Adhikarana V. — The deeds of the Lord are eternal

 

Says, an objector: If the deeds (Karma) of the Lord shown forth in His Infancy, etc., were also eternal, then there can be a combination of all such deeds, though mentioned in different Shakhas. But the deeds are not eternal — for the very fact that they are deeds or Karmas necessarily implies that they are transitory. The word Karma or a deed, Kriya or an act, and Lila or a sport, are synonymous. The Karmas are known to have a beginning, an end, and having relation with certain individuals. The very essence of a Karma consists in having such relations with others, and as having a beginning and an end, and anything that has a beginning and an end is undoubtedly non-eternal. The Karmas of the Lord, therefore, cannot be eternal.

If it be said that the Karmas are eternal as a current is eternal — one Karma disappears but gives rise to another in the very act of disappearance, and so the Karmic Chain is eternal — this is beside the point. The proposition is that every particular Lila of the Lord is eternal, and not that one Lila is succeeded by a similar Lila and in that sense the Karma is eternal. For in this view of the eternity of the Karma of the Lord, every Lila would become transient — having a beginning and an end.

If it be said, the Karma is eternal, because it gives rise to the conception that it is the same Karma which was done at a prior time, then that also is incorrect. A particular drama may be played through many a successive night and it may be loosely said «it is the same play as was performed yesterday», but the plays (as actions) are different — though they give rise to the same conception. They are not identically same. The word same is used here in a loose way, as in the sentence «it is the same medicine which you took yesterday. Eat it». The medicine is not identically the same, but similar only — for the medicine taken yesterday no longer exists as medicine, but is absorbed in the system. There is difference between the two as entities.

But it may be said — Let there be no beginning or an end of the Karma. Let it be like the dance of painted pictures, which moving in closed circle, present the same acts over and over again, with the movements of the wheel: and so it may be said there is no break in the continuity of such a Karma, and so it is eternal. For here also, there are beginning and end, though the action is repeated over and over again, and always gives rise to the same sentiment in its observers. Therefore, the play of the Lord is not eternal. This is the objection raised and considered in the present section.

-----------

Purvapaksha: The deeds performed by the Lord in His Infancy, etc. are the attributes of the Lord, and are eternal. Therefore, these deeds are to be conceived as performed with his attendants. (There must be other actors in the play, besides the Lord, and so they must also be eternal). The one and the same retinue (the troupe of players) must also be conceived to be connected with many acts, prior and posterior in time. The prior act being eternal (according to you) the actor taking part in it must be ever connected with it — his relation with that particular act would be eternal. For that particular act would not be accomplished, without such relationship. That being so, that particular actor would not be able to take part in the subsequent act.

Note: Thus one actor Yashoda suckles the infant Krishna. If this act of suckling is an eternal Lila of the Lord, then Yashoda must be eternally suckling the child, and would not be free for the subsequent act, where she is found chastising the naughty boy.

If it be admitted that the same actor takes part in the subsequent act, then the prior act becomes transient — for that actor is no longer there. If the first act is eternal, then the actor in the second act cannot be the same person: he must be a different person. But this is both against experience and scripture.

(For example, there are not hundreds of Yashodas, nor do the scriptures say so.)

Moreover, every act has two parts — the antecedent and the subsequent, and every part has also a beginning and an end. No act can be accomplished otherwise. The experience of a sentiment depends upon this succession of acts. If every act and every part of an act is eternal, there can be no succession, and so the very object of the Lila is frustrated, for there would arise no variety of sentiments in the observers of an eternally unchanging scene. Therefore, if the Lilas of the Lord give rise to various sentiments, then they are not eternal. For the eternal is that, which like a painted picture, always gives rise to one constant sentiment.

If it be said, that though the play is eternal, its manifestations are different and many, without any break in the continuity, still the beginnings being many, there would arise difference. It would not give rise to the idea — «it is the same as that which was before», — and without such a conception, there cannot arise any idea of eternity — the play of the Lord, therefore, cannot be eternal.

Siddhanta: This objection is answered in the next Sutra: