The Spiritual Atheism Of Vedantic Thought

Jun 2, 2004, 12.00am IST

The last verse of Chapter 8 in Gita perhaps contains the kernel of all vedantic thought.


The chapter, as is well known, begins with Arjun asking Krishna about the nature of Brahma, adhyatma and karma and how they might be inter-related. Having explained the first two — albeit in the aphoristic way typical of the vedantic spiritual tradition — Krishna focuses on the third element of the triad. Karma or action, he says, is the real-life bridge that links the two: The ontological or transcendental realm of Brahm (or absolute), on the one hand, and atma, or individuated consciousness rooted in the here and now, on the other. Admittedly, it is not easy to see this link in a logical or material sense — how does one associate that which exists in time and space with that which is both beyond time (without beginning) and space (boundless)?

The true being of atma, which is attached to the corporeal body, is of course clouded by desire. In a paradigmatic sense, this desire is the desire for the rewards of action. The Gita makes no category distinction between different kinds of action. Depending on one’s worldly calling or svadharma, going to war is on the same footing as going to a temple or pursuing politics. The key then is not what you do but with what intent or motivation you do it. The true yogi, as the Gita declares, is one who goes beyond “whatever fruit or merit is declared to accrue from the Vedas, sacrifices, austerities, gifts”.

The path to moksha lies in overcoming desire and is typically described as liberation from the inexorable law of karma. But isn’t the sear-ch for moksha — the state where no desires are left — itself an act of desire? This tension or paradox is clear to Sankara — ‘na dharmo, na artho, na moksha’. Even the desire for moksha, it seems, is a form of bondage. Not surprisingly, this question holds the key to an understanding of the Gita and is at the heart of its varying latter-day expositions.

While the Gita is by no means alone in advocating a renunciation of desire, it makes a departure in the context of orthodox Hindu philosophy, in specifying three different ways of reaching the ultimate state of nishkama karma, namely, action, worship and know-ledge or karmayoga, bhaktiyoga and gyanayoga. Particularly radical in this context is the Gita’s steadfast refusal to advocate a withdrawal from worldly action. Chapter 3, verse 4 says: “Man does not attain perfection merely by ceasing to act”. And, in the very next verse: “None can ever remain inactive even for a moment”.

Superficially, Gita appears to be theistic in nature. Verse 29 of Chapter 9 is one of several where Krishna tells Arjun about bha-ktiyoga or the path of devotion. But the full shloka makes it clear that this is no ordinary worship. “The same am I to all beings, to me there is none hateful or dear; but those who worship me with devotion are in me and I am also in them”. Moksha, in other words, is a state of oneness rather than duality.

This is fundamentally at odds with the traditional western notions of theism, where the belief in God is also a belief in His radical otherness. In common with large parts of Indian tradition, however, Gita’s theism is an assertion of “one’s own divinity” and is premised on ‘svaswaroopanusandhan’ or the discovery of true selfhood. That is also why, Srimad Bhagavat, can make the intriguing claim that the act of bhakti or worship is higher even than the object of worship (Isht).

But if such is the case, then isn’t the traditional opposition between atheism and theism overdrawn? Indeed, isn’t pure spiritual atheism a superior form of theism?