UB: श्रीभगवान् उवाच ।

इमं विवस्वते योगं प्रोक्तवान् अहमव्ययम् । विवस्वान् मनवे प्राहमनुरिक्ष्वाकवेऽब्रवीत्॥४.१॥

श्रीभगवान् उवाच: I (अहम्) taught (प्रोक्तवान्) this (इमम्) imperishable (अव्ययम्) yoga (योगम्) to विवस्वान्  (विवस्वते), विवस्वान्  taught (प्राह) it to मनु  (मनवे) and मनु taught (अब्रवीत्) it to इक्ष्वाकु (इक्ष्वाकवे).

UB: अध्याय name is ज्ञानकर्मसंयास योग

विवस्वान् means the Sun and श्रीकृष्ण says that he taught the original कर्मयोग to the Sun itself. For someone wanting a live example of कर्मयोग, one needs to look no farther than the Sun. It does not show favouritism to anyone and shares its glory with all. It works 24X7 relentlessly without a pause and its glory never ebbs any day. What does it get as a result? Nothing. Earth and other planets are derived from the Sun; life on Earth is sustained by the Sun. We eat Sunshine in sugar and bread, burn sunshine of millions of years ago in coal and oil, wear

HB: When I read the shloka today after a break , the world felt just right. Cheers to chapter 4

UB: परम्पराप्राप्तमिमं राजर्षयो विदुः । स कालेनेह  महता योगो नष्टः परन्तप॥४.२॥

Handed down from generation to generation (परम्पराप्राप्तम्) in this way (एवम्), the kings who were sages (राजर्षयः) know (विदुः) it (इमम्). (But) with the long (महता) lapse of time (कालेन), O Arjuna (परन्तप), this (सः) yoga (योगः) has declined (नष्टः) in the world (इह).

UB: 4:2 (1): जनक, मनु, etc followed the life of a राजर्षि. राज means a king who rules and has power. All of us have access to power in some situation or another. While we thus may have acquired राजत्व, question is whether we can claim to be a राजर्षि.  राजर्षि is one who is able to digest power and remain same instead of power digesting him. A verse from महाभारत is pertinent here:

विद्यामदो धन मद: तृतीयो  अभिजानो मद:। इति मद अवलिप्तानम् इतैव सताम् दम:।।

विद्या is a मद (intoxicant), so is धन and family pedigree. These are however मद only for अवलिप्तानम् (unrefined people) but these are दम (self control) for the great minded. While power digests most people but a ऋषि on the other hand is able to digest these powers and rule.

UB: 4:2 (2): Then श्रीकृष्ण adds that over time, the ज्ञान of कर्मयोग keeps ebbing. So what He is doing now is to reconvey the same ज्ञान to अर्जुन which he had instilled into the Sun right at the start. We witness the same ebbing in our history when ज्ञान of the Gita which powered the Golden era in India of the गुप्त kings again ebbed by the time of हर्ष. Then came शंकर to revive this ideal; then it ebbed again and came रामानुज to revive it. Then it ebbed again and came गुरु नानक/ नामदेव/ ज्ञानेश्वर. Then it ebbed again and came एकनाथ/ तुकाराम्/ वल्लभ. Then it ebbed again and came विवेकानंद and गांधी. The beauty is that each of them revive the society not by coming out with any new innovative ज्ञान but they merely remind people of the great धर्म of कर्मयोग from the Gita. The wheel of धर्म that slows down is merely pushed again by sharing the कर्मयोग teachings. Time changes but the teaching remains the same eternal ज्ञान of कर्मयोग.

UB: स एवायं मया तेऽद्य योगः प्रोक्तः पुरातनः । भक्तोऽसि मे सखा चेति रहस्यंह्येतदुत्तमम् ॥४.३॥

Today (अद्य), that same (सः एवअयम्) ancient (पुरातनः) yoga  (योगः) has been told (प्रोक्तः) to you (ते) by me (मया) because (इति) you are (असि) my devotee (भक्तः)  and (च)  my  (मे) friend (सखा). This (एतत्) is indeed (हि) a profound  (उत्तमम्) secret (रहस्यम्).

UB: 4/3 (1) – भगवान्‌ reveals this ancient ज्ञान of कर्मयोग to one who is his भक्त or one who regards Him as a सखा. Before the war, when संजय went over to the पांडव शिबिर, he saw अर्जुन sitting with his legs stretched on lap of श्रीकृष्ण and श्रीकृष्ण pressing his legs in a friendly way. संजय came back to धृतराष्ट्र and told him that if श्रीकृष्ण allows certain people to place their legs on Him and He also enjoys this, it became clear to him that पांडव will win the war.

UB: 4/3 (2) – Why is कर्मयोग ज्ञान referred to as a रहस्यम् उत्तमम् (profound/ highest secret)? This ज्ञान is रहस्यम् not because it has to be kept away from people. Instead, the सथूल minds full of काम cannot understand कर्मयोग. They are too full of मद to make sense of it. However, when minds become सूक्ष्म through practices like दम, शम,अहिंसा, etc., they acquire भक्ति and thus are able to look at श्रीकृष्ण/ परम् as their सखा. With this, the process of चित्त शुद्धि begins and the person becomes eligible to receive the ज्ञान of कर्मयोग into their persona. This of course brings out a curious situation – acquiring this ज्ञान makes one भक्ति oriented and equally, only with some भक्ति orientation, such ज्ञान seeps in. Which comes first? Maybe both go parallel.

UB: PA & RS – both of you had earlier raised questions on वर्ण संस्कार. A verse on this will come up on early next week. Because the topic is intricate and a few lines will not do justice to it, I have written a few pages on this topic and posted on the blog. You may go through this at your leisure time over the weekend so that we need not devote much time trying to know about this in this forum. Of course, critique/ criticism/ discussion on this concept is welcome here.

THE  VEDAS –

The RIK (RIG) VEDA is the world’s oldest surviving poetic work. The other three Vedas are SAMAVEDA, YAJURVEDA and ATHARVAVEDA. Each Veda has 4 parts – the SAMHITHAS, the BRAHMANAS, (not to be confused with the caste) the ARANYAKAS and the UPANISHADS. The Samhitas contains the SUKTAS or hymns. The Brahmanas are works of prose which explain various aspects of the samhita, especially the sacrificial rituals and their outcome. The Aranyakas (related to the word Aranya meaning forest) form the transition from the rituals of Brahmanas to the philosophical expositions found in the Upanishads. The Upanisads (meaning to sit with to learn) contain a great variety of philosophical ideas and expositions. It would not be an exaggeration to say that most later day developments in Indian religion and philosophy (including those of Buddhism and Jainism) find resonance in the Upanishadic expositions. There are altogether 108 Upanishads, of which 13 are considered principal. The earlier Upanishads were in prose, but the later ones are set to metre either in parts or in toto. In the words of Dr. Radhakrishnan, “while the Samhitas are the creation of poets, the Brahmanas (and Aranyakas) are the works of priests, the Upanishads are the meditations of philosophers. …The Upanishads while in one sense a continuation of the Vedic worship, are in another sense a protest against the ritualism of the Brahmanas”. Though in a very broad sense what Dr. Radhakrishnan says is valid, the Veda literature is so voluminous and diverse, that  we will find an intermixture of everything in them. Traditionally, the Vedas are given the status of SHRUTI (that which has been heard). They are considered to be “eternal and self-existent truths realized by RISHIS in a state of deep meditation. The Puranas, the Ithihasas of Ramayana and Mahabharata, the Dharmasastras and the Vedanga literature is given the status of SMRITI (meaning remembered).

Personally, I feel that it is more profitable to read any scripture (belonging to any religion) as historical documents rather than as revealed texts. For every profound observation that we find in these holy books, there will be dozens of mundane and often retrograde pontifications. We will gain more and can empathize with them better, if we look at scriptures as the products of the times addressing the social realities of the times they came into being. I will try and put a note on the RIK VEDA, shortly. Please share your thoughts on this post.

PA: Thanks UB for posting that for us ! That’s why Bhagwan in the beginning of the chapter 3.3 said answering Arjuna question that the path of gyan and karma yoga  is a two fold path – going in parallel as you said. Thanks for the detailed note on the Vedas and Upanishads

RS: UB, I don’t remember asking about Varna Sanskaar, but I have a question from chapter 3 end. How can one apply the lesson if one is an atheist? Satsang is good, people can achieve this. Sat thoughts are good, hard but again through practice this is also possible. But is the only way to avoid desire through attaching to Bhagvan? Is there no hope for me then? Sorry I was not sure how to ask to this question?

UB: 😀😀 Good question. Which is why 2:16 is very important. We should move away from a Judeo-Christian idea of God and theism-atheism framework linked to such a God. Here, we refer to परम् who is the sole particle which has spawned into multiple that we see around us. In India, we refer to theism in the context of this core particle and not some God who created us. Once what this परम् stands for is clearer , things should get more interesting. Also, a true atheist has got more chance for freedom than an impure uninformed theist. You had raised the Varna question when you had referred to the Guru of your parents referring to this idea. In fact, my whole blog is dedicated to your question only (and later P also raised this concern). 😀

RS: 👍

PK: I think the goal is vanquishing desire and performing actions without attachment to results in a calm dispassionate manner … It seems more like a process to me which can be achieved thru practice rather than a theology /blind submission – the beauty of Hinduism is its manifold paths and the emphasis on svadharma – perform actions to the best of your ability that in sync with your nature – why worry about details then ?

VB: Ur last question raises the million dollar question that Parvinder had asked. How do we know our true nature? And we will go in a loop again.

PA: As UB said you could try and spot the real from the unreal and move towards tat. I can try to give you an answer based on what read theoretically but heard first hand experience of people having a breakthrough. One could keep asking oneself who am I. One looks at ones body and sees its not the same any day and with years it’s ageing so definitely I am not the body, am I my emotions? Also not as yesterday I was sad today not. Am I my mind? That also keeps getting thoughts that are ever changing. You could then start with all your associations for example your job title, profession company friends relatives and so one – all is in a state of flux. So who am I? Slowly you are then conceiving the idea of tat / param .. No religion here in place

PK: PA : this was very similar to what another friend told me as well … Very interesting exercise that does make one think of who one is.. At some point it seems to go in an endless loop and I stop 😃.., VB you are right about that !  It also reminded me of when UB says sometimes that we ( our bodies) are nothing but the samosas we eat 😃😃…

RS: PA – Thanks. I have tried that exercise, but it led me nowhere. But I will keep trying afresh.

UB: अर्जुन उवाच ।

अपरं भवतो जन्म परं जन्म विवसतः। कथमेतद्विजानीयां त्वमादौप्रोक्तवानिति ॥४.४॥

(अर्जुनः उवाच): Your (भवतः) birth (जन्म) was not so long ago (अपरम्); Vivasvān’s (विवसतः) birth  (जन्म) was a long time ago (परम्). How  (कथम्) am I to know  (विजानीयाम्) that (इति) you  (त्वम्)  told  (प्रोक्तवान्)  this (एतत्) in the beginning  (आदौ)?

बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि तव चार्जुन। तान्याहं वेद सर्वाणि न त्वम् वेत्थ परन्तप।।

Many (बहूनि) births (जन्मानि) have passed (व्यतीतानि) for me (मे) and (च) you (तव), O अर्जुन! I (अहम्) know (वेद) them (तानि) all (सर्वाणि) (whereas) you (त्वम्) do not (न) know (वेत्थ), O Scorcher of foes (परन्तप)!

अजोऽपि सन्नव्ययात्मा भूतानामीश्वरोऽपि सन् । प्रकृतिं स्वामधिष्ठायसम्भवाम्यात्ममायया ॥४.६॥

Though I am unborn (अजो), of changeless nature (अव्यय), and am the ईश्वर of all भूत (living beings), yet subjugating my प्रकृति, I am born by my own माय.

UB: 4:4/6 (1) – अर्जुन asks the obvious question – you were born just now. Why do you claim that you taught विवस्वान्? This brings us to the concept of अवतार & claim of multiple lives. When गौतम बुद्ध attained निर्वाण, it is said that all the countless number of lives that his जीव had led earlier came into him as a flash. भगवान् also takes numerous births. While one version refers to ten अवतार, in the श्रीमद्भागवतम्, there are events from 20+ lives taken by Him. But He Himself says He has taken many births – and these births need not be human only since His vision is not limited to humans only. His job is to keep turning the wheel of धर्म. Either He comes or sends संत from time to time. When the wheel of धर्म slows down, He turns it again to energize the people to live life as per the principles of कर्मयोग.

UB: 4:4/6 (2): ज is the root word from where जन्म (being born) has come while अज stands for unborn. He uses the power of माय to take birth as a human. While all of us are under the control of माय, in His case, माय is His power and hence he uses it to take birth among humans. While we are unable to control प्रकृति (we discussed this earlier), He however subdues प्रकृति while living as a human. He is thus outwardly human but inwardly the infinite dimension. माय has two aspects – the आवरण शक्ति (it hides the truth) and विक्षेप शक्ति (makes the original looks something else). Since we are under control of माय, we see ourselves as finite and cut off. But He takes an अवतार meaning ‘descent’ into the world of the limited. He takes birth to address an अध्यात्म crisis which He solves by pushing the धर्मचक्र into motion. As He does it, He inspires not just people in His era but even after hundreds of years, such is the impact of His अवतार.

VN: ‘Who am I’ such a small question but very difficult to answer. But definitely can be answered on our journey within rather than seeking it out in the materialistic world.

VG: By the way, what is your take on the various versions of Mahabharata? There is a Mahabharata written from Draupadi, Bhim, and many other characters’ perspective. My question is how should one treat them – fiction for entertainment?

UB: I guess the type of दृष्टि we have depends on the दृष्टिकोण we wish to adopt. Modern historians want to see caste politics during that era and read महाभारत from this दृष्टिकोण. Feminists are reading महाभारत from the feminine दृष्टिकोण. People facing धर्मसंकट situations in life and wanting to see solutions from precedents of such problems read महाभारत from the धर्म दृष्टिकोण. Gita students interested in ब्रह्मविद्या will read every verse of सुंदरकांड from a योगी दृष्टिकोण. So what is true? I guess all are true. यथा दृष्टि तथा सृष्टि or यथा दृष्टि तथा दर्शन. Have I successfully evaded answering your question? 😀

VG: Yes UB, successfully 🙂

UB: PK/ VG – I mentioned feminine दर्शन since we have books in the market on सीता version of रामायण or द्रौपदी version on महाभारत. Similarly, people consumed by social justice ideology are excited by कर्ण version of महाभारत. While learned saints have used these texts for धर्म & मोक्ष, because some people have their pet topics, they data mine these texts for furthering their domain. And they write their versions which are well intentioned and sincere too. Today, we see a lot of sympathy for कर्ण but when one reads महाभारत, one comes across a confused guy with inferiority complex. But such guys also do some noble deeds just like Osama may have treated his wife and kids well 😀. So I usually stay away from such books since the focus of such books is usually neither धर्म nor मोक्ष. But those who like such domains may read such books too – to each, his or her choice.

PS: Drawing from today’s posts, some thoughts –

1. The donkey is a soul, and the body that the person is feeding doesn’t matter.
2. The donkey’s soul is ahead of the curve as it is forced to pursue futile human actions beyond its abilities,  in preparation for a human form in a future life.
3. What is the drishti of the person feeding chyavanprash and playing mantras to the donkey, will it lead to a better outcome for them?
4. Who is the real donkey, the donkey itself or the person feeding chyavanprash to a donkey and hoping for change?  Are they the same soul?
5. The donkey is ahead in another sense – the person will not find out if the donkey will change into something else until the donkey is dead.  For that, the person has to stay alive.  So the donkey’s soul will be liberated before this person’s soul.
6. There is a second level of indirection here that is also  important – Rajiv Malhotra (bless his soul) has pre-ordained the donkey’s abilities and the final outcome.  This goes against other tenets of Indian wisdom, such as “karat karat abhyas ke jadmati hot sujaan”.  If there is one thing a donkey is good at, it is abhyaas – duty, hard work, and singleminded focus towards the same, which is what makes a donkey, a donkey.
7. On a practical note, the donkey needs to sleep, playing mantras to it 24/7 will only further hasten its liberation.
8. It appears that the donkey’s soul is ahead in its quest for nirvana, no matter how you look at it.

(Feminists kindly replace person/them with woman/her above).

Now, as for the pig – it has eliminated desire and learned to be content, whereas the journalist wants to eat at a five-star hotel…

UB: Hahahahaha

HB: I am not sure if the nirvana for the donkey is same as nirvana for human, but then again I am way behind on the curve⚡⚡

VB: – The donkey is a soul, and the body that the person is feeding doesn’t matter.

HB: Agree. The donkey’s soul is ahead of the curve as it is forced to pursue futile human actions beyond its abilities,  in preparation for a human form in a future life.

VB: Hmm… I do not think based on what I have heard human form is the last stepping stone. It is not ahead or beyond a curve, based on what little I know or don’t know.

HB: A donkey might just wish a liberation from his master, freedom might be an ultimate state of nirvana for him

PS: Humans have doubt, donkeys are more sure…

HB: A human desires liberation realizes from the body – which is holding it captive, thus an evolved desire to get liberated from it

UB: We have now moved into Donkey Gita and Pig Gita 😀😀😀

HB: Who says donkeys are more sure?

PS: Are you suggesting it is a demotion if the donkey turns into a human in a future life?  (“Last” wasn’t used above).

HB: Haven’t you ever seen a confused donkey? Even when the master beats the hell out of him, he is uncertain whether to leave or stay

PS: Especially if it is being fed chyavanprash and being forced to listen to mantras 24/7.

HB: I think donkey might simply hate chavanpeash

PS: No, all the donkeys here seem happy and sure.

VB: Nope. All I am saying is that being a donkey, I am not sure, if it is lower or higher. I am not sure, if one has to be achieve a human form to be closer. I have not heard or read to say it should be like that. So bottom line, I do not think it is ahead or behind curve. I need an expert to step in.

VB: Here = where?

PS: Maybe I inadvertently pulled that from Buddhism…

HB: Agree. I thought he meant the mortal world. And using smart phone and discussing on mystical matters

VB: I was just thinking of here as in this group and felt wow, I am a cool donkey, watching TV. I am like humans😀

UB: यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत । अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य  तदात्मानंसृजाम्यहम् ॥४.७॥

O भारत (यदायदा हि) there is (भवति) a decline (ग्लानिः) in right living (धर्मस्य) and an increase (अभ्युत्थानम्) in wrong living (अधर्मस्य) everywhere, then (तदा) I (अहम्) bring Myself (आत्मानम्) into being (सृजामि) (assume a physical body).

परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम् । धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामियुगे युगे ॥४.८॥

For the protection (परित्राणाय) of those who are committed to धर्म (साधूनाम्) and (च) the destruction (conversion) (विनाशाय) of those who follow adharma (दुष्कृताम्), and for the establishment of धर्म (धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय), I come into being (सम्भवामि) in every yuga (युगेयुगे).

UB: 4:7/8 – even kids in India are familiar with these verses and probably require no major explanation. He takes birth again and again to turn the धर्मचक्रम्. While this may seen as He takes birth to bash up the bad guys, it is not really that reason alone. Certain births mentioned in the श्रीमद्भागवतम् do not involve bashing people – मत्स्य, कूर्म, ऋषभ, कपिल, etc. Certain others like परशुराम or नरसिंह do bashing only. But what is remembered for is not their bashing (except for kids probably) but their conduct. राम is thus an inspiration for his शांत बुद्धि/ राम राज्य ideal while श्रीकृष्ण is remembered as a जगद्गुरु for this various teachings in the form of श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता & उद्धव गीता. Through such teachings, one finds courage not only to fight against people indulging in दुष्कृति, it helps in checking ourselves too from performing दुष्कृति.

VB: I felt it was relevant as it delves into a topic that we had touched earlier. Should we do pooja everyday or not?

UB: When you are fully mesmerized by परम्, you may ask – why should the Puja be specified as a minimum only twice a day? Why not all through the day?

VB: If you are fully mesmerized and param is their in your thoughts all time, why do pooja?

UB: If you are fully mesmerized by परम्, all your expressions, outer and inner may be referred to as Puja itself.

VB: Good answer👍 👍. What I meant was no separate ritual would have to be done. Each action of you would be a pooja..

PK: Hmmm ..interesting discussion ..,VB I love that you start controversial discussions … It lets us see where everyone stands and UB and Parvinder reveal insights … So all is good. My take you all know ., staunch feminist so I do not support decisions that are disadvantageous to women unless supported by valid reasons … For me personally fitting into the rules prescribed by a patriarchal world has never appealed – so I question everything , I think for myself ( better your svadharma done imperfectly than or adhyatma prescribed by others😃) , I am not afraid of course correcting or changing if folks smarter than me (like some here😃) give me a rational reason that I can hang My hat on … The true gurus or gyan is is are few like UB and PA say … The knowledge exists and the way we are doing it is the hardest ( but for my temperament the most fun) … Weed out the chaff , make mistakes … Who cares about speed though? We are talking lifetimes here .. I am here to enjoy the journey and look for wise folks.., the rest I can happily ignore 😃😃

VB: Well, seems I will live to see another day…

VB: UB, do u see any such person in today’s age?

PA: PK great and honest take as always and your internalizing of the concept of  doing one’s svadharma is better than others prescribed pardharma is again hitting the point . It’s better to be truthful to oneself instead of doing things just to please the society and peers around.

UB: No VB – I am not aware of such people today.

UB: जन्म कर्म च मे दिव्यमेवं यो वेत्ति तत्त्वतः । त्यक्त्वा देहं पुनर्जन्म नैतिमामेति सोऽर्जुन ॥४.९॥

The one who (यः) knows (वेत्ति) in reality (तत्त्वतः) My (मे) divine (दिव्यम्) birth (जन्म) and (च) action (कर्म) in this way (एवम्), O अर्जुन, giving up (त्यक्त्वा) the body (देहम्), that person is not born again (पुनर्जन्म न एति).

वीतरागभयक्रोध मन्मया मामुपाश्रिताः । बहवो ज्ञानतपसा पूतामद्भावमागताः ॥४.१०॥

Free from वात राग (craving), भय, and क्रोध, totally resolved in me (मन्मयाः), taking refuge in (उपाश्रिताः) me (माम्), purified (पूताः) by the discipline of knowledge (ज्ञानतपसा), many (बहवः) have come back (मद्भावम्) to my nature (आगताः).

UB: 4:9/10 (1) – All of us have read or heard about अवतार (informed by अमर चित्र कथा or TV serials). But does this mean we “know”? Knowing is much more than assimilating information about physical deeds of any अवतार. One can put down two extreme types of ‘knowing’ –

1) Those who abuse the existence of परम् stating that they ‘know’ enough to reject the deeds of अवतार. They will say – all these are myths. There was no such person. Later people wrote such stories to keep people poor or subdue them. Ancients did not have any source of entertainment and stories fulfilled this need, etc.

2) Then there are those who go the other extreme and take all लील of श्रीकृष्ण literally believing them as magic of a Superman God and fanatically defend Him without even attempting to understand Him.

Both do not ‘know’ really – they remain अज्ञानी. Why? Because their ‘knowing’ is infested with  वीतराग, भय & क्रोध. Only if these are burned up by inculcating तप (intense contemplation, austerity) of ज्ञान, one acquires सूक्ष्म दृष्टि. The Type 2 above is often wrongly referred to as a भक्त since he may be a regular मंदिर दर्शन person, doing तिलक धारण, adorns house walls with images of श्रीकृष्ण, even chants 15th of Gita daily, etc. But such minds are infested with वीतराग, भय, etc and cannot be referred to as भक्त. One is really a भक्त only if he does ज्ञानतपस् and the fire generated from this burns up भय, क्रोध, etc.

UB: 4:9/10 (2) – But once a person comes to this path,  the first feeling they experience is that they are at a very low stage of अध्यात्म journey (like being at the base of a mountain). The curiosity to learn about the अवतार begins. But can they know about the peak when they are at the base? No. So they listen to tales & notes of others who have scaled the peak earlier (past saints) as well as read शास्त्र that  talk about the feats of अवतार and thus begin their journey of knowing. As they progress, their ज्ञानतप intensifies. In this fire that gets generated within, all feelings generated from external influences (भय, क्रोध, etc) get burned up. This तपस् eventually culminates in सिद्धी. And what is the सिद्धी? At the peak, true ‘knowing’ happens when they attain the mind-space of परम्. But what do they really ‘know’ in this state? That they were always here only. Hence, श्रीकृष्ण uses the words -“They return back to Me”. And the good part is – many have achieved it. So it is not un-achievable. Many have, so we too can. That is the message here.

PA: Beautiful! It’s a great solace to know this that many have achieved it so we can too 🙂 So know again the focus shifts to the ज्ञान मार्ग – २ फ़ोल्ड  Way.

A beautiful line came yesterday in the daily Sikh prayers

जो तीस भावे सो आरती होवे

Whatever pleases the lord is a form of aarti or pooja. In line with what UB had said earlier that all your actions would be a form of pooja (question regarding should we do daily pooja or not and how become irrelevant)

HB: I love 4.7 and 4.8. I somehow feel that it primes the Indian psyche to wait for the saviour

UB: ये यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस्तथैव भजाम्यहम् ।मम वर्त्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थसर्वशः ॥४.११॥

Those (ये) who worship (प्रपद्यन्ते) me (माम्), in whatever way (यथा), I (अहम्) bless (भजामि) them (तान्) in the same way (तथाएव). O पार्थ, people (मनुष्याः) follow (अनुवर्तन्ते) my (मम) path (वर्त्म) in all ways (सर्वशः).

काङ्क्षन्तः कर्मणां सिद्धिं यजन्त इह देवताः । क्षिप्रं हि मानुषे लोकेसिद्धिर्भवति कर्मजा ॥४.१२॥

Desiring (काङ्क्षन्तः) the result (सिद्धिम्) of actions (कर्मणाम्) here (in this world) (इह), they worship (यजन्ते) the gods (देवताः). For, in the human (मानुषे) world (लोके), result (सिद्धिः) born of action (कर्मजा) comes (भवति) very (हि) quickly (क्षिप्रम्).

UB: 4:11/12 (1) – This one is tough since numerous books have given variations in their commentary. Essentially, भगवान् is stating that people approach Him in different ways. Each attempt to reach Him in ways that appeal to them but no matter what path they think they are choosing and following, they are following His path only. One can extend this to state that no matter what religion one professes to be, in whatever manner they connect with their idea of God or even do not connect, they connect with Him only since there is no other agent who converts actions into outcomes. People want Him to fulfill the longings arising within their senses and hence they reach out to the देवता (the power of the senses). I grant them their wishes based on actions undertaken by them.

UB: 4:11/12 (2) – If people want a fan, they invoke वायु and press a certain switch to get air. If they want light, they invoke सूर्य and use another switch to get light. Both wishes are granted by electricity but no one sees It. While She is the basis of all outcomes, no one sees Her since She is अदृश्य. भूमि is a कर्म लोक where people get results out of conduct of actions (unlike say a स्वर्ग which is a भोग लोक where कर्म is not required). All different लोक work on differing principles. Why is it that people in भूमि have faith in receiving the fruits that they long for after performing specified actions? Whatever is sown in the land is reaped as fruit; whatever is held before a mirror is alone reflected in it. It is Me who makes such an outcome possible. In that way, although I am the basis of the faith of this worship in diverse देवता, yet the fruit secured is just according to the measure of desire of the seekers and effort of their actions. People thus use Me for smaller things or bigger things and I grant them what they wish.

UB: Tomorrow are verses on वर्ण संस्कार. Narrative will be long tom as well as rest of the chapter since the ज्ञान being conveyed is esoteric or सूक्ष्म. But once this is over, I will not need to provide long narrative in 5th chapter since He merely reiterates the ideas in CH 3 & 4 in simpler language there. Warning you in advance 😀

UB: चातुर्वण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः । तस्य कर्तारमपि मांविद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम् ॥४.१३॥

The four-fold grouping of people (चातुर्वण्यम्), a division based on duties and qualities (गुणकर्म विभागशः), was created (सृष्टम्) by me (मया). Even though (अपि) I am its (तस्य) author (कर्तारम्), know (विद्धि) me (माम्) to be a non-doer (अकर्तारम्), ever changeless (अव्ययम्).

न मां कर्माणि लिम्पन्ति न मे कर्मफले स्पृहा । इति मां  योऽभिजानातिकर्मभिर्न स बध्यते ॥४.१४॥

There is no (न) longing (स्पृहा) with reference to the result of action (कर्मफले) for me (मे). The one who (यः) knows (अभिजानाति) me (माम्) clearly in this way (इति) is not (न) bound (सःबध्यते) by actions (कर्मभिः).

एवं ज्ञात्वा कृतं कर्म पूर्वैरपि मुमुक्षुभिः । कुरु कर्मैव  तस्मात्त्वं पूर्वैः पूर्वतरंकृतम् ॥४.१५॥

Knowing (ज्ञात्वा) me in this manner (एवम्), even (अपि) seekers (मुमुक्षुभिः) of ancient times (पूर्वैः) performed (कृतम्) action (कर्म). Therefore (तस्मात्), indeed (एव), perform (त्वम् कुरु) action (कर्म) (just as it) was done (कृतम्) by those who came before (पूर्वैः) in the ancient past (पूर्वतरम्).

UB: 4:13/ 15 (1) – The blog on वर्ण संसकार attempts to provide backdrop on the वर्ण idea. This verse unsettles many of us; some even ask for its removal to purify the Gita. भगवान् says it is Him who created the four वर्ण. ब्राह्मण is one in whom सत्व is dominant and रजस् is secondary; क्षत्रिय is one where रजस् is dominant and सत्व is secondary; वैश्य is one where रजस् is dominant and तमस् is secondary and शूद्र is one where तमस् is dominant and रजस् is secondary. All possess all three गुण; however, what is dominant determines our overall orientation. Society cannot run without all four वर्ण. Know that all have come from Me only and thus no one is superior or inferior. So how do each of these reach me? By doing their स्वधर्म (3:35) meaning a role that suits their गुण or aptitude. We have an episode in the महाभारत (व्याधगीता) where a ब्राह्मण once looks at a few birds angrily and they burn up. Sensing that he has acquired powers, he gets arrogant. Each time he begs for food, he shouts at the गृहस्थ to give food quickly or else he will burn them. Once he goes to a new house where the lady inside delays and he gets upset. The lady immediately tells him from inside that he cannot burn her like the birds. Shocked, he asks her how she knew. She replies that getting powers is no big deal. She acquired these powers by serving her family in a कर्मयोग way. She then sends the ब्राह्मण to a व्याध (butcher) to learn wisdom from him. He gets shocked that a व्याध knows more than a ब्राह्मण. When he asks the secret, the व्याध replies that he got this wisdom merely by serving his parents and doing his profession as a कर्मयोगी. Society is stable when all act as per their स्वधर्म. If people leave their स्वधर्म, confusion sets in and society becomes unstable. Thus, it is not what we do (or what career we pursue) that matters, rather if we engage in society as per our own innate गुण, whichever career we pursue, we canगोविन्दम् remain happy and society will be stable as a result.

UB: 4:13/ 15 (2) – भगवान् however immediately adds another verse. He says that while He indeed created वर्ण, He cannot be made responsible. He takes no blame for how the world turns out. People select their own गुण & कर्म out of their own free will. I am not involved in this process. Since गुण are innately present in all, each selects कर्म in tune with his or her गुण and pursue outcomes of their chosen कर्म. All are dear to me – if they thus pursue their स्वधर्म as a कर्मयोगी, they will no doubt return to Me – there is no doubt about it. Electricity runs the fan or the bulb. But can anyone claim that electricity is responsible for the fan or the light? It is people who choose an outcome (light or fan) and thus exert to get their chosen outcome – for this purpose, they use electricity – agency is thus to be ascribed to the individual and not the electricity. भगवान् is also thus the doer of all actions as a facilitator like electricity.  But there are a few wise men who realize this non-doership of electricity and aspire to become one with It instead of finding joy in air from fan or vision from light. They become detached like the electricity or like the petrol in a car which is indifferent as to whether the owner is Katrina or Lalitha Pawar or Modi. The moment the wise start operating in this detached manner, no agency applies to their actions. Their actions do not have कर्तृत्व भावना. Once agency goes, attachment to results also vanishes. Once this also vanishes, they inch their way towards freedom and all such detached actions or free actions are not subject to कर्म बन्धन.

UB: 4:13/ 15 (3) – Orthodox conservatives defend वर्ण संस्कार for the wrong reasons while some others oppose this for wrong reasons. वर्ण संस्कार needs to be seen as an operational reality of the universe. If one closely observes आश्रम धर्म, one can see it operating here too. सत्व is dominant when one is in ब्रह्मचारी phase (learning is highest in this phase), रजस् is dominant in गृहस्थ phase (earn money but by following rules), रजस् is dominant in वानप्रस्थ phase (activity is dominant but a routine sets in) and तमस् is dominant in संयास phase (activity is there but one is largely slow to learning and given to sleep). Since गुण (aptitude) varies with age, स्वधर्म (natural orientation) changes with time and hence prescribed कर्म also differs at each stage. This is why आदि शंकर admonished an 80 year old man trying to learn grammar and came out with the glorious. भज गोविन्दम्  भज गोविन्दम् , गोविन्दम् भज मूढमते…. Equally, certain type of कर्म is common to all phases and hence, certain universal कर्म (say, नित्यपूज) is prescribed for all वर्ण though there will be variations as per their गुण here too. Given this, there is merit in teaching कर्मयोग idea of Gita during ब्रह्मचारी state since they are in a learning mode and can absorb the कर्मयोग ideas much easily than when they are older. Equally, while all of us possess each of these dominant गुण in these four states, living in tune with the धर्म of the relevant state while acting using कर्मयोग orientation is the ideal way of life since it keeps us away from कर्म बन्धन. ज्ञान keeps on rising as our कर्मयोग orientation deepens and we reach the गुणातीत state when the गुण ceases to have a hold on us. At the end, while continuing to live in this body, in the course of time, we become जीवन्मक्त.

PK: Very interesting – this here had been described more as aptitude issue / choice vs ra matter of birth common in the recent past- wonder how that came about ?😃 Anyway, there seems to be a trend away from the birth concept of career in these mod run times which IMHO is a good thing especially as it seems closer to what was originally intended  😃🙏👍🙏

PK: 4:12 is somewhat unusual – there seems to be a sudden switch to praying to devatas for granting big and small wishes … I seem to have trouble internalizing any such verse which brings appeasement of devatas – I cannot help noticing the sudden change of tenor 😃 Oh well… For Now I will ignore this again … There is a lot of other sholkas to absorb and digest 🙏🙏🙏

UB: Prayer to Devatas means fulfilling the urges of the senses. Keep this meaning only and there is thus no sudden change in tenor but a logical flow only. also, I guess birth is taken as default owing to genetic influence of parents. But over time, conduct of the person determines this

PK: UB : how can power of the senses grant wishes? This Shloka is confusing .., the logical flow is interrupted 😃 Also, the whole granting of wishes seems to be contrary to the central message of performing karma without attachment … I am missing something .,, sigh ! Will figure it out eventually I guess !

VB: Today’s interpretation about reaching a part by doing your swadharma, swadharma changing with times – these are something that we were debating some weeks back. Good to see that they are addressed

PK: Yup … And we all agreed that the change with times is mostly good 👍👍… Me too happy about that 😃😃

VG: Thank You UB. Absorbing, am a little slow learner and feel like undergrad among research scholars, good learning though

UB: I will revert to you on this. The entire Devatas concept will take a few pages (of copy & paste from informed sources) to convey.

“Without going out of doors, you may know the world. Without looking out the window, you may know the Tao of Heaven. The farther you go, the less you know. Thus, the sage knows without going out, discerns without looking, and works without doing”

Lao Tzu

PK: Nice one UB 🙏🙏🙏

UB: This one has been sent as a precursor of what will be sent tom 😀

PK: VB: similar thoughts by Lao tzu and Kafka. The execution of this concept described by both is elusive to me as well- I enjoy the sensual pleasures and find renunciation without a feeling of deprivation  difficult to fathom : but I find it very fascinating they wise folks from different corners of the world say essentially the same thing in slightly different words 😃.., gives me hope that this may be feasible if one is committed enough 😃😃😃… At present my practice is small steps like ” can I be happy and satisfied with one cookie instead of two ” ” am I doing my actions for my satisfaction or to prove a point to the world etc 😃😃😃… Baby steps towards joyful contentment and it feeling deprived 😃😃😃

UB: किं कर्म किमकर्मेति कवयोऽप्यत्र मोहिताः । तत्ते कर्म  प्रवक्ष्यामि  यज्ज्ञात्वा मोक्ष्यसेऽशुभात् ॥४.१६॥

Even (अपि) the seers (scholars) (कवयः) are confused (मोहिताः) with reference to (अत्र) what is (किम्) action (कर्म) what is (किम्) actionlessness (अकर्म). I shall tell (प्रवक्ष्यामि) you (ते) about action (तत् कर्म), knowing (ज्ञात्वा) which (यत्) you will be released (मोक्ष्यसे) from what is inauspicious (samsāra) (अशुभात्).

कर्मणो ह्यपि बोद्धव्यं बोद्धव्यं च विकर्मणः । अकर्मणश्च बोद्धव्यं गहनाकर्मणो गतिः ॥४.१७॥

Action (कर्मणः) is also (अपि) to be known (बोद्धव्यम्). Forbidden action (विकर्मणः) is also (च) to be known (बोद्धव्यम्). Actionlessness (अकर्मणः) is also (च) to be known (बोद्धव्यम्). Because (हि) the nature (गतिः) of karma (कर्मणः) is difficult (गहना).

कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म यः। स बुद्धिमान् मनुष्येषु स युक्तःकृत्स्नकर्मकृत् ॥४.१८॥

The one who (यः) sees (पश्येत्) actionlessness (अकर्म) in aciton (कर्मणि) and (च) action (कर्म) in actionlessness (अकर्मणि) is wise (सःबुद्धिमान्) among human beings (मनुष्येषु). That person (सः) is a yogī (युक्तः), who has done everything that is to be done (कृत्स्नकर्मकृत्).

UB: 4:16/18 (1) – Even the wise are confused on distinction between कर्म, विकर्म & अकर्म. Only if one knows these clearly, one can practice कर्मयोग. भगवान् then utters 4:18, a blockbuster verse, which has only one parallel, the teachings of Lao Tzu. Two main enemies for every कर्म that we do – the कर्तृत्व भाव (I am doing) and काम भाव (longing for the result). When these two accompany our कर्म, we end up thinking that WE are working. When one bears such an attitude at the workplace, we experience exhaustion from work owing to which we look forward to weekends. But we carry this कर्तृत्व & काम भावना to our leisure कर्म too and thus get exhausted pursuing leisure too. But if manage to get rid of these two, work becomes no work, it becomes a natural joyful expression of स्वधर्म and distinction of weekday: weekend will vanish. There is a verse from अष्टावक्र गीत –

निवृत्तिरपि मूढस्य प्रवृत्तिरूप जायते। प्रवृत्तिरपि धीरस्य  निवृत्ति फल भागिनि।।

Inactivity of a मूढ  transforms itself into activity; the activity of a धीर enjoys the fruits of inactivity or inaction.

For a धीर, any कर्म is leisure and no stress/ tension will accompany this since he fulfills three necessary conditions – 1) Absence of कर्तृत्व भाव, 2) Absence of काम and 3) फल त्याग meaning he is detached from फल. Thus, while seemingly acting, he is actually not acting at all. One who does not act is doing कर्मयोग doing which one opens up to परम् ज्ञान.

UB: 4:16/18 (2) – Some practical examples but these are my creation and thus up for discussion. So if a child is asked by the mother to fetch veggies from a shop, if the child executes it as a duty, since there is no कर्तृत्व & काम nor is he bothered about फल; no कर्म accrues to him and this act is not an action. On the other hand, if the wife is unwell and husband cooks food to help his wife, he has कर्तृत्व if he is doing the job to help his wife instead of thinking of this as his duty. Further, if he longs for praise from his wife for being a helping husband, there is काम. कर्म accrues as an outcome to such a person even through his action is well intended. If compassion drives one to give charity, there is कर्तृत्व when one has a feeling of helping another. When one helps because the other deserves such a help and it is his duty to help, even if there is no compassion, no कर्म will accrue. Helping another is thus a good deed but may not be called as कर्मयोग. In office, if one cares a damn about power, bonus or promotion (absence of काम) and works in a role that is in tune with his स्वधर्म (absence of कर्तृत्व), no कर्म will accrue. But if the work is not स्वधर्म, i.e., a technocrat doing a politician job or a politician cutting grass taking orders from others, कर्म accrues even if there is no काम since any activity that is outside our innate nature is an exertion and thus has कर्तृत्वता. If the same technocrat however does an Advisor role within a political party or a politically oriented person is heading the grass-cutter Association, they are doing सवधर्म and thus no कर्म will accrue if there is no काम and फलत्याग. Equally, one may be at ease if they are engaged in सवधर्म but end up being driven by काम (praise, bonus, etc), कर्म will accrue again and such कर्म is to be taken as action. One need to thus be very clear what is कर्म and what is not. Only if one is clear about these, one will be able to identify विकर्म (avoidable कर्म) and thus practice कर्मयोग. कर्मयोग practice is thus not possible unless a person possesses विवेक or clarity of thought.

UB: 4:16/18 (3) – Analogies by संत ज्ञानेश्वर

1. Just as one standing near water sees his own reflection in it, yet he fully knows that he is not that one, but he is separate from it
2. Just as one enjoying boating in a river sees (as if) trees on the bank are running (and not the boat itself) yet after reflection realizes that trees are stationary;

In the same way, one who views his actions as unreal considered from the point of view of the form of the आत्मा, and realizes the original form of his own आत्मा is a real action free person.

UB: 4:16/18 (4) – Analogies by संत ज्ञानेश्वर cont’d….

Just like the Sun appears like rising and setting wending its way without actually moving in any way, similar is the action freeness of the wise even though he is performing action. He seems to live life like other men but yet remains untouched by human attributes just as the Sun’s rays do not get drenched even though their reflections get into water. In that way, the action free one even though he has realized the Universe, without going into it, does all things, enjoys all enjoyments; yet he remains neutral in and detached from all these actions. Although such a person sits in one place, still he moves in the Universe – in reality, he is completely one with the very spirit of the Universe itself. One who thus acts within the Universe is doing कर्म but one who acts with the Universe and in tune with it is not acting at all.

VB: It is possible to operate without kaam – But to operate without kartutva, is very difficult. That to me is more challenging. Can you give a some more clarity in kartutva?

VB: In Marathi, kartutva means capability. Maybe different in Sanskrit. Could kartutva bhaav mean “I have the capability and hence a slight touch of ego”

UB: A core idea of ourselves is that we are an individual separate from another. All our actions at this level come with a feeling – I AM DOING. But when we marry, all our actions are done with I expanded to include 2 persons. When we have kids, our स्वधर्म expands to include 3/4/5 persons. In a flock of birds flying jointly, their individual ‘I’ is expanded to a collective ‘I’. For a PM, his or her identity of ‘I’ expands to the entire nation. Even at this level, he eats for himself but his eating is just a means to survive to serve the nation. For him, his ‘I’ is subservient to the national ‘I’. Today’s verse is stating that when the idea of ‘I’ expands, we are moving towards actionlessness. Our actions become inactions since the driving force for every action is not the individual ‘I’ but a larger ‘I’. Even if one looks at the logic behind why charity is encouraged, it is because by such an act, we leave behind our individual ‘I’ and move into an expanded ‘I’. If the driving force for charity is publicity or projection of power, there is no expansion of ‘I’ and thus no spiritual benefit. ज्ञानेश्वर gave the example of the Sun. Does the Sun move? No. But we feel that it is moving, rising, setting, etc and giving light to one country and then another. However, while it is seemingly acting, it is actually not acting – it is just being itself doing its स्वधर्म. And what is the highest state of inaction? When one becomes परम् meaning one acts for all. And when one acts for all, individual ‘I’ no longer exists and thus कर्तृत्व feeling has been left long behind.

UB: Sorry for the long response – it is a key shloka and even I am trying to understand this but unable to state with lesser words

VB: So, what happens when I love the work I do? Is that going against “just do it as duty”

UB: I guess if you love without काम and as an expression of स्वधर्म, then there is no conflict

VB: So, if you like helping others and have no expectation of phal, it should be fine. An then donation shud be right too. Or philanthropy too

UB: Maybe we should not use the word ‘duty’ because it feels burdensome.

VB: Sun example is just awesome

UB: Yes – it should be fine provided expansion of I happens. If not, I guess it is a good action but not कर्मयोग. When I read the Sun example, I felt how did Gyaneshwar know that the Sun does not move really. Is this not a modern science discovery? Unless someone says that even Sun moves around the Galaxy though vis a vis  the Earth, it does not and Gyaneshwar missed this 😀😀

PS: So do I understand this correctly – “accruing” karm is undesirable, karm being synonymous with “action”; a better state is where things happen as they are supposed to, for the collective good, but without the doer expending (or experiencing) any effort towards the same, or being affected by the effort either positively or negatively.  Hence this is inaction, since there is no karm/action involved. Sounds like we want to move towards zero entropy while performing deeds that benefit others, but leave us unaffected…

UB: As a lowly commerce man, I do not understand zero entropy 😀. Your summary is a good one. I will add that helping others with a consciousness that they are ‘others’ will also not help. कर्म is not desirable because it makes us limited and keeps us from getting a vision or experience of the Real. And we had covered what is Real briefly in 2:16 which is meant to be our real state or identity – not the identity we have assumed for ourselves today.

VB: you mention – “However, while it is seemingly acting, it is actually not acting – it is just being itself doing its स्वधर्म. A”. Being itself is not acting. Is this not just semantics? Don’t get me wrong. I am not able to understand the inaction concept

UB: I also do not understand the concept 😀😀 Trying to get this myself

PA: Waoo thanks UB for your Efforts in giving so many Examples 🙏🙏

UB: Parvindar – do see what Yogananda has given on this topic. My references were Swami Ranganathananda from Ramakrishna Mission and Gyaneshwari.

UB: VB: we had talked about Agency – Principal relationship in the previous chapter. Actions done by an Agent are not his action, they are of the Principal only. Hence, all actions of Agent are non-actions from the perspective of the agent. Thus, Bharat ruling Ayodhya for 14 years on behalf of Ram may look like they are actions of Bharat but for the kingdom, it is Rama who was ruling even in those 14 years. Bharat will not take accountability for decisions made in the name of Rama unless Bharat did not discharge his role of an Agent properly. Does this answer (at least partly) or does this confuse more ? 😀

VG: UB, I am still not clear on Kritatva an Kama. My real life story is that I do run an NGO because I think I am blessed and I want to help those who may not be that blessed. But, I also do it so that God blesses me more, my family. When I promote my NGO on Facebook, and people say ‘good job’ , I feel happy and even look for more ‘likes’. Now explain me the karmyog specific to my case

UB: मर गया !!!!!

PS: Got it, thanks for pointing out usage of “others”.  When I read again what I wrote with that perspective, it does sound different.  Re entropy, I think of it as wasted effort in terms of the whole – if one’s chosen work/duty is to help others, but it either feels like an obligation or has a motive beyond the work itself (kritatva) or if one desires praise (kaam), that energy wasted in these side pursuits is entropy.  This small amount of entropy turns inaction into action/karm.  And one can question if it is really “small” since it can negate the majority of energy spent in doing good work; it introduces “others” and prevents the expansion of “I”, thus turning it all into karm.  But we can drop the word. Or am I just confused?  😀

UB: Sounds perfect to me – please use such words. I can now impress some people with this new vocabulary 😀

PS: It just occurred to me that this statement could be interpreted as both kritatva and kaam… 🤔

UB: Vikas – Gita is a book on ब्रह्मविद्या. Since this is the focus, all its views are given with this perspective. In your example, given that nothing is static in life, we can imagine the following:

1) you continue feeling good and blessed with your work, achieve some level of fame and family is happy. You thus continue to engage in the activity. You will get enveloped with सत्व which in chapter 3 was stated as a state of fire covered with smoke. You will need to a little more effort to get away from this joy from fame, etc to get access to ब्रह्मविद्या

2) You may face tough events in life or the venture itself will get into problems. You will then question as to why God is giving this to you when you are doing good. You may then stop the venture.

3) carried away by fame, you may want to expand the NGO to increase the likes. You may get more likes and you expand further. You get dependent on likes and focus moves away from NGO work and get into likes acquisition. Now you thus get into रजस् which is explained as mirror covered by dust in ch3. You get farther away from ब्रह्मविद्या.

PS: Entropy is what prevents the existence of a perpetual motion machine – which would be the ideal of inaction?

VB: VG, I too have the same question. If my being selfish helps a lot of other people, then it should be good. This was discussed some time back between US and we reached the conclusion that while we do this, we should still aspire to do it selflessly. If you search in the blog you will find it

PS: Self-contradictory statement?

VB: Why?

PS: Acting is perhaps used in the sense of action, and not in the sense of pretending to be something/someone else… “Being itself is it not having to take any action”. “If my being selfish helps a lot of other people, then it should be good.”  and “while we do this, we should still aspire to do it selflessly”.  Depends on what “this” and “it” is in the second statement, I suppose.

VB: Understandable. So let me do word replacement. While we do these selfish acts, we should aspire to go on the higher path of doing acts selflessly.

PS: Replacing inaction with “actionlessness” (lack of action?) as originally used in translation of shlok☝🏼perhaps helps in understanding these concepts better… 🤔 At some point aspiration has to turn into reality… kartritva and kaam prevent it from doing so?

VG: hmmmm, thanks

PA: Dear UB I will check it in the week end and revert back: I see that there has been quite a lot of commotion today a lot of action but you have managed to satisfy all most everyone 🙏🙏 I was checking this website – Vedantavision.org

Where some of the explanations especially for the verse 17 and 18 are making things clear. In these verse its talked about that action should be known; forbidden action should be known; and inaction should be known. The second is easy as its against our conscious so that should not be undertaken. The first is really a obligatory, duty routine action which helps in self-purification. The third is inaction What is that? Here you for example get an opportunity to start a piece of work or a new venture then you let Your higher self or your Atma actually be the doer and you just be its agent. This is the abstract part but very crucial as this type of action has the maximum possibilities of doing action with a desire in mind which leads us back to the same loop of Karma bandhan. Let me be the flute from which He blows the Air and the music is played and appreciated by everyone! Did I make the Air?  No? Am I blowing the air no! I am made of wood which also came from nature! Lord also mentions action is gahana – deep. Ask oneself what is the root desire behind my action – name fame power …what else ? Or a pure desire to be a instrument of ones Higher Self – Atma being the Real doer .. For example I write this post and do not state the website where I took these ideas from – this would imply acting with ownership instead of being an agent . So lord also wonderfully inspires us to take up a idea which we think can serve the humanity and  let your Atma guide you in its fulfillment and when it works give sincerely all credit to Him and keeps us humble even when reaching those heights instead of just lip service – that’s inaction I suppose.

UB: Thanks PA – good input. So it comes back to acting as an Agent instead of Principal. Perfect. Thanks. Use of the word ‘actionlessness’ instead of ‘inaction’ is valid and even I felt the same. Many translations use inaction while some use unaction  (action –  inaction – unaction). Good you brought this up.

UB: यस्य सर्वे समारम्भाः कामसङ्कल्पवर्जिताः । ज्ञानाग्नि दग्धकर्माणं तमाहुःपण्डितं  बुधाः ॥४.१९॥

The one for whom (यस्य) all (सर्वे) undertakings (समारम्भाः) are free from काम संकल्प (कामसङ्कल्पवर्जिताः), whose कर्म are burned up by the fire of ज्ञान (ज्ञानाग्नि दग्ध कर्माणम्), the sages (बुधाः) call (आहुः) that person (तम्) पण्डितम्.

त्यक्त्वा कर्मफासङ्गं नित्यतृप्तो निराश्रयः । कर्मण्यभिप्रवृत्तोऽपि नैवकिञ्चित्करोति सः ॥४.२०॥

Giving up (त्यक्त्वा) the deep attachment to the results of कर्म (कर्मफासङ्गम्), always contented (नित्यतृप्तः), being not dependent on anything (निराश्रयः), he (सः) does not (न) do (करोति) anything (किञ्चित्एव) even though (अपि) fully engaged (अभिप्रवृत्तः) in कर्म (कर्मणि).

निराशीर्यतचित्तात्मा त्यक्तसर्वपरिग्रहः । शारीरं केवलं कर्म कुर्वन्नाप्नोतिकिल्बिषम् ॥४.२१॥

The person who is free of expectations (निराशीः), whose body, mind & senses have been mastered (यतचित्तात्मा), who has given up all possessions (त्यक्तसर्वपरिग्रहः), doing (कुर्वन्) only (केवलम्) action (कर्म) that sustains the body (शारीरम्), does not (न) incur (आप्नोति) sin (किल्बिषम्).

UB: 4:19/ 21 (1) – In these lines, one may need to pause and reflect on the depth of every word used to describe mind space of a कर्मयोगी . I personally like the point about burning up our संगम with काम in ज्ञान अग्नि. Awareness of truth burns up the need within a person that he needs ‘something’ to complete himself. Our act of giving up must be based on intellectual discrimination and not a situational emotion rejection made in a fit of anger or sudden asceticism after reading a book or watching a movie. It needs to be a well considered action. With these lines in mind, if we read the lives of mystics like रमण or एकनाथ or many others, the import of these verses will become clear. Hence, it is essential to read books on such mystics like भक्त विजय by महीपति on saints of महाराष्ट्र or such other books. No commentary can convey the idea better than reading practical lives of mystics.

UB: 4:19/ 21 (2) – A thought. काम is translated as desire and राग as attachment. And these words have been over-abused and thus creates confusion. I personally prefer to read काम as longing and राग as wanting. Both seem close. काम to me represents a mind-space which is in an अभाव स्थिति and thus longs to fill up itself with विषय (sense objects) to become complete. राग to me is wanting and is more specific. काम is more सूक्ष्म than राग which is why 2:62/63 begins with काम. One thus wants to acquire a car or wants the existing car to be scratch free. On wants love of one’s spouse or not lose the love that we are already having. One wants appreciation of the boss or to remain in boss’ good books.  Both are states where one depends on something that is outside us and this dependency chains our being. With this backdrop, if one reads the word निराश्रय: meaning one who lives without any आश्रय or dependence, one can imagine what a free mind space a कर्मयोगी occupies.

UB: 4:19/ 21 (3) – मनुस्मृति has a verse stating that a wise one is one who has food provision for a few days only, wiser is one who has provisions only for a day and wiser still a person who is not sure from where he will get his evening meals. Animals are probably in this space but remain relaxed despite this lack of clarity. In this aspect, maybe animals are more evolved than humans. Most humans will go mad if this food security is not available. If each of us in this forum are stable mentally and crack jokes, it is because our stomach is full and we feel comfortable that this will continue even if we lose our income source. Imagine not having this security and even then cracking jokes and laughing away!!!! Such is the mind space of a कर्मयोगी. Is this practical? How can one who is running a family be in a state of त्यक्तसर्वपरिग्रहः (giving up all possessions)? One is not expected to physically give up anything but merely renounce ownership of objects in our control by constantly chanting the words – न मम न मम (not mine not mine) again and again such that even if he loses or unable to exercise control over what is in one’s own possession, he remains unruffled. All his actions are limited to take care of his body. Why? Since all actions of this person other than those for maintenance of his body are for others and thus not his actions (or they are actionless). Such is the mind space of a कर्मयोगी.

PK: Very interesting discussion .., catching up and absorbing the examples and discussion 🙏🙏🙏. PS : love the entropy analogy .. Thermodynamics principle in Gita is awesome .. One thought I had is that this is also advocating an attitude shift .. The jagatkutumbh concept .., most of us have little trouble performing selfless acts ( without kaam or desire for glory ) for our children/ family … Extending this view to the whole world so that there is no I seems to be the goal .., extraordinarily difficult I think in practice .. In theory/ in abstract we all have sympathy for a disaster occurring far away … To truly feel the anguish of every living soul as if it was your own flesh and blood – I can imagine it in abstract only … That maybe the attachment that is hardest to break .., to truly believe that every living soul is just a manifestation of oneself.. So then who is I as everyone is I .., Easier imagined than practiced … Baby steps I guess 🙏🙏