[Chaturamnaya] The Problem of Evil - 3 (Resolution of an objection)

[S Jayanarayanan]

The opponent now raises the objection that if Ishvara merely awards the
fruits of actions (Karma) to all living beings, then how can there have been
Karma at the very beginning of Creation?

Sankara replies that there is no "beginning" to Creation, as the number of
Creation cycles are infinite. Hence Karma and Creation each being the "cause"
of the other, there is no "starting point" where neither existed.
Karma refers to actions performed by a body, since Sankara specifically says
that Karma cannot be performed without a body, and a body is produced due to
past Karma.

It is intersting that Sankara speaks of Vasanas as the reason for experiencing
the fruits of Karma. It indicates that Vasanas are the cause of Bondage,
being the Individual Soul's link to Karma. Therefore one would assume that the
elimination of Vasanas results in Liberation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

na karmaavibhaagaad iti chen naanaaditvaad . Brahma Sutra 2.1.35 .

Brahma Sutra 2.1.35: "If it be argued that it is not possible (to take Karma into
consideration in the beginning), since the fruits of work remain still undifferentiated,
then we say, no, since the transmigratory state has no beginning."

Shankara's Commentary:

'sadeva somyedamagra aasiidekamevaadvitiiyam' (Chaa. 6.2.1) iti
praaksRRiShTeravibhaagaavadhaaraNaannaasti karma yadapekShya viShamaa
sRRiShTiH syaat .
sRRiShTyuttarakaalaM hi shariiraadivibhaagaapekShaM karma, karmaapekShashcha
shariiraadivibhaaga itiitaretaraashrayatvaM prasajyeta .
ato vibhaagaaduurdhvaM karmaapekSha iishvaraH pravartataaM naama .
praagvibhaagaadvaichitryanimittasya karmaNo 'bhaavaattulyaivaadyaa sRRiShTiH
praapnotiiti chet .

Opponent: "There could have been no Karma before creation, in accordance with which a
diverse universe could have emerged; for nondifferentiation is emphasized in the text,
"O amiable one, in the beginning all this was but Existence, one without a second."
(Chandogya Upanishad 4.2.1). It is only after creation that results of work, depending
on the diversification into bodies etc. could be possible, and the differentiation
into bodies could be possible by depending on the results of work. This will lead to
the fallacy of mutual dependence (logical seesaw – the validity of two explanations
depending on each other). Thus, well may God become active by depending on the
fruits of work after the creation of multiplicity. But before this emergence of
diversity it would perforce be without any variety, since the fruits of work bringing
about differentiation would be absent."


naiSha doShaH .
anaaditvaatsaMsaarasya .
bhavedeSha doSho yadyaadimaansaMsaaraH syaat .
anaadau tu saMsaare biijaa~N kuravaddhetumadbhaavena karmaNaH sargavaiShamyasya
cha pravRRittirna virudhyate .. 35 ..

Vedantin: "That is no defect, since the transmigratory state has no beginning.
This defect would have arisen if transmigration had a beginning. But if that state
has no beginning, there is nothing contradictory for the fruits of work and the variety
in creation to act as cause and effect of each other on the analogy of the seed and sprout."


kathaM punaravagamyate 'naadireSha saMsaara iti .
ata uttaraM paThati -

How again is it known that this transmigratory state has no beginning? To this the answer is:


upapadyate chaapy upalabhyate cha . Brahma Sutra 2.1.36 .

Brahma Sutra 2.1.36: "Moreover, this is logical, and (so) it is met with (in the scriptures)."


upapadyate cha saMsaarasyaanaaditvam .
aadimattve hi saMsaarasyaakasmaadudbhuutermuktaanaamapi punaH saMsaarodbhuutiprasa~NgaH,
akRRitaabhyaagamaprasa~Ngashcha, sukhaduHkhaadivaiShamyasya nirnimittatvaat .
nacheshvaro vaiShamyaheturityuktam .
nachaavidyaa kevalaa vaiShamyasya kaaraNaM, ekaruupatvaat .
raagaadikleshavaasanaakShiptakarmaapekShaa tvavidyaa vaiShamyakarii syaat .
nacha karmaantareNa shariiraM saMbhavati, nacha shariiramantareNa karma
saMbhavatiitiitaretaraashrayatvaprasa~NgaH .
anaaditve tu biijaa~N kuranyaayenopapatterna kashchiddoSho bhavati .
upalabhyate cha saMsaarasyaanaaditvaM shrutismRRityoH .
shrutau taavat 'anena jiivenaatmanaa' (Chaa. 6.3.2) iti sargapramukhe shaariiramaatmaanaM
jiivashabdena praaNadhaaraNanimittenaabhilapannanaadiH saMsaara iti darshayati .
aadimattve tu praaganavadhaaritapraaNaH san kathaM praaNaadadhaaraNanimittena jiivashabdena
sargapramukhe 'bhilapyeta .
nacha dhaarayiShyatiityato 'bhilapyeta .
anaagataaddhi saMndhaadatiitaH saMbandho balavaanbhavati, abhiniShpannatvaat .
'suuryaachandramasau dhaataa yathaapuurvamakalpayat' (RRi.saM 10.190.3) iti cha mantravarNaH
puurvakalpasadbhaavaM darshayati .
smRRitaavapyanaaditvaM saMsaarasyopalabhyate- 'na ruupamasyeha tathopalabhyate naanto
na chaadirna cha saMpratiShThaa' (gii. 15.3) iti .
puraaNe chaatiitaanaagataanaaM cha kalpanaaM na parimaaNamastiiti sthaapitam .. 36 ..

Shankara's Commentary:

And it is logical for the transmigratory existence to have no beginning; for had it
emerged capriciously all of a sudden, then there would have been the predicament of
freed souls also being reborn here, as also the contigency of results accruing from
non-existing causes, for the differences in happiness and misery would have
no logical explanation. It has been pointed out already that God is not the
cause of inequality, nor is ignorance by itself a source of this, it being homogeneous.
Ignorance can at best become the creator of inequality in consequence of the
fruits of work, which are acquired as a result of the influence of
past impressions {Vasanas} of the three infatuations - love {i.e. attachment},
hatred and delusion. The fallacy of mutual dependence does not arise from the
impossibility of bodies being created without Karma and Karma being performed
without bodies; for if creation is beginningless, all this becomes reasonable on
the analogy of the seed and the sprout, and hence there will be no defect.

And we realize the beginninglessness of creation from the Vedas and the Smritis.
In the Vedas, for instance, occurs the text, "Myself entering into this as the
embodied soul (Jiva-Atma - living being)" (Chandogya Upanishad 6.3.2). Referring to
the beginning of creation, this text speaks of the embodied soul as the "living being"
on account of its sustaining life, and thereby it shows that creation, this text through
the word Jiva (living one) which comes into use from the fact of supporting the
life process (Jivana)? It cannot be that the term Jiva is used in anticipation that it
will support life in future; for an existing relationship is stronger than a future one,
inasmuch as the former is an accomplished fact. And the mantra text, "The Ordainer
created the sun and moon like those of previous cycles" (Rig Veda 10.190.3) shows
the existence of earlier cycles of creation. In the Smriti also the transmigratory state
is noticed to be without beginning, as in, "Its form is not here perceived as such,
neither its end, nor its origin, nor its continuance" (Gita 15.3). The conclusion made
in the Puranas also is that the past and future cycles of creation are numberless.