It was shown in the previous lessons that the doership of all our actions is infact of the Indriyas and not that of the Atma. "Agreed that the Atma is not the doer. Surely it can be an instigator. Isn't it?" this question had arisen then. Let us discuss this point now.

'Karayita'(instigator) is one who makes another person undertake a work. It has already been shown that the Indriyas are the performers of action. If Atma is considered as Karayita, it would mean that the Atma instigates and encourages the Indriyas to perform actions.

If we say so, we will be attributing a modification to the Atma - namely, instigation. It has been declared in the scriptures that the Atma is devoid of any modification. Even in the past lessons the same fact was established. If we now attribute instigator-ship to the Atma, we will be contradicting the definition of Atma.

In addition to this, we will have to face another problem. Is the instigator-ship natural to Atman or is it acquired? - this question needs to be addressed. If it is considered as a natural trait, it would mean that as long as the Atma is there, this attribute is also there. For example, heat is the nature of fire. As long as there is fire, there will be heat. Therefore, if it is considered that instigator-ship is the attribute of the Atman, it would mean that it is always accompanied by misery. In other words, Moksha is not possible for anyone

This is something which is not accepted by anyone. This is contrary to what the Vedas say. Men of experience too do not accept this. If Moksha were to be some non-existent phenomena, all this discussion would be unnecessary.
For the sake of argument, let us for a moment accept that the Atma has this quality of instigator-ship. Immediately we will face another paradox. Just as heat will be present as long as the fire is present, so also, as long as Atma is present, it will continue to be an instigator. We have established in the previous lessons that the Atma is present not only in the wakeful and dream states, but also in the deep-sleep state. It would mean that even in this state the Atma continues to be an instigator. Even a beginner knows that during the state of Sushupti (deep-sleep state) the Atma remains absolute and devoid of attributes. By this also it can be understood that instigator-ship is not the natural trait of Atma.

Q: Wait a minute! Just because the instigator-ship is not evident during Sushupti, you are concluding that it is not a Karayita(instigator) at all! Consider the example of a teacher. He is widely acclaimed as a very intelligent master. To test his ability, we went to his house. It was late in the night. All the students had left. The teacher was sitting alone. Can we say that he is not a teacher at all just because he is not teaching at that instant? Similarly, during the state of Sushupti, the Atma is sitting idle. During that period, the Indriyas are not functioning. They are not there. Therefore, the instigator-ship of the Atma also does not surface. It does not mean that the Atma does not have quality of instigator-ship at all.
A: All right. Consider another example. Imagine the wakeful state in which the person is not doing anything (idle state). The Indriyas are very much there. If the instigator-ship were to be the trait of Atma, why is it not surfacing? Why is the Atma not encouraging the Indriyas to perform actions? It is therefore not proper to think that the instigator-ship of the Atma does not become apparent when the Indriyas are not present there. Because Atma is totally devoid of that trait, instigator-ship does not surface either in the Sushupti state or in the idle state (during wakeful state).

Q: O.K. Shall we consider that it is an acquired quality?
A: If we consider it that way, it would mean that the Atma remains in the state of Mukti (in which it is not a Karayita) for some time and at other times it is bound by this quality. It follows that the Moksha which is eventually achieved has a beginning and an end. It has been already shown that anything which has a beginning and an end is impermanent. Thus, even the Moksha becomes an impermanent state. But by definition, is something which has no beginning or an end. By assuming that Atma acquires a quality, you are saying that true Moksha is not achievable at all! This notion is contrary to the Vedas. It is also inconsistent with human experience.

Q: This is very strange! On one hand you say that the Indriyas can not be Kartas (doer). On the other hand, you also say that the Atma is not the instigator. Do you mean that the Indriyas, which are by nature inert, act without any instigation?
A: The Indriyas are instigate by the feelings of Raga and Dvesha (affinity and aversion). It is only in the presence of affinity and aversion that Indriyas function. If they are absent, the Indriyas too cease to act. (This is called as 'Anvaya-Vyatiraka theory). This is a common experience. Therefore, it is Raga and Dvesha which are the instigators.

Q: This is even more strange. When we asked what instigates the inert Indriyas, you said that it is Raga and Dvesha which are the instigators. Are not these - Raga and Dvesha - inert too? You seem to believe that one inert object can instigate another inert object. All right. I will give you two vessels. Can you make one vessel to take another vessel to a well and fetch water? If you can make this happen, I will accept your argument.
A: Even during the course of the 35th lesson, you had posed a similar doubt. Two examples (to show that one inert object can move another inert object) were given there. Let us consider one more example. Gunpowder is filled in to an iron tube. At the other end is a cannon ball. When the gunpowder catches fire, the cannon is pushed with great force and it will in turn strike against the fort and damages it. Here, what is not inert? Is not one inert object moving another inert object? Similarly, it is not impossible for Raga and Dvesha (affinity and aversion), which are inert, to move the three Indriyas (mind-speech-body).

Q: What you say should be consistent with experience. Everyone will be having experiences like 'I caused this to happen', 'I was responsible for his victory' , etc. (in other words, I am the instigator). Why do you want to present some complicated logic to disregard experience? Is it proper to do so?
A: Who takes the role of the 'doer'? - this question had come up in the previous lessons. Even there you had brought up similar doubt. Let us recapitulate that answer now. It was then made clear that the doership of the Indriyas was superimposed on the Atma due to adhyaasa. The present situation is similar to that. When a rose is kept behind a pure crystal Lingam, the Lingam itself appears red. Why? Because the proximity of the rose with the Lingam and because the Lingam is so pure that it reflects everything and because we did not know that someone had placed a rose behind the Lingam. Because of all these reasons, we attributed the red colour of the rose to the Lingam and got ourselves deluded to think that the Lingam was red in colour. This is nothing but adhyaasa.

Similarly, because of the proximity of Raga and Dvesha to the Atma, because we do not have proper understanding of Raga and Dvesha and because Atma is pure just like the pure crystal Lingam, we tend to impose doership on the Atma, while it belongs to Raga and Dvesha. This is the reason why people make statements such as ' I am getting a house built', 'I am getting the field ploughed' etc., thereby feeling as though the Atma is the instigator. This is only an assumption and is not the reality. It is not proper to keep the false experience (which resulted due to delusion) as the basis to come to conclusions. Therefore we have to accept that the instigator-ship belongs to Raga and Dvesha.

Another point is worthy of mention here. In the above example, we attributed the colour of the rose to the pure Lingam, but we did not attribute the clarity and purity of the Lingam to the rose. But there are certain circumstances where delusion can take place in both directions.

For example, a blacksmith is giving temper to iron pieces of different sizes and shapes to make different implements. A small boy who happens to come there, sees the red hot pieces of iron and says, 'this ember is long',' this ember is round', 'this ember is circular' and so on. He does not stop there. He observes closely and says, 'all these are pieces of iron. But this iron burns'.
Here, the boy first attributed different shapes (of iron pieces) to the pieces of ember and later, attributed heat (of the fire) to the pieces of iron. This two way false imposition is called 'Anyonyaadhyaasa'.

In the context of Atma and Raga-Dvesha too this type of two-way delusion takes place. Because of this Anyonyaadhyaasa, we superimpose the instigator-ship (of the Raga-Dvesha) on the Atma and the non-instigatorship (of the Atma) on Raga and Dvesha.

Q: Logically what you are saying is flawless. Agreed. But the Upanishads, while describing about Atma have used words like 'Hrisheekesha' and 'Sarvantaryami'. Hrisheekesha means the lord of Indriyas. Sarvantaryami means that which pervades all the Indriyas. If there is no relation between the Atma and Indriyas whatsoever, what then is the meaning of the Upanishadic descriptions?
Let us see.

(to be continued)