METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
OF
THE GITA RAHASYA
Dr. S. K. BASU
Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar
Tilak (1856 - 1920) was a great son of mother India. A front-ranking patriot, a
reputed journalist, an eminent educationist, a profound scholar, and a man of
spotless personal character and integrity, he made his mark in whatever he
undertook. But perhaps the greatest achievement of his life, for which he will
be remembered and respected so long as Hinduism survives, is his Gita-Rahasya, a scholarly and original
interpretation of the Bhagavadgita, written in Marathi, during the period from
November 1910 to March, 1911 - while he was interned in Mandalay jail for his
role as a freedom fighter.
In the Gita-Rahasya Tilak has tried to
unravel the real import of the advice given by Lord Krishna to Arjuna, on the
battlefield of Kurukshetra, just before commencement of the fratricidial was
between the kauravas and the pandavas.
The urge for undertaking
such an intellectual exercise arose out of Tilak’s conviction that the existing
commentaries on the Bhagavadgita, written by the great medieval scholars (Achatyas) were biased, and hence,
do not provide a correct interpretation of Lord Krishna’s utterances on the
battlefield.
The Gita is universally
acknowledged to be one of the three authoritative works or pillars of the
Vedanta philosophy (known as Prasthanatraryi), the other two being the Upanishads and the Brahmasutra. The Upanishads are many
in number, and written as they were by different authors at different times, contain
diverse philosophical views, some of which are prima facie mutually
contradictory. Therefore, ordinary readers find it difficult to understand
their true significance.
In the Brahmasutra (also
known as the Vedanta Sutra and
Sariraka Sutra) an attempt was made by Badarayana to harmonise the teachings of the
Upanishads. But the result has not be very satisfactory, as the Sutras are written in the form
of brief aphorisms and have again been interpreted differently by various
scholars representing different sects, viz. Shakara (Advaita or monism), Ramanuja (Visistadavaita or qualified monism),
Nimbarka (Bhedaveda or difference and non-difference), Madhava (Dvaita or dualism), and Vallabha
(Sudhadvaitavada
or pure
non-dualism).
The Gita is a relatively
consistent and compact work of seven hundred verses, divided into eighteen
chapters, and its language is lucid and inspiring. It is believed to contain
the quintessence of Hindu philosophy, as its author, Lord Krishna, tries to
harmonise various conflicting beliefs and religious practices current at that
time. Its appeal to successive generations of Hindus over a period of more than tow thousand years
has been unique in the history of any religious scripture. Millions of Hindus
read it regularly for guidance and inspiration. Even many non-Hindus have
acclaimed it as a great work in the realm of philosophy and ethics.
Devout Hindus consider
the Vedas and the Upanishads (the latter forming the concluding portions of the
former) to be of divine origin. They were revealed to the sears (Rishis) and,
were not man-made. Hence they enjoy the highest status in Hindu thought. Every
religion deals broadly with two kinds of problems; namely, those concerning the
fundamental tenets and ideals that remain valid for all times and under all
circumstances; and those which relate to the social, political and economic
issues, and problems of the time. In Hindu thought the former is referred to as
Sruti or knowledge revealed to the seers and the latter as Smriti, or
that which is the creation of great saints and seers. Sruti always
enjoys a higher status because it forms the fundamental basis of a religion
which cannot be questioned by any body without being a heretic.
Although the
Bhagavadgita is not asruti text, nevertheless, it enjoys a very high
status as a religious work. Every devout Hindu believes Lord Krishna, the
author of the Gita, to be an Avatar or Incarnation of God. The words
coming out of the mouth of the God incarnate have, therefore, the highest
validity and respectability in the eyes of believers.
Moreover, the Gita
discusses certain issues concerning man’s duty in critical situations of life
along with the criterion for judging what is right and what is wrong.
Metaphysical questions are discussed in the contest of certain live issues that
confront man every now and then. Hence, the Gita is used by millions as a moral
and spiritual reference book for guidance in worldly life. This is not the case
with many other scriptures.
The kind of problem that
Arjuna faced several thousand years ago, are faced by most of us at certain
critical moments in our lives. And the solution offered by the Lord in the distant
past, remains valid even today, for they are based on a logical exposition of
the nature of the ultimate reality or truth and man’s place and duty in the
world. So long as the creation will continue man will again and again, be
confronted with the same kind of problem as Arjuna faced, and will also be
forced to seek proper solutions to them. The validity of the Gita is,
therefore, universal and eternal.
Nevertheless, the
interpretation of the message contained in the Gita has been a subject of
fierce controversy. Obviously, Lord Krishna must have offered some specific
advice to Arjuna in order to enable him to overcome the dilemma confronting him
at that point of time. But scholars have interpreted the same words in
different ways, thereby creating a lot of controversy and confusion. This is
quite natural, for the prestige of the Gita is so great and its appeal so
universal that each and every sect tried to find support in it for the
particular religious views held by it. Even in our day to day mundane
activities often we try to justify our actions and views on the authority of
some great personality or book. No wonder, therefore, that the great medieval
religious leaders representing various sects tried to enlist the support of the
Gita in favour of their respective views.
In his boyhood Tilak was
often told by his elders that if one wanted to attain salvation (Moksha) one must renounce the
world and become a Sanyasin. This set him thinking. The question that arose in his mind was; does
Hinduism want a devotee to give up or renounce the world in order to be able to
attain the perfection of manhood? Tilak was also told that the Bhagavadgita was
universally acknowledged as a book containing all the essential principles of
the Hindu religion. Therefore, he thought that the Gita must provide an answer
to his query and hence started studying it objectively without any
pre-conceived ideas. The conclusion he arrived at was that “the Gita advocated
the performance of action in this world even after the actor has achieved the
highest union with the Supreme Deity by Jnana (Knowledge) or Bhakti (Devotion)”
1
How and on what basis
Tilak arrived at the above conclusion will be discussed elsewhere. Here we are
primarily concerned with the methodology adopted by him and the influence of
Positivism as propounded by Auguste Comte (the celebrated nineteenth Century
French Philosopher) and some others on the author.
Comte (1798 - 1857)
advocated adoption of the positive or scientific methodology, as opposed to the
theological and metaphysical methodologies, used in earlier times. According to
the Positive philosophy, it is not possible for man to know the essence of
phenomena. We know only the constant relations between phenomena, the relation
of succession and of similarity among facts or the constant resemblances which
link phenomena together. The constant sequences, are termed their laws. “The
laws of phenomena are all we know respecting them. Their essential nature, and
their ultimate causes, either efficient or final, are unknown and inscrutable
to us.2 “According to Positivism, therefore, the origin and the end
of the things are insoluble problems. “Only that which lies intermediate
between the two inscrutable termini of the world is an object of knowledge.3
According to Comte, the
theological, the metaphysical and the positive methods have been successively
used in human history. The theological age continued from the beginning of
civilization upto about 1300 A.D. Then began the metaphysical age which ended
in about 1800 A.D. Afterwords the scientific age, which is characterized by
emphasis on analysis of phenomena began. The positive method supports the value
of science for prediction and social control.
Comte says:
“In whatever way we study
the general
development of the huma
intellect,
whether according to the
rational
method or empirically, we
discover,
despite of all seeming
irregularities,
a fundamental law to
which its progress
is necessarily and
invariably subjected.
This law consists in the
fact that, the
mental constitution of
man, and every
portion of it, of
necessity, passes
through three successive
phases, the
Theological, the
Metaphysical and the
positive or physical.
Thus man began
by considering phenomena
of every kind
as dueto the direct and
continuous
influence of supernatural
agents; he
next regarded them as
products of
different abstract
forces, residing
in the bodies but
distinct and hetero-
geneous; while he ends
by viewing them
as subjected to a certain
number of
natural and invariable
laws which are
merely the general
expression of the relations
observed in their
development.” 4
Sheer dialectal
argumentations of the Cartesian and Hegelian type become negative. Hence, Comte
argued that it was essential to utilise the positive methods and techniques of
science for progress of civilization. This method supports the value of science
for prediction and social control. In place of efficient and final causes, it
lays emphasis on concomitance and sequence of phenomena for a scientific
organisation of society. But the Positive philosophy “is not a recent invention
of M. Comte, but a simple adherence to the traditions of all great scientific
minds whose discoveries have made the human race what it is”5. Before Comte Kant also
had maintained that we know nothing of Things in Themselves, (Noumena) but only
of things as they are presented for us (Phenomena) though he admitted that beyond
the world of sense there may exist an omnipotent, omniscient cause of the
world.
As Mill rightly points
out, the Positive mode of thought is not necessarily a denial of the
supernatural; it merely throws back that question to the origin of all things.
“If the universe had a beginning, its beginning by the very condition of the
case, was supernatural; the laws of nature cannot account for their own origin” 6.
In the third chapter of the Gita-Rahasya, sub-titled Karma-Yoga Sastra, Tilak has briefly
examined the different methods of scientific exposition, according to both
Indian and Western theories. He says that the subject matter of any science may
be discussed in three different ways, Adhi-Bhautika, (positive or
materialistic), Adhi-Daivika (theological) and Adhyatmika (metaphysical).
Citing the example of the Sun he says that when we look upon it not as a deity,
but a “round mass of gross matter made up of the five primordial elements, and
examine its various properties, such as its hear, or light, or weight, or
distance, or power of attraction, etc., that becomes the positive or material
examination of the Sun.”7. This method is used in all modern sciences, such as
chemistry and physics, and Tilak adds that “materialists imagine that when they
have examined in this way the visible properties of any object, that is all the
need to do and that it is useless to further examine the objects in the world.” 8
But if this method is
discarded and an attempt is made to discover what lies at the root of the
material world, that is, “whether the activities of the objects are due to some
inherent properties in them, or there is some other power or principle behind
those activities, then one has to transcend the material examination of the
object.”9
Repeating the example of the sun Tilak argues that if it is held that there
“exists a deity called the ‘Sun’ which dwells within it, and that this deity
carries on the activities of the material Sun, such examination is called an Adhi-Daivika
(Theological) examination of the object.”10 According to this theory
all worldly objects have their respective presiding deities without which
activities of the former will stop.
The third theory is that
“there exists in this world some Spiritual Force, i.e., factor of consciousness
(eicehakti) impreceptible to the organs, which carries on all the
activities of the external world; and that this spiritual force exists in the
human body in the shape of an Atman and acquaints the human being with the
entire creation.”11 There also exists a corresponding supreme power of force (commonly
referred to us Brahman). Which controls the entire creation and without
which all worldly activities will cease. This is called an Adhyatmika (metaphysical)
point of view.
These three ways of
viewing the world have been in existence for a very long time and they have
been followed even in Hindu religious books such as the Upanishad and the
Bhagavadgita. Tilak quotes the examples found in the Brihadaranyaka and
other Upanishads while considering whether the organs of perception (Jananendriya)
or the vital force (prana) is superior, and adds that in deciding
this question the respective strengths (of the Organs and Prana are
considered. “Once from the point of view that they have deities like Agni etc.,
and again by considering their subtle (metaphysical i.e. adhyatmika) forms (Br.
1.5.1 and; chan. 1. and 3, kausi 2,8,) and the consideration of the form of the
Isvara at the end of the seventh chapter and in the beginning of the right
chapter of the Gita is also from this point of view.”12 Out of these three methods discussed above,
Tilak prefers the metaphysical (Adhyatmika)
method, on the ground that
Indian religious writers attach a higher importance to it.
In the fourth and fifth chapters of the Gita Rahasya Tilak has examined various theories of
happiness and unhappiness, as advocated by materialistic schools, such, as, the
gross hedonism of Charvaka and Jabali, the refined hedonism of Hobbes and Helvetius,
the altruism of Sidgwick and the utilitarianism of Bentham, Mill and
Shaftesbury, and has rejected all of them as inadequate. Supporting the
metaphysical point of view he says:
“... our philosophy of Karma-Yoga has
ultimately come to the conclusion that
the doctrines of the benefit of everybody’
or ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest
number’, or ‘the highest development of
humanness’, or other such external test or
Materialistic methods of determining
questions of Morality are inferior tests . .
.” 13
In the sixth chapter Tilak has examined the
intuitionist school of ethics as propounded by Christian writers. He considers
this theory as unsatisfactory on the ground that “besides mind and intellect,
there is no foundation for recognizing the existence of a separate and
independent entity like conscience or moral intuition”.14 He feels
that intuition is included in Vyavasayatmika
buddhi or pure reason.
After discussing the various standards of
ethical action as advocated by different schools, Tilak finally opts for the
metaphysical world outlook. Observe the following comments.
“Therefore, one has to come to the
ultimate conclusion that there exists
in this activated living Body some
comprehensive and potent power which is
more powerful and more comprehensive
than the various dependent and one-sided
workmen in the Body who work in grades
rising from organs like the hands and feet
to life, Activity, Mind and Reason;
that this power remains aloof from all
of them, and synthesises the activities
of all of them and fixes for them the
direction in which they are to act, and
is an every-awake witness of all their
activities”. 15
Thus it is seen that Tilak finally chooses the
metaphysical approach to ethics, as he considers the hedonistic and
intuitionist schools to be inadequate and unsatisfactory. According to him “the
meaning of the words Brahmavidyayam
Yogashastre is that the
ethics of the Gita is based on the spiritual perception of the nature of
reality.” 16
Comte wanted to elevate sociology to the rank
of a positive science, using the same method as is applied in the natural
sciences, namely, interrogation and interpretation of experience by means of
induction and deduction. After a careful consideration of the “history of the
world he came to the conclusion that the highest religion of every human being
is to love the whole human race and to continually strive for the benefit of
everybody While Mil, Spencer and some other English Philosophers support this
view, kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and other German philosophers have proved that
this positive method of considering ethics is” inefficient and they have
recently revived in Europe the method of basing Ethics on Metaphysics adopted
by our vedanta Philosophers.” 17
Tilak was considerably influenced by the
methodology of T. H. Green, who deduced his ethical conclusions from his
metaphysical views. Green was an idealist and believed in one absolute
spiritual reality. His ethics is, therefore, based on a spiritual world out-look,
as is the case with the followers of the Vedanta philosophy. Man according to
Green, has no isolated existence. Hence he cannot “Contemplate himself as in a
better state, or on the way to the best, without contemplating others.”18
In other words, “human perfection can not be pursued individually, in a selfish
manner. It has to be sought collectively by all.19 Also in judging
the moral worth of an action Green took into account the motive or intention of
the person concerned. In his opinion, “It is not by the outward from...that we
know what moral action is. We know it, so to say, on the/inner side.”20
Tilak’s interpretation of the Gita bears stamp of these ideas.
In the Gita it is stated that after arriving
at the battlefield, Arjuna found the armies of the Kauravas and pandavas
arrayed against each other, ready to fight. Seeing his kith and kin on the
opposite side of the battlefield, he became overwhelmed by compassing and
grief. He was totally nervous and in no time the determination and courage with
which he came to the battlefield to settle old scores with the kauravas,
vanished. His limbs drooped, mouth dried up, body shivered and hairs stood on
end. The great bow Gandiva slipped from his grip, and he experienced
burning sensation of skin. He was even unable to stand as his head reeled. He
saw bad omens and told Lord Krishna that he would not fight because he did not
sire Kingdom and worldly pleasures at the cost of the blood of his Kinsmen.
Thus there was dramatic change in Arjuna’s
mental condition within a short time, – after arrival at the battlefield and
taking a glance at the general disposition of the two armies. In fact, even
after arriving at Kurukshetra, his determination remained intact for some time
as is evident from the fact that he had raised his bow and asked Lord Krishna,
his Charioteer, to place the chariot between the two armies, so that he could
have a look at the persons against whom he would have to fight and thus review
the situation. A very valid question, therefore, arises as to what happened
within such a short time that changed Arjuna’s mind so radically and
dramatically? In other words, what was the cause of the sudden change in the
attitude of Arjuna who came to fight but refused to do so just when each side
was getting ready for it. After all, Arjuna was not a coward, nor was he a
novice in the science and art or war-fare. He was reputed as one of the best,
if not the best, heroes of his time, For such an outstanding soldier to suffer
a nervous breakdown at the very beginning was most surprising. In a war what
matters most is high morale, even if weak in physical strength. But Arjuna
became dispirited before even an arrow was shot at him. What was the reason?
In appears that Arjuna suddenly felt that it
would be morally wrong on his part to kill the Kauravas, who were his kith and
kin although they had wronged him and his family in a number of ways. Verses 31
to 46 of Chapter 1 of the Gita contain the various arguments advanced by him in
support of his changed attitude. But his main point was that it would be better
to die without offering resistance than to incur sin by killing the near and
dear ones. It is obvious, therefore, that Arjuna’s mind became confused as he
could not decide what his proper duty or course of action was in that
particular situation. In other words, he faced a moral dilemma, mainly because
of lack of a proper perspective based on a true understanding of reality or
truth underlying the phenomenal world.
Tilak says that the critical position in which
Arjuna had found himself in the commencement of the Bhagavadgita, “as a result
of being caught between two mutually contradictory paths of duty and became
doubtful about his proper duty is not some thing unique”.21 Every
now and then great and responsible persons who wish to discharge their duties
in life consistently with righteousness and morality find themselves in such
circumstances. He quotes several example from various sources, including
Shakespear’ Hamlet, to prove the point. Hamlet became insane and finally met a
tragic and because he could not decide whether he should kill his uncle who had
murdered his father and married his mother, or pardon him because he was his
own uncle and step-father. Fortunately such a calamity did not overtake Arjuna
because he was luckly enough to get Lord Krishna’s moral support and guidance.
In trying to understand the true import of
Lord Krishna’s advice to Arjuna, it is extremely important to understand the
ethical, religious and metaphysical basis underlying it. Which form the core of
vedanta Philosophy. Anybody who thinks that Lord Krishna had encouraged
violence, or did not do so but recommended renunciation, or that he preached a
philosophy of action, or of devotion etc., without understanding the metaphysical
and ethical ideas of Hindu though in general and Vedanta philosophy in
particular, on the basis of which the advice was tendered, will miss the point.
In Hindu philosophy and religion various alternative paths for God realization
(viz. those of knowledge, action, meditation, devotion etc.) have be prescribed
depending on the situation, and the status of the aspirant. The Gita tries to
harmonise these apparently contradictory means of attaining the summan bonum of
life. It is easy for anyone following anyone of these means or methods (Yogas) to find passages in the Gita eulogising or supporting a particular
stand-point. That does not mean, however, that lord Krishna prescribed only one
of these Yogas exclusively, without taking into
consideration such factors as the status of the person concerned, and the
situation in which he is placed. Once a principle or criterion is laid down (as
was done by lord Krishna) a particular aspirant has to apply it to his own
specific situation and choose his own course to action. Towards the end lord
Krishna said:
Thus has knowledge most secret been declared
to you by Me: reflect on it fully and act as you like (chap. 18.63)
This and other related issues will be
considered in detail elsewhere because they do not fall within the scope of
the present discussion:
However, it is important to note here that
excepting the first chapter which prepares the background for lord Krishna’s
exhaustive exposition of the Vedanta philosophy, all the other subsequent seventeen
chapters of the Gita are full of subtle metaphysical and ethical thoughts. They
relate to the nature of the Truth or Reality behind thee phenomenal world
including the nature of human soul, its relationship with the Creator and the
aim and purpose of human existence and how to achieve it. In fact, as already
stated, lord Krishna has harmonised the various religious and metaphysical
thoughts current at that time over the all embracing foundation of the vedanta
philosophy.
Coming back to the main point, it is found
that although the Comtean methodology is valid for the material sciences which
function within the broad operations of space and time and sense perceptions,
it hardly helps in spiritual and ethical realms. In his sociological theory
Comte advocates universal love and brotherhood. This is very good and useful.
But the question arises, why should one love others unless there is some common
bond underlying everyone, past, present and future? like comte, the Utlitarians
also advocate the highest good of the greatest number. Prima facie it looks
very convincing and attractive. But there may be, and have been, situations in
which the perception of the highest good is not only faulty but also positively
harmful. Fanatics all over the world have fought wars and killed millions of
innocent men, women and children, in the supposed pursuit of good as understood
by them. In the absence of an underlying spiritual basis of criterion they
could not be, at that particular point of time, questioned and contained. But
future has always exposed the hollowness of all such beliefs and practices. As
Swami Vivekananda points out, utilitarian standards cannot explain the ethical
relations of men...He says, “why should I do good to other men, and not injure
them? If happiness is the goal of mankind, why should I not make myself happy
and others unhappy.” 22
Following the ideal of Vedanta philosophy,
according to which there is only one Absolute Spiritual Reality behind the
entire creation, Tilak prefers the metaphysical (Adhyatmikia) point of view to the positive out look of
Comte. If the matter is scrutinised to its logical end, it would appear that
the Utilitarian (or the Positive) ideal of the greatest good of the greatest
number is basically an outcome of some such spiritual outlook, although it may
not be recognised or admitted. There is no reason why one should love others
unless some basic identity at a deeper level is recognised. In the Vedanta
philosophy this basic identity rests on the recognition of the same eternal self
(atman) in every creature. In the Gita it has been proclaimed, “the knowledge
by which one sees the one undivided imperishable substance in all beings which
are divided, should be known as Sattvika” (18.20) Therefore, although
sociologically Comte and others like him may be correct, their theory do not
adequately, account for ethical and spiritual values and truths. Jesus Christ
demonstrated a similar spiritual outlook when he preached universal love and
tolerance. He believed in the existence of one Supreme Father in the heaven as
the source of all creation. He said, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy
mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.” (St. Luke, 27). Without
some such fundamental belief a proper justification for advocating good of
others is found wanting.
Now, the question arises, in the present age
of science and rationalism is there any justification for belief in any
supernatural spiritual force (God or Brahman)? What justification or proof can
be advanced in support of such a belief? According to Swami Vivekananda, religion
has to be realized internally by every one.” Religion, like other sciences,
requires you to gather facts, to see for yourself, and this is possible when
you go beyond the knowledge which lies in the region of five senses.” 23
The science of religion can be mastered not with the help of sense-organs but
by intuition and introspection. Man has achieved great success in exploring the
truth or law working in the physical universe. But very little effort has been
made so far to discover the truth underlying the entire existence including
spiritual experience. The same principle working in the outside world is also
present in man. Prophets and seers have come face to face with this truth and
they have broadly indicated the method to be used to share the same experience.
The proof of religion lies in its experience internally, through introspection
and meditation. It is wrong to say that no proof exists. But the proper method
and means must be adopted and the proper effort has to be made to get at the
truth.
Tilak’s choice of the adhyatmika methodology
is absolutely valid in as much as it is a time-tested principle in the realm of
spiritual experience. Lord Krishna explained the true (spiritual) remove his
ignorance, and after this was accomplished, it was not difficult for Arjuna to
decide for himself what his duty was at that particular situation. There is no
scope for any dogmatic assertion in this regard as it is quite possible that
placed in a different situation another person (or even the same Arjuna) might
have chosen a different course of action. There is no single fixed duty for all
persons and under all circumstances or stations in life. However; there is a
fixed criterion on the basis of which duty has to be determined and discharged,
therefore, to say that Lord Krishna preached only this or that to the exclusion
of all other possibilities. Would be dogmatic and not in keeping with the comprehensive
and universal message of the Gita.
To sum up, tilak’s choice of the adhyatmika
(metaphysical) methodology is quite appropriate as the Gita is a work on
metaphysics and ethics where the positive methodology has little applicability.
In the Upanishads again and again we come across condemnation of the idea of
separateness and emphasis on man’s spiritual kinship with all creation. It is
interesting to note that this ‘basic oneness, this non-separateness is the
theme of modern scientific thought as well”.24 The dichotomy between
matter and spirit is tending to diminish, and in this changed situation the
spiritual world-view is gaining ground, even in those areas which were earlier
thought to belong to the domain of physical sciences.
1 Tilak, Bal
Gangadhar: Om-Tat-Sat Srimad Bhagavadgita rahasya or karma-Yoga-Sastra,
Tr. by B.S. Sukhtankar first English edition, (Poona, tilak Brothers, 1935), P.
XXV,-here- in after referred to as Gita - Rahasya
2 Mill, J. S. Auguste
Comte and Positivism (The University of Michigan Press, 1961) P. 6
3 Falckenberg, R. History
of Modern Philosophy Calcutta, Progressive Publishers, 1953), P, 555
4 Comte, Auguste The
Crisis of Industrial Civilization: The Early Essays of Auguste Comte
(London, Heinemann Educational Books, 1977), P. 182
5 Mill, J. S. Op.
cit., PP. 8-9
6 Ibid P. 14
7 Gita-Rahasya P. 84
8 Ibid,
9 Ibid
10 Ibid P .85
11 Ibid
12 Ibid
13 Ibid. P.164
14 Varma, Dr. V P The
Life and Philosophy of Lokmanya Tilak (Agra, lakshmi Narain Agarwal, 1978),
P. 484
15 Gita-Rahasya P. 199
16 Varma, Dr. V P.
Op. cit. P. 484
17 Gita-Rahasya, P. 87
18 Green, T H Prolegomena
to Ethics (London, Oxford University Press, 5th edition, 1906), P.
229
19 Basu, Dr. S. K. Foundations
of the Political Philosophy of Sarvodaya (Delhi, Light and bliss
Publishers, 1984), P.75
20 Green, T. H. Op.
cit., P. 229
21 Gita-Rahasya P. 40
22 Vivekananda,
Swami: Jnana-Yoga (Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama, 5th impression, 1980), P.
11
23 Vivekananda,
Swami: The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (Calcutta, Advaita
Ashrama, 1989), Vol. VI, P. 133
24 Ranganathananda,
Swami: The Message of the upanishads (Bombay, Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan,
1987), P. 110