Homework Master 3: Acting from Love 1) Lord Krishna makes the statement that “No act is done by a person who delights in the self.”  Explain what “self” really means here, with reference to the Sanskrit and the Tibetan, and then what it means to say that “no act is done.”  Make reference in your explanation to an analogy made earlier by Lord Krishna involving food. The Sanskrit word for self here is of course atman (a#tman), which in a philosophical context often refers more precisely to the self-nature of things, and of people.  The corresponding Tibetan is dak {BDAG}, and both words can also simply mean “I” when used in a general sense. Self is a tricky word in the great books of the East when it refers to self-nature, simply because it refers exactly to the opposite of a self-nature.  That is, the one quality which all things possess that can truly liberate us is the fact that they have no quality of their own. This is not to say that a fire is not hot, nor (in our present context) that the deed of killing another human being does not inflict upon them the ultimate suffering.  Rather, it is to say that the qualities which we validly and properly observe in people and things and actions does not belong to them, is not coming from them. In this sense yes we can say that a fire is not a fire; or a fire is not itself—meaning only that it cannot be what it is by itself: it depends upon us to be what it is, and is not itself itself. The qualities that we see within things—even the defining qualities of things, the ones that seem most innate within them, like the hotness of fire—are in actuality imparted to these things by our own perceptions, which in turn are forced upon ourselves by our previous actions towards others.  (This chain of events, by the way, has been described by Lord Krishna in our previous reading, where he stated that people are sustained by food; food created by the gods; the gods sustained by our offerings; and our offerings enabled by action.) If we “delight” or live “contented” within this true nature of things—meaning, if we keep a constant awareness of its implications—then we no longer act in the way that we have been acting, out of ignorance.  It’s not that we stop acting altogether; we have seen Lord Krishna already state that in fact we may perform now the very same outer actions that we were doing earlier.  The point rather is that we no longer act in an ignorant way, towards objects (such as a kitchen fire which was created by cooking oil and not by damaging someone else’s property earlier) which in fact have no existence at all.] 1) Lord Krishna then says that “There is no point for such a person to act, nor not to act.”  Give the Sanskrit word for “point” here, as well as the Tibetan, and clarify what it really means here. The idea of a “point” or goal to an action is extremely important for us to grasp at this juncture in the Gita.  The Sanskrit word for this point of an action is artha (artha), which we see for example in the name Siddhartha: the prince who later became the Buddha, whose name meant “one who achieves their desired goals.”  The corresponding Tibetan is dun {DON,}, and both words can imply “goal” or “purpose” or “point” or “meaning,” even in the sense of the meaning of a word. We’ve already been examining how the objects that we deal with as we perform an action might not be what we thought they are—and that in fact then they might not even exist.  We can be irritated for example by a co-worker at our office, and say something to try to hurt their feelings. The co-worker that we think we are trying to hurt is someone whose irritating qualities have not come from us.  Since all such qualities actually are coming from us, then there is a basic problem here: the person that we have in mind to hurt doesn’t actually exist at all—it’s just a person in our imagination.  Any action that we commit towards something that isn’t really there is going to be a pretty strange action! The point here in this verse of the Gita is that the point or goal of an uninformed action is just as non-existent as the irritating person we’re dealing with in an uninformed action.  That is, in this case, the desired goal of trying to hurt someone else—seeing their face fall in disappointment, for example—has no more to do with our attempt to hurt them than hotness exists “inside” of fire.  Which is to say, if we succeed even at a negative action it depends entirely on things that we did long before, and not upon whatever we are doing now.  And a result that we think we want doesn’t even exist, in the sense that it is not happening outside of how we have treated others in the past. Which is all to say that we are not only dealing with phantom things and people around us—we are also dealing with phantom goals.  And any action performed in the hopes of having something non-existent happen is bound to be a failure, and a painful failure for us. 1) Lord Krishna next tells us that a person who is beyond acting and not acting has no need to rely on anyone else.  Explain, using a common example from everyday life. It’s very natural for us to look to other people for help.  We might for example ask our supervisor at work if they wouldn’t mind putting in a good word for us so that we can get a promotion.  We perceive that there is some action that this other person can undertake which will help us obtain our desired goal. In fact though, as we have seen throughout the Gita so far, the extent to which this person is able to help us get the promotion isn’t in fact originating in them.  If we have been supportive of officemates who are seeking some improvement in their job, then we have planted seeds within our mind that will ripen as a perception that our supervisor’s recommendation to our big boss has been successful in getting a promotion. It’s not in fact then that the supervisor has been able to do anything for us independent of our goodness and support of others.  In this sense then we can say that a person who truly understands how to perform a true act (and we will start using this idea, “true act,” now) no longer needs to rely on others, and is freed from all the disappoints that inevitably come with such reliance.  This is not of course to say that we can’t and shouldn’t enjoy relationships of love and trust with others, only that our fate is in our own hands. 4) Lord Krishna tells us that we can “reach the highest of goals, by acting”—but only if we do so “without attachment, for even a moment.”  Describe how acting without attachment can lead us to the highest of goals—which would involve describing these goals—and then explain what it means to be free of even a moment’s attachment. We can look at the idea of acting without attachment in the sense of acting without impossible expectations.  Let’s say for example that decide to cook a meal for a friend, to make them happy.  We have a natural expectation of the enjoyment of seeing them smile and relish the meal we’ve prepared. Acting without attachment in this case would mean keeping our mind actively on a few basic facts, even as we purchase the ingredients for the meal and start cooking.  Even as we build our hopes that we will please and serve our friend, we need to stay aware that how they perceive the meal is not something that is resulting from the efforts we are making now to prepare this meal. Rather, their reaction to the meal—which is to say, our perception of their reaction to the meal—is coming entirely from the degree to which we ourselves have, in the past, made efforts to be grateful and appreciative of the efforts that someone else has made to please us.  If we haven’t been so grateful lately, then we can expect some unexpected results when we serve up the dish we’ve worked so hard to prepare. When our friend makes a face and declares that one of the ingredients we’re using is exactly something that they happen to be allergic to, then we with our new awareness and knowledge gracefully remove the dish and pull them out a bowl of Cheerios instead, which is something that everybody likes.  We keep our cool, because we know exactly where everything is coming from: no surprises. This relates to our ultimate goals in that, if we maintain the habit of reacting gracefully, then we stop planting the seeds that will lead to unexpected results in the first place.  If we enhance this process with active understanding of it, this also “disarms” older seeds that were planted before we gained this understanding.  In short, we quickly reach our ultimate goals, as we begin planting better and better good seeds, this time with our newfound understanding.  This then means that the results which are produced by these seeds will be unending—which is something to talk about later! 5) Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that there is nothing in the entire universe which he has to reach, or not to reach.  We see Lord Buddha use this exact same wording in the Heart Sutra.  Explain the apparent contradiction of these words. For one thing, this wording does not imply that we do not accept the concept of contradiction—that is, it is true that we either reach or don’t reach a specific spiritual goal.  We understand then that we must interpret the statement made—we must look for a different, deeper meaning of what was said. To reach this deeper understanding, we can examine the idea of reaching something itself.  We are sitting at the kitchen table, and there is an apple on the other side of it.  We want the apple, so we reach out for it.  It is one of the most basic of all actions, and we are certainly now in the business of examining the very concept of an action. What then does it mean when we say that there is no reaching, but neither any not reaching, as we reach for the apple? We’ve examined already the goal of the object, let’s say the apple.  But what about the act of reaching itself, and the thought to reach?  Where do these come from, and do they even exist in the way that they appear to? When we think about reaching out for an apple, there is a certain assumption of control of the process.  It is I who decides to raise their arm, and extend it towards the apple.  The arm is mine, and I control it.  It is in fact mine exactly because I control it.  No one else can tell my arm exactly when to rise from the table, and extend its fingers towards the apple. The idea that we own our arm because we control its actions is though ultimately a dangerous one, in the sense that it can lead to a lot of expectations, frustration, suffering.  We quickly learn that there are circumstances that can call into question our control of our arm.  Our supervisor can tell us, even as we reach for the apple, that we are not permitted to eat during working hours.  Someone else may pick up the apple and bite into it before we can react. We might be struck by paralysis, and lose the ability to move that arm.  And—as far as our experience informs us to this point—there inevitably comes the day when we no longer have the ability to raise the arm.  Gravity always prevails; death always comes. The fact then is that the entire act of reaching is not what we thought it was.  It too is an event, a projection of our mind, which is born in the seeds planted by our behavior towards others in the past.  If, literally, we have been of service to others who are reaching for the things they need, to fulfill the hopes they entertain, then we will indeed be able to reach out and pick up the apple.  If not, then something will happen to stop us. In either case—in the reaching, and in the failing to reach—nothing is what we thought it was.  As we’ve seen before, it’s important to realize that the reaching we used to think was there has no existence at all; that is, a reaching which results from our will power, or from our ownership of our arm, does not exist—cannot exist, never did exist.  And, as we’ve already seen, spending our entire day in a world of make-believe can only bring us trouble.] 1) Lord Krishna says that wise people perform the very same acts as those who have no understanding of action, but that they do so with understanding, and can thus help the entire world.  Explain, also giving the Sanskrit and Tibetan originals for “helping the world” here. It’s important to understand that, once we reach the level of understanding of actions that we’ve been talking about so far in the Gita, it may not have that much effect upon the external expression of our actions.  The moral code for example of the Yoga Sutra, and of every other great religious book in the world, prevails upon us the idea of ahinsa: that it is wrong to take the life of others.  This for the simple reason that it is something that hurts, and not something that we ourselves would want done to us. And so before our exercise of trying to understand the principles of action, and afterwards as well, most of us will be performing the same action of refusing to do violence to others, even towards those who commit it towards ourselves.  A person though who truly understands the basis of all action is much more likely to avoid violence to others. This is because they are not doing so because a teacher, or school, or government or society or book has told them not to do so.  Nor are they avoiding violence simply because no one has pushed them far enough to finally instigate them to violence. A truly informed person—a real yogi—is refusing to kill because they know it has nothing to do with getting what anyone wants: it simply doesn’t work.  In the Gita for example, Arjuna is being asked by Lord Krishna to kill in order to restore the kingdom his family has lost to the Kaurava.  It may be the case that Arjuna was disinclined from the beginning to do any harm to the people he loves, and to his own Gurus.  But once Lord Krishna finishes with him—once he understands how actions really work—then he will not only not be harming people, he will be doing everything he can to embrace and help the world, since he will realize that his past failure to do so is the real cause of the conflict with his cousins. This “embracing” of the world is exactly the meaning of the Sanskrit term used in the verse here: loka sangraha (loka sam%graha).  The corresponding Tibetan here is jikten kundu {‘JIG RTEN KUN SDUD,}, which literally means “to embrace the entire globe” and accurately reflects the real meaning of the Sanskrit.  At a certain point in ones spiritual career, the same kind of movement of inner winds within our central channel which allows us to see the true reality of actions precipitates an opening of the heart channel and a direct experience of ultimate love for every living creature in the universe.  Which is to say that—as Arjuna continues in his conversation with Lord Krishna—he will inevitably begin to act not only correctly for the first time, but for the welfare of every other living creature.] 1) Lord Krishna advises Arjuna to “come and entrust” his actions “within me.”  Explain two meanings of these expressions. One meaning of these words follows the discussion that we have already been having here in the Gita.  Lord Krishna obviously possesses an ultimate understanding of what a “true action” is; and if Arjuna comes and “entrusts” his actions “within” the Lord, it means that he will be seeking to undertake his actions in the way that the Lord himself does: with understanding. In the case of the present situation, Arjuna “entrusting” his actions in Lord Krishna properly would mean, as we’ve just seen, that he still refuses to fight, but in this case his refusal is based in the absolute knowledge that the fighting has no purpose anyway: that, as the Lord himself has already said, the opponents on the battlefield that he thinks he sees don’t even exist.  Then it’s not that Arjuna doesn’t want to fight, it’s that he realizes that it would be like sending nasty notes to Santa Claus. The other meaning of the lines is that Lord Krishna is beginning to anticipate the important moment, coming up soon, when he reveals the true glory of his identity to Arjuna, now Arjuna the disciple, and not the childhood friend.  This reflects the theme of devotion, or bhakti, within the work: in the end, Arjuna really will do the right thing if he simply maintains his faith in his Teacher, continues to seek advice, continues to follow that advice as best he understands; that is, if he “entrusts” his actions within the ultimate object of his love.] 1) Lord Krishna says that he wants us to be free of liking and disliking things, since “this is what stops” us from reaching our spiritual goals.  Does this mean then that we should never like or dislike anything? We’ve discussed this idea at length during our study of the Yoga Sutra of Master Patanjali, and in fact this is a good place to say that—in the general flow of the YSI foundational series—the Bhagavad Gita does well as an overall review of a great many of the important concepts that we’ve already covered in both the Yoga Sutra and the Hatha Yoga Pradipika. The goal of course is not that we reach some place in our life where we no longer like or dislike anything.  The idea that we want to reach some kind of dull, unthinking state where we stare at a wall and don’t want or not want anything is simply false and properly losing ground as Westerners become more knowledgeable about the true meaning of the Eastern classics.  It doesn’t sound like a very nice place to be, and certainly it wouldn’t be of much benefit to all those around us, who are suffering so seriously. On one hand we do and should have a liking for reaching our spiritual goals, such as happiness for ourselves and saving all others from pain.  And the desire to do so hinges upon not liking this pain itself.  On a more mundane level, there’s nothing at all wrong with liking pizza and not liking eggplant. It’s how  we like or dislike that’s important.  It’s okay if we honestly don’t prefer eggplant for dinner, when we could be having pizza.  Or even the opposite.  If though we get stuck in a situation—say, dinner at our mother-in-law’s—where if we don’t eat the eggplant casserole we will grossly hurt someone’s feelings (and of course if there’s no other reason for not liking the dish, such as not wanting to eat an animal who has been murdered for the dinner table), then we should reflect on where this object is actually coming from. For example, in the past I may have thoughtlessly pressured someone else to eat something that they really didn’t care for.  Now I have to do the same thing.  It’s not wrong as I eat my mother-in-law’s casserole that I reflect silently on how much I really do dislike eggplant after all, but it is wrong if I blame her in any way or feel at all upset towards her for a situation which is entirely of my own creation.  And so a good rule of thumb here is that—if my disliking hurts someone else in any way—then it is the “wrong” kind of disliking, and as Lord Krishna says is going to hinder me from my spiritual goals.  The same for liking.  If though I use my distaste as a reason to reflect on why I’m getting eggplant tonight, and as a reason to improve my own behavior towards others who may not be thrilled about the meals or music for example that I am pressing on them, then my disliking is informed or intelligent disliking, and can only be of benefit to myself and all those around me.] 1) Lord Krishna says that the real battle we have to face is trying to control our physical senses.  Describe the two forms that this battle will take for us. On one hand, Lord Krishna is making the point that allowing our desire for sense objects to overwhelm us is going to block us from our spiritual goals.  Overeating, eating unhealthy food, addictive behavior on the web and our computer use, excessive desire for sex and other such stimulation, is going to hurt our concentration and ruin our ability to meditate.  This in turn will disqualify us from seeing the higher truths of life. But there is a second and deeper level here.  When the great books of India speak about the dangers of attraction to the objects of the senses, they are also very importantly speaking about the dangers of misinterpreting the nature of these objects.  This goes back to what we were saying about enjoying a pizza. If by karmic good luck we do get ahold of a flavor of pizza that we particularly enjoy, we can enjoy it more  if we reflect upon the true nature of this pizza, rather than misunderstanding where it has come from.  That is, as we eat the pizza we can think about how it is actually a mental image being projected out into the world—an image which has come about through our willingness to share pizza with others. And that will inevitably cause us to look around, and hand some of our pizza to someone else in the room.  We have just won a small battle in the realm of the objects of the senses, for we are learning how to “make” pizza.] 10) Lord Krishna says to Arjuna, “I live in my own true nature, and I’ve emerged from the illusion.”  Explain this two-fold pronouncement, and its application to all the people and objects of our world. This final statement of Lord Krishna expresses, in brief, two sides of a coin that we’ll be flipping later. The first is that everything in the world around us possesses its own ultimate nature, which is that it is like a blank, white movie screen.  Things have no qualities in and of themselves: the parts that make up a brown chair don’t have to be experienced as a brown chair.  They could just as well be seen as some other color, and they could be experienced as something other than a chair: by a blind man, by a dog.  This is the true nature of the chair. The second explains why the parts are brown to me, and a chair.  It seems like they are coming from the chair, but that is an illusion, and in a way the chair is born of this illusion.  If I happen to like brown, and like a chair, I am seeing a brown color and a chair because I have done a kindness to others, such as providing them with necessary things for their home. Every person, and every object, around us is the same: emerging from illusion, and reside in their own true nature of being a blank white screen, available for the play created by our kindness towards others.] 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):