Song "I am the Space Around The Storm"

I am never the storm in the mind, the storm of grief, sadness,hurt, frustration, anger, hate, jealousy, greed, craving..... I am the space in whom they appear only to disappear.

Lyrics are there in the comments section of the video.

A group of friends have started a new channel "Songs Embracing Wisdom" http://www.youtube.com/@SongsEmbracingWisdom for publishing their songs on Vedanta, values, self-growth, self-love, transformation, in English, Hindi, Tamil, .... maybe other languages too

Feel free to subscribe.

Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 2 Verse 21 (contd...2)

 

We looked at the first half of the verse  meaning of Gita Chapter 2 verse 21 in an earlier blog Gita Chapter 2 Verse 21.

In this blog we will look at the meaning of the second half as well as some portions of the bhashya of Adi Shankaracharya to this verse. 

In this verse Lord Krishna is pointing out that the wise person is neither a doer nor one who instigates anyone to do by saying that how can the wise person, (who knows that the Self is indestructible, timeless, unborn, not subject to decline, non-doer), कथं केन प्रकारेण in what way does सः विद्वान् that wise person पुरुषः अधिकृतः who is a qualified wise person हन्ति हननक्रिया करोति  kill anyone कथं वा घातयति हन्तारं प्रयोजयति - how can (that wise person) instigate anyone to kill? 

So how can such a wise person kill? Whom can he kill? How can he instigate? Who can he instigate?

The pronouns  कथं (how) and कं (whom) are usually interrogative pronouns. However here these two pronouns should be used in sense of negation. Meaning न कथञ्चित् कञ्चित् हन्ति  atma, the Self does not kill in any manner. Atma does not kill anyone. न कथञ्चित् कञ्चित् घातयति  atma the self, does not instigate in any manner, atma does not instigate anyone to kill. इति उभयत्र आक्षेप एवार्थः प्रश्नार्थासंभवात्। As the meaning of it being a question is not relevant here (प्रश्नार्थासंभवात्) , we should take the meaning to be in the sense of negation ( आक्षेप एवार्थः)

Meaning of the pronouns to be interrogation does not fit here because here Lord Krishna is teaching - if at all it is a question it should come from a student. And even if you assume somehow that it is a question, then the answer should come sometime later. However even in the later part of the Gita we don't find the answer given either by Lord Krishna or even Arjuna.

I will just give the gist of certain very interesting arguments between an objector (who believes that knowledge should be combined with karma and only that leads to moksha) and the Vedantin who proves that a jnani is akarta and so does not require to do any karma. 

The objector who we call as the Purvapakshi points out that in verse 19 Lord Krishna has said "य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारं यश्चैनं मन्यते हतम्। उभौ तौ न विजानीतो नायं हन्ति न हन्यते।।"  And throughout the verse the pronoun ayam was used. ayam  means 'this'. ... here the meaning would be 'this one' is akarta. And in all the previous verses, atma was talked about as nitya (eternal), sarvagata (all-pervading), aprameya, avinashi, akarta, abhokta - and so in this verse ayam is refering to atma. 

In the 20th verse we saw that the reason was given that atma is akarta because atma is changeless.  Therefore in the 21st verse, which is the verse we are looking at, we can conclude that atma is akarta. However in the 21st verse Lord Krishna has said that सः पुरुषः He, the qualified wise person who वेद knows the Self to be indestructible (avinashinam), eternal (nityam), unborn (ajam), not subject to decline (avyayam) - how can he kill and how can he instigate, and whom can he kill and whom can he instigate - meaning that the knower of atma is akarta.

How can you equate atma with the knower of atma? You yourself said that the knower is different from the known. So knower of atma has to be different from atma, because atma is known. You can say that atma is changeless and so atma is akarta. But you cannot say 'therefore the knower of atma is actionless', because the knower of atma is different from the known atma. And he gives an example, of a rock. Imagine a rock. We accept that rock is actionless because it is changeless - but how can you say that knower of the actionless rock is actionless? The knower of the rock could well be endowed with some action or the other. Rock is changeless so rock is actionless - makes sense - because the cause and conclusion are in the same place. But you cannot say rock is changeless and therefore I, the knower of the rock,  am actionless! The cause is in one place and the conclusion  is somewhere else! This cannot be.

So Purvapakshi says atma is akarta - ok accepted but wise man is a doer, a karta only!

Shankara replies: न विदुषः आत्मत्वात्। No. The knower of atma is atma only. When it comes to  atma-jnanam, you cannot say that the knower of atma is different from atma.  न देहादिसंघातस्य विद्वत्ता। The body-mind-sense complex can never become the knower of atma. .  Because if you say the the knower of atma is different from atma, then it will mean that the non-self is the knower. Then atma becomes known (an object) and the non-self becomes the knower. But the non-self can never be a knower because it is jada (inert). Therefore atma alone is the knower of atma.

अतः therefore पारिशेष्यात् by the law of exclusion - since there are only two - atma, Self  and anatma non-self. If anatma cannot be the knower, then atma alone can be the knower. असंहतः आत्मा the self which is different from the body-mind-complex विद्वान्  alone is the wise man अविक्रियः  who is changeless. Because the wise man is the Self atma, and since Self is changeless, the wise man is changeless.इति तस्य विदुषः  Therefore for that changeless wise man कर्मासंभवात् karams are never possible because he is atma. आक्षेपो युक्तः कथं स पुरुषः इति। Therefore the negation of karma for the wise person is logical in the statement कथं स पुरुषः कं घातयति हन्ति कम्|

So, as there is no difference between atma and the knower of atma, karma is negated for the knower of atma, as atma is free of karma. 

Purvapakshi has one more argument  that I can accept that atma is changeless and therefore akarta, and not a knower. However the wise person being a knower of atma, must be subject to change, because he cannot know without undergoing a knowing process. Any knower has to be associated with a knowing process. And the knowing process is associated with change. So knower of atma must also  be associated with change and so the knower of atma is a changing entity and not a changeless entity, so he cannot be akarta, he must be a karta. And since he is a karta he must combine knowledge with karma.

The refutation of this argument we will see next time. 

Om Tat Sat 

Bhagavad-GIta Chapter 2 Verse 21

 

In Verse 21 of Chapter 2 Lord Krishna says:-

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम्।

कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम्।।2.21।।

Veda: to know. YaH Veda – the one who knows. 

What must a mumukshu, the one who desires to be free of all that is undesirable,  know? A mumukshu, must know the true nature of the Self. The true nature of the Self is revealed here by Lord Krishna as being avinashinam – indestructible. This was said in earlier verses also.  Because the Self is indestructible, it is nityam – eternal or free of time. Further the Self is revealed as being ajam – unborn and avyayam – is that which is free from decline, old age, disease.

As we saw in the articles on the methodology of revealing Self-knowledge in these verses, https://tattvavidya.blogspot.com/2025/12/bhagavad-gita-understanding-methodology.html?m=0, https://tattvavidya.blogspot.com/2026/01/understanding-methodology-in-gita.html?m=0, the first step in understanding the true Self is to be able to discriminate between the true Self, and the various attributes and adjectives that we predicate to the Self, which can call as non-self or anatma for now.

For example we may concludes that:

I am the body or I am fat, or I am old, or I am female etc… Here the Self is indicated by the word I and we are predicating to the self, the body, or various conditions of the body.

Similarly, based on the condition of the mind, there may be conclusions like I am sad, I am happy, I am intelligent, I am dull, I am angry etc.

Lord Krishna points out that the Self is not the body, or a part of the body or a product of the body.  By saying atma, the Self is indestructible (avinashi), eternal (nityam), all-pervading (sarvagataH), not an object (aprameya), that which has no decline (avyaya), not a doer (akarta), not an enjoyer (abhokta), unborn (ajam) Lord Krishna is pointing out that the true nature of the Self, is neither the body, or its conditions nor the mind or its conditions. The body-mind-sense complex is destructible, mortal, certainly not all-pervading. Moreover, the body-mind-complex can be objectified. The ego, the false I,  which is identified with the body-mind-complex is the doer and the enjoyer.

The Self, the consciousness-existence, is independent of the body-mind-sense complex. The example of light can help us to understand how this can be so, Like the light shining on an object, is as though intimately connected to the object, yet it is independent and separate from the object.  So too, while the Self, the Consciousness-Existence, pervades the body-mind sense complex, is no doubt intimate, yet it is independent.

Having listened to classes on Gita, Upanishads, Prakarana Granthas, one come to know the difference between the Self and the non-self, one needs to ascertain for oneself, am I this changing body-mind-sense complex which is non-self ( anatma), or am I changeless atma, the true Self. If this changeless Self were not there, how would change be known? Who knows the change? I know change. So surely, I must be the changeless Self.

Having ascertained that the changeless Consciousness is I, it is still difficult to shift one’s I sense from the body-mind-sense complex. That is why the Scriptures tell us to contemplate on the truth again and again. 

We will see some of the salient points of what Adi Shankaracharya says in this verse, in the next  blog. 

Om Tat Sat.

Google Translate to Hindi - unchecked

अध्याय 2, श्लोक 21 में भगवान कृष्ण कहते हैं:-

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम्।

कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम्।।2.21।।

'वेद' का अर्थ है: जानना। 'य: वेद' – वह जो जानता है।

एक मुमुक्षु (वह व्यक्ति जो समस्त अवांछनीय बंधनों से मुक्त होने की इच्छा रखता है) को क्या जानना चाहिए? एक मुमुक्षु को 'स्वयं' (आत्मा) के वास्तविक स्वरूप को जानना चाहिए। यहाँ भगवान कृष्ण ने आत्मा के वास्तविक स्वरूप को 'अविनाशिनम्' यानी अविनाशी के रूप में प्रकट किया है। यह बात पिछले श्लोकों में भी कही गई थी। क्योंकि आत्मा अविनाशी है, इसलिए यह 'नित्यम्' है—अर्थात शाश्वत या समय के बंधन से मुक्त है। इसके अतिरिक्त, आत्मा को 'अजम्' (अजन्मा) और 'अव्ययम्' (जो क्षय, वृद्धावस्था और रोग से मुक्त है) के रूप में बताया गया है।

जैसा कि हमने इन श्लोकों में आत्म-ज्ञान को प्रकट करने की कार्यप्रणाली (Methodology) पर आधारित लेखों Tattva Vidya 2025 और Tattva Vidya 2026 में देखा है, वास्तविक स्वरूप को समझने में पहला कदम 'स्वयं' (आत्मा) और उन विभिन्न गुणों या विशेषणों के बीच भेद करना है जो हम आत्मा पर थोप देते हैं, जिन्हें हम अभी के लिए 'अनात्मा' कह सकते हैं।

उदाहरण के लिए, हम यह निष्कर्ष निकाल सकते हैं कि: "मैं शरीर हूँ" या "मैं मोटा हूँ", या "मैं बूढ़ा हूँ", या "मैं स्त्री हूँ" आदि। यहाँ 'मैं' शब्द से आत्मा को इंगित किया गया है, लेकिन हम उस पर शरीर या शरीर की विभिन्न अवस्थाओं का आरोप लगा रहे हैं।

इसी तरह, मन की स्थिति के आधार पर ऐसे निष्कर्ष हो सकते हैं जैसे "मैं दुखी हूँ", "मैं खुश हूँ", "मैं बुद्धिमान हूँ", "मैं सुस्त हूँ", "मैं क्रोधित हूँ" आदि।

भगवान कृष्ण बताते हैं कि आत्मा शरीर नहीं है, न ही शरीर का कोई हिस्सा है और न ही शरीर का कोई उत्पाद है। आत्मा को अविनाशी, नित्य, सर्वगत (सर्वव्यापी), अप्रमेय (जो अनुभव का विषय/वस्तु नहीं है), अव्यय (जिसका क्षय नहीं होता), अकर्ता, अभोक्ता और अज (अजन्मा) कहकर भगवान कृष्ण यह स्पष्ट कर रहे हैं कि आत्मा का वास्तविक स्वरूप न तो शरीर और उसकी अवस्थाएं हैं, और न ही मन और उसकी अवस्थाएं। शरीर-मन-इंद्रिय परिसर विनाशकारी और नश्वर है, और निश्चित रूप से सर्वव्यापी नहीं है। इसके अलावा, शरीर-मन-परिसर को 'विषय' (Object) के रूप में देखा जा सकता है। अहंकार, जो शरीर-मन-परिसर के साथ पहचान बनाता है, वही कर्ता और भोक्ता है।

आत्मा, जो 'चित्-सत' (चेतना-अस्तित्व) है, शरीर-मन-इंद्रिय परिसर से स्वतंत्र है। प्रकाश का उदाहरण हमें यह समझने में मदद कर सकता है; जैसे किसी वस्तु पर पड़ने वाला प्रकाश उस वस्तु से गहराई से जुड़ा हुआ प्रतीत होता है, फिर भी वह स्वतंत्र और वस्तु से अलग होता है। वैसे ही, आत्मा (चेतना-अस्तित्व) शरीर-मन-इंद्रिय परिसर में व्याप्त है और अत्यंत निकट है, फिर भी वह स्वतंत्र है।

गीता, उपनिषदों और प्रकरण ग्रंथों की कक्षाओं को सुनने के बाद, व्यक्ति आत्मा और अनात्मा के बीच के अंतर को जान लेता है। अब व्यक्ति को स्वयं के लिए यह सुनिश्चित करना होगा कि—"क्या मैं यह परिवर्तनशील शरीर-मन-इंद्रिय परिसर हूँ जो 'अनात्मा' है, या मैं अपरिवर्तनीय 'आत्मा' हूँ?" यदि यह अपरिवर्तनीय आत्मा वहाँ न होती, तो परिवर्तन को कैसे जाना जाता? परिवर्तन को कौन जानता है? "मैं" परिवर्तन को जानता हूँ। इसलिए, निश्चित रूप से मुझे वह अपरिवर्तनीय आत्मा होना चाहिए।

यह सुनिश्चित करने के बाद भी कि "मैं" वह अपरिवर्तनीय चेतना हूँ, अपनी 'अहं-बुद्धि' (I-sense) को शरीर-मन-इंद्रिय परिसर से हटाना कठिन होता है। इसीलिए शास्त्र हमें इस सत्य का बार-बार चिंतन (मनन) करने का निर्देश देते हैं।

अगले ब्लॉग में हम देखेंगे कि आदि शंकराचार्य इस श्लोक के बारे में क्या मुख्य बातें कहते हैं।

ॐ तत् सत्।

Understanding the Methodology in Gita Chapter 2 Verse 12-20

 Om

Painting at Entrance of Vanmali Ashram

What is real satyam about us never leaves us, at any time. It is always there ...in and thru waking, dream and deep sleep. Like heat never leaves fire ...heat is intrinsic to fire, so heat is the very nature of fire. Heat is not an attribute of fire, it is the very nature of fire ...it's svarupa.

When we entertain conclusions about ourself based on our body-mind-sense complex, or our interactions with the world, each of those conclusions are not the intrinsic truth about us..they are not our nature...they are attributes that come and go based on the condition of the body-mind-sense complex, the interactions with the world. They are not our REAL truth.

'I am young' will change to 'I am old' in time. It may be true of the body in waking state, yet in dream I may enjoy a completely different body. And in deep sleep, even this body is absent from my experience.

So how can I call this conclusion or any other conclusion about myself, based on the body-mind-sense complex I am associated with in this life as absolutely real?

In Bhagavad-Gita Lord Krishna is revealing my REAL nature, that which is true, that which persists, in and thru waking, in dream and deep sleep...that is eternally true. 

Bhagavad-Gita is revealing that I am the all pervading, changeless EXISTENCE principle that is also the CONSCIOUSNESS principle that is self-evident, self-shining, independent, time-less, never known but ever the knower, actionless, never a doer, never the object of an action, never an enjoyer....this is my true nature. They are not temporary attributes based on the body-mind-complex or interactions with the world. They are my svabhava, my truth.

Om Tat Sat

Bhagavad-Gita - Understanding the methodology verse 12-20

 

In verses 12-25 of Chapter 2 of the Gita, Lord Krishna is revealing the true nature of the Self to Arjuna. The Self is manifest in the form of thought “I am. And regarding this Self we have many conclusions born of ignorance of its real nature. 

Usually, a person who is under the spell of ignorance will add all kinds of conclusions to the basic “I am” thought and will say 

I am the body, 
I am male/female, 
I am old, 
I am tall/short
I am fair/dark,
I am short-sighted,
I am deaf
I am attractive
My hair is grey
My stomach is big
I have six-pac

Etc … these and many more are with reference to the body and its many qualities

Then we equate ourselves with the mind and say:-

I am happy/ unhappy
I am intelligent / dull
I am creative / mechanical
I am loving / hateful
I am sad
I am scared
I am anxious
I am jealous
I am hurt
I am egoistic
I am noble
I am not good enough
I am a failure
I am a loser
I have a poor memory
I cant focus
I have no will-power
I am weak
I am not resilient
I am not courageous
I am insecure

Etc… these and many more are with reference to the mind and its many qualities

We also equate ourselves with the different roles that we play in our lives, in our interactions with the world.

I am a professional
I am a doctor/lawyer, CA, engineer, 
I am husband/wife
I am a daughter/son
I am father/mother

Etc. … and based on these roles we develop many complexes too. When surrounded by critical people we may think ‘I am useless/ I am a failure/ I am no good’ etc etc .. It is endless

All of this would be fine, if we are happy. But we are not.  This is because when we equate ourselves with our body, mind or what we do or don’t do, we also end up equating ourselves with the limitations inherent in the body-mind and roles. And this causes suffering. Human suffering comes not from the limitations of the body-mind or roles that we play – it comes from identifying with the limitations. The body is limited and will always be so, no matter how much you improve its condition. The mind too is limited will remain so in some aspect or the other. Roles will come with their limitations too. We spend our whole life trying to remove the limitations… and even if do succeed in some aspects it cannot last forever, because body, mind and roles are subject to time. 

Look at what Bhagavad-Gita is pointing out. In verse 12 and 13 it pointed out that you, the true I, are NITYA  eternal, you never go out of existence. If you are the body, you certainly cannot be eternal. In other words, Bhagavad-Gita is saying that the true I, is not the body. This one declaration of knowledge itself rules out all the suffering born of identifying with the limitations of the body.

In verse 16 Lord says you- true I,  are SATYA – real, meaning you never go out of existence. How many reals can there be? There is only one SATYA – and that is you. You are the existence of the whole universe. You are not limited to your body alone.

In verse 17 Lord says you – true I are SARVAGATA – all-pervading, meaning that, in reality, you, are not limited by the boundaries of the body because you are not the body.

In verse 18, Lord reveals that you- true I, are indestructible and changeless ANAASHINA, and never the known, ever the knower APRAMEYA.  This means that you are not subject to death, nor can you be objectified. Consequently, you cannot be hurt either. You are safe. You are not your body or mind. 

In verse 19 , Lord reveals that you-true I are AKARTA (not the agent of action), ABAHOKTA (nor are you the object of any action). This means that you are free of the invisible results of karma which is punya and paapa. 

In verse 20 which was the last verse that we did, Lord points out that you-true I are NIRVIKARAH – free of the six-fold modifications. This means that you are neither your body, mind or ego – because all these change. Nor are you the waker, dreamer or deep sleeper. 

Knowing the Self goes through two stages. The first is discriminating between the Self and what is not the same reality as the Self and negating that which is not the true Self.

How to do this? By discriminating between the knower and the known and negating the known. Apply the rule - What is known to you is not you. You body, its qualities, your mind and its qualities, your memory, your ignorance, your ego, your roles – all of this is known to you. Therefore, they are not you. 

When you negate thus what is not you, what are you left with? Simply with “I am”. This “I am” is a simple conscious being, self-evident and self-revealing – and it is about this simple conscious being that Lord Krishna is pointing out that it is NITYA, SATYA, SARVAGATA, APRAMEYA, AKARTA, ABHOKTA, NIRVIKARAH.

We see more later

Om Tat Sat

Google Translate to HINDI

गीता के अध्याय 2 के श्लोक 12-25 में, भगवान कृष्ण अर्जुन को 'स्वयं' (आत्मा) के वास्तविक स्वरूप का बोध करा रहे हैं। यह 'स्वयं' या आत्मा "मैं हूँ" के विचार के रूप में प्रकट होती है। लेकिन इस 'स्वयं' के बारे में हमारे पास इसके वास्तविक स्वरूप की अज्ञानता से पैदा हुए कई निष्कर्ष हैं।

आमतौर पर, अज्ञानता के वश में व्यक्ति मूल "मैं हूँ" के विचार के साथ तमाम तरह के निष्कर्ष जोड़ देता है और कहता है:

मैं शरीर हूँ,
मैं पुरुष/स्त्री हूँ,
मैं बूढ़ा हूँ,
मैं लंबा/नाटा हूँ,
मैं गोरा/काला हूँ,
मेरी दृष्टि कमजोर है,
मैं बहरा हूँ,
मैं आकर्षक हूँ,
मेरे बाल सफेद हैं,
मेरा पेट बड़ा है,
मेरे सिक्स-पैक हैं...

इत्यादि... ये और ऐसी कई बातें शरीर और उसके गुणों के संदर्भ में कही जाती हैं।

फिर हम खुद को मन के समान मान लेते हैं और कहते हैं:

मैं खुश हूँ / मैं दुखी हूँ
मैं बुद्धिमान हूँ / मैं मंदबुद्धि हूँ
मैं रचनात्मक हूँ / मैं यांत्रिक हूँ
मैं प्रेम करने वाला हूँ / मैं घृणा करने वाला हूँ
मैं उदास हूँ
मैं डरा हुआ हूँ
मैं चिंतित हूँ
मैं ईर्ष्यालु हूँ
मुझे चोट पहुँची है
मैं अहंकारी हूँ
मैं महान हूँ
मैं पर्याप्त अच्छा नहीं हूँ
मैं असफल हूँ
मैं हारा हुआ हूँ
मेरी याददाश्त कमजोर है
मैं ध्यान केंद्रित नहीं कर सकता
मुझमें इच्छाशक्ति नहीं है
मैं कमजोर हूँ
मैं लचीला नहीं हूँ
मैं साहसी नहीं हूँ
मैं असुरक्षित हूँ...

इत्यादि... ये और ऐसी कई बातें मन और उसके गुणों के संदर्भ में कही जाती हैं।

हम खुद को उन विभिन्न भूमिकाओं के समान भी मान लेते हैं जो हम अपने जीवन में और दुनिया के साथ अपने व्यवहार में निभाते हैं:

मैं एक पेशेवर (professional) हूँ
मैं डॉक्टर/वकील/सीए/इंजीनियर हूँ
मैं पति/पत्नी हूँ
मैं बेटी/बेटा हूँ
मैं पिता/माता हूँ...

इत्यादि... और इन भूमिकाओं के आधार पर हम कई तरह की ग्रंथियां (complexes) भी विकसित कर लेते हैं। जब हम आलोचनात्मक लोगों से घिरे होते हैं, तो हम सोच सकते हैं कि 'मैं बेकार हूँ/ मैं असफल हूँ/ मैं किसी काम का नहीं हूँ' आदि। यह अंतहीन है।

यह सब ठीक होता, यदि हम खुश होते। लेकिन हम नहीं हैं। ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि जब हम खुद को अपने शरीर, मन या अपने कार्यों से जोड़ते हैं, तो हम अंततः शरीर-मन और भूमिकाओं में निहित सीमाओं के साथ भी खुद को जोड़ लेते हैं। और यही दुख का कारण बनता है। मानवीय दुख शरीर-मन की सीमाओं या हमारी भूमिकाओं से नहीं आता - यह उन सीमाओं के साथ खुद की पहचान जोड़ने (तादात्म्य) से आता है। शरीर सीमित है और हमेशा रहेगा, चाहे आप इसकी स्थिति में कितना भी सुधार क्यों न कर लें। मन भी सीमित है और किसी न किसी रूप में वैसा ही रहेगा। भूमिकाओं की भी अपनी सीमाएं होंगी। हम अपना पूरा जीवन इन सीमाओं को दूर करने की कोशिश में बिता देते हैं... और यदि हम कुछ पहलुओं में सफल हो भी जाते हैं, तो वह हमेशा के लिए नहीं रह सकता, क्योंकि शरीर, मन और भूमिकाएं समय के अधीन हैं।

देखिए भगवद-गीता क्या संकेत दे रही है। श्लोक 12 और 13 में बताया गया है कि आप, यानी वास्तविक 'मैं', शाश्वत हैं, आपका अस्तित्व कभी समाप्त नहीं होता। यदि आप शरीर होते, तो आप निश्चित रूप से शाश्वत नहीं हो सकते थे। दूसरे शब्दों में, भगवद-गीता कह रही है कि वास्तविक 'मैं' शरीर नहीं है। ज्ञान की यह एक घोषणा ही शरीर की सीमाओं के साथ पहचान जोड़ने से पैदा होने वाले सभी दुखों को खारिज कर देती है।

श्लोक 16 में भगवान कहते हैं कि आप—वास्तविक 'मैं'—सत्य (SATYA) हैं, जिसका अर्थ है कि आप कभी अस्तित्व से बाहर नहीं जाते। कितने 'सत्य' हो सकते हैं? सत्य केवल एक ही है—और वह आप हैं। आप संपूर्ण ब्रह्मांड का अस्तित्व हैं। आप केवल अपने शरीर तक सीमित नहीं हैं।

श्लोक 17 में भगवान कहते हैं कि आप—वास्तविक 'मैं'—सर्वगत (SARVAGATA) हैं, यानी सर्वव्यापी हैं। इसका अर्थ है कि वास्तव में आप शरीर की सीमाओं से बंधे नहीं हैं क्योंकि आप शरीर नहीं हैं।

श्लोक 18 में, भगवान बताते हैं कि आप—वास्तविक 'मैं'—अविनाशी और अपरिवर्तनीय (अनाशीन - ANAASHINA) हैं, और आप कभी 'ज्ञेय' (जिसे जाना जाए) नहीं बल्कि हमेशा 'ज्ञाता' (अप्रमेय - APRAMEYA) हैं। इसका मतलब है कि आप मृत्यु के अधीन नहीं हैं, न ही आपको एक वस्तु की तरह देखा जा सकता है। परिणामस्वरूप, आपको चोट भी नहीं पहुँचाई जा सकती। आप सुरक्षित हैं। आप अपना शरीर या मन नहीं हैं।

श्लोक 19 में, भगवान बताते हैं कि आप—वास्तविक 'मैं'—अकर्ता (AKARTA) हैं (कर्म करने वाले नहीं) और अभोक़्ता (ABHOKTA) हैं (न ही आप किसी कर्म के फल को भोगने वाले हैं)। इसका अर्थ है कि आप कर्म के अदृश्य परिणामों यानी पुण्य और पाप से मुक्त हैं।

श्लोक 20 में, जो हमने पिछला श्लोक किया था, भगवान बताते हैं कि आप—वास्तविक 'मैं'—निर्विकार (NIRVIKARAH) हैं, यानी छह प्रकार के विकारों (बदलावों) से मुक्त हैं। इसका मतलब है कि आप न तो अपना शरीर हैं, न मन और न ही अहंकार—क्योंकि ये सभी बदलते रहते हैं। न ही आप जागने वाले, सपने देखने वाले या गहरी नींद में सोने वाले हैं।

स्वयं (आत्मा) को जानने के दो चरण हैं। पहला है 'स्वयं' और 'जो स्वयं नहीं है' के बीच भेद करना, और जो वास्तविक 'स्वयं' नहीं है उसे नकारना।

यह कैसे करें? ज्ञाता (जानने वाले) और ज्ञेय (जो जाना जा रहा है) के बीच भेद करके और ज्ञेय को नकार कर। यह नियम लागू करें—"जो आपके द्वारा जाना जाता है, वह आप नहीं हैं।" आपका शरीर, उसके गुण, आपका मन और उसके गुण, आपकी याददाश्त, आपकी अज्ञानता, आपका अहंकार, आपकी भूमिकाएँ—यह सब आपके द्वारा जाना जाता है। इसलिए, वे आप नहीं हैं।

जब आप इस तरह उसे नकार देते हैं जो आप नहीं हैं, तो आपके पास क्या बचता है? केवल "मैं हूँ"। यह "मैं हूँ" एक सरल चेतन सत्ता है, जो स्वतः सिद्ध और स्वतः प्रकाशमान है—और इसी सरल चेतन सत्ता के बारे में भगवान कृष्ण बता रहे हैं कि यह नित्य, सत्य, सर्वगत, अप्रमेय, अकर्ता, अभोक्ता और निर्विकार है।

हम आगे और देखेंगे।

ॐ तत्सत।

I accept

 I accept the world as it is
It is as it can be - in Ishvara's Order
That I can make changes is also in Order
I do what I can and leave the rest to Ishvara.

I accept myself as I am
I am as I can be - in Ishvara's Order
That I can make changes is also in Order
I do what I can and leave the rest to Ishvara.
My heart is a vast sky of acceptance 
I accept and I am content.

Om Tat Sat

Bhagavad-Gita Chapter Verse 20

 In the previous verse we saw that Lord Krishna says atma is akarta, free from all karmas. When that is so, it means atma, the immutable Self,  is free from punyam (unseen merit) and papam (unseen sin). In fact, there is no accumulated karma (sanchita karma), nor  karma acquired in this life that will join the sanchita karma, nor karma that is fructifying (prarabdha karma) in this embodiment. And since karmas are not there, there is no birth for atma, much less there is rebirth. There is no rebirth. 

Then why does Shastra talk about last rites for the departed? They are meant for whom? There are meant for the subtle body that survives the death of the body and which travels from one birth to another. The subtle body, has rebirth. It is from the stand-point of the subtle body that there are rituals prescribed. 

The enlightened person does not require any rituals because he/ she has recognized their true nature to be the Immutable All-pervading Self. 

In this verse,

न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।अ

जो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

Basically it is pointed out that the true Self is totally free of all the six-fold  modifications of asti (existence in seed form or temporary existence), jaayate (taking birth), vardhate (growing), viparinamate (changing), apakshiyate (decaying), vinashyati (death) – atma is changeless. 

When we look at our own bodies we can see that there is a foetus first, then the baby is born, then it  grows, by teenage many changes take place, and over time there is old age, which causes decay in the body and finally it perishes. Here Krishna points out that atma is free of all these six modifications which we see in the world.

 Five-fold modifications are negated in the second line and asti, the last one is understood. 

Adi Shakaracharya comments न जायते  न उत्पद्यते जनिलक्षणा वस्तुविक्रिया न आत्मनो विद्यते इत्यर्थः। na jaayate - the Self is not born, meaning it does not have the first modification which is birth. Birth is only for the subtle body, which takes on a new body. There is no birth for atma.  In the commentary the word vikriya is there.  Vikriya means change. Shastra talks about bhava (existent) and abhava (non-existent). How can there be change for what is non-existent? Change has to always refer to an existent entity. जनिलक्षणा वस्तुविक्रिया न आत्मनो विद्यते The gist is atma does not have the change called birth.

न म्रियते च इति अन्त्या विनाशलक्षणा विक्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते। Shankara says that by saying na mriyate, there is a negation of the final modification in the form of death. Its comforting to see death as a form of modification, because it indirectly means that we continue even after the death of the body. 

कदाचिच्छब्दः सर्वविक्रियाप्रतिषेधैः संबध्यते न कदाचित् जायते न कदाचित् म्रियते इत्येवम्। na kadacit  which means never at any time, And this should be connect it to all the verbs indicating modifications. Never at any time is there birth for the Self, never at any time is there death for the Self. Never at any time does it grow or decay . 

In common parlance birth  of something means that it was non-existent before it is born, and now it comes into existence. From non-existence to existence is birth. And death of something  is looked at as going from existence into non-existence. 

Now let us see what Shankaracharya says

यस्मात्  अयम्  आत्मा  भूत्वा  भवनक्रियामनुभूय पश्चात्  अभविता  अभावं गन्ता  न भूयः  पुनः तस्मात् न म्रियते। Since this Self which is already existing and does not become non-existent later again, it is said that it does not die. यो हि भूत्वा न भविता स म्रियत इत्युच्यते लोके। Whatever in this world, once coming into existence, then becomes non-existent, is usually said to die. 

वाशब्दात् न शब्दाच्च अयमात्मा अभूत्वा वा भविता देहवत् न भूयः। तस्मात् न जायते। In the second line two words used vaa and na. These two words what is understood is that unlike this body (which comes into being again after non-existing) the Self does not come into being after not existing before. Meaning that the Self always exists and therefore we cannot say that the Self is born … the Self is not born (like the body), it ever-exists. यो हि अभूत्वा भविता स जायत इत्युच्यते। नैवमात्मा। अतो न जायते। That which does not exist earlier but come into being later on, is said to be born. No so the Self. Therefore it is unborn.

यस्मादेवं तस्मात्  अजः  यस्मात् न म्रियते तस्मात्  नित्य श्च। Because it is not born it is called ajaH (unborn). Because it does not die it is called nityaH. By these two words, two modifications of birth and death are negated for the Self. यद्यपि आद्यन्तयोर्विक्रिययोः प्रतिषेधे सर्वा विक्रियाः प्रतिषिद्धा भवन्ति  - By negating the two modifications of beginning (birth) and end (death), all the other modifications also stand negated.  In the bhasya it is mentioned that the word shashvata negates even the changes like youth, middle age, old age which are not particularly mentioned.

Adi Shankaracharya continues

शाश्वत इति अपक्षयलक्षणा विक्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते। The word shaashvata negates the modification in the form of decay, degeneration, declension, old age, senility . शश्वद्भवः शाश्वतः।  That which exists for ever in the same way is shaasvat. 

Degeneration can be of two types. It can be degeneration of a substance because of diminution of various parts, like losing a limb. The second type of degeneration is when the substance itself is intact but its powers are lost. Like in Parkinson’s disease, physically the hand and legs are there but they cannot move

न अपक्षीयते स्वरूपेण निरवयवत्वात्। The Self is partless and hence it does not degenerate substantially as a substance,  in the sense of losing a part.. 

 नापि गुणक्षयेण अपक्षयः निर्गुणत्वात्। Since it is free of all attributes it does not degenerate in sense of losing some faculties or attributes. 

So the final meaning of shaashvat is free from the two fold degeneration or decay. 

Shankaracharya points out that by negating decay and deterioration, any growth, regeneration or increase is also negated as the Self is partless.  Being free of parts, the Self has been ever-fresh, ever the same, without increase in dimension or attributes  and is thus purana. अयं  तु आत्मा निरवयवत्वात् पुरापि नव एवेति  पुराणः  न वर्धते इत्यर्थः। Unlike this body (which can look fresh and new after a shower!), this atma not having any kind  of value addition, never becomes a new thing as we conventionally know. Why? Because it is free of parts. You can't add parts to the Self. purā api navaḥ even though it is ancient it is ever-fresh.  It does not grow or expand. śāśvataḥ means ātmā doesn’t contract. purāṇaḥ means ātmā doesn’t expand.

The Self na hanyate – is never subject to change (that is the meaning taken here, in this context,   by Shankarcharya, as in the first quarter of the verse it was already said that the Self does not die, so he interprets na hanyate as not being subject to change). hanyamane sharire – even when the body is killed, the Self does not undergo any change. Or even when the physical body undergoes change, the Self does not undergo any change. Even when the mind undergoes change, as the thoughts change, the Self does not undergo any change. 

अस्मिन् मन्त्रे षड् भावविकारा लौकिकवस्तुविक्रिया आत्मनि प्रतिषिध्यन्ते। In this mantra, the six-fold modification to which everything (other than atma) is subject, is negated in the Self. The Self is free of all kind of modifications or change. Note that though this verse is shloka of the Gita, Lord Krishna calls it as mantra, that is because it is bodily lifted from the Katho Upanishad with a slight changes. 

In the previous verse it was pointed out that atma is not a karta, nor it is subject to any action. In this verse it is said that atma is changeless. So the connection between these two verses is that of cause and effect. Because the Self is changeless, it is not a doer (akarta).  Because atma is changeless , atma is not a doer, it cannot perform any action. Change is required for doing any action. When change is not possible for atma, doer-ship is also not possible.  Since atma is changeless, it is actionless.  And the action-lessness of the Self was mentioned in the previous verse. And by the changelessness of the Self that is revealed in this verse, the two are connected. 

And Arjuna, because of this,  you are not going incur either papa or punyam, by fighting the war. 

So far we have seen that the Self is REAL (satya – that which ever-exists), eternal (nityaH),  all-pervading (sarvagataH), never known, ever the knower (Aprameya), not the agent of action (akarta), not the object of action (abhokta), and now changeless, free of all modifications (nirvikaraH). 

Om Tat Sat