punishment becomes the duty or Dharma and failure to make out punishment
necessary to redeem the offender may be Adharma. That is why we find the power to punish
or Danda is given to Kshatriyas in Dharmasastras. Therefore, it said by Manu UÉeÉÍpÉÈ
kÉ×iÉShQûÉÅxiÉÑ M×üiuÉÉ mÉÉmÉÉÌlÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÉÈ | ÌlÉqÉïsÉÉÈ
xuÉaÉïqÉÉrÉÉÎliÉ xÉliÉxxÉÑM×üÌiÉlÉÉå rÉjÉÉ || VIII.318. This is quoted with
approval and has justification in the Ramayana by Rama himself in Vali Vadha where it is
further explained thus: zÉÉxÉlÉÉ²É ÌuÉqÉÉå¤ÉÉ²É xiÉålÉ xiÉårÉÉ̲qÉÑcrÉiÉå |
UÉeÉÉ iÉÑ AzÉÉxÉlÉç mÉÉmÉxrÉ iÉSuÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ ÌMüÎsoÉwÉqÉç || ShŽå
rÉÈ mÉÉiÉrÉåiÉç ShQÇû ShŽÉå rɶÉÉÌmÉ ShŽiÉå |
MüÉrÉïMüÉUhÉÍxÉ®ÉjÉÉæï EpÉÉæ iÉÉæ lÉ AuÉxÉÏSiÉÈ | iÉ°uÉÉlÉç
ShQûxÉÇrÉÉåaÉÉiÉç AxqÉÉiÉç ÌuÉaÉiÉÌMüsÉçÌoÉwÉÈ | aÉiÉÈ xuÉÉÇ
mÉëM×üÌiÉÇ kÉqrÉÉïÇ kÉqÉïSعålÉ uÉiqÉïlÉÉqÉç || Similarly Gautama says in
his Dharma Sutra AzÉ£üÉå U‹ÑuÉåhÉÑÌuÉSsÉÉprÉÉÇ iÉlÉÑprÉÉÇ | AlrÉjÉÉ
blÉlÉç UÉ¥ÉÉ zÉÉxrÉÈ | This refers to the right of the teacher or father to punish a child
when it is wrong. In such cases the pain or suffering or even death that results from such
punishment is considered as resulting only from his own wrong doing and as inflicted by
Dharma itself. cf. "Though as result of action, ill be done by me, yet do I plan no ill to
anyone"- Anguttaranikaya I.191.65. So also Manu says kÉqÉï LuÉ WûiÉÉå WûÎliÉ
kÉqÉÉåï U¤ÉÌiÉ UͤÉiÉÈ | iÉxqÉÉ®qÉÉåï lÉ WûliÉurÉÈ rÉÉ lÉÉå kÉqÉÉåï
WûiÉÉå AuÉkÉÏiÉç || VIII.15. Vide also VIII.351 aÉÑÂÇ uÉÉ oÉÉsÉuÉ×®Éæ uÉÉ
oÉëɼhÉÇ uÉÉ oÉWÒû´ÉÑiÉqÉç | AÉiÉiÉÉÌrÉlÉqÉÉrÉÉliÉqÉlrÉÉSåuÉ
AÌuÉcÉÉUrÉlÉç || lÉ AÉiÉiÉÉÌrÉuÉkÉå SÉåwÉÈ WûliÉÑpÉïuÉÌiÉ Mü¶ÉlÉ |
mÉëMüÉzÉÇ uÉÉÅmÉëMüÉzÉÇ uÉÉ qÉlrÉÑxiÉÇ qÉlrÉÑqÉç GcNûÌiÉ || The
same is echoed by Bhishma in Santi XXXIV.15-19 mÉëaÉ×½ zÉx§ÉqÉÉrÉÉliÉÇ AÌmÉ
uÉåSÉliÉaÉÇ UhÉå | ÎeÉbÉÉÇxÉliÉÇ ÎeÉbÉÉÇxÉÏrÉÉiÉç lÉ iÉålÉ oÉë¼WûÉ
pÉuÉåiÉç || AmÉåiÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÇ uÉרÉÉiÉç rÉÉå WûlrÉÉSÉiÉiÉÉÌrÉlÉqÉç |
lÉ iÉålÉ oÉë¼WûÉ xÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç qÉlrÉÑxiÉÇ qÉlrÉÑqÉç GcNûÌiÉ || c.f. also
Bhagavata X.7.31 ÌWÇxÉëÈ xuÉmÉÉmÉålÉ ÌuÉÌWÇûÍxÉëiÉÈ ZÉsÉÈ || See
Brahmavaivarta, Sri Krishna Janma Khanda, Adhyaya 85 Sl 20(?) M×ümÉÉ MüÉrÉÉï
xÉiÉÉÇ zɵÉiÉç AÌWÇûxÉåwÉÑ cÉ eÉliÉÑwÉÑ | ÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÇ lÉ cÉ SÉåwÉ
xrÉÉiÉç ÌWÇûxÉëÉhÉÉÇ cÉ mÉëeÉåµÉU || Vide also Garuda Purana 115.47
M×üiÉå mÉëÌiÉM×üiÉÇ MÑürÉÉïiÉç ÌWÇûÍxÉiÉå mÉëÌiÉÌWÇûÍxÉiÉqÉç | lÉ
iÉ§É SÉåwÉÇ mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ SÒ¹å SÉåwÉÇ xÉÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || Vide also Santi
109.27-28 iÉjÉÉaÉiÉÇ cÉ rÉÉå WûlrÉÉiÉç lÉ AxÉÉæ mÉÉmÉålÉ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå |
xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ WûiÉÇ WûÎliÉ WûiÉ LuÉ xÉ WûlrÉiÉå || AÉiqÉlÉæuÉ WûiÉÈ
mÉÉmÉÉå rÉÈ mÉÉmÉÇ MüiÉÑïÍqÉcNûÌiÉ || c.f. Gautama Dharmasutra X.16 lÉ
SÉåwÉÉå ÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉ AÉWûuÉå || Also Sl. 30 rÉÎxqÉlÉç rÉjÉÉ uÉiÉïiÉå rÉÉå
qÉlÉÑwrÉÈ iÉÎxqÉlÉç iÉjÉÉ uÉÌiÉïiÉurÉÇ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ | qÉÉrÉÉcÉÉUÉå
qÉÉrÉrÉÉ oÉÉÍkÉiÉurÉÈ xÉÉkuÉÉcÉÉUÈ xÉÉkÉÑlÉÉ mÉëirÉÑmÉårÉÈ || Here
reference is to Dharmayuddha i.e Yuddha intended to protect Dharma and not a war of

96
exploitation or enslavement of innocence. The word Aahava literally and derivatively
suggests the call of Dharma and self sacrifice for the protection of Dharma from Adhrama
meaning to call or to sacrifice. C.f also Bhagavata, VII.9.14 where Prahlada says, qÉÉåSåiÉ
xÉÉkÉÑUÌmÉ uÉ×ͶÉMüxÉmÉïWûliÉ | Vide also Bhagavatam X.46.17 ÌSwšÉ
MÇüxÉÉå WûiÉÈ mÉÉmÉÈ xÉÉlÉÑaÉÈ xuÉålÉ mÉÉmqÉlÉÉ | xÉÉkÉÔlÉÉÇ
kÉqÉïzÉÏsÉÉlÉÉÇ rÉSÕlÉÉÇ ²å̹ rÉxxÉSÉ || Also X.88.(22) &38 AWûÉå SåuÉ
qÉWûÉSåuÉ mÉÉmÉÉåÅrÉÇ xuÉålÉ mÉÉmqÉlÉÉ WûiÉÈ || Also VII.7.3.
mÉÉmÉålÉ mÉÉmÉÉÅpÉÍ¤É CÌiÉ uÉÉÌSlÉÉå uÉÉxÉuÉÉSrÉÈ || Also IX.4.69-70
(Ambarisa & Durvasa) xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ mÉëÌWûiÉÇ iÉåeÉÈ mÉëWûiÉÑïÈ MÑüÂiÉå
AzÉÑpÉqÉç || X.25.16-17 sÉÉåMåüzÉ qÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ qÉÉæžÉiÉç WûËUwrÉå
´ÉÏqÉSÇ iÉqÉÈ | lÉ ÌWû xÉ°ÉuÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ ... qɨÉÉåÅxÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉlÉpÉ…¡ûÈ
mÉëzÉqÉÉrÉÉåmÉMüsmÉiÉå || Also I.15.34 rÉrÉÉ AWûUiÉç pÉÑuÉÉå pÉÉUÇ
iÉÉÇ iÉlÉÑÇ ÌuÉeÉWûÉuÉeÉÈ | MühOûMÇü MühOûMåülÉæuÉ ²rÉÇ cÉÉÌmÉ
DÌwÉiÉÑÈ xÉqÉqÉç || Also I.17.14-16 xÉÉkÉÔlÉÉÇ pÉSìqÉåuÉ xrÉÉiÉç
AxÉÉkÉÑSqÉlÉå M×üiÉå | AlÉÉaÉxÉÑ CWû pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ rÉÈ AÉaÉxM×üiÉç
ÌlÉUƒ¡ÓûzÉÈ || etc. I.7.37 xuÉmÉëÉhÉÇ rÉÈ mÉUmÉëÉhÉæÈ mÉëmÉÑwhÉÉÌiÉ
AbÉ×hÉÈ ZÉsÉÈ | iɲkÉÈ iÉxrÉ ÌWû ´ÉårÉÈ rÉiSÉåwÉÉiÉç rÉÉÌiÉ AkÉÈ
mÉÑqÉÉlÉç || Also VII.8.56 xÉÉåÅrÉÇ iÉå ÌuÉÍkÉMüU DzÉ ÌuÉmÉëzÉxiÉxrÉ
CSÇ ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ AlÉÑaÉëWûÉrÉ ÌuÉ©È || V.5.19 LuÉqÉåuÉ ZÉsÉÑ
qÉWûxÉÍpÉcÉÉU AÌiÉ¢üqÉÈ MüÉixlrÉåïlÉ AÉiqÉlÉå TüsÉÌiÉ || Also X.66.40
M×üirÉÉlÉsÉÈ mÉëÌiÉWûiÉÈ xÉÈ UjÉÉ…¡ûmÉÉhÉåÈ Ax§ÉÉæeÉxÉÉ | xÉ
lÉ×mÉ qÉalÉqÉÑZÉÉå ÌlÉuÉ×iÉÈ uÉÉUÉhÉÍxÉÇ mÉËUxÉqÉåirÉ xÉÑSͤÉhÉÇ
iÉÇ xÉ GÎiuÉaÉç eÉlÉÇ xÉqÉSWûiÉç xuÉM×üiÉÉåÅÍpÉcÉÉUÈ ||
It is thus seen that it is uniformly held by the Puranas and the Smritis that when an offender
against Dharma is made to suffer punishment by society or the custodians of Dharma in the
course of the execution of their own duty or Svadharma the man only suffers for his sins and
one who mates out the punishment only saves him both from his past as well as future sins
and is therefore absolved of all sins as a consequence of this act. That in the discharge of
one’s own Dharma in the protection of Dharma itself an apparent act of Adharma ceases to be
Adharma and becomes Dharma for the simple reason that it is in protection of Dharma itself.
Thus Kshatriya who is the custodian of Dharma would be considered as failing in his duty if
he does not discharge his duty of protecting Dharma on the plea that it offends against some
rule of Dharma. This is brought out clearly by various statements in our scriptures, Vide
AUhrÉmÉuÉï 142.52&53 E±ÉåaÉmÉuÉï 179.24 zÉÉÎliÉmÉuÉï 67.7,140.48; Valmiki
Ramayana II.21.31 all of which say that it is the duty of a Kshatriya to punish an offender
against Dharma even if the latter were his own Guru. aÉÑUÉåUmrÉuÉÍsÉmiÉxrÉ
MüÉrÉÉïMüÉrÉïqÉeÉÉlÉiÉÈ EimÉjÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉxrÉ lrÉÉrrÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ
zÉÉxÉlÉqÉç || Again in Santi 55.16 xÉqÉrÉirÉÉÌaÉlÉÉå sÉÑokÉÉlÉç aÉÑÃlÉÌmÉ
cÉ MåüzÉuÉ | ÌlÉWûÎliÉ xÉqÉUå mÉÉmÉÉlÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÈ xÉ ÌWû kÉqÉïÌuÉiÉç ||
Vide also Santi 121.60 which is the same thing Manu VIII.335 ÌmÉiÉÉ AÉcÉÉrÉï
xÉ×WØûlqÉÉiÉÉ pÉÉrÉÉï mÉѧÉÈ mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÈ | lÉ AShQûrÉÉå lÉÉqÉ
UÉ¥ÉÉåÅÎxiÉ rÉÈ xuÉkÉqÉåï lÉ ÌiɸÌiÉ || Vide also Manu VIII.350-1 aÉÑÂÇ uÉÉ
oÉÉsÉuÉ×®Éæ uÉÉ etc.
This is illustrated by Bhishma’s fight against Parasurama, his own Guru and Arjuna’s with
Drona, Krishna’s with Kamsa, Sisupala who are all his relatives, Rama’s with Ravana who
was a Brahmana etc. Vyasa tries to console Yuddhistira who was grieving for the death of his
relatives by using almost the same argument. Santi 33.14 qÉÉ ÌuÉwÉÉSÇ M×üjÉÉ
UÉeÉlÉç ¤É§ÉkÉqÉïqÉlÉÑxqÉUlÉç | xuÉkÉqÉåïhÉ WûiÉÉ ½åiÉå ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÉÈ
¤Ȩ́ÉrÉwÉïpÉ || Here xuÉkÉqÉåïhÉ WûiÉÉÈ means ‘because they fought against their

97
Svadharma’. It also means that it is the Svadharma itself that retaliated and killed them.
Vyasa also means that the Pandavas who killed the Kauravas did it only in the discharge of
their own Svadharma, viz the protection of Dharma and that if anybody feels himself hurt or
injured or aggrieved by any such discharge of Svadharma has only himself to thank for the
ruin that he has brought on himself. Any accidental pain or suffering that is caused to
somebody in the course of discharge of one’s own Svadharma cannot be considered as
Adharma. In all such cases, says Vyasa, one who suffers pain or death must be taken to have
that his own fate as a result of his own past karma. Everyone has to suffer for his past sins at
the proper time and one who is apparently the cause of such pain is only an instrument in the
hands of time. This echos Sri Krishma’s words to Arjuna in Ch. XII of the Gita:
MüÉsÉålÉæuÉ ÌlÉWûiÉÉÈ ÌlÉÍqɨÉqÉɧÉÇ pÉuÉ xÉurÉxÉÉÍcÉlÉç | So Vyasa
continues to say MüÉXç¤ÉqÉÉhÉÉÈ Í´ÉrÉÇ M×üixlÉÉÇ mÉ×ÍjÉurÉÉÇ cÉ
qÉWûiÉç rÉzÉÈ | M×üiÉÉliÉÌuÉÍkÉ xÉÇrÉÑ£üÉÈ MüÉsÉålÉ ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ ||
... WåûiÉÑqÉɧÉÍqÉSÇ iÉxrÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ pÉUiÉwÉïpÉ ... iÉåwÉÉqÉç AÌmÉ
qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå MüqÉïÍhÉ mÉËUÍcÉliÉrÉ | ÌuÉlÉÉzÉWåûiÉÑMüÉÌlÉ iuÉÇ
rÉæÈ iÉå MüÉsÉuÉzÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ || ... kÉqÉïurÉÑÎcNų̂ÉÍqÉcNûliÉÈ
rÉåÅkÉqÉïxrÉ mÉëuÉiÉïMüÉÈ | WûliÉurÉÉÈ iÉå SÒUÉiqÉÉlÉÈ SåuÉæÈ
SæirÉÉ CuÉ EsoÉhÉÉÈ || LMÇü WûiuÉÉ rÉÌS MÑüsÉå ÍzɹÉlÉÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç
MÑüsÉÇ WûiuÉÉ cÉ UÉ·íå cÉ lÉ iÉiÉç uÉרÉÉåmÉbÉÉiÉMüqÉç || The last Sloka
reminds us of the maxim enunciated by Sri Krishna and Vidura in the Udyoga Parva when
they advised Dhritarashtra to drive awy Duryodhana in the interest of Dharma.
irÉeÉåSåMÇü MÑüsÉxrÉÉjÉåï aÉëÉqÉxrÉÉjÉåï MÑüsÉÇ irÉeÉåiÉç aÉëÉqÉÇ
eÉlÉmÉSxrÉÉjÉåï AÉiqÉÉjÉåï mÉ×ÍjÉuÉÏÇ irÉeÉåiÉç 127.49 of Udyoga. This
principle is accepted by all writers on Dharma. This principle justifies the infliction of
Suffering on a few who offend against Dharma for the purpose of protecting the moral and
spiritual interests of the larger number, although this may appear as the same as the utilitarian
principle of the greatest good of the greatest number enunciated by the Western writers on
ethics the Hindu conception differs from the utilitarian docrine in as much as the Western
doctrine does not accept the realization of the Atman as the highest good but limits its
conception of the higher good to worldly properity and also because the Western utilitarian
doctrine does not take into consideration subjective attitude of the mind, viz purity of the
motive, as the deciding factor in hudging whether an act is Dharma or not as the Hindu
writers do. Moreover, the Hindu writers do not also admit that an act becomes Dharma even
in regard to material prosperity merely because a great number is benefited. This principle is
often enunciated by our Hindu writers as iÉxqÉÉiÉç rÉ¥Éå uÉkÉÉåÅuÉkÉÈ || Manu cf.
also AÌWÇûxÉlÉç xÉuÉÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ AlrÉ§É iÉÏjÉåïprÉÈ || Chandogya VIII.14. These
maxims are often misunderstood by the orthodox people and quoted by them to justify the
killing of animals in ritualistic sacrifice. Yajna really means ‘woship of God’ involving
sacrifice of one’s own Ahamkara, Kama, and Krodha etc. to please God and realize Him with
the help of His Grace. Eg. Sandilya 66 iÉiÉç rÉÉÎeÉÌWû mÉÔeÉÉrÉÉÇ | If any animal is
to be sacrificed in the course of Yajna, it is the animal in oneself. Thus the Asvamedha as it is
originally conceived spiritually means only the control of the senses in spiritual practice.
Asva representing only the sense and Purushamedha meant originally only the sacrife of the
individual ego or egoism. No ritualistic killing is sanctioned by the scriptures as is clear from
the word Advara which explained by Sayana as meaning that in which there is no Himsa.
Sabara also in his Bhasya on the Mimamsasutra or the Jaimini Dharma Sutra 2.1.2 says
ÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉ mÉëÌiÉÌwÉ®É | Commenting on the Samkhya Sutra I.6 Vijnana Bhikshu
says rɨÉÑ uÉækÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉÌiÉËU£ü ÌWÇûxÉÉ rÉÉ LuÉ
mÉÉmÉeÉlÉMüiuÉÍqÉÌiÉ iÉSxÉiÉç xɃ¡ûÉåcÉå mÉëqÉÉhÉÉpÉÉuÉÉiÉç || See

98
also Vachaspati Misra’s commentary on Sankhya Bhasya lÉ cÉ ÌWÇûxrÉÉiÉç xÉuÉÉï
pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ CÌiÉ xÉÉqÉÉlrÉzÉÉx§ÉÇ ÌuÉzÉåwÉzÉÉx§ÉåhÉ AÎalÉwÉÉåqÉÏrÉÇ
mÉzÉÑÇ AÉsÉpÉiÉ CÌiÉ AlÉålÉ oÉÉkrÉåiÉ CÌiÉ uÉÉcrÉÇ
ÌuÉUÉåkÉÉpÉÉuÉÉiÉç | ÌuÉUÉåkÉå ÌWû oÉsÉÏrÉxÉÉ SÒoÉïsÉÇ oÉÉkrÉiÉå lÉ
cÉÉÎxiÉ ÌuÉUÉåkÉÈ ÍpɳÉÌuÉwÉrÉiuÉÉiÉç | iÉjÉÉ ÌWû qÉÉ ÌWÇûxrÉÉÌSÌiÉ
ÌlÉwÉåkÉåhÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÈ AlÉjÉïWåûiÉÑpÉÉuÉÉå ¥ÉÉmrÉiÉå lÉ mÉÑlÉÈ A
¢üiuÉjÉïiuÉqÉÌmÉ lÉ cÉ AlÉjÉïWåûiÉÑiuÉ¢üiÉÔmÉMüÉUiuÉrÉÉåÈ
MüͶÉSÎxiÉ ÌuÉUÉåkÉÈ | ÌWÇûxÉÉ ÌWû mÉÑÂwÉxrÉ SÉåwÉqÉÉuɤrÉÌiÉ
¢üiÉÉå¶É EmÉMüËUwrÉÌiÉ | In these words and for the reasons given therein the
prescription for killing an animal in sacrifice is not an exception to the general rule laid down
by the Sruti itself that all Himsa is sinful. Therefore Manu says as quoted in Santi 265
xÉuÉïMüqÉïxÉÑ AÌWÇûxÉÉ ÌWû kÉqÉÉïiqÉÉ qÉlÉÑUoÉëuÉÏiÉç | kÉÔiÉæïÈ
mÉëMüsmiÉÇ ÌWû LiÉiÉç lÉ iɲåSåwÉÑ MüÎsmÉiÉqÉç || Vide also ÌWÇûxÉÉ
cÉæuÉ lÉ MüiÉïurÉÉ uÉækÉÌWÇûxÉÉ iÉÑ UÉeÉxÉÏ | oÉëɼhÉÉæÈ xÉÉ lÉ
MüiÉïurÉÉ rÉiÉxiÉå xÉÉÎiuÉMüÉ qÉiÉÉÈ || Brihanmanu quoted by Govindananda.
Bhagavan makes this clear in XI;21.23 of Bhag. where he says that the Vedas do not compel
anybody to kill animals in sacrifice. It only says that if one has got the desire to eat meat one
can do it only in Yajnas. ÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÇ rÉÌS UÉaÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç rÉ¥Éå LuÉ lÉ iÉÑ
cÉÉåSlÉÉ | The Bhagavata says in XI.6.11 that this sanction to kill animals in Yajna is
meant only to regulate and restrict killing and it is meant to prevent it as far as possible.
sÉÉåMåü urÉuÉÉrÉ AÉÍqÉwÉqɱxÉåuÉÉ ÌlÉirÉÉÎxiÉ eÉliÉÉåÈ lÉ ÌWû iɧÉ
cÉÉåSlÉÉ | urÉuÉÎxjÉÌiÉxiÉÉxÉÑ ÌuÉuÉÉWû rÉ¥É xÉÑUÉaÉëWæûÈ AÉxÉÑ
ÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉËU¹É || Cf. also rÉiÉç bÉëÉhÉpɤÉÉå ÌuÉÌWûiÉÈ xÉÑUÉrÉÉÈ iÉjÉÉ
mÉzÉÉåUÉsÉpÉlÉÇ lÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉ | LuÉÇ urÉuÉÉrÉÈ mÉëeÉrÉÉ lÉ UirÉæ CqÉÇ
ÌuÉzÉÑ®Ç lÉ ÌuÉSÒÈ xuÉkÉqÉïqÉç || On this Sridhara comments rÉxqÉÉiÉç
xÉÑUÉrÉÉÈ bÉëÉhÉpɤÉÈ AuÉkÉëÉhÉqÉç | xÉ LuÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÈ lÉ mÉÉlÉÇ
iÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÉåUÉqÉpÉlÉqÉåuÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ lÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉ | AiÉÉå lÉ
rÉjÉå¹pɤÉhÉ AprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉ CirÉjÉïÈ | iÉjÉÉ urÉuÉÉrÉÉåÅÌmÉ mÉëeÉrÉÉ
ÌlÉÍqɨÉpÉÔiÉrÉÉ lÉ UirÉæ AiÉÉå qÉlÉÉåUpÉuÉÉÌSlÉÈ CqÉÇ ÌuÉzÉÑ®Ç
xuÉkÉqÉïÇ lÉ ÌuÉSÒËUÌiÉ | AÉsÉqpÉlÉqÉç in such Vedic prescriptions as
AalÉÏwÉÉåqÉÏrÉÇ mÉzÉÑqÉÉsÉpÉåiÉ etc. As interpreted by Sabara is
C¹ÍxÉήxÉÉkÉlÉÇ urÉÉmÉÉUÇ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ | It only means a gift or Tyaga. So the
vedic prescription means only to dedicate the animal to the Gods as a symbol of irÉÉaÉ as
in uÉ×wÉÉåixÉaÉï just as in dedicating a bull to Siva. Such dedication results only in
giving more freedom to the animal and its being better looked after. It also enables the
sacrificer to feel the presence of God as the real owner and master of everything in this world
including the animals and himself. C.f Pashupati. This act involves the two elements of all
worship, viz Tyaga & Yoga, as per the definition SåuÉiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ SìurÉirÉÉaÉ.
AÉsÉqpÉlÉ came to mean ‘killing’ only in later days as understood by ignorant and selfish
priests. That Alambhana did not mean killing is clear from such vedic prescriptions as
rÉeÉqÉÉlÉqÉÉsÉpÉåiÉ where Mahidhara interprets it as meaning only touching in the act
of dedication. That the killing of Pasu in Yajna is not sanctioned by the Rishis is seen in the
story given in Santi 337 which describes the conversation between the Devas and Rishis on
this topic. The gods said that the word Aja in vedic prescription means ‘goats’ while the
Rishis insisted that it only meant ‘seeds’ as Aja means unsprouted seed where life has not
become manifest. Therefore in offering these no life is destroyed. The story says that the
dispute was referred for arbitration to king Upanicharavasu who decided in favour of the gods
because he was prompted by the selfish desire to enjoy the favour of the gods. For this
selfishness he was cursed by the Rishis and he had to fall from the high status he had

99
achieved. In the form of this story the conflict between selfish opinion and enlightened view
of spiritual men is clearly brought out to show that only worldy men understood the vedic
prescription as incolving the killing of animals and the spiritual men understood the vedic
prescription as involving the killing of animals and spiritual man understood the vedic
prescription in different light. AeÉålÉ rɹûurÉÍqÉÌiÉ mÉëÉWÒûÈ SåuÉÉÈ
̲eÉÉå¨ÉqÉÉlÉç | xÉ cÉ NûÉaÉÉåÅÌmÉ AeÉÈ ¥ÉårÉÈ lÉÉlrÉÈ mÉzÉÑÈ CÌiÉ
ÎxjÉÌiÉÈ | oÉÏeÉårÉï¥ÉåwÉÑ rɹurÉqÉç CÌiÉ uÉæ uÉæÌSMüÐ ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ
AeÉxÉÇ¥ÉÉÌlÉ oÉÏeÉÉÌlÉ NûÉaÉÇ lÉÉå WûliÉÑqÉWïûjÉ | In the Jaiminiya
Brahmana of the Samaveda is given a story of how Udvanta, an Acharvan comes down from
heaven to instruct some Brahmins who were conducting a sacrifice. In the course of the
instruction Udvanta asked them whether they propsed to kill the animals and eat their flesh.
When they replied that they did he asks them to desist so that might not lead them to heaven.
Satapata Brahmana II.1.4.3 clearly says that an animal need not be sacrificed and that it is
enough if it is given to the priests and that the usual practice should not be adopted. RgVeda
VIII.19.5 & VII.24.20 contain clear traces of the conception that a devout offering of praise
or of a stick or cooked food is sufficient in a sacrificial rite. RgVeda VI.16.47 says that
oblations of food made to the accompaniment of heartfelt hymns are offered by the Rishis in
the place of bulls, oxen and cows offered by the common masses. AÉ iÉå AalÉå GcÉ
WûÌuÉÈ WØûSÉ iÉ¹Ç pÉUÉqÉÍxÉ etc. Samaveda I.2.9.2 shows opposition to ritualistic
sacrifice involving killing of animals where the Rishis say ‘O ye gods, we use no sacrificial
stake, we slay no victim. We worship entirely by the repetition of the sacred mantras’ lÉ ÌMü
SåuÉÉ ClÉÏqÉÍxÉ lÉ YrÉÉ rÉÉåmÉrÉÉqÉÍxÉ qÉl§É´ÉÑirÉÇ cÉUÉqÉÍxÉ ||
Sathapata XI.6.1.3 states that the eater of meat is eaten by the animal killed in the next birth.
iÉå Wû FcÉÑÈ CijÉÇ uÉÉ CqÉå AxqÉÉ iÉå AqÉÑÎwqÉlÉç sÉÉåMåü AxÉcÉliÉ |
iÉÉlÉç uÉrÉqÉç CSqÉç CWû mÉëÌiÉxÉcÉÉqÉWåû | This idea is taken up in the
later Puranic literature also as in Anusasana 116 which says rÉÉå pɤÉrÉÎliÉ
qÉÉÇxÉÉÌlÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ eÉÏÌuÉiÉæÌwÉhÉÉqÉç | pɤrÉiÉå iÉåÅÌmÉ
pÉÔiÉæxiÉæÈ CÌiÉ qÉå lÉÉÎxiÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ || qÉÉÇ xÉ pɤÉrÉiÉå rÉxqÉÉiÉç
pɤÉÌrÉwrÉå iÉqÉmrÉWûqÉç | LiÉÇ qÉÉÇxÉxrÉ qÉÉÇxÉiuÉqÉlÉÑoÉÑkrÉxuÉ
pÉÉUiÉ || Cf. also Brahmavaivarta, Prakriti khanda, Adhyayas 61&62, where it is said
rÉÉåÅrÉÇ WûÎliÉ xÉ iÉÇ WûÎliÉ CÌiÉ uÉåSÉå£üqÉåuÉ cÉ | Satapata I.2.3.5 says
that when a cake is offered in sacrifice it is as good as an animal sacrifice. In Sathapata
XI.7.13, Aitareya Brahmana II.3.9&11, Tait. Br. II.8.8.2, Tait. Samhita
VI.1.11.6&VII.2.10.4, Kausitaki Br. X.3 & XI.8 and Katha. Br XXXIV.11 it is said that to
eat a sacrificed animal is to eat the sacrificer’s own flesh. Satapata I.2.3.6 says that at first the
gods offered up a man as sacrifice, that when he was offered the sacrificial essence entered
into a horse, ox, sheep and goat in turn and finally in rice and barley. And so the efficacy of
sacrificing all victims will be obtained by the offering of rice and barley. These quotations
from the Satapata show that there might have been some people in ancient times who used to
offer animals in sacrifice but the enlightened Rishis of the Vedas reformed the vedic ritual by
prescribing complete prohibition of sacrifice of animals by substituting the offering of
sacrificial cakes made of corn and grains. In later days also Acharyas like Madhwa reformed
the ritualistic practices of the orthodox Mimamsakas by prescribing ÌmɹmÉzÉÑlrÉÉrÉ.
Thereby only an animal made of dough must be offered in sacrifice instead of living animals.
Vide ManuV.39 MÑürÉÉïiÉç bÉÑiÉmÉzÉÑÇ xÉ…¡åû MÑürÉÉïiÉç ÌmɹmÉzÉÑÇ
iÉjÉÉ | lÉ iuÉåuÉ iÉÑ uÉ×jÉÉ WûliÉÑÇ mÉzÉÑÍqÉcNåûiÉç MüSÉcÉlÉ || This
practice is also approved in rituals conducted in all Ramakrishna Ashramas where as per the
advice of the Holy Mother, all animal sacrifices have been abolished and only some
vegetable is offered in place of the sacrificial animal. This is sanctioned by the Anusasanika

100
Parva of M.bh. 115.56-8 ´ÉÔrÉiÉå ÌWû mÉÑUÉMüsmÉå lÉ×hÉÉÇ uÉëÏÌWûqÉrÉÈ
mÉzÉÑÈ | rÉålÉ ArÉeÉliÉ rÉeuÉÉlÉÈ mÉÑhrÉsÉÉåMümÉUÉrÉhÉÉÈ GÌwÉÍpÉÈ
xÉÇzÉrÉÇ mÉ×¹Éå uÉxÉÑÈ cÉåÌSmÉÌiÉÈ mÉÑUÉ | ApɤrÉqÉÌmÉ rÉÉå
qÉÉÇxÉÇ rÉÈ mÉëÉWû pɤrÉÍqÉÌiÉ mÉëpÉÉå || AÉMüÉzÉÉSuÉÌlÉÇ
mÉëÉmiÉÈ etc. There is a misunderstanding that the worship of Devi is incomplete without
animal sacrifice. No doubt there are some texts which prescribe such animal sacrifice which
is called the Pancha Makara – qÉÉÇxÉ, qɱ, qÉixrÉ, qÉæjÉÑlÉ, qÉÑSìÉ. This is
taken in its literal sence among the lowest classes of society. The enlightened devotees of
Devi rejected this literal interpretation and understood it only in its spiritual and symbolic
sense. They are called Dakshina Margis. According to them the gracious Devi cannot be very
much leased with the taking of life or injuring any living being. This is practically
demonstrated in the story (Bhagavata) of Jadabharata. It is also said that even if these fools
think that the Devi is pleased by these acts of cruelty they cannot escape the sin of such
actions. oÉÍsÉSÉlÉålÉ ÌuÉmÉëålSì SÒaÉÉïmÉëÏÌiÉpÉïuÉåiÉç lÉ×hÉÉqÉç |
ÌWÇûxÉÉeÉlrÉÇ cÉ mÉÉmÉÇ cÉ sÉpÉiÉå lÉÉ§É xÉÇzÉrÉÈ || It is said that Siva
referred the matter to Devi Herself in Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda Ch 104-5
eÉÏuÉÉlÉÑMüqmÉÉÇ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉiÉÑÇ iÉiÉÉå SÒaÉÉïÇ xÉSÉÍzÉuÉÈ | mÉmÉëcNû
mÉUqÉmÉëÏirÉÉ aÉÔRûqÉåiÉiÉç uÉcÉÉå qÉÑSÉ || xÉuÉåï ÌuÉwhÉÑqÉrÉÉ
eÉÏuÉÉÈ iuÉ°£üÉ¶É MüjÉÇ ÍzÉuÉå | ´ÉÑiÉÇ qÉrÉÉ iÉuÉÉåmÉSåzÉå
MÑürÉÑïÈ MüÉqÉlÉrÉÉ uÉkÉqÉç || qÉWûÉlÉç xÉlSåWû CÌiÉ qÉå oÉëÔÌWû
pÉSìå xÉÑÌlÉͶÉiÉqÉç || To this Parvati replies thus: rÉå qÉqÉ AcÉïlÉ CirÉÑYiuÉÉ
mÉëÉhÉÌWÇûxÉlÉiÉimÉUÉÈ iÉimÉÔeÉlÉÇ qÉqÉÉÅqÉåkrÉÇ rɬÉåwÉÉiÉç
iÉSkÉÉåaÉÌiÉÈ | qÉSjÉåï ÍzÉuÉ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ iÉqÉxÉÉ eÉÏuÉbÉÉiÉlÉqÉç |
AÉMüsmÉMüÉåÌOûÌlÉUrÉå iÉåwÉÉÇ uÉÉxÉÉå lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ etc. where she
condemns outright this also abominable practice of using Her name in killing animals as such
practices are based upon only selfishness and ignorance. The word oÉÍsÉ comes from the
root oÉsÉç which means dana or gift or xÉÇuÉUhÉ or covering. In the first sense oÉÍsÉ
only means ‘an offering’ and not necessarly animal sacrifice. The Balidanam if any, to be
done in worship must mean only an offering of woship to Devi who has manifested Herself in
the whole world as in Bhutabali. The offering itself consists of oÉÍsÉ in the second sense
viz. AÌuÉ±É MüÉqÉ ¢üÉåkÉ etc. which form a covering hiding the true divinity of the
universe. It is only when such a oÉÍsÉSÉlÉ is given that the Divine Mother would be
pleased. oÉsÉÌiÉ xÉÇuÉ×hÉÉåÌiÉ CÌiÉ oÉÍsÉÈ oÉsÉåÈ mÉÔeÉÉåmÉMüUhÉxrÉ
SåuÉåiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ SÉlÉqÉç Kama & Krodha are considered as oÉÍsÉ or ‘powerful’ as
per Gita III.37: MüÉqÉ LwÉ ¢üÉåkÉ LwÉ UeÉÉåaÉÑhÉxÉqÉÑ°uÉÈ |
qÉWûÉzÉlÉÉå qÉWûÉmÉÉmqÉÉ ÌuÉ®èrÉålÉÍqÉWû uÉæËUhÉqÉç || upto
eÉÌWû zɧÉÑÇ qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå MüÉqÉÃmÉÇ xÉÑUÉxÉSqÉç | Some of the
Vedic sacrifices are specially prescribed only for the Kshatriyas who are permitted to take
meat under certain conditions and restrictions to make them fit for the protection of Dharma
and society from enemies where such protection necessitates extraordinary heroism, physical
strength, an element of cruelty also and where softness of heart and kindness may not prevail
against callous attackers from selfish and wicked foes. This concession is a concession given
only in the interest of Dharma itself and is not meant to be taken advantage of for selfish
purposes or for the satisfaction of sensal pleasures. Even though such concession is allowed
our texts consider it only as Apaddharma. Wherever it is possible to avoid taking of life they
have repeatedly empasised that one should desist from Himsa. In this connection vide M.bh.
Anusasana Parva, Chs, 113 – 116 which deal exhaustively with this aspect of the subject. It is
also not true that one can win a fight against a powerful enemy only through physical strength
and readiness to use violence. Even Arjuna himself, the greatest warrior of his age, tells

101
Yudhistira lÉ iÉjÉÉ oÉsÉuÉÏrÉÉïprÉÉÇ eÉrÉÎliÉ ÌuÉÎeÉaÉÏwÉuÉ rÉjÉÉ
xÉirÉÉlÉ×zÉÇxÉÉprÉÉqÉç | rÉjÉÉ kÉqÉïÈ iÉiÉÉå eÉrÉÈ etc. Vide Gita notes. Sri
Ramakrishna also has alluded to this in his story of the wrestler Hanuman Singh. So
spiritually minded people even amongst the Kshatriyas are averse to Himsa in any form
unless they are compelledto take up arms in the interst of Dharma itself.

It is perhaps to toughen the Kshatriyas and keep them always ready for defence of freedom
and Dharma that they allowed to have exercise in fighting with the wild animals in the forest
in the form of hunting. As Bhagavata however permits out in IV.26.6-8, hunting is not
prescribed as a necessary duty of the Kshatriyas nor is to be undertaken for the mere pleasure
of it. iÉÏjÉåïwÉÑ mÉëÌiÉSعåwÉÑ UÉeÉÉ qÉåkrÉÉlÉ mÉzÉÔlÉç uÉlÉå |
rÉÉuÉSjÉïqÉsÉÇ sÉÑokÉÉå WûlrÉÉÌSÌiÉ ÌlÉrÉqrÉiÉå || rÉ LuÉÇ MüqÉïÌlÉrÉiÉÇ
ÌuɲÉlÉç MÑüuÉÏïiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ | MüqÉïhÉÉ iÉålÉ UÉeÉålSì ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ lÉ xÉ
ÍsÉmrÉiÉå || AlrÉjÉÉ MüqÉï MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉå qÉÉlÉÉÃRûÉå ÌlÉoÉkrÉiÉå |
aÉÑhÉmÉëuÉÉWûÌiÉiÉÉå lɹmÉë¥ÉÉåå uÉëeÉirÉkÉÈ || In this commentary
Sridhara makes it clear that the special sanction to Kshatriyas to kill animals in hunting is not
an injunction but meant to keep hunting within proper limits and he who transgresses the
limitations and takes to hunting only as a pastime or only for mere pleasure has fallen from
the status of man to chop off a best. They are allowed only as a special case to give exercise
to heroism and other war like qualities and fearlessness of death in the actual fight with
ferocious wild animals and there only to protect the Rishis doing Tapas in the forest from
their depredations so that these Rishis may be free to perform their Tapas without fear and to
eat the meat to keep up their own strength and frocity. Thus this hunting under prescribed
restrictions is beneficial to society at large, to the Rishis doing Tapas in the forest and the
individual himself and it is done only in discharge of the Kshatriayas Svadharma. Even then
they have first to offer it to the Devas and Pitrus and thus consecrate the meat before eating.
It is said to be the regulation introduced by the sage Agasthya in Anusasana 116
‘YzeȨ́ÉrÉÉhÉÉÇ iÉÑ rÉÉå SØ¹È ÌuÉÍkÉÈ iÉqÉÌmÉ qÉå ´ÉÑhÉÑ |
uÉÏrÉåïhÉÉåmÉÉÎeÉïiÉÇ qÉÉÇxÉÇ rÉjÉÉ pÉÑgeÉlÉç lÉ SÒwrÉÌiÉ || AÉUhrÉÉÈ
xÉuÉïSæuÉirÉÉÈ xÉuÉïzÉÈ mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÉ qÉ×aÉÉÈ | AaÉxirÉålÉ mÉÑUÉ
UÉeÉlÉç qÉ×aÉrÉÉ rÉålÉ mÉÔerÉiÉå || lÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉmÉËUirÉerÉ qÉ×aÉrÉÉ
lÉÉqÉ ÌuɱiÉå | xÉqÉiÉÉqÉÑmÉxÉ…¡ûqrÉ pÉÔiÉÇ WûlrÉÎliÉ WûÎliÉ uÉÉ ||
AiÉÉå UÉeÉwÉïxxÉuÉåï qÉ×aÉrÉÉÇ rÉÉÎliÉ pÉÉUiÉ | lÉ ÌWû ÍsÉmrÉÎliÉ
mÉÉmÉålÉ lÉ cÉæiÉiÉç mÉÉiÉMÇü ÌuÉSÒÈ || mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÉ means purified
when they are killed in an act of self-sacrifice. lÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉmÉÌiÉirÉerÉ means unless it
be in selfless protection of spirituality; xÉqÉiÉÉqÉÑmÉxÉ…¡ûqrÉ means in such killing
there is no distinction between man and animal. Anusasana 115.59 makes it clear that
Agastya prescribed this rule or regulation in the interest of society. mÉëeÉÉlÉÉÇ iÉÑ
ÌWûiÉMüÉqrÉålÉ AaÉxirÉålÉ qÉWûÉiqÉlÉÉ | AÉUhrÉÉÈ xÉuÉïSæuÉirÉÉÈ
mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÉÈ iÉmÉxÉÉ qÉ×aÉÉÈ || The word iÉmÉxÉÉ shows that it was also
meant for the protection of Tapas. Manu V.26-55 also deals with this question of meat eating
after offering the animals in sacrifice where he says mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÇ pɤÉrÉlÉç
qÉÉÇxÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ MüÉqrÉrÉÉ | rÉjÉÉÌuÉÍkÉ ÌlÉrÉÑ£üxiÉÑ
mÉëÉhÉÉlÉÉqÉåuÉ cÉ AirÉrÉå || Sloka 35&36 says that he who foolishly refuses to
take meat from health point of view will be as foolish as a beast. Here the exception is made
in favour of the protection of health when it is prescribed as a medicine by qualified doctor
and the protection of such health is for the purpose of allowing the patient further opportunity
to save his soul by further spiritual practice by the service of God in man. Even in such cases
meat is to be taken only as Prasadam after offering it to god. mÉëÉåͤÉiÉqÉç means
purified by consecration to God. oÉëɼhÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ MüÉqrÉrÉÉ means ‘with the desire

102
to benefit spiritually minded persons; rÉjÉÉÌuÉÍkÉ ÌlÉrÉÑ£üxiÉÑ means that it should be
properly prescribed by a qualified physician on the basis of Ayurveda;
mÉëÉhÉÉlÉÉqÉåuÉ cÉÉirÉrÉå means when there is danger to life, i.e in the interest of
health. In such cases it is justified on the principle that as per the creator’s wish life can
sustain itself only by life. i.e it is the law of the nature. All food is organic in nature and no
one can take food without injuring another living being. Such being the case, nobody can live
without in someway injuring another. Since human birth is only for the purpose of the
realization of God through spiritual Sadhana and since no spiritual practice is possible
without health and vitality one who takes meat in pursuit of higher goal of life and not for the
satisfaction of the palate cannot be guilty of the sin even if the law of nature compels him
much against his wish to injure or cause suffering to others. This natural law is put in terms
of mÉëÉhÉxrÉ A³ÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïÇ mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉUMüsmÉrÉiÉç | xjÉÉuÉUÇ
eÉ…¡ûqÉÇ cÉæuÉ xÉuÉïÇ mÉëÉhÉxrÉ pÉÉåeÉlÉqÉç || This principle is refered to
in Bhagavatam by Narada as ÎeÉuÉÉå eÉÏuÉxrÉ eÉÏuÉlÉqÉç | It is also referred to in
Santi Parva where Viswamitra says in justification of his taking meat eÉÏuÉlÉç
kÉqÉïqÉuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | It is also mentioned by Dharmavyadha in Vana P.208 where
he says that according to the Scheme of creation nobody can escape harming another if one
wants to live and that even such innocent occupation as agriculture and gardening involving
harvest of crops entail injury to life. He says that not only in taking food but also even in
drinking and breathing and in walking etc. so many lives are destroyed. Such being the case,
says Dharmavyadha, one should not think of Himsa in terms of mere injury to life and that
when a virtuous man or even a Sannyasi can hope to do is to reduce such harm as far as
possible and confine it within the limits of his Svadharma which saves him from all sin. In
xÉiuÉæÈ xÉiuÉÉlÉÑeÉÏuÉÎliÉ oÉWÒûkÉÉ Ì²eÉxɨÉqÉ | mÉëÉÍhÉlÉÉå
AlrÉÉålrÉ pɤÉÉ¶É iÉ§É ÌMÇü mÉëÌiÉpÉÉÌiÉ iÉå || It concludes by saying MåülÉ
ÌWÇûxÉÎliÉ eÉÏuÉÉlÉç uÉæ sÉÉåMåüÎxqÉlÉç ̲eÉxɨÉqÉ | oÉWÒûxÉÇÍcÉirÉ
CÌiÉ uÉæ lÉÉÎxiÉ MüͶÉSÌWÇûxÉMüÈ || AÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÇ iÉÑ ÌlÉUiÉÉÈ
rÉiÉrÉÉå ̲eÉxɨÉqÉÉ MÑüuÉïlirÉåuÉ ÌWû ÌWÇûxÉÉÇ iÉå rɦÉÉSsmÉiÉUÉ
pÉuÉåiÉç ||
This argument shows that life is not possible without injuring another living being is not to be
taken to justify indiscrimate killing of animals for meat eating. Our writers on ethics make
use of this only in showing the proper limits of the doctrine of Ahimsa which must be based
upon the laws of nature and physical possibilities. We should remember this fact when we are
sometimes inclined to find fault with all meat eaters indiscriminately and feel disposed to
consider ourselves as superior to them merely because we are vegetarians. Vegitarianism by
itself does not make a man ethically or spiritually superior to a meat eater. Morality and
spirituality are matters relating to purity of heart and the cultivation of Sattvaguna and
devotion to gods. Mere orthodox vegetarians cannot be considered superior to a meat eater
like Christ. This natural fact enunciated by our law givers should serve as a corrective when
we are tempted to criticize the followers of other religions or those who are traditionally or
habitually in the practice of taking meat. This tolerance should not, however, be so
accommodating as to induce vegetarians to take to meat eating. In fact, every religious man
admits meat eating is not as conducive to spiritual life as vegetarianism. Even Christians and
Muslims refrain from taking meat on their special days of religious observance and even meat
eaters amongst Hindus give up meat and fish on Vrata days. The religious man or Sannyasin
is not liked even by meat eaters if they do not give up meat and fish. That this argument from
natural law is used by a law give not to encourage meat eating but to reduce it as far as
possible is seen from the last words of Dharma vyadha. rɦÉÉSsmÉiÉUÉ pÉuÉåiÉç cf
also Anusasana 115.45. mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÉÅmrÉÑͤÉiÉÇ qÉÉÇxÉÇ iÉjÉÉ
oÉëɼhÉaÉÉqrÉrÉÉ AsmÉSÉåwÉÍqÉWû ¥ÉårÉÇ ÌuÉmÉUÏiÉåwÉÑ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå

103
|| Cf. also Manu 56.556 mÉëuÉ×̨ÉUåwÉÑ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ ÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉxiÉÑ
qÉWûÉTüsÉÉ || Cf. also Bhagavatam AÉxÉÑ ÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉËU¹É || Although it is true that
according to both science and Vedanta even vegetables have got life, the seeds of the
vegetable have got only potentiality of life and not actuality of life whereas meat eating is
impossible without taking life which has already become manifest. In taking grain, corn and
seeds no actual life is taken. The same is the case even if one takes eggs, especially the
unfertilized eggs. It is perhaps not realize although it is scientifically true that the hen
produces eggs even without any connection with the cock and that such unfertilized eggs
have not even the potentiality of life in them as they are unfertilized and that they cannot
develop into chicken. If , therefore, considerations of heatlh requires as per the prescription of
a competent physician the taking of eggs as food, there is less of Himsa in taking an
unfertilized egg than in taking seeds, corn etc. But the case of fruits is different. The flesh or
pulp of fruits which have fallen from the trees automatically is of no practical use to the seeds
and therefore, in taking them even the life in the seeds is never affected. Fruits like plantains
have not got even potentiality of life in them for they cannot sprout. In fact scientist tell us
that dispensal of seeds is helpful in the furtherance of life and eating the pulp by birds and
animals including man is only a device of nature to help this dispersal of seeds and thus
helpful to life. That is why even amongst vegetarians TüsÉÉWûÉUÇ is considered as
superior to even rice, barley etc especially on religious days. Another scientific fact must be
borne in mind that the evil effect of meat eating manifest itself in the reaction it produces on
the mind of the killer as well as the eater. Killing of an animal whose pain and suffering can
be actually witnessed destroys all tender feeling in the minds of a habitual butcher and makes
him more and more cruel and thus destroys all kinds of human feelings in his heart. Many
meat eaters who are kind & benevolent would rather give up meat eating if they have to kill
these animals themselves. This reaction of mind of killer is detrimental to spiritual life and is
based upon the actual witnessing of the pain and sufferings of the slaughtered animal. It is a
scientific fact that it is only the nervous system and the brain are evolved that this pain and
suffering is actually felt by the individual as is made clear by the surgical operation under
anaesthesia which prevents the nerves and brain from taking cognizance of any pain.
Biologically therefore, it is the higher evolved form of life such as the vertebrates that are
capable of actual suffering. The lower order of animals as well as vegetable having no brains
and nervous system cannot suffer as much arm and suffering when they are killed. Therefore,
there will not be so much external sighs of suffering when they are killed for the sake of food.
Therefore the vegetarian does not actually feel that any injury is caused or life is taken when
he takes food unlike the meat eater who actually witnesses the pain and suffering of the
animal killed. There is therefore, no reaction on the mind of the vegetarian as in the case of
the meat eater and his benevolent feelings and humanity are not affected. This is one of the
reasons why vegetarianism is preferred from the spiritual and moral stand point though for
arguments sake it has to be admitted that technically taking of life is involved in taking any
kind of food. Moreover in these days of scientific advancement synthetic chemical food
having come within the limits of possibility many articles of food can now be taken without
injuring life in anyway. Similarly the reaction on the mind of the eater also is seen in the
restlessness caused by taking meat as evidenced by the behaviour of carnivorous animals in
contrast with the placid and passive behaviour of the vegetarian animals. This restlessness of
mind and the inordinate activity which it leads to is not conducive and congenial to such
spiritual practices as meditation etc. Therefore, a spiritual man should take only such food as
would help him in concentration etc. Vegetarian food is more helpful, therefore, to spiritual
life than meat eating.

104
Biologically, food is a necessity for life and for the supply of the energy necessary for any
kind of activity. Spiritual activity also, therefore, depends upon the proper quality and
quantity of food taken. The human body is only an instrument for such spiritual practice and
a healthy mind can work only in a healthy body. Cf. zÉUÏUqÉÉ±Ç ZÉsÉÑ
kÉqÉïxÉÉkÉlÉqÉç | A spiritual man should, therefore, not neglect his health except at the
risk of his own spiritual progress. As Bhagavan says in the Gita he must be a Yuktahari
which means proper quality and quantity of food which is fit for sustaining the health of the
body and mind which are the means of success in spiritual practice. In Ch. XVII Bhagavan
mentions the kind of food helpful to spiritual life when he defines Sattvika Ahara.
AÉrÉÑxxÉiuÉoÉsÉÉÅÅUÉåarÉxÉÑZÉmÉëÏÌiÉÌuÉuÉkÉïlÉÉÈ | UxrÉÉÈ ÎxlÉakÉÉ
ÎxjÉUÉ WØû±É AÉWûÉUÉ xÉÉÎiuÉMüÌmÉërÉÉÈ || Note Bhagavan does not refer to
any particular kind of material for food. It must naturally change with different times, places,
condition and circumstances. It must be subject also to the availability of the material and the
individual, personal reactions on the physiological systems of each individual. Thus to an
Eskimo for eg, rice and barley and vegetables may not be available as food at all, whereas it
may be abundantly available to people living in warmer climates. Similarly even in the
warmer climates abnormal circumstances like draught may arise and vegetables may become
scarce. Similarly in particular disease a vegetable food may not be congenial to health.
Moreover, meat and fish in hot climates are likely to spoil and hence more difficult to store
than in colder climate. Thus we see the wisdom of Bhagavan in not mentioning particular
article as Sattvic food helpful to spirituality. ‘Ayus’ refers to the capacity to sustain and
prolong life. ‘Sattva’ refers to its capacity to help, produce and sustain Sattvaguna. ‘Bala’
means physical strength and the stamina for continued sustained activity. ‘Arogya’ refers to
its medical property which helps prevention of ill-health as well as cure of disease. ‘Sukha’
refers to Sattvika Sukha referred to in Gita XVIII AprÉÉxÉÉSìqÉiÉå etc. ‘Priti’ refers to
the satisfaction of hunger. Food that is taken must have all these properties. Other properties
are also enumerated in the second line. It must be UxrÉ i.e must be capable of producing the
necessary chemicals when it gets into the stomach to provide all the elements of a balanced
food such as vitamins, carbohydrates, proteins etc. It must beÎxlÉakÉ, that is to say, it must
be prepared with love and should not be procured against the spiritual law of love of others. It
must be ÎxjÉU. This refers to digestibility and absorbability i.e the food must not be sent out
but must be absorbed in the blood stream and remain there for use. WØû±, i.e it must be
pleasing to the mind or the word may also mean it must be capable of sustaining the blood
circulation. It is only the food which has all these characteristics that can be considered as
Sattvic food. Note that Bhagavan does not refer here at all to the pleasures of the palate based
upon mere table. The latter characteristic of food makes the food only Rajasic as per the next
Sloka. MüOèuÉqsÉsÉuÉhÉÉirÉÑwhÉ If we apply these test to find out whether meat
eating or vegetarianism is better from the spiritual stand point we shall find that no safe
decision can be taken without reference to time, place, circumstances and needs of particular
individuals. Each one has to use his Buddhi to find out what is best for him from the stand
point of his spiritual Sadhana. That is why M.bh. gives the instances of the Rishis Saraswata
and Viswamitra when there was a drought all Rishis except Saraswata left the banks of
Saraswati and went far and wide in search of food. When after years of such wandering they
came back to the banks of the Saraswti again they found they had lost all their spiritual power
and their Vedic learning in the course of their prolonged vain searh for food. The Rishi
Sarawata who continued to live on the banks of the river and sustained his life by eating fish
in the river could continue his spiritual practice and had to teach the others. Salya IX.51.
Similarly in Santi Parva XII.141 the story is told of Viswamitra who was forced to take meat
in the form of carrion of a dog by stealing it from a Chandala under similar circumstances
where he says eÉÏÌuÉiÉÇ qÉUhÉÉiÉç ´ÉårÉÈ (in the course of a prolonged argument

105
with the Chandala on Dharma) eÉÏuÉlÉç kÉqÉïqÉuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | Spiritual
realization, the goal of life is not possible without practice of Dharma and Dharma is not
possible without strength and vitality of the body and therefore, one who sustains life in the
interest of Dharma & realization of God cannot be said to be going against Dharma even if he
is compelled by external circumstances and conditions to take food which is ordinarily
prohibited by the Sastras. That is the force of Viswamitra’s argument. A similar story occurs
in Ch. Up. I.10 where another Rishi called Ushasta Cakrayana is described that he has taken
some prohibited food to sustain his life for spiritual Sadhana and as service.
AiɶÉæiÉÉqÉxjÉÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉxrÉ ÌuɱÉkÉqÉïrÉzÉÉåuÉiÉÈ
xuÉÉiqÉmÉUÉåmÉMüÉUxÉqÉjÉïxrÉæiÉSÌmÉ MüqÉï MÑüuÉïiÉÉå
lÉÉkÉxmÉzÉïÇ CirÉÍpÉmÉëÉrÉÈ iÉxrÉÉÌmÉ eÉÏÌuÉiÉÇ mÉëirÉÑmÉÉrÉÉliÉUå
AeÉÑaÉÑÎmxÉiÉå xÉÌiÉ eÉÑaÉÑÎmxÉiÉqÉåiÉiÉç MüqÉï SÉåwÉÉrÉ - Sankara's
commentary there on. It is justified on the principle enunciated in the Prana Vidya of Ch. Up.
that everything is fit to be taken as food to sustain life. Vide Ch. V.2.1 lÉ Wû uÉÉ LuÉÇ
ÌuÉÍkÉ ÌMügcÉlÉ AlɳÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ | Also Brihad. VI.1.24 lÉ Wû uÉÉ AxrÉ AlɳÉÇ
eÉakÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ lÉ AlɳÉÇ mÉëÌiÉaÉ×WûÏiÉqÉç | Cf. Br. Sutra III.4.28. xÉuÉÉï³É
AlÉÑqÉÌiÉ¶É mÉëÉhÉÉirÉrÉå iɬzÉïlÉÉqÉç | In explaining this Sutra Sankara quotes
all these passages and justifies the taking of even forbidden food where there is a danger to
life as AÉmÉ®qÉï. Under Br. Sutra III.4.30 he also quotes the passage eÉÏÌuÉiÉÉirÉrÉÇ
AÉmɳÉÉå rÉÈ A³ÉqÉÌ¨É rÉiÉxiÉiÉÈ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉ xÉ mÉÉmÉålÉ
mÉ©mɧÉÍqÉuÉÉqpÉxÉÉ | This concession is available only when to a man who is
interested in spiritual Sadhana and who uses his subsequent life for realizing God and it is
allowed only in cases where other means of sustaining life are not available. Even when such
concession is granted our texts make it clear that only as much of the prohibited food is to be
taken as it absolutely necessary to sustain life. He who takes more than what is absolutely
necessary will be guilty of sin. This is also clear from the story of Ushasta Chakrayana who
refused to take more than what was absolutely necessary even though more was offered. This
rule applies not only to Apaddharma but even to normal food. Therefore, Narada says in his
Bhakti Sutra pÉÉåeÉlÉÉÌSurÉÉmÉÉUxiÉÑ AÉzÉUÏUkÉÉUhÉÉuÉÍkÉ | In
Bhagavatam also Narada says rÉÉuÉÎSèpÉërÉåiÉ
eÉPûUÇ iÉÉuÉiÉç xuÉiuÉÇ ÌWû SåÌWûlÉÉqÉç | AÍkÉMÇü rÉÉåÅÍpÉqÉlrÉåiÉ
xÉ xiÉålÉÉå ShQûqÉWïûÌiÉ || If more than what is necessary for health is taken it is
called AÌiÉpÉÉåeÉlÉqÉç and such AÌiÉpÉÉåeÉlÉqÉç is condemned by all scriptures.
Every extra morsel of food taken after satisfaction of the bodily needs is to take away as
much from the mouth of another and is as good as theft or even as murder or Himsa, since
some poor man or other who will be in need of it to sustain his life is deprived of his share
and may in consequence die of starvation. So the American philosopher Thoreau calls it as
theft and the Russian philosopher Tolstoy calls it murder. Nature produces sufficient food to
enable all living beings to sustain their life and if anyone takes more than his legitimate share
of food he cannot do so without depriving another of his sustenance. So everyone who takes
more food merely to satisfy the palate is guilty of sin resulting from Himsa. This rule applies
equally to all kinds of food – vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian. But our writers still
consider that non-vegetarian food is more attractive to the palate than the vegetarian and there
is more likelihood of Atibhojanam in the case of meat eaters. Meat being more easily
assimilible there will be a false hunger which demands more quantity more frequently.
Moreover, since meat cannot be preserved hygienically more number of days without
putrefaction, health consideration require that there should be slaughter everyday for supply
of fresh meat – especially in hotter climate like ours and this leads to continuous practice of
taking life without mercy and is, therefore, more likely to harden one’s heart and deprive one
and all humane feelings. So from the spiritual stand point vegetarianism is preferable

106
especially in places where vegetables are available although meat eating may be condomed
and justified in the case of people where living in places sufficient vegetable food is not
available. Moreover, in the history of human civilization vegetarianism is a later growth and
it was made possible only when man became civilized enough to procure sufficient
vegetables through agriculture and gardening. Before that man used to live only on meat and
in those ancient days it was justifiable to sustain life through meat. But it is not so justifiable
today in the case of those who have the capacity for agriculture and gardening and through
these who have sufficient vegetarian food to sustain life. Those nations who, through their
scientific progress produce more than what is necessary for them, have absolutely no
justification to prefer meat to vegetables and they will be guilty of Himsa in killing animals
for meat. Those who destroy all the vegetarian food without giving the excess to the needy
nations to keep up the prices, there by deprive other nations of the opportunity of being
contended and satisfied with vegetarian food and compel them to take meat and fish as
substitutes. They are therefore, guilty of not only taking meat themselves when it could be
avoided but of depriving others of their legitimate food in the interest of their own selfish
pruposes and they will be guilty of Himsa for all the life that has been taken by other nations.
The sin of taking meat as a substitute food does not attach itself to poor nations but to those
who compel them to live on meat. It is also a fact that vegetarian food has more capacity to
give sustaining power. This fact was demonstrated in the Russia Japanese war where the
Japanese could go on with less food for a larger number of days with only rice and sugar and
do heavier work whereas the Russians who were pure meat eaters were daily in need of large
quantities of food to keep themselves up. (c.f balam). It is also claimed by some biologists
and diaticians that the human being is biologically provided with an alimentary system which
is more consistent and conducive to vegetarian food than to meat and fish and it will be more
human therefore and conducive to health (moral and spiritual and physical) if man prefers
vegetarian food. From the standpoint of evolution man is more allied to the simians than the
carnivorous animals. It is also a fact that the trees produce fruits year by year unlike many of
the higher evolved animals which have no such fecundity. Therefore, there will be more
necessity to take greater number of lives if one adopts non vegetarian food and the traces
themselves need not be killed or destroyed for the sake of the food that they supply. Thus
vegetables can provide food without being killed but meat cannot be produced without taking
life. Manu points this out when he says lÉ AM×üiuÉÉ mÉëÉÍhÉlÉÉÇ ÌWÇûxÉÉÇ
qÉÉÇxÉmÉÑimɱiÉå YuÉÍcÉiÉç | lÉ cÉ mÉëÉÍhÉuÉkÉÈ xuÉarÉïÈ iÉxqÉÉiÉç
qÉÉÇxÉÇ ÌuÉuÉeÉïrÉåiÉç || V.48. xÉqÉÑimĘ́ÉÇ cÉ qÉÉÇxÉxrÉ
uÉkÉoÉlkÉÉæ cÉ SåÌWûlÉÉÇ mÉëxÉuÉϤrÉ ÌlÉuÉiÉåïiÉ xÉuÉïqÉÉÇxÉxrÉ
pɤÉhÉÉiÉç ||
Thus all our Sastras condemn meat eating and eulogise giving up of meat as food. They say
that giving up of meat under all circumstances, if possible, is more efficacious in spiritual life
than all important ritualistic sacrifices like Asvamedha etc. Vide the same chapters in
Anusasana & Manu. They allow meat eating only in extra ordinarily special cases under
special sanction from medical man and only as Apaddharma i.e when Dharma itself is likely
to suffer otherwise. The whole section of Manu dealing with meat eating begins with the
statement that the discussion is about giving up of meat eating. qÉÉÇxÉxrÉÉiÉÈ
mÉëuɤrÉÉÍqÉ ÌuÉÍkÉÇ pɤÉhÉuÉeÉïlÉå (i.e pɤÉhÉxrÉ uÉeÉïlÉå) It begins
with V.26 and ends with V.56. mÉëuÉ×̨ÉxÉiÉÑ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ ÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉxiÉÑ
qÉWûÉTüsÉÉ | Our Sastras condemn not only the killer and the eater but all those who
have anything to do with the act, even those who silently approve of it without protest and
say that all of them are equally guilty of the sin. So Manu says in V.51 AlÉÑqÉliÉÉ
ÌuÉzÉÍxÉiÉ ÌlÉWûliÉÉ ¢ürÉÌuÉ¢ürÉÏ | xÉÇxMüiÉÉï cÉÉåmÉWûiÉÉï cÉ

107
ZÉÉSMü¶ÉåÌiÉ bÉÉiÉMüÉÈ || Vide also BrahmaVaivarta, Prakriti Khanda, Ch. 61,62
EixÉaÉï MüiÉÉï SÉiÉÉ cÉ Nåû¨ÉÉ ÌmÉ¹É cÉ U¤ÉMüÈ | AaÉëmɶÉÉͳÉUÉå®É
cÉ xÉmiÉæiÉå uÉkÉpÉÉÌaÉlÉÈ || Cf. also Kashikhanda & Skanda Purana. pÉÉå£üÉ
AlÉÑqÉliÉÉ xÉÇxMüiÉÉï ¢ürÉÌuÉ¢ürÉÌWÇûxÉMüÉÈ | EmÉWûiÉÉï kÉÉiÉÌrÉiÉÉ
ÌWÇûxÉMüÉ¶É A¹kÉÉÅkÉqÉÉÈ || The same idea is repeated by Patanjali also when he
says in II.34. ÌuÉiÉMüÉï ÌWÇûxÉÉSrÉÈ M×üiÉMüÉËUiÉÉlÉÑqÉÉåÌSiÉÉ sÉÉåpÉ
¢üÉåkÉqÉÉåWûmÉÔuÉïMüqÉ×SÒqÉkrÉÉÍkÉqÉɧÉÉ SÒÈZÉÉÅ¥ÉÉlÉliÉTüsÉÉ
CÌiÉ mÉëÌiÉmɤÉpÉÉuÉlÉqÉç |

Vide also Anusasana 113-116. There is no exception to the law of AÉÌWÇûxÉÉ, all
apparent exceptions being only in the interest of real AÌWÇûxÉÉ. Therefore Patanjali II.31
says LiÉå eÉÉÌiÉ SåzÉMüÉsÉxÉqÉrÉÉlÉuÉÍNû³ÉÉÈ xÉÉuÉïpÉÉæqÉÉÈ
qÉWûÉuÉëiÉqÉç | Here xÉqÉrÉ means not time as MüÉsÉ is separately mentioned but
conventional rules of Smriti based upon custom and tradition and social image as in the
expression kÉqÉï¥É xÉqÉrÉÈ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç - Apastambha. It is only when protection
of Dharma itself requires meat eating that the scriptures insist upon that it should be
converted into Prasaaam by offering it to God. It is only in such cases that kÉqÉï¥É’s
allowed meat to be offered to God & Pitris only on the principle rÉS³ÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉÉå
pÉuÉÌiÉ iÉS³É iÉxrÉ SåuÉiÉÉÈ | Ramayana. The prescription of scripture regarding
offering of meat to the body should not be taken as a general sanction to kill animals in the
sacrifice. No doubt in some passages it is said – rÉ¥ÉÉjÉÉïÈ mÉzÉuÉÈ xÉ×¹ÉÈ | But
these words should be taken not in a diabolical sense of all animal beings created only to be
offered in sacrifices as some orthodox people take it. It only means that all Pasu are Jiva, are
created only to realize God through the self sacrifice in the same sense of xÉWûrÉ¥ÉÈ
mÉëeÉÉÈ xÉ×¹É etc. in the Gita and therefore any act done in the interest of Yajna or self
sacrifice does not cater to Dharma nor does it entail sin, even though such act of self sacrifice
for the sake of realizing God may, by chance, cause some heart burning or pain to others as
when an aspirant for Mukti renounces hearth and home when he becomes a Sannyasin. In
such cases the promise of Bhagavan in the Gita lÉÌWû MüsrÉÉhÉM×üOèû MüͶÉiÉç
SÒaÉïÌiÉÇ iÉÉiÉ aÉcNûÌiÉ, lÉ qÉå pÉ£üÈ mÉëhÉzrÉÌiÉ, xuÉsmÉqÉmrÉxrÉ
kÉqÉïxrÉ §ÉÉrÉiÉå qÉWûiÉÉå pÉrÉÉiÉç, xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlÉç mÉËUirÉerÉ ...
AWÇû iuÉÉÇ xÉuÉïmÉÉmÉåprÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉÌrÉwrÉÉÍqÉ etc. holds good and saves
him from the consequences of his act. Moreover, these vedic prescriptions are meant only for
people who are anxious to live only for the sake of Dharma and it is this Dharma that saves
them. Ahimsa is thus the corner stone of Dharma and no act can be Dharma unless it is
characterized by Ahimsa. So commenting on Patanjali II.30 Vyasa says in his Bhasya that all
Yamas and Niyamas are based upon the practice of Ahimsa. iÉ§É AÌWÇûxÉÉ xÉuÉïjÉÉ
xÉuÉïSÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ AlÉÍpÉSìÉåWûÈ | E¨ÉUå cÉ rÉlÉ ÌlÉrÉqÉÉÈ
iÉlqÉÔsÉÉÈ iÉÎixÉήmÉUiÉrÉÉ iÉimÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉÉrÉ mÉëÌiÉmÉɱliÉå iÉiÉç
AuÉSÉiÉÃmÉsÉÉUhÉÉrÉæuÉ EmÉÉSÏrÉliÉå | iÉjÉÉ cÉÉå£üqÉç | xÉ
ZÉsuÉrÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÉå rÉjÉÉ uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ oÉWÕûÌlÉ xÉqÉÉÌSixÉliÉå iÉjÉÉ
mÉëqÉÉSM×üiÉåprÉÉå ÌWÇûxÉÉÌlÉ SÉlÉåprÉÉåÅÌiÉuÉiÉïqÉÉlÉÈ
iÉÉqÉåuÉÉuÉSÉiÉÃmÉÉÇ AÌWÇûxÉÉÇ MüUÉåÌiÉ | So also Anusasana 114.6.7
rÉjÉÉ lÉÉaÉmÉSå AlrÉÉÌlÉ mÉSÉÌlÉ mÉSaÉÉÍqÉlÉÉÇ xÉuÉÉïlrÉåuÉÉÌmÉ
kÉÏrÉliÉå mÉSeÉÉiÉÉÌlÉ MüÉægeÉUå LuÉÇ xÉuÉïÇ AÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÇ
kÉqÉÉïjÉïqÉÌmÉ kÉÏrÉiÉå LuÉÇ sÉÉåMåüwÉÑ AÌWÇûxÉÉ iÉÑ ÌlÉÌSï¹ÉÈ
kÉqÉïiÉÈ mÉÑUÉ AÌWÇûxÉÉ ÌWû iÉuÉ ÌlÉÌSï¹É xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlÉÑxÉÇÌWûiÉÉ |
Now we can understand the important place of Ahimsa in the conception of Dharma.

108
So our writers say AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉuÉïmÉëÉhÉpÉ×iÉÉÇuÉU Adi,
Pauloma Parva 8.43 AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÇ iÉmÉÈ AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÇ xÉirÉqÉç
rÉiÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ mÉëuÉiÉïiÉå | Anusasana 115.25. AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ
xÉuÉïmÉëÉhÉpÉ×iÉÉÇuÉU | - Adi, Pauloma P. 8.43.Vide also Aswamedha XI.13
AÌWÇûxÉÉ sɤÉhÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ. Anusasana 116.26. It is one thing to recogise the
importance of Ahimsa in deciding whether an act is Dharma or not but is rather difficult to
find out in practice how our acts insure another. Even though nobody in his immediate
surrounding may be discovered to be actually injured it is quite likely and possible that in this
wide world someone in distant places or sense on in the future might be possibly injured by
our act. Therefore, it is very difficult to apply this in everyday actual life as the repurcussion
of an act cannot be forseen by the most intelligent of men. For all practical purposes for
everyday use a simpler rule is laid down by our Sastras to ensure proper application of this
AÌWÇûxÉÉ. This rule is thus laid down by Vyasa ´ÉÔrÉiÉÉÇ kÉqÉïxÉuÉïxuÉÇ
´ÉÑiuÉÉ cÉæuÉ AuÉkÉÉrÉïiÉÉqÉç | AÉiqÉlÉÈ mÉëÌiÉMÔüsÉÉÌlÉ mÉUåwÉÉÇ
lÉ xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || Again lÉ iÉiÉç mÉUxrÉ xÉlSkrÉÉiÉç mÉëÌiÉMÔüsÉÇ
rÉSÉiqÉlÉÈ | LwÉ xÉÉqÉÉÍxÉMüÉå kÉqÉïÈ MüÉqÉÉSlrÉÈ mÉëuÉiÉïiÉå ||
Anusasanika 113.8. Again, Santi 86 rÉSlrÉæÈ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ lÉ CcNåûiÉç AÉiqÉlÉÈ
(AÉiqÉÉ here may be understood not only as ones' lower self but also the higher self. Hence
the principle can be applied by everyone in terms of his own conception of his own self and it
may cover all aspects of injuring - physical, mental and spiritual) MüqÉïmÉÉæÂwÉÈ | lÉ
iÉiÉç mÉUåwÉÑ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ eÉÉlÉlÉç AÌmÉërÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ || eÉÏÌuÉiÉÑÇ rÉÈ
xuÉrÉÇ cÉ CcNåûiÉç MüjÉÇ xÉÉå AlrÉÇ mÉëbÉÉiÉrÉåiÉç | rɱSÉiqÉÌlÉ cÉ
CcNåûiÉ iɨÉiÉç mÉUxrÉÉÌmÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉåiÉç || Again Santi 124.56 rÉSlrÉåwÉÉÇ
ÌWûiÉÇ lÉ xrÉÉiÉç AÉiqÉlÉÈ MüqÉïmÉÉæÂwÉqÉç | AmɧÉmÉåiÉ uÉÉ rÉålÉ
lÉ iÉiÉç MÑürÉÉïiÉç MüjÉgcÉlÉ || ASìÉåWûÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüqÉïhÉÉ
qÉlÉxÉÉ ÌaÉUÉ | AlÉÑaÉëWû¶É SÉlÉÇ cÉ xÉiÉÉÇ kÉqÉïxxÉlÉÉiÉlÉÈ || Santi
162.21. This Sloka takes us to two others aspects of Ahimsa.

It emphasizes that injury may be caused not only by a physical act but a verbal or mental act
also. One can wound another through harsh words, insults, abuses etc. some times even more
than a mere physical act. So Udyoga’s XXXIV.78 says UÉåWûiÉå xÉÉrÉMæüÌuÉïSÇ
uÉlÉÇ mÉUzÉÑlÉÉ WûiÉÇ uÉÉcÉÉ aÉÑ£ürÉÉ ÌuÉ®Ç lÉ xÉÇUÉåWûÌiÉ
uÉÉMçü zÉiÉqÉç || So one must be very careful in not only not to injure physically but
also not to injure another through unkind words. Similarly even unkind thoughts can wound
another. So even in our mind we should not entertain thoughts of injuring another. The
highest practice of Ahimsa requires freedom from anger, hatred, jealousy, envy etc. In fact a
physical injury done to another may not be ÌWÇûxÉÉ if it is done with love under the purest
of motives. But even a physical good may not be AÌWÇûxÉÉ if it is done with an improper
and impure motive such as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, qÉS, qÉÉåWû, qÉÉixÉrÉïï, etc. Thus for
example, a donation given to start a girls' institution with a sexual motive behind or a
donation given to a man so that he may get into trouble with the police cannot be called
Ahimsa because the intention is to do harm for selfish purpose. Similarly also, offering of
bribes for securing licenses from the government for public utilities cannot be considered as
Dharma because the act is vitiated by bad motive. Thus the purity of mind is very important
in all considerations of Dharma. We may even go to the extent of saying that Himsa consists
in act, word or thought which injures the actor, the speaker or the thinker himself spiritually
and morally more than injuring others. The subjective motive or the subjective reaction on his
own mind is more important than the objective effect. Therefore, our Sastras are right in
insisting upon this subjective aspect of the Ahimsa doctrine. Therefore, Vana Parva
29.16&17 says iÉåeÉxuÉÏÌiÉ rÉqÉÉWÒûuÉåï mÉÎhQûiÉÉÈ SÏbÉïSÍzÉïlÉÈ | lÉ

109
¢üÉåkÉÉåÅprÉliÉUxiÉxrÉ pÉuÉiÉÏÌiÉ ÌuÉÌlÉͶÉiÉqÉç || So Yogi Yajnavalkya says
in I.52 MüÉrÉålÉ uÉÉcÉÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ xÉuÉïSÉ |
AYsÉåzÉeÉlÉlÉÇ mÉëÉå£Çü AÌWÇûxÉÉiuÉålÉ rÉÉåÌaÉÍpÉÈ || Note the
expression AYsÉåzÉeÉlÉlÉ. The word YsÉåzÉ comes from the root ÎYsÉzÉç - to impede
or hinder and means all actions which are likely to or meant to put obstacles in the way of
spiritual progress. The word YsÉåzÉ is to be understood in the sense in which Patanjali uses
it AÌuÉ±É AÎxqÉiÉÉUÉaɲåwÉÉÍpÉÌlÉuÉåzÉÉÈ mÉgcÉ YsÉåzÉÉÈ | He makes it
clear that spiritually Himsa means only injury to the spiritual life and progress though
socially it may be a physical injury or economic injury. Vide also Suta Samhita, Jnanayoga
Khanda XIII.4&5 and Jabaladarshanopanishad VIII. uÉåSÉå£ümÉëMüÉUåhÉ ÌuÉlÉÉ
xÉirÉÇ iÉmÉÉåkÉlÉ | MüÉrÉålÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ uÉÉcÉÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉ lÉ cÉÉÅlrÉpÉjÉÉ ||
AÉiqÉÉ xÉuÉïaÉiÉÉåÅcNåû±È AaÉëÉ½È CÌiÉ rÉÉ qÉÌiÉÈ xÉÉÅÌWÇûxÉÉ
mÉUÉ mÉëÉå£üÉ qÉÑlÉå uÉåSÉliÉuÉåÌSÍpÉÈ || Here
uÉåSÉå£ümÉëMüÉUåhÉ refers to the apparent exception to AÌWÇûxÉÉ discussed
above such as meat eating as medicine, hunting for Kshatriyas etc. which are all justified as
Apat Dharma in the interest of Dharma itself.

Thus though it is very difficult to find out the objective facts of one’s acts and to decide
whether an act is ÌWÇûxÉÉ or AÌWÇûxÉÉ from the standpoint of mere objective effects,
we can more easily find out by self-examination what our own motive is and what is the
subjective reaction on us is. We can avoid ÌWÇûxÉÉ, therefore, better through the purity of
our own motives and freedom from Kama, Krodha etc. in our dealings with others in every
one of our actions. Perfect purity can be finally attained only by self realization and therefore
only the Jivanmukta can be a perfect AÌWÇûxÉMü. No action done by him can ever be
spiritually injurious to another although some pain may possibly be caused to others. It is this
highest conception of AÌWÇûxÉÉ that is refered to in the second Sloka above AÉiqÉÉ
xÉuÉïaÉiÉÉåÅcNåû±È etc. This is what is refered to in the Gita also XIII.27-28: xÉqÉÇ
xÉuÉåïwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ ÌiɹliÉÇ mÉUqÉåµÉUqÉç | ÌuÉlÉzrÉixuÉÌuÉlÉzrÉliÉÇ
rÉÈ mÉzrÉÌiÉ xÉ mÉzrÉÌiÉ || xÉqÉÇ mÉzrÉÎlWû xÉuÉï§É
xÉqÉuÉÎxjÉiÉqÉϵÉUqÉç | lÉ ÌWûlÉxirÉÉiqÉlÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ iÉiÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ mÉUÉÇ
aÉÌiÉqÉç || Cf. also VI.29-32: xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉxjqÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ
cÉÉiqÉÌlÉ |, rÉÉå qÉÉÇ mÉzrÉÌiÉ xÉuÉï§É xÉuÉïÇ cÉ qÉÌrÉ mÉzrÉÌiÉ |,
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÎxjÉiÉÇ rÉÉå qÉÉÇ pÉeÉirÉåMüiuÉqÉÉÎxjÉiÉÈ |,
AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ xÉuÉï§É xÉqÉÇ mÉzrÉÌiÉ rÉÉåÅeÉÑïlÉ | Also Gita XVIII.17:
rÉxrÉ lÉÉWÇûM×üiÉÉå pÉÉuÉÉå oÉÑÎkSrÉïxrÉ lÉ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå | Cf. also Manu
XII.91&118: xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ cÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ cÉÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉqÉÇ
mÉzrÉlÉç AÉiqÉrÉÉeÉÏ xuÉÉUÉerÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || xÉuÉïqÉÉiqÉÌlÉ
xÉqmÉzrÉåiÉç xÉŠÉÅxÉŠ xÉqÉÉÌWûiÉÈ | xÉuÉïÇ ÌWû AÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉÇmÉzrÉlÉç
lÉ AkÉqÉåï MÑüÂiÉå qÉlÉÈ || AÉiqÉæuÉ SåuÉiÉÉÈ xÉuÉÉïÈ
xÉuÉïqÉÉiqÉlrÉuÉÎxjÉiÉqÉç | AÉiqÉÉ ÌWû eÉlÉrÉirÉåwÉÉÇ MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉÇ
zÉUÏËUhÉÉqÉç || LuÉÇ rÉÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ mÉzrÉirÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ xÉ
xÉuÉïxÉqÉiÉÉqÉåirÉ oÉë¼ÉÅprÉåÌiÉ mÉUÇ mÉSqÉç || These are the last words
of Manu on the highest Dharma and it is the same idea that is echoed throughout our
scriptures as the quintessence of all morality and spirituality. This is what Manu meant when
in his very first chapter he said that a Dwija should be AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç ÌlÉirÉÇ
xrÉÉSÉÅÅiqÉuÉÉlÉç ̲eÉÈ || I.108. Vide also Gita II.45 §ÉæaÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ
uÉåSÉÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉÉå pÉuÉÉeÉÑïlÉ | Ìlɲïl²ÉåÌlÉirÉxɨuÉxjÉÉå
ÌlÉrÉÉåïaɤÉåqÉ AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç || Anusasana 115.21-22 AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ
qÉliÉurÉÇ oÉÑÎkSqÉÎ°È M×üiÉÉiqÉÍpÉÈ || Also 113.9 mÉëirÉÉZrÉÉlÉå cÉ

110
SÉlÉå cÉ xÉÉæZÉSÒÈZÉå ÌmÉërÉÉÌmÉërÉå | AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ mÉÑÂwÉÈ
mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || rÉSÌWÇûxÉÉiqÉMÇü MüqÉï iÉiÉç
MÑürÉÉïSÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç lÉUÈ | Anusasana parva 116.21. cf. ApÉrÉÇ
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÉå etc. We have so far been discussing only the negative aspect of the
doctrine of Ahimsa, viz. the avoidance of causing injury. But it has got a positive aspect as
well. It is not sufficient for a practitioner of AÌWÇûxÉÉ to merely avoid causing injury to
others but necessary to positively do good to others. This positive aspect is discussed b our
writers in terms of SrÉÉ, mÉUÉåmÉMüÉU, AlÉÑaÉëWû, pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ,
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, etc. So our writers say applying the same doctrine of
AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉ. iÉxqÉÉiÉç mÉëÉÍhÉwÉÑ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ SrÉÉuÉÉlÉç
AÉiquÉÉlÉç pÉuÉåiÉç | Anusasana 116.32. ApÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÉå rÉÉå
SSÉÌiÉ SrÉÉmÉUÈ | ApÉrÉÇ iÉxrÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ SSÌiÉÌiÉ AlÉÑzÉÑ´ÉÑqÉ || 116.22.
Also 116.12 iÉxqÉÉrÉç SrÉÉÇ lÉUÈ MÑürÉÉïiÉç rÉjÉÉiqÉÌlÉ iÉjÉÉmÉUå | Also
AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ xÉuÉï§É SrÉÉÇ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || Cf. also Gita
SaraxÉuÉïkÉqÉïqÉrÉÏ SrÉÉ || Vyasa says in M.bh. A¹ÉSzÉmÉÑUÉhÉåwÉÑ xÉÉUÇ
xÉÉUÇ xÉqÉÑ®iÉqÉç | mÉUÉåmÉMüÉUÈ mÉÑhrÉÉrÉ mÉÉmÉÉrÉ
mÉUmÉÏQûlÉqÉç || "Daya" is thus defined in various texts both in terms of the act as
well as the mental attitude. rɦÉÉSÌmÉ mÉUYsÉåzÉÇ WûiÉÑïÇ rÉÉ WØûÌS
eÉÉrÉiÉå | CcNûÉ pÉÔÍqÉxÉÑU´Éå¸ xÉÉ SrÉÉ mÉËUMüÐÌiÉïiÉÉ || Padma
Purana. AÉiqÉuÉixÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ rÉÉå ÌWûiÉÉrÉ cÉ ÍzÉpÉÉrÉ cÉ | uÉiÉïiÉå
xÉiÉiÉÇ WØû¹È Ì¢ürÉÉ ½åwÉÉ SrÉÉ xqÉ×iÉÉ | Matsya Purana SrÉÉ lÉÉqÉ
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ xÉuÉï§É AlÉÑaÉëWûÈ || Sandilyopanishad xuÉÉiqÉuÉiÉç
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüÉrÉålÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ ÌaÉUÉ | AlÉÑ¥ÉÉ rÉÉ SrÉÉ xÉæuÉ
mÉëÉå£üÉ uÉåSÉliÉuÉåÌSÍpÉÈ || Jabaladarshana Up. & Suta Samhita. LiÉSåuÉ ÌWû
SrÉÉsÉÑsɤÉhÉÇ rÉiÉç ÌuÉlÉårÉeÉlÉoÉÑήuÉkÉïlÉqÉç || Sankshepa Sariraka
mÉUå uÉÉ oÉlkÉÑuÉaÉåï uÉÉ ÍqɧÉå ²å¹ËU uÉÉ xÉSÉ | AÉiqÉuÉiÉç
uÉÌiÉïiÉurÉÇ ÌWû SrÉæwÉÉ mÉËUMüÐÌiÉïiÉÉ || Ekadashi Tattvam. Bhagavata
VIII.38-40 say AÉxÉÉÇ mÉëÉhÉmÉUÏmxÉÔlÉÉÇ ÌuÉkÉårÉÇ ApÉrÉÇ ÌWû qÉå |
LiÉÉuÉÉlÉç ÌWû mÉëpÉÉåUjÉïÈ rÉiÉç rÉålÉ SÏlÉmÉËUmÉÉsÉlÉqÉç ||
mÉëÉhÉæÈ xuÉæÈ mÉëÉÍhÉlÉÈ mÉÉÎliÉ xÉÉkÉuÉÈ ¤ÉhÉpÉ…¡ÓûUæÈ |
oÉ®uÉæUåwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ qÉÉåÌWûiÉåwuÉÉiqÉqÉÉrÉrÉÉ || mÉÑÇxÉÈ
M×ümÉrÉiÉÉå pÉSìå xÉuÉÉïiqÉÉ mÉëÏrÉiÉå WûËUÈ || Cf. also Tuladhara's words
to Jajali in Santi 262-263 uÉåSÉÅWÇû eÉÉeÉsÉå kÉqÉïÇ xÉUWûxrÉÇ
xÉlÉÉiÉlÉqÉç | xÉuÉïpÉÔUÌWûiÉÇ qÉæ§ÉÇ mÉÑUÉhÉÇ rÉÇ eÉlÉÉ ÌuÉSÒÈ ||
ASìÉåWåûhÉæuÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ AsmÉSìÉåWåûhÉ uÉÉ mÉÑlÉÈ rÉÉ uÉ×̨ÉÈ
xÉ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ iÉålÉ eÉÏuÉÉÍqÉ eÉÉeÉsÉå || xÉuÉåïwÉÉÇ rÉÈ
xÉÑWØûiÉç ÌlÉirÉÇ xÉuÉåïwÉÉÇ cÉ ÌWûiÉå UiÉÈ | MüqÉïhÉÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ
uÉÉcÉÉ xÉ kÉqÉïÇ uÉåS eÉÉeÉsÉå || rÉSÉ cÉÉÅrÉÇ lÉ ÌoÉpÉåÌiÉ rÉSÉ
cÉÉÅxqÉÉiÉç lÉ ÌoÉprÉÌiÉ | rÉSÉ lÉ CcNûÌiÉ lÉ ²å̹ oÉë¼ xÉqmɱiÉå xÉSÉ ||
rÉSÉ lÉ MÑüÂiÉå pÉÉuÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ mÉÉmÉMüqÉç | MüqÉïhÉÉ
qÉlÉxÉÉ uÉÉcÉÉ oÉë¼ xÉqmɱiÉå iÉSÉ || sÉÉåMåü rÉÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÉå
SSÉÌiÉ ApÉrÉSͤÉhÉÉqÉç | xÉ xÉuÉï rÉ¥ÉæÈ rÉ DeÉÉlÉÈ mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ
ApÉrÉSͤÉhÉÉqÉç || lÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉqÉÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÈ eÉÉrÉÉlkÉqÉïÈ AÎxiÉ
Mü¶ÉlÉ | rÉxqÉɳÉÉå̲eÉiÉå pÉÔiÉÇ eÉÉiÉÑ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç MüjÉgcÉlÉ |
xÉÉåÅpÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÈ mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ qÉWûÉqÉÑlÉå ||
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉiqÉpÉÔiÉxrÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ mÉzrÉiÉÈ | SåuÉÉÅÌmÉ qÉÉaÉåï
qÉѽÎliÉ AmÉSxrÉ mÉSæÌwÉhÉÈ || AMüÉUhÉÉå ÌWû lÉæuÉÉÅÎxiÉ kÉqÉïÈ
xÉÔ¤qÉÉå ÌWû eÉÉeÉsÉå | pÉÔUpÉurÉÉjÉïqÉåuÉåWû kÉqÉïmÉëuÉcÉlÉÇ
M×üiÉqÉç || (pÉÔiÉpÉurÉ the highest good of all creatures) Jajali, therefore, concludes

111
in Sl. 53 MüÉUhÉÉiÉç kÉqÉïqÉÎluÉcNåûiÉç lÉ sÉÉåMücÉËUiÉÇ cÉUåiÉç || On
this last Sloka Nilakantha says rÉålÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉqÉpÉrÉÇ xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ
eÉÉlÉÏrÉÉiÉç CirÉjÉïÈ | (ApÉrÉÇ - both positive as well as negative, Ahimsa as well as
protection) Ch. 263. xuÉqÉåuÉ cÉÉjÉïÇ MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉÈ rÉ¥ÉÇ cÉ¢ÑüÈ
mÉÑlÉÉ̲ïeÉÉÈ | mÉËUÌlÉ̸iÉMüqÉÉïhÉÈ mÉëeÉÉlÉÑaÉëWûMüÉqrÉrÉÉ || Cf.
also Gita sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûqÉåuÉÉÅÌmÉ xÉÇmÉzrÉlÉç MüiÉÑïqÉWïûÍxÉ,
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUiÉÉÈ, A²å¹É xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ qÉæ§ÉÈ MüÂhÉ LuÉ cÉ
etc.

It will be seen from a perusal of all these passages as well as the various stories (illustrative)
given in the M.bh. such as Dadhichi’s self sacrifice, Sibi’s sacrifice, the story of the pigeons,
(referred to by Swamiji ih his Karma Yoga lecture), the story of the mangoose, the various
stories referred to in Bhagavata such as Rantideva and the lives of the various saints
mentioned there in (vide article on Bhagavata), it will be seen how selfless service of others
is as important an element in Dharmic life as Ahimsa or avoidance of injury. In fact the latter
is not complete without the former. It will be also seen how both of them are the obverse and
the reverse of the same coin being based upon the same principle of AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉ or
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉiqÉpÉÉuÉ, recognizing one’s own Atman in all beings. It will also be noted
how this active service also has MüÉÌrÉMü, uÉÉÍcÉMü, & qÉÉlÉÍxÉMü aspects. As it is
not possible to find out all the possible effects of one’s own actions on others one can only
honestly and sincerely intend to bring about the highest good of all and be guided by his pure
Buddhi sweetened by his love in all his actions. The objective effect of all his actions on
another, however well meant it may depends not merely upon our intention or purity of
motive but also on the others past karma. Cf. Gita SæuÉÇ cÉæuÉÉÅ§É mÉgcÉqÉqÉç
|| One can, therefore, rely upon one’s own purity of mind in judging whether one’s action
will be of positive benefit to others. This positive benefit or welfare of the world must alwys
be considered in terms of Sreyas and not Preyas, the highest good being only Mukti through
the realization of God through ÍcɨÉzÉÑή, through the development of Sattvaguna and
conquest of Ahamkara, Mamakara, Kama, Krodha etc. One should therefore, always think of
the possible positive effects of one’s acions in terms of moral and spiritual welfare of the
world. That is the force of the word zÉÑpÉÉrÉ cÉ ÌWûiÉÉrÉ cÉ in the Matsya Purana
quotation given above as well as ÌuÉlÉårÉeÉlÉoÉÉåήuÉkÉïlÉqÉç in the quotation
from Samkshepa Sariraka, also the emphasising on the desire to relieve others of their
YsÉåzÉ in the Padma Purana quotation, YsÉåzÉ being understood in sense as used by
Patanjali. The question from Ekadasi Tattvam shows that this Daya or feeling of compassion
impartial and must be felt towards friend or foe and that it is not a mere temporary feeling but
a permanent attitude of the mind. That is the force of the word xÉiÉiÉqÉç in the Matsya
Purana quotation, xÉSÉ in the Ekadasi Tattvam quotation and xÉuÉï pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ
xÉuÉï§É in the Sandilya Up. quotation. Various aspects of this service are emphasized in
various prescriptions of Sastras in relation to particular Adhikaris and in relation to time,
place, conditions and circumstances. One may even say that all the important rules of
uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉkÉqÉï are based upon these thin principles of Ahimsa and service. The rules,
thus, regarding SÉlÉqÉç, mÉÔiÉï, lÉ×rÉ¥É, pÉÔiÉrÉ¥É, etc. are founded upon these
principles. Where the prescriptions of the Smritis are based merely on tradition and custom or
mere Achara (sÉÉåMüÉcÉÉU, SåzÉÉcÉÉU) they have to be tested in the light of these
principles of Ahimsa, sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ, etc. they have
to be totally rejected and cannot be treated as prescription of Dharma. That is the force of the
words of Tuladhara to Jajali.

112
Lokasangraha is sometimes misunderstood as meaning keeping up the bonds of society. But
Dharma is not merely meant to keep the members united together somehow or other. The
Thugs or the Pindaris may have their own rules to preserve their society. Similarly, a foolish,
unthinking and immoral society may hold itself together by mere rules in their own self
interest as against interest of others. A set of black marketers may have similar rules. When
Bhagavan speaks of Lokasangraha in Gita, He does not mean such rules and regulations of
particular groups of people in their own interest as against others. All rules and bye laws of
trade unions and labour unions or guilds or castes or chambers of commerce come under this
head. Even some of the political constitutions of states come only under this head ‘Loka’ in
the expression ‘sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû’ means the whole world as against mere particular
association for mere common purpose. The rules must be conducive to universal welfare as
judged by the AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉ principle without any restriction. xÉXçaÉëWû does not
mean mere union for a common purpose but xÉqrÉMçü aÉëWûhÉqÉç in the sense of
xÉqrÉMçü SzÉïlÉqÉç or realization. When therefore, Bhagavan says
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûqÉåuÉÉÅÌmÉ xÉÇmÉzrÉlÉç MüiÉÑïqÉWïûÍxÉ what he
means is that one should act in such a way that it conserves the spiritual and moral welfare of
all members of society. In sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, therefore, this spiritual and moral goal of
all humanity is always kept in mind. When He says rÉÌS ½WÇû lÉ uÉiÉåïrÉÇ eÉÉiÉÑ
MüqÉïhrÉiÉÎlSìrÉÈ etc that if He does not adjust His conduct and behaviour properly to
the needs of society the whole world world go to wreck and ruin, He means this type of
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. Many of the rules of the AjÉïzÉÉx§É or MüÉqÉzÉÉx§É do not,
therefore, deserve the name of Dharma unless they ensure sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû in this
sense. Although sometimes all these are loosely called Dharma in some of the texts, people
very often misunderstand that all rules of scriptures are equally valid and authoritative as
Dharma. This is because of the confusion of Dharmasastra with Arthasastra etc. The former
always is universal and impartial and aimed at the highest spiritual and moral welfare of the
whole world. When we say MÑüsÉkÉqÉï we mean only the law of love and brotherhood
and of mutual sympathy and good will and cooperation and service for the spiritual and moral
welfare of all members of the simplest and most natural unit of society without prejudice to
the similar interest of other similar families. It is the same principle of unity and harmony that
should hold good between the members of any other higher, the larger artificial and
organized groups so that the highest ideal of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû is described sometimes
as eÉaÉSåMüMÑüOÒûqoÉMüqÉç. Service should always be based upon these
universal principles of love, sympathy, co-operation brotherhood etc. which are the basis of
social organization. It is often true that these principles may be the best basis for as
organization of society even from the standpoint of the worldly benefit accruing to its
members as a result of such organization. But if this worldly benefit alone is made the aim
the rules framed for the conservation of such a kind of society can be called only as
AjÉïzÉÉx§É or lÉÏÌiÉzÉÉx§É and not kÉqÉïzÉÉx§É as Dharma always conceives of only
as a means for the attainment of Mukti through self realization. AmÉUÉå kÉqÉï xÉÇ¥ÉÈ
xrÉÉiÉç (CirÉÉWÒûÈ) iÉimÉUmÉëÉÎmiÉxÉÉkÉlÉqÉç | Suta Samhita IV. 2.3 xÉ
uÉæ mÉÑÇxÉÉÇ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ rÉiÉÉå pÉÌ£üUkÉÉå¤ÉeÉå | AWæûiÉÑMüÐ
AmÉëÌiÉWûiÉÉ rÉrÉÉ AÉiqÉÉ xÉÑmÉëxÉÏSÌiÉ || Cf. also rÉiÉÈ AprÉÑSrÉÌlÉ
´ÉårÉxÉÍxÉÎ®È xÉ kÉqÉïÈ of Vaiseshika Sutra. This definition is often misunderstood
because it couples AprÉÑSrÉ and ÌlÉ´ÉårÉxÉ as the goal of Dharma. Many modern
writers are anxious to interpret the word Abhyudaya as wordly properity to satisfy their own
pet ideas on morality or Dharma being concerned to wordly properity. But Abhyudaya in this
definition does not mean worldly properity at all but only progress towards the highest goal
of Nisreyasa. Nisreyasa is the final goal and any step which takes one near the goal is itself a

113
minor intermediate goal. If the word Abhyudaya has anything to do with wordly property it
can refer to only such wordly prosperity as is helpful to the final attainment of the God of
Nisreyasa and not such as stand in the way of this final attainment. The definition only
emphasizes that the universal rules of Dharma meant for the achievement of this final
realization do not and need not as a fact go against wordly properity also. If all members of
society and Dharmisthas and mutually helpful and cooperative and free from the selfish spirit
of the self aggrandizement, exploitation etc that the society and all its members are ensured of
a happy life in this world also politically, economically, physically etc. Thus the definition
conceives of Dharma resulting not merely in ÌlÉÈ´ÉårÉxÉç but a happy and contended life
here also. It should not be taken as meaning ‘a means for worldly prosperity considered as the
goal. Such a worldly prosperity is only a result and not a purpose. That is the force of the
words rÉiÉÈ ÍxÉήÈ, that which results in etymologically also AprÉÑSrÉ means AÍpÉ +
EiÉç + ArÉ. AÍpÉ means all round or in all ways, EiÉç means that which is transcendent
and pure (Vide Ch Up.), ArÉ means progress. Therefore, AprÉÑSrÉ means that which
helps the all round progress towards the pure Atman. Therefore, AprÉÑSrÉÍxÉή
technically means only such progress in worldy life as is consistent with the goal of life.
Similarly mÉUÉåmÉMüÉU or mÉUÉjÉï which is considered as a test of Dharma should
not be understood as merely the satisfaction of the needs and requirement of others. Para in
these and similar expression does not mean merely another, Para means the highest,
transcendent Atman. Pararta would then mean the highest goal of life Paramapurusharta viz.
Mukti or the satisfaction & the pleasing to the Lord. mÉUÉåmÉMüÉUÉjÉïÍqÉSÇ
zÉUÏUqÉç xuÉÉjÉÉåï rÉxrÉ mÉUÉjÉï LuÉ ÌWû mÉÑqÉÉlÉç
LMüÈxÉiÉÉqÉaÉëhÉÏÈ etc. Such expressions should be understood as the highest
mÉÑÂwÉÉjÉï not only of oneself but of others also. That is why oÉë¼SÉlÉqÉç or
ÌuɱÉSlÉqÉç is considered as the highest kind of SÉlÉqÉç superior even to giving of life.
The distinction may be noted between the two expressions pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ &
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. The word UÌiÉ emphasizes the interest and pleasure derived from
service where as sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû emphasizes the objective aspect of it on the world.
But as understood by Bhagavan or the Gita both the objective effect and the subjective effect
must go together. Therefore both these must be service and duty. Real service is very pleasant
to one who does the service because service is always sweetened by love. No feeling of
responsibility is felt as urging or prompting one to do such service. Such feeling of
responsibility is based upon the ignorant feeling that one is free actor and it is pen based upon
a sense of egoism and a sense of physical or social relationship as when one speaks about his
responsibility to maintain his wife and children or of his parent or of responsibility to
discharge the work allocated to him by his superior officer or even when on speaks of his
responsibility to one’s particular organization or to one’s country. When such feeling of
responsibility is felt by one towards another such sense of egoism or relationship it is not pure
service that he does, he has this feeling of responsibiulity either in expectation of the benefit
to be derived from the other party, society or country or becase of gratitude for the benefits
already derived or because of the year of consequences if he does not discharge that
responsibility. In all these cases, therefore, there is no free giving out of the fullness of love.
Such discharge of responsibility is also dependent upon the ignorance that it is after all God
that is responsible for the welfare of all his children and that it is not in the power of man to
help another if God decides otherwise. It is this sense of responsibility thus based upon
ignorance and egoism and ordinarily confined only to worldy welfare that is generally
glorified by the expression of duty, sense of duty and so on. No doubt discharge of such kind
of duty is not bad and is far better than complete absence of any such duty even. To be
without it is to be something less than and brute. But it should not be confused with the spirit

114
of service which is always selfless and is based upon love of the whole of creation as distinct
from some particular limited portion of it related to oneself through any physical or social
relationship. Dharma should not be confused with mere duty in this sense but must be always
understood in terms of service as explained above. Duty is bondage as is well brought out by
the expression ‘bounden duty’. One feels that he is bound by the bonds of the duty and feels
that he is forced by this feeling to discharge his duty. When one performs one’s duty one
feels in his heart of hearts that he would be happier if there is no such bondage. There is a
feeling that one has to give up or sacrifice some of his own happiness or interests against his
own will. He would have very gladly avoided such sacrifice if he had not the inner feeling of
duty. There is no such feeling accompanying the spirit of service. There is no such sense of
force or bondage when one performs service in the true spirit. There is a sense of freedom
and a sense of happiness in service. It is voluntary. Ther is no feeling of giving up or
sacrificing something which he holds dear. Service is prompted by the feeling of oneness and
identity of interests on AÉiqÉæmÉqrÉ principle. The distinction between self sacrifice and
service should thus be kept in mind. The former is always associated with the loss of some
comfort or convenience, property or pleasure against one’s wish. While the later is associated
with the feeling of gain of some happiness which was not available before. The difference
between these various feelings and the actions prompted by them is brought out most
poetically by Bhagavan in this words to the Gopis in Ch. X.32.17-21 of Bhagavatam in reply
to the complaint of the signs in His not reciprocating their love as they wished. Bhagavan
says that there are several types of pÉeÉlÉqÉç or service ÍqÉjÉÉå pÉeÉÎliÉ rÉå xÉZrÉÈ
xuÉÉjÉæïMüÉliÉÉå±qÉÉ ÌWû iÉå | lÉ iÉ§É xÉÉæWØûSÇ kÉqÉïÈ xuÉÉjÉÉïjÉïÇ
iÉή lÉÉÅlrÉjÉÉ || pÉeÉlirÉpÉeÉiÉÉå rÉå uÉæ MüÂhÉÉÈ ÌmÉiÉUÉå rÉjÉÉ |
kÉqÉÉåï ÌlÉUmÉuÉÉSÉåÅ§É xÉÉæÈÂSÇ cÉ xÉÑqÉkrÉqÉÉÈ || pÉeÉiÉÉåÅÌmÉ
lÉ uÉæ MåüÍcÉ°eÉÎliÉ ApÉeÉiÉÈ M×üiÉÈ | AÉiqÉÉUÉqÉÉ ½ÉmiÉMüÉqÉÉ
AM×üiÉ¥ÉÉÈ aÉÑÂSìWûÈ || lÉÉÅWÇû iÉÑ xÉZrÉÉå pÉeÉiÉÉåÅÌmÉ eÉliÉÔlÉç
pÉeÉÉÍqÉ AqÉÏwÉÉÇ AlÉÑuÉ×̨ÉuÉרÉrÉå | rÉjÉÉÅkÉlÉÉå sÉokÉkÉlÉå
ÌuÉlɹå iÉΊliÉrÉÉ AlrȨ́ÉpÉ×iÉÉå lÉ uÉåS || LuÉÇ
qÉSjÉÉåïÎefÉiÉsÉÉåMüuÉåSxuÉÉlÉÉÇ ÌWû uÉÉå qÉÌrÉ
AlÉÑuÉרÉrÉåÅoÉsÉÉÈ | qÉrÉÉ mÉUÉå¤ÉÇ pÉeÉiÉÉ ÌlÉUÉåÌWûiÉÇ
qÉÉÅxÉÔÌrÉiÉÇ qÉÉÅWïûiÉ iÉÎimÉërÉÇ ÌmÉërÉÉÈ || Bhagavan has classified
people into five classes. The first kind of people are those who do some good to others in
return for services already rendered by them or in expectation of such service in return in the
future. These people are prompted not by disinterested love but only by their own selfishness.
Such service of others is is of the lowest sort and does not observe the name of service.
Services rendered by the husband towards wife and children or a Government servent for the
sake of his pay or of a labourer for the sake of his wages or a land owner leasing his land to
another man in need or one who does charity for the sake of name and fame or a Guru who
teaches the Sishya in return for fees or the merchant necessities to the needy etc. may all be
incorrectly and false considered as being public service. But they are serving rather their own
selves and not the public or anybody else. They do it only for the return that they themselves
get for their work. They come under this lowest class. Those who do this kind of work
honestly and sincerely without taking undue advantage of another’s necessity or without
exploting others may in a way be considered to do some service but it is of the lowest sort.
Such people may, however, be considered to be doing their duty rather than any service. The
economic aspect of Varnasramadharma is based only on this aspect of duty based on the
principle of co-operation. If one does his part of the work only in expecting the benefits to be
derived from all the other members of society also doing their allotted work he is discharging
his duty only in self interest. But if on the other hand he does his allotted work without caring

115
whether the others do their allotted work or not he will be considered to be doing his duty for
duty’s sake in a Nishkama spirit. Such kind of work does not belong to this lowest class. It
comes under the next higher class. This higher class of workers is mentioned in the second
Sloka pÉeÉlirÉpÉeÉiÉÉå etc. It is only this kind of work which can be considered as
Dharma. Bhagavatam gives here the example of the service done by parents to children. But
when he speaks of parents he must have had in mind the ideal disinterested parents he himself
had who served him with disinterested love with no expectation of any return only for the
mere enjoyment of such loving service. But all parents are not of this sort and many are
helping their children not out of pure love but out of expectation that the children will be
helpful to them at their old age. When their service is thus prompted by self interest they fall
only under the lowest class mentioned in the previous Sloka. But all parents may not be so
calculating and if at all there are any calculations they may laternt in their minds. More often
they are laves of their own attachment to their children just as in the case of even animals and
birds. This is more physical and biological in the interest of the preservation of the race. No
special merit attaches itself to such kind of service done. They do it simply because they
cannot but help doing it and they have no freedom to avoid it as they are compelled by mere
biological forces beyond their control. In many cases they are unconsciously slaves of these
biological forces. But it may also be that they are not only slaves of these biological forces
but of social forces as well. They are afraid of social opproinum or of law which ensures
protection of children in the interests of society itself. In such cases also it cannot be
considered as Dharma just as a man who does not steal merely because of the fear of law or
the police cannot be considered to be a Dharmistha. On all these cases they discharge their
duty to children out of selfishness and such work cannot be called service. According to some
western writers like Hobbes and Helweius there is no such thing as pure selfless work. They
look into their own hearts and find when they do some apparently selfless work they are
doing it only out of enlightened self interest. Even if one is seen to do some philanthropic
work out of Daya this Daya is prompted by the feeling of what they would expect others
should do to them if they are placed in the same circumstances. Even those who are prompted
to do good to others as per the golden rule may be considered only as acting only in self
interest. All pity and compassion is due to the feeling of fear and possible need of future help
for themselves and is, therefore, at the bottom rooted in selfishness. Some even go to the
extent of explaining that this feeling of pity etc is really a kind of discomfort of suffering
caused by the sight of suffering in others and any philanthropic act done in pursuance of such
pity is meant only to get rid of this discomfort or pain suffered by themselves and therefore
such an act must be considered in the last analaysis to be only selfish in nature. Although we
may not agree entirely with such a view of all philanthropist we cannot but admit that in
many cases of so called charity this analysis holds good. It is a fact that in many case, when a
begger approaches a rich man for some help the latter is disposed to give some alms only to
get rid of the bother. In special cases such as that of a leper beggar charity is often prompted
by the desire to send him away the sooner so as to escape the contagion and infection and to
avoid the unpleasant feeling caused by the sight of the leper. In many cases we also find
charity is given only after one is pestered and bothered with the importunities of the beggars
just to save oneself from the worry and discomfort caused by them. In some cases people do
charity only their relatives so that they may not be troubled by them. In all such cases we
must agree that the motive of charity is to get rid of the suffering and trouble caused to
themselves. Since cases cannot be considered to come in under Bhagavan’s second class.
Even some parents may be prompted to satisfy their children merely to avoid the suffering
caused to themselves when they see their children cry and it is very often it is this kind of
unintelligent service of their children that spoils the child. This is also due only to attachment

116
and not love and the fond mothers or parents are doing only disservice to the child
unintentionally if they cater to the child’s foolish demands because they cannot bear to see
him crying. They are helplessly bound and not masters of themselves being only slaves to
their own selfish attachments. Such parents are not includend in this second class mentioned
by Bhagavan.

Many of the rules prescribed by the Smritis regarding Danam are meant to ensure that charity
is done in the proper spirit so that there may not be the least trace of selfishness or attachment
in such giving. Thus Bhagavan’s classification of Danam in Ch. XVII as Sattvic, Rajasic &
Tamasic is meant to guide donors to do their charity in Sattvic spirit. SÉiurÉÍqÉÌiÉ
rɬÉlÉÇ SÏrÉiÉåÅlÉÑmÉMüÉËUhÉå | SåzÉå MüÉsÉå mÉɧÉå cÉ iɬÉlÉÇ
xÉÉÎiuÉMÇü xqÉ×iÉqÉç || rɨÉÑ mÉëirÉÑmÉMüÉUÉjÉÉïrÉ TüsÉqÉÑ̬zrÉ
uÉÉ mÉÑlÉÈ | SÏrÉiÉå cÉ mÉËUÎYsÉ¹Ç iɬÉlÉÇ UÉeÉxÉÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç ||
ASåzÉMüÉsÉå rɬÉlÉÇ AmÉɧÉåprÉ¶É SÏrÉiÉå | AxÉM×ïüiÉqÉuÉ¥ÉÉiÉÇ
iɬÉlÉÇ iÉÉqÉxÉÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç || The lowest kind of SÉlÉ according to this is the
charity given without making use of the Buddhi to ascertain whether the donar is deserving of
such charity and without making sure whether it is the proper kind of gift to be made at the
particular time, place and under particular circumstances and conditions. Such gifts are called
Tamasa as being based upon ignorance, carelessness, negligent or sluggishness of the
intellect or moral sense. mÉÉ§É means ‘that which saves one from mÉiÉlÉ’. “mÉiÉlÉÉiÉç
§ÉÉrÉiÉå CÌiÉ mÉɧÉqÉç”. mÉiÉliÉÇ §ÉÉrÉiÉå rÉxqÉÉiÉç AiÉÏuÉ
lÉUMüÉhÉïuÉÉiÉç – Siva Dharma. Apatra, therefore, means one who does not deserve any
charity on account of his sinful character and conduct. The unintelligent donations or gifts
generally given in ritualistic ceremonies to a man merely because he is born in the so called
Brahmana caste without caring for his character and conduct or learning or his poverty etc.
does not save the donor spiritually as such donation does not lead to the purity of mind which
alone can save. Some give with inconsistent ways of conduct; first smiling, murmuring, then
comfort giving. Those offerings (besmirched by) tears and have not the value of righteous
gift. Sam. Ni. I.4.2. Similarly if provision is made for a hospital in a city which already
abounds in hospitals or providing schools where there are already a large number of schools
existing or to make provision for students homes meant only for rich man’s children or for
providing comforts for the members of one’s own community without any reference to their
financial or intellectual qualifications or to dig wells and tanks in areas where there are public
protected water supply already or in the vicinity of rivers and tanks or to build temples where
there are any number of ancient temples which are left uncared for by the public or making
provisions for free dinners to particular castes without any reference to the needs or poverty
of the pople to be fed, these are so called charity comes only under this thrir and lowest class.
Simialry all charity given to the needy without the proper feeling accompanying it such as
where the donor treats the recipient with some courtesy or even treats him with contempt an
disrespect come only under this class. Such kind of charity is contemptible in itself except in
so far it serves as a way of re-distribution of ill begotten wealth among the more deserving
and needy at whose expense and exploitation such wealth is amassed. It does not deserve the
name of charity either in spiritual or social sense. Indiscriminative or unintelligent
philanthrophy is not only not beneficial but may be positively harmful to the donor, recepient
as well as the whole of society. It may end in Himsa and not in sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûqÉç
and therefore cannot be considered as Dharma.

The Rajasic type of charity is mentioned in the second Sloka. This also is not prompted by
the real spirit of service but it is based upon self interest in the form of desire for

117
receiprocation (mÉëirÉÑmÉMüÉUjÉïqÉç) or for other benefits such as name and fame or
enjoyment of pleasures in heaven. This is not charity but trade in spirit. It is not meant for any
spiritual benefit at all either for oneself or for others. It is not even meant for the benefit of
the recipient but only for the material benefit of oneself. The donation is made very often not
voluntarily but reluctantly and by force of circumstances or fear of public opinion or of hell
or of law. Thus the donation made by many capitalists and black marketers to congress funds
and to so many of All India funds started by the congress or the government such as
earthquake relief fund, Kasturba fund etc are not prompted by the spirit of charity but by self
interest. The donors are compelled to give either by fear or for getting the favour of men in
power. Similarly donations made for getting titles also fall under this class. Many such
donations are made for the benefit of people who are unknown and who are far away and is
done by people who would not care to lift their finger to a help to save poor dying at his door
step. Such charity is condemned by our Sastras as when Manu says in XI.9 zÉ£üÈ
mÉUeÉlÉå SÉiÉÉ xuÉeÉlÉå SÒÈZÉeÉÏÌuÉlÉÏ | qÉkuÉÉmÉÉiÉÉå
ÌuÉwÉÉxuÉÉSÉå xuÉkÉqÉïmÉëÌiÉÃmÉMüÈ || This shows that it is not proper charity
but it is prompted by other motives. Vide also Brihaspati MÑüOÒûqoÉ
pÉ£üuÉxÉlÉÉiÉç SårÉÇ rÉSÌiÉËUcrÉiÉå | qÉkuÉÉxuÉÉSÉå ÌuÉwÉÇ mɶÉÉiÉç
SÉiÉÑ kÉqÉÉåïÅlrÉjÉÉ pÉuÉåiÉç || Also (Siva Dharma quoted by Hemadri)
Anusasana 37.2&3, Yajnavalkya II.175, Apastamba II.4.9,10&12, Bodhayana II.3.19 etc.
Some take these passages as meaning that one should care for one’s own family members and
satisfy their demands before making charity to others as charity begins at home. No doubt, it
is true that one who has not the heart to serve even wife and children, brothers, parent etc.
could not possibly have the spirit of charity to serve somebody else and if he pretends to
make any such charity to others he must certainly be prompted by some ulterior motive other
than compassion or Daya. The saying ‘the charity begins at home’ only means that family life
is the first breeding ground for the exercise of the spirit of love and brotherhood where that
spirit of love and brotherhood has already manifested as a result of previous Samskaras there
is no further necessity to make a fresh beginning in a fresh family life. To such persons,
therefore, family life is not a necessity for spiritual progress. Nor do these passages mean that
one should always be only marking time by continuing in family and remaining in the first
stage itself until his death without making any progress towards higher stages. It will be as
absurd as compelling a student to remain in the same class when he is fit for promotion to
higher class. One who had the opportunity through family life for manifestation of love and
brotherhood should not therefore remain satisfied with confining this love and brotherhood to
his own family members and relatives but allow the same to expand beyond the limits of this
inner circle to ever widening fields until his love embraces within its fold not only the whole
of humanity but the whole of the world itself as a manifestation of God through intermediate
steps such as caste, tribe, village, nation etc. One who dares to step beyond the limits of the
smaller circles such as the family in the expansion of his love and spirit of brotherhood
cannot be considered as having gone against Dharma but only as having fulfilled the laws of
higher Dharma. One who leaves his hearth and home and becomes a Sannyasin
oÉWÒûeÉlÉÌWûiÉÉrÉ cÉ oÉWÒûeÉlÉxÉÑZÉÉrÉ cÉ and practices ApÉrÉÇ
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÈ has only his love universalized and therefore, is not guilty of any
Adharma. It is not because he does not love his family that he gets out of it but because he
loves the whole world as his family or as Buddha said ‘not that I love my family less but I
love the world more’. Love becomes only the power by such an act as renouncing hearth and
home and such cases are not included in the prescription given by Smritikaras. Even those
who take these passages in the narrower sense admit that it is applicable only to Grihasthas
who have undertaken the special duties of the Grihasthasrama as the debts to be discharged

118
by them and even the Smiritkaras themselves could not have understood it as applying to
those who are in the other Ashramas as they have allowed all to become Sannyasins at the fag
end of their lives including even householders. Some of them have conceded the right of the
Brahmacharins to become Sannyasins without understanding the responsibilities of the
Grihasthasrama thereby admitting that there is nothing wrong if Brahmacharis give up their
responsibilities to support their parents and relatives for the sake of higher goal and in
expansion of their spirit of love and sympathy. If one does it only for the sake of shirking his
responsibilities and to have more freedom to enjoy worldy life at the expense of the relatives
and dependents his renunciation is certainly questionable and he is worse than even a brute.

Even the donations or acts of charity done in pursuance of the prescription of the Smritis such
as ÍpɤÉÉ pÉÔiÉrÉ¥É etc will fall only under this class if they are done as Nityakarma for
fear of sin accruing from such neglect of Dharma as the Mimamsakas understand by the word
Nityakarma. Such apparent acts of charity being prompted by fear of hell are not done
voluntarily as an expression of expansion of heart in love, sympathy, compassion etc. and are
at bottom only selfish. So the parents discharging their duties to children only because of
prescription of Sastras and for fear of hell if they disobey Sastras such act does not come
under the second class mentioned by Sri Krishna in Bhagavatam. The best variety of Danam
as per the Gita is the Sattvika Dana which involves the use of intelligence, discrimination and
moral sense. In such Sattvika Dana one give because one’s Buddhi says that all money is
only held in trust by the so called owner for the benefit of the public and that God is the real
owner of it under whom he is working as a trustee. He discharges only his duty only as the
servant of God when he gives it to deserving persons in the spiritual, moral interest of the
whole society. No sort of egoism or selfishness is present in the donor in such a gift. He never
expects any worldy benefit for himself in the future in return for such gift nor does he do it in
return for the past benefit received. In fact he never thinks about himself at all when he makes
such a give unlike the other two varieties of the donors. Even in thinking of the good of the
recipient he conceive of good only in terms of the spiritual and moral welfare and if at all
material benefits are conferred on the recipient by such a gift it is only for removal of
physical, material or financial or intellectual obstacles in his moral and spiritual development.
In fact he thinks that he has to be grateful to the recipient for the opportunity given by the
latter to spiritually exercise himself by killing his own AWûƒ¡ûÉU, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc.
He uses his discrimination to find out whether the recipient is worthy of the gift and whether
he is likely to benefit spiritually and morally by the gift. He does not think only of the effect
of the gift on the recipient but also its repercussions on the whole of society, that is to say, he
is not interested merely in recipient but in good of the whole world.
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUiÉ. He is not compelled by any external agency or fear but only by
his own inner moral sense if at all there is any compulsion. The compulsion of one’s own
moral sense is not inconsistent with freedom and his gift is absolutely voluntary. He also
discriminates about the propriety or otherwise of the nature of the gift itself in relation to
time, space and circumstances just as a doctor chooses particular methods of treatment to suit
particular individual patient. Such donor feels as if he is relieved of a burden when he parts
with his money or property in favour of another who is in need of it and feels happy when he
could find out a fit recipient for whose benefit he has been holding his wealth in trust. Instead
of waiting for such fit persons to turn up of their own accord and make a request to him for a
donation he takes great pleasure in going about in search of such fit recipient. Therefore it is
said in the M.bh. Anusasana P. that a gift made to such deserving recipient without forcing
him to beg is a superior kind of gift. A real saint may not care to beg of man for the
satisfaction of his needs but may be prepared to wait till God may in His infinite grace do

119
what He thinks fit to relieve him of his distress. This is the basis of the famous
AeÉaÉUuÉ×̨É. Therefore Bhisma tells Yudhisthira that he should make an effort to find
out such recipients. Vide Anusasana 59.12 ArÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉÉlÉç MüÉæliÉårÉ
xÉuÉÉåïmÉÉrÉæÈ ÌlÉqÉl§ÉrÉiÉç || Also 60.2 xÉëårÉÉå uÉæ rÉÉcÉiÉÈ mÉÉjÉï
SÉlÉqÉÉWÒûÈ AqÉÉcÉiÉå | AWïû¨ÉqÉÉå uÉæ kÉ×ÌiÉqÉÉlÉç M×ümÉhÉÉiÉç
AkÉ×iÉÉiqÉlÉÈ || rÉÉcrÉqÉÉWÒûUlÉÏzÉxrÉ AÍpÉWûÉUÇ cÉ pÉÉUiÉ |
E²åeÉrÉÎliÉ rÉÉcÉÎliÉ xÉSÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ SxÉçrÉÑuÉiÉç || ÍqÉërÉiÉå
rÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉÉå uÉæ lÉ eÉÉiÉÑ ÍqÉërÉiÉå SSiÉç | SSiÉç xÉgeÉÏuÉÌiÉ rÉålÉ
AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ cÉ rÉÑÍkÉ̸U || AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ rÉÉcÉiÉå
rÉimÉëSÏrÉiÉå | ArÉÉcÉiÉÈ xÉÏSqÉÉlÉÉlÉç xÉuÉÉåïmÉÉrÉæÈ ÌlÉqÉl§ÉrÉåiÉç
|| ÌlÉqÉl§ÉrÉåjÉÉÈ MüÉæUurÉ MüÉqÉæ¶É AlrÉæ¶É ̲eÉÉå¨ÉqÉÉlÉç | AÌmÉ
iÉå mÉëÌiÉaÉ׺ûÏrÉÑÈ ´É®ÉåmÉåiÉÇ rÉÑÍkÉ̸U || MüÉrÉïÍqÉirÉåuÉ
qÉluÉÉlÉÉÈ kÉqÉï¥ÉÉÈ xÉÔ¤qÉSÍzÉïlÉÈ || SqÉxirÉÉaÉÉå kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉirÉÇ
pÉuÉirÉuÉpÉ×jÉÉrÉiÉå | LwÉ iÉå ÌuÉiÉiÉÉå rÉ¥ÉÈ ´É®ÉmÉÔiÉÈ xÉ SͤÉhÉÈ
| ÌuÉÍzÉ¹È xÉuÉïrÉ¥ÉÉlÉÉÇ ÌlÉirÉÇ iÉÉiÉ mÉëuÉiÉïiÉÉqÉç || This shows that if at
all a good man accepts a gift it is only in pursuance of Dharma and only with the idea that he
should not disappoint the giver and deny him the opportunity & privilege of doing spiritual
service and save himself by such service. The acceptance is more to benefit the donor but
they accept the gift only if it is offered with devotion in the proper spirit. Cf. Parasara I.29
AÍpÉaÉqrÉ E¨ÉqÉÇ SÉlÉÇ AÉWÕûrÉæuÉ iÉÑ qÉkrÉqÉÇ AkÉqÉÇ
rÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉÉrÉ xÉåuÉÉSÉlÉÇ iÉÑ ÌlÉwTüsÉqÉç || According to this there are four
kinds of SÉlÉqÉç the highest being the donor going to the place of recipient and offering his
gift there itself without inviting him to come to his place to take the gift. This is considered as
the best because there is the least trace of egoism in it. If a donor invites the deserving donee
and makes the gift in his own home instead of taking the gift to the donee’s home he is more
concerned about his own home than of the needs of the donee. Had it not been for this, he
could have taken the offering to the donee’s home when he went there to invite him. All
invitations for feasts (technically called ÍpɤÉÉ or mÉÉS mÉÔeÉÉ in the case of
Sannyasins) fall only in this lower second class with whatever Sraddha the offering may be
made. The offering made to a man who comes of his own accord and request for help comes
only in the next lower class. The lowest of all is an offering made to one for service already
rendered or expected in future. Cf. also aÉiuÉÉ rɬÏrÉiÉå SÉlÉÇ iÉSlÉliÉTüsÉÇ
xqÉ×iÉqÉç | xÉWûxÉëaÉÑhÉqÉç AÉWÕûiÉå rÉÉÍcÉiÉå iÉÑ iÉSkÉïMüqÉç ||
Quoted by Mitakshara & Apararka on Yajnavalkya I.203. This shows that even in this
Sattvika Dana there are gradations, the highest being the donation made with Sraddha to a
deserving donee without his being put to the necessity of begging for it and without making
feel small through such begging. It is such Danam that is refered to by Devala when he says
‘AjÉÉïlÉÉqÉÑÌSiÉå mÉɧÉå rÉjÉÉuÉiÉç mÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉqÉç | SÉlÉÇ
CirÉÍpÉÌlÉÌSï¹Ç urÉÉZrÉÉlÉÇ iÉxrÉ uɤrÉiÉå || mÉɧÉåprÉÉå SÏrÉiÉå ÌlÉirÉÇ
AlÉuÉå¤rÉ mÉërÉÉåeÉlÉqÉç | MåüuÉsÉÇ kÉqÉïoÉÑ®èrÉÉ rÉiÉç kÉqÉïSÉlÉÇ
iÉSÒcrÉiÉå || SÉiÉÉ mÉëÌiÉaÉ×WûÏiÉÉ cÉ ´É®É SårÉÇ cÉ kÉqÉïrÉÑMçü |
SåzÉMüÉsÉÉæ iÉÑ SÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ A…¡ûÉÌlÉ LiÉÉÌlÉ iÉ̲SÒÈ ||’ Such a Danam is
called kÉqÉïSÉlÉqÉç because all the parties concerned are only interested in Dharma and
not in anything else and all parties are benefited spiritually. ‘Patras’ are of many kinds 1)
those who go to the householders as part of their Dharma. These are called ‘Bhikshus’. The
Brahmachari and the Sannyasin are ‘Bhikshus’ of this type as they take to begging as a
Sadhana for the killing of their own AWûƒ¡ûÉU and for spiritual training in reliance upon
God alone for their needs and necessities. The educated man who has not entered into the
Grihastha’s life technically known as the Snataka also has the duty of begging for public

120
welfare. The householder is required by Sastras as part of his daily spiritual exercise to offer
something to these Bhikshus in the interest of Dharma for Lokasamgraham. The donation
made to a Brahmachari helps him to complete his education without depending upon his
parents for the same. This kind of ÍpɤÉSÉlÉqÉç to a Brahmachari is what may be called
in the modern language an educational cess the only difference being that the gift is made
voluntarily and not by compulsion of the govt. Being educated by such public funds the
students are more likely to feel their gratitude and duty to the public and society as a whole
than to their parents and may therefore feel themselves more free to take to public service
even at the expense of their duty to their family. The provision for such ÍpɤÉSÉlÉqÉç to
students also enables all poor boys to continue their education without being hampered by
their poverty and therefore it serves as afreeship and scholarships. Every student being put to
the necessity of going for Bhiksha and thus educate himself with the help of such Bhiksha the
distinction between the rich & poor and the consequent superiority & inferiority complexes
are eliminated as far as possible. Cf. the stories of the discipleship of Kuchela & Sri Krishna,
or Drona & Drupada, the Kauravas & Aswatthama etc. So we see a healthy feeling of
friendship and equality established among all educated classes. When they finish their
education many of them take to selfless public service in the true spiritual sense as naturally
as the duckling takes to wter without entangling themselves in marriage and the
responsibilities and obligations arising from it. It is such Snatakas that are classified along
with Bhikshus who were entitled to beg for the benefit of the public. Manu classifies them in
XI.1-3 xÉÉliÉÉÌlÉMÇü rɤrÉqÉÉhÉÇ AkuÉaÉÇ xÉuÉïuÉåSxÉqÉç | aÉÑuÉïjÉïÇ
ÌmÉiÉ×qÉɧÉjÉïÇ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉÍjÉï EmÉiÉÉÌmÉlÉÈ || lÉuÉæiÉÉlÉç
xlÉÉlÉMüÉlÉç ÌuɱÉiÉç oÉëɼhÉÉlÉç kÉqÉïÍpɤÉÑMüÉlÉç | ÌlÉÈxuÉåprÉÉå
SårÉÇ LiÉåprÉÈ SÉlÉÇ ÌuɱÉÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ || Here xÉÉliÉÉÌlÉMü refers to those
who were interested in handing down for the benefit of the future generation the culture and
education as freely as they temselves have received in the spirit of mÉëeÉÉiÉliÉÑ qÉÉ
urÉuÉcNåûixÉÏÈ | The word should not be understood as meaning one who is interested in
producing children as orthodox commentators understand. Their interest is not in themselves
or their own welfare as clearly suggested by the word ÌlÉxuÉåprÉÈ which means free from
all self interest and who have no axe of their own to grind their only interest being in public
welfare and they dedicate their whole life as an offering to the public. The modern idea that
all graduates should be compulsorily recruited and forced to do public work before they are
given their diploma is a faint echo of this ancient practice voluntarily adopted by Snatakas of
old. rɤrÉqÉÉhÉ refers to those Snatakas who were engaged in social service as worship of
God in the spirit of Karma Yoga. AkuÉaÉ refers to those who have no home of their own
and who are always traveling without any opportunity to return to their own homes for the
satisfaction of their own personal needs. They are always out on public service.
Sarvavedasam refers to one who has given up all his wealth and belongings for public
service. xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉjÉÏï is one who is engaged in helping students to study by procuring
for them all their educational necessities corresponding to starting of student’s home &
hospitals in modern times. EmÉiÉÉmÉÏ means one who sympathises with the poor and the
sick and is engaged in relieving the distress by starting institutions like free hospitals,
sevasrams etc. and personally serving through nursing etc. aÉÑuÉïjÉïqÉç refers to those
who support teachers & institutions which give free education. qÉɧÉjÉïqÉç refers to
national workers who work for their mother country through politics, political institutions,
etc. ÌmɧÉjÉïqÉç refers to those who are interested in looking after the welfare of orphans
and such others who have nobody else to protect them. All these Snatakas who do selfless
public service withot caring to earn anything for themselves are entitled to public support for
their own maintenance as well as for the carrying on of their public work. All those who can

121
afford must necessarily give their public work and in thus contributing their share to the
maintenance of these people and to the success of their public work they are in fact only
helping themselves morally and spiritually. That is why Manu says that every householder
should make donations to such workers for the support of such good causes. When these
Snatakas go to the Grihasthas begging for support they should not be refused except at the
risk of their own moral and spiritual welfare. By their begging they really beg the Grihastha
only to do his Dharma and cultivate the spirit of brotherhood and love and to express their
oneness with the poor and the needy so that they are called Dharma Bhikshukas. To those
householders who have amassed money perhaps by the unconscious & unintentional
exploitation of others, those Dharma Bhikshukas afford an opportunity of rendering
themselves by re-distributing their wealth among the deserving, poor and the needy. This is
suggested by Manu’s words in XI.19-20 rÉÉåÅxÉÉkÉÑprÉÉåÅjÉïqÉÉSÉrÉ
xÉÉkÉÑprÉÈ xÉqmÉërÉcNûÌiÉ | xÉ M×üiuÉÉ msÉuÉqÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉliÉÉUrÉÌiÉ
iÉÉuÉÑpÉÉæ || This shows that such a refined or an enlightened begger makes himself an
instrument for saving both the donor as well as the beneficiary. The money that is used for
such public service in the spirit of worship of God is SåuÉxuÉÇ i.e property of God
whereas money used in any other way is called AÉxÉÑUxuÉqÉç | rÉ®lÉÇ
rÉ¥ÉzÉÏsÉÉlÉÉÇ SåuÉxuÉÇ iÉÇ ÌuÉSÒÈ oÉÑkÉÉÈ | ArÉeuÉlÉÉÇ iÉÑ rÉiÉç
ÌuɨÉÇ AÉxÉÑUxuÉÇ iÉSÒcrÉiÉå || The prescriptions in the Sruti’s about the Rajasuya
and Aswamedha sacrifices for the Kshatriyas which involves the conquest of wicked kings is
meant for such re-distribution of the ill begotten wealth of those wicked kings. It enables
powerful and just kings to use the necessary force to compel the petty tyrants and exploiters
of the poor to disgorge all their ill begooten wealth and that is why ‘Danam’ is made one of
the foremost items in the performance of such ritualistic sacrifices. Incidentally it is meant
also to give freedom to individuals to seek their own salvation through their own Svadharma
according to their Adhikara without being hampered by the tyranny of autocrats and tyrants.
Apart from these types of authorized beggars who are all beggers in the cause of Dharma
there is another type of beggar who is forced to beg for the sake of himself and his
dependents on account of poverty or famine conditions etc. Such begging comes under
Apaddharma where the interest of the beggar is maintaining himself and his dependents only
for the purpose of enabling them perform their Dharma which they are prevented from doing
on account of their poverty, disease, etc. In such cases also we may consider these beggars as
Dharma Bhikshukas of a lower type as they are more interested in themselves and their
dependants than in the general public as in the other types mentioned above.

The next types of persons who deserve service from the rich people are the so called AÌiÉÍjÉ.
AÌiÉÍjÉ are of various sorts. The word AÌiÉÍjÉ is derived by Yaska in the Nirukta from the
root AiÉç, to go and ÌiÉÍjÉ with ‘A’ meaning to come. AÌiÉÍjÉÈ AprÉÌiÉÍjÉÈ
AprÉÌiÉiÉÉå aÉ×WûÉlÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ AprÉåÌiÉ ÌiÉÍjÉwÉÑ mÉUMÑüsÉÉlÉÏÌiÉ uÉÉ |
This means a stray guest who comes to the house without being invited because he is a
traveller away from his home. Manu defines an AÌiÉÍjÉ as LMüÉUɧÉÇ iÉÑ ÌlÉuÉxÉlÉç
AÌiÉÍjÉÈ oÉëɼhÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ | AÌlÉirÉÇ ÌWû ÎxjÉiÉÉå rÉxqÉÉiÉç iÉxqÉÉiÉç
AÌiÉÍjÉ EcrÉiÉå || According to this definition of AÌiÉÍjÉ must be a casual visitor who
seeks protection for one night only and does not stay longer. Vide also Parasara I.42 and
Markandeya XXIX.2-9. According to Gautama V.26, Manu III.103, Yajnavalkya I.107&111,
an Atithi is one who belonging to a different village and intending to stay for one night only
arrives in the evening and not one who has already been invited for dinner. This shows that
the Atithi must be an absolute stranger who finds himself stranded in a strange place and who
seeks shelter for the night without any pre-appointment. Aitareya Aranyaka I.1.1 says

122
whoever is good and has attained eminence will be a welcome guest everywhere. rÉÈ
´Éå¹iÉÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå xÉ uÉÉ AÌiÉÍjÉpÉïuÉÌiÉ | But our Sastras make it clear that any
stranger must be welcomed and treated as Atithi without refernce to his character or without
any enquiries about his caste, family, qualification etc. The Aitareya Brahmana XXV.5 says
that a guest should never be refused shelter in the evening. iÉxqÉÉSÉWÒûÈ lÉ
EmÉÃkrÉÈ CÌiÉ | Cf. also Manu 305 AmÉëhÉÉåkÉÉåÅÌiÉÍjÉÈ xÉÉrÉÇ
xÉÔrÉÉåïRûÉå aÉ×WûqÉåÍkÉlÉÉ | cf. also Tait. Up III.10.1 lÉ MügcÉlÉ
uÉxÉiÉÉæ mÉëirÉÉcɤÉÏiÉ | iÉSèuÉëiÉqÉç etc. Even Sudras are considered as
Atithis worthy of hospitality along with one's pÉ×irÉuÉaÉï and mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï |
AlrÉÉlÉç pÉ×irÉæÈ xÉWû AlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÉjÉïqÉ | Gautama V.42. Apastamba requires
that food should be given to all who come at the end of the Vaishvadeva even including
Chandala although he mentions the opinion of some persons that unworthy persons could not
be fed he himself does not subscribe to this view Vide II.4.9.6. xÉuÉÉïlÉç
uÉæµÉSåuÉpÉÉÌaÉlÉÈ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ lÉ AlÉWïûpSrÉÈ SkÉÉiÉç CirÉåMåü || Vide
also Bodhayana Girhya Paribhasha II.5.14 oÉÉsÉÉlÉÉÇ uÉ×®ÉlÉÉÇ iÉÑ
ÌuÉpÉë¹ÉlÉÉÇ aÉÔRûcÉËUiÉ ÌuÉM×üiÉuÉåwÉÉhÉÉÇ AÌmÉ uÉÉ
µÉcÉhQûÉsÉÉSÏlÉÉÇ AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉuÉiÉç xÉÇÌuÉpÉÉaÉÉå ÌuÉÌWûiÉÈ || Cf.
also Suta Samhita SÒuÉ×ï¨ÉqÉÌmÉ qÉÔZÉïÇ cÉ mÉÔeÉrÉåiÉç SåuÉiÉÉiqÉlÉÉ |
SåuÉiÉÉÃmÉiÉÈ mÉzrÉlÉç qÉÑcrÉåiÉç pÉuÉoÉlkÉlÉÉiÉç || Sridhara Swami
defines AÌiÉÍjÉ as A¥ÉÉiÉmÉÔuÉï aÉ×WûaÉiÉurÉÌ£üÈ Satatapata says ÌmÉërÉÉå
uÉ qÉÌS uÉÉ ²åwrÉÈ qÉÔZÉïÈ mÉÌiÉiÉ LuÉ uÉÉ | xÉqmÉëÉmiÉÉå
uÉæµÉSåuÉÉliÉå xÉÉå AÌiÉÍjÉÈ xuÉaÉïxÉXç¢üqÉÈ | Bhagavata says iÉåwÉÑ
AÉiqÉSåuÉiÉÉoÉÑÎ®È xÉÑiÉUÉÇ lÉ×wÉÑ mÉÉhQûuÉ || Vishnu Purana says
xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉaÉÉå§ÉcÉUhÉÇ AmÉ×¹ÉÅÌmÉ iÉjÉÉ MÑüsÉÇ
ÌWûUhrÉaÉpÉïoÉÑkrÉÉ iÉÇ qÉlrÉåiÉ AprÉÉaÉiÉÇ aÉ×WûÏ || The Kurma Purana
says S±ÉiÉç AÌiÉjÉrÉå ÌlÉirÉÇ oÉÑkrÉiÉå mÉUqÉåµÉUqÉç || Markandeya Purana
says lÉ ÍqɧÉÇ AÌiÉÍjÉÇ MÑürÉÉïiÉç lÉæMüaÉëÉqÉuÉÉÍxÉlÉqÉç |
A¥ÉÉiÉMÑüsÉlÉÉqÉÉlÉÇ A³ÉMüÉsÉå EmÉÎxjÉiÉqÉç ||
oÉÑpÉѤÉÑqÉÉaÉÉiÉÇ ´ÉÉliÉÇ rÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉqÉÌMügcÉlÉqÉç | oÉëɼhÉÇ
mÉëÉWÒûUÌiÉÍjÉÇ xÉ mÉÔerÉÈ zÉÌ£üiÉÉå oÉÑkÉæÈ || The same Purana says lÉ
mÉ×cNåûiÉç aÉÉå§ÉcÉUhÉÇ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÇ uÉÉÅÌmÉ mÉÎhQûiÉÈ |
zÉÉåpÉlÉÉÅzÉÉåpÉlÉÉMüÉUÇ iÉÇ qÉlrÉåiÉ mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉqÉç || Prachetas says
rÉÈ xuÉrÉÇ uÉæµÉSåuÉÉliÉå xÉÉrÉÇ uÉÉ aÉ×WûqÉÉaÉiÉÈ | SåuÉuÉiÉç
mÉÔeÉlÉÏrÉÉåÅxÉÉæ xÉÔrÉÉåïRûÈ xÉ AÌiÉÍjÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || Mahabharata in
Kapothopakhyana says xÉÑSÕUÉiÉç AÉ´ÉqÉÉiÉç mÉëÉmiÉÈ ¤ÉѨÉ×whÉÉ
´ÉqÉMüÌwÉïiÉÈ | rÉÈ mÉÔerÉiÉå AÌiÉÍjÉÈ xÉqrÉMçü ArÉÔmÉÈ ¢üiÉÑUåuÉ
xÉÈ || It will be seen that the principle of feeding and affording hospitality to such persons
in need is on a different principle than the feeding of invited guests on Sraddha and other
occasions. In the latter case only spiritually and morally qualified persons have to be invited.
This is to ensure a purely spiritual atmosphere for Satsanga but in the former case as
mentioned above when the man comes uninvited and even unexpected no qualifications are
to be looked into but has to be still worshipped as God. In all these cases where persons are
invited one has the opportunity and the duty to invite only spiritual men but in the case of
uninvited guest there is no such possibility or opportunity of selecting such persons. On the
other hand there is every danger of such persons being turned away. It is the feeling of
sympathy that is sought to be evoked or made a stimulus. Indiscriminate interdining with
strangers, however, has its own dangers. People dining together have a tendency to develop
social relations and become friends. Therefore if one dines with evil people one is likely in
the long run, to appreciate their company and to condone their evil tendencies as they are

123
friends. There is also the further chance of ones taking to the evil ways in their company as
often happen in so called clubs. Cf. Guru Maharaj’s story of the butcher partaking in a
Sraddha feast but this applies only to cases where there is opportunity to discriminate as in
Sraddhas and not in the case of strangers or casual visitors whom one is not likely to meet
again.

The injunction that these uninvited guests should be treated as God himself without
consideration of castes, family and other qualifications shows that the purpose here is to
enable the donor to see God in mere man as man and not merely in Guru or learned
Brahmanas, parents etc. as laid down in ‘AÉcÉÉrÉïSåuÉÉå pÉuÉ | qÉÉiÉ×SåuÉÉå
pÉuÉ | ÌmÉiÉ×SåuÉÉå pÉuÉ |’ That is why Tait. Up. follows up this statement with
‘AÍjÉÍjÉSåuÉÉå pÉuÉ’ also. Our scriptures go still further and enjoin the Grihasthas not
only to serve God in man but in the whole world including animals and trees. Thus it is laid
down by Manu µÉcÉhQûÉsÉÌuÉWû…¡ûÉlÉÉÇ pÉÑÌuÉ S±ÉiÉç iÉiÉÉå lÉUÈ | rÉå
cÉ AlrÉå mÉÌiÉiÉÉÈ MåüÍcÉiÉç AÉqÉmÉɧÉÉÈ xÉÉqÉÉaÉiÉÉÈ || zÉÑlÉÉÇ cÉ
mÉÌiÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ µÉmÉcÉÉÇ mÉÉmÉUÉåÌaÉhÉÉqÉç | uÉÉrÉxÉÉlÉÉÇ
M×üqÉÏhÉÉÇ cÉ zÉlÉMæüÈ ÌlÉͤÉmÉåiÉç pÉÑÌuÉÈ || It will thus be seen how all
these duties enjoined on Grihasthas are meant to be exercise in Tyaga as well as Yoga. In
making these gifts the Grihastha should not do it at the expense of others who it is his duty to
support. For that portion of his incom does not belong to him but to his pÉ×irÉuÉaÉï and
mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï as they are called. If he makes any gift out of the funds necessary to
support his pÉ×irÉuÉaÉï it is as good as making a gift of another’s property. There is no
spirit of Tyaga involved in it. One can make a gift only out of his own share of property
without affecting others right. These mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï’s are thus enumerated qÉÉiÉÉ
ÌmÉiÉÉ aÉÑÂpÉÉïrÉÉï mÉëeÉÉ SÏlÉÉÈ xÉqÉÍ´ÉiÉÉÈ | AprÉÉaÉiÉÉå
AÌiÉÍjɶÉÉÅÎalÉÈ mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï ESÉWØûiÉÈ || Daksha. ¥ÉÉÌiÉÈ oÉlkÉÑeÉlÉÈ
¤ÉÏhÉÈ iÉjÉÉ AlÉÉjÉÈ xÉqÉÉÍ´ÉiÉÈ | AlrÉÉåÅÌmÉ kÉlÉrÉÑ£üxrÉ
mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï ESÉWØûiÉÈ || AdiPurana. There is no special virtue in serving these
people as it is his bounden duty to do. It is only when protection is extended to these who do
not belong to this group that it deserves to be treated as service. It is only in such cases that
the real spirit of charity or service is involved and it is only in such help that the real spirit of
compassion is exercised. cf. "From avarice and from frivolity no charitable gifts of alms doth
come, By him who would have merits sure reward, By him who can discern, gifts should be
given"- Samyutta Nikaya I.4.3. That is why Sri Ramakrishna says in the Gospel that the
former kind of help to the mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï is only Maya and only the latter is Daya. Even
in making these donations, the donor must have a proper mental background, first and
foremost he must have Sraddha. That is why Taittiriya Upanishad says ´É®rÉÉ SårÉqÉç |
A´É®rÉÉ ASårÉqÉç | Í´ÉrÉÉ SårÉqÉç | ̾ûrÉÉ SårÉqÉç | ÍpÉrÉÉ SårÉqÉç |
xÉÇÌuÉSÉ SårÉqÉç | Sraddha is thus defined in this connection by Devala.
xÉÉæqÉÑZrÉÉή AÌuÉxÉqmÉëÏÌiÉ AjÉÉïlÉÉÇ SzÉïlÉå xÉSÉ | xÉiM×üÌiɶÉ
AlÉxÉÔrÉÉ cÉ xÉSÉ ´É®åÌiÉ MüÐirÉïiÉå || So Sureshwara says in his Vartika
´É®rÉæuÉ cÉ SÉiÉurÉÇ A´É®É pÉÉeÉlÉåwuÉÌmÉ | So Valmiki says in Ramayana
AuÉ¥ÉÉrÉ lÉ SÉiÉurÉÇ MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç sÉÏsÉrÉÉÅÌmÉ uÉÉ | AuÉ¥ÉÉrÉ M×üiÉÇ
WûlrÉÉiÉç SÉiÉÉUÇ lÉÉÅ§É xÉÇzÉrÉÈ || cf. also Gita A´É®rÉÉ WÒûiÉÇ S¨ÉÇ
iÉmÉxiÉmiÉÇ M×üiÉÇ cÉ rÉiÉç | AxÉÌSirÉÑcrÉiÉå mÉÉjÉï. The expression in
Tait. Up . Sriyadeyam, Hriyadeyam, Bhiyadeyam, etc must be properly understood. Sri
should be here properly understood as explained by Sri Krishna in Bhagavatam ´ÉÏaÉÑïhÉÉ
lÉæUmÉå¤ÉÉ±É i.e the spirit of non-dependence on one’s own self interest. Í´ÉrÉÉ
SårÉqÉç, therefore, means that a gift must be absolutely selfless, ̾ûrÉÉ SårÉqÉç
shows that the donor should have a sense of modesty, humility and shyness in making

124
offering help to another instead of assuming an arrogant or superior attitude, ÍpÉrÉÉ
SårÉqÉç shows that he must approach the donee in reverence & respect and in fear that his
offering may be rejected if it is not done with the proper spirit. As it is pointed out in the
M.Bh. & many of the Smritis real qualified donees will refuse to accept any offering made by
even kings if it is not done in the proper spirit, vide Anusasana 61.5 lÉiÉÑ
mÉÉmÉM×üiÉÉlÉç UÉ¥ÉÉÇ mÉëÌiÉaÉ׺ûÎliÉ xÉÉkÉuÉÈ | See also Anusasana 93
how great Rishis like Atri, Vasishtha, Gautama, Bharadvaja, etc refused gifts from king
Shaibya, see also 64.65 even though they were starving. xÉÇÌuÉSÉ SårÉqÉç shows that
the donation has to be made with the feeling that the gift is made to God Himself. That is why
Ushanas says SÉlÉÉiÉç zÉiÉaÉÑhÉÉå rÉÉaÉÈ rÉÉaÉÉiÉç zÉiÉaÉÑhÉÉå eÉmÉÈ |
That ordinary Dana is not as efficacious as Danam which is made to God or seeing God in
man, that is to say, it should be made as an act of worship of God instead of merely to relieve
the distress of man. Japa is considered still superior because in this process one offers not
merely objects but his whole mind itself to God through repetition of His names which must
always be accompanied by meditation. Nothing is dearer to a man than his own self and it is
this dearest self that is surrendered to God in all humility and self effacement when one
repeats mantras like lÉqÉÎzzÉuÉÉrÉç, lÉqÉÉå lÉÉUÉrÉhÉÉrÉç, etc. where lÉqÉÈ is
considered as good as an offering in Yajna by Aswatayana. Cf. also Bhagavatam VII.14.34-
35 where Bhagavan is considered as the best of all ‘Patras’. mÉɧÉqÉ§É ÌlÉ£Çü uÉæ
MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ mÉɧÉÌuɨÉqÉæÈ | WûËUUåuÉæMü EuÉÏïzÉ rÉlqÉrÉÇ uÉæ
cÉUÉcÉUqÉç | SåuÉÌwÉï AWïûixÉÑ uÉæ xÉixÉÑ etc. Vide notes on Puja. Cf. also
xÉuÉåïwÉÉqÉÌmÉ mÉɧÉÉhÉÉÇ mÉUÇ mÉɧÉÇ qÉWåûµÉUÈ | Siva Dharma
already quoted above. Again all services must be done as secretely as possible without self
advertisement. So Yogi Yajnavalkya says mÉëcNû³ÉÉÌlÉ cÉ SÉlÉÉÌlÉ | cf. also Devata
quoted by Apararka C¹Ç S¨ÉÇ AÍkÉiÉÇ uÉÉ ÌuÉlÉzrÉÌiÉ AlÉÑMüÐiÉïlÉÉiÉç |
zsÉÉbÉÉlÉÑzÉÉåcÉlÉÉprÉÉÇ cÉ pÉalÉiÉÉåeÉÉå ÌuÉmɱiÉå ||
iÉxqÉÉSÉÅÅiqÉM×üiÉÇ mÉÑhrÉÇ lÉ uÉ×jÉÉ mÉËUMüÐiÉïrÉåiÉç || Again the
donor should not take any more interest in the thing offered and should not feel anything if
the donee himself personally uses it or misuses it. A ‘Danam’ means complete transference of
ownership to the donee without any reservations in spirit with the transfer of right to use it in
any way the donee likes. If such transference is not intended there is no proper gift. The gift
must also be not motivated by desire for name & fame nor by fear of the consequences of non
payment. Vide Sana XXXVI.36 lÉ S±ÉiÉç rÉzÉxÉå SÉlÉÇ lÉ pÉrÉÉiÉç lÉ
EmÉMüÉËUhÉå | There are some other kinds of public service which come under the head
of Purta which means creation of public utilities such as gardens, tanks, avenue trees etc
which are all meant for the use of public in general and not made as a gift to any particular
individual. All these kinds of donations mentioned above come under the class of Sattvic
Danam. Vide Anusasana 58 for Purti. Various varities of Dana mentioned in Anusasana
138.5-10 cannot be taken as Sattvic Danas they are motivated otherwise. kÉqÉÉïiÉç
AjÉÉïiÉç pÉrÉÉiÉç MüÉqÉÉiÉç MüÉÂhrÉÉÌSÌiÉ pÉÉUiÉ | SÉlÉÇ mÉgcÉÌuÉkÉÇ
¥ÉårÉÇ MüÉUhÉærÉæïÈ lÉÉåoÉÉåkÉ iÉiÉç || CWû MüÐÌiÉïqÉuÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ
mÉëåirÉ cÉ AlÉѨÉqÉÇ xÉÑZÉÇ | CÌiÉ SÉlÉÇ mÉëSÉiurÉÇ
oÉë¼hÉåprÉÉåÅlÉxÉÔrÉiÉÉ || SSÉÌiÉ uÉÉ SÉxrÉÌiÉ uÉÉ qÉ½Ç S¨ÉqÉlÉålÉ
uÉÉ | CirÉÍjÉïprÉÉå ÌlÉzÉprÉæuÉ xÉuÉïÇ SÉiÉurÉqÉÍjÉïlÉå || lÉ AxrÉÉÅWÇû
lÉ qÉSÏrÉÉåÅrÉÇ mÉÉmÉÇ MÑürÉÉïiÉç ÌuÉqÉÉÌlÉiÉÈ | CÌiÉ S±ÉiÉç
pÉrÉÉSåuÉ kÉ×RÇû qÉÔRûÉrÉ MüÎsmÉiÉÈ || ÌmÉërÉÉå qÉå ArÉÇ
ÌmÉërÉÉåÅxrÉÉWÇû CÌiÉ xÉqÉÉåUå¤rÉ oÉÑήqÉÉlÉç | uÉrÉxrÉÉrÉæuÉ
AÎYsÉ¹Ç SÉlÉÇ S±ÉiÉç AiÉÎlSìiÉÈ || SÏlÉ¶É rÉÉcÉiÉå cÉÉÅrÉÇ AsmÉålÉÉÌmÉ
ÌWû iÉÑwrÉÌiÉ | CÌiÉ S±ÉiÉç SËUSìÉrÉ MüÉÂhrÉÉÌSÌiÉ xÉuÉïjÉÉ || In all these
kinds of gift the proper spirit of selfless Tyaga is absent and hence they cannot be Satvic.

125
Even the first of these varieties being prompted only by the desire for worldy benefits here
and hereafter. At best they can come only under the Rajasic or Tamasic variety of Danam.
But these gifts mentioned in Anusasanika 59.3-10 may be considered as proper gifts.
ApÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÈ urÉxÉlÉåŠÉmrÉlÉÑaÉëWûÈ | rÉŠ AÍpÉsÉÌwÉiÉÇ
S±ÉiÉç iÉ×ÌwÉiÉÉrÉ AÍpÉrÉÉcÉiÉå || S¨ÉÇ qÉlrÉålÉ rÉiÉç S¨uÉÉ iɬÉlÉÇ
´Éå¸qÉÑcrÉiÉå || ... LiÉÉÌlÉ mÉÑÂwÉurÉÉbÉë xÉÉkÉÑprÉÉå SåÌWû
ÌlÉirÉSÉ ... rɱSè C¹iÉqÉÇ sÉÉåMåü rÉŠÉÅxrÉ SÌrÉiÉÇ aÉ×Wåû | iɨÉiÉç
aÉÑhÉuÉiÉå SårÉÇ iÉSåuÉ A¤ÉrÉqÉÑcrÉiÉÉ || ... rÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉqÉpÉÏqÉÉlÉÉiÉç
AlÉÉxÉ£üqÉÌMügcÉlÉqÉç | rÉÉå lÉ AcÉïrÉÌiÉ rÉjÉÉzÉÌ£ü xÉ lÉ×zÉÇxÉÉå
rÉÑÍkÉ̸U || AÍqɧÉqÉÌmÉ cÉåiÉç SÏlÉÇ zÉUhÉæÌwÉhÉqÉç AÉaÉiÉqÉç |
urÉxÉlÉå rÉÉåÅlÉÑaÉ׺ûÉÌiÉ xÉ uÉæ mÉÑÂwÉxɨÉqÉÈ ||

There is a still higher kind of Danam which is above even Sattvica Dana. Such Danam may
be considered as Nirguna. In such Dana there is no desire even for Dharma or even Moksha.
It is a giving from the fullness of the heart indiscriminately to one and all seeing God in
everybody. Here pure love is the only basis and egoism even of the higher sort is absolutely
absent where the lower gives himself wholly to his beloved without any thought or
consideration even though his love may be unreciprocated and even though he may get only
kicks in return. The best examples of such service we find only in men of realization or in the
highest devotees like the Gopis of Bhagavatam. Among mundane examples which come
nearest this ideal we may mention the service rendered by the mother to a son or by the son to
the mother even though later has gone mad. This is the ideal held out by Swamiji to public
workers of the Ramakrishna order where they have to carry on their work of service even
though they may get in return nothing but contempt and ridicule and bad name or scandal. It
is this kind of service that a mother can give to her son that is refered to by Sri Krishna as a
second variety in his instruction to Gopis. (D339). The next variety of service, according to
Sri Krishna, comprises service to two kinds of people both of whom do not reciprocate or
even recognize the service done to them. They represent the highest as well as the lowest type
of recipients. The lowest are the heartless, ungrateful, ultra selfish wretches and the highest
those who are never in need and always immersed in the enjoyment of the bliss of the Atman.
These are the people who are always in Samadhi as it were and do not recognize any other
than their own self or God and therefore they have no thought of anything as due from them
to another. They are not aware of any service done to them as they are immersed in the bliss
of God. They themselves do not stand in need of any service though others may derive
spiritual benefit by their service. They have no sense of responsibility or duty to anybody.
Therefore they do not consciously do anything in return for the service renderd to them.
Without any conscious effort, however, on their past or without any recognition of the service
done those who serve them do benefit by such service. Sri Krishna goes a step further and
says that he does not fall even under this highest class. He is not immersed in Samadhi
always in the sense that he does not recognize any other different from himself. He is fully
conscious of the outer world and wants to do good to one and all but not as others expect him
to do but as he deems fit. cf. Abhijnanasakuntalam V.33 mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÈ – UéeÉÉlÉÇ
ÌlÉÌSïzrÉ pÉÉåÈ iÉmÉÎxuÉlÉÈ AxÉÉuÉ§É pÉuÉÉlÉç uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉÉhÉÉÇ
UͤÉiÉÉ mÉëÉaÉåuÉ qÉÑ£üÉxÉlÉÉå uÉÈ mÉëÌiÉmÉÉsÉrÉÌiÉ | mÉzrÉiÉ
LlÉqÉç zÉÉXïûuÉÈ - pÉÉå qÉWûÉoÉë¼hÉ MüÉqÉqÉåiÉqÉÍpÉlÉlSlÉÏrÉÇ
iÉjÉÉÌmÉ uÉrÉqÉ§É qÉkrÉxjÉÉÈ M×üiÉÈ –
pÉuÉÎliÉ lÉqÉëÉÈ iÉUuÉÈ TüsÉÉaÉqÉæÈ lÉuÉÉqoÉÑÍpÉSÕïUÌuÉsÉÎqoÉlÉÉ
bÉlÉÉÈ |

126
AlÉÑ®iÉÉÈ xÉimÉÑÂwÉÉÈ xÉqÉ×ήÍpÉÈ xuÉpÉÉuÉ LuÉæwÉ
mÉUÉåmÉMüÉËUhÉÉqÉç ||
That is the service done by a proper Guru or a Jnani who is never to be moved by the
demands made on him nor by consideration of gratitude for the benefits or service received
from others. He does not keep quiet as the man of previous class but is actively interested in
Lokasamgraha and is prepared to undergo any trouble for bringing about the welfare of the
world. He is prepared to go to the extent of inflicting pain and suffering on those who serve
him and even deprive them of their worldly prosperity if necessary; in case such drastic
treatment is necessary to cure the servant of his disease. Here he does service consciously but
not in return for what he has received. He would have been glad to do the same if he had not
received any service at all. He would have done the same kind of service even to an enemy to
a friend. In this he does not make a distinction between the Gopis or Sisupala or Duryodhana
or Arjuna. He is impartial to all. This is the best and highest kind of service that should be
kept before our eyes as the ideal. Whatever he does has no relation upon himself but always
helps the world to realize its highest destiny accordint to the Adhikara of each individual.
That he is not in the least affected by such Karma because he is absolutely free from egoism
is clearly stated by him in the Gita itself. rÉxrÉ lÉÉWÇûM×üiÉÉå pÉÉuÉÉå etc.
xÉqÉÉåÅWÇû xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ etc. Also xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉxjÉqÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ ¥ÉÉiuÉÉ
qÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉ×cNûÌiÉ | Such a man is the ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É, pÉ£ü, ¥ÉÉlÉÏ of the
second, twelth and thirteenth chapters. This is the ideal placed before Swamiji by Sri
Ramakrishna when he said that he expected something better of Swamiji than being
immersed in Samadhi and this is what Sri Krishna wanted Yudhishthira to do when he asked
him to speak an untruth to save Dharma. This takes us to the next characteristic of Dharma,
viz Truth.

Mahabharatha says (xÉirÉɳÉÉÅÎxiÉ) lÉÉÎxiÉ xÉirÉÉiÉç mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ Santi

162.24. Aswamedha P. 74.102 (Anusasanika), Santi 162.26 says that Satya is superior 1000
Aswamedhas. This Satya is identified with Dharma itself and Dharma with Satya itself in
Brihad. Ar. Up. I.4.14. rÉÉå uÉæ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉirÉÇ uÉæ iÉiÉç, iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉirÉÇ
uÉSliÉqÉÉWÒûÈ kÉqÉïÇ uÉSiÉÏÌiÉ | kÉqÉïÇ uÉÉ uÉSliÉÇ xÉirÉÇ uÉSiÉÏÌiÉ |
LiÉiÉç ÌWû LuÉ LiÉSÒpÉrÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ | Satya like Dharma is in fact one of the names
of God Himself. Just as all actions will be entitled to be called Dharma only if they are aimed
at God and leads to God, similarly Satyam also is described as realization of God and use of
speech which helps realization of God. Satyam is defined in the Bhagavatam by Sri Krishna
himself as xÉirÉÇ cÉ xÉqÉSzÉïlÉqÉç i.e realization of God equally in everything. That
this is the highest meaning of Satya as understood by Vedantins is clear from
Jabaladarsanopanishad I.10 xÉuÉïÇ xÉirÉÇ mÉUÇ oÉë¼ lÉÉlrÉSxiÉÏÌiÉ rÉÉ qÉÌiÉÈ
iÉŠ xÉirÉÇ mÉUÇ mÉëÉå£Çü uÉåSÉliÉ¥ÉÉlÉmÉÉUaÉæÈ || That is why in the
Ch. Up. VI we read iÉiÉç xÉirÉÇ xÉ AÉiqÉÉ iɨuÉqÉÍxÉ µÉåiÉMåüiÉÉå and in
Brihad V.4 xÉirÉqÉåuÉ oÉë¼. This makes it clear why Satyam is considered as one of
the important elements of Dharma along with Ahimsa. In fact the two cannot be separated
from each other. If at all any distinction it is to be made Satyam is to be considered as the
verbal aspect of Ahimsa. In this sense to talk about God, to expand and teach the philosophy
of the Atman or God, to expand and teach the philosophy of the Atman or God, to expound
scriptures which deal with such philosophy which helps one to realize the highest truth, viz
the Atman or God, to expound the principles of Dharma to help others to adopt the proper
means to realize the Atman or God – these various varieties of using words and language so
that they may lead the devotee to the highest Truth viz Brahman or Atman will be
characteristic of Satya. It can well be seen how Satya can never go against Ahimsa,

127
Bhutahitam, Paropakara, Lokasangraha, etc all of which we have discussed above. Even
teaching of science in all its branches, in all its stages as well as history, etc. may be
considered as Satya if it is aimed at cultivating the spirit of enquiry into truth which is behind
the phenomenal universe of time, space and causation. But, only in so far as it is a help to
achieve this purpose. If such teaching is meant only to further self aggrandizement and
exploitation of others such teaching cannot be considered as Satya but only as Mithya or
AlÉ×iÉqÉç. That is why Mahabharata specially emphasizes that veracity in itself does not
constitute a moral attribute unless it does not come into conflict with the principle of Ahimsa
or xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ. So we see Narada saying to Suka quoting Santkumara’s
words in Santi 329.13 & 287.19 xÉirÉxrÉ uÉcÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ xÉirÉxrÉ uÉcÉlÉÇ
´ÉårÉÈ xÉirÉÉSÌmÉ ÌWûiÉÇ uÉSåiÉç | rÉ°ÕiÉÌWûiÉqÉirÉliÉqÉåiÉixÉirÉÇ
qÉiÉÇ qÉqÉ || Vide also Vanaparva 208.4 rÉ°ÕiÉÌWûiÉqÉirÉliÉÇ iÉixÉirÉÍqÉÌiÉ
kÉÉUhÉÉ also Vana 207.73 AÌWÇûxÉÉxÉirÉuÉcÉlÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ
mÉUqÉç | AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉ cÉ xÉirÉå mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÈ || Cf. also
the words of Vyasa elsewhere xÉirÉÇ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉëÉå£üqÉç | Also Garuda
Purana xÉirÉÇ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ uÉÉYrÉÇ also xÉirÉÇ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉëÉå£Çü lÉ
rÉjÉÉjÉÉïÍpÉpÉÉwÉhÉqÉç | Also Narada to Galava in Santi 287.19-20 xÉirÉxrÉ
uÉcÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ xÉirÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ iÉÑ SÒwMüUÇ rÉ°ÕiÉÌWûiÉqÉirÉliÉqÉåiÉiÉç
xÉirÉÇ oÉëuÉÏqrÉWûqÉç | Cf. also Ramanuja's words in explanation of the word
xÉirÉÇ as an element of SåuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç rÉjÉÉ SعÉjÉïaÉÉåcÉU
pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉuÉÉYrÉqÉç | Also his words in explanation of lÉ xÉirÉÇ iÉåwÉÑ
ÌuɱiÉå Ch.XVI xÉirÉÇ rÉjÉÉjÉï¥ÉÉlÉ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÃmÉpÉÉwhÉqÉç || Also
Sankara's interpretation of xÉirÉÇ uÉS in Tait. Up. rÉjÉÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉÉuÉaÉiÉÇ
uÉ£üurÉÇ iɲS | Cf. also the words of Vyasa in his Bhashya on Yoga Sutra II.30 xÉirÉÇ
rÉjÉÉjÉåï uÉɉlÉxÉå rÉjÉÉ SØ¹Ç rÉjÉÉ ´ÉÑiÉÇ rÉjÉÉÅlÉÑqÉiÉÇ iÉjÉÉ uÉÉ
‰lɶÉåÌiÉ | mÉUxrÉ xuÉoÉÉåkÉxÉXç¢üÉliÉrÉå uÉÉaÉÑ£üÉ, xÉÉ rÉÌS lÉ
uÉÎgcÉiÉÉ pÉëÉliÉÉ uÉÉ mÉëÌiÉmĘ́ÉuÉlkrÉÉ uÉÉ pÉuÉåÌSÌiÉ | LwÉÉ
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉåmÉMüÉUÉjÉïÇ mÉëuÉרÉÉ lÉ pÉÔiÉÉåmÉbÉÉiÉÉrÉ | rÉÌS cÉ
LuÉqÉÌmÉ AÍpÉkÉÏrÉqÉÉlÉÉ pÉÔiÉÉåmÉkÉÉiÉmÉUæuÉ xrÉÉiÉç lÉ xÉirÉÇ
pÉuÉåiÉç mÉÉmÉqÉåuÉ pÉuÉåiÉç | iÉxqÉÉiÉç mÉUϤrÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ
xÉirÉÇ oÉëÔrÉÉiÉç | Vide also Sandilyopanishad xÉirÉÇ lÉÉqÉ
qÉlÉÉåuÉÉMçüMüÉrÉMüqÉïÍpÉÈ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉrÉjÉÉjÉÉïÍpÉpÉÉwÉhÉqÉç | From
all these passages it is clear in what sense xÉirÉÇ is understood by our ancient writers on
kÉqÉï. This explains Yudhistira’s question in Santi 109.4 as to when it is right and proper to
speak an untruth. MüÎxqÉlÉç MüÉsÉå xÉirÉÇ uÉSåiÉç MüÎxqÉlÉç MüÉsÉå
AlÉ×iÉÇ uÉSåiÉç where Yudhistira uses the words xÉirÉÇ and AlÉ×iÉÇ in their
ordinarily understood sense. Bhisma answers how such mere veracity ceases to be Satya and
a falsehood or lie becomes Satya according as the words are aimed at against pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ
or for it and he quotes instances where even a lie may be xÉirÉÇ from the moral and
spiritual standpoint and concludes by saying ´ÉårÉxiɧÉÉÅlÉ×iÉÇ uÉ£ÑÇü
xÉirÉÉÌSÌiÉ ÌuÉcÉÉËUiÉqÉç | (Read the whole of the chap.) Read also Karna Parva .69
where Krishna also uses almost the same words. pÉuÉåiÉç xÉirÉqÉuÉ£üurÉÇ
uÉ£üurÉqÉlÉ×iÉÇ pÉuÉåiÉç | rɧÉÉlÉ×iÉÇ pÉuÉåiÉç xÉirÉÇ xÉirÉÇ cÉæuÉ
AlÉ×iÉÇ pÉuÉåiÉç || iÉxqÉÉiÉç kÉqÉÉïjÉïqÉlÉ×iÉqÉÑYiuÉÉ lÉ AlÉ×iÉpÉÉMçü
pÉuÉå iÉç || This explains how Krishna is right in asking Yudhishtira to tell a lie in the
interests of Dharma and Lokasangraha and in asking Arjuna to break his vow when he was
about to kill Yudhishthira. If we understand this moral and spiritual view of Satya we can
justify the various cases of aberration from veracity which Krishna & Rama are guilty of
according to some modern critics of Mahbharatha and Ramayana. When we see that all their

128
actions are meant for Bhutahita or Lokasangraha and in support of Dharma and not based
upon Ahamkara and self interest we cannot accuse them of moral and spiritual lapses but
would rather admire them for their readiness and courage to face all the so called
consequences in the interest of Lokasangraha as when we admire Swami Vivekananda when
he says that he is prepared to go to the gates of hell a thousand times if he can thereby save
one soul. This is also the justification of Buddha’s statement that he is prepared to undergo
any number of births and the miseries of Samsara to save the soul from Samsara. It explains
Sankara’s utterance of an apparent falsehood when he was caught by a crocodile or Sri
Ramakrihsna’s concealing of the fact of his Sannyas from his mother. So also Sitas words to
Rakshasis that she did not know anything about the monkeys. Cf. also Sri Ramakrishna’s
words in the Gospel that he does not mind the lies of those youngsters who come to him for
spiritual instruction when they have to utter a lie to their parents for the purpose. That is why
Sri Krishna is so self confident about his practice of truth in Ashwamedha 69.19-23 lÉ
E£ümÉÔuÉïÇ qÉrÉÉ ÍqÉjrÉÉ xuÉæUåwuÉÌmÉ MüSÉcÉlÉ | rÉjÉÉ xÉirÉÇ cÉ
kÉqÉïÇ cÉ qÉÌrÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉæ || iÉålÉ xÉirÉålÉ oÉÉsÉÉåÅrÉÇ
mÉÑlÉÈ xÉgcÉÏuÉiÉÉqÉrÉqÉç || And it actually takes place that Praikshit is brought
back to life because of the words of Krishna who was devoted to Satya as per Patanjali’s
words xÉirÉmÉëÌiɸÉrÉÉÇ Ì¢ürÉÉTüsÉÉ´ÉrÉiuÉqÉç | Vide also Krishna’s words in
Gopala Uttara Tapini Upanishad. When the Gopies asked for Krishna’s help for crossing the
river to carry some offerings to Durvasas. oÉë¼cÉÉUÏirÉÑYiuÉÉ qÉÉaÉïÇ uÉÉå
SÉxrÉÌiÉ CÌiÉ | Rama and Krishna were Avatars or Jivanmuktas and therefore they cannot
be affected by any sin. MÑüzÉsÉålÉÉcÉËUiÉålÉ LwÉÉqÉç CWû xuÉÉjÉÉåï lÉ
ÌuɱiÉå | ÌuÉmÉrÉåïhÉ uÉÉÅlÉjÉïÈ ÌlÉUWûƒ¡ûÉËUhÉÉÇ ÌuÉpÉÉå || Cf. also Br.
Sutra IV.1.13, Ch. IV.14.3, Chandogya V.24.3, Brihad.V.4.23, iÉÇ ÌuÉÌSiuÉÉ lÉ
MüqÉïhÉÉ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå mÉÉmÉMåülÉ ÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉå mÉÍjÉ ÌuÉcÉUiÉÉÇ
MüÉå ÌuÉÍkÉÈ MüÉå ÌlÉwÉåkÉÈ |

From our discussion about the concept of Dharma so far on the basis of various definitions
given in the text we find Dharma constitutes the various aspects of purity of mind due to the
cultivation and development of Sattva Guna. The external activities considered as Dharmas
deserve that name only in so far as they are prompted by such pure mind or which by their
subjective reaction help the development of this purity of mind and Sattvaguna and thus help
the final realization of the goal of life. Such qualities of the mind are many in number and the
more important of them are classified and enumerated by Hindu writers under the name of
Samanyadharma or Sadharanadharma or Sasvatadharma or Sanatanadharma. The
applications of these external principles of Dharma to various conditions and circumstances
of life and to different Adhikaris from the social, economic, political and other standpoints
gives rise to what are called Visheshadharma. The so called Varnashramadharma belongs to
the latter class and is the result of a deliberate attempt by sociologists to provide various
standards and ideals of conduct to members of society or groups of them who differ from
each other in their capacities, temperaments, tastes and needs in such a way that these
activities while helpful for everyday social, economic and political life also help the
attainment of the ultimate spiritual and ethical goal of life according to the law of least
resistance and according to the principle of social law of division of labour. If any of the rules
of Varnashrama code goes against the Samanyadharmas enumerated such rules cannot be
considered as Dharma in the real sense. The Samanyadharma are enumerated by Manu as
common to all Varnas and thus: AÌWÇûxÉÉ xÉirÉqÉxiÉårÉÇ
zÉÉæcÉÍqÉÎlSìrÉÌlÉaÉëWûÈ | LiÉiÉç xÉÉqÉÉÍxÉMÇü kÉqÉïÇ
cÉÉiÉÑuÉïhrÉåïÅoÉëuÉÏiqÉlÉÑÈ || X.63. cf. also Manu VI.92 cÉiÉÑÍpÉïUÌmÉ

129
cÉæuÉåiÉæÈ ÌlÉirÉqÉÉ´ÉÍqÉÍpÉÈ Ì²eÉæÈ | SzÉsɤÉhÉMüÉå kÉqÉïÈ
xÉåÌuÉiÉurÉÈ mÉër¦ÉiÉÈ || kÉ×ÌiÉ ¤ÉqÉÉ SqÉÉåÅxiÉårÉÇ
zÉÉæcÉÍqÉÎlSìrÉÌlÉaÉëWûÈ | kÉÏÌuÉï±É xÉirÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉÈ SzÉMÇü
kÉqÉïsɤÉhÉqÉç || Cf. also Vishnu II.16&17 ¤ÉqÉÉ xÉirÉÇ SqÉÈ zÉÉæcÉÇ
SÉlÉÍqÉÎlSìrÉxÉÇrÉqÉÈ | AÌWÇûxÉÉ aÉÑÂzÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ iÉÏjÉÉïlÉÑxÉUhÉÇ
SrÉÉ || AÉeÉïuÉÇ sÉÉåpÉzÉÔlrÉiuÉÇ SåuÉoÉëɼhÉmÉÔeÉlÉqÉç |
AlÉprÉxÉÔrÉÉ cÉ iÉjÉÉ kÉqÉïxÉÉqÉÉlrÉ EcrÉiÉå || Various Smritikaras thus give
varying smaller and longer lists all of which are aspects of the Sattvaguna which will be
found enumerated in Bhagavatam XI.13 & XI.25 cf. also XI.17.21 of Bhagavatam.
AÌWÇûxÉÉ xÉirÉqÉxiÉårÉÈ AMüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉsÉÉåpÉiÉÉ |
pÉÔiÉÌmÉërÉÌWûiÉåWûÉ cÉ kÉqÉÉåïÅrÉÇ xÉÉuÉïuÉÍhÉïMüÈ || Cf. also 34 & 35
of the same chapter zÉÉæcÉqÉÉcÉqÉlÉÇ xlÉÉlÉÇ xÉlkrÉÉåmÉÉxÉlÉqÉÉeÉïuÉqÉç
| iÉÏjÉïxÉåuÉÉ eÉmÉÉå AxmÉ×zrÉ ApɤrÉ AxÉqpÉÉurÉuÉeÉïlÉqÉç || xÉuÉÉï
´ÉqÉmÉërÉÑ£üÉåÅrÉÇ (rÉqÉ) ÌlÉrÉqÉÈ mÉÑÂlÉlSlÉ |
qÉ°ÉuÉxxÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ qÉlÉÉå uÉÉMçüMüÉrÉxÉÇrÉqÉÈ || ‘AxmÉ×zrÉ’
here means that with which one should not come into sense contact as when such sense
contact is likely to inflame passions and lead a man astray. Cf. the use of the word xmÉzÉï
in Gita as in qÉɧÉÉxmÉzÉÉïxiÉÑ, rÉåÌWû xÉÇxmÉzÉïeÉÉ pÉÉåaÉÉÈ etc. It has
nothing to do with untouchability as understood in modern days on the basis of birth etc.
Similarly AxÉqpÉÉurÉ, ApɤrÉ. All these aspects of purity of mind as well as those
mentioned in Santi 296.239-24 also by Gautama in VIII 22-25 which we have already noted
above may on further analysis be found to be based upon and form expression for the two
fundamental principles of kÉqÉï viz, AÌWÇûxÉÉ or xÉirÉ. If there is any conflict between
AÌWÇûxÉÉ & xÉirÉ on the one hand and any of the other xÉqÉÉlrÉkÉqÉï’s enumerated
one has to give greater importance to these former two and reject the latter in favour of the
former. If there is any conflict of Dharmas one has to use one’s Buddhi and weigh the
comparative importance of the two Dharmas which are apparently in conflict and must adopt
in practice the superior ones in preference to the inferior ones. This is what Manu means
when he says in IX.299 AÉUpÉåiÉ iÉiÉÈ MüÉrÉïÇ xÉÎgcÉlirÉ aÉÑÂsÉÉbÉuÉqÉç ||
Also the words of M.bh. kÉqÉïÇ rÉÉå oÉÉkÉiÉå kÉqÉïÈ lÉ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ MÑükÉqÉï
iÉiÉç | AÌuÉUÉåkÉÏ iÉÑ rÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ qÉÑÌlÉmÉÑ…¡ûuÉ || cf. also
Vana Parva 131.11&12 AÌuÉUÉåkÉɨÉÑ rÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉirÉÌuÉ¢üqÉ |
ÌuÉUÉåÍkÉwÉÑ qÉWûÏmÉÉsÉ ÌlÉͶÉirÉ aÉÑÂsÉÉbÉuÉqÉç || lÉ oÉÉkÉÉ
ÌuɱiÉå rÉ§É iÉÇ kÉqÉïÇ xÉqÉÑmÉÉcÉUåiÉç || The whole of Mahabharata is a
mine of stories dealing with such conflicts of Dharma meant to illustrate how under different
conditions and different situations the Rishis and Dharmishthas were confronted with
conflicts of such Dharmas and how they resolved these conflicts differently according to their
different xuÉkÉqÉï, AÍkÉMüÉU through the use of their own Buddhi. The Gita situation is
one such and Sri Krishna’s advice to Arjuna ws meant to guide Arjuna to resolve the conflict
in his mind by the use of his own Buddhi in terms of the fundamental principles of kÉqÉï
and the relative importance of the prescription of the Sastras.

When Manu and other Dharmasastrakaras say that Dharma is rooted in ´ÉÑÌiÉ xqÉ×ÌiÉ
xÉSÉcÉÉU and AÉiqÉÌmÉërÉ (Vide Manu II 6-12) we have to understand these
expressions not in the traditional sense (orthodox) but in its wider spiritual significance. Sruti
represents not the mere external texts which are traditionally known as Rik, Yajus etc. but the
small inner voice of God known as conscience heard by realized men and asked upon by
them in the conduct of life in various situations and circumstances. It is this ‘Sruti’ that is
referred to by Sri Ramakrishna when he speaks of his preference to his mother’s words to the

130
teachings of the so called scriptures when Swamiji points out to him the contradictions in the
scriptures. The teachings of the scriptures are only verbal expressions given by later teachers
as they understood the teachings of these realized men. The inner guidance given by the voice
of God or conscience is eternal and is available to any pure heart at all times, even today.
uÉåSxrÉ iÉÑ ÌlÉirÉiuÉå ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÉåimĘ́ÉWåûiÉÑiuÉå cÉ xÉÌiÉ
urÉÎxjÉiÉÉjÉïÌuÉwÉrÉiuÉÉåmÉmɨÉåÈ | iÉ‹ÌlÉiÉxrÉ ¥ÉÉlÉxrÉ xÉqrÉYiuÉÇ
AiÉÏiÉÉlÉÉaÉiÉuÉiÉïqÉÉlÉæÈ xÉuÉæïUÌmÉ
iÉÉÌMïüMæüUmÉyaÉÉåiÉÑqÉzÉYrÉqÉç | Br. Su. Sa. Bh. II.3.11. This Sruti does not
depend for its authority on its hoary antiquity as in the case of the literature known
technically as the Srutis and when the voice of God guiding a pure mind today seems to
conflict with the teachings of these ancient literary documents, greater head is to be given to
the former than the latter which have to be rejected altogether or interpreted in the light of the
fresh instruction or revelations, as when oral orders are issued by a superior personally in
supression of the previous written orders. Vide Sri Ramakrishna’s words in the Gospel. This
when Narada means when he says pÉuÉiÉÑ ÌlɶÉrÉSÉžÉïSÕkuÉïÇ
zÉÉx§ÉU¤ÉhÉqÉç | That is why Mahabharata says that Dharmas change with times
AlrÉå M×üiÉrÉÑaÉå kÉqÉÉïÈ §ÉåiÉÉrÉÉÇ ²ÉmÉUåÅmÉUå | AlrÉå
MüÍsÉrÉÑaÉå kÉqÉÉïÈ rÉÑaɾûÉxÉÉlÉÑÃmÉiÉÈ || Mhb. S.P.259.8 and Manu
I.85&86. This explains how different codes of conduct and morality have come into existence
in different ages and in different localities based upon the fresh revelations given to sages in
different times & places and under different conditions and circumstances. Although these
records and their teachings differ from one another, they cannot go against the fundamental
principles of conduct or Dharma which are eternal and which are known as
xÉlÉÉiÉlÉkÉqÉï, zÉɵÉiÉkÉqÉï, etc. If these later codes go against these fundamental
principles enunciated above Ahimsa, Satya, Lokasangraha etc. they have to be rejected as not
being based upon the guidance of the inner voice within. This is the basis of the great
importance given to the Sruti in matters of Dharma, when Manu says uÉåSÉåÅÎZÉsÉÉå
kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉqÉç In Sl.II.6 & kÉqÉïÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉqÉÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ mÉUqÉ
´ÉÑÌiÉÈ in II.13 etc.

The limitation of the word Sruti to current texts is made by later commentators such as Brugu
who is the editor of the ancient Manusmruti. Even according to the orthodox people these
literatry expressions known as Srutis are not eternal in themselves. Vide Patanjali’s words in
Mahabhashya on Panini IV.3.101 lÉlÉÑ cÉÉå£Çü lÉÌWû NûlSÉÇÍxÉ Ì¢ürÉliÉå
ÌlÉirÉÉÌlÉ NûlSÉÍxÉ CÌiÉ | rÉkÉmrÉjÉÉåï ÌlÉirÉÈ rÉÉiÉÑ AxÉÉæ
uÉhÉÉïlÉÑmÉÔuÉÏï xÉÉ AÌlÉirÉÉ | iÉ°åSÉŠ LuiÉ°uÉÌiÉ MüÉPûMÇü
MüÉsÉÉmÉMÇü qÉÉæSMÇü mÉæmmÉsÉÉSMüÍqÉÌiÉ | cf. also Br. Su. Sh. Bh.II.
1.27 lÉ cÉårÉÇ mÉËUhÉÉqÉ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ mÉËUhÉÉqÉmÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉÉjÉÉï iÉiÉç
mÉëÌiÉmɨÉÉæ TüsÉÉlÉuÉaÉqÉiÉç
xÉuÉïurÉuÉWûÉUWûÏlÉoÉë¼ÉiqÉpÉÉuÉmÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉÉjÉÉï iuÉåwÉÉ iÉiÉç
mÉëÌiÉmɨÉÉæ TüsÉÉuÉaÉqÉÉiÉç also Br.Su.Sha.Bh. II.1.31
´ÉÑirÉuÉaÉɽqÉåuÉåSÇ AÌiÉaÉÇpÉÏUÇ oÉë¼ lÉ iÉMüÉïuÉaÉÉ½Ç also Br. Su.
Sha.Bh. I.1.33 lÉ cÉårÉÇ mÉUqÉÉjÉïÌuÉwÉrÉÉ xÉ×̹´ÉÑÌiÉÈ
AÌuɱÉMüÎsmiÉiÉlÉÉqÉÃmÉurÉuÉWûÉUaÉÉåcÉUiuÉÉiÉç
oÉë¼ÉiqÉpÉÉuÉmÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉmÉUiuÉÉŠ CÌiÉ LiÉSÌmÉ lÉ ÌuÉxqÉiÉïurÉÇ. It
is also accepted by even orthodox people that all the Sruti texts are not available now having
been lost in course of time. This could not have happened if the words themselves were
eternal. To rely on only a portion of the Vedas without knowing what the rest of the text says
is likely only to give us a partial view of the Truth and is therefore, not a safe guide in matters

131
of Dharma. It is also well known and accepted that different texts of the extant Srutis
contradict one another. It is because of this that it was found necessary to enquire into the
essence of the teachings of these Srutis in the Mimamsasastra by Jaimini as well as
Badarayana & other writers. The very fact that great Rishis and thinkers differ from one
another as to the exact purport of the teachings of the extant Srutis as referred to in the
Vedanta Sutras and Dharmasutras and the fact that so many schools of Purvamimamsakas &
Vedantins have risen in later times claiming their own understanding of the scriptures
represents the true teaching of the texts shows how unsafe and unrealiable the texts are in
themselves as a guide in determining what is Dharma. To add to the confusion created by this
difference of opinion among the Indian authors with regard to the true import of the Srutis we
have to take into account the views of other religions such as the Jains, the Buddhists, the
Parsis, the Christians, and the Musalmans etc. who uphold their own texts as the only true
word of God. Therefore, there must be some other means to find out what constitutes real
Dharma. This is refered to by Jaimini himself when he says ÌuÉUÉåkÉå iÉÑ
AlÉmÉå¤rÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç AxÉÌiÉÈ AlÉÑqÉÉlÉqÉç | Br. Su. II.1.1 Su. Bh. So also Manu
XII.106,105 mÉëirɤÉÇ cÉÅlÉÑqÉÉlÉqÉç cÉ zÉÉx§ÉÇ cÉ ÌuÉÌuÉkÉÉaÉqÉÇ
§ÉrÉÇ xÉÑÌuÉÌSiÉÇ MüÉrÉïÇ kÉqÉïzÉÑήqÉpÉÏmxÉiÉÉ || AÉwÉïÇ
kÉqÉÉåïmÉSåzÉÇ iÉÑÇ SåuÉzÉÉx§ÉÉÅÌuÉUÉåÍkÉlÉÉ |
rÉxiÉMåïühÉÉlÉÑxÉlkɨÉå xÉ kÉqÉïÇ uÉåS lÉåiÉUÈ || According to these verses
one has to study all the scriptures which have come from different sources
(ÌuÉÌuÉkÉÉaÉqÉqÉç) and find out what the common essence of all the scriptures is,
which only can be considered as the word of God, if at all. So today we have to take
advantage of all the scriptures including those of other religions and find out by comparitive
study what represents the eternal Dharma leaving out all the unnecessary details in which
they differ from each other. This is what Sri Ramakrishna means when in his own way he
exhorts all the religious people to practice the essence leaving out the head and tail. In finding
out this common essence we have to make use of the other Pramanas also viz. mÉëirÉ¤É &
AlÉÑqÉÉlÉ i.e our own first hand experience as far as it goes and reason. But mere worldly
experience and mere inference based upon such observation of the facts of the sensual world
cannot take us to an understanding of the supra-sensual & supra-mental truths which form the
real essence of the teachings of the Vedas, which can be known only through one’s own
super-conscious experience and reasoning is helpful only to intellectually understand the
possibility & plausibility of this higher experience. cf. lÉ cÉ AlÉÑqÉÉlÉaÉqrÉÇ
zÉÉx§ÉmÉëÉqÉÉhrÉÇ Br. Su. Sankara Bhashya I.1.4.4 and also xÉixÉÑ iÉÑ
uÉåSÉliÉuÉÉYrÉåwÉÑ eÉaÉiÉÉå eÉlqÉÉÌSMüÉUhÉuÉÉÌSwÉÑ
iÉSjÉïaÉëWûhÉSÉžÉïrÉÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉqÉÌmÉ uÉåSÉliÉuÉÉYrÉÉÌuÉUÉåÍkÉ
mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ pÉuÉiÉç lÉ Br. Su. Shankara Bhashya I.1.2.2. That is why all great
teachers, while admitting the necessity for the use of reason in spiritual life, condemn mere
logical reason in itself based upon ordinary experience. Vide Brahamasutra, Tarka
Apratishtanam. Also Narada uÉÉSÉå lÉÉÅuÉsÉqorÉÈ
oÉÉWÒûsrÉÉuÉMüÉzÉiuÉÉiÉç AÌlÉrÉiÉiuÉÉŠ | Also Katha lÉæwÉÉ iÉMåïühÉ
qÉÌiÉUÉmÉlÉårÉÉ | cf. zÉoSqÉÔsÉÇ cÉ oÉë¼ zÉoSmÉëqÉÉhÉMÇü
lÉåÎlSìrÉÉÌSmÉëqÉÉhÉMÇü iÉSè rÉjÉÉ zÉoSqÉprÉÑmÉaÉliÉurÉÇ || Br. Su.
Sankara Bhashya II.1.9.27... ibid. sÉÉæÌMüMüÉlÉÉqÉÌmÉ
qÉÍhÉqÉl§ÉÉæwÉkÉÏmÉëpÉ×iÉÏlÉÉÇ SåzÉMüÉsÉÌlÉÍqɨÉuÉåïÍcɧrÉuÉzÉÉiÉç
zÉ£ürÉÉå ÌuÉ®ÉlÉåMüMüÉrÉïÌuÉwrÉÉ SØzrÉliÉå | iÉÉ AÌmÉ iÉÉuÉiÉç
lÉÉåmÉSåzÉqÉliÉUåhÉ MåüuÉsÉålÉ iÉMåïühÉ AuÉaÉliÉÑÇ zÉYrÉliÉåÅxrÉ
uÉxiÉÑlÉÈ LiÉÉuÉirÉ LiÉiÉç xÉWûÉrÉÉ LiÉSè ÌuÉwÉrÉÉ LiÉiÉç
mÉërÉÉåeÉlÉÉ¶É zÉ£ürÉ CÌiÉ ÌMüqÉÑiÉ AÍcÉlirÉxuÉpÉÉuÉxrÉ oÉë¼hÉÉå
ÃmÉÇ ÌuÉlÉÉ zÉoSålÉ lÉ ÌlÉÃmrÉåiÉç | This is what Mahabharata refers to when it

132
says iÉMüÉåïÅmÉëÌiÉ¸È and what Manu means when he says that iÉMïü should be
uÉåSzÉÉx§ÉÉÅÌuÉUÉåkÉÏ. This is what Swamiji also means when he asks ‘where
scriptures differ who is to decide!’ Vide. also Brihaspati MåüuÉsÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ
lÉ MüiÉïurÉÉå ÌuÉÍkÉÌlÉhÉïrÉÈ | rÉÑÌ£üWûÏlÉå ÌuÉcÉÉUå iÉÑ kÉqÉïsÉÉåmÉÈ
mÉëeÉÉrÉiÉå || Vide. also Yogavasishta rÉÑÌ£ürÉÑ£üqÉÑmÉÉSårÉÇ uÉcÉlÉÇ
oÉÉsÉMüÉSÌmÉ | AlrɨÉÑ iÉ×hÉuÉiÉç irÉÉerÉÇ AmrÉÑ£Çü mÉ©eÉlqÉlÉÉ ||
cf. also rÉÑÌ£ürÉÑ£Çü uÉcÉÉå aÉëÉ½Ç oÉÉsÉÉSÌmÉ zÉÑMüÉSÌmÉ |
rÉÑÌ£üWûÏlÉÇ uÉcÉxirÉÉerÉÇ uÉ×®ÉSÌmÉ zÉÑMüÉSÌmÉ || Also AÌmÉ
mÉÉæÂwÉÉSårÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉÇ cÉåiÉç rÉÑÌ£üoÉÉåkÉMüqÉç | AlrɨÉÑ
AÉwÉïqÉÌmÉ irÉÉerÉÇ ´ÉÉæiÉÇ lrÉrrÉæMüxÉåÌuÉlÉÉ || Cf. also words of
Mahabharata rÉÈ MüͶɳrÉÉrrÉ AÉcÉÉUÈ xÉuÉïÇ zÉÉx§ÉÍqÉÌiÉ ´ÉÑÌiÉ |
rÉSlrÉÉrrÉqÉzÉÉx§ÉÇ iÉiÉç CirÉåwÉÉ ´ÉÔrÉiÉå ´ÉÑÌiÉ || Cf. also Vanaparva
207.77 AÉUqpÉÉå lrÉÉrÉrÉÑ£üÉå rÉÈ xÉ ÌWû kÉqÉï CÌiÉ xqÉ×iÉÈ || (words of
Dharma Vydha). Sayana also points out in his Bhashya on Yajurveda the necessity for reason
in understanding the scriptures. On Tai. Samhita sÉÉåMåü iÉÉuÉiÉç ÌuÉcÉÉUåhÉ
xÉlSåWûÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉÈ mÉëÍxÉ®É | uÉåSåÅÌmÉ iɧÉ
iɨuÉÌuÉcÉÉUmÉÔuÉïMÇü xÉlSåWû AmÉlÉrÉlÉqÉÑmÉsÉpÉÉqÉWåû | After
quoting some authority from the Veda itself for such use of ÌuÉcÉÉUç in determining the
meaning of the Vedas he continues iÉSåuÉÇ uÉåSuÉÉÌSlÉÉÇ ÌuÉcÉÉUmÉÔuÉïMåü
AjÉïÌlÉhÉïrÉå iÉÉimÉrÉÉïÌiÉzÉrÉSzÉïlÉÉiÉç xÉuÉÉåïÅÌmÉ uÉåSÉjÉÉåï
ÌlÉhÉåïiÉurÉÈ CirÉuÉaÉqrÉiÉå | iÉjÉÉ xÉÌiÉ mÉÑlÉÈ xÉÇzÉrÉÉå lÉ ESåzrÉÌiÉ |
AiÉ LuÉ E£Çü kÉqÉåï mÉëqÉÏrÉqÉÉhÉå ÌWû uÉåSålÉ MüUhÉÉiqÉlÉÉ
CÌiÉMüiÉïurÉiÉÉpÉÉaÉÇ qÉÏqÉÉÇxÉÉ mÉÔUÌrÉwrÉÌiÉ CÌiÉ xqÉ×ÌiÉUÌmÉ
AÉwÉïÇ kÉqÉÉåïmÉSåzÉÇ CirÉÉSÉå rÉåwÉÑ uÉÉYrÉåwÉÑ xÉÇkÉrÉÉå
lÉÉÅÎxiÉ iÉåwuÉÌmÉ qÉÏqÉÉÇxÉrÉÉ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç AmÉÔuÉïÇ urÉerÉiÉå | AiÉ
LuÉ xqÉrÉïiÉå rÉ¶É urÉÉMÑüÂiÉå uÉÉcÉÇ rÉ¶É qÉÏqÉÉxÉiÉå AkuÉUÇ
lÉÉuÉÑpÉÉæ mÉÑhrÉMüqÉÉïhÉÉæ mÉ̇ûmÉÉuÉlÉmÉÉuÉlÉÉæ || Cf. also
Santi 141.102 iÉxqÉÉiÉç MüÉæliÉårÉ ÌuÉxÉÑwÉÉ kÉqÉÉïkÉqÉïÌuÉÌlɶÉrÉå |
oÉÑ먂 AÉxjÉÉrÉ sÉÉåMåüÅÎxqÉlÉç uÉÌiÉïiÉurÉÇ M×üiÉÉiqÉlÉÉ || Although
Sayana says that the letter of Sastra requires only the study of the Sakha of the Veda to which
one belongs by tradition, (xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉå AkrÉåiÉurÉÈ) it has been accepted as only the
minimum requirement. After finishing the study of his own Sakha he has to study the other
Sakhas belonging to the same Veda as Vasishtha points out AkÉÏirÉ
zÉÉZÉÉqÉÉÅÅiqÉÏrÉÉÇ mÉUzÉÉZÉÉÇ iÉiÉÈ mÉPåûiÉç || When that is over one
should study all the Vedas. Cf. Manu uÉåSÈ M×üixlÉÉåÅÍkÉaÉliÉurÉÈ
xÉUWûxrÉÉå ̲eÉlqÉlÉÉ | He also says that one should study other scriptures also as
such study is helpful to stenghthen the power of the Buddhi to understand the Truth. oÉÑή
uÉ×ήMüUÉhrÉÉÅÅzÉÑ kÉqÉÉïÍhÉ cÉ ÌWûiÉÉÌlÉ cÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉÉÍhÉ
AuÉå¤ÉåiÉ ÌlÉaÉqÉÉǶÉæuÉ uÉæÌSMüÉlÉç || Cf. also Katyayana rÉ§É AqlÉÉiÉÇ
xuÉzÉÉZÉÉrÉÉÇ mÉUÉå£Çü AÌuÉUÉåÍkÉ cÉ | ÌuɲΰxiÉSlÉѸårÉÇ
AÎalÉWûÉå§ÉÉÌSMüqÉïuÉiÉç | All these passages show the necessity for widening our
knowledge of the scriptures step by step so as to include even the scriptures of other sects and
religious and thus liberalise our religious outlook instead of confining ourselves to merely our
own texts. The essence of the Gospel (i.e the word of God) can be found out only after such
study and it is this essence that forms the real ‘Sruti’. ESSENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES –
the Real Sruti. This essence is pointed out by Gita to be the realization of God through Tyaga
and Yoga. uÉåSæ¶É xÉuÉæïÈ AWûqÉåuÉ uÉå±È || Cf. also Bhagavan's words in
the Bhagavatam uÉåSÉ oÉë¼ÉiqÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ Ì§ÉMüÉhQûÌuÉwÉrÉÉ CqÉå |
mÉUÉå¤ÉuÉÉSÉ GwÉrÉÈ mÉUÉå¤ÉÇ cÉ qÉqÉ ÌmÉërÉqÉç || LiÉÉuÉÉlÉç

133
xÉuÉïuÉåSÉjÉïÈ zÉoS AÉxjÉÉrÉ qÉÉÇ ÍpÉSÉqÉç | qÉÉrÉÉqÉɧÉqÉlÉѱ AliÉå
mÉëÌiÉÌwÉkrÉ mÉëxÉÏSÌiÉ || Vide also other texts of the Bhagavata such as WÇûxÉÉ
rÉ LMÇü oÉWÒûÃmÉÍqÉerÉæÈ qÉÉrÉÉqÉrÉÇ uÉåS uÉåSqÉç || Also
uÉÉxÉÑSåuÉmÉUÉÈ uÉåSÉÈ lÉÉUÉrÉhÉmÉUÉ uÉåSÉÈ etc. cf.also Suta Samhita
IV.2.2 mÉUÉmÉU ÌuÉpÉÉaÉålÉ uÉåSÉjÉÉåï ̲ÌuÉkÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ | uÉåSÉjÉïÈ
mÉUqÉÈ xÉɤÉÉiÉç mÉUÉiÉç mÉUiÉUÇ mÉUqÉç || AmÉUÉå kÉqÉïxÉÇ¥É
xrÉÉiÉç iÉiÉç mÉUmÉëÉÎmiÉxÉÉkÉlÉqÉç | AkÉqÉïÈ mÉËUWûÉUÉrÉ
uÉåSÉjÉïiuÉålÉ pÉÌ£üiÉÈ || aÉÏrÉiÉå qÉÑÌlÉzÉÉSÕïsÉæÈ MüSÉÍcÉiÉç lÉ iÉÑ
qÉÑZrÉiÉÈ | AkÉqÉïmÉËUWûÉUåhÉ kÉqÉïxiÉÑ AurÉÉMÑüsÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç ||
AurÉÉMÑüsÉålÉ kÉqÉåïhÉ ´ÉkSrÉÉ AlÉÑ̸iÉålÉ iÉÑ | uÉåSÉjÉïÈ mÉUqÉÉÈ
xÉɤÉÉiÉç ÍxÉkrÉirÉåuÉ lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ | With regard to the various Kamyakarmas
prescribed in Vedas, their place is pointed out by Suta Samhita as meant for
qÉlkÉÉÍkÉMüÉËU’s to create interest in them to take to spiritual Sadhana. qÉÉaÉÉïhÉÉÇ
rÉå ÌuÉ®ÉÇzÉÉÈ uÉåSÉliÉålÉ ÌuÉcɤÉhÉÉÈ | iÉåÅÌmÉ qÉlSqÉiÉÏlÉÉÇ
qÉWûÉqÉÉåWûÉÅÅuÉ×iÉÉiqÉlÉÉÇ uÉÉgNûÉqÉɧÉÉlÉÑmÉÑhrÉålÉ
mÉëuÉרÉÉ lÉ rÉjÉÉjÉïiÉÈ || SzÉïrÉÑiuÉÉ iÉ×hÉÇ qÉirÉÉåï kÉÉuÉliÉÏÇ
aÉÉuÉÇ rÉjÉÉ AaÉëWûÏiÉç | SzÉïÌrÉiuÉÉ iÉjÉÉ ¤ÉÑSìqÉç C¹Ç mÉÔuÉïÇ
qÉWåûµÉUÈ mɶÉÉiÉç mÉÉMüÉlÉÑmÉÑhrÉålÉ SSÉÌiÉ ¥ÉÉlÉqÉѨÉqÉqÉç ||
This is the place of Kamyakarma as shown by Bhagavan in Bhagavatam. TüsÉ
´ÉÑÌiÉËUrÉÇ lÉ×hÉÉqÉç etc. So also Sayana points out the place of the various Karmas
or rituals prescribed by the Vedas in his introduction to Suklayajurveda. Vide notes on Puja.
All Acharyas agreed that God and his realization is the final teaching of the Vedas. Thus
Ramanuja says in his uÉåSÉjÉïxÉXçaÉëWû – oÉë¼ÉlÉÑpÉuÉ¥ÉÉmÉlÉå
mÉëuÉרÉÈ uÉåSÉliÉuÉÉYrÉeÉÉiÉÇ | mÉUqÉÉiqÉxÉSÉÌSzÉoSpÉåSæÈ
ÌlÉÎZÉsÉuÉåSÉliÉpÉåSæÈ ÌlÉÎZÉsÉuÉåSÉliÉuÉå±Éå lÉÉUÉrÉhÉÈ | AxrÉæuÉ
uÉæpÉuÉmÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉmÉUÉÈ ´ÉÑiÉrÉÈ || According to Madhwa's teaching also
Hari is the only Truth to be learnt from the Srutis. AÎZÉsÉÉlqÉÉrÉæMüuÉå±Éå
WûËUÈ | He also says rÉ¥ÉÉlÉÉÇ iÉmÉxÉÉÇ cÉæuÉ zÉÑpÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉæuÉ
MüqÉïhÉÉÇ iÉ̲ÍzɹTüsÉÇ lÉ×hÉÉÇ xÉSæuÉ AÉUÉkÉlÉÇ WûUåÈ || He also
quotes with approval the Purna passage uÉåSå UÉqÉÉrÉhÉå cÉæuÉ mÉÑUÉhÉå
kÉqÉïzÉÉx§ÉMåü AÉSÉæ AliÉå cÉ qÉkrÉå cÉ WûËUÈ xÉuÉï§É aÉÏrÉiÉå ||
Sankara also says AÉiqÉæMüiuÉÌuɱÉmÉëÌiÉmɨÉrÉå xÉuÉåï uÉåSÉliÉÉÈ
AÉUprÉliÉå || Cf. also Sankara's Bhashya on Br. Su II.1.6 cÉåiÉlÉÇ oÉë¼ eÉaÉiÉÈ
MüÉUhÉÇ mÉëM×üÌiɶÉåÌiÉ AÉaÉqÉiÉÉimÉrÉïxrÉ mÉëxÉÉÍkÉiÉiuÉÉiÉç |
ibid. T.4.4.14 lÉ ½rÉÇ xÉ×wšÉÌSmÉëmÉÇcÉÈ mÉëÌiÉÌmÉmÉÉxÉÌrÉÌwÉiÉÈ |
lÉÌWû iÉimÉëÌiÉoÉ®È MüͶÉiÉç mÉÑÂwÉÉjÉÉåï SØzrÉiÉå ´ÉÔrÉiÉå uÉÉ | lÉ
cÉ MüsmÉÌrÉiÉÑÇ zÉYrÉiÉå EmÉ¢üqÉÉåmÉxÉÇWûÉUÉprÉÉÇ iÉ§É iɧÉ
oÉë¼ÌuÉwÉrÉæuÉÉïYrÉæÈ xÉÉMüqÉåMüuÉÉYrÉiÉÉrÉÉ aÉqrÉqÉÉlÉiuÉÉiÉç |
SzÉïrÉlÉç cÉ xÉ×wšÉÌSmÉëmÉÇcÉxrÉ oÉë¼mÉëÌiÉmɨrÉjÉïiuÉÉiÉç | Cf.
6.8.4, Mand.ka 3.15, Tai 2.1, 7.1.3 of Chand, Sv 3.8.cf. Vedanta Desika xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ ÌWû
zÉÉx§ÉÉhÉÑ xÉɤÉÉ²É mÉUqmÉUrÉÉ uÉÉ
mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉxÉqÉÉUÉkÉlÉiÉrÉÉ LuÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ ÌuÉSkÉÉÌiÉ || According to
Muktikopanishad, Vedanta contains the essence of the Upanishad. ÌiÉsÉåwÉÑ
iÉæsÉuÉiÉç uÉåSå uÉåSÉliÉÈ xÉÑmÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÈ || And the Kathopanishad says
xÉuÉåï uÉåSÉ rÉimÉSqÉÉqÉlÉÎliÉ iÉmÉÉÇÍxÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ cÉ rɲSÎliÉ |
rÉÌScNûliÉÉå oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ cÉUÎliÉ iɨÉå mÉSÇ xÉXçaÉëWåûhÉ
oÉëuÉÏqrÉÉåÍqÉirÉåiÉiÉç | The Taittiriya Aranyaka itself says xÉuÉåï uÉåSÉ rɧÉ
LMÇü pÉuÉÎliÉ || Thus the Acharyas opinion is supported by the Sruti texts themselves. If
we study the other religions also we find that the essence of their scriptures also is the same,

134
although the Buddhists and Jains are sometimes misunderstood as being atheists who do not
believe in a God. The essence of Christianity is said to be love & self sacrifice and it is this
that is represented by the Christian Symbol of the cross which represents the cutting off of the
‘I’. The very word Islam showing the essence of the teaching of Mohammed means complete
dedication of life to God through self surrender. We thus see how when we study all the
scriptures, our own as well as those of others, we come to understand that the essence of all
scriptures as Sri Ramakrishna has found by the actual practice of their teachings to be nothing
else than God realization through Tyaga & Yoga. This is what the Bhagavata says in the
words of Sanatkumara zÉÉx§ÉåwÉÑ CrÉÉlÉåuÉ xÉÑÌlÉͶÉiÉÉå lÉ×hÉÉÇ
¤ÉåqÉxrÉ xÉkêrÉXèû ÌuÉqÉ×zÉåwÉÑ WåûiÉÑÈ | AxÉ…¡ûÈ
AÉiqÉlrÉÌiÉËU£üuÉxiÉÑÌlÉ SØRûÉ UÌiÉoÉëï¼ÍhÉ ÌlÉaÉÑïhÉå cÉ rÉÉ ||
IV.22.21. Vide also Bhagavan's words to Uddhava in XI.13.14 LiÉÉuÉÉlÉç rÉÉåaÉ
AÉÌS¹Éå qÉÎcNûwrÉæÈ xÉlÉMüÉÌSÍpÉÈ | xÉuÉïiÉÉå qÉlÉ AÉM×üwrÉ qÉÌrÉ
A®É AÉuÉåzrÉiÉå rÉjÉÉ || Also XI.20.21 LwÉ uÉæ mÉUqÉÉå rÉÉåaÉÉå
qÉlÉxÉÈ xÉXçaÉëWûÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ | WØûSrÉ¥ÉiuÉqÉÎluÉcNûlÉç
SqrÉxrÉåuÉÉuÉïiÉÉå qÉÑWÒûÈ || Cf. also XI.23.46. SÉlÉÇ xuÉkÉqÉÉåï
ÌlÉrÉqÉÉå rÉqÉ¶É ´ÉÑiÉÇ cÉ MüqÉïÍhÉ cÉ xÉ°iÉÉÌlÉ | xÉuÉåï
qÉlÉÉåÌlÉaÉëWûsɤÉhÉÉliÉÉÈ mÉUÉå ÌWû rÉÉåaÉÉå qÉlÉxÉÈ xÉqÉÉÍkÉÈ ||
Also XI.23.61 iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉuÉÉïiqÉlÉÉ iÉÉiÉ ÌlÉaÉ×WûÉhÉ qÉlÉÉå ÍkÉrÉÉ |
qÉrrÉÉÌuÉÍzÉiÉrÉÉ rÉÑ£üqÉç LiÉÉuÉÉlÉç rÉÉåaÉxÉÇaÉëWûÈ || That is why
Gita which is considered the essence of the Srutis is called a Yoga sastra whose essence is
described by Sri Ramakrishna as Tyaga. When therefore, Manu says that Sruti is
kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉ he refers to this essence of the Srutis, viz. realization of God through Tyaga &
Yoga. No rule of conduct which goes against this essence of the scriptures can be considered
as Dharma, even if it finds a place in any Sruti. The inner voice of God is a guide always
directing man to achieve this goal and nothing else can be taken as the direction of God if it
goes against this fundamental principle. To one who has no direct access to this inner
guidance from God the records of the experience of the Rishis who had such guidance will be
the only safe guide, if this essence of the Srutis is not forgotten if one does not get confused
and lost in the midst of the details of these prescriptions given by the text. One who does not
base his conduct on this superconscious experience of the Rishis but chooses to guide himself
on the basis of his own sensual and worldly experiences and inferences based upon such
experiences is considered therefore, by Manu as an atheist. rÉÉåÅuÉqÉlrÉåiÉ iÉå
qÉÔsÉå WåûiÉÑzÉx§ÉÉ´ÉrÉÉiÉç ̲eÉÈ | xÉ xÉÉkÉÑÍpÉÈ oÉÌWûwMüÉrÉïÈ
lÉÉÎxiÉMüÉå uÉåSÌlÉlSMüÈ || II.11

We, therefore, see that we cannot expect to find in the Vedas prescriptions to guide us on
every possible occasion of doubt as to whether a proposed action is Dharma or Adharma. The
Sruti texts do not provide for all eventualities but provide only general guidance for a
virtuous conduct in general though the practice of Tyaga & Yoga. Each action will have to be
judged by oneself in the light of the principle of Tyaga & Yoga in relation to the particular
situation, conditions, circumstances etc. That is why Santi Parva 109 says in continuation of
the definition of Dharma as mÉëpÉuÉÉjÉï, AÌWÇûxÉÉjÉï and bÉÉUhÉÉjÉï Vide
´ÉÑÌiÉÈ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ ÌWû LMåü lÉåirÉÉWÒûUmÉUå eÉlÉÉÈ | lÉ iÉiÉç
mÉëirÉxÉÔrÉÉqÉÈ lÉ ÌWû xÉuÉïÇ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || That is why again Yudhishthira
finds fault with the doctrine that the Scriptures form the authority for Dharma. Vide Santi 260
declares in Sl.1 that it is safer to rely upon the guidance of inner light of Brahman or God
through reason. xÉÔ¤ÉqÉÇ xÉÉkÉÑ xÉqÉÑ̬¹Ç ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ oÉë¼sɤÉhÉqÉç |
mÉëÌiÉpÉÉ iÉÑ AÎxiÉ qÉå MüÉÍcÉiÉç iÉÉlÉç oÉëÔrÉÉqÉç AlÉÑqÉÉlÉiÉÈ || and
declares in Sloka 3 lÉ kÉqÉïÈ mÉËUmÉÉPåûlÉ zÉYrÉÇ uÉåÌSiÉÑqÉç and points out

135
as his authority the fact of even persons well versed in the scriptures behaving differently on
different occasions such conduct living often opposed to each other, as is admitted by the
declaration that the Dharmas are different at different ages. AlrÉå M×üiÉrÉÑaÉå
kÉqÉÉïÈ etc. He finds the essence of Dharma as practiced by all vedic scholars of old to
consise in sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. AÉqlÉÉrÉuÉcÉlÉÇ xÉirÉqÉç CirÉrÉÇ
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûÈ | AÉqlÉÉrÉåprÉÈ mÉÑlÉuÉåïSÉÈ mÉëxÉ×iÉÉÈ
xÉuÉïiÉÉåqÉÑZÉÉ || The prescriptions themselves based on differences in conduct suited
to particular occasions cannot be considered because of the opposition between them. iÉå
cÉåiÉç xÉuÉïmÉëqÉÉhÉÇ uÉæ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ ÌWû A§É ÌuɱiÉå |
mÉëqÉÉhÉåÅÌmÉ AmÉëqÉÉhÉålÉ ÌuÉ®å zÉÉx§ÉiÉÉ M×üiÉÈ || Sometimes we
do understand Dharma from the scriptures but at other times we do not. Not all people can be
Vedic scholars who can get guidance from the texts. Sometimes it is not possible even for
Vedic scholars to get the guidance from the texts itself even if they search for such guidance
as the texts are so confusing. Though the directions given in the texts appear at first sight so
very clear and to the point, on closer scrutiny we find them to be too subtle and elusive to be
effective as a safe guide. ÌuÉ© cÉæuÉ lÉ uÉÉ ÌuÉ©È zÉYrÉÇ uÉÉ uÉåÌSiÉÑÇ lÉ
uÉÉ | AhÉÏrÉÉlÉç ¤ÉÑUkÉÉUÉrÉÉÈ aÉUÏrÉÉlÉÌmÉ mÉuÉïiÉÉiÉç |
aÉlkÉuÉïlÉaÉUÉMüÉUÉÈ mÉëjÉqÉÇ xÉqmÉëSØzrÉiÉå | AluÉϤrÉqÉÉhÉÈ
MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ mÉÑlÉaÉïcNûÌiÉ ASzÉïlÉqÉç ||

We thus see that even the ancients who wanted to emphaise the supreme authority of the
scriptures could not find direct solutions of all problems of kÉqÉï in the prescription of the
Vedas themselves and had to resort to their own inner light of Brahman in cases of
kÉqÉïxɃ¡ûOèû, the conflicts of kÉqÉï. The texts could give them some general
principles such as Tyaga & Yoga, sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, xÉuÉïpÉÔUÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ,
AÌWÇûxÉÉ, kÉÉUhÉÉ, mÉëpÉuÉ, xÉirÉ, etc. When therefore, Jaimini defines kÉqÉï
as ÍcÉSlÉÉsɤÉhÉÉåÅjÉÉåï kÉqÉïÈ we would not understand the word cÉÉåSlÉÉ as
meaning the mere prescription of scriptures as orthodox commentators understand. The word
cÉÉåSlÉÉ means the urge or the moral compulsion from inside given by the Atman or God
as we have explained before. This is the sense in which it is used in the famous Gayatri
Prayer. ÍkÉrÉÉå rÉÉå lÉÈ mÉëcÉÉåSrÉÉiÉç | That is why the Maitrayini Upanishad
calls the Atman mÉëcÉÉåSÌrÉiÉÉ in II.3 mÉëcÉÉåSÌrÉiÉÉ cÉ LwÉÈ AxrÉ | refers to
the body as chariot. That is why the Svetasvatara I.6&12 calls the Atman or God
mÉëåËUiÉÉ. mÉ×jÉaÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ mÉëåËUiÉÉUÇ cÉ qÉiuÉÉ, pÉÉå£üÉ
pÉÉåarÉÇ mÉëåËUiÉÉUÇ cÉ qÉiuÉÉ || etc. for the word mÉëåËUiÉ means the same
thing as mÉëÉærÉÉåÌSiÉ×. It is this directing or command from God in our own hearts in
difficult situations and cases of Charmasankada that forms a safe guide. One has to appeal to
the guidance of God from inside for guidance in matters of Dharma in a prayerful mood as
Arjuna approaches Sri Krishna for such guidance Vide MüÉmÉïhrÉSÉåwÉÉåmÉWûiÉÈ
xuÉpÉÉuÉÈ etc. Also DµÉUxxÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ etc. as opposed to
rÉSWÇûƒ¡ûÉUqÉÉÍxÉëirÉ ... mÉëM×üÌiÉxiuÉÉÇ ÌlÉrÉÉå¤rÉÌiÉ. Even in most
difficult situations such as inner guidance is always available to all devotees who are
sincerely interested in Dharma and in Sreyas & not in Preyas. That is why Kalidasa has said
though in a different context xÉiÉÉÇ ÌWû xÉlSåWûmÉSåwÉÑ uÉxiÉÑwÉÑ
mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉliÉÈMüUhÉmÉëuÉרÉrÉÈ || This rule helped only people who are
sincerely interested in Dharma and whose minds are pure and free from passion and who can
have sufficient tranquility and concentration of mind and freedom from external distractions
to dive deep into their own minds and to hear the voice of God. But this does not mean that
this inner guidance is not available to everybody. Only they must be able to hear the voice

136
which they will not be able to do if they are distracted by the external world, desires and
attachments etc. In the case of ordinary persons the voice from inside will not be the pure
voice of God but coloured by the impurity of their own mind. Such people will, therefore, be
benefited if they hear the voice of God not through their own impure minds but through the
pure minds of living, available realized man whom they accept as Guru. It is the commands
and directions in matters of Dharma that are recorded in various scriptures as they were given
to different disciples on different occasions to suit their different Adhikaras in particular
situations in which these disciples sought their help. If the situations are similar the
prescriptions given by the Srutis will also be helpful. It is only in this sense that the orthodox
people are justified in understanding the word cÉÉåSlÉÉ as referring to the prescriptions of
the texts.

No doubt Jaimini who defined Dharma thus might have been interested only in finding out
the true import of the Vedic prescriptions. But if his definition is properly understood is more
liberal and covers wider ground than perhaps actually intended by him in the context. Even
later Mimamsa writers such as Prabhakara think that the Vedic prescriptions only reveal
universal moral law. According to them the authority of Vedic prescriptions to urge us
depends upon the response & approval given by one’s own moral sense. The definition
represents Dharma as that goal of life or Artha which is laid down and characterized by this
Chodana or moral urge supported by the evidence of the Srutis which are records of such
actions inspired by the Sama inner urge in ancient times. If we understand the definition in
this sense it will serve us as some guide even to people to today. Otherwise to us who never
study the Srutis and to others to whom such study is prohibited it will never serve as
guidance. It is a fact also that all Sruti prescriptions as such in their ritualistic form have
practically gone out of use in course of time and it is only the essencial and universal aspect
of their teachings that survives to this day in different forms of the rituals as prescribed by
other texts. It is therefore that Manu has found it necessary to include the later texts on
Dharma such as the Smritis as a supplementary source of Dharma even says that one cannot
reap the fruit of studying the Veda if one is pulled away from xÉSÉcÉÉUç. Vide Manu
I.109 AcÉÉUÉiÉç ÌuÉcrÉÑiÉå ÌuÉmÉëÈ lÉ uÉåSTüsÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå | cf. also Vasishtha
AÉcÉÉUWûÏlÉÇ lÉ mÉÑlÉÎliÉ uÉåSÉÈ | rɱmrÉkÉÏiÉÉÈ xÉWû wÉÎQèpÉU…
¡æûÈ || These texts have come into existence at a time when the old vedic texts had become
practically defunct among the masses and the study was confined to a small select number of
people who were interested in such study. The few people who studied these ancient Srutis
were the only guides to the ordinary man in matters of life and conduct and they wanted to
organize social & individual life and conduct in terms of what they remembered about the
ancient teachings. One of the reasons for calling these texts ‘Smritis’ is that they are based
upon such memory which still survived in the minds of the few who were still trying to live
in the light of the ancient teachings. The purpose of these texts also is to provide in the
languagae of the day some means by which the common man can still remember what the
ancient Rishis taught and guide himself in the light of such teachings. But naturally in the
course of transmission of these teachings by word of mouth from generation to generation
these ancient teachings got mixed up with so many alien ideas. They became also coloured by
the defects of memory and the limitations of those later writers' intellectual and moral
capacities. They also wanted to frame rules consistent with the teaching of the ancient Rishis
to meet the needs of later generations and to provide for fresh situations which arose in later
times and which were not forseen or provided for in the ancient Sruti texts. But in doing this
they always took care to see that the fresh rules were only practical application and
corollaries of the teachings of the Srutis. They had therefore to remember at every time the

137
ancient teachings as they understood when they framed fresh rules. Many texts were already
gone out of existence by the time the Smirits were written and when they had to provide for
these situations not provided for by the current texts they had to resort to a legal question that
this fresh legislation was based upon the teachings of one or the other of these forgotten
branches of Srutis whose teaching only they remembered. Cf. Apastamba
iÉåwÉÉqÉÑixɳÉÉÈ mÉÉPûÉÈ mÉërÉÉåaÉÉSlÉÑqÉÏrÉliÉå | They also took care
to ensure that the careless generation of their days should remember at least a small portion of
the Vedic Mantras by associating with the chanting of the special Mantras with all their daily
acts such as bathing eating etc. In providing for the repetition for these Mantras they not only
provided for the rememberance of these Mantras but the rememberance of God at every stage
of life as well as of the final goal of life. Thus these works came to be called Smritis as their
prescription were based upon ´ÉÑÌiÉ as well as meant for xqÉ×ÌiÉ (xqÉUhÉqÉç). This is
what is suggested by the words of Marici SÒuÉÉïkÉÉÈ uÉæÌSMüÉzzÉoSÉÈ
mÉëMüÐhÉïiuÉÉŠ rÉå ÎZÉsÉÉÈ | iÉ§É LiÉå LuÉ SعÉjÉÉïÈ xqÉ×ÌiÉiÉl§Éå
mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉÈ || where mÉëMüÐhÉïiuÉÉiÉç means being mixed up or jumbled up with
alien and fresh matter. ÎZÉsÉÉÈ refers to gaps in ancient teachings. The word SعÉjÉÉïÈ
may be noted – it means those rules whose effectiveness was actually seen in practice
through experience. It also means that these rules are meant not for obtaining something in
another word but for life here and now, unlike the Vedic prescriptions which aimed at
celestial falicity. It is meant to emphasis that the writer of these Smritis wanted the masses to
understand that these rules are helpful even if in this life even though they did not believe in
or care not for future life. This is what Manu says ´ÉÑÌiÉÇ mÉzrÉÎliÉ qÉÑlÉrÉÈ
xqÉUÎliÉ cÉ iÉjÉÉ xqÉ×ÌiÉqÉç the Srutis are actual records of actrual realizations
whereas Smritis are based upon the rememberance of these truths. These Smriti texts include
all the later religious literature written in popular language professedly in interpretation of the
teachings of the Srutis. That is why in the Brahmasutra the author referes even to the M.bh.
and Gita and the Puranas only as Smritis. The texts as they are available now are later
editions by lesser people as the present text of the Manusmriti itself declares as the record of
Bhjrigu as he understood the ancient teachings of the original Manu.

The later compilers of the Smriti Mukhaphala, Smritichandrika, etc are drawn upon not
merely on the so called Smriti but also upon M.bh, various Puranas, Tantras etc.thereby
admitiing that they have taken all those texts as Smritis. These smritis are sometime classified
as Sattvica, Rajasa and Tamasa as in the Padma Purana according to the prejudice of the
particular writer. This show that even in the eyes of orthodox writers all Smriti texts are not
of equal authority. What one considers as authoritative another condemns as unauthoritative.
The one original smriti to which all pay reverence and respect in the law as laid down by the
ancient Svyambhuva Manu. Tait. Sam. 2.2.10.2 (vide Su Br 2.1.1) Vide rɲæ ÌMügcÉ
qÉlÉÑUuÉSiÉç iÉ°åwÉeÉqÉç. Also Angirasa's words rÉimÉÔuÉïÇ qÉlÉÑlÉÉ
mÉëÉå£Çü kÉqÉïzÉÉx§ÉqÉlÉѨÉqÉqÉç | lÉ ÌWû iÉiÉç xÉqÉÌiÉ¢üqrÉ uÉcÉlÉÇ
ÌWûiÉqÉÉiqÉMüqÉç || uÉåSÉSÒmÉÌlÉoÉ®iuÉÉiÉç mÉëÉkÉÉlrÉÇ iÉÑ qÉlÉÉåÈ
xqÉ×iÉqÉç | qÉluÉjÉïÌuÉmÉUÏiÉÉ iÉÑ rÉÉ xqÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ lÉ zÉxrÉiÉå || &
which is not available now. But even in the case of the old code of Manu, Parasara says that it
is suted only to Krita Yuga & he also adds that it is Gautama who is authoritative for
Tretayuga, Shankhalikhita for Dwapara and his own text for Kaliyuga. But this claim is not
accepted by other writers. Brihaspati says that a Smriti opposed to Manu has to be discarded.
But as a matter of fact we find that many of the rules laid down by the present Manusmriti
have been declared as unacceptable by later writers and actually given up in later orthodox
practice. Eg. his provision about offering of meat and fish in Sraddhas, etc. Again the very
fact that provision is made in the Smriti themselves for Dharma to decide on doubtful

138
questions of law and morality shows that these writers themselves were conscious of the
possibility of differences of opinion about the supreme authority of their own codes. The
writers who profess to summarise and harmonise the different rules laid down by various
texts differ amongst themselves about the rules of conduct to be followed in particular
situation. Even legal experts in codes of law in modern times have differed among
themselves as to what constitutes Hindu law according to Smriti. Different commentators on
the same texts differ from one another on their interpretation of the Sama text. If thus
orthodox legal and moral experts well versed in the interpretation of the texts cannot come to
a decision as to what constitutes Dharma on the basis of mere interpretation of these texts
how much more difficult it must be for an ordinary man to guide himself in his everyday life
by mere resort to these texts. So from practical stand point these texts fail as safe guide in
matters of Dharma. But if you look at the principles adopted by these writers on Dharma
when they prepared new codes at different times we can adopt these priciples even in our
daily life today when there is doubt abou the morality of a particular action. There is a
concensus of opinion among the Smriti writers about some of these fundamental principles.
Thus, for eg. we see Manu declaring AaiqÉiɨuÉÇ as one of the safest principles of
Dharma Vide the EmÉ¢üqÉ & EmÉxÉÇWûÉU of the present text Sl.I.108 says ÌlÉirÉÇ
xrÉÉiÉç AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç ̲eÉÈ | So also in the end in XII.118 xÉuÉïqÉÉiqÉÌlÉ
xÉqmÉzrÉåiÉç xÉŠ AxÉŠ xÉqÉÌWûiÉÈ | xÉuÉï ÌWû AÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉqmÉzrÉlÉç lÉ
AkÉqÉåï MÑüÂiÉå qÉlÉÈ || The very last Sloka of Manu Smriti (Sl.125) says LuÉÇ rÉ
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ mÉzrÉirÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ | xÉ xÉuÉïxÉqÉiÉÉqÉåirÉ
oÉë¼ÉprÉåÌiÉ iÉiÉç mÉUqÉç || So also in Sl.91 of the same chapter
xÉuÉpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ cÉ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉUuÉopÔiÉÉÌlÉ cÉÉÅiqÉÌlÉ | xÉqÉÇ
mÉzrÉlÉç AÉiqÉrÉÉeÉÏ xuÉÉUÉerÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || The Svarajyam here includes
the right and the capacity to decide Dharma for oneself by oneself without being bound by
particular texts or prescription of Srutis or Smritis. This is what is laid down in the Gita when
Ch. II Bhagavan says §ÉæaÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ uÉåSÉ ÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉÉå
pÉuÉÉeÉÑïlÉ | Ìlɲïl²Éå ÌlÉirÉxɨuÉxjÉÉå ÌlÉrÉÉåïaɤÉåqÉ AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç || It is
the same principle that is laid down in terms of Atmaupamya & Samtva in the sixth chapter
as also repeatedly in various other chapters and this is what is refered to to in the final
conclusion of the Gita xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlÉç mÉËUirÉerÉ qÉÉqÉåMÇü zÉUhÉÇ uÉëeÉ |
AWÇû iuÉÉÇ xÉuÉïmÉÉmÉåprÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉÌrÉwrÉÉÍqÉ qÉÉ zÉÑcÉÈ || surrender
to the Atman or God inside and living in the light of the direction given by him sacrificing all
selfishness and self interest – AWûƒ¡éÉU, qÉqÉMüÉUç, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. is the
one principle which one can safely rely upon as the essence of the teaching of all Smirits,
however divergent their actual prescription may appear to be. It is this constant xqÉUhÉqÉç
of God as the root as well as the fruit of Dharma & recognizing Him & one’s own Atman in
the whole universe and loving whole universe as one’s own self or God and sacrificing
everything for the good and welfare of the world is the essence of Smarta Dharma as declared
repeatedly by all Smritis, Puranas and Tantras as the highest Dharma. It is this that entitles
these texts to be known as Smritis. We thus see how the Smritis & Srutis are one in their
essence and that is why both of them are included as sources of Dharma by all Smriti writers.
When therefore, Manu says that a Smriti which goes agains Sruti it should be given as
unauthorized – he only means that all Smriti texts which go against this fundamental
principle and which are based only on purely worldly considerations do not deserve to be
followed. It is a recognized principle as Langakshi puts it ´ÉÑÌiÉxqÉ×ÌiÉÌuÉUÉåkÉå iÉÑ
´ÉÑÌiÉUåuÉ aÉUÏrÉxÉÏ | Manu himself as we have already noted before explains in his
concluding chapter how all the Karmas prescribed by him are authoritative only beause of
their being based on this teachings of the Srutis and that all prescriptions that go against this
essence of the Vedas deserve to be discarded. rÉÉ uÉåSoÉɽÉÈ xqÉ×iÉrÉÈ rÉɶÉ

139
MüÉ¶É MÑüSعrÉÈ | (MÑüSعrÉÈ means that they are based on worldly
considerations) xÉuÉÉxiÉÉ ÌlÉwTüsÉÉÈ mÉëåirÉ iÉqÉÉåÌlɸÉÈ ÌWû iÉÉÈ
xqÉ×iÉÉÈ || EimɱliÉå crÉuÉliÉå cÉ rÉÉÌlÉ AiÉÉå AlrÉÉÌlÉ MüÉÌlÉÍcÉiÉç |
iÉÉÌlÉ AuÉÉïMçüMüÉÍsÉMüiÉrÉÉ ÌlÉwTüsÉÉÌlÉ AlÉ×iÉÉÌlÉ cÉ || This he says
immediately after his description of xuÉÉUÉerÉ as already noted above in XII.91 and his
declaration in Sl. 92&93 rÉjÉÉå£üÉlrÉÌmÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ mÉËUWûÉrÉ Ì²eÉÉå¨ÉqÉÈ
| AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉå zÉqÉå cÉæuÉ uÉåSÉprÉÉxÉå cÉ rɦÉuÉÉlÉç || LiÉή
eÉlqÉxÉÉTüsrÉÇ oÉëɼhÉxrÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | mÉëÉmrÉ LiÉiÉç
M×üiÉM×üirÉÉå ÌWû ̲eÉÉå pÉÎuiÉ lÉÉlrÉjÉÉ || All prescriptions given by him in
the body of the text are meant only to achieve this and by providing opportunities for spiritual
and moral Sadhana based upon the fundamental teachings of the ancient Rishis.
uÉåSÉprÉÉxÉÈ iÉmÉÉå ¥ÉÉlÉÍqÉÎlSìrÉÉhÉÉÇ cÉ xÉÇrÉqÉÈ | AÌWÇûxÉÉ
aÉÑÂxÉåuÉÉ cÉ ÌlÉÈ´ÉårÉxÉMüUÇ mÉUqÉç || xÉuÉåïwÉÉqÉÌmÉ
cÉæiÉåwÉÉÇ zÉÑpÉÉlÉÉÍqÉWû MüqÉïhÉÉqÉç | ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç ´ÉårÉxMüUiÉUÇ
MüqÉï E£Çü mÉÑÂwÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ || xÉuÉåïwÉÉqÉÌmÉ
cÉæiÉåwÉÉqÉÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ mÉUÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç | iÉή AaÉëçrÉÇ
xÉuÉïÌuɱÉlÉÉÇ mÉëÉmrÉiÉå ÌWû AqÉ×iÉÇ rÉiÉÈ || uÉæÌSMåü
MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉå iÉÑ xÉuÉÉïhrÉåiÉÉÌlÉ AzÉåwÉiÉÈ | AliÉpÉïuÉÎliÉ ¢üqÉzÉÈ
iÉÎxqÉlÉç iÉÎxqÉlÉç Ì¢ürÉÉÌuÉkÉÉæ || That is what Yajnavalkya also means when he
says that the highest Dharma is AÉiqÉSzÉïlÉÇ through rÉÉåaÉ. Cf. of I.8. CerÉÉ
AÉcÉÉU SqÉÉ AÌWÇûxÉÉ SÉlÉÈ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉMüqÉïhÉÉqÉç | ArÉÇ iÉÑ
mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ rɱÉåaÉålÉÉÅÅiqÉSzÉïlÉqÉç || cf. also Brihaspati
pÉÉåaÉåwuÉxÉÌ£üÈ xÉiÉiÉÇ iÉjÉæuÉ AÉiqÉÉuÉsÉÉåMülÉqÉç | ´ÉårÉÈ
mÉUÇ qÉlÉÑwrÉÉhÉÉÇ mÉëÉWû mÉgcÉÍzÉZÉÉå qÉÑÌlÉÈ || All rules of
conduct, therefore, which are prescriptions go against this principle it does not deserve the
name Smriti. These Smriti texts are man made and are affected by human considerations and
they are not therefore above human criticism. cf. Apastamba's words
xÉqÉÉrÉÉcÉÉËUMüÉlÉç kÉqÉÉïlÉç urÉZrÉÉxrÉÉqÉÈ | kÉqÉï¥ÉxÉqÉrÉÈ
mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç || xÉqÉrÉ is explained by the commentator Haradatta as
mÉÉæÂwÉårÉÏ urÉuÉxjÉÉ. One has the right to accept or reject them if one finds them
to be against the very priciples admitted by Smritikaras themselves. Many of the rules
incorporated in the Smritis as we find them today might have been only based upon the
judicial decision of the Dharma Parishads or courts of law in relation to particular case
refered to them for decision and suit the particular situation and may not have universal value
as in the case of the case law of modern days. What is decided by one court as just and fair
under particular circumstances may not be accepteable to the other. Vide Manu XII.110-13
SzÉÉuÉUÉ uÉÉ mÉËUwÉSè rÉÇ kÉqÉïÇ mÉËUMüsrÉrÉåiÉç | §rÉuÉUÉ
uÉÉÅÌmÉ uÉרÉxjÉÉÈ iÉÇ kÉqÉïÇ lÉ ÌuÉcÉÉsÉrÉåiÉç || §ÉæÌuɱÉå
WæûiÉÑMüÈ iÉMüÏï lÉæ£üÉå kÉqÉïmÉÉjÉMüÈ | §ÉrÉ¶É AÉ´ÉÍqÉhÉÈ
mÉÔuÉåï mÉËUwÉSè xrÉÉiÉç SzÉÉuÉUÉ || GauÉåSÌuÉiÉç rÉeÉÑÌuÉïiÉç cÉ
xÉÉqÉuÉåSÌuÉSåuÉ cÉ | §rÉuÉUÉ mÉËUwÉSè ¥ÉårÉÉ
kÉqÉïxÉÇzÉrÉÌlÉhÉïrÉå || LMüÉåÅÌmÉ uÉåSÌuÉSè kÉqÉïÇ rÉÇ urÉuÉxrÉåiÉç
̲eÉÉå¨ÉqÉÈ xÉ ÌuÉ¥ÉårÉÈ mÉUÉå kÉqÉÉåï lÉ A¥ÉÉlÉÉqÉÑÌSiÉÉå ArÉÑiÉæÈ
|| AuÉëiÉÉlÉÉqÉqÉl§ÉÉhÉÉÇ eÉÉÌiÉqÉɧÉÉåmÉeÉÏÌuÉlÉÉÇ | xÉWûxÉëzÉÈ
xÉqÉåiÉÉlÉÉÇ mÉËUwiuÉÇ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå || rÉÇ uÉSÎliÉ iÉqÉÉåpÉÔiÉÉÈ
qÉÔZÉÉïÈ kÉqÉïÈ AiÉ̲SÈ | iÉiÉç mÉÉmÉÇ zÉiÉkÉÉ pÉÔiuÉÉ
iɲ£ÚülÉlÉÑaÉcNûÌiÉ || According to this a judicial committee should consist of ten
experts wherever possible or at least three even if that is not possible the court may be
constituted of only one expert. If the court is constituted of only one judge he must be well
versed in Vedas, if three are available each of them must be a specialist in one of the three

140
Vedas, where circumstances are favourable the court should consist of three people each of
whom is an expert at least in one of the three Vedas, one of who is clever in weighing the
pros and cons, another who is an expert in logic, another an expert in Dharmasastra and one
each to represent the first three Ashramas and one who is clever in interpretation of texts.
This Parishad is refered in other Smiritis also as in Yagjnavalkya in I.9 cÉiuÉÉUÉå
uÉåSkÉqÉï¥ÉÉ mÉËUwÉiÉç §ÉæÌuɱqÉåuÉ uÉÉ | xÉÉ oÉëÔiÉå rÉÇ xÉ kÉqÉï
xrÉÉiÉç LMüÉå uÉÉ AbrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉÈ || According to Yajnavalkya, one
AkrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉÈ can constitute a court for decision on Dharma. It is a distinct advance
on what Manu said unless uÉåSÌuÉiÉç in Manu’s passage means the same as
AkrÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉ in Yajnavalkya. Perhaps what the two mean may be only that a spiritual
expert is more capable of deciding what true Dharma is than more students of the Vedas or
lawyers or pandits. When we come to Parasara, one of the largest Smritikaras, we find a
Parishat to be legally constituted if it consists merely of three or four vedic scholars
cÉiuÉÉUÉå uÉÉ §ÉrÉÉå uÉÉÅÌmÉ rÉÇ oÉëÔrÉÑÈ uÉåSmÉÉUaÉÉÈ | xÉ kÉqÉï
CÌiÉ ÌuÉ¥ÉårÉÉå lÉ CiÉUæxiÉÑ xÉWûxÉëzÉÈ || Perhaps by the time of Parasara
Adhyatmavit might have become very rare and he had to be contended by the kings of the
day who were always depotic and autocratic in their powers; the decisions of many of these
courts which must have been serving to the kings naturally must have been influenced by the
ideas and prejudices of the king himself and could not have been the real considered opinion
of this court on Dharma in its moral and spiritual sense. Cf. the stories in the Puranas about
the behaviour of the Brahmanas in the courts of Hiranyakashipu, Vena, Kamsa, Jarasandha,
Ravana, Sishupala etc. the members of the courts themselves were not above cupidity,
selfishness and prejudices of their own and may therefore have been carried away more by
consideration of thei own self-interest than by pure abstract principles of Dharma and
therefore many of the teachings of the Smritis glorifying Brahmana caste at the expense of
othes and decrying the Sudras may not have been based upon pure considerations of Dharma.
As a matter of fact as we have already noted, many of the ancient rights and privileges of
women and Sudras have been curtailed in later times and Garhasthya is glorified as superior
to the other Ashramas for these reasons. Vide notes on status of women in ancient India and
zÉÔSìÉÍkÉMüÉU. It is this that Yudhishthira refers to when he says in Santi 260 that
powerful persons have all often suppressed the ancient rules of conduct and introduced new
rules & their own and therefore all the rules of the Smriti cannot be considered as
authoritative. kÉqÉïxrÉ Ì¢ürÉqÉÉhÉxrÉ oÉsÉuÉÎ°È SÒUÉiqÉÍpÉÈ | rÉÉ rÉÉ ÌuÉÌ
¢ürÉiÉå xÉÇxjÉÉ iÉiÉÈ xÉÉÅÌmÉ mÉëhÉzrÉÌiÉ || xqÉ×ÌiÉÌWïû zÉɵÉiÉÉå
kÉqÉÉåï ÌuÉmÉëWûÏlÉÉå lÉ SØzrÉiÉå | MüÉqÉÉiÉç AlrÉåcNûrÉÉ cÉÉlrÉå
MüÉUhÉæUmÉUæxiÉjÉÉ || AxÉliÉÉåÅÌmÉ uÉ×jÉÉÅÅcÉÉUÇ pÉeÉliÉå
oÉWûuÉÉåÅmÉUå || Therefore it is unsafe to rely entirely upon all the prescriptions of
the Smirits as authoritative in matters of Dharma. There must be some other principle by
which we have to judge whether a prescription of the Smriti itself is Dharma or not. Such a
principle is admitted by the Smritis themselves to be the docrine of AÉiqÉiɨuÉ, mentioned
above. It will be seen on reading the Smritis that they temsleves take it for granted as one of
their central doctrines the fact of difference in AÍkÉMüÉU of different persons and it is to
point out the differences in Dharma due to such differences in Adhikara that they spend most
of their energies. It is admitted by all that the Dharmas of different Ashramas as well as of
Varnas are different and therefore they declare their main intention to be to expound
Nainashramadharma. As we have already noted above Varnasramadharma is only the
practical application of the fundamental principles of xÉÉqÉÉlrÉkÉqÉï to the needs of the
society as well as the individual in varying situations, conditions & circumstances of actual
life. It is not, therefore, surprising that the original rules of uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉkÉqÉï were based
on aÉÑhÉMüqÉï as Bhagavan points out in the Gita IV-13: cÉÉiÉÑuÉïhrÉïÇ qÉrÉÉ

141
xÉ×¹Ç aÉÑhÉMüqÉïÌuÉpÉÉaÉzÉÈ | See also the fundamental principles of Dharma of
each of the four groups given in the XVIII chapter all of which are based upon the
Samanyadharma as adapted to the needs of society. Mutual co-operation and help and service
for rising up gradually to the highest height of perfection which everyone is capable of
according to his inherent tendencies and character (xuÉpÉÉuÉ) without any abstruction
from others and according to the law of least resistence is the only principle involved in the
organization of the society known as cÉÉiÉÑuÉïhrÉï or uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉ. Any of the rules of
Smriti, therefore, which goes against this fundamental principle cannot be considered as part
of the original teachings of the Rishis of vedic days. Freedom is the very essence of their
teaching and they could not have given any teaching which restricts this freedom of the
individual to grow to his full heights morally and spiritually and socially, according to each
individual’s Adhikara. It is because of this confusion in the teachings of the Smriti texts
written at various times that it is found necessary to prescribe a third test of Dharma to
supplement the textual prescriptions of Smriti and Sruti. This is what is refered to in the
M.bh. when it says iÉMüÉåïÅmÉëÌiÉ¸È ´ÉÑiÉrÉÉå ÌuÉÍpɳÉÉ lÉæMüÉå GÌwÉ
rÉxrÉ uÉcÉÈ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç | kÉqÉïxrÉ iɨuÉÇ ÌlÉÌWûiÉÇ aÉÑWûÉrÉÉÇ
qÉWûÉeÉlÉÉå rÉålÉ aÉiÉÈ xÉ mÉljÉÉÈ || The first two lines point out the necessity
for an independent principle as a test of Dharma other than Sruti & Smriti texts. The third line
says that principle is hidden in the cave of one’s own heart. This is surely a reference to the
Atman and AÉiqÉuÉiuÉÇ as the fundamental independent principle of Dharma. The fourth
line shows that all great men in ancient times were guided by this principle in matters of
Dharma and that it behaves us also to follow this principle following in the footsteps of the
great Rishis of ole. The last two lines are often misunderstood by the orthodox commentators
as well as modern interpreters who follow them. They take it as meaning that Dharma is
inscrutable and mysterious and that one’s safety lies only in following the practices of
conduct of great people. If we understand in this sense we cannot get out of the difficulty
presented by the first two line, we have still to decide who is the Mahajana and which among
the Mahajanas who differ from eath other is to be followed in a particular situation, because
we find as a matter of fact from the various stories placed before us as illustrations of the
conduct and behaviour of great personality in the past that they differ from each other
materially. It is not unoften that we find some of them behaving against all common rules of
morality and justice as usually understood by us on the basis of the teachings of the text as
well as our own reason and natural moral sense. These are called kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉ’s. This
is refered to by the Smritikaras themselves. Vide Manu II. kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÉå SعÈ
´Éå¸ÉlÉÉÇ xÉÉWûxÉÇ iÉjÉÉ | iÉSluÉϤrÉ mÉërÉÑgcÉÉlÉÉÈ xÉÏSÌiÉ
AuÉUeÉÉåÅmÉUÈ || Vide also Apastamba II.13.7-9 SعÉå kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÈ
xÉÉWûxÉÇ cÉ mÉÔuÉåïwÉÉqÉç || Also Gautama I.3-4 SعÉå kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÈ
xÉÉWûxÉÇ cÉ qÉWûiÉÉqÉç || etc. This is what is referred to by Shuka in the
Bhagavatam with regards to Krishna’s relations with Gopis.

To the question of Parikshit about the apparent immorality of Krishna’s relations with the
Gopis, Shuka answers that these apparent kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉs & xÉÉWûxÉÉs may not
affect realized persons detrimentally like fire which is not made impure by any dirt thrown
into it. kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÉå SØ¹È DµÉUÉhÉÉÇ cÉ xÉÉWûxÉqÉç | iÉåeÉÏrÉxÉÉÇ
lÉ SÉåwÉÉrÉ uÉ»åûÈ xÉuÉïpÉÑeÉÉå rÉjÉÉ || But he warns that if ordinary persons
tried to imitate such conduct they would do so at their own risk. It would be foolish to try to
imitate them in these matters as to try to swallow poison merely because Siva has done it.
lÉæiÉiÉç xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç eÉÉiÉÑ qÉlÉxÉÉÅmrÉlÉϵÉUÈ | ÌuÉlÉzrÉirÉÉcÉUlÉç
qÉÉæžÉiÉç rÉjÉÉÅÂSìÉå AÎokÉeÉÇ ÌuÉwÉqÉç || He therefore, says one would do
well not to imitate their actions but act according to the instructions given by them for the

142
guidance of conduct although there may not be any harm in following in their footsteps in
such of their actions as are consistent with their teachings. DµÉUÉhÉÉÇ uÉcÉÈ xÉirÉÇ
iÉjÉæuÉ AÉcÉËUiÉÇ YuÉÍcÉiÉç | iÉåwÉÉÇ rÉiÉç xuÉuÉcÉÉå rÉÑ£Çü
oÉÑήqÉÉlÉç iÉiÉç xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç | He then explains what the principle adopted by
these realized men in their life and conduct which saves them from the detrimental
consequences of their actions and which therefore may be adopted by us also as the guiding
principle from egoism, Kama, Krodha etc. MÑüzÉsÉålÉÉcÉËUiÉålÉæwÉÉÇ CWû
xuÉÉjÉÉåï lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | ÌuÉmÉrÉïrÉåhÉ uÉÉÅlÉjÉïWèû ÌlÉiÉWûƒ¡ûÉËUhÉÉÇ
mÉëpÉÉå || This principle is quite in keeping with Krishna’s own teaching in the Gita and
so can safely be adopted by us also as a guide to our conduct. This is what he says in the
XVIII chapter rÉxrÉ lÉÉWûƒ¡ÙûiÉÉå pÉÉuÉÈ etc. This explanation given by Suka is
consistent with which Krishna himself has said in the 3rd chapter rÉxrÉSÉcÉUÌiÉ ´Éå¸È
etc. and quotes his own life as an example of his own teaching lÉ qÉå mÉÉjÉÉïÎxiÉ
MüiÉïurÉÇ etc. and concludes with xÉ£üÉÈ MüqÉïhÉrÌuɲÉÇxÉÉå rÉjÉÉ
MÑüuÉïÎliÉ pÉÉUiÉ |
MÑürÉÉï̲²ÉÇxiÉjÉÉxÉ£üͶÉMüÐwÉÑïsÉÉåïMüxÉÇaÉëWûqÉç || Here we have a
clear enunciation of the positive and negative principles of conduct or Dharma viz. Tyaga and
Yoga. Purification of the mind or that of the ego and all its appurtenances such as MüÉqÉ,
¢üÉåkÉ, sÉÉåpÉ, etc and service of others so as to help them to attain spiritual
enlightenment. This is the principle approved by Manu also when he says at the beginning of
the 2nd chapter 1st Sloka about the character of Dharma laid down by him. ÌuɲΰÈ
xÉåÌuÉiÉÈ xÉΰÌlÉïirÉqɲåwÉUÉÌaÉÍpÉÈ | ™SrÉålÉÉprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÉå rÉÉå
kÉqÉïxiÉÇ ÌlÉoÉÉåkÉiÉ || ÌuÉ²Î°È here means not mere pundits but what Bhagavan
refers to in the Sloka quoted above. It refers to realized persons or Jivanmuktas. They are
characterized also asA²åwÉUÉÌaÉÍpÉÈ who are free from UÉaÉ, ²åwÉ, etc xÉåÌuÉiÉÈ
refers to that it is not merely an abstract principle which is not tried out in practice. These
principles have been actually put into practice by all Vidwans. The plural shows that it is not
practiced by only one man but by generations of realized persons time and again. ÌlÉirÉÇ
means that this is an eternal & universal rule of conduct. xÉÎ°È refers to the fact of their
having realized the highest Truth or xÉiÉç and whose conduct is based upon such
realization. Cf. Gita XVII-26: xÉ°ÉuÉå xÉÉkÉÑpÉÉuÉå cÉ
xÉÌSirÉåiÉimÉërÉÑerÉiÉå | mÉëzÉxiÉå MüqÉïÍhÉ iÉjÉÉ xÉcNûoSÈ mÉÉjÉï
rÉÑerÉiÉå || They were not people who have one law for others and another for
themselves. What they preached they lived. ™SrÉålÉ AprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÈ is the same as the
approval of their own pure heart or the Atman or God in the heart refered to in the M.bh.
Sloka kÉqÉïxrÉ iɨuÉÇ ÌlÉÌWûiÉÇ aÉÑWûÉrÉÉqÉç etc. It is that kind of ÌuɲÉlÉç or
xÉimÉÑÂwÉ refered to by Manu that is refered to as qÉWûÉeÉlÉ in the M.bh. Sloka. The
word qÉWûÉeÉlÉ means one who has realized qÉWûiÉç or infinite and whose heart
therefore, expanded so as to embrace the whole universe as identical with his own self & who
has sacrificed his finite individuality or egoism in loving worship of the whole world as God.
It is only such a man who can be taken as an ideal or model to be followed and even him, not
in regard to his actual action but in the principle adopted by him. This is the force of the word
rÉimÉëqÉÉhÉÇ MÑüÂiÉå of Gita. This Sloka iÉMåïüÅmÉëÌiÉ¸È etc. occurs as the
words of Yudhishtira in Vanaparva, Yakshaprasna, 313.115. This Sloka is to be read in
relation to explanations given by Yudhishtira in the same context. Vide Sl. 48 where he says
iÉmÉxÉÉ ÌuÉlSiÉå qÉWûiÉç and Nilakantha explains qÉWûiÉç as Brahman. This
shows who is the qÉWûÉeÉlÉç refered to in the Sloka above. He is the Jivanmukta who
has realized Mahat or Brahman. Vide also 318.76, 129 where he explains the highest Dharma
to be AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ or benevolence. AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ In Sl. 92, a

143
Sadhu is defined as xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÈ xÉÉkÉÑÈ AxÉÉkÉÑÌlÉSïrÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || If
Sl. 115 is read in the light of these explanations there would be no difficulty in understanding
who is the Mahajana that is refered to in Sl.115. Mahajana is the same as Sadhu characterized
by AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ and xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ. The explanation by the commentator
that Mahajana here means ‘a large number of people’ cannot, therefore, be accepted as a
thousand fools cannot make an action kÉqÉï by their approval as Manu and other writers
have pointed out over and over again. Vide Manu’s passage quoted above. Also Yajnavalkya
LMüÉå uÉÉ AkrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉÈ | The word qÉWûÉeÉlÉç in this Sloka means thus
the same as the AkrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉ or eÉÏuÉlqÉÑ£ü or ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É or ¥ÉÉlÉÏ or
pÉ£ü or AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç or pÉÉaÉuÉiÉÉå¨ÉqÉ or xÉimÉÑÂwÉ or AÉrÉï or AÉmiÉ
or Ízɹ or man of SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç or xÉÉÎiuÉMümÉÑÂwÉ of other writers. It is thus
only another statement in different words of the same principle enunciated by the Acharyas
Sankara, Madhwa, Nilakantha, Sureswaracharya, etc. that it is the realized man that sets the
standard or ideal of conduct to the ordinary man. A Sadhu is thus defined in Vishnu Purana
III.11.3 xÉÉkÉuÉÈ ¤ÉÏhÉSÉåwÉxiÉÑ xÉcNûoSÈ xÉÉkÉÑuÉÉcÉMüÈ
iÉåwÉÉqÉÉcÉUhÉÇ rɨÉÑ xÉSÉcÉÉUÈ xÉ EcrÉiÉå || Cf. also that the description
of the Sadhu given by Bhagavan to Uddhava in XI.11.29-33
M×ümÉÉsÉÑUM×üiÉSìÉåWûÈ ÌiÉÌiɤÉÑÈ xÉuÉïSåÌWûlÉÉqÉç |
xÉirÉxÉÉUÉåÅlÉuɱÉiqÉ xÉqÉÈ xÉuÉÉåïÅmÉMüÉUMüÈ ||
MüÉqÉæUWûiÉkÉÏÈ SÉliÉÈ qÉ×SÒ zÉÑÍcÉÈ AÌMügcÉlÉÈ | AlÉÏWûÈ
ÍqÉiÉpÉÑMçü zÉÉliÉÈ ÎxjÉUÈ qÉcNûUhÉÉå qÉÑÌlÉÈ || AmÉëqɨÉÉå
aÉpÉÏUÉiqÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉqÉÉlÉç ÎeÉiÉwÉzaÉÑhÉÈ | AqÉÉlÉÏ qÉÉlÉSÈ MüsmÉÈ
qÉæ§ÉÈ MüÉÂÍhÉMüÈ MüÌuÉÈ || AÉ¥ÉÉrÉæuÉÇ aÉÑhÉÉlÉç SÉåwÉÉlÉç
qÉrÉÉÌS¹ÉlÉÌmÉ xuÉMüÉlÉç | kÉqÉÉïlÉç xÉÇirÉerÉ rÉÈ xÉuÉÉïlÉç qÉÉÇ
pÉeÉåiÉ xÉ xɨÉqÉÈ || A Ízɹ is thus defined by Bodhayana I.1.5 ÍzɹÉbÉç ZÉsÉÑ
ÌuÉaÉiÉqÉixÉUÉÈ ÌlÉUWûƒ¡ûÉUÉÈ AsÉÉåsÉÑmÉÉÈ
SqpÉSmÉïsÉÉåpÉqÉÉåWû¢üÉåkÉÌuÉuÉÎeÉïiÉÉÈ || Manu defines Ízɹ in XII.109
& Vasishtha in VI.43 in almost the same words thus kÉqÉåïhÉÉÍkÉaÉiÉÉå rÉålÉ
uÉåSÈ xÉmÉËUoÉ×ÇWûhÉÈ | ÍzɹÉÈ iÉSlÉÑqÉÉlÉ¥ÉÉÈ
´ÉÑÌiÉmÉëirɤÉWåûiÉuÉÈ || Vasistha in I.6 defines Ízɹ as ÍzɹÈ
mÉÑlÉUMüÉqÉÉiqÉÉ | Dharma Vyadha defines it thus in Vanaparva 207.63 MüÉqÉ
¢üÉåkÉÉæ uÉzÉå M×üiuÉÉ SqpÉÇ qÉÉåpÉqÉlÉÉeÉïuÉqÉç | kÉqÉïÍqÉirÉåuÉ
xÉliÉѹÉÈ iÉå ÍzɹÉÈ ÍzɹxÉqqÉiÉÉÈ || He gives various elements of ÍzɹÉcÉÉUç in
Sls. 62-99 all of which may be read in this connection. They almost tally with the description
of a ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É, pÉ£ü, etc. in the Gita. He refers to irÉÉaÉ as the essence as well as
oÉÑήrÉÉåaÉ, xÉirÉ, AÌWÇûxÉÉ, A¢üÉåkÉ, SrÉÉ, zÉqÉ, ¤ÉqÉÉ,
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉSrÉÉ, etc. & other elements of the character of a Ízɹ are described in the
Slokas. Apastamba describes xÉSÉcÉÉUç as the conduct of an Arya in I.7.20.7 rĘ́É
AÉrÉÉïÈ Ì¢ürÉqÉÉhÉÇ mÉëzÉÇxÉÎliÉ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ | rɪWïûliÉå xÉ AkÉqÉïÈ || In
the next Sutra he explains further. xÉuÉïeÉlÉmÉSåwuÉåMüÉliÉxÉqÉÉÌWûiÉqÉç
AÉrÉÉïhÉÇ uÉרÉÇ xÉqrÉMçü ÌuÉlÉÏiÉÉlÉÉÇ uÉ×®ÉlÉÉÇ AÉiqÉuÉiÉÉÇ
AsÉÉåÍsÉmÉÉlÉÉÇ ASÉÎqpÉMüÉlÉÉÇ uÉרÉxÉÉSØzrÉÇ pÉeÉåiÉ || Haradatta in
his commentary identifies this AÉrÉï with the AkrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉ of Yajnavalkya.
Gautama IX.62 thus refers to xÉSÉcÉÉU. rÉ¶É AÉiqÉuÉliÉÈ uÉ×®ÉÈ
xÉqrÉÎauÉlÉÏiÉÉÈ SqpÉsÉÉåpÉqÉÉåWûÌuÉrÉÑ£üÉÈ uÉåSÌuÉSÈ AÉcɤÉiÉå
iÉixÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || It is those people that are refered to as Brahmanas in the Tait. Up. To
whom one has to look up for guidance when there is doubt in matters of conduct and
character. AjÉ rÉÌS iÉå MüqÉïÌuÉÍcÉÌMüixÉÉ uÉרÉÌuÉÍcÉÌMüixÉÉ uÉÉ xrÉÉiÉç
| rÉå iÉ§É oÉëɼhÉÉxxÉqqÉÍzÉïlÉÈ | rÉÑ£üÉÅrÉÑ£üÉÈ | AsÉÔ¤ÉÉ

144
kÉqÉïMüÉqÉÉxrÉÑÈ | rÉjÉÉ iÉå iÉ§É uÉiÉåïUlÉç iÉjÉÉ iÉ§É uÉiÉåïjÉÉÈ || This
passage should be read in the light of the essence of the Vedas refered to in the next previous
section as ̧ÉzɃ¡ûÉåuÉåïSÉlÉÑuÉcÉlÉqÉç AWÇû uÉפÉxrÉUåËUuÉÉ. The same
convocation address makes clear to the disciple that the Sishya should not follow any and
every action of his former Guru, that only those which are pure and free from fault
rÉÉlrÉlÉuɱÉÌlÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ iÉÉÌlÉ xÉåÌuÉiÉurÉÉÌlÉ | lÉÉå CiÉUÉÍhÉ |
rÉÉlrÉxqÉÉMÇü xÉÑcÉËUiÉÉÌlÉ | iÉÉÌlÉ iuÉrÉÉ EmÉÉxrÉÉÌlÉ | ÌlÉ CiÉUÉÍhÉ |
This advise is quite in line with Suka's warning referred to above as well as Sastamba's words
in II.13.7-9. iÉåwÉÉÇ iÉåeÉÉåÌuÉzÉåwÉåhÉ mÉëirÉuÉÉrÉÉå lÉ ÌuɱiÉå |
iÉSluÉϤrÉ mÉërÉÑgeÉÉlÉÈ xÉÏSÌiÉ AuÉUÈ || Cf. also Gautama I.3.4 lÉ iÉÑ
SعÉjÉåïÅSÉæoÉïsrÉÉiÉç | Also Bodhayana AlÉÑÌwÉiÉÇ iÉÑ rÉiÉç SåuÉæÈ
qÉÑÌlÉÍpÉrÉïSlÉÑ̹iÉqÉç | lÉÉÅlÉѹårÉÇ qÉlÉÑwrÉæÈ iÉSÒ£Çü MüqÉï
xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || Even if the Guru asks the Sishya to do something which the latter
considers wrong the Sishya has the right to disobey for the Acharya has no right to expect
absolute obedience from a Sishya after the latter's xÉqÉÉuÉiÉïlÉ | cf. Apastamba lÉ
xÉ,AÉuÉרÉå xÉqÉÉSåzÉÉå ÌuɱiÉå || So also AÉcÉrÉÉïkÉÏlÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç AlrɧÉ
mÉiÉlÉÏrÉåprÉÈ || Vide also Bodhayana. xÉuÉï§É
AmÉëÌiÉWûiÉaÉÑÂuÉÉYrÉÉåÅlrÉ§É mÉÉiÉMüÉiÉç || An Apta (AÉmiÉ) is thus
defined by Vatsyayana as a xÉɤÉÉiÉM×üiÉkÉqÉï. ÌMÇü mÉÑlÉÈ AÉmiÉÉlÉÉÇ
mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉç? xÉɤÉÉiM×üiÉkÉqÉïiÉÉ pÉÔiÉSrÉÉ rÉjÉÉ pÉÔiÉÉjÉï
ÍcÉZrÉÉmÉÌrÉwÉÉ CÌiÉ | AÉmiÉÉÈ ZÉsÉÑ xÉɤÉÉiÉM×üiÉkÉqÉïhÉÈ, CSÇ
WûÉiÉurÉÇ, ArÉqÉxrÉ WûÉÌlÉWåûiÉÑÈ, CSqÉxrÉ AÍpÉaÉliÉurÉÇ, ArÉqÉxrÉ
AÍpÉaÉqÉlÉWåûiÉÑÈ CÌiÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ AlÉÑMüqmÉiÉå | iÉåwÉÉÇ ZÉsÉÑ uÉæ
mÉëÉhÉpÉ×iÉÉÇ, xuÉrÉqÉlÉuÉoÉbrÉqÉÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ, lÉ AlrÉSÒmÉSåzÉÉiÉç
AuÉoÉÉåkÉMüÉUhÉqÉÎxiÉ | lÉ cÉ AlÉuÉoÉÉåkÉå xÉqÉÏWûuÉeÉïlÉÇ uÉÉ lÉ
uÉÉ AM×üiuÉÉ xuÉÎxiÉpÉÉuÉÈ | lÉÉÅÌmÉ AxrÉ AlrÉÈ EmÉMüÉUÈ AÌmÉ
AÎxiÉ | WûliÉ uÉrÉÇ LprÉÉå rÉjÉÉ SzÉïlÉÇ rÉjÉÉ pÉÔiÉqÉç EmÉÌSzÉÉqÉÈ
CÌiÉ || This definition is refered to with approval by Swamiji.

We thus see what Manu means when he says xÉSÉcÉÉU is the third source of Dharma. It is
nothing else than spiritual Sadhana which takes one to ‘Sat’ or the highest reality viz. God or
Atman. The root AÉcÉU means in vedic language to ‘bring near.’ It means also ‘to practice.’
According to Katyayana as when he says WûxiÉålÉ AÉcÉUÌiÉ where Acarati is explained
as meaning mÉëåUrÉÌiÉ. Cf. its use in Rg V VIII.25.6 AÉ uÉÉÇ cÉUliÉÑ uÉ×¹rÉÈ ||
xÉSÉcÉÉU means in this sense bringing man nearer to God or God nearer to man and these
Sadhanas for realization are those prescribed by realized men or ‘Sats’ through their example
as well as precepts. Naturally they represent the principles of action with whose help they
temselves realized and which manifest themselves in their conduct and character even after
their realization as they have become second nature to them. These aspects of their conduct
and character also expressions or outward manifestations of (the Sat or the Rality which they
have realized) the inner experience of the Sat or reality. So in this sense also it is the
AÉkÉÉU or external expression in life and conduct of the Sat. This is exactly the same as
what Guru Maharaj means when he says that an expert dancer cannot make a false step or an
expert musician ring a false tune. Such conduct must necessarily be Dharma although it may
become Adharma to those who blindly try to imitate them as pointed out before. To say that
xÉSÉcÉÉU is the source of Dharma refers only to the principles of their conduct and not to
the actual action itself. But in another sense xÉSÉcÉÉU may be a real source of Dharma
without any risk or danger involved with it as when we take the word to mean the conduct of
realized persons. In this sense xÉSÉcÉÉU means practice of what one sincerely considers as

145
Dharma, Sat or truth, i.e. the expression in one’s own life at every opportunity of the Truth as
he sees it. This constant practice is an exercise in morality and every such exercise strengthen
the moral sense and purifies the Buddhi to that extent till at last one’s mind naturally reaches
without any necessity for deliberation only in the Dharmic way in any situation it finds itself
as in the case of Mahatma Gandhi. Thus we can understand how xÉSÉcÉÉU in the sense of
this constant exercise of this moral sense in the direction of realization can be a source of
Dharma in itself. Again if is used Sat in sense of God, then xÉSÉcÉÉU (would mean the
practice of the presence of God in everything and worship of God in everthing through love
and service. In this sense also xÉSÉcÉÉU is an independent source of Dharma without any
reference to the conduct of others. Broadly speaking, this means AÌWÇûxÉÉ,
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ and sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû on the principle of the golden rule which
we have referd to before and we see that it is mainly these things that are refered to as the
principle of conduct of realized persons. If we take xÉSÉcÉÉU only in the first sense it
would be very difficult what Sadacara is without setting who is xÉimÉÑÂwÉ and we cannot
find out a xÉimÉÑÂwÉ without referring to Sadacara. Therefore, this rule is vitiated by
AlrÉÉålrÉÉ´ÉrÉSÉåwÉ. This difficulty is pointed out by Yudhishtira in Santi 260.5
xÉSÉcÉÉUÉå qÉiÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉliÉxiÉÑ AÉcÉÉUsɤÉhÉÉÈ |
xÉÉkrÉÉÅxÉÉkrÉÇ MüjÉÇ zÉYrÉÇ xÉSÉcÉÉUÉå ½sɤÉhÉÈ || He also points out
another difficulty in Sl. 4 viz. that the conduct of a man in ordinary circumstances differs
from that of a man in abnormal circumstances as in the case of AÉmÉ®qÉï | AlrÉÉå
kÉqÉïÈ xÉqÉxjÉxrÉ ÌuÉwÉqÉxjÉxrÉ cÉÉÅmÉUÈ || SØzrÉiÉå ÌWû
kÉqÉïÃmÉåhÉÉÅkÉqÉïçÇ cÉ mÉëÉM×üiÉÈ cÉUlÉç | kÉqÉïÇ cÉ
AkÉqÉïÃmÉåhÉ MüͶÉSmÉëÉM×üiÉÈ cÉUlÉç || lÉ ÌWû xÉuÉïÌWûiÉÈ
MüͶÉSÉcÉÉUÈ xÉqmÉëuÉiÉïiÉå | iÉålÉæuÉ AlrÉÈ mÉëpÉuÉÌiÉ xÉÉåÅmÉUÇ
oÉÉkÉiÉå mÉÑlÉÈ || SØzrÉiÉå cÉæuÉ xÉ mÉÑlÉÈ iÉÑsrÉÃmÉÉå rÉSØxdrÉÉ |
rÉålÉæuÉÉÅlrÉÈ xÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ xÉÈ AmÉUÉlÉÌmÉ oÉÉkÉiÉå ||
AÉcÉÉUÉhÉÉqÉlÉæMüÉaÉëçrÉÇ xÉuÉåïwÉÉqÉÑmÉsɤrÉåiÉç || The
commentator quotes the example of Viswamitra, Parasurama (Jamadagni), Vasishtha, etc as
having acted apparently against Dharma and whose conduct cannot be taken as fit to be
followed by ordinary people in ordinary circumstances. The reference here is to
Vishwamitra’s eating dog’s flesh stolen from a Chandala and of Parasurama cutting off the
head of his mother and of Vasishta marrying a Chandala woman named Akshamali. We may
also add as pointed out in the xqÉ×ÌiÉqÉÑ£üÉTüsÉ, the story of two Rishis Kataka &
Bharadwaja exchanging their wives. Prajapati running after his own daughter etc. Also Sri
Rama giving up his wife, of Draupati having five husbands etc. as pointed out by Tilak. Vide
also ÍcÉUMüÉËUMüÉåmÉÉZrÉÉlÉ in Santi P. where ÍcÉUMüÉËUMü, the son
disobeys his father when the later asks him to dispose of his mother Ahalya which is just the
opposite of where Parasurama did under similar circumstances. So if we take xÉSÉcÉÉU in
the first sense we cannot get clear guidance even from the conduct of realized men who
behave differently at different times and under different circumstances and sometimes under
the same circumstances. Therefore, Yudhishtira suggests that we should try to follow
xÉSÉcÉÉU in the latter sense as the ancient Rishis themselves have done. This is what he
means when he says ÍcÉUÉÍpÉmɳÉÈ MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ mÉÔuÉïÇ kÉqÉï ESÉ™iÉÈ |
iÉålÉÉÅÅcÉÉUåhÉ mÉÔuÉåïhÉ xÉÇxjÉÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ zÉɵÉiÉÏ || The word
ÍcÉUÉÍpÉmɳÉÈ means that which is accepted as the guide by all wise men from time
immemorial and ESÉWûiÉÈ means what they themselves taught by their example and
precepts. MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ refers to the wise men of old. iÉålÉÉÅÅcÉÉUåhÉ means the
AÉcÉÉU based upon this fundamental principle viz. practice of truth and love and worship
of God in everything as guided by the inner light and the golden rule. It is this inner light that

146
is refered to as mÉëÌiÉpÉÉ in the first Sloka of the chapter already refered to (in connection
with ´ÉÑÌiÉ, xqÉ×ÌiÉ).

Thus xÉSÉcÉÉU involves a sincere desire and attempt

1. to do nothing but what is helpful in the realization of the highest Reality or the
Atman,
2. to accept the guidance of one’s own inner light or moral sense as to what constitutes
the best way of realizing this goal.
3. to benefit by the rules laid down by the realized men of old for achieving this goal
through their examples and precepts .
4. to accept guidance only of such conduct of these people as agree with the principles
taught by them and not to accept anyone of their acts which appear to be inconsistent
with morality and spiritual life as they themselves taught
5. to accept as the fundamental principle of life or practice the conquest of egoism as
well as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc which stand in the way of realization of the spiritual
goal, after examining the motive as well as the subjective result of every action (to
purify ones own mind) in the direction of ÍcɨÉzÉÑή or purification of one’s own
mind.
6. to take advantage of every occasion to exercise the moral sense in this way in the
face of all temptations from inside and obstacles from outside.
7. to be actively interested not only to have such exercise oneself but also to give
similar opportunities to others also and to refrain from pushing obstacles in their way
by one’s own negligence or conduct.
8. to see one’s own self in the whole world and to love in and serve it in a spirit of
worship.
9. to behave or live in such a way that his conduct will have the approval of all those
who are considered by society as good men (xÉimÉÑÂwÉ) as far as possible.

It is these things which Bhisma had in mind when he declares the priciples of conduct in
Santi 259 sÉÉåsÉrÉɧÉÉjÉïqÉåuÉåWû kÉqÉïxrÉ ÌlÉrÉqÉÈ M×üiÉÈ | EpÉrɧÉ
xÉÑZÉÉåSMïüÈ CWû cÉæuÉ mÉU§É cÉ || sÉÉåMürÉɧÉÉ here means the
pilgrimage to perfection, EpÉrÉ§É xÉÑZÉÉåSMïüÈ means that which is conducive to the
spiritual welfare of both the doer as well as society. CWû cÉæuÉ mÉU§É cÉ means in
worldly as well as spiritual matters. kÉqÉïxrÉ ÌlÉ¸É iÉÑ AÉcÉÉUÈ iÉqÉåuÉ AÉÍ´ÉirÉ
oÉÉåixrÉxÉå | Here ÌlÉ¸É means practice based on firm foundations, AÉcÉÉU means
that which leads to God or brings God to us. oÉÉåixrÉxÉå means you will realize.
Therefore the sentence means that Dharma consists of such practice as would lead to
realization. He then points out practice as would lead to realization. He then points out
various examples where in the case of xÉirÉ, SÉlÉ, SqÉ, etc they are considered good and
worthy conduct when they are to be beneficial to oneself but as not worthy or good when
they affect others. That is, people generally expect others to practice those virtues but are not
willing to practice them themselves. Then he lays the golden rule as the first principle of
conduct. rÉSlrÉåÌuÉïÌWûiÉÇ lÉ CcNåûiÉç AÉiqÉlÉÈ MüqÉïmÉÑÂwÉÈ | lÉ iÉiÉç
mÉUåwÉÑ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ eÉÉlÉlÉç AÌmÉërÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | eÉÏÌuÉiÉÑÇ rÉÈ xuÉrÉÇ
cÉ CcNåûiÉç MüjÉÇ xÉÈ AlrÉÇ mÉëbÉÉiÉrÉåiÉç | rɱSiqÉÌlÉ cÉ CcNåûiÉ
iÉiÉç mÉUxrÉÉÅÌmÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉåiÉç || In Sl. 24 he lays down how every action should be
done in such a way as to lead to realization of God. rÉÎxqÉlxiÉÑ SåuÉÉÈ xÉqÉrÉå
xÉÎliɸåiÉlÉç iÉjÉÉ pÉuÉåiÉç | AjÉuÉÉ sÉÉpÉxÉqÉrÉå ÎxjÉÌiÉÈ kÉqÉåïÅÌmÉ
zÉÉåpÉlÉÉ || In the next two Slokas he refers to sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû and the necessity

147
of conducting oneself in such a way as to please all as far as possible consitent with their own
spiritual welfare. xÉuÉïÇ ÌmÉërÉÉprÉÑmÉaÉiÉÇ kÉqÉïqÉÉWÒûqÉïlÉÏÌwÉhÉÈ |
mÉzrÉ LiÉÇ sɤÉhÉÉå¬åzÉÇ kÉqÉÉïÅkÉqÉåï rÉÑÍkÉ̸U ||
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûxÉÇrÉÑ£Çü ÌuÉkÉɧÉÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉÑUÉ |
xÉÔ¤qÉkÉqÉÉïjÉïÌlÉrÉiÉÇ xÉiÉÉÇ cÉËUiÉqÉѨÉqÉqÉç || Here ÌmÉërÉ should be
understood in the sense of ÌWûiÉ. It is this principle of conduct which Yudhishtira refers to
in the next Ch. Sl. 9. AÉqlÉÉrÉuÉcÉlÉÇ xÉirÉqÉç CirÉrÉÇ sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûÈ
where Agraya means accepted principle of practice of a long line of realized men and in Sl.
20 ÍcÉUÉÍpÉmɳÉÈ MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ etc. It is the same that is refered to by Tuladhara to Jajali
in the next four chapters which Bhisma sites as example in support of his statement. Vide Sl.
5,6,9 of 262. uÉåSÉÅWÇû eÉÉeÉsÉå kÉqÉïÇ xÉUWûxrÉÇ xÉlÉÉiÉlÉqÉç |
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ qÉæ§ÉÇ mÉÑUÉhÉÇ rÉÇ eÉlÉÉ ÌuÉSÒÈ ||
ASìÉåWåûhÉæuÉ pÉÔiÉÉiÉÉqÉsmÉSìÉåWåûhÉ uÉÉ mÉÑlÉÈ | rÉÉ uÉ×̨ÉÈ
xÉ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ iÉålÉ eÉÏuÉÉÍqÉ eÉÉeÉsÉå || Vide also sl. 29&30. Read the
whole instruction of Tuladhara to Jajali which Bhisma considers as giving the essence of the
principles of Sadacara. It is the same thing that is refered to in Ch. 124 of Santi as the essence
of character and conduct. ASìÉåWûÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüqÉïhÉÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ ÌaÉUÉ
| AlÉÑaÉëWû¶É SÉlÉÇ cÉ zÉÏsÉqÉåiÉiÉç mÉëzÉxrÉiÉå || rÉSlrÉåwÉÉÇ
ÌWûiÉÇ lÉ xrÉÉiÉç AÉiqÉlÉÈ sÉqÉïmÉÉæÂwÉqÉç | AmɧÉmÉåiÉ uÉÉ rÉålÉ lÉ
iÉiÉç MÑürÉÉïiÉç MüjÉgcÉlÉ || iɨÉÑ MüqÉï iÉjÉÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç rÉålÉ
zsÉÉbrÉåiÉ xÉÇxÉÌS | zÉÏsÉÇ xÉqÉÉxÉålÉ LiÉiÉç MüÍjÉiÉÇ MÑüÂxɨÉqÉ ||
This again is reiterated in Santi 162.21.

We thus see how mistaken many orthodox people are when they take Achara as meaning
only mere custom, usage or tradition. No doubt that sometimes some texts use the mere word
Achara without its being qualified by the word xÉiÉç, Ízɹ, etc. as when Anusasana Parva
104.159 says AÉcÉÉUmÉëpÉÉå kÉqÉï or when Manu says in I.108 to 110 AÉcÉÉUÈ
mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ (108) AÉcÉÉUÉiÉç ÌuÉcrÉÑiÉÉå ÌuÉmÉëÈ etc. (109)
LuÉqÉÉcÉÉUiÉÉå SØ¹É etc. What Manu means by AÉcÉÉU he makes clear in IV.155
kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉÇ ÌlÉwÉåuÉåiÉ xÉSÉcÉÉUqÉiÉÎlSìiÉÈ | and 145 qÉ…
¡ûsÉÉcÉÉUrÉÑ£üÈ xrÉÉiÉç mÉërÉiÉÉiqÉÉ ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ eÉmÉåŠ
eÉÑWÒûrÉÉŠæuÉ ÌlÉirÉqÉç AÎalÉqÉiÉÎlSìiÉÈ || etc. that the AÉcÉÉU that he
declares as kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉ is not each and every custom, usage or tradition but that which is
helpful for the control of mind and senses and the realization of God through Japa and self
sacrifice. The Anusasana and other texts also must be taken to use the word AÉcÉÉU only in
this limited sense as we have explained above. Much mischief has been done by not
understanding AÉcÉÉU in this technical sense and many civil practices current among the
corrupt society have come to be looked upon as Dharma and therefore inviolable even though
they came to be recognized as injurious morally and spiritually to the individuals as well as
society. Deshacharas and Lokacharas and Kulacharas (SåzÉÉcÉÉUÉ and sÉÉåMüÉcÉÉU
and MÑüsÉÉcÉÉU) have crippled the growth of society and have stood in the way of
reform in modern days. In spite of the dawn of a conviction that they are against the best
interest of society, the British courts have upheld many of these customs on the pretext of
freedom of religion and belief and have thus effectively prevented Hindu society from getting
rid of all such evils. Examples of such customs are untouchability, Devadasi system
associated with temples, child marriage, the evils of drinking, etc. sacrifice of goats in
temple, Sati, denial of study of Vedas for Sudras and women, denial of the right of women
for ancestral property etc. some writers like Brihaspati go to the extent of saying that all
customs should be updated by the king as otherwise the subjects become discontended. In

148
making such a statement he is freeing only to the principles of administration in the interests
of Law and Order. Where Dharma is taken as consisting only of such rules as to help to
maintain the stability of the society without any reference to it spiritual and moral well-being
or to its progress towards its high destiny vide SåzÉeÉÉÌiÉMÑüsÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ rÉå
kÉqÉÉïÈ mÉëÉMçü mÉëuÉÌiÉïiÉÉÈ | iÉjÉæuÉ LiÉå mÉë¤ÉÑprÉiÉåÅlrÉjÉÉ ||
This is wholly against the spirit of Hindu Dharma in the history of Hindu society from time
immemorial. The study of history of such customs revealed low reformers arose time and
again to set matters right and make society conform to the pristine principles of the
organizations as laid down by the Rishis and realized persons of the past. The advent of all
the Avataras is thus said to have been for kÉqÉïxÉÇxjÉÉmÉlÉ and removal of all obstacles
to progress of the individual and society. We also read in the M.bh. how Svethakethu
reformed rules of marriage and Sukracharya prohibited the use of liquor, how Vaishnavaihe
reformers from Sri Krishna downwards have reformed ancient sacrificial ritual by preventing
the killing of animals, how the temple rituals have taken the play of the ancient five ritual etc.
It is the right of the society to take advantage of the advent of the great Acharya Purushas and
Avataras and to set itself right on the advice of such leaders. Any Achara that stands in the
way of moral and spiritual growth should not therefore be allowed to stand in the way of
reforms. The principle is endorced by Manu when he says IV.176 mÉËUirÉeÉåiÉç
AjÉïMüÉqÉÉæ rÉÉæ xrÉÉiÉÉÇ kÉqÉïuÉÎeÉïiÉÉæ | kÉqÉïÇ cÉÉÅÌmÉ
AxÉÑMüÉåSMüMïü sÉÉåMüÌuÉM×ü¹qÉåuÉ cÉ || where xÉÑZÉ refers to the
mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉjÉï or the bliss of realisation. When, therefore, Manu says in Sl.178
rÉålÉÉÅxrÉ ÌmÉiÉUÉå rÉÉiÉÉ rÉålÉ rÉÉiÉÉ ÌmÉiÉÉqÉWûÉ: | iÉålÉ rÉÉrÉÉiÉç
xÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉaÉïÇ iÉålÉ cÉcNûlÉç lÉ ËUwrÉÌiÉ || He does not refer to the evil customs
and practices followed by the ancestors. It is good to remind ourselves of Sankara’s statement
in Sutra Bhashya that it is not necessary for one to continue to remain a fool merely on the
ground that our ancestors were fools. lÉ ÌWû mÉÔuÉïeÉÉå AÉxÉÏÌSÌiÉ AÉiqÉlÉÉÅÌmÉ
qÉÔRåûlÉ pÉÌuÉiÉurÉÍqÉÌiÉ ÌMüÎgcÉSÎxiÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç | This Sloka should be
understood with proper emphasis on the words xÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉaÉïÇ which means
‘ÍzɹÉcÉÉU’ refered to above. Our ancestors, according to Manu, were always only
interested in following ‘ÍzɹÉcÉÉU’ and as loyal descendants we should also follow in their
footsteps in following this ÍzɹÉcÉÉU or xÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉaÉïÇ which is the same thing as
xÉSÉcÉÉU. More over he may be referring in this Sloka to the necessity of xÉSÉcÉÉU
sticking to the Sadachara prevailing in one’s own family when there are more than one
Sadachara applicable to a particular situation. As both the Sadacharas it is advisable,
according to Manu, not to give up the Sadachara of one’s own family in favour of something
else. Or, AxrÉ ÌmÉiÉUÈ must be taken to refer not to his ancestors but to the protectors of
Dharma ÌmÉiÉ× being taken in its derivative sense and Asya being taken to refer to
Dharma. In this sense AxrÉ ÌmÉiÉUÈ would mean only ÍzɹÉs or xÉimÉÑÂwÉÉs or man
of realization as it is their duty to protect Dharma. Or ÌmÉiÉÉ may be taken as the Guru or
Acharya who has given him second birth as Manu himself refers to Acharyas as ÌmÉiÉÉ.
ÌmÉiÉÉ iÉÑ AÉcÉÉrÉï EcrÉiÉå | Vide also Manu II.144 to 150.

We now pass on to the next source of Dharma mentioned by Manu viz. Atma tushti or Atma
santosa or Atma priya or Atma hita or Atma prasada. Atma, here means, the higher self or
God or the Absolute and not the finite bound soul. The satisfaction that is refered to does not
mean the sensual or worldy pleasures that arise from the satisfaction of the cravings and
desires of the mind and the senses. It refers to the spiritual bliss that comes from the
realization of God or Atman. It also refers to the Sattvica Sukha which Gita refers to in the
18th Ch. when it says XVIII-36-37: AprÉÉxÉÉSìqÉiÉå rÉ§É SÒÈZÉÉliÉÇ cÉ

149
ÌlÉaÉcNûÌiÉ, rɨÉSaÉëå ÌuÉwÉÍqÉuÉ mÉËUhÉÉqÉåÅqÉ×iÉÉåmÉqÉqÉç |
iÉixÉÑZÉÇ xÉÉÎiuÉMÇü mÉëÉå£üqÉÉiqÉoÉÑήmÉëxÉÉSeÉqÉç || According to
this the Sattvica sukha means the happiness that comes when the Buddhi is established in the
Atman and thus becomes tranquil and free from all impurities, constituted by Rajas and
Tamas. It is this Sattvica sukha that is refered in the VI-21-23: xÉÑZÉqÉÉirÉÎliÉMÇü
rɨÉSè oÉÑήaÉëɽqÉiÉÏÎlSìrÉqÉç | uÉåÌ¨É rÉ§É lÉ cÉæuÉÉrÉÇ
ÎxjÉiɶÉsÉÌiÉ iɨuÉiÉÈ || rÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ cÉÉmÉUÇ sÉÉpÉÇ qÉlrÉiÉå
lÉÉÍkÉMÇü iÉiÉÈ | rÉÎxqÉÎlxjÉiÉÉå lÉ SÒÈZÉålÉ aÉÑÂhÉÉÌmÉ ÌuÉcÉÉsrÉiÉå ||
iÉÇ ÌuɱÉSè SÒÈZÉxÉÇrÉÉåaÉÌuÉrÉÉåaÉÇ rÉÉåaÉxÉÇÍ¥ÉiÉqÉç | According to
this the cause of this xÉÑZÉ is spiritual practice or Yoga which consists of the control of the
mind and the senses and concentration of it on the Atman as explained in the 6th chapter. It is
this that is refered to as Santi in the II-65-66: mÉëxÉÉSå xÉuÉïSÒÈZÉÉlÉÉÇ
WûÉÌlÉUxrÉÉåmÉeÉÉrÉiÉå | mÉëxɳÉcÉåiÉxÉÉå ½ÉzÉÑ oÉÑήÈ
mÉrÉïuÉÌiɸiÉå ||, lÉÉÎxiÉ oÉÑήUrÉÑ£üxrÉ lÉ cÉÉrÉÑ£üxrÉ pÉÉuÉlÉÉ | lÉ
cÉÉpÉÉuÉrÉiÉfÉç zÉÎliÉUzÉÉliÉxrÉ MÑüiÉÈ xÉÑZÉqÉç || Also II-70: xÉ
zÉÉÎliÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ lÉ MüÉqÉMüÉÍqÉ II-71: ÌuÉWûÉrÉ MüÉqÉÉlrÉÈ
xÉuÉÉïlmÉÑqÉÉǶÉUÌiÉ ÌlÉÈxmÉ×WûÈ | ÌlÉqÉïqÉÉå ÌlÉUWÇûƒ¡ûÉUÈ xÉ
zÉÉÎliÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || Vide IV-39: ¥ÉÉlÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ mÉUÉÇ
zÉÉÎliÉqÉÍcÉUåhÉÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ V-12: zÉÉÎliÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ lÉæ̸MüÐqÉç V-29:
¥ÉÉiuÉÉ qÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉ×cNûÌiÉ || XII-12 ch. irÉÉaÉÉcNûÎliÉUlÉliÉUqÉç XVIII-
62: iÉimÉëxÉÉSÉimÉUÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉÇ tTàsadaTpra< zaiNt< | These passages make
clear that it consists of the peace and tranquility of the mind that comes through Tyaga &
Yoga. This Santi or Sattvica sukha which comes with the Prasada or the tranquility of the
mind is that which comes as a result of Tyaga & Yoga and the cultivation of Sattva guna and
is therefore, a product of Sadhana or effort and exercise. It should not be confused with the
natural bliss of the Atman itself which is not a product and is only to be realized. In the
former the Buddhi is still functioning within the frame work of ̧ÉmÉÑÌOû, subject –
object relation where dualities still exists and is not transcended, whereas in the latter this
duality Triputi is transcended and the Atman enjoys its own prestine glory and bliss. The
former is therefore, only the penultimate stage in spiritual progress and the latter the
culmination of it. The Bhaktas and the Yogis and the other schools of philosophy Sankya,
Nyaya, Vaiseshika do not go beyond duality and to them this Santi is the highest goal. Only
to the Advaitin the highest goal consists of the realization of the non- dual Atman or
Brahman. The highest goal is spoken of as ÌlÉÈ´ÉårÉxÉç | The highest Sreyas, is
distinguished in the Kathopanishad from the still lower goals of life when it says ´ÉårɶÉ
mÉëårÉ¶É qÉlÉÑwrÉqÉåiÉÈ iÉÉæ xÉqmÉUÏirÉ ÌuÉÌuÉlÉÌ£ü kÉÏUÈ | ´ÉårÉÉå
WûÉå kÉÏUÉåÅÍpÉmÉëårÉxÉÉå uÉ×ÍhÉiÉå mÉëårÉÉå qÉlSÉå
rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉɲØlÉÏiÉå || This shows that the pleasures of the senses constitute only
mÉëårÉxÉç and ´ÉårÉxÉç consists of the Sattvika sukha which comes through Tyaga and
Yoga. It is this ´ÉårÉxÉç that is refered into in the Bhagavatam VII .11.7 kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉÇ
ÌWû pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç xÉuÉïuÉåSqÉrÉÉå WûËUÈ | xqÉ×iÉÇ cÉ iÉ̲SÉÇ iÉÉeÉlÉç
rÉålÉ cÉÉÅÅiqÉÉ mÉëxÉÏSÌiÉ || where iÉ̲SÉqÉç means those who have realized
Bhagavan. Cf. also Bhagavatam I .26. xÉ uÉæ mÉÑÇxÉÉÇ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ rÉiÉÉå
pÉÌ£üUkÉÉå¤ÉeÉå | AWæûiÉÑMüÐ AmÉëÌiÉWûiÉÉ rÉrÉÉ AÉiqÉÉ
xÉÑmÉëxÉÏSÌiÉ || AiÉÈ mÉÑÇÍpÉÈ Ì²eÉ´Éå¸ÉÈ uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉÌuÉpÉÉaÉzÉÈ |
xÉÑ AlÉÑ̸iÉxrÉ kÉqÉïxrÉ xÉÇÍxÉήWïûËUiÉÉåwÉhqÉç || In these passages, of
course, we have the description of Dharma in terms of Bhakti. Patanjali also refers to this
when he says Samadhi is kÉqÉïqÉåbÉ. kÉqÉïqÉåbÉ Samadhi that is to say Samadhi is
the source of Dharma just as Megha is the source of rain. The word Prasada is used in two

150
senses, in one sense it relates to the purification and tranquility of the mind through spiritual
practice. In the other sense in which it is generally used by the Bhaktas, it means the grace of
God. There is no inherent contradiction between these two senses as, according to the
Bhaktas, all spiritual practice and the peace and tranquility resulting from it is due to the
grace of God. That this Santi comes only through realization of God is refered to in Katha.Up
I.17 oÉë¼eÉ¥ÉÇ SåuÉqÉÏžÇ ÌuÉÌSiuÉÉ ÌlÉcÉÉrrÉåqÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉirÉliÉqÉç
LÌiÉ || Vide also V.13 ÌlÉirÉÉåÅÌlÉirÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉåiÉlɶÉåiÉlÉÉlÉÉqÉç LMüÉå
oÉWÕûlÉÉÇ rÉÉå ÌuÉSkÉÉÌiÉ MüÉqÉÉlÉç | iÉqÉÉiqÉxjÉÇ rÉåÅlÉÑmÉzrÉÎliÉ
kÉÏUÉÈ iÉåwÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉÈ zÉɵÉiÉÏ lÉåiÉUåwÉÉqÉç || vide also Svet. Up IV.11
rÉÉå rÉÉåÌlÉÇ rÉÉåÌlÉqÉÍkÉÌiɸirÉåMüÈ rÉÎxqÉͳÉSÇ xÉgcÉ ÌuÉcÉæÌiÉ
xÉuÉïqÉç | iÉqÉÏzÉÉlÉÇ uÉUSÇ SåuÉqÉÏŽÇ ÌlÉcÉÉrrÉåqÉÉÇ
zÉÉÎliÉqÉirÉliÉqÉåÌiÉ || Also in IV.14 xÉÔ¤qÉÉÌiÉxÉÔ¤qÉÇ MüÍsÉsÉxrÉ qÉkrÉå
ÌuɵÉxrÉ xÉë¹ÉUqÉlÉåMüÃmÉqÉç | ÌuɵÉxrÉ LMÇü mÉËUuÉå̹iÉÉUÇ
¥ÉÉiuÉÉ ÍzÉuÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉirÉliÉqÉåÌiÉ || cf. also Tait. I.6.2 where Brahman is referred
to as qÉlÉ AÉlÉlSÇ zÉÉÎliÉ xÉqÉ×®qÉqÉ×iÉqÉç ||

The word Prasada is used in the sense of Chittasuddhi and the resulting tranquility of mind
through freedom from disturbing passions and temptations is alluded to in Gita II-64:
UÉaɲèwÉ ÌuÉrÉÑ£æüUxiÉÑ ÌuÉwÉrÉÌlÉÎlSìrÉæ¶ÉUlÉç |
AÉiqÉuÉzrÉæÌuÉkÉåïrÉÉiqÉÉ mÉëxÉÉSqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || cf. also
‘qÉlÉÈmÉëxÉÉS’ as one of the elements of ¥ÉÉlÉ in the 13th chapter. mÉëxÉÉS is used
in the sense of grace in such expressions as XI-45: mÉëxÉÏS SåuÉåkÉ eÉaÉͳÉuÉÉxÉ,
qÉimÉëxÉÉSÉiÉç, iÉimÉëxÉÉSÉiÉç of ch. XVIII, where it can be taken as meaning
only grace as it refers to a person. Just as Manaha prasada is considered by Bhaktas as due to
Bhagavan’s grace. Bhagavan’s grace also is described as being available to man only when
his mind becomes prasanna or tranquill through self effort and Sadhana. The pleasure that is
enjoyed even when sense desires are satisfied is only because of the reflection of the bliss of
the Atman in the Sattva element of the mind. When it becomes temporarily slightly
predominant over the Rajas and Tamo Gunas through the temporary removal of the
disturbing element of sense desires. Therefore, Preyas also depends on the Sattva Guna. Only
the Sattva Guna here is noted out of the control of and undiluted by the other three Gunas.
That is why Brihad. Up. says in the words of Yajnyavalkya and Maitreyi lÉ uÉÉ AUå
mÉirÉÑÈ MüÉqÉÉrÉ mÉÌiÉÈ ÌmÉërÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ AÉiqÉlÉxiÉÑ MüÉqÉÉrÉ
mÉÌiÉÈ ÌmÉërÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ ... LiÉxrÉæuÉÉÅlÉlSxrÉ AlrÉÉÌlÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ
qÉɧÉÉqÉÑmÉeÉÏuÉÎliÉ | Yajnyavalkya, therefore, concludes with the exhortation
AÉiqÉÉ uÉÉ AUå SìwOèurÉÈ ´ÉÉå§ÉurÉÉå qÉliÉurÉÉå ÌlÉÌSkrÉÉÍxÉiÉurÉÈ | In
all pleasures of life, even the most sensual simple ones are only partial and blured reflections
of the Atamanandam in Sattva Guna. It beholds all who are anxious to have only happiness as
their goal to conduct themselves and to live in such a way as to free the Sattva guna from all
contacts with Rajas and Tamas as far as possible by enabling it to gradually predominate over
the latter step by step by every action done by him till at last it is able to wipe out all Rajas
and Tamas and thus be free and pure to reflect fully the bliss of the Atman. This is the
Sattvica sukha refered to in the Gita and every act should be done in such a way as to bring
about this result if it is to deserve the name of Dharma. This is the first principle of Karma
Yoga as advocated in the Gita as is made clear by the definition of rÉÉåaÉ itself in the II ch.
II-50: … rÉÉåaÉëÈ MüqÉïxÉÑ MüÉæzÉsÉqÉç ||, II-48: … xÉqÉiuÉÇ rÉÉåaÉ
EcrÉiÉå ||, II-53: ´ÉÑÌiÉÌuÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉÉ iÉå rÉSÉ xjÉÉxrÉÌiÉ ÌlɶÉsÉÉ |
xÉqÉÉkÉÉuÉcÉsÉÉ oÉÑήxiÉSÉ rÉÉåaÉqÉuÉÉmxrÉÍxÉ ||, and in the 6th chapter
VI-23: iÉÇ ÌuɱÉSè SÒÈZÉxÉÇrÉÉåaÉÌuÉrÉÉåaÉÇ rÉÉåaÉxÉÇÍ¥ÉiÉqÉç |, VI-

151
33: rÉÉåÅrÉÇ rÉÉåaÉxiuÉrÉÉ mÉëÉå£üÈ xÉÉqrÉålÉ qÉkÉÑxÉÔSlÉ | That is
why in the XVIII ch. Bhagavan exorts Arjuna to convert all work into worship XVIII-45:
xuÉå xuÉå MüqÉïhrÉÍpÉUiÉÈ xÉÇÍxÉ먂 sÉpÉiÉå lÉUÈ | etc. XVIII-46: rÉiÉÈ
mÉëuÉ×̨ÉpÉÔïiÉÉlÉÉÇ rÉålÉ xÉuÉïÍqÉSÇ iÉiÉqÉç | xuÉYëqÉhÉÉ
iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || Every act done by anybody can thus
become Dharma if he does it with a proper motive and in the proper spirit to attain this goal
through ÍcɨÉzÉÑή consistent with the needs of particular time, place, conditions and
circumstances under which the act is done and if it is in terms of his own AÍkÉMüÉU. One
should be always alert and awake and should not be negligent and careless in testing every
one of his actions as to whether it is fit and capable of leading to this development of
xɨuÉaÉÑhÉ and ÍcɨÉzÉÑή through the conquest of UeÉxÉç and iÉqÉxÉç. One
should always take care not to be moved to any particular action by MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ,
sÉÉåpÉ, etc. the characteristic of a Satvika action and a Sattvika kartha as distinct from
Rajasika and Tamasika ones as well as the characteristic of a Sattvika oÉÑή, kÉëÑÌiÉ,
xÉÑZÉÇ are all described in the 18th chap., only to enable one to judge oneself and one’s
own actions and the state of ones own mind at the time of the action to judge whether one is
prompted to Sattvika guna or not. Manu also gives us some guidance in ascertaining whether
an action is Sattvika or not as when he says rÉiÉç xÉuÉåïhÉ CcNûÌiÉ ¥ÉÉiÉÑÇ rɳÉ
sÉ‹ÌiÉ cÉ AÉcÉUlÉç | rÉålÉ iÉÑwrÉÌiÉ cÉ AÉiqÉÉ AxrÉ iÉiÉç
xÉiuÉaÉÑhÉsɤÉhÉqÉç || The characteristics of Rajas and Tamas he describes thus
rÉiÉç MüqÉï M×üiuÉÉ MÑüuÉï¶Éç MüËUwrÉǶÉæuÉ sÉ‹ÌiÉ | iÉe¥ÉårÉÇ
ÌuÉSÒwÉÉ SuÉïÇ iÉÉqÉxÉÇ aÉÑhÉsɤÉhÉqÉç || rÉålÉÉÅÎxqÉlÉç MüqÉïhÉÉ
sÉÉåMåü s½ÉÌiÉÍqÉcNûÌiÉ mÉÑwMüsÉÉqÉç | lÉ cÉ zÉÉåcÉÌiÉ AxÉqmɨÉÉæ
UÉeÉxÉÇ aÉÑhÉsɤÉhÉqÉç || XII-35-37. We thus see how AÉiqÉxÉliÉÉåwÉ is thus
made a test of Sattva guna or the Sattvic nature of an action. He refers to the same thing in
XII-38 iÉqÉxÉÉå sɤÉhÉÇ MüÉqÉ UeÉxÉxiÉÑ AjÉï EcrÉiÉå xÉiuÉxrÉ sɤÉhÉÇ
kÉqÉïÈ ´ÉåwœqÉç | In the 4th chap. 159 -161 sloka in otherwords rɱiÉç mÉUuÉzÉÇ
MüqÉï iɨÉiÉç rɦÉålÉ uÉeÉïrÉåiÉç | rɱSÉiqÉuÉzÉÇ iÉÑ xrÉÉiÉç lÉ iÉiÉç
xÉåuÉåiÉ rɦÉiÉÈ || xÉuÉïÇ mÉUuÉzÉÇ SÒÈZÉÇ xÉuÉïqÉÉiqÉuÉzÉÇ
xÉÑZÉqÉç | LiÉ̲±ÉiÉç xÉqÉÉxÉålÉ sɤÉhÉÇ xÉÑZÉSÒÈZÉrÉÉåÈ || rÉiÉç
MüqÉï MÑüuÉïiÉÉåÅxrÉ xrÉÉiÉç mÉUÉåÌiÉwÉÈ AliÉUÉiqÉlÉÈ iÉiÉç
mÉërɦÉålÉ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ ÌuÉmÉUÏiÉÇ iÉÑ uÉeÉïrÉåiÉç || Here it is the Sattvika
sukha that is refered to as mÉËUiÉÉåwÉ: AliÉUÉiqÉlÉÈ as it is the bliss of the Atman as
reflected in the pure mind that leads to this supreme moral satisfaction. AÉiqÉuÉzÉqÉç
refers to the fact that this moral satisfaction is dependent upon the Atman which means here
the Paramatman or God who is present in the pure heart and mÉUuÉzÉ refers to AÌuɱÉ,
AWûƒ¡ûÉU, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, sÉÉåpÉ, etc which are all intruders and foreign elements
in the ordinary mind which is Sattvic by its very nature. It is these foreign elements that
prevent the full reflection of Atmanandam in the mind and thus cause SÒÈZÉ. If these are
removed one enjoys the full bliss of the Atman as reflected in the naturally Sattvic mind. It is
in this sense that Manu says that all xÉÑZÉ is AÉiqÉuÉzÉ and SÒÈZÉ is Paravasa and
exorts all to do only such karma through self effort which brings about this xÉÑZÉ. The test
of this AÉiqÉuÉzÉMüqÉï is thus the supreme moral satisfaction that comes from work well
done. That is why Manu includes AÉiqÉxÉliÉÉåwÉ as one of the tests of Dharma. This
Atman on whom such xÉliÉÉåwÉ depends is present equally in the hearts of all men and is
always inspiring everybody to live in such a way as to realize Him through ÍcɨÉzÉÑή.
This inspiration is obstructed by AWûƒ¡ûÉU, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, iÉqÉxÉç, UeÉxÉç, etc.
and becomes available when the latter are removed. When a man acts according to this
inspiration from the inner Atman he attains Citta suddhi and Sattvic sukham. It is called

152
Atmasukha because it is inspired by the Atman and because it is the reflection of the Atman
in the mind. Therefore, this Sattvica sukha becomes the test of Dharma and is also based
upon when the inspiration given by the Atman as distinct from prakriti or the ego, MüÉqÉ,
¢üÉåkÉ, etc. The discipline and Sadhana that are undertaken at the inspiration of the Atman
is the real self discipline or Svadharma as distinct from the external discipline enforced by
mere worldy considerations and social and legal regulations or forced by the slavery to
passions etc. It is these latter that are called mÉUkÉqÉï in the Gita. xuÉkÉqÉï in this sense
is preferable to mÉUkÉqÉï which is said to be pÉrÉÉuÉWû. In this sense all acts done out
of fear of consequences such as those actions prescribed by the Srutis, Smritis, etc or for fear
of social approbium if Acharas are not practiced or fear of punishment by the state etc. cannot
be considered as AÉiqÉuÉzÉMüqÉï just as those prompted by desires for sense pleasures.
Even the so called uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉkÉqÉï which the orthodox people consider as Svadharma
for each Varna and Ashrama cannot be considered as Dharma if it is undertaken only for fear
of hell or punishment by the state or social osterism and therefore they seize to be Dharma
proper only if it is one’s own choice as guided by one’s own moral sense without any extra
pressure from outside, legal, social or religious that it can be called Dharma. The text,
customs and traditions and legal statutes of the state provide only a wild field of choice from
which each individual is free to choose what he considers best for himself under particular
cirucumstances, time, place, AÍkÉMüÉU, etc. and in this choice he is guided only by the
light within if his acts is to the xuÉkÉqÉï and in this choice one of the tests is the resulting
AÉiqÉxÉliÉÉåwÉ resulting from his own Cittasuddhi. Again, since this Atman is not the
individual Atman but the Paramatman present everywhere whose manifestation the whole
world is, AÉiqÉxÉliÉÉåwÉ involves not merely the pleasure of the actor himself but also
the moral satisfaction of the whole society and the spiritual happiness and welfare of the
whole world. Therefore, in deciding whether an action is Sattvic or not, the Sattvica jnana
must be made use of, and this in turn involves sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû,
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ, etc. And this xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ should be one of the motives of
every act of Dharma. It is such Karma as is intended for spiritual welfare of the whole world,
including oneself that constitutes real worship of God and it is such worship that is pleasing
to the God and it is this pleasure of the God through such worship that makes His
mÉëxÉÉSqÉç (grace) available to the actor, which leads to ÍcɨÉmÉëxÉÉSqÉç or
qÉlÉÈmÉëxÉÉSqÉç, which makes the bliss of the Atman available to the actor and
progress in the form of AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹. If every member of a society thinks of a spiritual
welfare of every other member and tries to bring it about, through love and service and co-
operation, that is the best way of ensuring the stability of the society. Thus, the test of
AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ is not merely individualistic but social also in this application. As it is not
ususlly possible for everyone to find out what is spiritually good for another man as each
individual is in a different range of the ladder of spiritual progress, the golden rule has to be
resorted to find out what may be good for others also, and thus the test of AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹
involves the golden rule also. It, thus, involves also AÌWÇûxÉÉ in its positive and negative
aspects, and Dharana in its individual and social aspects and Prabhava in its various aspects,
as we explained these terms when we discussed AÌWÇûxÉÉ, kÉÉUhÉÉ, and mÉëpÉuÉ,
as tests of Dharma. Even the adoption of this principle is based upon the example and
precepts of realized men and therefore spiritual Sadhana and moral virtue or Dharma become
more or less synonymous as both of them or based upon the same principle of Tyaga and
Yoga. It is this kind of action that Manu advocates when he says in VI.46 qÉlÉÈmÉÔiÉÇ
xqÉÉcÉUåiÉç. It is in this sense that the morality of even Satya is declared to be based
upon xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ by all writers. It is on this again all the Samanya Dharmas are
based as all of them are only forms of same Tyaga and Yoga. Vide M.bh. Shanti P.

153
description of various forms Satya, Dharma, etc. in chs. 162, 163, etc. xÉirÉÇ cÉ xÉqÉiÉÉ
cÉæuÉ SqɶÉæuÉ lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ | AqÉÉixÉrÉïÇ ¤ÉqÉÉ cÉæuÉ
»ûÏÎxiÉÌiɤÉÉÅlÉxÉÔrÉiÉÉ cÉ || irÉÉaÉÉå krÉÉlÉqÉç AjÉ AÉrÉïiuÉÇ kÉ×ÌiɶÉ
xÉiÉiÉÇ SrÉÉ | AÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉæuÉ UÉeÉålSì xÉirÉÉMüÉUÉÈ §ÉrÉÉåSzÉÈ ||
Vide also 160 kÉqÉïxrÉ ÌuÉkÉrÉÉå lÉæMåü rÉå uÉæ mÉëÉå£üÉ qÉWûÌwÉïÍpÉÈ
| xuÉÇ xuÉÇ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ SqÉxiÉåwÉÉÇ mÉUÉrÉhÉqÉç || SqÉÇ ÌlÉÈ
´ÉårÉxÉÇ mÉëÉWÒûÈ uÉ×®ÉÈ ÌlÉͶÉiÉSÍzÉïlÉÈ rÉjÉÉuÉSÒmÉsÉprÉiÉå |
SqÉÉå SÉlÉÇ iÉjÉÉ rÉ¥ÉÉlÉç AkÉÏiÉÇ cÉ AÌiÉuÉiÉïiÉå | SqÉålÉ xÉSØzÉÇ
kÉqÉïÇ lÉ AlrÉÇ sÉÉåMåüwÉÑ zÉÑ´ÉÑqÉ | AÉ´ÉqÉåwÉÑ cÉiÉÑwÉÑï
AÉWÒûÈ SqÉqÉåuÉ E¨ÉqÉÈ uÉëiÉqÉç || iÉxrÉ ÍsÉ…¡ûÉÌlÉ uɤrÉÉÍqÉ
rÉåwÉÉÇ xÉqÉÑSrÉÈ SqÉÈ | ¤qÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ AÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉ xÉqÉiÉÉ
xÉirÉqÉÉeÉïuÉqÉç | CÎlSìrÉÉÍpÉeÉrÉ SɤrÉÇ qÉÉSïuÉÇ Ì¾ûÈ AcÉÉmÉsÉqÉç
|| AMüÉmÉïhÉÑAÇ AxÉÇUprÉÈ xÉliÉÉåwÉÈ ÌmÉërÉuÉÉÌSiÉÉ | AÌuÉÌWÇûxÉÉ
AlÉxÉÔrÉÉ cÉ AmrÉåwÉÉÇ xÉqÉÑSrÉÉå SqÉÈ || (aÉÑÂmÉÔeÉÉ cÉ
MüÉæUurÉ SrÉÉ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ AmÉÉæzÉÑlÉqÉç |) Vide 161 also.

The relation of all these things to Tyaga is brought about by the statement of Dharma-vyadha
uÉåSxrÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉiÉç xÉirÉÇ xÉirÉxrÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉiÉç SqÉÈ |
SqÉxrÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉSè irÉÉaÉÈ ÍzɹÉcÉÉUåwÉÑ ÌlÉirÉSÉ || 207.67. This makes
clear also how it is Tyaga which is the quintessence of Veda as well as Sishtacara.

We thus see the intimate interrelations between the various sources of virtue mentioned by
Manu. It is common for orthodox people to give prime importance among these to Sruti and
then to Smriti, then to ÍzɹÉcÉÉU, and AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ comes only where none of these three
sources give any guidance. According to them, where there is a conflict between Sruti and
Smriti, the prescription of the Sruti should be preferred to that of Smriti. Smriti is
authoritative only in such cases where no such Vedic prescriptions are available. Similarly,
no ÍzɹÉcÉÉU can prevail against any prescriptions give by Smriti. AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ is helpful
only when no clear guidance is given even by ÍzɹÉcÉÉU. Vide
´ÉÑÌiÉxqÉ×ÌiÉÌuÉUÉåkÉå iÉÑ ´ÉÑÌiÉUåuÉ aÉUÏrÉxÉÏ | AÌuÉUÉåkÉå xÉSÉ
MüÉrÉïÇ xqÉÉiÉïÇ uÉæÌSMüuÉiÉç iÉSÉ || Laughakshi. Also the words of
xÉXçaÉëWû. ´ÉÑÌiÉxqÉ×ÌiÉmÉÑUÉhÉåwÉÑ ÌuÉ®åwÉÑ mÉUxmÉUqÉç |
mÉÔuÉïÇ mÉÔuÉïÇ oÉsÉÏrÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ lrÉÉrÉÌuÉSÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ || Also
cÉiÉÑÌuÉïÇzÉÌiÉqÉiÉ. xqÉ×iÉåuÉåïSÌuÉUÉåkÉålÉ mÉËUirÉÉaÉÉå rÉjÉÉ
pÉuÉåiÉç | iÉjÉæuÉ sÉÉæÌMüMÇü uÉÉYrÉÇ ´ÉÑÌiÉoÉÉkÉÉiÉç
mÉËUirÉeÉåiÉç || Also Vasishtha I.4and 5. ´ÉÑÌiÉxlÉ×ÌiÉÌuÉÌWûiÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ
iÉSsÉÉåpÉå ÍzɹÉcÉÉUÈ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç | cf. also the words of
xqÉ×ÌiÉqÉÑ£üÉTüsÉ. xÉSÉcÉÉU²æÌuÉkrÉå iÉÑ rÉÎxqÉlÉç SåzÉå rÉÎxqÉlÉç
MüÉsÉå rÉÎxqÉlÉç mÉÑÂwÉå UÉaɲåwÉUÌWûiÉxrÉ ÍzɸiuÉÉÌiÉzÉrÉoÉÑήÈ
iÉÉSØzÉxrÉ AÉcÉÉUÉå qÉÑZrÉiuÉålÉ aÉëÉ½È || According to Sumantu that
AÉcÉÉU which has been current in one family is to be accepted in such cases in preference
to the traditional Acharas of the other families. iÉÎxqÉlÉç MÑüsÉ¢üqÉÉrÉÉiÉÇ
AÉcÉÉUliÉÑ AÉcÉUåiÉç oÉÑkÉÈ xÉ aÉUÏrÉÉlÉç qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå
xÉuÉïzÉÉxiÉÉåÌSiÉÉSÌmÉ || It will be seen that these orthodox conservative people
prefer to be guided by external authority where such is available rather than take the trouble
of using their own moral sense and freedom of choice. To merely follow another’s lead and
to rely entirely upon another’s judgement in matters of Dharma would only result in making
one morally weak as no exercise is given to the moral sense, just as the various limbs of the
body, and its muscles, nerves etc get weaker if they are not regularly and properly exercised

154
and leads to what is called atrophy, or when a man always takes the help of another or even a
vehicle to go from place to place. That is why Hindu orthodox society has deteriorated in its
morality and Dharma till at last it has become almost absolutely imbecile morally and
spiritually. If they had taken a proper view of one comparative importance of all thse sources
of Dharma and exercised their sense of freedom of choice on the basis of Atmatushti, their
moral sense would have been gradually strengthened more and more through constant regular
use & exercise & they would have been able to stand upon their own legs instead of always
seeking to rely upon frail cruches provided by the opinion of every conqueror that has
enslaved India. The sorry spectacle of Hindus shamelessly aping and imitating the west in
their customs and manners and in their ideas about justice and virtue can be traced to this
weakening of the moral back bone through lack of exercise of their own independent moral
sense. We can from practical experience understand how this happens in the case of spoon
feedingof boys and in cases of too much of mothering and guidance given by parents at
home. It is far better in the interests of moral advancement to provide freedom of action to
growing youngsters and to allow them freedom of thought and judgement with as little
interference from elders as possible except where it is absolutely found necessary as
advocated by modern educational experiments such as the Montessori method. We can thus
well understand the force of Bhagavan’s statement in the Gita that Svadharma is Sreyas and
Paradharma is Bhayavaha and his advocacy of Svadharma even at the risk of a little danger
now & then. It is better to have the liberty to learn through error and mistake and by ones
own expense. That is what Bhagavan means when he says xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï
MüÉæliÉårÉ xÉSÉåwÉqÉÌmÉ lÉ irÉeÉåiÉç | xÉuÉÉïUqpÉÉ WûÉå SÉåwÉåhÉ
kÉÔqÉålÉÉÎalÉËUuÉÉuÉ×iÉÉÈ || No man can learn to swim without entering into
water and no child can learn to walk without being given the opportunity to fall. Cf.
Swamiji’s statement that he has learnt more through failures and errors than through
successes. Every sincere attempt to use ones own moral sense in the light of the principles of
Dharma as we have explained before must make us morally and spiritually stronger step by
step and there is no such thing as failure or error in such case as every step takes one nearer
the goal. As Swamiji says we are not progressing from error to truth but from lower truth to
higher truth, from good to better, to bad and good until we reach the highest Truth. Cf.
Mundaka Up. xÉirÉqÉåuÉ eÉrÉiÉå lÉÉlÉ×iÉqÉç | xÉirÉålÉ eÉrÉiÉå lÉÉlÉ×iÉqÉç
| xÉirÉålÉ mÉljÉÉ ÌuÉiÉiÉÉå SåuÉrÉÉlÉÈ | rÉålÉ AÉ¢üqÉÎliÉ GwÉrÉÈ ÌWû
AÉmiÉ¢üÉqÉÉÈ | rÉ§É iÉiÉç xÉirÉxrÉ mÉUqÉÇ ÌlÉkÉÉlÉqÉç || It is accepted by
all Vedantins that Dharma is different for different people and for the same men in different
circumstances, time, place etc. cf. Sankara on Br. Su III.1.25 rÉÎxqÉlÉç SåzÉå MüÉsÉå
ÌlÉÍqɨÉå cÉ rÉÉå kÉqÉÉåïÅlÉѸÏrÉiÉå iÉSåuÉ
SåzÉMüÉsÉÌlÉÍqɨÉÉliÉUåwÉÑ AkÉqÉÉåï pÉuÉÌiÉ | Cf. also Krishna's words in
Bhagavatam YuÉÍcÉiÉç aÉÑhÉÉåÅÌmÉ SÉåwÉ xrÉÉiÉç SÉåwÉÉåÅÌmÉ ÌuÉÍkÉlÉÉ
aÉÑhÉÈ where ÌuÉÍkÉ refers to Svadharma as decided by oneself on the basis of all the
principles of Dharma given above. Cf. also Santi P. xÉ LuÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉÉåÅkÉqÉïÈ iÉÇ
iÉÇ mÉëÌiÉlÉUÇ pÉuÉåiÉç mÉɧÉMüqÉïÌuÉzÉåwÉåhÉ
SåzÉMüÉsÉÉuÉmÉå¤rÉ cÉ || AlrÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉqÉxjÉxrÉ ÌuÉwÉqÉxjÉxrÉ
cÉÉÅmÉUÈ | mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉå SåzÉMüÉsÉå kÉqÉÉåï ÌWû AÉuÉÎxjÉMüÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ
|| cf. also Santi 36.11 xÉ LuÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉÉåÅkÉqÉïÈ SåzÉMüÉsÉmÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÈ |
AÉSÉlÉÇ ÌWÇûxÉÉ kÉqÉÉåï ÌWû uÉ AÉuÉÎxjÉMüÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || cf. Krishna’s
words in M.bh., Udyoga Parva where he specially mentions that even if one fails to attain his
goal the very sincere attempt at kÉqÉï necessarily leads to mÉÑhrÉqÉç (ÍcɨÉzÉÑή).
kÉqÉïMüÉrÉåï rÉiÉlÉç zÉYirÉÉ lÉÉå cÉåiÉç mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ |
mÉëÉmiÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ iÉiÉç mÉÑhrÉqÉç A§É qÉå lÉÉÅÎxiÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ ||

155
Similarly in the case of AkÉqÉï even if one fails inspite of sincere attempt to do something
wrong, such failure is better from the standpoint of morality. qÉlÉxÉÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉlÉç
mÉÉmÉÇ MüqÉïhÉÉ lÉ AÌiÉUÉåcÉrÉlÉç | lÉ mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ TüsÉÇ iÉxrÉ
CirÉåuÉÇ kÉqÉïÌuÉSÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ || According to us, therefore, AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ or qÉlÉÈ
mÉÔiÉiÉÉ is the prime source of Dharma and not texts or usages and customs and tradition.
To submit to these unthinkingly and unintelligently can never be Sattvic and cannot therefore,
be kÉqÉïs as kÉqÉï is the sɤÉhÉ and xÉiuÉaÉÑhÉ according to Manu, however hoary
the antiquity of the text or the tradition may be. It is the use of xÉSxÉ̲uÉåMüoÉÑή, the
discriminating intelligence that makes a Karma Dharma and it is the independent and free use
of that oÉÑή by oneself that makes the act of xuÉkÉqÉï. Thus the whole concept of
xuÉkÉqÉ is founded on freedom and self determination by use of ones own Buddhi. That is
why the Gita says in the 2nd chap. At the very beginning of the discussionof Karma Yoga II-
41: urÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉÎiqÉMüÉ oÉÑήUåMåüWû MÑüÂlÉlSlÉ | oÉWÒûzÉÉZÉÉ
½lÉliÉÉ¶É oÉÑ®rÉÉåÅurÉuÉxÉÉÌrÉlÉÉqÉç || urÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉ here means the use of
the Buddhi to determine what is the proper goal of life as well as the proper means of
achieving it as per the principles of Dharma discussed above and to rigourously and
resolutely put into practice what one has settled to be ones Dharma even in the face of all
obstacles. This is the one and only instrument which is of any value in spiritual life as
conceived by Sri Krishna. That is the force of the words LMåü & CWû in the Sloka. He
points this out as the point of difference between his idea of spiritual life and that of the
orthodox ritualistic text bound Mimamsakas who rely upon different Karmas prescribed by
the texts to bring about the satisfaction of different desires. People who are thus guided have
neither a common end nor a common means, according to differences in texts and differences
in desires. That is the force of the second line oÉWÒûzÉÉZÉÉ ÌWû etc. where
AurÉuÉxÉÉrÉÏ means those who do not rely upon the judgement of their own
xÉSxÉ̲uÉåMüoÉÑή and who are therefore slaves of others and their own passions and
desires. He therefore condemns such orthodox conservatives in the next two or three verses
rÉÉÍqÉqÉÉÇ mÉÑÎwmÉiÉÉÇ uÉÉcÉÇ< etc. Accroding to him, their Buddhi can never
become steady or concentrated and they can never attain realization through Samadhi. And he
therefore advises in the next Sloka to give up all ideas of attaining success in moral and
spiritual life through reliance upon mere prescriptions of the scriptures, none of which can
help anybody to attain (realize) the goal of life viz. realization of Atman or God which is the
one worthy goal of all human endeavour. This is what is meant by §ÉæaÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ
uÉåSÉ etc. The goal of life and the method of realizing it are dependent upon one’s own
Atman. That is the force of the word AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç in the Sloka. For this one must pass
beyond the three Gunas and give up all worldly desires and must practise constant meditation
and self control and renunciation. ÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉ means beyond the Gunas or
̧ÉaÉÑhÉÉiÉÏiÉ whose characteristic are described at the end of the 14th chap. Ìlɲïl² refers
to equanimity of mind and freedom from the effects of the contacts with sense objects such as
xÉÑZÉ, SÒÈZÉ, UÉaɲåwÉ, zÉÏiÉÉåwhÉ, ÍqɧÉ, SìÉåWû, etc. i.e. xÉqÉiuÉ
ÌlÉirÉxÉiuÉxjÉ refers to the constant interest only in permanent Truth viz. qÉÉå¤É or
realistion and the consequent permanent ÍcɨÉzÉÑή that comes from such realization.
ÌlÉrÉÉåïaɤÉåqÉ refers to renunciation. Krishna exorts Arjuna to accept these as the
criteria of righ activity or Dharma in preference to the prescription of the Vedas. The whole
of the subsequent discourse in the 2nd chap. is in explanation and substantiation of this
fundamental principle of right action or Dharma. In the next Sloka he points out that one who
relies upon the guidance one’s own Atman does not really lose anything as in such realization
is included an attainment of all other goals of life, just as during a flood all small reservoirs of
water merge into one vast sheet of flood water. This is an echo of Tait. Up. xÉÉåÅzlÉÑiÉå

156
xÉuÉÉïlÉç MüÉqÉÉlÉç xÉWû | This is literally and factually true as all worldly pleasure
and satisfactions are only pale, blurred and partial reflections of the AÉiqÉÉlÉlS in the
Sattvic element of the mind as is explained before. Such a man of realization does not stand
in need of nor is he tempted by even the highest worldly pleasures such as those aimed at by
the AurÉuÉxÉÉrÉÏs. They have no use for such tinsel as a man has no use for small pools
of wter when there is big flood. This is the force or rÉÉuÉÉlÉjÉï ESmÉÉlÉå etc.

In attaining this state one has to progress step by step by converting every one of his actions
with Dharma through the use of Buddhi. In this use of the Buddhi that converts mere Karma
into Karma Yoga as is explained in the next few verses. It is to emphasise this use of the
Buddhi in spiritual life that Bhagavan calls Yoga by the name of Buddhi Yoga. II-49:
SÕUåhÉ ½uÉUÇ MüqÉï oÉÑήrÉÉåaÉÉ®lÉÇeÉrÉ | oÉÑ®Éæ
zÉUhÉqÉÎluÉcNû M×ümÉhÉÉÈ TüsÉWåûiÉuÉÈ || etc. Even in III-26 n
oÉÑήpÉåSÇ eÉlÉrÉåS¥ÉÉlÉÉÇ MüqÉïxÉÌ…¡ûlÉÉqÉç | oÉÑήpÉåSÇ includes
the breaking up of the one pointed reliance on Buddhi by the extraneous influences and
advice offered by others. Bhagavan condemns in that Sloka the attempt of people to force
their views on others at the point of the sword as it were or through subtle persuation, bribery,
offer of temptations etc as the Christians and Musalmans do to effect conversions. By the
constant use of one’s own Buddhi it at last gets the power to reach only virtuously and this is
what is referred to in II-53: ´ÉÑÌiÉÌuÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉÉ iÉå rÉSÉ xjÉÉxrÉÌiÉ ÌlɶÉsÉÉ |
xÉqÉÉkÉÉuÉcÉsÉÉ oÉÑήxiÉSÉ rÉÉåaÉqÉuÉÉmxrÉÍxÉ || The word
´ÉÑÌiÉÌuÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉÉ shows how Bhagavan does not pay much attention to the
beneficient words of the Sruti. Sruti according to Him, only makes the Buddhi confused &
distracted and creates doubts through conflict between its prescriptions and one’s own free
convictions. A few Slokas further on in the course of the descriptions of the behaviour of the
Sthitapravta, he points out how a man comes to grief if his Buddhi has not become (properly
trained through constant exercise) stong through proper training. Cf. oÉÑήlÉÉzÉÉiÉç
mÉëhÉzrÉÌiÉ. Although thus exercise of the Buddhi through self-discipline is a very
important element in Svadharma, it does not preclude the help received from Atman or God
or even from realized men as Gurus who have become actually one with the Atman or God.
Therefore we find Bhagavan saying at the end of the 3rd chap. III-42: CÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ
mÉUÉhrÉÉÌWûËUÎlSìrÉåprÉÈ mÉUÇ qÉlÉÈ | etc. also III-43: LuÉÇ oÉÑ®åÈ
mÉUÇ oÉÑ®uÉÉ xÉÇxiÉprÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ | etc. where AÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ
refers to giving full play to the inspiration from the Atman within and to conquer the lower
self with the help of such inspiration from the higher self. Simialarly in the 6th chap. he
exhorts Arjuna to extricate himself from slavery with the help of his own higher Atman –
E®UåSÉiqÉlÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ lÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉuÉxÉÉSrÉåiÉç | AÉiqÉæuÉ ½ÉiqÉlÉÉå
oÉlkÉÑUÉiqÉæuÉ ËUmÉÑUÉiqÉlÉÈ || etc. The same idea occurs in his instruction to
Uddhava also in XI.7.19&20 & ch.2 of Sri Krishna & Uddhava mÉëÉrÉåhÉ qÉlÉÑeÉÉ
sÉÉåMåü sÉÉåMüiÉiuÉÌuÉcɤÉhÉÉÈ | xÉqÉÑ®UÎliÉ ÌWû AÉiqÉÉlÉqÉç
AÉiqÉlÉæuÉ AzÉÑpÉÉÅÅzÉrÉÉiÉç || AÉiqÉlÉÉå aÉÑÂUÉÅÅiqÉæuÉ
mÉÑÂwÉxrÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | rÉiÉç mÉëirɤÉÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉprÉÉÇ
´ÉårÉÉåÅxÉÉæ AlÉÑÌuÉlSiÉå || Here Pratyaksha refers to direct inspiration from
within and Anumana to inference based upon such inner inspiration, Sreyas refers to Dharma
as thus directly perceived as conducive to Nisreyasa or Moksha. vide also XI.22.58 & ch 17
of Sri Krishna & Uddhava. ´ÉåWûxMüÉqÉÈ M×ücNíûaÉiÉÈ
AÉiqÉlÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉqÉÑ®UåiÉç. M×ücNíûaÉiÉÈ means ‘who is in difficulty as to
what is right or wrong’. The help from a real external Guru should also be availed of
wherever it is possible and that is why Arjuna could save himself by surrendering himself to

157
the guidance of Sri Krishna. This is also what is refered to at the end of the Gita in the
cÉUqÉzsÉÉåMü, xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlmÉËUirÉerÉ etc. To this surrender oneself to the
benign influence of Atman or God inside or of the Guru outside does not imply any real loss
of freedom or independence of judgement. On the other hand, it is a regaining of his real
independence and freedom which he had lost through his slavery to his own passions and
egoism. Real freedom consists in liberty to act as one thinks proper from moral stand point
and this liberty is assured in accepting the inner inspiration from the Atman in preference to
the guidance given by the desire for sense pleasures, fear etc. Even in the case of the advise
given by a Guru there is no loss of one’s own freedom or individuality as all real Gurus who
are interested in the welfare of the Sishyas give ample freedom to the latter and the liberty of
choice and the freedom to accept or reject their advice. This is what Sri Krishna does when
after all advice to Arjuna he says ÌuÉqÉ×wrÉæiÉSzÉåwÉåhÉ etc and when Arjuna acts
he acts on his own responsibility according to his natural moral sense, which had previously
failed to act in guiding him properly as his Buddhi was clouded through his own egoism and
attachment to his kith and kin and extraneous influence began to play upon him and over
power his own judgement. That is what Arjuna means when he says lɹÉå qÉÉåWûÈ
xqÉ×ÌiÉsÉïokÉÉ etc. Every real Guru works only through the process of making the
Sishya use his own Buddhi and convince himself about the rightness or propriety of an action
by such independent use of his own Buddhi. What the Guru attempts to do is to help the
Sishya to use his Buddhi and think for himself and decide for himself. That is why Bhagavan
says in 10th chap. 10th and 11th Sloka. iÉåwÉÉÇ xÉiÉiÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ pÉeÉiÉÉÇ
mÉëÏÌiÉmÉÔuÉïMüqÉç | SSÉÍqÉ oÉÑήrÉÉåaÉÇ iÉÇ rÉålÉ qÉÉqÉÑmÉrÉÉÎliÉ
iÉå || iÉåwÉÉqÉåuÉÉlÉÑMüqmÉÉjÉïqÉWûqÉ¥ÉÉlÉeÉÇ iÉqÉÈ |
lÉÉzÉrÉÉqrÉÉiqÉpÉÉuÉxjÉÉå ¥ÉÉlÉSÏmÉålÉ pÉÉxuÉiÉÉ || There is no loss of
freedom of thought and judgement and freedom of action in accepting the help and advice of
a real Guru. Even Bhagavan says in BG iÉxqÉÉcNûÉx§ÉÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ iÉå
MüÉrÉÉïMüÉrÉïurÉuÉÎxjÉiÉÉæ | ¥ÉÉiuÉÉ zÉÉx§ÉÌuÉkÉÉlÉÉå£Çü MüqÉï
MüiÉÑïÍqÉWûÉWïûÍxÉ || He does not mean to take away Arjuna’s right of independence
of judgement for immediately at the beginning of the 17th chap. Arjuna poses the problem as
to what happens to the man who does not guide himself by the Sastras but who sincerely
practices self sacrifice and service (Yajna) with Sraddha for the purpose of realization of God
as his inner light guides him, Bhagavan readily concedes that if such action is based upon
Sattvika buddhi and Sattvika shraddha his action will also be Sattvika and therefore, Dharma.
Whether he is guided by the Sastra or not or Sastra in this Sloka must be understood not in
the sense as the orthodox people understand it. But as per the instruction and advice given by
the inner zÉÉxiÉÉ as per AliÉÈ mÉëÌuÉ¹È zÉÉxiÉÉ eÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ xÉuÉÉïiqÉÉ
Sarvatma or Sastra may mean here only the aÉѽiÉqÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉqÉç etc. in the last Sloka
of 15th chap. 20th Sloka. We thus see that Svadharma involves many elements. First of all it
is Dharma according to fundamental principles and it must be xuÉ - one's own, as judged
and decided by oneself or one's own Buddhi free from all external influences and
entanglements.

There are various words used in the Gita which more or less mean Svadharma but each of
these words emphasizes a particular element in the concept of Svadharma. First of all we
have the word xÉWûeÉMüqÉï as in xÉWûxÉÇ MüqÉï MüÉæliÉårÉ
xÉSÉåzeÉqÉÌmÉ lÉ irÉeÉåiÉç | The word xÉWûeÉ is understood as only meaning
‘natural’ in the ordinary sense. Every natural, however, is not Sahajakarma, for, in that case,
even the physical, chemical and vital activities will be entitled to be called Svadharma.
Bhagavan notes the expression in the technical sense alluded to in the 3rd chap. when he

158
speaks of Prajapati creating man along with Yajna. So this Yajnakarma as described in the 3rd
chap. that is born along with the Jiva at the beginning of creation itself refers to the natural
reaction resulting fom the action of Prakriti in finitising the Infinite and which (acts)
expresses itself in every finite being in the form an inner natural urges to attain this original
perfection through expansion and transcendence and which involves the desire for giving up
the lower in favour of a higher status. That is why Yajna is defined as SåuÉiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ
SìurÉirÉaÉÉiqÉMü | To say that Yajna is born with the Jiva is to emphasise this Yajna
based upon the inner urge natural to all finite beings. xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï, means any Karma
that involves the spirit of Tyaga and Yoga in the form of this Yajna based upon this natural
inner urge of perfection. It is this inner urge that is the cause of all evolution ending in Jivan
Mukti. It is this Karma that is refered to in the 8 th chap. when Bhagavan defines karma as
pÉÔiÉpÉÉuÉÉå°uÉMüUÉå ÌuÉxÉaÉïÈ MüqÉïxÉÇÍ¥ÉiÉÈ | Bhuta here refers to the
finite being or creature, Bhava refers to its continued birth and Udbhava means progressing
higher and higher as mentioned in the 6th chap. VI-45: mÉërɦÉɱiÉqÉÉlÉxiÉÑ
rÉÉåaÉÏ xÉÇzÉÑήÌMüÎsoÉwÉÈ | AlÉåMüeÉlqÉxÉÇÍxÉήxiÉiÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ
mÉUÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç || Visarga recreating oneself also means Tyaga. Even this progress
through repeated birth is with proper guidance of the Buddhi which gets finer and purer with
every sincere exercise in the previous life and which is readily available in the next life with
all the purity acquired in the previoue life through Sadhana. VI-43: iÉ§É iÉÇ
oÉÑήxÉÇrÉÉåaÉÇ sÉpÉiÉå mÉÉæuÉïSåÌWûMüqÉç | rÉiÉiÉå cÉ iÉiÉÉå
pÉÔrÉÈ xÉÎqxÉ®Éæ MÑüÂlÉlSlÉ || VI-44: mÉÔuÉÉïprÉÉxÉåoÉ iÉålÉæuÉ
̾ûrÉiÉå ½uÉzÉÉåÅÌmÉ xÉÈ | ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÑUÌmÉ rÉÉåaÉxrÉ
zÉoSoÉë¼ÉÌiÉuÉiÉïiÉå || where zÉoSoÉë¼ÉÌiÉuÉiÉïiÉå refers to its freedom from
all dependence on or slavery to scriptures. This is what Swamiji refered to when he said
‘Expansion is life and contraction is death’. Sahajam karma is the Karma based upon this
natural inner urge which is co-equal with creation itself which helps such expansion to the
infinite step by step. It is this that Swamiji refers to again when he speaks of renunciation and
service as the ideal of India. Internsify her in those channels through constant exercises and
redeem yourself from all slavery. This is the message of the doctrine of xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï.
XVIII-48: xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï MüÉæliÉårÉ xÉSÉåwÉqÉÌmÉ lÉ irÉeÉåiÉç | where
Sadosham refers to the possibility of some risk as is explained above. Doshas refer to failures
which are in the long run stepping stones to success. It is such failures that are refered to and
Arjuna asked the question VI-37: ArÉÌiÉÈ ´É®rÉÉåmÉåiÉÉå
rÉÉåaÉÉcÉÉÍsÉiÉqÉÉlÉxÉÈ | rÉÉåaÉÉŠÍsÉiÉqÉÉlÉxÉÈ, means one who has not
been completely successful in one life but who has had a set back in his spiritual life due to
causes beyond his control. xÉSÉåwÉqÉÌmÉ suggests even such apparent set backs will not
injure him if he has been sincerely trying his utmost in the line of this xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï as
the cumulative effect of his previous Sadhana will be available to him when he gets better
opportunities in the next birth. Every step gained in spiritual growth through practice of
xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï consciously and intelligently through the use of his own Buddhi is never
lost. That is the force of Bhagavan’s words xuÉsmÉqÉmrÉxrÉ kÉqÉïxrÉ §ÉÉrÉiÉå
qÉWûiÉÉå pÉrÉÉiÉç etc., lÉ ÌWû MüsrÉÉhÉM×üiMüͶÉiÉç SÒaÉïÌiÉÇ iÉÉiÉ
aÉcNûÌiÉ also iÉxrÉ iÉxrÉ AcÉsÉqÉç ´É®ÉÇ iÉÉqÉåuÉ ÌuÉSkÉÉqrÉWûqÉç
where Bhagavan says that it is He who gives Sraddha and better opportunities for spiritual
progress.

It is this nature of the world process of involution of Brahman and its consequent evolution
again into Brahmanhood that is described as Brahmachakra in the 3rd chap. III-16: LuÉÇ
mÉëuÉÌiÉïiÉÇ cÉ¢Çü lÉÉlÉÑuÉiÉïrÉiÉÏWû rÉÈ | This cyclic process of Brahman

159
going back to Brahman through Yajna as the axile of the wheel is described in A³ÉÉ°ÎliÉ
pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ in special relation to man. A³ÉÉ°ÎliÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ means the birth of all living
beings is the result of assumption of a body constituted of matter. The transmigarating (i.e
reincarnating) soul takes up materials from the external world which includes his would be
parent also. The soul chooses its own parents and its environment and builds up its own body
suitable for working out of the Karma of the previous birth which cling to him as Samskara
or Apurva. Thus birth is due to the Samskara or Apurva inducing the soul to find a newer and
fitter environment of opportunity to work out its own salvation. This is mentioned in the
words mÉeÉïlrÉÉiÉç A³ÉxÉqpÉuÉÈ where ‘Anna’ means new Annamaya kosha
(physical sheeth consisting of the material body) which the reincarnating soul assumes after
discarding the worn out body of the previous birth at the time of its previous death. ‘Anna’
here has nothing to do with food as the orthodox people take it ‘Parjanya’ has nothing to do
with the clouds or the rain to produce food. ‘Parjanya’ here refers to the ‘Apurva’ or the
cumulative effect of the past karmas which gives rise to this assumption of the new body and
the resulting new birth. As this new birth gives him fresher opportunities for successful
spiritual practice which ends in Samadhi and realization, the goal of all life and evolution,
this ‘Apurva’ is called ‘Parjanya’. This ‘Apurva’ itself is the result of the spiritual efforts or
Sadhana in the previous birth in the form of Yajna, i.e acts of renunciation and service. This
Yajna is not the ritualistic Yajna as understood by the orthodox commentators. It is said to be
Karmasamudbhavah, i.e based upon the initial forces of evolution originating at the time of
creation itself. It is of the form of a willing cooperation of the Jiva with the natural forces at
work to elevate him as mentioned in the vedic mantra of the Suklayajurveda ÌuɵÉÉå
SåuÉxrÉ lÉåiÉÑuÉÑïUÏiÉ xÉZrÉÇ So Yajna has two elements in it, the universal urge to
perfection which causes evolution upto the stage of man and the new power of freedom of
will, thought and action which the human birth endorse him with and which enables him to
take a hand in his further evolution by his co-operating with the evolutionary urge common to
all creations. God or nature itself was solely responsible for his growth up to this stage. She
has been like a Mother Nature holding the child by its hand and drawing him to the school as
it were even against its own wish. But like the child which becomes averse to go home even
after the classes are over when he becomes accustomed to the freedom and pleasures of the
school life in the company of the other boys or like the child who is forcibly put into the
water to learn swimming getting himself involved in the pleasure of swimming when he
becomes an expert swimmer and refusing to get back home or to worship in the temple, man
in his new found freedom and conscious enjoyment of the pleasures of the world which is
like a school or a tank refuses to obey the call of the Mother to come back home or obey her
behest although these are meant for his own good. It is this self effort in the wrong direction
due to this freedom of will and action that leads to his set back in further spiritual growth.
That is why such Karma is said to be the cause of Samsara. All the sufferings, troubles and
tribulations of life are not inherent evils of life itself but are all due to one’s own Karmas. If
he uses his freedom of will and action to cooperate with the divine beneficient forces he will
realize the goal of his pilgrimage to perfection (zÉUÏUrÉɧÉÉ of 3rd chap.) in this very life
itself and the dreaded Samsara will become a field of infinite spiritual bliss. This is
Jivanmukti, where there is complete freedom of thought, emotions, will, etc. and life becomes
a Leela as enjoyable as play. The wrong direction given to the free will in human birth is due
to the vestegious of Rajas and Tamas, i.e cravings and demands of life and the material
world, that cling to the soul even after the development of Buddhi which is essentially
Sattvic. It is these vestegious of the previous stage of evolution in the form of Tamas and
Rajas that vitiate the naturally Sattvic buddhi and prevent it from exercising his pure Sattvic
nature when the freedom is used to purify this Buddhi and free it from baneful effects of its

160
associations with Rajas and Tamas, so that the Buddhi sees clearly the goal as well as the
means of achieving it and begins to co-operate with the benign divine forces urging him to
perfection and takes to Yajna through such co-operation. It is this self effort (free and
voluntary) in co-operating with this inner urge that is refered to as Yajna being dependent
upon Karma. rÉ¥ÉÈ MüqÉïxÉqÉÑ°uÉ - this Karma is based upon the free and voluntary
co-operation with the natural forces of good instead of the forces of evil. Being developed
only out of the inner push of Brahman Himself to extricate himself out of Maya this Karma is
called oÉë¼Éå°uÉ | MüqÉïoÉë¼Éå°uÉqÉç ÌuÉή – there is no necessity to
understand Brahma except in the sense of God or Atman or the Antaryamin inside. The
orthodox commentators explain it as meaning body, Prakriti etc. to get out of the difficulties
of their own creation. This Brahman itself which initiates the primordial activity or Karma is
not only present in our own hearts but has its transcendent nature along with its immanance.
In its real nature it is untouched and unaffected by Prakriti or Maya or Samsara and all
changes which pertain to themselves as well as their products and there can be no immanance
or transcendence which always pre-supposes something else other than the absolute. It is this
absolute that appears as the immanant and transcendent God in relation to the world or to the
body in the relative states of consciousness. Therefore, this immanant God is said to be a
product of the absolute or Akshara. (oÉë¼É¤ÉU xÉqÉÑ°uÉqÉç. It does not refer to
merely) It is not only present in the heart of individual, but is present everywhere equally and
that is refered to in the epithet as ‘xÉuÉïaÉiÉ’ in the next Sloka. iÉxqÉÉiÉç
xÉuÉïaÉiÉqÉç oÉë¼. The attainment of this Sarvagata Brahma or realizing the presence
of God everywhere is based upon this initial primevial urge proceeding from the absolute
itself. In its effort to regain the original nature as the Absolute with the help of the co-
operation of the individual as described above. Human Sadhana or Yajna thus is a
combination of the effort of God as well as the effort of man. Philosophically it is this effort
by God that is always beneficial that constitutes His grace which is only a devotional
expression and it is this human effort that is called Sadhana. It will be seen, therefore, there
can be no opposition between these two forces but only co-operation.

It is only when this freedom is made use of to turn towards God or the Antaryamin and to
guide oneself in the light of His inspiration that we would get the full advantage of the
freedom derived in the course of evolution. We are really free to do this. There is no power
on earth including the power of Maya herself to prevent us from surrendering ourselves to the
power of God who is master of even Maya. In fact this freedom is one of the aspects of Maya
herself manifested in the course of evolution. One of the functions of Maya is to negate itself
through the exercise of this freedom and this freedom is evolved only for this purpose. It is
this aspect of Maya which helped one to transcend oneself which is called ÌuɱÉqÉÉrÉÉ
as opposed to the AÌuɱÉqÉÉrÉÉ which binds. It is this complete self-surrender that is the
goal of self-effort and that is why Bhagavan refers to it at the end of his discourse as
aÉѽɪ½iÉUÇ, xÉuÉïaÉѽiÉqÉÇ, etc. cf. verses beginning with XVIII-56:
xÉuÉïMüqÉÉïhrÉÌmÉ xÉSÉ MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉå qÉSèurÉmÉÉ´ÉrÉÈ | XVIII-66:
xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlmÉËUirÉerÉ qÉÉqÉåMÇü zÉUhÉÇ uÉëeÉ | But what usually happens
is that we are not guided by this beneficient power of God or Atman working from within
because in our freedom we turn our face away from the light and do all our actions guided by
our own ego and its desires to enjoy the pleasures of the senses. The ego and these desires are
really only forms of Prakriti or Maya. That is why Bhagavan refers to it in XVIII-59:
rÉSWÇûMüÉUqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ lÉ rÉÉåixrÉ CÌiÉ qÉlrÉxÉå | ÍqÉjrÉæwÉ
urÉuÉxÉÉrÉxiÉå mÉëM×üÌiÉxiuÉÉÇ ÌlÉrÉÉå¤rÉÌiÉ || ÍqÉjrÉÉ, urÉuÉxÉÉrÉ,
mÉëM×üÌiÉ and ÌuÉqÉÉå¤rÉxÉå are all important. AWûƒ¡ûÉUqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ is in

161
contrast to qÉSèurÉmÉÉ´ÉrÉÈ or qÉÉqÉåMÇü zÉUhÉÇ uÉëeÉ or iÉqÉåuÉ
zÉUhÉÇ aÉcNû. Mithya shows that we are running after at the will-o- the wisp for support
or a leaky boat to carry us across the Samsara neglecting the only safe and real support viz.
the Atman within. The use of the word Mithya here is to remind us of the description in the
III chapter where Bhagavan characterizes activities based upon the desire for sense objects
and egoism as Mithyachara. urÉuÉxÉÉrÉ reminds us of urÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉÎiqÉMüÉ oÉÑή
in the II chapter. The function of the Buddhi is characterized as Vyavasaya which means the
determination of what is right and true and voluntarily and energetically using the will to
attain this highest good and Truth as so determined. When the Buddhi does not exercise its
legitimate function being under the control of the Manas and senses, the activities initiated by
it cannot be considered a right or true activities. ÍqÉjrÉÉ urÉuÉxÉÉrÉ is, therefore, really
a contradiction in terms. It only means “lack of Vyavasaya” or “AurÉuÉxÉÉrÉ”. That is
why such people who will not use their Buddhi properly are called Avyavasayis in the II
chapter. oÉÑ®rÉÉåÅurÉuÉxÉÉÌrÉlÉÉqÉç who are condemned there. This failure of the
Buddhi to do its duty properly is because it does not exercise its freedom and becomes a slave
of the Manas which in its turn becomes engrossed in desires for sense pleasures because of its
slavery to sense pleasures. This bondage of the Buddhi to Manas is what is generally
described as Sangam or attachment. The desire of the Manas for enjoyment of sense
pleasures where such pleasurable sense objects are not available to it at the time is called
Kama and the natural pleasure which the sense get when they come into contact with certain
objects is called UÉaÉ. III-34: CÎlSìrÉxrÉåÎlSìrÉxrÉÉjÉåï UÉaɲåwÉÉæ
urÉuÉÎxjÉiÉÉæ | That Bhagavan uses the words UÉaÉ and MüÉqÉ in two senses slightly
different from each other is clear form his coupling the two words in such expressions as
MüÉqÉUÉaÉÌuÉuÉÎeÉïiÉqÉç. Thus in the final analysis the pleasures derived by the
senses from sense objects and the desire of the Manas to enjoy them is responsible for the
slavery of the Buddhi and its in capacity to perform its normal function. So Mithyavyavasaya
is traceable to the Manas thirsting for sense enjoyment that is refered to in rÉ AÉxiÉå
qÉlÉxÉÉxqÉUlÉç ... ÍqÉjrÉÉcÉÉUÈ xÉ EcrÉiÉå | This activity of the Buddhi of
merely controlling the Karmendriyas without controlling the relish of the senses in the
enjoyment of sense objects and the consequent slavery of the mind to sense enjoyments is
what is refereed to as Mithyachar here. Such spiritual practices where only the sense of action
are only controlled and thereby only the external activity is controlled without controlling
Raga and Kama do not release the Buddhi from Sangam and hence realiance upon such
Buddhi for proper guidance in matters of Dharma will not save man from the clutches of
Maya or Prakriti. It still remains powerful and tempts man or forces him to undertake wrong
activities or Adharma. That is why Bhagavan says XVIII-59: mÉëM×üÌiÉxiuÉÉÇ
ÌlÉrÉÉå¤rÉÌiÉ || nature will force you to act if you make AWûƒ¡ûÉU your guide. If on the
other hand you use your freedom to exert yourself against baneful influences of Ahamkar and
surrender yourself to the inspiration and guidance of the Atman or God within, you will attain
the goal of life easily. As it often happens in the case of persons who have not yet realized
God there will be a conflict between temptations of the senses and mind and the inspiration or
guidance given by God. This is what generally known as the conflict between
SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç and AÉxÉÑUÏxÉqmÉiÉç which is graphically and dramatically
described in the Puranas as the eternal warfare between the Devas and Asuras where the
Devas are described as successfully releasing themselves from the slavery of the Asuras with
the help of God although in the initial stages they had to submit to the forces of evil
represented as Asuras. Vide Sankara Bhashya on Chan. Up. I.2.1 where he explains
Devasurayuddha as symbolic of this conflict.

162
Arujuna’s conduct in refusing to fight for the sake of Dharma is not based on a proper free
and independent use of the Buddhi but upon his attachment to his kith and kin. In his calm
moments his unclouded Buddhi had already freely decided that Buddhi was consistent with
the demansds of Dharma and therefore to refuse to fight thinking that it is Adharma is the
decision of the Tamasic Buddhi as described in the 18th chapter XVIII -32: AkÉqÉïÇ
kÉqÉïÍqÉÌiÉ rÉÉ qÉlrÉiÉå iÉqÉxÉÉuÉ×iÉÉ | or at best of Rajasic XVIII- 31:
ArÉjÉÉuÉimÉëeÉÉlÉÉÌiÉ oÉÑÎ®È xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï UÉeÉxÉÏ || and refusing to fight is
not based upon Sattvic or pure Buddhi and hence it is ÍqÉjrÉÉcÉÉU. His persistence in
refusing to accept Bhagavan’s advice at first and his insistence in pursuing Dharma as he saw
it at that moment is an instance of Tamasic and Rajasic Dhruti as described in the 18th chap.
XVIII 34-35: mÉëxÉ…¡åûlÉ TüsÉÉMüÉǤÉÏ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï UÉeÉxÉÏ,
rÉrÉÉ xuÉmlÉÇ pÉrÉÇ zÉÉåMÇü ÌuÉwÉÉSÇ qÉSqÉåuÉ cÉ etc. His argument that
he would go to Naraka because of his having to cause pain or death to his relatives is due to a
false reliance on the scriptures instead of his own Sattvica Buddhi and his attempt to conceive
of Dharma from a predominarily hedonistic standpoint is based upon a wrong understanding
of the real goal of Dharma. xuÉeÉlÉÇ ÌWû MüjÉÇ WûiuÉÉ xÉÑÎZÉlÉÈ xrÉÉqÉ
qÉÉkÉuÉ? He does not think of Dharma as a means to Moksha or even Sattvika Sukha but
only as a means to Rajasic or Tamasic sukha as defined in the 18th chap. His conception of
Kuladharma is also a strange one not based upon his own Sattvika buddhi but on worldly
considerations and unintelligent social traditions. Kuladharma really means only love,
brotherliness and mutual cooperation that naturally manifest itself in the Kula or primary unit
of society, which enables each member of the family to work out his own salvation through
his own self effort not only unimpeded by the actions of the other members of the family but
with positive help and cooperation of the other members of the family. His reference to
Sraddha also in this connection is based upon a wrong conception of Sraddha based upon
mere popular tradition. Dharma is not to be determined in terms of such customs and tradition
Sraddha is spiritually only a symbolic ritual for cultivation of Sraddha or faith in God &
Atman faith in the capacity of oneself to achieve his salvation through his own self effort and
to control his future by proper activity in the present. The offering of Pinda and Udaka is only
symbolic of the dedication of one’s own / oneself as it is called to the Lord of the universe
called Brahmanda as represented by Gaya Gadadhara as referred to in the Charamasloka with
faith. It is this Sraddha that is represented by the offering of water ´É®É uÉæ AÉmÉÈ|
Thus we find how all Arjuna’s arguments in favour of desisting from the fight is not based
upon the free and independent use of his Sattvika buddhi but only on a wrong use of the
Buddhi bound by Rajas and Tamas and Sangam. This is what Arjuna refers to when he
speaks of himself as kÉqÉïxÉqÉÔRûcÉåiÉÈ in the beginning and lɹÉå qÉÉåWûÈ etc
in the end MüͶÉS¥ÉÉlÉxÉqqÉÉåWûÈ mÉëlɹxiÉå kÉlÉgeÉrÉ | That is why
Bhagavan refers to Achara or conduct of people, like Arjuna’s refusal to fight as
ÍqÉjrÉÉcÉÉU. mÉëM×üÌiÉxiuÉÉÇ ÌlÉrÉÉå¤rÉÌiÉ refers to the power of Prakriti to
force one to go away from the goal through delusion and consequent Ahamkar, Kama,
Krodha, Sangam etc. The ‘Prakriti’ of any man at a particular moment is represented by the
state of the Buddhi at that particular moment and its capacity and freedom to free itself from
this Avidhya aspect of Maya and to take advantage of the Vidhya aspect of Maya. This
freedom and capacity is circumscribed or limited by the cumulative effect of all his past
exercises of the Buddhi which remain as habit restricting its freedom at present. The slavery
of the Buddhi at present, therefore, is due to the wrong exercise of the Buddhi in the past. At
every re-birth the Soul brings with it these special tendencies, tastes, capacities, inclinations,
habits, etc. which are the cumulative effects of the result of past actions. These are called
Vasanas, Samskaras, etc of the exercises freely undertaken in a previous birth are consistent

163
with the divine inspiration and the natural urge for perfection, these previous Samskaras will
help the Soul to reach its destination step by step, the Sattvaguna will get more and more
strengthened, the Buddhi becomes more and more strong to resist temptations and there by
graduated series of exercises in self control etc one will easily reach the goal. If one has not
gone through these exercises in the previous birth but allowed himself to drift through slavery
to passions, desire for sense objects etc. or through negligence, carelessness, laziness,
lethargy etc (i.e through Rajas & Tamas), it is the cumulative effect of all these that will bind
the Buddhi in the next birth. But at no time is the freedom of the individual destroyed once
for all preventing him to struggle against the restriction and extricate himself from their
bondage and to work out his own salvation with the help of the inspiration from within and
the spiritual exercises as prescribed by this inner guide. That is why Bhagavan exhorts Arjuna
when he feels his helplessness to conquer the mind etc. to conquer the mind through his own
self effort and fresh attempt at Abhyasa and Vairagya. AxÉÇzrÉÇ qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå ...
zÉYrÉÉåÅuÉÉmiÉÑqÉÑmÉÉrÉiÉÈ || SÒÈZÉålÉ ÌlÉaÉ×WûÏiÉÇ zÉYrÉÈ that is to
say it is possible to control it with some difficulty. EmÉÉrÉiÉÈ if proper methods are
adopted, it is the same as rÉÉåaÉÈ MüqÉïxÉÑ MüÉæzÉsÉqÉç of ch.II &
xuÉYëqÉhÉÉ iÉqÉpÉÑcÉrÉï etc. iÉqÉåuÉ zÉUhÉÇ aÉcNû of 18th chapter. rÉÑ£ü
AÉxÉÏiÉ qÉimÉUÈ | rÉiÉiÉÉ in uÉzrÉÉiqÉlÉÉ iÉÑ rÉiÉiÉÉ refers to the necessity for
repeated effort, positive as well as negative. This cumulative effect of mÉÔuÉïprÉÉxÉ
which the soul carries with it from one birth to another is what is known as xuÉpÉÉuÉ as
the commentators themselves explain. This xuÉpÉÉuÉ is dependent upon the use of our
free will in the past and cannot stand against the use of the same free will in the present. As
the Yoga Vasishtha points out the SÒ¹ÉcÉÉU of the previous birth can be counteracted by
the xÉSÉcÉÉU of the subsequent birth, just as the result of bad action of yesterday can be
wiped out by a proper antidote today. ½xiÉlÉÉå xSÒ¹ÉcÉÉUÈ AÉcÉÉUåhÉ A±
cÉÉÂhÉÉ | rÉjÉÉ AÉzÉÑ zÉÑpÉiÉÉÇ rÉÉÌiÉ mÉëÉå£ülÉÇ MüqÉï iɨÉjÉÉ || It is
the action based upon the past Samskar that is refered to as Svabhavajakarma in the 18th chap.
This Svabhavajakarma is said to be based upon xuÉpÉÉuÉmÉëpÉuÉaÉÑhÉ
xuÉpÉÉuÉmÉëpÉuÉåïaÉÑhÉæÈ || of XVIII-41 … This Svabhavajakarma necessarily
varies with the different individuals. They are also called Svakarma. This Svakarma whether
good or bad is itself a bondage. That is why it is said XVIII-60: xuÉpÉÉuÉeÉålÉ
MüÉæliÉårÉ ÌlÉoÉ®È xuÉålÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ | The inherent freedom of the Buddhi can
still be made use of to get out of this bondage, when it exerts itself to regulate its actions
within the limits of its own Svabhava. Cf. Sri Ramakrishna’s illustration of the freedom of
the calf weed to the post. When one’s actions are thus regulated by both the cumulative effect
of Svabhava as well as the freedom of the Buddhi we have xuÉpÉÉuÉÌlÉrÉiÉÇ MüqÉï.

Thus in Svabhavaniyata Karma there are three main elements. 1. the Sahajam karma
represented by the inner urge, the rare voice of conscience etc. 2. the Svabhavaja karma the
limitations based upon it by the Svabhavaprabhavaguna 3. the regulation or Niyamana of
one’s own activity by one’s own Buddhi so as to enable oneself to get out of these limitations
to the natural working of the inner urge to perfection created by oneself through one’s own
past actions. It is this regulation of one’s own actions by oneself by the use of one’s own
freedom that is refered to as one of the characteristics of Sattvica karma and Tyaga in the 18 th
chap. Cf. XVIII-23: ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ xÉ…¡ûUÌWûiÉqÉUÉaɲåwÉiÉÈ M×üiÉqÉç, etc. It is
this Niyama what is refered to in the 3rd chap. also when Bhagavan says III-8: ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ
MÑü MüqÉï iuÉÇ MüqÉï erÉÉrÉÉå ½MüqÉïhÉÈ | etc. The Svabhavajakarma which
prescribes the limits within which one has freedom to put forth the necessary effort are given
in the 18th chap. in the description of the Svabhavajakarma of the four Varnas, where it is

164
specially mentioned as Bahyakarma Svabhavajam etc. These represent the predominant
characteristic of various groups and not their Svabhavaniyatakarma or Svadhyarma. The
Svadhyarma of each of these Varnas consists in their free use of their Buddhi to regulate their
life consistent with the demands of Dharma which consists only of those exercises which
enable one to go a step further getting out of the slavery of the Svabhavajakarma and then
enable them to progress step by step towards the highest goal of life viz. Moksha or
realization of God. It is only the practice of such moral and spiritual exercise throught the
free use of one’s own Buddhi that raises one’s activity to the level of Svadharma. The
Arthasastra or the science of worldy prosperity takes advantage of this natural inherent taste,
capacities and attitudes as they are and makes use of them to ensure the worldly prosperity
and the preservation of the society and never aims at enabling the individual to grow beyond
the limitations placed by their own Svabhavajakarma. The Dharmasastra on the other hand
makes use of these present opportunities to grow beyond the limits set by the
Svabhavajakarma withoug prejudice to preservation of society. We thus see that we have to
make a distinction between the demands of Arthasastra and Dharmasastra. As it very often
happens the demands of Dharma are not inconsistant with the welfare of individuals or
society and the demands of Artha need not always be inconsistent with the demands of
Dharma. A well organized society based upon dimension of labour according to each
individual’s Svabhavaguna karma and which ensures the individuals freedom at the same
time to work out his own spiritual salvation within the limits of Svabhavaguna &
Svabhavajakarma is what the Dharmasastra aims at. That is why such an organization of
society is said to be regulated by or based upon Varnashramadharma. According to this
Varnashramadharma, the Svabhavajakarma provides only a foundation as it were, for further
progress, with the help of the free use of their own Buddhi. We thus find in the stories of
Dharmavyadha and Tuladhara how they use their own freedom to get out of their
Svabhavajakarma which regulated their social life. They never allowed themselves to be
enslaved by their social conditions or status but took to real spiritual and moral practice
within the limits set by the demands of society and their own Svabhavajakarma and grew
beyond these limits morally and spiritually until at last they realized the goal of life, viz.
Jivanmukti, in the same term of life. It is the Samanya or Sadharna dharmas such as Ahimsa,
Satya, Sama, Dama, Japa, Dhyana, Tyaga, Viveka, love and service etc. that they practiced to
get out their slavery to Svabhavajakarma and realize the highest Truth or God. These
Samanya or Sadharanadharmas are available to all without any reference to caste, creed,
colour or sex and no rule of Dharmasastra places any restriction on the freedom of any
individual to practise these Dharmas. In fact any act which enables one to grow above these
limitations according to his own Adhikara is what constitutes his special Dharma or
Svadharma. Some individuals or groups, however, are more favourably placed to undertake
this Sadhana for further moral and spiritual growth as a result of their exercises in their
previous birth. The relative inferiority or superiority of individuals or groups from the
spiritual and moral stand points depends upon 1. the more or less favourable circumstances in
which they find themselves in this life as result of their actions and Sadhanas in their previous
life, 2. the glory of an individual or group consists in its voluntarily undertaking further
struggle to get beyond the limitations placed by birth, heredity or previous karma and one
who neglects the better opportunities that he has got is certainly more comprehensible and
despicable than one who struggles agains the unfavourable consitions and environments and
limitations in which he finds himself as a result of his previous actions. Thus we find a
Brahmana is one, according to Dharma sastra who has got a good fund of previous Samskaras
(good) as a result of his past karma which are more favourable for spiritual and moral growth
than in the other Varnas. The description of Svabhavajaguna of Brahmanas makes this point

165
clear Sama, Dama etc. he already possesses as a result of his past Sadhana which makes him
take his present birth in a more spiritual and moral family which provides better conditions,
opportunities and environments for further spiritual Sadhana. Cf. Bhagavan’s words in ch VI-
42: AjÉuÉÉ rÉÉåÌaÉlÉÉqÉåuÉ MÑüsÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ kÉÏqÉiÉÉqÉç | etc. But if, out of
his Tamas & Rajas, he uses his Buddhi to neglect this initial fund of good Samskaras and
favourable opportunities and ruin himself morally and spiritually by running after sense
pleasure and worldy prosperity he is the most despicable and contemptible creature who
commits spiritual suicide as refered to in the 3rd Sloka of Isa. A real Sudra like Dharmavyad
or a real Vaishya like Tuladyar who refuse to be bound by their past Samskaras which place
them in more unfavourable conditions, circumstances and environments and who use their
freedom to struggle against these limitations and achieve in this life itself through self effort
deserve more honour and worship than even a Brahmin who achieves Jivankukti in this life,
much more so when a Brahmin that neglects his opportunites of wastes the initial fund of past
good karma. This is the moral of the story of Dharmavyadha and Tuladhara where Brahmins
had to take refuge at the feet of these so called low castes according to social conventions.

The word mÉËUcÉrÉÉïiqÉMÇü MüqÉï is also misunderstood as merely meaning service

of the higher castes. There is, however, no word in the Gita to justify this interpretation.
mÉËUcÉrÉÉï only means mÉËU + cÉrÉÉï which signify all round service to the whole
society or humanity without any specification of the nature of service. In the case of the
higher castes, however, they are characterised by special capacities, tastes etc. and society
will have the benefit of such capacities if they take to any work as they like. They are
therefore bound to serve the society according to their special Adhikara. The Sudra is not thus
bound to confine himself to any particular kind of service but is free to undertake any kind of
service which society stands in need of and which is other than the duties expected to be
discharged by the other Varnas do not discharge their duties to society properly. The society
will suffer because of the neglect ot these experts and the Sudra has the right to step in and
fill up the gap and thus save society from the dangerous consequences of the neglect of their
duties by the higher classes and when Dharma and welfare of society itself is in danger the
Sudras have the right even to teach spirituality and morality to the whole society including
even Brahmanas by birth as Dharmavyadha has done or Swami Vivekananda etc. and other
great saints of modern days, like Thukaram and other Maharastra saints of medieval days,
Tiruppanalvar and other Vaishnava saints, Valmiki and Vyasa etc. of ancient days have done
(vide notes on Sudradhikara). mÉËUcÉrÉÉï or service of society or of God in man is the
Svadharma of all the castes. It is to indicate this that the word AÌmÉ is used in
zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ etc. Vaishyas like Tuladhara, Kshatriyas like Rama, Krishna, Janaka,
Buddha, Mahavira etc. have exercised their right to teach even the Brahmins. And the
Brahmins by birth never thought beneath their dignity to sit at their feet and learn. In fact the
Smritis do not put an interdict on castes higher in the social scale benefiting by the teachings
of teachers who are born in a lower castes. Manu makes provision for such contingency when
he says AÉoÉëɼhÉÉSkrÉrÉlÉMüÉsÉå ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | mÉËUcÉrÉÉï cÉ zÉÑ
´ÉÔwÉÉ rÉÉuÉSkrÉrÉlÉÇ aÉÑUÉåÈ | ´É®kÉÉlÉÈ mÉUÉÇ ÌuɱÉÇ AÉSSÏiÉ
AuÉUÉSÌmÉ | AlirÉÉSÌmÉ mÉUÇ kÉqÉï x§ÉÏU¦ÉÇ SÒwMÑüsÉÉSÌmÉ ||
ÌuÉmÉÉSmrÉqÉ×iÉÇ aÉëÉ½Ç oÉÉsÉÉSÌmÉ xÉÑpÉÉÌwÉiÉqÉç| AÍqɧÉÉSÌmÉ
xɲبÉqÉç AqÉåkrÉÉSÌmÉ MüÉgcÉlÉqÉç || Chap II.38 etc. In fact to make use of
their special capacities for the benefit of the whole world as a worship of God is one of the
methods by which one can transcend the limitations of xuÉMüqÉï and convert it into
xuÉkÉqÉï by the use of one's own Buddhi. This is what Bhagavan means when he says in
the 18th chapter immediately after describing the xuÉpÉÉuÉeÉMüqÉï, xuÉå xuÉå

166
MüqÉïhrÉÍpÉUiÉÈ xÉÇÍxÉ먂 sÉpÉiÉå lÉUÈ| xuÉMüqÉïÌlÉUiÉÈ ÍxÉ먂 rÉjÉÉ
ÌuÉlSÌiÉ iÉcNØûhÉÑ || ... xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlÉkÉÌiÉ
qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || The use of the word lÉU & qÉÉlÉuÉ without any reference to special caste
by birth is deliberately meant to suggest that this priviledge is applicable to all men as men
without any distinction of caste, colour, creed or sex. That there is no distinction in sex also is
shown by the example of the woman who gives instructions to the Brahmana in the
Dharmavyadha story. This freedom of self effort to raise oneself from the position in which
one finds himself by birth by the exercise of one's own Buddhi is what Bhagavan refers to in
the 6th chapter. When He says mÉërɦÉɱiÉqÉÉlÉxiÉÑ rÉÉåaÉÏ
xÉÇzÉÑήÌMüÎsoÉwÉÈ | … etc., rÉiÉiÉå cÉ iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉÈ ... etc., uÉzrÉÉiqÉlÉÉ
iÉÑ rÉiÉiÉÉ etc. Refer also to rÉiÉiÉå ½ÌmÉ MüÉæliÉårÉ etc. iÉÉÌlÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ
xÉÇrÉqrÉ rÉÑ£ü AÉxÉÏiÉ qÉimÉUÈ | II-61. Also qÉlÉÑwrÉÉhÉÉÇ
xÉWûxÉëåwÉÑ MüͶɱiÉÌiÉ ÍxÉ®rÉå | rÉiÉiÉÉqÉÌmÉ ÍxÉ®ÉlÉÉÇ
MüͶÉlqÉÉÇ uÉåÌ¨É iɨuÉiÉÈ ||, eÉUÉqÉUhÉqÉÉå¤ÉÉrÉ qÉÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ
rÉiÉÎliÉ rÉå | iÉå oÉë¼ iÉ̲SÒÈ M×üixlÉqÉkrÉÉiqÉÇ MüqÉï cÉÉÎZÉsÉqÉç || of
chapter VII. xÉiÉiÉÇ MüÐirÉïliÉÉå qÉÉÇ rÉiÉliÉ¶É qÉÉÇ rÉiÉliɶÉ
SØRûuÉëiÉÉÈ | lÉqÉxrÉliÉ¶É qÉÉÇ pÉYirÉÉ ÌlÉirÉrÉÑ£üÉ EmÉÉxÉiÉå || of 9th
chapter., rÉiÉliÉÉå rÉÉåÌaÉlɶÉælÉÇ mÉzrÉlirÉÉiqÉlrÉuÉÎxjÉiÉqÉç |
rÉiÉliÉÉåÅmrÉM×üiÉÉiqÉÉlÉÉå lÉælÉÇ mÉzrÉlirÉcÉåiÉxÉÈ || of the 15th chap.
etc. It is this self effort or rÉ¦É in uplifting oneself through irÉÉaÉ & rÉÉåaÉ that makes
one a (real) rÉÌiÉ. The word rÉÌiÉ is derived from the root rÉiÉç which means to struggle or
put forth self effort. Sankara explains it as rɦÉzÉÏsÉÉÈ, those who put forth self effort. It is
these Yatis that are referred in the 5th chapter MüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉÌuÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ
rÉiÉÏlÉÉÇ rÉiÉcÉåiÉxÉÉqÉç | Wherever Bhagavan refers to Yati in Gita, He does not
mean really one who has ritualistically taken Sannyasa; but not make use of the
opportunities afforded by that Ashrama, to raise himself spiritually and morally by self effort.
The Yatis have no caste. Everyone is of equal status because their one qualification or
characteristic is the struggle to realise God whatever their xuÉMüqÉï may be. All the
practices of the other Ashramas are meant only to give man this freedom of self effort. So the
whole concession of xuÉkÉqÉï on the basis of uÉhÉï and AÉ´ÉqÉ is based upon the
freedom of self effort. The word xuÉkÉqÉï occurs only in very few places in the Gita, as
per eg. xuÉkÉqÉïqÉÌmÉ uÉÉuÉå¤rÉ lÉ ÌuÉMüÎqmÉiÉÑqÉWïûÍxÉ | ... iÉiÉÈ
xuÉkÉqÉï MüÐÌiÉïÇ cÉ ÌWûiuÉÉ mÉÉmÉqÉuÉÉmxrÉÍxÉ | in chapter II.
´ÉårÉÉlÉç xuÉkÉqÉÉåï ÌuÉaÉÑhÉÈ mÉUkÉqÉÉïixuÉlÉÑ̸iÉÉiÉç | xuÉkÉqÉåï
ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ mÉUkÉqÉÉåï pÉrÉÉuÉWûÈ || etc. in chapter III, in chap. XVIII.

As long as man is alive he profits by his previous experiences in this life also. He has also got
the special capacity of profiting by another's experience by the use of his own powers of
observation, reason and judgement. He is thus constantly remaking himself at every moment
of his life and so we may even say that he is a different individual at every moment of his
life. He is thus having a fresh Svabhava as a result of the constant re-birth in the course of his
growth from birth to death through constant acting and reacting with the environment. The
Svabhava of the man at any moment, therefore, does not merely consist in the fund of
Samskaras that he has brought with him from his previous birth but also the Samskaras that
he has earned in this life itself through self-experience and education and adjustment to the
environment which consists of the race, the nation, family, Varna etc. His Svadharma at any
particular moment will naturally be affected not only by this previous Karma but by other
extraneous influences also in this life. But in all these cases these influences work only
through his Buddhi and therefore any decsion taken by the Buddhi as to what constitutes his

167
Svadharma at a particular moment does not cease to be the result of a free judgement of his
own Buddhi and so still remains Svadharma for him. It is only when his Buddhi does not
consciously and voluntarily accept as right and moral, accept what is forced upon him by the
external authority of scriptures, parents, Gurus, government, social tradations and
conventions, his own passions etc. or by lethargy or weakness or inertia, that his action
becomes Paradharma. It is this Paradharma that Arjuna was guilty of in neglecting his
Svadharma by refusing to fight. It is this Paradharma that is declared by Bhagavan as
pÉrÉÉuÉWû. The word pÉrÉÉuÉWûÈ may be understood in two ways. It may mean that
which is brought about (AÉuÉWû) through fear of consequences of lÉUMü etc. or by the
force of attachment to kith and kin etc. It may also mean that it is capable of bringing
dreadful and fearful spiritual and moral consequences in its wake as a result. Thus it is rooted
in fear and leads to further fear. So Bhagavan says xuÉkÉqÉåï ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ this also
may be understood in two ways. In the first sense ÌlÉkÉlÉqÉç refers to one's own readiness
to die or to sacrifice himself for the sake of Dharma and the good of society, rather than yield
slavishly to the dictates of another for fear or favour, when one knows that it is morally and
spiritually wrong to do anything propsed or commanded by another. This is what is illustrated
by Prahlada's refusal to obey his father or Sita's refusal to yield to Ravana's overtures or
Rama's refusal to obey his father and mother when they pressed him to desist from going to
the forest. It is on the same principle that Mahatmaji refused to yield to the British
Government and adopted xÉirÉÉaÉëWû and civil disobedience whereas civil disobedience
consists only in refusal to act at the dictates of another when one's own Buddhi says that he
will not be discharging xuÉkÉqÉï just by yielding to the external pleasure, xÉirÉÉaÉëWû
is positive and voluntarily undertaking work against the wishes and orders of another for the
sake of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû as we have explained it above based upon
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ and in this one is prompted only by the free judgement of one's
own Buddhi as to what constitutes Dharma under that particular set of circumstances and
conditions and at that particular time and place. The so called xÉirÉÉaÉëWû of many of
the so called followers of Mahatmaji not being based upon the free, unfettered moral
judgement of their own kÉqÉïoÉÑή or on considerations of xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUiÉ or
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû as it is not xuÉkÉqÉï but mÉUkÉqÉï and therefore, according to
Bhagavan it is pÉrÉÉuÉWûÈ. Similarly, one who forsakes his father and mother and takes
to Sannyas to avoid the responsibilities and difficulties attendent upon service of others and
prompted by the desire for more freedom for the play of his own selfish instincts or in
expectations of better worldly propspects or as a result of a quarrel with people at home or
infidelity of wife and children or through inducements or through laziness or inertia etc.

Bhagavan's conception of Sannyasa is very different from that of Arjuna which was based
upon current traditional notions, according to which giving up Karma was the essence of
Sannyasa. But, according to Bhagavan, Sannyasa consists only in giving up Kamyakarmas i.e
activities based upon selfish desires for sense pleasures. Cf. MüÉqrÉÉlÉÉÇ MüqÉïhÉÉÇ
lrÉÉxÉÇ xÉlrÉÉxÉÇ MüuÉrÉÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ | Even those Karmas prescribed as
ÌlÉirÉMüqÉï's are really based upon the desire to avoid the dangerous but the desire or fear
which prompts the actions. Even in these self-same actions cease to be dangerous and
become even worthy of being done if they are done only as worship of God through
dedication and consecration. lrÉÉxÉ in that verse means both bodily giving up as well as
dedication to God. That is what is referred to when He says in the 3 rd chapter qÉÌrÉ
xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ xÉÇlrÉxrÉÉkrÉÉiqÉcÉåiÉxÉÉ | etc. vide also rÉå iÉÑ
xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ qÉÌrÉ xɳrÉxrÉ qÉimÉUÉÈ | of chapter XII. Vide also chap.
VI rÉÇ xɳrÉÉxÉÍqÉÌiÉ mÉëÉWÒûrÉÉåïaÉÇ iÉqÉç ÌuÉή mÉÉhQûuÉ |. AlÉÉÍ

168
´ÉiÉÈ MüqÉïTüsÉÇ MüÉrÉïÇ MüqÉï MüUÉåÌiÉ rÉÈ | xÉ xɳrÉÉxÉÏ cÉ rÉÉåaÉÏ
cÉ lÉ ÌlÉUÎalÉlÉï cÉÉÌ¢ürÉÈ || (VI-2&1). Refer also to his answer to Arjuna's question
about Sannyasa at the beginning of the V chap. ¥ÉårÉÈ xÉ ÌlÉirÉxɳrÉÉxÉÏ rÉÉå lÉ
²å̹ lÉ MüÉǤÉÌiÉ | etc. cf. also lÉ cÉ xɳrÉÉxÉlÉÉSåuÉ ÍxÉήÇ
xÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || ch. III-4. Arjuna's Sannyasa was not based upon real Vairagya but
upon selfish attachment to his kith and kin. So his refusal to do his duty can at best be
considered only as Rajasic or Tamasic in character. That is why Bhagavan tried to prevent
him. If Arjuna's refusal to work based on real Vairagyam and qÉÑqÉѤÉÑiuÉqÉç or the
desire to have freedom from obstacles placed by family, society, etc. to work out his own
spiritual salvation, Bhagavan could not have had any objection to his becoming a (real)
Sannyasi. Only Arjuna would not have had in that case any opportunity to give up his
Svadharma. Real Sannyasa and Svadharma are not, therefore, opposed to each other and no
real Sannyasi is free to give up his Svadharma as it is properly understood. Such Sannyasis
are distinguished from the ordinary Sannyasis of the Smartha type who are Sannyasis only in
name and form by virtue of the rituals performed by them such as ÌuÉUÉeÉWûÉåqÉ etc.
Even many of our so called Mathadhipatis of the orthodox types are thus only Sannyasis in
name, as their Sannyasa is not based upon real Vairagyam and qÉÑqÉѤÉÑiuÉ but on the
choice made by somebody else or society and as they are not free to do what their own
kÉqÉïoÉÑή tells them to be their xuÉkÉqÉï. It is to distinguish this kind of Sannyasa
from real Sannyasa that Bhagavan prefered to call it by another name altogether viz. Tyaga.
This 'Tyaga' is defined in the 18th chapter thus MüÉrÉïÍqÉirÉåuÉ rÉiMüqÉï ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ Ì
¢ürÉiÉåÅeÉÑïlÉ | etc. In the second sense ÌlÉkÉlÉqÉç means the death of oneself but
somebody else as an accidental result of performance of one's own Dharma. As
Dharmavyadha points out there is no act which does not involve in some kind of injury or
other to another. No man can live without destroying life unconsciously. To leave involves
the breaking of the cells of the body. To take food one has to destroy life. Even such apparent
innocent actions as agriculture and industry (involves) cannot be carried on without injuring
life. When such is the case it is impossible to perform one's xuÉkÉqÉï without injuring
somebody or other. But there is this difference when one is performing Svadharma he is
prompted by the spirit of AÌWÇûxÉÉ, sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, and xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ
and therefore, he would naturally try to reduce this evil as much as possible. This actions are
prompted by love in a spirit of selfless service and the desire to realise God and as he uses
this Buddhi to find out what action brings about the greatest good of the greatest number
(good in terms of spiritual and moral welfare), his xuÉkÉqÉï involves less injury than it
would be if prompted otherwise. Therefore, his action is more pure and brings more
ÍcɨÉzÉÑή not only to himself but also to great number of other people also, even though
a few may accidentally be hurt according to their own false conception of welfare. Therefore,
this little accidental bad result (mÉÉmÉ) is merged as it were in the xÉÑM×üiÉ or
mÉÑhrÉ that results from the Svadharma. Cf. LMüÉå ÌWû SÉåwÉÉå
aÉÑhÉxÉͳÉmÉÉiÉå ÌlÉqÉ‹ÌiÉ ClSÉåÈ ÌMüUhÉÉåÎwuÉuÉɃ¡ûÈ | or we may even
say the readiness to perform xuÉkÉqÉï even at the risk of a little mÉÉmÉ for the spiritual
welfare of a greater number is an act of greater self sacrifice and therefore, adds more lusture
of purity of mind than if the action were not his Svadharma. Cf. Kalidasa's words in
Sakuntala xÉUÍxÉeÉqÉlÉÑÌuÉ®qÉç zÉæuÉsÉålÉÉÅÌmÉ UqrÉÇ qÉÍsÉlÉqÉÌmÉ
ÌWûqÉÉÇzÉÉåsÉï¤qÉ sɤqÉÏÇ iÉlÉÉåÌiÉ || Therefore, Bhagavan says in this second
sense xuÉkÉqÉåï ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ, i.e. xuÉkÉqÉï is ´ÉårÉxÉç even though it may
involve some injury or death to another. It is on this ground that Arjuna's fight would have
been justifiable. This principal is of universal application. It is on this principal that a
Sannyasin is justified in giving up his hearth and home even though his action may involve

169
the withdrawal of his support from his dependents and even though it may hurt the feelings of
his parents. It is only if the Sannyasin extends his love and service to all, that his withdrawal
of his injury or support to a smaller number would be justified. "Not that I love you the less
but I love God more" is the ideal of Sannyasin. Cf. oÉWÒûeÉlÉxÉÑZÉÉrÉ
oÉWÒûeÉlÉÌWûiÉÉrÉ, ApÉrÉqÉç xÉuÉï pÉÔiÉåprÉÈ, AÉiqÉlÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉÉjÉïÇ
eÉaÉήiÉÉrÉ cÉ etc. Note also the difference between SrÉÉ & qÉÉrÉÉ as pointed out
by Sri Ramakrishna. The so called love & service of the parents is based upon attachment and
is therefore qÉÉrÉÉ where as the love and service of humanity is SrÉÉ. It is this SrÉÉ that
should characterise a real Sannyasin and this involves not merely the feeling of kindness or
compassion but an expression of this SrÉÉ in the form of actual service of the world as
worship of God.

Real Sannyasa thus does not involve any abandonment or giving up of action as such. On the
other hand it involves more intense activity and a wider field of opportunity. What is given
up is only selfishness or egoism and MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. as the basis of one's actions.
The renunciation is based upon love and it is to signify this that this special colour of Gerua is
adopted by the Sannyasin. This colour represents self sacrifice and love. UÉaÉ in its higher
sense of love and the colour of the blood symbolising the preparedness to sacrifice oneself for
the welfare of others. The colour also represents the inner fire of renunciation, wisdom and
spirituality. ¥ÉÉlÉÉÎalÉ thus it symbolises a synthesis of ¥ÉÉlÉ, pÉÌ£ü, & MüqÉï. The
colour is also the colour of the earth to which everybody must reduce himself in the end and
this helps to humble his pride to the dust as it were and thus symbolises humility also. It is a
constant reminder of death as the end of all bodies and thus of the vanity of all human
relationship based upon the body and also of the ephemerality of the whole world of matter
and sense pleasure. The abandonment of the external insignia of the householder's life based
upon attachment to the kith and kin is what is symbolised by the ÌuÉUeÉÉWûÉåqÉ. This
kind of Sannyasa is more of mental than physical and even a man like Sri Krishna or Sri
Rama can be a Sannyasin even though externally and socially they may appear to be worldly
aÉ×WûxjÉÈ. Even Sri Ramakrishna was not the less a Sannyasin because his wife was
serving him throughout life. Cf. also the life of Nagamahashaya who did not even undergo
the formal ceremony of Sannyasa. Although there is no compulsion to take up orders
formally and ritualistically in the case of highly evolved spiritual personalities, it is
considered necessary and helpful to become a formal Sannyasi when the mind is sufficiently
ripe. A formal Sannyasin is less exposed to danger and to temptations and attachments and
more free to discharge his duties to a wider humanity. There is less chance of society
expecting him to confine himself to the discharge of his so called duties to a narrower circle
of relatives, friends etc. It is in a way a public proclamation that such narrowness need not be
expected of him. To one who has not entangled himself in marriage and family life, this is a
sure protection against the attempts of interested parties to get him entangled. This is also a
safeguard against his slipping back into the worldly life as freely and conveniently as he
could otherwise have done. Society itself will consider him a fallen man and treat him with
execration and contempt and refuse to have any social intercourse with him. The very fear of
such treatment from society would be a barrier to prevent him from sliding back in unguarded
moments of weakness of heart. The very colour of his garment is a constant reminder to
himself of the purpose for which he took up Sannyasa and the goal of life which he aspired
for at every moment when weakness assails him. The social customs formulated under the
Varanashrama system forbidding to openly and publicly mix with the other sex and prevent
the house holder mixing with him intimately in social functions. The very presence of the
Sannyasi is expected to be a constant reminder to the masses of renunciation and love being

170
the goal of all human life and this in turn results in the householder treating him with respect
and honour. This very honour from the public prevents him from becoming small in their
eyes by becoming a renegade. The pride of caste which ordinarily forms an obstacle in the
path of spiritual progress is wiped out or burnt away when he takes formal Sannyas which
elevates everybody to the same level. This kind of formal Sannyas has, therefore, its own
advantages to the man who is interested in spiritual life and realisation, renuciation and it is
therefore, generally advocated by Sankara and other Acharyas as one of the stages of life or
Ashramas which everybody should embrace atleast towards the fag end of life. Sankara even
goes to the extent of saying that the higher Jnana or realisation is not possible without such
Sannyasa and quotes the Mundaka lÉÉrÉqÉÉiqÉÉ oÉsÉWûÏlÉålÉ sÉprÉÈ lÉ cÉ
mÉëqÉÉSÉiÉç iÉmÉxÉÉå uÉÉÅmÉÑAÍsÉ…¡ûÉiÉç where the word AÍsÉ…¡û is
explained by him as without the insignia of renunciation through formal Sannyasa. He also
quotes as authority example of Yajnavalkya who forsook his family and all the duties of
householder's life even though he was a Jnani. But he forgets in this enthusiastic advocacy for
the necessity of formal Sannyasa that there have been people like Janaka or Sri Krishna, or
Thuladara or Dharmavyadha who continued as householders till the end although they were
Jnanis. He himself is an advocate of the Jnani's freedom from all external restrictions and his
liberty of choice without being bound by scriptural injunctions or social conventions. The
Jnani is above all this and nobody can dictate to him as to what he should do or not. He may
take Sannyasa if he thinks it is advisable to set an example to others as an act of
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû according to the needs of his generation or he may choose to remain
a householder if he thinks that he should set an example that way. So his views about the
absolute necessity of formal Sannyas is only to be taken as an eulogy of Sannyas and not
meant very seriously. Sannyasa as that of Yajnavalkya after attaining Jnanam is, therefore,
optional. Such Sannyasa is called ÌuɲixɳrÉÉxÉ, Sannyasa taken by a man who has not
yet become a Jnani but for only getting better facilities for attaining the Jnanam is called
ÌuÉÌuÉÌSwÉÉxɳrÉÉxÉ. Sankara's emphasis on the absolute necessity for Sannyas can be
confined to this type of Sannyasa and to this type of people. It is only to set an example to
others that all the Acharyas have become Sannyasins. There was a school of ritualists like
Jaimini who contented that Sannyasa is not prescribed by the Vedas at all and during the
Hindu revival after Buddhism which went to extremes in the practice of formal Sannyas, the
reaction against such Sannyas was represented by Mimamsakas like Kumarilabhatta, Parasara
in his Smriti. It is to counteract the condemnation of all Sannyasa altogether by these
ritualists that Sankara had to go to the other extreme and advocate with all the emphasis at his
command that Sannyasa was an absolute necessity for spiritual life and realisation. This
conflict of view between the ritualist and Vedantins is discussed by Badarayana in the
Vedanta sutras III.4 where he lays down that there is an injuction let down by the Srutis
themselves. Vide Sutras III.4.17: FkuÉïUåiÉxxÉÑ cÉ zÉoSå ÌWû | III.4. 20:
ÌuÉÍkÉuÉÉï kÉÉUhÉuÉiÉç etc AlÉѸårÉÇ oÉÉkÉUÉrÉhÉÈ xÉÉqrÉzlÉÑiÉåÈ
III.4.17-20 and Sankara's Bhashya thereon.

That Sannyasa institution is as old as the Vedas is clear from the references to Yatis and
Munis in the Vedic and Brahmanic literature and the opposition of the ritualist to them as
apostates. Sankara also finds Sannyasa referred to in the Cha. & Br. Ar. Ups. in such
statements as oÉë¼xÉÇxjÉÉåÅqÉ×iÉiuÉqÉåÌiÉ (cha II.23.1) & rÉå cÉåqÉåÅUhrÉå
´É®É iÉmÉ CirÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå (Cha.V.10.1 Panchagnividya) oÉë¼xÉÇxjÉ in the
former passage is explained by him as iÉÉmÉxÉÈ mÉËUuÉëÉQèuÉÉ and in the latter as
AUhrÉ EmÉsÉͤÉiÉÉ uÉæZÉÉlÉxÉÉÈ mÉËUuÉëÉeÉMüÉ¶É | Similarly the Bri.
Ar. Passage mÉѧÉæwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É ÌuɨÉæwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É sÉÉåMæüwÉhÉÉrÉɶÉ

171
urÉÑijÉÉrÉ ÍpɤÉÉcÉrÉïÇ cÉUÎliÉ is taken by him as referring to giving up all worldly
desires and getting out of the house and family entanglements and becoming a Sannyasi. He
quotes also with approval the Jabalopanishad passage rÉSWûUåuÉ ÌuÉUeÉåiÉç
iÉSWûUåuÉ mÉëuÉëeÉåiÉç oÉë¼ÉcÉrÉÉï²É aÉ×WûÉ²É uÉlÉÉ²É | In the Br.
Sutras also there are some Sutras which say that to come back from Sannyasa to ordinary
worldly life is a sin. iÉ°ÕiÉxrÉ lÉ AiÉ°ÉuÉÈ eÉæÍqÉlÉåUÌmÉ ÌlÉrÉqÉ AiÉSìÖmÉ
ApÉÉuÉåprÉÈ || III.4.40 (and Sankara quotes in his Bhashya on this Sutra). Also Sutra
III.4.43 oÉÌWûxiÉÑ EpÉrÉjÉÉÅÌmÉ xqÉ×iÉåUÉcÉÉU¶É according to which one who
has fallen from his Sannyasasrama is not fit to be associated with good people and he should
be outcasted. Sankara quotes with approval the following Smriti passages in his Bhashya on
this Sutra AÉÃRûÉå lÉæ̸MÇü kÉqÉïÇ rÉxiÉÑ mÉëcrÉuÉiÉå mÉÑlÉÈ |
mÉëÉrÉͶɨÉÇ lÉ mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ rÉålÉ zÉѬrÉåiÉç xÉ AÉiqÉWûÉ ||,
AÉÃRûmÉÌiÉiÉÇ ÌuÉmÉëÇ qÉhQûsÉÉŠ ÌuÉÌlÉÈxÉ×iÉqÉç | E¯®Ç M×üÍqÉS¹Ç
cÉ xmÉ×wOèuÉÉ cÉÉlSìÉrÉhÉÇ cÉUåiÉç || We thus see that Sannyasasrama is
authorised by Srutis & Smritis and the practice of the great Acharyas. "Sannyasa & Karma"
whenever any text says that he is not bound to perform the rituals prescribed for the
Grihastahas. It should not be mistaken as an injuction prevailing Sannyasins from discharging
their own Svadharma. These passages are also meant to show that the Sannyasin is not
affected by the mÉÑhrÉ or mÉÉmÉ that results from his actions, since he does his
Svadharma without any expectation of worldly results and only as worship of God. The
rituals which are prescribed for the Grihasthas are all only symbolic of Tyaga & Yoga and
when a man becomes a Sannyasin he gives up all these symbolic practice only and takes to
actual Tyaga & Yoga represented by the symbols. His formal giving up of rituals, therefore,
does not involve the abandonment of real Tyaga as well as real Yoga but only the giving up
of these kindergarten exercises when he is sufficiently ripe to perform his Sadhanas without
the help of any concrete symbols. That is why it is said that he deposits the Agni in which the
Homa is made in his own heart when he formally embraces Sannyasa. AÉiqÉÌlÉ AÎalÉÇ
xÉqÉÉUÉåmÉÑA oÉëɼhÉÈ mÉëuÉëeÉåiÉç aÉ×WûÉiÉç | Manu VI.38. cf. also
the final passage in Cha. Up. which refers to depositing all Indriyas in the Atman. AÉiqÉÌlÉ
xÉuÉåïÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ xÉÇmÉëÌiɸÉmrÉ ... VIII.16.1. There is no more necessity for him
to play with symbols as he has outgrown them. But he has not undergrown the necessity for
performing his own Svadharma. In the actual Sannyasa ritual even AÉiqÉ´ÉÉ® has to be
performed and mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉå̹ & ÌuÉUeÉÉWûÉåqÉ as the last acts of his symbolic
religious life. The first is to remind him that he has now become dead to the world and to his
immediate society in which he was a member and that he has given up his Ahankara and
attachment to kith & kin. The mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉå̹ is to remind him that he is no more to
confine himself to the protection of the interests of his immediate relatives but to widen his
sphere of (action) Svadharma to embrace the whole world as a manifestation of God. He is to
be the protector of the spiritual and moral interests of the whole world by converting all his
actions into sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû as worship of God which is the suggestionof thw word
mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉå̹. mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ means related to mÉëeÉmÉÌiÉ which means
protector of mÉëeÉÉ. The word Praja means mÉëMüwÉåïhÉ eÉlÉlÉÇ or
mÉëzÉxiÉeÉlÉlÉÇ, i.e spiritual and moral regeneration. All his activities should
henceforth be for the spiritual regeneration of the world. That is the force of the word
mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉ. As mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉ means also God. mÉëeÉÉmÉirÉ also suggests that
all activities even by way of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû should be undertaken only as selfless
worship of God. The word Praja is explained by Bodhayana in his Grihasparibhasha Sutra
I.23 as meaning not one's own children, grand children etc. but as meaning those whom he
regenerates spiritually through EmÉlÉrÉlÉ, spiritual instruction and through the self given

172
to practise self sacrifice. (Vide notes on Woman's status). This makes the real meaning of
Prajapati clearer as one who helps another in spiritual regeneration. It is to be noted how
Bodhayana extends the meaning of Praja to include all.

The "Viraja Homa", as its very name suggests, is a bruning away of all Rajas or imputities in
the fire of Jnanam or Bhakti of God. That is why the Mantras uttered in connection with this
Homa mean a prayer for purity of mind and freedom from bondage to Manas (mind), senses
and body. It is the mÉëæwÉ - Mantra the utterance of which makes the man a Sannyasin. It
only means the dedication of all one's further activities to God and His realisation. Thus the
two put together only signifies Tyaga as well as Yoga. These two parts of the final ritual,
therefore, form symbolic reminders of the life he is expected to live as a Sannyasin. The
tonsure which forms one of the external signs of a Sannyasin signifies the use of the razor.
The razor is symbolic of the xÉÔ¤qÉoÉÑή as per Kathopanishad ĘɸiÉ eÉÉaÉëiÉ
mÉëÉmrÉuÉUÉͳÉoÉÉåkÉiÉ | ¤ÉÑUxrÉ kÉÉUÉ ÌlÉÍzÉiÉÉ SÒUirÉrÉÉ SÒaÉïÇ
mÉjÉxiÉiMüuÉrÉÉå uÉSÎliÉ || Here ¤ÉÑU refers to the AaÉëçrÉoÉÑή or one-
pointed Buddhi capable of understanding and knowing Abstract, subtle truths of the Atman
refered to in the previous Sloka. LwÉ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ aÉÔRûÉåÅÅiqÉÉ
mÉëMüÉzÉiÉå | SØzrÉiÉå iuÉaÉëçrÉrÉÉ oÉÑSèkrÉÉ xÉÔ¤qÉrÉÉ
xÉÔ¤qÉSÍzÉïÍpÉÈ || One of the Upanishads speaking about Yoga or spiritual practice is
actually named ¤ÉÑËUMüÉåmÉÌlÉwÉSè. It is this same Tyaga & Yoga that is referred to
as the cutting off of the xÉÇxÉÉUuÉ×¤É given in Gita XV. AxÉ…¡ûzÉx§ÉåhÉ
SØRåûlÉ ÍNûiuÉÉ etc. Only here instead of the instrument being called a razor is
described as a sword in the form of AxÉ…¡û or non-attachment which is one of the cardinal
teachings of the Gita. Cf. AxÉ£üoÉÑÎ®È xÉuÉï§É ÎeÉiÉÉiqÉÉ ÌuÉaÉiÉxmÉ×WûÈ |
lÉæwMüqrÉïÍxÉ먂 mÉUqÉÉÇ xɳrÉÉxÉålÉÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || which comes
immediately after ´ÉårÉÉlxuÉkÉqÉÉåï ÌuÉaÉÑhÉÈ mÉUkÉqÉÉïixuÉlÉÑ̸iÉÉiÉç |
xuÉpÉÉuÉÌlÉrÉiÉÇ MüqÉï MÑüuÉï³ÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ ÌMüÎsoÉwÉqÉç || in chapter
XVIII. This shows the connection of Sannyasa to Svadharma through AxÉ…¡û and freedom
from selfish desires. Cf. also iÉxqÉÉSxÉ£üÈ xÉiÉiÉÇ MüÉrÉïÇ MüqÉï xÉqÉÉcÉU |
AxÉ£üÉå ½ÉcÉUlMüqÉï mÉUqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ mÉÔÂwÉÈ || rÉÎxiuÉÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ
qÉlÉxÉÉ ÌlÉrÉqrÉÉUpÉUåÅeÉÑïlÉ | MüqÉåïÎlSìrÉæÈ MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉqÉxÉ£üÈ
xÉ ÌuÉÍzÉwrÉiÉå || This sword which cuts off Samsara is declared to be ¥ÉÉlÉÉÍxÉ, the
sword of knowledge in the Bhagavata ¥ÉÉlÉÉÍxÉlÉÉ EmÉÉxÉlÉrÉÉ ÍzÉiÉålÉ || vide
also M.Bh. ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ mÉUqÉÉÍxÉlÉÉ || The hairs on the head is thought of as
representing a forest of trees and the razor as destroying this forest of Samsara. Thus tonsure
is a constant reminder of non-attachment and freedom from worldly desires. Similarly, the
ShQû which an orthodox Sannyasin carries with him always, is a symbol of self-control or
SqÉ. Manu XII. 10 and Daksha VII. 30 uÉÉYShQûÉåÅjÉ qÉlÉÉåShQûÈ
MüÉrÉShQûxiÉjÉæuÉ cÉ | rÉxrÉ LiÉå ÌlÉrÉiÉÉÈ oÉÑ®Éæ ̧ÉShQûÏ CÌiÉ xÉ
EcrÉiÉå || Another verse says mere carrying of ShQûÉs or sticks without practice of self-
control does not make one a rÉÌiÉ. uÉåhÉÑlÉÉ lÉ pÉuÉåiÉç rÉÌiÉÈ | cf. also Daksha
VII.27-31 which also says that an ascetic is not called a ̧ÉShQûÏ by merely carrying
bamboo sticks. He is a ̧ÉShQûÏ who has spiritual ShQû with him. The orthodox Brahmin
Sannyasins who take to formal Sannyas at the fag end of their lives simply to satisfy the
requirements of the Sastras and not because of any spirit of renunciation and self-control are
expected to carry with them this ShQû always. But a man of renunciation and self control
need not carry any symbol with him. Therefore the mÉUqÉWÇûxÉ Sannyasins do not
carry the ShQû with them, although as part of the ritual the shaft is also given to the
noritiate, the shaft is immediately thrown into the Ganges which represents symbolically in

173
the inner purity of Jnanam. The people who are (higher evolved than these ritualistic
Sannyasins but) still lower than the mÉUqÉWÇûxÉ Sannyasins carry only one ShQû
instead of three representing qÉlÉÉåShQû. The Tridandis & Ekadandis are generally
members of the Brahmin caste and they take pride in calling themselves Dandi-Sannyasins to
show off their superior caste by birth. They forget, however, the carrying of the ShQû is a
sign of inferiority and spiritual immaturity and is not to be considered as a matter for pride,
since they always want a constant reminder to practise self-control. Thus we see the ritual &
all the symbolisms connected with formal Sannyasa are only symbolic of the essence of
Svadharma, viz. Tyaga & Yoga. A Sannyasin, therefore, would be committing a sin if he
does not perform his Svadharma even after taking formal Sannyas which is not a licence for
authorised idleness and slavish dependence upon others for his maintenance. That is why
Bhagavan says in the Gita ÌlÉrÉiÉxrÉ iÉÑ xɳrÉÉxÉÈ MüqÉïhÉÉå lÉÉåmÉmɱiÉå |
qÉÉåWûɨÉxrÉ mÉËUirÉÉaÉÉxiÉÉqÉxÉÈ mÉËUMüÐÌiÉïiÉÈ || rÉ¥ÉSÉlÉiÉmÉÈ
MüqÉï lÉ irÉÉerÉÇ MüÉrÉïqÉåuÉ iÉiÉç | etc. at the beginning of the 18th chapter.
Hence Arjuna's attempt to merely give up Svadharma and take to a life of ÍpÉ¤É as
mentioned in the beginning of the 2nd chap. could not be approved by a spiritual teacher like
Sri Krishna. It is not merely because Arjuna was a Kshatriya by caste that Krishna wanted
him to fight, as orthodox commentators explain, and thereby save themselves as Brahmanas
and their pet idea of Svadharma being confined only to Grihasthas. No doubt, the Svadharma
of Grihasthas and Sannyasins may be different outworldy, but as the very conception of
Svadharma suggests even Sannyasins have got their own Svadharma to discharge. Arjuna
was induced by Sri Krishna not to fight but to do this Svadharma. It is only because he was a
fighter by nature, the character and inherent attributes that his Svadharma happened to be
fighting agains Adharma and establish Dharma through fight with enemies of Dharma in
society. The spirit of fight against Adharma is common to all men. Only the form of the fight
is more mental than social and external. So even the Brahmanas have to fight a moral fight
with their own internal enemies such as Kama, Krodha as mentioned in ch. III and follow
Bhagavan's direction to fight may be taken as applicable even to Brahmanas as well as to the
Sannyasins. That is why Bhagavan uses the words Svadharma and Dharma when he goads
Arjuna to fight. xuÉkÉqÉïqÉÌmÉ cÉÉuÉå¤rÉ lÉ ÌuÉMüÎqmÉiÉÑqÉWïûÍxÉ |
kÉqrÉÉïή rÉÑ®ÉcNíåûrÉÉåÅlrÉi¤Ȩ́ÉrÉxrÉ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå || II-31. Whereever we
find the injunction to fight we may, therefore, understand the word rÉÑkrÉxuÉ not merely
in the sense of actual battle with external enemies but also as referring to the necessity for a
moral fight which is common to all, even to the Brahmana and the Sannyasin. It is to
emphasize this moral nature of the fight that he uses the word xɳÉÉxÉrÉÉåaÉ in many
places. If it were only an actual physical fight it cannot be associated with Sannyasa at all as
the orthodox people understand. xÉlrÉÉxÉrÉÉåaÉÉiÉç rÉiÉrÉÈ zÉÑ®xÉiuÉÉÈ of
Mundaka up. & xɳrÉÉxÉrÉÉåaÉrÉÑ£üÉiqÉÉ ÌuÉqÉÑ£üÉå qÉÉqÉÑmÉæwrÉÍxÉ
|| IX-28 of Gita.

We have already seen in our discussion of xuÉkÉqÉï that the xÉÉqÉÉlrÉkÉqÉï in ones
own way within the limits of his xuÉpÉÉuÉ. These xÉÉqÉÉlrÉ Dharmas are really what
constitutes humanity or manliness, and as a Sannyasin also is a man he cannot afford to give
up his humanity by giving up his xÉÉqÉÉlrÉ Dharmas. He has, therefore, to practise these
Dharmas within the limits of his xuÉpÉÉuÉ. It is thus clear that even the Sannyasin cannot
afford to give up his xuÉkÉqÉï. That is why we find in the Srutis & Smritis all these
Dharmas prescribed even for the Sannyasins. To this kind of Sannyasa no Varna or Ashrama
or sex is a bar and that is why we find in the M.bh. Vidura as having practised Sannyasa &
died as a Sannyasin. Vide also Nilakantha's remarks on expression

174
rÉÌiÉkÉqÉïqÉuÉÉmiÉÉåÅxÉÉæ. Also refer to notes on women's status for women's
right to Sannyas. The Jivanmuktiviveka specially mentions AÎxqÉÇ¶É irÉÉaÉÉå
Îx§ÉrÉÉåÅmrÉÍkÉÌ¢ürÉliÉå ‘ÍpɤÉÑMüÐ’ CirÉlÉålÉ ´ÉÏhÉÉqÉÌmÉ
mÉëÉÎauÉuÉÉWûÉ²É uÉækÉurÉÉSÕkuÉïÇ uÉÉ
xÉlrÉÉxÉåÅÍkÉMüÉUÉåÅxiÉÏÌiÉ SÍzÉïiÉqÉç | iÉålÉ ÍpɤÉÉcÉrÉïÇ
qÉÉå¤ÉzÉÉx§É´ÉuÉhÉqÉç LMüÉliÉå AÉiqÉkrÉÉlÉÇ cÉ iÉÉÍpÉÈ MüiÉïurÉçÇ
̧ÉShQûÉÌSMÇü cÉ kÉÉrÉïÇ CÌiÉ qÉÉå¤ÉkÉqÉåï cÉiÉÑkÉïUÏOûÏMüÉrÉÉÇ
xÉÑsÉpÉÉeÉlÉMüxÉÇuÉÉSå | zÉUÏUMüpÉÉwrÉå ‘uÉÉcÉ¢üuÉÏ’ CirÉÉÌS
´ÉÔrÉiÉå | SåuÉiÉÉÍkÉMüUhÉlrÉÉrÉålÉ ÌuÉkÉÑUxrÉ AÍkÉMüÉUmÉëxÉ…
¡åûlÉ iÉ×iÉÏrÉÉkrÉÉrÉå cÉiÉÑjÉïmÉÉSå | AiÉ LuÉ qÉæ§ÉårÉÏuÉÉYrÉqÉç
AÉqlÉÉrÉiÉå - ‘rÉålÉÉÅWÇû lÉ AqÉ×iÉÉ xrÉÉÇ ÌMüqÉWÇû iÉålÉ MÑürÉÉïÇ
rÉSåuÉ pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç uÉåijÉ iÉSåuÉ qÉå oÉëÔÌWû’ CÌiÉ | Similarly vide Suka's &
Narada's renunciation as also Nachiketa's while they were yet boys. The Jivanmukta also
cannot give up Svadharma even though he is not bound to do anything for his salvation, as
exemplified in the lives of the Avataraspurushas & the establishment of Dharma and
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû based upon the standard of conduct for others. That is why we find
in the Gita description of the xuÉkÉqÉï of ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É, ¥ÉÉlÉÏ, pÉ£ü, &
̧ÉaÉÑhÉÉiÉÏiÉ. Even man of realisation do not throw away their bodies immediately after
their realisation. They have to live the full span of life alloted to them by their
mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï vide Ch.VI.14.2 iÉxrÉ iÉÉuÉSåuÉ ÍcÉUÇ rÉÉuɳÉ
ÌuÉqÉÉå¤rÉå AjÉ xÉqmÉixrÉå || and so long as they are alive they have to live like a
perfect man and thereby set an example to others. They have already been practising
xuÉkÉqÉï till the time of realisation and they have no special reason to give it up
afterwords. Their previous habit sticks to them unless it is counteracted by fresh effort in the
contrary direction. As they have no special incentive for such effort as they have already
reached the goal and have thus grown beyond even the desire for Mukti there is nothing
which prevents the previous habit of Svadharma being continued. Cf. Gurumaharaj's
illustration of the clerk out of prison taking up a job again after release. Cf. also his words
about the saint continuing his Puja even after he became a Jnani with the remark that he sees
no reasons to give up his Puja when he is not giving up other activities. Sometime, however,
it may happen he may adjust his mode of conduct to suit the needs of particular generations
and the welfare of his immediate disciples. In such cases his motive may be
sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû & xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ. So, that action also must be an act of
Svadharma. This is what Bhagavan refers to in the Gita III-25: xÉ£üÉÈ
MüqÉïhrÉÌuɲÉÇxÉÉå rÉjÉÉ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ pÉÉUiÉ | etc. III-33: xÉSØzÉÇ cÉå¹iÉå
xuÉxrÉÉÈ mÉëM×üiÉå¥ÉÉïlÉuÉÉlÉÌmÉ | etc. III-28: iɨuÉÌuɨiÉÑ
qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå aÉÑhÉMüqÉïÌuÉpÉÉaÉrÉÉåÈ | etc., also chapter V-7
rÉÉåaÉrÉÑ£üÉå ÌuÉzÉÑ®ÉiqÉÉ ÌuÉÎeÉiÉÉiqÉÉ ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ | V-8 lÉæuÉ
ÌMüÎgcÉiMüUÉåqÉÏÌiÉ rÉÑ£üÉå qÉlrÉåiÉ iɨuÉÌuÉiÉç | IV-18: MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï
rÉÈ mÉzrÉåSMüqÉïÍhÉ cÉ MüqÉï rÉÈ | IV-19: ¥ÉÉlÉÉÎalÉSakÉMüqÉÉïhÉÇ
iÉqÉÉWÒûÈ mÉÎhQûiÉÇ oÉÑkÉÉÈ || IV-23: rÉ¥ÉÉrÉÉcÉUiÉÈ MüqÉï xÉqÉaÉëÇ
mÉëÌuÉsÉÏrÉiÉå || IV-24: oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ oÉë¼WûÌuÉoÉëï¼ÉalÉÉæ
oÉë¼hÉÉWÒûiÉqÉç | oÉë¼æuÉ iÉålÉ aÉliÉurÉÇ oÉë¼MüqÉïxÉqÉÉÍkÉlÉÉ ||
If such a realised man happens to be a Bhakta, he becomes a mere instrument in the hands of
God who uses him as an instrument for the establishment of Dharma as He thinks fit. Thus
whether he is a Jnani or Bhakta or Sthitapragna, the man of realisation also practices
xuÉkÉqÉï.

Now we are in a position to understand the full force of the word lÉU used in the 2nd sloka. It
refers to the special privilege of a man to make use of all his faculties, the most important of

175
which is oÉÑή, to actively resist the evil forces pressing in upon him from all sides and to
exercise his freedom of free will & effort to get out of this slavery to real nature, internal &
external. As Swami Vivekananda says, man is born to conquer nature and not to yield to it
and be a slave of it. Only in so far as he struggles against this slavery he is entitled to be
called a man; only in so far as he acquires and manifests through his self effort the human
qualities known as SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç, xÉÉqÉÉlrÉkÉqÉï, etc through the development of
Sattva guna, he is entitled to be called a human being who does his xuÉkÉqÉï as we have
understood in the previous discussion. The word lÉU is derived from the root ÌlÉ, lÉrÉç, to
lead. Therefore the word suggests leadership and mastery and not slavish submission to the
demands of the body, senses and the external world. He is the driver of the chariot which is
under his control through the use of the oÉÑή and if only he exerts himself, he can reach
the goal of Vishnu's mÉUqÉmÉS as the Kathopanishad asserts. To be a lÉU, therefore, is
to take the reins in his own hands and to control the horses and drive straight to the goal.
Ranga Ramanuja explains the word lÉU as meaning lÉ UqÉiÉå which according to him
means he who does not delight in the pleasures of the senses and who, therefore, fights or
struggles against all temptations. This interpretation emphasises the negative aspect of
spiritual practice. As we have already seen, the word qÉÉlÉuÉ is used in Gita in the sense in
which lÉU is used here. Vide XVIII-45: xuÉå xuÉå MüqÉïhrÉÍpÉUiÉÈ xÉÇÍxÉήÇ
sÉpÉiÉå lÉUÈ | XVIII-46: xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ
|| qÉÉlÉuÉ comes from the root qÉlÉç - to think, i.e to use Buddhi in qÉlÉlÉqÉç to
discriminate between truth and falsehood, right and wrong etc. Similarly the word mÉÑÂwÉ
is used in the Gita to suggest this manliness and the special properties of man. It is
mÉÑÂwÉÇ or self effort that is suggested even by this word. mÉÑÂwÉ means the owner
of this body who has the right and capcity and freedom to make use of this property to his
best advantage. Thus iuÉÌrÉ lÉUå means being a man, that is to say, when you have in the
course of evolution reached the states of man with all its powers and responsibilites,
capacities and functions it behoves you to live like a man and not allow yourself to fall to a
lower status by neglecting your xuÉkÉqÉï and allowing yourself to be enslaved by the
Rajas and Tamas and by the temptations of the senses. The ruinous consequences of this
neglect to keep up this manliness is referred to in the next Sloka in the expression
AÉiqÉWûlÉÉå eÉlÉÉÈ, those who commit spiritual suicide. Life means activity of some
sort or other and man has no (control) power to give up all activity so long as he is alive. The
duration of this life is fixed for him by his mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï and he has to live the full
span of life thus alloted to him by his mÉëÉUokÉ unless he commits suicide. But even in
the latter case, if he foolishly takes away his own life, it only means that his mÉëÉUokÉ has
decreed that his life should come to an end through suicide. So he has to live the full span of
life under any circumstances. It is foolish and useless, therefore, to work against one's
mÉëÉUokÉ and it is wisdom to use the opportunities given to him to make his life as
successful as possible. There is nothing wrong, therefore, to desire to live an active life of
xuÉkÉqÉï so long as he is alive. This is what is suggested by ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåiÉç zÉiÉÇ
xÉqÉÉÈ | ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉiÉç means "Do desire to live a successful life worthy of a man and
desire to attain Jivanmukti in this life itself". The most successful life is that of the
Jivanmukta. It is he who is the master of his life and enjoys it best and not he who is the slave
of the senses and the cravings of the flesh. This reminds us of Swamiji's words to Ingersoll
that he also wants to drink life to the full and to squeeze the orange dry as the worldly man
also wants to put with this difference that the worldly man is not successful as he is running
after shadows and as all worldly pleasures are mixed with pain and suffering. It is only one
who has realised the bliss of God that can have full enjoyment and happiness in life.
Therefore, Jivanmukta's life is the most successful, even from the hedonistic standpoint
regarding the goal of life. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in desiring to achieve this

176
success in life through one's own Svadharma and to continue to live the full span of life in
spiritual Sadhana. It is never too late to attempt or achieve this so long as life is still available
to him. Cf. ÎxjÉiuÉÉÅxrÉÉqÉç AliÉMüÉsÉåÅÌmÉ oÉë¼ÌlÉuÉÉïhÉqÉ×cNûÌiÉ |
That is why Br. Sutra IV.1.12 says that one should continue to do Sadhana till his death. Cf.
also Satapatha XII.4.1.1 aÉiÉuSæ eÉUÉqÉrÉïÇ xɧÉÇ rÉSÎalÉWûÉå§ÉqÉç
(eÉUÉqÉrÉïÇ - a life long sacrifice) Cf. also
mÉërÉÉhÉÉliÉqÉÉ僡ûÉUqÉkÉÏkrÉÉrÉÏiÉ of Prasna V.1. Also Ch.
xÉÉåÅliÉuÉåsÉÉrÉÉqÉç LiÉiÉç ̧ÉiÉrÉÇ mÉëÌiÉmɱåiÉ || Also Gita VIII-10:
mÉërÉÉhÉMüÉsÉå qÉlÉxÉÉcÉsÉålÉ pÉYirÉÉ rÉÑ£üÉå rÉÉåaÉoÉsÉålÉ cÉæuÉ
| VIII-5: AliÉMüÉsÉå cÉ qÉÉqÉåuÉ xqÉUlqÉÑYiuÉÉ MüsÉåuÉUqÉç |
ÎxjÉiuÉÉÅxrÉÉqÉliÉMüÉsÉå etc. It is this necessity to continue Svadharma till the time
of death that is referred to in the words ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåiÉç zÉiÉÇ xÉqÉÉÈ | zÉiÉÇ
xÉqÉÉÈ is not used in its literal sense of one hundred years. Hundred years means the full
span of life which was considered to extend upto hundred years cf. zÉiÉÉrÉÑuÉæï
mÉÑÂwÉÈ | The life time referred to may be that of its individual or Brahma himself. On
the latter case it refers to the possibility and necessity of being reborn again and again till
oÉë¼mÉësÉrÉ as per AlÉåMüeÉlqÉxÉçÇÍxÉ®È in the case of an aspirant or as an
AÉÍkÉMüÉUMü mÉÑÂwÉ like Narada who is prepared to take birth any number of times
to serve others. Cf. Swamiji's and Buddha's prayers that they may be born again and again if
they can serve thereby one soul. Even rebirth need not have any terrors for them. It only
means that one need not feel shy of living as long as possible. Cf. the Sukla Yajurveda
Mantra which speaks of the desire of the Rishi to live a hundred autumns. mÉzrÉåqÉ
zÉUSzzÉiÉÇ, eÉÏuÉåqÉ zÉUSzzÉiÉÇ etc. the Upanishad only emphasises that this life
should be worthy of the dignity and glory of man. As life is impossible without activity of
some sort, one should try to get rid of the bad effects of these activities by doing only
Svadharma without desiring for any worldly fruits and converting it into a worship of God,
surrendering all agency as well as the fruits to Him as declared in the Gita IX-27:
rÉiMüUÉåÌwÉ rÉSzlÉÉÍxÉ rÉ‹ÑWûÉåÌwÉ SSÉÍxÉ rÉiÉç | and Bhagavata 11.2.36:
MüÉrÉålÉ uÉÉcÉÉ qÉlÉxÉåÎlSìrÉæuÉÉï oÉÑSèkrÉÉ ÅÅiqÉlÉÉ
uÉÉlÉÑxÉ×iÉxuÉqÉÉuÉÉiÉç | MüUÉåÌiÉ rÉSè rÉiÉç xÉMüsÉÇ mÉUxqÉæ
lÉÉUÉrÉhÉÉrÉåÌiÉ xÉqÉmÉïrÉå¨ÉiÉç || That is what is suggested by
MÑüuÉï³ÉåuÉåWû MüqÉÉïÍhÉ. LuÉ is to be taken both along with MÑüuÉïlÉç as
well as MüqÉÉïÍhÉ. MÑüuÉï³ÉçuÉ means "only living an active life of Svadharma as
worship of God and not in expectation of fruits" as per Gita II-47:
MüqÉïhrÉåuÉÉÍkÉMüÉUxiÉå qÉÉ TüsÉåwÉÑ MüSÉcÉlÉ | III- 8: ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ MÑüÂ
MüqÉï iuÉ MüqÉï erÉÉrÉÉå ½MüqÉïhÉÈ | III-19: AxÉ£üÉå ½ÉcÉUlMüqÉï
mÉUqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ mÉÔÂwÉÈ || etc. MüqÉÉïhrÉåuÉ means "only karma & not
AMüqÉï," "only activity and not the sense of agency", "only work and not attachment". So
MüqÉïhrÉåuÉ MÑüuÉïlÉç means both together "doing work in a spirit of Karma Yoga"
as described in the Gita. Thus the first line shows that Svadharma performed in a spirit of
Karma Yoga throughout life is not inconsistent with the Tyaga mentioned in the first Sloka,
and that it is only the positive aspect of the Sattvica Tyaga. It also points out that the freedom
from desire enjoined in the words qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ in the previous Sloka, is not meant to
prevent a man from having the desire for Mukti or for Dharma. It is thus in expansion of the
idea contained in the first Sloka and in explanation of it to show the limits of the injunctions
contained in the previous Sloka.

The plural MüqÉïÍhÉ refers to the possibility of different persons having different
Svadharma and the same person having different Svadharmas at different times and under
different circumstances. It is in this sense that the words xuÉMüqÉï, M×üixlÉMüqÉï etc.

177
are used in the Gita as in III-30: qÉÌrÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ
xɳrÉxrÉÉkrÉÉiqÉcÉåiÉxÉÉ |, XVIII-57: cÉåiÉxÉÉ xÉuÉïMüqÉÉïÍhÉ qÉÌrÉ
xɳrÉxrÉ qÉimÉUÈ |, XVIII-56: xÉuÉïMüqÉÉïhrÉÌmÉ xÉSÉ MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉå
qÉSèurÉmÉÉ´ÉrÉÈ |, IV-18: MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï rÉÈ mÉzrÉåSMüqÉïÍhÉ cÉ MüqÉï
rÉÈ | xÉ oÉÑήqÉÉlqÉlÉÑwrÉåwÉÑ xÉ rÉÑ£üÈ M×üixlÉMüqÉïM×üiÉç || etc. It
does not mean that everybody can do all the Karmas without reference to his own Adhikara
or Svadharma, as made clear by the condemnation of mÉUkÉqÉï. Here MüqÉÉïÍhÉ also
means not merely activity but even sometimes passivity when the latter is actively and
voluntarily undertaken to set an example to others in a spirit of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû.

CWû means "in this life" or "in this system of spiritual culture" as advocated by Yajnavalkya
in Sukla Yajurveda or as laid down in the first Sloka.

LuÉÇ iuÉÌrÉ may mean "so long as you live like this", ie doing your Svadharma in a spirit
of Karma Yoga or in a spirit of Tyaga & Yoga as mentioned in the first Sloka.

lÉ AlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ may mean "nothing untoward happens from living such a life". It
may also mean that there is no other better way of living by which one can escape Samsara as
means in lÉÉlrÉÈ mÉljÉÉ ÌuɱiÉåÅrÉlÉÉrÉ | The two together may be construed as
meaning, "If you life like this (living) a life of Tyaga & Yoga, you will not come to grief; if
you do not live like this there is no escape from the miseries of Samsara". lÉ AÎxiÉ is in
contrast with what is mentioned in Sloka 3 which says about what happens to people who do
not adopt this right way of living.

lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå (lÉUå) means "Karmas so done as a master and not a slave in the
spirit of Karma Yoga does not entail any bondage in the form of mÉÑhrÉ or mÉÉmÉ. Cf.
Gita XVIII-12: AÌlɹÍqÉ¹Ç ÍqÉ´ÉÇ cÉ Ì§ÉÌuÉkÉÇ MüqÉïhÉÈ TüsÉqÉç |
pÉuÉirÉirÉÉÌaÉlÉÉÇ mÉëåirÉ lÉ iÉÑ xɳrÉÉÍxÉlÉÉÇ YuÉÍcÉiÉç || cf. Patanjali
MüqÉÉïzÉÑYsÉM×üwhÉÇ rÉÉåÌaÉlÉÈ Ì§ÉÌuÉkÉÍqÉiÉUåwÉÉqÉç | Also Br. Su.
IV.1.13: iÉSÍkÉaÉqÉ E¨ÉUmÉÔuÉÉïkÉrÉÉåÈ AzsÉåwÉÌuÉlÉÉzÉÉæ
iÉSèurÉmÉSåzÉÉiÉç || Also Ch. iɱjÉÉ mÉÑwMüU mÉsÉÉzÉå AÉmÉÉå lÉ
ÎzsÉwrÉliÉå LuÉqÉç LlÉqÉç CÌiÉ mÉÉmÉÇ MüqÉï ÌlÉ ÎzsÉwrÉiÉå | &
iɱjÉåwÉÏMüÉiÉÔsÉqÉalÉÉæ mÉëÉåiÉÇ mÉëSÕrÉåiÉæuÉÇ WûÉxrÉ xÉuÉåï
mÉÉmqÉÉlÉÈ mÉëSÕrÉliÉå rÉ LiÉSåuÉÇ ÌuɲÉlÉÎalÉWûÉå§ÉÇ eÉÑWûÉåÌiÉ ||
cf. also ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉ xÉ mÉÉmÉålÉ mÉ©mɧÉÍqÉuÉÉqpÉxÉÉ ||
MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï ... oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ ... ||

The third Sloka shows how people who do not follow the principles of Tyaga & Yoga in their
actions and who are carried away by desires for worldly prosperity, here or hereafter, are
really committing only spiritual suicide thereby. They are more dead than alive. As they fall
below the level of manliness and humanity being slaves of Rajas and Tamas, they are not fit
to be called men in spite of their having human bodies and deserve to be considered as
vegtables or beasts. This is what is meant by their being referred to as AÉiqÉWûlÉÉå
eÉlÉÉÈ | eÉlÉÉÈ means one who is born with a human body and who still remains a mere
eÉliÉÑ. Cf. xÉɤÉÉiÉç mÉzÉÑÈ mÉÑcNûÌuÉwÉÉhÉWûÏlÉÈ || Also Bharata
AÉWûÉU ÌlÉSìÉpÉrÉqÉæjÉÑlÉÇ cÉ ... kÉqÉåïhÉWûÏlÉÉÈ
mÉzÉÑÍpÉxxÉqÉÉlÉÉÈ || cf. also Bhagavata sÉÉåMåü
urÉuÉÉrÉÉÍqÉwÉqɱxÉåuÉÉ Also Br. Ar. Up rÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÑÈ LuÉÇ xÉ
SåuÉÉlÉÉqÉç | Also Manu mÉëuÉ×̨ÉÈ LwÉÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉqÉç etc.

178
uÉפÉeÉÏÌuÉMürÉÉ eÉÏuÉlÉç urÉjÉïÇ pÉxlÉåuÉ µÉxÉlÉç of Bhagavatam. These
people aspire to go to heaven and enjoy the pleasures of the senses but in the end they find
themselves cheated of their prayers. In their ignorance they think happiness to be the goal of
life and think of this happiness in terms of sense life. But all sensual and worldly pleasures
are all mixed with pain and can never give unalloyed happiness. They are like the camel, as
Sri Ramakrishna says, eating thorny shrub with its mouth always bleeding. It involves so
much of pain for its acquisition during the enjoyment as well as the result of it. Cf. Patanjali
mÉËUhÉÉqÉiÉÉmÉxÉÇxMüÉUSÒÈZÉæ aÉÑhÉuÉ×̨ÉÌuÉUÉåkÉÉŠ
xÉuÉïqÉåuÉ SÒÈZÉÇ ÌuÉuÉåÌMülÉÈ || also Gita XVIII - 38-39:
ÌuÉwÉrÉåÎlSìrÉxÉÇrÉÉåaÉɱ¨ÉSaÉëåÅqÉ×iÉÉåmÉqÉqÉç | mÉËUhÉÉqÉå
ÌuÉwÉÍqÉuÉ iÉixÉÑZÉÇ UÉeÉxÉÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç || rÉSaÉëå cÉÉlÉÑoÉlkÉå cÉ
xÉÑZÉÇ qÉÉåWûlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | ÌlÉSìÉsÉxrÉmÉëqÉÉÌSijÉÇ
iɨÉÉqÉxÉqÉÑSÉWØûiÉqÉç || They thus live in a world of ignorance. Even the heaven
of their conception is based upon ignorance and mere imagination and does not really exist.
Cf. Bhagavata xuÉmlÉÉåmÉqÉqÉqÉÑÇ sÉÉåMüqÉxÉliÉÇ ´ÉuÉhÉÌmÉërÉqÉç |
AÉÍzɹÉå WØûÌS xɃ¡ûsmrÉ irÉeÉirÉjÉÉïlÉç rÉjÉÉ uÉÍhÉMçü || As a result of
their actions, therefore, loaded upon Rajas and Tamas, they are re-born only with more
developed Rajas and Tamas, as a result of such continued activity, they dive deeper and
deeper into ignorance and misery. Cf. Gita XVI - 20-21: AÉxÉÑUÏÇ rÉÉåÌlÉqÉÉmɳÉÉ
qÉÔRûÉ eÉlqÉÌlÉ eÉlqÉÌlÉ | qÉÉqÉmÉëÉmrÉæuÉ MüÉæliÉårÉ iÉiÉÉ
rÉÉlirÉkÉqÉÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç | ̧ÉÌuÉkÉÇ lÉUMüxrÉåSÇ ²ÉUÇ lÉÉzÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ |
MüÉqÉÈ ¢üÉåkÉxiÉjÉÉ sÉÉåpÉxiÉxqÉÉSåiÉiɧÉrÉÇ irÉeÉåiÉç || Contrast this
with mÉërɦÉÉSrÉiÉqÉÉlÉxiÉÑ ... AlÉåMüeÉlqÉxÉÇÍxÉÎ®È iÉiÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ
mÉUÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç | This refers only to such people who do not exert their freedom to
perform Svadharma and to realise God through His grace and self surrender to Him and
through dediation of all acts to Him as His worship. That is the force of the word
qÉÉqÉmÉëÉmrÉæuÉ. Thus only those who do not perform their Svadharma in the right
spirit through Tamas or Rajas suffer (for the consequences of their acts). This is Bhagavan's
answer to Arjuna's false conception of lÉUMü is only a further development of ignorance
and Tamas. So Bhagavan defines real lÉUMü as lÉUMüxiÉqÉÉå³ÉÉWûÈ and Svarga as a
xuÉaÉïxxÉiuÉaÉÑhÉÉåSrÉÈ. It is this real lÉUMü that Arjuna will have to suffer if he
neglects his xuÉkÉqÉï because of his attachment and it is this real xuÉaÉï which he would
gain if he performed his xuÉkÉqÉï. This xuÉaÉï & lÉUMü are, as Kapila points out in the
Bhagavatam, are only here. CWæûuÉ lÉUMüÈ xuÉaÉïÈ. The imaginary xuÉaÉï as well
as lÉUMü as above the world & below it are all loaded upon ignorance and are not really
divine but only Asuric. Therefore this Mantra says AxÉÑrÉÉï lÉÉqÉ iÉå sÉÉåMüÉÈ
AlkÉålÉ iÉqÉxÉÉuÉ×iÉÉÈ| These "Lokas" are Asuric (demonic) where the
'Asurisampath' predominates and which are all the result of blinding darkness or ignorance.

Even in SåuÉsÉÉåMü which is obtained as a fruit of MüÉqrÉMüqÉï there is no

opportunity for spiritual exercise. There is no freedom of will for performance of Svadharma
through the use of Buddhi. They are considered only as Bhogabhumis, where they can only
enjoy the fruits of Karma done in human life. After that enjoyment of the fruits they have
inevitably to come back again to human birth. Cf. Gita IX-21: iÉå iÉÇ pÉÑYiuÉÉ
xuÉaÉïsÉÉåMÇü ÌuÉzÉÉsÉÇ ¤ÉÏhÉå mÉÑhrÉå qÉirÉïsÉÉåMÇü ÌuÉzÉÎliÉ | II-
45: §ÉæaÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ uÉåSÉ ÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉÉå pÉuÉÉeÉÑïlÉ | Also the
mÉgcÉÉÎalÉÌuÉ±É of Chan. & Bri. Ar. That is why read in the Puranas of even Devas
being anxious to come down to the earth which is called MüqÉïpÉÔÍqÉ, the place where
one can successfully practise spiritual Sadhanas. So long as they do not get out of Samsara

179
they are still in AÌuÉ±É or qÉÉrÉÉ and therefore, whatever Loka a man may go to and
whatever bodies he may take up as a result of his Karma he is still in ignorance and therefore,
he and his Loka are described as AlkÉålÉ iÉqÉxÉÉuÉ×iÉÉ. Later on Isopanishad itself
refers to this blinding darkness of ignorance. AlkÉÇ iÉqÉÈ mÉëÌuÉzÉÎliÉ
rÉåÅÌuɱÉqÉç EmÉÉxÉiÉå, AlkÉÇ ... rÉåÅxÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå AlkÉålÉ
iÉqÉxÉÉuÉ×iÉÉ ... may be taken as qualifying both Loka in the 1st line and tai in the 3rd
line. According to Br. Ar. which may be considered as a further elaboration of the
Isopanishad, this same Sloka has got another reading or mÉÉPû - AlÉlSÉ lÉÉqÉ iÉå
sÉÉåMüÉÈ ... instead of AxÉÑrÉÉïlÉÉqÉç ... AÌuɲÉÇxÉÉå AoÉѱÉå eÉlÉÉÈ
|| ... If the two versions are taken to mean the same thing, the blinding darkness of these
Lokas means only the darkness of misery and ignorance of people who have not taken
advantage of their freedom of Buddhi to save themselves. Loka, according to some
commentators like Sankarananda, here refers only to various bodies which the reincarnating
soul is forced to take up as a result of its Karma. According to popular belief which finds
expression in the mÉgcÉÎalÉÌuÉ±É of Ch. & Br. Ar. The reincarnating soul actually takes
up the bodies of animals and plants or Asuras and Devas to work out the fruits of their own
Karma. But there are others who think that a soul which has once attained to the status of
man in the course of evolution can work out the fruits of its Karma not necessarily in an
animal or plant body etc. but in the human body itself. Therefore AxÉÑUiuÉÇ or
SåuÉiuÉÇ of lower forms of life attained during re-incarnation may be only in human birth
itself. It is the predominance of one or the other of the three Gunas that makes the soul
reincarnating in a human body a plant, an animal, a man or Deva or Asura, and not
necessarily the form of the body. AxÉÔrÉïsÉÉåMü, therefore may mean only the human
birth in which Asurisampath predominates. The word AxÉÑU itself means enymologically
AxÉÑwÉÑ UqÉliÉå, he who takes delight in the pleasures of life and in satisfying the
demands of the flesh even at the expense of others, i.e. AxÉÑU means one who considers
himself only as a body and not a soul and who is selfish and who is not interested in spiritual
realisation. Cf. the description of Asura given in Ch.VIII in relation to Virochana. This world
itself seen through the mist of ignorance in human birth itself is therefore the
AxÉÔrÉïsÉÉåMü referred to in this Mantra. Cf. the Rigvedic description AxÉÑiÉ×mÉÉå
rÉjÉÉ lÉÏWûÉUcɤÉÑwÉÈ | There is another reading adopted by some texts which reads
AxÉÑrÉï instead of AxÉÑrÉï. Then the meaning would be "Sunless worlds" instead of
"demoniac worlds". The worlds the ignorant ritualists aspire for, are said to be without the
Sun. In the Vedic pictorial representation of the spiritual progress of the soul to the final
realisation of identity with God, the soul has to pass through the penultimate stage of love
and devotion and service of, and meditation on the Personal God which is the highest reading
of the Absolute by the pure human mind. It is this Personal God that is referred to as
xÉÔrÉï. Cf. the xÉÌuÉiÉ× of Gayatri. This progress of the soul to spiritual perfection is
what is pictured symbolically as the SåuÉrÉÉlÉ path. That is, the path of realisation through
the personal God. This xÉÔrÉï is, therefore, considered, again symbolically, as the doorway
to oÉë¼sÉÉåMçü, cf. qÉÑhQûMü | iÉmÉÈ´É®å rÉå ÌWû EmÉxÉlirÉUhrÉå
zÉÉliÉÉ ÌuɲÉÇxÉÉå pÉæ¤ÉcÉrÉÉïÇ cÉUliÉÈ xÉÔrÉï²ÉUåhÉ iÉå ÌuÉUeÉÉÈ
mÉërÉÉÎliÉ rÉ§É AqÉ×iÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉÉå ÌWû AurÉrÉÉiqÉÉ || ... 468 cf. also the
mÉgcÉÉÎalÉÌuÉ±É V.10.2of Ch. & Br. Ar. also the end of the 4th ch. Of Ch. VIII.6.5 xÉ
rÉÉuÉiÉç ͤÉmrÉålqÉlÉÈ iÉÉuÉSÉÌSirÉÇ aÉcNûÌiÉ Liɲæ ZÉsÉÑ sÉÉåMü²ÉUÇ
ÌuÉSÒwÉÉÇ || It is this SåuÉrÉÉlÉmÉljÉÉ that is referred to as erÉÉåÌiÉqÉÉïaÉï or
AÍcÉïqÉÉaÉï or E¨ÉUqÉÉaÉï. Cf. also Gita VIII-24: AÎalÉerÉÉåïÌiÉUWûÈ zÉÑYsÉÈ
wÉhqÉÉxÉÉ E¨ÉUÉrÉhÉÇ | etc. The souls that go by this path never return to Samsara
again but they go only further and further up until they reach oÉë¼sÉÉåMü, which is

180
nothing but Brahman seen objectively as a Loka or fruit of Sadhana. They attain identity with
Brahman and to final dissolution or AÉirÉÎliÉMümÉësÉrÉ. Those who do not take this
path of Tyaga and Yoga but who resort to Vedic rituals for the satisfaction of selfish sense
pleasures are represented pictorially and symbolically as progressing through the
ÌmÉiÉ×rÉÉlÉ path. They do not reach the Surya and do not, therefore, pass through the
gate of xÉÔrÉï to Brahmaloka and therefore they have to come back again and re-incarnate
until they take to spiritual practice and are able to reach the Sun, xÉÔrÉï or the Personal
God. They are described as only reaching the Moon through their rituals instead of the Sun.
the Moon here symbolically represents only the mind and not the Atman or God. That is to
say, they enjoy only the ephemeral pleasures of the senses which are only reflections of the
real Bliss of the Atman in the mind. Since they are still only in the mental plane they have to
suffer for the consequences of not having transcended that plane being engrossed still only in
selfish sensual pleasures. That they aspire only for this as the goal of life after having
obtained a human birth is pure lunacy, as they aim at only what is pure moon shine. We thus
understand why this path is called the Lunar Path or the Path of the Moon. It is through this
path that Svarga is reached which itself is described as xuÉqÉÉåmÉqÉ & AxÉiÉç by
Bhagavan. The Loka that is reached through this path with the aid of Vedic ritual is thus only
the result of ignorance and thereforeit is still the Loka where the light of the Atman or God is
absent. Therefore it is called AxÉÔrÉïsÉÉåMü, the Loka in which xÉÔrÉï or God has no
place. Therefore, this ÌmÉiÉ×rÉÉlÉ path which is also called SͤÉhÉqÉÉaÉï or
kÉÔqÉqÉÉaÉï takes one only to death over and over again and therefore they are described
as AÉiqÉWûlÉÉå eÉlÉÉÈ.

4. AlÉåeÉSåMÇü qÉlÉxÉÉå eÉuÉÏrÉÉå lÉælɬåuÉÉ

AÉmlÉÑuÉlmÉÔuÉïqÉwÉïiÉç |
iÉ®ÉuÉiÉÉåÅlrÉÉlÉirÉåÌiÉ Ìiɸ¨ÉÎxqɳÉmÉÉå qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ SkÉÉÌiÉ ||

a) iÉ®ÉuÉiÉÉåÅlrÉÉlÉç etc - cf. AirÉÌiɸ¬zÉÉ…¡ÓûsÉqÉç

b) AlÉåeÉiÉç is taken by Madhwa as meaning that God has no fear from anything; but all
the others are afraid of Him. Cf. qÉWû°rÉÇ uÉeÉëqÉѱiÉÇ of Katha. In terms of this
interpretation lÉ ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå of Sloka 6 may be understood as He has no desire to
protect himself against any rival or from any danger as He is fearless.

c) If qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ means uÉÉrÉÑ as taken by some commentators then this uÉÉrÉÑ

cannot be the same as referred to as uÉÉrÉÑ in Sl 17. Then it would mean the ÍsÉ…
¡ûzÉUÏU as the uÉÉrÉÑ in Sl 17 by some other commentators. Then the meaning of the
sentence would be "The karma as mentioned in Sl. 2 would first affect the ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU
merges in the Atman all the MüqÉïTüsÉ also will merge in the Atman and so there will be
no more TüsÉ in the form of Samsara. The ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU or eÉÏuÉ dedicates all the
MüqÉï as well as TüsÉ to the Atman and so becomes free from their effects". iÉÎxqÉlÉç
SkÉÉÌiÉ means "dedicates to Him. AmÉÈ = MüqÉï and TüsÉ. So both eÉÏuÉlqÉÑ£ü
of the aspirant are not affected by their activities. In this sense it would be in contamination
of Sl. 2 lÉÉlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉUå | It will also be in explanation
of MüqÉïhÉæuÉ as dedication of all agency and fruits of action to God.

d) Sankarananda takes the word qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ as meaning the xÉÔ§ÉÉiqÉÉ or

ÌWûUhrÉaÉpÉï or Cosmic Jiva. qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ SkÉÉÌiÉ = is born of great Mother or
AurÉ£ümÉëM×üÌiÉ | Ramachandra Pandit takes qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ = life force in the body

181
AmÉÈ = organs of the body since through it uÉÉrÉÑ gets its various names as mÉëÉhÉ
etc. AÉmrÉliÉå mÉëÉhÉÉÌSxÉg¥ÉÉrÉÉÍpÉxiÉÉ AÉmÉÈ. SkÉÉÌiÉ is taken by him
as = kÉÉUrÉÌiÉ performs their respective works such as respiration etc. They do it only
because of the presence of the Atman. It is only because of and when there is the presence of
Atman that Prana or life force is able to perform the vital functions into the organs such as
respiration, digestion etc. When the Atman retires there is no vital activity. iÉÎxqÉlÉç xÉÌiÉ
AmÉÈ SkÉÉÌiÉ. The Prana is powerless to perform its function without the presence of the
Atman. So all the activity might finally be traced to its source, the Atman, although it is in
itself inactive. It is like the magnet attracting flings. All activity of the Prana is meant only to
realise God and is induced by God, and the agency of all action and their fruits should be
dedicated to God. All activity is the result of a preliminary past given by God and a final pull
by Him.

Madhwa takes qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ to mean qÉÑZrÉmÉëÉhÉ, the meditator between God and
man. If man dedicates all his actions, their agency as well as their fruits to God, if he believes
that the true agent is Hari and not himself, then all acts are sacred and if they are performed
(as they should be) as worship of God with love and devotion to Him, such acts are carried to
God by qÉÑZrÉmÉëÉhÉ or uÉÉrÉÑSåuÉ. These actions and fruits only remain in Him
and therefore do not affect man.

e) This verse and the next attempt to describe the indescribable by viz. the Highest Principle
or Truth called DzÉ in Sl.1 and AÉiqÉlÉç in Sl. 3. It is the real Atman in the individual that
is the DzÉ of the whole world. That is why even in 6&7 the DzÉ of Sl.1 is referred to as
Atman and both are identified in Sl. 16. rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ
xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ || To show that both of them are only Brahman, the neuter gender is
used in this Mantra, which also shows that the highest Truth is beyond personality and sex. It
is also beyond space and time. mÉÔuÉï means that which is beyond time itself (before time
itself cam into existence). When It is beyond time, space and causation which exist only
when the mind works and since it is beyond mind qÉlÉxÉÉå eÉuÉÏrÉÉå, it must be
beyond all change and motion. ÌiɸiÉç AlÉåeÉiÉç. All changes of movements and
vibrations take place in or on the background of an unchanging motionless entity. The finite
can be seen only on the background of Infinite, Motion is relative to motionless, change to
changeless, multiplicity to oneness. But all realtivity vanishes in ¥ÉÉlÉÇ & xÉqÉÉÍkÉ
which is beyond mind, space, time and relativity. The truth as experienced in ¥ÉÉlÉÇ can be
expressed only in negative terms and as beyond all relativity.

f) AmÉÈ in plural means "water" and in singular MüqÉï derived from the root AmÉç, to
go. Taking the two senses together we may understand it in the sense of
MüqÉïmÉëuÉÉWû.

g) The first mÉÉS deals with the relation of qÉlÉxÉç, second of ¥ÉÉlÉåÎlSìrÉ, third of
MüqÉåïÎlSìrÉ and the fourth of mÉëÉhÉ to Atman. All these together constitute
xÉÔ¤qÉzÉUÏU or ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU which gets itself involved in xÉÇxÉÉU through
egoistic activity. If one knows that all these are dependent upon Atman or God and therefore
surrenders everything - ego, karma, its fruits, agency etc. to God, he is not affected by the
activities of any of these. In this sense it is an explanatory supplement to Sl. 2
lÉÉlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉUå |

182
h) qÉÉiÉËUµÉ may refer to the Yogi who has first been protected in the womb of the
Mother i.e. Prakriti and MüqÉï, and who afterwards became ready to escape from the womb
of MüqÉï when he is sufficiently ripe as in the case of the human foetus. Such a Yogi
surrenders everything including his activities, Ahankara- mamakara, fruits of action such as
xÉÇxÉÉU, his body, mind and soul to God. Therefore he is not affected whether he is only a
xÉÉkÉMü or a ÍxÉ®. qÉÉiÉËU µÉrÉiÉå uÉkÉïiÉå CÌiÉ qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ from the root
굃 - to grow or increase or swell, to approach or to prosper. The Yogi first prospers through
MüqÉï and approaches his goal through Sadhana and thus grows beyond and becomes too
big for mÉëM×üÌiÉ or MüqÉï to keep him in the womb of Samsara and so he escapes
from MüqÉï & xÉÇxÉÉU through MüqÉï itself. MüqÉïqÉÉå¤ÉÉrÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ
ÌuÉkɨÉå of Bhag. Through MüqÉï to escape MüqÉï. He who knows the trick or
MüqÉïxÉÑ MüÉæzÉsÉÇ is the real Yogi. So qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ may be taken to mean a
Karma Yogi. Cf. Gita V-10: oÉë¼hrÉÉkÉÉrÉ MüqÉïÍhÉ xÉ…¡Çû irÉYiuÉÉ
MüUÉåÌiÉ rÉÈ | III-30: qÉÌrÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ xɳrÉxrÉÉkrÉÉiqÉcÉåiÉxÉÉ
| V-11: MüÉrÉålÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ oÉÑ®èrÉÉ MåüuÉsÉæËUÎlSìrÉæUÌmÉ | V-12:
rÉÑ£üÈ MüqÉïTüsÉÇ irÉYiuÉÉ zÉÉÎliÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ lÉæ̸MüÐqÉç| III-28:
iɨuÉÌuɨÉÑ qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå aÉÑhÉMüqÉïÌuÉpÉÉaÉrÉÉåÈ | XVIII-46:
xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || etc.

h) AmÉÈ may mean the same as highest gain or sÉÉpÉ from root AÉmÉ, to obtain. In this
case it means MüqÉïTüsÉ or kÉlÉÇ referred to in Sl. 1. cf. Gita VI-22: rÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ
cÉÉmÉUÇ sÉÉpÉÇ qÉlrÉiÉå lÉÉÍkÉMÇü iÉiÉÈ | LwÉÉ ÌWû mÉUqÉÉ xÉiÉç,
AÉiqÉsÉÉpÉÉiÉç mÉUÉå lÉÉÎxiÉ etc.

i) Or the sentence may mean qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ or God induces all Yogis or Bhakta's or Jnani's
activities. In this sense iÉÎxqÉlÉç would refer to rÉÉåaÉÏ and qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ to God; in
the former sense iÉÎxqÉlÉç means God and qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ the Yogi. In one case the
activity of the Yogin is really the activity of God and so he is not affected as he is only an
instrument in the hands of God. The Yogi does not himself act but God acts through him for
the welfare of the world by making him do sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. In the other, it is the
Yogi who dedicates all actions and fruits to God. So this applies equally to the xÉÉkÉMü &
ÍxÉ®.

Thus qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ may mean mere life force of the individual or Cosmic energy, or the
individual ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU or Cosmic ÌWûUhrÉaÉpÉï or the Yogi (xÉÉkÉMü as well as
ÍxÉ®), qÉÑZrÉmÉëÉhÉ or God Himself. In the later case, it is God Himself who does
everything in himself as there is no other than Him i.e He is the cause as well as the effect,
the agent as well as the material cause, premium mobili as well as the goal, everything is
God. Cf. pÉÏwÉÉxqÉɲÉiÉÈ mÉuÉiÉå.

qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ as qÉÑZrÉmÉëÉhÉ holds all MüqÉïTüsÉ in suspension in the state of

sleep or xÉqÉÉÍkÉ or mÉësÉrÉ. When fresh creation begins or when one comes back to
eÉÉaÉëiÉç state all the MüqÉï is again manifested only in Him.

j) SåuÉÉ may refer to the demi gods, or the ritualistics of old or the senses. None of them
ever realised Him or could comprehend Him. It is only the Yogi who knows the secret of
work that could realise Him by conquest of desires and selfishness. The man of desire eager
to satisfy his desires misses Him who is the real object of desire as He always runs faster than
his desires. Everything other than Himself AlrÉÉlÉç he outstrips AirÉåÌiÉ. That unless one

183
goes beyond qÉlÉxÉç, the seat of xɃ¡ûsmÉ & MüÉqÉ one does not grasp Him. Cf.
MüÉå A®É uÉåS etc. who are Devas.

k) This Mantra may also be taken as showing the difference of Atman or DzÉ from the
universe which it pervades as per Sl. 1. In this view AlÉåeÉiÉç lÉ crÉuÉÌiÉ
xuÉÃmÉiÉÉå xuÉpÉuÉiÉÉå uÉÉ lÉ MüqmÉiÉå.
l) Along with rÉjÉÉ iÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉ®ÉiÉç this lÉælɬåuÉÉ ... qÉwÉïiÉç &
iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ etc; ÌuɱÉÇ cÉÉÌuɱÉÇ cÉ, xÉqpÉÔÌiÉÇ cÉ
ÌuÉlÉÉzÉÇ cÉ etc. shows the general features of Yajnavalkya's teaching in the Sukla
Yajurveda as distinct from Krishna Yajurveda.

m) Sls 4&5 explain the nature of Truth to be realised or Atman. Sls 6 to 8 describe the nature
of one who has realised the Atman. Sls 9 to 14 the nature of realisation or ¥ÉÉlÉqÉç. Sls
15-18 the nature of Moksha or freedom of the Jivanmukta type.

n) Uvvata has AzÉïiÉç instead of AwÉïiÉç. The former is explained by his as derived from
the root ËUzÉÉÌiÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉMüqÉï meaning AÌuÉlÉzrÉiÉç mÉÔuÉïÇ ÌuɱqÉÉlÉÇ
AÌuÉlÉzrÉiÉç = AlÉÉÌSÌlÉkÉlÉÍqÉirÉjÉïÈ. He also takes AmÉÈ as referring to
rÉ¥ÉSÉlÉWûÉåqÉSÏÌlÉ || All rituals are based on the activity of uÉÉrÉÑ as per
xuÉÉWûÉ uÉÉiÉåkÉÉ CÌiÉ uÉÉrÉÑmÉëÌiÉ̸iuÉÉ ÌSkÉÉlÉiÉç | Even this ayu is
made to do his work by God. This shows that all activity is finally only to God.

Sl. 5 As the Absolute the Atman is motionless but as the Saguna Brahman He is the creator
of the universe, without Himself being in any way affected by this activity. It is this idea that
seems to be emphasised in the Vivartaveda which says He only appears to be creator. But in
His aspect as cause and effect He is active apparently. In another sense also He is both active
as well as inactive. Thus as organic beings who are no other than himself, He is active and as
inorganic beings He is inactive. Or as mobile objects He is active and as stationary objects He
is inactive. Or as matter He is inactive but as force He is active. The expression only means,
"all activity as well as inactivity are only His forms." Or it may mean that though He is active
He is not bound by the consequences of His acts. So if one realises his identity with Atman,
such a man of realisation can also be active and inactive at the same time just like God
without being entangled in MüqÉï and its effects viz. xÉÇxÉÉU.

Sl.6 EAxiÉÑ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉlrÉÉiqÉlrÉåuÉÉlÉÑmÉzrÉÌiÉ | xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ

cÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ iÉiÉÉå lÉ ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå ||

1. ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå - has no interest in protecting or safeguarding his own interest as

distinct from others. All his xuÉÉjÉï has become mÉUÉjÉ. Cf. xuÉUçjÉÉåï rÉxrÉ
mÉUÉjÉï LuÉ ÌWû mÉÑqÉÉlÉç LMüÈ xÉiÉÉqÉaÉëhÉÏÈ ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå
means ÌuÉzÉåwÉåhÉ eÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå - he does not find any distinction between his
own interest and anothers and as he protects his own interest, he protects others interests also.
Though he may neglect his own interest, however, he will not neglect another's interest on
this ground. It represents absolute freedom from selfishness and love and sympathy for all as
one's own expanded self. The wise man loves and sympathises, loves and serves everybody
as he would love and serve himself. He sees them only the Paramatman as he sees in himself
and loves and woships Him in every being. This realisation substitutes co-operation for
competition, the law of humanity for the law of the jungle. The idea of self preservation and
struggle for existence vanishes from his mind. This is the stage of intellectual understanding.

184
The next stage speaks of the stage of experience. ÌuÉÎeÉaÉÑmxÉiÉå may also be
understood in terms of Madhwa's interpretation of AlÉåeÉiÉç in Sl. 4 according to which
God is said to be fearless. If God is fearless and if one sees God only in everything and in
himself and thus identifies himself with God, he becomes fearless like God Himself and there
is no need for him to protect himself from any danger.

2. The last Mantra showed that the Lord is in everybody and outside as a support and inner
controller and thus pervades all. The result of the realisation of the Lord as such is mentioned
in this verse. Such a man of realisation does not wish to guard or save himself. Even the
desire for salvation is destroyed, for by such realisation he has already saved himself and
feels himself always in the protection of God. He is only an instrument in His hands and has
no fear of being entangled in Samsara anymore. He never more becomes AÉiqÉWûÉ but
becomes eternally alive in the Atman. All his AWûƒ¡ûÉU is destroyed and so pÉrÉ,
MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. based on AWûƒ¡ûÉU & AÌuÉ±É cannot affect him anymore. So
death or danger is not for him. He has become a qÉÑ£ü and has therefore, no more fall from
that status. lÉ mÉÑlÉUÉuÉiÉïiÉå ... etc. AmÉÑlÉUÉ qÉÑÌ£üÈ of Brahmasutras. So no
further Sadhana also is needed. AlÉÑmÉzrÉÌiÉ of this Mantra and ÌuÉeÉÉlÉjÉÈ of the
next mean the same thing. Or if we take this Mantra as representing a lower stage of Sadhana
and the next as the higher stage of ÍxÉή, the former suggests effort for the latter which
represents experience. The former may only constantly and continuously be struggling to
keep the idea in mind without forgetting for a moment, but the latter when such knowledge
has become natural and no more effort is necessary. But since AlÉÑmÉzrÉiÉÈ of Sl.7
reminds us of AlÉÑmÉzrÉÌiÉ we may take the AlÉÑSzÉïlÉÇ as leading to ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ.
For one, who by constant AlÉÑSzÉïlÉ has become a Vijnani there is no more zÉÉåMü &
qÉÉåWû.

3. While Sl.6 gives freedom from fear as the result of realisation, Sl.7 adds freedom from
delusion and sorrow also. Therefore, though the two verses may be taken as representing the
ÍxÉή, there is no repetition. Whereas the last verse spoke of seeing God as the
AliÉrÉÉïÍqÉ and support of all, this verse adds that the Siddha sees the unity of the Lord in
the diversity of the universe.

4. The three Mantras 6 - 8 describe the characteristic of one who has fully adopted the
injunction of the first Mantra DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïÇ. He who has done this behaves
as mentioned in 6 - 8 i.e he is still active in Self-expression and in the service of others. This
shows that seeing God in everything does not make one lazy or Tamasic or inactive.
Therefore, MÑüuÉï³ÉåuÉåWû MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåiÉç ... is explained as the
characteristic of a man of realisation along with irÉÉaÉ & uÉæUÉarÉ. Selfless service
and renunciation can go along with realisation.

5. Sl. 6 may refer to xÉiMüÉrÉïuÉÉS where all effects exist in a potential state in the cause
and the effect being only a manifestation of the cause consists in the cause itself. The man of
realisation sees the effect in the cause viz. world in Atma and the cause in the effect viz.
Atman in the world. This may be an actual transformation as the Visishtadvatins contend, or
only an appearance (ÌuÉuÉiÉï) as the Advaitins contend. But in either case it is a recognition
of the identity of cause and effect or God and the universe which facilitates the worship of
God in the form of the service of the world. Such a man cannot treat the world with contempt
or insult or injure anybody or hate anybody or be afraid of the world. Gita XII:
rÉxqÉɳÉÉå̲eÉiÉå sÉÉåMåü sÉÉåMüÉ̲eÉiÉå cÉ rÉÈ |, A²å¹É

185
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ etc. cf. xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉxjÉqÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉç etc. Manusmriti XII.91.
Bhag XI.2.45 xÉuÉëpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ rÉÈ mÉzrÉåiÉç etc. This shows how Gita,
Manusmriti and Bhagavata have derived the inspiration from Isavasyopanishad (Why?).

6. AÉiqÉlÉç definitions: rÉŠÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ rÉSÉS¨Éå rÉŠÉÌ¨É ÌuÉwrÉÌlÉWû | rÉŠxrÉ

xÉliÉiÉÉå pÉÉuÉxiÉxqÉÉSÉiqÉåÌiÉ MüÐirÉïiÉå || (Lingapurana 70.96) i.e it is
derived variously from the root AÉmsÉ× urÉÉmiÉÉæ, root AÉ + SÉ AÉSÉlÉå, AS
pɤÉhÉå, AiÉ xÉÉiÉirÉaÉqÉlÉå, or in Vedic root AiÉç means also to obtain. AiÉç to
go may also mean to know. Therefore it may refer to the Atman as pure knowledge or
consciousness as its permenant nature. Sometimes it is derived from AiÉç to breathe (vide
Böhling and Roth). Vide note BK. IV. P Professor Deussen derives from AiÉç the reflective
pronoun meaning Self.

7. ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå may mean he does not cover himself with Maya again. So as to
hide the face of Truth as mentioned in Sl. 15. xÉirÉxrÉÉÌmÉÌWûiÉÇ qÉÑZÉqÉç. The
removal of the covering which hides the Truth is by recognising the whole universe as
nothing but the Atman as mentioned in this sloka as well as rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ
mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ.

8. Another reading is lÉ ÌuÉÍcÉÌMüixÉUå. He is beyond all doubt. Cf. ÍNû±liÉå

xÉuÉïxÉÇzÉrÉÉÈ, rÉÎxqÉlÉç ÌuÉ¥ÉÉiÉå xÉuÉïÍqÉSÇ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉiÉÇ pÉuÉiÉÏÌiÉ etc.,
ÌMüqÉWÇû xÉÉkÉÑ lÉÉMüUuÉÇ ÌMüqÉWÇû mÉÉmÉqÉMüUuÉÍqÉÌiÉ.

Sl. 7 rÉÎxqÉlxÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉlrÉÉiqÉæuÉÉpÉÔ̲eÉÉlÉiÉÈ |

iÉ§É MüÉå qÉÉåWûÈ MüÈ zÉÉåMüÈ LMüiuÉqÉlÉÑmÉzrÉiÉÈ ||
1. AÉiqÉæuÉÉpÉÔiÉç - wherever the thin transparent wall of partition constituted by the
AÉlÉlSqÉrÉ MüÉåzÉ is transcended through realisation ÌuÉeÉÉlÉiÉÈ.
2. MüÈ zÉÉåMüÈ - nature of Sukha and Dukha as depending only on ÌuÉwÉrÉ and sense
objects and desires for their pleasures. This comes only from another cf. ̲iÉÏrÉɲæ
pÉrÉqÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ etc. Atma is nothing but AÉlÉlSbÉlÉ. Even before this oneness is
realised the AÉlÉlSqÉrÉ MüÉåzÉ itself is free from zÉÉåMü, what to say about after
realisation.

Sl. 8 xÉ mÉrÉïaÉÉcNÒû¢üqÉMüÉrÉqÉuÉëhÉqÉxlÉÉÌuÉUÇ
zÉÑ®qÉmÉÉmÉÌuÉ®qÉç |
MüÌuÉqÉïlÉÏwÉÏ mÉËUpÉÔÈ xuÉrÉqpÉÔrÉÉïjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç
urÉSkÉÉcNûɵÉiÉÏprÉÈ xÉqÉÉprÉÈ ||
1. mÉrÉïaÉÉiÉç zÉÑ¢Çü –- cf. mÉrÉåïÌiÉ in Ch. Up. VIII.12.3
Although the highest Truth is Absolute and is incapable of being cognised by the relative
intellect in the waking consciousness, still the same is realised as pervading the three states of
relative consciousness and even in absence of it. In fact all subjects and objects are nothing
but names and forms of this Absolute. Therefore in cognizing the objects including the ego as
well as body and sense objects he congnizes the Absolute also. That is the force of the word
mÉËU all round, AaÉÉiÉç - realized and not merely intellectually understood.

zÉÑ¢Çü etc. shows that it cannot be grasped by the ordinary intellect. It is a case of the
whole subject-object universe becoming one with the Atman of the saint as mentioned in the
previous sl. Such a man knows super sensuous truths along with the sensual truths – MüÌuÉÈ
and is master of his own mind and not slave of it and has full self control or uÉæUÉarÉqÉç

186
- qÉlÉÏwÉÏ. He sees only himself in others also and serves others in such a way as to elevate
them to his own state of realisation and freedom from zÉÉåMü & qÉÉåWû.
xuÉrÉqpÉÔÈ - xuÉrÉqÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ pÉÉuÉrÉÌiÉ cÉ. And this he does without any
distinction of caste, creed, sex, colour or age. mÉËU - all round pÉÉuÉrÉÌiÉ. So he brings
about the real welfare or mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉjÉï or qÉÉå¤É of all.
rÉÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåjÉÉïlÉç urÉ®ÉcNûɵÉiÉÏprÉÈ xÉqÉÉprÉÈ || - the later portions
shows the eternal nature of qÉÑÌ£ü brought about by him. The whole Upanishads are the
result of the actitivity of such Rishis to save mankind by eluciliating the real essence of the
Vedas. AjÉÉïlÉç - meaning of the Vedas as well as of life, real wealth which is never lost,
the real goal of life viz. qÉÉå¤É, the real object of all human desire and endevours. He not
only has achieved the goal of life himself (rÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ cÉÉmÉUÇ sÉÉpÉqÉç etc.) but
helps others to achieve the same. Since he himself has achieved the highest goal, there is no
more desire for worldly prosperity qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉqÉç and he also
sees to it to save others also from such desires. mÉrÉïaÉÉiÉç may be taken along with
AjÉÉïlÉç as its object. In that case the sense would be that he has gained the supreme and
eternal wealth viz. God Himself. It is not a gain like other gains but becoming God Himself,
who is superior to all mÉËUpÉÔÈ.

2. rÉÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉSkÉÉiÉç etc. Though he himself understands the true

meaning and essential teaching of the Vedas only to be the realisation of the identity with the
Atman, in his teachings to others he adjusts his teachings to the needs and capacities of the
new generations and to his individual pupils who are not yet ready for the highest. Even the
highest Truth has to be presented to each generation afresh in a new garb as Vedanta has to
be presented to the present generation in terms of service. Though there may be differences in
the interpretations given by the great Acharyas who are men of realisations, they all convey
the essential teachings of the Vedas in various terms to suit their disciples, time, locality etc.
All the teachings are therefore, correct and true from that particular angle of vision and the
Adhikar of the pupil. The differences are only apparent. Their teachings hold good eternally
for those who are in the level of the development of the pupils who are addressed by the
Acharyas. Such differences in Adhikara are always present eternally and so they are eternally
useful to particular Adhikaris inspite of apparent differences. Cf. xÉirÉålÉ mÉljÉÉ
ÌuÉiÉiÉÉå SåuÉrÉÉlÉÈ and Swamiji's word that we proceed from Truth to Truth. These
teachers keep different Adhikaris in view and cater to the needs of all aspirants and explain
the meaning of the Vedas in terms of MüÉqÉ, AjÉï, kÉqÉï, & qÉÉå¤É according to their
needs. That is why we find the ritualist explaining everything as meant for worldly prosperity
in this world or the next. But what they really mean is something different cf. Bhagavata
TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉËUrÉqÉç etc. For those who are of the same or similar Adhikara who may be
born till the end of time cf. EimÉixrÉiÉå qÉqÉ cÉ MüÉåÅÌmÉ xÉqÉÉlÉkÉqÉÉï etc.

3. He who is described in 6 & 7 is a MüÌuÉ or ¢üÉliÉSzÉÏï, seer of the transcendental

reality of the Atman described in the first part of the Sloka even while he is seeing sense
objects. Therefore, he is a master and not a slave of his own mind and senses qÉlÉÏwÉÏ as
well as a controller of sense objects i.e. he does not allow sense objects to enslave him, but
uses them as a master as whether he likes xuÉrÉqpÉÔ in the act of saving others by way of
self expression. All this he is able to do because he realises his identity with the absolute
which is zÉÑ¢üqÉç the primal seed of the universe who is without a body which can be the
cause of action or its fruits AMüÉrÉqÉç = lÉ cÉÏrÉiÉå MüqÉïTüsÉÈ AÎxqÉlÉç CÌiÉ
AMüÉrÉqÉç, and without the ordinary instruments of action such as muscles, nerves etc.
"AxlÉÉÌuÉUqÉç" and which is pure and free from egoism, MüÉqÉ etc which generally

187
prompt the activity causing xÉÇxÉÉU and which is unaffected by the previous fruits of
MüqÉï which generally make an ordinary man work in this life. mÉÉmÉ includes both
mÉÑhrÉ & mÉÉmÉ both of which bind. Having realised himself as the absolute he is not
affected by the activities of his own mind and senses or by the attraction of the sense objects.
qÉlÉÏwÉÏ may refer to science and philosophy i.e he becomes a teacher, preacher,
evangelist. mÉËUpÉÔ becomes a reformer - social, political, moral and religious
overcoming all evils. xuÉrÉqpÉÔ - raises everybody to his own status by making all saints
realise himself in others.

4. Escape from samsara through realisation of God and resulting life of selfless service of the
whole universe as worship of God is the eternal teaching of the eternal Vedas, which the
Rishis again and again proclaim in different forms, in different times and localities in
different languages. If any words of the Rishis go against the essence of the Vedas, they are
to be rejected as unvedic. Yajnavalkya thus gives out the essence of the Srutis to those whose
minds are clouded by the teachings of the Krishna Yajurveda and who immerse themselves in
the rituals to obtain worldly prosperity.

5. MüÌuÉ, qÉlÉÏzÉÏ, mÉËUpÉÔ, xuÉrÉqpÉÔ, suggest the various aspects of the

productivity and recreative activity of the man of realisation. MüÌuÉ suggests the aesthetic
aspect. The man of realisation becomes a creative artist as in the case of many Rishis and
Acharyas producing things of beauty and joy, thereby expressing externally the divine bliss
and beauty which is in the world. He enjoys this divine beauty in all natural objects and
makes it available to others spiritually and becomes producer of real men. He is also
qÉlÉÏwÉÏ master of mind and intellect and thus becomes producer of not only fine art but
useful art. Thus he may be a statesman or king like Krishna, Rama or Janaka. He can be even
a business magnet serving the motherland economically. He recreates himself in others
mÉËUpÉÔ and xuÉrÉqpÉÔ by extending his personality not only to the existing
generation but succeeding generations also. mÉËUpÉÉuÉrÉÌiÉ brings about a renaissance,
xuÉrÉqpÉÉuÉrÉÌiÉ helps others to find out their own natural genious and express it in
their life. So he becomes a propagator of the xÉiÉç, ÍcÉiÉç, & AÉlÉlS aspects of God. He
reveals these aspects to others and then overflows himself into others through their intellect,
emotion and will and thus makes the supreme values of life available to one and all.
rÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉ®ÉiÉç.

6. AjÉï may mean also "means" or "cause". In this sense AjÉÉïlÉç may be understood as
meaning Sadhanas for realising Atman. The man of realisation prescribes various methods of
Sadhanas. AjÉï may mean any object of sense. In this sense the man of realisation
understands all objects of sense as really only Atman or a perfection of himself and therefore
he does not have any disuse with them. He sees through these objects of senses into their
essence viz. Atman. Cf. CÎlSìrÉåprÉÈ mÉUÉ ½jÉÉï etc. Artha also means good or
welfare. He works for the welfare of others. AjÉïqÉç = TüsÉqÉç, MüqÉïTüsÉ in this
context. He alone can bring about the real fruit of MüqÉï viz. ÍcɨÉzÉÑή. All these apply
equally to God and the man of realisation as both are identified. AjÉï may also be derived
from the root G to dedicate or sacrifice. With the addition of TüsÉ according to EhÉÉÌS –
ArÉïiÉ CÌiÉ AjÉï. In this sense the man of realisation makes everybody practice
renunciation and dedication of fruits to God and thus saves them from Samsara.

7. Some commentators take this verse as referring to the Atman or God (vide Sankara), others
to the realised man (Ramanuja) and some split up the verse into two, the first part referring

188
the man of realisation and the second to God. AjÉÉïlÉ urÉSkÉÉiÉç is taken by
Gopalananda as meaning EmÉÌlÉwÉSjÉÉïlÉç ÍcÉliÉMüÈ
xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉliÉUÉiqÉoÉë¼ÉåmÉÉxÉMüÈ EmÉÉxÉlÉuÉåsÉÉrÉÉÇ oÉë¼
xÉuÉïiÉÈ xÉɤÉÉiM×üirÉ AlÉÑpÉuÉiÉÏÌiÉ pÉÉuÉÈ |
8. xuÉrÉqpÉÔÈ emphasises that no real transformation is affected by realisation, but only
removal of ignorance that clouded the vision and the seer who was really only the Atman
from eternity remained free from his delusion which made him think of himself as otherwise.
This recognition of his real nature has to be done by each one by himself and nobody else can
do it for him. So he is xuÉrÉqpÉÔÈ. But this he does along with victory over qÉÉrÉ.
mÉËUpÉÔÈ.rÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉå means that he saw the whole world in its true light as
Atman.

9. mÉraÉÉïiÉç cf. the expression mÉËUuÉëÉeÉMü which also means one who
mÉrÉïaÉÉiÉç. A mÉËUuÉëÉeÉMü is one who has gone out of his little self, as it were,
and found the same self everywhere he went and in everything he saw. Cf. rÉ§É rɧÉ
qÉlÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ iÉ§É iÉ§É xÉqÉÉkÉrÉÈ | The two roots mean the same thing viz. to go.
His interest expanded into the whole world.

10. AjÉÉïlÉ urÉSkÉÉiÉç = rÉÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÈ xÉuÉÉïlÉç mÉSÉjÉÉïlÉç qÉlÉÍxÉ

urÉSkÉÉiÉç = understood everything in this world in its real nature as only Atman.
rÉÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉ®ÉiÉç. cf. Gospel 393 "Dive deep into the ocean of
Satchitananda. There you will get commission to teach people. No lasting benefit can be
given without such commission."

9. AlkÉÇ iÉqÉÈ mÉëÌuÉzÉÎliÉ rÉåÅxqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå |

iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉ CuÉ iÉå iÉqÉÉå rÉ E xÉqpÉÔirÉÉÇ UiÉÉÈ ||

1. AÌuÉ±É means according to Uvvata, "xuÉaÉÉïjÉÉïÌlÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ" and ÌuɱÉ

means AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉqÉç. The latter give up all Karmas. Their combination means "knowing
the former is necessary for the latter as a means. These cross over death and enjoy Brahman
through realisation.

2. ÌuÉ±É means "devotion and meditation of Bhakti yoga" AÌuÉ±É means "doing the will
of the Father in Heaven", "not He who sayeth 'Lord, Lord' but he that doeth the will of the
Father in Heaven", as Christ says. One is more mental and emotional, the other more
volitional. This refers to the apprant conflict between pure Karmayogis and pure devotees.
The Upanishad advocates a synthesis of heart and hand. Or AÌuÉ±É means practice and
ÌuÉ±É means theory or religion and philosophy, both of which should be synthesised. In this
case it is the synthesis of head and hand. These two senses together advocate the synthesis of
¥ÉÉlÉ, pÉÌ£ü, & MüqÉï Yogas as practised for the realisation of the Atman and
Jivanmukti as mentioned in the previous Mantras. Or they may refer to religion and morality.
Religion, philosophy and ethics must go hand in hand together. Or it may refer to science and
philosophy - the AmÉUÉ & mÉUÉÌuÉ±É which are called here AÌuÉ±É & ÌuɱÉ. Or it
may refer to xÉaÉÑhÉÌuÉ±É ÌlÉaÉÑïhÉÌuɱÉ. xÉWû in Slokas 11 & 14 is to
emphasise the spirit of synthesis. This harmony and synthesis is the very soul of Hindu and
Vedic culture.

189
3. Just as the apparently opposite characteristic is found reconciled in the Atman or God, so
the apparantly opposite practices and ways of life are reconciled in Jivanmukti where the man
has become God himself.

4. ÌuÉ±É & AÌuÉ±É are only aspects of Maya. The Atman is beyond Maya and therefore
both Vidya and Avidya. ÌuɱÉÅÌuɱå DzÉiÉå rÉxiÉÑ xÉÉåÅlrÉÈ, ¤ÉUliÉÑ
AÌuÉ±É ½qÉ×iÉqÉç iÉÑ ÌuÉ±É of Sve. Up. He who realises the absolute which is
beyond both Vidya and Avidya has conquoured death and become immortal. AÌuɱrÉÉ
qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï means "by means of other Sadhanas like pÉÌ£ü &
ÌlÉwMüÉqÉMüqÉï he is not entangled in Samsara and by ¥ÉÉlÉqÉç he realises this
immortal". Or ÌuÉ±É means "spiritual realisation" and AÌuÉ±É means "normal human life
in the relative world". This normal life is not and need not be affected by the spiritual
realisation as in the case of Dharmavyadha or Bhishma or Tuladhara or Janaka. Both can go
together in the case of a Jivanmukta. Avidya then does not become a clog on the permanent
vision of God and so qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï means "as long as his body is alive on account of
mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï, he works out his mÉëÉUokÉ through AÌuÉ±É and enjoys God
through ÌuɱÉ. iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ. ÌuÉ±É cf. iÉqÉç AÉxÉÏiÉç iÉqÉxÉÉ
aÉÔRûqÉaÉëå blinding light. Also Svetasvatara ASÉ iÉqÉÈ iÉ³É ÌSuÉÉ lÉ UȨ́ÉÈ.

5. Avidya, no doubt, is a cloud and prevents the vision of God. But Vidya is capable of
eclipsing the Avidya as the latter is less powerful. Vidya leads to a greater darkness, means
only that darkness of Avidya is swallowed by darkness of Vidya i.e Avidya is not seen when
Vidya swallows it up as it were. iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉ CuÉ iÉå iÉqÉÉå Vidya swallows the
swallower of Atman. So which is more powerful - Vidya or Avidya? But realisation of the
Atman is still higher because in it both Vidya and Avidya can co-exist, mutually helping and
co-operating with each other. EpÉrÉÇ xÉWû. He who has attained this Atman by
experience feels both Vidya and Avidya as only forms of Atman and as the latter cannot be
destroyed altogether, they may remain. Because of Avidya, he could see others struggling in
Maya and ignorance and because of Vidya he can liberate them. The Avidya of the world is
conqured by the Avidya of the man of realisation. The Avidya (i.e cognizing the world) of the
man of realisation is the means for the world to cross over Samsara and enjoy bliss.

6. ÌuÉ±É means knowledge and realisation and AÌuÉ±É means everything else such as
pÉÌ£ü, MüqÉï, etc. AlkÉÇ iÉqÉÈ = xÉqÉÉÍkÉ and renunciation of sense objects. Both
Vidya and Avidya lead to renunciation of sense pleasure and Samadhi but these are of a
higher variety or mÉUÉ in ÌuÉ±É and lower in AÌuɱÉ. The former results in
mÉUuÉæUÉarÉÇ and ÌlÉÌuÉïMüsmÉxÉqÉÉÍkÉ while the latter only to
AmÉUuÉæUÉarÉ & xÉÌuÉMüsmÉxÉqÉÉÍkÉ. But if both these are practised together
one reaches freedom from bondage or Samsara and attains immortal bliss at the same time is
equal to Jivanmukti.

7. qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï crosses beyond the danger of attachment to body and other mortal
things by means of these spiritual practices, which remain even after Vidya or realisation is
attained and he attains immortality even while in the body subject to death. So the
combination may be only of realisation of Atman and active life of service and love.
qÉ×irÉÑÇ may be only AWûƒ¡ûÉU or MüÉqÉ, the mortal enemy of man as per Gita. No
egoism or selfish desire bind him when he is doing sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. He is all the
while in the full consciousness of every object including his own body as only Atman and is
enjoying only Atman. irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ.

190
8. cf. AzÉlÉÉrÉ ÌWû qÉ×irÉÑÇ of Br. Up. VII.2.1. mÉÉmqÉÉlÉÇ
qÉ×irÉÑqÉmÉWûirÉ VII.3.10 qÉ×irÉÑuÉÉïÅxÉiÉç qÉ×irÉÑuÉæï iÉqÉÈ
VII.3.28, AÎalÉuÉæï qÉ×irÉÑÈ III.2.10.

9. The two triads may be taken only as eulogizing AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ. One who has attained the
latter is not affected by Maya which has ÌuÉ±É & AÌuÉ±É as her two aspects. Though
above Maya, it is not opposed to Maya, which is only a power of God or is one with God.
Since Maya is also realised as the highest Truth, an AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÏ may be always active in
the loving service of the whole world as a manifestation of God. Only in the stage before
attainment of AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ there is difference and opposition between Vidya and Avidya.
But as agents of Maya they are equally defective in that stage though Avidya can be
swallowed through Vidya. The ordinary Vidya as opposed to Avidya is only an act of the
mind as much as any other physical or vital act. But Atmavidya which cognizes both Vidya
and Avidya is not an act but an experience. It is this that is denoted by Veda with both Vidya
and Avidya as the object as it were. Both Vidya and Avidya require mental effort or physical
exersion. But Atmavidya is present always as a fact cognizing itself as a shining of the Sun is
a fact and not an act for attaining anything else. That knowledge by means of which both
Vidya and Avidya, both of which involve subject and object are transcended, is itself beyond
both subject and object relation and is only a permanent experience of both subject and object
as the Atman itself. Both subject and object may remain as form of Atman itself and
recognised as only Atman. Hence AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ can exist along with Vidya and Avidya
which involve subject and object. The man of realisation, may, therefore, see the world and
do the loving service of the world, but he sees only Atman in the world, himself as well as the
service itself and therefore, serves without being affected and entangled by Maya. Unlike
ordinary men, who are affected by the ignorance of either the world or the Atman. It is on this
possibility of the Vidwan being able to cognize the world as Atman that the whole conception
of Jivanmukti becomes possible. It is only on this basis that we can understand how the
Rishis have taught others of their realisation of the fundamental identity of eÉÏuÉ,
eÉaÉiÉç, and God. Advaita becomes impossible of being taught if the character of highest
realisation is not accepted as possible. There can be no teaching of Advaita if the man of
realisation cannot be cognizant of the Shisya and if he has not realised Advaita he cannot be a
teacher of it. If one may attain Samadhi and does not see the world, he is not yet an
Atmajnani but only a Yogi. He has to come back to Vyavahara which is only a lower stage.
But to the Atmajnani, there is no coming back or coming down. It is an eternal cognizant
which does not change. If we don’t accept this as the highest stage, Sankara himself will not
be an Atmajnani. If one has come down to the lower stage of knowledge he cannot have
experience of Advaita which is possible only in Samadhi, which is a higher stage, where
there is no mind to record the experience and consequenctly there is no Sankara, who may
make meaning of it possible in the Vyavaharika stage. So Jivanmukti is possible only if
Advaitajnanam is possible along with knowledge of the world in the Vyavaharika stage; only
urÉuÉWûÉU is not capable of entangling the knower in further Samsara. That is all the
difference. The second triad will be only an explanation of the different aspects of Vidya
mentioned in the first triad, viz. the negative and positive aspect. Both these aspects of Vidya
can co-exist with Jnanam. Therefore, uÉæUÉarÉÇ and pÉÌ£ü are possible for a real Jnani
even after identity of subject and object is realised. Thus a real synthesis of MüqÉï, ¥ÉÉlÉ,
pÉÌ£ü & uÉæUÉarÉÇ is possible in the higher stage as in the lower stage.

191
10. AÌuÉ±É - State when there is no knowledge of the objects of the senses. ÌuÉ±É - when
there is such knowledge. The former means xÉÌuÉMüsmÉxÉqÉÉÍkÉ, the latter
intellectual understanding of Truth. The former is affected by ignorance, the latter by greater
ignorance, for, in the former only external world is not known but in the latter the Atman or
Truth itself is not known. Therefore, the latter is affected by greater ignorance. But Vijnanam
is different from both as explained by these who have experienced it. In it xÉqÉÉÍkÉ &
cognition of external objects through the senses can coexist. Cf. rÉ§É rÉ§É qÉlÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ
iÉ§É iÉ§É xÉqÉÉkÉrÉÈ. This is the state of Atmajnanam reached by the ÍkÉU by the
realisation of the spirit who can beard the lion in its own den. They can be in the world but
not of it. Though they are in contact with sense objects they know them only as Atman.
Because they are aware of the external objects they can explain things to Sishyas and thus
serve them. ÌuÉcÉcɤÉUå. They are able to explain to us the Truth of Jivanmukti only
because they have reached a state where they can cognize Vidya & Avidya at the same time
EpÉrÉÇ xÉWû. By the continuance of xÉqÉÉÍkÉ in the waking state they are not only not
affected by ego and attachment to sense objects or desire for them but they help others also to
escape from Samsara. AÌuɱrÉÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï (cf. AWæûiÉÑlÉÉlrÉÉlÉÌmÉ
iÉÉUrÉÎliÉÈ) Even when they are in contact with sense objects they enjoy only the Bliss of
Immortal Brahman.

11. Or AÌuÉ±É may refer to xÉÑwÉÑÎmiÉ when nothing is known or cognized and
ÌuÉ±É to eÉÉaÉëiÉç & xuÉmlÉ where objects are cognized. iÉÑUÏrÉ is above all these
– xÉÑwÉÑÎmiÉ as well as eÉÉaÉëiÉç & xuÉmlÉ. One who has realised the iÉÑUÏrÉ
which never loses its conscious time, is one with iÉÑUÏrÉ & his knowledge coexists in all
the three states. This knowledge covers both ignorance as well as knowledge of the world.
This experience is different from that of xÉÑwÉÑÎmiÉ or eÉÉaÉëiÉç & xuÉmlÉ,
AÌuɱrÉÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï - from a consideration of the xÉÑwÉÑÎmiÉ state a man
may have glimpse of a blissful state which is beyond death and misery and suffering but that
state can be attained by putting forth the necessary effort in the and only in the Jagrit state
(ÌuɱrÉÉqÉ×iÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå)

12. AÌuÉ±É = worldly knowledge. ÌuÉ±É - knowledge of God or Atman and means of
realisation. The first clouds the Atman if not supported by the latter and the latter clouds the
world if not supported by the former. The former will enable the man of realisation to live
and enjoy life even when he enjoys God because the world and God are not different and
worldly enjoyments are seen by him only as enjoyment of God. He can therefore, enjoy God
through senses and mind as well. The combination of both is higher than both. Unless a man
is able to enjoy God in the presence of sense objects i.e unless he is always in the presence of
God either in the presence or absence of sense objects he has not achieved the highest state.
There is still likelihood of fall.

13. One who knows only a little and is devoted only to what little he knows is
AÌuɱÉåmÉÉxÉMü but who knows the nature of the world as a scientist knows it is
devoted to the world as he knows it. The knowledge of the former is limited, therefore, his
ignorance also is limited. But when the extent of worldly knowledge is increased as he finds
his ignorance extending beyond the extended knowledge. Therefore the ignorance of a
scientist is greater than that of the ordinary man.

14. It is because knowledge of God is like darkness that God is Kali & Kala. That is why
Vishnu, Krishna and Avatars are described as of black complexion. But it is a darkness which

192
lights the lotus of the heart. Cf. also rÉÉ ÌlÉzÉÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ etc. Reference is to
Sushupti. Turiya is beyond this which enables the man of realisation to know both Vidya &
Avidya at the same time.

Ramanuja in Sri Bhasya - T.1.1 – AÌuÉ±É - works enjoined or different. Castes and
Ashramas. Having discarded by such works death, i.e the previous works antagonistic to the
origination of knowledge, a man reaches the Immortal Bliss through knowledge.

12,13,14. AlkÉÇ iÉqÉÈ mÉëÌuÉzÉÎliÉ rÉåÅxÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå |

iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉ CuÉ iÉå iÉqÉÉå rÉ E xÉqpÉÔirÉÉÇ UiÉÉÈ ||
AlrÉSåuÉÉWÒûÈ xÉqpÉuÉÉSlrÉSÉWÒûUxÉqpÉuÉÉiÉç |
CÌiÉ zÉÑ´ÉÑqÉ kÉÏUÉhÉÉÇ rÉå lÉxiÉ̲cÉcÉͤÉUå ||
xÉqpÉÔÌiÉÇ cÉ ÌuÉlÉÉzÉÇ cÉ rÉxiÉå²åSÉåpÉrÉÇ xÉWû |
ÌuÉlÉÉzÉålÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï xÉqpÉÔirÉÉqÉ×iÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå ||

1. AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ according to Uvvata refers to the Lokayatikas who say that there is no birth
after death. xqpÉÔÌiÉ refers to those who hold that MüqÉï is of no use as only Atman is
real. AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉqÉɧÉUiÉÉÈ. A combination of the two refers to those who believe in
Para Brahman who is the creator of the universe and who knows that the body is
impermanent. Such persons do Sadhana and by means of the body cross over death and
obtain immortality through ¥ÉÉlÉqÉç because their Sadhana consists of activity for the
purpose of achieving Jnanam. Karma results in Jnanam which leads to immortatily.

2. AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ and xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ may be taken as meaning Being and Becoming. Being is
always present in becoming and the latter is present in the being in its potential state. He who
knows this Truth will always be conscious of all beings as really one with Being and
therefore escapes from the effects of Becoming and enjoys the whole universe as nothing but
Brahman Bliss. xÉiMüÉrÉïuÉÉS.

3. xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ and AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ may be taken as meaning AzsÉåwÉ and ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ of

Brahma Sutra IV.1.13. E¨ÉUmÉÔuÉÉïkÉrÉÉåUzsÉåwÉÌuÉlÉÉzÉÉæ. This is
suggested by the use of the word ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ as a synonym of AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ. Both must go
together and this happens only if the Atman which is above all activity is realized. The
Atmajnani is not affected by his subsequent activity. The MüqÉïTüsÉ that is already earned
will lead to Samsara involving death a number of times over and again. Therefore, it is said
by ÌuÉlÉÉzÉqÉ×irÉÔ is transcended. Similarly, by xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ i.e., great production of
MüqÉïTüsÉ would lead to the same Samsara. But the act of the Atmajnani leads only to
AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉ and freedom from birth and nothing else. So xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ helps only
enjoyment of bliss of the Atman. If each is not accomplished by the other xÉÇxÉÉU is
inevitable. pÉÔrÉ in 12 need not be understood as "greater" but only as "again". Again he
will enter Samsara even if all the results of previous actions are wiped out once for all, for
every moment past Karma is being done which lead to bondage. This meaning of pÉÔrÉÈ is
intended in pÉÔrÉ LuÉ qÉWûÉoÉÉWÒû, mÉUÇpÉÔrÉÈ mÉëuɤrÉÉÍqÉ etc. of
Gita. ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ may be common for both mÉÉmÉ & mÉÑhrÉMüqÉï. Vide Br.Su
IV.1.14. CiÉUxrÉÉmrÉåuÉqÉxÉÇzsÉåwÉÈ mÉÉiÉå iÉÑ AÎalÉWûÉå§ÉÉÌS iÉÑ
iÉiMüÉrÉÉïrÉæuÉ, iɬzÉïlÉÉiÉç IV.1.16 etc. ÌuÉlÉÉzÉålÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï may
mean by mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï living the allotted period of life. cf. pÉÉåaÉålÉ ÎiuÉiÉUå
¤ÉmÉÌrÉiuÉÉ xÉqmɱiÉå | AlÉÉUokÉMüÉrÉåï LuÉ iÉÑ mÉÔuÉåï etc.
xÉqpÉÔirÉÉqÉ×iÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå all fresh Karma done in a ÌlÉwMüÉqÉ spirit one attains

193
bliss xÉqmɱiÉå | iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉÈ in Sl.12 means that even after wiping out previous
MüqÉïTüsÉ fresh MüqÉïTüsÉ will assail him.

4. Atmajnanam which is the same as the highest goal of life is not merely negative in the
sense of destroying xÉÇxÉÉU as the Buddhists conceive of their final goal ÌlÉuÉÉïhÉ or
extinction of egoism, selfish desires, etc. But it is also the attainment of Divine Bliss which is
beyond death. Extinction of life as it is viz. Samsara and life as it should be. It is not only
qÉÑÌ£ü but oÉë¼ÉlÉlSqÉç. So, it is called oÉë¼ÌlÉuÉÉïhÉqÉç in the Gita. There is a
positive entity realized without which such negative is impossible. So AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ or
ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ alone is sought as goal only by those who are possessed of the idea of the whole
life being ghost like appearance. Those on the other hand, who think that by rituals and
Sadhana one can go to Vaikuntha or Svarga and have all the joys of life there and who
therefore, run after these things in a future life here or hereafter are in still greater ignorance.
There is infinte joy possible only in a state beyond relativity and so that bliss is entirely free
from the pleasures of life and senses as ordinarily understood. Therefore, one should only aim
at AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ & oÉë¼ÌlÉuÉÉïhÉqÉç. When both ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ & xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ occur
simultaneously 'Vinasa' takes the form of mÉUuÉæUÉarÉÇ & xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ takes the
form of mÉë½pÉÉuÉ which is beyond all Vimrityu or ephemerality and attachment to
sense pleasures. Such being the aim, the Sadhaka also must practise both positive and
negative practices together. Both necessary for Atmajnanam. In fact either one is not possible
without the other. One is helpful in removing the imputirities of the mind - the so called sins
and the other in enjoyment of oÉë¼ÉlÉlSqÉç. This is possible only by
DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïÇ etc. The ÌuÉ±É - AÌuÉ±É triad spoken of the theoritical
cognitive aspect or xÉÉÇZrÉ of Gita and this new triad speaks of Yoga of Gita or practice or
life. The 'Sambhuti' or better life aimed at by a worldly man is still within Samsara and it is a
fond hope that one can be free from trouble so long as one is in Samsara. The xuÉaÉï or
uÉæMÑühPû is as much imagination because of ignorance and desires as the next life here
itself. Cf. AxɨÉÇ ´ÉuÉhÉÌmÉërÉÇ etc. of Bhag. AÎalÉqÉÑakÉÉ zÉÔqÉiÉÉliÉÉÈ.
Also Rv. X.82.7, S.Y. 17.31 lÉ iÉÇ ÌuÉSÉjÉ rÉ CqÉÉ
eÉeÉÉlÉÉlrɱÑwqÉÉMüqÉliÉUÇ oÉpÉÔuÉ | lÉÏWûÉUåhÉ mÉëÉuÉ×iÉÉ
eÉsmrÉÉ cÉÉxÉÑiÉ×mÉ EYjÉzÉÉxɶÉUÎliÉ | Cf. also lÉÉMüÉqÉlrÉÌ¢ürÉÉÈ
MüÉÍcÉiÉç SØzrÉiÉå qÉå lÉ MüÌWïûÍcÉiÉç rɱή MÑüÂiÉå eÉliÉÑ iɨÉiÉç
MüÉqÉxrÉ cÉå̹iÉqÉç || Also Mundaka, Katha, Gita verses condemning ritualism. Also
Sruti passage quoted by Sridhara under Bhag. XI.21.27. MüͶɮmÉÉ
AxqÉÉssÉÉåMüÉiÉç mÉëåirÉ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ uÉåS ArÉqÉWûqÉxqÉÏÌiÉ MüͶÉiÉç
xuÉÇ sÉÉåMÇü lÉ mÉëÌiÉeÉÉlÉÉÌiÉ AÎalÉqÉÑakÉÉ WæûuÉ kÉÔqÉiÉÉliÉÈ
CÌiÉ |

5. ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ leading to qÉ×irÉÑiÉUhÉ shows that ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ & qÉ×irÉÑ are two
different things. ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ may mean elimination or destruction of the lower ego and
individuality based upon it and xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ meaning expansion of the individuality into
Atman so as to cover the whole universe. It is only the ego that is subject to death and not
Atman. Therefore, by eliminating the ego and identifying with the Atman one frees oneself
from death and attains Immortal Bliss.

6. Both the Buddhistic Nihilists and the worshippers of Saguna Brahman like the Saivas and
Vaishnavas who aspire to retain their individuality even in qÉÉå¤É are condemned as
ignorant. The highest state conceived by the Upanishad is beyond both. It is a positive state of
blissful consciousness of the identity of the whole world as only names and forms of Atman,

194
in which the defects of both the schools are absent and the virtues of both are present. The
ritualistic idea of eternal enjoyment in heaven is also condemned as well as the views of
sÉÉåMüÉrÉÌiÉMü that death is the end of all. So also the views of reincarnationists like
Dayananda Sarasvati who hold that even Moksha is not eternal and that all souls will have to
be born again at the end of MüsmÉ |
AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå may mean the ritualists as well as sÉÉåMüÉrÉÌiÉMü &
xÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå may refer to Sagunopasakas as well as reincarnationists and
ritualists. Or the two may mean only negative Sadhana of renunciation and positive Sadhana
of devotion and service.

xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ –- AaÉÉqÉÏ MüqÉï AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ - mÉÔuÉïMüqÉï that which is to be

destroyed to which one should be unattached. If this is not done, by the effort of the
mÉÔuÉïMüqÉï one enters the darkness of Samsara, enjoying the miseries and sufferings
inevitable in it. By being non attached to future MüqÉï some more links of bondage are
added to the already existing chain of Samsara and this leads to more and more darkness.

Sl. 15 ÌWûUhqÉrÉålÉ mÉɧÉåhÉ xÉirÉxrÉÉÌmÉÌWûiÉÇ qÉÑZÉqÉç |

iɨuÉÇ mÉÔwɳÉmÉÉuÉ×hÉÑ xÉirÉkÉqÉÉïrÉ SعrÉå ||
1. ÌWûUhqÉrÉålÉ mÉÉ§É refers to krÉÉlÉ of Sl. 1. It is the love of worldly wealth
represented by gold that hides the Atman. Therefore it is that the 1 st verse says that nobody
should covet wealth. It is those who covet this wordly wealth and prosperity that go to the
Asuric Lokas of binding darkness according to Sl. 3. But even to get rid of it, it is necessary
that we should get the Grace of God. Hence the prayer for redemption from this desire so that
the devotee who desires only Truth or Atman may have his desire fulfilled. One who is
practicing spiritual Sadhanas for realising Truth is xÉirÉkÉqÉï and it is such a man who is
referred to in Sl.2. Such a desire as for qÉÑqÉѤÉÑiuÉÇ or pÉÌ£ü is not inconsistent
with ÌlÉwMüÉqÉMüqÉï and Sadhana meant for controlling desires. Such desire is a thorn
to remove the other thorn of selfish desire and the Up. here exorts everybody not to give up
such MüqÉï till death in Sl. 2. AÉiqÉWûlÉÈ & ÌWûUhqÉrÉmÉÉ§É suggest the same
thing. While the first suggest killing the Atman, the latter says that the killing is only hiding
the Atman and not actual destruction as Atman cannot be killed but is immortal as mentioned
in other verses like 11, 14, 17.

2. Vide Gospel Pg.98. The police sergant goes with a lantern in hand. No one sees his face
but the sergeant sees everybody's face and others can see each other. If you want to see the
sergeant, you must pray to him, "Sir, please turn the light on your own face. Let me see you".
In the same way one must pray to God, "Oh Lord, be gracious and turn the light of
knowledge on Thyself so that I might see Thy face."

3. mÉÔwÉlÉç may be only an address to one's own self or the Rishis address to man who is
none other than his own protector, except Pushan there is no external protector. The Atman is
the only refuge. "O Immortal Self, you are hidden behind your own Avidya or Maya. Shake
yourself free from it. You are the xÉirÉ and none else. Protect yourself by removing the
mask put on by yourself. xÉirÉxrÉ iÉå qÉÑZÉÇ AÌmÉÌWûiÉqÉç | This can be removed
only by your own self effort. Not even God can help you for God is no other than your own
real higher self. It is an injunction to Sadhana for realisation in terms of the 1 st mantra. The
Tyaga of the 1st mantra is here referred to as removing the covering. iuÉÇ here refers to the
iuÉÌrÉ & lÉUå of sl. 2.

195
4. Or the prayer may be made by the Rishi on behalf of those who are still in ingnorance. "O
God, deign to remove the ignorance of others as you have removed mine, and enable them to
identify their own self with the self of the universe as you have enabled me to do."

5. This covering of God with Maya is the state of the ordinary man this must be reversed as
per sl. 1 which wants the Maya and its creation to be covered by God so that man does not
see anything else but God when Maya vanishes and everything has become God.

6. mÉÉ§É or AÉuÉUhÉ may here refer to the 3 Sariras or mÉgcÉMüÉåzÉs'. But the
primary MüÉåzÉ or AÉlÉlSqÉrÉMüÉåzÉ or MüÉUhÉzÉUÏU is to be removed before
the identity mentioned in the next mantra is realised i.e xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ.

Sl.16 mÉÔwɳÉåMüwÉåï rÉqÉ xÉÔrÉï mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ urÉÔWû

UzqÉÏlxÉqÉÔWû iÉåeÉÉå rɨÉå ÃmÉÇ MüsrÉÉhÉiÉqÉÇ iɨÉå mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ
rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ ||
1. urÉÔWû UzqÉÏlÉç xÉqÉÔWû iÉåeÉÉå - "Withdraw Thy Light which by Its glare
prevents me from seeing Thy face & concentrate all your light on your own face so that I may
see Thee and not the world of senses. i.e By Thy Grace enable me to withdraw my eyes from
the attractions of the world of senses and enable me to direct my mind to the Atman". Thus
these words describe the negative and positive aspects of Sadhana with the help of God's
Grace.

2. UzÍqÉ may also mean individual souls which are said to be like the rays of the Sun or it
may mean all sense objects. It is through the iÉåeÉxÉç of the Lord that the senses and mind
are working. That iÉåeÉxÉç is scattered because of these. So they are to be concentrated.
Cf. Gospel. Sun's rays and lens. "Withdraw all of them" means "Let me not know any of
them as they appear distinct from each other to the senses. Or it may mean the thoughts or
vritis of mind which have to be withdrawn so that the concentrated mind can be directed
towards the Atman. Vide on UzqÉÏlÉç iuÉÇ mÉrÉÉïuÉiÉïrÉÉiÉç of Ch. 7.5.2 &
AÉÌSirÉxrÉ UzqÉrÉÈ ApÉÉæ sÉÉåMüÉæ aÉcNûliÉÏqÉÇ cÉ AqÉÑÇ cÉ of
VIII.6.2. There may be a subtle reference to the rays of the Sun by which the Yogi goes to the
Brahmaloka. In this sense UzqÉÏlÉç urÉÔWû would mean "Withdraw your Rashmis so
that I may not be put to the necessity of travelling of ¢üqÉqÉÑÌ£ü i.e may I have
eÉÏuÉlqÉÑÌ£ü here and now alone as mentioned in xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ of the same
passage cf. UÎzqÉÍpÉÃkuÉïqÉ AÉ¢üqÉiÉå of VIII.6.5.6. iɳÉrÉlirÉåiÉÉÈ xÉÔrÉïxrÉ
UzqÉrÉÈ xÉÔrÉïxrÉ UÎzqÉÍpÉrÉïeÉqÉÉlÉÇ uÉWûÎliÉ UÎzqÉwÉÑ xÉͳÉkɨÉå of
Prasna 7.6 cf. also the other Ei¢üÉÎliÉ ´ÉÑiÉrÉÈ such as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.4.2
and Brahmasutra IV.2.18,19 cf. commentaries there on. Also that on Brahmasutra IV.3.1
which deals with AÍcÉïqÉÉaÉï.

3. UÎzqÉ may mean only the beacons of light or consciousness that are strewn out throught
the Vritis or the senses the grasp the objects of senses or ideas from the Sun or Atman in the
heart - the sum of all consciousness cf. mÉUÉÎgcÉ ZÉÉÌlÉ urÉiÉ×hÉiÉç etc. urÉÔWû
UzqÉÏlÉç may mean only AÉuÉרÉcɤÉÑUqÉ×iÉiuÉÍqÉcNûlÉç of Katha mantra
which refers to the kÉÏU, which is meant for realising mÉëirÉaÉÉiqÉlÉç. The word
UzqÉÏlÉç is explained by Nirukta II.15.2 UÎzqÉÈ rÉqÉlÉÉiÉç ESMüzrÉ AµÉxrÉ cÉ
explains SÒaÉÉïcÉÉrÉï. Therefore the prayer is consistent with Atman addressed here as
rÉqÉ as symbolised by the Sun in the external Astronomical world and by Á in the Vedas
and refer to in the next verse. The prayer may thus be only for self control and

196
mÉëirÉÉWûÉU in terms of Katha as qÉlÉÈ mÉëaÉëWûqÉåuÉ cÉ | The various
methods of self control may be what is designated by the plural UzqÉÏlÉç or the various
rituals in the previous chapter which are all meant for self-control. Hence the prayer would
come to this in essence, "Oh Inner controller, please control my outgoing tendencies of the
senses through the mind and redirect all mental energies to the concentration and meditation
on the Atman so that I may always see your beautiful form of Light iÉåeÉxÉç which is one
with my Atman". From the stand point of Á also, the UÎzqÉ may mean the three states of
consciousness represented by the three letters A U M all of which are forms of the iÉÑUÏrÉ
||

4. UÎzqÉ is also derived as AzlÉÑiÉå urÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ CÌiÉ according to EhÉÉÌSxÉÔ§É

AzlÉÉåiÉå UzÉqÉ. In this sense UÎzqÉ may only mean desires of the heart which are
directed to enjoyment of worldly pleasures and sense objects. UzqÉÏlÉç urÉÔWû would
then mean, "May you be pleased to enable me to control my desires so that I may enjoy you
alone according to irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ of sl. 1

5. The UÎzqÉ of the Sun is described as His horses in the Vedas. Therefore from the poetical
standpoint also withdrawal of UÎzqÉ means the withdrawal of the senses from the sense
objects.

6. UzqÉÏlÉç urÉÔWû iÉåeÉÈ xÉqÉÔWû may only refer to urÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉÎiqÉMüÉ

oÉÑÎ®È and AurÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉÎiqÉMüÉ oÉÑÎ®È of Gita.

7. UÎzqÉ and iÉåeÉÈ may refer to heat rays and light rays. Heat represents life and
therefore, UzqÉÏlÉç may refer to all vital activities i.e activities which are part of life such as
eating etc. Let all these be controverted or attenuated. Light represents oÉÑή "let all
activities of the Buddhi be controlled and concentrated and turned on the Atman itself. i.e
enable me to practise irÉÉaÉ and rÉÉåaÉ by your grace. The former is to be done as rÉqÉ
or AliÉrÉÉïÍqÉlÉç and the latter as xÉÔrÉï or xÉÌuÉiÉ× or xÉÑmÉëåUMü in
persuance of your character.
mÉÔwÉlÉç & mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ - nourisher and protector of all.

8. The whole Mantra may be taken as one word. Then it would mean concentration of
mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ or qualities of protector or protectorship crystalised or personified. In this
case iÉåeÉÈ & ÃmÉqÉç must be taken together to mean your form which is of the nature
of intelligence - pure and simple meaning mass of sentiency ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉbÉlÉ.

9. The whole mantra may be addressed to oneself who is addressed as mÉÔwÉlÉç etc. One
who is interested in self protection etc. and engaged in Sadhana, concentrate your energies on
irÉÉaÉ & rÉÉåaÉ.

10. UÎzqÉ & iÉåeÉxÉç may be taken to represent qÉlÉxÉç & oÉÑή or cognitive and
conative faculties of intellect and will. Both these should be controlled and redirected to
realise the auspicious form of God or Atman. This has to be done with the help of God
himself who is the inner witness, controller as suggested by mÉÔzÉlÉç, rÉqÉ, xÉÔrÉï,
LMüÌwÉï, etc. Such help is always forthcoming; this is suggested by mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ for
he is the gracious Father of all creation. So the prayer to Him to help the devotee to do
Sadhana for realising his true nature. This involves and suggests that giving the power of
attorney to God by self surrender as per cÉUqÉzsÉÉåMü of Gita.

197
Sl. 17. uÉÉrÉÑUÌlÉsÉqÉqÉ×iÉqÉjÉåSÇ pÉxqÉÉliÉÇ zÉUÏUqÉç | Á ¢üiÉÉå xqÉU
M×üiÉÇ xqÉU ¢üiÉÉå xqÉU M×üiÉÇ xqÉU ||

1. It treats according to Uvatta, of what happens after death to one who has done
EmÉÉxÉlÉÉ on Brahman. uÉÉrÉÑ means the ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU consisting of 11 senses, 5
Bhutas and eÉÏuÉÉiqÉ. This transmigrating eÉÏuÉ realises the AqÉ×iÉ AÌlÉsÉ i.e pure
Brahman and the body becomes ashes. The second line refers to the AliÉMüÉsÉxqÉUhÉ of
the Sadhaka with the help of Á and is addressed to the AÎalÉ which has been worshipped
from the time of EmÉlÉrÉlÉqÉç and which exists as mind and breath. It means "O Kratu,
time has come now for you to show your face in return of all the service done to you.
Remember how I have served you all these years". Or ¢üiÉÑ may mean rÉ¥É itself.
¢üiÉÉå xqÉU M×üiÉÇ xqÉU = MÝümiÉÉrÉ sÉÉåMüxrÉ xqÉU qÉrÉÉ rÉiÉç
M×üiÉÇ iÉiÉç xqÉU

2. ¢üiÉÑ may here mean one who does EmÉÉxÉlÉÉ on God through the rituals prescribed
by the previous MüqÉïMüÉhQû of the Sukla Yajurveda. The Rishi may be exhorting a
ritualist to remember that the rituals are laid down only to facilitate worship of God and
meditate on God and to perform these rituals only for that purpose and not for attaining
heaven or worldly prosperity or satisfaction of worldly desires as both life and body of
ephemeral by nature and that once they are done, they vanish and only purity of heart and
love of God and realisation remain permanantly. Therefore, only remember Á as explained in
EªÏjÉÌuÉ±É of Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka. This will be quite consistent with previous
Mantras if they also are taken as similar exhortation.

iuÉÇ in 15&17 meaning the ordinary man or ritualist who performs the rituals of the
previous MüqÉïMüÉhQû. The Á in 17 represents the soul in the Sun as well as the soul in
the worshiper are the same as the soul or mÉÑÂwÉ realised by the Rishi. The Rishi explains
that the same Paramatman appears as the worshipper, the worshipped gods as well as the
worship and the fruit of worship in terms of oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ
oÉë¼WûÌuÉoÉëï¼ÉalÉÉæ oÉë¼hÉÉWÒûiÉqÉç | etc. Therefore he exhaults the
ritualist to realise the Real Purusha as he himself has realised as identical with the Purusha in
the Sun. The object of worship in the rituals is none other than the Paramatman in one's own
self and is meant to realise Him. Let the ritualist, therefore, remember the true nature of all
ritual as well as their purpose. uÉÉrÉÑUÌlÉsÉÇ = after all what we call breath is only mere
air and has no spiritual value nor the body which we prize so much which is only dead
matter. At the time of death the former merges in the universal air, and the latter in universal
matter. If rituals are meant only to produce effects in these, these effects will end with death.
AqÉ×iÉ in this sense means only that which exist even after the death of a man i.e the
external air is not affected by the life or death of a man but continues eternally as it were,
comparatively speaking. Even if uÉÉrÉÑ is taken in the sense of the reincarnating soul this
also is ephemeral. M×üiÉ may also mean artificial or created by one's own ignorance and
liable to come to an end and kept up only by one 's own acts and fruits of actions. Cf. the
creamation hymn Rv X.16.3 which speaks of the breath or mÉëÉhÉ going to the wind or
uÉÉrÉÑ & Sat. Br. mÉëÉhÉ to mÉÉlÉ. Br. Ar. III.2.13. Ait.Br. II.6 which speaks of the
sacrificial animals breath or mÉëÉhÉ going to mÉÉlÉ.

3. M×üiÉÇ = service, aim, prize or body gained in battle. M×üiÉÇ xqÉU therefore, may
mean remember that the ritual that you are doing is a service or worship of God. Or

198
remember that the real prize for all your struggles of life is God himself. Or remember the
goal of life. cf. ¢üiÉÑqÉrÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉÈ || Therefore you will be what you intend to be,
and the results of your rituals will depend upon your proper mentality and aim.

4. ¢üiÉÉå cf. ArÉÇ ZÉsÉÑ ¢üiÉÑqÉrÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉÈ of Ch. & xÉ rÉjÉÉMüÉqÉÉå

pÉuÉÌiÉ iÉiÉç ¢üiÉÑpÉïuÉÌiÉ etc. of Br. Ar. ¢üiÉÑ according to Sankara on these
passages means urÉuÉxÉÉrÉ or determination or resolution. Man is what he desires and
resolves himself to be. This is the force of aÉÏiÉÉ ´É®ÉqÉrÉÉåÅrÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉÈ rÉÉå
rÉcNíû®È xÉÈ | Á ¢üiÉÉå therefore would mean, "O man who has once for all resolved
to attain Brahman only as symbolised by Á (cf. LiÉSèkrÉåuÉɤÉUÇ oÉë¼ etc.). xqÉU
means meditate on the Brahman as symbolised by Á. M×üiÉÇ xqÉU means meditate not
only on Brahman which is beyond time and eternal but let this positive practice be
accompanied by the thought of the futility and ephemerolity of all that is the effect or product
of MüqÉï or ritual including Heaven as suggested by pÉxqÉÉliÉÇ zÉUÏUÇ as opposed to
uÉÉrÉÑUÌlÉsÉqÉqÉ×iÉÇ which speaks of the positive aspect of Brahman which is not
M×üiÉMÇü and therefore AqÉ×iÉÇ. Pitch your waggon to the stars says the Sruti and be
not satisfied with anything less.

5. ¢üiÉÑ also means "intelligence". In this sense it is ÍcÉSÉiqÉMü ¥ÉÉlÉxuÉÃmÉ.

¢üiÉÑ means also "sacrifice". Then the address would mean "O you, the personification of
sacrifice". Remember how you have escaped from the temptations of desire so that you may
never fall into temptation again. It is a warning against desire which you have conquered
through practice of self sacrifice for a long time or by your ¢üiÉÑ which means also
resolution and determination, by an effort of the will.

18. AalÉå lÉrÉ xÉÑmÉjÉÉ UÉrÉå AxqÉÉÎluɵÉÉÌlÉ SåuÉ uÉrÉÑlÉÉÌlÉ ÌuɲÉlÉç

| rÉÑrÉÉåkrÉxqÉ‹ÑeÉÑUÉhÉqÉålÉÉå pÉÔÌrɸÉÇ iÉå lÉqÉÈ EÌ£Çü ÌuÉkÉåqÉ
||
1. This may be a prayer made by the Rishi on behalf of all his followers of Shukla Yajurveda.
The prayer is for the guidance of all his followers rightly so that they may perform Sadhana
in the proper spirit. This is the force of the plural which includes himself as well as his
disciples as distinct from the followers of Krishna Yajurveda. After exhorting his disciples to
remember the true spirit of his teachings, he prays for their success.

199