For Brother, Avinash

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

After reading your response, I was looking for some explanations of this shloka. I found this one (by Mr. Swami Sivananda) to be closest to what the words apparently imply:

 

Actionlessness (Naishkarmyam) and perfection (Siddhi) are synonymous. The sage who has attained to perfection or reached the state of actionlessness rests in his own essential nature as Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute (Satchidananda Svarupa). He has neither necessity nor desire for action as a means to an end. He has perfect satisfaction in the Self.

One attains to the state of actionlessness by gaining the knowledge of the Self. If a man simply sits quiet by abandoning action you cannot say that he has attained to the state of actionlessness. His mind will be planning, scheming and speculating. Thought is real action. The sage who is free from affirmative thoughts, wishes, and likes and dislikes, who has the knowledge of the Self can be said to have attained to the state of actionlessness.

No one can reach perfection or freedom from action or knowledge of the Self by mere renunciation or by simply giving up activities without possessing the knowledge of the Self. (Cf.XVIII.49).

Do you not consider this to be correct?

[Avinash]

Yes, I agree with that explanation. But I would like to make some remark on the usage of the word actionlessness. It may seem as if the word means not performing any activity. But, as Sivananda has clarified, this is not the exact meaning because even though, to an outside appearance, it may seem that a person is not performing any activity, he is not really in the state of actionlessness. Swami Sivananda talks of thought. His explanation is supported by Gita verse 3.6, which talks about thought on various objects.

 

The word actionlessness means the kind of action which will not result in any reaction (i.e. result), which will put us in any bondage. The verse 4.18 talks about someone who sees action in inaction and inaction in action. This may seem impossible. After all, action and inaction are contradictory. So, how can there be action in inaction and inaction in action. The explanation is that the word action has been used in the shloka two times. It meanings in the two places are different. Also, the meanings of the word inaction in the two places are different.

 

In the phrase "action in inaction", action means the action that binds us and inaction means not performing any activity to an outside appearance i.e. just being idle, keeping quite or sleeping. In the phrase "inaction in action", inaction means action that does not bind us and action means performing activities to an outside appearance. Now, the meaning becomes clear.

You may ask as to why such words have been used, which can have dubious meanings. I can explain this by giving an analogy. You might have heard the statement, "A lie which is told for good cause is not a lie." But how can it be? How can lie not be a lie? The explanation, as you know, is that the word lie used in the two places does not have exactly the same meaning. In the first occurence, the meaning is "opposite of some fact". In the second occurence, the meaning is "telling opposite of some fact for a bad cause".

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

This is with reference to BG 3.27, which says:

 

"The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature"

 

Can you please explain what is meant by the 'three modes of material nature'?

[Avinash]

 

Can you please explain what is meant by the 'three modes of material nature'?

The three modes are satva, rajas and tamas translated respectively as mode of goodness, mode of passion and mode of ignorance. When we perform any activity, it is one or a combination of these three modes.

Mode of goodness is the best among these. In this a person is peaceful, happy, makes others happy and is contented. In mode of passion, he is restless. In mode of ignorance, he considers what is bad to be good and strives for that.

[imranhasan]

Thank you brother Avinash,

 

Does this mean that the concept of goodness, passion and ignorance are related to the physical body and not to the soul?

[Avinash]

Does this mean that the concept of goodness, passion and ignorance are related to the physical body and not to the soul?

Yes, these are related to body. Though, out of ignorance, an individual soul identifies itself with the body and thinks itself as the doer of sattvic(goodness)/rajasic(passion)/tamasic(ignorance) actions.

[imranhasan]

 

Yes, these are related to body. Though, out of ignorance, an individual soul identifies itself with the body and thinks itself as the doer of sattvic(goodness)/rajasic(passion)/tamasic(ignorance) actions.

Does this mean that whatever wrongs committed by a person are committed by the body and not by the soul? Is all the blame to be placed on the body? Are the decisions for right and wrong taken by the body and not the soul?

[Avinash]

Body without soul is inert and cannot take any decision. It is the soul that takes decision and uses body. As an example, suppose I use a hammer to hit a nail, then I am directly not touching the nail but I am using the hammer. In the same sense soul uses body. One question can be asked. Even if I use a hammer, people will say that I hit a nail. Likewise, if soul uses body, why can't we say that it is the soul which is doing something? Why does Gita say that soul is non-doer? This is because even if I say that I hit a nail (when I am using a hammer), I know that I am using a hammer and that I am not the hammer. But when people use their body to do something, then they say that they did it. They mean that they are body. We do not identify ourselves with hammer. But we do identify ourselves with body. Lord Krsna is warning against this identification.

[imranhasan]

Thank you My brother Avinash,

 

Brother, I am still not clear with this explanation. Let me ask you a direct question. When a person sins, is it the soul that is being sinful or the body? Is it the sould that would require cleansing or is it the body?

[Avinash]

It is the soul that sins. The soul sins with the help of body and because of its identification with the body.

 

Note:- I think this question of yours is far more important than any of the questions that you have asked so far. This is because this question is relevant to many of Gita verses that you will read further. As you read further, you may have further doubts on this topic (as I had once) and some parts of Gita may even seem inconsistent. However, rather than trying to clarify all those doubts now, I think it is better to clarify as and when those doubts arise.

[Guest guest]

Regarding difference between body and soul.

 

The way I understand the difference between body and soul is by making use of the analagy of the driver and the motor car.

The car is the body and the driver is the soul.

If you kill someone with your car will the police put the car or the driver

in jail??

 

Similarily if you as the driver of the body use the body to cause harm you as the driver (soul) is held accountable.

 

Thank You for allowing my interruption please do continue with your conversation. I find the conversation between You and Brother Imran very interesting.

 

Hare Krsna and God Bless you both

[imranhasan]

I am sorry for such a long break, brother. I was very indisposed and could not even come to read the forums.

 

Today, I had to recollect the point at which we had reached in the Gita. The last verse, I had posted my question was 3.5. I had asked you about the three modes of material nature. Allow me to summarize the results of the discussion that ensued:

 

 

• The three modes of material nature are goodness, passion and ignorance, all human activity falls within the framework of any one or a combination of these three modes;
  
• This means that the concept of goodness, passion and ignorance are related to the physical body not to the soul.

These are the two points that I have understood, however, subsequently, you say that when a man sins, it is not his body, but his soul that sins and, as a result, his soul will have to pay for the sins.

 

My question is, if goodness, passion and ignorance are concepts related to the material body, then how do we say that the soul sins. The soul would only have been responsible for actions, if the concepts of goodness, passion and ignorance were related to the soul and not to the human body.

 

May be, when you say that the three modes of goodness, passion and ignorance are related to the physical body, you mean something other than what I am interpreting.

 

Please do clarify.

[theist]

Bump to top. What a pleasure it is to listen in on this conversation. Two gentlemen discussing Bhagavad-gita. One questioning intelligently and one answering intelligently.

 

I hope it proceeds just as it has been going. It seemed to be about to drop off the board but I won't let it.

[Avinash]

 

My question is, if goodness, passion and ignorance are concepts related to the material body, then how do we say that the soul sins. The soul would only have been responsible for actions, if the concepts of goodness, passion and ignorance were related to the soul and not to the human body.

 

May be, when you say that the three modes of goodness, passion and ignorance are related to the physical body, you mean something other than what I am interpreting.

 

Perhaps the word 'related' is not very precise as two things can be said to be related or not related depending on what kind of relation we are trying to find between them. So, let me use precisely what Krsna says. I think it will be best to take Krsna's statement directly from Gita as this is what we are discussing.

The statement "actions whether of goodness, passion or ignorance are not related to the body" has two meanings. Let me discuss the first of these.

 

As you proceed with Gita, you will find that Lord Krsna often suggests Arjuna to consider himself as non-doer. Or, in other words, soul is non-doer. But, is soul really non-doer? For answering this, I will borrow the excellent analogy given by one poster. He gave the analogy of driver and car. If I am driving a car and I hit someone with that car, then is it correct to say that I hit him or should we say my car hit him? Both are considered to be correct as in our conversation we make both kinds of statements.

 

Similarly, it is the soul that drives the body. So, when we perform some actions (whether of goodness, passion, or ignorance), then we can say we did it or we can say our body did it.

 

If this is so, then why does Krsna say that soul is non-doer? There are two reasons for it.

 

One reason is to help us reduce our identification with body. When I say that I hit someone, I know I am not my car. But if I perform some actions using my body and I say that I did it or if some thing happens to my body (e.g. some disease), then I think as if I am my body. If I keep reminding myself "not I but the body, not I but the body", then I am reminding myself of the distinction between myself and my body. So, this is one reason to attribute goodness, passion, ignorance to body, viz., to remind distinction between oneself and one's body.

 

I mentioned that there are two meanings. I have described the first. Now, let me come to the second.

 

In one post, I mentioned that the word 'actionlessness' as used in Gita means the kind of action which will not result in any reaction (i.e. result), which will put us in any bondage. In the same way, soul is non-doer in the sense that whatever soul does through body, the results affect body and not the soul directly. To explain this, let me again take the example of driver and car.

 

Let us assume that if I do something bad with my car, then I will not be beaten, will not be put in jail etc. But rather my car will be damaged. Or, may be my car will be destroyed or taken away from me and I will be given another car of a poorer quality. Also assume that if I do something good using my car, then something good will be done to my car or may be when my car is no longer of any use, then I am given a better quality car.

 

In one sense, this has affected me because this will make me happy or sad. However, nothing has happened to me directly. Likewise, nothing happens to soul directly. When soul performs some good or bad action, then it is the body that is affected. When we die, then we get another body and the kind of body that we get and the situations that we are in depend on what we did in our precious lives. Because of attachment with the body, soul often thinks that something good or bad has happened to it. But, no change has happened to the soul directly. In its purest form, soul is always the same. In this sense soul is actionless or non-doer.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother Avinash

 

You write:

 

 

One reason is to help us reduce our identification with body.

 

Why is it required to reduce identification with body?

 

 

When I say that I hit someone, I know I am not my car. But if I perform some actions using my body and I say that I did it or if some thing happens to my body (e.g. some disease), then I think as if I am my body.

 

Continuing with the example of the car. Suppose, I was driving your car and I hit someone with that car. Now, in this case, you are not going to say 'I hit someone', merely because your car hit someone and I cannot avoid saying that 'I hit someone', merely because it was your car with which I hit someone. It is clearly the driver's fault and the ascription of hitting will always be made to the driver, knowing that the car cannot and does not operate on its own. This is obviously based on the principle of responsibility or control.

 

If one were to hit and kill another person with a hammer, how can one plead that the hammer killed the person and, therefore, I should not be punished for it?

 

If the body is truly a tool, as you say and if the soul is truly the driver of this tool, then how can we say that the actions are performed by the body and not the soul? How can we even say that the body acted in ignorance or goodness or passion? Does the car act in passion when a speeding driver crushes an old woman passing the road?

 

To sum it up, what I still fail to understand is:

 

If the body is only a tool and the soul is the driver of this tool and if the body cannot perform anything without the soul and if the soul is controling every conscious action of the body, only then the responsibility of action should be on the soul and not on the body, as you say that it is. In this case, I can understand someone saying that the soul acts under the influence of passion or goodness or ignorance or under varying combinations of these qualities, but, if the body and soul are, what you say they are, then I cannot understand if someone says that the soul does not act, it is the body that acts under the influence of the three modes of physical existence. In my mind, it would be like saying that the driver did not do anything, it was the car that acted under the influence of passion (of speeding).

 

I hope this will clarify the question in my mind.

 

Thank you and God bless you.

[Avinash]

Identification with body means considering oneself as the same as the body. It is needed for soul to reduce identification with body because soul is not body. Suppose I am wearing a clothe and I start thinking that I am that clothe, then I am identifying myself with my clothe. This identification is wrong because I am not my clothe. Likewise identification of soul with body is wrong because soul is not body.

Soul drives body and therefore soul should be responsible for anything done with the body. It is the soul that should be held responsible and should be awarded or punished. I agree with this and the answer is that the soul is indeed rewarded and punished. But these rewards and punishments are different from the rewards and punishments offered to the driver of a car. If, as a driver of a car, I hit someone with that car, then I may be beaten up. So, the punishment affects me directly.

But, in case of soul and body, whatever good and bad we do using our bodies do not make any changes in soul. Rather, in our next birth we will be given bodies depending on whatever actions we perform in this birth. But, is this a reward/punishment for soul? The answer is yes because body is important for soul. So, if a soul is given good body in the next birth, then the soul has been rewarded. If it is given bad body in the next birth, then it has been punished. Soul being driver of body should be rewarded/punished for any acts done by the body and indeed it is rewarded/punished. But the rewards and punishments are such that these do not make changes in the soul but in the body.

Depending on how we look at it, we can say that goodness/passion/ignorance are related to body or we can say that these are related to soul. As per Gita, these are related to body in the sense that the results of our actions make changes in the body that a soul gets and not in the soul itself. It is in this sense that soul is actionless or non-doer.

I can understand that the way we commonly us the words action, actionless, doer/non-doer, the sold should be called as doer as it drives body. But, I have tried to explain what is meant by non-doer in Gita. The result is that the results of our actions make no change in soul.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

 

 

Identification with body means considering oneself as the same as the body. It is needed for soul to reduce identification with body because soul is not body. Suppose I am wearing a clothe and I start thinking that I am that clothe, then I am identifying myself with my clothe. This identification is wrong because I am not my clothe. Likewise identification of soul with body is wrong because soul is not body.

 

I get your point. But, forgive me for asking, what practical difference would it make if one were not making this distinction and were mistakenly identifying the body with the soul?

 

 

Depending on how we look at it, we can say that goodness/passion/ignorance are related to body or we can say that these are related to soul.

 

This is precisely what I do not understand. What is the way of looking, that would place these conditions in the body, rather than the soul.

 

Brother, I understand (and please correct me where I am wrong):

 

 

• The body is a tool assigned to the soul, the soul is the controller of the body;
  
• The body does what the soul makes it do;
  
• Thus the soul is responsible for its actions and should be rewarded and punished accordingly (however it may be)

The foregoing is what we agree on.

 

Now, if someone were to say that the body is not responsible for its actions or that the body acts under the influence of the soul or even that the soul can be acting under the influence of ignorance or passion or goodness, it would corroborate with the above and would raise no questions in the mind. However, in contrast, if one were to say that the soul does not act but is only doing things under the influence of the body, this would make the body responsible. It would clearly be like saying that the driver does not drive, but only acts under the various conditions of the motor vehicle. If this is true, then the very premise of the driver (or the soul) being responsible is refuted. In this case, the driver is no longer responsible and, therefore, it is the body that deserves punishment and that too only if these conditions are opted by the body.

 

I understand how we can say that the conditions of passion, ignorance and goodness are related to the soul. Now, can you please explain how do we look at it to say that the conditions of passion, goodness and ignorance are related to the body, and not the soul?

 

Thank you.

[Avinash]

Body is destroyed but soul never dies. If we identify soul with body, then we will start thinking that soul dies when body dies. This thinking, in turn, will result in various other thoughts, which are contradictory to what Gita teaches.

 

Now, let me try to explain what Gita means by calling soul as 'non-doer'. In other words, what Gita means by saying that 'goodness, passion, and ignorance' are related to body.

 

Problems often happen in translating from one language into another. Gita uses a word 'karma', the closest word to which in English is 'action'. Gita uses another word 'akarma'. The prefix 'a' is used in Sanskrit to mean negation. Thus akarma should mean 'non-action' or 'actionlessness'. Gita uses a word 'karmic', which is often translated as 'doer'. So 'akarmic' should mean 'non-doer'. But 'karma', as used in Gita', does not mean any action even though this word is often translated as 'action'. The actual meaning of this word is 'action that has results, which affect us'.

 

Gita uses the words which have been translated as 'actionless' and 'non-doer'. In Gita (and also other scriptures of Hinduism), these words have been used in the sense of results. So, if I perform some actions which do not result in any kind of bondage for me, then I am actionless. Likewise, if I do some things, which will not affect me directly, then I am non-doer. It is true that these meanings are not the meanings that we use in our day-to-day correspondence when we use words 'actionless', 'non-doer'. But, these are the meanings used in Gita.

 

As per the commonly used meanings of the word doer, soul is indeed the doer. But, in sense of Gita it is non-doer or 'akarmic' because the results of actions make changes in the existing body or because of results of actions, a soul gets another body in a birth and the kind of body depends on what actions the soul performed in previous births.

 

Since no change is made in soul directly, therefore Gita says that soul is non-doer. No matter whatever one does, soul always remains the same.

[imranhasan]

 

But 'karma', as used in Gita', does not mean any action even though this word is often translated as 'action'. The actual meaning of this word is 'action that has results, which affect us'.

... So, if I perform some actions which do not result in any kind of bondage for me, then I am actionless. Likewise, if I do some things, which will not affect me directly, then I am non-doer.

 

I see. So if i were to do a job for the purpose of making a living, i'd be 'karmic' and if i were doing a job only for the purpose of earniing God's pleasures, then I would 'akarmic'. Correct?

 

Hopefully, I understand now.

 

 

Since no change is made in soul directly, therefore Gita says that soul is non-doer. No matter whatever one does, soul always remains the same.

 

Just a point of clarification, if one does something for the purpose of getting rewards for the soul (for instance getting freedom) or for getting into God's kingdom, would that not make the actions karmic?

[Avinash]

Doing any act which makes one come back to this world and not get liberated makes one karmic. In this sense, desiring to be in God's abode does not make one karmic.

So far making living is concerned, it is a must to make some living so long one is in this world. But making living makes one karmic if one is attached to the results of whatever actions one performs to make a living. The meaning of "attached to the results" is as we have discussed earlier (in the post titled 'Yes, that is true' in page 2 of this thread and some of subsequent posts).

 

Doing anything for the purpose of getting liberation is not being karmic as karmic means doing things that will bring one back to this world and liberation is just opposite to this.

[sumedh]

Pranams

 

Not meaning to obstruct the flow of discussion, i shall just add something...

 

There is another sense in which the soul is the non-doer. The soul (as well as the material energy) eternally depend on God and have no independent existence. In BG 3.27 Lord Krsna says that the actions are actually carried out by the material nature (which in turn depends on God) though the desire to do an action arises from the soul, but a conditioned soul mistakenly thinks that he is performing that action.

[Avinash]

 

BG 3.27 Lord Krsna says that the actions are actually carried out by the material nature (which in turn depends on God) though the desire to do an action arises from the soul, but a conditioned soul mistakenly thinks that he is performing that action.

 

I agree. Actions are carried out by material nature. But I did not explicitly mention this because Imran was asking questions related to soul being driver. His question was as to how soul should not be called as non-doer even though it is because of soul that body works. If I had mentioned material nature (or to put it more simply material energy of Krsna), then the question would have been "Why should soul be called non-doer if the desire to perform an action arises in soul and it is because of this desire that some action is carried out by material nature?"

 

In Gita 4.13 Lord Krsna says, "According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me. And, although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable. "

 

Please note the word "non-doer, being unchangeable". Nothing can happen if Krsna wants it not to happen. But still He calls Himself as non-doer. Why? Because He remains unchanged. This is why I focussed in soul being unchanged.

 

While answering Imran's question, I am trying to make sure that my answers are compatible with whatever he has read so far in Gita and also with what he will read in further verses in Gita.

[imranhasan]

Dear brother, I am sorry to take you back a few shlokas. While trying to summarize whatever I have read thus far, the following once again caught my eye:

 

 

2.16: Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change.

 

Just wanted to know why the material body is called non-existent? Also, 'the non-existent has no endurance' seems to be self refuting. It is like saying the one who is never born will not survive. How do we understand this?

[Avinash]

 

Just wanted to know why the material body is called non-existent? Also, 'the non-existent has no endurance' seems to be self refuting. It is like saying the one who is never born will not survive. How do we understand this?

 

The verse uses the world asat and sat. Asat means non-existent and sat means existent. Body is asat and soul is sat. But this leads to a confusion. How can we call body as non-existent when we know that it exists?

 

The confuses arises because the scriptures of Hinduism use the word 'asat' i.e. non-existent for something, which can become non-existent at some time, though it may not necessarily be non-existent now. In other words the scriptures call temporary as non-existent. They call permanent as existent. (I have read the same thing in Buddhism religion as well).

But why is it that the scriptures call temporary as non-existent? There are two reaons.

 

The first reason can be explained by noticing what happens during some illusion. Sometimes it happens that we are alone in a room at night and the lights are switched off. We feel that there is somebody else in that room. We switch on the light and find that we are alone. We find that we just saw some object and felt it to be another person. We conclude that it was our illusion. But it is interesting to note that during the time we had that illusion, we really felt that to be real. We felt that somebody else really existed in the room. But, since in just a short time, we realise that we are alone in the room, we say that our perception of somebody else in the room was an illusion. Or, that somebody else is non-existent.

 

So, this is the difference between reality (really existent) and illusion (i.e.something perceived to be existent but non-existent in reality) . An illusion is something that we perceive for a very short time. In Modern Physics also this definition of illusion i.e. non-real or virtual is used. Virtual particles are called as virtual not because they do not exist in reality but because they come into existence and disappear in a very short time.

 

In our day to day life we do not call things that we see around us because we are concerned only with things in our life-time. But scriptures consider not only current life-time, but also the time before this life-time and after. Under that consideration, the duration of a life-time is a very short duration and anything that exists for this short duration is said to be illusion i.e. non existing in reality i.e. non-existent.

 

So, scriptures also use similar concept of non-existent as we do in our daily life, but the difference is that the scriptures stretch this concept.

 

The second reason is that the scriptures use "existent" to mean "independently existent" i.e. something that can be perceived to be existent without recourse to anything else. Consider a clay pot. The pot is not perceived independent of clay. No clay, no clay pot. As per definition adopted in scriptures, the clay pot is non-existent. When body dies, then after many years it becomes a part of earth because body is made up of things found in earth. In that sense body is non-existent. If we think along these lines, we will find that anything non-permanent is non-existent.

 

So, what the verse means is:- The seers of truth have studied the nature of both material body and soul. They have concluded that material body is non-existent (temporary) and hence will not endure for ever. The soul is existent (permanent) and hence will never cease to be.

 

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

I am sorry, but I do not understand this explanation.

 

You write:

 

 

An illusion is something that we perceive for a very short time.

 

It is not the length of time that makes something an illusion. On the contrary, it is the subject's unreal nature that makes it an illusion. However short the time for which the body exists, it cannot be said to be non-existent, while it exists. Obviously, one may live a whole lifetime with an illusion, yet it would remain non-existent. As you have very correctly explained it as "i.e.something perceived to be existent but non-existent in reality".

 

You write:

 

 

Under that consideration, the duration of a life-time is a very short duration and anything that exists for this short duration is said to be illusion i.e. non existing in reality i.e. non-existent.

 

I really don't understand this. An Illusion is quite different than real existence, even if it is for an iota of a second. How can we call real existence to be an illusion or non-existent, merely because that existence is for a short time only?

 

As for the second reason, can you please explain how we understand that? If that is what the scripture actually means by 'existent', then why does it not use the phrase 'independently existent'. Is there no word for 'independently existent' in the language of the scripture? Secondly, the opposite of independently existent is not 'non-existent', but 'dependently existent'. Why then use the phrase 'non-existent' for not independently existent?

 

You wrtie:

 

 

They have concluded that material body is non-existent (temporary) and hence will not endure for ever.

 

"non-existent" or "temporary"? If it is temporary, then the explanation 'hence will not endure for ever' is redundant, as that is precisely what temporary means. If it is 'non-existent', then the explanation 'hence will not endure for ever' is contradictory, as something that does not exist and never will exist, endures to not exist.

 

I hope, I could make myself clear.