Kartrutva QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (denoted by KT)

Rangoli by Smt.Padmini Rao,Coimbatore

More details can be seen here:

http://www.sripurandaraashrama.org/php/JivaKartrutva.php

My main problem is with understanding this vague concept of "asvatantra-kartrutva" and binding the karma-phala to the jIva-s as a consequence of it.

KT: The question has to be split into some parts.

1. Does jIva has kartrutva ?

While answering to this, not only there seem to be apparent contradiction between dAsa-padas and Acharya's works, one may mistakenly think that there are contradictions within the same realm. As the old adage goes, "ushhNam ushhNena shItalaM", I will show some more such apparent contradictions, before attempting to resolve those, hoping that the heat of these contradictions will cool down the heat of earlier pointed contradictions after the samanvaya. Though resolving them is not the desire of the questioner, the path taken requires such resolution.

1a. Madhvacharya's words (either directly or as a quote) :

jiivasya kartR^itvaabhaave shaastrasyaaprayojakatvaapatte | -

(B.S.B. II, 3, 33)

Dr. B.N.K Sharma's translation:

"The jiiva must indeed be a real doer; otherwise, the shaastra, which is addressed to those who want to achieve certain objectives by certain specified means and to avoid certain undesirable contingencies by not doing certain things, would have no scope."

nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachAkhilam.h |

tathApi matkR^itA pUjA tatprasAdena nAnyathA |

tadbhakti tatphalaM mahyaM tatprasAdAt.h punaH punaH |

karmanyAsO harAvevaM vishhNosthR^iptikaraH sadA ||

- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya

In fact Sri Kadiri Krishna raised an issue in another posting, that in the above quote itself, "nAham kartA hariH kartA" seems to contradict with "matkR^tA pUjA".

These are just some samples. There will be many other which "seem to say either way" in Sri Madhvacharya's works. Similarly, in the following cases also, I will give only some samples in each category.

1b. HKS by Sri Jagannatha dasaru :

In DattasvAtantrya sandhi, svagatasvAtantrya sandhi and sarvasvAtantrya sandhi, a detailed description is given as to how each jiVa gets some miniscule of each of the above three kinds of svAtatntrya.

Also in "nAmasmaraNa sandhi", it says "Enu mAduva punyapApagalAne..."

(which indicates that Hari is the kartA)

1c. BG:

iti te jnAnamAkhyAtaM guhyAdguhyataraM mayA |

vimR^ishyaitadasheshheNa yathechchhasi tathA kuru || 18.63

supporting "jIvakartR^itva".

yadahankAramAshritya na yotsya iti manyase |

mithyaishha vyavasAyaste prakR^itistvAn niyoxyati || 18.59

svabhAvajena kaunteya nibaddhaH svena karmaNA |

kartuM nechchhasi yanmohAtkarishhyasyavashopi tat || 18.60

mayaivaite nihatAH pUrvameva nimittamAtraM bhava savyasAchin || 11.33

refuting "jIvakartR^itva".

1d. BrahmasUtra :

"OM kartA shAstrArthavattvAt.h OM" II-3-33 for "jIvakartR^itva".

"OM ashmAdivachcha tadanupapattiH OM" II-1-24 for refuting "jIvakartR^itva".

One simple answer for all the above is that

jIva does not have svAdhIna svAtantrya (self-willed freedom).

But jIva has parAdhIna svAtantrya where "para" refers to Sri Hari.

One pramANa for this as given in the commentary by sri saN^karshaNa Odeyaru on HKS:

"yathA rAjA nijAmAtyAn.h dattA svAtatntryAmatmanaH |

kArye niyojya tatratyAn.h guNadoshAnscha pR^ichchhati ||

brahmANaM cha tathA prANaM tathAnyAn.h tattvadevatAH |

dehe niyojayAJNchakre tathA kalyAdikAn.h surAn.h ||

tattatkAryakR^itau shaktiH svAtatntryaM hi puraskR^itam.h |

shaktyA svadattayAmAtyaiH kR^ite kArye sa tushhyati ||

satyAM shaktau kAryanAshe svAj~nAmullaN^ghya vartate |

kupitvA daNDayatyevaM tathA krIDatyayaM hariH ||"

"Just as the king appoints his ministers (and other staff) by allotting part of his own freedom and allocating certain tasks and enquires the niceties and flaws of their actions, similarly the Lord engages others namely asurAs like kali and gods (like Brahma) and others beings also by giving body, prANa...".

The comparison is to be taken only to the extent of control and freedom. The king is not "sarvasAxi" whereas the Lord is "sarvasAxi". Also this comparison makes us understand that even if jIva does not have independence in action, it does not get the status of a jaDa.

So jIva has a miniscule of freedom as allotted by Vishnu. The degree of this freedom varies from jIva to jIva based on yogyata, etc. Also this is not an independent freedom even for Laxmi. This has been categorically told by our Acharya "svatantro bhagavAn vishhNuH" in tattvaviveka and tattvasaN^khyAna.

2. Now comes the next part of the question. On what basis, the God, who is the only Independent Being, gives preraNa to a jIva ?

Based on the following three things, God gives preraNa to a jIva

a. jIva svabhAva (which is anAdi)

b. anAdi karma of the jIva

c. paurusha (which can be loosely translated as jIva prayatna and yogyata)

We (the ones who are not aparoxa j~nAnis) cannot see the first two. What we can see is only the third one. This third one results from the miniscule "parAdhIna svAtantrya". Instead of racking our brains

about the first two, it is the best to concentrate on the third which is also in accordance with the first two.

3. Now comes the next part of the question which is the main crux of the problem. Actually, If jIva is not at all the independent doer, how does it get the karmaphala ?

The answer is the "ahaN^kAra" pravR^itti of the jIva. Here this "ahaN^kAra" is a disposition and not a process of thinking which is again an action which takes into an infinite loop. Even a r^iju yogi who is devoid of "ahaN^kAra" does the thinking process. But that does not bind r^iju yogi who is devoid of "ahaN^kAra".

Mere thinking "nAham kartA..." is not indicative of giving up "ahaN^kAra". Such thinking is mAnasika karma, of course.

..This explains the karma-phala but I suppose it will requre that such disposition must also be considered anAdi (although changing with time) in everyone but Lakshmi and r^iju-s.

KT: Only the svabhAva of the jIva is anAdi. The "ahaN^kAra" itself is not anAdi. In fact it is one of the "asaMsr^shhTa" (loosely translated as imperfectly created) entities. In fact we see the instances where even the tattvika devatas (who belong to tattvika yogis category), who have have acquired aparoxa j~nAna, get affected with "ahaN^kAra" though only temporarily. Then they overcome it because of God's grace.

Now the question is we have to relate all this to the real world, otherwise our philosophy won't be any different than advaita which leave the gap between vyavahArika and paramArtika unexplained.

KT: Certainly, we see all this in the real world all the time.

KT: "ahaN^kAra" is not anAdi and it has been categorized by our achArya as anitya and within "anitya" category as "asaMsr^shhTa".

KT: If the so called "suspense" or unawareness of the jIva about its final destiny is the sole criterion for a meaningful purpose, then the above question itself has the answer. Only Sri Hari knows the jIva's final destiny and so the "suspense" element is still there for the jIva. On the other hand, if the question is "why does Hari need to expect jIva to do sAdhana when final destiny is pre-determined? In other words why is there a need for a path ?", the answer to this is also simple. The path is also pre-determined. Even further, I do not see any "lack of need" for sAdhana and all the injunctions of the

scriptures. See the case of Mukhyaprana who knows that he will be "bhAvi brahma" and eventual mukti-goer. But he is constantly doing the sAdhana. The inherent nature of the jIva to do sAdhana applies to even the "lowest jIva". That is why Lord Krishna says to Arjuna "nimittamAtraM bhava savyasAchin.h".

Also, how than is a jIva, which only has a passive svarUpa and mere disposition, as its belonging different from jaDa in the practical sense of the world? Are we not approach "idealism" like advaita in propounding such theory? Don't they also say there is nothing to be achived and we are saying that there is nothing you "can" achieve. Sri Hari will do all the work from start to end in accordance with your svarUpa, anAdi karma and anAdi ahamkAra and put you where you belong?

KT: One need not get obsessed with "a book containg information in a passive way". The book does not have any feelings and nor will it desire "let me have a few more pages". On the other hand, the jIva experiences joy and sorrow and constantly craves for more knowledge. How does it matter if final destiny is pre-detrmined. It won't promote "purposelessness" like in advaita because the inherent svabhAva of jIva will not let any one to be passive. Even if one tries to indulge in "physical inaction", it is not posible to avoid "mental action". So, jIva svarUpa is not passive.

Also this theory is not idealism. Even though the final destiny is pre-determined, it is is not the same for all the jIvas. It has a purpose even if the purpose is also pre-determined. This purpose varies from jIva to jIva. Also ahamkara is not anAdi. Sri Hari only prompts the jIvas as the main agent, but the jIvas do act as secondary agents and do the work. Here a crude example may help to drive the point. A mother takes a child (first time for the child) to a shopping mall. She knows what exactly is there in the mall and what the final outcome of the visit to the mall is. The child is not aware of any thing. The mother gives very limited freedom to the child. She holds the child's hand most of the time. Even when she leaves the hand (to put him in some ride etc.), she monitors the child all the time. The child strongly desires for a lot more freedom and wishes to know a lot more. The mother knows that if she gives full freedom, not only will the child get into trouble, but may get others into trouble. But the child won't be having a passive experience even if the outcome is pre-determined. The code of rules that the mother prescribed is for the benefit of the child only. The child enjoys the trip to the mall in every way.

What we did not do here is study all these sutras together as one unit-of-thought, in this adhikaraNa in the light of sutra-bhashya-teekaa-tippani granthas.

KT: I guess that it is quite impractical to do such a study over the internet. A thorough study needs a guru and takes lot of time. This is only a simple discussion.

What we have done is taken a sutra from the middle-of-nowhere in a unit-of-thought, and drawn conclusions from there saying this is for "refuting jiva kartrtva". So, this methodology has all the flaws that were observed in arriving at the opposite conclusion from the first one, namely "for jIvakartR^itva". Note that although conclusions drawn from these two sutras seem to be opposite, and therefore we may think that only one of them is right, but the methodology we have adopted in arriving at either one is incorrect.

KT: I think the spirit of discussion has been completely misunderstood perhaps because of not reading the first part of my letter. I have stated clearly "one may mistakenly think that there are contradictions within the same realm.". In fact my main stress has been that such statements should not be taken out of context and proper "samanvaya" has to be done. The reason I gave Dr. B.N.K. Sharma's translation is to indicate how such statements (even though written by such great scholars) which are taken without the global picture can lead to lot of misunderstanding.

Yes, it is true that

1. Shaastra samgati

2. Shruti Samgati

3. Adhyaaya Samgati

4. Paada samgati and

5. AdhikaraNa samgati

all have to be taken to analyze one adhikarana (which forms one unit of thought). When two units of thought which *seem to superficially contradict each other* are considered, proper "samanvaya" has to be done as well.

This precisely is the reason why we should not go after prameyas, but concentrate on keeping shaastraadhyayana, which is the methodology, in tact.

KT: I do not understand how shaastraadhyayana can be done without going after prameyas. How can the shaastraadhyayana be complete without the prameyas.

Then you may ask, what is the purpose of all these translations, email postings, etc including the current one. All these conclusions drawn in brief, may be required to generate an interest (shradhdhaa - which is the first step in adhikaara) in the subject-matter, so that proper studies can be made by adhikaarins.

KT: All is fine. But, [in this topic] that is not the point here at all.

If ahamkAra is not anAdi, than we are back to square one on what binds karma-phala to jIva-s given that they are asvatantra and have absolutely no kartrutva inherent to them. I believe you might have confused anAdi with nitya. I can see why it can not be nitya but it has to be anAdi as it is meaningless to bind anAdi-karma to jIva-s.

KT: There are two aspects of "ahamkara" here. Ahamkara tattva is anadi. The ahankara pravR^itti of the jIva (which is what we were talking about) is not anAdi as it is short-lived. I know "anAdi" and "nitya" are two different things. If ahankara is anadi and also "anitya", then two things happen

1. It has to have an end.

2. For it to exist after that, it has to be created again in which case it will not be anAdi anymore.

That will create a problem for your approach. Also in that case it will be categorized as "aparAbhAva" (subsequent non-existent).

Though anAdi and nitya mean two different things, they are related as explained below.

anAdi = beginningless; sAdi = with beginning;

ananta = endless; sAnta = with end;

nitya = eternal = has no beginning and no end; nitya = anAdi + ananta;

anitya = non-eternal = has both beginning and end; anitya = sAdi + sAnta;

pUrvAbhAva = antecedent non-existent = sAdi + ananta;

aparAbhAva = subsequent non-existent = anAdi + sAnta;

sadAbhAva = absolute non-existent (like a hare's horn);

So without going into the detailed analysis of anAdi, which we cannot easily comprehand, let's consider a model for sake of understanding. For jIva-s (not considering r^iju-s), we have their basic svarUpa + anAdi karma and anAdi ahamkAra. "ahaN^kAra" is not anAdi and it has been categorized by our achArya as anitya and within "anitya" category as "asaMsr^shhTa". That makes sense to me but I believe you are mixing up anAdi with nitya, when they are in fact quite different and unrelated. karma is also anitya but it is anAdi.

KT: Any thing that is "nitya" has to be "anAdi" or else it can not be called nitya. Any thing that is anitya and anAdi has to be "aparAbhAva" (see above).

Thus a proper solution has been given to this in Tattvaviveka.

Acharya says : "deshaH kAlaH sR^itistathA ||

bhUtendriyaprAnaguNasUxmarUpaM cha nityakaM ||"

Sri Jayatiirtha TIka : deshashabdenAvyAkR^itAkAsha uchyate | kAla iti

pravAhaH | shR^itirvedaH | bhUtAnyAkAshAdIni | indriyANyekAdasha |

prANo.ahaN^kArakAryavisheshaH | guNAH satvAdayoH mAtrAshcha |

upalaxaNaM chaitat.h mahadahaN^kArAdyapi grAhyam.h |

So it is clearly mentioned that "ahankAra tattva" is anAdi.

Acharya says : "eshhAM vikAro.anityaH syAt.h"

Sri Jayatiirtha TIka : eshhAM yathAsambhavaM kAlAdInAM vikAraH

upachitAdi vibhAgaH | tatra kAlasya xaNAdyavayavAH mahadAdInAM

upachayAmshaH | evameshhAM mahadAdInAM vikAraM kAryaM brahmANDaM

tadantargataM sarvamanityamiti |

Thus the "vikAra rUpa" of ahankara tattva is anitya. This can be understood as follows. The time itself is anAdi and also nitya. But any sub-divsion of time (like a second or minute or even a yuga) is anitya. Similarly the "ahankara pravR^itti" of a jIva is "anitya" but from the pravaha rupa ahankara (which is nitya) this "ahankara pravR^itti" has been happening from beginningless time. I hope, this satisfies the need.

That will explain their activities, results, etc. where the activities are actually carried out by the Lord, in accordane with their anAdi ahamkAra. But then what about the process of sAdhanA and all the injunctions of the scriptures? Whom are they meant for ? Sri Hari already knows what a particular jIva's svarUpa (and consequently the final destiny) as well as disposition is. So what purpose are these scriptural injunctions and all the teachings from the guru-s serving? If the so called "suspense" or unawareness of the jIva about its final destiny is the sole criterion for a meaningful purpose, then the above question itself has the answer. Only Sri Hari knows the jIva's final destiny and so the "suspense" element is still there for the jIva. That is merely shifting the locus of the question, not answering it. Ishvara is not in suspense, as you said, because He knows the past, present and future but neither can be the jIva as it has absolutely no freedom or kartrutva.

KT: How can absolute lack of freedom remove the suspense for the jIva ?

Suspense requires at least 2 things, (1) knowing your current state and (2) thinking why that is so and/or will it change. While we can grant #1 to jIva, as it is chetana svarUpa, we cannot grant #2 to it as it is paratantra. So given our definition of jIva, the above answer is the same as advaita position saying that this world is result of avidyA without explaining what is avidya and who is the entity

that it bounds.

KT: I don't understand. Where is it mentioned that this world is the result of avidyA ?

On the other hand if the question is "why does Hari need to expect jIva to do sAdhana when final destiny is pre-determined ? In other words why is there a need for a path ?", the answer to this is also simple. The path is also pre-determined. I knew that, but it is orthogonal to the kartrutva issue.

KT: I think it is a parallel issue and not an orthogonal issue. There are four issues here and it is not possible to see them in isolation.

1. kartR^itva = doership;

2. svAtantrya = freedom;

3. vidhinirNIta = pre-determined;

4. jIva svabhAva = inherent nature of jIva.

The jIva kartR^itva with "vishhNvadhIna svAtatntrya" alone will be vidhinirNIta where God gives preraNa to jIva in accordance with jIva svabhAva. It is a one package deal where I do not see any other logical alternative with full support of sadAgamAs. I am curious to see any alternative (which does not conflict with sadAgamAs and especially sarva guNa sampUrnatva and sarva doshha vivarjitatva of God).

Even further, I do not see any "lack of need" for sAdhana and all the injunctions of the scriptures. See the case of Mukhyaprana who knows that he will be "bhAvi brahma" and eventual mukti-goer. But he is constantly doing the sAdhana. The inherent nature of the jIva to do sAdhana applies to even the "lowest jIva". That is why Lord Krishna says to Arjuna "nimittamAtraM bhava savyasAchin.h".

Thank you. That only supports my point.

KT: Is that point what I mentioned above ?

See this "inherent nature of the jIva to do sAdhana" is in direct conflict with the position that jIva does not have kartrutva. See this whole debate started because it was stated that kartrutva is given to jIva-s by Ishvara. Somebody tried to create the notion of datta-kartrutva, similar to datta-svatantra.

KT: I don't know what it means by datta-kartrutva. I only see a miniscule of svAtatntrya given by God to jIva, its anAdi karma and the bouts of ahankAra pravR^itti from anAdi which binds jIva to its karma.

Similarly I can say one need not get obsessed with the thought that dvaita is correct. I see a lot of people here (not you) with die hard devotion without the real knowledge. That is bizzare. I am raising a question because I have a real concern. It is best to not make personal remarks like the one above because they work both ways.

KT: I am sorry that neither did I realize that it was a personal remark nor did I mean it to be one. I was deeply thinking about the example and I was only trying to say that the example does not hold good at all as I explained below. The book does not have any inherent nature. Neither bliss nor sorrow can come to it.

The book does not have any feelings and nor will it desire "let me have a few more pages". On the other hand the jIva experiences joy and sorrow and constantly craves for more knowledge. How does it matter if final destiny is pre-detrmined. It won't promote "purposelessness" like in advaita because the inherent svabhAva of jIva will not let any one to be passive. Even if one tries to indulge in "physical inaction", it is not posible to avoid "mental action". So, jIva svarUpa is not passive. Once we take kartrutva our of jIva svarUpa, it *is* passive.

KT: Out of the eight functions of God namely

1. sR^ishhTi = creation ;

2. sthiti = sustenance ;

3. laya = annihilation

4. niyamana = control ;

5. j~nAna = knowledge ;

6. aj~nAna = ignorance;

7. bandha = bondage ;

8. moxa = liberation,

only the first four apply to jaDa (inert beings), where as all eight apply to jIvAs. (Creation of body etc. for the jIvas as we all agree that jIvas are anAdi)

So, I don't see how jIva svarUpa is passive just because the svAtantrya

given to jIva is under the control of Hari.

Your position is self- contradictory as on one hand you are saying that the svabhAva of jIva will not let it sit sit idle even for a moment and at the same time holding that jIva has not kartriva inherent. This is truely amazing.

KT: Not really. We are not saying that jIva does not have kartrutva. We are only saying that jIva does not have * independent * kartrutva. Please see the one package deal mentioned above.

Also this theory is not idealism. Even though the final destiny is pre-determined, it is is not the same for all the jIvas. I didn't say that it is idealism. I said it is approaching idealism. Actually it really is perfectionism. As everything is absolutely pre-determined and there is one entity who is simply making it all happen in perfection according to a pre-determined path. That does have some similarity with idealism because our notion of the world reality involves perception of differences in forms and actions and now we are saying that only the first (diff in forms) are true, but the second is not as all actions are performed by God only - per you definition of an "uttama- adhikAri". So we are halfway there to idealism. Had the diff in forms also be unreal, it would have been idealism.

KT: I see what you are driving at. You are interpreting "all actions are prompted by God only in accordance with jIva svabhAva and jIvas do not have any freedom" as "all actions are performed by God only". If this * half way to idealism * is not to be there, I see only chaos as the alternative. The way the world is, "jIva not having freedom" alone seems logical. I like to quote one verse from Dvadasha stotra

yadi nAma paro na bhavetsa hariH kathamasya vashe jagadetabhUt.h |

yadi nAma na tasya vashe sakalaM kathameva tu nityasukhaM na bhavet.h ||

III - 5

If indeed, Hari is not the Supreme, how did the universe come under His control ? If at all, the Universe is not under His control (meaning jIvas have their own way), how come eternal happiness is not its lot ?

The analogy fails because the child in the mall already has a basic nature (like the jIva), some freedom to think (unlike the jIva) and also some freedom to act on its own (unlike the jIva). The mother only frees up the child who then begin acting according to his thoughts and past experiences. The mother does not take a completly inert object who is 100% paratantra and make it act.

KT: The example is only to give an indication. Same way jIva is also not inert object.

Remember advaita also tries to give a lot of analogies like the "snake and rope", "silver and shell", "two moons", etc. but none of them stand to the rigour of comparision with the real state of affairs and are rejected by us. Similarly, I have to discard the above example and ask you for a better one.

KT: It depends on what is the purpose of an example. If the example is given to prove a point, then it has to stand the rigor of logic. If it is given only to make one understand the issue at hand, then an independent proof is to be given. Our Acharya makes use of sadAgamas to prove the point.

If ahankara is anadi and also "anitya", then two things happen

1. It has to have an end.

2. For it to exist after that, it has to be created again in which case it will not be anAdi any more. That will create a problem for your approach. Also in that case it will be categorized as aparAbhAva" (subsequent non-existent).

I am sorry but you haven't explained what problem it will create for my approach.

KT: Let me repeat a couple of things from your earlier postings about your approach/position.

"I believe you might have confused anAdi with nitya. I can see why it can not be nitya but it has to be anAdi as it is meaningless to bind anAdi-karma to jIva-s."

"That makes sense to me but I believe you are mixing up anAdi with nitya, when they are in fact quite different and unrelated. karma is also anitya but it is anAdi."

KT: Let me emphasize that no entity can be both anAdi and anitya for the following reason.

anAdi = has no beginning

anitya = * has a beginning * and an end

Thus anAdi conflicts with anitya totally. One can see how they are related.

So your statement "I can see why it(ahankara) can not be nitya but it has to be anAdi" has self-conflict and so does the statement "karma is also anitya but it is anAdi".

OTOH, if it it not anAdi, you will have to explain what is the meaning of anAdi karma than and why is it different for different jIva-s. Let me remind you that the concept that the difference in world today are *only* due to anAdi-karma is the VishhishTAdvita position and is rejected by us.

KT: Yes, certainly, because this leads to either "partiality flaw to God" or "infinite regress".

The reason being that let karma be anAdi but same for everyone. So we introdue the concept of anAdi-nitya-jIva-svarupa which includes different natures. Now the problem is that the jIva svarupa does not include kartrutva (your positon) and also jIva is asvatantra (I also agree with that). So again we loose the relation between world reality (different natures) and an innert jIva + anAdi karma. So the same argument we use against VishishhTAdvaita would fall upon us.

KT: Not really. For simplicity, let us denote the the time interval from anAdi to present as I = (-infinity, P) and the duration of the ahankAra pravR^itti of any jIva as (a,b) which belongs to I. "a" can always tend to -infinity, but never has to be -infinity.

Remember ou said it it is the "ahamkAra" (disposition or attitude) that bounds karma-phala to jIva. If you make this ahamkAra sAdi, there will be nothing to bind jIva-svarUpa with anAdi karma and God will be subject to partiality in arbitrarily binding karma-phala to jIva-s. Show me a solution for this problem.

KT: See above. God does not arbitrarily bind, but it is only the ahankAra that binds.

Remember my argument about "ahamkAra" being a manasic-karma and the problem with that and you said "ahamkAra is the disposition and not the thought. In other words, you equated "ahamkAra" to "ahamkAra pravR^itti" that I didn't mind even though I thought it was curious. This is not a big deal but I just want to make sure that this is clearly understood by both sides and later on I am not accused of twisting anything.

KT: The main purpose of this discussion is to try to understand as much as possible the concepts of tattvavada and not to make any accusations.

Ishvara is not in suspense, as you said, because He knows the past, present and future but neither can be the jIva as it has absolutely no freedom or kartrutva.

How can absolute lack of freedom remove the suspense for the jIva ?

Pls read the next 3 sentences, I have already covered that.

Suspense requires at least 2 things, (1) knowing your current state and (2) thinking why that is so and/or will it change.

KT: Do you mean "absence of suspense" ? Suspense means "uncertainty" or unawareness. "knowing" and "thinking" are opposites of "uncertainty".

While we can grant #1 to jIva, as it is chetana svarUpa, we cannot grant #2 to it as it is paratantra.

KT: We cannot grant #2 and so jIva, being uncertain, will continue to do what it * thinks * it can do.

Let me repeat what I said "So given our definition of jIva, the above answer is the same as advaita position saying that this world is result of avidyA without explaining what is avidya and who is the entity that it bounds." Now you have not explained how the jIva comes under suspense, for this suspense to have meaning. And given your definition of jIva, there is no way the suspense can be on him. So this suspense is ___like___ the free standing avidya of advaita.

KT: I don't understand what is meant by "coming under suspense". The jIva is always unaware of the future. This is "anubhavasiddha" and no way like avidya.

I believe it is orthogonal because it does not matter whether the path is pre-determined or not for our philosophy to have a meaning where the jIva claimed to have "0" kartrutva as part of its svarUpa and God does everything.

KT: What is needed most here is "exact definition of kartR^itva". I think the main reason for the big gap in the understanding of the issue is that one premise is based on its including independence in acting and another premise its not including the same. In such a situation it only turns out to be a question of interpretation. God gives the prerana to the jIva always and jIva does it as a totally dependent one. This is nothing infra dig.

The jIva kartR^itva with "vishhNvadhIna svAtatntrya" alone will be vidhinirNIta where God gives preraNa to jIva in accordance with jIva svabhAva. It is a one package deal where I do not see any other logical alternative with full support of sadAgamAs. I am curious to see any alternative (which does not conflict with sadAgamAs and especially sarvaguNasampUrnatva and sarvadoshhavivarjitatva of God).

First of all, let me remind you of a fundamental requirement posed by our Acharya for everyone, `na cha anubhavavirodhe Agamasya prAmANyam.h' so let us not forget that.

KT: Of course not. It is beyond the "anubhava" of any of us how the state of affairs has been in anAdi and so "anubhavavirodha" is out of question, as well. Thus one has to resort to Agamas in such an instance.

Now remember that we are discussing the very issue of "anubhava" (which shows a world of differences) and one possible interpretation of "agma" that claims jIva does not have kartrutva that do not reconcile very well together, at least not yet.

KT: jIva does not have * independent kartR^itva *, but it has dependent kartR^itva. See above.

So you cannot now pre-empt my argument saying that sadAgmAs support your theroy, otherwise the charge of double-standards will be on you.

KT: Absolutely not. Our anubhava shows difference in jIva position. The first question is what is the cause for such difference. It is anAdi svabhAva. The next question is, that alone does not suffice as what about the karma, if jIva does not have independent kartR^itva. Why should God give different preranas to different jIvas ? That difference in prerana is based on jIva svabhAva. According to tattvavada, the volitional individuality of jIva is terribly limited. If the question is why should jIva pay a price for its actions ? It is the "ahankara pravR^itti" that binds it. If the question is even if jIva

svabhAva is different why should God's instigation be different. To quote Vijayindratirtha in kaNTakoddhAra, "bhagavadaisvaryamapi lokamaryAdAnurodhItyaN^gIkArAt.h". Even though God is omnipotent, He conforms to the laws of thought prevailing in the universe.

The basic requirement is that sadAgmAs have to interpreted in a way that they do not conflict with the world reality, not the other way.

KT: As mentioned above, it does not conflict at all.

I am saying that this nature to do sAdhana has to be within jIva svarUpa and _not_ be derived from anything, not even God for the rest of dvaita to have any purpose, otherwise it will be another philosopher's high.

I don't know what it means by datta-kartrutva. I only see a miniscule of svAtatntrya given by God to jIva, its anAdi karma and the bouts of ahankAra pravR^itti from anAdi which binds jIva to its karma. Remember the original trouble was with the claim that "God does everything so He alone is the doer but because he has _given_ some kartrutva to the jIva, the jIva is also a secondry doer in a limited sense" and I caim that such a view is absolutely ridiculous. If you concede that ahamkAra-pravR^itti is anAda (as I discussed in the begining of this message) and that jIva does have some miniscule kartrutva which is part of its svarUpa and not be derived from _anything_ than we don't have any problem.

KT: This will have a different kind of a problem. Is this miniscule kartrutva in exact conformity with its svarUpa or not ? If it is, then it becomes redundant. If it is not, then it conflicts with its own svarUpa, which is a terrible problem. As far as ahankara pravR^itti, as explained above it can not be anitya and anAdi. As far as primary action and secondary action and vishishhTadvaita position and tattvavada position, one may see the following

Translation of the kannada essay of Shri Vidyamanyaru as a preface to Prof. Pandurangi's 1990 translation of the tattvamaJNjarI

"I am attempting to translate the essay for the benefit of those who do not know Kannada. Please pardon me for any loss of meaning, inaccuracies and other errors. I find this essay very enlightening.

There are very few who realize correctly the fruitfulness of human existence. There are many who think that procuring wealth to the desired extent and enjoying all kinds of luxuries to the fullest extent makes human life fruitful. Or else there are many who think that acquiring great power and becoming renowned in the world makes human life fruitful. But all agree that despite having every thing , if one is illiterate, that person's existence is futile. That knowledge can be classified into two,

1. paravidya (spiritual knowledge ?)

2. aparavidya (material knowledge ?). The one that explains the material aspects of the world is aparavidya The one that makes a person realize the realities of life and thereby explains correctly the "super substance" (Supreme Being) that does the creation etc. of this unique world is paravidya. Productive is the existence of that person who strives to procure such paravidya. When this is the case, it is needless to say that the existence of the person who procured such paravidya is fruitful.

Elderly (wise) people opine that those who do not make even a little effort to acquire that paravidya are animals in human form. The sagacious shukamuni declared that if the holy name of the creator of this universe did not even fall into the ears of a person, then such a person belong to the despicable life category of dog, pig, donkey etc. If one who does not know the taste of music and literature is an animal without horns and tail, then there is absolutely no doubt about the truthfulness of the utterances of wise sages that a being, who does not even make a slightest attempt to realize the Supreme Being who is known as super and extra-ordinary being by virtue of creating this august and extra-ordinary universe and who is helping us all in every merciful way, is abjectly detestable animal.

Having tried to understand the Supreme Being, some portray a perverted picture of the Lord. Those with this perverted knowledge are more degraded than animals. Animal beings do not rot in the infernal hell after life. But those with a perverted view about the Supreme Being rot in the eternal caliginous hell. Incidentally there were occasions where some pervertedly viewed the Supreme Being due to lack of association with virtuous saints, but later acquired true knowledge from the association with virtuous saints. The sacred shAstras do not besmirch them as they are exalted to noble worlds (uttama gati). But it does not mean that there is no penalization for them for the act of perverted depiction of Supreme Being. Now a days, if we need to show such persons for instance, it is possible to show them.

Now a days, most people perform prayer, service etc. to God only when they see the statue of God in the temples. They presume that God is present * only * in the statue of God in the temples. The sacred shAstras do not say that. The sacred shAstras say that God is omnipresent. Even though it is true that God is present every where, the sacred shAstras do proclaim that God's presence (sannidhAna) in the statues where a ceremonial invocation (pratishTa) is done according to the sacred shAstras is more than that in other substances. God's presence (sannidhAna) in His devotees is more than that in such statues. God's presence (sannidhAna) in living beings is more than that in all other lifeless things. One must firmly believe that within that person's heart, Lord of the universe instigates that person's intellect.

Despite the shAstras preaching this, many without realizing this, commit a treachery towards living beings (bhUtadrOha) by thinking that God is present only in the statues of the temples and not knowing that Lord is present in all the living beings. Those who do not realize that God instigates the intellect for every one by being inside, succumb to the feelings of obsession and ego. Those who realize that inside them and inside others, the same Lord resides and instigates the intellect, do not commit bhUtadrOha and to the best of their ability help other living beings. Those who realize that God's special sannidhAna (presence) is in the devotees of Lord, worship the devotees and obtain their good blessings.

Since God is pleased more with those who worship His devotees than with those who worship only God, such of those who worship His devotees become especially dear to God. If some worship only God without worshipping His devotees, God will gradually mitigate their devotion towards Him. Those who worship God only in the statues and do not worship His devotees and do not realize that God from inside everybody instigates the intellect of everyone, will eventually go to nether worlds, even though they may enjoy temporarily the mundane joys of this world. This aspect is evident from God's own words. When those with the false knowledge that God is present in statues only etc. come into contact with truly knowledgeable people knowing brahmasUtrAs etc. (which present decisive views about God), will get salvation by getting true knowledge from their teachings. It is extremely necessary to study brahmasUtra for those desiring to procure true knowledge about the Supreme Being. There are 21 commentators for these brahmasUtras. All these made true knowledge unobtainable from brahmasUtrAs, by writing (incorrect) commentaries to brahmasUtras. That is why, one must know the true meaning of brahmasUtrAs by reading the commentary of shrImadhvAchArya, who is the incarnation of mukhyaprAnadEva.

Now shankara's and rAmAnuja's commentaries on brahmasUtras are well known today. Many people read these commentaries. Both these commentaries do not give correct interpretation to the brahmasUtras. Shankara's commentary presents oneness of jIva and Brahma and renounces the most important supplication in gAyatri namely 'may you instigate our intellects' signifying that Lord is the instigator of the intellect for all living beings. Similarly rAmAnuja's commentary also renounces this most important supplication in gAyatri. It is because in rAmAnuja's commentary, it is emphasized that all the living beings conduct their primary instinctive behavior from their own intellect but not from the intellect instigated by the Lord. The assertion that primary intellect that is responsible for the primary behavior is not instigated by the Lord will lead to the suspicion that it is possible for the secondary instincts to exist without the Lord's instigation.

If we agree that the Lord is the instigator for the intellects of all the beings, then we have to say that the Lord only makes the living beings perform good deeds and bad deeds. Then it may seem the best to understand that the Lord is not the instigator to the intellect of anybody for the reason that God's instigation of the intellect of selected some leads to a doubt that this posits in Him the defects in the form of bias and hatred. "If the Lord is not considered as the instigator of the intellect of the living beings, their intellect ceases to exist". If this were made the regulation then compulsorily there is no escape from saying that the Lord alone is the instigator to the secondary intellects of the living beings.

In rAmAnuja's religion, because it has been asserted that the Lord does not instigate the primary intellect that is responsible to the primary behavior, nothing prevents one from saying that even without the instigation from the Lord, the intellect premises in the living beings. Partiality etc. can not be attributed despite the Lord's instigation of secondary (stands for second and subsequent) intellect, because the Lord instigates the secondary intellect that is responsible for the secondary behavior in line with the primary behavior of the living beings. If that were so, a father, among his sons makes it convenient for further good deeds and preaches to do good deeds to only that son who originally behaves performing good deeds and preaches to do bad deeds and makes it convenient to do bad deeds to the one who originally behaves performing bad deeds. If a father does like this, a question arises "Is it possible to say that there is no defect in such a father ?". If a father who acts like this turns out to be blemished, in rAmAnuja's religion God can not be unblemished.

The commentary on brahmasUtrAs written by shrImadhvAchArya made it very congenial to the supplication in gAyatri. If the Lord does not instigate the intellect of living beings, the living beings will not have any intellect. The question of partiality etc. in the Lord does not arise as he instigates the intellect of the living beings in accordance with the uninitiated, eternal and inherent competence of the living beings.

For that reason only, in baLitthA sUkta it is said that vAyudEva alone contemplates correctly in the abode of his heart on the Supreme Being who is the instigator of the intellect. For that reason only, vAyudEva himself had to incarnate as shrImadhvAchArya as he is alone capable of absolving (doing uddhAra) the noble ones by explaining the true meaning of brahmasUtrAs. Another glorious distinction in the commentary of AchArya madhva is condensing many pramEyAs in a few words. This is comprehensible even to young people (like beginners) and so also impossible to even great scholars to conclude the extent of the meaning. AchArya madhva had the disciples in his time who who would not partake a meal without recounting this kind of commentary every day. For these disciples one time only, doing "pAraNa" on dvAdashi and also before doing "pAraNa" on dvAdashi completion of recounting this commentary was impossible. Then the AchArya composed "aNubhAshhya" which institutes all the principles of "iDI bhAshhya" and also grants the same fruit as recounting "iDI bhAshhya" and educated them with it there by rendering their observance feasible. For that reason, common men do not comprehend the extent of meaning in this aNubhAshhya".

The purpose behind shrI jayatIrtha not writing TIka (commentary) is for granting great fruit to shrI rAghavendrasvAmi with immense grace. When we see the commentary of shrI rAghavendrasvAmi on this "aNubhAshhya", we get goose pimples with immense amazement and immense joy. It can be proclaimed that those who read this and comprehend the meaning are the fortunate ones and made their lives fecund.

Respected K. T. pANDurangi earned the complete grace of shrI rAghavendrasvAmi by translating this "aNubhAshhya" into Kannada in comprehensible-to-all and very beautiful style.

shrI shrI 108 vidyAmAnya tIrtha svAmi"

You are mixing svAtantraya with kartrutva. I am not saying that jIva is passive because he gets a miniscule svAtantrya from God and does not have any by itself. I completly agree with the datta-svAtantra concept. I clearly said that if you _also_ say that jIva has absolutely no kartrutva inherent, than it will be passive like jaDa. I don't understand why do people keep misunderstanding my position even though I am so explicit in stating it. This is frustrating.

KT: I see now the cause for the misunderstanding and the consequent frustration for both sides. One is including "freedom to act" in kartR^itva and one is not. If you don't include, surely it *can* be part of svarUpasvabhAva.

That doership with not in any way affect the position of God nor will it create any chaos because

1. this doership in jIva-s is limited but inherent

2. jIva-s still are paratantra

3. God is fair (I mean unbiased)

4. jIva-s have different svarUpa-s

5. God is omnipotent

6. God is omniscient

7. Both God and jIva-s are eternal and some other stuff

Show me where is the chaos coming from, just by granting #1 OTOH, if you strike #1, you have a lot of trouble as I have outlined earlier.

KT: If svAtantrya is chopped off from "doer-ship" (which seems what you did by stating #2), then there is no problem.

As far a sadAgmas are concerned, I already pointed out that they are also under scrutiny here, so we cannot take shelter under them To make the point again, agma has to be interpreted in order to agree with world reality, not the other way.

KT: In cases where pratyaxa fails (as in anAditva) and where anumAna fails for lack of support from pratyaxa and Agama, only Agama rules as that is the only refuge. The question of scrutiny does not even arise here. In our case, Agama does not contradict any pratyaxa.

More details can be seen here:

http://www.sripurandaraashrama.org/php/JivaKartrutva.php