CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

THE MISSION

Renunciation and Relinquishment (1, 2)

Arjuna requested Hrishikesa (Krshna), to explain to him what he meant by the terms, samnyasa and tyaga. Was Krshna using the two interchangeably? Many modern commentators have failed to present the distinction with clarity. Incidentally, a note on Arjunas addressing Krshna, as Kesinisudana is necessary. Arjuna was being incited to kill his own kinsmen by Krshna. The latter had no qualms about killing the Madhus and Kesini who were his kinsmen. Was a stoic expected to carry out his duties without pity and remorse? (1)

According to the varnasrama scheme, one may enter the fourth stage of life, samnyasa, only after going through the first three stages, student, householder and retirement to the forest abode, brahmacharya, grhastha and vanaprastha. The Kavis, a school of jurists had rejected this condition and claimed that the stage of householder and married life could not be made obligatory. They argued that after the stage of formal education, brahmacharya, one might go away to the forest to become a vanaprastha and live without being engaged in economic and sensual activities or become a samnyasi who had renounced all activities. Krshna points out that these Kavis, legislators had defined that retirement, nyasa, from all works that are prompted by or in fulfilment of desires (kamyakarmana) was samnyasa.

Some Kavis, among whom Usanas, the great political thinker was one, had not permitted withdrawal from activities that were socio-cultural (dharma) in requirements or politico-economic (artha) and had called for retirement from activities and duties that were sexual, kama, in nature. They treated vanaprastha as equivalent to samnyasa if one was not accompanied by wives and was not after sexual pleasure or was not engaged in economic activities related to maintenance of wives and children left behind by them. Arjuna was seeking clarification on the asrama status and role of the different sections of the volunteers who were being trained in Krshnas academy to carry out his mission of creating a new social order. We have to recognize this context to arrive at a correct appreciation of Krshnas stand.

Of course, only after having severed all relations, economic (artha), sexual and emotional (kama) and socio-cultural (dharma) with the members of his family, one could become a samnyasi, a monk. Samnyasis were free from taxes and levies and also from appearing before civil courts for non-discharge of debts as they had no income and had given up the claims to their shares in the family estates and could hold no property. The Kavis would extend this immunity to some categories of vanaprasthas, senior citizens who lived in their forest abodes on their past earnings. Bhishma who was a life-long celibate was however not in favour of the stage of samnyasa and did not favour even vanaprastha, retirement from socio-economic duties. He was a follower of the politico-economic code, Arthasastra, outlined by Pracetas Manu. Only those in the grhastha stage, that is, who were householders and heads of families, could own property.

Krshna points out that other expounders, vichakshanas, of law who were for a less liberal approach, held relinquishment of the fruits of all actions (sarvakarma phalatyagam) as sacrifice of a non-ritualistic type (tyagam). It did not permit giving up economic and social duties. It also did not permit retaining the income from current economic activities and social positions. Even those in the householder stage could become tyagis. Such relinquishment, tyaga, is not a prescribed social duty and it is not proscribed as long as it does not prevent one from performing his duties to his wives, children and parents and other dependents. Tyaga is voluntary. The duties are duly performed whether prescribed or undertaken voluntarily but the remuneration is surrendered. (2)

Krshna was dealing mainly with the duties to be performed, with Karmayoga. While samnyasa is a stage to be entered into after performing all duties, tyaga, relinquishment of the fruits of labour, characterizes the stages of life when prescribed duties are to be performed and are not exempted from being performed. Samnyasa is mandatory while tyaga is voluntary. The former may be only for a short period before death while the vanaprastha or udasina stage may extend till death. Tyaga is expected to characterize ones entire career.

The group of thinkers known as manishinas said that action, duty, karma, should be given up (tyajyam) as it is stained (doshavad). It meant that one had to not merely surrender the fruits of action, duty or vocation, to be exempt from taxes and levies, but one had to also be a non-worker living on alms received without seeking them. He must be engaged in meditation and prayer and mental pursuits only, if he is to be viewed as not being a beneficiary from worldly activities. Even voluntary social work was treated as work for benefit and as attachment to work. Such persons who lived on alms were exempt from state laws governing economic activities.

No right to abstain from work (3-7)

But others who were not involved in matters spiritual (apara), who functioned within the socio-economic system, declared that the duties prescribed, performance of sacrifices (yajnas), charity (dana), strenuous endeavour towards higher social and personal goals (tapas), were not to be given up (na tyajyam). (3) Even the intellectual following the path of knowledge (jnanamarga) and the faithful who followed the path of devotion (bhaktimarga) were required to fulfill their social duties, follow the path of action (karmamarga), till their death. These duties were prescribed not only for the working class but also for the leisure class who lived on past earnings and also for the ecclesiastical order as well as for the intelligentsia. Only the benefits accruing could be surrendered, these scholars argued. The manishinas demanded the right not to work while others refused to grant such a right.

Arjuna wanted clarification on the conduct prescribed for the vanaprastha, udasina, who was disinterested in social life and in wealth, but could not refrain from social duties (dharma) and economic activities (artha) that were obligatory for householders. The tapasvi is not necessarily a samnyasi. He may be still in the householder stage of life. A samnyasi could not be engaged in economic activities and even in social duties. He could not perform sacrifices or offer gifts in charity as he had no property and was not permitted to work and earn.

The manishinas wanted this exemption to be applicable even to the vanaprasthas who conducted themselves as recluses and also to those householders who conducted themselves like that. They were stretching the rights of the individual too far. Krshna offered to explain his stand by describing three types of relinquishment (tyaga). He was dealing with a socio-economic issue of paramount interest for the science of polity, Rajavidya. He was not speaking as a theologian or as a theoretician. He was addressing a brave social leader, reminding him that he had to rise to the heights of the great emperor, Bharata. (4)

Krshna declares that the duties of yajna, dana and tapas, sacrifice, charity and strenuous endeavour, are not to be given up (na tyajyam) at any stage. They are to be performed as prescribed duty (karyam) as in the past. He would not exempt any one from these. They had a rational base and were not merely traditional practices. He points out to the manishinas (the psychologists-cum-counsellors), that they had accepted these as valid purificatory rites (pavana), as steps intended to offset the bad effects of past misdeeds like earning wealth by wrong means. They were puritans subscribing to the stand that the individual is responsible and accountable to himself for his personal conduct and not to others. But these individualists did not recognize the concept of the duty of the individual to the society or that of the society to the individual.

These psychologists were engaged in undesirable brainwashing. Krshna did not desire their presence in his mission. It would be wrong to question Krshnas stand. Even the monks, samnyasis, could be required to perform these traditional social duties until all the vestiges of the bad effects of their past lapses were removed, Krshna implied. (5)

Krshna had permitted one to become a samnyasi exempt from these duties only shortly before ones death. But these prescribed rites (karmani) must be performed as duty (kartavyam), giving up attachment (sangam) to the fruits, benefits (phalam) (whether mundane or spiritual). This, in Krshnas view (matam), is definitely the best solution (niscitam uttamam). It is not advisable to contrast Krshnas theory of Karmayoga with those of other schools before arriving at a definitive picture of the former. Who he was contending against has to be known from his own discourse. (6)

No one in the grhastha or vanaprastha stage was to renounce (samnyasa) any prescribed (niyata) duty (karmana) (whether it was of an economic nature or was a socio-cultural duty). Krshna does not allow the renunciation of these even as a rider to the verdict (na upapadyata) pronounced in the previous verse. The abandoning (parityaga) of the prescribed duty under the influence of misdirection or delusion (moham) is proclaimed (parikirtita) to be an act of ignorance (tamas). (7)

It is implied that if in the past some had committed such a mistake, the administrators of the new code might pardon them. But it would not be pardoned henceforth as an act of ignorance. Krshna was explaining to Arjuna and other trainees the provisions of this new code. The tamasa type covered most of the unorganized working class whose members were not permitted to retire from work, from duties assigned. They could not enter the samnyasa stage of life and not even the vanaprastha stage. The society could not afford to feed them. One could be brought back to the post of his duty if he had quit under ignorance and misdirection. This is a warning to Arjuna who threatened to withdraw from the battle.

Relinquishment Needs Approval (8, 9)

One of the rajasa type that covers the soldiers, administrators, economic captains, entrepreneurs, technocrats and organized proletariat is refused the retirement benefits and social security and exemption from taxes and levies, if he relinquishes his position and abandons his post and work because it is painful or out of fear. Only approved relinquishment, tyaga, was eligible for retirement benefits, tyagaphala, and exemption from taxes, this aphorism states. (8) The employees could not expect only light and pleasant duties. They had their wages and retirement benefits fixed by the economic code. These could be withdrawn if they fled from duty.

He who gives up (tyaja) a duty (karmana) because it causes pain and sorrow (duhkham) or from fear (bhayam) or because it leads to physical pain (kayaklesa), performs only rajasa type of relinquishment (tyagam). One is not eligible to get the benefit if he voluntarily relinquishes his position (na tyagaphala labhet). Krshna pronounces this decision. It was a politico-economic proclamation and not a mere theological stand.

But he who performs (kriyata) a work (karma), as a prescribed (niyata) duty (karyam) that ought to be done and gives up (tyaktva) attachment (sangam) to it and to its fruits (phalam) is regarded as one performing serene (sattvika) type of relinquishment (tyagam), Krshna explains. (9) This relinquisher (tyagi) is honoured but is not remunerated or exempted from taxes and levies or from social obligations, it is implied. Arjuna is expected to graduate as a warrior-cum-administrator of the sattvika type. He was then an exile and was residing in the forest. The vanaprastha has to continue to perform his duties but without expecting rewards, whatever the duty assigned to him may be. Krshna was briefing Arjuna on the different types of trainees and experts present in his academy.

Honorary Experts, Medhavis (10,11)

The prudent and wise intellectual who is an expert in his field of study, the medhavi, who has relinquished (tyaga) his (earlier) post (and the remuneration and perks allowed for it) and whose doubts (samsaya) about the correctness of his action are dispelled (chinna) and who is endowed with serenity (sattvam) has neither aversion (dveshta) to unpleasant (akusala) work, duty (karma) nor preference (anusajjata) for pleasant (kusala) work. (10)

His is an honorary post as professor emeritus, perhaps guiding students who are difficult to be moulded. The work assigned to him may be far below his status as an expert but he does not despise it as infra dig. He must be prepared to carry out any duty assigned to him. Krshna was drawing Arjunas attention to the work being done by the emeritus professors in his academy. In administration too, such retired experts were drafted to handle difficult affairs and they worked in an honorary capacity without honorarium.

But it is not feasible (asakyam) for one in a responsible post in a body like a family or a trade association, for a dehabhrta, to give up (tyaktva) the duty (karmana) fully (asesata, without remainder). He has to do some work with which he is emotionally and organizationally attached for a long time. But he can give up the fruits of, remuneration for that work (karmaphala). He is said to be a tyagi, one who has relinquished his position and benefits attached to it.

Krshna was briefing Arjuna on public administration. Some heads of families and vocational groups who could not give up their duties were drafted to work for Krshnas mission as part-time honorary members. They were not required to cut themselves away totally from their earlier positions, unlike the experts, medhavis, who joined his mission and training centre as emeritus professors willing to do duties that others might deem to be infra dig. (11)

Three Options in Assigning Payments (12)

For those who have not given up (atyagi) the rewards of work, three options are open, according to the new code recommended by Krshna. These rewards might be paid after their death (pretya) as desired (ishtam) by them to their nominees or to the causes and organizations as stipulated by them in their wills. If they had not willed to whom these accrued wages and perks and retirement benefits were to be paid, these might be paid off as per rules without ascertaining the desire of any one (anishtam) (of the natural heirs). Or these might be paid part to those purposes as desired by the atyagis and part to the natural heirs. This is a mixed purpose (misram).

These three options were open to those who wanted to work without seeking personal benefits but had to discharge their obligation to their families. The employer (or ruler) would not keep these benefits back. But this rule was not applicable to the samnyasis who had agreed to work for Krshnas cause and could not accept wages and had given up all attachment to families and other bodies when entering the samnyasa stage. They could not execute any will for they had no natural heirs. Krshna was explaining the nature of the voluntary work the members of his mission and the teachers and trainees in his academy were required to perform. He was explaining the clauses of its prospectus. He was not expecting the commoners to work without wages. But he expected much from his trainees.

Five Causative Factors (13)

Krshna drew on Samkhya dialectics to regulate the duties to be performed by the different officials and units of the administrative machinery as covered by Rajayoga and by the people at large. The latter were recommended elementary Karmayoga. He draws the attention of his students to the five factors, karanas, causative factors which are created (krtanta) in the scheme that leads to siddhi, the accomplishment of every type of work (sarvakarmana), as the samkhya doctrine puts forth. (13) The presence and operation of all these five factors is essential and is to be ensured, the trainee is advised. {Kautilyan Arthasastra too is based on samkhya dialectics. The reservation some medieval theologians had to Kapilas Samkhya system is not to be imported here. Samkhya system came to the fore by the end of the Vedic period and was coeval with Vedanta and the Gita.}

Civilian Executive and Prerogative of the Elite (14)

In the next verse (14) Krshna lists the five factors that are to be present. The seat or post occupied (adhishthanam) by the authority that issues the order to the officer (karta) to do the specific work must be clear. The different types of organs of the state that are to be activated (karanam prthagvidham) and the different types of work systems that are to be adopted (vividha prthakcheshta) have to be clearly mentioned. The endorsement of the elite, the nobles, devas, who make available the necessary funds for the completion of the project has to be obtained before commencing it.

It is not rational to introduce theology for interpreting this and the ensuring verses that pertain to Karmayoga, the science of systematic execution of work whether in the governance of the state or operation of an industrial corporation or a guild of workers or of even an academy. Rajayoga covers systematized political administration. It is wrong to interpret daivam as gods desire or approval or as destiny or providence. The first four factors came under manushya (commonalty) factors and the fifth under daiva (aristocracy) factor according to the samkhya dialectics system adopted by Krshna (and by Kautilya). Krshnas version of Brahmasutra (aphorisms of political code) must have been based on this rational system.

The four manushya factors were under the jurisdiction of the civil administration and were manifest and might be scrutinized and regulated. But the civil authorities including the head of the state could act, commence any project only after the elite, devas gave their approval to it. The latter were aware of the latent social, economic and political trends in all sectors over a wider area than the civil authorities had access to. They knew the diverse trends, short term as well as long term. They had retained the right to permit or veto any project proposed by the civil administration that represented the commoners, manushyas, prthvi, engaged in economic activities, vrtti. But they would not interfere in the execution of the work permitted by them. This was a clause in the agreement between Indra and Brhaspati, known as Indra-Samdhi.

It was an agreement arrived at during the Vedic times between these two officials who represented the nobles and the commoners and was honoured in all regions. This agreement was still in force during the times of Krshna and Arjuna (and Kautilya) and was operative for many centuries in some regions after that and is still in operation in most of the rural areas. Arjuna was willing for the post of Brhaspati, I have pointed out. After the treasury, sura, and the armoury were placed under the supervision of Brhaspati and the troops under a separate general, the nobles became a predominantly rich leisure class but continued to exercise their traditional right and privilege to permit or veto a project.

Rajarshi for whose position Arjuna was being trained had to utilize the good offices of his counsellor, Rajapurohita, to know the mind of the nobles, devas. The Rajapurohita was not a priest nor devas were gods. He was the liaison officer between the Rajarshi, a reticent stoic and head of the state, and the house of nobles, sabha or divam. He was also an expert in assessing the latent trends in the society and in disaster management, in fields that Atharvaveda (known also as Brahma) covered.

Krshna was outlining the features of the socio-political action as governed by this Veda and based his syllabi in Karmayoga and Rajayoga on it. He stressed the scrutiny of all options open to ensure that the plan was ready in all aspects before it was put into execution.

State and the free men, Naras (15)

The trainees had to note that in the case of the commoners, manushyas, who belonged to the organized agro-pastoral commonalty, prthvi, of the core society, it was adequate to ensure that their actions were all in tune with the codes of their respective clans and communities, kuladharmas and jatidharmas. But there were free men, naras, who were not functioning as members of clans or communities and were acting on their own. Only the state could regulate their conduct. The five factors mentioned in the previous verse were pertinent particularly to the deeds of the free men, naras.

Whatever work (karma), duty or vocation, a free man (nara) undertakes, initiates (prarabhata) by body (sarira) or speech (vak) or mind (manas), whether in accordance with the provisions of the legal codes (nyaya) or in violation (viparitam) of these codes, the five causative factors (hetu) are relevant. They are considered to facilitate the performance of the work (karma), leading to the end product (karyam) that has to be identical with the purpose had in mind (karanam) before commencing the project. (15) Krshna implied that the then extant legal system did not encourage envisaging and executing new enterprises as it was based on a consolidation of past experiences and compilation of accumulated wisdom only. New projects often violate existing laws.

Nyaya is the valid logical system behind law by which an action was determined and declared to be justified, that is, to be imperative, beneficial and bona fide. This system was not subordinate to the will of the state machinery or to the provisions of any social or economic code or tradition. Ensuring that the five requirements are met is called for to ensure that the deed done or the statement made or the plan envisaged is correct, well meant and needed. This advice was for free men, naras, from among whom the administrative personnel, purushas, were selected so that they might not offend any social group or the state and its authorities. The commoners, manushyas, were governed by the codes of their clans and communities.

In the verse (13), Krshna stressed samkhya dialectics that were to regulate social, economic and political actions. These did not refer to deism or to abstract metaphysics. In verse (15) he refers to the nyaya rules and their limits. Social action has to be within the framework of rationality and so too social projects envisaged. Such rationality can be observed only by men, who are not bound to follow the customs of their clan, community, region or class (kuladharma, jatidharma, desadharma or varnadharma). The free men, naras, must be made to observe it. It is not possible for the commoners, manushyas, who have no individual identities to act or speak or think in a different but rational way.

Only free men, naras, can do so, Krshna notes. They are to be raised to the level of purushas, social leaders. They can strike new paths. They can pave the path for progress by starting new projects with the approval of the elite, devas, who are however cautious and conservative. A tapasvi too comes under the category of free men, naras. He is not governed by the codes governing the commoners, manushyas, who are engaged in traditional economic activities.

Bureaucratic Arrogance Deplored (16)

Krshna deplores that despite this provision (tatra evam sati), the untrained, unmoulded (akrta) intellectual (buddhitva) looks upon himself (atmanam) as the sole (kevalam) doer, executive (kartaram) overlooking the other four factors (the authority, adhishthanam, who directed him to plan the project, the different administrative organs, karanam, whose services were brought into play and the different systems, cheshta, that were adopted and the nobles, daivam, who sanctioned it). That perverted person (durmati) does not see, has no vision (na pasyati), Krshna says. (16)

Rajavidya condemns bureaucratic arrogance. Karmayoga calls for the fulfillment of all the five factors for an action to be rational and legitimate. The naras or free men who are not trained in this dialectical method come to grief when they undertake any project. Krshna wants the executive to give up egotism and the tendency to act alone. The executive is but one of the five requisites in getting a project executed.

Krshna was explaining to Arjuna and other trainees the provisions of the amended Rajarshi constitution. The trained executive (Rajarshi or any other trained official) is not egotistic or self-appointed (ahamkrta). His intellect (buddhi) is not sullied (na lipyata) by personal likes and dislikes, ambitions and obsessions.

Immunities of the Executive (17)

Though he may slay (hatva) these people (imam loka), that is, the perverts who act on their own without caring for higher authorities and nobles and the established organs of the state and institutionalized systems of operation, he is not deemed to be a killer. He is not bound (na nibadhyata) by the results of his deed, for he is not acting on his own or in pursuit of his personal goals (or ideological aims). He cannot be impeached as having exceeded his powers, if he were to eliminate the perverts. His action and the means adopted by him have been permitted by the house of nobles, devas, and he has been properly selected and appointed to do that work. He has acted under the seal of authority of his post and not in his individual capacity. His action is constitutionally valid and he cannot be accused of manslaughter.

He has not violated any code nor has he been excessive in imposing death penalty on these perverts. The persons to be killed must have been indicted by the competent authority or must have deserved to be killed by that official in the course of discharge of his duty. This aphorism is about public administration and political governance. It needs immunity against being hauled up for just and proper discharge of duty. (Was Arjuna authorized by the house of nobles to slay his kinsmen?) Only whenthe above context is taken into account, the suspicion that this verse implies that one may commit crimes with impunity can be erased.

Institutionalized Bureaucratic Procedure (18)

The samkhya dialectics and the nyaya judicial system that Krshna depended on in outlining Karmayoga, the science of social action, to which Rajayoga, the science of political action, is affiliated, require him to examine the issue, what incites an act, karma chodana. What precedes (approved) performance of duty? (18) Obviously, it is the knowledge of what has to be done. This knowledge has three facetsjnanam, jneyam and parijnataprocess of acquisition of knowledge, determination of what is the knowledge that needs to be acquired and of who will be the person who alone will know it. It has to be noted that Krshna has in his view the confidential knowledge that he has imparted to his trainee to incite him to act in the desired manner. Karma chodana implies more than mental planning.

The intelligence agencies and the planners were engaged in collecting and processing the data needed and acquired before the work was commenced. The executive who has been imparted the knowledge of what he has to do then peruses the work rota, karma samgraha. It is expected to specify which organization is to be involved in that work (karanam), the nature of the work assigned (karma) and the person who is to execute (karta) it. This is institutionalized bureaucratic procedure and not a government of the whimsical autocrat. Bureaucracy was present even in the Atharvan social polity. Krshna tried to regulate it.

Assessment of the Probationers (19)

Krshna directs that all the three facets, jnanam (knowledge acquired about the field of action), karma (the work assigned, its scope, purpose and limits) and karta (the executive, his outlook, calibre, training and eccentricities) be assessed. These are to be assessed against the three-column table (trividha) of qualitative rating (gunasamkhya) in order to judge the traits of the different executives and their assignments and bring out the variations. This has to be done before the project is launched. (19) Krshna asks Arjuna to listen to his exposition on these. The three gunas, traits, are sattva, rajas and tamas. How are these three traits to be identified and distinguished from one another in a rational manner? [Kautilya too provides for assessment of the officials and their performances.]

Sagacious Planning and Perception of Unity in Diversity (20)

The knowledge (jnanam) by which in all individuals(sarvabhuta) one sees (ikshata) a single outlook (ekabhava) that is undivided (avibhakta) even in diverse sectors (vibhakteshu) is known (viddhi) to be serene, sedate (sattvikam). (20) The executive (including the Rajarshi under training) is briefed that the general populace is to be treated as a single entity with a single outlook and enduring loyalty to the state and its head though it has several sectors.

In other words, the sattvika approach recommends perceiving a lasting unity in diversity in the new universal social order. A planner has to take into account the existence of a common will among the entire population in spite of the latter being composed of several diverse social sectors, cadres, classes, communities and discrete individuals with their own individual views and attitudes. This is sagacious social planning.

Diversity without Unity: Denial of Common Will and Common Weal (21)

If the knowledge (jnanam) (the data collected by the planner) finds (vetti) that in the larger society comprising all beings (sarveshu bhuteshu) there are different (prthak) kinds (vidha) of diverse attitudes (nanabhava) (not uniform reaction to a new proposal) because of their separateness (prthakva) (because of their not being adequately integrated in the society) from one another, it is known to be rajasa. In other words, the socio-political theory that asserts and stresses social pluralism to the exclusion of social unity and a latent common bond and common outlook among all is reflective of the trends that promote egotism, selfishness, individualism, competition and conflict and are centrifugal.

This theory does not recognize the existence of a common will and the need to work for common weal. It does not concede that there can be unity in diversity. It denies the existence of and even the desirability of social unity and practicability of arriving at emotional integration, ekabhava. Such an approach is undesirable and is harmful as it promotes mutually aggressive postures. One has to rise above the rajasa level held by power groups. It may be stressed here that even stress on national and ethnic identities without conceding the existence of a universal society with a common past and a common destiny despite diversities is rajasa, aggressively political.

A Single Purpose For All Is Absurd (22)

All these three verses have to be approached from a broad and deeper sociological point of view. The knowledge (jnanam) which clings, is attached to, (saktam), a single (ekasmin) purpose (karyam), work to be accomplished, as if it were the whole created system (krtsnavad), ignoring the causative factors (ahetukam) is 'invalid'.

That is, ignoring the intents of the adhishthanam (duly installed authorities who issue the orders), karta (the authorized executive), karanam (the concerned organs of the state), cheshta (the permitted systems of administration) and daivam (the will and sanction of the cultural aristocracy) is irrational. It has no metaphysical or dialectical validity (atattvarthavad). It is trivial (alpam). There can be no single goal that is to be achieved by all. A single focus is absurd. It is pronounced as tamasam, ignorance of reality. All the five factors impose their conditions and propose limits on what may be done and what can be done.

The social planner has to take into account the existence of a latent common will as well as the manifest and manifold diversities in wills and has to address himself to both. If the rajasa denies the existence of a common will and expostulates on the diversities, the unwise, tamasa, tends to inter the diversities that are real and promotes the concept of unity in an erroneous way. The tamasa approach is antithetical to the sattvika approach. The concept of one undivided state or nation or society and the propagation of the slogan of one people, one culture, one religion, one god, one faith and one law is unwise. Uniformity thrust on all is totalitarianism and is tamasa in nature rather than rajasa and is certainly not sattvika. It is delusion, chasing the mirage, ignoring the reality.It is bound to fail. Unity in diversity alone is sagacious and gentle (sattvika).

Karmayoga Respects Unity in Diversity

The sagacious, sattvika, approach notices the presence of universality as well as humanism, in all dharmas, whether they are the codes of clans or communities or regions or classes or stages of life or are duties personally determined, kuladharmas, jatidharmas, desadharmas, varnadharmas, asramadharmas or svadharmas. It does not seek to annul any of these. The tamasa approach would seek to wipe out these in the name of a casteless, classless society with no national boundaries or religious barriers. It has before it a single purpose, control of all things and over all beings and in its blind effort to get it fulfilled, however noble the purpose may be, it ignores the causative factors, the procedural requirements and constitutional obligations.

These include the desire and sanction of the cultural aristocracy that has no axe, economic or political, to grind, due authorization, calibre of the executive selected and entrusted with the task, regard for the relevant organizations of the state and its institutionalized systems. The past was marked by unity in diversity and so is the present and so will the future be. This realization is sattvika.

Karmayoga and Rajayoga do not entertain autocracy. They caution against aggressiveness, rajasa that leads to absence of unity, increase of conflicts and spread of centrifugal trends. Karmayoga does not steamroll diversities, nor succumbs to them. It upholds unity in diversity. Social thinkers and ideologues are expected to opt for the sattvika, sagacious approach and reject the other two. It is regrettable that scholars have passed by these verses cursorily.

Impersonal Executive (23)

A work, duty (karma) which is prescribed and regulated by the code (niyata) and is performed without attachment (sangarahitam) (that is, is performed by the executive objectively though in his view it is not justified) and without love or hate (aragadvesham), impartially and without expecting rewards (aphalaprepsuna) is sattvika, serene. (23) It is performed as duty and is hence the correct type of work. The official or executive is not attached to the work assigned to him. He has no personal preferences. He does the work not because he has opted for it or has been permitted to do it as a special case but because he has consented to abide by the scheme that has assigned this particular duty to him.

Detachment is not indifference to work. Work that pleases does not fall within the ambit of sattvika deeds. Indifference to duty is tamasa while attachment to a work being performed is rajasa. The executive has to avoid both indifference and attachment. He is not expected to doubt its utility and efficacy. What Krshna refers to is not a voluntary work or one for which wages are paid or dividends are expected. It is not a personal enterprise. It is a social project funded and finalized by a higher authority, the state or the cultural aristocracy. It is not a family or community endeavour in which he is involved as a member. All these aspects are covered by this aphorism.

Aggressive Egotism Deplored (24)

A work, karma, that is done (kriyata) with great vigour (bahulayasam), by one who seeks to fulfill his desires (kamepsuna) or who is impelled by egotism (ahamkara), is said to be rajasa in its trait. (24) It is not selfless and self-effacing. Whether it is done in pursuit of personal prestige or in a committed missionary spirit, it is assertive and aggressive and its mode is undesirable. If the sattvika way of functioning characterizes the cultural aristocracy (devas), the rajasa type reflects the approach of the feudal lords (asuras). The work is faulted for the rajasa, aggressive manner in which it is performed. Even a good social work gets tarnished because of the egotism and personal interests and fanaticism of the social worker. A good social worker is gentle and duty-bound, unlike the aggressive, motivated political worker. Arjuna was called upon to be sattvik.

Avoid Unplanned and Speculative Enterprises (25)

A work (karma) commenced (arabhyata) under delusion (moham) without regard for its resultant commitments (anubandham) or loss (kshayam) or injury (himsa) and without foreseeing (anapekshya) the manpower (paurusham) required to execute it is said to be of tamasa type. This is recklessness and bad planning as well as bad execution. Most new enterprises are speculative in nature or are pet projects and are against the rigorous rational rules of Arthasastra, the economic code based on the sciences of labour and wealth. Karmayoga too defines the science of labour, work. Krshna objected to unplanned and unapproved enterprises even as he was against aggressiveness and greed (25). The context in which Krshna distinguished among the three ways in which work was undertaken was a social project funded and finalized by a higher authority, keeping in view that it had to promote unity despite the diversities present and without annulling them. It was non-aggressive, was well planned and non-speculative.

The stoicsl (sattvik) executive (26)

The teacher, Krshna, then describes to Arjuna and other trainees the traits expected in the official, karta, who was required to execute it. The ideal executive is free from attachment (muktasanga) (like a samnyasi). He is not under the influence of or under obligation to any association including his family. He is a free individual but is not an egotist or individualist (ahamvadi). [It may be remarked here that even the claim, Aham Brahma Asmi, I am Brahma has a tinge of this egotism.] An ideal ideologue, Brahmavadi, who is also a social activist, does not entertain such egotism, Krshna implies. He does not pursue a personal stand while implementing the approved policy. He does not try to meet the needs or interests of his or any other particular group while functioning as an impartial and selfless executive or official of the polity. But he is not unzealous.

He is steadfast, full of determination (dhrti), and is enthusiastic (utsahi), even while implementing the social project that was not conceived by him personally and was not in pursuit of personal interests. He is not elated by success, fulfillment of the objective, (siddhi) or disheartened by failure (asiddhi). His approach and outlook do not get distorted (nirvikara) by the result. Such an executive (karta) is said to be of the sattvika type. Indifference and lack of zeal are signs of tamas. The sattvika executive leaves behind his personal views as he executes efficiently and enthusiastically the work assigned to him and for which he has been selected. He is not a resentful employee. He does not either wear his stoicism on his sleeves. Sattvika has a note more than mere goodness. [We prefer the term, executive, to the term, agent, to describe karta. The status of the member representing the undivided family does not feature here.] (26)

Undesirable Types----Aggressive and Uncultured (27, 28)

The executive, karta, who is passionate (ragi), eagerly seeks the fruits of his work (karmaphalaprepshu), is greedy (lubdha), violent (himsatmaka), and corrupt (asuchi), and is given to bouts of joy (harsha) and grief (soka) is said to be of the rajasa type, Krshna explains. The hard-working, the laborious too belongs to this category. Such an official lacks a balanced approach. Krshna cautions the trainee to the post of a Rajarshi against corrupt, exploitative, sentimental and emotional officials. Assertiveness (rajas) often becomes harshness and mercilessness (27).

The executive (karta) who is untrained and unsuitable for the work assigned (ayukta), who is uncultured and crude, raw and unmoulded (prakrta), is obstinate (stabdha), deceitful (satha), procrastinating (dirgasutri), non-constructive (naikrtika), indolent (alasa) or despondent (like a drug-addict) (vishadi) is said to be of the tamasa type (28). He may not be uneducated and may not be a dreamer, but he is neither sagacious nor dynamic. He is uncultured, inefficient and undependable. The manual warns against selecting the two types, rajasa and tamasa. Krshna would advise Arjuna to go in for a trained, honest, efficient, non-egotistic, sober and unselfish team of administrators. Arjuna has to lead it as a mission in a great social project entrusted to him. Karmayoga is not 'training' for the sake of training. He has to realize that it is meant to achieve a great social goal.

Three Types of Intellectuals-cum-Administrators (29-32)

Krshna then offered to brief Arjuna in full on the three types of intellect (buddhi) and steadfastness (dhrti) based on guna distinctions and to bring out the differences among them. (29) The intellect (buddhi), that is, the intellectual who knows what action is to be performed by one in tune with his nature (pravrtti) and when he should cease to perform it, when he should retire (nivrtti) from that vocation or task is said to be of sattvika type.

He knows what work is to be done, to be precise, what purpose is to be accomplished (karya), and what is not to be striven for (akarya), what one is to dread to do (bhaya) and what one need not dread to do (abhaya). He knows which deeds are proscribed and which ones are not. He knows which duty is obligatory (bandham) and which he is free not to do (moksham).

The intellectual who knows the rules and regulations of administration, its dos and donts, niyamas and yamas, plans wisely and does not resort to coercion. He does not refrain from doing his duty. Arjuna was being trained to be an intelligent and good administrator. A good administrator is not reckless and nor pursues undesirable and prohibited objectives and does not dread to perform the desirable deeds. He knows what duties to perform and how to perform them and when to retire. (30)

The intellectual (buddhi) who has no correct appraisal of (ayathavat) what is dharma and what is adharma and treats both the morally correct and socially good acts and the immoral and antisocial ones on the same footing (in the name of impartiality) and who does not know what goal is desirable (karya) and what is undesirable and not to be striven for (akarya) is known (prajanati) to be of the rajasa type, according to the manual. (31) He does not tarry to examine the merits of the action being performed, the goal being pursued. Besides he is not intelligent enough not to be confused on what is just and fair and what is unjust and unfair, what is dharma and what adharma is.

Krshna was briefing Arjuna on the role of a King as a judge-cum-administrator, an intellectual as the head of the state, which the Rajarshi was. The Rajarshi must have been trained in samkhya dialectics to be able to arrive at the correct conclusion on dharma and adharma, karya and akarya (just and rational and valid act that contributed to the social purpose of the state that he headed nd what was against that principle and purpose). He was not expected to give credit to acts falling under expediency (apaddharma). The rajasa type of rulers lacked this training.

The concept of freedom to choose ones occupation without interference by any authority can not be conceded, even as the concept of equality of all (whether they are honest or not) is not to be conceded by the judiciary. Dharma has to be honoured and adharma punished. Liberty and equality are concepts subject to scrutiny by the principles of jurisprudence based on rationalism and social welfare. The rajasa type leads not to equality and impartiality but to injustice against good and pious persons. The aphorisms need to be annotated with reference to the contexts in which they were pronounced. They are valid for all times and are not trite maxims.

The intellect that has been enveloped (avrta) in darkness (tamas), that is, an intellectual who has been overcome by a social environment characterized by indolence, indifference and pursuit of the mirage, holds (manyata) what is blatantly adharma, immoral and anti-social, to be dharma, morally and ethically correct. He sees all things and purposes of acts (sarvartha) from a perverted angle (viparitam). Such an intellectual, who is morally decadent, is tamasi. He is dangerous. Tamas covers not only ignorance and inertia but also delusion and neglect of duty and the anti-social approaches and activities resorted to by cynics, sadists and misanthropes. The trainee is warned against perverted intellectuals, the counter-intelligentsia. (32)

Sattvik-Steadfast Adherence to the Right Code, Dharma (33)

An administrator is superior to an executive. He has to be an intellectual capable of arriving at correct conclusions on what is dharma, morally correct and socially desirable. He has to be also firm, steadfast (dhrti) in his adherence to dharma (33). Dhrti, steadfastness, supports (dharayata) the activities (kriya) of the mind (manas), breath (prana) and senses (indriyas). (Krshna avoids using the term, jiva, which denotes life.) When one does not allow these to go out of control and is naturally steadfast (but not obstinate) in his commitment to a noble mission, his steadfastness is said to be sattvik. Of course these aphorisms provide guidelines to all and not to Arjuna (Partha) only. But these were of particular importance to rulers and administrators who were required to uphold dharma by being personally staid and cultured. Even Kshatriyas were trained to be sattvik though they had to excel in rajas, dynamism and assertiveness.

Rajasi Lacks Self-restraint (34)

Arjuna seems to have sought clarification on whether one had to uphold (dharaya) steadfastness only with respect to matters that fell within the ambit of dharma, moral and social laws, and whether it applied also to the other values of life. Krshna hints that the same rules are to be applied to matters pertaining to sex (kama) and economy (artha). The ruler and the executives had to maintain high standards in these fields also. They were not to be found weak in these. The executive, who performs his duties properly and resolutely but also has other expectations which are not honourable and are incidental personal benefits (prasangena phala akankshi) is said to be of the rajasa type. (34)

The sattvik type of executive or ruler does not entertain such expectations. Krshna cautions his executives against womanizing and graft. This is a manual that executives and administrators were required to adhere to. Krshna was training Arjuna and others in Karmayoga. They were expected to function within the framework of the code based on dharma and should not be greedy. The rajasi type lacked self-restraint.

Despair and Fanaticism is Tamasi (35)

The type of determination (dhrti) with which a perverted intellectual (durmedha) (one who may be proficient in his field but makes that proficiency available for wrong purposes) refuses to give up (na vimunchati) his dreams, unrealistic aspirations (svapna), unwarranted fears (bhaya), unnecessary grief (soka), despondency (vishada) and fanaticism (mada) is said to be tamasi in nature. (35) Krshna hints that Arjunas persistent refusal to perform his duty, his fears and sorrowing and depression place him in this type. It is antithetical to judicious steadfastness that marks the sattvika type. Tamas covers ignorance and inertness, dreams and timidity and also despair and fanaticism. This veils the perception of the right goals and leads one to making available his proficiency for anti-social acts.

A ruler has to be steadfast but not fanatical or adamant. Krshna was training Arjuna to become an efficient social leader, purusha, and a stoical ruler, Rajarshi. Karmayoga does not ignore the expectations of the people at large or the needs of the trainee in particular. They work but they also need ease and comfort. (The term, happiness, does not fit the context. Self-denial and self-effacement are not viewed as anti-hedonistic culture.)

Sukham, Comfort___Three Types (36)

This ease, sukham, is reached only after long practice, abhyasa, of the exercises prescribed for regulating the mind, breath and senses. Of course this practice does cause discomfort, duhkham. Addressing Arjuna as Bharatarshabha (and exhorting him to follow Jatamuni Bharata, son of Rshabha, who could bear all personal discomforts with fortitude), Krshna offers to present the distinction among the three types of sukham that is attained at the end of dukham. (36) Krshna resorts to samkhya dialectics here too as in the earlier trilateral analyses.

Sattvik----Beatitude through Self-analysis (37)

Beatitude, sukham, is gained only after rigorous practice, which is painful. This is like medicine, which in the beginning is bitter like poison but in effect is life saving, sweet like nectar (amrtam). This beatitude springs from serene (prasada) understanding of ones self, self-realization, personal intellect (atmabuddhi). (37) An intellectual who seeks to know himself can attain this serene joy. This is not training in 'buddhiyoga'; training in using rigorously logical methods to comprehend all events and trends, but is one based on self-analysis to ensure that the code is adhered to. This final comfort, which is serene and satisfying is sattvik in nature. The executive (and so too the administrator) has to note that corrective measures when first introduced are likely to be unwelcome. But as the people get accustomed to them, they would find these advantageous and would be pleased with them.

Rajasi-----Sensual and Sensuous Joy (38)

But there are steps that are pleasant in the beginning but prove to be harmful later. This is compared to the pleasures of sexual intercourse that ultimately turn out to be only sorrows and pains gained. The comfort that is sweet in the beginning emerges from contact with the objects (vishaya) of senses (indriyas) is of rajasa type. It proves to be harmful and is antithetical to the sattvika type of comfort. The training in Krshnas academy of samkhya and yoga required rigorous control over pleasures of the senses and celibacy. It would benefit the trainee later if not at once. (38)

Tamasi-----Self-deception, Indolence and Delusion (39)

Krshnas analysis presents tamasa too as another antipode to sattva. The tamasa, unintelligent comfort (sukham) is in being under delusion (mohanam) both in the beginning (agra) and in the end (anubandha). Both the prologue and the epilogue may appear to be pleasing but inactivity or sleep (nidra) marks the whole career. Indolence (alasya) and indifference to or neglect of duties (pramada), and lack of self-awareness lead to this life of inactivity. The executive who does not work falls in this category. Krshnas academy has no place for such a candidate. The tamasa suffers from self-deception, is self-enchanted. He cannot prove useful to the mission. He is not necessarily ignorant or incapable of providing dynamic leadership. He has to be shaken out of his indolence and delusion. (39)

These minor but significant nuances are to be paid attention while analyzing these three types, sattva, rajas and tamas. It is imprecise to describe these as goodness, passion and dullness, especially in this frame. The three-fold paradigm of gunas, inborn traits, needs to be presented in a rational manner.

Guna Classification of both Nobles and Commoners (40,41)

Krshna points out that in the (core) society comprising the two social worlds (lokas), divam and prthvi, of nobles and commoners, there is no one who is free (mukta) from the three gunas, inborn traits. Krshna found many of them to be as frail as the commoners were. They too are men. They too belong to prakrti. The three traits have emerged (ja) from commonalty, prakrti. This verse has confounded the commentators who have tended to identify God with Purusha and all beings with Prakrti. We would be advised to refrain from treating the term Purusha as indicating any supernatural personage or power. Even the best of purushas is but a man. Purushas are able social leaders and devas are aristocrats who do not necessarily have the ability to lead the commoners. Krshna would hence categorize the nobles (devas) also on the basis of their inborn traits. While, in the core society, the aristocrats were referred to as devas, their equivalents in the frontier society were known as devatas and in the social periphery as isvaras. None of these were 'gods'.

All the members of the core society, both nobles and commoners, are brought under the four-fold classificationBrahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vis and Shudras, Krshna tells Arjuna. This extended classification (pravibhakta) is based on vocations (karmani) assigned to them. These are correlated to the predominant (prabhava) trait (guna) or personal tendency, aptitude (svabhava) of the individual. Krshna rules out all other considerations. Even aristocrats are covered by this guna classification. They would not be placed in a separate higher class though he personally favoured their being retained as such a class. They too are to be merged in the masses, prakrti, and assigned to the different varnas, classes. It was a revolutionary step dictated by rationalism.

This scheme was to be applied to the two social worlds, divam and prthvi. Krshna did not propose to extend it to the third social world, antariksham, the frontier society of forests and mountains. Manu Svayambhuva had cautioned against bringing even the traditional aristocracy under this scheme. Krshnasproposal was closer to that given by Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. Manu Svayambhuvas plan was to apply the four-varna scheme only to the commonalty of the agro-pastoral plains. The three social universes, jagats, too were not covered by this scheme and so too the unorganized individuals, bhutas, of the social periphery. (41) The real challenge lay in bringing all these under this natural classification.

Intellectuals and their Duties---Brahmakarma (42)

Those who have in their personal nature, svabhava, the traits of serenity (sama), self-control (dama), persistence in endeavour (tapa), purity (saucham), forbearance (kshanti) and uprightness (arjavam) and have received knowledge through formal education (jnanam) andgained further knowledge (vijnanam) through extrapolation of that knowledge (and are hence able to decide rationally what is valid and what is invalid) and have faith in the existence of an Ultimate (astikam) are eligible to perform the duties of an intellectual (Brahmakarma), Krshna declares.

This intellectual may become a teacher or a jurist. He is not presented as a priest though being a believer (astika) he may become a priest (purohita, in common parlance). It may be noted here that Dharmasastras have not stipulated that a Brahman should believe in the existence of God even as they cannot be said to have not made it obligatory for orhers to believe in the existence of God . Even atheists (like Jabali) were eligible to be treated as Brahmans and appointed as teachers.

Brahmakarma was distinct from these. One who interpreted and presented the stand of Brahma or the constitution as incorporated in the Atharvaveda for consideration by the appropriate bodies, house of nobles (sabha) and council of scholars (samiti), and for their considered action was said to be performing Brahmakarma. He was more than a guide. His view could not be ignored. He was astika because he treated all beings as having souls. Hence he held all men as being equally eligible for the rights assured by the constitution. He believed in the sanctity of this constitution. Brahmakarma is the role of the ideologue, Brahmavadi. The charvakas like Jabali might be appointed as ministers and even as teachers but as they denied the existence of a soul, whether jivatma or paramatma, they could not be trusted.

Only a believer in the existence of such a soul that runs through all beings can be expected to be a humanist. The jurist has to be rational, egalitarian and humanitarian, a humanist. Rationalism of the highest order leads one to conclude that such a soul, atma, exists in all beings. This is not blind faith in God or fear of God. Krshna does not give agnostics and atheists a place in this class, varna, which has been tuned to faith in the existence of an eternal soul in every being. The astikas were not necessarily worshippers of a personal god. The nobles (devas) honoured those believers who held that the soul could not slay or be slain. The patriciate, nobles, could perform the role of the intellectual elite. But the feudal lords, asuras, could not, for they were inhuman and lacked forbearance.

It needs to be noted that in this verse, Krshna does not refer to the duties of performance of yajnas, sacrifices, studying and teaching Vedas, and offering and receiving gifts (dana) or to performance of tapas. The stress is on jnanam and vijnanam that need mastery of samkhya and nyaya systems. The traits mentioned in this verse are listed as minimum desiderata for one being entrusted with Brahmakarma, the functions of a jurist. The Brahmana as a professional priest or teacher is not mentioned here. One has to be by nature, svabhava, suitable for this role. The new social polity envisaged by Krshnagives the highest place of honour to this sattvika cadre. (42)

Liberal Governance and Kshatrakarma (43)

Valour (sauryam), splendour (tejas), steadfastness (dhrti), alertness (dakshyam), not fleeing in battle, generosity (danam), charismatic leadership (isvarabhava) are the natural traits (born) in one who is fit for the duties (karma) of a protector (kshatra), ruler and administrator. Social leaders (purushas), charismatic chieftains (isvaras) and also generous nobles (devas) have their place in this class. While the intellectuals are honoured for knowledge, jnanam and vijnanam, the Kshatriyas, administrators are expected to excel in dhrti, steadfastness. This, of course, should be of the nobler, sattvika type. Most of the aristocracy (except the intellectually oriented) and the plutocracy are part of this class. Social leadership is in its hands. Once again, the conventional duties of the Kshatriyas that are dilated on by the Dharmasastras do not find mention here. (43)

Krshna deals with Kshatra karma and not with conventional Kshatriya dharma or Kshatra dharma. He is concerned with providing stable and liberal governance that would ensure confidence among the people. Krshna wanted a liberal charismatic leader and he was training Arjuna for that position.

Economic Activity--Vaisyakarma: Service--Shudrakarma

The new social order was confined to the core society. It was possible to absorb the unorganized individuals (bhutas) of the social periphery and their intellectuals (budhas) and leaders (isvaras) in it with the assurance that the new state would treat all beings as equal. But it was still confined to the agro-pastoral core society that was engaged in agriculture, protection of cattle and trade. All those engaged in these economic activities were declared to be Vaisyas. These vocations are in tune with their natural traits. It may be noted that Krshna does not declare that Kshatriyas excel in rajas or Vaisyas in tamas. To be precise, he has not described the Brahmans as excelling in sattva. But such a guna classification is implicit. (44)

Those who are not highly educated and are not valorous either are assigned to the Vaisya class. Those who are fit only to render service and have the aptitude for rendering such service are assigned to the vocations of the Shudras. The Shudras are not in the agrarian sector or in the commercial economy. They are in the services sector as attendants, nurses, cooks etc. Krshna does not bring the industrial economy under this classification.

Note on Salient Features of Krshnas Varna Scheme

The four-fold classification of the core society was envisaged during the final decades of the long Vedic era. While the Brahmans and the Rajanyas (Kshatriyas) formed the intelligentsia and the political order, the commonalty, Vis, split into Aryas and Shudras, bourgeoisie and proletariat, owners of property and property-less workers. The Aryas were equivalent to Vaisyas. When the cadres of nobles (devas) and feudal lords (asuras) were dissolved and were merged mainly in the Kshatriya varna, their employees, who were serfs (dasas) and mercenaries (dasyus), were absorbed in the Shudra varna. These freed workers were expected to serve the higher classes. But they were no longer a servile class and could earn property and become even rulers. But the higher classes denied them these rights.

Kautilyan Arthasastra not only liberated all types of Dasas and restored them to their original classes, varnas, but also granted all varnas the status and rights of Aryas, free citizens. Kautilya extended the four-varnas scheme to the entire society and this resulted in the formation of a large working class fully protected by the constitution and the State. Krshnas scheme did not reach that level but was free from the note of coercion and injustice that loom large in the recent doctored versions of Manusmrti. It placed all agriculturists and ranchers and traders whether they were employers or self-employed or employees in the class of Vaisyas. But it did not propose to reorganize the industrial society.

Krshna however expected it to follow the pattern set for the core society. Social classification is not to be viewed as necessarily antithetical to social integration. Stratification is an inevitable sequel to classification. Modern Indian ideologues, many of them are but demagogues have overlooked these aspects while dealing with the varnasrama scheme. The new core society of the agro-pastoral plains continued to be a composite of organized clans and communities. All except those performing Brahmakarma and Kshatrakarma and service to others (paricharya) were absorbed in the Vaisya varna. Serving others was termed Shudrakarma.

Naras, Free Men and Personal pursuits, Svakarma (45)

But there were many persons who did not pursue the vocations engaged in by other members of their families. These free men, naras, were not subject to the codes of their clans and communities that had been fitted in the four-varnas scheme, mostly in the Vaisya varna which took over the status of the commonalty, Vis, of the later Vedic times. The free men, naras, were permitted to follow the respective vocations of their choice, svakarma, according to their pleasure, abhirata, and gain perfection, samsiddhi, in them. (45) This factor needs to be highlighted. It is not rational to presume that the clans and their patriarchs were powerful enough to prevent any individual member of the clan from pursuing a vocation not prescribed for it or alien to it. They could at best penalize those who followed a proscribed vocation.

Krshna assigns and recommends to the intelligentsia the role of the upholders of constitutional law, Brahmakarma and to the political order headed by the Rajarshi and guided by the Rajapurohita the task of guaranteeing social stability and protection, liberal governance and equality before the eyes of law, Kshatrakarma. In pursuance of such a social polity, he stabilizes the vocations pursued by the Vaisya clans and communities of the core society but permits the free men (naras) to pursue the vocation of their choice and become accomplished in it. Varna assignment would not come in the way of this pursuit. The doors of all the four varnas were open to the free men. One may be a teacher and also an artisan or a cartman. Of course, he could not pursue a vocation that was kept a monopoly by a particular clan or community. Krshna then describes how the free men could get their wishes of following their chosen occupations fulfilled. It is not sound to state that the above verse warns one not to attempt work beyond his nature.

Rights of Naras to choose occupation Extended to Bhutas

Man (manava) attains (vindati) perfection (siddhi) by honouring (abhyarchya) the rules of the occupation opted for by him as svakarma. Such men are self-employed and are free to adopt any occupation provided they abide by the code laid down by the guild or corporation. The latter is not permitted to bar others from pursuing that vocation.

The manavas were not considered to be subjects of any particular ruler or residents of any particular area. They were 'citizens of the world' and could not be prevented from following any vocation they chose to follow. This statement throws open all occupations to those who are sincere in following the code governing the vocation concerned. The system of activity (pravrtti) of all the unattached individuals (sarvam bhutanam) is pervaded by this theme (idam). It is unsound to give the impression that the assignment of vocations among the four classes has been made as desired by God and is hence to be followed with perfection.

Approach of the Manava School

In the previous verse (45), the manual of Karmayoga dealt with the rights of the free men, naras, to pursue the vocations of their choice. In the verse (46), these rights are extended to all the individuals, bhutas, in the social periphery and to the self-employed. The clans, communities, guilds and corporations are required not to obstruct these pursuits that are in tune with the innate traits and aptitudes of the individuals. This is the approach of the Manava school of thought.

Manava Dharmasastra as edited by Bhrgu and the Arthasastra sponsored by Pracetas Manu envisaged the scheme of four social classes that were cross regional and admitted clans and communities and free men and discrete individuals to their appropriate class. The varna classification of the larger society has to be effected without disturbing the traditional vocations followed by the clans and communities and the individuals according to their natural tendencies.

The varna system of distribution of duties and vocations does not envelop the entire human society though it was intended to envelop all even while honouring the aptitudes of the individuals. The free men, naras, choose to do what pleases them. The unattached individuals, bhutas, do what they do as they can not but do them, for they are impelled by their needs and are not acting as units of clans or as persons who had dropped out of the clans. The manushyas function as clans and communities and are not independent of them. The Manava School would try to secure for all freedom and non-obstruction needed to pursue the vocation they are capable of or in need of pursuing.

Svadharma and Paradharma (47, 48)

This Manava dharma, the code of rights and duties of a human being, which transcend kuladharmas, jatidharmas, desadharmas and varnadharmas, permitted every one to continue to perform the vocation he has inherited or been assigned on the basis of his clan or community, region or class or is accustomed to as an individual or has opted for as a free man. It is better to follow ones own dharma, code of conduct, (svadharma) however imperfectly correlated it may be to his innate trait (viguna) than to follow perfectly a duty, a work, assigned to another (paradharma) person or group. Even as the clans and communities are called upon not to stand in the way of the individual resorting to a vocation that is in tune with his innate trait and aptitude, the individual is called upon not to resort to a vocation assigned to another though he may find it to be more in tune with his guna, inborn trait, than the one assigned to him. (47)

Krshna's Recommendations on Vocations

One does not incur guilt (kilbisham) when he does a work, duty, in accordance with his personal aptitude (svabhava) and directed and regulated (niyata) by that aptitude, Krshna says. Neither the society nor its organizations and institutions including those of the state may fault one for choosing a vocation that is in tune with his aptitude and performing the duties and exercising the rights, dharma, associated with that vocation, karma. Of course the authorities concerned would deter those who follow dangerous and harmful vocations. This declaration does not imply that the members of the four classes are not all assigned functions in tune with their personal aptitudes.

Those who have not accepted Varnadharma, the duties prescribed for the class to which they are assigned or have not been accepted by the varna to which they have been assigned may function independently under Svadharma, the code of conduct prescribed for those who have chosen their vocations by themselves. This explanation is related to the issue of mixed classes, samkaravarnas. Both the proponents of Varnasrama Dharma and its critics are required to reconsider their positions in the light of this comprehensive plan outlined by Krshna and recommended by him to his trainees for implementation. The new social order seeks to be a holistic and balanced one. Does the new social order re-assign positions, duties and vocations? May one change one's vocation? Arjuna raises these questions with reference to the rights of the individual and they need precise answers.

One should not give up the vocation, duty, karma, he is accustomed to from birth (saha-ja), Krshna states. He refuses to treat any recognized vocation as infra dig. The hereditary vocation, even if it is defective (sadosham), is to be performed by one born in the clan or community following that vocation. Some abandoned them in preference to new ones. But all new ventures (sarva arambha) are clouded by defects, dosham, he says. (48)

Krshna does not countenance giving up traditional vocations and practices by any group. This is a rider to the permission granted in the previous verse for every one to follow a vocation in tune with his natural aptitude. Svadharma (personal duties including vocation and correlated rights) once assigned or opted for on the basis of one's natural trait, svabhava, and a pleasing vocation is taken up as svakarma, is institutionalized and guarded against encroachment by and threat from others. It is not to be given up, chasing the wild goose. This is pragmatism rather than traditionalism. Social stability has to be guarded against the perils of fluidity.

Intellectual Aristocracy of Siddhas Vocation-Free (49, 50)

In verse 45, Krshna had offered to explain how one could attain perfection in his work whichever he opted for in tune with his personal aptitude, svabhava. He states in (49), "The intellect (that is), the intellectual who has conquered himself (jitatma) and who is not attached (asakta) to the things all around him (sarvatra) and from whom desire has fled (vigatasprha) (that is, one who is free from personal desires and is a stoic) rises to the highest status (paramam abhigacchati) through renunciation (samnyasa). This is perfection (siddhi) and (one who has reached) that level does not require being engaged in work (naishkarmya)".

The intellectual aristocracy of siddhas who rank higher than the cultural aristocracy of nobles, devas, have no vocation to follow, no duty to perform. Unlike those assigned to Brahmakarma or Kshatrakarma, they are not given any specific task. The cultural aristocracy too had been relieved of all societal duties and the duties of protection and administration had been assigned to the new Kshatra cadre. ('Naishkarmya' does not mean not being required to perform the daily rites and rituals.)

Having attained perfection (siddhi), the intellectual proceeds through supreme attention to (nishtha) and application of the formal knowledge (jnanam) acquired by him to rise to the level of the ideal intellectual (Brahma), the authority on all issues pertaining to the socio-political constitution as incorporated in the Atharvaveda (Brahma). The description of attainment of the status of 'Brahman' as 'consummation of wisdom' and identifying 'Brahman' with the Absolute, God, may appear to raise the discussion to a very high, sublime, level but it is not warranted here where Krshna deals mainly with Karmayoga and social classification. (50) Krshna offers to brief Arjuna about this ascent of the 'siddha' to the status of 'Brahma' the high constitutional authority who is entitled to give the verdict on what is 'dharma', the approved conduct.

Brahma, the Ideal Intellectual and Jurist (51, 52)

He is endowed with 'pure' (visuddha) intellect (buddhi). In other words, there are no defects in the system of logic used by him to arrive at flawless conclusions on the matters referred to him for his verdict. He is self-regulated and is steadfast (dhrti) in his stands. He has given up (tyaktva) attractions to all matters (vishaya) that are appreciated through senses like sound (shabda). He is not carried away by praises or affected by criticisms. He has cast aside passion, deep emotional attachment and longing (raga) for any person or object and aversion (dvesha) to persons or things. He has trained himself to follow the rules impartially and give his verdict objectively without allowing his personal opinions and ideological position to sully it. He does not waver when he is required to pronounce his verdict. (51)

This verse is related to the role of the expert in constitutional law as outlined by the Atharvans and acknowledged by Manusmrti as overriding all decisions taken by the ministers and the king. The King was not the State. His word was not the final one. This statement however does not mean that the Brahmans as an ecclesiastical order could annul the verdicts given by the temporal or secular authority, the king and his ministers. Brahmakarma referred to the role of the highest judiciary (and not to worship of God Brahma or to performance of sacerdotal duties).

After attaining perfection in his field of study, the siddha, an aspirant to the position of a jurist, Brahma, dissociates himself from the company of intellectuals too and leaves the academy where lectures were delivered, hymns chanted and debates conducted. As he is confident of his knowledge, he may proceed to dwell in solitude, eating but little, controlling his mind, body and speech and be ever engaged in meditation (dhyanayoga). He takes recourse (samupasrita) to the ways of life of a 'vairagi' whose desires and passions have been drained. He is resolute in abhorring and abjuring all physical comforts and allurements. The 'yogi" who has become perfect in his discipline proceeds to dwell in solitude, and meditate on what he had learnt and conducts himself as a 'vairagi' (52).

Those who had reached perfection in their respective fields of study and wished to master other fields also could not do so by staying in his campus, Krshna had pointed out to Arjuna while introducing him to his faculty and other trainees. For, his academy gave training mainly in samkhya and yoga. The Vedas and their subsidiaries and the disciplines of economy, polity, medicine, engineering etc could be mastered only under teachers in these fields and they had their own academies.

Krshna might give only an outline of the topics covered by them and highlight the views of the authorities in those fields He did not give intensive training in these in his academy. The graduates who wanted to master all fields of study had to first move to places where they could stay alone and meditate on what they had already learnt, leading the life of a 'vairagi'. For a proper appreciation of these steps, it is necessary not to insist on or persist with the theme that Krshna was teaching them how to become one with the Brahman, God.

Dispassion and the Vairagi (53)

The 'vairagi' is free from (vimuchya) egotism (ahamkaram), assertiveness or forceful expression of one's view (balam), arrogance (darpam), desire (kama) and wrath (krodha) and also from possessions and companions (parigraham). He is without the feeling of 'mineness' (nirmama) and is tranquil (santa). Such a person is slated (kalpate) to become (at the appropriate time) 'Brahma', Krshna states. The expression, 'Brahmabhuya', means attaining the status of and being ordained as the highest authority entitled to pronounce the final verdict on (socio-political) constitutional issues and enforce it.

What had been declared in the past, as the steps to be taken have to follow in the order prescribed and cannot be avoided according to the 'vairagi' who has given up all attachment. He is a believer in destiny rather than a cynic. In Krshna's scheme, a yogi had to become a siddha and then a meditator and next, a vairagi, before he became eligible for elevation to the status of the highest intellectual, Brahma. The Rajarshi had to be a Vairagi', a stoic, as described above before he mastered all fields of study pertaining to the society and the state and became entitled to interpret constitutional law, Brahma. (One who was entitled to implement social and moral laws had the designation, Dharma.) A member of the council of 'Brahma' had to be more than a siddha. He should have mastered all fields of study and become a dispassionate stoic with no possessions or retinue, a vairagi.

Brahmabhuta-----Member of the Council of Jurists (54)

Having become a 'Bahmabhuta', a member of the council of Brahma, the highest authority entitled to interpret the constitution, and hence a 'pleased person' (prasanna atma), he neither grieves for those whom he has left behind or who have fallen on the way (na sochati) nor entertains further expectations (na kankshati). He treats all individuals (sarva bhuta) as equal (sama). Such a councillor is his best devotee, Krshna claims. This councillor is not a cynic or pessimist. Here Krshna places himself in the position of that highest impartial intellectual authority, Brahma. He has undertaken the mission to create a new social order that would treat all unattached individuals of the unorganized social periphery as equal. Krshna asks Arjuna and other trainees to note that only persons who are not attached to and are not members of any socio-economic group or class would be able to join his mission. The intellectuals among them are able to appreciate it better.

Identification with Krshnas Mission (55)

Such a devoted intellectual comes to recognize (abhijanati) Krshna's greatness and real personality including his outlook, philosophy (tattvata). [It does not fall in the sequence of thought to interpret that Krshnas real personality was divine and not related to the developments in the society of his times.] Having known the philosophy behind his mission and its vastness and prospects, this great intellectual 'enters', joins (visata) him. Those yogis who had graduated as 'siddhas', and had meditated on what they had learnt and become 'vairagis', joined the council of Brahma. It had approved his mission to create a new social order based on the equality of all beings and this mission began from the social periphery while the core society of nobles and commoners that included the free men, naras, and the followers of the Manava school of thought, consented to adopt the four-varnas scheme.

These councillors, Brahmabhutas, admire his mission, realize its greatness, understand its philosophy and join it. This is not blind devotion. The aphorism needs to be correctly presented without interpreting the term, bhakti, as blind faith. (55)

The Missionary, a Free Individual (56)

This participant in Krshna's mission performs continually (sada) all his duties (sarvakarmani) and taking shelter (asraya) in Krshna's abode obtains his grace (prasada). He stays at that level, post, permanently (sasvata) and without any loss (avyaya) to his status as a free individual. (56) Krshna's mission does not call upon the participants to lose their identities though it expects them to be devoted to it and its leader. Krshna was explaining to Arjuna that though he was the matpara, alter ego, of the latter, he did not expect blind acceptance of his views by his student. During the discussions, Krshna would be functioning as his student's deuteragonist and catalyst to enable the latter to arrive at rational conclusions. Krshna's discourse was along the lines advocated by Samkhya and Anvikshiki. The latter, he has preferred to describe as "jnanam and vijnanam". [The use the terms, prasada and prasanna, here is significant.]

Buddhiyoga, Training the Intellect (57)

Renouncing (samnyasya) all his actions (sarvakarmani) as a thinker (cetasa) to Krshna's judgement and purposes (that is allowing Krshna to utilize his trainee's services as a thinker as the former deemed best), the trainee (appointed as Brahmabhuta, a member of the highest council of Krshna's academy) resorts to (upasritya) imparting Buddhiyoga. He becomes a teacher of epistemology (Buddhiyoga), the basic principles and purpose behind acquisition of knowledge which every intellectual is expected to be acquainted with, whether he seeks to master samkhya dialectics or yoga, the science of regulated action. [Buddhiyoga may turn into indoctrination at the hands of unscrupulous ideologues.]

Arjuna could reach this high position (second in command in Krshna's mission). He could become the head of the faculty of Buddhiyoga if he followed Krshna's counsel and was devoted to him. Buddhiyoga was the launching pad for getting mastery over samkhya and yoga. The latter covered Brahmayoga, Rajayoga and Karmayoga. It trained the intellect. (57)

Arjuna exhorted to carry out the Mission (58, 59)

Fixing his thoughts (chitta) on Krshna and his mission, Arjuna with the grace (prasada) of the latter could overcome all his difficulties (sarvadurgas). But if out of conceit (ahamkara) he did not listen to Krshna's counsel he would perish (vinankshyasi), Krshna warned. (58) If staying in self-conceit (ahamkara) (refusing to accept Krshna's advice), he thought that he would not fight (na yotsya), his career and vocation (vyavasaya) would have been used improperly (mithya). That is, it would be deemed that the training he had received as a Kshatriya soldier was being misused. And the masses, prakrti, would compel him to fight, Krshna pointed out to him. (We would refrain from interpreting 'prakrti' as referring to 'nature'.) If the leader, purusha, sat aside without carrying out his duty, to mobilize and lead the masses, the latter would not lie idle. The masses, prakrti, will make the leader, purusha, do what he ought to do. (59) Arjuna cannot ignore this aspect of social dynamics.

Arjuna to meet the Expectations of his Admirers (60-62)

Would Arjuna be not able to act independent of the mass society that he was expected to lead? Even if he had selected his vocation (svakarma) in accordance with his personal aptitude (svabhava) (and not been appointed by the state to lead them) it would oblige (nibaddha) him to fight. He would not be free to choose between fighting and not fighting. Svakarma did not grant the right to opt out. His nature (svabhava) would be dictating his action and he would involuntarily (avasa) do that duty (karishyasi), that is, enter the field to battle against his kinsmen. (60)

Such persons who were not able to choose their own occupations but had to follow any available one were covered by the concept, 'bhuta'. The manushyas performed their duty as expected by their clans or communities. The purushas acted as expected by the masses, prakrti, whom they were to lead. The free men, naras, followed their personal preferences and were not bound even by the limits prescribed by their aptitudes. But the discrete individuals, bhutas had been advised by their leaders, Isvaras, and counsellors, budhas, to confine themselves to the limits prescribed by their aptitudes, svabhavas, and obey their dictates and not seek to perform a duty that was not theirs or fail to perform a duty that was theirs. Svadharma and svakarma were based on svabhava, in their case.

The bhutas, unattached individuals, who acted under the impulse of their personal aptitudes, would not be faulted. They followed their charismatic leader, Isvara, whom they cherished in their hearts (hrdde). He was able to manipulate them, move them around by his invisible charisma (maya), as if they were mounted on a machine (yantra). Krshna was such a leader and he desired that Arjuna too should develop such a charisma, be one who inspired others and not be but one brought to duty by the desperate masses. (61)

The enigma needs to be handled with care and adroitness, as this is a rare context where the term, 'maya' (illusion, in common parlance), has been used in the Gita. The charismatic leader, Isvara, acts and makes all bhutas, all the individuals of the social periphery act as he desires. Of course he too can make them act only within the limits set by their natural talents and natural aptitudes. This is a lesson that the aspirant to the post of a Rajarshi has to learn.

As a charismatic leader, Isvara, Arjuna would be able to act in any way, take up any role to please his followers and would not be confined to any particular way of life or vocation. He would be able to gain this versatility as an overlord and successor to Bharata by surrendering himself in all respects to Krshna's guidance. By his grace, 'prasada', Arjuna would obtain the highest peace, 'param santi' (absence of internal conflicts) and a permanent place 'sasvata sthanam'. Arjuna was then a wanderer, an exile from his country. His immediate need was to get a firm foothold among the people of the social periphery and that needed adaptability. He had taken asylum in Krshna's academy and with the support of the latter he was expected to become the overlord. (62)

Krshna imparts the Secret of Secrets (63-65)

Krshna reminded Arjuna that he had imparted the latter the knowledge of the 'secret of secrets', that is, the highly confidential matters pertaining to social polity that he was expected to assist in bringing about to fruition. He should reflect on all of it (aseshena, without omitting any section) and then act as he chose to. Krshna would counsel him and not coerce him. He would be free to fight or not to fight. (63) Krshna was a teacher of samkhya and yoga. He had a mission to complete. He had trained Arjuna to support him in that mission, and be even second in command. But this was only a temporary position that Arjuna would be occupying. His permanent position would be that of a Rajarshi and overlord, a charismatic leader and successor to Bharata. Krshna had taught him Rajavidya, Rajayoga and Rajaguhya.

The conflict between the doctrine of human freedom and destiny has attracted the attention of medieval philosophers and the modern rationalists. But it would be imprudent to proceed under the assumption that the Gita presents God as a power willing to guide and aid men if they sought his assistance and grace, but would not compel them. Krshna, as an ideal teacher felt it his duty to introduce Arjuna to the "secret of secrets" so that he might resolve to rise to the occasion and lead the movement for the reorganization of the social order. (64)

As Radhakrishnan points out, Krshna was a teacher and that teaching is not indoctrination. However, he has underplayed the role of motivation and has overlooked the stages by which Arjuna's personality was being moulded to enable him to take up the challenge of times. Krshna knew that Arjuna though permitted to do as he chose, would do what he was moulded to do. Krshna however found that given the freedom to do as he pleased, Arjuna was not able to make up his mind. He repeated to Arjuna the highest of all secrets, that is, Rajaguhya, for Arjuna was dear to him. Hence he told Arjuna what was in the interest of the latter. It was persuasion and not indoctrination of any particular religious tenet or metaphysical system or socio-political ideology.

What this secret, guhya, was, the Gita does not reveal. Vyasa (who had access to the training that Krshna had given to Arjuna in his academy) knew what the secret that clinched the issue and roused Arjuna to action was. But others were not to know it. Krshna urged him to adopt his viewpoint and stance on all issues and become his devotee, offer 'sacrifice' to him and respect him. Then, Arjuna could join his mission. Krshna promised to accept him, as he was dear to him. (65)

The Secret Mission (66-70)

Arjuna should give up (parityaga) all his duties and rights (sarvadharma) (whether they were under the provisions of kuladharma or jatidharma or varnadharma or svadharma) and be free from all bonds even as a samnyasi is. He should go as a wandering mendicant (vraja) to Krshna alone for asylum and protection (saranam). Krshna would exonerate (mokshayishya) him from all sins (sarvapapa) that might follow his failing to perform his prescribed duties to his family, clan, community and class before joining his mission. (66) Many see this verse as upholding the Ramanuja School of philosophy and theology. Did Krshna urge Arjuna not to worry about the laws and practices but to trust Him (Gods) and bow to His will?

Vyasa tells his disciples that Krshna had prevailed on Arjuna to leave his home and family and join the mission without being worried about their fate. Arjuna was not to reveal to any one where he was going and with whom he was taking refuge and what his mission was. Only other members of his mission who were 'tapasvis' strenuous in its fulfillment might know about his joining it. Those who were not devoted to Krshna or spoke ill of him should not be told about it. (67)

Krshna knew that there were detractors who did not offer their services to his cause. They refused to serve him as personal attendants and were jealous of him. These detractors were from among the higher strata of the core society, from the abhijatas (higher organised communities) and abhijanas (higher ranks of the native population), who did not want to forgo their privileges. Krshna was not conveying to him any 'ultimate' mystery that was not to be shared with others. The secrets of social polity with respect to the creation of the new social order after bringing down the existing one might be shared with Krshna's other followers. Krshna was sure that his devotees would appreciate it and join his movement. (68)

Arjuna might as Krshna's confidante part with this secret plan to Krshna's devotees (among the elite). The commoners, manushyas, of the core society were expected to support it. There was none among the commoners who was dearer to Krshna than the ones who were moulded to be in his service, to execute the creative task (krttama) and mission he had undertaken. This mission expected members of the third social world, bhuva, too to join it. Krshna was optimistic about the response that it would get despite the utterances of his detractors who were jealous of his increasing popularity. (69)

He hoped that one who studied this dialogue between him and Arjuna on issues pertaining to the social and moral codes, dharma, would offer all his knowledge as in a sacrifice, yajna, for his mission. (70) This appears to be the conclusion arrived at by Vyasa who was present when Krshna was expounding his scheme to Arjuna and other trainees. Vyasa hoped that the intelligentsia would approve it and contribute to its fulfillment. Sanjaya who heard a report of it must have arrived at a similar conclusion.

Expects Support from Free men, Naras (71-78)

It was not easy for the manushyas, commoners, who were organized in clans and communities or even for the groups engaged in the industrial economy of the frontier society to come out openly in favour of the move to dissolve the existing social system and create a new one. The intelligentsia could however propagate this cause. Krshna expected positive response from the free men, naras. They did not feel bound to toe the lines of the clans and communities in which they were born. A free man, 'nara', who listened with intent (sraddha) to this conversation without envy (anasuya) (for not having been taken into confidence earlier and for Krshna having confided only in Arjuna who was but a commoner, manushya, bound by extant social codes) too would be freed from (mukti) the (few) restrictions on him and admitted to the auspicious community (subha loka) of those who had performed virtuous acts (punyakarmana). (71)

The 'naras' who were not bound by the laws of marriage and property that prevailed in the social world of the commoners (manushyaloka) were however excluded from the privileges that the gandharvas enjoyed as 'punyajana', the blessed people. The cadres of gandharvas later merged in the three higher classes, Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas, though they were not initiated as twice-born, 'dvijas', and were treated as equivalent to Shudras. The 'naras' who had kept themselves away from the commonalty that was brought under the four-fold varna classification formed the lower rungs of the gandharva cadres. The gandharvas were not engaged in economic activities and were closer to the nobles, devas.

The 'naras' were required to take part in economic activities though unlike the Shudras they were not expected to serve others. Their activities had to benefit the society, it was stipulated. Was Krshna referring to the restrictions imposed on the freelancers, gandharvas and naras, with respect to their access to households and heading these and holding property? They would be no longer treated as inauspicious with the formation of the new society.

Krshna hoped that Arjuna had heard his counsel with his thought (cetasa) fixed to one point (ekagra) and that his lack of knowledge (ajnana) and delusion (moha) had been destroyed (pranashta). In other words, he must have by now overcome the 'tamas' trait. (72) Arjuna replied that his delusion (moha) had been lost (nashta) and that he had received through Krshna's grace (prasada) the lessons that he would remember. He would stand firm with his doubts gone. He promised to act according to Krshna's advice. (73)

Sanjaya (Dhrtarashtra's reporter) had heard this wonderful (adbhuta) dialogue between Vasudeva and the great personage (mahatmana), Partha, being narrated in a thrilling way by Romaharshana (a disciple of Vyasa). (74) He also acknowledged that Vyasa was gracious (prasada) enough to permit him to hear this great secret (param guhyam), the yoga taught by Krshna, the Yogesvara himself. (75)

Vyasa must have recorded the dialogue and the secrets unfolded to Arjuna by Krshna in his academy. Sanjaya was thrilled with joy as he recalled this wondrous (adbhuta) and 'meritorious' (punya) dialogue between Kesava and Arjuna. (76) Sanjaya was able to see Krshna in the form (rupam) of Hari, which was highly exotic (atiadbhuta) and thrilling. (77) He told Dhrtarashtra that wherever Krshna, the Yogesvara, and Partha, the archer, were present, fortune (sri), victory (vijaya), welfare (bhuti) and 'fixed' policy (dhruva niti) would be present. (78)

SUMMING UP: GITA AS RAJAVIDYA

The Bhagavad-Gita is the most respected of the philosophical treatises of Ancient India. It has been claimed that it summarises the contents and intents of the Upanishads or the Vedanta, the concluding portions of the Vedas. The greater and earlier portions of the Vedas are acknowledged to be dealing with rituals, Karma and the latter portions with philosophy, theology and ethics, with knowledge, Jnana. The commentaries in Sanskrit by Samkara, Ramanuja and Maddhva, the founders of the three schools, advaita, visishtadvaita and dvaita have been held in high esteem for the last several centuries.

The present work does not refer to these commentaries and schools or to those who have departed from their stands. It does not dispute any of their claims and has not been oblivious of them. It confines itself to sociological theorems, which need adequate and necessary attention.

Many modern Indian scholars have hesitated to treat the Gita as an ancient work. They are not prepared to concede it any date prior to AD300. They have assigned Samkara to AD788-820, Ramanuja to AD1000-1100 and Maddhva to AD1199-1276. I do not intend to enter into the disputes on these dates. I have taken the position that until definite proofs are adduced to the contrary, the Battle of Kurukshetra must be assigned the date c3100 BC and that the Gita was expounded first by Krshna to Arjuna and other students in his academy in the presence of Vyasa and then recalled to Arjuna on the battlefield.

Whatever date may be finally assigned to this battle, the theme of the Gita cannot be viewed as aimed at primarily for attaining liberation from bonds of worldly life and becoming one with the indiscernible God. It may appear impudent to take such a stand that would be interpreted as questioning the validity of the stands taken by the schools of philosophy and theology mentioned above. I have stated that the commentators of the medieval ages had lost sight of the picture of the social polity of the later Vedic and early post-Vedic times and the intricacies of the course of its social dynamics and had read in the Vedic hymns and in the Gita what they needed to bolster their respective schools of philosophy. They have not paid attention to essential sociological aspects.

It has not been and cannot be denied that Krshna dealt with the theme of immortality of the soul. But to proceed under the assumption that every verse in the Gita has to be interpreted in the light of this theme is not sound. It has not been denied that the Gita deals with all the three paths, knowledge, action and devotion. But the implications of the discourse are not explored or brought only by the debates that have been engaged in on which of the three paths Krshna insisted on more than the others. The battlefield was certainly not the place, where Krshna would have dilated on the abstruse concepts that some have traced to his teachings. The assertion that Krshna was essentially a teacher of Karmayoga needs clarification. He did not advocate ritualism. What he meant by Karma has been highlighted in this work.

Rationalism requires recognition that the so-called incarnations of Vishnu (God) were in fact socio-political events that took place during the last century of the long Vedic era and were not separated from one another by millennia or even by centuries. Both the groups of historians, those who posit that there was a long gap between one incarnation and the next and those who treat these incarnations as figments of imagination are on the wrong side of rationalism.

The Vedas are a record of the social and cultural history of Ancient India as presented by sages like Vasishta and Visvamitra, Bharadvaja and Vamadeva, Agastya and Kanva, Parasara and Gautama who were contemporaries. The Rgveda has recorded the salient features of the century to which these incarnations pertained. It was a century, which witnessed the transition from the pre-varna Vedicsociety to a new social structure based on the system of four social classes.

Krshna and Balarama identified by many with Vasudeva and Samkarshana were contemporaries of Parasurama and Rama son of Dasaratha. They were great personages and had each played a significant role in that troubled century.

I have posited that Krshna had taken over the academy nurtured by Usanas, the political thinker and counsellor who was held in reverence by the feudal lords like Bali of Janasthana in the Narmada valley. Vamana (known also as Urukrama, Trivikrama and Upendra), a disciple of Kashyapa, had eased out Bali and his counsellor. It would not be far from reality if we hold that it was a crown of thorns that Krshna was wearing as the head of this academy located in the area in the lower Narmada Valley assigned to Usanas and his associates. It was not easy to win over the thinkers, leaders and all the commoners of Janasthana.

The present work brings out several facets of the mission that Krshna had undertaken, the hurdles he had to cross and the training that he was imparting to his students. These aspects have remained clouded to this day by the stand that Krshna was God incarnate and that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. I have asserted that Krshna was a human being and not God and that he did not claim to be God. This stance is not to be presumed to be wanton iconoclasm and irreverence. Krshnas social thought and contributions to social reorganization cannot be traced without adopting this stance.

Krshna was on the scene when the society was being restructured on the basis of four classes, chaturvarna. What was the structure that was present when he undertook this task has been brought out in this and in my earlier works. I have stressed that there has been a gross misinterpretation of the scheme of four classes. Academicians who hesitate to examine it objectively do only strengthen the hands of unscrupulous demagogues who thrive on the ignorance of the masses. Krshna had a scheme of his own, which sought to ensure perfect correlation between the natural aptitudes of the individual and the vocation assigned to him. [Modern sociologists have failed to grasp how the four-fold varna scheme came into force.]

Krshna discussed the methods that were to be used to effect this transition and reorganization effectively. He found that the more than forty social cadres that were present then and which had been arranged in nine tiers, three each of sattva, rajas and tamas (gentleness, dynamism and ignorance) had to be brought under this scheme.

It may be stated here that the school of Karmayoga that he headed had handed over this scheme to the school of Brahma that was then headed by the chief of the people of Brahmavarta, the Sarasvati basin, for fine-tuning. He was for social integration, lokasamgraha, without infringing on the traditions inherited by the diverse social groups. The various recommendations made by him have been examined in detail for the first time. It would be only living on opiate if we continue to be fed on theories of salvation ignoring social reality and social needs. Several sociological concepts that were in vogue during the times of Krshna have been recovered and presented in the proper light.

Bhrgu, the chief editor of Manusmrti could not overlook the influence, which Krshnas school of Karmayoga exercised. As the first, second and last chapters of Manusmrti indicate he had to take pains to accommodate the views of this school and even toe its line. Bhrgu was a contemporary of Krshna. While Bhrgu found it necessary to distinguish between basic varnas that adhered to the duties and vocations meant for them and the mixed classes, samkaravarnas, that did not fit in the basic varnas and yet be recognized,

Krshna had a scheme that did not require the distinction, varnas and samkaravarnas. Yet he was both liberal and rational in his approach. The various features of this approach of accommodative holism have been brought out in this work, which refuses to accept meaningless transliteration or yield to obfuscating mysticism. This work is a rigorous search for the reality. Krshna was an outstanding social thinker and organiser.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Atharvaveda Translation by W.D.Whitney

Text by Dayananda Samstha

2.Rgveda Translation by Griffith

Text by Dayananda Samstha

3.Bhagavad-Gita Translation by Dr.S.Radhakrishnan

Text and Translation by J.Goyandka for Gita Press

ext and Translation by A Kuppuswami Iyer

Text and Translation by B.G. Tilak

4. Manusmrti Text and Translation by G.N. Jha

Translation by Wiiliam Jones

Translation by Buhler

Translation by Burnell

5. Kautilyan Arhasastra

Text and Translation by Shama Sastry

Text and Translation by R.P.Kangle

6. The Upanishads

Text and Translation by Dr.S.Radhakrishnan

Translation by Swami Nikhilananda

7. Bhagavatam

Text and Translation by Bhakti Vedanta Trust

Tamil Translation (Sridharan Company 1914 ff)

8. Vedanta Sutra Text By Dr.K.L.Daftari 1943

9.Brahmasutras: Swami Vireswarananda (1977):

Ramanujas Commentary

10. Vedanta Sutra Max Muller

Translated into English by G.Thibaut 1904

11. Mahabharata Text by Gita Press, Gorakhpur

Text by Pandit Kinjwadekar Pune (1932)

Tamil Translation by M.V. Ramanujacharya (1908ff) (16vols)

12. Valmiki Ramayana

Text by Gita Press, Gorakhpur

Tamil Translation (based on Govindacharyas commentary by

C.R. Srinivasa Iyengar (1984) (3 Vols)

13. Skanda Purana

Tamil Translation by A.V. Sivan (1893)

Works of Dr. V. Nagarajan

Published by Dattsons, J.N. Road, Sadar, Nagpur

1.Evolution of Social Polity of Ancient India (Two Vols) (1992) ISBN-81-7192-004-7

2.Origins of Hindu Social System (1994) ISBN-81-7192-017-9

3. Foundations of Hindu Economic State (1997) ISBN-81-7192-029-2

Aishma Publications, 402 Savitri Apartments. Laxmi Nagar Nagpur

4. Hindu Social Dynamics (3 Vols) (1999) ISBN-901175-0-5

*5. Prologue to Hindu Political Political Sociology (2 vols) (2000) ISBN-901175-1-3

*6. Krshnas Gita as Rajavidya (2001) ISBN-901175-2-1

*7. Manusmrti as Socio-Political Constitution (2002) ISBN-901175-3-x

*8. The Upanishads and Hindu Political Sociology (2004) ISBN-901175-4-8

*9. Brahma-sutras and Neo-Vedic Socio-political Constitution (2005)ISBN-901175-5-6

*10. Transition to Post-Vedic Social Polity, Dharmarajya, Social Welfare State (2005ff) ISBN- 901175-6-4

*Transition to Post-Vedic Social Polity Rajadharma and Dharmarajya (2007)

THE AUTHOR AND THE WORKS ON

HINDU POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

V.Nagarajan (b.1930) after his graduation from the University of Madras migrated to Nagpur where he did his post-graduation in Sociology. He was on the faculty of Hislop College, Nagpur from 1955 to 1966 during which period he worked on Society Under an Imperial State with reference to Kautilyas Arthasastra. This thesis thatpertained to Hindu Political Sociology was awarded Ph.D. in 1966. While he was Principal of Porwal College, Kamptee, Nagpur from 1966 till his retirement in 1990 he continued to delve deep in works pertaining to Indology and his thesis, Evolution of Social Polity of Ancient India was awarded D. Litt in 1990. This work was published in two volumes in 1992. Then followed his works, Origins of Hindu Social System (1994), Foundations of Hindu Economic State (1997) and Hindu Social Dynamics--Lokayatra (1999). While working on the last work, which examined the ancient Indian epics, he felt it necessary to place Hindu Political Sociology on sound basis. In his Prologue to Hindu Political Sociology (2000) he put forth rigorously rational postulates devoid of ideological biases and free from the influence of the postulates advanced by the western Indologists during the last three centuries and accepted almost uncritically by the Indian scholars. The ensuing work, a study of the famous Bhagavad-Gita as a Theory of Administration of the Polity, Rajavidya, has needed a careful correction of the earlier works to eliminate contradictions and highlight the prominent aspects of the Ancient Indian polity straddling the centuries immediately preceding the famous Battle of Kurukshetra and succeeding it. The work on Rajavidya prepares the ground to study Manusmrti as the Socio-Political Constitution of Ancient India. It also gives a fillip to the examination of some of the Upanishads from the perspective of Political Sociology removing the cloak of mysticism and metaphysics that has kept them abstruse.

CHAPTER 18
THE MISSION

Krshna clarifies the two concepts, 'samnyasa and tyaga'. Samnyasa is mandatory while tyaga is voluntary. The former is renunciation and the latter is relinquishment. 

 No right to abstain from work. Those who were not involved in matters spiritual declared that the prescribed duties, (yajnas, dana, tapas) were not to be given up.

The manishinas demanded the right not to work while others refused to grant such a right. Krshna declares that the duties, sacrifice, charity and strenuous endeavour are not to be given up at any stage.

 Manishinas had accepted these as purificatory rites. But these individualists did not recognize the concept of the duty of the individual to the society or that of the society to the individual.

One may become a samnyasi only shortly before one's death. But the prescribed rites must be performed as duty, giving up attachment to the fruits. According to Krshna this is the best solution.

No grhastha or vanaprastha was to renounce any prescrined duty. The abandoning of the prescribed duty under the influence of delusion is proclaimed to be an act of tamas, ignorance.

As per Krshna's manual on work (karma), one of the rajasa type is refused retirement benefits and social security and exemption from taxes and levies if he relinquishes his position and abandons his post and work because it is painful or out of fear.

Krshna describes three types of tyaga, relinquishment. Only approved relinquishing was was eligible for retirement benefits and exemption from taxes (tyagaphala)..

 One who performs a work as a prescribed duty that ought to be done and gives up attachment to it and to its fruits is regarded as one performing sattvika type of tyaga.

The prudent and wise intellectual who is an expert in his field of study, who has relinquished his earlier post and whose doubts about the correctness of his action are dispelled and who is serene has neither aversion to unpleasant work, nor preference for pleasant work.

It is not feasible for one in a responsible post to give up his duty fully. But he can give up the fruits of that work. He is said to be a tyagi, one who has relinquished his position and benefits attached to it.
For those who have not given up the rewards of work, three options are open.

These rewards might be paid after their death as desired by them to their nominees or to the causes and organisations as stipulated by them in their wills. If they had not willed to whom these accrued wages and perks and retirement benefits were to be paid, these might be paid off without ascertaining the desire of anyone. Or these might be paid partially to those purposes and partially to the natural heirs.

The presence and operation of all the five causative factors (karanas) which are created in the scheme that leads to siddhi, completion of every type of work is essential and is to be ensured..

The seat or post occupied by the authority (adhishthanam) that issues the order to the officer (karta) to do the specific work must be clear. The different organs of state that are to be activated (karanam) and the different types of work systems (cheshta) have to be clearly mentioned.

These four are connected with the civil bureaucracy of the commonalty (manushyas). The endorsement of the elite (devas) who make available the necessary funds for completing  the project has to be obtained before commencing it, according to Krshna's manual.

The above five factors were pertinent to the deeds of the free men, naras, who manned the rural bureaucracy. Whatever work, duty or vocation, a free man (nara) initiates, by body or speech or mind whether in accordance with the provisions of the legal codes or in violation of them, the five causative factors are relevant.

They facilitate performance of the work (karma), leading to the end product (karyam) and has to be identical with the purpose in mind (karanam) before commencing the project. [New projects often violate existing laws.]

[Social action has to be within the framework of rationality and so too social projects envisaged. Such rationality can be observed only by free men who are not bound to follow the codes of their clan, community, region or class. They must be made to observe it.]

Krshna deplores that despite this provision, the unmoulded (akrta) intellectual looks upon himself as the sole executive (karta) ignoring the other four causative factors. That perverted person has no vision. Rajavidya condemns bureaucratic arrogance. Karmayoga calls for the fulfillment of all the five factors for an action to be rational and legitimate.

The trained executive is not egotistic or self-appointed. His intellect is not sullied by personal likes and dislikes, ambitions and obsessions. Though an authorized executive may slay such cadres of perverts he is not deemed to be a killer. He is not bound by the results of his deed, for he is not acting on his own or in pursuit of his personal goals (or ideological aims).

He cannot be impeached as having exceeded his powers, if he were to eliminate the perverts. He has acted under the authority of his post and not in his individual capacity. His act is constitutionally valid and he cannot be accused of manslaughter.

[This aphorism is about public administration and political governance. It needs immunity against being hauled up for just and proper discharge of duty. Krshna was dispelling Arjuna's hesitation.]

Karmayoga and Rajayoga use samkhya and nyaya to examine the issue, "What incites an act, karma chodana?" What precedes approved performance of duty? It is the knowledge of what has to be done. It has three facets, jnanam (process of acquisition of knowledge), jneyam (determining of what knowledge is to be acquired) and parijnata (who will be the person who alone will know it).

Krshna has in his view Rajaguhya, the confidential knowledge that he has imparted to his trainee, Arjuna to act in the desired manner (karma chodana).

The executive, who knows what he has to do peruses the work rota (karma samgraha). It specifies the organizations to be involved in that work (karanam), the nature of the work (karma) assigned and the person who is to execute (karta) it. Krshna's manual institutionalizes bureaucratic procedure. it is not to be a government of the whimsical autocrat.

Krshna directs all the three facets, jnanam, karma and karta, to be assessed. There would be three column qualitative rating (sattva, rajas, tamas) to judge the traits of the executives and their assignments. This is done before launching the project.

The knowledge by which one sees in all individuals (especially of the periphery, sarva bhuta who are not organized groups with common orientations) a single outlook that is undivided even in diverse sectors is known to be serene (sattvika). The sattvika approach recommends perceiving a lasting 'unity in diversity' in the universal social order.

A sagacious planner has to take into account the existence of a common will among the entire population in spite of the latter being composed of diverse social sectors, cadres, classes, communities and discrete individuals with their own individual views and attitudes.

If the knowledge gathered indicates that in the larger society comprising all individuals there are diverse attitudes because of their being separate from one another it is rajasa.

The sociopolitical theory that asserts and stresses social pluralism to the exclusion of social unity and a latent common bond among all reflects trends that promote egotism, selfishness, individualism, conflict and competition and are centrifugal.

It does not recognize the existence of a common will and the need to work for common weal. it does not concede that there can be unity in diversity. it denies the existence of and even desirability of social unity and practicability of arriving at one spirit, emotional integration. Such an approach is harmful and promotes mutually aggressive 'rajasa' postures. 

Even stress on national and ethnic identities without conceding the existence of a universal society with a common past and a common destiny despite diversity is 'rajasa’, aggressively political.

 The knowledge which ignoring the causative factors clings to a single purpose as if it were the whole created system is invalid.  [It is irrational to ignore the intents of the duly installed authorities, the authorized executive, the permitted systems of administration and the will of the cultural aristocracy which may permit or veto any project.]

Such a move has no metaphysical or dialectical validity and is trivial. It is pronounced as 'tamasam'

All the five factors impose their conditions and propose limits on what may be done and what can be done. The social planner has to take into account the existence of a latent common will as well as the many diversities in wills and has to address himself to both.

If the rajasa denies the existence of a common will and expostulates on the diversities, the tamasa tends to inter the diversities that are real and promotes the concept of unity in an erroneous way as the concept of one undivided state or nation or society. [It is unwise to propagate the slogan of 'one race, one people, one culture, one god, one religion, one faith and one law'.]

The sagacious do not seek to annul any of the several dharmas in vogue. The tamasa approach seeks to wipe out these [in the name of a casteless classless society with no national boundaries or religious barriers]. It has a single purpose, control of all things, control over all beings.  It ignores the causative factors, the procedural requirements and the constitutional obligations. 

Karmayoga does not steamroll diversities nor succumbs to them. It upholds unity in diversity. A work which is prescribed and regulated by the code and is performed without attachment and without love or hate and without expecting rewards is 'sattvika', It is performed as duty. Detachment is not indifference to work.

Work that pleases does not fall within the ambit of sattvika.  Indifference to duty is tamasa while attachment to the work performed is rajasa.

A work that is done with great vigour by one who seeks to fulfill his desires or who is impelled by egotism is 'rajasa'. Even a good social work gets tarnished because of egotism and personal interests and fanaticism of the social worker.

A good social worker is gentle and duty-bound unlike the motivated, aggressive political activist. A work commenced under delusion without regard for its resultant commitments or loss or injury and without foreseeing the manpower required to execute it is 'tamasa'. Karmayoga defines the science of labour, work. Krshna objected to unplanned and unapproved enterprises.

Krshna distinguished three ways in which a social project funded and finalized by a higher authority was undertaken. It had to promote unity despite diversities present and without annulling them. It was non-aggressive, well-planned and non-speculative.

Krshna then describes the traits expected in the official (karta) who was required to execute it. The ideal executive is free from attachment. He is a free individual but is not an egotist or individualist (ahamvadi). He is steadfast, determined and zealous even while implementing a project not conceived by him and is not in pursuit of personal interests.

He is not elated by success or disheartened by failure. His approach and outlook do not get distorted by the result. He is sattvik.

The executive who is passionate eagerly seeks the fruits of his work, is greedy, violent and corrupt and is given to bouts of joy and grief is of the 'rajasa type. Assertiveness often becomes harsh and merciless.

The executive who is untrained and unsuitable for the work assigned, is uncultured and crude, raw and unmoulded, is obstinate, deceitful, procrastinating, despondent, non-constructive and indolent is of tamasa type., 

Krshna then distinguished three types among administrators-cum-intellectuals who needed both steadfastness (dhrti) and intellect (buddhi).

The sattvika type knows what action is to be performed by one in tune with his nature and when he should cease to perform it, when he should retire from that vocation or task.

He knows what purpose (karya) is to be accomplished and what is not to be striven for, what one should dread to do and what he need not dread to do. He knows what deeds are proscribed and which ones are not. He knows which duty is obligatory and which is not. 

The comprehensive manual on work (karmayoga) ensures that a good administrator is not reckless. He knows what duties to perform and how to perform them and when to retire.

The intellectual who has no correct appraisal of what is dharma and what is adharma and what goal is desirable (karya) and what is not desirable (akarya) is of rajasa type He is not intelligent enough not to be confused over the merits of his action.

Krshna was briefing Arjuna on the role of a Rajarshi, a judge-cum-administrator, trained in samkhya dialectics. He does not resort to laws of expediency. The concept of freedom to choose one's occupation not interfered by any authority cannot be conceded, even as the concept of equality of all cannot be conceded by the judiciary.

[Liberty and equality are concepts subject to scrutiny by the principles of jurisprudence based on social welfare and rationalism.]   The rajasa type leads to injustice against good and pious persons.

An intellect that has been overcome by a social environment full of indolence, indifference and pursuit of the mirage, holds what is blatantly adharma, immoral and anti-social, to be dharma. It sees all things and purposes of acts from a perverted angle. Such an intellectual who is morally decadent is tamasi. 

The trainee is warned against the counter-intelligentsia, perverted intellectuals. 

An administrator is superior to an executive. He has to be firm in his adherence to dharma. Steadfastness (dhrti) supports the activities of the mind, breath and senses. When one does not allow these to go out of control and is naturally steadfast in his mission it is said to be sattvik. Rajasi lacks self-restraint.  

The executive who performs his duties properly and resolutely but has other expectations which are not honourable and are incidental personal benefits is rajasa type.

Both despair and fanaticism are 'tamasi'. The type of determination with which a perverted intellectual refuses to give up his dreams, unwarranted fears, unnecessary grief, despondency and fanaticism is 'tamasi' in nature. Tamas covers ignorance and inertness, dreams and timidity, despair and fanaticism.

 This veils the perception of the right goals and leads one to making his proficiency available for anti-social acts.

Krshna presents three types of comfort (sukham) attained at the end of discomfort (duhkham). Beatitude, sukham, is gained only after rigorous practice, which is painful. This is like medicine, which in the beginning is bitter like poison but in effect is life-saving, sweet like nectar (amrtam). This beatitude springs from serene (prasada) understanding of one’s self, self-realization and ‘personal intellect’ (atmabuddhi). 

An intellectual who seeks to know himself can attain this serene joy. This is not training in 'buddhiyoga'; training in using rigorously logical methods to comprehend all events and trends, but is one based on self-analysis to ensure that the code is adhered to. This final comfort which is serene and satisfying,is sattvik in nature.

The executive (and so too the administrator) has to note that corrective measures when first introduced are likely to be unwelcome. But as the people get accustomed to them, they would find these advantageous and would be pleased with them. 

But there are steps that are pleasant in the beginning but prove to be harmful later. The comfort that is sweet in the beginning emerges from contact with the objects of senses  is of ‘rajasa’ type.  It proves to be harmful and is antithetical to the ‘sattvika’ type of comfort.

The training in Krshna’s academy of samkhya and yoga required rigorous control over pleasures of the senses and observance of celibacy. It would benefit the trainee later if not at once.

Krshna’s analysis presents ‘tamasa’ too as another antipode to ‘sattva’. The ‘tamasa’, unintelligent comfort is in being under delusion both in the beginning and in the end .

Both the prologue and the epilogue may appear to be pleasing but inactivity or sleep marks the whole career. Indolence and indifference to or neglect of duties and lack of self-awareness lead to this life of inactivity. The executive who does not work falls in this category. Krshna’s academy has no place for such a candidate.

The ‘tamasa’ suffers from self-deception, is self-enchanted. He cannot prove useful to the mission. He is not necessarily ignorant or incapable of providing dynamic leadership. He has to be shaken out of his indolence and delusion. 

These minor but significant nuances are to be paid attention while analyzing these three types, sattva, rajas and tamas. [It is imprecise to describe these as ‘goodness’, ‘passion’ and ‘dullness’, especially in this frame.] The three-fold paradigm of ‘gunas’, inborn traits, needs to be presented in a rational manner.

Krshna points out that in the (core) society comprising the two social worlds and, of nobles and commoners, there is no one who is free from the three inborn traits. Krshna found many of the nobles to be as frail as the commoners were. They too are men. They too belong to ‘prakrti’. The three traits have emerged from, prakrti.

‘Purushas’ are able social leaders and ‘devas’ are aristocrats who do not necessarily have the ability to lead the commoners.

Krshna would hence categorize the nobles, ‘devas’ on the basis of their inborn traits. While, in the core society, the aristocrats were referred to as ‘devas’, their equivalents in the frontier society were known as ‘devatas’ and in the social periphery as ‘isvaras’. None of these were 'gods'.

All the members of the core society, nobles and commoners, are brought under the four-fold classification—Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vis and Shudras. .

This extended classification (pravibhakta) is based on vocations assigned to them. These are correlated to the predominant trait or personal tendency (svabhava) of the individual. Krshna rules out all other criteria.

Even aristocrats are covered by this classification.They would not be placed in a separate higher class though he personally favoured their being retained as such a class. They too are to be merged in the masses, prakrti, and assigned to the different varnas, classes.

This scheme was to be applied to the two social worlds, divam and prthvi. Krshna did not propose to extend it to the third social world, antariksham, the frontier society of forests and mountains.

The three social universes, jagats, too were not covered by this scheme and so too the unorganized individuals, bhutas, of the social periphery. The real challenge lay in bringing all these under this ‘natural’ classification.

Those who have in their personal nature, the traits of serenity , self-control, persistence in endeavour, purity, forbearance and uprightness and have received knowledge through formal education and gained further knowledge through extrapolation of that knowledge and have faith in the existence of an Ultimate (astikam) are eligible to perform the duties of an intellectual (Brahmakarma), Krshna says.

This intellectual may become a teacher or a jurist. He is not presented as a priest though being a ‘believer’ (astika) he may become a ‘priest’ (purohita, in common parlance).

Dharmasastras have not stipulated that a Brahman should believe in the existence of God even as they cannot be said to have not made it obligatory for orhers to believe in the existence of God. Even atheists were eligible to be treated as Brahmans and appointed as teachers.

Brahmakarma was distinct from these. One who interpreted and presented the stand of Brahma or the constitution as incorporated in the Atharvaveda for consideration by the appropriate bodies, house of nobles (sabha) and council of scholars (samiti) and for their considered action was said to be performing Brahmakarma. He was more than a guide. His view could not be ignored.

He was ‘astika’ because he treated all beings as having souls. Hence he held all men as being equally eligible for the rights assured by the constitution. He believed in the sanctity of this constitution. Only a believer in the existence of such a soul that runs through all beings can be expected to be a humanist. The jurist has to be a humanist, rational, egalitarian and humanitarian. Brahmakarma is the role of the ideologue, Brahmavadi.

[Rationalism of the highest order leads one to conclude that such a soul, atma, exists in all beings. This is not blind faith in God or fear of God. Krshna does not give agnostics and atheists a place in this class, varna, which has been tuned to faith in the existence of an eternal soul in every being.]

The astikas were not necessarily worshippers of a personal god. The nobles (devas) honoured those believers who held that the soul could not slay or be slain. The patriciate, nobles, could perform the role of the intellectual elite. But the feudal lords, asuras, could not, for they were inhuman and lacked forbearance.

Krshna does not refer to the duties of performance of ‘yajnas’, sacrifices, studying and teaching ‘Vedas’, and offering and receiving gifts (dana) or to performance of ‘tapas’. The stress is on jnanam and vijnanam that need mastery of samkhya and nyaya systems.

The traits mentioned in this verse are listed as minimum desiderata for one being entrusted with Brahmakarma, the functions of a jurist. The Brahmana as a professional priest or teacher is not mentioned here. 

Valour, splendour, steadfastness, alertness, not fleeing in battle, generosity, charismatic leadership (isvarabhava) are the natural traits (born) in one who is fit for the duties (karma) of a protector (kshatra), ruler and administrator. Social leaders (purushas), charismatic chieftains (isvaras) and also generous nobles (devas) have their place in this class.

Once again, the conventional duties of the Kshatriyas that are dilated on by the Dharmasastras do not find mention here.

Krshna deals with Kshatra karma and not with conventional Kshatriya dharma or Kshatra dharma. He is concerned with providing stable and liberal governance that would ensure confidence among the people.

The new social order was confined to the core society. It was possible to absorb the unorganized individuals (bhutas) of the social periphery and their intellectuals (budhas) and leaders (isvaras) in it with the assurance that the new state would treat all beings as equal.

But it was still confined to the agro-pastoral core society that was engaged in agriculture, protection of cattle and trade. All those engaged in these economic activities were declared to be Vaisyas. These vocations are in tune with their natural traits.

Those who are not highly educated and are not valorous either are assigned to the Vaisya class. Those who are fit only to render service and have the aptitude for rendering such service are assigned to the vocations of the Shudras. The Shudras are not in the agrarian sector or in the commercial economy. They are in the services sector as attendants, nurses, cooks etc. Krshna does not bring the industrial economy under this classification.

Krshna however expected it to follow the pattern set for the core society. Social classification is not to be viewed as necessarily antithetical to social integration. Stratification is an inevitable sequel to classification.

All except those performing Brahmakarma and Kshatrakarma and service to others (paricharya) were absorbed in the Vaisya varna. Serving others was termed Shudrakarma. The new core society of the agro-pastoral plains continued to be a composite of organized clans and communities.

Naras, Free Men and Personal pursuits, Svakarma

But there were many persons who did not pursue the vocations engaged in by other members of their families. These free men, naras, were not subject to the codes of their clans and communities that had been fitted in the four-varnas scheme, mostly in the Vaisya varna which took over the status of the commonalty, Vis, of the later Vedic times. The free men, naras, were permitted to follow the respective vocations of their choice, svakarma, according to their pleasure, abhirata, and gain perfection, samsiddhi, in them. 

Krshna assigns and recommends to the intelligentsia the role of the upholders of constitutional law, Brahmakarma and to the political order headed by the Rajarshi and guided by the Rajapurohita the task of guaranteeing social stability and protection, liberal governance and equality before the eyes of law, Kshatrakarma.

 In pursuance of such a social polity, he stabilizes the vocations pursued by the Vaisya clans and communities of the core society but permits the free men (naras) to pursue the vocation of their choice and become accomplished in it. Varna assignment would not come in the way of this pursuit. The doors of all the four varnas were open to the free men.

Krshna then describes how the free men could get their wishes of following their chosen occupations fulfilled. It is not sound to state that the above verse warns one not to attempt work beyond his nature. Rights of naras to choose occupation were extended to bhutas.

A manava attains (vindati) perfection (siddhi) by honouring (abhyarchya) the rules of the occupation opted for by him as ‘svakarma’. Such men are self-employed and are free to adopt any occupation provided they abide by the code laid down by the guild or corporation. The latter is not permitted to bar others from pursuing that vocation.

The manavas were not considered to be subjects of any particular ruler or residents of any particular area. They were 'citizens of the world' and could not be prevented from following any vocation they chose to follow.

This statement throws open all occupations to those who are sincere in following the code governing the vocation concerned. The system of activity (pravrtti) of all the unattached individuals is pervaded by this theme.

The clans, communities, guilds and corporations are required not to obstruct these pursuits that are in tune with the innate traits and aptitudes of the individuals. This is the approach of the Manava school of thought.

 The varna classification of the larger society has to be effected without disturbing the traditional vocations followed by the clans and communities and the individuals according to their natural tendencies.

The varna system of distribution of duties and vocations does not envelop the entire human society. 

The free men, ‘naras’, choose to do what pleases them. The unattached individuals, ‘bhutas’, do what they do as they can not but do them, for they are impelled by their needs and are not acting as units of clans or as persons who had dropped out of the clans. The ‘manushyas’ function as clans and communities and are not independent of them.

The Manava School (of Pracetas) would try to secure for all freedom and non-obstruction needed to pursue the vocation they are capable of or in need of pursuing.

This Manava dharma, the code of rights and duties of a human being, which transcend kuladharmas, jatidharmas, desadharmas and varnadharmas, permitted every one to continue to perform the vocation he has inherited or been assigned on the basis of his clan or community, region or class or is accustomed to as an individual or has opted for as a free man.

It is better to follow one’s own dharma, code of conduct, (svadharma) however imperfectly correlated it may be to his innate trait (viguna) than to follow perfectly a duty, a work, assigned to another (paradharma) person or group.

Even as the clans and communities are called upon not to stand in the way of the individual resorting to a vocation that is in tune with his innate trait and aptitude, the individual is called upon not to resort to a vocation assigned to another though he may find it to be more in tune with his guna, inborn trait, than the one assigned to him.  One does not incur guilt (kilbisham) when he does a work, duty, in accordance with his personal aptitude (svabhava) and directed and regulated (niyata) by that aptitude, Krshna says.

Neither the society nor its organizations and institutions including those of the state may fault one for choosing a vocation that is in tune with his aptitude and performing the duties and exercising the rights, dharma, associated with that vocation, karma.

Those who have not accepted Varnadharma, the duties prescribed for the class to which they are assigned or have not been accepted by the varna to which they have been assigned may function independently under Svadharma, the code of conduct prescribed for those who have chosen their vocations by themselves. This explanation is related to the issue of mixed classes.

Both the proponents of Varnasrama Dharma and its critics are required to reconsider their positions in the light of this comprehensive plan outlined by Krshna and recommended by him to his trainees for implementing. The new social order seeks to be a holistic and balanced one.

Does the new social order reassign positions, duties and vocations? May one change one's vocation? Arjuna raises these questions with reference to the rights of the individual and they need precise answers.

One should not give up the vocation, duty, karma, he is accustomed to from birth (saha-ja), Krshna states. He refuses to treat any recognized vocation as infra dig.

The hereditary vocation, even if it is defective (sadosham), is to be performed by one born in the clan or community following that vocation. Some abandoned them in preference to new ones. But all new ventures (sarva arambha) are clouded by defects, he says.

Krshna does not countenance giving up traditional vocations and practices by any group. This is a rider to the permission granted in the previous verse for every one to follow a vocation in tune with his natural aptitude.

Svadharma (personal duties including vocation and correlated rights) once assigned or opted for on the basis of one's natural trait, svabhava, and a pleasing vocation is taken up as svakarma, is institutionalized and guarded against encroachment by and threat from others. It is not to be given up, chasing the wild goose. This is pragmatism rather than traditionalism. Social stability has to be guarded against the perils of fluidity.

The intellectual aristocracy of siddhas who rank higher than the cultural aristocracy of nobles, devas, have no vocation to follow, no duty to perform. The cultural aristocracy too had been relieved of all societal duties and the duties of protection and administration had been assigned to the new Kshatra cadre.

Having attained perfection (siddhi), the intellectual proceeds through supreme attention to and application of the knowledge acquired by him to rise to the level of the ideal intellectual (Brahma), the authority on all issues pertaining to the socio-political constitution as incorporated in the Atharvaveda (Brahma).

Krshna offers to brief Arjuna about this ascent of the 'siddha' to the status of 'Brahma' the high constitutional authority who is entitled to give the verdict on what is 'dharma', the approved conduct.

He is endowed with 'pure' intellect. He is self-regulated and is steadfast in his stands. He has given up attractions to all matters that are appreciated through senses like sound. He is not carried away by praises or affected by criticisms. He has cast aside passion, deep emotional attachment and longing for any person or object and aversion to persons or things.

He (Brahma, chief justice) has trained himself to follow the rules impartially and give his verdict objectively without allowing his personal opinions and ideological position to sully it. He does not waver when he is required to pronounce his verdict. 

After attaining perfection in his field of study, the siddha, an aspirant to the position of a jurist, Brahma, dissociates himself from the company of intellectuals too and leaves the academy where lectures were delivered, hymns chanted and debates conducted.

As he is confident of his knowledge, he may proceed to dwell in solitude, eating but little, controlling his mind, body and speech and be ever engaged in meditation. He takes recourse to the ways of life of a 'vairagi' whose desires and passions have been drained..

Krshna might give only an outline of the topics covered by them and highlight the views of the authorities in those fields He did not give intensive training in these in his academy.

The graduates who wanted to master all fields of study had to first move to places where they could stay alone and meditate on what they had already learnt, leading the life of a 'vairagi'. 

The 'vairagi' is free from egotism, assertiveness or forceful expression of one's view, arrogance, desire and wrath and also from possessions and companions. He is without the feeling of 'mineness' and is tranquil and is slated to become 'Brahma'. 

The expression, 'Brahmabhuya', means attaining the status of and being ordained as the highest authority entitled to pronounce the final verdict on constitutional issues and enforce it.  

What had been declared in the past, as the steps to be taken have to follow in the order prescribed and cannot be avoided according to the 'vairagi'. 

In Krshna's scheme, a yogi had to become a siddha and then a meditator and next, a vairagi, before he became eligible for elevation to the status of the highest intellectual, Brahma.

The ‘Rajarshi’ had to be a ‘Vairagi', a stoic, as described above before he mastered all fields of study pertaining to the society and the state and became entitled to interpret constitutional law, Brahma.

A member of the council of 'Brahma' had to be more than a ‘siddha’. He should have mastered all fields of study and become a dispassionate stoic with no possessions or retinue, a vairagi who has given up all attachment. He is a believer in destiny rather than a cynic.

Having become a 'Bahmabhuta', a member of the council of Brahma, the highest authority entitled to interpret the constitution, and hence a 'pleased person' he neither grieves for those whom he has left behind or who have fallen on the way nor entertains further expectations.

He treats all individuals as equal. Such a councillor is his best devotee, Krshna claims. He is not a cynic or pessimist. He has undertaken the mission to create a new social order that would treat all unattached individuals of the unorganized social periphery as equal.

Krshna asks Arjuna and other trainees to note that only persons who are not attached to and are not members of any socio-economic group or class would be able to join his mission. The intellectuals among them are able to appreciate it better.

Such a devoted intellectual comes to recognize Krshna's greatness and real personality including his outlook, philosophy. Having known the philosophy behind his mission and its vastness and prospects, this great intellectual joins him.

Those yogis who had graduated as 'siddhas', and had meditated on what they had learnt and become 'vairagis', joined the council of Brahma. It had approved his mission to create a new social order based on the equality of all beings and this mission began from the social periphery while the core society of nobles and commoners that included the free men, and the followers of the Manava school of thought, consented to adopt the four-varnas scheme.

This participant in Krshna's mission performs continually all his duties and taking shelter in Krshna's abode obtains his grace. He stays at that level, post, permanently and without any loss to his status as a free individual.  Krshna's mission does not call upon the participants to lose their identities though it expects them to be devoted to it and its leader.

Having renounced all his actions as a thinker to Krshna's  judgement and purposes the trainee (appointed as Brahmabhuta, a member of the highest council of Krshna's academy) resorts to imparting Buddhiyoga. He becomes a teacher of epistemology (Buddhiyoga),

Arjuna could become the head of the faculty of Buddhiyoga if he followed Krshna's counsel and was devoted to him. Buddhiyoga was the launching pad for getting mastery over samkhya and yoga. The latter covered Brahmayoga, Rajayoga and Karmayoga.  

Arjuna was exhorted to carry out his mission. Fixing his thoughts on Krshna and his mission, Arjuna with the grace of the latter could overcome all his difficulties. But if out of conceit he did not listen to Krshna's counsel he would perish Krshna warned.

If staying in self-conceit he thought that he would not fight his career and vocation would have been used improperly. It would be deemed that the training he had received as a Kshatriya soldier was being misused.

And the masses, prakrti, would compel him to fight, Krshna pointed out to him. If the leader, purusha, sat aside without carrying out his duty, to mobilize and lead the masses, the latter would not lie idle. The masses, prakrti, will make the leader, purusha, do what he ought to do. 

Would Arjuna be not able to act independent of the mass society that he was expected to lead? Even if he had selected his vocation in accordance with his personal aptitude (svabhava) it would oblige him to fight. He would not be free to choose between fighting and not fighting.

Svakarma did not grant the right to opt out. His nature (svabhava) would be dictating his action and he would involuntarily (avasa) do that duty (karishyasi), that is, enter the field to battle against his kinsmen. 

Such persons who were not able to choose their own occupations but had to follow any available one were covered by the concept, 'bhuta'. The manushyas performed their duty as expected by their clans or communities.

The purushas acted as expected by the masses, prakrti, whom they were to lead. The free men, naras, followed their personal preferences and were not bound even by the limits prescribed by their aptitudes.

But the discrete individuals, bhutas had been advised by their leaders, Isvaras, and counsellors, budhas, to confine themselves to the limits prescribed by their aptitudes, svabhavas, and obey their dictates and not seek to perform a duty that was not theirs or fail to perform a duty that was theirs. Svadharma and svakarma were based on svabhava, in their case.

The bhutas, unattached individuals, who acted under the impulse of their personal aptitudes, would not be faulted. They followed their charismatic leader, Isvara, whom they cherished in their hearts (hrdde). He was able to manipulate them, move them around by his invisible charisma (maya), as if they were mounted on a machine (yantra).

Krshna was such a leader and he desired that Arjuna too should develop such a charisma, be one who inspired others and not be but one brought to duty by the desperate masses. 

The charismatic leader, Isvara, acts and makes all bhutas, all the individuals of the social periphery act as he desires. Of course he too can make them act only within the limits set by their natural talents and natural aptitudes. A Rajarshi has to learn this lesson.

As a charismatic leader, Isvara, Arjuna would be able to act in any way, take up any role to please his followers and would not be confined to any particular way of life or vocation. He would be able to gain this versatility as an overlord and successor to Bharata by surrendering himself in all respects to Krshna's guidance.

By his grace, 'prasada', Arjuna would obtain the highest peace, 'param santi' (absence of internal conflicts) and a permanent place 'sasvata sthanam'.

Arjuna was then a wanderer, an exile from his country. His need was to get a firm foothold among the people of the social periphery and that needed adaptability. He had taken asylum in Krshna's academy and with the support of the latter he was expected to become the overlord.

Krshna reminded Arjuna that he had imparted the latter the knowledge of the 'secret of secrets', that is, the highly confidential matters pertaining to social polity that he was expected to assist in bringing about to fruition. He should reflect on all of it and then act as he chose to. Krshna would counsel him and not coerce him. He would be free to fight or not to fight.

Krshna was a teacher of samkhya and yoga. He had a mission to complete. He had trained Arjuna to support him in that mission, and be even second in command. But this was only a temporary position that Arjuna would be occupying. [His permanent position would be that of a Rajarshi and overlord, a charismatic leader and successor to Bharata.] Krshna had taught him Rajavidya, Rajayoga and Rajaguhya.

Krshna, as an ideal teacher felt it his duty to introduce Arjuna to the "secret of secrets" so that he might resolve to rise to the occasion and lead the movement for the reorganization of the social order. Krshna knew that Arjuna though permitted to do as he chose, would do what he was moulded to do. Krshna however found that given the freedom to do as he pleased, Arjuna was not able to make up his mind.

He repeated to Arjuna the highest of all secrets, that is, Rajaguhya, for Arjuna was dear to him. Hence he told Arjuna what was in the interest of the latter. It was persuasion and not indoctrination of any particular religious tenet or metaphysical system or socio-political ideology.  

What this secret, guhya, was, the Gita does not reveal.

Vyasa knew what the secret that clinched the issue and roused Arjuna to action was. But others were not to know it. Krshna urged him to adopt his viewpoint and stance on all issues and become his devotee, offer 'sacrifice' to him and respect him. Then, Arjuna could join his mission. Krshna promised to accept him, as he was dear to him. 

Arjuna should give up all his duties and rights (sarvadharma) (whether they were under the provisions of kuladharma or jatidharma or varnadharma or svadharma) and be free from all bonds even as a samnyasi is.

He should go as a wandering mendicant (vraja) to Krshna alone for asylum and protection (saranam). Krshna would exonerate him from all sins that might follow his failing to perform his prescribed duties to his family, clan, community and class before joining his mission.

Did Krshna urge Arjuna not to worry about the laws and practices but to trust Him (God?) and bow to His will?

Vyasa tells his disciples that Krshna had prevailed on Arjuna to leave his home and family and join the mission without being worried about their fate.

Arjuna was not to reveal to any one where he was going and with whom he was taking refuge and what his mission was. Only other members of his mission who were 'tapasvis' strenuous in its fulfillment might know about his joining it. Those who were not devoted to Krshna or spoke ill of him should not be told about it. 

The secrets of social polity with respect to the creation of the new social order after bringing down the existing one might be shared with Krshna's other followers. Krshna was sure that his devotees would appreciate it and join his movement. 

Arjuna might as Krshna's confidante part with this secret plan to Krshna's devotees (among the elite). The commoners of the core society were expected to support it. This mission expected members of the third social world, bhuva, too to join it. Krshna was optimistic about the response that it would get despite the utterances of his detractors who were jealous of his increasing popularity.

He hoped that one who studied this dialogue between him and Arjuna on issues pertaining to the social and moral codes, dharma, would offer all his knowledge as in a sacrifice, yajna, for his mission. Vyasa hoped that the intelligentsia would approve it and contribute to its fulfillment. Sanjaya who heard a report of it must have arrived at a similar conclusion.

It was not easy for the commoners who were organized in clans and communities or even for the groups engaged in the industrial economy of the frontier society to come out openly in favour of the move to dissolve the existing social system and create a new one. The intelligentsia could however propagate this cause.

Krshna expected positive response from free men, naras. They did not feel bound to toe the lines of the clans and communities in which they were born. A free man, who listened with intent to this conversation without envy would be freed from (mukti) the (few) restrictions on him and admitted to the ‘auspicious’ community of those who had performed virtuous acts.

 Krshna hoped that Arjuna had heard his counsel with his thought (cetasa) fixed to one point and that his lack of knowledge and delusion had been destroyed .In other words, he must have by now overcome the 'tamas' trait.

Arjuna replied that his delusion had been lost and that he had received through Krshna's grace the lessons that he would remember. He would stand firm with his doubts gone. He promised to act according to Krshna's advice.

Sanjaya (Dhrtarashtra's reporter) had heard this wonderful dialogue between Vasudeva and the great personage, Partha, being narrated in thrillingly by Romaharshana (a disciple of Vyasa). 

He also acknowledged that Vyasa was gracious enough to permit him to hear this great secret the yoga taught by Krshna, the Yogesvara himself. Vyasa must have recorded the dialogue and the secrets unfolded to Arjuna by Krshna in his academy.

Sanjaya was thrilled with joy as he recalled this wondrous and 'meritorious' dialogue between Kesava and Arjuna. Sanjaya was able to see Krshna in the form of Hari, which was highly exotic and thrilling.