Soul Science Part 01

SR No.: 006928
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parsmal Agarwal
Publisher: Kundkund Gyanpith Indore
Publication Year: 2014
Total Pages: 220
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 124

86
The Doer (Kartā) and the deed (Karma):
Therefore, the Self is a doer of one's own transformations, and it cannot be a doer of any transformation in Pudgala-Karma [82]
Annotation
In Gāthā 80, we find a word Nimitta. Let us first talk about this concept by taking one example of making Roti (pancake made of wheat or other kind of flour). In the transformation of wheat flour into Rotī, the wheat flour is called Upādāna (substantial cause), and the related cooking appliances, cook, etc., are called Nimitta (instrumental causes). In general, one that gets transformed is known as substantive cause (Upādāna) for its transformation. The list of the instrumental causes (Nimitta) can be very long. For example, in the cooking of the Rotī, not only the cook, even the person for whom it has been cooked can also be called as a Nimitta, and even the gravity of earth can also be in this list of Nimitta as it also becomes instrumental in this transformation.
The real point of view recognizes the substantial cause (Upādāna) as the doer of the transformation. The real point of view does not recognize Nimitta as the doer due to the logic given in Gāthā 81: A Nimitta does not transfer its attribute to an Upādāna (and the Upādāna does not transfer its attribute to the Nimitta).
In Gāthā 80, Ācārya says that when a Jīva undergoes any activity then material particles get bonded with the soul as Karma (Dravya Karma). For the transformation of each material particle, the substantial cause (Upādāna) is the material particle itself, and the soul is the instrumental cause. Similarly, for the actions of a Jīva ‘influenced by Karma, the Jiva is Upādāna and the related Karma are Nimitta.
Therefore, one can say that neither the soul is a doer of any action of Pudgala-Karma nor Pudgala-Karma are doer of any action of Jiva. In the next two stanzas, we would note the difference in the descriptions of the real and relative points of view in this regard.