fullness, they become vibhti; otherwise, they are symptoms of the basic problem - a

sense of lack, a feeling of insufficiency. Vednta is a source for and a methodology

aimed at the discovery of ones own wholeness. Therefore the student undertakes the
knowledge of brahman, knowledge for which the subject matter is brahman.
akara explains what 'karma updnahetu' means. His design and his
definitions here are typical of his bhya. The cause for initiating action is desire. Why?
Because, if there is a desire, you will act. If there is no desire, you will not act. Before
doing, there is a desire. Desire is what is common to all action. A desire can be binding or
non-binding. For this subject matter, we need to be clear that we are talking about
binding desires, only about binding desires. Desire is always for an end. There is no
desire to do karma for its own sake; there is always an end involved something you
want and expect out of it. A binding desire is one that, if not satisfied, leaves you feeling
incomplete, imperfect, inadequate.
akara says that he has a desire to write a commentary. There is
karttvam with regard to his writing his sense of 'by me this is done.' Is it a binding
desire? It is non-binding. If akaracould not fulfill his desire to write, he would not
think less of himself. It is bdhitakarma, non-binding, neutralized. It does not have
any sting. It has no capacity to bind. Non-binding means that the non-fulfillment of the
desire does not make a great difference in ones life. Fulfillment can make some
difference; the non-fulfillment does not make any difference. Fulfillment should make a
difference; otherwise, why would a person have a desire? But non-fulfillment neither
creates a sense of loss nor confirms a sense of incompetence; the desire is therefore
reasonable. Somebody benefits by the fulfillment, by the writing of the bhya, but if it
is not finished, akarais not a loser. He knew that if he did not do it, somebody else
would do it. It is that kind of mind that is not bound. His desire is a non-binding desire.
Binding desire alone is the cause of karma. Pravtti is advance, inclination;
Nivtti is avoidance, aversion; both are kma. For everybody, whether jn or
ajn, kma is the hetu for karma.
Now,
using
the
method
of
invariable
concomitance,
anvayavyatirekanyya,
akara explains
the
human
condition.
Anvayavyatirekanyya is the logical rule of presence and absence, of positive and
negative assertion 'when one is there the other is there, when one is not there the other
is not there.' Sweet coffee demonstrates anvaya: when the sugar is there, sweetness is
there. The understanding is that the sugar gives sweetness. This is the basic method used
for all scientific research. Anvayavyatireka is a fact of all life, not just Vednta.
For all of ones desires to be gained, to be fulfilled, is not possible. Has there ever
been a person who fulfilled all his childhood desires? Each individual is here in his
particular situation because there were many desires he did not fulfill. As a child, an
individual has many desires, and he inevitably has to learn to settle for something less
than total fulfillment. What's more, the childs parents project their own desires onto their
offspring. An individual absorbs all these ideas about what he should have and be, and he
feels guilty that he cannot accomplish much of anything, always settling for less than
fulfillment.
Does that make settling on Vednta, coming to sit with the guru, the least of
all? Finally the least? By sitting in front of a guru does a person confirm that he cannot

11

make it out in the world? No, it means that his choice is the other direction. His choice is
to explore what is both inside and outside, not just the outside. There is no competition
when one sits with the guru. One need not try to prove that he got this or that job. He
need not increase his savings or develop his skills. He comes to be with himself, the
guru and the Lord. There is nothing he is asked to become. He is away from that rat
race. He can be secure in his choice.
If a person really understands Vednta, he knows he is ptakma. Kmais
intended for both security and nanda. A sense of security means 'I am secure.' The
other fellows, those who are not here with the guru, are seeking that sense. They are
doing things in an attempt to become secure. Dharmaarthakma is the process of
seeking security by gaining objects and situations and positions, wealth and recognition
and pleasure and power. But the fellow with those goals is basically insecure, and in his
desire to become secure he grasps for things which do not afford security. Here, where
you listen and learn with the guru, you have to stand on your own. Real security means
the self is secure. How do you make the self secure? How do you make an insecure self
secure? What can be added to an insecure self, one that is afraid that it is going to lose, to
come up short, one that is afraid that it is not capable or smart enough?
There is no process or formula of addition or subtraction that will afford a secure
self. The only way to see yourself secure is to discover yourself to be a secure person.
This would be impossible if your true nature were insecurity. There is no becoming
secure; there is nothing you can do to produce security. But if the nature of yourself is
irrefutable security and there is nothing more secure than yourself, if you are that
satyam - fullness not subject to change, not variable - then you are secure. If you are
that changeless whole self, then there is no question of your changing into someone with
an insecure nature. If kasthanitytm is yourself, then you are secure. You are
satyam, and everything else is mithy - entirely dependent on you. You do not
depend on anything. That is ptakma.
ptakma is nanda too, because aham pra. Pratvam cannot be
improved upon; the whole jagat is you; heaven is you; everything is you. Just sitting
under a tree, the one who understands pratvam can say, I am everything. That is
ptakmatvam: all desires as well fulfilled. What desire can bring, ultimately, is you,
your abiding appreciation of your wholeness. Money and influence and comfort can give
you relative security, but ultimate security is the knowledge that you do not need to
become other than what you are. And absolute nanda is you because your nature is
wholeness, pratvam. Those who recognize the truth that is self are ptakma.
What do they do when they know? Do they perform karma so they can go to svarga?
They are not opposed to karma. They would never disturb somebody doing a karma for
going to heaven. Yet they know the difference between self-knowledge and the results of
karma.
Relative sukha is what sasra has to offer. If a person is interested in more
than sukha, perhaps he will ask what 'more' is. Perhaps he has heard something about
brahmavidy making one ptakma. Brahmavidy is meant for those who ask.
There must be a recognition of the untenability of the pursuit of desires as a means to
absolute security. ptakma is a word for the one for whom all the objects of desire are
pta, are as well gained, because ahamidasarvam. There are two desires: desire

12

for objects and desire for oneself, for knowledge of oneself. When a person has the
knowledge that is self, all desires are fulfilled. It is knowledge of the self that is
everything, and there is no other self. Everything that is here, everything, is my self - that
is the knowledge of the self. That is ptakma. For the ptakma, karmasu
pravttyanupatti, because there is no binding desire for insubstantial ends. Being
awake to his own fullness, he has no inclination toward karma.
When does a person become ptakma? One never becomes ptakma. If
tm is nanda for you, you do not need to desire to become nanda. Why would
you desire something you already have. You can desire something you do not have, or
you can desire to get rid of something you do have. Suppose tm is nanda, that I am
nanda.' If you are nanda, you need not want to become nanda. Then and only
then, all desires are fulfilled - ptakma. How is that achieved? Self-knowledge is the
gain of the already gained. How does it work? How does knowledge not work?
Knowledge moves like a rocket; watch: tm is brahman, brahman is everything.
How long does it take light to remove darkness? The one who is brahman, stra
says here, the one who knows brahman, gains param, limitlessness, fullness,
ptakma.
akara explains that brahmavidy is what is important for both the
elimination of the cause of karmapravtti, karma updna, and for the
fulfillment of the kma for self-knowledge. Brahmavidy is understanding tm and
brahman. And brahman happens to be pramanantam. Therefore, knowing 'I am
brahman,' you are pra, ptakma. The topic is there; the connection is there. The
kmyakarma in the karmaka are meant for various phala, and when a person is
free of expectation of the phala, appropriate action yields antakaraauddhi.
The same actions and rituals meant to produce their declared results can be done for
antakaraauddhi. This is the connection between the karmaka and
vednta. The student can see how Bhyakra connects the two sections of the
Veda.
ptakmata is possible only when there is tmakmatvam.
tmakmatvam is not simple tmajneccha, because here kma indicates
nanda. That which is most desireable is nanda, and nanda is atmaiva. That is
the only way to ptakma. Few people look to tm for nanda. What most people
invariably do is to seek nanda in antmfor the sake of tm. In order to be happy
most people are interested in something other than tm. They are convinced happiness
has to be imposed upon the self. They believe the self should become happy. Their hope
is that by gaining one thing or another they will become happy. Their happiness seems to
come and go with the gain of desired outcomes. The conclusion they make is I am
unhappy. I am missing something. I come up short, and I must keep pursuing my desires.'
If tm is itself nanda, if nanda is the tmasvarpa, then even when a
person enjoys a moment of happiness as a result of gaining something desireable, his
nanda is tmnanda alone. All nanda is svarpnanda and there is no
viaynanda. No object or situation of itself confers happiness; rather, in the moment
of gaining something desireable, you get back to yourself. tm nandasvarpa. For
whom tm is known to be nanda, for whom tm is the most desireable thing, for

13

that person there is no need for the desire to be happy. There may be a desire to do, but
for that person there is no desiring to become happy.
Question: Why should a person go for brahmavidy? What is the connection
between tm and brahman? Doesnt a person just need to know his happiness?
In order to gain tmakmatvam, one must understand tm is brahman.
Brahman means satyam, satyavastu - that because of which everything is. Only
when 'ahabrahmsmi' is clear and constant does a person know he is ptakma.
The recognition of wholeness includes the resolution of all sense of separation from that
which is here and from that which got it here. Brahmavit param pnoti; ayam
tm brahma. tm happens to be brahman - that part of it is not known to you.
That is the knowledge to be gained. The one who has gained knowledge is tmakma.
The brahmavit is tmakma. He is the one who has gained the knowledge of tm
being pra and therefore nanda. That knower alone gains param. That is what is in
TaittiryaUpaniad, and that is what Bhyakra is saying here.
nanda is that for which there is no comparison. nanda is tmasvarpa.
nanda is not bliss, and it is nothing other than unconditional freedom from any sense
of limitation. nanda is pratvam, limitless fullness, limitlessness. Whenever a
person experiences nanda as happiness or satisfaction, what he experiences is the
wholeness that is his very nature. When a person gets what he wants, the object desired
and the subject, the desirer, become one whole. There is no sense of lack when the
connection is made and nanda is enjoyed. Then, at the moment the person decides or
feels that the object is not that good, when it no longer meets his expectations, the
nanda goes. When the object no longer satisfies his longing, the loss of conviction that
his happiness is contingent on that object or situation makes the wholeness go. He sets
aside the conjunction of desirer and desired and again becomes wanting, intent on new
sources of satisfaction. If a person does not see himself as wanting, there is wholeness
there is no division into wanter and wanting. Wholeness is the truth of the tm: the
object is brahman and the subject also is brahman. That is what we call the whole.
Wholeness is what is experienced in sukha. Brahman is the whole which you are.
Brahmnanda is your very nature. That is the truth of self, and if there is no doubt
about that, the one who knows that truth is the ptakma.
Karmapravttihetu: The cause for the pravtti, the pursuit, of karma
is kma, desire. Desire is what one has to eliminate. How to eliminate desire? By
knowing tm to be brahman, desire goes away. By that knowledge there is
avidynivtti. Fundamentally there is no kmanivtti. Brahmavidy does
not eliminate desire; it eliminates ignorance of brahman. In the same way, potknowledge does not eliminate a desire for the attracive and useful pot - it eliminates the
ignorance with respect to the pot. Vidy is virodh, is opposed, only to avidy. As
a result of knowledge, avidynivtti takes place. Kma is eliminated because
tmkma yields knowledge of one's inherent fullness and of the emptiness of binding
desires. tm is nandasvarpa; tm is kmasvarpa. tm is that which is
very pleasing, the most pleasing, the most desireable, the priyatama. tm is the most
beloved, because nandasvarpa. When that fact - tm being brahman - is
known, what goes away is only avidy.

14

Because tm being brahman is something that has to be heard and understood,

there is such a thing as avidy. Without stra there is no way to know the whole of
tm is brahman.' When ignorance of tm being brahman is gone, svtmani
avasthnam. This phrase does not translate precisely. Avasthnam means abiding,
stay, being. Therefore, svtmaniavasthnam means staying in ones own tm, in
ones svarpa. How do you stay in yourself? It has nothing to do with location or
position. Who would it be that goes or stays - there is only one tm? Whose is the
avasthnam? Avasthnam must mean that, with reference to the fact of tm being
brahman, I have no ignorance. The absence of ignorance alone is svtmanih,
svtmani avasthnam. Brahmtmani avasthnam is nothing but
avidynivtti. Ajnanivtti is what is pointed out here. Avidynivtti
alone is tmani avasthnam. Self-knowledge is the removal of ignorance with
regard to the identity of tm and brahman. Brahman is knowledge and neither the
result of action nor a specific experience.
What you experience now is brahman. You do not require a special experience
for brahman. The search for special experiences is the life of the sasr. Sasr
is the one who looks for desireable experiences. Any experience is brahman - whether
you see or you hear, you walk or you wait, you think or you sleep or you dream. Every
experience is brahman. All that is happening, every experience, is brahman;
otherwise, brahman becomes an object, another piece of cheese with holes. If
brahman is an object, you have to go where brahman is to have brahman experience.
Having an experience of brahman is what modern Vednta proposes, and the
proposal was around before too. It did not make sense then either. Brahman is not a
pond where you take a dip. All that is here is brahman; sarva khalvida
brahma. Do you need to dive deep into your heart to get to brahman? The diving is
brahman, the diver is brahman, and the heart too is brahman. You are never away
from brahman. If at all there is a difficulty in this, the difficulty would be how to get out
of brahman. That is difficult. That is a problem. You cannot get out of brahman. All
that is here is brahman, Paramevara, Bhagavn. There is no such thing as outside
brahman. We will see that brahman is everything and is the cause of everything.
Svtmani avasthnam is nothing but avidynivtti. Once a person
knows he is brahman, do you think he could forget it? Can you forget yourself?
Brahman is not a matter for memory. Brahman is not a formula you can forget?
Anything that you can forget is forgettable. And if it is forgotten, it is not that important.
If a student forgets a grammar stra in Sanskrit class it is understandable. Whatever is
forgettable is an object. An object can be forgotten, and that is fine. You forgot to grab
your keys - true; you forgot your shirt - maybe; you forgot your umbrella - of course; we
drop things all over. This is how people are. But can a person say, "I forgot to bring
myself."? Either you know the self or you do not know. If you are not ignorant about
yourself, that knowledge is all that you are. Wherever you go, no matter where you go,
whatever you do, you cannot forget.
Here, there is nothing to remember - it is you, the rememberer, the one who
forgets, that person. Either you are ignorant of that person or you are knowledgeable.
When you know there is no ignorance with regard to the self, that is svtmani
avasthnam, nih. What about ravaam, mananam, and nididhysanam?

15

They are all a part of knowing; we are talking about the one who is free from ignorance,
who knows. For that person, there is svtmanih. That is what is called
paraprpti. Param is not a loka. Paraprpti is not lokasukha, because
loka requires karma. Here, by knowing brahman, one gets the result - brahmavit
param pnoti. Not only that, abhayam pratihm vindate. The knower
gains the nihthat is fearlessness, the non-dual brahman that is fearless. He is free
from fear, frr from fear of death and the rest.
The knower of brahman is satyam; where is fear? Fear is centered on I. Any
anxiety is centered on I, not on the humble mind. Mind is a great angel given to you.
You unnecessarily blame the mind. Mind is not a problem. What is the problem? What
you think about yourself is the problem. That is a problem. That is the basic problem.
Mind is used carelessly and inappropriately when it is used for that thinking. And there is
no way to manipulate the mind to avoid habitual self-degrading thoughts. The
conclusions about aham are the problem. These thoughts take many forms: I am
anxious, I am frightened, I am angry, I am unworthy, I am lacking, I am mortal. All these
conclusions, and all similar conclusions, are centered on I. Conclusions centered on I
constitute sasra. Where the ahamarises is where the problem is. You are not going
to get better by asking, "Who am I; Who am I?" The solution to the problem centered on
'I' requires a means of knowledge directly related to I. The source of sorrow is I, and
that is due to ajnam. You are the source of sorrow; you are the source of nanda.
Due to ignorance, you are the source of sorrow; due to jnam, you know I am
nanda.'
Here in his bhya, akara quotes a mantra from the end of the second
vall of Taittirya Upaniad to point out that everything is the Lord. The
equation of the Lord and the individual is exclusively a matter of knowledge. The knower
of brahman gains everything. Bramajnena ptakma bhavati. The
connection between action and knowledge needs to be understood. The karmaka of
the Vedatalks about various karmasfor people who are interested in minor results,
and it talks about nityanaimittikakarma. A person can use those karmas for
gaining antakaraauddhi. For gaining results or for the result that is
antakaraauddhi - those are the two roles of the first portion of the Veda.
The student may come to appreciate that karmapravttihetu is kma, and
kmanivtti takes place only when tm, nanda, becomes his kma. For a
student, nanda becomes the object of desire. The student turns to brahmavidy. He
turns to mokastra, which is called Vednta. There is a certain analysis that is
undertaken. It is all meant for understanding the nature of karma and the nature of
jnam. The difference between the two must be understood very well.
The Swami holds up a flower and says, This is a flower. Is this karma or
knowledge? It is knowledge. Suppose the Swami says that the flower is an apple. The
student can only say that it is not. Even if Bhagavncomes and tells the student it is an
apple, the student must say that it is not. Even Bhagavn cannot sway the student,
because valid knowledge is not open to choice. Neither can the Swami say it is both an
apple and a flower. No other option is possible - it is a flower.
Suppose the Swami says, Look at this object and do not see it. You cannot look
at the object and not see it. You means soul, self, subject, mind, eyes - all together

16

you.' If your eyes are not defective, you will see the object - there is no choice.
Knowledge of the object is as good as the object. This is called vastutantram,
pramatantram: the knowledge is centered on the object and on the means of
knowledge. If your eyes can see, they will see, and knowledge takes place. It is not
possible not to know the object. There is no choice involved with regard to knowledge.
Now consider karma, kriy, action. Karma means there is choice: you can do
it, you need not do it, you can do it differently. Karma means you can do it differently.
Karma is puruatantram, centered on an individuals will. Knowledge has nothing
to do with your will; will does not come into play. Will is suspended when knowledge is
involved. Will vitiates knowledge; therefore, will is suspended when knowing is
involved. The human will is not the be all and end all. Will is suspendable. Ahakra is
suspendable. When you are knowing, there is essentially no ahakra. There is a
knowing subject, but there is no willful ahakra. Whereas when you are doing, there
is willful ahakra.
Is tm, brahman, to be known or to be gained as the result of karma? If
tm could become brahman, it would have to be as the result of karma. One would
have to make tm into brahman. The supposition would be that tm is not
brahman and one has to do something to make it brahman. You humidify a banana to
ripen it and incubate an egg to hatch it? In the white heat and luminous blue light of
meditation tm blossoms into brahman. No, this is more modern Vednta, and it is
wrong. tm is not something to be converted into brahman, because tm is
brahman. Brahman should be known as it is. You do want antakaraauddhi;
you do want vara'sgrace; you do want all obstacles to go away. What should you
do? Perform karma, prayers, rituals, participate. You have to earn the things you want;
for those you have to act. But brahmajnam is not the product of karma.
One may have to do something, and we have a tradition which educates us as to
what to do. A sannys is called yati. He goes to the teacher and stays in the
gurukula, studying. That is the yatana. Understanding the prama properly is
what he realizes. That is another type of yatana. But jnam being what is required
for moka, there is no karma apek for the seeker of the truth that is self.
There is a school of thought called prvammsaka. Its adherents hold that
karma delivers moka. For them, removal of ignorance is not the means to moka.
They say karma is the means to moka because, as long as a jva is connected to a
body, rga and dvea will be present and operational. The person is an agent of
karma and is subject to sasra. They say that the connection between tm and the
dehais the cause of bondage. If the individual knocks off the connection, he is mukta.
Future birth is what one has to avoid. In this life an individual cannot bring about the
separation of tm and the body. As long as an individual has prrabdhakarma, the
connection will be there. But a person can get moka by avoiding future birth. One does
that by avoiding its cause - in the same way, one can avoid a disease by doing the things
that prevent it. When the cause goes away, the effect goes away.
For the prvammsaka, karma, not avidy, is the cause for the
association with a new body. If the cause - karmaphala, puyappa,
adakarma - can be avoided, there will be no new birth. The prvammsaka
says that the Veda gives a clean plan for liberation: Do not do prohibited actions. Do

17

not cause harm; do not tell lies; do not drink alcohol; do not eat meat, and so on - all the
Vedic injuctions. Do not do the donts, and do the dos. One does vihitakarma. One
acts in accord with the things that ought to be done, and one does not do the
kmyakarma which will give rebirth in heaven. Just keep doing the
nityanaimittikikarma, because not doing them attracts ppa. If one does do
them, nothing accrues. It is like bathing: if one does it, nothing is accomplished; if one
does not do it, something bad happens. One does not do any act that will cause a result or
attract ppa. Whenever necessary, one does a neutralizing karma. That is all. Then the
prrabdhakarma runs out automatically. In time, the prrabdha is exhausted.
Then, when the person dies, there is no new karma and, therefore, no new birth. That is
moka, and the person did not have to study grammar or anything - just do the daily
prayers. tm being brahman, one does not require jnam. This is the
prvammsaka argument.
akara presents the prvammsaka and another argument. Then he
answers. The other argument is that going to heaven is moka. This is the position of
Islam and Christianity and Hare Krishna. Why not? Go to heaven and you will always be
happy. Maybe. But heaven is an unverifiable promise - one a person has to live with and
die with. One has to die with the promise and wake up and figure out where he is. These
are the two alternatives akaraaddresses. akaraclearly answers how neither of
these arguments explains moka.
'Prvapaka' is an objection raised as part of a rhetorical discussion. There are
two of them here. One is from the mmsaka. The prvapakin gave the
mmsaka plan for moka which we saw above and which is repeated here.
Kmyakarma, whether a ritual or laukikakarma, is meant for producing a desired
result: puya, some result later, svargdi, something a person wants. rambha is a
beginning. By not initiating any kmyakarma, because it can attract puya, and by not
doing any prohibited karma, pratiiddhakarma, because it attracts ppa, a person
does not gather that which brings about a new birth. To have the bhoga, the experience,
of puyappa, a person has to take a new birth. But the mmsaka says that the
exhaustion of accumulated puya is not compulsory - one need not take a birth to
exhaust puya - and one avoids the accumulation of ppa which would necessarily
result in prvajanma. The body a person has now is the fructification of the
prrabdhakarma. The unfolding of the prrabdha explains parentage and time
and place of birth. Prrabdhakarma is being exhausted. It is limited in quantity and it
will come to an end. Puya and ppa automatically get exhausted by experience. One
need do nothing else to accomplish moka but avoid accumulating new karma.
Vihita, niyata, karma- ritual and prayer which have to be done as a daily
duty, and naimittikikarma, nityakarma - those karma which one does with
assiduous, consistent practice, are to be done; otherwise, one attracts ppa. When these
karma are not done, the individual attracts ppa, pratyavya ppa. Doing those
karma - and without any other special effort such as seva, ravaam, going to the
guru and so on - prrabdhawill be exhausted, and there will be no karma to cause
rebirth. There is no new sambandhato a deha; therefore no sukhaduka. That is
mokaprpti; there is no rebirth. The person remains as tmalone, without taking
a body. He has moka. Taking to a life of sannysa is not necessary. That will not

18

give moka anyway. One does only that which has been said here. Do the enjoined
karma, nityakarma, and by that gain moka. This is the mmsakaargument.
The other contention is the one that all other religions talk about: moka is
niratiayaprti. Ia is prti, sukha; it is what a person loves. Moka is the
sukha that is incomparable - superlative sukha. That is what one gets in svarga.
When these heaven-going religions say 'svarga,' the meaning is sukha, the superlative
sukha that is not available anywhere else. Svargaprpti means sukhaprpti.
The meaning of the word heaven is incomparable sukha. This argument contends that
sukha is born only out of karma. A person has to do special karmas by which he
will go to svarga. Heavenly sukha is not something gained naturally, one has to work
for it. Sukha is caused by karma. There are certain karmasthat give birth to moka.
By them a person gains amta. That is moka for the believers in svarga. These are
the two arguments.
akara takes up the first argument with 'karma anekatvt.' He tells the
prvapak that it is not that simple. Karma is not of one or two kinds. There are
many categories of karma, and individual karmas are endless. The prvapakn
says not to do the karma which gather puyappa and to do the others. A person who
restricts his actions in this way avoids the cause of new birth. But karma are many, not
these few. If what the prvapakn says were true, every animal would get moka.
An animal does not have a capacity to desire; there is no kmyakarma and there is no
pratiiddhakarma. The animals behavior is programmed and there is no ppa.
When the tiger kills, there is no ppa because there is no doership, no karttvam, no
adaphala. Animals have only daphala. The animal does what it is
programmed to do. Its prrabdhatakes place; it lives its life and dies. According to
the prvapak contention, this jva - the animal - has fulfilled the requirements for
not taking a new birth. Is being a buffalo a more advantageous birth than a human one for
the gain of moka?
akara answers his own question. No, the animal will come back. It has
sacitakarma. It has countless karmasthat have not yet begun to fructify. They are
all waiting, untapped in this lifetime. Those karma will translate themselves into a given
body and place and time. They have to create a body through which maturing karma can
be fulfilled. Each individuals sacitakarma is countless, because each has had
countless births. Lives in human or human-like bodies are where a jva earns animal
bodies. Where there is karttvam, self-consciousness, is where one gathers karma,
and it is not just on this earth that there can be life. Even with only one human birth - all
ones other births being mosquito or whatever - in one cycle of creation, a person will
generate countless karma, almost infinite karma. They are all waiting, clamoring to
express themselves. The sacitakarma surfaces after death to match up with a new
body.
akara explains the hetu now. There are any number of karmas and
varieties of karma in a person's account. There are karmas for which the result has
already fructified or is now fructifying. These are the rabdhaphalni - such as
those that account for a persons present body. This is the karma one tries to figure out
with a horoscope. It is decodable. Whereas the anrabdhaphalni give no indication
at all. There is no liga for them. A person cannot predict which is going to come or

19

what types there are. One can only presume, and these karmas are endless. The
accumulated karma that a being has are of such variety that, when these karma order
up a new body, he can assume any form of life. All combinations are available - from
octopus onward. When did the being acquire all these karmas? They are not just from
one previous birth. The previous births where an individual builds up the
sacitakarma are countless. But one thing is certain, in every janma that did
produce karma for a being, the body that he had was evolved enough to have selfconsciousness creating, causing, karttvam. The being had the faculty of choice in
those births that did yield karma. Only then, with choice, can a person gather puya
and ppa. Human birth or its equivalent had to have been there at some stage to
accumulate a sacita.
The stra says it, and we have to accept it. Every star is a sun, and each can
have a system of planets. There are billions and billions of stars. We cannot live like
frogs in a well. In the vast universe there are other beings. Just here a person has
countless births from which he has accumulated karma. There has been sufficient time
in all the kalpa to do so. Sukha and dukha are opposed to each other, and they are
to be experienced by the human. There are different types of each and different actions
that go along with them. There are different karma. When you say you accept future
birth, it means there is previous janma. When you accept previous birth, the previous go
back, one after another, endlessly. You have to accept the viruddhaphalni
karmi.
There are varieties of karma, and among them the prrabdha accounts for
this physical body. Now even if a person could avoid kmyakarma and avoid
ppakarma - which itself is not possible because of karttvam - when did he start
accomplishing his plan for moka? What about those karma he did earlier in this life before he put this plan into action?
For the sake of argument, lets say that for one birth, this birth, he has not
produced any karma. What about the anrabdhaphalni karmi? He can
exhaust rabdhakarma by going through experience - but not anrabdhakarma.
He will need births in other bodies to fulfill the accumulated sacita. Those karmas
cannot be exhausted through the present incarnation. There is eakarma, leftover
karma, sacitakarma. The bodies caused by the eakarma will be born. They
are waiting. It is a karma cauldron that operates according to the law; it is not a process
of free combination. A human does not appear with a crows mind or a camel's hooves. It
all goes according to the laws. The unexpressed sacitakarma will come into play.
akara'sargument is based on rti and smti, because the process of
reincarnation is non-verifiable. Vedasays that moka is not a matter of heaven-going.
Moka is entirely different. Vedasays that moka is knowing oneself. Heaven-going
is a trip: you go to heaven and then come back. The religions come up to the point of
heaven-going and then stop. Heaven-going religions are all prvapaka for
Vednta. They ask why going to heaven is not moka. Why not avoid causative
karma and thereby gain moka? akara quotes the stra now. He quotes
because stra is the prama for the answer he will give to the prvapakin.
Within stra one can find all logic. Once a person accepts what rti says about

20