Is God the real director of everything? This uncertainty waits even in the psyches of numerous Vedic researchers. In the Mahabharat, the evil Duryodhan had expressed this rationale for his activities: ‘I realize what is correct and I comprehend what’s up. Be that as it may, there is some devata (divine god) sitting inside me. As he incites me, so I carry on.‘
Numerous individuals contend along comparable lines. On the off chance that they commit an error and you ask them for what good reason it occurred, they state, ‘It must be the desire of God.‘
‘I don’t get your meaning?‘
‘I mean it is God who does everything. We are simply manikins in His grasp.‘ They even use citations from sacred texts to approve their contention.
‘Similarly, as a puppeteer makes wooden dolls move, the Lord is making us all move to His tune.’ Therefore, as per these individuals, the Almighty is liable for our activities. One sentence normally articulated by individuals is: ‘Without the desire of God, not so much as a leaf can move.’
On hearing this, individuals become consoled, ‘This implies God is the practitioner of every one of our activities, so we need not make a fuss over-improving them.‘ However, this is injurious reasoning. It should be tenaciously removed of our psyche. Here are a few contentions disproving it:
1. On the off chance that God was the practitioner of every one of our deeds, we couldn’t have ever dedicated any slip-ups. Every one of our activities would have been great since God can never make a botch. In any case, the way that we commit multitudinous errors suggests that we are getting things done willingly.
2. On the off chance that God was the practitioner, we would not need to hold up under any karmic responses for our activities. For what reason would we languish over activities that God performed through us? He would either bear the karmic results all alone or pardon Himself. Be that as it may, there is the Law of Karma which states: ‘The world is under the wheel of karma. What we do is the thing that we get.‘ a similar law is expressed in the Bible too: ‘Try not to be misled: God can’t be derided. A man gets what he really asks for.‘ The presence of the Law of Karma suggests that we are the practitioners of our activities.
3. God is unbiased towards all spirits and completely just. In the event that He was the practitioner of our activities, He would cause us all to carry on similarly. Possibly He would cause everybody to carry out beneficial things with the goal that they would become holy people, or He would cause everybody to do offences and transform them into evil presences. Nonetheless, as we probably are aware, there is such a great amount of divergence on the planet. One individual is a holy person, as Prahlad, while another is an evil spirit, as Hiranyakashipu. This assortment suggests that we have the opportunity to pick our own contemplations and activities. Only we are answerable for them, not God.
4. In the event that God was the inspirer of our activities, there would be no requirement for Him to uncover the Vedas or some other sacred texts. He would not have to clarify the way of flawlessness to us. He would have just stated: ‘O spirits, I am the practitioner of everything. In this way, you don’t have to comprehend appropriate and inappropriate activity.’ Yet, even toward the finish of the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna underscores the significance of activity-dependent on legitimate information and states: ‘O Arjun, I have given you divine information. Presently, ponder upon it profoundly, and afterwards do as you wish.‘ Similarly, Lord Ram conveyed a talk to the inhabitants of Ayodhya. He said to them: ‘Listen to Me and afterwards do as you wish.‘
There are a few spots in the Vedic sacred writings where God is known as the practitioner. In any case, their setting must be seen cautiously to maintain a strategic distance from disarray. The issue will turn out to be clear in the event that we can grasp two terms: prayojak kartā and prayojya kartā.
Prayojak kartā is the person who presents the ability to perform activities. God is the prayojak kartā, for He gives our faculties, psyche and astuteness with the force for the activity.
Prayojya kartā is the person who utilizes the force. The individual soul is the prayojya kartā, for it uses this force.
For instance, the force plant gives power to singular homes. How they use it is their decision. So also, God empowers the eyes with the intensity of vision. From that point forward, what we see is a decision we make. We could either visit a sanctuary and see the perfect type of God or we could sit in a cinema and watch a film. In either case, it is our decision and we can’t censure God for it. We can’t state, ‘For what reason does the great Lord consistently give me motion pictures?’ He just offers on us the intensity of sight; how we use it is left to our prudence.
Having enabled us to work, the second thing that God does is to take note of the activities we perform and give us the karmic responses. The issue emerges in light of the fact that when there are negative results, we grumble, ‘For what reason did the Lord do this to me?‘
‘God didn’t do it.‘
‘At that point who did it?‘
‘God did it, you are correct. Yet, He didn’t do it discretionarily. He just gave you the consequences of your activities.‘
Contrast this and an appointed authority condemning the charged to jail. The convict may gripe that the adjudicator was preferential against him. In any case, the adjudicator would react that he was not the convict’s foe; he was just carrying out his responsibility. The proof of the wrongdoing had been built up. He just gave the decision as indicated by the law, to address the faulty conduct of the lawbreaker and keep him from rehashing such a demonstration later on.
We should thusly not censure God for our activities. In the event that we committed an error, we have to assume liability for it and afterwards develop ourselves to guarantee it isn’t rehashed later on. Once more, to acknowledge the onus for our deficiencies isn’t a simple errand. Individuals carry another vindication into the image. They reprimand predetermination for it. We will take that up next.