Chapter 4 - Verse 21

He from whom all desires have departed, by whom the mind and the body (the self, the external aggregate of causes and effects) have been controlled, by whom all property has been disowned, who does mere bodily action (action necessary for the bare existence of the body), without attachment even for that action,—he incurs no sin which will produce evil effects. Even dharma is a sin,—in the case of him who seeks liberation,—inasmuch as it causes bondage. He is liberated from both (dharma and a-dharma), i.e., he is liberated from samsâra.

Now, what does the phrase ‘mere bodily action’, (sârîra-karma) mean? Does it mean action which can be performed by means of the body only? Or does it mean action required for the bare existence of the body?

One may ask: What is the good of this enquiry? What if ‘bodily action’ means ‘action done by means of the body, or’action necessary for the bare existence of the body’?

We reply as follows:

Firstly :—If ‘mere bodily action’ means ‘action which can be performed by means of the body only’, the words would imply that even he who, by means of the body, does an unlawful action productive of some visible or invisible results, incurs no sin. Then this teaching would contradict the teaching of the sâstra. And to say that he who does by means of the body a lawful action productive of some visible or invisible results incurs no sin is to deny something which even the opponent would never advance. Moreover, the qualifications ‘doing bodily action’ and ‘mere’ would imply that sin accrues to him who in speech or thought performs actions enjoined or prohibited by the sâstra, respectively called dharma and a-dharma. To say, then, that he who does a lawful act in speech or thought incurs sin would be to contradict the scripture; and to say that he who does an unlawful act in speech or thought incurs sin is a useless reiteration of what is known.

Secondly: If, on the other hand, “bodily action” be interpreted to mean ‘action required for the bare existence of the body,’ then the teaching amounts to this: He who in deed, speech and thought does no other action, lawful or unlawful, productive of results here or hereafter; who, in deed, speech or thought, performs in the eye of the world just those acts which are required for the bare existence of the body without even such attachment to those acts as is implied in the words “I do,” he does not incur sin. Since it cannot even be imagined that such a man can do any wrong which may be called sin, he is not subject to rebirth; he is liberated without any let or hindrance, since all his actions have been consumed in the fire of knowledge.—Thus, there is here only a reiteration of the results of the right knowledge, which have been described already (in iv. 18). The phrase ‘mere bodily action’ thus understood gives no room to objection.

Since an ascetic who has disowned all property does not own even the articles of food and other things required for the maintenance of the body, it would follow that the body should be maintained by begging or such other means. Now the Lord points out such means of obtaining food and other things required for the maintenance of the body as are sanctioned by the texts like the following:

“What is not begged for, not previously arranged for, what has been brought to him without his effort…” (Baudhayana-Dharmasutra 2-8-12).