[Advaita-l] 'Bhokta' broken up

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om V Subramanian ji,

The literal meaning of kshetra and kshetrajna are explained in Gita 13th
chapter. The constituents of kshetra are enumerated in 13.5 and 13.6.
Kshetrajna is stated as synonym of jiva, purusha in 13.20 bhashya.



Kshetrajna i.e. jiva is actually Ishwara is a subject matter of
Brahma-vidya. It is not an obvious knowledge. It is gained from Upanishad
and realized through sAdhana.



Question arises as to who is kartA/ bhoktA i.e. who has kartritva/
bhoktritva.



In the Kartri adhikaraNa of BSB, Acharya says the following:-


   -

   कर्ता च अयं जीवः स्यात् (2.3.33)
   -

   ‘विज्ञानं यज्ञं तनुते । कर्माणि तनुतेऽपि च’ (तै. उ. २ । ५ । १)
   <https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya?page=2&id=T_C02_S05_V01&hl=%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%C2%A0%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%9A>
   इति । ननु विज्ञानशब्दो बुद्धौ समधिगतः, कथमनेन जीवस्य कर्तृत्वं सूच्यत इति,
   नेत्युच्यते — जीवस्यैवैष निर्देशः, न बुद्धेः [The meaning of the word
   VijnAna is jiva and not buddhi]
   कर्तृसामानाधिकरण्यनिर्देशाद्बुद्धिव्यतिरिक्तस्यैवात्मनः कर्तृत्वं सूच्यत (
   2.3.36)
   -

   इतश्च विज्ञानव्यतिरिक्तो जीवः कर्ता भवितुमर्हति । यदि
   पुनर्विज्ञानशब्दवाच्या बुद्धिरेव कर्त्री स्यात् , ततः शक्तिविपर्ययः स्यात्
   — करणशक्तिर्बुद्धेर्हीयेत, कर्तृशक्तिश्चापद्येत ; सत्यां च बुद्धेः
   कर्तृशक्तौ, तस्या एव अहंप्रत्ययविषयत्वमभ्युपगन्तव्य (2.3.38)


The crux of these quotes is as follows:-


It is the jiva which is the kartA. Taittiriya Mantra 2.5.1 refers to jiva
through the word vijnAna and not buddhi. *Buddhi is always a karaNa and
never a kartA*. If buddhi were to be kartA then it will become
aham-pratyaya-vishayam (*of Gita Bhashya 2.19*) which is not desirable.


Thus, it is held that it is the jiva which is the kartA.

Now, the question arises as to whether the kartritva of jiva is swAbhAvika
or aupAdhika. SwAbhAvika kartritva of jiva is not possible because then the
concept of Moksha itself is not possible. एवं
तावच्छास्त्रार्थवत्त्वादिभिर्हेतुभिः कर्तृत्वं शारीरस्य प्रदर्शितम् ;
तत्पुनः स्वाभाविकं वा स्यात् , उपाधिनिमित्तं वेति चिन्त्यते….न स्वाभाविकं
कर्तृत्वमात्मनः सम्भवति, अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात्. (2.3.40)

Therefore, it is held that the kartritva of jiva is aupAdhika. तस्मात्
*उपाधिधर्माध्यासेनैवात्मनः
कर्तृत्वम्* , न स्वाभाविकम्. (2.3.40)

The point to be noted here is that still the jiva which is being held as
kartA. Now, what exactly is the meaning of aupAdhika. Jiva i.e. kshetrajna
is like ghatAkAsha and buddhi is like ghata. There is no contact possible
between them (*कः पुनः अयं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः संयोगः **अभिप्रेतः*). There
is adhyAsa of property of buddhi in jiva. Kindly note that swarUpa of jiva
as Brahman is not talked about here. Rather it is the kshetrajna, jiva (*of
13.20*) which is like ghatAkAsha which is being referred.

It is also important to note that buddhi is still held as karaNa and not
kartA. तक्षा हि विशिष्टेषु तक्षणादिव्यापारेष्वपेक्ष्यैव प्रतिनियतानि करणानि
वास्यादीनि कर्ता भवति, स्वशरीरेण तु अकर्तैव ; एवमयमात्मा
सर्वव्यापारेष्वपेक्ष्यैव मनआदीनि करणानि कर्ता भवति, स्वात्मना तु अकर्तैवेति
। न तु आत्मनस्तक्ष्ण इवावयवाः सन्ति, यैः हस्तादिभिरिव वास्यादीनि तक्षा,
मनआदीनि करणान्यात्मोपाददीत न्यस्येद्वा ॥ It is to be noted that the word
Atma used here is in reference to jiva.

Hereafter, Acharya makes a drastic shift - whereby VaishnavAs hold him
guilty of self-contradiction, which in my opinion is not correct. *He
imputes kartitva to buddhi*. यस्त्वयं व्यपदेशो दर्शितः, ‘ विज्ञानं यज्ञं
तनुते’ इति, *स बुद्धेरेव कर्तृत्वं प्रापयति* — विज्ञानशब्दस्य तत्र
प्रसिद्धत्वात्. This is just the opposite of what he held in 2.3.36.
Further He says, न च बुद्धेः शक्तिविपर्ययः करणानां कर्तृत्वाभ्युपगमे भवति,
सर्वकारकाणामेव स्वस्वव्यापारेषु कर्तृत्वस्यावश्यंभावित्वात् ;
उपलब्ध्यपेक्षं त्वेषां करणानां करणत्वम् ; सा चात्मनः. (2.3.38 opposition)

However, on careful consideration, it is seen that Acharya is saying the
following:-

   1.

   Buddhi is karaNa.
   2.

   All kArakAs have kartritva in their respective field of action.
   सर्वकारकाणामेव स्वस्वव्यापारेषु कर्तृत्वस्यावश्यंभावित्वात्. Therefore,
   buddhi, despite being karaNa, has kartritva in its own field of action.
   3.

   The word vijnAna used in Taittirya 2.5.1 refers to jiva alone in which
   the dharma of buddhi is adhyasta. If this is not held then there will be
   an inevitable contradiction with 2.3.28.


Now, there is no contact possible between jiva and buddhi except through
adhyAsa whereby the dharma of buddhi is imposed in jiva. Buddhi is karaNa
only but just as we say knife cuts the fruit *or* rice is cooking or fuel
is burning or vessel contains - we hold kartritva in buddhi. And this
buddhi-dharma (which is merely karaNa-kriya devoid of kartritva) is imposed
in jiva through adhyAsa to attribute aupAdhika kartritva in jiva.

Thus, we see, buddhi/manas *do not have* kartritva due to being karaNa.
Their kartritva is just like - *the knife is cutting*.

It is the jiva which has kartritva through the adhyAsa of karana-kriyA
which is upAdhi-dharma.

There is karaNa-kriyA (whether of manas/buddhi/indriya). There is adhyAsa
of karaNa-kriyA in jiva. And thereby jiva has kartritva.

*We can never hold the karaNa to be kartA. It is only for language sake we
say so - the knife cuts the fruit.*

Thus, in my humble understanding - it is the jiva i.e. kshetrajna which is
the kartA/bhoktA. And this kartritva-bhoktritva is aupAdhika and not
swAbhAvika. And this does *not *imply the karaNa to be kartA/bhoktA. That
usage is for language sake. *If we hold buddhi/kshetra as genuinely kartA,
then there will be shakti-viparyaya*.


Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.