Bhagawad Gita Ch2. Verses: Verses 16 to 18

[Guest guest]

======================================================

Discussion on Bhagawad Gita - Chapter2 - Verses 16 to

18 compiled from Bhagavdgita - Multimedia CD

(permission is obtained from the publisher for

conducting Gita Sang Discussion)

=======================================================

 

Verse # 19

The separation of the astral body from the gross body

is called `death'. It is the gross body that meets

with death; there fore, in the preceding verse it was

stated that "all these bodies are perishable. "Even so

the body plus mind and intellect, through whose agency

the life of another gross body is terminated, is

called a `killer'. In this way the killer also is a

body, and not the soul. But ignorant men, attributing

the function of a body to the soul, regard the soul to

be a killer-an agent (vide III. 27); that is why they

have to reap the bitter fruit of such actions.

 

Verse # 20

 

By saying, "the soul is never born Nordics," and

negating thereby the two modifications of birth and

death, the Lord negates, in effect, all the six

modifications in the soul, and then uses other

expressions also to negate the other modifications.

The six modifications are: (1) Birth, (2)Becoming,

(3) Growth, (4) Transformation,(5) Decay and (6)

Destruction. By declaring the soul as `unborn,' the

modification of birth has been negated of it. The

sentence` nor does it become only on being born'

negates the second modification of `becoming'; the

term `ancient' negates the third modification of

`growth'; the term `everlasting' negates

`transformation'; the term `eternal' negates `decay';

and the sentence `even though the body is slain, the

soul is not', negates the last modification of`

destruction'.

 

Verse # 21

 

In this verse the Lord has brought out one Spirit

existent everywhere, which the idea that he who knows

the true nature neither dies nor can be killed, and

which of the soul can never think that he can kill

again neither kills nor causes anyone to be anyone, or

cause anyone to be killed. Therefore, all these

actions of other words, when he knows that it is being

subjected to death, infliction of death body which is

killed by another body on another, or becoming the

cause of conjoined with the mind, intellect and

another's death etc, are attributed to the senses; how

can he identify himself with soul due to ignorance. In

reality, they have the body and believe that he has

killed nothing to do with the soul. Therefore, anyone,

or caused anyone to be killed? Grieving for any being

whatsoever does not for in his consciousness there

remains only stand to reason.

 

Verse # 22

>From a superficial view, the illustration may appear

to be somewhat inappropriate, and not on all fours

with the fact sought to be illustrated. For generally

one feels a sort of gratification in leaving off

worn-out clothes and adopting new ones, while the

process of casting off an old body and entering into

another entails suffering and pain. A deeper

consideration, however, will show that the

illustration is not inappropriate. For in casting off

an old body and entering into a new one, it is the

ignorant alone who suffers pain, not the wise. A child

weeps when its mother removes old clothes, soiled with

dirt, from its body, and compels it to wear new ones.

The mother remains indifferent to the weeping of the

child and in the child's own interest makes it submit

to the change of clothes. Even so God, for the good of

the Jiva, and caring little for its tears, changes its

body when it is worn-out.

In this context, the wearing-out of a body should be

construed to mean expiry of the duration of its life.

If the word `worn-out' is interpreted in the sense of

`old', it will raise a difficulty inasmuch as people

do not in every case die old. Men and women in their

youth, and even infants, are very often found to enter

the portals of death. On the termination of its

`Prarabdha' (the sum-total of Karma's bearing fruit in

one life), a being may die at any age, no matter

whether it is old age, youth or infancy; and that will

be considered the limit of its life. The wearing-out

of a body should therefore be taken to mean the

exhaustion of the force of Prarabdha, which has been

responsible for building it. Taken in this sense, the

adjective `Jirnani' (worn-out) applied to the noun

`bodies' is quite appropriate.

On the analogy of `Vasamsi' (clothes) use of the

plural form in Sarirani' (bodies) also has been made

after due thought and consideration. There may be two

reasons for the use of the plural form in this case:-

(a) There is no knowing how many bodies a particular

Jivatma has cast off up till now, how many it has

taken anew, and how many more it will continue

hereafter to cast off and adopt, till it obtains

enlightenment and consequent release from birth and

death. This is indicated by the plural form applied in

this context.

(b) Every individual soul possesses three bodies:-the

gross, subtle and causal. When the Jivatma leaves one

body and enters into another, all these three bodies

are changed. The actions of a man are responsible for

the modification of his nature or disposition. The

causal body is represented by one's individual nature

made up of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas or the principles

of harmony, motion and inertia. This is also known as

disposition or temperament. Generally speaking, it is

one's nature which determines the last thought at the

time of death, and according to that last thought or

desire the subtle body is formed. The Jivatma leaves a

worn-out body carrying the subtle and causal bodies

with it, and enters into a new gross body suited to

the subtle body. Thus it was quite reasonable to use

the plural form of the word to indicate the change

that takes place in all the three bodies gross, subtle

and causal.

In reality the soul, being immobile and non-active,

does not migrate from one body to another; it is ever

fixed and steady. But just as when a pot is carried

from one place to another, the ether or space within

the pot also appears to be carried, even so when the

subtle body leaves a gross body and enters another, it

appears that the soul also has moved from one body to

another. Therefore, the acts of leaving one body and

entering into another are attributed to the soul in

order to explain the phenomenon of death to the

ordinary people. The word `Dehi' is indicative of the

soul identifying itself with the body; due to its

association with gross body, it appears to be leaving

one and entering into another. In this sense, it has

been said that the soul leaves a worn-out body and

enters into a new one. In this verse, two different

verbs `Grhnati' and `Samyati' have been used

respectively with reference to the two objects

`clothes' and `bodies'. The primary sense of `Grhnati'

is `to take', and that of `Samyati' is to go'. Clothes

are taken and worn, therefore the verb `Grhnati' has

been used with reference to them; and the soul appears

to leave a body and enter into another, therefore the

verb `Samyati' has been used with reference to it.

Similarly, the use of the two words `Narah' (man) and

`Dehi' (living creature) in this verse has a special

significance, inasmuch as clothes are worn and

discarded by men alone, and not by other beings, but

migration from one body to another holds good in the

case of all beings. Therefore, the word `Narah' (man)

has been used while speaking of clothes, and the word

`Dehi' (embodied being) while speaking of bodies.

 

Verse # 23

 

Arjuna's grief proceeded out of the apprehension that

he would be required to kill his elders and other

relations by striking them with lethal weapons, or by

hurling destructive weapons against them; therefore,

in order to remove his grief, the Lord establishes the

immortality and formlessness of the soul by pointing

out the inability of all form; the four elements of

earth, water, fire and air to destroy it. He shows

that even when the body is cut to pieces by weapons,

the soul is not. Destructive fire-missiles may but the

body, but the soul will not be burnt, the Varunastra

(weapon of water) may be applied to dissolve the body,

but the soul will not be dissolved thereby; the weapon

of air (Vayavyastra) may dry up the body, but the soul

will not be dried up. The body is perishable and

possessed of a the soul is everlasting and formless.

Therefore, the soul can never be destroyed by the

element of earth in the form of any weapon or by the

elements of water, fire and air.

 

Verse # 24

 

The present' verse has been added by the Lord to show

by argument why the soul cannot be destroyed by

weapons. It is indivisible, unmanifest, constant and

immutable; therefore weapons are altogether powerless

to destroy it.

When it is said that the soul is incapable of being

cut and burnt by fire etc, the indestructibility of

the soul is no doubt established; but these tests

equally apply to ether as well; for being the cause of

all other elements and pervading them all, it cannot

be cut by weapons, which are products of the earth,

nor can it be burnt by fire, nor dissolved by water,

nor again can it be dried by air. In order to show

that the indestructibility of the soul is totally

different from that of ether, the soul is called

eternal, omnipresent and everlasting. The intention of

this is to show that ether is not eternal, because

during the final dissolution of creation it is

dissolved; whereas the soul never ceases to be,

therefore it is eternal. Then ether is not

all-pervasive, it pervades only its own evolutes; but

the soul is all-pervasive. Again, ether has a

beginning; but the soul is without beginning. Thus by

the use of these last adjectives the difference

between the soul and ether has been clearly brought

out.

By describing the soul as `still' and `motionless', it

has been shown that both forms of motion represented

by vibration and movement from one place to another

are absent in it. Motion which takes place when the

thing is rooted to a fixed place is known as

`vibration', whereas motion in the form of change of

place is termed as its movement from one place to

another. The soul neither vibrates, nor moves from one

place to another. It is all-pervasive; there is no

place which is not filled by it.

 

Verse # 25

 

The soul cannot be cognized by any of the senses,

therefore it is called `unmanifest', nor can it be

conceived by the mind, therefore it is `unthinkable'.

Again, by describing it as `immutable', the

distinction between the soul and Prakrtihas been

emphasized. The intention of this is to show that all

the senses as well as the mind are evolutes of

Prakrti; they cannot therefore apprehend Prakrti,

which is their cause. Therefore, like the soul,

Prakrti too is unmanifest and unthinkable. But Prakrti

is not immutable, it is subject to change, whereas the

soul undergoes no transformation in any circumstance.

Thus the soul is something entirely different from

Prakrti. When the soul is realized as eternal,

omnipresent, immovable, everlasting, unmanifest,

unthinkable and immutable, as described above,

grieving for it becomes quite out of place and

unreasonable.

In the above verses, describing the soul as unborn

and imperishable the Lord demonstrated that it was

unreasonable to grieve for it. In the next two verses

He shows that it is improper to grieve for it, even if

it be assumed that it is subject to birth and death:-

[Guest guest]

Please Note: The Subject reference corresponds to

Verses 19 to 25 and not 16 to 18.