Biblebhashyam . An Indian Biblical Quaterly. VI (1980) 335-357. ________________________________________________________

Dharma as Delight in Cosmic Welfare : A Study of Dharma in the Gita

Francis X. D'Sa, S.J. Dharma is a cosmotheandric reality The birth of a new experience is celebrated by baptizing it with a new name Unlike names of human beings, which to a great extent are designative, names of experiences are evocative. Whereas the former tend to be considered almost as terms the latter are words, i.e. smaller worlds within the Cosmos of Language.1 However in spite of the specifically different natures of terms and words, the history of Language, especially of Religious Language, shows how even words are reduced to terms when the experience which occasioned them is no more. The word Dharma is no exception to this rule and it is not at all surprising that its richness has been overlooked in the blinding concerns of pragmatic life. For Dharma has been associated with the sarita of Ritual and Religion but rarely with its atma!2 Dharma is a comprehensive word and generally means holding, holding together, bearing, sustaining and maintaining;3 It connotes the 'Source' of this holding, holding together, etc. The locus of Dharma is the 'being' that is held together and which manifests itself through the specific 'dharmah', Constitutive of its nature. And finally this being, in order to be what it is, that is, in order to be 'true' to itself has to realise its own Dharma (svadharma-). Hence to speak of Dharma is to refer not merely to Man's ethical and ritual practices but much more to the Nature and the Source of his very being. Dharma comprehends the Origin, the development, the interactivity and the final fulfilment of Man and his World. To mention any one of these is implicitly or 'operatively' (exercite) to include the others, much the same way as when one explicitly talks about any one human

activity (say sleeping or eating) and implicitly presupposes the whole organic being of Man. In what follows this should become clear. If I have taken the Gita as the basis of my study it is because its understanding of Dharma is more integral and illuminating than that of the Dharma-sastra-s.4 For in the Gita Dharma includes the ontic, the ethico-moral, the sociological and the mystical layers of Man's being. Though the Gita makes a clear distinction between these they are not discrete. There is among them an interconnectedness and an interactivity that does not permit us to separate any one of them from the others. An understanding of any one presupposes, of necessity, the others; and because of this each is only a partial understanding of a larger whole. Moreover the Gita expressions for the Mystery of Isvara show that one cannot speak of 'It' in 'object-ive' terms5 (as when we speak of 'objects' like earth, water, fire and air: 7,4-7); rather whenever we speak of 'objects' we are also speaking out simultaneously this Mystery which, like the thread holding together the pearls, holds them together from within (7.7cd).6 All this is only by way of positing a thesis. As we proceed we shall put forward the evidence for this from the Gita-Text Itself. The Dharma of the Gita is a protest against kula-dharma-s and jati-Dharma-s The Gita has to be understood as protesting against the common way of looking at Dharma. The accepted interpretation of Dharma is portrayed here as leading to an apparently insoluble dilemma: on the one hand as a Ksatriya one has to fight for justice and this is the consequence of the jati-dharma-s; and on the other, one may not kill one's relatives (svajana-) and teachers, and this is inculcated by the kula-dharma-s. It would be a misreading of the Poem to conclude that Arjuna was a conscientious objector against war. Arjuna's problem was not war but the slaying of his relatives whom he considered as the foundation of the ksatriya-caste (which in turn was thought to be the bulwark of the whole caste-system). To kill his relatives would lead to the destruction of the total caste-system. How? Arjuna's relatives were the Rulers and Leaders of the people. If they were

killed, their wives would be forced to marry outside their caste and this would mean the end of the rigid casteseparation! If the preservation of the caste-system is Arjuna's aim, preservation of his relatives is his objective towards achieving this aim. But (and herein lies the dilemma) this evidently goes against his jati-dharma-s, for as a Ksatriya he has to fight for justice irrespective of whom he has to fight against.7 It is against such a caricature of Dharma that the Gita is protesting. For in an understanding like this there is no room for Moksa, as is obvious from Arjuna's reasoning which is based on the fear of naraka (1.42,44). In a system where Moksa has no place, that which is relative comes to be absolutized, for Moksa is liberation from the Relative. If then the search for Moksa which manifests itself in a radical openness towards the Absolute is wanting, then the Relative usurps its place. In the end this is what Arjuna's understanding of Dharma leads to, because it absolutizes the kula-dharma-s and the jati-dharma-s. The Gita corrects this is two ways: first by pointing to a genuine experience of Dharma (always used in the singular by the Lord) and second by asking Arjuna to give up all the (kula-and jati-) Dharma-s (always used in the plural by Arjuna!). The first is done throughout the Gita and the second in the last verse of its didactic part.8 Hollstic view of Bondage The Gita's approach to Arjuna's dilemma is holistic! It does not encourage a viewpoint which considers something (or someone) as significant and the rest as insignificant. A world view which permits such black-holes of insignificance is necessarily partial and this the Gita would reject without more ado, because of its holistic attitude towards Reality.9 This attitude of the Gita is concretized in its understanding of Dharma. It is such Dharma that leads to Moksa (total liberation), and Adharma to Bandhana (total bondage). In the Gita world-view there is nothing which is so individualized that it does not have its cosmic aspect. This is eminently true both of Moksa and Bandhana. It is not the case that Man alone is in bondage and that this bondage has nothing to do with the Cosmos.The whole of the Cosmos is in bondage; because of this the whole of the Cosmos is metaphor-ized into a human being in bondage! It is looked upon as a Man

who is egotized, tainted with egoism.10 The Meaning of the cosmic Ego (ahankara-) is precisely this: analogous to Man in bondage we have the Cosmos in bondage (7.4). This is made quite clear a little further on in the same Chapter: Parantapa (=Arjuna), all beings-and-happenings (sarvabhutani) acquire a false sense of values (sam- moha-) at the time of their emanation: [this is] due to the attraction (-fascination) of the dualities arising from desire and dislike. 7.27 Dualities like desire and dislike affect every part of the Cosmos. Man converts the physical phenomenon of attraction and repulsion into moral realities like desire and dislike which are not limited to any one particular object. Moreover since objects are really part of a larger Whole (=Prakrti or the lower Nature of the Supreme Lord), when one part is affected the Whole is also affected. This might seem a bit far fetched. But the ahankaric effects in our Cosmos are clearly discernible from human misery to destruction of flora and fauna, and to aircontamination. The ultimate root-cause of all this, the Gita says, is to be located in desire and dislike. And if it is admitted that every Karma has of its nature a cosmic effect, then it should not be difficult to concede that every ahankaric Karma too 'pollutes' the Cosmos by disseminating the Ahankara. Because Man's activity has a cosmic dimension, his selfishness is not limited to his being or to that of his immediate surroundings but pervades the Cosmos as such. This pervasion is manifested in ahankaric value-systems that are incarnated in our socio-economic patterns and practices. Indeed it is here that one begins to see how insidious and infinitely ramified our bondage is which no amount of private Perfection can heal. The effects of the Ahankara are cosmic and the remedy, if it is to be relevant, has to be of the same order.11 It is here that Lokasangraha as the Dharma of the Cosmos comes in. Only when every part, especially Man, contributes towards Lokasangraha will the Welfare of both the Whole and the parts be guaranteed. Dharma implies a 'being held-together in being'!

Then there is the Other, the Imperishable Lord, the Supreme Purusa called the Paramatma Who entering- into-and-pervading the three worlds holds-together- bears-and-supports (bibharti) [them all]. 15.17 By Me, Unmanifest in from, all this universe was spun; in Me subsist all beings, I do not subsist in t them. And [yet] contingent beings do not subsist in Me, - behold my sovereign skill-in-works (yoga): my Self sustains [all] beings, (bhutabhrn). It does not subsist in them. It causes them to be-and- grow (bhuta-bhavanah) (R. Zaehner's Translation) 9.4-5 Higher than I there is nothing whatsoever: on Me this universe is strung like clustered pearls upon a thread. (Zaehner's Translation) 7.7cd These and similar verses amply illustrate the idea of being held-together in being. In different ways the Gita insists that there is nothing what-soever that can exist without the Supreme Lord, that nothing comes into being without Him, that He is the origin and dissolution of everything, that it is He who brings forth the All into being, that it is He Who makes things be what they are, and that He is the Sovereign Lord of all. All this, I think, would easily be conceded by the casual Reader of the Gita. However the question might be put: what has all this to do with Dharma? There is no need of any mystifiying answer. The very dynamism of the Supreme Lord as regards bringing forth everything, and making it be what it is characterized as Dharma. In Hindu cosmology the various metaphors12 of holding-together and bearing (bibharti), of sustaining beings (bhutabhrt), of causing beings to be-and-grow (bhutabhavanah) of stringing together (tatam, protam) etc. are different nuances of the basic experience conveyed by dharyate dharma. Studying these and such contexts it becomes evident that unlike the dharyate of everyday-life where the activity of holding and bearing and sustaining and stringing together is from the 'outside', the Gita meaning of dharyate is essentially from 'within'. This is obvious when for example it is

said that the Supreme Lord holds-and-bears beings (bhutabhrt) and that He causes them to be-and-grow (bhutabhavanah). This whole Universe has been spun-and-pervaded (tatam) by Me in My invisible essence. All beings are in Me but I am not based on them! [And in a sense] beings are not in Me. Behold My supreme power! My atma is the bearer of beings (bhutastha-); [1] give be-ing to beings (bhutabhavana-). Just as the all-pervading mighty wind is always in space, so too are all beings in Me, Hold fast to this [as your Dharma] (-upadharaya!). 9, 4-6. In other words, it is the Dharma of the Supreme Lord of all beings (sarvabhu-tamahesvara-) to cause beings to be-and-grow and without this Dharma no contingent being can be at all! Because He is the very condition of possibility of all contingent beings, it is said: The splendour centred in the sun which bathes the Whole world in light, [the splendour] in the moon and fire,-know that it [all] is mine. [Thus] too I penetrate the earth and so sustain [all] beings with my strength; becoming [the moon-plant] Soma, I, the very sap [of life], cause all healing herbs to grow. Becoming the [digestive] fire in [the bodies of] all men I dwell in the body of all that breathes; conjoined with the inward and outward breaths I digest the fourfold food. I make my dwelling in the hearts of all: from Me stem memory, wisdom, the dispelling [of doubt]. Through all the Vedas it is I who should be known, for the maker of the Vedas end am I, and I the Vedas know. (Zaehner) 15. 12-15 From this then it becomes crystal clear that the Lord's Dharma is at work from within.13 For His Dharma has to do with the essence of things, that is

with that which makes things be what they are. How does He do this? How is this explained in terms of human language? To answer these questions (from the Gita view-point) we shall have first to study the mysterious Nature of the Lord. Dharma is rooted in the mysterious nature of the Lord The Lord says of Himself: For I am the foundation of the immortal and imperishable Brahman as also of the eternal Dharma and of absolute Bliss 14.27. Earlier on He had explained to Arjuna that He comes again and again into the Realm of Becoming and-Change in order to establish and stabilize Dharma (dharma-samsthapanarthaya).14 And at the unique theophany described in Ch. 11 Arjuna himself exclaims: You [are] the imperishable preserver-and protector of the eternal Dharma 11. 18c. The Explanation for these utterances is to be sought in 'Revelation' the Lord Himself makes of His Nature thus: Thus [is] my Prakrti (-Nature) eightfold categorized: earth, water, fire, wind, space, manas, buddhi- as also ahankara. This [is My] lower (Prakrti). But Mahabaho (-Arjuna), know my higher Prakrti, different from this, [which] has become Life (jivabhuta-) [and] by means of which this world is sustained-maintained-and-held together (dharyate). [Make it part of your Dharma to] know (-upadharaya) [that] all beings have these two natures as their source. I am the origin of the whole world as also of its dissolution 7: 4-6. Schematically this would mean that the Supreme Lord has two Prakrti-s (-Nature): one the world of space and time and the other that of the Spirit

(purusa-). And together they form Spirit-in-the-world called jivabhuta-. The whole world is a product of the coming together of the Higher Prakrti and the Lower Prakrti of the Lord. For it is through them both that His dynamic Dharma is at work. It is He who is their Supreme Lord and it is He who brings them together as and when He directs. Subduing My own Prakrti I bring forth again and again this whole host of beings..... 9.8. In other words the ultimate 'driving force' behind these two Natures is the Lord Himself so that every happening and every being is rooted in Him. Arjuna, know Me to be the eternal seed of all beings-and-happenings (sarvabhutanam) 7.10. The same idea is expressed again in almost identical words. Whatsoever is the seed of all beings-and-happenings (sarvabhutanam), know Arjuna, that too [am I]. There is no being-or-happening, moving or un- moving, that could subsist without Me 10.39. What we have said till now is this: The Dharma of the Supreme Lord consists in this that He causes all beings-and-happenings (sarvabhutani) to be-and-grow and He does this from within. Through His two Natures all beings-and-happenings come to be for He is the seed from which they sprout. Corres-ponding (-co-responding!) to this Dharma of the Supreme Lord is the Dharma of the Cosmos which, to put it simply, consists in remaining true to the Nature given it by the Lord. Let us now investigate the nature of this Cosmos. The Dharma of the Cosmos: Lokasangraha The Cosmos is basically made up of the Lower Nature of the Lord, and this is the Realm of Change and Perishability. The Realm itself is everlasting, with no beginning and no end (as far as the Metaphor goes) and is, not

unlike the concept of 'energy' in modern Physics, an interconnected Whole in which everything is interdependent. This mass of energy (called Prakrti or the Lower Nature) is constant as far as its quantity and its existence are concerned but not as far as its forms are concerned. For they keep on changing and in this regard there is no exception at all. The characteristic of the forms of Prakrti is that no form, however stable and permanent it might appear to us humans, is unchangeable. However, though the forms of energy change, energy itself remains indestructible. All this of course fits in with the idea that the mass of energy is one total Whole. More concretely, the world of space and time (and this is what is meant by Lower Nature) is an organic complex of interconnected and interdependent parts. Any change in any one part has its repercussions on the remaining Whole so that there is no change at all possible which does not (in this sense) have a cosmic effect. Every change is a cosmic change! But having said this, one has to note that not every change is a change for the better, that not every change is for the good of the Whole. Indeed many changes are introduced with the sole 'good' of just an infinitesimal part of the Cosmos with little or no regard for the good of the Whole. It is here that the idea of the Dharma of the Cosmos comes in. Changes have to be introduced with nothing less than the good of the Whole Cosmos in view and this is called Lokasangraha. It may not be humanly possible to consider the good of the Whole in all its facets, but the ideal of consciosly leaving nothing out of view when making a change has to be religiously upheld. Lokasangraha implies Omniscience but is satisfied with less. That means that though knowledge of all the factors would have been the ideal means of promoting Lokasangraha, in view of its impossibility of attainment, one has to see to it that as far as humanly possible care is taken to exclude the good of no factor that could be directly or indirectly involved in the change that is to be introduced. The corollary of this is that until we find a solution (to any, problem) that does justice to all the factors of a case, we cannot afford to rest content with a partial answer. Our answers have to be revised the moment we realise that in the case of one or the other factor there is a short circuit.

All this is of tremendous relevance today when in the name of progress and development, changes are introduced that pollute the air, contaminate the waters, exterminate wild life, deforest life-giving areas and make Man a prisoner of artificially produced wants, and desires. If man is to become Man, structural changes in our concept of progrees have to be creatively thought our so that profit-making does not become the Absolute Deity at whose Altar the good of the Cosmos is slain. Change, the Gita instructs us, has to be introduced with both wisdom and selfishness: indeed these are the two sure signs of Lokasangraha. For when selflessness is prevalent, no one particular interest will predominate our planning; and when wisdom is the guide, well-thought-out long-term policies will not be strangled by the force of present urgings. It could be that in a particular case we have no idea of how to achieve Lokasangraha; this only means that we have to be aware that the solution we are forced to resort to is only a half-way house and that we shall have to be constantly on the search for a more comprehensive answer. Cosmic Dimension of Dharma Before we proceed further it should be stressed that Dharma is by its very nature cosmic, that is, it has to do with not just one or another aspect of the Reality in which we are, Rather it refers to the whole of it and there is no aspect which is not touched by it. The welfare of the Whole is not the task of just this or that aspect of Reality; it is the concern of the Whole for the Whole, and the individual parts of the organism have all to contribute their share. Their Welfare is dependent on the Welfare of the Whole. Hence there can be no Dharma which really goes against the Welfare of the Whole. Similarly if the Dharma of each part of the organism takes into account the good of the whole, then there can be no Dharma which really harms any aspect of the Whole. Dharma as delight in the Welfare of all beings If Lokasangraha is the Dharma of the Cosmos, then the Dharma of Man is paraphrased as delight in the Welfare of all beings (5.25 and 12.4). If Man is to be true to himself, he has to be true to all beings and hence

concern for his own Welfare has to be expressed in concern for the Welfare of all beings. In this context the Gita uses a remarkable expression sarvabhutahite ratah. The word rata-refers to one who is in sexual ecstasy and since this is the highest type of ecstasy in the Realm of Matter the Gitakara makes analogous use of it in the Realm of Spirit. Hence the phrase sarvabhutahite ratah, could be rendered as those who delight in the Welfare of all beings. Now this is interesting on a number of counts. First of all, the phrase is used to characterize men who have reached Perfection's goal. One would have expected that such men would be beyond worrying about the Welfare of all beings. Just the contrary. Indeed the fact that the phrase is employed only for perfect men, shows clearly that the task of achieving Perfection is to work for the Welfare of all beings. Secondly, it would have been more than enough if the Gita had described the perfect men as those who work for the Welfare of the Whole. But what it has done is not only surprising; it goes against the common understanding of the Spiritual ! For it expects these perfect men to delight in, to go in ecstasy over the Welfare of all beings! Thirdly the phrase is to be understood both as process as well as product. That is to say, Men are to achieve Perfection by delighting in the Welfare of all beings (=process) and Men will be perfect when they can take delight in the Welfare of all beings (=product). Finally, if what we have said is true, then (it appears to me) Perfection is not an individual's search but a communitarian concern for final Communion ! How does this follow? If the task is communitarian then it is difficult to see how the reward can be anything else but communitarian. If from the very nature of things, the process of achieving Welfare is cosmic it follows that welfare itself has to be cosmic. For Welfare is achieved by healing the Whole; therefore Welfare will be identical with Wholesomeness ! In the Gita understanding of things Individual Perfection is a meaningless phrase because Perfection is communitarian. Communion alone is Perfection! Communion presuposes (among others) two things: being true to one's nature and sharing in the nature of the one with whom one communes. In the Gita one's nature is referred to as Svabhava. (The Gita does this quite clearly to dislodge arjuna's notion of Svajana!). Consequently it understands Svakarma as svabhavaniyatakarma (18.47), that is, one's Karma is enjoined by or flows from one's nature. Consequently this is found

to be the same as Svadharma (18. 47; 3. 35). Since Svabhava as such excludes the Ahankara (=Ego), it is in union (comm-union) with the whole Universe.15 The Karma it prompts one to do will be against neither the interests of the Whole nor of the Individual. Svabhava is our 'object-ified' way of speaking; for when we are speaking of the Svabhava, what we are in fact doing is speaking of the Whole in terms of one of its parts. Hence remaining true to one's nature is really remaining in Communion with the Whole. Does not this ideal sound too abstract, too ideal? What does it really mean in the concrete? How is it attainable, if at all? These are the questions we shall now have to turn our attention to. The Triple Dharma towards Lokasangraha If the Dharma of the Supreme Lord is to hold together this Cosmos in being, then the Dharma of Man can be nothing other than remaining true and faithful to this being-held-together, The Gita teaches how to do this through a triple way: Karmayoga, Bhakti-yoga and Jnana-yoga. Now Lokasangraha presupposes three attitudes: selflessness, dedication and wisdom and these correspond to Karma-yoga, Bhakti-yoga and Jnana-yoga respectively. The practice of Dharma is possible only if two major conversions take place: change of heart and change of mind. Change of heart has two aspects: first, the aspect of selflessness and second, that of dedication (to the Lord'). The former is achieved through Karma-yoga and the latter through Bhakti-yoga. Change of mind is attainable through Jnana-yoga. One might ask a justification for the view that Lokasangraha presupposes three attitudes of selflessness, dedication and wisdom. Selfishness is prefering something (or someone) which I as an individual like to something (or someone) I do not like. And since it is an ingrained tendency in us all to follow our Likes and Dislikes, selfishness is the arch-enemy of Lokasangraha. The counter remedy would be accordingly selflessness and this, as we shall presently discuss, is achieved through Karma-yoga. Secondly, given Man's limited experience of Reality, he is inclined to 'overlook' what he is not conscious of in his experience. The

exigencies of pragmatic life are so compelling that he neglects the deeper and more secret layers of his being. Hence a wisdom is needed that discerns between what is ephemeral and what is eternal, between what 'becomes' and what 'is', between the Symbol and the Symbolized. For Lokasangraha both are important but differently. The wisdom necessary for this is the product of the process initiated by Jnana-yoga. Finally if selflessness is necessary to have a vision of cosmic concern and if wisdom is indispensable for discerning the existence and relative importance of the different 'layers' of Lokasangraha, then what remains is dedication to and enthusiasm for Lokasangraha. Selflessness of detachment does not mean for the Gita lack of enthusiasm. It means not limiting our enthusiasm to a partial view, especially our own individual interests, to such an extent that the rest is either forgotten or neglected or positively avoided. But enthusiasm there must be in our quest for Lokasangraha, least we reach the stage where having the wiring and the bulb we do not care for the current. After having said this it would be inaccurate if the impression is created that there is a watertight compartmentalization between the three Yoga-s or their effects. Selflessness is not exclusively produced by Karma-yoga, nor dedication and devotion through Bhakti-yoga nor wisdom and insight by means of jnana-yoga. Each of the Yoga-s produces all the three but in different degrees, as it were; only the stress in each of them is uneven. Because of this the path to Lokasangraha is triple and the Yoga-s dovetail into each other in such a way that they complement one another mutually. Karma-yoga As the word suggests this Yoga has to do with Karma (=doing, work, activity) and the sense-organs. Through the action of the sense-organs one comes in contact with the 'outside' world and through such contacts (=physical attachment), moral attachment is born. One gets attached to the fruit of one's action. Attachment, of course, is another name for selfishness and Karma-yoga proposes an attitude of mind through which renunciation in, not of, action is practised! This renunciation is of the fruit of action. Normally the senses should merely report to the mind their findings but in

no case are they to get lost in them. That the senses 'feel' pleasure and pain is accurate and it is this that they have to report to the mind and through the mind to the intellect-and-will (=buddhi-). But more often than not, instead of the senses doing the reporting, they get 'involved' in their 'feelings' thus allowing the arch-enemy selfishness to enter into the fortress. The effect of this, as we said earlier, is that the person whose senses have thus run riot becomes blind to large areas of Reality and so is not more in a position to work for Lokasangraha. Through Karma-yoga the senses are taught to take pleasure and pain seriously, that is, they have to be treated for what they are worth: as mere qualities of Prakrti with no 'moksanic' worth at all. Bondage comes in when these qualities are converted into moral qualities and Moksa is attained when the opposite takes place (that is, these moral qualities are seen to be really mere physical qualities of Prakrti). The exercise of Karma-yoga consists in making the senses be true to their nature of functioning on the level of the physical qualities and not allowing them to be become the criteria for our moral life. This would happen if we did only those things we like because we like them, and avoided those which we dislike because we dislike them. Karma-yoga teaches us how to do the action, which has to be done, for the simple reason that it has to be done and not because of the results it produces. Whether it be the action of ritual or that of everyday life (like eating and sleeping), it has to be done because it is necessary and not because it is pleasurable. Renunciation of the fruit or result of action means the pleasure or pain that flows from it and not the effects that follow. We are asked to renounce not the digestive process that follows from eating but the pleasure or eating gives. More precisely still, the pleasure or the pain that denied, much less overlooked; but what is expected of us is that we do not make them the motive for our eating; we eat, and we eat what we eat not because it is pleasurable but because we have to eat what is set before us. And when there is a choice of food we make the choice not on the grounds of the food being pleasurable or not pleasurable but on the basis of health, economy, etc. What does one achieve through this? Pleasure and pain are at the basis of most of our actions. Being 'ingrained' tendencies we allow ourselves to be led by them almost 'unconsciously' and thus we become blind to the real nature of things and ignore the consequence of our actions on the

cosmic level. By removing the blinds caused by pleasure and pain, we reach the stage of holistic vision, and thus become capable of working for Lokasangraha. How is Karma-yoga relevant in Arjuna's case? To be able to decide whether to fight or not, Arjuna must give up his attachment to his relatives and to his caste. They should not become the motive for his decision to fight or not to fight. Once he makes himself selfless and detached with regard to his relatives and his caste, he will be in a better position to take a decision in the matter of the Kaurava war; better because now he can take Lokasangraha as the motive for his decision. Bhakti - yoga Not permitting pleasure and pain to dictate to us what we should do and what we should not do, might possibly decrease our enthusiasm for Lokasangraha. However detachment is not meant to lead to apathy, and the enthusiasm of the real Yogi has to exceed, both qualitatively and quanti-tatively as it were, that of the man who is attached to pleasure. Traditionally the essence of Bhakti-yoga is said to consist in making the Lord the sum and substance of one's life. It is explained in detail as being intent on the Lord (matpara-), on being of the same mind as He (manmana-), on doing His work (matkarmakrt), on becoming His beloved (madbhakta-), on entering Him (madgata-) and His Being (madbhava-), on doing everything for Him (madartham), offering Him everything (madarpanam) and finally seeing Him in all things and all things in Him. Bhakti-yoga, the Yoga of communion, takes the Lord as the sole motive of our living and loving. If the stress in Karma-yoga is on the senses, here it is on the emotions. Even our emotional life has to be employed for achieving the goal of Lokasangraha, and this is done by means of Communion with the Lord. For one thing, such Communion purifies the emotions without repressing them; and for another, they are made to develop not only in a few areas but in every area of life. Verses like the following are not at all rare in the Gita:

My Bhakta who has love, friendship and compassion towards all beings (sarvabhutanam) [who is] without the sense of 'mine' and 'I' equanimous as regards pleasure and pain, patient, ...... is dear to Me. 12.13-14 As a matter of fact one becomes a genuine Bhakta only when one has reached the following stage: With self integrated by spiritual exercise (yoga-yukt'- atma) [now] he sees the self in all beings standing, all beings in the self: the same in everything he sees. Who sees Me everywhere, who sees the All in Me, for him I am not lost, nor is he lost to Me. Who standing firm on unity communes - in - love (bhaj-) with Me as abiding in all beings, in whatever state he be, that athlete of the spirit abides in Me. (Zaehner) 6. 30-31 The Gita vocabulary abounds in words like everywhere, all things, the All. They certainly are not a mere embellishment in the context. Rather they have to do with the very core of the Gita message. Though the phrases Lokasangraha and sarvabhutahite ratah occur only twice (in both cases), their paraphrases are constant themes of the poem,16 and their specific function in the Bhakti-yoga is to be sought in the fact that every being is shown to be a genuine Symbol of the Presence and Working of the Lord. Hence Communion with the Lord in and through every being becomes easily accessible. The result of this is the disappearance of all self-seeking, and the appearance of regard for all things combined with a critical awareness of all that disturbs such Communion. In Arjuna's case Bhakti-yoga has the purpose of weening him from his inordinate attachment to his relatives and his caste, and of making him attached to the Lord alone. Becoming attached to the Lord alone means being attached to all and sundry the way the Lord is attached to all He is attached to all in such a manner that His attachment to one is never at the expense of His attachment to another as happens in our case. This type of

attachment however is totally different from the petty, partial attachment we are accustomed to.17 Our attachment, like Arjuna's, cannot promote Lokasangraha since it is attachment to some at the cost of others, an attachment that binds. But genuine love is a purified attachment which frees and has none of the negative factors associated with it. Because of this, Bhakti-yoga opens us up towards the whole of Reality and makes us enthusiastic about loving and living, selflessly and with dedication. This is well summed up at the end of Ch. 11. He who does My work, [is] intent on Me [alone] [and is] My Beloved, [who] towards all beings [has] love [but] without attachment, comes to Me, Pandava 11:5. One could very well paraphrase this thus: the aim of doing His work, of being intent on Him and of being His Beloved is achieved when one learns to love all beings in a manner which frees one from all inordinate attachments. To have reached this stage is to have reached the Mystery of life and love. Jnana-yoga This Yoga has two aspects: one referring to reason and the other to understanding. Enlightened reason is concerned not merely with what is happening (=the Realm of bhava-) but more so with what is going on behind the happening (=the Realm of sat).18 Understanding on the other hand focuses on insight through meditation and awareness.19 By stressing reason, Jnana-yoga prepares the student to give up blind assumptions and to develop a capacity to see what is going on behind what is happening. Apart from the fact that this helps towards discovering one's Dharma in the total situation (both visible and invisible) it also prepares the way for insightful awareness. Such awareness is the beginning of a new experience of the different 'layers' of Reality. For the light of awareness dispels the darkness of routine and superficial living, and thus lays bare the otherwise unknown depths of our being. It 'reveals' the shallowness of our accepted values and brings to light what we normally neglect or ignore.20 The fullness of Reality with its myriad facets becomes an open book to the one who is 'aware'.

Then no one facet will be overstressed or understressed, and the wholeness of Reality will no more be a mere concept but a vibrant experience. Reason proceeds through reasoning, taking into account all the evidence that is available through one's experience, through the experience of others and expecially through the experience pointed to by the Sacred Scriptures. But understanding functions through awareness: by becoming aware of our experience of the various aspects of Reality. Both reason and understanding see to it that the man of wisdom gradually learns to distinguish both with his heart as well as with his mind the two basic dimensions of Reality: The sat dimension (=the Realm of being and truth) and the bhava- dimension (= the Realm of Change). He begins to realize that whereas his values must come from he former, he has to treat those of the latter as subservient because they change and pass away. This does not imply that he has to consider the dimension of change as negative. Rather it means that he has to relativize what is relative. He may not consider the Relative as the centre of unchanging and eternal values. He has to use the Realm of change as a bridge that is to be crossed but certainly not as the spot on which he is to build his home. For Arjuna the practice of Jnana-yoga is indispensable for two reasons: in order to relativize his Relatives and thus be more aware of the values he has neglected; and secondly in order to experience the Absolute as the root of the Relative. The wisdom that Jnana-yoga communicates comprehends both. To be really open to the fullness of Reality is to experience the Absolute in and throug the Relative. Such opennes is what contributes to Lokasangraha. The three Yoga-s: three strands of one Dharma However later Tradition may have interpreted these Yoga-s, in the Gita they form part of the larger Dharma that is expected of every integrated Man (-yogi). I do not think that the practice of any one Yoga as put forward in the Gita is possible without the practice of the other two. Indeed the Gita's way of speaking is such that all three are expected to be integrated in one's life. For when one Yoga is being treated of, the others are always

included. As one sample of this the verses (6. 30-31) quoted on p. 20 should suffice. What the Yoga-s aim at principally is to help man overcome his state of moha-, that is a state wherein he 'spontaneously' functions on the level of pseudo-values, moha- 'misleads' him to take his partial view of Reality so seriously that he comes to believe in it. In other words the Yoga-s help Man to dis-cover his total Dharma which is expressed in Lokasangraha. Having gone through this threefold exercize Arjuna makes his final commitment: [My] false sense of values (moha-) has disappeared. [1] have discovered the tradition [of genuine Dharma] by your steadying-and-clarifying-grace (prasada-), O Infallible One (acyuta-). I stand secure with no doubt left [about my Dharma]. I will do your bidding! 18-73. Conclusion; Integral Dharma Every being, in order to be, has to be held in being by the Source of all being. If the Dharma of this Source consists in bearing and holding together beings in being, the Dharma of every being is fidelity to all beings. This is to be achieved by being faithful to one's own nature (svadharma-). Such fidelity is not a passive process but an active life-style practised through the three Yoga-s with the sole purpose of achieving the Welfare of the Cosmos. Svadharma is Man's delight-full response to the Lord's call for cosmic Welfare. If there is such a thing as the central doctrine of the Gita it is this: every bit of cosmic reality, even a decision to fight or not to fight, (momentous for Arjuna, but only a moment in the unending history of the Cosmos) is ultimately dependent on and supported (dharyate) by the Lord of the whole Universe (sarvalokamahesvara-).

Dharma on our part consists in conscientizing ourselves as regards both the manner as well as the matter of our lives which are really meant to promote Lokasangraha Hence there is no dichotomy here between religion which concerns itself with 'spiritual liberation' and duty which is dictated by the demands of a just social order. The talk here is of integral Dharma. If Religion has gone astray, it is not because the Dharma of the Gita has been tried and found wanting but because it has not been tried out at all: instead Religion has fallen into the Dharma-s of Arjuna, the narrow restricting Dharma-s of caste and clique! And so when the Lord says: Giving up all [your narrow] Dharma-s [which make you unfree], take refuge in Me alone! I shall free you from all evils; do not feel oppressed! 18.66 He is calling upon us to give up our petty priorities which cause division and oppression, to destroy those ahankaric systems which do not allow us to take refuge in Him. All systems, be they religious, political or economic, which do not make us free, which promote profit and self-seeking are to be eliminated. In this process He is our Liberator. We have nothing to fear. With Him on our side, we have nothing to lose except our bondage. 1. See Ramundo Panikkar, "Words and Terms", Archivio de Filoso fia diret to da Marco M. Olivetti (Roma, 1980) 117-133. Terms are to be interpreted univocally but not words. This distinction seems to have been implicit in the Scholastic understanding of 'sacramental reality': significando causant et causando significant. If the sacramental formulae, for instance, were to be interpreted univocally we would have retualism and not Ritual. It is because they cannot be interpreted literally that the 'mystery' of the Sacraments can be intellectually upheld and existentially experienced. 2. The purpose of the distinction between sarira- and atmain this case is not to legitimize it but to stress the fact that the usual understanding of Dharma begins and ends with mere 'externals'. Rarely, if at all, has it to do with its life-giving source. The later, but not the earlier, Mimamsa reduced Dharma to ritualismto such an extreme extent that the two become almost synonymous. See my Sabdapramanyam in Sabara and Kumarila. Towards and Study of the Mimamsa Experience of Language (Vienna 1980) Ch. 3 Dharma in the Early Mimamsa.

3. They say, Dharma (comes) from sustaining-maintaing-holding together (dharanat). Dharma sustains-maintains-holds together the people. Mahabharata 8.49.50ab. Dharma, as we shall see, is the source of Communion and Community. The Hindu concept of Community (as portrayed in the Gita) is to be studied from this viewpoint and is different from the Christian concept of Community. Whereas in the former Communion is cosmic, in the latter it seems to be restricted to 'spiritual' beings only. 4. In this article I do not intend to put forward all the evidence that is available on the subject. I hope to do this in a longer monograph on Dharma in the Gita. 5. There is in the Gita (9. 4-6) an interesting example of this. When speaking of the relationship between the mysterious Isvara and 'all beings' (sarvabhutani), the Gita sees the danger of 'reification'. It first states that "all beings have (their) base in Me", then proceeds to deny this by saying that "beings do not have (their) base in Me" and finally makes use of an analogy to 'evoke' the 'ontic' but not the literal nature of the base. 6. This is an analogy, not a simile. Analogy being symbol-language, is polysemous. But a simile shows a one-to-one structure. A genuine analogy is always a metaphor. Simile leads to figurative language as for example when in 11.43 Arjuna exclaims: "You are the father of the world that moves and does not move!" Here (I think) 'father' cannot be a genuine metaphor since the experience of "Fatherhood' is not a 'substantial' experience in the Gita world-view. Rather it appears to be an embellishment with an eye to effect. We have metaphor when the specific experience in question cannot be expressed except in the way it has been expressed. Fatherhood, for example, is a sine qua non for describing the experience of Jesus. 7. Gita 1.25-47 and 2. 1-8. 8. Giving up all (your narrow) Dharma-s (which make you unfree), take refuge in Me alone! I shall free you from all evils; do not feel oppressed ! 18.66. 9. For the modern reader unfamiliar with world-view of the Gita a word of explanation seems to be called for. The Gita's hilistic attitude towards Reality, is perceptible in diverse garbs. There is, for instance, the doctrine of the wheel of sacrifice (yajna-cakra-) which sees the whole of the Cosmos as one organic being (3.10-16). In Ch. 11 it is described as an infinitesimal part of an infinitely larger "Body" (deha-, sarira-) of the Lord. Besides this doctrine, there is the understanding of Prakrti which presupposes the organic interconnectedness of all beings in such a way that any activity on the part of any one member of this totality affects the other members. 10. The Cosmos, the organic Prakrti of the Lord (7.4-6) is explained not merely in anthropomorphic but in anthropological categories; that is, the same categories in which a human being is understood in 13.5. In 7.13 it is said that "this whole moving thing" (=Cosmos) has been misled-and-deluded (mohitam) by the constituents of the Prakrti and that therefore it does not recognizeits Imperishable Lord, who is higher than them. This 'humanized' understanding of the Cosmos is difficult to explain away especially since we have here the basic anthropological categories of the indriya-s, manas, buddhi and the ahankara-. Indriya-s refer to the senses, manas is homologous to the 'mind, memory and imagination' of the Scholastics and buddhi- connotes understanding-and-willing. Ahankara- (=the 'I, -maker) means not so much moral as ontic selfishness. The real 'I' (=aham) is the atma but the 'phenomenal Ego' acts as if it were the 'I'. From here springs forth the false sense of values (moha-) that affects both the Individual and his world. This is quite evident from 7.27. The ahankara- affects the indriya-s, the manas and the buddhi- and this is manifested through 'desire' and 'dislike' at work in all three of them. Desire and dislike are more than mere psychological phenomena because they are at the root of all our thingking and willing. 11. In Gita world-view Perfection can never be individualistic. The Individual as such is here a contra-cosmic phenomenon. 'Individualized' being the homologue of ahankrta- (18. 17) consists essentially in contra-cosmism. The ahankara-works in a direction that goes against cosmic Welfare because the motive at work is always desire and longing. Hence a perfect Individual is a contradiction in terms. Perfection is to be sought by giving up the ahankrtization (= in ward-turned individualization) whereas the popular goal of moral perfection of the

Individual is as much of bondage as ahankrtization. For liberation is not so much from moral evil as from ontic evil and this can be overcome only through 'awareness' of one's true nature (svabhava-). One's nature however is a 'part' of the Whole in which it participates. This being so, the Svabhava has basically a cosmic dimension. Briefly, by giving up the limitation which is expressed through ahankrtization one realizes by means of awareness one's Svabhava. To do this is to give up the quest for individual Perfection and to seek it in Communion with the Cosmos. 12. By 'metaphor' I mean symbol-language, not descriptive language. Whereas the function of the former is transformation, that of the latter is information. Metaphors point beyond themselves but not outside of themselves. Hence the 'earthy' element in the metaphor can never be dispensed with. Genuine symbol-language can never permit a serious dichotomy between the Symbol and the Symbolized. It is because of this that every Religious language can ultimately and universally function effectively. 13. For poetic expressions of this see the Vibhutiyoga passages in Chs 7, 9 and 10. 14. Gita 4. 7-8. 15. See footnote 11 of this Article. 16. For example: Thus 'yogifying' himself, the Yogi, free from the stain [which binds], easily attains to the 'touch' of Brahman [who is] endless Joy. 6. 27. Brahman is that state where one looks at everything and everybody equanimously. Similary in 18. 54. [The one whose] atma has been touched by grace (prasanmatma) does not grieve nor does he have any longing. Alike to all beings he attains supreme Communion with Me. 17. Ch. 7 is a fine example of how to be 'freely' attached to all things. Inordinate attachment is necessarily attachment to some at the cost of others. 18.I have borrowed the idea for this distinction from John Marsh, Saint John (The Pelican New Testament Commentaries) 18f. Marsh distinguishes between what took place and what was going on in what took place. 19. By 'insight' I mean a depth-view of Reality, as inside view. as it were. 20. Morality, genuine or otherwise, plays a large role in our lives but as we have already seen (Cfr. footnote 11 of this article) morality cannot liberate us from ontic evil. Indeed it is part of this ontic evil. Therefore we need to go beyond (not against!) morality in order to be really and totally free.