Some observations on the occasion of a new translation of the Gîta By Henk W. Bodewitz, Utrecht
The book under review* is interesting but also rather puzzling, since its aims, targets or expected types of readers are rather diffuse. On the one hand outsiders, i.e. non-Indologists, seem to represent its destination, on the other hand the offered material and the extensivelist of literature can hardly serve someone without any knowledge of scholarly, Indological publica¬
tions. Beginning and more advanced students of Indology or of Compara¬
tive Religious Studies may obtain the greatest profits of consulting it. The general reader interested in such a publication has to be situated in Germany,
as will be shown below.
This publication starts (without an introduction) with a German translation of the Gîta (pp. 9-124), which is followed by a "Kommentar" (pp. 125-413) consisting of a general commentary on the Gîta (pp. 125-292) and a "Stellen¬
kommentar" on the translation (pp. 293-413).
The general commentary treats various, divergent points which may be interesting for various types of readers. It first deals with the meaning, po¬
sition, date, historical background, religious and philosophical context of the text, with the role of Krsna, the issueof the Gîta and its basic concepts.
Then (pp. 177-287) the "Wirkungsgeschichte" in India (pp. 177-247) (rang¬
ing from Sañkara and Rämänuja to Blavatsky and Aurobindo) and in Eu¬
rope (pp. 247-287) is treated. The latter treatment concerns translators and the influence of translations, almost exclusively limited to Germans and Germany and with special attention for older translators and scholars like Garbe, Otto, Herder, the Schlegels and von Humboldt. 1
* Michael von Brück: Bhagavad Gîta. Der Gesang des Erhabenen. Frankfurt a. M./
Leipzig: Verlag der Weltreligionen 2007. 457 pp. ISBN 978-3-358-70002-9. € 30,-.
1 On pp. 252-253 the author observes: "Für Herder und die Frühromantik bot die Gîta eine Folie, sich dem 'platten Rationalismus' der Aufklärung zu widersetzen (...). In¬
dien galt als das ursprüngliche Paradies (...). Diese Einstellung zu Indien (...) prägt die Rezeption indischer Kultur in Deutschland bis weit ins 20.Jahrhundert hinein, teilweise bis heute. Das ist der Rahmen, in dem auch die Bhagavad Gîta gelesen, interpretiert und kommentiert wurde." As a sober Indologist from Holland I am still grateful for the In- domania of the Germans which lasted almost two centuries, but I am aware that other
The book is concluded with a glossary (pp. 414-429) for complete outsid¬
ers and a list of literature (pp. 430-451) for insiders which makes me feel humble and almost illiterate in the field of the Gîta though I have published some articles on the interpretation of this text. 2
Its general commentary, which serves as some sort of introduction, is in¬
teresting but not very controversial or innovating. Therefore I will concen¬
trate on the translation and the "Stellenkommentar" and look for original or debatable interpretations of this text which is the most translated after the Bible. This treatment will be restricted to the more or less coherent first six chapters. Since ch. 1 sketches the context of the Gîta and the chapters 2-5 have been extensively discussed in my previous publications on the Gîta 3' special attention will be given here to ch. 6.
The preceding chapters 2-5 deal with the views of the Gîta on life on earth which on the one side should prepare the human beings for release (moksa), on the other need not imply the giving up of one's tasks in the world. This compromise causes some problems, which the text tries to solve by reinterpreting technical terms. It implies the use of more than one mean¬
ing of these terms.
The author is fully aware of some controversial aims of the text in his gen¬
eral commentary. See pp. 160-163. On the mentioned terminological prob¬
lems his views have to be found in the "Stellenkommentar" (pp. 293-413).
The title of each chapter which we find in the translation, is a Sanskrit com¬
pound ending in -yoga which was later added by Indian tradition, preceded by its German translation. For a characterisation of the real contents of each chapter one has to consult the beginnings of the commentaries on each chapter.
readers would be interested in the more general reception of the Gîta and Indian culture outside Germany.
2 See Bodewitz: "Notes on the second book of the Gitä." In: H.W. Bodewitz/Mi-
NORU Hara (eds.): Gedenkschrift J.W. de Jong. Tokyo 2004, pp. 15-26; "Notes on the Third Book of the Bhagavadgîtâ." In: L. Göhler (ed.): Festschrift Klaus Mylius. Wies¬
baden 2005,p. 39-47; "Notes on the fourth book of the Gîta." In: E. CiurTIN (ed.): Mé¬
langes offerts à Arion Rosu. Bucarest/Paris 2004 (Studia Asiática IV-V), pp. 631-642;
"Notes on the Fifth Book of the GITÄ." In: B. Mukhopadhyaya/D. Bhattacharya (eds.): Sukumari Bhattacharji Fel. Vol. Kolkata 2004, pp. 469-477. These publications (someof which are suffering from many misprints) were not consulted by von Brück, whom I cannot blame for this, since I did not consult the earlier version of his transla¬
tion and commentary of the Gîta of1993,which seems to have been published in a Ger¬
man version of Bede Griffiths: River of Compassion.A Christian Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Warwick 1987,republished in München 1993under the title Bhagavad Gita. Mit einem spirituellen Kommentar. Aus dem Sanskrit übersetzt, eingeleitet und er¬
läutert von Michael von Brück (both publications not availablein The Netherlands).
3 See n.2.
Here we are already confronted with the first terminological problem.
The term yoga with which the Indian titles end, evidently does not refer to Yoga denoting a particular method for reaching release, as appears from the title of the first chapter Arjunavisddayoga, in which yoga is not translated by von Brück, whereas in the titles of all the remaining 17 chapters "Yoga" is retained in his German translation. However, on p. 293 of his commentary he observes on the first chapter and on Arjuna's role: "Er spannt sich an, ver¬
spannt sich und bündelt alle Aufmerksamkeit auf die existentielle Frage nach dem rechten Tun. Das ist es, was dieses Kapitel zu einem 'Yoga' macht."
What is the meaning of this yoga} Has it to be derived from a root yuj meaning "sich anspannen", "sich verspannen", "Aufmerksamkeit bündeln"?
And how should we interpret this yoga then at the end of the compound arjunavisddayoga}
Ch. 2 is called sdrhkhyayoga (translated with "Yoga der Erkenntnis") and this compound has caused various interpretations in the past. All the colo¬
phons of the chapters have a compound ending in -yoga which cannot be interpreted as a dvandva, whereas in this chapter yoga and sdrhkhya are treated. 4 Therefore some translators interpret the compound of the title as 'the yoga of sdrhkhya' , but give as their own title of ch. 2 something like 'sdrhkhya and yoga'. On p. 300 the author rightly rejects the association of
these two terms with the philosophical systems and chooses the translations
"Theorie" and "Praxis". 5 On the other hand he takes yoga as "Anjochung"
(namely "des Willens, Denkens, Fühlens und Handelns"). In my view yoga
4 See 2,39, where särhkhya and yoga are mentioned as two different entities.
5 "Ich ... übersetze deshalb mit 'Theorie' und 'Praxis', ohne auch diese Begriffe streng fassen zu können." This translation was already given by S.Radhakrishnan: The Bhagavadgïtâ. London 1948, who was followed by R. C. Zaehner: The Bhagavad-Gïtâ.
Oxford 1969, p. 139, in a note on 2, 39. However, in 2, 39 the two terms occur in the locative (esa te 'bhihitä särhkhye buddhir, yoge tv imärh srnu ...) and Zaehner rather carelessly translates as if the theory (särhkhya) now would be used in the practice ("This wisdom has [now] been revealed to you in theory; listen now how it should be practised"),
but the pronoun imam refers back to buddhi and not to särhkhya. For my translation
"Herewith the way of thinking with regard to the theory has been told. Now listen to the way of thinking with regard to the praxis." see the reference in n. 2. The division of this chapter at 2, 39 does not consist of theory (särhkhya) and its being put into practice, because in the preceding verses the practice based on the theory (namely not abstaining from fighting since the ätman cannot be killed) had already been extensively treated. Af¬
ter 2,39 anew item isintroduced and this is announced with ... yoge tv imärh [buddhim]
srnu/ buddhyä yukto yayäpärtha karmabandharh prahäsyasi //. From the discussion on fighting or not fighting ending with the conclusion that killing abody is not killing its ätman the attention now shifts to ideas on release from karman by aform of yoga which is interpreted as exertion (yoga) or activity (karman) carried out with aparticular mentality
(buddhi).
often means effort or exertion in this chapter and then refers to being (or in the Gîta: remaining) active in the world. Compare the compound yogaksema in which yoga likewise denotes alife of activity. As such it does not denote a special method, but becomes a method (karmayoga or karmamdrga) when this activity is restricted to being carried out without any selfinterest. So the non-technical meaning of yoga is based on the verb yuj meaning 'to exert oneself' 6 rather than 'to yoke'. For the equation of yoga and karman see also BhG. 2,50: yogah karmasu kausalam.
The title of the colophon suggests that sdmkhya (i.e. theory) would form the subject of ch. 2, but actually this chapter rather deals with yoga seen as karmayoga according to the ideas on karmamdrga of the Gîta. The theory is only treated in 2, 11-30, whereas 2, 39ff. deal with practice.
On p. 302 von Brück makes some unconvincing remarks on the contents of ch. 2 and the meanings of buddhi and of buddhiyoga (in verse 49):
Im zweiten Kapitel der Gîta werden die Begriffe vijñdna (V. 46),prajñd (V. 11) und buddhi (V. 44) vermutlich synonym gebraucht. Allerdings ist nicht klar, ob buddhiyoga (V. 49) nicht noch eine eigene Yoga-Tradition anspricht (...).
Buddhiyoga ist jedenfalls mehr als karmayoga, also der Weg des rechten und pflichtgemäßen Handelns (V. 49) (...) Karmayoga wäre dann ein niedri¬
ger motiviertes Handeln (...), buddhiyoga hingegen die auf geistiger Tiefen¬
erfahrung {prajñd, jñdna) beruhende Handlung ohne Absicht des Gewinns (...) Dann wäre buddhiyoga identisch mit jñdnayoga, angewandt auf das Feld der Praxis ...
In his commentary on 2, 49, however, the author observes on buddhiyoga translated with "Yoga der Einsicht": "Buddhiyoga ist ... nicht ein dritter Weg neben Erkenntnis {jñdna) und Handeln {karma), sondern einsichtvolles Handeln", which is more convincing but does not agree with his translation
and introductory remarks quoted above.
I doubt whether in 2, 49 {dürena hy avaram karma buddhiyogdd ...) the term karman would denote the karmayoga in comparison with the bud¬
dhiyoga (both seen as systems or mdrga 's). In one of my earlier publications on the Gîta (see n. 2) I wrote on 2, 49:
In my view yoga at the end of this compound simply means 'the use of or 'the application of.' It neither refers to the technical term yoga nor to its Gîta
variant 'effort, practice'. Here the opposition is between simple karma and the application of buddhi in one's activity. This buddhi is the mental attitude of the Gîta which should be employed in performing the acts.
6 In the Dutch language the verb 'inspannen' may be used for yoking or harnessing (with as object animals) as well as for exerting oneself (in the reflexive). Perhaps the trans¬
lator had the same interpretation in mind on p. 193(quoted above) where "sich anspannen, sich verspannen" was rather oddly associated with yoga in the colophon title of ch. 1.
The buddhi in the compound buddhiyoga is not "zunächst die intellektuell klare und intuitive Tiefenschau" assumed by the author (who equates it with jñdná) but 'the way of thinking', as I have tried to show in my note on 2, 39
(see n. 2) esd te 'bhihitä särhkhye buddhir yoge tv imärh srnu (a place which clearly shows that buddhi and sdmkhya cannot be equated and buddhi defi¬
nitely appears to be not a separate method), where I translated : "Herewith the way of thinking with regard to the theory has been told. Now listen to the way of thinking with regard to the praxis." See also my extensive note on 2, 41, where again it appears that the buddhi is "a particular mentality, men¬
tal approach or way of thinking (or even planning) rather than ... wisdom".
The terminological problems of the two discussed terms yoga and buddhi occur together in 2, 53, where it is said that if someone's buddhi is steadfast with regard to samddhi, he will obtain yoga. The author translates "Sobald deine Vernunft unbeirrt in tiefer Versenkung bewegungslos verharrt, wirst du die Bewusstseinseinung erlangen."
This does not convince me. The buddhi is not a "Vernunft" and I cannot imagine how such a "Vernunft" could stay motionless in a samddhi taken as the technical term which supposes a short period of unconsciousness, whereas in this context (in verse 50) yoga is defined as karmasu kausalam.
And certainly not in a verse in which this buddhi is implicitly compared with the buddhi of the unsuccessful specialists of the Veda in verse 44, where it is said that a vyavasdydtmikd buddhih samddhau na vidhïyate and the locative samddhau can only be interpreted as "with regard to" and buddhi obviously refers to a particular mental effort or approach. See my translation of 2, 44 "a way of thinking of which the nature is resolute is not brought about with re¬
gard to samddhi" (where the author renders with "wird auf Entschlusskraft beruhende Vernunfteinsicht in der Versenkung nicht gewährt").
On yoga in 2, 53 I have observed: "The exact interpretation of yoga is difficult in this verse. It seems that this well-known concept ... is described as the concentration or thinking on one target (moksa)." Here von Brück renders yoga with "Bewusstseinseinung" without explaining this interpre¬
tation. There are, however, more verses in this chapter in which yoga and the participle yukta occur apart from 2, 39 discussed above. In 2, 39 the author translates the second half buddhydyukto yayd ... karmabandhamprahdsyasi with "Durch solcher Vernunfteinsicht geeint... wirst du die Bindung durch Taten überwinden". In my note I have observed: "There may be some sort of wordplay of yoga and yukta, but in a construction with an instrumental yukta primarily means 'provided with'." This means that yukta here cannot
mean "geeint".
In 2, 50 and 2, 51 yukta occurs at the end of the compound buddhi- yukta and again the translator renders yukta with "geeint", but here the first
member of the compound is not interpreted as an instrumental but as a loca¬
tive: "Wer in der Vernunft geeint ist" and "die in der Vernunft geeinten".
Several translators have given various renderings of this verse. Since in the second half of 2, 50 twice the noun yoga is found and even occurs together with the verb yuj (tasmäd yogäya yujyasva yogah karmasu kausalam) we
may assume that all the derivations from the root yuj in this context refer to the Gîta kind of Yoga which implies on the one hand exertion ('to exert oneself: the medium yujyasval) and activity in the world and on the other a mental form of Yoga rather than purely physical Yoga exercises. Therefore I prefer to take the compound buddhiyukta in both verses as referring to persons who are 'mentally concentrated' in the work or exertion (yoga) they undertake and that we have to do with " definitions or rather redefinitions of the technical term yoga according to the Gîta 's view of life" (see my note on 2, 50).
The participle yukta also occurs in 2, 61 täni sarväni sarhyamya yukta âsïta matparah, where several translators (including von Brück) have liter¬
ally taken the verb äs as 'to sit down' and thereby have created the impres¬
sion that one should sit down in a Yoga position without doing any activities.
However, the verb äs here seems to express a continuous action together with the gerund sarhyamya. 7 One should continuously bring all these
(senses) under control, which does not imply that one should sit down and stop all activities. See 2, 48 yogasthah kuru karmäni. The participle yukta, translated by the author with "mit geeintem Bewusstsein" and apparently equated with buddhiyukta in 2, 50 ("Wer in der Vernunft geeint ist"), does not refer to aparticular "Einung" (unification? unification with what?), but to a concentration. The person concerned should concentrate himself (the reflexive passive of yuj) in his thought or mentality by controlling his senses.
This concentration indeed is a form of unification of the attention and there¬
fore in this verse Krsna states that the concentration should be only directed to himself (matpara). Here there is no reference to actual Yoga practices, let alone to an already realized unification with Krsna.
A negation of the participle yukta is associated with the absence of buddhi in 2, 66, where the author translates nästi buddhir ayuktasya na cäyuktasya bhävanä na cäbhävayatah säntir ... with "Wer nicht geeint im Bewusst¬
sein ist, hat keine Vernunft. Wer nicht geeint im Bewusstsein ist, hat keine Geistentfaltung. Und wer keine Geistentfaltung hat, kennt keinen Frie-
7 See J.S. Speijer: Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden 1886, p. 298. S. Radhakrishnan 1948, p. 125 correctly takes äs as an auxiliary verb, but in a construction with the participle yukta, which is likewise possible (see Speijer 1886, p. 295). Seealso3, 6 karmendriyäni sarhyamyaya äste manasä smaran indriyärthän where äste should be taken with sma- ranto denote acontinuation and the author again takes äs literally as "sitzen".
den." This verse does not only show an association but also a sequence. For a buddhi one needs a form of yoga, whereas in 2, 53 one can only attain yoga (and become yukta) after having the correct buddhi. So much is clear that yoga is not a final station in ch. 2 and that buddhi is not "Vernunft" 8 but thinking. Obviously a particular way of thinking {buddhi) and being concentrated (yukta) should go hand in hand and the presence of concentra¬
tion (being yukta) is required for developing the thinking into a bhävanä (a "Vorstellungskraft" 9 rather than "Geistentfaltung"), a way of thinking which is focused on a particular idea or concept and required for reaching
peace and its final stage in the form of liberation or union with the highest principle or the highest deity. The yoga supposed to be present in the yukta thus is far from the final stage and is only its prerequisite. It is not a particu¬
lar technique.
Ch. 3 is called karmayoga and treats the yoga (method or discipline or way of life or path) of karman, i.e. of the concept of yoga already mentioned in the second chapter. This activity (karman) is dissociated from its results, likewise called karman. 10
In this chapter the term yoga without the meaning Yoga is found in 3, 3, where Krsna explains that in the preceding chapter two concepts had been
associated with two kinds of persons: jñdnayogena sdmkhydndm karmayo- gena yogindm, which the author translates with " durch Yoga der Erkenntnis bei den Theoretikern, durch Yoga des Handelns bei den Praktikern". In 2005 (see n. 2) I have shown that in the compounds jñdnayogena and karmayogena the term yoga does not mean Yoga, but that -yogena ifc. only underlines the function of the instrumental case. In 3, 7again the compound karmayoga is found, now in the accusative: yas ... ärabhate ... karmendriyaih karmayo- gam asaktah ... and here the author translates "Wer ... ohne Anhaften mit
den tat-orientierten Kräften den Yoga des Handelns übt..." I doubt whether the activity undertaken here should be called a Yoga in the technical sense.
See 3, 19,where in a comparable turn of phrase karma instead of karmayo- gam occurs: asakto hy acaran karma, translated with "... wenn er nicht¬
anhaftend handelt..." So I suppose that in 3, 7 karmayoga only denotes 'the
8 R.C. Zaehner 1969, p. 155 even assumes in his translation that the text would state
"The man who is not integrated has no soul", which is clear nonsense.
9 See K. Mylius: Die Bhagavadgïtâ. Leipzig 1980, p. 32.
10 On p. 316 the author seems to interpret the term naiskarmyam as an adjective quali¬
fying karma ("Handeln im Nicht-Handeln"), but in his glossary he translates it with
"Nicht-Handeln". The term denotes the being without karman (i.e. without the results of one's activity) as appears from the prefix nis/nais.
performance of actions', the more so since ärabh means 'to undertake' and does not refer to a single start of a Yoga or path.
Not only ambiguous terms like yoga (left untranslated by the author) have various meanings in this text. We may also take ätman into account in ch. 3. See e.g. 3, 6, where vimüdhätmä is translated with "der ist ganz und gar verblendet", whereas I (see n. 2) take ätman as the reflexive pro¬
noun and render the compound as "fooling oneself". In 3, 27 ahamkära is added to the compound and the reflexive meaning of ätman seems to be missing: ahamkäravimüdhätmä kartä 'ham iti mányate "wer vom Ich-Gefühl verwirrt ist, meint: 'Ich bin der Täter'." Most translators take ahamkära with the function of an instrumental and either leave ätman untranslated or render it with 'self or 'soul'. However, the person who has the wrong opinion (mányate) fools himself with the belief of an ahamkära who would be the actor instead of the guna's and his soul or ätman can¬
not be fooled by his ahamkära. He is fooling himself about the role of the ahamkära.
The term ätman occurring in 3,17 (yas tv ätmaratir eva syäd ätmatrptas ca mänavah ätmany eva ca samtustas ...) is interpreted by von B. as "das Selbst". However, this verse deals with the opposite of the preceding verses in which the ritual duties are treated. Here one has no obligations towards anyone else, not even to the gods, and therefore ätman does not mean 'the Atman, the Self but 'oneself. Moreover, as observed by me in my commen¬
tary (see n. 2), there are "purely erotic connotations" in the terminology of this verse and its parallels, which even are sexual. For sex with the Self there is no room in this metaphor.
Just as in the preceding chapter 3 the term yoga of the second chapter is ex¬
plained as karman, in ch. 4 sämkhya of ch. 2 is explained as jüäna. However, the jüänayoga does not form the subject of the whole chapter and only starts at verse 33 (or at best at verse 23). The author's introduction to his commen¬
tary on ch. 4 (pp. 322-325) therefore hardly deals with jüäna. This chapter also treats the sacrifice and here again a wordplay on the several meanings of
a term, i.e. karman, plays a role. The Gîta reacts against the renouncers who give up every activity (karman), as it would produce results (karman) which bind a human being to this world by rebirth. The Gîta advises to continue activity in general by giving up its results (karmanyäsa) or even by deposit¬
ing them with Krsna in the third chapter (3, 30). In ch. 4renouncing activity (karman) is interpreted as renouncing the real activity of the ritual (like¬
wise called karman) by substituting it by symbolic sacrifices, ätmayajüa's;
cf. the opposition between actual sacrifices and the ätman in 3,17 (discussed above). This is not sufficiently explained by the author on p. 325 ("Die Verse
ab V. 24 sind ein Hymnus auf das Opfer"). 11 See my observations on the fourth chapter (o.e., p. 632; see n. 2):
The karman=yajña of Vedismis replaced by Brahman-karman, the symbolic sacrificein which the Ätman rather than the deities is the destination of the offering.In such Atma-yajñas the oblation often is not concrete.In some cases jñana replaces the concrete oblation.
Here the symbolic activity {karman) does not strive for wealth on earth or a continuation of life in heaven, but concerns the identity of ätman and brah¬
man or even of ätman and Krsna, which can be achieved by 'sacrificing' or surrendering oneself to the highest principle or God in a sacrifice of jüäna (which does not simply mean knowledge but has gnostic aspects).
The discussion on karman and its double meaning (activity and Karma) plays a role in 4, 16-18. In the opening of 4, 16 {kim karma kim akarmeti kavayo 'py atra mohitäh) the double question introduced with iti has been misinterpreted by most translators (including von B.) as a problem of defini¬
tion; see my remarks on the fourth ch. (o.e., see n. 2, p. 635):
The adverb atra denotes the single point about which these people are in hesi¬
tation and the twofold kim introduces a disjunctive question in which twice kim is used instead of kim ... kim vä (...) Probably the verb form astu should be added in this elliptical construction.
So we should not translate "Was ist Handeln? Was ist Nicht-Handeln?" in 4, 17. Again most translators (including von B.) misinterpret 4, 17,which treats "a problem of terminology ... as some sort of digression" (see my note), and in which the meanings of karma, akarma and vikarma are dis¬
cussed. The term vikarman is translated by von B. (in agreement with sev¬
eral other translations) with "das schlechte Handeln", which is possible but does not suit the context, which deals with the problem of the two meanings of karman (activity and its results). See 4, 18 karmany akarma yah pasyed akarmani ca karma yah, where karman means activity as well as its results and akarman the absence of activity as well as of its results and the absence of the one need not produce the absence of the other. There is no reason to assume that vikarman in 4, 17 would denote a criminal activity as in most contexts. Here it occurs in some sort of explanation of a-karman, a compound in which a- may denote the absence as well as the opposite of the negated element (cf. a-mitra meaning 'enemy'). So a-karman can mean
11 It is true that he admits: "Allerdings lässt die Gîta keinen Zweifel daran, dass das Erkenntnis-Opfer (jñanayajña) dem Opfer von Gegenständen (dravyamaya yajña) vor¬
zuziehen ist (V.33)", but there isa real opposition between the two which isnot based on the material but on the aims. See 4, 12,where it is said that those who desire results oftheir sacrifices on earth offer to the gods and thereby produce karman.
'non-karman, nonactivity' as well as 'the being free from karman' (a mean¬
ing also expressible by vi-karman). The moral issues do not play a role in this wordplay.
Ch. 5 is called karmasamnyäsayoga, which von Brück (p. 330) translates with "Yoga der Entsagung im Handeln", whereas S. Radhakrishnan (1948) prefers "the discipline of the renunciation of Karma". Indeed, the term yoga here as usual denotes a particular method or approach, but the chapter "does not teach actual Samnyäsa, let alone renunciation of all activ¬
ity, but the getting rid of the results or effects of one's actions which are also called karma" 12.
Now the problem is that von Brück does not translate Sanskrit terms like yoga which in the Gîta may denote completely divergent concepts. In the title yoga denotes a particular method or discipline, in the text itself yoga represents the opposite of renouncement {samnyäsa) and means exertion or activity. The translation "Yoga der Entsagung im Handeln" looks more in¬
genious than convincing. The compound karmasamnyäsa can only be inter¬
preted as the renouncement of karman. However, the text takes karman as the result of actions and tries to defend the Gîta method {yoga) of continuing activity but getting rid of its effects (i.e. the karmayoga or karmamärga).
Radhakrishnan, who correctly translated the title of the chapter as found in the colophon, gives the following title to the chapter asbased on its contents: "True Renunciation" with the subtitle "Sämkhya and Yoga lead to the same goal", which refers to V, 4. In this textplace von Brück again does not translate these two Sanskrit terms. In his note (p. 334) he observes: "Man kann Sämkhya und Yoga hier sowohl im Sinne der philosophischen Systeme als auch allgemein im Sinn von 'Erkenntnis und Yoga-Praxis' verstehen."
This does not convince. The "Yoga-Praxis" in fact is the path of karman as prescribed by the Gîta. So yoga means karman. The term sämkhya refers to the jüäna treated in ch. 4.
So ch. 2 deals with the sämkhya {= jüänamärga) andyoga {= karmamärga), ch. 3 with karmamärga, ch. 4 with jüänamärga and ch. 5 returns to the karmamärga of the Gîta.
Now I will proceed with a detailed treatment of ch. 6. Just as in my earlier articles on BhG 2-5 (see n. 2)I will (in this case incidentally) refer to transla¬
tions of Senart, Radhakrishnan, Zaehner, Mylius and van Buitenen. 13
12 Formy observation on BhG.5 see n. 2.
13 E. Senart: La Bhagavadgïtâ.Paris 1922;S. Radhakrishnan 1948; R.C. Zaehner
1969; K. Mylius 1980; J.A.B, van Buitenen: The Bhagavadgïtâin the Mahäbhärata.
Chicago 1981.
The traditional title of this chapter in its colophon is 'the yoga of dhydna', which may be translated with "the discipline or method of concentration or
meditation". Some sort of adaptation of real yoga practice is assumed to be the subject of this chapter and Radhakrishnan (see n. 15) calls it 'The true Yoga'. In the approach of the Gîta this discipline does not involve an early
retreat from the world. According to von Brück (p. 337), however, a third marga "neben dem begierdefreien Handeln und der unbedingten Hingabe an Gott" is treated here in the form of "geistige Versenkung". As shown above the Gîta has some repetitions in its ch. 2-5, where yoga, sdmkhya and samnydsa are symbolically or metaphorically used. We cannot say that these four chapters only represent the Gîta paths of karmayoga or karmamdrga and bhaktimdrga and that a third path is introduced in ch. 6. The path of karma (i.e. of activity or of yoga in the sense of exertion) is the opposite of renouncement, but is interpreted as a symbolic samnydsa. The path oíjñdna is the renouncement of ritual (= karma) in which worship of gods is substi¬
tuted by knowledge of God (= Brahman) as being identical with the dtman, which may be realized by bhakti. The "Yoga der Versenkung" is not a new,
third path, but a reinterpretation of the Sanskrit term yoga, which here is not taken as exertion, i.e. the continuation of doing karman without pro¬
ducing karman (as would appear from verse 1), but as unification with the highest Being without yogic exercises. The term dhydna taken as "geistige Versenkung" by the author is missing in the text of the chapter and is only found in its colophon. Terms like yoga and yogin frequently occur in this chapter. In the following commentary we shall see how these words, which are not translated by von Brück, have to be interpreted.
1. andsritah karmaphalam kdryam karma karoti yah / sa samnydsï ca yogï ca na niragnir na cdkriyah //
The adjective akriya does not mean here "wer ... die Riten vernachlässigt"
but "who does not carry out any activity", as Zaehner and Mylius (see n. 13) rightly interpret it. The Gîta is not primarily interested in the ritual, but accepts it as one of the activities required in life in the world. Moreo¬
ver von BrÜck's interpretation would make akriya rather redundant after niragni.
2. yam samnydsam iti prdhur y ogam tarn viddhi pdndava / na hy asamnyastasamkalpo yogï bhavati kascana //
The translation "Was man Entsagung nennt, ist Yoga" might create the im¬
pression that the text would identify samnydsa and yoga, both to be taken as the well-known technical terms; see also p. 338 of the commentary. The
problem of this translation is that yoga is left untranslated. Zaehner ("spir¬
itual exercice") and Mylius ("Hingabe") likewise seem to equate two tech¬
nical terms, whereas van Buitenen ("discipline") is rather vague, but may agree with Radhakrishnan's "disciplined activity". Indeed, yoga here de¬
notes exertion or activity, which is one ofthe well-known types of paradoxes used by the Gîta: giving up activity (samnydsa) is continuation of activity (but giving up its goals or aims (samkalpa).
3. druruksor muner y ogam karma kdranam ucyate / yogdrüdhasya tasyaiva samah käranam ucyate //
This verse confronts us with two problems: the meaning of yoga (first left untranslated by the author, but taken as "Yoga-Weg" in the compound) and of kdrana (rendered with "angemessene/geeignete Methode"). Apparently two successive stages are assumed here and both would represent one marga.
On p. 338, however, the author identifies the first stage with karmayoga or karmamdrga and in the second stage there would be "keine Aktivität von- nöten, ja, eine solche wäre der Versenkung abträglich, weil dann eine gezielte Absicht die Geistesruhe stören würde". This interpretation points to an op¬
position of two ways rather than to two stages of one and the same way. The author also assumes that in the first of the two "der Wille noch eine Rolle spielt". In my view, however, the karmamdrga of the Gïtâ prescribes ac¬
tion without samkalpa. Moreover, I doubt (with Radhakrishnan) whether sama forms an opposition with karman in the sense that it means the aban¬
doning of all actions.
The opposition is between two kdrana's associated with two stages of the same path. The translation "Methode" is rather free and more or less represents a tautology with "Wege". Mylius renders kdrana with "Element"
(an even more free translation which is nondescript) and other scholars like Radhakrishnan, van Buitenen and Zaehner take it as "means". This interpretation supposes a goal to be reached with a particular means. This goal could only be yoga. For someone who wants to reach or to climb to yoga the karman would be the means. Having reached yoga (yogdrüdha), however, there can be no means for reaching yoga and therefore 'means' is not a suitable translation, if yoga would be the goal. Mylius takes yoga here as "Vereinigung (mit der Weltseele)" (based on a wrong etymology of the term) and thereby arrives at a certain goal which one wants to obtain, but has some problems with the interpretation of kdrana, since the basic princi¬
ple for reaching this yoga would be karman (the first stage).
Indeed, yoga here refers to a particular mdrga and the two kdrana's are associated with two stages of this path. The second stage is a final stage
to some extent, but it does not yet represent the moksa. The compound yogärüdha is explained in the next verse as denoting someone who has re¬
nounced the attachment to the objects ofthe senses and to aims to be reached in life. This does not imply any practising of technical yoga exercises. The participle ärüdha in the compound with yoga does not mean that one has reached an absolute, final goal, but that one has reached a particular phase of the yoga seen as a particular marga. As appears from verse 4this marga is nothing else than the karmamdrga of the Gîta which in the preceding books was called a yoga and whose follower was called yogin in the first verse of
this chapter. He who wants to start this yoga or to enter upon (one of the meanings of the verb d-ruh) this path, may retain his activities and rituals (karma) and need not be someone who retires from this world, but after his decision to enter this path his way of life is characterized by sama (even while continuing his activities). So the two kdrana's (methods or means for reaching a goal which lies beyond yoga itself) do not form an opposition or two different, successive stages, but the second is something which is added to the first and this results in karman with sama.
5. uddhared ätmanätmänam nätmänam avasädayet / ätmaiva hy ätmano bandhur ätmaiva ripur ätmanah //
The use of the term ätman u with various case-endings has caused troubles for some translators. In the first half of the verse the accusative has been cor¬
rectly taken as the reflexive pronoun by von Brück ("Man muss sich selbst ... emporheben"), Radhakrishnan and van Buitenen, whereas Zaehner interprets it as "(the) self" and Mylius as "das Selbst". In a reflexive con¬
struction the instrumental ätmanä only emphasizes the reflexive meaning.
See Speijer 1886, paragraph 264, n. 2: "lays stress on the fact that the sub¬
ject is acting by himself." Therefore its translation by Radhakrishnan and van Buitenen ("by himself") is superfluous. Here von Brück (who in his note on p. 340 observes that ätman denotes "das Reflexivum und den tran¬
szendenten Wesenskern des Menschen. Wechselndes Wortspiel beider macht den Reiz des Verses aus".) translates: "Man muss sich selbst durch das Selbst emporheben", which would imply that the action requires some role of the Atman and would speak against the syntactic analysis of Speijer.
In the second half of this verse Radhakrishnan translates the nomi¬
native with "the Self" and the genitive with "the self"; i.e. he makes a dis¬
tinction between the Atman (in the nom.) and 'oneself (in the gen.). Like Radhakrishnan, Zaehner distinguishes two selves. The nominative, however, in his note is "the [carnal] self" and the genitive "the [spiritual]
See also the problems of interpreting this term in 3,6;3, 17and 3, 27 noticed above.
self [-in-itself] ", which is the opposite interpretation compared with that of Radhakrishnan, but in my view preferable, because the activity belongs to oneself as the friend or enemy of one's Atman and not to the Atman. It is also possible to take both the nom. and the gen. as the same in some sort of reflexive construction in which ätman means 'oneself. See van Buitenen:
"for oneself alone is one's friend ..." The translation of von Brück does not make a choice and on the one hand renders "Denn das Selbst allein kann einem selbst Freund sein" (cf. Radhakrishnan), on the other "und man selbst allein kann sich selbst Feind sein" (cf. van Buitenen). For the latter interpretation see Speijer 1886, paragraph 264, especially 264c referring to Pane. Ill, 174yah karoti narah päpam na tasyätmä dhruvam priyah "who
does evil, certainly does not love himself", which also agrees as to its con¬
tents. So I prefer the reflexive construction here.
6. bandhur ätm ätman as tasya yenätmaivätmanä jitah / anätmanas tu satrutve vartetätmaiva satruvat //
The first half of this verse is comparable with the preceding verse. The re¬
flexive construction yenätmaivätmanä jitah has been wrongly translated by von Brück ("Wer sich selbst durch das Selbst überwunden hat") and others, but should be translated with "who has conquered or subdued himself"; see Senart: "celui qui s'est vaincu lui-même". In the second half of this verse anätman has been correctly interpreted by von Brück ("Wer sich aber nicht selbst überwunden hat ") and others as anätmavant 15, since anätman forms the opposite of the jitätman, which is described in the first half of this verse and explicitly denoted as such in the following verse. However, this indicates that the reflexive constructions in this and in the preceding verse should be interpreted as purely reflexive ones in which not two different ätman s should be assumed and the instrumental ätmanä has its usual (reflexive) function.
7. jitätmanah prasäntasya paramätmä samähitah / sïtosnasukhaduhkhesu tathä mänäpamänayoh //
Here the cosmic Atman (paramätman) seems to be explicitly mentioned for the first time in this text. Then the subject of this sentence is paramätmä, but some translators start from different readings or misinterpret the syntax of the verse. Von Brück translates "Wer sich selbst überwunden und befriedet hat, ist im Höchsten Selbst gesammelt", which is rather strange from the syntactical point of view, since paramätmä is the subject. The same may be observed about the translation of Mylius ("Mit dem, der sich selbst be-
However,Mylius takesit literally as "Nichtselbst"and Zaehner as "bereft of self".
zwang ..., ist der höchste Geist vereint"), in which moreover the rendering
"vereint" of samähitah does not convince.
Senart seems to take ätmä as the subject ("celui-là demeure parfaite¬
ment recueilli"), to separate param from it and to take this as an adverb with samähitah. It is true that the term paramätman is rather confusing in this con¬
text, since it introduces without any explanation the concept of the incorpora¬
tion of the Highest Self in a person and describes it as belonging (in a genitive construction) to someone who has subdued himself. However, the assump¬
tion of an adverb which is separated from the adjective samähita by the noun ätman is doubtful. Perhaps the best solution would be to take param as atah param ("then, thereupon", i.e. after one has subdued oneself) or as "moreover"
(adding a new argument after the first half of verse 6). The ätman of someone who has subdued himself or his ätman becomes concentrated in the opposi¬
tions mentioned in the second half of verse 7 which might disturb it.
Von BrÜck's "... im Höchsten Selbst gesammelt" seems to be based on the reading paramätmäsamähitah, which is untenable, as in such a com¬
pound the term ätman cannot occur in its nominative ätmä and requires the stem form ätma.
8. jüänavijüänatrptätmä kütastho vijitendriyah / yukta ity ucyate yogi sámalos täsmakäücanah //
The text gives an etymological qualification of the yogin, who may be de¬
scribed as yukta if some conditions have been fulfilled. Just as in the pre¬
ceding verse he should be indifferent to opposite items (i.e. he should be samähita, which just like yukta in the present verse means 'concentrated, not disturbed by positive or negative things').
Von Brück (like Senart and Mylius) does not render ätman in the first compound ending in -trptätmä, whereas Radhakrishnan ("whose soul is satisfied with ...") and Zaehner ("With self content in ...") try to localise the trpti. I assume that ätman expresses the reflexive in this compound which does not express pleasure or satisfaction produced byjüäna and vijüäna, but indicates that the yogin is someone who is fed up with it and now is only concentrated on one goal.
The adjective kütastha does not simply mean "wenn er den Gipfel er¬
klommen ... hat", but denotes someone who metaphorically stands on the top of a mountain and looks down upon all oppositions and activities. 16 He is isolated. This is also expressed by samähita and yukta.
16 Cf. SB. 2, 3, 3, 10-11, where one looks down upon day and night, as one may look down on the revolving chariot-wheels. Eternity and immortality are above change and development.
The etymology of yukta ity ucyate yogi has been variously interpreted.
Von Brück follows Zaehner ("integrated") in his translation of yukta ("vollkommen integriert") and observes in his commentary: "wörtlich 'an- gejocht' ", which does not explain much. Mylius does not start from an ety¬
mology and translates "als (mit der Weltseele) vereint wird der Strebende bezeichnet". We may compare the German "angespannt" which on the one hand refers to yoked horses, but on the other hand can also be used in the turn of phrase "angespannte Arbeit". 17 In this verse the exertion is a form of concentration. 18
9. suhrnmitrdryuddsïnamadhyasthadvesyabandhusu / sddhusv api capdpesu samabuddhir visisyate //
In the verses 5-6 the friend and the enemy are not external persons but one¬
self; in the verses 7-8 pleasant and unpleasant things are to be overlooked and regarded as equal. In the present verse the equality of friends and enemies (terms partly belonging to the sphere of kingship; see Kautilya, Arthasdstra 6,2) 19 is treated. The fact that these technical terms from the sphere of state- manship are used, indicates that the text of this chapter does not exclusively deal with lifelong ascetics, yogins, samnydsins, etc., even if these terms may be metaphorically used here. The yogin of this and of the preceding verse does not practise Yoga exercises.
10. yogï yunjïta satatam dtmdnarh rahasi sthitah / ekdkï yatacittdtmd nirdsïr aparigrahah //
van Buitenen observes that "the karmayogin now shades into the solitary yogin of the technical Yoga". This "technical Yoga" then would be the final
stage after the karmayoga rather than a temporary interruption, since apari- graha and satatam indicate a permanent situation.
In yunjïta ... dtmdnam the last word should be taken with Senart, Zaeh¬
ner and van Buitenen as the reflexive pronoun. Radhakrishnan trans¬
lates "Let the yogin try ... to concentrate his mind (on the Supreme Self)", whereas Mylius takes dtman as the self and yuj as 'to train' ("Der Vereini¬
gung (mit der Gottheit) Erstrebende soll sein Selbst ... üben"). The transla-
17 Seen. 6.
18 Cf. the term srama which not only denotes physical exertion, but may also refer to the Yogic preparation of asacrificer for his ritual; see Bodewitz: "The special meanings of srama and other derivations of the root sram in the Veda." In: IIJ 50 (2008), pp. 145-160.
19 Von Brück misunderstands some of these terms and does not take mitra as the ally and combines the middle king and the neutral king (see Arthas. 6, 2, 21-22) in his "Neu¬
tralen".
tion of von Brück seems to take the middle form yunjïta as the reflexive and ätmänam as the object of the self-concentration ("soll sich ... auf das Selbst zentrieren"), which looks more interesting than grammatically possible. 20
In the second half of the verse ätman again occurs, now in the com¬
pound yatacittätmä. Senart ("l'esprit dompté") does not translate ätman and Radhakrishnan ("selfcontrolled") does not take into account citta, whereas other translators like Zaehner and Mylius makethe restraint refer to mind or thought and "self" and "Selbst". Von Brück follows them and renders with "zügele Bewusstsein und sich selbst". If now ätman would de¬
note herethe reflexive pronoun, one may ask what is the difference between 'oneself and 'one's mind or thought'. Sañkara interprets ätman here as body.
In spite of some doubts (expressede.g. by Zaehner) we have to accept this interpretation. 21 Subduing oneselfis restraining the fulfilment of the bodily desires.
12.... / upavisyäsane yuüjyäd y ogam ätmavisuddhaye //
Here the verb yuj is found in a construction with a cognate accusative. Von BrÜck's 'translation' "praktiziere Yoga" is preferable to more explicit ren¬
derings like those of Mylius ("übe er Meditation") and Zaehner ("... let him ... concentrate on spiritual exercise"), since the Yoga described here is not pure meditation and the construction requires an interpretation like 'to exercise exercises' or 'to exert oneself in exertions'. The concentration de¬
notes exercisesin the sphere of Hatha Yoga according to von Brück and of Dhyäna Yoga according to Radhakrishnan in their commentaries.
The purification (suddhi) concerns 'oneself (von Brück: "Selbstreini¬
gung") rather than 'the self (Zaehner; Mylius) or "the soul" (Radha¬
krishnan). See BhG. 5, 11 where the Karma Yoga of the Gîta (sangam tyaktva) is said to produce a similar purification (ätmasuddhaye) and the context (5, 7 visuddhätmä vijitätmä and 5, 10 sangam tyaktvä karoti yah lipyate na sa päpena) indicates that the word ätman means 'oneself here.
14. ... yukta âsïta matparah //
The yuktah, who is the subject of the actions expressedby yu] in verses 10 and
12, has been variously translated: "concentre" (Senart), "harmonized" (Rad¬
hakrishnan), "integrated" (Zaehner), "gesammelt" (Mylius) and "vollkom¬
men geeint" (von Brück). I prefer Senart's interpretation, because the activity
20 Note that in verse 15the active ofyuñj occurs with the accusative ätmänam.
21See the compound yatacittendriyänala, in which the opposition isbetween what one thinks and what one feels with the body. The Yogin should not only restrain himself in sexual life, but also restrain his ideas on women.
in verses 10 and 12 is (self-) concentration. The verb äs is taken literally as de¬
noting the sitting position (cf. upavisyäsane in verse 12) by von Brück and the other, mentioned translators, but like (brahmacärivrate) sthitah in the present verse the verb may denote continuity rather than a specific sitting position, 22 the more so since no one would expect here the opposite of brahmacärivrata (i.e. sex) in a sitting Yogic position. In this verse and the following the sphere of Yogic exercises of the preceding verses has already been left.
15. yuñjann evarh sadätmänarh yogi niyatamänasah /säntim nirvänaparamäm matsarhsthäm adhigacchati //
Here the reflexive function of ätmänam (cf. verse 10) becomes evident and the translators more or less agree on this point (though their interpretations of yuj may vary). Mylius translates with "So übend immerdar sein Selbst"
and von Brück with "Ein Yogi, der immerzu sich selbst so eint. " It is unclear what "sich einen" should mean here, since uniting oneself supposes someone or something with whom or with which one unites oneself.23 Senart's "qui toujours s'exerce de la sorte" is preferable from the etymological point of view, but the exertion expressed by yuj in practice concerns concentration which excludes the external influences.
The sänti reached in this way is called nirvänaparamä, an adjective which has been freely rendered as a noun by some translators and interpreted as the highest Nirvana (see Senart, Radhakrishnan, von Brück). Mylius translates the adjective with "der im Nirvana als Höchstem besteht" and Zaehner with "which has Nirvana as its end". The relation with the Bud¬
dhist concept of Nirvana is problematic. According to Zaehner the peace denoted by the term sänti would be "not the final goal but only a stage on the way 'which has Nirvana as its end'; and Nirvana (that is Brahman too), we are now told, itself subsists in the personal God". This is doubtful, since
matsarhsthäm is an adjective qualifying säntim and therefore could not re¬
fer to the adjective nirvänaparamäm. According to BhG. 4, 39 the reached sänti is not an intermediate stage but itself called the highest (paräm säntim acirenädhigacchati). On the other hand there are indeed indications that the sänti is reached on earth by Yoga and is followed by a Brahmanic Nirvana
after death. See BhG. 2, 71 (sa säntim adhigacchati) and 72 (esä brâhmï sthitïh ... sthitväsyäm antakäle 'pi brahmanirvänam rcchatî).
22 See also my n. 7 (above) on BhG. 2, 61
23 On this verse and the preceding one von Brück does not comment as faras yuñjann ... ätmänam and yuktah are concerned. However, in a note on verse 8, in which yukta has been translated with "vollkommen integriert", he interprets yukta as "angejocht" and explains this as "indem alle physischen und geistigen Kräfte vollkommen geeint sind", a form of yoking which raises some questions.
According to van Buitenen the adjective nirvänaparamä would mean
"beyond nirvana" and he observes "because it is not pure extinction but a positive union of the persisting ätman with the personal God". Probably he interprets the compound as nirvänät parama ("superior to Nirvana"). How¬
ever, the mentioned parallel BhG. 2, 72 speaks against this interpretation.
If one does not take (with the dictionary of Monier-Williams) matsamsthdm as a noun meaning "union with me", but like nirvänaparamäm as an adjective qualifying sdntim, then the meaning of -samstha ifc. is still de¬
batable. The translations ofSenart, Radhakrishnan, Zaehner, Mylius and von Brück take it as 'staying in', but it is not clear how the obtained sänti can be explained as abiding in Krsna. The Petrograd Dictionary of Böhtlingk and Roth s.v.samstha, c: "beruhend auf, abhängig von; am Ende eines comp." men¬
tions i.a. sdntim matsamsthdm, an interpretation which at least is possible.
One may also interpret samstha as 'completion, culmination, termination' and then the sänti ends in the Nirvana as well as in Krsna ("having its end in me"). This looks better, since the sänti has already been obtained on earth by Yoga and continues after death in Nirvana and Krsna. So the two adjec¬
tives ending mparamä and in samsthä both refer to the final situation of the sänti already reached on earth and von BrÜck's translation "gelangt zum Frieden, dem höchsten Nirvana, das mir innewohnt" has to be rejected.
17.yuktähäravihärasya yuktacestasya karmasu / yuktasvapnävabodhasya yogo bhavati duhkhahä //
After the treatment of the technical Yoga in verses 10-13 the Gîta returns to
a moderate form of Yoga, in which the verbal adjective yukta now refers to moderation in daily behaviour. It means that yukta here has a meaning differ¬
ent from that in the preceding verses. It indicates that a particular behaviour is yoked, i.e. submitted to the yoke, in the sense that it is controlled or mod¬
erated. So the participle yukta should be rather uniformly translated and the noun yoga has a special meaning ('control, moderation') here in the favour¬
ite, etymological wordplay of the Gîta used to give room to the man in the world. This was understood by Radhakrishnan (but not by Mylius, who translates yoga with "Meditation") and to some extent by von Brück, who translates yukta with "diszipliniert" and "mäßig" in the compounds with ähära and svapna, but with "geeint" in the compound with cesta, u and leaves yoga untranslated. As usual Zaehner does not choose and translates yoga with "way of integration", "spiritual exercise" and "practice-of-the-mean",
but yukta is consistently rendered with "who knows-the-mean in ..."
24 The dictionaryof Monier-Williams translates yukta with "moderate" in the other compounds but with "properly"in the compound with cesta.
