11.7 Saankhya And Yoga Opinion

The Saankhya school says that the enjoyer (bhoktaa) in the body is the self alone. The self is the Purusha, the I which is the foundation of knowledge, is unattached, is diverse, is the enjoyer, but is not the doer since in their opinion, Prakriti does everything.
 
It is hard to argue that someone can either be a doer or an enjoyer, but not both. Why? Listen. First of all, the enjoyer is one, and the "enjoyed" are many. Without [premeditated goal-driven] action, how will there be variety in enjoyment? The variety of enjoyment (priyataa) is clearly seen. Therefore, the statement that the self is only an enjoyer, is not tenable. In reality, the enjoyer is the doer, the doer is the enjoyer.
 
Secondly, what is the boundary between action and enjoyment? Is eating food an action or enjoyment? If it is only an enjoyment (the result of prior actions) then eating a meal will not give rise to any sense of right or wrong. A result should not generate a new action. There is no punishment of a punishment. But we see that there is sin or merit in eating a meal. Lifting a morsel with our hands is action, and tasting it with the tongue is enjoyment. Action happens through organs of action, enjoyment happens through organs of sense. Now, the hand is lifted with the backing of the intellect therefore it has doership. That is why there is sin and merit in the process of eating a meal. Therefore, there is no boundary between action and enjoyment, and therefore there is no boundary between doer and enjoyer.
 
If you say that the doer is independent - whether he does, does not, does opposite, [then Saankhya would counter by saying] but no being is independent. Also, the enjoyer is non-independent otherwise who would want to be sad? That is why the individual soul is the enjoyer, not the doer. To respond to this argument, Vedanta says that where doer-enjoyer is considered real, independence and non-independence are also considered real. On the same lines, a separate omniscient, omnipotent Ishvara's reign is also accepted which regulates the individual souls. But Saankhya does not accept Ishvara, therefore this argument of Saankhya does not hold water.
 
Furthermore, doer-enjoyer is non-real in Vedanta. In other words, it is imagined due to ignorance of the pure nature of the self, it is superimposed, it is assumed. Therefore, after realizing the true nature of the self, the non-reality of independence and non-independence is known. There, the self of the doer-enjoyer individual soul alone is Ishvara, that is known.
 
The world which is considered real by Saankhya is meant for the ignorant, as per Vedanta. The Purusha, who is the witness of the Prakriti, is endowed with action and enjoyment in a state of ignorance. That is why he is disconnected, is worldly and is ignorant of his non-disconnectedness. The residence of the witness in his inherent nature is also not real due to being tainted by the ignorance of his non-disconnectedness. This is because the duality delusion of the witness has not been destroyed yet. That is why he needs another seen, another witness and another world in the form of Ishvara to be made.