attain to a free serenity and poise watching over the operations of Prakriti, but not affected by them. That, and not cessation of the works' of Prakriti, is what is really meafit by the soul’s naishkarmya. Therefore itis an error to think that by not engaging in any kind of action this actionless state of the soul can be attained and enjoyed. Mere renunciation of works is not a sufficient, not even quite a proper means for salvation. “Not by abstention from works does x man enjoy actionlessness, nor by mere renunciation (of works) does he attain to his perfection,”’—to siddhi, the accomplish- ment of the aims of his self-discipline by Yoga.
But at least it must be one necessary means, indis- pensable, imperative ? For how, if the works of Prakriti continue, can the soul help beinginvolved in them ? How can I fight and yet in my soul not think or feel that I the individual am fighting, not desire victory nor be inwardly touched by defeat ? This is the teach- ing of the Sankhyas that the intelligence of the man who engages in the activities of Nature, isentangled in egoism, ignorance and desire and therefore drawn to action ; on the contrary, if the intelligence draws back, then the action must cease with the cessation of the desire and the ignorance. Therefore the giving up of life and works is a necessary part, an inevitable circum- stance and an indispensable last means of the move- ment to liberation. This objection of a current logic— it is not expressed by Arjuna, but it isin his mind as the turn of his subsequent untterances shows,—the Teacher immediately anticipates. No, he says, such renuncia- tion, far from being indispensable, is not even possible. “For none stands even for a movement not doing work;
