________________
68
INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
DI
residing in his own soul to give their fruits and also 2) causes the plysical elements to construct yogic bodies. But when does it give its twofold fruit ? It gives its twofold fruit when he wills to experience all the fruits of all his accumulated merits and demerits and for that purpose also wills to construct yogic bodies. That is why it is said to follow his will. Thus his will to construct yogic bodies is unfailing, and this unfailing will of his is the fruit of some special good action he performed in the past. His unfailing will to construct yogic bodies should be regarded as the fruit of his past action because it is a rule that whatever karma one performs is never destroyed so long as he does not experience its fruit. (c) āptakalpaś cāyam / yathā pitā apatyānāṁ tathā pitrbhūta išvaro
bhūtānām /
Explanation : Isvara is a reliable person (āpta). One can trust him, put faith in him, consider him to be an authority. Just as father is an authority for his son, similarly Isvara is an authority for all living beings. Father guides his son. Isvara guides all living beings. Father advises his son as to what is good for him and how to attain it. Similarly, Isvara preaches all living beings as to what is the highest Good (Liberation) and how to attain it. Vātsyāyana intends to show similarity obtaining between father-son-relation and īśvara-jiva-relation with regard to āptatā only. This analogy should not be stretched further. As for instance, just as father generates son, similarly iśvara generates jīvas, or just as son is an amsa of his father, similarly jiva is an aisa of Isvara. This is not intended by Vātsyāyana. According to him, Isvara is such a person as one can easily and safely rely on him, especially in matters relating to the path leading to the highest Good. But how has Íśvara gained this āptatā ? He has gained it by destroying adharma, mithyājñāna and pramāda and thereby attaining dharma, jñāna and sanādhi.
Again this proves that Isvara is a jīvanmukta who is an upadestā par excellence.
Prof. Ingalls does not understand the intention of Vātsyāyana. Hence he misses the point and criticises Vātayāyana's this statement. His criticism is as follows: 'Again God is said to act like a father. But who ever heard of a father who in dealing with his children could not transcend their merits and demerits.226 Prof. Ingalls seems to be obsessed with the later Nyāya-Vaiseșika idea of God who gives to a living being a proper fruit of its past action, who does not transgress the deserts of living beings.
