In the previous lesson, we discussed about the 9 types of karma. We had stopped at the question - "who is the performer?".

Who is the karta? (doer)

During this discussion, we will need to recapitulate some of the aspects that we have already discussed.

The question before us is, 'who is the doer?'.

Question. Is so much of discussion really required? Everyone says 'I am doing'. Here, the meaning implied by 'I' is that which is of the form of consciousness and that which asserts as 'I', 'I'. This conscious substance is called as Atma. Therefore, does it not follow that Atma is the doer of all actions?
Answer. This line of thinking is correct to a certain extent. But in the previous lessons, it was shown that this Atma, which is of the form of Chaitanya does not have any modifications and parts, and that it does not therefore perform any actions. How then is it possible to consider this Atma, which is inactive and devoid of parts, to be the performer?

Question. Why so much of beating around the bush? The experience of each and everyone in this world is -'I am the doer'. Also, there can not be a different doer for my actions! Such being the case, is it proper to propose an argument that defies experience?
Answer. We are not defying experience. We are only examining deeply the existing experience. It can not be said that all that is experienced is the truth. For example, a child sitting in a moving train feels that the trees outside are running in the opposite direction and that the train is stationary. Is this experience real? No. It is only an illusion. Similarly, the feeling - 'I am the doer' can also arise out of illusion (adhyaasa).

Question. Yes, it is possible. But it can not be said with certainty that it is really illusion. When such is the case, why should we not accept the experience to be true and say that Kartritva (doership) is the Swabhava (natural trait) of Atma?

Answer. If doership were to be the natural trait of the Atma, it should be there always because Swabhava is a permanent feature. As long as there is doership, there will be worldly bondage. Therefore, we will have to accept that no amount of Vedantic discussion can remove the bondage and thus, Moksha is impossible to achieve. In such a contingency, the entire Vedanta Shastra would have to be considered useless.

Question. No! It is not like that!! Let us consider an example. A person is short-tempered. It is his nature. Because it is his nature, it does not leave him. But, if he practises discrimination and realises that anger is an evil quality - just as sage Vishwamitra performed tapas to get over anger - he may become a calm person. Similarly, by appropriate practise, the Atma might lose its nature of doership and might acquire the nature of non-doership. Is this not what Vedanta also says?
Answer. In the above example, confusion has set in because the word Swabhava (nature) has been understood as Swaguna (own quality). When we say that a person is short tempered, it only conveys the attribute (quality) of that person and not the nature of his Atma. When we say 'I am the doer', the word doer does not represent a quality. It means that the Atma is the doer. If it is not so, the example in the above question displays certain inconsistency. If anger were to be considered as the nature of a person, it would mean that the person will be angry for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is not the case. It may be that the person becomes angry very easily. There will indeed be times when the person is calm. If the same analogy were to be applied to the doership of Atma, it would mean that the Atma behaves as Karta (doer) at certain times and as Akarta (non-doer) at other times. Accepting this would prove the earlier premise - that the Atma is devoid of modifications - to be false. This is not possible. Therefore the Atma should be either a Karta all the time or an Akarta all the time.

Question. Let us say that Atma is always a Karta. What is wrong with that?
Answer. Heat is the nature of fire. It means that wherever there is fire, there is heat. Similarly, if doership were to be the nature of Atma, it should be present wherever Atma is present. There is a state called Sushupti. What happens to the doership of Atma in this state? It is impossible to attribute doership to Atma in this state, however much one may try. It therefore follows that to consider Atma to be a Karta always is not correct.

Question. Wait a minute! Atma appears to be an Akarta during Sushupti because, during that period such of the components of Atma which are necessary for the manifestation of doership are not present. Consider the example of a brave soldier. When he has a sword in his hand, his bravery manifests and he will be able to tackle hundreds of people. But he will not be sporting a sword all the time. For example, when he eating, we can not see his bravery. But it does not mean that he is not brave! Similarly, in the state of Sushupti, because the connection between the Indriyas and the Atma is severed, the doership of Atma can not be appreciated.
Answer. Such a situation is not peculiar only to the state of Sushupti. Even when a person is in the wakeful state, when he is sitting idly, thinking nothing, he will not be doing anything(he will be a non-doer then). In such a state, the contact between the Atma and the Indriyas and Antahkaranas is intact. Still, one can not appreciate doership of that person. What should we call this state as? There is only one way to explain this. One should realise that the Kartritva (doership) is of the Indriyas. Because of Adhyaasa (superimposing) man attributes doership to Atma. He then thinks 'I am the doer'. In the example of the boy in the train, the boy imposes the attribute namely movement (which belongs to him) on the trees and imposes on himself the static nature of the trees. Such act of imposing is called Adhyaasa. Therefore, there will be no inconsistency if we say that the Kartritva infact belongs to the Indriyas and that because of Adhyaasa, the person attributes doership to the Atma. If we accept this logic, the seeming paradox about the non-manifestation of doership of Atma during Sushupti does not arise at all, because Kartritva is not the nature of Atma. There will not be any contradiction to the fact that Atma is devoid of modifications. There will be no disagreement to the dictum about the nature of Atma - 'Saakshee chetaa kevalo nirgunashcha' (Atma is absolute, a witness, of the nature of consciousness, one without a second and devoid of attributes). It will also not contradict the experience - 'I am the doer' because, it has been said that the experience of doership is indeed present, but it is merely an imposed one. It can therefore be said with certainty that the Kartritva (doership) pertains to the Indriyas.

Question. The logic in the above answer seems to be flawless. Agreed. But are not the Indriyas inert(Jada)? How can one attribute doership to inert things? Also, for the doer to undertake any action, there must be some instruments. For example, a carpenter needs implements like hammer, screw driver etc., to do his work. If doership is to be attributed to the Indriyas, it follows that there are instruments under the control of the Indriyas which are required to carry out the actions.
Answer. There was a thunderstorm. Many trees got uprooted. Who caused the trees to become uprooted? The wind. But is not the wind inert by itself? When the wind uprooted the trees, did it have any other instruments under its control? There was a flood. It destroyed the dam and several houses were submerged. There was huge loss. All this was caused by water. But is not water inert? It therefore implies that depending on the situation, even inert things can become doers. Also, the Jada objects do not need the help of other instruments to behave as doers. Similarly, even though the Indriyas are Jada in nature, they can still function as Kartas (doers) even without the help of any other instruments. There is no problem here.

Question. Very well. You have used the word 'doers' in plural. Which are the different Indriyas? What are their functions?

(continues)