Session One

Background to the Bhagavad-gītā

The Bhagavad-gītā forms a part of the Mahābhārata and in this wider context comprises chapters
23 to 40 of the Mahābhārata’s Bhīṣma-parvan (Book 6). The Mahābhārata reveals that Kṛṣna, the
leader of the Yadus, is a descent, or avatāra, of Viṣṇu (Nārāyaṇa) who has appeared on Earth
to support the cause of dharma. It is his will that those kings who show no regard for dharma
should be destroyed. When the time arrives for the great conflict between the righteous Pāṇḍa-
vas, led by Yudhiṣṭhira, and the wicked Kauravas, led by King Duryodhana, Kṛṣṇa says that he
will not bear any weapon in the conflict but will act as the charioteer and advisor of Arjuna,
Yudhiṣṭhira’s younger brother who is the greatest warrior in the Pāṇḍava host.
The Bhagavad-gītā’s opening chapter continues the Mahābhārata’s narrative by describing how
the warriors of both sides blew their conch shells in order to show their defiance of their foes.
Arjuna then asks Kṛṣṇa to drive their chariot to the expanse of land between the two armies so
that he can survey the enemies against whom he must contend. On seeing the opposing party,
however, Arjuna suffers a crisis of resolve. The elders of his family are arrayed against him and
he is unwilling to strike them down with his mighty shafts. He tells Kṛṣṇa that in his view the
killing of respected elders is always a sin. It cannot be dharma, for in families where the elders
are opposed or killed there is no hope for dharma to prevail. In his view this action is a great
sin (pāpa) and anyone who does such a thing is destined for rebirth in hell (naraka).
Kṛṣṇa begins his response to Arjuna in Chapter 2 of the Gītā. He first criticises him for his
weakness (verses 1 and 2) and then makes use of Kaṭha Upaniṣad’s teachings in pointing out that
death is just an illusion. Only the body dies and the true self is reborn in some other condition
of life; death is certain for all and so he should not grieve for the illusory appearance of death
(verses 11-30). Kṛṣṇa then reminds Arjuna of his birth as a kṣatriya, a member of the royal order,
which dictates his own personal dharma (sva-dharma). He is a warrior and hence his dharma
is to fight (verses 31-38). From this point in Chapter 2 up until the end of Chapter 5, Kṛṣṇa then
teaches the first really major concept of the Bhagavad-gītā as a response to Arjuna’s predica-
ment. Arjuna had felt certain that the terrible acts of violence he was about to perpetrate must
be sinful, but Kṛṣṇa reveals that the wickedness or otherwise of an action depends not just on
the action itself but on the consciousness with which it is performed, and more specifically on
the motivation through which it is undertaken. If an action is performed on the basis of selfish
desire then it is designated as karma, and in the future one must suffer or enjoy the results of
that action. This is the law of karma, by which sinful deeds lead to suffering in a future life.
Moreover, there is no possibility of attaining mokṣa, liberation from rebirth, whilst one contin-
ues to exist within the purview of karma. The results of action must be undergone and the soul is
therefore bound to the cycle of rebirth in order to experience the fruits of action (karma-phala).
Kṛṣṇa reveals, however, that the law of karma applies in relation to the motivation rather than
the physical action and that where an action is performed just as duty (kāryam karma) then
there is no future reaction and the path to mokṣa is thereby opened up. Where selfish or desirous
motivation is not present, then karma becomes akarma and is in fact the true way that action

3
 God in the Gita

and its results can be renounced. This is the Gītā’s doctrine of karma-yoga, which teaches how
a person can live in the world performing his social and familial duties whilst at the same time
pursuing the goal of mokṣa, just as a sādhu or bhikṣu does.
For Buddhists, Jains and some other groups, liberation from rebirth is possible only for the
holy man who severs all his connections with the world and lives as a renunciant or monk in a
monastery. But in the Gītā, Kṛṣṇa challenges this view and shows how mokṣa can become the
goal even for one who is fully involved in the world. This is because it is not action itself that
binds one to rebirth but the consciousness that lies behind action. Hence the ideal practitioner
of this karma-yoga proceeds through life fulfilling all the duties that sva-dharma dictates whilst
remaining aloof and untouched by the changing fortunes of life. When his actions are frustrated
he does not lament and when he is successful he does not rejoice, for he is acting in the spirit of
renunciation. He does not renounce the action itself, but he is indifferent to the results of action.
At the end of Chapter 5, we find an abrupt change in the line of discourse as Kṛṣṇa begins
to speak about the Yoga system that is most completely explained by the sage Patañjali in his
Yoga Sūtras. This form of Yoga involves sitting in a fixed posture, stilling the senses, and gaining
mastery over the mind. At the beginning of Chapter 6, Krishna explains that the Yoga based on
karma, or action, is for beginners, but those who are more advanced go on to pursue the path
of tranquillity. In the remainder of the chapter this Yoga of meditation is outlined, with the
conclusion being that the controlled mind should be turned inwards so that direct perception
of the ātman can be acquired. When the mind is mastered, it can be directed wherever one wills
it to dwell, and the adept in Yoga can thereby bring his consciousness into direct contact with
the eternal ātman and thus acquire the realised knowledge ( jñāna) the Upaniṣads speak of as
the means of achieving mokṣa.
At the end of Chapter 6, Arjuna responds by saying that in his view it is easier to control the
wind than to still the mind, but Kṛṣṇa insists that by constant practice and renunciation it is
possible. Continuing the same theme, Arjuna then asks about a person who starts out on the
path of Yoga but fails to gain success; what happens in such a case (vs 37-39)? Kṛṣṇa replies
that the failed yogin can resume his endeavours in the next life, for whatever progress has been
made is not lost and he will be reborn in a favourable situation and can then attain the highest
goal, parāṁ gatim (verse 46).
The final verse of the sixth chapter sees the Bhagavad-gītā making another dramatic turn
and it is here that the main subject matter of this course begins. In the final verse of Chapter
6 (verse 47), Kṛṣṇa follows up his assertion that the yogin attains the highest goal by stating
that the best yogin of all is one who absorbs his inner self in Kṛṣṇa and worships Kṛṣṇa with
faith, bhajate . . . mām. This notion of worshipping the Deity is a marked departure from the
chapter’s earlier teachings on knowledge of the true self, and from this point on the Gītā begins
its extensive discourse on the nature of the Supreme Deity and the religious path based on the
worship of that Deity, which leads to mokṣa through the grace of God rather than through one’s
personal achievement.
Chapter 7 deals almost exclusively with this idea and even when the discussion turns back
towards Yoga practice in Chapter 8, Kṛṣṇa still includes devotion to God as a focal point of
those teachings. In Chapter 9 again, Kṛṣṇa explains his own identity as the Supreme Deity who
sustains the whole world, and recommends worship of himself as the best form of religion. This
line of discourse is continued into Chapter 10 until Arjuna proclaims that he accepts the truth
of Kṛṣṇa’s divinity and then asks how that divine nature can be perceived by one who lives in
this world. The second half of the tenth chapter consists of Kṛṣṇa’s poetic description of how
he can be recognised in the glorious manifestations of his creation. Chapter 11 opens with a
further request from Arjuna, now asking that he be permitted to see directly Kṛṣṇa’s pervasive
presence within the created world. This is followed by the dramatic revelation of the viśva-rūpa,
the form of God that includes the entire creation. The short Chapter 12 really concludes the

4
 Session One

Gītā’s teachings on the nature of God and on worship of the Deity; it provides a description of
the ideal demeanour for a worshipper along with the significant revelation of the relationship
of love that exists between the Deity and those who revere him.
The final six of the Bhagavad-gītā’s eighteen chapters have no single consistent theme, but
rather touch on a number of different topics before revisiting the main ideas of the earlier chap-
ters. Chapter 13 contains a Sāṁkhya-based discussion of matter, of knowledge, of the higher
self that is to be known, and then of the relationship between prakṛti and puruṣa, nature and
the soul, that is kept bound within it. In Chapter 14, we have a discussion of the three qualities
or guṇas — sattva, rajas and tamas — which pervade and shape the material sphere. Chapter
15 refers to the soul as a part of the Deity, describes the presence of the Deity within this world,
and in its final passage contains a highly significant account of the relationship between the
soul and God.
Chapter 16 begins with a moral treatise that describes the qualities found in good and evil
persons, before discussing at some length the nature and fate of those who are wicked-minded.
Chapter 17 uses the concept of the three guṇas to describe the different types of food, sacri-
fice, austerity and charity, and this discussion is continued into the first part of Chapter 18 in
relation to renunciation, knowledge, action, the performer of action, intelligence, resolve and
pleasure. Inherent in this account is a reassertion of the previous idea of karma-yoga, where
the best form of action is that which is performed without selfish desire. In its final passages,
the Gītā then returns to its previous points, first noting karma-yoga (verses 45 to 49) then the
Yoga of meditation described in Chapter 6 (verses 50 to 53), and then returning to its emphasis
on devotion to God as the best of all spiritual paths.
It is thus apparent that the notion of a personal Deity who is to be worshipped by human
beings is one of the major strands of thought presented in the Bhagavad-gītā, and this idea is
one that is of immense significance within the Hindu tradition as a whole. This emphasis on God
and devotion to God seems to set the Gītā somewhat apart from the Upaniṣads and the Vedānta
Sūtras, although much of its teaching is derived from ideas originally found in the Upaniṣads. It
is also apparent that although one might properly refer to the Bhagavad-gītā as a monotheistic
work, its monotheism is rather different from that typically encountered in the Abrahamic
faiths of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. And when one considers Hindu religious doctrine as
a whole, it is immediately apparent that the Gītā will provide support for theistic teachers such
as Rāmānuja and Madhva who emphasise God as a personal Deity, and perhaps present certain
problems for those like Śaṅkara who propound the Advaitic notion of absolute unity between
Brahman and the individual ātman.

The Commentators
Before we begin our consideration of specific passages from the Bhagavad-gītā, let us first
look briefly at the commentators whose works we will be making use of. Taken together, these
three great teachers of religion offer ideas that span the whole range of Hindu concepts on the
nature of God and demonstrate the uniqueness of the Hindu tradition in its ability to incorpo-
rate diversity of doctrine. Not only are Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Madhva major interpreters of
Hindu sacred texts, but they are also great teachers of religion who perhaps more than anyone
else have established the main pillars of the Hindu belief system(s).

Śaṅkarācārya and the Advaita Vedānta

According to tradition, Śaṅkara was a Nambudiri Brahmin born in Sringeri in Kerala in the
south west of India. The dates for his life are somewhat uncertain but are usually set at 788 to
820 AD, a span of only 32 years. In the course of his influential preaching work he produced
commentaries on Vedānta Sūtras, most of the principal Upaniṣads and the Bhagavad-gītā.
For Śaṅkara, the Veda is an undoubted source of authority but when full realisation is attained

5
 God in the Gita

there is no longer any need for Vedic teachings. The liberated self exists in a state of absolute
unity with Brahman and hence is inherently possessed of full knowledge. Śaṅkara teaches that
there are two fundamental levels of reality, the phenomenal world that is created by the Deity
and the absolute domain in which only Brahman exists. Only this absolute domain of Brahman
is truly real; the phenomenal world that we experience is not wholly unreal but it is not the
ultimate reality. Hence our existence here is a form of illusion, designated as māyā. Ultimately
the world does not exist; only Brahman is real. All our perception of different persons and dif-
ferent objects is thus based on a misunderstanding of their true identity. They are not things and
they are not persons we can name and identify, they are Brahman and Brahman alone. Even the
notion of a personal God, such as Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa or Śiva, is ultimately an illusion. Though devotion
to a Deity might be a useful spiritual exercise, in the higher stages of spiritual realisation one
moves from namaḥ śivāya, ‘I worhip Śiva’ to śivo ‘ham, ‘I am Śiva’, for neither my own identity
nor that of Śiva exist on the level of ultimate reality. When the avidyā (ignorance) is removed,
one realises that there is only Brahman. Hence Śaṅkara is known as the teacher of Advaita,
non-dualism, for there is only Brahman and no second substance.
Śaṅkara’s system of thought, however, is not merely theoretical. Above all else, he is concerned
with gaining release from the cycle of rebirth. For Śaṅkara (as for the Upaniṣads and passages
of the Gītā) the key to this release is jñāna, pure realised knowledge of one’s true identity as
Brahman. When one fully realises one’s identity as Brahman, then one exists as Brahman and
not as the conditioned entity that appears to undergo the illusion of existence in this world. In
fact it is not our state of existence that is changed, for the liberated soul does not move to some
form of heaven but to a proper consciousness of our identity and our existence. We exist as that
which we realise ourselves to be.
Śaṅkara was not the originator of the concept of Advaita, which is stressed repeatedly
throughout many of the major Upaniṣads. However, it was Śaṅkara who took what are essen-
tially mystical realisations of unity and formulated them into a consistent belief system, which is
ultimately non-theistic (though it does not deny the validity of worshipping a Deity) in its denial
of any ultimate reality to the notion of a Supreme Deity. Where Śaṅkara is commenting on the
Gītā, however, his interpretations can be problematic, for the Gītā expresses an emphasis on
theism and devotion that is absent from the Upaniṣads and Vedānta Sūtras. Moreover, Śaṅkara is
adamant that liberation is achieved through knowledge alone and that works do not form a part
of the path to liberation. This becomes problematic when he is discussing the Bhagavad-gītā’s
teachings on karma-yoga, which seem to present a different perspective on the role of action.
In his commentaries, Śaṅkara is then obliged to insist that such teachings apply only to those
who are at a lower stage of spiritual progression and who are still under the influence of avidyā,
a point that does not appear to concur completely with the Gītā’s ideas.

Rāmānuja and the Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta

According to the traditions of the Tamil Vaiṣṇavas, Rāmānujācārya lived from 1018 to 1138
CE. He was born into a family of worshippers of Viṣṇu and remained true to this religious ori-
entation throughout his life. As with Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja’s thought is complex and far ranging
but in essence he may be regarded as having completed three tasks: a refutation of Śaṅkara
who predated him by several centuries, an explanation of the relationship between God and
the individual soul, and a demonstration of the idea that the path of bhakti, devotion, is the
most effective means of gaining liberation from rebirth. In the process of achieving these goals,
Rāmānuja establishes his philosophy of viśiṣṭādvaita, oneness that is not absolute identity.
Hence it could be argued that Rāmānuja’s philosophy is not advaita at all, for in the final
analysis a clear distinction is drawn between the Deity and the individual soul. Throughout his
writings and in the records of his encounters with other teachers, Rāmānuja endeavoured to
show the shortcomings in Śaṅkara’s thought, for he will not accept that Viṣṇu and the ātman are

6
 Session One

absolutely non-different, or indeed that the variety of the world that we perceive is an illusion.
If that were the case, then love of God would also be an illusion because of the duality implied
by that relationship.
Rāmānuja argues that in teaching his doctrine of absolute unity, Śaṅkara has misunderstood
the true meaning of the scriptures. The inner self is a part of God, as revealed by the Gītā (15.7),
but there is no absolute identity between the part and the whole. The world consists of a combi-
nation of matter and spirit, but the Supreme Deity is both present within and also beyond these
categories as their absolute controller. Just as the ātman gives life to the body and controls all its
movements, so the Deity gives life to the world and has absolute power over it. The qualification
(viśiṣṭa) to the oneness (advaita) is that of independence and dependence. The Supreme Deity
who is Viṣṇu (usually referred to as Nārāyaṇa by Rāmānuja) is wholly independent, whereas
the ātman is wholly dependent on the Lord; herein lies the viśiṣṭa, the qualification to the unity.
This state of dependence extends to the quest for mokṣa and even beyond its attainment. For
Rāmānuja, devotion to Nārāyaṇa is the true path to mokṣa, for devotion invokes the grace of the
Deity. The gaining of mokṣa is a task so difficult that it is almost impossible. Therefore the cor-
rect path is prapatti, absolute surrender to God, begging him to use his greater power to grant
mokṣa as a gift of grace. Rāmānuja refers to this as bhāra-samarpaṇa, transferring the burden.
If we pray to Nārāyaṇa with sincerity, he will agree to take the burden of attaining mokṣa from
us, and his grace will overcome all the barriers that exist. And mokṣa does not mean a loss of
personal identity, as Śaṅkara contends, in which we exist as Brahman alone. Bhakti continues
after mokṣa, and hence there must be a continuation of individual existence to perpetuate the
relationship of love and mercy. Very few of these ideas are to be found in the Upaniṣads and
Vedānta Sūtras and as a commentator Rāmānuja has to work hard at producing an interpretation
of these texts. With the Bhagavad-gītā, however, he is on firmer ground, as it seems to share
many of his principal ideas and in particular his emphasis on grace and devotion.

Madhva and the Dvaita Vedānta

Like Rāmānuja, Madhvācārya was a Vaiṣṇava for whom the monist concepts perpetuated by
Śaṅkara were utterly abhorrent. In fact the Madhva sect regards Śaṅkara as an asura (a demonic
enemy of the gods), born on earth with the specific aim of destroying dharma in its true devo-
tional form. Madhva was probably born in 1238 CE near to the town of Udupi on India’s south
west coast and lived until 1317. As a student, he made extensive studies of scriptural works
and their commentaries (bhāṣyas), including those of Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja. For Madhva both
these theologians were misguided in construing any sort of identity between the self and God,
though obviously Śaṅkara’s error was greater than that of Rāmānuja. Like Rāmānuja, Madhva
regards devotion to the Supreme Deity as the true form of religious life and mokṣa as a gift of
grace granted by the Deity. These ideas reflect Madhva’s Vaiṣṇava ideals, though his worship is
frequently directed towards Viṣṇu’s appearance on earth as Kṛṣṇa, and he accepts the Bhāga-
vata Purāṇa as an important scripture, with its extensive narrations about Kṛṣṇa’s youth as a
cowherd boy.
Madhva contends that as the Supreme Deity is inconceivable to the human mind, pratyakṣa
(perception) and anumāna (inference) are both useless in gaining knowledge of God. Such
knowledge can be gained only through śabda, scriptures such as the Upaniṣads, Vedānta Sūtras,
Bhagavad-gītā and the Purāṇas. Where the Upaniṣads and Vedānta Sūtras talk of Brahman as
the absolute truth, these passages should be understood as references to Viṣṇu although they
do not fully describe his personal attributes. The Supreme Deity possesses both a form and
personality, but these are not like those experienced in this world for they are entirely spiritual.
Three categories of existence can be identified: the Supreme Deity, the individual ātman,
and matter (īśvara, ātman and prakṛti), and each of these is entirely distinct from the others.
Any attempt to identify the individual self with the Supreme Deity is a gross error and a form

7
 God in the Gita

of blasphemy, for the Deity is eternally perfect whilst the ātman has the potential to fall under
the control of matter. It is because of his insistence on the absolute distinction between the self
and God that Madhva’s philosophy is designated as the Dvaita Vedānta, dvaita meaning dual
(and in fact arising from the same linguistic root as ‘dual’). He further argued against Śaṅka-
ra’s idea that the world is ultimately non-real. Although accepting the absolute authority of
scripture, Madhva insists that the word of scripture cannot be interpreted in such a way that
it goes against the evidence of direct perception. The world and the individuality of the ātman
are real, self-evidently so, and if scripture appears to say something different then it must be
the case that our reading of scripture is wrong.
Madhva teaches that Viṣṇu creates the world and is the source of all souls, but he remains
entirely distinct from it and from them; he is not in any way transformed into this existence as
Rāmānuja contends. The creation is in fact an act of grace for it provides a means through which
the individual souls can achieve his blessing and thereby escape from the control of matter. As
Rāmānuja also teaches, mokṣa does not imply any merging with the existence of God, this is by
definition impossible, but rather an ascent to the realm of Viṣṇu where one remains eternally
as his devotee. In line with his relegation of the status of the ātman away from identity with
the divine, Madhva takes up an unusual position in Hindu thought by arguing that not all souls
are of the same inherent nature and are in fact conditioned by the three guṇas, sattva, rajas
and tamas, the essential qualities of matter. Only the sattvic souls are capable of gaining mokṣa,
whilst those under the sway of rajas and tamas are destined to remain eternally within this
world with no possibility of release.
For the sattvic soul, good works and the progressive stages of bhakti ensure progress towards
the state of divine grace. Although Viṣṇu is omniscient and has absolute control over the world,
he grants free will to the living beings by voluntarily suspending a small portion of his omnip-
otence, but because this is a voluntary expression of divine mercy it in no way compromises
the notion of absolute omnipotence.
During his lifetime, Madhva was an aggressive polemicist who sought to destroy the influence
of Śaṅkara’s doctrines and also that of Jain philosophy. He claimed to be a descent of Vāyu, the
wind god, acting in the same way as previous descents such as Hanumān and Bhīma by assisting
the mission of Viṣṇu on earth through aggressive preaching. Clearly there is a major theological
division between Madhva and Śaṅkara, which significantly influences all areas of religious life.
It is hence all the more remarkable that both these teachers should regard the Bhagavad-gītā
as a text which propounds their own specific doctrines.

Śaṅkara and the Bhagavad-gītā

The Bhagavad-gītā provides a certain degree of obvious support for Śaṅkara but also some very
real problems. Whereas the Upaniṣads and Vedānta Sūtras tend to emphasise the unity of all
existence and the need for true knowledge to dispel illusion and produce enlightenment, the
Gītā emphasises devotion to a personal God, a respect for ritual action, and the superiority of
bhakti over other means of attaining mokṣa. We should emphasise that Śaṅkara’s commentary
is still extremely popular amongst learned Hindu scholars and many will understand the Gītā
entirely in accordance with his Advaitic interpretations.
In line with Śaṅkara’s teachings, the Gītā stresses a distinction between the self and matter,
displays a world-denying emphasis on renunciation, reveals the supreme truth as that which is
all things, and in certain places seems to indicate the divine nature of the ātman. On the other
hand, the Gītā does not argue that the world is unreal and does not appear to accept that ritual
acts must be abandoned in the final stage of the path to mokṣa. Furthermore, it tends to define
the world in terms of Sāṁkhya rather than Advaita and with its emphasis on liberation through
divine grace seems to confirm that bhakti is the best means.
It is on these latter points that Śaṅkara is perhaps seen at his best, for to his credit he has

8
 Session One

provided a plausible interpretation of these ideas that has proved acceptable to generations of
Hindu thinkers. We should recall that he teaches the idea of there being two levels of reality,
and so when the Bhagavad-gītā speaks of a personal Deity, he takes this as referring to the
conventional world rather than the ultimate reality, or else he simply equates the Deity, who
is Kṛṣṇa himself, with the ātman which is Brahman. The problems he faces are sometimes
overcome by creative interpretations of word meaning, by the suggestion that the Gītā teaches
various stages on a single spiritual path, and by arguing that Arjuna is not yet ready for the
highest stage of spiritual life. He also points to the Gītā’s declaration of the identity between
Kṛṣṇa and the ātman and argues that statements relating to absolute devotion to Kṛṣṇa can
be understood as suggesting a process of dedication to discovering one’s own inner self rather
than worship of an external Deity.
It is interesting to note that in his Gītā commentary Śaṅkara does not engage in any extended
debate against dualist thought such as that presented by Rāmānuja and Madhva in later centuries.
We may think that this is because dualist Vedānta was not such a significant force in Śaṅkara’s
time, but it is a fact that he does go to some length to criticise dualism in his commentary on
the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, and we can only presume that he saw the Bhagavad-gītā as a text of a
different nature that did not naturally lend itself towards a refutation of theistic ideas. Of greater
concern to Śaṅkara is the suggestion that the Gītā might support a jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda,
the theory that liberation is gained through a combination of knowledge and proper action. The
Gītā’s idea of a karma-yoga could be taken as confirming that view and hence in a number of his
verse commentaries Śaṅkara goes to some length to refute the view that religious acts such as
the Vedic ritual are efficacious in opening the way towards liberation from rebirth, and this is
one of the principal themes of his commentary.
We must be aware that there is genuine scope for varying interpretations of many passages
from the Bhagavad-gītā, which can legitimately be understood from the perspective of any one of
the three commentators. What Śaṅkara insists is that in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa is presenting
a progressive path towards mokṣa. Arjuna is a man of the world, not a saint or holy man, and
hence he needs to begin his spiritual quest at an appropriate point. It is for this reason that Kṛṣṇa
first offers him karma-yoga and then the way of bhakti. Both these ideals are praised profusely
in the Gītā because they are a stage on the recommended path, and it is essential for Arjuna
to recognise their worth. However, this praise should not be misinterpreted as meaning that
these are the ultimate phases of spiritual life, for if the text were saying this it would not only
be contradicting the śruti (i.e. the Upaniṣads), but also its own meaning expressed elsewhere.
By approaching the Gītā in this way, ascribing ultimate importance to passages that seem to
confirm his doctrine of Advaita and only relative status to those that do not, Śaṅkara is able to
offer a commentary that is in line with his own beliefs and, in his defence, more compatible with
the overall perspective of the Upaniṣads. However, many will feel that in achieving this goal he
has moved somewhat away from the more overt meaning of the text itself.

Rāmānuja and the Bhagavad-gītā

Following his predecessor, Yāmunācārya, Rāmānuja divides the structure of the Gītā into
three phases: chapters 1 to 6, chapters 7 to 12, and finally 13 to 18. For Rāmānuja, the first six
chapters show a progressive development towards full knowledge of the spiritual reality of the
true self. Thus we first have a theoretical exposition on the transcendent nature of the ātman
(2.11-30), then on the doctrine of karma-yoga (2.39-72 and Chapters 3, 4 and 5), and finally on
jñāna-yoga, the means of attaining direct realisation of the self, which is explained in Chapter
6. Hence karma-yoga leads to jñāna, knowledge, and this knowledge is the platform for bhakti
(a complete inversion of Śaṅkara’s scheme). The middle section of the Gītā then explains the
nature of God and the role of devotion and divine grace in the attainment of mokṣa. According
to Rāmānuja, the final six chapters provide a clarification of the previous exposition, explaining

9
 God in the Gita

again the relationship between the soul and its material embodiment, and the position of the
Supreme Deity beyond both these categories.
There is, I think, a very real sense in which viśiṣṭādvaita is derived directly from the Bhaga-
vad-gītā, and that the rest of Rāmānuja’s commentaries represent an attempt to demonstrate
that the ideas of the Upaniṣads and Vedānta Sūtras are compatible with the Gītā. There are cer-
tain key verses in the Gītā that would seem to confirm Rāmānuja’s idea of a progression from
karma-yoga to jñāna-yoga and then this realised knowledge being the basis from which bhakti
begins. The absolute dominion of the Deity over all categories of existence is suggested in 7.7
and 15.15-20, whilst in 10.8 the phrase mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate means exactly, ‘everything
comes into being from me’, with no suggestion that the world designated by the word sarvam
is unreal or an illusion.
We will also recall Rāmānuja’s idea that the world and the living beings are to be regarded
as the body of the Deity, just as the individual soul is the life-giving force within the individual
body. This notion, I would suggest, is derived from Arjuna’s vision described in Chapter 11 of
the Bhagavad-gītā in which Kṛṣṇa is revealed as that which is all things, the viśva-rūpa. And
perhaps the most striking feature of Rāmānuja’s religious thought, his insistence that mokṣa
can be attained as a gift of divine grace, is also a theme pursued by Kṛṣṇa. Rāmānuja uses words
such as śaraṇa (shelter) and prapatti (surrender) to designate this idea. If we read through
verses such as 7.14, 12.6-7 and 18.66, we will find that precise idea enunciated and even the
same Sanskrit vocabulary being employed.
It is interesting to note that despite the Bhagavad-gītā’s affording him the opportunity to do so
on more than one occasion, Rāmānuja does not pursue the notion of prapatti in any great depth
in his commentary. We might look in particular at 18.66 in which Kṛṣṇa instructs Arjuna that
he should set aside all the different forms of dharma and simply find shelter with Kṛṣṇa. This
verse would seem to provide ample opportunity for Rāmānuja to pursue his ideal of surrender
and absolute dependence on God, but he refrains from doing so. My suspicion is that this notion
of prapatti is one that is derived primarily from the devotional sentiments of the Alvars, the
Tamil Vaiṣṇava poets, and that as a commentator on this revered text he was most anxious to
portray his identity as an established ācārya of Vedānta.
In fact, Rāmānuja’s Gītā Bhāṣya is notable for its lack of polemics against other schools of
Vedānta, and particularly the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. For the most part he seeks simply
to offer an elucidation of the meaning of the text at each stage of its progression. The exceptions
to this are in his commentaries on verse 12 of Chapter 2 and verse 2 of Chapter 13, in which he
does offer a detailed refutation of Advaita Vedānta, but even here there is nothing on the scale
that we find on the opening sūtra of his Vedānta Sūtras commentary. He does take the oppor-
tunities presented to emphasise his doctrine of viśiṣṭādvaita but rarely in a polemical manner,
perhaps because the Bhagavad-gītā itself seems to offer ideas that are quite close to his own
understanding of the nature of God.

Madhva and the Bhagavad-gītā

Madhva wrote two separate commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā, the Gītā Bhāṣya and the Gītā
Tātparya. Madhva is renowned for his encyclopaedic knowledge of sacred texts and his erudi-
tion in Sanskrit grammar (hence one of his epithets is Pūrnaprajña, complete in knowledge).
His Gītā commentaries are notable for their word-by-word precision in attempting to establish
the exact meaning of the verses he considers, and also for the wide range of cross-references
he provides. Madhva is also very useful in highlighting links between verses from different
chapters of the Bhagavad-gītā, both in terms of meaning and also the language used. As with
Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja, Madhva approaches the Gītā from a particular perspective and is anx-
ious to demonstrate that its ideas are completely in accordance with his own theological and
philosophical persuasions.

10
 Session One

Hence his commentary emphasises the Bhagavad-gītā’s monotheism and rejects any possible
implications of the monism Śaṅkara detects in establishing his Advaitic reading of the text. For
Madhva, the Gītā reveals that Kṛṣṇa, who is a form of Viṣṇu, is an unlimited Deity, omnipotent
and completely independent. The living beings, by way of contrast, are completely distinct from
the Deity and wholly dependent upon him. They possess the same spiritual nature as God, but
in this they represent no more than a reflection of the Supreme and there is no sense of identity.
Knowledge is an essential requirement for liberation, and ritual acts alone will not suffice. They
are valuable only in as much as they can lead to knowledge. However, the attainment of knowl-
edge does not mean that ritual acts should be abandoned, and even renunciants who possess
true knowledge should continue their ritual duties. Ultimately, however, liberation depends on
the grace of God alone, and human endeavour can never lead to release from rebirth. Madhva
also rejects the idea of the jīvan-mukta, one who has attained the state of mokṣa whilst existing
in this world. Liberation is only possible beyond the confines of the material domain. Moreover,
many of the living entities existing in this world can never attain liberation, and indeed some
are destined for eternal damnation. Madhva does not accept Śaṅkara’s view of Arjuna’s status
as a neophyte on the spiritual path, necessitating the teaching of different stages of advance-
ment. For Madhva, Arjuna is a jñānin who already possesses a true understanding of reality.
And finally we may note Madhva’s insistence on the absolute authority of the Vedic texts, which
causes certain difficulties where he considers verses from the Gītā’s second chapter that are
somewhat critical of the followers of the Vedic rituals.
Clearly some of these ideas are easier to establish from the Bhagavad-gītā than others. Madhva,
however, employs all the skills of an erudite commentator in attempting to convince his read-
ers firstly of the Gītā’s resolute monotheism and secondly that it propounds all the points of
doctrine outlined above. In achieving this, he makes expert use of his expansive knowledge of
Sanskrit scriptures, and in many cases draws in references from the Purāṇas to support his
case. At times he also resorts to speculative etymologies and interpretations that do not reflect
the more obvious meaning of the verse in question.
As we noted above, Madhva’s theology insists on an absolute distinction between the ātman
and the Deity, the former being no more than a reflection of the latter. However, the Gītā’s mon-
otheism seems to display rather obvious monistic tendencies at times in identifying the inner
self with the Deity, as, for example, in 13.2. Such verses provide a test for Madhva’s skill as a
commentator, but he gets around this difficulty by interpreting the word ātman as referring to
the paramātman, a manifestation of God that is entirely distinct from the individual jīvātman.
We might also feel that Madhva’s insistence on the possibility of eternal damnation is at odds
with the general tenor of Indian religious thought. Here, however, a careful reading of the Gītā’s
sixteenth chapter, and verse 20 in particular, does seem to indicate that Madhva is not diverging
too dramatically from his text.

11