Bhagawad Gita Ch.4 Ver. 16-22 [Sri Adi Shankara]

[Guest guest]

16.0 Objection: If work is to be done, I shall do it at Your bidding.

Why recommend it in the words 'done by the ancients in by-gone days'?

 

16. What is work? What is non-work? In respect of these questions even

the sages are deluded. Therefore, I shall elucidate the nature of work, by

knowing which you will be delivered from evil.

 

16.1 Even the sages of powerful intellects are deluded in respect of the

questions what work is and what non-work is. Therefore, I shall elucidate

for you work and non-work, by knowing which you will be delivered from

'evil' or the empirical life.

 

17.0 Don't think: "Work is well-known in the world. Exertion of body

etc., is work, while non-work is its absence or immobility. What is there

to know about them?" Why?

Listen:

 

17. Indeed you ought to know about work; also you ought to know about bad

work; and, besides, you ought to know about non-work. Profound is the

course of work.

 

17.1 Indeed, one ought to know about the work enjoined by the Sastra and

also of 'bad' or forbidden work. Similarly on non-work, or immobility, also

one ought to know. 'Is' has to be understood after the expression boddhavya

used thrice in the verse. Because, the course of work is 'profound'-hard to

understand. 'Work' connotes the three-work, bad work and non-work.

'Course' means the truth.

 

18.0 What is the truth about work etc., that has to be known, and which

the Lord has promised to elucidate? Answer:

 

18. Whosoever beholds non-work in work and work in non-work is wise among

men; he is integrated; he does all works.

 

18.1 Any action done is work; whosoever beholds in it 'non-work or

absence of work', and in 'non-work or absence of work', work-is wise among

men. Action and cessation there from depend on the agent. All references

toa cion, its accessories and so forth take place on the plane of nescience

before Reality is attained. A man of such attainment is not only wise but

also integrated, a Yogi; he does the totality of works. Thus is extolled

the one who beholds work in non-work and non-work in work reciprocally.

 

 

18.2 Objcetion: What is the sense of this self-contradictory

porposition about the perception of non-work in work and vice versa? Work,

of course, can't be non-work nor non-work work. How can the beholder see

contradictory states?

 

Answer: Not so. What in truth is non-work appears, to a deluded man, as

work; and, similarly, work appears as non-work. The Lord is pleading for

veridical perception in 4.18. So, no self-contradiction is entailed. This

follows alos because it alone would make sense of the claim of wisdomon

behalf of such a beholder. The passage 4.17 also speaks of veridical

perception in the expression 'ought to be known'. Contradictory perception

cannot deliver any from evil; vide 4.16. Therefore, the Lord's utterance in

4.18 seeks to abolish the contradictory perception, by the ignorant, of work

and non-work.

 

18.3 Note that there is no non-work contained in work as Jujube fruits

(Badari) are contained in a bowl. Nor is there work in the container,

non-work; for this latter means the absence of work. Therefore, teh

empiricists mistakenly apprehend work and non-work as water is apprehended

in the mirage or silver in the nacre.

 

18.4 Objection: Is not work just work for all alike? It never

forfeits its nature.

 

Answer: No. To a man in a moving boat, the stationary trees on the banks

sem to move in the opposite direction; remote moving objects seem to be

stationary. Similarly in this context, too, must be understood the

perception of work in non-work and vice-versa. Therefore, to correct this

mistake is advanced the proposition in IV.18.

 

 

18.5 The same objection has often been stated and answered. But due to

the impact of repeated and inveterate misapprehension, the plain man is

totally deluded. He forgets the truth, though he has often heard it

affirmed. So he erroneously repeates the objection and demands an answer.

In view of the inherent difficulty of this truth, the Lord repeatedly

answers the objection. The negation of work as regards the Self,

established by Sruti, Smrti, and reasoning stated in Bhagavad Gita 2.20 and

2.25; and it will be stated again. In that negation of work in respect of

the Self, the perception of its opposite, namely work, has become an

inveterate habit. Hence the statement in Bhagavad Gita IV.16 'even the

sages are deluded'. The plain man superimposes on the Self the work of the

psyco=physical organism and maintains, "I am the agent, this work is mine;

its fruit must be reaped by me." Similarly he superimposes on the Self the

cessation from work of the same organism, and the resultant satisfaction and

maintains, 'I do nothing; I rest comfortably.' In order to correct this

contrary perception of the plain man of the world, the Lord affirms,

'Whosoever beholds non-work in work' and so forth.

 

18.6 Also note in this context that the work of the psycho-physical

organism of course remains as such; but it is superimposed by all on the

immutable Self that works not; for, even the learned man thinks, 'I work'.

Therefore, the wise man is he who perceives non-work in what all the world

believes to be work inherent in the Self, even if he is aware of the

non-movement of the trees on the river-bank despite their apparent movement.

Contrarily, he perceives work where the world superimposes non-work of the

Self mistaking the psycho-physical organism itself for the Self, when the

psycho-physical organism ceases to work. The consequence of the second

superimposition is the egoistic affirmation, 'I am happy, doing nothing'.

He is wise among men as he grasps the real distinction between work and

non-work; he is the discriminator, the integrated Yogi, who accomplishes all

work. He is delivered from all evil. He has discharged all his duties.

This is the upshot of this verse.

 

18.7 This verse has been interpreted differently by others. How? In a

secondary sense, obligatory works enjoined by the scriptures, done for the

sake of God, may be styled non-works, since they yield no fruits of their

own. Their non-performance is non-work , which entails the sin of omission

or pratyavaya. As such, this non-performance may be, secondarily, styled

work. In this context, whosoever beholds non-work in obligatory work on

account of its fruitlessness, is wise (work being non-work), just as a milch

cow that yields no milk is a 'no-cow' as it yields not the reward, namely,

the milk for which it is kept. Similarly, whosoever sees work in

'non-work', the non-performance of the obligatory work due to which results

hell-the fruit of the sin of omission-is wise.

 

 

18.8 The above interpretation is not rational; for release from evil

cannot reasonably come from this kind of knoweldge. It runs counter to the

Lord's utterance in the Bhagavad gita 4.16. How? From performing obligatory

works release from evil, may conceivably result, but not form knowing that

'they yield no fruits'. Sruti has not decreed that the knowledge of the

fruitlessness of the obligatory works, or that of the latter, shall release

one form evil, nor has the Lord maintained that position in the Gita. This

should refute the theory of the perception of work in non-work; but only the

duty of performing the obligatory work. No worhtwhile result may follow

from the knoweldge that the non-performance of obligatory work entails the

sin of omission. The non-performance of obligatory work has not been

enjoined as something to be known. From the erroneous perception 'work is

non-work' there cannot follow any release from evil, wisdom, Yogic

integration and the state of being a performer of all works; it deserves no

laudation. Erroneous cognition itself is an obvious evil. How can it

release one from other evils? Darkness cannot dispel darkness.

 

18.9 It may be urged that the perception of non-work in work or of work

in non-work is no erroneous cognition but a form of secondary knowledge, due

to the fruitlessness or fruitfulness of the obligatory work and its

non-performance. But this is unavailing; for the sruti does not teach any

result as accruing from a secondary knowledge of work and non-work. No

merit may be claimed for a supposition that rejects what has been positively

statd and sets up what has not even been alluded to. The view now being

repudiated could very well have been directly stated as follows: Obligatory

works yield no fruits; their non-performance entails fall into hell. Why

then, was a misleading subterfuge adopted in the expressions, "Whosoever

beholds non-work in work" etc? An interpretation like the objector's amounts

to the statement that the Lord' words are intended to confound the world.

the truth conveyed by Him is not anything concealed in deceptive words. Nor

are they in order just because what they convey will become easy to grasp

when repeatedly restated in other words. The idea conveyed in Bhagavad Gita

2.47 is extremely lucid; it calls for no repetition at all. Everywhere what

is lauded and what offers itself as the object of knowledge calls for

performance. Nothing unprofitable may be said to be worth knowing. No

erroneous cognition needs to be known; neither its content, which is but an

appearance.

 

18.10 From a mere negation like the non-performance of obligatory works a

positive entity like the sin of omission cannot arise, vide Bhagavad Gita

II.16 and Chandogya Upanishad VI.2.2, which deny the birth of a positive

entity from non-being. To affirm the birth of aught positive form non-being

is equivalent to saying that non-being may become positive being and being

well-being. This is unreasonable, as it repudiates all means of right

cognition. A Sastra may not enjoin futile work as this is but pain. Pain

may not be consciously striven for. Since the non-performance of obligatory

work is held to lead to to a fall into hell, both its performance and

non-performance promote only evil. The Sastra that teaches it is construed

as unprofitable. This position also implies self-contradiction on the part

of its sponsor. Having maintained that obligatory work yields no fruit, he

is now drien to hold that it makes for liberation. Therefore, the veres

IV.18 means what we have explained.

 

19.0 The perception of non-work etc., in work and the like, is exalted:

 

19. Him the wise call a man of discrimination, al of whose undertakings

are free from desire-prompted imaginations and all of whose works have been

consumed in the fire of knowledge.

 

19.1 All his undertakings or works of him who has the perception set

forth in IV.18 are free from desires and imaginations prompted by them.

They are performed without egoistic motives, being mere motions. If the

agent is an activist his works promote the world's welfare. If he is a

quietist, they just keep him alive. The knowledge or the perception of

non-work in work etc., is like a fire. He, all os whose works, good as well

as evil, are consumed in this fire, is the real man of discrimination-so

think the wise, the knowers of Brahman.

 

20.0 He who habitually perceives non-work, etc., in work and so forth is,

for that very reason, beyond all works; he is a renouncer and his stirrings

are meant just to maintain life in the body. He does not work though,

before the dawn of discrimination, he was an activist. But he whose

operative works have begun to bear fruits and who, later, achieves the right

perception of the Self will, of course, renounce works with all their

auxiliaries; he sees no profit in any work whatsoever. If, for some reason

or other, works have not been wholly renounced by such a sage, due to his

detachment from works and their frutis, his persistent performance of works

is for the world's welfare. He has no private end to serve. In truth, he

works not at all. All his works have been burnt up in the fire of knwoledge

and so his work has become non-work. To set forth this idea, says the Lord:

 

20. Giving up attachment to the fruits of works, eternally content,

independent, the man, engaged inworks as he is, does nothing at all.

 

20.1 He does nothing who gives up conceit in all works and attachment to

their fruits; who is ever content by virtue of the knowledge already set

forth. The idea is that he does not desire objects of any kind. He is free

from all dependence. Dependence refers to the external means, relying on

which, goals are sought to be reached. The sense is that he has no reliance

on means to ends, seen and unseen. Work done by the knower is, in reality,

non-wrok; for he has already achieved the realization of the Self that acts

not. What ought to follow is that such a sage, having no private ends to

serve, should give up all work and their auxiliaries. But due to the desire

to promote the world's welfare, he finds no way out of activity. Or, may

be, he wants to avoid the censure of righteous folk. So he may, as was his

wont before Self-realization, continue to work. Still, he works not; for he

knows his identity with the work-free Self.

 

21.0 On the contrary, the ascetic who, prior to any undertaking, has had

the realization,as his Self, of te work-free Brahman that is the innermost

indweller. remains loyal to the discipline of knowledge,; he desires no

objective good, seen or unseen, and notes that all work directed to ends,

seen or unseen , is unprofitable. He renounces all actions while

maintaining a bare bodily existence, and is liberated. To elucidate this

idea, the Lord says:

 

21. Free from expectations, controlling mind and self, renouncing all

possessions, one who does but an exclusive form of bodily work incurs no

sin.

 

21.1 He from whom all expectations have departed is 'free from

expectations'. The 'mind' is the inner sense. Here 'self' means the

external psychio-physical organism as a whole. He who has controlled both

these is referred to here. He has given up all possessions. The sole aim

of his bodily work is the maintenance of his body, and he has no conceit in

that work even. He incurs no sin that is adverse to his interests; he reaps

no merit. Even merit, for the seeker of deliverance, is a sort of sin; for

it will entail bondage. So he is delivered from sin and merit or in other

words, delivered from empirical life.

 

21.2 By the expression 'an exclusive form of bodily work' what is meant?

Is it work to be accomplished by the body only or is it work whose sole aim

is the maintenance of the body? What does the distinction between these two

interpretations amount to? Lsiten: The first interpretation will involove

a contradiction. Though even a prohibited bodily work is done leading to

results seen or unseen, no sin will be incurred, according to the Lord.

Further, it will have to be maintained that any course of work, prescribed

by the scriptures to be performed physically, with seen and unseen ends in

view, cannot entail a sin. This is a position not maintained even by the

opponent and therefore needs no refutation. The qualification in the

expressions, 'doing a bodily form o f work' and 'exclusive' implies that

works, enjoined or prohibited, righteous or unrighteous, when performed by

word or in thought entails sin. In this case is involved the further

contradictions that an enjoined work, verbally or mentally performed,

entails sin. Even as regards the performance of a forbidden work, the

statement of the entailment of sin is futile, being too obvious to require

it. On the other hand, when the expression 'a bodily form of work' is taken

to denote work aimed at the maintenance of the body, the passage means as

follows: Working from the point of view of the plain man, with the body,

words, or mind, without the conceit of agency and according to injunctions

and prohibitions, in order to keep up bodily existence and avoiding all

other similar works, one incurs no sins. Such a person cannot possibly sin

at all; he won't come by 'sin' or sink into empirical life. For al his

works have been consumed in the fire of knoweldge. Of course he is

delivered without obstacles of any kind. This is but a restatement of the

fruit of perfect perception already set forth. Such an interpretation of

the expression, 'an exclusive form of bodily work' is faultless.

 

 

22.0 An ascetic who has renounced all possessions will not have the food

etc., needed to maintain his body; this requires that he lead a emdicant's

life. Utterances like Baudhayanadharmasutra 22.8.19 and Anugita 45.19 'what

changes brings, unasked, uncontrived', permit certain sources of food and so

forth for the maintenance of of the ascetic's body. The Lord prescribes the

same in the verse that follows:

 

22. Content with what is gained by chance, beyond dualities, rid of

competitive spirit, equanimous in gain and loss, one is not bound in spite

of working.

 

22.1 What is gained by 'chance' is what comes unsought. 'Content with

that' means that one feels he has had enough. When the mind is untroubled,

though assailed by dualities like cold and heat, and so on, one is said to

be 'beyond all dualities'. 'Rid of the competitive spirit' is he who si not

competitive, who sets himself against none. 'Equanimous' refers to the

sameness of midn whether one gains what chance brings or fails to bring. An

ascetic who is the 'same', is devoid of elation and depression, whether he

gains or fails to gain food, etc., to support his life. He perceives

non-work in work and so forth. He is established in the vision of the real

Self. In respect of work like mendicancy involving the psycho-physical

organism, he is always convinced, "I do nothing" Bhagavad gita V.8; "The

constituents subsist among constituents" Bhagavad Gita III.28. Perceiving

this non-agency of the Self he knows that he performs no work such as

mendicancy etc. Only men of the world, when they note the usual forms of

worldy activities, ascribe agency to him. Only thus a sage 'becomes' an

agent vis-a-vis mendicancy, etc. His own experience, occasioned by the

sastras, the source of right cognition, is that he is but a non-agent.

Seeing him apparently working as a mendicant with the sole aim of the

up-keep of the bodily life, others may ascribe agency to him, but the sage

is not bound. For, the source of bondage, namely, work along with its

cause, has been consumed in the fire of knowledge. Thus this verse affirms

what has already been declared in Bhagavad Gita 4.19.21.