First 15 17 Last

Arjuna’s Last Question

n the Fourteenth Chapter, life or karma was divided into three categories: sattvik, rajasik and tamasik. We learnt that what is rajasik or tamasik should be given up and what is sattvik should be cultivated. The Seventeenth Chapter taught the same thing in a different way. The essence of life is yajna-dana-tapas; or to use a single word, yajna. Actions like eating which are necessary for the performance of yajna should also be made sattvik and turned into a kind of yajna. Only such actions should be done; all others should be given up. This was hinted at in the Seventeenth Chapter. We also saw why we should constantly remember the mantra ‘Om tat sat’. Om denotes constancy, tat denotes detachment and sat denotes purity. Our sadhana should have these three things: constancy, detachment and purity. Only then can it be dedicated to the Lord. All this indicates that only some and not all of the actions are to be renounced.

If we look at the whole message of the Gita, we find it advocating at several places that actions are not to be renounced. What it asks us to renounce is the fruit of actions. Everywhere in the Gita it is taught that we should act ceaselessly and renounce the fruit of our actions. But this is one side of it. The other side appears to be that certain actions should be renounced while certain other actions should be done. That is why Arjuna asks, at the beginning of the Eighteenth Chapter, “On the one hand, it is said that whatever action we do, it should be followed by renunciation of its fruit (falatyaga) and on the other hand, it also appears that some actions must be strictly abjured while some actions should be done. How to reconcile these two positions?” This question has been asked to understand clearly the direction in which life should proceed and to have an insight into the true meaning of the renunciation of the fruit of actions. Actions in themselves are to be renounced in what the scriptures call sannyasa, while in the falatyaga there is renunciation of the fruit of actions. Does renunciation of the fruit of actions as enjoined by the Gita needs renunciation of the actions themselves? This is the crux of the matter. With reference to the criterion of the renunciation of the fruit, is there any role for sannyasa? What are the limits of sannyasa and falatyaga? This is what Arjuna asks.

Renunciation of the Fruit: The Universal Test

The Lord has made one thing absolutely clear while answering this question: Renunciation of the fruit is the universal test. It can be universally applied. There is no contradiction between renunciation of the fruit of all the actions and the renunciation of rajasik and tamasik actions. The nature of some actions is such that they automatically fall off when the test of renunciation of the fruit is applied. When it is said that renunciation of the fruit should be associated with the performance of actions, it invariably implies that some actions will have to be given up. When we act in conjunction with renunciation of the fruit of actions, it naturally involves abjuration of certain actions.

Let us think over it in depth. When we say that whatever actions we do, we should renounce their fruit, actions prompted by desire for the fruit, actions prompted by selfish motives cease immediately. Such actions, as well as actions which are forbidden, being immoral and unrighteous, are ruled out when it is said that the fruit of actions is to be renounced. To act with renunciation of its fruit is not something mechanical, something done without application of mind. In fact, when we apply this test, it becomes clear which actions are worthy of doing and which are not so.

Some say that the Gita enjoins us to act with renunciation of the fruit; it does not suggest which actions should be done. It does appear so, but it is not true. When it is said that one should act and renounce the fruit of actions, it becomes clear which actions should be done and which should not be done. Actions intended to harm others, actions full of falsehood, actions like stealing can never be done if their fruit is to be renounced. The sun illuminates all things, but does it illuminate darkness too? No, it just disappears. That is what happens to selfish or forbidden actions. All the actions should be subjected to this test. When we intend to do something, we should see whether it is possible for us to do it without any attachment and expectation of returns. Renunciation of the fruit is the only unfailing test for actions. When this test is applied, actions with desire or selfish motives show themselves up as fit to be rejected. They must be renounced. Then pure and sattvik actions remain. They should be done with detachment, selflessness and humility. Renunciation of selfish actions is also an action and it should also be subjected to this universal test. Renunciation of selfish actions should not require any effort.

Thus, we have seen three things: (i) Whatever actions we do, we should renounce their fruit. (ii) When the test of renunciation of the fruit is applied, rajasik and tamasik actions, selfish and forbidden actions stand rejected. (iii) The same test is to be applied to such renunciation too. There should not be any vanity about renunciation, any feeling that ‘I have made so much sacrifice.’

Why should rajasik and tamasik actions be abjured? Because they are not pure; and because of their being impure, they smear the mind of the doer with impurities. But on deeper observation, one finds that sattvik actions too are flawed. In fact, every action has some or the other defect in it. The swadharma of farming comes to mind as a pure and sattvik occupation. But even in such work, which is of the nature of yajna, some violence is involved. Ploughing and other operations destroy a number of living beings. When we open the door in the morning, the sun’s rays enter the house and kill a number of living beings. What we call purification turns out to be a killing operation. Even sattvik work is thus flawed. What is then to be done?

I have already said that we have yet to develop to the full all the virtues. We have been able to have just a fleeting glimpse of qualities like wisdom, devotion, service and non-violence. It is not that they had fully blossomed sometime in the past. Mankind is learning from experience and making progress. In the Middle Ages, it was thought that agriculture involves violence; so it should be avoided by the people believing in non- violence and they should prefer trade and commerce instead. It is strange that to grow grains was considered sinful, but to sell them was not considered so! To avoid actions in this way does no good. Restricting the sphere of actions in this way will ultimately prove suicidal. The more a man thinks of escaping from actions, the more will he get entangled in them. If you have to trade in grains, is it not necessary for someone else to grow them?

If so, are you not an accomplice in the violence involved in farming? If growing cotton is a sin, it should be equally sinful to sell it. Not to produce cotton on the ground of it being an impure work is a sign of warped thinking. An attitude that goes on rejecting actions of all the types on different pretexts is not a sign of compassion; on the contrary, it shows lack of true compassion. We should understand that when the leaves are plucked, a tree does not wither away; it rather gets fresh foliage. In the contraction of the sphere of activities, there is contraction of the Self.

The Right Way to Extricate Oneself from Activity

The question then arises, ‘if all the activities are flawed, then why should not all of them be renounced?’ This question has already been answered. Renunciation of all the actions is indeed a very attractive and fascinating idea; but how to renounce innumerable actions? Is the way of giving up rajasik and tamasik actions applicable to sattvik actions too? How to avoid sattvik actions that are flawed or impure? The curious result of saying ‘Indray takshakay swaha’ [1] (‘Let Indra along with Takshak be offered as sacrifice in the yajna’) is that Indra, being immortal, does not die, and Takshak too escapes death and becomes stronger. Sattvik actions have a good deal of merit and a little flaw in them. When you try to sacrifice them because of that flaw, the merit in them does not die because of its inherent strength, but the flaws survive and grow behind the shield of the merit. The flaws which otherwise could have been removed, get strengthened because of such indiscreet sacrifice. If we drive away the cat because it commits the violence of killing the rats, we shall have to suffer the violence committed by the rats. If snakes are done away with because they commit violence, a lot of pests will multiply and destroy the crops, resulting in the death of thousands of people. Renunciation must, therefore, be accompanied with wise discrimination.

There is a story that Machchhindranath asked Gorakhnath, his disciple, to give a boy a good wash. Gorakhnath literally washed the boy like a piece of cloth by thrashing him on a washing stone, squeezed him and put him on the clothes-line for drying! Is it the way to give a boy a wash? Clothes and boys are not washed in the same way. Similarly, there is a lot of difference between renouncing sattvik actions and renouncing rajasik and tamasik actions. Sattvik actions are to be renounced in an altogether different way.

Actions bereft of wise discrimination can result in something adverse and unexpected. Has not Tukaram said, ‘If I outwardly renounce the desires and passions, they will enter my heart. O Lord! What am I to do then?’ Even if one tries to make a little sacrifice outwardly, the subtle urge for indulgence remains in the mind and grows there in strength, rendering that sacrifice meaningless. If a little bit of renunciation is going to lead us to build palatial houses, it makes no sense; it would have been better to live in a hut. It is better to continue to be dressed in the coat and the turban than to wear a loin-cloth and amass wealth and wallow in worldly pleasures. That is why the Lord has prescribed an altogether different way for renunciation of sattvik actions: they are to be done, but their fruits should be severed from them. While some actions themselves are to be renounced, fruits of some other are to be severed from them. A stain on the body can be washed off; but if the natural colour of the skin is dark, what is the point in white-washing it? It is better if no attention is paid to it.

There is a story about a man, who thought that his house was filthy and inauspicious and therefore left and went to another village. He found filth in that village too and therefore went to a forest. There, as he sat under a mango tree, a bird’s droppings fell on his head. Disgusted, he cursed the forest and went and stood in a river. There he found big fish eating up the small ones, and that heightened his disgust. Convinced that the whole of creation was abominable, and there was no way out except through death, he came out of the water and kindled a fire to end his life. A gentleman who was passing by enquired, ”Brother, why do you want to end your life?” The man replied, “Because the world is an abominable place; it stinks.” The gentleman said, ”But imagine how it would stink when your flesh begins to burn! How awful the stench is when even a single hair burns! What would happen when your whole body gets burnt? We live nearby. How would we bear it? Where could we go?” The man was bewildered and exclaimed, ”One cannot live in this world, nor can one die! What is one to do then?”

The moral is that if you go on condemning everything as abominable and try to escape from it, you simply cannot carry on. If you try to avoid a small flawed act, an act with a bigger flaw will become inescapable. The nature of karma is such that it cannot be got rid of by outward renunciation only. If a man tries to fight the karma that has come to his lot in the natural course, if he tries to swim against the current, he is bound to get exhausted in the end and be swept off by the current. His interest lies in acting in tune with the current of swadharma. Then the coatings on the mind will peel off gradually and the mind will go on getting increasingly purified. Activities will wither away of themselves even though actions will continue to be done. Karma will remain, but activity will disappear.

There is a difference between karma (action) and kriya (activity). Let us take an example to explain this. Suppose there is a great commotion at a place and it is to be stopped. A policeman goes there and shouts at the top of his voice. To make the people silent, he has to do the intense action of shouting. Someone else may go, stand up and raise his finger; and that will be sufficient to quieten the people. Another person may just go there and his very presence will stop the commotion and the noise. In the first case, activity is intense; in the second case, it is gentle; and in the third case, it is subtle. But action is the same, that of quietening the people.

As the mind gets purified, intensity of activity will go on diminishing. Activity will go on becoming gentler and subtler, and will altogether cease in the end. Action and activity are different things. Even grammatically, these two terms are different from each other.

This must be clearly understood. A man may express his anger either by shouting or by keeping silent. He may thus resort to different activities for the sake of one and the same action. A jnani does no activity, but his karma is infinite. His very existence induces innumerable people to take to the right path. Even if he is just sitting still, he does infinite karma. As activity goes on becoming subtler and subtler, the karma goes on growing. Thus, one can infer that when the mind is completely purified, activity will cease altogether and karma will become infinite. Activity will progressively become gentler and subtler till its complete cessation in the end, and then infinite karma will take place by itself. Karma cannot be got rid of by rejecting it superficially. It is possible only gradually through selfless, desireless work. There is a poem by the poet Browning wherein a man asks the Pope, ‘Why do you bedeck yourself with robes etc.? Why do you have all this paraphernalia? Why do you keep a serene face? Why this pretence?’ The Pope answers, ‘I do all this because it is possible that as I go on play-acting in this way, faith may touch me one day, without my even realizing it.’ One should, therefore, go on doing desireless activity; it will finally culminate in the state of no activity.

First 15 17 Last