Join our Facebook communities: Main Page
Yoga / Green / Wellness / Spirituality / Society / Food / Culture / Love / Family / Work
Get just our top 10 blogs of the week via our lovely e-newsletter.
Gita in a Nutshell #1: Live & Act with Love & Purpose.
(Complete contents at
Gita in a Nutshell: Big Ideas and Best Quotations.
For notice of each weekly blog,
please join our Facebook group.)
It’s a great revelation to read the Gita by major theme instead of in the order it’s written. Today let’s talk about the first major theme:
LIVE AND ACT WITH LOVE AND PURPOSE,
DETACHING EGO FROM RESULTS
The Gita contains many powerful passages on this theme, but they are scattered throughout the text. When you read them all together, as below, the main ideas jump off the page with crystalline clarity.
Read though these stanzas slowly and thoughtfully, jotting down your reactions as you go. Share your comments and questions, and we’ll get some conversation going:
Self-possessed, resolute, act
without any thought of results,
open to success or failure.
This is equanimity is yoga. (BG 2.48)
The wise man lets go of all
results, whether good or bad,
and is focused on the action alone.
Yoga is skill in actions. (BG 2.50)
The superior man is he
whose mind can control his senses;
with no attachment to results,
he engages in the yoga of action. (BG 3.7)
Without concern for results,
perform the necessary action;
surrendering all attachments,
accomplish life’s highest good. (BG 3.19)
Though the unwise cling to their actions,
watching for results, the wise
are free of attachments, and act
for the well-being of the whole world. (BG 3.25)
Performing all actions for my sake,
desireless, absorbed in the Self,
indifferent to “I” and “mine”,
let go of your grief, and fight! (BG 3.30)
~
He who can see inaction
in the midst of action, and action
in the midst of inaction, is wise
and can act in the spirit of yoga.
With no desire for success,
no anxiety about failure,
indifferent to results, he burns up
his actions in the fire of wisdom.
Surrendering all thoughts of outcome,
unperturbed, self-reliant,
he does nothing at all, even
when fully engaged in actions.
There is nothing he expects,
nothing that he fears. Serene,
free from possessions, untainted,
acting with the body alone.
content with whatever happens,
unattached to pleasure or pain,
success or failure, he acts
and is never bound by his action.
When a man has let go of attachments,
when his mind is rooted in wisdom,
everything he does is worship
and his actions all melt away.
God is the offering, God
is the offered, poured out by God;
God is attained by all those
who see God in every action. (BG 4.18-24)
~
The man of yoga who is able
to overcome, here on earth,
the turmoil of desire and anger—
that man is truly happy.
He who finds peace and joy
and radiance within himself,
that man becomes one with God
and vanishes into God’s bliss. (BG 5.23-25)
~
He who performs his duty
with no concern for results
is the true man of yoga—not
he who refrains from action.
Know that right action itself
is renunciation, Arjuna;
in the yoga of action, you first
renounce your own selfish will.
For the man who wishes to mature,
the yoga of action is the path;
for the man already mature,
serenity is the path.
When a man has become unattached
to sense-objects or to actions,
renouncing his own selfish will,
then he is mature in yoga. (BG 6.1-4)
~
…when a man is released
from dualities, he can act
purely, without attachment,
and can serve me with all his heart. (BG 7.28)
He who acts for my sake,
loving me, free of attachment,
with benevolence toward all beings,
will come to me in the end. (BG 11.55)
~
He who has let go of hatred,
who treats all beings with kindness
and compassion, who is always serene,
unmoved by pain and pleasure,
free of the “I” and “mine,”
self-controlled, firm and patient,
his whole mind focused on me—
that man is the one I love the best. (BG 12.13-14)
~
Free of the “I” and “mine,”
from aggression, arrogance, greed,
desire, and anger, he is fit
for the state of absolute freedom. (BG 18.53)
Next:
#2: Experience Infinite Wonder in All Things
(Complete contents at
Gita in a Nutshell: Big Ideas and Best Quotations.
For notice of each weekly blog,
please join our Facebook group.)
Incorrect source, offensive, or found a typo? Want to write?
It's interesting to note that the ego is usually defined as either acting or not acting, judging or not judging, in control or not in control. I'm not sure it's so black and white. There are so many layers at play, both subtle and gross. And are we sure that what we define as "ego" is ego? Lack of ego doesn't mean stillness and silence: sometimes lack of ego — real humility — is loud and out there and straightforward; it's speaking the truth when you know you have to, and not being attached to what people *think* of you when you do. It's not about remaining still or not speaking; false ego isn't the only thing that moves and which can dominate. There's also true ego, which is a characteristic of the soul; false ego is a characteristic of the conditioned mind and senses. Sometimes we can act without it, but it takes a really wise person to identify the difference.
Profound distinctions, Braja. Thank you for commenting.
For those of you who don't know it already, Braja has just become the editor of Elephant Spirituality, which now has its own homepage from the Spirituality tab on any elephant page: http://bit.ly/xrBKPx and, of course, its own facebook page as well: http://www.facebook.com/ElephantSpirituality, all run by Braja from her home in India. (She's always running off to Calcutta and such. I love it.)
Bob W. Editor
Yoga Demystified
Facebook Twitter
Do you think the difference hinges on level of attachment?
Yes, absolutely (wait…am I allowed to say "absolute" here?
The same can be said of anger, for example. It's always interesting to note how people tend to "pounce" on someone's mood or intensity or passion and immediately conclude, "Oh, my, you're angry," as if it's negative. Why is it negative? What if it's not? What if it's real. Not "righteous," but real. Isn't it justified? Anger at child abuse is justified. Anger, like anything else, can be used for good. Now here's the interesting crossover: we've all heard that before, haven't we? World wars, etc., all based on what one person deems "right" or "good." Attachment is the key, but then how much do people understand "attachment" as opposed to "disassociative disorder?" There was an article posted on ej last week about soldiers in Iraq urinating on dead bodies, and how they were "detached." That's not detachment: that's a separation of the conscious mind from emotions due to trauma, inability to filter reality from illusion, etc., or any number of things. But "detachment" in yogic terms? Hardly.
The reason Gita Talks works so well is because the Gita *needs* to be "talked." It's not a "book you read," and that's it. Nor is it necessarily "interpretative," because how does a person whose faulty mind and senses produce a "right" interpretation? Are they free from ego? Have they understood the entire world of spiritual/transcendental philosophy and knowledge and …. well on and on. So "interpretation" strikes me immediately as "faulty," because it's with one person's mind and senses, compared to another's. So in terms of how to understand Gita, I'd offer the suggestion that it's more that it's done in layers, not that we interpret according to how much (or how little) we can understand using our own limited faculties. In that sense, I'd say it's more easily understood in unpeeling the layers: understanding one element (like "ego") means going back, further and further, and viewing each layer, understanding what leads to the process of that one element. For example, to understand ego, we need to establish true ego and false ego; then we need to go back and see where both stem from, what makes one arise and the other vanish, what triggers or causes one thing and how monitoring both doesn't then lead into repression, denial, etc.
And with anger; you read 2.62 and see what the process of anger is—and it starts with attachment. But you read other philosophies related to the Gita, and there's the 3 step process to attachment: thinking, feeling, willing. Not that the mind is ever empty, there's always thoughts coming in. But you think something, and it's not so good (like reacting angrily to something), do you let it go? Or do you then take it to the next stage of "feeling?" If you do, THEN do you let it go, or do you take it to the next stage of "willing," meaning that you allow your other senses, and your intelligence, to come into play, and then, bang, you're in….and from there, attachment develops: to our own intelligence, conclusions, ability, wisdom, etc. etc. Gita describes it as "attachment to the objects of the senses." So you're attached, and if someone says something that disturbs that attachment, what's the first response? Anger. So that's not "good anger." That's not "pure anger" or "transcendental" or "wise" anger: that's the mind and senses that have formed an attachment to one angle of vision, one thing, one idea, one way, my way, that's it.
So much to talk about, so little time
In a nutshell, yes: the difference hinges on levels of attachment—a "really wise person" (as I said above) is, in my understanding, one who knows the science of attachment/detachment.
I'll buy that, and I think I spotted an article here with a cool title… I'll find it later, on detachment. I bookmarked it in my head, so it could be anywhere now.
What you said about anger interests me. I'm a vegan and a pseudo activist, vaguely in the abolitionist camp. It is very hard for
me to handle anger. (Nice on wheels is pretty much my mindset.) When I read some soothing bedtime literature like "The CAFO Reader", or "Dominion", or "Four Fish", anger just comes on in and pitches a tent in me. It does not feel like superficial or drama- based anger. It feels like anyone with half a clue should be furious.
But I have no use for being angry. So I steer clear of the emotion as fast as I can. I make art about animal suffering, I write about it, but then, do I let go of the results? Hardly! I want to know every minute who read and who commented and what they may have said, or if I have a chance of a proposal being accepted, or can I sneak a statement into this piece if it comes through.
I spent the last month building the first part of a nine foot turtle egg in stone and steel, which will be presented from the Ondarte Residency to the local turtle population here. It is a futile gesture, but in the impotence of this time, what other gestures are there? Are meaningless and nonsensical gestures sacred? They are to me.
I left activism during the Gulf War, because the anger is such a poor fit for how I want to be. But I am drawn back into it, and I have to say, my level of detachment is zero. Why am I telling you this? I guess I want to know how do we cultivate detachment, while still keeping our pants on? (If that's the phrase I'm looking for.)
Hi, Karl.
If I were a famous yoga guru, I would reply:
"Karl, the answer is in your question itself–you cultivate it."
I would suggest that's what all the yoga techniques in the Gita are for, mediation, study, witness-consciousness, selfless action, love, etc., but especially witness consciousness, which is my go-to technique for the most difficult situations.
Don't even try to change or fight your anger. Just step outside yourself and watch it objectively. All the rest will take care of itself.
If I were a famous yoga guru, that is…
Bob
Bob W.
Yoga Demystified
Facebook Twitter, LinkedIn
AHA! You may have opened a door for me there, mister.
It would seem I've been trying to change, diminish, or at least avoid my anger.
I would describe my grasp of witness consciousness as embryonic.
Time to grab a detachment plow and make like a farmer.
And its all a matter of real estate, Bob. You are a famous yoga guru in my brainpan.