Good Action, Bad Action and No Action

Good Action, Bad Action and No Action  By S. Sankaran. 

You are traveling in a train. The trees seen through the windows of the train are moving fast depending upon the speed of the train. The train and yourself in the train are moving, but the trees are fixed to the ground and are static without any movement by themselves. But, your movement - i.e. action of yours is being imposed on the trees, which seem to move. This is called ‘inaction in action’. Inaction of the trees has action imposed on them.

In the sea, a ship, which is moving, seems to be motionless for the man at the shore. Similarly, moon is moving, but to you, it seems to be motionless. The movement of ship and moon ends up in inaction for the man who has no action. Here action is ‘action in inaction’.

What is the purpose of narrating the phenomenon of  ‘inaction in action’ and ‘action in inaction’? 

The above narrations are only prelude to explain the intricate

meanings of one of the important stanzas in the Bhagavad 

Gita in Chapter 4 – stanza 18.

The translated version of the stanza is: 

He who sees inaction in action and action in inaction is enlightened among men. He is a yogi. He has completed all actions.

Here Good or Beneficial Action is called Karma.  Bad or Baneful Action is Vikarma. No Action is called Akarma.

‘Akarma in Karma’ i.e. inaction in action and ‘Karma in Akarma’ i.e. action in inaction need some critical examinations.

Characteristic of the soul or atma is no action. No action does not mean inactivity. Body and mind are carrying out the actions and the soul is the witness – as non-attached self. Those who do actions non-attached to the fruits of actions and fully satisfied and free from calculations are deemed to have done nothing, even though engaged in action. No sins are attached to such actions. This state is called ‘Akarma’ or no action.

Idleness of ignorant should not be confused with akarma or no action. Such ignorant person keeps willfully idle and says he had abandoned action and is restful. As he is so only identifying himself with the body-mind without any perception of the soul – consciousness, his physical worklessness, whether forcefully adopted or born of idleness, is not to be treated as no action. Inaction is not idleness, but surcharged with energy.

One aspect of akarma is that, though the man acts, he does not act. The other aspect is that, though he does not act at all, he moves the whole world to action. There is in him an immeasurable power to impel to action. This is the paradox of akarma. It is filled with a power that is capable of infinite action. It is like steam which when compressed, does enormous work. 

A child does a mistake and its father and mother stop speaking to it. It will create a terrible effect on the child. Not speaking, giving up action – no action, is far more effective than any kind of positive action. Silence can achieve what speaking cannot. This non-action, silence, sitting still, accomplishes much, releases great power for action. What action cannot achieve, some person, remaining inactive, accomplishes. The presence of some leaders will ensure control and discipline in the crowd, even though they will be silent. Their power of presence is enough to ensure the desired effect and hence they are actually in the mode of ‘no action’.

Actions have both ethical and metaphysical ramifications. Right or moral action and the wrong or immoral action falls in the sphere of ethics. What distinguishes action from inaction is a metaphysical question 

Ethical aspect of the action is difficult to define. The rationalist may equate the ethics of action based on the greatest good of the greatest number, the example of great men or even conscience. But all the above is open to scathing criticism, as one cannot arrive at any consensus. As against the rationalist theories, if we seek the guidance of the religions, the theory of right conduct as prescribed by the scriptures is at variance amongst themselves. There are also fundamentalism and impracticality due to change of time and circumstances, if scriptures are taken literally and as given once for all. Thus what is right action and what is wrong action is very real.

Metaphysical aspect of action is still more difficult to evaluate. What is real action and what is true inaction are difficult to determine. Inaction comes to fruition, when the man mixes his action with knowledge of dedication and detachment. This can be explained by an example. One man cooks regularly and this becomes his action. When he becomes expert in his cooking, his action becomes inaction in the sense that the man does his action effortlessly and efficiently and he becomes knowledgeable in his action of cooking. This is called action in inaction i.e. attainment of complete knowledge in action.

Adi Sankarara’s interruptions of actions are worth recalling. According to Adi Sankara, actions are undertaken to ward off evil and attain good. A cow will be attracted towards a man with a grass and will run away from a man with a stick. These are due to its instinct nature. Similarly, even man’s resorting to action to attain good and ward off evil is natural to him by his instinct. Man resorts to Karma attracted by its good results, as the cow resorts to grass. He resorts to it not because of Vedas’s call to him but because of the urge of his desire. Sankara’s implications are that non-performance of Karma will not entail evil consequences; no command has been disobeyed here, as there was no command. Sankara affirms that Vedas are not the commands’ of God and so are not mandatory. He further confirms that Vedas reveal truths and do not issue any commands.

There are dolls of animals and birds made of gold. If a child sees the dolls, the forms of the dolls will attract and the child will not be interested in the substance i.e. gold. But, a goldsmith will be interested in the substance i.e. gold rather than the forms.

The goldsmith will only look at the weight of the gold and not its form in evaluating it. The form is relevant to him only in so far as it reveals the substance, which is his sole concern. Through all forms the goldsmith sees only the substance. So through all actions and objects, the enlightened one sees the substance, the God or Almighty. 

Let me end up this article with the quote from Gandhiji: 

Karma becomes relatively akarma when it is undertaken for the service of others, for the sake of our higher good. We may be said to eat and breathe with that aim only if we have voluntarily and deliberately dedicated our body to the service of Shri Krishna. He who lives with the knowledge that his body is not his, that God makes it dance as He wills, may be said to have realized God. 

All karma does in that spirit is akarma. Anything else, though seemingly akarma, is in truth karma.