(Gita-28) The Most Misunderstood Verse of the Bhagavad Gita
Acharya Prashant: Let's begin from the two centers. What we have today is probably the most quoted verse of the Bhagavad Gita and also the most misunderstood one. Let's start from the two centers that we have. The center of clarity, the center of confusion. The center of truth. The center of assumption.
From the center of assumption it is believed, for belief is the life of the believer. That the believer exists and the proof of his existence is his doer-ship. How do you go about proving that somebody exists? If that somebody is seen as acting willfully, if he is seen to be doing things out of volition, then you would say it stands proved that the thing or the entity or the person indeed does exist. Right? So that's also the argument of an advanced in the favor of a metaphysical master. You say we cannot see him but because we can experience his deeds therefore he exists. Right? We can feel that he is blessing us and we can also see that the planets go around the sun. We can also see that there is a particular order in the universe and that must be somebody's doing, otherwise where would such an immaculate order come from. Therefore doing proves existing, action proves existence. Please understand this.
That's a kind of common sensical, very pedestrian logic the ego bases its own existence on. If there is nobody then who is the one running the show and because the show is obviously running I can experience the show. Therefore, it stands proven beyond doubt that there is an invisible hand like that of a puppeteer behind the show running the show, right? You see a car on the road and the first thing that you believe, very common sensically is that there is somebody running the car and that there has to be a driver. Right? So action is presented as a proof of existence. This is very important because the ego has no other proof of itself. Actually, it's a mythical entity but it gets something to hang on to and that something is action. Action There is action obviously all the time in the perceivable universe; this that we perceive in the process of duality is ever changing that can be taken as action, things are constantly happening not a nanosecond when nothing happens.
When you say stuff you're presupposing it changes. To exist is to be in a flux. You cannot be and yet not be in the process of becoming. Being is becoming. If you exist, then you are continuously becoming something else. Nothing exists as itself even for a split second, it becomes something. something else. In that sense, being is becoming and that is going on. Now that is going on and there seems nobody to claim the ownership of the show, right? We all see that a lovely fantastic show is definitely in progress. And we do not see anybody who comes to claim that he is the one running the show. So we come up with two kinds of assumptions. Please understand that very very clearly because these are the two assumptions that are at the root of all human suffering. The wider show that may or may not be something I'm concerned with, that is being run by a metaphysical master. And the smaller show, the limited show, the more inner and intimate show, the more personal show is being conducted by an inner master. The outer master who runs the planets is called God. The Inner master Puran's life is called the ego. Both are myths and both are suppositions based on perception of action. Right?
The moon is feeling attracted to the earth. So there has to be somebody driving the attraction. Who's that? The metaphysic physical god and I'm feeling attracted to the girl next door. So there has to be somebody driving the attraction. Who is that? Me. Both God and me are premised on the same supposition. Where there is God, there is ego. Where there is ego, there is God. The basis is exactly the same. Somebody is running the universe. So there has to be a God. And somebody is running my house. So there has to be a me. Otherwise, who is running my house? Somebody gave birth to all these species. So there has to be a God. God made man. God made universe. God made the buffalo and the cow and the sheep and the bacteria and whatever else we know of. So all these things in the universe and all these beings who gave birth to them. God. And look at these kids, there has to be somebody who gave birth to them. So that's me. There is action. We don't dispute that. Obviously, there is action. Obviously, the species are coming from somewhere. Obviously, there is a reason the galaxies are behaving the way they do. Obviously, there is a reason right from the tiniest of organisms to the most colossal of stars, everything passes through a life cycle. Something comes into existence and passes away in 5 seconds. That happens. We are talking of microorganisms. And if we look at subatomic particles, many of them have lives that are shorter than nanoseconds. They come into existence and then they are gone. And then you look at the most massive star in the universe. That too has a life cycle. This, this, this, this, this, and ultimately a black hole and then it's gone. So there has to be somebody running the show. Somebody is doing it because there is a deed, so somebody is doing it.
At an aggregate level, who is doing it? A god up there. At an aggregate level, there is a god up there doing it. And at a personal level, who is doing it? Me. Both are mythical and both are the same. You cannot be a believer in God and not be egoistic. And you cannot be egoistic and yet not believe in God. They will go hand in hand. It's just that the name and the nature of your God may change. You may not always call your God as G-O-D. You may address it by some other name. That's all right. But do you see the logical fallacy involved here? The logical fallacy is that action proves an actor. That's a logical fallacy. It has to be understood. And that's why when religion is not based on philosophy, religion just becomes superstition. You have to see where the God concept comes from. You go to a believer in God and he will say because everything exists so there has to be somebody who made these things and because everything moves so there has to be somebody who is the mover. You see what it is? An assumption. An assumption based on an unverified principle. What is the principle?
That if there is an action there has to be an actor. Now this principle is not cast in stone. There can be action sans the actor. In fact all action is without the actor. There is action. Obviously there is no actor. There is no actor. And that is the message of the Bhagavad Gita. That is the essential message of all spirituality- there is action. There is no actor. The moment the actor comes into a self-imposed existence, it has condemned itself to suffering. Existence itself is suffering. Because your existence is false. Your existence is like bullying yourself into a party, gate crashing, bulldozing into a party. Who is to be blamed for the resultant suffering? You're not there. You're not invited. You're nobody. You have no place there. And yet you want to be there. You will suffer and inflict suffering. You will suffer and you will inflict suffering. Are you getting it?
Now look at this doer- it is a pretty interesting entity. This doer, a self-certified doer, a self-declared doer. I am the one who is moving all stuff. I am the one behind all action. I'm the one doing the deeds. Now, logical consistency would demand that if you are doing something, then you should also have control over the result, right? And that's why the doer can never be satisfied at just owning or claiming doer-ship. It is also always obsessed with laying claim over the result. You see there is a car moving somewhere right and you say wow what a driverless car and I say no it's not driverless I am controlling it through this equipment it is remotely controlled. To challenge me or test me, what's the next thing you would say: stop it. Turn it left. If you are indeed the doer, show me the results of your doing. And only then it can be proven that you are indeed the doer. Now for the ego, it's a matter of life and death. Right? If it is not the doer, it does not even exist. Its existence is predicated on it being the doer or the actor. If you can prove that you are not the doer, then it's not that the ego becomes tranquil or still. It just disappears because if I'm not the doer, then I don't exist at all. Non-doership is disappearance.
So if you challenge me regarding the claims of my doership, then I have to by hook or crook prove that I have control even on the result of the deed. If I am the doer, then I ought to have some control on the result of the deed. If I say I'm driving that car, if I'm managing or controlling that car, then this is the remote controller. This one I'm controlling the car. It's such a big claim. It's a massive car, a wonderful car. And look at my face and I claim to have control over it. You'll not believe me easily. You'll test me, you'll say, ‘All right! Prove. And that's a massive challenge in front of the ego always. Now, do you know why we are so concerned with what will happen next? Because if I cannot demonstrate that I have control over what will happen next then it also stands to question whether I am the doer at all? If I have no control over a car, am I its driver or controller at all? No. And if I'm not the driver or the controller, do I even exist? Look at the magnitude of the crisis. And that's why the ego will always be concerned with the future because the future is where all the results lie. Always. If I'm doing it, then I ought to have some control over the future. Otherwise, the whole thing is so absurd, so illogical, no? I'm driving the car, but I don't control the car. Then what kind of a driver are you? To drive is to control.
Now, do you see why we are all control freaks? Because if we cannot control, then we don't exist. If you cannot control, then you don't even exist. And mankind has been concerned with future in all possible ways, including the concept of heaven and hell. Are you getting it? Now look at the curious and rather pitiable state of this thing called the ego. It lays claim over what is happening. It says since there is an action there has to be an actor. I am that actor.
Seen one of those rascals? They pick up a 500 rupee note lying somewhere on the street and they say, ‘Kiska hai bhai, kiska hai,’ anybody? very half-heartedly half ensuring that nobody even hears what they are saying and then they say since there is nobody else to claim it, It belongs to me. That is the ego. Since there is something and nobody else is coming to claim it. Surely I am the doer. I am the owner or controller. There is this currency note fallen here, right? Surely it belongs to somebody. Now because there is nobody else to state a claim, therefore it belongs to me. So something happens. Since there is nobody else to claim doers, Therefore, who is the doer? I am the doer. That's the ego. That's the ego.
The body got up in the morning. Now, nobody claimed to say that he made the body get up. When you get up in the morning, do you find somebody by your bedside saying, you know, without me there was no way you would have woken up. The body gets up, your eyes open and there is nobody to claim that he or she did it. Therefore the ego says since nobody else did it. Come on. Therefore I did it. So I woke up. This is the most absurd statement possible. I woke up. Who decides to wake up? Who decides to wake up? In the general course of things, do you ever decide to wake up? You know, most of us don't even decide to go to sleep. And I'll have proof just 15 minutes from now.
Half my audience goes to sleep without even deciding to go to sleep. We have a representative here. If you don't even decide when to snooze off, how do you decide when to get up? You don't, you don't decide anything. Things just happen. And because there is nobody else to claim that he did it. Very conveniently you say, you know, I did it. Says there is nobody else to claim this note. Therefore, it goes to my pocket.
Look at the logic. If there is somebody else, you come and claim. But the thing is, nobody is going to come and claim because what you want is a claimant in the form of a person. Whereas the claimant is actually a system not a person. Therefore, he will not come to you, never come to you in an embodied way to claim doer-ship. Obviously there is a doer but the doer is not a person. The doer is not even some particular specific force. The moving system itself is the doer. What is prakriti? A person. No! Prakriti is a name given to the entirety of everything. It's a collective noun. It's an umbrella term. And since prakriti is everything, therefore, who will come to stake claim?
Everything cannot come to you because everything includes you. How can everything come to you, please tell me? You toss a ball up and it comes down and you ask who threw it down to me. Now who can come to you to explain because the law of gravitation says that everything is pulling everything. Just that the law of inverse squares operates, therefore at very large distances the force becomes feeble. Still the force never becomes zero. Therefore if you receive a ball thrown to you, the fact is even the planet Jupiter has hand in it because even Jupiter is exerting its gravitational pull on the ball. Now can Jupiter come to you and say you know, ‘I threw it to you’ and it's not just Jupiter every single celestial body and by celestial body I do not just mean colossal bodies.
Even a grain of sand somewhere in a distant galaxy is exerting its gravitational pull on the ball. And the trajectory of the ball and the time period it takes to return to your hands is determined by the entire universe. Everything in the universe is determining how and when the ball will come to your hands and you say who gave it to me? Now how can the entire universe come to you and say I gave it to you? So who moves the system? The entirety of the system itself. But what you want is a claimant in the form of a person because you take yourself to be a person. So you think that anybody who does anything is a person. So you say, you know, if God exists, he has to be a person.
If there is a mover in the form of a metaphysical lord, he's not a person, he's a system. If you can worship a system, then it's okay. But you never worship a system. You think of an individual running a system. No, nobody runs the system. The system runs itself. There is action but there is no actor. Are you getting it?
Now the ego has to be overly concerned with the result of the deed because if the deed is proven to have an absolutely random result then it becomes undeniably visible that dude if you have no control over the result then probably you were also never the doer in the first place. If you have no control over the result then probably you also never were the doer and you can never have control over the result. You may keep fretting and obsessing over the result but you will never never never have control over the result. The entire universe is at play in everything that is going to happen. How can you decide what is going to happen next? You are a very small thing. You are an extremely small thing. Everything that happens is a game of the entire universe. Or if you believe in multiverses then all the various universes are simultaneously at play in every little thing that is happening anywhere at any time. Do you get it? And you want to be the boss. You want to be the doer. And that's the reason you are so stressed out. Extremely stressed out.
It's like somebody's driving a car and you are a little bacterium sticking to one of the wheels. And you have somehow managed to convince yourself that you are the driver. It's a massive car. And who are you? A little bacterium, sticking to one of the wheels, surface of the tire and you have convinced yourself that you are driving the car. So what will you do now? You feel that you must turn left. Even your feeling is not your feeling. Even your feeling is just molecular but still you stake claim over the feeling right? So you say it is my feeling. So you want to turn left. Now whether or not the car will turn left depends on the entire system. Let's say there is a driver. The driver represents the entire system. Now whether or not the car will turn left depends on the entirety of the whole thing represented by that fictitious driver. But the bacterium will be thoroughly stressed out because it has claimed that it controls the car but it does not find any evidence that it controls the car.
But one out of hundred times its desire will just coincidentally randomly tally with the happening and that will give the bacterium hope and evidence for the next 200,000 years that it indeed does control the car. 100 times the bacterium says I want to turn left. The car will not turn left because you are anywhere not in control of the happening. But one out of 100 times the car happens to turn left and that is purely coincidental and the bacterium says, ‘Yes I did it and if I can do it once I can do it again.’ And the basic law of probabilities suggests that even if the probability of something is negligible very close to zero, yet any event with nonzero probability will somehow someday happen. And when that happens, history is made. You include that in your history books and you say, you see, this is the result of human endeavor. We did it. And look at the rarity of the event. We tried so hard for 100,000 years and ultimately we did it. It is rare, not because you tried and ultimately made it happen. It is rare because that is the measure of the probability associated with that event one upon 10,000. So it is going to happen once in 10,000 years anyway. Whether or not you wish the car to turn left one out of 100 times it will turn left. It is irrespective of your desire.
I wanted my kids to earn a lot. 100 parents in the same locality have the same desire. We want our kids to be high earning adults. Now one family is going to see that desire materialize. But the thing is that 1/100 would have happened irrespective of whether you wanted it or not. It is not your desire or your deed that has resulted in this. It is just random happening. It's very hard to acknowledge let alone digest because if you can acknowledge it you are dead, inwardly not outwardly. You are dead. You are gone.
We manage to live on via shallow purposes. We don't have the great purpose of liberation in life. What keeps the common man alive is these trivial purposes. Can I build the new next home? Can I raise my kids into billionaires? Those are the things that keep the common man alive. You take this thing away and he'll find himself in a void. How to live? What to do? Therefore, he will not acknowledge that the thing would have happened irrespective of him, being there to do it or not. Are you getting it?
So that's the situation of the ego. There is a happening, lay claim over it and the next happening, keep hoping about it or keep working absurdly about it. Think of the bacterium on the tire. He's working very hard. to ensure that the car takes the left turn. What will happen through your effort? It's anyway not in your control. The common man works endlessly but only outwardly and blindly. We were not supposed to actually work so much. Nothing in existence works as much as homo sapiens do. It's a very interesting thing. The British economist Keynes, he said in 1930 that with all the technological progress that we have in the next 100 years, we'll have 15 hour work weeks because we'll have so much that we won't need to work at all probably. And then somebody said that was before him that Electricity will become too cheap to be metered. That's the game of technology. Why will human beings then need to slog so much? None of that has happened.
In fact, human labor has become more of a plague today than it ever was. Work weeks haven't shortened. Keynes has been proven wrong. He said 100 years we are almost upon 2030 are we not? We work so hard. We work so hard because we are not working for any purpose that is achievable in any way. We are working for something that cannot happen. And if you're working for something that cannot happen, then you'll have to work endlessly and still find that the thing cannot happen. And that will only spur you into more work. Are you getting it?
There is no reason we should be working so much today. Life can have other purposes. Life can be the name for purposeless enjoyment. Instead, look at people. Are you getting it? It is not without reason that we have to work so much. Given the current state of affairs, let technological efficiency increase further by a factor of 10. We'll find ourselves still working as much as we do today or even more because our work is not for the purpose of physical sustenance or material improvement. Through our work we are trying to achieve the impossible through work. The ego is trying to prove its existence and therefore it will have to keep working. Keynes will be proven wrong again and again. If you work for a tangible purpose then there will be a limit to the work. But if you are working to prove that you exist whereas you do not, then you will work ad infinitum and still the work wouldn't have been completed even by 1%. Not true?
For work to reach an end or a conclusion, first of all, the work has to be something that can ever end. If I ask him to run right up to the horizon, how long will he keep running? He will keep running forever and that's the nature of our work. We are trying to reach the horizon and build a grand house there or find the lady of her fairy tales there. So you keep running. The horizon by definition is a place you can never reach. That's the state of the ego. Sri Krishna is talking here about karmaphal, karmaphal.
karmanye Vaadhikaaraste maa Fhaleshu Kadachan.
Do you see why fhal, parinaam, result, effect is so important for the ego? You see this? Because if I cannot control the result, it becomes questionable whether I ever controlled the action either. If I cannot control the effect, somebody might ask, "Did you even control the cause?" And I say, "I am the cause." Somebody might just very suspiciously look at me and ask, "Then do you even exist?" It's a matter of life and death. It's not just a bad habit. Constantly looking towards the future. It's not just a bad habit. It's not just a matter of security. It's a matter of existence. It's a matter of inner survival of the ego. Therefore, we are all obsessed with the future. What will happen tomorrow? What will happen tomorrow? And it's not that we are asking what will happen tomorrow. We always have preconceived notions of what we want to happen tomorrow. And it is the future that makes us work today, no?
You want something and for that you work today. You assume that your work has any relationship with the outcome. The outcome is based on entirety, not on your work. It's stupid. It's extremely stupid to demand outcomes because the outcomes just don't jam the gun, don't go too far into asking then what about purusharth, what about facing challenges, picking up the right causes, laying down the gauntlet in front of a formidable adversary. Don't don't go that far ahead, just understand how the ego operates. We'll come to your questions in a while. Do you understand this? Why we need to control the outcomes. Karmaphala.
At the outset we said there are these two centers. The center of clarity and the center of confusion. Now what happens from the center of clarity? From the center of clarity it is seen because clarity is to see it is seen that you are anyway not the doer. You see where the deeds come from. You see how your actions are coming from your physical constitution. You see how everything is related to everything else. The language you love is coming from your past. I was just reading somewhere that there are places that are fertile, rich in water. So there, when man started writing; some kind of ink came very early and because our physical constitution is such that most people are wired to be right-handed even since birth that's across cultures; a majority of people you will find them to be right-handed.
Therefore, if you are writing using a liquid medium using your right hand, then the script has to run from left to right. Why? Because if it will run from right to left, then this hand the ink does not dry too soon. If it runs from right to left, then this hand might spoil. what you have written. Do you get this? If you write this way, then this hand doesn't come into play. It stays away and your words are safe. But if you write this way, if you write this way, then what you have written this my hand inadvertently touch that and the words might be spoiled. And then there are places where water was scarce. So there calligraphy started in a totally different way. They started itching things over stone. Are you getting it?
Now if you are doing that over a piece of stone, then which hand would typically hold the hammer and which hand? The right hand. Right hand. So you will move from this side to this side. It's all coming from the universe whether you write from left or from left to right. It's coming from the entirety of things. It's coming from geography. It is not coming from your taste. It is not coming from the gods. But you claim ownership. You say, you know, I take pride in the way I write. It's all historical. It's all entirety. It's about the clouds where they rain and where they not. It's about the rivers where they flow. and where they do not. And that determines everything. Are you getting it? That's the center of clarity.
In the center of clarity, the self has no place to hide. It is exposed. It is gone. You don't have likes or dislikes. It's all environmental. It's all historical. It's all biological. It's all social. The eye is a fantasy. A very painful one. Like a nightmare. Things don't exist, but they can still make you suffer. That's called a nightmare. The ego is a bad dream. Liberation is about waking up from the dream. It's anyway a bad dream.
You know this fellow does not take himself even at the initiation of the action. Why will he then be bothered about the result? That's the free man. To be free is to be free of the concern for results. To be free is to be free of the botherations of the future. What will happen tomorrow? I have no control even over? I have no control even over today, how can I have control over tomorrow? You're sitting here, right? Somebody says you know this particular train that's going from Delhi to Chandigarh is probably going to get late. It will not meet the desired schedule. Will you be bothered?
You're sitting here not in Delhi right now and there's a train running from Delhi to Chandigarh. And you are told that the train is running behind schedule. So the desire that the train will reach Chandigarh right at 6:00 a.m. in the morning it's supposed to be that desire won't be met. Now will you be bothered? Why? Because you are not even in the beginning. How can you be bothered about the end? I didn't even board the train. Why the hell will I be bothered when I will deboard it? But if you assume that you are in the train then you'll be suddenly stressed out. The train is starting from Delhi and let's say you are in Mumbai but you can be stupid enough to assume that you are in Delhi and on the train whereas you are in Mumbai.
Now some do comes running to you and says you know that particular train it's running late and you are not just sweating you are all in tears, why? Because you don't know that you have not even initiated if you have not even initiated what value does conclusion hold to you? Conclusions which results matter only to those who have first of all initiated. You'll simply say, remaining pool as cucumber. Dude, I didn't even begin. Why must I bother when and whether it would end? Had I been the beginner, had I been the initiator, then I would have probably wondered about the ending or the closure. But I'm not even in the beginning. What do I have to do with the end? I'm not even in Delhi. What do I have to do with Chandigarh? I didn't even board the train. Why the hell should I worry whether I will deboard the train? Do you understand this? You're not even doing it right now. You have no control even right now. What control can you have in the future?
But as they say, lies are like chain reactions. And the fundamental lie is the ego. Once you say that you are at the source of things, the beginning of things, the initiation of things, You will find yourself obliged to lay claim over a thousand other things. It's a chain reaction. The wise ones have said, "Nip it in the bud. Don't let it even begin. Once it begins, it's uncontrollable, unstoppable. You cannot halt a nuclear explosion midway. The only way to halt is to never let the explosion begin. The ego is the beginning of a nuclear explosion. If it begins, it begins. The good news is the nuclear explosion is just a nightmare. You can wake up.
From the center of confusion, you want to have all the control over results and you have none. From the center of clarity, you don't even bother to have control. In either case, there is no control. Just that from the center of confusion, you want to have control. From the center of clarity you see that control is a myth and therefore the desire to have control, the desire to have a deterministic future is dropped. That is called being prakritist. That's called going with the flow. Are you getting it?
Do I do nothing then? No. How can you do nothing? We said everything in the universe is constantly in flux. Your job is to remain in flux. Your job is to keep responding to the flux. That's what you do. You don't want to build a future. You want to respond to the present. That's liberation. I don't have an idea of the future. I only have responses to the present. And those present responses are not driven by desires of the future. That's not what I'm targeting.
Not that I have become unemployed. Not that I suddenly have nothing to do. I am the liberated one, in that sense, I still am. You can call me the liberated ego though that's the equivalent of zero ego but still practically it can be said, ‘I'm the liberated ego.’ I am just as everything in existence is I too am but I am just like everything else in existence like the stars, the moons, the wind, the grass. I love to say, ‘the wind blows the grass grows so do I like everything else in existence, I have no plans.’ I exist and I move in harmony with prakriti. Not that I have nothing to do. I have much to do. But I have nothing to do of my own. I do a lot and yet I don't bother. I work so hard and yet I don't have a future. That's the doctrine of karma. Not what you find peddled in the usual discourses on the Bhagavad Gita. Nothing has been more distorted, more misunderstood than the doctrine of karma. And at the center of that lies this particular verse.
Karmanye Vadhikaaraste Maa Faleshu Kadachan.
People say this means, you know, ‘Do your work and don't care about the results.’ And all kinds of very loathsome interpretations, extremely ugly distortions of the Bhagavad Gita we have. Extremely ugly, ugly and very harmful. Do you get this?
Obsession with the future is a compulsion with the ego. If you exist, you'll have to fret over the future. Not possible to be free. The only way to be free of the future is to be free of yourself. Be free of yourself and flow like the wind. But will the right things happen to me then? Can you assure me? Is there a guarantee? So desireless, motiveless action and faith, they always go together. Somebody who's asking for guarantees, somebody who is craving for assurances, he is unfit to even touch the Bhagavad Gita. This is only for the courageous ones. For all his other weaknesses, Arjun not once asks, 'What will happen to me in the future?’ Can you please guarantee me something about tomorrow? At least basic minimum guarantees? I don't know and I don't care. I don't know and I don't care. Karmanye Vadhikaraste.
My job is to keep responding. That's the adhikaar that Shri Krishna is talking of. That's the only authority you have to not to be. As a respondent you are not; as a reactant you are. I respond, I don't even know how I respond this way and that's the beauty of the whole thing. Things happen through me things happen I don't even know that they have happened. I once said, ‘Compassion is the sound of the echo of the footsteps of liberation. You don't even know that you are being compassionate. You exist and that's compassion. You move, that's compassion. You do nothing, that's compassion. You do something, that's compassion.’ You help without knowing that you are the helper. You're like the sun. Help radiates from you. You don't even know who is at the other end receiving the help. If you know you are the helper, then you are actually an exploiter. The one who knows that he is helping, believe me, don't believe me, come on, see it for yourself. He will also be eager to demand returns. Otherwise, why would he have bothered to note the help in the first place? Please tell me.
If you give something to somebody and make a note of it, tell me what are your intentions? Why did you make a note because you wanted to extract value from the help. You wanted to remember that you have helped so that one day you could demand or extract some kind of return or favor- an ROI. The true helper will never know that he's helping. Never. He'll have to be told. And then he'll sometimes not bother and sometimes he'll be just surprised. I helped. Did I? Probably. Fine. If you say so. I don't know. Maybe I did. But thank you so much for telling me that I'm a helper. Thank you so much. I'm grateful, you told me. And then he would turn to the other side and say, "What's going on?" I mean, random guys are telling me they are just popping up and telling me I'm helping them. The fact is I'm never helping anybody. Here and there from everywhere dudes are dropping from the skies thanking me for nothing. When did I ever help anybody? That's the state.
Great things happen from you but without your knowledge and that's the very hallmark of greatness. It is not a targeted thing. It is not something that you can ever hope to achieve. It is not something that comes to you through cultivated endeavor. It happens and it takes even you by surprise. The liberated one, half the time he's not bothered and half the time he's just bemused, surprised. What's going on? Thank you for what? This one comes and says, you know, can you please accept this thank you note? He says me, me. That one comes Sir, can I have a selfie with you? Like what? What? With me? I mean, what have I done?
And then there is the ego that puts in this two paisa of effort or investment and then is constantly looking around for returns of 2 cr. A continuous agonizing period of hope that you call life. How much was the investment that you put in two paisa and somebody announces you know for an investment of two paisa here is the name of the lucky one. No no no not the lucky The ego never believes in luck. It believes in doership. For an investment of 2 paisa, here is the name of the diligent one, the effortful one, the laborious one who has won rupees 2 cr and his name is Prashant and the ego is already overflowing. It has already concluded. It's the bad old habit to conclude without knowing the name of the winner. The champion who has won rupees 2 cr is Prashant and this one has already assumed it's me. ‘Prashant tandon,’ (making an expression of shock.) Can you please recheck the list? Something is amiss somewhere, it has to be me. through the ‘tandon’ please; you write my name there. That's the ego hoping for the impossible.
We said a continuous terrible long unbearable period of agony called life, steeped in hope. Agony and hope go together. The deeper the agony, the greater the hope. And that's why all cultures across the world put so much emphasis on this thing called hope. Because everybody is living a life of angst. You will die without hope. You'll just collapse. But hope is such a false medicine. Instead of trying a false medicine, why not first investigate the disease, the diseased one? Why is there a need for such a hollow medicine, a spurious medicine in the first place? Is the disease even real? Are you getting it?
It's not about not wanting a result. It's about seeing that you have never done the deed. How can there be a result? We don't get this. Such injustice has been meted out to Shri Krishna. See what he said and see what has been delivered to us. These middlemen, these interpreters. Either they never knew what the philosopher Shri Krishna had to say or they were simply; what should I say, Evil enough to distort his words and and his intention. People say you know somebody has written a commentary on the Gita; there might be some flaws in the commentary but let's still respect that person because he has written the commentary. No, this person is far worse than someone who has never even touched the Gita. Because this person was arrogant enough and evil enough to place himself above even Shri Krishna. He said, you know, I will put my beliefs into the Gita. Shri Krishna does not matter. I'm bigger than Krishna. That's the magnitude of the ego. I'm bigger than Shri Krishna.
Shri Krishna may say whatever he has to in the name of Krishna. I will forward my own prejudices and beliefs and superstitions. This person is unpardonable. Not that he deserves half the quantum of respect. He deserves to be spanked. Think of the gravity of the crime. You have messed up with the highest words that mankind has known. Karm karo Fhal ki Chinta Mat karo- what nonsense is that? And what karm are you supposed to do? Then they say, you know, the karm that situations have put upon you. And what do they mean by situations? That's typically varnashram dharma. Varna which is roughly broadly the cast you are born in. Varna is not exactly cast but ashram the stage of life which is your age currently and also you must include gender in it. So take these three things and that will tell you what your karma must be. So you keep doing the karma and don't bother about the result. Are you getting it?
So if you are a 40-year-old male iron smith lohaar then that automatically determines your karma. What is your karma? You keep working on the anvil and keep taking care of your wife and kids because you're 40 years old. That's the Grihasth ashram stage. Everything else is blocked for you. So you keep doing this and don't bother about the results because anyway the results are not going to be good. You are so damn unconsciously choosing a life that the results are going to be terrible. Not just uncontrollable but uncontrollably terrible. So you have been given a sweet pill. You know you should not look towards the results. I say you should look towards the results and ask yourself do I even control those results and if I don't then why should I accept this kind of a philosophy? Are those results really liberative for me or good for me in any way? Then why should I accept this philosophy? Are you getting?
The bacterium on the tire must ask itself 99 out of 100 times; it's the only disappointment that I get. Then why should I continue to be the way that I am? It should ask itself. Since you are so bothered about the results, why not investigate the results? Had you been a free man, I would have said fine, you are already free of the results. You don't need to needlessly go into the results, you are anyway free. But since you're not free, since all the time you're thinking of the future, why not ask yourself what am I getting from the kind of future I plan, I flow towards, I have been directed to dream of. Do I get anything from it? If not, why must I stay within this paradigm? Why not break out? Why not break free? Are you getting it?
This is what the common conception of the law of karma is. And it is mated to that fallacy called personal reincarnation. So who am I? I'm a cobbler, 40 years old, dying of poverty, a male. Where did all this come from? It came from my previous birth. So my job now is to just carry on with whatever my situations are and not bother about the results. That has become the public interpretation of 2.47- The law of karma.
As a woman you are suffering so much spending life in a black hole. But freedom, liberation, you know, being born in a woman's body, there is no freedom for you. That's what the great scriptures say. That's the narrative, right? So now try to accumulate as much punya, virtue as you can in this birth and then in the next birth you will be born a man and then you should accumulate even more virtue to reach swarga- heaven. That's the common narrative. A school boy's dream. Lousy, logicless, thoughtless, absolutely free of all honesty and integrity and the worst part is who do you attribute this loathome philosophy to? Shri Krishna. You want to continue with your shady business, please proceed. But why do all that in the name of Gita and Shri Krishna?
Karm Karo Fhal Ki Chinta Mat karo, that’s not Shri Krishna. Bhagavad Gita is about knowing yourself. Once you are alright with yourself, it becomes impossible to worry about the future. All that you get is immersion in the present. You are so busy with responding to what is here right now that there is no space for any kind of concern for the future. And it is from this total immersion in the present that what you get is desireless action because all desire belongs to the future. And so your action has no concern for the future, hence it is desireless. Your action has to be right. Right with respect to the present, not right with respect to your desires for the future. What is the present? It is a dispassionate and detached observation of what is. And that's the present. The present is no mythical entity. The present is not something paranormal or otherworldly. This is the present. The seen and the seer. This is the present. Knowing this fully, not living in imaginations. When you live in that inner bubble of imaginations, it becomes impossible to see what is. Living in the present is to be open to facts and facts are prakriti. To live in the present is to live in oneness with prakriti, to not obstruct the obvious that's living in the present. Are you getting it?
Now revisit the two centers. The center of confusion keeps worrying about the future and has no control over the future. The center of clarity already knows that he has no control over the future and is immersed in the present. In either case there is no control because the controller is the system. In either case there is no controller. But in one case which is the case of confusion- there is a desire to control the future because there is no self-nowledge. In absence of self-knowledge you think that the self is the doer and hence you want to control the future. It doesn't matter whether you are a liberated one or a confused one. Doesn't matter. In either case, there is no control. That day I said security is just an entertaining thought. There is no control either way. Even if you're a liberated one, that does not mean you will be able to determine your future. But just as a liberated one, you will become free of the need to control the future.
The confused one has a massive overpowering need to control the future and therefore he worries. The liberated one already knows that the future is a flow that nobody can predict anything about. But he also knows that there is no need to predict anything. And this is called faith. It is unpredictable and there is no need to make it predictable. There is beauty in its unpredictability and joy lies in responding to unpredictability with great freedom. Can there be beauty in stillness? Can there be beauty in repetition? In unpredictability lies the beauty of life. But that beauty is lost to you when your desire is to predict.
When your desire is to have a controllable and a predictable future, then all beauty appears very threatening, very scary. Beauty by definition will be new, novel. But desire has written what you were expecting: a repetition of something from your past, your memories and then even the most beautiful happening, I said, will be lost on you. You'll miss it totally which means that beauty is not something rare or intermittent. Beauty too can be a continuity if your inner freedom is continuous. Because life anyway is forever new. If you don't resent, don't detest the newness, then you are forever living in beauty, ah joy and you run after small pleasures? Think about this. This explosion of joy because life is anyway forever new. Nobody knows what's happening next. Because what's happening next depends on the entire system.
You know, you lob the ball and if something is happening in the future in the universe anywhere that will in some minimal way affect the way the time the ball comes back to your hand. An asteroid is nearing the earth, that will affect the movement of all projectiles in the earth's gravitational field. How can you predict anything? And where is that asteroid coming from? Oh, it's a piece of Saturn. Saturn broke up and threw this massive piece of rock into the solar system and now it's hurtling toward the earth and that is affecting the ball that you toss. There is no way anything can be ever predicted. The demand for certainty, the demand for assurance is the most mindless thing you can ask for. Never Say what next? Never say, ‘Mera Kya.’ Never say what is to become of me.
Your hands are full. You already have so much to respond to. How dare you think of what's coming next? In that sense, all worries of the future are some kind of disloyalty to the present. How did you steal the time to worry about your future? You had so much to do today, right? Are you getting it? Now again- Karmanye Vadhikaraste, That does not mean that you have control even over your actions. Let's please understand that this is verse 47 Sankhya Yog. The highest knowledge has already been delivered to Arjun in the first part of Chapter 2 and Shri Krishna started with the self not with the deeds of the self. So when he says that you have control over action not over the fruits of action, it has to be understood that you do not have control even over your action. The liberated one does not want to control even his actions. Now we are coming to stage two of understanding. Stage one said you must have nothing to do with the fruit of the action. Right?
Stage one says you must have nothing to do even with that. Action happens on its own because you are anyway not the actor sir. How can you have control over even action? But people will say Shri Krishna has said, ‘Karmanye Vadhikaraste, which means you have adhikaar over karma? No. This is a way things are being explained to Arjun because Arjun failed the first part of chapter 2. When Shri Krishna is saying you have control over action, what he's saying is you have control over knowing yourself. That's the only choice you have. If you know yourself, then action flows without the actor. You don't have to consciously determine action. Action just happens and that's sahajata.
The only choice that you have is really about whether you want to know yourself, whether you decide to know yourself or you decide to skip the deal. If you know yourself from that knowledge, the right action will automatically emanate. Like a fountain bursting forth, you don't even know where it's coming from. Like a mountain spring, rarely do you know the source. Where do you go to? The spring. Do you even know the source? You enjoy the spring, right? You look at these fountains in the gardens and all, you enjoy the fountain.
Do you know where the water is coming from? That's the state of the liberated one. He does not bother to know where his actions are coming from. So dangerous because this is so close to unconscious behavior. Even the drunkard does not know where his actions are coming from. But that's also the state of the liberated one. He does not know where his actions or his words are coming from. If you ask him why are you moving in a certain direction at a certain pace and why do you change your course and your direction, he'll not be able to tell. Maybe he'll cook up some logic just to save his face, just to convince you in some logical way. But the reality is he does not know. In that sense he is so much like the drunkard. Neither the drunkard knows nor the liberated one. But there is a great, great difference.
The drunkard does not know because he cannot know because he is in a spell of bondage, biological bondage. He has taken in some chemical and that chemical has disqualified him from knowing. So he cannot know. The drunkard cannot know, the liberated one does not want to know. That's the crucial difference. The drunkard cannot know and the liberated one is beyond knowing. He does not bother to know. Because he already knows in a way where everything is coming from. Everything that is deterministic, is coming from prakriti. And if I know that beyond that I don't need to know anything at all. Now, let me flow.
What kind of actions come from there? If even he does not know, how do I know? But you ask this question. What kind of actions come from this state of liberation? Sir, this question itself is not coming from a state of liberation. This question is a security seeking endeavor, no? You want to know in advance, you See, if I get liberated, let's say, and if I'm not worrying about the future, then where will my actions come from? Because right now, I know where my actions come from. Where do they come from? They come from my fear of the future. I'm so afraid of the future that today I just work to save my ass from the future. Somehow I have to save myself. Some sword is hanging in the future. So what becomes my duty today then? Work in a way that you can avoid your head or whatever from being chopped off because the sword is definitely hanging out there. I know how to work.
But what when I realize that all this is futile, where will my action come from? Your action will come from an absence of the question. That's the answer. The answer is that the question will not remain. And as long as the question is, the question is worthless. It's like asking am I asleep? As long as the question is worthless. The question itself proves that the question is worthless. If somebody says am I asleep, what does that mean? Where will my action come from if I get liberated? Because the liberated ones actions do not come from the ego or fear of the future. So where will the actions come from then? What will I do? What will happen to all my duties and responsibilities? Silence. Nobody can answer that.
It's just that the liberated one without even planning fulfills his duties beyond any obligation. When you say that you are fulfilling your duties or responsibilities, all that you are doing is ticking some boxes. As a son, I'm supposed to, you know, visit my parents twice a month. Tick that box. As a husband, I'm supposed to provide for my kids. Tick that box. As a wife, I am supposed to take care of my husband's physical needs. Tick that box. That's not how it happens in liberation. When you give because of duty, you give very little. And even if you give something, you want to, obviously you want twice the amount in return. The duties and responsibilities are just profit seeking bargains. Nothing more than that. Nothing virtuous, nothing chivalrous, nothing generous, nothing charitable about fulfilling responsibilities. Don't throw yourself upon your kids, ‘We did so much for you.’ So you are investing in a stock. It didn't work out. Too bad for you now. Don't pile on me. Are you getting it? Duties and responsibilities are just profit seeking bargains.
Tell me of one duty that you have been told that does not guarantee you a return. And if the return cannot be guaranteed, in this world then the return is guaranteed in the other world. If you keep performing your duties, you will get heaven. If you are told you just keep performing your duties and all you will get is spanking in your rear side in this world and in the other one. Will you ever perform those duties? So all duties are just profit seeking deals. Nothing virtuous there. Don't say, ’Maine apna kartawya Nibhaya Hai.’ No sir, you have just invested and that too in a sinking stock.
I think it was to the Cripps mission that Mahatma Gandhi said or or is quoted to have said, ‘It's like a post-dated check on a failing bank.’ That's also the nature of our responsibilities. If somebody hands you a post-dated check and that too on a failing bank, what return is expected from it? Now one thing: He's stupid enough to do that and secondly he's even more stupid to expect a return. That's nature. Firstly, you are greedy. That's why you perform responsibilities. Our hearts hurt so badly. No, I'm not greedy. It is in total self-denial that I perform my responsibilities. I do not want anything. Seriously, sir, it's only lack of self-knowledge that makes you think that you are just virtuously and selflessly performing your duties. You are greedy. That's why you are performing your duties. Come on.
No, but it's a mother's love. No, what you're calling as mother's love is just the biological affiliation of one body to the other. Mother and child can have no love per se. Not possible. Love is only spiritual. Just because you got impregnated and fertilized and you gave birth to a kid. That does not mean that love will come automatically to you. Not possible. No mother knows love. And I'm saying that with full responsibility. No mother knows love of any kind. As long as you identify as a mother, love is impossible. If you are a mother, you cannot know love. As an individual, yes, you can be worthy of love. But if as an individual, you know, love, your love will not be directed only at your child. Your love will radiate as we said like brightness radiates from the sun. It will reach everybody. Mother's love is no love at all. No mother knows love and no kid therefore receives any love. And that's why all those kids grew up into such horrible adults. Because we all have had very loveless upbringings, getting it?
Duties and responsibilities cannot be determinants of action. Not possible. And that's the way of life around the world, even more so in India. Nobody has to think what to do next because everything has been well laid out in advance. ’Shashtron Mei Likha Hai,’ This is what you must do now. Why do you need to be conscious? Why do you need to attend to life? Why do you need to respond to the present? It's already determined. And to top that there is astrology. Even the future is there in your horoscope. Why do you need to exercise attention? When it's all determined in advance, just keep doing what others are telling you to do. Attention is hard work. Real hard work. And it requires fearlessness to tread an unknown path that too solo. So simply follow the crowd.
Karma does not mean predetermined action. ’karmanye Vadhikaaraste’ Karma does not refer to action that is recommended to you, advised to you or directed to you or ordered to you by the body, by the society, by the books, by tradition, by anything. That's not karma. Not at all. You are a woman, your job is to reproduce. That's not karma. No. When Sri Krishna says karma, remember what I have continuously repeatedly told you. What does karma mean? Nishkam karma. When he says, ’karmanye Vadhikaaraste,’ that means the only choice that you have is whether or not to know yourself. And if you know yourself, if that part of choice is exercised, then from self-knowledge will come desireless action. And that's the only thing you have control over. ’karmanye Vadhikaaraste.’
So you can either let action flow beautifully naturally in the real sense of the word nature. Or you can let your karma come from… There are several sources just too ready to dictate karma to you. You must do this. You must do this. Please do this. Are you not a good son? Come on, do that. Are you not a patriot? Come on, do that. That's not how Shri Krishna's boys are. They don't take orders. They don't take orders from anybody. They take action as a very small thing. The big thing is realization. I know. And from there action happens. I don't act. I know. My nature is not action. My nature is realization. ’Bodho Aham’ ’Karmo Aham nahi.’ ’Bodho Aham’ My job is to, my choice is to know and if I know from there action will happen I don't bother. And if I don't even bother about action will I bother about the fruit of action? That's a double order jeopardy. Forget about bothering about the fruit of action. I don't even bother about the action. I keep myself contended with realization, that's my job.
You go to a gyaani, to a realized one, to a liberated one and you ask, ‘Why did you do a particular thing?’ I know I have said it often but it needs to be emphasized. Why did you do it? You will be lost. That's one question he has no answer to. Why did he do it? Because there is no reason. It's a reasonless spontaneity. Had he known, he would have told. The thing is he does not know where his things are coming from. Only the false can be known, mind you. Can the truth be known? If his words, his deeds, his actions are coming from the truth, he will never know the source. He does not keep an eye on the truth. He keeps an eye on maya. He keeps an eye on falseness. If you ask him where rubbish comes from, he will very smoothly, eagerly tell you. But if you ask him where is your truth coming from, you will find him somehow trying to save face or you'll find him blushing or you'll simply find him silent. There is no answer to this question and you will enjoy this inability to answer.
People will ask you, ‘Why are you doing such a thing and you will say I don't know and inwardly you will also say I don't want to know.’ ’Naa Jaanta Hun, naa Janna Hai. But what will come out of this action? Again you will say, ‘Neither do I know nor do I care.’ But yes, it's not that I'm careless, I'm carefree of the future because I'm very careful of the one thing, the only one thing that matters and what is that? Knowing myself. Of that I'm so careful that I don't even blink. I keep an eye. Continuous uninterrupted attention is what I live in. That's my nature. That's my only duty to be true to myself. And I keep performing that duty to perfection. And I accept no other duties. Get lost. I have one duty. I have one Lord. I have one thing to do and I've made my choice and I don't listen to anybody. That's the realized that's also called surrender. That's also called love. That's also called one pointedness. That's the essence of all spirituality. That's what qualifies you to be called human.
The right thing presents itself when I know all that is wrong. Just keep discarding all that is wrong and the right thing just shows up on its own. I don't know where it came from because it came from nowhere. It always was. It didn't need to come from anywhere. Where are your actions coming from? From no particular place. No particular place. What do you want? Nothing in particular. I'm not unconscious. My state might look like that of the drunkard, but there's a great difference. I don't know where I'm coming from, but I know where I must not come from. I'm very attentive to Maya, the drunkard. He does not know where he's coming from, but he also does not know where he must not come from. Therefore he is coming from a place he must not come from. I don't know the truth because the truth is unknowable but I keep a very keen eye on untruth. The drunkard knows neither truth nor untruth. That's the difference.
Questioner: Thankyou for the Satra. You mentioned that if you exist, you have to fret about the future, and you often also mention Sartre, who talks about existential philosophy, which puts radical emphasis on personal freedom. I'm just assuming that is in the context of the present moment, and his words are, ‘Man is condemned to be free.’ I think that brings an existential angst.
On the other hand, Shrimad Bhagavad Gita talks about liberation of the ego and unity with nature. I don't have a clear sense of how these are exactly complementing each other and how they contradict each other.
Acharya Prashant: They don't contradict each other. You see, what the existentialists including Sartre were saying was that the nature of the human being is such that even if you want to suppress or disown consciousness, you will not succeed. So, man is condemned to be free.
And in that sense, Sartre would often quote a chair. He would take the example of a chair. He would say, ‘The chair's existence, its purpose, are all determined by somebody else.’ Form, purpose, everything is determined by somebody else. The chair exists for the sake of others. The chair has no volition over its present condition.
And the chair will also not mind, or if it does mind, we do not know. Whereas human beings, they are born without a predetermined purpose.
So, existentialism says that existence precedes essence. What does that mean? You exist and then you have to discover your essence.
Questioner: Right.
Acharya Prashant: Which means essentially in the language of ’Neti Neti’ that nobody outside of you can supply you with your essence. Right?
You are born as a baby and that's just existence. And then, it is part of your freedom to consciously determine what life is for. What life is for. Now, the nihilist would step in and say, ‘Life is for nothing.’ The absurdist would come and say, ‘It is impossible to reconcile a purposeful human being with a purposeless universe, which is fine. Even these three can be shown to be consistent with each other. That is all right.
But what you have to take from the existentialists is that they are very fiercely refusing any external dictation of human life and life's purpose. You're saying, ‘You and only you; Go and find out what this life is for.’ Your essence has to come from you, not from an external source.
Questioner: You can ask for a small clarification. So, I think there's mention of existential angst in his writings. And I guess, that can come from, you know, even choosing to operate from an internal campus. But I guess, from what I understood in the words today, and otherwise also, that there is less or almost no existential angst. I think when you choose to submit to…
Acharya Prashant: Your nature is to be free and the society you are born in, the family, the education system, the economic system— they are commanding you all the time to follow, to serve, to just beat the common path. That's angst. In general, there is nothing around you to whisper in your ears that liberation is possible and that's angst. Our external situations are never in sync with our inner natural demand.
The society that Sartre is coming from— France, Europe of the last century, you see— they were still not really so much attuned to Vedantic philosophy that they could declare right at the outset that Mukti is ’Swabhav’.
And because France was recovering from the travails of the second world war, it had become all the more important to rebuild, construct, give a structure to the nation and the economy and everything. Therefore, there has to be followership. Therefore, patterns have to be adhered to. And none of that can ever be in harmony with your inner nature to never follow any pattern or any dictum. Are you getting it?
And that's angst.
Something within me is not prepared to take lessons from anywhere. And yet the world is hell-bent on doling lessons at every step.
This one doles out lessons, that one does. And you know my grandmother, my teacher, my boss, my prime minister, my priest, all of them want to shape me in their predetermined ways and they also show me benefits and yet there is something within, that just won't agree. That's angst. That's angst.
Out of this angst, you got that cultural revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s. So much happened in Europe at that time. And that was definitely a revolution because we don't want to, you remember, ‘We don't need no education.’ That's that.
“All in all, it's just another brick in the wall.”
I don't want to just follow that same pattern. We don't need no education. Teacher, Leave the kids alone because everybody was trying to cast the newcomer in his own desire and image.
Questioner: Yeah, I think this makes a lot of sense. I think so. Well, I have a related question but I don't want to take time from other people.
Acharya Prashant: You may continue, please. Everybody will benefit.
Questioner: So, I think there's an idea from ten years or maybe twenty years ago from simulated reality that we are living in a simulated reality by Nick Bostrom. And I guess, he proposes three options in his paper.
I don't exactly remember the option but the conclusion was that there's an external agent that is controlling us and that could be seen as analogous to us submitting to truth in some way and liberation of the ego. But I don't know if there's any value in actually having all these different ways of thinking. Us being in a simulation and it challenges the concept of free will in some way.
So the question really is, ‘Is there value in trying to meld all these theories into one theory, or treat them as very separate?’
Acharya Prashant: The term is not really about sifting through the various theories or even trying to regularize or harmonize them. All spirituality begins from a single point—the point of suffering. If I am all right, joyful; being in a simulated world, then I don't need to challenge it. The problem is not whether or not, all this is virtual, simulated, real, fake, determined by somebody else, or is it a proxy life I'm living. All that is not really the central question.
The central question is, ‘Am I all right?’
Questioner: Yeah, I think the reason I said it is because you mentioned to see— ’Sabko ek Dekho.’ In other words, ‘Try to see things as unity, see diversity as a common expression of something more beautiful, more common.
So I think in that spirit, I try to put this forward but yes I think, I totally hear what you're saying. Thank you.
Acharya Prashant: Welcome.
