संसार सागरं घोरमनन्तक्लेशभाजनम् ।
त्वामेव शरणं प्राप्य निस्तरन्ति मनीषिणः ॥
Let me explain this “na karmāvibhāgāditi cennānāditvāt”, to understand this one should read it in the context of the previous sutra “vaiṣyamyanairghṛṇye na sāpekṣatvāttathā hi darśayati” “vaiṣyamya [inequality], naighṛnye [Cruelty] na [not] śāpekṣātvāt [due to the reason (of karma)] tathā hi darśayati [such is seen there] ” now in this connection “na karmāvibhāgāditi cennānāditvāt” “na [not] karma [karma] avibhāgād [because of no distinction] iti cen [if it’s said] na [It is not valid] anāditvāt [because of beginninglessness]” now here the subject is ‘karma’, thus the term ‘anādi’ is being associated with it and not anything else all the prominent commentators agree to this as shown—
Govinda Bhāṣya— ‘nanu karmaṇā vaiṣamyādi-parihāro na syāt | kutaḥ ? karmāvibhāgāt | sad eva saumyedam ity ādiṣu prāk sṛṣṭer brahma-vibhaktasya karmaṇo’pratṭer iti cet, na | kutaḥ ? karmaṇaḥ kṣetrajñānāṁ ca brahma-vadanāditva-svīkārāt | pūrva-pūrva-karmānusāreṇottarottara-karmaṇi pravartanāt na kiñcid dūṣaṇam | smṛtiś ca— puṇya-pāpādikaṁ viṣṇuḥ kārayet pūrva-karmaṇā | anāditvāt karmaṇaś ca na virodhaḥ kathañcana . iti | karmaṇo’nāditvenānavasthā tu na doṣaḥ prāmānikatvāt | na ca karma-sāpekṣatveneśvarasyāsvātantryam | dravyaṁ karma ca kālaś cety ādinā karmādi-sattāyās tad-adhīnatva-smaraṇāt | na ca ghaṭṭa-kuḍyāṁ prabhātam iti vācyam | anādi-jīva-svabhāvānusāreṇa hi karma kārayati svabhāvam anyathā-kartuṁ samartho’pi kasyāpi na karotīty aviṣamo bhaṇyate .35.
‘"Indeed, there would be no avoidance of partiality, etc., if it were based on actions (karma). Why? Because of the lack of differentiation in karma. In the texts, such as 'This was indeed one' (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1), it is said that before creation, Brahman existed undivided, so there was no prior karma distribution. If this is the case, the answer is no. Why? Because Brahman is said to be the source of karma and the individual souls (kṣetrajña). By allowing the soul's future actions to follow in accordance with past actions, there is no fault or defect. And the scripture states: 'Vishnu (the Supreme Lord) causes one to perform righteous or sinful deeds in accordance with prior actions; thus, there is no conflict at all since karma is beginningless.'
Since karma is beginningless, it implies an endless sequence, but this is not a fault because it has scriptural authority. Moreover, Brahman does not lose independence due to dependence on karma because scriptures recall the existence of karma, time, and matter under Brahman's control. One should not object, saying 'Morning in the customs house'. Brahman causes the soul to act according to the beginningless nature of the soul, and although capable of altering anyone’s nature, chooses not to, maintaining impartiality."’
Pūrṇaprajñabhāṣya— “yadapekṣayā'sau phalaṁ dadāti na tat karma। ‘eṣa hyeva enaṁ sādhukarma kārayati taṁ yamebhyo lokebhyo unninīṣata eṣa u evāsādhukarma kārayati taṁ yamadho ninīṣate’ iti śruteḥ karmaṇo'pi tannimittatvāditi cenna। tasya'pi pūrvakarma kāraṇamityanāditvāt karmaṇaḥ। bhaviṣyatpurāṇe ca – ‘puṇyapāpādikaṁ viṣṇuḥ kārayet pūrvakarmaṇā। anāditvāt karmaṇaśca na virodhaḥ kathañcana’ iti ॥”
“It may be stated that the thing in consideration of which the Lord dispenses the fruit cannot be the action (of souls) for even the action proceeds from (caused by) Him. And this is supported by the Sruti, " The Lord only makes him do righteous deeds whom the Lord chooses to lift up; and He (Hari) only makes him do unrighteous deeds whom the Lord chooses to hurl down." (Kau. III. 8.) But this objection is futile; for there being an antecedent Karma as the cause of everyone of the subsequent Karmas which the Lord causes the soul to do, the series of Karmas is beginningless. The same idea is expressed in the Bhavishyat Purana-"Vishnu impels the soul on such a course of action as is the necessary consequence of some previous action of the soul. Thus Karma or action being beginningless, the fault of being partial and merciless can in no wise attach itself to the Lord.”
Śrībhāṣya—
But before creation the individual souls do not exist; since Scripture teaches non-distinction 'Being only this was in the beginning.' And as then the souls do not exist, no karman can exist, and it cannot therefore be said that the inequality of creation depends on karman.—Of this objection the Sūtra disposes by saying 'on account of beginninglessness,' i.e. although the individual souls and their deeds form an eternal stream, without a beginning, yet non-distinction of them 'is reasonable' (i.e. may reasonably be asserted) in so far as, previous to creation, the substance of the souls abides in a very subtle condition, destitute of names and forms, and thus incapable of being designated as something apart from Brahman, although in reality then also they constitute Brahman’s body only. If it were not admitted (that the distinctions in the new creation are due to karman), it would moreover follow that souls are requited for what they have not done, and not requited for what they have done. The fact of the souls being without a beginning is observed, viz., to be stated in Scripture,'The intelligent one is not born and dies not' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18); so also the fact of the flow of creation going on from all eternity, 'As the creator formed sun and moon formerly.' Moreover, the text, 'Now all this was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name' (Bṛ. Up. I, 4, 7), states merely that the names and forms of the souls were developed, and this shows that the souls themselves existed from the beginning. Smṛti also says, 'Dost thou know both Prakṛti and the soul to be without beginning?' (Bha. Gī. XIII, 19.)—As Brahman thus differs in nature from everything else, possesses all powers, has no other motive than sport, and arranges the diversity of the creation in accordance with the different karman of the individual souls, Brahman alone can be the universal cause.
Thus we have explained the meaning of “na karmāvibhāgāditi cennānāditvāt” as “ (The theory of Karma) cannot (explain the inequality and cruelty seen in this universe, because when the creation first started) there was no distinction (of souls and consequently) of Karmas. This (objection, however,) is not valid, because there is no beginning of creation.” Ellipsis can be added as accepted by Śrī Madhva by quoting Brahmasaṁhitā “yatrānavasaro'nyatra padaṃ tatra pratiṣṭhitam | vākyaṃ veti satāṃ nītiḥ sāvakāśe na tadbhavet |” “In a simple or complex sentence, that word or clause may be supplied as an ellipsis, without which (word or clause) the meaning of the sentence would be incomplete, but need not be so supplied where this can be dispensed with, such is the rule of the learned.” One can’t say that this anādi karma isn’t individual as the sutra itself says “na karmāvibhāgāditi cennānāditvāt” “There was no distinction of karma among individuals if some says so then it’s not tenable as it’s anādi” thus we understand that this sutra refers to the karmas of an individual only.
Śrīla Baladeva in his Tattva sandarbha commentary says “karmāpy anādi vināśi cāsti na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt iti (Vs 2.1.35) iti sūtrād iti vastu-sthitiḥ śruti-smṛti-siddhā veditavyā ||” "Even karma is beginningless (anādi), but it is destructible (vināśi). “If it be objected that this is not (possible), on account of the non-distinction of works, (we reply:) no, on account of beginninglessness, and (this) fits in, and is observed also.” "Thus, the established truth (vastu-sthitiḥ) derived from this sūtra (2.1.35) is to be understood as validated by śruti and smṛti."Let’s Understand how Karma is anādi but can be destroyed, because in the Gītopaniṣad “ kṣīṇe puṇye martyalokaṃ viśanti” “When the results of their pious activities are exhausted, they return to this mortal planet again.” “nābhuktaṁ kṣīyate karma kalpa-koṭi-śatair api” “Karmas aren’t exhausted even after a lapse of thousand kalpas if not suffered the consequence [quoted in Govinda Bhāṣya 4.1.13]”, ‘śarīramabhisampadyamānaḥ—pāpmabhiḥ saṃsṛjyate; sa utkrāman—mriyamāṇaḥ—pāpmano vijahāti’ ‘The connection with a body occurs by the virtue of previously done sins, however once the body is discarded the sin no longer clings to him’[Bṛ.U 4.3.8] These prove that by receiving the fruit of karma previous karmas like puṇya pāpa are destroyed, this means that Anādi Karma is a trail of karma not that the same karma is clinging since beginningless time, old karma are being exhausted new karma are being formed thus at a particular point of time there is only a finite amount of karma clinging to the Jīva’s antaḥkaraṇa not the whole stock of karma that they might have performed. Actually karma is divided in 4 types “aprārabdha-phalaṃ pāpaṃ kūṭaṃ bījaṃ phalonmukham | krameṇaiva pralīyeta viṣṇu-bhakti-ratātmanām .” “For those engaged in bhakti to Viṣṇu, the aprārabdha, kūṭa, bīja and prārabdha-karmas are destroyed step-by-step.”, this happens like “kamala-patra-śata-vedha-nyāyena kiṁcit-kāla-vilambo jñeya iti .” As Śrī JĪva Comments “According to the analogy of a needle piercing a hundred lotus petals, a slight delay should be understood.” The analogy given to explain this by Sri Baladeva is that of a seed and a tree, like the cause of a seed is a tree and vice aversa, but at a particular point of time if the seed [bija karma] is destroyed there will be no more formation of new trees, and the existing tree [prarabdha karma] will also be destroyed in time.
Govinda bhāṣya on 4.1.13 and on deals with this topic in specific “tad-adhigama uttara-pūrvārdhayor aśleṣa-vināśau, tad-vyapadeśāt ||” “On obtaining that (Vidyâ) there take place the non-clinging of the works done in the present life, and destruction of the works stored up which were done in the past life. Because this is so declared (in the Upanisads).” As Bhagavān says in the Gītā "ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा ॥" Thus the Kriyamāṇa karma is non clinging to the soul and the sañcita karma gets destroyed after achieving vidyā but the Prārabdha karma remains for svaniṣṭha [also kriyamāṇa karma] and pariniṣṭha devotees, for Nirapekṣa however it’s taken away by the Lord himself at some occasions as the sutra “ato’nyāpi hy ekeṣām ubhayoḥ ||” suggests and distributed among the mukta’s haters and lovers “तथा शाट्यायनिनः पठन्ति — ‘तस्य पुत्रा दायमुपयन्ति सुहृदः साधुकृत्यां द्विषन्तः पापकृत्याम्’ इति । तथैव कौषीतकिनः — ‘तत्सुकृतदुष्कृते विधूनुते तस्य प्रिया ज्ञातयः सुकृतमुपयन्त्यप्रिया दुष्कृतम्’(कौ॰उ॰ १-४) इति” “ "His sons inherit his properties, the friends his virtuous deeds, and the enemies his vicious deeds" ” “His beloved relatives obtain the good, his unbeloved relatives the evil he has done.” Thus we understand how a Jiva can be freed of it’s beginningless karmic bond. Antaḥkarana or Liṅgadeha is the only reason our Karmas are attached to us “यावल्लिङ्गान्वितो ह्यात्मा तावत्कर्मनिबन्धनम् ।” once it’s destroyed the link between us and the karmas is destroyed as well thus in the Mundaka Upanisad “तदा विद्वान्पुण्यपापे विधूय निरञ्जनः परमं साम्यमुपैति”, Bhagavān Doesn’t destroy the prārabdha karmas for all devotees as He wants them to preach the knowledge they have gained, otherwise there would have been no valid source of knowledge present as guru in this world as the Jīvas would instantaneously go to Vaikuṇṭha. However for Nirapekṣas who do not desire for any worldly office or disposition Bhagavān destroys all their karma at once 'कल्पमध्ये तु कल्पान्ते ज्ञानोज्झितकलेवराः । प्राप्नुवन्ति परं परं स्थानं तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम् ॥' [Visnu-dharmottara].
The objection by Dr. BNK Sharma in his "Philosophy of Madhvacarya" goes in the following way—
Karma implies freedom of choice to do right or wrong, good or bad. The exercise of this freedom itself has naturally to be viewed as an expression of the basic nature of the person who makes the choice. We are thus thrown bnack on the hypothesis of the presence of innate distinctions of nature among selves – their Svarupabheda, in the ultimate analysis of the problem. All other explanations break down in the end. The inequalities of Karma do not carry us very far. It is, therefore, only a half-truth to say that it is because of different Karmas that men are not alike. It simply begs the question and lands us in a prior distinction of natures, aptitudes and outlook. However beginningless the chain of karma may be, it is still incapable of explaining why a particular course of action has been pursued in preference to another, without reference to an ultimate difference in the nature and make-up each moral agent. Even a beginningless chain of Karma could not fully explain why all souls are not equally good or bad, when all of them are equally beginningless and eternal and their karmas too equally beginningless and their start also simultaneous! Karma has no self-contained answer to give to this question. Karma is itself the effect of something else – or the expression of something else. Desire is the seed of action. This desire or inclination must then be admitted to differ in each case to such an inscrutable extent as to render diversity of natures and activities intelligible. If all souls are constituted absolutely alike, it would be impossible to account for the different courses of action pursued by them, as a result of which, they accumulate a heavy load of different Karma through ages. If the inequalities of endowments and opportunities and rewards are to be made consistent with freedom and free will of souls, they must be attributed to an essential or intrinsic distinction in their very nature and constitution. The plurality of souls cannot, therefore, be explained with reference to the material plane alone as it will not explain the difficulties involved in the theory of anadi-karma unless these distinctions are proposed to be dismissed as not ultimate. But that is running away from the problem and not solving it.
The blunder which Dr Sharma does here in is his acceptance of certain postulates which he later contradicts himself. He embarks on the mission to dismantle beginninglessness of karma as a reason of unequal disposition among Jivas, but he seems to accept a time immemorial beginning at the back of his mind as derived from "However beginningless the chain of karma may be, it is still incapable of explaining why a particular course of action has been pursued in preference to another, without reference to an ultimate difference in the nature and make-up each moral agent." also "Even a beginningless chain of Karma could not fully explain why all souls are not equally good or bad, when all of them are equally beginningless and eternal and their karmas too equally beginningless and their start also simultaneous! ". However we see in the Brahma-sutra bhasya of Sri Madhvacarya "प्रतिबिम्बानां मिथो वैचित्र्ये कारणमाह – अदृष्टनियमात् ॥ अनादिविद्याकर्मादिवैचित्र्याद्वैचित्र्यम्॥अभिसन्ध्यादिष्वपि चैवम् ॥ इच्छाद्वेषसुखदुःखादिवैचित्र्यं चादृष्टादेव । च शब्देन प्रतिक्षणवैचित्र्यं च ॥". Thus Dr Sharma's objections collapse under his own weight. Srila Baladeva Prabhupada writes "evaṁ sāmye’pi vaiṣamyam aihikaṁ karmabhiḥ sphuṭam | prāhuḥ pāratrikaṁ tat tu bhakti-bhedaiḥ sukovidaḥ ||" "Thus, even though (souls are) equal (in essential nature), the inequality in this world is clearly due to karma; but the wise declare that the inequality in the next (transcendent) realm is due to differences in bhakti."
अहं भीतोऽस्मि देवेश संसारेऽस्मिन् भयावहे ।
पाहि मां पुण्डरीकाक्ष न जाने शरणं परम् ॥
Comments
Post a Comment