The notion of India’s spiritual mission was near inevitable. The religious nationalists believed that as custodian of the spiritual tradition that held the key to the future progress of the world, India had a mission to give this boon to the rest of humanity. India under foreign rule could not do this; India therefore had to be free. India thus sought independence not for itself but for the world. Aurobindo himself believed that the movement of which the first outbreak was political, would end in a spiritual consummation and bring about the spiritualisation of the human race. India would become the spiritual leader of humanity.
Hees’ book also talks about how on these often unseen spiritual foundations the nationalists erected the structure of their politics. But their nationalism was religious chiefly because they considered the nationalist movement a religion, an endeavour whose paramount importance demanded dedication and sacrifice. At times this nationalism was religious in another sense as well. The leaders sometimes used religious terms and symbols in speaking, drawing them mostly from the Hindu tradition. The nationalists did not need to defend their use of Hindu symbols. “They had, after all, as much right to allude to the Geeta or Chandi as Gladstone to the Bible or Homer.”
Tilak, on his part, made it clear that whatever deities humanity may worship and by whatever means, ultimately the worship amounted to a worship of the Parameshwara. The worship of the various perceptible forms of the supreme was not the worship of different objects but was “the devotion according to which there is only one all-pervasive Parameshwara in all symbols or objects of worship, whatever symbol or object is taken for worship”.
Tilak believed it was essential to practise meditation. He observed in the Geeta Rahasya: “The real existence of the Supreme should be so realised that one should experience the one Supreme in all beings and enable oneself to behave with the same stable nature at the time of emergency (but a little learning as of mine is not quite sufficient for this), it needs the pre-earned spiritual impressions of many previous births; control over senses, constant effort and meditation and devotion inevitably.” 54
The second chapter of the Bhagvad Geeta talks of achieving stability of intellect through the state of metaphysical trance. It helps the practitioner attain equanimity of mind and stable-mindedness in the Self. The Geeta espouses that a perfect karmayogi is a stable-minded man who has attained the equanimity of mind. And this state of stable-mindedness can be achieved through the practice of meditation. The method enjoins upon fixing eyesight on “nasikaagra” (the tip of the nose). While Gandhi interpreted it as the space in between the two eyebrows, Tilak has suggested the tip of the nose as the nasikaagra.55 However, said Tilak, just because the Blessed Lord has prescribed the practice of yoga in solitude (the place, method of sitting, and the food proper for the performance of this Yoga, Bhagvad Geeta 6.10) one must not understand the import of Geeta as being that one should give up all activities of the world and spend one’s life in the practice of yoga. Just as a merchant starts business with what little capital he has, and gradually acquires vast wealth by such business, so also is the case of the practice of karmayoga described in the Geeta. This karmayoga has to be started by exercising as much control over the organs is acquired. This control of the organs has been prescribed in order that one should be able to perform one’s activities in life with a desireless frame of mind and the advice of the Geeta is that while control of the organs is being practiced, one must simultaneously, continually and according to one’s own abilities practice the desireless karmayoga and not wait till one has acquired complete control over the organs.56
Tilak was not only a politician, but also a yogi and philosopher. Rejection of non-Hindus was absent from his movement. He had respect for the texts of other faiths. He read the Bible while researching the Orion. It was specifically borrowed from the missionaries in Poona. His knowledge of various religions, along with the 19th century European and North American philosophy, especially in the field of ethics, was tremendous. However, it wasn’t the Hindu contact with Western ideals and the study of their writings that had brought about the feelings of nationalism. People like Tilak observed that within the Indian society, after a period of weakness and degeneration, to which were added Western supremacy, and writings—political, philosophical, and spiritual—a stimulus had been provided and had hastened the time of regeneration. They had aroused a healthy response and had worked to renew in India the consciousness of her own ancient ideals, her latent powers, and her traditions of liberty of mankind. The revival of nationalism went hand in hand with spiritual awakening. Hinduism stressed on the need for harmony between thought and action, between the inner conception and the outer life. The national movement was a spiritual movement and in it lay the secret of its unifying power. It urged India to fulfill her own dharma in all the activities of life.
The Hindus, on their part, exhibited an extraordinary synthetic capacity, absorbing other races into their own culture and customs, making them one with the civilisation. Even within the country the criss-cross of ideas between different streams of belief only made things better. Tilak credited Jainism with influencing Hinduism in the area of the cessation of animal sacrifice in Vedic rituals. He described Jainism as the originator of ahimsa and wrote in a letter printed in Bombay Samachar, Mumbai, on 10 December 1904: “In ancient times, innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifices. Evidence in support of this is found in various poetic compositions such as the Meghaduta. But the credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the Brahminical religion goes to Jainism. Jainism encourages spiritual independence (in the sense of relying on and cultivating one’s own personal wisdom) and self-control which is considered vital for one’s spiritual development.”
Of the Hindu spiritual philosophy, Tilak’s friend Max Muller, who was in touch with Tilak and discussed spiritual theories and philosophies with him through letters, said in his introduction to the Six Systems of Philosophy,
It is surely astounding that such a system as the Vedanta should have been slowly elaborated by the indefatigable and intrepid thinkers of India thousands of years ago—a system which even now makes us feel giddy, as in mounting the last steps of an ancient Gothic Cathedral. None of our philosophers, not excepting Heraclites, Plato, Kant, or Hegel, has ventured to erect such a spire, never frightened by storms or lightning. Stone follows upon stone in regular succession after once it has been clearly seen that in the beginning there can have been but One, as there will be but One in the end, whether we call it Atman or Brahman. We need not praise or try to imitate a Colosseum, but if we have any heart for the builders of former days, we cannot help feeling it was a colossal and stupendous effort. And this is the feeling, which I cannot resist in examining the Vedanta. Other philosophers have denied the reality of the world perceived by us, but no one has ventured to deny at the same time the ideality of what we call Ego, the senses and the mind, and their inherent forms. And yet, after lifting the self above body and soul, after uniting heaven and earth, God and Man, Brahman and Atman, these Vedanta philosophers have destroyed nothing in the life of the phenomenal beings who have to act and to fulfill their duties in this phenomenal world. On the contrary, they have shown that there can be nothing phenomenal without something that is real, and that goodness and virtue, faith and works are necessary as a preparation, nay, as a sine qua non, for the attainment of that higher knowledge which brings the soul back to its source and to its home, and restores it to its true nature, to its true self-hood in Brahman.
Tilak’s contemporary, Agarkar, was a thinker of self-luminous intellect who firmly believed in intellect being the only reliable means to determine what is proper or improper, good or bad, and in the verdict it gave. He argued with Tilak that the reasoning drawing authenticity from the Veda or Vedic tradition was futile and frivolous. It came in the way of social reforms. Tilak did not agree with narrow religious ideas and practices and, in principle, did not oppose Agarkar on issues like casteism or the plight of women.
He strived for universal good and translated philosophy into action, all the while proclaiming in clear terms, “Staunchly respecting the great traditions, and with no harm to them, reforms must be carried out as suited to the times.”
Tilak did not find the reason to treat the crucial Hindu texts and doctrines as lacking in authority. On the contrary, he strongly believed these fundamentals would secure human-welfare, in this life and in life after death. He did not feel it necessary to flout the testimony of the Veda and believed that pure rationalism does not help realise the Ultimate Truth. He upheld a reason-based, devotion-propelled life of action. While not opposing the reforms in the Hindu religion, he did not disown the fundamental principles of the Hindu Faith. He elaborated this stand and ideas on the theory and practical conduct of Hinduism in his exhaustive piece on the “Character of Hindu Religion” in which he said, “Faith in the testimony of Veda, multiplicity of the Paths, (to reach the goal), freedom of objects of worship, this summarises the nature of Religion. Adhering to this religion and consecrated by the prescriptions of Law, as adumbrated in the Vedic and its ancillary traditional texts or as befitting the course of time, ever engaged in practising the assigned duty, in full faith and out of full respect to the traditional texts such alone could be called a True Hindu.”
Tilak described the Hindu religion as:
pramanya-buddhirvedeshu sadhananum-anekata
upasyanaam-aniyamaha evaddharmasya lakshanam
(The religion of the Hindus has the Vedas as the book of testimony which are practised by different sets of spiritual search and religious services.) Here “sadhananam anekata upasyanam aniyamaha” would mean that since the potential of every individual is different, unlike other religions the Hindu religion does not recommend only one path or worship of only one deity.
Says the Geeta (7.21),
yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktaha shraddhayarchitumichChati tasya tasyachallam shraddham taameva vidadhamyahum
(I steady the faith of a devotee in a particular deity, which he wishes to worship with faith.)
Thus the pervasiveness of the Hindu religion encompasses the entire, vast universe. 57
Tilak considered the Hindu civilisation as a solidly built house or a temple that was in need of some external repair but was otherwise structurally sound. On the occasion of the celebration of the Ganpati festival, he remarked: “Though our heart may be shocked in seeing a crack or a crevice in the wall of our house, it again becomes calm on seeing that the stones of the foundation and the pillars of the hall are in good condition.”58 But he also said, “All that is required for our glorious triumph and success is that we should unite all the different sects on a common platform and let the stream of Hindu religion flow through one channel with mighty consolidated and concentrated force.”
Tilak’s tremendous grasp of the Indian philosophical heritage of nearly three thousand years was chiefly responsible for the creation of the Geeta Rahasya. According to Aurobindo Ghosh, the Geeta is not a book of practical ethics, but of the spiritual life. Of the Geeta Rahasya he said, “It takes the scripture which is the strongest or perhaps the most comprehensive production of Indian spirituality and justifies to that spirituality by it’s own authoritative ancient message the sense of the importance of life, of action, of human existence, of man’s labour for mankind which is indispensable to the idealism of the modern spirit.” According to him the Geeta Rahasya was no mere commentary but an original criticism and presentation of ethical truths and the strongest and most comprehensive work of Indian spirituality in which the importance of human action for the sake of humanity was justified. It was indispensable to the idealism of the modern spirit. Aurobindo also described the Geeta Rahasya as “the first prose writing of the front rank in weight and importance in the Marathi language”.
German writer Hiltrud Rüstau, in a superb piece titled “Some Reflections on the Influence of the Jnaneshvari on Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Gita-Rahasya and its Relevance in our Time” says: “The Jnaneshvari can be seen as one of the first (if not the very first) philosophical work at all in Marathi language and most probably also the first in the field of poetry. Jnandeva by his translation of one of the most important scriptures of the Hindu religion in the language of the common people played a role in the history of Hinduism.” Rüstau compared Dnyaneshwari, the translation of one of the most important scriptures of the Hindu religion in the language of the common people that played a role in the history of Hinduism and which influenced Tilak, to the work and the world view of Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), the first German philosopher of importance, who expressed his thoughts also in the vernacular language and who also defined the main aim of the human being as becoming one with the Divine.
Rüstau also refers to the fact that Tilak estimated highly the role that Dnyaneshwar played in the history of Hinduism. Said Tilak, “A few years before the Hindu dynasty of Daulatabad was destroyed, Dnyandev Maharaj, by our good fortune, gave a native clothing to the Bhagavad Geeta, and brought about an over-flow of the knowledge of Brahman propounded by the Geeta into the Maharashtriya provinces.” Tilak knew the Dnyaneshwari extremely well and mentioned Dnyaneshwar six times in the Geeta Rahasya though perhaps Samartha Ramdas, the “active saint” seemed to be closer to his own thoughts.
Tilak also dealt with the saints of Maharashtra, who substantiated the doctrine of devotion without discarding the doctrines of illusion and by whom, according to Tilak, devotion was taken as the easiest way to the realisation of the Divine. The path of devotion based on non-duality was called the principal moral of the Geeta. He mentioned the Dnyaneshwari as a most valuable work, praising Dnyaneshwar’s wonderful skill “of expounding the Geeta, by numerous beautiful illustrations and comparisons”.
Later on, in explaining the state of perfection of one who has fully realised the identity of atman and brahman, characterised by the mahavakya or the profoundly significant term “aham brahmasmi”, Tilak quoted extensively from the Dnyaneshwari to describe the equanimity of mind of such a person. In the chapter on renunciation and karmayoga Tilak shared Dnyaneshwar’s description of a dnyani in order to demonstrate his own point of view. It was obvious that Tilak not only knew the Dnyaneshwari quite well but also greatly admired its author.59 In Mandalay, Tilak wrote:
About the Geeta, I have finished what I call Geeta Rahasya, an independent and original book investigating the purpose of the Geeta and showing how our religious philosophy is applied therein to solution of the ethical problem. For, my view of the Geeta is, that it is a work on Ethics—not utilitarian, or intuitional but transcendental, somewhat on the lines followed in Green’s Prolegomena to Ethics. I have compared, throughout, the Geeta philosophy with the western, both religious and ethical, and have tried to show that our system is, to say the least, not inferior to any of the Western methods. This Rahasya is made up of 15 chapters with an appendix devoted to a critical examination of the Geeta as part of the Mahabharat and discussing its age etc. I think it will fill about 300 or 350 pages. To this a translation of the Geeta, according to my view of it, is yet to be appended and I am now engaged on this translation, which is a light task. I believe it will be found to be an entirely original book like the Orion for so far as I am aware, no one has ventured on such a path before in translating or commenting on the Geeta, though I have had this view of the Geeta in mind for about the last 20 years and more. I have used all the books that I have here with me but there are references to works, not with me here, and as these are quoted from memory, they will have to be verified before publishing the book. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and Green’s Prolegomena to Ethics are the main English authorities for my book which is based on the Brahmasutras, Shankaracharya’s Bhashya and the Mahabharat and it treats in brief, the Hindu Philosophy of active life.
Tilak says in an introduction to the work,
Let me begin by telling you what induced me to take up the study of the Bhagvad Geeta. When I was a boy I was told by my elders that strictly religious an
d really philosophic life was incompatible with the humdrum life of every day. If one was ambitious enough to try to attain moksha, the highest goal a person could attain, then he must divest himself of all earthly desires and renounce this world. One could not serve two masters, the world and God. I understood this to mean that if one would lead a life which was the life worth living, according to the religion in which I was born, then the sooner the world was given up, the better. This set me thinking: Does my religion want me to give up this world and renounce it before I attempt to, or in order to be able to, attain the perfection of manhood? In my boyhood I was also told that the Bhagvad Geeta was universally acknowledged to be a book containing all the principles and philosophy of the Hindu religion, and I thought, if this is so I should find an answer in this book to my query. And thus began my study of the Bhagvad Geeta. I approached the book with a mind prepossessed by no previous ideas about any philosophy and had no theory of my own for which I sought any support in the Geeta . . . the conclusion that I have come to is that the Geeta advocates the performance of action in this world even after the actor has achieved the highest union with the Supreme Deity by dnyana (knowledge) or bhakti (devotion). The action must be done to keep the world going by the right path of evolution, which the creator has destined the world to follow. In order that the action may not blind the actor, it must be done with the aim of helping His purpose and without any attachment to the coming result. This I hold is the lesson of the Geeta. Dnyan Yoga? Yes. Bhakti Yoga? Yes. But they are both subservient to the Karma Yoga preached in the Geeta.
I differ from almost all the commentators when I say that the Geeta enjoins Action even after the perfection in dnyan and bhakti is attained and the deity is reached through the medium. There is a fundamental unity underlying the Logos (Ishwar), man and world. The world is in existence because Ishwar has willed it to. It is His will that holds it together. Man strives to gain union with God. And when this union is achieved, individual will merges in the mighty Universal Will. When this is achieved, will the individual say, “I shall do no action and I shall not help the world”, the world which is, because the Will with which he has sought union has willed it to be so? It does not stand to reason. It is not I who say so. The Geeta says so. Shri Krishna Himself says that there is nothing in all the worlds that He need acquire, and still, He acts. He acts because if He did not, the world will be ruined. If man seeks unity with the Deity, he must necessarily seek unity with the world also, and work for it. If he does not, then the unity is not perfect, because there is union between two elements of the three (man and deity) and the third, (the world) is left out. I have thus solved the question for myself and I hold that serving the world, and thus serving His Will, is the surest way of salvation. And this way can be followed by remaining in the world and not going away from it.
Lokmanya Tilak- the First National Leader Page 21