English
The Gita does not raise the problem of common duties, as its synthesis of nivriti (cessation from work) and pravrtti (tending to work) makes it unnecessary to introduce the advocacy of the common duties; for its instruction to take to work with a mind completely detached from all feelings and motives of self-seeking, pleasure-seeking and self-interest elevates its scheme of work to a higher sphere, which would not be in need of the practice of any select scheme of virtues. The theory of the Gita that, if actions are performed with an unattached mind, then their defects cannot touch the per- former, distinctly implies that the goodness or badness of an action does not depend upon the external effects of the action, but upon the inner motive of action. If there is no motive of pleasure or self-gain, then the action performed cannot bind the performer; for it is only the bond of desires and self-love that really makes an action one’s own and makes one reap its good or bad fruits. Morality from this point of view becomes wholly subjective, and the special feature of the Gita is that it tends to make all actions non-moral by cutting away the bonds that connect an action with its performer. In such circumstances the more logical course would be that of Sankara, who would hold a man who is free ‘from desires and attachment to be above morality, above duties and above responsibilities. The Gita, however, would not advocate 508 The Philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita [cH. the objective mivrtti, or cessation of work; its whole aim is to effect subjective mivrtti, or detachment from desires. It would not allow anyone to desist from his prescribed objective duties; but, whatever might be the nature of these duties, since they were performed without any motive of gain, pleasure or self-interest, they would be absolutely without fruit for the performer, who, in his perfect equanimity of mind, would transcend all his actions and their effects. If Arjuna fought and killed hundreds of his kinsmen out of a sense of his caste-duty, then, howsoever harmful his actions might be, they would not affect him. Yudhisthira, however, contemplated an expiation of the sin of killing his kins- men by repentance, gifts, asceticism, pilgrimage, etc., which shows the other view, which was prevalent in the Maha-bharata period, that, when the performance of caste-duties led to such an injury to human lives, the sinful effects of such actions could be expiated by such means}. Yudhisthira maintained that of asceticism (tapas), the giving up of all duties (tyaga), and the final knowledge of the ultimate truth (avadhi), the second is better than the first and the third is better than the second. He therefore thought that the best course was to take to an ascetic life and give up all duties and responsibilities, whereas Arjuna held that the best course for a king would be to take upon himself the normal responsi- bilities of a kingly life and at the same time remain unattached to the pleasures of such a life?. Regarding also the practice of the virtues of non-injury, etc., Arjuna maintains that it is wrong to carry these virtues to extremes. Howsoever a man may live, whether as an ascetic or as a forester, it is impossible for him to practise non-injury to all living beings in any extreme degree. Even in the water that one drinks and the fruits that one eats, even in breathing and winking many fine and invisible insects are killed. So the virtue of non-injury, or, for the matter of that, all kinds of virtue, can be practised only in moderation, and their injunctions always imply that they can be practised only within the bounds of a commonsense view of things. Non-injury may 1 Maha-bharata, x11. 7. 36 and 37. 2 Thus Arjuna says: asaktah saktavad gacchan nihsango mukta-bandhanah samah satrau ca mitre ca sa vat mukto mahipate; to which Yudhisthira replies: tapas tyago ’vadhir iti niscayas tv esa dhimatam parasparam jydya esam yesam naihsreyast matih. Ibid. xu. 18. 31 and x11. 19. 9. x1v]_ The Ethics of the Gita and the Buddhist Ethics 509 be good; but there are cases where non-injury would mean doing injury. If a tiger enters into a cattle-shed, not to kill the tiger would amount to killing the cows. So all religious injunctions are made from the point of view of a practical and well-ordered maintenance of society and must therefore be obeyed with an eye to the results that may follow in their practical application. Our principal object is to maintain properly the process of the social order and the well-being of the people!. It seems clear, then, that, when the Gita urges again and again that there is no meaning in giving up our normal duties, vocation and place in life and its responsibilities, and that what is expected of us is that we should make our minds unattached, it refers to the view which Yudhisthira expresses, that we must give up all our works. The Gita therefore repeatedly urges that tyaga does not mean the giving up of all works, but the mental giving up of the fruits of all actions. Though the practice of detachment of mind from all desires and motives of pleasure and enjoyment would necessarily in- volve the removal of all vices and a natural elevation of the mind to all that is high and noble, yet the Gita sometimes denounces certain types of conduct in very strong terms. Thus, in the sixteenth chapter, it is said that people who hold a false philosophy and think that the world is false and, without any basis, deny the existence of God and hold that there is no other deeper cause of the origin of life than mere sex-attraction and sex-union, destroy themselves by their foolishness and indulgence in all kinds of cruel deeds, and would by their mischievous actions turn the world to the path of ruin. In their insatiable desires, filled with pride, vanity and ignorance, they take to wrong and impure courses of action. They argue too much and think that there is nothing greater than this world that we live in, and, thinking so, they indulge in all kinds of pleasures and enjoyments. Tied with bonds of desire, urged by passions and anger, they accumulate money in a wrongful manner for the gratification of their sense-desires. *‘T have got this to-day,” they think, ‘‘and enjoy myself; I have so much hoarded money and I shall have more later on’’; ‘that enemy has been killed by me, I shall kill other enemies also, I am = Loka-yatrartham evedam dharma-pravacanam krtam ahimsa sadhu himseti sreyan dharma-parigrahah natyantam gunavat kimcin na capy atyanta-nirgunam ubhayam sarva-karyesu dréyate sadhv asddhu va. Mahd-bharati, x11. 15. 49 and 50. 510 The Philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita [cH. a lord, I enjoy myself, I am successful, powerful and happy, I am rich, I have a noble lineage, there is no one like me, I perform sacrifices, make gifts and enjoy.” They get distracted by various kinds of ideas and desires and, surrounded by nets of ignorance and delusion and full of attachment for sense-gratifications, they naturally fall into hell. Proud, arrogant and filled with the vanity of wealth, they perform improperly the so-called sacrifices, as a demonstration of their pomp and pride. In their egoism, power, pride, desires and anger they always ignore God, both in them- selves and in others!. The main vices that one should try to get rid of are thus egoism, too many desires, greed, anger, pride and vanity, and of these desire and anger are again and again mentioned as being like the gates of hell?. Among the principal virtues called the divine equipment (dazvi sampat) the Gita counts fearlessness (abhaya), purity of heart (sattva-samsuddh1), knowledge of things and proper action in ac- cordance with it, giving, control of mind, sacrifice, study, tapas, sincerity (Grjava), non-injury (ahimsa), truthfulness (satya), control of anger (akrodha), renunciation (tyaga), peacefulness of mind (Sanit), not to backbite (apazsuna), kindness to the suffering (bhiitesu day@), not to be greedy (alolupatva), tenderness (mardava), a feeling of shame before people in general when a wrong action is done (hri), steadiness (acapala), energy (te*as), a forgiving spirit (Asantz), patience (dhrtt), purity (Sauca), not to think ill of others (adroha), and not to be vain. It is these virtues which liberate our spirits, whereas vanity, pride, conceit, anger, cruelty and ignorance are vices which bind and enslave us*: The man who loves God should not hurt any living beings, should be friendly and sympathetic towards them, and should yet be unattached to all things, should have no egoism, be the same in sorrows and pleasures and full of forgivingness for all. He should be firm, self-controlled and always contented. He should be pure, unattached, the same to all, should not take to actions from any personal motives, and he has nothing to fear. He is the same to friends and enemies, in appreciation and denunciation; he is the same in heat and cold, pleasure,and pain; he is the same in praise and blame, homeless and always satisfied with anything and everything; he is always unperturbed and absolutely unattached to all things*. If one carefully goes through 1 Gitd, xv1. 8-18. 2 Thid. xvi. 21. 3 Ibid. xvi. 1-5. 4 Ibid. xi1. 13-19; see also ibid. x111. 8-11. xIv]_ The Ethics of the Gita and the Buddhist Ethics 511 the above list of virtues, it appears that the virtues are pre- eminently of a negative character—one should not be angry, hurt- ful to others, egoistic, proud or vain, should not do anything with selfish motives, should not be ruffled by pleasure and pain, heat and cold and should be absolutely unattached. Of the few positive virtues, sincerity and purity of heart, a forgiving spirit, tenderness, friendliness, kindness, alertness and sympathy seem to be most prominent.