Abstract

In the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna observes deontological contradictions between samanya dharma and kshatriya dharma and realizes he will violate scriptural ordinance regardless of whether he fights or not. Arjuna concludes that the least sinful course of action is to abandon his kshatriya dharma and not fight. Krishna instructs Arjuna to fight—and, through Samkhya metaphysics and the Satkaryavada theory of causation dismantles the causally deterministic underpinnings of Arjuna’s ethics. Krishna bifurcates Brahman (the ultimate reality) into the Sat (absolutely real) composed of Purusha (the imperceivable causal principle) and Prakriti (the material cause), and the asat (not absolutely true or unenduring) phenomenal transformations of Prakriti. Krishna argues that jivas (embodied beings) only have apparent causal agency; but no absolute causal efficacy, since all phenomena are transformations of Prakriti. Krishna responds to Arjuna’s ethical dilemma through an atman-Brahman (soul-ultimate reality) epistemology-centered meta-ethic where sin and ignorance, produced through desire, are effectually equanimous and veil knowledge of the truth or atman-Brahman. The Buddhi (intellect), deluded by ignorance, misidentifies the non-phenomenal eternal self with the phenomenon and creates a false existential distinction for itself separate from the material cause by tethering itself to the unenduring phenomenal transformations of Prakriti. Krishna rejects the Vedic assertion that karma (bodily action) is the source of sin, and states instead that it is the motive of action. Krishna’s central doctrine of Karma Yoga is predicated on karmic theory which is in turn predicated on causal theory. Scholarly and mainstream interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita often assume Krishna’s doctrine to be causally deterministic and consistent with Vedic metaphysics and ethics—which leads to problematic and contradictory interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita.

I . Introduction and Analysis of Arjuna’s Ethical Dilemma

In the Vedas and other scriptures, Rta refers to the metaphysical laws that govern the universe. Dharma is the deontological instantiation of Rta and describes the moral and religious duties and obligations of individuals and groups of people. According to the Vedas, one’s past karmas (bodily actions) and the degree to which those actions comply with scriptural ordinance determines one’s future circumstances. Actions that comply with scripture are punyam (virtuous) and produce positive results; while actions that violate the scripture are paapam (sin) and produce negative results. In the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata, Bheeshma defines samanya dharma or the moral and religious duties of all people as akrodha or suppression of wrath, satya vachana or truthfulness, samvibhaga or uncovetous, kshama or forgiveness and patience, prajana or begetting children upon one’s lawfully wedded wives, saucha or purity, adroha or harmlessness, arjava or simplicity, straightforwardness, and non-hypocrisy — these nine duties belong to the four orders (equally). (Mahabharata 12.60). Bhishma defines kshatriya dharma or the moral and religious obligations and duties of the ruling warrior class as, “A Kshatriya, O king, should give but not beg … Always exerting himself for the destruction of robbers and wicked people…a king who desires to acquire religious merit should engage in battle … if only he protects his subjects, he is regarded to accomplish all religious acts and is called a Kshatriya….”  (Mahabharata 12.60)

Bhishma also states that kshatriyas are expected to kill even their own family members and teachers if they violate dharmic ordinance, 

A Kshatriya should slay sires, grandsires, brothers, preceptors, relatives, and kinsmen who may engage with him in an unjust battle. That Kshatriya…is acquainted with his duty who slays his very preceptors if they happen to be sinful and covetous and disregardful of restraints and vows…who slays in battle the person that from covetousness disregards the eternal barrier of virtue. (Mahabharata 12.55)  

In recent decades several scholars have advanced normative ethical interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita and have interpreted Arjuna’s ethical arguments as consequential and Krishna’s arguments as consequence-independent deontology. Sandeep Srikumar, in “An Analysis of Consequentialism and Deontology in the Normative Ethics of the Bhagavadgita”, accepts consequential interpretations of Arjuna’s ethics and writes,

It is his waging war against these particular people that would violate a strong agent-relative imperative which declares that a person ought not to wage war against elders and kinsmen…recall that the mere presence of an agent-relative constraint in moral theory is not sufficient to make a theory deontology…It is precisely to consequences that Arjuna himself appeals when justifying the agent-relative constraint of the violation, which would, in his view, constitute an evil or sin (Sreekumar 288).

However, according to the Mahabharata’s definition of kshatriya dharma, killing one’s elders and kinsmen to uphold dharma is considered virtuous, required of kshyatriyas, and does not violate any agent-relative imperatives.

Central to Arjuna’s ethical dilemma in the first and second chapters of the Bhagavad Gita is the role of motivation and other mental constructs in determining whether an action is sinful or virtuous. Per his kshyatriya dharma, Arjuna knows he must fight the Kauravas because they are adharmic (not dharmic) and are fighting motivated by greed. However, if Arjuna is willing to kill his kin motivated by self-interest or greed, and not with the intent to uphold dharma, then he is violating samanya dharma. In Chapter 1, Arjuna asks Krishna, “Killing these sons of Dhritarashtra, what pleasure can be ours, O Janardana? Sin alone will be our gain by killing these felons…Though these, with their intelligence clouded by greed, see no evil in the destruction of families…” (Bhagavad Gita 1.36-1.39). And later in Chapter 2, Arjuna says, 

How, O Madhusudhana, shall I, in battle fight with arrows against Bhishma and Drona, who are fit to be worshipped…Better indeed…to eat even the bread of ‘beggary’ than to slay the most noble of teachers. But if I kill them, even in this world, all my enjoyments of wealth and desires will be stained with blood…my mind is confused as to duty [or dharma] (Bhagavad 2.4-2.7).

In both passages, Arjuna is not objecting to the physical act of killing his relatives, but rather to the motive itself. Arjuna is not using the consequences to evaluate ethicality in a typical consequential normative ethical fashion, but rather reflects on the consequences to gain insight into his own motives to understand if his actions violate the dharmic ordinance. Arjuna’s normative ethics are deontological, and he wants to do what his dharma requires of him. However, his unique situational circumstances present contradictions between two hierarchically related and overlapping deontological systems, samanya dharma and kshatriya dharma, which should not contradict each other, but do. Arjuna uses consequentialism not as a normative ethic, but as a ‘pseudo-meta-ethic’ to help him understand the role intent of action has on dharma, the relationship between dharma and Rta, and determine which dharmic system he should follow. Yet, Arjuna remains perplexed and turns to Krishna for guidance.

Part II. An Analysis of Arjuna’s and Krishna’s Metaphysics

In a Treatise on Human Nature, David Humes argues that causation is a subjective mental construct fabricated by the imagination, resulting from the repeated observation of objects that constantly appear conjoined together (Humes 93). Immanuel Kant concedes to Hume’s argument that the causal principle itself is imperceivable but rejects the argument that causation is entirely a subjective mental construct. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that causation is a priori to mental cognition and must be objectively real because the mind can distinguish between objects and phenomena (Kant 146). Extending Kant’s causal premise, scientific and empirical reasoning primarily uses deduction and induction to extract natural laws through an a posteriori examination of objects, phenomenon, and their patterns of occurrence. The causal principle, though objectively real, can never be directly exacted or perceived.

The Stanford Encyclopedia defines causal determinism as, “Causal determinism is roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature...Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences…” (Hoefer). Causal determinism is cognitively intuitive to humans and is how our minds interpret phenomena. Arjuna believes that the universe is metaphysically causally deterministic, and as an agent, he has casual efficacy. In Chapter 1 Arjuna says, “In the destruction of a family, the immemorial religious rites of that family perish; on the destruction of spirituality, impiety overcomes the whole family…their forefathers fall, deprived of offerings…” (Bhagavad Gita 1.39-1.42). Arjuna argues that his fighting, motivated by greed, will be a catalytic event that will set off a chain of events that will eventually result in social anarchy.

Through Samkhya metaphysics and the Satkaryavada theory of causation, Krishna answers Arjuna’s questions by deconstructing his causally deterministic metaphysics. In Chapter 2, Krishna says, “The [Asat or] Unreal has no being; there is no non-being of the [Sat or] Real; the truth about both of these has been seen by the Knowers of the Truth” (Bhagavad Gita 2.16). Krishna decomposes Brahman (or the ultimate reality) into Purusha and Prakriti. Purusha is the imperceivable causal principle, though itself unchanging and non-phenomenal, is eternal and the cause of everything. Prakriti or the material cause, is a counterfactual matrix, where the effects are pre-existent within the cause in a potential state. If Prakriti were not in contact with Purusha, it would remain dormant, inactive, and nonphenomenal. However, when Prakriti is in contact with Purusha it becomes active— manifesting the pre-existing potential effects. Central to Samkhya metaphysics is the Satkaryavada theory of causation. In his paper “Causation in Indian Philosophy”, Apu Sutradhar defines Satkaryavada as: “According to Satkaryavada the effect already exists in the [material] cause in a potential condition [it is not] a new creation and different from the material cause…the effect is only an explicit manifestation of that which is contained in its material cause” (Sutradhar, 36).

Vachaspati Mishra Acharya in his book Tattva-Kaumadi references Bhagavad Gita 2.16 as proof of Satkaryavada, “Nor again can a non-entity ever be produced, or an entity destroyed…so also are jar, crown, &c., not different from (their material cause), clay, gold, &c.” (Vachaspati Misra, 33). In his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya, Shankara Acharya also references Satkaryavada and writes of Bhagavad Gita 2.16, “There is no bhava—no being, no existence—of the unreal (asat) such as heat and cold as well as their causes… which are (no doubt) perceived through the organs of perception, are not absolutely real (vastu-sat); for they are effects or changes (vikara), and every change is temporary” (Shankara 27). The Sanskrit word ‘Sat’ means ‘true’, while the word ‘asat’ means ‘not true’. However, neither Krishna (Bhagavad Gita 2.13-2.14) nor Shankara Acharya, use the word asat to suggest that the transformations of Prakriti are completely or absolutely unreal; but rather that they are not absolute or are non-permanent.

Ramanuja Acharya, in his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya states that Satkaryavada is not contextually related to verse 2.16 and argues that Krishna is pointing out the distinction between the atman and the material body.

‘These bodies…are said to have an end’ (2.18) and ‘Know That (the Atman) to be indestructible’ (2.17). It is seen from this that this (i.e., perishableness of the body and imperishableness of the self) is the reason for designating the Atman as ‘existence’ (Sattva) and body as ‘non-existence’ (Asattva). This verse has no reference to the doctrine of Satkaryavada…as such a theory has no relevance here. (Ramanuja 89) 

However, Ramanuja Acharya does not qualify which aspects of the material body are perishable. Is Ramanuja Acharya stating that the material body and the material cause of the body (Prakriti) are both perishable—or is he stating that only the transformations of Prakriti are perishable? Madhava Acharya, in his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya, asks, “Eternal is the self, thus it has been spoken. Is there anything else (eternal), anything else? Hence it has been said in the verse starting [of Bhagavad Gita 2.16], that there is no annihilation of Prakriti the cause or Brahman, because it is declared in Vishnu Purana, “Prakriti, Purusha, and Time are eternal” (Madhava acharya 15). Later in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna states, “Know you that Prakriti and Purusha are both beginningless; and know you also that all modifications [vikaran or changes] and qualities [(gunas)] are born of Prakriti” (Bhagavad Gita 13.20). Krishna is not saying that the material cause of the body (or Prakriti) is asat; but rather that only the phenomenal transformations of Prakriti, such as the body, sense experiences, etc., are asat.

Krishna defines the atman through a Prakriti negative definition, “The [atman] cannot be cut, nor burnt, nor moistened, nor dried up. It is eternal, all-pervading, stable, immovable, and ancient” (Bhagavad Gita 2.23). Since the atman is Prakriti negative, has no qualities, nor undergoes changes—the atman, spirit, or causal principle that animates individual material bodies must be identical to Purusha or the causal principle that animates all of Prakriti. Thus, the atman is unqualified, identical to, and one with Brahman. Krishna uses Satkaryavada to argue that embodied beings are transformations of Prakriti, “Beings [are] unmanifest [(or avyakti)] in the beginning, and unmanifest [(or avyakti)] again in their end, [and] seem to be manifest [(or vyakti)] in the middle, O Bharata. What then is there to grieve about? (Bhagavad Gita 2.28). In Sanskrit the word ‘vyakti’ means manifest, but also means distinct or defined; while the word ‘avyakti’ means unmanifest, nondistinct, or undefined. The words ‘vyakti’ and ‘avyakti’ are used in various scriptures such as the Upanishads (Paingala Upanishad 1.3-1.4) and the Lalitha Sahasranamam (verses 398-399) to refer to the phenomenal and nonphenomenal Prakriti. Krishna uses the words ‘vyakti’ and ‘avyakti’ to point out that jivas are not absolutely created and or destroyed, but rather that they exist within Prakrit as potential effects and are merely transformations of the material cause. When embodied beings die, neither the material cause nor potential effects are destroyed—only the distinct transformations.

Part III. Analysis of Causal Theories & Interpretations of Karma Yoga

Arjuna’s ethical dilemma stems from Vedic ambiguity regarding the influence of subjective cognitive constructs on dharma. In his paper, “The Ethics of Vedanta” S.Radhakrishna writes,

The Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita come after the Vedas and their spirit is a revolt against the depressingly utilitarian spirit of the Vedas, which advocated the mere observance of ritual for the sake of rewards and punishments...while the Vedas lay stress on the external conformity to the law, later Vedanta writings bring out that this outer conformity without the right spirit is good for nothing. (Radhakrishna 173-174)

Krishna criticizes the Vedas and Vedic practices stating, “Taking pleasure in the eulogizing words of Vedas…Full of desires…they utter flowery words…and prescribe various specific actions for the attainment of pleasure… who has known the Self, all the Vedas are of so much use, as is a reservoir of water in a place where there is a flood everywhere.” (Bhagavad Gita 2.42-2.46). Krishna argues that embodied beings have no absolute causal efficacy since the atman or true self of jivas (individual distinct living entities) is Purusha. Since Purusha neither acts nor changes, it neither performs karma nor is affected by the effects of karma. Additionally, since the material body, senses, sense objects, karmas (bodily actions), results of action, mental constructs, etc. of individual beings are phenomenal transformations of Prakriti, preexistent in a potential state within Prakriti—jivas do not absolutely cause anything to be created or destroyed through action (karma). Krishna states, “All actions are performed in all cases, merely by the [modes of material nature (gunas)]. He whose mind is deluded by egoism thinks “I am the doer”. But he—who knows the Truth…knows the gunas as senses moving amidst gunas as objects, is not attached.” (Bhagavad Gita 3.27-3.29).

In his paper A Dialectical Reading of the Bhagavadgita, Kenneth Dorter writes,

From an analytic perspective, contradictions are either merely verbal or else they may render the entire statement entirely meaningless… ‘Arjuna is fighting and not fighting’ would be meaningless if ‘fighting’ is used precisely in the same respect both times, but if it is understood that he is ‘fighting’ insofar as he is struggling to arrive at the right decision, and ‘not fighting’ because he has not entered the physical battlefield, the appearance of contradiction is gone; it was only a rhetorical trope. (Dorter 308)

Dorter’s assertion that the word “fighting” is not used in the same way both times is correct—however, this does not necessarily result in analytical contradiction, since the words Sat (true) and asat (not true) are not used as binary antonyms. Rather, the word asat is taken to point out that the phenomenal world is a superimposition upon the absolutely real or the Sat. In Chapter 11, Krishna says “Conquer thy enemies…Verily, by myself have they already been slain; be you a mere instrument [or apparent cause (nimitta-matram)]” (Bhagavad Gita 11.33). The statement “Arjuna is fighting and not fighting” is noncontradictory—since from the Sat viewpoint the atman does not act or perform karmas; however, from the asat viewpoint, Arjuna, as the sum of distinct phenomena taken together to define him takes on the ‘appearance’ of fighting. Thus, Arjuna is fighting and not fighting.

Krishna argues that ignorance of atman-Brahman or the eternal truth, not karma as posited by the Vedas, is the source of pain and suffering. Since the atman is non-phenomenal and imperceivable, it cannot be perceived by the senses. The buddhi (intellect), deluded by desire, loses its ability to discriminate between the Sat and asat, and misidentifies atman-Brahman with the phenomenal and unenduring aspects of Prakriti. The Buddhi creates false existential distinction or ‘vyakti’ for itself separate from Prakriti, by attaching itself to the nonpermanent phenomenal aspects of Prakriti—such as the material body, objects of senses, desires, actions, results of action, etc. According to Krishna, this false self-ideation or egoism, defined by the impermanent, due to its lack of endurance, is the source of suffering.

Krishna advances an atman-Brahman epistemology-centred meta-ethic where paapam (sin) and ajnana (ignorance), born of desire, are effectually equanimous, and veil knowledge of Braham,

Arjuna said: But by what impelled does a man commit sin…
Krishna said: As fire is enveloped by smoke, as a mirror by dust…so this [jnanam (knowledge)] is enveloped by desire…The senses, the mind, and the intellect are said to be its seat; through these, it deludes the embodied by veiling his knowledge. (Bhagavad Gita 3.35-3.39).

Krishna argues that the motive of action, not action itself, either produces sin or virtue, further veiling or unveiling knowledge of the truth. Krishna qualifies motives per the three gunas (qualities, tendencies, or modes) of Prakriti—satvik (creative), rajas (maintaining), and tamas (destructive)—and argues that though an action may have the same consequential outcomes, the motive of action is ultimately what determines if the action is sinful or virtuous. For example, a charitable act could have the same objective consequential outcome but would be sinful, rajasic, or ‘demonic’ if one performs charity with egotistical intent or ulterior motives such as to attain name and praise (Bhagavad Gita 17.20-17.22).

Krishna criticizes traditional yogic practices which advocate the renunciation of action and Arjuna’s decision to avoid performing his kshatriya dharma. Krishna argues that jivas cannot refrain from action since their bodies are phenomenal asat transformations of Prakriti subject to change, that Prakriti compels them to act as if by force, and that actions must be performed for the bare maintenance of the body (Bhagavad Gita 3.4-3.6). Per his central doctrine of Karma Yoga, Krishna argues that the goal of all margas (paths to Brahman), yoga, bhakti (selfless devotion to any god), philosophical inquiry into truth, etc., is not fulfilling one’s desires or attaining higher births—but rather to instil the principle of renunciation within the practitioner. Through renunciation, egotistic notions of ‘I the doer’ and ‘mine’, and the delusion born of ignorance that shrouds the buddhi are destroyed—allowing one to realize oneself as being nondifferent from Brahman.

Krishna instructs Arjuna to perform egoless or selfless actions, remaining detached from, and undesirous of the fruitful results of action—remembering always that it is Prakriti that produces all phenomenon. Like a yogi, who is lost in meditation and keeps the body and sense organs still, enduring all passing experiences of hunger, thirst, cold, heat, etc.—Krishna states that the karma yogi should engage the body in action, enduring all experiences with patience and indifference. The karma yogi should keep the buddhi (intellect) still, unmoving, content with, transfixed on the absolute truth or atman-Brahman—regarding no acquisition or knowledge to be greater than Brahman. Knowing the distinction between the Sat and asat, the karma yogi should remain indifferent to the pairs of opposites, such as happiness and sorrow, success and failure, honour and dishonour, pleasure and pain, gain and loss, etc. And, like the practitioner of Vedic sacrifice—as hope, desire, attachment, envy, and cravings arise in the mind, the karma yogi should cast those delusions into the sacrificial fire of knowledge (of Brahman). Krishna says, “He who does actions, offering them to Brahman, abandoning attachment, is not tainted by sin, just as a lotus leaf remains unaffected [or untouched by water]” (Bhagavad Gita 5.7).

Krishna’s views regarding karma are not consistent with Vedic views of karma. Modern interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita often conflate the causally deterministic Vedic interpretation of karma with Krishna’s Satkaryavada epistemology-centred meta-ethic, which produces contradictory interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita. Mainstream interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita, often summarize Krishna’s Karma Yoga doctrine with adages such as ‘do your work and God will take care of the results’. These interpretations regard karma yoga as a coping mechanism against anxiety and the uncertainties of life. In her article, “Do your work and God will take care of the results”, Mata Amritanandamayi concludes by stating that we must work hard, but we still need to have the grace of God and worship God so that the variables and random circumstances of life that are out of one’s control work out in a desirable manner. However, if outcomes do not precipitate according to one’s desires, one must accept this as the will of God. Similarly, in an article titled “Hard Work verses Destiny” Mridal Mazumudar writes, “There are unlimited cases where our efforts fail to bring the fruitive result despite honest intention and hard work…performing duties despite the result…helps a person overcome the trauma of failure.” (Mazumdar). These interpretations of Karma Yoga view the universe as causally deterministic, individual jivas as having limited but real causal efficacy, and God as a separate agent with a greater range and degree of causal efficacy than jivas. However, according to Krishna the source of all sin and suffering is false egoism and attachment to the asat. By viewing God as a causal agent, the practitioner rationalizes uncertainty, but is still left with desire, attachment, and egoism—and remains lost in Samsara (the ocean of sin, suffering, death, and pain).

In a Huffington Post article, “Karma: What Goes Around Comes Around”, Pandit Dasa writes,

The Bhagavad Gita…explained that each of my previous lives…is probably affecting my current life…A karmic reaction, good or bad, may or may not become manifest in the same life…The teachings of the Gita and Hinduism are all about breaking this cycle of karma transcending the material world and regaining entrance into the spiritual world…(Dasa).

Similarly, the Vedanta Society of Southern California presents a causally deterministic interpretation of Karma Yoga, “What we experience today is the result of our karma—both good and bad…we use the sword of karma yoga to stop the chain reaction of cause and effect” (Vedanta Society of Southern California). Both interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita consider Karma Yoga as the means to stop the causally deterministic chain reaction of cause and effect or the phenomenal transformations of Prakriti. However, Krishna states that karma is neither the source of sin nor can be avoided (Bhagavad Gita 3.4-3.6) since Prakriti produces all phenomena. The root cause of suffering is ignorance of the absolute truth or atman-Brahman and the desire for and false egotistic attachment to the undenduring transformations of Prakriti. Karma Yoga destroys ignorance born of egoism—not causality itself. One who knows the self to be Brahman and is transfixed in Brahman attains unconditional everlasting bliss and remains unaffected by the asat.
 

Works Cited

Amritanandamayi, Mata. “Do Your Duty, Don’t Fret over the Result.” The Times of India, July 2015, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/mridul-mazumdar/hard-work-verses-destiny-11038/. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Chinmayananda, Swami. THE HOLY GEETA. Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, May 1992.

Deb, Paul. “A Chariot between Two Armies: A Perfectionist Reading of the Bhagavadgita.” Philosophy East and West, vol. 71, no. 4, 2020. Accessed 15 Oct. 2020.

Dorter, Kenneth. “A Dialectical Reading of the Bhagavadgita.” Asian Philosophy, vol. 22, no. 4, Nov. 2012, pp. 307–326, https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2012.729322. Accessed 4 Oct. 2021.

Hoefer, Carl. “Causal Determinism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2016, plato.stanford.edu.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Google Books, Clarendon Press, 1888, www.google.com/books/edition/A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature/5xJLAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. Google Books, Hackett Publishing, 1 Jan. 1996, www.google.com / books / edition / Critique_ of_ Pure_ 9 May 2023.

Madhavacharya. Sri Madhvacharya Bhashya and Tatparya Nirnaya. Translated by Nagesh Sonde, 2011, michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/2013/01/Madhvacarya-Bhagavad-Gita.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Mazumdar, Mridul. “Hard Work Verses Destiny.” The Times of India, 26 Mar. 2020, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/mridul-mazumdar/hard-work-verses-destiny-11038/. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Misra, Vachaspati. An English Translation with the Sanskrit Text of the Tattva-Kaumudi (Sankhya) of Vachaspati Misra. Translated by Ganganatha Jha. INDIAN CULTURE, London, Luzac and co., 1896, indianculture.gov.in/rarebooks/english-translation-sanskrit-text-tattva-kaumudi-sankhya-vachaspati-misra-0. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Nicholson, Hugh. Comparative Theology and the Problem of Religious Rivalry. Oxford University Press, 8 Apr. 2011.

Pandit Dasa. “Karma: What Goes around Comes Around.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 12 Nov. 2011, www.huffpost.com/entry/karma-what-goes-around-comes-around_b_1081057.

Radhakrishnan, S. “The Ethics of the Vedanta.” The International Journal of Ethics, vol. 24, no. 2, Jan. 1914, pp. 168–183, https://doi.org/10.1086/intejethi.24.2.2376505.

Ramachander, P.R. “Lalitha Sahasranamam - Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia.” Www.hindupedia.com, www.hindupedia.com/en/Lalitha_Sahasranamam.

Ramanuja. The Gitabhasya of Ramanuja. Translated by M. R. Sampatkumaran. Google Books, Ananthacharya Indological Research Institute, 1985, www.google.com/books/edition/
The_G%C4%ABt%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ya_of_R%C4%81m
%C4%81nuja/N7huAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Sankaracarya. The Bhagavad Gita, with the Commentary of Sri Sankaracharya. Translated by Alladi Mahadeva Sastri. Google Books, G. T. A. Printing Works, 1901,
www.google.com/books/edition/
The_Bhagavad_G%C4%ABt%C4%81_with_the_Commentary/iPJjAAAAMAAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&
dq=madhvacharya+commentary+on+the+gita&printsec=frontcover.
Accessed 9 May 2023.

Sreekumar, Sandeep. “An Analysis of Consequentialism and Deontology in the Normative Ethics of the Bhagavadgita.” Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 40, no. 3, 22 Mar. 2012, pp. 277–315, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-012-9154-3.

Sutradhar, Apu. “Causation in Indian Philosophy.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS, vol. 23, no. 9, 2018, pp. 35–39, www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2023%20Issue9/Version-3/F2309033539.pdf, https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2309033539. Accessed 9 May 2023.

“The Path of Work – Karma Yoga | Vedanta Society of Southern California.” Vedanta Society of Southern California, vedanta.org/yoga-spiritual-practice/the-path-of-work-karma-yoga/.

“The Upanishads, Part 1” Translated by F. Max F. Max. Www.sacred-Texts.com, Oxford, the Clarendon Press, 1879, www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/index.htm. Accessed 9 May 2023.

Vyasa. Mahabharata. Translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli. Www.sacred-Texts.com, 1896, www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm.

Warrier, Krishna. Translator. Paingala Upanishad. Chennai: The Theosophical Publishing House.