In plain words
One who sees inaction in action and action in inaction is wise among human beings; that person is a yogin and has accomplished all action.
Word for word
Who would see inaction in action, and who [would see] action in inaction, he is wise among men; he is a yogin, a doer of all action.
The commentators
Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
किं पुनस्तत्त्वं कर्मादेः यत् बोद्धव्यं वक्ष्यामि इति प्रतिज्ञातम् ? उच्यते —
कर्मणि, क्रियते इति कर्म व्यापारमात्रम् , तस्मिन् कर्मणि अकर्म कर्माभावं यः पश्येत् , अकर्मणि च कर्माभावे कर्तृतन्त्रत्वात् प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्त्योः — वस्तु अप्राप्यैव हि सर्व एव क्रियाकारकादिव्यवहारः अविद्याभूमौ एव — कर्म यः पश्येत् पश्यति, सः बुद्धिमान् मनुष्येषु, सः युक्तः योगी च, कृत्स्नकर्मकृत् समस्तकर्मकृच्च सः, इति स्तूयते कर्माकर्मणोरितरेतरदर्शी ॥
ननु किमिदं विरुद्धमुच्यते ‘कर्मणि अकर्म यः पश्येत्’ इति ‘अकर्मणि च कर्म’ इति ; न हि कर्म अकर्म स्यात् , अकर्म वा कर्म । तत्र विरुद्धं कथं पश्येत् द्रष्टा ? — न, अकर्म एव परमार्थतः सत् कर्मवत् अवभासते मूढदृष्टेः लोकस्य, तथा कर्मैव अकर्मवत् । तत्र यथाभूतदर्शनार्थमाह भगवान् — ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येत्’ इत्यादि । अतो न विरुद्धम् । बुद्धिमत्त्वाद्युपपत्तेश्च । ‘बोद्धव्यम्’(भ. गी. ४ । १७) इति च यथाभूतदर्शनमुच्यते । न च विपरीतज्ञानात् अशुभात् मोक्षणं स्यात् ; ‘यत् ज्ञात्वा मोक्ष्यसेऽशुभात्’(भ. गी. ४ । १६) इति च उक्तम् । तस्मात् कर्माकर्मणी विपर्ययेण गृहीते प्राणिभिः तद्विपर्ययग्रहणनिवृत्त्यर्थं भगवतो वचनम् ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः’ इत्यादि । न च अत्र कर्माधिकरणमकर्म अस्ति, कुण्डे बदराणीव । नापि अकर्माधिकरणं कर्मास्ति, कर्माभावत्वादकर्मणः । अतः विपरीतगृहीते एव कर्माकर्मणी लौकिकैः, यथा मृगतृष्णिकायामुदकं शुक्तिकायां वा रजतम् । ननु कर्म कर्मैव सर्वेषां न क्वचित् व्यभिचरति — तत् न, नौस्थस्य नावि गच्छन्त्यां तटस्थेषु अगतिषु नगेषु प्रतिकूलगतिदर्शनात् , दूरेषु चक्षुषा असंनिकृष्टेषु गच्छत्सु गत्यभावदर्शनात् , एवम् इहापि अकर्मणि कर्मदर्शनं कर्मणि च अकर्मदर्शनं विपरीतदर्शनं येन तन्निराकरणार्थमुच्यते ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येत्’ इत्यादि ॥
तदेतत् उक्तप्रतिवचनमपि असकृत् अत्यन्तविपरीतदर्शनभाविततया मोमुह्यमानो लोकः श्रुतमपि असकृत् तत्त्वं विस्मृत्य विस्मृत्य मिथ्याप्रसङ्गम् अवतार्यावतार्य चोदयति इति पुनः पुनः उत्तरमाह भगवान् , दुर्विज्ञेयत्वं च आलक्ष्य वस्तुनः । ‘अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयम्’(भ. गी. २ । २५) ‘न जायते म्रियते’(भ. गी. २ । २०) इत्यादिना आत्मनि कर्माभावः श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायप्रसिद्धः उक्तः वक्ष्यमाणश्च । तस्मिन् आत्मनि कर्माभावे अकर्मणि कर्मविपरीतदर्शनम् अत्यन्तनिरूढम् ; यतः, ‘किं कर्म किमकर्मेति कवयोऽप्यत्र मोहिताः’(भ. गी. ४ । १६) । देहाद्याश्रयं कर्म आत्मन्यध्यारोप्य ‘अहं कर्ता, मम एतत् कर्म, मया अस्य कर्मणः फलं भोक्तव्यम्’ इति च, तथा ‘अहं तूष्णीं भवामि, येन अहं निरायासः अकर्मा सुखी स्याम्’ इति कार्यकरणाश्रयं व्यापारोपरमं तत्कृतं च सुखित्वम् आत्मनि अध्यारोप्य ‘न करोमि किञ्चित् , तूष्णीं सुखमासे’ इति अभिमन्यते लोकः । तत्रेदं लोकस्य विपररीतदर्शनापनयाय आह भगवान् — ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येत्’ इत्यादि ॥
अत्र च कर्म कर्मैव सत् कार्यकरणाश्रयं कर्मरहिते अविक्रिये आत्मनि सर्वैः अध्यस्तम् , यतः पण्डितोऽपि ‘अहं करोमि’ इति मन्यते । अतः आत्मसमवेततया सर्वलोकप्रसिद्धे कर्मणि नदीकूलस्थेष्विव वृक्षेषु गतिप्रातिलोम्येन अकर्म कर्माभावं यथाभूतं गत्यभावमिव वृक्षेषु यः पश्येत् , अकर्मणि च कार्यकरणव्यापारोपरमे कर्मवत् आत्मनि अध्यारोपिते, ‘तूष्णीं अकुर्वन् सुखं आसे’ इत्यहङ्काराभिसन्धिहेतुत्वात् , तस्मिन् अकर्मणि च कर्म यः पश्येत् , यः एवं कर्माकर्मविभागज्ञः सः बुद्धिमान् पण्डितः मनुष्येषु, सः युक्तः योगी कृत्स्नकर्मकृच्च सः अशुभात् मोक्षितः कृतकृत्यो भवति इत्यर्थः ॥
अयं श्लोकः अन्यथा व्याख्यातः कैश्चित् । कथम् ? नित्यानां किल कर्मणाम् ईश्वरार्थे अनुष्ठीयमानानां तत्फलाभावात् अकर्माणि तानि उच्यन्ते गौण्या वृत्त्या । तेषां च अकरणम् अकर्म ; तच्च प्रत्यवायफलत्वात् कर्म उच्यते गौण्यैव वृत्त्या । तत्र नित्ये कर्मणि अकर्म यः पश्येत् फलाभावात् ; यथा धेनुरपि गौः अगौः इत्युच्यते क्षीराख्यं फलं न प्रयच्छति इति, तद्वत् । तथा नित्याकरणे तु अकर्मणि च कर्म यः पश्येत् नरकादिप्रत्यवायफलं प्रयच्छति इति ॥
नैतत् युक्तं व्याख्यानम् । एवं ज्ञानात् अशुभात् मोक्षानुपपत्तेः ‘यज्ज्ञात्वा मोक्ष्यसेऽशुभात्’(भ. गी. ४ । १६) इति भगवता उक्तं वचनं बाध्येत । कथम् ? नित्यानामनुष्ठानात् अशुभात् स्यात् नाम मोक्षणम् , न तु तेषां फलाभावज्ञानात् । न हि नित्यानां फलाभावज्ञानम् अशुभमुक्तिफलत्वेन चोदितम् , नित्यकर्मज्ञानं वा । न च भगवतैवेहोक्तम् । एतेन अकर्मणि कर्मदर्शनं प्रत्युक्तम् । न हि अकर्मणि ‘कर्म’ इति दर्शनं कर्तव्यतया इह चोद्यते, नित्यस्य तु कर्तव्यतामात्रम् । न च ‘अकरणात् नित्यस्य प्रत्यवायो भवति’ इति विज्ञानात् किञ्चित् फलं स्यात् । नापि नित्याकरणं ज्ञेयत्वेन चोदितम् । नापि ‘कर्म अकर्म’ इति मिथ्यादर्शनात् अशुभात् मोक्षणं बुद्धिमत्त्वं युक्तता कृत्स्नकर्मकृत्त्वादि च फलम् उपपद्यते, स्तुतिर्वा । मिथ्याज्ञानमेव हि साक्षात् अशुभरूपम् । कुतः अन्यस्मादशुभात् मोक्षणम् ? न हि तमः तमसो निवर्तकं भवति ॥
ननु कर्मणि यत् अकर्मदर्शनम् अकर्मणि वा कर्मदर्शनं न तत् मिथ्याज्ञानम् ; किं तर्हि ? गौणं फलभावाभावनिमित्तम् — न, कर्माकर्मविज्ञानादपि गौणात् फलस्य अश्रवणात् । नापि श्रुतहान्यश्रुतपरिकल्पनायां कश्चित् विशेष उपलभ्यते । स्वशब्देनापि शक्यं वक्तुम् ‘नित्यकर्मणां फलं नास्ति, अकरणाच्च तेषां नरकपातः स्यात्’ इति ; तत्र व्याजेन परव्यामोहरूपेण ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः पस्येत्’ इत्यादिना किम् ? तत्र एवं व्याचक्षाणेन भगवतोक्तं वाक्यं लोकव्यामोहार्थमिति व्यक्तं कल्पितं स्यात् । न च एतत् छद्मरूपेण वाक्येन रक्षणीयं वस्तु ; नापि शब्दान्तरेण पुनः पुनः उच्यमानं सुबोधं स्यात् इत्येवं वक्तुं युक्तम् । ‘कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते’(भ. गी. २ । ४७) इत्यत्र हि स्फुटतर उक्तः अर्थः, न पुनर्वक्तव्यो भवति । सर्वत्र च प्रशस्तं बोद्धव्यं च कर्तव्यमेव । न निष्प्रयोजनं बोद्धव्यमित्युच्यते ॥
न च मिथ्याज्ञानं बोद्धव्यं भवति, तत्प्रत्युपस्थापितं वा वस्त्वाभासम् । नापि नित्यानाम् अकरणात् अभावात् प्रत्यवायभावोत्पत्तिः, ‘नासतो विद्यते भावः’(भ. गी. २ । १६) इति वचनात् ‘कथं असतः सज्जायेत’(छा. उ. ६ । २ । २) इति च दर्शितम् असतः सज्जन्मप्रतिषेधात् । असतः सदुत्पत्तिं ब्रुवता असदेव सद्भवेत् , सच्चापि असत् भवेत् इत्युक्तं स्यात् । तच्च अयुक्तम् , सर्वप्रमाणविरोधात् । न च निष्फलं विदध्यात् कर्म शास्त्रम् , दुःखस्वरूपत्वात् , दुःखस्य च बुद्धिपूर्वकतया कार्यत्वानुपपत्तेः । तदकरणे च नरकपाताभ्युपगमात् अनर्थायैव उभयथापि करणे च अकरणे च शास्त्रं निष्फलं कल्पितं स्यात् । स्वाभ्युपगमविरोधश्च ‘नित्यं निष्फलं कर्म’ इति अभ्युपगम्य ‘मोक्षफलाय’ इति ब्रुवतः । तस्मात् यथाश्रुत एवार्थः ‘कर्मण्यकर्म यः’ इत्यादेः । तथा च व्याख्यातः अस्माभिः श्लोकः ॥ १८ ॥
In plain words
So what is this truth about action and the rest — the truth promised in 'I will tell you what must be known'? Here it is:
'Action' simply means activity, something that gets done. Now, whoever sees inaction within that action — sees that action, properly understood, is really the absence of action, since engagement and withdrawal both depend entirely on the notion of an agent, and that agent is never actually found: this whole business of action, agent, and instrument only ever plays out on the ground of ignorance — whoever sees this truly sees. That person is the wise one among men, the one who is disciplined, a true yogi, one who has done everything there is to do, all action complete. That is the praise given to one who sees action and inaction each within the other.
Now comes an objection: isn't this a contradiction — 'seeing inaction in action' and 'action in inaction'? Action can't actually be inaction, nor inaction action. So how could anyone see such a contradiction? — No contradiction at all: inaction itself, while remaining exactly what it is in ultimate reality, simply appears like action to a deluded eye, and action in the same way appears like inaction. It is precisely to show things as they truly are that the Lord says, 'whoever sees inaction in action.' So there's no contradiction here, and it fits with the earlier calling this person 'wise.' 'To be understood,' too, means exactly this — seeing things as they are. And wrong knowledge could never free anyone from evil; the text itself says, 'knowing which you will be freed from evil.' So the point is: living beings grasp action and inaction backwards, and the Lord's words here exist precisely to end that backwards grasping. It isn't that action is some container holding inaction inside it, the way a bowl holds jujube fruit, nor that inaction holds action — inaction is simply the absence of action. So it is only when wrongly grasped that people see them as 'action' and 'inaction' at all — the way water appears in a mirage, or silver in a shell. But then — surely action is just action for everyone, without exception? No: someone standing in a moving boat sees the still trees on the bank as moving backward; someone looking at distant things the eye can't quite reach sees moving things as still. In just the same way, seeing action where there is inaction, and inaction where there is action, is a distorted way of seeing — and to correct exactly that distortion, it is said: 'whoever sees inaction in action,' and so on.
Even after this answer has been given, people, so thoroughly steeped in a wrong way of seeing, keep forgetting the truth they've already heard, raise the same false objection again and again, and keep pressing the question. Seeing this, and knowing how hard this reality is to grasp, the Lord answers again and again. Verses like 'this is unmanifest, this is inconceivable' and 'it is not born, it does not die' establish, on the authority of scripture, tradition, and reasoning alike, that there is no action at all in the Self — stated already, and to be stated again. Given that there is no action in the Self, the mistaken seeing of action where there is inaction runs extremely deep — so deep that, as the verse says, 'even the wise are confused about what is action and what is inaction.' People superimpose onto the Self actions that really belong to the body and its apparatus, and imagine, 'I am the doer, this deed is mine, I am the one who must enjoy its fruit.' And in just the same way, they superimpose onto the Self the mere stopping of bodily and mental activity, along with the happiness that comes from it, and imagine, 'let me stay silent, so I can be effortless, inactive, and happy' — 'I'm not doing anything, I'm just sitting here happily.' It is precisely to remove this mistaken way of seeing that the Lord now says: 'whoever sees inaction in action,' and so on.
And here, even though action is exactly what it is, resting on the body and the senses, everyone superimposes it onto the Self, which is free of action and never changes — because even a learned person still thinks, 'I do this.' So: whoever sees, within action — which, because it seems inherent in the Self, is something everyone takes for granted — inaction, the true absence of action, the way someone standing on a moving boat sees the still trees on the bank appear to move backward; and whoever sees, within inaction — the mere stopping of the body's and mind's activity, superimposed onto the Self like action, because that very stillness feeds the ego's own resolve, 'here I sit silently, doing nothing, perfectly happy' — sees action there too; whoever knows this distinction between action and inaction in this way is the truly wise one among men, the truly learned one. He is disciplined, a yogi, one who has done everything there is to do. He is released from evil, his work complete. That is the meaning.
Some commentators explain this verse in an entirely different way. How so? Obligatory rites, according to them, when performed as an offering to the Lord, yield no personal fruit — and for that reason are called 'inactions,' though only in a loose, figurative sense. And on their reading, it is failing to do them that counts as real inaction. That failure, because it produces demerit as its fruit, gets called 'action' — but again only figuratively. So on this view, 'whoever sees inaction in obligatory action' simply means: sees that its fruit is absent — the way a milk-cow, though a cow, gets called 'no cow' if she gives no milk. And likewise, 'whoever sees action in the failure to perform an obligatory rite' means: sees that this failure yields the fruit of demerit, hell, and so on.
This explanation is not correct. Because on this reading, release from evil through mere knowledge becomes impossible, and that would contradict the Lord's own words: 'knowing which you will be released from evil.' Why? Because performing obligatory rites might indeed release you from evil — granted — but not merely knowing that their fruit is absent. Knowing that the fruit of obligatory rites is absent was never taught as producing release from evil, and neither was simply knowing about obligatory action; the Lord never says any such thing here. And this same reasoning also refutes their claim about seeing action in inaction: seeing 'action' in inaction was never prescribed here as something one must do; an obligatory rite carries only the fact that it must be done, nothing more. Nor could understanding 'failing to do it brings demerit' yield any fruit at all. Nor was failing to perform the obligatory rite ever taught as something to be known. And this false seeing of 'action' and 'inaction' cannot possibly produce release from evil, or wisdom, or discipline, or having done everything there is to do — nor does it deserve the praise given here. Because false knowledge is itself, directly, a form of evil. How could one evil ever release you from another? Darkness never dispels darkness.
Now: isn't seeing inaction in action, or action in inaction, simply false knowledge? What else could it be but a figurative usage tied to whether a fruit is present or absent? — No, because even this figurative knowledge of action and inaction is never taught as bearing any fruit at all. And there is nothing to be gained by abandoning the plain, taught meaning in favor of positing an untaught one. It would have been perfectly possible to say plainly, in ordinary words: 'obligatory rites bear no fruit, and failing to do them may lead to hell.' So what purpose does this confusing disguise serve — 'whoever sees inaction in action' and so on? In fact, explaining it this way would turn the Lord's own words into a deliberate fabrication meant to confuse people. This is not something that needs protecting behind a disguised statement, nor does repeating the same point in different words over and over make it any clearer — that argument doesn't hold. Because the very same point has already been stated far more plainly at 'action alone is your entitlement' — there is no need to say it again here. And in every case, what is worth understanding is also worth doing — that is exactly the point. Nothing is ever called 'something to be understood' without a purpose.
Nor could false knowledge ever count as something 'to be understood,' and neither could whatever gets substituted for the truth in its place — that is just a semblance of reality. Nor does failing to perform obligatory rites actually give rise to demerit, since 'the non-existent has no being,' as the text itself says, and 'how could the existent be born from the non-existent?' as the Upaniṣad shows — the birth of something existent from something non-existent is flatly denied. Anyone who claims the existent arises from the non-existent is, in effect, claiming that the non-existent becomes existent and the existent becomes non-existent — which is untenable, contradicting every means of valid knowledge there is. Nor would scripture ever prescribe action as something fruitless, since action is inherently a form of suffering, and suffering can never be a deliberately intended result. And since not performing it is conceded to bring a fall into hell, scripture would end up fruitless either way — whether the rite is performed or not — and purely harmful at that. This also contradicts their own position: in the same breath they say obligatory action bears no fruit, and that it is meant for the fruit of liberation. So the plain, literal meaning is the only meaning of 'whoever sees inaction in action,' and the rest of the verse. And that is exactly how we have explained it.
Close to the Sanskrit
But what is that truth of action and the rest, which was promised thus: 'I shall declare what is to be known'? It is said —
'In action': action is mere activity — 'is done', in that action, whoever should see inaction, the absence of action, and in inaction, the absence of action, because engagement and cessation depend on the agent — the real entity is never actually reached at all, for the entire dealing in action, agent-factors, and the rest occurs only on the plane of ignorance — action, whoever should see [inaction in action], truly sees; he is the intelligent one among men, he is disciplined, a yogi, and he is the doer of the whole of action, the doer of all action — thus he is praised as one who sees each, action and inaction, in the other.
Now, is this not a contradiction being asserted — 'whoever should see inaction in action' and 'action in inaction'? For action could not be inaction, nor inaction action. In that case, how could a seer see this contradiction? — No: it is simply that inaction itself, though being so in ultimate reality, appears like action to the deluded vision of people, and likewise action itself appears like inaction. In this regard, for the sake of showing [things] as they truly are, the Lord says, 'whoever should see inaction in action,' and so on. Therefore there is no contradiction — also on account of its consistency with statements like 'being wise' and the rest. And 'to be understood' (Bhagavadgītā 4.17) too refers to seeing things as they truly are. Nor could release from evil come from wrong knowledge; and it has been said, 'knowing which you will be released from evil' (Bhagavadgītā 4.16). Therefore, action and inaction being mistakenly grasped by living beings, the Lord's statement, 'whoever [should see] inaction in action,' and so on, is for the sake of the cessation of that mistaken grasping. Nor is it that here action is the substrate with inaction present in it, the way jujube fruits are in a bowl; nor that inaction is the substrate with action present in it, since inaction is simply the absence of action. Therefore it is only when wrongly grasped that action and inaction are so by ordinary people — just as water [is wrongly seen] in a mirage, or silver in mother-of-pearl. Now, another objection: is action not simply action for everyone, never failing to hold true anywhere? — No: because one standing in a boat, when the boat is moving, sees the motionless trees standing on the bank as moving in the opposite direction; and because, for distant things not closely reached by the eye, one sees an absence of motion even in moving objects. In just the same way here too, the seeing of action in inaction, and the seeing of inaction in action, is a wrong seeing; and to remove that, it is said: 'whoever should see inaction in action,' and so on.
Even so, though this reply has just been given, people, utterly bewildered by being habituated to an extremely wrong way of seeing, repeatedly forget the truth even after hearing it again and again, raise a false objection again and again, and press the question — seeing this, the Lord gives an answer again and again, having noted also how hard that reality is to fathom. 'This is unmanifest, this is inconceivable' (Bhagavadgītā 2.25), 'it is not born, nor does it die' (Bhagavadgītā 2.20), and by such verses, the absence of action in the Self is well established by scripture, tradition, and reasoning, [already] stated and about to be stated again. That absence of action in the Self being so, the wrong seeing of action in inaction is extremely deep-rooted; because, 'what is action, what is inaction — even the wise are confused here' (Bhagavadgītā 4.16). Superimposing onto the Self action that rests on the body and the rest, people imagine, 'I am the agent, this action is mine, by me the fruit of this action is to be enjoyed'; and likewise, superimposing onto the Self the cessation of activity resting on the body and senses, and the happiness caused by that, people imagine, 'I will stay silent, so that I may be free of effort, inactive, and happy' — 'I do nothing, I remain silently happy.' And in this regard, for the sake of removing this wrong seeing of people, the Lord says: 'whoever should see inaction in action,' and so on.
And here, though action is precisely action, resting on the body and senses, it is superimposed by everyone onto the Self, which is free of action and changeless; because even a learned person thinks, 'I do.' Therefore, whoever should see, in action — which, by way of being inherent in the Self, is well known to all people — inaction, the absence of action, as it truly is, just as, on trees standing on the river bank, [one sees] an absence of motion by the reversal of motion [caused by the moving boat]; and, in inaction — the cessation of the activity of the body and senses being superimposed onto the Self like action, because of being the very cause of the ego's resolve, 'sitting silently, doing nothing, I remain happily' — whoever should see, in that inaction, action too; whoever thus knows the distinction between action and inaction, he is the intelligent one, the learned one, among men; he is disciplined, a yogi, and he is the doer of all action, completely; and he becomes released from evil, his task accomplished. This is the meaning.
This verse has been explained differently by some. How? Obligatory rites, so [their view goes], when performed for the sake of the Lord, because of the absence of their fruit, are called — in a secondary, figurative sense — 'inactions.' And of these, non-performance is [true] inaction; and that, because it results in demerit as its fruit, is called 'action,' only in a secondary, figurative sense. So, 'whoever should see, in an obligatory rite, inaction' — [means] only because its fruit is absent; just as a milk-cow too, though a cow, is called 'no cow' when it does not yield the fruit called milk. Likewise, 'whoever should see, in the non-performance of the obligatory [rite], action' — [means] because it yields the fruit of demerit, hell and the rest.
This is not a correct explanation. For, on this reading, since release from evil through [mere] knowledge would be impossible, the Lord's own statement, 'knowing which you will be released from evil' (Bhagavadgītā 4.16), would be contradicted. How? There might indeed be release from evil through the performance of obligatory rites, granted — but not from knowledge of the absence of their fruit. For knowledge of the absence of the fruit of obligatory rites was never prescribed as bearing the fruit of release from evil, nor was knowledge of obligatory action; nor has the Lord stated this here at all. By this same [reasoning], the seeing of action in inaction [on their reading] is also refuted. For the seeing of 'action' in inaction is not enjoined here as an obligation; the obligatory rite carries only its obligatoriness, nothing more. Nor could any fruit come from understanding, 'from non-performance of the obligatory rite, demerit arises.' Nor was the non-performance of the obligatory rite ever prescribed as something to be known. Nor, from this false seeing of 'action' and 'inaction,' does release from evil, being wise, being disciplined, having done all action completely, and the rest, follow as a result — nor does the praise. For false knowledge itself is directly in the very form of evil. How, then, could release come from a different evil? For darkness is never what dispels darkness.
Now: is this seeing of inaction in action, or of action in inaction, not false knowledge — what, then, is it, if not that it is figurative, caused by the presence or absence of fruit? — No: for even from the knowledge of action and inaction, in this merely figurative sense, no fruit at all is taught. Nor, in abandoning what is taught and positing what is untaught, is any distinction to be found. Indeed, it would have been possible to say, in one's own [plain] words, 'obligatory rites have no fruit, and from not doing them, a fall into hell might follow' — in that case, what is the use of this confusing disguise, 'whoever should see inaction in action,' and the rest? In fact, by explaining it this way, the Lord's own stated statement would clearly become a fabrication meant for confusing people. And this is not a matter to be safeguarded by a statement in disguised form; nor would something already said become easier to grasp merely by being repeated again and again in other words — it is not fitting to argue this way. For here, at 'action alone is your entitlement' (Bhagavadgītā 2.47), this very meaning has already been stated more clearly; it need not be stated again. And everywhere, what is excellent must be understood, and done — precisely that. It is not that a purposeless thing is said to be 'understood.'
Nor could false knowledge ever be 'to be understood,' or what is put forward in its place a mere semblance of reality. Nor, from the non-performance of obligatory rites — their absence — does the arising of the existence of demerit follow; because of the statement, 'the non-existent has no being' (Bhagavadgītā 2.16), and it has also been shown, 'how could the existent be born from the non-existent?' (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.2), since the birth of the existent from the non-existent is denied. For one who claims the origination of the existent from the non-existent, it would in effect be stated that the non-existent itself would become existent, and the existent too would become non-existent. And that is untenable, because it contradicts every means of valid knowledge. Nor would scripture prescribe action as something fruitless, since it would be of the very nature of suffering, and because it is impossible for suffering to be deliberately caused as an effect. And, its non-performance being conceded to bring a fall into hell, scripture would end up fabricated as fruitless either way — whether performed or not performed — for harm alone. And this contradicts their own position: they concede 'obligatory action bears no fruit,' and yet claim, in the same breath, 'it is for the fruit of liberation.' Therefore, the literal meaning alone is the meaning of 'whoever [should see] inaction in action,' and the rest of that verse. And it is accordingly that we have explained this verse. || 18 ||