Sri Ramakrishna Math : The Vedanta Kesari, Editorial:If Every Work Were a Worship!

The Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute Brahman is the cause of this creation. All created things, therefore, have these inherent characteristics to manifest. In and through our daily activities also we experience this truth unknowingly. When we say 'there is a pot', it implies that the existence of Brahman is felt through the cognition of the pot. When we say 'the pot is revealed' or 'it has become an object of knowledge', the knowledge aspect of Brahman is felt. The aspect of bliss, however, remains obscure. The Panchadasi says: 'When Rajas predominates, bliss is obscured because of impurity (Rajovrittestu malinyat sukhamshah atra tiraskritah¹). In matter, the bliss remains subdued due to inertia. The same inertia also makes for the difference between one matter and another matter.

An atom of wood cannot release an electron even as an atom of copper does; hence copper is a conductor of electricity while wood is not. The experience of bliss is a thing to be felt and not one that can be seen as it is not an object of perception. Our experience of peace in deep sleep is an example of such a feeling. It establishes the theory of Advaita Vedanta that Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause of creation. He enjoys Himself, He plays with Himself (atmaratih atmakridah²).

It is on this philosophy that the experience of Brahman being immanent in every thing is based (sarvam khalu idam brahma,³ brahmamayam jagat⁴). Following Sri Ramakrishna's message of 'Service to man is service to God', Swami Vivekananda gave reality to the immanent aspect of Brahman. Shankara, stressing upon the extra-cosmic aspect of Brahman denies any possibility of a combination of karma (prompted by desire) and jnana. Swamiji understands the truth in Shankara's approach in an effective way and finds no contradiction in combining nishkama (desireless) karma with jnana. He made it applicable in day-to-day life. His argument is: Karma is the eternal assertion of human freedom. If we can bring ourselves down by our karma, surely it is in our power to raise ourselves by it.⁵

It seems, the example of sages like Janaka has been cited in the Gita in support of the combination of contemplation and non-attached action. It may be argued that these examples are exceptions. They may be very rare examples of perfection attained through Karma Yoga (a combination of action, devotion and contemplation). But so too are perfect ones who follow pure jnana (Sankhya). Both are rarities.

Sri Ramakrishna never admitted any contradiction between jnana and karma, i.e., the applicability of the knowledge of non-duality in karma. He said, 'Having tied the knowledge of non-duality at the hem of your cloth, perform work.' Then only the spirit of non-attachment is possible to be made 'applied'. In the life of all the teachers of humanity and wise persons, the applicability of Advaitic knowledge clearly stands out. The Jivanmuktas (those who are liberated while living) and the Adhikarika Purushas (those who have a divine mission after their own liberation) do perform work; it does not oppose their knowledge. 'Whatever a great man does others also copy.'⁶ There is a Shruti (Veda) called 'Shishtachara Anumita Shrutih'. The idea is that many injunctions of the lost Vedic texts can be inferred from the behaviour of all great people. 'What is the way?' in reply to this quickshot question by Dharma, the virtuous Yudhishthira said, 'The way is what has been trodden by the great ones.'

The noble ideal of 'work is worship' is based on this philosophy. If we are conscious of the fact that the same Brahman resides in every thing, then whatever work we do for others will be elevated to the level of worship. 'But should every work be done as worship?' is our anxious question. Let us see what type of people ask this question.

A vast majority of us can differentiate work according to its nature. Suppose I am an officer or a businessman. I lead a pious life. When I am at home I live ethically with my family. I do not lie, nor do I teach or encourage my family members to tell a lie to any of us. But, well, when I am at my work place, I have to compromise with truth and honesty--and so on. Because to me that is my secular life. At the same time, I am a regular visitor to many temples; sometimes I go alone, sometimes with my family members. We follow all codes of rituals there and, to some extent, at home. This is my sacred life.

Yet I face a problem, a peculiar problem--I cannot control my children. They tell lies, they conduct themselves dishonestly, and they do not believe in visiting temples, or even our own shrine at home. Why do they refuse to be moulded the way we want? Let us ponder for a while.

Suppose I am a religious man; a novitiate or a respected grown-up. I have my daily routine of work which I do in a spirit of service. Apart from my own spiritual sadhana (practices), whatever work I do, I do them with the idea that 'work is worship'. I perform my religious practices without compromise, for that is my life. Among other works, I do practise the ideal of 'work is worship'. I try to see that the income-oriented works are given importance because by that we are able to maintain the public religious and humanitarian services uninterruptedly. Yet I face a problem-- people gibe at me saying, 'He is deceitful!' Because, according to them, I serve God and mammon together!

Nevertheless, our two problems are not problems at all provided we do not claim to be spiritual. Actually we fail to reckon the difference between the religious and the spiritual. If I am true to myself then I should appreciate that the problems are the results that I legitimately deserve. In the case of the first instance, I should not have blamed my children. They were wise enough to have learnt without much disgust and frustration. They are the outcome of my own dichotomy! I made a difference between the sacred self and the secular self. My children wisely observed my practised ease to compromise ethics. They simply inherited the ways of their revered elders. There is at least no dichotomy in their personality. So they are more honest than I am. However, my misery is less compared to what the Upanishad has predicted, 'He who sees as though there is difference here, goes from death to death.'⁷

In the second case, the critics may be partially right. We say partially because the critics probably have noticed that while I do not differentiate between sacred and secular, unfortunately, I do differentiate between sacred and sacred! There lies my lack of understanding the message of 'work is worship'. It is my different attitudes to worships of different forms that have given rise to the harmful thought of 'thankless job'. 'The sound of the word service cannot deceive the Lord. He is not waiting for these people's service.' Swamiji, before his departure for the second time to the West, exhorted the monks of Ramakrishna Order not to see any difference between sacred works. He said:

'You must be prepared to go into deep meditation now, and the next moment you must be ready to go and cultivate these fields (Swamiji said, pointing to the meadows of the Math). You must be prepared to explain the difficult intricacies of the Shastras now, and the next moment to go and sell the produce of the fields in the market.You must be prepared for all menial services, not only here, but elsewhere also.'⁸

As a result, we have come to understand that the view of karma as taught by Sri Ramakrishna, Swamiji and the Holy Mother has spiritualized all religious and secular karmas. Even as they did not differentiate between the sacred and the secular, they did not differentiate among the varieties of sacred works. Sri Krishna preached yoga, where He defined yoga as 'dexterity in work'.⁹ It actually means not an efficiency but a transformation of the outlook and thereby a tramsformation of the whole work itself. The novices at Belur Math used to cut vegetables. Swami Prema-nandaji would encourage them saying, 'When you are cutting a vegetable, think in your mind that you are cutting (sacrificing) desire, anger etc.'

Acharya Shankara taught renunciation of all desire-oriented work; Sri Krishna taught renunciation of the desire for the result of work. Sri Ramakrishna made the Advaitic principle applicable to day-to-day life when he taught doing work as service to God. It has a unique philosophy as its support. In this, there is no question of offering the result of karma to God (tat kurushva madarpanam), but seeing God in all and serving Him only with our work. All work is His worship--so why should we renounce karma or even its result? We have redefined karma itself as seva or service to God. In the process, we have also become God. They say, 'Transforming oneself into God, one should worship God (Devo bhutva devam yajet).' If one succeeds to do the seva in proper spirit, then where is the difference between him and a Deva? Once Mahatma Gandhi was travelling by a train. Poor people, for whom Gandhiji worked a lot, prostrated on the railway track when the train left the station. They said, 'He is not a man, he is God.' Lamenting the death of Deshbandhu C. R. Das, the revolutionary poet Kazi Nazrul Islam sang: 'He who is loved by the world, is also required in heaven (Svargeo tar achhe prayojan jare bhalobase mati).' The scriptures say that the posts like Indra etc. in heaven are occupied by humans who elevate themselves to that status by their work.

Coming back to our point, we can surmise that none of the spiritual teachers deny our right to desire, which goads us to do work (karmanyevadhikaraste), nor do they deny that work should produce its result. But what they actually teach is that the fruit must be for others (ma phaleshu kadachana). Only here, our motive undergoes a transformation, i.e., the 'others' are none other than our God. It becomes an offering to God only. It also leads to the much wanted egolessness and desire- lessness in spiritual life as taught by Sri Krishna.¹⁰ If work does not produce any result for us, then it is not to be termed as work at all; it is His service. God has two aspects--one is transcendent and the other, immanent. So worship of the transcendent and service to the immanent are in effect one and the same. Service does not therefore leave any scope for us to offer the fruits of our action to God. It is already His! This is also a yoga--we may call it seva yoga.

1. Cf. Panchadasi, 12.78.
2. Cf. The Chandogya Upanishad, 7.25.2.
3. Cf. The Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1.
4. Cf.The Tejobindu Upanishad, 6.38.
5. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vols. 8, 7^th ed.(Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1987), 5:213-214; hereafter cited as CW.
6. Cf. The Gita, 3.21.
7. Cf. The Kathopanishad, 2.1.10.
8. CW III, p.447.
9. Cf. The Gita, 2.50.
10. Cf. Sridhara on the Gita, 4.14.