HomeBhagavad GitaCh. 5Shloka 13
Previous Verse
Next Verse

Bhagavad Gita — Karma Sannyasa Yoga, Shloka 13

Karma Sannyasa Yoga

Bhagavad Gita 13 illustration

न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः । न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥ ५.१४ ॥

na kartṛtvaṃ na karmāṇi lokasya sṛjati prabhuḥ | na karmaphalasaṃyogaṃ svabhāvas tu pravartate || 5.14 ||

Le Seigneur ne crée ni l’agentivité (le sentiment d’être l’auteur) des êtres, ni leurs actes, ni l’union avec les fruits de l’action ; c’est la nature propre (svabhāva) qui met tout en mouvement.

प्रभु न तो लोक के कर्तृत्व को रचता है, न कर्मों को और न कर्मफल के संयोग को; स्वभाव ही प्रवृत्त होता है।

The Lord does not create for the world either agency, actions, or the connection with the fruits of action; rather, intrinsic nature (svabhāva) proceeds.

The verse is often read as rejecting divine moral arbitrariness: bondage and fruit arise through natural/causal order (svabhāva), not by a creator assigning doership. Theological traditions reconcile this with divine governance by distinguishing ultimate from empirical causality.

not
:
Root
कर्तृत्वम्agency; doership
कर्तृत्वम्:
Karma
Rootकर्तृत्व
nor/not
:
Root
कर्माणिactions
कर्माणि:
Karma
Rootकर्मन्
लोकस्यof the world / of people
लोकस्य:
Rootलोक
सृजतिcreates; produces
सृजति:
Root√सृज्
प्रभुःthe Lord; the sovereign
प्रभुः:
Karta
Rootप्रभु
not
:
Root
कर्मफलसंयोगम्the connection/association with the fruit of actions
कर्मफलसंयोगम्:
Karma
Rootकर्मफलसंयोग
स्वभावःone’s own nature; inherent disposition
स्वभावः:
Karta
Rootस्वभाव
तुbut
तु:
Rootतु
प्रवर्ततेacts; sets in motion; operates
प्रवर्तते:
Root√वृत् (प्र+√वृत्)
Krishna
Svabhāva (intrinsic nature)Karma-phala (fruits of action)Īśvara (Lord) and causalityMoral psychology of agency
Causal order and responsibilityNon-arbitrariness of the divineNature as operative principle

FAQs

By attributing much of behavior to conditioned nature, the verse can promote humility and careful self-cultivation, while still encouraging responsibility through understanding causes and habits.

It points to an impersonal causal structure (svabhāva) governing action–result relations, limiting the idea that a deity directly manufactures doership or dispenses outcomes capriciously.

In the chapter’s argument for inner renunciation, this verse supports the view that bondage is not imposed by God but arises through nature and misidentification with agency.

Analyze actions in terms of causes—habits, environments, incentives—then adjust conditions rather than relying only on blame or guilt.