All of us understand that ‘ACTION’ means movement of the limbs with relation to things in the outer world, and ‘INACTION’ means a state of existence wherein there is a total cessation of such vigorous and conscious movements. This is the popular definition of ‘action’ and ‘inaction’ which, no doubt, is quite acceptable as far as the every-day activities of life are concerned. But from the philosophical stand-point, the concept and features of both ‘action’ and ‘inaction’ change.
For purposes of self-development, when we consider ‘action,’ it is not to be valued merely by observing its manifested qualities but we must also take into consideration the un-manifested but subtly-working motives behind the very same action. An action, in itself, cannot be considered either as good or bad. It is the MOTIVE BEHIND IT which determines the quality of the action. Just as the beauty of a fruit is not the last word for its edibility, but it depends upon its contents, so too, a beautiful action in itself could be a poisonous act of criminality, if the motive behind it is low and vicious.
Therefore, it is said that, in discriminating between what is ‘action’ and what is ‘inaction,’ “EVEN THE POET-SEERS OF OLD ARE CONFUSED.” The word ‘Kavi,’ now-a-days mainly used for the poets, was the name for the Rishis, the Seers of Upanishadic declarations. Any inspired man, recognising and expressing a truth that was noble and immortal, was called a Kavi.
After stating this difficult problem of discriminating between ‘action’ and ‘inaction,’ Krishna promises here that He will teach Arjuna what exactly constitutes right action, by knowing which, naturally, one can save one’s self from all evil.
IT IS FAMILIAR TO ALL, THAT ACTION MEANS MOVEMENT, AND INACTION MEANS ABSENCE OF IT: TO SIT QUIET. WHAT IS THERE TO LEARN ABOUT THEM?
