 So, we were talking about the notion of surrender. Now, Nishkam Karma talks about renunciation in action, that is, it does not count on an attachment with the fruit of the action. So, what is detached action? Detached action is action without any attachment with the fruits of the action. Now, we will talk about this notion of surrender within a few minutes, that what does it signify and what are the consequences of it. But before that, let us also a quick look at what Nishkam Karma is. Now, if you look at the screen, Nishkam Karma has a morally neutral concept, meaning it is almost immoral, that when we talk about Nishkam Karma, we do not classify actions of Nishkam Karma as moral or immoral. What we are talking about is morally neutral action or action that does not have any moral component. So, what you would like to appreciate or imagine is that, well, we find most of, for the Indian philosophical thinking, morality is not a final destination, liberation is or moksha is. So, considering that, morality or domain of right and wrong is given a status of a scaffolding or a ladder that allows you to reach the higher plane. What is this with western philosophical thinking, where morality is very often taken as the very objective of living and life, having nothing beyond it or it being an essential and objective part of life. In fact, this goes on to, it has very frequently been critiqued by western philosophers, that Indian system of thinking does not have any ethical thinking at all. That is perhaps one of the reasons, why this takes place is because, we find that things are not clear, that the Indian way of thinking is the final frontier is not confined to morality or moral thinking. So, Nishkama Karma as a morally neutral concept is that, well, there is no moral component to these actions, which emanate out of Nishkama Karma. So, it is postulating a transcendental level, a level on which actions are no more right and wrong. They are bereft of any moral classifications, even though at the same action at a level of non-transcendence would have been carrying a moral component. Now, what kind of action does this Nishkama Karma talk about? Now, if you look at the slide, when we talk about Nishkama Karma, the closest alternative we can talk about or comparison we can do is with the manual Kant, who talks about duty for duty's sake, that when he talks about the categorical imperative and he talks about the sense of duty that emerges that well, there is no other motivation for duty, except that it is your duty. Now, this is a kind of motivation that is well, very often seen with the armed forces that were or services where duty is considered supreme, that what one's duty is automatically makes it an ought, that duty incorporates the notion of ought, which you may like to take a look that well, duty incorporates the notion of ought. So, this kind of a duty for duty's sake is also compared with Nishkama Karma, because very often the Hindu ethics is criticized as being almost like the particularly the law of karma as being a retributive law, that where every moral act gets you a desert and it is that way almost a heartless, inconsiderate cold-calculative equation. And therefore, when one starts earning moral desert is earning with a aim or with a goal of a liberation. So, there it is not being, it is not able to represent the entire plethora of the moral life that human beings have. It is becoming almost a simple transactionary deal that well, where I keep on accumulating moral desert for my own benefit later. But here to look at it, when we talk about Nishkama Karma, where the law of karma is transcended, where this karma or these actions, where essentially these are all questions of moral agency, that what makes an agent righteous or better off. So, Nishkama Karma on the other hand, then is trying to postulate a transcendental level where righteousness is a part of second nature. And there are no moral deserts that accumulate with actions done out of Nishkama Karma. So, it is a morally neutral concept. It is almost transcending what is the moral plane. So, the closest comparison with this, as we mentioned, would be with Emmanuel Kant's duty for duty's sake or egoism. We see elements of people living their daily lives, where when one commits oneself to an act or takes up a duty, confirming to the duty becomes the only motive. Whether that whatever that duty be, so a kind of glorification in folklore is made out of this kind of a commitment to duty. So, this is kind of Nishkama Karma's sense of duty. So, we talk about duty for duty's sake as a close comparison to Nishkama Karma. Now, let us look at some exceptions that, suppose we say, well, can wicked acts or can evil acts emanate from Nishkama Karma, I write them, I write it NK for short, that can evil acts or wicked acts emanate from Nishkama Karma or is the structure of Nishkama Karma such that evil acts are ruled out? Well, of course, the answer to the first question is no, wicked acts cannot emanate from Nishkama Karma and is the structure of Nishkama Karma such that evil acts are ruled out? Of course, the answer is yes. Let us look at a justification, how is this possible? Now, if let us imagine evil acts or wicked acts, the moment we strip the moral component from actions, we tend to think immoral acts as almost psychopathic acts or trivial acts. How can acts which are moral at one level be free of moral component at another level? Well, the answer to this brings forth a little talk about agency and about the consequences of Nishkama Karma. What kind of a person follows Nishkama Karma? Now, Nishkama Karma are not sporadic acts of agents, they are ontological status of agents. So, it is not that I have do certain acts which can require to Nishkama Karma and I do certain acts which do not. In fact, Nishkama Karma is supposed to be a state of existence of the agent from which naturally Nishkama Karma or kind of acts flow out. So, it is a ontological status of moral agent. It is an ontological status of moral agents. Can wicked or evil acts emanate from Nishkama Karma? Well, the answer of course is no, but how is it no? Why is it no? That well first, when one attains the level where one is not attached to the fruits of one's action, one has transcended one's perspective. When we talked about moral agency, moral agency confines us or any agency confines us to one particular perspective. Now, the moment we transcend our perspective or we reach an ontological status where we are indifferent to our perspective. That almost brings in a God's eyes view of the world. Let us look at an example. Perhaps that would make this clear. Let us say I have some money in my hand which I do not require of anything immediately. Now, I see that I in a shop there is a watch that I like. I see a beggar standing outside expecting arms and I see in the news that there has been an earthquake somewhere and funds are being sought for the same. And on the other hand, I see that well there is an advertisement on a billboard promising me a fantastic rate of return on the deposit that I make. Now, considering currency or money as a reservoir of resource, where would I like this reservoir of resource to be unloaded? Now, considering essentially what are lesser morally appreciable acts which confine us to our perspective and blind us to the perspective of others. If you do most of an analysis of our judgment of right and wrong, being selfish is considered wrong or bad and being selfless is considered good. What is it when we mean by being selfless? It is that well we have transcended our perspective. Now, for me I need the watch because it looks good. I see that if I invest in the bank deposit advertised, I will be able to get two watches in by two watches or maybe a grander watch in say two years or three years of time. Once my investment earns its return, I see the beggar asking for arms there and I distribute. I give the money there by feeding him for the day or drawing satisfaction of giving something to the needy or I put in the money to the earthquake victims when considering that well this money will immediately or this resource will immediately be useful to people who need it the most. The beggar could perhaps get an arms from somebody else or could in any case survive over the day. Now, when we take a decision transcending our perspective, according to Nishkama Karma is when we have transcended our perspective that this boundary of agency which gives us the perspective is diminished. Once that is done, we find that the acts that flow out of a diminished sense of bounded agency or acts that flow out of a wider array of perspectives tend to be acts that go along. Well, now we see that when we continue with Nishkama Karma or when we act out of Nishkama Karma. So, what arguing in favor of Nishkama Karma or how they would reply is that the structure of transcendental perspective is such that we do not have a scope for getting into a selfish or a wicked situation. So, most of the evil acts can be or wicked acts can be understood as a limited perspective problem. Nishkama Karma on the other hand suggests for claims that once we have dropped our perspectives, it really does not only good acts or what would be qualified as good acts by third person perspective can be seen and nothing wicked flows out of it. So, yes the ontological acts if you see ontological state of moral agents is a different ontological status and therefore, there can be no evil acts that emanate from Nishkama Karma and therefore, the structure that we of the Nishkama Karma rules out such kind of an evil act. So, there can be no amoral psychopath as many of us would imagine, somebody which who is no amoral psychopaths, because this is not a pre moral thinking situation rather a transcended moral thinking situation. Now, looking at what can be the consequences or what can be the consequences of Nishkama Karma. Well, let me list out the consequences that there are many more consequences that you can imagine and take it up as an exercise and write it up. Well, first is the transcendence of outlook or perspective, first we talked about transcendence of outlook or perspective, what we are just talking about right now that the status, the ontological status of the Nishkama Karma is such that she or he has transcended his or her own perspective that we are able to imagine a situation that where what is required not from my perspective, but from a God's eye's view or something which is far above. It is like you are seeing the world order and you find some missing blocks and you have, you would like to place those missing blocks, it is not like you would the placing particular blocks would be to your advantage. Look at it this way that in fact any semblance of greatness always or moral greatness always incorporates this factor. Now, Rawls has, John Rawls philosopher was written a book called the theory of justice which has brought forth the notion of justice into heated debates, puts forth an interesting thought experiment about something what he calls the original position. What is the original position is an thought experiment is an imagination that imagine that you are about to enter a society and you have to design the rules for the society, but you do not know which position you would play in the society. You do not know the gender that would be assigned to you, you do not know your socio economic status, you do not know your intelligence, you do not know any of the qualities that you have. And then you design a system that is eventually wherein you can join. So, what is the Rawls goes on to explain that we would perhaps choose these certain principles which he goes on to states as a theory of justice, but what is the point of mentioning the original position here is that I would only choose a fair system if I do not know what my position in that system be. I would only cut the cake into equal pieces if I were the last person to get the piece. So, the moment we transcend our perspective we find a much better, a much more just distribution taking place. Look at a town planner, look at a leader, now if a leader or a politician or a planner looks beyond his or her own individual gains it becomes a visionary. If look at premiers of nations who look beyond their national gains become world citizens. So, every time that we transcend our perspective it takes us a few notches up the moral ladder perhaps. So, Nishkama Karma is again comparative to this that well it gives us an ability to transcend our outlook or perspective. In fact, not that it gives us an ability that it is a feature of Nishkama Karma who can transcend his outlook or perspective. Now let us look at it, let us contrast this with incentive less action, now as we talked about in the beginning of this class that well Nishkama Karma seems to be contrary common sense because it talks about incentive less actions and whereas the entire world order is premised on this domain that we have incentivized actions that policies are designed to give incentives and disincentives to keep people from taking the kind of decisions it wants to take. So, incentive less actions perhaps being in this network of incentives and disincentives we find that perhaps become opaque to a possibility there where incentives are no more motivations for actions. In fact, this simple word called seva that even Gandhi talks about and is a very common notion or service which is it taken as an sense of seva for those who are familiar with this Hindi term seva which denotes a kind of service which is almost selfless talks about. So, this notion of seva is where there is an absolute incentive less action where you have satisfaction of doing the job yourself of course, Nishkama Karma goes a step ahead that it does not even claim that there is a satisfaction that is the goal of any action rather it is just that the act needs to be done and it is done. So, this does not make it in careless act it is it makes it a detached act. So, this seems to be an essentially interesting lesson for those all who are talking about incentives and looking at the whole world order by understanding incentives that everything happens through incentives. So, Nishkama Karma is a welcome break for the typical carrot and stick or dog and bone policy that seems to be the order of governing human behavior today. Well, Nishkama Karma can be seen as something which is we talked about it is the quality of leaders. So, in fact we just talked about it that when leaders come up or what makes a leader great and not petty is when that leader is able to transcend his or her perspective or his or her electorate or his or the people he represent as long as he represents the people he has transcended his individual perspective. As long as he transcends the region that he represents he has become a larger than life leader he is concerned about what is the right thing to do. It is a typical example which occurs to me in the Indian scenarios is when Indian scenario or political scenario is when all the chief ministers of the states bicker for funds without considering that well there is a possibility that one states need may be higher than the other need and we need to justify the same. But if one represents stubbornly to the electorate that has elected the leader that leader would only be arguing for the welfare of that electorate. So, it is all tied up notion when we come up with the notion of Vasudeva Kutumbakam which again stands for that well the whole universe is my Kutumbakam or my community or my home. So, Nishkama Karma is tied up with such notions that where perspective is transferred and leaders can be leaders only when or true leaders of people who can have this kind of a inkling or a direction towards the Nishkama Karma. And finally, of course there are many more consequences that you can yourself think of and perhaps email me or write to me or be delighted to know or learn about perspectives that you are able to take and of course it is the source of all psychological happiness. In fact the entire stress and strain of modern life can very largely be rooted to a very strong consequentialist strain that whatever we require to do or whatever we do needs to deliver goods, deliver results. So, as a result the human agency becomes totally responsible from effort to results and if results are not being yielded then we are losing out something. So, this causes a lot of stress and strain because no matter how careful or how elaborate you are in your effort there is still a gap between the effort and action perhaps this is the theistic input of the metaphysical scenario of Nishkama Karma that where we find the gap between fruits and action is taken as a significant gap. And human agency is critiqued or limited to not being a manufacturer of fruits but as a component in the attainment of fruits. So, a lot of our stress and strain and psychological unhappiness is done away with when we have the consolation that there is a stage where actions can be performed without any attachment to its results. Now every action just imagine a schooling system or a college system which does not have grades where you learn for the sake of learning you do not learn for the sake of grades. So, as long as it is an obvious perhaps teachers would be more familiar and students of course would be familiar with this that as long as you see that your the grades that you get in a course do not represent the effort or you have put into it you seem to be a disgruntled disappointed. And this is a complaint that many teachers would be facing but what was the objective of the course is for you to give grades or is it for you to learn something. So, how well you have learnt it that is your credit that you carry perhaps this is all too idealistic a notion that we talk about but then Indian philosophy does arise in a time of idealism and with backed by an elaborate metaphysical system. But of course considering that this as a possibility is itself in a catharsis and gives one a better frame of mind and a more peaceful existence round us.