19. कर्माकर्मविभागज्ञः Karmākarma-vibhāga-jñaḥ

One who knew the distinction between action and non-action

Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa remarks, “What is action? What is non-action? As to this, even learned ones are deluded.”⁵⁷ The Lord Himself explains why knowing about these is important: “I will explain to you about action, on knowing which you will be liberated from the inauspicious (cycle of birth and death).”⁵⁸ He then goes on to say, “He who sees non-action in action (that is perceives the presence of the non-acting Ātman even in the midst of actions performed by the body, mind, etc.) and action in non-action (that is sees that even at times when the body, etc., seem to be inactive, action is going on through the body, mind, etc.) is wise, is a yogin and is one who has performed all actions.”⁵⁹ Thus, to know the distinction between action and non-action is to clearly comprehend that in reality, the Ātman, which is of the intrinsic nature of consciousness, does not act, and that action is only in the mind, intellect, organs and body, all of which are inert.

❧

64 19. Karmākarma-vibhāga-jñaḥ

The day His Holiness commenced the practice of nirguṇa-dhyāna (which was at the age of eighteen) He sat at His meditation spot and reflected on the following lines in accordance with the scripture.

“This body, made up of skin, blood, flesh, bones and the like, is dependent on food and is inert. It is perceivable like an external object, such as a stone. What is inert and perceivable is different from what is conscious and perceives it. I am conscious and perceive the body; as for my consciousness, that is self-evident. So, I am not the body. Likewise, I am not the prāṇas (the vital breath). The organs are, in themselves, inert and are merely the instruments of perception and activity. As such, the possibility of me being the organs does not arise.

“The mind is changeful and comprises thoughts and emotions that arise and disappear. I am aware of the thoughts and emotions. How can I be the mind, for it is but an object of consciousness, as is a stone? It cannot be that a second thought, and not consciousness other than the mind, is necessary or sufficient to reveal a thought. This is because another thought would be needed to reveal the thought that reveals the first one; yet another thought would be needed to reveal that thought and so on. There would be the fallacy of infinite regress.

“Sāttvika food conduces to mental purity and calmness, while rājasika and tāmasika foods affect the mind adversely. It is well known that the thinking of a person heavily under the influence of liquor is impaired. Affected by what is ingested, the mind is a material entity, notwithstanding its subtlety. Though it appears to be conscious, the mind, which is material, is inert. I who am patently not inert cannot be the inert mind.

“The agent denoted by ‘I’ in notions such as, ‘I see this,’ ‘I feel dull’ and ‘I do this’ manifests in the states of waking and dream but disappears with the onset of deep sleep. One would not be in deep sleep at all if one were to have any notion at that time like, ‘I am fast asleep.’ I, however, do exist not only in the states of waking and dream but also in deep sleep. This is confirmed by the ready recognition on awakening, ‘During deep sleep, I slept happily. I did not know anything at that time.’ As the agent disappears during deep sleep but I persist therein, I cannot be this agent marked by the I-thought.

“Agency involves change and pertains to the intellect. Though reflecting the light of the sun and appearing bright, a mirror is intrinsically not a source of light. Likewise, though appearing to be intrinsically conscious, the intellect, being a material entity like the organs, is inert. I am the witness of even the intellect and, so, distinct from it.”

He attained direct realization of and establishment in the action-less Ātman-Brahman, transcending the body-mind-ego-intellect, within a week of commencing this contemplation.

❧