Bhagawad Gita Ch2. Verses: 19-25 [Adi Shankara]

[Guest guest]

Commentary by Jagadgurr Sri Adishankara - translated by Warrior

 

[special thanks to Shri Shankar for providing the text]

 

19.0 The Lord has cited two mantras (Katha Upanishad 2.18.19) that

testify to the fact that the science of the Gita purports to remove the

cause of the transmigratory life consisting of grief, delusion etc., and to

compel anyone to initiate action of any kind. It tells Arjuna: Your notion

that people like Bhisma are slain by you in battle-that you are their

slayer-is indeed false. How?

 

19. Both he who takes It for the slayer and he who takes It to be the

slain know not(the truth); It neither slays nor is slain.

 

19.1 He who takes the embodied Self in question for the slayer or the

agent of the action of slaying and he who deems It the slain or the object

of that action, crying out "I am slain" when the body is slain-both these do

not know aright the Self due to their lack of discrimination. The sense is

that both these ar ignorant of the proper nature of the Self, because this

Self is neither the agent nor the object of the action of slaying. The

reason is that the Self is immutable.

 

20.0 The second mantra (from the Katha Upanishad) explains how the Self

is immutable.

 

20. This Self is never born; It never dies either. Having been born, It

never ceases to be, again. Unborn, eternal and everlasting, this ancient

One is not slain when the body is slain.

 

20.1 This Self is not born i.e., It does not come into being. The sense

is that the transformation of things known as birth does not happen to the

Self. Similarly, It does not die either. 'Either', va, has the sense of

'and'. And It does not die. The final transofrmation known as destruction

is negated of the Self. The phrase "at any time" (kadacit) is associated

with the negation of all transformation. It means: at no time whatsoever,

is It born, at no time whatsoever, does It die, and so on. Because, having

been, i.e. having experienced the state of being, this Self does not again

reach the state of non-being. Therefore, It does not die. In the world,

one who, having been, ceases to be, is said to die. Due to the force of

words, "either" and "not", it follows also that the Self, having ceased to

be, does not again, come into being, like the body. Therefore, "It is not

born". That which, having been non-existent, comes into being, is said to

be born. The Self is not an entity like that. Hence, It is not born.

Since, It is such, therefore, It is unborn. Since It does not die,

therefore, It is eternal also.

 

20.2 Though by the negation of the first and the last transformations,

all transformations are in effect negated in regard to the Self, still it is

meant that the intermediate transformations also are negated specifically.

Therefore, to negate transformations like youth, not specifically mentioned,

expressions like 'everlasting' are used in the text. By the term

'everlasting' is negated the transformation consisiting in the decay. In

Itself the Self does not decay; for It is impartite. Being devoid of

attributes, It does not suffer decay through that of the attributes, either.

The term 'ancient' denies also the transformation of growth, the opposite of

decay. What develops through the accession of parts is said to grow. It is

also called new. But this Self, being, impartite, was new even in times of

yore. So, it is ancient, purana, i.e. It grows not. Similarly It is not

slain. The root han in this context must be taken in the sense of decay, to

avoid redundancy. The sense is that the Self does not decay, though the

body is slain, i.e undergoes decay. In this mantra are repudiated, in

respect of the Self, the six transformations which affect empirical objects.

The sense of the propostion is that the Self is free from all kinds of

transformation. Such being the case, this verse must be understood in

conjunction with the previous one (2.19), "both of them know not".

 

21.0 Having affirmed, in verse 2.19, that "the Self is neither the agent

nor the object of the action of slaying" and pointed out in 2.20 the reason

for Its freedom from mutability, the Lord concludes the argument already set

forth:

 

21. How can a man, O Arjuna! who knows It as the imperishable, the

eternal, the unborn, the undecaying, cause anyone to be slain? Whom can he

slay?

 

21.1 He who knows the Self as imperishable, i.e. as free from the last

transformation, and as eternal, i.e., as free from decay-thus are these two

words, anasinam, nityam, to be construed-how can such a knower of the unborn

and imperishable Self slay or cause to be slain when he fights as a matter

of duty? In no manner does he slay; in no manner does he cause to slay. The

upshot is the repudiation of the two suggestions of slaying and causing to

slay. The idea that two questions are here being asked is impossible in

this context. The reason, namely, the immutability of the Self, being the

same for negating all actions on its part, the Lord here conveys the idea of

negation of all actions by a knower of the Self. The negation of slaying

has been chosen as an example.

 

21.2 In the light of what specific reason for ruling out all activities,

does the Lord negate them in the words, "How can a man who knows....?" That

has been mentioned already. It is the immutability of the Self. This is

the reason that makes all action impossible for the Self-knower. True, it

has been mentioned; but it cannot be the specific reason; for, the knower of

the Self is different from the immutable Self. For example, action is not

impossible for one who has known that a post is actionless. The case in

question, however, is different, because the Atman is the Self of the

knower. The state of being a knower does not, of course, pertain to the

conglomerate of the body, senses, etc. Therefore, after their elimination

whatever remains-the non-composite Self-is the knower, free from all

actions. Thus actions being impossible for the knower, it is appropriate to

negate all of them in the words, "How can a man who knows.....?"

 

21.3 Through nescience the immutable Self is deemed a knower both of the

sense-objects and of the Self itself. In the former case, the immutable

Self is supposed to know objects like sound presented to the intellect and

so forth, because there is a lack of discrimination of the Self from the

modifications of the intellect. In the latter case, the Self is said to

know by virtue of the intellect's modification of discrimination between the

Self and the non-Self. This knowledge by discrimination, too, is unreal,

metaphysically. On the basis of the Lord's teaching that it is impossible

for the Self-knower to act, whatever actions have been enjoined by the

Sastras hava reference only to the non-knower. This may be taken to be the

settled doctrine of the Lord.

 

21.4 Objection: But knowledge also has been enjoined on the non-knower

only. On one who has acquired knowledge the enjoining of knowledge is

pointless like the grinding of corn already ground. Therefore the

distinction that actions have been enjoined only on the non-knower and not

on the knower is not logical.

 

Answer: No; the distinction between existence and non-exitence is sound

only as regards what has to be accomplished. After knowing the sense of an

injunction regarding rites like agnihotra (fire-sacrifice), which require

the assemblage of numerous accessories, they have to be performed by the

non-knowers of the Self, each of whom thinks, "I am the agent; I have to

perform this." But different is the case of one who masters the sense of

propositions like "This Self is never born", which set forth the real nature

of the Self. After acquiring the knowledge he has no ritualistic act to

perform. On the dawn of knowledge that the Self is one, a non-agent, a

non-experiencer and so forth, no action supervenes. A distinction like this

is thus logical. On the other hand, for him who thinks of his Self as "I am

an agent", the inevitable thought follows: "I must perform this." As

regards such actions, he is obliged to play the role of the agent. In

respect of him actions are performable. And he is a non-knower in the light

of the verse 2.19: "Both of them fail to know." Besides, the words, "How can

a man...?" (2.21) repudiate actions in respect of the knower, who has been

distinguished from the non-knower. Therefore, both the Self-knower

perceiving the immutability of the Self, and the seeker after liberation,

are called upon exclusively to renounce all Veda-enjoined works. It is for

this reason that the Lord KRsna, distinguishing the Samkhyas, who are

Self-knowers, from the ritualists, who are the non-knowers of the Self,

enjoins on each group, a distinctive discipline-by the Yoga of knoweldge for

the Samkhyas and by that of works for the Yogins (3.3). Accordingly Vyasa

tells his son: "Two are the paths here" (Mundaka Upanishad 12.240.6).

Also, "First the path of works, then renunciation" (Taittriya Aranyaka

10.62.12; cf Shankara's Isavasya Upanishad Bhashya 2;

Kena Upanishad 1). The same distinction will be drawn by the Lord

repeatedly: the non-knowers of the Self, with a mind confounded by egoism,

deems, "I am an agent", but the Self-knowers holds, "I act not" (Bhagavat

Gitsa 3.27.28). Again, "He, the Self-knower, is seated, mentally renouncing

all works" (5.13), and so on.

 

21.5 In this context some self-styled scholars affirm: None can acquire

the knowledge "I am the Self", that is, the one who is a non-agent, is

immutable, and free from the six transformations like birth and so forth-the

knowledge by virtue of which the renunciation of alll works is enjoined.

This affirmation is untenable; for, it will stultify the Sastraic

(scriptural) teaching regarding the Self that "It is not born etc." (2.20).

If, on the strength of Sastraic teaching, the knowledge of the existence of

righteousness and unrighteousness and of the relation of the agents' self

with future bodies can arise, why will not, similarly from the sastra, arise

the knowledge of the Self's immutability, non-agency, unity and so forth?

When this question is put to these so-called scholars, they reply, "Because

the Self is beyond the range of the senses." But this won't do. For, the

sruti teaches that 'by the mind alone is the Self to be perceived'

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.19) . The mind, purified by the teachings of

the Sastra and the teacher, and by the control of the itself and of the

senses, is the means of Self-perception. Also, when inference and scripture

are available for winning Self-knowledge, the bare assertion that such

knoweldge won't arise is merely presumptuous.

 

21.6 It must be granted that the dawn of knowledge of the Self is bound

to sublate its opposite, namely, ignorance. The content of that ignorance,

"I am the slayer, I am the slain..." (2.19), has already been set forth. It

was eluciated there that the states of the Self as agent, object, and causal

agent in regard to the action of slaying are the products of ignorance. The

fact of the agency etc., as products of ignorance applies to all actions,

becasue the Self is immutable. Only a mutable agent can cause another , its

object, to act. To clarify the absence of any obligation to act for a

Self-knower, in verses like 2.21 the Lord repudiates alike the agence,

direct and causal, of the knower in respect of all actions.

 

 

21.7 Objection: In regard to what, then, is there an obligation on the

part of the knower of the Self?

 

The answer has already been stated thus: "By means of the discipline of

knowledge as regards the Samkhyas" (Bhagavad Gita 3.3). Accordingly the

Lord enjoins the renunciation of all works in 5.13: "Renouncing all works,

mentally, etc."

 

It may be objected: The term 'mentally' shows that the renunciation in

question does not apply to the activities of speech and body.

 

22.0 Let us however discuss what is immediately relevant. What has been

asserted is the imperishabiltiy of the Self. What is it like? The

answer follows:

 

22. Just as a man puts on fresh clothes after discarding worn-out ones,

so does the embodied Self, discarding worn-out bodies, proceed to take up

new ones.

 

22.1 As in the world, discarding worn-out clothes a man puts on new ones,

so, discarding worn-out bodies, the 'embodied Self-the immutable

Spirit-proceeds to take up fresh bodies. This is the meaning.

 

23.0 Why qualify the Spirit as 'immutable'? Answer:

 

23. Weapons do not cut It; fire does not burn It. Neither does water wet

It; nor does the wind dry It.

 

23.0 'It' means the embodied Self under discusiion. Weapons do no t cut

It. Being impartite, It has no parts to be severed. Weapons-swords so

forth. Similarly, the fire does not burn It, i.e. fire does not reduce It

to ashes. So, too, water does not wet It. Water ahs the power to wet or

decompose only objects having parts. This process cannot apply to the

partless Self. Likewise the wind destroys an oil-soaked material by drying

up that oil. But this Self even the wind cannot dry up.

 

"No; for the term 'works' is qualified by the word 'all' ".

 

"But, this may mean only 'all mental activities' ".

 

"No, the activities of speech and body are preceded by those of the mind in

the absence of which the former are inconceivable".

 

"The verse, then, may be construed thus: renouncing mentally all activities

other than the mental causes of the sastraic activities of speech and body."

 

"No, the Lord's statment has been qualified as follows:'Neither performing

nor causing to perform.' "

 

A new objection may be raised: "The Lord enjoins renunciation of all works

on one about to breathe his last, and not on the living."

 

"No, in that case, the description, 'the embodied Self is seated in the

nine-gated city' (Bhagavad Gita 5.13), will prove incompatible. One who

dies after renunciation of all works cannot possibly be seated in his body."

 

It may be objected:"The way the words are to be construed is not 'seated in

the body', but 'depositing (samnyasya) in the body the sense of acting and

causing to act.' "

 

Reply: "Not so; for both in the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads the Self

has been determined to be immutable. The act of sitting requires a place

while that of renunciation does not. The term 'nyasa' preceded by the

preposition sam means abandonment and not depositing. Therefore, in the

science of the Gita, the Self-knower is obliged to renounce and not to

perform works of all kinds." This doctrine will be further demonstrated

wherever the topic of Self-Knowledge is discussed.

 

 

24. This Self cannot be cut, burned, wetted or dired. Eternal,

all-pervasive, stable, immovable, and everlasting.

 

24.1 As the elements that ruin one another cannot destroy this Self,

therefore It is eternal. Being eteranl, It is all-pervasive. It is stable

like pillar. Being stabel, this Self is immovable. As such It is

everlasting, i.e. anicnet and not produced by any cause wahtsoever. The

sense is-It is ever new.

 

24.2 No objection may be raised against the verses (21-24) on the score

of their redundancy, though it may be said that the eternality and

immutability of the Self are affirmed in 2.20. Repetitions are obvious in

2.24. The explanation is that the Lord recurs to the theme of the recondite

Self in order to elucidate it still more; for, He is anxious that even the

empirical man should grasp the abstract truth about the Self and overcome

the state of transmigratory life.

 

25. This Self is said to unmanifest, imponderable and immutable. Knowing

It to be such, you ought not to grieve for It.

 

25.1 Being beyond the ken of all the senses, the Self is not manifest; so

It is unmanifest. For the same reason, one cannot ponder on It. Only what

is accessible to the senses becomes an objcet of thought. Being beyond

their ken, the Self is imponderable. It is immutable also. Unlike things

like milk that change into curds, the Self does not undergo changes. Also

because It is impartite, It is immutable. Nothing partless is known to

mutate. As impartite, the Self is said to be immutable. Knowing the Self

thus, you ought not to grieve thinking, "I am their slayer, by me are they

slain."

 

[to be continued...]

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

It would be a good exercise in comparative philosophy and religion to

post in this forum our favorite quotations on the subject of death.

 

For example: " Meditation on death is the beginning of all philosophy." [

I could not find the exact words or who they are attributed to. Maybe some

of the readers can supply the info.]

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

>"Madhava K Turumella" <madhava

>advaitin

><advaitin >

> Bhagawad Gita Ch2. Verses: 19-25 [Adi Shankara]

>Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:25:26 -0800

>

>Commentary by Jagadgurr Sri Adishankara - translated by Warrior

>

>[special thanks to Shri Shankar for providing the text]

>

>19.0 The Lord has cited two mantras (Katha Upanishad 2.18.19) that

>testify to the fact that the science of the Gita purports to remove the

>cause of the transmigratory life consisting of grief, delusion etc., and to

>compel anyone to initiate action of any kind.

>

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com