the sole means of attaining liberation. These theological and religious traditions
are collectively referred to as “bhakti.” Most bhaktisects accepted the institution
of renunciation, often redefining its meaning as withdrawal from worldly con-
cerns so as to focus solely on devotion to god. Nevertheless, the internal logic of
bhakticontradicted the elitism inherent in the institution of renunciation.
Renouncers were religious virtuosi; and in theologies where mystical quests and
ascetic discipline were central, the claim could be made that only renouncers
were able to achieve the highest goal of religion, namely liberation. Love, on the
other hand, is egalitarian; anyone can love. Indeed, bhaktiliterature is filled with
examples of poor and ignorant men and women who gain divine favor by the
intensity of their love.
Bhakticontained the potential for radicalism both in religion and in society,
even though not all bhaktitradition espoused radical social or religious change.
Most were, in fact, rather conservative, acknowledging caste and gender differ-
ences within religion. There were some, however, that did draw radical conclu-
sions from the premise that all humans are alike in the eyes of god, and the only
thing god requires from humans is complete and unconditional love and sur-
render. It was not necessary to go to Benares to see god; he is present in one’s
heart. For a person who loves god, his or her front yard is Benares. There is no
need to leave home and family and to become a world renouncer in order to love
god; a poor farmer can love god more intensely while pursuing his lowly tasks
than an arrogant renouncer surrounded by a throng of disciples.
The seeds of this challenge was already sown in the Bhagavad Gı ̄ta ̄. Standing
in his chariot with Kr.s.n.a, the incarnation of Vis.n.u, in the middle of the two
armies ready for battle in the great Bha ̄rata war, Arjuna is struck with remorse
at the imminent destruction of kith and kin. There they stood, fathers and sons,
uncles and nephews, grandfathers and grandsons, teachers and pupils, ready to
kill each other for the petty comforts of royal power. In disgust and dejection,
Arjuna throws down his bow and says, “I will not fight!” Kr.s.n.a, god and
upholder of social order, uses every argument possible to convince Arjuna that
it is his duty as a warrior to fight, to kill and to be killed. The author of the Gı ̄ta ̄,
subtly but effectively transforms Arjuna’s refusal to fight into the broader
theological dispute over engagement in and withdrawal from activity, living in
society and renouncing it. What is better? To act or not to act?
Kr.s.n.a’s response amounts to a redefinition of renunciation, which is called
sam.nya ̄sain the Gı ̄ta ̄. Renunciation, Kr.s.n.a points out, is not simply the running
away from society, the refusal to act – for whether we like it or not, our very nature
forces us to act. “True” renunciation is not the mere withdrawal from action,
which is impossible in any case, but the abandonment of any desire for the fruits,
the results, of one’s actions. This true renunciation is an internal attitude and
habit; not an external institution with specific rules and emblems. Kr.s.n.a calls it
“continuous or perpetual renunciation”; unlike institutional renunciation which
is carried out on the day that one performs the ritual of renunciation, here one
has to continuously fight inner longings and give up desire for fruits every time
one engages in any activity. Finally, this inner and true renunciation is not a
284 patrick olivelle