What is the difference between karma-kanda and sakama karma-yoga? Which does Gita 2.31-37 refer to?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question. What is the difference between Karmakand and Sakam Karma Yoga? Answer.
First of all, when we have any kind of terminology, we have to know that terms are constructions of the mind. For example, in this basically classifying anything into any set of categories, it is called as taxonomy. So, taxonomy would mean having a different species.
So, this is called as taxonomy. Now, every taxonomy, whatever be its nature is an attempt to reduce reality into categories for our own thinking, analyzing and understanding. But reality itself is not so simplistically reducible.
For example, we may say that some people are fair and some people are dark. But then there are so many shades of complexion which are in between. And if you have to classify also, if you want to classify paints, we can say there is a red and then there is, say, violet or there is blue and then there is purple, whatever.
So, now there are shades in between which make a slight difference over there. So, like that, when we talk about, even when we come into the spiritual realm, unless Krishna himself or the scriptures themselves anywhere else give a concise, precise definition that this is what is Karma Yoga, this is what is Karmakand, this is Sakam Karma Yoga, this is Nishkama Karma Yoga. So, now, there are some places where Krishna himself says, that such equanimity is called as Yoga.
So, that is something which where Krishna is saying this is giving a specific definition. But there are other places where Krishna may not give definitions like this. Then for our analysis, we try to categorize things.
So, now, this sort of categorization of scripture into categories is bound to have some level of subjectivity. That’s why we will see that sometimes with the flow of the chapter which we analyze, different devotees may give this verse from this verse of this thing and this verse from this verse of that thing. So, there may be a slight difference in that because that’s basically for our understanding.
So, now, when we come to scripture itself, there are sections in the scripture which can be used, which can refer to multiple things. For example, 2.54 to 2.72, if you look at the different acharyas, right, starting from Ramanujacharya onwards, Avishankacharya onwards down to in our sampradaya, what does this sthita pragya refer to? So, some people, some of the commentators may say that this refers to just a self-realized soul. So, Prabhupada explains that if it refers to a pure devotee.
Others may explain that this refers to be a jivanmukta, a jnani who has understood one’s identity to be the Brahman, different from the body. So, now, what does it actually refer to? Now, each acharya can give analysis and based on that analysis can explain things accordingly. Prabhupada himself has said that different verses of the Gita can be translated in different ways and he himself does that many times in his lectures.
He gives one translation in Bhagavad Gita as it is, but sometimes when he is explaining in a class and he is quoting a verse, he gives a meaning quite differently sometimes or he gives a much different emphasis of the words than as compared to if you look at his translation. So, the point is that scripture can be understood in different ways. As long as the siddhanta or the conclusion of the scripture is maintained, these different ways of understanding the scripture are perfectly okay.
So, now, with this background, the background basically is that taxonomy is always subjective. With this fundamental point we understand. Then we look at the Bhagavad Gita, say, for example.
Now, if you look at 2.31 to 2.38 in the Bhagavad Gita, you will see that that section is talking about attainment of heavens. That is clearly mentioned or you can either attain heavens or you attain the kingdom. So, it is talking about worldly gain.
Similarly, it is also talking about worldly honor. So, the considerations are definitely not very spiritual over here. They are material.
So, what does it refer to? Now, karma kanda in general refers to the process of dharma, artha, kama. Jnana kanda refers to moksha and then there is bhakti which refers ultimately to the perfection of moksha, that is prema. So, dharma, artha, kama, if we look at it in the Rig Veda, the Rig Veda, one western scholar has called it as the most materialistic religious book.
Why? Because it is filled with, of course, it is not only materialistic, but it is filled with promises of material enjoyment and those promises come in two categories. They are this worldly and they are other worldly. Other worldly does not refer to the spiritual world.
It refers to the heavens. In fact, if we look at the Rig Veda carefully or if we look at the Rig Veda superficially, we may not even understand just by reading the Rig Veda the difference between the spiritual world and heavens because it does not talk explicitly much about the spiritual world. Nor does the Rig Veda talk too much about reincarnation.
Although it is clear that reincarnation happens, but the Rig Veda and the Vedas in general, the four Vedas, they are primarily karmakande books and they focus on the attainment of material pleasure, either in this or the next world. So, this is, now, the word yoga comes in the Rig Veda at three places as far as I remember, but it doesn’t talk in terms of various types of yoga sadhanas. The primary thing that is to talk about performance of yajna to appease the various devatas and the various mantras to be chanted to please them.
So, now, the Vedas we know, they are clearly karmakande books and they talk about the attainment of heavens. So, that means attainment of heavens is also a karmakande attainment. Now, the word yoga as it is used in the Bhagavatam or the Gita or in Patanjali Yoga Sutra, it comes from the root yuja as we know, to connect with the absolute.
So, normally, attainment of heaven implies a recognition of the eternality of the soul, but that recognition is actually there with Arjuna even before Krishna starts speaking the Bhagavad Gita implicitly because Krishna, Arjuna in the first chapter, in the later verses he says, I think 42nd or 43rd verse he says, So, now, who is going to go to hell? The body is going to die. So, that means there is some part of me which will survive and which will go to hell. So, the awareness of some aspect of one’s being that will continue after death in and of itself does not comprise yoga.
For yoga to be there, there has to be some understanding not just of some aspect that will live on. See, the fundamental difference between the worldview of the Abrahamic religions and the worldview of the Vedic scriptures as far as the Puranas are concerned and now the Abrahamic religions worldview is somewhat similar to the Rig Veda worldview because in the Rig Veda, it does not talk too often or too frequently about multiple lifetimes because every book has a particular focus. So, now, if the person is told that there are multiple lifetimes, then the appeal of swarga immediately goes off because, okay, I have attained swarga, but what after that? After that, I have to live on.
So, in Karmakand, the idea that there are multiple lifetimes is not rejected, but it is not emphasized. And that’s why I feel, oh, in heavens you will be Amara. Now, in the Upanishads, it is explained that the word Amara that is given in the Vedas is not exactly accurate in the literal sense.
Nobody is Amara. So, the point which I am making over here is, when one practices the prescriptions of the Rig Veda, it doesn’t talk much about attaining eternal destination. So, Karmakand in itself is not talking about eternal destination.
It is when Karma Yoga is practiced only then eternal destination comes in. So, now, what exactly is the difference between Sakam Karma Yoga and Nishkam Karma Yoga? It is a little bit of hair splitting. Hair splitting means it’s quite technical.
The difference is not very much. Generally speaking, Prabhupada himself, if we see, in his purports, he does not go too much into technical classification. What to speak of Sakam Karma Yoga and Nishkam Karma Yoga? We have Vishwanath Achyut Thakur going into further categories also.
Now, much more technical than this. He says Pradhani Bhoota Bhakti and Guna Bhoota Bhakti and then Yoga, Gyana, Pradhani Bhoota Bhakti. He moves many categories like that.
Now, for understanding conceptually or intellectually the progression, this is good. But at a personal level or at an application level, it is difficult for us to analyze which is which. See, it’s like there is a scriptural description and then there is a conceptual analysis.
The conceptual analysis is meant to explain the scriptural description. But still, they are two different things. And when we map the two together, because this conceptual analysis can be done in different ways by different Acharyas.
So, it can come about that mapping can happen in different ways. So, essentially, I would say the difference between Sakam Karma Yoga and Nishkam Karma Yoga. Now, Krishna himself does not use these words directly anywhere in the Bhagavad Gita.
Karma Yoga, the compound word comes in a few places. But Sakam Karma Yoga and Nishkam Karma Yoga, that kind of classification does not come so much in the Bhagavad Gita in and of itself. And of course, the word Karmakand itself also does not come.
But Karmakand is a well-known concept within the Vedic canon, Vedic literature. So, the main difference would be that there is an understanding of eternality and there is an aspiration for eternality in Karma Yoga. But in Sakam Karma Yoga, that aspiration for eternality is mixed with some desire for material enjoyment also.
So, in my understanding, I’m not really sure, but I will say that those yogis who end up in heavens because of becoming yoga vrishcha, you know, because they got caught up in some, Krishna talks about in 6.41-42, that those yogis are the ones who might be classified as Sakam Karma Yogis. Although, of course, they did not start off as being Sakam Karma Yogis. They wanted to attain eternality, but then they got caught up by material attachments or temptations.
So, the main difference between Sakam Karma Yoga and Karmakand is that in Karmakand, there is no understanding of an ultimate eternal goal. They just focus on better material enjoyment. And their conception is that na anyad astitivadinah.
Now, if you see, that verse very clearly indicates that these people don’t think that they are on a progressive path to something higher. If they were thinking that they are on a progressive path to something higher, they would not say na anyad astitivadinah. But then this is all that there is.
So, those who are on a progression, Krishna appreciates them. But Krishna says that these are avipaschitah. So, this indicates quite clearly that these are not Sakam Karma Yogis on a progression.
They are Karmakandis who are trying to, who are thinking that whatever they are aspiring for is the eternal goal. So, the difference would be mainly in terms of the understanding of the eternal goal that is not there in Karmakand. And there is that understanding of the eternal goal in Karma Yoga.
The difference between Sakam Karma Yoga and Nishkama Karma Yoga, although there is, I wouldn’t say there is a direct scriptural words which we can say this is Sakam Karma Yoga and Nishkama Karma Yoga, would generally be on the emphasis. How much is one focused on attaining the eternal and how much is one not yet focused on attaining the eternal. So, one wants a combination of the material and the spiritual, the temporary and the eternal, then it will be Sakam Karma Yoga.
One is focused more on the eternal, then it will become Nishkama Karma Yoga. Thank you.