Bhagawad Gita Ch2. Verses: 19-25 [Swamy Chinmayananda]

[Guest guest]

[Commentary by Swamy Chinmayananda]

 

[With special thanks to Prof. Prabhakar and his team (IIT, Kanpur) for their

contribution of this typed text]

 

THE LORD NOW QUOTES TWO VEDIC MANTRAS TO CONFIRM THE VIEW

THAT GEETA SHASTRA IS INTENDED TO REMOVE THE CAUSE OF SAMSARA,

SUCH AS GRIEF AND DELUSION. "IT IS ONLY A FALSE NOTION OF YOURS,"

SAYS THE LORD, "THAT YOU THINK THUS: 'BHISHMA AND OTHERS, WILL BE

KILLED BY ME IN THE BATTLE; I WILL BE THEIR SLAYER'..." HOW?

 

ya enaM vetti hantAraM yaScAinaM manyate hatam

ubhAu tAu na vijAnIto nAyaM hanti na hanyate 2.19

 

19. He who takes the Self to be the slayer and he who thinks He is slain,

neither of these

knows. He slays not, nor in He slain.

 

The Self, being Immutable, It is neither slain nor can It be the slayer.

Those who think that they have been slain when the body is slain

and those who feel that they are the slayers, both of them

know not the Real Nature of the Self and hence they but prattle meaningless

assertions. That which is killed is the perishable body and the delusory

arrogation,

"I am slain" belongs to the ego-centre. The Self is that which is beyond the

body

and the ego, since the Pure Consciousness is the Illuminator of both, the

body and the ego.

In short, being Immutable, the Self can neither be the agent nor the object

of the action-of-slaying.

 

HOW IS THE SELF IMMUTABLE? THIS IS ANSWERED IN THE NEXT VERSE.

 

na jAyate mriyate vA kadAcin nAyaM bhUtvA bhavitA vA na bhUyaH

ajo nityaH SASvato 'yaM purANo na hanyate hanyamAne SarIre 2.20

 

20. He is not born, nor does He ever die; after having been, He again ceases

not

to be; Unborn, Eternal, Changeless and Ancient, He is not killed when the

body is

killed.

 

This stanza labours to deny in the Self all the symptoms of mutability that

are

recognised and experienced by the body. The body is prone to different

changes and these

modifications are the sources of all sorrows in every embodiment. These six

changes are common to

all, and they may be enumerated as: birth, existence, growth, decay, disease

and death. These

changes are the common womb of all pains in a mortal's life. All these are

denied in the

Self, in this stanza, to prove the immutability of the Self.

Unlike the physical body, the Self is not born, It being the Eternal Factor

that

exists at all times.

 

Waves are born and they die away but the ocean is not born with the waves;

nor

does it die away when the waves disappear. Since there is no birth, there is

no death;

things that have a beginning alone can end; the rising waves alone can moan

their dying conditions.

Again, it is explained that like the birth of a child, who was not existing

before and who

has come to exist after the birth, the Atman is not something that has come

to be born due to or

because of the body. Thus, the Self is unborn and eternal --- birthless and

deathless (Ajah,

Nityah).

 

HAVING THUS STATED THE PROPOSITION THAT THE SELF IS NEITHER AN

AGENT NOR AN OBJECT OF THE ACTION OF SLAYING, AND HAVING

ESTABLISHED, BY ARGUMENTS, THE IMMUTABILITY OF THE SELF, LORD

KRISHNA HERE CONCLUDES THE PROPOSITION AS FOLLOWS:

 

vedAvinASinaM nityaM ya enam ajam avyayam

kathaM sa puruSaH pArtha kaM ghAtayati hanti kam 2.21

 

21. Whosoever knows Him to be Indestructible, Eternal, Unborn, and

Inexhaustible, how can that man slay, O Partha, or cause others to be slain?

 

Summarising what is said so far, as the Law of Being (Dharma) of the Self,

which

indicated rather than defined the Eternal, Immutable Reality, in this

stanza, we have, in

the form of an interrogation, an assertion that those who know this shall

have thereafter, no

dejection or sorrow in facing life's realities.

 

Having known the Self to be Indestructible, Eternal, Unborn and

Inexhaustible,

Krishna asks Arjuna, "How can one arrogate to oneself the stupid idea of

agency?" The Lord

says that neither can such an individual cause someone to slay nor himself

be a slayer. In

the context of the given situation, Krishna advises thus. It is interesting

to note that He

means both Himself and Arjuna by His words. If this knowledge of the Reality

has come to the

intellectual appreciation and acceptance of Arjuna, he will have no more

justification to feel himself to

be the killer of the Unborn.

 

 

IN WHAT WAY IS THE SELF INDESTRUCTIBLE? HERE, IN THE FOLLOWING, IS

AN EXPLANATORY EXAMPLE:

 

vAsAMsi jIrNAni yathA vihAya navAni gRhNAti naro 'parANi

tathA SarIrANi vihAya jIrNAny anyAni saMyAti navAni dehI 2.22

 

22. Just as a man casts off his worn out clothes and puts on new ones, so

also

the embodied-Self casts off its worn out bodies and enters others which are

new.

This is one of the oft-quoted famous stanzas in the Geeta which, by a very

striking example, explains to us how the ego-centric entity in an

individual readily leaves its

associations with one set of equipments, and arrogates to itself another

conducive envelopment for

living a new set of its required experiences. The example that Vyasa uses is

so universal that from

the Lord's own mouth it rings with a note of irresistible appeal.

Just as an individual changes his clothes to suit the convenience of the

occasion, so too the ego-centre discards one physical form and takes to

another, which will be most

suited for it to gain the next required type of experiences. No one will

plan to go to his office in

his night-gown, nor will he, in his stiff-collar, feel happy while playing

tennis in the evening. He

changes his dress according to the field where he is intending to work for

the time being. Similar

is the why and wherefore of death and thereafter.

 

This striking example, which comes within the comprehension of every one, is

made use of by the Lord so that, not only Arjuna, but even those who are

over-hearing these

eighteen discourses, even at this distant time, may come to understand the

idea clearly.

Changing of our clothes that have become worn out, cannot be a pain to

anyone of

us, especially when it is for the purpose of putting on a new set of

clothes.

Similarly, when a mind-intellect-equipment finds that its embodiment in a

given form can no longer help

it to earn, from its available environments, experiences that would

facilitate its evolutionary

pilgrimage, it feels that this particular form is worn out (Jeerna). This

"worn out" condition of a

body is to be decided neither by its age nor by its biological condition.

Nor can anybody

other than its wearer, the ego, decide it.

 

Critics rise up in hosts, however, against the truth of this stanza and

their

main platform of arguments is built upon the observed facts of young people

dying away in the

bloom of their life. In the observers' opinion, the individual was young and

his body was not worn

out (Jeerna), but from the standpoint of the evolutionary necessity of the

ego concerned, that

body was already useless for it. A rich man feels like changing his house or

vehicle almost every

year, and he invariably finds ready purchasers. As far as the rich owner is

concerned, the

thing has become useless for him while for the purchaser it is "as good as

new." Similarly, here

nobody else can decide, whether a given body is worn out or not, except its

"wearer."

In short, the stanza emphasizes the doctrine of reincarnation which we have

already explained in an earlier stanza.

 

On the whole, it must have definitely conveyed to Arjuna the idea that death

grins only at those who have no understanding, and that it has no pain for

those who understand its

implications and working. Just as changing the dress is no pain to the body,

so too, when the

dweller in the body leaves the envelopment there is no pain possible; again,

undressing does

not mean that thereafter we will ever live naked, so too, the embodied Self,

ere long,

discovers an appropriate equipment from which to function so as to earn for

itself new sets of

experiences. Evolution and change are all for the mind-and-intellect and not

for the Self. The Self is

perfect and changeless, and needs no evolution.

 

WHY IS THE SELF CHANGELESS? THE LORD SAYS:

 

nAinaM chindanti SastrANi nAinaM dahati pAvakaH

na cAinaM kledayantyApo na SoSayati mArutaH 2.23

 

23. Weapons cleave It not, fire burns It not, water moistens It not, wind

dries

It not.

 

The unseen is always explained in terms of the seen, and thereby the unknown

becomes fully indicated, rather than defined; for, any unknown thing merely

defined in itself

remains as unknown as before. Similarly, here the Changeless, Immutable,

Self is being

described by Lord Krishna in terms of the mutable and everchanging world

which is very familiar to

Arjuna and all people like us. In the world-of-change, objects come to their

annihilation

through instruments of death or they are consumed by fire or destroyed by

water or dried up by air.

These are the various cosmic means and methods by which the objects of the

world come to their

destruction. All these means are declared as impotent in bringing about the

destruction of

the Self.

 

WEAPONS CLEAVE IT NOT --- It is very well-known that with an axe one can cut

down a thing, and with a bullet one can shoot some other object, but neither

can one

wound water, fire, air or space with a sword, however sharp it might be. The

principle is that no

instrument can hit or destroy an element subtler than itself. Naturally,

therefore, Atman, the

Self, the very cause of the subtlest element, space, and necessarily

therefore, subtler than space,

cannot be cut asunder by the gross instruments.

 

FIRE CANNOT BURN IT --- Fire generally can burn things other than the fire,

but

it cannot burn itself. The burning capacity in fire is the very Essence, the

Truth in it,

and therefore, fire cannot burn its own Essence, viz., its fiery nature.

Wherever there is fire, it

can consume things only in space and yet, space is never consumed by fire.

Things are consumed by

fire in space. If space itself cannot be consumed by fire, how impotent it

must feel when it tries

to consume the cause of space, the Self?

 

WATER CANNOT MOISTEN IT --- Things get soaked only when they have got inter-

space in themselves. A piece of bread can be soaked in water or milk, but, a

piece of

iron cannot be soaked, as iron has no inter-space in it. When the substance

is one homogeneous

mass containing nothing other than itself to condition it, water cannot

enter the

substance and, therefore, cannot soak it. Another method of destruction

observed is either

through the quick effects of water, that is drowning, etc., or through the

slow effects of

moisture, such as corroding, etc. Even these cannot destroy the Truth.

 

WIND DRIES IT NOT --- Dehydration is possible only when there are some

traces of

water in the substance dehydrated. Every crystal has its own water of

crystallisation,

which, when removed, causes the crystals to lose their distinct shapes and

forms and get

pulverised into a fine powder. These are days when vegetables and food

materials are dehydrated for

purposes of preservation. This is possible because these substances contain

moisture-

molecules within them.

 

The Supreme Consciousness contains nothing other than Itself and therefore,

annihilation through the process of dehydration is not possible.

Apart from this direct word-meaning, on the whole, the stanza indicates

deeper

significances which are better brought out in the next stanza, where Lord

Krishna gives out

how and why the truth is Eternal.

 

FOR WHAT REASON? WHY AND HOW CAN WE RECOGNISE THE SELF TO BE

ETERNAL?

 

acchedyo 'yam adAhyo 'yam akledyo 'SoSya eva ca

nityaH sarvagataH sthANur acalo 'yaM sanAtanaH 2.24

 

24. This Self cannot be cut, nor burnt, nor moistened, nor dried up. It is

eternal, all-pervading, stable immovable and ancient.

 

It is amply clear that if a thing cannot be annihilated by any of the known

methods of destruction of nature, or those invented and perfected by man,

then that given object must

be everlasting. Here, in the second line, we have a series of qualities

listed, indicating the

Truth; they are not a haphazard collection of terms picked up at random and

used in haste. Each word

is chosen as a sequence to the previous one. That which has

indestructibility, as indicated in

the first line, should necessarily be everlasting (Nityah). That which is

thus Eternal must be

necessarily All-Pervading (Sarvagatah).

 

"ALL-PERVADING" is a short term of inconceivable depth of significance. ALL-

PERVADING is that which pervades everywhere and, therefore, there is nothing

that is not pervaded by the "ALL-PERVASIVE." The Eternal truth envelops all,

and the ALL-

PERVADING has no shape, since that which has a shape is conditioned all

along

its outline by something other than itself.

 

A man with a head, a trunk and limbs has a shape, because all around him,

along

his outline, is space, which is something other than the carbon-material of

his skull and bones.

A thing conditioned should necessarily have a form of its own. By the term

"ALL-

PERVADING," it is meant that it has only Itself all round It and at all

places, and that It is

unconditioned by anything other than Itself.

 

A truth that is thus Eternal (Nityah), Homogeneous and All-Pervading

(Sarvagatah) must necessarily be "Stable" (Sthanuh) because no change can

ever take place in it.

That which is thus Stable must be "Firm" (Achalah); for, it cannot shake or

move, since

movement implies the transfer of a thing from one set of time and place to

another set of time and

place where it was not. Since the Self is All-pervading, there is no spot in

space, or period in

time, where It is not aready, and therefore --- just as I cannot move myself

in myself --- the Self

cannot move anywhere. A motionless thing is indeed "Firm" (Achalah).

 

Here the two terms "Stable" (Sthanuh) and "Firm" (Achalah) may seem to be a

tautology: both having almost the same meaning. But the former means

stability at the base, as

in the case of a banyan-tree. At the base of the trunk it is stable and yet

at the top it is

moving. Truth is 'stable' at the 'base' and 'firm' at the 'top'. In Its

Infinite glory, It has no movement

anywhere.

 

Sanatanah --- that which is ancient. The implication of this term can fall

under

two categories: the obvious and the suggestive. The OBVIOUS meaning

indicates that the Self is

not new (Nutanah) but it is ancient and, therefore, we, as students of

Brahma-Vidya,

need not hesitate to accept it, as we necessarily would if the theory were a

modern ideology which

was yet to be verified by observed experimental data. In its suggestiveness,

the term

Sanatanah implies that the Self is unconditioned by time and place.

Perfection gained, whether it be in

India, or at the North Pole, in the present generation, or in the chaste

periods of the Vedic

culture, in all places and at all times, by all seers, in all the religions

of the world, the Self-

experience at the time of God-realisation, can only be one and the same.

 

MOREOVER, BHAGAWAN ADDS:

 

avyakto 'yam acintyo 'yam avikAryo 'yam ucyate

tasmAd evaM viditvAinaM nAnuSocitum arhasi 2.25

 

25. This (Self) is said to be Unmanifest, Unthinkable and Unchangeable.

Therefore, knowing This to be such, you should not grieve.

 

This Eternal, All-Pervading Self is certainly Unmanifest, Unthinkable, and

Unchangeable, and therefore, having known this truth in Its essential

nature, Krishna argues that

it is neither possible to kill nor to get really killed. Each of these terms

is quite expressive of

certain logical truths.

 

UNMANIFEST --- The five Great Elements that we know, when they become

subtler,

they lose their capacity to impinge themselves upon our sense perceptions:

considered

from 'Earth' to 'Air,' we find the elements progressively getting subtler

for our perceptions

and finally 'Ether' or 'Space,' by itself, cannot be perceived directly by

our senses at all. However,

the five Great Elements can, to some extent, be perceived through our

sense-organs. But the

CAUSE of 'Ether, ' the subtlest of the Five Elements, is too subtle for our

perception,

and therefore we will have to assume that it is Unmanifest.

 

A thing is called manifest when we can perceive it through one or the other

of

our sense-organs. That which is beyond all five sense-organs is called

Unmanifest. I cannot see,

smell, hear, taste or touch a full-grown mango tree in a mango seed, and

yet, I know that the seed

is the cause for the tree. Under the circumstances, the tree is said to be

in an 'unmanifest'

condition in the seed.

 

Similarly, when they say that truth is Unmanifest, they only mean that It

cannot

be perceived through any of our sense-organs. In the Upanishads, we have

exhaustive

explanations of why our senses cannot have the Eternal as an object of

sense-perceptions. It is the

very subject because of which the sense-organs can perceive.

 

UNTHINKABLE --- After denying the sense-organs any play in the field of

Truth,

we are told that the human mind also cannot think, nor can the human

intellect ruminate over

and comprehend the Infinite. The Self being the very life that energises the

mind

and the intellect, which by themselves are inert and insentient, it becomes

obvious that the mind

and intellect cannot make the Self an object of their comprehension. A

telescope-gazer cannot

see himself with his telescope; he cannot be at once the seer and the seen.

Thus here, the

Lord's word "Unthinkable" is to be understood as meaning 'Incomprehensible'

by the mind and

the intellect of the seeker.

 

UNCHANGEABLE --- This term indicates that the Self is without parts because

things that have parts in themselves are things which have "form," and those

that have

"form" must necessarily come under the category of the FINITE and exhibit in

themselves

various modifications and changes.

 

By these terms, Truth is declared as Immutable, Unmanifest, Unthinkable and

Unchangeable. Krishna thus advises Arjuna to end his grief. He who

understands the Eternal

nature of the Self can have neither the occasion to perceive himself as the

slayer nor recognise

others as the slain.

 

[To be continued...]