Manava Dharmashastra 1.28

1.28

asyāyamarthaḥ | yadyapi prajāpatīrīśvaro bhūtasṛṣṭau śaknoti yathecchaṃ prāṇinaḥ sraṣṭuṃ tathāpi na pūrvakalpakṛtāni karmāṇyanapekṣya prāṇinaḥ sṛjati | yena yādṛśaṃ purākalpe karma kṛtaṃ tatkarmācitāyāṃ jātau taṃ janayati, na jātyantare | śubhena karmaṇā tatphalopabhogyāyāṃ devamanuṣyādijātau janayati, viparītena tiryakpretādiṣu | yathaiva bhūtendriyaguṇāḥ kalpādau prakṛtisthā udbhavanti evaṃ karmāṇyapi pralaye svaprakṛtisthāni punarudbhavanti sargādau | 'tataḥ śeṣeṇe'tyeṣa nyāyastatrāpyastyeva | "yadi tarhi karmāpekṣotpattiḥ, ka prajāpateraiśvaryamupayogi kīdṛśaṃ vā sāpekṣamaiśvaryam" | tasmin sati jagata utpatteḥ kathamanupayogaḥ | na tamantareṇa sthityutpattipralayāḥ santi | nityatvāttasya svakṛtānyapi karmāṇi kāraṇaṃ tadicchā'pi prakṛtipariṇāmaśca | etasyāḥ kāraṇasāmagryā idaṃ jagadutpadyate tiṣṭhati pralīyate ca | sāpekṣasyāpyaiśvaryaṃ na vihanyate | yatheha rājādirīśvaro bhṛtyādīna phalena yojayaṃ devamevādikarmānurūpeṇaiva yojayati | na cānīśvaraḥ | "nanu nāsya ślokasyāyamarthaḥ pratīyate | kiṃ tarhi pratīyate ? vidhātureva prāṇināṃ karmaviniyoge svātantryam | sa yaṃ prāṇinaṃ prathamaṃ sargādau yasmin karmaṇi hiṃsātmake tadviparīte vā nyayuṅkta sa tadeva karma bhajate karoti | na pitrāderanuśāsanamapekṣya svecchayā'nyathā pravartate, kiṃ tarhi, prākprajāpatiniyogavaśātsādhvasādhu vā svayamanyānuśāsananirapekṣo'nutiṣṭhati | sṛjyamānaḥ punarjāyamānaḥ | kalpāntare'sminneva vā kalpe prajāpatireva kṣetrajñāṃstatkartṛtvena niyuṅkte | atastanniyogamevānuvartamānāḥ prācīnaṃ śubhamaśubhaṃ vā karma kurvanti | taduktam | ‘kartṛtvaṃ pratipadyante anīśāḥ sveṣu karmasu | maheśvareṇa preryante śubhe vā yadi vā'śubhe’ iti | ‘ajño janturanīśo'yamātmanaḥ sukhaduḥkhayoḥ | īśvaraprerito gacchetsvargaṃ vā śvabhrameva vā’ |” ucyate | evaṃ sati karmaphalasambandhastyaktaḥ syāt puruṣakārānarthakyaṃ ca syāt | agnihotrādikarmopadeśo brahmopāsanāśca vyarthāḥ prasajyeran | ya eveśvarasvarūpānabhijñāsta eva dṛṣṭādṛṣṭārtheṣu karmasu pravarteran | ye tu tadadhīnaṃ kartṛtvaṃ bhoktṛtvaṃ ca manyante teṣāṃ sarvatrāpravṛttiprasaṅgaḥ | kṛtamapi na tatkarma phalati-akartāro'pi bhokṣyāmaha iti manyamānā udāsīran | na ca vyādhirivāpathyādviduṣāṃ balādicchopajāyate kartṛtva īśvarapreraṇayā | atha karmaphala sṛṣṭyā tadicchā niścitā asmātkarmaṇa idaṃ kartṛtvaṃ bhavatīti, na tarhi ‘yaṃ tu karmaṇī’ tyetadasti | śāstrādeva niyogaḥ pratipattavyaḥ | tasmādyaṃ puruṣaṃ sa prabhuḥ prathamaṃ nyayuṅkta—anādau saṃsāre ‘prathamaṃ’ vartamānāpekṣam, niyoktṛtvaṃ cāsya sarvabhāveṣu, dikkālanimittakāraṇatvāt | anye tu vyācakṣate | jātyantarāpannasyātmano na pūrva jātisaṃskārāpekṣā | ataḥ svabhāvānuvṛttiḥ | yaṃ jātiviśeṣaṃ yasminkarmaṇi niyuktavān paravadhādau sa siṃhādijātīya ātmā sampanno manuṣyatve mārdavamabhyastamapi hitvā jātidharmaṃ pratipadyate anyenānupadiṣṭamapi | svābhāvyātprajāpatikṛtatvāt karmāṇi balavanti prāgabhyāsaṃ jātyantaragatasya vismārayantīti pradarśitaṃ bhavati |
etadeva vistārayati

Each being, when created again and again, naturally conformed to that same act to which the lord had, at first, directed him.—(28)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The meaning of this verse is as follows:—Even though Prajāpati, being the supreme director of the creation of things, can create living creatures just as he chooses, yet, as a matter of fact, he creates them, not without reference to the actions done by them during the preceding cycles; he makes the creature born in that family of creatures which is indicated by the act done by it during the previous cycle,—and never in any other family; if the creature has, in the past, done a good act, it is led to be born in a family in which it would be enabled to experience the good results of that act,—in such families for instance, as ‘God,’ ‘Man’ and so forth; if, on the other hand, the acts of the creature have been bad, it is born in such families as ‘animals,’ ‘evil spirits’ and the like. What happens is that at the beginning of each new creation, the acts done by creatures in the previous cycle come out, after having, during Dissolution, lain latent within their source; just in the same manner as the Elements, the Organs and the Constituent Attributes come out at the beginning of each creation, after having lain latent within their source, in the Boot Evolvent. And the reason for this lies in the fact that the law relating to the ‘residue of the past’ (affecting the future) applies with equal force to the case in question also.

Question:—“If the coming into existence (of a creature) is dependent upon its own past acts, where then does the almighty power of Prajāpati come in? Of what sort too would be the almighty power which is dependent upon extraneous influences?”

Answer:—It is only when the said almighty power is there and (active) that the world comes into existence; how then can the said power he said to have no effect at all? In fact, neither continuance, nor production, nor dissolution (of the world) is possible except when that power is present,—the power of God being ever present, at all times. In reality, what lead to a creature being born are (1) acts done by itself, (2) the will of Prajāpati and (3) the evolution of the Root Evolvent. It is by all this set of causes that this world is produced, exists and becomes dissolved. The mere fact of Prajāpati being influenced by the things does not deprive him of his almighty power. The case stands upon the same footing as a king bestowing upon his servants and dependents the rewards for acts done by them; exactly in the same manner Prajāpati assigns to each creature what is in accordance with its previous acts; and yet neither the King nor Prajāpati cease to be ‘all-powerful.’

Objection:—

“The meaning assigned to the verse does not appear to be its right meaning at all. What appears to be its right meaning is that the Creator is entirely independent in assigning their work to the creatures. The verse thus means as follows:—‘Every creature conformed to,—i.e., carried on—that same action—in the form either of doing harm to others, or its contrary,—to which the Lord had directed it at—at the beginning of creation’; that is, man does not have recourse to actions, cither entirely on the advice of his father and other elders, or by his own will; in fact, whatever good or bad action he performs, he does wholly in accordance with Prajāpati’s directions, entirely uninfluenced by the advice of any other person.

‘When created again’—i.e., when born again, whether in another cycle, or in this same cycle,—it is Prajāpati alone who directs all animate beings to be the doers of actions; hence even past good and bad acts arc done by them only in obedience to the directions of Prajāpati; this has been thus declared:—‘They become agents without being masters of their own actions; to the good or the bad act they are led on by God’; and again ‘this ignorant creature has no control over his pleasure and pain; it is only as led on by God that he goes to heaven or to hell.’”

To the above we make the following reply:—If the suggested explanation were accepted, (1) it would mean the abandoning of the idea of an inseparable connection between Actions and their results,—(2) it would also mean that all human effort is useless (everything being determined entirely by the independent will of God),—(3) and it would mean that the injunctions of the Agnihotra and such acts, as well as the worshipping of Brahman, are entirely futile; in fact it would come to this that actions for visible or invisible results would be undertaken by only such men as are ignorant of the nature of God; while those who are of opinion that the doing of actions and the enjoying of their results are dependent on the will of God would never engage in any form of activity; they would keep away from activity under the impression that ‘even though an action may be done, its result may not follow (if God so wished it), and even though we may not do the act, we may enjoy its results (if God so willed it).’ Especially because the desire for being the doer of a certain act does not arise in the man forcibly through the prompting of God, as illness arises from unwholesome food; on the other hand, if the said desire is held to be determined by the connection between the action and its result,—the idea being that ‘this result follows from this action’—then it would not be true that ‘the Lord directed the man to the act’ (as the text says).