Chapter 13 · Verse 21·Spoken by Arjuna
कार्यकारणकर्तृत्वे हेतुः प्रकृतिरुच्यते।पुरुषः सुखदुःखानां भोक्तृत्वे हेतुरुच्यते
kārya-kāraṇa-kartṛitve hetuḥ prakṛitir uchyate puruṣhaḥ sukha-duḥkhānāṁ bhoktṛitve hetur uchyate
Nature is said to be the cause in the matter of cause and effect. The self is said to be the cause in the experiencing of pleasure and pain.
Word by Word
Saved for this reading session
Three movements · tap a label to switch
Sanskrit recitation by Swami Brahmānanda
Audio from the Gītā Supersite, IIT Kanpur
Synthesis · a glossed leaf
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
he verse divides the work of bound life between two principles. Prakriti, material nature, is the cause when it comes to the doing, the producing, and the working of the 'effect' and the 'instrument'; purusha, the conscious person, is the cause when it comes to the enjoyership, the experiencing, of pleasure and pain. The commentators are nearly unanimous on the basic decoding of the technical words. The 'effect' (karya) is the body. The 'instruments' (karana) are the senses, the inner and outer organs that stand in the body; several count thirteen of them, the elements that make up the body, and the qualities of pleasure, pain, and delusion that rest in those instruments. So the verse is naming a clean labor-division: nature makes and runs the machinery, and the conscious self undergoes what is felt.
Braided from 10 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Vedānta Deśika · Swami Ramsukhdas · Swami Sivananda · Śrī Puruṣottama
This division is why both prakriti and purusha together are called the cause of samsara, the round of birth and rebirth. The two are needed at once. If nature never transformed into body, senses, and the felt qualities of pleasure and pain, there would be nothing to experience; and if there were no conscious self present to experience it, there would be no enjoyer and so no samsarin, no one caught in the round. Several commentators put the point sharply: insentient nature alone cannot feel anything, and the changeless self alone undergoes nothing; samsara arises precisely from their conjunction, their being joined together. The full undergoing of pleasure and pain is itself what is meant by samsara, and the self's becoming a full enjoyer of pleasure and pain is the transmigrant state.
Braided from 7 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Swami Sivananda · Madhvācārya · Śrī Jayatīrtha · Swami Ramsukhdas
How can an insentient nature 'do' anything, and how can a changeless self 'enjoy' anything? The Advaita and Bhakti commentators answer with the same logic: agency is lent to nature by the mere nearness of consciousness. Nature is unconscious, yet activity becomes possible in it through the presence of the conscious self, the way fire makes iron glow, the way the cow's nearness to the calf makes the milk flow, the way fire burns upward and wind moves sideways. So by purusha's very proximity, prakriti is said to be the agent. In the same way, enjoyership, which is really the felt awareness (samvedana) of pleasure and pain, belongs only to the conscious, and so is rightly said of purusha. The properties of body, senses, life, mind, and intellect get superimposed on the pure Self, so the ignorant person says 'I am fat, I am the doer, I am the enjoyer'; and the consciousness-tinged intellect thinks 'I experience pleasure and pain.' This mutual superimposition of nature's traits onto the self and the self's awareness onto nature is named as the actual cause of samsara.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Swami Sivananda · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Many of the devotional and theistic commentators add the next link in the chain, drawing on the verse's continuation: what holds the self in this conjunction is attachment to the qualities. The conscious self, abiding in nature, takes the qualities born of nature as its own and clings to the pleasures and pains they bring; this very attachment is what causes its birth in good wombs and bad wombs, divine, human, animal, and the rest, again and again. From that birth comes action, from action another birth, and so the round turns until the self ceases to serve the qualities. The wombs are named in pairs, high and low, with the human and intermediate births understood to fall between.
Braided from 7 commentators
Rāmānujācārya · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīla Baladeva · Sant Jñāneśvar · Śrī Ānandagiri · Lokmanya Tilak · Mahatma Gandhi
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
For these commentators the whole apparatus of doership in nature and enjoyership in the self is finally a product of ignorance and mutual superimposition, not a real relation. The self does not truly do or truly enjoy; nature's traits are falsely laid onto consciousness, and consciousness is falsely read into the inert intellect, and this two-way mistake is samsara itself. One source draws the iron-and-fire image with particular care: as iron identified with fire becomes the cause of fire seeming square-cornered, so by the self lending its reflection, nature seems to be the enjoyer. On this reading the very split the verse draws is provisional, valid only within the bondage that knowledge will dissolve; the removers named are renunciation with dispassion and the knowledge that follows it.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Ānandagiri · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Dvaita
These commentators reject the idea that nature truly acts at all, and reject the superimposition story used to explain it. Agency genuinely belongs to the conscious person, never to insentient nature; nature, being lifeless, can only undergo change, while the person, being conscious, is what experiences. They support this from scripture, citing the Bhagavata: 'in the agency of effect and cause they know prakriti as the cause; in the enjoyership of pleasures and pains, the person, higher than prakriti.' When the verse seems to credit nature with agency, this is only figurative: agency is ascribed to nature because nature is the transforming material cause, not because nature is a real doer. Enjoyment too must be read as direct first-hand experience that belongs to spirit alone, since it cannot mean nature's kind of consuming.
Madhvācārya · Śrī Jayatīrtha
Bhakti
The Gaudiya voices here go further than even the Dvaita rejection and mount the fullest argument that agency belongs to the conscious self alone. One source lays out a sustained refutation: the Sankhya claim that nature alone acts is reckless, for reality cannot belong to what is insentient like a clod or a log; agency means having the material cause, an unobstructed will, and effort, and scripture assigns all of these to the conscious. He also rejects the bare superimposition answer of other commentators: if nature's activity comes from consciousness borrowed by mere proximity, then the activity should simply be credited to that proximate conscious one, just as iron's burning power is caused by fire and not by iron. The self, though by nature of one taste of consciousness and bliss, is held in nature by beginningless impressions of action and beginningless craving, and is freed only when, through the company of the good, those impressions are exhausted, after which it enjoys the pleasures of the supreme Self's abode. Another voice in this school frames the bondage as beginningless nescience: the unattached self only seems attached because nescience fabricates its attachment to the bodies made of the qualities.
Śrīla Baladeva · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Sant Jñāneśvar
Viśiṣṭādvaita
These commentators read the verse not as a strict Sankhyan dualism of two independent principles but as an operational division within the Lord's own twofold nature. Both prakriti and purusha are the Lord's prakritis, the lower (apara) and the higher (para); the verse simply shows the proper roles within that single twofold ownership, nature as agent in the sphere of effect and instrument, the person as enjoyer in the sphere of pleasure and pain, neither doing the other's work. The self of itself has the single happiness of experiencing itself, and only when conjoined with nature does it experience the qualities' pleasures and pains. The cause of that conjunction is attachment to the qualities, which drives the self to merit and sin, to birth in worthy and unworthy wombs, and so to the round that continues until it serves the means of attaining the self.
Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika
Śuddhādvaita
For these commentators nature is the cause of effect and instrument, but as presided over by the purusha; nature alone does not generate. The self has, in addition, only the inner consciousness of these things, and its agency is taken in the worldly sense as the agency that prompts effort in the field, established by the aphorism 'the self is agent because scripture has a purpose.' Though both modification and enjoyment ought to be called properties of the field, since modification ends in the inert, the field has primacy there, and since enjoyment is seen to end in the conscious, the conscious has primacy there. One source frames the whole as the play of the self's own savor (rasa): nature makes manifest the effect and instruments, and the self enjoys as the knower of that rasa, the experiencer of meeting and separation.
Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama
Modern
These commentators keep the Sankhya-style division but stress the existential point and the way out. One uses the homely image of the household: the wife works and prepares the dishes while the husband silently eats them, so nature works and the soul tastes the fruit, pleasure and pain, of her labor. One is careful to say the purusha here is not the Supreme Self but the conditioned soul subject to transmigration; the Absolute is ever free. One links the Sankhya 'purusha' to the Vedantist 'Paramatman' to harmonize the body-and-self analysis with the nature-and-spirit analysis. And one presses the practical hinge: enjoyership is the self's only by the mistake of relation with nature; when that relation is released the person stands free of enjoyership, and nature's workings go on but wound no one.
Swami Sivananda · Swami Ramsukhdas · Lokmanya Tilak · Mahatma Gandhi
A Seeker Asks
If nature does all the doing and I am only the experiencer, am I to blame for anything, and how do I ever get free of the pleasure and pain that nature keeps producing?
Start with what the verse actually splits. It does not say you are passive and helpless; it says the machinery of doing, body, senses, and even the inner 'I-do' impulse, all belong to nature, while what is genuinely yours is the conscious presence that makes anything felt at all. Pleasure and pain become real experiences only because you are there to light them up; without you they are just inert events in nature, and with you they become someone's suffering and joy.
Swami Ramsukhdas · Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha
The catch is that this enjoyership is not your true nature; it is held in place by a mistake. The traits of body and mind get laid onto you, and your awareness gets read into the inert intellect, so 'I am the doer, I am the enjoyer' arises as a two-way confusion. That confusion is exactly what binds you, and what keeps the round of birth turning is attachment to the qualities, the clinging to the pleasures and pains nature serves up.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Swami Sivananda · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīla Viśvanātha
So freedom does not come from making nature stop working, which is impossible, but from releasing the false relation. As dispassion and knowledge dissolve the attachment, you stand free of enjoyership while nature's effects continue; they keep arising but they no longer wound anyone, because the one who took them as his own is no longer there. That is why this is liberating rather than fatalistic: you are not the blamed doer, but you are the one who can stop being the captive enjoyer.
Swami Ramsukhdas · Śrī Ānandagiri · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Swami Sivananda
Contemplation
Sit with the cleanest implication of this verse: the doing is not yours. The body acts, the senses reach, even the inner sense that says 'I am the doer' is itself only a movement of nature. What is truly yours is just the light you shed, the bare presence of consciousness that turns nature's workings into felt pleasure and pain. Notice that your enjoyership, your being the one who suffers and savors, is not built into you; it is borrowed, held only by the mistaken sense of being bound up with nature. So the practice is not to fight pleasure and pain, and not to stop nature from working, but to loosen that mistaken relation. As the false sense of relation is released, you remain, but the bhoktritva, the enjoyership, falls away; nature's effects keep arising as they will, but they no longer wound you, because there is no longer anyone inside them taking them as his own.
Sit with this · Swami Ramsukhdas
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, tap a name in The seating.