Life of Shrimad Rajchandra

Author(s): Manu Doshi
Publisher: Manu Doshi

Page 76

Whatever objects exist in the world cannot be entirely destructible, only transformation takes place. Hence, if you say that consciousness is destroyed, wherein would it merge? If you think over that, it would be clear that despite undergoing transformation, the non-composite matter continues to stay within its nature. That proves the eternity of soul.
3) Now the pupil raises the questions based on the view that soul does not do anything.
Pupil: I could make out that soul is everlasting, but it does not seem to be Kartä (actuator, doer, acquirer) of Karma. I think that Karma itself could be the Kartä of Karma.
Guru: If there be no inspiration from consciousness, who would acquire Karma? Lifeless matter does not have the property to inspire or to prompt; that capability rests with consciousness. As such, soul happens to be the Kartă of Karma.
Pupil: In that case one has to admit that it is the innate nature of soul to acquire Karma!
Guru: If soul does not do anything, it does not acquire Karma. If it does not want to acquire Karma, it is at liberty not to do so. As such, it is not its innate nature to acquire Karma, nor is it the property of soul. Had it been its property, it cannot be free from that.
Pupil: Is there any objection in holding that soul always remains unattached and it is the Nature that acquires the bondage of Karma and hence soul is unbound?
Guru: If the soul is invariably unattached, you should feel it that way, but that does not happen. It is therefore clear that at present it is not in unattached, un-obscured state. From the absolute point of view i.e. in its pure form, the soul is unattached, but that state does not occur without becoming conscious of it.
Pupil: What is wrong, if we hold that Karma is acquired by the inspiration of God and hence the soul remains unbound?
Guru: It is not possible to conceive of God, who would stick Karma to souls. Godly beings are those, who have become pure by virtue of eradication of Karma. If you conceive of God that induces pure souls towards Karma, God has to be admitted at fault, as associated with trouble or problem. Thus if both, God as well as soul, are associated with problems, it would not be possible to make out the true nature of God.
Pupil: Acquisition of Karma does not seem conceivable for the unattached soul; and if we admit it as the nature of soul, it can never be free from that. In either of the cases, it does not seem helpful to endeavor for liberation. As such, should we think of soul as Kartä or non-Kartä?
Guru: When soul gains self-realization, it remains Kartä of its pure nature. In other words, it is the Karta of knowledge, perception etc. Thus it is not the Kartä of Karma in the enlightened state. However, in the state of ignorance it identifies itself with the body and its surroundings and becomes Kartä of its Karma.
4) After learning how soul becomes Kartä, the pupil raises the question pertaining to his doubts about soul having to bear the consequences.
Pupil: You may call soul as Karta of Karma, but it is not necessary that it has to bear the consequences of Karma. Karma being lifeless, it cannot decide to extend unhappiness to one, who commits sin and happiness to another, who earns Punya (wholesome Karma).
Guru: The material Karmas like knowledge obscuring Karma are lifeless, but inclination to indulge in craving, aversion etc. is the propensity of soul and is therefore conscious, not lifeless. The lifeless particles are assimilated within the soul on account of vibrations occurring in its vigor