Ātmā does not reside in the body, nor does Ātmā ever leave the body (Chapter 2, Verse 22)
वासांसि जीर्णानि यथा विहाय
नवानि गृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि।
तथा शरीराणि विहाय जीर्णा
न्यन्यानि संयाति नवानि देही।।2.22।।
vāsānsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya
navāni gṛihṇāti naro ’parāṇi
tathā śharīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇānya
nyāni sanyāti navāni dehī
As after rejecting worn out clothes a man takes up new ones, likewise after rejecting worn out bodies the embodied one unites with other new ones.
~ Chapter 2, Verse 22
✥ ✥ ✥
Questioner (Q): At the start of the second chapter of Bhagavad Gita, Shri Krishna explains to Arjuna the difference between the body and the Self, and in verse 22 he says, “As after rejecting worn out clothes a man takes up new ones, likewise after rejecting worn out bodies the embodied one unites with other new ones.”
This analogy has been widely used to explain how the body is not the self, and the same analogy also provides a nice model to grasp the concept of rebirth. But is it as simplistic as it appears? What is the essence?
Do Ātmān and Soul refer to the same entity? If not, what is the difference?
Acharya Prashant (AP): Chapter 2, Verse 22.
“As after rejecting worn out clothes a man takes up new ones, likewise after rejecting worn out bodies the embodied one unites with other new ones.”
Who is the ‘embodied one’? Therein lies all the general confusion. The Truth, the pure Self, the Ātmān is formless, nameless, timeless and obviously bodiless. So, the embodied one in verse 22 obviously does not refer to the Ātmān; it refers to Prakriti, it refers to the Jīvātman—and Jīvātman is not at all Ātmān. Jīvātman is not at all the “Ātmān of the Jīva”, “Jīva’s Ātmān”.
Jīvātman simply means that which the Jīva being a Jīva thinks of as his Ātmān or his centre. The Jīva—the person being a person, being a mistaken entity—thinks of his ego, his ‘I’ as his centre, so he calls the ego as Ātmān. That is Jīvātman.
Jīvātman does not have anything to do with the Ātmān. So, it is the Prakriti that moves from body to body. It is the Jīvātman that moves from body to body. In other words, it is the Prakriti that keeps giving rise to one body after the other, and all bodies carry the central trait of the previous bodies. All bodies carry the central trait of the bodies that came before them. What is that central trait called? The ego, the ‘I’.
So, it is the ‘I’ sense or the ‘Prakriti’ or ‘Jīvātman’ that keeps on dawning, adopting one body after the other. It is that tendency to ‘be’ that keeps assuming one shape after the other. And that tendency to ‘be’ is so keenly in search of its final association that even when it appears like being associated with one particular body, it is actually changing its association moment to moment. How? Because the body is constantly changing and because the mind is constantly changing.
So, really, the ‘I’ sense is moving from body to body every second. It is not that the ‘I’ sense moves on to a different body only after the previous body has died. That which you call as the previous body, that which you call as one particular body is not a fixed or constant entity. It appears to be constant because the changes occurring in it every second are infinitesimally small, so we are not able to detect them. There is an illusion of continuity, whereas there is no real continuity. Look at your body as a scientist would look at it; how greatly it changes every day. Where is the continuity?
And even more significant is the change in the mind every half an hour. Don’t we know that? And the ‘I’ sense is associated with the body and the mind, and therefore, it is adopting a new identity every new moment. Right now it says, “I am happy”; next moment it says, “I am angry.” Has the ‘I’ sense not moved on to a new mind?
Similarly, if it says, “I am the body,” then right now it is ‘I am body 1’. Then you go to sleep, and when you wake up in that interval, the body has actually undergone a substantial change: ‘body 1’ has become ‘body 2’. So, you have changed your identity straightway from ‘I am body 1’ to ‘I am body 2’.
How is it different from saying, “Now I am Ramesh; a few hours back I was Rajesh”? But when you say, “Rajesh has changed to Ramesh,” then it is a clear case of rebirth. The thing that was once Rajesh is now calling itself as Ramesh, and now you will say, “See, rebirth has taken place.” You will keenly agree. It will be a matter of excitement.
But when the same thing happens within one particular body, then you do not quite so eagerly accept it. ‘I am body 1’ becomes ‘I am body 2’. It’s just that ‘body 1’ and ‘body 2’ are coincidentally carrying the same name. If you are ‘Satyam’, then ‘body 1’ was named Satyam and ‘body 2’ is also named Satyam. It’s just that ‘Satyam 1’ is very different from ‘Satyam 2’. We are not able to notice this because memory provides, as we said, an illusion of continuity.
When you read verse 22 of chapter 2, never forget that the one that is transmigrating is not Ātmān; it is the Jīvātman, and Jīvātman is nothing but Prakriti. Jīvātman is nothing but the ‘I’ sense and Jīvātman is nothing in particular, because Prakriti is nothing in particular. Prakriti is no-thing, no person in particular. Prakriti, you could say, the principle that runs this universe. You could even say that Prakriti is a set of principles that lies at the bottom of this universe. So, Jīvātman is also no particular thing.
Do not try to visualise the Jīvātman as something which is moving forward from body to body. Because we do have very popular pictorial depictions in which it is shown very loudly, very-very clearly that something gets outside a dying man’s body, and then enters into some other womb, and then the thing inside the womb gets life. No! It is the Jīvātman that is common between one body and another body. But, Jīvātman is a principle, not a thing. A principle doesn’t quite hop from one body to the other. The Jīvātman is nothing in particular.
So, do not think that there is something called the ‘Soul’ residing in your body that gets out at the time of death and enters some other body. Nothing like that ever happens. That’s a total misinterpretation of Vedanta and Bhagavad Gita. And a lot of damage has occurred because people have been very mistakenly interpreting verses like 2.22 of Bhagavad Gita. They have been interpreting it out of context. They have been interpreting it without using the broader light of the Bhagavad Gita itself and Vedanta in general. Anything that is said in the Bhagavad Gita will obviously concur with and resonate with Vedantic literature in general.
The Gita is a de facto Upanishad. Some even say that the Gita is the essence of all Upanishads. If Gita is a de facto Upanishad, is Gita going to be saying something that goes against the essence of Upanishads? So, this verse has to be read along with the other important verses and the Mahāvākyas of the Vedantic literature. And when you read them all together, when you read them all in a holistic way, then you clearly see that there is nothing called a ‘Soul’ as far as Vedanta is concerned.
There is the Ātmān and there is Prakriti, and the ‘I’ sense is one of the elements of Prakriti. What are their respective qualities? Pay attention! The Ātmān has no qualities, it is Nirguna, which means that the Ātmān is never-ever born—so how can it be reborn? That’s one basic principle of Vedanta.
The Ātmān is Ajaat, Ajanma and Amar; never born, never died; doesn’t take birth, never dies. And somehow most people forget this basic axiom. They start saying, “Oh, the Ātmān has taken rebirth!” But the Ātmān never takes even one birth. How can it take a rebirth? Ātmān doesn’t take the first birth. Ātmān is never born. So how can it be reborn?
So, keep Ātmān out of all this. When birth, rebirth and death are being discussed, Ātmān is not in question. In these equations, Ātmān has to be kept totally aside.
Then, what is it that takes rebirth? You will never forget this. It is the Prakriti that keeps waving like an ocean. The Prakriti is an ocean that waves. And every wave when it is rising is a ‘birth’, and every wave when it is ebbing, dying is a ‘death’.
So, the material world arises from Prakriti and goes back to Prakriti, just as all bodies arise from the soil and go back to the soil. And from the same soil, more bodies arise, and then they again go back to the soil. It is Prakriti that takes birth and rebirth, and we said, Prakriti is nothing in particular.
So, there is nothing in particular that is taking one body and then moving into the next body. We will have to totally drop this bad idea that there is something that survives even after a person has died. We harbour this kind of a notion that something in a person will survive his death and that surviving something will then move onto the next body, another body. No, nothing like it.
Nothing in a particular person is going to survive his death. All that you are is going to be totally destroyed with death. What will survive your death? That which was there even before your birth, and that is the principle. The principle that gave you birth will survive your death as well. The name of that principle is not Ātmān; the name of that principle is Prakriti.
Ātmān is a mere witness. It keeps witnessing the entire birthing and rebirthing game of Prakriti. Ātmān neither takes birth, nor is ever subjected to death. Ātmān is a mere witness and perfect non-doer. In front of the Ātmān, the Prakriti is playing its entire game. What’s happening in the game? Rise and fall! Rise and fall! What can else happen? Any game consists of only rise and fall. In various games, pick up any game, it will always involve something rising, something falling; something rising, something falling; something going left, something going right, which means opposite forces at play, which means the game of duality. Prakriti is constantly playing the game of duality.
In the game of duality one side is called ‘birth’, and the other side is called ‘death’. Ātmān is not playing that game. Ātmān is merely watching and enjoying that game. Enjoying not by the way of consumption; enjoying by the way of non-interference, non-association, dispassion.
Ātmān has nothing to do with anything. It will not have anything to do with one body, nor will it have anything to do with another body. Get rid of this notion that the Ātmān resides in the body. The Ātmān does not reside in the body. Nothing resides in the body except its material constituents. And all the material constituents are reduced to ash and vapour when the body is incinerated.
What survives the body? Let’s revise the principle. The Prakriti principle survives the body. And the Prakriti will take rebirth, just as an ocean gives rise to one wave after the other. And the essential element of all waves remains the same.
Similarly, the essential element of all births remains the same. What is that essential element called? That which is very interested in taking birth; that which is very interested in associating with somebody.
What is that which is so lonely that it desperately keeps wanting to associate with somebody? That is called the ‘I’ sense, the ‘ego’, or the ‘Aham Vritti’. It has to associate with this; it has to associate with that; it has to associate with this. All these sequences of successive associations can be called as rebirths.
I associated with you, then I broke off, and then I associated with him. This can as well be called a rebirth. I was saying, I am something with respect to you, and now say, I am something with respect to him. So, ‘I am Rajesh’ has changed to ‘I am Rakesh’. Isn’t it a rebirth? ‘I am Rajesh’ has changed to ‘I am Rakesh’. That’s a rebirth.
But rebirth is not what we generally think of it. That’s all a very childish fantasy. Unfortunately, in India, we have lived for too long with that kind of misinterpretation and a very fantastic kind of imagination. We must give it up. All the myths regarding one fellow dying and then taking birth in the next village have to be totally junked. All that is sheer nonsense, propaganda.
Q: The example which you gave, the example of sea and waves, I have heard it many times but I find it difficult to understand.
AP: It means that we are from the same pool. A lot of beings keep rising and then they fall back to the same pool. When they rise, then they assume a particular name, a distinct personality. When they go back to the same pool, then they again become anonymous, turn into nothing. When they rise, then they start getting counted as ‘persons’. After they are gone, their essence still remains but the personality is lost.
When birth happens, then you feel happy; then you say, “Now the person has come into existence.” The person has risen from the soil and he goes back to the soil. Then it is not the soil that has been destroyed; it is the personality that has gone. From the same soil, something else will rise; another personality. So, the soil keeps rebirthing again and again.
Q2: You have explained the Prakriti that goes to the cycle of birth and rebirth. And that Prakriti is violent, and that it is ego that takes birth and rebirth.
AP: I never said that Prakriti is violent. There is no violence in Prakriti as such; there is just movement. Prakriti moves in its own predetermined ways. There is no violence there. For violence, there has to be a choice to be non-violent. Prakriti has no choice. In Prakriti, there are just set patterns that keep repeating and that also keep evolving. So, there is no violence really in Prakriti. A lion attacking a deer is not really violence, but a man killing a deer might be violence because the man had a choice.
Q3: Can we say that fear is Prakriti that goes from one entity to another entity?
AP: Fear is Prakriti’s way, one of the tools that is given to the person to ensure that the person is able to successfully complete his lifetime. In Prakriti, fear exists as a tool to support life. Animals too are afraid. Even plants are afraid. But when they are afraid, their fear is for physical survival or protection. Prakriti has given them this tool: have fear and you will survive.
Man too finds some utility in the tool of fear. But for man, fear often becomes problematic because fear is constituted to protect only your little self which consists of the body and the mind. Fear is not designed to liberate you from body and mind. The quality of fear is designed to protect your existing little self. “Oh! Somebody should not hurt my body. Somebody should not hurt my ego, my prestige or fame or notions.” That’s fear. Correct?
But fear never says, “Oh, I should not miss out on liberation.” Man is never afraid of missing out on liberation, because the fear in the prakritik way has not been designed to have liberation as an object. The object of the fear is always the little self; the mind and the body. That’s what you are always afraid about.
Prakriti has not designed fear to have liberation as the object, as an end. And that’s why fear is not good for those who are looking to have an evolved consciousness, to those who want freedom from littleness and the mundane traps of life. Fear is not good for them.
Right action for you depends on your conditioning (Chapter 2, Verse 31)
स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि |
धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाच्छ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते || 2.31||
swa-dharmam api chāvekṣhya na vikampitum arhasi
dharmyāddhi yuddhāch chhreyo ’nyat kṣhatriyasya na vidyate
Even considering your own duty you should not waver (from the fight). Since there is nothing else better for a kshatriya than a righteous battle.
~ Chapter 2, Verse 31
✥ ✥ ✥
Questioner (Q): After explaining to Arjuna that he shouldn’t grieve for the embodied beings in verse 31 of the 2nd chapter of Bhagavad Gita, Shri Krishna says, “Even considering your own duty, you shouldn’t waver. Since there is nothing else better for a Kshatriya than a righteous battle.”
Being born into a Kshatriya clan, fighting represents Arjuna’s conditioning and training and what he has become good at. Is there any role of conditioning in discovering one's duty or one's swadharma? Is adhering to one's swadharma the same as liberation?
Acharya Prashant (AP): You see, Liberation is Dharma. To move to the point where one stands liberated alone is Dharma. But when we define ‘dharma’ this way, then we are talking of only one point, the point to which you have to reach. Right? We are calling that as the point of liberation. But nobody stands at a position called ‘no position’. We all stand somewhere, and wherever we stand, that point is actually a point of conditioning. Had we not been standing somewhere, there was no need to travel to be liberated.
You could consider the point of liberation as the origin (0,0), basic x-y coordinates. Thinking of graph paper. Right? Can you see that? So liberation is at (0,0) origin. You have to go back to the very origin, where everything comes from. But where are you currently located? You are located somewhere. You have some coordinates (x,y), or if you take three dimensions, then (x,y,z). How many various kinds of coordinates are possible? Infinite. The (x,y,z) combo can take infinite values, infinite distinct values. Correct? Wherever you are currently located, from there you have to come to the origin. So, coming to the origin is dharma, but swadharma is coming to the origin from where you are. Therefore, each person, each (x,y,z) will have his own particular path to come to the origin. And that’s why it is called swadharma, not just dharma.
Swadharma means your dharma. Swadharma is not really different from dharma, but dharma merely says, “Come to the origin.” Dharma says, “Come to the origin, become zero. Come to the point where everything is dissolved, nothing exists; come to zero.” Dharma merely says that.
Swadharma clarifies things a little more. Swadharma says, “Yes, you have to come to zero, but you have to come from (4,5,8) (x,y,z).” So now things stand more cleared. So, from (4,5,8) you have to come to zero, and now you can find out a route. Obviously, the shortest route is the straight line. But maybe the configurations, the situations stand in such a way that a straight line is not even possible, so you figure out some other route, whatever it is. The thing is that now you know that you have to move from (4,5,8) to (0,0,0).
Arjuna too stands somewhere. Had Arjuna not been standing somewhere, then Arjuna would have been standing at (0,0,0); then there would have been no need for any Krishna or any Gita as Arjuna is already at the origin. But Arjuna is standing somewhere else. Where is Arjuna standing? Arjuna is standing where his body and the norms and situations and the customs and the conditioning of his time has made him stand.
So, Arjuna is standing at some particular place. Krishna has to take that particular place into account. Otherwise, he would just be talking theory that would not be of much use to Arjuna. So, Krishna not merely talks of liberation; Krishna not merely talks of freedom. He also keeps referring to Arjuna's Kshatriya clan. Because if you are really interested in covering a distance, you must know both the ends. Krishna must talk of the origin (0,0,0), and Krishna must also equally, seriously talk of (4,5,8) which is Arjuna's configuration at that point, Arjuna's coordinates. That’s why he repeatedly refers to Arjuna's Kshatriya caste.
Now, let’s say, Krishna is talking to somebody belonging to the other varnas. He would be advising everybody, irrespective of whether he is a Kshatriya or a Vaishya or a Brahmin or a shudra, to go to (0,0,0). But all would be advised to go to (0,0,0) starting from where they actually and practically are situated.
If you are standing at (4,5,8), you can't be told the same route that was told to someone who was standing at (2,3,11). If that route is suggested to you, you will never reach (0,0,0); you will fail, totally fail. So, now when he is talking to Arjuna, he is saying, “You see, over the passage of time in the game of Prakriti, in the entire play of Maya, you have become a Kshatriya’.
Now, all that is just a superficial thing. The entire Varna system has no depth; it is just a superficial arrangement made by man himself. But whatever it is, the thing is that it is taken as an identity statement by somebody like Arjuna—in fact, by all who were present at that time. They take their Varna identity as important.
So, now, since they take it as important, Krishna tells them that according to your Varna identity which is according to your present coordinates, this is how you should move to (0,0,0); you have to fight. If a Brahmin is there on the same battlefield, Krishna would advise him to resist the Kauravas, but in some way that is most suited to the Brahmin's own conditioning. If he tells the Brahmin to pick up the bow and arrow or mace and start fighting Duryodhana, then the war is lost already. So, the Brahmin will have to fight Duryodhana, no doubt, but in the way of the Brahmin.
The Vaishya and the Shudra too will have to fight Duryodhana, but in their own respective ways. What is important is, when you reach (0,0,0), then the Kshatriya is no more a Kshatriya; he comes to learn that all this varna and caste thing is some kind of a manmade joke. But when will he learn that standing at (2,4,8)? Standing at (2,4,8), he is taking his caste very seriously; he says, “I am a Kshatriya.” When will he be able to doubtlessly and convincingly say, “I am not a Kshatriya. I am not even a body; how can I be a Kshatriya?” When will he be able to say that? Only when he reaches (0,0,0). But to reach (0,0,0), he has to start from being a Kshatriya.
So, even to come to the point where Arjuna is no more a Kshatriya, he has to start from a point where he is indeed a Kshatriya. In a way, Krishna is using the Varna of Arjuna to bring him to a point where he is liberated from the Varna system altogether. But even to liberate him of his class or caste or conditioning, he has to start from where he actually and practically is standing right now.
So, Krishna is doing something very wise and very practical at the same time. When you come to that origin point, there is no difference between a Brahmin, a Vaishya, a Shudra, a Kshatriya, anybody. There is no difference between a man and a woman; there is no difference at all. Differences cease to exist. But in this world that we see all around us, first of all, there are physical differences of age, of gender, of race, and then there are social differences; caste, creed, ethnicity, nationality, religion. We live in a world of differences. Even to bring someone to a point where he would be liberated of differences, you have to see what his current configuration is. If you are not mindful of his current configuration, then your attempts to help him will fail. And Krishna is not someone who is going to fail, so he repeatedly reminds Arjuna that he is a Kshatriya. His identity is repeatedly evoked: “Arjuna, you are a Kshatriya and the Kshatriya must fight.”
Now both the things are at play here: dharma and swadharma.
In what does dharma lie? Dharma lies in fighting Duryodhana.
In what does swadharma lie? Swadharma lies in fighting Duryodhana like a Kshatriya.
Let’s say, if a Brahmin was present at the battlefield, dharma would remain the same for Arjuna and that Brahmin. Dharma is to fight Duryodhana because Duryodhana is representing adharma. So, dharma is to fight Duryodhana, but swadharma will be different. Arjuna’s swadharma will be to fight Duryodhana like a warrior, and the Brahmin's swadharma will be to fight Duryodhana like a scholar.
So, dharma is the same for everybody, but swadharma varies according to the kind of personality you have taken. According to your physical, social, temporal conditions, swadharma varies, but remember that swadharma can never be in contradiction of dharma; swadharma will always be something within the ambit of dharma.
Dharma is: fight Duryodhana. Swadharma is: fight Duryodhana with bows and arrows.
Why with bows and arrows? “Because, Arjuna, that's all you can do. What else will you do? Over the last 45 years, Arjuna, if there is one thing that you have learned—and there is only one thing that you have learned, which is to fight. There is only one thing you have continuously practiced, which is your bow and arrow. So now that you have to fight Duryodhana, what other method or weapon do you have? You have only one excellence; there is only one thing that you know. There is only one way in which you can fight Duryodhana, which is your Kshatriya way, because there is no other way that you know. So, fight Duryodhana in your own way—that is swadharma.” Fighting Duryodhana is dharma. Fight Duryodhana in the way you can, that is swadharma.
अकीर्तिं चापि भूतानि कथयिष्यन्ति तेऽव्ययाम् |
सम्भावितस्य चाकीर्ति र्मरणादतिरिच्यते || 34||
akīrtiṁ chāpi bhūtāni kathayiṣhyanti te ’vyayām
sambhāvitasya chākīrtir maraṇād atirichyate
People will also speak of your unending infamy. And to an honored person infamy is worse than death.
~ Chapter 2, Verse 34
Q2: In verse 34 of chapter 2, Shri Krishna says to Arjuna, “People will also speak of your unending infamy and to an honored person infamy is worse than death.”
(Quoting from ŚrīRāmacaritamānasa)
हानि लाभ जीवन मरण। यश अपयश विधि हाथ।।
Haani laabh jeevan maran, yash apyash vidhi haath
“Loss-profit, life-death, glory-infamy all in the hands of destiny.”
At the time of King Dasharatha’s death, Guru Vashishtha says, “Loss-profit, life-death, glory-infamy all in the hands of destiny.” The two contexts are different. In the first, a warrior is being urged to act, and the second is on the occasion of the death of a king. But it makes me wonder about the connection of infamy with one’s actions. Does a righteous action need to be influenced by how the world will perceive it?
Also, when Krishna is urging Arjuna to remain equanimous in pleasure and pain and life and death, then why does he ask Arjuna to consider infamy as worse than death, when such a consideration might disturb his equanimity?
AP: So, first of all, what is Shri Krishna doing? I suppose we have already answered it in the previous question. On the battlefield, the forces of darkness have to be fought. If Duryodhana occupies power, it is not going to be good for Hastinapur and the adjoining states, probably the larger part of the entire subcontinent. At least all the states that come within the influence of Duryodhana’s power will have to suffer.
Duryodhana has repeatedly displayed his proclivity towards injustice, corruption, fame, lustfulness, treachery, many kinds of evil. He is not at all an eligible candidate to occupy the throne, and that is the reason Shri Krishna is siding with the Pandavas. It is not about ensuring that one party gets its rightful claim on the throne. The issue is wider; it is about the entire population. Remember that Mahabharata is not an age of democracy. The king used to have unlimited authority. He was supposed to be a representative of God and all that he did or said had to be respected, obeyed. In such situations, the personal disposition of the king towards dharma, towards justice was very critical in determining the welfare or the disaster of an entire population. Give the population the right kind of king, and you have one kind of result, and give the population an evil king, and you have a totally different, disastrous result.
So, the question of who will be the king was a very crucial question in determining the very fate of Bharat. Therefore, sides had to be taken; therefore, Krishna had to really stand with and behind Pandavas to ensure that they win. Therein lay dharma; fight Duryodhana. He is the mascot of evil right now. But who will fight Duryodhana? Arjuna. Is Arjuna a liberated person? No. Arjuna is very much a product of his time. Arjuna very much believes in his Varna or Caste identity very strongly. Arjuna is someone who is quite strongly attached to his family members; familial bonds matter a lot to him.
The Gita opens with the sight of Arjuna shivering and trembling and feverish and refusing to pick up the Gandiva because he cannot. He says he does not have enough power in his hands at the moment to even pick up his weapon. That is his state. Does it look like a state of some perfect person? No, not at all. Over his entire lifetime Arjuna had displayed normal human tendencies. Obviously he was a good human being, he had to be; he had befriended Krishna, he tolerated a lot. He was often seen fighting for the right cause, defending the right kind of people, but still he was more or less an ordinary mortal.
Now, such an ordinary mortal, let’s say a little better than ordinary, such a person needs to be roped in to fight against Duryodhana. Merely telling him that fighting Duryodhana is important for the welfare of entire North India would be no good. Those kinds of dharmic invocations would not matter so much to Arjuna. Arjuna is riled in his own inner battles, attachments, old memories, bonds of blood, such things. If Krishna were to just tell him, “Arjuna, fighting Duryodhana and killing him is important to uphold dharma,” Arjuna would not fight. Arjuna is not Krishna; Arjuna is not perfect. Family matters are very significant to Arjuna: he cannot forget the insult meted out to Draupadi; he cannot forget that once he used to play in the lap of Bhishma. These kind of things, they are what are important and material to Arjuna. How do you just tell Arjuna, “Arjuna, get up and fight! We are crusading for dharma, no less!”? Arjuna would not budge. So, knowing very well what kind of a person Arjuna is, Krishna is telling those things to Arjuna that matter to him.
What matters to him? One of the things that matter to him is fame. So Krishna tells him, “You run away from the battle and you will be earning a lot of infamy!” Now, that matters to Arjuna. “That’s true, I cannot run away! I will be dishonored! Fine.” Tell Arjuna, “If you run away, it will be defeat of dharma,” such argument will fall flat. Tell Arjuna, “If you run away, it will be your personal dishonor!”; this argument will work because Arjuna is Arjuna, a normal mortal being.
That however does not mean that fame is in reality something very important. That does not mean that fame has some kind of an absolute significance in spirituality. No, not at all. In fact, look at the danger. Krishna is using Arjuna’s predisposition towards fame to make him fight a war. It is just that the person right now advising Arjuna is Krishna. He will use Arjuna’s weakness to guide Arjuna towards a right thing. But what if it were not Krishna but somebody else, and that somebody else knew very well that Arjuna has a very high consideration for fame? Then he could say to Arjuna, “Arjuna, you lose your fame if you fight against your brothers and uncles and teachers and grandfathers; you lose your fame!” And Arjuna, fame conscious as he is, would be fooled into quitting the battle because of the fame issue. It is just that right now Arjuna is in the hands of Krishna—luckily in the hands of Krishna—so Krishna, even though he is using Arjuna’s weakness, he is using Arjuna’s weakness for the right cause. But what if by way of chance Arjuna were to fall in the hands of somebody like Shakuni? Then Shakuni would capitalize all of Arjuna’s weakness to turn Arjuna against dharma.
So, you must understand that it is not at all right to harbor any such weaknesses. And having a soft spot for fame, being very-very desirous for name and honor is a big weakness. Arjuna just somehow luckily is getting away with it; not everybody is going to be so lucky. Your hunger for fame will be used by the forces of mischief to turn you to all the wrong directions, so don’t wait for that to happen. You will not always be so lucky or so very discreet that your companion would be a Krishna. More often than not, your companions will be of the mischievous and unworthy kind and they will use all your frailties, all your weaknesses against you and against dharma. Don’t let that happen. Get rid of your weaknesses before they are exploited by cunning people.
Then, the first part of the question, the connection of infamy with one’s actions. The questioner is asking, “Does a righteous action need to be influenced by how the world will perceive of it?”
You see, it doesn’t need to be, but that’s the way we are. We are so thoroughly influenced by the world. While we are deciding about anything, whether or not to do it, the factor of honor, of fame, of perception, of social regard always somehow seeps into the equation. And many a times the question of fame and honor very strongly disbalances the equation; your decision totally changes. You might be making the right decision, but the factor of infamy starts weighing upon your mind, and then you flip; the decision changes.
The one who gives the opinion of others a lot of weightage will obviously not be able to give the highest weightage to the Truth. Therefore, if you are really someone who aspires to live truthfully, if you are someone who doesn’t want to live blindly, semiconscious, then you have to be someone who has a healthy disregard towards the opinions of others. That doesn’t mean that you must not hear others out or consult others; rather, that means that even if you are listening to others, your objective is not to gain something in the eyes of that person; your objective is to gain the Truth.
You could be listening to your neighbor for two reasons. One: if you listen to your neighbor, your neighbor will feel happy; if you listen to your neighbor, your neighbor will start thinking good things about you. That could be one reason. The other reason is, you are listening to uncover the Truth. And to uncover the Truth you are prepared to listen to anybody, but only to uncover the Truth. Otherwise people have no value.
And it is a very strong condition. Let people have value in your life only in context of the Truth they bring to your life. Otherwise, what is the value of a body? Nothing. If there is someone who brings, really brings Truth to your life, he is someone to be listened to; heed his advice. And if there are people who are very full of their opinions and are very desirous of advising you but their advice brings no Truth to your life, there is no need to waste your time listening to them.
So, do interact with others; do take feedback from others; do hear people out; do engage in meaningful conversations. But the objective has to be very clear; the objective must always be Truth. Not the aggrandization of your ego; not the gratification of the other’s ego. No petty objective should be there.
Expecting quick liberation shows a bloated self-esteem (Chapter 2, Verse 38-50)
सुखदु:खे समे कृत्वा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ |
ततो युद्धाय युज्यस्व नैवं पापमवाप्स्यसि || 38||
sukha-duḥkhe same kṛitvā lābhālābhau jayājayau
tato yuddhāya yujyasva naivaṁ pāpam avāpsyasi
Treating happiness and sorrow, gain and loss, and conquest and defeat with equanimity, then engage in battle. Thus you will not incur sin.
✥ ✥ ✥
एषा तेऽभिहिता साङ्ख्ये बुद्धिर्योगे त्विमां शृणु |
बुद्ध्या युक्तो यया पार्थ कर्मबन्धं प्रहास्यसि || 39||
eṣhā te ’bhihitā sānkhye buddhir yoge tvimāṁ śhṛiṇu
buddhyā yukto yayā pārthakarma-bandhaṁ prahāsyasi
This Buddhi regarding the self Samkhya has imparted to you. Now listen to Yoga, by following which you will get rid of the bondage of Karma.
✥ ✥ ✥
नेहाभिक्रमनाशोऽस्ति प्रत्यवायो न विद्यते |
स्वल्पमप्यस्य धर्मस्य त्रायते महतो भयात् || 40||
nehābhikrama-nāśho ’sti pratyavāyo na vidyate
svalpam apyasya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt
Here there is no waste of an attempt; nor is there any harm. Even a little of this righteousness saves one from great fear.
✥ ✥ ✥
व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिरेकेह कुरुनन्दन |
बहुशाखा ह्यनन्ताश्च बुद्धयोऽव्यवसायिनाम् || 41||
vyavasāyātmikā buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana
bahu-śhākhā hyanantāśh cha buddhayo ’vyavasāyinām
O scion of Kuru dynasty, in this there is a single, one-pointed conviction. The thought of irresolute ones have many branches indeed and are innumerable.
✥ ✥ ✥
यामिमां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चित: |
वेदवादरता: पार्थ नान्यदस्तीति वादिन: || 42||
कामात्मान: स्वर्गपरा जन्मकर्मफलप्रदाम् |
क्रियाविशेषबहुलां भोगैश्वर्यगतिं प्रति || 43||
yāmimāṁ puṣhpitāṁ vāchaṁ pravadanty-avipaśhchitaḥ
veda-vāda-ratāḥ pārtha nānyad astīti vādinaḥ
kāmātmānaḥ swarga-parā janma-karma-phala-pradām
kriyā-viśheṣha-bahulāṁ bhogaiśhwarya-gatiṁ prati
They remain engrossed in the utterances of Vedas and declare that nothing else exists; their minds are full of desires and they have heaven as the goal.
✥ ✥ ✥
भोगैश्वर्यप्रसक्तानां तयापहृतचेतसाम् |
व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धि: समाधौ न विधीयते || 44||
bhogaiśwvarya-prasaktānāṁ tayāpahṛita-chetasām
vyavasāyātmikā buddhiḥ samādhau na vidhīyate
One-pointed conviction does not become established in the minds of those who delight in enjoyment and affluence, and whose intellect is carried away by that speech.
✥ ✥ ✥
त्रैगुण्यविषया वेदा निस्त्रैगुण्यो भवार्जुन |
निर्द्वन्द्वो नित्यसत्त्वस्थो निर्योगक्षेम आत्मवान् || 45||
trai-guṇya-viṣhayā vedā nistrai-guṇyo bhavārjuna
nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho niryoga-kṣhema ātmavān
O Arjuna, the Vedas have the three qualities as their object. You become free from worldliness, free from pairs of duality, ever-poised in the quality of Sattva, without desire for acquisition, and protection and self-collected.
✥ ✥ ✥
यावानर्थ उदपाने सर्वत: सम्प्लुतोदके |
तावान्सर्वेषु वेदेषु ब्राह्मणस्य विजानत: || 46||
yāvān artha udapāne sarvataḥ samplutodake
tāvānsarveṣhu vedeṣhu brāhmaṇasya vijānataḥ
A Brahmana with realization has that much utility in all the Vedas as a man has in a well when there is a flood all around.
✥ ✥ ✥
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन |
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि || 47 ||
karmaṇy-evādhikāras te mā phaleṣhu kadāchana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr mā te saṅgo ’stvakarmaṇi
Your right is for actions alone, never for the results. Do not become the agent of the results of action. May you not have any inclination for inaction.
✥ ✥ ✥
योगस्थ: कुरु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा धनञ्जय |
सिद्ध्यसिद्ध्यो: समो भूत्वा समत्वं योग उच्यते || 48||
yoga-sthaḥ kuru karmāṇi saṅgaṁ tyaktvā dhanañjaya
siddhy-asiddhyoḥ samo bhūtvā samatvaṁ yoga uchyate
By being established in Yoga, O Dhananjaya (Arjuna), undertake actions, casting off attachment and remaining equipoised in success and failure. Equanimity is called Yoga.
✥ ✥ ✥
दूरेण ह्यवरं कर्म बुद्धियोगाद्धनञ्जय |
बुद्धौ शरणमन्विच्छ कृपणा: फलहेतव: || 49||
dūreṇa hy-avaraṁ karma buddhi-yogād dhanañjaya
buddhau śharaṇam anvichchha kṛipaṇāḥ phala-hetavaḥ
O Dhananjaya, indeed, action is quite inferior to the Yoga of wisdom. Take resort to wisdom. Those who thirst for rewards are pitiable.
✥ ✥ ✥
बुद्धियुक्तो जहातीह उभे सुकृतदुष्कृते |
तस्माद्योगाय युज्यस्व योग: कर्मसु कौशलम् || 50||
buddhi-yukto jahātīha ubhe sukṛita-duṣhkṛite
tasmād yogāya yujyasva yogaḥ karmasu kauśhalam
Possessed of wisdom, one rejects here both virtue and vice. Therefore devote yourself to Karma-yoga. Yoga is skillfulness in action.
~ Chapter 4, Verses 38 to 50
✥ ✥ ✥
Questioner (Q): Even though I try to act without any self interest, I still do expect results. Although I superficially believe that nothing is my doing, I still feel responsible for things which don’t go as intended. Where am I going wrong? Or is the state explained by Shri Krishna just an ideal that can’t be achieved, but something one must still strive for?
Acharya Prashant (AP): You are not going wrong anywhere; it's just that your expectations are premature and misplaced. That which you are asking for is so very sublime and bounteous and beautiful and fulfilling that it cannot come cheap; it will extract a high price from you. Remember that any price you pay will not really be big enough to buy out liberation for you.
Liberation is priceless. So even the highest price that you offer for liberation will be insignificant, but still you have to pay the highest price that you can from your side. You have to pay the highest price that is possible for you to pay. And the highest price is your entire self, the totality of what you are, the entirety of your entire personality. That’s what you have to pay. ‘Pay’ in the sense of disown, give up; not that this is just a payment for obtaining liberation. Liberation, we repeat, is priceless. But still you have to make the complete payment from your side. And that entitles you to come to a point where you are equanimous, not influenced by the result, equipoised in success and failure, victory and defeat.
All that requires payment—or investment if you would—and time and a lot of conscious effort. A lot of conscious effort. You will have to fight against yourself. You’ll have to check yourself again and again, and encounter innumerable disappointments. It seems easy to correct oneself—it really is not.
Inside we all are quite crooked. It takes a lot of determination and effort to straighten and simplify our sides. So do not expect results too early and be grateful for any partial results that you are obtaining.
When it comes to effort, always say, “Oh! My efforts have always been too little.”
When it comes to whatever spiritual fruits you have obtained, always say, “Oh! I have been blessed with much more than what I deserve.”
Remain grateful. Your effortfulness coupled with your gratefulness will keep opening doors for you. Lack in either of them, effortfulness or gratefulness, and you will find that you are left only with bitterness and complaints. So keep going, keep improving, keep fighting. It’s a long journey.
Q: Acharya Ji, you just now said, “You need to keep fighting; it is a long journey.” So when we reach a point where we can see that we cannot fight anymore, at that point what should we do?
AP: Pause for a while, relax, and then fight even more! It is a battlefield. Sometimes obviously you will feel tired. Sometimes you will feel very strongly that you cannot carry on anymore. Don’t retreat at that point. Just pause, give yourself a bit of time. Be determine.
Is it possible to work without expecting results? (Chapter 2, Verse 47)
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन ॥
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥४७॥
karmaṇy-evādhikāras te mā phaleṣhu kadāchana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr mā te saṅgo ’stvakarmaṇ
Let your claim lie on action alone and never on the fruits; you should never be a cause for the fruits of action; let not your attachment be to inaction.
~ Chapter 2, Verse 47
✥ ✥ ✥
Questioner (Q): I was reflecting on my life in the context of this verse which says that work should be done without attachment to the fruit.
However, I go to the office and work for money; I learn music for pleasure; I read the scriptures for freedom; I exercise for health; I practise Yogasanas, Pranayama, Dhyan for peace and health; I interact with people and family for pleasure, peace and security. There’s nothing that I do which is not for some gain and if I am convinced that I will not get what I’m expecting out of my action, most probably I won’t do it.
How can this be changed in the light of Shri Krishna’s wisdom?
Acharya Prashant (AP): All this will not suddenly change in the light of Shri Krishna’s wisdom. For the change to happen, first of all you must have an Arjuna like self doubt and faith in somebody beyond yourself like Krishna.
You say you go to the office and work for money. Does money give you what you want? Unless you come up with at least a doubt regarding the utility of money to your utmost self, no wisdom is going to be of any help to you. If you are someone who says, “I go to the office and work; I get money in return and that completes the loop; I’m ok. I worked, I got remunerated, happy,” then no wisdom will work for you because you are requiring, needing no wisdom. You are entering into a deal and the deal appears profitable to you—where is the question of moving on to something else?
Similarly, you say, you interact with people and family for pleasure, peace and security. Do you really get peace? Do you really get peace? Does the pleasure suffice? Are you really secure with respect to the people you are mentioning here?
You say, you read scriptures for freedom. The freedom that you imagine that you will get from scriptures—is it really freedom? Or is it a part of your real self? The freedom that your little self imagines, envisages—will it suffice to free the little self of itself? But here, you talk as if the cause and effect cycle is serving you beautifully. You say, “I do something, I get the results, and it is also nice.” If it’s also nice, then why do you need the Gita? Gita is not for those who are smug and settled in the niceness of their patterns. The law of Karma, the teaching of Nishkaam Karma begins at the point of dissatisfaction. For that matter, all spirituality is only for the dissatisfied ones. The ones who are cool and cozy and contended, I always tell them to carry on. Cool, cozy, contended? Continue, continue!
It’s an animal-like state in which you do not have any inner turbulence, any deep discontentment. And therefore, you have no vision, no desire for a greater self. That’s a characteristic of an animal, is it not? Do animals ever experience any kind of existential angst? Do they? Ever heard a buffalo contemplating the meaning of life? Would be quite a pretty picture by the way. ‘B’ for buffalo, and the buffalo is saying, “To be or not to be? Am I really a buffalo?” Because to ‘B’ is to be a buffalo.
Or some monkey questioning whether the tree really exists. That doesn’t happen. They are all alright and there is no need to forcefully disturb someone who is feeling alright. It is too messy an affair and often worthless. Is it worth it to intrude into somebody’s peace—howsoever superficial or artificial it is—and shake him up when he doesn’t want to be shaken up? The effort may not be worth it; there might be better candidates to teach, to bring up, to support.
Either the questioner has mentioned half the story, in which case he is either not fully honest or does not trust me fully, or if this is the complete story as per the questioner, then the story is nice; let the story continue.
“I go to the office and work for money.” Happy-shappy! What kind of juvenile story is this? Is this what happens in your office? You go to the office, you work and get money. Is that the complete story, the total picture? Anybody who has ever entered the workplace even for one day knows that this is not even a fraction of the total psychological happening. There is much more that happens at the workplace. Why don’t you tell us about that?
Yes, it is true that you went to the office expecting money. But what did you get? Yes, it is true that you expected money expecting that money will give you That. Did money give you That? Maybe your expectation that work will give you money was fulfilled, but why are you hiding from me that there was another expectation? The expectation was that money will give you That. Did that expectation materialise? Did that happen?
Further, you are presenting as if it is some kind of a one to one linear mapping between work and money. When you say, you go to the office and work and you get money, is it only money that you get from the office? First thing. Secondly, do you get money necessarily for work?
Answer both the questions.
First, when you go to the office and work, is it only money that you get? No, there is much more that you get. Maybe you are not conscious of all that you are obtaining when you are at your workplace, but there is much-much more that you are obtaining: all kinds of nonsense, blemishes, rubbish, stress, comparisons and anxiety.
Equally, when you get paid. Is it only because you worked? There are so many who get paid not because they work, but because they know a few other skills. Is it really a one to one kind of mapping? Is it? It is not. It’s a complex situation that you are presenting in a deceptively simplistic way.
Shri Krishna is for those who come to see that their expectations are, firstly, not being fulfilled, and more scarily, even when their expectations are being fulfilled, it is not giving them fulfilment. It is a great discovery to come to. Fulfilment of expectations does not give you fulfilment. Expectations might get fulfilled; you do not get fulfilled. Expectation is kamna, desire, and when you see that even the complete fulfilment of expectation gives you neither fulfilment nor completeness, then you say that kamna or expectation is junk. I don’t want to chase it any further only then.
Therefore, this verse is only for those who have first of all seen the futility of their self-centric endeavours; those who have seen that first of all we hardly ever get to fulfil our expectations, and more importantly, even when the expectations get fulfilled, we do not get fulfilled. Then Shri Krishna comes into the picture. How does he come into the picture?
Once you see that the basic trouble is that the point from where the expectations are arising, that which you call as the mind or the self or the ego is in itself a defective machine to trust so much. We are expecting fulfilment or perfection from the output of a machine that is in itself highly imperfect and incomplete. In fact, the very name of that machine is incompletion.
Now, from the product or the output of such a machine we expect completion. It is not going to happen. We set a goal, we achieve that goal, then we want fulfilment from the achievement. First of all, where did the goal come from? Who told you that a particular goal is suitable for you? Who told you who you are? Who is the one deciding on the self identity and deciding on setting the goal?
This deciding authority is in itself quite foolish and that is a discovery one has to make for himself. In that discovery, really no teacher, no agency can assist you; you have to come to life’s disappointments on your own. And better for you that you come to them as soon as possible, as early in our life as possible. Once you come to them, then it is possible for you to have a shift of the centre itself. Then you say that the one who is setting the goal is setting the goal for itself, but the one setting the goal does not know how to set the goal; therefore, whatsoever goal it will set will not be any use for itself; therefore, there is at least one thing I can do now: I will not set the goal for the sake of the goalsetter. Otherwise, normally, generally, whatsoever goal we set, we set it for our own sake hoping that the attainment of the goal will do us some good. That is the only purpose behind all goals, right? “If I reach that goal, then I will have some profit, some betterment, some welfare coming my way.”
The one who enters the first steps of wisdom says, “The way to get rid of this defective thing inside me is to not to honour the goals that it sets for itself. The way to get rid of this thing inside me, this thing that troubles me so much, vexes me endlessly, is to not trust the desires that it generates for me. How do I do that? By not desiring too much for myself.”
So, I go to the office and work for money. For sure if you will work in the office, you will get a paycheck. Now, what is the paycheck being used for? The story doesn’t end at the receipt of the paycheck, or does it? You received the pay-check. Has the story ended? You deposited it; now it is going to be used, now the money is going to be spent and consumed. The one who realises Nishkaam Karma Yoga says, “I’ll not spend the money on my own desires. Fine! The check has come my way, but let the money be spent on something beyond me to the extent possible, as much as possible, in fact, a little more than as much as possible.
The little self wanted the money just for its own gratification, and it thought that gratification equals fulfilment. Money will come. I will buy a new sofa-set this month—and what will the sofa-set give me? Oh well, the ego does not put it in so many words, but that’s what it implicitly expects or assumes. The sofa-set will deliver me emancipation; the sofa-set will mean some kind of nirvana; the sofa-set will give me so much happiness; the sofa-set, the furniture is worth slogging the month for. Ultimately, what did I do? I got the paycheck. Then there are fixed monthly expenses depending on the cost structure I have built for myself, and then there is a particular amount that I put into saving, and after that all the remainder went into the sofa-set. What was the expectation? I am putting all my available cash this month into the sofa-set.
Surely it is foolish when I put it so bluntly. Sounds so very unacceptable, doesn’t it? You say, “No, no, no! We are not such idiots that we will expect liberation from the purchase of a sofa-set!” Consciously maybe you do not have that expectation, but subconsciously the sofa-set does mean a lot to you. Does it not?
Fine! Stretch the sofa-set example a little; let the sofa-set turn into an entire house. For decades you carry the plough just to get a house, don’t you? I mean, what else is Sadhana? Everyday you went to the office; you worked so that you could get some money, and all the remainder after your usual monthly expenses went into the purchase of the house. Surely you must be having great expectations from the house, right?
That’s how the little self operates. It does not just want money; it thinks that the money it earns can deliver something beyond money to it. Something that is just beyond the scope of all work, all action, all material, the little self expects to be delivered through money. To listen to Krishna is to know that money, when spent in the service of the ego, just inflates the ego and deepens its pre-existing illness.
So, money has to be spent in a way that dissolves the ego; that is the rightful use of money.
So, you work, you get money. Some money is obviously needed for your basic physical sustenance, for your basic securities. And then, the surplus. That surplus has to be spent for a higher cause, not for your own little gratification, not for the kind of titillation that most people are found indulging in.
Now, the catch there is when you spend money on something tangible—and ego knows only tangibles because ego itself is a material thing. Ego knows only tangibles, and to work for your liberation is to spend money in an intangible way, towards an intangible objective. The ego resists, it says it is foolishness. “Where is the money going? It is my hard earned money. What really am I getting by spending it?” The ego does not realise that even as it is resisting the intangible, it is the intangible that it deeply craves for, is actually in love with. Is there any tangible thing that can really satisfy the ego? Is that your experience? So, the ego, knowing very well that no tangible thing really suffices, still resists when money goes in the direction of the intangible. That resistance has to be either overcome or overlooked.
Similarly, there are other things that come your way by the dent of your basic existence, your day-to-day activities. For example, you say, you learn music for pleasure. Can you learn music for a higher purpose? Just as the money you obtain must not go towards the worship of the ego, similarly the knowledge and skills that you attain in music must not be directed towards the gratification of the ego—and it is quite possible, rather easy to do that. Is it not?
Look at most people who, for example, learn to play guitar. What is their objective? And it’s mostly the youngsters who go after guitar. What do they do the moment they have attained even a basic proficiency? Play the—no, band comes much later, and a band requires some level of skill. You just carry the guitar, get yourself photographed, learn a few basic tunes, “happy birthday to you…”, impress girls or impress boys, whatever. It all looks so romantic, doesn’t it? A guitar by a bonfire, a bonfire by a river on a chilly night, and some idiot is, ‘purani jeans aur guitar’—that’s the use we put music to, don’t we? And the same music can be an instrument of something far bigger, far more significant.
See how saints used music; so many of them sang, didn’t they? Were they using music to fatten their own ego? Were they? Now, that is one way of using music, and the other way is, “See now I’m the centre of the party, everybody is looking at me!” In fact, the guitar teachers do not even care about the classical knowledge of the chords etc. because that’s not what most people anyway want. Most people come and say, “You tell us how to play this particular song, a particular song that’s hot these days, something.” So there is a list of ten or twenty songs and whatever the musical code from them is there, that is provided and the fellow learns to do the strings—done.
What are you using your music for? That’s the question. Are you dedicating it to the service of your little, petty, thirsty ego, or can you be a little more conscious, bigger, wider?
Then, “I interact with people and family for pleasure, peace and security.” You forgot to add that you get neither of the three. Everybody interacts. Anybody here who has never interacted with family members or neighbours or within a friend circle? Anybody here? How many of you got these things? Pleasure probably you did get, but lower kind of pleasure. Did you get some higher bliss, classically called ananda, by chitchatting, gossiping? What kind of security do you get from? To the extent I know, any little bit of security that is there in your mind disappears the moment you start gossiping with relatives, etc. The moment you are told that Verma Ji’s Rahul is returning from Canada and very soon he would be married to some girl coming from a fat money bag father, you start wondering about your own girl and boy.
Where is peace, where is security?
But the same interactions can have a different purpose, a different ambience altogether. See if it is possible. It’s a tricky affair. To talk sense with family members is the most difficult thing to do. You might be a university professor, you might be a PhD in logic, but try talking logic to your husband or wife. Very difficult. And even if you can talk logic with your husband, how will you ever talk logic with your husband’s mother? Next to impossible, but do give it a try.
The central thing is, whatever we do, we do for a purpose. Let the purpose be a great purpose. If it can’t be a great purpose, let it be at least greater than what it currently is. Even if you have to interact with someone for just two minutes, can the interaction be higher than what it usually is? See whether it is possible.
Action without attachment is Yoga (Chapter 2, Verse 48)
योगस्थः कुरु कर्माणि संग त्यक्त्वा धनंजय |
सिध्यसिध्योः समो भूत्वा समत्वं योग उच्यते ||
yoga-sthaḥ kuru karmāṇi saṅgaṁ tyaktvā dhanañjaya
siddhy-asiddhyoḥ samo bhūtvā samatvaṁ yoga uchyate
Perform your actions, O Dhananjaya (Arjuna), Being established in or integrated with Yoga, Abandoning attachment and Remaining even-minded both in success and failure. This evenness of mind is called Yoga.
~ Chapter 2, Verse 48
✥ ✥ ✥
Acharya Prashant (AP): The science of uniting the individual consciousness with the ultimate consciousness, this equanimity, is known as Yoga. Which equanimity is he talking of? Becoming equipoised in success and failure. Could you get a more concise and direct definition of Yoga? Perform your activities, giving up attachment and become equipoised in success and failure—this is Yoga.
What does it mean to remain equipoised in success and failure?
Questioner (Q): To not become a football of situations and circumstances.
AP: It means that even when you enter an action, you enter the action as somebody to whom the action does not matter too much. It is then not about the action, but about the actor. You enter as an already fulfilled actor. I am acting, but the actor is not acting for the sake of rewards; the actor is already fulfilled. When the actor is already fulfilled, then the action does not matter too much, then one can have a little playfulness about the action. It doesn’t matter which way the thing goes because whatever I wanted to have has been achieved even before the action. The action cannot really bring anything new to me. I am alright as I am! I am not acting in order to become alright. This is Yoga. Too simple? (Smilingly) Unbelievable?
And this is the science of decision making and acting. I am alright as I am. I am not acting to become alright. Yet I am acting! Why am I acting? Just like that! I may as well not act and that would make no difference to my health. I may as well doubly act, with triple the intensity and energy, and that too would not really make a difference. This is Yoga.
Now success and failure cannot really matter because neither can they inflate you nor diminish you. Why won’t they inflate us? Because I am already alright! Now what can the fruit of my action give me? I require no fruit. Ah! Wonderful word! I ‘require’ no fruit. That doesn’t mean that there would be no fruit. There would be fruit, of course. Each cause bears an effect. The tree would bear the fruit! But I ‘require’ no fruit. If I get a fruit, wonderful! Nice fruit, nice taste! Ah! Little bitter! It’s okay. I require no fruit. I am already alright, and this is Yoga.
To not to have a thought that you are diseased is health, and that is Yoga.
Yoga is not about feeling special.
Yoga is not being in a great state of consciousness.
Yoga is about not having a lot of things that we usually have.
Now, what do we usually have?
We usually have inferiority. We usually have lack of fulfilment. We usually have a lot of search and seeking. We usually have a lot of questions. Yoga is about not having these. “I am already alright; what would I do with achievement? I am already alright; what would I do with medicines and methods? I am already alright; what would I do with questions and their answers?” That is Yoga. Yoga is not a special feeling, mind you! Yoga is the absence of that which we usually keep feeling.
Look at the common man on the road, look at the streets of Rishikesh. Do you see people with no feeling? No, people are walking, and they are walking with a lot of feeling. The feeling might be divine! So-called ‘divine’. The feeling might be heavenly. The feeling might be different from the feeling that one usually has in a metro city, in a corporate city. It’s a holy city, so you have different feelings.
Yoga is to be free of all feelings.
Yoga is not to be placing any demand on any kind of thought or feeling.
Every thought, every feeling arises as a promise, as a solution. It says, “There is something missing in your life; I’ll provide that to you.” To be situated in Yoga is to not to need any promises. “I do not require your promise because whatever you would promise, I already have that. What can you promise to me when I have the highest?” Hence, Yoga is to be free of a lot of things.
That does not mean that in Yoga you do not have those things. That does not mean that the yogi kills those things. Thoughts are still there, feelings are still there, yet there is freedom from thought and feeling. We said, cause would bear effect. We said, action would bear fruit. So the fruit is still there. Prakriti operates, so the body is there. Prakriti operates, so thoughts are also there. But one does not place a lot of demands on thought. One does not want to think his way to wellness. Don’t we use thought as a means to our welfare? Don’t you do that? When we are not well, what do we do? We think how to be well! Whenever we are faced with the problem, what do we do? We think how to get a solution.
In Yoga, you do not place the onus of your welfare upon anything or anybody simply because you are already well. In Yoga, you do not follow any path or any role—why? Because you are already home. Hence Yoga is not at all about following this method or that method. Yoga is about realizing that all methods are futile; I am already there! I do not need any of these tactics. If tactics are there, then one would want success from those tactics and Krishna is saying, “You have to be equanimous towards success and failure.” Hence success is not something that you can take seriously.
Action without attachment is Yoga. And action without attachment is possible only when the actor is a very-very innocent and healthy actor. Then he acts just for fun, just for no reason. And such acting has a beautiful quality about it because then it is not the actions of a beggar. When you are desirous of a result, then you go about like a beggar who acts in order to get a result. Why does a beggar approach you? Does he approach you in love? He approaches you because he wants something from you. He wants a result. That’s how the lot of mankind goes through life; doing whatever it does for the sake of getting something. And that is “Viyoga”.
Krishna is saying, “No! Don’t act to get; realize that you have already got it and then act.” He is inverting the way we act. We act so that we may get. Krishna is saying, “Get and then act.” And that is a little incomprehensible to our purpose driven mind because we ask, “If we have already got it, then why would we act at all?” You’d know that when you are free of the thought that you don’t have it. Then you will see what joy lies in acting even though you do not need the action.
We do not know the charm of needlessness. When you do something needlessly, reason-lessly, there is a particular beauty about it. That beauty is Yoga. To live without a reason, to love without a cause, to act without greed and desire, that is Yoga. Total purposelessness is Yoga. Yoga is freedom from all ‘whys’. Yoga is freedom from all questions. Yoga is freedom from all concepts and theories and sutras. Yoga is simply the statement, “I am alright.” You need not say you are Brahm. You need not say you are God or the son of God or the daughter of God. You need not say you are the Ātmān. You need not say that you are the holy Truth. All you need to say is, “I am not unwell! I am not unwell!”
I am not even saying that you need to say that you are alright, because alrightness would then again become a concept. We are buffeted by the thoughts of not being well. In fact every single thought that we have is a thought about our sickness. When everything is alright, do you think about it? When do you think about your thumb? When do you think about your tooth?
Q: When it hurts.
AP: When it hurts! Thought itself arises when there is a perception of something being problematic, of something being not alright. Getting it? So, Yoga then is simply freedom from thoughts of disease. That does not mean thoughts are not there, I am repeating this. Thoughts will be there, yet you will be free of them. You are not laying importance upon them. Thoughts are doing what they must, and you are where you must be; you are following your own nature. Thoughts are following their own patterns, and you are not obliged to interfere in the patterns of thought or body. They are taking their own due course. You are letting them do what they want to do. This is Yoga!
Yoga means that you would not be unsettled by the fierce currents of body, mind, Prakriti, even as they flow all around you. One of the most beautiful images of Yoga is the statue of Shiva in the middle of the Ganga. Have you seen that statue at Haridwar? The Ganga is flowing all around Shiva, and Shiva is still—that is Yoga. The streams of Prakriti are flowing all around you—even over you—and yet they are not carrying you away! That is Yoga. To be seated unflinchingly like Shiva is Yoga.
Which means that life goes on and does what it does, and you keep relaxing. You keep relaxing even as your body-mind apparatus keeps responding to life. That does not mean that you have become lazy. That does not mean that you have become incapable of right action. In fact, you are now capable of right and vigorous action, yet you are relaxing. You are relaxing like Shiva. That is Yoga. With Ganga all around you, you are relaxing like Shiva. That is Yoga. And in your relaxation lies the potency for vigorous action, right action. That is Yoga.
Yoga is giving up of all that which proves to you that you are little, inferior, handicapped or small. To be in Yoga is to be with Krishna. To be with Krishna is to be only with Krishna and not with that which is sick, ugly, limited and an agent of grief.
To be in Yoga is to not touch anything, anybody, any situation that causes a sense of littleness in you. Even if that littleness is induced in you in a holy pretext, even if it is induced in you as an ostensible means of welfare, you refuse to admit it in.
Somebody may come and say, “You need protection.” You quickly see through what he is saying. You realize that what he is saying is that I am weak. If I am not weak, why would I need protection? You refuse to entertain the advice. You refuse to take that person seriously—this is Yoga. Somebody comes and tells you, “You need God and God is all that you need.” You refuse to entertain this person because if he is saying that you need God, then surely he means that you do not have God. He is proving that you are godless. You refuse that person.
Somebody comes and says, “You need a lot of self-enquiry.” You immediately refuse this person because if you need to look, see, and discover, then surely first of all you must believe that you do not know that you are ignorant, which you are not.
To be in Yoga is to refuse everything that keeps you little and limited. Littleness would not come to you as littleness.
Littleness would come to you as friendly advice.
Littleness would come to you as brotherly concern.
Littleness would come to you as the sermons of a teacher.
Littleness would come to you as a promise of security.
Had littleness would be honest enough to admit its real name, you could have easily refused it. But littleness rarely admits its real name. Littleness comes wearing the mask of things that appear nice and sweet and promising. Be very cautious of all this stuff that is always ready to enter your mind. Anything that promises to make you better is an allegation upon you. Why is it an allegation? It is an allegation that you are currently not alright.
Anybody who offers to improve your life or help you realize that which you do not know, is actually proving to you that ignorance is what you are. The advertiser who is telling you that the next home or the next position or the next car will add something to your life, is actually causing Viyoga in you because he is proving to you that unless you have that house or that car, there is something missing in life. And you buy that in. Why do you buy that in? Arjuna too must have bought a lot of those things!
Comments
Post a Comment