कर्ता शास्त्रार्थवत्त्वात् ।
kartā śāstrārthavattvāt |
(Vedānta-sūtra: 2.3.31)
“[The jīva is] A doer because of śāstra being possessed of meaning.”
Commentary
kartṛ-adhikaraṇam—idam idānīṁ vicārayati | ‘vijñānaṁ yajñaṁ tanute, karmāṇi tanute’pi ca’ iti taittirīyāḥ paṭhanti | iha sandehaḥ | vijñāna-śābdito jīvaḥ kartā na veti | ‘hantā cen manyate hantuṁ hataś cen manyate hatam | ubhau tau na vijānīto nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate ||’ iti kaṭha-śrutyā tasya kartṛtva-pratiṣedhān na sa kartā, kintu prakṛtir eva kartrī |‘prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ | ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate ||’ ‘kārya-kāraṇa-kartṛtve hetuḥ prakṛtir ucyate |puruṣaḥ sukha-duḥkhānāṁ bhoktṛtve hetur ucyate ||’ ity ādi smṛtibhyaś ca |tasmān na jīvasya kartṛtvaṁ prakṛti-gataṁ tattva-vivekāt, svasmin so’dhyasyati bhoktā tu karma-phalānām iti prāpte—kartā śāstrārthavattvāt | jīva eva kartā, na guṇāḥ | kutaḥ? śāstreti | ‘svarga-kāmo yajetātmānam eva lokam upāsīta’ ity ādi śāstrasya cetane kartari sati sārthakyāt guṇa-kartṛtvena tad-anarthakyaṁ syāt | śāstraṁ kila phala-hetutā-buddhim utpādya karmasu tat-phala-bhoktāraṁ puruṣaṁ pravartayate | na ca tad-buddhir jaḍānāṁ guṇānāṁ śakyotpādayitum |
(Govinda-bhāṣya)
“The topic of the doer (kartṛ)—he [i.e., the author] now deliberates on this. The revered Taittirīya [Upaniṣad: 2.5.1] reads, ‘Vijñāna performs yajña, and also performs actions.’ Here is the doubt: ‘Is the jīva, called vijñāna [in the aforecited verse], the doer or not? Because of the negation of his [i.e., the jīva’s] doership (kartṛtva) as per the Śruti in the Kaṭha [i.e. Kaṭha Upaniṣad: 1.2.19], “If the killer thinks he is killing, or the killed thinks he is killed, they both do not understand that he does not kill and is not killed,” he [i.e., the jīva] is not the doer (kartā). Rather, prakṛti alone is the doer on account also of the Smṛtis [i.e., the statement in BG 3.27], “Actions everywhere are being performed by the guṇas of prakṛti [i.e., the senses of the body]. One whose mind is deluded by ahaṅkāra [i.e., prākṛtika faculty of ‘I,’ however,] thinks, ‘I am the doer (kartā),’” and [the statement in BG 13.20], “The cause in regard to the agency (kartṛtva) of the effect and cause [i.e., the body and the senses] is. The cause is regard to the experiencership (bhokṛtva) of happiness and suffering is said to be the puruṣa [i.e., the jīva].” Therefore, on account of discernment of [its] nature, the jīva does not possess doership (kartṛtva), which is [rather] situated in prakṛti. He [i.e., the jīva], the experiencer (bhoktā) of the results of action (karma), rather, superimposes it [i.e., doership (kartṛtva)] onto himself.’ When this is encountered [i.e., in response to the aforementioned viewpoint, the author states the following sūtra]: ‘[The jīva is] A doer because of śāstra being possessed of meaning.’ The jīva is verily the doer (kartā), and not the guṇas. Why? Śāstra … [i.e., because of śāstra being possessed of meaning], that is, meaninglessness of that [i.e., of the śāstra] shall ensure from the [idea of complete] doership (kartṛtva) of the guṇas because of śāstra’s meaningfulness [only] when a conscious doer exists, as per [statements such as], ‘One who has a desire for Svarga should perform yajña’ and ‘One should worship the plane only of the self.’ By creating awareness of the causation of results, the śāstra engages the puruṣa, the experiencer of the results thereof [i.e., of actions], in actions, and it is not able to create that awareness in the inert [i.e., unconscious] guṇas.”