Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 32

व्याख्या -- अनादित्वान्निर्गुणत्वात्परमात्मायमव्ययः -- इसी अध्यायके उन्नीसवें श्लोकमें जिसको अनादि कहा है? उसीको यहाँ भी अनादित्वात् पदसे अनादि कहा है अर्थात् यह पुरुष आदि(आरम्भ) से रहित है। अब प्रश्न होता है कि वहाँ तो प्रकृतिको भी अनादि कहा है? इसलिये प्रकृति और पुरुष -- दोनोंमें,क्या फरक रहा इसके उत्तरमें भगवान् कहते हैं -- निर्गुणत्वात् अर्थात् यह पुरुष गुणोंसे रहित है। प्रकृति अनादि तो है? पर वह गुणोंसे रहित नहीं है? प्रत्युत गुणों और विकारोंवाली है। उससे सात्त्विक? राजस और तामस -- ये तीनों गुण तथा विकार पैदा होते हैं। परन्तु पुरुष इन तीनों गुणोँ और विकारोंसे सर्वथा रहित (निर्गुण और निर्विकार) है। ऐसा यह पुरुष साक्षात् अविनाशी परमात्मस्वरूप ही है अर्थात् यह पुरुष विनाशरहित परम शुद्ध आत्मा है।शरीरस्थोऽपि कौन्तेय न करोति न लिप्यते -- यह पुरुष शरीरमें रहता हुआ भी न कुछ करता है और न किसी कर्मसे लिप्त ही होता है। तात्पर्य है कि इस पुरुष(स्वयं) ने न तो पहले किसी भी अवस्थामें कुछ किया है? न वर्तमानमें कुछ करता है और न आगे ही कुछ कर सकता है अर्थात् यह पुरुष सदासे ही प्रकृतिसे निर्लिप्त? असङ्ग है तथा गुणोंसे रहित और अविनाशी है। इसमें कर्तृत्व और भोक्तृत्व है ही नहीं।यहाँ शरीरस्थोऽपि कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि यह पुरुष जिस समय अपनेको शरीरमें स्थित मानकर अपनेको कार्यका कर्ता और सुखदुःखका भोक्ता मानता है? उस समय भी वास्तवमें यह तटस्थ? प्रकाशमात्र ही रहता है। सुखदुःखका भान इसीसे होता है अतः इसको प्रकाशक कह सकते हैं? पर इसमें प्रकाशकधर्म नहीं है।यहाँ अपि पदसे ऐसा मालूम होता है कि अनादिकालसे अपनेको शरीरमें स्थित माननेवाला हरेक (चींटीसे ब्रह्मापर्यन्त) प्राणी स्वरूपसे सदा ही निर्लिप्त? असङ्ग है। उसकी शरीरके साथ एकता कभी हुई ही नहीं क्योंकि शरीर तो प्रकृतिका कार्य होनेसे सदा प्रकृतिमें ही स्थित रहता है और स्वयं परमात्माका अंश होनेसे सदा परमात्मामें ही स्थित रहता है। स्वयं परमात्मासे कभी अलग हो सकता ही नहीं। शरीरके साथ एकात्मता माननेपर भी? शरीरके साथ कितना ही घुलमिल जानेपर भी? शरीरको ही अपना स्वरूप माननेपर भी उसकी निर्लिप्तता कभी नष्ट नहीं होती? वह स्वरूपसे सदा ही निर्लिप्त रहता है। अपनी निर्लिप्तताका अनुभव न होनेपर भी उसके स्वरूपमें कुछ भी विकृति नहीं होती। अतः उसने अपने स्वरूपसे न कभी कुछ किया है और न करता ही है तथा वह स्वयं न कभी लिप्त हुआ है और न लिप्त होता ही है।यद्यपि पुरुष अपनेको शरीरमें स्थित माननेसे ही कर्ता और भोक्ता बनता है? तथापि इक्कीसवें श्लोकमें भगवान्ने कहा है कि प्रकृतिमें स्थित पुरुष ही भोक्ता बनता है और यहाँ कहते हैं कि शरीर में स्थित होनेपर भी पुरुष कर्ताभोक्ता नहीं है। ऐसा कहनेका तात्पर्य यह है कि प्रकृति और उसका कार्य शरीर -- दोनों एक ही हैं। अतः पुरुषको चाहे प्रकृतिमें स्थित कहो? चाहे शरीरमें स्थित कहो? एक ही बात है। एक शरीरके साथ सम्बन्ध होनेसे मात्र प्रकृतिके साथ? मात्र शरीरोंके साथ सम्बन्ध हो जाता है। वास्तवमें पुरुषका सम्बन्ध न तो व्यष्टि शरीरके साथ है और न समष्टि प्रकृतिके साथ ही है। अपना सम्बन्ध शरीरके साथ माननेसे ही वह अपनेको कर्ताभोक्ता मान लेता है। वास्तवमें वह न कर्ता है और न भोक्ता है। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें कहा गया कि वह पुरुष न करता है और न लिप्त होता है? तो अब प्रश्न होता है कि वह कैसे लिप्त नहीं होता और कैसे नहीं करता इसका उत्तर आगेके श्लोकमें देते हैं।

एक ही आत्मा सब शरीरोंका आत्मा माना जानेसे? उसका उन सबके दोषोंसे सम्बन्ध होगा? ऐसी शंका होनेपर यह कहा जाता है --, आदि कारणको कहते हैं? जिसका कोई कारण न हो? उसका नाम अनादि है और अनादिके भावका नाम अनादित्व है यह परमात्मा अनादि होनेके कारण अव्यय है क्योंकि जो वस्तु आदिमान् होती है? वही अपने,स्वरूपसे क्षीण होती है। किंतु यह परमात्मा अनादि है? इसलिये अवयवरहित है। अतः इसका क्षय नहीं होता। तथा निर्गुण होनेके कारण भी यह अव्यय है क्योंकि जो वस्तु गुणयुक्त होती है? उसका गुणोंके क्षयसे क्षय होता है। परंतु यह ( आत्मा ) गुणरहित है? अतः इसका क्षय नहीं होता। सुतरां यह परमात्मा अव्यय है? अर्थात् इसका व्यय नहीं होता। ऐसा होनेके कारण यह आत्मा शरीरमें स्थित हुआ भीशरीरमें रहता हुआ भी कुछ नहीं करता है? तथा कुछ न करनेके कारण ही उसके फलसे भी लिप्त नहीं होता है। आत्माकी शरीरमें प्रतीति होती है? इसलिये शरीरमें स्थित कहा जाता है। क्योंकि जो कर्ता होता है वही कर्मोंके फलसे लिप्त होता है। परंतु यह अकर्ता है? इसलिये फलसे लिप्त नहीं होता? यह अभिप्राय है। पू0 -- तो फिर शरीरोंमें ऐसा कौन है जो कर्म करता है और उसके फलसे लिप्त होता है यदि यह मान लिया जाय कि? परमात्मासे भिन्न कोई शरीरी कर्म करता है और उसके फलसे लिप्त होता है तब तो क्षेत्रज्ञ भी तू मुझे ही जान इस प्रकार जो क्षेत्रज्ञ और ईश्वरकी एकता कही है? वह अयुक्त ठहरेगी। यदि यह माना जाय कि ईश्वरसे पृथक् अन्य कोई शरीरी नहीं है तो यह बतलाना चाहिये फिर कौन करता और लिप्त होता है अथवा यह कह देना चाहिये कि ( इन सबसे ) पर कोई ईश्वर ही नहीं है। ( बात तो यह है कि ) भगवान्द्वारा कहा हुआ यह उपनिषद्रूप दर्शन सर्वथा दुर्विज्ञेय और दुर्वाच्य है? इसीलिये वैशेषिक? सांख्य? जैन और बौद्धमतावलम्बियोंद्वारा यह छोड़ दिया गया है। उ0 -- इसका उत्तर स्वभाव ही बर्तता है ऐसा कहकर भगवान्ने स्वयं ही दे दिया है क्योंकि अविद्यामात्र स्वभाववाला ही करता है? और लिप्त होता है? इसीसे यह व्यवहार चल रहा है। वास्तवमें अद्वितीय परमात्मामें वे ( कर्तापन और लिप्त होना आदि ) नहीं हैं। सुतरां इस वास्तविक ज्ञानदर्शनमें स्थित हुए ज्ञाननिष्ठ? परमहंस परिव्राजक संन्यासियोंका जिन्होंने अविद्याकृत समस्त व्यवहारका तिरस्कार कर दिया है? कर्मोंमें अधिकार नहीं है -- यह बात जगहजगह भगवान्द्वारा दिखलायी गयी है।

'Because of subtlety' -- meaning because of having an unobstructed nature.

'Is not connected' -- with mud etc., this is to be supplied.

(Objection): Well, due to the one Self being situated equally everywhere, possession of agency etc. belonging to the body etc. is obtained; just as even pure Ganges water etc. possesses defects due to the defect of being inside the belly of impure living beings -- to this He says -- 'Because of beginninglessness' etc.

This Supreme Self is 'Immutable', meaning devoid of decay, changeless. There, decay is of three kinds -- natural, or through parts, or through qualities. By Itself, it is not possible for the Supreme Brahman, to say this 'Supreme Self' is used. He states the reason for the impossibility of the second -- 'Because of beginninglessness'. Adi, meaning cause, does not exist, that is beginningless. For pot etc., due to having a beginning and being with parts, decay is seen; but for the Self, for you (Kaunteya), due to being beginningless and partless, decay through parts is not possible, this is the meaning.

He refutes the third -- 'Because of attributelessness'. Similarly, a qualified thing decays by the decay of qualities; but this One, being attributeless, does not decay. Decay through qualities is not possible for Him, this is the meaning.

Since it is so, therefore 'Though situated in the body' -- in bodies there is the attribute of perception of the Self, so He is called situated in the body. Due to omnipresence and being the Self of all, though situated in the body etc., He 'does not act' by Himself or identified with the body, because of immutability and because body etc. are imagined in Him, this is the meaning. Because of the very absence of agency, He 'is not tainted' by the fruit of action. Even though situated in the body born of Kunti, you have no agency or taint -- this is the intention of the address (Kaunteya).

(Objection): Well, thus he who acts and is tainted while situated in the body, who is he? Is he distinct from the Self characterized as non-doer and untainted, or non-distinct? Not the first; because of the contingency of invalidating the propounding of the unity of Knower of the Field and the Lord in 'That Thou Art', 'Know the Knower of the Field also as Me'. In the second (case), due to the absence of agency etc. in the Supreme Self, the locus of the perceived agency etc. must be stated. And thus in every way this is hard to explain -- (Answer): No. 'But Nature acts', thus the nature which is mere Avidya indeed acts and is tainted -- because in the transactional state, agency etc. born of Avidya have been described by the Lord Himself.

And thus, agency etc. born of Avidya in Brahman non-different from the Inner Self is not real -- in this Upanishadic ultimate Sankhya philosophy spoken by the Lord, which is hard to know, and is abandoned by Sankhya, Vaisheshika, etc. due to the previously mentioned doubt born of delusion; for those established in this (Upanishadic view) devoted to knowledge, there is attainment of liberation by the removal of agency etc. imagined by Avidya; but not for those devoted to another (view) imagined by Sankhya etc. which is like silver-in-nacre -- thus.

And there is no decay etc. for Him, He says -- 'Because of beginninglessness'. For that which has a beginning is generally decaying and consists of qualities.

The meaning of 'Does not act' etc. has been stated before.

He has no worldly action etc. Therefore like 'Not conscious' [Mandukya 7] etc. -- thus.

(Objection): Well, let agency not be accepted for the Self in its all-pervading form, but it must be stated in its form conditioned by the body etc., otherwise there would be contradiction with experience. Doubting this, He says -- 'Because of beginninglessness'.

This Self is eternally immediate (aparoksha) to all living beings, Supreme, distinct from the lower selves like the body etc. beyond the five sheaths, the Supreme Self. 'Imperishable' (Avyaya) -- He does not decay, is not limited by space, time, or object, thus 'Imperishable'. The reason for imperishability is 'because of beginninglessness'. For what has a beginning, like space etc., that decays; but this one does not decay, because of beginninglessness.

(Objection): Well, by the rule of eternity for a beginningless entity, let the limitation of the Self by time not be; and similarly, since destruction is certain for what is limited by space, and unfitness for beginninglessness follows, let the limitation of Brahman by space also not be. (Objection): Well, It will be like an atom? Answer: No. Because for a substance which has divisions of space limited by ten directions, the atomic size in the form of partlessness is not established. For the part of an atom limited by the eastern direction cannot be separated by the western (direction), because of contradiction with experience.

Because of the very absence of limitation by space, let limitation created by the existence of objects of similar and dissimilar class also not be; still, for the Supreme, who is skillful in creating the fresh world, endowed with various powers, and possessing attributes like being the Lord of all and Omniscient, self-originated distinction (Sva-gata-bheda) is unavoidable. And the agency of the world in the form conditioned by His own power Maya, and the agency of Agnihotra etc. conditioned by the body, must necessarily be stated -- doubting this, He says -- 'Because of attributelessness'.

For what is qualified, like space etc., when obtaining conjunction or disjunction or an adjunct, manifests its own quality (like sound), but is not capable of showing touch, which does not exist in itself, by any adjunct whatsoever. Similarly, the Self, devoid of all qualities, even when obtaining delimitation, is not capable of manifesting agency etc. which are qualities.

He states the resultant meaning -- 'Though situated in the body'. This is clear in meaning.

How is it that the ether, although pervasive and connected with all objects, is not tainted by the nature of all objects due to its subtlety?

Similarly, the Self (Ātman), due to extreme subtlety, residing everywhere in the body—such as that of a god or a man—is not tainted by the natures of those respective bodies.

'Because of subtlety' -- meaning because of having an unobstructed nature.

'Is not connected' --

with mud etc.,

this is to be supplied.

He establishes the distinction of the Self stated through eternity, non-eternity, immutability, etc. with reason -- with the verse 'Because of beginninglessness'.

He states the meaning intended by 'This Supreme Self' regarding the relative Supreme Self -- with 'Having extracted from the body' etc.

Agency in the form of impelling the body and decay in the form of contraction of knowledge are established by perception etc.; how then is imperishability etc. (possible)? To this he says -- 'Described by nature'.

'Beginninglessness' as the cause of imperishability means absence of origin -- he says 'Due to not being commenced'. The sense is that what is commenced is seen to decay.

To avoid the negation of qualities like knowledge etc. by 'attributelessness' in general, he says -- 'Devoid of Sattva etc. qualities'.

Thus the connection of the two consequences (imperishability and non-action/taint) with the power of the two reasons (beginninglessness and attributelessness) is shown as appropriate.

Since prohibition and doubt of taint are proper only regarding possible subjects, and since the body, stated in 'The body consists of seven dhatus, three impurities, two wombs, and four types of food', has the nature of tainting by contact like mud etc. in cloth etc., he says what is implied by 'Though situated in the body' -- 'By the natures of the body'.

यद्यपि चैतन्य आत्मा के सान्निध्य मात्र से देहेन्द्रियादि उपाधियाँ स्वक्रियाओं में प्रवृत्त होती हैं? तथापि आत्मा सदा अकर्त्ता ही रहता है। शास्त्रों के इस प्रतिपादन को समझना वेदान्त के प्रारम्भिक विद्यार्थियों को कठिन प्रतीत होता है। इसलिए? उपनिषदों के ऋषियों ने विशेष परिश्रमपूर्वक हमें यह समझाने का प्रयत्न किया है कि किस प्रकार एकमेव अद्वितीय? परिपूर्ण सर्वव्यापी परमात्मा अकर्ता है। पहले भीगीता में कहा जा चुका है कि आत्मा क्षेत्र के साथ तादात्म्य करके जीवरूपक्षेत्रज्ञ बन जाता है? जो कर्मों का कर्ता और फलों का भोक्ता है।शरीरों में स्थित होने पर भी आत्मा के दोषमुक्तत्व को सिद्ध करने के लिए यहाँ कुछ हेतु दिये गये हैं। जब एक न्यायाधीश श्रीगोपाल राव किसी हत्यारे अपराधी को मृत्युदण्ड सुनाते हैं? तब उसकी मृत्यु का पातक न्यायाधीश को प्रभावित नहीं कर सकता। श्रीगोपाल राव न्यायालय में न्यायाधीश के पद पर आसीन होकर निर्णय देते हैं? न कि अपनी व्यक्तिगत क्षमता में।अनादि जिस वस्तु का कारण होता है? उसी का प्रारम्भ भी हो सकता है। प्रारम्भ रहित का अर्थ कारणरहित होगा। परम सत्य वह है जिससे सम्पूर्ण जगत् उत्पन्न हुआ है। अत परमात्मा कारण रहित कारण होने से अनादि कहा गया है। इसी कारण से वह अव्यय? अविनाशी भी है।निर्गुण गुणवान् वस्तु ही विकारी होती है। हमने देखा कि जगत्कारण परमात्मा अविकारी है? अत उसका निर्गुण होना भी आवश्यक है।यह परमात्मा अव्यय है जगत्कारण? अनादि और निर्गुण होने से परमात्मा का अव्ययत्व सिद्ध हो जाता है।यह परमात्मा अपने सान्निध्य मात्र से जड़ उपाधियों को चेतनवत् व्यवहार करने में सक्षम करता है? परन्तु वह स्वयं किसी प्रकार की क्रिया नहीं,करता।उपर्युक्त सिद्धांत वेदान्त के कुछ सूक्ष्म सिद्धांतों में से एक है? और दुर्बल मति के विद्यार्थियों को प्राय इसे समझने में कठिनाई अनुभव होती है। यद्यपि यह वेदान्त साहित्य का कठिन भाग माना गया है? तथापि प्रयत्नपूर्वक इस पर मनन करने से सन्देह और कठिनाई दूर हो सकती हैं।उपाधियों के सभी निषिद्ध और आसुरी कर्मों में भी आत्मा के अकर्तृत्वऔर निर्गुणत्व को दर्शाने के लिए? भगवान् कुछ दृष्टान्त देते हैं

And there is no decay etc. for Him, He says -- 'Because of beginninglessness'. For that which has a beginning is generally decaying and consists of qualities. The meaning of 'Does not act' etc. has been stated before.

He has no worldly action etc. Therefore like 'Not conscious' [Mandukya 7] etc. -- thus.

To remove the misunderstanding that merely the absence of taint is enjoined by the word 'Imperishable', he says -- 'And not'. By this, it is said that 'Imperishability' is also the predicate (what is to be proved) because it is not obtained (already known).

The statement that "This is an attribute of the Jiva, as prohibition is proper when attainment is possible" is refuted. Because the attainment is stated even for Vishnu by "Though situated in the body".

To justify that beginninglessness and attributelessness are the causes for imperishability, he states the universal concomitance -- 'Having a beginning'. The construction is: "What decays is generally what has a beginning and consists of qualities". To avoid deviation (Vyabhichara) in the case of prior non-existence, 'generally' (Prayah) is said. Or, the word 'generally' is for the purpose of making the meaning consistent with the definitive statement "What has a beginning is indeed consisting of qualities".

Regarding the idea that 'He does not act' implies the absence of action and qualities in the Lord because of attributelessness, he says -- 'Does not act'. He reminds of what was said before -- 'Not' etc. The remainder is that "actionlessness etc." should be explained like 'Not this' etc.

Although imperishability is also the predicate here, still, only the absence of loss is mentioned, as it can be known by people; just as the statement of all-pervasiveness is appropriate.

Removing the doubt that even though the Self is inherently a non-doer, there might be conditional doership due to connection with the body, He explains the statement 'he who sees the Self as non-doer, he sees' — with 'Anaditvat' (due to beginninglessness), etc. This immediate Supreme Self, the innermost Self identical with the Supreme Lord, is 'Avyaya' (imperishable); that which does not undergo 'vyaya' (change/decay) is Avyaya. The meaning is: void of all modifications.

There, 'vyaya' (change) is of two kinds: Is it due to the substance (dharmi) itself having an origin? Or, even if the nature of the substance is unproduced, is it due to the attributes (dharmas) themselves possessing origin, etc.? There, he refutes the first — with 'Anaditvat'. 'Adi' (beginning) means the state of non-existence prior. That does not exist for the Self which is always existent; therefore, due to the absence of its cause (Adi), there is an absence of birth. For indeed, birth is not possible for the beginningless. And in the absence of that (birth), the subsequent modifications of being are certainly not possible. Therefore, it does not decay by its very nature; this is the meaning.

He refutes the second — with 'Nirgunatvat' (due to being without Gunas/attributes). The meaning is: due to being devoid of attributes. For indeed, no attribute comes or goes affecting a substance, because of the identity between the attribute and the substance. But this (Self) is devoid of attributes, therefore it does not decay even through attributes; this is the meaning. As the Sruti says: 'Verily, O Maitreyi, this Self is imperishable and of an indestructible nature.'

Since this (Self) is devoid of the six modifications of being — 'is born, exists, grows, transforms, decays, dies' — therefore, even though situated in the body through a superimposed relationship, while that (body) is acting, this Self 'na karoti' (does not act). Just as the sun situated in water through a superimposed relationship does not move even when that (water) moves, exactly so. Since it does not do any action whatsoever, therefore it is 'not tainted' by any fruit of action; for he who performs an action is tainted by its result, but not this one. 'Akatritvat' (due to non-doership) is the meaning.

Desire, hatred, pleasure, pain, etc., have been stated to be attributes of the Field (Kshetra), and from the statement 'actions are being performed by Prakriti alone', they are designated as effects of Maya. Therefore, the cessation of eligibility for all actions for the seers of the Supreme Truth has been explained before.

By this, through the statement of the Self being attributeless, the 'svagata bheda' (internal difference) is also refuted. In 'Prakrityaiva ca karmani', the difference of the same species (sajatiya) was prevented; in 'Yada bhutaprithagbhavam', the difference of a different species (vijatiya); in 'Anaditvat nirgunatvat', the internal difference (svagata) is refuted; thus, it is established that the Non-dual Brahman alone is the Self.

He justifies the absence of natural connection for the Person by 'Because of beginninglessness'.

The Supreme Self is the inner Person, or, this Self (Jiva), the Person, is 'Imperishable' because of beginninglessness and attributelessness due to being of the nature of the Imperishable (Akshara);

though separated by Himself merely by the Lord's will, he is non-doer and untainted.

Only by superimposition (is he tainted), not otherwise, this is the sense.

'Anaditvat' -- the state of being beginningless is 'Anaditva'; 'Adi' (beginning) is cause; that which does not have that is 'Anadi'. What indeed has a beginning, that decays by its own nature; but this one, being beginningless, and therefore partless, does not decay. Similarly 'because of attributelessness'. What is qualified indeed decays by the decay of qualities; but this one, because of being attributeless, does not decay; thus this Supreme Self is 'Imperishable' -- there is no decay for Him.

Since it is so, therefore 'though situated in the body' -- he is called situated in the body because the perception of the Self occurs in bodies; still He 'does not act'. And because He does not act, He 'is not tainted by its fruit'. For he who is a doer is tainted by the fruit of action. But this one is a non-doer, therefore He is not tainted by the fruit, this is the meaning.

He justifies the absence of natural connection for the Person by 'Because of beginninglessness'.

The Supreme Self is the inner Person, or, this Self (Jiva), the Person, is 'Imperishable' because of beginninglessness and attributelessness due to being of the nature of the Imperishable (Akshara);

though separated by Himself merely by the Lord's will, he is non-doer and untainted.

Only by superimposition (is he tainted), not otherwise, this is the sense.

अनादित्वात् being without beginning? निर्गुणत्वात् being devoid of alities? परमात्मा the Supreme Self? अयम् this? अव्ययः imperishable? शरीरस्थः dwelling in this body? अपि though? कौन्तेय O son of Kunti (Arjuna)? न not करोति acts? न not? लिप्यते is tainted.Commentary The Supreme Self is beyond Nature. Therefore It is without alities. It is Nirguna. The activity in Nature is really due to its own alities which inhere in it. The Supreme Self existed before the body came into being and will continue to be after its dissolution. It is eternally the same and imperishable.Avyaya That which is free from the changes of birth and death or appearance and destruction. That which has a beginning has birth. After the object is born it is subject to the changes of being (growth? decay? etc.). As the Self is birthless? It is free from the changes of state (existence? birth? growth? change? decay and death). As the Self is free from all sorts of functions? It is Avyaya. Even if the reflection of the sun in the water moves? the sun does not move a bit. Even so the Supreme Self is not touched by the fruits of action as It is not the doer? as It is without the alities of Nature? or limbs? indivisible? devoid of parts? without action? beginningless and unattached and causeless.This Supreme Self is free from the three kinds of differences? viz.? Sajatiyabheda? Vijatiyabheda and Svagatabheda. A mango tree is different from a fig tree. This is Sajatiyabheda. A mango tree is different from a stone. This is Vijatiyabheda. In the same mango tree there is difference between leaves? flowers and fruits. This is Svagatabheda. But the Supreme Self is one without a second. There is no other Brahman Which is eal to It. Therefore? there cannot be Sajatiyabheda in Brahman. This world is a mere appearance. It is a mere figment of our imagination. It is superimposed on the Absolute on account of ignorance. An imaginary object has no independent existence apart from its substratum? just as the snake in the rope has no independent existence apart from its substratum? the rope. Therefore? there cannot be Vijatiyabheda in Brahman. Brahman is indivisible? partless? without alities? without form and without any limbs. Therefore there cannot be Svagatabheda in Brahman.Brahman or the Supreme Self is beginningless. It is without a cause. It is selfexistent. It is without parts. It is without alities. Therefore Brahman is imperishable. As It is unattached? It is neither the doer nor the enjoyer. If Brahman also is the doer and enjoyer. It is no longer Brahman. It is in no way better than ourselves. This cannot be. Agency and enjoyment are attributed to the ego on account of ignorance. It is Nature that acts. (Cf.V.14XV.9)

Anadivat, being without beginning: Adih means cause; that which has no cause is anadih. That which has a cause undergoes loss of its own characteristics. But this One, being causeless, has no parts. This being so, It does not suffer loss.
So also, nirgunatvat, being without alities: indeed, It si only something possessing alities that perishes owing to the losss of its alities. But this One, being without alities, does not perish. Hence, ayam, this; paramatma, supreme Self; is avyayah, immutable. It suffers no depletion. Therefore It is immutable. Since this is so, therefore, api, although; sarira-sthah, existing in the body-since the perception of the Self occurs in the bodies, It is said to be 'existing in the body'; even then, It na, does not; karoti, act. From the very fact that It does not act, It na, is not; lipyate, affected by the result of any action. For, one who is an agent of action becomes affected by its result. But this One is not an agent. Hence It is not affected by any result. This is the meaning.
Objection: Who is it, again, that acts in the body and becomes affected? On the one hand, if there be some embodied being other than the supreme Self who acts and becomes affected, then it has been improper to say in, 'And also understand Me to be the Knower of the field,' etc., that the Knower of the field and God are one. Again, if there be no embodied being who is different from God, then it has to be stated who is it that acts and gets affected. Or it has to be asserted that the supreme One does not exist. [If the supreme One also acts like us, then He is no God.]
Thus, since the Upanisadic philosophy as stated by the Lord is in every way difficult to understand and difficult to explain, it has therefore been abandoned by the Vaisesikas, the Sankhyas, the Jainas and the Buddhists.
Reply: As to that, the following refutation has been stated by the Lord Himself in, 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Indeed, Nature, which is nothing but ignorance, acts and becomes affected. In this way empirical dealing becomes possible; but in reality it does not occur in the one supreme Self.
It has been accordingly shown by the Lord in various places that there is no duty to be performed by those who adhere to this philosophy of discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality, who are steadfast in Knowledge, who have spurned actions arising out of ignorance, and who are mendicants belonging to the highest Order of monks.
The Lord cites an illustration to show like what It does not act and is not affected:

This 'supreme self' (Atman) has been defined as having a nature different from that of the body. While existing in the body, It is 'immutable', i.e., It is not liable to decay as It is 'without a beginning,' i.e., never created at any point of time. Because It is 'free from Gunas,' being devoid of Sattva and other Gunas of Prakrti, It neither acts nor gets tainted; It is not tainted by the alities of the body.
Granted that the self being without Gunas, does not act; but how is it possible that the Atman is not tainted by Its constant association with the alities of the body? To this, Sri Krsna replies: