Karma Yoga Sastra -Tilak
|
CHAPTER XI
RENUNCITATION AND KARMA-YOGA
therefore, this unavoidable Action, which has been prescribed by the Sastras, must be performed with a self-sacrificing frame of mind; and, considering the matter from the point of view of consistency, the same meaning has to be adopted. This, is the great and important difference between Renunciation of Action (Karma-Samnyasa) and Energism (Karma-Yoga). Those who follow the Renunciation school say: "nothing has remained for you to do; therefore, do nothing"; and the Gita. says: "nothing has remained for you to do, for your own benefit; and, therefore, do henceforth whatever you have to do, giving up selfish desires, and with an unattached frame of mind". Why should two such different inferences arise from one and the same sentence 1 The only reply to this is, that as the Gita considers Karma as unavoidable, the conclusion, 'therefore, give up Action', cannot at all arise according to the philosophy of the Gita. Therefore, the Gita has drawn the conclusion that Action should be performed, giving up selfish desires, from the data 'it is not for your benefit.' The argument adopted by Vasistha in the Yoga-Vasistha, after he had preached the Knowledge of the Brahman to Rama, for inducing him to perform Desireless Action is the same; and the above-mentioned doctrine of the Bhagavadgita has been adopted literally at the end of the Yoga-Vasistha [1] The teaching of the Gita has been adopted in the Buddhistic religion in the sacred books of the Mahayana sect, in the same way as it has been adopted in the Yoga-Vasistha. But, I have not dealt with that matter here, as it will be straying from the subject, and I have considered it later in the Appendix. When a man has got the Knowledge of the Atman, the individualistic language of ' I ' and ' mine ' does not remain [2]; and therefore, the Jnanin is said to be 'nir-mama. 'nir-mama means, one who does not say, 'mine', 'mine' (mama); and Jnanesvara Maharaja has conveyed the same idea in describing the Jnanin in the following stanza (omvim ) : He does not know the word 'I' I he does not say of anything that it is 'mine' I [3] Experience of pain and happiness I for him there is none II [4] But, it must not be forgotten that although the feeling of ‘I’ or 'mine' may be got rid of, as a result of the Knowledge of the Brahman, their place is taken by the words 'the world' and 'for the world' — or speaking in the language of Devotion, by the words 'the Paramesvara', and 'of the Paramesvara'.
|
|
