B.G 5.14
न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः। न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥१४॥
na kartr̥tvaṁ na karmāṇi lokasya sr̥jati prabhuḥ। na karmaphalasaṁyogaṁ svabhāvastu pravartate ॥14॥
Neither the agency to act, nor acts of the world are directly driven by the master (of city of nine gates, i.e. individual soul). Thus, is not united with the results of action. They are but, driven as per their inherent nature.
Gīta Bhāshya 5.14
The word 'prabhu', 'the master', here refers to individual being, as he/she is more capable than inert matter. Individual being does not do in reality, hence is not the agent.
He does not do in reality, thus it is explained in 'na kartr̥tvam', i.e. 'has no agency' verse. Here the individual being is addressed as 'prabhuḥ', the lord, as he is more capable compared to inert matter.
Gīta Tātparya 5.14
It is the Lord who bestows independence and the notion of agency to individual being. At the same time the word 'lokasya' shows the given independence is not available in the matters concerning the world. The Lord exists by Himself and manifests Himself as the embodiment of inherent nature. Through inherent nature, He himself instigates and operates automatically as an agent. Ability of the lord to express, objectivity, existence, and such attributes are because of His inherent speciality. Thus, the doctrine of emptiness (by Buddhists), and the doctrine of attribute less Brahman (of Advaitins) is not tenable.
Just as the father bestows governorship to royal sons, similarly given by the Supreme Soul are the characteristic of the independence in action and the notion of agency. Statements like 'na kartṛtvamityādinā', i.e. 'there is no agency' dispel the doubt among living beings about their own existence and regarding the independence in the activities born from the deeds out of their inherent nature.
The lord, by production of unknown results for the actions, does not give independence regarding governance of the world, is the meaning. Otherwise, the use of adjective, 'lokasya', i.e. 'of the world', is unnecessary.
The King does not bestow the country itself upon those in the position of leadership, as if to his own sons, despite their enjoyment of resources among the residents of the country. Similarly, those who engage in actions are given the fruits, but not the governance of the world, is the principle to be applied.
Indeed, the Lord exists by Himself and manifests Himself as the embodiment of inherent nature. Because of His inherent nature, He himself instigates and operates automatically in actions as an agent.
"The divine lord Vishnu is celebrated for His inherent independence. At all the time He governs with his autonomy, and not another.
Indeed, even if he engages sin and such acts do not bind Him because of his independence and autonomy. Those whose intellect is covered by ignorance do not recognize this."
-stated thus in the Mahāvārāha Purāṇa.
"I am the cause of everything."
"I scorch, I withhold the rain."
"Indeed, we have heard that His diverse energies are knowledge, strength, and action, and are inherent and natural in Him."
"Nothing in the world happens without Your natural orders (ritam)."
"All this is the inherent nature of the divine."
"Wordly affairs and liberation are but a sport for you."
From these testimonials, it becomes clear that His agency is not unnatural. There is a lack of testimonials to prove otherwise.
The stand of 'indescribable' (anirvācya) is because of negation and refutation. Not that those who argue for the absence of all speciality (Advaitins - nirgunavāda) are any different, especially from the standpoint of empty-ism (Buddhist - emptiness). Indeed, by stating it is devoid of all special qualities, its existence in not established. Ability to express, objectivity, existence, and such attributes are because of inherent speciality. Otherwise, the words such as - 'exists', 'Brahman', and other words become synonymous, and argument becomes defective.
Indeed, speciality of particularization is even binding on the speciality of universalization. Otherwise, it would indeed be illogical and looses meaning.
Self-effulgence cannot be established without proof. If only self-effulgence is accepted as a special case, then, because of lack of evidence for the others, even the goal must be accepted through presumption. In the absence of illumination of the other, the assumed self-effulgence will be considered as not-effulgent only. Therefore, the validation of both the self effulgence and the goal to be achieved is necessary.
By the word 'svaprakāśa', i.e. self-effulgent, itself the principles of self existence and the principle of beyond, i.e. transcendentalness is established. Thus, the doctrine (of emptiness or attribute less Brahman) is untenable. Indeed, when it is stated, 'Illuminates', its own illumination or anything to be illuminated is not observed without the self effulgent, similar to the experience, while partaking of food. The (attribute less Brahman and emptiness) doctrine contradicts the principle of agent, and action, and also is opposed to the experience of direct perception. Knowledge, the knowable, and the knower, without being observed, are not established.
Therefore, there is no special utility in the doctrine of emptiness. As we observe multiple defects, this doctrine is rejected.
"The lord Hari by his inherent nature is the doer and everything else is considered as governed by Him. Therefore, that sense of His agency never perishes."
-thus states Paingi testimonial.
