Gita 03.05 – Inaction is unnatural, materially and spiritually

Link : https://www.thespiritualscientist.com/gita-03-05-inaction-is-unnatural-materially-and-spiritually/

na hi kaścit kṣaṇam api
jātu tiṣṭhaty akarma-kṛt
kāryate hy avaśaḥ karma
sarvaḥ prakṛti-jair guṇaiḥ

Word-to-word
na — nor; hi — certainly; kaścit — anyone; kṣaṇam — a moment; api — also; jātu — at any time; tiṣṭhati — remains; akarma-kṛt — without doing something; kāryate — is forced to do; hi — certainly; avaśaḥ — helplessly; karma — work; sarvaḥ — all; prakṛti-jaiḥ — born of the modes of material nature; guṇaiḥ — by the qualities.

Translation
Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.

Explanation
Krishna continues explaining to Arjuna why Karma Yoga is more suitable for him than Gyan Yoga. He emphasizes that action performed with detachment is superior to the renunciation of action. The key point Krishna makes is that inaction is not only impractical but nearly impossible.
Why? Because this truth can be understood on two levels. First, at the level of our embodied conditioning: the body and mind are essentially parts of the same psycho-physical mechanism. As such, they are inherently driven toward action. While rest is necessary from time to time, no one can sleep 24 hours a day for the rest of their life. Even those who appear lazy or avoid physical labor still seek engagement — they may watch movies or eat food. In other words, some form of action is always taking place. Essentially, people seek to enjoy life in various ways, and avoiding physical exertion is often a part of pursuing bodily pleasure through activities that are pleasurable but not physically demanding. However, inaction is unnatural for the body, which is constantly driven to act by the modes of nature that influence it. No matter how hard we try, we cannot escape action—we cannot remain inactive for long. Some may sit in meditation, and a few might even enter deep trances where they remain motionless for extended periods. But how many people can truly do that? And even for those who can—how long can they sustain it? More importantly, how practical is it—not only in terms of the ability to perform it, but also in terms of its usefulness in daily life? In the previous verse, Krishna explains that inaction does not necessarily lead to freedom from the consequences of action. By our very bodily nature, we are compelled to act—we cannot remain inactive.
Some may argue that the urge to act arises primarily from the lower modes, especially the mode of passion, and that once one ascends to the mode of goodness, this tendency to act will diminish. While it’s true that the hyperactivity driven by passion may subside in goodness, it’s important to understand that goodness is not a state of inactivity. A person situated in goodness still acts—because goodness, too, is active. In fact, for a person in the mode of goodness, the difference lies not in the amount of action, but in the quality of intelligence guiding that action. Such a person may be very active—even physically busy—but their actions are governed by thoughtful deliberation. In contrast, actions driven by the mode of passion are often impulsive and lack careful consideration. The key point is that action is not exclusive to the lower modes. All the modes of nature—goodness, passion, and ignorance—impel us toward action. While the type of action may vary depending on the dominant mode, the principle of action remains: no one can avoid it entirely. Now, one might ask: what happens when a person reaches the transcendental level? Can such a person become inactive? At this stage, Krishna is not addressing that question. He is speaking to someone like Arjuna—a person still situated within the material world and not yet beyond its influence. A person who is still within the material world and under the influence of the modes cannot artificially assume themselves to be at the transcendental level and become inactive on that basis.
This raises a deeper philosophical question: Is the transcendental state entirely characterized by inaction? The answer is nuanced. The transcendental state is marked by material inaction—that is, the absence of actions driven by material desires or motivations. When the soul attains transcendence, it no longer acts out of selfish or worldly impulses.
However, the soul has a spiritual nature, and that nature is to love and serve. Therefore, even at the spiritual level, the soul continues to act—but with pure intention: to love and serve Krishna. So, while there may be inaction on the material plane, there is dynamic, purposeful action on the spiritual plane. In the spiritual world, we observe that even the topmost devotees—such as the gopis—may occasionally become so absorbed in remembrance of Krishna that they appear motionless, like statues. However, this is only a temporary state. Their natural and predominant condition is one of dynamic devotion. They are filled with love for Krishna and express that love through practical service—churning butter, tending to household duties—all while constantly thinking of Him. This principle extends beyond the gopis in Vrindavan to the residents of Vaikuntha as well. The Vaikunthavasis actively engage in various services to the Divine Couple, Lakshmi-Narayan. Their devotion is not passive; it is expressed through purposeful, loving action.
In contrast, souls in the impersonal Brahman state may appear inactive, but that state is only quasi-stable. It is not the soul’s natural condition. Even if a soul remains in that state for a very long time, it does not fulfill the soul’s intrinsic nature—because the soul, by its essence, is active and meant to serve. Now, returning to the context of this verse, Krishna is telling Arjuna: don’t think that simply by giving up action, you will be freed from its consequences. What protects one from reaction is not inaction, but renunciation—performing action with detachment. And such renunciation must be cultivated; it doesn’t automatically arise just by formally adopting the renounced order. That was the essence of the previous verse. Continuing this thought, in the current verse, Krishna emphasizes that even if someone claims, “I will become inactive,” true inaction is not possible. It is unnatural for us, and the modes of nature will not allow it. Therefore, instead of striving for inactivity—which is impractical, if not impossible—it is better to act in a dharmic way.
In the next verse, Krishna will take this idea further, explaining that inaction is not only impractical but can also be adharmic. How and why that is the case—we will explore in our next session.
Thank you.