Chapter 4 - Verse 18

‘Action’ means what is done, an act in general. Inaction can be seen in action, and action in inaction, since both inaction (nivritti) and action (pravritti) presuppose an agent.* In fact all our experience of such things as action and agent is possible only in a state of avidya, only when we have not yet attained to the Real (vastu). He who sees inaction in action and who sees action in inaction,—he is wise among men, he is devout (yukta, yogin), he has done all action—Thus is he extolled who sees action in inaction and vice versa.

It has been said that action should be seen in inaction and vice versa because in both an agent is presupposed. This cannot be objected to on the ground that nivritti or inaction is resorted to only when the One real Self is known, and that therefore it presuppose no agency of the Self. For action or inaction, Pravitti or Nivritti, is resorted to only before obtaining a knowledge of the Real Self, as a means of attaining —(A.)

(Objection) :—What means this incongruity, “who can see inaction in action and action in inaction”? Surely action can never realize such an incongruity?

(Answer) :—This objection does not apply to our interpretation. To an ignorant man of the world, what in reality is inaction appears as action, and what in reality is action appears as inaction. With a view to teach what their real nature is, the Lord says “He who can see inaction in action,” &c. Hence no incongruity. It must be a bare truth that the Lord means to teach here, inasmuch as He has said that he who realizes this view of action and inaction is wise, and has introduced the subject by saying that there is much to be learnt about action and inaction, (iv. 17). It has also been said that ‘by knowing which thou shalt be liberated from evil’ (iv. 16); and certainly freedom from evil cannot be achieved by means of false knowledge. Wherfore, we should understand that action and inaction are misunderstood by all living beings and that the Lord, wishing to remove this false view of them, teaches “He who can see inaction in action” &c. Moreover, inaction cannot be said to be located in action or contained in it, as jujube (badara) fruits in a vessel, nor can action be said to be located in inaction : for, inaction is but the absence of action. Wherefore (the meaning of the Lord must be that) action and inaction are not rightly understood by people and that the one is mistaken for the other, as the mirage is mistaken for water, or as the mother-of-pearl is mistaken for silver.

(Objection) :—Action is ever action to all; it never appears to be anything else?

(Answer) :—Not so. When a ship is in motion, the motionless trees on the shore appear, to a man on board the ship, to move in the opposite direction; distant and moving bodies which are far away from our eye appear to be motionless. Similarly, here, (in the case of the Self) inaction is mistaken for action, and action for inaction. Wherefore, to remove this false impression, the Lord says “He who can see inaction in action” &c.

Though such an objection has been more than once answered, people who have long been subject to great misconceptions are deluded often and often, forget the truth though often and often taught, and often and often raise objections based on false premises. Wherefore, seeing how difficult the Real is for us to know, the Lord often answers such objections.

The truth that the Self is actionless, so clearly taught by sruti, smriti, and reason, has been taught here also in ii. 20.-24; and it will also be taught hereafter. It is, however a deep-rooted habit of the mind to connect action with the actionless Self, though it is contrary to His real nature wherefore, “even the wise are deluded as to what is action and what is inaction” (v. 16). Action pertains to the physical body (deha) etc., but man falsely attributes action to the Self and imagines “I am the agent, mine is action, by me shall the fruit of action to reaped.” Similarly, he falsely imputes to the Self the cessation (of activity) which really pertains to the body and the senses, as also the happiness which results from that cessation (of activity): he imagines ‘I shall be quiet, so that I may be happy, without worry and without action; and I do nothing now, I am quiet and happy.’ To remove this false impression, the Lord says “He who can see inaction in action,” &c.

Now, action which belongs to the body and the senses, while yet retaining its own nature as action, is falsely imputed by all to the Self who is actionless and immutable; whence even a learned man thinks “I act.” Hence the passage means:—He who sees inaction in action, i.e., he who has the right knowledge that action which is commonly supposed by all to pertain to the Self, does not really belong to the Self, just as motion does not really pertain to the trees (on the shore of the river) which appear (to a man on board the ship) to move in the opposite direction; and he who sees action in inaction, i.e., he who knows that even inaction is action,—for, inaction is but a cessation of bodily and mental activities, and like action it is falsely attributed to the Self and causes the feeling of egoism as expressed in the words “quiet and doing nothing, I sit happy;"—he who can realize the nature of action and inaction as now explained is wise among men; he is devout (Yogin), he is the performer of all actions. He is released from evil; he has achieved all.

This verse has been interpreted in a different way by some commentators.—How?—The obligatory duties (nitya-karma), performed for the sake of Īśvara, do not produce any effect and may therefore, be figuratively termed inaction i.e., they are equivalent to inaction; and neglect of those duties produces evil and may therefore, only figuratively, be termed action i.e., it is equivalent to action. Accordingly, they have interpreted the verse thus:—He who regards the obligatory duties (nityakarma) as inaction, since they do not produce any effect—just as a cow may be said to be no cow when she does not serve the purpose of yielding milk,—and he who regards the neglect of obligatory duties as an action, since it produces evil such has hell (naraka), he is wise among men. &c.

This interpretation cannot hold good. As such knowledge cannot lead to liberation from evil, the Lord’s statement that “by knowing which thou shalt be liberated from evil” (iv. 16) would prove false. Even though it be granted (for mere argument’s sake) that liberation from evil accrues from the performance of obligatory duties (nitya-karma) it can never be granted that it will accrue from the mere knowledge that they do not produce any effect. Certainly it is nowhere taught (in sruti) that liberation from evil accrues from the knowledge that obligatory duties do not produce effects or from a knowledge of those obligatory duties themselves. It cannot be urged that it has been taught here by the Lord.* The same argument holds good also against their view as to seeing action in inaction. Indeed, this precept enjoins, (they hold), not that neglect of obligatory duties (nitya-karma) should be regarded as action, but only that obligatory duties should be performed. Moreover, no good can result from the knowledge that non-performance of obligatory duties leads to evil. Neither can non-performance (which is non-existent in itself) of obligatory duties be enjoined as an object on which to fix our thought. Nor by a false `knowledge which regards inaction as action can a man be released from evil, or said to be wise and devout and to have performed all actions : and such a knowledge deserves no praise. False knowledge is itself the evil; how can it release us from another evil? Darkness does not expel darkness.

For in the words “by knowing which thou shalt be liberated from evil,” (v. 16) the Lord refers to knowledge of the things there spoken of, but not to the particular knowledge that obligatory duties produce no effects.

(Objection):—The knowledge that inaction is action or that action is inaction is not an illusion, but a figurative idea based upon the fact of productiveness or unproductiveness of effects.

(Answer) :—No. For, nowhere is it taught that even such a figurative idea regarding action and inaction is of any good. Neither is any purpose served by thus ignoring the immediate subject of discourse and speaking of something else. It is, moreover, possible to express more directly the fact that obligatory duties do not produce effects and that their omission leads to hell. What, then, might be the purpose served by such an ambiguous circumlocution as “he who can see inaction in action” &c.? Such an explanation is tantamount to saying that the Lord wanted to confound others by these utterances. It is not necessary to mistify the doctrine (of obligatory duties) by means of symbolic-language, nor is it possible to maintain that it can be easily understood if expressed often and often and in more ways than one.* For, the same doctrine is more clearly expressed in ii. 47, and needs no reiteration. It is only what is high and worthy of our effort that is worth knowing, but not the worthless. No false knowledge is worth acquiring : nor is its object*—which is unreal—worth knowing. No evil can arise from non-performance; no existence can arise from non-existence. It has been said here, “Of the unreal no being there is,” (ii. 16), and in the sruti “How can the existent arise from the non-existent?” (Chha. Up. 6-2-2). To say that an existent object arises from the non-existent is tantamount to saying that non-existence itself becomes existence and vice versa, which cannot be maintained as it is against all evidence. The scripture (sastra) cannot enjoin an act which is productive of no good; for, such an act is painful in its performance, and no pain would ever be deliberately incurred. Since it is admitted that omission of such duties leads to hell, it would simply amount to this, that Revelation (sastra) is of no good, since performance as well as omission of duties thereinenjoined alike result in pain. Moreover, he who admits that obligatory duties produce no effects and at the same time holds that they lead to salvation, lands himself in a self-contradiction.

Just as we are to fix our idea of Visnu on a symbol such as an idol. The symbol alleged to be presented here to fix our thought upon, is an abhava or nonentity.

The object of illusory knowledge, such as action (karma.)

Wherefore, this verse admits only of a literal interpretation, and we have interpreted it accordingly.

Who is a Sage?

The realization of inaction in action and vice versa is extolled as follows :