Homework Master 2: Acting without Acting 1) Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that—if he can make pleasure & pain, gain & loss, and victory & defeat “the same”—then in no way will he commit any bad deed by fighting against the Kauravas.  Explain. Let’s first examine what it means to say that pleasure and pain (and the other sets of opposites) are the same.   On a very low level it means that we should strive to remain even-minded when faced with a situation in which we may pain or happiness comes to us: that is, we are not actually “making” pleasure and pain the same, but we are attempting to maintain a steady state of mind which is not overly concerned with pain or excited by happiness. The same applies to gain or loss: maintaining a state of mind that says that gain and loss are going to be happening to us pretty much throughout our lives, from time to time, then helps us not to be too excited or too upset.  And the same is true for victory and defeat, especially if we are about to enter a major battle.  This then is how this verse has traditionally been read by many. The simple and unavoidable fact though is that pleasure & pain are not the same; nor are gain & loss, nor victory & defeat.  And an unavoidable fact in all such advices is that, by advising someone to maintain equanimity in the face of both pain and pleasure, our intention is in fact that they thereby become happy—a form of pleasure. Maintaining some degree of equanimity in the face of problems and disappointments is now obviously desirable.  It gives us a clearer mind with which to remove the problems.  And in fact the best way to remove these problems is a worldview with which we see, on a much deeper level, how these pairs of opposites are “the same.” That is, every experience of pleasure and pain that we ever encounter is in reality coming from us: it is a product of our past behavior towards others, and therefore illusory in the sense of not being “out there,” the way they seem.  If we truly see how pairs of opposites are coming from us, from our past behavior towards others, then yes we would never commit a bad deed—and certainly never kill another. 2) In one of the most famous lines of the entire Gita, Lord Krishna advises Arjuna, “Your right is to action alone, and never to its fruits.”  How has this line often been interpreted, and what is a higher way of interpreting it? This line has often been interpreted to say that we should do good deeds simply to good deeds, and without any expectation of gaining a good result from them.  Several issues come up here though. The first is that of course we engage in action in order to gain some result—even if it is only for others, and not for ourselves.  An action without even the motivation to do something for someone else—an action performed simply “for the love of the action” for example (driving a car fast for the pleasure of driving a car fast)—would still be an action with a goal.  That is, it is a logical paradox that the desire to perform an action without a goal is still an effort to fulfill a goal of an action: something like thinking very hard during our meditation about not thinking about anything. The idea that it would be good to perform an action only for someone else raises itself a number of questions.  The first is the assumption that it is bad or wrong or selfish to hope that we ourselves get something good out of serving another person.  At a most basic level this is to say that it would somehow be wrong to derive a sense of satisfaction or enjoyment out of serving another being. At another level, to say that our actions should bring some benefit to others and not to ourselves is actually to deny one of the living beings in the world—ourselves—happiness: it is to say that I should or I need to sacrifice my own happiness in order to perform happiness to others. For one thing, it’s no problem if bringing happiness to others results in some happiness for myself: we need to get used to the idea our real goal is more net happiness in the world, including ourselves as part of that world. Most importantly, it’s not actually possible to provide happiness to someone else without providing it to ourselves, and if we think that it is possible, then it’s quite certain that we don’t understand what it is to act in the world in the first place.  Every action we ever commit with an intention of being of benefit to others necessarily plants, through our very intention, karmic seeds within us that will ripen into a desirable experience for ourselves. So what is Lord Krishna getting at when he does tell us that our right is only to action, and not to its fruits?  We’ll see from the immediate context that he is talking about action which is free of attachment—and what that means, we have to investigate. 1) Lord Krishna makes a statement that “the yoga of wisdom is far superior to action.”  Explain, making reference to the Tibetan translation for “yoga,” and to the actual wording used by the Lord at this point. Over the course of the Bhagavad Gita we will be seeing how the word “yoga” used in a great variety of contexts.  Here we see it referred to as “wisdom,” and we are told that this wisdom is far superior to action. The Tibetan translation of the word “yoga” gives us an insight into how wisdom can be superior to action.  The word is nelnjor {RNAL ‘BYOR,}, which can be translated into English as applying oneself precisely, or accurately.  The idea here is of action which is undertaken intelligently, or with wisdom. Lord Krishna himself uses here the term buddhiyoga, the “yoga of buddhi.”  Buddhi is of course closely linked to the word buddha, referring to an enlightened state of mind.  So what kind of an intelligent or enlightened state of mind is superior to action? Again Lord Krishna is of course referring to the understanding that can truly inform any action that we undertake.  An important angle here is again in the expectation of fruits, for example. We do something nice for a person—say, we buy them a gift that we believe will “make” them happy.  “Expectation of a fruit” of this action, in this case, would be expecting to see them be happy and grateful for the gift.  As we perform the action with wisdom though—as we perform buddhiyoga—we actively keep our mind on understanding that the way in which the person reacts to the gift in the immediate present is due not to the present gift and circumstances, but rather depends upon our actions in the past—most likely actions towards other people. This allows us to feel a sense of calm or equanimity when our friend doesn’t react to the gift in the way that we’d been hoping.  They may even complain about the gift, or neglect to be grateful in any way at all, but we with our buddhiyoga understand that this is only coming from the way in which we ourselves neglected to be grateful in the past. That is, we don’t get upset—we are able to stay happy, which of course is the real point of all spiritual traditions, all the spiritual books ever written in this world. We are able to apply wisdom to our actions: wisdom in actions, of course, being what is actually so superior to simple “action,” meaning an action which is not informed by wisdom: giving a gift, being disappointed by our friend’s reaction, getting upset.] 1) Lord Krishna, in the second chapter of the Gita, describes a chain of causation.  Describe first the two broad principles involved with teachings on such chains, and then go through these with regard to the chain being presented here. We have seen this kind of chain of causation—a typical series of spiritual events—in teachings such as Lord Maitreya’s presentation on the chain of events that lead to our suffering, as well as in the Twelve Links of the Wheel of Life, designed by Lord Buddha himself. In each case, we see the forward progression of an undesirable chain of events: if you do this, then this thing that you don’t want will come to you.  And we are taught to reverse each step, to reverse the progression.  That is, is you don’t do that first thing you did before, then you won’t get the second thing—and in the end then you won’t get that undesirable result. Here in the Gita we see the same idea presented by Lord Krishna, as follows (with the key word in each case, from the Gita itself, in bold): (1) We first engage in an object of the senses, or even the mind: we see, hear, or think of something. (2) But we do so in an ignorant way.  That is, we neglect to maintain a conscious awareness of how this object is coming from us, its content born from the degree of kindness or unkindness that we have shown to someone else in the past.  We connect to the object as if it were independent of us, of how we have behaved towards others. (3) From this connection is born desire.  It’s important to understand that this is an ignorant form of desire.  It’s not wrong to want or desire something (to help others, to get free of pain, for ourselves and all others).  Rather, it’s wrong to want something in a way that will lead us to hurt ourselves or someone else.  If a desire or aspiration is uninformed, then we won’t see that to fulfill it (for example, a desire for recognition) we must first provide it to someone else first (recognize a fellow worker in our office). (4) “From desire,” says Lord Krishna, “then anger is born.”  That is, rather than understanding that the way to achieve recognition for example is to make sure that those around us get recognized, we get upset when we undertake ignorant actions to achieve recognition and then don’t get it. (5) From anger then comes confusion.  When we don’t get what we want (in this example, recognition) from the kinds of action we had tried before, then we go through an entire lifetime of trying other different methods for getting what we want, none of which ever works. (6) From confusion comes mistaken thinking, and mistaken action.  We keep trying different things to get what we want: things that can never work, because we are only manipulating objects & people in our life, without understanding any of them, where they really come from.  An entire life of getting upset when someone doesn’t seem grateful for the gift we gave. (7) And then our life, in the words of Lord Krishna, is wasted away.  We come to the natural end of our life with no more understanding than when we entered, old, exhausted, unhappy. The point of course, which is covered by Lord Krishna next is that we reverse this process, beginning by understanding the objects of our world, and relating to them now in a proper way. 5) Lord Krishna says that the wise awake in the night where everyone else is sleeping; and that they sleep where others wake.  Explain. This statement gets into the question of a universal error.  It is a difficult idea to say that every time a normal person has engaged in any object around them at all, they have done so in a mistaken way.  This is in effect to say that every action that a normal person has undertaken has been completely mistaken, and could never have gotten them what they undertook the action to achieve.  In effect, no action a normal person has ever undertaken was, in fact, an action. Suppose it is true that we can only deal with objects and people karmically.  If we want to perform an action as simple as buying a cup of coffee, we need to “see” the coffee as coming from giving a coffee to someone else.  We need to “see” that the coffee doesn’t come from the money we give “for” the coffee. If we fail to maintain this state of mind as we approach the coffee, then we are not really interacting with the cup of coffee at all—only with some wrong idea that we have of the coffee.  And of course this will lead to disappointment. The point that Lord Krishna is making here in this verse though is something much more overwhelming.  He’s saying that it’s entirely possible for 6 billion people around the world to be making some massive mistake: for 6 billion people to be living entirely in a world, surrounded by objects, which don’t even exist—somehow even worse than a simple illusion. In this sense then the world is in the dark even as they awake, and the occasional wise person is seeing daylight even in this blackest of nights. 6) Here in the closing lines of the second chapter of the Gita, Lord Krishna makes a beautiful statement about what kinds of people attain peace.  Explain, with reference to the two key Sanskrit words here, and two ways of relating to each, as reflected in a Tibetan tradition. Lord Krishna says that people who are free of two different negative emotions will attain peace. The first of these is simply called mamas (mamas), meaning mine.  And the second is called ahankara (aham%ka#ra), or thinking of me.  The basic idea then is that we need to overcome our sense of me and mine. This idea has again been the cause of much misunderstanding.  It is important to understand that there is a valid way of relating to me and mine, and also a wrong way of relating to these two.  In the Tibetan tradition, this distinction is referred to as the difference between yugyuy dak {YOD RGYU’I BDAG} and megyuy dak {MED RGYU’I BDAG}. The expression yugyuy dak means “the me (and mine) which really do exist.”  And then medgyuy dak means “the me (and mine) which do not in fact exist.” If we, as the Tibetan traditions call it, “leave things unexamined,” then we come to see that there actually is a “me” and “mine” which do exist.  It’s important to understand what is meant when we speak of “leaving things unexamined.” We can go back to the example of our desire for recognition.  When we do get recognition, and we are simply perceiving the recognition—say, someone standing up in a meeting and saying something kind about us—then it is an “unexamined” recognition if we are not at the moment actively reflecting upon the real nature of this recognition; that is, whether it exists “out there” on its own, or whether it is actually coming from our own mind. This kind of recognition, “my” recognition, really does exist.  No one can say that a person is not standing up in a meeting, no one can say that they are not saying good things about us at that moment. If we do begin to examine how this recognition actually exists—and this can be done on a level of given assumptions about our life and our world, without in fact much active thought—then we automatically begin to feel that it is coming from someone outside of us, say from our boss at work or friends, or that we have gotten it due to some actual hard work we have done to deserve it, say the week before. This is where we get into the “me” or “mine” that doesn’t actually exist.  The “examined” recognition—recognition that we have checked, to see where it’s coming from—is something that we conclude to come from outside of us.  A recognition which does come from outside of us—“my” recognition that comes from outside of me—is something which doesn’t even exist. And then this impacts upon the amount of peace we feel in our heart. If we feel that “my” recognition—and in fact the “me” to whom this recognition is coming—is something that is not coming from how I have behaved towards others in the past, then in order to gain the recognition that we want we will attempt to manipulate “outside” circumstances: we might try to praise ourselves at the expense of someone else working in our office, we might overlook opportunities to rejoice in the contributions of those around us. In either case then we will not feel a sense of peace.  When we recognize that things are in fact coming from ourselves, then we see that gaining recognition comes from providing or sharing recognition with those around us.  This leads to a sense of harmony, and peace, for both ourselves and those around us.] 1) In the opening lines of the third chapter of the Gita, Arjuna attempts to present Lord Krishna with what in our immediate lineage we have come to call a “diamond deal.”  We’ll talk about Arjuna’s attempted diamond deal next; for now, explain the general concept of a diamond deal, with reference for example to obtaining recognition. A “diamond deal” refers to the trick of presenting a person with two choices, neither of which is desirable for them.  It comes from the idea of keeping two different diamonds at the counter of a jewelry store. One of the diamonds has a poor color; a highly desirable diamond being a completely colorless one, this diamond happens to have a distinctly yellow tint, like that of some dishwater.  The other diamond has a great color (colorlessness), but inside of it are very noticeable black “carbon” spots. A customer enters the jewelry store, and the salesman shows them the yellow diamond.  When the customer complains about the poor color, the salesman shows them the pure-white diamond, but with the black spots inside of it.  The salesman talks up the great price of each diamond and the minor benefits of each, pressing the customer to make a decision between the two. The pressure is applied in such a way that the customer feels obligated to take one diamond or the other, and fails to remember that they have an absolute right to request instead a third diamond which is of good color and also free of any black spots. In the case of recognition, we tend to make diamond deals on ourselves.  We sweat it out wondering whether we should send our boss a memo detailing the great contributions we have made to the latest project, or maybe just point out to them how little everyone else contributed.  That is, our own mind has presented to ourselves two different courses of “action,” neither of which will obtain for us the recognition we seek, because of course gaining recognition only comes from providing it first to others! In Krishnian terms then, it is debatable whether either of the proposed actions we had considered were actions at all, since they are performed towards objects, and for objects, which do not even in truth exist.  We spend our lives deliberating between infinite varieties of choices, none of which will work.  We tire ourselves, we cause ourselves suffering, in the end we kill ourselves, all for things, and all in ways to get things, that don’t even exist.] 1) What “diamond deal” does Arjuna then offer to Lord Krishna, and what schools of thought represent each part of the deal?  How does this enlightened being respond to the offered deal? Arjuna’s diamond deal for Lord Krishna is couched as follows: he outright asks Lord Krishna to tell him conclusively which is better: the approach of the Sankhyas, or the approach of the Yogis. Here the word “Sankhya” does not refer to the formal philosophical school of India by this same name.  Rather, it is a reference to approaching ones spiritual training and ones life in an intellectual or analytical way.  The “approach of the Yogis” then is a whole different approach, where we do rather than think.  In one way, we could in modern terms phrase Arjuna’s question to Lord Krishna as: “Should I be studying spiritual books, or should I be concentrating on my yoga asana practice?”  “Should I be meditating, or working in a soup kitchen?” Lord Krishna, like a wise customer in the jewelry store, is having none of the proposed diamond deal.  He answers with a beautiful statement that “You do not attain the state beyond karma by avoiding all karma (action); nor do you reach your spiritual goals only by sitting in a cave, doing nothing.”  The implication, especially given the “only” here, is that Arjuna will have to combine both the approach of the philosophers and the approach of the activists if he wants to attain his spiritual goals. Which brings us back to the idea of informed action.  We have seen that action without understanding is worse than wrong action—we have seen that it can accurately be described as non-existent: as not fitting the very concept of an action, since working with non-existing things cannot possibly result in an effect within things which do in fact exist.  If on the other hand we perform buddhiyoga, then we are indeed performing actions which do accomplish their desired end. In refusing to buy into the diamond deal, Lord Krishna is telling us that we should stop thinking in terms of meditation or  soup kitchen.  We should meditate on what really helps people, and why it does—and then we should get up and go out in the world and help. Coffeeshop assignment:  Please meet with one other member of the class (preferably someone you didn’t know before the course started) to talk a bit about this class, before the next one. Meditation assignment:  15 minutes per day, on @@@. Meditation times and dates (homework without this section completed will not be accepted): **