Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 17

व्याख्या-- 'अविनाशि तु तद्विद्धि'-- पूर्वश्लोकमें जो सत्-असत् की बात कही थी, उसमेंसे पहले 'सत्' की व्याख्या करनेके लिये यहाँ 'तु' पद आया है।
'उस अविनाशी तत्त्वको तू समझ'--ऐसा कहकर भगवान्ने उस तत्वको परोक्ष बताया है। परोक्ष बतानेमें तात्पर्य है कि इदंतासे दीखनेवाले इस सम्पूर्ण संसारमें वह परोक्ष तत्त्व ही व्याप्त है, परिपूर्ण है। वास्तवमें जो परिपूर्ण है, वही 'है' और जो सामने संसार दीख रहा है, यह 'नहीं' है।
यहाँ 'तत्' पदसे सत्त-त्त्वको परोक्षरीतिसे कहनेका तात्पर्य यह नहीं है कि वह तत्त्व बहुत दूर है; किन्तु वह इन्द्रियों और अन्तःकरणका विषय नहीं है, इसलिये उसको परोक्षरीतिसे कहा गया है।
'येन सर्वमिदं ततम् (टिप्पणी प'0 57.1)--जिसको परोक्ष कहा है उसीका वर्णन करते हैं कि यह सब-का-सब संसार उस नित्य-तत्त्वसे व्याप्त है। जैसे सोनेसे बने हुए गहनोंमें सोना, लोहेसे बने हुए अस्त्र-शस्त्रोंमें लोहा, मिट्टीसे बने हुए बर्तनोंमें मिट्टी और जलसे बनी हुई बर्फमें जल ही व्याप्त (परिपूर्ण) है, ऐसे ही संसारमें वह सत्त-त्त्व ही व्याप्त है। अतः वास्तवमें इस संसारमें वह सत्त-त्त्व ही जाननेयोग्य है।
'विनाशमव्ययस्यास्य न कश्चित्कर्तुमर्हति'--यह शरीरी अव्यय (टिप्पणी प0 57.2) अर्थात् अविनाशी है। इस अविनाशीका कोई विनाश कर ही नहीं सकता। परन्तु शरीर विनाशी है-- क्योंकि वह नित्य-निरन्तर विनाशकी तरफ जा रहा है। अतः इस विनाशीके विनाशको कोई रोक ही नहीं सकता। तू सोचता है कि मैं युद्ध नहीं करूँगा तो ये नहीं मरेंगे, पर वास्तवमें तेरे युद्ध करनेसे अथवा न करनेसे इस अविनाशी और विनाशी तत्त्वमें कुछ फरक नहीं पड़ेगा अर्थात् अविनाशी तो रहेगा ही और विनाशीका नाश होगा ही।
यहाँ 'अस्य' पदसे सत्त-त्त्वको इदंतासे कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि प्रतिक्षण बदलनेवाले शरीरोंमें जो सत्ता दीखती है, वह इसी सत्त-त्त्वकी ही है। 'मेरा शरीर है और मैं शरीरधारी हूँ'--ऐसा जो अपनी सत्ताका ज्ञान है, उसीको लक्ष्य करके भगवान्ने यहाँ 'अस्य' पद दिया है।

तो जो निस्सन्देह सत् है और सदैव रहता है वह क्या है इसपर कहा जाता है
नष्ट न होना जिसका स्वभाव है वह अविनाशी है। तु शब्द असत्से सत्की विशेषता दिखानेके लिये है।
उसको तू ( अविनाशी ) जान समझ किसको जिस सत् शब्दवाच्य ब्रह्मसे यह आकाशसहित सम्पूर्ण विश्व आकाशसे घटादिके सदृश व्याप्त है।
इस अव्ययका अर्थात् जिसका व्यय नहीं होता जो घटताबढ़ता नहीं उसे अव्यय कहते हैं उसका विनाशअभाव ( करनेके लिये कोई भी समर्थ नहीं है )।
क्योंकि यह सत् नामक ब्रह्म अवयवरहित होनेके कारण देहादिकी तरह अपने स्वरूपसे नष्ट नहीं होता अर्थात् इसका व्यय नहीं होता।
तथा इसका कोई निजी पदार्थ नहीं होनेके कारण निजी पदार्थोंके नाशसे भी इसका नाश नहीं होता जैसे देवदत्त अपने धनकी हानिसे हानिवाला होता है ऐसे ब्रह्म नहीं होता।
इसलिये कहते हैं कि इस अविनाशी ब्रह्मका विनाश करनेके लिये कोई भी समर्थ नहीं है। कोई भी अर्थात् ईश्वर भी अपने आपका नाश नहीं कर सकता।
क्योंकि आत्मा ही स्वयं ब्रह्म है और अपने आपमें क्रियाका विरोध है।

In anticipation of the question "What is that 'Sat' (Real)?", He says—"avināśi tu" (imperishable indeed), etc. Know that to be That which does not have the nature of perishing. The word "tu" is for the purpose of distinguishing it from the "asat" (unreal). What is it? By which all this is pervaded... because being without parts, it does not undergo "vyaya" (decrease/change) in its own nature like the body etc., or like Devadatta upon the loss of wealth etc.; hence it is "Avyaya" (Immutable). Of this Avyaya Brahman, which is one's own Self, no one, not even Ishvara, is fit or able to bring about destruction—meaning non-existence or negation. Because action upon one's own Self is contradictory.

Objection: "But, if such a 'Sat' is considered different from knowledge, it would become limited (paricchinna); therefore, it must be accepted as being of the nature of knowledge, and that [knowledge] must be non-superimposed (anādhyāsika), otherwise there is the objection of it being inert (jada). And if 'Sat' is of the nature of non-superimposed knowledge, then being the meaning of a verbal root (dhātvartha), it would possess origination and destruction, as seen in the perception 'knowledge of the pot has arisen', 'knowledge of the pot is destroyed'. Furthermore, from the perception 'I know the pot', that [knowledge] has a locus (āśraya) and an object (viṣaya), and is thus limited by space, time, and object. How then can that 'Sat', which is of such a nature (of knowledge), be devoid of limitations of space, time, and object?" Anticipating this doubt, He says—"avināśi".

Know that 'Sat'-nature 'sphurana' (consciousness/flash) to be indeed ("tu") devoid of the three kinds of limitations. What is That? By which all this is "tatam" (pervaded/spread)—just as a snake, a stream of water, etc., are superimposed on a piece of rope, so is all this included in It. Of this "Avyaya" (Immutable) and Unlimited One, no locus, or object, or cause in the form of sense-contact etc., is capable of effecting destruction or limitation.

If it is asked, "Why was it not explained this way by the Bhashyakara (Shankaracharya)?", the answer is: The answer to the raised doubt—that the knowledge of pot etc., which is of the nature of modification/exclusion, though superimposed on the Self, does not make the Self inert because the Self is self-luminous; and even though modifications etc. have origination etc., the Self does not possess that—such [complex epistemology] is not apparent from the root letters (of the verse). Furthermore, later on, instead of "antavanta ime dehāḥ" (these bodies have an end), it would have been necessary to say "antavatya imā vṛttayaḥ" (these mental modifications have an end). To remove Arjuna's delusion that "destruction of these will happen," it was necessary to establish the unreality of the body etc. associated with the Self, so concepts like 'locus' etc. should be understood as implied/secondary. Moreover, just as the knowledge of silver superimposed on a shell is constructed/imagined, so too the knowledge of pot etc. superimposed on the 'Sat' is constructed because of being superimposed—this has been demonstrated by the Bhashya "sad-buddhiḥ asad-buddhiḥ" (the cognition of the Real, the cognition of the unreal), etc.; thus intending that the said doubt does not even arise, the Acharyas did not explain it in this manner. This is the direction (indication).

Anticipating the doubt 'What is the proof for the existence of that Real whose non-existence does not exist?', He says 'avinashi' (indestructible). By the word 'Tat' (That), the contextual 'Sat' (Real) is referred to. By which Real all this—space/ether etc.—is pervaded ('tatam'). Because of the experience of non-difference from the Real in everything, as 'Pot is Real', 'Cloth is Real'. Just as from the experience of non-difference of pot etc. from clay, as 'Pot is clay', 'Saucer is clay', the state of having clay as material cause (is known); likewise, for everything, the state of having the Real (Sat) as material cause should be understood. Objection: Does the Real, like clay, also become possessed of modification? Anticipating this doubt, He says 'avinashi'. Know 'Tat'—That Real—to be indestructible. The meaning is this: Here, destruction is the abandonment of the previous state. For clay, abandoning the lump-form, becomes a pot; therefore, it is prone to destruction. Because of being the locus of a stream of modifications. But Brahman is not so. What then? Like a rope, Itself remaining undestroyed, It becomes the form of the effect. And It bestows Its own Existence and Illumination to the effect. Therefore, It is indestructible. And so the Shrutis: 'Being unborn, He is born in many ways', 'Born alone, He is not born; who indeed would generate Him again?'. 'Unborn' means even while not obtaining the modification named birth, 'He is born' means He manifests in the form of space etc. Thus, pot etc., born from the worldly view, is not born from the absolute view. Because of the absence of a transforming material cause. For clay etc. are trivial (unreal) like dream-clay etc. Therefore, who indeed would generate this pot etc.? No one. If asked 'Then whence does it appear?', this is answered as 'like the rope-snake etc.' Similarly, 'Pranas are the Truth, of them This is the Truth', 'By Its light all this shines'—thus, due to the Truth of the Real (Sat), the truth of the universe implied by Prana (is established); the appearance of the Real is indeed the appearance of the universe. And thus, the existence and illumination existing in the universe are the proof for the reality of the Real (Sat); this is the meaning.

And the Shruti 'By the sprout food, O Somya, seek the root water... by the sprout water seek the root Fire... by the sprout Fire seek the root Sat (Real). All these creatures, O Somya, are rooted in Sat, reside in Sat, are established in Sat'—strengthens the state of the Real being the material cause of the world through the sign (mark) of the effect. And the indestructibility of the Real is due to the absence of a cause for destruction; so He says 'vinasham' (destruction). That which does not decrease ('na vyeti') is 'avyaya' (inexhaustible/immutable). By this, it means there is no destruction for that which is void of all modifications. For decrease happens only to one possessing modifications like birth etc.; here that alone is to be understood as indicating all modifications. By 'na kashchit' (no one), the absence of a cause of destruction other than It is shown. Because of the Shruti 'Fear arises indeed from a second'.

Now, with the intention that the eternality of the Self—which is implied as the goal (purushartha) because it is a qualification for the attainable (liberation), and which is the cause for the sudden cessation of grief—is being logically demonstrated first (in the order of understanding), even though it was stated last in the verse "nāsataḥ" (2.16) [where the distinction between Sat and Asat was made]. He says—"ātmanastu" (However, of the Self), etc. The word "tu" (however/but) implies the following objection: Since birth and death are witnessed by the entire world, and since the Shruti says, "Rising up from these elements, it vanishes following them" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.12), which implies the Self shares the same fate (acquisition and loss) as the body, how is the Self distinct from the body? The word "tu" in the verse signifies that despite this, there is a distinction. The meaning of the word "tat" (That)—implied by the neuter gender—indicates the subject of the proposition (pratijñā), specifically revealing the "Reality of the Self" (Atma-tattva) and the distinction between the locus and the property to be proved. "Avināśi" (Imperishable) means that which does not have the nature of perishing.

Explaining the second quarter of the verse which states the reason, He explains the word "yena" (by which): By implying a restriction on the word "sarva" (all) appropriate to the context of the sentence, and by the natural force of the word "idam" (this) indicating the externality of external objects, and conversely implying the "sentience" (chetanatvam) of the Self, it conveys the "pervasion" of the insentient by the sentient in the form of the Self. The meaning is: The aggregate of insentient matter is pervaded by the aggregate of sentient selves according to their respective portions, just as oil in sesame seeds or fire in wood. Or, the capability of entering into all insentient things is what is intended here—in either case, there is no contradiction with the atomic size (anutva) of the Self [a tenet of Vishishtadvaita].

Here is the logical syllogism (prayoga): The Self is not subject to destruction by weapons and the like, because it pervades them and is subtler than them, like Akasha (Space). Or by negative concomitance (vyatireka): Whatever is subject to destruction by something is not subtler than that thing, just as a lamp destroyed by wind [is not subtler than wind]. Expressing this logic, He explains the second half of the verse as referring to another argument with "vyāpakatvena" (due to pervasiveness). The meaning of the word "avyaya" is "unworthy of destruction." The reason for this is "niratiśayasūkṣmatvāt" (due to unsurpassable subtlety). And this unsurpassable subtlety is in relation to insentient matter. Regarding the word "kaścit" (anyone/anything), the interpretation by the opponent (Shankara) that "even Ishvara" (cannot destroy it) is contrary to one's own doctrine [of Ishvara's omnipotence]; with this intent, He says "kashcit padartha" implies "any distinct substance/entity other than That." This refers to the agent. The meaning of the predicate is that it "na arhati" (is not capable) to bring about the destruction of the Self. He states the cause for this: "because of being pervaded by It and being grosser than It." "Being grosser than It" is the primary reason.

To avoid the unproven nature of that reason, "because of being pervaded by It" is stated. Stating the pervasion first, He gives an example: "nashakam" (destroyer), etc. Anticipating the fallacy of deviation (anaikantya) regarding hammers (mudgara) etc. which destroy pots etc., He refutes it with "mudgara", etc.

The intention is this: Mere 'contact' of the hammer etc. is not the destroyer of the pot etc., otherwise a pot placed on top of a hammer would be destroyed. Nor is mere 'velocity' the destroyer, for destruction would occur even without contact (if the hammer swings by). Nor is it merely 'both' together, for contact with a blade of grass moving with velocity would cause destruction. Nor is it the contact of a specific substance with velocity, for destruction is not seen from the contact of the back part of the same hammer. Therefore, it is undisputed that the destroyer is the 'specific contact' of a 'specific part' of a 'specific substance' qualified by hardness, velocity, etc. Furthermore, the generation of a 'specific air/force' (vayu) is also generally undisputed as it is established by perception. And the destructive power of air is accepted as operating through its entry into the respective substances, specifically in objects shaken by a harder impact/sound. This being so, the causality of the 'specific air'—which has established causality and is present here too—must be accepted as the cause of destruction. And that air is subtler than the pot etc. In cases where destruction occurs merely by 'compression/attack' even in the absence of velocity, there too, specific parts of the substance (like the pot) pushed by the parts of the hammer enter into other parts grosser than themselves and break them, or it happens due to the escape of the internal air caused by the compression, as in the case of compressing a bellows filled with air.

"Ataḥ" (Therefore): Because of the two stated reasons (pervasiveness and subtlety), weapons etc. cannot be destroyers (of the Self). The purport is that since no other thing is seen which is subtler than the Self to destroy it, and since there is an absence of will in Ishvara to destroy it [the Self being eternal by His will], destruction is impossible.

समस्त जगत् को जो व्याप्त किये हुये है और इस दृश्यमान अनुभव में आने वाले जगत् का जो अधिष्ठान है वह सत् है। मिट्टी के बने अनेक प्रकार के पात्र होते हैं जिनके विभिन्न उपयोगों के कारण अथवा उनमें रखी वस्तुओं के कारण उनके विभिन्न नाम होते हैं परंतु विविध आकारों के होने पर भी वे सब एक मिट्टी के ही बने होते हैं जो सब आकारों में व्याप्त होती है और जिसके बिना किसी भी पात्र का अस्तित्व सिद्ध नहीं हो सकता। उन सब की उत्पत्ति स्थिति और लय मिट्टी में ही है। अत उनमें मिट्टी ही वास्तव में सत्य है।
इसी प्रकार यह नित्य परिवर्तनशील जगत् नित्य अविनाशी तत्त्व से व्याप्त है और भगवान् कहते हैं कि इस तत्त्व का विनाश कदापि सम्भव नहीं है।
तब फिर असत् क्या है जिसका अस्तित्व नित्य नहीं है सुनो

Objection: "Let the destruction of the body not happen due to its supernatural nature. However, the destruction of the objects useful for service (Seva) etc., which are related to that body and dedicated (to the Lord), might occur; and on account of that (destruction), there is a fear of severe sin. Therefore, I grieve." If this is said, then He answers with—"avināśi tu" (Indestructible indeed), etc.

"Yena" (By which)—by which "bhāvātmaka" (consisting of devotional sentiment) divine body, "idam sarvam" (all this) is "tatam" (pervaded)—meaning all the objects fit for service etc. (are pervaded by that sentiment)—know ("viddhi") that supernatural body to be "avināśi" (indestructible), meaning devoid of destruction.

The word "tu" (indeed/but) indicates the exclusion of any possibility of destruction. Of this "Avyaya" (Immutable) form/nature, "kaścit" (anyone/anything)—meaning factors like Time (Kala) etc., born from attributes like sin—"na arhati" (is not fit/able) to cause destruction. This is the meaning.

"Avināśi" (Indestructible)—means that whose nature is not to perish. The word "tu" (but/indeed) is used to distinguish it from the "asat" (unreal). "Tat viddhi"—know That. What? "Yena" (by which)—"sarvam idam" (all this) world is "tatam" (pervaded)—by the Brahman named 'Sat' (Existence), just as pot-space etc. are pervaded by Space (Akasha).

"Vināśam" (Destruction)—means invisibility or non-existence. "Avyayasya"—of the Immutable. That which does not undergo "vyaya" (decay/change)—meaning it does not undergo increase or decrease—is "Avyaya"; of that Avyaya. This Brahman named 'Sat' does not "vyeti" (deviate/perish) in its own form, because it is without parts (niravayava), unlike the body etc. Nor does it perish through (the loss of) anything belonging to it ("ātmīya"), because it has nothing belonging to it. Just as Devadatta undergoes "vyaya" (ruin/loss) through the loss of wealth, Brahman does not undergo change in this way.

Therefore, "na kaścit kartum arhati" (no one is capable of bringing about) the destruction "asya" (of this) Immutable Brahman. No one can destroy the Self, not even Ishvara (God). For the Self is verily Brahman, and action upon one's own Self is a contradiction.

What then is that "asat" (unreal) which deviates from its own existence? This is stated (in the next verse).

Tu, but this word is used for distinguishing (reality) from unreality; tat viddhi, know That; to be avinasi, indestructible, by nature not subject to destruction; what? (that) yena, by which, by which Brahman called Reality; sarvam, all; idam, this, the Universe together with space; is tatam, pervaded, as pot etc. are pervaded by space. Na kascit, none; arhati, can; kartum, bring about; vinasam, the destruction, disappearance, nonexistence; asya, of this avyayasya, of the Immutable, that which does not undergo growth and depletion. By Its very nature this Brahman called Reality does not suffer mutation, because, unlike bodies etc., It has no limbs; nor (does It suffer mutation) by (loss of something) belonging to It, because It has nothing that is Its own. Brahman surely does not suffer loss like Devadatta suffering from loss of wealth. Therefore no one can bring about the destruction of this immutable Brahman. No one, not even God Himself, can destroy his own Self, because the Self is Brahman. Besides, action with regard to one's Self is self-contradictory.
Which, again, is that 'unreal' that is said to change its own nature? This is being answered:

Know that the self in its essential nature is imperishable. The whole of insentient matter, which is different (from the self), is pervaded by the self. Because of pervasiveness and extreme subtlety, the self cannot be destroyed; for every entity other than the self is capable of being pervaded by the self, and hence they are grosser than It. Destructive agents like weapons, water, wind, fire etc., pervade the substances to be destroyed and disintegrate them. Even hammers and such other instruments rouse wind through violent contact with the objects and thery destroy their objects. So, the essential nature of the self being subtler than anything else, It is imperishable.
(The Lord) now says that the bodies are perishable: