Monday, December 19, 2011

Does Renunciation mean Abandoning Activities?

Any action, called for on one account or another, related to one's life with all its relevance and context, is not to be abandoned, by any standard. This is a very clear statement applying to all activities.
Activities devolving upon an individual are personal, familial and societal. Upkeep of personal hygiene, food intake, exercise, rest and such others are personal. Then come those related to his domestic responsibilities – looking after the welfare of the family members, education, health and providing for their growth and prosperity. To pursue a profession as an essential part of this responsibility forms another important aspect of one's activities. Besides these are such activities, wherein one interacts with the society, its members, in various ways for different purposes. Going to zones of trading, offices of administration, abodes of worship, park, playgrounds or similar avenues of relaxation and other precincts for a variety of needs come under the social group.
In the performance of these secular activities, interactions with individuals and groups or with places and events become necessary. All these activities together make a balanced life. To look after one's own body, to ensure the welfare of the family members and also to help in ensuring the welfare of the society at large – all these should be given due importance.
Whether it is a personal, familial, professional or social act, whatever needs to be done must be attended to and cannot be devalued or neglected on any account. Abandonment of any act cannot be thought of or effected. Abandoning, relinquishing or eschewing work does not fit in with the fundamental proposition set forth by Krishna in the 3rd chapter – that under the comprehensive hold of Nature none has any freedom to remain inactive. The three gunaas of prakrti (Nature) are inexorable in their effects on the beings upon the earth.
As Nature enfolds us everywhere, the question of shunning activities does not arise at all. Not knowing this fact, nay truth of Nature, one may be tempted to think of a possible relinquishment of activities, as Arjuna did at first. Only in the thought or idea level such a proposition can be relevant. It will not have any bearing beyond.
Arjuna has not left the war-field. But he certainly felt that he must and would leave. He expressed the idea to Krishna, though in the way of a firm decision or resolution. Krishna instantly questioned, disapproved and spurned it, discussing the subject in all its relevance. That is how the dialogue became a philosophical dissertation. Arjuna articulated his intention, stating the factors that made him think in such lines.
He felt that to fight the war was sinful, religiously speaking. It was not in tune with the normal human emotional responses. Religious perception was against it, as the consequences would mean indefinite damnation in hell.was greed for kingdom and royal pleasures that motivates armies to fight, he felt.
"Is there anything called tyaaga or sannyaasa then? If so, what exactly is it?" These are the final questions in Arjuna's mind needing clarification.sanga (undue identification) towards actions. With this, whatever is necessary should be pursued with poise, persistence and peace. Mind's disturbing elements alone can and should be renounced.
 Harih Om Tat Sat. Jai Guru.
* * *
Physical relinquishment of action is not possible. Such a scope is not provided by Nature. What is possible and required is inner renunciation. That is, renunciation of the

No comments:

Post a Comment