Gita 04.16 – Don’t simplistically equate dictionary meaning with scriptural meaning
kiṁ karma kim akarmeti
kavayo ’py atra mohitāḥ
tat te karma pravakṣyāmi
yaj jñātvā mokṣyase ’śubhāt (Bg 4.16)
Word-for-word:
kim — what is; karma — action; kim — what is; akarma — inaction; iti — thus; kavayaḥ — the intelligent; api — also; atra — in this matter; mohitāḥ — are bewildered; tat — that; te — unto you; karma — work; pravakṣyāmi — I shall explain; yat — which; jñātvā — knowing; mokṣyase — you will be liberated; aśubhāt — from ill fortune.
Translation:
Even the intelligent are bewildered in determining what is action and what is inaction. Now I shall explain to you what action is, knowing which you shall be liberated from all misfortune.
Explanation:
Kṛṣṇa here speaks about how one can act in a way that leads to liberation. He says:
kiṁ karma kim akarma iti: What is action and what is inaction—
kavayaḥ api atra mohitāḥ: even the wise are bewildered about this.
tat te karma pravakṣyāmi: I shall explain to you what action truly is
yat jñātvā mokṣyase aśubhāt: knowing which, you will be freed from all inauspiciousness.
If we take the word karma simplistically to mean action, and akarma to mean inaction—and if action simply refers to physical movement or visible activity, while akarma refers to inactivity—then there’s really nothing for a wise person to be bewildered about. Even an ordinary child can tell the difference: if someone is sitting on a chair that is rocking and moving, they are in motion; and if someone is sitting still on a stationary chair, they are not moving.
From a literal point of view, understanding the difference between karma and akarma is something even a child can do. However, when Kṛṣṇa uses the words karma and akarma here, He is not referring simplistically to activity and inactivity. Rather, He is speaking in terms of action that produces reaction and action that does not produce reaction. Karma in this context is a generic term for any action that yields a result—whether good or bad—while akarma refers to action that does not produce any reaction.
The Bhagavad-gītā uses the word ‘akarma’ in two different senses. At times, it refers to inactivity. For example, in verse 2.47:
karmaṇy evādhikāras te
mā phaleṣu kadācana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr
mā te saṅgo ’stv akarmaṇi
Here, mā te saṅgo ’stv akarmaṇi means “do not be attached to inaction”—in other words, do not avoid doing your duty. In this context, akarmaṇi clearly refers to inactivity.
Because in that context, if we interpret akarma to mean non-reactive work—work that does not produce any reaction—it becomes meaningless. “Do not be attached to work that produces no reaction” makes no sense, because such non-reactive work is actually the ultimate goal for which the Gītā is spoken. So why should one be detached from that?
There, the word ‘akarma’ refers to inactivity, but here it refers not to inactivity but to non-reactive work. Kṛṣṇa is saying that understanding which work is reactive and which is non-reactive is something that bewilders even the wise. Therefore, we need to consider words in their proper context to grasp their true meanings. Sometimes, if we translate words from one language to another without understanding their semantics—the nuances of meaning—the translation might be acceptable from a dictionary standpoint, but it will be a disaster in terms of conveying the intended message.
For example, sometimes computers rely solely on dictionaries, and based on word usage, they attempt to translate from one language to another. A well-known example in the history of computing illustrates how errors can occur when there is no semantic comprehension. The biblical statement “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” essentially means that the heart—or the soul—is willing to progress toward God, but the flesh, that is, the body, is weak and succumbs to temptation, pulling one downward.
When translated into Russian and then re-translated back, one possible rendering—acceptable by dictionary standards but disastrous in meaning—is: “The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten.” What happened here? The word ‘spirit’ was interpreted as an alcoholic beverage, and in Russian, it became ‘vodka.’ The word ‘flesh’ was taken as ‘meat.’ As a result, a profound statement about the human struggle between spiritual aspiration and bodily weakness was reduced to a comment about the dinner menu. The first statement conveys a guiding principle for life—especially spiritual life—while the second is merely a description of food.
Such a huge semantic divorce between these two sentences can indeed occur. Therefore, we cannot comprehend scripture simply by memorizing dictionary meanings. We must enter into the context—and, more importantly, associate with those who have deeply understood that context. Only then can we truly grasp the import of the scriptures.
The wise are not bewildered about something as simple as who is moving and who is not. Rather, they are confused about what kind of work is reactive and what kind is non-reactive. Kṛṣṇa says, tat te karma pravakṣyāmi—“I will explain to you the truth about action.” Yat jñātvā mokṣyase aśubhāt—“By knowing this, you will be freed from all inauspiciousness.”
This particular line—yat jñātvā mokṣyase aśubhāt—appears again in the Gītā, in verse 9.1:
idaṁ tu te guhya-tamaṁ
pravakṣyāmy anasūyave
jñānaṁ vijñāna-sahitaṁ
yaj jñātvā mokṣyase ’śubhāt
Inauspiciousness arises from ignorance, and it is knowledge that removes that inauspiciousness.
It is not just any kind of knowledge—it is a specific kind of knowledge that removes inauspiciousness. For example, if a person is sick, then not knowing what the sickness is and not knowing what the medicine is—this ignorance is inauspicious, because the disease may worsen and even lead to death. On the other hand, knowing the disease and knowing the cure is auspicious.
Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says that all living beings are infected by the disease of karma and are suffering. Now, what exactly is this disease, and what exactly is the medicine—that has to be understood. And on this subject, Kṛṣṇa says, pravakṣyāmi—“I will speak.”
Here, Kṛṣṇa begins a deeper analysis of the process of Karma-yoga. He had already spoken about it in verse 3.35, but then the discussion took a slight diversion due to Arjuna’s two questions. The first was: what is it that impels us to sin? That was verse 3.36, which Kṛṣṇa answered from verses 3.37 to 3.43, by analyzing lust and how to control it.
In Chapter 4, when Kṛṣṇa began discussing the history of spiritual knowledge, Arjuna raised another question: “How could You have spoken this knowledge to the Sun-god?” (4.4). Kṛṣṇa then explained His divine position in verses 4.5 through 4.15.
Now, seamlessly transitioning from knowledge about Himself, Kṛṣṇa brings the focus back to Karma-yoga—taking the discussion to a deeper level and elaborating further.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment