Religious Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/RES

Additional services for Religious Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Fate and free will in the Bhagavadgītā

Arvind Sharma

Religious Studies / Volume 15 / Issue 04 / December 1979, pp 531 - 537

DOI: 10.1017/S0034412500011719, Published online: 24 October 2008

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0034412500011719

How to cite this article:

Arvind Sharma (1979). Fate and free will in the Bhagavadgītā. Religious Studies, 15, pp
531-537 doi:10.1017/S0034412500011719

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/RES, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 21 Mar 2015

Rel. Stud. 15, pp. 531-537

ARVIND SHARMA
Lecturer in Religious Studies, University of Queensland

FATE AND FREE WILL IN THE BHAGAVADGITA

The issue of free will versus fate can be analysed in three ways in relation to
the Bhagavadgita: (1) by focusing on those verses of the Glta which address
themselves to this question; (2) by focusing on the figure of Arjuna himself
who, as will be shown, crystallizes around his person the issue of free will and
fate; and (3) by focusing on the Kauravas who are similarly involved in the
issue.

11

There are two verses of the Bhagavadgita which seem to address themselves
to this issue. They appear successively. Unfortunately the interpretation of
one of these verses is problematical1 or at least has been made to appear so.2
This is the 14th verse of the xvmth chapter of the Bhagavadgita. It may be
translated thus:
The (material) basis, the agent too,
And the instruments of various sorts,
And the various motions of several kinds,
And Fate, as the fifth of them.3
The next verse, more free from commentarial divergencies than the
previous one, may also be cited here:
With body, speech, or mind, whatever
Action a man undertakes,
Whether it be lawful or the reverse,
These are its five factors.4
If the interpretation accorded to these verses by Franklin Edgerton, with
which the present writer is in agreement, is accepted, the outcome of events
is visualized not in terms ofjust two factors — free will or fate — but in terms of
five factors: (1) material (natural?) basis (adhisthdna); (2) doer (kartd);
(3) instruments of various sorts (karana)); (4) various motions or, if you
please, efforts of several kinds {prthak cestd); (5) fate (daivam). Thus basis,
1
W. Douglas P. Hill, The Bhagavadgita (Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 204-5.
2
Franklin Edgerton, The Bhagavadgita (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 102.
3 4
Ibid. p. 84. Ibid.

0034-4125/79/2828-2801 $1.50 © 1979 Cambridge University Press

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Mar 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

532 ARVIND SHARMA

doer, instruments, efforts and fate - these five decide the outcome of an
undertaking. Fate is an element - but is not the only one. The outcome seems
to be the result of both free will as represented by the doer and his efforts, and
fate acting in a given environment involving given instruments.

in

The case of Arjuna seems to be more complicated, as Krsna seems to suggest

at times that Arjuna possesses free will in the matter of engaging or not
engaging in battle and at times that he does not really possess any free will.
He seems to suggest that Arjuna has free will in this respect when, near the
end of the Glta, he tells Arjuna:
Thus to thee has been expounded the knowledge
That is more secret than the secret, by Me;
After pondering on it fully,
Act as thou thinkest best.1
And Arjuna too, by declaring:
I stand firm, with doubts dispersed;
I shall do Thy word.2
seems to admit to the fact that he had the option to fight or not to and that,
in accordance with what Krsna has said he chooses to fight. Thus in Krsna's
statement and Arjuna's response - both quoted above - free will seems to be
involved or implied.
There are, however, verses which, at least on the face of it, seem to suggest
that fighting on the part of Arjuna is predestined. These are uttered just
before Arjuna is told to 'act as he pleases':
If thy mind is on Me, all difficulties
Shalt thou cioss over by My grace;
But if thru egotism thou
Wilt not heed, thou shalt perish.
If clinging to egotism
Thou thinkest ' I will not fight!',
Vain is this thy resolve;
(Thine own) material nature will coerce thee.
Son of KuntI, by thine own natural
Action held fast,
What thru delusion thou seekest not to do,
That thou shalt do even against thy will.
Of all beings, the Lord
In the heart abides, Arjuna,
Causing all beings to turn around
(As if) fixed in a machine, by his magic power.3
1 2 3
Ibid. p . 90. Ibid. p . 91. Ibid. p . 89.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Mar 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 FATE IN THE BHAGAVADGITA 533
These verses clearly sound deterministic. It is helpful to recognize that they
speak of two kinds of determinism - a natural one and a supernatural one.
Bhagavadgita xvm.59-60 speak of a natural determinism. These verses
may be paraphrased in terms of the saying 'character is destiny', though
understood in a slightly different sense from the usual. The very nature, the
character of Arjuna as a warrior, will impel him willy-nilly in the direction of
fighting.1 Because of his martial character he is destined to fight. Therefore
he should not hesitate but proceed to fight.
The case for supernatural determinism is less clear than that for natural
determinism.
Bhagavadgita xvm.61-2 seem to speak of a supernatural determinism, if
Krsna is identified with the Lord abiding in the heart. The message seems to
be that men are mere puppets carrying out the wish of God and it has
already been determined by God that the Kauravas should die in Bhaga-
vadgita xi.32-4. As against this it may be pointed out that in these verses
Krsna does not say 'seek refuge in M e ' as he does later, but tells Arjuna to
seek refuge in that {tarn) Isvara in Bhagavadgita xvm .61-2. Besides, although
the Kauravas are predestined to die (and this in itself illustrates an element of
predeterminism in the Gita) Krsna does not say that they are destined to be
killed by Arjuna. They are destined to die but it is not entirely clear whether
they are destined to die by Arjuna's hand (though this seems to be implied).
It could then be maintained on the presumption that the Gita is essentially
deterministic that the Kauravas were destined to die 'supernaturally' and
Arjuna destined to kill them 'naturally'. But this involves assuming that the
Gita does preach determinism.2
If determinism in the case of Arjuna is seen as proceeding only from natural
factors, as proceeding from his character, then it can be argued that Krsna's
statements have a persuasive rather than coercive force. He does not want to
coerce Arjuna but tries to persuade Arjuna by pointing out that Arjuna's own
nature will coerce Arjuna to fight (and perhaps if he does not - which he does
not say - torment him for not having fought). This statement on the part of
Krsna could well be Krsna's way of persuading Arjuna that four out of the
five elements determining an outcome are present in the existing situation -
only his effort is now wanting to accomplish the outcome. On this view the
fact that at the end of this section of verses Krsna tells Arjuna to do as you
please signifies that free will is still involved. It may also be argued, however,
that Krsna's statement is pro forma.
1
Also see Bhagavadgita in. 33 for an anticipation of this argument.
2
If the distinction drawn above between the two kinds of determinisms is obliterated, then the
teaching of the Gita is reduced to a kind of ontological determinism in which everything is the will
of God. This position approximates the Islamic doctrine oijabr in the most severe form, and even
in Islam some kind of a theoretical or practical via media had to be adopted (see R. C. Zaehner,
ed., The Concise Encyclopedia of Living Faiths [Boston: Beacon Press, 1959], p. 200).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Mar 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 534 ARVIND SHARMA
The discussion, at this point, however, is complicated by the fact that
throughout the Gita. Arjuna is (i) exhorted to act (e.g. 11.3.37; xi.33, etc.)
and (2) to act in a particular way. Both of these, prima facie, involve an
element of free will. Thus when Arjuna is exhorted to get rid of his ahankdra
(xvm. 16.17) or to employ his buddhi (11.39.50),* obviously some freedom of
will is employed. But what is given by one hand the Gita. may be seen as, at
least in part, taking away by the other if it be maintained that Arjuna's
ksatriyahood will impel him to act (XVIII . 59.60) and that his ksatriyahood in
itself is part and parcel of a compelling cosmic pattern (xvin. 40-8). This,
however, brings up a situation in which a scholar's judgement of the evidence
as distinguished from the evidence itself may be involved. In a complex text
like the Gita, evidence may not always speak for itself, for then one ends up
with a plain contradiction. For instance, xvm.59 clearly suggests that
Arjuna is predestined to fight but XVIII . 63 indicates that Arjuna possesses free
choice.2 Now herein we seem to be involved in a situation wherein the nature
of the relationship between expression and intention is in question. Krsna's
statements could be looked upon in two ways: he knows Arjuna is going to
fight and so alludes to his free choice knowing full well what he must choose
or he wants Arjuna to fight and to impel him to do so he states that
Arjuna must anyway, as a sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is clear that the
latter interpretation allows for more free will than the former but one cannot
be sure which interpretation is the 'correct one'.

IV

In the case of the Kauravas, their destruction is fully predestined, as has

already been pointed out. Arjuna then, in effect, is being asked to act so that
their destiny may befall the Kauravas. The Kauravas are destined to die but
Arjuna is not destined to kill them in that sense - he is destined to kill them,
if at all, because he will be impelled by his warrior nature to fight and there-
fore to kill them. 3
But as to the predestined nature of the destruction of the Kauravas (and
1
In these contexts the words ahavkara and buddhi do not seem to possess the technical Sankhyan
connotations.
2
Unfortunately the sequence in which these verses appear does not help in resolving the issue
because of the simultaneous presence in the Hindu lore of traditions according priority to the former,
as well as the latter. Thus the MImaihsa doctrine of purvapurvabaliyastvam accords priority to earlier
statements while the grammatical doctrine of uttarottaraballyastvam to the latter. 1 am indebted for
this clarification to Miss Alaka Hejib of McGill University.
3
One is reminded here of the following Marxian paradox: 'Why then, if the decay and collapse
of capitalism are inevitable, should it be necessary to form organizations and discipline cadres to
hasten its downfall? What purpose would be served by revolutionary agitation if the historical
outcome would be no different? Orthodox Marxists have normally hedged this question, arguing
that militant organization acts as a midwife to hasten social change. The rejoinder, however, fails to
dispose of the methodological problem' (William J. Barber, A History of Economic Thought [Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1967] p. 162).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Mar 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 FATE IN THE BHAGAVADGITA 535
indeed of some other warriors as well Bhagavadgita leaves little room for
doubt. Arjuna foresees their destruction in the cosmic vision of Krsna in
Bhagavadgita xi. 26-8:
And Thee yonder sons of Dhrtarastra,
All of them, together with the hosts of kings,
Bhlsma, Drona, and yonder son of the charioteer (Karna) too,
Together with our chief warriors likewise.
Hastening enter Thy mouths,
Frightful with tusks, and terrifying;
Some, stuck between the teeth,
Are seen with their heads crushed.
As with many water-torrents of the rivers
Rush headlong towards the single sea,
So yonder heroes of the world of men into Thy
Flaming mouths do enter.1

Moreover, Krsna himself clearly states that their end is predestined, in

Bhagavadgita xi.32-4:
I am Time (Death), cause of destruction of the worlds, matured
And set out to gather in the worlds here.
Even without thee (thy action), all shall cease to exist,
The warriors that are drawn up in the opposing ranks.
Therefore arise thou, win glory,
Conquer thine enemies and enjoy prospered kingship;
By Me Myself they have already been slain long ago;
Be thou the mere instrument, left-handed archer!
Drona and Bhlsma and Jayadratha,
Karna too, and the other warrior-heroes as well,
Do thou slay, (since) they are already slain by Me; do not hesitate!
Fight! Thou shalt conquer thy rivals in battle.2

v
In chapter xvi Arjuna and the Kauravas are discussed together in terms of the
Gita's well-known classification of two types of beings in the world, the daiva
and the dsura? Now Krsna says of the dsura that:
These wicked ones, I constantly hurl
Into demoniac wombs alone.4
Now several interesting points emerge from a consideration of the material
in this chapter. The first is that Arjuna is clearly identified as belonging to the
daiva or divine type (xvi. 5):
Be not grieved: to the divine lot
Thou art born, son of Pandu.6
1 2 8
Franklin Edgerton, op, cit. pp. 57-8. Ibid. p. 58. Bhagavadgita xvi. 6.
4 5
Frankling Edgerton, op. cit. p. 78. Ibid. p. 76.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Mar 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 ARVIND SHARMA
But the Kauravas are never clearly identified as belonging to the demoniac
types, though one could possibly infer such an identification. The other
interesting aspect of the chapter is that while it enumerates numerous
qualities of the 'good' (xvi. 1-3) and 'bad' types (xvi.4.7-20), it mentions
people as being ' born' to that lot (abhijdta). Is then one's assignment to the
divine or demoniac lot qualitative or congenital? The answer is not entirely
clear.

VI

Thus one conclusion suggested by the analysis in general and specially by the
immediately preceding one is that the Gita. opts for predeterminism. How-
ever, both the text and the context seem to render such a blanket statement
vulnerable. Another possible conclusion is that the Gita. never quite makes up
its mind. A more detailed discussion, however, suggests clearer contours, if
not yet a definite conclusion.
It is not entirely clear whether Arjuna's participation in the war would be
an exercise of free will on his part, or is fated. It may be noted, however, that
even if he is destined to fight this is the result of his nature or character, not
of his past karma or prdrabdha. Since traditionally in Hindu thinking destiny is
associated with past karma1 this is a significant point.2 Although the Bhaga-
vadgita seems to recognize generally both free will and fate as affecting an
outcome specifically, in the case of the Mahabharata war, it may be seen as
regarding the death of the Kauravas as destined. On the question of the
fact or degree of Arjuna's predestination, it is hard to be completely certain,
though on balance some free will on Arjuna's part appears to be involved. The
overall position of the Gita on the issue of the role of free will and fate in
shaping the future is perhaps best summed up as follows.
There is ' no fate, circumstance or even which in the last analysis we do not
or have not created for ourselves (i.e. ourselves in relationship with others) '. 3
But this is neither 'an optimistic or a pessimistic view, and certainly not a
pessimistic one. We are today what we have made ourselves all through the
past, and we shall be tomorrow what we have been made by the past
together with our present attitudes'. 4 But in this process one faces a plasticine
future and one should note that 'the relation between future and present
may be as significant as between past and present. ' It doth not yet appear
what we shall be', and the present may be what it is, so that a future may be
what it shall be (and what on the deeper levels it already is) '.5 This aspect of
1
The use of the word karma in Bhagavadglta xvm. 60 could be misleading in this context. Note
that the word karmand has to be construed with the adjective svabhavajena and not with some hypo-
thetical or parenthetical purvajanmand.
2
T. M. P. Mahadevan, Outlines of Hinduism (Bombay: Chetana Ltd, i960), pp. 60-1.
3
Raynor C.Johnson, TTie Imprisoned Splendour (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1953), p . 173.
4 6
Ibid. Ibid. p. 174.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Mar 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 FATE IN THE BHAGAVADGITA 537
the Gita - that it looks at free will and fate not as part of a past-present
continuum but as part of a present-future continuum - is the most remark-
able aspect of its treatment of free will and fate.1
It seems possible to suggest, then, that the various conclusions suggested
earlier, namely, that the Gita opts for predeterminism or that it never quite
makes up its mind about the issue, can be seen as fragments of a larger mosaic
provided by the trichotomy of Karma with kriyamdna or dgdmi karma;
sancita karma and prdrabdha. In terms of this trichotomy, the death of the
Kauravas has become prdrabdha but participation in battle by Arjuna is yet
sancita karma, which is being provided with the cutting edge of dgdmi or
kriyamdna karma by Krsna's pep-talk to render it fully operational or prd-
rabdha, something which in Krsna's view Arjuna could, should and would do.
1
Bhagavadglta iv. 5 and xv. 8 seem to imply this general belief in the doctrine of Karma. Also
see S. Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadglta (London: George Allen and Unwin, i960), p. 356.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 21 Mar 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35