Contents
Shri Sankara's Gita Bhashya
(Sri Sankaracharya's Commentary on the Gita)
CHAPTER -18
|
|
There is, then, this doctrine which you hold[1]: Though the Self is not directly engaged in action, he docs act by his mere presence; and that itself constitutes the true agency of the Self. As is well-known, when his soldiers are fighting, a king is said to be engaged in battle, by reason of his mere prescnce,even though he does not himself fight; and he is (similarly) said to be victorious or vanquished[2]. So also the commander of an army acts by mere word[3]. And wc accept the connection of the king and the commander with the result of the act., Also, just as the acts of the priests officiating at a sacrifice (rtviks) are deemed to be those of the sacrificer (yajamāna)[4], likewise it may be deemed that the acts of the body etc. are done by the Self (itself), since their results go to the Self. And, just as a lodestone (magnet), itself not active, is truly the agent, by reason of its causing a piece of iron to move about, so (is the case) with the Self.-We say that this doctrine is wrong, since it leads to the conclusion that that which does not act is a doer (kāraka). |
 |
References and Context
- ↑ in support of the view that the Self is an agent in the real sense. (A)
- ↑ This is an example (from worldly practice) of real agency accruing from mere presence. (A)
- ↑ An example to show that even in the absence of hodily activity there can be real agency. (A)
- ↑ This is an example from Vedic usage. (A)