The Very Gist of the Purpose of the Gītā

from the introductory part of Śrīmad-Ānandatīrtha Madhvāchārya's Gītā-tātparya-nirṇaya

After describing the uniqueness of Mahābhāratam the Fifth Veda among all the sources of knowledge, including other Vedas and Vedic literature, and attributing the extraordinary illuminative, deceitless and mokṣa-giving propensities of Mahābhāratam to Vyāsa, its author, being Nārāyaṇa Himself, Śrī-Madhva shows the explicatory position of Bhagavad-gītā as one of the two key portions of Mahābhāratam and then goes on to present the essential message of the Gītā as the knowledge of dharma which is thoroughly conducive to and permeated with the principal subject of Mahābhāratam, the esse of Bhagavān, in the following way:

तत्र साक्षादिन्द्रावतारमुत्तमाधिकारिणमात्मनः प्रिय­तमम­र्जुनं क्षत्रियाणां विशेषतोऽपि परमधर्मं नारायण­द्विट्तदनुबन्धिनिग्रहं बन्धु­स्नेहाद­धर्म­त्वेनाशङ्क्य ततो नि­वृत्त­प्रायं स्वविहितवृत्त्या भक्त्या भगवदाराधनमेव परमो धर्मस्तद्विरुद्धः सर्वोऽप्यधर्मो भगवदधीन­त्वात्सर्वस्येति बोधयति भगवान्नारायणः ।

There [in the Gītā] Arjuna, the direct descent of Indra, uttamādhikārī and Bhagavān's dearest one, who out of sympathy to his kin has doubted as adharmic and nearly relinquished the ultimate, especially in regard to kṣatriyas, dharma of punishing the haters of Nārāyaṇa and their associates, is taught by Bhagavān Nārāyaṇa that the ultimate dharma is the worship of Bhagavan by one's binding propensities [sva-vihita-vṛtti] and bhakti, and that the rest is all adharma, for everything is subservient to Bhagavān.

From Nyāya-dīpikā of Jayatīrtha:

“There is no categorical difference between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, so why does one act as an instructor to another?” — Bhagavān Nārāyaṇaḥ

“What is there for Bhagavān, Who is āpta-samasta-kāma, or the One Whose desires are eternally fulfilled, in instructing Arjuna?” — Ātmanaḥ priyatamam: Although there is no necessity for Him in doing so, it is but perfectly well-grounded that Bhagavān would instruct Arjuna out of great affection to him, just as a mother is taking care of her offspring.

“What is then the reason for Arjuna being dear to Bhagavān? If his being gifted with aparokṣa-jñāna is refered to, on the lines of ‘ज्ञानी प्रियतमोऽतो मे,’¹ then where does that come from?” — Uttamādhikāriṇam

“And what is the proof for that?” — Sākṣād-indrāvatāram: Here ‘Indra’ stands for Purandara [or the Indra of the present seventh Manvantara]. Sākṣād avatāram means not just āveśa, or empowerment. Thus Arjuna is Indra himself, a deva by svarūpa. [Commenting on this, Rāghavendra Tīrtha quotes ‘नैव देवपदं प्राप्ता ब्रह्मदर्शनवर्जिताः’: “Those deprived of Brahma-darśana never attain the position of a deva.” Hence, being Indra himself, Arjuna cannot be anything less of an uttamādhikārī.]²

“What is the goal of instructing Arjuna?” — Nārāyaṇa-dviṭ-tad-anubandhi-nigraham: Punishment of the haters of Nārāyaṇa and their associates.

“Punishing one's kin is definitely adharmic, so why it is said that Arjuna ‘doubted’ it as adharmic?” — The punishment is not claimed to be dharmic in itself, but may fall under the broader definition of dharma, in which case it is dharmic, too. Kṣatriyāṇāṁ viśeṣato’pi. The punishment of haters is the highest dharma for each and every Bhāgavata, and as kṣatriyas are directly involved in this activity, it makes it the highest dharma for them in particular.

“How does punishing one's kin could ever be termed as parama-dharma?” — The ‘kin’ herein are qualified by the words ‘the haters of Nārāyaṇa and their associates.’ That means that in spite of being friends, seniors, or relatives, punishing them is dharma on the ground of some of them being haters of Nārāyaṇa and some keeping close enough relations with the former.

“If this is dharma, then it should have been pronounced in śāstra. Then no one well-versed in śāstra would ever doubt its dharmaness. However, Arjuna did! Hence it is no dharma at all.” — Bandhu-snehāt: the doubt appeared ‘out of sympathy to his kin’ alone, not due to śāstra analysis.

“How could a jñānī relinquish one's parama-dharma because of a doubt born out of sheer sympathy?” — Nivṛtta-prāyam: Arjuna did not relinquish his dharma, he was about to do it.

“If the doubt made him about to relinquish his dharma, he should have been instructed that fighting is his duty, what is the use of dwelling on the matters of the greatness of Bhagavān, etc.?” — Sva-vihita vṛttyā bhaktyā bhagavadārādhanam eva parama-dharmaḥ: Parama-dharma is not just fighting battle or any other binding propensity, for that to be the only matter of instruction. Bhakti is an absolute requirement. Although Arjuna had a doubt regarding dharmaness of only one of dharma constituents, Bhagavān instructs him in the whole of dharma for the benefit of the rest of the world. Therein the description of Bhagavān's greatness and related topics serve the purpose of inducing bhakti.

“Then even having relinquished the discharge of one's binding propensity, Arjuna would have not relinquished parama-dharma, for he had bhakti, vairāgya and all other requirements. That leaves nothing that he could have been made understand by instruction.” — Tad-viruddhaṁ sarvo’py adharmaḥ: It is not that bhakti, etc. are parama-dharma individually so that having any of these would amount to not relinquishing parama-dharma; conversely, only together do they constitute parama-dharma. Therefore, if any of the components are missing, it is but appropriate to give instruction in parama-dharma.

“Then how does it make relevant the description of prakṛti and other principles? And let the discharge of one's binding propensity be dharmic, and the opposite be adharmic; why, however, worshiping Bhagavān with bhakti is dharmic, and the opposite is adharmic?” — To dispel this doubt it has to be shown that everything is subservient to Bhagavān, and to show this it is required to give a definition of ‘everything‘ [that is prakṛti, etc.]. Bhagavad-adhīnatvāt sarvasya, ‘for everything is subservient to Bhagavan,’ thence dharmaness and adharmaness is determined by Bhagavān alone, as well s the absence of dharmaness and adharmaness is determined by His will and nothing else.

“What is the proof for the devaness of Arjuna? And what is the proof for the claim that worshiping Bhagavān with one's binding propensity, etc. constitute the purpose of the Gītā, evident throughout?” —

सर्वञ्चैतदत्रैवावगम्यते ॥

Herein do we find all the necessary evidence and illumination.

Herein means ‘in the Gītā itself.’ Then Śrī-Madhva proceeds to prove each part of the above exposition of the purpose of the Gītā by quoting some seminal Gītā verses before starting to expound the same serially in a continuous chapter by chapter commentary.

---

1. ‘To me, therefore, jñānī is the dearest’ (Bhā. 11.19.3)  ↩

2. According to Madhva's Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya, there are different criteria for defining the three levels of adhikārīs, viz. uttama-, madhyama-, and kaniṣṭha-adhikārī. Bhāgavata-tantra is quoted to place the best of men into kaniṣṭha, or the lower class of adhikārīs, Ṛṣis and Gandharvas into the middle category, and Devas into the higher one. Quality-wise, kaniṣṭhas possess bhakti unto Viṣṇu and are well-versed in genuine śāstras, madhyamas add to these control of the sense organs and the mind, etc., and uttamas perceive no meaning separate from Viṣṇu in everything, be it a tiny straw or Brahmā Himself, possess vairāgya and the sense of absolute dependence upon Viṣṇu's feet. Thus, Arjuna qualifies as an uttamādhikārī by both standards. ↩