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