Gita in Daily Life: Ch.4 - Actionless Action or 'Actorless Action'?

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

The Gita clearly tells us that action, not inaction is the solution

when we are confronted with a situation like Arjuna's. In the htird

chapter, Bhagavan reminds us that we cannot but act, being under the

sway of our prakrti. He exhorts us to perform actions for the sake

of yajna, which alone will free us from the bondage of action. He

delivers a stinging indictment against all other actions - "bhunjate

te tvagam papAh ye pacatyAtmakAraNAt".

 

In chapter 4, He expands the term yajna to mean not just rituals,

but all actions. He also talks about "seeing inaction in action and

action in inaction". I had always been puzzled by this verse (4-18,

I think). The verses you have quoted point out how even when

performing actions one can be doing nothing. Rather than think of

this as actionless action, I like to call this "Actorless action".

This helped me understand the concept better. Actions happen through

me, but I am not the actor.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> Namaste

>

> The key shlokas in Chapter 4 for application in daily life

> are:

> 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23.

>

> Actions do not touch Me; nor do I crave for the fruits

> thereof – says Krishna in #14.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I believe that actionless action is the correct terminology and it is

widely used by most commentators. The invisible but everpresent Lord

is the actor and that is the subtle message of Gita. This is being

stated by the Lord in various chapters of Gita, for example, verses 4

and 5 of chapter9.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

> Namaste!

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> I believe that actionless action is the correct terminology and it

is

> widely used by most commentators. The invisible but everpresent

Lord

> is the actor and that is the subtle message of Gita. This is being

> stated by the Lord in various chapters of Gita, for example,

verses 4

> and 5 of chapter9.

>

> regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

 

Namaste, Ramji.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I understand that it is ignorance

that superimposes agency on the atman. The notion of actorship and

enjoyership is assumed by the ego. It is in this sense I

meant 'actorless action'. As Krishna says, it is the play of

prakriti - 'guNA guNeshu vartante'. It is ahankara that assumes

ownership of actions.

 

However, I am still not clear who the real actor is. I do struggle

with this idea of the Lord being the actor in all actions. Does this

mean that Atman/Brahman acts? I would be grateful if you can

elaborate on this. Thank you.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

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

>> >

>

> Namaste, Ramji.

>

> Thank you for the clarification. I understand that it is ignorance

> that superimposes agency on the atman. The notion of actorship and

> enjoyership is assumed by the ego. It is in this sense I

> meant 'actorless action'. As Krishna says, it is the play of

> prakriti - 'guNA guNeshu vartante'. It is ahankara that assumes

> ownership of actions.

>

> However, I am still not clear who the real actor is. I do struggle

> with this idea of the Lord being the actor in all actions. Does

this

> mean that Atman/Brahman acts? I would be grateful if you can

> elaborate on this. Thank you.

>

> Harih Om!

> Neelakantan

 

Namaste Neelakantanji

 

I appreciate your struggle with the idea of the Lord being the actor

in all actions. It is this subtle point which confuses many. But

the point is certainly explained in all advaitic literature. I have

attempted an explanation in various contexts. Particularly it is

elaborately dealt with in my book on Live Happily the Gita Way.

Anyway here let me try giving you a brief reply to your doubt.

 

Who is the actor of our actions? This is the fundamental question.

It is easy to agree that body mind intellect could not by itself act

without some power from within. But this power being sat-chid-

Ananda, since it is nirvikarI (immutable, changeless), it is not

right to attribute action to it. So we have to get into some deep

fundamentals.

 

Vedanta reduces everything lto five fundamental concepts:

 

'sat' (Existence) -- revealed by the fact that it 'exists' (*asti*)

'chit' (Consciousness) -- revealed by the fact of 'knowing' (*bhAti*)

'Ananda' (Bliss) -- revealed by the fact of 'happiness' (*priyam*)

'nAma' (Name) -- everything has a name

'rUpaM' (Form) -- every visible thing has a form

 

Thus the fundamental fives are: *asti, bhAti, priyam, nAma and rUpa*

 

Of these five the first three are permanent, eternal.

The last two are ephemeral, transient.

 

Our BMI belongs to the last two above. Anything in our experience

belongs to this nAma and rUpa.

 

When somebody pinches me I feel the pain. It is really the BMI that

senses the pain and reacts to it. But the BMI would not have done it

if 'I' were not there. (for example, a dead body). It is the

association of 'I' with the BMI that makes 'me' feel and react.

This 'I' is nothing but the sat-chid-Ananda. When I, the one who

calls himself Krishnamurthy, ceases to associate the 'I' with the

BMI and remains what it should be, namely, 'sat-chit-Ananda', there

should be no feeling of pain and no provocation for a reaction or

action.

 

Thus all action happens only when the association of the permanent

facet of man namely the 'sat-chit-Ananda' facet of man associates

itself with the 'nAma-rUpa' facet of the same man. It is this

association that is the actor and the reactor. It is this

assoication that is the feeler, the thinker.

 

This association happens because of Ignorance. Both Ignorance as

well as its effect, namely this association, are 'mithyA' -- only

apparently real.

 

All Vedanta says: Get over this association of the 'sat-cit-Ananda'

with the 'nAma-rUpa'. And that is moksha!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantanji:

 

ProfVKji has provided you a detailed explanation on your question.

Here are some further thoughts.

 

When the thought that "Lord is the actor behind our actions" arises

in our mind, our mind becomes conscious of the all the

associated `thoughts' that have been already stored. Now the faculty

of `intellect' assembles all the thoughts and use the "right means of

knowledge" to check and come to the right conclusion. Vedanta calls

these `means of knowledge' as Pramanas. The teachers of Advaita

Vedanta philosophy have gone into this aspect of the process of

knowledge in great detail, and have enumerated `six' pramanas. They

include Pratyaksha (direct), Anumana (inference), Upamana (logic of

similarity), Arthapatti (presumption of a fact), Anupalabdhi, and

Sabda (accepting fact from a trustworthy source). Which pramana has

to be resorted to and also when, is decided on the basis of the

situation.

In the present situation on deciding the existence of "actor" in

every action, we could employ the Prmanana – Arthapatti. Arthapatti

means postulation, supposition or presumption of a fact. It is a

distinct valid method of mediate knowledge. It is in fact a method of

assumption of an unknown fact in order to account for a known fact

that is otherwise inexplicable. The classic example of this method of

knowledge is a fat person A says that he never eats in the day, then

we can easily postulate that he eats in the night, for the simple

reason that without this assumption his fatness and also his getting

fatter cannot be explained. This reasoning is quite appropriate to

derive the unknown fact that the "Lord is the actor." We know the

fact that every action can't be accomplished without an actor. Since

the false I (misidentified body-mind-Intellect) is not the doer

(actor), using Arthapatti, we are able to derive the fact that the

true I (SELF or Lord) is the actor.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

 

Namaste Neelakantanji

>

> I appreciate your struggle with the idea of the Lord being the

actor

> in all actions. It is this subtle point which confuses many. But

> the point is certainly explained in all advaitic literature. I

have

> attempted an explanation in various contexts. Particularly it is

> elaborately dealt with in my book on Live Happily the Gita Way.

> Anyway here let me try giving you a brief reply to your doubt.

>

> Who is the actor of our actions? This is the fundamental question.

> It is easy to agree that body mind intellect could not by itself

act

> without some power from within. But this power being sat-chid-

> Ananda, since it is nirvikarI (immutable, changeless), it is not

> right to attribute action to it. So we have to get into some deep

> fundamentals.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Professorji!

 

Thank you for the succinct explanation. I think I understand the

concept better now. I am reminded of several verses in Atmabodha

that touch upon this. I will go back and read them as also read your

web pages.

 

Ramji,

 

Your explanation is slightly different from Professorji's, but I

think I get it. From our point of view, nothing can even move

without His grace - 'avananRi Or aNuvum asaiyAdu' as Saint

TAyumAnavar sings. Thanks.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> Namaste Neelakantanji

>

> Thus the fundamental fives are: *asti, bhAti, priyam, nAma and

rUpa*

>

> Of these five the first three are permanent, eternal.

> The last two are ephemeral, transient.

>

> Our BMI belongs to the last two above. Anything in our experience

> belongs to this nAma and rUpa.

>

> When somebody pinches me I feel the pain. It is really the BMI

that

> senses the pain and reacts to it. But the BMI would not have done

it

> if 'I' were not there. (for example, a dead body). It is the

> association of 'I' with the BMI that makes 'me' feel and react.

> This 'I' is nothing but the sat-chid-Ananda. When I, the one who

> calls himself Krishnamurthy, ceases to associate the 'I' with the

> BMI and remains what it should be, namely, 'sat-chit-Ananda',

there

> should be no feeling of pain and no provocation for a reaction or

> action.

>

> Thus all action happens only when the association of the

permanent

> facet of man namely the 'sat-chit-Ananda' facet of man associates

> itself with the 'nAma-rUpa' facet of the same man. It is this

> association that is the actor and the reactor. It is this

> assoication that is the feeler, the thinker.

>

> This association happens because of Ignorance. Both Ignorance as

> well as its effect, namely this association, are 'mithyA' -- only

> apparently real.

>

> All Vedanta says: Get over this association of the 'sat-cit-

Ananda'

> with the 'nAma-rUpa'. And that is moksha!

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk