From an Advaitic perspective, who set in motion the law of karma?

Question

According to Advaitins, who set in motion the law of karma?

Is it Saguna Brahman or Nirguna Brahman?

The vyavaharika satya or jagat along with its karma, rebirth etc. is not completely mithya. Its not completely true either.

When advaitins say it is mithya, they simply mean its not what it seems ... (i.e. this jagat along with its varieties is only nama-rupa, an apparent reality superimposed on the formless brahman).

So in advaita, the jagat is neither completely mithya nor completely true. Its just an apparent, transactional and impermanent reality, and not the ultimate reality.

My point is, if jagat is not totally mithya, then law of karma (which operates in this jagat) is also not totally mithya. So who set in motion the law of karma?

Answer 1

No one set in motion the law of karma since the transmigratory state has no beginning.

If it be argued that it is not possible (to take Karma - merit and demerit - into consideration in the beginning), since the fruits of work remain still undifferentiated, then we say, no, since the transmigratory state has no beginning.

Brahma Sutra II.i.35

...the transmigratory state has no beginning. .... if that state has no beginning, there is nothing contradictory for the fruits of work and the variety in creation to act as cause and effect of each other on the analogy of the seed and the sprout.

How again is it known that this transmigratory state has no beginning?

To this the answer is:

Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sri Sankarachary II.i.35

Moreover, this is logical, and (so) it is met with (in the scriptures).

Brahma Sutra II.i.36

And it is logical for the transmigratory existence to have no beginning; for had it emerged capriciously all of a sudden, then there would have been the predicament of freed souls also being reborn here, as also the contingency of results accruing from non-existing causes, for the differences in happiness and misery would have no logical explanation. It has been pointed out already that God is not the cause of inequality, nor is ignorance by itself a source of this, it being homogeneous. Ignorance can at best become creator of inequality in consequence of the fruits of work, which are acquired as a result of the influence of past impressions of the three infatuations - love, hatred, and delusion. The fallacy of mutual dependence does not arise from the impossibility of bodies being created without karma and karma being performed without bodies; for if creation is beginningless, all this become reasonable on the analogy of the seed and the sprout, and hence there will be no defect.

And we realize the beginningless of creation from the Vedas and the Smritis. In the Vedas, for instance, occurs the text, "Myself entering into this as the embodied soul (Jiva-atma - living being)" (Chandogya Upanishad Vi.iii.2). Referring to the beginning of creation, this text speaks of the embodied soul as the "living being" on account of its sustaining life, and thereby it shows that creation had no beginning; for if creation had a beginning then, since the soul had no life to sustain (at that time), why should the "living being" have been referred to in that text through the word jiva (living one) which comes into use from the fact of supporting the life process (jivana)? It cannot be that the term jiva is used in anticipation that it will support life in future; for an existing relationship is stronger than future one, inasmuch as the former is an accomplished fact. And the mantra text, "The Ordainer created the sun and moon like those of the previous cycles (Rig Veda X.cxc.3) shows the existence of earlier cycles of creation. In the Smriti also the transmigratory state is noticed to be without beginning, as in "Its form is not here perceived as such, neither its end, nor its origin, nor its continuance" (Gita XV.3). The conclusion made in the Puranas also is that the past and future cycles of creation are numberless.

Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya II.i.36

A possible interpretation of the above commentary

In the first paragraph of Sri Sankaracharya's commentary he is arguing that first creation will violate the principle of regularity. Any irregular event like first creation will make any logical explanation of happiness and misery impossible.

In the second paragraph he is quoting from various scriptures to support his position.

There is a minority view (not in Advaita Vedanta) that at the first creation all jivas were given a positive amount of karma.

Answer 2

Nirguna Brahman or Shuddha chaitanyam is

‘nishkalam, nishkriyam, shantam, niravadyam, niranjanam’(without form, action.. tranquil,limitless and blemishless(Svetashvatara Upanishad VI.19 )

is unmanifest and so it is neither the karta or bhokta and has nothing to do with karma.

(Ashtavakra Gita 15.4 na tvaṃ deho na te deho bhoktā kartā na vā bhavān | cidrūpo'si sadā sākṣī nirapekṣaḥ sukhaṃ cara || 4 ||)

When the same chaitanyam manifests with its unscrutable power Maya (trigunathmika),

it is called Maya avachinna(scoped by) chaitanyam (conscious ness)responsible for the functions of creation(Brahma), preservation (Vishnu)and dissolution (shiva)

of entire Existence.otherwise known as Ishwara

mAyA is nothing but prakRRiti or nature (mAyAntu prakRitim vidyAt mAyinantu maheswaram) Svet. Up. IV-10;

Let me be born (as many)’ - tad aikshata bahu syAm, prajAyeya" (Ch. Up. VI-2-3)

Hence created Jivas which are Avidya avachinna chaitanyam.

Jiva(vyashti) is the karta and Ishwara(samashti) is the karma phala dhata(nigraham, anugraham) in accordance to karma) verse506 SVSSS of HH Adishankara

Verse 511 of svsss of HH Adishankara says

karrmana jayate jantuhu karmanaiva praliyate karmanaha karyamevaisha janma mrutyu parampara

Karma is the reason for birth death cycle

BG 7.20

kamais tais tair hrita-jnanah prapadyante ’nya-devatah tam tam niyamam asthaya prakritya niyatah svaya

carried away by their own nature prakruthi(satva rajas tams composition) one choose their saguna deity and surrender.

BG 7.21

yo yo yāṁ yāṁ tanuṁ bhaktaḥ śhraddhayārchitum ichchhati tasya tasyāchalāṁ śhraddhāṁ tām eva vidadhāmyaham

HH shankaras commentary By Swami Gambirananda

Whichever form (of a deity) any devotee wants to worship with faith, that very firm faith of his I strengthen.

Nama Rupa saguna brahaman is resorted for upasana owing to the limitation of antahkarana. whose effect is a samskara

But HH Shankara says Jnanam cannot be effect of any karma including upasana which is the manasika karma, as the effect caused by karma can only fall under 4 categories uthpathi, Aapthi, Vikruthi, samskruti.