The Eighteenth Chapter starts by recounting the principle of action, Karma-Yoga, which is many a time regarded as the establishment in a kind of knowledge free from action, and at other times as the performance of action free from clinging to the fruits thereof. Two significant terms are used at the very outset - Samnyasa and Tyaga. Though etymologically the two words mean almost one and the same thing, they are used here with a special meaning attached to each one of them. When all desireful actions are abandoned and we perform only actions free from desire, we are supposed to be in the state of Samnyasa, a relinquishment of everything that is associated with personal motive or desire. But Tyaga, which is also abandonment, is defined as the giving up of the desire for the fruit of the action and not the giving up of action itself. There is, thus, a difference between the giving up or relinquishment of action and the giving up of the consequence of the action. These are not easy things to understand, though it would appear that we have studied a lot on the subject throughout the course of the teaching. It would be hard for us to make out what action is, situated as we are in a human complex working through the medium of social relationships and entertaining an outlook which is secretly motivated by some form of desire. We cannot imagine a state of affairs where we can be entirely free from all desires, whatever be the gospel, whatever be the teaching. This is a great handicap before us. And so it requires a Herculean effort on our part to rise to that level of understanding where it would be possible for us to live without motivated outlooks or desires which are directed to particular ends. It is not possible for anyone to live without doing some kind of action. This is one of the great points made out in the Bhagavadgita. It is futile on the part of anyone, whatever be his knowledge or wisdom, to imagine that he can be without any activity, because the world is nothing but action, it is a field of movement, enterprise and effort. It is Kurukshetra, an arena of activity; but it is also Dharmakshetra, a field of action regulated by law, and not merely of some chaotic activity. Here is the problem before us; neither can we be free from action, nor can we perform action with any motive behind it. If this could enter our heads in its true significance, we would have understood the message of the Gita. As this is a difficult point to grasp, it is further explained in some detail for the purpose of the elucidation of its meaning.  

    There are certain actions which are unavoidable. Among the many types of action, three specific ones are pin-pointed as inviolable and impossible of avoiding under any circumstance. These three types are designated as Yajna, Dana and Tapas, terms which have a wealth of meaning behind them. Literally translated, Yajna would mean sacrifice, Dana would mean charity, and Tapas would mean austerity. These are not injunctions of a religious type that are imposed upon us by the Gita. This is not a ritual that we are expected to perform by way of Yajna, Dana, or Tapas. These are tremendously significant cosmic requirements on the part of every individual, whatever be his vocation. There is a universal meaning behind these great mandates. In our relationship to the Supreme Being, God, the Absolute, we have to be perpetually performing a sacrifice on our part by ascending degrees of perfection and in increasing dimensions. God-Being is the greatest of sacrifices in the sense that it is the state of the abolition of all individuality and egoism. The state of God is the apotheosis of sacrifice. Often, in Indian scriptures, God is referred to as Yajna, or sacrifice. 'Yajno vai vishnuh'- 'Narayana is Yajna,' or sacrifice himself. By this what is intended is that even the least of individuality is wiped out in that conflagration of universal knowledge or realisation. To approach God would be to perform a sacrifice on the part of oneself, because the highest state of egolessness is God-Being. And to approximate this Great Being would be to sacrifice or surrender the ego, little by little, by degrees, which is the sacrifice that is intended. To surrender and sacrifice our own self is the principle of true abandonment or relinquishment - Samnyasa, or Tyaga. From the point of view of our aspirations for God, our duty would be sacrifice, surrender, relinquishment of personality and egoism, the principle of the 'I am' in us. We are bound to perform a duty in our relationship to God, and our duty towards God is sacrifice.  

    Likewise, we have a duty towards the world. And that is charitableness, Dana. We cannot be possessors, accumulators or hoarders of any kind of property when we live in a world of co-operative action and mutual respect. Respect for others' welfare and recognition of the value of another's existence is the principle of charity which does not merely mean parting with some material goods that we may possess, but an inward attitude of respect for others, inasmuch as the Self is present in others to the same extent as it is present in us. The feeling of love and affection, and a spontaneous sense of giving rather than taking is the essence of Dana, or charity. We perform charity not because we are rich and others are poor. The reason is different, viz., that the others are equally important and they have as much right to exist as we ourselves have. The principle of the recognition of the Selfhood of all beings is behind the performance of charity or the extension of good-will with regard to others. This is our duty towards the world of beings, even as we have a duty towards God, the Supreme Creator.  

    We have also a duty to our own self, in a similar manner. Self control is one's own duty in respect of oneself. Austerity, Tapas, is our duty from our own point of view, the opposite of the indulgence of the senses. The pampering of the ego, the mind and the senses is deleterious to the health of the personality. The more are we self controlled, the more are we able to restrain our senses, the mind and the intellect, the larger do we become in the content of our being. Tapas is a great duty of everyone in respect of oneself. Indulgence is the violation of this duty. The more we restrain ourselves from indulgence or satisfaction of any kind, the richer we become in righteousness and virtue. The more we begin to satisfy the ego and indulge in the demands of the senses, the farther we are from righteousness. So, austerity, self control, restraint of the senses, mind and the intellect, is our duty in regard to our own self. Charity is our duty in regard to the world outside. Sacrifice is our duty towards God. These three duties are incapable of abandonment under any circumstance.  

    Now, when we speak of duty, naturally, we are reminded of activity of some kind. Duty is 'to do' some thing, in some way, in respect of something; and doing is action. The moment we think of action, we think of the actor or the agent, the performer of the action. Under ordinary circumstances, it is difficult to free ourselves from the idea of agency in an action. 'I do', is the inherent notion behind every individual, whether one performs a sacrifice, does a charity or is engaged in austerity. Whatever be the thing that we do, we cannot avoid the feeling that we are doing it. "I sacrifice, I do charity, and I perform austerities,"- this is a mistake, again, and we are warned against this blunder. We are not the doers of anything, because the so-called 'I' or 'we' is an illusion, finally; it does not exist at all, on account of the ultimate Reality which reigns above all things, eternally transcending and including all particular agents. Every event is the cumulative effect of the collaboration of many factors, and it is not caused by any particular individual. Why go so far? Look at this little phenomenon of digesting the food that we take everyday. Look at the co-operation of the limbs and organs of the body, the various physiological functions involved in the digesting of the meal that we eat. Any good physiologist will know how the whole body functions in a systematic manner. Every cell is active. There is no part of the organism which is inactive while there is the process going on of the digesting of the food. We cannot say that the food is digested by the stomach only. The heart and lungs, the blood stream, even the brain and the other organs that go to constitute this body have an important role to play in this performance of the common action known as the digestion of food. Every action is a total action and a co-operative action. There is no such thing as individual action even in this body of ours. This is only to give an example of how things work anywhere in this world. Even as there is no such thing as isolated action in the physical organism, there is no such thing as isolated action in human society, in the international field, in the whole cosmos. Every event is a universal event, every situation is a cosmic situation. If anything happens anywhere, it happens everywhere, at the same time. We are not accustomed to think in this manner. We are poor weaklings in intellect as far as the truths of life are concerned. The prejudice of the ego has caught hold of us to such an extent that it prevents us from opening our eyes to the facts of life. The Bhagavadgita, in an important verse, says that many factors contribute to the causation of a particular event or the performance of any single action. The body, of course, is one of the instruments of action. The sense of individuality, or the principle of the "I" is also a contributory factor. The sense organs also contribute enough in the performance of an action. The intention behind any kind of enterprise is also an important contributory factor. We know very well how significant these aspects are. But, above all things, there is the final deciding factor, and that is the nature of creation itself, the structure of the cosmos, the Will of the Creator, the Plan of the Absolute, the Providence, as we may call it, which no human being can understand, and no one is given to understand. Such being the case, how blunderous would it be on the part of anyone, to imagine that he is the sole doer of anything?  

Continued>>