What Exactly Amounts to Fruit-Renouncing-Action (FRA)?

('Karmafaltyag'  as referred to in Geeta)

The most famous & cherished preaching of Geeta is “Act! but with avowal of renouncing the fruit of your action”. Action binds! But FRA dose not! This has been translated as desire-less-action-path (Nishkam-karmayog) & gets further distorted as purpose-less-action-path. We are left wondering what this can be.

Sometimes we experience involuntary movement of body but we do not call it ‘purpose-less-action’. Even normal breathing or churning of intestines goes unnoticed. But that can not be purpose-less. Conscious purpose may be absent but its ‘function’ does exist & is a very vital one. Action without any reference to its fruition is a non-entity. Most important part is that Geeta does recognize this.

3.4 says, “Simply by not starting to act you can not achieve inaction. Simply by declaring renunciation you don’t get divine accomplishment.”

3.5 says, “No living being can stop action for a moment, keeps acting by its natural propensity.”

3.8 says, “Bodily journey is not known to be inactive & not only that, legitimate action is held as praiseworthy.”

3.6 is yet better. “One who brings his motor organs to standstill but goes on imagining pleasures/sufferings is tempted by his receptive faculties & is simply a hypocrite.”

Thus Geeta is very clear about the fact that action is not only inevitable but also recommended.

Before we turn to how God emphasizes the importance of action before preaching Fruit-Renouncement, we should see a crucial stanza which makes the relation between action & fruit very clear. “The one who can make out, action hidden in apparent inaction & inaction hidden in apparent action, is really intelligent & remains connected with Me(God) while actually doing all the things.” (4.18)

Now let us consider what can be an apparent action which is truly inaction & what can be an apparent inaction which is truly an action

One hypocrisy is that of an agent who acts by omission. Although an action is needed but he wants to avoid it for convenience, he appears to be not acting as there is no movement or effort exhibited. This is ‘action hidden in inaction’. In fact such apparent non-actor is acting by omission, keeping an eye on a ‘fruit’ in terms of his escapist convenience. Thus intending towards a fruit becomes the decisive characteristic of ‘Action’. In contrast with this, there can be an actor who is apparently acting but for whatever reasons he is not expecting any fruit out of it (the true adept according to Geeta). This amounts to non-action in terms of ‘binding’ characteristic of ‘Action’. Binding characteristic means, ‘getting trapped in a series of inevitable & originally unintended actions, which could have been avoided. This subtle & keen observation made in 4.18 implies that, for an action to be an action, the necessary condition is ‘intending a fruit’.

Now we will turn to perplexing stanzas regarding action-fruit relation.

3.9 says, “Only actions which are other than Yadnya (elaborate ritual with exact chanting of Mantras, with fire & sacrifices) are binding, actions in Yadnya are not binding.” Of course ‘desire driven’ (Kamya) actions have to be binding according to Geeta. Now a big question arises. Are Yadnyas not desire-driven? Keeping apart other data about Yadnyas, Geeta itself makes it clear that Yadnyas were clearly desire-driven. 3.10 “ When the Creator created his progeny (us humans) he also created Yadnya & instructed us that we should perform Yadnyas in order to get our desires fulfilled & we should flourish by means of Yadnyas”

If the very essence of Yadnyas is to fulfill our desires; how can the actions in Yadnya can be non-desire-driven & hence non-binding?  3.9 & 3.10 come one after the other & commit an outright self-contradiction!

7.23 “Those who are of mediocre intellect; get temporary fruits as the gods they worship are also mediocre. However my devotees get the greatest fruit which is Myself.”

Achieving God & going to God are a few phrases used for ultimate-spiritual-accomplishment (Moksha). This is also named in various ways ParaaGati, Sidhdi, Non-rebirth etc.

‘Raajas’ is an adjective used for over-activeness with achievement-orientation. Raajas is treated as a lower state in spiritual gradation. Now before turning to the topic as to what renouncement is, let us see false renouncement defined by Geeta.

 “One who renounces fruit, for evading the labor/drudgery involved in action required to get that fruit, is making a Raajas renouncement & hence will not get the fruit of renouncement.” ---(18.8) First part is quite justified because if it is a calculated choice to not to go after a fruit because cost involved is more than value of the fruit, it is no renouncement in spiritual terms. In fact saving labor itself is a fruit. But the interesting thing in this stanza is that the spiritual gain coming out of renouncement is also termed as fruit (TyagFalam). It shows that God can not stop using the term fruit even when he is preaching its renouncement or relinquishment. “Spiritual Theory (Saankhya) & Spiritual Practice (Yoga) is separated by the immature, the true knowers treat them in conjunction & hence get the fruit of both.” (5.4)  Thus the end result of spiritual pursuit is also termed as fruit.

We must note a missing corollary of 18.8. If the fruit emerging from the act happens to be a mal-fruit, then escaping from it in name of renunciation would amount hypocrisy. This is especially so if the mal-fruit happens to be adversely affecting others rather than self. It should be always remembered that ‘I am not the doer’ should never lead to ‘hence I am not responsible’.  

God also uses terms like benefit & gain while describing the advantages of spirituality.

 “The pursuer of spirituality attains the non-sensory but intellectual sort of joy of spirituality & stabilizes in it.”  (6.21)  

 “Any more gain than this gain is not imaginable or recognizable. When stabilized in it, jolts of huge sufferings also can not disturb you” (6.22)

These stanzas beautifully explain the meaning of spirituality. Only thing to be pointed out in action-fruit relation context is that, God does not desist using the term ‘gain’.

This however is not at all surprising because the term action can not be meaningfully used without referring to its purpose. When an artist creates sculpture he has to imagine the product in the stone & chisel out the unnecessary part. When a traveler travels he can not do without having a destination in mind. Any pass-time has a purpose of not getting bored. Other animals may be perceiving the urge and effort contemporaneously and hence a pair of terms like action & fruit is not required for them. However human beings  simply can not direct their actions if there is no reference to a separate entity called fruit. As in case of humans, the urge & effort can be separated in time & space & even agent can be different in case of division of labor.

Thus action & its fruit-intended-ness are intrinsic to each other. If anybody interprets the message of Geeta as relinquishing the fruit-intended-ness per se, it will lead to nowhere. Precisely for this we have to be very careful in conceptualizing as to, what exactly is to be relinquished or renounced. One thing is sure that it is not at all a question of destroying or even wasting the fruit. It also can not mean that the fruit is relegated to someone else including God. Relegating or donating becomes another ‘action’ & it has its own fruit-intended-ness, as spiritual accomplishment itself is a fruit recognized clearly by Geeta. Compassion, generosity, forgiveness are virtues but they too generate a blissful state of mind, a fruit at higher level.  

Why fruit-intended-ness has become problematic from spiritual point of view?  Geeta says that expecting fruit make you a Raajasi Karta meaning an achieving-agent & that is evil.

 “Lustful, acquisitive, waiting for expected fruit, getting exhilarated by gain & getting aggrieved by loss is Raajasi Karta, who is corrupt & violent” (18.27)

This is objectionable. Is it impossible that one can yearn for the fruit without resorting to deceit or violence? We can see that many selfish agents can engage in their ‘seeking’ in a manner complementary to each other. Economy composed of selfish agents need not be a zero sum game wherein gain for some is necessarily a loss for someone else. Indeed it is true that honesty & civility is some times lost & corruption & violence do break out. But can this be blamed upon fruit-intended-ness per se? In fact improvement in civilization is precisely in intertwining self-interests into universal-interest. Therefore non-renunciation of fruit does not necessarily lead to evil deeds. At another place Geeta says “fruit-intending actor is miserly” (2.49) this also need not be necessarily so.

On the other hand is it necessary that the fruit-renouncing-agent will do good-deeds automatically? There are vicious cases where harming the other can become one’s end-in-itself. But all who do not renounce fruit are not vicious in this sense. Furthermore good intention is not a sufficient condition for good-conduct. It is quite possible that due to ignorance in worldly matters, good-hearted agents can harm others or even themselves. Abiding by duty is a condition of morality. However what constitutes duty of a person? The answers given by any established social order or established elite can itself be immoral. The tremendous confusion & arbitrariness in determination of ‘legitimate’-act (Dharmya-Krutya) in MahaBhaarat, of which Geeta is an integrated part, gives ample evidence for the fact that abiding by legitimate duty itself can be pathetically immoral.

Now let us turn to the famous stanza which preaches fruit-renouncing-action. The first two lines, “Karmanyevadhikaaraste Maa Faleshu Kadachan”  have two interpretations.  First,  “You have right to toil but no right to expect fruit from it.” The term Adhikar literally means ‘right’ & if it is taken literally this interpretation is made. This  interpretation is must be outright discarded for it implies that exploitation of workers is legitimate. Generally no adherent of Geeta would use such interpretation.. But these two lines have spread suspicion in the minds of those who are somehow having antipathy with Geeta.

Second interpretation is palatable & in fact very beneficial psychologically.

 “Attempting is in your control but success is not”. Anybody will agree that there are many extraneous factors which are not in our control can render our action fruitless. Thus while expecting the fruit one must be prepared for the possibility that he may not actually get it. This, preparedness for failure & elegant acceptance of it, is very much necessary for psychological health. There is no point in continuing the agitated-ness about failure, once it has occurred (except for learning a proper lesson from the failure). This is really a laudable contribution of Geeta for all humanity. You don’t have to be a born Hindu to take this wise advice.

The  3^rd & 4^th  lines of 2.47 are philosophically problematic. Maa karmafalheturbhoo Maa te sngtvaakrmani

 “Action based on fruit-intended-ness is not to be undertaken”

 “At the same time don’t get attracted to inaction”

As we have seen above, this preaching of 3^rd & 4^th line, is impossible to abide by, as fruit-intended-ness is an integral part of ‘action’ as such.     

Many commentators have tried to salvage this by suggesting that if the actor surrenders to God & bequeaths the expected fruit to God beforehand, he is saved from the binding-nature of fruit-intended-action. Such declaration becomes a gesture of devotion but the fruit is earned by the actor in reality. The psychological benefit of 1^st & 2^nd is valid & may be reinforced by gesture. But the moral responsibility of action can not be wished away by surrendering & bequeathing.  This is especially important if the action yield mal-fruits rather than bene-fruits & to others rather than self. Here lies the basis of patently Hindu escapism.

4.14 is invoked for salvaging this anomaly. It say “I (God) never yearn for fruits for my actions & they never bind me. Those actors who understand me as non-yearning & unbound will not get bound.” As God himself is completely contented by definition he would not be acting out of ‘want’ as we do, but this is applicable to him alone & not us. Furthermore although God acts, not out of ‘want’, but even his actions do have purposes.

“In order to strengthen the good-doers & destroy the evil-doers, to re-establish legitimate order, I have to reincarnate from era to era” (4.8)

Whole thing revolves around getting bound or getting emancipated but does not treat the issue of morality & valid duty philosophically & leaves it for presumed wisdom of prevailing rules made by prevailing elite.

The desire-less-action-path is a wrong way of putting it. I propose insistence-less-action-path Anagrahi Karmyog  as better paraphrasing the spirit & also not claiming all the credit to one’s successes as, similar to failures, they too are dependant of contributions by others & of course fortuitous factors. Hence fruit-sharing-action-path

Fruit may be separable after the culmination of action but not while undertaking its beginning. Undertaking has to be with all responsibility whether you bequeath the fruit or not. As bequeathing the fruit is preached for non-attachment of merit/demerit, its impact is escaping the responsibility of one’s action on the ground that fruit was ‘bequeathed’.

Avoiding the unnecessary mental torment over a failure or disappointment is one thing & escaping the responsibility is quite another. Unfortunately the prevailing interpretation is escapist or at least ambiguous enough to allow for escapism.

Let us see what Anagrahi-karmyog i.e. insistence-less-action-path as I have proposed, would mean. While planning & executing action one must try his/her best that the action fructifies. Even before that one should check whether the purpose & consequences fit into one’s moral standard. One should be choosy & meticulous pre-facto. But there should not be a unsaid pledge “If it does not fructify I shall be unhappy”. Any disappointment or failure, after learning due lessons from it, should be accepted serenely Post-Facto. The originally intended fruit which is already lost should be written-off. Not witting off the lost fruit & keeping on counting it amounts to ‘sunk-cost-fallacy’. It may so happen that the wasted effort indirectly turns out to be an ‘investment’, further course of events. However it is not to be deemed as investment & kept the expectation out of it lingering in one’s mind.