How is God the doer and also the non-doer in creating the world?

[Prof. J. S. R. Prasad asked: God creates this world and thus becomes the doer (kartā). At the same time, since the creation is done through His illusory power, māyā the doer-ship goes to māyā alone and not to God. Can we correlate this concept in the verse from the Gītā in which God says that He is the doer while at the same time, He is not the doer (Tasya kartāramapi…—Gītā)?]

Swami replied: The statement from the Gītā quoted by you (Tasya kartāramapi…—Gītā) is regarding God’s creation of the caste system, which is based on the qualities and deeds of souls. God says that He is the doer (kartā) and at the same time, not the doer (akartā), especially in this specific context of the caste system. It means that He is the Creator as well as not the creator of the caste system. Your logic that God is the doer in the process of creation and also simultaneously not doer since He creates through māyā, does not fit this context. This logic is generally true and it applies to every process of God’s creation. So, there is no need to mention it specifically in the context of the caste system. Stating this specifically in the context of the caste system is unnecessary, when it automatically applies to everthing within creation. You cannot even argue that this logic is not general and that applies only to this specific concept. That would be illogical because it is generally true and it applies to the entire process of creation of which the caste system is also a part. Considering this logic to be only specifically applicable to the creation of the caste system suffers from the defect called ativyāpti. It means that the applicability of this logic exceeds or overflows the context to which it is applied. Hence, this logic cannot be used to resolve the contradiction stated in the quoted verse from the Gītā.

Then, what logic can we use, so that we can say God is the Creator of the caste system and yet somehow, not its Creator? We must recognize that there are two different caste systems that are being spoken of here. One type of caste system is the one established by God. This one is clearly mentioned in the verse by God Himself. It is the one based on qualities and the corresponding deeds of souls (Cāturvarṇyaṃ mayā sṛṣṭam, guṇakarma vibhāgaśaḥ…—Gītā). Thus, half of the problem is solved by God Himself. The first half of the logic is that God is the Creator of this caste system based on qualities and deeds. The other half of the logic is to be discovered by us with the help of the first half. What would be that other half of the logic with which we could say that God is not the Creator of the caste system? Naturally, the second half must refer to the second type of caste system, which is based on not qualities and deeds. It is the caste system based on birth, neglecting the soul’s qualities and deeds. God is not the Creator of this second caste system. This is the other half of the logic. Thus, the apparent contradiction between the two halves is resolved. Each of the two halves refers to a different caste system. Although the two statements of God Kṛṣṇa seem to be contradictory, He indicates that actually, there is no contradiction between them by using the word ‘api’. Api means ‘even though’. He is saying, that even though (api) I created this type of caste system, I did not create that type of caste system. It is like saying, “Even though I created this golden chain, I did not create this golden bangle”.

The word caste system is common in both types, just as gold is common in both the chain and the bangle. Here, ‘api’ is used to distinguish between one specific type and another—between the chain and the bangle or between one type of caste system and the other. It is not used with reference to the common item, which is the gold or caste system. If we do not recognize two different types of caste system, a mutual contradiction arises. No pot-maker says that he has created the pot and that, at the same time, he has not created the same pot; unless, of course, the pot-maker is mad! Considering the caste system as only one, you may try to solve the resulting contradiction by bringing in the concept that God created the world, not directly, but through His illusory power, māyā. This is what you had proposed in the beginning. But as I have already explained, that proposition suffers from logical defects and must be rejected. Therefore, finding another type of caste system to justify the use of the word, api become inevitable. This second type of caste system is the caste system based on birth and not on qualities and deeds. Moreover, this second type of caste system already exists in this world (loka prasiddhi). It has not been specially invented by Datta Swami.

In this way, logical analysis clearly supports the facts that God Kṛṣṇa was referring to the second type of caste system based on birth. God says in that verse, that He is not the Creator of that second illogical type of caste system. The word ‘api’ can refer to one, two, three or more items (samuchchayārtha). In this context, it refers to the two types of caste system. It does not refer to the same single type of caste system, otherwise it would certainly lead to mutual contradiction. Finally, the statement means that God is the Creator of first type of caste system and that He is also simultaneously (api) the non-Creator of the second irrational type of caste system.

Some people argue that souls are born in castes characterized by qualities and deeds that are congenial to the qualities and deeds of those souls. They argue that therefore, there is a close correlation between the caste system by birth and the caste system by qualities and deeds. This is utter foolishness! It also reflects the illogical crooked mentality of people, who are rigid about the caste system by birth. If their argument were correct, how could certain souls having a specific set of qualities and deeds be born in castes having the opposite kind of qualities and deeds? Since they do not find the answer for this question, they try to dismiss this question by saying that such a mismatch between the soul’s qualities and the caste of birth is extremely rare.

There is justice only when a 100% of cases are covered. It is not like amending the constitution, where a two-thirds majority is sufficient to amend the constitution again and again. Divine justice allows no exceptions to be left out. It must apply to 100% of cases. If you follow the criterion for determining a soul’s caste, as stated by God Kṛṣna in the Gītā, this problem does not arise at all! You say that the souls having a specific set of qualities are born in the caste having the same specific set of qualities. That specific set of souls having that specific set of qualities will be born in the specific caste having the same specific set of qualities. As those souls grow to adulthood, they will also express the same specific set of qualities and perform the corresponding deeds. Therefore, the divine policy of God cannot be criticized from any angle. It is stated below:

The soul’s caste is determined to be that caste which has qualities and deeds that match with the qualities and deeds expressed by the soul.

This is the true translation of the line Cāturvarṇyaṃ mayāsṛṣṭam, guṇakarma vibhāgaśaḥ. With this policy, no problem can arise. Those souls who express a set of qualities and deeds that differ from those of the caste in which they are born, are not members of that caste. They are members of the caste with qualities and deeds matching their own. Thus, the caste system as created by God on the basis of souls’ qualities and deeds includes all and excludes none.