THE SECOND GANADHARA:
AGNIBHUTI: THE DOUBT REGARDING KARMA (DESTINY)
Now we begin the discussion with the arguments of the second Ganadhar. As soon as Agnibhuti heard the news that Indrabhuti had accepted Jain Charita Deeksa (initiation to the ascetic group) at the hands of Bhagavan Mahavir, he was shocked 'Ah! What has happened? My brother, who has never in his life known defeat in arguments, has surrendered himself for life to his opponent. Certainly, there should have occurred some deceit. Therefore, I must go there with an absolute intellectual awareness and vigilance, so that I may not fall prey to the snares of the opponent, and by silincing him and making him void of arguments through my incisive arguments I may release my brother from his snares." Thinking thus he, accompanied by his 500 disciples, proceeded to see Bhagavan Mahavir.
But alas! he should have known that not only his brother Indrabhuti, but even the great Indra, the supreme of gods possessing divine knowledge named Avadhigyan got enthralled and fascinated by Bhagavan Mahavir who had ascended to the top most post named Tirthankarpad and who was vitarag and omniscient: that he himself would be thus fascinated by the Lord: and that the Lord had appeared here only to destroy his internal enemy namely Moha or illusion. Agnibhuti arrived at the staircase of the Samavasaran. The Bhagavan addressed him also as he had addressed Indrabhuti and also disclosed the doubt of Agnibhuti thus: "Dear Agnibhuti you have a doubt whether such a thing as karma (destiny, fate) exists in the world or not? But you have not thoroughly and deeply understood and contemplated over the meaning of the Vedic statement."
Like his brother, Angibhuti also stood stratified on seeing and hearing the Bhagavan. On the disclosure of his inner doubt, he rightly thought, "He is an omniscient one! So, now let me understand the truth properly and fully from Him". He stood before the Bhagavan politely with folded hands.
The Bhagavan began to explain the truth to Agnibhuti in this way:
Why Doubt About the Existence of Karma
"Oh Agnibhuti . You are confused because you have found two contradictory Vedic statements. One of them is,[indian writing pg 46 angie] " in other words, "whatever has happened (in the past), and is apt to happen (in the future), is 'Purush (soul) only". The other contradictory Vedic saying you found is, [indian writing pag46 angie].`In other words, "one desiring heavenly birth should perform the sacrifice named 'Agnihotra".
You have understood the first one thus:"That which is logically probable to happen is the Purusha or soul only. In other words all the phenomenon of the world occur only on account of the prowess and power of soul. There is no such thing as Karma If such a thing as Karma existed in the world, then in the Vedic statement with the word 'Purush' the word 'Eva' meaning 'only' would not have been joined. But here in Vedas say 'only the soul' and that negates the other things, such as Karma and time etc. That means soul is all in all."
But on the other hand, you have found the contrary statement: like 'Svargakaamo agnihotram juhuyat'. [indian writing pg 46 angie]
(He who desires heavenly birth must perform the yajna, sacrifice called the 'Agnihotra'. From this Vedic statement, you have understood that "according to the Vedas, he who desires to go to heaven must perform the Angihotra sacrifice. But even after the agnihorta} sacrifice is performed soul continues in the same state of existence for a long time: and then after a lapse of some time soul goes to heaven. In that case, the cause Agnihotra is destroyed long before, the effect the heavenly birth to be created comes later on. Then how can it be called heavenly birth's cause. Without the medium of karma Agnihotra being destroyed is not capable in the absence of inter-medium to create heaven. So there must be karma as a link between cause and effect. If without this link in the form of karma the soul itself accompanied with the endeavour of Agnihotra would have been creating heaven, then just as the 'yajna' is completed the soul should have immediately attained heaven! So there must be a medium, a link, call it anything, but Karma is a link between the 'cause' like 'Agnihotra and the 'effect' like birth in heaven. The jiva attains heaven only on account of the ripening of this Karma In this manner you have to interpret and understand the Vedic text. From this, it becomes proved and it is evident that Karma does exist.
"Oh Agnibhuti! You entertained the doubt whether in the world such a thing as 'Karma' exists or not', because in Vedas you found contradictory statements regarding Karma Moreover you are thinking of this in yet another way, and so you might be feeling that:
(1) If karmas are not visible, how can they be believed in?
(2) Even if they are believed in, Karmas are incongruent with existence. So how are Karmas (destiny, fate ) believable?
(3) Why can we not deny the existence of something that is invisible?
But Oh, Agnibhuti! two questions arise on this:-
(a) One is, can you say that a certain thing, just because it is invisible, does not exist at all?
(b)The second thing is, can you say that 01. because a thing is invisible to you only, it is unbelievable or 02. because it is not visible to anybody, it is unbelievable?
1. To answer the first question, you should mind well that there are many hindrances on account of which even existent things may not be visible. Yet we are compelled to believe in their existence. We cannot see our eye lids because of their extreme proximity, yet on that basis can we say that our eye- lids do not exist? There are many hindrances on account of which a thing although existing is not visible; (We shall consider them later: ) yet we have to believe in it.
Be afraid of the invisible Karmas: We have also to ponder over these utterances of the Lord spoken to Agnibhuti. Just because we cannot see an object, can we deny its existence! In the modern age, we have such phenomena as electricity in wires, magnetic power in a magnet, and the capacity in the atoms, although they are invisible, yet people believe in their existence. But it is surprising that in the case of truths relating to Shastras or the religion or the religious doctrines or the philosophical principles, people say "Where is it seen? Is it visible? Show us if it is visible". Saying thus they disbelieve the existence of such things as religion and Tattvas and it is surprising that they do not accept them! By speaking thus they show their distrust in the scriptures, religion and philosophy. By neglecting or denying the existence of the invisible Karmas, they waste, pollute and ruin the lofty human birth which is of a very short period, a very short span of life that has been attained. They ruin human birth on account of their ignorance, on account of mean and irrelevant thoughts, and obstinate beliefs or fanaticism or for the sake of sensual pleasures that are transient. They court spiritual ruin, and in consequence, they create terrible agonies and anguish for countless lives. But they should realise that just because a certain thing is not visible or not understandable, it cannot be negated or disbelieved as something unreal. It must be understood that there are very many reasons due to which a thing may not be visible, or not known to us, but that is no ground for entertaining distrust in its existence.
Those who have belief in karmas and their efficacy, at least experience this:
1. Very many things happen against their wishes; and
2. though they entertain a strong wish for something that thing is not accomplished according to their wish.
Why so? Say due to karmas being not favourable. 'I hen why should they not believe in the existence of karmas? Even if they disbelieve in Karmas' theory, they notice the gradual decrease in age and frustrations because of unfulfilled desires. When there is no change in such conditions in their lives then why not believe in karma-theory? Why should they not make their life blessed in this invaluable state of human-birth by believing in the writings of the scriptures written by the sages who were entertaining the fear of Samsara, that means who were afraid of the down-fall in the series of births and deaths in Samsara and who were the men of outstanding spiritual attainments and knowledge, living an extraordinary pious life of samyam (self restraint), and who were veracious i.e. who always spoke truth, and who possessed intensely unselfish and absolutely benevolent talent and behaviour?
Mind well this rarely obtainable and very precious human birth has been attained by us, for keeping complete trust in them. If the faith is preserved, further in future in accordance with this faith, the life will be rewarded by carrying out such samyam (self restraint) sacrifices, spiritual austerities, and keeping absolutely benevolent attitude, abhorrance towards sensual pleasures, and truthfulness and restraint over senses and mind. But if there is no faith at all, the life will go waste in sensual pleasures and enjoyments, such as eating, drinking, enjoying leisures, music, dance and so on. Here the soul lives the life of a beastly attitude. In the births of animals, birds and insects, these pleasures can be experienced by the flies, insects, birds, elephants, cuckoos, peacocks, donkeys, etc. Therefore we should value human birth and have faith in the words of the enlightened sages.
Things Though in front why Invisible ?
Now let us think over the reasons why certain things though they exist are not known.
1. The things if very nearest to our eyes cannot be seen though they are in front of our eyes, just as we cannot see the collyrium applied to the eyes, and the movement of the eyelids.
2. At a very distance, just as the telegraph poles along the railway track situated at a distance cannot be seen though they exist.
3. Very subtle: just as such subtle object as the atoms or the radio-active particles (which are not visible if there is no beam of light emanating from the sun).
4. In the same manner, if your mind does not concentrate on the idol, at the time of seeing the idol, you have no awareness whether the idol has a crown or not. Whether it had symmetrical eyes? Whether the saffron used was red or yellow. There are also many other reasons for our not being able to see the realities even en though they exist.
What are the reasons that we do not see some objects though they exist there?
The Reason Things not seen
1. Extreme proximity The eyelids and the collyrium in the eyes.
2. Great distance The telegraph-poles on the sides of the railway track.
3. Extremely minute The dust particles visible only in a beam of light
cannot be seen without it.
4. The absence of One cannot say whether the idol had a crown
mental or not when he was seeing the idol,
concentration because he was absent- minded.
5. Impossible One's own ears and head.
6. The weakness Inability to see letters etc. with of the senses out
7. Mental dullness Carats of gold: lustre of pearls.
8. Being covered A veiled (covered) object.
9. Defeat, overthrow Stars in sunlight.
1O. Nature The sky, ghost, etc.
11. Being mixed with A few grains mixed with a heap of
other similar green lentil and mustard.
12. Mind diverted to While concentrating on the taste,
another object the colour is not seen.
13. Forgetfulness Something seen say some ten years ago.
14. Loss of eye-sight A blind man cannot see anything.
15. Wrong under- The gold ornaments (not of pure gold)
standing or perception worn by a wealthy villager or perception
enforced upon a person by his deceitful friend, a
16. False faith or The realities like the jiva (soul).
17. Old age or One cannot recognise things or ,
disease, three humours persons in sickness though one might
being corrupted have seen them with familiarity many times
18. Without action or The butter in milk and curds.
19. Mixed substance Water in milk.
20. Lack of training Unable to distinguish a jewel from a
21. Devine illusion Gold transformed into a coal.
Therefore, we cannot say that karmas do not exist just because they are not seen.
2. Now regarding the second question: "Because karmas are not visible to us they are not existent". We cannot say this, because many things exist which though we may not see them yet they are in others' sight. Therefore, it is wrong to say that 'Karmas do not exist because they cannot be seen by anyone'. The reason is, first of all, where have we seen all the jivas in the world so that we may know whether there is not one of them who has seen karmas? Even in visible jivas are we able to see knowledge--of what nature and to which extent? This we cannot see. Morever how can we say "In future too there will be none who can see karmas"? Therefore, it is not proper to disbelieve the existence of karmas.
Bhagavan Mahavir says to Agnibhutil 'you might have thought that there are "Three reasons for the existence of karmas being logically improbable:"
"The thing like Karma is improbable". Behind this statement are these three reasons:
(a) There is nothing like soul taking rebirth, and hence who can carry on karmas in the next life?
(b) Let there be any one who may take a rebirth, but karmas are above rational comprehension. They cannot be brought within the scope of rational understanding, testing, and verification.
(c) Or, it can be said that all things take place in this world because of the 'nature' of the things. Therefore where is the need for believing in karmas?
Refutation of these three reasons
(I-1 ) If there is nothing like one who goes to the next birth, then who will carry karmas with him? And for this life karmas are useless and inefficacious". We cannot say this because the soul taking another birth has been proved. It is for this reason that the Vedic statements like "they who desire to go to heaven, should perform the Agnihotra yajna etc." which you believe to be true are logical and relevant. If the soul does not at all exist, who would go to heaven by performing the yajna.
(I-2) Karmas are beyond intellectual analysis, because here the question is of what nature will you believe karmas?
'Sanimittak' karmas i.e. produced from cause or 'Animittak', karmas those created without cause?
1. 'Animittak: those created without any cause.
2. 'Sanimittak: produced by causes and reasons.
Of these two points,
(a) the first one cannot be believed in, because if karmas can arise naturally without a cause, then why is it that such 'Animittak' karmas are not produced in those who have attained Moksa (salvation)? Or why is it that 'Animittak' karmas are not being produced always? If so, nobody can attain moksa at any time.
(b) Regarding the second point, of Sanimittak' karmas, we shall have to think over the three causes by which karmas are produced.
The three causes that create Karmas
1. Karmas arise from violence; or
2. They arise from attachment and hatred; or
3. They arise from other karmas.
Now thinking over these three, we shall see how each of them is not rational.
Why is it that those who with much cruelty slaughter a lot of animals and cut them to pieces with sharp implements, and also those who impel others to do so, are seen to enjoy happiness? They are bound by dangerous sins (inauspicious karmas) on account of their violent activities: then owing to their karmas they should be in great pain and anguish; but on the contrary they seem happy. As opposed to this, why are those who are always engaged in the worship of Tirthankar Parmatma, penances and austerities etc. and who being merciful do not harm even the smallest creatures like ants, lead a life of poverty and adversity? Why so? Auspicious karmas created by worship, mercy, penances, non-violence etc. must bring happiness to them. Hence this doctrine that bad karmas are born out of violence, and good karmas are born out of worship, penances and mercy etc., is not appealing. Therefore the doctrine of karmas that they are created by violence does not remain logical. Hence it is not valid.
(b)As regards the second point, if you say, "the karma] is created by attachment and hatred," then the question is how do those attachments and hatred originate and from what source? If it is from karmas then we cannot say from present karmas they originate. If we say that they originate from the karmas of the previous life, moksa will have no scope no meaning, because according to this theory, attachment and hatred arise from karmas and karmas arise from attachment and hatred. Consequently this endless cycle will continue further and further for infinity and moksa will never be attained. If moksa is never to happen then the shastras are meaningless.
(c)As regards the third point, if you say that karma arises from karma, then this process coming down through generations, from times immemorial, will continue likewise in the future forever, and there can be no possibility of moksa
Hence from the point of rationality, a thing like karma does not seem to exist.
"If there is no such thing as karma, the question arises as to how can strange particular effects and peculiar actions be created? One child is born with a golden spoon in his mouth, while another child cannot get even enough breast-milk from its mother. Why is this difference? We may say that it happens accidentally or by chance, without any cause. Instead of this chance if we believe in the karmas, we have to face conflicts of ideas.
A Refutation of the Theory that "Effects are created accidentally:"
In the theory that effects and activities arise accidentally, what does the word "accidentally" mean?
1. They arise without a cause;
2. They arise naturally;
3. They arise not on account of any external causes, but they arise automatically of their own accord. This is called Swatma-hetu (it being the cause itself);
4. Not on account of any cause but on account of some unreal substance (the effect is produced).
"Effect happens without a cause" this is a wrong statement, a wrong view We find everywhere that for an effect a cause has to be searched for, or obtained. It means if the cause is present, then only the effect comes into existence; for example if there is fire, then only there is smoke. It means, smoke can be obtained only from fire, curds is obtained only from milk, butter only from curds.
If everything happens by nature, e.g. the flame of fire goes vertically upwards only, the wind blows horizontally only, fire gives heat only and water gives coolness only, this is natural. The thorn is naturally sharp and pointed. If so, what is then the meaning of 'nature?'
The four meanings of nature:
Nature means own--'Bhava'
(a) It may be the quality of an object;
(b) it may be the existence of an object;
(c) it may be the special object, or
(d) it may be its own nature, namely time-modification (modifications regarding various time-created substances.
(1) Now 'natural' means they originate from the quality of the substance; but how can the quality exist without a substance that has never existed before its birth? And without the quality, how could that substance itself arise previously? If nature in the form of quality is deemed a different reality, then it is identical with karma. Is it not?
(2) If we consider the existence only of a substance, as its nature, then what is this existence? Excepting the substance, nothing is to be brought from outside, as the existence.
The substance will be considered as the effect only and consequently, it means, its existence uptil now was not there at all. So how can it be worthwhile to say that the substance creates itself.
(3) By the name of 'Nature' if you mean the special object, then here the question arises "what is this special object?" Is it a substance (dravya) or an attribute (guna) or the action of being produced? These three are impossible. If it is a separate object from these three, then it would mean the object is created from a different cause (but not from nature). Then how could it be called as created on account of its own nature?
(4) If nature means time-modification of the substance and if a substance is born out of that nature, then how is it that the substances arising at the same time are dissimilar? How can there be dissimilarity in effects if there is no dissimilarity in causes?
Thus 'everything is created by nature' is a wrong statement.
3. Everything is Self-Caused: It is not sensible to say that something arises from its own self Here two forms come before us: the own self is the cause-form and the substance is the effect form. If we say that something arises from its own self, then it is presumed for the creation of its own self, that original own self as the cause-form existed earlier. If the effect form is the same as the cause-form and the cause- form exists, then what remains for the effect-form to emerge? Which cause-form created the effect-form? Then it means that there is no such original form. How can a substance arise from its own self?
4. "Origin from an unreal source". This also is wrong. If in this world there is no substance at all like ''unreal'', then what is the meaning of creation from "unreal"? How can any thing originate from any unreal one? Such creation from unreal is something like an object arising from a donkey-horn which does not exist at all and which is unreal. Even if such an origin is accepted, where is the necessity for (a) someone to remain poor? (b)someone to remain hungry? (c)some to remain sick? Why should they suffer from poverty, hunger and disease? Because money, food, and health will then arise from the unreal. If the effects originate from an unreal cause, then their creations must also be similar but why should there be such dissimilar phases as childhood at one time, youth at another time? Or why is it not that similar- dissimilar things may appear simultaneously as cold and heat, health and disease, life and death?
It is, therefore, absolutely wrong to say that an effect arises accidentally (without a cause).
Three Ways for the origin of Karmas: Now we may see that karmas originate from
2. attachments and hatred, and
3 other karmas. These three ways of the origin of karmas are logical and reasonable.
Punyanubandhi -papanubandhi kalmas:
1. Karmas are of two kinds namely (a) punyanubandhi ( i(a) papanubandhi. The punyanubandhi karmas are those which when ripen manifest their fruit but at the same time create such conditions for the jiva concerned that would be for earning merits and punya The papanubandhi karma is that which when ripens, impels the jiva concerned to develop sinful propensities. Among the karmas that we experience, some are auspicious, some are inauspicious. Thus there are four kinds of karmas namely:
(1) Punyanubandhi punya: Auspicious karmas giving happiness accompained with virtues and pious mental attitude.
(2) Papanubandhi punya: Happiness accompanied with vices and evil, inauspicious mental attitude.
(3) Punyanubandhi papa: Inauspicious karmas giving sorrows accompanied with virtues and pious mental attitude.
(4) Papanubandhi papa: Sorrows accompanied with vices, and evil inauspicious attitude.
Those persons who in spite of being violent, heartless, cruel and wicked in this life are at present happy are under the influence of the ripening of Papanubandhi punya 'Papanubandhi' punya means the good luck mixed with sinful impressions and propensities. Karma-binding is not created in this life and it does not ripen so quickly. Those jivas that earned punya, viz. good luck in their previous birth by means of charity, benevolence, self-restraint like celibacy, spiritual austerities, devotion and worshipping God etc. but who performed all these with the vicious aims of wordly pleasure and ambitions, enjoy wealth and happiness in this life on account of ripening of their good luck but on the other hand they also carry evil thoughts in their mind and remain engrossed in committing sinful actions like violence etc. on account of their previous vicious aims.
Those who performed religious ceremonies in the previous birth but with mean ambitions, sensual pleasures or with a view to take revenge etc., their wicked impressions continue in this life due to which illusory infatuation, attachments and sensual desires arise in this birth. On the contrary, those who have committed sins in the previous birth with disgust towards them and who repented their sins and at the same time performed pious religious actions, as the fruit of sins they have to experience sorrow in this life but at the same time on account of their previous repentance of sinful acts, they get opportunities to come in contact with Sadhus who are noble spiritual heads, and are also engaged in noble learning, noble thoughts and noble religious spiritual activities and austerities. They exercise the practice of virtues as also they acquire virtues. Thus they are earning punyas (good lucks) as their new spiritual wealth. This is the result of punyanubandhi-Papakanna, and on account of this the jivas experience sorrows on one hand and on the other they acquire such virtues as kindness, good conduct, spiritual activities, benevolence, nobility and devotion to and worshipping the lotus- like feet of Paramatma. All these good actions and virtues will bring them fruit in their next birth.
In normal wordly life, we find that those who eat sweetmeats etc. beyond the limit at functions or marriage ceremonies etc. fall ill the next day and will have to fast. When someone says about such a person on the day he is fasting that "he has not eaten anything today yet he is ill, why?", and if he makes the rule that "illness is caused by eating less", this rule would be wrong. In the same manner, if a person has excellent vigour and strength, if he eats something that causes illness or eats more than necessary and yet if he looks strong and healthy, here it will be wrong to make the rule "One becomes happy and healthy by eating too much food and sweetmeats etc." Because here health or disease is not the result of present activities of eating more or less but it is the result of such previous activity, whereas the present activity will produce their results in the future. In the same manner understand this, in respect of activities of even dharma and adharma as well as punya and papa (virtue and sin).
Therefore, there is no harm in saying that karmas destinies) arise from violence etc.
Now let us think of the second point. "Karma arises from attachments and hatred". This theory contains at least an element of truth that, attachments and hatred arise out of karmas of a previous birth.
Question: If this is so, then karmas when ripened will show their effect of attachment and hatred, which will generate new karmas and they too will create attachment and hatred. Thus this link will go on but will never end, there will be no scope for Moksa--salvation.
Answer: This is not always true that internal attachment and hatred always create karmas; otherwise none would have attained moksa until now. Infinite souls have attained moksa.
This fact proves that attachment and hatred being more and more controlled are one day wiped out for ever. From this, it is concluded that the karmas when ripened, although show their internal effect of attachment and hatred, but if externally their effects are suppressed namely no action of anger, no abusive language etc., then those karmas go fruitless. This shows that we can restrain our attachments and hatred and thereby frustrate the karmas' effect, i.e. if hatred arose towards somebody, by not spoiling facial appearance not using an abusive language, nor hurting, or injuring others, we can avoid the bondage of new karmas. For example, when we are angry with a person, or if we hate a person, if we restrain our passion and if we can avoid excitement, harsh words, and violence, we will not be gathering new karmas. A noble honest man may develop lust for wealth, but he may restrain his greed and may not commit theft or a dishonest activity. On the contrary, if he curses his own attachment, he can avoid heavy karma-bondages. We can put an end to this cycle of the continuance of karmas by studying great scriptures such as 'Samaraditya Kevali' Maharshi Charitra and Upamiti etc., by understanding them, by developing philosophical and spiritual awareness and farsightedness and by restraining our attachments and hatred as far as possible.
The third point is 'Karmas arise from previous karmas ?' So long as the soul is burdened by the mass of previous karmas, it keeps gathering new karmas. Because,
(a) if these karmas from the time of ripening give rise to vices like attachments, hatred and violent propensities, new karmas do arise.
(b) Even after we expel or discard these karmas, if our mind, body and voice given to us by karmas, continue their movements, then we gather new karmas.
(c) In the same manner, new karmas can not stick to the wholly independent, completely pure and formless soul, but to soul having bondages of previous karmas stick to the soul. These vices like violence, attachments and hatred are included in four causes for karma-bondages viz. false faith, vowlessness, passions, sentiment of anger etc., and sinful mental-vocal and physical activities. Now we shall. examine the inferences regarding the existence of karmas.
The inferences regarding the existence of Karmas:
1. The first part is this:-
[gadapg 59 indian writing]
If the other external causes and circumstances are similar, yet if two effects are different from each other, then it is concluded that other different internal causes must be working. Without such internal different causes, there cannot be such a difference in their effects. For instance two works written on different times by the same author dealing with same theme may mutually differ on account of the difference between the internal inspiration or attitude. In this manner for such differences as happiness and sorrow karma should be accepted as the inward cause. The difference should not be considered on account of outward causes such as delicious food, sandal paste, and woman etc., as well as thorns, cold, heat, poison, etc., which bring happiness or sorrow respectively, because on account of these very causes, some get sorrows instead of happiness, or happiness instead of sorrows. From this, it is evident that there is some deeper cause that regulates and brings about happiness and sorrows and that deeper cause is karma.
(2) If there is no linking karman body between the body of the previous birth and the body of the present birth, it means that between the two states there existed only the connecting pure soul. If so, owing to the pure soul how did the jiva attain a particular body in this janma (birth)?
Question: Is it not the result of the good and evil deeds of the previous birth?
Answer: No, it is so because a new body in the form of an effect arises in this birth and the good and evil deeds of the previous birth (which are the cause of present happiness and sorrow) have already been destroyed. The rule regarding the cause and effect is this. The cause must have existed in the previous moment of the effect. For example, suppose we ate food but suddently afterwards due to such an eatable taken by us, we vomitted the food, in this state why does not the body remain strong and healthy? Can the body grow strong just because food has been eaten? No. The body grows strong only if the food is preserved and assimilated in the body and transformed into blood etc. Here this has not happened because the food is vomitted. In the same manner, if we have
gathered auspicious or inauspicious karmas on account of our good or evil deeds in the past life, these karmas accompany our soul to the present life, then only according to these karmas the present body of a particular form, shape etc. is being created. Thus the karma-body is proved in between the two births.
(3)The jiva carries out such activities as charity, celibacy etc. What is the effect of these activities? Just as farming brings a harvest in the form of effect, benevolence, charity also must bring an effect and that is karma (destiny, fortune).
Question: Cultivation sometimes goes futile. Is that the case with benevolence? Does it also sometimes go futile?
Answer: It might go futile, if there is lack of other causes, but just as cultivation is carried out with this understanding that harvest is produced if the other necessary objects are present there, same is the case with charity.
Question: Can't we say that mental peace is the fruit? For instance, we get mental peace by giving alms to the deserving sages.
Answer: Yes. But even this is a mental activity. What is its fruit?
Question: Its fruit is other good activities like benevolence.
Answer: But what is the fruit of the last mental peace occurring at the end of the life which is not followed by any good deed of benevolence? In this case, it must be accepted that the fruit is karma or good fortune.
Question: Just as the visible fruit of violence is meat, similarly, the visible fruit of benevolence is praise, fame etc., but what is the need to believe in some invisible fruit? Normally in this world, people probably indulge in carrying out such actions as would bring an immediate visble benefit. You gave the example of cultivation. on that basis also, it must be accepted that there is a visible fruit of benevolence i.e. the capacity to show benevolence. When there is a visible fruit why should we think of an invisible fruit? The visible fruit of eating is satisfaction. The harvest is the visible fruit of cultivation. When that is so, what is the need to believe in some invisible fruit?
Answer: Every action may not bring about a visible fruit, yet it will surely bring about an invisible fruit. Therefore we must believe in the invisible fruits in addition to the visible fruits of our actions. Let the visible fruit of violence be meat but as its invisible fruit sin must be believed in. Otherwise why are the souls wandering in the samsar from the times immorial? Because there are many who commit inauspicious activities such as violence, etc., many are the souls that are experiencing sorrows and wandering in the Samsar. On the contrary the number of those who carry out auspicious actions like charity etc., is small and so the number of jivas that get felicity and salvation is also small. Consequently good and evil actions are linked with happiness and sorrows respectively. Auspicious actions bring happiness and inauspicious actions bring sorrow, but this can happen only by the chain of "karmas"
Question: Many good actions like benevolence are carried out with the intention of attaining "punya" (good luck). Let them attain punya as the fruit of benevolence, but those who commit inauspicious actions like violence and other sins, they cherish inauspicious karmas as the fruit of sins. Then why should they get those fruits?
Answer : For the fruit, there is no rule of intention. In other words, intention is not always necessary for the emergence of the fruit. It is not always necessary that intention of the fruit must be present there as the cause. In farming if unknowingly some seeds remain scattered in a field, they do sprout and give a crop, even if no intention of their fruit was cherished. Therefore, the rule is only this that where there is a totality of the cause the effect will necessarily be created whether there is intention or not. It is evident from normal experience that the service rendered without ambition and expectation of any praise, prize etc., is considered of the hightest order and gives the highest fruit, and greatest benefit. Similarly here even though people may not have an intention for inauspicious "karmas", violence and other vices necessarily bring those fruits. Why should we not believe in this truth?
If auspicious or inauspicious actions do not necessarily bring about any invisible effect, all souls would attain "moksa" at the end of this life. If there is no karma as the invisible effect of auspicious and inauspicious activities, how can there be after death any future strange state of samsar roaming in various births?
Question: Let there be the invisible fruit of auspicious activities like charity, benevolence etc., because they do not bear a visible fruit, but why should the inauspicious activites like violence etc., bear an invisible fruit, when they show the visible fruit like meat etc.?
Answer: You may compromise in your mind by thinking so and you may not believe in the invisible fruit of sinful actions, but then this difficulty arises that those who commit only sinful actions like violence will attain necessarily "moksa". Those who do noble deeds will have to remain entangled in samsar to experience the invisible fruits of their actions, because then in the new birth (next life) also they will carry out such noble actions, due to which they will attain new auspicious karmas and they will bring again a new future birth. Thus they will remain entangled in the samsar. But this is merely a whim or imagination, because as a matter fact if all the sinful people would have attained "moksa", how is it that there are in the world at present so many people who commit sins like violence, speaking false-hood etc.? If only benevolent people would have remained in the world, then there would have remained only happy people; but this is not the case in the world, because in this world countless unhappy beings are seen. On the other hand countless beings are seen committing sins. From this it is evident that the evil actions may have visible fruits, but their invisible fruit is surely produced and that is the "karma". And those who commit such sins shall have to experience anguish as a result. In the world those who commit sins are infinite and those who suffer agonies are also infinite. It means that sorrows are the effects of evil actions according to mathematical equations.
Question: Those who commit such evil actions as violence do not intend to get the invisible fruit of their inauspicious karmas, yet they get it, and though we wish for a visible fruit of our auspicious actions many times, we do not get it. Why?
Answer: This also is a great proof of karmas. On account of jiva's "Kasaya" sentiments of pride, illusion, greed, anger and "yoga" bodily vocal and mental actions, the invisible effect namely 'karma' is definitely created. Therefore, on account of actions like violence, the invisible karmas are definitely created. Whereas the visible fruits appear only on the ripening of the relative karmas of the previous birth but not otherwise. On account of this reason, though people equipped with the same sources carry on the same business, many of them do not get the profit they desire, or there occurs a difference in the profit they get. Though the visible sources may be the same there occurs a difference between the fruits of happiness and sorrow. Here it must be accepted that the reason behind this difference lies in the difference between the previous karmas which are invisible. Here you should not say, "How can a thing invisible work i.e. can produce anything!" because behind the visible effect like a pot, the invisible cause like atoms are undoubtedly accepted as working.
Question All right. Then too, are not these invisible karmas owing to their being relative of the formless soul, proved as formless quality of the soul?
Answer No. There is no rule, that the substance connected with the soul always must be formless, because you see the body though connected with the soul is not formless.
"Karma has form." This can be proved on the following five grounds.
1. The effects that possess a form have causes which possess a form, just as the atoms which are the cause of the pot, have a form. But when the effect is formless this rule does not apply to the case; for example, intelligence is a formless effect, but its cause namely the soul does not possess a form. Since the effect of karmas namely the body has a form, karmas also are proved to be possessing a form.
2. Due to the contact of which happiness is experienced, that thing possesses a form. For example we feel happiness by eating food, and food has a form. In the same manner, contact of karma brings happiness, so it should be believed to possess a form.
3. Due to the contact of which thing pain is felt, that thing also possesses a form. For example, by touching fire. In the same manner, owing to the contact of certain ripened karmas pain is experienced, so they (karmas) should be believed to have a form.
Question: Intelligence in the form of good and evil thoughts has its effect on our health. How can that principle be applied here because the intelligence is formless and physical health possesses a form.
Answer: Even there, the thoughts that cause those effects like pleasure or pain also possess a form they having been formed out of the Manasa vargana (mental particles ) which possess a form.
4. "Those things that are different from the soul and from their qualities like knowledge and which are nourished by external causes, possess a form". For instance, just as a pot gets nourished and grows strong when it is treated with oil. In the same manner, punya (good fortune) is nourished by good deeds and misfortune is nourished by evil deeds. Therefore, the good fortune and misfortune have a form. In the above said words "different from knowledge, etc." are used only because the knowledge, even though nourished by external objects like the teacher, books and medicinal herbs possessing a form, is formless.
5. The effect of which cause is modifiable, that cause itself is modifiable. (Moreover, the thing karma is different from the soul, and is modifiable so it possesses a form.) For instance, the effect of milk is curds. If the effect curds is a modifiable thing because it undergoes further modifications like buttermilk, butter etc. then milk itself is a modifiable thing, and it is a substance possessing a form. The milk which produces these effects has a form and is a substance. In short that thing whose effect undergoes further modifications is itself a substance possessing a form and is capable to undergo modifications. In the same manner, the body etc. being the effects of karmas, and being modifiable substances the karmas themselves must be believed to be modifiable substance, undergoing modification. So it must be possessing a form.
Question: Karma is also the effect of the soul, and it is also a modifiable thing, so even the soul as a cause would be a substance undergoing modification. Is it so?
Answer: You should not say so, because karma is not the effect of the pure soul. But it is the effect of the soul bound by karmas of a previous life, and the previous karmas are no doubt possessing form and are modifiable. If so, the soul bound by such karmas is also in some respect possessing a form and a modifiable thing.
Question: For the strangeness of joys and sorrows, you believe in strange karmas as the cause, but why cannot joys and sorrows, rather than depending upon the cause, be believed as happening naturally like this strange modification in the sky, just as clouds, rainbows, and twilight etc.? Where is the need of believing in karmas to produce those effects?
Answer: The distortions of the sky are regular. The twilight occurs twice, once in the morning, and once in the evening. Clouds appear only in the rainy season. Even the rainbow occurs in the morning or in the evening when the sun-rays are refracted by watery-clouds. Thus these are mostly regular but joys and sorrows do not appear in such a regular manner. They appear to happen in an irregular manner. Therefore, they cannot be said to be happening naturally. Moreover, even the changes (modifications) in the sky take place at regular times and under definite circumstances. From this, it is evident that all these phenomena occur not merely naturally, but occur on account of some causes. In the same manner, joys and sorrows also do not appear naturally but they appear only when the creator-relative karmas are ripened.
Question: All right. Then can we believe that the distortions of karmas in the soul are also natural and causeless?
Answer: There can be no effect without a cause. Even nature (svabhava) also is a necessary cause, but it must also be necessarily accompanied with the cause like time, endeavours, and instrumental means etc.
Question: Many strange changes (modifications) occur in the sky haphazardly without any cause. In the same manner, let the changes like sorrows and joys also occur in the body haphazardly, without cause. In other words, let the body itself be the cause for joys and sorrows. What is the need to bring karmas in between here?
Answer: The body is no doubt accepted as the cause, but note down this much that even the bulk of karmas is a kind of body called the "karman body". If you do not believe in this, how can the soul, after leaving the present body, and proceeding further to take birth in the next life, without creative (causative) karmas assume a visible and particular solid body? How can even that body be created of a particular type without the particular sort of the karman-body? In other words, it should not happen so. If this is so, in other words there is no karman body to follow the soul after this life, the death here would bring an end to the soul's worldly relation and the soul would attain moksa (salvation). Another difficulty is this, if the soul without the body, relieved completely from this body has to experience samsar, then even for the souls that have attained moksa the same thing would apply and they would have to experience samsar and so consequently none will have trust in moksa.
Question: How can there be a connection between karmas possessing a form and the formless soul?
1. Dharmastikaya (the medium of motion) and the adharmastikaya (the medium of rest) though formless do come in connection with pudgals (inanimate substances) that possess a form. only then i.e., they having connection can be helpful in motion and rest, without such a connection, how can this happen?
2. This is our experience. The visible solid body also has been connected to the soul. Otherwise, how could there be any difference between a living body and a dead body?
In the same manner, the karmas, that have a form can come in contact with the soul. The soul in the samsar is not absolutely formless, but it is partly formless, because the soul, in past time during the infinite flow of karmas was in contact with karmas, like milk in contact with water; hence it is partly possessing form also. So, since it was bound (connected) with karmas of previous lives, now new karmas, which have form can be connected with such a soul which, being mixed with karmas, is partially possessing a form. That is why the soul which has been completely void of karmas and has attained moksa and now being absolutely formless cannot come at all in contact with karmas.
Question: Just as by the sandal wood paste or the stroke of a sword there is no beneficent or harmful effect on formless akash (sky or space), similarly, how can good or evil karmas possessing form can have any good or evil effect on the formless soul?
1. The illustration is dissimilar, because those things have no effect on the sky (space) whereas there is effect on the soul by karmas having relationship with it.
2. By good or bad food etc. the effect, like benefit or harm on the soul, is evident.
3. The intellect though being formless is affected in the form of benefit or harm by the herb nourishing intellect or by intoxicating drinks. Similarly, on the soul, karmas can produce their effects like benefit or harm.
Why is it that karmas are the creator of the body etc.? Why is it that the pure soul (Brahma) or God (Iswar) is not their creator?
1. Just as the potter and the blacksmith can't create a pot etc., without tools, similarly, how can the pure soul or Iswar create anything without proper tools? When the child is conceived in the womb there are no tools except karmas. Karmas are the only tools. Therefore, the creation of the body is carried out by the soul. If you say there are tools in the form of the union of the egg and the sperm, even that also can't take place without karmas, as the cause and creator; otherwise a body should be created of a pure and liberated soul.
2. Without karmas, the pure soul or Iswar can't be the creator, because it lacks the potentiality of action, movement. It is formless, bodyless, and it is either pervasive everywhere just like Akas or pervasive like an atom.
Question: Can Iswar by his all pervasive body be the creator? Can he not?
Answer :If you believe in this theory that 'to create anything even "Iswar" (God) requires a body', then the question arises, our body is also an effect, a creation. Now say what kind of body does 'Iswar' possess to create such an all- pervasive body? If you say that this body is created naturally without the cause, then why should he not create the bodies of jivas etc., also in the same manner? If you say "yes, he does create it thus", then there arises the contradiction among the creations of varied effects only from the raw material without varied instrumental causes like karmas. Moreover the question is, what is the purpose of God behind such creations? If you say that 'he goes on creating such effects without any purpose', then can he not be called insane? Even if you believe for the time-being that he creates sometimes things thus without purpose, then this difficulty arises that then he should create all jivas alike, but why create jivas possessing strangeness and differences? You may say that he creates jivas because of compassions, then he must create all the creatures good and happy. Instead of that, why does he create some creatures evil and unhappy? If you say that he creates the creatures according to karmas of jivas then the 'karma' thing is proved. Even then if you are bent upon believing in a creator-God you shall have to explain as also accept the following: The first is you shall have to accept God responsibile for the futile or controversial self-deceiving actions performed by ignorant and foolish men. You shall have to believe God's involvement in the actions like murder wickedness, and the like executed by scoundrals. In this case where remains intelligence, gentlemanliness and benevolence in God? If God does not possess the capacity to prevent the crimes and faults of jivas, how can you style God as 'possessing all the capacities?' Moreover the question also arises that if he has no capacity to prevent crimes, then how can he possess the capacity to impart punishment? If you say that punishment is imparted by karmas of jiva himself, then this final conclusion is arrived at, that not God but karmas and jiva accompanied with karmas are proved as the creator.
Consequently the original question remains unsolved, "What about the Vedic statement 'purush ev idam gnim sarvam' (Idian writing pg 68 angie). In other words, "The soul alone is wholly and solely responsible for all creations, all which exists, all which is past, all which is to happen or which is governing the eternal, which increases by diet, which is shivering, which is standstill like mountains, which is at distance (like Meru), which is in proximity, which is in the middle, which is intermingled with all animate and inanimate substances and which is absolutely separate from all. This all is only the 'Purush' (soul).
From this Vedic statement the existence of only the soul is established, but not of karmas. In the same manner from the Vedic statement (Indian writing pg 68 angie) `Vijnan Ghan eva' also the aggregate of only Vijnan is established but not of karma.
But this is not a true interpretation because these Vedic statements are not meant to narrate the actual fact and figures but are meant only to appreciate the importance of the soul.
The question arises what is then the aim of such appreciation of the soul?
The answer is: The aim of such statement is to make one abandon the pride of higher Brahmini caste or higher ksatriya caste and to create contemplation (bhavna) of oneness with all. For example 'this man and I are one and the same in respect of the soul. Then what is the meaning of the pride of being of higher caste?
As regards the scriptures a discretion must be resorted to in the interpretation of sentences as to what type a particular sentence is. In normal circumstances some sentences are meant to inspire--to instigate power of good activity; or some sentences are for making fun of people, whereas some indicate the actual condition of the thing, even though the wording might be the same. We say to a student who is in despair, "you are vigilant and clever" and thereby convey that "you endeavour and will be successful". To a dull untalented student but one who pretends to be clever, we say "Brother, you are vigilant and clever". We say this to make fun of him. But when we say "you are vigilant and clever" to an intelligent and industrious student, we mean that he would easily pass the examination.
In this manner, we find three kinds of statements in the Vedas:
(1). Vidhivakya (commands),
(2). Artha-vad (praising or censuring),
(3) Anuvad (explanation).
1. Vidhivad (Commands): These statements command people to carry out certain duties and avoid certain other actions. For example, (Indian writing pag 69 angie): "He who desires heavenly life (birth) must carry out the Agnihotra yajna."
Do not commit violence.
All aspirations can be fulfilled by means of one complete bestowal (Poornahuti). This is a praise of poornahuti, but this is not a command to do something. Because if it were so, people would carry out only Poornahuti and stop there only. Why should they carry out the Agnihotra etc. because thus they are proved useless. But by praising the poornahuti, the text suggets that people must carry out atleast this austerity and that it should be done well.
An unconflicting interpretation of the Vedic statement. In this manner (Indian writing pg 69 angie): " That means 'Agnishtoma sacrifice is your first duty', and here the text censures those who do not carry out that duty. The text suggests that people will have to be liable for going to hell if they carry out such sacrifice as the Ashwamedha and other likewise yajnas etc. without first carrying out the ritual called Agnishtoma. It is suggested so that people should take care of this point.
3. Anuvad (Explanation): Here is an example. (Indian writing pag 70 angie); `Twelve months make a year." It is a statement of mere placing truth about a certain fact. Now in the running matter, (Indian writing pg70 angie). This statement as explained earlier glorifies Purusa as all-pervasive; but it is not a statement to negate the existence of karmas or the nature of karmas; otherwise the Vedic statements which expound the existence of karmas (Indian writing pg 70 angie) would be wrong. Here are some examples:
An auspicious karma brings a good luck. A sinful karma brings bad luck etc.. In this manner, as already stated without reference to the karma and by referring only to the purusa the truth about a thing cannot match with a fact.
This explanation given by Bhagavan Mahavir convinced Agnibhuti Gautam and brought about a spiritual awakening in him; and he with his five hundred disciples renounced worldly relationships and accepted Sadhu Diksa at the feet of the Bhagavan. Agnibhuti Gautam got rid of his wrong knowledge and attained the right knowledge.