doubt about Gita 5:14

March 18, 2006

Om Tat Sat

Namaste, I hope moderators won't mind if I rewind back to chapter 5

for this email thread. Please refer to Gita 5:14

na kartratvam na karmani lokasya srajati prabhuh

na karmaphalasamyogam svabhavastu pravartate

Swami Dayananda's translation :

"Atma neither creates doership nor action for any person nor the

connection with the results of action. Whereas one's own nature leads

to action."

Ishvara is the karmphala daata so isn't Ishvara creating the

karmphalasamyogam ? One can argue that here prabhuh means Atman and

Atman is not the same as Ishvara. Really ? As a person with worldy

ties, kids and family, I am supposed to follow karma-yoga. Everything

right from the water that I get to drink, take bath, cook, wash, the

food that I eat, the job that I do, should be done in the spirit of

yagya, as a representative of the Lord - in the spirit of devotion, in

the spirit of a sakshi. This verse seems to go contradictory to the

spirit of Karma-yoga. Please help here.

regards,

Om Tat Sat

March 18, 2006

Namaste Sri Mahadevaji:

I am forced to provide you with a long answer to your question. You

will likely receive more insights from other Satsanghis. The question

that you have raised here often arises in our mind from time to time.

Mahatma Gandhiji once said, "Whenever we find contradictions in the

scriptures, they are always due to our misunderstanding of what has

been stated." He was quite right in his assessment about our

incomplete understanding of Gita. Honestly, potential pitfalls always

exist when if we try to read the simple English translation of one

specific verse and make our assessments on its validity and/or

consistency. Lord Krishna was expecting a question like yours, and

He clarifies further in the very next verse.

Verse 14 of Chapter 5:

The word `Prabhuh' in this verse denotes the almighty God, the

creator, preserver and destroyer of the whole creation. The

scriptures, wherever they speak of God as responsible for the

creation etc, of the universe, refer only to God with attributes.

By declaring that God determines not the doership of man the Lord

seeks to convey that the doership of men with reference to their

actions is not ordained by God. Under the spell of egotism the

ignorant regard themselves as the doer (III. 27). To be more

explicit, God does not preordain that one must perform a certain good

or evil act; for in that case the injunctions and interdictions of

the scriptures would become futile and meaningless. By declaring that

God does not bring about the contact of men with the fruit of their

actions either, the Lord signifies that through ignorance men

associate themselves with their actions, some by assuming their

doership through attachment and others by getting attached to their

fruits.

Had these been predetermined by God, it would become impossible for

man to shake off the bondage of karma and there would be no chance

for his deliverance. A striver would, therefore, do well to

dissociate himself from his actions by resigning them in the

aforesaid manner either to Nature (V. 8-9) or to God (V. 10) again by

wholly renouncing the fruit of his actions as well as attachment.

This is what is meant by the statement of the Lord that "God

determines not the doership nor the doings of men, nor even their

contact with the fruit of actions."

It has been stated above that the Atman (soul) has nothing to do with

the doership of actions and has no connection either with the actions

or their fruit. And the present verse says that God too determines

not the doership of actions and so on. The question, therefore

naturally arises: How are they to be accounted for? To answer this

question the Lord says that all this is being done by Prakrti, or

nature, appearing in the form of its three Gunas-Sattva, Rajas and

Tamas, all morbid feelings such as likes and dislikes etc, and good

and evil actions and their latencies. All Jivas who have not risen

above it have been united with it from time without beginning. That

is why they are possessed of the sense of doership, that is to say,

deluded by egoism they come to regard themselves as the doer (III.

27); and that is why they are associated with their actions as well

as with their fruits and get bound by them. In reality, however, the

Atman has got nothing to do with these. This is what is sought to be

conveyed by the statement that "It is Nature which functions."

Here it may be asked: Does the Lord Himself reap the fruit of the

good and evil actions of the striver who has dissociated himself from

the fruits of his actions by offering them as well as his actions to

the Lord? The Lord meets this question in the very next verse:-

Naadatte kasyachit paapam na chaiva sukritam vibhuh;

Ajnaanenaavritam jnaanam tena muhyanti jantavah.

The Lord accepts neither the demerit nor even the merit of any;

knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded.

Verse 15

The word "Vibhuh" stands here for God Almighty with attributes but

devoid of form, living in the heart of all (XIII. 17; XV. 15; XVIII.

61) and controlling the operations of the whole world by His will.

The statement of the Lord that "God does not receive the virtue or

sin of anyone" is intended to convey that even though all actions are

performed by men through His energy, in other words, it is He who

endows men with energy, intelligence and senses etc, according to

their past Karma; He does not receive the actions performed by them.

In other words, He does not reap their fruit Himself.

It may be contended here that in the last verse of this very chapter

as well as in the twenty-fourth verse of Chapter IX. The Lord Himself

says that He is the enjoyer of all sacrifices and austerities. How

are we to reconcile those statements with that contained in this

verse? It should be noted in this connection that the whole universe

is a manifestation of God with attributes. Hence it is God Himself

who enjoys all sacrifices in the form of divinities. Nevertheless, in

reality God has nothing to do with our actions or their fruit. This

is what is sought to be conveyed by the statement that God does not

receive the virtue or sin of anyone. The idea is that even though

enjoying all sacrifices in the form of gods and men, and though

accepting articles and actions offered by devotees. He is very

unconnected with them in the same way as He is unborn though

accepting birth (IV. 6) and remains a non-doer though performing the

functions of creation, preservation and destruction of the universe

(IV.l3). Hence it is but reasonable to say that God does not receive

the virtues of anyone.

I also suggest that you refer to verses 4 and 5 of Chapter 9 to

understand His Yoga:

Mayaa tatamidam sarvam jagadavyaktamoortinaa;

Matsthaani sarvabhootaani na chaaham teshvavasthitah. ..4

All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest aspect; all beings

exist in Me, but I do not dwell in them.

Na cha matsthaani bhootaani pashya me yogamaishwaram;

Bhootabhrinna cha bhootastho mamaatmaa bhootabhaavanah…5

Nor do beings exist in Me (in reality): behold My divine Yoga,

supporting all beings, but not dwelling in them, is My Self, the

efficient cause of beings.

Harih Om!

Ram Chandran

Note: Please also refer to the previous Gita Satsangh discussions

available in the archive.

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Om Tat Sat

> Namaste, I hope moderators won't mind if I rewind back to chapter 5

> for this email thread. Please refer to Gita 5:14

>

> na kartratvam na karmani lokasya srajati prabhuh

> na karmaphalasamyogam svabhavastu pravartate

>

> Swami Dayananda's translation :

> "Atma neither creates doership nor action for any person nor the

> connection with the results of action. Whereas one's own nature

leads

> to action."

>

> Ishvara is the karmphala daata so isn't Ishvara creating the

> karmphalasamyogam ? One can argue that here prabhuh means Atman and

> Atman is not the same as Ishvara. Really ? As a person with worldy

> ties, kids and family, I am supposed to follow karma-yoga.

Everything

> right from the water that I get to drink, take bath, cook, wash,

the

> food that I eat, the job that I do, should be done in the spirit of

> yagya, as a representative of the Lord - in the spirit of devotion,

in

> the spirit of a sakshi. This verse seems to go contradictory to the

> spirit of Karma-yoga. Please help here.

>

> regards,

> Om Tat Sat

>

March 18, 2006

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Om Tat Sat

> Namaste, I hope moderators won't mind if I rewind back to chapter

5

> for this email thread. Please refer to Gita 5:14

>

> na kartratvam na karmani lokasya srajati prabhuh

> na karmaphalasamyogam svabhavastu pravartate

>

> Swami Dayananda's translation :

> "Atma neither creates doership nor action for any person nor the

> connection with the results of action. Whereas one's own nature

leads

> to action."

>

> Ishvara is the karmphala daata so isn't Ishvara creating the

> karmphalasamyogam ? One can argue that here prabhuh means Atman

and

> Atman is not the same as Ishvara. Really ? As a person with worldy

> ties, kids and family, I am supposed to follow karma-yoga.

Everything

> right from the water that I get to drink, take bath, cook, wash,

the

> food that I eat, the job that I do, should be done in the spirit

of

> yagya, as a representative of the Lord - in the spirit of

devotion, in

> the spirit of a sakshi. This verse seems to go contradictory to

the

> spirit of Karma-yoga. Please help here.

>

> regards,

> Om Tat Sat

>

Namaste, Mahadevji,

I am ready to devote a few hours to write a long essay on this

shloka as an attempt to clear your doubt. But in the meantime can

you help me by clarifying a little more specifically what exactly

your doubt is? "Contradictory to the spirit of Karma yoga" is too

general a comment. Can you be more specific? Thanks.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

March 19, 2006

Namaste Sri Mahadevaji,

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Om Tat Sat

> Namaste, I hope moderators won't mind if I rewind back to chapter 5

> for this email thread. Please refer to Gita 5:14

>

> na kartratvam na karmani lokasya srajati prabhuh

> na karmaphalasamyogam svabhavastu pravartate

>

> Swami Dayananda's translation :

> "Atma neither creates doership nor action for any person

> nor the connection with the results of action. Whereas

> one's own nature leads to action."

>

> Ishvara is the karmphala daata so isn't Ishvara creating

> the karmphalasamyogam? One can argue that here prabhuh

> means Atman and Atman is not the same as Ishvara. Really?

> As a person with worldy ties, kids and family, I am

> supposed to follow karma-yoga. Everything right from the

> water that I get to drink, take bath, cook, wash, the

> food that I eat, the job that I do, should be done in

> the spirit of yagya, as a representative of the Lord -

> in the spirit of devotion, in the spirit of a sakshi.

> This verse seems to go contradictory to the spirit of

> Karma-yoga. Please help here.

Brahman has two Natures - para and apara - the Higher and the Lower.

The Lord says in the Gita:

"Earth, water, fire, air, ether, manas, buddhi, ahamkara - this is My

Prakriti divided eightfold." (VII.4)

"This is the Apara (Prakriti); but as distinct from this know thou My

Superior (para) Prakriti, the very life, O mighty armed, by which

this universe is upheld." (VII.5)

"Know that all beings have their birth in these. So I am the source

and dissolution of the whole universe." (VII.6)

"There is naught else higher than I, O Dhananjaya: in Me all this is

woven as clusters of gems on a string." (VII.7)

What is Advaita? It is to know that the Apara Prakriti of the Lord is

non-different than His Para Prakriti. And it is because there is

this non-difference that the Lord remains actionless even in His

actions because He is Akshara - immutable and immovable - even in the

actions of Apara Prakriti. And Prakriti does not move by itself - the

impelling energy of its movement is the Unmoving Purusha Himself. It

is His Swatantriya. This the Supreme Secret knowledge of Advaita.

"To thee who do not cavil, I shall now declare this, the greatest

secret, knowledge combined with experience, which having known thou

shalt be liberated from evil." (IX.1)

"The King of Vidyas, the Sovereign Secret, the Supreme Purifier is

this; immediately comprehensible, unopposed to Dharma, very easy to

perform, imperishable." (IX.2)

"Persons having no faith in this Dharma, O harasser of foes, without

reaching Me, remain verily in the path of the mortal world." (IX.3)

"By Me all this world is pervaded, My form unmanifested. All beings

dwell in Me; and I do not dwell in them." (IX.4)

"Nor do those beings dwell in Me; behold My Divine Yoga! Sustaining

all beings, but not dwelling in them, is My Self, the cause of

beings." (IX.5)

"As the mighty wind moving everywhere rests ever in the akasha, so,

know thou, do all beings, rest in Me." (IX.6)

"All beings, O son of Kunti, go into My Prakriti at the end of a

kalpa. I send them forth again at the beginning (the next) kalpa."

(IX.7)

"Resorting to My Prakriti, I again and again send forth the whole

multitude of beings, powerless under the control of Prakriti." (IX.8)

"Nor do these acts, O Dhananjaya, bind Me, remaining like one

unconcerned, unattached to those acts." (IX.9)

"By Me presiding, Prakriti produces the moving and the unmoving;

because of this, O son of Kunti, the world revolves." (IX.10)

Thus has the Lord Himself answered your question.

When the wind blows, it is the Lord HImself that makes it blow. When

the bird sings in the tree, it is the Lord Himself who is singing in

the form of bird. When the arrow flies from the bow, it is the Lord

Himself that makes the arrow fly. When there is an effect arising out

of a cause, it is the Lord Himself that has bestowed the causality by

which the effect follows from the cause. The cause, the effect, and

the causality that connects them, have no existence whatsoever apart

from the Lord; the cause is jada and it knows not itself, the effect

is jada and it knows not itself; they are both 'nothing' without the

Lord. The self of the cause is the Lord, the self of the effect is

the Lord, and the self of causality is the Lord. They all exists in

the Nature (Prakriti) of the Lord, and their very Self - their very

existence - is Purushottama. He makes them flow forth into creation

and he holds it aloft in creation by His Swatantriya. Swatantra is

Freedom. Tantra is Action, and Swa-Tantra is His action through His

intrinsic Nature - by His mere Presence without any effort, without

any movement.

"They speak of the imperishable Asvattha tree having its root above

and branches below, whose leaves are the metres. He who knows it

knows the Vedas." (XV.1)

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

March 19, 2006

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Mahadevaji,

> What is Advaita? It is to know that the Apara Prakriti of the Lord

is

> non-different than His Para Prakriti.

Sri Ramakrishna always emphasised this point. He used to give

examples of Snake and its wrigling motion ,fire and its power to burn

etc. He said that brahman and sakhti are one and the same. But i am

yet to assimilate the true import of this.

And it is because there is

> this non-difference that the Lord remains actionless even in His

> actions because He is Akshara - immutable and immovable - even in

the

> actions of Apara Prakriti.

Chitta ji,

can you elaborate on this point please. The absolute will be always

actionless. The formless consciousness who is the eternal subject,

who the one and only reality satchidananda can never act. Action is

possible only in the realm of time space and causation. How can

action takes place if there is no differentiation as name and form,

subject object etc.

As far as my exposure to advaita philosophy goes the karma phala data

is the saguna brahma. Who is the dispenser of the fruits of action.

But he is very clearly defined as akarta and saguna brahman or even

avatara is said to be none other than the brahman itself. But how can

we say saguna brahma is akarta as he is moving this entire universe

is may question.

But ultimately i am landing in the same position. Why there is a

creation? Why Ishwara is acting? Why this play when he is ever

fullfilled. If we say that it is for his disport and can we say that

he too has emptiness without this leela?

Same question has been asked in the mandukya karika. It runs like

this-- Some say this creation is due to the desire of the lord and

some say that it is for his disport. But what desire can araise in

the lord who is ever fullfilled? Aptakamasya ka spruhah?

> Thus has the Lord Himself answered your question.

>

> When the wind blows, it is the Lord HImself that makes it blow.

When

> the bird sings in the tree, it is the Lord Himself who is singing

in

> the form of bird. When the arrow flies from the bow, it is the Lord

> Himself that makes the arrow fly. When there is an effect arising

out

> of a cause, it is the Lord Himself that has bestowed the causality

by

> which the effect follows from the cause. The cause, the effect, and

> the causality that connects them, have no existence whatsoever

apart

> from the Lord; the cause is jada and it knows not itself, the

effect

> is jada and it knows not itself; they are both 'nothing' without

the

> Lord.

He is doing so many things and can we say the lord is akrata?

Please throw some light on this issues.

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

Yours in the lord,

Br. Vinayaka

March 19, 2006

Namaste Sri Vinayakaji,

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> > And it is because there is this non-difference that

> > the Lord remains actionless even in His actions because

> > He is Akshara - immutable and immovable - even in the

> > actions of Apara Prakriti.

>

> can you elaborate on this point please. The absolute will

> be always actionless.

Yes, the Absolute is always actionless.

> The formless consciousness who is the eternal subject, who

> the one and only reality satchidananda can never act. Action

> is possible only in the realm of time space and causation.

> How can action takes place if there is no differentiation

> as name and form, subject object etc.

You are right, action is not relevant when there is no

differentiation of name and form. But when there is differentitaion

of name and form, the Absolute is still actionless and yet this

creation is His action alone. The term 'action' is used in two senses

here - as pointing to His 'efficient causality', and as pointing to

the 'effort' required by Him to bring about creation, and the two

have to be distinguished in order to understand how He is acting as

well as being actionless.

> As far as my exposure to advaita philosophy goes the karma

> phala data is the saguna brahma. Who is the dispenser of

> the fruits of action. But he is very clearly defined as

> akarta and saguna brahman or even avatara is said to be

> none other than the brahman itself. But how can we say

> saguna brahma is akarta as he is moving this entire universe

> is may question.

He is said to be akarta because He does not 'do'. He does not 'do'

because He need not 'do'. He need not 'do' because His Will itself is

His action.

If I want to lift a large stone, the stone will not get lifted until

I do the lifting. I have to do - strive - to lift the stone. This is

action, and it requires effort to do it because the action does not

happen by my will. But it is not so in the case of God. His Will and

His action are not different. Therefore, there is no action required

for Him to do anything. All things effortlessly happen by His Will.

Due to lack of effort, His action is said to be actionless.

His Will is iccha, desire, and it is feminine. She is said to be Uma

Kumari. It is the desire arising out of the cumulative adrista of

beings in the universe. But for the Lord it is sport - that is why

His iccha shakti is Uma Kumari. Kumara means to sport.

> But ultimately i am landing in the same position. Why there

> is a creation? Why Ishwara is acting? Why this play when he

> is ever fullfilled. If we say that it is for his disport and

> can we say that he too has emptiness without this leela?

I do not have the answer to this question. This question has no

answer in samsara. Yet, the question should not be set aside. Sri

Shankara says that the meaning of samsara is to keep on asking the

meaning of samsara.

> He is doing so many things and can we say the lord is akrata?

> Please throw some light on this issues.

The Lord is not akarta. A person who sees the universe and still says

there is no Ishvara is deluded.

"Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, the sun and moon

are held in their positions; under the mighty rule of this Immutable,

O Gargi, heaven and earth maintain their positions; under the mighty

rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, moments, Muhurtas, days and nights,

fortnights, months, seasons, and years are held in their respective

places; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi some rivers

flow eastward from the White Mountains, other flowing westward

continue in that direction, and still others keep to their respective

courses; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, men praise

those that give, the gods depend on the sacrificer, and the manes on

the independent offerings." (Brhdaranyaka Upanishad)

Ishvara is said to be akarta due to His omnipotence - He does

everything without effort i.e, He does without active striving, hence

He is akarta.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

March 19, 2006

Namaste Sri Vinayakaji,

I had replied to your post once, but the message didn't appear on the

list. I thought that the moderators might have put me on the list

of 'members to be moderated', but then my next post came through

without any moderation, so I guess my previous reply just got lost in

Cyberspace. So I am replying again...

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> can you elaborate on this point please. The absolute will

> be always actionless. The formless consciousness who is

> the eternal subject, who the one and only reality

> satchidananda can never act. Action is possible only in

> the realm of time space and causation. How can action takes

> place if there is no differentiation as name and form,

> subject object etc.

The context of action is the differentiation of name and form. It is

in this context that the Lord is said to be, paradoxically, both

actionless as well as the creator of the world.

> As far as my exposure to advaita philosophy goes the

> karma phala data is the saguna brahma. Who is the dispenser

> of the fruits of action. But he is very clearly defined

> as akarta and saguna brahman or even avatara is said to be

> none other than the brahman itself. But how can we say

> saguna brahma is akarta as he is moving this entire

> universe is my question.

The Lord is said to be actionless due to the absence of effort. The

Lord is said to be moving this entire universe due to His Efficient

Causality. The distinction is important, I think.

When I want to lift a large stone, I have to strive to do it. The

stone does not get lifted just because I want it to get lifted. I

have to 'do' it. There is thus a dichotomy between my will and my

action. But in the case of the Lord, there is no such dichotomy

because there is no difference between His Will and His action. He

does not have to 'do'. His Will is its own effortless fructification.

This lack of effort is said to be His omnipotence because He can move

the entire universe with effortless ease. This Para Shakti is His

Swatantriya due to which things happen without any effort. It is due

to this lack of effort that He is said to be actionless (because he

does not 'do').

His Will is His iccha shakti. She is the desire that arises as His

Will due to the collective adrishtas of all beings. She, His Will, is

called Uma Kumari. Kumara means to sport. Creation for the Lord is

mere sport.

> But ultimately i am landing in the same position. Why there

> is a creation? Why Ishwara is acting? Why this play when he

> is ever fullfilled. If we say that it is for his disport

> and can we say that he too has emptiness without this leela?

I don't think there is an answer to this question within samsara. It

is the deep disquiet that drives one to seek jnana. Sri Shankara says

that the purpose of samsara is to keep on asking the question: "Why

is there samsara?"

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

March 19, 2006

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Om Tat Sat

> Namaste, I hope moderators won't mind if I rewind back to chapter

5

> for this email thread. Please refer to Gita 5:14

>

> na kartratvam na karmani lokasya srajati prabhuh

> na karmaphalasamyogam svabhavastu pravartate

>

> Swami Dayananda's translation :

> "Atma neither creates doership nor action for any person nor the

> connection with the results of action. Whereas one's own nature

leads

> to action."

>

> Ishvara is the karmphala daata so isn't Ishvara creating the

> karmphalasamyogam ? One can argue that here prabhuh means Atman

and

> Atman is not the same as Ishvara. Really ? As a person with worldy

> ties, kids and family, I am supposed to follow karma-yoga.

Everything

> right from the water that I get to drink, take bath, cook, wash,

the

> food that I eat, the job that I do, should be done in the spirit

of

> yagya, as a representative of the Lord - in the spirit of

devotion, in

> the spirit of a sakshi. This verse seems to go contradictory to

the

> spirit of Karma-yoga. Please help here.

>

> regards,

> Om Tat Sat

>

Namaste Om Tat Sat ji:

A study of the Acharya's Bhashya for the verses preceding the above

verse gives a good deal of clarification. The verse in question is

to be seen in its proper context. It is placed in the context of

delineating the characteristic of the Jnana Yogi. Thus, at the

outset, the karma yoga sadhana is not the context in which this

verse occurs in this chapter. The chapter itself is traditionally

named: Karmasannyasa yoga, The setting is that of a sadhaka who has

graduated from the sadhana of karma yoga. It is such a sadhaka's

attitude that is spoken of here. As such, the nature of Atman is

what is his subject of contemplation.

In the seventh verse itself, the Acharya calls him a 'samyag-

darshi',' he who sees rightly. That is, whose Inner Consciousness,

the Self, has formed the Self of all beings from Brahma down to a

clump of grass, he will not be tainted, i.e. bound by actions,

though he may continue to perform them….' Surely, the one in the

karma yoga stage is not a 'samyagdarshi'. He has not yet risen to a

state where his karma does not bind him.

And in the eighth and the ninth verses the bhaava is ' I do nothing

at all' while actions are taking place. The karma yogi's attitude

is not this. He feels ' I do this karma as an offering to the Lord'

or some such thing.

The karma yogi's attitude and the advice for him lie in the tenth

and the eleventh verses. The Acharya gives the purport of these two

verses thus: Wherefore, as thy duty lies only there, do thou only

perform action.'

The twelfth verse speaks of the benefit and the loss that accrue

due to the abandoning of and the attachment to the fruit of

action. Certainly this will not be the teaching for the Jnana

yogi.

Now, in the thirteenth verse starts the exposition of the nature of

Atman and the nature of non-action. The bhashyam introduces this

verse with the words: On the other hand, he who is a Paramaartha-

darshi, the man who sees the Supreme Being… Renouncing all actions

by thought, and Self-controlled, the embodied one rests happily in

the nine-gated city, neither at all acting nor causing to act. The

power of acting or of causing to act is not inherent in the Self;

for the Lord has taught that the Self is unchangeable (ii.25)

and 'though seated in the body, he acts not, nor is he tainted'

(xiii.31). The Sruti says, 'It thinks as it were and moves as it

were'. (Brih. Up. 4.3.7) These details are provided by the Bhashyam.

Now, in the fourteenth verse, about which you have questioned, the

bhashyam gives the meaning of the word 'karmaani' in the verse

as: 'Neither does the Self create cars, jars, mansions, and other

objects of desire. Nor does the Self unite him who makes a car or

the like with the fruit of the act.' What is to be noted is

that 'karmaani' does not mean 'actions'; it means 'objects desired

by the karta'. The karta desires to enjoy something and hence

engages in the act of obtaining that object. The Lord says that the

Atman is neither the impeller of doership nor the impeller of

enjoyership. Such is the nature of the Atma. Then the question:

who indeed brings about the doership and enjoyership in the jiva?

The answer is 'sva-bhaava', prakriti, Maya of the nature of Avidya.

The subsequent verse, fifteenth, is even more 'hard-hitting'. In

reality, the Atma, the Lord, takes neither the evil nor even the

good deed of any.

..

The word 'PrabhuH' in the fourteenth verse is commented as Atma.

Anandagiri writes that 'because Atma is the Lord of the body,etc. (

ego,intellect, mind, sense organs etc.)'. Thereby the context is

made 'tight' inasmuch as what is spoken of in these verses is about

the nature of the Pure Consciousness, the subject matter of the

Jnana Yogi's contemplation. All the verses that follow the

fourteenth one till the end of this chapter are concerned with the

nature of Atman, the particular sadhana for the Jnana Yogi and the

Phalam, Liberation, the Jnana Yogi will be getting as a result of

following the sadhana.

To conclude, instead of seeing the verse as being contradictory to

the spirit of Karma yoga, it would help to see it as the culmination

of the proper practice of karma yoga. This is what I understood by

going through the chapter with the Acharya's invaluable Bhashyam. I

have just stated what this particular verse means and have not

addressed your question regarding Ishvara. Maybe others have

touched upon this aspect of your question.

Pranams,

subbu

March 19, 2006

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Om Tat Sat

> Namaste, I hope moderators won't mind if I rewind back to chapter

5

> for this email thread. Please refer to Gita 5:14

>

> na kartratvam na karmani lokasya srajati prabhuh

> na karmaphalasamyogam svabhavastu pravartate

>

> This verse seems to go contradictory to the

> spirit of Karma-yoga. Please help here.

>

> regards,

> Om Tat Sat

>

Namaste Mahadevji

Dear Mahadevji

May I supplement Chittaranjanji's and Subramanianji's replies to

your question?

Well. There are certain fundamentals not to be forgotten. There is a

local context and there is a global context. In interpreting a Gita

shloka both the contexts are relevant. The local context has been

recalled from Shankara Bhashya by Subramanian. The global context

has been explained well by Chittaranjan. I shall elaborate on the

global context a little further.

If one does one's duty in the spirit of yajna, the actions do not

bind one. This is karma yoga. You have yourself pointed this out.

The doing of this duty has to be accompanied by a philosophical

attitude of `Actionlessness'. This is the sum and substance of

Krishna's entire teaching.

If, instead of allowing one's mind to submit to the normal error

that the Jiva always makes, namely that of identification with the

BMI, if one uses one's intellect to deliberately remove that

identification of the Jiva with the BMI, then one is on the right

road to spiritual ascent. For, In the akshhara (Imperishable) He is

untouched, indifferent, regarding all equally, extended within all,

yet above all. In all these, He is the Lord, the Supreme IShvara

in the highest, the presiding and all-pervading impersonality. While

being the immanent Will and present act4e Lord in the kshhara, He is

free in the impersonality even while working out the play of his

personality. That is why He is able to say: Actions do not fix

themselves on me, nor have I any desire for the fruits of action (4-

14 first line). Works do not bind me, for I am seated as if

indifferent, unattached to these actions. (9 - 9). Therefore He

declares: Whoever sees that all action is verily done by prakRti

and that the Self is actionless, he sees. (13 - 29).The SvabhAva of

5-14 and this prakRti are the same.

Thus the Self is actionless. This is what is called Actionlessness.

This is a very important concept in the advaitic interpretation of

the Gita. It is not just a description in terms of the Lord but it

is, in the Gita, a goal (naishhkarmya-siddhi: perfection of

actionlessness -- 18-49)) to be aimed at by a spiritual aspirant.

That is how it becomes important for us. Though the actual

word `naishhkarmya' (actionlessness) occurs only two times in the

Gita, He refers to the concept very often during the whole

teaching. It is in fact the crowning glory of Karma yoga. Let us

come to it from the beginning.

In the very beginning of the Lord's teaching, right in the second

chapter (verse 19) Krishna enunciates the theory :

Whoever thinks of this (the Atman) as the slayer and whoever

considers this as slain, both of them do not know; Neither does this

slay nor is slain.

Of course one might say that this is a statement about the inact4e

Atman and therefore is understandable. It is interesting to note

that the same thing is being said in 18-17, though in an extremely

forceful way:

Whoever has the `I-am-not-the-doer' attitude, whoever has his

intellect unswayed (by anything that is transient), he, even after

slaying the entire world, is neither the slayer nor is bound (by the

action.)

The only change between 2-19 and 18-17 is that the latter talks of

the person (who has the `I-am-not-the-doer' feeling) and not of The

Atman! But our human weakness is such that we are able to

intellectually understand 2-19, whereas when it comes to 18-17, we

seem to have reservations. The whole purpose of the Gita is to bring

home the point that the person who has no `I-am-the-doer' feeling

is nothing but the akshara-purushha or the Atman.

The whole Gita is actually the passage from the Actionlessness of

theAtman (2-19) to the enlightened attitude of actionlessness of the

ind4idual (18-17). It is this change in attitude that restores to

the ind4idual the Happiness within. Throughout his talk Krishna is

never tired of repeating this in so many different ways.

To begin with, actionlessness is not non-action. Krishna

specifically warns us against this. (3-4) Actionlessness is not

achieved by not entering into action.

In fact this is the first time the word is used by Krishna. And He

cites his own example for this: (3-22). I have nothing to get done

in all the three worlds, nor anything to achieve that has not been

achieved. Still I am involved in action.

It is when he later talks of the creation of the varNa system, that

he first mentions His own actionlessness (4-13) By Me was created

the four varNas, in accordance with their GuNas and karma. Know Me

as its doer and know Me also as the imperishable non-doer.

He repeats this again in respect of His works of Creation and

Dissolution, in the ninth chapter. (9-9) Those works do not bind

Me. I sit, indifferent as it were, unattached to those actions.

So after the first mention of His actionlessness in the fourth

chapter, he recommends it to Arjuna also ("kuru karmaiva tasmAt-

tvaM" 4-15). It is at this point that He begins the topic of Action

and Inaction. And He begins it with a bang by making a really

puzzling profound statement that must be imprinted in gold ( 4 – 18):

Whoever sees inaction in action and action in inaction, he is the

wisest among men for he is the one in proper yoga and is the

performer of all actions.

I shall not eleaborate on this shloka now.

And Krishna continues: (4 – 19) "The wise consider him as the

learned one, who has all his actions extinguished by the fire of

jnAna and all whose endeavours are devoid of desire or will". The

fire of jnAna is the attitude of Actionlessness. So there is no

desire to obtain anything nor there is a will (ego) to claim the

action as one's doing. (4 – 20) "Having abandoned the attachment to

the fruits of actions ever content and not having any ephemeral

prop, even though he is involved in act4ities, he is actually not

doing anything". (4 -21) "He who has no desires to be fulfilled, who

has controlled his BMI, who has abandoned all possessive ideas and

does work only by his body, incurs no sin".

This is the recipe for `How to act'. It is explained further in the

next verse 4 -22: "Just content with what one gets in the normal

course of things, transcending all pairs of opposites, without envy

and with an equanimous view of both success and failure, though

acting, one is not bound".

All actions of all kinds culminate in jnAna, says Krishna (4 – 33 –

second line). Because, jnAna implies actionlessness. And for the

same reason, the following verses also make sense:

Even if you are the most sinful of all sinners, you will cross sin

by the raft of jnAna (through the attitude of ationlessness).

As the blazing fire reduces fuel to ashes so does the fire of jnAna

reduce all actions to ashes.

`All actions' (sarva-karmANi) here should be meant to include all

three kinds of karma – prArabdha, samcita and AgAmi.

Actions do not bind him who has laid all his actions at the altar of

yoga (by the yajna methodology), whose doubts have all been cleared

by right knowledge and who lives ever in unison with the akshhara-

purushha (4 – 41).

He who is yoked to the path of yoga, whose mind is quite pure, who

has controlled his outer self and his senses and who realises his

own self as the self in all beings – such a one, though acting, is

not tainted (by the action) (5 – 7).

How he would act is described dramatically in slow motion in the

next four verses:

"I do nothing at all" – thus would the enlightened yogI think –

seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping,

breathing, speaking, answering nature's calls, grabbing, opening the

eyes and closing the eyes; all the time convinced that it is the

senses that move amidst the sense-objects.

He who does actions, offering them to Brahman, abandoning all

attachment, is not tainted by sin, as a lotus leaf is untainted by

water on it.

This analogy of "water on a lotus leaf" is a well-understood analogy

in the culture of the length and breadth of India, because it is

blended into the ethos of the country's spiritual heritage. The

origin of this analogy is this Gita verse.

Abandoning all attachment, the yogI performs actions only with the

body mind intellect and even by the senses -- all this for the

purification of his BMI.

"Atma-shuddhaye" – for the purification of the self. Here the self

is the outer self, the BMI. The real Self, the Atman, needs no

purification because it is pure. So when Krishna says "Atma-

shuddhaye" he means the purification of the BMI which results

naturally in the kshhara-purushha shedding off its wrong

identification. So in this sense one can say we are purifying the

kshhara-purushha itself by such actionless action!

So Krishna goes on to say: (5 – 13) Mentally renouncing all actions

and remaining self-controlled, the embodied one rests happily in the

nine-gated city, neither acting nor causing action. And this is

where your shloka 5-14 comes. And again, (13 – 31) Being without

beginning and devoid of all attributes, the Supreme Self, the

Imperishable, though dwelling in the body, neither acts, nor is

tainted.

And now we come to the eighteenth chapter, where `Action' per se, is

analysed.

18-13 Learn from Me, these five causes that are declared in the

Sankhya system for the accomplishment of all actions .

18-14,15 The base (body), the doer, the various senses, the

different functions of various sorts, and the presiding deity as the

fifth. Whatever action a man performs with his body, speech and

mind, whether right or otherwise, these five are its causes.

Note that the doer (kartA) here is the kshhara-purushha (that is,

the jiva who has identified with the BMI). And that is why Krishna

continues:

18-16 Such being the case, he who, by mistaken understanding, looks

upon his Self, which is isolated, as the doer, sees not; he is of

perverted intelligence.

And now comes the crucial shloka 18-17. So when the "I-am-not-the-

doer" feeling is there, the action touches only the doer, who is now

the BMI only; because the "I-am-not-the-doer" attitude is equivalent

to an identification with the akshhara, so that there is only the

BMI who is doing e5erything, (cf.5-11). Or one can say that PrakRti

is doing e5erything (3-27 and (13-29). In any case the doer is not

the "I".

Having established who the doer is, Krishna now winds up, first by

talking about a kshhatriya's s5adharma and tops the argument by four

5erses 45 to 48 of the 18th chapter In essence He says:

Each and every person can reach God by doing his own duty well. Each

person can become perfect by doing his duty. It is better to do

one's own duty instead of someone else's greater job. No one should

g4e up one's duty even though one doesn't like it or one does not

agree with it.

And the theory of "Actionlessness" applies not only when one finds

it difficult to do his duty (as Arjuna found) but all the time.

Krishna sums it up all in that one verse, the last in the series on

Actionlessness:

18-49 He whose intellect is unattached everywhere, who has subdued

his self, empty of desire – he, by renunciation, attains the

supreme perfection of Actionlessness.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

March 19, 2006

Om Tat Sat

Namaste to all, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitide for the

excellent and elaborate answers provided to me. I will have to study

all replies carefully since I am trying to learn the ABC of Vedanta .

May I ask one last thing. I know that this again is kind of a

controversial issue but I will ask. What is the difference between

Atman and Ishvara ? In one of the lectures of Swami Parmarthananda-ji

(www.yogamalika.org), he says even Ishvara is endowed with Sattva

qualities and Atman is pure awareness, totally devoid of qualities.

Ishvara to me is pretty much a synonym for Brahman. In one of the

first Advaita sadhana postings of Prof VK, the Mahaswamigal said Atma-

jnana can only be achieved by the grace of Ishvara (I don't have the

exact reference). Who else but Atman can still and calm my mind ? That

Atman itself is Ishvara to me.

thanks and best regards,

Om Tat Sat

March 19, 2006

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Om Tat Sat

> Namaste to all, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitide for the

> excellent and elaborate answers provided to me. I will have to

study

> all replies carefully since I am trying to learn the ABC of

Vedanta .

>

> May I ask one last thing. I know that this again is kind of a

> controversial issue but I will ask. What is the difference between

> Atman and Ishvara ? In one of the lectures of Swami Parmarthananda-

ji

> (www.yogamalika.org), he says even Ishvara is endowed with Sattva

> qualities and Atman is pure awareness, totally devoid of

qualities.

> Ishvara to me is pretty much a synonym for Brahman. In one of the

> first Advaita sadhana postings of Prof VK, the Mahaswamigal said

Atma-

> jnana can only be achieved by the grace of Ishvara (I don't have

the

> exact reference). Who else but Atman can still and calm my mind ?

That

> Atman itself is Ishvara to me.

>

> thanks and best regards,

> Om Tat Sat

>

Namaste Mahadevji,

Brahman is nirguNa, attributeless; is not the predicate of

anything, cannot be pointed at, is neither this nor that – and thus

it goes on.

So there is no way of `worshipping' it. No, we cannot even talk

about that except by giving it a name, though not a form. Therefore

Upanishads give it a name `tat', just for purposes of referring to

it and to say that `tat' has no attributes.

But our intellect wants to do something with the Almighty Supreme. A

worship, a prayer, a meditation, an offering or whatever. All these

involve a duality of the worshipper and the worshipped. The moment

we think of Brahman as an object of worship or prayer or meditation,

im mediately, the concept of brahman is jeopardized. Thus the

intellect has created brahman with attributes – a saguna brahman.

The very fact that our intellect has come in the picture implies

that mAyA has done its job. It is mAyA's effect that there is an

intellect and we begin to think of objects through our intellect.

Thus Brahman, with the upAdhi (impact, coating, influence,

superposition, covering, conditioning, ... - - choose your word)

of mAyA, is called saguNa brahman. You can go on debating now

whether we (through our intellect) created the saguna brahman or

whether it is somewhere there, if not an object, as a subject. That

question is neither relevant now, nor will it take us anywhere.

That saguNa brahman is the Ishvara. Now Ishvara has all the

superlative qualities that any religion associates with Almighty

God. But mAyA did not create Ishvara. It is Ishvara that created

the mAyA. MayA is in His control. It is like a snake having poison

but is never affected by its poison. Ishvara is not affected by His

mAyA.

On the other hand, the spark of brahman which is the core essence of

beings,(jIva-bhUtAM) is the creation of mAyA. So all jIvas are under

the influence of mAyA. To get out of this mAyA we need the Grace of

that Ishvara, who, by His magic wand, can take us out of the grip of

mAyA.

Thus Brahman and Ishvara are the same, except for the way we look at

them. If we don't look for brahman, but knowing we are brahman, if

we `are' brahman, then there is nothing more to say or do. `aham

brahma asmi'. Period.

On the other hand, if we want to look `at' brahman in some way or

other, already we have made brahman an object and thus it is already

only the saguna-brahman that we are talking about. So we can `look

at' it, we can meditate on it, we can aspire to `reach' it and all

that sort of thing.

Jiva on the other hand, so long as it is in the grip of mAyA, is

separate from brahman and also separate from other jIvas. Once it

transcends mAyA, it is brahman. This is the jIva-brahma aikyam that

advaita keeps trumpeting to us. When jIva identifies itself with

brahman there is no need to bring in an Ishvara now; because the

very identification of jIva with brahman already includes the

identification of brahman and Ishvara – because the identification

itself is something which transcends the mAyA. So the upAdhi of mAya

is gone from both jIva and Ishvara.

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

March 20, 2006

Namaste All;

One realization dawned on me this past few days. Instead of trying to

relate the self to the world, whereas trying to encompass the world as

part of the inner origin constantly contemplated upon and reflected in

daily life or otherwise, it seems to make a lot more sense, and to

take a lot less effort, to simply understand the mind as part of the

things of the world.

In other words, instead of trying to deal with actions caused by the

world (which demands action from the standpoint of the mind) while

simultaneously trying to grasp the meaning of the cause as the world

(which is anirvachanya), shifting focus to mind appears as a shortcut

(since mind has a beginning and an end). Contemplating on the mind as

something pertaining exclusively to the world, being outside, as

opposed to being an attribute, resembles a sharper shift in focus to

actionlesness.

My warmest regards...

March 20, 2006

"mahadevadvaita" wrote