phala-tyAga vs. phala-sanga-tyAga

[Guest guest]

SrImate rAmAnujAya nama:

 

Dear Friends

 

W.r.t sAtvika-tyAga, some people mention a "phala-sanga-tyAga".

 

What does this "phala-sanga-tyAga" mean?

 

Is it possibly subtly different than "phala-tyAga"?

 

Thanks for any clarification.

 

rAmAnuja dAsan

Ramkumar

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

 

Phala Tyagam is renounciation of the fruits of one's

action. Actually any and every action has to produce

its results. But the doer need not necessarily be

interested in enjoying the fruits of the action.

 

Phala-sanga-tyagam is renounciation of the attachment

to fruits of action. To almost all practical purposes,

these two are the same.

 

Once an old man was digging a small pit and planting a

mango sapling. The mughal emperor who was going by

that road saw it and called the old man and enquired

about the (apparent) foolishness of planting the mango

seed at that old age, since there was no probability

for the old man to enjoy the fruits of the tree.

 

The old man smiled gently and replied," Jahapana!

(Emperor!) If our forefathers also thought likewise,

we wouldn't be enjoying nice mangoes today!"

 

The emperor was really pleased with the enlightened

answer of the old man.

 

The above story can probably be taken as an example of

phala-tyaga, since the old man's action was certainly

not for himself. But was it also a case of

phala-sanga-tyaga? Difficult to answer. The old man's

motive is certainly altruistic, but is he totally

detached to the fruits of his action? Difficult to

say.

 

Enlightened readers may like to offer more ideas,

especially with reference to the stories from the

lives of Sri Ramanuja and other Alwars. This is

specially relevant in the light of the bhakti-list

group's moderator's revised guidelines.

 

Hari Om tatsat!

 

Swamy

 

 

--- tg_ram <tg_ram wrote:

> SrImate rAmAnujAya nama:

>

> Dear Friends

>

> W.r.t sAtvika-tyAga, some people mention a

> "phala-sanga-tyAga".

>

> What does this "phala-sanga-tyAga" mean?

>

> Is it possibly subtly different than "phala-tyAga"?

>

> Thanks for any clarification.

>

> rAmAnuja dAsan

> Ramkumar

>

>

>

>

>

-----------------------------

> - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

> To Post a message, send it to:

> bhakti-list

> Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Try FREE Mail - the world's greatest free email!

/

[Guest guest]

>SrImate rAmAnujAya nama:

>

>Dear Friends

>

>W.r.t sAtvika-tyAga, some people mention a "phala-sanga-tyAga".

>

>What does this "phala-sanga-tyAga" mean?

>

>Is it possibly subtly different than "phala-tyAga"?

>

>Thanks for any clarification.

>

>rAmAnuja dAsan

Ramkumar

 

Shree Ramakumar - Here is my understanding.

 

phala thyaaga actually involves not the tyaaga of phala but tyaaga of

wrong attachment to the phala. One should have a prasaada buddhi in

receiving phala.

 

Every action will involve result that is appropriate to the action.

As a human I cannot but act - nahi kashchit kshanamapi....

I have only choice of action - in fact I cannot but choose - I am

given three choices - to act, not to act and to act another way.

karthum shakyam, akarthum shakyam and anyathaa karthum shakyam.

 

Because of my past actions - praarabda I am placed in an environment

where I cannot but act. Not to act is also a choice of action. That

is the essence of the statement karmaNi eva adhikaaraste

I can only act in the present - past is gone and future has not come

yet - Hence I can act only in the present. Results follow the action

not before the action. Hence results are future to the action and I

have no control on the future. Hence the emphasis of Krishna that

one has only choice to act.

 

Results are given by the laws of nature and I am not the author of

those laws - Hence maa phaleshu kaadaachana - Never I have a choice

in the results. He is the one who gives the results. Hence He is

called karma phala daata.

 

If I have correct understanding then every action should be

recognized as an offering to Him - a kainkaryam and the results that

come from him are like prasaadam, since He gives the results.

 

Then I have a different attitude towards the results - since it is

prasaadam from Him, I take with a reverential attitude - If someone

offers a prasaadam - I do not question whether it is sweet or hot or

bitter - I do not ask who made the prasaadam or how much I am getting

versus how much the the other fellow is getting etc. Essentially

mind gets detached to the result - that is what is involved in

correct understanding of karma phala tyagam.

 

Next level of understanding is to recognize that I cannot even act

unless He gives me the strength to act - I cannot even lift a finger

without His support. That is essentially to recognize all the

actions are performed because of His presence and support. Which

means that all actions that flow through my body/mind complex should

reflect His signature - It is done by Him and for Him - a real

kainkarya bhaava. Then there will not be any attachment (sanga) to

the phala - Attachment involve 'I' and 'I want' - Kaikarya bhaavana

involves - 'He and He wants' - whether He wants it or not it is my

attitude that makes the difference. When one performs with that

attitudes and receives the result with that attitude - then that

karma will not be binding him. He becomes free from the cycle of

karma to janma.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, "tg_ram" <tg_ram> wrote:

> W.r.t sAtvika-tyAga, some people mention a "phala-sanga-tyAga".

>

> What does this "phala-sanga-tyAga" mean?

>

> Is it possibly subtly different than "phala-tyAga"?

 

Dear Ramkumar,

 

'phala-tyAga' literally means renouncing the fruit of action.

That is, if one performs an action, whatever fruit accrues

should be offered to God as his -- Isvara-arpaNam. The difference

between this and 'phala-sanga-tyAga' may be just an issue of when

in the course of doing activity one renounces the fruit. All

action, whether religious or secular (vaidika or laukika), should

be performed with the attitude that one is not the doer and that

one has no involvement with the fruits of that action. When

commencing and when engaged in the *performance* of the action, one

should also not be *motivated* by the fruit, for such motivation

will also lead to further attachment and further karma, whether

or not one actually attains the fruit itself. This attitude

can be cultivated only be recognizing that one is not the doer,

and that all ultimate doership rests either with God or with the

three guNas. This, I think, is what is termed 'phala-sanga-tyAga',

renouncing attachment to the fruit (while performing action).

 

These principles are so important they are repeated at

the beginning and the end of the Gita. We may find a few of

slokas along with Sri Ramanuja's commentary particularly

illuminating.

 

One relevant sloka is Gita 18.23:

 

That obligatory act which is done without attachment,

done without aversion or passionate desire, without seeking

its fruits, is said to be enlightened (sAttvika).

 

niyatam sangarahitam arAga-dveshataH kRtam |

aphalaprepsunA karma yat tat sAttvikam ucyate ||

 

Here Sri Ramanuja comments that "done without attachment"

means "without attachment to the idea that one is the

doer, etc." (kartRtvAdi-sanga-rahitam). "Done without

aversion or passionate desire" means "not done out of

desire to win fame or aversion to notoriety, i.e., performed

without great fanfare." Plus, the actor should not have

any attachment to the resultant fruit (aphala-abhisandhinA

kAryam).

 

Another sloka is the famous Gita 2.47:

 

To work alone is your right, and never to the fruits.

Do not be impelled by the fruits of work, and at the

same time never have attachment to inaction.

 

karmaNy evAdhikAras te mA phaleshu kadAcana |

mA karma-phala-hetur-bhU: mA te sango 'stu-akarmaNi ||

 

Here Sri Ramanuja specificially says that 'karma' refers

to all action -- the obligatory daily and occasional rites,

as well as any so-called 'kAmya' rites, those conventionally

done for the sake of the result. In another comment he also

includes the ordinary acts we do in the world (sarva-vaidika-

laukika). He goes on to say:

 

You who aspire for moksha (liberation) and who are established

in 'sattva' (goodness) have only the right to action.

You have no right to the fruit which are known to result

from those acts. Acts done with an eye for the fruit

bring about bondage. And acts done without an eye for the

fruit purely as my worship become a means for moksha.

 

In addition, do not become an agent of acts with the idea

of being the reaper of their fruits. ... Even while performing

acts, established in sattva and aspiring for moksha, you

should not look upon yourself as the agent. Even while

satisfying your hunger and taking care of other bodily

necessities you should meditate on yurself as not being

the agent of action.

 

The reason for this attitude is to attain evenness of mind,

to be free from the enemies which are rAga and dvesha. Being

free of these enables one to successfully focus on worship,

service, and clear contemplation of the true nature of the

self and God.

 

This is only what I have gathered from a brief reading of

Sri Ramanuja's Gita bhashya. I invite other members to share

whatever thoughts they have.

 

rAmAnuja dAsa

Mani

[Guest guest]

Sri:

 

To add to Mani's note:

 

Nitya Karmas (such as Sandhyavandanam, Ijya etc) are

classified as one's Duties, not karmas which can

be classified as punya or papa. One does not

attain Moksha because of life long performance

of Nitya Karmas. Not perfoming them, accumulates

sin/papa, which needs to be avoided. That is not to say

that one must accumulate punyam to attain Liberation/Moksha.

Having punyam for oneself also is a bondage. Performing

Saatvika Tyaagam ensures that the fruits (punya) is

returned BACK to PerumaL.

 

--rajeev

 

 

-

Another sloka is the famous Gita 2.47:

 

To work alone is your right, and never to the fruits.

Do not be impelled by the fruits of work, and at the

same time never have attachment to inaction.

 

karmaNy evAdhikAras te mA phaleshu kadAcana |

mA karma-phala-hetur-bhU: mA te sango 'stu-akarmaNi ||

 

Here Sri Ramanuja specificially says that 'karma' refers

to all action -- the obligatory daily and occasional rites,

as well as any so-called 'kAmya' rites, those conventionally

done for the sake of the result. In another comment he also

includes the ordinary acts we do in the world (sarva-vaidika-

laukika). He goes on to say:

 

 

 

_____

[Guest guest]

Dear bhAgavatAs,

 

Just to clarify myself of the (probably just semantic) difference between

phala tyAga and phala-sanga tyAga..I had for some reason felt that the

latter was more 'difficult'. Recent explanations seemed to confirm that

 

My general impression was:

 

1)phala tyAga is renounciation of the fruits of the action though it does

seem that during the action a sense of agency might have been maintained.

For e.g.

kAyEna vAchA mansAindrairvA buddhyAtmanA vA prakRtEr svabhAvAt|

karOmi yadyat sakalam parasmai nArAyaNayEti samarpayAmi ||

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^

(Whatever I do by body, mind, senses ,by natural inclination I surrender

all that to nArayaNa).

 

This seems to assume that the action was (or might have been) done

with some sense of agency . (I did ...and after having done, I surrender)

 

2)phala-sanga-tyAga seems to be closer to the "fundamental" truth. This is

like the sAttvika-tyAga we do during sandhyAvandanam

 

Before starting...

bhagavAnEva.................

........................svayamEva kArayati

 

(perumAL alone for his own arAdhanam... will

cause this jIvAtma to do this karma)

 

After finishing

bhagavAnEva.....................

.......................svayamEva kAritavAn

 

(perumAl alone......................caused me to do this karma)

 

We can note that there is no consequent phala-samarpaNam (no surrender of

the fruits of action) for that wouldn't make sense when there is no agency

involved in the first place.

It seems that to do the whole of any karma with this attitude is a lot

harder. Definitely, boredom or rushing etc set in (they do for me) only

because one feels one is a fundamental mover in the action.

Also, it seemed to me that phala tyAga (1) makes greater sense when viewed

in this light for renouncing fruits just because they will bind you seems

to be a little less truer to the more fundamental reason that the fruits

rightfully belong to someone else. The hope seems to be that if one

follows phala-tyAga consciously one will eventually internalize the reason

why it is done and it can lead to a more natural phala-sanga-tyAga, more

deeply rooted in the true nature of things

 

 

I would very much like to be corrected in case I am wrong or have

misunderstood something.

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Kannan