Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
IS~YOGAAD~CTAND
INDEPENDENT-ToMOm?
AN EVALUATION OF VIVEKANANDA’S
ARGUMENTS
There is no becoming with the Absolute. It is ever free, ever perfect; but the
ignorance that has covered Its nature for a time is to be removed. Therefore the
whole scope of all systems of Yoga (and each religion represents one) is to clear
up this ignorance and allow the Atman to restore its own nature.F)
Each one of our Yogas is fitted to make man perfect even without the help of the
others, because they have all the same goal in view. The Yogas of work, of
wisdom, and of devotion are all capable of serving as direct and independent
means for the attainment of Moksha.’
The Karma-Yogi works because it is his nature, because hefeels that it is good
for him to do so, and he has no object beyond that. His position in this world is
that of a giver, and he never cares to receive anything. He knows that he is
giving, and does not ask for anything in return and, therefore, he eludes the
grasp of misery. The grasp of pain, whenever it comes, is the result of the
reaction of ‘attachment’.”
The view that karmayoga does not necessitate a belief in Isvara highlights an
important difference between Shankara and Vivekananda. With Shankara,
there hardly seems to be any distinction between karmayoga and bhaktiyoga.
The form of detached activity conceived by Shankara is that which is
possible by the dedication of all actions to Gvara, and the calm acceptance of
results as coming from Him. Karmayoga therefore, is not possible without an
appreciation of Gvara, and of Him as the dispenser of the fruits of action.”
The karmayogt’s attitude to work is also characterized by an absence of
fanaticism. He is non-fanatical because of his recognition of the limitations of
all that he does. He knows that in spite of all his efforts the world will never
be made perfect. Vivekananda often describes the world as a dog’s curly tail,
which will always bend regardless of the efforts made to straighten it. The
karmayogi also frees himself from fanaticism and self-importance by the
awareness of his own dispensability.
In Vivekananda, as contrasted with Shankara, one notices the attempt to
enlarge the concept of karmayoga. In most cases, however, his rationale for
the inclusion of a particular concept within the framework of karmayoga is
not sufficiently clear or justified. The result is that the karmayoga concept
becomes unwieldly and almost all-inclusive, blurring Vivekananda’s aim of
identifying it as a distinctive path to moksha. Without any development of
argument, he claims, for example, that karmayoga has specially to do with the
understanding of the three gupzs (qualities) and their employment for
success in activity. He also identifies karmayoga with the variation in
morality and duty according to life circumstances.‘” In the course of the
same discussion, he contends that the central idea of karmayoga is non-
resistance.14 Within the concept of karmayoga, Vivekananda also sees a
natural place for the study and practice of rituals and ‘symbology’, as well as
for an understanding of the nature and force of words and other sound
symbols and their use.‘s
We have already drawn attention to Vivekananda’s attempt to underline
the distinction between karmayoga and bhuktiyogu by arguing that the former
does not necessarily depend on the acceptance of Gvaru. In order to further
strengthen his claims for karmayoga as a direct and independent path to
mokshu. Vivekananda tries to distinguish it, one supposes from jiicinuyoSqu, t)!
38 A. Rambachan
describing it as being free from all doctrines and dogma. This is a conclusion
about karmayoga which he reiterates throughout his treatment of this path.
The Karma-Yogi need not believe in any doctrine whatever. He mav not
believe even in God, may not ask what his soul is, nor think 0; an)
metaphysical speculation. He has got his own special aim of realising
selflessness; and he has to work it out himself. Every moment of his life must be
realisation, because he has to solve more by mere work, without the help of
doctrine or theory, the very problem to which the Jnani applies his reason and
inspiration and the Bhakta his love.‘”
Therefore Karma-Yoga tells us to enjoy the beauty of all the pictures in the
world, but not to identify ourselves with any of them. Never say ‘mine’ If
[Ywkananda and Karmayoga 59
you do, then will come the misery. Do not say ‘my house’, do not say ‘my body’.
The whole difficulty is there. The body is neither yours, nor mine, nor
anybody’s, These bodies are coming and going by the laws of nature but we are
free, standing as witness. The body is no more free than a picture or a wall.
Why should we be attached so much to a body?”
We must do the work and find out the motive power that prompts us; and,
almost without exception, in the first years we shall find that our motives are
always selfish; but gradually this selfishness will melt away by persistence, till
at last will come the time when we shall be able to do really unselfish work. Wr
may all hope that some day or other, as we struggle through the paths of life,
there will come a time when we shall become perfectly unselfish; and the
moment we attain to that, all our powers will be concentrated and the
knowledge which is ours will be manifest. I9
We become forgetful of the ego when we think of the body as dedicated to the
service of others-the body with which most complacently we identify the ego.
And in the long run comes the consciousness of disembodiedness. The more
intently you think of the well-being of others, the more oblivious of self you
become. In this way, as gradually your heart gets purified by work, you will
I’irekananda and Karmayoga 61
come to feel the truth that your own Self is pervading all beings and all things.
Thus it is that doing good to others constitutes a way, a means of revealing
one’s own Self or Atman.”
.\gain, however, one cannot but add that from the Advaita viewpoint, avidyci
is not simply a problem of exalting or humbling oneself. It is the erroneous
apprehension of the &man. Humility, as a virtue which may be concomitant
with the service of others, might be more conducive to the attainment of
hrahmajii~na than the arrogant exaltation of oneself above all others, but it is
difficult to see how it can destroy avidya and lead to the kind of Self-
understanding which brahmajii&a implies. Without any doctrinal presup-
positions, the supposedly natural progression which Vivekananda postulates
in the above passage from the service of others to a knowledge of the
distinction of Self and body, its non-dual and all-pervasive nature, is
difficult to understand. It is not at all clear how such far reaching conclusions
can be made or how they are self-evident. A ‘feeling’ of affinity with others
through service is not the same as a knowledge of the non-duality of the
&man.
On another occasion, moksha is identified as ‘infinite expansion’, claimed
by Vivekananda to be the goal of all religious, moral and philosophical
doctrines. He identifies this ‘infinite expansion’ with ‘absolute unselfishness’
and claims that kanayoga leads to the former by bringing about the latter.”
Xgain, it is not at all clear whether ‘infinite expansion’ is the same as
brahmajiicina with its implications about the non-dual nature of the &man,
and the latter’s transcendence of spatial and temporal limitations. In Advaita,
of course, one can only speak figuratively about the ‘infinite expansion’ of the
Self. Being, by definition, limitless, such an ‘expansion’ can only be in terms
of gaining knowledge of its infinity. The consistency of this argument and the
preciseness of definition and language are not always preserved by
Vivekananda in his karmayoga discussion.
The picture of the relationship between karmayoga and moksha, in
Vivekananda, appears to become even more complicated when one
encounters various statements which seem to deny and contradict the
position that selfless activity leads directly to brahmaj&ina. All work is
presented by him as presupposing ignorance, and one must infer therefore,
that work is incapable of leading directly to freedom.
The active workers, however good, have still a little remnant of ignorance left
in them. When our nature has yet some impurities left in it, then alone can we
work. It is in the nature of work to be impelled ordinarily by motive and
attachment The highest men cannot work, for in them there is no
attachment.23
62 A. Rambachan
There are passages in which knowledge is affirmed over and above work as
the only means to moksha.
Salvation means knowing the truth. We do,not become anything; we are what
we are. Salvation (comes) by faith and not by work. It is a question of
knowledge! you must know what you are and it is done.24
Answer.. Jiva-seva can give Mutki not directly but indirectly, through
purification of the mind. But if you wish to do a thing properly,
you must, for the time being, think that it is all-sufficient.‘”
Are these two sets of statements, arguing respectively for a direct and
indirect connection between karmayoga and moksha, entirely opposed? Is
Vivekananda adopting here a position identical with Shankara and implying
a need for enquiry into the Vedas as the valid source of knowledge about
brahman? To suggest this would be to go against the main lines of all his
arguments about the limitations of knowledge derived from the Vedas, and
the relationship between karmayoga and moksha. Besides, even in these
statements where he speaks of work as an indirect aid to jiiina, there is
definitely no mention of any necessity for inquiry into the Vedas as a source of
valid knowledge (iabda-parnina) about brahman. What, then, do we make of
the suggestions in these passages? There is one significant occasion on which
Vivekananda gives us a clue to his meaning in statements such as these.‘” All
work, Vivekananda says here, is only useful for removing the ‘veils’ that
obscure the ‘manifestation’ of the itman. After the ‘veils’ have been removed,
‘the Atman manifests by Its own elllulgence’. In this sense, according to
Vivekananda, work cannot be said to lead to itmaj%ina. Vivekananda cites
Shankara for support of this view, but Shankara’s position is an entirely
different one. For Shankara, there is no concept or question of the &man
manifesting in this manner, for It is never, at any time, unmanifest.27 As
Awareness (tit or caitanya), It is always self-revealing, and ‘manifesting’ and
‘unmanifesting’ would be misleading terms.
The problem, as far as Shankara is concerned, is an incorrect knowledge of
an ever-revealing itman. The &man is not an unknown entity, but one that is
incorrectly known. The Vedas, as the authoritative source of brahmajri&a,
are not necessary for making the existence of the &man known, but for
correcting false notions about It. For Shankara, the self-revelatory nature of
the itman does not imply or is equivalent to a knowledge of Its true nature,
and he does not suggest that brahmajiiina is somehow spontaneously
l’irekananda and Karmayoga 63
manifest without proper inquiry into its authoritative source, the Vedus. In
the discussion cited above, Vivekananda does not distinguish between the SO-
called ‘manifestation’ of the &man and the knowledge of Its nature. Again,
there is a problem of terminological and conceptual clarity and consistency.
For if ‘manifestation’ is identical with self-revelatory character, and this
again is equal to a knowledge of &man’s nature, there will never be a problem
of avidya for anyone at any time. There is also the problem of the
‘manifestation’ of knowledge by a Self which is defined, in Advaita, to be free
from and beyond all activity.
Although this particular passage helps, to some extent, to clarify some ot
Vivekananda’s apparently contradictory statements about the indirect
nature of work, it does not, however, reconcile all such passages. Perhaps in
trying to explain the difficulties which arise in Vivekananda’s treatment of
karmayoga as a direct and independent path to moksha, one must also take
into consideration what appears to be a tendency in Vivekananda to idealize
and extol each method as he describes it, without attempting to reconcile the
contradictions arising from this approach. In his discussion there is no
attempt to relate the particularity and possibilities of karmayoga to the
implications of avidya as the fundamental human problem and to some of the
basic presuppositions of Advaita. The result is an obscurity of terminolog)
and concept. We should also add here that many of the same problems are
evident in his treatment of bhaktiyoga and jrZnayoga. Ultimately we remain
unconvinced about the connection between karmayoga as a path of detached
selfless activity, and moksha as involving a knowledge of the non-duality of
iitman. Its nature as ultimate reality, and Its transcendence of spatial and
temporal limitations.
Vivekananda lived at a time of tumult and trauma in the history of’
Hinduism resulting from the impact of the West. In his interpretation of the
Hindu tradition, he responded to and incorporated many of the divers?
influences which were exerting themselves at the time. In a very short career,
he in.jected a spirit of confidence into Hinduism, and his many positive
achievements must be acknowledged. One of his most positive concerns was
to elicit from Advaita the justification for a life of commitment to the service
of society. He also sought to challenge the widespread indifference of Hindu
society to poverty and suffering. It is understandable, but unfortunate, that
his presentation of Ado&a was 110~ more critically appraised during his
lifetime so that he could have responded to many of its problems and
contradictions. In view of his wide and continuing influence, a more critical
assrssmrnt of the nature and meaning of his reinterpretations is necessarv
toda\-.
64 A. Rambachan
NOTES
1 The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (hereafter abbreviated CW), 8 vols.,
Mayavati Memorial Edition, Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama, 1964-71. See CW 1,
p. 53; CW2, pp. 83-84; CW3, p. 128.
2 See CWl, p. 238; CW2, pp. 257-58.
3 See The Brahma-s&a Bh$ya of $a~kaniccirya (hereafter abbreviated B.S.B.),
trans. Swami Gambhirananda, 3rd ed., Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama, 1977. See
B.S.B. 1.3.19.
4 See CW2, p. 439; CW4, p. 227.
5 See CW2, p. 350; CW3, p. 239.
6 CW8, p. 152. Vivekananda claims the support of the Upanishadr for the view
that the attainment of knowledge is possible in a variety of ways. He does not,
however, cite any specific texts.
7 CWI, p. 93. Also p. 55.
8 For various elaborations of this argument see CW2, pp. 385-88; CW6, pp. 16-
17, 137-38.
9 See CWI, pp. 31-32, 42-43, 62.
10 See CW5, p. 246; Also CWl, p. 84.
11 cw2, p. 392.
12 See The Bhagavad Gita: with the Commentary of Sri Sankaracharya, trans. A.
Mahadeva Sastry, Madras, Samata Books, 1977. See 3:19.
13 See CWl, pp. 36-39.
14 Vivekananda supports this view by a very unusual interpretation of Arjuna’s
predicament in the Bhagavadgiti and Krishna’s subsequent instruction to him.
His argument is that Arjuna was terrified of the opposing army and masked his
cowardly feelings by arguments about love. Krishna’s goal was to lead him to the
ideal of non-resistance, but this could not be accomplished without initiation into
resistance to purge him of cowardice.
15 See CW 1, pp. 72-75. Along with his attempt to enlarge the concept of katmayoga,
one also finds in Vivekananda the search for new ways ofjustifying this means.
The primary new rationale centres around the idea of karmayoga as the secret of
successful work. This is emphasized in a manner which appears to take
karmayoga out of the context of being a way to moksha and converts it into a
pragmatic method of maintaining the success of any activity. The main
argument in this context is that failure in accomplishing the end of activity is
often due to an obsession with these ends and insufficient attention to the means.
Karmayoga remedies this by diverting attention from the result and stressing the
perfection of the means. See CW2, pp. l-9.
16 CWI, p. 111. Also p. 93. Among other reasons, Buddha is described as an ideal
karmayogi because of what Vivekananda considers to be his doctrinal indiffer-
ence.
17 Ibid., pp. lOfLlO1. Also p. 116.
18 See ibid., p. 84. Also CW7, p. 179.
19 CWl, pp. 34-35. Also p. 59, 93, 107, 110; CW3, p. 142; CW4, p. 436; CW7,
p. 63, 69, 75, 110.
20 See CW8, p. 153.
21 cw7, pp. 11 l-l 12.
22 See CWl, p. 109.
23 Ibid., p. 106.
24 Ibid., p. 512. Also p. 498.
lbekananda and Karmayoga 65
25 CW5, p. 325. See also pp. 24&41; CWl, p. 517; CW7, p. 54, 159-60, 221-22.
26 cw7, 178-79.
27 See B.S.B. 1.1.1-2. Shankara’s argument that the &man is only incorrectly
known is one of the key arguments used by him to demonstrate why knowledge
derived from the words of the Vedas can be an adequate solution to the problem
of azlidja. The task of the Vedas, in his view, is not the revelation or production of
an unknown entity, but simply the correction of false notions about the &man. In
other words, knowledge derived from a valid source is a sufficient solution where
the problem involved is one of ignorance.