Gita 2--47 From Dayanandaji.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Transliteration: Gita Chapter 2, Verse 47:

 

karmany eva adhikAraste maa phalesu kadaacana

maa karmaphalahetur bhur maa te sango'stvakarmani (47)

 

Word Meaning

 

-karmani - in action; eva - only; te - your; adhikAraraste - choice;

maa

kadaacana - never;

 

phalesu -in the results, karma-phala-hetuh the cause of the results;

mkbhuh-do

not be; akarmani- in inaction; te-your; sangah - attachment; maa

astu-let it

not be

 

English Translation

 

Your choice is in action only, never in the results thereof. Do not

be the

author of the results of action. Let your attachment not be to

inaction. (47)

 

Sankara took the karma mentioned in this verse as purely

scripturally enjoined

(vaidika-karma) because that was what was under discussion. We shall

look at

it as simply karma, rather than strictly vaidika-karma, since karma-

yoga

allows for it and Sankara said nothing to rule out the propriety of

this

approach.

 

The word adhikara means choice here-your right, something you have

power over.

This choice is only with reference to karma, the actions you

perform. At no

time (maa kadacit), however, is there a choice with reference to the

results

of action (phalesu). Thus, with reference to all actions, you have a

choice,

but with reference to the results thereof, you have no choice

whatsoever. This

is a very simple statement of fact. Even for vaidika-karma there is

a choice:

you can do it, you need not do it, and you can do it differently.

This

capacity to do, not to do, and to do it differently makes you a

karma-adhikari. An animal, on the other hand, is not a karma-

adhikari because

it does not have a choice in its actions, but is motivated only by

its

instincts.

 

When Krsna told Arjuna that he did not have any choice over the

results of

action, he was not giving him a piece of advice; it was a statement

of fact. A

statement of fact is not advice; it is teaching. That water boils at

100 degrees centigrade is a statement of fact. Here, also, with

reference to

actions and their results, "Your choice is only in action, never in

the

results thereof (karmani eva adhikarah te Maa phalesu kadaacana),"

is a

statement of fact.

 

Namaste,

 

It seems to me that this idea could be qualified somewhat more. To

there only being the appearance of a choice and no choice about the

results. We in fact are not much different from the animal but for

the fact we can set up 'facts' in future lives by actions in

previous lives. The end result is similar to the animal except we

have the illusion of making a choice, so we can gain or lose ground.

The animal having no karma and always living in the present, doesn't

intellectualise but reacts. However we as humans react as well but

we have an overview. So we only have the appearance of choice in

action...............ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tonyji, you have a point there – a conundrum which had bothered me

for long.

 

`A' slaps me. My impulsive reaction, which is an action, is to hit

him back. That is animal reaction.

 

If I am a serious and ardent follower of Christ or Gandhi, I may show

him the other cheek. If he is really well-built and more muscular

than me, I may either take it lying down or approach a superior

authority to have him punished.

 

The following derive from the above:

 

All actions are in a way reactions and as such they are results in

the sense that they are demanded by situations and our inherent

vAsanAs.

If we have no choice over the results, then we have no choice over

actions too.

Impulsive actions are animal-like.

Ordinary human beings normally weigh the situation and act. In that

sense, they have a seeming control, as you say, over what they do.

Cultural adjuncts and the desire for self-preservation play a

dominant role in their decision to act.

 

There is yet another side to all this and that concerns acting in

spontaneity – I would say acting in advaitic or karmayogic

spontaneity. I believe Swamiji's reference is to such action because

he is discussing karma yoga. The situation where `A' slaps me is

given (by the Lord). The slapper is none other than the Lord. The

slap too. In advaitic spontaneity, I cannot then react. Who am I to

react if I have no agency in actions? The fool (Oh, the Lord!) has

slapped the body (again the Lord!). Yet, the Lord has granted me

three choices – to act, not to act, to act differently. The choices

are the Lord Himself. So, I do whatever action is needed firmly

remaining rooted in the spontaneity of the knowledge that I am not

the doer. The bestower of results has thus bestowed on me three

distinct choices to go by in situations which are also given by Him.

Although they are his choices, there is no `seemingness' in the

freedom of action He has granted. In other words, I am just

executing the Lord's wish by accepting the choices he has granted

*without appropriating any ownership thereto*! The `seemingness'

problem occurs only when we entertain a *sense of ownership* about

the choices.

 

I owe this knowledge to our dear Kathirasanji who clarified it

beautifully in a personal E-mail a couple of years ago.

 

Sorry for the sloppy language. I am typing out my thoughts in a

hurry.

 

Thanks Sunderji for giving us the past link. I wish we had all read

Swamiji's brilliant exposition during the last month's discussion.

Anyway, it is never too late!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_________________________

 

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

.................>

> It seems to me that this idea could be qualified somewhat more. To

> there only being the appearance of a choice and no choice about the

> results. We in fact are not much different from the animal but for

> the fact we can set up 'facts' in future lives by actions in

> previous lives. The end result is similar to the animal except we

> have the illusion of making a choice, so we can gain or lose

ground.

> The animal having no karma and always living in the present,

doesn't

> intellectualise but reacts. However we as humans react as well but

> we have an overview. So we only have the appearance of choice in

> action...............ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

The strong Silent ones!

 

The Cosmic dancer Shiva is also the Meditating Yogi!

 

The posture changes but the attitude is one of Stillness and calmness

of mind.

 

Hari Aum!

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Tonyji, you have a point there – a conundrum which had bothered me

> for long.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> dominant role in their decision to act.

>

> There is yet another side to all this and that concerns acting in

> spontaneity – I would say acting in advaitic or karmayogic

> spontaneity. I believe Swamiji's reference is to such action

because

> he is discussing karma yoga. The situation where `A' slaps me is

> given (by the Lord). The slapper is none other than the Lord.

The

> slap too. In advaitic spontaneity, I cannot then react. Who am I

to

> react if I have no agency in actions? The fool (Oh, the Lord!)

has

> slapped the body (again the Lord!). Yet, the Lord has granted me

> three choices – to act, not to act, to act differently. The

choices

> are the Lord Himself. So, I do whatever action is needed firmly

> remaining rooted in the spontaneity of the knowledge that I am not

> the doer. The bestower of results has thus bestowed on me three

> distinct choices to go by in situations which are also given by

 

Namaste M,

 

Yes I understand Karma Yoga and Saranagathi, we are not the doer and

all is 'The Lord'. However my point again was that even the choice

in reacting to the slap or not is not ours, which you truthfully

point out is The Lord. However the original slap and the choice

given to us is karmic and illusory. Both would have happened anyway

and really have nothing to with The Lord but the The Lord's karma.

If we choose not to react we gain spiritually, even though that

would have been the decision karmically anyway. If we are angered

and wish to react but are afraid to for some reason we lose

spiritually........That is my point the The Lord winds the universe

up and it runs itself on prana and karma, with no interference from

a Transcendant 'God'...This is what I was pointing to, even choice

is actually no choice just part of the whole

illusion.......ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> Namaste M,

>

> Yes I understand Karma Yoga and Saranagathi, we are not the doer

and

> all is 'The Lord'. However my point again was that even the choice

> in reacting to the slap or not is not ours, which you truthfully

> point out is The Lord. However the original slap and the choice

> given to us is karmic and illusory. Both would have happened

anyway

> and really have nothing to with The Lord but the The Lord's karma.

> If we choose not to react we gain spiritually, even though that

> would have been the decision karmically anyway. If we are angered

> and wish to react but are afraid to for some reason we lose

> spiritually........That is my point the The Lord winds the

universe

> up and it runs itself on prana and karma, with no interference

from

> a Transcendant 'God'...This is what I was pointing to, even choice

> is actually no choice just part of the whole

> illusion.......ONS..Tony.

 

Namaste Tonyji,

 

I find this a bit confusing. It looks like the Lord winds up the

universe and lets it unwind. So everything is pre-ordained. Whether

we act or not, whether we choose one course or other, it is all

karma. From where did this karma come? What do you mean by the

Lord's Karma? Are we always bound to act according to our karma or

do we have any choice (illusory or otherwise)? Please clarify. Thank

you.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Tonyji, the simple fact I was trying to stress is that there is

nothing but the Lord (with which you have agreed) and that in

ultimate analysis He 'owns' everything. Yet, I say this house or car

or property belongs to me. The actual fact is that we are 'owning'

something temporarily granted to us. This applies to choice of

action too whereby in strict karmayogic sense (not from the point of

view of impuslsive or inadvaitic living), we have a choce of action

granted to us, like the house or car or property is granted, to act

in advaitic spontaneity and that is a fact. Yes, that choice is part

of the Whole no doubt but I have to necessarily note that that choice

clearly appears not to have been granted to an impulsive animal.

 

Here, situations in life are understood as granted by the Lord.

Pondering if they are karmic or illusory is an unnecessary and futile

foray into their mechanics once they have been accepted as 'given'.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

In advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>> Yes I understand Karma Yoga and Saranagathi, we are not the doer

and

> all is 'The Lord'. However my point again was that even the choice

> in reacting to the slap or not is not ours, which you truthfully

> point out is The Lord. However the original slap and the choice

> given to us is karmic and illusory. Both would have happened anyway

> and really have nothing to with The Lord but the The Lord's karma.

> If we choose not to react we gain spiritually, even though that

> would have been the decision karmically anyway. If we are angered

> and wish to react but are afraid to for some reason we lose

> spiritually........That is my point the The Lord winds the universe

> up and it runs itself on prana and karma, with no interference from

> a Transcendant 'God'...This is what I was pointing to, even choice

> is actually no choice just part of the whole

> illusion.......ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Tonyji, the simple fact I was trying to stress is that there is

> nothing but the Lord (with which you have agreed) and that in

> ultimate analysis He 'owns' everything. Yet, I say this house or

car

> or property belongs to me. The actual fact is that we

are 'owning'

> something temporarily granted to us. This applies to choice of

> action too whereby in strict karmayogic sense (not from the point

of

> view of impuslsive or inadvaitic living), we have a choce of

action

> granted to us, like the house or car or property is granted, to

act

> in advaitic spontaneity and that is a fact. Yes, that choice is

part

> of the Whole no doubt but I have to necessarily note that that

choice

> clearly appears not to have been granted to an impulsive animal.

>

> Here, situations in life are understood as granted by the Lord.

> Pondering if they are karmic or illusory is an unnecessary and

futile

> foray into their mechanics once they have been accepted as 'given'.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

Namaste,

 

We have no more choice than the animal except we think we do, but

karmically the action has already taken place. Only 'God' has true

freewill and choice...........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

> illusion.......ONS..Tony.

>

> Namaste Tonyji,

>

> I find this a bit confusing. It looks like the Lord winds up the

> universe and lets it unwind. So everything is pre-ordained.

Whether

> we act or not, whether we choose one course or other, it is all

> karma. From where did this karma come? What do you mean by the

> Lord's Karma? Are we always bound to act according to our karma or

> do we have any choice (illusory or otherwise)? Please clarify.

Thank

> you.

>

> Harih Om!

> Neelakantan

 

Namaste N,

 

One has to look at this from different levels. Scientifically there

is no time, so all happens at once. However 'All'is an illusion.

My point was that simply IMO karma is everything it is the fuel of

the universe and the jiva. So we have a choice to do something but

the choice was predestined anyway, we have the illusion of choice

that is all. This way we put the karma to bed or have to repeat it

again in another life. For our mental choice was either the right or

wrong one, the action will take place anyway. Did not Krishna tell

Arjun that the enemy were already dead?.............ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

BG 2.47 has always been recognized as an important verse.

However, the other verses carry as much essence as this

verse, and particularly, I think, this verse need to be

looked at in conjunction with BG 2.46 and 2.48. BG 2.48

was already referred to in an earlier post. Let me put

my understanding of BG 2.46 and 2.47.

 

BG 2.46: If every place is filled with water, just like

the use of a well is superfluous and unnecessary, similarly

is the use of vedA-s for an all-knowing brahmin, who sees

brahman everywhere.

 

Whenever a man goes to a well or to an ocean, he will be

able to obtain water according to the vessel he carries.

If he carries a small vessel, he collects only a limited

water. Similarly, a man with a mind of limitations, he will

get encumbered by the karma-kANDa and the pleasures of this

world and of the higher worlds which the actions of karma-

kANda result in. A man with a broader mind seeks solace in

the upanishads and realizes brahman.

 

The implication of BG 2.46 is immense. We can find in this

verse the reasons why some people find karma or jnAna-yoga

suitable for them at a particular stage in that jIvA-s

'journey'. We can also see the reason for the appeal of

various portions of the vedA-s for various people.

 

BG2.47: O Arjuna, you have freedom (independence, authority)

to do the karmA-s only, not in the karma-phala. So, do not

look forward to karma-phala. That does not mean that you stop

doing actions. Karma-phala is Ishwara's prerogative who is

karma-phala-prada. According to rules of prakr^iti, every karma

has its phala which will accrue at its proper time. To look

forward to karma-phala results in mental agitation. If the

physical body does not stay until the karma-phala is enjoyed/

suffered, then the jIvA has to take another physical body to

enjoy/suffer that karma-phala. Therefore, those who want janma-

rAhityam (no more births, re-births) should have no anticipations

for karma-phala. One should not say "if I do not anticipate

karma-phala, why do the karma?". It is extremely difficult

to be without doing any karma. Even if it is possible, it is

a result of tamas.

 

Lord Krishna's visualization in BG 2.47 and how it contrasts

with the thinkings in the present day society, I hope to take

it up in a later post.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

namaste. This comment is excerpted from "The Hindu Philosophy of

Conduct - Lectures on Bhagavdgita" by Professor M. Rangacharya,

a series of lectures delivered during 1910-1911 at Parthasarathy

Swamy Sabha, Madras. The portion included here is for BG 2.47

which is under discussion now. Please note that the lectures

were delivered during 1910-1911 but are relevant for the present

day also.

 

Your title is only to the work. and never to the fruits (thereof).

Let not the fruits of work be your motive (for action), and do you

not become attached to inaction.

 

Now, if the performance of that kind of work, which is in any

manner associated with the desire to obtain pleasure and to avoid

pain, does not tend to make a man's mind steady, strong and one-

pointed, is he, for that reason, to be passively inactive and

do no work at all? No: he cannot safely become attached to inaction

in that manner. His title is only to do his allotted work in

life, but not to claim, or worry and trouble himself about the

fruits thereof. This injunction to be unmindful of the fruits

of one's own work does not certainly mean that one is at liberty

to discharge one's duties in an indifferent manner. What is

really meant is that one ought to discharge one's duties always

well, and be at the same time free from the attachment of ownership

in relation to all the advantageous results which may accrue from

the proper discharge of those duties. To own and to enjoy the

fruit of one's own labour ought never to be the motive impelling

one to do one's duty. If so done, the duty is, as you know already,

obviously ill done. And yet, on this account, no man may neglect

his duties by being idle and inactive. Let us imagine that every

individual in a society is capable of feeling and acting in this

manner; then, no individual in that society, taken as a whole,

will suffer from the enforcement of such a relation between the

worker and the fruit of his work. It is only because we are not

generally capable of feeling and acting in this manner, that the

singularly strong man, who may occasionally feel and act thus,

is made to suffer in consequence of the greed and cupidity of his

selfish neighbours.

 

Our great familiarity with the institution of property has made

us blind to the injustice and moral defectiveness involved in it.

If we take into consideration the modern socialistic and other

allied movements set on foot in some European countries, and

examine the underlying forces, which are responsible for the origin

of these movements, we shall find that they have mainly arisen out

of the deep dissatisfaction, which people in these countries feel,

in having to accept the institution of property, as it is, because

it gives more to him who has much, and takes away even the little

from him who has only little, and thus prevents the equitable

distribution of the produce of men's labour among them according

to their natural needs and necessary requirements. To recognize the

title of men to the fruit of the work they do, is to allow practically

the superfluous accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few clever

and capable individuals; and accumulated wealth, in its turn, gives

rise to the inequity of compelling the poor and hungry labourer to

labour for the advantage of the rich, who usually do not labour

and are yet well fed.

 

In an ideal society, therefore, there should never be any room for

this sort of moral danger arising from selfishness being made to

serve as the stimulous of work. The man, who works with selfish

motives, is rarely satisfied with what he gets, and is ever on the

lookout to enrich himself more and more even at the expense of

others. Shri KrishNa's ideal society is, in respect of the ethics

of property, conceived to be so constituted that, in it, every

person works honestly according to his or her capacity and aptitude,

and shares in the common produce of the labour, so put forth,

according to his or her natural needs and requirements. That is the

reason why He evidently holds that that society is most securely

organized, in which the impulse which makes men work is not that

which is caused by selfishness, but is on the other hand that

which is roused by the sense of unselfish duty. If therefore all

selfishness has to be removed from the many motives which actuate

men to do their work in life, it is necessary to declare emphatically

that they have no title at all to the fruits of their work.

 

If Shri KrishNa's teaching is truly followed in this respect, the

strong man's strength will always go to help the weak and to uplift

them, but never to make them weaker and more degraded; it will

also prevent that highly vicious waste of superfluity, whereby the

biting hunger of acute poverty is allowed to remain unappeased

at the same time that the great moral depravity of overfed luxury

is encouraged to grow without any let or hindrance. The best

interests of the strong and the weak can therefore be equally well

secured and equally well safeguarded, when the human mind is so

disciplined and the human society so organized as to make all its

members feel, as if instinctively, that their title is only to the

work they have to do but not to the fruits thereof.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste N,

>

> One has to look at this from different levels. Scientifically there

> is no time, so all happens at once. However 'All'is an illusion.

> My point was that simply IMO karma is everything it is the fuel of

> the universe and the jiva. So we have a choice to do something but

> the choice was predestined anyway, we have the illusion of choice

> that is all. This way we put the karma to bed or have to repeat it

> again in another life. For our mental choice was either the right

or

> wrong one, the action will take place anyway. Did not Krishna tell

> Arjun that the enemy were already dead?.............ONS..Tony.

 

Namaste Tonyji,

 

At this point, I am not able to see that all is illusion. Just as the

dream is real to the dreamer and is seen as illusion only on waking

up, the waking world is reality to me until I 'wake up' to the higher

reality. Therefore, the choice too is real within this world. I may

intellectually appreciate that this waking world is illusory, though.

I understand that actions beget results and necessitate future

births. That is why they have to be undertaken in the spirit of karma

yoga.

 

Yes, Krishna told Arjun that the enemy had already been killed by

Him. However, He also told him at the end of the Gita discourse to do

as he saw fit.

 

The Gita tells us to raise our selves by our selves - (uddaret

aatmanaatmaanam). The point is self-effort is the other side of

destiny because destiny is the result of previous self-effort after

all. This of course is only my understanding. I am open to

corrections.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

>

.. This way we put the karma to bed or have to repeat it

> > again in another life. For our mental choice was either the

right

> or

> > wrong one, the action will take place anyway. Did not Krishna

tell

> > Arjun that the enemy were already dead?.............ONS..Tony.

>

> Namaste Tonyji,

>

> At this point, I am not able to see that all is illusion. Just as

the

> dream is real to the dreamer and is seen as illusion only on

waking

> up, the waking world is reality to me until I 'wake up' to the

higher

> reality. Therefore, the choice too is real within this world. I

may

> intellectually appreciate that this waking world is illusory,

though.

> I understand that actions beget results and necessitate future

> births. That is why they have to be undertaken in the spirit of

karma

> yoga.

>

> Yes, Krishna told Arjun that the enemy had already been killed by

> Him. However, He also told him at the end of the Gita discourse to

do

> as he saw fit.

>

> The Gita tells us to raise our selves by our selves - (uddaret

> aatmanaatmaanam). The point is self-effort is the other side of

> destiny because destiny is the result of previous self-effort

after

> all. This of course is only my understanding. I am open to

> corrections.

>

> Harih Om!

> Neelakantan

 

Namaste N,

 

Yes even the decision to work or not to work is karmic. So raising

ourselves by our own effort was also karmic, the effort was the

choice of the mind, a choice already having been made. I'm not

saying sit down and do nothing, but if one did that would be karmic

also. The Gita also talks at different levels that's why it is so

popular----the different yogas. It is only the body mind complex

that receives the karma anyway not the real You.

My point again is we have to surrender for we are not the doer, and

literally everything is preordained by karma. The only choice we

have is to make the mental choice.

 

For everything happens at once so when we do an action the opposite

action is also completed, even though it doesn't manifest until

a 'future' life. So our choice is to learn, so if we make the right

mental choice then that happened at the same time as the bad choice

and nullifies that karma for the future....However we have to play

out our role until Moksha cancells all our future

karmas.....ONS..Tony.