Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 5 - Shloka (Verse) 14

व्याख्या--'न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः'--सृष्टिकी रचनाका कार्य सगुण भगवान्का है, इसलिये 'प्रभुः' पद दिया है। भगवान् सर्वसमर्थ हैं और सबके शासक, नियामक हैं। सृष्टिरचनाका कार्य करनेपर भी वे अकर्ता ही हैं (गीता 4। 13)।
किसी भी कर्मके कर्तापनका सम्बन्ध भगवान्का बनाया हुआ नहीं है। मनुष्य स्वयं ही कर्मोंके कर्तापनकी रचना करता है। सम्पूर्ण कर्म प्रकृतिके द्वारा किये जाते हैं ;परन्तु मनुष्य अज्ञानवश प्रकृतिसे तादात्म्य कर लेता है और उसके द्वारा होनेवाले कर्मोंका कर्ता बन जाता है (गीता 3। 27)। यदि कर्तापनका सम्बन्ध भगवान्का बनाया हुआ होता, तो भगवान् इसी अध्यायके आठवें श्लोकमें

देहादिका स्वामी आत्मा न तो तू अमुक कर्म कर इस प्रकार लोगोंके कर्तापनको उत्पन्न करता है और न रथ घट महल आदि कर्म जो अत्यन्त इष्ट हैं उनको रचता है तथा न रथादि बनानेवालेका उसके कर्मफलके साथ संयोग ही रचता है यदि यह देहादिका स्वामी आत्मा स्वयं कुछ भी नहीं करताकराता तो फिर यह सब कौन कर रहा और करा रहा है इसपर कहते हैं स्वभाव ही बर्तता है अर्थात् जो अपना भाव है अविद्या जिसका स्वरूप है जो दैवी हि इत्यादि श्लोकोंसे आगे कही जानेवाली है वह प्रकृति यानी माया ही सब कुछ कर रही है।

That the Self does not have 'causality' (causing others to act), which was stated, He expands on that—with "Na" (Not) etc. Although He does not create the doership of the world (people), so there is no causing-to-act; still, while making chariots, carts, etc., He becomes the Doer?—anticipating this doubt, He says—"Na karmani" (Nor actions). Still, being the one who causes enjoyment (Bhojayitritva), having modification is unavoidable?—anticipating this doubt, He says—"Na karma" (Nor union with fruit of action).

Then whose is the instigation? That He says—"Svabhavastu" (But Nature). "Do"—thus the Self does not create the doership of the world—this is the connection. He establishes the object-ness of chariots etc. with "Ipsita" (Desired - Panini Sutra 1.4.49). Although the Self has lordship due to ownership of the body etc., the Self does not create the connection with the fruit of chariots etc. for the person who made them—thus he refutes the Self's status as the Causer of enjoyment—with "Napi" (Nor).

He introduces the fourth quarter as an answer to a doubt—with "Yadi" (If) etc. "Then is it the doctrine of Nature (Svabhavavada)?"—anticipating this, he explains—"Avidya-lakshana" (Characterized by Ignorance). To exclude the nature of 'Knowledge' from Prakriti, 'Maya' is used; and that will be spoken of in the seventh [chapter]; therefore it is distinct from Pradhana (of Sankhya)—he says this with "Daivi hi" (Divine indeed - 7.14).

He expands on what was stated as "neither acting nor causing to act" with "not" (na). "Prabhu" (The Lord/Self) does not create the "doership" of the "world" (loka), i.e., of the body, etc.; nor "actions" like pots, palaces, etc.; nor the "connection with the fruit" for the one who has made the pot, etc. By this, the Self's nature of 'causing to enjoy' (bhojayitṛtva) is also negated. This is a synecdoche for 'enjoyership' (bhoktṛtva).

Then, given the various negations, whose is the doership, etc.? In response to this expectation, He says: "Nature" (svabhāvaḥ), i.e., Prakriti or Maya characterized by Ignorance, engages in acting and causing to act. (Refutation): As for the view—"That whose existence (bhāva) is superimposed 'in oneself' (sva-smin) is 'sva-bhāva', i.e., the inner instrument (antaḥkaraṇa); that alone engages for activity or liberation"—that is not correct. Because, since the activity of the inner instrument is also dependent on Prakriti, making a strained hypothesis that requires supplying words is unjustifiable.

(Objection): "Indeed, He causes him whom He wishes to lead up from these worlds to perform good deeds; He indeed causes him whom He wishes to lead down... to perform evil deeds"—from such Sruti texts, and "This ignorant creature is not the master of his own pleasure and pain; impelled by the Lord, he goes to heaven or to hell"—from such Smriti texts, since the dependent person is employed as a doer in actions yielding good and bad results by the Supreme Lord alone, how can he renounce those actions? If it is said that "being employed by the Lord alone in the path of knowledge, he will renounce"—in that case, due to partiality and cruelty, the connection with merit and sin would accrue even to the Lord since He is the instigating agent? Anticipating this doubt, He says "no" (na).

(Question): If you ask why this verse was not explained as referring to 'God' (Ishvara) by the Commentators (Shankara) by raising these two points? (Answer): Understand that it was done intending the possibility of connection (consistency) with the immediately preceding verse without any strained hypothesis.

And he does not perform action in reality—He states this with "neither doership" (na kartṛtvam), etc.

"Prabhu" (The Lord/Master) is indeed the Jiva (individual soul), relative to (its superiority over) the inert matter.

(Objection): Let him not have 'doership' like a servant or 'causership' like a master; but like a magnet, which remains changeless, let him have the quality of being the instigator of the Ego, etc., which possesses the attributes of an agent? Anticipating this doubt, He says—"neither doership" (na kartṛtvam), etc.

"Doership" belongs to the Ego; "actions" belong to the senses—like speaking, taking, hearing, seeing, etc.

"Of the world" (lokasya)—that which is seen (lokyate) or illumined is "loka," i.e., the aggregate of inert matter. "Prabhu" (The Lord) is the Conscious Self; like the Sun, though It is the illuminator of us all, It is not the instigator in actions, etc. Similarly, It does not create the connection with the fruit of action either. But whatever is the "nature" (svabhāva) of a thing, that acts accordingly.

Just as when the Sun rises, the blooming of lotuses and the closing of lilies occur, (but) similarly even while the Self is shining, pots, etc., do not move, whereas humans, etc., do move. The Self is neither the instigator nor the restrainer of anyone. The idea is that unlike the iron and the magnet, there is no (real) connection between the Self and the non-Self, which are Truth and Falsehood respectively.

For "this world" (lokasya)—i.e., for the living being existing in association with Prakriti in the forms of gods, animals, humans, and immobile things—the "doership" specific to gods, etc., the "actions" specific to them, and the "connection with fruit" like (attaining the state of) gods, etc., born of those respective actions—"this Master" (ayam prabhuḥ), i.e., the Self who is not subject to Karma and is established in Its natural form, "does not create" (na sṛjati), i.e., does not produce.

Who then? "But Nature acts"—

"Nature" (svabhāva) means the latent impression of Prakriti (prakṛti-vāsanā); it is caused by the latent impressions generated by the identification with the Self in those respective forms, which is caused by the contact with Prakriti in the forms of gods, etc., generated by previous actions proceeding from beginningless time. The meaning is that all such doership, etc., is not prompted by the essential nature (of the Self).

"Nanu" (Objection): From the Shruti text "Indeed, He causes him whom He wishes to lead up from these worlds to perform good deeds; He indeed causes him whom He wishes to lead down from these worlds to perform evil deeds," etc.—since the dependent person is employed as a doer in actions yielding good and bad results by the Supreme Lord alone, how can he renounce those actions?

If it is said that "being employed by the Lord alone in the path of knowledge, he will renounce good and bad actions"—then, in that case, due to partiality and cruelty, and due to being the instigating agent, the connection with merit and sin would accrue even to the Lord? Anticipating this doubt, He answers with two (verses) beginning with "neither doership" (na kartṛtvam).

"Prabhu," i.e., the Lord, does not create the doership, etc., of the world of Jivas; but the "nature" (svabhāva) of the Jiva alone, i.e., Ignorance (Avidyā), acts in the form of doership, etc.

The Lord engages the world of Jivas in actions because it has a nature of activity due to the influence of beginningless Ignorance and desire; He does not Himself create doership, etc. (arbitrarily); this is the meaning.

Thus, the renunciation of the superimposed nature into the limiting adjuncts has been stated; now, the natural form to be contemplated within oneself is stated—intending this connection, He says "directly" (sākṣāt) [referring to Ramanuja's intro].

To show the diversity of limiting adjuncts intended by the word "of the world" (lokasya)—which refers to diverse people—He says "of this" (asya), etc. [in the Bhashya]. "Doership" is of the nature of effort, etc.; "Actions" are the movements of the body and senses. If this doership, etc., were natural to the Selfs, then it would be identical for all; but it is not seen to be so—with this intention, "doership specific to gods, etc." was stated. "Specific to gods, etc." means determined by the state of assuming a body possessing the species (jāti) of godhood, etc.

"Connection with fruit" means the experience of fruit. To demonstrate that due to the context, the word "Prabhu" (Master) refers to the Jiva here, He says "this Master" (ayam prabhuḥ). He states the intended meaning of the word "Prabhu" regarding the Jiva as—"not subject to Karma," established in its natural form. For in this context, by "In Me, all actions..." (Gita 3.30), the doership of the Jiva is superimposed (offered) onto the Supreme Self; therefore, here the word "Prabhu," relating to the non-doer, is not regarding the Supreme (Para), this is the idea.

Regarding "na sṛjati" (does not create)—if the root 'sṛj' were taken in the sense of 'visarga' (abandonment/letting go), the sentence meaning would be "he accepts the triad of doership, etc." (since one abandons what one has); to refute that, He says "does not produce" (na utpādayati). Since no other cause is seen, doership would belong to Him alone—anticipating this doubt regarding the fourth quarter of the verse, He asks "Who then?" (kastahri). "Creates" is the implied remaining word.

To establish the word "svabhāva" (nature) in a specific meaning suitable to the context, He first states the denotation—"Prakriti," etc.

"Nanu" (Objection): Doership, etc., does not belong to the sentient Self, but doership, etc., belongs to insentient latent impression (vāsanā) which has become merely a quality of the sentient—how is this known? If doership does not belong to the inherently pure Self, then from where did even that Vāsanā come to It? If from nowhere, then Vāsanā itself would be natural, and thus the doership caused by it would also be natural. If from some cause, then if that cause is natural, the previous defect arises; if it is due to an adjunct, then how did its arrival occur in the non-agent Self? If due to Vāsanā, then there is mutual dependence (anyonyāśraya). If from something else, then the same applies there, leading to infinite regress (anavasthā)—to refute such objections, the word "tu" (but) is used. He explains that with "beginningless time" (anādikāla), etc. By the logic of the seed and the sprout, mutual dependence, etc., are avoided. To establish the diversity of the cause of Vāsanā, "forms like gods, etc." was stated. Just as in a red-hot iron ball, the notion of "fire-ness" arises due to contact with fire, so it is here—to show this, the word "created by contact" (saṁsargakṛta) is used. "Created by Vāsanā" means having the specific cause called Vāsanā as its limiting adjunct; this is the meaning.

वेदों में ईश्वर के विषय में प्रतिपादन करते हुये कहा गया है कि वह सर्वज्ञ सर्वशक्तिमान् सर्वद्रष्टा कर्माध्यक्ष और कर्मफलदाता है जो समस्त जीवों को उनके कर्मों के अनुसार ही न्यायपूर्वक फल प्रदान करता है। यहाँ परमात्मा का वर्णन जगत् के साथ उसके सम्बन्ध को दिखाकर किया गया है।परमात्मा न कर्तृत्व को उत्पन्न करता है और न ही कर्मों का अनुमोदन करता है। कर्म का फल के साथ संयोग कराना यह भी उसका कार्य नहीं।अनेक व्याख्याकारों के मतानुसार इस श्लोक में प्रभु शब्द से कर्माध्यक्ष कर्मफलदाता ईश्वर को सूचित किया गया है परन्तु भगवान् के कथन से उनके मत की पुष्टि नहीं होती। विचार करने पर कोई भी विद्यार्थी स्पष्ट रूप से समझ सकता है कि यहाँ भगवान अर्जुन को निरुपाधिक चैतन्य आत्मा का स्वरूप समझाने का प्रयत्न कर रहे हैं। यहाँ आत्मा का तीन शरीरों स्थूल सूक्ष्म और कारण के साथ सम्बन्ध बताया गया है।यदि श्रीकृष्ण के कथन के अनुसार आत्मा का कर्तृत्व कर्म और कर्मफल संयोग से कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं है तब हमारे जीवन का भी आत्मा के साथ कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं होना चाहिये क्योंकि कर्तृत्वादि से भिन्न हमारे जीवन का अस्तित्व ही नहीं है। तथापि आत्मा के अभाव में किसी भी वस्तु का न अस्तित्व है और न क्रियारूप व्यापार। इसलिये आत्मा और अनात्मा के बीच किसीनकिसी प्रकार का सम्बन्ध होना अनिवार्य है और उस विचित्र सम्बन्ध रहित सम्बन्ध का वर्णन यहाँ किया गया है।यह तो सर्वविदित है कि मनुष्य की नाक अपनी जगह पर सुस्थिर रहती है। उसमें स्वेच्छा से अथवा अनिच्छा से गति नहीं होती। और फिर भी यदि कोई व्यक्ति जल में अपने मुख को देखते हुये यह पाये कि उसकी नाक किसी कील पर लटकी हुयी वस्तु के समान हिल रही है तब वह क्या सोचेगा वह जानेगा कि नाक अपने स्थान पर सुस्थित है तथापि जल में वह उसे हिलती दिखाई दे रही है। स्पष्ट है कि चेहरे के प्रतिबिम्ब की स्थिति जल की स्थिति पर निर्भर करती है। आत्मा में न कर्तृत्व है और न क्रिया परन्तु उपाधियों में व्यक्त आत्मा जिसे जीव कहते हैं के लिए कर्तृत्व कर्म और फल संयोग प्राप्त हो जाते हैं।विद्युत स्वयं स्थिर शक्ति है। उसके उत्पादन के पश्चात् उसका वितरण करने पर अनेक प्रकार के उपकरणों के माध्यम से वह अनेक रूपों में व्यक्त होती है। चैतन्यस्वरूप आत्मा भी जड़ उपाधियों से परिच्छिन्नसा हुआ कर्तृत्वादि को प्राप्त होता है।कर्मों का कर्ता और भोक्ता जीव है आत्मा नहीं। स्वभाव अर्थात् त्रिगुणात्मिका माया के सम्बन्ध से ही आत्मा में कर्तृत्व और भोक्तृत्वादि गुण प्रतीत होते हैं।पारमार्थिक दृष्टि से आत्मा प्रकृति के गुणों से सर्वथा निर्लिप्त ही है। भगवान् कहते है

Because "No doership"—thus. This Self does not do anything of anyone; its activity is merely its nature, not out of desire for fruit.

For indeed—the Lord whose essence is Consciousness, whose nature is the supreme reality of Light, Bliss, and Independence, and by whose mere nature the entire arrangement of creation, maintenance, and dissolution is projected—never deviates even slightly from His own nature at any time; therefore, there is no 'doership' distinct from the state of the agent (Himself).

Due to the absence of that, what actions? In the absence of that, whose fruit? Or what is the connection between action and fruit? Here 'Karma' means action (Kriya), and 'Karma-phala' (fruit of action) also is indeed the fruit of action.

For indeed—the action of turning the stick and wheel etc. is not different (from the potter). Nor is that (action) produced by the pot, because it exists within consciousness. Therefore—the Conscious, Independent Supreme Lord alone shines in such and such ways; there is no action or its fruit etc. distinct from Him—this is the established conclusion (Siddhanta).

"Nanu" (Objection): "Doership" (or its negation)—this is not different from what was stated before. To this, He says "and not" (na ca). It was stated (previously): "Even while performing actions like seeing, etc., he thinks 'I do nothing at all'." (Objection): Then he would become subject to being a "holder of false knowledge"? To refute this doubt—even while acting and causing to act being impelled by the Supreme Lord, in reality (independently), he neither acts nor causes to act—this is stated by this (verse); this is the meaning.

(Objection): If this refers to the Jiva, the term "Prabhu" (Master) is impossible. To this, He says "Prabhu indeed..." etc. By this, the term "Vibhu" (All-pervading/Master, occurring later) is also practically explained.

Just as Devadatta's motion, which is inherent in him, does not exist when he is standing still; similarly, do doership and causership belong inherently to the Self and cease when Renunciation occurs? Or, like the impurity (blueness) in the sky, do they not exist there in reality at all? To remove this doubt, He says—

"Prabhu," i.e., the Self—the Master—does not create the "doership" of the "world" (lokasya), i.e., of the body, etc.; meaning, He does not become the 'causer of action' through a command like "You do." Nor does He Himself create the "actions" of the world, i.e., the most desired objects like pots, etc.—meaning, He does not become the 'doer' either. Nor does He create the "connection with the fruit" for the world that has performed the action—meaning He becomes neither the 'causer of enjoyment' nor the 'enjoyer'.

This is supported by the Shruti: "He, remaining the same, wanders through both worlds... He meditates as it were, He moves as it were... being identified with the intellect (sudhīḥ)..." (Brhadaranyaka Up. 4.3.7). And here too, from the statement "Though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, He acts not nor is tainted" (Gita 13.31).

If the Self neither causes to act nor acts Itself, who then engages in causing action and acting? To this, He says—"But Nature" (svabhāvaḥ tu)—i.e., Divine Maya consisting of Ignorance—Prakriti—acts.

Now, if you say "What is the fault in Him being the cause through instruction etc.?"—to that He says "No doership." The Lord (Prabhu) Ishvara does not create the doership of the world, nor does He create actions, nor the connection with the fruit of action. Therefore, why would He Himself instruct in that way? This is the purport.

(Objection) Now, in the absence of the Lord's production (instigation), how does the world engage in action? To this He says "But Nature acts." The nature of the Jiva, which is of the essence of Prakriti, acts in the form of doership etc.

Prabhu (The Lord), i.e., the Self, does not create doership—(the command) Do this by yourself; nor does He create the actions of the world (people), such as chariots, pots, palaces, etc., which are most desired; nor creates (sṛjati), i.e., produces. Nor (does He create) the connection with the fruit for the one who has made the chariot, etc.—i.e., the connection between action and fruit.

If the Embodied One neither does nor causes to do anything by Himself, who then engages in acting and causing to act? It is said:

But Nature (svabhāvaḥ)—one's own state (svo bhāvaḥ) is nature—meaning Prakriti characterized by Ignorance (Avidyā)—Maya—acts; which will be described later with Divine indeed... (Gita 7.14).

...But in reality...

Moreover, since it has been stated that 'the Self alone is the friend of the self' (6.5), everything will be accomplished only upon the restraint and equanimity of the self. Otherwise, due to egoism like doership, etc., it will merely be hypocritical conduct. And the cause therein is the self alone, none else; and even that (empirical self) is constituted of material nature (prākṛta-svabhāva)—so to strengthen the restraint of that, He states the doctrine with 'neither doership' (na kartṛtvam), etc.

'Prabhu' (The Lord), i.e., the Lord, the Supreme Self, 'does not create' the 'doership,' 'actions,' and 'connection with their fruit' of the 'world'—i.e., of the one identifying with the material body, whose make-up is formed by nature derived from various wombs, seeds, and latent impressions (āśaya). But such a 'nature' (svabhāva) residing in the world acts by itself. Otherwise, the contingency of partiality and cruelty would attach to the Supreme Self.

न not? कर्तृत्वम् agency? न not? कर्माणि actions? लोकस्य for this world? सृजति creates? प्रभुः the Lord? न not? कर्मफलसंयोगम् union with the fruits of actions? स्वभावः nature? तु but? प्रवर्तते leads to action.Commentary The Lord does not create agency or doership. He does not press anyone to do actions. He never tells anyone? Do this or do that. He does not bring about the union with the fruit of actions. It is Prakritit or Nature that does everything. (Cf.III.33)

Prabhuh, the Self; na srjati, does not create; lokasya, for anyone; kartrtvam, agentship, by saying 'Do this'; or even karmani, any objects-such objects as chariot, pot, palace, etc. which are intensely longed for; nor even karma-phala-samyogam, association with the results of actions-association of the creator of a chariot etc. with the result of his work.
Objection: If the embodied one does not do anything himself, and does not make others do, then who is it that engages in work by doing and making others do?
The answer is: Tu, but; it is svabhavah, Nature- one's own (sva) nature (bhava)-characterized as ignorance, Maya, which will be spoken of in, 'Since this divine Maya' (7.14); pravartate, that acts.
But from the highest standpoint-

When the world of embodied selves exists in conjunction with the Prakrti in the form of gods, animals, men, immobile things etc., the master (Prabhu i.e., the Jiva who is the master of the body), who is not subject to Karma and is established in Its own essential nature, does not bring about: (i) the agency of gods, men etc. (ii) their manifold and particular actions and (iii) their connection with the fruits in the form of embodiment as gods etc., resulting from their actions. Who then brings about agency etc.? It is only the tendencies that act. A tendency (Svabhava) is subtle impressions (Vasanas) originating from Prakrti. The meaning is that agency, etc., do not originate from the natural or pristine condition of the self but are generated by the subtle impressions created by misconceiving those forms of Prakrti etc., as of the self. This is the result of the conjunction of the self with Prakrti in the form of gods, etc., which has been generated by the flow of previous Karmas brought about in beginningless time.