Liberation from Desires by Suppression of Desires

Self-control, resoluteness, volition are virtues from a moral point of view and they need a strong ego. From spiritual point of view, dissolution of ego is required. Strengthening and dissolution are at least prima-facie contradictory. Any proper Spirituology has to un-tie this knot. Even for morality-proper, mere suppression of urges which tend to tempt us away from the Duty, would not be a sufficient way out.

In any case emotional self-management is a tricky affair and requires prudent therapies. Aiming at desire-less-ness as a pre-condition for spiritual advancement and giving an unqualified advice of effortful suppression as the only way to attain it, is neither psychologically feasible nor even advisable for mental health. Geeta seems to be trapped in such all pervasive preaching of effortful suppression.

However stand of Geeta on this matter seems ambivalent and changing. As opposed to the repressive agenda mentioned above, Geeta declares a sort of natural determinism. It states that

“Even the enlightened cannot behave otherwise than their individual-nature would allow. As nature is in control of each and every living being, what self-control (Nigraha) is going to achieve? (effort for self-control is always defeated)” (3.33)

On the other hand Geeta concedes a position which is exactly opposite to this. This turn around appears as

“No doubt, as you (Arjuna) are saying, mind is indeed too difficult to be controlled by self. However by practicing (Abhyaas) dis-interestedness (Vairagya) you can control your mind.” (6.35).

‘Kama’ which is one of the four recognized life-goals (Purusharthas), is at the same time the ‘Gate number one to Hell (Narakdvar)’ and enemy number one in six vices (Ripus=enemies) viz. Desire, Anger, Greed, Unruliness,  Temptation and Envy. 

Here we come to a great stranglehold in Hindu Philosophy. All bodily desires, with special (but non-exclusive) reference to Sex, are together called Kama i.e. Desire. This blanket concept is very similar to famous Freudian Libido. In spiritual progress Desire-less-ness is deemed as the decisive step. This has set in all sorts of intellectual acrobatics.

Asceticism becomes venerable but not practicable. Ascetics are adorned as deities as if it compensates the worldly involvement of normal citizen. If sense of sin gets attached to normal natural urges, it cultivates a morbid and hypocritical culture. All duties become secondary to singular ‘duty’ of suppressing desires.

The indifference towards worldly commitments is an ethical disaster. Agenda for healthy self-management of urges is obscured behind the self-negating ideals. Re-orientation of urges in a constructive manner by allowing them to act in a moderate way is the real issue. Suppression (Dama) and Recession (Shama) are the recognized ‘remedies’ but re-orientation and moderation are not given their due consideration. Actually it would have been far better if instead of using blanket concept of Desire, had they specified ‘indulgence’ separately from Desire in general. Now we will see how Geeta too gets caught in the acrobatics. 

 “the three gates to Hell which destroy the soul (it must be ‘self’ as pure witness is indestructible) are Desire, Anger and Greed. Therefore renounce all of them.” (16.21)

Is it really advisable to get rid of them completely? In fact all negative emotions do have their functional need if they rise and fall timely with apt proportion. But Geeta cuts off very possibility of management of emotion by proclaiming Desire per se as evil.

“The moment an object enters the consciousness, it will induce desire; anger is bound to follow desire, anger will cause confusion and confusion in turn will cause distortion of memory and with distortion of memory the destruction of that being is inevitable” (2.62,63)

This is too pessimistic and deterministic to provide a feasible remedy for it. Once determinism is accepted, question of following or not following any advice is eliminated.  Geeta further emphasizes the immense power of Kama. “Sensory faculties are transcendent to the body (and hence are more difficult to control), mind is transcendent to faculties, intellect is transcendent to mind, witness is transcendent to intellect.” (3.42)

However at another juncture Geeta says

“Desire finds its abode in faculties, mind and intellect. It mesmerizes them. This creates an opaque envelop around the witness, disabling its cognitive power.” (3.40)

Question is; then what remains with the living being that can overpower such a powerful ‘Desire’? Again we are left with the only component of our being which is not included in (3.40) viz. Ego (Ahankar)! It can rally around other urges in coalition, against the urge that is to be suppressed, in a given situation. Ego is analogous to State while all remaining being is analogous to society. Irony is that spiritual accomplishment implies dissolution of Ego! Requirement of overcoming Desire strengthens the Ego. No resolution of this irony is proposed in Geeta except for Grace of God.

Actually Buddhist method of ‘Vipashyna’; i.e. remaining aware of all activities of mind without denouncing any of them but not getting engrossed in them, seems to be a feasible (but no way easy) method. Yoga and meditation are mentioned in Geeta but without much emphasis. Very strong emphasis is given to suppression.

Strangely Kama in its explicitly sexual version also appears in Geeta (10.28) as Glory-Sign of God as well, however with two conditions. One condition is that sex is Glory-Sign if and only if it occurs with an intention of conception of progeny. Another condition is that sex should not be in contravention to ‘sanctimonious duty’ (Dharma). (7.11)

Niyoga is religiously sanctioned intercourse of wife, with a properly selected candidate, other than her husband, for the sole purpose of continuance of the lineage of the husband! (Don’t ask how it remains lineage of husband.) This is also conditional. The condition is that neither the wife nor the candidate should enjoy the act. (Don’t ask how this is physically possible for at least the man and how to verify that he didn’t enjoy it.)

Geeta believes that likes and dislikes are naturally determined by the pairs of a sensory faculty and physical object specific to that faculty. (3.24)  This is rather Physicalist. The joy of achieving a goal is not physical sensory experience. Good news is not melodious in terms of sound. It is, Culture, its conventions, its conditioning and context of the situation that determine the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an experience.

Making prestige issue out of a trivial matter has triggered lot many a wars including the one in Mahabhaarat. Aggrandizement of Ego is much more of a Gate to hell than Physical-Desire. Geeta remains oblivious to deeper human predicaments due its Physicalist diagnosis of evil.

There are two analogies regarding faculties running after their liked objects and the adept is one who can forcefully withdraw them.

 “As wind can cause, toppling and sinking of a boat, faculties running after objects and mind following them, causes drowning of true awareness, in a similar fashion.” (2.67).

Why should we not take the analogy that wind can cause propelling the boat as in case of sails? If the navigator knows when to unfurl the sails and when to tie them up, he can use wind to his advantage. Similarly a good management of your desire can bring about your enrichment too!

 “As a tortoise can contract its limbs inside the shell; the adept can contract his faculties away from their objects.” (2.58)

It must be noted however that tortoise does not indiscriminately withdraw its limbs. It does so in a situation of insecurity and walks with head out in normal circumstances. Therefore not withdrawing faculties does not necessarily imply evil.

Interestingly, fulfilling faculties by the objects intended for them is also called a sort of Yadnya by Geeta, “(Some) offer objects to be devoured by faculties (is also a Yadnya)”—(4.26).  

This also fits well with “I am the hunger in your stomachs” — (15.14)

With all its vehement appeals of withdrawal from ‘objects’ (Vishayas), Geeta has to concede “Although the adept has stopped all the ‘consumption’ of objects, his interest in them does not recede! It recedes only after he sees cosmic-soul in him and gets the transcendent Joy.” (2.59)

But how can the adept (with his super strong Ego, which can take the stress of non-consumption), would realize the final accomplishment? This is a catch 22 situation.

In all the discussion about faculties attracted towards objects, Geeta overlooks the situation of repulsive experiences that one would tend to avoid but which are necessary for performing the duty. If addictions are dangerous so are aversions!

Now let us see a more puzzling stanza.

“Especially and completely avoid the desires arising out of voluntary commitments (Sankalpas) by surrounding all faculties by mind and controlling them.” --(6.24)

This is really strange because generally one should stay firm with the desires emerging out of voluntary commitments, rather than getting distracted by stray desires, that may arise accidentally! This amounts to avoiding voluntary commitments per se, which is impossible and not even advisable.

Why only indulgent-type vices are counted but diffident-type are not?

This point is not particularly applicable to Geeta alone but Pious Ascetic philosophies in India generally have this one-sided bias. Vices such as indolence, cowardice, sycophancy, escapism, fatalism which are ‘defensive type’ of vices are ignored and deleted from the list of vices. Only aggressive types of vices are listed (Desire, Anger, Greed, Unruliness, Temptation and Envy). This shows a class bias about the preached.

The preaching presumes that listener/follower is in a power position wherein he will be prone to indulgent type of vices. But the preaching is spread in all classes. Telling the poor, “You ought not to be greedy” or telling the weak “you ought not to be unruly” appears mockery of the disadvantaged.   

   

Is Our True-Self a Non-Doer?

Geeta, especially in its first half, holds a position that the true core of our personalities is  Aatmaa. It’s translation is not soul but pure-witness, that which is conscious, but normally goes unnoticed in the contents of our consciousness. It’s turning to nothing else but itself alone is supposed to be the enlightenment and non-dependant happiness.

“The one who relinquishes all desires of mind and remains contented by the Aatmaa and in the Aatmaa is the ‘person with firm insight’ (SthitaPradnya)”---(2.55)  Aatma is unaffected and has no tendencies to act. (Avikaree and Akarta)  Although its presence is very obvious we keep on missing it, as we are engrossed in whatever concerns  us. So far so good!

The problem starts with the position of Geeta that we are not truly the doers of our actions and by implication are free from the responsibilities of our actions. This position is a-moral, to say the least.

Are we fooled when we consider ourselves as doers?

“All actions are completely done by the nature’s propensities. However the person who is under the spell of his Ego gets deceived to believe that he is the doer” ---(3.27)

‘Vimoodhaatma’ is translated as ‘person under spell’ and not as “pure witness coming under spell.” Because pure witness can not come under any spell. Vimoodhaatma is taken along the lines of Yatatmaa (endeavoring person) , Sanshyaatma (radical-skeptic person), Punyaatma (Meritorious person) and so on. Here the term Aatmaa does not come as ‘the pure witness’ but such and such type of person.

Similar assertion is made by Geeta at many places as,

“oh! Strong man! The philosophically knowledgeable person knows the constituents and propensities of nature and sees life as ‘propensities are acting upon propensities’ and does not get involved”—(3.28)

“It is Nature alone that is bringing about all actions and Aatmaa is not the doer, one who can see this is truly the seer.”—(13.29)

Let us accept this for the time being. Now the question arises as to which component of our personality is truly the doer?

According to Geeta there are five (as per 18.13) essential causes for any action and these are

“Substances, various implements (some have translated this as various faculties), various forms of efforts/attempts, the doer and the fifth one is fortuity”---(18.14)

Thus although the Nature is overall cause, its specific form which can be a doer is needed for action as is mentioned in the five specific causes of action.

Which constituent of nature has the ability to become a doer? For that let us see the list of constituents of Nature as given by Geeta

“Regulated-Nature (Apara-Prakruti) [As distinct from Creative Nature (Para-Prakruti)] is constituted by eight different constituents and which are Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Sky, Mind, Intellect and Ego”

It is worth noting that Aatmaa does not appear in the eight causes so this is consistent with the above position. Five material elements would fit into ‘substances and implements’ amongst the five causes. Mind (Mana), Intellect (Budhdee) and Ego (Ahankaar) are the constituents in the ‘inner-apparatus’ (AntahKaran).

Mind is typically emotions vacillating in all directions and can be propelling action but not decisively determine it. Intellect has a property of making various options clear but cognitive clarity is not sufficient to push the effort. Even if a decision is rational as per intellect, it doesn’t have the power to execute itself. We have to gather our volition against other options which are to be foregone/rejected. The total self is an accumulation of all sorts of possible intentions. There has to be a decisive factor which identifies with particular option and puts the ‘weight of self’ behind that option. This function is carried out by Ego. We can be in two Minds but can not be in two Egos! It is Ego that stamps its ‘casting-vote’ in the hung parliament of Mind. This is internally ‘coercive’ and to some extent ‘alienating’, but you cannot remain ambivalent and have to accept this self-coercion. The factor that selectively identifies and shifts the weight is Ego.

Thus we can safely conclude that Ego is the Doer. Ahankar is the Karta.

Thus the person who thinks that I am the doer qua Ego is not fooled at all because qua Ego he is the Doer.

Nobody would ever say that the pure witness in me has done the action. Most of the people may not have heard that they have a pure-witness in them.

 ‘KartaAaham iti manyte’ means the person assumes that his Aham (Ego)

is Karta and he is absolutely right. There is absolutely no Vimoodhata (foolishness) about this.

How does it help the Doer even if there is a Seer who is not the Doer?  

Main contention is, any preaching which tries to give a solace by arguing that “the ‘real-you’ which is only witness and not the Doer”, is misleading. Drashta means one who sees. Karta means one who does. But the witness is seeing in the ‘scene’ that Ego is doer and is in problem. Solutions to the Doer’s problems must be given in Doer’s terms.

Even Lord, qua doer, had killed Kansa, Shishupala. Lord had, by a miracle supplied a perpetually extending clothing to wrap Draupadi when she was being stripped by Duhshasana. Thus even the seer in the Lord must have seen that the doer in him is doing these things. Lord had options as to how many times he would pardon Shishupala? Should he donate his army to Kauravas? Or should he create a temporary sun-set in order to bring out the hiding Jayadratha? Should attempt the defection of Karna and so on. He must have judged the merits and demerits in terms of his duty as particular person Krishna or God-incarnate of the Era. But these in their very essence  were actions and not mere events to be aware about.

Question is what Doer should do? Moreover how does he justify his action? How does he judge merits and demerits of the action? That is precisely where ethics comes in. Suspending judgment may be good for practicing meditation. Meditation can not be a substitute to ethics. The excuse, that you are not the doer but merely a seer (Sakshi), is a void excuse at least ethically. This category mistake is committed by Geeta in many of its parts. It evades the ethical question by invoking spiritual accomplishment.

Is Geeta consistent with its position that Aatmaa is Non-Doer?

In the first half of Geeta, roughly speaking, the position is held that Aatma is Non-Doer.

However in 15^th chapter of Geeta, there are stanzas which deny this very position. In Chapter 15 which is about the ‘structure’ of God himself, it is clearly said that Aatmaa is the modicum (Ansh) of god which individualizes into a particular body. Moreover this modicum Aatmaa is affected as well as moved by the propensities of nature (Gunas) 

“Only those who have the complete knowledge of spirituality can see that it is individual Ataman who migrates from body to body or is in a steady state in a body or getting affected or being propelled by the propensities of nature; while fools (the confused) can not see this.”---(15.10)

“Those Yogis, can recognize this entity as their own core, if they try to recognize. However the people who are ‘not groomed in spirituality’ (Akrutatmanam) can not recognize it, however hard they may try to.”  (15.11)

This conception of Aatmaa is clearly different than the one held in earlier chapters. If pure-witness does not remain pure once lodged in a body, if it too is undergoing (Bhokta) and it too is moved by the propensities of nature and becomes active (Karta), the solace of Non-doer-ness is metaphysically void too.

Aatmaa of Jain Darshan is the entity which Does as well as Undergoes (Karta and Bhokta) but then this is a terminological issue, function of Ahankar is also included in Jain-Aatmaa.

Geeta is invoking Sankhya-Drarshan’s Aatmaa in the earlier chapters and now almost invoking Aatmaa of jain Darshan (except that Jain Aatmaas are multiple and Geeta’s Aatmaas are, although mistakenly taken as multiple by the ignorant, are in fact unified into one cosmic soul.)

Whether Doer and Seer are separate or unified, the individual human being remains a doer and has to take the responsibility of his actions.

Geeta does recognize the importance of the Doer-ness

In a very welcome message of Geeta “you should uplift yourself” Aatman and Aatmaa are used for the whole personality of the addressee.

 “You shall uplift yourself and not let down you go|

   You are your only friend and you are the only foe|” (6.5)

 “One, who struggles and wins his autonomy, becomes his own friend|

   and one, who is not in his own control, becomes his own foe|” (6.6)

In my opinion this is the best preaching of Geeta. It is very contrasting with its almost single point program viz. ‘Dissolution of Ego.’ This is because which factor within us can ensure that, we are in control of ourselves? It can not be any other than ego. “I am warrior therefore I must fight” “I am a saint therefore I must keep away from war” “I am judicious I ought to be impartial.” It is such identifications that make us decisive.

 Who can be addressee of any preaching? One who can resolutely gather his volition for the preached ‘duty’ and against the ‘temptations’ that stray away from it, can meaningfully be the addressee of a preaching.

Pure-witness can not do things like uplifting or letting down. It can not be either a friend or a foe. It can not struggle against itself and win itself. It is addressee’s Ego that must tame the addressee’s Mind to follow addressee’s Intellect. That is how a person can win autonomy i.e. self-control. This the meaning of (6.6)

Such autonomous person ought to enhance himself materially and morally and refrain from harming himself materially and morally. He should seek his Svadharma (duty unto oneself) in the unique way as demanded by his unique constitution and situation.

 Occurrence of such endeavor-oriented (Pravruittivaadi) stanzas in Geeta is rare while most of the text remains withdrawal-oriented (Nivruttivaadi)

What should be the role of Ego?

India has suffered disastrous effect of this as each praise of Aatmaa is taken by Ahankar as its own praise. Instead of diffusing itself in Aatmaa and becoming Akarta ,the Ahankar on the contrary has tended to become

Na-karta (‘indolent’ and evader of action), i.e. not acting even when it is a duty.

What should happen to Ego? It is clear that for morality and justice we need a strong Ego while for spiritual accomplishment, we need to dissolve it. How one does switch these attitudes? Art of switching these attitudes at proper junctures in life would be the true art of living. Geeta However goes on switching its own position in its heterogeneous metaphysics but fails to teach the pursuer as to when and how to switch his/her attitude. 

If ontological status of Doer is relegated to naught, who then remains as owner of responsibility? 

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.  

Can Geeta Be an Ethical Guide?

Geeta is the most revered book amongst Hindus & even others. Any staunch atheist will also concede that Geeta has performed a great therapeutic (as atheist would put it) role in so many lives for centuries & it continues to do so even to date. I too find very insightful points in Geeta in the sense of spirituality proper & not merely psychological prudence. However when it comes to foundation of ethics, it requires different concepts, arguments & maxims. Many people claim that Geeta can be an ethical guide even in modern era. Can Geeta render a sound & consistent ethical theory? I find many problems in that. I am trying to express the prima facie anomalies & contradictions that struck me when I studied it as ethical theory along with my attempts to solve them, in a form of series of articles.

This is in order to solve the problems. It might be my own inadequacy in interpretation or it may be due to heterogeneity of philosophical schools that Geeta has clubbed together. I sincerely hope that this will facilitate a constructive and critical dialogue / thinking and everyone would develop more clarity irrespective of his/her doctrinal preferences. 

War Motivators- Spiritual Preaching(s)

(Article 1 in the series 'Can Geeta be an ethical guide?') 

Geeta comes as an episode in the Epic Mahabharat. As a narrative it is story of how Lord Krishna motivated Arjuna to fight the war and helped him in overcoming his untimely nervous breakdown. Along with this strand Geeta is in the main guide to spiritual pursuit bestowed by God upon Man. It is revered by Hindus as their book of religion but certainly not law-giving book like Bible or Koran. There is a deep rooted belief amongst Hindus that if you have spirituality you don’t need ethics-proper. I contest this belief and I am trying to demonstrate by referring to Geeta as to how ethics-proper is necessary and not automatically implied by Spirituology.

The appeals which can motivate a person who is not spiritually enlightened are typically invoking his ‘spiritually-harmful urges’. Lord Krishna has used such lowly urges (too) for motivating Arjuna, along with highly philosophical sermon of his. Due to intermingling sequencing of Geeta, denial or denigration of such lowly urges also comes intermittently in same flow. Sequencing of Geeta is very much intermingling in terms of its thematic strands. This alternately appearing occurrence of war-motivational stanzas and spiritual preaching stanzas, goes from start of Geeta to the end of it. (As we shall see later, even in terms of spiritual pursuit, some spiritual preaching(s) are in conflict with other spiritual preaching(s) as well.). It is necessary to point out such anomalies for hopefully being resolved by commentators.

In first chapter of Geeta, description of Arjuna’s nervous breakdown amidst the war and his various pleas for avoiding the war are given. It must be noted that Arjuna’s proposal was not of desertion or fleeing but that of sacrificing his life without resistance rather than earning the immense demerits as per his understanding of non-violence.

“Even if they use weapons and kill me, the one who has dropped weapons and who is not offering any resistance, I think such death would be more meritorious for me”---(1.46)

For Arjuna the propriety of the war itself had become problematic. He was seeing the prospect of being nauseated about the ‘enjoyments’ after victory as soaked in blood.

“Rather than killing the great elderly relatives and my teachers, I would prefer a beggar’s life in this world. My economic and sensory gains after the victory will always appear to me as soaked in blood”---(2.5)

[ In my opinion,The princes of both sides had gambled and made a mess of it. It was a controlled war (Dharm-Yudhda: Nothing to do with crusade. War on secular issues, if fought abiding by rules and maintaining each others’ dignity, is called Dharm-Yudhda) and everybody was supposed to fight an enemy having equal strength and weapon. If this was the case why such large scale bloodshed was needed? Duals between princes using same weapons would have been sufficient to decide the winners. It was not only large scale violence but also a wasteful violence. Of course this is not expressed by Arjuna in Geeta.]

Essentially Arjuna was facing a moral dilemma regarding two basic principles viz. Non-violence as against Justice. Justice demanded the victory of Pandvas over Kauravas. Non-violence demanded sacrificing himself (in turn hopefully to avoid the war). He had not asked as to how one can achieve spiritual accomplishment. His question was clearly an ethical one

“I am asking you because I am perplexed regarding the issue of piety versus impiety. Please tell me Lord categorically; which option would be meritorious (shreya) for me”

----(2.7)

The issue of merits and demerits of Justice and Non-violence is never answered in the Geeta. The whole issue is shifted to the question as to, ‘under what state of mind violence ceases to be sinful’? How to act ‘without involvement’? and there starts a sermon on Spirituology which is surprisingly independent of Ethics, as we shall go on seeing.

1.  The very first motivator used by Lord Krishna is the stigma of impotence.

    “From where did you get this untimely distraction which is neither proper for        Nobles   

     nor begetting the heaven”---(2.2) “Oh Partha don’t let this impotence overwhelm you.

     Leave this ridiculous weakness of heart and stand up.”---(2.3). The wrong association

     between bravery and sexual potency has been haunting males till date. Lord Krishna     

     also uses this association to induce offended rage in Arjuna.

2.  Lord says, “By avoiding this sanctified war, your fame and honor will be maligned and you will be evading a duty according to your birth-based caste”.---(2.33)

Kshatriyas, the warrior-caste no doubt have a duty to fight. However this does not automatically make any and every war ‘sanctified’. Lord did not say, “Fight for sake of Justice and your side is the just side.” Kshatriyaas also have a duty of taking parental care of their subjects as per stipulated duties of Kshatriyaas in Geeta itself   (18.43)  [Dealt with in detail elsewhere---.]

3. Lord also uses a positive ‘motivator’.

“If you are defeated and you die, heavenly pleasures are assured. In case you win, you will enjoy ruling the earth (there is a gain in both cases) therefore you rise and fight.” (2.37) [this allurement for heavenly pleasures has come before too as, “It is fortunate occasion for you, that the door of heaven is incidentally opened; so don’t lose such rare opportunity.” (2.32)]

‘Gain in any case’ is undoubtedly a logically sound (believe in heaven etc for sake of argument). But the very next stanza comes as a jolt to this calculative approach.

“Pleasure or suffering, gain or loss, victory or defeat, whatever pair of opposites it may be, always treat the opposites as equal and if you fight in such spirit of equanimity, no sin will attach to you.”---(2.38)

How can one treat gain/loss as mutually equivalent and yet get motivated because there is assured gain and gain alone? Furthermore as far as about what comes to one’s lot, one may remain in equanimity, but what about whatever one is doing to others? Moral question arises especially about ‘doing to others’ rather than having to take on oneself.  But as it seems, according to God, even if a gain is made in a sinful way, sin will not ‘attach’ to ‘you’ if you take the gain in sprit of equanimity. This is how war-motivation, ethic and spirituality come in conflict at this juncture of Geeta and many others as we shall go on seeing.

4.  Lord also tries to relieve Arjuna from anguish by telling him that his true soul is God Himself. If you shift the burden on God you are relieved.

    “If you bequeath or confer upon all your actions to ‘Me’ who is your real self and become non-desiring and selfless, you can fight without anguish.”---(3.30)

     There is a big problem in this argument. This theory of ‘conferring upon God’ and ‘becoming selfless’ is applicable to all actions. ‘Not fighting’ and ‘sacrificing’ is also an action. Was Arjuna justified in taking that option with same spiritual conditions? Why it is always the case that option other than recommended by Lord is coming out of ego and if the option happens to be agreeable to Lord, it is ego-less? Arjuna did not raise this question due to his mental state and limitations of his era. 

5.  In chapter 15 of Geeta, Lord demonstrated vide a miraculous spectacle of Lord’s ‘cosmos-encompassing-form’, in which the main contenders Karna, Drona, Bheeshma, being killed in a flash-forward scene of the war. He further told Arjuna, “Therefore you rise and get the victory, vanquish the enemies and enjoy the rich kingdom. I have already killed them you merely become my instrument and that’s all.”—(11.33). Now the question arises as to whether becoming some other agent’s mere instrument, amounts to another act or not? If it is not an act, how “You do become” can be an imperative statement? If it is an act, the choice lies before and responsibility comes upon the one, who is consciously becoming an instrument. By the way, is Kingdom a thing to be enjoyed? Or is it taking further responsibility?

6. Solace of immortality of Aatmaa (soul is not correct translation but ‘pure witness’ is) “The ‘resident’/ ‘incumbent’ of a body is immortal and body alone is mortal for all living beings, therefore death is not worth grieving.”---(2.30) In the first place, fear of grief and fear of guilt are two different things. Let us start examining this issue right from fear of death itself. Who perceives the dread that I am going to cease to exist? It is the Ego (Ahanakaar) that continuously identifies with the ‘person’ which is the particular composite of material and spiritual ‘substances’. There is no doubt that the composite is going to be destroyed. It is the ego that craves for permanence. Now the question is whether Ego is mortal or immortal? If Ego and intellect containing the memories are together shifted to the new body of next birth, there could be a solace of immortality. But is Aatmaa inclusive of Ego and Intellect? From experience it is not. We generally don’t remember ‘who’ I was in the erstwhile birth.

    

     Aatmaa the ‘Pure witness’ is that, which is unconditionally conscious and is unaffected by any particular content of consciousness, that may be presented to it. According to Geeta, when Individual’s Aatmaa transmigrates from old-dead-body to newly acquired body of next birth, “As wind takes away the fragrance from a flower, the individual’s Aatmaa, while getting transferred from one body to another, takes along with it the erstwhile sensory faculties and mind, to the new body” (15.8)

     Point to be noted is that it does not take with it the Intellect and Ego of the body which is left. The intellect contains all the memories/abstractions and Ego is binder of identity of the dying person. Both (Intellect and Ego) are not transferable as per above stanza.  Thus we can conclude that Ego is mortal. ‘Pure witness’(Aatmaa) never craves for immortality but in fact is immortal, while Ego does crave for immortality but precisely it is the Ego that is mortal. Thus according to the very metaphysics adopted by Geeta the Solace that Aatmaa is immortal is void.

     

    Fearing death is valid, grieving for dear one’s death is valid and feeling guilty about killing someone is also valid. Killing innocents is outrageous. Nothing of this predicament is absolved by the immortality of the ‘pure witness’ even if we assume that, emotional and sensory faculties are also somehow dragged by the ‘pure witness’. ‘How pure witness can do things like dragging?’, is further metaphysical curiosum/puzzle.

     

    Furthermore Position of Geeta on question of violence is “Violence is demonic and Non-violence is Angelic”—(16.14 and 16.2 read together). Issue before Arjuna (for example) was not that his dear grandfather Bheeshma was going to die but that

     he was compelled to kill him.

7.  Analogy of worn-out clothes: In the course of giving solace of immortality Lord says, “As people throw away worn out clothes and acquire new ones,  the Aatmaa throws worn-out body and acquires a new one”---(2.22). Apart from all issues regarding death mentioned above, argument of worn-out-body is not applicable to youngsters getting killed in a war. (I am referring to the incidence of Arjuna’s young son Abhimanyu getting killed.)  

8. Not fighting is Egoistic and Fighting is preordained: Lord uses a motivator that Arjuna is going to opt for war in any case irrespective of the debate. ‘Prediction about what an actor would’ and ‘deliberations going on within the consciousness of that actor about what he should’ are categorically different things. Yet Lord tries to motivate Arjuna as

“If you, under the spell of your ego, decide not to fight, it is going to be only an imaginary decision. Your individual nature has determined your action-decision and which is to fight”---(18.59)

“Although you are not willing to, you are bound to fight due to your nature”—(18.60)

Now my contention is that what a knowledge (or belief) about one’s predetermined prospect would mean emotionally? First possibility is that “Though it is predetermined still Arjuna is going to feel spontaneous when he will actually do so.” But can one pre-pone such theoretical spontaneity to the perturbed present? No! One can not. Second possibility is that “Arjuna is going to feel irresistibly compelled against his will and not spontaneous.” This possibility too does not relieve Him from the anguish in the present.  

 9. Lord also uses a threatening motivator, “If you keep your mind devoted to me you will overcome all dangers due to my blessings. However if you egoistically disobey me, you shall be destroyed.”—(18.58) Surprisingly this threatening comes in the final part of last chapter (18) in Geeta. Arjuna must have been much enlightened, by the time the great sermon was almost complete. For a totally uninitiated person a threat could have been understandable. A ‘Threatening God’ is not in keeping with the Hindu tradition. This is one example of bad sequencing and intermingling of diplomacy with spirituality, in Geeta.

10. Back to free will: Arjuna’s freedom to choose is again recognized but with acquiring ‘mysterious knowledge’ or a divulged secret. “ I have given you the more and more mysterious knowledge. Keenly consider it fully and then do as you wish”---(18.63)

     If moral decisions are to be taken after being a favorite disciple of Lord and getting full insight in spirituality, what a common man should do?

11. Now the Top-Secret: This burden of freedom is immediately taken back by the lord

          “Now I shall tell you the ultimate secret which will be most beneficial to you. As you      

           are my dear one I am telling this”---(18.64)

          “Forsake all the duties and come to my refuge. I am there to absolve you of all your    

          sins.” ---(18.66)

          Indeed people find it easier to select a benevolent-dictator, than deciding upon morally     

          perplexing issues for themselves. What is ‘the most mysterious’ about it? 

12. However before this ultimate motivator, there comes another motivator wherein    God   

      is already in charge of everybody’s heart and it is better to listen to the inner voice.

     “God dwells in the heart of every living being and from there he moves all of them  by his magic as if they are mounted on a machine.”—(18.61)

     “Go to the refuge of this inner God with all your feelings and you will find abode of permanent peace by his benediction.” ---(18.62)

Now for Arjuna God qua his inner voice is telling him not to fight and God standing in front of him is telling the opposite. Which of these is to be followed? Arjuna’s predicament falls back to the square one.