________________
[. 308 ]
trolled by īśvara who is the creator of the world and constitutes the head of the moral adminstration of the universe. It is true that karma is generated through the action of the ignorant and mundane soul and it exists as a quality in the Atmā but its proper working out in order that consequences relevant to each karma may issue, is not possible without an omniscient and omnipotent self who is at the top of the moral government of the world. In a plain language these philosophers say that these human-beings do the work—good or evil and the Divine Will Being judges the merit or demerit of the action and awards the results in strict consonance with the principle of justice. This is also the position of Vedānta. Inspite of metaphysical differences between the realistic Nyāyavaiseşika and the monastic Vedānta the Brahmasūtra-( AT STYTI: ) indicates clearly that in its view the fruits of karma are distributed by īśvara, of course according to the principle of justice. This position of Vedānta is maintained by all the systems affiliated to the school of Brahmasútra. Vaişpava Vedānta or Saiva Vedānta uphold the same opinion in regard to the relation of Iswara with karma in this respect...
In systems which do not believe in the existence of Isvara but have a firm faith in the doctrine of karma it is held that karma produces it effect out of itself and does not require the supervision of a controlling governor like Isvara. The Samkhya Ācārya who does not believe in the existence of an eternal Isvara and the Mimāṁsaka hold this position which is analogous to the view point of the Buddhist and the Jaina. These four systems hold a common view in regard to īśvara but their differences in other respects are substantial. It may be pointed out that excepting the Mīmāinsaka, the position of the others is more or less similar. The Mīmāmsaka is a staunch advocate of the karmakānda of the Vedas whereas the other three have no such belief. Though Sāmkhya is not generally supposed to be un-Vedic or anti-Vedic yet it appears clear that it was antagonistic to the sacrificial cult of the Vedas and from this point of view is at par with the un-Vedic Buddhist or Jaina. It may be pointed out in this
