Who is the Doer of Rainfall - Can engineers produce electricity

Introduction
It is a human tendency that we look for the doer of an activity. Who is-the doer of a rainfall? Who is the doer of earthquakes? .. But in Physics, we do not find the word,'who',Instead, in Physics we find 'how'.In Physics,We ask, "How does it rain? 'How do we have earthquake?...Based on the way, Ācārya Kundakunda has logically explained various concepts in Samayasāra,  one may find  that  Ācārya Kundakunda was aware of the limitation of answering the questions related with 'who'.This is evident from various facts which we are going to discuss in this article.

Doer of the-self
It would be appropriate to look at Samayasāra,where Ācārya Kundakunda[1] writes the following:

Meaning: The attributes and substance (Dravya) of any Dravya   do not change into those-of another  Dravya. Without suchchange,   howcan   one Dravya  transform another Dravyci! A soul  cannot  do.any attribate   or  substance,  (Dravya)   of. Pudgala Karma. Withoutdoing  these two how can 'a soul becomethe   doer of that.trnaterial   Karma)? .Irmay be noted that' AcaryaKufldakunda   does not-confine to the'above  concepts based  on  real  point  of view.  In Samayasiira,   we  find  that  on'one~'hantl   Acarya Kundakundaexplicitly    writes thatin  reality (from the real point ofviewja   soul cannot be the doerof'pitcher,     cloth,  chariot,  senses,  karmic  matter;  pJ:lyslcalh6dy,  etc. [2] but a soul can l)e the doerof one' sown  Bhava [3]: On the otherhand   from the relative point of vie~  (VyavaI1ai,a'N~ya)  it soul'becom~s   the doer ofpitcher,    Cloth, chariot, senses,  karfuic'hlatter  ,'pitys'it;:il body, etc. [4J. This concept  M r~alpomt of view has been  n~rrat~d' by  other  spi]'itmil teachers   also.  For  examp'te, 'ref~r  to Paramatma Prakiisa  [5] Question   : Based  onthe above description,   how can W~ show the agreement between  Acarya  Kundakunda  and modern  Science?               .. '''Ans~er    \Ve liese~nthtit   PhysiCs does no't'tiIis¥Jerth~ qJ6sti~h"who is the do~r?,'wh6;~aXC~l'~aRrind'~linda  answers  this question rn'th~'fol1o\~nt   h~oways: . '(i)"  ~"I~?rlity:a Dravya i~ thedoer  'of a~ythanie    in its,elForil~:'.1hu~••a soul ca~ot    be the doer of any other soul or any materialparticl{.

~\'ho is the doer ,;:do not find the ";:is related    with
 * L "How does  it Kundakunda has ind  that  Acarya
 * =55 i.n this article.

! Kundakunda L 11 ~,_..d.(o]. not change [)ravya transform

Pudgala Karma. naterial Karma)'! he above concepts )f}e hand A.dirya few) a soul cannot ical body; etc. [2] ~from the relative er, cloth, chariot, point of view has er to  Paramiitma ow the agreement 'esti6n  'who  is the l)m«;1ngtwo ways: only. Thus a soul iarticle ..

(ii)	A Dravya can become  the doer  of transformation    in other  souls  and material  particles  from the relative  point of view. Thus the point (i) conveys that a cook cannot  make  even one particle  of food. This answer is in total agreement  with Physics. But the point (ii) is meaningful when the wages to cook are to be given. The salary of a cook is a subject of Econornics, not of Physics. Physics cannot certify  the cook as the doer ofthe  cooking. It should be noted that the spiritual science as well as any religion  has to cover natural sciences as well as social  sciences. Here it is clear that point (i) is in agreement  with the natural science,  and the point (ii) is in agreement  with the social  science. Thus there may be difference  in words,  but  there  is agreement   between   modern  science  and  Acarya Kundakunda   [ see point (i)] as regards the answer  of the question-  'who is the doer?" The central theme of Samayasiira related to this aspect is simple.  In the treatise Samayasiira,   Acarya Kundakunda  answers  the question,   'who  is the doer?',  related with  all events  in two ways:  (i) Relative  point  of view,  and (ii) Real point  of view. From the relative  point of view he accepts the conventional   answer.  But the reality is . described  by the real point of view. According  to Acarya  Kundakunda,  in reality, one is the doer  of oneself  only.  Each  and every  Dravya  is a sovereign  entity  and has 'divine'   powers  to do its tasks. In other words, as per the real point of view, one Dravya  cannot be the doer of another  Dravya.   Acarya  Amratacandra   [6] has very nicely  summarized  this concept in the following verse: <:f: qftur:r~   ~  'Pm <:f:   q ROII+n      ffiCff+r m q Ro Ifd: finm rrr ;n:rqfq flri Yf ~crm      II Meaning:   The doer, deed, and action, all three,  correspond  to the same Dravya (substance). A scientific example  to illustrate  the above verse is the law of conservation  of energy,  which  says that the energy can neither  be created  nor be destroyed,   it only changes   its form. Thus in reality,  nobody  can  be the  doer  or maker  or creator  of energy. The energy in the form of mass in the uranium  converts  into the electrical energy  in the nuclear  power plant. Question:  When a child throws a stone at a glass window  then we say that the child has broken  the glass. We do not say that the glass has broken  the glass. How can we say that the glass has been broken by the glass  itself? From the relative  point  of view  we say that  the child  has broken  the glass window. For the sake ofteaching  the lesson to the child, and maintaining  the law and order  it is important  to have this point of view.

In a laboratory,  where  the research  on the development   of a new rough  and tough glass material is carried out, a scientist tests the new material to find its strength. p After completing the experiment,  the scientist reports the minimum  impact necessary to break it. His emphasis is on the nature of the material. He knows that the material                                          T breaks according  to its own nature. He understands that he is the instrumental   cause                                          m to impart the impact. Thus in the real sense, the scientist does not become  the doer of                                         p the breaking  of  the  glass,  because   he knows  that  the glass  has  its own  breaking                                          e parameters  under  which  it would  break. In other words, from the view point  of the                                         co science, the glass breaks  according  to its own property  (nature). (n Ill.    Nimitta   and   Upiidiina                                                                                                                                       an In the language  of scriptures,   we call the instrumental   cause  as Nimitta.  Any                                         m happening in an Upiidiina in accordance  with the definite laws of nature due to one or                                         N more than one Nimitta  is technically  known as an outcome due to Nimitta-  Naimittika                                          IV relationship.   The  phrase   'Nimitta-   Naimittika   relationship'    of scriptures   may  be understood  as the happening   of transformation   in accordance   with definite  laws of                                        th nature.  For more clarity  let us discuss  some concepts  in the question-answer   format. st Question  : What  about  the  involvement   of engineers   and  scientists   in  the production of electricity  in the nuclear  plant? Does natural science  give any place to                                        th engineers  and scientist  in the process? W Answer: The Physics clearly says that in the nuclear power plant, the electricity comes from the nuclear fuel, not from the pockets  of engineers  and scientists. The engineers and scientists  cannot  create energy. We all know that without labor force, security guards, politicians,  scientists, engineers, clerical staff, finance, physical  space, etc. the power  plant  can neither  be functional   nor can be sustained. But all these aspects are recognized  by the social  sciences  and engineering  disciplines,   not by the natural  sciences. None of these  persons  becomes  the part  of scientific   equations describing  the transformation   of nuclear  energy into the electricity. Question:   [f engineers   and scientists  are needed  in the nuclear  power  plant, then how can we say that they are not the doer or creator  of the electricity? Answer:  The engineers  and scientists  deserve appreciation  and salary for their contributions. But in the equations of Physics related with the production of electricity, they do not get any place. If public does not recognize  this fact then on one hand the

'~.. ba if ca PI no an W

ev co Th of[ public may be too much thankful  to them and on the other hand the public  may have and too much  expectation    from  them. In such  case,  even  the  public   may  expect   a continuous  supply of electricity   irrespecti ve of the availability  of.nuclear  fuel. alw Question:  Can we say that engineers  and scientist  associated  with the nuclear power  plant are the Nimitta  (instrumental  cause) for the production  of electricity? Answer:  The Physics  does not use this word'  Nimitta'   (instrumental   cause). The Physics   is  interested   in describing   'how'. This 'how'   is described   through machines,   forces,  and  the  laws  of nature. A.dirya Kundakunda   and  other  Indian philosophers  use' Nimitta'  word in a proper context. If all other components including engineers   and  scientists   work  properly  and  the electricity   is produced,   then  each . component is called the instrumental  cause (Nimitta),  and the actual source of energy (nuclear fuel) is called Ilpiiddna. If they make mistakes or if any component is missing and the electricity   is not produced  then they  are not called  as Nimitta. If by their mistake there is an explosion  and many persons  loose their lives then they would be Nimitta  for the deaths of those persons. IV. More advanced   concept   of Nimitta The above description of Nimitta  is very crude. In more advanced description, the things,  souls,  persons  are not called  as the Nimitta  but the specific  actions  and states leading  to the desired  specific  outcome  are considered  as Nimitta. This concept of recognizing  specific  actions of a person or a soul or a robot, as the case may  be, leading  to the desired  outcome,  as Nimitta  is so important  that it would be worthwhile  to explain  it by giving  some examples: In a cricket match,  suppose  a cricket  player  makes  six sixes on six successive balls. Certainly, he deserves  appreciation,  credit,  award, etc. But on the basis of this, if his fellow  citizens  and fans say,  'You  did very good job. Now we Ja:ow that you .can make six runs on every ball. Therefore, we request  you to continue  this practice. Please go on making such sixes. If you do this then we shall reward you, but if you do not continue  making  such sixes on every ball then we shall consider  it a match fixing and we would criticize  and punish  you." Would  he agree to this request  by his fans? Would  it be possible  to make  such sixes on all balls? At this point, the player may say, " It is not possible  for me to make six runs on every  ball. The making  of  a six runs  is a matter  of  circumstances    based  on  the conditions  ofmy  body,  mind,  incoming  ball,  etc. which are  beyond  my  control." This answer of the player seems reasonable.  In effect, he is saying that the conditions of his body, mind, and incoming  ball are the instrumental  cause for such a happening, and he is not even an instrumental  cause for the making  of sixes. Therefore,   it is not always possible  to repeat  the same.

Just like this cricket player, -a teacher, a doctor, parents, and many others should also accept similar  limitations. In the technical language  of scriptures,  one can say that the state (Paryaya)  of a Dravya   becomes  the Nimitta  (instrumental   cause),  not the Dravya  (substance  or entity). The logic is simple: if a Dravya  is an instrumental  cause (Nimitta)  then such a task can happen  every time by that  Dravya. The happening of the task again  and again by a Nimitta in association  with the Upiidanahas been termed as Nitya Kartratva by Acarya  Amratacandra   in the commentary   of Catha 100 [7]. There he explains that  Nitya  Kartratva   (always  same  success  in doing  the  same  task)  is not  always possible. Therefore, the participating   Dravya  cannot  be called  as a Nimitta,  but the states of Dravya  responsible  for the completion  of the desired  task are to be called as Nimitta. In the above example, the cricket  player says that if I can be Nimitta  of making six runs  on every  ball then I would  love to do so, but I am unable  to become  such Nimitta. Only the specific situations leading to a Six can be called as Nimitta,  not me. However, when the six-run event eakes place, then for my 'involvement' in this process, the public  gives  me credit  of making  the six runs. But the public must realize  this fact that I cannot  always be Nimitta  of making  six runs on every ball:  In this regard, we can take one example  of Chemistry:  Depending  on the specific  situations,  carbon and oxygen may combine  to form carbon monoxide(CO)   or carbon dioxide  (C02). It is also important to note that under  many  situations  carbon  and oxygen  atoms may not combine even if they are compelled  to come close to each other. These possibilities can be expressed by the following  equations:

C + 02 = CO2 C+ 02=CO+     °

C+ 02 = C + 02

The author  has  conducted   extensive   research   on  this  area  of  state-to-state Chemistry  using Molecular  Dynamics  to investigate  such issues of combination  and dissociation   of atoms and molecules,  and have found  again and again that the states of the reacting  atoms and molecules  playa  significant  role in the chemical  reactions. V.      Practical   application   in our day-to-day   life Just like this cricket player, a teacher,  a doctor, parents, and many others should also accept similar  limitations. In the technical language  of scriptures,  one can say that the state (Paryaya)  of a Dravya   becomes  the Nimitta  (instrumental   cause),  not the Dravya  (substance  or entity). The logic is simple: if a Dravya  is an instrumental  cause (Nimitta)  then such a task can happen  every time by that  Dravya. The happening of the task again  and again by a Nimitta in association  with the Upiiddnahas been termed as Nitya Kartratva by Acarya  Amratacandra   in the commentary   of Catha  100 [7]. There he explains that Nitya  Kartratva   (always  same  success  in doing  the  same  task)  is not  always possible. Therefore, the participating   Dravya  cannot  be called  as a Nimitta,  but the states of Dravya  responsible  for the completion  of the desired task are to be called as Nimitta. In the above example, the cricket player says that if Ican be Nimitta  of making six runs  on every  ball then  I would  love to do so, but I am unable  to become  such Nimitta. Only the specific situations leading to a Six can be called as Nimitta,  not me. However, when the six-run event takes place, then for my 'involvement' in this process, the public  gives  me credit  of making  the six runs. But the public must realize  this fact that I cannot  always be Nimitta  of making  six runs on every ball:  In this regard, we can take one example  of Chemistry:  Depending  on the specific  situations,  carbon and oxygen may combine  to form carbon monoxide  (CO) or carbon dioxide  (CO 2). It is also important to note that under  many  situations  carbon  and oxygen  atoms  may not combine even if they are compelled  to come close to each other. These possibilities can be expressed by the following  equations: C + 02 = CO2 C + 02 = CO + ° C + 02 = C + 02

The author  has  conducted   extensive   research   on  this  area  of  state-to-state Chemistry  using Molecular  Dynamics  to investigate  such issues of combination  and dissociation  of atoms and molecules,   and have found  again and again that the states of the reacting  atoms and molecules  playa  significant  role in the chemical  reactions. v.   Practical   application   in our day-to-day   life

According to the medical science, the cure takes place when the right kind of molecules of a medicine react  appropriately   with  the molecules  responsible   for the sickness. Many times  in such  biochemical   events,    the environment   and  psychology   of the patient playa  crucial role. Due to this reason, the same medicine  can cure one person but becomes  ineffective   for another  patient  having  same  sickness. The success  in curing  every  time  (Nitya  Kartratva)   is not observed. Therefore,  in strict  sense,  we cannot  grant the status of Nimitta. This again  reminds  that only specific  states of a Dravya  can become  Nimitta,  a Dravya  cannot  be called  as a Nimitta  in the strict I sense. What to  learn  from  this  description? Answer:  Don't   depend  entirely   on medicines;  in addition  to the appropriate  medical  treatment,  think of improving  your beliefs,  psychology,  and the environment   also. (b) Duties without  guilt  and  boasting Your one student passes his examination with the first position  in the merit list of the university  and another student  fails in the same examination. III such situation would you like to be called as a Nimitta for the success  of one and failure of another.

If you boast for one then you should feel guilty  for another. In both the cases you are mistaken. We should understand   very  well the teachings  of Acarya  Amratacandra described   here  that  the  same  classroom   lectures   delivered   by  you  are  received differently  according  to the state of minds  of the recipients. Therefore, think of the state of minds of the recipients  also before  boasting  or feeling  guilty. The same applies to the effect of your teachings  to your sons and daughters, and other tasks being carried out through  your body and mind. (c) Peace and happiness   by witnessing I am a soul, not the body. I am not the doer of any physical event. I am not a doer but an observer (a knower) of others. I am not the doer of even my own thoughts. The thoughts are not possible  without  soul but it does not mean  that the soul is the doer of thoughts. Without light the scenes of fire, rain, fight, etc. are not possible  on the screen of the cinema hall, but it does not mean that the light is the doer of all those scenes  'stored'   in the film. In Bhagvattlita   [8] also we find that the soul is beyond mind. Such an understanding of oneself beyond mind and body leads oneself to identify as a witness  of all 'events including  the actions  of the body and mind. Many western psychologists  and philosophers  also have emphasized  the importance  of being witness. This act of being witness is also valuable  in improving the peace of mind and  health of the physical  body. In this regard the following  lines written by Wayne  Dyer in Your Sacred  Self are worth noting  [9] :

"Stephen    We linsky  describes      it  this   way   in  his   book:     Quantum Consciousness: 'If  I can  begin  to observe  and  witness  my  reactions,   then  I will feel  freer  and  more  at  peace.    It is only  by the  identification    and  fusion  with  a thought   or feeling   that  I limit  myself   from  being  the  observerto becoming   the experience   itself.'   " At another   place,   Wayne   Dyer  provides   a practical    method   to  become witness. He writes [10]  : "First you want  to watch  your thoughts.    Then  you want  to watch  yourself watching   your  thoughts.    Here  is  the  door  to  the  inner   space   where,   from  all thoughts,  you experience   the bliss  and the freedom  that transport   you  directly  to your  higher  self." In this regard the following  comments  regarding  detachment   with emotions provided  by  Gary  Zukav  and Linda  Francis  are worth  noting   [11]  : "Detachment  allows  you to remain  aware  of what  you feel  while the  events of your  life unfold.   When  you are detached,   your  emotions   run through  you like water  through   a hose.    You  are  the  hose. The  same  water  does  not  stay  in the same  place  in  a hose  when  the  faucet  is  turned   on.   Your  emotional   faucet   is never turned  off.  The fear,  resentment,   anger,  depression,   contentment,   jealousy, rage,  or joy  that you feel do not  stay,  either.   When  you look  at your  emotions   in this  way  you  can  detach  from  them  enough   that  you  will  not  be  controlled   by them." (d) Prevention  of depression The spiritual masters  explain  that your sons/daughters/friends/servants/,      etc. receive  benefits  through  you but not from you. When you start thinking  that due to you your son has been rich and famous then think again. Such a notion may become the source of your frustration  and depression. The religious teachers  preach  that every  son and daughter  should  be loving, caring,  and respectful   to hislher  parents. But at the same time they also  teach that every  parent  should  understand  the notion  of non-doership   described   in this article from the real point of view to avoid frustration  and depression  based on the behavior of his/her  sons/daughters. The writings  of spiritual   teachers  based  on the  real  point  of  view  become valuable not only when you have complaints  with others,  but such teachings  are also valuable  when  you have  complaints   with  yourself. The chronic  complaints   with yourself produce  guilt  feelings  which  can also  lead  to frustration   and  depression.

Despite your sincere  efforts  within your limitations,  you might  have not been able to save your loved  one. Your son/daughter  might  have not achieved  as much  as your neighbor's  son due to your financial condition. Your son/daughter might have adopted the wrong track due to some reasons beyond your control. In all such cases, a correct understanding  of Upddiina  and Nimitta  described  here on the basis of teachings  of our spiritual  masters  can be helpful. Ask yourself this question:   "How  long  can I keep  the  feelings   of  guilt  and  shame   for  the  actions   or  inactions    beyond   my control?" One should be a responsible person in the society in all walks of life, but in the heart and mind  one  should  not forget  this fact that he/she  is not omnipotent. It is important to realize that there are many factors which are beyond our control. Further, one should always  remember  one's  identity  as the soul different  from the body and mind.

References: I.     Acarya Kundakunda, Samayasiira,   Giithii  103, 104. 2.        Ibid. Ciithii 99. 3.        Ibid. Giithi; 91, 100. 4.        Ibid. Giitha 98. 5.        Acarya Yogendu Deva, Paramatma Prakasa, Gathii 64 and 65.

6.        Acarya Amratacandra,  Atmakltyiiti,   Kolasa  51.

7.        Ibid,  Commentary on Giithii  100. In this commentary following lines are worth noting: 'f?rfuq;-..mt~.,              cm;f~   <:lftcI;C'f m-:rfu  w't~   errtR  ~clllc:"'Icj; q;;f dGll"'lIc:"'If Ci""i<l  (q 111:!W~cmt:~:wn-q,p..mt., ~       ~r-r,  PI(ll (/) 1\'Cf~1:!W~f?rfuq;-..mt~             ., ~<lTI;_    n: These  lines convey the following:  The soul is not even the Nimitta  doer (instrumental cause) of anger, pitcher, etc.  If it is the doer then always it should be able to do the same. After writing these lines, Acarya Amratacandra   further writes that only specific temporary Yoga and Upayoga  of soul are  Nimitta  doer. The soul may (note the word 'may, not 'can')  be the doer of Yoga and Upayoga   produced by ignorance. 8.         Bhagvaitlita.Verse 3.42 and 3.43. Further, regarding doership, verse 3.27 and 13.29 are worth noting. 9.         Wayne W. Dyer, Your Sacred Self, Harper Paperbacks,  1996, p. 130. 10.      Ibid, p. 136. !i.   Gary Zukav and Linda Francis, The Heart of the Soul: Emotional Awareness, Simon and Schuster Source, New York, 2001, p. 110.

Arhat Vacana, 24 / 2 / 2012