What is the difference between giving up action and renunciation in Gita 3.4?
From Shekar kyatam
Answer Podcast:
Transcript
This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
in bhagavad gita 3.4 what is the difference between giving up action and renunciation so basically what the bhagavad gita is stating here is that na karmanam anaram bhaan by not doing work na ish karmam purusho shute so na ish karmam that na comes over here that one will not become uh one will be given up by doing work by not doing work free from karmic bondage one will not come to the stage of na ish karma not come to the stage of not doing karma and the next line says and nor is it that by taking sannyas one will not attain siddhi that is perfection now what is this uh what do these two lines refer to they are two related points the essential common denominator in both is that simply by by rejection or negation or inaction one cannot come to perfection now the two the two has like difference of emphasis and the first the emphasis is on just giving up activity na karmanam anaram bhaan so najna is saying that oh if i fight i will engage in i will i’ll be doing bad karma and i don’t want karmic reactions so i will not fight so krishna says it is not by not that by just by avoiding activity one can avoid reaction because if one is in a particular position then inaction can also be culpable now if a poli if a if the police stay inactive while say terrorists are running while say rioters are say are committing riots and you know assaulting and killing people and the police are culpable although they have done nothing by doing nothing they have become culpable so what krishna is saying arjuna for a kshatriya like you who has a responsibility to act as a martial guard in a society and protect people inaction in the face of uh uh adharmic aggressors is culpable so that just by avoiding doing activity one will not stay free from karma because not doing activity can also be karmically implicating and the second part is first part is just not doing activity second is actually taking up another order so as a kshatriya if one gives up one’s activity that is bad but if one decides okay i am a grahastha now i will become a renunciate and then i will not have to be bound which is no just by being sannyas one does not read in perfection it is renunciation can be a vehicle towards perfection it is not itself perfection it is not that just by becoming renounced one becomes liberated or perfected or purified in the next verse krishna will talk about how if somebody is renunciate giving up sense object externally but is internally contemplating on sense gratification and such a person is very unfortunate such a person is mithyacharya is a pretender and is misleading oneself and misleading the world so the first is talking about just giving up action without changing one’s position that is giving up changing one’s position but it is not the changing just the change of position doesn’t lead to change of disposition it does not automatically purify us and purification requires the following of a proper process so the two are both connected in the same in the sense that just giving up activity or giving giving up material activity or giving up material position is itself no guarantee of protection from material bondage or progress towards liberation