________________
.
[ 326 1 The so called svabhāvavāda is really a form of fallacy in the world of philosophy in ancient India. Similar is the case with niyati. If niyati means Adrsţa or the unseen force generated by our action, and explaining the origin of differences in creation there is no objection to it, but if it is meant that it is a stern determinist principle which is irrevocable and acts from beyond, accounting for varieties in creation of pleasure pain etc. then such a doctrine of predetermined fatalism is against the spirit of Indian philosophy whether Hindu, Buddhist or Jaina. Yadşcchāvāda is another heretical doctrine which accounts for all differences in creation as the result of the mere capricious will in the Supreme Power. This is rejected by all the same thinkers. The statement of these views in the Svetāśvetara Upanişad shows clearly that during the period of this Upanişad these free thinkers were making and preaching their free thought among the masses. The sum and substance of this discussion is that true Indian philosophy even from its earliest period was a strict advocate of the doctrine of karma which alone is capable on the basis of the doctrine of free will of explaining rationally all inequalities in human life and experience.
Saying so far, I should like to go a step forward in pointing out a very important spiritual and metaphysical issue which is very often ignored by the philosophers and yet strongly emphasised by scriptures and works on mysticism, I should like to give here a detailed and yet short description of how the doctrine of karma changes its colour under the influence of practical mysticism. The doctrine of karma implies that man is a moral agent. He labours under an egoistic complex being burdened with a physical body. He feels himself rightly or wrongly to be the agent of every action done through his body. This ego sense is the outcome of the primitive māyā which is the basis of the physical creation. The ego sense is based upon the primitive nescience (Ajñāna) which identifies the soul with the body. Whatever action proceeds from a particular body is supposed to emanate from the egoistic sense associated with that body. As man feels himself of course through ignorance, the agent of a particular action, he is bound
